The Effects of Anticipated Feedback Proximity on Performance

39 Pages·2016·0.38 MB·English

Western Kentucky University
TopSCHOLAR®
Masters Theses & Specialist Projects Graduate School
5-2015
The Effects of Anticipated Feedback Proximity on
Performance: Exploring the Moderating Role of
Self-Efficacy and Task Type
Xingya Xu
Western Kentucky University, [email protected]
Follow this and additional works at:http://digitalcommons.wku.edu/theses
Part of theExperimental Analysis of Behavior Commons
Recommended Citation
Xu, Xingya, "The Effects of Anticipated Feedback Proximity on Performance: Exploring the Moderating Role of Self-Efficacy and Task
Type" (2015).Masters Theses & Specialist Projects.Paper 1502.
http://digitalcommons.wku.edu/theses/1502
This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by TopSCHOLAR®. It has been accepted for inclusion in Masters Theses & Specialist Projects by
an authorized administrator of TopSCHOLAR®. For more information, please contact [email protected].
THE EFFECTS OF ANTICIPATED FEEDBACK PROXIMITY ON PERFORMANCE:
EXPLORING THE MODERATING ROLE OF SELF-EFFICACY AND TASK TYPE

A Thesis
Presented to
The Faculty of the Department of Psychological Sciences
Western Kentucky University
Bowling Green, Kentucky

In Partial Fulfillment
Of the Requirements for the Degree
Master of Science

By
Xingya Xu

May 2015

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
First and foremost, I would like to offer my sincerest gratitude to my advisor, Dr.
Qin Zhao for her continuous assistance and dedicated involvement in my research and
my Master’s study. I would like to thank her very much for the support, patience and
encouragement.
Further gratitude is extended to Dr. Jenni Redifer and Dr. Andrew Mienaltowski
for serving as thesis committee members, as well as their insightful comments,
professional suggestions and encouragement. I would also have to acknowledge Dr.
Elizabeth Lemerise and Dr. Aaron Wichman, who motivated and supported me to chase
my academic dream. To other faculty, Dr. Steve R. Wininger, Dr. Anthony Paquin and
Dr. Reagan Brown, I would like to express gratitude to their enlightenment and assistance.
Thanks also goes out to Battogtokh Zagdsuren for her help in data grading, and to Casey
Fortney for his assistance in programming Media Lab software.
A special thanks to my family for the support they provided me and in particular,
I must acknowledge my husband and best friend, Lianqi Wang, without whose love,
encouragement and assistance, I would not have accomplished this thesis.

iii
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ................................ .............................................................................1
METHOD ......................................................................................................................... .8
RESULTS ........................................................................................................................ 13
DISCUSSION .................................................................................................................. 16
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 20
APPENDIX A: REMOTE ASSOCIATE TEST (RAT)...................................................25
APPENDIX B: THE ABBREVIATED TORRANCE TEST FOR ADULTS (ATTA)...26
APPENDIX C: MATH TEST...........................................................................................27
APPENDIX D: VERBAL TEST.......................................................................................29
APPENDIX E: PROBLEM-SOLVING SELF-EFFICACY.............................................31
APPENDIX F: TASK INVOLVEMENT, EFFORT AND ENJOYMENT..................... 32
iv
THE EFFECTS OF ANTICIPATED FEEDBACK PROXIMITY ON PERFORMANCE:
EXPLORING THE MODERATING ROLE OF SELF-EFFICACY AND TASK TYPE
Xingya Xu May 2015 33 Pages
Directed by: Qin Zhao, Jenni Redifer, and Andrew Mienaltowski
Department of Psychological Sciences Western Kentucky University
The present study investigated the effect of anticipated feedback proximity
(immediately after completing the task or one week later) on performance and the
moderating role of self-efficacy and task types (analytical or creative). I hypothesized
that expecting rapid feedback should yield better performance than expecting delayed
feedback, for people with high self-efficacy or those who receive analytical tasks. For
those who receive creative tasks or have low self-efficacy, expecting rapid feedback may
produce negative impact on performance. The results indicated a trend of main effect of
anticipated feedback proximity. Specifically, participants performed better when they
expected immediate feedback relative to expecting delayed feedback, regardless of the
task type. There was also a main effect of task type. Performance on the analytical tasks
was better than performance on the creative tasks. However, neither self-efficacy nor task
type moderated the effects of anticipated feedback proximity. The implications for these
findings are discussed herein.
v
Introduction
In learning settings, people often receive feedback on their performance, and this
feedback plays an important role in helping people to reflect and improve. Feedback can
be understood as a process which provides information in response to one’s behaviour
while completing tasks. The extensive study of feedback in research indicates its
important role in learning (Schmidt & Bjork, 1992). Researchers have also started to
study some extended features of feedback, such as anticipated feedback proximity.
Anticipated feedback proximity refers to how quickly people expect to receive feedback
on their performance.
Anticipated Feedback Proximity
The earliest evidence for a relationship between anticipated feedback proximity
and performance is from the research conducted by Nisan (1976), who reported that the
expectation of immediate feedback led participants to have lower task performance than
those who expected delayed feedback (1 week delay). Ninety-six boys in three seventh-
grade classes from a school in Jerusalem were the participants. Two tasks in this study
included constructing a word from six letters and an instruction test (Burt, 1927). The
author gave example of the instruction test: “If you have already eaten supper today write
here M, and if not write S.”
Surprisingly, no research has been published about anticipated feedback
proximity since Nisan (1976) until recently. Kettle and Häubl (2010) conducted a field
experiment to explore the effects of anticipated feedback proximity on both actual and
predicted performance on an individual oral presentation task. They obtained the opposite
results to Nisan’s (1976) experiment. Kettle and Häubl (2010) randomly assigned
1
participants to a presentation date, varying the date at which participants expected to
receive their presentation grades (i.e., delay ranging from 0 to 17 days). Presentations
were peer graded on a scale from 0 (poor) to 10 (excellent), and participants also made
rank predictions (1 to 10) of their own performance. The results showed that anticipating
more rapid feedback improved performance on the oral presentation task, and yet
lowered performance prediction. The reported effects of anticipated feedback proximity
were attributed to the desire to avoid disappointment (Kettle & Häubl, 2010). van Dijk,
Zeelenberg, and Van der Pligt (2003) have suggested that the more proximate the
anticipated feedback is, the more easily people feel the threat of disappointment. One
way to avoid the negative feelings of disappointment is for the individual who is
receiving feedback to lower their expectations while also working hard to perform well
(Shepperd & McNulty, 2002).
A recent lab experiment involving a verbal aptitude task replicated the main
findings of Kettle and Häubl (2010): anticipated feedback proximity had a significant
effect on actual and judged performance, and expecting more proximate feedback caused
people to perform better (Fajfar, Campitelli, & Labollita, 2012). One important difference
between the two studies was that Kettle and Häubl (2010) examined predictions of future
performance, whereas Fajfar et al. (2012) studied post-test estimation of performance.
Fajfar et al. (2012) randomly assigned participants to one of two feedback proximity
conditions: immediate versus delayed (after a week). They were asked to finish the
BAIRES test of verbal aptitude (Cortada de Kohan, 2003), which asked participants to
judge the definitions and synonyms of nouns. One dollar was rewarded for every correct
answer, providing an incentive to motivate thoughtful and accurate performance. In
2
addition to actual test performance, the researchers examined participants’ post-test
estimation of performance (how many correct items they think they achieved), estimation
of others’ performance (the average number of others’ correct responses), etc. The main
findings were that the group expecting immediate feedback had better performance than
the group expecting delayed feedback. The immediate feedback group underestimated
their performance, whereas the delayed feedback group was fairly accurate and showed
no significant bias in their judgment. Explanation for this finding was defensive
pessimism: when the feedback was close, people were apt to have a pessimistic attitude
about performance, and they worked hard to avoid negative feedback. Therefore,
performance would be improved by working harder.
In addition to the main effects of anticipated feedback proximity on actual and
judged performance, researchers have recently explored individual differences in
response to anticipated feedback proximity, for example, the moderating role of
metacognitive beliefs about intelligence (Zhao, Zhang, & Vance, 2013). Research
suggests that there are two main types of metacognitive beliefs (or implicit theories)
about intelligence: incremental theory and entity theory (Dweck, 1999; Dweck &
Leggett, 1988; Molden & Dweck, 2006). Incremental theorists believe that intelligence is
malleable and can be developed with effort. People with this belief tend to perceive
feedback as useful information to improve their abilities (Dweck & Leggett, 1988;
Molden & Dweck, 2006). However, entity theorists believe that intelligence is largely
stable or fixed. People with this belief tend to perceive feedback as evaluative judgments
on their abilities and are more likely to admit they have reached their ability’s limits
(Dweck & Leggett, 1988). Zhao et al. (2013) hypothesized that expecting rapid (versus
3
delayed) feedback would motivate better performance, particularly for people with an
incremental view of intelligence who embrace feedback. Participants recruited from an
introductory psychology course were randomly assigned to one of the four conditions
resulting from a 2 x 2 between-subjects design: (anticipated feedback proximity: same
day vs. 3 days later; beliefs about intelligence: incremental vs. entity). Prior to the exam,
participants read one of the two versions of the article named “The Origins of
Intelligence: Is the Nature-Nurture Controversy Resolved,” which was adopted to
manipulate incremental or entity beliefs about intelligence (Miele, Finn, & Molden,
2011). Participants also received instructions about when they would likely know their
test grades, on the same day or 3 days later. The main results showed that anticipation of
rapid feedback improved performance in the incremental group but reduced performance
in the entity group. It thus seems that anticipating rapid feedback can be motivating or
detrimental, depending on individuals’ beliefs about ability (Zhao et al., 2013).
In summary, research on the effects of anticipated feedback proximity on judged
and actual performance has important practical implications but is surprisingly scarce.
The available evidence thus far demonstrates the significant effect of anticipated
feedback proximity (rapid versus delayed) on people’s performance. In addition,
individual differences may exist in response to anticipated feedback proximity. Overall,
the main purpose of the current research is to extend past work by exploring additional
moderating variables, including individual and task factors.
Self-Efficacy
Self-efficacy is a kind of strong personal belief about oneself. In social cognitive
theory, Albert Bandura first introduced self-efficacy as an important concept in 1977.
4