The Effect of Giving Informal Performance Feedback on Subsequent Formal Memory-Based Performance Evaluations1

Two experiments tested the hypothesis that raters' formal memory-based performance evaluations can be significantly influenced by their having previously given the ratee informal performance feedback. In Experiment 1 subjects either did or did not give informal feedback to another person who performed either well or poorly on an interviewing task. In Experiment 2 subjects role played giving informal feedback about behavior relevant to only one of the two performance dimensions subsequently evaluated. In both experiments subjects later ratcd the interpersonal and task performance of the feedback recipient. The results of both studies support the hypothesis for ratings of interpersonal performance. Giving informal feedback to a ratee exhibiting good interpersonal performance led to more positive interpersonal performance ratings, whereas giving informal feedback to a ratee exhibiting poor interpersonal performance led to more negative interpersonal performance ratings. Task performance ratings, on the other hand, were not affected. Conditions likely to have mitigated the impact of giving informal feedback on the task performance ratings are discussed, as are the implications of the results for practical strategies to improve the quality of formal memory-based performance evaluations.     

The Impact of an Assigned Performance Goal on Feedback Seeking Behavior

This study was designed to test the impact of an assigned performance goal on feedback seeking behavior. Subjects brainstormed uses for two common objects. During the first brainstorming trial, all subjects performed without an explicit performance goal. For the second trial, half of the participants were assigned a goal. Feedback seeking behavior was defined as an intermedi- ate count of production taken by a subject as he or she worked on the task. Results showed that (a) subjects in the assigned goal condition were more likely to seek feedback about their performance than subjects who worked without a goal; and (b) among subjects in the goal condition, those who sought feedback were more likely to meet their goal than subjects who did not. These results support Ashford and Cummings's (1983) view that feed- back is sought because it is a resource that can be used to meet goals.     

Downward Social Comparison in the Minimal Intergroup Situation: A Test of a Self-Enhancement Interpretation1

We tested some implications of Wills' (1981) downward comparison interpretation of ingroup bias in the minimal intergroup paradigm. Based on a self-enhancement interpretation of ingroup bias, we predicted that subjects who expected to succeed on a task for dispositional reasons and subsequently failed would be most threatened by the feedback and hence, would engage in downward social comparison strategies. The results did not support the self-enhancement interpretation, but a number of interesting findings emerged. First, downward social comparison involving favorable comparisons of the ingroup relative to the outgroup was pervasive and not mediated by self-esteem. Second, ingroup bias was greatest when individuals' outcomes were consistent with their expectations; ingroup bias was mitigated when subjects received feedback that was inconsistent with their expectations. Third, although low self-esteem subjects rated members of the outgroup more negatively than did high self-esteem subjects, high self-esteem subjects engaged in more downward social comparison by enhancing the self relative to both members of the outgroup and their own ingroup. Finally, self-enhancement strategies were affected by performance expectations, attributions, and chronic self-esteem: People who expected to perform well because of stable, dispositional reasons and who were high in self-esteem showed the greatest tendency to engage in self-enhancing comparisons with others. This was true regardless of whether subjects ultimately succeeded or failed on the important task and regardless of whether the comparison others were members of the outgroup or the ingroup.     

Self-esteem and the effects of success and failure feedback n performance

High and low self-esteem subjects received success or failure feedback regarding their performance on a task described as measuring their sensitivity to other people. Presumably as part of another study, changes in their self-perceptions regarding sensitivity to others were assessed, as well as changes in their performance on a different task Changes in self-perception were greater when the feedback was consistent with subjects' overall level of self-evaluation Task performance following failure was poorer than that following success HSE subjects performed better following success feedback, and LSE subjects performed more poorly following failure There were no significant performance changes for the HSE-failure and LSE-success subjects. The degree of change in self-perception of sensitivity to others was highly correlated with the magnitude of performance changes     

Learned helplessness and the detection of contingency: A direct test

Two studies tested a basic hypothesis of the learned helplessness model: That performance deficits associated with exposure to uncontrollable outcomes are directly mediated by an individual's perception of response-outcome independence. In the first experiment 48 subjects were exposed to noise bursts. For one experimental group, the termination of the noise was response-contingent. For five other groups, noise-burst termination was independent of subjects' responses. These five groups varied in the number of trials on which they received positive feedback: As predicted, subjects overestimated the amount of control they had over noise termination as a positive linear function of the amount of noncontingent positive feedback they received. Although subjects exposed to either noncontingent positive or negative feedback showed subsequent performance deficits on an anagrams task, the expected relation between perceived control and subsequent performance failed to emerge. These findings were replicated in a second experiment. In addition, subjects' locus, stability, and globality attributions failed to predict subsequent performance. These results call into question the central premises of helplessness theory: That perceived uncontrollability and causal attributions mediate learned helplessness.     

