PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to examine the effect of acquaintance on performance rating accuracy and halo.Design/methodology/approachAfter expert ratings were obtained, US Air Force Officers (n=104) with an average of six years experience rated the performance of four officers who delivered 6‐7 minute briefings on their research projects; 26 raters reported being acquainted with one or more of the briefers. Raters were randomly assigned to use a rating format designed to encourage between‐ratee comparisons on each dimension or a format in which each ratee was separately rated on all dimensions.FindingsRatings made by acquainted raters were more accurate than ratings by unacquainted raters. Accuracy was positively correlated with halo for both sets of ratings. Rating format had no discernible effect on accuracy or halo.Research limitations/implicationsOne limitation of this study is that the measure of acquaintance was not designed as a surrogate for familiarity. Development of a multi‐item, psychometrically‐valid measure of acquaintance should be the first step in pursuing this research. The use of a laboratory design where only a small percentage of the sample was acquainted with those being rated also limits the study's generalizability.Practical implicationsThe results show that prior acquaintance with the ratee results in more accurate ratings. Ratings were also more positive when raters had prior contact with the person they rated.Originality/valueThe hypothesis is that the cognitive processes used to produce ratings are different for raters who have had no prior contact with a ratee and raters who are in some manner acquainted with a ratee. In the past, a positive halo effect from acquaintance between raters and ratees has been a concern. However, this limited study indicates that acquaintance may actually result in more accurate ratings.
Trust is a relationship between individuals. It requires that one individual believe that the other person or an idea is is ethical based on ethical behavior (Hosmer, 1995). Trust develops as a result of an individual’s propensity to trust, combined with appropriate and relatively equal exchanges of social capital over time. In the case of the manager–subordinate dyad, the subordinate exchanges services (performance) for money. If the manager determines that the subordinate is not earning the money paid for services (e.g., the subordinate performs poorly), then an unequal exchange takes place, reducing the manager’s trust of the subordinate.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.