European Journal of Training and Development

European Journal of Training and Development Emerald Article: Feedback perceptions and attribution by secretarial employees: Effects of feedback-content and sender characteristics Isabel Raemdonck, Jan-Willem Strijbos

Article information: To cite this document: Isabel Raemdonck, Jan-Willem Strijbos, (2013),"Feedback perceptions and attribution by secretarial employees: Effects of feedback-content and sender characteristics", European Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 37 Iss: 1 pp. 24 - 48 Permanent link to this document: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090591311293275 Downloaded on: 08-02-2013 References: This document contains references to 40 other documents To copy this document: [email protected]

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by UNIVERSITE CATHOLIQUE DE LOUVAIN For Authors: If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service. Information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com With over forty years' experience, Emerald Group Publishing is a leading independent publisher of global research with impact in business, society, public policy and education. In total, Emerald publishes over 275 journals and more than 130 book series, as well as an extensive range of online products and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 3 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation. *Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/2046-9012.htm

EJTD 37,1

24 Received 9 July 2012 Revised 6 October 2012 Accepted 8 October 2012

Feedback perceptions and attribution by secretarial employees Effects of feedback-content and sender characteristics Isabel Raemdonck Institute of Analysis of Change in Contemporary and Historical Societies, Universite´ Catholique de Louvain, Louvain-La-Neuve, Belgium, and

Jan-Willem Strijbos Department of Education and Educational Psychology, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Munich, Germany Abstract Purpose – Theoretical explanations for the diverse reactive feedback from secretarial employees in different career phases are relatively unexplored. However, research examining age differences in the impact of feedback suggests that the effects of performance feedback may differ for employees in the early career phase and employees in the late career phase. This paper aims to address this issue. Design/methodology/approach – This contribution reports an experimental study on feedback perceptions and attribution by 173 secretarial employees of 12 Dutch organizations. Each participant responded to one of eight scenarios, which varied in terms of feedback content, sender status, and sender performance appraisal. Feedback perceptions were measured in terms of perceived fairness, acceptance, usefulness, willingness to improve and affect. An additional scale measured attribution. Findings – The results reveal that elaborated specific feedback is perceived as more adequate, irrespective of feedback sender status and appraisal. Complex three-way interaction effects were found for educational level on affect and attribution, and for career phase on willingness to improve and affect. Low-educated employees reacted more strongly to supervisor feedback. Employees in the late career phase were more oriented towards the content of the feedback than feedback sender status, whereas the latter was of more concern for employees in the early and middle career phase. Practical implications – In order for feedback to be considered as adequate, it is necessary to formulate the feedback as specific and as elaborated as possible. Employees in their late career phase especially react differently in comparison to employees in early and middle career phases. They are more inclined “to opt for quality” and appreciate elaborated feedback from a high experienced sender. Human resource managers should be aware of this in their policy towards employees in their late career phase Originality/value – The present study shows that feedback content and sender characteristics (status and performance appraisal) differentially affect feedback perceptions and attribution. In addition, the study reveals that perceptions and attributions of performance feedback might be mediated by educational level and career phase. European Journal of Training and Development Vol. 37 No. 1, 2013 pp. 24-48 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 2046-9012 DOI 10.1108/03090591311293275

Keywords Feedback content, Feedback perceptions, Feedback sender characteristics, Performance feedback, Career phase, Career development, Feedback, Perception Paper type Research paper

Feedback is an everyday aspect of the contemporary workplace. It is regarded as essential for employees’ professional learning and development of their competences (London, 2003). Feedback can be provided in many ways, but the focus in this article is on the provision of feedback through written communication. Moreover, we are specifically interested in secretarial employees’ reactions to feedback. Although this employee group is hardly the focus of attention, examining their reactions is highly relevant as communication via e-mail is a central aspect of their daily work practice. Most studies on feedback focus on direct performance improvements, although the seminal review by Kluger and DeNisi (1996) has revealed inconsistent effects, that is, one-third of the studies reported a negative impact on performance. This led them to propose their feedback intervention theory, with a strong motivational component. In addition, Mory (2004, p. 777) proposed to “Identify measurable variables that can reflect internal cognitive and affective processes of learners that might potentially affect how feedback is perceived and utilized.”. Moreover, feedback has been typically studied with respect to its sign – i.e. positive or negative verification – and much less with respect to elaborated content, that is, whether the feedback provides explanations or hints to improve performance (Narciss, 2008). Furthermore, characteristics of the feedback sender appear to influence the perception of feedback – i.e. elaborated feedback from a high-competent peer is perceived as more adequate (Strijbos, Narciss and Du¨nnebier, 2010; Strijbos et al., 2009) and the acceptance of negative supervisory feedback is mediated through attribution (Leung et al., 2001). In addition, workplace feedback has been mostly studied in terms of feedback from a supervisor to a subordinate (Brett and Atwater, 2001). Finally, potential effects of educational level and career phase of the feedback receiver on perceptions and attributions have not been studied. This study investigates two main research questions: “What is the effect of feedback content, sender status and sender performance appraisal on perceptions and attributions of feedback” (RQ1) and “What are the differential effects, if any, of educational level and career phase for feedback content, sender status and sender performance appraisal with regard to their effect on perceptions and attributions of feedback?” (RQ2). The next sections review the literature for each research question, specifying specific hypotheses when possible. RQ1. Feedback content, sender characteristics, feedback perceptions and attributions. In instructional and organisational contexts the term “feedback” refers to post-response information which informs the recipient on their actual states of learning and/or performance, in order to help them detect if their state corresponds to the learning and/or performance aims in a given context (Narciss, 2006, 2008). Depending on the actual state of learning and/or performance, feedback can provide a variety of information. When there is no gap between the actual and intended state, feedback can, for example, provide information that confirms goal achievement, correctness of a response, or the achieved level of performance. In the case of small or large gaps it can provide more or less detailed information, which can be more or less specifically related to learning tasks or processes. Hence, a large variety of feedback types exists. To describe the feedback type variety systematically, several recent reviews and syntheses of research on feedback adopt a multidimensional view of feedback (Hattie and Timperley, 2007; Narciss, 2008; Shute, 2008). Narciss’s view stresses three main facets – feedback content, form, and function – that determine the quality of a feedback message (Narciss, 2006, 2008; Narciss and Huth, 2004; Shute, 2008).

Feedback perceptions and attribution 25

EJTD 37,1

26

Combining these facets allows designing a large variety of feedback types, which might have differential effects on feedback perceptions and performance of employees. Widely investigated types of feedback are simple feedback types providing outcome-related information, and elaborated feedback types providing additional information besides outcome-related information. Narciss (2006, 2008) developed a content-related classification of feedback components which aims at providing a structured overview on simple and elaborated feedback components, and can be used for the systematic construction of feedback. Simple feedback components are knowledge of performance, knowledge of result, and knowledge of the correct response. An elaborated feedback component is dependent on the elaborated information provided, which might address: . knowledge on task constraints (provides information on task rules, task constraints and task requirements); . knowledge about concepts (provides information on conceptual knowledge); . knowledge about mistakes (provides information on errors or mistakes); . knowledge on how to proceed (know-how) (provides information on procedural knowledge); and . knowledge on metacognition (provides information on metacognitive knowledge). The issue of whether various feedback contents affect feedback perceptions and attributions is important to address in order to optimise the learning processes of employees at work. We argue that the specificity of feedback information may also be helpful in understanding reactions to feedback. Prior research in a higher education context (graduate and undergraduate students) demonstrated that feedback is perceived as helpful if it provides specific and elaborated revision suggestions (Strijbos et al., 2009; Strijbos, Narciss and Du¨nnebier, 2010). Contrary, feedback which is not specific enough and/or does not explain identified problems, is not perceived as useful and is thereby ignored. Other researchers such as Goodman and Wood (2004a, b) have shown that the specificity of feedback information provided in feedback reports, had a positive impact on performance improvement (although the effect did not persist over time). Based on previous research findings we expect that: H1a.

