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)     

The relationship between student personality characteristics, teacher ratings, and student achievement.

In Study 1, 388 undergraduates (a) rated themselves on the Adjective Check List (ACL), (b) viewed a videotape that varied in instructor expressiveness and lecture content, (c) evaluated the videotaped instructor and a test on the lecture, and (d) completed the ACL for the instructor. In Study 2, 87 Ss were also exposed to 2 videotaped lectures given 1 wk apart. In Study 3, 108 Ss completed the ACL for themselves and their instructors, evaluated their instructor's teaching, and completed a test on common course material. No meaningful or consistent relationship between ratings and student personality characteristics appeared to exist. Personality characteristics of instructors were related to teacher effectiveness ratings. Ratings predicted teacher-produced achievement equally well for classes that differed in the personality characteristics of the students enrolled. Teacher effects on ratings appeared significantly greater than teacher effects on achievement. (41 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)     

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)     

Duration neglect in retrospective evaluations of affective episodes.

Documented with 2 experiments a phenomenon of duration neglect in people's global evaluations of past affective experiences. In Study 1, 32 Ss viewed aversive film clips and pleasant film clips that varied in duration and intensity. Ss provided real-time ratings of affect during each clip and global evaluations of each clip when it was over. In Study 2, 96 Ss viewed these same clips and later ranked them by their contribution to an overall experience of pleasantness (or unpleasantness). Experimental Ss ranked the films from memory; control Ss were informed of the ranking task in advance and encouraged to make evaluations on-line. Effects of film duration on retropsective evaluations were small, entirely explained by changes in real-time affects and further reduced when made from memory. Retrospective evaluations appear to be determined by a weighing average of "snapshots" of the actual affective experiences, as if duration did not matter. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Validity of student ratings of instruction under different incentive conditions: A further study of the Dr. Fox effect.

Investigated the validity of student ratings of instruction for different lecturer types. 212 undergraduates were divided into 12 equivalent groups. Groups viewed a lecture that varied in substantive teaching points covered (high, medium, low) and expressiveness of delivery (high, low). Half were offered an incentive to learn before the lecture; the other half after the lecture. Ss then rated lecture effectiveness and completed an achievement test. Higher achievement was associated with more content coverage and before-lecture incentives. Differences in lecture expressiveness did not affect achievement. Student ratings generally reflected inservice and continuing-education programs; differences in content coverage under low-expressiveness conditions, but were not sensitive to variations in content coverage when lectures were high in expressiveness. (20 ref) (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)     

The citation bias: Fad and fashion in the judgment and decision literature.

Examined whether selectivity was used in the citing of evidence in research on the psychology of judgment and decision making and investigated the possible effects that this citation bias might have on the views of readers of the literature. An analysis of the frequency of citations of good- and poor-performance articles cited in the Social Science Citation Index from 1972 through 1981 revealed that poor-performance articles were cited significantly more often than good-performance articles. 80 members of the Judgment and Decision Making Society, a semiformal professional group, were asked to complete a questionnaire assessing the overall quality of human judgment and decision-making abilities on a scale from 0 to 100 and to list 4 examples of documented poor judgment or decision-making performance and 4 examples of good performance. Ss recalled significantly more examples of poor than of good performance. Less experienced Ss in the field appeared to have a lower opinion of human reasoning ability than did highly experienced Ss. Also, Ss recalled 50% more examples of poor performance than of good performance, despite the fact that the variety of poor-performance examples was limited. It is concluded that there is a citation bias in the judgment and decision-making literature, and poor-performance articles are receiving most of the attention from other writers, despite equivalent proportions of each type in the journals. (33 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)     

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)     

Teacher expressiveness: More important for male teachers than female teachers?

55 male and 62 female undergraduates viewed a videotape of a male or female actor giving a short lecture using expressive or nonexpressive communication and rated each teacher on a 22-item questionnaire that yielded 5 factors (Rapport, Student Orientation, Stimulates Interest, Organization, and Knowledge of Material). Findings show that the expressive teacher received the highest student evaluations on the basis of a global evaluation score and on the 5 factor scores. The nonexpressive male teacher received low ratings on Organization and Stimulating Interest. Ss who viewed this tape also had the poorest performance on a subsequent content test. Ss who viewed a nonexpressive female teacher had the highest performance on the content test. It is hypothesized that differential attention as a function of sex-role-appropriate characteristics is a mediating variable. It is suggested that in studies of teaching performance and effective teacher qualities, teacher sex should be examined. (18 ref) (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)     

Effects of clinician theoretical orientation and patient explanatory bias on initial clinical judgments.

