Staw

In particular, threat rigidity theory suggests that risk aversion and resistance to change is triggered when performance below aspirations causes decision makers to perceive some sort of danger and threat to the very survival of the firm (Audia and Greve 2006; Greve 2010; Sitkin and Pablo 1992; Staw et al.

This factor also included studies on decision making in situations of risk (Singh, 1986), threat-rigidity effects (Staw et al., 1981) and the aforementioned resource dependence theory (Pfeffer & Salancick, 1978).

(2015), Staw and Hoang (1995), and Camerer and Weber (1999) shows decision makers often place too much emphasis on draft position and sunk costs.

The social pressure to succeed, though very different from the over confidence syndrome mentioned earlier, can lead to a similar process of an escalation of commitment with a focus on external justification (Fox & Staw, 1979; Staw, 1981; Staw & Ross, 1980).

Although prior accounts have categorized sunk cost as a special type of escalation under the control of prior investment (Arkes and Blumer 1985; Arkes and Hutzel 2000; Staw 1976, 1997; Strough et al.

Our estimation builds on Staw and Hoang and on CW in three ways.

For example, powerful (high-power) individuals are more likely to discount negative feedback than are powerless (low-power) individuals (Cho & Fast, 2012), and individuals with a positive self-concept tend to believe that they can overcome the negative aspects of a situation (Staw & Fox, 1977).

To echo others and apply their logic to the STF, a good theory would offer a causal story about the nature of sustainability, as well as on its antecedents, drivers, and consequences (Sutton & Staw, 1995).

Flynn and Staw's (2004) investigation found that charismatic leaders contributed to stock appreciation higher than that of comparative companies, especially during financial difficulties, and their appeals led to higher investment in the company.

The most notable examples of violations to the rational decision making model are the sunk cost effect (Arkes & Blumer, 1985) also considered in terms of escalation to commitment (Staw, 1976; Whyte, 1991) and the Allais Paradox (Allais, 1953; Li, 1994).