Article Abstract:
The present experiments examined several strategies designed to reduce interval overconfidence in group judgments. Results consistently indicated that 3-4 person nominal groups (whose members made independent judgments and later combined the highest and lowest of these estimates into a single confidence interval) were better calibrated than individual judges and interactive groups. This pattern held even when participants were directly instructed to expand their interval estimates, or when interactive groups appointed a devil's advocate or explicitly considered reasons why their interval estimates might be too narrow. Interactive groups did not perform substantially better than individuals, although participants frequently had the impression that group judgments were far superior to individual judgments. This misperception resembles the "illusion of group effectivity" found in brainstorming research. (Reprinted by permission of the publisher.)
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
Article Abstract:
The traditional rendering-bias explanation of leniency in performance judgments was postulated to be incomplete. To demonstrate this insufficiency, an encoding-bias model of leniency was proposed, and hypotheses generated from both models were tested in a laboratory experiment. Sixty students viewed a videotape of a lecture, and their expectations of providing face-to-face feedback to the instructor were manipulated preobservation, postobservation, or not at all. Dependent variables included measures of encoding, private appraisals, retrieval, and public appraisals. As expected, results supported both explanations of leniency. However, the pattern of results suggests that a retrieval bias may also contribute to leniency in performance judgments. A more complex view of leniency is proposed on the basis of principles of motivated cognitive processing. (Reprinted by permission of the publisher.)
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
Article Abstract:
Schmidt and Hunter (1989) critiqued the within-group interrater reliability statistic (r sub wg) described by James, Demaree, and Wolf (1984). Kozlowski and Hattrup (1992) responded to the Schmidt and Hunter critique and argued that r sub wg is a suitable index of interrater agreement. This article focuses on the interpretation of r sub wg as a measure of agreement among judges' ratings of asingle target. A new derivation of r sub wg is given that underscores this interpretation. (Reprinted by permission of the publisher.)
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic: