Sensitivity to “Sunk Costs” in Mice, Rats, and Humans Brian M
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
RESEARCH EVOLUTIONARY COGNITION reward pursuit despite having made prior invest- ments (partial waiting) while on a limited budget (time). We parameterized the probability of earn- Sensitivity to “sunk costs” ing a reward in the wait zone as a function of the remaining time investment required to earn a re- ward (future costs) and the prior time investment in mice, rats, and humans already spent waiting in the wait zone [past (sunk) costs; fig. S3]. The data yielded many Brian M. Sweis1,2, Samantha V. Abram3, Brandy J. Schmidt2, Kelsey D. Seeland2, samples across all conditions of time remain- Angus W. MacDonald III3, Mark J. Thomas2,3, A. David Redish2* ing and time spent (fig. S4), which allowed us to measure the extent to which irrecoverable prior Sunk costs are irrecoverable investments that should not influence decisions, because investments (sunk costs) escalated wait zone com- decisions should be made on the basis of expected future consequences. Both human mitment (fig. S5). and nonhuman animals can show sensitivity to sunk costs, but reports from across We found that mice, rats, and humans demon- species are inconsistent. In a temporal context, a sensitivity to sunk costs arises when strated robust sunk cost effects [analysis of vari- an individual resists ending an activity, even if it seems unproductive, because of the ance (ANOVA) collapsing across all sunk cost time already invested. In two parallel foraging tasks that we designed, we found that conditions: mice, F =30.75,P < 0.0001; rats, F = mice, rats, and humans show similar sensitivities to sunk costs in their decision-making. 45.65, P < 0.0001; humans, F =3.95,P < 0.0001] Unexpectedly, sensitivity to time invested accrued only after an initial decision had been (Fig. 2). Importantly, increasing prior invest- made. These findings suggest that sensitivity to temporal sunk costs lies in a vulnerability ment amounts generated a continuously stronger distinct from deliberation processes and that this distinction is present across species. sunk cost effect (example post-hoc comparison between +1-s and +5-s sunk costs: mice, F =45.49, Downloaded from P < 0.0001; rats, F = 54.41, P < 0.0001; humans, raditional economic theory suggests that to human sunk cost effects, which do not depend F = 4.21, P < 0.05) (Fig. 2)—a critical tenet of the decisions should be based on valuations of on these mechanisms. sunk cost fallacy (2, 4). future expectations that ignore spent re- Laboratory foraging tasks provide an alterna- Time spent in the offer zone also detracts T sources that cannot be recovered [sunk costs tive approach to study decision-making by using from the total time budget, and a similar analysis 1 ( )]. However, extensive evidence shows that naturalistic behaviors that carry both ecological can be performed (fig. S6). In contrast to our http://science.sciencemag.org/ humans factor such sunk costs into prospective validity and evolutionary significance and are findings for reevaluation processes in the wait decisions, even when faced with better alterna- translatable across species (13). Foraging tasks zone, we found no effect of time spent in the tives (2, 3). Although early reports claimed that rely on optimizing reward-seeking under condi- offer zone. That is, the amount of time spent in humans are uniquely sensitive to sunk costs tions of limited resources, making them econom- the offer zone did not alter the probability of (2, 3), it is becoming increasingly clear that non- ic tasks. earning rewards once in the wait zone (ANOVA human animals exhibit parallel behaviors (4). We designed a foraging task in which subjects collapsing across all offer conditions: mice, F = Previous nonhuman animal studies that at- spent time from a limited time budget waiting 1.55, P = 0.23; rats, F =0.77,P =0.39;humans: tempted to model the sunk cost phenomenon forrewards[Fig.1,RestaurantRow(14)andweb- F = 0.12, P = 0.74) (Fig. 3). Importantly, the de- have yielded conflicting evidence (4, 5). Observa- Surf (15)]. The division of time spent during the lay to reward did not start counting down while tional and experimental field studies in swal- task reveals the economic preferences of the sub- the subject remained in the offer zone. This lows, sparrows, mice, and bluegills have found jects. All three species learned to forage in a way meant that the animal was choosing between on July 12, 2018 evidence both for and against the sunk cost ef- that revealed preferences for certain rewards, distant options and had not yet invested in the fect in behaviors relating to parental investment and all species used reliable subjective valuation offer. This lack of an effect of time spent in the and willingness to care for young (6–10). Yet