Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 35:240–258, 2015
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0160-8061 print/1540-8604 online
DOI: 10.1080/01608061.2015.1093055

Considerations in Feedback Delivery: The Roleof Accuracy and Type of Evaluation

Downloaded by [Western Michigan University] at 21:31 30 November 2015

DOUGLAS A. JOHNSON, JESSICA M. ROCHELEAU,
and RACHAEL E. TILKA
Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Michigan, USA

Performance feedback remains a commonly implemented and successful intervention within organizational behavior management,
but a comprehensive understanding of the components that influence the effectiveness of feedback tends to be lacking. The present
study sought to contribute by analyzing the variables of accuracy(contingent on or independent of performance) and evaluation
type (supportive or critical judgments) on performance using asimulated work environment. A total of 75 undergraduate students were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 experimental conditions:(a) contingent and supportive feedback, (b) contingent and critical feedback, (c) independent and supportive feedback, or (d)independent and critical feedback. Outcomes suggested that contingent feedback improved performance relative to independent
feedback, however, no differences were found between supportiveand critical types of feedback. The need for additional research
into the functional and formal elements of effective feedback is also
discussed.
KEYWORDS accurate feedback, contingency, evaluative feedback
Performance feedback, both in isolation and in combination with other intervention components, has long remained one of the most commonly studied
and implemented variables in both research and application for organizational behavior management and related disciplines (Alvero, Bucklin, &Austin, 2001; Daniels & Bailey, 2014; Kluger & DeNisi, 1996). A study by
VanStelle et al. (2012) reported that 65% to 71% of articles published over athree-decade period in the Journal of Organizational Behavior Management
Address correspondence to Douglas A. Johnson, 3700 Wood Hall, Kalamazoo, MI 490085439, USA. E-mail: douglas.johnson@wmich.edu
240

Downloaded by [Western Michigan University] at 21:31 30 November 2015

Role Accuracy and Type of Evaluation

241

used feedback as an independent variable. Feedback has also been applied
successfully in a wide range of organizational settings to improve performance across an extensive variety of tasks. Among many recent examples,
Rose and Ludwig (2009) applied feedback in combination with a larger treatment package to improve lifeguards’ completion of job tasks at a swimming
pool complex. Slowiak, Dickinson, and Huitema (2011) did work examining
whether those paid individual monetary incentives would self-solicit feedback more or less often than those in an hourly wage condition. Palmer
and Johnson (2013) examined the impact of task clarification and feedback
on restaurant punch-in times. Durgin, Mahoney, Cox, Weetjens, and Poling(2014) implemented feedback as part of an intervention to enhance the performance of animal trainers for a nongovernmental organization. The breadthof settings and prolonged time period in which feedback has been repeatedly implemented suggests that this favored stimulus will continue to be oneof the primary interventions in organizational behavior management.
Although the quantity of feedback interventions and research has continually expanded over the years, the range of research questions has remained
relatively limited in scope. As illustrated here, much of the literature in thisarea has focused on how feedback impacts behavior or the seeking of feedback. However, research to determine the necessary elements for feedback
to be effective has remained rare within the literature (D. A. Johnson, 2013).
Such component analyses are critical for understanding the mechanism ofaction involved in this frequently utilized variable. As previous research has
demonstrated, the effects of feedback are not uniform (Alvero et al., 2001).
Some of this variability may be attributed to the many possible functions offeedback.
As authors such as Peterson (1982) and D. A. Johnson (2013) havehighlighted, feedback can develop a variety of potential stimulus functions
depending on the individual’s learning history and current organizational
contingencies. These functions could include feedback operating as areinforcer, punisher, conditioned stimulus, discriminative stimulus, or conditioned motivating operation. Furthermore, it is quite possible that feedback
could serve multiple functions simultaneously. Feedback is a general termthat often incorporates many components. Performance evaluation andobjective performance appraisal are just a few common examples. The various components of feedback may serve different behavioral functions as
well. Depending on how the evocative and abative elements of individualcomponents are summed together in relation to the individual’s unique learning history, the behavioral effects of feedback may be quite variable. Thus,
it is important that the individual elements of feedback be understood anddetailed as precisely as possible.
The typical delay between the provision of feedback and desired performance is likely to prohibit it from functioning as a direct reinforcerDownloaded by [Western Michigan University] at 21:31 30 November 2015

242

D. A. Johnson et al.

or punisher (Malott, 1992). However, feedback can still play a role as aconsequence through the mediation of verbal processes that bridge the delay
between performance and the subsequent feedback (Agnew & Redmon,
1992; Haas & Hayes, 2006; R. A. Johnson, Houmanfar, & Smith, 2010; Smith,Houmanfar, & Denny, 2012). For instance, the performer’s self-generated
verbal stimuli (e.g., hearing oneself think or speak “Hey, that was a goodjob I did!” or “That’s awful, I’ll be in trouble for sure”) may serve as direct
reinforcers or punishers because of the correlation of such response products with the subsequent feedback provided by others. Thus, the feedback
may serve indirect reinforcement or punishment functions.
As stated previously, feedback can also function as an antecedent for
evoking subsequent performance (Agnew, 1998; Fellner & Sulzer-Azaroff,
1984; Squires & Wilder, 2010). For example, feedback could function as areflexive conditioned motivating operation (CMO-R). A CMO-R involves a
stimulus that is reliably correlated with some form of worsening in conditions, and therefore the removal of this stimulus will also function as
reinforcement for any behaviors that result in such removal (Michael, 2004).
For instance, a manager may provide evaluative feedback such as “Your performance has been horrible lately and you’ll be in serious trouble if I don’t
see improvements soon!” Such a statement may function as a CMO-R, much
like a warning stimulus for a forthcoming shock, which would evoke performance improvements in order to remove the managerial threat. In thiscase, the proverbial shock would be, as stated by Michael (2004), “a steadily
worsening continuum of social interactions, the termination of which at any
point functions as social negative reinforcement for the problem behavior”(p. 157).
Alternatively, feedback could also function as a transitive conditioned
motivating operation (CMO-T). A CMO-T involves the presentation of one
stimulus (S1), which changes the value of another stimulus (S2) while also
evoking behaviors to produce that second stimulus (Michael, 2004). For
example, a salesclerk may encounter a hostile customer, which evokes the
behavior of calling his or her manager over to help deal with that customer.
The stimulus of a hostile customer (CMO-T; S1) makes the sight of the manager (S2) more reinforcing (to avoid possible confusion with SD s, note thatthe managerial presence is more valuable, not more available in this example). To give an example relevant to feedback, evaluative feedback (S1) may
function as a CMO-T to increase the reinforcing value of objective feedback(S2). After receiving a positive or negative evaluation, an employee may
begin to regularly solicit objective feedback on his or her performance (e.g.,“I want to know details on my performance now that I know my manager ispaying attention to those numbers”).
Besides the conditioned motivating operations that were mentioned,
other antecedent relations such as surrogate conditioned motivating operation and discriminative stimulus function remain as possible functions forDownloaded by [Western Michigan University] at 21:31 30 November 2015

Role Accuracy and Type of Evaluation

243

feedback. The broader point is that these diverse functions of feedback may
produce different effects on behavior, which may help explain the considerable variation in the effects of feedback implementations across theliterature. For instance, CMO-Rs evoke behaviors to terminate the motivating
stimulus. Once such termination is successfully achieved, there is no motivation for additional behavior. In organizational terms, the employee may
do just enough to remove the managerial threat and no more. Other typesof antecedents may not carry such a self-terminating feature and may therefore generate additional discretionary effort on the part of the employee.
As an aside, these differences in performance patterns have sometimes been
attributed to differences in the use of positive and negative reinforcement(for an example, see the discussion of J curve performance in Daniels,
2000), but given the conceptual problems in maintaining such a distinction(see Michael, 2004, for a detailed elaboration) it may be more profitable toanalyze these as differences in terms of antecedent stimuli instead.
Such variations in feedback functions may be problematic and canlead to confusion on why feedback sometimes appears to be effective on
an inconsistent basis. For example, previous research has demonstrated
that objective feedback by itself does not necessarily improve performance(Anseel & Lievens, 2009; D. A. Johnson, Dickinson, & Huitema, 2008). D. A.
Johnson et al. (2008) conducted a study designed to examine whether
objective feedback would enhance the effectiveness of monetary and nonmonetary rewards. Their results indicated that although an incentive pay
system significantly increased performance in comparison to fixed pay, theobjective feedback did not affect performance in either the incentive payor the fixed pay conditions. Similarly, Anseel and Lievens (2009) also suggested that the simple provision of information about performance may not
be sufficient to change performance.
Rather than merely providing information, feedback requires certain
characteristics to be effective (Balcazar, Hopkins, & Suarez, 1985-1986). For
example, it has been shown that performance feedback needs to incorporate some aspect of evaluation (supportive or critical statements) to achieve
maximal performance (D. A. Johnson, 2013). It has also been suggested that
another characteristic for delivering effective feedback is to make it individualized whenever feasible (Daniels & Bailey, 2014). One could presumably
deliver evaluative feedback on an individual basis while still remaining ignorant of the recipient’s true accomplishments (e.g., approaching all employees
and blindly praising each one with a unique compliment regarding performance). However, in order for feedback to truly be tailored to the individual,
it should be based on the employee’s actual performance, not presumed
performance. Past research has demonstrated that one of the most importantdistinctions between effective and ineffective managers is how often they
monitor the actual performance of employees (Komaki, 1986). In an observational study, Komaki (1986) examined differences in manager behavior asDownloaded by [Western Michigan University] at 21:31 30 November 2015

