Search

This study replicated and refined research on the effects of escalation of commitment in performance ratings. We utilized experimental manipulations in a laboratory setting to determine whether positive escalation or negative escalation (or both) could be responsible for the effect. In one session, participants (N = 210) were assigned to the perspective of the potential employee's supervisor and chose 1 of 2 candidates for a sales position. In a second session, participants rated the performance of (a) the individual they selected; (b) the individual they rejected; or (c) a third individual, whose preselection information they never viewed. Results replicated previous findings, such that ratings were biased upward when participants rated the performance of the salesperson they had originally selected. Results were not biased downward when individuals rated the performance of the salesperson they had rejected, however. Thus, our results suggest that positive escalation, and not negative escalation, was the cause of the bias. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study tests the general idea that people in different organizational positions can have different perspectives on what performance means in a particular job and that these different perspectives are reflected in their implicit trait policies (ITPs) about performance in that job. We test the hypothesis that prison inmates harbor ITPs about the importance of agreeableness and conscientiousness in correctional officers' performance that are different from the ITPs harbored by officers and supervisors. Our results show that critical incidents of officers' performance that are generated by inmates emphasize agreeableness more and conscientiousness less than critical incidents generated by officers and supervisors. Our results also show that inmates' ratings of the effectiveness of officers' behavior described in critical incidents are more strongly associated with the agreeableness of the behavior and less strongly associated with the conscientiousness of the behavior than are officers' and supervisors' ratings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]