The Effects of Individual Differences and Anonymity on Commitment to Decisions: Preliminary Evidence
Title:The effects of individual differences and anonymity on commitment to decisions: preliminary evidence
Author(s):Alan Monk and V. Srinivasan Rao
Source:The Journal of Social Psychology. 139.4 (Aug. 1999): p496.
Document Type:Article
Abstract:
This study examined the effects of inner-motivation, other-motivation, and anonymity on escalation to commitment, by using an extended version of Staw's financial allocation task (B. M. Staw, 1976). Participants' inner-motivation and other-motivation were measured with scales created for this study. Participants were told there would be a group discussion and that they would have to make decisions. Their escalations to commitment might have occurred in anticipation of having to justify their decisions to others. Other-motivation was correlated positively with initial commitment. Final commitment was negatively correlated with participants'inner-motivation. It is possible that once the neutral views of the others became known, the participants adjusted their commitments to reflect their inner-motivation. Anonymity did not affect commitment.
Researchers have examined the reasons that decision makers remain committed or even increase their levels of commitment in escalation situations (Bazerman, Giuliano, & Appelman, 1984; Conlon & Wolf, 1980; Staw, 1976). According to Staw and Ross (1987), escalation situations are "predicaments where costs are suffered in a course of action, where there is an opportunity to withdraw or persist, and where the consequences of persistence and withdrawal are uncertain" (p. 40). Studies of escalation situations have demonstrated that higher levels of personal responsibility for a business investment decision that resulted in a financial setback were correlated with higher levels of commitment to the original course of action. However, the level of responsibility explained only approximately 20% of the variance in commitment (Bazerman et al., 1984; Staw, 1976). Evidently, there are
Author(s):Alan Monk and V. Srinivasan Rao
Source:The Journal of Social Psychology. 139.4 (Aug. 1999): p496.
Document Type:Article
Abstract:
This study examined the effects of inner-motivation, other-motivation, and anonymity on escalation to commitment, by using an extended version of Staw's financial allocation task (B. M. Staw, 1976). Participants' inner-motivation and other-motivation were measured with scales created for this study. Participants were told there would be a group discussion and that they would have to make decisions. Their escalations to commitment might have occurred in anticipation of having to justify their decisions to others. Other-motivation was correlated positively with initial commitment. Final commitment was negatively correlated with participants'inner-motivation. It is possible that once the neutral views of the others became known, the participants adjusted their commitments to reflect their inner-motivation. Anonymity did not affect commitment.
Researchers have examined the reasons that decision makers remain committed or even increase their levels of commitment in escalation situations (Bazerman, Giuliano, & Appelman, 1984; Conlon & Wolf, 1980; Staw, 1976). According to Staw and Ross (1987), escalation situations are "predicaments where costs are suffered in a course of action, where there is an opportunity to withdraw or persist, and where the consequences of persistence and withdrawal are uncertain" (p. 40). Studies of escalation situations have demonstrated that higher levels of personal responsibility for a business investment decision that resulted in a financial setback were correlated with higher levels of commitment to the original course of action. However, the level of responsibility explained only approximately 20% of the variance in commitment (Bazerman et al., 1984; Staw, 1976). Evidently, there are