Avoiding Rating Errors

Humans are always making difference judgments between and among those they know, meet, interview, and evaluate. We usually try to be fair in these judgments, but it is not often possible because of the tunnel vision we each bring to these judgments. We always remember when our judgments were “right on,” and we sometimes admit to instances when we were “so” wrong about someone.

Past practice in evaluating interviewer judgment ratings or any form assessment ratings indicates the possibility of a variety of errors. The sources of error are associated with rater tendencies when making judgments. Judgment errors are revealed when raters view multiple target candidates, focus on first impressions or their own preferences and over generalize on single personal characteristics. These errors can be attributed to inexperience and can be remediated through rater training. Another source of error is linked to assessor judgment too critical or too lenient or simply favoring personal bias or conviction.

The seven most common person-judgment errors are described below:
1. Content errors attributed to observing several persons in close sequence. Immediate
contrasts between two evaluations can be striking to the rater.

2. First impression errors which occur when observing an individual who looks “good,”
like a winner” or is singularly attractive. This is often referred to as “glitter.” Which
wears off quickly when you get to know the person better.

3. Halo errors are just as implicit when a person’s impression overrides any conflicting
information. This is somewhat like “glitter,” but personal attraction for any reason is
complexly intertwined in the judgment.

4. Stereotyping errors are attributed to generalizations of types of individuals. Types may
reflect any type of characterization including race, gender, age, or background.

5. Similar-to-Me errors arise out of an assessor’s common background and are attributed
to the common typology. Of course, we look positively at anyone like us.

6. Central tendency errors are just that, and occur when observers fail to differentiate
according to established standards – “All cats are grey in the light of the moon!”

7. Negative or positive assessor errors are attributed to error, bias, or discrimination.
While we assume that education and work experience are related to how a person will
perform in the future, it is essential that interpretations be made cautiously. There are
several reasons for being cautious. First, depending on how specific the information is,
predictions are based on the assumption that education or work experience item X invariably
leads to, or is an infallible sign of, individual characteristic Y. For example: completion of four
years of high school invariably leads to or is an infallible sign of the ability to read and write.

If you accept the statement above, you will be correct more often than incorrect. However, infallible means 100% of the time and, unfortunately, completion of high school today does not invariably lead to, nor is it an infallible sign of, the ability to read and write at a level above minimum standard of literacy.
Dr LGG