Peer Assessment of Class Participation: Applying Peer Nomination to Overcome Rating Inflation

Having students actively engaged with each other in discussions has become an increasingly important and common aspect of the classroom environment. This increased emphasis has also meant that instructors need to find ways to effectively and efficiently evaluate class participation. In this paper, we describe the most common method used for these assessments and highlight some of its inherent challenges. We then propose an alternative based on peer nominations. Two case studies illustrate the advantages of this method; we find that it is both easy for students to complete and provides instructors with valuable diagnostic information with which to provide feedback and assign grades

A respondent friendly method of ranking long lists

This article illustrates a respondent-friendly approach to preference elicitation over large choice sets, which overcomes limitations of rating, full-list ranking, conjoint and choice-based approaches. This approach, HLm, requires respondents to identify the top and bottom m items from an overall list. Across respondents, the number of times an item appears in participants’ L (low) list is subtracted from the number of times it appears in participants\u27 H (high) list. These net scores are then used to order the total list. We illustrate the approach in three experiments, demonstrating that it compares favourably to familiar methods, while being much less demanding on survey participants. Experiment 1 had participants alphabetise words, suggesting the HLm method is easier than full ranking but less accurate if m does not increase with increases in list length. The objective of experiment 2 was to order US states by population. In this domain, where knowledge was imperfect, HLm outperformed full ranking. Experiment 3 involved eliciting respondents’ personal tastes for fruit. HLm resulted in a final ranking that correlated highly with MaxDiff scaling. We argue that HLm is a viable method for obtaining aggregate order of preferences across large numbers of alternatives

The Impact of Deceitful Tendencies, Relativism and Opportunism on the Negotiation Tactics: A Comparative Study of U.S. and Belgian Managers

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to compare the antecedents of opportunism and its effect on unethical negotiation tactics among US and Belgian managers. Design/methodology/approach – Samples of managers in both countries are surveyed and cross-country analysis using multi-group structural equation modeling is conducted. Findings – Across both countries, deceitful tendencies and relativism are found to be significant predictors of opportunism, which in turn predicts receptiveness to unethical negotiating tactics; however, Belgian managers were found to have higher levels of these constructs, possibly indicating a greater propensity to engage in unethical behaviors than US managers. Research limitations/implications – The current research is limited by the relatively small size of the Belgian sample, differences in data collection method, and the lack of additional contextual measures, which may influence the managers\u27 responses. Practical implications – The finding that the same structural relationships hold across the US and Belgium samples provides insights for both groups of managers engaged in negotiations. Originality/value – The paper offers a comparative perspective on US and Belgian managers and establishes the validity and applicability of frequently used ethics scales in Belgium, a country infrequently studied in this context

Compound Anchors and Their Subsequent Effects on Judgments

In this article, the authors first demonstrate the applicability of a standard anchoring paradigm to situations where both the anchor and subsequent target are compound concepts (Study 1). They next show that systematically varying the target so that it is increasingly different from the anchor leads to diminishing anchoring effects (Study 2). Finally, they demonstrate that the degree to which the anchoring effect occurs as such targets vary from anchors depends on which concept of the compound is made to vary from its analogue in the anchor (Studies 2 and 3)

Business-to-Business Negotiations: The Role of Relativism, Deceit, and Opportunism

Purpose: Studies examining the impact of relativism and deceitful tendencies on unethical negotiation tactics have yielded inconsistent results; some studies report a positive relationship, some negative, while some others report a nonexistent relationship between these constructs. These inconsistencies suggest that there may be intervening variables mediating the effects of these factors on unethical negotiation tactics. We propose that opportunism plays an important role in determining the effects of these two antecedents on business managers\u27 perceptions of unethical negotiation tactics. Method: An Internet-based survey was administered to a sample of managers at U.S. firms engaged in business-to-business marketing. Structural equation modeling techniques were used to evaluate the mediating role of opportunism between deceitful tendencies and relativism on questionable negotiation tactics. Findings: The analysis supports the hypothesized role of opportunism as a mediating variable. Opportunism was found to play a significant role in mediating the relationships of both relativism and deceitful tendencies on attitudes toward unethical negotiation tactics. Contribution: In addition to the theoretical contributions suggested here, this article includes suggestions for minimizing the likelihood that a negotiation partner\u27s relativism and deceitful tendencies will negatively impact business negotiation

The Effect of Near-vs-Distant-Future Mindsets on Socially Responsible Investors\u27 Mutual Fund Preferences

Socially responsible investing (SRI) has seen tremendous growth in recent years. For SRI investors, choosing among potential SRI investments often requires making trade-offs between social responsibility and financial aspects of the investment. In this study we examine contexts where investors are more vs. less willing to make such trade-offs, specifically in the context of SRI-guided mutual funds among Muslim investors. We expect that priming a near-future mindset will make respondents less likely to trade-off social responsibility for financial considerations while priming a distant-future mindset will make respondents more likely to make such trade-offs. Using a discrete choice experimental design among Saudi Arabian adults, we find support for our hypotheses. Managerial implications and directions for future research are discussed