Int. J.

of Human Resource Management 16:11 November 2005 2029– 2044

The role of interpersonal affect in

performance appraisal: evidence
from two samples – the US and India

Arup Varma, Shaun Pichler and Ekkirala S. Srinivas

Abstract The interpersonal affect, a li ke – dislike relationship between a supervisor and

his/her subordinate, has traditionally been conceptualized as a source of bias in
performance appraisals. However, some researchers have argued that the interpersonal
affect may not be a bias, especially where it develops as a result of past performance. In
this field study, using data from 190 supervisors in the US, and 113 supervisors in India, we
delineate the relationship between interpersonal affect and performance ratings. In both
samples, interpersonal affect and performance level were found to have significant effects
on performance ratings. Results from the US sample indicated that raters are able to
separate their liking for a subordinate from actual performance when a ssigning
performance ratings, suggesting that the interpersonal affect does not operate as a bias in
the appraisal process. Results from the Indian sample, however, suggest that supervisors
inflate ratings of low performers, suggesting that local cultural norms may be operating as
a moderator.

Keywords Interpersonal affect; performance appraisal; performance ratings; cross-

cultural studies; bias in appraisals; US versus India.

Introduction
Over the years, several researchers (see, e.g., Zajonc, 1980 and Dipboye, 1985) have
suggested that the performance appraisal literature has ignored affective and behavioural
variables. Since the publication of these reviews, several researchers have attempted to
integrate the interpersonal affect into studies of performance appraisal. A majority of
these studies treat interpersonal affect as a potential source of bias in performance ratings
(see, e.g. Landy and Farr, 1980; Latham and Wexley, 1981). In this study, we investigate
the relationship between interpersonal affect and performance ratings, and further
examine whether interpersonal affect operates as a bias under all performance
conditions. Additionally, we expand the growing literature on cross-national
comparative analyses, by conducting our investigations in two separate samples – US
and India.

Arup Varma, Institute of Human Resources & Industrial Relations, Loyola University Chicago, 820
North Michigan Avenue, Chicago, IL 60611, USA (tel: þ 1-312-915-6664; fax: þ1-312-915-6231;
e-mail: avarma@luc.edu). Shaun Pichler, School of Labor and Industrial Relations, 4th Floor,
South Kedzie Hall, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA (tel: þ1-517-410-
6046; fax: þ1-619-465-4019; e-mail: pichlers@msu.edu). Ekkirala S. Srinivas, Xavier Labor
Relations Institute (XLRI), PO Box 222, Circuit House Area (East), Jamshedpur 831001, India
(tel: þ91-657-222-5506; fax: þ 91-657-222-7814; e-mail: srinivas@xlri.ac.in).
The International Journal of Human Resource Management
ISSN 0958-5192 print/ISSN 1466-4399 online q 2005 Taylor & Francis
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
DOI: 10.1080/09585190500314904
2030 The International Journal of Human Resource Management
The interpersonal affect is defined as a ‘like–dislike relationship’ between a
supervisor and his/her subordinate, and has been shown to occur very early in stimulus
observation (Zajonc, 1980) and performance evaluation (Cardy and Dobbins, 1986).
In other words, if a supervisor likes his/her subordinate, s/he is deemed to have a high
interpersonal affect toward that subordinate. In this connection, research has consistently
indicated that a rater’s interpersonal affect towards a ratee is difficult to separate from
performance information when assigning ratings (Cardy and Dobbins, 1986; Robbins
and DeNisi, 1994). As such, if interpersonal affect for a ratee develops before the rater
processes performance-related information, and is difficult to disconnect from
actual performance, it is logical to argue that interpersonal affect is a source of bias in
performance appraisal, diminishing rater accuracy. Recent research and theory suggest,
however, that this conclusion may be premature (e.g. Lefkowitz, 2000; Robbins and
DeNisi, 1998; Varma et al., 1996).
Most of the studies examining interpersonal affect have been conducted in the
laboratory, where interpersonal affect and performance levels can be easily manipulated.
The laboratory, however, is not the best setting for studying interpersonal affect, and the
external validity of laboratory results is often suspect (Lefkowitz, 2000). Indeed,
interpersonal affect develops over time between a supervisor and subordinate, and
systematically influences the performance rating process (Robbins and DeNisi, 1998).
Further, the relationship between a supervisor and subordinate is also a developmental
process (Bauer and Green, 1996) that is a function of the length of the relationship. As
such, the effects observed in the laboratory may differ in important ways to the effects of
interpersonal affect in the field. Indeed, it was Dipboye’s (1985) criticism that passive-
observer research had led to such an over-emphasis on cognitive determinants of
performance ratings that directed researchers to studying affective variables in the
appraisal process in the first place.
Clearly, there is a critical disconnect between performance appraisal research and
practice (Arvey and Murphy, 1998). Accordingly, this paper adds to the growing body of
literature that examines the relationship between interpersonal affect and performance
ratings in the field. This is an important way to facilitate the unification of research
findings and practice in organizational settings.

