SENDER TRAIT ALTRUISM AND DECEPTION IN FEEDBACK SITUATIONS
By
David Clare

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
Communication
2011

ABSTRACT

SENDETRAIT ALTRUISM AND DECEPTION IN FEEDBACK SITUATIONS
by
David Clare

This study hypothesized that sender trait altruism would be positively related to the
accuracy with which receivers of feedback messages from senders would be able to judge the
quality of the performance that the sender had evaluated. A quasi-experiment was conducted
wherein a feedback sender‟s trait altruism was measured, the sender was exposed to a
performance of varying quality, the sender produced a taped feedback message about the
performance, and then samples of receivers were asked to judge the quality of the performance
reviewed using the taped message. The data were not consistent with the hypothesis and
suggested that perhaps there is a negative relationship. Receiver accuracy in judging
performance quality was positively related to sender trait extroversion and this relationship was
moderated by the sender‟s trait altruism. Theoretical and methodological limitations of the study
are discussed.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author of this thesis is grateful to his advisor, Dr. Timothy Levine, for his guidance
in writing this thesis and learning from this thesis in the broadest sense of the word. The author
is also grateful to Dr. Franklin Boster, Dr. Steven Wildman, and Dr. Hee Sun Park for their help,
sometimes acting in the role of committee members and sometimes as generous professors, those
two roles not being mutually exclusive. The author is also grateful to Dana Mickelson and
Lauren Lepkowski for their diligence and time acting as confederates in the experiment and to
Amanda Carpenter for the use of her résumé as source material for experimental stimuli. The
author is also grateful to MMSS for assistance in bringing the manuscript to a more polished
final state.

iii

Table of Contents
List of figures ………………………………………………………………………v
Introduction

………………………………………………………………………1

Body

………………………………………………………………………2

Appendices

……………………………………………………………………...35

References

……………………………………………………………………...46

iv

List of Figures

Figure 1

Moderation of relationship between extroversion and receiver
accuracy by trait altruism………………………………………………............23

Figure 2

Moderation of relationship between trait altruism and receiver accuracy
by extroversion...……………………………………………………………….24

Figure 3

Table containing frequency of deception coding and mean accuracy………….26

v

Introduction
This study sought to test the hypothesized positive relationship between a feedback
sender‟s trait altruism and the transparency of feedback messages produced about a receiver‟s
performance. Literature pertaining to performance feedback, altruism, and deception detection
was reviewed. Feedback senders have multiple competing goals, namely instrumental concerns
for helping the receiver regulate their performance, and more selfish goals of avoiding
uncomfortable face threats. Regarding face threats, senders high in trait altruism are expected to
be more willing to incur costs to themselves in trying to help receivers improve their
performance. A willingness to attend to instrumental altruistic goals that might have negative
consequences for self, should translate into feedback messages that more clearly convey the
quality of the performance in question. An experiment using a deception detection paradigm
was used to test the hypothesis.

1

Literature Review and Hypotheses
Performance Feedback
In the broadest terms, performance feedback is a message category conveying to the
receiver “information about the recipient” (Ilgen, Fisher, & Taylor, 1979). A more specific
definition of feedback interventions is that they are “actions taken by an external agent to
provide information regarding some aspect of one‟s task performance” (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996).
More specifically, performance feedback is theoretically conceptualized as intervention by a
communicator seeking to either maintain or change another‟s performance qualities by providing
the performer with “knowledge of results” (Geddes & Linnehan, 1997). In general the
enhancing effect of knowledge of results on performance is well-documented and accepted
(Ammons, 1956). However, critical meta-analysis of the effects of feedback interventions on
performance shows that nearly one third of feedback interventions negatively affect future
performance (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996). This proportion of negative effects is not qualified by
either sampling effects or moderated by the sign, or valence, of the feedback intervention.

Feedback Distortion and Sender Goals
Inconsistent effects of feedback interventions beg explanation for both theory and
application. One explanation is that some feedback is distorted and does not provide the receiver
accurate information whereby performance is or could be maintained or altered. It has been
observed that feedback distortion does occur, especially when the receiver‟s performance is poor
(Larson, 1986). Explaining why some senders give distorted feedback may partially explain
inconsistent effects of feedback interventions.
2

Distorted feedback may partially be explained by examining feedback providers‟ goals.
Specifically, feedback senders likely pursue multiple goals. Control of the receiver‟s
performance is not feedback senders‟ only goal. Although it may be seen as an instrumental
goal, other salient goals include face or relational goals common to many communicative
situations (Tracy & Eisenberg, 1991). Relational face goals and instrumental goals constantly
can be negotiated; in fact, likely a series of trade-offs occur in balancing different concerns
(Brown & Levinson, 1987).
When trying to balance competing relational face and instrumental goals, situations may
arise in which this balance is more difficult than others. One potentially aggravating variable in
the negotiation of relational and instrumental goals is the valence or quality of the feedback
recipient‟s performance being appraised. Typically, fewer face threats arise in complimenting a
performance than in criticizing it. One line of research focusing on reluctance to transmit
negatively valenced news has coined the term „the MUM effect‟ in describing this phenomenon
(Rosen & Tesser, 1970). The MUM effect refers to reluctance to send messages that may be
socially noxious. This reluctance persists despite potential moderators such as i) the receiver‟s
previous behavior toward the sender, ii) the present or anticipated role relationship between
interactants, iii) salient relationships between the sender and the message conveyed, and iv)
anticipated costs or rewards associated with either conveying or withholding negative
information (Rosen & Tesser, 1970).

Individual Differences and Feedback Sender Goals

3

In sum, an explanation of why feedback distortion occurs is that feedback senders attend
to multiple goals, some involving maintaining face of the receiver, and some regarding
information about the receiver‟s performance which may present threats to face and be socially
noxious. Consequently, there is reluctance to give entirely accurate feedback. It follows that if
the salience of goals of feedback senders varied, there would be concomitant variation in
feedback distortion. Specifically, if feedback senders feel that instrumental goals to improve
performance are more important than avoidance of face threats, less distortion would be
expected. If senders are more willing to incur uncomfortable costs such as face threat and are
more motivated to help the receiver improve performance, they could be expected to furnish less
distorted feedback. Alternatively, as concern with face becomes more important than
performance improvement, likelihood and amount of distortion will increase. In short, different
goal orientations, or at least sensitivity to certain goals, might be associated with sender
individual differences in the tendency to provide accurate feedback under conditions of poor
performance.
One sender individual difference directly relevant to willingness to incur costs to one‟s
self, to benefit another, is trait altruism. Work by psychologists shows that the tendency to
engage in altruistic acts is a relatively stable individual difference (Johnson et al., 1989; for a
review of earlier attempts at describing altruism as a facet of personality, see Krebs, 1970).
Sender trait altruism is the tendency to engage in helpful acts for the sake of another, often
(although not invariably) at cost to one‟s self. Not only is this trait a result of social
conditioning, but also it is supported by genetic predilections. Support for the idea that altruism
is a stable trait is seen in Wallace et al.‟s (2007) twin studies that there is a genetic component to
4

fairness and generosity in dictator game performance. Understanding that a tendency to be fair
and generous has genetic underpinning supports the idea that there is a stable trait individual
difference in altruism. Rushton et al. (1986) conducted twin studies suggesting that much of the
variability in trait altruism is hereditary. Johnson et al. (1989) found that the Self Report of
Altruism scale had validity across diverse cultures. Trait altruism is not simply a facet of
personality in western societies but is a common human characteristic in the tendency to engage
in altruistic helping behaviors.
If senders higher in trait altruism are described as being more willing to incur costs to
themselves, such as face threat, and more motivated to help a receiver, by giving useful
information, it can be predicted that feedback senders who are more altruistic will be likelier to
give feedback allowing receivers to more accurately infer their performance quality.
Specifically, sender trait altruism can be predicted to be positively related to sender concern for
the interests of the receiver in giving feedback. Senders higher in trait altruism would also be
expected to have more concern for their feedback clarity, so as to inform receivers more usefully.
Johnson et al. (1989) also found that trait altruism associates positively with other individual
differences such as extroversion. It can be predicted that feedback sender trait altruism will
relate positively to trait extroversion.
Waung and Highhouse (1997) investigated senders‟ susceptibility to different goals, and
the amount of distortion in their feedbacks. It was observed that senders higher in trait empathic
concern were less likely to give inflated ratings of performance. Similarly it might be expected
that senders high in trait empathic concern would be likelier to give feedback allowing receivers
to accurately infer their performance quality.
5

Performance Feedback Situations as Deception Detection
Performance feedback situations could be understood as deception detection situations.
Deception involves a sender imparting false beliefs to a receiver while fully aware those beliefs
are false. Deception is “when someone knowingly misleads another” (Levine & Kim, 2009). In
the deception framework, a ground truth is present; an actual observable reality exists. The
sender may consider this ground truth as problematic. If the probable negative consequences of
this ground truth outweigh the negative consequences and costs of constructing a deception and
the probable consequences of the deception being discovered, there is a higher probability that
the sender will elect to deceive. In general, the first preference for message design is that of
truth, but if the problematic truth presents sufficient motive, deception may be enacted (Levine,
Kim, & Hamel, 2010). In this study, potential deceptions are the feedback senders‟ messages
intentionally designed to mislead the receiver as to the actual quality of his or her work. The
ground truth would be the stimulus performance shown to the feedback sender and his or her
evaluation thereof. The dependent variable is whether or not the ground truth of the performance
will be detected.

