Perceived Similarity and Accuracy of Peer Ratings

Shaul Fox, Zeev Ben-Nahum, Yoel Yinon

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

14 Scopus citations


The hypothesis that raters will be more accurate in rating peers perceived to be similar to themselves, suggested by Mumford (1983) and derived from social comparison theory, was examined. Subjects were 681 Israeli entrants to a military training program. Shortly after course inception, subjects were asked to review the performance of squad members and to forecast their final grade. Subjects also judged peers' similarity to self overall (general similarity), in course achievement (foreground similarity), and in military experience (background similarity). Analysis revealed that accuracy was markedly lower in the evaluation of dissimilar others. Although the same pattern of results was observed for all forms of similarity, stronger effects resulted when similarity was measured in terms of general and foreground characteristics. Implications for future theory and research as well as for the practical application of peer assessment are discussed.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)781-786
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of Applied Psychology
Issue number5
StatePublished - Oct 1989


Dive into the research topics of 'Perceived Similarity and Accuracy of Peer Ratings'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this