Jurnal MSDM 2 (Persepsi Pengaruh Diri Terhadap Feedback Negatif)

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 139 (2017) 50–62
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/obhdp
How beliefs about the self influence perceptions of negative feedback

and subsequent effort and learning
Matt Zingoni a, Kris Byron b,⇑
a
University of New Orleans, College of Business Administration, 2000 Lakeshore Drive, New Orleans, LA, United States
b
Georgia State University, J. Mack Robinson College of Business, P.O. Box 4014, Atlanta, GA 30302-4014, United States
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: Whether individuals believe that ability can change through effort (incremental theorists) or is fixed
Received 17 March 2015 (entity theorists) influences self-regulation in achievement situations – especially in response to failure.
Revised 4 December 2016 Explaining why past studies have found mixed results, our findings from two experiments suggest that
Accepted 25 January 2017
individuals’ theory of ability interacts with whether feedback compares their performance to others or
Available online 1 February 2017
to an absolute standard. Further, those who believe or were induced to believe that ability can change
through effort found negative absolute feedback highly valuable and relatively unthreatening to their
Keywords:
self-concept, which, in turn, was positively associated with effort and learning. In contrast, those who
Feedback
Self-theories
believe or were induced to believe that ability is fixed found themselves in a position of motivational con-
Implicit theories flict as they perceived negative comparative feedback as valuable but also highly threatening. Perhaps
Individual differences because threat is cognitively consuming, our results suggest that threat inhibited learning.
Motivational conflict Ó 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Performance management
Learning
1. Introduction feedback as both valuable and threatening. In fact, it seems likely