244

D. A. Johnson et al.

it related to manager effectiveness ratings and found that effective managers
monitored performance about 50% more often than marginal managers.
Whether managers used a certain type of consequence was irrelevant to theireffectiveness rating. Thus, effective managers do not necessarily deliver more
feedback; rather, they deliver feedback that reliably follows performance.
Although it was not demonstrated experimentally, such research suggested
that the delivery of contingent consequences was more critical than whether
the consequences were positive or negative.
Frequent monitoring of performance may also be effective because performance feedback becomes more accurate (and more contingent) whenmanagers actually sample workplace behavior. It has also been suggested
that employees will develop greater job satisfaction and preferences for
managers who are viewed as more credible (Anseel & Lievens, 2007).
Furthermore, the accuracy of feedback appears to be related to the acceptance of such feedback (Christian & Bringmann, 1982). Taken together,
this evidence suggests that feedback should be evaluative in nature andthat these evaluations should be accurate representations of the employee’s
performance.
In practice, the provision of accurate feedback may often be violated byuninformed supervisors. One possibility is that well-meaning managers could
be delivering positive feedback evaluations that may result in detrimentalorganizational effects when such praise is undeserved. For example, Bill
Abernathy described a manager who was asked to engage in performance
management but did not want to criticize his employees. Thus, the manager “never looked at the teams’ performance records—he simply said ‘well
done’ to everyone regardless of their performance!” (Abernathy, 1996, p. 58).
Similarly, it is possible that unwarranted criticism would also undermine
performance. Feedback that has a history of being biased is also feedback
that may come to be ignored by the recipient of such evaluations (Carter& Dunning, 2008). In addition, the harmful long-term effects of inaccurate
but praising feedback have been documented outside of business settings(Bradfield, Wells, & Olson, 2002). For example, Hirst, DiGennaro Reed, andReed (2013) used a between-groups design to examine the effects of accurate
and inaccurate feedback on the acquisition of a new task that was similar to
the type of tasks used in educational settings. Their research found not onlythat acquisition was inhibited for the group that initially received inaccurate
feedback but that learning continued to be impaired even after feedback was
subsequently made accurate for all groups.
Conversely, it is also possible that inaccurate feedback may have beneficial effects. It has been demonstrated that people tend to react favorably
toward inaccurate, but positive, assessments (Dunning, 2006). Research has
also shown that global (i.e., nonindividualized) and positive feedback tends
to also be favored (Davies, 1997). Furthermore, individuals low in competence are likely to overestimate their abilities and thus may be easily inclinedDownloaded by [Western Michigan University] at 21:31 30 November 2015

Role Accuracy and Type of Evaluation245

to accept positive assessments to the point of actively preferring positive andinaccurate feedback over negative but accurate feedback (Kruger & Dunning,1999). Thus, it may be important to consider how performers of different
skill levels react to accurate and inaccurate feedback. It is worth noting thatmany of these studies were assessing feedback accuracy on preference, notnecessarily the impact of feedback accuracy on performance.
Although research on the necessity of accurate or contingent elements
for feedback delivery is relatively rare, similar research regarding accuracy in the workplace has been conducted. Research by Rubin, Bommer,
and Bachrach (2010) examined the differential effects of contingent andnoncontingent consequences on organizational citizenship behaviors using
a survey method. Organizational citizenship behaviors were operationalized
as supervisor ratings of altruism, civic virtue, courtesy, and sportsmanship.
Contingent reward had a strong positive relationship with such behaviors
and noncontingent punishment had a strong negative relationship, but theeffects of noncontingent reinforcement and contingent punishment were lessclear. Noncontingent reinforcement had a positive, yet weak, relationshipwith organizational citizenship, and contingent punishment had a neutral
relationship. Smith et al. (2012) also looked at the impact of accuracy forworkplace settings, although they examined rules that accurately or inaccurately described organizational contingencies. They found that inaccurate
rules may have a negative effect on performance and may also generate
undesirable rumor, but it is not known whether this detrimental effect could
also extend to inaccurate feedback.
As the previous literature suggests, it is possible that undeserved outcomes, including feedback, could potentially help or hinder employee
performance. Further investigations in this area could enhance the field’s
understanding of the essential components of feedback and ultimately
increase the precision with which feedback interventions are implemented.
The present study proposes to make such a contribution through an examination of the effect of (a) delivering contingent or noncontingent feedback
that is (b) supportive or critical on the number of checks completed correctly
by college students during a work simulation task.

METHOD
Participants and Setting
A total of 118 undergraduate students were recruited by posted recruitment
flyers and from courses at a midwestern university in the United States.
Although participants were not offered any direct compensation from theresearchers, the university courses they were enrolled in may have offered
extra credit based on the number of hours spent participating in research.

246

D. A. Johnson et al.

Sessions were conducted in a small university room with cubicle workstations. Each workstation contained a desktop computer and was arranged
so that each individual screen could not be seen by other participants.
A cubicle wall separated the experimenter from participants, and the experimenter remained out of view of the participants while they completed theexperimental task.

Downloaded by [Western Michigan University] at 21:31 30 November 2015

Experimental Task and Alternative Activities
The experimental task was a computerized application involving a data
entry task in which participants entered dollar amounts that appeared on
simulated bank checks ranging from $10.00 to $999.99. The computer automatically recorded the number of check values that were accurately typed.
The task was modeled after the job of a check processor at a bank andwas intended to represent any work function involving a high quantity ofrepetitions. At the end of every session, the experimental task would display an on-screen summary of the individual’s number of checks correctly
entered. This was the same experimental task as used in D. A. Johnson et al.
(2008) and D. A. Johnson (2013). At any time during the experimental sessions participants could play one of six computer games (FreeCell, Solitaire,
Spider Solitaire, Hearts, Minesweeper, and Pinball) instead of working on
the experimental task and return to the experimental task whenever they
wished. These computer games were intended to serve as alternative activities to prevent participants from working at a high rate simply because of alack of competing options.

Dependent Variable
The number of checks completed correctly during the final two experimental
sessions served as the primary dependent variable. The rationale for using
the final two sessions was that it would likely take multiple experimental
sessions for participants to detect any consistent accuracy or inaccuracy infeedback delivery, and therefore any effects would likely take some timeto emerge. Postexperimental survey responses regarding feedback accuracy
were also collected for each participant.