Deception Detection Accuracy
This investigation‟s hypotheses partly concern sender use of deception in feedback, and
receiver detection of feedback sender deception. A presumption is that in feedback, some
senders knowingly and intentionally will attempt to mislead the feedback receiver as to
performance results. In cases of poor receiver performance, this deception may be to neutralize
6

the problematic ground truth of poor performance that would entail face threat if honestly
disclosed. In cases of high receiver performance, this deception may be due to laziness, perhaps
malice, by the feedback sender not inclined to expend the enthusiasm necessary for a receiver to
be or become aware that his or her work is superb. To elucidate the selection of sender trait
altruism as the independent variable leading to the dependent variable of message transparency, a
review of the literature surrounding deception detection accuracy is appropriate.
Meta-analysis of deception detection literature notes an accuracy rate of 54% (Bond &
DePaulo, 2006). That rate has substantial cross-study stability in that 98% of all studies report
accuracy rates between 39% and 67%, and 90% of studies report accuracy rates between 44%
and 64%. Furthermore, the distribution of reported accuracy rates fits well a normal curve.
Exceptional studies reporting accuracy rates relatively far above or below the mean of 54%
generally consist of studies where relatively fewer judgments are made, thus are more
susceptible to random error. Further, the meta-analytical average seems not to reflect substantial
variance in receiver judgment ability. Bond and DePaulo (2008) conducted meta-analysis of
both receiver judgment and sender deception ability, and report that the primary source of
variance in accuracy rates between individual judgments is sender ability as opposed to judge
ability.

Transparency
An explanation for the 54% meta-analytic mean in deception detection accuracy is the
“few transparent liars” model (Levine, 2010). Transparency is the degree to which a message‟s
truth or falsity is apparent to a message recipient (Levine & Kim, 2009; Levine, 2010). Highly
7

transparent deceptive messages are easy to detect, and the ground truth - that the deceiver is
attempting to conceal - is readily apparent. Not transparent deceptive messages are difficult to
detect as deceptive, and the receiver will be unable to distinguish a message consistent with
ground truth from one that misrepresents ground truth. The construct of transparency is
applicable to truthful messages, also. Quite transparent truthful messages will successfully imply
the beliefs of the sender to the receiver, while not transparent truthful messages will not.
Deceptive transparent messages will seek to conceal the truth, but will fail. Deceptive messages
that are not transparent will successfully imply false beliefs. The prediction of this study is that
message transparency will relate positively to sender trait altruism.
The “few transparent liars” explanation posits that most liars are not transparent and that
the accuracy of judgments about their deceptions are rarely better than chance, while a minority
of liars are quite transparent and judgments made about their deceptions are significantly better
than chance. Further, truth tellers are more frequently judged correctly due to the “veracity
effect” stemming from truth bias (Levine, Park, & McCornack, 1999). Proportions of barely
transparent senders who are rarely caught out versus highly transparent liars who are easily
caught out, explain the meta-analytic average accuracy of 54%.
Transparency can be viewed as an individual difference pertaining to deception detection
(Levine, 2010). Transparency is contrasted to demeanor which is sender believability
independent of veracity, whereas transparency is believability contingent on veracity. Highly
transparent senders are described as „leaky‟. Here, transparency is a dependent variable within
specific messages.

8

This investigation rests on the argument that the source of variance in detection accuracy
derives from sender differences. In this case, the sender difference is trait altruism. Applying a
“few transparent liars” lens to this investigation it is argued that high trait altruists, who may be
motivated to convey ground truth regardless of how problematic it is, will be quite transparent
due to message features making the ground truth of the performance results apparent. The
converse of the high altruist will be the low altruist, not motivated to provide a potentially
problematic ground truth, and does not include message features that make apparent the ground
truth of performance results. Accuracy in judging high trait altruists will be high, whereas
accuracy in judging low trait altruists will be low. Depending on distribution in the population
of high and low trait altruists, one could reason it is possible that the overall accuracy rate in
judging the entire population of senders would be around 54%. However, overall accuracy rate
may be higher or lower if in fact trait altruism is distributed in some sort of skewed fashion.

The Transparency of Trait Altruism
Research shows that possession of trait altruism is perceivable via nonverbal behaviors.
Specific arrays of senders‟ nonverbal behaviors have correlated to senders‟ trait altruism and it
has been found that these behaviors correspond to accurate judgments of target trait altruism by
receivers (Brown, Palameta, & Moore, 2003). Altruism signaling behaviors are present even in
contexts where the sender was not in the process of acting altruistically or deciding whether or
not to act altruistically. The paradigm for many of these studies is to have the target recite the
opening lines of „Little Red Riding Hood‟ to a camera before any other measurements are
collected, then showing these tapes to perceivers and having them rate the likelihood of altruistic
9

action on the part of the targets. These findings of arrays of behaviors correlated with sender
trait altruism were replicated in thin slice conditions (Fetchenhauer, Groothius, & Pradel, 2010)
and across different cultures (Oda, Yamagata, Yabiku, & Matsumoto-Oda, 2009).
A specific altruistic demeanor can be identified. This demeanor is accurate to the
sender‟s true trait altruism, is present across contexts, and is perceivable.

Method
This investigation collected data in two parts. In Part 1, subjects were presented with a
stimulus performance and instructed to give feedback to the performer. Feedback sessions were
taped and the subject‟s trait altruism was measured. In Part 2, feedback tapes from the first part
were shown to samples of perceivers instructed to judge the tapes for either the quality of the
performance or the sender‟s evaluation of the performance.
Part 1 – Senders in the Feedback Situation
Participants
Participants were undergraduates recruited from a communication department participant
pool at a large Midwestern university. Participants (n = 121), were on average 19.3 years old
(SD = 1.5) and are predominantly female (63.6%). Participants earned partial course research
requirement credit for their participation.
Design
A two independent group experimental design was used, with the variable of stimulus for
ground truth varied. In one group, the résumé given to the feedback sender was of high quality.
In the second group, the résumé given to the feedback sender was of poor quality. Stimuli
10

résumés were both created from a single résumé so that their content was the same but the
presentation and presence of errors differed. Participants were randomly assigned to one of the
two groups. The variable of sender trait altruism was a measured independent variable.
Procedures
Participants were recruited to the experiment under the cover story that the study was
about résumés. In recruitment materials, each participant was instructed to bring a copy of his or
her own résumé. When participants arrived at the laboratory, their consents were obtained using
Institutional Review Board - IRB - procedures. Participants then were lead into the room with
the video camera. Participants then were told that a test of the video camera was required.
Participants then were asked to read a one page excerpt from the story „Little Red Riding Hood‟.
Participants then were lead to another room and instructed to complete a questionnaire
containing a Self Report of Altruism scale, an Empathic Concern subscale of the Interpersonal
Reactivity Index, and a Big Five Personality traits scale. Participants then were told that they
would be working with a partner who also signed up for the study. The partner was a research
confederate. Participants then were told that either they or their partner/s would be reading one
another‟s résumé and critiquing it. Participants then were informed that they had been randomly
assigned to the role of résumé readers. Each participant then was given a stimulus résumé; the
résumé being of higher- (Appendix A) or lower- quality (Appendix B), as the manipulated
independent variable. Participants were randomly assigned to receiving either the higher- or
lower- quality résumé. Participants then were instructed to read and evaluate the résumé for at
least ten minutes. Participants then were instructed to complete a questionnaire containing items
measuring their evaluations of the résumé. After completing the questionnaire, participants then
11

