Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
To cite this article: Scott Highhouse & Andrew Gallo (1997) Order Effects in Personnel Decision
Making, Human Performance, 10:1, 31-46
Download by: [Mr John Track] Date: 07 August 2016, At: 05:33
HUMAN PERFORMANCE, 1O( l), 3 1 4 6
Copyright Q 1997, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Order Effects in
Personnel Decision Making
Scott Highhouse
Department of Psychology
Downloaded by [Mr John Track] at 05:33 07 August 2016
Andrew Gallo
Department of Psychology
Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis
Requests for reprints should be sent to Scott Highhouse, Department of Psychology, Bowling Green
State University, Bowling Green, OH 434034228, E-mail: shighho@bgnet.bgsu.edu.
32 HIGHHOUSE AND GALL0
Little is known about when and if either primacy or recency effects are likely to
occur in personnel decision making. A sampling of introductory textbooks in
industriaYorganizational (UO) psychology reveals that there is little consensus on
this issue. For example, some U 0 texts argue that primacy effectspredominate (e.g.,
Dipboye, Smith, & Howell, 1994, p. 388; Smither, 1994, p. 83), another only
mentions recency effects (Miner, 1992), and still another concludes that suscepti-
bility to primacy versus recency is an individual difference factor (Muchinsky,
1993, p. 117). Landy (1989, p. 206) concluded that because some studies show
primacy effects and others recency effects, information order does not really matter.
The confusion surrounding this issue is not surprising given the lack of research
Downloaded by [Mr John Track] at 05:33 07 August 2016
and mixture of findings in the research on order effects. For example, Farr's studies
on order effects in the employment interview (Farr, 1973;Farr & York, 1975)found
that ratings of a transcribed interview showed recency effects when participants
used a repeated-judgment response mode (i.e., when multiple evaluations were
elicited during the presentation of performance information),and showed primacy
effects when participants made only one final-overdl judgment about candidate
suitability. London and Hake1 (1974) also found recency effects for interview
information using a repeated-judgment response mode. Steiner and Rain (1989)
showed participants videos of teaching performance and found recency effects on
performance evaluations regardless of whether the videos were presented all at once
or over a period of days.
The confusion about order effects has not been unique to personnel research.
Hogarth and Einhorn (1992) reviewed 76 order-effect studies from several areas of
investigation including jury decision making, attitude change, psychophysics, and
others. Of the 76 studies identified by the authors, 36 found primacy effects, 35
found recency effects, and 5 found no effect from order of presentation. Clearly, ~t
would be incorrect to conclude that one effect (i.e., primacy or recency) predomi-
nates. or that order effects are irrelevant.
BELIEF-ADJUSTMENTMODEL
a trial in which the jury is presented with a few (vs. many) pieces of evidence in
which some pieces are more complex (e.g., DNA evidence) than others (e.g.,
eyewitness evidence).
According to the belief-adjustment model, an individual's current belief serves
as an anchor that is adjusted on the basis of new evidence. This revised belief then
becomes the anchor for the next adjustment, and so on. This is the typical SbS
judgment process that occurs in belief updating. When evidence is inconsistent(i.e.,
positive and negative), more weight is attached to a piece of evidence that comes
second in a sequence rather than first. This results in a tendency toward recency in
judgments. Occasionally,however, the task requires that judgment be reserved until
the end of evidence presentation. Whether primacy or recency occurs under this
Downloaded by [Mr John Track] at 05:33 07 August 2016
EoS response mode depends on the length and complexity of the evidence series.
Table 1 shows the belief-adjustment model's order-effect predictions based on
the interaction of response mode (i.e., SbS vs. EoS) and task characteristics. Note
that, for the SbS response mode, recency is predicted until an individual is faced
with a task involving a long series of evidence. In this case, individuals can become
overloaded with information and less sensitive to the impact of new information.
Thus, information presented earlier is disproportionately weighted in the ultimate
judgment. Table 1 also shows that the predictions for the EoS response mode differ
only in the case where a task is short and simple. Here, individuals accord more
weight to the initial anchor in making an ultimate judgment. As information
becomes more complex, however, EoS individuals resort to a SbS or on-line
judgment strategy because of the demands on information processing and memory.
Thus, for a short series of complex information, recency is predicted regardless of
response mode.
