Effects of previous performance on evaluations of present performance.

In Study 1, 82 undergraduates viewed 3 videotaped lectures presented by the same lecturer. Ss in the good-performance condition viewed 2 good lectures, followed by a lecture of average quality. Ss in the poor-performance condition viewed 2 poor lectures, followed by the same average lecture. Results show significant contrast effects both for ratings of the frequency of several critical behaviors and for performance evaluations. Ss in the poor-performance condition assigned more favorable behavior ratings and higher performance evaluation ratings to the 3rd (average) lecture than did Ss in the good-performance condition. In Study 2, 71 Ss were used to test the hypothesis that memory biases were responsible for the contrast effects observed in Study 1. Ss viewed the same videotapes but rated the 3rd tape from memory the day after viewing the tape. Results show weak, nonsignificant contrast effects, suggesting that memory biases were not sufficient to explain the results of Study 1. (45 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Behavioral anchors as a source of bias in rating.

Behavioral anchors may affect the way that raters process information about ratees, and may in some cases be a source of bias in rating. This study tested the hypothesis that the presence of behavioral anchors that closely matched behaviors actually observed by raters would bias performance ratings. Subjects (N?=?180) viewed videotaped lectures and rated them, using scales that contained examples of either good or bad performance that had actually occurred on the tapes, but that were not representative of the ratee's overall performance. One half of the subjects read the scales before viewing the lectures; the remaining subjects read the scales only after viewing the lectures. There was a significant scale effect, but no Scale?×?Order interaction; ratings were biased in the direction of unrepresentative anchors. These results suggest that behavioral anchors can be a source of bias in ratings and they may lead to biased recall, but they probably do not bias the observation and encoding of ratee behavior. Our results suggest that behaviorally anchored scales are not necessarily more objective or less prone to bias than are scales without behavioral anchors. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Context effects in performance appraisal: A methodological critique and empirical study.

The standard design used in research on assimilation and contrast effects in performance appraisal suffers from methodological flaws that preclude unambiguous interpretation of experimental results. This standard design is compared with two other designs that provide more appropriate tests of context effects (D. A. Kravitz and W. K. Balzer, 1990). 123 undergraduates rated a videotaped lecture of average quality after rating (1) 2 videotapes depicting good lectures, (2) 2 videotapes depicting poor lectures, or (3) no other videotapes. Half the Ss had rated the target videotape 1 wk earlier. Analyses of the standard design implied contrast effects. Analyses of the alternative designs revealed problems with the positive context manipulation, assimilation effects in the positive context, contrast effects in the negative context, and pretest effects. It is recommended that the standard design not be used. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Effect of prior performance information on ratings of present performance: Contrast versus assimilation revisited.

Examined the effects of knowledge of a ratee's prior performance on evaluations of present performance. Subjects received knowledge of either good or poor prior performances and then viewed and rated a videotape depicting average performance. In Study 1, some subjects received knowledge of the ratee's prior performance by directly viewing videotapes of good or poor ratee behavior, whereas others only reviewed written performance ratings completed by those subjects who had actually viewed the ratee. A contrast effect occurred when knowledge of prior performance was obtained by observing ratee behavior, but an assimilation effect occurred when knowledge of prior performance was obtained by reviewing performance ratings. In Study 2, subjects viewed videotapes of good or poor performances prior to viewing an average performance by the same ratee. However, the separate ratee performances were observed over a more realistic time interval than that used in Study 1 (3 weeks vs. 1 h). No significant contrast effects were observed. In Study 3, subjects reviewed written ratings of prior performances before viewing an average videotape. Subjects who reviewed extremely good (or poor) prior performance ratings provided more extreme ratings of the "average" performance than did subjects who reviewed less extreme ratings. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Do behavioral observation scales measure observation?

