Introduction

Nonrepresentative Representatives: An Experimental Study of the Decision Making of Elected Politicians

“…Escalating commitment as a result of sunk costs is an anomaly that has been studied extensively in multiple disciplines (see Sleesman et al 2012 for a comprehensive review). Its implications are especially consequential in high-level decision making on spending programs and projects, and susceptibility to it is often seen as having a relationship with being held accountable to a decision (McAfee, Mialon, and Mialon 2010; Simonson and Nye 1992; Teger 1980). However, political science and economics theories make contrasting arguments on whether heightened accountability results in an escalation of commitment in face of a failed course of action or, conversely, in de-escalation and an attenuated susceptibility to sunk cost bias (Dur 2001; Heath 1995; Lerner and Tetlock 1999).…”

Apparent sunk cost effect in rational agents

“…What behavioral observations can reveal sunk cost sensitivity? Susceptibility to sunk costs is usually tested in humans by confronting subjects with two options: one “bad” choice (i.e., lower overall returns) toward a goal the subject has already invested in or an alternative “good” choice (i.e., higher overall returns) for which no prior investment has been made (Arkes and Ayton, 1999; Arkes and Blumer, 1985; Teger, 1980). Similarly, human or animal subjects could be confronted with two new choice alternatives after having already invested in one of them: In the restaurant task, we could make a novel time investment offer after subjects have already waited for a variable amount of time.…”

Barriers to and Methods of Help Seeking for Domestic Violence Victimization: A Comparison of Hispanic and Non-Hispanic White Women Residing in the United States

“…Although great attention has been devoted to understanding prevalence rates and help seeking for DV, relatively less attention has been given to understanding women’s decisions to remain in or exit abusive intimate relationships (Bell & Naugle, 2005). Psychological theories that have been used to explain decisions to stay or leave abusive relationships include learned helplessness (Seligman, 1975; Walker, 1977), investment (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959), psychological entrapment (Teger, 1980), and behavioral analytics (Myers, 1995). Taken together, these models predict that the following factors will make it more likely women will remain in abusive relationships: (a) a belief that one is powerless to stop the abuse, (b) a belief that the abuse is at least partly one’s fault, (c) a greater commitment to the abuser (e.g., being married to or having invested many years in the relationship with the abuser), (d) a lack of viable alternatives to the abusive relationship (including finding another partner, accessing resources such as money or housing), and (e) a lack of social supports or worry that others will find one responsible for the abuse.…”