Escalation or Modification: Responding to Negative Feedback in Sequential Decision Making

Many public policy problems pose a sequential series of occasions for decision to policy makers. Not infrequently a prior decision results in negative feedback indicating the effects of previous actions are not as expected. How do policy makers respond to indications of a failed course of action? Escalation of Commitment theory suggests that for multiple reasons, the policy makers are often likely to respond with an increase in their commitment to the prior effort. In popular imagery this is the resolve to Αstick with it≅ and Αturn the situation around ≅ by Αtoughing it out.≅ Behind such commitment may be a need for self-justification, the need to avoid the appearance of failure to others, and the resistance to change of those vested with implementation of the existing action. Control theory, on the other hand, expects corrective action in response to negative feedback. First, behavioral modifications will be undertaken and, if negative feedback persists, then cognitive adjustments with respect to goals will occur. Under what conditions is it likely that policy makers will escalate their commitment rather than change course? In the policy arena, politics may play a decisive role. In some circumstances, the requirements for either theory will not be fulfilled. When they are, the role of disagreement or dissent can be important. Such conflict can emerge either from political opposition outside the decision unit or in the form of dissent from minorities within the policy group. The effects of each form of disagreement are likely to push in different directions.