that employees would only experience feedback as threatening if
Employees often receive – and expect to receive–feedback the feedback pertained to valued goals.
about how they can improve their performance. Negative feedback One of this study’s aims is to elucidate the feedback process—to
is considered crucial to employee development because it commu- explain what cognitions underlie individuals’ responses to negative
nicates information about where employees should direct their feedback. We argue that past research and theory has conceptual-
efforts: ideally, employees respond by devoting effort to improving ized feedback and feedback reactions too simplistically: it has
in areas of weakness. Unfortunately, employees’ responses to neg- often ignored the multiple, sometimes conflicting, motives that
ative feedback can fall short of this ideal: employees often do not feedback makes salient (Alder & Ambrose, 2005; Leung, Su, &
respond to negative feedback by directing effort toward improve- Morris, 2001). As such, we examine individuals’ perceptions of
ment–and sometimes even reduce effort in the feedback area negative feedback (i.e., perceptions of how valuable and threaten-
(e.g., Belschak & Den Hartog, 2009; Brett & Atwater, 2001). ing the feedback is) that seem likely to make salient two competing
One reason that negative feedback may have unreliable effects motives – to develop in the feedback area and to recover a positive
is that it can elicit a complex set of thoughts and feelings. On sense of self-worth. We also examine how individuals’ perceptions
one hand, employees may perceive negative feedback as a valuable of negative feedback translate to behavioral and learning out-
informational resource that can help them achieve their goals comes—specifically, effort toward learning and learning in the
(Ashford, 1986), motivating them to work toward self- feedback area. Past research has separated perceptions of feedback
improvement. On the other hand, employees may perceive nega- from behavioral outcomes by focusing on either one or the other
tive feedback as threatening (Brunstein, 2000; Trope, Gervey, & (e.g., Lam, Yik, & Schaubroeck, 2002; Smalley & Stake, 1996;
Bolger, 2003), motivating them to recover feelings of positive Vancouver & Tischner, 2004). We contribute to research and theory
self-worth (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996). Moreover, employees on feedback by explaining why feedback often fails to result in cor-
may experience motivational conflict when they view negative rective action: we link feedback characteristics with associated
outcomes and show how perceptions underlie the feedback pro-
cess. By examining where and how much effort individuals devote
⇑ Corresponding author. to learning in the feedback area and how much information they
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (M. Zingoni), [email protected] (K. Byron).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2017.01.007
0749-5978/Ó 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
M. Zingoni, K. Byron / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 139 (2017) 50–62 51
recall through that effort, we help to uncover the motivational and the primary underlying antecedent of GO” (p. 140). Further, other
cognitive processes that may underlie feedback failures. searches for explanatory mechanisms have been similarly disap-
This study also aims to clarify the effects of feedback standard pointing: Cianci, Schaubroeck, and McGill (2010: Experiment 2),
for negative feedback—past research has found mixed results for example, failed to find support for their hypothesized media-
regarding the effects of using either a relative (i.e., comparative) tors: effort attributions, energy, or tension.
or absolute standard (e.g., Atwater & Brett, 2006; Moore & Klein, What explains how entity and incremental theorists differen-
2008). We consider whether individuals’ implicit theory about tially respond to negative feedback? Based on research and theory
the malleability of ability explain these conflicting findings. In on feedback (e.g., Kluger & DeNisi, 1996), we put forth two mech-
doing so, our results contribute to a small but increasing number anisms that underlie feedback’s differential effects for entity theo-
of studies that examine the influence of implicit theories of ability rists and incremental theorists: (1) how much negative feedback
on work-related outcomes (e.g., Bandura & Wood, 1989; Heslin & has informational value for goal pursuit, and (2) how threatening
VandeWalle, 2011; Heslin, Vandewalle, & Latham, 2006; negative feedback is to the self. Because incremental theorists
Tabernero & Wood, 1999). We examine whether those with an believe that ability can change through effort, negative feedback
entity theory (i.e., holding beliefs that human attributes are fixed) may be of higher informational value to incremental theorists.
respond poorly to some feedback because their concern with pre- For example, negative feedback communicates information about
serving feelings of self-worth overrides their concern with using where they should direct their efforts (e.g., Burnette, O’Boyle,
feedback to achieve their goals. In this way, our results are also VanEpps, Pollack, & Finkel, 2013). In addition to having value, neg-
likely to have practical implications for performance management ative feedback is also unlikely to be considered threatening for
as they may provide guidance to managers about how to deliver incremental theorists. Because ability can be changed through
feedback. effort (e.g., Hong et al., 1999), negative feedback is not ego-
threatening. In contrast, because entity theorists believe that abil-
2. Theoretical background and hypotheses ity is fixed, entity theorists may see less value in negative feed-
back—at best, it tells entity theorists where they should not
Dweck’s social-cognitive model of motivation serves as our the- bother directing effort and does not further goal fulfillment.
oretical framework. According to this model, individuals vary in Although negative feedback may be of less value, negative feed-
their implicit beliefs regarding the malleability of human attributes back is likely to be more threatening for entity theorists. For entity
(also referred to as self-theories or mindsets) (Dweck, 2000; Dweck theorists, negative feedback specifies an area in which they have
& Leggett, 1988). At one end of the continuum are entity theorists low ability (Dweck et al., 1995; Hong et al., 1999)—and, because
who believe that human attributes cannot be changed; at the other they cannot change this fact, the feedback has implications for
end of the continuum are incremental theorists who believe that the self. Negative feedback identifies where an entity theorist is
human attributes can be changed through effort. Implicit theories incompetent. The idea that negative feedback more threatening
of ability can refer to specific human attributes such as intelli- to entity theorists may explain why they tend to avoid challenging
gence, morality, or managerial ability (e.g., Dweck & Leggett, situations that may result in negative feedback (Dweck & Leggett,
1988; Tabernero & Wood, 1999) or to ability in general (Dweck, 1988).
2000; Levy, Stroessner, & Dweck, 1998).
Where individuals fall on this continuum has been shown to Hypothesis 1. Incremental theorists perceive negative feedback as
have profound effects on their thoughts and behavior (e.g., more valuable than do entity theorists.
Dweck, 2000; Dweck, Chiu, & Hong, 1995; Mathur, Jain, Hsieh,
Lindsey, & Maheswaran, 2013). Because the effects of implicit the-
ories of ability are most prominent in the face of failure and chal- Hypothesis 2. Incremental theorists perceive negative feedback as
lenges, we examine whether individuals’ implicit theory of ability less threatening than do entity theorists.
explains their thoughts and behavior after they receive negative
feedback. Negative feedback can vary in terms of the standard to which
individuals are compared. Relative feedback, also called normative
2.1. Implicit theory of ability and perceptions of negative feedback feedback (e.g., Moore & Klein, 2008), evaluative feedback (Taylor,
Fisher, & Ilgen, 1984), or social comparison feedback
Research suggests that people’s implicit theory about ability— (Harackiewicz & Larson, 1986), compares an individual’s perfor-
whether measured as an enduring disposition or induced as a tem- mance to the performance of others. In contrast, absolute feedback,
porary state – influence how they attend to and think about nega- also called non-normative (e.g., Moore & Klein, 2008) or criterion-
tive feedback. Entity theorists are less likely to seek out negative referenced feedback (e.g., Kim, Lee, Chung, & Bong, 2010), com-
feedback information (Trope et al., 2003), react more emotionally pares an individual’s performance to an absolute standard.
to negative feedback (Mangels, Butterfield, Lamb, Good, & Dweck, Although theory suggests that individuals tend to prefer absolute
2006), and are more likely to attribute their performance deficit feedback over relative feedback (Festinger, 1954; Kluger &
to a lack of innate ability (see Dweck et al., 1995 for a review; DeNisi, 1996), research offers conflicting findings (e.g., Atwater &
Hong, Chiu, Dweck, Lin, & Wan, 1999). In contrast, incremental the- Brett, 2006; Moore & Klein, 2008; Schultz, 1999). We contend that
orists are more likely to seek negative feedback, react less emotion- individuals’ implicit theory of ability may account for these mixed
ally to negative feedback, and are more likely to attribute their results.
performance deficit to a lack of effort (e.g., Hong et al., 1999; Incremental theorists are likely to prefer feedback that focuses
Mangels et al., 2006; Trope et al., 2003). on how they should change (Bobko & Colella, 1994). By specifying
Although goal orientation (GO) was originally proposed as a standard for change, negative absolute feedback aligns with
being influential and intermediary in relation to implicit theories incremental theorists’ beliefs that improvement can be achieved
of ability (e.g., Dweck, 1996; Dweck & Leggett, 1988), meta- with effort and with their goals to improve (e.g., Mueller &
analytic evidence suggests that implicit theories are weakly corre- Dweck, 1998; Wang & Biddle, 2003). In contrast, by only commu-
lated with goal orientations (Burnette, O’Boyle, VanEpps, Pollack, & nicating who is better and how many others are better, negative
Finkel, 2013; Payne, Youngcourt, & Beaubien, 2007), ‘‘providing relative feedback is of less informational value to incremental the-
little evidence for Dweck’s (1986) view that implicit theories are orists—it offers less information about where to direct their efforts
52 M. Zingoni, K. Byron / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 139 (2017) 50–62
and how much effort to put forth. For these reasons, incremental how to improve and will recall less information about how to
theorists are likely to value negative absolute feedback more than improve. For example, threatening feedback can diminish self-
negative relative feedback. efficacy, and individuals may not want to devote effort to an area
In contrast, entity theorists are likely to value negative relative in which they believe they are not be able to excel. In addition,
feedback more than negative absolute feedback. Entity theorists threatening feedback may consume cognitive resources and shift
tend to evaluate themselves with and are especially sensitive to attention away from the feedback area. Negative emotions such
other-referent criteria (Butler, 2000; Heslin, 2003). In a comparison as shame and anxiety consume attentional resources (e.g.,
of relative feedback and temporal feedback, Butler (2000) con- Eysenck, Derakshan, Santos, & Calvo, 2007), taking attention away
cluded that entity theorists’ self-appraisals were more sensitive from improvement in the feedback area. Additionally, because peo-
to normative feedback than to feedback indicating change over ple aim to view themselves in a positive light (e.g., Crocker & Park,
time. Entity theorists may exhibit these preferences and sensitivi- 2003), they may focus their attention on behaviors and thoughts
ties because they perceive evaluations based on comparisons to aimed at recovering a positive sense of self – leaving less attention
others as more diagnostic of their ability (Cury, Elliot, Da devoted to the feedback area (Brunstein, 2000; Kluger & DeNisi,
Fonseca, & Moller, 2006). By validating their perceived fixed level 1996).
of ability, negative relative feedback is likely to align with entity Moreover, we contend that some feedback can be perceived as
theorists’ goals of self-judgment (e.g., Mueller & Dweck, 1998; both valuable and threatening, thus making salient two competing
Wang & Biddle, 2003). By merely communicating information motives (i.e., to develop and improve in the feedback area and to
about the expected standard, negative absolute feedback is likely recover a positive sense of self-worth). For example, individuals
to be considered less diagnostic of fixed ability—and thus less valu- may perceive negative performance feedback as being both instru-
able – to entity theorists. mental to their goal of earning a promotion and as threatening
Lastly, we also expect entity theorists to find negative relative their identity as a competent employee. As such, we expect that
feedback more threatening than negative absolute feedback— perceived value and threat will be differentially related to feedback
although we expect entity theorists to consider both types of feed- outcomes. Because perceived value is theorized to primarily influ-
back more threatening than do incremental theorists. ‘‘Because ence motivation, perceived feedback value may be a stronger
entity theorists tend to think that behavior is the result of fixed determinant of feedback outcomes that represent behavioral
and, hence, less controllable traits” (Dweck et al., 1995, p. 278), choices (i.e., how much effort devoted toward finding out how to
they are less likely to believe that they can improve. Additionally, improve). In contrast, because feedback threat is theorized to influ-
entity theorists are highly concerned with how they compare to ence both motivation and attentional resources, we expect per-
others (Dweck & Leggett, 1988). The combination of these two ceived feedback value and threat to influence feedback outcomes
beliefs – that changes to their level of ability are not possible and that are likely to be affected by both effort and cognitive load
that comparative judgments are more diagnostic of their ability– (i.e., how much information individuals can recall in the feedback
makes negative relative feedback especially ego-threatening. In area). This contention is consistent with the mnemic neglect model
contrast, for incremental theorists, negative absolute and relative (Sedikides & Gregg, 2003), which predicts that recall is lower for
feedback are merely diagnostic of the areas in which they need information that is threatening to one’s self-concept (e.g., Green
improvement – rather than being diagnostic of the self. & Sedikides, 2004). Although this model focuses on the recall of
self-referent feedback (e.g., Green, Pinter, & Sedikides, 2005;
Hypothesis 3. Individuals’ implicit theory of ability moderates the Green & Sedikides, 2004; Sedikides & Gregg, 2003), we extend
relationship between the feedback standard and perceived value of the model to include the later recall of information in the feedback
negative feedback: (a) incremental theorists perceive negative area because the underlying theoretical mechanisms of the model
absolute feedback as more valuable than negative relative feed- are consistent with those presented above.
back and (b) entity theorists perceive negative relative feedback as Taken together, this suggests that these two perceptions (i.e.,
more valuable than negative absolute feedback. value and threat) are mediating mechanisms that explain the
extent to which individuals use negative feedback to improve on
their weaknesses – or devote time and attention elsewhere: indi-
viduals’ perceptions of feedback as valuable and threatening medi-
Hypothesis 4. Individuals’ implicit theory of ability moderates the
ate the moderated relationship of feedback characteristics and
relationship between the feedback standard and perceived threat
implicit theories of ability on effort and learning (as depicted in
of negative feedback: (a) entity theorists perceive negative relative
Fig. 1). An empirical model of this form has been referred to as a
feedback as more threatening than negative absolute feedback;
first-stage moderation model (Edwards & Lambert, 2007); and,
and (b) incremental theorists perceive negative absolute and rela-
conceptually, as a moderated mediation model (Baron & Kenny,
tive feedback as similarly less threatening than do entity theorists.
1986).
Due to motivational conflict caused by feedback that is rela-
2.2. Perceived value and threat of feedback as mediators tively high in both perceived value and threat, we predict that
entity theorists receiving negative relative feedback will devote
Why might these feedback perceptions matter? We expect that the least effort to learning and to learn the least in the feedback
these feedback perceptions (i.e., how valuable and threatening area. (As mentioned earlier, we do not predict a feedback condition
feedback are) help to determine how people respond to feed- that would be relatively high in threat without also being relatively
back—how much effort they devote to learning and how much they high in value.) These predictions are consistent with past research
actually learn in the feedback area. In general, we expect that, finding that, after facing a potential ego-threat, entity theorists are
when individuals perceive feedback as more valuable, they will likely to focus their efforts on recovering self-esteem. For example,
direct more effort toward finding out how to improve and will as compared to incremental theorists, entity theorists were more
recall more information about how to improve. It seems hardly likely to make downward comparisons and pursue already mas-
controversial to expect that individuals will pursue action toward tered material after an ego-threat (Hong et al., 1999; Maurer,
meeting valued goals. Mitchell, & Barbeite, 2002; Nussbaum & Dweck, 2008). In addition,
However, we expect that, when individuals perceive feedback there is limited evidence that ego-threats disrupt learning for
as more threatening, they will decrease effort toward finding out entity theorists: in an EEG study of 47 students given negative
Effort in feedback area