returned the résumé and questionnaire to the experimenter. Participants then were lead into the
same room as the confederate, who presumably had been completing tasks for the experiment.
Participants were seated across from the confederate, in clear frontal view of the video camera.
Participants then were instructed to give the confederate whatever feedback they liked
concerning the résumé. Both participants and confederate were instructed that the confederate
was not to speak during feedback. Participants and confederate were also instructed not to use or
ask each other‟s names so as to maintain anonymity on the taped record. The experimenter then
instructed the confederate how to start and stop the camera presumably so that the experimenter
would not have to be in the room while participants gave feedback. The pair was told that the
experimenter would leave the room while they talked and that, when done, they were to knock
on the door so that the experimenter could retrieve them. The experimenter then left the room
and participants‟ feedback messages to the confederate were videotaped. Participants then were
lead to another room and instructed to complete a questionnaire containing items measuring the
goals they perceived themselves to be pursuing while they gave the confederate feedback.
Participants then were debriefed, and consent was obtained to keep the tape of their feedback
session.
Measurement
Self Report of Altruism Scale (Appendix C)
The original Self Report of Altruism Scale (SRA) by Rushton, Chrisjohn, and Fekken
(1981) comprises 20 items in which altruistic behavior is described and participants are asked to
indicate on a five-point scale the frequency with which they engage in it. This scale predicted
peer ratings of participants‟ altruism, self-reported prosocial orientation measures, and the
12

probability that participants would sign organ donation cards. Johnson et al. (1989) expanded
the list of behaviors to 56 by adding items involving more risk or cost to the actor. Significant
cross-cultural validity to this measure was found. In the study, the 56-item questionnaire had a
Cronbach‟s α = .91. The distribution of sender trait altruism scores (n = 118) approximated
normal (kurtosis = .26, standard error of kurtosis = .44) with a mean of 2.58 (SD = 0.46, SE =
0.04) on a five-point scale. Confirmatory factor analysis of the trait altruism measure showed
the scale to be far from psychometrically satisfying in behaving as a unidimensional scale. The
data from the 56 items were tortured vigorously and extensively to yield many measurement
models using fewer items that did fit a unidimensional measurement model and exhibited
adequate reliability and low root mean squared errors. When analyses were performed using the
more psychometrically satisfying scales, results did not substantively change. Analyses of
relationships involving trait altruism were thus presented using the 56-item measure.
Empathic Concern Items (Appendix D)
Participants completed the empathic concern subscale of the Interpersonal Reactivity
Index (Davis, 1980). The seven items were on five-point Likert scales. The items comprise
statements describing the participant. Use of this measure in this context in part replicates
Waung and Highhouse (1997). In this study, the scale had a Cronbach‟s α = .65. The
distribution of sender scores on the empathic concern measure approximated normality, M =
3.84, SD = .50.
Big Five Inventory Items (Appendix E)
The Big Five Inventory comprises 44 items measuring personality traits (John, Donahue,
& Kentle, 1991). Eight items measure extraversion, nine measure agreeableness, nine measure
13

conscientiousness, eight measure neuroticism, and ten measure openness. The items were on
five-point Likert scales and consist of statements describing the participant. The eight-item
extroversion subscale had a Cronbach‟s α = .84. Distribution of extroversion scores
approximated normality with a slight negative skew, M = 3.60, SD = .70. The nine-item
agreeableness subscale had a Cronbach‟s α = .76. Distribution of agreeableness scores
approximated normality, M = 3.84, SD = .54. The nine-item conscientiousness subscale had a
Cronbach‟s α = .78. Distribution of conscientiousness scores approximated normality, M = 3.79,
SD = .55. The eight-item neuroticism subscale had a Cronbach‟s α = .84. Distribution of
neuroticism scores approximated normality, M = 2.89, SD = .76. The ten-item openness subscale
had a Cronbach‟s α = .74. Distribution of openness scores approximated normality, M = 3.53,
SD = .54.
Evaluation of Résumé Items (Appendix F)
Nine items asked participants to rate the stimulus résumé on a variety of attributes related
to résumé quality. These items were on seven-point Likert scales ranging from „strongly
disagree‟ to „strongly agree‟. They asked participants to indicate their levels of agreement to
statements such as „This résumé seemed very professional‟, „This résumé was visually
appealing‟, „This résumé was formatted well‟, „This résumé was difficult to understand and
read‟, „This résumé did not do a good job explaining the applicant‟s qualifications‟. Together,
these items had a Cronbach‟s α = .95. For senders exposed to the high-quality résumé (n = 54),
the distribution of evaluation scores approximated normality with a slight negative skew, M =
5.75, SD = .83. For senders exposed to the low-quality résumé (n = 63), the distribution of
evaluation scores approximated normality with a slight positive skew, M = 3.22, SD = 1.42.
14

Feedback Sender Goals Items (Appendix G)
Senders completed twelve items assessing sender goals in producing feedback. These
items are adapted from Tracy and Eisenberg (1991) and Waung and Highhouse (1997). Six
items pertain to clarity goals and ask how important they perceive clarity to be, and six items
pertain to face goals and ask how important they perceive consideration of the other person‟s
feelings to be. These items are on 9-point Likert scales. Clarity items had previous reliability α
= .79 and the face items had α = .78 in Tracy and Eisenberg‟s (1991) study. In this study the
clarity goals scale had a Cronbach‟s α = .80 and the face goals scale had a Cronbach‟s α = .84.
Distribution of clarity goals scores approximated normality, M = 4.74, SD = 1.14. The
distribution of face goals scores approximated normality with a negative skew (skewness = -.62,
standard error of skewness = .22), M = 4.79, SD = 1.28.
Demographic Items
Participant genders and ages were measured using self-report questionnaire items.

Part 2 – Judgments by Perceivers
Part 2A – Judgment of Stimulus Quality
Participants
Participants were undergraduates recruited through a communication department subject
pool at a large Midwestern university. Participants who had participated in previous parts of this
study were barred from participation. Participants (n = 140) were on average 19.3 years old (SD
= 1.4) and are predominantly male (52.1%). Participants earned partial research requirement
course credit for their participation.
15

Design
A repeated measures design was used. Of the videos of individual feedback sessions
made in Part 1, three tape sets were made. Three separate tape sets were made because the total
length of all tapes exceeded three hours, so would render difficult any recruitment of participants
for that long. Moreover, participant fatigue was minimized by showing three separate tape sets
instead of a single tape set. Feedback sessions were randomly assigned to one of the three tape
sets. Each shift of perceiver samples was randomly assigned to watch one of the three tape sets.
Procedures
All participants in each shift were shown the compilations of feedback sessions; after
each, participants were asked to judge whether or not the feedback sender had been shown a
high- or low- quality résumé.
Measurement
Detection of Experimental Condition Items (Appendix H)
These items were forced-choice items where the receiver was asked whether the sender
had evaluated a high- or low- quality résumé.
Demographic Items
Participant gender and age were measured using self-report questionnaire items.
Part 2B – Judgment of Sender Evaluation

Participants
Participants were undergraduates recruited through a communication department subject
pool at a large Midwestern university. Participants who had participated in previous parts of this
study were barred from participation. Participants (n = 50) were on average 19.38 years old (SD
16

= 1.84) and are predominantly female (54%). Participants earned partial research requirement
course credit for their participation.
Design
A repeated measures design was used. The first compilation of tapes used in part 2A was
used in this part of the study.
Procedure
All participants were shown the compilation of feedback sessions. Participants were
asked to judge what the feedback sender evaluated the stimulus résumé to be, in terms of quality.
Measurement
Detection of Sender Evaluation of Résumé Items (Appendix I)
These items mirrored those the résumé evaluators filled out in the first part of this study.
They were reworded to ask receivers what they thought the sender filled out for each of the
quality attributes of the résumé. To minimize perceiver fatigue and render the procedure easier
for participants, only five of the résumé evaluation items most significantly different between
high- and low- quality stimuli résumés were used.
Demographic Items
Participant gender and age were measured using self-report questionnaire items.

