JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT
2018, VOL. 38, NOS. 2–3, 97–115
https://doi.org/10.1080/01608061.2017.1423151

Effects of Positive and Negative Feedback Sequence on
Work Performance and Emotional Responses
Eunju Choia, Douglas A Johnsona, Kwangsu Moonb, and Shezeen Oahba

Department of Psychology, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Michigan, USA; bDepartment of
Psychology, Chung-Aug University, Seoul, Korea
ABSTRACTARTICLE HISTORY

Performance feedback has been broadly used within
Organizational Behavior Management. However, the specifics
regarding the most effective type of feedback still merits careful
investigation, including the use of positive and negative sequencesof feedback. The current study randomly assigned participants toreceive one of the following sequences: (a) positive-positive feedback, (b) positive-negative feedback, (c) negative-positive feedback, and (d) negative-negative feedback. Uniform feedback
delivery resulted in higher performance, although inconsistent
feedback resulted in lessened negative emotional responses.
Recommendations on whether to deliver positive or negative feedback in isolation or combination may depend upon the outcomescurrently being prioritized by the organization.

Received 22 June 2017
Revised 29 October 2017
Accepted 4 November 2017
KEYWORDS

positive feedback; negative
feedback; feedback
sequence; emotional
responses

Performance feedback may be defined as performance information thatenables individuals to change their behaviors (Daniels, 2016). Performance
feedback has been one of the most frequently used interventions, either inisolation or in combination with other variables, in the field ofOrganizational Behavior Management (OBM; Weatherly & Malott, 2008).
The reliance of OBM on feedback for performance improvement has held
across research studies and review articles over several decades (Alvero,
Bucklin, & Austin, 2001; Balcazar, Hopkins, & Suarez, 1985–1986; Nolan,
Jarema, & Austin, 1999; VanStelle et al., 2012).
Many of these studies have implemented feedback as a consequence for
performance and certain forms of these consequences are likely to have reinforcing or punishing properties. The function of feedback as a consequence depends
on how the elements of feedback were experienced by recipients during theirlearning histories. As such, the predictability of feedback may depend on how
uniform the learning histories are for members of the culture and therefore some
idiosyncratic effects are to be expected (e.g., workers who are avoidant of praise
because attention has often been an antecedent for humiliation). For example, a
CONTACT Eunju Choi
eunjuchoi9681@gmail.com
Department of Pyschology, Western Michigan
University, 3700 Wood Hall, Kalamazoo, MI 49008-5439, USA.
Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/worg.
© 2018 Taylor & Francis

98

E. CHOI ET AL.

litany of words and phrases such as “great job,” “excellent,” “appreciate,” “impressive,” “best,” “improvement,” and “well done,” have frequently been paired withverbal and social reinforcers, monetary rewards, break times, the reduction of
threats, and other stimuli with reinforcing properties for most members of theculture. Alternatively, words and phrases such as “deficient,” “poor job,” “so bad,”“worsening,” and “not your best,” have frequently been paired with verbal andsocial punishers, reduced compensation, and an increase in threats. Such common
pairing histories can lead certain words or phrases to elicit positive and negative
emotional states, a phenomenon well documented by the literature (Kuykendall &Keating, 1990; Staats & Staats, 1958). When such positive and negative words areincorporated as elements of feedback for performance, the feedback may elicit
emotional reactions as a respondent process and evoke verbal reports of suchemotions as an operant process (Moon, Lee, Lee, & Oah, 2017). Beyond theimmediate emotional effects upon the recipient, feedback may also influence theprobability of future work-related behaviors as another operant process.
As past research has made clear, feedback is not limited to the role of aconditioned stimulus or behavioral consequence, but can take on various
antecedent operant relations for work performance as well (Johnson, 2013;
Johnson, Rocheleau, & Tilka, 2015; Peterson, 1982). Furthermore, feedback
can serve multiple functions at once, yet it is beyond the scope of any
particular study to investigate all the possible functions of feedback(Aljadeff-Abergel et al., 2017). The remainder of this paper will largely
limit itself to potential functions as a consequence for operant task performance and as a respondent for emotional reactions (along with the associateddiscriminative properties for verbal self-reports of emotional reactions). For
the sake of simplicity, this study will utilize the terms “positive feedback” and“negative feedback” in regard to these potential functions. In practice, positive feedback is delivered with the intent of increasing observed behavior andwhen done correctly, this stimulus should have reinforcing properties.
Conversely, negative feedback is delivered with the intent of decreasing
observed behavior and when done correctly, this stimulus should havepunishing properties.
The field of OBM has generally eschewed the use of negative feedback
whenever possible (Daniels, 2016). Much of the literature emphasizes reinforcement procedures and downplays, discourages, and dissuades the reader
from punishment procedures in general (Abernathy, 2014; Daniels & Bailey,
2014; Geller, 2001). This emphasis fits with the values of behavior analysis in
general, which have promoted a minimization of aversive control long before
the development of OBM (Skinner, 1948). Beyond general philosophicalsentiments, there may be important practical reasons to avoid relying extensively on negative feedback. Negative feedback can elicit negative emotional
responses and contribute to a general worsening of environmental conditions. Such stimulation can serve as an emotional motivating operation—

JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT

99

either unconditioned or conditioned—and evoke undesirable behaviors suchas aggressiveness, resistance, and withdrawal (Michael, 2004; Sidman, 1989).
Even in situations in which negative feedback may be the most appropriate
intervention, the emphasis in OBM literature tends to be on eliminating
undesirable behavior in order to create a foundation for subsequently reinforcing desirable behavior, rather than simply providing punishment alone.
As such, it is hardly surprising that most feedback research has focused onconsequences that could be categorized as positive feedback (Crowell, Anderson,
Abel, & Sergio, 1988; Hawkins, Burgio, Langford, & Engel, 1992; Henry &Redmon, 1991). Examples of research on negative feedback do exist (Larson
et al., 1980), but they tend to be the exception rather than the rule. As suggested
above, although it is important to not rely extensively or exclusively on negative
feedback, this should not mean that negative feedback should be completely
abandoned. Despite the potential adverse effects, it is often necessary in certain
circumstances to employ punishing stimuli, such as when a dangerous situationnecessitates immediate intervention (e.g., a situation in which industrial accidents can occur) or in a situation that could incur substantial damage to theorganization’s finances, reputation, or legal obligations. Less dramatic but just as
important is the consideration that no worker will always exhibit perfect work
performance and corrective actions are sometimes warranted. Supervisors who
deliver positive feedback exclusively may not be maximally effective at interacting with their subordinates when it comes to reducing undesirable behavior. It is
possible that some workers may even prefer the limited use of punishment,
especially if the expedient reduction of undesired performance can hasten theemittance of desired performance, thus increasing opportunities for contact withthe rewards that are associated with superior performance.
When supervisors face a situation requiring the delivery of negative feedback totheir subordinates, one common strategy is to deliver negative feedback at thesame time as positive feedback in order to minimize deleterious effects upon theexisting social relations while still delivering the necessary corrections (Larson,1986). A frequent advisement for achieving this outcome is to utilize the “feedback
sandwich,” in which negative feedback is immediately preceded and followed byinstances of positive feedback (Dohrenwend, 2002; Shute, 2008). Some authors
have disputed such advice and have argued that positive and negative feedback
should be delivered with sufficient temporal separation so that these variables do
not impact one another (Daniels & Bailey, 2014). The basic concern is that if
positive feedback is consistently followed by negative feedback, the reinforcing
properties of positive feedback are undermined by the impending punishingproperties of negative feedback. Such a correlation may even eliminate all reinforcing properties of positive feedback despite the intent of the delivery agent.
Instead, positive feedback may come to function as an aversive warning stimulusthat establishes its own removal as reinforcing (i.e., a reflexive conditioned
motivating operation; McGee & Johnson, 2015).