G. Latham and K. Wexley (see record 1980-02200-001) have claimed that behavioral observation scales (BOS) pose a simpler task for the rater than do either behaviorally anchored rating scales or graphic rating scales; with BOS, the rater need only observe and record behavior and need not make complex judgments about performance. Research on person memory suggests that recall for behaviors is structured by the same trait inferences and judgments that BOS are designed to avoid. In 2 experiments, 91 undergraduates rated videotaped lectures; data from the 1st experiment were used to construct BOS measuring clarity and speaking style. In the 2nd experiment, Ss used the BOS and a graphic rating scale to rate videotaped lectures in immediate and delayed rating conditions. As expected, the correlations between BOS ratings and judgmental ratings of performance were stronger when demands were placed on rater's recall. It is suggested that recall of behaviors is determined by the degree to which certain behaviors are representative of general judgments made about Ss being rated, and that BOS measure traitlike judgments rather than behavioral observation. (27 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Effects of instructor-delivered sequential evaluative feedback upon student's subsequent classroom-related performance and instructor ratings.

128 college students were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 instructor-delivered evaluative feedback conditions (uniformly positive, uniformly negative, negative-to-positive, or positive-to-negative). Expectations for subsequent performance were effectively manipulated by false evaluative feedback. Ss then listened to an audiotaped lecture, after which they took an exam on the lecture (the performance measure). Finally, Ss rated the instructor who gave the audiotaped lecture. The instructor-delivered evaluative feedback manipulation had a significant effect on the Ss' performance and ratings of the instructor, such that performance was better and ratings of the instructor were higher in the uniformly positive condition, followed, respectively, by the negative-to-positive, positive-to-negative, and uniformly negative conditions. (22 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Immediate and delayed primacy and recency effects in performance evaluation.

Serial position of a single poor or good performance was manipulated in a series of average performances to examine its effect on performance ratings. In Study 1, 333 undergraduate Ss viewed four videotaped lectures in one session. Overall performance ratings showed a recency effect when good performance occurred last. In Study 2, 208 Ss made observations over 4 days. The recency effect was significant when poor performance occurred last. Interpretation of results was based on (a) the attention decrement hypothesis, which suggests that recency effects result when Ss maintain attention, and (b) the finding of greater weighting of negative information in the selection interview (N. Schmitt, see PA, Vol 60:02009; see also E. C. Webster, 1982). Ratings of the single inconsistent performance indicated an assimilation effect. A recent poor or good inconsistent performance was rated more similarly to preceding average performance. A schema appears to bias inconsistent extreme performance toward the stable impression already established. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Effects of expected and obtained grades on teacher evaluation and attribution of performance.

72 college students were randomly assigned to expect that they would perform at either the A, B, or C level on a subsequent exam. Ss then listened to a taped lecture, after which they took an exam on the lecture. Ss were then randomly assigned to believe that they had obtained either an A, B, or C grade. Finally, Ss evaluated the lecturer and indicated the degree to which they attributed their performance to themselves or to the lecturer. There were significant main effects of expected and obtained grades such that the lower the expected grade or the higher the obtained grade the more favorable the teacher evaluation. Ss who obtained an A attributed the causality for their performance most strongly to themselves, while Ss obtaining a C attributed their performance most strongly to the teacher. (33 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Gain–loss versus reinforcement–affect ordering of student ratings of teaching: Effect of rating instructions.

Investigated whether student rating instructions would influence the rank ordering by 83 undergraduates of 4 lecture quality sequences, (i.e., whether instructions influence primacy and recency effects). It was also investigated whether affect, self-esteem, and liking would show the same ordering for the 4 lecture quality sequences as ratings. In a laboratory analog of a classroom, using videotaped lectures, initial testing (good or poor Lecture 1), final teaching (good or poor Lecture 2), and student rating instructions (consider only Lecture 2, consider Lectures 1 and 2) were manipulated in a 2?×?2?×?2 design. Effects were measured on final ratings of the instructor, liking for the instructor, S affect, and S self-esteem. For Ss considering only Lecture 2, ratings and liking varied moderately and inversely with Lecture 1 quality (negative primacy effect) and greatly with Lecture 2 quality (positive recency effect), consistent with gain–loss theory. For Ss considering both Lectures 1 and 2, ratings and liking varied moderately with Lecture 1 quality (positive primacy effect) and greatly with Lecture 2 quality (positive recency effect), consistent with reinforcement–affect theory. Evidence failed to show that the effect of lecture quality on liking and ratings was mediated by affect or self-esteem. (19 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Distributional ratings of performance: Further examination of a new rating format.

