PLACING PEER RATINGS IN CONTEXT: SYSTEMATIC INFLUENCES BEYOND RATEE PERFORMANCE

Performance evaluation research indicates that variance in ratings may be attributable to systematic sources beyond the actual performance of the ratee. However, the majority of prior work compares ratings across sources and uses ratings from a single rating event. Using confirmatory factor analysis and multivariate latent growth modeling (MLGM), we specifically examine peer ratings from 740 participants on 5 performance dimensions across 3 distinct performance situations for systematic sources of variance beyond ratee performance. Results demonstrate that both ratee performance and the performance context have systematic effects, with contextual effects varying by how "strong" or "weak" the situation is for a given performance dimension. Furthermore, MLGM results suggest that the influence of performance dynamism is only meaningfully interpreted when contextual effects are modeled.     

Mental Causation: Unnaturalized but not Unnatural

The central problem for a realist about mental causation is to show that mental causation is compatible with the causal completeness of physical systems. This problem has seemed intractable in large part because of a widely held view that any sort of systematic overdetermination of events by their causes is unacceptable. I account for the popularity of this view, but argue that we ought to reject it. In doing so. I show how we thereby undermine the idea that mental causes must be naturalizable in order to be legitimate. Thus I argue that a non-naturalist conception of mental causation is compatible with a plausible kind of physicalism.