وعده و خطر خودتأییدی در تعهد محدودسازی

Abstract Drawing on the motivated cognition literature, we examine how self-affirmation processes influence self-justification needs and escalation decisions. Study 1 found that individuals with a larger pool of affirmational resources (high self-esteem) reduced their escalation compared to those with fewer affirmational resources (low self-esteem). Study 2 extended these findings by demonstrating that individuals also de-escalated their commitments when they were provided an opportunity to affirm on an important value. Finally, Study 3 found that affirming on traits that were of low relevance (e.g., creativity) to an initial decision reduced escalation, but affirming on decision-relevant traits (e.g., decision-making ability) ironically increased escalation. Across three studies, using three instantiations of self-affirmations and two measures of escalation, the results highlight the potential benefits and costs of using self-affirmation as a vehicle to de-escalate commitment.

Conclusion In sum, the current research suggests that self-affirmations can be a practical psychological vehicle to help prevent escalation of commitment to failing courses of action. In addition, our results provide a cautionary note for how to establish “face-saving” interventions aimed at helping employees de-escalate their commitments and suggest several strategies by which such interventions may be optimized. If properly implemented, self-affirmation mechanisms could provide an important avenue in mitigating the grave costs to individuals and organizations that result from throwing good time and money after bad.