Examined several aspects of construct validity evidence for a distributional format by comparing it with a Behavioral Observation Scale (BOS) rating form and determining whether raters were sensitive to differences in performance variability. Raters were assigned to 1 of 2 instructional procedures, 1 of 2 form orderings (BOS or distributional rating first), and 1 of 5 conditions of performance variability. Ss rated an instructor's performance after viewing 4 videotaped excerpts of his lectures. Mean ratings were lower using the distributional format relative to the BOS format. The distributional ratings indicated that Ss were sensitive to the different variability conditions. The potential of distributional ratings for providing a richer source of performance information than more traditional ratings is discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Reading ability and use of a story schema in recalling and reconstructing information.

Examined the differences between 48 good and 48 poor 6th-grade readers' use of a story schema in recall and reconstruction tasks. Ss heard a story either in canonical (standard) or interleaved (a form of scrambling) format and were instructed to recall the story and reconstruct the order of story events either directly as they heard it or as it should be. Performance in the reconstruction and recall tasks showed that both good and poor readers could use a story schema when the story followed canonical format; however poor readers' story schema was either not as well-developed or as efficiently used. Both recall and reconstruction data provided evidence that schematic retrieval is not obligatory for either type of reader. Good readers could use a story schema when cued to do so in any task, but poor readers could do so only in the reconstruction task. Differential improvement of poor readers' performance relative to that of good readers' in a 2nd phase of the experiment due to previous experience in the 1st phase was obtained only in the reconstruction task. Conclusions support the view that poor readers perform differently from younger normal children. (41 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Understanding the latent structure of job performance ratings.

This study quantified the effects of 5 factors postulated to influence performance ratings: the ratee's general level of performance, the ratee's performance on a specific dimension, the rater's idiosyncratic rating tendencies, the rater's organizational perspective, and random measurement error. Two large data sets, consisting of managers (n?=?2,350 and n?=?2,142) who received developmental ratings on 3 performance dimensions from 7 raters (2 bosses, 2 peers, 2 subordinates, and self) were used. Results indicated, that idiosyncratic rater effects (62% and 53%) accounted for over half of the rating variance in both data sets. The combined effects of general and dimensional ratee performance (21% and 25%) were less than half the size of the idiosyncratic rater effects. Small perspective-related effects were found in boss and subordinate ratings but not in peer ratings. Average random error effects in the 2 data sets were 11% and 18%. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Effects of success and failure on cheating behavior.

Studied the relationship between cheating and previous success-failure experiences in 32 college students. Ss were informed that if they performed above average on a free-recall task they would receive bonus credit. Half of them were told their performance on a 1st test was poor and half were told that their initial performance was good. During a subsequent test, half of the words were left "carelessly" exposed so that Ss could copy them if they wished. Significant cheating occurred in the success but not in the failure condition, suggesting that failure following initial success may be more repugnant than failure following initial failure. Cheating elevated the number of recorded exposed words, while attention factors and/or arousal reduced recall of stored unexposed words. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Systematic distortions in memory-based behavior ratings and performance evaluations: Consequences for rating accuracy.

To test the hypothesis that memory-based ratings should be less accurate than ratings collected under conditions that minimize demands on memory, data were obtained from 82 undergraduates who had rated 4 videotapes of graduate student lecturers. Half of the tapes were rated immediately after they were viewed; Ss returned the following day and rated the remaining tapes from memory. Memory-based behavior ratings and performance evaluations showed higher intercorrelations (more halo) than did ratings that were collected immediately after viewing the ratee's performance. However, ratings were systematically more accurate in the delayed-rating condition than in the immediate-rating condition. It is argued that (1) under certain conditions, raters may depend on their general impressions of ratees rather than on their memory for specific details; and (2) these schematic evaluations may preserve a greater proportion of valid information, as compared with irrelevant detail, than is available immediately after observing ratee behavior. (34 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Extraversion, social cognition, and the salience of aversiveness in social encounters.