Hypotheses 1 & 2
(Direct Effects) Perceived value of feedback
Implicit theory of
ability
Perceived threat of feedback
Learning in feedback area
Feedback standard
Fig. 1. Proposed model linking implicit theory of ability and feedback standard with effort and learning.
feedback, entity theorists demonstrated less learning and were less used to better prepare future students to perform well on similar
likely to apply feedback information than were incremental theo- selection tools. Participants then completed the measure of implicit
rists (Mangels et al., 2006). theories and filler items. Next, they completed the task, an
In contrast, due to low motivational conflict caused by feedback amended version of an in-basket exercise originally developed to
that is relatively high in perceived value and low in perceived measure creative ability (Shalley, 1991). In the original version of
threat, incremental theorists receiving negative absolute feedback the in-basket exercise, participants provided open-ended responses
will devote the most effort to learning and learn the most in the to 22 memos. In order for the feedback to be credible, we amended
feedback area. These predictions are consistent with past research the task so that their actual performance would be ambiguous.
finding that, after facing a potential ego-threat, incremental theo- Specifically, rather than allowing participants to offer open-ended
rists are more likely to focus their efforts on self-improvement. solutions, participants were presented with 10 memos and five pos-
For example, as compared to entity theorists, incremental theorists sible courses of action listed for each. Each of these choices was a
were more likely to make upward comparisons and pursue new viable solution to the problem presented in the memo, and partic-
material after facing a potential ego-threat (Hong et al., 1999; ipants were told that each solution reflected a different level of cre-
Nussbaum & Dweck, 2008). ative problem-solving ability. Participants ranked the five courses
of action from the action they would mostly take to the action they
Hypothesis 5. The moderating effect of implicit theory of ability would be least likely to take. The in-basket exercise was ostensibly
on the relationships between feedback standard and (a) effort and the basis for the feedback they received. We were not concerned
(b) learning is mediated by the perceived value of feedback (even with their actual performance on this task (nor could we have mea-
after controlling for perceived threat of feedback). sured their performance from their responses).
Participants were randomly assigned (constrained to equal cell
sizes) to one of four feedback conditions, varying in terms of feed-
Hypothesis 6. The moderating effect of implicit theory of ability back valence (negative or positive) and feedback standard (rela-
on the relationship between feedback standard and (a) effort and tive = 1; absolute = 2). Given that implicit theories of ability may
(b) learning is mediated by the perceived threat of feedback (even be most relevant to situations containing setbacks and failure
after controlling for perceived value of feedback). (e.g., Dweck, 1996; Tabernero & Wood, 1999), we focus here on
only those participants receiving negative feedback. To manipulate
feedback standard, we relied on the procedures established by
3. Experiment 1 Moore and Klein (2008): participants in the relative feedback con-
ditions received percentile scores indicating how their perfor-
3.1. Method mance compared to others; participants in the absolute feedback
conditions received percent correct scores indicating how they
3.1.1. Participants and procedure performed relative to an absolute standard. Participants were told
Two hundred undergraduate business or psychology students that they were at the 30th percentile (negative relative feedback)
from a comprehensive research university located in the North- or answered three out of 10 correct (negative absolute feedback).
eastern United States voluntarily participated in this computer- To further establish the soundness of Moore and Klein’s (2008)
based laboratory experiment. Using recruitment materials procedure, we piloted it with an independent student sample,
approved by this institution’s Institutional Review Board for which confirmed that students interpreted these feedback condi-
Human Research, we recruited participants through the business tions as intended (further information about the pilot study is
school’s and psychology department’s research participation pools. available from the first author). In addition to the feedback infor-
These participation pools are populated by students who are mation detailed above, all of the feedback messages also included
required to participate in research (or complete an equivalent the same neutral message on a separate skill area (i.e., interper-
alternate assignment) for course credit. Participants signed up sonal skill): ‘‘The results also indicate that you take into consider-
on-line for a particular lab session associated with the study title ation the effect your decisions have on others.” This neutral
‘‘Employees and Creative Problem Solving.” message was included to enhance the credibility of the overall
We conducted sessions in small groups (typically with eight to feedback message. All of the memos dealt with personnel issues
12 participants). When participants arrived at the lab, we briefly and required some interpersonal considerations.
explained that they would be completing an ‘‘in-basket” exercise We wanted participants to consider creative problem-solving as
on creative problem-solving that companies sometimes use to the primary consideration thus participants were repeatedly told
screen job applicants and that findings from this study would be that creative problem-solving was important and the focus of the
present task (and the research in which they were taking part). employee discount. Your boss believes this problem is due to poor
Furthermore, all of the feedback messages included limited infor- hiring decisions. After looking into the issue, you feel the problem
mation about how to improve creative ability. Specifically, this sec- is due to the employees feeling they are under rewarded. This is an
tion of the feedback mentioned the value of counterfactual example of: (a) counterfactual thinking, (b) mental exercises, (c)
thinking (Markman, Lindberg, Kray, & Galinsky, 2007), reconceptu- management by objectives, (d) re-conceptualizing the problem.”
alizing the problem (Csikszentmihalyi & Getzels, 1971), and the We summed the number of correct answers such that a higher
use of mental gymnastics (Guilford, 1950). As an example, the fol- score reflects greater learning.
lowing is the feedback for the negative absolute feedback We used the eight-item domain-specific implicit theories of
condition: intelligence scale (Dweck, 2000) to measure participants’ implicit
theory of ability. We used this measure instead of a domain-
The analysis of your responses to the in-basket exercise indi- general measure because the problem-solving task used in this
cates that, in regards to creative problem-solving, you ranked study is within the cognitive ability domain. Sample items include
the responses correctly in 30% of the memos (3 out of 10). This ‘‘No matter how much intelligence someone has, they can always
means that in 7 of the memos you did not rank the solutions in change it a great deal” (reverse-scored) and ‘‘Someone’s intelli-
the order that best demonstrates creative problem-solving gence is something about them that they can’t change very much.”
ability. Participants responded to each item using a six-point Likert scale
In the future, it is important to keep in mind some strategies ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). We averaged
that can help improve your creative problem-solving perfor- the eight items, such that a higher score indicates a more incre-
mance. One of these strategies is counterfactual thinking, which mental theory (a = 0.94). Although psychologists may consider
means imagining what might have been. Another strategy is to intelligence to be relatively stable, lay people do not share these
reconceptualize the problem before trying to solve it. Finally, beliefs (e.g., Maurer & Lippstreu, 2008). In the current study, and
mental exercises, often called mental gymnastics, stimulate as expected, participants varied in implicit theory of ability (with
the mind and improve creative problem-solving. scores ranging from 1.6 to 6.0). Consistent with past research,
the majority of participants clearly endorsed either an incremental
After participants completed the in-basket exercise and (47% scored 4 or greater) or entity (25% scored 3 or lower) theory;
received their feedback message, they completed the two items the remaining were in the middle.
we used as manipulation checks and measures of the feedback’s We measured perceived value of feedback with three items
perceived value and threat to self-worth. Then, participants had taken from Ashford’s (1986) six-item ‘‘value of feedback” measure.
the opportunity to view one of two tutorials (described in more We selected the three items that did not reference a specific
detail below) and completed a short quiz on the feedback area, cre- organizational context. The items used in this study were: ‘‘I feel
ative problem-solving. Lastly, participants were thoroughly it was important for me to receive this feedback on my perfor-
debriefed according to the protocol approved by the institution’s mance,” ‘‘I found this feedback on my performance useful,” and
Institutional Review Board for Human Research. ‘‘I would like to get more feedback on my performance in this
Two participants’ responses were removed due to missing data, area.” Individuals responded to each item using a five-point Likert
10 were removed because they failed the manipulation checks, and scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). We
94 had been in the positive feedback conditions. Of the remaining averaged the items, such that higher scores indicate higher
94 participants, most were female (71%) and white (54%). The aver- perceived value (a = 0.86).