Elaborated specific feedback (ESF), as compared to concise general feedback (CGF), will be (a) perceived as more adequate, (b) result in more willingness to improve, (c) lead to more positive affect, and (d) will be attributed internally.

Besides feedback content, the characteristics of the feedback sender are crucial for the efficiency of feedback (Strijbos, Narciss and Du¨nnebier, 2010). Characteristics of the sender have been widely discussed as a critical factor for feedback perceptions and their acceptance in organisational psychology (Greller and Herold, 1975; Ilgen et al., 1979; Kluger and DeNisi, 1996; Leung et al., 2001). First of all, employees’ receptivity to feedback in a workplace context might depend on the formal status of the feedback sender, that is, the feedback sender can be the employee’s supervisor or co-worker. Employees’ reactions to the feedback might differ depending on whether the feedback comes from their supervisor or from a co-worker. The role of sender power is an under-researched topic (Fedor et al., 2001) except in research on 360-degree feedback (Bauer and Mulder, 2006) Although 360-degree feedback is common practice in some enterprises, this type of feedback is not investigated in this article. Given the legitimate

power that goes along with the formal status of a supervisor, the employee might more easily respond or comply with the feedback by a supervisor than by a co-worker. Prior research on personality feedback demonstrates inconsistent findings. Either positive or no differential effects were found regarding the sender status on the receivers’ perceptions and acceptance of feedback (Halperin et al., 1976). H1b.

Feedback from a supervisor as compared to a co-worker will be perceived as (a) more adequate, (b) result in more willingness to improve, (c) lead to more positive affect, and (d) attributed internally.

Second, employees’ receptivity to feedback in a workplace context might depend on the informal status of the sender. Giffin (1967) states there are at least five dimensions of a feedback sender that influence a feedback sender’s credibility – expertise, reliability, intentions toward the receiver, dynamism, and personal attraction. Ilgen et al. (1979) consider expertise as one of the most important factors for feedback acceptance. Expertise of the feedback sender is expected to depend on such factors as training, experience, competence level, and familiarity with the work task domain (Birnbaum and Stegner, 1979). In general, feedback from a sender with a high level of expertise is assumed to be perceived as more positive than from a sender with low expertise. The study by Klein et al. (1971) revealed that satisfaction with feedback is influenced by the perception of the sender’s familiarity with the work unit: feedback from a sender with low familiarity with the work unit was perceived less positive than feedback from a sender with high familiarity with the work unit. Similarly, Halperin et al. (1976) and Feys et al. (2011) found that perceived feedback credibility and willingness to improve depended on a sender’s expertise. Finally, expertise of the sender has been found to influence intrinsic motivation (Cusella, 1982). H1c.

Feedback from a sender with high performance appraisal as compared to feedback from a sender with low performance appraisal will be perceived as (a) more adequate, (b) result in more willingness to improve, (c) lead to more positive affect, and (d) attributed internally.

Finally, combining H1a, H1b and H1c, it is hypothesised that: H1d.

ESF by a supervisor with high performance appraisal is perceived as most positive whereas CGF by a low co-worker with low performance appraisal is perceived as least positive.

RQ2. Educational level, career phase, feedback perceptions and attributions. Although feedback content and feedback sender characteristics are clearly important predictors of employees’ perceptions towards feedback, it is important to consider individual differences of feedback receivers as well. Factors such as educational level and career phase of the feedback receiver, might impact feedback perceptions and attributions. Low-educated employees might differ from higher-educated employees in how they respond to negative performance feedback. Due to frequent experiences of failure in their prior school career, low-educated employees might do anything to protect their self-concepts (see MacKeracher, 2006). Although no solid links have been established in research, low-educated people might be more concerned with increasing the positivity of the self as a means of achieving a high level of self-esteem than higher educated people (Sedikides and Strube, 1997; Feys et al., 2008). As a consequence, they might more easily reject the negative feedback and attribute poor task performance to uncontrollable or external causes (Feys et al., 2011). Furthermore, low-educated


EJTD 37,1

28

employees might be more sensitive to the formal status of the feedback sender and might more easily accept feedback given by a supervisor compared to co-workers. Interestingly, the influence of career phase with respect to feedback perceptions and attribution is relatively unexplored. Research examining age differences in relation to the impact of feedback suggests that the effects of negative performance feedback may differ for employees in the early career phase and employees in the late career phase (Soederberg Miller and West, 2010; Simon et al., 2010). Older adults performed worse when receiving feedback on list memory tasks relative to when they did not (West et al., 2001). Previous research has also demonstrated that older adults have lower confidence in their abilities and lower willingness to learn relative to younger adults, which might have implications for feedback perceptions and attribution. Furthermore, research on the effects of feedback on performance has shown consistently positive reactions by younger adults, and weaker or inconsistent reactions by older adults (Soederberg Miller and West, 2010). Since prior research is missing on the potential influence of educational level and career phase on a possible interaction between feedback content, sender status and sender performance appraisal with regard to their effect on feedback perceptions and attribution, no specific hypotheses are formulated. Method Participants A total of 173 secretarial employees from 12 Dutch organizations participated in this study. The majority of these organizations belonged to the service sector and were large companies. Secretarial employees was defined on basis of the standard classification of professions by “Statistics Netherlands”. This Dutch institution provides descriptions for each professional occupation. Their description for the occupation “secretarial employee” was used to ensure that the selected participants indeed belonged to the target research group. There were 134 female, 36 male secretarial employees (77.5 percent female; with three missing values). The age ranged from 18 to 64 years (M ¼ 41:49, SD ¼ 12:00; with three missing values). One participant elected not to state both gender and age. Highest attained level of education was also collected. We discerned two educational levels: low-educated (i.e. pre- (vocational) education leading directly to labor market entry; N ¼ 85) and higher-educated employees (i.e. (pre- (higher) general education not aimed for direct labor market entry; N ¼ 83). Five participants did not reveal their highest educational level attained. With respect to career we distinguished three phases: early (age 18-34; N ¼ 53), middle (age 35-47, N ¼ 60), and late (age 48-64; N ¼ 60). Participation was voluntary on informed consent basis. Design A 2 £ 2 £ 2 factorial experimental design was conducted. Each participant responded to one of eight scenarios (randomly assigned). Each scenario depicted a hypothetical situation in which the participants first read an e-mail (Appendix, Figure A1) by a fictional secretarial employee (“Sasha”) on a company outing, and subsequently the reply (Appendix, Figure A2) by the fictional supervisor or co-worker (“Bo”). The names were deliberately ambiguous to avoid potential gender effects. In addition to the status of the sender (S ¼ supervisor vs C ¼ co – worker), the participants were also informed whether the sender was highly valued, or not that so, for prior performance (sender appraisal; H ¼ high vs L ¼ low) and the sender provided either concise general feedback (CGF: feedback was merely an evaluation) or elaborated specific feedback (ESF: feedback contained hints and/or explanations). The scenarios were checked for

