Cognitive Biases in Performance Appraisal: Experimental Evidence on Anchoring and Halo Effects With Public Sector Managers and Employees

A systematic literature review of performance appraisal in a selection of public administration journals revealed a lack of investigations on the cognitive biases that affect raters’ evaluation of ratees’ performance. To address this gap, we conducted two artefactual field experiments on a sample of...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inReview of public personnel administration Vol. 37; no. 3; pp. 275 - 294
Main Authors Belle, Nicola, Cantarelli, Paola, Belardinelli, Paolo
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Los Angeles, CA SAGE Publications 01.09.2017
SAGE PUBLICATIONS, INC
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text
ISSN0734-371X
1552-759X
DOI10.1177/0734371X17704891

Cover

More Information
Summary:A systematic literature review of performance appraisal in a selection of public administration journals revealed a lack of investigations on the cognitive biases that affect raters’ evaluation of ratees’ performance. To address this gap, we conducted two artefactual field experiments on a sample of 600 public sector managers and employees. Results show that anchoring and halo effects systematically biased performance ratings. For the former, average scores were higher when subjects were exposed to a high rather than a low anchor. For the latter, higher ability on one performance dimension led participants to provide a higher average score on another performance dimension. Halo effect was moderated by rater’s gender. We conclude by discussing the study limitations and providing suggestions for future work in this area.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 14
ISSN:0734-371X
1552-759X
DOI:10.1177/0734371X17704891