Acceso usuarios
Sara L. Sohr Preston, Stefanie S. Boswell, Kayla McCaleb, Deanna Robertson
A sample of 230 undergraduate psychology students rated their expectations of a bogus professor (who was randomly designated a man or woman and “hot” versus “not hot”) based on ratings and comments found on RateMyProfessors.com. Five professor qualities were derived using principal components analysis: dedication, attractiveness, enhancement, fairness, and clarity. Participants rated current actual psychology professors on the same qualities. Current professors were divided based on gender (man or woman), age (under 35 or 35 and older), and attractiveness (at or below the median or above the median). Using a multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA), students expected hot professors to be more attractive but lower in clarity. They rated current professors who were male and 35 or older as lowest in clarity. Current professors scored significantly lower in dedication, enhancement, fairness, and clarity when rated at or below the median on attractiveness. Results, along with previous research, suggest numerous factors (largely out of professors’ control) influencing how students interpret and create professor ratings. Caution is therefore warranted in using online ratings to inform a variety of decisions, including students’ course selection or even administrators’ hiring and promotion decision making.
