Deescalation Strategies: A Comparison of Techniques for Reducing Commitment to Losing Courses of Action

Previous research suggests that decision makers have a tendency to become locked into courses of action-to throw good money after bad in dealing with losing projects. The present study directly compared the effectiveness of several deescalation strategies designed to make decision makers more responsive to the available evidence. Three deescalation procedures were found to be most effective: (a) making negative outcomes less threatening; (b) setting minimum target levels that, if not achieved, would lead to a change in policy; and (c) evaluating decision makers on the basis of their decision process rather than outcome. The theoretical and practical implications of each of these strategies are discussed.