paper

JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR, VOL. 17, 301-311 (1996)

The impact of self-appraisals on reactions to feedback from others: The role of self- enhancement and self-consistency concerns

M. AUDREY KORSGAARD College of Business Administration, University of South Carolina. Columbia. SC 29208. U.S.A.

Summary This study examined the usefulness of self-appraisal (SA) as a technique designed to enhance the motivational and developmental impact of feedback from others. Drawing from research on self-enhancement and self-consistency motives, it was hypothesized that individuals would agree with and incorporate feedback that is consistent with their SA, whereas they would be more satisfied and perform better if feedback is more favorable than their SA. A field study was conducted with 122 MBA students as participants. On average, students were 25 years old and had 1.8 years of work experience. Seventy per cent of students were male and 82 per cent were white. The findings supported all of the hypotheses except the hypothesis concerning satisfaction. Implications for improving the impact of performance appraisal feedback are discussed.

Introduction

Self-appraisals of performance (SA) have heen widely endorsed as a means of enhancing the developmental or motivational impact of evaluation procedures (Camphell and Lee, 1988). SA typically involves the formal evaluation of one's performance which is used to supplement performance appraisals made hy supervisors or others (Steel and Ovalle, 1984). SA in organiza- tions commonly involves having employees complete the same performance appraisal form that is used hy their supervisors (Mohrman, Resnick-West and Lawler, 1990). As such, it serves as a tool in performance appraisal systems to help employees accept and understand feedhack from others, therehy increasing their desire and capahility to improve their performance (Mohrman et al., 1990). However, theoretical grounding and consistent empirical support for the motiva- tional and developmental impact of SA are notahly lacking. Although a numher of studies have found henefits of SA for suhordinate attitudes and hehavior (Bassett and Meyer, 1968; Burke, Weitzel and Weir, 1978; Fahr, Werhel and Bedeian, 1988), others have either failed to demonstrate a significant henefit of SA (DeGregorio, Fisher and Fields, 1985) or have found that SA can do significant harm to employees' attitudes (Roherson, Torkel, Korsgaard, Klein, Diddams and Cayer, 1993).

Given the lack of consensus commonly ohserved hetween self- and supervisor ratings (see Harris and Schauhroeck (1988) for a review), SA may have a negative impact on reactions to feedhack hecause it stimulates disagreement hetween managers and employees. To the extent that supervisors and employees do not agree, a formal SA procedure may serve to strengthen commitment to a self-opinion that makes employees even more resistant to feedhack from

CCC 0894-3796/96/040301-11 Received 25 February 1994 © 1996 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Accepted 5 April 1995

302 M. A. KORSGAARD

Others. Recent research supports this contention, finding that discrepancies hetween SA and feedhack from others have a negative impact on responses to feedhack from others (Blakely, 1993; Cawley and Levy, 1992). Thus, although the mechanisms underlying the impact of SA are not yet clearly understood, the consistency hetween SA and feedhack from others appears to play a central role.

Theory on the role of expectations in reactions to feedhack from others provides a useful framework for understanding the impact of SA. This literature suggests that the extent to which feedhack deviates from initial self-expectations of performance affects reactions to feedhack (Shrauger, 1975; Swann, 1990). Self-expectations also explain why disagreement occurs hetween SA of actual performance and evaluations made hy others (Fahr and Dohhins, 1989; Fisher and Russ, 1986). For example, Fahr and Dobhins (1989) found that individuals with high expecta- tions tend to rate themselves more favorably than others rate them, whereas individuals with low expectations tend to rate themselves less favorably than others. Given the link between expectations and SA, research and theory on the role of self-expectations in reactions to feedback should provide a meaningful framework for understanding the impact of SA.

The purpose of this study is to propose and test a framework to clarify and explain the effects of formal SA on reactions to feedback from others. Building on research on the role of self- expectations in reactions to feedback, SA is proposed to affect how individuals process feedback from others as well as individuals' affective and motivational reactions to feedback. Specifically, it will be argued that agreement with feedback and subsequent self-evaluations are affected by the extent to which feedback is consistent with an individual's SA, whereas satisfaction with feedback and subsequent performance are affected by the extent to which feedback is more favorable than an individual's SA.

The role of self-expectations in reactions to feedback

Research suggests that self-expectations act as a standard for interpreting feedback; the extent to which feedback deviates from expectations affects responses to feedback (Shrauger, 1975; Swann, 1990). The nature of these responses depends upon the individual's self-presentation motives or concerns (see Schlenker and Weigold (1992) for a review of self-motives). A number of self-presentation concerns are theorized to underlie the impact of self-expectations; this paper focuses on two: self-consistency and self-enhancement. Self-consistency refers to the desire to maintain a consistent self-concept, even if the self-concept is negative (Swann, 1990). This concern should lead individuals to prefer consistent feedback. Self-enhancement refers to the desire to maintain a favorable self-concept (Steele, 1988). This concern should lead people to prefer feedback that is more favorable than they expected.

Although self-consistency and self-enhancement concerns seem to make contrary predictions, research and theory suggest that both processes can occur simultaneously, but are linked to different consequences (Shrauger, 1975; Swann, 1990). Self-consistency concerns seem to affect how people process feedback from others; that is, it affects the perceived relevance and validity of feedback. Self-enhancement seems to be relevant to affective and motivational responses to feedback, such as mood, satisfaction, and performance improvements. Thus, self-expectations serve dual purposes in shaping reactions to feedback. Expectations guide the processing of feedback by placing limits on what is considered relevant and valid. Expectations also provide a standard against which feedback is compared, thereby framing the evaluative meaning of feedback. Because of the strong link between initial expectations and self-ratings of actual performance, formal SA is expected to have the same impact as expectations.

SELF-APPRAISAL AND FEEDBACK FROM OTHERS 303

Self-consistency, agreement, and subsequent self-evaluations

Self consistency concerns play an important role in agreement with feedback from others. For example, Swann, Griffin, Predmore and Gaines (1987) found that individuals with a positive self- concept were more likely to agree with positive feedback, which was consistent with their expectations, than with negative feedback. Conversely, individuals with a less favorable self- concept were more likely to agree with unfavorable feedback. Given that a formal SA should be affected by self-expectations, SA will likely affect agreement with feedback from others in the same manner as initial expectations. It is thus hypothesized:

H1: The impact of favorableness of feedback from others on agreement with feedback is moderated by SA. Specifically, when self-ratings are favorable, there is a positive relation- ship hetween favorableness of feedback and agreement with feedback. When self-ratings are unfavorable, there is a negative relationship between favorableness of feedback and agreement with feedback.

The desire for consistency also seems to limit the extent to which individuals will incorporate new feedback into their self-concepts. For example, subsequent self-evaluations made after individuals have received feedback from others tend to be consistent with initial self- expectations, regardless of the favorableness of the feedback they received (McFarlin and Blascovich, 1981; Moreland and Sweeney, 1984). A similar pattern of consistency should occur when comparing SA of performance made before receiving feedback to subsequent self- evaluations made after receiving feedback. It is thus hypothesized:

H2: The favorableness of SA is positively and uniquely related self-evaluations made after receiving feedback, beyond the effect of the favorableness of feedback.

Self-enhancement, satisfaction, and subsequent performance

Research suggests that affective responses, such as satisfaction with feedback, are influenced by self-enhancement concerns. People report a more pleasant mood and more satisfaction with feedback if the evaluation they receive is more favorable than their initial self-expectations of performance (Blakely, 1993; Swann et al., 1987). These findings suggest individuals are likely to be less satisfied with feedback from others if their SA is extremely favorable. Indeed, Cawley and Levy (1992) found that SA was negatively and uniquely related to employees' satisfaction, beyond the effect of feedback from others. It is therefore hypothesized:

H3: SA has a negative, unique relationship with satisfaction with feedback from others beyond the effect of the favorableness of feedback.

