Hypotheses TestsH1 predicts that wh

Hypotheses Tests
H1 predicts that when negativity is absent, evaluators will place more weight on SL measures
than they will on NSL measures. To the extent that evaluators placed relatively more weight on SL
than NSL measures, the manager with stronger performance on SL measures will be evaluated
higher than the manager with stronger performance on NSL measures. Because both managers’
actual performance relative to targets was linearly equivalent, we can use the dependent measures to
infer whether SL measures were weighted more than NSL measures. In this regard, if SL measures
were weighted more than NSL measures, the manager with the better performance on SL measures
would be evaluated higher.
Specifically, H1 predicts an evaluation difference score that is significantly positive for the SL
Dominates condition and significantly negative for the NSL Dominates condition. Descriptive
statistics for the negativity absent conditions are summarized in Table 1, Panel A. The significance
of the difference scores were tested using t-tests. As shown, the evaluation difference score for the
SL Dominates condition is 1.15 and is significantly greater than 0 (t-statistic ¼ 4.52, one-tailed pvalue
, 0.001). The evaluation difference score for the NSL Dominates condition is 0.70 and is
significantly less than 0 (t-statistic ¼2.29, one-tailed p-value , 0.017). Our results for H1 are consistent with and extend the findings from Banker et al. (2004). Our
results are based upon a different participant pool and different performance outcomes. Specifically,
the variance in performance for Manager A was greater than the equivalent manager’s variance in
Banker et al.’s (2004) study. Our results indicate that the findings from Banker et al. (2004) extend
to a setting involving a manager engaging in high variance performance. It is important to note that
while the variance in performance for Manager A under the negativity absent condition is greater
than the equivalent manager from Banker et al. (2004), the variance of Manager A’s performance in
this study is the same under the negativity absent and negativity present conditions. Thus, we are
able to exclude high variance in managerial performance as a possible explanation in testing H2.
H2 predicts that when negativity is present, evaluators will not place more weight on SL
measures than they will on NSL measures, but instead will place more weight on measures
involving underperformance by one manager, even when the manager only underperforms on NSL
measures. Specifically, H2 predicts an evaluation difference score that is significantly negative for
the SL Dominates and the NSL Dominates conditions.
Descriptive statistics for the negativity present condition are presented in Table 1, Panel B. As
shown, under the NSL Dominates condition where Manager A underperforms on all of the SL
measures, the mean evaluation difference score is 2.86, which is significantly less than 0 (tstatistic
of6.37, one-tailed p-value , 0.0001). Under the SL Dominates condition where Manager
A underperforms on all of the NSL measures, the mean evaluation difference score is1.28, which
is significantly less than 0 (t-statistic of 3.31, one-tailed p-value , 0.003). This indicates that when negative performance information is present, the manager who underperformed on some
measures but greatly outperformed on some measures received a lower performance evaluation than
the manager who slightly outperformed on all measures. Therefore, we find that measures reflecting
underperformance are weighted more than measures reflecting overperformance across both
dominance conditions. This pattern of results supports H2.
H3 predicts that the negativity bias will be stronger when the manager only underperforms on
SL measures compared to when the manager only underperforms on NSL measures. Specifically,
H3 predicts an evaluation difference score that is significantly more negative under the NSL
Dominates condition compared to the SL Dominates condition.
A t-test was used to test for differences in means across the two dominance conditions. The
evaluation difference score for the NSL Dominates condition is 2.86 and is significantly more
negative than the evaluation difference score of1.28 for the SL Dominates condition (t-statistic¼
2.62, one-tailed p-value , 0.01). This result supports H3.

Results (Indonesian) 1:

Hypotheses TestsH1 predicts that when negativity is absent, evaluators will place more weight on SL measuresthan they will on NSL measures. To the extent that evaluators placed relatively more weight on SLthan NSL measures, the manager with stronger performance on SL measures will be evaluatedhigher than the manager with stronger performance on NSL measures. Because both managers’actual performance relative to targets was linearly equivalent, we can use the dependent measures toinfer whether SL measures were weighted more than NSL measures. In this regard, if SL measureswere weighted more than NSL measures, the manager with the better performance on SL measureswould be evaluated higher.Specifically, H1 predicts an evaluation difference score that is significantly positive for the SLDominates condition and significantly negative for the NSL Dominates condition. Descriptivestatistics for the negativity absent conditions are summarized in Table 1, Panel A. The significanceof the difference scores were tested using t-tests. As shown, the evaluation difference score for theSL Dominates condition is 1.15 and is significantly greater than 0 (t-statistic ¼ 4.52, one-tailed pvalue, 0.001). The evaluation difference score for the NSL Dominates condition is 0.70 and issignificantly less than 0 (t-statistic ¼2.29, one-tailed p-value , 0.017). Our results for H1 are consistent with and extend the findings from Banker et al. (2004). Ourhasil didasarkan kolam peserta yang berbeda, dan hasil kinerja yang berbeda. Secara khusus,varians dalam kinerja manajer a adalah lebih besar daripada varian manajer setara dalamBankir et al. (2004) studi. Hasil kami menunjukkan bahwa memperpanjang temuan dari bankir et al. (2004)untuk pengaturan melibatkan seorang manajer yang terlibat dalam kinerja tinggi varians. Penting untuk dicatat bahwaSementara varians dalam kinerja untuk manajer di bawah negativitas absen kondisi lebih besardaripada manajer setara dari bankir et al. (2004), varians kinerja manajer A'sstudi ini adalah sama di bawah negatif absen dan kondisi-kondisi sekarang negativitas. Dengan demikian, kamimampu mengecualikan tinggi varians dalam kinerja manajerial sebagai sebuah penjelasan yang mungkin dalam pengujian H2.H2 memprediksi bahwa ketika negatif hadir, evaluator akan menempatkan lebih berat SLlangkah-langkah dari mereka akan langkah-langkah NSL, tetapi sebaliknya akan menempatkan lebih berat pada langkah-langkahmelibatkan underperformance oleh salah satu manajer, bahkan ketika manajer hanya underperforms pada NSLlangkah-langkah. Secara khusus, H2 memprediksi Skor perbedaan penilaian yang signifikan negatif untukSL Dominates dan kondisi NSL mendominasi.Statistik deskriptif untuk keadaan negatif yang disajikan dalam tabel 1, Panel B. sebagaiditunjukkan, di bawah kondisi NSL mendominasi mana manajer A underperforms pada semua SLlangkah-langkah, evaluasi berarti perbedaan Skor adalah 2,86, yang secara signifikan kurang dari 0 (tstatisticof6.37, one-tailed p-value , 0.0001). Under the SL Dominates condition where ManagerA underperforms on all of the NSL measures, the mean evaluation difference score is1.28, whichis significantly less than 0 (t-statistic of 3.31, one-tailed p-value , 0.003). This indicates that when negative performance information is present, the manager who underperformed on somemeasures but greatly outperformed on some measures received a lower performance evaluation thanthe manager who slightly outperformed on all measures. Therefore, we find that measures reflectingunderperformance are weighted more than measures reflecting overperformance across bothdominance conditions. This pattern of results supports H2.H3 predicts that the negativity bias will be stronger when the manager only underperforms onSL measures compared to when the manager only underperforms on NSL measures. Specifically,H3 predicts an evaluation difference score that is significantly more negative under the NSLDominates condition compared to the SL Dominates condition.A t-test was used to test for differences in means across the two dominance conditions. Theevaluation difference score for the NSL Dominates condition is 2.86 and is significantly morenegative than the evaluation difference score of1.28 for the SL Dominates condition (t-statistic¼2.62, one-tailed p-value , 0.01). This result supports H3.