This study explored how context influences accountability in a performance appraisal context. Results demonstrate that audience characteristics influence rating quality, as raters accountable to higher status or mixed-status audiences provided more accurate ratings, whereas those accountable to a lower status audience provided more inflated ratings. Participant note taking also mediated the relationship between accountability to higher status or mixed-status audiences and rating accuracy. Raters required to account for ratings in person as opposed to in writing were more accurate when accountable to higher status or mixed audiences and provided more positive indicators of behavior when accountable to a lower status audience.
Antonioni, D., & Park, H.2001. The relationship between rater affect and three sources of 360-degree feedback ratings. Journal of Management, 27: 479-495.
2.
Baron, R.M., & Kenny, D.A.1986. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51: 1173-1182.
3.
Batson, C.D.1991. The altruism question: Toward a social psychological answer . Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum .
4.
Bloom, B.S.1956. Taxonomy of educational objectives, Handbook 1: The cognitive domain. New York: David Mckay.
5.
Borman, W.C.1977. Consistency of rating accuracy and rater errors in the judgment of human performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 20: 238-252.
6.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S.C.1987. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
7.
Brtek, M.D., & Motowidlo, S.J.2002. Effects of procedure and outcome accountability on interview validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 185-191.
8.
Butler, S.K., & Harvey, R.J.1988. A comparison of holistic versus decomposed rating of position analysis questionnaire work dimensions. Personnel Psychology , 41: 761-771.
9.
Cohen, J.1988. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences . New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.
10.
Cronbach, L.J.1955. Processes affecting scores on understanding of others and assumed “similarity.” Psychological Bulletin,52: 177-193.
11.
DeNisi, A.S., Cafferty, T., & Meglino, B.1984. A cognitive view of the performance appraisal process: A model and research propositions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 33: 360-396.
12.
DePaulo, B.M., Kashy, D.A., Kirkendol, S.E., Wyer, M.M., & Epstein, J.A.1996. Lying in everyday life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70: 979-995.
13.
Fisher, C.D.1979. Transmission of positive and negative feedback to subordinates: A laboratory investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology , 64: 533-540.
14.
Frink, D., & Klimoski, R.1998. Toward a theory of accountability in organizations and human resources management. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 16: 1-51.
15.
Goffman, E.1959. The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday.
16.
Gordon, R.A., Rozelle, R.M., & Baxter, J.C.1988. The effect of applicant age, job level, and accountability on the evaluation of job applicants. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 41: 20-33.
17.
Jones, E.E.1990. Interpersonal perception. New York : Freeman.
18.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R.L.1978. The social psychology of organizations (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley.
19.
Kenny, D.A., Kashy, D.A., Bolger, N.1997. Data analysis in social psychology. In D. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology, 4th ed., Vol. 1: 233-265. New York: McGraw-Hill .
20.
Klimoski, R., & Inks, L.1990. Accountability forces in performance appraisal. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 45: 194-209.
21.
Latanè, B.1981. The psychology of social impact. American Psychologist, 36: 343-356.
22.
Latanè, B., Williams, K., & Harkins, S.1979. Many hands make light the work: The causes and consequences of social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 37: 822-832.
23.
Lerner, J.S., & Tetlock, P.E.1999. Accounting for the effects of accountability. Psychological Bulletin,125: 255-275.
24.
Levy, P.E., & Williams, J.R.2004. The social context of performance appraisal: A review and framework for the future. Journal of Management, 30: 881-905.
25.
Longnecker, C.O., Sims, H.P., Jr., & Gioia, D.A.1987. Behind the mask: The politics of employee appraisal. Academy of Management Executive, 2: 672-678.
26.
McAllister, D.W., Mitchell, T.R., & Beach, L.R.1979. The contingency model for the selection of decision strategies: An empirical test of the effects of significance, accountability, and reversibility . Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 24: 228-244.
27.
Mero, N.P., Guidice, R.M., & Anna, A.L.2006. The interacting effect of accountability and individual differences on rater response to a performance rating task. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36: 795-819.
28.
Mero, N.P., & Motowidlo, S.J.1995. Effects of rater accountability on the accuracy and the favorability of performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80: 517-524.
29.
Mero, N.P., Motowidlo, S.J., & Anna, A.L.2003. Effects of accountability on rating behavior and rater accuracy. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33: 3493-3515.
Murphy, K.R., & Cleveland, J.N.1995. Understanding performance appraisal: Social, organizational and goal based perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
32.
Park, O.S., Sims, H.P., & Motowidlo, S.J.1986. Affect in organizations. In H. P. Sims & D. A. Giola (Eds.), The thinking organization: 77-90. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
33.
Schlenker, B.R.1986. Personal accountability: Challenges and impediments in the quest for accountability. Contract No. 400-77-0099. San Diego, CA: Navy Personnel Research & Development Center.
34.
Schlenker, B.R.1987. Threats to identity: Self identification and social stress . In C. R. Snyder & C. Ford (Eds.), Clinical and social psychological perspectives on negative life events: 273-321. New York: Academic Press.
35.
Schlenker, B.R., & Britt, T.W.2001. Strategically controlling information to help friends: Effects of empathy and friendship strength on beneficial impression management . Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37: 357-373.
36.
Schlenker, B.R., Britt, T.W., Pennington, J., Murphy, R., & Doherty, K.1994. The triangle model of responsibility. Psychological Review, 101: 632-652.
37.
Schlenker, B.R., & Leary, M.R.1985. Social anxiety and communication about the self. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 4: 171-193.
38.
Schlenker, B.R., Weigold, M.F., & Doherty, K.1991. Coping with accountability: Self evaluative reckonings . In C. R. Snyder & D. R. Forsyth (Eds.), Handbook of social and clinical psychology: 96-115. New York: Pergamon .
39.
Slavin, R.E.1983. When does cooperative learning increase student achievement?Psychological Bulletin, 95429-445.
40.
Taylor, S.E., & Fiske, S.T.1978. Salience, attention, and attributions: Top of the head phenomena. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental psychology, 11: 249-288. New York: Academic Press.
41.
Tetlock, P.E.1983. Accountability and complexity of thought. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45: 74-83.
42.
Tetlock, P.E.1985. Accountability: The neglected social context of judgment and choice. In B. M. Staw & L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, 7: 297-332. Greenwich, CT: JAI.
43.
Tetlock, P.E.1992. Accountability and the perseverance of first impressions . Social Psychology Quarterly, 46: 285-292.
44.
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.
45.
Tetlock, P.E., Skitka, L., & Boettger, R.1989. Social and cognitive strategies for coping with accountability: Conformity, complexity, and bolstering. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57: 632-640. Waldman, D.A., & Thornton, G.C., III. 1988 . A field study of rating conditions and leniency in performance appraisal. Psychological Reports, 63: 835-840.
46.
Waung, M., & Highhouse, S.1997. Fear of conflict and empathic buffering: Two explanations for the inflation of performance feedback. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 71: 37-54.
47.
Williams, K.D., Harkins, S.G., & Latanè, B.1981. Identifiability as a deterrent to social loafing: Two cheering experiments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 40: 303-311.
48.
Wilson, J.W.1993. The moral self. New York: Free Press.