100

E. CHOI ET AL.

There are other important sequences of positive and negative feedback
besides that of the feedback sandwich that are worthy of investigation (Henley& DiGennaro Reed, 2015). The basic issue is whether certain sequences andtemporal proximities of these feedback types will augment, diminish, or have aneutral effect on each other. The existing research is not clear on the outcomes ofthese potential interactions. For example, Schaible and Jacobs (1975) found thatpairing negative feedback with positive feedback enhanced the acceptance of
criticism and the effectiveness of feedback. Ilgen, Fisher, and Taylor (1979) andStone, Gueutal, and McIntosh (1984) found that recipients favorably accepted
feedback when positive feedback was followed by negative feedback. However,
the researchers in the previous three studies did not investigate the effects offeedback sequences upon actual work performance.
Parkes, Abercrombie, and McCarty (2013) compared the effects offeedback sandwiches (positive comments before and after feedback),
open sandwiches (positive comment either before or after feedback), andfeedback unaccompanied by positive comments upon clinical note writing
skills of third-year medical students. Feedback utilized in all conditions
appeared to be largely neutral in its evaluation. According to collectedsubjective reports, it was believed by the participants that their performance improved the most after receiving feedback sandwiches. However,this perception of the participants was contradicted by the objective
performance measures, which showed no differences in improvements
among the three feedback formats. Henley and DiGennaro Reed (2015)
investigated performance with simulated office tasks and used one ofthree sequences of feedback delivery within a counterbalanced design:(a) positive, corrective, positive (PCP), (b) corrective, positive, positive(CPP), and (c) positive, positive, corrective (PPC). They found that corrective feedback followed by positive feedback was more effective thanother alternatives. Slowiak and Lakowske (2017) used a medical transcription task in order to also examine PCP, CPP, and PPC sequences of
feedback delivery. Participants would receive one of the three feedback
sequences during 5-minute breaks occurring after every 12 minutes of awork trial as part of hour-long research sessions. The researchers foundno differences between the sequences of positive and negative feedback.
None of the previous three studies that examined performance included
feedback sequences that were undiluted (i.e., positive only or negativeonly) in comparison to mixtures of positive and negative feedback
sequences. In sum, there is no consensus on whether particular sequencesof positive and negative feedback—either mixed or undiluted—are advantageous or detrimental to the performance or emotional reactions of
employees. As such, the current research investigates these issues inhopes of contributing to a resolution of these ongoing debates.

JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT

101

MethodParticipants and setting

Participants consisted of 120 undergraduate and graduate students of a large
Korean university. They were recruited through online, part-time job bulletinboards operated by the university. The experiment was conducted in acomputer lab of the university, with 50 computers, an electronic lecture
desk, and a projector. The projector was used to give a brief explanation of
the purpose of the research and to demonstrate the functioning of theexperimental task. The 50 computers had the same specifications and sufficient space between them so as not to disturb others.
Experimental task

A computer program displayed components of mobile phones in a virtual
assembly task. There were three basic models of phones (realistically modeled
after popular cell phone brands), each with six main components (rear of LCD,
body unit, battery, main board, mounting bracket, and front side of LCD).
Figure 1 displays examples of both the initial and mid-assembly screens thatparticipants would typically encounter. Participants would assemble the phoneby using a computer mouse to drag the parts from the top of the screen to thebottom of the screen in the correct sequence. During the general assembly,
participants could initiate a visual inspection task by clicking the “Quality
Control” on-screen button after the second (body unit) and fourth components(main board) were moved in the correct sequence at the bottom of the screen.
After clicking this button, either the “body unit” component or the “mainboard” component would appear (e.g., see Figures 2 and 3). These components
would randomly appear as either correct or faulty (errors included elements
missing or in non-standard configuration). Participants could click the onscreen “Model Stimulus” button to display a model component once for 1.25
seconds, thus allowing participants to compare the current component with acorrect model. If the participant decided that a part of the component was
faulty, they could click on that area of the screen, which would then display a
red circle over the erroneous part (see Figure 3). If the participant decided that apart of the component was not faulty, they simply would not click on that areaof the screen. The body unit and main board both had four parts that required
inspection for potential errors. Clicking the on-screen “Finish” button would
return the participant to the general assembly screen to allow for further
assembly and completion of the current phone model. Clicking the on-screen“Next” button would complete the current phone and display the next phone tobe completed. Participants could complete as many assemblies as time and theirrate permitted. Figures 4–6 display all three phone models, along with the twocomponents used for quality inspections.

102

E. CHOI ET AL.

Figure 1. Example of virtual mobile phone production program execution—initial and midassembly.

Dependent variables
Number of correctly completed tasks
One of the dependent variables was defined as the mean number of correct
decisions regarding quality control. Each of the quality check components(body unit and main board) required the participant to inspect four distinct
areas on the components to decide if that component was faulty or correct.
Each of the four areas was used for calculating the number of correct
decisions. The results of quality control could be classified as true positives(deciding there is a flaw when a flaw is present), true negatives (deciding
there is no flaw when no flaw is present), false positive/Type I error (deciding

JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT

103

Figure 2. A screen of quality control executed for the second component.

