Share a time when you received feedback from a supervisor. Describe the method that your supervisor used to give you feedback and share with your peers how the experience made you

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is c

op yr

ig ht

ed b

y th

e A

m er

ic an

P sy

ch ol

og ic

al A

ss oc

ia tio

n or

o ne

o f

its a

lli ed

p ub

lis he

rs .

T hi

s ar

tic le

i s

in te

nd ed

s ol

el y

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

u se

o f

th e

in di

vi du

al u

se r

an d

is n

ot t

o be

d is

se m

in at

ed b

ro ad

ly .

Behavior Analysis: Research and Practice © 2017 American Psychological Association 2017, Vol. 17, No. 4, 357–380 2372-9414/17/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/bar0000084

The Influence of Feedback Statement Sequence and Goals on Task Performance

Julie M. Slowiak and Areanna M. Lakowske University of Minnesota Duluth

The purpose of the present study was to examine the use of combined positive and corrective feedback statements to improve performance in the presence of a perfor- mance goal. A within-subjects design was used to expose participants to 4 feedback statement sequences: (a) no feedback; (b) PCP (positive, corrective, positive); (c) CPP (corrective, positive, positive); and (d) PPC (positive, positive, corrective). Providing participants with a combination of positive and corrective feedback statements, regard- less of sequence, was hypothesized to lead to higher task performance than not providing feedback. Ad hoc analyses were conducted to examine the most preferred feedback statement sequence and type of feedback (positive or corrective), as well as the influence that core self-evaluation, job satisfaction, goal commitment, and stress on performance. Results revealed that task performance was higher when feedback, in general, was provided; a statistically significant difference in task performance did not exist across the 3 feedback statement sequences. Despite the lack of differential effects on performance, 47% of participants identified the session during which they received the CPP feedback statement sequence as their most preferred. Further, 53% of partic- ipants self-reported they preferred positive feedback, while 25% preferred corrective feedback. Individual preferences for feedback statement sequences support the need for open communication between the feedback receiver and provider to increase task performance.

Keywords: feedback sequence, goals, feedback preference, task performance

Many factors influence task performance and an individual’s persistence to work toward per- formance-based goals. Although substantial re- search supports the use of providing individuals with feedback that is tied to one’s progress toward goal attainment (e.g., Balcazar, Hop- kins, & Suarez, 1985; Locke & Latham, 2013), research specifically evaluating characteristics

This article was published Online First April 24, 2017. Julie M. Slowiak and Areanna M. Lakowske, Department

of Psychology, University of Minnesota Duluth. This project was supported by internal funds from the

Department of Psychology at the University of Minnesota Duluth. All procedures performed in studies involving hu- man participants were in accordance with the ethical stan- dards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amend- ments or comparable ethical standards.

Correspondence concerning this article should be ad- dressed to Julie M. Slowiak, Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota Duluth, 320 Bohannon Hall, 1207 Ordean Court, Duluth, MN 55812-3011. E-mail: jslowiak@ d.umn.edu

of the feedback statements, themselves, on per- formance is not widespread. Further, goal set- ting literature has predominately focused on individuals’ abilities and willingness to persist toward easy, moderate, and difficult (yet attain- able) performance goals (Jeffrey, Schulz, & Webb, 2012; Lee, Locke, & Phan, 1997; Locke, 2004; Locke & Latham, 2013; Wright, 1989). Little work has been done, however, to assess factors that attenuate the potential negative im- pact of goals that are too challenging (some- times referred to as “stretch” goals) on goal commitment and individual task performance (Ordonez, Schweitzer, Galinsky, & Bazerman, 2009). Due to the widespread use, acceptance for, and effectiveness of using feedback and goal setting simultaneously, the present study examined the use of positive and corrective feedback statement sequences as a way to im- prove performance in the presence of an in- tended challenging goal. This study contributes to the small amount of empirical literature on feedback statement sequences (Henley & Di-

357

358 SLOWIAK AND LAKOWSKE

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is c

op yr

ig ht

ed b

y th

e A

m er

ic an

P sy

ch ol

og ic

al A

ss oc

ia tio

n or

o ne

o f

its a

lli ed

p ub

lis he

rs .

T hi

s ar

tic le

i s

in te

nd ed

s ol

el y

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

u se

o f

th e

in di

vi du

al u

se r

an d

is n

ot t

o be

d is

se m

in at

ed b

ro ad

ly .

Gennaro Reed, 2015; Sundberg, 2015) through its evaluation of individually tailored feedback sequence statements that provided individuals with information related to both the quality and quantity of their performance in relation to an assigned goal. This study sought to demonstrate that providing participants with a combination of positive and corrective feedback statements, regardless of sequence, would increase task per- formance in comparison to not providing feed- back. Additionally, ad hoc analyses were used to examine the influence that core self- evaluation, job satisfaction, goal commitment, and stress may have on performance toward a goal when individuals are provided with various feedback statement sequences.

Performance Feedback

This study contributes to the performance feedback literature that currently describes per- formance feedback as a provision of informa- tion about previous performance that allows individuals to change or adjust their future be- havior (Daniels & Daniels, 2006). Applications of feedback to improve performance have been implemented across a variety of settings and behaviors, including to provide safety hazard feedback for department supervisors in manu- facturing production (Sulzer-Azaroff & de San- tamaria, 1980), to provide written and verbal performance feedback regarding lifting tech- niques for employees in a residential facility (Alavosius & Sulzer-Azaroff, 1986), and to in- crease safety belt frequency in pizza delivery service (Ludwig & Geller, 1991). Feedback’s widespread use is supported by its presence within the literature, having been identified as the most common independent variable cited in both the Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis (JABA) and the Journal of Organizational Be- havior Management (JOBM; Balcazar, Shupert, Daniels, Mawhinney, & Hopkins, 1989; Nolan, Jarema, & Austin, 1999; Prue & Fairbank, 1981).

Balcazar, Shupert, Daniels, Mawhinney, and Hopkins’s (1989) evaluation of the effective- ness of performance feedback revealed that per- formance feedback, by itself, was only effective in 28% of studies, but the effectiveness of per- formance feedback jumped to 53% when feed- back and goal setting were combined. Similar reviews of the feedback literature 10 years later

revealed that the number of studies including applications of feedback had increased to 71% and supported many of the primary findings of Balcazar, et al.’s (1989) review (e.g., Alvero, Bucklin, & Austin, 2001; Nolan et al., 1999). Due to continued and increasing research inter- ests concerning the effects of feedback, JOBM published a special issue titled, Performance Feedback: From Component Analysis to Appli- cation (Houmanfar, 2013).

Function of Feedback

To effectively use performance feedback, it is important to understand the function of feedback. Ilgen, Fisher, and Taylor (1979) examined the multidimensional nature of feedback and its abil- ity to influence individual behavior. Specifically, they emphasized three major aspects of feedback that influence behavior: (a) the way feedback is perceived, (b) the extent to which feedback is accepted, and (c) the willingness of the recipient to respond to the feedback. Ilgen et al. (1979) sug- gest that the recipient of the feedback must accept the information being provided in order for the intervention to be effective and improve perfor- mance. Further, Ilgen et al. (1979) contend that goal setting acts as an intermediate step between feedback and performance improvement; feed- back provides information that can be used to evaluate the current level of performance in rela- tion to goal and informs the need for change in future performance. Lastly, the authors suggested that future studies should look at how the recipient perceives negative (i.e., corrective) feedback (e.g., accuracy) and how the recipient perceives the source of the feedback (e.g., trustworthy). Follow- ing their recommendation, Ilgen and Davis (2000) investigated the receptivity of negative feedback and suggested that the most critical issue for de- livering negative feedback is the balance between having individuals accept responsibility for sub- standard performance and, at the same time, pre- venting a decrease in one’s self-concept because of receiving negative feedback. From a behavioral perspective, this may relate to the use of feedback supported by data (objective vs. subjective), a focus on behavior that is within the performer’s control, and identification and discussion of envi- ronmental and social factors outside the perform- er’s control that may influence performance. Al- though Ilgen and Davis (2000) emphasize the importance of turning negative feedback into a

359 FEEDBACK STATEMENT SEQUENCE AND GOALS

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is c

op yr

ig ht

ed b

y th

e A

m er

ic an

P sy

ch ol

og ic

al A

ss oc

ia tio

n or

o ne

o f

its a

lli ed

p ub

lis he

rs .

T hi

s ar

tic le

i s

in te

nd ed

s ol

el y

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

u se

o f

th e

in di

vi du

al u

se r

an d

is n

ot t

o be

d is

se m

in at

ed b

ro ad

ly .

learning experience, they did not examine the use of specific feedback statements.

Researchers have pointed out the similarities between feedback procedures and reinforce- ment or punishment procedures (e.g., Duncan & Bruwelheide, 1985; Peterson, 1982), which ex- plains why feedback is sometimes posited to function as a reinforcer or punisher (Mangiap- anello & Hemmes, 2015). Prue and Fairbank (1981) argued that feedback could introduce a positive reinforcement contingency into a set- ting that typically supports negative reinforce- ment contingencies. For example, when a su- pervisor scolds an employee for not meeting their monthly sales quota, a negative reinforce- ment contingency would be in effect if the em- ployee increases their production just enough to meet the sales quota and avoid being scolded by the supervisor again). As an alternative to “scolding,” a supervisor might choose to pro- vide the employee with feedback in a way that the employee will better accept (e.g., objective performance data in comparison to their goal). If this type of feedback evokes an increase in desired performance in order to achieve one’s goal, one might say that the feedback has intro- duced a positive reinforcement contingency into this setting, as the employee is no longer work- ing to avoid negative consequences (i.e., scold- ing). There is, however, some controversy over this perspective because the behavioral function of feedback is often unknown or may simulta- neously serve multiple functions (Duncan & Bruwelheide, 1985; Peterson, 1982). Despite the varying views, implications, and procedures used to implement feedback, providing individ- uals with feedback is suited for settings in which there is a desire to increase performance with a relatively low cost commitment (Daniels & Daniels, 2006; Prue & Fairbank, 1981).

Johnson (2013) demonstrated feedback rein- forcement and punishment procedures in a com- ponent analysis where the effects of objective feedback (description of the previous day’s per- formance) and evaluative feedback (statements consistent with excellent, good, average, or poor performance on the previous day) were dissociated. Although both types of feedback were associated with higher performance in comparison to a no-feedback condition, results revealed that performance was considerably higher when the two types of feedback (i.e., objective and evaluative) were combined and

provided to participants. Johnson reasoned that the evaluative feedback might have acted as an establishing or abolishing operation, influencing the effectiveness of objective feedback as either a reinforcer or punisher, respectively.

Feedback Statement Sequencing

The Feedback “Sandwich”

Few researchers have explored the impact of the combined use of positive and negative state- ments on an individual’s performance; there- fore, this study seeks to expand the literature on feedback statement sequences. The most recog- nizable form of this type of combined feedback has been referred to as the feedback “sand- wich.” While using the feedback sandwich, the feedback deliverer (e.g., teacher, manager, or trainer) provides a positive statement followed by a corrective statement followed by another positive statement. Wyatt Woodsmall devel- oped the feedback sandwich while conducting research for the United States Army on how teachers could deliver effective feedback to new recruits (James & Shephard, 2001). The sand- wich sequence has gained a great deal of sup- port across a variety of disciplines ranging from physicians providing feedback to staff in a fam- ily practice (Dohrenwend, 2002) to coaches ad- ministering feedback to their athletes during practice and competition (Hanson, n.d.).

According to Daniels (2009), however, there are few empirical studies to support this recom- mendation or that the use of the feedback sand- wich sequence improves individual perfor- mance. Daniels noted the sandwich sequence may confuse the recipient and obscure the real meaning for the performance feedback (i.e., the explanation and discussion of the corrective statement). By placing corrective feedback in the middle of two positive statements, the cor- rective feedback tends to be overshadowed by the positive points in the beginning (primacy effect) or at the end (recency effect). As such, the feedback sandwich sequence may cause in- dividuals to anticipate that a criticism will al- ways follow a positive statement. Further, Dan- iels explained that this sequence can jeopardize the worth of positive feedback when it is con- tinuously associated with corrective feedback. Over time, employees may begin to doubt their manager’s honesty regarding positive perfor-

360 SLOWIAK AND LAKOWSKE

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is c

op yr

ig ht

ed b

y th

e A

m er

ic an

P sy

ch ol

og ic

al A

ss oc

ia tio

n or

o ne

o f

its a

lli ed

p ub

lis he

rs .

