Presentation presented at the 2014 Ohio Undergraduate Psychology Research Conference at Mount Vernon Nazarene University.

1. Escalation of Commitment in Students Engaged
in Finance-Focused Postsecondary Education
By Angela Cobb
Hiram College

2. Key Points in Research on Escalation of
Commitment
▪ Escalation of commitment: refusal to cut losses in order to reinvest in a failing
endeavor
▪ Escalation of commitment is suggested to be caused by the desire to avoid appearing
wasteful (Arkes and Blumer, 1985).
▪ Regulatory Focus Theory(RFT): Two goal motivations form from the desire to maximize
pleasurable outcomes and avoid painful outcomes (Higgins et al., 2001).
▪ Consistent results when regulatory focus conditions are created both by manipulation
and when created according to natural disposition (Halamish, Liberman, Higgins, &
Idson, 2008).

3. The Current Study
▪ Tested the finding by Arkes and Blumer (1985) that college students currently in finance
classes did not significantly differ from their peers
▪ Specifically focused on college students engaged in finance-based majors in relation to
college students not engaged in finance-based majors.
▪ Predicted that students in finance-based majors would experience less escalation of
commitment overall while students not in finance-based education would experience
more escalation of commitment.

4. Method
▪ 62 total participants after omitting 34 participants for insufficient data.
▪ 34 students in economic oriented majors
▪ 8 in the prevention condition
▪ 26 in the promotion condition.
▪ 28 students not in economic oriented majors
▪ 18 in the prevention condition
▪ 10 in promotion condition.
▪ Recruited online using email and social media. The link to the study automatically routed
participants to one of the two regulatory focus conditions:
▪ Prevention: primed to think about responsibilities and avoiding undesirable outcomes
▪ Promotion: primed to think about hopes and attaining desirable outcomes
▪ Participants consented to the study, provided demographic information, participated in the
priming writing prompt, completed the study, and were provided with a debriefing page.
▪ The questions in the study were designed to be applicable and relatable to college students.

5. Results
▪ 2 x 2 ANOVA
▪ Significant condition x major interaction
▪ Participants not in finance-based majors
were consistent with previous research,
while participants in finance based majors
were the opposite.

6. Summary of Results
▪ It was predicted that participants in a finance based major would have less escalation of
commitment, regardless of their RFT condition. This was not supported in out data,
however a significant interaction effect was found between condition and type of major.
▪ The data did not fully support our hypothesis, but an unexpected interaction effect
occurred.

7. Limitations of the Current Study
▪ Escalation of commitment is not limited to financial situations, so this study’s
findings might not replicate when testing escalation of commitment in non-financial
situations.
▪ Method of randomization and insufficient power.
d = 0.42
5.9
6
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.6
Finance Based Major Non-Finance Based Major
De-escalationofCommitment
Major
De-escalation of Commitment by Major

8. Suggestions For Future Research on Escalation
of Commitment
▪ For future research, it is recommended that a more efficient method of randomly
assigning participants to a condition is used, as opposed to the method of randomly
assigning conditions by a redirecting link that was used as this study. The method used in
this study did not evenly distribute, which lead to a disproportionate amount of
participants in each condition
▪ Also recommend having a measurement of escalation of commitment that is not
confined to financial situations, such as social situations.

9. Importance of the Current Study
▪ The findings of the current study suggest that people in finance based majors approach
escalation of commitment in a pattern that is opposite to the established findings
▪ The interaction between major and priming condition raises some important questions:
▪ Why do people in finance based majors react differently to RFT conditions?
▪ What do people in finance based majors have that makes them react differently to
RFT conditions different from their peers?
▪ Is what makes them react to RFT conditions differently part of the education they
receive in the major, or something else?