Figure 3. A screen of quality control executed for the fourth component (two errors circled by user).

there is a flaw when no flaw is present), and false negative/Type II error(deciding there is no flaw when a flaw is present). True positives and true
negatives were the basis for calculating the average of correct responses.
Emotional responses
To identify the effect of feedback types on the emotional reactions ofparticipants, the perceived emotional responses were measured by utilizing
the questionnaire items of Warr’s (2007) after the completion of baseline and104

E. CHOI ET AL.

Figure 4. Components of first cell phone model.

Figure 5. Components of second cell phone model.

intervention phases. A total of 12 types of self-report for emotions were
measured on the 5-point Likert scale. This was done by having the participants assign a numerical value for six listed emotions from each of the

JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT

105

Figure 6. Components of third cell phone model.

classified groups—either positive (items such as surprised, happy, excited,satisfied, comfortable, and relaxed) or negative (items such as unsatisfied,anxious, nervous, sad, discouraged, and bored).

Independent variable

The independent variable consisted of one of four types of positive andnegative feedback sequences: positive-positive (P-P) feedback, positive-negative (P-N), negative-positive (N-P) feedback, and negative-negative (N-N)
feedback. Participants were randomly assigned to one of four groups basedon these sequences.
Positive-positive (P-P) feedback group
The participants assigned to the P-P feedback group were offered positive
verbal results after they were provided with information about the rate ofcorrect quality control on the second component (body unit), and alsooffered positive verbal results after they were provided with information
about the rate of correct quality control on the fourth component (mainboard). Participants would receive feedback such as “Your performance for
quality control on the second component of 3 mobile phones is ___%. Verywell done. Further, your performance for quality control on the fourthcomponent is ___%. Great job!” The specific praise statement used for the

106

E. CHOI ET AL.

first and second instance of positive feedback would vary (e.g., very welldone, you did your best, great, etc.) to avoid the appearance of rote delivery.
It is important to note that the actual feedback statement is given in theparticipant’s native language of Korean and the examples presented here are
the English equivalent rather than the specific phrasing.
Positive-negative (P-N) feedback group
The participants were provided positive feedback on the component that was
performed at the higher correct rate of the two components; subsequently they
were given negative feedback on the lower correct rate of the two components.
The participants who received P-N feedback heard statements such as “Yourperformance for quality control was ___% on the [second/fourth] component.
You did your best!,” and “Your performance for perfect quality control on the[second/fourth] component is ___%. It is almost as though you did not conduct
quality control.” Similar to the praise statements, the criticism used for the
instance of negative feedback would vary (e.g., we did not realize you were thisbad, poor job, is this the best that you can do?, etc.) to avoid the appearance ofrote delivery. In case of the two components with the same rate of work
performance, positive feedback was delivered on the component that increasedin the higher rate; whereas negative feedback was delivered on the component
that increased in the lower rate, as compared to the previous performance.
Negative-positive (N-P) feedback group
Participants in the N-P feedback group would receive both negative feedback
and positive feedback on their performance related to each of the twocomponents selected for quality control. The participants were delivered
negative feedback on the component performed at the lower rate of thetwo components; meanwhile they were delivered positive feedback on thehigher rate of the two components.
Negative-negative (N-N) feedback group
Participants provided with N-N feedback were offered negative verbal feedback after they were provided with information about the rate of correct
quality control on the second component, and also offered negative verbal
results after they were provided with information about the rate of correct
quality control on the fourth component.
Experimental design

The 4 × 2 mixed design was used to assess differences in feedback sequences.
The between factor was sequence of the feedback delivered (P-P feedback,P-N feedback, N-P feedback, and N-N feedback), and the within factor was
the experimental phase (baseline and intervention).

JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT

107

Experimental procedure

Participants were required to attend two experimental sessions—baseline andintervention. The use of the Internet and personal electronics were permitted
during the operation of the task to allow for the availability of realistic alternative activities. In addition, a 15-minute orientation was held for participantsprior to baseline during which the researcher explained the operation of theexperimental task. This explanation included details on the types of errors that
may occur during quality control inspections. The baseline session began
immediately after the orientation session and lasted for 30 minutes, with twobrief breaks that were 3–5 minutes in duration every 10 minutes. During thebaseline session, participants used the virtual assembly task as described in theExperimental Task section above and received no feedback regarding theirperformance. At the conclusion of the baseline session, participants wereasked to complete the emotional responses questionnaire. Participant responding was automatically recorded by the computer.
Approximately one week following the conclusion of the baseline session, theintervention session was conducted for 30 minutes. Prior to initiating the task,
the participants were provided with pictures about the correct rate of performance for quality control checks during the previous baseline session. After theparticipants checked the picture for about 30 seconds, the researcher provided
them oral feedback according to their assigned experimental condition. Again,
breaks that were 3–5 minutes in duration occurred every 10 minutes. These
breaks were used by the researchers to collect and calculate performance data
for the purposes of feedback delivery. At the conclusion of the break, feedback
was provided in accordance with the assigned experimental condition. Aftercompleting the 30-minute intervention session, participants were asked to once
again respond to the questionnaire on the perceived emotional responses. Aftercompleting the questionnaire, ₩10,000 (approximately $9.00) was distributed
as a participation fee.
Results
Work performance

Figure 7 shows the means for the number of correctly completed work tasks
across conditions. To examine two main effects (feedback sequence andexperimental phase) and an interaction effect, a mixed design ANOVA was
conducted on the number of correctly completed tasks. The feedback
sequence by the experimental phase interaction was statistically significant(F (1, 116) = 7.19, p < .05). Furthermore, there was a statistically significant
main effect for the experimental phase (F (1, 116) = 674.67, p < .05).
However, there was no statistical difference for the feedback sequence (F(1, 116) = 2.66, p > .05).

108

E. CHOI ET AL.

16.18

16

Number of correctly completed work tasks

15
14.18

14
13

12.78
12.46

12
11

PP
PN
NP
NN

10
9
8
7
6
Baseline

Intervention

Figure 7. Means across experimental conditions and the result of simple main effect.

Tests of simple main effects across the experimental phase were also performed.
The number of correctly completed tasks was significantly different between
baseline and intervention under P-P feedback (F (1, 116) = 276.30, p < .05),
under P-N feedback (F (1, 116) = 137.80, p < .05), under N-P feedback (F (1,116) = 107.90, p < .05), and under N-N feedback (F (1, 116) = 174.25, p < .05). The
result of the test of simple main effects across the feedback sequence indicated thatthe number of correctly completed tasks was significantly different between P-P
feedback and P-N feedback under intervention and between P-P feedback and
N-P feedback under intervention. The result of the pairwise comparison test forthe simple main effects across the feedback sequence indicated that the number ofcorrectly completed tasks was not significantly different among feedback groups.
In the intervention, there were significant differences for the performance between
P-P feedback and P-N feedback (p < .001) and between P-P feedback and N-P
feedback (p < .001). However, there was no significant mean performance difference between P-P and N-N feedback under intervention (p > .05).

Emotional responses
Positive emotion
Figure 8 shows the mean score for positive emotional response across conditions. While the mean score of positive emotional response increased inJOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT

109

Mean Score for Positive Emotional Response

4

3.57
3.5

3

2.5
2.31
2.35

PP
PN
NP
NN

2.03

2

1.5

1
Baseline

Intervention

Figure 8. Mean of positive emotional responses across experimental conditions and the result ofsimple main effect.

positive-positive feedback, positive-negative feedback, and negative-positive
feedback, mean score of positive emotional response decreased in negativenegative feedback. A mixed design ANOVA found a statistically significant
main effect for the feedback sequence (F (1, 116) = 26.795, p < .05) and forthe experimental phase (F (1, 116) = 16.598, p < .05). Also, the feedback
sequence by the experimental phase interaction was statistically significant (F(1, 116) = 28.04, p < .05). Tests of simple main effects across the experimental
phase on the mean score of positive emotional response found that the meanscore of positive emotional response was significantly different between
baseline and intervention under P-P feedback (F (1, 116) = 89.889,
p < .05), and under N-N feedback (F (1, 116) = 9.137, p < .05). The pairwise
comparison for the test of simple main effects across the types of feedback on
the mean score of positive emotional responses was also performed. The
mean score of positive emotional response was significantly different between
P-P feedback and P-N feedback under intervention (p < .001), between P-P
feedback and N-P feedback under intervention (p < .001) and between P-P
feedback and N-N feedback under intervention (p < .001). In addition, themean score of positive emotional response was significantly different between
P-N feedback and N-N feedback under intervention (p < .05) and between
N-N feedback and N-P feedback under intervention (p < .01).

