Transmission of positive and negative feedback to subordinates: A laboratory investigation.

A review of the literature revealed that superiors were often thought to be poor sources of performance feedback for their subordinates. A study was undertaken to discover if and when delay and upward distortion of feedback occurred. It was expected that feedback to moderately low performers would be delayed longer and distorted upward more than would feedback to moderately high performers. Further, superiors of moderately low performers were expected to anticipate a less pleasant reaction to feedback by superiors and to believe that their subordinates liked them less than superiors of moderately high performers. A 2–2 design was used with the factors feedback vs no feedback and moderately high vs moderately low subordinate performance. 168 college students served as superiors of a subordinate who was a confederate. Ss monitored and rated their subordinate's performance, then those in the feedback condition gave feedback at a time of their own choosing. All hypotheses were supported except the delay hypothesis. (29 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The roles of rater goals and ratee performance levels in the distortion of performance ratings.

The goal-directed perspective of performance appraisal suggests that raters with different goals will give different ratings. Considering the performance level as an important contextual factor, we conducted 2 studies in a peer rating context and in a nonpeer rating context and found that raters do use different rating tactics to achieve specific goals. Raters inflated their peer ratings under the harmony, fairness, and motivating goal conditions (Study 1, N = 103). More important, raters inflated their ratings more for low performers than for high and medium performers. In a nonpeer rating context, raters deflated ratings for high performers to achieve the fairness goal, and they inflated ratings for low performers to motivate them (Study 2, N = 120). (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Employee responses to formal performance appraisal feedback.

Investigated the attitudinal impacts of receiving formal performance appraisal feedback. Based on the suggestion that the feedback that one is "satisfactory" will be disconfirming for many feedback recipients, it was hypothesized that attitudes toward the performance appraisal systems and organizational commitment will decrease and remain lower for those receiving satisfactory ratings, whereas the attitudes of those receiving higher appraisal ratings will remain unchanged. The hypotheses were tested on panels of management and nonmanagement employees (the latter receiving new appraisals 12 mo after their managers) in 2 federal agencies over a 30-mo period using perceived and actual performance ratings. There was a significant and stable drop in the organizational commitment of satisfactory employees after the introduction of formal appraisals, with mixed results for attitudes toward the appraisal system. Findings suggest that potentially negative consequences of implicitly comparative formal performance appraisals can occur for those performing at a satisfactory, but not outstanding, level. (21 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Reducing the performance-cue bias in work behavior ratings: Can groups help?

The authors examined whether the performance-cue bias can be reduced by relying on groups as raters. Study participants (N = 333) were provided with feedback regarding the performance of a workgroup and, after observing the group, assigned to an individual or group rater condition to complete a behavioral rating instrument. Results revealed that when provided with positive (vs. negative) feedback, individuals attributed more effective and fewer ineffective behaviors to the workgroup; however, group ratings were unaffected by the feedback. In addition, feedback biased the decision criteria and false alarm rates of individuals but not of groups. Discussion of when groups may attenuate versus amplify bias in performance appraisal judgments emphasizes 2 key elements--bias magnitude and task perception. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The effects of purpose of appraisal and individual differences in stereotypes of women on sex differences in performance ratings: A laboratory and field study.

We investigated the effects of purpose of appraisal and individual differences in stereotypes of women on the evaluations of male and female ratees in two studies. In Study 1, 52 female and 51 male undergraduate students with traditional or nontraditional stereotypes of women evaluated written vignettes of either male or female ratees. Raters were informed that their evaluations would be used for scale development (experimental purposes) or for merit pay and promotion decisions (administrative decisions). Analyses revealed that female ratees were evaluated less accurately by raters with traditional stereotypes of women than by raters with nontraditional stereotypes of women. Such differences occurred, however, only when appraisals were made for administrative decisions. In Study 2, 810 raters with traditional or nontraditional stereotypes of women evaluated the teaching effectiveness of eight male and six female professors. Analyses indicated that women were evaluated more favorably by raters with nontraditional stereotypes of women than by raters with traditional stereotypes of women. Implications of the findings for sex differences in appraisal, future research, and organizational effectiveness are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Rating format research revisited: Format effectiveness and acceptability depend on rater characteristics.

Rating format research has largely been ignored since F. J. Landy and J. L. Farr's (see record 1980-08528-001) call for a moratorium over a decade ago. Their conclusion that ratings were not affected by changes in scale format was based on research that treated all raters alike. However, individuals differ in the way in which they perceive and integrate information. This article investigates the proposition that differences in rating accuracy associated with different rating formats are contingent on rater characteristics. The study tested the rating accuracy and affective reactions toward performance appraisal of field-dependent (FD) and field-independent (FIN) raters on 4 different performance measures. As hypothesized, FINs were more accurate raters than FDs only when scale formats were holistic, and only FDs' ratings were significantly affected by the level of structure in the scale format. FIN raters were also more confident in their ratings and less frustrated and confused with the rating task than were FDs. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Effects of rater accountability on the accuracy and the favorability of performance ratings.

