When groups receive negative feedback on their progress toward a set goal, they often escalate rather than temper their commitment. To attenuate such escalation, we suggest initiating a self-distancing response (i.e., taking the perspective of a neutral observer) by forming implementation intentions when, where, and how to act (i.e., making if-then plans). Implementation intentions should help groups to translate a self-distancing intention into action. In line with this reasoning, only groups that had added implementation intentions to their goal to make optimal investment decisions reduced their high levels of investment (Study 1) or maintained their moderate levels of investment (Study 2) after negative feedback. Groups that had merely formed goal intentions, however, escalated even when their decision goal was supplemented with self-distancing instructions (Study 1), and they escalated as much as control groups without such a goal (Study 2). Implications for improving group decision making by implementation intentions are discussed.
AydukÖ.KrossE. (2010). From a distance: Implications of spontaneous self-distancing for adaptive self-reflection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 809–829.
2.
BayerU. C.AchtzigerA.GollwitzerP. M.MoskowitzG. B. (2009). Responding to subliminal cues: Do if-then plans facilitate action preparation and initiation without conscious intent?Social Cognition, 27, 183–201.
3.
BazermanM. H.GuilianoT.AppelmanA. (1984). Escalation of commitment in individual and group decision-making. Organizational Behavior & Human Performance, 33, 141–152.
4.
BrandstätterV.LengfelderA.GollwitzerP. M. (2001). Implementation intentions and efficient action initiation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 946–960.
5.
BrownR.CondorS.MathewsA.WadeG.WilliamsJ. (1986). Explaining intergroup differentiation in an industrial organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 59, 273–286.
6.
De DreuC. K. W.NijstadB. A.van KnippenbergD. (2008). Motivated information processing in group judgment and decision-making. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12, 22–49.
7.
Dietz-UhlerB. (1996). The escalation of commitment in political decision-making groups: A social identity approach. European Journal of Social Psychology, 26, 611–629.
8.
FestingerL. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Standford, CA: Stanford University Press.
9.
FurnhamA.BooH. C. (2011). A literature review of the anchoring effect. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 40, 35–42.
10.
GollwitzerP. M. (1993). Goal achievement: The role of intentions. European Review of Social Psychology, 4, 141–185.
11.
GollwitzerP. M. (1999). Implementation intentions: Strong effects of simple plans. American Psychologist, 54, 493–503.
12.
GollwitzerP. M. (2014). Weakness of the will: Is a quick fix possible?Motivation and Emotion, 38, 305–322.
13.
GollwitzerP. M.OettingenG. (2011). Planning promotes goal striving. In VohsK. D.BaumeisterR. F. (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation. Research, theory, and applications (2nd ed., pp. 162–185). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
14.
GollwitzerP. M.SheeranP. (2006). Implementation intentions and goal achievement: A meta-analysis of effects and processes. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 69–119.
15.
HaslamS. A.RyanM. K.PostmesT.SpearsR.JettenJ.WebleyP. (2006). Sticking to our guns: Social identity as a basis for the maintenance of commitment to faltering organizational projects. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 607–628.
16.
HendersonM. D.GollwitzerP. M.OettingenG. (2007). Implementation intentions and disengagement from a failing course of action. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 20, 81–102.
17.
HinszV. B.TindaleR. S.VollrathD. A. (1997). The emerging conceptualization of groups as information processors. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 43–64.
18.
KleinH. J.WessonM. J.HollenbeckJ. R.WrightP. M.DeShonR. P. (2001). The assessment of goal commitment: A measurement model meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 85, 32–55.
19.
KrossE.AydukO. (2011). Making meaning out of negative experiences by self-distancing. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 187–191.
20.
KrossE.GrossmannI. (2012). Boosting wisdom: Distance from the self enhances wise reasoning, attitudes, and behavior. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141, 43–48.
21.
LangP. J. (1980). Behavioral treatment and bio-behavioral assessment: computer applications. In SidowskiJ. B.JohnsonJ. H.WilliamsT. A. (Eds.), Technology in mental health care delivery systems (pp. 119–137). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
22.
LockeE. A.LathamG. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57, 705–717.
23.
MoldenD. C.HuiC. M. (2011). Promoting de-escalation of commitment: A regulatory-focus perspective on sunk costs. Psychological Science, 22, 8–12.
