Evaluating performance over time: Is improving better than being consistently good?

In many decision contexts, people evaluate others based on intertemporal performance records and commonly face a choice between two distinct profiles: performance that is consistently high versus performance that improves over time to that high level. We proposed that these two profiles could be appealing for different reasons, and thus evaluators' preferences will differ across decision contexts. In three studies, participants were presented with candidates (e.g., students, employees) displaying the two profiles, and evaluated each candidate in terms of performance, future expectations, and deservingness. The consistent candidate was rated higher on performance, but lower on future expectations, than the improved candidate. Consequently, in achievement-based decisions (e.g., selecting a student for a scholarship), the consistent candidate was viewed as most deserving, whereas in potential-based decisions (e.g., selecting an employee for promotion), the improved candidate was preferred. These effects were mediated by the relative weight that evaluators placed on performance and future expectations.