Personality and Social Psychology, 51 (Dec 1986), 1173-1182.Bernardin, H. J., & Beatty, R.W. Performance appraisal: Assessing human performance at work.Boston: Kent, 1984.Campbell, Donald J., & Lee, Cynthia. “Self-appraisal in performance evaluation: Developmentversus evaluation,” Academy of Management Review, 13 (Apr 1988), 302-314.Cardy, R.L. & Dobbins, G.H. Performance appraisal: Alternative perspectives. Cincinnati, OH:South-Western Publishing, 1994.Cawley, Brian D., Keeping, Lisa M., & Levy, Paul E. “Participation in the performance appraisalprocess and employee reactions: A meta-analytic review of field investigations,” Journal ofApplied Psychology, 83, (Aug 1998), 615-633.Cheung, Gordon W. “Mulifaceted conceptions of self-other ratings disagreement,” PersonnelPsychology, 52 (Spring 1999), 1-36.Cropanzano, Russell. & Prehar, Cynthia A. “Emerging justice concerns in an era of changingpsychological contracts,” In R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the workplace: From theory topractice (Vol. 2) (pp. 245-269). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 2001.DeGregorio, Marybeth, & Fisher, Cynthia. D. “Providing performance feedback: Reactions toalternate methods,” Journal of Management, 14 (Dec 1988), 605-616.Dipboye, Robert. & dePontbriand, Rene. “Correlates of employee reactions to performanceappraisals and appraisal systems,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 66 (Apr 1981), 248-251.Farh, James L., Werbel, James D., & Bedeian, Arthur G. “An empirical investigation of selfappraisal-basedevaluation,” Personnel Psychology, 41 (Spring 1988), 141-156.Fletcher, Clive “The implication of research on gender differences in self-assessment and 360degree appraisal,” Human Resource Management Journal, 9 (Sept 1999), 39-47.Folger, Robert. & Greenberg, Jerald “Procedural justice: An interpretive analysis of personnelsystems,” In K. Rowland & G. Ferris (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resourcesmanagement (Vol. 3) (1985), pp. 141-183).Giles, William F., & Mossholder, Kevin W. “Employee reactions to contextual and sessioncomponents of performance appraisal,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 75 (Aug 1990), 371-377.Greller, Martin M. “The nature of subordinate participation in the appraisal interview,” Academyof Management Journal, 21 (1978), 646-658.Harris, Michael & Schaubroeck, John. “A meta-analysis of self-supervisor, self-peer, and peersupervisorratings,” Personnel Psychology, 41 (1988), 43-62.Keeping, Lisa M., & Levy, Paul E. “Performance appraisal reactions: Measurement, modeling,and method bias,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 85 (Oct 2000), 708-723.Kanfer, Ruth, Sawyer, John, Earley, P. Christopher, & Lind, E. Allen. “Fairness and participationin evaluation procedures: Effects on past attitudes and performance,” Social Justice Research, 1(1987), 245-249.116
Korsgaard, M. Audrey. “The impact of self-appraisals on reactions to feedback from other: Therole of self-enhancement and self-consistency concerns,” Journal of <strong>Organizational</strong> Behavior, 17(Jul 1996), 301-312.Korsgaard, M. Audrey, & Roberson, Loriann “Procedural justice in performance evaluation: Therole of instrumental and non-instrumental voice in performance appraisal discussions,” Journal ofManagement, 21(4) (1995), 657-669.Landy, Frank J., Barnes, Janet, & Murphy, Kevin. “Correlates of perceived fairness and accuracyof performance appraisals,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 63 (Dec 1978), 751-754.Levy, Paul E. “Self-appraisal and attributions: A test of a model,” Journal of Management, 19(Spring 1993), 51-62.Lind, E. Allen, & Tyler, Tom R. The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum,1988.Murphy, Kevin R. & Cleveland, Jeanette N. Understanding performance appraisal: Social,organizational, and goal-based perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1995.Riggio, Ronald E., & Cole, Emmet J. “Agreement between subordinate and superior ratings ofsupervisory performance and effects on self and subordinate job satisfaction,” Journal ofOccupational and <strong>Organizational</strong> Psychology, 65 (Jun 1992), 151-158.Roberson, Loriann, Torkel, Steven, Korsgaard, Audrey, Klein, Doug, Diddams, Margaret, &Cayer, Maurice. “Self-appraisal and perceptions of the appraisal discussion: A field experiment,”Journal of <strong>Organizational</strong> Behavior, 14 (Mar 1993), 129-142.Shapiro, Debra L., & Kirkman, Bradley L. “Anticipatory injustice: The consequences ofexpecting injustice in the workplace,” In J. Greenberg & R. Cropanzano (Eds.), Advances in<strong>Organizational</strong> Justice (pp.152-178). San Franciso: New Lexington Press, 2001.Stone, Dianna L., Gueutal, Hal G., & McIntosh, Barbara. “The effects of feedback sequence andexpertise of the rater on perceived feedback accuracy,” Personnel Psychology, 37 (Fall 1984),487-506.Tyler, Tom R. “Conditions leading to value-expressive effects and judgments of proceduraljustice: A test of four models,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52 (1987), 333-344.Tyler, Tom R., & Lind, E. Allen. “A relational model of authority in groups,” Advances inExperimental Social Psychology, 25 (1992), 115-191.Tyler, Tom R., Rasinski, Kenneth, & Spodick, N. “The influence of voice on satisfaction withleaders: Exploring the meaning of process control,” Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 48 (1985), 72-81.Van den Bos, Kees, & Lind, E. Allan. “Uncertainty management by means of fairnessjudgments,” Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 34 (2002), 1-60.117
- Page 1 and 2:
Volume 24, No. 5, 2003Edited by/Éd
- Page 4 and 5:
Pursey HeugensGreg IrvingRoderick I
- Page 6 and 7:
TABLE OF CONTENTS - TABLE DES MATI
- Page 8 and 9:
study of power displays in mixed-ge
- Page 10 and 11:
on expectations and behaviour (Berg
- Page 12 and 13:
TaskThis study required the use of
- Page 14 and 15:
Task-Gender (male-stereotyped or fe
- Page 16 and 17:
It is important to understand the s
- Page 18 and 19:
Crown, C.L. & Cummins, D.A. (1998).