India versus the US

Furthermore, we combine the interest in performance appraisal with the growing interest
in cross-national research, specifically comparing the US and India. The recent media
coverage of US jobs being outsourced to India, and the attractiveness of India as a
potential investment location due to its large domestic market (Datt and Sundharam,
1999) make it a prime candidate for a cross-national study. Indeed, several authors have
called for more cross-national studies (e.g. Brewster et al., 1996). However, most of the
cross-cultural research in the existing management literature is limited to studying and/or
comparing management practices in European and/or North American countries
(Budhwar and Debrah, 2001; Napier and Vu, 1998).
This seems rather ironic, given that multinational corporations (MNCs) are
increasingly establishing operations in developing countries such as India and
China, and foreign direct investment to these nations has also substantially increased
(Budhwar and Debrah, 2004). Clearly, if organizations are to succeed in their
international operations, they need a clear understanding of local workplace norms and
management practices (Hofstede, 1993). In this connection, several authors (e.g. Kapur
and Ramamurti, 2001) have noted that India is becoming an increasingly important
 Varma et al.: Interpersonal affect in performance appraisal 2031
player on the world economic scene, and is projected to have the fourth largest economy
by 2020, according to World Bank estimates. This is not surprising, given that India
offers several unique features that are very attractive to MNCs – a highly-skilled and
educated workforce, a rapidly growing middle class, and an English-speaking populace.
Historically, India has shared a special relationship with the US. For decades, Indian
students have continued to flock to the US for higher studies (Harbison and Myers, 1964;
Kapur and Ramamurti, 2001), while the US has been the largest foreign investor in India
(Budhwar, 2001). Clearly, this exchange of human resources between these two nations
is likely to continue and increase in the foreseeable future. As such, an understanding of
the unique cultures and workplace norms would help organizations in both nations
develop suitable policies and procedures (Gopalan and Stahl, 1998) to help them
succeed. Given the context-specific nature of HR practices (Budhwar and Khatri, 2001),
it is important that organizations understand the unique factors that might impact the
design, implementation, and success or failure of management systems in different
countries (e.g. Schuler et al., 2002).

Performance appraisal – India versus the US

In the Indian scenario, it is important that US organizations (and managers) become
aware that ‘hierarchy and inequality are deeply rooted in India’s traditions’ (Jain and
Venkata Ratnam, 1994). As Sinha (1990) points out, this often leads to subordinates
being dependent on their supervisors to help resolve their problems. In the
context of performance appraisal, this would mean that subordinate performance (and,
hence, performance rating) is much more dependent on the supervisor’s relationship with
the subordinate, than it would be in the US. Furthermore, India is a ‘collectivist’ nation
(Hofstede, 1980), and managers are likely to motivate their subordinates through social
and interpersonal interventions (Budhwar and Khatri, 2001). The US, on the other hand,
is deemed to be much more ‘individualistic’, and managers are less likely to rely on
social and interpersonal interactions in their dealings with subordinates. In this
connection, Kanungo and Mendonca (1994) suggest that employees in India are often
more concerned with their personal relationships with the supervisor, instead of the
actual job performance. Again, this situation is very different from what one might
expect to find in the US, where work-related outcomes take precedence over personal
relationships in the workplace.
It is in this context that we were interested in studying the impact of interpersonal
affect on performance appraisal. Clearly, if being ‘liked’ by the supervisor is more
important to the subordinate than the actual job performance, as in India, interpersonal
affect is more likely to have influence the subordinate’s performance evaluation.

Interpersonal affect as bias in performance appraisal

A review of the relevant literature reveals that evidence on interpersonal affect as a
source of bias in performance appraisals, is mixed, at best. Specifically, some scholars
(e.g. Dipboye, 1985) have suggested that affect influences performance ratings
independent of actual performance, and some evidence confirms this (e.g. Dobbins,
1982; Ferris et al., 1994; Lefkowitz and Battista, 1995). For example, Tsui and Barry
(1986) suggest that affect is a source of bias in appraisal, as it reduces rater accuracy in
performance ratings. Indeed, several laboratory studies (e.g. Cardy and Dobbins, 1986;
Wayne and Ferris, 1990) have reported that interpersonal affect has a significant positive,
main effect on performance ratings.
2032 The International Journal of Human Resource Management
However, in recent times, some authors have even suggested that interpersonal affect
might develop as a result of performance (Robbins and DeNisi, 1994, 1998; Varma et al.,
1996). On the other hand, other authors (e.g. Ferris et al., 1994) have argued that affect
may not be a result of past performance, and that raters simply give higher ratings to
those subordinates that they like.
In this connection, past research has shown that supervisors prefer to work with high
performers (e.g. Farris and Lim, 1969). High performers may be easier to get along with,
and may be more well liked, simply because they do not need to be reprimanded for poor
work behaviour. Supervisors may also be naturally inclined to working with those
subordinates that can most easily be identified as protégés. In this connection, Olian et al.
(1993) found that mentors were more willing to engage in career enhancing as well as
friendship behaviours with high performing subordinates, and expected greater rewards
from a mentoring relationship with high performers. As such, it is logical to argue that
interpersonal affect is, at least partially, explained by past performance and, therefore, is
not necessarily a source of bias in performance appraisal. However, robust field evidence
has yet to resolve this issue. As such, the present study was designed to test this issue in
the field setting, in both nations – US and India.

Hypotheses
Interpersonal affect and performance level
In laboratory studies, actual job performance has consistently been found to positively
influence performance ratings (e.g. Carey, 1997; DeNisi and Stevens, 1981; Robbins and
DeNisi, 1994; Wayne and Ferris, 1990). In other words, better performance garners better
ratings. Indeed, ‘studies of the effect of the performance level of the ratee on performance
ratings generally support the validity of the ratings’ (Landy and Farr, 1980). Clearly,
objective performance is a strong predictor of performance ratings, and any model of the
appraisal process should highlight this. As such, we propose that, in both samples:

Hypothesis 1: Performance level will have a significant, positive effect on

performance ratings.

