The Sunk Costs Fallacy or Argument from Waste
نویسنده
چکیده
This project tackles the problem of analyzing a specific form of reasoning called 'sunk costs' in economics and 'argument from waste' in argumentation theory. The project is to build a normative structure representing the form of the argument, and then to apply this normative structure to actual cases in which the sunk costs argument has been used. The method is partly structural and partly empirical. The empirical part is carried out through the analysis of case studies of the sunk costs argument found in business decisionmaking, as well as other areas like medical decision-making and everyday conversational argumentation. The structural part is carried out by using existing methods and techniques from argumentation theory, like argumentation schemes. The project has three especially significant findings. First, the sunk costs argument is not always fallacious, and in many cases it can be seen to be a rational precommitment strategy. Second, a formal model of argumentation, called practical reasoning, can be constructed that helps a rational critic to judge which sunk costs arguments are fallacious and which are not. Third, this formal model represents an alternative model of rationality to the cost-benefit model based on Bayesian calculation of probabilities. This alternative model is called the argumentation model, and it is based on interpersonal reasoning in dialogue as the model of rational thinking. This model in turn is based on the underlying notion of commitment in dialogue.
منابع مشابه
Understanding decisions about sunk costs from older and younger adults' perspectives.
OBJECTIVES Prior research indicates that older adults (60+ years) are less subject to the sunk-cost fallacy compared with younger adult college students. The objective of this research was to determine if age-related differences in decisions about sunk costs reflected differences in what was salient to individuals about the situation when they described their decision-making goals. METHODS Us...
متن کاملSunk costs, psychological symptomology, and help seeking
Individuals often allow prior investments of time, money or effort to influence their current behavior. A tendency to allow previous investments to impact further investment, referred to as the sunk-cost fallacy, may be related to adverse psychological health. Unfortunately, little is known about the relation between the sunk-cost fallacy and psychological symptoms or help seeking. The current ...
متن کاملDemystifying the "Sunk Cost Fallacy": When Considering Fixed Cost in Decision-Making is Reasonable
Economic theory explains that when making decisions, historical costs should be irrelevant. When people are influenced by sunk costs in their decision-making, they are said to be committing the “sunk cost fallacy”, summarized by Kelly (2004) as the conjunction of two claims: (1) individuals often do give weight to sunk costs in their decision-making, and (2) it is irrational for them to do so. ...
متن کاملSearching for the Sunk Cost Fallacy
We seek to isolate in the laboratory factors that encourage and discourage the sunk cost fallacy. Subjects play a computer game in which they decide whether to keep digging for treasure on an island or to sink a cost (which will turn out to be either high or low) to move to another island. The research hypothesis is that subjects will stay longer on islands that were more costly to find. Eleven...
متن کاملThe Sunk Cost and Concorde Effects: Are Humans Less Rational Than Lower Animals?
The sunk cost effect is a maladaptive economic behavior that is manifested in a greater tendency to continue an endeavor once an investment in money, effort, or time has been made. The Concorde fallacy is another name for the sunk cost effect, except that the former term has been applied strictly to lower animals, whereas the latter has been applied solely to humans. The authors contend that th...
متن کامل