validity with a secretarial employee who elected not to participate. Prior research testing convergence of reactions to real situations versus scenarios has shown that persons react almost identically to scenarios as they do to real situations (Robinson and Clore, 2001). In each condition, there was a range of 18 to 24 participants: SHE (N ¼ 22), CHE (N ¼ 24), SHC (N ¼ 24), CHC (N ¼ 22), SLE (N ¼ 18), CLE (N ¼ 21), SLC (N ¼ 23), and CLC (N ¼ 19). Feedback perceptions and attribution were the dependent variables. Materials The perceptions of feedback were measured with an adapted version of the Feedback Perceptions Questionnaire (FPQ; Strijbos, Narciss and Du¨nnebierDu¨nnebier, 2010). This questionnaire measures five aspects of feedback perception: fairness (FA), usefulness (US), acceptance (AC), willingness to improve (WI) and affect (AF) – of which fairness, usefulness and acceptance constitute the second order scale “perceived adequacy of feedback” (PAF). Sample and context considerations for the present study (i.e. a workplace context) resulted in two substitutions (one item for the FA scale and one for the AC scale) and four items were added (one to the WI scale and three new attribution (AT) items). The substitutions were based on a series of studies in secondary and university settings (Strijbos et al., 2009; Strijbos, Narciss and Du¨nnebier, 2010; Strijbos, Pat-El and Narciss, 2010; Strijbos and Sluijsmans, 2011). The FA item “I would be satisfied with this feedback” appeared to be inconsistent as loadings were often observed on the US scale (particularly in secondary education) and it was substituted by “I would consider this feedback insincere”. The AC item “I would reject this feedback” loaded inconsistently on the AC scale and was substituted by “I would challenge this feedback”. All WI items were slightly modified to address the future task at hand, i.e. writing a new e-mail, and the item “The feedback provides suggestions as to how I could improve the e-mail” was added to the WI scale. Finally, three items for attribution (as a further extension to Strijbos, Narciss and Du¨nnebier, 2010), derived from the study by Leung et al. (2001), were added to the questionnaire in the present study. Given the item changes and additions to the questionnaire, we computed a principal component analysis with oblimin rotation (Table I). Five factors were revealed (loadings . 0:400), namely Perceived Adequacy of Feedback (with FA, US and AC items combined; R 2 ¼ 41:7 percent, a ¼ 0:92), Willingness to Improve (R 2 ¼ 8:2 percent, a ¼ 0:82), Positive Affect (R 2 ¼ 10:8, a ¼ 0:79) and Negative Affect (R 2 ¼ 5:25, a ¼ 0:77), and Attribution (R 2 ¼ 4:14, a ¼ 0:76). The factor correlations were modest. Although positive and negative affect constituted distinct factors, alpha for all six items was sufficient (0.77) and thus the entire affect scale was used as a single measure reflecting positive affect after conversion of negative affect items. An integral overview of the exact wording of all items is provided in Table I. Procedure The questionnaires were administered by trained research assistants. Each assistant visited one of the twelve Dutch organizations. Participants were selected on the basis of the standard classification of professions. Each participant received a short explanation and was asked to complete the informed consent form. Subsequently the research assistant handed them an envelope with the scenario. The envelopes were numbered according to the scenarios to achieve an as even as possible distribution of participants. The participants were asked to rate the fictional feedback – as if had they


EJTD 37,1

30

Scale

Items

Fairness

I would consider this feedback insincere I would consider this feedback fair I would consider this feedback justified

0.660 20.143 2 0.025

0.008

0.354

0.651 0.652

0.104 2 0.054 0.269 0.028

0.164 0.067

0.047 0.006

I would consider this feedback useful I would consider this feedback helpful This feedback would provide me a lot of support

0.592

0.373 2 0.040

0.051 2 0.113

0.469

0.285

0.320

0.100

0.566

0.113

0.448

0.064 2 0.117

Usefulness

Acceptance

I would accept this feedback I would dispute this feedback I would challenge this feedback

Willingness

I would be willing to improve my 20.060 e-mail after this feedback I would be willing to invest a lot of 20.024 effort in sending another e-mail 0.137 This feedback makes me willing to do a better job to improve the e-mail 0.025 This feedback provides suggestions as to how I could improve the e-mail

Affect Positive Negative

Attribution

I would feel . . . if I received this feedback on my revision Satisfied Confident Successful Offended Angry Frustrated The feedback sender has an arrogant personality The feedback sender is a person who lacks sensitivity to other people’s feelings Deep inside, the feedback sender is an insecure, competitive person

Eigenvalue % of variance explained Table I. Factor loadings of feedback perceptions and attribution items (five-factor oblimin principal component analysis)

I

Factor correlations I II III IV

II

III

IV

V

0.089

0.474 0.251 0.047 0.316 2 0.006 0.763 0.055 2 0.058 2 0.023 00.59 0.692 20.054 2 0.062 0.097 0.190 0.855 2 0.135

0.093

0.118

0.768

0.032 2 0.014 2 0.145

0.742

0.060 2 0.067

0.103

0.774

0.045 2 0.039

0.084

0.420 0.024 0.679 2 0.001 2 0.100 20.210 20.013 0.894 2 0.054 0.150 20.070 0.000 0.834 0.151 2 0.011 20.093 0.063 0.055 0.770 0.115 0.121 0.056 0.143 0.601 0.209 0.030 20.117 2 0.067 0.975 2 0.127 0.007

0.049

0.304

0.100

0.641

0.123

0.144 2 0.158

0.100

0.699

0.356

0.018

0.060

0.581

1.16 5.25

0.91 4.14

0.398 0.256 0.217

0.359 0.149 0.154 0.330

90.17 41.67

1.81 8.21

0.483

0.157 2.22 10.08

0.195 0.179

Notes: Fairness, usefulness and acceptance items comprise the factor “Perceived adequacy of feedback” (I); II ¼ Willingness to improve; III ¼ Positive affect; IV ¼ Negative affect, V ¼ attribution; Loadings above 0.400 are italic

themselves received this feedback – in terms of fairness, usefulness, acceptance, willingness to improve, affect, and attribution. Manipulation check After completing the questionnaire, the participants received three manipulation check questions with three answer options: (1) Who provided feedback to Sasha? (supervisor/co-worker/do not know). (2) Was it someone who was valued by Sasha for their work? (yes/ no/ do not know). (3) Did the feedback/reply to the e-mail contain suggestions for improvement? (yes/no/do not know). Four participants did not answer any of the three questions and one of the participants did not answer the question whether the feedback also provided suggestions for improvements. Both manipulation checks on feedback content and sender performance appraisal appeared to be ambiguous in retrospect, because recipients appear to consider even minimal feedback as feedback that provides a suggestion for improvement. Nevertheless, the question on sender status revealed that at least 77 percent of the participants (up to 94 percent) referred to the status correctly (overall 85 percent answer correct). Results Data inspection We first checked distribution assumptions. The standardized skewness and kurtosis were within the 23 to þ 3 (Tabachnick and Fidell, 2001) range for our variables over all the research conditions combined. There were between 4.6 and 9.6 percent missing values for each of the affect items, and these missing values were evenly spread across the research conditions. We used the EM (Expectation Maximization) procedure for imputation of all missing values (Musil et al., 2002). Subsequently, we checked whether this imputation influenced outcomes of all planned analyses. Imputation resulted in a maximum difference of 0.03 for the mean or standard error of any imputed variable compared to the original mean and standard deviation. No discrepancies with respect to significant findings were observed. Hence, we concluded that the influence was negligible and proceeded with further analyses RQ1. effect of feedback content, sender status, and sender performance appraisal on feedback perceptions and attribution. Table II shows the means and standard errors for PAF, WI, AF and AT by condition. Pearson correlations revealed that PAF was moderately associated with WI (r ¼ 0:64, p , 0:01), AF (r ¼ 0:58, p , 0:01), and AT (r ¼ 0:67, p , 0:01). There was a small correlation between WI and AF (r ¼ 0:32, p , 0:01) as well as between WI and AT (r ¼ 0:37, p , 0:01). AF was moderately associated with AT (r ¼ 0:57, p , 0:01). A 2 £ 2 £ 2 MANOVA was performed with feedback content, sender status, and sender performance appraisal as independent variables, and PAF, WI, AF and AT as the dependent variables. No multivariate interaction effects were observed, but a multivariate main effect for feedback content, Pillai’s trace ¼ 0:37, Fð4; 162Þ ¼ 23:50, p ¼ 0:028, partial h 2 ¼ 0:37. Follow-up univariate analyses revealed significant main effects for feedback content on PAF, Fð1; 165Þ ¼ 92:50, p , 0:001, h 2 ¼ 0:35, WI, Fð1; 165Þ ¼ 21:89, p , 0:001, h 2 ¼ 0:11, AF, Fð1; 165Þ ¼ 22:47, p , 0:001, h 2 ¼ 0:12,