110

E. CHOI ET AL.

Negative emotion
Figure 9 shows the mean score for negative emotional response acrossconditions. While the mean score of negative emotional response decreasedin P-P feedback, P-N feedback, and N-P feedback, means score of negative
emotional response increased in N-N feedback. A mixed design ANOVA
on the mean score of negative emotional responses found a statisticallysignificant main effect for the feedback sequence (F (1, 116) = 18.153,
p < .05) and for the experimental phase (F (1, 116) = 8.488, p < .05).
Also, the feedback sequence by the experimental phase interaction was
statistically significant (F (1, 116) = 15.782, p < .05). Tests of simple main
effects across the experimental phase on the mean score of negative emotional response found a significant difference between baseline and intervention under P-P feedback (F (1, 116) = 42.251, p < .05), and under N-N
feedback (F (1, 116) = 9.942, p < .05). The result of the pairwise comparison for the test of simple main effects across the feedback sequence
indicated that the mean score of negative emotional response was significantly different between P-P feedback and P-N feedback under intervention(p < .001), between P-P feedback and N-P feedback under intervention(p < .001) and between P-P feedback and N-N feedback under intervention(p < .001). In addition, the mean score of negative emotional response wasMean Score for Negative Emotional Response

4

3.5
3.36

3

2.95
2.83

2.5

PP
PN
NP
NN

2
1.86
1.5

1
Baseline

Intervention

Figure 9. Mean of negative emotional responses across experimental conditions and the resultof simple main effect.

JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT

111

significantly different between N-N feedback and P-N feedback underintervention (p < .01) and between N-N feedback and N-P feedback
under intervention (p < .001).

Discussion
The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of positive and negative
feedback sequences on work performance and emotional responses. Results
demonstrated that work performance showed a significant increase in all
feedback sequences (P-P, P-N, N-P, N-N) compared to the baseline.
Therefore, these study results were consistent with those of previous studies
on OBM in that feedback improved work performance (Balcazar, Shupert,
Daniels, Mawhinney, & Hopkins, 1989; Bucklin, Alvero, Dickinson, Austin,& Jackson, 2000). Similar to Slowiak and Lakowske (2017), the current study
found no differences between mixtures of positive and negative feedback.
When comparing the effects of the sequential delivery of feedback types, thesequential delivery of the congruent feedback types (P-P, N-N) caused
statistically significantly improved work performance as compared to thesequence of opposing feedback types (P-N, N-P). This result is consistent
with arguments that blending feedback types with contradictory behavioral
effects will undermine the effectiveness of the individual elements (Daniels &Bailey, 2014). Despite the frequent admonishments against negative feedback
and other aversive stimuli, the N-N group’s work performance also increased
and there were no statistical mean differences between the P-P and N-Ngroups’ performance.
With regard to emotional responses, the mean positive emotional responsescore of the P-P group increased in the intervention phase and was thehighest overall. This is contrasted with the mean negative emotional score
for the P-P group, which decreased in the intervention phase and was thelowest overall. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the positive and negative emotional
responses of the N-N group demonstrated a pattern that was the inverse of
the P-P group. These results suggest that P-P feedback is more effective andN-N feedback is less effective in regard to emotional responding. However, amixed feedback sequences (P-N, N-P) appears to mitigate the adverse effects
upon emotional responses that can be caused by negative feedback. In thismanner the results obtained from current research are consistent with thefindings of Dohrenwend (2002) and LeBaron and Jernick (2000), who maintained that when negative feedback was delivered with positive feedback,feedback recipients felt relaxed and negative emotional reactions were minimized. Taken together, these results suggest that if the objective is to alter
work performance, then a uniform delivery of feedback types (positive onlyor negative only) is superior. However, if the objective is to minimize

