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

Białek, Michał; Węgrzyn, Michał; Meyers, Ethan A.

doi:10.18559/ebr.2021.2.2

Abstract

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.

References

Arkes, H. R. (1996). The psychology of waste. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 9(3), 213-224.10.1002/(SICI)1099-0771(199609)9:3<213::AID-BDM230>3.0.CO;2-1
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Arkes, H. R., & Ayton, P. (1999). The sunk cost and Concorde effects: Are humans less rational than lower animals?. Psychological Bulletin, 125(5), 591-600.10.1037/0033-2909.125.5.591
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Arkes, H. R., & Blumer, C. (1985). The psychology of sunk cost. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 35(1), 124-140.10.1016/0749-5978(85)90049-4
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
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), 295-306.10.1002/1099-0771(200007/09)13:3<295::AID-BDM353>3.0.CO;2-6
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Armstrong, J. S., Coviello, N., & Safranek, B. (1993). Escalation bias: Does it extend to marketing?. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 21(3), 247-253.10.1177/0092070393213008
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Augenblick, N. (2016). The sunk-cost fallacy in penny auctions. The Review of Economic Studies, 83(1), 58-86.10.1093/restud/rdv037
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
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), 169-183.10.1037/npe0000111
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
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_157-110.1007/978-3-319-98390-5_157-1
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Białek, M., & Pennycook, G. (2018). The cognitive reflection test is robust to multiple exposures. Behavior Research Methods, 50(5), 1953-1959.10.3758/s13428-017-0963-x
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Brockner, J. (1992). The escalation of commitment to a failing course of action: Toward theoretical progress. Academy of Management Review, 17(1), 39-61.10.2307/258647
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
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.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Cheng, J., & Janssen, C. (2019). The relationship between an alternative form of cognitive reflection test and intertemporal choice. Studia Psychologica, 61(2), 86-98.10.21909/sp.2019.02.774
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
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.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
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), 671-684.10.1016/S0022-5371(72)80001-X
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Evans, J. S. B., & Stanovich, K. E. (2013). Dual-process theories of higher cognition: Advancing the debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(3), 223-241.10.1177/1745691612460685
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
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), 537-548.10.1177/0956797617739368
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Frederick, S. (2005). Cognitive reflection and decision making. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(4), 25-42.10.1257/089533005775196732
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Friedman, D., Pommerenke, K., Lukose, R., Milam, G., & Huberman, B. A. (2007). Searching for the sunk cost fallacy. Experimental Economics, 10(1), 79-104.10.1007/s10683-006-9134-0
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
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.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
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, 100032.10.1016/j.metip.2020.100032
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
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.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Negrini, M., Riedl, A., & Wibral, M. (2020). Still in search of the sunk cost bias. (CESifo Working Paper No. 8623).
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Olivola, C. Y. (2018). The interpersonal sunk-cost effect. Psychological Science, 29(7), 1072-1083.10.1177/0956797617752641
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
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).
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Pennycook, G., Fugelsang, J. A., & Koehler, D. J. (2015a). Everyday consequences of analytic thinking. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24(6), 425-432.10.1177/0963721415604610
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Pennycook, G., Fugelsang, J. A., & Koehler, D. J. (2015b). What makes us think? A three-stage dual-process model of analytic engagement. Cognitive Psychology, 80, 34-72.10.1016/j.cogpsych.2015.05.001
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Raoelison, M. T. S., Thompson, V. A., & De Neys, W. (2020). The smart intuitor: Cognitive capacity predicts intuitive rather than deliberate thinking. Cognition, 204, 104381.10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104381
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Ronayne, D., Sgroi, D., & Tuckwell, A. (2021). Evaluating the sunk cost effect. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 186, 318-327.10.1016/j.jebo.2021.03.029
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
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), 509-528.10.1111/j.1559-1816.1994.tb00596.x
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
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), 541-562.10.5465/amj.2010.0696
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
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), 178-207.10.5465/annals.2016.0046
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Sobkow, A., Olszewska, A., & Traczyk, J. (2020). Multiple numeric competencies predict decision outcomes beyond fluid intelligence and cognitive reflection. Intelligence, 80, 101452.10.1016/j.intell.2020.101452
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Stanovich, K. E., Toplak, M. E., & West, R. F. (2016). The rationality quotient: Toward a test of Rational thinking. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/9780262034845.001.0001
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
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), 672-695.10.1037/0022-3514.94.4.672
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
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), 27-44.10.1016/0030-5073(76)90005-2
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Thompson, V. A., Turner, J. A. P., & Pennycook, G. (2011). Intuition, reason, and meta-cognition. Cognitive Psychology, 63(3), 107-140.10.1016/j.cogpsych.2011.06.001
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
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), 57-59.10.1080/15265161.2018.1563653
Search in Google Scholar Back to article

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

Abstract

Paradigm

My account