Self-enhancement concerns also play a role in motivating performance improvements. Studies have indicated that individuals with a negative self-concept are more sensitive to the favorable- ness of feedback in that their performance tends to deteriorate if they received negative feedback (Brockner, 1988; Shrauger, 1975). Like initial self-expectations, SAs are expected to moderate

304 M.A. KORSGAARD

the impact of the favorableness of feedback performance improvements. The following is thus hypothesized:

H4: The impact of feedhack from others on subsequent performance is moderated by SA such that there is a stronger, positive relationship between the favorahleness of feedback and performance for individuals with a negative SA than individuals with a positive SA.

Method

Sample and setting

Participants were 122 first year MBA students at a large southeastern university. On average, students were 25 years old and had 1.8 years of work experience. Seventy per cent of the students were male and 82 per cent were white. Of the remaining ethnic groups, 12 per cent were Asian, 2 per cent African-American, and 3 per cent were Hispanic.

Participants completed a business communication course and a field consulting project with local businesses. Students first participated in a 16-week course in which they had to make a formal, in-class presentation of a research proposal. Presentations were scheduled and evaluated by the instructor, who was not involved in the research project and unaware of the hypotheses. Students received their evaluations promptly after giving their presentations. Students then participated in a consulting project for roughly two months. The results were presented to the instructor and management of the firm. Th.Q%s field presentations were evaluated by the same instructor.

The study focused on students' reactions to feedback on their in-class presentations. This context was chosen because it provided a realistic context in which to observe the impact of feedback and SA. Thus, like the performance appraisal context, this study involved evaluations that were linked to valued outcomes (i.e. grades) and a task that was taken seriously by the participants. Further, this context provided a naturalistic setting to observe the effects of SA as a developmental tool. Researchers suggest that, as a developmental tool in performance evaluation systems, SA should not serve as a basis of evaluation itself (Campbell, and Lee, 1988). Instead, SA should be used in conjunction with supervisory evaluation as a means of increasing employee involvement in the review process (Mohrman et al., 1990). The evaluation procedure in this study, which included instructor feedback and SA, was designed by the instructor as an integral part of the course. Students were required to self-appraise and then meet individually with the instructor to review the instructor's evaluation. SA and instructor evaluations were made independently, and the instructor made it clear to students that she did not use their self-ratings to determine their grade. Rather, the SA was intended for the student's self-insight and to increase student involvement in the feedback process.

Procedure

Data for this study were collected in four waves. At time I, before the in-class presentations, a survey was administered containing measures of expectations and demographic information. Students were informed that the study concerned beliefs and attitudes toward academic performance and that they would receive a second survey on this general topic near the end of the semester. Of 122 students, 100 returned the survey, giving a response rate of 83 per cent. At time 2, instructor evaluations and students' SA ratings of the in-class presentations were

SELF-APPRAISAL AND FEEDBACK FROM OTHERS 305

obtained directly from the instructor. At time 3, a second survey, measuring students' reactions to instructor feedback, was distributed only to the 100 participants in the study. Seventy-seven students returned the second survey, providing a response rate of 77 per cent. Complete data was available for 76 of the students. There were no significant differences between respondents, non- respondents and the population on any demographic characteristic for either survey. At time 4, instructor evaluations of students' field presentations were collected from the instructor.

Measures

Time 1 The survey administered at time 1 contained measures of expectations. Research on expectations has examined two types of self-expectations: generalized and task-specific (Fahr and Dobbins, 1989; Shrauger, 1975), Generalized self-expectations are pervasive, stable self-perceptions of competence that reflect self-esteem. Task-specific expectations are more transient, specific perceptions of competence on a particular task. Task-specific expectations were assessed by having students indicate the grade they believed they could attain on the in-class presentation (A, B+, etc) and the certainty for attaining that grade (0-1,00), The numerical equivalent of the expected grade (F = 1, A = 8) was multiplied by the certainty rating to create the expectation measure. Generalized expectations were measured by Rosenberg's self-esteem scale (Rosenberg, 1965; a = 0,79),

Time 2 Instructor feedback was measured by the instructor's evaluation of the in-class presentations. Ratings were collected directly from the instructor, who was not an investigator in the study and unaware of the hypotheses. The instructor used a 25-item, four-point rating instrument that assessed five dimensions of presentation style (planning, opening, content, delivery style, and closing). This rating form was developed by the instructor and has been in use for several years. Ratings were summed to form a final grade, ranging from 25 to 100 (a = 0,70), One common form of SA involves a formal evaluation of one's performance using the same format that others employ in evaluating performance (Morhman et al.., 1990), Thus, in this study SA was assessed by student's self-ratings of their in-class presentations using the same form as the instructor (a = 0,75), Students self-appraised before receiving the instructor's feedback, SAs were given to the instructor and then collected by the investigator.

Time 3 Student's reactions to instructor feedback on their in-class presentations was assessed in a survey at time 3, Subsequent self-evaluation was measured by student's re-rating of their performance on five, four-point items corresponding to the dimensions rated by the instructor (planning, opening, etc; a = 0,70), Satisfaction with feedback was assessed by two, five-point Likert-type items from Giles and Mossholder (1990; a = 0,86), Agreement with feedback was measured by three, five-point Likert-type items derived from Roberson et al. (1993; a = 0,88),

Time 4 Subsequent performance was assessed at time 4 by the instructor's evaluation of student's performance in the field presentations. Performance was evaluated by the same instructor using the same 25-item scale. These ratings were collected directly from the instructor.

306 M. A. KORSGAARD

Descriptive statistics a n d correlations are listed in T a b l e 1.

Table 1. Means, standard deviations, and correlations for all variables

Variable

1. Generalized expectations 2. Task-specific expectations 3. Instructor feedback 4. Self-appraisal (SA) 5. Agreement with feedback 6. Subsequent self-evaluation 7. Satisfaction with feedback 8. Subsequent performance

Mean

3.50 5.67

88.6 91.4 4.10 2.99 3.97

92.2

S.D.

0.42 2.65 4.83 4.93 0.86 0.52 0.91 2.20

1

0.10 - 0 . 1 1

0.21* - 0 . 0 3 - 0 . 0 3

0.003 0.07

2

0.22* 0.32* 0.11 0.26* 0.09 0.18

3

0.46* 0.25* 0.41* 0.34* 0.22*

4

0.05 0.57* 0.10 0.08

5

0.32* 0.73* 0.02

6

0.35* 0.13

7

0.05

*p<0.05.

Results

Preliminary analyses

The hypotheses, which were derived from research on self-expectations, assume that some degree of disagreement exists and that self-expectations influence SA of performance. To confirm these assumptions, the degree of self-other rating agreement and the impact of expectations on SA were assessed. As noted in Table 1, some degree of agreement between self- and instructor ratings can be inferred from the correlation between SA and instructor feedback {r = 0.46, p < 0.05). However, disagreement occurred in that self-ratings were significantly higher than the instructor's evaluations (self: w = 91.4, instructor: w = 88.6; <ii5 = 5.82, p < 0.05). To help understand this result, groups were created according to the direction of disagreement, using the standard error of measurement (SEM) of the instructor's ratings as a margin of error (Williams and Levy, 1992). Self-ratings within one SEM of the instructor's rating were classified as accurate. Self-ratings that were more than one SEM above the instructor's rating were classified as lenient, and those that were more than one SEM below were considered severe. A majority of respondents were lenient in their self-ratings (51 per cent), whereas few respondents (16 per cent) were severe. The remaining 34 per cent of the respondents were in agreement with the instructor. This distribution was significantly different from a random distribution (xl = 21.74, p < 0.05).

