Understanding Behavior in Escalation Situations.¶
Staw, B. M., & Ross, J. (1989). Understanding Behavior in Escalation Situations. Science, 246(4927), 216-220.
Cited by¶
2 citations across 2 artifacts.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Primes¶
- Escalation of Commitment
- continue with strengthened monitoring, redirect, exit, or restructure the decision process; (n) a decision-process redesign
This sourceSynthesizes the four determinant classes (project, psychological, social, organizational) into a dynamic model whose forces evolve over time.
Supported in partVerified against the publisher's abstract
Abstract gives the escalation framework (project, psychological, social, organizational determinants) but no recommended-action menu such as continue, redirect, or exit.
“persistence is associated with at least four major classes of determinants: project, psychological, social, and organizational variables. The influence of these four sets of variables evolves over time, forming a dynamic model of behavior in escalation situations.”
- continue with strengthened monitoring, redirect, exit, or restructure the decision process; (n) a decision-process redesign
- Sunk Cost and Irreversible Commitment
- The structural insight is robust: a person abandoning a failed relationship, an organization shutting down a loss-making division, a technology team migrating from legacy systems, and a policy-maker cutting a failed program all exhibit the same pattern—past commitment constraining future choice despite clear forward-looking economic logic, a cross-domain regularity Staw and Ross (1989) document in their review of escalation across business, government, and personal contexts.
This sourceCross-domain review showing that the same past-investment-constrains-choice pattern recurs across business, government, military, and personal-life decisions.
Supported in partVerified against the publisher's abstract
The abstract confirms escalation - individuals and organizations over-committed to losing courses - but does not itself enumerate the business, government, and personal domains the claim lists.
“Everyday observation reveals that both individuals and organizations often become overly committed to losing courses of action; in a sense, throwing good money after bad. More than 10 years of research on this escalation problem shows that persistence is associated with at least four major classes of determinants: project, psychological, social, and organizational variables.”
- The structural insight is robust: a person abandoning a failed relationship, an organization shutting down a loss-making division, a technology team migrating from legacy systems, and a policy-maker cutting a failed program all exhibit the same pattern—past commitment constraining future choice despite clear forward-looking economic logic, a cross-domain regularity Staw and Ross (1989) document in their review of escalation across business, government, and personal contexts.
Verification¶
Does it exist? Confirmed. This work's DOI resolves to a registered record, which fixes its identity. That is all it fixes.
Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 2 of 2 citations: 2 supported in part. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:606ff08cd8d2 · see in the full table