Conducted 2 studies to determine whether introverts and extraverts systematically differ in their expectations, recall, and evaluation of social encounter. In Study 1, 102 male undergraduate students (classified as either introvert or extravert based on the Extraversion scale of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire) evaluated games on rating scales. All Ss rated the competitive game as more arousing and potentially punishing than the cooperative game, but introverts anticipated that the competitive game would be less friendly and likable than did the extraverts. In Study 2, 61 undergraduates believed they would participate in either a cooperative or a competitive game. Ss were shown slides of all other Ss (teammates and opponents), as well as bogus biographical information. Ss were then asked to recall information and evaluate each S on rating scales. Introverts recalled more information about opponents than about their own teammates and rated all Ss less positively during the competitive encounter. For extraverts, this pattern was reversed. Results are discussed in terms of individual differences in the salience of aversiveness in social encounters. (35 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Use of causal attributions about recall performance to assess metamemory and predict strategic memory behavior in young children.

27 1st graders and 24 2nd graders were exposed to a memory task in which their recall performance varied as a function of their incidentally elicited sorting behavior. When asked what had affected their recall, only some Ss at each grade identified sorting as a causal factor, although all had used sorting. Attributions about sorting could not be accounted for by differential memory for sorting behavior or by differential use of sorting on previous trials. Causal attributions, but neither previous sorting nor nonattributional verbal reports about sorting behavior, predicted use of a sorting strategy in a standard, study-recall task 1 wk later. Ss who had attributed recall to sorting tended not to use rehearsal strategies on the subsequent task, suggesting that causal attributions reflected their views about what were the most important influences on recall. Ss' ability to assess their recall performance and their insight into possible mechanisms by which sorting affects recall are discussed as avenues for future research into how children acquire their ideas about factors that affect memory. (30 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Effects of sex guilt and sexual arousal on the retention of birth control information.

Tested the notion that high-sex-guilt individuals have difficulty retaining sex-related information. 28 male and 28 female undergraduates were assigned in equal numbers to a high and a low sex-guilt group. Within each group, 1/2 of the Ss were sexually stimulated by reading erotic passages, while 1/2 read neutral passages. All Ss then listened to a lecture on birth control and took an exam based on the lecture. Results indicate that high-sex-guilt Ss retained less lecture information than low-guilt Ss. In addition, sexually stimulated Ss displayed poorer lecture retention than nonstimulated Ss. Across all conditions, females retained more lecture information than males. Results support the hypothesis that guilt-generated anxiety raises arousal past the optimum level necessary for efficient recall performance. Females had a greater interest in learning about birth control than males. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Initial decisions and subsequent performance ratings.

Examined how information initially encountered for one decision was later used for evaluating ratee performance. 101 undergraduates viewed videotaped performances of 4 male carpenters performing 4 tasks. Half of the Ss were instructed to view the performance with the intent of rating the deservedness of each worker for outside contracting work; the other half were asked to designate the one best worker for this work. Two days later, 70 of the 101 Ss were asked to rate (from memory) each worker's performance. Findings indicate that raters initially designating one worker for a positive outcome rated all workers higher than raters making initial deservedness ratings. This elevation in ratings, which occurred for both subsequent overall evaluations and task ratings, may have reflected both the tendency to inflate ratings given the individual receiving the initial treatment and leniency toward the other ratees for whom representations of ability may not have been well established or remembered. Overall delayed performance ratings were influenced by these initial contextual factors. Results suggest that the pattern in which information is presented to raters and the nature of previous decisions may affect memory-based performance ratings. (26 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)