Subjects (n = 200) received a detailed description of a product and were asked to rate their attitudes about this product. Presentation order, source credibility and message framing were manipulated in a 2× 2× 2 completely crossed factorial design. Subjects who received a positively framed message rated product attitudes significantly greater than those subjects who received a negatively framed message. Also, significant differences in message framing effects were found for those subjects who received the framed message first in the nonexpert condition (credibility) and those subjects who received the framed message last in the expert condition. Findings are then discussed.

No abstract

The present research examined the effects of knowledge of a ratee's prior performance on evaluations of present performance. In three separate studies, 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.Both early and recent theories of the performance rating process (De Nisi, Cafferty, & Meglino, 1984; Ilgen & Feldman, 1983;Wherry, 1983) have noted the potential influence of information concerning a ratee's previous performance on a rater's evaluation of present performance. As Murphy, Balzer, Lockhart, and Eisenman (1985) have noted, one of three possible results may occur when a rater has knowledge of previous performance: (a) error; or bias, toward the direction of the previous performance level; (b) error, or bias, away from the direction of the previous performance level, or (c) no effect whatsoever. Result (a) is usually referred to as an assimilation effect and Result (b) as a contrast effect. Although both types of results clearly have important practical implications, the theoretical and research literatures offer conflicting views about which type of result is likely to occur. Herr, Sherman, and Fazio (1983) and Murphy et al. (1985) provide reviews of social-cognition and decision-making theories relevant to assimilation versus contrast effects. Murphy et al. (1985) have noted that "strong arguments can be made for both assimilation and contrast effects; it is difficult to predict one type of effect over the other" (p. 73). They call for more research directed at providing a bet-We wish to thank Kevin Murphy for providing the videotapes and rating scales used in this research. We would also like to thank Avraham Kluger and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments concerning this study.

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emeraldsrm:463575 [] For AuthorsIf you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.This study investigated the unpad of culture on styles of handling interpersonal conflicts. The Rahim Organizational Conflict Inventory was used to collect data on the conflict management styles of integrating, obliging, avoiding, dominating, and compromising. Two regions of the world were chosen: Middle Eastern countries and states (n = 913) and the United States (n = 144). MANCOVA was used to analyze the data. The results indicate that Arab Middle Eastern executives use more of an integrating and avoiding style in handling interpersonal conflict while U.S. executives use more of an obliging, dominating, and compromising style. Implications of the findings and future research are discussedThe globalization of business means that many managers will increasingly operate in different cultures and, therefore, myths and generalizations are likely to develop among the different business communities (Barratt, 19S9). The variables that most frequently characterize culture are language, religion, GNP per capita, and geographical location (Punnett & Ronen, 1984). Cultural evaluations treat organizations as systems for perpetuating and reinforcing values, beliefs, and norms. Cultural congruence varies over time, perhaps, because values shift or new members bring diversity. Given the diversity of global cultures, it is inevitable that conflicts would arise between individuals, organizations, and nations. Executives who are responsible for managing successful foreign operations must be able to handle this conflict in a productive manner.

Cultural differences between Arabs and Americans were investigated using Wagner's individualism-collectivism survey. Arab subjects were significantly more collectivist than U.S. subjects, and within the Arab culture, Egyptian subjects were significantly more individualistic than Gulf States subjects.