This study assessed the consequences of performance feedback received from peers on a team member’s subsequent ratings of others, and the mediating influence of interpersonal affect. Undergraduate participants (N = 142) working in 30 teams during a 7-week period were assigned collective bargaining and arbitration tasks. We found that a team member’s prior positive or negative peer feedback resulted in increased leniency or severity, respectively, and increased restriction in range when these same members subsequently rated fellow team members. Interrater agreement on ratings of peers at Time 3 was higher when raters received similar feedback (i.e., both received positive or negative feedback) from their peers at the Time 1. The mechanism through which feedback at Time 1 influenced rating biases at Time 3 was found to be interpersonal affect (measured at Time 2).
Adams, J. S. (1965). Injustice in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267-300). New York: Academic Press.
2.
Antonioni, D., & Park, H. (2001). The relationship between rater affect and three sources of 360-degree feedback ratings. Journal of Management, 27, 479-495.
3.
Barclay, J. H., & Harland, L. K. (1995). Peer performance appraisals: The impact of rater competence, rater location, and rating correctability on fairness perceptions. Group & Organization Management, 20, 39-61.
4.
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.
5.
Bernardin, H. J. (1981, August). The effect of reciprocal leniency on the relationship between consideration scorn from the LBDQ and performance ratings. Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meetings of the Academy of Management (pp. 131-136). Detroit, MI: Academy of Management.
6.
Bernardin, H. J., & Villanova, P. (1986). Performance appraisal. In E. A. Locke (Ed.), Generalizing from laboratory to field settings (pp. 43-62). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
7.
Battenhausen, K. L., & Fedor, D. B. (1997). Peer and upward appraisals: A comparison of their benefits and problems. Group & Organization Management, 22, 236-263.
8.
Brown, T. C., & Latham, G. P. (2000). The effects of goal setting and self-instruction training on the performance of union employees. Relations Industrielles/Industrial Relations, 55, 80-94.
9.
Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1992). Advanced qualitative techniques in the social sciences. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
10.
Campbell, J. P., Dunnette, M. D., Lawler, E. E., & Weick, K. E. (1970). Managerial behavior, performance, and effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill.
11.
Cardy, R. L., & Dobbins, G. (1994). Performance appraisal: Alternative perspectives. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western Publishing.
12.
Cederblom, D., & Lounsbury, J. (1980). An investigation of user acceptance of peer evaluations. Personnel Psychology, 33, 567-579.
13.
Church, A. H., & Bracken, D. W. (1997). Advancing the state of the art of 360-degree feedback. Group & Organization Management, 22, 149-161.
14.
DeNisi, A. S., Cafferty, T. P., & Meglino, B. M. (1984). A cognitive view of the performance appraisal process: A model and research propositions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 33, 360-396.
15.
DeNisi, A. S., & Kluger, A. N. (2000). Feedback effectiveness: Can 360-degree appraisals be improved? Academy of Management Executive, 14, 129-139.
16.
DeNisi, A. S., Randolph, W. A., & Blencoe, A. G. (1983). Potential problems with peer ratings. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 457-464.
17.
Dipboye, R. L. (1985). Some neglected variables in research on discrimination in appraisals. Academy of Management Review, 10, 116-127.
18.
Dirks, K. T. (1999). The effects of interpersonal trust on work group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 445-455.
19.
Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256-273.
20.
Edwards, J. R. (1995). Alternatives to difference scores as dependent variables in the study of congruence in organizational research. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 64, 307-324.
21.
Fedor, D. B., Battenhausen, K. L., & Davis, W. (1999). Peer reviews: Employees’ dual roles as raters and recipients. Group & Organization Management, 24, 92-120.
22.
Feldman, J. M. (1981). Beyond attribution theory: Cognitive processes in performance appraisal. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 127-148.
23.
Fiske, S. T., & Neuberg, S. L. (1990). A continuum of impression formation, from category-based to individuating processes: Influences of information and motivation on attention and interpretation. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 1-74). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
24.
