Suboptimal choice in nonhuman animals: Rats commit the sunk cost error

Abstract

The present experiments investigated the sunk cost error, an apparently irrational tendency to persist with an initial investment, in rats. This issue is of interest because some have argued that nonhuman animals do not commit this error. Two or three fixed-ratio (FR) response requirements were arranged on one lever, and an escape option was arranged on a second lever. The FRs were of different sizes, and escaping was the behavior of interest. Several variables that might influence the decision to persist versus escape were manipulated: the number of trials with different FR schedules in an experimental session (Exps. 1 and 2), effort to escape (Exp. 2), and the size of the larger FR (Exp. 3). The sunk cost error would result in never escaping, and the optimal strategy would be to escape from the larger FR. The main variable that determined persisting versus escaping was the size of the large FR. Rats that escaped from the large FR-apparently optimal behaviordid so at a suboptimal point, and hence committed the sunk cost error.

The sunk cost effect across species: A review of persistence in a course of action due to prior investment

“…Hence, the birds failed to behave optimally and showed the sunk cost effect. This main result has recently been replicated in studies using similar procedures, both with pigeons (Avila-Santibañez, Gonzalez-Montiel, Miranda-Hernandez, & Guzman-Gonzalez, 2010;Macaskill & Hackenberg, 2012a, 2012b and rats (Magalhães, White, Stewart, Beeby, & van der Vliet, 2012).…”

“…Finally, using a similar procedure to that of Navarro and Fantino (), Magalhães et al () replicated the main finding of nonhumans showing the sunk cost effect, but with rats as subjects. They found that, overall, although the probability of escape increased with increases in the size of the work requirement, the mean number of responses performed on the food lever before an escape response was made also increased with the size of the requirement.…”

The sunk cost effect in pigeons and people: A case of within-trials contrast?

“…Using the procedure first reported by Navarro and Fantino (2005), the sunk cost effect has been demonstrated in pigeons (Avila-Santibañez et al, 2010;Macaskill and Hackenberg, 2012a,b) and rats (Magalhães et al, 2012). These recent laboratory demonstrations of the sunk cost effect clearly dispel the claim made by Arkes and Ayton (1999) that the sunk cost effect is unlikely to occur in nonhuman animals.…”

The sunk cost effect: short-term behavioural evidence in adults

“…A sunk cost-like effect has since been shown in pigeons (Avila-Santibañez, Gonzalez-Montiel, Miranda-Hernandez, & de Lourdes Guzman-Gonzalez, 2010;Fujimaki & Sakagami, 2016;Macaskill & Hackenberg, 2012;Magalhaes & White, 2014a, 2014cMagalhães & White, 2014b;Navarro & Fantino, 2005;Pattison, Zentall, & Watanabe, 2012), rats (Magalhães, White, Stewart, Beeby, & Van Der Vliet, 2012), and humans (Avila, Yankelevitz, Gonzalez, & Hackenberg, 2013;Navarro & Fantino, 2005), using variations of the afore-detailed conditioning paradigm. In a study by Pattison et al (2012), pigeons were presented with two coloured keys where the response requirement was 15 and up to 30 presses respectively.…”

“…The wider business and economics literature provides some examples of the sunk cost effect with real monetary and behavioural investments (Englmaier & Schmöller, 2010;Ho et al, 2017;Just & Wansink, 2011;Máñez et al, 2009). There are also a number of examples of the sunk cost effect with behavioural investments in non-human animals (Macaskill & Hackenberg, 2012, 2013Magalhaes & White, 2014c;Magalhães & White, 2014b;Magalhães et al, 2012), however, only a handful of non-monetary, short-term behavioural studies exist in humans (Arkes & Blumer, 1985;Coleman, 2009;Cunha Jr & Caldieraro, 2009;Navarro & Fantino, 2009). In the general introduction, I described a few examples of these behavioural studies including the theatre ticket study by Arkes and Blumer (1985); the gadget rating problems by Cunha Jr and Caldieraro 2009; and the puzzle experiment conducted by Navarro and Fantino (2009).…”