On the Low Reliability of Sunk Cost Vignettes

Background/Objectives: Sunk cost bias-continuing failing endeavours due to prior investments-is among the most studied decision-making biases. Despite decades of vignette-based research, these measures lack systematic psychometric validation. We examined whether widely-used sunk cost scenarios reliably measure the same psychological construct. Methods: Across two experiments (N = 395), we tested established sunk cost vignettes, including classic scenarios from Arkes and Blumer (1985). English-speaking participants from Prolific Academic completed vignettes alongside cognitive reflection and social desirability measures. We assessed internal consistency and intercorrelations between scenarios. Results: Internal consistency was consistently poor (ω = 0.14-0.57) with weak intercorrelations between scenarios. Even highly similar vignettes correlated only moderately. External validity was problematic, showing inconsistent relationships with cognitive reflection and social desirability across vignettes. Conclusions: These measurement failures have critical implications for neuroimaging research, where unreliable behavioural measures may be mistaken for genuine neural differences. The field needs systematic categorization of scenarios to identify which vignettes engage specific psychological processes and neural circuits, enabling more targeted theoretical development.