The role of modeling processes in the “knee deep in the big muddy” phenomenon

Abstract

Entrapping conflicts are characterized by the tendency for individuals to make increasing commitments to some failing course of action, in large part to justify the appropriateness of previous investments made in that situation. It has been suggested that (1) these dilemmas frequently arise in organizational settings, and (2) whether decision makers escalate their commitment or withdraw from a failing course of action can be affected by a variety of factors. The present four experiments were designed to determine if an individual's degree of entrapment (i.e., tendency to escalate) may be affected by the behavior of a model in a similar situation. In Experiments 1–3, considerable generality was obtained for the proposition that decision makers in entrapping conflicts can be directly influenced by a model. Individuals who witnessed an entrapped model became significantly more entrapped than those who did not. This effect was obtained (1) for subjects and models of both sexes, (2) on measures of both process and outcome, (3) across two different experimental procedures, and (4) when the model was viewed either during or before the time that subjects were called upon to make their decisions. Experiments 3 and 4 delineated several limiting conditions of the modeling-entrapment relationship. Participants did not invest more of their resources in the presence than in the absence of an entrapped model if the model expressed regret rather than pleasure about his behavior. In fact, under such conditions a significant “reverse modeling” effect was obtained, in which subjects became less entrapped in the presence of the entrapped model. The modeling-entrapment relationship was also significantly reduced when the model was unlikable and unintelligent, and thus not an appropriate person for comparison. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed, including the possibility that models may be skillfully employed to help decision makers stop “throwing good money after bad.”