The Efficacy of Third-Party Consultation in Preventing Managerial Escalation of Commitment: The Role of Mental Representations

Avoiding continued investment in poorly performing projects is an important function of management control systems. However, prior research suggests that managers fail to use accounting information indicating that a project is performing poorly to discontinue it; that is, they escalate commitment to the project. We perform two experiments to investigate the efficacy of a potential control mechanism, third-party consultation, in preventing managerial escalation of commitment. We hypothesize that the information-processing objective (i.e., purpose) assigned to consultants influences the mental representations they construct to process and store information, which ultimately influences their recommendations regarding the continuation of a poorly performing project. Results suggest that consultants will not construct mental representations amenable to making high-quality project-continuation recommendations unless they are assigned that specific purpose. Results further suggest that applying additional effort likely will not overcome the adverse effects of having inappropriate mental representations when making project-continuation recommendations. An implication of our study is that third-party consultants likely will not prevent managerial escalation of commitment unless consultants have a specific mandate of making a project-continuation recommendation in mind when they encounter relevant accounting information.

[1]  Daniel Kahneman,et al.  Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability , 1973 .

[2]  M. Snyder.  Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. , 1974 .

[3]  Barry M. Staw,et al.  Knee-deep in the Big Muddy: A study of escalating commitment to a chosen course of action. , 1976 .

[4]  Richard C. Anderson,et al.  Recall of Previously Unrecallable Information Following a Shift in Perspective. Technical Report No. 41. , 1977 .

[5]  Richard C. Anderson,et al.  Taking different perspectives on a story. , 1977 .

[6]  G. Bower,et al.  Judgmental biases resulting from differing availabilities of arguments. , 1980 .

[7]  L. Ross,et al.  Perseverance of Social Theories: The Role of Explanation in the Persistence of Discredited Information , 1980 .

[8]  Edward J. Conlon,et al.  The moderating effects of strategy, visibility, and involvement on allocation behavior: An extension of Staw's escalation paradigm. , 1980 .

[9]  B. M. Staw.  The Escalation of Commitment To a Course of Action , 1981 .

[10]  R. Wyer,et al.  The recall of information about persons and groups , 1982 .

[11]  Rafik I. Beekun,et al.  Performance Evaluation in a Dynamic Context: A Laboratory Study of the Impact of a Prior Commitment to the Ratee , 1982 .

[12]  Steven J. Sherman,et al.  Social explanation: The role of timing, set, and recall on subjective likelihood estimates. , 1983 .

[13]  M. Bazerman,et al.  Escalation of commitment in individual and group decision making , 1984 .

[14]  Michael Gibbins,et al.  PROPOSITIONS ABOUT THE PSYCHOLOGY OF PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT IN PUBLIC ACCOUNTING , 1984 .

[15]  P. Tetlock.  Accountability: The neglected social context of judgment and choice. , 1985 .

[16]  H. Arkes,et al.  The Psychology of Sunk Cost , 1985 .

[17]  G. Northcraft,et al.  Opportunity costs and the framing of resource allocation decisions , 1986 .

[18]  Glen Whyte,et al.  Escalating Commitment to a Course of Action: A Reinterpretation , 1986 .

[19]  D. A. Kenny,et al.  The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. , 1986, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[20]  S. Gangestad,et al.  On the nature of self-monitoring: matters of assessment, matters of validity. , 1986, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[21]  R. Hastie,et al.  The relationship between memory and judgment depends on whether the judgment task is memory-based or on-line , 1986 .

[22]  William Samuelson,et al.  Status quo bias in decision making , 1988 .

[23]  F. Schoorman,et al.  Escalation bias in performance appraisals: An unintended consequence of supervisor participation in hiring decisions. , 1988 .

[24]  T. K. Srull,et al.  Person memory and judgment. , 1989, Psychological review.

[25]  John Dickhaut,et al.  Escalation Errors and the Sunk Cost Effect: An Explanation Based on Reputation and Information Asymmetries , 1989 .

[26]  Z. Kunda,et al.  The case for motivated reasoning. , 1990, Psychological bulletin.

[27]  Derek J. Koehler,et al.  Explanation, imagination, and confidence in judgment. , 1991, Psychological bulletin.

[28]  J. Brockner.  The Escalation of Commitment to a Failing Course of Action: Toward Theoretical Progress , 1992 .

[29]  B. R. Schlenker,et al.  Interpersonal Processes Involving Impression Regulation and Management , 1992 .

[30]  Donald E. Conlon,et al.  The Role of Project Completion Information in Resource Allocation Decisions , 1993 .

[31]  P. Harrison,et al.  IMPACT OF 'ADVERSE SELECTION' ON MANAGERS' PROJECT EVALUATION DECISIONS , 1993 .

[32]  Jane Kennedy,et al.  Debiasing Audit Judgment With Accountability - A Framework And Experimental Results , 1993 .

[33]  Barry M. Staw,et al.  ORGANIZATIONAL ESCALATION AND EXIT: LESSONS FROM THE SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER PLANT , 1993 .

[34]  John P. Meyer,et al.  Escalating commitment to a failing course of action: Separating the roles of choice and justification , 1994 .

[35]  Philip E. Tetlock,et al.  Accountability amplifies the status quo effect when change creates victims , 1994 .

[36]  Paul Harrison,et al.  An incentive to shirk, privately held information, and managers' project evaluation decisions , 1994 .

[37]  Janet A. Sniezek,et al.  Cueing and Cognitive Conflict in Judge-Advisor Decision Making , 1995 .

[38]  Barry M. Staw,et al.  Organizational decision making: The escalation of commitment: An update and appraisal , 1996 .

[39]  Patricia J. Holahan,et al.  Psychological antecedents of escalation behavior: effects of choice, responsibility, and decision consequences. , 1996, The Journal of applied psychology.

[40]  Chee W. Chow,et al.  Escalating Commitment to Unprofitable Projects: Replication and Cross-Cultural Extension , 1997 .

[41]  Donald E. Conlon,et al.  Too Close to Quit: The Role of Project Completion in Maintaining Commitment1 , 1998 .

[42]  Z. Kunda,et al.  Social Cognition: Making Sense of People , 1999 .

[43]  S. Gangestad,et al.  Self-Monitoring : Appraisal and Reappraisal , 2001 .

[44]  Cynthia W. Turner,et al.  Accountability Demands and the Auditor’s Evidence Search Strategy: The Influence of Reviewer Preferences and the Nature of the Response (Belief vs. Action) , 2001 .

[45]  I. Solomon,et al.  Theory and Experimentation in Studies of Audit Judgments and Decisions: Avoiding Common Research Traps , 2001 .

[46]  Reid Hastie,et al.  Content Effects on Decision Making. , 2001, Organizational behavior and human decision processes.

[47]  Janet A. Sniezek,et al.  Trust, Confidence, and Expertise in a Judge-Advisor System. , 2001, Organizational behavior and human decision processes.

[48]  T. Jeffrey Wilks,et al.  Predecisional Distortion of Evidence as a Consequence of Real‐Time Audit Review , 2002 .

[49]  Mandy M. Cheng,et al.  Persistence in Capital Budgeting Reinvestment Decisions - Personal Responsibility Antecedent and Information Asymmetry Moderator: A Note , 2002 .

[50]  Peter Booth,et al.  The Effects of Hurdle Rates on the Level of Escalation of Commitment in Capital Budgeting , 2003 .