Skip to main content
Log in

Effects of Self-Appraisal Information, Appraisal Purpose, and Feedback Target on Performance Appraisal Ratings

  • Published:
Journal of Business and Psychology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This experiment investigated the effects of three factors on performance appraisal ratings: self-appraisal information, appraisal purpose, and feedback target. Two hundred and three subjects rated a subordinate's performance on a clerical task subsequent to receiving either a high or low self-assessment. They were told they would provide performance feedback either to the experimenter (organizational agent) or their subordinate, and their ratings would be used either for an administrative decision or developmental feedback. Performance ratings were significantly higher when subjects received a favorable subordinate self-assessment than when self-assessments were unfavorable. A significant interaction was found between feedback target and the appraisal purpose. Implications for the use of self-appraisals in organizations were discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  • Antonioni, D. (1994). The effects of feedback accountability on upward appraisal ratings. Personnel Psychology, 47, 351–356.

    Google Scholar 

  • Basset, G.A. & Meyer, H.H. (1968). Performance appraisal based on self-review. Personnel Psychology, 21, 421–430.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernardin, H.J. Orban, J. and Carlyle, J. (1981). Performance ratings as a function of trust in appraisal and rate individual differences. Proceedings of the 41st Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, 311–315.

  • Blumberg, H.H. (1972). Communication of interpersonal evaluations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 23, 157–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burke, R.J., Weitzel, W., & Weis, T. (1978). Characteristics of effective employee performance review and development interviews: Replication and extension. Personnel Psychology, 37, 703–710.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, D.J., & Lee, C. (1988). Self-appraisal in performance evaluation: Development versus evaluation. Academy of Management Review, 13, 302–314.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farh, J., Werbel, J.D., & Bedeian, A. G. (1988). An empirical investigation of self-appraisal-based performance evaluation. Personnel Psychology, 41, 141–156.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferris, G.R., Yates, V.L., Gilbron, D.C, & Rowland, K. (1985). The influence of subordinate age on performance ratings and causal attributions. Personnel Psychology, 38, 545–557.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, C.D. (1979). Transmission of positive and negative feedback to subordinates: A laboratory investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 533–540.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fusilier, M.R. (1980). The effects of anonymity and outcome contingencies on rater beliefs and behavior in a performance appraisal situation. Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, 273–277.

  • Hare, A.P. (1976). Handbook of small group research (2nd ed.). NY: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, M.M. (1994). Rater motivation in the performance appraisal context: A theoretical framework. Journal of Management, 20, 737–756.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, M.H., & Schaubroeck, J. (1988). A meta-analysis of self-supervisory, self-peer, and peer-supervisor ratings. Personnel Psychology, 41, 43–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ilgen, D.R., & Knowlton, W.A. (1980). Performance attributional effects on feedback from supervisors. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 25, 441–456.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, E.E., & Wortman, C. (1973). Ingratiation: An attributional approach. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kay, E., Meyer, H., & French, J. (1965). Effects of threat in a performance interview. Journal of Applied Psychology, 49, 311–317.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klimoski, R. & Inks, L. (1990). Accountability forces in performance appraisal. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 45, 194–208.

    Google Scholar 

  • Korsgaard, M.A., Roberson, L., & Klein, D.A. (1991). The effect of self-appraisal and participation on subsequent performance. Paper presented at the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology Conference, 1991.

  • Landy, F.J., & Farr, J.L. (1983). The measurement of work performance: Methods, theory, and applications. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larson, J.R. (1984). The performance feedback process: A preliminary model. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 33, 42–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latham, G. (1986). Job performance and appraisal. In C. Cooper & I. Robertson (Eds.), International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Chichester, England: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Longenecker, C.O., Gioia, D.A., & Sims, H.P. (1987). Behind the Mask: The politics of employee appraisal. Academy of Management Executive, 1, 183–193.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, K.R., Balzer, W.K., Kellam, K.L., & Armstrong, J. (1984). Effect of purpose of rating on accuracy in observing teacher behavior and evaluating teaching performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 45–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, K.R., & Cleveland, J.N. (1991). Performance Appraisal: An Organizational Perspective. Boston: Allyn Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone, T.H. (1973). An examination of six prevalent assumptions concerning performance appraisal. Public Personnel Management, 5, 408–414.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tesser, A., & Rosen, S. (1975). The reluctance to transmit bad news. In Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol.8). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tetlock, P.E. (1985). Accountability: The neglected social context of judgment and choice. In B.M Staw and L.L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, Vol. 7, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tetlock, P.E., & Kim, J.I. (1987). Accountability and judgment processes in a personality prediction task. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 700–709.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thornton, G.C. III (1980). Psychometric properties of self-appraisals of job performance. Personnel Psychology, 33, 263–271.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wexley, K.N., & Klimoski, R.J. (1984). Performance appraisal: An update. In Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, Vol. 2, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, K.J., DeNisi, A.S., Blencoe, A.G, & Cafferty, T.P. (1985). The role of appraisal purpose: Effects of purpose on information acquisition and utilization. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 35, 314–339.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zedeck, S., & Cascio, W.F. (1982). Performance appraisal decisions as a function of rater training and purpose of the appraisal. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 752–758.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Shore, T.H., Adams, J.S. & Tashchian, A. Effects of Self-Appraisal Information, Appraisal Purpose, and Feedback Target on Performance Appraisal Ratings. Journal of Business and Psychology 12, 283–298 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025071329102

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025071329102

Keywords

Navigation