Causal Attributions for Poorly Performing Projects: Their Effect on Project Continuation Decisions

Onifade, Emmanuel; Harrison, Paul; Cafferty, Thomas P.

doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1997.tb00640.x

Cited by 11 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Distinctiveness information refers to whether there is low similarity between the individual's performance and his or her performance under dissimilar conditions. We rely on prior research, but at the same time, we tailor the three types of performance information discussed above to a managerial context, based on factors identified in the managerial literature (Onifade et al, 1997;Johnston & Kim, 1994;Harrison, West, & Reneau, 1988;Arrington, Bailey, & Hopwood, 1985). In this study, consistency across time refers to the past financial performance of a division for a three-year period.…”

Section: Past Division Performance and Managers' Causal Attributionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Findings from attribution research suggest that causal attributions influence achievement behaviors through their effects on the expectations that individuals hold for outcomes in future achievement situations (Onifade et al, 1997;Silver et al, 1995;Johnston & Kim, 1994;Staw & Ross, 1978). In particular, when individuals attribute their past performance-whether success or failure-to internal causes, they tend to increase their expectations for future success.…”

Section: Past Division Performance and Managers' Causal Attributionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Attribution research suggests that division managers will form expectations about their own division's future performance based on their perceptions of the causes for their division's past performance (Onifade et al, 1997;Silver et al, 1995;Johnston & Kim, 1994;Staw & Ross, 1978;Kelley, 1973). Thus, we also examine whether managers' capital budget recommendations are biased by the causal attributions (Luginbuhl, Crowe, & Kahan, 1975;Weiner, 1974;Weiner, Frieze, Kukla, Reed, Rest, & Rosenbaum, 1972) that they might make about their division's past performance-above and beyond the biases caused by their loss aversion.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This behavior is commonly known as loss aversion (McCusker & Carnevale, 1995;Kahneman, Knetch, & Thaler, 1991) and may affect future behavior. Prior research also shows that the causes to which individuals attribute their own past performance (e.g., success or failure) affect their behavior and expectations for their future performance (Onifade, Harrison, & Cafferty, 1997;Silver, Mitchell, & Gist, 1995;Johnston & Kim, 1994;Staw & Ross, 1978). These causal judgments about past performance may also affect future behavior if the judgments lead to biases that affect decisions such as capital budget proposals made to top management.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Opportunism in Capital Budget Recommendations: The Effects of Past Performance and Its Attributions*

Vera‐Muñoz

2001

Decision Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study uses an experiment to examine the separate and combined effects of managers' loss aversion and their causal attributions about their divisions' performance on tendencies to make goal-incongruent capital budget recommendations. We find that managers' recommendations are biased by their loss aversion. In particular, managers of high-performing divisions are more likely than managers of low-performing divisions to propose investments that maximize their division's short-term profits at the expense of the firm's long-term value. We also find that managers' recommendations are biased by their causal attributions. In particular, managers are more likely to propose investments that maximize their division's short-term profits at the expense of the firm's long-term value when they attribute their division's performance to external causes (e.g., task difficulty or luck) rather than to internal causes (e.g., managerial ability or effort). Further, the effects of causal attributions are greater for managers of high-performing divisions than for managers of low-performing divisions. The study's findings are important because loss aversion and causal attributions are often manifested in firms. Thus, they may bias managers' decisions, which in turn may be detrimental to the firms' long-term value.

show abstract

Section: Past Division Performance and Managers' Causal Attributionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Past Division Performance and Managers' Causal Attributionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Opportunism in Capital Budget Recommendations: The Effects of Past Performance and Its Attributions*

Vera‐Muñoz

2001

Decision Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Moon () found that perceived likelihood of success is highly correlated with commitment level. Another study found that the expectation of success is significantly associated with project continuation decisions (Onifade, Harrison, and Cafferty, ). Perceived likelihood of success of projects is important in the sequential decision‐making process that characterizes NPD projects.…”

Section: Theoretical Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinging to Slim Chances: The Dynamics of Anticipating Regret When Developing New Products

Sarangee¹,

Schmidt²,

Wallman³

2013

J of Product Innov Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper focuses on the effects of anticipated regret during large‐scale investment projects—namely new product development. Anticipated regret means worrying about the future, and decision‐makers experience it prior to both making a decision and knowing the outcome of that decision. It is forward‐looking while actual regret is backward‐looking. Decision‐makers must make project continuation/termination decisions with conflicting pressures. If they continue it, they might receive disconfirming information in the future and therefore regret their decision. If they stop it, they also might regret that decision later, too, if they subsequently conclude it was an error to do so. We term these conflicting pressures anticipated “keep” and “drop” regret, respectively. In the main study, nearly 300 individuals completed a decision‐making exercise in which a failing new product development project was evaluated, and various factors were measured, including both types of anticipated regret at multiple points in the project. The results show that decision‐makers anticipate regret when making project continuation decisions, and anticipated keep and drop regret exert pressures that differ in direction and magnitude. Most interestingly, anticipated drop regret does not diminish as the failing project progresses whereas anticipated keep regret increases as more negative information is received over the course of the project. A second, smaller study was conducted using a different population, and the results of the main study were replicated in this supplemental study, thereby adding confidence in these findings.

show abstract

External relational attributions: Attributing cause to others' relationships

Carson

2019

J Organ Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary I present an attributional approach to understanding how people perceive and respond to the effects of others' relationships in the workplace by suggesting that people perceive others' relationships to be causal sources of workplace outcomes. Specifically, I suggest that individuals' responses to negative outcomes at work can be better understood by differentiating between two types of external attributional explanations: external relational attributions and external nonrelational attributions. This research focuses on the conceptual development of external relational attributions, which are defined as those attributional explanations made for outcomes or behaviors experienced or observed by a focal individual that locate the cause of an outcome within the relationship between two others (people, groups, organizations, or any combination), not including the focal individual. Further, I propose situational antecedents and behavioral outcomes of external relational attributions, with an emphasis on individuals' behaviors toward others' relationships. Lastly, I highlight the advantages of considering the role of others' relationships when applying attribution theory to a variety of organizational phenomena and present directions for future research.

show abstract

Causal Attributions for Poorly Performing Projects: Their Effect on Project Continuation Decisions

Cited by 11 publications

References 24 publications

Opportunism in Capital Budget Recommendations: The Effects of Past Performance and Its Attributions*

Opportunism in Capital Budget Recommendations: The Effects of Past Performance and Its Attributions*

Clinging to Slim Chances: The Dynamics of Anticipating Regret When Developing New Products

External relational attributions: Attributing cause to others' relationships

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About