臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

　　承諾續擴乃指決策者在面對負面結果時，反而增加投入資源的承諾與冒著產生更多損失的風險(Staw, 1976)。本研究以大學會計系及非會計系的學生為研究對象，透過受試者間之實驗設計進行研究，探討管理會計知識、決策風險與計劃完成度三變項對承諾續擴行為之影響，以增加對影響承諾續擴因素的瞭解，進而達到降低決策偏誤、提升決策品質之目的。
　　研究結果顯示，三個自變數中，僅計劃完成度有顯著的影響，且計劃完成度愈高，續擴傾向亦愈高。然而，若考慮投資損益金額，計劃完成度的影響減弱了，由此可知，承諾續擴會受計劃完成度以及投資損益金額影響。

Escalation of commitment refers to the phenomenon whereby, in the face of negative consequences, decision-makers increase resource commitment and risk further losses (Staw, 1976). The subjects are the college students of accounting department and non- accounting department. The experimental groups followed a 2 levels of managerial accounting knowledge (sunk cost knowledge vs. no sunk cost knowledge) × 3 levels of percentage of project completion (10% vs. 50% vs. 90%) × 2 levels of decision risk (high vs. low) between-subjects design. This thesis examines the effect of managerial accounting knowledge, decision risk and percentage of project completion on escalation of commitment, which enhances the understanding of resources allocation behaviors. Furthermore, it could help decision makers not only to reduce bias but also to reach higher quality in decision making.
The results showed that among the three variables, only percentage of project completion has significant effects on escalation of commitment. Besides, the higher the percentage of project completion, the higher degree of the escalation of commitment is. However, when taking the amount of investment profits or losses into considerations, the effect of percentage of project completion on escalation of commitment decreases. Therefore, percentage of project completion and the amount of investment profits or losses have significant effects on escalation of commitment.

中文摘要 i
英文摘要 ii
誌謝 iii
目錄 iv
表目錄 vi
圖目錄 vii
一、緒論 1
1.1 研究背景與動機 1
1.2 研究目的 4
1.3 研究架構 5
二、文獻探討與研究假說 6
2.1 承諾續擴 6
2.1.1 沉沒成本效果 7
2.1.2 影響承諾續擴行為的因素 9
2.2 決策風險與承諾續擴 12
2.3 計劃完成度與承諾續擴 12
2.4 決策風險、計劃完成度與承諾續擴 13
2.5 特定工作攸關知識與決策 14
2.6 研究假說 15
三、實驗一 18
3.1 研究方法 18
3.1.1 實驗工作 18
3.1.2 實驗問卷 18
3.1.3 受試者 22
3.1.4 實驗程序 22
3.1.5 實驗變數 24
3.2 研究結果 26
3.2.1 初步分析與操弄檢核之分析 26
3.2.2 決策風險對承諾上升之影響－假說H1檢定 31
3.2.3 計劃完成度與決策風險對承諾上升之綜合影響－假說H2檢定 32
3.2.4 沈沒成本知識、決策風險與計劃完成度對決策之綜合影響－假說H3檢定 33
3.2.5 本章小結 35
四、實驗二 37
4.1 研究方法 37
4.1.1 實驗工作 37
4.1.2 實驗問卷 38
4.1.3 受試者 41
4.1.4 實驗程序 41
4.1.5 實驗變數 42
4.2 研究結果 43
4.2.1 初步分析與操弄檢核之分析 43
4.2.2 決策風險對承諾上升之影響－假說H1檢定 48
4.2.3 計劃完成度與決策風險對承諾上升之綜合影響－假說H2檢定 50
4.2.4 沈沒成本知識、決策風險與計劃完成度對決策之綜合影響－假說H3檢定 50
4.2.5 本章小結 53
五、結論與建議 54
5.1 研究結論 54
5.2 研究貢獻 55
5.3 研究限制 56
5.4 研究建議 56
參考文獻 58
附錄一 實驗一問卷 62
附錄二 實驗二問卷 65

