Undergraduate subjects possessing normative or idiosyncratic rating standards were given frame-of-reference training, rater-error training, training that controlled for structural similarities between frame-of-reference training and rater-error training, or null control training. Hypothesized pretest differences that normative raters are more accurate than idiosyncratic raters were not found. However, when data were collapsed across rating aptitude, different trainings were found to improve different measures of accuracy. Frame-of-reference trainees were most accurate on stereotype accuracy and differential accuracy, rater-error trainees were most accurate on elevation, and all groups improved on differential elevation. Results are discussed in relation to the role of rater aptitude in frame-of-reference training and the future of rater-training programs.