Deciding Whether to Complete or Terminate an Unfinished Project: A Strong Test of the Project Completion Hypothesis

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes

Volumn 81, Issue 2, 2000, Pages 178-194

  Boehne, Donna M ^a   Paese, Paul W ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI ST LOUIS   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0008847749     PISSN: 07495978     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1006/obhd.1999.2877     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Arkes H. R., Blumer C. The psychology of sunk cost. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 35:1985;124-140.
2. Barrick M. R., Mount M. K. The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology. 44:1991;1-26.
3. Brockner J. The escalation of commitment to a failing course of action: Toward theoretical progress. Academy of Management Review. 17:1992;39-61.
4. Brockner J., Shaw M. C., Rubin J. Z. Factors affecting withdrawal from an escalating conflict: Quitting before it's too late. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 15:1979;492-503.
5. Brown J. S. Gradients of approach and avoidance responses and their relation to motivation. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology. 41:1948;450-465.
6. Conlon D. E., Garland H. The role of project completion information in resource allocation decisions. Academy of Management Journal. 36:1993;402-413.
7. Garland H. Throwing good money after bad: The effect of sunk costs on the decision to escalate commitment to an ongoing project. Journal of Applied Psychology. 75:1990;728-731.
8. Garland H., Conlon D. E. Too close to quit: The role of project completion in maintaining commitment. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 28:1998;2025-2048.
9. Garland H., Newport S. Effects of absolute and relative sunk costs on the decision to persist with a course of action. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 48:1991;55-69.
10. Heath C. Escalation and de-escalation in response to sunk costs: The role of budgeting in mental accounting. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 62:1995;38-54.
11. Krech D., Crutchfield R. S., Livson N. Elements of psychology. 1967;Alfred A. Knopf, New York.
12. Lewin K. A dynamic theory of personality. 1935;McGrawndash;Hill, New York.
13. Miller N. E. Experimental studies of conflict. Hunt J. Personality and the behavior disorders. 1:1944;421-465 Ronald Press, New York.
14. Northcraft G. B., Neale M. A. Opportunity costs and the framing of resource allocation decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 37:1986;348-356.
15. Ryan T. A. Intentional behavior. 1970;Ronald Press, New York.
16. Simonson I., Staw B. M. De-escalation strategies: A comparison of techniques for reducing commitment to losing courses of action. Journal of Applied Psychology. 77:1992;419-426.
17. Slovic P., Griffin D., Tversky A. Compatibility effects in judgment and choice. Hogarth R. M. Insights in decision making: A tribute to Hillel J. Einhorn. 1990;Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago.
18. Staw B. M., Hoang H. Sunk costs in the NBA: Why draft order affects playing time and survival in professional basketball. Administrative Science Quarterly. 40:1995;474-494.
19. Staw B. M., Ross J. Behavior in escalation situations: Antecedents, prototypes, and solutions. Staw B. M. Research in organizational behavior. 9:1987;39-78 JAI Press, Greenwich.
20. Tetlock P. E. Accountability: The neglected social context of judgment and choice. Staw B. M. Research in organizational behavior. 7:1985;297-332 JAI Press, Greenwich.
21. Tetlock P. E. The impact of accountability on judgment and choice: Toward a social contingency model. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. 25:1992;331-376.
22. Thaler R. Toward a positive theory of consumer choice. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization. 1:1980;39-60.
23. Tversky A., Sattath S., Slovic P. Contingent weighting in judgment and choice. Psychological Review. 95:1988;371-384.
24. Whyte G. Escalating commitment to a course of action: A reinterpretation. Academy of Management Review. 11:1986;311-321.