Motivation and emotion/Book/2022/Commitment bias
What motivates escalation of commitment even it does not lead to desirable outcomes?
Overview edit
Commitment Bias, also known as the Escalation of Commitment, is the continued commitment to past behaviours or actions, especially those which are exhibited publicly, even when they do not have positive benefits or desirable outcomes (Sleesman, D. J., Lennard, A. C., McNamara, G., & Conlon, D. E., 2018). While it can be difficult to personally identify when Commitment Bias is occurring, it can affect many areas of life and can negatively impact both the physical and psychological well-being of a person who experiences it.
Commitment Bias edit
What is the problem? edit
Commitment Bias can be problematic in that a person would continue harmful or undesirable behaviours due to concern of public opinion or biased attitudes rather than an actual want to continue with the behaviour, regardless of benefits.
Why is it important? edit
Commitment Bias is important in order to identify a real want to continue with behaviour or commitment rather than fear of public opinion, letting someone down, or losing time spent on a venture even if there are no rewards for doing so.
Case study Example: edit
A person who announces to their friendship group that they are going to the gym several times a week to lose weight would continue to go to the gym even if they don't want to go or are becoming unwell doing so.
Social and Behavioural Perspective edit
Investment Model of Commitment edit
An example of a commitment bias is when an individual continues to pursue a failing relationship. According to the Investment Model of Commitment, an individual's level of commitment in a relationship is determined by the level of satisfaction, the perceived quality of alternatives, and the value of investments (Back, I. H., 2010). If the anticipated public or personal backlash and their existing emotional and material contribution to the relationship outweigh the potential enhanced quality of life post-breakup, they might decide to stay to avoid potential further harm (Tran, P., Judge, M., & Kashima, Y., 2019.
Theories edit
Self-Justification Theory edit
Self-Justification Theory describes where a person has the psychological discomfort of cognitive dissonance when a perceived good task or venture is garnering negative feedback or outcomes. It drives the need for escalation of commitment, as it continues a person's engagement with a failing task as their belief is maintained that they will eventually receive the positive benefits of the task (Steinkühler, D., Mahlendorf, M. D., & Brettel, M., 2014) (Schultze, T., Pfeiffer, F., & Schulz-Hardt, S., 2012).
Motivated Reasoning Theory edit
Motivated Reasoning Theory explains that a person will be motivated to pursue an endeavour if they believe that the outcomes will be positive, and form an opinion on the action regardless of whether they have an actual want to pursue the action. Considering that people have a tendency to be biased towards their own beliefs, this affects Commitment Bias as when the perceived versus the actual benefits of an action are left unchallenged, continued commitment to past behaviours occurs (Carpenter, C. J., 2019).
Sunk Cost Fallacy edit
Sunk Cost Fallacy is the tendency to refuse to cut losses or cease involvement with a behaviour after what is deemed to be a sizeable investment is put into the action or behaviour (see Figure 1.). The imagined future rewards of the behaviour or investment outweigh the real losses a person is experiencing from the continuation of the venture (Feldman, G., & Wong, K. F. E., 2018).
Figure 1. Diagram detailing Sunk Cost Fallacy.
How to Eliminate Commitment Bias edit
In order to eliminate Commitment Bias, a person must recognise that consistency is not always the key to success, and there will be times when they must leave commitments that no longer serve them. A positive outlook on starting over with any type of commitment should be adopted. Endings of commitments should be celebrated and not feared or thought of as a personal failing.
- Recognising consistency is not always key
- Making starting over possible
- Celebrating endings
Conclusion edit
When the negative aspects of a relationship or commitment outweigh the positive aspects, having a commitment bias can be damaging. It is necessary for the individual establish an elimination process in order to review existing biases towards the behaviours they engage in and evaluate the gap between the actual and desired outcomes. A positive, subjective, and realistic perspective on commitment to a person or group will ultimately aid decision-making, leading to improved health and well-being.
See also edit
- Escalation of Commitment (Wikipedia)
- Sunk Cost Fallacy (Wikipedia)
References edit
Carpenter, C. J. (2019). Cognitive dissonance, ego-involvement, and motivated reasoning. Annals of the International Communication Association, 43(1), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2018.1564881
Feldman, G., & Wong, K. F. E. (2018). When action-inaction framing leads to higher escalation of commitment: A new inaction-effect perspective on the sunk-cost fallacy. Psychological science, 29(4), 537-548. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617739368
Lee, J. S., Keil, M., & Wong, K. F. E. (2018). Does a tired mind help avoid a decision bias? The effect of ego depletion on escalation of commitment. Applied Psychology, 67(1), 171-185.https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12109
Schultze, T., Pfeiffer, F., & Schulz-Hardt, S. (2012). Biased information processing in the escalation paradigm: Information search and information evaluation as potential mediators of escalating commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(1), 16. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024739
Sleesman, D. J., Lennard, A. C., McNamara, G., & Conlon, D. E. (2018). Putting escalation of commitment in context: A multilevel review and analysis. Academy of Management Annals, 12(1), 178-207. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2016.0046
Steinkühler, D., Mahlendorf, M. D., & Brettel, M. (2014). How self-justification indirectly drives escalation of commitment. Schmalenbach Business Review, 66(2), 191-222. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03396905
Tran, P., Judge, M., & Kashima, Y. (2019). Commitment in relationships: An updated meta‐analysis of the investment model. Personal Relationships, 26(1), 158-180. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12268
External links edit
TEDEd: Decision Making Deconstructed - Understanding the Role of Bias