We report two studies using different methodologies to advance research in the understanding of rater self-efficacy. In the first study, an experimental investigation of the effects of a program designed to augment rater self-efficacy perceptions found that student raters provided with Self-Efficacy Training for Raters (SET-R) produced less elevated ratings subsequent to training as well as reported lower levels of performance appraisal discomfort based on responses to the Performance Appraisal Discomfort Scale (PADS). We also report the survey results conducted with appraisal participants develop a rater self-efficacy scale with high fidelity to actual appraisal situations. Accordingly, appraisal circumstances that heighten the threat appraisal of raters are described by four discrete behavioral dimensions. Two super ordinate dimensions that exhibited significant differences between more and less experienced raters may suffice for a simpler representation of the rater self-efficacy domain. These findings hold promise for advancing efforts in understanding rater self-efficacy.
Argyle, M., & Kendon, A. (1967). The experimental analysis of social performance. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 55-98). New York: Academic Press.
2.
Austin, J. T., & Villanova, P. (1992). The criterion problem: 1917-1992. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 836-874.
3.
Austin, J. T., Villanova, P., Kane, J. S., & Bernardin, H. J. (1991). Construct validation of performance measures: Issues, development, and evaluation of indicators. In G. R. Ferris & K. M. Rowland (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 9, pp. 159-233). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
4.
Bandura, A. (1986). The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 4, 359-373.
5.
Bernardin, H. J. (1978). Effects of rater training on leniency and halo errors in student ratings of instruction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 301-308.
6.
Bernardin, H. J., & Beatty, R. S. (1984). Performance appraisal: Assessing human behavior at work. Boston: Kent.
7.
Bernardin, H. J., & Buckley, M. R. (1981). A consideration of strategies in rater training. Academy of Management Review, 6, 205-212.
8.
Bernardin, H. J., Buckley, M. R., Tyler, C. L., & Wiese, D. S. (2000). A consideration of strategies in rater training. In J. Ferris (Ed.) Research in personnel and human resource management (Vol. 18, pp. 221-274). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
9.
Bernardin, H. J., Cooke, D., Ross, S., & Villanova, P. (2000). Conscientiousness and agreeableness as predictors of rating leniency. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 232-236.
10.
Bernardin, H. J., Cooke, D., & Villanova, P. (1999, October). The relationship between the Big- Five personality factors, rating discomfort, and rating leniency. Paper presented at the meeting of Southern Management Association, Atlanta, GA.
11.
Bernardin, H. J., & Russell, J. E. A. (1998). Human resource management: An experiential approach. New York: McGraw-Hill.
12.
Bernardin, H. J., & Villanova, P. (1986). Performance appraisal. In E. Locke (Ed.), Generalizing from laboratory to field settings (pp. 43-62). Boston: Heath/Lexington.
13.
Bernthal, P., Sumlin, R., Davis, P., & Rogers, B. (1997). Performance management practices survey report. Pittsburgh, PA: Development Decisions International.
14.
Bowman, J. S. (1999). Performance appraisal: Verisimilitude trumps veracity. Public Personnel Management, 28, 557-576.
15.
Coens, T., & Jenkins, M. (2000). Abolishing performance appraisals. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
16.
Driver, R. S. (1942). Training as a means of improving employee performance rating. Personnel, 18, 364-370.
17.
Dulebohn, J. H., & Ferris, G. R. (1999). The role of influence tactics in perceptions of performance evaluations fairness. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 288-303.
18.
Gist, M. E. (1987). Self-efficacy: Implications for organizational behavior and human resource management. Academy of Management Review, 12, 472-485.
19.
Gist, M. E., & Mitchell, T. R. (1992). Self-efficacy: A theoretical analysis of its determinants and malleability. Academy of Management Review, 17, 183-211.
20.
Goldstein, I. L., & Musicante, G. R. (1986). The applicability of a training transfer model to issues concerning rater training. In E. Locke (Ed.). Generalizing from laboratory to field settings (pp. 83-98). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
21.
Gosselin, A., Werner, J. M., & Halle, N. (1997). Ratee preferences concerning performance management and appraisal. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 8, 315-333.
22.
Greguras, G. J., & Robie, C. (1998). A new look at within-source interrater reliability of 360-degree feedback ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 960-968.
23.
Harris, M. M. (1994). Rater motivation in the performance appraisal context: A theoretical framework. Journal of Management, 20, 737-756.
