The Public and Private Use of Consensus-Raising Excuses

ABSTRACT Two experiments tested the proposition that people use consensus-raising excuses more in private than in public when the audience has information that could refute subjects' claims about others In Experiment 1, subjects received success or failure feedback and made public or private attributions to ability, effort, task difficulty, and luck In Experiment 2, subjects received positive or negative feedback and evaluated themselves and others on the trait Task difficulty attributions and evaluations of others are consensus-raising measures Consistent with our hypothesis, subjects receiving negative feedback in Experiment 1 claimed that the task was more difficult, and in Experiment 2 evaluated the other more negatively in private than in public.     

Effects of deviant trials on precue-based versus memory-based switching among two or four tasks

In two experiments, the effects of an introduction of deviant trials on precue-based and memory-based task switching were investigated. Deviant trials were trials that deviated from task foreknowledge as induced either by precues or memory of the task sequence. The experiments differed with respect to the number of tasks to be switched among (two in Experiment 1, four in Experiment 2). In Experiment 1, the introduction of deviant trials had a detrimental effect on precue-based task preparation, but had little impact on memory-based preparation. The latter observation was due to the fact that there was little evidence for memory-based preparation at the outset. In Experiment 2, introducing deviant trials had little effect on either precue-based or memory-based preparation. In contrast to Experiment 1, in Experiment 2 memory-based preparation was as effective as precue-based preparation.     

The Effects of Commitment to Performance Goals on Effort1

The laboratory experiments were designed to examine the effects of commitment to a performance goal on the level of effort exerted to achieve the goal. In both experiments, college students worked on two memorization tasks and, after receiving performance feedback on the first task, commitment to either an easy or a more difficult goal for the second task was varied. In the first experiment, goal commitment was manipulated either by giving the students perceived choice over setting their goal or by assigning them to one of the two goal levels. In the second experiment, goal commitment was manipulated by publicly identifying students' goals or by keeping the goals private. To assess effort, participants were allowed to spend as little or as much time as they desired studying for the second task. In both experiments, the commitment manipulations (high choice or public identification) led to significantly greater persistence in studying, regardless of the goal level. In addition, high-commitment subjects tended to be more successful in reaching their goals than low-commitment subjects. These experiments suggest that commitment to a goal has motivational properties that prompt an increase in effort.     

The Joint Impact of Achievement Goals and Performance Feedback on Information Giving

This research examined how performance feedback moderates the effects of individuals' achievement goals on information exchange when carrying out a novel and complex task. Experiment 1 demonstrated that mastery goal individuals who received positive performance feedback gave less modified information about their task performance to their exchange partner relative to both mastery goal individuals who received negative feedback and performance goal individuals (who received either negative or positive feedback). In Experiment 2, we found that relative to performance goals, mastery goals led to a stronger reciprocity orientation and a weaker exploitation orientation. Also, mastery goal individuals provided information of higher quality than performance goal individuals, thereby explaining the observed findings in Experiment 1.     

Social loafing and social compensation: the effects of expectations of co-worker performance

Previous research has suggested that people tend to engage in social loafing when working collectively. The present research tested the social compensation hypothesis, which states that people will work harder collectively than individually when they expect their co-workers to perform poorly on a meaningful task. In 3 experiments, participants worked either collectively or coactively on an idea generation task. Expectations of co-worker performance were either inferred from participants' interpersonal trust scores (Experiment 1) or were directly manipulated by a confederate coworker's statement of either his intended effort (Experiment 2) or his ability at the task (Experiment 3). All 3 studies supported the social compensation hypothesis. Additionally, Experiment 3 supported the hypothesis that participants would not socially compensate for a poorly performing co-worker when working on a task that was low in meaningfulness.     

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

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.     

Hedging Their Bets: A Longitudinal Study of The Trade-Offs Between Task and Contextual Performance in a Sales Organization

In a field study of 167 salespeople working within a hybrid control system where multiple goals are valued, we examine whether feedback on sales performance is an antecedent to managerial ratings of task and contextual performance. Consistent with a hedge your bets strategy, results showed that the relationship between sales performance and ratings of interpersonal facilitation was curvilinear and moderated by political skill. Whereas sales performance and ratings of task performance and job dedication were positively related, interpersonal facilitation was negatively related to subsequent sales performance, suggesting that those who hedged their bets were less likely to achieve future sales goals.     

A case study of three theories of learned helplessness: The role of test importance

The current study tests three alternative explanations (learned helplessness, cognitive interference, and egotism) for poor performance following unsolvable problems. In Experiment 1, subjects were exposed to no feedback or to failure in unsolvable problems and were further divided according to the importance of a test task (unstipulated, low, and high importance). In Experiment 2, during the training phase subjects were exposed to either no feedback, failure, or failure plus explicit hypothesis instructions. Then, subjects in each group received either low or high test-importance instructions. Results bring support to the cognitive interference explanation of performance deficits. Exposure to unsolvable problems was found to impair performance in a high importance task, but not in a low importance task. Such a deleterious effect of prior failure and high importance instructions was reversed by discouraging people from engaging in state-oriented actions. The theoretical implications of the findings were discussed.     