age age of the participants was 20 years and had an average of Consistent with the idea that threat is indicated by negative
2.3 years of work experience. affective reactions to a stimuli, we measured perceived threat of
feedback with four items that measure self-relevant emotional
3.1.2. Measures reactions in response to success or failure (i.e., ashamed, humili-
We measured how much effort participants devoted to learning ated, pleased with myself, and proud) (Feeling of Self-Worth scale:
in the feedback area. After receiving feedback on the creative Brown & Dutton, 1995). Individuals indicated the extent to which
problem-solving task, participants were offered two choices of they were currently experiencing each item by using a five-point
tutorials they could view: a tutorial on creative problem-solving Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much) after reading
ability (the focal topic of the feedback) or on interpersonal skills the feedback. After reverse-scoring the ‘‘pleased with myself” and
(non-focal topic of the feedback). Participants were asked to select ‘‘proud” items, the items were averaged together such that higher
a tutorial (feedback area or non-feedback area) and were free to scores indicate participants perceive the feedback as more threat-
spend as much time as they liked on the tutorial or to exit the tuto- ening (a = 0.77).
rial and finish the experiment. Consistent with Sitzmann and
Johnson’s (2012) measure of effort, we measured effort by calculat-
ing how much time (in minutes) participants spent on the creative 3.2. Results
problem-solving tutorial (time ranged from 6 s to 9.5 min). If they
chose the tutorial on interpersonal skills, the time spent working 3.2.1. Manipulation checks
on the feedback area was 0. We examined whether our experimental conditions differed as
We measured participants’ learning by examining their recall intended by a conducting t-test on the one manipulation check
of information in the feedback area with a multiple choice quiz item for experiment 1: ‘‘In the feedback I just received, I was given
on creative problem-solving designed for this study. The quiz con- information that told me how my performance compared to
sisted of nine multiple choice items focused on declarative learn- others.” Participants rated each item on a five-point Likert scale
ing. Although some information that could be helpful in ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Supporting
answering the items were provided in the feedback message, the our intention of distinguishing relative and absolute feedback, we
creative problem-solving tutorial elaborated this information. found that participants in the relative feedback condition agreed
Thus, even those who did not choose the creative problem- more strongly that they were given information about how they
solving tutorial could have possibly answered some of the items compared with others (M = 4.2, SD = 0.61) than did those in the
correctly in the quiz. A sample item is ‘‘Your boss has brought to absolute feedback conditions (M = 2.8, SD = 1.0; t(91) = 9.63,
your attention that your employees have been abusing their p < 0.001).
3.2.2. Hypothesis testing Hypothesis 4 predicted that (a) entity theorists will perceive
Table 1 includes descriptive statistics for and correlations negative relative feedback as more threatening than negative abso-
between all study variables and means and standard deviations lute feedback, and (b) incremental theorists will perceive negative
by study condition for value, threat, effort and learning. Effort absolute and negative relative feedback as similarly less threaten-
was positively related to learning (r = 0.26, p < 0.05), such that ing. As shown in Table 2, the interaction term for implicit theory
spending more time on the creative problem-solving tutorial was and feedback standard is significant for threat (b = 0.27,
associated with more correct quiz answers. Participants who per- SEb = 0.12, p < 0.05). We explicated this interaction in the same
ceived the feedback as more valuable had higher effort (r = 0.27, manner described for Hypothesis 3. As shown in Fig. 2, entity the-
p < 0.01) and learning (r = 0.26, p < 0.01). Perceived feedback threat orists perceive negative relative feedback as more threatening
was negatively related to learning (r = 0.33, p < 0.01) but not sig- (M = 3.38, SD = 0.61) than negative absolute feedback (M = 2.79,
nificantly related to effort (r = 0.12, p = 0.26). SD = 0.64), b = 0.59, SEb = 0.20, p < 0.05. For incremental theorists,
To test all of our study hypotheses we used the PROCESS macro negative absolute feedback (M = 2.47, SD = 0.59) and negative rela-
developed by Hayes (2013, model 7). We used the PROCESS macro tive feedback (M = 2.49, SD = 0.49) did not significantly differ in
in SPSS 23 and we generated bias-corrected confidence intervals perceived threat, b = 0.02, SEb = 0.20, p = 0.93, thus supporting
for the direct and indirect effects using bootstrapping procedures Hypotheses 4a and 4b.
to generate 1000 random samples with replacement from the full The remaining hypotheses (Hypotheses 5 and 6) concern the
sample. The PROCESS analysis procedure allows us to test all prediction of our moderated mediation model with a first-stage
hypotheses and determine the significance of our proposed indi- moderation (depicted in Fig. 1), such that the interaction of implicit
rect effects while considering both mediators (i.e., perceived value theory and feedback characteristics on effort and learning will be
and perceived threat) as parallel mediators for effort and learning mediated by perceived value and threat of feedback. As stated
(Hayes, 2013). above, we used the PROCESS macro created by Hayes (2013:
We predicted that, as compared to entity theorists, incremental Model 7) to test the indirect effect on effort and learning through
theorists will perceive negative feedback as more valuable our parallel mediators. The indirect effect is statistically significant
(Hypothesis 1) and less threatening (Hypothesis 2). As shown in when the confidence interval for the indirect effect does not
Table 2, implicit theory of ability was not significantly related to include zero.
perceived value (b = 0.32, p = 0.15), thus we failed to find support Hypothesis 5 predicted that, after controlling for perceived
for Hypothesis 1. However, implicit theory of ability was nega- threat, perceived value of feedback will mediate the relationship
tively related to perceived threat (b = 0.67, p < 0.001). Individuals between negative feedback standard and (a) effort and (b) learning.
holding a more incremental theory perceived negative feedback as As shown in Table 3, for entity theorists, the indirect effect of per-
less threatening than did those with a more entity theory, thus ceived value of feedback on effort ( 0.33, 95% CI: 0.80, 0.04)
supporting Hypothesis 2. and learning ( 0.24, 95% CI: 0.67, 0.03) are statistically signifi-
Hypothesis 3 predicted that (a) incremental theorists will per- cant. That is, for entity theorists, negative relative feedback (as
ceive negative absolute feedback as more valuable than negative compared to negative absolute feedback) is associated with greater
relative feedback, and (b) entity theorists will perceive negative effort and more learning via perceived value. For incremental the-
relative feedback as more valuable than negative absolute feed- orists, the indirect effect of perceived value of feedback on effort
back. As shown in Table 2, the interaction term for implicit theory (0.24, 95% CI: 0.06, 0.55) and learning (0.17, 95% CI: 0.01, 0.49)
and feedback standard is significant for value (b = 0.44, SEb = 0.14, are also statistically significant. For incremental theorists, negative
p < 0.001). To explicate this interaction, we calculated the simple absolute feedback (as compared to negative relative feedback) is
slopes and predicted values of value for negative relative and neg- associated with more effort and learning via perceived value.
ative absolute feedback for entity theorists (i.e., one SD below the Therefore we found support for Hypotheses 5a and 5b.
mean) and incremental theorists (i.e., one SD above the mean). As Hypothesis 6 predicted that, after controlling for perceived
shown in Fig. 2, incremental theorists perceive negative absolute value, perceived feedback threat will mediate the relationship
feedback as more valuable (M = 4.30, SD = 0.42) than negative rel- between negative feedback standard and (a) effort and (b) learning.
ative feedback (M = 3.88, SD = 0.47), b = 0.37, SEb = 0.21, p < 0.05. As shown in Table 3, for entity theorists, the indirect effect of per-
Furthermore, entity theorists perceive negative relative feedback ceived threat of feedback on effort (0.06, 95% CI: 0.21, 0.42) was
as more valuable (M = 3.61, SD = 0.67) than negative absolute feed- not significant. However, the indirect effect of perceived threat of
back (M = 3.04, SD = 0.42), b = 0.57, SEb = 0.23, p < 0.05. Thus we feedback on learning (0.41, 95% CI: 0.09, 0.91) was significant. That
found support for Hypotheses 3a and 3b. is, for entity participants, negative relative feedback (as compared
Table 1
Experiment 1: Descriptive statistics of and correlations between study variables.
Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5
1. Effort 1.16 1.86
2. Learning 5.14 1.81 0.26*
3. Implicit theory of ability 3.86 1.13 0.26* 0.09
4. Perceived value 3.66 0.89 0.27** 0.26* 0.41***
5. Perceived threat 2.76 0.76 0.12 0.33** 0.40*** 0.18
6. Feedback standard 1.50 0.50 0.15 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.17
Means (SD) by condition
Relative feedback 0.88 (1.67) 5.04 (2.02) 3.72 (0.74) 2.88 (0.79)
Absolute feedback 1.44 (2.02) 5.23 (1.58) 3.60 (1.02) 2.63 (0.72)
Note. N = 94. Effort is time spent in feedback area is in minutes; higher scores of implicit theory indicate a more incremental (less entity) theory; feedback standard is coded
relative (1) and absolute (2). The means for each condition are not significantly different.
*
p < 0.05.
**
p < 0.01.
***
p < 0.001.
Table 2
Experiment 1: Regression models.
Perceived value Perceived threat

