The study in footnote 6 seems to show the opposite of what you say about it. The study found that diffusion of responsibility reduced the effect of sunk costs while you say “responsibility is diffused, which encourages sunk cost.”
In the “subtleties” section, it’s unclear what is meant by saying that “trying to still prove themselves right” is “an understandable and rational choice.” After someone has made a decision and it is either right or wrong, it does not seem rational to try to prove it right (unless you just mean that it can be instrumentally rational to try to persuade others that you made the right decision).
The study quoted in fn 26 doesn’t seem to match your description of it (“sunk costs were supported more when subjects were given justifications about learning to make better decisions”). The studies did not vary whether or not participants were given the learn-a-lesson justification. All participants were given that justification, and the DV was how highly they rated it.
There are few places where you downplay evidence of sunk cost effects by saying that the effects were small, but it’s not clear what standard you’re using for whether an effect is large or small. If an NBA player plays an extra 10-20 minutes per game based on sunk cost thinking that seems to me like an enormous effect (superstars only play about 25 minutes per game more than backups).
A few brief comments:
The study in footnote 6 seems to show the opposite of what you say about it. The study found that diffusion of responsibility reduced the effect of sunk costs while you say “responsibility is diffused, which encourages sunk cost.”
In the “subtleties” section, it’s unclear what is meant by saying that “trying to still prove themselves right” is “an understandable and rational choice.” After someone has made a decision and it is either right or wrong, it does not seem rational to try to prove it right (unless you just mean that it can be instrumentally rational to try to persuade others that you made the right decision).
The study quoted in fn 26 doesn’t seem to match your description of it (“sunk costs were supported more when subjects were given justifications about learning to make better decisions”). The studies did not vary whether or not participants were given the learn-a-lesson justification. All participants were given that justification, and the DV was how highly they rated it.
There are few places where you downplay evidence of sunk cost effects by saying that the effects were small, but it’s not clear what standard you’re using for whether an effect is large or small. If an NBA player plays an extra 10-20 minutes per game based on sunk cost thinking that seems to me like an enormous effect (superstars only play about 25 minutes per game more than backups).