Control motivation and attributions for performance

Two experiments examined the relationship between the desire for effective control over performance outcomes and attributions of causality for those outcomes. In Experiment 1, subjects were led to believe that they had either succeeded at or failed a test that was either unimportant or important. As predicted, failure of the important test was attributed more to lack of effort (a controllable cause) and less to lack of ability (an uncontrollable cause) than was failure of the unimportant test. In Experiment 2, all subjects were led to believe that they had failed a test. Once again, subjects were informed that the test was either important or unimportant. In addition, half the subjects were told that they would be undergoing more tests in a later testing session, while half were not informed of any future testing. As in Experiment 1, subjects failing the important test attributed their failure less to lack of ability than did subjects failing the unimportant test. The anticipation of future testing interacted with test importance in its effects on attributions to ability. Subjects performing the unimportant task attributed their failure more to lack of ability when anticipating future performance than when not. Attributions of subjects performing an important task were not affected by the anticipation of future performance. Results were discussed in terms of the need for control over performance outcomes.     

A Social Relations Analysis of Team Performance Ratings

The current study used a Social Relations Model to analyze self and peer ratings to explore the dynamics of team member perceptions and performance ratings. The results from 29 organizational teams who completed performance ratings of themselves and team members indicated that the most rating variance was attributed to the relationship component, followed by the ratee component, followed by the rater component. Among other findings, the results indicated that self‐ratings were related to how one rates, and is rated by, others; that there were high levels of reciprocity between peers for dimensions that were interpersonal in nature; and that raters tended to evaluate others within, but not necessarily across, dimensions similarly.     

Group performance and interpersonal evaluations as determinants of egotistical attributions in groups1

Group members often try to claim personal credit for the successes of their group while avoiding blame for group failures. Two experiments examined the effects of evaluations from their fellows on such egotism in groups. In Experiment 1, 96 subjects participated in four-person, problem-solving groups, and, after completing the group tasks, rated the competency and worth of each of the other group members. Subjects then received bogus written feedback indicating that the group had either succeeded or failed, and that the other members had considered them: (a) the most competent member of the group, (b) the least competent, or (c) of average competence. Group performance and personal evaluations interacted in influencing subjects' perceptions of their personal performances, relative responsibility for the group performance, and potency within the group, generally supporting predictions derived from self-esteem and equity theory. Subjects claimed more responsibility for success than for failure only when they were favorably evaluated by their peers, and claimed the least responsibility for group success when they were unfavorably evaluated. The latter acceptance of negative peer evaluations was examined in Experiment 2, which manipulated the consensus of the evaluations given 76 high or low self-esteem subjects. Regardless of their self-esteem or the consensus of the evaluations, subjects again seemed to accept unfavorable evaluations. High self-esteem subjects did, though, rate their personal performance and relative responsibility higher than low self-esteem subjects.     

Predictive Criterion-Related Validity of Observer Ratings of Personality and Job-Related Competencies Using Multiple Raters and Multiple Performance Criteria

The purpose of this study was to assess the predictive validity of observer ratings of personality and job-related competencies in a selection setting. Based on ratings from multiple raters of both the predictors and the criteria in a sample of MBA students, results indicated that observer ratings of Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability, leadership, and interpersonal skills predicted work performance, team performance, and academic performance. For work performance and team performance, a composite of the four predictors had incremental predictive validity over general mental ability, even after controlling for how well the rater knew the ratee.     

Explaining the Weak Relationship Between Job Performance and Ratings of Job Performance

Ratings of job performance are widely viewed as poor measures of job performance. Three models of the performance–performance rating relationship offer very different explanations and solutions for this seemingly weak relationship. One-factor models suggest that measurement error is the main difference between performance and performance ratings and they offer a simple solution—that is, the correction for attenuation. Multifactor models suggest that the effects of job performance on performance ratings are often masked by a range of systematic nonperformance factors that also influence these ratings. These models suggest isolating and dampening the effects of these nonperformance factors. Mediated models suggest that intentional distortions are a key reason that ratings often fail to reflect ratee performance. These models suggest that raters must be given both the tools and the incentive to perform well as measurement instruments and that systematic efforts to remove the negative consequences of giving honest performance ratings are needed if we hope to use performance ratings as serious measures of job performance.     

Reactions to acceptance and rejection: Effects of level and sequence of relational evaluation

Two experiments examined the effects of various levels and sequences of acceptance and rejection on emotion, ratings of self and others, and behavior. In Experiment 1, participants who differed in agreeableness received one of five levels of acceptance or rejection feedback, believing that they either would or would not interact with the person who accepted or rejected them. In Experiment 2, participants who differed in rejection sensitivity received one of four patterns of feedback over time, reflecting constant acceptance, increasing acceptance, increasing rejection, or constant rejection. In both studies, rejection elicited greater anger, sadness, and hurt feelings than acceptance, as well as an increased tendency to aggress toward the rejector. In general, more extreme rejection did not lead to stronger reactions than mild rejection, but increasing rejection evoked more negative reactions than constant rejection. Agreeableness and rejection-sensitivity scores predicted participants’ responses but did not moderate the effects of interpersonal acceptance and rejection.     