112

E. CHOI ET AL.

negative emotional reactions in response to criticisms, then the delivery ofdiverse feedback types (both positive and negative) would be warranted.
Although the present results demonstrated the effectiveness of positive andnegative feedback sequences on work performance and emotional responses,
there were limitations associated with the implementation of this study. One
limitation is that the current experiment gave feedback only three times,
which may not have been sufficient to investigate the true impact of different
feedback sequences. Especially in the case of N-N feedback, even though
performance increased in the current research, some researchers haveasserted that when feedback recipients experienced negative emotional
responses, they may show various detrimental side effects (Brief, 1998;
Daniels & Bailey, 2014; Judge, Thoresen, Bono, & Patton, 2001; Sidman,
1989; Spector, 1997). The failure to uncover any differences between P-P and
N-N sequences on performance might be attributed to the short phases ofthis research. If the feedback had been repeated over a longer time period, it
is possible that differential effects may have been observed between positive
and negative feedback.
Another limitation relates to the fact that the work requirement was
quality inspection task using two similar components. Some participants in
the P-N and N-P groups expressed misgivings about receiving different
evaluations on components despite fairly similar levels of work performance.
This may have called into question the accuracy of feedback for someparticipants, a consideration that past research has suggested may be important for performance (Johnson et al., 2015; Palmer, Johnson, & Johnson,2015) and could impact participant acceptance of feedback.
The fact that feedback was delivered by an experimenter with no previous
history with the participants may also be a source of concern. Unlike theexperimental situation, the relationship between supervisors and members ina real organization is not as limited in duration. Therefore, the feedback
delivered by an experimenter may have been less effective than that deliveredby supervisors in a real organization.
Despite these above limitations, this research is distinctive in that it
empirically investigated the difference in work performance and emotional
responses in response to differing positive and negative feedback sequences.
Unlike previous studies, this study examined both undiluted and mixed
sequences of positive and negative feedback upon objective performance.
This study establishes a pragmatic guideline that when negative feedback issituated with positive feedback, undesirable emotional reactions may be
reduced. Given the potential for emotional motivating operations to evokecounterproductive work behaviors and workplace withdrawal (e.g., turnover,absenteeism), strategies to reduce the probability of these outcomes may
prove valuable. However, the present study results reveal that negative feedback delivered with positive feedback is not as effective as P-P feedback or

JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT

113

N-N feedback from the perspective of performance. If the emotional reactions are not a prevailing concern for the organization at the moment, theimplication is that it is advantageous to not mix positive and negative formsof feedback. Rather than relying on blanket recommendations or condemnations for the sequencing of positive and negative feedback, the best practices
may need to be customized for the outcomes currently being categorized as
the top priorities.

References
Abernathy, W. B. (2014). The liberated workplace: Transitioning to Walden Three. Atlanta,
GA: Performance Management Publications.
Aljadeff-Abergel, E., Peterson, S. M., Wiskirchen, R. R., Hagen, K. K., & Cole, M. L. (2017).
Evaluating the temporal location of feedback: Providing feedback following performancevs. prior to performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 37, 171–195.
Alvero, A. M., Bucklin, B. R., & Austin, J. (2001). An objective review of the effectiveness andessential characteristics of performance feedback in organizational settings. Journal of
Organizational Behavior Management, 21(1), 3–29.
Balcazar, F. E., Hopkins, B. L., & Suarez, Y. (1985–1986). A critical, objective review of
performance feedback. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 7(3–4), 65–89.
Balcazar, F. E., Shupert, M. K., Daniels, A. C., Mawhinney, T. C., & Hopkins, B. L. (1989). An
objective review and analysis of 10 years of publication in the Journal of Organizational
Behavior Management. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 10(1), 7–37.
Brief, A. P. (1998). Attitudes in and around organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bucklin, B. R., Alvero, A. M., Dickinson, A. M., Austin, J., & Jackson, A. K. (2000). Industrialorganizational psychology and organizational behavior management: An objective comparison. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 20(2), 27–75.
Crowell, C. R., Anderson, D. C., Abel, D. M., & Sergio, J. P. (1988). Task clarification,
performance feedback, and social praise: Procedures for improving the customer serviceof bank tellers. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 21, 65–71.
Daniels, A. C. (2016). Bringing out the best in people: How to apply the astonishing power of
positive reinforcement. New York, NY: McGraw Hill Professional.
Daniels, A. C., & Bailey, J. S. (2014). Performance management: Changing behavior that drives
organizational effectiveness (5th ed.). Tucker, GA: Performance Management.
Dohrenwend, A. (2002). Serving up the feedback sandwich. Family Practice Management, 9,43–46.
Geller, E. S. (2001). Working safe: How to help people actively care for health and safety (2nded.). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press LLC.
Hawkins, A. M., Burgio, L. D., Langford, A., & Engel, B. T. (1992). The effects of verbal andwritten supervisory feedback on staff compliance with assigned prompted voiding in anursing home. JJournal of Organizational Behavior Management, 13(1), 137–150.
Henley, A. J., & DiGennaro Reed, F. D. (2015). Should you order the feedback sandwich?
Efficacy of feedback sequence and timing. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management,
35, 321–335.
Henry, G. O., & Redmon, W. K. (1991). The effects of performance feedback on theimplementation of a statistical process control (SPC) program. Journal of Organizational
Behavior Management, 11, 23–46.

