Study on Commitment Escalation Based on the Self-esteem Level of Decision-makers and the Sunk Cost of a Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The phenomenon of "commitment escalation" originated from decision makers, and is part never encountered by traditional risk control theory. The phenomenon of commitment escalation frequently occurs in decision making of an enterprise, which seriously affects cultural establishment and training of core competition of the enterprise. In order to search for explanatory variables of "commitment escalation", authors of this article introduced "self-esteem level" and "sunk cost level" for examination, employed scenario simulation experiment and the analytical technique of contingency table for a statistic test. The research results indicate that, when faced up with the high level of sunk cost, the decision maker is more likely to choose commitment escalation than when faced up with the low level of sunk cost, no matter the self-esteem level of the decision maker is high or low; when faced up with the same level of sunk cost, the decision maker with high self-esteem level is believed to be much more likely to choose commitment escalation than the one with low self-esteem level.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".