Does change of responsibility reduce escalating commitment? A replication and theoretical extension.

Decision-makers often struggle to terminate unsuccessful new product development (NPD) projects, so that escalating commitment occurs. Although research shows that rational and intuitive decision-making styles (DMS) as well as a decision-maker’s affective state determines the performance of NPD decisions, little is known about their influences on escalating commitment. By applying the affect infusion model in an experimental study, we investigate how a decision-maker’s affective state influence their escalating commitment by focusing on their use of a rational and an intuitive DMS. Our findings, based on 366 respondents, show that a rational DMS is unable to reduce commitment escalation. Surprisingly, an intuitive DMS is able to reduce a decision-maker’s commitment in the case of a positive affect, whereas a rational DMS increases their commitment in the case of a negative affect. Thus, our interdisciplinary research on affect and decision-making extends and contributes to research into decision-making during the NPD process as well as into escalating commitment.

Download Full-text

Don't Mention the War versus Escalating Commitment: Political Party Responses to Military Casualties

Foreign Policy Analysis ◽

10.1093/fpa/oraa003 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 16 (4) ◽

pp. 587-607 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Dieuwertje Kuijpers ◽

Gijs Schumacher

Keyword(s):

Political Parties ◽

Political Ideology ◽

Public Support ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Post Cold War ◽

Change Policy ◽

Escalating Commitment ◽

The Government ◽

The Right ◽

Opposition Parties

Abstract Do political parties change their position when military casualties increase? Several studies demonstrate that once military casualties increase, public support for sometimes even the government itself declines. With this potential backlash, once governing parties are faced with military casualties, do they (1) maintain that intervention was the “right thing” to do and even escalate their commitment by becoming even more pro-military or (2) try to avoid the blame and downplay the issue, i.e., “not mentioning the war”? And do the opposition parties become more negative or more positive about the military? To evaluate this, we measure the position on military issues in parties’ election manifestoes. Our dataset comprises 326 party policy changes in eleven Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries and focuses on post-Cold War military interventions. By using pooled time-series cross-sectional analysis, we find that opposition parties and governing parties respond differently. Generally, governing parties become more negative in their manifesto and opposition parties more positive. We also demonstrate important differences between party families and pre/post-9/11. Our analyses show that whether political parties change policy course once confronted with negative outcomes depends on their position in office, and also the direction in which they change policy depends on political ideology.

Download Full-text