Motiv Emot (2017) 41:69–83
DOI 10.1007/s11031-016-9589-z
ORIGINAL PAPER
When friends exchange negative feedback
Stacey R. Finkelstein1
•
Ayelet Fishbach2 • Yanping Tu3
Published online: 11 October 2016
Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016
Abstract In four studies, we document an increase in the
amount of negative feedback friends and colleagues exchange
as their relationship deepens. We find that both actual and
perceived relationship depth increase the amount of negative
feedback people seek from and provide to each other, as well as
their tendency to invest in a focal (relationship or performance)
goal in response to negative feedback. The amount of positive
feedback on goal pursuit, by contrast, remains stable as the
relationship deepens. We attribute the increase in negative
feedback to the different meaning of such feedback for people
in deep versus shallow relationships: only in the context of deep
relationships does negative feedback signal insufficient
resource investment in the focal goal, and hence close friends
and colleagues seek, provide, and respond to negative feedback.
Keywords Negative feedback Relationship depth Goals Motivation
Introduction
The exchange of feedback is critical for pursuit of interpersonal and intrapersonal goals. People seek feedback
from and provide feedback to those around them, including
& Stacey R. Finkelstein
[email protected]
1
Department of Marketing, Zicklin School of Business,
Baruch College, 55 Lexington Ave, New York, NY 10010,
USA
2
Booth School of Business, University of Chicago, 5807 S.
Woodlawn, Chicago, IL 60637, USA
3
Department of Marketing, Warrington College of Business
Administration, University of Florida, Stuzin Hall,
Box 117155, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA
colleagues, family members, and friends (Anseel et al.
2007; Ashford et al. 2003; Ashford and Tsui 1991).
Through feedback, people help each other promote various
pursuits, such as academic, health, career, and relationship
goals (Baker and McNulty 2013; Fitzsimons and Bargh
2003; Morrison and Weldon 1990; Renn and Fedor 2001;
Williams and Johnson 2000).
This article considers the negative feedback people
exchange in pursuit of relationship and performance goals.
We define feedback as information provided to someone
about his or her performance in personal domains (e.g., at
work) or in interpersonal domains (e.g., as a relationship
partner) in order to boost performance in that area, and we
define goals as a cognitive representation of relationship
and performance desired end states (Fishbach and Ferguson
2007; Kruglanski 1996). We distinguish between positive
feedback (e.g., sufficient relationship investment, personal
strengths) and negative feedback (e.g., lack of relationship
investment, personal weaknesses), and ask how relationship depth influences the prevalence of negative feedback.
Specifically, we ask how relationship depth influences the
negative feedback people give to and seek from each other,
and how they respond to negative feedback.
From a learning perspective, positive feedback increases
the frequency of behavior through positive reinforcement
(Bolles 1972; Custers and Aarts 2005). In addition, positive
feedback boosts self-esteem (Reis and Shaver 1988; Swann
1987) and improves the experience of a relationship with
the feedback provider (Clark and Lemay 2010; Depaulo
and Kashy 1998); hence, we could expect positive feedback to prevail and for people to generally avoid negative
feedback. However, whereas negative feedback is often
undesirable and self-threatening, people sometimes seek
constructive negative feedback that conveys useful information (Aspinwall 1998; Trope and Neter 1994). Indeed,
123
70
the meaning of negative feedback—whether it communicates to the receiver insufficient investment in the goal—
can determine its motivational impact and therefore its
frequency.
Specifically, feedback can inform individuals either of
their level of commitment to or their rate of progress
toward a goal (Fishbach et al. 2014; Fishbach et al. 2010).
Positive feedback increases motivation when it signals
commitment, defined as the perception that the goal is
valuable and expectancy of success is high (Bandura 1991;
Feather 1982; Fishbein and Ajzen 1974). Negative feedback, by contrast, increases motivation when it signals lack
of goal progress or insufficient resource investment in the
goal (i.e., the presence of discrepancy; Carver and Scheier
1998; Higgins 1987). Therefore, the meaning people imbue
feedback with would determine its motivational consequences; positive feedback will only increase motivation
when it signals commitment, and negative feedback will
only increase motivation if individuals interpret it as suggesting they are investing too little in their goals. Otherwise, negative feedback might be a cue to disengage
because the activity or relationship is less desirable as a
result of the negative feedback.
Relationship depth increases exchange of negative
feedback
Previous research finds individuals’ concerns with monitoring progress, and thus their tendency to interpret performance feedback as referring to progress, emerges later
in the course of self-regulation, only once commitment has
been established (Ashford and Cummings 1983; Brunstein
and Gollwitzer 1996; Koo and Fishbach 2008). For
example, experts benefit from negative feedback, which
they take as a signal for lack of sufficient progress, and
increase their engagement in their domain of expertise.
Novices do not experience similar benefits from negative
feedback. Thus, in one study in the environmental domain,
members of environmental organizations (experts) had
higher donation rates and amounts than novices, after they
all received negative (but not positive) feedback on their
recycling (Study 2; Finkelstein and Fishbach 2012).
One major factor that could influence the meaning of
negative feedback is the depth of the relationship between
the feedback giver and feedback recipient. We conceptualize relationship depth as the degree of interdependence
between people, resulting from ongoing interactions (Kelley et al. 1983; Kelley and Thibaut 1978). We focus on
non-romantic and non-familial friendships, where interdependence does not necessarily involve intimacy. Specifically, we define relationship depth as a function of an
individual’s perceived (1) frequency of communication, (2)
123
Motiv Emot (2017) 41:69–83
relationship length, (3) similarity to relationship partner,
and (4) closeness to relationship partner (Berscheid et al.
2004; Reis et al. 2004; Izard 1960; Rusbult and Van Lange
2003). These aspects of relationship depth are distinct, yet
they are generally correlated and jointly influence the
experience of relationship depth. Thus, people who experience their relationships as deeper communicate with their
friends frequently and for a substantial period of time, tend
to have similar experiences or preferences, and also plan to
maintain closeness or become closer to a relationship
partner in the future. Importantly, relationship depth is to a
large extent a subjective experience that fluctuates
depending on the context. For example, the same relationship (e.g., with a colleague at work) will appear deeper
when a person considers the things that will make her
closer to versus further from her colleague.
We predict that relationship depth influences the
meaning of negative feedback and, as a result, the frequency and impact of such feedback in goal pursuit.
Individuals in deeper relationships will view negative
feedback from a friend as a signal for low investment in the
feedback domain (i.e., low progress) more than individuals
in shallower relationships, and this interpretation encourages those in deeper relationships to exchange negative
feedback and increase resource investment in response to
negative feedback.
The reason negative feedback means something different
(i.e., low progress) for those who perceive their relationships as deep versus shallow is that in deep relationships,
friends’ commitment to each other is stable and secure;
hence, both the giver and the receiver operate under the
assumption that negative feedback will not undermine
commitment and is meant, instead, to motivate action. A
deep relationship thus increases the focus on monitoring
investment, and those in deep relationships will interpret
negative feedback as indicative of how much investment
needs to be made. For example, negative feedback from a
close colleague on one’s poor performance at work would
signal low investment (progress) in one’s performance
goals more than if the same feedback came from a more
distant work acquaintance, presumably because in a deep
relationship, the feedback giver and recipient assume high
commitment to performance.
In contrast to negative feedback, we expect that relationship depth will not influence the meaning and thereby
the frequency and impact of positive feedback. Positive
feedback increases motivation through commitment. For
deep relationships, positive feedback confirms commitment, and for shallow relationships, positive feedback
increases commitment; hence, regardless of depth, positive
feedback signals commitment and is beneficial. Indeed,
positive feedback helps keep the relationship strong and
supportive (Shiota et al. 2004); therefore, positive feedback
Motiv Emot (2017) 41:69–83
should not decrease in frequency and impact with relationship depth.