Some studies have shown that performance and interpersonal affect interact to
influence performance ratings. For instance, Cardy (1982) found that performance and
interpersonal affect interact to influence the differential accuracy of performance ratings.
Similarly, while interpersonal affect was not found to influence ratings of consideration in
another laboratory study (Dobbins, 1982), it did interact with performance, such that when
the liking manipulation occurred prior to observing behaviour, liked low performers were
rated more favourably than a disliked low performer. Exploring such interaction effects in
the field should shed light on whether or not interpersonal affect operates as a bias, and the
primary intention of this study is to closely examine the interaction between interpersonal
affect and performance. We propose that for both samples:

Hypothesis 2: Performance level and interpersonal affect will interact to influence

performance ratings.

Inflation and deflation – underevaluation and overevaluation

In a series of experiments, Katz and Glass (1979) demonstrated empirically what they
termed the ambivalence-amplification response. The researchers argued that majority
 Varma et al.: Interpersonal affect in performance appraisal 2033
raters have ambivalent feelings towards minority ratees. A rater’s response towards a
minority ratee is amplified either positively or negatively depending on the context of the
situation or interaction. If a rater has a negative experience with a particular
minority ratee, the performance rating will be significantly more negative than for a
non-minority ratee. Likewise, if a rater has a positive experience with a ratee, the
rating will be significantly higher than a rating given to a non-minority ratee. Therefore,
performance ratings towards minority ratees are biased by the type of interpersonal affect
a rater has towards a ratee.
While the conclusions of the Katz and Glass (1979) experiments do not
necessarily indicate that ratings will generally be inflated or deflated because of an
interpersonal affect bias, they certainly provide a framework to test the biasing effects
of interpersonal affect. Specifically, if ratings are inflated for low performers when
interpersonal affect is high, or if ratings are deflated for high performers when interpersonal
affect is low, then interpersonal affect can be said to bias the evaluation. Testing this type
of relationship, of course, is dependent on an interaction effect between performance
level and interpersonal affect. Interestingly, Robbins and DeNisi (1994) found that ratings
were deflated when raters had negative interpersonal affect, but ratings were not inflated as
a result of positive interpersonal affect. That is, ratings were lower when a rater had
negative interpersonal affect than when a rater had neutral or positive interpersonal affect.
In this connection, Feldman (1981) and others (Ilgen and Feldman, 1983; Srull and
Wyer, 1980) have argued that information about ratees is stored in memory on the basis
of categories, or prototypes, and that systematic underevaluation and overevaluation of a
ratee is based on category membership (Feldman, 1981). If, for instance, a ratee is
categorized as a likeable subordinate, recall of ratee performance information would be
biased by the general evaluative implication of this category –which is clearly positive –
and the ratee would be given an inaccurately favourable performance rating based on his
or her category membership.
Based on the above discussion, we predict systematic underevaluation and over-
evaluation of a ratee based on interpersonal affect. Specifically, if interpersonal affect
operates as a source of bias in performance appraisal, there should be a significant mean
difference in ratings between raters with neutral interpersonal affect, and raters with
positive interpersonal affect among the low performing group. In this case, interpersonal
affect could be interpreted to inflate ratings. Conversely, if there is a significant mean
difference in ratings between raters with neutral interpersonal affect, and raters with
negative interpersonal affect among the high performing group, then interpersonal affect
could be interpreted to deflate ratings. As such, we predict that, in both samples:

Hypothesis 3: Performance ratings for high performers will be deflated by raters with
negative interpersonal affect towards them, and
Hypothesis 4: Performance ratings for low performers will be inflated by raters with
positive interpersonal affect toward them.

Method
Data for our study were collected through contacts in the HR departments of participating
organizations. The US sample consisted of 190 supervisors drawn from a large
manufacturing corporation, while the Indian sample consisted of 113 supervisors, also
drawn from a large manufacturing organization. In the US sample, surveys were
distributed to roughly 500 supervisors, giving us a return rate of 38 per cent, while in the
Indian sample, the return rate was 30 per cent (113 out of 380).
2034 The International Journal of Human Resource Management
Fifty-seven per cent of the participants in the US sample were male, and their average
age was 42. The average tenure with the company was 12 years, while the average
amount of work experience of participants was 20 years. Since each supervisor rated two
ratees, our effective sample size is 380. In the Indian sample, 89 per cent of the
participants were male, and their average age was also 42. The average company tenure
was 16.5 years, and the average work experience was 18 years. Since each supervisor
rated two ratees, our effective sample size for this group is 226.

Procedure
The supervisors participating in our study, in both samples, were asked first to think of a
high performer among their direct reports, and provide performance and interpersonal
affect ratings for this subordinate. Next, supervisors were asked to think of a low-
performer, and provide the same ratings for this subordinate. Supervisors from both
settings provided ratings of subordinates using the same survey instrument.

Measures
Independent variables Interpersonal affect (alpha ¼ 0.85 US, 0.73 India) was
measured using five items (e.g. ‘I think this person could become a good friend of
mine’) drawn from Tsui and Barry (1986). Subordinate performance level was
manipulated by instructing the participating supervisors to think of a high performer and
a low performer. Independent samples t-tests indicated that there were significant
differences between high performers and low performers on the overall performance
rating for the US sample [t (377) ¼ 1.057, p , 0.01] as well as the Indian sample
[t (249) ¼ 11.208, p , 0.01].

