Multirater feedback, also referred to as multisource feedback or 360 degree feedback, has evolved into the performance appraisal system. The process of providing individuals with feedback from several sources, including coworkers, subordinates, clients, and supervisors, has emerged as a popular technique because it has the potential to provide a more complete picture of performance. Traditionally, the immediate supervisor was judged to be in the best position to evaluate an employee; however, using multiple rating sources leads to increased reliability, fairness and observational power as raters with differing perspectives and roles evaluate the employee (Harris & Scharbroeck, 1988; Latham 1989; Borman, 1997). Despite considerable research that has focused on the validity and accuracy of multirater feedback ratings compared to supervisory ratings, what remains ambiguous is a complete understanding of factors that may influence ratings provided by individuals who are not in roles traditionally known to evaluate employees, such as supervisors. Although multirater feedback holds promise as a means of evaluation that is less biased, more reliable, and more valid than the traditional supervisory appraisal method, no studies have focused specifically on the nonperformance factors that may influence the accuracy of peer ratings. Therefore, examining factors that have the potential to influence ratings provided by peers warrants attention. This study examined numerous nonperformance variables anticipated to affect peer responses to multirater feedback instruments. These findings may improve the interpretation and understanding of peer feedback in multirater feedback assessments.