Evaluating performance over time: Is improving better than being consistently good?

ABSTRACT

In many decision contexts, people evaluate others based on intertemporal performance records and commonly face a choice between two distinct profiles: performance that is consistently high versus performance that improves over time to that high level. We proposed that these two profiles could be appealing for different reasons, and thus evaluators’ preferences will differ across decision contexts. In three studies, participants were presented with candidates (e.g., students, employees) displaying the two profiles, and evaluated each candidate in terms of performance, future expectations, and deservingness. The consistent candidate was rated higher on performance, but lower on future expectations, than the improved candidate. Consequently, in achievement-based decisions (e.g., selecting a student for a scholarship), the consistent candidate was viewed as most deserving, whereas in potential-based decisions (e.g., selecting an employee for promotion), the improved candidate was preferred. These effects were mediated by the relative weight that evaluators placed on performance and future expectations.

KEYWORDS:

• Decision making
• judgment
• social cognition
• work

Notes

1. To be able to detect medium effect sizes (≈0.5) with statistical power of 0.8, we needed at least 34 participants for each within-subjects comparison. We made sure to exceed this minimum recommended sample size in all studies.

2. In all three studies, the location of the profiles on the screen (left versus right side) and the peripheral content of the profiles were counterbalanced across participants so that each employee or student profile was paired equally often with the improved and consistent performance records.

3. All three studies employed a within-subjects design. Therefore, we employed a mediation approach that is specifically designed for within-subjects designs (Judd et al., 2001) using the recently developed MEMORE macro for SPSS (Montoya & Hayes, 2017).

4. We recruited an initial sample of 239 undergraduates. Participants were excluded if they did not correctly answer an attention-check item administered to ensure that they had read key information in the scenarios. Analyses conducted on the full initial sample yield the same significant effects as those reported for the final sample.