Reducing assimilation and contrast effects on selection interview ratings using behaviorally anchored rating scales

Abstract

Performance ratings have been shown to be susceptible to various biases. Two of the most influential biases are assimilation and contrast effects. They denote that ratings are biased either toward (assimilation) or away from (contrast) prior reference assessments. Rigorous rater trainings have proven useful to reduce the latter bias, which, however, are rather time‐consuming. A more parsimonious approach achieving a similar purpose may be to optimize the rating material in order to reduce the tendency of being affected by non‐performance‐related information. Behaviorally anchored ratings scales (BARS) appear to be a theoretically sound alternative in contexts in which rater trainings are uncommon or assessment situations occur only rarely. In two experiments, we evaluated whether BARS are able to reduce assimilation and contrast effects using systematically manipulated standardized videotaped selection interviews. While assimilation effects were reduced by 40%, contrast effects were not significantly but descriptively reduced.

Salience Matters: Filler groups on the ascent of human scale impact ratings for target groups

“…Research in psychology has shown how salience impacts attention such that the more something stands out, the greater attention it receives [28,29]. Moreover, research on attention has shown that bias in rating scales may arise through sequencing effects related to the manner in which specific attributes of preceding stimuli contrast with novel stimuli in the context of rating tasks [30]. Within inter-group relations, research has demonstrated that demographic salience such as race and gender can impact how others are perceived and treated.…”

A discussion on using quantitative or qualitative data for assessment of individual competencies

“…Researchers and practitioners have long sought to improve measurement and the performance ratings accuracy (Adler et al , 2016; Speer et al , 2019). In the individual level, specifically, Lubbe and Nitsche (2019) and Battaglio (2015) point out that one of the performance appraisal primary concerns is the error and bias of raters. Given that all performance appraisals are subject to human involvement, error and bias are constant threats to effective evaluation (Battaglio, 2015; DeNisi and Smith, 2014).…”

Telling stories to communicate the value of the pre‐employment structured job interview

“…Many managers find the structured interview too rigid or simply not useful (Chen, Tsai, & Hu, 2008;Terpstra & Rozell, 1997). Nevertheless, research consistently shows that increasing the use of structured interview could significantly enhance hiring outcomes (Huffcutt & Arthur, 1994;Lubbe & Nitsche, 2019) and reduce the adverse impact (Huffcutt & Roth, 1998;Williamson, Campion, & Malos, 1997). Indeed, a bad hire can incur a significant financial cost to the organization and have a negative impact on workplace morale and productivity (Dunlop & Lee, 2004;Forbes, 2016).…”