Results
To test the hypothesis that sender trait altruism is positively related to sender trait
extroversion, the correlation between scores of sender trait altruism and sender trait extroversion
was assessed. The hypothesis was not supported, r (116) = .11, p = .25.
17

With all three tape sets combined, distribution of the accuracy with which perceivers
inferred either high- or low- quality performance of feedback sessions (senders n = 118) was
negatively skewed (skewness = -1.33, standard error = .22) with a mean accuracy of 77.88%
(SD = 25.24%). Mode was 98% and median was 90.5%. Accuracy did not significantly differ
between high- (M = 76.04%, SD = 27.34%) and low- quality (M = 79.55%, SD = 23.24%)
performance on the part of the feedback receiver, t (116) = -0.75, p = .45, η2 = .01.
Three feedback session compilations were created to obtain measurements of perceived
quality of performance being assessed. Accordingly, there were three different samples of
perceivers. Each had its own distribution of perceiver mean accuracy across multiple tapes. For
each tape set, distributions were fairly unimodal if not actually quite normal, especially with tape
set three. For each tape set, standard errors were small. Mean accuracy of perceivers for the first
tape set (feedback sessions n = 42, perceivers n = 50) was 81.86% (SD = 9.9%, SE = 1.4%).
Mean accuracy of perceivers for the second tape set (feedback sessions n = 43, perceivers n =
42) was 76.36% (SD = 9.23%, SE = 1.42%). Mean accuracy of perceivers for the third tape set
(feedback sessions n = 33, perceivers n = 45) was 74.81% (SD = 6.19%, SE = .92%). There were
significant differences in perceiver accuracy across the three tape sets (F (2, 134) = 8.80, p < .01,
η2 = .12). Post hoc analyses using a Scheffé test show that perceivers of the first tape set were
significantly more accurate than perceivers in both the second (p = .01) and third (p < .01) tape
sets but that perceiver accuracy for the second and third tape sets did not significantly differ from
each other.
To test the hypothesis that feedback sender trait empathic concern relates positively to the
accuracy with which perceivers of their feedback messages infer the quality of the performance
18

assessed, the correlation between sender trait empathic concern score and accuracy with which
quality was inferred, was assessed. Data were inconsistent with the hypothesis, r (116) = -.03, p
= .72.
To test the hypothesis that feedback sender trait altruism is positively related to concern
for clarity goals in giving feedback, the correlation between sender trait altruism score and
second concern for clarity goals was assessed. The data were not consistent with the hypothesis,
r (116) = -.07, p = .48.
To test the hypothesis that feedback sender trait altruism relates positively to receiver
accuracy in detecting the sender‟s true evaluation of performance, the correlation between mean
perceiver accuracy in detecting the overall dichotomous quality of the résumé the sender had
read, and the sender‟s trait altruism, was assessed. The null hypothesis could not be rejected, r
(116) = -.17, p = .06. Notable is that not only did the analysis fail to reject the null, but also the
correlation direction approached significance in the wrong direction. All three tape sets were
shown to perceivers who rated the résumé as either high- or low- quality.
The prediction - that feedback sender trait altruism relates positively to receiver accuracy
in detecting the sender‟s ground truth evaluation of the performance - was tested a second way.
Five résumé evaluation items were chosen from nine that feedback senders had completed
regarding the résumé. Those five were selected because they exhibited the largest differences in
mean values between evaluations of high and low quality résumés. The five were then
completed by perceivers for a sample of feedback senders, such that the perceivers were asked to
infer what the senders had rated the résumé as. The discrepancy between what perceivers
inferred regarding sender ratings, and senders‟ actual ratings, was calculated for each evaluation
19

item. The average of all five of the items‟ discrepancies between the senders‟ reported
evaluation and the perceivers‟ inferred evaluation was calculated. The absolute value of this
average discrepancy was then correlated with the sender‟s trait altruism score. In this case a
negative correlation would support the hypothesis. The hypothesis was not supported, r (40) =
.05, p = .77. Only the first tape set (feedback sessions n = 42) was shown to perceivers
(perceivers n = 50).

Supplemental Results
Exploratory analysis of the data was conducted to see if any relationships obtained.
With all tape sets included, there were differences in perceiver accuracy in inferring
overall quality of the performance. This was such that females (n = 66, M = 79.6%, SD = 9.38%)
were more accurate than males (n = 71, M = 76.23%, SD = 8.61%), t (135) = 2.2, p = .03, η2 =
.03. When each tape set was analyzed individually for gender difference, females were still more
accurate in each tape set, but differences were not significant.
In terms of associations between sender trait altruism and facets of the BFI personality
inventory, the only significant association was between sender trait altruism and openness, r
(116) = .20, p = .03. In terms of associations between sender trait empathic concern and facets
of the BFI personality inventory, sender trait empathic concern related to agreeableness (r (115)
= .54, p < .01) and conscientiousness (r (115) = .24, p < .01).
Associations between sender traits and goals in giving feedback to the performer were
assessed. Sender trait neuroticism was positively related to face concerns in giving feedback (r
(115) = .25, p < .01).
20

Associations between facets of sender BFI personality traits and the mean accuracy with
which perceivers inferred overall quality of performance in question were assessed. Sender trait
extroversion associated positively with the average accuracy with which perceivers inferred
overall performance quality (r (116) = .20, p = .03).
Given that the association between sender trait altruism and average accuracy of
perceiver inference of overall quality neared significance, albeit in a direction opposite the
hypothesis, it seemed plausible that there might be a relationship if contrasting effects were
controlled. Sender trait extroversion was significantly and positively associated with accuracy.
Trait altruism and extroversion were not significantly but positively associated. Partial
correlation between sender trait altruism and average accuracy controlling for sender trait
extroversion was assessed; this correlation was significant and negative, (rAltXAcc•Ext (116) =
-.20, p = .03).
Seeing there may have been more complicated relationships involving sender trait
altruism and extroversion and perceiver accuracy, this was probed further. Sender trait altruism
and trait extroversion were centered by subtracting the mean of each variable from each instance
of the variable. Centered scores were entered as predictors into a multiple regression test with
accuracy as the dependent variable. The two predictors yielded a significant regression equation
(R = .28, R2 = .08, adjusted R2 = .06, F (2) = 4.92, p = .01). Trait altruism was negatively
associated with accuracy (b = -.11, β = -.20, t (115) = -2.17, p = .03), trait extroversion was
positively associated with accuracy (b = .08, β = .22, t (115) = 2.49, p = .01), and the intercept of
the regression equation was .78. The standardized residual plot showed a bulge over the identity
line in the middle values of the dependent variable and a dip under the identity line at high levels
21

of the dependent variable, suggesting that an interaction may be occurring between trait altruism
and extroversion.
To further assess a possible interaction, an interaction term between trait altruism and
extroversion was created by multiplying the centered scores of extroversion and altruism. The
interaction term and both original terms were entered into a regression analysis with accuracy as
the dependent variable. The regression equation was significant (R = .35, R2 = .12, adjusted R2 =
.1, F (3) = 5.25, p < .01). Trait altruism was no longer a significant predictor of accuracy (b = .08, β = -.14, t (114) = -1.55, p = .13). Trait extroversion was a significant predictor (b = .08, β =
.23, t (114) = 2.56, p = .01). The interaction term was a significant predictor (b = .19, β = .21, t
(114) = 2.35, p = .02). Intercept of the regression equation was .77.
To further analyze interaction between sender trait altruism and extroversion, simple
slope analyses were conducted. Because trait extroversion was the stronger predictor of
accuracy in the previous regression analysis, trait altruism was considered the moderator. Three
levels of trait altruism as a moderator were created. A low level of trait altruism was created by
adding one standard deviation from the centered score and creating a new interaction term. A
high level of trait altruism was created by subtracting one standard deviation from the centered
score and creating a new interaction term. Unaltered scores were the middle level. At low levels
of trait altruism, trait extroversion was an insignificant, slightly negative predictor (b = -.002, β =
-.01, t (114) = -.05, intercept = .81, p = .96). At mean levels of trait altruism, trait extroversion is
a positive predictor (b = .08, β = .23, t (114) = 2.56, intercept = .77, p = .01). At high levels of
trait altruism, trait extroversion is a positive predictor (b = .17, β = .46, t (114) = 3.44, intercept =

22

.74, p < .01). Across the three levels of trait altruism, the confidence interval for the simple
slope of trait extroversion overlapped. This moderation is depicted below in figure 1.

Interaction between trait extroversion and altruism on overall quality perception accuracy
was also analyzed with extroversion as the moderator, as altruism had been the main construct of
interest throughout the study. Three levels of extroversion, low-, mean-, and high- were
calculated using standard deviations and new product terms were calculated. Simple slope
analyses were used to look at the effects of trait altruism at each level of extroversion. At low
levels of extroversion, altruism was a negative predictor of accuracy (b = -.21, β = .37, t (114) = 3.21, intercept = .72, p < .01). At mean levels of extroversion, altruism was a nonsignificant
negative predictor of accuracy (b = -.08, β = -.14, t (114) = -1.55, intercept = .77, p = .13). At
high levels of extroversion, trait altruism was a nonsignificant positive predictor of accuracy (b =
.05, β = .09, t (114) = .605, intercept = .83, p = .55). All 95% confidence intervals for the
23

coefficients of trait altruism overlapped. The general picture provided by this simple slope
analysis was that as trait extroversion increased, the negative effect of trait altruism came closer
to zero. This moderation is depicted in Figure 2 below.

All correlation and regression analyses pertaining to the association between sender traits
and receiver accuracy in inferring performance qualities from feedback messages were also
performed separately for each stimulus quality condition. Results did not substantively change
and thus are omitted from presentation in this manuscript.
Until this point, results have looked at perceiver accuracy in inferring quality of the
stimulus presented to the sender, in such a way that no distinction is made between senders who
may have been lying and those being honest. In effect, perceiver accuracy has been treated as
leakage accuracy, in that it is how accurate the receiver is in inferring a ground truth. Data may
be analyzed in such a way as to examine deception detection accuracy. To do this, all tapes
24

shown to perceivers were coded by the researcher as to whether the sender explicitly told the
feedback receiver whether his or her résumé was good or bad. For tapes of senders giving
feedback about the high-quality résumé, the difference seemed to be whether the sender simply
gave praise and affirmation that the résumé was good, or whether he or she offered further
advice and criticism as to how the résumé could be improved. For tapes of the senders giving
feedback about the low-quality résumé, the difference seemed to be whether the sender told the
receiver that the résumé was poor or whether he or she did not mention résumé quality or any of
its flaws. This coding is akin to coding messages in a more straightforward deception detection
study as either truths or lies, given knowledge of the ground truth. Of the 56 tapes of senders
giving feedback about high-quality résumés, 28 (50%) only gave praise, 24 (42.9%) gave advice
and criticism, and 4 (7.1%) could not be clearly coded as belonging to either group. Of the 62
tapes of senders giving feedback about low-quality résumés, 9 (14.5%) lied and did not mention
the quality or flaws, 29 (46.8%) gave an honest assessment of résumé quality, and 24 (38.7%)
could not be clearly coded. In both sets of high- and low- stimulus quality tapes, if the sender‟s
evaluation of the résumé was clearly more typical of someone who had seen a résumé of the
opposite quality, they were coded as not clearly categorized.
To assess whether there were actual differences in perceiver accuracy in judging more or
less honest feedback senders, a contrast analysis of perceiver accuracy in inferring the quality of
the résumé the sender saw was done to tapes that could be coded into either more or less honest
categories. A contrast scheme was used such that senders talking about low-quality résumés
who did not mention flaws or quality would be lowest (-2, accuracy M = 50.89%), senders
talking about high-quality résumés who included advice and criticism would be next (0, accuracy
25

M = 63.42%), but then senders talking about high-quality résumés who simply praised the
résumé (1, accuracy M = 92.43%) and senders talking about low-quality résumés who explicitly
mentioned flaws or quality (1, accuracy M = 92.38%) would not differ from each other but
would be the most accurate. Coded group mean accuracies and cell sizes are presented in figure
3. The contrast scheme was significant (F (1,86) = 47.85, p < .01, r = .6, η2 = .29). Perceivers
were more accurate in judging the quality of the résumé that the feedback sender had read when
the résumé was bad and the sender was honest, and when the résumé was good and the sender
only praised the résumé, in comparison to when the résumé was bad and the sender equivocated
and when the résumé was good and the sender criticized it.
Coded Category

N

Mean accuracy

Honesty about low quality

29

92.38%

Deception about low quality

9

50.89%

Advice and criticism of high-quality performance

24

63.42%

Only praise about high-quality performance

28

92.43%

Figure 3. Table containing frequency of deception coding and mean accuracy
An omnibus ANOVA was used to see if there were differences in trait altruism between
senders who could be coded as being more or less honest in giving feedback. No significant
differences were found, F (3, 86) = .55, p = .65, η2 = .02.

Discussion
This study sought to investigate the relationship between the individual difference of trait
altruism of senders and how accurately receivers could infer the quality of performance that the
senders had seen, given the feedback message about the performance that the senders produced.

26

It was hypothesized that senders who are high in trait altruism produce messages that are more
accurately judged by receivers as to the quality of performance the sender had evaluated. A
laboratory experiment was conducted in which sender trait altruism was a measured independent
variable, quality of performance to be evaluated was an experimentally varied variable between
groups, and the dependent measure was the accuracy with which receivers inferred the quality of
the performance that the sender evaluated.
The hypothesis that receivers would be more accurate judging the quality of performance
from tapes produced by higher trait altruism senders was not supported, and evidence suggested
that higher sender trait altruism may relate negatively to the accuracy with which receivers can
infer quality of the evaluated performance.
There were relationships between some individual differences and receiver accuracy in
inferring quality of the evaluated performance. Specifically, sender trait extroversion related
positively to the accuracy with which receivers inferred the quality of the performance under
review. Furthermore, the relationship between sender trait extroversion and receiver accuracy
was moderated by sender trait altruism; as senders were more altruistic, sender extroversion had
a greater positive relationship with receiver accuracy in judging performance quality. This
finding was not hypothesized, and it is an empirical question as to whether or not it will
replicate.
There were differences in receiver accuracy in judging quality of performance and the
honesty of the content of the feedback messages. This suggests that, indeed, the performance
feedback situation can be understood using a deception detection perspective. Feedback
messages that verbally were less explicit and direct, and which did not address the salient ground
27

truth of performance quality, indeed were less accurately judged. This is similar to studies where
the topic of deception is something more commonly associated with deception, such as possible
transgressions and crimes. Feedback senders in this study were not deceiving about socially
noxious topics such as cheating that are often casually associated with deception detection
studies. Nonetheless, in this study, deception detection can be thought of in the same way.
As evidenced by small standard errors in individual receiver accuracy across tapes, there
was little variability in terms of receiver ability to accurately judge the quality of the
performance evaluated in the tapes. While important sender variables perhaps were not captured
in this study, the lack of receiver variability does suggest that sender variables are salient in
explaining variability in receiver accuracy. Perhaps this investigation looked at the wrong
variables in the right place. The greater variability in the accuracy with which each sender was
judged relative to the variability in perceiver accuracy, is similar to meta-analytic observations of
deception detection experiments (Bond & DePaulo, 2006).
This investigation focused on a fairly circumscribed situation in which the sender gave
feedback in terms of the his or her relationship to the performer and the context of the
performance. Specifically, feedback senders were interacting with someone with whom they
shared no goals and whose success in performing would not have implications for the sender.
This study‟s argument informing hypotheses and empirical observation did not take into account
the potential role of shared versus parallel versus competitive versus unrelated goals. It was not
so much that the relationship of sender to receiver goals was meaningfully uncontrolled or
confounded, but rather that more sophisticated hypotheses might have been made with this factor
in mind. It might be argued that interactions between individual differences and the relationship
28

between sender and receiver goals would be hypothesized. As to the situation observed in this
study, senders giving feedback to performers with whom they did not share either
complementary or competing goals, it might still be hypothesized that sender trait altruism would
relate positively to message transparency. When shared goals exist however, it could be
hypothesized that altruism will play less of a role, as it is not especially altruistic to give honest
feedback to a teammate whose performance affects one‟s own success. It might be entirely
selfish for a sender to give honest, useful feedback to a subordinate, for instance, whose
performance will later reflect on that sender. It might be more altruistic however for a sender to
give honest useful feedback to a peer whose success has no effect on him of her or whom he or
she competes against. This insight offers opportunity for future studies.
Another aspect in which this investigation was circumscribed in its observation was that
the perceivers were not actual recipients of feedback concerning their own performances. In
essence, perceivers in this experiment were observers, not targets. Differences in detection
accuracy of message sincerity have been observed pertaining to a variety of different types of
messages and situations, such that observers tend to be more accurate than targets (e.g., Risen &
Gilovich, 2007; Vonk, 2002). Performance feedback situations may exhibit the same differences
between observers and targets, regarding accuracy, and it might be conjectured that accuracy
levels in this study were higher than if actual résumé writers being given feedback had been
studied. Not that receiver target-observer roles were in any way uncontrolled or confounded in
this study, but interesting opportunities may exist for future studies assessing possible observertarget differences in accuracy in inferring performance quality from feedback messages.

29

This study had methodological limitations. First, there was variation in the individual
sender‟s evaluations of the good or bad résumés about which he or she gave feedback. The
induction of sender perceived performance quality could have been more reliable. Generally,
those given a bad résumé rated the résumé as being of poorer quality than did those given a good
résumé, but within résumé quality conditions there was ratings variability. While individual
differences being examined did not correlate significantly with résumé ratings, that ratings were
not constant suggests that formal pretesting of résumés would have been prudent or that the very
choice of performance type could have been more unambiguous. There was variation in sender
experience with résumés; some were more experienced students who had themselves written
résumés that earned them jobs and internships, while others were less experienced students who
had not even attended introductory courses in résumé writing. This might have contributed to
within-group variance that attenuated relationships between individual personality differences
and transparency of feedback messages. There may have been utility in sampling feedback
senders from more homogenous groups in terms of résumé expertise. Both use of a less
ambiguous or complex stimulus performance, and more control of feedback sender expertise
about the type of performance in question, would have served to lessen within-group variability.
The strength of the induction of performance quality was successful in creating
differences between high- and low- quality résumés. It was not the case that the differences
between high and low quality résumés were trivial and that feedback messages about barely
distinguishable performances were very similar. If that had been so, receiver accuracy rates in
inferring quality of performance would have been closer to chance levels of 50% as it would
have been difficult to tell the difference between similar performances.
30

The repeated measures design used to measure receiver accuracy in inferring of the
performance quality to which the feedback sender was exposed, also may have been a limitation.
Practice effects may have occurred as receivers watched more tapes. Receivers may have been
able to create heuristic rules in inferring performance quality by noticing some similar themes in
feedback messages. For instance, mention of spelling flaws may have indicated a diagnosis that
the performance had been low quality. Potential for these effects were minimized by receivers
not being told that only two résumés were made. They simply were told that some feedback
senders saw good or bad résumés. Future studies using this design may elect to use more a wider
range of low- or high- quality résumés. This would work towards greater generalizability of the
findings, but more importantly may improve the study‟s internal validity in that it would
mention, via feedback senders, specific attributes less diagnostic of overall quality.
There may be telling implications in looking at coding of feedback tapes, as to whether
they were explicitly honest or rather deceptive. Many tapes of senders giving feedback about
low-quality résumés could not be clearly coded as either honest or deceptive. This suggests that
perhaps verbal equivocation was present. Senders may be seen in these tapes to be creating
ambiguous messages possibly interpretable in multiple ways (Bavelas, Black, Chovil, & Mullett,
1990). Future research opportunities may reside in specifically addressing equivocation in
performance feedback messages.
The relatively low base rate of messages coded as deceptive may potentially be
interesting in assessing overall accuracy rates. Note that the average accuracy with which
feedback tapes were judged as evaluating either high- or low- quality résumés was high (M =
77.88%). In considering both the high accuracy rate and the low base rate of deception, data
31

may be seen as consistent with the probability model of deception detection accuracy rates
(Levine, Kim, Park, & Hughes, 2006; Park & Levine, 2001). Perhaps, had more feedback
senders been deceptive, overall accuracy rates would have been lower. Accuracy rates in
judging deceptive tapes were lower than accuracy rates in judging honest tapes, a relationship
consistent with mechanics of the probability model. Overall accuracy rates with which receivers
judged the quality of the performances reviewed by the senders may be explained simply as a
function of the base rate of how many feedback senders were deceptive.
In sum, this study hypothesized that feedback sender trait altruism would relate positively
to the accuracy with which receivers could judge the quality of the performance the feedback
sender was exposed to. An experiment, involving measuring sender individual differences,
exposing senders to résumés of different quality, having senders give feedback to the presumed
author of the résumé, and having samples of receivers judge the quality of the résumés from the
tapes of the feedback sessions, was conducted to test the hypothesis. Data were inconsistent with
the hypothesis and actually suggested a negative relationship between sender trait altruism and
receiver accuracy in judging performance quality. One sender individual difference,
extroversion, was shown to have a positive relationship with receiver accuracy and this
relationship was moderated by sender trait altruism. Some aspects of the results of the study
were similar to other deception detection research, such as miniscule variability in receiver
accuracy ability relative to variability in sender detectability. Limitations of this study have been
described, such as a relatively unreliable induction of performance quality and a repeated
measures design that may have engendered practice effects in receivers. In retrospect, the study

32

may have been narrow, in that it meaningfully accounted for possible target-observer differences
in feedback reception or the relationship of feedback sender and receiver goals.

33

Appendices

34

Appendix A: High Quality Stimulus Résumé
Smart Collegekid

PERMANENT: 123 Rstishlaajf Ave. S.E., Grand Rapids, MI 49496  (616) 911-5555
CURRENT: 195 Gaksiken St., Apt. 3, East Lansing, MI 48823  (616) 911-5555
ruabe179@msu.edu

EDUCATION

Bachelor of Arts, Communication
Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI



Expected Graduation Spring 2011
Dean‟s List: Spring 2008, Summer 2008, Fall 2009, Spring 2009
EXPERIENCE

Research Aide: College of Communication Arts and Sciences



9/2010-present

Designed marketing and promotional materials for the FIT social marketing campaign
that encouraged children to exercise and eat healthier
Distributed materials to families in the target location

Research Aide: College of Nursing

1/2010-present

Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI




Served as the project manager for a grant-funded pilot project regarding infants and
infant-feeding practices
Wrote a qualitative code book for focus group transcripts and served as an independent
coder
Kept track of budget, paid employees, reimbursed for mileage and other supplies

35

Media Junior Executive
8/2009 The San Jose Group, Chicago, IL







6/2009-

Completed $130,000 television buy and negotiated added value
Only Junior Executive given the responsibility to place print and broadcast buys
Completed trend analysis of costs per point, using Arbitron and Nielsen data
Managed flowcharts, cashflows and invoice processing; maintained media buys
Created presentation for Magnum Insurance that went directly to the client after minor
revisions

Development Intern

2/2009-5/2009

American Red Cross, Grand Rapids, MI




Assisted Development Associate with preparation for fund development presentations to
various groups in the Grand Rapids community
Utilized Raisers Edge to enter data, run queries, and create action tracks
Recruited local businesses to participate in a fundraising campaign throughout the month
of March

Departmental Aide II: Department of Residence Life
Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI
5/2009




8/2009-12/2009;
9/2008-

Worked with members in the department on assigned projects including poster and flier
layouts and graphic designs, event planning and research for newsletters
Couriered important documents around campus to assist the department in running more
efficiently
Administrative work including answering phones, making copies, filing, typing, and
restocking supplies

ADDITIONAL SKILLS


Proficient in Microsoft Word, PowerPoint, Excel, Outlook, Adobe PageMaker, Advantage,
SmartPlus, and IMS

36

Appendix B: Low Quality Stimulus Résumé
Smart Collegekid

PERMANENT: 123 Rstishlaajf Ave. S.E., Grand Rapids, MI 49496  (616) 911-5555
CURRENT: 195 Gaksiken St., Apt. 3, East Lansing, MI 48823  (616) 911-5555
ruabe179@msu.edu

EDUCATION

Bachelor of Arts, Communication
M S U, EL, MI
 Expected Gradaton Spring
2011
 Dean List: Spring 2008, Summer 2008, Summer 2008, Spring 2009, Fall 2009
______________________________________________________________________________
____________
Experiences
______________________________________________________________________________
___________
Research Aid: College of Communication Arts and Sciences



