Escalating commitment to a failing course of action: Separating the roles of choice and justification.

Abstract

The escalation of commitment to a failing course of action is often attributed to self-justification motives that presumably are evoked by personal responsibility for initiating the original action (e.g., B. M. Staw, 1976). Nevertheless, personal responsibility-operationalized as choice-has been confounded with public justification, which might engender self-presentation concerns. The present laboratory experiment extended past research by examining the impact of choice on escalating commitment with and without justification that was either public or private. Results showed that escalating commitment was not significantly different in conditions of public or private justification but that justification was necessary in addition to choice itself. The data suggest that justification of past choices may be necessary for escalating commitment.

Rationality in medical treatment decisions: is there a sunk-cost effect?

“…This fi nding supports previous research showing that. personal responsibility increases sunk cost behavior (Staw, 1976;Schoorman and Holahan, 1996) and that the desire to appear consistent -either to others or to oneself -is a powerful motive for behavior (Bobocel and Meyer, 1994); In deciding on medical treatments, physicians must consider not only what is rational -that is, the medically optimal strategy -but also what is socially desirable. Because inconsistency in medical treatment might be perceived as an implicit admission of error on the physician's part, it could lead to a host of undesirable social consequences, such as future litigation and loss of professional respect and opportunities.…”

“…Learning a lesson is especially likely to come into play when one person is making a decision on behalf of another (e.g., a parent deciding what a child should do), as opposed to making a decision for oneself (Bornstein and Chapman, 1994). Consistency is an especially important motivation for sunk cost behavior when decision makers are induced to justify their decisions, either publicly or privately (Bobocel and Meyer, 1994). Similarly, decision makers who feel personally responsible for an original plan's consequences are more likely to display sunk-cost behavior than when someone else is responsible (Staw, 1976;Whyte, 1993;Schoorman and Holahan, 1996).…”

The role of experience on techno-entrepreneurs’ decision making biases

“…4) Escalation of commitment: Allocation of time money, and other resources to the plans that do not have good chances of success anymore. Feeling responsibility for the initial decision, the lack of willingness to begin the decision process all over again, concerns about one's face and credibility among staff and investors and strong wish to justify the initial decision are the main factors causing the bias (Bobocel & Meyer, 1994).…”

When forewarning backfires: Paradoxical effects of elaborating social feedback on entrapment in a losing course of action

“…It followed the paradigm originally developed by Bobocel and Meyer (1994) and modified by Schulz-Hardt, Thurow-Kröning, and Frey (2009, Experiment 2). Participants were asked to take on the role of head of a translation department that has to meet predefined objectives.…”