24.
Parks-StammE. J.GollwitzerP. M.OettingenG. (2007). Action control by implementation intentions: Effective cue detection and efficient response initiation. Social Cognition, 25, 248–266.
25.
PinterB.GreenwaldA. G. (2011). A comparison of minimal group induction procedures. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 14, 81–98.
26.
PrestwichA.KellarI. (2014). How can the impact of implementation intentions as a behaviour change intervention be improved?European Review of Applied Psychology, 64, 35–41.
27.
SchultzeT.PfeifferF.Schulz-HardtS. (2012). Biased information processing in the escalation paradigm: Information search and information evaluation as potential mediators of escalating commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 16–32.
28.
Schulz-HardtS.Thurow-KröningB.FreyD. (2009). Preference-based escalation: A new interpretation for the responsibility effect in escalating commitment and entrapment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108, 175–186.
29.
Schweiger GalloI.McCullochK. C.GollwitzerP. M. (2012). Differential effects of various types of implementation intentions on the regulation of disgust. Social Cognition, 30, 1–17.
30.
SheeranP. (2002). Intention-behavior relations: A conceptual and empirical review. European Review of Social Psychology, 12, 1–36.
31.
SheeranP.WebbT. L. (2012). From goals to action. In AartsH.ElliotA. J. (Eds.), Goal-directed behavior (pp. 175–202). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
32.
SivanathanN.MoldenD. C.GalinskyA. D.KuG. (2008). The promise and peril of self-affirmation in de-escalation of commitment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 107, 1–14.
33.
SleesmanD. J.ConlonD. E.McNamaraG.MilesJ. E. (2012). Cleaning up the big muddy: A meta-analytic review of the determinants of escalation of commitment. Academy of Management Journal, 55, 541–562.
34.
SmithC. M.TindaleR. S.SteinerL. (1998). Investment decisions by individuals and groups in ‘sunk cost’ situations: The potential impact of shared representations. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 1, 175–189.
35.
StawB. M. (1976). Knee-deep in the big muddy: A study of escalating commitment to a chosen course of action. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 27–44.
36.
StawB. M. (1981). The escalation of commitment to a course of action. Academy of Management Review, 6, 577–587.
37.
StawB. M.RossJ. (1987). Behavior in escalation situations: Antecedents, prototypes, and solutions. Research in Organizational Behavior, 9, 39–78.
StroebeW.NijstadB. A.RietzschelE. F. (2010). Beyond productivity loss in brainstorming groups: The evolution of a question. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 157–203.
40.
ThürmerJ. L.McCreaS. M.GollwitzerP. M. (2013). Regulating self-defensiveness: If-then plans prevent claiming and creating performance handicaps. Motivation and Emotion, 37, 712–725.
41.
ThürmerJ. L.WieberF.GollwitzerP. M. (2014). When unshared information is the key: Planning to review information improves group decisions. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.1832
42.
ThürmerJ. L.WieberF.GollwitzerP. M. (in press). Planning high performance: Can groups and teams benefit from implementation intentions? In MumfordM. D.FreseM. (Eds.), The psychology of planning in organizations: Research and applications. New York, NY: Routledge.
43.
WebbT. L.SheeranP. (2007). How do implementation intentions promote goal attainment? A test of component processes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 295–302.
44.
WebbT. L.SheeranP. (2008). Mechanisms of implementation intention effects: The role of goal intentions, self-efficacy, and accessibility of plan components. British Journal of Social Psychology, 47, 373–395.
45.
WhyteG. (1993). Escalating commitment in individual and group decision making: A prospect theory approach. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 54, 430–455.
46.
WieberF.SassenbergK. (2006). I can’t take my eyes off of it - Attention attraction effects of implementation intentions. Social Cognition, 24, 723–752.
47.
WieberF.ThürmerJ. L.GollwitzerP. M. (2012). Collective action control by goals and plans: Applying a self-regulation perspective to group performance. American Journal of Psychology, 125, 275–290.
48.
WieberF.ThürmerJ. L.GollwitzerP. M. (2013). Intentional action control in individuals and groups. In SeebaßG.SchmitzM.GollwitzerP. M. (Eds.), Acting intentionally and its limits: Invidividuals, group, institutions (pp. 133–162). Boston, MA: De Gruyter.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