Model b SEb b SEb
Hypotheses 1 & 2
Constant 5.05 0.91*** 5.80*** 0.78
Feedback standard 1.77*** 0.58 1.33*** 0.50
Implicit theory of ability 0.32 0.22 0.67*** 0.19
Implicit theory Feedback standard 0.44*** 0.14 0.27* 0.12
R2 0.24 0.24
Model Effort Learning
b SEb b SEb
Constant 1.56 1.38 5.45*** 1.30
Perceived value 0.57** 0.21 0.42* 0.20
Perceived threat 0.10 0.25 0.70*** 0.24
Feedback standard 0.60 0.12 0.07 0.36
R2 0.10 0.15
Note. N = 94; Feedback standard: relative feedback = 1 and absolute feedback = 2.

*
p < 0.05.
**
p < 0.01.
***
p < 0.001.
theorists (i.e., one standard deviation below the mean) and for
incremental theorists (i.e., one standard deviation above the
mean). We expected that entity theorists receiving negative rela-
tive feedback would have the lowest effort and learning. In con-
trast, we expected that incremental theorists receiving negative
absolute feedback would have the highest effort and learning. As
expected, we found that entity participants receiving negative rel-
ative feedback had the lowest effort (spending only 0.76 min on
the tutorial) and learning (answering correctly 4.7 items on the
quiz). Also consistent with our predictions, incremental partici-
pants receiving negative absolute feedback had the highest effort
(spending 1.84 min on the tutorial) and learning (answering cor-
Fig. 2. Experiment 1: Perceived value and threat for negative absolute and relative rectly 5.7 items).
feedback for entity and incremental theorists. Standard deviations are in
parentheses.
3.3. Discussion
to negative absolute feedback) is associated with less learning (but In experiment 1, we measured individuals’ implicit theories of
not effort) via perceived threat. As expected, for incremental theo- ability and found that those holding more of an entity theory find
rists, the indirect effect of perceived threat of feedback on effort negative feedback more threatening – though not more valuable –
(0.00, 95% CI: 0.12, 0.08) and learning ( 0.01, 95% CI: 0.36, than do those holding more of an incremental theory. We also
0.23) is not a significant mediator (because they view negative rel- found that these implicit theories account for differences in the
ative and absolute feedback as similarly unthreatening). Thus, we value and threat of negative feedback comparing the self to either
did not find support for Hypothesis 6a but did find support for an absolute standard or to others. Lastly, for incremental theorists
Hypothesis 6b. and entity theorists, value mediates the relationship between feed-
Lastly, to explicate the results of the moderated mediation, we back standard and both effort and learning; for entity (but not for
calculated predicted values for the two feedback outcomes for incremental) theorists threat also mediates the relationship
negative relative and negative absolute feedback for entity between feedback standard and learning (but not effort).
Table 3
Experiment 1: Analyses for conditional indirect effects (through the parallel mediators, value and threat) for entity and incremental theorists.
Effort Learning
Conditional indirect effects Indirect effect 95% CI Indirect effect 95% CI
Perceived value 0.33* ( 0.80, 0.04) 0.24* ( 0.67, 0.03)
Entity 0.24* (0.06, 0.55) 0.17* (0.01, 0.49)
Incremental
Perceived threat
Entity 0.06 ( 0.21, 0.42) 0.41* (0.09, 0.91)
Incremental 0.00 ( 0.12, 0.08) 0.01 ( 0.36, 0.23)
Index of moderated mediation Index 95% CI Index 95% CI
Perceived value 0.25* (0.06, 0.53) 0.18* (0.03, 0.43)
Perceived threat 0.03 ( 0.19, 0.10) 0.19* ( 0.49, 0.02)
Note. N = 94.
*
p < 0.05 (95% bootstrapped confidence interval does not include 0).
Experiment 2 seeks to replicate these findings with three key dif- to a short quiz on the feedback area, creativity. The tutorial con-
ferences. First, we manipulate—rather than measure—individuals’ sisted of three different strategies for improving creativity on the
implicit theory. Second, we employ a sample of older adults with alternate uses task and opportunities to practice using each strat-
more working experience. Third, we do not include any informa- egy (i.e., Dissembly Use Production strategy, Broad Use Production
tion in the feedback message that could influence learning. In strategy, and Property Use Production strategy) (Gilhooly, Fioratou,
doing so, we aim to accomplish two goals: (1) to increase the con- Anthony, & Wynn, 2007). Lastly as before, participants were
fidence in our findings by providing a conceptual replication with debriefed according to the protocol approved by this institution’s
working adults and more clearly differentiating effort and learning Institutional Review Board.
and (2) to increase the practical significance of our findings Eleven participants who were invited to participate in the study
through the use of an unobtrusive intervention to change individ- elected not to take part. In addition, four participants’ responses
uals’ implicit theory. were not included in the analysis due to missing data and three
were not included because they failed the manipulation checks.
Of the remaining 158 participants, most were female (54%) and
4. Experiment 2 white (62%). The majority of participants were graduate students
(85%) and were employed part-time or full-time (89%). The average
4.1. Method age of the participants was 27 years and had an average of
8.1 years of work experience.
4.1.1. Participants and procedure
One hundred and seventy-five graduate and undergraduate 4.1.2. Measures
business students from a university located in the Southeastern In the same manner as experiment 1, effort was measured as
United States were invited to participate in a 2 (implicit theory: time devoted to learning in the feedback area (for those who
entity or incremental) 2 (feedback standard: relative or absolute) choose to pursue the tutorial, time ranged from 6 s to 16.1 min).
between-subject experiment for course credit. This participant If they chose not to view the tutorial, the time spent working on
pool differed from that of experiment 1 in that, whereas the uni- the feedback area was 0. In the same manner as experiment 1,
versity from which that sample was drawn consists of mostly tra- we measured participants’ learning by examining their recall of
ditional students, the university from which this sample is drawn information in the feedback area with a multiple choice quiz on
consists of mostly non-traditional, older working students. As creativity designed for this study. The quiz consisted of nine mul-
described below, the procedure and measures were the same as tiple choice items focused on declarative learning related to the
in experiment 1 except that implicit theory of ability was manipu- tutorial for this study, e.g., ‘‘A hair dryer, a property of a hair dryer
lated with biased questionnaires and the task, feedback message, is that it generates heat, one use of the heat is to dry a wet stain on
and tutorial options were different. clothes or to heat up food. This an example of which strategy?” As
Participants completed the experiment online and were told in experiment 1, we summed the number of correct answers such
beforehand in class that they would be completing an exercise that a higher score reflects greater learning. We measured value
on creativity that companies sometimes use to screen job appli- and threat with the same items used in experiment 1 (a = 0.76
cants and that findings from this study would be used to better and 0.74, respectively).
prepare future students to perform well on similar selection tools.
Participants first completed the randomly assigned biased ques-
tionnaires that served as our implicit theory of ability manipula- 4.2. Results
tion (Job, Dweck, & Walton, 2010). Next, they completed an
alternate uses task. Consistent with experiment 1, the alternative 4.2.1. Manipulation checks
uses exercise was ostensibly the basis for the feedback they We examined whether our experimental conditions differed as
received though we were not concerned with their actual perfor- intended by conducting t-tests on the two manipulations in exper-
mance on this task. iment 2. Supporting our intention of distinguishing relative and
Participants were randomly assigned (constrained to equal cell absolute feedback, we found that participants in the relative feed-
sizes) to one of four conditions, varying in terms of both implicit back condition agreed more strongly that they were given informa-
theory of ability (entity = 1; incremental = 2) and feedback stan- tion about how they compared with others (M = 4.3, SD 0.67) than
dard (relative = 1; absolute = 2).We manipulated implicit theories did those in the absolute feedback conditions (M = 2.0, SD 0.69; t
of ability through the use of biased questionnaires (Job et al., (156) = 21.22, p < 0.001.) Consistent with Job et al. (2010), we con-
2010). The questionnaires were designed to encourage agreement sider the implicit theory of ability manipulation as successful if
with either an entity theory (e.g., ‘‘People can’t really do much to participants agree with the questionnaire at a level that is greater
change their level of creativity”) or incremental theory (e.g., ‘‘Peo- than the midpoint of the rating scale (i.e., 3). This was the case for
ple can always do a lot to change their level of creativity”). Partic- both the entity biased questionnaire (M = 3.82, SD 0.43; t(80)
ipants responded to each item using a five-point Likert scale = 17.04, p < 0.001) and the incremental biased questionnaire
ranging from 1 (do not agree) to 5 (strongly agree). The feedback (M = 4.07, SD 0.52; t(76) = 18.20, p < 0.001).
standard conditions were the same as those in experiment 1. The
feedback message varied, however, in that it did not contain any 4.2.2. Hypothesis testing
other information. For example, the feedback message for negative Table 4 includes descriptive statistics for and correlations
absolute feedback was: ‘‘The analysis of your responses indicates between all study variables, and means and standard deviations
that 30% of your responses indicate high creative problem- by study condition for value, threat, effort, and learning. Partici-
solving ability. This means that, for every 10 responses you pro- pants who perceived the feedback as more valuable had higher
vided, 7 were not very creative.” effort (r = 0.16, p < 0.05) but not higher learning (r = 0.11,
Similar to experiment 1, after participants completed the exer- p = 0.19). Feedback threat was negatively related to learning
cise and received their feedback message, they completed one item (r = 0.18, p < 0.05) but not significantly related to effort
we used as a manipulation check and measures of the feedback’s (r < 0.03, p = 0.71). To test all of our study hypotheses we used
perceived value and threat to self-worth. In this study, participants the PROCESS macro developed by Hayes (2013: Model 7) as
had an option to take a tutorial on the feedback area or go straight described in experiment 1.
Table 4
Experiment 2: Descriptive statistics of and correlations between study variables.
Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5
1. Effort 3.21 4.06
2. Learning 4.97 2.13 0.11
3. Implicit theory of ability 1.49 0.50 0.10 0.36***
4. Perceived value 3.56 0.66 0.16* 0.20* 0.45***
5. Perceived threat 2.76 0.81 0.03 0.18* 0.67*** 0.18*
6. Feedback standard 1.50 0.50 0.01 0.03 0.11 0.09 0.02
Means (SD) by condition
Entity theory
Absolute feedback 2.95 (3.40) 4.18a (1.60) 3.10a (0.48) 3.12a (0.67)
Relative feedback 2.68 (3.82) 4.28ab (2.44) 3.49b (0.75) 3.51b (0.53)
Incremental theory
Absolute feedback 3.46 (4.51) 6.18b (1.66) 4.03c (0.47) 2.25c (0.65)
Relative feedback 3.72 (4.57) 5.42b (2.16) 3.73bc (0.55) 2.15c (0.50)
Note. N = 158. Effort is time spent in feedback area is in minutes; implicit theory of ability is coded entity theory (1) and incremental theory (2); feedback standard is coded
relative (1) and absolute (2). For each mediator or dependent variable, means with different subscripts are significantly different.
*
p < 0.05.
** p < 0.01.
***
p < 0.001.
Hypothesis 1 states that incremental theorists will perceive

negative feedback as more valuable than entity theorists. As shown
in Table 5, implicit theory of ability is not significantly related to
value (b = 0.45, p = 0.12). Thus, we found no support for Hypoth-
esis 1. Hypothesis 2 states that incremental theorists will perceive
negative feedback as less threatening than will entity theorists. As
shown in Table 5, implicit theory of ability is negatively related to
threat, such that those in the incremental condition perceived neg-
ative feedback as more threatening than did those in the entity
condition (b = 1.83, p < 0.001), supporting Hypothesis 2.
Hypothesis 3 predicted that (a) incremental theorists will per-
ceive negative absolute feedback as more valuable than negative Fig. 3. Experiment 2: Perceived value and threat for negative absolute and relative
relative feedback, and (b) entity theorists will perceive negative feedback for entity and incremental theorists. Standard deviations are in
parentheses.
relative feedback as more valuable than negative absolute feed-
back. As shown in Table 5, the implicit theory of ability and feed-
back standard interaction term was significant for value (b = 0.69, Furthermore, entity theorists perceived negative relative feedback
SEb = 0.18, p < 0.001). To explicate this interaction, we calculated as more valuable (M = 3.50, SD = 0.75) than negative absolute feed-
the simple slopes and predicted values of feedback value for nega- back (M = 3.12, SD = 0.48) b = 0.39, SEb = 0.13, p < 0.05. Thus we
tive relative and negative absolute feedback for those in the entity found support for Hypotheses 3a and 3b.
condition and those in the incremental condition. As shown in Hypothesis 4 predicted that (a) entity theorists will perceive
Fig. 3, incremental theorists perceived negative absolute feedback negative relative feedback as more threatening than negative abso-
as more valuable (M = 4.05, SD = 0.47) than negative relative lute feedback, and (b) incremental theorists will perceive negative
feedback (M = 3.74, SD = 0.55), b = 0.30 SEb = 0.13, p < 0.05. absolute and negative relative feedback as similarly less
Table 5
Experiment 2: Regression models.
Perceived value Perceived threat

Model b SEb b SEb
Hypotheses 1 & 2
Constant 4.33*** 0.46 5.73*** 0.48
Feedback standard 1.07** 0.29 0.87** 0.30
Implicit theory of ability 0.45 0.29 1.83*** 0.30
Implicit theory Feedback standard 0.69** 0.18 0.48* 0.19
R2 0.27 0.48
Model Effort Learning
b SEb b SEb
Constant 0.37 2.57 3.68** 1.30
Perceived value 0.99* 0.50 0.57* 0.26
Perceived threat 0.01 0.40 0.38 0.21
Feedback standard 0.04 0.65 0.20 0.33
R2 0.03 0.07
Note. N = 158; Feedback standard: relative feedback = 1 and absolute feedback = 2.