Dependent variables Respondents rated subordinates on both trait and task

measures of performance. We decided to use performance ratings as dependent
variables because the performance rating is the most common method of judging
performance (Landy and Farr, 1980). Drawing from Varma et al. (1996), six task-related
measures (e.g. quantity of work) of objective job performance were scaled to form a task
rating score (alpha ¼ 0.88 US, 0.78 India), and ten trait items (e.g. sensitivity) were used
to create a trait scale score (alpha ¼ 0.93 US, 0.88 India).

Analyses
Following the procedure used by Tsui and Barry (1986), interpersonal affect
was trichotomized into three levels: positive, neutral, and negative. A 2 (Performance
level) £ 3 (Affect) between-subjects ANOVA was conducted three times on both
samples, with trait ratings, task ratings, and overall performance as dependent variables.
We calculated effect sizes using eta squared. Multivariate analyses were not used due to
the strong, positive relationships between the dependent variables.

Results
Means, standard deviations, and correlations among the dependent and independent
variables for the American sample are reported in Table 1. As can be seen, trait ratings
and task ratings were strongly and significantly correlated (r ¼ 0.89; p , 0.01). The
overall performance measure was also strongly correlated with task ratings (r ¼ 0.87;
p , 0.01) and trait ratings (r ¼ 0.83, p , 0.01). Further, interpersonal affect was
 Varma et al.: Interpersonal affect in performance appraisal 2035

Table 1 Descriptive statistics, correlations and scale reliabilities

Variable Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4)
United States
1 Affect 3.28 0.77 (0.85)
2 Task ratings 3.63 0.83 0.69* (0.88)
3 Trait ratings 3.52 0.80 0.73* 0.89* (0.93)
4 Overall performance 3.58 1.06 0.66* 0.87* 0.83* –
India
1 Affect 3.51 0.69 (0.73)
2 Task ratings 3.56 0.69 0.69* (0.78)
3 Trait ratings 3.62 0.67 0.67* 0.91* (0.88)
4 Overall performance 3.60 0.63 0.63* 0.90* 0.83* –

Notes *p , 0.01; Scale reliabilities on diagonal.

significantly correlated with task ratings (r ¼ 0.69; p , 0.01), trait ratings (r ¼ 0.73;
p , 0.01), and overall performance (r ¼ 0.66; p , 0.01).
Means, standard deviations, and correlations for the Indian sample are also reported in
Table 1. Again, trait ratings and task ratings were strongly and significantly correlated
(r ¼ 0.91; p , 0.01). The overall performance measure was strongly correlated with task
ratings (r ¼ 0.90; p , 0.01) and trait ratings (r ¼ 0.83; p , 0.01). Much like the
American sample, interpersonal affect was significantly correlated with task ratings
(r ¼ 0.69; p , 0.01), trait ratings (r ¼ 0.67; p , 0.01), and overall performance
(r ¼ 0.63; p , 0.01). Results from the univariate ANOVA tests are reported in Tables 2
and 3. Before testing our hypotheses, we examined the effect of interpersonal affect on
performance ratings to determine if the liking manipulation was successful. For the US
sample, interpersonal affect had a significant effect on task ratings (F (2, 77) ¼ 7.97,
p , 0.01), trait ratings (F (2, 76) ¼ 21.07, p , 0.01), and overall performance
(F (2, 161) ¼ 10.38, p , 0.01). Results from the Indian sample are similar. Interpersonal

Table 2 Results from between-subjects ANOVAs – US

Variable Task rating Trait rating Overall perf.

M F eta2 M F eta2 M F eta2

Affect 7.97* 0.042 21.07* .103 10.38* 0.053
Negative 3.53 3.36 3.50
Neutral 3.65 3.56 3.59
Positive 3.88 3.91 4.04
[Note: df ¼ 2]
Performance level 297.00* 0.448 209.53* 0.363 191.32 0.341
Low 3.12 3.15 3.07
High 4.25 4.08 4.35
[Note: df ¼ 1]
A £ PL 4.87* 0.026 6.61* 0.035 7.06* 0.037
[Note: df ¼ 2]

*p , 0.01.
2036 The International Journal of Human Resource Management

Table 3 Results from between-subjects ANOVAs – India

Variable Task rating Trait rating Overall perf.

M F eta2 M F eta2 M F eta2

Affect 51.31* 0.299 46.08* 0.277 33.08* 0.213
Negative 2.95 3.04 2.89
Neutral 3.65 3.69 3.75
Positive 4.25 4.26 4.32
(Note: df ¼ 2)
Performance level 117.90* 0.329 98.95* 0.291 77.91* 0.242
Low 3.01 3.11 2.99
High 4.12 4.12 4.21
(Note: df ¼ 1)
A £ PL 21.54* 0.152 25.41* 0.174 17.66* 0.126
(Note: df ¼ 2)

*p , 0.01.