People who experience their relationships as deeper are
thus expected to exchange more negative feedback on intrapersonal goals (e.g., how well they manage their career
and health) as well as on their interpersonal (relationship)
goals. The concept of ‘‘relationship goals’’ refers to the
goals people hold for their relationships, including their
goals to advance the relationship to the next level (e.g.,
when colleagues wish to start hanging out after work) and
maintain what they currently have (e.g., not grow apart).
Notably, by ‘‘relationship goals,’’ we do not refer to the
goals for which the relationships serve as means (as in Hui
et al. 2013; Maisel and Gable 2009; Murray et al. 2000).
Three modalities of feedback: seeking, giving,
and responding
Research on self-regulation traditionally focused on how
people respond to feedback, by manipulating the feedback
individuals receive (e.g., positive vs. negative) and measuring its motivational consequences (Clarkson et al. 2010;
Dweck and Leggett 1988; Kappes et al. 2012; Rafferty and
Bizer 2009). Yet people do not just respond to feedback;
they actively seek feedback and give feedback to others (the
latter are two relatively understudied modes, Ashford et al.
2003). For example, people ask others to point out what they
like about them, including their appearance and behaviors,
or they ask others to suggest how they can improve (Brennan
and Morns 1997; Hepper and Carnelley 2010). Further,
people often assume the role of feedback givers, and provide
feedback to spur behavioral change in the recipients across a
number of domains. For example, people give others feedback on their performance on personal goals (e.g., whether
they are performing well at work) as well as on how
responsive they are to their relationship partner (e.g., whether they neglected the feedback giver).
Our prediction regarding the increase in negative feedback as a function of relationship depth should thus apply
across these three modalities—seeking, giving, and
responding. Specifically, as the relationship deepens, we
expect people to seek more negative feedback, give more
negative feedback, and respond more to negative feedback
by engaging in behavioral change. We further expect that
the meaning of feedback changes as a function of depth;
negative feedback is more of a signal of low progress in
deep relationships than in shallow ones. We note that
whereas prior research on relationship maintenance measured depth and feedback, we manipulate these variables to
better isolate the unique impact of relationship depth on
feedback seeking, giving, and responding.
71
We propose several boundary conditions. First, we
assume people’s motivation as receiver and giver of feedback is first and foremost to facilitate improvement (Ashford and Tsui 1991; Trope and Neter 1994). Clearly, other
motives also underlie feedback, such as the desire to
enhance self-esteem (Tesser 1988) or validate a person’s
view of herself (Kraus and Chen 2009; Kwang and Swann
2010). Second, we predict an increase in the exchange of
constructive, negative feedback. If, for example, the negative feedback is aggressive and non-constructive, we
would not expect an increase as the relationship deepens.
Further, such aggressive and non-constructive feedback is
relatively rare and undesirable (Blumberg 1972; Tesser and
Rosen 1975; Yariv 2006). Third, we focus on feedback
among equals, where there is little difference in hierarchy
or power between the feedback provider and recipient.
Whereas the improvement motive is often dominant when
one is seeking feedback from equals, in hierarchical relationships, the self-esteem motive often supersedes the
improvement motive. That is, in hierarchical relationships,
those in low power tend to avoid negative feedback that
undermines their self-concept (Anseel et al. 2007; Sedikides and Strube 1995).
Next, we present four studies that operationalize relationship depth as perceived frequency of communication,
length of friendship, similarity, and closeness (e.g., Reis
et al. 2004). In our studies, we both manipulate (Studies 1,
2, 4) and measure (Study 3) relationship depth. We argue
that we can manipulate relationship depth because it is a
subjective experience. This manipulation, in turn, allows us
to test the causal impact of relationship depth on the
meaning and frequency of feedback on goal pursuit.
Specifically, we test our prediction in adult populations
(ages 18–78). In Study 1, we explore the feedback people
seek from each other across several different goal domains;
in Study 2, we assess feedback giving between colleagues;
and in Studies 3–4, we assess how people respond to
feedback from their deep versus shallow friends. These
studies further assess the meaning of feedback: whether
negative feedback signals insufficient effort investment to
those in deep relationships more than for those in shallow
relationships.
Study 1: Seeking negative feedback from close
friends
We hypothesize that people who perceive their relationship
as deep will seek more negative feedback from their friend.
To test this prediction, we manipulated participants’ perceived relationship depth and assessed interest in negative
feedback across a variety of goals.
123
72
Method
Participants
We pre-determined a sample size of at least 50 participants
per cell for this 2 between-subjects design. We collected
data from 147 MTurk workers, expecting that some participants would fail attention checks, choose inappropriate
targets, or fail to complete the writing task as directed. We
made these determinations about participant exclusions
before data analysis.1 Two participants failed the attention
checks (i.e., they failed to enter a specific phrase and
number, and indicated they answered questions randomly;
e.g., Oppenheimer et al. 2009), two participants chose
inappropriate targets given our focus on interdependent
relationships (e.g., these participants chose a person they
were dating and a sibling instead of a nonromantic friend or
a non-family member), and 20 participants failed to complete the writing task (provided nonsensical or no responses
to the manipulation), leaving us with 124 eligible participants (Mage = 34.91 years; range 17–75; 57 women).
Procedure
This study employed a 2 (relationship depth: shallow vs.
deep) between-subjects design. Participants were asked to
check their cell phone contacts and list the initials of the
first same-gender and similar-age acquaintance (‘‘neither a
stranger nor a close friend’’) on their list (from top to
bottom).
To manipulate relationship depth, in open-response
questions, we asked participants to (a) list three similarities
(vs. three dissimilarities) between themselves and their
listed acquaintance and to (b) list three things that might
make them feel closer to (vs. more distant from) that person in the future, in the deep (vs. shallow) condition. For
example, participants in the deep-relationship condition
discussed having similar political views and outlooks on
life and that they would feel closer if they spent more time
with their friend, whereas those in the shallow-relationship
condition listed dissimilarities in habits (e.g., drinking and
smoking) and that they would feel more distant if they no
longer worked with their friend or if their friend moved out
of town.
Next, participants read that in the course of friendships,
friends often exchange positive feedback about what one
1
Sample size in Study 1 and later studies was determined based on
studies on research measuring seeking responsiveness to feedback
(e.g., Finkelstein and Fishbach 2012). We report all data exclusions
and all conditions in our studies. Following Zhou and Fishbach
(2016), we tested for attrition. 6 participants dropped the survey after
being assigned to condition. This number was 4 from the deep
condition and 2 from the shallow condition.
123
Motiv Emot (2017) 41:69–83
does well—one’s strengths—or how one can improve—
one’s weaknesses. They then assumed their listed person
could give them feedback across six domains, including
relationship goals: (1) ‘‘listening skills,’’ (2) ‘‘relationship
skills,’’ (3) ‘‘punctuality’’ in meetings with the listed friend,
and (4) ‘‘how often they have been in touch’’ with the listed
friend recently; and interpersonal goals: (5) ‘‘life choices’’
and (6) ‘‘taste in cultural items such as music, sports, or
clothing.’’
For each of the six domains, participants’ task was to
indicate whether they would rather receive ‘‘positive
feedback about what they do well (their strengths)’’ or
‘‘negative feedback regarding how they could improve or
do a better job (their weaknesses)’’ (forced choice). As a
manipulation check, at the end of the study, participants
rated how close they felt to their listed friend (1 = not
close at all, 7 = very close).
Results and discussion
In support of the manipulation, those in the deep-relationship condition reported feeling closer to their listed
friend (M = 4.15, SD = 1.26) than those in the shallowrelationship condition (M = 3.66, SD = 1.37), t(122) =
2.08, p = .039, d = .37.