EJTD 37,1

32

Table II. Mean and standard deviation for perceived adequacy of feedback (PAF), willingness to improve (WI), affect (AF) and attribution (AT) as a function of research condition

PAF WI AF AT

Supervisor High performance Low performance appraisal appraisal ESF CSF ESF CSF SHE SHC SLE SLC (N ¼ 22) (N ¼ 24) (N ¼ 18) (N ¼ 23) M SD M SD M SD M SD

Co-worker High performance Low performance appraisal appraisal ESF CSF ESF CSF CHE CHC CLE CLC (N ¼ 24) (N ¼ 22) (N ¼ 21) (N ¼ 19) M SD M SD M SD M SD

5.32 5.34 4.02 5.32

5.14 5.59 3.27 4.35

0.99 0.95 1.27 1.39

3.49 4.03 2.96 3.54

0.99 1.33 0.89 1.17

5.03 4.90 3.87 4.51

1.25 1.52 1.26 1.41

3.36 4.35 2.93 3.40

1.05 1.51 1.01 1.17

1.18 1.04 1.25 1.65

3.87 4.32 3.08 3.68

1.15 1.33 0.84 1.09

4.98 5.00 3.79 4.65

1.14 1.14 1.16 1.41

2.99 4.41 2.98 3.12

1.43 1.55 0.70 1.16

Notes: SHE ¼ elaborated specific feedback by a supervisor with high performance appraisal; SHC ¼ concise general feedback by a supervisor with high performance appraisal; SLE ¼ elaborated specific feedback by a supervisor with low performance appraisal; SLC ¼ concise general feedback by a supervisor with low performance appraisal; CHE ¼ elaborated specific feedback by a co-worker with high performance appraisal; CHC ¼ concise general feedback by a co-worker with high performance appraisal; CLE ¼ elaborated specific feedback by a co-worker with low performance appraisal; CLC ¼ concise general feedback by a co-worker with low performance appraisal

and AT, Fð1; 165Þ ¼ 40:54, p , 0:001, h 2 ¼ 0:19). ESF is perceived as more adequate, leads to more willingness to improve, more positive affect, and more positive dispositional attribution (hypothesis 1a confirmed). No main effect was found for sender status (H1b rejected). We found a significant main effect for sender performance appraisal on PAF, Fð1; 165Þ ¼ 4:34, p ¼ 0:039, h 2 ¼ 0:02. ESF from a sender with high performance appraisal is perceived as more adequate (H1c in part confirmed). Since no differences were found for sender status, H1d was rejected. RQ2. Effect of feedback content, sender status, and sender performance appraisal – for educational level and career phase – on feedback perceptions and attribution. A series of MANOVA’s for educational level, and career phase, revealed no systematic overall differences with respect to PAF, WI, AF and AT. Hence, significant differences observed for these variables can be ascribed to the introduction of experimental manipulations. Effect of feedback content, sender status, and sender performance appraisal on feedback perceptions and attribution for educational level. A 2 £ 2 £ 2 £ 2 MANOVA was performed with sender’s status, sender’s performance appraisal, feedback content and the educational level as independent variables, and PAF, WI, AF and AT as dependent variables. A multivariate main effect was observed for feedback content, Pillai’s trace ¼ 0:03, Fð4; 149Þ ¼ 17:79, p , 0:000, partial h 2 ¼ 0:32. Follow-up univariate analyses revealed a three-way interaction for FEEDBACK CONTENT £ SENDER STATUS £ EDUCATION on AF, Fð1; 152Þ ¼ 5:335, p ¼ 0:022, h 2 ¼ 0:03 (Figure 1), and AT, Fð1; 152Þ ¼ 4:429, p ¼ 0:037, h 2 ¼ 0:02 (Figure 2). Tables III and IV provides the Mean and SD for AF and AT for the three-way interactions. Figure 1 illustrates the three-way interaction for AF. Secretarial employees with (pre) higher education do not differentiate between co-worker or supervisor in their affective response to feedback. ESF leads to more positive affect compared to CGF,


Figure 1. Three-way interaction between FEEDBACK CONTENT £ SENDER STATUS £ EDUCATION on affect (AF)

Figure 2. Three-way interaction between FEEDBACK CONTENT £ SENDER STATUS £ EDUCATION on attribution (AT)

irrespective of sender status. Employees with (pre) vocational education, however, show more positive affect when receiving ESF from a supervisor, as compared to CGF. With respect to feedback from a co-worker, employees with (pre) vocational education respond with negative affect regardless of feedback type. Figure 2 illustrates the three-way interaction for AT. Secretarial employees with (pre) higher education do not differentiate for sender status with respect to their dispositional attribution: ESF leads to a more positive attribution compared to CGF. Employees with (pre) vocational education also do not differentiate between feedback types when provided by a co-worker. However, they clearly differentiate between

EJTD 37,1

34

Table III. Mean and standard deviation for Perceived Adequacy of Feedback (PAF), willingness to improve (WI), affect (AF), and attribution (AT) for the FEEDBACK CONTENT £ SENDER STATUS £ EDUCATION interaction

Table IV. Mean and standard deviation for Perceived Adequacy of Feedback (PAF), willingness to improve (WI), affect (AF), and attribution (AT) for the FEEDBACK CONTENT £ SENDER STATUS £ EDUCATION interaction

feedback types when received from a supervisor: ESF from a supervisor yields more positive dispositional attribution, whereas CGF leads to negative dispositional attributions – equal to their response to either feedback-type by a co-worker. In addition to the four-way factorial analysis, we also examined the original three-way design for each educational level. Since this decreases the number of participants by half, the following outcomes are explorative. Low-educated group. A multivariate interaction effect was observed for the low-educated group between feedback content and sender status, Pillai’s trace ¼ 0:14, Fð4; 74Þ ¼ 2:98, p ¼ 0:024, partial h 2 ¼ 0:14. A multivariate main effect was observed for feedback content for the low-educated group (Pillai’s trace ¼ 0:32, Fð4; 74Þ ¼ 8:73, p , 0:001, partial h 2 ¼ 0:32), and higher educated group (Pillai’s trace ¼ 0:38, Fð4; 72Þ ¼ 10:84, p , 0:001, partial h 2 ¼ 0:38). As recommended by Field (2005), a discriminant analysis revealed that there was one significant common variate, Wilks’s lambda ¼ 0:409, df ¼ 28, p , 0:001. It was found that PAF was a strong and positive contributor to the variate (0.93), WI a medium negative contributor (2 0.48), AF a small contributor (2 0.06) and AT a medium contributor (0.51). The group centroids revealed that the groups receiving CGF perceived the feedback differently (opposite sign compared to the other groups) than groups receiving ESF, in terms of a combined effect of PAF, AF and WI (SHB ¼ 20:74, CHB ¼ 20:40, SLB ¼ 20:51 and CLB ¼ 21:03). Furthermore, the CHE group differs from the other groups receiving ESF with a moderate negative centroid value (20.28), whereas the other ESF groups have a positive centroid values all larger than 0.65. Table V and VI shows the Mean and SD’s for each research condition by educational level. Higher educated group. No interaction effects were observed; only main effects for feedback content on PAF, Fð1; 75Þ ¼ 44:01, p , 0:001, h 2 ¼ 0:34, WI,

