This study investigates the effects of appraisal purpose (feedback vs. grading), participant preconceptions, and favorability of the peer ratings on user acceptance of peer evaluations in an experiential management course. The results indicate more favorable acceptance of the peer evaluations when used for grading purposes and when initially viewed as beneficial. The validity of the research setting as well as possible explanations of these results are discussed, followed by suggestions for future research on the acceptability of peer evaluations as a management tool.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Barrett, R.S. (1966). Performance ratingChicago : Science Research Associates.
2.
Brief, A.P. (1980). Peer assessment revisited: A brief comment on Kane & LawlerPsychological Bulletin , 88, 78-79.
3.
Cederblom, D., & Lounsbury, J.W. (1980). An investigation of user acceptance of peer evaluationsPersonnel Psychology , 33, 567-579.
4.
DeCotiis, T., & Petit, A. (1978). The performance appraisal process: A model and some testable propositionsAcademy of Management Review , 3, 635-646.
5.
DeNisi, A.S., Cafferty, T.P., & Meglino, B.M. (1984). A cognitive view of the performance appraisal process: A model and research propositionsOrganizational Behavior and Human Performance, 33, 360-396.
6.
DeNisi, A.S., & Mitchell, J.L. (1978). An analysis of peer ratings as predictors and criterion measures and a proposed new applicationAcademy of Management Review, 3 , 369-374.
7.
DeNisi, A.S., Randolph, W.A., & Blencoe, A.G. (1982). Level and source of feedback as determinants of feedback effectivenessProceedings of the Academy of Management Annual Meeting, 175-179.
8.
Dipboye, R.L., & de Pontbriand, R. (1981). Correlates of employee reactions to performance appraisals and appraisal systemsJournal of Applied Psychology, 66, 248-251.
9.
Dunham, R.B., Pierce, J.L., & Castaneda, M.B. (1987). Alternative work schedules: Two field quasi-experimentsPersonnel Psychology , 40, 215-242.
10.
Fedor, D.B., & Buckley, M.R. (1987). Providing feedback to organizational members: A reconsiderationJournal of Business and Psychology , 2, 171-181.
11.
Festinger, L. (1950). Informal and social communicationPsychological Review, 57 , 271-282.
12.
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processesHuman Relations, 7 , 117-140.
13.
Gordon, M.E., Slade, L.A., & Schmitt, N. (1987). Student guinea pigs: Porcine predictors and particularistic phenomenaAcademy of Management Review , 12, 160-163.
14.
Greenburg, J. (1987). The college sophomore as guinea pig: Setting the record straightAcademy of Management Review , 12, 157-159.
15.
Hollander, E.P. (1957). The reliability of peer nominations under various conditions of administrationJournal of Applied Psychology , 41, 85-90.
16.
Ilgen, D.B., Fisher, C.D., & Taylor, M.S. (1979). Consequences of individual feedback on behavior in organizationsJournal of Applied Psychology , 64, 349-371.
17.
Kane, J.S., & Lawler, E.E. (1978). Method of peer assessmentPsychological Bulletin, 85 , 555-586.
18.
Klimoski, R.J., & London, M. (1974). Role of the rater in performance appraisalJournal of Applied Psychology, 59, 445-451.
19.
Landy, F.J., Barnes, J.L., & Murphy, K.R. (1978). Correlates of perceived fairness and accuracy of performance evaluationJournal of Applied Psychology , 63, 751-754.
20.
Larson, J.R. (1984). The performance feedback process: A preliminary modelOrganizational Behavior and Human Performance , 33, 42-76.
21.
Leavitt, H.J. (1964). Managerial psychologyChicago : University of Chicago Press.
22.
Love, K.G. (1981). Comparison of peer assessment methods: Reliability, validity, friendship bias, and user reactionJournal of Applied Psychology, 66, 451-457.
Medland, F.F., Yates, L.G., & Downey, R.G. (1974). Associate ratings of senior officer potential. U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavior and Social Sciences, Research Problem Review, 74, 2.
25.
Mount, M.K. (1983). Comparisons of managerial and employee satisfaction with a performance appraisal systemPersonnel Psychology , 36, 99-110.
26.
Mumford, M.D. (1983). Social comparison theory and the evaluation of peer evaluations: A review and some applied implicationsPersonnel Psychology, 36 , 867-881.
27.
Roadman, H.E. (1964). An industrial use of peer ratingsJournal of Applied Psychology, 48, 211-214.
28.
Taylor, M.S., Fisher, C.O., & Ilgen, D.R. (1984). Individual reactions to performance feedback in organizations: A control theory perspective In K. M. Rowland & G. R. Ferris (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 2, pp. 81-124). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
29.
Waters, L.K., & Waters, C.W. (1970). Peer nominations as predictors of short-term sales performanceJournal of Applied Psychology , 54, 42-44.
Williams, K.J., DeNisi, A.S., Blencoe, A.G., & Cafferty, T.P. (1985). The role of appraisal purpose: Effects of purpose on information acquisition and utilizationOrganizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 35, 314-339.
32.
Zedeck, S., & Cascio, W.F. (1982). Performance appraisal decisions as a function of rater training and purpose of the appraisalJournal of Applied Psychology, 67 , 752-758.