9/2010-present

Dsigned marketing and promoshonal materials for the FIT social marketing campaign
that encouraged children to exsercise and eat healthyer
Distributed materials to families in the target location
ADDITIONAL SKILLS



Profishent in Microsoft Word, PowerPoint, Excel, Outlook, Adobe PageMaker, Advantage,
SmartPlus, and IMS

Research Aide: College of Nursing January 2010-now
Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI


Served as the project manager for a grantfunded pilot project regarding infants and
infant-feeding practices. Wrrote qualitative code book for focus group transcripts, served
37

asan independent coder. Kept track of budget, paid employees, reimbursed for mileage
and other supplies
Development intern

2/2009-5/2009

American red Cross, Grand Rapids, MI
-Assisted Development Associate with preparation for fund development presentations to various
groups in the Grand Rapids community
-Utilized Raisers Edge to enter data, run queries, and create action tracks
-Recruited local businesses to participate in a fundraising campaign throw out the month of
March
Dprtmntl Aide II: Dpt of Residence Life
Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI


Worked with members in the department on assigned projects including poster and flier
layouts and graphic designs, event planning and research for newsletters
 couriered important documents around campus to assist the department in running more
efficiently
 Administrative work including answering phones, making copies, filing, typing, and
restocking supplies

Media Junior Executive
aug/2009 The San Jose Group, Chicago, IL






6/2009-

Completed 130,000 dollar television buy and negotiated added value. Only Junior Executive
given the responsibility to place print and broadcast buys
Compleetd trend analysis of costs per point, using Arbitron and Nielsen data
Managed flowcharts, cashflows and invoice processing; maintained media buys
Created presentation for Magnum Insurance that went directly to the client after minor
revisions

38

Appendix C: Self Report of Altruism Scale
Please indicate on the scale how often you engage in the behavior described in the past by
circling a number from 1 to 5. 1 indicates that you never engage in the behavior whereas a 5
indicates that you in engage in the behavior very often.
1. I have helped push or restart a stranger‟s car when it was stalled.
2. I have given directions to a stranger.
3. I have made change for a stranger.
4. I have given money to a charity.
5. I have given money to a stranger who needed it (or asked me for it).
6. I have donated goods or clothes to a charity.
7. I have done volunteer work for a charity.
8. I have donated blood.
9. I have helped carry a stranger‟s belongings (books, parcels, etc.).
10. I have delayed an elevator and held the door open for a stranger.
11. I have allowed someone to go ahead of me in a line or queue.
12. I have given a stranger a lift in my car.
13. I have pointed out a clerk‟s error (in a bank, at a market) in undercharging me for an
item.
14. I have let a neighbor whom I didn‟t know too well borrow an item of some value to me
(e.g a dish, tools, etc.).
15. I have paid a little more to buy an item from a merchant who I felt deserved my support.
16. I have helped a classmate who I did not know that well with a homework assignment
when my knowledge was greater than his or hers.
17. I have looked after a neighbor‟s pets without being asked and without being paid for it.
18. I have offered to help a handicapped or elderly stranger across a street.
19. I have offered my seat on a bus or tram to a stranger who was standing.
20. I have helped an acquaintance to move households.
21. I have helped a neighbor whom I didn‟t know that well work on his or her house.
22. I have absorbed the blame for the mistakes of a work-mate when he or she needed the
help.
23. I have done something I honestly felt was wrong in order to help someone I didn‟t know
that well out of trouble.
24. I have helped someone I didn‟t know get up when he or she slipped or tripped and fell
down.
25. I have helped an acquaintance obtain something important that he or she needed (e.g. a
job, a place to live, etc.).
26. I have worked past my shift to help someone make a productive quota.
39

27. I have called the police after witnessing a crime and identified myself.
28. I have shared credit for an accomplishment when I could have easily taken it all.
29. I have „bent the rules‟ to help someone I didn‟t know that well.
30. I have helped a new fellow-employee at work get settled on the job and learn the tasks
involved even though it was not part of my job.
31. I have moved my car into a dangerous position to avoid hitting a pedestrian.
32. I have helped an acquaintance out of a personally embarrassing situation and kept it
confidential for his or her sake.
33. I have volunteered to nurse an acquaintance who was ill.
34. I have helped a neighbor who needed it to harvest his crops.
35. I have defended someone I didn‟t know from being physically harmed.
36. I have deceived someone when I felt it was for their own good.
37. I have voluntarily served as a witness in a court of law.
38. I have loaned my car to friends or neighbors.
39. I have calmed someone I didn‟t know who was behaving in a visibly disturbed or
frightened in public.
40. I have walked a stranger through a dangerous area (e.g. neighborhood, parking lot, etc.).
41. I have sacrificed a parking space for a stranger.
42. I have stuck my neck out to „cover for‟ a work-mate.
43. In heavy traffic, I have slowed to let someone coming toward me make a turn in front of
me even though it meant having to wait through the red light.
44. I have stopped on a highway to help a stranger fix a flat tire.
45. When playing a team sport, I often sacrifice an opportunity to score when I see that
another player has a better chance.
46. I have „picked up the slack‟ for another worker when he or she couldn‟t keep up the pace.
47. As part of a group of people, I have done menial jobs that needed doing without being
asked even though they were not part of my responsibilities.
48. I have offered responsibilities at work which I have declined in favor of a more qualified
colleague.
49. On occasion, I have „stretched the truth‟ to help someone out of an embarrassing
situation.
50. I have taken a lost child to a store manager so its parents could be found.
51. I have saved someone‟s life (e.g. from drowning, a fire, etc.).
52. I have answered the questions of someone doing a door-to-door or telephone survey.
53. I have volunteered to work in a hospital.
54. I have contributed my time and labor to community improvement activities.
55. I have attempted to calm someone who was behaving in a frighteningly strange or
psychotic fashion.
40

56. I have worked on a committee of a legal but unpopular minority organization.
Appendix D: Empathic Concern Scale
Please indicate for each statement below how much you agree that the statement describes you
by circling a number between 1 and 5. A 1 indicates that you strongly disagree that the
statement describes you while a 5 indicates that you strongly agree that the statement describes
you. A 3 would indicate that you neither agree or disagree that the statement describes you.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

When I see someone being taken advantage of, I feel kind of protective toward them.
When I see someone being treated unfairly, I sometimes don't feel very much pity for
them. (Reverse Code)
I often have tender, concerned feelings for people less fortunate than me.
I would describe myself as a pretty soft-hearted person.
Sometimes I don't feel sorry for other people when they are having problems. (Reverse
Code)
Other people's misfortunes do not usually disturb me a great deal. (Reverse Code)
I am often quite touched by things that I see happen.
Appendix E: Big Five Personality Inventory Scale

Please indicate for each statement below how much you agree that the statement describes you
by circling a number between 1 and 5. A 1 indicates that you strongly disagree that the
statement describes you while a 5 indicates that you strongly agree that the statement describes
you. A 3 would indicate that you neither agree or disagree that the statement describes you.
1. Is talkative
2. Tends to find fault with others
3. Does a thorough job
4. Is depressed, blue
5. Is original, comes up with new ideas
6. Is reserved
7. Is helpful and unselfish with others
8. Can be somewhat careless
9. Is relaxed, handles stress well.
10. Is curious about many different things
11. Is full of energy
12. Starts quarrels with others
13. Is a reliable worker
14. Can be tense
15. Is ingenious, a deep thinker
16. Generates a lot of enthusiasm
41

17. Has a forgiving nature
18. Tends to be disorganized
19. Worries a lot
20. Has an active imagination
21. Tends to be quiet
22. Is generally trusting
23. Tends to be lazy
24. Is emotionally stable, not easily upset
25. Is inventive
26. Has an assertive personality
27. Can be cold and aloof
28. Perseveres until the task is finished
29. Can be moody
30. Values artistic, aesthetic experiences
31. Is sometimes shy, inhibited
32. Is considerate and kind to almost everyone
33. Does things efficiently
34. Remains calm in tense situations
35. Prefers work that is routine
36. Is outgoing, sociable
37. Is sometimes rude to others
38. Makes plans and follows through with them
39. Gets nervous easily
40. Likes to reflect, play with ideas
41. Has few artistic interests
42. Likes to cooperate with others
43. Is easily distracted
44. Is sophisticated in art, music, or literature

