Perceived Anonymity Adequacy 9
H4: A positive relationship exists between the number of raters evaluating
a supervisor or coworker and rater’s perceptions of anonymity adequacy.
Predictors of anonymity adequacy. In investigating the relationship between each of the
previous four factors and anonymity adequacy during performance evaluations, it would also be
useful to determine the relative importance of each factor in predicting perceptions of anonymity.
Through developing a better understanding of the importance of each factor as a predictor,
scholars and practitioners alike will be better suited to foster an adequate level of anonymity
during performance evaluations. Consequently, the following research question is posed:
RQ1: What is the relative importance of each of the previous four factors in predicting
perceptions of anonymity adequacy during performance evaluations of
supervisors and coworkers?
Concealing Identity Information in Performance Evaluations
Recent conceptualizations of anonymity as a fluid construct in which one can be partially
anonymous highlight the role of the rater as an active agent (Anonymous, 1998; Hayne & Rice,
1997; Marx, 1999; Pinsonneault & Heppel, 1998). That is, anonymity is no longer imposed upon
a rater conducting an evaluation; instead, perceptions of one’s anonymity level are subjectively
constructed by the rater him or herself. This shift in the way anonymity is thought about in the
context of performance feedback leaves a number of important questions to be addressed. One
question in particular is how do raters maintain or enhance their degree of anonymity during
performance evaluations? A recently developed typology of identity information offers a useful
avenue to pursue this question (Marx, 1999).
Anonymity, according to Marx (1999), is “one polar value of a broad dimension of
identifiably versus nonidentifiability” (p. 100). An individual is more or less identifiable
depending on the degree to which seven types of identity knowledge are known. The seven types