Pengaruh Anchoring dalam Penilaian Kinerja: Sebuah Studi Eksperimen Kuasi dengan Variabel Tergantung Penilaian Adaptive Performance

Irmalia Nur Sukmananti, Rahmat Hidayat
(Submitted 11 March 2019)
(Published 11 March 2019)


The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of anchoring on the performance appraisal score in aspect adaptive performance. The hypothesis in this study was to examine whether there are differences in the adaptive performance score. High anchoring group has a higher adaptive performance score compared with the low anchoring group. The method used on this study was a quasi experiment with posttest-only design with two treatment groups. Participants involved in this research were 117  with an age range from 22 to 49 years old that classified into high anchoring group (n = 70) and low anchoring group (n = 47). Questionnaire to examine the knowledge of the task was used to conduct a manipulation check of anchoring. Independent-Samples T Test explained no significant effect of anchoring on adaptive performance score (t = -0,100; p > 0,05).




adaptive performance; anchoring; kinerja; penilaian kinerja

Full Text: PDF

DOI: 10.22146/gamajpp.44085


Appelbaum, S. H., Roy, M., & Gilliland, T. (2011). Globalization of performance appraisal: theory and applications. Journal of Management History, 4(3), 233-249. doi: 10.1177/1534484318798533

Armstrong, Michael & Baron, A. (1998). Performance Management: The New Realities (Developing Practice). New York: Gardners Books.

Campbell, J. P. (1990). Modeling the performance prediction problem in industrial and organizational psychology. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 687-732).

Palo Alto, CA, US: Consulting Psychologists Press. Cardy, R. L., & Dobbins, G. H. (1994). Perfomance Appraisal: Alternative Perspectives. Cincinnati: South-Western.

Chapman, G.B., & Johnson, E.J. (2002). Incorporating the irrelevant: Anchors in judgments of belief and value. In T.

Gilovich, D. Griffin, & D. Kahneman (Eds.), Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitivejudgment (pp. 120–138). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Davis, Keith & Werther, William B. (1989). Human resource and Personnel Management. 5th edition, McGraw-Hill, Inc., USA.

Duarte, Neville T., Goodson, Jane R, & Nancy R. Klich. (1994). Effects of Dyadic Quality and Duration on Performance Appraisal. The Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 499-521. doi: 10.2307/256698

Field, A. (2013). Discovering Statistics using IBM SPSS Statistics. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

Griffin, M. A., Neal, A., & Parker, S. K. (2007). A new model of work role performance: Positive behavior in uncertain and interdependent contexts. Academy of Management Journal, 50(2), 327-347. doi: 10.5465/AMJ.2007.24634438

Koopmans L, Bernaards CM, Hildebrandt VH, Schaufeli WB, De Vet HCW, Van der Beek AJ. (2011). Conceptual frameworks of individual work performance – A systematic review. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 53(8), 856-866. doi: 10.1097/JOM.0b013e318226a763

Longenecker, C.O. (1997). Why managerial performance appraisals are ineffective: causes and lessons. Career Development International, 2(5), 212-218. doi: 10.1108/13620439710174606

Longenecker, C.O. & Fink, L.S. (1998). Training as performance appraisal improvement strategy. Career Development International, 3(6), 243-251.

Pulakos, E. D., Arad, S., Donovan, M. A., & Plamondon, K. E. (2000). Adaptability in the workplace: Development of a taxonomy of adaptive performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(4), 612-624.

Rees, D. W., & Porter, C. (2003). Appraisal pitfalls and the training implications-part 1. Industrial and Commercial Training, 35(7), 280-284. doi: 10.1108/00197850310 501677

Rees, D. W., & Porter, C. (2004). Appraisal pitfalls and the training implications-part 2. Industrial and Commercial Training, 36(1), 29-34. doi: 10.1108/00197850410516094

Schweiger, I. & Sumners, G. (1994). Optimizing the value of performance appraisals. Mangerial Auditing Journal, 9(8), 3-7. doi: 10.1108/02686909410071124

Stokes, C.K., Schneider, T. R., & Lyons, J.B. (2010). Adaptive performance: a criterion problem. Team performance management: An International Journal, 16(3/4), 212-230. doi: 10.1108/1352759101105 3278

Thorsteinson, T. J., Breier, J., Atwell, A., Hamilton, C., & Privette, M. (2008). Anchoring effects on performance judgments. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 107, 29-40. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2008.01. 003

Tsui, A. S., & Ohlott, P. (2006). Multiple assessment of managerial effectiveness: Interrater agreement and consensus in effectiveness models. Personnel Psychology, 41(4), 779-803. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1988.tb00654.x

Tversky, A., & D, Kahneman. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science, New Series, 185(4157), 1124-1131. doi: 10.1126/science.185.4157.1124

Valle, M., & Davis, K. (1999). Teams and performance appraisal using matrics to increase realibility and validity. Team Performance Management, 5(8), 238-244. doi: 10.1108/13527599910304912

Wilson, T. D., Houston, C., Etling, K. M., & Brekke, N. (1996). A new look at anchoring effects: Basic anchoring and its antecedents. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 4, 387-402.

Zammuto, R., London, M. & Rowland, K. (1982). Organizational and rater differences in performance appraisal. Personnel Psychology, 35, 643-658.


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2017 Gadjah Mada Journal of Professional Psychology (GamaJPP)

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.