The Roles of Praise and Social Comparison Information in the Experience of Pride

Abstract

The authors examined the roles of social comparisons, publicity of success, and praise on the experience of pride in an experiment in which college students successfully completed a timed intelligence task in private and later received 1 of 4 types of feedback from the experimenter: no feedback (private), mere public acknowledgment of completion, general praise containing both a public and an evaluative component, or praise containing explicit comparison information. Half of the participants also received written normative information suggesting they performed at a high level. Participants then completed a number of dependent measures, including a key measure of pride. Overall, results suggest that the public aspect of a performance, together with the superior standing suggested by any praise accompanying this publicity, is important in the experience of pride.     

The Public and Private Use of Consensus-Raising Excuses

ABSTRACT Two experiments tested the proposition that people use consensus-raising excuses more in private than in public when the audience has information that could refute subjects' claims about others In Experiment 1, subjects received success or failure feedback and made public or private attributions to ability, effort, task difficulty, and luck In Experiment 2, subjects received positive or negative feedback and evaluated themselves and others on the trait Task difficulty attributions and evaluations of others are consensus-raising measures Consistent with our hypothesis, subjects receiving negative feedback in Experiment 1 claimed that the task was more difficult, and in Experiment 2 evaluated the other more negatively in private than in public.     

Reactions to success and failure in public and in private conditions

It was shown that the reaction to success and failure differs when it is communicated publicly or privately and when the reaction to success and failure is measured publicly or privately. Participants took an intelligence test and received fictitious results which were positively or negatively discrepant from the average. The dependent variable was the evaluation of the intelligence test. It was found that when the subject's evaluation of the test was private, the test was evaluated more positively under public than under private success. However, it was evaluated more negatively under public than under private failure. Under public success feedback the test was evaluated more positively under private than under public evaluation, whereas under public failure feedback the effect was reversed. The results are interpreted in terms of a self-presentation model and were discussed in the context of earlier research within the field of interpersonal relations.     

Two types of feedback in teaching swimming skills to handicapped children.

Two types of feedback (non-task-specific praise and task-specific praise plus corrections) were used in a counterbalanced design to teach two swimming skills to each of four handicapped children. The children were grouped into pairs, and each member of a pair received the alternate type of feedback for the same skill. In every case, faster and more complete acquisition was found to result from task-specific praise plus corrections.     

Is no praise good praise? Effects of positive feedback on children's and university students’ responses to subsequent failures

Background. According to Dweck and colleagues, praise can be delivered using person (‘you are clever') or process terms (‘you worked hard'). Research suggests that giving people process praise after success can help them deal better with subsequent failures because it attributes outcomes to effort rather than fixed ability. However, research has thus far inadequately addressed how these types of praise compare to receiving no evaluative feedback. Aim. The aim of the present research was to examine the effects of person and process praise compared to a control group where only objective outcome feedback was given. Samples. In Study 1, 145 British school children aged 9–11 years took part. In Study 2, participants were 114 British university students. Method. In both studies, participants read three scenarios and were asked to imagine themselves as the main character. In each scenario, they succeeded in an educational task and received either person, process, or no praise. Participants then read two scenarios, where they failed at a task. Following each scenario participants evaluated their performance, affect, and persistence. Results. After one failure, participants who received person praise reacted most negatively on all dependent measures. However, those in the process condition did not differ significantly from those in the control group. Conclusions. These findings suggest that process feedback may not be inherently positive; instead person feedback seems particularly detrimental.     

The Effects of Social-Comparison Versus Mastery Praise on Children’s Intrinsic Motivation

Two studies examined the effects of social-comparison versus mastery praise on 4th- and 5th-grade children’s intrinsic motivation. Children received a high score and either social-comparison praise, mastery praise, or no praise for working on a set of novel puzzles. They then worked on a different task and were given either ambiguous feedback (Study 1) or positive feedback (Study 2) before completing measures of intrinsic motivation. Mastery praise enhanced intrinsic motivation and social-comparison praise curtailed it when uncertainty about children’s subsequent performance was introduced (Study 1) and, for girls, even in situations of continued success (Study 2). Social-comparison praise also tended to discourage children from seeking subsequent self-evaluative normative information. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

THE EFFECT OF FEEDBACK ON THE ACCURACY OF CHECKLIST COMPLETION DURING INSTRUMENT FLIGHT TRAINING

This study examined whether pilots completed airplane checklists more accurately when they receive postflight graphic and verbal feedback. Participants were 8 college students who are pilots with an instrument rating. The task consisted of flying a designated flight pattern using a personal computer aviation training device (PCATD). The dependent variables were the number of checklist items completed correctly. A multiple baseline design across pairs of participants with withdrawal of treatment was employed in this study. During baseline, participants were given postflight technical feedback. During intervention, participants were given postflight graphic feedback on checklist use and praise for improvements along with technical feedback. The intervention produced near perfect checklist performance, which was maintained following a return to the baseline conditions.     