affect had a significant effect on task ratings (F (2, 241) ¼ 51.31, p , 0.01), trait ratings
(F (2, 241) ¼ 46.08, p , 0.01), and overall performance (F (2, 244) ¼ 33.08, p , .01).
The effect sizes on each of the dependent variables varied from moderate to large for the
American sample, and were generally large for the Indian sample. Interpersonal affect
had the largest effect on trait ratings and the least powerful effect on the task rating
variable for the American sample. Further, interpersonal affect had the largest effect on
the task rating variable and the least powerful effect on the overall performance measure
for the Indian sample. For each of the analyses, among both samples, mean ratings
increased as the level of interpersonal affect increased from negative to positive.
Therefore, the interpersonal affect manipulation was successful.
Hypothesis 1 predicted that subordinate performance level would have a
significant effect on supervisory performance ratings of American and Indian
subordinates. For the US sample, performance level had a significant main effect on
task ratings (F (1, 77) ¼ 297.00, p , 0.01), trait ratings (F (1, 76) ¼ 209.53, p , 0.01),
and overall performance (F (1, 161) ¼ 191.32, p , 0.01). Performance level also had a
significant main effect on task ratings (F (1, 241) ¼ 117.90, p , 0.01), trait ratings
(F (1, 241) ¼ 98.95, p , 0.01), and overall performance (F (1, 244) ¼ 77.91, p , 0.01)
for the Indian sample. The effect sizes for each of the dependent variables are also quite
large among both samples. In all of the analyses, mean ratings were higher in the high
performance category than in the low performance category. Hypothesis 1, accordingly,
received strong support.
Hypothesis 2 predicted that performance level and interpersonal affect would interact
to impact performance ratings. There were significant interaction effects between
performance level and interpersonal affect for each of the three dependent variables
among both samples. Significant interaction effects were found for task ratings
(F (2, 77) ¼ 4.87, p , 0.01), trait ratings (F (2, 76) ¼ 6.61, p , 0.01), and overall
performance (F (2, 161) ¼ 7.06, p , 0.01) for the American sample. Analogously,
significant interaction effects were found for task ratings (F (2, 241) ¼ 21.54, p , 0.01),
trait ratings (F (2, 241) ¼ 25.41, p , 0.01), and overall performance (F (2, 244) ¼ 17.66,
p , 0.01) for the Indian sample. As such, hypothesis 2 also received strong support.
 Varma et al.: Interpersonal affect in performance appraisal 2037
Results from post-hoc (Tukey) tests from the US and Indian samples reveal that
there were significant differences in performance ratings between each of the three
interpersonal affect levels for all of the dependent variables. For each of the dependent
variables, ratings were higher in the positive affect condition than in the neutral and
negative affect conditions; ratings were higher in the neutral condition than in the
negative affect condition; and ratings were lowest in the negative affect condition.
The significant interaction effect between performance level and interpersonal affect,
and the results from the Tukey tests demanded that we further examine the interaction
between performance and interpersonal affect. Not only were we interested in examining
how interpersonal affect interacts with performance to influence performance ratings
among both samples, we were also interested in ascertaining what specific differences
there may be between the US sample and the Indian sample in terms of this interaction.
To examine this issue, we performed simple effects analyses (see Tables 4 and 5) by
splitting each dataset between high and low performers, and then running one-way
ANOVAs on both samples using interpersonal affect as an independent variable for each
of the three dependent variables. Each overall ANOVA was significant among both high
performers and low performers at the 0.01 level for both samples, except the overall
performance measure for the Indian sample, which was significant at the 0.05 level.
Hypothesis 3 predicted that performance ratings for high performers would be deflated
when raters had negative interpersonal affect. We tested for mean differences in
performance ratings among the three different affect levels by using Tukey’s Honestly
Significantly Different (HSD) Test. If there is a significant difference in ratings between
raters with neutral interpersonal affect, who are essentially indifferent about the ratee,
and raters with negative interpersonal affect, then the negative interpersonal affect would
adversely influence the performance rating. In this case, interpersonal affect could be
said to operate as a bias in the appraisal process.
However, as we can see in Tables 6 and 7, there were no significant differences in the
performance ratings of high performers between raters with neutral and negative
interpersonal affect for any of the dependent variables among either sample. We should
note, however, that there were significant differences in trait ratings and overall
performance ratings between raters with positive and negative interpersonal affect for the
American sample. There were also significant differences in task ratings between raters

Table 4 Results of simple-effects analysis – US

Task rating Trait rating Overall perf.

M F eta2 M F eta2 M F eta2

Low performers 10.86* 0.107 20.12* 0.181 13.37* 0.127
Negative 2.83 2.73 2.61
Neutral 3.16 3.13 3.00
Positive 3.36 3.57 3.58
(Note: df ¼ 2)
High performers 8.63* 0.085 13.92* 0.130 5.45* 0.047
Negative 4.22 3.98 4.38
Neutral 4.14 3.99 4.17
Positive 4.40 4.26 4.50
(Note: df ¼ 2)

*p , 0.01.
2038 The International Journal of Human Resource Management

Table 5 Results of simple-effects analysis – India

Task rating Trait rating Overall perf.

