联系我们
我们只做按需定制化代写服务,绝对原创!
QQ:41806229 点击这里在线咨询代写
Email:admin@assignment.cc
网  址:http://www.assignment.cc/
支持Paypal、VISA、MasterCard、Discover等银行卡支付
Paypal支付
代写留学生作业,Fundamental Attribution Bias
发表日期:2013-09-23 08:32:07 | 来源:assignment.cc | 当前的位置:首页 > 代写留学生作业 > 正文
Fundamental Attribution Bias
Fundamental attribution bias (FAB) can also be referred to as correspondence bias or over attribution. This is the tendency of a person to overestimate the influence of personal factors which are inherent with the person and includes effort and ability and at the same time underestimate the influence of situational factors when giving a quick analysis of someone.
The tasks and luck forms the bulk of external influences. People tend to and it's very human to attribute certain exhibited behavior with the actors known characteristics while not determining the context which the behavior manifested. Fundamental attribution makes people error because it's based on own perceptions hence affects performance appraisal. It's the tendency to overestimate the importance of dispositional factors relative to situational influences (Arkes 1987, p, 11).
Fundamental attribution bias has been a phenomenon which has been in existence and studied by medieval writers up to the present and still generates a lot interest and research work. The work was first described by Aristotle that objects behavior could be attributed to the inherent characteristics held in the objects.
Later Galileo in 17thcentury was first able to coin the need to study the behavior of objects in relevance to the situation. Levin in 1931 advanced the importance of the interaction of people and environment in that he recognized that the exhibited behavior was a product of the said interaction. He can be termed as the first writer to explore the subject of correspondence bias and his theory can be summarized in an equation as follows below.
Disposition = Behavior - Situation.
The equation demonstrates the value placed on interactions in relevance to behavior to behavior. Disposition is the process of synthesizing the observed behavior and inferring meaning. This can only be objective if it's visualized in the contexts of the situation.
An example of this assumption tendency in the work place is of an employee who is unable to perform a task and the manager attributes this to lack of effort but in the real sense it's the difficulty of the task that made him behave that way. This links us to explain the difficulty encountered while appraising performances.
When people are given a chance to judge others there is a tendency to be biased on the person especially if ones have a preconceived character of the person. FAB increase in individuals, if they do not have, the cognitive capacity, to adjust to spontaneous traits inferences to situational constraints. If someone if highly motivated and takes time to analyze the exhibited behavior then the process leads to less FAB (Gilbert and Malone 1995, p, 11).
At this stage it would be wise to define attribution as it will feature prominently in the paper. Attribution is a process whereby a behavior is observed, then determined through perception and finally judgment passed on the behavior. In order to assign a behavior to someone three components of attribution needs to be examined.
First is consistency of behavior if it's the same reaction when faced with the same circumstances if it's the same then consistency is high and vice versa. Second, is distinctiveness of behavior, if someone acts the same way in different situations then the behavior is distinctive. Lastly is on consensus and this regards group behavior if they show same tendency when exposed to similar environment (Pittman, 1989, p, 377).
Fundamental attribution bias occurs and currently there is no universally accepted explanation on why it occurs. Psychologists have associated it with perception and inability to analyze salient features. When we observe people they become the primary focal point hence exclude the external forces. When we analyze ourselves we become aware of the situational forces hence we are able to assign an environmental cause to the exhibited behavior but not in others.
Many reasons have been advanced for FAB and various experiments been tried to explain it. FAB is the most researched and documented on bias in social perception. Since the year 1977 correspondence bias has been subject of high intrigues with many accounts finding a path to explain it from theoretical perspectives.
One experiment which tries to explain this phenomenon is by Ross, Amabile and Steinzmetz (1997) whereby they used the quick role paradigm of quiz master, contestant and observer who were randomized interchangeably without knowing. Perceptions from the three roles played were noted and this demonstrated that fundamental biases were high from the point of the role play. (Gilbert and Malone, 1995) has categorized the reasons into three.
The first is lack of awareness of the prevailing situation. This limitation is brought about by the perceiver's inability to realize the external forces that come into fore play in behaviors hence aggravating biases. The situational forces are salient hence the observer may not be privy to them. In the context of a relationship this would change if we knew someone because would know them and their forces make them behave in a certain way (Gilbert, 1995 p, 9).
