IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/vig/wpaper/0401.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Thaler’s “all-you-can-eat” puzzle: two alternative explanations

Author

Listed:
  • María José Caride
  • Eduardo L. Giménez

Abstract

To determine whether individuals take into account sunk costs when making deci- sions, Thaler (1980, p.48) conducted an experiment in which anonymous individuals decided to enter an \all-you-can-eat" pizza restaurant; a random selection of those customers was given back the $2.50 they had paid. The result was a surprisingly lower average consumption of pizza by the group that was reimbursed, as compared to the group that was not. Economic theory of consumer suggests that this is inconsistent with rational behavior because only incremental costs and bene ts should a ect deci- sions. Since the cost of consuming any extra pizza is zero once a person is inside the restaurant, the bene ts, then, must undergo some change once those customers are paid back. The literature of behavioral economics suggests that the money paid on en- try plays a role in consumer behavior, based on mental accounting and prospect theory. In this paper we integrate several elements of this literature into neoclassical economic theory and make use of this comprehensive economic model to explain Thaler's puzzle. However, this model presents some shortcomings, and in the end we provide a comple- mentary economic explanation involving the physical satiation constraint, which helps to overcome those limitations.

Suggested Citation

  • María José Caride & Eduardo L. Giménez, 2004. "Thaler’s “all-you-can-eat” puzzle: two alternative explanations," Working Papers 0401, Universidade de Vigo, Departamento de Economía Aplicada.
    • Handle: RePEc:vig:wpaper:0401
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://webx06.webs8.uvigo.es/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/wp0401.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Thaler, Richard H, 1990. "Saving, Fungibility, and Mental Accounts," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 4(1), pages 193-205, Winter.
    2. Soman, Dilip, 2001. "Effects of Payment Mechanism on Spending Behavior: The Role of Rehearsal and Immediacy of Payments," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 27(4), pages 460-474, March.
    3. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    4. Thaler, Richard, 1980. "Toward a positive theory of consumer choice," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 39-60, March.
    5. Arkes, Hal R. & Blumer, Catherine, 1985. "The psychology of sunk cost," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 124-140, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gino, Francesca, 2008. "Do we listen to advice just because we paid for it? The impact of advice cost on its use," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 107(2), pages 234-245, November.
    2. Ronayne, David & Sgroi, Daniel & Tuckwell, Anthony, 2021. "Evaluating the sunk cost effect," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 186(C), pages 318-327.
    3. Duxbury, Darren, 2012. "Sunk costs and sunk benefits: A re-examination of re-investment decisions," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 144-156.
    4. Hsiaw, Alice, 2018. "Goal bracketing and self-control," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 100-121.
    5. Antonides, Gerrit, 1995. "Entrapment in risky investments," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 24(3), pages 447-461.
    6. Englmaier, Florian & Schmöller, Arno, 2010. "Determinants and Effects of Reserve Prices in Hattrick Auctions," Discussion Paper Series of SFB/TR 15 Governance and the Efficiency of Economic Systems 326, Free University of Berlin, Humboldt University of Berlin, University of Bonn, University of Mannheim, University of Munich.
    7. Kalayci, Erkan & Basdas, Ulkem, 2010. "Does the prospect theory also hold for power traders? Empirical evidence from a Swiss energy company," Review of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(1), pages 38-45, January.
    8. Antonides, Gerrit & Manon de Groot, I. & Fred van Raaij, W., 2011. "Mental budgeting and the management of household finance," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 546-555, August.
    9. Hirota, Shinichi & Suzuki-Löffelholz, Kumi & Udagawa, Daisuke, 2020. "Does owners’ purchase price affect rent offered? Experimental evidence," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 25(C).
    10. Bernadette Kamleitner & Erich Kirchler, 2006. "Personal loan users’ mental integration of payment and consumption," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 281-294, December.
    11. Shi, Haijiao & Chen, Rong & Xu, Xiaobing, 2021. "How reward uncertainty influences subsequent donations: The role of mental accounting," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 383-391.
    12. Keefer, Quinn A.W., 2019. "Decision-maker beliefs and the sunk-cost fallacy: Major League Baseball’s final-offer salary arbitration and utilization," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 75(PB).
    13. Arkes, Hal R. & Hirshleifer, David & Jiang, Danling & Lim, Sonya, 2008. "Reference point adaptation: Tests in the domain of security trading," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 105(1), pages 67-81, January.
    14. Park, Jeong-Yeol & Jang, SooCheong (Shawn), 2014. "Sunk costs and travel cancellation: Focusing on temporal cost," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 425-435.
    15. Frederiks, Elisha R. & Stenner, Karen & Hobman, Elizabeth V., 2015. "Household energy use: Applying behavioural economics to understand consumer decision-making and behaviour," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 1385-1394.
    16. Tan, Hun-Tong & Yates, J. Frank, 2002. "Financial Budgets and Escalation Effects," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 87(2), pages 300-322, March.
    17. Julia Blasch & Claudio Daminato, 2018. "Behavioral anomalies and energy-related individual choices: the role of status-quo bias," CER-ETH Economics working paper series 18/300, CER-ETH - Center of Economic Research (CER-ETH) at ETH Zurich.
    18. Min, Shi & Wang, Xiaobing & Liu, Min & Huang, Jikun, 2018. "The asymmetric response of farmers to an expected change in the price of rubber: The roles of sunk costs and path dependency," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 585-594.
    19. Robinson, Peter John & Botzen, W. J. Wouter & Kunreuther, Howard & Chaudhry, Shereen J., 2021. "Default options and insurance demand," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 183(C), pages 39-56.
    20. Durham, Yvonne & Manly, Tracy S. & Ritsema, Christina, 2014. "The effects of income source, context, and income level on tax compliance decisions in a dynamic experiment," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 220-233.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Sunk Costs; Mental Accounting; Prospect Theory; Physical Constraint; Satiation.;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D11 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Consumer Economics: Theory

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:vig:wpaper:0401. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Departamento de Economía Aplicada (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/deviges.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.