M F eta2 M F eta2 M F eta2

Low performers 49.87** 0.454 52.82** 0.466 37.86** 0.383
Negative 2.56 2.64 2.44
Neutral 3.22 3.34 3.31
Positive 3.11 4.18 4.20
(Note: df ¼ 2)
High performers 8.64** 0.125 7.37** 0.109 3.52* 0.055
Negative 3.97 4.06 4.08
Neutral 4.00 3.97 4.10
Positive 4.30 4.30 4.37
(Note: df ¼ 2)

*p , 0.05.
**p , 0.01.

with positive and negative interpersonal affect for the Indian sample. One might interpret
mean differences between raters with positive and negative interpersonal affect in any
performance condition to signal bias, but the referent must be the neutral condition, and
the comparison must be the negative condition. For ratings to be deflated there must be a
difference between raters with negative and neutral interpersonal affect as the neutral
condition is the unbiased, objective condition.
As such, hypothesis 3 was not supported, indicating that interpersonal affect is not
operating as a bias in the high performing condition. That is, ratings of high performers
are not deflated by raters that have negative interpersonal affect for them. This finding
does contradict results of Robbins and DeNisi (1994) somewhat. Robbins and DeNisi
found a significant difference in performance ratings between raters with negative and
neutral interpersonal affect, but their finding was not constricted to high performers.
Hypothesis 4 predicted significant differences in ratings of low performers between
raters with neutral interpersonal affect and raters with positive interpersonal affect.
If ratings of low performers differ between raters with neutral and positive interpersonal
affect, then interpersonal affect would be biasing the performance rating such that the
rating would be inflated.
Using Tukey’s HSD, we found no significant differences between neutral and positive
rating conditions for task ratings or overall performance in the American sample
(see Table 6). There was, however, a significant difference for trait ratings. A potential
explanation of this result is that trait ratings are more subject to bias. As suggested by
Varma et al. (1996), trait ratings involve more ambiguous, subjective evaluation factors
than do outcome-related ratings, and may, therefore, be more easily influenced by
interpersonal affect. As above, there were significant differences between raters with
negative and positive interpersonal affect for each of the dependent variables. Unlike the
American sample, there were significant differences between neutral and positive
interpersonal affect conditions for each of the dependent variables in the Indian sample.
This is a clear and important difference between the two samples. Again, there were
significant differences between positive and negative interpersonal affect conditions for
each of the dependent variables.
Table 6 Tukey’s HSD between affect levels (high and low performers) – US
Task ratings Trait ratings Overall performance
Low performers Negative , Neutral** Negative , Neutral** Negative , Neutral**
NEUTRAL < POSITIVE NEUTRAL < POSITIVE* NEUTRAL < POSITIVE
Positive . Negative** Positive . Negative** Positive . Negative**

High performers NEGATIVE > NEUTRAL NEGATIVE < NEUTRAL NEGATIVE > NEUTRAL
Neutral , Positive** Neutral , Positive** Neutral , Positive**
Positive . Negative** Positive . Negative Positive . Negative**

*p , 0.05.
**p , 0.01.
Note
CAPS indicate comparison of interest. The only significant relationship involves trait ratings of low performers.
Varma et al.: Interpersonal affect in performance appraisal
2039
Table 7 Tukey’s HSD between affect levels (high and low performers) – India
Task ratings Trait ratings Overall performance
Low performers Negative , Neutral** Negative , Neutral** Negative , Neutral**
NEUTRAL < POSITIVE** NEUTRAL < POSITIVE** NEUTRAL < POSITIVE**
Positive . Negative** Positive . Negative** Positive . Negative**

High performers NEGATIVE < NEUTRAL NEGATIVE < NEUTRAL NEGATIVE < NEUTRAL
Neutral , Positive** Neutral , Positive** Neutral , Positive
Positive . Negative** Positive . Negative Positive . Negative

*p , 0.05.
**p , 0.01.
Note
CAPS indicate comparison of interest. Unlike the US sample, there are significant differences in the performance ratings of low performers between raters with neutral and
positive affect.
2040 The International Journal of Human Resource Management
 Varma et al.: Interpersonal affect in performance appraisal 2041
As such, hypothesis 4 received mixed support. Specifically, it appears
that interpersonal affect is not operating to inflate ratings of low performers in the
American sample. However, it is clear that interpersonal affect is operating as a bias
in the Indian sample; ratings of low performers are consistently inflated by raters with
positive interpersonal affect towards them across various rating formats.

