↓ Skip to main content

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

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 X users

Readers on

mendeley
8 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Experience that Much Work Produces Many Reinforcers Makes the Sunk Cost Fallacy in Pigeons: A Preliminary Test
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, March 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00363
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shun Fujimaki, Takayuki Sakagami

Abstract

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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 8 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 8 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 2 25%
Researcher 2 25%
Professor 1 13%
Student > Master 1 13%
Student > Postgraduate 1 13%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 1 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 5 63%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 13%
Neuroscience 1 13%
Unknown 1 13%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 March 2016.
All research outputs
#6,420,547
of 25,196,456 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#9,195
of 34,034 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#83,323
of 306,460 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#179
of 480 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,196,456 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 34,034 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 306,460 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 480 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.