The Influence of a Manager's Own Performance Appraisal on the Evaluation of Others

This study examined the possibility that the performance appraisal process is affected by a pervasive and inherent effect that has heretofore been unidentified. This effect derives from the results of the performance appraisal most recently performed on the manager who subsequently conducts appraisals of others. The nature of this effect was examined in four studies. In a case study, the ratings received by two area coordinators in a university academic department affected their subsequent ratings of faculty. In a simulation, 30 managers received hypothetical feedback regarding their own job performance. The managers subsequently evaluated an employee on videotape. Managers who received positive feedback about their performance subsequently rated the employee significantly higher than managers who received negative feedback regarding their own performance. This occurred despite the fact that the managers knew the evaluation of them was bogus. The results of two follow‐up field studies involving 74 manager–employee dyads in a manufacturing company in Canada and 39 manager–subordinate dyads in a retail organization in Turkey are consistent with the view that one's own performance appraisal is related to the subsequent appraisal of one's subordinates. Both anchoring with insufficient adjustment and a mood induction may explain this effect, but the results are more consistent with the former explanation than the latter.     

The role of social perspective in perceiving the causes of success and failure1

An experiment was conducted to test the hypothesis that observers' causal attributions about an actor's performance at a task would be affected by their social perspective in observing the situation. Observer subjects were either assigned to serve in a role comparable to that of observer-subjects in most actor-observer experiments or were assigned a distinctive role more divergent from the social perspective of the actor. As expected, observers with a similar social perspective to that of the actor made more flattering attributions about the actor's performance than observers with a dissimilar social perspective. We concluded that actor-observer differences in attribution for an actor's performance in any one experiment cannot be taken as definitive evidence either for or against the defensive attribution idea.     

Self-evaluation maintenance and the perception of friends and strangers

A self-evaluation maintenance (SEM) model was used to make predictions about the positivity of perception of the performance of friends and strangers. The model predicts that when the target of perception is close (i.e., a friend) the target's performance should be perceived more positively on dimensions of low personal relevance (to the perceiver) and less positively on dimensions of high personal relevance. If the target is psychologically distant (i.e., a stranger), this tendency should be attenuated. Thirty-four female subjects were given positive and negative feedback on a social sensitivity and an esthetic judgment task. One task had greater relevance for some subjects and the other task had greater relevance for the remaining subjects. Subjects rated their perception of a friend's and a stranger's performance on these tasks. The patterning of positivity in perception conformed to the pattern predicted by the SEM model. Subjects' awareness of their behavior as well as individual differences in self-esteem and repression-sensitization were also examined and discussed.     

Effects of role model deservingness on overcoming performance deficits induced by stereotype threat

Previous research has shown that exposure to successful role models can restore performance that had been impaired by stereotype threat, and that some role models are more effective than others. The present research examined the effects of role model deservingness on women's mathematics test performance after being placed under stereotype threat. In Experiment 1, a woman who attained success by herself (deserved) proved a more effective role model than an equally likable and successful woman whose success was handed to her (not deserved). In Experiment 2, women role models proved more effective at combating stereotype threat when their successes were attributable to internal‐stable (deserved) than external‐unstable (not deserved) causes, an effect that was partially mediated by reduction in extra‐task thinking. The results are seen as having implications for theories of stereotype threat and causal attribution. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Reactions to Interpersonal Evaluative Feedback1

Self-enhancement approaches to self-concept provide a perspective for identifying motivational factors likely to be affected by interpersonal evaluative feedback. The main hypothesies were that in contrast to positive feedback, negative feedback would lead to higher self-esteem, lower perceptions of task importance, and lower perceptions of control over an evaluator's reactions. Students received a lesson on solving analogies from a teacher (confederate), and then took a test on analogies. After reviewing the student's test, the teacher conveyed either positive feedback, negative feedback, or no feedback. Consistent with a self-enhancement perspective, recipients of negative feedback increased their global self-esteem, placed less importance on succeeding at the task, and felt less control over the teachers' reactions. Implications for understanding the role of interpersonal evaluative feedback in motivation and self-esteem, and self-enhancing responses to threats more generally are discussed.     