The second reason for continued research and experimentation of FAB is on unrealistic expectations. When FAB comes into play it makes the mind not to think systematically hence make unforced errors while passing judgments on others based only on their known characteristics. Reason needs to the guiding principle while making decisions and not by what meets the eye. Individuals when faced by a multitude of choices then they have to make decisions on what is appropriate.
Research has shown that, man uses values and goals as yard sticks upon which problems can be evaluated. This approach opens up many possibilities of biases. When bias sets in the expectations becomes unrealistic in that already the mind has formed a picture of what is to be accomplished.
Cognitive science which is the study of the mind has revealed glaring biases in quantitative reasoning, social attribution and memory. The more aware of about our own biases the more quality decisions we will make when it comes to evaluating own and others performance (Langdridge, & Butt, 2004 p, 358).
The third reason by Gilbert is inflated categorization whereby it states that we influence others by the way we carry our talks and actions. People form mental pictures about us hence have their own perceptions of who we are. People tend to place persons into groups and for those whom they are acquainted with they give them preferences. Upon categorization whenever a person acts contrary to the known behavior then we can judge them based on the known characteristic but not on the prevailing situation. Observes judge the actors behavior not on the observed behavior but on the expected behavior.
Categorization of behavior ranges from simple to complex. The actor's perfect knowledge of the situation and ambiguous expectations based on learnt behavior. Categorization happens simultaneously, no conscious attention hence, not aware of inferential processes. An example is the experiment by Gilbert is on the film on a woman who was discussing politics and sex.
One group was informed about the topic before the film while the other was informed in the end .the group that was informed before the film could not infer the topic because of being inflated hence already formed a conclusion. The group that was told at the end could be able to infer because were keen on anxiety causing behavior (Gilbert & Malone, 1995, p,16) & (Silvera, Moe, & Iversen, 2000 p,109).
The fourth reason is incomplete correction-Lack of lack of cognitive resources and motivation. This is based on Sequential Operation Model(SOM) which was advanced by Gilbert, Pelham and Krull (Gilbert, 1988). The SOM Model attribution occurs in a sequence of three steps: step one is referred as categorization and it identifies behavior. Step two is characterization whereby initial disposition is made by association character with behavior.
The third on the model is correlation which is the situational adjustment in line with other constraints. The first two are like automatic response and individuals have little control. The last one is the one which is controlled and effortful in that the person takes time to make an analysis of behavior (Gilbert and Malone, 1995) & (Silvera, Moe and Iversa, 2000).
The correction process takes into account that the perceiver needs to have high cognitive value, motivated and take effort to make unprecedented analysis. FAB decreases significantly if the person is motivated enough a takes time to do some correlation efforts (Gilbert and Melone, 1995, p, 18) (Silvera, 2000, p, 110).
When individuals are cognitively busy some do not show biases inferring that certain individuals' tendencies of biases are low. Biases then cannot be attributed to groups but individual attribution process as each person may have a different perception on observed behavior. This difference can be traced to attribution complexity which some element of personality.
All a long we have been examining at the transition and reasons for advancement of FAB, but there should be factors that strengthens it hence its continued presence. The first is time as described by Burger in 1991 in that he disputed earlier assertions that FAB does not take into account the context of situation as time is increased, discrepancies in interpretations differ. Attributions tend to shift over time.
An experiment described by Burger is on students' reactions after being shown a video by a student on gun control. The students are informed that the speaker does not have a choice on which side to support. Later the students are informed of the speaker's choice and are asked to give opinions immediately after the video show and later after seven days. The initial responses confirmed FAB but after a seven day period had elapsed the students gave response based on situational analysis.
This shows that over time the perceivers mind synthesis information further and injects an element of situation which initially lacked hence FAB can be said to diminish over time. Other experiments have been described to determine the effect of time on FAB and include studies on perceptions prior to and after elections. Hedonic relevance does not retain the attribution shift (Truchot, 2003, p, 204).
The second factor of FAB strengthening is dependency which sets to describe role of motivation in inferences. Outcome dependency predicts behavior. People always would like to be able to predict the behavior and in so doing control it. Correspondence bias is reduced in situations whereby potential costs are implied hence need to take time before deciding on an action. Inferences in such situations are high.
