Search

Escalation of commitment is an important decision problem that occurs across different decision contexts. Recognizing that escalation involves one's effort to achieve some form of a goal, researchers have attempted to understand escalation of commitment as a goal-pursuing activity. Prior research works have suggested that escalation situations consist of (1) an initial goal setting phase and (2) an escalation decision-making phase and have investigated how goal difficulty and goal specificity influence escalation decisions. However, they have neglected the potential role of the goal source in escalation situations. In this study, we aim to advance our understanding of escalation of commitment by examining the relationship between goal source and escalation. Specifically, by drawing on distinct characteristics of escalation situations, we conceptualize a new form of goal source, namely inherited goals, and examine its effect on escalation of commitment compared with self-set and assigned goals that are well-known goal sources in goal-setting theory (GST). We conducted two laboratory experiments and found evidence suggesting that individuals who had inherited goals (i.e., those who did not take part in initial goal setting and did not invest effort in pursuing the previous course of action) are less likely to fall into the escalation trap.

Schools are the most common site to implement evidence-based prevention programs and practices (EBPs) to improve behavioral and mental health outcomes among children and adolescents. Research has highlighted the critical role of school administrators in the adoption, implementation, and evaluation of such EBPs, focusing on the factors they should consider during the adoption decision and the behaviors needed for successful implementation. However, scholars have only recently begun to focus on the de-adoption or de-implementation of low-value programs and practices to make room for evidence-based alternatives. This study introduces escalation of commitment as a theoretical framework for understanding why school administrators may stick with ineffective programs and practices. Escalation of commitment is a robust decision-making bias in which people feel compelled to continue with a course of action even when performance indicators suggest it is not going well. Using grounded theory methodology, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 24 building- and district-level school administrators in the Midwestern United States. Results suggested that escalation of commitment occurs when administrators attribute the underlying causes of poor program performance not to the program itself but instead to issues related to implementation, leadership, or the limitations of the performance indicators themselves. We also identified a variety of psychological, organizational, and external determinants that accentuate administrators' continuance of ineffective prevention programs. Based on our findings, we highlight several contributions to theory and practice., (© 2023. Society for Prevention Research.)

Two potentially costly errors are common in sequential investment decisions: sticking too long to a failing course of action (escalation of commitment), and abandoning a successful course of action prematurely. Past research has mostly focused on escalation of commitment, and identified three critical determinants: personal responsibility, preferences for prior decisions, and decision framing. We demonstrate in three studies using an incentivized poker inspired task that these determinants of escalation reliably lead decision makers to keep investing even when real money is on the line. We observed in Experiments 1, 2 and 3 that reinvestments were more likely when decision makers were personally responsible for prior decisions. This likelihood was also increased when the decision makers had indicated a preference for initial investments (Experiments 2 and 3), and when outcomes were framed in terms of losses as compared to gains (Experiment 3). Both types of decision errors - escalation of commitment and prematurely abandoning a course of action - could be traced to the same set of determinants. Being personally responsible for prior decisions, having a preference for the initial investment, and loss framing did increase escalation, whereas lacking personal responsibility, having no preference for the initial investment, and gain framing increased the likelihood of prematurely opting out. Finally, personal responsibility had a negative effect on decision quality, as decision-makers were still more likely to reinvest when they were personally responsible for prior decisions, than when prior decisions were assigned optimally by an algorithm (Experiments 2 and 3)., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Doerflinger, Martiny-Huenger and Gollwitzer.)

The sunk cost effect describes the tendency to escalate one's commitment toward a certain endeavor, despite diminishing returns, as a consequence of irreversible resource expenditure that has already been made (Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1985;35:124). This effect has been observed in a number of professional sports leagues, wherein teams escalate their commitment toward players selected early in the draft, regardless of performance outcomes, due to large financial commitments invested in them (J Sports Econom. 2017;18:282; Adm Sci Q. 1995;40:474). This effect, however, has yet to be explored in the National Hockey League (NHL). The purpose of this study was to test for sunk cost effects in the NHL, by examining the relationship between draft order and playing time, while controlling for a myriad of confounding variables. Findings from our analyses provide support for the existence of this effect in the NHL, as first-round draftees were given significantly more playing time than their peers selected in the second round, regardless of injury, player relocation, penalties, or on-ice performance outcomes. We offer some plausible underlying mechanisms driving this effect. Furthermore, we suggest the observed effects have valuable implications for NHL talent development, given the importance of playing time on various aspects of expertise attainment., (© 2021 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Escalation of commitment is a common bias in human decision making. The present study examined (1) differences in neural recruitment for escalation and de-escalation decisions of prior investments, and (2) how the activations of these brain networks are affected by two factors that can arguably modulate escalation decisions: (i) self-responsibility, and (ii) framing of the success probabilities., Results: Imaging data were obtained from functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) applied to 29 participants. A whole-brain analysis was conducted to compare brain activations between conditions. ROI analysis, then, was used to examine if these significant activations were modulated by two contextual factors. Finally, mediation analysis was applied to explore how the contextual factors affect escalation decisions through brain activations. The findings showed that (1) escalation decisions are faster than de-escalation decisions, (2) the corresponding network of brain regions recruited for escalation (anterior cingulate cortex, insula and precuneus) decisions differs from this recruited for de-escalation decisions (inferior and superior frontal gyri), (3) the switch from escalation to de-escalation is primarily frontal gyri dependent, and (4) activation in the anterior cingulate cortex, insula and precuneus were further increased in escalation decisions, when the outcome probabilities of the follow-up investment were positively framed; and activation in the inferior and superior frontal gyri in de-escalation decisions were increased when the outcome probabilities were negatively framed., Conclusions: Escalation and de-escalation decisions recruit different brain regions. Framing of possible outcomes as negative leads to escalation decisions through recruitment of the inferior frontal gyrus. Responsibility for decisions affects escalation decisions through recruitment of the superior (inferior) gyrus, when the decision is framed positively (negatively).

