The Escalation of Commitment to a Failing Course of Action¶
Brockner, J. (1992). The Escalation of Commitment to a Failing Course of Action: Toward Theoretical Progress. Academy of Management Review, 17(1), 39-61.
Cited by¶
2 citations across 2 artifacts.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Primes¶
- Escalation of Commitment
- the explicit or implicit point at which the decision-maker would recommend exit if sunk costs and self-justification pressure were removed; (k) identification of counter-forces available
This sourceConsolidating review of escalation determinants and self-justification evidence, with attention to remedies/counter-forces.
Supported in partVerified against the publisher's abstract
The abstract establishes Brockner's review as covering escalation-of-commitment persistence and self-justification, but it says nothing about abandonment thresholds or available counter-forces, so it backs the frame only.
“Escalating commitment (or escalation) refers to the tendency for decision makers to persist with failing courses of action. The present article first reviews evidence suggesting that escalation is determined, at least in part, by decision makers' unwillingness to admit that their prior allocation of resources to the chosen course of action was in vain (the self-justification explanation).”
- the explicit or implicit point at which the decision-maker would recommend exit if sunk costs and self-justification pressure were removed; (k) identification of counter-forces available
- Sunk Cost and Irreversible Commitment
- The sunk-cost effect stands alone as a decision constraint, a distinction Brockner (1992) draws explicitly between escalation processes and the static commitment trap of expended resources.
This sourceTheoretical synthesis distinguishing sunk-cost-driven static commitment from active escalation processes; clarifies mechanisms by which prior investment alone constrains reversal.
Supported in partVerified against the publisher's abstract
Brockner's own abstract ties escalation to unwillingness to write off prior resource allocation, but draws no distinction between escalation processes and a static sunk-cost commitment, so it covers the topic, not the attributed claim.
“escalation is determined, at least in part, by decision makers' unwillingness to admit that their prior allocation of resources to the chosen course of action was in vain (the self-justification explanation)”
- The sunk-cost effect stands alone as a decision constraint, a distinction Brockner (1992) draws explicitly between escalation processes and the static commitment trap of expended resources.
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:bab5749df5d6 · see in the full table