Independent Variables
The independent variables were the mode of feedback delivery (contingent delivery or independent delivery) and category of evaluative feedback(supportive or critical feedback). The evaluative nature of the feedback statements was validated using a sample of undergraduate students (n = 20) who
did not participate in the current study (see the Appendix). This separate

Downloaded by [Western Michigan University] at 21:31 30 November 2015

Role Accuracy and Type of Evaluation

247

sample read each of the evaluative statements in random order on an anonymous survey and rated them on a 1–7 Likert-type scale (1 = very critical,
4 = neutral, 7 = very supportive). The supportive statements received an
overall average rating of 6.0 (individual statements ranging from 5.2 to 6.6).
The critical statements received an overall average rating of 2.7 (individualstatements ranging from 2.2 to 3.3). It is important to note that these ratings
were based on a textual reading of the statements and therefore did not carry
the tone or inflection of voice that the actual participants experienced (see“Researcher Training”).
A 2 × 2 factorial design was used and consisted of participants being
randomly assigned to one of four experimental conditions: (a) contingent
and supportive feedback, (b) contingent and critical feedback, (c) independent and supportive feedback, or (d) independent and critical feedback.
Each participant was exposed to only one of the experimental conditions.
The details for each of the experimental conditions are described next.

CONTINGENT AND SUPPORTIVE FEEDBACK
If the participant’s performance during the previous session was an improvement over his or her previous best performance (defined as 5% or better thanhis or her previous best performance), then the participant was read one ofseven supportive statements at the beginning of the experimental session(e.g., “Regarding your performance during last session, that was an impressive improvement. Keep up the great work!”). To prevent evaluations fromappearing rote, feedback statements were never repeated for an individual
participant (this variation procedure was used for all four experimental conditions). If performance worsened or did not change during the previous
session (defined as less than a 5% improvement over previous best performance), then the experimenter did not make any evaluative statements atthe beginning of the experimental session.

CONTINGENT AND CRITICAL FEEDBACK
If the participant’s performance during the previous session was worse thanhis or her previous best performance (defined as 5% or worse than his
or her previous best performance), then the participant was read one ofseven critical statements at the beginning of the experimental session (e.g.,“Regarding your performance during last session, you didn’t do great duringthat session and we’d love to see you do better than that”). If performance
improved or did not change during the previous session (defined as lessthan a 5% worsening compared with previous best performance), then theexperimenter did not make any evaluative statements at the beginning of theexperimental session.

248

D. A. Johnson et al.

INDEPENDENT AND SUPPORTIVE FEEDBACK
Regardless of the participant’s previous performance, the participant wasread one of seven supportive statements at the beginning of the experimental
session.
INDEPENDENT AND CRITICAL FEEDBACK

Downloaded by [Western Michigan University] at 21:31 30 November 2015

Regardless of the participant’s previous performance, the participant wasread one of seven critical statements at the beginning of the experimental
session.

Researcher Training
Prior to beginning the study, the researchers and research assistants involvedin the direct implementation of the independent variables (graduate andadvanced undergraduate students) were trained extensively in the deliveryof feedback using multiple sessions of role-playing. This training continued
until there was a subjective consensus among all members of the researchteam that each individual researcher’s delivery sounded unrehearsed, realistic, and sincere without reading directly from a script. The researchers werealso trained to speak firmly and without hesitation. Although this delivery
was primarily neutral in tone, part of sounding natural did require that
supportive statements be delivered with a mildly friendly tone and criticalstatements be delivered with a mildly disapproving tone. Although this isclearly a subjective quality, it was believed that this was important to ensurethat the feedback was received as intended because the words alone could
possibly be interpreted in multiple ways by the recipient.

Experimental Procedures
All participants attended an introductory session during which informed consent was obtained. Following the introductory session, participants wererandomly assigned to one of four experimental conditions and scheduled fortwo 45-min pre-experimental sessions as well as seven 45-min experimental
sessions.
At the beginning of the first pre-experimental session, the experimenter
demonstrated the experimental task and alternative activities to the participant. If the participant verbally indicated that he or she understood thetasks and was ready to begin, the experimenter then stated the initial session
instructions:If you have a cell phone, please silence it during this session and for all
remaining sessions. You may take a break whenever you like for as longas you like. You may play one of the computer games as a break, orRole Accuracy and Type of Evaluation

249

Downloaded by [Western Michigan University] at 21:31 30 November 2015

you may also just stretch and relax. After I start the check task, I will beavailable on the other side of the wall. If you need anything during thesession, just come get me. Do you have any questions?

The experimenter would start the experimental task and leave the view ofthe participant. When 45 min had elapsed, the experimenter stopped theexperimental task, which then displayed the number of checks completed
correctly on the computer screen. At this point the experimenter stated (filling in the blank with the on-screen data): “As you can see, you correctly
completed ____ checks during today’s session. Your job is to continually
improve your performance across these sessions.” The experimenter thenthanked the participant for attending and concluded that day’s session.
The second pre-experimental session was similar to the first preexperimental session, except that the initial session instructions were notread. Also, when the number of checks correctly completed was displayedon the screen at the session’s end, the experimenter said, “Once again,
you can see your performance on the screen. Remember that your job isto continually improve your performance across these sessions.” This second session concluded the pre-experimental sessions. It was important thatthese pre-experimental sessions (a) draw the participants’ attention to theon-screen performance data and (b) emphasize the necessity of improving
performance in order for later evaluations to be perceived as inaccurate in
the independent conditions. For example, without this emphasis, a participant may have believed that stable performance was desirable and therefore
may have viewed supportive statements regarding unimproved performance
as appropriate. Introducing such goal-oriented statements to all participants equally and prior to the implementation of the independent variables
also ensured that any goal setting on behalf of participants would not be
confounded with a particular type of feedback. These pre-experimental procedures also provided an opportunity to collect data on average performancein the absence of the evaluative feedback and to use these data as a covariate in the subsequent analysis, thus controlling for any preexisting groupdifferences.
At the beginning of each of the experimental sessions, the experimenter
implemented the procedures as detailed in the “Dependent Variable” and“Independent Variables” sections. As was the case with the pre-experimental
sessions, participants continued to receive on-screen summaries of theirperformance at the end of every experimental session. Unlike the preexperimental sessions, the experimenter did not comment on, react to, or
otherwise draw attention to these data as they appeared. At the end of theexperimental sessions, the experimenter simply ended the task, allowed theparticipant to refer to the screen with his or her data, and then dismissed theparticipant for the day.
Following the conclusion of the final experimental session, participants
were administered a survey containing the items “At least for most of the250

