In a laboratory study, the possibility was investigated that group decision making in the initial stages of an investment project might reduce the escalation tendency by diffusing responsibility for initiating a failing project. Support for this notion was found. Escalation effects occurred less frequently and were less severe among individuals described as participants in a group decision to initiate a failing course of action than among individuals described as personally responsible for the initial decision. Self-justification theory was found to be less relevant after group than after individual decisions. Because most decisions about important new policies in organizations are made by groups, these results indicate a gap in theorizing about the determinants of escalating commitment for an important category of escalation situations. Administrators are often reluctant to make major changes in policy, even when confronted with failure. This behavior is consistent with studies showing that, when decisions fail, people may cognitively distort the negative consequences to make them appear more favorable instead of changing their behavior (Staw, 1974; Weick, 1964). This cognitive distortion can occur when people attempt to rationalize their actions or psychologically defend themselves against an apparent error in judgment. The escalating-commitment literature further suggests that when administrators can move beyond the mental distortion of reality to rationalize past mistakes, they will do so. This rationalization may be accomplished through the increasing commitment of resources and the risking of additional errors. By attempting to justify previous behavior and establish the rationality of a course of action, administrators can become trapped or committed to a failing course of action (Staw, 1981). Although an administrator's efforts to justify prior expenditures can lead to escalating commitment, a decision to stay the course may also be affected by the extent to which responsibility for initiating the failing course of action can be shared. This study was designed to examine whether a decision maker's ability to attribute responsibility to others for making the initial failed decision can affect the tendency toward persistence in error. There are at least two ways that an individual might evade personal responsibility for a failed decision, even after having participated in making that decision. One way is through the improper actions of a third party at whose feet responsibility for the failure may be placed. In this case, a significant decrease in felt personal responsibility for the failure and a corresponding