The impact of self-expectations was assessed using multiple regression in which self- expectations and instructor feedback were used to predict SA ratings. As a set, expectations were significantly and positively related to self-ratings (A/?^ = 0.08, p < 0.05). Generalized expecta- tions uniquely contributed to self-ratings {sr^ = 0.05, p < 0.05), and the contribution of task- specific expectations approached significance (̂ A-̂ = 0.03, p < 0.10). In sum, preliminary analyses supported both assumptions. Differences in self-instructor ratings occurred, and SA tended to reflect initial self-expectations independently of feedback.

The impact of SA on reactions to instructor feedback

Hypothesis 1, that the relationship between the feedback and agreement is moderated by SA, was tested using hierarchical moderated regression (Cohen and Cohen, 1983). This procedure

SELF-APPRAISAL AND FEEDBACK FROM OTHERS 307

Table 2. Regression analyses for the impact of SA and instructor feedback

Independent variable

Step I Instructor Feedback SA

Step 2 Feedback x SA

Agreement with feedback

B

0.06 - 0 . 0 1

R

0.004

R

sf* t

0.06 2.19t 0.002 - 0 . 4 4

^ = 0.06t

0.05 2.07t

2 = 0.35t

Subsequent self- evaluation

B sr^* t

0.03 0.04 2.08 0.06 0.20 4.62t

R^ = 0.36t

Satisfaction with feedback

B sr^* t

0.08 0.10 2.90t - 0 . 0 1 0.001 - 0 . 2 6

R^ =0.1 It

Subsequent performance

B sf* t

0.11 0.04 2.22 - 0 . 0 2 - 0 . 0 0 1 - 0 . 3 5

R^ = 0.04t

- 0 . 0 1 0.07 - 3 . 1 7 t

R^ = 0 . 1 2 t

* Squared semi-partial correlation, indicating the proportion of variance in the dependent measure uniquely accounted for by the predictor, t p < 0.05.

involved first entering the main effects of the variables involved in the interaction (i.e. SA ratings and instructor feedback), and adding the interaction term in the second step. The significance of the unique variance accounted for by the interaction {sr^) serves as the test of the interaction. The interaction was interpreted by performing a median split on SA ratings and computing subgroup correlations between feedback and agreement.

The results of the regression analyses, summarized in Table 2, revealed a significant interaction of SA and instructor for agreement. An examination of the pattern of interaction largely supports hypothesis 1. For high self-raters, feedback was positively correlated with agreement (r = 0.43), whereas feedback was unrelated to agreement for low self-raters {r = 0.02). High self- raters were more likely to agree with positive feedback, which is consistent with their SA, than negative feedback. Low self-raters seemed to be indifferent to the favorableness of feedback.

Hypothesis 2, that SA is positively and uniquely related to self-evaluations made after receiving feedback, was tested by simultaneous regression in which SA and instructor feedback were used to predict subsequent self-evaluation. As summarized in Table 2, the unique contribution of SA to subsequent self-evaluation was positive and significant, indicating that students were consistent in their self-perceptions. Instructor feedback also had a significant effect on subsequent self-evaluations, suggesting that people are receptive to feedback from others.

Hypothesis 3, that SA would be uniquely and negatively related to satisfaction, was tested by simultaneous regression with SA and instructor feedback as predictors of satisfaction. As noted in Table 2, SA was not significantly related to satisfaction; only the favorableness of instructor feedback was related to satisfaction. Thus, hypothesis 3 was not supported.

Hypothesis 4, that the impact of feedback on subsequent performance is moderated by SA, was tested by hierarchical moderator regression analysis. As reported in Table 2, the interaction of SA and instructor feedback was significant. The interaction was interpreted by computing correlations between feedback and performance for high and low self-rating groups (based on a median split on SA ratings). As expected, a stronger, positive relationship between instructor feedback and performance was observed for low self-raters {r = 0.30) than for high self-raters

308 M. A. KORSGAARD

Discussion

The intent of this study was to clarify the impact of SA as a tool in feedback systems by developing a conceptual framework derived from research and theory on self-consistency and self-enhancement. Self-consistency concerns were expected to govern the impact of SA on how feedback from others was cognitively processed. Self-enhancement was expected to govern affective and motivational responses to feedback. All hypotheses were supported except the hypothesis concerning satisfaction.