D. A. Johnson et al.

sessions, you looked at the on-screen information about your performancethat appeared at the end of sessions” and “The feedback you received fromthe experimenter at the beginning of your sessions appeared to be based onyour actual performance.” For both items participants were asked to circle
one of five possible options: strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree, orstrongly agree.

Downloaded by [Western Michigan University] at 21:31 30 November 2015

RESULTSA total of 43 of the 118 recruited participants withdrew before the completionof the study. These withdrawals were evenly distributed across conditions(9–12 from each group), and their data were not included in any of theanalyses here. The remaining 75 participants were distributed as follows: (a)contingent and supportive feedback (n = 20), (b) contingent and criticalfeedback (n = 16), (c) independent and supportive feedback (n = 18), and(d) independent and critical feedback (n = 21). Table 1 displays the average percentage of performance improvement from the two baseline sessions
compared with the final two experimental sessions. The results demonstrate
a greater gain in performance for the two contingent feedback conditions
compared with the two independent feedback conditions. A two-factor analysis of covariance was conducted using the average performance during
the two baseline sessions as the covariate and the average performance
during the final two experimental sessions as the dependent measure. The
adjusted means resulting from this analysis can be seen in Table 2. Overall,there was a statistically significant difference for the variable of feedback
accuracy (p = .025; contingent or independent) but no difference for thevariable of evaluation type (p = .889; supportive or critical). Tukey pairwise
comparisons indicated no individual group differences.
A one-factor analysis of variance was conducted to analyze the questionnaire results. For the question “At least for most of the sessions, you lookedat the on-screen information about your performance that appeared at theend of sessions,” no statistically significant differences were found among
the groups (p = .632). For the question “The feedback you received fromthe experimenter at the beginning of your sessions appeared to be based onyour actual performance,” a statistically significant difference among groups
TABLE 1 Average Percentage of Performance Improvement From the Two Baseline Sessions
to the Final Two Experimental Sessions
Condition
Contingent and supportive
Contingent and critical
Independent and supportive
Independent and critical

Improvement
21%
21%
13%
9%

251

Role Accuracy and Type of Evaluation
TABLE 2 Adjusted Means for Correctly Completed Checks
Category of
Evaluative Feedback

Contingent feedback

Independent feedback

OverallSupportive feedback
Critical feedback
Overall

884.8
886.3
885.5

801.6
789.1
795.3

843.2
837.7

950

Mean Performance

Downloaded by [Western Michigan University] at 21:31 30 November 2015

900
850
Contingent andsupportive

800

Contingent andcritical

750

Independent andsupportive

700

Independent andcritical

650
600
1

2

3
4
5
Experimental Sessions

6

7

FIGURE 1 Average number of checks completed correctly over time.

was found (p < .001). Tukey pairwise comparisons indicated that each of
the two contingent groups were rated higher than both of the independent
feedback groups at the p < .001 level. No other significant differences wereobtained.
All participants received feedback at least once during the study, withthe two independent conditions receiving feedback for every experimental
session. For both contingent conditions, the number of feedback deliveries
ranged from 1 to 4 instances (out of seven possible sessions). Feedback wasdelivered on average 2.3 times (SD = 1.03) for the contingent and supportive
condition and delivered on average 2.1 times (SD = 1.08) for the contingent
and critical condition.
Figure 1 shows the average dependent variable performance across allseven experimental sessions for the four experimental groups.

DISCUSSION
Across both the supportive and critical conditions, independent (i.e., inaccurate) feedback proved to be less effective at producing gains in performanceDownloaded by [Western Michigan University] at 21:31 30 November 2015

