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]

ABSTRACT:Establishing the measurement equivalence of instruments is a prerequisite to making meaningful comparisons between individuals or within individuals over time. Whereas previous research has investigated the effects of rater characteristics on the measurement equivalence of performance ratings, the current study investigated a ratee characteristic-ratee job experience. Using confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory methods with replication, the measurement equivalence of supervisor ratings of 7,200 managers with differing levels of managerial experience was assessed. Overall, results indicated a high degree of measurement equivalence suggesting that meaningful comparison may be made across ratees with different levels of job experience. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]