Public-Sector Context Versus Private-Sector Context as a Mediator of Financial Allocation Decisions

Abstract

This study hypothesized that financial decision makers who felt responsible for previous monetary losses in public-sector conditions would allocate less to their specific projects than their nonresponsible counterparts would. The subjects were 320 undergraduate psychology students; 46% were male and 54% were female. Subjects were given a scenario involving a state agency's employability program with a declining placement rate, and asked to determine which of two sponsors would be the recipient of additionalfunds. The factor of responsibility was manipulated and the experiment was repeated in a private-enterprise setting. Results indicated that in public-context conditions, responsible subjects allocated significantly less money than did nonresponsible subjects, although this was not the case in private-context conditions. The findings suggest differential strategies for guiding allocation behavior in different contexts.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bazerman, M.H. (1983). Negotiator judgement: A critical look at the rationality assumption. American Behavioral Scientist, 27, 211-228.

Bazerman, M.H. (1984). The relevance of Kahneman and Tversky's concept of framing to organizational behavior. Journal of Management, 10, 333-343.

Bazerman, M.H. , Giuliano, T. , & Appelman, A. (1984). Escalation of commitment in individual and group decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 33, 141-152.

Blau, P.M. (1974). On the nature of organizations. New York: Wiley.

Conlon, E.J. , & Wolf, G. (1980). The moderating effects of strategy, visibility, and involvement on allocation behavior: An extension of Staw's escalation paradigm. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 26, 172-192.

Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Fox, F V. , & Staw, B.M. (1979). The trapped administrator: Effects of job insecurity and policy resistance upon commitment to a course of action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 449-471.

Leatherwood, M.L. , & Conlon, E.J. (1983). The impact of setback characteristics on subsequent financial allocations: Escalation and withdrawal propensities. In K. Chung (Ed.), Academy of Management Proceedings '83 (pp. 149-153). Dallas, TX.

Northcraft, G.W , & Wolf, G. (1984). Dollars, sense, and sunk costs: A life cycle model of resource allocation decisions. Academy of Management Review, 9, 225-234.

10.

Schneider, B. (1980). The service organization: Climate is crucial. Organizational Dynamics, 9, Autumn, 52-65.

11.

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, 27-44.

12.

Staw, B.M. , & Fox, F.V (1977). Escalation: The determinants of commitment to a chosen course of action. Human Relations, 30, 431-450.

13.

Staw, B.M. , & Ross, J. (1978). Commitment to a policy decision: A multitheoretical perspective. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 40-64.

14.

Tversky, A. , & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211, 453-458.