252

D. A. Johnson et al.

than contingent (i.e., accurate) feedback. A prior study by D. A. Johnson(2013) demonstrated that adding evaluative elements to feedback canenhance the effectiveness of objective feedback (and vice versa). The present
study extends that previous research by showing that although evaluative
feedback may be important, ensuring that it coincides with actual performance may be just as critical. Results of the present study are also consistent
with the implications of the Komaki (1986) study, which suggested thatthe type of consequence was irrelevant, although the accuracy of those
consequences was critical for improving managerial effectiveness.
As Figure 1 suggests, not only were contingent conditions superior
overall, but gains continued to occur across sessions. This has important implications for organizations in which employees are likely to haveextended histories with supervisors whose provision of feedback may tend
to be contingent on or independent of actual performance. The primary message for supervisors is that they need to take the required steps to ensure that
feedback is closely tied to actual performance, as this strategy is likely to reap
even greater improvements in performance than what could be expected
when evaluations of performance are blindly delivered.
Although it is very well established that feedback is an effective intervention for the improvement of employee performance (Alvero et al., 2001),
the parameters under which feedback will be most effective are not as well
documented. This study contributes another needed component analysis tothe complex subject of feedback. However, more component analyses arestill needed along with a continued array of future research into the variable of feedback. Given the importance of this topic for the field, several
possible ideas for future studies, beyond simple demonstrations of feedback
effectiveness in general, are offered here. One potential line of researchwould be to identify the most common functions of feedback within business and industry. Although feedback can potentially take any number ofstimulus functions (SD , CMO, etc.), some functions are likely to be morecommonplace than others in organizational settings.
The current study found no differences in regard to evaluation category(supportive or critical feedback) on the dependent measure of productivity. However, it is possible that different evaluation types may produce side
effects even if productivity is not negatively affected. For example, an overreliance on contingent (or noncontingent) critical feedback may contributeto a work environment that is more aversive overall, which may decrease job
satisfaction as well as increase sabotage, theft, turnover, or other undesirable
organizational outcomes. Although productivity itself may be unaffected in
the short term, the overall organization may be harmed as employees engage
in destructive acts or simply terminate their employment. Such potential
side effects are worth investigating in future research endeavors. In support of this notion, research done by Rubin et al. (2010) indicated that

Downloaded by [Western Michigan University] at 21:31 30 November 2015

Role Accuracy and Type of Evaluation

253

contingent supportive conditions had the strongest correlation with organizational citizenship behaviors, noncontingent supportive conditions wereweakly correlated, contingent critical conditions exhibited a neutral relationship, and noncontingent critical conditions showed a negative relationship.
The supportive aspect of feedback clearly plays a role in the promotion ofvariables besides performance, such as organizational citizenship behaviors,that are valued by organizations. Therefore, future research should investigate different evaluative types of feedback on measures beyond the primary
job task.
The method of delivering feedback may also be a key consideration.
For example, D. A. Johnson et al. (2008) found that objective feedback wasineffective in improving performance, whereas D. A. Johnson (2013) discovered a significant benefit from implementing objective feedback, despite
very similar experimental arrangements. It was suggested in the 2013 study
that the reason for the discrepancy was that the earlier study used computerdelivered objective feedback whereas the later study used person-delivered
objective feedback. Person-delivered objective feedback presumably had aneffect due to the correlation between person-delivered objective feedback
and other relevant social stimuli. This assertion should be experimentallytested by future researchers, as there may be many advantages and disadvantages associated with these delivery methods. Computer-delivered feedback
has the potential to be immediate and automatic but also impersonal andweakly correlated with other potent social stimuli. In addition, the choice
between either computer-delivered or face-to-face feedback is not so simple
in this current age of social media technology. A plethora of computermediated methods for delivering feedback exist, including, but not limited to,asynchronous and synchronous online discussions, video/voice messaging,and live streaming video.
In regard to social delivery considerations, it appears that evaluative
feedback is better than no feedback, and it also improves on objective
feedback alone (D. A. Johnson, 2013). However, there is a wide range ofpossibilities and combinations when using supportive or critical evaluative
statements. For example, does evaluative feedback work well when using the
sandwich method, in which critical feedback is delivered in between two
instances of supportive feedback? Although some authors caution against
this approach (Daniels & Bailey, 2014), an empirical basis for or against thistechnique has not been firmly established. Alternatively, one could use avalue-added feedback delivery approach (Laipple, 2006) in which positive
feedback is delivered within the context of asking performers to summarize
their own performance and contributions. Naturally, many other possibilities
exist beyond the two suggested here.
Another social consideration relates to the varying degrees of competence that employees possess. It is possible that performers of different
competencies are impacted differently by the variable of feedback accuracy.

Downloaded by [Western Michigan University] at 21:31 30 November 2015

254

D. A. Johnson et al.

For example, it has been suggested that those who are low in competence
may benefit from inaccurate positive feedback because of their tendency tooverestimate their abilities and thus demonstrate a preference for this typeof feedback (Kruger & Dunning, 1999). Further manipulations of this lineof inquiry should examine the effect of feedback accuracy on performers ofdifferent competencies.
Finally, as more and more guidelines for empirically supported feedback
delivery are developed, it will be of critical importance to train managers
to reliably implement these guidelines. Research into models to promotemanagerial compliance with guidelines, possibly in the form of checklists orother treatment integrity aids, could be worthwhile.
Like all studies, the present experiment has some limitations, and theselimitations may also stimulate future research. One limitation is the unequal
quantity of feedback statements between conditions. That is, the independent conditions received feedback during every experimental session,
whereas the contingent conditions did not receive feedback for some ofthe sessions. Presuming that feedback is more likely to have an enhancing effect than a suppressive effect, this experimental manipulation favors
performance improvements for the independent conditions. This concern is
mitigated by the fact that the independent conditions actually had lower performance compared to the contingent conditions, but future researchers may
wish to take this factor into account. For example, contingent conditions
could use neutral feedback for instances when supportive/critical statements
are not appropriate or use feedback consisting of both supportive and critical statements (as appropriate) in order to equalize the number of feedback
deliveries. In regard to the issue of feedback frequency, this study does
highlight that simply providing a higher quantity of feedback alone is nota guarantee of improved performance if other aspects of feedback are nottaken into consideration.
The present study is also limited because the independent evaluative
feedback was sometimes accurate. For example, when supportive feedback was provided irrespective of performance, this meant that performancegains were accidently followed by an accurate evaluation (likewise withindependent critical feedback and performance losses). The difference inoutcomes between accurate and inaccurate feedback might have been magnified if the inaccuracy was consistent rather than periodic. However, such a
manipulation would also reduce the realism of the experiment. The present
methodology was selected to approximate a realistic work implementation
because a manager would be unlikely to go to the trouble of monitoring
performance only to provide feedback that was the opposite of his or her
observations. The more likely scenario is that a manager would be uniformly
supportive or critical in his or her feedback regardless of the performance.
Such independent feedback would be occasionally correct but not consistently correct across time or employees. Future researchers might consider

