The Effect of Image Compatibility and Escalation of Commitment on Decision Performance

Abstract

IntroductionSince first introduced by Beach and Mitchell (1987), Image Theory has developed significantly. Many studies have been conducted to support, enrich, and extend such a theory. Examples are Beach and Strom (1989), Beach, Puto, Heckler, Naylor and Marble (1996), Beach, Smith, Lundell and Mitchell (1988), Benson and Beach (1996), Dunegan (1995), Dunegan, Duchon and Ashmos (1995), and Rediker, Mitchell, Beach and Beard (1993). In addition, some other research studies have employed Image Theory in the fields of leadership (Dunegan, 2003), consumer decision making (Nelson, 2004), business ethics (Morell, 2004), and employee appraisal (Pesta, Kass & Dunegan, 2005).Image Theory itself assumes that individuals use three cognitive structures in making a decision (Beach & Mitchell, 1987). They are (1) value image which is decision maker's moral, belief, values and responsibility or something that motivates him or her to take action, (2) trajectory image which is agenda, expectation, and future objectives, and (3) strategy image which is the tactics to achieve trajectory image, including the predicted result.Compatibility of those images (so-called image compatibility) in decision making is crucial, especially when individuals make adoption (initial) decision and progress decision (Beach & Mitchell, 1987; Beach, 1990; 1996; 1997; 1998, Richmond, Bissell & Beach, 1998). Adoption or initial decision making is related to why a decision needs to be taken, what its objectives are and how to do it. It includes screening mechanism and strategy choice. In screening mechanism, each option of decision is evaluated. If it violates some thresholds of value and/or trajectory image, it will be rejected, and otherwise it will be a survivor (candidate for strategy image). When there is more than one survivor, the most profitable one will be chosen (strategy choice). Thus, compatibility image in adoption or initial decision contributes to select the rejection options (Beach, 1998).In progress decision making, chosen strategy (initial strategy image) is evaluated to ensure that the objectives are achieved. This evaluation employs what Image Theory refers to as a compatibility test (Mitchell & Beach, 1990). The compatibility test is a subjective evaluation of progress toward future objectives (trajectory image) based on perceptions of the success or failure of current plans and tactics in strategy image (Dunegan, 1995). Result of that test is noted as low or high image compatibility. Yet, the studies on Image Theory are mostly focused on initial decision and hence the use of such a theory in progress decision making is still lacking (Dunegan, 1995). Consequently, the dynamics of decision making may be overlooked.Richmond et al. (1998) further argued that low image compatibility may be generated from the difference between the current condition and the expected condition (trajectory image). When image compatibility is low, progress decision making may result in different decision from the initial (previous adoption) one (Beach, 1993b). On the other hand, if image compatiblity is high, adoption decision will stay (adoption decision is the same as progress decision). Referring to Brockner (1992) and Staw (1976), this unchanged decision may indicate the existence of escalation commitment. Yet, the connection between image compatibility (and whether adoption decision stays or not) and escalation of commitment has not been empirically explored.Previous research has associated escalation of commitment to negative outcomes (Garland, 1990; Ross & Staw, 1986; 1993; Teger, 1980). Bowen (1987) and Brockner (1992) further argued that such a commitment might be caused by psychological (i.e. self-justification) and/ or rational (i.e. economy, learning process and part of a whole strategy) factors. According to Desai and Chulkov (2009), psychological factors may lead to irrational escalation of commitment, while rational factors may lead to rational escalation of commitment. …