SE (N ¼ 22) M SD AF AT

4.07 5.38

1.39 1.28

Low-educated group SC (N ¼ 29) CE (N ¼ 13) M SD M SD 2.98 3.57

1.02 1.26

3.09 4.13

1.10 1.34

CC (N ¼ 21) M SD 3.33 3.62

0.69 1.13

Notes: SE ¼ elaborate specific feedback by a supervisor; SC ¼ concise general feedback by a supervisor; CE ¼ elaborated specific feedback by a co-worker; CC ¼ concise general feedback by a coworker

SE (N ¼ 16) M SD AF AT

3.77 4.39

1.09 1.34

Higher educated group SC (N ¼ 16) CE (N ¼ 32) M SD M SD 2.77 3.37

0.89 0.78

3.68 4.62

1.26 1.62

CC (N ¼ 19) M SD 2.67 3.19

0.71 1.18


Fð1; 75Þ ¼ 14:11, p , 0:001, h 2 ¼ 0:14, AF, Fð1; 75Þ ¼ 18:45, p , 0:001, h 2 ¼ 0:19, and AT, Fð1; 75Þ ¼ 15:44, p , 0:001, h 2 ¼ 0:16). ESF is perceived as more adequate, leads to more willingness to improve and a more positive dispositional attribution. Effect of feedback content, sender status, and sender performance appraisal on feedback perceptions and attribution for career phase. A 2 £ 2 £ 2 £ 3 MANOVA was conducted. No multivariate interaction effects were found for the three career phases, but multivariate main effects were observed for feedback content in the early phase (Pillai’s trace ¼ 0:29, Fð4; 42Þ ¼ 4:31, p ¼ 0:005, partial h 2 ¼ 0:29), middle phase (Pillai’s trace ¼ 0:46, Fð4; 49Þ ¼ 10:27, p ¼, 0:001, partial h 2 ¼ 0:46), and late phase (Pillai’s trace ¼ 0:39, Fð4; 53Þ ¼ 7:95, p , 0:001, partial h 2 ¼ 0:39). Follow-up univariate analyses revealed a three-way interaction for FEEDBACK CONTENT £ SENDER STATUS £ CAREER PHASE on WI, Fð2; 149Þ ¼ 3:368, p ¼ 0:037, h2 ¼ 0:03 (Figure 3), and AF, Fð2; 149Þ ¼ 4:891, p ¼ 0:009, h2 ¼ 0:05

PAF WI AF AT

SHE (N ¼ 15) M SD

SHC (N ¼ 14) M SD

5.47 5.40 3.99 5.71

3.28 3.95 3.00 3.48

0.87 1.04 1.34 1.10

0.93 1.53 0.96 1.33

SLE (N ¼ 7) M SD 4.90 4.39 4.23 4.67

1.64 2.01 1.57 1.43

Low-educated group SLC CHE (N ¼ 15) (N ¼ 4) M SD M SD

CHC (N ¼ 12) M SD

3.56 4.18 2.97 3.67

3.83 4.50 3.25 3.72

1.17 1.60 1.11 1.24

4.44 4.75 2.42 2.92

0.50 1.27 0.80 1.07

1.42 1.45 0.78 0.98

CLE (N ¼ 9) M SD 4.78 4.83 3.39 4.67

1.02 1.12 1.12 1.10

PAF WI AF AT

5.00 5.21 4.09 4.48

1.23 0.77 1.20 1.65

SHC (N ¼ 9) M SD 3.73 4.25 2.59 3.52

1.12 1.06 0.96 0.94

SLE (N ¼ 9) M SD 5.06 5.19 3.52 4.33

1.03 1.08 1.00 1.15

3.34 4.89 3.44 3.48

1.35 0.91 0.56 1.34

Higher educated group SLC CHE CHC (N ¼ 7) (N ¼ 19) (N ¼ 9) M SD M SD M SD

CLE (N ¼ 13) M SD

CLC (N ¼ 10) M SD

3.06 4.68 3.00 3.19

5.12 5.11 4.06 4.64

2.68 3.97 2.57 2.80

0.70 1.50 0.80 0.50

5.23 5.79 3.42 4.61

1.25 0.95 1.30 1.66

3.83 4.14 2.78 3.63

0.78 1.27 0.88 1.34

1.23 1.19 1.14 1.63

35

CLC (N ¼ 9) M SD


SHE (N ¼ 7) M SD

Feedback perceptions and attribution

1.48 1.90 0.54 0.92


Table V. Mean and standard deviation for Perceived Adequacy of Feedback (PAF), willingness to improve (WI), affect (AF) and attribution (AT) by condition and educational level

Table VI. Mean and standard deviation for Perceived Adequacy of Feedback (PAF), willingness to improve (WI), affect (AF) and attribution (AT) by condition and educational level

EJTD 37,1

36

Figure 3. Three-way interaction between FEEDBACK CONTENT £ SENDER STATUS £ CAREER PHASE on willingness to improve (WI)

Figure 4. Three-way interaction between FEEDBACK CONTENT £ SENDER STATUS £ CAREER PHASE on affect (AF)

(Figure 4). The Means and SD’s for both three-way interactions are displayed in Tables VII-IX. Figure 3 shows that secretarial employees in their early phase do not differentiate with respect to willingness to improve for either feedback type from a supervisor, but ESF from a co-worker leads to more willingness to improve compared to CGF. In contrast, employees in the middle phase differentiate less between feedback types when received by a co-worker, but ESF from a supervisor leads to more willingness to improve compared to CGF from a supervisor. Employees in the late career phase do not differentiate for the feedback sender in when receiving ESF, but CGF from a supervisor results leads to less willingness to improve – compared to same feedback by a co-worker. Figure 4 illustrates that positive affect of secretarial employees in their early and middle career phase reveal a pattern similar to their willingness to improve. Secretarial

employees in their early phase do not differentiate with respect to positive affect for either feedback type from a supervisor, but ESF from a co-worker leads to more positive affect compared to CGF. In contrast, employees in the middle phase differentiate less between feedback types when received by a co-worker, but ESF from a supervisor leads to more positive affect compared to CGF from a supervisor. Employees in the late career phase do not differentiate with respect to positive affect for either feedback type from a co-worker, but CGF from a supervisor leads to less positive affect – compared to the same feedback by a co-worker. In addition, a three-way interaction was observed for FEEDBACK CONTENT £ SENDER PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL £ CAREER PHASE on AF, Fð2; 149Þ ¼ 3:417, p ¼ 0:035, h2 ¼ 0:02 (Figure 5). Table X-XII provides the Mean and SD for this three-way interaction. Figure 5 reveals that secretarial employees in their early and middle career phase respond similar in terms of affect. Both groups do not differentiate for sender performance appraisal status in their response to CGF. However, both groups respond with more positive affect when receiving ESF by a sender with low performance appraisal, as compared to the ESF from a sender with high performance appraisal. The