Fitness, J. (2000). Anger in the workplace: An emotion script approach to anger episodes between workers and their superiors, coworkers and subordinates. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 47-62.
25.
Forgas, J. P., & George, J. M. (2001). Affective influences on judgments and behavior in organizations: An information processing perspective. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86, 3-34.
26.
Gavin, M. B., & Hofmann, D. A. (2002). Using hierarchical linear modeling to investigate the moderating influence of leadership climate. Leadership Quarterly: Special Issue: Benchmarking Multilevel Methods in Leadership, 13, 15-33.
27.
Graen, G. B. (1996). At last, a production system that works and allows everyone to be an insider. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 45, 130-135.
28.
Graen, G. B., & Scandura, T. A. (1987). Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing. Research in Organizational Behavior, 9, 175-208.
29.
Hemenover, S. H. (2001). Self-reported processing bias and naturally occurring mood: Mediators between personality and stress appraisals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 387-394.
30.
Hofmann, D. A. (1997). An overview of the logic and rationale of hierarchical linear models. Journal of Management, 23, 723-744.
31.
Ilgen, D. R., & Feldman, J. M. (1983). Performance appraisal: A process focus. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 141-197). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
32.
James, L. R., Damaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1993). An assessment of within-group interrater agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 306-309.
33.
Jones, A. P., Johnson, L. A., Butler, M. C., & Main, D. S. (1983). Apples and oranges: An empirical comparison of commonly used indices of interrater agreement. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 507-519.
34.
Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R. P., Snoek, J. D., & Rosenthal, R. A. (1964). Organizational stress: Studies in role conflict and ambiguity. New York: John Wiley.
35.
Kevin, R., & DeShon, R. M. (2000). Interrater correlations do not estimate the reliability of job performance ratings. Personnel Psychology, 53, 873-889.
36.
Kiesler, C. A., & De Salvo, J. (1967). The group as an influencing agent in a forced compliance paradigm. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 3, 160-171.
37.
Knight, J. L., Hebl, M. R., Foster, J. B., & Mannix, L. M. (2003). Out of role? Out of luck: The influence of race and leadership status on performance appraisals. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 9, 85-93.
38.
Kulik, C. T., & Ambrose, M. L. (1992). Personal and situational determinants of referent choice. Academy of Management Review, 17, 212-237.
39.
Lam, S. S. K., Yik, M. S. M., & Schaubroeck, J. (2002). Responses to formal performance appraisal feedback: The role of negative affectivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 192-201.
40.
Landy, F. J., & Farr, J. L. (1980). Performance ratings. Psychological Bulletin, 87, 72-107.
41.
Landy, F. J., & Farr, J. L. (1983). The measurement of work performance: Methods, theory, and applications. New York: Academic Press.
42.
Latham, G. P., & Wexley, K. N. (1994). Increasing productivity through performance appraisal (2nd ed.). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
43.
Latham, G. P., Wexley, K. N., & Pursell, E. D. (1975). Training managers to minimize rating errors in the observation of behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 422-429.
44.
Lawler, E. E., III. (1994). Performance management: The next generation. Compensation and Benefits Review, 26(3), 16-19.
45.
Lefkowitz, J. (2000). The role of interpersonal affective regard in supervisory performance ratings: A literature review and proposed casual model. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73, 67-85.
46.
Levine, J. M., & Moreland, R. L. (1987). Social comparison and outcome evaluation in group contexts. In J. Masters & W. Smith (Eds.), Social comparison, social justice, and relative deprivation: Theoretical, empirical, and policy perspectives (pp. 105-127). Hillsdale, NJ, London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
47.
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.
48.
London, M., & Smither, J. W. (1995). Can multi-source feedback change perceptions of goal accomplishment, self-evaluations, and performance-related outcomes? Personnel Psychology, 48, 803-839.
49.
