Escalation of commitment is best described as continuing a course of action despite negative evidence. Which option correctly names this pitfall?

• A. Groupthink
• B. Collective rationalization
• C. Escalation of commitment
• D. Group polarization

Answer: (C)

Escalation of commitment describes the tendency to persist with a failing course of action even when negative evidence is clear. This happens because people want to justify past decisions, avoid admitting a mistake, or recover sunk costs, and because backing down can feel like giving up on prior investments. In organizations, this leads to pouring more resources into a project, discounting bad data, and resisting a pivot.

The other terms relate to different dynamics. Groupthink revolves around a drive for consensus and suppression of dissent, which can lead to bad decisions but isn’t defined by continuing a failing action. Collective rationalization is a mechanism within groupthink where warnings are dismissed through rationalization, not the ongoing act itself. Group polarization describes groups moving toward more extreme positions after discussion, not specifically the act of persisting despite negative evidence.

So, the behavior described—continuing a course of action despite negative evidence—is best named escalation of commitment.