Recent performance appraisal research has focused on rater cognitive processes. Instead, this research examined the effects of a motivational variable, accountability, on rater cognitive processes and on performance ratings. In the first experiment, accountability attenuated a primacy effect in evaluative ratings, and, when negative information was presented first, increased the time spent looking at performance information. However, there was no evidence that looking time mediated the effect of accountability on evaluative ratings. In the second experiment, accountable subjects had a more conservative response bias in behavioral ratings relative to unaccountable subjects if evaluative ratings were made prior to behavioral ratings. Accountable subjects who made behavioral ratings first showed no response bias in behavioral ratings although they had less confidence in their ratings relative to other subjects. This research demonstrates that accountability can influence rater cognitive processes and thus performance ratings but that its effects are situational.

Two experiments investigated the effect of layout complexity for performance at varying levels of practice on four types of information extraction tasks. Layout complexity is defined as the number of unique horizontal and vertical starting positions of items in the display (Tullis, 1984). Tullis investigated the ability of display-formatting variables (overall density, local density, number of groups, size of groups, number of items, and layout complexity) to predict human performance and preference. Although layout complexity was the best predictor of subjective ratings, it did not contribute to the prediction of search time beyond what could be predicted by overall density, local density, number of groups, and size of groups. This is a particularly interesting finding since vertically aligning lists and left-justifying items, practices strongly recommended in guidelines for display formatting (e.g., Engel & Granada, 1976; Smith & Mosier, 1986), are important factors in Tullis's definition of layout complexity. Thus, the guidelines and Tullis's model lead to conflicting predictions concerning the effect of left-justifying text on user search time. In the first study, layout complexity was manipulated by either left-justifying or not left-justifying text. Although the text was not left-justified, the starting positions of the text were ordered rather than random. In the second study, subjects viewed a third experimental screen that displayed the starting positions of items in a completely unpredictable pattern. Subjects performed all four tasks (find label, scan data, compare labels, and compare data) in four one-hour sessions. Moderate violations of the typical guideline recommendations did not increase user search time across all four tasks in either the first or the second study. However, when subjects compared multiple data values, the random format did increase user search time. Though performance using the three experimental screens was comparable across the four tasks with only one exception, subjective ratings demonstrated differences between the three formats. Subjects disliked the random format and degraded their performance using the random screens.

Context effects are a robust finding in psychology and are manifested in the form of assimilation effects and contrast effects. Assimilation effects occur when judgments of a target stimulus are biased toward the level of non-target, context stimuli. Contrast effects occur when judgments of a target stimulus are biased in the opposite direction of non-target context stimuli and are much more prevalent than assimilation effects. Limited research has been conducted on contrast effects in the area of industrial/organizational psychology and no study has yet examined contrast effects when target and non-target stimuli are observed simultaneously. The purpose of this study was to examine contrast effects in a group interaction setting (a leaderless group discussion (LGD) exercise of an assessment center) where all stimuli were observed simultaneously. Two factors were manipulated: the performance level of non-target stimuli (above standard and/or below standard candidates) and observation condition of the target stimulus (a standard candidate). In addition, the order in which the standard candidate was rated was counterbalanced. It was hypothesized that (1) contrast effects would occur in the LGD. One hundred, eighty-seven undergraduates were trained as raters and then viewed a videotape of a leaderless group discussion exercise in which a standard candidate was interacting either with two above standard candidates, two below standard candidates, or an above standard and a below standard candidate. Each videotape contained the same footage of the standard candidate; consequently, her performance was identical across conditions. Participants were assigned to observe one of the three candidates (the target candidate or one of the non-target candidates). During the rating session when the assessors discussed the performance of the candidates, performance of the standard candidate was discussed in either the first, second or third position. Individual ratings and consensus ratings were collected and analyzed. At the individual rating level, contrast effects were present in leaderless group discussion exercise ratings. Specifically, the standard candidate was rated significantly higher when performing with below standard candidates than with above standard candidates. The observation assignment had no significant influence on the magnitude of contrast effects; however, a leniency effect occurred for those assessors who were assigned to observe the standard candidate. Contrast effects were not present in the raters' consensus ratings. Conclusions, suggestions for future research, and implications for the study are discussed.

