Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.9708/jksci.2012.17.3.175

Contextual Factors and Rating Behavior in the Peer Evaluation System  

Park, Jong-Hyuk (College of Business Administration, Kangnam University)
Abstract
The study investigates peer rating, one of the most commonly used sources of performance rating other than those of supervisors. On the whole, both field and laboratory studies indicate that peer assessment is a valid and reliable evaluation procedure, but on average, peer rating is not usually accurate. The aim of the investigation is to explore the relationship of beliefs and attitude about the performance appraisal system as well as a dispositional characteristic as self-monitoring with rating behavior. In particular, the study tests whether the relationship between rating context variables-appraisal self efficacy and appraisal validity- and rating behavior depends in part on the personality of the rater. Data from 445 undergraduate students are analyzed for hypotheses testing. The study finds evidences that the high on appraisal self efficacy and appraisal validity are more likely to affect discriminating rating tendency and to reduce rating level. Results also show that self-monitoring make the moderating effects between contextual factors and rating behaviors. Some implications, future research directions, and limitations are discussed.
Keywords
Peer Evaluation System; Appraisal Self-Efficacy; Appraisal Validity; Self-Monitoring;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Snyder, M. and S. Gangestad, "On the Nature of Self-Monitoring : Matters of Assessment, Matters of Validity", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1986, pp.125-139.   DOI
2 Tziner, A. and K.R. Murphy, "Additional Evidence of Attitudinal Influences in Performance Appraisal", Journal of Business and Psychology, 13, 1999, pp.407-420.   DOI   ScienceOn
3 Tziner, A., K.R. Murphy, & J.N. Cleveland, "Personality Moderates Relationship Between Context Facorts and Rating Behavior", Advances in Psychology Research, 22, 2003, pp.107-120.
4 Morahan-Martin, J., "Should Peers' Evaluations be Used in Class Projects? Questions Regarding Reliability, Lenience, and Acceptance," Psychological Reports, 78, 1996, pp.1243-1250.   DOI
5 Watson, W., L.K. Michaelsen, and W. Sharp, "Member Competence, Group Interactions, and Group Decision Making: A Longitudinal Study," Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 1991, pp.803-809.   DOI
6 Frayne, C.A. and G.P. Latham, "Application of Social Training Theory to Employer Self-Management of Attendance", Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 1987, pp.387-392.   DOI
7 Bernardin, H.J. and P. Villanova, "Research Strems in Rater Self-Efficiency", Group and Organization Managment, 30, 2005, pp.61-68.   DOI
8 Roberts, G.E., "Maximizing Performance Appraisal System Acceptance Perspective from Municipal Government Personnel Administrators", Public Personnel Management, 23, 1994, pp.525-549.   DOI
9 Bernadin, H.J., D.K. Cooke, and P. Villanova, "Conscientiousness and Agreeableness as Predictos of Rating Leniency", Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 2000, pp.232-236.   DOI   ScienceOn
10 Snyder, M., "The Self-Monitoring of Expressive Behavior", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 1974, pp.527-535.
11 Snyder, M., E. Berscheid, and P. Glick, "Focusing on the Exterior and Interior: Two Investigations of the Initiation of Personal Relationships", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 1985, pp.1437-1458.
12 Jawahar, I.M., "Attitudes, Self-Monitoring, and Appraisal Behaviors", Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 2001, pp.875-883.   DOI   ScienceOn
13 Saavedra, R. and S.K. Kwun, "Peer Evaluations in Self-Managing Work Groups," Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 1993, pp.450-462.   DOI   ScienceOn
14 Bandura, A., "Self-Efficacy" Toward a Unifying Theory of Behavioral Change", Psychological Review, 84, 1977, pp.191-215.   DOI   ScienceOn
15 Kane, J.S. and E.E. Lawler, "Methods of Peer Assessment," Psychological Bulletin, 85, 1978, pp.555-586.   DOI
16 Riggs, M.L. & A.J. Knight, "The Impact of Perceived Group Success-Failure on Motivational Beliefs and Attitudes: A Causal Model", Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 1994, pp.187-198.
17 Cederblom, D. and J.W. Lounsbury, "An Investigation of User Acceptance of Peer Evaluations", Personnel Psychology, 33, 1980, pp.567-579.   DOI
18 DeNisi, A.S., W.A. Randolph, and A.G. Blencoe, "Potential Problems with Peer Ratings", Academy of Management Journal, 26, 1983, pp.457-464.   DOI   ScienceOn
19 DeNisi, A.S., and J.L. Mitchell, "An Analysis of Peer Ratings as Predictors and Criterion Measurs and a Proposed New Application", Academy of Management Review, 3, 1978, pp.369-374.
20 Murphy, K.R. and J.N. Cleveland, "Understanding Performance Appraisal: Social, Organizational, and Goal-Based Perspectives", Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1995.
21 Tziner, A., K.R. Murphy, & J.N. Cleveland, "Contextual and Rater Factors Affecting Rating Behavior", Group and Organization Management, 30, 2005, 89-98.   DOI
22 Bernardin, H.J. and P. Villanova, "Performance Appraisal", In E. Locke(Ed.) Generalizing from Laboratory to Field Settings, Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1986.
23 Murphy, K.R., J.N. Cleveland, A.L. Skattebo, and T.B. Kenney, "Raters 쫴 Pursue Differnent Goals Give Different Ratings", Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 2004, pp.158-164.   DOI   ScienceOn
24 Barrick, M.R. and M.K. Mount, "The Big Five Personality Dimensions and Job Performance: A Meta-Analysis", Personnel Psychology, 44, 1991, pp.1-26.   DOI
25 Banks, C.G. & K.R. Murphy, "Toward Narrowing the Research-Practice Gap in Performance Appraisal", Personnel Psychology, 38, 1985, pp.335-348.   DOI
26 Tziner, A., K.R. Murphy, J.N. Cleveland, A. Yavo, and E. Hayoon, "A New Old Question: Do Contextual Factors Relate to Rating Behavior: An Investigation with Peer Evaluations", International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 16, 2008, pp.59-67.   DOI   ScienceOn
27 Campbell, B.C. and C.L. Barron, "How Extensively are Human Resource Management Practices being Utilized by the Practitioners?", Personnel Administrator, 27, 1982, pp.67-71.
28 Sanders, L.W., "The Impact of Performance Appraisal Interviews on Organizational Trust and Motivation for Learning", Ph.D Dissertation, 1993, The University of Texas at Austin.
29 Ilgen, D.R. and J.M. Feldman, "Performance Appraisal: A Process Focus", In Cummings, L. and B. Straw(Eds.) Research in Organizational Behavior, 5, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 1983.
30 Landy, F.J. and J.L. Farr, "The Measurement of Work Performance", San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 1983.
31 Peiperl, M.A., "Conditions for the Success of Peer Evaluation", The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 10, 1999. pp.429-458.   DOI   ScienceOn
32 Zammuto, R.F., M. London, and K.M., Rowland, "Organization and Rater Differences in Performance Appraisals", Personnel Psychology, 35, 1982, pp.643-658.   DOI
33 McEvoy, G.M. and P.F. Buller, "User Acceptance of Peer Appraisals in an Inderstrial Setting", Personnel Psychology, 40, 1987, 785-797.   DOI
34 Wexley, K. N. and R. Klimoski, "Performance Appraisal: An Update," In K. Rowland & G. Ferris(Eds.) Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 2, 35-79. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 1984.