Toward the Reduction of Entrapment¹

Abstract

Entrapping conflicts are those in which decision makers continue investing their resources in a costly or losing course of action in order to justify the appropriateness of already sunken costs. Given the great costs often associated with becoming entrapped, it would seem worthwhile to learn how this decision‐making process can be avoided or reduced. The present experiments addressed this issue. In Experiment 1 subjects participated in an entrapping waiting situation in which self‐focused attention should have been phenomenologically uncomfortable. To test the notion that self‐directed attention would cause reduced entrapment, half of the participants waited in the presence of a mirror whereas half did not. As predicted, subjects became significantly less entrapped in the former than in the latter condition. Experiment 2 studied whether subjects would be less likely to enter a conflict that could later prove entrapping if they were made aware beforehand of the process of entrapment. Half of the individuals in this field experiment were given a brief general description of the process of entrapment, whereas half were not. As expected, subjects were significantly less likely to enter the situation if they had been provided the information about entrapment. The implications of these and other findings are discussed.

When Thinking Rationally Increases Biases: The Role of Rational Thinking Style in Escalation of Commitment

“…Similarly, Staw (1982) stated that “when organizations have experienced losses from a given investment or course of action, they should rotate or change those in charge of allocating resources” (p. 114). Indeed, there has been a great deal of effort devoted to understanding how EOC can be reduced (Brockner, Shaw, & Rubin, 1979; Nathanson, Brockner, Brenner, Samuelson, Countryman, Lloyd, & Rubin, 1982; Simonson & Staw, 1992; Wong & Kwong, 2007).…”

Conflict and Negotiation: Trends and Emerging Issues

“…Teger's (1980) work on the dollar-auction game represents such an approach. Rubin, Brockner and their colleagues have analyzed escalation in terms of what they term "entrapment" (e.g., Brockner, Shaw & Rubin, 1979;Nathanson et al, 1982; Rubin & Brockner, 1975). They point out that situations of entrapment (and escalation) often involve acts that can be seen as both investments and costs by the party.…”

Nowhere to Run and Nowhere to Hide: The Relationship between Entrepreneurial Success and Feelings of Entrapment

“…Consistent with the findings of Brockner et al (1981) and Rubin et al (1980), Sharp (2009) found that entrapment is closely related to an individual"s social identity and that in some cases reducing entrapment requires one to disavow their identity to escape their current situation. Finally, Nathanson et al (2006) argued that entrapment often happens unknowingly and their research showed that if people are aware of the phenomenon of entrapment and how it occurs, they are much more likely to avoid situations where entrapment is likely.…”