The importance of accurate performance appraisals is central to many aspects of personnel activities in organizations. This study examined threats due to past performance to accuracy of evaluation of subsequent performance by raters differing in scores on field dependence. 162 college students were classified as Field-dependent (n = 81) or Field-independent (n = 81), using a median split on the Group Embedded Figures Test. Past performance (a lecture) was good or poor, presented directly via a videotape or indirectly via a written evaluation to the Field-independent or Field-dependent groups. Analysis indicated the hypothesized contrast effect (ratings in the opposite direction from that of prior ratings) in the Direct condition and an unexpected, albeit smaller, contrast effect in the Indirect condition. There were also differential effects of performance, presentation, and field dependency on rating of lecturer's style and ability.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BeckerG.MillerC. E. (2002) Examining contrast effects in performance appraisals: Using appropriate controls and assessing accuracy. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary & Applied, 136, 667–683.
2.
BeckerG.VillanovaP. (1995) Effects of rating procedure and temporal delay on the magnitude of contrast effects in performance ratings. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary & Applied, 129, 157–166.
3.
BravoI. M.KravitzD. A. (1996) Context effects in performance appraisal: Influence of target value, context polarity, and individual differences. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26, 1681–1701.
4.
BudaR. (1984) Effects of expectation, perceived purpose, and scale format on performance ratings. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stevens Institute, Hoboken, NJ.
5.
CardyR. L.KehoeJ. F. (1984) Rater selective attention ability and appraisal effectiveness: The effect of a cognitive style on the accuracy of differentiation among ratees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 589–594.
6.
CohenJ. (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. (2nd ed.) Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
7.
DarleyJ. M.FazioR. H. (1980) Expectancy confirmation processes arising in the social interaction sequence. American Psychologist, 35, 867–881.
8.
DiNisiA. S.CaffertyT. P.MeglinoB. M. (1984) A cognitive view of the performance appraisal process: A model and research propositions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 33, 360–369.
9.
GoldsteinK. M.BlackmanS. (1978) Cognitive style. New York: Wiley.
10.
GurleyM. P. (1984) Characteristics of motivation, field independence, personality type, learning style, and teaching preference of the adult learner as compared with traditional-age college students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Catholic Univer. of America. (Dissertation Abstracts International, 45, 1268).
11.
HärtelC. E. (1993) Rating format research revisited: Format effectiveness and acceptability depend on rater characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 212–217.
12.
HastieR. (1980) Memory for behavioral information that confirms or contradicts a personality impression. In HastieR.OstromT. M.EbbensenE. B.WyerR. S.HamiltonD. L.CarlstonD. E. (Eds.), Person memory: The cognitive basis of social perception. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Pp. 141–172.
13.
HerrP.ShermanS.FazioR. (1983) On the consequences of priming: Assimilation and contrast effects. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 323–340.
14.
HigginsE. T.RholesW. S.JonesC. R. (1977) Category accessibility and impression formation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 141–154.
15.
KravitzD. A.BalzerW. K. (1990) Methodological problems with research on assimilation and contrast effects. Paper presented at the Fifth Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial/Organizational Psychology, Miami Beach, FL.
16.
KravitzD. A.BalzerW. K. (1992) Context effects in performance appraisal: A methodological critique and empirical study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 24–31.
17.
LandyF. J.BatesF. (1973) Another look at contrast effect in the employment interview. Journal of Applied Psychology, 58, 141–144.
18.
LathamG. P.WexleyK. N.PursellE. D. (1975) Training managers to minimize rating errors in the observation of behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 550–555.
19.
LeupoldC. R. (1998) The impact of performance-based and non-performance based general impressions on performance evaluation and the moderating effects of cognitive style. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 58, 6266.
20.
LingleJ. H.OstromT. M. (1979) Retrieval selectivity in memory-based impression judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 180–194.
21.
LingleJ. H.OstromT. M. (1981) Principles of memory and cognition in attitude formation. In PettyR. E.OstromT. M. (Eds.), Cognitive responses in persuasion. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Pp. 399–420.
22.
LombardiW. J.HigginsE. T.BargeJ. A. (1987) The role of consciousness in priming effects on categorization: Assimilation versus contrast as a function of awareness of the priming task. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 13, 411–429.
23.
MartinL. L.SetaJ. J. (1983) Perceptions of unity and distinctiveness as determinants of attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 755–764.
24.
McArthurL. (1981) What grabs you? The role of attention in impression formation and casual attribution. In HigginsE. T.HermanP.ZannaM. P. (Eds.), Social cognition (The Ontario Symposium). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Pp. 201–246.
25.
MurphyK. R.BalzerW. K.LockhartM. C.EisenmanE. J. (1985) Effects of previous performance on evaluations of present performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 72–84.
26.
MurphyM. R.GannettB. A.HerrB. M.ChenJ. A. (1986) Effects of subsequent performance on evaluations of previous performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 427–431.
27.
PalmerJ. K.MaurerT. J.FeldmanJ. M. (2002) Context and prior impression effects on attention, judgment standards and ratings: Contrast effect revisited. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 2575–2597.
28.
SchuhA. J. (1978) Contrast effects in the interview. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 11, 195–196.
29.
SilvermanT. D. (1989) The effect of mood on performance appraisal ratings. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stevens Institute of Technology, Hoboken, NJ.
30.
SimpsonD.OstromT. (1976) Contrast effects in impression formation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 625–629.
31.
SmitherJ. W.ReillyR. R.BudaR. V. (1988) Effects of prior performance information on ratings of present performance: Contrast versus assimilation revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 487–496.
32.
SnyderM. (1981) Seek and you shall find: Testing hypotheses about other people. In HigginsT.HermanP.ZannaM. P. (Ed.), Social cognition: The Ontario Symposium. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Pp. 369–425.
33.
SpottsJ. V.MacklerB. (1967) Relationships of field-dependent and field-independent cognitive styles to creative test performance. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 24, 239–268.
34.
SteinerD. D.RainJ. S. (1989) Immediate and delayed primacy and recency effects in performance evaluation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 136–142.
35.
SumerH. C.KnightP. A. (1996) Assimilation and contrast effects in performance ratings: Effects of rating the previous performance on rating subsequent performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 436–442.
36.
SwannW. B.Jr.ReadS. J. (1981) Self-verification processes: How we sustain our self-conceptions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 17, 351–370.
37.
WasonP. C. (1960) On the failure to eliminate hypotheses in a conceptual task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 12, 129–140.
38.
WebsterE. (1982) The employment interview: A social judgment process. Schomberg, Ontario, Can.: S. I. P. Publ.
39.
WexleyK. N.SandersR. E.YuklG. A. (1973) Training interviewers to eliminate contrast effects in employment interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 56, 45–48.
40.
WitkinH. A.GoodenoughD. R. (1977) Field dependence revisited. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