Subjects performed a team task with a confederate who either was disabled and acknowledged her disability, was disabled and did not acknowledge her disability, or was not disabled. In addition, the confederate performed either well or poorly on the task. Subjects were assessed on their ambivalence toward the disabled prior to working with their team partner. As predicted, subjects working with a disabled team partner who did not acknowledge her disability and did well on the task, rated her higher on agreeableness and spent more time discussing a topic with her than when she was not disabled. Subjects working with a disabled team partner who did not acknowledge her disability and did poorly on the task, rated her lower on agreeableness and spent less time discussing a topic with her than when she was not disabled. In addition, subjects working with a disabled team partner who acknowledged her disability and did well on the task, rated her higher on agreeableness and spent more time discussing a topic with her than when she was not disabled. Subjects working with a disabled team partner who acknowledged her disability and did poorly on the task, rated her higher on agreeableness than when she was not disabled. They spent less time discussing a topic with her than when she was not disabled, although the difference was not as great as when she did not acknowledge her disability. Furthermore, all of these effects only occurred when subjects had prior ambivalent attitudes toward the disabled. The results provide evidence for ambivalence as a moderator of the way people evaluate and behave toward the disabled. In addition, the results demonstrate that disability acknowledgment can be an effective interactional tactic that will result in positive evaluations and behavior toward the disabled.

The social, collaborative, interpersonal, and interdependence demands of jobs, referred to as social-collaborative complexity (SCC), are rapidly expanding in the work place. One implication for human resources research is that the criterion-related validities of basic ability tests might be affected. This possibility is provocative, because although much research has shown that basic ability tests generally are valid predictors of performance in a wide range of jobs, increased SCC might modify that conclusion. Thus, a field study and a laboratory experiment were concurrently conducted to explore whether SCC moderates ability test validities. In the field study, measures of SCC for a wide range of jobs were obtained from the Position Analysis Questionnaire and the Dictionary of Occupational Titles. For these same jobs, General Aptitude Test Battery validities were obtained from the United States Employment Service. Results suggested that several job-related measures of SCC significantly moderated GATB validities. Furthermore, the moderating effects of SCC were independent of the more predictable moderating effects of other job demands. The lab experiment was conducted to explore whether motivational aspects of SCC moderated test validities. Specifically, the effects of accountability on task performance and test validity were explored in individual and group contexts. Subjects in the 2 x 2 experiment completed, among other measures, a creative thinking ability test and a brainstorming task. Results suggested that ability, accountability, and social context interacted to affect performance, and accountability and social context both moderated test validity in a "moderated moderator" effect. Implications for the work place and suggestions for future research are discussed.

The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator's (MBTI) extensive use in businesses, educational institutions and in career counseling coupled with growing criticism regarding its validity demands that critical research answer the question of what it is that the MBTI measures. This research investigates three models of the underlying factors of the MBTI items (the MBTI Model, a model incorporating the five-factor model of personality (Costa & McCrae, 1991), and a model based on an exploratory factor analysis (Sipps, Alexander, & Friedt, 1985)). One thousand and thirty individuals (N men = 407; N women = 753) completed the MBTI while participating in a career development service. Confirmatory factor analysis results indicated that although the MBTI Model explains responses slightly better than the five-factor model, it is not (in its present form) optimally explanatory. These results and exploratory factor analysis results identify areas where instrument changes and additional research could lead to a more valid and reliable instrument.

Two experiments were conducted to evaluate the effect of skin color on subsequent ratings of job suitability and to evaluate the influence trait based stereotypes have on these ratings. Results showed that the effect of skin color on job suitability is moderated by the race of the rater. For white raters, more favorable job suitability ratings were attributed to light skinned applicants. For black raters, more favorable job suitability ratings were attributed to dark skinned applicants. There was no basis for attributing the skin color differences to trait based stereotypes. These findings are discussed and future research goals are presented.

