The intuitive personologist and the individual differences model

Beauvois, Jean‐Léon

doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420170108

Cited by 2 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although not in contradiction with our hypotheses, the main effects of purpose and mode of rating were not expected. However, these effects are compatible with our assumption that ranking is the default mode of person perception (Beauvois, 1987). Indeed, when the purpose is administrative and the mode of rating is EB, the situation of evaluation is consistent with people's normal functioning; this consistency creates a condition which enables raters to rate more accurately.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

“…If this reasoning is correct, given that the EB mode favors between-ratee discriminability, then the greater differential accuracy of the EB mode over the DB one could be one indication that participants are more attuned to detecting between-ratee Mode of Rating 20 rather than within-ratee differences. Consistent with such a speculation, Beauvois (1987) showed that personality-based evaluations were better predicted by an ordinal model than by either a normalized or dialectical one (see Lamiell, 1981). That is, when people make personality judgments, they simply rank the targets they observe.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 67%

See 1 more Smart Citation

When Rating Format Induces Different Rating Processes: The Effects of Descriptive and Evaluative Rating Modes on Discriminability and Accuracy

Cambon

Steiner

2014

J Bus Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose-We examined how different kinds of rating formats, and their interaction with purposes of rating (administrative vs. developmental), induced different performance rating processes and their consequences for rating accuracy. Design/methodology/approach-In two experiments, participants rated seven targets presented via videotapes using modes of rating giving access to: a) descriptive knowledge (rating scales were a target's observable behaviors: Descriptive Behavior-DB), b) evaluative knowledge (rating scales were others' behaviors that the target tended to afford: Evaluative Behavior-EB), or c) a mix of the two knowledge types (rating scales were traits). Indexes of discriminability (within-and between-ratee discriminability) and of accuracy (differential elevation and differential accuracy) were collected. Findings-The results showed that EB rating scales led to higher between-ratee discriminability and differential elevation than other modes of rating, whereas DB rating scales led to higher within-ratee discriminability than the other modes. Implications-Our results indicate that EB rating scales are more suited to comparing different ratees (e.g., an administrative purpose for rating), whereas DB scales are more suited to identifying strengths and weaknesses of a particular ratee (e.g., a developmental purpose). Originality/value-Our experiments are the first to apply dual-knowledge (descriptive vs. evaluative) theory to a performance appraisal context and to examine rating purpose in interaction with these two forms of person knowledge. The results, consistent with theoretical predictions, indicate that using rating scales with different types of content as a function of the rating purpose will produce more appropriate performance ratings.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 67%

When Rating Format Induces Different Rating Processes: The Effects of Descriptive and Evaluative Rating Modes on Discriminability and Accuracy

Cambon

Steiner

2014

J Bus Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In other words, OBs created a wider gap between the people shown on tape. This inter-target differentiation is the most representative aspect of the people evaluation process (Beauvois, 1987;Pansu & Beauvois, 2004) whereas intra-target differentiation of the various traits may be regarded as more representative of a descriptive process.…”

Section: Obs and Tbs Have Different Effects On First Impression (Zeromentioning

confidence: 99%

Lay Psychology and the Social Value of Persons

Beauvois

Dubois

2009

Social & Personality Psych

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Personality traits are basic constructs of lay psychology. Unlike the traditional view in which traits are considered as descriptive tools, we argue that the most frequent traits are evaluative criteria, that is, they do not point out what people are, but what people are socially worth. First, we intend to report on various studies showing that traits can be viewed as generalizations of affordances in social relations: traits supply information not only on what people are doing, but also, and several times more, on what is possible to do with people. Second, we challenge the dominant view underlying social judgments by showing that the two traditional factors can be viewed as aspects of the social value of persons. We called them social desirability and social utility. We shall show that the two dimensions intervene in situations in which social value of the person is engaged. To finish, we shall address the link between these dimensions with some aspects of individualism.• Affective evaluation. The evaluation may be said to pertain to a somewhat 'primary' affectivity in one's connection to objects, as for instance in the replications of Osgood, Suci, and Tannenbaum's (1957) famous semantic mediation theory of meaning. In this Social and Personality Psychology Compass 3/6 (2009):

show abstract

The intuitive personologist and the individual differences model

Cited by 2 publications

References 14 publications

When Rating Format Induces Different Rating Processes: The Effects of Descriptive and Evaluative Rating Modes on Discriminability and Accuracy

When Rating Format Induces Different Rating Processes: The Effects of Descriptive and Evaluative Rating Modes on Discriminability and Accuracy

Lay Psychology and the Social Value of Persons

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About