The authors tested the effects of holding raters accountable for their performance ratings on the accuracy and the favorability of those ratings. Undergraduate research participants (N?=?247) completed an inbasket exercise and observed a videotaped simulation during 2 sessions over a 2-wk period. The simulation presented performance information on 4 simulated subordinates portrayed through videotaped vignettes. True performance scores were manipulated by varying the proportion of positive and negative performance vignettes presented for each subordinate. Participants who were made to feel accountable by having to justify their ratings to the experimenter in writing rated their simulated subordinates more accurately. In another experimental condition, accountable raters who were told their subordinates' previous performance ratings were too low rated their subordinates more favorably than did raters in the same experimental condition who were not accountable. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Do prospective workday appraisals influence end-of-workday affect and self-monitored performance?

The current study uses self-regulation as the basis for a model that examines the influence of three types of workday appraisals (resource, task, and response). At the beginning of their workday, a total of 170 faculty, graduate students, and staff of a university completed appraisal ratings of their anticipated workday tasks, resources, and responses. At the end of the workday, they completed assessments of positive and negative affect and self-monitored performance. Results suggested that resource appraisals of control and skills were predictive of task appraisals of difficulty, threat, and ambiguity. Task appraisals were then predictive of both response appraisals, in terms of anticipated support and effort, and self-monitored performance at the end of the day. Anticipated effort and self-monitored performance were both positively related to positive affect at the end of the day. Anticipated support and self-monitored performance were both negatively related to negative affect at the end of the day, while threat task appraisals were positively related to negative affect. Implications of the results for workplace interventions are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

A comparison of the behavioral rating accuracy of groups and individuals.

Recent efforts to improve the accuracy of performance appraisal ratings have concentrated on individuals, with little attention given to the role groups might play as performance raters. Thus, the goal of this study was to compare the behavioral rating accuracy of groups vs individuals. Using a behavioral checklist, 191 Ss rated the behavior of a police officer individually or in 4-person groups. Ratings were made immediately or after a 5-day delay. Measures of memory sensitivity and decision criteria indicated that in the delayed rating condition, groups remembered the behaviors more accurately than did individuals, whereas in the immediate rating condition, groups and individuals did not differ. However, groups also demonstrated greater response bias, adopting a more liberal decision criterion than individuals. Results suggest that groups can be a help, but they are not a panacea for the problems of rating accuracy. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Common comparison standards: An approach to improving agreement between self and supervisory performance ratings.

This study examined differential comparison standards (i.e., comparative bases for performance evaluation) and their effects on agreement between supervisory raters and self raters within the context of a performance appraisal system. The purpose of the research was to examine differential comparison standards as an underlying mechanism in the traditionally poor correlation between self and supervisor performance ratings. Supervisor and subordinate rater dyads (N ?=?106 dyads) evaluated job performance across 3 dimensions, using 5 different comparison standards (ambiguous, internal, absolute, relative, and multiple). Results support the hypotheses, indicating that more explicit and objective comparison standards produced higher levels of interrater agreement. The implications of these findings in terms of comparison standards being adopted in current research and future performance appraisal systems are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Organization of information used for performance appraisals: Role of diary-keeping.

We designed a laboratory study (N?=?63) to test a series of hypotheses concerning diary-keeping derived from a social-cognitive view of the performance appraisal process. Raters who were given unorganized performance information were expected to store it in memory in patterns consistent with those used to organize diaries. Results supported this hypothesis. Moreover, raters preferred to organize diaries according to ratees, and diaries organized in this way resulted in more accurate recall and performance ratings. This effect held even though raters consulted diaries when making ratings. These results provide support for a cognitive role for diaries, such that they allow raters to impose organization on unorganized information. We discuss implications for research and practice. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Responses to formal performance appraisal feedback: The role of negative affectivity.

This study examined the effects of performance appraisal feedback on job and organizational attitudes of tellers (N=329) in a large international bank. Negative affectivity moderated the link between favorable appraisal feedback and job attitudes. Among the higher rated performers, attitudes were improved 1 month after being notified of favorable appraisal results (Time 2). Improved attitudes persisted 6 months after the performance appraisal (Time 3) among tellers with low negative affectivity but not among those with high negative affectivity. Among the lower rated performers, mean levels of attitudes did not change significantly during the study. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Organization of information in memory and the performance appraisal process: Evidence from the field.

No studies dealing with cognitive processes in performance appraisal have been conducted in field settings, raising questions about the usefulness of this research for practice. The field experiments described here, conducted in 2 organizations, were designed to evaluate interventions that laboratory research has suggested enable raters to better organize performance information in memory: structured diary keeping and structured recall. After these interventions, raters had more positive reactions to the appraisal process, were better able to recall performance information, and produced ratings that were less elevated and better able to discriminate between and within ratees. The implications of these results for practice and for cognitive research in performance appraisal are discussed, along with the limitations of these studies and the problems with criteria for evaluating ratings in the field. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The effect of appraisal instrument on managerial perceptions of fairness and satisfaction with appraisals from their peers.