Time reduces correspondence biases significantly as one has the effort to analyze the context of the situation. If the aim of an inference is to imply group impression then correspondence bias is decreased since any drastic actions would affect group performance. The correspondence influence theory states that attributions about other are clear manifestations of personal interests of the perceiver and has a motivational aspect (Vonk, 199, p, 381).
Studies have been done to determine whether full knowledge of situation can prevent biases. These studies have demonstrated a key element in human nature that biases are always bound to happen hence it's upon organizations to find ways of always factoring in biases even were appraisers are fully informed on the environment.
Studies which have been highlighted in this paper point to the significant role played by FAB in organizations. Since appraisals are based on judgment on observed behavior then it should be affected by FAB hence it's discussed in the proceeding paragraphs. Performance appraisal is also termed employee appraisal as it's a method of evaluating the job of employees based on the set parameters. It's a review on the progress of the employee Vis a Vis the organization.
Its roots can be traced to the 20thcentury though no one can place an exact date as it's a phenomenon that sprung spontaneously. It has become quite inevitable and all organizations worldwide have adopted it as tool of management and other functions. In its absence the organization cannot be able to gauge the success and knowledge gaps of its workforce.
The human nature of judging others especially under influence fundamental attribution bias can have impeding consequences on the organization in terms of motivation, ethics and legal problems (Jawahar, 2005, p, 11).
The performance appraisal serves several purposes including giving feedback on employees track record. It's used to identify knowledge gaps hence implementing trainings. Also serves as criteria upon which rewards are allocated to employees together with salary and allowances. The performance appraisal serves as tool for organizational diagnosis on its development path.
Lastly is that it's used for communication within the organization while at the same time for validating the staffing process. Performance appraisals are filled by the employees, supervisors, customers and other stakeholders. As earlier indicated man makes a construed perception hence can use it pass judgments that can hamper operations of the organization.
Effects of fundamental attribution bias on appraisal performance
Fundamental attribution bias has been demonstrated through research and theory that it affects observed performance. Situational factors can enhance or deter performance hence can largely go unnoticed by the observer and leading to wrong attribution. If raters continue to act under fundamental attribution bias without having a compensatory mechanism then their appraisals won't be valid. Performance appraisal needs to be viewed as a means of assessing and keeping track of staff performance.
Employee performance and continued competitive edge of the organization are pivotal issues bordering on human resource and total quality management. The scales which are used to measure performance in an organization need to be reliable and valid. These two components determine whether the organization has adequate mechanisms to address discrepancies which may arise out of individual inferences. The appraisal tool need to be all inclusive as it's used to determine the organizations wage structures, job groups, promotions and as tool to measure effectiveness of organizations tools (Jawahar, 2005, p, 7).
A form of universality on the factors that influence employee performance has been established through the studies and experimentations. These factors are knowledge gaps, abilities and level of motivation. FAB does affect these mentioned hence the persons involved in filing and designing the appraisal forms need to factor in situations influences so as to have a representative appraisal (Jawahar, 2005, p,6).
Many organizations have always made the ultimate mistakes of assuming that individual opinions are always correct without evaluating the situational context. For performance appraisal ratings to be deemed reliable and carry validity in them organizations need to incorporate the influence of interactive forces on the performance being evaluated on employees.
The effect on determination of job expectations
Job expectations are a systematic, quantitative measure of what a worker is supposed to attain at the end of a given period. This can be determined at the organizational or departmental or team level but emphasis is placed on expected results. The drawers of the expectations always use their perceptions based on past experiences. Many a times the rotors place too many expectations on the precinct that the worker will be able to do it. When the worker is unable to accomplish set tasks then he is judged that he could be lazy but may be the tasks are beyond their scope.
The effect on job description
Job description states clearly what the job entails and what duties accompany it. Perceptions are mental pictures hence individual perceptions of the person executing the job many a times determines how a job is described. One rater may place the job as demanding while to another it may appear a simple task.
Conclusion
The role of FAB in appraisal cannot be underestimated though further studies need to be done in order to have convergence on the issue. Yes its recognized that individual perception do affect the gauging of performance and it can be positive or negative hence both need to be determined empirically.
References
Arkes, H. (1987). Judgment and Decision Making: An Interdisciplinary Reader (U. K.: Cambridge University Press.
Gawronski, B (2003). On Difficult Questions and Evident Answers: Dispositional Inference From Role-Constrained Behavior. Journal of personality and social psychology, 29 (11), 1459-1475.