Discussion
The present study was designed with two specific purposes in mind: (1) to examine the
role of interpersonal affect in a field setting, and (2) to expand comparative cross-cultural
studies of HR issues to include developing countries, by comparing US and India.
While several scholars have argued that interpersonal affect operates as a bias in the
appraisal, others (e.g. Lefkowitz, 2000; Varma et al., 1996) have suggested that it may
not be a bias after all, especially if it is a result of previous performance. However,
Lefkowitz (2000) also strongly urges readers away from the assumption that raters
simply like good performers. He argues that the relationship between interpersonal affect
and performance is rather complicated.
Indeed, the results of our study suggest that raters are able to separate affective and
performance-related information in the field when assigning performance ratings, but
that this ability to ‘separate’ is moderated by cultural norms. As we note above, ratings of
low performers were consistently inflated by raters with positive interpersonal affect
towards them, in the Indian sample, but not in the US sample. In other words,
interpersonal affect did operate as a ‘bias’ in the Indian context, perhaps due to the
culturally influenced dependence of subordinates on the supervisor, and the precedence
given to personalized relationships over actual job performance.
Table 4 summarizes the interactive relationship between interpersonal affect
and performance. A couple of findings deserve special mention. Rather curiously,
performance ratings were actually slightly higher in the negative interpersonal affect
condition than the neutral condition for two of the dependent variables: task ratings and
overall performance. There are a variety of reasons why this relationship may exist. For
instance, raters with negative interpersonal affect towards a high performer may actually
give a slightly over-generous rating because the supervisor may not want to seem biased
in his/her assignment of performance ratings. That is, if the relationship between the rater
and ratee is unfriendly, but the ratee is conspicuously a high performer, the rater may
want to protect himself or herself from accusations of giving unfair performance
evaluations, perhaps because of organizational or legal repercussions.
In addition, in the low performing condition, there were significant mean differences
in ratings between raters with negative and neutral interpersonal affect for each of the
dependent variables; there were also significant differences between raters with negative
and high interpersonal affect for each of the dependent variables. Again, we argue that
while there might be significant differences between raters with positive and negative
interpersonal affect, for interpersonal affect to cause ratings of low performers to be
inflated, the key comparison involves the neutral and positive conditions. Furthermore,
while significant, these differences are actually quite small.
While research has illustrated interpersonal affect’s primacy (Zajonc, 1980), more
research should be done to investigate exactly how liking develops between a rater and a
ratee. Some researchers have found that interpersonal affect may actually facilitate more
accurate performance ratings. For instance, Tsui and Barry (1986) found that raters with
neutral interpersonal affect exhibited much less range restriction than raters with either
2042 The International Journal of Human Resource Management
high or low interpersonal affect. This disinclination to distinguish among performers is
certainly undesirable for performance evaluation purposes.
Implications for practice and research
The findings of our study should prove of interest to both HR researchers and
practitioners, in India and the US. While, on the one hand, we have added to the literature
on ‘interpersonal affect as a bias’, we have also contributed to the growing literature on
cross-national and comparative HR studies. As can be seen, the same performance
appraisal system applied to these two nations would produce different results, and be
unable to capture ‘true performance.’ Clearly, this could have a rather interesting and
unique impact on individuals from one of these countries when working in the other
country. An expatriate from India, for example, might make efforts to develop a
relationship with the supervisor with the expectation that the relationship would
influence his/her performance rating. On the other hand, a US expatriate working in India
may be surprised to note the importance of developing a ‘like–dislike’ relationship with
his/her supervisor. In both cases, the individuals are likely to be faced with situations
rather different from their previous experience(s). Clearly, this could lead to performance
anxiety and context-ambiguity for both individuals, potentially impacting their
performance. It is clear that organizations that operate in both these nations need
to understand better local practices and procedures, and revisit their HR systems to
incorporate local cultural norms. Furthermore, supervisor training on
performance appraisal techniques and procedures should be modified to include
discussions of the differences in the workplaces of the two countries, and the potential
role that these differences could play in performance evaluations.
From an academic perspective, our research provides new information on a critical
question in the field of performance appraisal research – does interpersonal affect bias
performance appraisals? While previous research has addressed this question, and
reported mixed results, the potential effect of cultural norms has not been investigated
prior to our study. We hope future investigations of the role of interpersonal affect in
performance appraisal will study the moderator effect of cultural norms.

Limitation and suggestions for future research

While we believe that the present study makes a significant contribution to the literature
on interpersonal affect, as well as cross-national comparative studies, it does have certain
limitations. First, all our data were collected from supervisors. As such, our sample is
potentially subject to mono-method bias. Therefore, the relationships between the
variables of interest may be inflated as potentially indicated by the strong inter-
correlations among the dependent variables. We hope that future investigators will use
objective performance measures when studying interpersonal affect in field situations
whenever possible. Second, our data in both samples were collected from manufacturing
organizations. As such, we hope that future investigations of interpersonal affect will
include other types of organizations.