T hi

s ar

tic le

i s

in te

nd ed

s ol

el y

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

u se

o f

th e

in di

vi du

al u

se r

an d

is n

ot t

o be

d is

se m

in at

ed b

ro ad

ly .

mance feedback. Lastly, if managers create statements about positive behaviors in order to provide employees with constructive criticism, individuals may leave with an overstated and inaccurate understanding of how they are actu- ally performing (Daniels, 2009).

Von Bergen, Bressler, and Campbell (2014) examined the sandwich sequence with regard to the benefits experienced by both the deliverer (individual providing the feedback) and the re- ceiver (individual receiving the feedback). Von Bergen et al. (2014) identified many reasons why managers choose to use the sandwich se- quence instead of other techniques when deliv- ering constructive criticism. Foremost, manag- ers are often taught to deal with workers’ poor performance by using the feedback sandwich because this feedback statement sequence makes the deliverer (i.e., manager) feel “better” about providing criticism; however, it is unsure whether this lesson is learned in school or a recommendation from another manager. When managers were queried about why they use the sandwich sequence, they confirmed that the ap- proach alleviated some of the pressure when delivering negative (i.e., corrective) perfor- mance feedback and that starting the conversa- tion with a positive statement relaxed them (the managers). From a behavior analytic viewpoint, then, the delivery of feedback in this manner may elicit positive feelings or evoke positive self-talk (i.e., “I’m a good manager”); thus, “feeling better” and “feeling relaxed” would be a positive reinforcer for the manager’s behavior.

According to Nelson and Quick (2013), the intent behind the sandwich sequence is to re- duce defensiveness, improve useful communi- cation, and make the information better toler- ated by the person receiving the feedback. Thus, using the feedback sandwich sequence may re- sult in avoidance of negative consequences as- sociated with the receiver’s reaction to correc- tive feedback (e.g., emotional outburst) or the escape from a negative conditioned emotional response (e.g., anxiety, pressure) in anticipation of delivering corrective feedback; in this case, the manager’s behavior would be a negatively reinforced. It is important to note, however, that when employees were asked how they preferred to receive feedback on their job performance, most employees stated they only wanted the substance (i.e., the criticism; Von Bergen et al., 2014).

Other Feedback Statement Sequences

Although research has typically focused on the traditional sandwich sequence, Davies and Jacobs (1985) evaluated four feedback state- ment sequences including positive-negative- positive (PNP), positive-positive-negative (PPN), negative-positive-negative (NPN), and negative-negative-positive (NNP). Groups of eight participants engaged in a problem-solving exercise and received an assigned feedback statement sequence in front of the group from each member. Participants rated on a scale of 1–9 which feedback statement sequence they felt was the most credible, desirable, and their emotional reaction (strong or weak) to the feed- back. Higher scores on the scale represented higher credibility and desirability, and a stron- ger emotional reaction to the feedback state- ment sequence. Results indicated no significant difference between PNP and PPN feedback rat- ings. However, PNP ratings were significantly higher than the NPN ratings for credibility and desirability, and PPN ratings were significantly higher than NNP. The authors did not find any significant difference between PPN and NPN ratings. Additionally, there were no significant differences in strength of emotion ratings across the four feedback statement sequences. Al- though Davies and Jacobs (1985) studied a va- riety of feedback statement sequences, they did not measure the impact of these sequences on an individual’s performance or in conjunction with assigned performance goals.