An analysis of a performance feedback system: the effects of timing and feedback, public posting, and praise upon academic performance and peer interaction

In the first experiment, after establishing baseline composition rates in each classroom, timing (announcing time limits) and feedback (student self-scoring) were introduced followed by the introduction, removal, and reintroduction of public posting of highest scores. Timing and feedback improved story writing performance and public posting of highest scores improved performance even further in both classrooms. Teacher praise produced further improvement in one classroom but had no effect on performance in the other. Changes in on-task behavior paralleled changes in writing rate. Comments made by children concerning their own work or work of their peers were recorded throughout the experiment. Although the baseline rate of performance comments was almost zero, the introduction of each variable markedly increased the rate of performance comments. In the second experiment, baseline rates on reading and language exercises were established in a fifth-grade classroom. The entire performance feedback system was introduced on a multiple baseline across the two behaviors and then removed during the final phase of the experiment. Introducing the system improved performance on both tasks. These results further increased the generality of some of the findings of the previous experiment and of previous research on the efficacy of the experimental package of timing, feedback, public posting, and praise.     

A feedback intervention to increase digital and paper checklist performance in technically advanced aircraft simulation

This study examined whether pilots operating a flight simulator completed digital or paper flight checklists more accurately after receiving postflight graphic and verbal feedback. The dependent variable was the number of checklist items completed correctly per flight. Following treatment, checklist completion with paper and digital checklists increased from 38% and 39%, respectively, to nearly 100% and remained close to 100% after feedback and praise for improvement were withdrawn. Performance was maintained at or near 100% during follow-up probes.     

Reappraising the situation and its impact on aggressive behavior

Much work has focused on how reappraisal is related to emotions, but not behaviors. Two experiments advanced aggression theory by (a) testing how cognitive and attributional forms of reappraisal are related to aggressive affect and behavior, (b) testing variables that theoretically mediate the relation between attributional reappraisal and aggressive behavior, (c) testing the moderating influences of cognitive and attributional reappraisal on aggressive behavior, and (d) developing and testing an intervention aimed at reducing vengeance through reappraisal training. Study 1 used an essay writing task in a 3 (feedback: provocation, no feedback, praise) × 2 (mitigating information: present, absent) experimental design. Provoked participants who did not receive mitigating information were significantly more aggressive than provoked participants who received mitigating information. State vengeance was a significant mediator. Study 2 examined an experimental intervention on vengeance over a 16-week semester. Intervention participants who had the largest increase in reappraisal displayed the greatest decrease in vengeance. Overall, these findings suggest that reappraisal reduces vengeance and aggressive behavior.     

The Cognitive Costs of the Counter-Stereotypic: Gender,Emotion, and Social Presence

We explored the concurrent and subsequent cognitive consequences of the experience of gender counter-stereotypic emotions. Participants experiencing gender counter-stereotypic emotions were expected to display less emotional expression and demonstrate poorer cognitive performance when in the public condition than when in the private condition. Seventy-one women and 66 men completed an anger- or sadness-inducing task privately or publicly. Participants completed two cognitive tasks: one during and one after the emotion-induction task. Participants exhibited poorer performance during and following gender counter-stereotypic emotions only in the public condition. Direct evidence for greater suppression of gender counter-stereotypic emotions in the public conditions was not obtained. These results suggest that the same public emotional events may be differentially cognitively depleting depending on one’s gender, potentially contributing to the perpetuation of stereotypes.     

Increasing Teachers' Use of a 1:1 Praise‐to‐Behavior Correction Ratio to Decrease Student Disruption in General Education Classrooms

Contingent, behavior‐specific praise is universally recommended as an effective tool to increase students’ academic achievement and proscocial behavior. Despite this recommendation, little research has examined the effects of training teachers to increase their praise‐to‐behavior correction ratio in classroom settings. This study evaluated the effects of training teachers to provide a 1:1 ratio of praise‐to‐behavior correction to decrease student disruption in three general‐education classrooms. Three urban middle‐school general‐teachers who exhibited very low rates of praise participated in the study. Teachers received training, including modeling and performance feedback, to achieve a 1:1 ratio of praise‐to‐behavior correction administered within a multiple‐baseline across participants design. Results demonstrated that (a) the teachers were able to achieve and maintain a 1:1 praise‐to‐behavior correction ratio; (b) a reduction in student disruption coincided with teachers’ use of a 1:1 praise‐to‐behavior correction ration; and (c) two teachers evidenced moderate levels of generalization to classrooms where no training took place. Implications for practitioners and future research are discussed. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Evaluating the quality of training delivered by direct-care staff in a state mental retardation center

This study evaluated a center-wide training system in a state-operated mental retardation center. Staff performance was assessed under varying conditions with collateral measures collected on resident behavior. The quality of training delivered by direct-care staff was measured following the completion of an inservice training program and when individual feedback and praise were available or a group contingency where feedback, praise, and money were available. Inservice training was not found to be sufficient to maintain staff training skills. Providing feedback and praise had mixed results in maintaining staff behavior. A group contingency using feedback, praise, and money was found to be immediately effective in improving and maintaining staff behavior. Collateral measures on student behavior were also provided that indicated that consistent, quality training by staff resulted in increased student skill acquisition. These results are discussed within the framework of conducting research in applied settings.     

