Drawing from recent developments in social cognition, cognitive psychology, and behavioral decision theory, we analyzed when and how the act of measuring beliefs, attitudes, intentions, and behaviors affects observed correlations among them. Belief, attitude, or intention can be created by measurement if the measured constructs do not already exist in long-term memory. The responses thus created can have directive effects on answers to other questions that follow in the survey. But even when counterparts to the beliefs, attitudes, and intentions measured already exist in memory, the structure of the survey researcher's questionnaire can affect observed correlations among them. The respondent may use retrieved answers to earlier survey questions as inputs to response generation to later questions. We present a simple theory predicting that an earlier response will be used as a basis for another, subsequent response if the former is accessible and if it is perceived to be more diagnostic than other accessible inputs. We outline the factors that determine both the perceived diagnosticity of a potential input, the likelihood that it will be retrieved, and the likelihood that some alternative (and potentially more diagnostic) inputs will be retrieved.

Performance appraisal is construed as the outcome of a dual-process system of evaluation and decision making. Attention, categorization, recall, and information integration are carried out via either an automatic or a controlled process. In the automatic process, aspects of an employee and his/her behavior are noted and the employee is categorized without conscious monitoring. The automatic process is dominant except when decisions are problematic, in which case a consciously monitored categorization process takes place. Subsequent recall of the employee is biased by the attributes of prototypes (abstract images) representing categories to which the employee has been assigned. Dispositional and contextual factors influence the availability of categories during both assignment and recall. Categorization also biases any subsequent search for information about the employee, and interacts with task type to produce halo, leniency/ stringency biases, and racial, sexual, ethnic, and personalistic bias as well. The same automatic and controlled processes can, however, account for accuracy of evaluations. Suggested research includes the study of behavior taxonomies, individual differences in cognitive structure, the validation of behavior-sampling techniques, and laboratory studies of appraisal processes.In any organization, some of the most important decisions concern people: Who is the right person for the job? Who should be promoted? Who deserves a raise? Who can take on more responsibility? These questions are sometimes addressed formally, by using various types of evaluation procedures (see, e.g., Campbell, Dunnette, Lawler, & Weick, 1970; Smith, 1976). More often, these decisions are made informally, even though they have a great impact on the employee's career (Dansereau,

We are indebted to Daniel K. Brass and three anonymous reviewers for their guidance during the editorial process and to a host of colleagues for their feedback, conversations, and encouragement over the course of this project. Send correspondence to Cindy Emrich, Krannert Graduate School of Management, Purdue University, 1310 Krannert Building, West Lafayette, IN 47907-131 0; e-mail: cindy~mgmt.purdue.edu.We analyzed two sets of U.S. presidents' speeches to determine whether their propensities to convey images in words were linked to perceptions of their charisma and greatness. As predicted, presidents who engaged in more image-based rhetoric in their inaugural addresses were rated higher in charisma (Study 1). Presidents who engaged in more image-based rhetoric in speeches that historians considered their most significant ones were rated higher in both charisma and greatness (Study 2). Together, these findings suggest that the successful articulation and enactment of a leader's vision may rest on his or her ability to paint followers a verbal picture of what can be accomplished with their help.sThe ability to articulate a compelling vision of a bright future is the sine qua non of charisma and greatness, two key outcomes for leaders. Charisma has been described as a magical ability (Etzioni, 1961), a certain personality characteristic (Weber, 1947), and a powerful aura (Willner, 1984). Though descriptions of charisma abound, there is consensus that charismatic leaders inspire followers "to perform above and beyond the call of duty" (House, Spangler, and Woycke, 1991: 364) by appealing to their emotions and enduring motives rather than by controlling their access to material rewards and resources. Greatness has been described as successful performance (Murray and Blessing, 1983, 1994) and general prestige or reputation (Maranell, 1970). In practice, it has been operationalized quite simply as "performance in office, omitting everything done before or after" (Bailey, 1966: 24). Much is known about charisma and greatness. Less is known, however, about how leaders articulate a vision that is sufficiently compelling to evoke attributions of charisma and greatness among their followers.House and Shamir (1993) examined eight theories of charismatic, visionary, and transformational leadership with the goal of distilling them into a single, overarching theory of charisma. Eleven behavioral dimensions emerged from this examination, but only one-visionary behavior-was represented in all eight theories. Visionary behavior involves the articulation of "an ideological goal ... that emphasizes fundamental values such as beauty, order, honesty, dignity, and human rights" (House and Shamir, 1993: 97). The skillful use of rhetoric is believed to be critical to the charismatic leader's visionary behavior (

Attempts to eliminate halo error from rating scales by statistical correction have assumed halo to be a systematic error associated with a ratee-rater pair that adds performance-irrelevant variance to ratings. Furthermore, "overall performance" ratings were assumed to reflect this bias in whole or in part. Thus, partial correlation or multiple regression analyses against independent criteria seemed viable means of subtracting halo error from a set of ratings. Consideration of the source of halo error, however, raises the possibility that the cognitive processes resulting in halo also mediate expectations of and interactions with employees, indirectly influencing true performance and ability via instruction, feedback, and reinforcement. "Halo error," in short, may reflect, at least in part, a process that systematically alters true performance and ability prior to halo measurement. If so, it would not be possible to correct for halo error using overall performance ratings.Halo error, like death and taxes, seems inevitable. Called "illusory halo" by Cooper (1981), halo error is commonly denned by greater observed correlations between rating measures of behaviors, performance dimensions, or other variables than the true score intercorrelations. True score intercorrelations are typically estimated by intercorrelations of nonrating measures of the same variables (e.g., direct observations, ability tests). Although not generally discussed in this context, halo error acts on both the mean value of a set of ratings (producing a systematic change in the set of scores given a ratee by a rater) and the variance and covariance of a set of scores given to a set of ratees by a single rater. That is, halo error reduces between-dimension variance (as compared with that expected on the basis of alternative measures) both within a given ratee's scores and across a sample of ratees. Across a sample of ratees, covariance between dimensions is increased because of a constant added to or subtracted from all of a given ratee's scores by a hypothetical categorization process of the rater (Feldman, 1981). This constant acts within the bounds of a particular scale, because scores cannot exceed the scale upper or lower limits. This score constraint produces the reduced variance between dimensions while increasing variance between ratees.Systematic error thus contributes a component of variance to each ratee's score on each dimension, as completed by a given rater. This lowers the discriminant validity of the obtained ratings, simultaneously reducing their construct validity and their utility as decision aids for performance appraisal, selection, promotion, diagnosis, or training.Halo error is assumed to be caused by cognitive processes of the rater. That is, when information about the ratee's true performance or behavior is either absent or not salient to the rater,

Few attempts have been made to integrate research on memory beliefs across adulthood with related constructs in social cognition. This article addresses the issue of how respondents formulate answers to memory-beliefs questions from a social-cognitive perspective. We propose that reported memory beliefs represent the outcomes of a process that involves both the retrieval of previously stored information about self and about memory and on-line constructive processes. This article offers a set of assumptions that clarifies existing data on memory beliefs and generates new hypotheses regarding the interactions between beliefs about the aging process, memory, and constructs such as memory self-efficacy and how such variables combine with the on-line constructive processes to produce individual differences in responses.