114

E. CHOI ET AL.

Ilgen, D. R., Fisher, C. D., & Taylor, M. S. (1979). Consequences of individual feedback on
behavior in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64(4), 349–371.
Johnson, D. A. (2013). A component analysis of the impact of evaluative and objective
feedback on performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 33(2), 89–103.
Johnson, D. A., Rocheleau, J. M., & Tilka, R. E. (2015). Considerations in feedback delivery:
The role of accuracy and type of evaluation. Journal of Organizational Behavior
Management, 35, 240–258.
Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E., & Patton, G. K. (2001). The job satisfaction-job
performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review. Psychological Bulletin, 127,
376–407.
Kuykendall, D., & Keating, J. P. (1990). Altering thoughts and judgements through repeatedassociation. British Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 79–86.
Larson, J. R. (1986). Supervisors’ performance feedback to subordinates: The Impact ofsubordinate performance valence and outcome dependence. Organizational Behavior andHuman Decision Processes, 37(391–408). doi:10.1016/0749-5978(86)90037-3
Larson, L. D., Schnelle, J. F., Kirchner, R., Jr., Carr, A. F., Domash, M., & Risley, T. R. (1980).
Reduction of police vehicle accidents through mechaniically aided supervision. Journal ofApplied Behavior Analysis, 13(4), 571–581.
LeBaron, S. W. M., & Jernick, J. (2000). Evaluation as a dynamic process. Family Medicine, 32(1), 13–14.
McGee, H. M., & Johnson, D. A. (2015). Performance motivation as the behaviorist views it.
Performance Improvement, 54(4), 15–21.
Michael, J. (2004). Concepts and principles of behavior analysis (2nd ed.). Kalamazoo, MI:
Association for Behavior Analysis International.
Moon, K., Lee, K., Lee, K., & Oah, S. (2017). The effects of social comparison and objective
feedback on work performance across different performance levels. Journal of
Organizational Behavior Management, 37, 63–74.
Nolan, T. V., Jarema, K. A., & Austin, J. (1999). An objective review of the Journal of
Organizational Behavior Management: 1987–1997. Journal of Organizational Behavior
Management, 19(3), 83–114.
Palmer, M. G., Johnson, C. M., & Johnson, D. A. (2015). Objective performance feedback: Is
numerical accuracy necessary? Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 35, 206–
239.
Parkes, J., Abercrombie, S., & McCarty, T. (2013). Feedback sandwiches affect perceptions but
not performance. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 18(3), 397–407.
Peterson, N. (1982). Feedback is not a new principle of behavior. The Behavior Analyst, 5,
101–102.
Schaible, T. D., & Jacobs, A. (1975). Feedback III: Sequence effects: Enhancement of feedback
acceptance and group attractiveness by manipulation of the sequence and valence of
feedback. Small Group Behavior, 6(2), 151–173.
Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153–
189.
Sidman, M. (1989). Coercion and its fallout. Boston, MA : Authors Cooperative.
Skinner, B. F. (1948). Walden Two. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company.
Slowiak, J. M., & Lakowske, A. M. (2017). The influence of feedback statement sequence andgoals on task performance. Behavior Analysis: Research and Practice, 17(4), 357–380.
Spector, P. E. (1997). Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, causes, and consequences.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Staats, A. W., & Staats, C. K. (1958). Attitudes established by classical conditioning. The
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 57, 37–40.

JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT

115

Stone, D. L., Gueutal, H. G., & McIntosh, B. (1984). The effects of feedback sequence andexpertise of the rater on perceived feedback accuracy. Personnel Psychology, 37, 487–506.
VanStelle, S. E., Vicars, S. M., Harr, V., Miguel, C. F., Koerber, J. L., Kazbour, R., & Austin, J.
(2012). The publication history of the Journal of Organizational Behavior Management: An
objective review and analysis: 1998–2009. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management,
32, 93–123.
Warr, P. (2007). Work, happiness, and unhappiness. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Weatherly, N. L., & Malott, R. W. (2008). An analysis of organizational behavior management
research in terms of the three-contingency model of performance management. Journal of
Organizational Behavior Management, 28, 260–285.