Enhancing feedback and improving feedback: Subjective perceptions, psychological consequences, behavioral outcomes
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2016
Three experiments examined subjective perceptions, psychological consequences, and behavioral out... more Three experiments examined subjective perceptions, psychological consequences, and behavioral outcomes of enhancing versus improving feedback. Across experiments, feedback delivery and assessment were sequential (i.e., at each testing juncture) or cumulative (i.e., at the end of the testing session). Although enhancing feedback was seen as more satisfying than useful, and improving feedback was not seen as more useful than satisfying, perceptions differed as a function of short-term versus long-term feedback delivery and assessment. Overall, however, enhancing feedback was more impactful psychologically and behaviorally. Enhancing feedback engendered greater success consistency, overall satisfaction and usefulness, optimism, state self-esteem, perceived ability, and test persistence intentions; improving feedback, on the other hand, engendered greater state improvement. The findings provide fodder for theory development and applications.
Uploads
Papers by Erica Hepper
little is known about factors that affect accuracy. This study investigated the motivational
characteristics–narcissism and social desirability—that influence the accuracy of selfreported
weight and how they interact with accountability (telling participants that their
weight will be verified). A two-way between-subjects design was used (accountable vs not
accountable) with motivational moderators (narcissism and social desirability). Participants
(N = 80; Mean Age = 34.63; 58.8% Female) were randomly allocated to accountable (told
that their weight would be verified in a follow-up lab session) or not-accountable (no information
given) conditions. In Session 1, participants self-reported motivational (social desirability
and narcissism) and anthropometric (height and weight) measures online. In Session 2
(24 hours later), objective measures of height and weight were taken in the lab. There was a
significant interaction between condition and maladaptive narcissism level. Being told that
weight would be later verified improved accuracy of self-reported weight, but only for those
low in maladaptive narcissism. Accountability improves the accuracy of self-report weight
data, but not for individuals high in narcissism. Though based on a modest sample, these
findings suggest that the under-estimation of self- report weight serves a self-protective
function and maladaptive narcissism may be a useful covariate to include in research using
self-report weight estimates.
Methods: In Study 1, 245 online volunteers (87% female; MAGE=20.92; 44% White-British) completed trait measures of narcissism, self-enhancement/protection strategies and paranoia. In Study 2, 116 students (82% female; MAGE=20.23; 70% White-British) completed baseline measures, then reported state reactions and paranoia following two difficult and two pleasant interpersonal events after 3-10 days. In Study 3, 517 online volunteers (64% female; MAGE=22.76; 77% White/Caucasian) completed baseline measures, experienced a standardised social exclusion (vs. neutral) manipulation (Cyberball), then reported state reactions and paranoia.
Results: In Study 1, narcissism was associated with higher paranoia via defensiveness. In Study 2, this was replicated in difficult but not pleasant events, and was driven by the Entitlement/Exploitativeness facet of narcissism. In Study 3, narcissistic rivalry and vulnerable narcissism, but not admiration, were associated with Cyberball-related paranoia via general defensiveness and denigration of others.
Conclusions: Individuals high in narcissism—especially its socially maladaptive facets—who over-rely on defensive self-protection strategies in response to threat, are particularly vulnerable to paranoia. Findings help to understand individual differences in paranoia.