Previous research has shown that decision makers tend to lock into a chosen course of action and continue this decision process even under changing conditions, suggesting alternative courses of action. Prior research has shown that escalation of commitment is quite robust when students are subjects and tasks are unfamiliar. This phenomenon was tested with 60 professional income tax preparers as subjects relying on familiar tasks. Our results are not consistent with the escalation of commitment phenomenon. Researchers should extend our study to other realistic settings to test the robustness of this phenomenon.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AndersonU.WrightW. F. (1988) Expertise and the explanation effect. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 42, 250–269.
2.
BazermanM. H.BeekunR.SchoormanD. (1982) Performance evaluation in a dynamic context: The impact of a prior commitment to the ratee. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 873–876.
3.
BazermanM. H.GiulianoT.AppelmanA. (1984) Escalation of commitment in individual and group decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 33, 141–152.
4.
BrocknerJ. S. (1992) The escalation of commitment to a failing course of action: Toward theoretical progress. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 17, 39–61.
5.
BrocknerJ. S.RubinJ. (1985) Entrapment in escalating conflicts. New York: Springer-Verlag.
6.
CarnevaleP. J. D. (1985) Accountability of group representatives and intergroup relations. Advances in Group Processes, 2, 227–246.
7.
ConlonE.ParksJ. (1987) Information requests in the context of escalation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 344–350.
8.
GarlandH. (1990) Throwing good money after bad: The effect of sunk costs on the decision to escalate commitment to an ongoing project. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 728–731.
9.
GarlandH.SandefurC.RogersA. (1990) De-escalation of commitment in oil exploration: When sunk costs and negative feedback coincide. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 721–727.
10.
GordonM.SladeL.SchmittN. (1986) The ‘Science of the Sophomore’ revisited: From conjecture to empiricism. Academy of Management Review, 11, 191–207.
11.
JoyceE. J.BiddleG. C. (1981a) Anchoring and adjustment in probabilistic inference in auditing. Journal of Accounting Research, 19, 120–145.
12.
JoyceE. J.BiddleG. C. (1981b) Are auditors' judgments sufficiently regressive?Journal of Accounting Research, 19, 323–349.
13.
KieslerC. A. (1971) The psychology of commitment. New York: Academic Press.
14.
KinneyW. R.UeckerW. C. (1982) Mitigating the consequences of anchoring in auditor judgments. The Accounting Review, 57, 55–69.
15.
SimonsonI.NyeN. (1992) The effect of accountability on susceptibility to decision errors. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 51, 416–446.
16.
StawB. (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.
17.
StawB. (1981) The escalation of commitment to a failing course of action. Academy of Management Review, 6, 577–587.
18.
StawB.RossJ. (1987) Behavior in escalation situations: Antecedents, prototypes, and solutions. Research in Organizational Behavior, 9, 39–78.
19.
TetlockP. E. (1983a) Accountability and complexity of thought. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 74–83.
20.
TetlockP. E. (1983b) Accountability and the perseverance of first impressions. Social Psychology Quarterly, 46, 285–292.
21.
TetlockP. E. (1985) Accountability: The neglected social context of judgment and choice. In CummingsL. L.StawB. M. (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Pp. 297–332.
22.
TetlockP. E.BoettgerR. (1989) Accountability: A social magnifier of the dilution effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 388–398.
