In any evaluation system, the evaluator's purpose is to grant recognition or status to the highest quality candidates. However, these systems are imperfect; top performers may not be recognized and thus be underrecognized, and low performers may receive unwarranted recognition and be overrecognized. An important feature of many evaluation systems is that people alternate between being candidates and being evaluators. We examine how experiencing misrecognition as a candidate affects how people subsequently evaluate others within such systems. Building on theories of evaluations, role fulfillment, and equity, we argue that being underrecognized or overrecognized as candidates will affect how individuals later evaluate others. Across three studies—a natural field experiment with investment professionals, and two preregistered, multistage experiments, we find that underrecognized evaluators are less likely to grant rewards—even to the highest performing candidates—than similarly performing but correctly recognized evaluators. In contrast, overrecognized evaluators are more likely to grant recognition—even to the lowest performing candidates—than similarly performing but correctly recognized evaluators. Importantly, we provide evidence that underrecognized evaluator behavior is explained by perceptions that their experience was unfair while overrecognized evaluator behavior is shaped by role fulfillment concerns. Thus, in evaluation processes where people oscillate between the evaluated and the evaluator, we show how and why seemingly innocuous initial inefficiencies are reproduced.
