Perceived similarity and accuracy of peer ratings

Article Abstract:

The hypothesis that raters will be more accurate in rating peers to be similar to themselves, suggested by Mumford (1983) and derived from social comparison theory, was examined. Subjects were 681 Israeli entrants to a military training program. Shortly after course inception, subjects were asked to review the performance of squad members and to forecast their final grade. Subjects also judged peers' similarity to self overall (general similarity), in course achievement (foreground similarity), and in military experience (background similarity). Analysis revealed that accuracy was markedly lower in the evaluation of dissimilar others. Although the same pattern of results was observed for all forms of similarity, stronger effects resulted when similarity was measured in terms of general and foreground characteristics. Implications for future theory and research as well as for the practical application of peer assessment are discussed. (Reprinted by permission of the publisher.)

Comparison (Psychology)

---

Peer evaluation in self-managing work groups

Article Abstract:

A series of 3 experiments with business students examined how a rater's relative performance affects peer ratings. In Study 1, with 36 groups consisting of 178 Ss, outstanding contributors were the most discriminating evaluators. In Study 2, with 39 groups consisting of 186 Ss, individuals rated their own performance as well as that of their peers. Once again, outstanding contributors were the most discriminating evaluators, and self-evaluations were higher than the respective ratings received from peers. In Study 3, with 12 groups consisting of 61 Ss, below-average and average contributors may have discounted their individual performance outcomes by making allowances for external factors that affected their contributions. Together, these studies indicate that self-other comparisons in a work group influence peer-performance evaluations. (Reprinted by permission of the publisher.)

Evaluation, Work groups, Teamwork (Workplace)

---

Deescalation strategies: a comparison of techniques for reducing commitment to losing courses of action

Article Abstract:

Previous research suggests that decision makers have a tendency to become locked into courses of action - to throw good money after bad in dealing with losing projects. The present study directly compared the effectiveness of several deescalation strategies designed to make decision makers more responsive to the available evidence. Three deescalation procedures were found to be most effective: (a) making negative outcomes less threatening; (b) setting minimum target levels that, if not achieved, would lead to a change in policy; and (c) evaluating decision makers on the basis of their decision process rather than outcome. The theoretical and practical implications of each of these strategies are discussed. (Reprinted by permission of the publisher.)

Decision theory

Similar abstracts:

• Abstracts: Social capital and career mobility: a structural theory of lower returns to education for Asian employees. Some observations on the career paths of women
• Abstracts: Effects of race on interview ratings in a situational panel interview. Reliability and validity of the situational interview for a sales position
• Abstracts: Implicit personality and performance appraisal: the influence of trait inferences on evaluations of behavior. The structure of Cockpit Management Attitudes
• Abstracts: "We gather together": consumption rituals of Thanksgiving Day
• Abstracts: Staying environmentally correct. The Journal of Housing's 1992 buyer's guide

This website is not affiliated with document authors or copyright owners. This page is provided for informational purposes only. Unintentional errors are possible.