False physiological feedback and persuasion: Effect of fear arousal vs. fear reduction on attitude change

Two experiments tested the hypothesis that increases in false physiological feedback of fear arousal will enhance persuasion and that reduction in the arousal feedback is unnecessary for increased persuasion to occur. Prior research has usually found a positive relation between level of arousal and persuasion, but support for the drive reduction hypothesis is tenuous. However, Harris and Jellison (1971) claimed support for such a hypothesis. They manipulated subjects' fear arousal cognitively via false physiological feedback while the subjects listened to a persuasive communication. The present experiments used a similar procedure in an attempt to test an "arousal only" against an "arousal reduction" hypothesis. Subjects listened to a persuasive speech while receiving false feedback via a meter concerning their fear arousal. In Experiment I half of the subjects received high arousal and half received moderate arousal information. Within each of these conditions half of the subjects had their arousal reduced, and the other half did not. In Experiment II subjects received either low arousal, high arousal, or high then low arousal feedback while listening. The results of the two studies generally provided support for the "arousal only" hypothesis. An interpretation in terms of Bem's attribution theory was tentatively suggested.     

Context Effects in Performance Evaluation: The Impact of Ratee Sex and Performance Level on Performance Ratings and Behavioral Recall

We extend the research on context effects in performance evaluation by examining the impact of ratee sex and context performance level as moderators of context effects in performance ratings and in the recall of performance information. Subjects (N= 269) rated the performance of an average performer (male or female) alone or following a low or high performing context (male or female). We found significant differences in the magnitude of contrast effects for an average target ratee as a function of both target ratee sex and performance level. These differences were found for both performance ratings and the evaluative content of performance information recalled.     

Memory for things forgotten.

As previous research has shown, items not recalled on an initial memory task are not simply forgotten. Often, some can be recalled on a later, second task. Further, subjects can generally predict, in terms of feeling-of-knowing (FOK) ratings, which items will be subsequently recalled. Two experiments were carried out to assess both second-task performance and FOK accuracy for unrecalled items as a function of two factors, encoding manipulations (levels of processing in Experiment 1, study time in Experiment 2) and the nature of the second task (explicit or implicit cued stem completion). Results indicate that although levels of processing affected explicit second-task performance more than implicit second-task performance, it increased FOK accuracy in both types of tasks. Study time, however, affected FOK accuracy only in the explicit second task. Apparently, only when subjects were able to do some elaborative processing on the items did their FOK ratings reflect information relating to factors that drive performance on implicit tasks.     

The Moderating Effect of Performance Feedback and the Mediating Effect of Self-Set Goals on the Primed Goal-Performance Relationship

The effect of feedback and a self-set goal on the relationship between a goal primed in the subconscious and performance were examined in three laboratory experiments and one field experiment (n = 241, 465, 201, 74 respectively), using normative (bogus) and absolute feedback manipulations, and different performance tasks that were coded for both performance quality (i.e. creativity) and quantity. The hypothesis that providing feedback, a moderator in goal setting theory, amplifies the causal effect of a primed goal on performance was supported. Specifically, in experiment 1, participants were randomly assigned to a 2 (prime of effective vs. ineffective performance) × 3 (positive, negative, no feedback) factorial design. The primed goal for effective performance led to higher performance than the negative primed goal. In addition, feedback, regardless of its sign, increased both task and creative performance when a primed goal for effective performance was presented, but did not do so when the goal primed ineffective performance. This effect was replicated in two subsequent laboratory experiments which employed three primed goal conditions (effective/neutral/ineffective). In experiments 2 and 3, a consciously set goal, with no prompting by an experimenter, mediated the relationship between a primed goal and performance when feedback was provided. Experiment 4 provided a conceptual replication in a work setting, involving employees in a customer service department of a large communication company. Finally, a meta-analysis of these four experiments indicated an average effect size of d = 0.36, 95 per cent CI [0.23, 0.49] with no evidence of heterogeneity across the four experiments. These findings suggest that not only are subconscious goals a foundation for the difficulty level of consciously set goals, but in addition subconscious goals and conscious goals work together in affecting performance.     

Effects of task performance and contextual performance on systemic rewards

Evidence from 2 samples of Air Force mechanics supported the hypothesis that contextual performance affects employees' career advancement and rewards over time. Results of hierarchical regressions controlling for experience showed task performance and contextual performance each predicted systemic rewards. Each facet explained separate variance in promotability ratings over 2 years. In both samples, contextual performance explained separate variance in informal rewards but task performance did not. Task performance explained incremental variance in career advancement 1 year later but contextual performance did not. Analyses using correlations corrected for unreliability suggest these results cannot be attributed to measurement error. Contextual performance still explained separate variance in informal rewards, and task performance explained distinct variance in career advancement a year later.