Downloaded by [Western Michigan University] at 21:31 30 November 2015

Role Accuracy and Type of Evaluation

255

ways to increase the amount of inaccurate feedback without reducing therelevance to real-world workplaces.
Another limitation is that this study only examined one aspect of inaccuracy, namely, inaccuracy in evaluative comments. The on-screen numericalsummaries of performance provided to participants were always accurate
across all conditions. Both evaluative and objective feedback was used toensure that feedback would be perceived as inaccurate by highlighting thediscrepancy between the researcher’s evaluation, the numerical data, and theinitial instructions emphasizing continual improvements. However, it is possible for objective feedback to also be inaccurate in work settings because ofpoor, unreliable, or nonexistent data collection methods. Future researchers
may wish to investigate situations in which both objective feedback andevaluative feedback are inaccurate or situations in which objective feedback
alone is inaccurate.
Lastly, a possible limitation relates to the possibility of goal setting
resulting from the pre-experimental statements. These statements from theresearchers emphasized the importance of continual performance improvements, which may have led participants to covertly set goals for themselves.
Although such goal-oriented statements would presumably be applied
equally across conditions, this does mean that the observed differencesin feedback effects may be limited to environments within the context ofgoal setting. It may be the case that goal setting is inherent within feedback research (i.e., participants may covertly and automatically set goals forthemselves as soon as they receive feedback), but future researchers might
consider limiting the impact of goal setting for feedback investigations.
This is a brief summary of some potential directions for feedback
research that are currently lacking in the literature. The current study contributes to this growing knowledge base by highlighting the importance of
accurate/contingent content during feedback delivery. Other variables arecertain to play a role in the complex social interactions inherent to most
instances of feedback delivery. The area is well suited for further researchcommitted to refining understanding of this variable that is central to thefield of performance management.

REFERENCES
Abernathy, W. B. (1996). The sin of wages: Where the conventional pay system has
led us, and how to find a way out. Memphis, TN: PerfSys Press.
Agnew, J. L. (1997). The establishing operation in organizational behavior management. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 18, 7–19. doi:10.1300/
J075v18n01_02
Agnew, J. L., & Redmon, W. K. (1992). Contingency specifying stimuli: The roleof “rules” in organizational behavior management. Journal of Organizational
Behavior Management, 12, 67–76. doi:10.1300/J075v12n02_04

Downloaded by [Western Michigan University] at 21:31 30 November 2015

256

D. A. Johnson et al.

Alvero, A. M., Bucklin, B. R., & Austin, J. (2001). An objective review of the effectiveness and essential characteristics of performance feedback in organizationalsettings (1985–1998). Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 21,
3–29. doi:10.1300/J075v21n01_02
Anseel, F., & Lievens, F. (2007). The long-term impact of the feedback environment
on job satisfaction: A field study in a Belgian context. Applied Psychology: An
International Review, 56, 254–266. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2006.00253.x
Anseel, F., & Lievens, F. (2009). The mediating role of feedback acceptance inthe relationship between feedback and attitudinal performance outcomes.
International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 17, 362–376. doi:10.1111/
j.1468-2389.2009.00479.x
Balcazar, F. E., Hopkins, B. L., & Suarez, Y. (1985-1986). A critical, objective review
of performance feedback. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 7,
65–89. doi:10.1300/J075v07n03_05
Bradfield, A. L., Wells, G. L., & Olson, E. A. (2002). The damaging effect ofconfirming feedback on the relation between eyewitness certainty and identification accuracy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 112–120. doi:10.1037/
0021-9010.87.1.112
Carter, T. J., & Dunning, D. (2008). Faulty self-assessment: Why evaluating one’s own
competence is an intrinsically difficult task. Social and Personality Psychology
Compass, 2, 346–360. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00031.x
Christian, J. K., & Bringmann, W. G. (1982). Comparison of computerized versus
standardized feedback and accurate versus inaccurate feedback. Psychological
Reports, 50, 1067–1070. doi:10.2466/pr0.1982.50.3c.1067
Daniels, A. C. (2000). Bringing out the best in people: How to apply the astonishingpower of positive reinforcement. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Daniels, A. C., & Bailey, J. S. (2014). Performance management: Changing behavior
that drives organization effectiveness. Atlanta, GA: Performance Management.
Davies, M. F. (1997). Evaluation of self-relevant information: Acceptance offavourable and unfavourable personality statements as feedback vs test
items. Personality and Individual Differences, 23, 869–875. doi:10.1016/
S0191-8869(97)00091-3
Dunning, D. (2006). Strangers to ourselves? The Psychologist, 19, 600–603.
Durgin, A., Mahoney, A., Cox, C., Weetjens, B. J., & Poling, A. (2014). Usingtask clarification and feedback training to improve staff performance in an
East African nongovernmental organization. Journal of Organizational Behavior
Management, 34, 122–143. doi:10.1080/01608061.2014.914007
Fellner, D. J., & Sulzer-Azaroff, B. (1984). A behavioral analysis of goal setting. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 6, 33–51. doi:10.1300/
J075v06n01_03
Haas, J. R., & Hayes, S. C. (2006). When knowing you are doing well hinders performance: Exploring the interaction between rules and feedback. Journal of
Organizational Behavior Management, 26, 91–111. doi:10.1300/J075v26n01_04
Hirst, J. M., DiGennaro Reed, F. D., & Reed, D. D. (2013). Effects of varying feedback
accuracy on task acquisition: A computerized translational study. Journal of
Behavioral Education, 22, 1–15. doi:10.1007/s10864-012-9162-0