It is useful to examine previous research on order effects in personnel decision
making within the framework of the belief-adjustment model. For example, Farr
(1973; Fan & York, 1975) found recency effects for interviewers making SbS
responses and primacy effects for those making EoS responses. In these studies,
TABLE 1
Belief-Adjustment Model Order Effect Predictions
Response Mode
EoS SbS
Short series
Simple Primacy Recency
Complex Recency Recency
Long series Force toward primacy Force toward primacy
participants were presented with between 8and 16items from Hakel and Dunnette' s
(1970) Checklistfor Describing Job Applicants. Items in this checklist range from
one-word adjectives (e.g., "enthusiastic," "manipulative") to short behavioral state-
ments (e.g., "Says he prefers to work alone"; '"Talked too d o ~ l ~ "This ) . ~is very
similar to the prototypical short series of simple information described in Hogarth
and Einhorn (1992, p. 7). London and Hakel (1974) used a similar method that
involved reading three-part candidate self-descriptions. All participants made SbS
responses, rating the candidate after each "set" of (positive or negative) information.
London and Hakel found recency effects on overall interview ratings using this
procedure. Both F a d s (1973; Farr & York, 1975) and Landon and Hakel's (1974)
findings are consistent with the bellef-adjustment model's predictions for judgment
Downloaded by [Mr John Track] at 05:33 07 August 2016
tasks having these characteristics (Table 1). However, many selection decisions are
based on performance in tasks different from those utilized in these studies.
'we are grateful to Marvin D. Dunnette for sending us samples of this work
ORDER EFFECTS 35
'studies classified by Hogarth and Einhom (1992) as shodcomplex included an experiment that
used two 600-word messages, and one that used two long audio tapes (i.e., one of the defense and one
of the prosecution) of evidence in a mock trial. Studies classified as long/complex included one that
was conducted over a period of 12 days, and one presenting 17 arguments containing approximately
175 words each.
METHOD
Design
In groups of 3 to 14, participants were trained as raters for two role-play work-sam-
ple exercises taken from a commercial assessment center. The participants were
also shown video tapes of the same candidate performing in each of the two
exercises, and were asked to evaluate the candidate's suitability for a middle-level
management position. Performance in one of the taped exercises was positive, and
in the other exercise it was negative. The &sign was a 2 x 2 (positive-negative vs.
Downloaded by [Mr John Track] at 05:33 07 August 2016
Participants
Materials
Stimulus tapes. The actor who played the target candidate was a 30-year-old
male undergraduate student whose regular job was as a recruiter for a large
transportation company. The actor was instructed to perform poorly in the fact-
finding exercise and to perform as well as he could in the sales-call exercise. He
was paid for his performances.
As part of his negative performance in the fact-finding exercise, the actor leaned
forward in his chair, spoke with his hand covering his mouth, and asked the resource
person inappropriate questions (e.g., "What do you think I should do?')).Also, the
final decision of the actor was to refund all of the money requested by the customer,
despite the fact that the customer bought the product for a lesser amount of money.
As a rationale for this decision, the actor argued that the customer would otherwise
Downloaded by [Mr John Track] at 05:33 07 August 2016
complain and "it's gonna end up coming back on me, and I'm gonna end up losing
my job." The work sample lasted approximately 7 min. In piloting this video tape,
Scott Highhouse showed it to students in an undergraduate psychology class (n =
12) as an example of work-sample performance. The studentsrated the performance
as below average to poor (M = 1.6 on a 5-point scale), but none admitted knowing
that the person in the tape was acting.
For the sales-call exercise, the actor was given the role-play materials well in
advance of the taping. Also, he had all of the relevant sales points in front of him
(out of the sight of the viewer). During the taping, the actor assumed a very
professional tone and hit all of the relevant product information during the sales
pitch. The actor completed the exercise in 8.5 min. Pilot ratings were obtained from
undergraduate psychology students (n = 17) asked to rate the overall performance
on a 5-point scale. This pilot group rated the performance in the sales-call exercise
as above average (M = 3.9).
Dimensions and rating form. We chose only dimensions that the develop-
ers of the role plays indicated were measured well by both exercises. These included
Tolerance for Stress, Oral Communication Skill, Sensitivity, Analysis, and Judg-
ment4 The form also included an Overall Performance rating. Ratings were made
on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (poor)to 5 (excellent).
