Cited by 9Decision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsExperimental Behavioral Economics StudiesNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies

Over and under commitment to a course of action in decisions from experience.

Open access
Cohen, Doron, Erev, Ido·2021·Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

Abstract

Many natural activities involve "stopping dilemmas": situations that require a repeated decision between investing effort to achieve some valued goal and stopping that effort to try something else. Previous research into these problems highlights two contradicting biases. While one class of studies suggests a tendency to stop too late (e.g., escalation of commitment), another class of studies suggests a tendency to give up too early (e.g., learned helplessness). Our paper clarifies the conditions that trigger these biases by focusing on two factors: the decision mode (ongoing decisions vs. planning in advance) and the probability each search effort will be costly. We find that experience with stopping dilemmas produces a reversed sunk-cost effect: Most participants stop too early when search is frequently costly but stop too late when search is usually rewarding. This effect can be explained by assuming that stopping decisions reflect reliance on small samples of past experiences with similar stopping dilemmas. Comparison of ongoing and planning decisions reveals an interaction: planning in advance increased search when searching was frequently costly, but decreased search when most search efforts were rewarding. This interaction can be explained by assuming a contingent re-evaluation process: Recent losses increase the tendency to reevaluate a plan to continue the search, and recent gains increase the tendency to reevaluate a plan to stop. In addition, we observe a preferenc…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/xge0001066

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • People tend to abandon optimal strategies when they involve frequent friction and to overexploit suboptimal strategies that are frequently rewarding, but ultimately very costly.

    “People tend to abandon optimal strategies when they involve frequent friction and to overexploit suboptimal strategies that are frequently rewarding, but ultimately very costly (Cohen & Erev, 2021).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cohen, D., & Erev, I.
Affiliations
Technion – Israel Institute of Technology (IL)
Venue
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General
Published
2021-12
Volume
150
Issue
12
Pages
2455-2471
ISSN
  • 0096-3445 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-2222
OpenAlex
W3198640686
Cited by
9
References
1
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2020: 1
FWCI
1.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • Journal of Experimental Psychology General (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • edoc (University of Basel) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • edoc (University of Basel)
Funders
  • I-CORE Program of the Planning and Budgeting Committee
  • Israel Science Foundation (535/17)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Keywords
escalation of commitment, learned helplessness, sunk cost effect, search effort, search costs, exploration, problem space, decision bias
MeSH terms
Decision Making, Humans, Probability, Reward, Bias

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