Many researchers have discussed the theoretical and practical importance of rating purpose. Nevertheless, the body of empirical studies, the majority of which were conducted in a laboratory setting, focus on leniency. There has been little research on other effects of rating purpose. The present study examines 223 ratees in a field setting for whom there were both administrative‐based performance appraisal ratings (which were actually used for personnel decisions) and research‐based performance appraisal ratings (obtained for a validation study). Two of the hypotheses were supported; administrative ratings were more lenient than research‐based ratings. The administrative‐based ratings demonstrated a statistically significant relationship with ratee seniority, while the research‐based ratings did not. There was mixed support for a third hypothesis: Research ratings were significantly correlated with a predictor, while the administrative ratings were not. The difference between the validity coefficients, however, was not significant. Contrary to the hypothesis, the rank order between administrative‐based and research‐based ratings was relatively