Gilbert D.T and Malone P.S (1995). The Correspondence Bias. Psychological Bulletin
Gilbert D.T, Pelham, B, W, Krull, D, S (1988). On Cognitive Busyness: When Person Perceivers Meet Persons Perceived. American Psychological Association, Volume 54(5), May1988, p, 733-740
Jawahar, I.M (2005). Do Raters Consider The Influence Of Situational Factors On Observed Performance When Evaluating Performance? Evidence From Three Experiments. Group Organization Management, 30(1), 6-41.
Pittman, T.S, D'Agostino, Paul R. (1989). Motivation and Cognition: Control Deprivation and the Nature of Subsequent Information Processing; journal of experiential social psychology.
Silvera, D. H., Moe, S.K, & Iversen, P. l. (2000). The Association between Implicit Theories of Personality and the Attribution Process. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 41(2)
Pittman, T. S., & Pittman, N. L. (1980). Deprivation of Control and the Attribution Process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1980, Vol. 39, No. 3, 377-389
Pittman, T. S., Scherer, F. W., & Wright, J. B. (1977). The Effect of Commitment on Information Utilization in the Attribution Process. Perspective Sociology, Psychology Bull, 3(2), 276-279.
Langdridge, D., & Butt, T. (2004). The Fundamental Attribution Error: A Phenomenological Critique. British Journal of Social Psychology, 43(3), 357-369.
Moore, D. A., Swift S. (2004). Lenient Grading: Correspondence Bias in Performance Evaluation: Why Grade Inflation Works: Carnegie Mellon University.
Mowen, J. C., Fabes, K. J., & LaForge, R. W. (1986). Effects of Effort, Territory Situation, and Rater on Salesperson Evaluation. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 6(1),
Tetlock, P. E. (1985). Accountability: A Social Check on the Fundamental Attribution Error. Social Psychology Quarterly, 48(3), 227-236.
Truchot, D., Maure, G., & Patte, S. (2003). Do Attributions Change Over Time When the Actor's Behavior Is Hedonically Relevant to the Perceiver? Journal of Social Psychology, 143(2), 202-208.
