Effect of identifiability, rating audience, and conscientiousness on rating level

International Journal of Selection and Assessment

Volumn 13, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 53-62

  Roch, Sylvia G ^a   Ayman, Roya ^b   Newhouse, Noelle ^b   Harris, Michelle ^b  

^a STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK   (United States)

^b ILLINOIS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 15544386790     PISSN: 0965075X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.0965-075X.2005.00299.x     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Antonioni, D. (1994) The effects of feedback accountability on upward appraisal ratings. Personnel Psychology, 47, 349-356.
2. Banks, C.G. and Murphy, K.R. (1985) Toward narrowing the research-practice gap in performance evaluation. Personnel Psychology, 38, 335-345.
3. Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A, (1986) The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182.
4. Barrick, M.R. and Mount, M.K. (1991) The big five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1-26.
5. Beckner, D., Highhouse, S. and Hazer, J.T. (1998) Effects of upward accountability and rating purpose on peer-rater inflation and delay: A field experiment. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 209-214.
6. Bernardin, HJ., Cooke, D.K. and Villanova, P. (2000) Conscientiousness and agreeableness as predictors of rating leniency. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 232-236.
7. Cohen, J. (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd Edn.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
8. Cohen, J. and Cohen, P. (1983) Applied multiple regression/ correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd Edn.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
9. Conway, J.M. and Huffcutt, A.I. (1997) Psychometric properties of multisource performance ratings: A meta-analysis of subordinate, supervisor, peer, and self-ratings. Human Performance, 10(4), 331-360.
10. Costa, P.T. and McCrae, R.R. (1992) Revised NEO personality inventory and the NEO five-factor inventory. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
11. Dipboye, R.L. (1990) Laboratory vs. field research in industrial and organizational psychology. In C.L. Cooper and I.T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 5, pp. 1-34). New York: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
12. Fiedler, F.E. (1967) A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill.
13. Fisher, C.D. (1979) The transmission of positive and negative feedback to subordinates: A laboratory investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 533-540.
14. Goldberg, L.R. (1992) The development of markers for the big-five factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4(1), 26-42.
15. Harris, M.M. (1994) Rater motivation in the performance evaluation context: A theoretical framework. Journal of Management, 20(4), 737-756.
16. Harris, M.M. and Schaubroeck, J. (1988) A meta-analysis of self-supervisor, self-peer, and peer-supervisor ratings. Personnel Psychology, 41, 43-62.
17. Houser Barclay, J. and Harland, L.K. (1995) Peer performance evaluations: The impact of rater competence, rater location, and rating correctability on fairness perceptions. Group & Organization Management, 20(1), 39-60.
18. Ilgen, D.R., Barnes-Farrell, J.L. and McKellin, D.B. (1993) Performance evaluation process research in the 1980s: What has it contributed to appraisals in use? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 54, 321-368.
19. Ilgen, D.R. and Favero, J.L. (1985) Limits in generalization from psychological research to performance appraisal processes. Academy of Management Review, 10, 311-321.
20. Ilgen, D.R. and Knowlton, W.A., Jr. (1980) Performance attributional effects on feedback from superiors. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 25, 441-456.
21. Jones, R.G. (1992). Attention allocation choices as an influence on accuracy and discriminant validity of observational ratings: When are we diligent? Unpublished doctoral dissertation, the Ohio State University.
22. Klimoski, R. and Inks, L. (1990) Accountability forces in performance evaluation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 45, 194-208.
23. Landy, F.J. and Farr, J.L. (1980) Performance ratings. Psychological Bulletin, 87, 72-197.
24. Lerner, J.S. and Tetlock, P.E. (1999) Accounting for the effects of accountability. Psychological Bulletin, 125(2), 255-275.
25. Longenecker, C.O., Sims, H.P and Gioia, D.A. (1987) Behind the mask: The politics of employee appraisal. The Academy of Management Executive, 1(3), 183-193.
26. Makiney, J.D. and Levy, P.E. (1998) The influence of self-ratings versus peer ratings on supervisor's performance judgments. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 74(3), 212-228.
27. Markus, H.R. and Wurf, E. (1987) The dynamic self-concept: A social psychological perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 38, 299-337.
28. McEvoy, G.M. and Buller, P.F. (1987) User acceptance of peer appraisals in an industrial setting. Personnel Psychology, 40, 785-797.
29. Mero, N.P. and Motowidlo, S.J. (1995) Effects of rater account-ability on the accuracy and favorability of performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(4), 517-524.
30. Mersman, J.L. and Donaldson, S.I. (2000) Factors affecting the convergence of self-peer ratings on contextual and task performance. Human Performance, 13(3), 299-322.
31. Mook, D.G. (1983) In defense of external invalidity. American Psychologist, 38, 379-387.
32. Mount, M.K., Judge, T.A., Scullen, S.E., Systsma, M.R. and Hezlett, S.A. (1998) Trait, rater and level effects in 360-degree performance ratings. Personnel Psychology, 51, 557-575.
33. Murphy, K.R. and Cleveland, J.N. (1995) Understanding performance evaluation: Social, organizational, and goal-based perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
34. Roch, S.G. and Woehr, D.J. (1997). The effect of rater motivation on the accuracy of performance evaluation: An NPI approach. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Chicago, IL.
35. Snyder, M. (1974) The self monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 526-537.
36. Tetlock, P.E. (1983) Accountability and complexity of thought. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 74-83.
37. Tetlock, P.E. (1985) Accountability: The neglected social context of judgment and choice. In B.M. Staw and L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 7, pp. 297-332). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
38. Walker, A.G. and Smither, J.W. (1999) A five-year study of upward feedback: What managers do with their results matters. Personnel Psychology, 52, 393-423.
39. Waung, M. and Highhouse, S. (1997) Fear of conflict and empathic buffering: Two explanations for the inflation of performance feedback. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 71(1), 37-54.
40. Zuckerman, M., Hodgins, H.S., Zuckerman, A. and Rosenthal, R. (1993) Contemporary issues in the analysis of data: A survey of 551 psychologists. Psychological Science, 4(1), 49-53.