Examined whether the type of appraisal instrument (behavioral observation scales [BOS], behaviorally anchored rating scales [BARS], trait scales, or using no formal appraisal instrument) affected satisfaction with a peer appraisal and perceptions of fairness. 91 managers, while working in teams on a simulated task, provided one another with feedback. Satisfaction with peer appraisals was higher when BOS, BARS, or no formal instrument (control) was used to give feedback than was the case with a trait scale. Procedural justice was perceived as higher when either BOS or no instrument was used to give feedback than when the feedback was based on a trait scale. Trait scales were not perceived to be an acceptable instrument by peers for assessing their performance. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Some observations of the effects of intertrial interval and delay on delayed matching to sample in pigeons.

Accuracy of delayed matching to sample was studied in 12 Silver King pigeons at different combinations of length of intertrial interval (ITI) and length of delay. When ITI and delay were varied between sessions in Exps I and II, accuracy increased monotonically with ITI and decreased monotonically with delay. Evidence was found for constancy of performance at equivalent ratios of ITI to delay, and percentage of correct choices was linearly related to the log of this ratio. In Exps III and IV, ITI was manipulated as a within-sessions variable. In contrast to the effect of this variable when manipulated between sessions, accuracy improved only from the shortest interval to the next shortest interval and remained constant at all longer intervals. In Exp IV, it was found that performance improved as a direct function of the mean ITI for sessions and that this relation was not affected by the degree of ITI variability within sessions. Findings resemble the effects of temporal variables on autoshaping, and the possibility that some common processes are involved in delayed matching and autoshaping is discussed. (28 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Peer and subordinate performance appraisal measurement equivalence.

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and item response theory (IRT) were applied to determine the extent to which peer and subordinate ratings of managers on a teambuilding skill dimension are directly comparable. Simultaneous CFA in the 2 groups of raters suggested that the 2 sets of ratings are calibrated equivalently, and polytomous IRT methods led to similar conclusions. The results were replicated in independent samples of raters. These are encouraging results for practitioners or researchers who compare ratings from these 2 groups. In addition to presenting the empirical findings from the study and illustrating how CFA and IRT methods of testing measurement equivalence compare, the article shows the unique types of information about performance appraisals that IRT and CFA can provide to researchers and practitioners, with implications for future research. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Effects of subsequent performance on evaluations of previous performance.

Tested the hypothesis that subsequent performance levels would bias the recall and evaluations of a ratee's previous level of performance with 183 undergraduates, who rated 3 videotaped lectures in either immediate or delayed rating conditions. The 1st videotape depicted an average level of performance and was followed by either 2 good lectures or 2 poor lectures. A significant performance level?×?time of rating interaction was found, in which memory-based ratings were biased in the direction of subsequent performance (i.e., when there was a delay between observation and rating, Ss who had seen an average lecture followed by good lectures rated that average lecture more favorably than did Ss who had seen that same lecture followed by poor lectures). It is suggested that raters are biased in favor of recalling behaviors that are consistent with their general impression of a ratee and that subsequent performance may systematically alter the rater's recall of the ratee's previous behavior. (23 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Subjective, physiological, and behavioral effects of threat and challenge appraisal.

The applicability of R. S. Lazarus and S. Folkman's (1984) cognitive appraisal model of stress was examined in 3 laboratory experiments involving the repeated performance of active (Studies 1, 2, and 3) and passive (Study 3) coping stress tasks (P. A. Obrist, 1981). Threat appraisals of upcoming coping tasks were positively related to Ss' self-reported task stress. Cardiac reactivity during active coping stressors was related positively to challenge appraisals and negatively to threat appraisals. Vascular reactivity, however, was related positively to threat appraisals and negatively to challenge appraisals. During passive coping stressors, cardiac and skin conductance reactivity were related positively to threat appraisals. The fractionation of self-report and physiological measures during active coping was interpreted in terms of energy mobilization and effort. The implications for the use of physiological measures as indicators of stress are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Effects of category prototypes on performance-rating accuracy.

Two studies examined whether the accessibility of performance prototypes influences performance appraisals. Pilot studies revealed students used performance prototypes when rating instructor performance. Study 1 manipulated the accessibility of these prototypes and the time delay of performance ratings. Results showed no effect of the prime on rating error and accuracy; however, discrimination accuracy decreased over time and recognition bias became more conservative. Study 2 manipulated prototype accessibility and type of rating stimuli (videotape vs. vignette). Rating accuracy and recall were higher for vignette than videotape stimuli, and only those participants exposed to the vignette exhibited priming effects. Results supported transfer-appropriate processing and implied that cognitive primes may have a stronger effect on performance ratings based on "paper-people" than videotaped stimuli. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)