Self-assessment and task performance

The present study tested the idea that the amount of effort expended in task performance is a function of the amount of uncertainty in one's ability level the resulting outcomes are expected to reduce. Two determinants of expected uncertainty reduction were manipulated: prior uncertainty about one's ability level and the diagnosticity of the task. Subjects first performed an initial task and then received fictitious feedback to manipulate their prior uncertainty. To induce low uncertainty, the feedback implied that the subjects are highly likely to have either low, intermediate, or a high level of ability. To induce high uncertainty, the feedback implied that the various ability levels were equally probable. Subjects then performed a task whose perceived diagnosticity regarding the ability under consideration was varied. As expected, subjects who were highly uncertain about their ability level performed better than subjects who were relatively certain they possessed either low, intermediate, or a high level of ability. Performance also improved with task diagnosticity, and the effect of task diagnosticity on performance was more pronounced when prior uncertainty was high than when it was low. Past research on the relationship between prior feedback and subsequent performance was discussed in light of the present results and a self-assessment model of achievement behavior.     

On bad mood and white bears: The effects of mood state on ability to suppress unwanted thoughts

Does temporary mood influence people's ability to engage in effective thought suppression? Based on past research on mental control and recent work on affective influences on social cognition, this experiment predicted and found that negative mood improved and positive mood impaired people's ability to suppress their thoughts when instructed not to think of a neutral concept, white bears. We also found clear evidence for ironic rebound effects: on a subsequent generative task, intrusions of the suppressed thought were greater in the negative than in the positive mood group. Participants received positive or negative feedback about performance on a supposed creativity task to induce positive or negative moods, and then engaged in two consecutive generative writing tasks, the first accompanied by instructions to suppress thoughts of white bears. Those in a negative group reported fewer “white bear” intrusions when attempting to suppress, but more “white bear” intrusions (an ironic rebound effect) in the subsequent task when the suppression instruction was lifted. The implications of these results for everyday tasks of mental control, and for recent affect–cognition theories are discussed.     

Predicting and accepting personality test scores

Three studies are reported concerned with people's perception of their own personality, their acceptance of bogus ‘personality’ feedback, and the relationship between their ‘actual’ personality scores and their willingness to accept bogus feedback. In the first study subjects attempted to predict their own and a well-known other person's personality scores. They were fairly good at predicting some of their own scores (extraversion, neuroticism) but less so others, suggesting that people can recognize their own ‘correct’ personality feedback. In the second study subjects were given either positive (Barnum Statements) or negative (reverse Barnum Statements) ‘bogus’ feedback after a personality test. They tended to accept the positive feedback as more accurate than the negative feedback though this was not related to their actual scores. In the third study subjects were given four types of feedback statements after a personality test: general positive, general negative, specific positive and specific negative. As predicted, people tend to accept general rather than specific, and positive rather than negative feedback as true. Furthermore, acceptance was closely related to neuroticism and extraversion in a predicted direction. These results are discussed in terms of the uses and abuses of validation of personality feedback.     

Learning With Real Machines or Diagrams: Application of Knowledge to Real-World Problems

In this study, we investigated how learning from different media, either from real pulley systems or from simple line diagrams, affected mechanical learning and problem solving. Novice subjects learned about pulley systems by comparing the efficiency of different systems and receiving feedback on their accuracy. The main outcome measures were subjects' ability to compare pulley system efficiency, their level of mechanical reasoning, and their ability to apply knowledge of system efficiency and construction details. Experiment 1 showed that (a) subjects learning with the two types of media made equal improvement on the learning task, and (b) all subjects showed an increase in quantitative understanding as they learned, but (c) subjects who learned hands-on, by manipulating real pulley systems, solved application problems more accurately than those who learned from diagrams. Experiment 2 showed that both the realism of the stimuli and the opportunity to manipulate systems contributed to the improved performance on application problems.     

