Table 6.

Summary of additional analyses.

HYPOTHESIS	QUESTION ADDRESSED	ANALYSIS USED	CONSISTENT WITH REPLICATION ANALYSIS (YES/MIXED/NO)	DETAILS
The sunk cost effect is weaker for time than for money.	Does the likelihood of picking the option associated with sunk costs (rocket engine in Study 2) vary significantly between levels of one independent variables (sunk cost presence or sunk domain) given a change in the other (i.e., an interaction effect)?	2x2 logistic regression on both Soman’s original data as well as the replication data.	Yes	Both re-analyses and replication analyses are not in-line with the hypothesis: the replication analyses showed comparable to larger effect size for time than for money, whereas the reanalyses show no support for domain differences.
Facilitation of moneylike accounting by using education about economic approaches to time strengthens the sunk cost effect of time (tested only in the time domain).	What are the differences between Study 1 and the high versus low opportunity cost conditions in Study 5 (i.e., study by opportunity cost interaction, in the no education condition in Study 5)?	Two linear models: one linear model with preference ratings as the dependent variable and one generalized LM with 2-alternative ticket choice as the dependent variable. The models included three independent variables: study (Study 1 vs Study 5), opportunity cost (low vs high), education (no education vs education), and all their interactions.	Yes	Both no support for interactions show that, at least in the time domain, neither the opportunity cost, nor the education manipulations, made a difference. Although this is aligned with the replication analyses in our sample, it is not in-line with Soman’s (2001) conclusion.
	Are differences between Study 1 and the high versus low opportunity cost conditions in Study 5 affected by education (study by opportunity cost by education interaction)?		Yes