FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2775189> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2775189 startingPage "323" @default.
• W2775189 abstract "Performance appraisals are not and probably will never be infallible reflections of human behavior. They are prone to many sources of error, most of which are due to raters' cognitive distortions (Landy and Farr, 1980; Vance et al., 1983). A significant amount of performance appraisal research has focused how raters process information, including how information is acquired, how it is stored and organized in and how it is retrieved and integrated into performance evaluations (Ilgen et al., 1993). Much of this research has relied theories that can be considered capacity theories of information processing (Lord and Maher, 1990), in that they concentrate the cognitive shortcuts that individuals take to reduce or simplify a large amount of information in a limited amount of cognitive space. When raters use inappropriate simplifications, such as relying general impressions of persons that are not related to relevant performance dimensions, rating errors occur. This can cause unfortunate consequences in organizations. Inaccurate decisions regarding performance may ultimately affect the productivity of the organization, and an individual level, inadequate judgments can be devastating. The purpose of this paper is to describe a study investigating some of these simplification processes. A recent of research addresses on line and processing. Hastie and Park (1986) describe processing as judgments made from working memory at the time the information is encoded. When we are asked to serve behavior in order to evaluate performance, processing is engaged. As we observe the person's behavior, we immediately interpret that behavior in accordance to relevant performance criteria. Memory based processing, the other hand, could be compared to a traditional model of judgment (Borman, 1978), wherein bits of information are encoded directly into long-term and later, when a performance judgment is required, these memories are accessed to evaluate the behavior. On and based processing differ in fundamental ways. On processing, since it manages a large amount of information to make immediate judgments, will rely impressions and other shortcuts in order to handle the incoming information. Thus, raters using processing will be more likely to depend dimensions of expected behavior in order to group information into meaningful patterns. Memory based processors, since they do not need to organize the incoming information in order to make an immediate judgment, will tend to record information into long-term in noncategory based configurations. Therefore, processors will be more likely to remember information that is relevant to the person judgment being made. However, since, they are organizing information around a specific conception of behavior, they may remember fewer discrete behaviors than based processors, who are not constrained by a cognitive category. In performance appraisal research, processing has been initiated by telling raters in advance that they must evaluate the behavior of those they will observe. Memory based processing has been introduced when the rating task was not known until after the behavior had been observed. Recent research has studied these two processing modes in relationship to performance appraisal. In one study (Murphy et al., 1989), researchers informed one group of subjects that their primary task in viewing a videotape of a college professor's lecture was to evaluate his performance. Another group was told that although they would have to rate the lecturer's performance, their main task was to prepare for an exam over the content of the lecture. This study found that raters observing solely to evaluate performance tended to be more accurate both in ratings and recognition of critical behaviors. However, when ratings were collected up to one week later, the group whose primary purpose was to learn the material showed more accurate performance ratings. …" @default.
• W2775189 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2775189 creator A5026011998 @default.
• W2775189 date "1995-09-22" @default.
• W2775189 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W2775189 title "Can Performance Raters Be More Accurate? Investigating the Benefits of Prior Knowledge of Performance Dimensions" @default.
• W2775189 cites W1975115329 @default.
• W2775189 cites W1981645374 @default.
• W2775189 cites W1994621087 @default.
• W2775189 cites W2037236481 @default.
• W2775189 cites W2043531667 @default.
• W2775189 cites W2068578656 @default.
• W2775189 cites W2074666633 @default.
• W2775189 cites W2084325639 @default.
• W2775189 cites W2086709287 @default.
• W2775189 cites W2087205271 @default.
• W2775189 cites W2092512631 @default.
• W2775189 cites W2112043482 @default.
• W2775189 cites W2153881322 @default.
• W2775189 cites W2268429485 @default.
• W2775189 cites W564242812 @default.
• W2775189 cites W2028828833 @default.
• W2775189 hasPublicationYear "1995" @default.
• W2775189 type Work @default.
• W2775189 sameAs 2775189 @default.
• W2775189 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2775189 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2775189 hasAuthorship W2775189A5026011998 @default.
• W2775189 hasConcept C111919701 @default.
• W2775189 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W2775189 hasConcept C169760540 @default.
• W2775189 hasConcept C169900460 @default.
• W2775189 hasConcept C180747234 @default.
• W2775189 hasConcept C21963081 @default.
• W2775189 hasConcept C2776035688 @default.
• W2775189 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W2775189 hasConcept C46312422 @default.
• W2775189 hasConcept C77805123 @default.
• W2775189 hasConcept C83056255 @default.
• W2775189 hasConcept C87868495 @default.
• W2775189 hasConcept C98045186 @default.
• W2775189 hasConceptScore W2775189C111919701 @default.
• W2775189 hasConceptScore W2775189C15744967 @default.
• W2775189 hasConceptScore W2775189C169760540 @default.
• W2775189 hasConceptScore W2775189C169900460 @default.
• W2775189 hasConceptScore W2775189C180747234 @default.
• W2775189 hasConceptScore W2775189C21963081 @default.
• W2775189 hasConceptScore W2775189C2776035688 @default.
• W2775189 hasConceptScore W2775189C41008148 @default.
• W2775189 hasConceptScore W2775189C46312422 @default.
• W2775189 hasConceptScore W2775189C77805123 @default.
• W2775189 hasConceptScore W2775189C83056255 @default.
• W2775189 hasConceptScore W2775189C87868495 @default.
• W2775189 hasConceptScore W2775189C98045186 @default.
• W2775189 hasIssue "3" @default.
• W2775189 hasLocation W27751891 @default.
• W2775189 hasOpenAccess W2775189 @default.
• W2775189 hasPrimaryLocation W27751891 @default.
• W2775189 hasRelatedWork W1441749321 @default.
• W2775189 hasRelatedWork W1578336296 @default.
• W2775189 hasRelatedWork W1857622643 @default.
• W2775189 hasRelatedWork W1900652424 @default.
• W2775189 hasRelatedWork W1966631454 @default.
• W2775189 hasRelatedWork W1971861360 @default.
• W2775189 hasRelatedWork W2005101524 @default.
• W2775189 hasRelatedWork W2008048442 @default.
• W2775189 hasRelatedWork W2055623934 @default.
• W2775189 hasRelatedWork W2058797269 @default.
• W2775189 hasRelatedWork W2064996709 @default.
• W2775189 hasRelatedWork W2123477887 @default.
• W2775189 hasRelatedWork W2168965858 @default.
• W2775189 hasRelatedWork W2170203957 @default.
• W2775189 hasRelatedWork W217302079 @default.
• W2775189 hasRelatedWork W3028345180 @default.
• W2775189 hasRelatedWork W3076108018 @default.
• W2775189 hasRelatedWork W3125908981 @default.
• W2775189 hasRelatedWork W3172520983 @default.
• W2775189 hasRelatedWork W78011965 @default.
• W2775189 hasVolume "7" @default.
• W2775189 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2775189 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2775189 magId "2775189" @default.
• W2775189 workType "article" @default.