Procedure
Upon arrival, participants were alternately assigned to one of two rooms. All
participants in one room received the negative-positive order condition, whereas
Downloaded by [Mr John Track] at 05:33 07 August 2016
all participants in the other room received the positive-negative order condition.
The response mode conditions (i.e., SbS vs. EoS) were alternated between experi-
mental sessions, with the first session being determined by a coin flip. Experiment-
ers were alternated among the order conditions.
Participants received a handout describing the purpose of the research and the
training materials. They were told: "Your task is to observe the video-taped
performance of one job candidate who participated in two role-play work samples.
This candidate wants to be hired by a large beverage company as their Wholesaler
Inventory Coordinator." The participants were presented with the following job
description:
Participants then watched the first two segments of the training video (i.e., discus-
sion of dimensions and specific instructions for rating one of the exercises). The
training video prompted participants to follow along by reading the summary of
the background information and a checklist of points that could be (un)covered by
the candidate.
After observing the candidate's performance in the first exercise, participants
were shown the third segment of the training video, which provided specific
instructions for rating the other exercise. After observing the first exercise, partici-
pants in the SbS conditions (only) were instructed to evaluate the candidate's overall
4 ~ h e s dimensions
e and definitions can be found in Highhouse and Harris (1993)
performance on each dimension and then place the completed form in an envelope
provided to them. After both exercises were shown, all participants completed a
final evaluation of the candidate's performance on each dimension (i.e., across both
exercises) and the assessor reaction questions. For this final evaluation form, the
experimentersemphasized the importanceof rating the candidate on the dimensions
across both exercises. Thus, the SbS participants rated the candidate's overall
performance twice, whereas the EoS participants rated his overall performance
once. Participantsin the SbS condition were also asked to make ratings of the second
work-sample exercise alone. The reason for doing this was because this procedure
is commonly used in making assessment-center ratings, and because it provided
within-subject ratings of the exercises that could be used in later analyses.
Downloaded by [Mr John Track] at 05:33 07 August 2016
RESULTS
Manipulation Check
It is possible to establish that the positive and negative performance videos were
evaluated as expected by examining the effects of order on the first-step ratings of
participants in the SbS rating condition. The results of a multivariate analysis of
variance (MANOVA) on the overall performance rating and five dimension ratings
revealed that the target's performance in the sales-call exercise (i.e., positive-per-
formance exercise) was seen as significantly different from performance in the
fact-finding exercise (i.e., negative-performance exercise), F(6, 55) = 19.10, p <
.01. Table 2 presents the mean (first) ratings by exercise, along with univariate
statistics. Inspection of Table 2 reveals that performance in the sales-call exercise
TABLE 2
First Ratings of SbS Subjects by Exercise
Exercise
Dimension M SD M SD FI
Tolerance for stress 3.9 ,233 2.4 .70 56.51
Oral communication 3.1 .96 2.0 .73 26.13
Sensitivity 3.7 .90 2.9 .94 11.87
Analysis 4.0 .78 2.2 1.05 54.25
Judgment 3.7 .76 2.0 1.02 55.71
Overall performance 3.7 .66 2.0 .64 101.28
was rated higher on all dimensions than performance in the fact-finding exercise.
Moreover,all of the mean ratings for the sates-call exercise were above the midpoint
of the scale, whereas all of the mean ratings for the fact-finding exercise were below
the midpoint. Thus, it is reasonable to conciude that performance in the exercises
was perceived as expected.
MANOVA was used to determine order, response mode (SbS vs. E d ) , and
interaction effects on the final set of dimension ratings and overall performance
Downloaded by [Mr John Track] at 05:33 07 August 2016
rating. These results indicated a statisticdly significant effect for information order,
F(6, 108) = 2.32, p < .05. This effect accounted for 11% of the variance in the set
of ratings. No effect was found for response mode, F(6, 108) = 1.7,p = .12, nor the
Order x Response Mode interaction term, F(6, 108) = 0.77, p = .60. Table 3 shows
means and standard deviations by information order, along with univariate statis-
tics. Table 3 shows that the multivariate order effect was due primarily to the effect
of order on ratings of Oral Communication Skill and Overall Performance. This is
not surprising, given that oral communication is such an important component of
performance for both exercises. Inspection of the cell means in Table 3 reveals that
participants presented with the exercises in the positive-negative order rated the
candidate significantly lower on oral communications and overall performance than
participants presented with the exercises in the negativepositive order. This is
consistent with a recency effect. Note also that the trend across each of the
dimensions is in the direction of recency. It is also notable that mean overall
performance ratings are above the midpoint (i.e., "average") far the negative-posi-
tive group and below the midpoint for the positivenegative group.
