This article examines the role of the sunk cost effect as a commitment device in mitigating the self-control problem and analyzes its implications for optimal contract design. Consumers may anticipate the effect ex ante and strategically use it to mitigate their self-control problems. Although the sunk cost effect may lead to a loss of consumption flexibility in the event of high consumption costs, it can serve as a commitment device to enforce self-control. A firm's optimal policy should balance the consumer's demand for flexibility in consumption with the demand for commitment. Under a simple fixed-fee contract, sunk costs have a nonmonotonic effect on profits for investment goods; that is, profits first decrease and then increase with the sunk cost effect. The firm can use a two-part tariff or a refundable fixed-fee contract to mitigate the sunk cost effect. This article also compares the implications of alternative psychological mechanisms underlying the sunk cost effect (regret-based vs. memory-cue-based) for contract design.
AmaldossWilfredHarutyunyanMushegh (2022), “Pricing of Vice Goods for Goal-Driven Consumers,” Management Science, 69 (8), 4541–57.
2.
ArkesHal R.BlumerCatherine (1985), “The Psychology of Sunk Cost,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 35 (1), 124–40.
3.
AscarzaEvaLambrechtAnjaVilcassimNaufel (2012), “When Talk Is ‘Free’: The Effect of Tariff Structure on Usage Under Two- and Three-Part Tariffs,” Journal of Marketing Research, 49 (6), 882–99.
4.
AugenblickNedNiederleMurielSprengerCharles (2015), “Working Over Time: Dynamic Inconsistency in Real Effort Tasks,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 130 (3), 1067–1115.
5.
BaligaSandeepElyJeffrey C. (2011), “Mnemonomics: The Sunk Cost Fallacy as a Memory Kludge,” American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, 3 (4), 35–67.
CamererColin F.WeberRoberto 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 and Organization, 39 (1), 59–82.
8.
CarreraMarianaRoyerHeatherStehrMarkSydnorJustinTaubinskyDmitry (2022), “Who Chooses Commitment? Evidence and Welfare Implications,” Review of Economic Studies, 89 (3), 1205–44.
DanaherPeter J. (2002), “Optimal Pricing of New Subscription Services: Analysis of a Market Experiment,” Marketing Science, 21 (2), 119–38.
11.
DellaVignaStefanoMalmendierUlrike (2004), “Contract Design and Self-Control: Theory and Evidence,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 119 (2), 353–402.
12.
DellaVignaStefanoMalmendierUlrike (2006), “Paying Not to Go to the Gym,” American Economic Review, 96 (3), 694–719.
13.
DiaoWenHarutyunyanMusheghJiangBaojun (2023), “Consumer Fairness Concerns and Dynamic Pricing in a Channel,” Marketing Science, 42 (3), 569–88.
14.
DickAlan S.LordKenneth R. (1998), “The Impact of Membership Fees on Consumer Attitude and Choice,” Psychology and Marketing, 15 (1), 41–58.
15.
Filiz-OzbayEmelOzbayErkut Y. (2007), “Auctions with Anticipated Regret: Theory and Experiment,” American Economic Review, 97 (4), 1407–18.
16.
GoliAliChintaguntaPradeep K.SriramS. (2022), “Effects of Payment on User Engagement in Online Courses,” Journal of Marketing Research, 59 (1), 11–34.
17.
GuoLiang (2023), “The Mnemonomics of Contractual Screening,” Management Science, 69 (3), 1739–57.
18.
HeathChipFennemaMartin G. (1996), “Mental Depreciation and Marginal Decision Making,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 68 (2), 95–108.
19.
HoTeck-HuaPngIvan P.L.RezaSadat (2018), “Sunk Cost Fallacy in Driving the World’s Costliest Cars,” Management Science, 64 (4), 1761–78.
20.
HoTeck-HuaWuHangZhangXing (2020), “Incorporating the Sunk Cost Fallacy into Designing Price Discounts: A Large Field Experiment,” working paper.
21.
