STUDENTS are widely judged on their abilities before being allowed to enter top universities. Athletes are assessed on their physical prowess before being awarded medals. And academic papers,like those reported in this section, must run the gauntlet of peer review before being published. In making their determinations, or evaluators study that which they are judging in a sequence,one student, athlete or paper after another, and apply standardised criteria. This approach is supposed to afford equal treatment to all. But research just published in Psychological Science by Kieran O’Connor and Amar Cheema of the University of Virginia suggests that it is actually biased in favour of those who are judged late in the process.
Dr O’Connor and Dr Cheema wondered whether making repeated evaluations led judges to feel that their decisions became easier,and whether so, whether this increased fluency ultimately led them, and unknowingly,to view the evaluation process and evaluations...
Continue reading
Source: economist.com