References
Arvey, R.D. and Murphy, K.R. (1998) ‘Performance Evaluations in Work Settings’, Annual Review
of Psychology, 49: 141 – 68.
Bauer, T.N. and Green, S.G. (1996) ‘Development of Leader-Member Exchange: A Longitudinal
Test’, Academy of Management Journal, 39(6): 1538 –67.
 Varma et al.: Interpersonal affect in performance appraisal 2043
Brewster, C., Tregaskis, O., Hegewisch, A. and Mayne, L. (1996) ‘Comparative Research in
Human Resource Management: A Review and an Example’, The International Journal of
Human Resource Management, 7(3): 585 – 604.
Budhwar, P. (2001) ‘Doing Business In India’, Thunderbird International Business Review, 43(4):
549– 68.
Budhwar, P. and Debrah, Y. (2001) ‘Rethinking Comparative and Cross National Human Resource
Management Research’, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 12(3):
497– 515.
Budhwar, P. and Debrah, Y. (2004) ‘Introduction: HRM in Developing Countries’. In Budhwar, P.
and Debrah, Y. (eds) HRM in Developing Countries. London: Routledge, pp. 1 –15.
Budhwar, P.S. and Khatri, N. (2001) ‘A Comparative Study of HR Practices in Britain and India’,
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 12(5): 800–26.
Cardy, R.L. (1982) The Effect of Affect on Performance Appraisal. Unpublished Doctoral
Dissertation. Virginia Polytechnic University.
Cardy, R.L. and Dobbins, G.H. (1986) ‘Affect and Appraisal Accuracy: Liking as an Integral
Dimension in Evaluating Performance’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(4): 672– 8.
Carey, J.A. (1997) Factors Affecting the Influence of Liking on Observation and Evaluation
Accuracy in Performance Appraisal. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Arizona State
University.
Datt, R. and Sundharam, K.P.H. (1999) Indian Economy. New Delhi: S. Chand.
DeNisi, A.S. and Stevens, G.E. (1981) ‘Profiles of Performance, Performance Evaluations, and
Personnel Decisions’, Academy of Management Journal, (24): 596–602.
Dipboye, R.L. (1985) ‘Some Neglected Variables in Research on Discrimination in Appraisals’,
Academy of Management Executive, 10(1): 116 –27.
Dobbins, G.H. (1982) ‘The effect of leader performance and leader likeableness upon ratings of
leader behaviors’. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Virginia Polytechnic University.
Farris, G.C. and Lim, F.G. Jr (1969) ‘Effects of Performance on Leadership, Influence, Satisfaction,
and Subsequent Performance’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 53: 490– 7.
Feldman, J.M. (1981) ‘Beyond Attribution Theory: Cognitive Processes in Performance Appraisal’,
Journal of Applied Psychology, 66(2): 127 – 48.
Ferris, G.R., Judge, T.A., Rowland, K.M. and Fitzgibbons, K.M. (1994) ‘Subordinate Influence and
the Performance Evaluation Process: Test of a Model’, Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 58: 101 – 35.
Gopalan, S. and Stahl, A. (1998) ‘Application of American Management Theories and Practices to
the Indian Business Environment: Understanding the Impact of National Culture’, American
Business Review, 16(2): 30– 41.
Harbison, F. and Myers, C.A. (1964) Education, Manpower and Economic Growth. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Hofstede, G. (1980) Culture’s Consequences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G. (1993) ‘Cultural Constraints in Management Theories’, Academy of Management
Executive, 7(1): 81 –94.
Ilgen, D.R. and Feldman, J.M. (1983) ‘Performance Appraisal: A Process Focus’, Research in
Organization Behavior, 5: 141 – 97.
Jain, H.C. and Venkata Ratnam, C.S. (1994) ‘Affirmative Action in Employment for the Scheduled
Castes and the Scheduled Tribes in India’, International Journal of Manpower, 15(7): 6 – 25.
Kanungo, R. and Mendonca, M. (1994) ‘Culture and Performance Improvement’, Productivity,
35(4): 447– 53.
Kapur, D. and Ramamurti, R. (2001) ‘India’s Emerging Competitive Advantage in Services’,
Academy of Management Executive, 15(2): 20– 33.
Katz, I. and Glass, D.C. (1979) ‘An Ambivalence-Amplification Theory of Behavior Toward the
Stigmatized’. In Austin, G. and Worschel, S. (eds) Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations.
Monterey, CA: Brooks-Cole Publishing, pp. 55–70.
Landy, F.J. and Farr, J.L. (1980) ‘Performance Rating’, Psychological Bulletin, 87(1): 72 –107.
2044 The International Journal of Human Resource Management
Latham, G.P. and Wexley, K.N. (1981) Improving Performance Through Effective Performance
Appraisal. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Lefkowitz, J. (2000) ‘The Role of Interpersonal Affective Regard in Supervisory Performance
Ratings: A Literature Review and Proposed Causal Model’, Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 73(1): 67– 86.
Lefkowitz, J. and Battista, M. (1995) ‘Potential Sources of Bias in Supervisor Ratings Used for Test
Validation’, Journal of Business and Psychology, 11(3): 389– 414.
Napier, N.K. and Vu, V.T. (1998) ‘International Human Resource Management in Developing and
Transitional Economy Countries: A Breed Apart?’, Human Resource Management Review,
8(1): 39– 77.
Olian, J.D., Carroll, S.J. and Giannantonio, C.M. (1993) ‘Mentor Reactions to Protégés: An
Experiment with Managers’, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 43: 266– 78.
Robbins, T.L. and DeNisi, A.S. (1994) ‘A Closer Look at Interpersonal affect as a Distinct
Influence on Cognitive Processing in Performance Evaluations’, Journal of Applied Psychology,
79(3): 341–53.
Robbins, T.L. and DeNisi, A.S. (1998) ‘Interpersonal Affect: Identifying Process and Rating
Distortions in Performance Appraisal’, Journal of Business and Psychology, 12(3): 313– 25.
Schuler, R.S., Budhwar, P. and Florkowski, G.W. (2002) ‘International Human Resource
Management: Review and Critique’, International Journal of Management Review, 4(1):
41– 70.
Sinha, J.B.P. (1990) Work Culture in Indian Context. New Delhi: Sage.
Srull, T.K. and Wyer, R.S. (1980) ‘Category Accessibility and Social Perception: Some
Implications for the Study of Person Memory and Interpersonal Judgments’, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 38(6): 841 – 56.
Tsui, A.S. and Barry, B. (1986) ‘Interpersonal Affect and Rating Errors’, Academy of Management
Journal, 29(3): 586 – 99.
Varma, A., DeNisi, A.S. and Peters, L.H. (1996) ‘Interpersonal Affect and Performance Appraisal:
A Field Study’, Personnel Psychology, 49: 341 – 59.
Wayne, S.J. and Ferris, G.R. (1990) ‘Influence Tactics, Affect, and Exchange Quality in
Supervisor – Subordinate Interactions: A Laboratory Experiment and Field Study’, Journal of
Applied Psychology, 75(5): 487 – 99.
Zajonc, R.J. (1980) ‘Feeling and Thinking: Preferences Need No Inferences’, American
Psychologist, 35(2): 151 – 75.