Journal of Business and Psychology

, Volume 12, Issue 3, pp 283–298 | Cite as

Effects of Self-Appraisal Information, Appraisal Purpose, and Feedback Target on Performance Appraisal Ratings

  • Ted H. Shore
  • Janet S. Adams
  • Armen Tashchian


This experiment investigated the effects of three factors on performance appraisal ratings: self-appraisal information, appraisal purpose, and feedback target. Two hundred and three subjects rated a subordinate's performance on a clerical task subsequent to receiving either a high or low self-assessment. They were told they would provide performance feedback either to the experimenter (organizational agent) or their subordinate, and their ratings would be used either for an administrative decision or developmental feedback. Performance ratings were significantly higher when subjects received a favorable subordinate self-assessment than when self-assessments were unfavorable. A significant interaction was found between feedback target and the appraisal purpose. Implications for the use of self-appraisals in organizations were discussed.


Significant Interaction Performance Rating Social Psychology Social Issue Performance Feedback 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Antonioni, D. (1994). The effects of feedback accountability on upward appraisal ratings. Personnel Psychology, 47, 351–356.Google Scholar
  2. Basset, G.A. & Meyer, H.H. (1968). Performance appraisal based on self-review. Personnel Psychology, 21, 421–430.Google Scholar
  3. Bernardin, H.J. Orban, J. and Carlyle, J. (1981). Performance ratings as a function of trust in appraisal and rate individual differences. Proceedings of the 41st Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, 311–315.Google Scholar
  4. Blumberg, H.H. (1972). Communication of interpersonal evaluations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 23, 157–162.Google Scholar
  5. Burke, R.J., Weitzel, W., & Weis, T. (1978). Characteristics of effective employee performance review and development interviews: Replication and extension. Personnel Psychology, 37, 703–710.Google Scholar
  6. Campbell, D.J., & Lee, C. (1988). Self-appraisal in performance evaluation: Development versus evaluation. Academy of Management Review, 13, 302–314.Google Scholar
  7. Farh, J., Werbel, J.D., & Bedeian, A. G. (1988). An empirical investigation of self-appraisal-based performance evaluation. Personnel Psychology, 41, 141–156.Google Scholar
  8. Ferris, G.R., Yates, V.L., Gilbron, D.C, & Rowland, K. (1985). The influence of subordinate age on performance ratings and causal attributions. Personnel Psychology, 38, 545–557.Google Scholar
  9. Fisher, C.D. (1979). Transmission of positive and negative feedback to subordinates: A laboratory investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 533–540.Google Scholar
  10. Fusilier, M.R. (1980). The effects of anonymity and outcome contingencies on rater beliefs and behavior in a performance appraisal situation. Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, 273–277.Google Scholar
  11. Hare, A.P. (1976). Handbook of small group research (2nd ed.). NY: Free Press.Google Scholar
  12. Harris, M.M. (1994). Rater motivation in the performance appraisal context: A theoretical framework. Journal of Management, 20, 737–756.Google Scholar
  13. Harris, M.H., & Schaubroeck, J. (1988). A meta-analysis of self-supervisory, self-peer, and peer-supervisor ratings. Personnel Psychology, 41, 43–62.Google Scholar
  14. Ilgen, D.R., & Knowlton, W.A. (1980). Performance attributional effects on feedback from supervisors. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 25, 441–456.Google Scholar
  15. Jones, E.E., & Wortman, C. (1973). Ingratiation: An attributional approach. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.Google Scholar
  16. Kay, E., Meyer, H., & French, J. (1965). Effects of threat in a performance interview. Journal of Applied Psychology, 49, 311–317.Google Scholar
  17. Klimoski, R. & Inks, L. (1990). Accountability forces in performance appraisal. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 45, 194–208.Google Scholar
  18. Korsgaard, M.A., Roberson, L., & Klein, D.A. (1991). The effect of self-appraisal and participation on subsequent performance. Paper presented at the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology Conference, 1991.Google Scholar
  19. Landy, F.J., & Farr, J.L. (1983). The measurement of work performance: Methods, theory, and applications. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  20. Larson, J.R. (1984). The performance feedback process: A preliminary model. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 33, 42–76.Google Scholar
  21. Latham, G. (1986). Job performance and appraisal. In C. Cooper & I. Robertson (Eds.), International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Chichester, England: Wiley.Google Scholar
  22. Longenecker, C.O., Gioia, D.A., & Sims, H.P. (1987). Behind the Mask: The politics of employee appraisal. Academy of Management Executive, 1, 183–193.Google Scholar
  23. Murphy, K.R., Balzer, W.K., Kellam, K.L., & Armstrong, J. (1984). Effect of purpose of rating on accuracy in observing teacher behavior and evaluating teaching performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 45–54.Google Scholar
  24. Murphy, K.R., & Cleveland, J.N. (1991). Performance Appraisal: An Organizational Perspective. Boston: Allyn Bacon.Google Scholar
  25. Stone, T.H. (1973). An examination of six prevalent assumptions concerning performance appraisal. Public Personnel Management, 5, 408–414.Google Scholar
  26. Tesser, A., & Rosen, S. (1975). The reluctance to transmit bad news. In Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol.8). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  27. Tetlock, P.E. (1985). Accountability: The neglected social context of judgment and choice. In B.M Staw and L.L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, Vol. 7, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  28. Tetlock, P.E., & Kim, J.I. (1987). Accountability and judgment processes in a personality prediction task. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 700–709.Google Scholar
  29. Thornton, G.C. III (1980). Psychometric properties of self-appraisals of job performance. Personnel Psychology, 33, 263–271.Google Scholar
  30. Wexley, K.N., & Klimoski, R.J. (1984). Performance appraisal: An update. In Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, Vol. 2, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  31. 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 utilization. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 35, 314–339.Google Scholar
  32. Zedeck, S., & Cascio, W.F. (1982). Performance appraisal decisions as a function of rater training and purpose of the appraisal. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 752–758.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Human Sciences Press, Inc. 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ted H. Shore
    • 1
  • Janet S. Adams
    • 2
  • Armen Tashchian
    • 2
  1. 1.Kennesaw State UniversityMarietta
  2. 2.Kennesaw State UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations