RATING SCALES N 
their judgments on any one ability by a general g¢. «© ..i- ©. 
tude they may have formed toward the person wk = they —~ : 
are rating (189). This tendency is lessened Ae SS 
consider all the persons to be rated with regard t raefipst | os 
ability, then the second ability, and so on. Eig 
Another influence to be guarded against is closeness of 
friendship with the person rated. Shen showed that judges 
rate their friends higher than others (169). 
According to Knight, supervisors tend to rate old em- 
ployees high as compared with new employees (96). He 
gives three reasons for this: (1) The supervisor will not ad- 
mit that being under his direction has brought no improve- 
ment in the employee. (2) The supervisor unconsciously 
identifies himself with older employees who are perhaps more 
like him than new employees. (3) The supervisor has be- 
come used to the older employees and overlooks their weak- 
nesses. 
Watson (211) lists also the following characteristics of 
ratings: Poor employees are better observed and more reli- 
ably rated than are good ones; “general-all-round value” is 
often more reliably rated than is a more specific trait; people 
who are good judges of themselves tend to be good judges 
of other people; and ratings of which the judge is very sure 
have very much higher reliability than do his ordinary judg- 
ments. 
The scale should be placed in the hands of the raters and 
should be discussed with them several weeks before the rat- 
ings are called for, to allow them time to observe the sub- 
jects with reference to the abilities to be rated. Needless 
to say, the behavior of the subjects will be more typical and 
characteristic if they do not know during this time that they 
are being rated. 
The following are the most important points which should 
be brought to the attention of the rater, regardless of the 
type of scale in use: 
1. If you have any question about the operation of the