An Investigation of Factors Influencing Accountability and Performance Ratings

References

• Antonioni, D. (1994). The effects of feedback accountability on upward appraisal ratings. Personnel Psychology, 47, 349-356.
   Google Scholar
• Arbuckle, J. L., & Wothke, W. (1999). Amos users' guide version 4.0. Chicago: Smallwaters.
   Google Scholar
• Banks, C. G., & Murphy, K. M. (1985). Toward narrowing the research—practice gap in performance appraisal. Personnel Psychology, 38, 335-345.
   Google Scholar
• Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator—mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
   Google Scholar
• Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indices in structural equation modeling. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238-246.
   Google Scholar
• Bretz, R. D., Jr., Milkovich, G. T., & Read, W. (1992). The current state of performance appraisal research and practice: Concerns, directions, and implications. Journal of Management, 18, 321-352.
   Google Scholar
• Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136-162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correction analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Curtis, A. B., Harvey, R. D., & Ravden, D. (2005). Sources of political distortions in performance appraisals. Group and Organization Management, 30, 42-60.
   Google Scholar
• Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2002). Intrinsic Motivation Inventory. Retrieved July 18, 2002, from http://www.psych.rochester.edu/SDT/measures/intrins.html
   Google Scholar
• Dipboye, R. L (1990). Laboratory vs. field research in industrial and organizational psychology. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 5, pp. 1-34). New York: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Fisher, C. D. (1979). The transmission of positive and negative feedback to subordinates: A laboratory investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 533-540.
   Google Scholar
• Harris, M. M. (1994). Rater motivation in the performance appraisal context: A theoretical framework. Journal of Management, 20, 737-756.
   Google Scholar
• Ilgen, D. R., & Feldman, J. M. (1983). Performance appraisal: A process focus. In L. Cummings & B. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 5, pp. 141-197). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
   Google Scholar
• Ilgen, D. R., & Knowlton, W. A., Jr. (1980). Performance attributional effects on feedback from superiors. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 25, 441-456.
   Google Scholar
• Jones, R. G. (1992). Attention allocation choices as an influence on accuracy and discriminant validity of observational ratings: When are we diligent? Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University, Columbus.
   Google Scholar
• Klimoski, R., & Inks, L. (1990). Accountability forces in performance appraisal. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 45, 194-208.
   Google Scholar
• Landy, F. J., & Farr, J. L. (1983). The measurement of work performance: Methods, theory, and applications. New York: Academic.
   Google Scholar
• Lerner, J. S., & Tetlock, P. E. (1999). Accounting for the effects of accountability. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 255-275.
   Google Scholar
• Longenecker, C. O., Sims, H. P., & Gioia, D. A. (1987). Behind the mask: The politics of employee appraisal. Academy of Management Executive, 1, 183-193.
   Google Scholar
• McCauley, D. P., Jago, I. A., Gore, B., Lance, C. E., Quarles, F. K., Sledge, L., et al. (1990). The development of more ecologically valid videotapes for use in performance appraisal research. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southeastern Psychological Association, April 1990, Atlanta, GA.
   Google Scholar
• Mero, N. P., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1995). Effects of rater accountability on the accuracy and favorability of performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 517-524.
   Google Scholar
• Mook, D. G. (1983). In defense of external invalidity. American Psychologist, 38, 379-387.
   Google Scholar
• Murphy, K. R., & Balzer, W. K. (1989). Rater errors and rating accuracy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 619-624.
   Google Scholar
• Murphy, K. R., & Cleveland, J. N. (1995). Understanding performance appraisal: Social, organizational, and goal-based perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Pinder, C. C. (1998). Work motivation in organizational behavior. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Roch, S. G. (2005). An investigation of motivational factors influencing performance ratings: Rating audience and incentive. Managerial Psychology, 20, 695-711.
   Google Scholar
• Roch, S. G., Ayman, R., Newhouse, N. K., & Harris, M. (2005). Effect of identifiability, rating audience, and conscientiousness on rating level. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 13, 53-62.
   Google Scholar
• Roch, S. G., & Woehr, D. J. (1997, August). The effect of rater motivation on the accuracy of performance appraisal: An NPI approach. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Chicago, IL.
   Google Scholar
• Ryan, R. M., & Connell, P. P. (1989). Percived locus of causality and internalization: Examining reasons for acting in two domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 749-761.
   Google Scholar
• Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54-67.
   Google Scholar
• Salvemini, N. J., Reilly, R. R., & Smither, J. W. (1993). The influence of rater motivation on assimilation effects and accuracy in performance ratings. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 55, 41-60.
   Google Scholar
• Society for Human Resource Management & Personnel Decisions International. (2000). Performance management survey. Retrieved September 22, 2004, from http://www.shrm.org/hrresources/surveys_published/Performance%20Management%20Survey.asp#P-6_0
   Google Scholar
• Tabachnick, B., & Fidell, L. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
   Google Scholar
• Tanaka, J. S., & Huba, G. J. (1989). A general coefficient of determination for covariance structure models under arbitrary GLS estimation. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 42, 233-239.
   Google Scholar
• Tetlock, P. E. (1983). Accountability and complexity of thought. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 74-83.
   Google Scholar
• Tetlock, P. E. (1985). Accountability: The neglected social context of judgment and choice. In B. M. Staw & L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 7, pp. 297-332). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
   Google Scholar
• Tetlock, P. E., & Kim, J. I. (1987). Accountability and judgment processes in a personality prediction task. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 700-709.
   Google Scholar
• Tetlock, P. E., Skitka, L., & Boettger, R. (1989). Social and cognitive strategies for coping with accountability: Conformity, complexity, and bolstering. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 632-640.
   Google Scholar
• Tucker, L. R., & Lewis, C. (1973). A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 38, 1-10.
   Google Scholar
• Viswesvaran, C., Schmidt, F. L., & Ones, D. S. (2005). Is there a general factor in ratings of job performance? A meta-analytic framework for disentangling substantive and error influences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 108-131.
   Google Scholar
• Waung, M., & Highhouse, S. (1997). Fear of conflict and empathic buffering: Two explanations for the inflation of performance feedback. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 71, 37-54.
   Google Scholar