This paper reports three studies examining the relationship between the rational thinking style (RTS, i.e. individual differences in relying on a conscious, analytical, and relatively affect-free information processing system) and decision quality in an escalation situation. In contrast to conventional wisdom that rational thinking increases decision quality, but consistent with the predictions derived from the cognitive dissonance theory, results of Studies 1 and 2 revealed that high scorers in Pacini and Epstein's (1999) rationality inventory were more likely to have escalation bias than were low scorers. The results further showed that only the ability component of rationality, not the engagement component, was positively correlated with escalating commitment. Similar patterns of results were obtained for situations when participants were personally responsible for prior decisions (Study 1) and when they were not (Study 2). Results of Study 3 showed that the underlying process responsible for the effect of RTS on the escalating tendency is that RTS increases beliefs in prior decisions, which in turn increases escalation. Implications for our understanding of escalation of commitment, rationality theory, and managerial practices are discussed.Cet article rend compte de 3 études examinant la relation entre le style de pensée rationnelle (RTS i.e. les différences individuelles reposent sur un système de traitement de l'information consciente, analytique et relativement
We develop a theoretical framework to explain why individuals respond differently to dissimilarity from their coworkers. We draw on regulatory focus theory to explore how chronic regulatory motivations cause individuals to view dissimilarity in terms of potential gains or losses. We use this argument to explain the mixed findings in previous research. We also use regulatory focus theory to predict individuals' cognitive and affective responses to dissimilarity, and consequently to outcomes like relationships with coworkers, altruism, conflict in workgroups, and withdrawal from the workgroup. Finally we use regulatory focus theory to explore how situational features like the diversity climate of the organization and whether the focal individual is a token in the workgroup shape their responses to dissimilarity by triggering different regulatory motivations. Taken together our motivational model of relational demography provides an overarching framework for understanding how attributes of the individual and the situation predict how they will respond.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.