Jessica Y.Y. Kwong

Understanding the emotional aspects of escalation of commitment: the role of negative affect.

Despite the importance of understanding the emotional aspects of organizational decision making, prior research has paid scant attention to the role of emotion in escalation of commitment. This article attempts to fill this gap by examining the relationship between negative affect and escalation of commitment. Results showed that regardless of whether negative affect was measured as a dispositional trait (Neuroticism) in Studies 1 and 2 or as a transient mood state in Study 3, it was negatively correlated with escalation tendency when one was personally responsible for a prior decision. This pattern of results is consistent with the predictions derived from the coping perspective, suggesting that people seek to escape from the unpleasant emotions that are associated with escalation situations.

The role of anticipated regret in escalation of commitment.

This research tests the general proposition that people are motivated to reduce future regret under escalation situations. This is supported by the findings that (a) escalation of commitment is stronger when the possibility of future regret about withdrawal is high than when this possibility is low (Studies 1a and 1b) and (b) escalation of commitment increases as the net anticipated regret about withdrawal increases (Studies 2a and 2b). Furthermore, the regret effects in the 4 studies were above and beyond the personal responsibility effects on escalation. This research indicates that people in escalation situations are simultaneously influenced by the emotions they expect to experience in the future (e.g., anticipated regret) and by events that have happened in the past (e.g., responsibility for the initiating previous decision).

Effects of rater goals on rating patterns : Evidence from an experimental field study

The goal-based perspective of performance appraisals suggests that raters who pursue different goals give different performance ratings. Yet previous studies have not provided strong empirical evidence that there are different impacts of different goals on mean rating and discriminability, nor have they provided evidence of a goal-rating causality. The authors extend the literature by manipulating rater goals in the context of peer evaluations of graded group projects with a sample of 104 undergraduate students. They find that (a) pursuing a harmony goal increased mean rating and decreased discriminability, and (b) pursuing a fairness goal increased mean rating and decreased discriminability when the group projects had not ended and increased mean rating but did not change discriminability when the group projects had ended.

The roles of rater goals and ratee performance levels in the distortion of performance ratings.

The goal-directed perspective of performance appraisal suggests that raters with different goals will give different ratings. Considering the performance level as an important contextual factor, we conducted 2 studies in a peer rating context and in a nonpeer rating context and found that raters do use different rating tactics to achieve specific goals. Raters inflated their peer ratings under the harmony, fairness, and motivating goal conditions (Study 1, N = 103). More important, raters inflated their ratings more for low performers than for high and medium performers. In a nonpeer rating context, raters deflated ratings for high performers to achieve the fairness goal, and they inflated ratings for low performers to motivate them (Study 2, N = 120).

Human resource management practices in international joint ventures in mainland China: a justice analysis

Abstract International joint ventures (IJVs) now abound in mainland China and have become a driving force of its economic development. However, because of differences in national culture and social institutional arrangements, Chinese and foreign partners often regard different human resource management practices as fair. This article reviews the major human resource functions in IJVs: recruitment, compensations, performance appraisal, training and development, and exit. The sources of disagreement between the Chinese partner and the foreign partner in each of these human resource practices are analyzed from a justice perspective. Our review shows that the Chinese and the foreign partners often diverge on what constitutes a legitimate justice rule and criteria upon which these rules are applied. Directions for future research and applied implications are discussed.

Clinical validation of the Chinese Personality Assessment Inventory.

The clinical validity of the Chinese Personality Assessment Inventory (CPAI; F. M. Cheung, K. Leung, et al., 1996) was examined in 2 studies involving a group of 167 male prisoners in Hong Kong and a group of 339 psychiatric patients in China. Elevated scores on the clinical scales were obtained for the clinical samples. Logistic regression analyses confirmed that the CPAI scales were useful in differentiating between male prisoner and the Hong Kong male normative sample and between psychiatric patients and a random sample of normal adults in China. Multivariate analyses of variance results showed significant differences on the CPAI clinical scales and personality scales among subgroups of psychiatric patients with diagnoses of bipolar, schizophrenic, and neurotic disorders. The usefulness of an indigenous personality inventory is discussed.

Prediction of performance facets using specific personality traits in the Chinese context

Abstract Recent research has shown that the contextual domain of job performance could be divided into an interpersonal and a personal facet. This study examined how personality variables relate differentially to these two distinct facets. Supervisory-level employees ( N =187) completed the Chinese Personality Assessment Inventory (CPAI, Cheung et al., 1996 ) and provided their recent performance appraisal records. Results indicated that personality traits that relate to interpersonal orientation (e.g., Harmony and Leadership in the CPAI) better predict interpersonal versus personal contextual behaviors, whereas a trait associated with personal virtues such as moral obligation and loyalty to group (e.g., CPAI’s Veraciousness) predicts the personal but not the interpersonal domain. These results extend previous research findings that personality variables are valid predictors of the contextual domain of job performance, and demonstrate that the same personality variable differs in levels of predictive validity depending on the foci of the contextual behaviors.

Between-Individual Comparisons in Performance Evaluation: A Perspective from Prospect Theory

This article examines how between-individual comparisons influence performance evaluations in rating tasks. The authors demonstrated a systematic change in the perceived difference across ratees as a result of changing the way performance information is expressed. Study 1 found that perceived performance difference between 2 individuals was greater when their objective performance levels were presented with small numbers (e.g., absence rates of 2% vs. 5%) than when they were presented with large numbers (e.g., attendance rates of 98% vs. 95%). Extending this finding to situations involving trade-offs between multiple performance attributes across ratees, Study 2 showed that the relative preference for 1 ratee over another actually reversed when the presentation format of the performance information changed. The authors draw upon prospect theory to offer a theoretical framework describing the between-individual comparison aspect of performance evaluation.

Fair or Not Fair? The Effects of Numerical Framing on the Perceived Justice of Outcomes

The authors draw on prospect theory and demonstrate that the perceived justice of an outcome is affected by the way numerical information is presented. Three experimental studies were conducted using five different samples, representing teachers, general employees, and future employees. People generally tend to see a bigger difference in the performance between the self versus another person when their performance components are presented in frames associated with small numbers (e.g., absence rate of 3% vs. 9%) than when they are presented in frames associated with large numbers (e.g., attendance rate of 97% vs. 91%). Despite the same objective performance difference (e.g., 6% in the above example), people expected different fair shares of rewards and evaluated justice of a given outcome differently across the two frames.

Reducing and exaggerating escalation of commitment by option partitioning.

Options under escalation situations can be presented as a general class (e.g., investing in electronic products) or be partitioned into disjunctive suboptions within that class (e.g., investing in MP3 players, portable TV game consoles, and other electronic products). Drawing from the theoretical bases of partition priming and mental accounting, this research found support from 4 experiments that (a) a decision makers commitment to a failing course of action is exaggerated when the escalation options are partitioned into multiple suboptions, whereas such commitment is reduced when the alternative options are portioned into suboptions, and (b) these partitioning effects are mediated by the subjective utility, including subjective values and probability, of the escalation option.