The Application of Loss Aversion and Sunken Costs in Behavioral Economics: A Case Study

Authors

  • Chengxi Guo

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54097/88nh2k73

Keywords:

Loss Aversion, Sunk Cost, Behavioral Economics.

Abstract

This study investigates the application of behavioral economics concepts—loss aversion and the sunk cost fallacy—to contemporary digital and sustainable business models. These models increasingly take use of cognitive biases to increase profits, frequently at the expense of customer welfare. Through a multi-case study of TikTok's live commerce scarcity strategies, Netflix's auto-renewal subscriptions, and Patagonia's green premiums, the study analyzes how businesses strategically take advantage of these biases using theoretical frameworks from behavioral literature and Prospect Theory. Key findings show that TikTok uses artificial scarcity and time pressure to increase impulse purchases, taking advantage of the sunk costs of viewer attention; Netflix uses loss aversion (fear of losing personalized content) and sunk costs (justification of prior payments) to sustain "zombie subscriptions"; and Patagonia's eco-pricing unintentionally leads to moral licensing, where moral purchases justify subsequent unsustainable behaviors. The study emphasizes the two-pronged effects of such tactics: increasing profits at the expense of consumer remorse, monetary loss, and environmental tradeoffs. This work, which creatively connects traditional behavioral theories with modern business practices, suggests practical solutions, including consumer education, policy reforms, behavioral "nudges" (e.g., cooling-off periods, sunk cost visualizations), and transparency mandates (e.g., usage reminders for subscriptions, real-time inventory disclosures). These recommendations attempt to combine corporate profitability with ethical consumer protection, producing a balanced market ecology that mitigates irrational decision-making and encourages sustainable consumption.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

[1] Kahneman D, Tversky A. Prospect theory: An analysis of decisions under risk. Econometrica, 1979, 47(2): 263-291.

[2] Arkes H R, Blumer C. The psychology of sunk cost. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 1985, 35(1): 124-140.

[3] Tversky A, Kahneman D. Loss aversion in riskless choice: A reference-dependent model. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1991, 106(4): 1039-1061.

[4] Camerer C, Loewenstein G, Prelec D. Neuroeconomics: How neuroscience can inform economics. Journal of Economic Literature, 2005, 43(1): 9-64.

[5] Kahneman D. Fast and slow thinking. Allen Lane and Penguin Books, New York, 2011.

[6] Powell R. Behavioral economist Richard Thaler on the key to retirement savings. Wall Street Journal, 2015.

[7] George A S. Unsubscribe From Anxiety: The Psychological Costs of Subscription Service Overload. Partners Universal International Innovation Journal, 2024, 2(3): 115-131.

[8] Statista. Netflix – statistics & facts. 2020. https://www.statista.com/topics/842/netflix

[9] Karakulath S, Oschinsky F M. Lights, Camera, Subscription: The Rise of Netflix and Its Disruptive Business Model. 2023.

[10] Mesh Payments. How to detect and prevent zombie subscriptions. https://meshpayments.com/blog/how-to-detect-and-prevent-zombie-subscriptions/ (Accessed March 22, 2025)

[11] Dudley R. Nearly 40% of subscribers ultimately cancel services. Retail Dive, 2020, February 12. https://www.retaildive.com/news/nearly-40-of-subscribers-ultimately-cancel-services/517937/ (Accessed October 26, 2023)

[12] Thaler R. Toward a positive theory of consumer choice. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 1980, 1(1): 39-60.

[13] Thaler R, Sunstein C. Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth and happiness. Amsterdam Law Forum; HeinOnline: Online, 2008, p. 89.

[14] Nisar T M, Prabhakar G. What factors determine e-satisfaction and consumer spending in e-commerce retailing? Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 2017, 39: 135-144.

[15] Kim S, Huang J, Yang S. Factors influencing live commerce consumers’ watching and purchase intentions: Focusing on the Taobao platform in China. The Journal of Internet Electronic Commerce Research, 2021, 21(2): 53-78.

[16] Seo D, Lee J, Kim J, Park J, Koo S, Kim S. An analysis of changes in CORONA 19 digital commerce marketing. Proc. of the Korean Society of Computer Information Conference, 2020, 28(2): 291-292.

[17] Yun J, Lee D, Cottingham M, Hyun H. New generation commerce: The rise of live commerce (L-commerce). Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 2023, 74: 103394.

[18] Ma Y. Elucidating determinants of customer satisfaction with live-stream shopping: An extension of the information systems success model. Telematics and Informatics, 2021, 65: 101707.

[19] Pongratte L J, Liu J, Putri M D P W, Paulin A. The effect of promotion via TikTok live streaming on consumers’ buying interest in clothing products. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 2023, 11(4): 333-347.

[20] Banerjee A V. A simple model of herd behavior. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1992, 107(3): 797-817.

[21] Cialdini R B. Influence–The Psychology of Persuasion. William Morrow, 1984.

[22] Huang Y, Suo L. Factors affecting Chinese consumers’ impulse buying decision of live streaming E-commerce. Asian Social Science, 2021, 17(5): 16-32.

[23] Dong W W, Wang Y Q, Qin J. An empirical study on impulse consumption intention of livestreaming e-commerce: the mediating effect of flow experience and the moderating effect of time pressure. Frontiers in Psychology, 2023, 13: 1019024.

[24] Beggan J K. On the social nature of nonsocial perception: The mere ownership effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1992, 62(2): 229.

[25] Tversky A, Kahneman D. Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases: Biases in judgments reveal some heuristics of thinking under uncertainty. Science, 1974, 185(4157): 1124-1131.

[26] Mazar N, Zhong C B. Do green products make us better people? Psychological Science, 2010, 21(4): 494-498.

[27] Kurzban R, Duckworth A, Kable J W, Myers J. An opportunity cost model of subjective effort and task performance. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 2013, 36(6): 661-679.

[28] Ventura M R M S. Green marketing impact on a company’s success: studying the case of Patagonia. Master's thesis, Universidade Catolica Portuguesa (Portugal), 2016.

[29] Delmas M A, Burbano V C. The drivers of greenwashing. California Management Review, 2011, 54(1): 64-87.

[30] Kurzban R, Duckworth A, Kable J W, Myers J. An opportunity cost model of subjective effort and task performance. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 2013, 36(6): 661-679.

[31] McDaniel S W, Rylander D H. Strategic green marketing. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 1993, 10(3): 4-10.

[32] Festinger L. A theory of cognitive dissonance. Row, Peterson, 1957.

[33] Thaler R H. Mental accounting matters. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 1999, 12(3): 183-206.

[34] Allcott H, Rogers T. The short-run and long-run effects of behavioral interventions: Experimental evidence from energy conservation. American Economic Review, 2014, 104(10): 3003-3037.

[35] Della Vigna S, Malmendier U. Paying not to go to the gym. American Economic Review, 2006, 96(3): 694-719.

[36] Casey B J, Cannonier T, Conley M I, Cohen A O, Barch D M, Heitzeg M M, et al. The adolescent brain cognitive development (ABCD) study: imaging acquisition across 21 sites. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 2018, 32: 43-54.

Downloads

Published

30-06-2025

How to Cite

Guo, C. (2025). The Application of Loss Aversion and Sunken Costs in Behavioral Economics: A Case Study. Highlights in Business, Economics and Management, 58, 79-87. https://doi.org/10.54097/88nh2k73