Although use of the mental model construct has proliferated in recent applied research, the construct lacks an agreed upon method of measurement. Importantly, the validities of the different measurement techniques have not been established. The purpose of this research was to evaluate the validity of several mental model measurement methods, with the criterion being task performance. Additionally, mental models were examined in the context of a real-world, complex problem-solving situation. Four mental model measurement techniques were evaluated: a laddering structured interview, concept relatedness ratings, a diagramming structured interview, and think aloud while troubleshooting. Nineteen U.S. Air Force technicians varying in troubleshooting expertise each completed the mental model measures. In addition, the technicians each worked to troubleshoot a moderately difficult problem. The results indicate that two of the evaluated techniques were each independently predictive of troubleshooting performance: the laddering structured interview and the concept relatedness ratings. Because these measures are predictive of performance, it is recommended that researchers consider using these techniques in work requiring the measurement of mental models. The next step in this line of research involves a characterization of the kinds of information offered by different mental model measures. This research also revealed basic psychological issues regarding the development of expertise. Specifically, the results suggest that expertise may not develop in a monotonic fashion. Changes in knowledge may not be adequately represented as simple monotonic increases in similarity to some ideal knowledge representation. The results also indicated that the provision of a context when measuring mental model knowledge with different methods may produce conflicting results. Finally, the benefits associated with using performance as the criterion when assessing validity are discussed.

Two studies explored issues related to the content and structure of psychological climate: First, confirmatory analyses of self-report climate survey data examined the James and James (1989) hierarchical model of psychological climate and three alternatives to their notion of a general factor underlying climate perceptions (PC$\sb{\rm g}$). These archival data (N = 8109) were obtained from multiple locations of a government R&D organization. Second, a modified version of Kelly's (1955) repertory grid technique was used to identify the personal constructs that individuals use to interpret organizational events and assess their correspondence with current models of psychological climate. Participants (N = 27), from the organization in study one, elicited 213 personal constructs from meaningful organizational events. They then rated the similarity of their constructs with thirty reference dimensions derived from previous research. Confirmatory analyses, conducted in study one, were somewhat supportive of the James and James hierarchical model of psychological climate. However, the best fitting model suggests that their hierarchical structure may be due to either a methodological artifact or a form of response bias. Alternative models, positing that responses to climate surveys are driven by respondents' level of satisfaction and that PC$\sb{\rm g}$ and satisfaction are redundant were not supported. Results of study two indicate that the general factor (PC$\sb{\rm g}$) underlying hierarchical models may actually represent an assessment of the work environment in terms of one's level of personal control rather than the impact to one's well-being. The constructs that individuals use to interpret organizational events, as elicited in study two, are consistent with the dimensions identified in prior climate research. Factor analyses of individuals' personal constructs indicate that they can be grouped according to the following dimensions: job autonomy and personal control; rewards and recognition; job challenge and skill development; group interaction and cooperation; satisfaction; clarity of organization roles and procedures; employee's impact; impact to one's well-being; quality of supervision; organizational politics; and organizational support. In addition, these data suggest that previous distinctions between psychological climate and satisfaction, based on cognition and affect, have been overly restrictive and should be reexamined. Implications for future research are discussed.

Evidence cited as validating the Vroom-Yetton model has relied on managers' self-reports of the behavior they did or would exhibit. Research suggests that knowledge of group performance can bias both group process and leadership ratings. An experimental study was conducted to determine whether descriptive ratings of leader decision-making behavior are influenced by performance cues. Further, self-ratings of their behavior biased toward consistency with implicit theories of performance. Leader decision-making style & level of performance feedback were manipulated in a 2 x 3 factorial design. Leaders' self-ratings were influenced by high performance feedback toward consistency with their implicit theories of performance. When given high performance feedback, group members rated their leader as more participative than a non-interacting observer, but only in the participative leader condition. Contrary to prior research, group process ratings were not biased by performance feedback. Evidence suggesting that rating leader behavior influences ratings of group process is presented.