| Individuals often face the problem of deciding whether to commit additional resources to a failing course of action. The decision to commit further resources can lead the decision maker into a self-perpetuating cycle of escalating commitment: The more resources that are invested in a failing course of action, the greater the temptation to continue investing in order to vindicate the decision or to justify previous expenditures.;The model proposes that individuals resolve the conflict by considering two main aspects of the alternatives: (a) evaluation of potential gains and losses in terms of a reference point or adaptation level, and (b) subjective probability of success of further commitment.;Hypotheses concerning the likelihood and level of resource commitment after failure were derived from the model and tested in a scenario involving a hypothetical military conflict between two countries. Subjects (primarily Yale University introductory psychology students) made four consecutive decisions concerning the amount of military aid to be committed as the military situation deteriorated.;In the scenario, three variables representing key components of the model were manipulated in a 2 x 2 x 2 factorial design: decision maker accountability (high versus low), the reference point by which territorial gains and losses were evaluated (high versus low), and the stability, or persistence, of the causes of military setbacks (stable versus unstable).;A heuristic decision model was developed which characterizes the decision problem as a series of double approach-avoidance conflicts between two basic alternatives: curtailing commitment of resources (the curtail option), and continuing commitment of resources (the escalate option). In terms of risk taking, the curtail option is certain, or conservative, whereas the escalate option is uncertain, or risky.;In general, the results supported the hypotheses derived from the model. Applications of the escalation model in real-world commitment dilemmas, as well as some limitations of the model, were discussed. |