Performance Goals

Locke and Latham (2013) define a goal as “the object or aim of an action,” such as, to attain a specific standard of proficiency (p. 4). Similarly, Fellner and Sulzer-Azaroff (1984) describe a goal as the desired outcome of a particular behavior or set of behaviors, typically utilized in a predetermined time frame. In their review of the goal setting literature, Locke, Shaw, Saari, and Latham (1981) found strong support for the use of goals of varying levels of difficulty to influence individual behavior. In the literature, goal difficulty refers “loosely” to the probability of attaining the goal, and re- searchers generally classify goals as (a) easy; (b) moderate; (c) difficult (challenging, yet at- tainable); or (d) not specified (Lee, Locke, &

361 FEEDBACK STATEMENT SEQUENCE AND GOALS

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is c

op yr

ig ht

ed b

y th

e A

m er

ic an

P sy

ch ol

og ic

al A

ss oc

ia tio

n or

o ne

o f

its a

lli ed

p ub

lis he

rs .

T hi

s ar

tic le

i s

in te

nd ed

s ol

el y

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

u se

o f

th e

in di

vi du

al u

se r

an d

is n

ot t

o be

d is

se m

in at

ed b

ro ad

ly .

Phan, 1997). In addition to these categories, “stretch” goals are identified in the literature and distinguished from difficult goals as chal- lenging and typically unattainable goals (Jef- frey, Schulz, & Webb, 2012). In addition to being extremely difficult, stretch goals have also been described as novel (Zhang & Jia, 2013). Although goal-setting literature research consistently reports a positive relationship be- tween goal difficulty and performance (Locke & Latham, 2002), Ordonez, Schweitzer, Galin- sky, and Bazerman (2009) discuss the negative impact of goals that are too challenging (“stretch” goals) on performance when the en- vironment is not set up to support these goals. Ordonez et al. (2009) suggest that challenging goals can inspire effort, commitment, and per- formance; however, when the work environ- ment is not supportive, failure to reach goals may be associated with risky attitudes, unethical behavior, and psychological costs. According to Daniels (2009), goals that are too challenging, such as stretch goals, are often set without pro- viding necessary work environment resources, such as training and coaching, time, support personnel, equipment, and other support items. Without an environment that supports the ex- pected changes in performance necessary to meet these goals, negative outcomes are more likely to occur (e.g., unhappy boss, counterpro- ductive employee behavior, fired employee).

Research supports the contention that specific and challenging goals lead to higher levels of persistence toward the goal and higher task per- formance than easy goals, “do your best” goals, or no goals (Locke, Chah, Harrison, & Lustgar- ten, 1989; Locke & Latham, 2002). One reason do-your-best goals may be less successful at improving performance is because they have no external referent and are often defined idiosyn- cratically (Locke & Latham, 2002). When per- formance is fully controllable, goal specificity does reduce variation in performance by reduc- ing the ambiguity about what is to be attained (Locke et al., 1989).

Two primary approaches for assigning goals at various levels of difficulty exist within the literature: (a) “one goal for all” and (b) ability- based. Using the “one goal for all” approach, Lee, Locke, and Phan (1997) defined three lev- els of goal difficulty: easy (.90 expected prob- ability of attaining the goal), moderate (.50 ex- pected probability of attaining the goal), and

difficult or challenging (.10 expected probabil- ity of attaining the goal). Jeffrey, Schulz, and Webb (2012) added challenging but achievable goals to Lee et al. (1997) original goal difficulty categories and described these as goals for which there is a 20%–50% probability of indi- vidual goal attainment.

Ability-based goals can be used and assigned in a variety of ways, such as setting a unique goal for each individual (Chow, Lindquist, & Wu, 2001; Slowiak, 2015) or having multiple goal levels, which are assigned to individuals based on ability groupings that are determined by past performance on the task (Bateman & Ludwig, 2003; Locke, 2004). In a recent study, Slowiak (2015) assigned individually tailored goals based on individuals’ pretest session per- formance; goals were categorized as: easy (set at the same level as pretest performance), mod- erate (10% above the participant’s pretest ses- sion performance), and difficult (20% above the participant’s pretest session performance). Slowiak (2015) had participants engage in the task before assigning each participant a tailored performance goal. Though Slowiak’s (2015) re- search provides an insightful framework for the assignment of individual goals, pilot data re- vealed that most participants met their “diffi- cult” goal during one of the three experimental sessions. In addition, self-report data indicated that only one participant perceived their diffi- cult goal as “difficult.” Therefore, future re- search should consider these findings when us-

Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers

Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.

Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS

Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?

Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.

We write plagiarism Free Content

Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.

Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.