top of page

Behavioral Science Educational Videos

The Sunk Cost Fallacy

Overview

​

The Sunk Cost fallacy is a human tendency to be influenced by sunk costs: costs which cannot be recovered or influence future events. To make the best decisions, ideally people should ignore sunk costs, but in our daily lives and through cleverly planned experiments, we can see that most people are very susceptible to the fallacy.  See examples of the sunk cost fallacy in action, experiments which attempt to measure the effect, and learn about the neurological underpinnings of this pervasive phenomenon. 

 

This is the first part in a planned 2-part video series. The second video focuses on public policy applications and ideas which can be drawn from an understanding of the sunk cost effect. 

​

​

Roles

​

Direct, Film and Edit by Marina Luccioni.

In collaboration with Colin Camerer (Caltech) and Teck Hua Ho (National University of Singapore).

Many thanks for Colin and Teck's guidance and supervision, and to Sumit Agarwal (National University of Singapore), Eric Finkelstein (Duke-NUS), Hang Wu (National University of Singapore), Ivan Png (National University of Singapore), Khanh Do (Singapore Civil Service College) and Wai Yan Leong (Singapore Land Transport Authority) and Xing Zhang (Swiss Federal Institute of Technology) for their enthusiasm and support for the project. 

Music  â“’ Audionautix (Soul Groove), Gunnar Olsen (Keep the Pace) and Youtube Audio Library (Where I am From)

 


Bibliography, in order of mention

​

Ho, T. H., Png, I. P., & Reza, S. (2017). Sunk cost fallacy in driving the world’s costliest cars. Management Science.

​

Hang Wu, Teck-Hua Ho & Xing Zhang (working paper) Searching for the Sunk Cost Fallacy: a Field Experiment 
 

Fujino, J., Fujimoto, S., Kodaka, F., Camerer, C. F., Kawada, R., Tsurumi, K., ... & Yamada, M. (2016).  Neural mechanisms and personality correlates of the sunk cost effect.  Scientific reports, 6, 33171.

 

Webley, P., & Plaisier, Z. (1998). Mental accounting in childhood. Citizenship, Social and Economics Education, 3(2), 55-64.

 

Roth, S., Robbert, T., & Straus, L. (2015). On the sunk-cost effect in economic decision-making: a meta-analytic review. Business research, 8(1), 99-138.

 

Just, D. R., & Wansink, B. (2011). The flat-rate pricing paradox: conflicting effects of “all-you-can-eat” buffet pricing. The 
Review of Economics and Statistics, 93(1), 193-200.

 

Camerer, C. F., & Weber, R. A. (1999). The econometrics and behavioral economics of escalation of commitment: A re-examination of Staw and Hoang’s NBA data. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 39(1), 59-82.

Reciprocity

Overview

​

Responding to someone’s kind gesture with an equivalently considerate action is known as reciprocity and it is a powerful motivator. People exhibit a strong gift exchange motive: when someone gives something to us, we feel a desire, or tacit obligation, to give something back. 

​

​

Roles

​

Video direction, camera and edit by Marina Luccioni, in collaboration with The Behavioral Insights Team, UK. Many thanks for Miranda Jackman for scripting and feedback, and to Michael Sanders (King's College London) and Zhi Soon (Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership) for their support for the project. 

Music : â“’ Path to Follow by Jingle Punks from YouTube Audio Library · http://bit.ly/32TUZyy 

Cloudy Skies by tyLova music https://soundcloud.com/user-424206000/cloudy-skies

Intro footage: What's Gaby Cooking Healthy Chocolate Chip Cookies

​


Bibliography

​

 UK Behavioral Insights Team (2015) BIT Update Final Report 2013-2015. behaviouralinsight.co.uk. p15-16, 9-10, 37-38

​

Khadjavi, M. (2017). Indirect reciprocity and charitable giving—evidence from a field experiment. Management Science, 63(11), 3708-3717.

​

Menu & Framing Effects

Overview

​

The way in which information is presented has a significant impact upon our behaviour. When buying coffee, our purchasing decision may be influenced by the range of options on offer. Similarly, the menu of options available to potential donors can shape behaviour. How do you frame gift aid donations to your potential donors?

​

​

Roles

​

Video direction, camera and edit by Marina Luccioni, in collaboration with The Behavioral Insights Team, UK. Many thanks for Miranda Jackman for scripting and feedback, and to Michael Sanders (King's College London) and Zhi Soon (Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership) for their support for the project. 

Music : â“’ You Changed My Mind - Good Vibrationz · https://www.amazon.com/-/es/dp/B08L1CM765/ref=dm_ws_tlw_trk4

Intro clip:  Cup of Joy, Zorlu Center


Bibliography

​

UK Behavioral Insights Team (2015) Applying Behavioural Insights to Charitable giving. behaviouralinsight.co.uk. p5-6, 20-21​

​

​

Related & Further Reading

Ariely, D., & Wallsten, T. S. (1995). Seeking subjective dominance in multidimensional space: An explanation of the asymmetric dominance effect. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 63(3), 223-232.

or, Ariely, Dan (2009). Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces that Shape Our Decisions. HarperCollins. Chapter 1. ISBN 9780007319923

​

Krijnen, J. M. T., Tannenbaum, D., & Fox, C. R. (2017). Choice architecture 2.0: Behavioral policy as an implicit social interaction. Behavioral Science & Policy, 3(2), 1–18

​

Goswami, I., & Urminsky, O. (2016). When should the ask be a nudge? The effect of default amounts on charitable donations. Journal of Marketing Research, 53(5), 829-846.

​

Furnham, A., & Boo, H. C. (2011). A literature review of the anchoring effect. The journal of socio-economics, 40(1), 35-42.

​

​

​

​

bottom of page