Perception and Acceptance of Evaluations by Supervisors and Peers

Current Psychology

Volumn 20, Issue 1, 2001, Pages 85-94

  Stubblebine, Patrick C ^a  

^a MIAMI UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0039256058     PISSN: 10461310     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s12144-001-1005-4     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Borman, W. C. (1991). Job behavior, performance, and effectiveness. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (2nd ed., vol. 2, pp. 271-326). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
2. Brief, A. P. (1980). Peer assessment revisited: A comment on Kane and Lawler. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 78-79.
3. Cederblom, D. & Lounsbury, J. W. (1980). An investigation of user acceptance of peer evaluations. Personnel Psychology, 33, 567-579.
4. DeNisi, A. S. & Mitchell, J. L. (1978). An analysis of peer ratings as predictors and criterion measures and a proposed new application. Academy of Management Review, 3, 369-374.
5. DeNisi, A. S., Randolph, W. A. & Blencoe, A. G. (1983). Potential problems with peer ratings. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 457-464
6. Farh, J. L., Cannella, A. A. & Bedian, A. G. (1991). The impact of purpose on rating quality and user acceptance. Group and Organization Studies, 16, 367-386.
7. Fedor, D. B. & Bettenhausen, K. L. (1989). The impact of purpose, participant preconceptions, and rating level on the acceptance of peer evaluations. Group and Organization Studies, 14, 182-197.
8. Harris, M. M. & Schaubroeck, J. (1988). A meta-analysis of self-supervisor, self-peer, and peer-supervisor ratings. Personnel Psychology, 41, 43-62.
9. Holzbach, R. L. (1978). Rater bias in performance ratings: Superior, self, and peer ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 579-588.
10. Kane, J. S. & Lawler, E. E. (1978). Methods of peer assessment. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 555-586.
11. Klimoski, R. J. & London, M. (1974). Role of the rater in performance appraisal. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 445-451.
12. Landy, F. J. & Guion, R. M. (1970). Development of scales for the measurement of work motivation. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 5, 93-103
13. Lawler, E. E., III. (1967). The multitrait-multirater approach to measuring managerial job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 51, 369-381.
14. Love, K. G. (1981). Comparison of peer assessment methods: Reliability, validity, friendship bias, and user reaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 451-457.
15. McEvoy, G. M. & Buller, P. F. (1937). User acceptance of peer appraisals in an industrial setting. Personnel Psychology, 40, 785-797.
16. Mumford, M. D. (1983). Social comparison theory and the evaluation of peer evaluations: A review and some applied implications. Personnel Psychology, 36, 867-881.
17. Murphy, K. R. & Cleveland, J. N. (1991). Performance Appraisal. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
18. Saavedra, R. & Kwun, S. K. (1993). Peer evaluation in self-managing work groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 450-462.
19. Stubblebine, P. C. (1998, April). Individual difference correlates of user acceptance and peer evaluation perceptions. Poster session presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Dallas, TX.
20. Wexley, K. N. & Klimoski, R. J. (1984). Performance Appraisal: An update. In K. Rowland & G. Ferris (Eds.), Research in Personnel and Human Resources, (Vol. 2, pp. 35-79). Greenwich, CT: JAI.