18 behavioral (mean age 27.89 yrs), 18 cognitive (mean age 25.78 yrs), and 18 psychodynamic (mean age 29.22 yrs) clinical trainees viewed a videotaped intake interview with a female actress who explained her fear of going on elevators according to 1 of 3 explanatory biases: learned reactions, faulty thoughts, or underlying conflicts. After viewing the tape, Ss made judgments about the patient's responsiveness to therapy. Across all 3 experimental conditions, psychodynamic Ss expressed more "pessimistic" prognoses than both behavioral and cognitive Ss, who did not differ. However, among psychodynamic Ss, those who viewed the patient whose explanatory bias was consistent with a psychodynamic orientation were less pessimistic than were their colleagues exposed to patient explanatory biases inconsistent with a psychodynamic orientation. Implications for client–therapist matching, clinical training, and rapprochement between orientations are discussed. (37 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Agreement on initial impressions: Differences due to perceivers, trait dimensions, and target behaviors.

Assesses agreement as a function of the trait being judged, the information presented, and individual differences to spontaneously use particular trait dimensions. In Experiment 1, there was a reliable amount of agreement in rating the targets, but this was greater if the traits were related to extraversion (Factor 1 traits) than to intelligence, honesty, or conscientiousness (Factor 2 traits). In Experiment 2, Ss viewed videotapes of interviews in which the questions focused on information relevant to either Factor l or Factor 2 traits. Again there was greater agreement in ratings of Factor 1 than Factor 2 traits, but this difference was reliably reduced if Ss saw the tape that focused on Factor 2 information. Regardless of the tape viewed, Ss who frequently used Factor 2 traits gave ratings on these that were in greater agreement with those of judges as a whole. Ss judged Factor 2 traits as more difficult to clearly confirm. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Effects of the purpose of rating on accuracy in observing teacher behavior and evaluating teaching performance.

Previous research has suggested that ratings used to make administrative decisions are lenient when compared with ratings obtained for research purposes only. The present study examined the effects of the purpose of rating on multivariate measures of accuracy in observing teacher behavior as well as measures of accuracy in evaluating teaching performance. 45 undergraduates viewed and evaluated videotaped lectures under conditions in which they were informed that their ratings would be used for research only or for making important decisions about those being rated. The purpose of rating did not affect measures of accuracy in rating the frequency with which a number of critical behaviors occurred on each tape. The purpose of rating also did not affect multivariate measures of performance rating accuracy. Purpose did, however, affect the relationship between accuracy in observing teacher behavior and accuracy in evaluating teaching performance. It is suggested that purpose affects the way in which raters process behavioral information without necessarily affecting the general level of rating. (40 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Rater selective attention ability and appraisal effectiveness: The effect of a cognitive style on the accuracy of differentiation among ratees.

Examined the effect of the level of selective-attention ability of 359 undergraduate raters on the accuracy of ratings in 2 studies. A group-administered measure of field dependence–independence was used to divide Ss into high- or low-selectivity levels. In Study 1, 288 psychology undergraduates rated 4 vignettes of instructors by either direct inspection or from memory. In Study 2, 71 management undergraduates rated the vignettes. Results show that memory manipulation significantly influenced rating accuracy. In both studies, Ss high in selectivity provided significantly more accurate appraisals than did Ss low in selectivity. It is suggested that cognitive operations underly the effects found in these studies. (23 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Age and forgetfulness: Perceivers' impressions of targets' capability.

In a person perception paradigm, 72 young and 72 old adult Ss listened to tape recordings of a nonforgetful, moderately forgetful, or highly forgetful female target person being interviewed for a volunteer job. Ss then rated their opinion of the target's memory and how likely they would be to assign the target to easy and difficult tasks. Overall, Ss gave higher memory opinion ratings to old than to young targets. As expected, they were more likely to assign tasks to nonforgetful than to forgetful targets. However, they were more egalitarian than was hypothesized in their task assignment ratings for forgetful young vs forgetful old targets. (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)     

On believing what we remember.

Conducted 4 experiments with 303 undergraduates to examine the relationship between the rated truth of statements and prior study of parts of those statements. Findings from the 1st 2 experiments show that new details about familiar topics are rated truer than new details about unfamiliar topics. Consequently, recognition of a topic as familiar disposes Ss to accept new details as true. Results from the 3rd and 4th experiments show that statements initially studied under an affirmative bias are rated truer than statements originally studied under a negative bias. However, since even the negatively biased statements are rated truer than new ones, it is contended that Ss are not remembering the bias. Rather, different biases during study affect the probability that details will be encoded into memory. In contrast to differential biases, different study processes affect the likelihood that Ss will remember having studied the statements, but do not affect truth. Results are discussed in terms of the hypothesis that remembered factual details are the criterion of certitude against which tested statements are assessed. (French abstract) (38 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)