The results suggest that SA plays an important role in how feedback from others is processed and that the influence of SA reflects a desire for self-consistent feedback. Specifically, individuals were more likely to agree with feedback and incorporate it into subsequent self-evaluations if the feedback was consistent with their SA. The findings also showed that SA influences the impact of feedback from others on performance and that this influence reflects enhancement concerns. Persons with low self-ratings responded more strongly to favorable feedback; that is, they were particularly sensitive to self-enhancing feedback from others.

The overall pattern of results is consistent with the distinction drawn in the feedback literature between the corrective and motivational mechanisms underlying feedback effects (Hogarth, Gibbs, McKenzie and Marquis, 1991; Ilgen, Fisher and Taylor, 1979). Feedback is posited to be corrective in that the information provided can stimulate learning, rehearsal, and strategy development. Feedback is posited to influence motivation in that its evaluative meaning serves as an incentive or a cue to other incentives. In this study, although low self-raters were no more likely to agree with favorable feedback than unfavorable feedback, they did perform better in response to favorable feedback. Thus, when there is any sort of disagreement between self- and other opinions, SA may interfere with the extent to which individuals incorporate and learn from feedback. When disagreement results from severe self-ratings, however, feedback may have a positive impact on performance, presumably because favorable feedback is motivating. Although this interpretation is consistent with the literature, the actual processes underlying these efl"ects were not measured. Future research should directly examine the mechanisms underlying the interactive effects of SA and feedback.

Implications

The findings inform on the nature of SA as an intervention and help to clarify discrepancies in the SA literature. Considerable research and theory have been generated on why SA may not agree with evaluations of others (see Fisher and Russ (1986) for review), but research on the use of SA is less clear. In the past, research on SA as a developmental tool has focused on the act itself, with little attention to the nature of self-ratings. For example, Campbell and Lee (1988) argued that the SA can be an effective tool because the activity may influence self-regulation and self-eflicacy beliefs. The current findings suggest that interplay between the favorableness of supervisor and self-ratings is an important, additional factor in the impact of SA. This study also helps explain why previous evidence of the effect of SA is mixed. Given that the impact of SA is contingent upon feedback from others, uniform benefits of SA should not be expected.

On a practical level, the findings provide qualified support for SA as a technique to improve appraisal systems. Researchers and practitioners recommend that SA should be used to supplement supervisor evaluations and to promote greater involvement in the appraisal process (Mohrman et al., 1990). According to Campbell and Lee (1988), this application of SA, which is

SELF-APPRAISAL AND FEEDBACK FROM OTHERS 309

consistent with how SA was used in this study, is expected to enhance the developmental or motivational impact of performance appraisal systems. For performance appraisals to be developmental, employees must accept and incorporate the information conveyed in the feedback. If SA is to improve the developmental impact of appraisal systems, consistency between self and supervisor ratings is important. On the other hand, performance appraisals are motivating to the extent that the evaluation is hnked to powerful reinforcers or the feedback itself is reinforcing. If the appraisal feedback itself is to be reinforcing, it must be interpreted by the employee as positive. To enhance the motivational impact of appraisal systems, SA should be relatively critical.