Next, we calculated the number of times participants
indicated they would like to receive negative feedback
from their listed friend on our forced-choice measure
(0 = participants preferred to receive positive feedback
across each of the six domains, 6 = participants preferred
to receive negative feedback across each of the six
domains). In support of our hypothesis, participants who
perceived their relationships as deep sought more negative
feedback (M = 3.42, SD = 1.57) than those who perceived
their relationships as shallow (M = 2.77, SD = 1.67),
t(122) = 2.24, p = .027, d = .40.
Finding that those in deep relationships have greater
interest in hearing constructive negative feedback from
their friends, we next test whether those in deep relationships increase the amount of negative feedback they give to
a colleague.
Study 2: Giving feedback to a team member
Study 2a tests whether the amount of negative feedback
people give a team member about his job performance
corresponds directly with the amount of time they have
worked together. Specifically, we predicted that people
who assume they know a team member for a long (vs.
short) time would deliver more negative feedback to this
person on his presentation. This study utilized two conditions: In one condition, participants assumed they were
Motiv Emot (2017) 41:69–83
team ‘‘veterans’’ and the presenter was either old (deeprelationship condition) or new (shallow-relationship condition) to the team. In the other condition, participants
assumed they themselves were either old (deep-relationship
condition) or new (shallow-relationship condition) to the
team that included the presenter. Together, these scenarios
manipulate relationship depth, controlling for who has
joined the team recently versus a long time ago: the
feedback recipient (the presenter) or the provider (the
participant).
We predicted that participants would provide more
negative feedback when they perceived their relationship
as deep versus shallow. We further predicted that the
increase in negative feedback would reflect participants’
desire to motivate their team member; therefore, whereas
the feedback would vary with relationship depth, the actual
quality of the presentation would be evaluated similarly
across these conditions. In Study 2b, we further tested
whether those in deep relationships intend to signal the
need to invest more effort than those in shallow
relationships.
Study 2a: Method
Participants
We pre-determined a minimum sample size of 40 participants per cell for this four-cell design based on prior
research on provision of information in relationships
(Keltner et al. 1998), and collected data from 180 university students and staff members who participated in return
for monetary compensation at a research laboratory. We
anticipated some participants would fail to follow instructions or would be familiar with our experimental stimuli.
We excluded seven participants from the analysis for taking
\3 min to complete the study (these participants had to
skip part of the 3-min video we presented) and one person
who took 37 min to complete the study (average time:
9.26 min), who we assumed took a long break. No participants indicated familiarity with our choice of video clip,
which came from a television show. This process left us
with 172 total participants (Mage = 21.90 years; range
18–60; 83 women).
Procedure
This study utilized a 2 (relationship: new versus long-standing) 9 2 (scenario: participant vs. presenter is new to
the team) between-subjects design.
The experimenter recruited participants for a coworker
evaluation study. Their task was to assume they were part
of a team pitching a new product to a potential client, and
73
that their job was to evaluate and provide feedback on a
colleague’s practice presentation that was filmed in front of
a mock audience.
In one set of scenarios, participants learned they were
team ‘‘veterans’’ (had been with the team for 2 years), and
their coworker, the presenter, was either new to the team or
a long-standing team member. In the second set of scenarios, participants read they were either a new member
(2 weeks) or a long-term member (2 years) and that their
task was to evaluate a coworker who had been with the firm
for 2 years (see ‘‘Appendix’’ for full scenarios).
Next, all participants watched the same 3-min video clip
featuring their team member, who was pitching a product,
‘‘Nova-flo,’’ designed to eliminate the likelihood of one’s
toilet, sink, or bathtub overflowing. After providing a
demonstration of the product, their team member outlined
what his product and the projected market were before
asking whether the clients had any questions. The presentation was designed to be clear but delivered in a monotone
voice that was less than exciting, thus allowing for both
positive and negative evaluations.
Participants then provided their open-ended feedback to
their team member about his (a) strengths and (b) weaknesses in delivering the pitch. We counterbalanced the
order of these questions. Finally, participants evaluated the
overall presentation (1 = the quality of the presentation
was very poor, 7 = the quality of the presentation was
excellent) before they were debriefed and dismissed.
Results and discussion
Two independent judges counted the number of positive
and negative pieces of information participants provided in
their feedback. Inter-rater agreement on the number of
positive and negative pieces of information was high,
a = .86. Participants wrote, for example, ‘‘You paused for
too long and said umm too many times’’ (negative feedback) or ‘‘You were confident, and your speed of delivering
the pitch was just right’’ (positive feedback).
Table 1 contains information on means and standard
deviations for all conditions. As we predicted, a repeatedmeasures ANOVA of feedback on relationship (new versus
long-standing; between-participants) 9 target (participants
vs. coworker is new or not to the team; between participants)
and valence of feedback (number of positive vs. negative
items; within-participants) did not yield a three-way interaction, F(1,167) = .01, ns. The analysis did, however, yield
a relationship 9 feedback interaction, F(1, 167) = 4.10,
p = .044, and no main effects. Collapsing across the different scenarios (participant is new vs. coworker is new), we
find that participants provided more negative feedback to a
team member if they assumed they had a long-standing
(M = 2.08, SD = 1.07) versus shallow (M = 1.63,
123
74
Motiv Emot (2017) 41:69–83
Table 1 Means and standard deviations (in parentheses) of feedback provided (Study 2a)
Shallow relationship
(presenter new to the team)
Deep relationship (presenter a longstanding team member)
Number of pieces of negative information provided
1.57 (1.46)
2.02 (1.07)
Number of pieces of positive information provided
1.96 (1.04)
1.92 (0.96)
Shallow relationship
(participant new to the team)
Deep relationship (participant a longstanding team member)
Number of pieces of negative information provided
1.67 (1.45)
2.11 (1.09)
Number of pieces of positive information provided
1.94 (1.01)
1.94 (0.93)
SD = 1.44) relationship with him, t(169) = 2.31, p = .022,
d = .35. In comparison, participants provided similar levels
of positive feedback to a team member if they assumed a
long-standing (M = 1.94, SD = .94) versus shallow relationship (M = 1.95, SD = 1.01), t \ 1 (see Fig. 1).
Congruent with our prediction, although participants
gave more negative feedback to the presenter with whom
they had a deeper relationship, their overall (collapsed
across ‘‘participant is new’’ and ‘‘coworker is new’’ scenarios) evaluation of the quality of their team member’s
presentation was similar (Mdeep = 5.11, SD = 1.24) to
those participants who evaluated a team member with
whom they had a new relationship (Mnew = 5.17,
SD = 1.31), t \ 1. Thus, relationship depth did not influence the perceived quality of the presentation. Nonetheless,
those in deeper relationships provided more negative
feedback to their team member, presumably to instill
motivation in closer colleagues. In Study 2b, we tested this
assumption—that in deeper relationships, negative feedback is meant to signal insufficient effort investment and to
boost motivation to perform.
Shallow Relaonship
2.2
Pieces of Informaon Given
Deep Relaonship
2
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
Posive Feedback
Negave Feedback
Fig. 1 Positive and negative feedback to a team member as a
function of relationship depth (Study 2)
123
Study 2b: The signal in feedback
Study 2b tested whether people give more negative feedback
to long-standing than to new team members because they
expect the negative feedback to mean lack of progress and
motivate only in the context of long-standing relationships.
Participants
We predetermined sample size as in Study 2a and collected
data from 126 participants at a research laboratory in return
for monetary compensation. We excluded 10 participants
from the analysis for taking less than 3 min to complete the
study (these participants had to skip part of the 3-min video
we presented) and five participants who correctly identified
what show the video clip was from (thus invalidating our
cover story). This process left us with 111 total participants
(Mage = 19.67 years; range 18–26; 50 women).