TABLE 3
Final Rating Means and Standard Deviations by Exercise Order
and Univdate statistics
- -
Exercise Order
Dimension
Exploratory Analyses
Assimilation versus contrast. The design of this study allowed for the
opportunity to add another data point to the assimilationlcontrast debate (cf. Foti
& Hauenstein, 1993). Specifically, our design allowed us to contrast ratings (i.e.,
for the SbS raters) of the stimulus performance in the absence of prior performance
impressions with ratings of the same performance in the context of inconsistent
prior performance. That is, we had a no-previous-performance control group.
Previous assimilation/contrast research in personnel decision making has been
criticized for failing to include a true control group (Kravitz & Balzer, 1992).
Figure 1 shows the three SbS overall performance ratings by exercise order.
Downloaded by [Mr John Track] at 05:33 07 August 2016
Note that the two overall-performancerating points on the final assessment repre-
-0- Negative-Positive
+ Positive-Negative
1- -- I I
Rating Step
DISCUSSION
This study adds to a growing body of research successfully applying Hogarth and
Einhorn's (1992)belief-adjustment model to real-world problems (e.g., Adelman,
Tolcott, & Bresnick, 1993; Ashton & Ashton, 1990; Johnson, 1995; Tubbs, Gaeth,
Levin, & Van Osdol, 1993).Consistent with the predictionsof the belief-adjustment
model, we found recency effects on work-sample ratings, regardless of response
mode. Participants who observed the negative-performance exercise second rated
the candidate's oral communication skill and overall performance lower than those
who observed the negative-performance exercise first. This recency effect was
observed for those instructed to make repeated overall evaluations (i.e., after each
exercise), as well as those instructed to make only one overall evaluation. The
failure to find evidence for an Order x Response Mode interaction is not consistent
with Fan- and York's (1975) finding of recency for SbS participants and primacy
for EoS participants. We argue that this is because the information presented in our
work-sample simulation is more complex than the "paper-people" interview simu-
lation used by Farr and York. According to this argument, both the present results
and Fan- and York's results are consistent with the belief-adjustment model.
However, we would hesitate to conclude that the recency effects found for a
work sample are different than order effects that would be found in an employment
interview. That is, most interviews involve more than evaluating short, externally
presented descriptions of candidates. In fact, some interviews are quite elaborate
and occur more than once before an employment decision is made. Thus, it 1s
possible that, like work samples, most interviews are complex and subject to
recency effects regardless of response mode. Along these same lines, our results
are very similar to the results of Steiner and Rain (1989).Steiner and Rain showed
participants four 7-min videotapes of instructor lectures.They found recency effects
regardless of whether the videos were shown all at once or over a period of 4 days.
Although Steiner and Rain generalized their results to performance appraisals, we
believe that their rating task was actually more similar to that which is encountered
ORDER EFFECTS 43
This is followed at the end with overall dimension ratings (e.g., Sackett & Dreher,
1982). The results of our investigation suggest that neither practice is likely to
eliminate recency effects.
From an applied perspective, it is interesting that participants presented with the
negative-performance exercise last rated the candidate's performance below aver-
age, whereas participants presented with the positive-performance exercise last
rated the candidate's performance as above average. Thus, the order in which the
exercises were observed influenced not only the magnitude of performance ratings
but also the judgment of the suitability of this candidate for the job. We suspect
that assessor training, if it mentions primacy versus recency at all, gives equal
(minimal) attention to the potential effects of both primacy and recency on assessor
judgments. Given the propositions of the belief-adjustment model and the results
of this experiment, we believe that assessor training should pay relatively more
attention to the potential for recency effects on work-sample assessments. In
addition to assessor training, another method of potentially reducing the effects of
recency on judgments of work-sample performance is to videotape candidate
performance so that assessors can review earlier performance evidence. Alterna-
tively, the use of mechanical, rather than intuitive, methods for combining individ-
ual exercise ratings into an overall performance rating would likely be the most
effective way of eliminating order effects on overall ratings (cf. Kleinmuntz, 1990).