HongFuhaiHuangWeiZhaoXiaojian (2019), “Sunk Cost as a Self-Management Device,” Management Science, 65 (5), 2216–30.
22.
ImaiTaisukeRutterTom A.CamererColin F. (2021), “Meta-Analysis of Present-Bias Estimation Using Convex Time Budgets,” Economic Journal, 131 (636), 1788–814.
23.
IyengarRaghuramJedidiKamelEssegaierSkanderDanaherPeter J. (2011), “The Impact of Tariff Structure on Customer Retention, Usage, and Profitability of Access Services,” Marketing Science, 30 (5), 820–36.
24.
IyerGaneshKuksovDmitri (2010), “Consumer Feelings and Equilibrium Product Quality,” Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 19 (1), 137–68.
JainSanjay (2009), “Self-Control and Optimal Goals: A Theoretical Analysis,” Marketing Science, 28 (6), 1027–45.
27.
JainSanjayChenHaipeng (2022), “Sunk Cost Bias and Time Inconsistency: A Strategic Analysis of Pricing Decisions,” Management Science, 69 (4), 2383–2400.
28.
JainSanjayLiKrista J. (2018), “Pricing and Product Design for Vice Goods: A Strategic Analysis,” Marketing Science, 37 (4), 592–610.
JustDavid R.WansinkBrian (2011), “The Flat-Rate Pricing Paradox: Conflicting Effects of ‘All-You-Can-Eat’ Pricing,” Review of Economics and Statistics, 93 (1), 193–200.
31.
LaibsonDavid (1997), “Golden Eggs and Hyperbolic Discounting,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112 (2), 443–78.
32.
LambrechtAnjaSkieraBernd (2006), “Paying Too Much and Being Happy About It: Existence, Causes, and Consequences of Tariff-Choice Biases,” Journal of Marketing Research, 43 (2), 212–23.
33.
LiJianbiaoLiDahuiCaoQianNiuXiaofei (2018), “The Role of Regret and Disappointment in the Repurchase Effect: Does Gender Matter?” Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 75, 134–40.
34.
MankiwN. Gregory (2011), Principles of Economics, 5th ed.South-Western Cengage Learning.
35.
MiraveteEugenio J. (2003), “Choosing the Wrong Calling Plan? Ignorance and Learning,” American Economic Review, 93 (1), 297–310.
36.
NozickRobert (1993), The Nature of Rationality. Princeton University Press.
37.
O’DonoghueTedRabinMatthew (1999), “Doing It Now or Later,” American Economic Review, 89 (1), 103–24.
38.
PhelpsEdmund S.PollakRobert A. (1968), “On Second-Best National Saving and Game-Equilibrium Growth,” Review of Economic Studies, 35 (2), 185–99.
39.
StawBarry M. (1981), “The Escalation of Commitment to a Course of Action,” Academy of Management Review, 6 (4), 577–87.
40.
SteeleDavid R. (1996), “Nozick on Sunk Costs,” Ethics, 106 (3), 605–20.
41.
StrotzRobert H. (1955), “Myopia and Inconsistency in Dynamic Utility Maximization,” Review of Economic Studies, 23 (3), 165–80.
42.
SunYachengLiShiboSunBaohong (2015), “An Empirical Analysis of Consumer Purchase Decisions Under Bucket-Based Price Discrimination,” Marketing Science, 34 (5), 646–68.
43.
ThalerRichard (1980), “Toward a Positive Theory of Consumer Choice,” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 1 (1), 39–60.
44.
WaltonDouglas (2002), “The Sunk Costs Fallacy or Argument from Waste,” Argumentation, 16 (4), 473–503.
45.
WertenbrochKlaus (1998), “Consumption Self-Control by Rationing Purchase Quantities of Virtue and Vice,” Marketing Science, 17 (4), 317–37.
ZhangXing (2015), “Impact of Time-Inconsistency and Other-Regarding Preferences on Price Contract and Organization Design,” PhD thesis, National University of Singapore.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
