The social context of accountability: effects of raters' expectations of a supervisory review

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorCorrigan, Diana K.en
dc.contributor.committeechairHauenstein, Neil M. A.en
dc.contributor.committeememberFoti, Roseanne J.en
dc.contributor.committeememberGustafson, Sigrid B.en
dc.contributor.departmentPsychologyen
dc.date.accessioned2014-03-14T21:49:30Zen
dc.date.adate2009-11-10en
dc.date.available2014-03-14T21:49:30Zen
dc.date.issued1994-01-05en
dc.date.rdate2009-11-10en
dc.date.sdate2009-11-10en
dc.description.abstractBeing held accountable for one's views in an ambiguous situation has been found to increase cognitive processing and reduce possible biases often pervasive in performance appraisals (Tetlock, 1983a). The present study examined the effects of making raters more accountable for their performance ratings through expectations of a supervisory review. Two types of accountability were manipulated. Interpersonal accountability induced subjects to believe that they would receive feedback based on their justifications of their ratings. Reward accountability subjects expected that they would receive a reward based on the quality of their ratings compared to true performance scores. Half of the subjects were also told that the supervisor gave the ratee a negative performance rating. 191 female subjects rated an interviewer's performance after receiving accountability and view manipulations. Results indicated that subjects who received accountability manipulations in conjunction with the view gave more unfavorable ratings and were less accurate on Cronbach's (1955) elevation component of accuracy than no accountability and/or no view groups. Accountable subjects who did not receive the view were expected to increase cognitive processing. These hypotheses pertaining to increases in cognitive complexity and dimensional accuracy were not supported. Although unexpected, interpersonal accountability in conjunction with reward accountability prevented a decrement in processing when given the view. A biased versus unbiased vigilant processing hypothesis was proposed to explain these results. Possible limitations are also proposed as well as implications for future research.en
dc.description.degreeMaster of Scienceen
dc.format.extentix, 124 leavesen
dc.format.mediumBTDen
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdfen
dc.identifier.otheretd-11102009-020340en
dc.identifier.sourceurlhttp://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-11102009-020340/en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10919/45632en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherVirginia Techen
dc.relation.haspartLD5655.V855_1994.C677.pdfen
dc.relation.isformatofOCLC# 31625230en
dc.rightsIn Copyrighten
dc.rights.urihttp://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/en
dc.subject.lccLD5655.V855 1994.C677en
dc.subject.lcshEmployees -- Rating ofen
dc.subject.lcshInterpersonal relationsen
dc.subject.lcshResponsibilityen
dc.titleThe social context of accountability: effects of raters' expectations of a supervisory reviewen
dc.typeThesisen
dc.type.dcmitypeTexten
thesis.degree.disciplinePsychologyen
thesis.degree.grantorVirginia Polytechnic Institute and State Universityen
thesis.degree.levelmastersen
thesis.degree.nameMaster of Scienceen

Files

Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
LD5655.V855_1994.C677.pdf
Size:
5.29 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Download

Collections

Masters Theses