We explored a novel task paradigm where participants from the online work marketplace Amazon Mechanical Turk were given the choice to quit or continue an unfinished boring task for identical economic rewards. In Studies 1a and 1b, about half the participants chose to continue (corresponding to an average of 55 and 35 cents in foregone earnings). Participants’ self-reported reasons for continuing involved various types of persistence motives, reflecting a desire to persist or complete per se. Studies 2, 3a, 3b, and 3c ruled out the possibility that people continued because they enjoyed the task or believed there were additional rewards for continuing. Study 4 showed that the choice to quit/continue was associated with the manner in which the choice was presented (persistence test vs. decision-making test) and individual differences in dispositional persistence motives. The present data indicate that motivational forces independent of the focal reward may affect intertemporal decisions.
AdlerD. L.KouninJ. S. (1939). Some factors operating at the moment of resumption of interrupted tasks. The Journal of Psychology, 7, 255-267. doi:10.1080/00223980.1939.9917632
2.
AinslieG. (2005). Précis of breakdown of will. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28, 635-673. doi:10.1017/s0140525x05000117
3.
ArkesH. R.BlumerC. (1985). The psychology of sunk cost. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 35, 124-140. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(85)90049-4
4.
BecharaA.TranelD.DamasioH. (2000). Characterization of the decision-making deficit of patients with ventromedial prefrontal cortex lesions. Brain, 123, 2189-2202. doi:10.1093/brain/123.11.2189
5.
BoehneD. M.PaeseP. W. (2000). Deciding whether to complete or terminate an unfinished project: A strong test of the project completion hypothesis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 81, 178-194. doi:10.1006/obhd.1999.2877
6.
ButterfieldE. C. (1964). The interruption of tasks: Methodological, factual, and theoretical issues. Psychological Bulletin, 62, 309-322. doi:10.1037/h0039873
7.
CamererC.BabcockL.LoewensteinG.ThalerR. (1997). Labor supply of New York City cabdrivers: One day at a time. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112, 407-441.
8.
CaslerK.BickelL.HackettE. (2013). Separate but equal? A comparison of participants and data gathered via Amazon’s MTurk, social media, and face-to-face behavioral testing. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 2156-2160. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2013.05.009
9.
ConlonD. E.GarlandH. (1993). The role of project completion information in resource allocation decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 402-413. doi:10.2307/256529
10.
FishbachA.DharR. (2005). Goals as excuses or guides: The liberating effect of perceived goal progress on choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 32, 370-377.
11.
FishbachA.DharR.ZhangY. (2006). Subgoals as substitutes or complements: The role of goal accessibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 232-242.
12.
FishbachA.KooM.FinkelsteinS. R. (2014). Motivation resulting from completed and missing actions. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 50, 257-307.
13.
FishbachA.ShahJ. Y.KruglanskiA. W. (2004). Emotional transfer in goal systems. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 723-738.
14.
FishbachA.ZhangY.KooM. (2009). The dynamics of self-regulation. European Review of Social Psychology, 20, 315-344.
15.
ForzanoL. B.LogueA. W. (1994). Self-control in adult humans: Comparison of qualitatively different reinforcers. Learning and Motivation, 25, 65-82. doi:10.1006/lmot.1994.1004
16.
FrederickS.LoewensteinG.O’DonoghueT. (2002). Time discounting and time preference: A critical review. Journal of Economic Literature, 40, 351-401. doi:10.1257/002205102320161311
17.
GarlandH.ConlonD. E. (1998). Too close to quit: The role of project completion in maintaining commitment. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 2025-2048. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1998.tb01359.x
18.
GoodmanJ. K.CryderC. E.CheemaA. (2013). Data collection in a flat world: The strengths and weaknesses of Mechanical Turk samples. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 26, 213-224. doi:10.1002/bdm.1753
19.
HenleM.AullG. (1953). Factors decisive for resumption of interrupted activities: The question reopened. Psychological Review, 60, 81-88. doi:10.1037/h0058399
20.
HermanC. P.PolivyJ. (2003). Dieting as an exercise in behavioral economics. In LoewensteinG.ReadD.BaumeisterR. F. (Eds.), Time and decision: Economic and psychological perspectives on intertemporal choice (pp. 459-490). New York, NY: Russel Sage Foundation.
21.
KleinN.FishbachA. (2014). Feeling good at the right time: Why people value predictability in goal attainment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 55, 21-30.
22.
KooM.FishbachA. (2008). Dynamics of self-regulation: How (un) accomplished goal actions affect motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 183-195.
23.
LockeE. A.LathamG. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting & task performance. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
24.
MasicampoE. J.BaumeisterR. F. (2012). Committed but closed-minded: When making a specific plan for a goal hinders success. Social Cognition, 30, 37-55.
25.
MischelW.AydukO.Mendoza-DentonR. (2003). Sustaining delay of gratification over time: A hot–cool systems perspective. In LoewensteinG.ReadD.BaumeisterR. F. (Eds.), Time and decision: Economic and psychological perspectives on intertemporal choice (pp. 175-200). New York, NY: Russel Sage Foundation.
26.
MischelW.EbbesenE. B. (1970). Attention in delay of gratification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16, 329-337. doi:10.1037/h0029815
27.
MischelW.EbbesenE. B.Raskoff ZeissA. (1972). Cognitive and attentional mechanisms in delay of gratification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 21, 204-218. doi:10.1037/h0032198
28.
MischelW.ShodaY.PeakeP. K. (1988). The nature of adolescent competencies predicted by preschool delay of gratification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 687-696. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.54.4.687
29.
MoonH. (2001). Looking forward and looking back: Integrating completion and sunk-cost effects within an escalation-of-commitment progress decision. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 104-113. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.1.104
30.
NavarroA. D.FantinoE. (2009). The sunk-time effect: An exploration. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 22, 252-270. doi:10.1002/bdm.624
31.
OttoA. R.MarkmanA. B.LoveB. C. (2012). Taking more, now: The optimality of impulsive choice hinges on environment structure. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3(2), 131-138. doi:10.1177/1948550611411311
32.
OvsiankinaM. (1928). Wiederaufname von unterbrochener Handlungen [The resumption of interrupted activities]. Psychologische Forschung, 11, 302-379.
33.
PaglieriF. (2013). The costs of delay: Waiting versus postponing in intertemporal choice. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 99, 362-377. doi:10.1002/jeab.18
34.
PeakeP. K.HeblM.MischelW. (2002). Strategic attention deployment for delay of gratification in working and waiting situations. Developmental Psychology, 38, 313-326. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.38.2.313
35.
ReeveJ.ColeS.OlsonB. (1986). The Zeigarnik effect and intrinsic motivation: Are they the same?Motivation and Emotion, 10, 233-245. doi:10.1007/bf00992318
36.
RobertiJ. W. (2004). A review of behavioral and biological correlates of sensation seeking. Journal of Research in Personality, 38, 256-279.
37.
SomanD. (2001). The mental accounting of sunk time costs: Why time is not like money. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 14, 169-185. doi:10.1002/bdm.370
38.
Touré-TilleryM.FishbachA. (2011). The course of motivation. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 21, 414-423.
39.
WicklundR. A.GollwitzerP. M. (1982). Symbolic self-completion. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
40.
ZeigarnikB. (1927). Das Behalten erledigter und unerledigter Handlungen [The retention of completed and uncompleted activities]. Psychologische Forschung, 9, 1-85.
41.
ZuckermanM. (1994). Behavioral expressions and biosocial bases of sensation seeking. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
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.