Research on escalation of commitment has predominantly been studied in the context of a single decision without consideration for the psychological consequences of escalating. This study sought to examine (a) the extent to which people escalate their commitment to a failing course of action in a sequential decision-making task, (b) confidence and anger as psychological consequences of escalation of commitment, and (c) the reciprocal relationship between escalation of commitment and confidence and anger. Participants were 110 undergraduate students who completed a series of investment decisions regarding a failing endeavor. Results revealed that although a high proportion of individuals escalate through all decisions, the extent to which they escalated decreased with each decision as they were less willing to invest money in the project. Furthermore, as participants escalated, confidence in one's decision decreased and anger increased. Lastly, the analyses revealed that the relationship between escalation and confidence is reciprocal. Escalation was negatively associated with confidence, and confidence predicted escalation in the subsequent decision. These results highlight the importance of considering both the determinants and psychological consequences of escalation of commitment.

Escalation of commitment to a failing course of action occurs in the presence of (a) sunk costs, (b) negative feedback that things are deviating from expectations, and (c) a decision between escalation and de-escalation. Most of the literature to date has focused on sunk costs, yet we offer a new perspective on the classic escalation-of-commitment phenomenon by focusing on the impact of negative feedback. On the basis of the inaction-effect bias, we theorized that negative feedback results in the tendency to take action, regardless of what that action may be. In four experiments, we demonstrated that people facing escalation-decision situations were indeed action oriented and that framing escalation as action and de-escalation as inaction resulted in a stronger tendency to escalate than framing de-escalation as action and escalation as inaction (mini-meta-analysis effect d = 0.37, 95% confidence interval = [0.21, 0.53]).

Background: Escalation of commitment is the tendency that (innovation) projects continue, even if it is clear that they will not be successful and/or become extremely costly. Escalation prevention potential (EPP), the capability of an organization to stop or steer implementation processes that do not meet their expectations, may prevent an organization of losing time and money on unsuccessful projects. EPP consists of a set of checks and balances incorporated in managerial practices that safeguard management against irrational (but very human) decisions and may limit the escalation of implementation projects. We study whether successful implementation of electronic medical records (EMRs) relates to EPP and investigate the organizational factors accounting for this relationship., Methods: Structural equation modelling (SEM), using questionnaire data of 427 doctors and 631 nurses who had experience with implementation and use of EMRs in hospitals, was applied to study whether formal governance and organizational culture mediate the relationship between EPP and the perceived added value of EMRs., Results: Doctors and nurses in hospitals with more EPP report more successful implementation of EMR (in terms of perceived added value of the EMR). Formal governance mediates the relation between EPP and implementation success. We found no evidence that open or innovative culture explains the relationship between EPP and implementation success., Conclusions: There is a positive relationship between the level of EPP and perceived added value of EMRs. This relationship is explained by formal governance mechanisms of organizations. This means that management has a set of tangible tools to positively affect the success of innovation processes. However, it also means that management needs to be able to critically reflect on its (previous) actions and decisions and is willing to change plans if elements of EPP signal that the implementation process is hampered.

Prior studies suggest that people often search insufficiently in sequential-search tasks compared with the predictions of benchmark optimal strategies that maximize expected payoff. However, those studies were mostly conducted in individualist Western cultures; Easterners from collectivist cultures, with their higher susceptibility to escalation of commitment induced by sunk search costs, could exhibit a reversal of this undersearch bias by searching more than optimally, but only when search costs are high. We tested our theory in four experiments. In our pilot experiment, participants generally undersearched when search cost was low, but only Eastern participants oversearched when search cost was high. In Experiments 1 and 2, we obtained evidence for our hypothesized effects via a cultural-priming manipulation on bicultural participants in which we manipulated the language used in the program interface. We obtained further process evidence for our theory in Experiment 3, in which we made sunk costs nonsalient in the search task-as expected, cross-cultural effects were largely mitigated., (© The Author(s) 2015.)

Decision makers often tend to escalate their commitment when faced with a dilemma of whether to continue a losing course of action. Researchers recently began to investigate the influence of discrete emotions on this decision tendency. However, this work has mainly focused on negative emotions and rarely considered positive emotions, to say nothing of comparing the effects of both of them simultaneously. The current study addresses this need by presenting the results of three experiments that examined the effects of four emotions of both positive and negative valences in escalation situations. Experiment 1 investigated the relationships of three trait emotions (hope, shame, and anger) and escalation of commitment. Experiments 2 and 3 examined the effects of three induced emotions (anger, shame, and gratitude) on escalation of commitment in a student sample and an employee sample, respectively. The results revealed that the effects of discrete emotions in escalation situations are mainly due to their associated differences on the appraisal dimension of responsibility that is related to escalation situations rather than their valence. The theoretical and practical implications are discussed., (© 2014 Scandinavian Psychological Associations and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)