Procedure
This study employed a 2 (relationship: new vs. long-standing) 9 2 (motive for giving feedback: asked about investment [progress] or commitment) between-subjects design.
Participants completed the same coworker evaluation task as
in Study 2a, with a few minor adjustments. Because we
observed no impact of who gains depth with the team in Study
2a, we focused on one set of scenarios: participants read their
coworker was a new or a long-standing team member. As in
Study 2a, participants read they were part of a team pitching a
product to a new client and their job was to evaluate and
provide feedback on a practice presentation taped in front of a
mock audience. To ensure a particular video clip did not drive
our effect, participants evaluated a different video than in
Study 2a, though it was similar in length. The pitch was for an
energy efficient product designed to eliminate inefficient
electricity usage. The presenter had a few noticeable slipups
in his speech, leaving room for participants to provide more
negative feedback than in Study 2a.
Before providing their feedback on their team member’s
strengths and weaknesses, participants were randomly
Motiv Emot (2017) 41:69–83
assigned to rate their agreement with one of the following
statements (adopted from Finkelstein and Fishbach 2012;
Fishbach and Dhar 2005): (a) ‘‘I give feedback to signal to
my coworker he has a lot of work he needs to accomplish
before the actual presentation’’ (i.e., the feedback signals a
need for goal investment) or (b) ‘‘I give feedback to my
coworker to increase his confidence in his presentation’’
(i.e., the feedback secures the recipient’s goal commitment;
1 = strongly disagree with the statement, 7 = strongly
agree with the statement). Only after rating the purpose of
their feedback did participants across all conditions list
their feedback on both strengths and weaknesses (counterbalanced order), similar to Study 2a.
Results and discussion
We first test our hypothesis that those who perceive they have
a deep (vs. shallow) relationship with their team member will
be more likely to agree that their feedback meant to signal
lack of investment (we did not predict any effect on the
intention to secure commitment via feedback as a function of
relationship length). An ANOVA of relationship (new vs.
long-standing) 9 motive (feedback signals investment vs.
commitment) revealed a relationship 9 feedback interaction, F(1, 108) = 6.74, p = .019, and no main effects,
Fs \ 1, ps [ .10. With regard to investment, we find support
for our hypothesis: participants in long-standing relationships were more likely to indicate their feedback signals low
effort investment (M = 4.81, SD = 1.08) than those in new
relationships (M = 4.12, SD = 1.29), t(55) = 2.16,
p = .034, d = .58. By contrast, participants’ intention to
instill commitment was similar in the long-standing(M = 4.34, SD = 1.03) and new (M = 4.67, SD = 1.08)
relationship condition, t(52) = 1.15, p = .15, d = .31.
The rest of the analysis replicated the results of Study
2a, albeit with an evaluation of a different presentation.
Two independent judges analyzed the feedback for the
amount of positive and negative pieces of information
participants gave the team member (a = .81). The repeated-measures ANOVA on this measure revealed a main
effect for feedback, F(1, 108) = 49.53, p \ .001, indicating participants provided more negative than positive
feedback to their team member (this result was likely a
feature of the specific presentation, because we did not
observe this effect in Study 2a), as well as a feedback 9
relationship interaction, F(1, 108) = 4.71, p = .032. Participants provided more negative feedback to a long-standing team member (M = 4.00, SD = 1.98) than to a
new team member (M = 3.31, SD = 1.77), t(109) = 1.91,
p = .059, d = .35. However, participants were not more
likely to provide positive feedback to a long-standing team
member (M = 2.21, SD = 1.13) than a new one
(M = 2.37, SD = 1.20) than, t(105) \ 1.
75
We further predict and find that participants’ initial
intention to communicate the need for effort investment is
associated with the valence of the feedback they later gave.
Specifically, we subtracted the number of negative pieces
of information from the number of positive pieces of
information participants provided (positivity index), and
found participants’ desire to motivate effort investment
negatively predicted the positivity index, r(54) = -.29,
p = .034, such that a desire to motivate effort investment
was associated with more negative feedback. By contrast,
participants’ desire to instill commitment did not predict
the positivity index and, if anything, the relationship is the
opposite direction (directionally negative), r(53) = -.20,
p = .15, suggesting a desire to instill commitment was not
associated with positive feedback.
Taken together, the findings from Study 2 demonstrate
that feedback givers wish to motivate effort investment
among colleagues they assume they have known for a long
while; therefore, they increase their negative feedback.
Feedback givers thus appear to strategically tailor their
feedback to the amount of time they have presumably
known the recipient. However, we note that givers’ perception of the relationship as deep or shallow is influenced
by contextual cues and can lead to feedback that does not
always match the perceived depth of the relationship for
the receiver. Studies 1–2 documented an increase in
seeking and giving negative feedback with relationship
depth. We next explore responding to feedback and whether negative feedback is more motivating in the context of
deeper relationships.
Study 3: Responding to feedback with relationship
investment
Study 3 measured planned effort investment in a relationship. Participants connected to a friend on a social network
(Facebook) and asked for either positive or negative
feedback on pursuit of the relationship goal. Upon receipt
of the feedback, we documented participants’ plans to
connect with their friend. We predicted that upon receiving
negative feedback, long-standing friends would be more
likely than more recent friends to form plans to connect.
We did not have a similar prediction for the response to
positive feedback.
Method
Participants
We predetermined a minimum sample size of 30 participants per cell for this four-cell design, based on prior
123
76
Procedure
The study employed a 2 (relationship depth: shallow vs.
deep) 9 2 (feedback: positive vs. negative) between-subjects design. Participants completed a study on how people
communicate with each other online. They logged on to
Facebook and, depending on the condition, identified a
person with whom they were either in a shallow or deep
relationship and who was available to chat with them online.
They then notified their partner that his or her responses
would be part of a research study, and asked for his or her
consent. Specifically, we asked those in the shallow-relationship condition to identify someone ‘‘that you may have
just met and have a shallow relationship with…. A new
friend… someone you met this quarter at school and whom
you may see often when you work on problem sets for
classes with, or a friend you met recently at the gym.’’ By
contrast, participants in the deep-relationship condition
identified someone ‘‘that you have known for a long time….
who you communicate with often.’’ No participant had difficulty finding a friend with whom to chat.
Next, to solicit feedback, we assigned participants to
message their friend either ‘‘What is one thing you like
about me? Describe a time I did something for you that you
really appreciated. How did you feel?’’ (positive feedback
condition) or ‘‘What is one thing I can improve on?
Describe a time I made a mistake and did something you
were not pleased with. How did you feel?’’ (negative
feedback condition). Friends responded by, for example,
writing that they appreciated their friend bringing them
lunch during a long work day (positive feedback) or that
the participant could do a better job talking about his or her
feelings with the friend (negative feedback).
After participants received the feedback they solicited,
they learned they were free to chat with their friend about
anything. Our dependent variable was whether participants
made explicit plans to spend time with their friend by
arranging a set time to talk to their friend or to ‘‘hang out’’
in person or virtually with their friend. For instance, participants made plans to call each other or chat online at a
future date. We did not plan to code for plans initiated by
participants’ conversation partners, although notably, no
conversation partners initiated plans to connect with their
friends. Once participants ended their conversations, they
were debriefed and dismissed.
123
Results and discussion
To assess the impact of relationship depth, feedback, and the
interaction of these variables on making plans to connect
with one’s friend, we conducted a binary logistic regression
(1 = participant made specific plans to see their friend,
0 = participant did not make specific plans). The regression
revealed a marginal main effect of relationship depth,
b = 2.32, Wald v2 (1) = 3.45, p = .063, d = .32, indicating that those in deep relationships were more likely to make
plans with their friend than those in shallow relationships.
