Making raters more accountable for their performance ratings: effects of expecting a supervisory review of ratings

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorStamoulis, Dean T.en
dc.contributor.committeechairHauenstein, Neil M.A.en
dc.contributor.committeememberHarvey, Robert J.en
dc.contributor.committeememberGustafson, Sigrid B.en
dc.contributor.committeememberFranchina, Joseph J.en
dc.contributor.committeememberFoti, Roseanne J.en
dc.contributor.committeememberFranke, George R.en
dc.contributor.departmentPsychologyen
dc.date.accessioned2014-03-14T21:14:01Zen
dc.date.adate2008-06-06en
dc.date.available2014-03-14T21:14:01Zen
dc.date.issued1993en
dc.date.rdate2008-06-06en
dc.date.sdate2008-06-06en
dc.description.abstractPrior research has shown that accountability influences decision-making processes (e.g., Tetlock, 1985a). Tetlock's work has found when accountable decision-makers know the view of the person to whom they are accountable, decision-makers will shift their decision towards that known view. In addition, these decision-makers may more frequently rationalize a previous decision. Accountable decision-makers who do not know the view of the person to whom they are accountable have been found to exhibit vigilant and complex cognitive processing. The goal of this study was to apply Tetlock's model of accountability to performance evaluations. Undergraduate raters in accountability conditions expected to meet with one of their actual professors to justify performance ratings. To further investigate the nature of accountability, this study contrasted with Tetlock's work in utilizing two different types of accountability and a decision shift control group. Results of this decision shift control group raised questions about Tetlock’s conclusions about accountability's effects on decision shifts. In addition, reward aspects of accountability may subsume Tetlock's regular operationalization of interpersonal accountability. Overall, raters appeared to focus on the possibility of giving unfavorable ratings. This focus may be of primary importance to accountability effects in performance evaluation. Suggestions for future research and the generalizability of these processes were discussed.en
dc.description.degreePh. D.en
dc.format.extentvii, 161 leavesen
dc.format.mediumBTDen
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdfen
dc.identifier.otheretd-06062008-165815en
dc.identifier.sourceurlhttp://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-06062008-165815/en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10919/38355en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherVirginia Techen
dc.relation.haspartLD5655.V856_1993.S725.pdfen
dc.relation.isformatofOCLC# 29968697en
dc.rightsIn Copyrighten
dc.rights.urihttp://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/en
dc.subject.lccLD5655.V856 1993.S725en
dc.subject.lcshEmployees -- Rating ofen
dc.subject.lcshResponsibilityen
dc.subject.lcshSupervisorsen
dc.titleMaking raters more accountable for their performance ratings: effects of expecting a supervisory review of ratingsen
dc.typeDissertationen
dc.type.dcmitypeTexten
thesis.degree.disciplinePsychologyen
thesis.degree.grantorVirginia Polytechnic Institute and State Universityen
thesis.degree.leveldoctoralen
thesis.degree.namePh. D.en

Files

Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
LD5655.V856_1993.S725.pdf
Size:
7.29 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Download

Collections

Doctoral Dissertations