Examination of race and sex effects on performance ratings.

Abstract

The effects of rater source, rater and ratee race, rater and ratee sex, and job type were investigated on ratings collected for 8,642 first-term Army enlisted personnel. Ratings were made on 10 behaviorally based dimensions developed for evaluating all first-term soldiers. Results of between-subjects analyses similar to those conducted in past research revealed significant main effects and interactions for sex, race, rater source, and job type, but the variance accounted for by these effects was minimal. Repeated measures analyses were also performed, with each ratee evaluated by one Black and one White rater for the race effects analyses and one female and one male rater for the sex effects analyses. These analyses, which unconfounded rater bias and actual performance differences, yielded results similar to those obtained with the between-subjects design. Implications of the findings are discussed.In a considerable amount of research in the performance appraisal area, various rater and ratee characteristics have been investigated as possible sources of variance in ratings (Landy & Farr, 1980). Among the more frequent has been examination of the effects of rater and ratee gender and race on performance appraisal ratings. Unfortunately, inconsistent findings have resulted from this body of literature, limiting the number of definitive conclusions that can be drawn regarding the influence of gender and race on ratings. For example, research investigating gender effects on ratings has found that rater sex does not typically affect evaluations (e.g.,

Summer Research Program - 1998 Summer Research Extension Program Volume 1 Armstrong Laboratory

“…Also notable is the fact that correlations between demographic and more substantive variables are near zero, and many are statistically nonsignificant. This reinforces previous research indicating that when racial and gender biases are found, their effects are often quite small (Pulakos et al, 1989;Tosi & Ebbender, 1985;Sackett & DuBois, 1991). …”

“…We recoded race as two binary variables: White (=1,0 = Nonwhite), and Black (=1,0 = Nonblack). We included these factors because gender and racial biases in performance measures have been found previously (e.g., 3-12 Brugnoli et al, 1979;Ford, Kraiger, & Schechtman, 1986;Hamner, Kim, Baird, & Bigoness, 1974;Tosi & Einbender, 1985), although their effects are often rninimal or nonexistent under performance measurement conditions such as in the present study (Pulakos, White, Oppler, & Borman, 1989;Tosi & Einbender, 1985;Sackett & DuBois, 1991).…”

SPECIAL ARTICLE: Cognitive, Social and Environmental Sources of Bias in Clinical Performance Ratings

“…The most comprehensive and informative studies of ethnicity have been those by Pulakos et al 87 and by Sackett and DuBois. 88 The Pulakos et al 87 study involved 39,537 ratings of 8,642 army enlisted personnel in a variety of jobs.…”

An Investigation of the Underlying Mechanism of Discrimination: The Prototype Matching Model

“…The evidence from field settings has been mixed with regard to the direction of effects. Some primary study evidence shows an advantage for males with regard to performance evaluations (e.g., Turnage & Muchinsky, 1984;Pulakos, White, Oppler, & Borman, 1989), evaluations of potential (Turnage & Muchinsky, 1984), and the probability of job offers (e.g., Graves & Powell, 1995). However, meta-analyses of field research have also shown an advantage for females in both performance (d = -.11; Roth et al, 2012) and selection settings (d = -.19; Dean et al, 2008).…”