Comments on: Hyper-Correcting for the Sunk-Cost Fallacy

By: How To Do What You Want: Akrasia and Self-Binding | Beeminder Blog

How To Do What You Want: Akrasia and Self-Binding | Beeminder Blog — Wed, 17 Jan 2018 04:57:37 +0000

[…] membership even when it would be cheaper to buy individual passes, i.e., purposefully making it a sunk cost. (813 […]

By: brave trials astuce

brave trials astuce — Thu, 26 Feb 2015 05:49:23 +0000

brave trials astuce Hyper-Correcting for the Sunk-Cost Fallacy | Messy Matters

By: Flexible Self-Control | Beeminder Blog

Flexible Self-Control | Beeminder Blog — Mon, 26 Mar 2012 03:52:24 +0000

[…] gym membership is a literal commitment contract, albeit a weak one. It turns the gym fees into a sunk cost, committing you to pay whether you visit the gym or not. Commitment devices may be an old idea but […]

By: Stone Glasgow

Stone Glasgow — Sun, 04 Mar 2012 05:14:24 +0000

In question number one, it is unclear if the speaker is taking the flight “because it is already paid for,” (sunk cost is important; I am taking the flight to avoid “wasting” money), or because “the flight is now effectively free, compared to a road trip, which is not free” (sunk cost is not relevant). I would suggest a rewording the question.

By: mdenby

mdenby — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 18:39:07 +0000

1. Rational, my lack of patience for long drives trumps my tiny fear of flying
2. Rational,
3. Irrational, I’m not at the point where blowing off money is an option
4. Irrational, if I had planned on driving then why would I buy tickets? Rational, if money was not already spent so i guess my decisions are based on money.
5. Rational
6. Rational

By: keninsydney

keninsydney — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 22:17:57 +0000

As a non-economist what I find interesting is that the reaction to “irrational” responses to the questions is to say that they are in some sense wrong.
It’s as if a nineteenth century physicist who wasn’t blasted by x-rays when he opened an oven (this was a prediction of classical physics, the erroneous nature of which pointed the way to quantum theory) berated the oven.
The problem is that the concept of rationality is short hand for “making the most money or obtaining the most goods’.
Traditional economic concepts don’t capture some important aspects of human behaviour.
I think Hersh Shefrin’s work on behavioural asset pricing is an indication of future ways forward.

By: klochner

klochner — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 18:25:25 +0000

all right dreeves, I still think your wording is poor, with [1,4,5] the only obviously irrational/rational statements. You’re going to take issue with my resposne to (3).

the relevant variables are:
u(d) – utility of driving, including cost
u(f) – utility of flying
c(f) – cost of flying
c(d) – cost of driving
b – budget constraint

Given that the flight is paid for, it’s rational to drive if:
u(d) > u(f) and c(d)+c(f) < b and fly if: u(d) < u(f) or c(d)+c(f) > b.

You could also consider a soft budget constraint, with the cost of the flight eliminating increasingly “good” alternative activities as the price goes up, and the cost of driving competing with those alternatives. I use the hard constraint below to simplify the logic.

Keeping that in mind . . .

1. “I might do that much driving to save the flight costs but since the flight is paid for I’d rather take it.”

RATIONAL: it’s saying u(d) > u(f) – c(f) and u(d) < u(f), which is possible. 2. “That flight was so expensive that I had to forgo another part of my vacation, so not using the flight is not really an option.” RATIONAL (but semi-ambiguous) it’s rational if it’s saying c(f)+c(d) > b, which seems to be the implication by “had to forgo …”, but imho it’s poor wording: does “not really an option” mean “can’t afford to drive”? Why not just come out and say “I can’t afford to drive”?

3. “I’m willing to blow off the flight if it was cheap enough.”

RATIONAL (and more ambiguous) this is the inverse of (2), but the wording is more misleading: Can we assume “if it was cheap enough” to mean c(f)+c(d) < b? Or does “blow off the flight” somehow imply the budget constraint isn’t an issue? Surely the inverse of (2) is rational if (2) itself is rational. 4. “I’m going to drive because that’s what I would’ve done if I had considered the driving option in the first place; what’s happened since then is irrelevant.” IRRATIONAL: deciding based on u(d) > u(f)-c(f), which doesn’t imply u(d) > u(f).

5. “I’m going to fly because that’s what I would’ve done even if I had known about the driving option in the first place.”

RATIONAL, saying u(d) < u(f)-c(f), which implies u(d) < u(f)

By: required

required — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 04:21:40 +0000

The flight is already paid for, so is essentially free as far as future action is concerned. The road trip will be with friends (a plus) but will take more time than the flight (perhaps a plus, perhaps a minus, thus a wash) and will cost money (a minus). Those are the only rational considerations I can come up with.

With those in mind,

(1) is rational based on the consideration that the road trip will cost money, but irrational if time with friends is valued more than the cost of the road trip.

(2) is rational if my budget can’t stand the cost of the road trip even though I value time with my friends.

(3) is irrational under all circumstances.

(4)is irrational, mere mule-headed inability to go with the flow.

(5) is rational. I clearly value a quick flight more than I value the cost to spend time with friends.

(6) is rational if I value saving face over making rational considerations, and so is clearly irrational.

By: Caleb

Caleb — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 03:18:57 +0000

1. Rational — You may have been willing to drive to save the cost if you hadn’t paid, which is fine, but then you say that the flight is a sunk cost so the driving is essentially an avoidable cost.
2. Way irrational — basically typical sunk cost fallacy
3. Ambiguous. If the cost of the plane ticket is insignificant relative to disposable funds available for the trip, then this is irrational, and is similar to #2. However, if the plane ticket cost enough that now the choice to take the plane is decided by the desire to save the gas money + other road trip expenses, *but that wouldn’t have been the case had the ticket been a lot cheaper*, then this could be a rational statement.
4. Irrational. The original decision would have been influenced by an expensive plane ticket, but now that is a sunk cost so the present decision should be made considering the ticket free.
5. Rational. If you would have bought the ticket and taken the flight knowing the road trip was available, it’s certainly rational to take the flight after having sunk the money into the ticket.
6. Ridiculous

By: Kate

Kate — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 00:54:27 +0000

It seems like there are a lot of variables, how long is drive? Who gets to control the radio? … I know that I am *far* from a rational consumer, but I’ll take a swing anyway:

1. Rational – I view this as a choice between the flight (no additional cost) and the roadtrip (gas money, snacks, maybe hotel/camping)

2. Rational – this situation seems to indicate that the budget is tight, so it seems like spending additional money to take the road trip would further stretch the tight travel budget

3. Irrational

4. Irrational – my thinking is that I might have driven since it would have (presumably) saved money. Now instead of saving money, driving would cost additional money, so what has happened since the decision was made does matter.

5. Rational – since you would have flown even if you’d known about the road trip, knowing about the road trip shouldn’t change the decision (although I feel like this one might be a trick question) :)

6. Rational :)