in strategies to decide between multiple competing offer zone on progress abandonment once com- such studies, it has been difficult to disentangle reward offers (supplementary text S1). Our neuro- mitted suggests that waste avoidance, overall influences of investment history from those of economic tasks directly test sensitivity to sunk resource depletion, and loss aversion are insuf- future prospects. Laboratory operant conditioning costs across species. ficient explanations of sunk cost–driven esca- paradigms in pigeons and rats that control for Flavors and genres of rewards (Fig. 1) allowed lation of reward-seeking behavior (figs. S7 to future expectations when looking at reinforce- us to measure subjective preferences as a func- S11, supplementary text S2 and S3, and table S1). ment learning behaviors have demonstrated that tion of cost, avoiding the confounding possibility This also suggests that the offer zone and wait nonhuman animals show increased work ethic that different reward sizes might require differ- zone may access separable valuation processes or suboptimal perseverative reward-seeking behav- ent consumption times. Multiple zones allowed and reveals a previously unknown determinant of iors that escalate with prior investment amount us to characterize multiple valuation processes susceptibility to sunk costs rooted in dissociable (11, 12). However, these observations often relied involved in decisions: initial commitment valu- decision-making algorithms that are conserved on situations of information uncertainty, where ations (offer zone), secondary reevaluations (wait across species. subjects overworked in the absence of progress- zone), and postconsumption hedonic valuations A sensitivity to sunk costs defies optimality indicating cues. These observations also often (supplementary text S1 and S2). In this task, two considerations (fig. S12). So, why has this cog- relied on automation or habit-like behaviors key factors minimized information uncertainty nitive bias persisted across evolution (supple- (e.g., repetitive lever pressing) driving contin- and automated reward-seeking behavior as po- mentary text S4)? Three plausible psychological ued reward pursuit. Such confounding factors tential confounding factors: (i) Subjects were pro- mechanisms that support sunk cost biases in- in nonhuman animal studies obscure translation vided full information on cost and investment clude (i) that it may be more advantageous to progress (tones counting down or download bar calculate reward value through effort expended, shrinking), and (ii) earning rewards required sub- (ii) state-dependent valuation learning (SDVL), 1Graduate Program in Neuroscience and Medical Scientist jects to wait and withhold quitting after making and (iii) within-trial contrast (WTC) processes Training Program, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN an initial acceptance decision (rather than re- (12, 16–20). We discuss each of these below. 55455, USA. 2Department of Neuroscience, University quiring a repetitive action). Because predicting valuations that depend on 3 of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA. Department To address susceptibility to sunk costs, we future outcomes is complex and difficult, ani- of Psychology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA. examined quit decisions in the wait zone. These mals may have evolved processes in which val- *Corresponding author. Email: [email protected] behaviors involve the abandonment of continued uation is measured from effort spent rather than Sweis et al., Science 361, 178–181 (2018) 13 July 2018 1of4 RESEARCH | REPORT calculated explicitly as an estimate from con- that may be more related to direct estimates of Simple explanations from the WTC and SDVL structed imaginations of potential future out- future value. theories would predict sunk costs to accrue in comes. Past effort is easy to measure but has a The SDVL theory hypothesizes that energy the offer zone as well. limited (though nonzero) correlation with future spent working toward reward receipt moves the Past-effort heuristics, SDVL, and WTC can in- value. In contrast, calculating value from ex- individual into a poorer energy state, enhancing deed be prominent drivers of the sunk cost effect pected future outcomes has its own estimation the perceived value of the yet-to-be-obtained re- in our data when sunk cost effects are present. uncertainties. If the correlation between past ef- ward (19, 20). This continued work can thus es- Therefore, our work brings up an intriguing ques- forts and future value provides better predictions calate commitment of continued reward pursuit tion: How do decision-making processes differ than the uncertainties of future outcomes, then with growing sunk costs. Similarly, the WTC between the wait zone (susceptible