Effects of previous performance on evaluations of present performance.

Murphy, Kevin R.; Balzer, William K.; Lockhart, Maura C.; Eisenman, Elaine J.

doi:10.1037/0021-9010.70.1.72

Cited by 108 publications

(167 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

154

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Assimilation refers to rating error in the direction of an established anchor (Murphy, Balzer, Lockhart, & Eisenman, 1985;Sumer & Knight, 1996). These effects are also referred to as context effects (Kravitz & Balzer, 1992;Palmer et al, 2002), referring to the influence of the context (anchor) on the distribution of ratings, independent of what is being rated.…”

Section: Effects Of Previous Decisionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Identifying the Strongest or the Weakest Link: Effects on Subsequent Ratings

Weyhrauch¹,

Culbertson²

2015

PAD

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Effects Of Previous Decisionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Identifying the Strongest or the Weakest Link: Effects on Subsequent Ratings

Weyhrauch¹,

Culbertson²

2015

PAD

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Raters can obtain information about the ratees' performance in order to justify their appraisal and also evidence for their justifications. This information might include direct observation of ratee's work behavior, reports from customers and other members in the organization, inspection of the results of work performance, such as products or reports, raters' prior appraisal of ratees' performance (Balzer, 1986;Murphy, Balzer, Lockhart, & Eisenman, 1985), and the ratees' general reputation as a good or poor performer (March & March, 1978).…”

Section: G Raters' Perceived Information Ad-equacy For Appraisingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rater’s Intention Towards Appraising Accurately

Embi

Choon

2014

JGP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

most organizations is to provide utilizable performance information of the ratees in making human resource decisions whether it is for between person decisions (e.g., promotion and salary increments); within person decisions (e.g., feedback and identifying training needs); system maintenance (e.g., manpower planning and evaluation of human resource systems); or documentation (e.g., criteria for validity studies and meeting legal needs) (Cleveland, Murphy, & Williams, 1989). Any equal, accurate appraisal is better than inaccurate appraisal (DeNisi, 2011). Hence, raters' appraisal accuracy is deemed essential in making the performance appraisal perceived as objective, fair, and transparent by the ratees.The focus of performance appraisal accuracy research shifted its format from rating scales (Bernardin, La Shells, Smith, & Alvares, 1976;Landy & Farr, 1980;Thorndike, 1920) to rater trainings (Day & Sulsky, 1995), rater cognitive process (DeNisi, Cafferty, & Meglino, 1984;Feldman, 1981;Ilgen & Feldman, 1983), rater affects (Tsui & Barry, 1986), rater motivations (Banks & Murphy, 1985;Harris, 1994;Murphy & Cleveland, 1995), and also rater goals and intentions (Murphy, 2008;Murphy & Cleveland, 1995;Spence & Keeping, 2013). Past research indicated that performance appraisal accuracy was heavily investigated because accurate appraisal were likely to be perceived by ratees as fairer, acceptable and they tend to respond positively to feedback (Ilgen, Fisher, & Taylor, 1979). DeNisi (2011) found that the problem investigating performance appraisal accuracy as dependent variable in field setting lies in the difficulty to obtain "true scores" (direct measure of accuracy) and incorrect proxy to relate appraisal accuracy with rating errors (indirect measure of accuracy).Since it is difficult to directly measure accuracy and rating errors, it does not mean it is inaccurate. Therefore it is proposed Muhamad Ali Embi ABSTRACTThe aim of this article is to stimulate thoughts and introduce new prospects to the study of performance appraisal accuracy, especially in the raters' perspective. It focuses on a relatively understudied aspect of performance appraisal which is raters' intention towards appraising accurately. In order to understand the application of this aspect, this paper attempts to develop a conceptual framework based on hypotheses of the direct and indirect factors that predict the raters' intention to appraise accurately. It is hypothesized that the raters' experience in appraising, raters' perceived purposes of appraisal, and raters' perceived information adequacy for appraising will predict the raters' intention towards appraising accurately by influencing the raters' attitude towards appraising accurately, raters' perceived subjective norms towards appraising accurately, and raters' perceived behavioral control towards appraising accurately.

show abstract

“…Contrast effects, changes in the rating of a given stimulus as the result of the extremity of other stimuli with which it is rated, arc of interest in many specialized areas (e.g., Murphy, Balzer, Lockhart, & Eisenman, 1985;Oliver, 1980;Sherif, Sherif, & Nebergall, 1965;Wexley, YukI, Kovacs, & Sanders, 1972). Two views of the locus of contrast effects exist: first, that they represent true changes in stimulus perception or representation (Helson, 1964;Sherif ct al., 1965); second, that they are simply reflections of differences in response scale usage (or "response language"; Upshaw, 1984).…”

Section: Respondent Knowledge and The Locus Of Contrast Effectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Context Effects in Social and Psychological Research

Schwarz¹,

Sudman²

1992

210

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

), except for brief excerpts in connection with reviews or scholarly analysis. Use in connection with any form of information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed is forbidden. The use of general descriptive names, trade names, trademarks, etc., in this publication, even if the former are not especially identified, is not to be taken as a sign that such names, as understood by the Trade Marks and Merchandise Marks Act, may accordingly be used freely by anyone.Camera-ready copy supplied by the authors. Printed and bound by Braun-Brumfield, Inc., Ann Arbor, MI. Bibb Latane and Deborah Richardson hosted the conference at the Nags Head Conference Center in Kill Devil Hills, North Carolina. Their hospitality, the joys of southern cooking, and the outer banks of North Carolina greatly contributed to an enjoyable and productive meeting. Special thanks are due to Mary A. Spaeth, who edited all contributions to this volume and turned a pile of manuscripts into a readable book. Finally, we thank all conference participants for lively and controversial discussions from breakfast to midnight and for the fine chapters that they contributed.

show abstract

Effects of previous performance on evaluations of present performance.

Cited by 108 publications

References 44 publications

Identifying the Strongest or the Weakest Link: Effects on Subsequent Ratings

Identifying the Strongest or the Weakest Link: Effects on Subsequent Ratings

Rater’s Intention Towards Appraising Accurately

Context Effects in Social and Psychological Research

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About