Search
Program Calendar
Browse By Day
Browse By Time
Browse By Person
Browse By Session Type
Browse By Topic
Personal Schedule
Main Menu (Submission Site)
Sign Out
Personal Schedule
Sign In
Deadlines
Policies
Updating Your Submission
Requesting AV
Accessible Presentation
FAQs
Deadlines
Policies
Updating Your Submission
Requesting AV
Accessible Presentation
FAQs
Search Tips
About Annual Meeting
Search Tips
About Annual Meeting
Why does evaluation work differently in different contexts? Drawing on a mixed-methods study of evaluation in figure skating and classical music, I propose a framework for predicting when evaluative cultures (cultural scripts surrounding evaluation) will tend to be more or less formal. I use four variables—stakes, centralization, power, and trust—to discuss how perceptions of legitimacy affect the formality of rules, and I consider why and how evaluative cultures change over time and why different settings within a particular field adopt different evaluation practices. I suggest that low levels of trust and power, high levels of centralization, and high stakes foster formal evaluative cultures with rigid rules, whereas high levels of trust and power, low levels of centralization, and low stakes promote informal cultures where evaluators have more discretion. Emphasizing that the relationships among these variables revolve around perceptions of legitimacy, I argue that the more evaluative cultures need to validate their legitimacy, the more formal their rules will tend to be. Understanding how evaluative cultures develop is important because in addition to influencing the objects of evaluation and perceived fairness and legitimacy, evaluation practices often affect outcomes, which have significant consequences for participants. More broadly, this article contributes to our understanding of how perceptions of legitimacy affect how rules develop.