Early phase WI AF

SE (N ¼ 13) M SD 4.92 3.37

1.20 1.20

SC (N ¼ 15) M SD 4.67 3.07

1.12 0.82

CE (N ¼ 15) M SD 5.37 3.44

1.10 1.14

CC (N ¼ 10) M SD 3.87 2.75

1.16 1.14


Middle phase WI AF

SE (N ¼ 8) M SD 5.28 4.46

1.08 1.34

SC (N ¼ 19) M SD 4,25 2.99

1.44 1.11

CE (N ¼ 15) M SD 4.96 3.70

1.29 1.45

CC (N ¼ 18) M SD 4.44 2.99

1.50 0.66


Late phase WI AF

SE (N ¼ 18) M SD 5.28 4.08

1.34 1.04

SC (N ¼ 13) M SD 3.54 2.52

1.52 0.85

CE (N ¼ 16) M SD 5.53 3.45

1.01 1.34

CC (N ¼ 13) M SD 4.61 3.32

1.48 0.45



Table VII. Mean and standard deviation for willingness to improve (WI), and affect (AF) for the FEEDBACK CONTENT £ SENDER STATUS £ CAREER PHASE interaction

Table VIII. Mean and standard deviation for willingness to improve (WI), and affect (AF) for the FEEDBACK CONTENT £ SENDER STATUS £ CAREER PHASE interaction

Table IX. Mean and standard deviation for willingness to improve (WI), and affect (AF) for the FEEDBACK CONTENT £ SENDER STATUS £ CAREER PHASE interaction

EJTD 37,1

38

Figure 5. Three-way interaction between FEEDBACK CONTENT £ SENDER PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL £ CAREER PHASE on affect (AF)

Table X. Mean and standard deviation for affect (AF) for the FEEDBACK CONTENT £ SENDER PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL £ CAREER PHASE interaction

Table XI. Mean and standard deviation for affect (AF) for the FEEDBACK CONTENT £ SENDER PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL £ CAREER PHASE interaction

Table XII. Mean and standard deviation for affect (AF) for the FEEDBACK CONTENT £ SENDER PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL £ CAREER PHASE interaction

Early AF

HU (N ¼ 17) M SD 3.23

1.18

HB (N ¼ 15) M SD 2.93

1.03

LU (N ¼ 11) M SD 3.68

0.94

LB (N ¼ 10) M SD 2.95

0.88

Notes: HU ¼ elaborate specific feedback by a with high performance appraisal; HB ¼ concise general feedback by a with high performance appraisal; LU ¼ elaborated specific feedback by with low performance appraisal; LB ¼ concise general feedback by a with low performance appraisal

Middle AF

HU (N ¼ 15) M SD 3.71

1.37

HB (N ¼ 17) M SD 3.02

0.94

LU (N ¼ 18) M SD 4.54

1.45

LB (N ¼ 20) M SD 2.97

0.91


Late AF

HU (N ¼ 14) M SD 4.02

1.32

HB (N ¼ 14) M SD 2.92

0.72

LU (N ¼ 20) M SD 3.62

1.14

LB (N ¼ 12) M SD 2.93

0.88


employees in the late career phase also do not differentiate for sender performance appraisal in their affective response to CGF. However, in contrast to the early and middle phase, the employees in the late phase respond with more positive affect when receiving ESF from a sender with high performance appraisal as compared to the same type of feedback from a sender with low performance appraisal. Discussion The present study investigated how feedback content, feedback sender status and sender performance appraisal affect feedback perceptions and dispositional attribution. Secretarial employees were assigned to eight experimental conditions, in which a fictional secretarial employee received concise general (CGF) or elaborated specific (ESF) feedback by a fictional co-worker (C) or supervisor (S) with either high (H) or low (L) performance appraisal. RQ1. Effect of feedback content, sender status, and sender performance appraisal on feedback perceptions and attribution. Our findings show that ESF is perceived as more adequate, leads to more willingness to improve, a more positive affect and a more positive attribution as compared to CGF. These findings are in line with previous feedback studies (see Davis et al., 2005; Goodman and Wood, 2004a, b, Hattie and Timperley, 2007; Mory, 2004; Narciss, 2008; Shute, 2008; Strijbos et al., 2009; Strijbos, Narciss and Du¨nnebier, 2010; Strijbos and Sluijsmans, 2011), as well as the comments made by participants in a study from Feys et al. (2011). They found that, in case of low information specificity, participants referred to external factors as the cause of their low performance. Thus, when people receive negative feedback substantiated by specific comments explaining exactly why the feedback on their performance was negative, it becomes difficult – if not impossible – to attribute this to external uncontrollable causes. When workers receive the same feedback without specific remarks, making external attributions for this feedback is more likely (Feys et al., 2011). No general differences were found with respect to sender status, that is, whether the feedback comes from a supervisor or co-worker – irrespective of the recipients educational level and career phase – the feedback does not affect feedback perceptions or attributions of secretarial employees. This is an important finding, since to our knowledge this has not been addressed with respect to feedback in workplace contexts. Thus, it seems that the “informal status” (high or low performance appraisal) of the feedback sender is more important than the “formal status” (supervisor or co-worker). Feedback from a sender with high performance appraisal is perceived as more adequate, compared to feedback derived from a sender with low performance appraisal (the effect-size 0.02 was small). However, no differences were found for willingness to improve, affect, and attribution. Other researchers such a Halperin et al. (1976) and Feys et al. (2011) found feedback sender’s expertise to be an important factor for perceived feedback credibility and willingness to improve. Furthermore, no interactions were found between feedback content, sender status, and performance appraisal, which is not in line with prior research of Strijbos, Narciss and Du¨nnebier (2010) who reported a two-way interaction on affect between feedback content and sender performance appraisal, and with Strijbos et al. (2009) who reported a three-way interaction on willingness to improve between feedback content, gender and sender performance appraisal.


EJTD 37,1

40

RQ2. Effect of feedback content, sender status, and sender performance appraisal on feedback perceptions and attribution for educational level and career phase. With respect to educational level, complex three-way interactions were found for “feedback content £ sender status £ educational level” regarding affect and dispositional attribution. Low-educated employees (with (pre) vocational education) show more positive affect when receiving ESF from a supervisor, as compared to CGF. With respect to feedback from a co-worker, low-educated employees respond with negative affect, regardless of the type of feedback. Apparently, low-educated employees are more sensitive to sender status and react more affective (i.e. more emotional and appreciative), as well as more “rewarding” when they receive ESF from a supervisor. It seems that to them, the supervisor is their most important source of feedback. In contrast, higher educated employees appear more influenced by feedback content than by the feedback sender status in their affective reaction to feedback. The more elaborated the feedback, the more hints for improvement it contains, the more they are inclined to demonstrate a positive affect. The question remains whether higher-educated employees have stronger metacognitive skills or whether they are better at emotional control compared to low-educated employees. With respect to dispositional attribution, low-educated secretarial employees do not differentiate between the co-worker or supervisor. ESF leads to a more positive attribution compared to CGF, irrespective of sender status. However, ESF from a supervisor yields more positive dispositional attribution compared to ESF from a co-worker, whereas CGF leads to negative dispositional attributions – equal to their response to either feedback-type by a co-worker. Again, these findings might be explained by low-educated employees’ sensitivity to sender status in case of ESF. In this case low-educated employees make positive attributions regarding the supervisor’s behavioral disposition. The supervisor is “sensitive, self-confident and not at all arrogant” while the co-worker is a “sorehead”. When receiving CGF, protection of the self becomes more important (see explanation above) than the feedback sender status. In contrast, higher-educated employees display positive attributions when they receive ESF – irrespective of the sender status. Finally, we found a multivariate interaction for the low-educated (pre) vocational group. Low-educated secretarial employees in the CHE condition respond differently to ESF than employees in the other three ESF conditions. They respond with more negative affect and attribution towards ESF from a co-worker with high performance appraisal, as compared to ESF from a co-worker with low performance appraisal or by the supervisor (irrespective of appraisal). Apparently the co-worker’s appraisal matters when the co-worker feedback is elaborated and specific, and as such it is not perceived similar to supervisor feedback. The response to feedback by a particular co-worker could be more extreme due to employee’s relative status, or ESF by a co-worker with high performance appraisal might be perceived as a threat to the self (Miedema, 2004; Sedikides and Strube, 1997). In fact, Strijbos, Narciss and Du¨nnebier (2010) reported the same finding for a study with graduate students, that is, ESF by a high competent peer may induce a threat to the self. In the present study this finding was only observed for the low-educated group. It might be that higher educated secretarial employees are better able to cope (or tone down) with ESF from a co-worker, or that ESF from a co-worker in a workplace context creates less of a high stakes atmosphere compared to an educational context. Nevertheless, given the low number of participants in the CHE condition, this result should be treated with caution.

