Cited by 554Decision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsExperimental Behavioral Economics StudiesPsychology of Social Influence

The sunk cost and Concorde effects: Are humans less rational than lower animals?

Arkes, Hal R., Ayton, Peter·1999·Psychological Bulletin

Abstract

The cost effect is a maladaptive economic behavior that is manifested in a greater tendency to continue an endeavor once an investment in money, effort, or time has been made. The Concorde fallacy is another name for the cost effect, except that the former term has been applied strictly to lower animals, whereas the latter has been applied solely to humans. The authors contend that there are no unambiguous instances of the Concorde fallacy in lower animals and also present evidence that young children, when placed in an economic situation akin to a cost one, exhibit more normatively correct behavior than do adults. These findings pose an enigma: Why do adult humans commit an error contrary to the normative cost-benefit rules of choice, whereas children and phylogenetically humble organisms do not? The authors attempt to show that this paradoxical state of affairs is due to humans' overgeneralization of the Don't waste rule. The cost effect is a maladaptive economic behavior that is manifested in a greater tendency to continue an endeavor once an investment in money, effort, or time has been made (Arkes & Blumer, 1985). A prior investment should not influence one's consideration of current options; only the incremental costs and benefits of the current options should influence one's decision. Nevertheless, several researchers have shown that people do attend to prior investments as they consider what course of action to take. For example, Arkes and Blumer (1985, Experiment 2) arranged to have three different types of season tickets sold to persons who approached the Ohio University Theater ticket booth at the beginning of the season. Approximately one third of the patrons purchased season tickets at the full $15 price, one third at $13, and one third at $8. Compared with those who purchased tickets at $15, those who purchased tickets at either of the discounted prices attended fewer plays during the subsequent 6 months. Apparently, those who had sunk the most money into the season tickets were most motivated to use the tickets. This is contrary to the maxim that incremental costs and benefits should govern one's decision to attend the plays. Once the tickets had been purchased, all patrons had a license to attend any play. Presumably, the costs and benefits of theater attendance would have been equal for the members of all

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0033-2909.125.5.591

Cites

66 of 66 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The stay the course observation is similar to the sunk cost bias, which suggests an individual will pursue a less desirable option even if a more desirable option becomes available because of the resources already invested.

    “This stay the course observation is similar to the sunk cost bias [59], which is a well-known cognitive bias that suggests an individual will pursue a less desirable option even if a more desirable option becomes available because of the resources already invested.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Arkes, H. R., & Ayton, P.
Affiliations
Ohio University (US)
Venue
Psychological Bulletin
Published
1999-09
Volume
125
Issue
5
Pages
591-600
ISSN
  • 0033-2909 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1455
OpenAlex
W2107421307
Cited by
554
References
66
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 32 · 2022: 31 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 55 · 2018: 33 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 22 · 2015: 24 · 2014: 21 · 2013: 23 · 2012: 22
FWCI
2.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Psychological Bulletin (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Psychology of Social Influence
Keywords
sunk cost effect, cost-benefit decision making, animal decision-making, rationality, season tickets, human-animal comparison

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review