The Effects of Feedback Equivocality on Escalation of Commitment: An Empirical Investigation of Decision Dilemma Theory¹

Abstract

The effects of feedback equivocality on escalation of commitment were examined in a laboratory study. Subjects had multiple opportunities to allocate money to market a software product. During the initial phase, subjects received feedback that was of either low or high equivocality. Half of the subjects in each equivocality level were given a standard by which to judge the feedback. In the second phase, all subjects received negative feedback. Consistent with Bowen's ( 1987) decision dilemma theory, subjects who received low equivocality feedback did not escalate allocations, and subjects who received high equivocal feedback escalated allocations. The presence of a standard or goal attenuated escalation. These results are consonant with a dynamic, temporally based account of escalation and are discussed in a synthesis of the literatures in behavior analysis, economics, forecasting, and psychology.

Unraveling equivocality in evaluation of information systems projects

“…Besides their multiplicity, the interpretations might also be in conflict and might indicate a sense of divergence. This state of interpretation is alleged to be induced by particular factors, such as different frames of reference or variability of "feedback data" (Hantula and DeNicolis Bragger 1999). Moreover, interpretations are sometimes connoted with "conveyed meanings" and "perceptions".…”

“…This might occur since decision-makers could have different views toward the degree of importance of particular standards, which could impede reaching a consensus (Bowen 1987). Organizations' vague criteria of success and failure might induce these situations as well (Hantula and DeNicolis Bragger 1999). …”

“…The novelty of the projects might cause difficulties in composing the data and then benchmarking the performance (Levander et al 2011). Indeterminable, lack of clarity, and little data/information are alleged to cause equivocal situations as evaluators/decisionmakers will interpret the situations from vague cues and use that to negotiate the next course of action (Frishammar et al 2011;Hantula and DeNicolis Bragger 1999;Levander et al 2011). We hence propose that: (2) it should focus on a full range of benefits or outcomes, both tangible and intangible; and,…”

“…They demonstrate that escalation is occurred when the information equivocality is high and the existence of standard or goal weakened the tendency to escalate. Equivocality is influenced by a contextual interpretation as the information is seen as neither clearly positive nor clearly negative (Hantula and DeNicolis Bragger 1999). Bragger et al (2003) demonstrate that equivocal information resulted from insufficient goal specificity leads to escalation and persistence.…”

“…Hantula and DeNicolis Bragger (1999) test empirically the effects of low and high information equivocality on escalation. Equivocality is interpreted as a temporal dimension and comprised of uncertainty showed by variability of feedback.…”