Appendix F: Evaluation of Résumé Items
As you read the résumé, please evaluate and critique the résumé for quality by completing the
items below. Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the statement describing the
résumé by circling one of the numbers between 1 and 7. A 1 indicates that you strongly disagree
that the statement describes the résumé while a 7 indicates that you strongly agree that the
statement describes the résumé.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

This résumé seemed very professional.
This résumé was visually appealing.
This résumé was formatted well.
This résumé was difficult to understand and read.
This résumé did not do a good job explaining the applicant‟s qualifications.
This résumé was well done overall.
42

7. This résumé was well organized.
8. This résumé was well written.
Appendix G: Feedback Sender Goals Scale
Please indicate for each statement how much you agree that the statement describes the goals
you had in giving feedback to the résumé writer by circling a number between 1 and 9. A 1
indicates that you strongly disagree that the statement describes your goals while giving
feedback while a 9 indicates that you strongly agree that the statement describes your goals while
giving feedback.
Clarity items
1. To criticize the résumé so that the writer knew exactly what had to be changed and how.
2. To make sure that the writer understood exactly what I meant.
3. To make clear what changes needed to be made in the résumé.
4. To make sure that the writer followed my directions precisely.
5. To make myself as clear as I could be in my evaluation.
6. To be accurate in my evaluation of the résumé.
Face Concern items
1. To convey to the writer that I liked him or her.
2. To be respectful to the writer of the résumé.
3. To make the writer feel competent.
4. To make sure that I did not hurt the writer‟s feelings.
5. To be supportive of the writer.
6. To not evaluate the résumé too harshly.
Appendix H: Detection of Stimulus Quality
You are about to watch a series of video clips of people giving feedback to a person who wrote a
résumé. Some of the feedback senders were given very good résumés to read and critique while
other feedback senders were given very poor résumés to read and critique. Please indicate for
each clip whether or not the feedback sender had been given a good or poor quality résumé to
read and critique by circling whether the person was given a good or poor quality résumé to read
and critique.
Clip 1. This person was given a résumé to read that was:

Good Quality

Poor Quality

Appendix I: Detection of Sender Evaluation of Résumé Items
You are about to watch a series of video clips of people giving feedback to a person who wrote a
résumé. The feedback senders did not all read the same résumés. Please indicate to your best
judgment what the feedback sender thought of the résumé that they critiqued according to the
43

following items by circling a number between 1 and 7 indicating the extent to which the
feedback sender agreed with the statement describing the résumé. A 1 would indicate that the
feedback sender strongly disagreed that the statement described the résumé they read while a 7
would indicate that the feedback sender strongly agreed that the statement described the résumé
they read.
Feedback Session #
9.

The evaluator thought that the résumé seemed very professional.

10.

The evaluator thought that the résumé was formatted well.

11.

The evaluator thought that the résumé was well done overall.

12.

The evaluator thought that the résumé was well written.

13.

The evaluator thought that the résumé had many errors.

44

Bibliography

45

References
Ammons, R. B. (1956). Effects of knowledge of performance: A survey and tentative theoretical
formulation. Journal of General Psychology, 54, 279-299.
doi:10.1080/00221309.1956.9920284
Bavelas, J. B., Black, A., Chovill, N., & Mullett, J. (1990). Equivocal communication. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage Publications Inc.
Bond, C. F., Jr., & DePaulo, B. M. (2006). Accuracy of deception judgments. Personality and
Social Psychology Review, 10, 214–234. doi: 10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_2
Bond, C. F., Jr., & DePaulo, B. M. (2008). Individual differences in judging deception: Accuracy
and bias. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 477-492. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.134.4.477
Brown, P., & Levinson, S.C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge,
United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, W. M., Palameta, B., & Moore, C. (2003). Are there nonverbal cues to commitment? An
exploratory study using the zero-acquaintance video presentation paradigm.
Evolutionary Psychology, 1, 42-69.
Davis, M. H. (1980). A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. JSAS
Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 10, 85-104.
Fetchenhauer, D., Groothius, T., & Pradel, J. (2010). Not only states but traits- Humans can
identify permanent altruistic dispositions in 20 s. Evolution and Human Behavior, 2, 8086. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2009.06.009
Geddes, D., & Linnehan, F. (1996). Exploring the dimensionality of positive and negative
Performance feedback. Communication Quarterly, 44, 326-344.
doi:10.1080/01463379609370021
Ilgen, D. R., Fisher, C. D., & Taylor, M. S. (1979). Consequences of individual feedback on
behavior in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 349-371.
doi:10.1037//0021-9010.64.4.349
John, O. P., Donahue, E. M., & Kentle, R. L. (1991). The Big Five Inventory--Versions 4a and
54. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley, Institute of Personality and Social
Research.
Johnson, R. C., Danko, G. P., Darvill, T. J., Bochner, S., Bowers, J. K., Huang, Y., Park, J. Y.,
Pecjak, V., Rahim, A. R. A., & Pennington, D. (1989). Cross-cultural assessment of
46

altruism and its correlates. Personality and Individual Differences, 10, 855-868.
doi:10.1016/0191-8869(89)90021-4
Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A
historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory.
Psychological Bulletin, 119, 254-284. doi:10.1037//0033-2909.119.2.254
Krebs, D. L. (1970). Altruism- An examination of the concept and a review of the literature.
Psychological Bulletin, 73, 258-302. doi:10.1037/h0028987
Larson, J. R. (1986). Supervisors‟ performance feedback to subordinates: The impact of
subordinate performance valence and outcome dependence. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 37, 391-408. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(86)90037-3
Levine, T. R. (2010). A few transparent liars. In C. Salmon (Ed.) Communication Yearbook, 34.
Sage.
Levine, T. R. & Kim, R. K. (2009). Some considerations for a new theory of deceptive
communication. In M. Knapp & M. McGlone (Eds). The Interplay of Truth and
Deception. Routledge.
Levine, T. R. , Kim, R. K. , & Hamel, L. M. (2010). People lie for a reason: An experimental
test of the principle of veracity. Communication Research Reports, 27, 271-285.
doi:10.1080/08824096.2010.496334
Levine, T. R., Kim, R. K., Park, H. S., & Hughes, M. (2006). Deception detection
accuracy is a predictable linear function of message veracity base-rate: A formal
test of Park and Levine‟s probability model. Communication Monographs, 73,
243-260. doi:10.1080/03637750600873736
Levine, T. R., Park, H. S., & McCornack, S. A. (1999). Accuracy in detecting truths and
lies: Documenting the “veracity effect.” Communication Monographs, 66, 125144. doi:10.1080/03637759909376468
Oda, R., Yamagata, N., Yabiku, Y., & Matsumoto-Oda, A. (2009). Altruism can be assessed
correctly based on impression. Human Nature, 20, 331-341. doi:10.1007/s12110-0099070-8
Park, H. S., & Levine, T. R. (2001). A probability model of accuracy in deception detection
experiments. Communication Monographs, 68, 201-210. doi:10.1080/03637750128059
Risen, J. L., & Gilovich, T. (2007). Target and observer differences in the acceptance of
questionable apologies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 418-433. doi:
10.1037/0022-3514.92.3.418
47

Rosen, S., & Tesser, A. (1970). On reluctance to communicate undesirable information: The
MUM effect. Sociometry, 33, 253-263. doi:10.2307/2786156
Rushton, J. P., Chrisjohn, R. D., & Fekken, G. C. (1981). The altruistic personality and the selfreport altruism scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 2, 293-302.
doi:10.1016/0191-8869(81)90084-2
Rushton, J. P., Fulker, D. W., Neale, M. C., Nias, D. K. B., & Eysenck, H. J. (1986). Altruism
and aggression: The heritability of individual differences. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 50, 1192-1198. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.50.6.1192
Tracy, K., & Eisenberg, E. (1991). Giving criticism: A multiple goals case study. Research on
Language and Social Interaction, 24, 37-70. doi:10.1080/08351819009389332
Vonk, R. (2002) Self-serving interpretations of flattery: Why ingratiation works. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 515-526. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.82.4.515
Wallace, B., Cesarini, D., Lichtenstein, P., & Johannesson, M. (2007). Heritability of ultimatum
game responder behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104, 1563115634. doi:10.1073/pnas.0706642104
Waung, M., & Highouse, S. (1997). Fear of conflict and empathic buffering: Two explanations
for the inflation of performance feedback. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 71, 37-54. doi:10.1006/obhd.1997.2711

48