In relation to career phase, complex three-way interactions were found for “feedback content £ sender status £ career phase” regarding “willingness to improve” and “affect”. Secretarial employees in their early phase do not differentiate with respect to willingness to improve for either feedback type from a supervisor, but ESF from a co-worker leads to more willingness to improve compared to CGF. In contrast, employees in the middle phase differentiate less between feedback types when received by a co-worker, but ESF from a supervisor leads to more willingness to improve compared to CGF. Employees in the late career phase do not differentiate for sender status when receiving ESF, but CGF from a supervisor results leads to less willingness to improve – compared to same feedback by a co-worker. With respect to their willingness to improve employees in the early career phase differentiate for feedback from a co-worker and clearly prefer ESF, whereas employees in the middle phase display more willingness to improve for ESF by a supervisor. There appears to be a shift from a focus on authority to a focus on feedback content, which is corroborated by the employees in the late phase who display higher levels of willingness to improve for ESF, irrespective of sender status. They also appear more “forgiving” towards to co-workers when receiving CGF, as compared to receiving this feedback-type from their supervisor. With CGF-type, they are more critical towards their supervisor. Feedback from a supervisor leads to more positive affect as compared to feedback by a co-worker for employees in their early career phase in case of CGF, and for employees in their middle career phase in case of ESF. Both groups are sensitive to sender status, but employees in their early career might be more ambitious in proving themselves to others. In this light, CGF from a supervisor might be perceived as “positive attention” and it might therefore cause positive affect in this group. Employees in the late career phase do not differentiate in their affective response to either type of feedback from a co-worker, but ESF from a supervisor leads to more positive affect as compared to CGF. Moreover, employees in the late career phase respond with more negative affect when receiving CGF as compared to either type from a co-worker. Thus, ESF appears to induce a positive affect, irrespective of the sender status, because of the fact that rarely attention is given to this group of employees and ESF might be perceived as an investment in their human capital. Employees in their early, middle and late career phase do not differentiate for sender performance appraisal in their affective response to CGF. However, employees in their early and middle career respond with more positive affect when receiving ESF by a sender with low performance appraisal, as compared to the same type of feedback from a sender with high appraisal. Although ESF is difficult to ignore, it is probably easier to protect the self and respond with positive affect in case one receives feedback from a low performance appraisal sender. One can set this feedback aside by not taking it seriously. In contrast to the early and middle phase, employees in the late phase respond with more positive affect when receiving ESF from a sender with high performance appraisal as compared to the same feedback from a sender with low appraisal. It is possible that employees in their late career phase are less intended to protect the self because they are more confident due to their work experience or because of their goal orientations at work being different from people in their early and middle career phases. As a consequence, they are not easily negatively affected by ESF from a sender with high performance appraisal. In contrast, they value and appreciate the feedback given by a more competent sender. Another possible explanation is that employees in their late career phase receive less feedback at work because they are easily ignored (see Armstrong-Stassen, 2008). ESF from a sender with high


EJTD 37,1

42

performance appraisal might induce a positive affect, as these employees rarely receive attention and that competent people are willing “to invest” in them. In all, these findings stress the diverse feedback reactions from secretarial employees in different career phases. Furthermore, given the means for positive affect we conclude that positive affect towards negative feedback increases with career phase, and the importance of sender status decreases with career phase. Practical implications In order for feedback to be considered as adequate, it is necessary to formulate the feedback as specific and as elaborated as possible (see Narciss, 2006, 2008 for instructions). This has an important implication for organizational practice as the content of feedback given is controllable (Feys et al., 2008). Supervisors and co-workers can be trained to give precise elaborated feedback and should receive instruction in daily work on the quality of their feedback. This will likely lead to positive reactions of the employee in terms of perceptions, willingness to improve and attributions. The findings of the present study also suggest that ESF to low-educated employees is best provided by a supervisor. The same type of feedback provided by a co-worker causes negative affect which in turn might negatively influence performance improvement. Our findings highlight the importance of career phase in reactions to negative feedback. Especially employees in their late career phase react differently in comparison to employees in early and middle career phases. They are more inclined “to opt for quality” and appreciate ESF from an experienced sender. Human resource managers should be aware of this in their policy towards employees in their late career phase, since there are often age stereotypes and negative attitudes towards older employees’ willingness to improve Chiu et al. (2001). Limitations and future research Although Robinson and Clore (2001) demonstrated a high degree of correspondence between scenarios and real situations, an experimental design might still be considered as artificial. In real work environments other interpersonal factors (for example gender, goal orientation and personality traits) might as well interfere and influence feedback perceptions and attributions. Therefore, studies in real workplace contexts can complement the outcomes of experimental studies and provide deeper insights as to how feedback content and sender characteristics might affect employees’ reactions to negative feedback. The manipulation check showed that a strong majority of the participants identified the sender’s status. However, the manipulation checks on sender performance appraisal and feedback content appeared to be ambiguous in retrospect due to their wording, because recipients appear to consider even minimal feedback as feedback that provides a suggestion for improvement. We will adapt the experimental material in our future studies. We examined whether educational level and career phase of the feedback receiver impacted feedback perceptions and attributions. These factors might also be critical in relation to the feedback sender. Theoretically these sender characteristics could affect the composition of feedback messages and would therefore be an interesting avenue for further research. Finally, educational level and career phase were not considered in the design, i.e. that each scenario would be equally distributed over participants with varying educational levels, and various career phases. Nevertheless, the participants in our dataset were – by and large – equally distributed for most analyses including educational level and

career phase, which in turns warrants validity of the reported exploratory findings. The results for the three-way interactions should be classified as exploratory because these effects have not been predicted by substantive theory/ hypotheses. To our knowledge, the present study is the first to address the effects of educational level and career phase of the feedback receiver on feedback perceptions and attributions. Future research must further examine the question on how feedback to low-educated employees can be best provided. The impact of career phase signifies the need for further longitudinal studies given the increased attention given to older workers in research and practice. References Armstrong-Stassen, M. (2008), “Organisational practices and the post-retirement employment experience of older workers”, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 36-53. Bauer, J. and Mulder, R.H. (2006), “Upward feedback and its relation to employees’ feeling of self-determination”, Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 18 Nos 7/8, pp. 508-21. Birnbaum, M.H. and Stegner, S.E. (1979), “Source credibility in social judgments: bias, expertise, and the judge’s point of view”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 48-74. Brett, J.F. and Atwater, L.E. (2001), “3608 feedback: accuracy, reactions, and perceptions of usefulness”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 5, pp. 930-42. Chiu, W.C.K., Chan, A.W., Snape, E. and Redman, T. (2001), “Age stereotypes and discriminatory attitudes towards older workers: an East-West comparison”, Human Relations, Vol. 54 No. 5, pp. 629-61. Cusella, L.P. (1982), “The effects of source expertise and feedback valence on intrinsic motivation”, Human Communication Research, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 17-32. Davis, W.D., Carson, C.M., Ammeter, A.P. and Treadway, D.C. (2005), “The interactive effects of goal orientation and feedback specificity on task performance”, Human Performance, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 409-26. Fedor, D.B., Davis, W.D., Maslyn, J.M. and Mathieson, K. (2001), “Performance improvement efforts in response to negative feedback: the role of source power and recipient self-esteem”, Journal of Management, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 79-97. Feys, M., Anseel, F. and Wille, B. (2011), “Improving feedback reports: the role of procedural information and information specificity”, Academy of Management Learning & Education, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 661-82. Feys, M., Libbrecht, N., Anseel, F. and Lievens, F. (2008), “A closer look at the relationship between justice perceptions and feedback reactions: the role of the quality of the relationship with the supervisor”, Psychologica Belgica, Vol. 48 No. 2 and 3, pp. 127-56. Field, A. (2005), Discovering Statistics Using SPSS, 2nd ed., Sage Publishers, London. Giffin, K. (1967), “The contribution of studies of source credibility to a theory of interpersonal trust in the communications process”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 68 No. 2, pp. 104-20. Goodman, J.S. and Wood, R.E. (2004a), “Feedback specificity, learning opportunities, and learning”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 89 No. 5, pp. 809-21. Goodman, J.S. and Wood, R.E. (2004b), “Feedback specificity, exploration, and learning”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 89 No. 5, pp. 248-62.


