Anger, fear, and escalation of commitment

Abstract

Two studies examined how discrete emotions influence escalation of commitment. Study 1 demonstrated that anger was associated with more escalation of commitment than fear in a personnel hiring-appraisal context. In addition, it revealed the mediating effect of risk perception; angry compared to fearful individuals perceived lower risk in their initial decision, which in turn increased the tendency to escalate commitment. Study 2 replicated the pattern of results of Study 1 in a financial decision-making situation. Contrary to conclusions drawn from the results of prior research, the current studies suggest that not all negative emotions alleviate escalation of commitment.

Keywords:

• Anger
• Fear
• Risk perception
• Escalation of commitment

Notes

¹In accounting, a negative value in sales refers to an instance when the sum of sales is lower than the sum of sales returns, allowances, and sales discounts (Williams, Haka, Bettner, & Carcello, 2006).

²In a Neutral emotion condition, participants were asked to write about everyday activities during the last 24 hours (Keltner et al., 1993). One-way ANOVA tests revealed that there were significant condition differences in risk perception, F(2, 62) = 5.09, p<.01, and in escalation of commitment, F(2, 62) = 3.54, p<.05, among the three conditions. The means of risk perception (M=4.83, SD=0.77) and escalation (M=1.98, SD=1.12) in the Neutral condition fell in between those in the Anger and Fear conditions. Post hoc analyses with Bonferroni corrections explored the differences in risk perception and escalation of commitment as a function of condition. Risk perception and escalation of commitment differed between Anger and Fear Conditions (risk: p<.05; escalation: p<.05), but no differences emerged between the Anger and Neutral conditions, nor between Fear and Neutral conditions.

³Originally, the regression model included age, gender, and knowledge of financial decision making as control variables because age, gender (Slovic, 1966; Vroom & Pahl, 1971), and domain knowledge (Fox, Schmida, & Yinon, 1996; Whyte, Saks, & Hook, 1997) are associated with risk-taking behaviour. However, these variables were not significantly related to emotion condition, the perception of risk, or escalation of commitment in the present studies.

⁴When including a Neutral emotion condition, there were again significant condition differences in risk perception, F(2, 67) = 3.55, p<.05, and in escalation of commitment, F(2, 67) = 5.03, p<.01. Replicating the pattern in Study 1, the means of risk perception (M=5.29, SD=0.77) and escalation (M=3.89, SD=2.31) in the Neutral condition fell in between those in the Anger condition and the Fear condition. Post hoc analyses with Bonferroni corrections explored the differences in risk perception and escalation of commitment as a function of condition. Risk perception and escalation of commitment differed between Anger and Fear conditions (risk: p<.05; escalation: p<.01), but no differences emerged between the Anger and Neutral conditions, nor between Fear and Neutral conditions.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Maia J. Young

Order of authorship is alphabetical and does not reflect relative contribution