000			02144nam a22001457a 4500
999			_c531531 _d531531
008			250912b ||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
100			_aAbraham, Mabel Botelho, Tristan L. and Carter, James T. _956725
245			_a(Not) getting what you deserve: How misrecognized evaluators reproduce misrecognition in peer evaluations
260			_aAmerican Sociological Review
300			_a 90(3), Jun, 2025: p.387-426
520			_aIn most evaluation systems—such as those governing the allocation of prestigious awards—the evaluator’s primary task is to reward the highest quality candidates. However, these systems are imperfect; top performers may not be acknowledged and thus be underrecognized, and low performers may receive unwarranted recognition and thus be overrecognized. An important feature of many evaluation systems is that people alternate between being candidates and being evaluators. How does experiencing misrecognition as a candidate affect how people subsequently evaluate others? We develop novel theory that underrecognition and overrecognition lead people to reproduce those experiences when they are evaluators. Across three studies—a quasi-natural experiment and two preregistered, multistage experiments, we find that underrecognized evaluators are less likely to grant recognition to others—even to the highest-performing candidates. Conversely, overrecognized evaluators are more likely to grant rewards to others—even to the lowest-performing candidates. Whereas underrecognized evaluator behavior is driven by individuals’ perceptions that their experience was unfair, overrecognized evaluator behavior is driven by the informational cues people glean on how to evaluate others. Thus, in evaluation processes where people oscillate between being the evaluated and being the evaluator, we show how and why seemingly innocuous initial inefficiencies are reproduced in subsequent evaluations.- Reproduced https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/00031224251318051
650			_aEvaluation, Status, Inequality, Stratification. _956726
773			_aAmerican Sociological Review
942			_cAR