The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Information, Cognitive Biases, and Commitment to a Course of Action
Abstract
Inducing commitment in contributors is an important concern for executives promoting courses of action. In this paper, the author draws on research in behavioral decision theory to develop a model of the process by which executives can encourage commitment in contributors through the promotion of specific cognitive heuristics and biases. An example of the possible uses of information in promoting commitment and a discussion of the ethical issues involved in using information in this way are also provided.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.185.4157.1124 · Cited by 28,810
Knee-deep in the big muddy: a study of escalating commitment to a chosen course of action
Staw, B. M. (1976) · Organizational Behavior and Human Performance · doi:10.1016/0030-5073(76)90005-2 · Cited by 2,061 · cited 1×
“This perspective is shared by Staw (1981). He cited several examples, including the Vietnam War, in which high levels of commitment prevented decision makers from recognizing errors and tended to prolong failing courses of action.”
BackgroundThe Escalation of Commitment To a Course of Action
Staw, B. M. (1981) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.1981.4285694 · Cited by 1,693
Stalking the elusive “vividness” effect
Taylor, S. E., & Thompson, S. C. (1982) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.89.2.155 · Cited by 913
Metadata
- Authors
- Schwenk, C. R.
- Venue
- The Academy of Management Review
- Publisher
- Academy of Management
- Published
- 1986-04
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 298
- ISSN
- 0363-7425 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2108235635
- Cited by
- 303
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 3.07
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
