The sunk cost fallacy is a well-established phenomenon where decision makers continue to commit resources, or escalate commitment, because of previously committed efforts, even when they have knowledge that their returns will not outweigh their investment. The presented research offers a psychological explanation for why individuals make different decisions in economic decision situations depending on the social situation. The results showed that moral motives matter in economic decision-making and that people infer information about morally “appropriate” behavior in anonymous social interactions from moral cues provided by the situation. In contrast, situational cues were ineffective if a moral motive was already established in the relationship between interacting partners. In addition, we showed that in anonymous social one-shot situations (which are common situations for economic decisions), individuals are susceptible to situational moral motive framing (i.e., cues in the task description). As hypothesized, moral motives influenced decision behavior only in social situations but not in non-social situations. anonymous non-social one-shot interaction) and the moral motive (unity vs. non-anonymous social ongoing interaction vs. In an experiment (N = 94), we varied the decision situation (anonymous social one-shot interaction vs. We proposed that moral motives (which are mechanisms for relationship regulation) actively shape economic decisions in social situations. We examined the question of how “salient others” (i.e., social situations) influence economic decisions. In this article we develop a theory about political foolishness. – This answer is not at all new already Platon and – nearly at the same time – the ancient Indian Bhagavad Gita gave the same response. Secondly, they are based on a lack of phantasy politicians have difficulties in finding new solutions for problems. Foolish decisions are reducible firstly to a low or wavering self-esteem. Why is that so? – In this article we try to give an answer to that question. ” – In surveys about the reputation of professions, politicians normally get low ranks. The Swedish Chancellor in the time of Gustav II Adolph, in the time of the 30 Years’ War, Axel Oxenstierna, said to his son, who was elected for an important political position and had doubts, whether, with his 18 years, he would be able to cope with this difficult task: “If you would know, my son, with what low degree of intelligence the world is governed. Only in politics, in the art of managing a state, nearly no progress is visible. – In her book ‘The March of Folly – From Troy to Vietnam’, Barbara Tuchman said that in the last 3,000 years mankind has made large progress, primarily in science, but also in medicine, architecture, economy, agriculture, etc. The discussion of this foolishness is an introduction to a general discussion of the reasons for political foolishness. The title points to a political foolishness that killed more than 100,000 soldiers.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |