What phenomenon best describes an increased commitment to a decision despite negative outcomes?

The phenomenon that best describes an increased commitment to a decision despite negative outcomes is escalation of commitment. This concept refers to the tendency of individuals or groups to continue investing in a failing course of action due to a variety of psychological factors, such as the desire to avoid admitting a mistake, optimism bias, or the accumulation of prior investments (time, resources, etc.). Even when faced with clear evidence that the decision is not yielding positive results, these individuals may rationalize their continued commitment in hopes that conditions will improve.

In contrast, the other options describe different dynamics in group decision-making situations. Groupthink involves a situation where the desire for harmony or conformity within a group results in an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome. Group polarization happens when group discussions lead to more extreme positions than individuals would hold on their own. The Abilene paradox refers to a scenario where a group collectively decides on a course of action that does not align with the individual preferences of its members, mainly due to a lack of communication and assumption about others’ desires. In each of these situations, the focus is not specifically on the commitment to a decision amid negative outcomes, which is why escalation of commitment is the most fitting answer.