Are sunk cost effects weaker for time than money?
Comparing time versus money in sunk cost effects: Replication of Soman (2001)
Recommendation: posted 23 January 2023, validated 23 January 2023
URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/u34zb
List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals:
- Experimental Psychology
- Peer Community Journal
- Royal Society Open Science
- Swiss Psychology Open
Chris Chambers (2023) Are sunk cost effects weaker for time than money?. Peer Community in Registered Reports, . https://rr.peercommunityin.org/articles/rec?id=187
The recommender in charge of the evaluation of the article and the reviewers declared that they have no conflict of interest (as defined in the code of conduct of PCI) with the authors or with the content of the article.
Evaluation round #2
DOI or URL of the report: https://osf.io/9p3mj
Version of the report: v2
Author's Reply, 05 Jan 2023
Decision by Chris Chambers, posted 22 Sep 2022
Three of the five reviewers kindly returned to evaluate your revised manuscript. As you will see, most of the major issues have been addressed and we are moving closer to Stage 1 IPA. However, there are some remaining points to address concerning the literature review, exclusion criteria, and planned statistical analyses, and the reviewers offer a range of constructive suggestions for resolving these issues. I look forward to seeing your response in a further (hopefully final) Stage 1 revision.
Reviewed by Dilip Soman, 02 Sep 2022
Reviewed by Christopher Olivola, 16 Sep 2022
Reviewed by David Ronayne, 26 Aug 2022
Evaluation round #1
DOI or URL of the report: https://osf.io/wu6tm/
Author's Reply, 13 Aug 2022
Decision by Chris Chambers, posted 20 May 2022
Several reviewers raise the concern of having the same participants complete all 3 studies in a single session as this may cause carry-over effects (despite counterbalancing) and could excacerbate demand characteristics.
Sampling confounds or biases due to participants with prior experience of sunk cost studies, or the demographics differing from Soman 2001 (raised by Ronayne and other reviewers; this will require some specific consideration of whether and how these characteristics differ from the original study)
Clarity and coherence of the analysis plan (raised by multiple reviewers)
Considering additional factors that justify the scientific validity of the replication (as noted in Soman’s review, e.g. proposed weakening of sunk cost effects over time; Peetz is the most critical on this point while also offering helpful suggestions for improvement, including consideration of additional literature)
Ensuring that the replication is as close as possible to the original study. Several reviewers raised concerns about procedural deviations. Some deviations will be inevitable – as always the the key is to identify those that risk violating theoretical coherence or which introduce (or resolve) methodological problems
Resolving the question as to whether the replication focuses on the most important studies from Soman 2001 and is therefore optimally positioned to answer the research question (an interesting point raised by Leder)
Clarification of methodological details such as consideration of additional exclusion criteria and replacement of excluded participants (raised by multiple reviewers)
Quality of writing. There were differing views from reviewers (e.g. Olivola vs Soman). Personally I found the manuscript sufficiently clear to understand as a non-specialist, but it could be improved. Pass through and proofread carefully at the revision stage
This list is not comprehensive, so please be sure to respond point-by-point to every issue raised in the reviews.