Vonk, R. (1999). Effects of Outcome Dependency on Correspondence Bias. Perspective Sociology Psychology Bull, 25(3), 382-389.
Vonk, R. K., D (1989). Intergroup Bias and Correspondence Bias: People Engage In Situational Correction When It Suits Them. British Journal of Social Psychology 37: 379-385 Part 3 SEP 1998
基本归因偏差( FAB )也可以称为对应偏差或过度归因。这是的倾向高估个人因素的影响,与该人所固有的一个人,包括努力和能力和低估情境因素的影响,在同一时间时,给出一个快速的分析,有人。
任务和运气形成了大量的外部影响。人们往往归咎于某些表现出的行为与演员已知特征,而不是确定的情况下的行为表现,这是非常人性化的。让人基本归因错误,因为它是基于自己的看法,从而影响绩效考核。这是倾向于高估倾向性因素的重要性相对于情境的影响( 1987年Arkes , P, 11 ) 。
基本归因偏差的现象一直存在,并研究了中世纪的作家到现在仍然产生了很多的兴趣和研究工作。这项工作是第一亚里士多德所描绘的对象的行为可以归因于保持在对象的固有特性。
后来伽利略在17thcentury中首先能够硬币需要研究对象的行为相关的情况。在1931年,莱文先进的,他认识到所表现出的行为是所述相互作用的产物的人与环境的相互作用的重要性。他可以被称为第一位作家探索的课题的对应偏置和他的理论可以概括如下下面的等式中。
处置行为 - 形势。
该公式对相关行为的行为相互作用的价值体现。处置过程中合成所观察到的行为,并推断意义。这只能是客观的,如果它是可视化环境的情况。
这个假设的例子在工作场所的趋势是无法执行任务谁是雇员和经理属性缺乏的努力,但在真正的意义上,它是困难的任务,使他的行为方式。这链接我们解释的评价演出时遇到困难。
当人们有一种倾向是失之偏颇的人,特别是如果那些性格的人有一个先入为主的判断他人的机会。 FAB增加在个人,如果他们没有,认知能力,来调整自发的性状推断情境限制。如果有人,如果很高的积极性,并需要一定的时间来分析所表现出的行为,那么这个过程导致到FAB (吉尔伯特和马龙1995年,第11 ) 。
在这个阶段,将是明智的,因为它定义归属的文件中将重点突出。署名是一个过程,行为观察,然后确定通过感知和最终判决传递的行为。为了分配行为的三个组成部分的归属有待研究的人。
首先是行为的一致性,如果它是相同的反应时,面临着相同的情况下,如果它是相同的,那么一致性高,反之亦然。二是独特的行为,如果有人行为以同样的方式在不同的情况下,则行为是鲜明的。最后共识,这方面的群体行为,如果他们表现出相同的趋势,当暴露在类似的环境(皮特曼,1989 , P, 377 ) 。
基本归因偏差发生,目前还没有普遍接受的解释为什么会发生。心理学家它具有感知,无法分析的突出特点。当我们观察到的人,他们成为主要焦点,因此排除外力。当我们分析我们意识到情境力量,因此,我们能够分配的环保事业所表现出的行为,但不是在别人的。
已经提出了许多原因FAB和各种实验,试图解释它。 FAB是最研究和记录社会知觉中的偏见。自1977年对应的偏见一直受到高尔虞我诈多个帐户,找到一个路径,从理论的角度解释。
试图解释这一现象的一个实验是,罗斯,阿马比尔Steinzmetz ( 1997年),据此,他们用快速的竞猜高手,谁是随机不知道互换的选手和观察员的角色范式。从三个扮演的角色的看法指出,这表明基本偏见高点的角色扮演。 (吉尔伯特和马龙, 1995年)的原因分类三成。
首先是缺乏认识了当时的情况。这种限制所带来的感知者无法实现外部势力进入脱颖而出播放的行为,因此加重偏见。的情境力量是显着的,因此,观察者可能不知道他们。在上下文的关系,这会改变,如果我们知道有人会知道,因为他们和他们的力量,使他们的行为在一定的方式(吉尔伯特, 1995年P, 9) 。
继续研究和实验的FAB的第二个原因是不切实际的期望。当FAB进场,使头脑,不要认为系统从而使非受迫性失误,而通过对他人的判断仅基于已知特征。原因需要决策的指导原则,而不是眼所能。个人面对众多的选择时,那么他们必须做出决定什么是适当的。
有研究表明,男子使用的价值观和目标,院子里的棍子后,可以评估哪些问题。这种方法打开了许多可能性的偏见。当偏置设置的期望变得不现实已经心中已经形成了一个图片,什么是要完成。
认知科学,这是心灵的研究,揭示了明显的偏差,定量推理,社会归属和记忆。更了解我们自己的偏见,更优质的决定,我们会当它涉及到评价自己和他人的性能( Langdridge ,对接, 2004 P , 358) 。