中文部分：
1.林沁梅，2007，會計知識與財務誘因對沉沒成本效果之影響，國立雲林科技大學會計研究所，碩士論文。
2.林舒柔、湯明哲，2007，“企業創業投資中的承諾續擴：認知偏誤觀點”，臺大管理論叢，第十八卷第一期，頁55-80。
3.陳玫諭，2003，沉沒成本現象之探討－實驗研究，國立台灣大學會計研究所，碩士論文。
英文部分：
1.Arkes, H. R., and C. Blumer, 1985, “The psychology of sunk cost”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, vol. 35, pp.124-140.
2.Bazerman, M. H., 1984, “The relevance of Kahneman and Tversky’s concept of framing to organizational behavior”, Journal of Management, 10, pp.333-343.
3.Boehne, D. M., and Paese, P. W. , 2000, “Deciding whether to complete or terminate an unfinished project: A strong test of the project completion hypothesis”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 81, pp.178-194.
4.Bonner, S., and B. Lewis, 1990, “Determinants of audit expertise”, Journal of Accounting Research, (Supplement), pp.1-20.
5.Brockner, J. ,1992, “The escalation of commitment to a failing course of action: Toward theoretical progress”, Academy of Management Review, 17, pp.39-61.
6.Chow, C. W., P. Harrison, T. Lindquist, and A.Wu, 1997, “Escalating commitment to unprofitable projects: replication and cross-cultural extension”, Management Accounting Research vol. 8, pp.347-361.
7.Conlon, D. E., and Garland, H., 1993, “The role of project completion information in resource allocation decisions”, Academy of Management Journal, 36, pp.402-413.
8.Devine, K. and O. Priscilla, 1995, “The effect on sunk costs and opportunity costs on a subjective capital allocation decision”, The Mid-Atlantic Journal of Business, South Orange 31, pp.25-38
9.Garland, H., 1990, “Throwing good money after bad: The effect of sunk costs on the decision to escalate commitment to an ongoing project”, Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, pp.728-731.
10.Garland, H., and Conlon, D. E., 1998, “Too close to quit: The role of project completion in maintaining commitment”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, pp.2025-2048.
11.Garland, H., and Newport, S., 1991, “Effects of absolute and relative sunk costs on the decision to persist with a course of action”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 48, pp.55-69.
12.He, X., and Mittal, V., 2007, “The effect of decision risk and project stage on escalation of commitment”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, vol.103, pp.225-237
13.Jensen, M. C., and W. H. Meckling, 1976, “Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure”, Journal of Financial Economics, vol. 3, pp.305-360.
14.Kahneman, D., and Tversky, A., 1979, “Prospect theory: An analysis of decisions under risk”, Econometrica, 47, pp.263-291.
15.Keil, M., R. Mixon, T. Saarinen, and V. Tuunainen, 1995a, “Understanding runaway information technology projects: results from an international research program based on escalation theory”, Journal of Management Information Systems, 11, pp.67-87.
16.Keil, M., Tan, B. C. Y., Wei, K. K., Saarinen, T., Tuunainen, V., and Wassenaar, A., 2000, “A cross-cultural study on escalation of commitment behavior in software projects”, MIS Quarterly, 24, pp.299-325.
17.Larrick, R. P., R. E. Nisbett, and J. N. Morgon, 1993, “Who uses the cost-benefit rules of choice: implications for the normative status of microeconomic theory”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, vol. 56, pp.331-347.
18.Mann, J., 1996, “The role of project escalation in explaining runaway information systems development projects: a field study”, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA
19.McNamara, G., Moon, H., and Bromiley, P., 2002, “Banking on commitment: Intended and unintended consequences of an organization’s attempt to attenuate escalation of commitment”, Academy of Management Journal, 45, pp.443-452.
20.Mittal, V., Ross, W. T., Jr., and Tsiros, M., 2002, “The role of issue valence and issue capability in determining effort investment”, Journal of Marketing Research, 39, pp.455-468.
21.Moon, H. ,2001, “Looking forward and looking back: Integrating completion and sunk-cost effects within an escalation-of-commitment progress decision”, Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, pp.104-113.
22.Northcraft, G. B., and M. A. Neale, 1986, “Opportunity costs and the framing of resource allocation decisions”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 37, pp.348-356.
23.Schaubroeck, J., and Davis, E., 1994, “Prospect theory predictions when escalation is not the only chance to recover sunk costs”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 57, pp.59-82.
24.Simon, H. A., 1976, “Administrative behavior: A study of decision-making processes in administrative organizations (1st ed.)”, New York
25.Staw, B. M. ,1976, “Knee-deep in the big muddy: A study of escalating commitment to a chosen course of action”, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, pp.27-44.
26.Staw, B. M., and Ross, J., 1987, “Behavior in escalation situations: Antecedents, prototypes, and solutions, In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw(Eds.)”, Research in organizational behavior, Vol. 9, pp. 39-78, Greenwich, CT: Jai Press.
27.Staw, B. M., Barsade, S. G., and Koput, K. W., 1997, “Escalation at the credit window: A longitudinal study of bank executives’ recognition and write-off of problem loans”, Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, pp.130-142.
28.Sitkin, S. B., and Weingart, L. R., 1995, “Determinants of risky decision-making behavior: A test of the mediating role of risk perceptions and propensity”, Academy of Management Journal, 38, pp.1573-1592
29.Tan, H. T., and Yates, J. F., 1995, “Sunk cost effects: The influences of instruction and future return estimates”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 63, pp.311-319.
30.Tang, M. J., 1988, “An economic perspective on escalating commitment”, Strategic Management Journal, 9 (Special Issue), pp.79-92.
31.Thaler, R. H., 1980, “Toward a positive theory of consumer choice,” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 1, pp.39-60.
32.Thaler, R. H., and Johnson, E. J., 1990, “Gambling with the house money and trying to break even: The effects of prior outcomes on risky choice”, Management Science, 36, pp.643-660.
33.Tversky, A., and D. Kahneman (1974), “Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases”, Science, 185, pp.1124-1131.
34.Tversky, A., and D. Kahneman, 1981, “The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice”, Science, 211, pp.450-458 Jan 30.
35.Tversky, A., and D. Kahneman, 1986, “Rational choice and the framing of decisions”, Journal of Business, 59, pp.252-278.
36.Venkataraman, S., 1997, “The distinctive domain of entrepreneurship research: An editor''s perspective”, In J. Katz, and R. Brockhaus (Eds.), Advances in entrepreneurship, firm emergence, and growth, pp.119-138. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
37.Whyte, G., 1986, “Escalating commitment to a course of action: A reinterpretation”, Academy of Management Review, 11, pp.311-321
38.Whyte, G, 1993, “Escalating commitment in individual and group decision-making: a prospect theory approach”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 54, pp.430-455.