|
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
|
Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, Vol. 1, No. 2,
175-189 (1998)
DOI: 10.1177/1368430298012005
© 1998 SAGE Publications
Investment Decisions by Individuals and Groups in `Sunk Cost' Situations: The Potential Impact of Shared Representations
Christine M. Smith
Department of Psychology, Grand Valley State University, SmithC{at}gvsu.edu
R. Scott Tindale
Department of Psychology, Loyola University Chicago
Linda Steiner
Department of Psychology, Loyola University Chicago
Past research has shown that individuals prefer to continue investing resources into a failing endeavor once a considerable investment has been made, even when abandoning the project would be more rational economically. This phenomenon has been labeled the sunk cost effect (Arkes & Blumer, 1985). Since investment decisions are often made by groups, we compared individual and group propensities for falling prey to the sunk cost effect. We also varied whether or not individuals and groups needed to justify their investment decision to a superior. Both individuals and groups showed the sunk cost effect. Group process analyses showed that error-prone majorities were more powerful than more rational minorities. In addition, group decisions seemed to be a function of two competing task representations - one favoring the sunk cost interpretation and the other favoring economic rationality.
Key Words: group decision making • shared representations • sunk cost
References
- Arkes, H. R., & Blumer, C. (1985). The psychology of sunk cost. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 35, 124-140.[CrossRef][ISI]
- Bazerman, M. H., Giuliano, T., & Appelman, A. (1984). Escalation of commitment in individual and group decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 33, 141-152.
- Brockner, J., & Rubin, J. (1985). Entrapment in escalating conflict: A social psychological analysis. New York: Springer-Verlag.
- Brockner, J., Rubin, J. Z., & Lang, E. (1981). Face-saving and entrapment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 17, 68-79.[CrossRef][ISI]
- Caldwell, D. F., & O'Reilly, C. A. (1982). Responses to failures: The effects of choices and responsibility on impression management. Academy of Management Journal, 25, 121-136.
- Davis, J. H. (1969). Group performance. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
- Davis, J. H. (1973). Group decision and social interaction: A theory of social decision schemes. Psychological Review, 80, 97-125.[CrossRef]
- Davis, J. H., Laughlin, P. R., & Komorita, S. S. (1976). The social psychology of small groups: Cooperative and mixed-motive interaction. Annual Review of Psychology, 27, 501-541.[CrossRef][ISI]
- Dietz-Uhler, B. (1996). The escalation of commitment in political decision-making groups: A social identity approach. European Journal of Social Psychology, 26, 611-629.[CrossRef]
- Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson.
- Johnson, C. D., Davis, J. H., & Kauma, C. E. (1972). Individual-group risk distributions on choice dilemmas problems: A parametric study. Paper presented at the meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association, Boston, MA.
- Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (1982). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
- Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decisions under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263-291.[CrossRef][ISI]
- Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1984). Choices, values, and frames. American Psychologist, 39, 341-350.[CrossRef]
- Kameda, T., & Sugimori, S. (1993). Psychological entrapment in group decision making: An assigned decision rule and groupthink phenomenon. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 282-292.[CrossRef]
- Kerr, N. L., MacCoun, R. J., & Kramer, G. P. (1996). 'When are N heads better (or worse) than one?': Biased judgment in individuals versus groups. In J. Davis & E. Witte (Eds.), Understanding group behavior: Consensual action by small groups (Vol. 1). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
- Laughlin, P. R., & Adamopoulos, J. (1980). Social combination processes and individual learning for six-person cooperative groups on an intellective task. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 941-947.[CrossRef]
- Lorge, I., & Solomon, H. (1955). Two models of group behavior in the solution of Eureka-type problems. Psychometrika, 20, 139-148.[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
- Nagao, D. H., Tindale, R. S., Hinsz, V. B., & Davis, J. H. (1985). Individual and group biases in information processing. In R. S. Tindale & D. H. Nagao (Co-Chairs), Cognitive factors in small group processes.Symposium conducted at the American Psychological Association Annual Convention, Los Angeles, CA.
- Shaw, M. E. (1932). Comparison of individuals and small groups in the rational solution of complex problems. American Journal of Psychology, 44, 491-504.[CrossRef]
- Smith, C. M., Tindale, R. S., & Dugoni, B. L. (1996). Minority and majority influence in freely interacting groups: Qualitative vs. quantitative differences. British Journal of Social Psychology: Special Issue on Minority Influence, 35, 137-149.
- Smoke, W. H., & Zajonc, R. B. (1962). On the reliability of group judgments and decisions. In J. H. Criswell, H. Solomon, & P. Suppes (Eds.), Mathematical methods in small group process. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
- Staw, B. M. (1976). Knee deep in the big muddy: A study of escalating commitment to a chosen course of action. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 27-44.[CrossRef][ISI]
- Staw, B. M., & Ross, J. (1989). Understanding behavior in escalation situations. Science, 246, 216-220.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Steiner, I. (1972). Group process and productivity. New York: Academic Press.
- Tindale, R. S. (1989). Group vs. individual information processing: The effects of outcome feedback on decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 44, 454-473.[CrossRef]
- Tindale, R. S. (1993). Decision errors made by individuals and groups. In N. J. Castellan, Jr. (Ed.), Individual and group decision making: Current issues (pp. 109-124). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
- Tindale, R. S., Filkins, J., Thomas, L. S., & Smith, C. M. (1993). An attempt to reduce conjunction errors in decision making groups. Poster presented at the Society for Judgment and Decision Making Annual Meeting, Washington, DC.
- Tindale, R. S., Sheffey, S., & Filkins, J. (1990). Conjunction errors by individuals and groups. Paper presented at the Society for Judgment and Decision Making Annual Meeting, New Orleans, LA.
- Tindale, R. S., Sheffey, S., & Scott, L. A. (1993). Framing and group decision making: Do cognitive changes parallel preference changes?Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 55, 470-485.[CrossRef]
- Tindale, R. S., Smith, C. M., Thomas, L. S., Filkins, J., & Sheffey, S. (1996). Shared representations and symmetric social influence processes in small groups. In J. Davis & E. Witte (Eds.), Understanding group behavior: Consensual action by small groups (Vol. 1). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
- Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1983). Extensional vs. intuitive reasoning: The conjunction fallacy in probability judgments. Psychological Review, 90, 293-315.[CrossRef][ISI]
- Whyte, G. (1993). Escalating commitment in individual and group decision making: A prospect theory approach. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 54, 430-455.[CrossRef]
 CiteULike  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Digg  Reddit  Technorati What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
|
|
 
T. Reimer
Attributions for Poor Group Performance as a Predictor of Perspective-Taking and Subsequent Group Achievement: A Process Model
Group Processes Intergroup Relations,
January 1, 2001;
4(1):
31 - 47.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. M. Smith, A. Dykema-Engblade, A. Walker, T. S. Niven, and T. McGough
Asymmetrical Social Influence in Freely Interacting Groups Discussing the Death Penalty: A Shared Representations Interpretation
Group Processes Intergroup Relations,
October 1, 2000;
3(4):
387 - 401.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. S. Tindale and T. Kameda
'Social Sharedness' as a Unifying Theme for Information Processing in Groups
Group Processes Intergroup Relations,
April 1, 2000;
3(2):
123 - 140.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