吉尔伯特的第三个原因是夸大的分类,它指出,我们通过我们的方式开展我们的谈判和行动影响他人。人们形成关于我们精神的图片,因此我们是谁,都有自己的看法。人们倾向于把人分成小组,为那些人,他们都熟悉,他们给他们的喜好。分类后,每当一个人的行为违背了已知的行为,那么我们就可以判断他们基于已知特征而不是当时的情况。观察判断参与者的行为上没有观察到的行为,但对预期的行为。
分类行为的范围,从简单到复杂。演员的完美知识的基础上学习行为的情况和模棱两可的期望。分类同时发生,因此没有有意识地注意,不知道的推理过程。一个例子是由吉尔伯特是一个女人谁是讨论政治和性别上的薄膜上的实验。
一组关于电影的话题之前获悉获悉到底。组获悉,前膜不能推断的话题,因为被夸大,因此已经形成定论。本组结束时,被告知可能是可以推断因为热衷于焦虑引起的行为(吉尔伯特和马龙, 1995年,第16 ) (萌SILVERA伊弗森, 2000市盈率, 109 ) 。
第四个原因是不完整的修正缺乏认知资源和动机缺乏。这是基于顺序操作模型(SOM ),它是先进的吉尔伯特,佩勒姆和克鲁尔(吉尔伯特,1988) 。 SOM模型归属发生在一个序列中的三个步骤:第一个步骤被称为分类和标识的行为。第二步是表征,是由最初的处置行为与联想字。
第三个模型是相关情境调整线与其他约束。前两个是像自动应答和个人都难以控制。最后一个是一个,这是控制和付出努力的人需要时间来进行行为分析(吉尔伯特和马龙, 1995年)及( SILVERA , Moe和Iversa ,2000) 。
校正过程中考虑了感知者需要有较高的认知价值,动机和采取的努力,使前所未有的分析。 FAB显著降低人的动机是一个需要足够的时间做一些相关的努力(吉尔伯特和梅隆, 1995年,第18 ) ( SILVERA , 2000 , P, 110) 。
当个人认知忙碌的一些不显示的偏见,推断某些个人偏见的倾向是低的。偏见,然后不能归结到组,但由于每个人可能有不同的看法,对观察到的行为的个人归因过程。这种差异可以追溯到归属的复杂性,一些个性的元素。
所有长,我们已经检查过渡和进步FAB的原因,但应该有因素,因此加强其继续存在。首先是时间所描述的汉堡在1991年,他在早些时候有争议断言FAB不考虑情况的背景下,随着时间的增加,在诠释的差异不同。归属往往随着时间的推移转变。
一个汉堡所描述的实验是学生的反应后,表现出了对枪支控制的学生视频。学生被告知,扬声器不支持哪一方有选择。后来,学生被告知扬声器的选择,被要求提供意见后,立即视频节目和后7天。最初的反应证实的FAB但七天后学生响应了基于情景分析的时期已经过去了。
这表明,随着时间的推移知觉思维综合信息进一步注入元素的情况下,最初缺乏,因此FAB可以说是随着时间的推移而减少。其他实验已确定时间的效果FAB ,包括之前的看法,并在选举后的研究。享乐的相关性不保留的归属移( Truchot , 2003 , P, 204 ) 。
FAB加强的第二个因素是依赖集来描述激励作用推论。结果依赖预测的行为。人们总是希望能够预测的行为,并在这样做控制。对应偏差是潜在成本减少的情况下,即暗示,因此,在决定行动之前,需要花时间。在这种情况下,推论是很高的。
时间显着降低的对应偏差为一体的努力来分析上下文的情况。如果目的的推论是暗示组的印象,然后对应偏差降低,因为任何激烈的行动会影响到团队绩效。对应影响对他人的归因理论认为,明确表现感知者的切身利益,并有一个激励方面(冯克, 199 , P, 381) 。
研究已经完成,充分了解情况,以确定是否可以防止偏见。这些研究已经证明,偏见总是必然要发生的,因此想方设法总是保偏见甚至是评估师对环境的充分了解后,组织人性中的一个关键要素。
研究已经强调在本文点用FAB组织中发挥了显著作用。由于评估是根据观察到的行为作出判断,那么它应该受到FAB因此它的前进段讨论。绩效考核也称为员工考核评估员工的基础上设定参数的工作,因为它是一个方法。这是一个检讨雇员任现职组织的进展。
它的根源可以上溯到20世纪上,尽管没有人可以将一个确切的日期,因为它是一个自发的现象,如雨后春笋般涌现。这已经成为一种必然的和全世界所有的组织都采用它作为工具的管理等功能。组织在其缺席的情况下,也无法衡量其员工的成功和知识差距。
人性化的评判他人尤其是影响下基本归因偏差可以阻碍组织方面的动机,道德和法律问题的后果( JAWAHAR , 2005 , P, 11 ) 。
绩效考核有几个目的,包括提供员工纪录反馈。它被用来找出知识差距,因此实施培训。也可作为标准后奖励分配给员工的工资和津贴一起。绩效考核作为组织诊断的工具,其发展路径。
最后是,它用于组织内的沟通,而在同一时间验证人手过程。考绩充满员工,监事,客户和其他利益相关者。由于早前的男人一个解释的看法,因此可以使用它通过判断,可能会妨碍业务的机构。
