From: Framing and self-responsibility modulate brain activities in decision escalation
Situation | Theoretical arguments | Hypotheses |
---|---|---|
Q1: Whether different brain networks govern escalation and de-escalation decisions? | ||
Escalation Decisions | Prospect theory: Risk seeking (committing more resources) for lose aversion when receiving negative feedback/facing a troubled project [55] Sunk costs: Committing more resources to save prior investment [3] | Neural areas associated with conflict monitoring, self-perception processes, and emotional processing such as the ACC, cingulate cortex, insula and precuneus will be higher in escalation decisions when a person decides to risk further investment in order to avoid cognitive dissonance and restore his or her self-image. (H1) |
De-escalation Decisions | De-escalation process: Using a systematic procedure for conscious deliberation to avoid decision bias [8] | Regions associated with system 2 involved in the inhibition of risky suboptimal choices and learning, namely the inferior and superior frontal gyri will be relatively more active. (H2) |
Q2: What are the effects of responsibility and goal framing on escalation decision? | ||
High Responsibility | Self-justification theory: Escalation decisions for rectifying past losses and attempting to justify earlier decisions when one was responsible for the project or made the prior decision [1] | Brain regions associated with escalation decisions will be more activated when one’s responsibility is higher compared to when it is lower (H3a) |
Low Responsibility | Self-justification theory: De-escalation decisions occur when one was not responsible for the project and did not make the prior decision [1] | Brain regions associated with de-escalation decisions will be more activated when one’s responsibility is lower compared to when it is higher (H3b) |
Positive Framing | Approach-avoidance theory: Escalation decisions occur when the drive to encourage escalation is greater than the restraint to encourage de-escalation. [18] Goal framing effect: Escalation decisions occur when the consequence of escalation behavior is positively framed as gain. [22] | Brain regions associated with escalation decisions will be more activated in positive framing conditions than in negative framing conditions (H4a) |
Negative Framing | Approach-avoidance theory: De-escalation decisions occur when the drive to encourage escalation is smaller than the restraint to encourage de-escalation. [18] Goal framing effect: De-escalation decisions occur when the consequence of escalation behavior is negatively framed as loss. [22] | Brain regions associated with de-escalation decisions will be more activated in negative framing conditions than in positive framing conditions (H4b) |