No abstract

To date, cognitive and affective influences on performance evaluations have been addressed separately, although it is likely that affect may influence ratings indirectly through its impact on the cognitive processing involved in the evaluation. Eighty-three management students participated in a study of the influence of affect on the cognitive processing of performance information. The results suggest that an affect-consistency bias influences ratings even though the cognitive processes that require some judgment indicated a bias toward both affect-consistent and affect-inconsistent performance. Additional findings suggest that the practical utility of affect as something distinct from past performance perceptions may be limited in field settings. Job-related affect, past performance perceptions, and social affect had similar influences on the cognitive process and ratings in performance evaluations.

No abstract

We designed a laboratory study (A' = 63) to test a series of hypotheses concerning diary-keeping derived from a social-cognitive view of the performance appraisal process. Raters who were given unorganized performance information were expected to store it in memory in patterns consistent with those used to organize diaries. Results supported this hypothesis. Moreover, raters preferred to organize diaries according to ratees, and diaries organized in this way resulted in more accurate recall and performance ratings. This effect held even though raters consulted diaries when making ratings. These results provide support for a cognitive role for diaries, such that they allow raters to impose organization on unorganized information. We discuss implications for research and practice.The application of cognitive decision-making models to the study of performance appraisals (DeNisi, Cafferty, & Meglino, 1984;Feldman, 1981;Ilgen & Feldman, 1984; Landy & Farr, 1980) has not only introduced a new orientation to the field but has also revived interest in some longer standing issues. One area of revived interest is the role of memory in appraisal decisions and in the consideration of factors affecting the accurate recall of performance information. One factor may be the time between information acquisition and recall, with longer delays resulting in less accuracy and greater susceptibility to halo effects (cf. Cooper, 1981;Murphy & Balzer, 1986;Nathan & Lord, 1983). In addition, researchers in social cognition have found that information is more easily recalled when it is initially stored or encoded in a clear pattern

The purpose of this study was to distinguish the effects of distributive, instrumental procedural, and noninstrumental (i.e. group‐value effects) procedural justice in a field study. As predicted by the group‐value model (Lind & Tyler, 1988), noninstrumental procedural justice captured unique variance in organizational commitment, turnover intentions, as well as both individual and group performance. Furthermore, noninstrumental justice explained more unique variance in commitment and performance than did distributive justice or instrumental procedural justice. These findings provide a greater understanding of why procedural justice, as a whole, has been found to be more predictive of these outcomes in prior research.