基本归因偏差对评估性能的影响
通过研究和理论,它会影响观察到的性能已被证明基本归因偏差。情境因素可以增强或阻止的表现,因此可以在很大程度上被忽视的观察员,并导致错误的归属。如果评价者继续充当一种代偿机制,无需基本归因偏差下,那么他们的评价将是无效的。绩效考核需要被视为一种手段,员工绩效评估和跟踪。
员工的绩效和持续竞争优势的组织接壤的人力资源和全面质量管理的关键问题。秤是用来衡量组织中的表现必须是可靠和有效的。这两个组件确定该组织是否有足够的机制,以解决个别推论可能出现的差异。评估工具需要全包,因为它是用来确定组织结构工资,工作组,促销和工具,衡量成效的组织工具( JAWAHAR , 2005年,第7 ) 。
通过研究和实验,对影响员工绩效的因素已经建立普遍性的一种形式。这些因素是知识差距,能力和水平的动力。 FAB不会因此影响这些涉案人员提交设计考核表的情况下,需要考虑到影响,从而具有代表性的评估( JAWAHAR , 2005年,第6 ) 。
许多组织一直没有作出最终的错误假设个人观点始终是正确的评估情境。对于绩效考核评级被视为可靠,在他们进行有效的组织需要互动势力的影响纳入评估员工的表现上。
测定工作的期望的影响
对工作的期望是工人应该达到一个给定的周期结束时的一个系统的,定量测量。这可确定在组织或部门或团队的水平,但重点放在预期的结果。抽屉的期望总是使用自己的看法,根据过去的经验。很多时候,转子放置了太多的期望,在选区,工人将能够做到这一点。当工人是无法完成设定的任务,那么,他的判断,他可能是懒惰的,但可能是超出自己能力范围的任务。
工作描述的影响
职位描述清楚列明工作需要什么,什么职务,陪它。看法是精神的图片,因此执行工作的人很多时候决定如何描述工作的个人看法。一个评价者可能将工作要求而另一个可能会出现一个简单的任务。
结论
FAB考核的作用也不容小觑,虽然进一步的研究需要做的,为了在这个问题上有所收敛。是认识到个人的看法会影响性能的计量,它可以是正或负,因此既需要凭经验确定。
参考文献
Arkes , H. (1987) 。判断和决策:一种跨学科的阅读器(英国:剑桥大学出版社。
Gawronski ,B (2003年) 。困难问题和答案明显倾向性推理:从角色约束行为。个性和社会心理学杂志, 29(11) , 1459年至1475年。
吉尔伯特D.T和: P.S马龙( 1995年) 。对应偏差。心理公告
吉尔伯特D.T ,佩勒姆, B , W,克鲁尔,D ,S (1988) 。在认知忙碌:当人知觉符合人的感知。美国心理协会, 54(5) , May1988 , P, 733-740
JAWAHAR I.M (2005年) 。评分者是否考虑情境因素的影响,绩效评估时所观察到的效果吗?从三个实验的证据。集团组织管理, 30(1) , 6-41 。
皮特曼T.S ,达戈斯蒂诺:保罗R. (1989) 。动机和认知:控制剥夺后续信息处理与自然,体验社会心理学杂志。
SILVERA , D. H. ,教育部, S.K ,伊弗森, P.升。 (2000年) 。协会内隐人格理论和归因过程。斯堪的纳维亚心理学, 41(2 )
皮特曼, T·S·皮特曼, N. L. (1980) 。归因过程的控制和剥夺。人格与社会心理学杂志, 1980, 。 39号,第3号, 377-389
皮特曼,TS,舍雷尔, FW ,赖特, JB (1977) 。承诺的影响署名进程的信息利用。透视社会学,心理学通报, 3(2) , 276-279 。
Langdridge , D. , &对接, T. (2004) 。基本归因错误:现象学批判。英国社会心理学杂志, 43(3) , 357-369 。
摩尔, D. A. ,斯威夫特S. (2004) 。宽松分级:绩效评估:为什么年级通货膨胀作品:卡耐基梅隆大学的函授偏置。
莫问, : JC , Fabes , KJ ,拉法格, RW (1986年) 。的努力,领土现状,评价者对销售人员评价的影响。 [个人销售及销售管理, 6(1) ,
Tetlock , P. E. (1985) 。问责:一个社会的基本归因错误检查。社会心理学季刊, 48(3) , 227-236 。
Maure成为, D. Truchot的, G. , &消磨时光, S. (2003) 。归因更改过时间当演员的行为是Hedonically的接受主体有关?社会心理学杂志, 143 (2) , 202-208 。
冯克, R. (1999) 。对应偏置的成果依赖关系的影响。透视社会学心理学通报, 25(3) , 382-389 。
冯克,D , R. K. (1989) 。际偏置和函授偏置:人们从事情境校正,当它适合他们。英国社会心理学杂志37 :379-385 1998年第3 SEP