No abstract

No abstract

Implicit theories lead individuals to make assumptions about one trait based on their knowledge of another trait. This study experimentally examined Implicit Stress Theory under conditions of high and low performance information. The objective was to test for evidence of Implicit Stress Theory in ratings of effectiveness, commitment, and burnout. Results indicated moderate support for Implicit Stress Theory such that raters evaluated employee burnout and commitment as higher when the employee was perceived to be working under stressful conditions. Interestingly, the data suggested stronger support (based on the proportion of variance explained) for an Implicit Performance Theory such that information regarding good performance was associated with higher levels of commitment and less burnout than poor performance. attempt to explain the relationship between stress and raters' perceptions of performance.Westman and Eden (1991), in their study of raters' evaluations of performance effectiveness under different levels of stress, found support for a new type of rater bias -Implicit Stress Theory. Implicit Stress Theory (IST) is a cognitive perspective, similar to Implicit Personality

Implicit theories lead individuals to make assumptions about one trait based on their knowledge of another trait. These assumptions can be particularly costly to organizations if they bias performance evaluations. Two studies experimentally examined Implicit Stress Theory (IST) using a 2 (high and low stressor) × 2 (high and low performance) design across three dependent variables: ratings of effectiveness, commitment, and burnout. Results from a sample of MBA students and a sample of practicing managers showed that employees in a high‐stressor job were rated as more effective, committed, and burned out than employees in a low‐stressor job when performance was indicated using subjective descriptive anchors. Interactive patterns in the manager sample demonstrated that the biasing effects were more pronounced for low performing employees.

No abstract