Using the evaluation traits typically adopted by college instructors, this study investigates the dimensions of peer evaluation criteria used by college students in advertising management and campaigns courses and examines their effects on overall peer evaluation under the influence of three moderating self-related concepts: self-esteem, self-competence and goal orientations (i.e., learning goal orientation and performance goal orientation). The results, from Study 1 suggest Quality of Work and Team Spirit as two important factors for students’ evaluation of their peers. The moderating effects of self-related concepts from Study 2 indicate that students with high self-esteem and high self-competence use Quality of Work predominantly, while students with high learning goal orientation and performance goal orientation use both Quality of Work and Team Spirit for peer evaluations. Overall, the findings indicate that students use Quality of Work more strongly in evaluating their team peers, compared to Team Spirit.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BarclayJ. H., & HarlandL. K. (1995). Peer performance appraisals: The impact of rater competence, rater location, and rating correctability on fairness perceptions.. Group & Organization Management, 20(1), 39–60.
2.
ChenY., & LouH. (2004). Students’ perceptions of peer evaluation: An expectancy perspective. Journal of Education for Business, 79(5), 275–282.
3.
CohenA. R. (1959). Some implications of self-esteem for social influence. In HovlandC.I. & I.
4.
JanisL. (Eds.), Personality and Persuasibility (pp. 102–120). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
5.
CraryW. G. (1966). Reactions to incongruent self-experience. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 30(3), 246–252.
6.
DeNisiA. S., & MitchellJ. L. (1978). An analysis of peer ratings as predictors and criterion measures and a proposed new application. Academy of Management Review, 3, 369–374.
7.
DuffyM. K., ShawJ. D., & StarkE. M. (2000). Performance and satisfaction in conflicted interdependent groups: When and how does self-esteem make a difference?Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 772–782.
8.
DweckC. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41(10), 1040–1048.
9.
FarrJ. L., HofmannD. A., & RingenbachK. L. (1993). Goal orientation and action control theory: Implications for industrial and organizational psychology. In. In CooperC. L. & RobertsonI. T. (Ed.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 193–232). New York: Wiley.
10.
FedorD. B., BettenhausenK. L., & DavisW. (1999). Peer views: Employee's dual roles as raters and recipients. Group & Organization Management, 24(1), 92–120.
11.
GhorpadeJ. (1993). Managing five paradoxes of 360-degree feedback. Academy of Management Executive, 14(1), 140–150.
12.
Gomez-MejiaL. R. (1988). Evaluating employee performance: Does the appraisal instrument make a difference?Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 9, 155–172.
13.
GomezC., KirkmanB. L., & ShapiroD. L. (2000). The impact of collectivism and in-group/out-group membership on the evaluation generosity of team members.. Academy of Management Journal, 43(6), 1097–1106.
14.
GreveW., & WenturaD. (2003). Immunizing the self: Self-concept stabilization through reality-adaptive self-definitions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(1), 39–50.
15.
GueldenzophL. E., & MayG. L (2002). Collaborative peer evaluation: Best practices for group member assessments. Business Communication Quarterly, 65(1), 9–20.
16.
HackmanJ. R. (2002). Leading teams: Setting the stage for great performances. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
17.
HeylingsD. J., & StefaniL. A. (1997). Peer assessment feedback marking in a large medical anatomy class. Medical Education, 31(4), 281–286.
18.
ImadaA. S. (1982). Social interaction, observation, and stereotype as determinants of differentiation in peer rating. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 29, 397–415.
19.
KaneJ. S., & LawlerE. E. (1978). Methods of peer assessment. Psychological Bulletin, 85(3), 555–586.
20.
KatzenbachJ. R., & SmithD. K. (1993). The discipline of teams. Harvard Business Review,111-120.
21.
KennedyG. J. (2005). Peer-assessment in group projects: Is it worth it?Proceedings of the Australasian Conference on Computing Education, 42, 59–65.
LandyF. J., & FarrL. L. (1983). The measurement of work performance: Methods, theory, and applications.New York: Academic Press.
24.
LidenR. C., & MitchellT. R. (1983). The effects of group interdependence on supervisor performance evaluations. Personnel Psychology, 36(2), 289–299.
25.
LinvilleP., & CarlstonD. E. (1994). Social cognition perspective on self. In DevineP. G.HamiltonD. L., & OstromT. M. (Eds.), Social cognition: Contributions to classic issues in social psychology (pp. 143–193). New York: Academic Press.
26.
Lopez-RealF., & Chan, Y-P. R. (1999). Peer assessment of a group project in a primary mathematics education course. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 24(1), 67–79.
27.
MacAlpineJ. M. K. (1999). Improving and encouraging peer assessment of student presentations. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. 24(1), 15-25.
28.
MayG. L., & GueldenzophL. E. (2006). The effect of social style on peer evaluation ratings in project teams. Journal of Business Communication, 43(1), 4–20.
29.
MillerP. J. (2003). The effect of scoring criteria specificity on peer and self-assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 28(4), 383–394.
30.
MurphyK. R., & ClevelandJ. N. (1991). Performance appraisal: An organizational perspective. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
31.
MurphyK. R., MartinC., & GarciaM. (1982). Do behavioral observation scales measure observation?Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 562–567.
32.
OhlandM.W., & LaytonR. A. (2000). Comparing the reliability of two peer evaluation instruments. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Society for Engineering Education. St. Louis, MO.
33.
PersonsO. S. (1998). Factors influencing students’ peer evaluation in cooperative learning. Journal of Education for Business, 73(4), 225–229.
34.
PondK., & Ul-Haq, R. (1997). Learning to assess students using peer review. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 23(4), 331–348.
35.
SherrardW. R., & RaafatF. (1994). An empirical study of peer bias in evaluations: Students rating students. Journal of Education for Business, 70(1), 43–47.
36.
ShraugerJ. S., & TerbovicM. L. (1976). Self-evaluation and assessments of performance by self and others. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 44(4), 564–572.
37.
SilvermanI. (1964). Differential effects of ego threat upon persuasibility for high and low self-esteem subjects. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 69, 567–572.
38.
SmithD. E. (1986). Training programs for performance appraisal: A review. Academy of Management Review, 11(1), 22–40.
39.
R. W., & SwannW. B. (1995). Self-liking and self-competence as dimensions of global self-esteem: initial validation of a measure.. Journal of Personality Assessment, 65(2), 322–342.
40.
TzinerA., MurphyK., & ClevelandJ. (2002). Does conscientiousness moderate the relationship between attitudes and beliefs regarding performance appraisal and rating behavior?International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10, 218–224.
41.
WoehrD. J., & HuffcuttA. I. (1994). Rater training for performance appraisal: A quantitative review. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 67(3), 189–205.
