An Interactionist Analysis of Small Group Peer Assessment

This research investigates the relative and interactive effects of rater-, ratee-, relationship-, situational-, and group-level contingencies on peer assessments of open communication. A round-robin analysis of variance and covariance was used to analyze peer ratings for 54 subjects participating in 9 small groups on two occasions. The results suggest that, given certain procedural conditions, peer assessments are highly reliable and valid. Rater bias accounted for a relatively small amount of rating variance. Ratings were best predicted by stable individual differences associated with ratees and situational contingencies. The results are discussed in light of the current controversy surroundingpeer assessments and the utility of an interactionist approach for understanding communication behavior in small group settings.