Question

question 17 0.5 pts which of the following would the best example the \sunk cost fallacy\? note: there could be more than 2 choices. having dinner with friends even though they dont want to be there. paying to see a movie that your friends would not want to see. assigning more value to things you own than to things you could own but dont. completely drinking a 64-ounce horribly-tasting slurpee® just because you already paid for it.

Explanation:

The sunk cost fallacy is continuing an action because of prior investments (time, money, etc.) rather than rational decision - making.

• "Completely drinking a 64 - ounce horribly - tasting Slurpee® just because you already paid for it" involves continuing to consume a bad - tasting drink due to the money already spent (sunk cost), so it's an example.
• "Having dinner with friends even though they don't want to be there" and "Paying to see a movie that your friends would not want to see" don't relate to sunk costs (they are about social preferences or friend's preferences, not prior investments influencing decisions).
• "Assigning more value to things you own than to things you could own but don't" is the endowment effect, not sunk cost fallacy.

Answer:

• Completely drinking a 64 - ounce horribly - tasting Slurpee® just because you already paid for it.