Cargando…

Experience that Much Work Produces Many Reinforcers Makes the Sunk Cost Fallacy in Pigeons: A Preliminary Test

The sunk cost fallacy is one of the irrational choice behaviors robustly observed in humans. This fallacy can be defined as a preference for a higher-cost alternative to a lower-cost one after previous investment in a higher-cost alternative. The present study examined this irrational choice by expo...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Fujimaki, Shun, Sakagami, Takayuki
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4792888/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27014166
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00363
_version_ 1782421300329840640
author Fujimaki, Shun
Sakagami, Takayuki
author_facet Fujimaki, Shun
Sakagami, Takayuki
author_sort Fujimaki, Shun
collection PubMed
description The sunk cost fallacy is one of the irrational choice behaviors robustly observed in humans. This fallacy can be defined as a preference for a higher-cost alternative to a lower-cost one after previous investment in a higher-cost alternative. The present study examined this irrational choice by exposing pigeons to several types of trials with differently illuminated colors. We prepared three types of non-choice trials for experiencing different outcomes after presenting same or different colors as alternatives and three types of choice trials for testing whether pigeons demonstrated irrational choice. In non-choice trials, animals experienced either of the following: (1) no reinforcement after the presentation of an unrelated colored stimulus to the alternatives used in the choice situation, (2) no reinforcement after investment in the lower-cost alternative, or (3) reinforcement or no reinforcement after investment in the higher-cost alternative. In choice trials, animals were required to choose in the following three situations: (A) higher-cost vs. lower-cost alternatives, (B) higher-cost vs. lower-cost ones after some investment in the higher-cost alternative, and (C) higher-cost vs. lower-cost alternatives after the presentation of an unrelated colored stimulus. From the definition of the sunk cost fallacy, we assumed that animals would exhibit this fallacy if they preferred the higher-cost alternative in situation (B) compared with (A) or (C). We made several conditions, each of which comprised various combinations of three types of non-choice trials and tested their preference in three choice trials. Pigeons committed the sunk cost fallacy only in the condition that contained non-choice trials (3), i.e., pigeons experienced reinforcement after investing in the higher-cost alternative. This result suggests that sunk cost fallacy might be caused by the experiences of reinforcement after investing in the higher-cost alternative.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4792888
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-47928882016-03-24 Experience that Much Work Produces Many Reinforcers Makes the Sunk Cost Fallacy in Pigeons: A Preliminary Test Fujimaki, Shun Sakagami, Takayuki Front Psychol Psychology The sunk cost fallacy is one of the irrational choice behaviors robustly observed in humans. This fallacy can be defined as a preference for a higher-cost alternative to a lower-cost one after previous investment in a higher-cost alternative. The present study examined this irrational choice by exposing pigeons to several types of trials with differently illuminated colors. We prepared three types of non-choice trials for experiencing different outcomes after presenting same or different colors as alternatives and three types of choice trials for testing whether pigeons demonstrated irrational choice. In non-choice trials, animals experienced either of the following: (1) no reinforcement after the presentation of an unrelated colored stimulus to the alternatives used in the choice situation, (2) no reinforcement after investment in the lower-cost alternative, or (3) reinforcement or no reinforcement after investment in the higher-cost alternative. In choice trials, animals were required to choose in the following three situations: (A) higher-cost vs. lower-cost alternatives, (B) higher-cost vs. lower-cost ones after some investment in the higher-cost alternative, and (C) higher-cost vs. lower-cost alternatives after the presentation of an unrelated colored stimulus. From the definition of the sunk cost fallacy, we assumed that animals would exhibit this fallacy if they preferred the higher-cost alternative in situation (B) compared with (A) or (C). We made several conditions, each of which comprised various combinations of three types of non-choice trials and tested their preference in three choice trials. Pigeons committed the sunk cost fallacy only in the condition that contained non-choice trials (3), i.e., pigeons experienced reinforcement after investing in the higher-cost alternative. This result suggests that sunk cost fallacy might be caused by the experiences of reinforcement after investing in the higher-cost alternative. Frontiers Media S.A. 2016-03-16 /pmc/articles/PMC4792888/ /pubmed/27014166 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00363 Text en Copyright © 2016 Fujimaki and Sakagami. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Psychology
Fujimaki, Shun
Sakagami, Takayuki
Experience that Much Work Produces Many Reinforcers Makes the Sunk Cost Fallacy in Pigeons: A Preliminary Test
title Experience that Much Work Produces Many Reinforcers Makes the Sunk Cost Fallacy in Pigeons: A Preliminary Test
title_full Experience that Much Work Produces Many Reinforcers Makes the Sunk Cost Fallacy in Pigeons: A Preliminary Test
title_fullStr Experience that Much Work Produces Many Reinforcers Makes the Sunk Cost Fallacy in Pigeons: A Preliminary Test
title_full_unstemmed Experience that Much Work Produces Many Reinforcers Makes the Sunk Cost Fallacy in Pigeons: A Preliminary Test
title_short Experience that Much Work Produces Many Reinforcers Makes the Sunk Cost Fallacy in Pigeons: A Preliminary Test
title_sort experience that much work produces many reinforcers makes the sunk cost fallacy in pigeons: a preliminary test
topic Psychology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4792888/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27014166
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00363
work_keys_str_mv AT fujimakishun experiencethatmuchworkproducesmanyreinforcersmakesthesunkcostfallacyinpigeonsapreliminarytest
AT sakagamitakayuki experiencethatmuchworkproducesmanyreinforcersmakesthesunkcostfallacyinpigeonsapreliminarytest