We found no main effect of feedback valence. The regression also yielded a relationship depth 9 feedback interaction, b = 1.48, Wald v2 (1) = 3.73, p = .054, d = .34.
In support of the hypothesis, contrast analysis revealed
that among participants assigned to ask for negative feedback, those in deep relationships were more likely to make
plans with their friends (50 %) compared to those in
shallow relationships (18 %), v2 (1) = 6.94, p = .008,
d = .46. Among those assigned to ask for positive feedback, we found no difference in the formation of plans as a
function of relationship depth (33 % made plans in shallow
relationships, 32 % made plans in deep relationships),
v2 \ 1, p = .93, d = .05 (see Fig. 2).
We find that relationship depth increases investment in a
relationship goal in response to negative (but not positive)
feedback. One potential limitation is that those in deep
relationships who asked for negative feedback were possibly more likely to make plans with their relationship
partner to show that they were not wounded by the feedback they received, and to reassure their partner the relationship was still in good standing. Although we cannot
rule out this alternative, those in shallow relationship who
received negative feedback likely had a similar repair
motivation, yet they did not seek to meet. Another limitation is that this study utilized individual differences in
% Who Made Plans with Their Friend
research exploring responsiveness to feedback (Finkelstein
and Fishbach 2012), and collected data from 141 university
students, who participated in return for monetary compensation at a research laboratory. We excluded four participants for not asking their friend for the appropriate
(assigned) feedback, thus leaving us with 137 participants
(Mage = 19.77 years; range 18–26; 68 women).
Motiv Emot (2017) 41:69–83
60%
50%
Shallow Relaonship
Deep Relaonship
50%
40%
33% 32%
30%
18%
20%
10%
0%
Posive Feedback
Negave Feedback
Fig. 2 Proportion of participants who chose to make concrete plans
to meet their friends (i.e., relationship investment) as a function of
relationship depth and the feedback they initially solicited (Study 3)
Motiv Emot (2017) 41:69–83
relationship depth; thus, relationship depth was likely
associated with the knowledge of the friends from whom
the participants were soliciting feedback and, possibly, the
content of feedback from deep versus shallow friends. In
our final study, we accordingly hold the content of feedback constant and further manipulated relationship depth.
Study 4: The meaning of feedback
for the responder
We predict those in deep (vs. shallow) relationships are
more motivated to connect with their friends in response to
negative feedback, because such feedback signals insufficient relationship investment. In Study 4, we accordingly
examine the impact of relationship depth on (a) the
meaning of negative feedback and (b) the motivation to
invest in a relationship following negative feedback. As
points of comparison, we also measured the meaning of
positive feedback.
Specifically, Study 4 used generic (experimenter-generated) positive versus negative relationship feedback and
asked participants to consider their evaluation and response
to feedback as a function of whether it came from a deep
versus shallow friend (relationship depth was manipulated
as in Study 1). Using this procedure, we controlled for the
content of feedback. As our dependent variables, we
measured participants’ (1) inferences of the feedback—
whether it was meant to signal a need for effort investment
(e.g., responsiveness, Reis et al. 2004) or whether it was
meant to signal commitment to the relationship, and (2)
motivation to invest in the relationship.
Method
Participants
As in Study 1, we pre-determined a sample size of at least
50 participants per condition and collected responses from
581 MTurk workers who started the study, anticipating
some data loss. We decided before data analysis to exclude
35 participants who failed the attention checks (adopted
from Study 1), 17 participants who chose inappropriate
targets given our focus on interdependence relationships
(e.g., a spouse, a mother, or a best friend), and 39 participants who did not complete the writing task (providing
nonsensical or no responses), leaving us with 489 eligible
participants (Mage = 30.98 years; range 18–78; 251
women).2
2
Following Zhou and Fishbach (2016), we tested for attrition. 30
participants dropped the survey before being assigned to a depth
77
Procedure
The study employed a 2 (relationship-depth: shallow vs.
deep) 9 2 (feedback: positive vs. negative) 9 2 (inference: asked about investment or commitment) betweensubjects design. Participants completed the relationship
depth manipulation from Study 1 (i.e., listing similarities
vs. dissimilarities and things that would make them closer
to vs. far from a target acquaintance as chosen in Study 1).
Next, participants in the negative (positive) feedback
condition read that, ‘‘Suppose [Acquaintance’s Initials]
tells you that you recently have not (have) been on time for
meet-ups, you recently have not (have) been a good listener
when he/she talks to you, and you recently have not (have)
been staying in good touch with him/her.’’ Participants’
task was to rate what they thought their acquaintance’s
motive for providing them with this feedback would be.
Those assigned to consider progress rated the extent to
which their acquaintance (a) ‘‘would give me this feedback
to make me do a better job in our relationship’’ and
(b) ‘‘would give me this feedback to make me invest more
time in our relationship.’’ Higher ratings on these items
reflect insufficient effort investment. Participants assigned
to consider commitment rated the extent to which their
acquaintance (a) ‘‘would give me this feedback to instill
confidence in our relationship’’ and (b) ‘‘would give me
this feedback to make me care about our relationship’’ (for
all statements, 1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree).
The wording for these measures was taken from Finkelstein
and Fishbach (2012) and Fishbach and Dhar (2005), with
minor adaptions to fit the relationship context.
Next, to measure motivation to invest in the relationship,
participants indicated their desire to contact their acquaintance after receiving such feedback (1 = I do not plan to
contact [Acquaintance’s Initials] soon, 7 = I plan to contact
[Acquaintance’s Initials] soon). Finally, participants completed manipulation checks whereby they rated the feedback
they considered (1 = very negative, 7 = very positive) and
how close they felt to their acquaintance while completing
the study (1 = not close at all, 7 = very close).
Results and discussion
In support of the manipulation, participants who considered
instances of negative feedback rated the feedback as less
positive (M = 3.94, SD = 1.37) than those who considered
instances of positive feedback (M = 5.27, SD = 1.13),
Footnote 2 continued
condition. An additional 25 dropped out after being assigned to a
condition and before completing the survey: 6 from negative-deep, 8
from positive-deep, 4 from negative-shallow, and 7 from positiveshallow.
123
78
Motiv Emot (2017) 41:69–83
t(474) = 11.57, p \ .001, d = 1.06. In further support of
the manipulation, those assigned to the deep-relationship
condition indicated feeling closer to their acquaintance
(M = 3.75, SD = 1.37) than those in the shallow-relationship condition (M = 3.48, SD = 1.42), t(474) = 2.12,
p = .034, d = .19.
We summarize the key results in Fig. 3. We first collapsed the two questions on investment inferences
(a = .76). In support of the hypothesis, we find that among
participants who received negative feedback, those in deep
relationships (M = 5.22, SD = 1.25) were more likely than
those in shallow relationships (M = 4.57, SD = 1.43) to
infer their friend provided feedback to signal insufficient
effort investment, t(120) = 2.64, p = .009, d = .48. We do
not find a similar pattern for participants assigned to receive
positive feedback (Mdeep = 4.54, SD = 1.21; MShallow = 4.43, SD = 1.51), t \ 1. These results support our
hypothesis that those in deep (vs. shallow) relationships are
more likely to infer their friend provided negative feedback
to signal insufficient investment in the relationship.
We also collapsed the two questions on commitment
inferences (a = .62). As predicted, we found no impact of
depth on inferences of commitment (Mdeep = 4.78,
SD = 1.29; MShallow = 4.58, SD = 1.32), t = 1.23. Consistent with our theorizing and previous research (e.g.,
Fishbach et al. 2014), we find that participants who
received positive feedback were more likely than those
who received negative feedback (M = 4.30, SD = 1.32) to
infer it was meant to boost their commitment to the relationship, t(244) = 4.84, p \ .001, d = .63. After all, positive feedback supports inference of expectancy and
value—the building blocks of commitment (Fishbein and
Ajzen 1974).