24.
Hauenstein, N. M. A. (1998). Training raters to increase the accuracy of appraisals and the usefulness of feedback. In J. W. Smithers (Ed.), Performance appraisal: State of the art in practice (Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology Professional Practice Series, pp. 404-442). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
25.
Hauenstein, N. M. A., & Foti, R. J. (1989). From laboratory to practice: Neglected issues in implementing frame-of-reference rater training. Personnel Psychology, 42, 359-378.
26.
Ilgen, D. R., Barnes-Farrell, J. L., & McKellin, D. B. (1993). Performance appraisal process research in the 1980s: What has it contributed to appraisals in use?Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 54, 321-368.
27.
Ilgen, D. R., & Feldman, J. (1983). Performance appraisal: A process focus. In B.M. Staw& L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 5, pp. 141-196). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
28.
Ivancevich, J. (1979). Longitudinal study of the effects of rater training on psychometric error in ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 502-508.
29.
Jawahar, I. M. (2001). Attitudes, self-monitoring, and appraisal behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 875-883.
30.
Jelley, B. (2004). Rater personality and performance-evaluation leniency. Doctoral dissertation, University of Western Ontario, London, Canada.
31.
Kane, J. S., Bernardin, J. J., Villanova, P., & Peyrefitte, J. (1995). Stability of rater leniency: Three studies. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1036-1051.
32.
Kozlowski, S. W. J., Chao, G. T., & Morrison, R. F. (1998). Games raters play: Politics, strategies, and impression management in performance appraisal. In J. W. Smither (Ed.), Performance appraisal: State of the art (pp. 163-205). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
33.
Landy, F. J., & Farr, J. L. (1980). Performance rating. Psychological Bulletin, 87, 72-107.
34.
Latham, G. P., Wexley, K. N., & Pursell, E. D. (1975). Training managers to minimize rating errors on the observation of behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 550-555.
35.
Miller, G. A., & Chapman, J. P. (2001). Misunderstanding analysis of covariance. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 110, 40-48.
36.
Murphy, K. R., & Cleveland, J. N. (1995). Understanding performance appraisal: Social, organizational, and goal-based perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
37.
Napier, N., & Latham, G. (1986). Outcome expectancies of people who conduct performance appraisals. Personnel Psychology, 39, 827-837.
38.
Neck, C. P., Stewart, G., & Manz, C. C. (1995). Thought self-leadership as a framework for enhancing the performance of performance appraisers. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 31, 278-302.
39.
Smith, B., Hornsby, J. S., & Shirmeyer, R. (1996). Current trends in performance appraisal: An examination of managerial practice. SAM Advanced Management Journal61, 10-15.
40.
Smith, W. J., V.Harrington, K. V., & Houghton, J. D. (2000). Predictors of performance appraisal discomfort: A preliminary examination. Public Personnel Management, 29, 21-32.
41.
Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, F. (1998). Self-efficacy and work-related outcomes. A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 240-261.
42.
Sulsky, L. M., & Day, D. V. (1992). Frame-of-reference training and cognitive categorization: An empirical investigation of rater memory issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 501-510.
43.
Sumlin, R. (1998). Performance management: Impact and trends. Pittsburgh, PA: Development Decisions International.
44.
Thornton, G. C., & Zorich, S. (1980). Training to improve observer accuracy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 351-354.
45.
Tziner, A. (1999). The relationship between distal and proximal factors and the use of political considerations in performance appraisal. Journal of Business and Psychology, 14, 217-231.
46.
Tziner, A., & Murphy, K. R. (1999). Additional evidence of attitudinal influences in performance appraisal. Journal of Business and Psychology, 13(3), 407-419.
47.
Villanova, P. (1995, August). The prediction of rater leniency using individual difference measures. Paper presented at the 1995 meeting of the Academy of Management, Vancouver, Canada.
48.
Villanova, P., Bernardin, H. J., Dahmus, S., & Sims, R. (1993). Rater leniency and performance appraisal discomfort. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 789-799.
49.
Warmke, D. L., & Billings, R. S. (1979). Comparison of training methods for improving the psychometric quality of experimental and administrative performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 124-131.
50.
Woehr, D. J., & Huffcutt, A. I. (1994). Rater training for performance appraisal: A quantitative review. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 67, 189-205.
