Rating ability in performance judgments: The joint influence of implicit theories and intelligence

Hauenstein, Neil M. A.; Alexander, Ralph A.

doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90024-n

Cited by 28 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…More recently, several laboratory studies (Hauenstein & Alexander, 1991;Smither & Reilly, 1987) have found that rater intelligence is associated with more accurate ratings. Cardy and Kehoe (1984) examined the relationship between field independence and rating accuracy.…”

Section: Rater Abilitymentioning

confidence: 97%

Self–other rating agreement in leadership: A review

Fleenor

Smither

Atwater

et al. 2010

The Leadership Quarterly

306

454

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Rater Abilitymentioning

confidence: 97%

Self–other rating agreement in leadership: A review

Fleenor

Smither

Atwater

et al. 2010

The Leadership Quarterly

306

454

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Underlying much of this research is the belief that social (i.e., person) categories assist in the judgment process by providing individuals with a system of beliefs about people and other relevant objects in their environment (Anderson & Sedikides, 1991;Hauenstein & Alexander, 1991;Kim & Rosenberg, 1980;Pavitt & Haight, 1985Rosch, Mervis, Gray, Johnson, & BoyesBraem, 1976). From this perspective, it is believed that the judgments people make about other's traits, abilities, or competence in performing a task are based on some model or template of the social category in question.…”

Section: Workplace Judgmentsmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…From this perspective, it is believed that the judgments people make about other's traits, abilities, or competence in performing a task are based on some model or template of the social category in question. In examining the role of cognitive processes in workplace judgments, scholars have focused on how cognitive categories influence important outcomes such as decision making, performance appraisals, selection decisions, and perceptions of leaders (Dutton & Jackson, 1987;Hauenstein & Alexander, 1991;Patton & King, 1992;Woehr, 1992).…”

Section: Workplace Judgmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Examination of the Role of Listening in Judgments of Communication Competence in Co-Workers

Haas

Arnold

1995

Journal of Business Communication

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Listening has been reported to be an important component in judgments of communication competence in the workplace. To investigate the contributions of listening to judgments of competence, this study examined how organization members use listening and listening-related factors in judgments of communication competence across situations. The results support the notion that listening plays a central role in assessments of communication competence. Analysis reveals that listening accounts for approximately one-third of the characteristics perceivers use to evaluate communication competence in co-workers. Additionally, the results suggest organization members differ in their use of listening in judgments of competence in several kinds of situations.Scholars from a variety of disciplines have claimed that communication competence is central to effective functioning in organizations ) have observed that individuals commonly use listening or listening-related factors such as empathy to evaluate the communication competence of others. With employees engaged in some form of communication during much of their day, evaluations of the listening and speaking skills of co-workers are inevitable. Organization members frequently find themselves in situations asking questions such as: Does this person understand my position ? Will this person recall what I'm saying? Is this manager willing to hear me out? Why can't this employee listen to others? How perceivers incorporate listening factors into judgments of the communication competence of co-workers has been the focus of recent interest (Brownell, 1990; Cooper & Husband, 1993; Monge, Bachman, Dillard, & Eisenberg, 1982). As Brownell (1990) suggests, this interest is driven by the need to more precisely determine how employees perceive and evaluate the behaviors of others. For example, Monge et al. (1982) argue that individuals employ two dimensions in making competence judgments of co-workers: encoding and decoding. Others, such as Papa and Tracy (1988) report that perceivers evaluate the competence of others along a single dimension that unites speaking and listening skills. However, other scholars (e.g., Brownell, 1990; Cooper & Husband, 1993) separate listening-related factors from speaking factors in judgments of competence at UNIV OF MICHIGAN on June 26, 2015 job.sagepub.com Downloaded from

show abstract

“…Such judgmental ability might improve the chances of such cues as are detected to be used in a valid manner. At least two studies have found that judges with higher measured intelligence more accurately rated the performance and emotions of others (Havenstein & Alexander, 1991;Westbrook, 1974).…”

Section: Implications For Moderatorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the accuracy of personality judgment: A realistic approach.

Funder¹

1995

Psychological Review

1,198

1,448

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The "accuracy paradigm" for the study of personality judgment provides an important, new complement to the "error paradigm" that dominated this area of research for almost 2 decades. The present article introduces a specific approach within the accuracy paradigm called the Realistic Accuracy Model (RAM). RAM begins with the assumption that personality traits are real attributes of individuals. This assumption entails the use of a broad array of criteria for the evaluation of personality judgment and leads to a model that describes accuracy as a function of the availability, detection, and utilization of relevant behavioral cues. RAM provides a common explanation for basic moderators of accuracy, sheds light on how these moderators interact, and outlines a research agenda that includes the reintegration of the study of error with the study of accuracy.Believe truth! Shun error!-these, we see, are two materially different laws; and by choosing between them we may end by coloring differently our whole intellectual life. (James, 1897(James, /1915

show abstract

Rating ability in performance judgments: The joint influence of implicit theories and intelligence

Cited by 28 publications

References 34 publications

Self–other rating agreement in leadership: A review

Self–other rating agreement in leadership: A review

An Examination of the Role of Listening in Judgments of Communication Competence in Co-Workers

On the accuracy of personality judgment: A realistic approach.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About