- Page 20 and 21:
Smith-Lovin, L., & Brody, C. (1989)
- Page 22 and 23:
Table 2Summary of Descriptive Stati
- Page 24 and 25:
Table 4Summary of Interaction of Ge
- Page 26 and 27:
ASAC 2003Halifax, Nova ScotiaIain L
- Page 28 and 29:
the interrelationships among the MB
- Page 30 and 31:
studies (Friedman and Sarros, 1989;
- Page 32 and 33:
This study demonstrated that emotio
- Page 34 and 35:
Anxiety, Stress and Coping, in pres
- Page 36 and 37:
Washington, DC: Taylor and Francis,
- Page 38 and 39:
Table 2Overall Goodness-of-Fit Indi
- Page 40 and 41:
ζ 3Depersonalizationη 3β 3,1 (+)
- Page 42 and 43:
ASAC 2003Halifax, Nova ScotiaWendy
- Page 44 and 45:
views independently, gave rise to S
- Page 46 and 47:
track assistant, associate, and ful
- Page 48 and 49:
ole conflict are positively related
- Page 50 and 51:
Table 3. Regression of climate and
- Page 52 and 53:
interests.We speculate the null eff
- Page 54 and 55:
DOOP and short for DOOP scales,”
- Page 56 and 57:
Pelled, L. H., “Demographic diver
- Page 58 and 59:
esulting increase in discretion ove
- Page 60 and 61:
al., 1995). However, the distinctio
- Page 62 and 63:
ise to strong pressures for conform
- Page 64 and 65:
presented with a complete list of a
- Page 66 and 67:
Table 3QAP Regression Coefficients
- Page 68 and 69:
ConclusionResearchers of social inf
- Page 70 and 71:
suggestions for further research.
- Page 72 and 73: performing on the job.” Presumabl
- Page 74 and 75: positively related to performance i
- Page 76 and 77: proposed hypotheses were supported.
- Page 78 and 79: ConclusionThis research has made se
- Page 80 and 81: Be more enthusiastic and exert extr
- Page 82 and 83: Table 2Correlations Among the Laten
- Page 84 and 85: performance expectations on feedbac
- Page 86 and 87: changements qui s’opèrent dans l
- Page 88 and 89: structures, politiques, systèmes,
- Page 90 and 91: comportements liés à la communica
- Page 92 and 93: Tableau 2Échelles de mesure de la
- Page 94 and 95: prédiction des compétences clés
- Page 96 and 97: organisation n’est pas uniforme e
- Page 98 and 99: complètement ce construit. Ces cha
- Page 100 and 101: Wagner, R.K. and Sternberg, R.J. (1
- Page 102 and 103: What is a toxin handler?In two arti
- Page 104 and 105: potentially limited scope and conte
- Page 106 and 107: work role demands. In this survey,
- Page 108 and 109: The three factors in this rotated f
- Page 110 and 111: and service orientation, the abilit
- Page 112 and 113: ASAC 2003Halifax, Nova ScotiaLisa M
- Page 114 and 115: self-appraisal group reacted more n
- Page 116 and 117: effect of voice are the value-expre
- Page 118 and 119: “Strongly Disagree” to “Stron
- Page 120 and 121: esults suggest that incorporating s
- Page 124 and 125: Table 1Means, Standard Deviations,
- Page 126 and 127: Table 3Test of the Mediating Role o
- Page 128 and 129: ASAC 2003Halifax, Nova ScotiaAnn Fr
- Page 130 and 131: individual level, polychronicity is
- Page 132 and 133: construct.Drawing on computer-media
- Page 134 and 135: Consequence: Impact on Work Overloa
- Page 136 and 137: Conversation complexity may also mo
- Page 138: Implications for practiceFuture res
- Page 141 and 142: ReferencesAncona, D.G., Goodman, P.
- Page 143 and 144: no. 3 (1994): 381-391.Macan, T.H.,
- Page 145 and 146: ASAC 2003Halifax, Nova ScotiaIan R.
- Page 147 and 148: Assessing Measures: Affective Commi
- Page 149 and 150: implications of psychological contr
- Page 151 and 152: commitment, affective commitment, c
- Page 153 and 154: Motivational Process Variables. Amo
- Page 155 and 156: DiscussionThe main purpose of this
- Page 157 and 158: approaches zero. In the present stu
- Page 159 and 160: Extension and test of a three-compo
- Page 162 and 163: Table 1Descriptive Statistics and Z
- Page 164 and 165: Table 3Standardized Factor Loadings
- Page 166 and 167: Table 5Hierarchical Regression Anal
- Page 168 and 169: ASAC 2003Halifax, Nova ScotiaJoan F
- Page 170 and 171: ASAC 2003Halifax, Nova ScotiaArla D
- Page 172 and 173:
ASAC 2003Halifax, Nova ScotiaIvy Ky
- Page 174:
ASAC 2003Halifax, Nova ScotiaNina D