Contextual effects on escalation processes in public sector decision making

Abstract The present study examined escalation bias in the context of public sector decision making. Four factors were considered: responsibility (high or low), decision alternative (reserve fund or other sponsor), decision framing (positive or negative), and mood (positive or neutral). In contrast to previous research, it was demonstrated that following a setback, some decision alternatives elicited escalation among low -responsibility decision makers. Other decision alternatives elicited escalation among high -responsibility decision makers. This interaction between personal responsibility and decision alternative was also moderated by the manner in which decision feedback was framed. That is, when feedback was negatively framed, the effects of decision alternatives were negated—resulting in allocation patterns consistent with previous escalation research. The study also addressed the potential role of the individual's affective state on escalation. The importance of decision context, framing influences, and individual differences on escalation conflicts is discussed.