The poor correspondence typically observed between self- and supervisor ratings (Harris and Schaubroeck, 1988) raises the question of whether SA should be used under any circumstances. The publicness of a formal SA may strengthen commitment to self-opinions, increasing resistance to feedback from the supervisor. Yet, despite its potential to exacerbate enhancement and consistency concerns, SA may also hold the key to mitigating their effects. Regardless of whether SA is used, employees have their own beliefs about their performance (Ashford, 1989); these self-beliefs may similarly bias the interpretation of and reactions to feedback. If steps are taken to ensure accuracy in SA, a formal SA can be used as an intervention to change these beliefs, thereby making people more open and responsive to feedback (Mohrman et al., 1990). Factors such as knowledge of the appraisal system (Williams and Levy, 1992) and the clarity of performance dimensions (Fahr and Dobbins, 1989) may promote rating agreement. Further study is needed on the impact of such attempts to increase the accuracy of SA on reactions to feedback from others.

Limitations and future research

The generalizability of the findings may be limited by characteristics of the sample and context and should be addressed through replication with other populations and in other evaluative contexts. For example, students who were learning new skills may have been less certain in their appraisals of performance than experienced employees, which is likely to reduce their resistance to inconsistent feedback (Swann, 1990). Further, the time frame for performance and evaluation was considerably shorter than the typical performance review cycle, which may have minimized rating errors associated with memory decay. Moreover, compared to the context of work, evaluation in the .context of courses tends to be more public and subject to open discussion among students. Discussion of evaluations may have enhanced the salience of the favorableness of feedback. An additional limitation is the ability to draw causal inferences based on these results, given the correlational nature of the study. A related issue is that it is not clear why some individuals in this study were critical in their initial self-ratings, a fact which provided the basis of the performance findings. Additional research is needed to determine the mechanisms motivating critical self- ratings and the factors promoting them in order to ensure the generalizability of this result.

This study raises additional questions that merit further study. Researchers should examine the impact of contextual factors on the degree of self-other rating discrepancies and subsequent reactions to feedback. For example, the type of appraisal format (e.g. ranking, graphic rating scales) may affect the certainty of SA and the degree of distortion in self-ratings, which, in turn, may affect resistance to feedback from others (Swann, 1990). the appraisal procedure—whether supervisor evaluations are done before or after SA—may also affect distortion in self-ratings and their consequences. Further study is also needed on self-presentation concerns in reactions to feedback.

310 M. A. KORSGAARD

This Study examined only two concerns, consistency and enhancement; other concerns, such as self-authentication (Trope, 1986), may also affect SA and its impact. Finally, additional research is needed into the mechanisms underlying distortion in self-ratings and the effects of SA on performance. With few exceptions (Swann, Stein-Seroussi and Giesler, 1992), research on self- enhancement and consistency have inferred these mechanisms based on the pattern of results; direct measurement of these mechanisms is necessary to fully understand the impact of SA on reactions to feedback.

References

Ashford, S. J. (1989). 'Self assessments in organizations: A literature review and integrative model'. In: Cummings, L. L. and Staw, B. M. (Eds) Research in Organizational Behavior. Vol. 11, JAI Press, Greenwich, pp. 133-174.

Blakely, G. L. (1993). 'The effects of performance rating discrepancies on supervisors and subordinates'. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 54, 57-80.

Bassett, G. A. and Meyer, H. H. (1968). 'Performance appraisal based on self-review'. Personnel Psychology, 21, 4 2 1 ^ 3 0 .

Brockner, J. (1988). Self-Esteem at Work: Research Theory, and Practice, Lexington Books, Lexington, MA.

Burke, R. J., Weitzel, W. and Weir, T. (1978). 'Characteristics of effective employee performance review and development interviews: Replication and extensions'. Personnel Psychology, 31, 903-919.

Campbell, D. J. and Lee, C. (1988). 'Self-appraisal in performance evaluation: Development versus evaluation'. Academy of Management Review, 13, 302-314.

Cawley, B. D. and Levy, P. E. (1992). 'Appraisal discrepancies and feedback reactions: A field investiga- tion'. Paper presented at the 7th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Montreal, Canada.

Cohen, J. and Cohen, P. (1983). Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd edn, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.

DeGregorio, M. B., Fisher, C. D. and Fields, M. (1985). 'Reactions to varying forms of participation in the appraisal interview'. Texas A & M Human Resource Research Tech Report TR-ONR-3.