Social context and perceived task difficulty as mediators of depressive self-evaluation

This study examined two separate, but potentially interactive, influences on depressive self-evaluation: social context and perceptions of task difficulty. First, it was hypothesized that, if negative self-evaluations of depressed individuals are motivated by a desire to elicit attention and sympathy from others, depressed subjects should evaluate themselves more negatively than nondepressed subjects in a public setting, but not when they make self-evaluative judgments in private. Second, it was hypothesized that negative self-evaluation results from a bias to perceive tasks as being intrinsically easy, i.e., if a task is easy, a given score would be evaluated more poorly than if the task were difficult. It was found that the self-evaluations of depressed subjects were influenced by the social context, but not always in a negative direction. Depressed subjects did not differ from nondepressed subjects when performance evaluations were made in private. In a public condition, depressed subjects evaluated themselves more negatively than nondepressed subjects following an easy task, but evaluated themselves more positively following a difficult task. Depressed subjects did not evidence a bias to perceive tasks as being intrinsically easy. Depressed subjects did rate the tasks to be more difficult for themselves than they thought they would be for others and this expectancy was predictive of negative self-evaluation. These results were discussed in terms of alternative self-presentation motives and theories of social cognition. Self-evaluation often involves social comparison and researchers need to attend to the potentially complex interactions among social and cognitive processes.I would like to thank Deborah Davis and Paul Westerholm for their help in data collection, Ruth Maki for her statistical expertise, and the anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful comments. Portions of this paper were presented at the Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, New Orleans, 1989.     

The relationship of time investment and task outcome to causal attributions and self-esteem1

This study examined the relationship between performance outcome, time spent working at a task, and attributions to ability versus effort. It also explored differences in performance time as a function of self-esteem and task-performance expectancies. Subjects worked on a series of concept-attainment items and then were given either success or failure feedback regarding their performance and also information that they had worked either faster or slower than other subjects. They then evaluated their performance and that of a fictitious subject who had also purportedly done the task. Subjects attributed their own and other subjects' successes more to ability if they spent less time at the task and failure outcomes more to ability if they had spent more time at the task. Attributions to success and failure outcomes differed as a function of the interactive effect of self-esteem and task-specific expectancies. Low self-esteem subjects tended to attribute expected outcomes more to ability and unexpected outcomes more to effort, whereas high self-esteem subjects attributed successes more to ability and failure more to effort. Practice time and criteria for satisfaction were also a joint function of self-esteem and task-performance expectancy. The results suggest that task-performance expectancies must be considered when evaluating the role of self-esteem in determining people's responses in performance situations.     

Social-comparative feedback affects motor skill learning

This study examined motivational effects of feedback on motor learning. Specifically, we investigated the influence of social-comparative feedback on the learning of a balance task (stabilometer). In addition to veridical feedback (error scores reflecting deviation from the target horizontal platform position) about their own performance after each trial, two groups received false normative information about the “average” score of others on that trial. Average performance scores indicated that the participant's performance was either above (better group) or below (worse group) the average, respectively. A control group received veridical feedback about trial performance without normative feedback. Learning as a function of social-comparative feedback was determined in a retention test without feedback, performed on a third day following two days of practice. Normative feedback affected the learning of the balance task: The better group demonstrated more effective balance performance than both the worse and control groups on the retention test. Furthermore, high-frequency/low-amplitude balance adjustments, indicative of more automatic control of movement, were greater in the better than in the worse group. The control group exhibited more limited learning and less automaticity than both the better and the worse groups. The findings indicate that positive normative feedback had a facilitatory effect on motor learning.     

Feedback and fidelity: Effects of contingent consequences on accuracy of imitation

Accuracy of imitation by sixty kindergarten subjects was examined using a task in which a female adult modeled a series of pegboard patterns and delivered accuracy-contingent feedback. Four methods of feedback and a nofeedback control were compared. All four feedback groups were more accurate than the control group. The feedback conditions were: positive only, negative only, positive and negative, and negative with correction. The last condition resulted in greater accuracy than the others, which did not differ. All groups, including the control, improved significantly over trials. Accuracy of performance on interspersed, nonfeedback trials was maintained by feedback to the other patterns. Finally, imitation of repeating stimulus patterns did not differ from performance with nonrepeating patterns.