Escalation in groups: Focus on information sampling

The purpose of this experiment was to examine if groups escalate more than individuals when information is not distributed to all group members. The experiment also attempted to replicate Bazerman, Beekun, and Schoorman's (1992) findings, that participants with high responsibility escalate more than participants with low responsibility. The task was a modified version of the Heeley Store Case (Bazerman et al., 1992). The dependent measures fell into three categories: rewards, appropriateness of layoff/demotion, and forecasted future performance. The results showed little support for the hypotheses. First, high responsibility participants escalated significantly more than low responsibility candidates for only one of the six measures. This may have been due to the fact that all participants felt responsible for their decisions. For the other dependent variables, the effect was either not significant or in the wrong direction. Second, no significant interaction was found between responsibility and decision-making context (individual, groups with all shared information, and groups with shared and unshared information). We then analyzed the data using a measure of felt responsibility as a covariate. The interaction between felt responsibility and decision-making context was significant only for layoff decision. For all of the other measures, no significant interaction was found. One possible reason why our hypotheses were not supported may have been that the groups felt a diffusion of responsibility. Larger groups may have also demonstrated the effects of group processes more effectively. No clear conclusions can be made regarding the influence of information sampling on escalation. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 1998 meetings of the American Psychological Society.