We next explored whether inferences of insufficient
investment upon receipt of negative feedback mediates the
impact of relationship depth on increasing investment
motivation. We first conducted mediation analysis using
Hayes’s (2013) PROCESS model 4 on participants
assigned to receive negative feedback to test whether
inferences that their acquaintance would provide them with
negative feedback to signal insufficient progress mediated
the relationship between the relationship-depth condition
(0 = shallow relationship, 1 = deep relationship) and
motivation to invest in the relationship. We find that relationship depth increased the tendency to infer insufficient
investment in the relationship from negative feedback
(b = .64, SE = .24), t(120) = 2.64, p = .009; and the
tendency to make low-investment inferences predicted
motivation to invest in the relationship (b = .37,
SE = .10), t(120) = 3.89, p \ .001. A bootstrapping
analysis with 5000 estimates (Preacher and Hayes 2004)
indicated that the indirect effect of those in deep relationships being more motivated to invest in the relationship
was fully mediated by inferences that the friend would
provide them with negative feedback to signal insufficient
investment in the relationship (boot = .24, SE = .12, 95 %
CI .06 to .57). Importantly, we did not observe mediation
for participants assigned to receive positive feedback,
because the 95 % CI contained zero (boot = .05,
SE = .12, 95 % CI -.18 to .31). In addition, inferences of
commitment did not mediate the impact of relationship
depth on motivation to invest in the relationship (for participants assigned to receive positive feedback: boot = .00,
SE = .13, 95 % C: -.24 to .26, or for participants assigned
6
6
Shallow Relaonship
Deep Relaonship
5.5
Inferences of Commitment
Inferences of Insufficient Investment
Fig. 3 Inferences of
insufficient effort investment
(lack of progress) and
commitment as a function of
feedback and relationship depth
(Study 4)
Mediation analysis
5
4.5
4
123
5.5
5
4.5
4
Posive
Negave
Posive
Negave
Feedback
Feedback
Feedback
Feedback
Motiv Emot (2017) 41:69–83
to receive negative feedback: boot = .21, SE = .20, 95 %
CI -.17, .64).
Study 4’s findings extend the results of Study 3 to cases
in which the content of the feedback is fixed. Negative
feedback increased the motivation to pursue the relationship goal more so in deep than in shallow relationships,
because those in deep relationships were more likely to
infer insufficient pursuit of the relationship goal from such
negative feedback.
General discussion
People often criticize and praise each other on their goal
performance. Such feedback is instrumental for self-regulation and further increases the instrumentality of the
feedback giver (Fitzsimons and Finkel 2010; Rusbult et al.
2009; Vohs and Finkel 2006). We find that the depth of the
relationship between the feedback giver and seeker influences the valence of the feedback people seek and give and
how they respond to feedback. Specifically, because negative feedback signals insufficient effort investment for
those in deep relationships more than for those in shallowrelationships, those in deeper relationships exchange more
negative feedback than those in shallow relationships. We
documented the increase in negative feedback across three
modalities: people seek more negative feedback (Study 1),
give more negative feedback (Study 2), and respond more
to negative feedback by investing resources in pursuing
their goals (Studies 3-4). We further explored the impact of
feedback on interpersonal and relationship goals (Studies 1,
3, and 4) as well on intrapersonal goals (Studies 1 and 2),
demonstrating relationship depth influences the meaning of
feedback and motivation.
Studies 1, 2, and 4 further utilized situational variables
to influence the perception of relationships as deep versus
shallow. They demonstrate the malleability of the perception of relationship depth. One implication of these context
effects is that two people in a relationship often have different perceptions of how close they are. If one person sees
the friendship as shallow, whereas her friend sees it as
deep, because these two make different comparisons, the
latter will express more negative feedback than what the
former will care to receive, and the potential exists for
ineffective feedback exchange and motivational deficits.
We suspect that mismatches in perceptions of relationship
depth are common because the cues people use to evaluate
their relationships are both private and unstable.
Even when people share a similar perception of relationship depth, they may overestimate the extent to which
the recipient desires negative feedback and how negative
that person expects the feedback to be. Although relationship depth increases interest in negative feedback, our
79
research consistently finds that interest in positive feedback
provides reassurance that goal commitment will not
decrease. The increase in negative feedback as the relationship deepens may have undesirable consequences when
close friends snub each other and experience their relationship more negatively. As initial support for these possible downstream negative consequences of the increase in
negative feedback, we have recently found that individuals
in a deep relationship report that they argue more often
than those in shallow relationship (on 7-point scale:
Mdeep = 2.36, SD = 1.96 vs. Mshallow = 1.61, SD = 1.24;
t(81) = 2.12, p = .038, d = .45). Although close friends
reported their relationship was no less interesting than
shallow friends, they did not like the increase in arguments,
which we attribute to an increase in criticism from the
exchange of negative feedback.
Our research is not without limitations. Indeed, our
operationalization of feedback as constructive (either positive or negative) might not capture some feedback that
friends and colleagues exchange in the real world. For
instance, negative feedback might be destructive and positive feedback might be insincere. In terms of the scope of
our investigation, we expect to find the increase in the
share of negative feedback only as long as people’s motivation is to improve and the negative feedback appears to
be constructive. If, for example, people’s motivation is to
flatter another person or receive flattery, or if the negative
feedback is aggressive, teasing or otherwise non-constructive, we would not expect an increase in negative
feedback as the relationship deepens.
Another limitation refers to our focus on feedback that is
either positive or negative; hence, we do not offer conclusions regarding the effectiveness of a combination
approach (e.g., the intuitively appealing sandwich method
of ‘‘positive–negative–positive’’). Although we did not
study mixed feedback, we note that our results on the
frequency and effectiveness of negative feedback do not
suggest that negative feedback should replace—rather than
be added to—positive feedback. Indeed, we generally find
that relationship depth does not influence the effectiveness
and frequency of positive feedback and that positive
feedback, in itself, can serve to boost goal commitment.
Thus, it is quite likely that the increase in negative feedback as the relationship deepens should be added to a
constant level of positive feedback.
Alternative explanations
Congruent with research on the dynamics of self-regulation
(Fishbach et al. 2014; Fishbach and Finkelstein 2012), we
attribute our effects to the different meaning feedback
carries for self-regulation as relationships deepen. We
demonstrated that negative feedback signals lack of
123
80
investment in the relationship goal (i.e., low progress) for
those in deep relationships more than for those in shallow
relationships. Other research, in contrast, explores variables that increase tolerance for negative feedback (i.e.,
‘‘buffering factors,’’ Linville 1987; Showers and Kling
1996; Trope and Neter 1994), and relationship depth may
thus serve as a buffer. According to a buffering model,
individuals who are more secure in their level of goal
commitment are less concerned with the potential detrimental impact of exchanging negative feedback on goal
commitment (see also relationships as accumulated emotional capital, Feeney and Lemay 2012). That is, the
underlying cause of our effect might be a decreased concern for reassuring commitment rather than an increased
desire to motivate investment. Put differently, individuals
in committed relationships might be better able to tolerate
rather than actively solicit negative feedback.
We note that although a buffering account predicts that
relationship depth increases acceptance or tolerance of
negative feedback, we predict and find that relationship
depth further increases the preference for negative feedback over positive feedback. Specifically, Study 3 finds
that feedback recipients who see their relationship as deep
are more motivated to pursue the relationship goal in
response to negative than to positive feedback. In addition,
in Study 4, participants in deep relationship were more
likely to infer insufficient investment from negative feedback than from positive feedback, which is not a prediction
the buffering hypothesis makes.
Another version of the buffering hypothesis could argue
that participants in the deep-relationship conditions experienced more positive emotion, which buffered the negative
feedback. This alternative would also argue that relationship depth increases tolerance of but not preference for
negative feedback. Moreover, we find that relationship
depth influences inferences of investment (progress) but
not inferences of commitment in Study 4, whereas positive
mood, if anything, should increase both types of inference.
A second alternative suggests that because those in deep
relationships trust their partner more, they are more likely
to interpret negative feedback in a charitable light (i.e.,
negative feedback seems less negative for those in deep
versus shallow relationships; see, e.g., work on cognitive
reappraisals; Richards et al. 2003). Whereas this interpretation is consistent with our findings on feedback seeking,
we find that those in deep (vs. shallow) relationships
respond more to a given, constant negative feedback, with
less room for interpretation. In addition, we show those in
deep relationships infer something different (i.e., low
investment) from negative feedback than those in shallow
relationships; that is, those in deeper relationships do not
perceive negative feedback as lighter but as implying a
lack of investment.
123
Motiv Emot (2017) 41:69–83
Implications
This research has several implications for theories of selfregulation and interpersonal relationships. First, to the extent
that people associate relationship depth with negative feedback, even if unconsciously, they might exchange negative
feedback to communicate close relationships. Though we find
that close relationships allow for negative feedback, the
reverse may also be true: people give each other negative
feedback because they wish to communicate deep relationship and believe such feedback increases depth in the relationships. For example, research by Keltner et al. (1998) finds
that teasing communicates that individuals are close enough
to tease. However, such a strategy can backfire if negative
feedback is too aggressive for those in shallow relationships.
Second, this research has potential implications for
relationships that are characterized by intimacy (Cavallo
et al. 2009; Gagné and Lydon 2004). We conceptualize
relationship depth as interdependence that arises from
repeated ongoing interactions between two people (Reis
et al. 2004). However, relationship depth could also mean
greater intimacy, which involves a partnership based on
communal responsiveness and trust (e.g., as in familial and
romantic relationships; Reis and Shaver 1988). An interesting question for future research is whether our findings
are also applicable to relationships that vary by intimacy
rather than (or in addition to) interdependence.
Finally, although our key variable is relationship depth,
other factors may influence the meaning of negative feedback and, as a result, the share of negative feedback people
exchange. For example, in hierarchical relationships (e.g.,
between an employer and an employee or a teacher and a
student), differences in power may influence the meaning
of feedback. We would predict that feedback from a person
lower in the hierarchy will be less threatening and thus
more likely to signal insufficient resource investment
compared with feedback from a person higher in the
hierarchy. It further follows that for negative feedback to
be both constructive and useful for self-regulation, having
someone with less power express it may be more beneficial
than having someone with more power express it.
Funding This study was partially funded from the Templeton
Foundation (New Paths to Purpose Grant).
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no competing
interests.
Ethical approval All procedures performed in studies involving
human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of
the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964
Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical
standards.
Motiv Emot (2017) 41:69–83
Informed consent Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Appendix: Manipulations of relationship depth—
Study 2
Coworker (feedback recipient) gains depth scenario
‘‘Welcome to the coworker evaluation study. In this study,
we’d like you to imagine that you have been working at
your firm for 2 years and that you are part of a team that is
pitching a new product to a potential client. A coworker of
yours [who is a new member of the team and has been
around for 2 weeks/is an experienced member of the team
and has been around for 2 years] has been asked to deliver
a part of the pitch to the new client. Before your team gives
a presentation like this, your team tapes a practice talk in
front of a mock audience in an environment similar to the
one the actual pitch will be given in. The mock audience
members are encouraged to ask clarification questions if
necessary but to leave other questions for after the first part
of the pitch is completed.
‘‘Your job is to evaluate the practice presentation and
give feedback to your coworker. Keeping in mind that
[your coworker is a new member of the team and has been
around for 2 weeks/your coworker is an experienced
member of the team and has been around for 2 years],
we’d like for you to evaluate your co-worker and list your
coworker’s strengths and weaknesses in the pitch.’’
Participant (feedback provider) gains depth
scenario
‘‘Welcome to the coworker evaluation study. In this study,
we’d like you to imagine that you are part of a team that is
pitching a new product to a potential client. [You are a new
member of the team and have only been working with your
team for two weeks/You are an experienced member of the
team and have been working with your team for 2 years].
Your coworker, a team member of yours who has been
with the team for 2 years, has been asked to deliver a part
of the pitch to the new client. Before your team gives a
presentation like this, your team tapes a practice talk in
front of a mock audience in an environment similar to the
one the actual pitch will be given in. The mock audience
members are encouraged to ask clarification questions if
necessary but to leave other questions for after the first part
of the pitch is completed.
‘‘Your job is to evaluate the practice presentation and
give feedback to your coworker. Keeping in mind that [you
are a new member of the team and have been around for
2 weeks/you are an experienced member of the team and
81
have been around for 2 years], we’d like for you to evaluate your co-worker and list your coworker’s strengths and
weaknesses in the pitch.’’
References
Anseel, F., Lievens, F., & Levy, P. E. (2007). A self-motives
perspective on feedback-seeking behavior: Linking organizational behavior and social psychology research. International
Journal of Management Reviews, 9, 211–236.
Ashford, S. J., Blatt, R., & Walle, D. V. (2003). Reflections on the
looking glass: A review of research on feedback-seeking
behavior in organizations. Journal of Management, 29, 773–799.
Ashford, S. J., & Cummings, L. L. (1983). Feedback as an individual
resource: Personal strategies of creating information. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 32, 370–398.
Ashford, S. J., & Tsui, A. A. (1991). Self-regulation for managerial
effectiveness: The role of active feedback-seeking. Academy of
Management Journal, 34, 251–280.
Aspinwall, L. G. (1998). Rethinking the role of positive affect in selfregulation. Motivation and Emotion, 22, 1–32.
Baker, L. R., & McNulty, J. K. (2013). When low self-esteem
encourages behaviors that risk rejection to increase interdependence: The role of relational self-construal. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104, 995–1018.
Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 2,
248–287.
Berscheid, E., Snyder, M., & Omoto, A. (2004). Measuring closeness:
The relationship closeness inventory (RCI) revisited. In D.
J. Mashek & A. Aron (Eds.), The handbook of closeness and
intimacy (pp. 81–101). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Blumberg, H. H. (1972). Communication of interpersonal evaluations.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 23, 157–162.
Bolles, R. C. (1972). Reinforcement, expectancy, and learning.
Psychological Review, 79, 394–409.
Brennan, K. A., & Morns, K. A. (1997). Attachment styles, selfesteem, and patterns of seeking feedback from romantic partners.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 23–31.
Brunstein, J. C., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (1996). Effects of failure on
subsequent performance: The importance of self-defining goals.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 395–407.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1998). On the self-regulation of
behavior. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Cavallo, J. C., Fitzsimons, G. M., & Holmes, J. G. (2009). Taking
chances in the face of threat: Romantic risk regulation and
approach motivation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 737–751.
Clark, M. S., & Lemay, E. P., Jr. (2010). Close relationships. In S.
T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social
psychology (5th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 898–940). New York: Wiley.
Clarkson, J. J., Hirt, E. R., Jia, L., & Alexander, M. B. (2010). When
perception is more than reality: The effects of perceived versus
actual resource depletion on self-regulatory behavior. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 29–46.
Custers, R., & Aarts, H. (2005). Positive affect as implicit motivator:
On the nonconscious operation of behavioral goals. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 129–142.
Depaulo, B. M., & Kashy, D. A. (1998). Everyday lies in close and
casual relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 63–79.
Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social cognitive approach to
motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256–273.
123
82
Feather, N. T. (1982). Expectations and actions: Expectancy-value
models in psychology. Hillsdale, N.J: Erlbaum.
Feeney, B. C., & Lemay, E. P. (2012). Surviving relationship threats
the role of emotional capital. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 38, 1004–1017.
Finkelstein, S. R., & Fishbach, A. (2012). Tell me what I did wrong:
Experts seek and respond to negative feedback. Journal of
Consumer Research, 39, 22–38.
Fishbach, A., & Dhar, R. (2005). Goals as excuses or guides: The
liberating effect of perceived goal progress on choice. Journal of
Consumer Research, 32, 370–377.
Fishbach, A., Eyal, T., & Finkelstein, S. R. (2010). How positive and
negative feedback motivate goal pursuit. Social Psychology and
Personality Compass, 4, 517–530.
Fishbach, A., & Ferguson, M. J. (2007). The goal construct in social
psychology. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Fishbach, A., & Finkelstein, S. R. (2012). How feedback influences
persistence, disengagement, and change in goal pursuit. In H.
Aarts & A. Elliot (Eds.), Goal directed behavior (pp. 203–230).
Hove: Psychology Press.
Fishbach, A., Koo, M., & Finkelstein, S. R. (2014). Motivation
resulting from completed and missing actions. In M. P. Zanna &
J. Olson (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology
(Vol. 50, pp. 257–307). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1974). Attitudes towards objects as
predictors of single and multiple behavioral criteria. Psychological Review, 81, 59–74.
Fitzsimons, G. M., & Bargh, J. A. (2003). Thinking of you:
Nonconscious pursuit of interpersonal goals associated with
relationship partners. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 148–164.
Fitzsimons, G. M., & Finkel, E. J. (2010). Inter-personal influences on
self-regulation. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19,
101–105.
Gagné, F. M., & Lydon, J. E. (2004). Bias and accuracy in close
relationships: An integrative review. Personality and Social
Psychology Review, 8, 322–338.
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and
conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach.
New York: Guilford Press.
Hepper, E. G., & Carnelley, K. B. (2010). Adult attachment and
feedback-seeking patterns in relationships and work. European
Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 448–464.
Higgins, E. T. (1987). Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and
affect. Psychological Review, 94, 319–340.
Hui, C. M., Molden, D. C., & Finkel, E. J. (2013). Loving freedom:
Concerns with promotion or prevention and the role of autonomy
in relationship well-being. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 105, 61–85.
Izard, C. (1960). Personality similarity and friendship. The Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 61, 47–51.
Kappes, A., Oettingen, G., & Pak, H. (2012). Mental contrasting and
the self-regulation of responding to negative feedback. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 845–857.
Kelley, H. H., Berscheid, E., Christensen, A., Harvey, H. H., Huston,
T. L., Levinger, G., et al. (1983). Close relationships. New York:
Freeman.
Kelley, H. H., & Thibaut, J. W. (1978). Interpersonal relations: A
theory of interdependence (p. 341). New York: Wiley.
Keltner, D., Young, R. C., Heerey, E. A., Oemig, C., & Monarch, N.
D. (1998). Teasing in hierarchical and intimate relations. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1231–1247.
Koo, M., & Fishbach, A. (2008). Dynamics of self-regulation: How
(un)accomplished goal actions affect motivation. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 183–195.
123
Motiv Emot (2017) 41:69–83
Kraus, M. W., & Chen, S. (2009). Striving to be known by significant
others: Automatic activation of self-verification goals in relationship contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
97, 58–73.
Kruglanski, A. W. (1996). Goals as knowledge structures. New York,
NY: Guilford Press.
Kwang, T., & Swann, W. B. (2010). Do people embrace praise even
when they feel unworthy? A review of critical tests of selfenhancement versus self-verification. Personality and Social
Psychology Review, 14, 263–280.
Linville, P. W. (1987). Self-complexity as a cognitive buffer against
stress-related illness and depression. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 52, 663–676.
Maisel, N., & Gable, S. L. (2009). The paradox of received social
support: The importance of responsiveness. Psychological
Science, 20, 928–932.
Morrison, E. W., & Weldon, E. (1990). The impact of an assigned
performance goal on feedback seeking behavior. Human
Performance, 3, 37–50.
Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., & Griffin, D. W. (2000). Self-esteem
and the quest for felt security: How perceived regard regulates
attachment processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 478–498.
Oppenheimer, D. M., Meyvis, T., & Davidenko, N. (2009). Instructional manipulation checks: Detecting satisficing to increase
statistical power. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
45, 867–872.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for
estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior
Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(4), 717–731.
Rafferty, J. N., & Bizer, G. Y. (2009). Negative feedback and
performance: The moderating effect of emotion regulation.
Personality and Individual Differences, 47, 481–486.
Reis, H. T., Clark, M. S., & Holmes, J. G. (2004). Perceived partner
responsiveness as an organizing construct in the study of
intimacy and closeness. In D. J. Mashek & A. Aron (Eds.),
Handbook of closeness and intimacy (pp. 201–228). Mahweh,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Reis, H. T., & Shaver, P. (1988). Intimacy as an interpersonal process.
In S. Duck & D. F. Hay (Eds.), Handbook of personal
relationships: Theory, research, and interventions (pp.
367–389). New York: Wiley.
Renn, R. W., & Fedor, D. B. (2001). Development and field test of a
feedback seeking, self-efficacy, and goal setting model of work
performance. Journal of Management, 27, 563–583.
Richards, J. M., Butler, E. A., & Gross, J. J. (2003). Emotion
regulation in romantic relationships: The cognitive consequences
of concealing feelings. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 20(5), 599–620.
Rusbult, C. E., Finkel, E. J., & Kumashiro, M. (2009). The
michaelangelo phenomenon. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18, 305–309.
Rusbult, C. E., & Van Lange, P. A. (2003). Interdependence,
interaction, and relationships. Annual Review of Psychology,
54(1), 351–375.
Sedikides, C., & Strube, M. J. (1995). The multiply motivated self.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 1330–1335.
Shiota, M. N., Campos, B., Keltner, D., & Hertenstein, M. J. (2004).
Positive emotion and the regulation of interpersonal relationships. The Regulation of Emotion, 5, 127–155.
Showers, C. J., & Kling, K. C. (1996). Organization of selfknowledge: Implications for recovery from sad mood. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 578–590.
Swann, W. B. (1987). Identity negotiation: Where two roads meet.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1038–1051.
Motiv Emot (2017) 41:69–83
Tesser, A. (1988). Toward a self-evaluation maintenance model of
social behavior. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental
social psychology (Vol. 21, pp. 181–222). San Diego, CA:
Academic Press.
Tesser, A., & Rosen, S. (1975). The reluctance to transmit bad news.
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 8, 193–232.
Trope, Y., & Neter, E. (1994). Reconciling competing motives in selfevaluation: The role of self-control in feedback seeking. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 646–657.
Vohs, K. D., & Finkel, E. J. (2006). Self and relationships:
Connecting intrapersonal and interpersonal processes. New
York: Guilford.
83
Williams, J. R., & Johnson, M. A. (2000). Self-supervisor agreement:
The influence of feedback seeking on the relationship between
self and supervisor ratings of performance. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 30, 275–292.
Yariv, E. (2006). ‘‘Mum effect’’: Principals’ reluctance to submit
negative feedback. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21,
533–546.
Zhou, H., & Fishbach, A. (2016). The pitfall of experimenting on the
web: How unattended selective attrition leads to surprising (yet
false) research conclusions. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 111(4), 493–504.
123