EJTD 37,1

44

Greller, M.M. and Herold, D.M. (1975), “Sources of feedback: a preliminary investigation”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 244-56. Halperin, K., Snyder, C.R., Shenkel, R.J. and Houston, B.K. (1976), “Effects of source status and message favorability on acceptance of personality feedback”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 61 No. 1, pp. 85-8. Hattie, J. and Timperley, H. (2007), “The power of feedback”, Review of Educational Research, Vol. 77 No. 1, pp. 81-112. Ilgen, D.R., Fisher, C.D. and Taylor, M.S. (1979), “Consequences of individual feedback on behavior in organizations”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 64 No. 4, pp. 349-71. Klein, S.M., Kraut, A.I. and Wolfson, A. (1971), “Employee reactions to attitude survey feedback: a study of the impact of structure and process”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 497-514. Kluger, A.N. and DeNisi, A. (1996), “The effects of feedback interventions on performance: a historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 119 No. 2, pp. 254-84. Leung, K., Su, S. and Morris, M.W. (2001), “When is criticism not constructive? The roles of fairness perceptions and dispositional attributions in employee acceptance of critical supervisory feedback”, Human Relations, Vol. 54 No. 9, pp. 1155-87. London, M. (2003), Job Feedback: Giving, Seeking, and Using Feedback for Performance Improvement, Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ. MacKeracher, D. (2006), Making Sense of Adult Learning, University of Toronto Press, Toronto. Miedema, J.L. (2004), “Fairness and the self”, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands (Kurt Lewin Institute Dissertation Series, 2003-9). Mory, E.H. (2004), “Feedback research revisited”, in Jonassen, D.H. (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology, Erlbaum, New York, NY, pp. 745-83. Musil, C.M., Warner, C.B., Yobas, P.K. and Jones, S.L. (2002), “A comparison of imputation techniques for handling missing data”, Western Journal of Nursing Research, Vol. 24 No. 7, pp. 815-29. Narciss, S. (2006), Informatives Tutorielles Feedback (Informative Tutorial Feedback), Waxmann, Mu¨nster. Narciss, S. (2008), “Feedback strategies for interactive learning tasks”, in Spector, J.M., Merrill, M.D., Van Merrie¨nboer, J.J.G. and Driscoll, M.P. (Eds), Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology, 3rd ed., Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 125-43. Narciss, S. and Huth, K. (2004), “How to design informative tutoring feedback for multi-media learning”, in Niegemann, H.M., Leutner, D. and Bru¨nken, R. (Eds), Instructional Design for Multimedia Learning, Waxmann, Mu¨nster, pp. 181-95. Robinson, M.D. and Clore, G.L. (2001), “Simulation, scenarios, and emotional appraisal: testing the convergence of real and imagined reactions to emotional stimuli”, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 27 No. 11, pp. 1520-32. Sedikides, C. and Strube, M.J. (1997), “Self-evaluation: to thine own self be good, to thine own self be sure, to thine own self be true, and to thine own self be better”, in Berkowitz, L. (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 29, Academic Press, New York, NY, pp. 209-69.

Simon, J.R., Howard, J.H. and Howard, D.V. (2010), “Adult age differences in learning from positive and negative probabilistic feedback”, Neuropsychology, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 534-41.

Feedback perceptions and attribution

Soederberg Miller, L.M. and West, R.L. (2010), “The effect of age, control beliefs, and feedback on self-regulation of reading and problem solving”, Experimental Aging Research, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 40-63.

45

Shute, V.J. (2008), “Focus on formative feedback”, Review of Educational Research, Vol. 78 No. 1, pp. 153-89.

Strijbos, J.W. and Sluijsmans, D.M.A. (2011), “Peer feedback in secondary education: effect of peer-feedback training on feedback content, feedback perceptions and revision performance”, paper presented at the 14th biennial EARLI conference, 30 August-3 September, Exeter, UK. Strijbos, J.W., Narciss, S. and Du¨nnebier, K. (2010), “Peer feedback content and sender’s competence level in academic writing revision tasks: are they critical for feedback perceptions and efficiency?”, Learning and Instruction, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 291-303. Strijbos, J.W., Narciss, S. and Segers, M. (2009), “Peer feedback in undergraduate academic writing: how do feedback content, writing ability-level and gender of the sender affect feedback perception and performance?”, paper presented at the 13th biennial EARLI conference, 25-29 August, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Strijbos, J.W., Pat-El, R.J. and Narciss, S. (2010), “Validation of a (peer) feedback perceptions questionnaire”, in Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L., Hodgson, V., Jones, C., de Laat, M., McConnell, D. and Ryberg, T. (Eds), Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Networked Learning, Aalborg University, Aalborg, pp. 378-86. Tabachnick, B.G. and Fidell, L.S. (2001), Using Multivariate Statistics, Allyn and Bacon, Needham Heights, MA. West, R.L., Welch, D.C. and Thorn, R.M. (2001), “Effects of goal-setting and feedback on memory performance and beliefs among older and younger adults”, Psychology and Aging, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 240-50.

EJTD 37,1

46

Figure A1.

Appendix


Figure A2.

EJTD 37,1

48

About the authors Isabel Raemdonck received the MA degree from the Ghent University in 1998 and the PhD degree from the Ghent University in Belgium in 2006. From 2006 to 2010, she was Assistant Professor in Corporate Learning in the Institute for Child and Education Studies at the Leiden University. Since 2010 she has been a Professor in Adult Education and Learning at Universite´ Catholique de Louvain. She is Associated Editor of the EARLI book series New Perspectives on Learning and Instruction. Her current research interests are workplace learning, self-directed learning, motivational processes in adult learning, employability and ageing at work. Isabel Raemdonck is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: [email protected] Jan-Willem Strijbos received the MA degree from the Radboud University Nijmegen in 1999 and the PhD degree (with honours) from the Open University of The Netherlands in 2004. From 2005 to 2010, he was a postdoctoral researcher and Assistant Professor in the Institute for Child and Education Studies at the Leiden University. Since 2011 he has been a Professor at Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich. He is a member of the Scientific Board for Computers in Human Behavior and edited special issues on topics such as “CSCL methodology” (Learning and Instruction, 2007), “peer assessment” (Learning and Instruction, 2010), and “roles in CSCL” (Computers in Human Behavior, 2010). He also edited the third volume in the Springer CSCL series, What We Know about CSCL (2004). His current research interests are the design of (computer-supported) collaborative learning, peer assessment, peer feedback, and discourse analysis and methodology for (CS)CL analysis and assessment.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints