Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35148186›Full record

ArticleScience advances2022

Apparent sunk cost effect in rational agents.

Torben Ott, Paul Masset, Thiago S Gouvêa, Adam Kepecs

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Science advances, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Pitfalls of reasoning in hospital-based transfusion medicine.Transfusion medicine (Oxford, England) · 2024
    Review
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Torben OttBernstein Center for Computational Neuroscience Berlin, Humboldt University of Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-4168-2832
Paul MassetDepartment of Molecular and Cellular Biology and Center for Brain Science, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2001-7515
Thiago S GouvêaGerman Research Center for Artificial Intelligence (DFKI), Oldenburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-0727-5838
Adam KepecsDepartment of Neuroscience and Department of Psychiatry, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0049-8120

Funding

Decision confidence: neural coding and causal circuit mechanisms in behaviorR01MH097061 · NIMH · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI KEPECS, ADAM · 2014 to 2024
$4.7M
Functions of distinct orbitofrontal cell-types and pathways in decision makingR01DA038209 · NIDA · COLD SPRING HARBOR LABORATORY · PI KEPECS, ADAM · 2015 to 2019
$2.2M
NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA038209NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH097061
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Rational decision makers aim to maximize their gains, but humans and other animals often fail to do so, exhibiting biases and distortions in their choice behavior. In a recent study of economic decisions, humans, mice, and rats were reported to succumb to the sunk cost fallacy, making decisions based on irrecoverable past investments to the detriment of expected future returns. We challenge this interpretation because it is subject to a statistical fallacy, a form of attrition bias, and the observed behavior can be explained without invoking a sunk cost-dependent mechanism. Using a computational model, we illustrate how a rational decision maker with a reward-maximizing decision strategy reproduces the reported behavioral pattern and propose an improved task design to dissociate sunk costs from fluctuations in decision valuation. Similar statistical confounds may be common in analyses of cognitive behaviors, highlighting the need to use causal statistical inference and generative models for interpretation.

Identifiers

PMID35148186
PMCPMC8836799

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.