Sunk cost sensitivity in mice, rats, and humans on the Restaurant Row and WebSurf tasks cannot be explained by attrition biases alone
In a recent bioRxiv preprint, Ott et al. argue that sensitivities to sunk costs that have been reported in two serial foraging tasks (the Restaurant Row task in mice and rats, and the Web-Surf task in humans) may be due to simple consequences of the way that subjects perform these tasks and not due to an actual sensitivity to sunk costs. However, several variants of these tasks have been studied, in which the sensitivity to sunk costs changes. In order to test the Ott et al. model against these experimental observations, we simulated the model under these additional experimental conditions. We find that it is incompatible with the actual data. While we applaud the simplicity of the Ott et al. model, we must reject it as an explanation for the observed sensitivity to sunk costs seen in these tasks. We thus conclude that the alternative explanation - that mice, rats, and humans are sensitive to actual sunk costs in these tasks - is a better explanation for the data.