Escalation of commitment is independent of numeracy and cognitive reflection. Failed replication and extension of Staw (1976)

• Autorzy: Michał Białek , Michał Węgrzyn , Ethan A. Meyers
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

First demonstrated by Staw (1976), escalation of commitment is the tendency for an individual to increase their commitment to a failing course of action when they are personally responsible for the negative consequences. An attempt was made to replicate this finding and test whether individual differences in numeracy and cognitive reflection could help explain such an effect. No evidence for escalation of commitment amongst the participants was found (N = 365). Participants simply invested more in more promising projects. Also, no evidence was found that numeracy or cognitive reflection predict escalation behaviour. The validity of escalation of commitment behaviour is discussed which suggests that future work should look to explore the boundary conditions of such an effect.(original abstract)

Słowa kluczowe

EN

Organizational commitment

PL

Zaangażowanie organizacyjne

• Czasopismo: Economics and Business Review
• Rocznik: 2021
• Tom: 7 (21)
• Numer: nr 2
• Strony: 5--16

Twórcy

autor

Michał Białek

• University of Wrocław

autor

Michał Węgrzyn

• University of Wrocław

autor

Ethan A. Meyers

• University of Waterloo Psychology

Bibliografia

• Arkes, H. R. (1996). The psychology of waste. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 9(3), 213-224.
• Arkes, H. R., & Ayton, P. (1999). The sunk cost and Concorde effects: Are humans less rational than lower animals?. Psychological Bulletin, 125(5), 591-600.
• Arkes, H. R., & Blumer, C. (1985). The psychology of sunk cost. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 35(1), 124-140.
• Arkes, H. R., & Hutzel, L. (2000). The role of probability of success estimates in the sunk cost effect. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13(3), 295-306.
• Armstrong, J. S., Coviello, N., & Safranek, B. (1993). Escalation bias: Does it extend to marketing?. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 21(3), 247-253.
• Augenblick, N. (2016). The sunk-cost fallacy in penny auctions. The Review of Economic Studies, 83(1), 58-86.
• Białek, M., Bergelt, M., Majima, Y., & Koehler, D. J. (2019). Cognitive reflection but not reinforcement sensitivity is consistently associated with delay discounting of gains and losses. Journal of Neuroscience, Psychology, and Economics, 12(3-4), 169-183.
• Białek, M., Domurat, A., Meyers, E. A. (2021). Decision-making. In: V. P. Glăveanu (Ed.), The Palgrave encyclopedia of the possible. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. https:// doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98390-5_157-1
• Białek, M., & Pennycook, G. (2018). The cognitive reflection test is robust to multiple exposures. Behavior Research Methods, 50(5), 1953-1959.
• Brockner, J. (1992). The escalation of commitment to a failing course of action: Toward theoretical progress. Academy of Management Review, 17(1), 39-61.
• Brockner, J., Greenberg, J., Brockner, A., Bortz, J., Davy, J., & Carter, C. (1986). Layoffs, equity theory, and work performance: Further evidence of the impact of survivor guilt. Academy of Management Journal, 29(2), 373-384.
• Cheng, J., & Janssen, C. (2019). The relationship between an alternative form of cognitive reflection test and intertemporal choice. Studia Psychologica, 61(2), 86-98.
• Cokely, E. T., Galesic, M., Schulz, E., Ghazal, S., & Garcia-Retamero, R. (2012). Measuring risk literacy: The Berlin numeracy test. Judgment and Decision Making, 7(1), 25-47.
• Craik, F. I. M., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11(6), 671-684.
• Evans, J. S. B., & Stanovich, K. E. (2013). Dual-process theories of higher cognition: Advancing the debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(3), 223-241.
• Feldman, G., & Wong, K. F. E. (2018). When action-inaction framing leads to higher escalation of commitment: A new inaction-effect perspective on the sunk-cost fallacy. Psychological Science, 29(4), 537-548.
• Frederick, S. (2005). Cognitive reflection and decision making. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(4), 25-42.
• Friedman, D., Pommerenke, K., Lukose, R., Milam, G., & Huberman, B. A. (2007). Searching for the sunk cost fallacy. Experimental Economics, 10(1), 79-104.
• Meyers, E. A., Białek, M., Fugelsang, J. A., Koehler, D. J., & Friedman, O. (2019). Wronging past rights: The sunk cost bias distorts moral judgment. Judgment and Decision Making, 14(6), 721-727.
• Meyers, E. A., Walker, A. C., Fugelsang, J. A., & Koehler, D. J. (2020). Reducing the number of non-naïve participants in Mechanical Turk samples. Methods in Psychology, 3, 100032.
• Meyer, A., Zhou, E., & Frederick, S. (2018). The non-effects of repeated exposure to the Cognitive Reflection Test. Judgment and Decision Making, 13(3), 246-259.
• Negrini, M., Riedl, A., & Wibral, M. (2020). Still in search of the sunk cost bias. (CESifo Working Paper No. 8623).
• Olivola, C. Y. (2018). The interpersonal sunk-cost effect. Psychological Science, 29(7), 1072-1083.
• Pedell, B., Rötzel, P., & Seethamraju, R. (2017). Information load, escalation of commitment and culture-an experimental study. (Proceedings of the 23rd Americas Conference on Information Systems No. 6).
• Pennycook, G., Fugelsang, J. A., & Koehler, D. J. (2015a). Everyday consequences of analytic thinking. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24(6), 425-432.
• Pennycook, G., Fugelsang, J. A., & Koehler, D. J. (2015b). What makes us think? A threestage dual-process model of analytic engagement. Cognitive Psychology, 80, 34-72.
• Raoelison, M. T. S., Thompson, V. A., & De Neys, W. (2020). The smart intuitor: Cognitive capacity predicts intuitive rather than deliberate thinking. Cognition, 204, 104381.
• Ronayne, D., Sgroi, D., & Tuckwell, A. (2021). Evaluating the sunk cost effect. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 186, 318-327.
• Schoorman, F. D., Mayer, R. C., Douglas, C. A., & Hetrick, C. T. (1994). Escalation of commitment and the framing effect: An empirical investigation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24(6), 509-528.
• Sleesman, D. J., Conlon, D. E., McNamara, G., & Miles, J. E. (2012). Cleaning up the big muddy: A meta-analytic review of the determinants of escalation of commitment. Academy of Management Journal, 55(3), 541-562.
• Sleesman, D. J., Lennard, A. C., McNamara, G., & Conlon, D. E. (2018). Putting escalation of commitment in context: A multilevel review and analysis. Academy of Management Annals, 12(1), 178-207.
• Sobkow, A., Olszewska, A., & Traczyk, J. (2020). Multiple numeric competencies predict decision outcomes beyond fluid intelligence and cognitive reflection. Intelligence, 80, 101452.
• Stanovich, K. E., Toplak, M. E., & West, R. F. (2016). The rationality quotient: Toward a test of Rational thinking. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2008). On the relative independence of thinking biases and cognitive ability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(4), 672-695.
• Staw, B. 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(1), 27-44.
• Thompson, V. A., Turner, J. A. P., & Pennycook, G. (2011). Intuition, reason, and metacognition. Cognitive Psychology, 63(3), 107-140.
• Turpin, M. H., Meyers, E. A., Fugelsang, J. A., Friedman, O., & Białek, M. (2019). Sunk cost bias and withdrawal aversion. The American Journal of Bioethics, 19(3), 57-59.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.18559/ebr.2021.2.2