Downloaded by [Western Michigan University] at 21:31 30 November 2015

Role Accuracy and Type of Evaluation

257

Johnson, D. A. (2013). A component analysis of the impact of evaluative andobjective feedback on performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior
Management, 33, 89–103. doi:10.1080/01608061.2013.785879
Johnson, D. A., Dickinson, A. M., & Huitema, B. E. (2008). The effects of objective feedback on performance when individuals receive fixed and individual
incentive pay. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 20, 53–74. doi:10.1002/
piq.20003
Johnson, R. A., Houmanfar, R., & Smith, G. S. (2010). The effect of implicit
and explicit rules on customer greeting and productivity in a retail organization. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 30, 38–48. doi:10.1080/
01608060903529731
Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on
performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 254–284. doi:10.1037/
0033-2909.119.2.254
Komaki, J. L. (1986). Toward effective supervision: An operant analysis and comparison of managers at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 270–279.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.71.2.270
Kruger, J., & Dunning, D. (1999). Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1121–1134. doi:10.1037/
0022-3514.77.6.1121
Laipple, J. S. (2006). Precision selling: A guide for coaching sales professionals.
Atlanta, GA: Performance Management.
Malott, R. W. (1992). A theory of rule-governed behavior and organizational behavior management. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 12, 45–65.
doi:10.1300/J075v12n02_03
Michael, J. (2004). Concepts and principles of behavior analysis (2nd ed.).
Kalamazoo, MI: Association for Behavior Analysis International.
Palmer, M. G., & Johnson, C. M. (2013). The effects of task clarification and groupgraphic feedback on early punch-in times. Journal of Organizational Behavior
Management, 33, 265–275. doi:10.1080/01608061.2013.843492
Peterson, N. (1982). Feedback is not a new principle of behavior. The Behavior
Analyst, 5, 101–102.
Rose, H. M. S., & Ludwig, T. D. (2009). Swimming pool hygiene: Self-monitoring,task clarification, and performance feedback increase lifeguard cleaning behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 29, 69–79. doi:10.1080/
01608060802660157
Rubin, R. S., Bommer, W. H., & Bachrach, D. G. (2010). Operant leadershipand employee citizenship: A question of trust? The Leadership Quarterly, 21,
400–408. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.03.005
Slowiak, J. M., Dickinson, A. M., & Huitema, B. E. (2011). Self-solicited
feedback: Effects of hourly pay and individual monetary incentive pay.
Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 31, 3–20. doi:10.1080/
01608061.2011.541816

258

D. A. Johnson et al.

Downloaded by [Western Michigan University] at 21:31 30 November 2015

Smith, G. S., Houmanfar, R., & Denny, M. (2012). Impact of rule accuracy on productivity and rumor in an organizational analog. Journal of Organizational
Behavior Management, 32, 3–25. doi:10.1080/01608061.2012.646839
Squires, J., & Wilder, D. A. (2010). A preliminary investigation of the effect of rules
on employee performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management,
30, 57–69. doi:10.1080/01608060903529756
VanStelle, S. E., Vicars, S. M., Harr, V., Miguel, C. F., Koerber, J. L.,
Kazbour, R., & Austin, J. (2012). The publication history of the Journalof Organizational Behavior Management: An objective review and analysis: 1998–2009. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 32, 93–123.
doi:10.1080/01608061.2012.675864

APPENDIX Ratings of Evaluative Statements
Statement
Supportive statements
Regarding your performance during last session, that was animpressive improvement. Keep up the great work!
Regarding your performance during last session, thank you for
putting in such great effort last time. Let’s see more of that.
Regarding your performance during last session, you’ve been doing
great and we’d love to see you continue doing well!
Regarding your performance during last session, we appreciate theeffort you keep putting into this task.
Regarding your performance during last session, we’d love it if you
kept working at that high level of excellence!
Regarding your performance during last session, keep at it! We’d liketo see you continue improving like this.
Regarding your performance during last session, you completed
quite a few checks! Let’s see even more of that.
Critical statements
Regarding your performance during last session, that wasn’t animpressive performance. Let’s see if you could improve today.
Regarding your performance during last session, we think you could
be putting in more effort than what you did last time.
Regarding your performance during last session, you didn’t do great
during that session and we’d love to see you do better than that.
Regarding your performance during last session, there’s a lot moreroom for you to improve. Let’s see how well you can do.
Regarding your performance during last session, I know you’recapable of better performance than that. Let’s see what you canaccomplish this time.
Regarding your performance during last session, that’s lower thanwhat we expect from people. Try to see if you can do more.
Regarding your performance during last session, we think you canachieve better than that. I’d like to see that achievement today.
Note. 1 = very critical, 4 = neutral, 7 = very supportive.

Average rating
6.6
5.7
6.6
5.2
6.6
6.2
5.5
2.2
2.9
2.4
3.2
3.3
2.2
3.0