Longenecker, C. O., Jaccoud, A. J., Sims, H. P., & Gioia, D. A. (1992). Quantitative and qualitative investigations of affect in executive judgment. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 41, 21-41.
50.
Many employees get review by co-workers. (1993, May 9). Omaha World Herald, p. 1-G.
51.
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20, 709-734.
52.
McGrath, J. E. (1978). Small group research. American Behavioral Scientist, 21, 651-674.
53.
McGrath, J. E. (1984). Groups: Interaction and performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
54.
Mitchell, T. R., & Liden, R. C. (1982). The effects of the social context on performance evaluations. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 29, 241-256.
55.
More employees facing “360-degree” evaluations. (1993, March 28). Omaha World Herald, p. 1-G.
56.
Murphy, K. R., & Cleveland, J. N. (1995). Understanding performance appraisal: Social, organizational, and goal-based perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
57.
Norman, C. A., & Zawacki, R. A. (1991). Team appraisals—Team approach (Digital Equipment Corp.’s peer performance appraisals). Personnel Journal, 70(9), 101-104.
58.
Pearce, J. L., & Porter, L. W. (1986). Employee responses to formal performance appraisal feedback. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 211-218.
59.
Peiperl, M. A. (1999). Conditions for the success of peer evaluation. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 10, 429-458.
60.
Peiperl, M. A. (2001, January). Getting 360°feedback right. Harvard Business Review, 142-147.
61.
Robbins, T. L., & DeNisi, A. S. (1994). A closer look at interpersonal affect: Identifying process and rating distortions in performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 341-353.
62.
Robbins, T. L., & DeNisi, A. S. (1998). Mood vs. interpersonal affect: Identifying process and rating distortions in performance appraisal. Journal of Business Psychology, 12, 313-325.
63.
Scholl, R. W., Cooper, E. A., & McKenna, J. F. (1987). Referent selection in determining equity perceptions: Differential effects on behavioral and attitudinal outcomes. Personnel Selection, 40, 113-124.
64.
Schrader, B. W., & Steiner, D. D. (1996). Common comparison standards: An approach to improving agreement between self and supervisory performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 813-820.
65.
Shore, T. H., McFarlane, L., & Thornton, G. C., III. (1992). Construct validity of self- and peer-evaluations on performance dimensions in an assessment center. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 42-54.
66.
Stogdill, R. A. (1972). Group productivity, drive, and cohesiveness. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 8, 26-43.
67.
Taggar, S., & Brown, T. (2001). Problem-solving team behavior: Development and validation of Behavioral Observation Scales. Small Group Research, 32, 698-726.
68.
Taggar, S., & Neubert, M. (2004). The impact of poor performers on team outcomes: An empirical examination of attribution theory. Personnel Psychology, 57, 935-968.
69.
Tziner, A., & Kopelman, R. (2002). Is there a preferred performance rating format? A nonpsychometric perspective. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 51, 479-503.
70.
Tsui, A., & Barry, B. (1986). Interpersonal affect and rating errors. Academy of Management Journal, 29, 586-598.
71.
Tsui, A. S., & Gutek, B. A. (1984). A role set analysis of gender differences in performance, affective relationship, and career success of industrial middle managers. Academy of Management Journal, 27, 619-635.
72.
Werner, J. M., & Bolino, M. C. (1997). Explaining U.S. courts of appeals decisions involving performance appraisal: Accuracy, fairness, and validation. Personnel Psychology, 50, 1-24.
73.
Wherry, R. J., & Bartlett, C. J. (1982). The control of bias in ratings: A theory of rating. Personnel Psychology, 35, 521-551.
74.
Williams, M. (2001). In whom we trust: Group membership as an effective context for trust development. Academy of Management Review, 26, 377-396.
75.
Zajonc, R. B. (1962). The effects of feedback and probability of success on individual and group performance. Human Relations, 15, 149-161.
76.
Zajonc, R. B. (1980). Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences. American Psychologist, 35, 151-175.
