Evaluating the performance of paper people

Abstract

111 studies published, 1975–1984, were grouped into 5 major substantive categories, and a comparative meta-analysis was used to contrast the outcomes of paper people studies (i.e., raters read performance vignettes and then rated the performance of several hypothetical ratees) to those of similar studies in which ratings were based on the direct or indirect observation (e.g., via videotape) of ratee behavior. Effect sizes were found to be significantly larger in paper people studies, although this difference was not uniform across all research areas. Results are discussed in terms of differences in signal-to-noise ratios across the 2 methods. (101 ref) (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved)