On the basis of an experiment we confirm the hypothesis – derived from the ‘anchoring and adjustment’ heuristic – that the difference that a moderator makes to the grade awarded by a first marker is less than the difference between the grades awarded by two independent (or ‘double-blind’) markers. We suggest that double-blind marking is therefore more objective and reliable than moderator-based marking, although the former clearly has significantly higher administrative costs than the latter.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
FiskeS. and TaylorS. (1991), Social Cognition, New York: McGraw Hill.
2.
FongG. and MarkusH. (1982), ‘Self-schemas and Judgements about Others’, Social Cognition1(3), pp. 191–205.
3.
GodshalkF.SwinefordF. and CoffmanW.E. (1966), The Measurement of Writing Ability, College Board Research Monographs No. 6.
4.
GreenburgJ.WilliamsK.D. and O'BrienM.K. (1986), ‘Considering the Harshest Verdict First: Biasing Effects on Mock Juror Verdicts’, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin12, pp. 41–50.
5.
HoggM. and VaughanG. (2002), Social Psychology, Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
6.
LilliW. and RehmJ. (1986), ‘The Formation of Prejudicial Judgement as an Interaction between Heuristic Processes and Social Identity of the Judge: The Case of Traffic Accident Participation’, European Journal of Social Psychology16(1), pp. 79–81.
7.
MarkusH. and SmithJ. (1981), ‘The Influence of Self-schemas on the Perception of Others’ in CantorN. and KihlstronJ.G. (eds.), Personality, Cognition and Social Interaction, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 233–262.
8.
McCauleyC.DurhamM.CopleyJ.B. and JohnsonJ.P. (1985), ‘Patients' Perceptions of Treatment for Kidney Failure: The Impact of Personal Experience on Population Prediction’, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology21, pp. 138–148.
9.
MurphyR.J.H. (1979), ‘Removing the Marks from Examination Scripts before Remarking Them’, British Journal of Educational Psychology49, pp. 73–78.
10.
NewsteadS. (2003), ‘Examining the Examiner: Why are We so Bad at Assessing Students?’, Psychology Learning and Teaching2(2), pp. 70–75.
11.
NewsteadS. (2004), ‘Time to Make our Mark’, The Psychologist17(1), pp. 20–23.
12.
NewtonP.E. (1996), ‘The Reliability of Marking of General Certificate of Secondary Education Scripts: Maths and English’, British Educational Research Journal22(4), pp. 405–420.
13.
PlousD. (1989), ‘Thinking the Unthinkable: The Effects of Anchoring on Likelihood Estimates of Nuclear War’, Journal of Applied Social Psychology19, pp. 67–91.
14.
TverskyA. and KahnemanD. (1974), ‘Judgement under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases’, Science185, pp. 1124–1131.
WyerR.S. (1976), ‘An Investigation of Relations among Probability Estimates’, Organisational Behaviour and Human Performance15, pp. 1–18.
17.
ZuckermanM.KoestnerR.ColellaM.J. and AltonA.O. (1984), ‘Anchoring in the Detection of Deception and Leakage’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology43, pp. 1163–1175.