*
p < 0.05.
**
p < 0.01.
***
p < 0.001.
threatening. As shown in Table 5, the implicit theory and feedback that entity theorists receiving negative relative feedback would
standard interaction term was significant for threat (b = 0.48, have the lowest effort and learning. In contrast, we expected that
SEb = 0.19, p < 0.05). To explicate this interaction, we calculated incremental theorists receiving negative absolute feedback would
the simple slopes and the predicted values for perceived threat have the highest effort and learning. Contrary to our expectations,
of feedback for negative relative and negative absolute feedback we found that entity participants receiving negative absolute
in the same manner described for Hypothesis 3. As shown in (rather than relative) feedback had the lowest effort (spending
Fig. 3, entity theorists perceived negative relative feedback as more 2.77 min on the tutorial). Consistent with our expectations, we
threatening (M = 3.51, SD = 0.53) than negative absolute feedback found that entity participants receiving negative relative feedback
(M = 3.12, SD = 0.67), b = 0.39, SEb = 0.13, p < 0.05. For incremen- had the lowest learning (answering correctly 4.7 items on the
tal theorists, negative absolute feedback (M = 2.25, SD = 0.62) and quiz). Also consistent with our predictions, incremental partici-
negative relative feedback (M = 2.16, SD = 0.50) did not signifi- pants receiving negative absolute feedback had the highest effort
cantly differ in perceived threat, b = 0.09, SEb = 0.14, p = 0.49. Thus (spending 3.70 min on the tutorial) and learning (answering cor-
we found support for Hypotheses 4a and 4b. rectly 5.6 items).
Hypothesis 5 predicted that, after controlling for perceived
threat, perceived value of feedback will mediate the relationship
4.3. Discussion
between negative feedback standard and (a) effort and (b) learning.
As shown in Table 6, for entity theorists, the indirect effect of per-
The results of experiment 2 largely replicate those of experi-
ceived value of feedback on effort ( 0.39, 95% CI: 0.89, 0.10)
ment 1. More specifically, they provide support for our contentions
and learning ( 0.22, 95% CI 0.57, 0.04) in the feedback area
that individuals’ implicit theory of ability and their subsequent
was statistically significant. That is, for entity participants, negative
perceptions of feedback in terms of both value and threat underlie
relative feedback (as compared to negative absolute feedback) was
the feedback process. Below we offer a more detailed discussion of
associated with greater effort and more learning via perceived
our findings from experiments 1 and 2.
value. For incremental theorists, the indirect effect of perceived
value of feedback on effort (0.30, 95% CI 0.06, 0.72) and learning
(0.17, 95% CI 0.01, 0.45) in the feedback area was also statistically 5. General discussion
significant. For incremental participants, negative absolute feed-
back (as compared to negative relative feedback) was associated In the present studies, we set out to examine whether individu-
with more effort and learning via perceived value. Thus we found als’ implicit theory of ability accounts for variations in how individ-
support for Hypotheses 5a and 5b. uals respond to different feedback messages and to offer insights
Hypothesis 6 predicted that, after controlling for perceived into the feedback process. Our results support our contention that
value, perceived feedback threat will mediate the relationship individuals’ beliefs about the malleability or fixedness of ability
between negative feedback standard and (a) effort and (b) learning. accounts for variation in perceptions of different types of negative
As shown in Table 6, for entity theorists the indirect effect of per- feedback–that is, whether negative feedback compares perfor-
ceived threat of feedback on effort (0.00, 95% CI: 0.28, 0.33) was mance to an absolute standard or to others. Additionally, our results
not significant. However, the indirect effect of perceived threat of generally support our contention that individuals’ perceptions of
feedback on learning (0.14, 95% CI: 0.01, 0.40) was significant. feedback as valuable (i.e., instrumental to their goals) and ego-
For entity participants, negative relative feedback (as compared threatening translate to behavioral and learning outcomes such as
to negative absolute feedback) is associated with less learning how much effort they devote to learning and how much informa-
(but not effort) via perceived threat. As expected, for incremental tion they recall. Below we highlight several important findings.
theorists, the indirect effect of perceived threat of feedback on Generally, we found that perceptions of feedback – in terms of
effort (0.00, 95% CI 0.13, 0.14) and learning ( 0.04, 95% CI being valuable and threatening – had implications for the behav-
0.20, 0.06) was not a significant mediator (because they view ioral and learning outcomes we examined. More specifically, per-
negative relative and absolute feedback as similarly unthreaten- haps because valuable feedback motivates learning, we found
ing). Therefore we did not find support for Hypothesis 6a but did that the extent to which study participants perceive feedback as
find support for Hypothesis 6b. valuable is positively related to effort and learning in the feedback
Lastly, to explicate the results of the moderated mediation, we area. In contrast, perhaps because ego threats consume cognitive
calculated predicted values by feedback standard (i.e., negative resources, feedback perceived as more threatening translates to
relative and negative absolute feedback) for those in the entity lower learning in (although not always the amount of effort
condition and those in the incremental condition. We expected devoted to) the feedback area.
Table 6
Experiment 2: Analyses for conditional indirect effects (through the parallel mediators, value and threat) for entity and incremental theorists.
Effort Learning
Conditional indirect effects Indirect effect 95% CI Indirect effect 95% CI
Perceived value
Entity 0.39* ( 0.89, 0.10) 0.22* ( 0.57, 0.04)
Incremental 0.30* (0.06, 0.72) 0.17* (0.01, 0.45)
Perceived threat
Entity 0.00 ( 0.28, 0.33) 0.14* (0.01, 0.40)
Incremental 0.00 ( 0.13, 0.14) 0.04 ( 0.20, 0.06)
Index of moderated mediation Index 95% CI Index 95% CI
Perceived value 0.68* (0.19, 1.44) 0.39* (0.05, 0.87)
Perceived threat 0.00 ( 0.48, 0.35) 0.18* ( 0.50, 0.01)
Note. N = 158.
*
p < 0.05 (95% bootstrapped confidence interval does not include 0).
Perhaps because they seek validation of their abilities and hold whereas control theory predicts that negative discrepancies tend
beliefs that change is not possible, entity theorists found negative to motivate effort, our findings suggest that individuals’ implicit
feedback to be more threatening; in comparison, perhaps because theory of ability help to determine the extent to which negative
they seek learning opportunities and believe that change is possi- discrepancies do so. Our findings in regards to the perceived value
ble, incremental theorists found negative feedback as less threat- of feedback suggest that this may be due in part to how implicit
ening. Additionally, entity theorists perceive more value but also theories of ability determine the subjective utility of goals related
more threat in negative relative feedback (as compared to negative to self-improvement. As another example, our findings showing
absolute feedback), and, perhaps due to motivational conflict, tend that threat is associated with reduced learning but not reduced
to have worse feedback outcomes when receiving negative relative effort suggest that cognitive (rather than motivational) processes
feedback (especially in terms of learning). In contrast, incremental may largely underlie the effects of feedback that threatens one’s
theorists perceive more value and less threat in negative absolute self-concept. Effort alone appears to insufficient – perhaps because
feedback (as compared to negative relative feedback), and, perhaps the experience of anxiety and other negative emotions associated
due to a lack of motivational conflict, tend to have better feedback with threat – promote misdirected effort or even inhibit learning
outcomes. Overall, our findings contribute to both the feedback lit- by taking attention away from the task. These findings are consis-
erature and implicit theories literature by demonstrating how indi- tent with recent writings by Dweck (2015: np) stating that entity
viduals’ implicit beliefs about the self—whether measured as theorists fail not just because they fail to exert effort but because
chronic beliefs or induced as a temporary state – explain differ- they misdirect effort or employ poor learning strategies: ‘‘[People]
ences in the feedback process. need to try new strategies and seek input from others when they’re
stuck. They need this repertoire of approaches—not just sheer
5.1. Theoretical implications effort—to learn and improve.”
Our findings make several contributions to theory and research 5.2. Practical implications
on feedback interventions. First, they explain how individual and
situational factors interact in the feedback process – and may at Our results also have practical implications. Our findings high-
least partially account for the mixed results found in the extant lit- light the value of believing that performance improvements are
erature on feedback. In exploring how individual differences possible. As demonstrated here and elsewhere (Aronson, Fried, &
(namely, implicit beliefs about the self) interact with different Good, 2002; Heslin, Latham, & VandeWalle, 2005), implicit theories
types of feedback messages, we acknowledge the complexity of of ability can be easily changed through training and persuasive
the feedback process. Specifically, we found that feedback standard information. As such, managers should seek to cultivate an incre-
combines with individuals’ implicit theory in determining feed- mental theory of ability in their employees such as by highlighting
back responses – and, in fact, find that these implicit beliefs are the efforts of the most improved performers. They should also rein-
often associated with opposing perceptions of different types of force the idea that employees can improve through effort perhaps
feedback. Thus this study helps to explain why past research exam- by pointing out areas in which the employee has shown improve-
ining the effects of feedback standard has found conflicting results ment in the past. By emphasizing to employees that improvement
(e.g., Atwater & Brett, 2006; Moore & Klein, 2008; Schultz, 1999). is possible with effort, managers are likely to encourage the pres-
Our findings support our theoretical contention that partici- ence of an incremental theory of ability. However, our results also
pants’ responses to feedback reflected multiple – and sometimes suggest that managers need to ensure that effort will prove fruitful
conflicting – motives: the motive to pursue goal achievement in by helping to ensure that employees employ different learning
the feedback area and the motive to restore feelings of self- strategies to help increase their chances of being successful.
worth. More specifically, we found that participants sometimes Because the content of feedback messages can communicate the
both perceived feedback as important and threatening – and that implicit theory of the person delivering the feedback and his or
the perception of threat sometimes overrided their efforts to learn. her expectations of change (Rattan, Good, & Dweck, 2012: Study
Because these motives are conflicting, their simultaneous pursuit is 4), it may be that the use of negative relative feedback communi-
likely stymied – and, consistent with this contention, result in cates managers’ beliefs that change is not possible. As such, man-
worse feedback outcomes. Our findings are consistent with the agers should focus on using absolute standards when evaluating
idea that entity theorists respond poorly to failure because their employee performance.
concern with restoring positive feelings of self-worth override Our findings support the use of a strength-based approach to
their concern with using feedback to achieve their goals. For exam- feedback (Aguinis, Gottfredson, & Joo, 2012). The strength-based
ple, entity theorists were far more likely than incremental theorists approach to feedback suggests that the damaging effect of negative
to choose the tutorial for the topic for which they had not received feedback can be reduced if managers frame employees’ weakness
negative feedback. By considering the mediating factors of per- as being the result of changeable individual aspects and as some-
ceived value and threat, this study provides a deeper understand- thing that can be compensated for by their strengths (Aguinis
ing of the feedback process. et al., 2012). This strength-based approach may make negative
In addition to having implications for the feedback literature, feedback less threatening and thus reduce motivational conflict.
our findings have implications for the implicit theories literature. Short of changing employees’ implicit theory, managers may
Research has shown that entity theorists struggle in the face of search for clues indicating an employee’s implicit theory of ability
challenges and failure (Dweck, 1996; Dweck & Leggett, 1988; and use these cues to tailor feedback messages. Evidence suggests
Tabernero & Wood, 1999). Our findings point to a possible reason that employees can determine their manager’s implicit beliefs
for these findings. Namely, setbacks or failures may trigger motiva- about ability (Kam, Rasavy, Perunovic, & Plant, 2014). Likewise,
tional conflict for entity theorists. As such, rather than pursuing managers may rely on cues to indicate an employee’s implicit the-
actions aimed at development, they pursue actions aimed at self- ory of ability such as the task strategies he or she employs, his or
protection. her responses to failure, and his or her optimistic expectations
Lastly, our findings have important implications for theories regarding goal achievement (e.g., Burnette, O’Boyle, VanEpps,
that have been invoked to explain how individuals respond to Pollack, & Finkel, 2013). Managers can then tailor their feedback
feedback such as control theory (Carver & Scheier, 1981) and feed- based on the employee’s implicit theory of ability – and tailor per-
back intervention theory (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996). For example, suasive messages to alter that theory. For example, our results sug-
gest that corrective feedback should emphasize comparisons to an Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in
social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical
absolute standard rather than comparisons to others – especially
considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182.
for entity theorists. Belschak, F. D., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2009). Consequences of positive and negative
Lastly, given that individuals’ perceptions of feedback as valu- feedback: The impact on emotions and extra role behaviors. Applied Psychology:
able was associated with improved behavioral and learning out- An International Review, 58(2), 274–303.
Bobko, P., & Colella, A. (1994). Employee reactions to performance standards: A
comes, managers should also attempt to increase the perceived review and research propositions. Personnel Psychology, 47, 1–29.
value of feedback. For example, managers may combine their feed- Brett, J. F., & Atwater, L. E. (2001). 360° feedback: Accuracy, reactions, and
back message with information about how their continued perceptions of usefulness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(5), 930–942.
Brown, J. D., & Dutton, K. A. (1995). The thrill of victory, the complexity of defeat:
improvement will benefit the employee (e.g., to experience posi- Self-esteem and people’s emotional reactions to success and failure. Journal of
tive emotion from goal achievement, to be promoted, or to earn Personality and Social Psychology, 68(4), 712–722.
higher raises). Brunstein, J. C. (2000). Motivation and performance following failure: The effortful
pursuit of self-defining goals. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 49,
340–356.
5.3. Limitations and future research directions Burnette, J. L., O’Boyle, E., VanEpps, E. M., Pollack, J. M., & Finkel, E. J. (2013). Mind-
sets matter: A meta-analytic review of implicit theories and self-regulation.
Psychological Bulletin, 139, 655–701.
Here we discuss the limitations of the present study and pro- Butler, R. (2000). Making judgments about ability: The role of implicit theories of
pose future research that builds on the present study. First, the ability in moderating inferences from temporal and social comparison
timeframe of these studies were short. Replication studies that information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(5), 965–978.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1981). Attention and self-regulation: A control-theory
consider a longer time lag after feedback will help to determine approach to human behavior. New York: Springer-Verlag.
the extent to which feedback’s effects are long-lasting – or short- Cianci, A. M., Schaubroeck, J. M., & McGill, G. A. (2010). Achievement goals,
lived. Longitudinal studies examining how employees respond to feedback, and task performance. Human Performance, 23(2), 131–154.
Crocker, J., & Park, L. E. (2003). Seeking self-esteem: Construction, maintenance, and
feedback at work provide useful guides (e.g., Walker & Smither,
protection of self-worth. Handbook of Self and Identity, 291–313.
1999; Woo, Sims, Rupp, & Gibbons, 2008). Second, and relatedly, Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Getzels, J. W. (1971). Discovery-oriented behavior and the
we did not examine the influence of context in relation to our pro- originality of creative products: A study with artists. Journal of Personality and
posed model. Research has shown that the context in which feed- Social Psychology, 19(1), 47–52.
Cury, F., Elliot, A. J., Da Fonseca, D., & Moller, A. C. (2006). The social-cognitive model
back is received can have a significant influence on employees’ of achievement motivation and the 2 2 achievement goal framework. Journal
perceptions of and responses to feedback (e.g., Rosen, Levy, & of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(4), 666–679.
Hall, 2006; Steelman, Levy, & Snell, 2004; Whitaker, Dahling, & Dweck, C. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist,
41(10), 1040–1048.
Levy, 2007). Future research should incorporate contextual factors Dweck, C. S. (1996). Capturing the dynamic nature of personality. Journal of Research
such as characteristics of the feedback source and task to further in Personality, 30, 348–362.
expand our understanding of employees’ responses to feedback. Dweck, C. S. (2000). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and
development. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
Third, we focused on several important outcomes that may follow Dweck, C. (2015). Carol Dweck revisits the ’growth mindset’. Education Week, 35(5).
feedback but we did not consider how different feedback percep- Dweck, C. S., Chiu, C. Y., & Hong, Y. Y. (1995). Implicit theories and their role in
tions may translate to performance outcomes. Although declara- judgments and reactions: A word from two perspectives. Psychological Inquiry, 6
(4), 267–285.
tive learning has sometimes been included in measures of Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and
performance (e.g., Sitzmann & Johnson, 2012), future research personality. Psychological Review, 95(2), 256–273.
should examine how perceptions of feedback as valuable and Edwards, J., & Lambert, L. (2007). Methods for integrating moderation and
mediation: A general analytical framework using moderated path analysis.
threatening may determine task performance.
Psychological Methods, 12(1), 1–22.
Eysenck, M. W., Derakshan, N., Santos, R., & Calvo, M. G. (2007). Anxiety and
6. Conclusion cognitive performance: Attentional control theory. Emotion, 7, 336–353.
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7(2),
117–140.
Consistent with the social-cognitive model of implicit theories, Gilhooly, K. J., Fioratou, E., Anthony, S. H., & Wynn, V. (2007). Divergent thinking:
our results suggest that individuals’ implicit beliefs about ability Strategies and executive involvement in generating novel uses for familiar
objects. British Journal of Psychology, 98, 611–625.
determine how they perceive and respond to feedback messages. Green, J. D., Pinter, B., & Sedikides, C. (2005). Mnemic neglect and self-threat: Trait
Our findings highlight how these meta-cognitions influence modifiability moderates self-protection. European Journal of Social Psychology,
employees’ self-regulation after receiving negative feedback – 35, 225–235.
Green, J. D., & Sedikides, C. (2004). Retrieval selectivity in the processing of self-
whether they seek self-improvement or give up and shift their referent information: Testing the boundaries of self-protection. Self and Identity,
attention elsewhere. Overall, these findings make contributions 3(1), 69–80.
to both the feedback literature and implicit theories literature Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5, 444–544.
Harackiewicz, J. M., & Larson, J. R. (1986). Managing motivation: The impact of
and help to unravel the feedback process.
supervisor feedback on subordinate task interest. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 51(3), 547–556.
References Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process
analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.
Aguinis, H., Gottfredson, R. K., & Joo, H. (2012). Delivering effective performance Heslin, P. (2003). Self- and other-referent criteria of career success. Journal of Career
feedback: The strengths-based approach. Business Horizons, 55(2), 105–111. Assessment, 11, 262–286.
Alder, G. S., & Ambrose, M. L. (2005). Feedback’s influence on the perceived fairness Heslin, P., Latham, G., & VandeWalle, D. (2005). The effect of implicit person theory
of computer performance monitoring: An empirical investigation. on performance appraisals. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(5), 842–856.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97, 161–177. Heslin, P. A., & VandeWalle, D. (2011). Performance appraisal procedural justice:
Aronson, J., Fried, C. B., & Good, C. (2002). Reducing the effects of stereotype threat The role of a manager’s implicit person theory. Journal of Management, 37,
on African American college students by shaping theories of intelligence. Journal 1694–1718.
of Experimental Social Psychology, 38(2), 113–125. Heslin, P., Vandewalle, D., & Latham, G. (2006). Keen to help? Managers’ implicit
Ashford, S. J. (1986). Feedback-seeking in individual adaptation: A resource person theories and their subsequent employee coaching. Personnel Psychology,
perspective. The Academy of Management Journal, 29(3), 465–487. 59(4), 871–902.
Atwater, L. E., & Brett, J. (2006). 360 degree feedback to leaders: Does it relate to Hong, Y., Chiu, C., Dweck, C. S., Lin, D. M. S., & Wan, W. (1999). Implicit theories,
changes in employee attitudes? Group and Organization Management, 31(5), attributions, and coping: A meaning system approach. Journal of Personality and
578–600. Social Psychology, 77(3), 588–599.
Bandura, A., & Wood, R. (1989). Effect of perceived controllability and performance Job, V., Dweck, C. S., & Walton, G. M. (2010). Ego depletion—Is it all in your head?
standards on self-regulation of complex decision making. Journal of Personality Implicit theories about willpower affect self-regulation. Psychological Science, 21
and Social Psychology, 56(5), 805–814. (11), 1686–1693.
Kam, C., Rasavy, S. D., Perunovic, E., & Plant, L. (2014). Do subordinates formulate an Rattan, A., Good, C., & Dweck, C. S. (2012). ‘‘It’s ok—Not everyone can be good at
impression of their manager’s implicit person theory? Applied Psychology, 63, math”: Instructors with an entity theory comfort (and demotivate) students.
267–299. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(3), 731–737.
Kim, S., Lee, M., Chung, Y., & Bong, M. (2010). Comparison of brain activation during Rosen, C. C., Levy, P. E., & Hall, R. J. (2006). Placing perceptions of politics in the
norm-referenced versus criterion-referenced feedback: The role of perceived context of the feedback environment, employee attitudes, and job performance.
competence and performance approach goals. Contemporary Educational Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(1), 211–220.
Psychology, 35, 141–152. Schultz, P. W. (1999). Changing behavior with normative feedback interventions: A
Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). Effects of feedback intervention on performance: A field experiment on curbside recycling. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 21,
historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention 25–36.
theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254–284. Sedikides, C., & Gregg, A. P. (2003). Portraits of the self. In M. A. Hogg & J. Cooper
Lam, S. S. K., Yik, M. S. M., & Schaubroeck, J. (2002). Responses to formal (Eds.), Sage handbook of social psychology (pp. 110–138). London: Sage.
performance appraisal feedback: The role of negative affectivity. Journal of Shalley, C. E. (1991). Effects of productivity goals, creativity goals, and personal
Applied Psychology, 87, 192–201. discretion on individual creativity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(2), 179–185.
Leung, K., Su, S., & Morris, M. W. (2001). When is criticism not constructive? The Sitzmann, T., & Johnson, S. K. (2012). When is ignorance bliss? The effects of
roles of fairness perceptions and dispositional attributions in employee inaccurate self-assessments of knowledge on learning and attrition.
acceptance of critical supervisory feedback. Human Relations, 54(9), 1155–1187. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 117(1), 192–207.
Levy, S., Stroessner, S., & Dweck, C. (1998). Stereotype formation and endorsement: Smalley, R., & Stake, J. E. (1996). Evaluating sources of ego-threatening feedback:
The role of implicit theories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6), Self-esteem and narcissism effects. Journal of Research in Personality, 30,
1421–1436. 483–495.
Mangels, J. A., Butterfield, B., Lamb, J., Good, C., & Dweck, C. S. (2006). Why do beliefs Steelman, L. A., Levy, P. E., & Snell, A. F. (2004). The feedback environment scale:
about intelligence influence learning success? A social cognitive neuroscience Construct definition, measurement, and validation. Educational and
model. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 1(2), 75–86. Psychological Measurement, 64(1), 165–184.
Markman, K. D., Lindberg, M. J., Kray, L. J., & Galinsky, A. D. (2007). Implications of Tabernero, C., & Wood, R. (1999). Implicit theories versus the social construal of
counterfactual structure for creative generation and analytical problem solving. ability in self-regulation and performance on a complex task. Organizational
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(3), 312–324. Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 78(2), 104–127.
Mathur, P., Jain, S. P., Hsieh, M. H., Lindsey, C. D., & Maheswaran, D. (2013). The Taylor, M. S., Fisher, C. D., & Ilgen, D. R. (1984). Individuals’ reactions to performance
influence of implicit theories and message frame on the persuasiveness of feedback in organizations: A control theory perspective. Research in Personnel
disease prevention and detection advocacies. Organizational Behavior and and Human Resources Management, 2, 81–124.
Human Decision Processes, 122(2), 141–151. Trope, Y., Gervey, B., & Bolger, N. (2003). The role of perceived control in overcoming
Maurer, T. J., & Lippstreu, M. (2008). Expert vs. general working sample differences defensive self-evaluation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39(5),
in KSAO ‘improvability’ ratings and relationships with measures relevant to 407–419.
occupational and organizational psychology. Journal of Occupational and Vancouver, J. B., & Tischner, E. C. (2004). The effect of feedback sign on task
Organizational Psychology, 81, 813–829. performance depends on self-concept discrepancies. Journal of Applied
Maurer, T. J., Mitchell, D. R. D., & Barbeite, F. G. (2002). Predictors of attitudes Psychology, 89(6), 1092–1098.
toward a 360-degree feedback system and involvement in post-feedback Walker, A. G., & Smither, J. W. (1999). A five-year study of upward feedback: What
management development activity. Journal of Occupational and Organizational managers do with their results matters. Personnel Psychology, 52, 393–423.
Psychology, 75, 87–107. Wang, C., & Biddle, S. J. H. (2003). Intrinsic motivation towards sports in
Moore, D. A., & Klein, W. M. P. (2008). Use of absolute and comparative performance Singaporean students: The role of sport ability beliefs. Journal of Health
feedback in absolute and comparative judgments and decisions. Organizational Psychology, 8(5), 515–523.
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 107(1), 60–74. Whitaker, B. G., Dahling, J. J., & Levy, P. (2007). The development of a feedback
Mueller, C., & Dweck, C. (1998). Praise for intelligence can undermine children’s environment and role clarity model of job performance. Journal of Management,
motivation and performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(1), 33(4), 570–591.
33–52. Woo, S. E., Sims, C. S., Rupp, D. E., & Gibbons, A. M. (2008). Development
Nussbaum, A. D., & Dweck, C. S. (2008). Defensiveness versus remediation: Self- engagement within and following developmental assessment centers:
theories and modes of self-esteem maintenance. Personality and Social Considering feedback favorability and self–assessor agreement. Personnel
Psychology Bulletin, 34(5), 599–612. Psychology, 61, 727–759.
Payne, S. C., Youngcourt, S. S., & Beaubien, J. M. (2007). A meta-analytic examination
of the goal orientation nomological net. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1),
128–150.

Jurnal MSDM 2 (Persepsi Pengaruh Diri Terhadap Feedback Negatif)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jurnal MSDM 2 (Persepsi Pengaruh Diri Terhadap Feedback Negatif)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jurnal MSDM 2 (Persepsi Pengaruh Diri Terhadap Feedback Negatif)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 139 (2017) 50–62

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes

How beliefs about the self influence perceptions of negative feedback

1. Introduction feedback as both valuable and threatening. In fact, it seems likely

Effort in feedback area

Perceived value Perceived threat

Note. N = 94; Feedback standard: relative feedback = 1 and absolute feedback = 2.

Hypothesis 1 states that incremental theorists will perceive

Perceived value Perceived threat

Note. N = 158; Feedback standard: relative feedback = 1 and absolute feedback = 2.

You might also like