Fahr, J. L. and Dobbins, G. H. (1989). 'Effects of self-esteem on leniency bias in self-reports of perform- ance: A structural equation model analysis'. Personnel Psychology, 42, 835-850.

Fahr, J. L., Werbel, J. D. and Bedeian, A. G. (1988). 'An empirical investigation of self-appraisal-based performance evaluation'. Personnel Psychology. 41, 141-156.

Fisher, C. D. and Russ, G. (1986). Self and Superior Assessment (Technical Report Number: TR-ONR-4), ONR, Washington DC.

Giles, W. F. and Mossholder, K. W. (1990). 'Employee reactions to contextual and session components of performance appraisal'. Journal of Applied Psychology. 75, 371-377.

Harris, M. M. and Schaubroeck, J. (1988). A meta-analysis of self-supervisor, self-peer, and peer- supervisor ratings'. Personnel Psychology, 41, 43-62.

Hogarth, R. M., Gibbs, B. J., McKenzie, C. R. M. and Marquis, M. A. (1991). 'Learning from feedback: Exactingness and incentives'. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 17, 734-752.

Ilgen, D. R., Fisher, C. D. and Taylor, M. S. (1979). 'Consequences of individual feedback on behavior in organizations'. Journal of Applied Psychology, 54, 349-371.

McFarlin, D. B. and Blascovich, J. (1981). 'Effects of self-esteem and performance feedback on future affective preferences and cognitive expectations'. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 521-531.

Mohrman, A. M., Jr., Resnick-West, S. M. and Lawler, E. E. Ill (1990). Designing Performance Appraisal Systems: Aligning Appraisals and Organizational Realities, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.

Moreland, R. L. and Sweeney, P. D. (1984). 'Self expectancies and reactions to evaluations of personal performance'. Journal of Personality, 52, 156-176.

SELF-APPRAISAL AND FEEDBACK FROM OTHERS 311

Roberson, L., Torkel, S. J., Korsgaard, M. A., Klein, D., Diddams, M. and Cayer, M. (1993). 'Self- appraisal and perceptions of the appraisal discussion: A field experiment'. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 129-142.

Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the Adolescent Self-Image, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. Schlenker, B. R. and Weigold, M. F. (1992). 'Interpersonal processes involving impression regulation and

management'. Annual Review of Psychology, 43, 133-168. Shrauger, J. S. (1975). 'Responses to evaluation as a function of initial self-perceptions'. Psychological

Bulletin, 82, 581-596. Steel, R. and Ovalle, N. (1984). 'Self-appraisal based on supervisory feedback'. Personnel Psychology, 37,

667-685. Steele, C. M. (1988). 'The psychology of self-affirmation: Sustaining the integrity of the self. In: Berkowitz,

L. (Ed.) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 24, Academic Press, New York, pp. 261-302. Swann, W. B., Jr. (1990). 'To be adored or to be known: The interplay of self-enhancement and self-

verification'. In: Sorrentino, R. M. and Higgins, E. T. (Eds) Handbook of Motivation and Cognition, Vol. 2, Guilford, New York, pp. 4 0 8 ^ 5 0 .

Swann, W. B., Jr., Griffin, J. J., Predmore, S. C. and Gaines, G. (1987). 'The cognitive-affective crossfire: When self-consistency confronts self-enhancement'. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 881-889.

Swann, W. B., Jr., Stein-Seroussi, A. and Giesier, R. B. (1992). 'Why people self-verify', Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3, 392-401.

Trope, Y. (1986). 'Self-enhancement, self-assessment, and achievement behavior'. In: Sorrentino, R. M. and Higgins, E. T. (Eds) Handbook of Motivation and Cognition, Guilford, New York, pp. 350-378.

Williams, J. R. and Levy, P. E. (1992). 'The effects of perceived system knowledge on the agreement between self- and supervisor ratings'. Personnel Psychology, 45, 835-847.