Effort as Person-Focused Praise: “Hard Worker” Has Negative Effects for Adults After a Failure

Although work with children demonstrates a benefit of process-focused praise relative to person-focused praise on post-failure motivation, few studies have examined this result in adults. We tested the effect of three types of praise on adults' post-failure outcomes: person-focused intelligence (“high intelligence”), person-focused effort (“hard worker”), and process-focused effort (“worked hard”) in a sample of 156 adults recruited from Amazon's MTurk. Participants completed a set of easy visual pattern recognition problems and were told that they performed better than most adults and were given one of the three types of feedback. They then completed more difficult problems and were told that they had not performed well. Participants in the “hard worker” condition (compared to “worked hard”) were more likely to endorse intelligence as a reason for failure. They also reported lower perceived success and less enjoyment than participants in other conditions. Participants in the “high intelligence” condition were more likely to attribute their failure to intelligence than participants in the “worked hard” condition. The results suggest that the benefit of process-focused praise typically found in children (worked hard compared to intelligent) was mostly not replicated in adults, and person-focused effort praise was detrimental in a non-college student adult sample.     

Task clarification, performance feedback, and social praise: Procedures for improving the customer service of bank tellers

Customer service for bank tellers was defined in terms of 11 verbal behavior categories. An audio-recording system was used to track the occurrence of behaviors in these categories for six retail banking tellers. Three behavior management interventions (task clarification, performance feedback, and social praise), applied in sequence, were designed to improve overall teller performance with regard to the behavioral categories targeted. Clarification was accomplished by providing clear delineation of the various target categories, with specific examples of the behaviors in each. Feedback entailed presentation of ongoing verbal and visual information regarding teller performance. Praise consisted of verbal recognition of teller performance by branch managers. Results showed that clarification effects emerged quickly, producing an overall increase in desired behaviors of 12% over baseline. Feedback and praise effects occurred more gradually, resulting in overall increases of 6% and 7%, respectively. A suspension of all procedures led to a decline in overall performance, whereas reinstatement of feedback and praise was again accompanied by performance improvement. These findings extend the generality of behavior management applications and help to distinguish between possible antecedent and consequent effects of performance feedback.     

Information seeking of high- and low-anxiety subjects after receiving positive and negative self-relevant feedback

The present paper reports an experiment in which subjects received fictitious intelligence test feedback that was either negatively or positively discrepant with their self-evaluation. They were then given an opportunity to choose among several articles containing information that either derogated intelligence tests (test-disparaging information) or argued for their validity (test-supporting information). The main finding of this study consists of an interaction between the personality factor anxiety and the feedback variable: High-anxiety subjects prefer test-disparaging information significantly more in the negative feedback condition than in the positive feedback condition, whereas low-anxiety subjects show no difference in preference for test-related information as a function of the feedback condition. These results are in line with past theoretical reasoning and experimental findings showing that high-anxiety subjects feel more threatened by negative self-relevant feedback than do low-anxiety subjects.     

Person versus process praise and criticism: implications for contingent self-worth and coping.

Conventional wisdom suggests that praising a child as a whole or praising his or her traits is beneficial. Two studies tested the hypothesis that both criticism and praise that conveyed person or trait judgments could send a message of contingent worth and undermine subsequent coping. In Study 1, 67 children (ages 5-6 years) role-played tasks involving a setback and received 1 of 3 forms of criticism after each task: person, outcome, or process criticism. In Study 2, 64 children role-played successful tasks and received either person, outcome, or process praise. In both studies, self-assessments, affect, and persistence were measured on a subsequent task involving a setback. Results indicated that children displayed significantly more "helpless" responses (including self-blame) on all dependent measures after person criticism or praise than after process criticism or praise. Thus person feedback, even when positive, can create vulnerability and a sense of contingent self-worth.     

Loud versus quiet praise: A direct behavioral comparison in secondary classrooms

The purpose of the present study was to compare the effects of teacher public (i.e., loud) and private (i.e., quiet) praise on students' appropriately engaged behavior (AEB) and disruptive behaviors (DB). Employing a combined multiple-baseline withdrawal design, the effects of loud and quiet praise were assessed across two pairs of secondary classrooms. Each classroom's mean percentage of observed intervals of AEB and DB across loud and quiet praise intervention phases was assessed and compared. Overall, visual analysis of the data, multilevel modeling, and effect sizes showed that both loud and quiet praises were more effective than no treatment at increasing AEB and decreasing DB. In addition, there were no statistical or clinically significant differences between the loud and quiet praise interventions. The results are discussed in light of appropriate practices and controversies in the literature.