The Sunk Cost Bias and Managerial Pricing Practices
AbstractThis paper provides an explanation for why the sunk cost bias persists among firms in a competitive environment in which rich learning possibilities are allowed. We envision firms that experiment with cost methodologies that are consistent with real-world accounting practices, including ones that confuse the relevance of variable, fixed, and sunk coststo pricing decisions. Firms follow â€œnaiveâ€ adaptive learning to adjust prices and reinforcement learning to modify their costing methodologies. Costing and pricing practices that increase profits are reinforced. We show that all firms eventually display the sunk cost bias in their pricing behavior
Download InfoTo our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
1. Check below under "Related research" whether another version of this item is available online.
2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by Society for Economic Dynamics in its series 2006 Meeting Papers with number 851.
Date of creation: 03 Dec 2006
Date of revision:
Contact details of provider:
Postal: Society for Economic Dynamics Christian Zimmermann Economic Research Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis PO Box 442 St. Louis MO 63166-0442 USA
Web page: http://www.EconomicDynamics.org/society.htm
More information through EDIRC
Sunk Cost Bias; Bertrand Oligopoly; Dynamic Learning;
Other versions of this item:
- Nabil Al-Najjar & Sandeep Baliga & David Besanko, 2005. "The Sunk Cost Bias and Managerial Pricing Practices," Levine's Bibliography 666156000000000496, UCLA Department of Economics.
- D01 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Microeconomic Behavior: Underlying Principles
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Federico Echenique, 2000.
"Comparative Statics by Adaptive Dynamics and The Correspondence Principle,"
Econometric Society World Congress 2000 Contributed Papers
1906, Econometric Society.
- Federico Echenique, 2002. "Comparative Statics by Adaptive Dynamics and the Correspondence Principle," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 70(2), pages 833-844, March.
- Federico Echenique., 2000. "Comparative Statics by Adaptive Dynamics and The Correspondence Principle," Economics Working Papers E00-273, University of California at Berkeley.
- Federico Echenique, 2000. "Comparative Statics by Adaptive Dynamics and The Correspondence Principle," GE, Growth, Math methods 9912002, EconWPA.
- Federico Echenique, 1999. "Comparative Statics by Adaptative Dynamics and the Correspondence Principle," Documentos de Trabajo (working papers) 2099, Department of Economics - dECON.
- Aviad Heifetz & Chris Shannon & Yossi Spiegel, 2005.
"The Dynamic Evolution of Preferences,"
1415, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
- Fershtman, Chaim & Judd, Kenneth L, 1987.
"Equilibrium Incentives in Oligopoly,"
American Economic Review,
American Economic Association, vol. 77(5), pages 927-40, December.
- Friedman, James W. & Mezzetti, Claudio, 2001. "Learning in Games by Random Sampling," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 98(1), pages 55-84, May.
- Samuelson, Larry, 2001. "Introduction to the Evolution of Preferences," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 97(2), pages 225-230, April.
- Vives, Xavier, 1990.
"Nash equilibrium with strategic complementarities,"
Journal of Mathematical Economics,
Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 305-321.
- Milgrom, Paul & Roberts, John, 1991. "Adaptive and sophisticated learning in normal form games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 3(1), pages 82-100, February.
- Parayre, Roch, 1995. "The strategic implications of sunk costs: A behavioral perspective," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 417-442, December.
- David A. Brown & Peter Booth & Francesco Giacobbe, 2004. "Technological and organizational influences on the adoption of activity-based costing in Australia," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 44(3), pages 329-356.
- Theo Offerman & Jan Potters, 2006. "Does Auctioning of Entry Licences Induce Collusion? An Experimental Study," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 73(3), pages 769-791.
- Milgrom, Paul & Roberts, John, 1990. "Rationalizability, Learning, and Equilibrium in Games with Strategic Complementarities," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 58(6), pages 1255-77, November.
- Smith, Vernon L, 1991. "Rational Choice: The Contrast between Economics and Psychology," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 99(4), pages 877-97, August.
- David Kelsey & Frank Milne, 2008.
"Imperfect Competition and Corporate Governance,"
Journal of Public Economic Theory,
Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 10(6), pages 1115-1141, December.
- Aviad Heifetz & Chris Shannon & Yossi Spiegel, 2007.
"The Dynamic Evolution of Preferences,"
Springer, vol. 32(2), pages 251-286, August.
- Lynette Molyneaux & John Foster & Liam Wagner, 2010. "Is there a more effective way to reduce carbon emissions?," Energy Economics and Management Group Working Papers 04, School of Economics, University of Queensland, Australia.
- Buccirossi, Paolo & Spagnolo, Giancarlo, 2006. "Optimal Fines in the Era of Whistleblowers," CEPR Discussion Papers 5465, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Heifetz, Aviad & Segev, Ella & Talley, Eric, 2007. "Market design with endogenous preferences," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 58(1), pages 121-153, January.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Christian Zimmermann).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.