With that said, it is important to point out the limitations of our investigation as
representative of work-samplejudgments. It is possible that our findings are limited to
work samples with a small number of exercises because only two role plays were used.
Also, the training, observation, and evaluation all took place within a I-hr block of time.
Most assessment centers, for example, are spread out over a longer period of time
(Thornton & Byham, 1982).However, it is notable that Steiner and Rain (1989) found
the same recency effects using more pieces of evidence spread out over 4 days.
Perhaps the greatest limitation of our study was the lack of incentives for raters
to provide accurate ratings. That is, the raters were not involved in an actual hiring
process and, therefore, experienced little risk for making a poor evaluation. How-
ever, we suspect that order effects are not likely to be as motivationally driven as
44 HlGHHOUSe AND GALL0
other rater errors such as leniency. Moreover, just as one might argue that lack of
motivation may lead to recency, one might alternatively argue that lack of motiva-
tion could lead to primacy effects via attention decrement.
Another interesting finding in this study was the contrast effect observed for the
positive-performance video. Participants who viewed the positive video after the
negative one rated the target higher than participants who viewed the positive video
first. This result is consistent with the contrast effects observed in Gaugler and
Rudolph's (1992) investigation of assessmentcenterjudgments. It is also consistent
with within-ratee contrast effects observed in performance evaluation (Murphy,
Balzer, Lockhart, & Eisenman, 1985). The finding is not, however, consistent with
Downloaded by [Mr John Track] at 05:33 07 August 2016
studies finding evidence for assimilation (e.g., Foti & Hauenstein, 1993;Steiner &
Rain, 1989).It is notable that the examplesof performance that we used were clearly
identified by participants as representing either good or poor performance. We
agree with Foti and Hauenstein (1993) that the confidence in which one holds an
initial judgment has a lot to do with wh&r assimilation or contrast will be found.
According to Hogarth and Einhorn (1992), extremity of contrast effects is directly
related to the extremity of the initial anchor, or "the bigger the anchor, the harder
it will fall" (p. 14).
This study used the belief-adjustment model to make sense of previous research on
primacy and recency in personnel decision making. The recency effects observed
for the role-play work samples were consistent with the model's predictionsfor this
type of evidence. We believe that future research on order effects in personnel
decision making would benefit from using this model as a theoretical framework.
For example, the model predicts primacy effects for a short series of simple
information only when an EoS response mode is utilized. Consistent with this
prediction is research finding evidence for primacy effects on job evaluations
(Smith, Benson, & Hornsby, 1990). We might similarly expect primacy for pre-
screening of resumes or applicant files. The belief-adjustment model also predicts
a "force toward primacy" when the task involves a long series of evidence. Thus,
the model would appear to predict primacy for a typical performance evaluation or
promotion decision. Clearly, research is lacking that examines order effects on
judgments based on multiple pieces of evidence (e.g., critical incidents) spread over
a long period of evaluation.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We are grateful to John Hazer for helpful comments and to Beth Huff, Michael
Johnson, Sarah Melner, Shirley Sullivan, Eric Vincent, and Payam Yiice for their
assistance in stimulus development andlor data collection.
ORDER EFFECTS 45
REFERENCES
Adelman, L., Tolcott, M. A., & Bresnick, T. A. (1993). Examining the effect of information order on
expert judgment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 56. 348-369.
Asch, S. E. (1946). Forming impressions of personality. Journal of Abnormul and Social Psychology,
41,258-290.
Ashton, R. H., & Ashton, A. H. (1990). Evidence-responsivenessin professional judgment: Effects of
positive versus negative evidence and presentation mode. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 46, 1- 19.
Bray, D. W., &Grant, D. L. (1966). The assessment center in the measurement of potential for business
managers. Psychological Monographs, 80, (17, Whole No. 625).
Bycio, P., Alvares, K. M., & Hahn, 1. (1987). Situational specificity in assessment center ratings: A
confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 463-474.
Downloaded by [Mr John Track] at 05:33 07 August 2016
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Constantin, S. W. (1976). An investigation of information favorability in the employment interview.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 61,743-749.
Dipboye, R. L., Smith, C. S., & Howell, W. C. (1994). Understanding industrial and organizational
psychology: An integrated approach. Fort Worth, TX:Harcourt Brace.
Farr, J. L. (1973). Response requirements and primacy-recency effects in a simulated selection
interview. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57, 228-233.
Farr, J. L., & York, C. M. (1975). Amount of information and primacy-recency effects in recruitment
decisions. Personnel Psychology, 28, 233-238.
Foti, R. J., & Hauenstein, M. A. (1993). Processing demands and the effects of prior impressions on
subsequent judgments: Clarifying the assimilation/contrast debate. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 56, 167-1 89.
Gaugler, B. B., & Rudolph, A. S. (1992). The influence of assessee performance variation on assessors'
judgments. Personnel Psychology, 45.77-98.
Hakel, M. D., & Dunnette, M. D. (1970). Checklist ,for describing job applicants. Minneapolis,
University of Minnesota Industrial Relations Center.
Highhouse, S., & Harris, M. M. (1993). The measurement of assessment center situations: Bem's
template matching technique for examining exercise similarity. Journal of Applied Social Psychol-
ogy, 23, 140-155.
Hogarth, R. M., &Einhom, H. J. (1992). Order effects in belief updating: The belief-adjustment model.
Cognitive Psychology, 24, 1-55.
Johnson, E. N. (1995). Effects of information order, group assistance, and experience on auditor's
sequential belief revision. Journal oj'Economic Psychology, 16, 137-1 60.
Kleinmuntz, B. (1990). Why we still use our heads instead of formulas: Toward an integrative approach.
Psychological Bulletin, 107, 296-3 10.
Kravitz, D. A., & Balzer, W. K. (1992). Context effects in performance appraisal: A methodological
critique and empirical study. Journal of Applied Psychology. 77, 24-31.
Lance, C. E., Newbolt, W. H., & Gatewood, R. D. (1995, May). Assessment center exercise factors
represent cross-situational specifcity, not method bias. Paper presented at the Tenth Annual
Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Orlando, FL.
Landy, F. J. (1989). Psychology ofwork behavior (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
London, M., & Hakel, M. D. (1974). Effects of applicant stereotypes, order, and information order on
interview impressions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 157-162.
Miner, J. B. (1992). Industrial-organizational psychology . New York: McGraw-Hill.
Muchinsky, P. M. (1993). Psychology applied to work (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
46 HIGHHOUSE AND GALL0
Murphy, K. R., Balzer, W. K , Lockhart, M. C., & Eisenman, E. J (1985). Effects of prevlous
performance on evaluations of present performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70.72-84
Neidig, R. D., & Neidig, P. J. (1984). Multiple assessment centerexercises and jobrelatedness. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 69, 182-186.
Pursell, E. D., Campion, M. A., & Gaylord, S. R (1980). Structured interviewing: Avoiding selection
problems. Personnel Journal, 59,907-9 12
Rowe, P. M. (1989). Unfavorable information and interview decis~ons.In R. W. Eder & G. R. Ferris
(Eds.), The employment interview. 7'heory, research, andpractice (pp. 77-89). Newbury Park,CA
Sage
Ryan, A. M., & Sackett, P. R. (1992). R e l a t i o h p betweeo graduate training, professional affiliation.
and individual psychological assessment practices for personnel decisions Personnel Psychology,
45, 365-387
Downloaded by [Mr John Track] at 05:33 07 August 2016
Sackett, P. R. (1982). The interviewer as hypothesis tester: The effects of impressions of an applicant
on interviewer questioning strategy. Personnel Psychology, 35.789404.
Sackett, P. R.,& Dreher, G. F. (1982). Constructs and assessment center dimensions: Some troubling
empirical findings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67,401-410.
Schneider, J. R., & Schmitt, N. (1992). An exercise design ~pproachto understanding assessment center
dimension and exercise constructs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77.32-41.
Smith, B. N., Benson, P. G., & Homsby, J. S. (1990). The effects of job description content on job
evaluationjudgments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 301-309.
Smither, R. D. (1994). The psychology of work and human p e t f o m c e (2nd ed.).New York: Harper
Collins Colkge Publishers
Steiner, D D., &Rain, J. S. (1989). Immediate and delayed primacy and recency effects in performance
evaluation. Journal of Appl~edPsychology, 74, 136- 142.
Thornton, G. C ,& Byham, W C. (1982). Assessment centers and nuutagenalperformance. New York
Academic
Tubbs, R. M., Gaeth, G. J., Levm, I. P., & Van Osdol, L. A. (1993). Order effects In belief updlttLng
with consistent and inconsistent evidence Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 6, 257-269