Effects of Feedback Modality on Performance
GARRETT WARRILOW & Douglas A. Johnson
Western Michigan University
May 29th, 2016
Association for Behavior Analysis International 42nd Annual Convention, Chicago, IL
Correspondence: garrett.d.warrilow@wmich.edu

Slide 1GARRETT WARRILOW & DOUGLAS A. JOHNSONSlide 2



Slide 3

History:
Chapanis (1964)• Physical countermounted above theirworkstation• Found objective,
individualized
feedback did not
improve performanceFeedback has been the mostfrequently used independent variablein the Journal of OrganizationalBehavior Management across the firstthree decades of its publication
Despite the volume of studies
examining the effect of feedback,there is little consensus as to what
variables are necessary for it to beeffective (Alvero, Bucklin, & Austin
2001).
Part of the issue may be that many
previous studies have notdifferentiated the type and format of
feedback used in the experiment.

Chapanis (1964), participants spenthour-long sessions typing random
digits into a teletype
Participants in three conditions
received objective and individualized
feedback from a physical countermounted above their workstation
Chapanis found objective,individualized feedback did not
improve performance in comparison
to no feedback

Effects of Feedback Modality on Performance
GARRETT WARRILOW & Douglas A. Johnson
Western Michigan UniversityMay 29th, 2016
Association for Behavior Analysis International 42nd Annual Convention, Chicago, IL
Correspondence: garrett.d.warrilow@wmich.edu

Slide 4

History: Crowell et al. (1988)• Anonymous individualized
charts of mean scores in aroom accessible toemployees only
• Found that objective
feedback did improve
performance

Slide 5

History: Johnson, Dickinson, & Huitema (2008)• Feedback wasdelivered via
computer display• Found objective
individualized
feedback did noteffect performance

Slide 6

History:

Johnson (2013)• Feedback was personallydelivered by the researcher
during face-to-faceconversations• Found that objective,individualized feedback did
improve performance







Crowell, Anderson, Abel and Sergio(1988) posted anonymous
individualized charts of mean scoresfor the tellers’ transaction-interactions
At the conclusion of the experiment
Crowell et al. found a gradualincrease in teller-customer
interactions scores when objective
feedback was used
Crowell et al. found that objective
feedback did improve performance incomparison to no feedback.
Johnson, Dickinson, and Huitema(2008) examined four conditions
which included incentive pay with andwithout objective feedback, and fixed
pay with and without objective
feedback
Feedback was delivered via computer
display
While the monetary incentives proved
to be effective in increasing
performance, the conditions in which
objective feedback was given showedno significant difference to thoseconditions without.
They found objective individualized
feedback did not effect performance

Johnson (2013) examined the effectsof objective feedback alone,evaluative feedback alone, combined
evaluative and objective feedback,and a no feedback condition
The feedback about performance waspersonally delivered by the researcher
during face-to-face conversations in asmall private room.
While participants in the no feedback
condition saw a decline inperformance, the other objective
feedback conditions each saw
increases in performance
Johnson found that objective,individualized feedback did improve
performance in comparison to nofeedback.

Effects of Feedback Modality on Performance
GARRETT WARRILOW & Douglas A. Johnson
Western Michigan University
May 29th, 2016
Association for Behavior Analysis International 42nd Annual Convention, Chicago, IL
Correspondence: garrett.d.warrilow@wmich.edu

Slide 7Although objective and individualized
feedback was used in all of theprevious studies, the effects were notuniform.
Such inconsistency suggests that asource of uncontrolled variance isoperating in these different studies.
Across the studies noted, a variety ofmethods such as visible counters,
displays on computer screens, public
wall postings, and personal
interactions were used to deliver
feedback.

Slide 8

This study looks to explore andevaluate the relationship between themodality used for the delivery offeedback and the effects it has onbehavior.

Slide 9

Earley (1988) examined the behaviorof employees processing magazine
subscriptions and compared theeffects of daily feedback from acomputer system to daily feedback
delivered by a supervisor (using thecomputer system)
Performance was higher when thefeedback was self-collected directlyfrom the computer source rather thandelivered by a supervisor.

Effects of Feedback Modality on Performance
GARRETT WARRILOW & Douglas A. Johnson
Western Michigan University
May 29th, 2016
Association for Behavior Analysis International 42nd Annual Convention, Chicago, IL
Correspondence: garrett.d.warrilow@wmich.edu

Slide 10

Slide 11Slide 12

Related Studies:
Chae, Moon, Lee, & Oah (2015)• Feedback delivered via email or face-toface on the assembly of mobile phones• Face-to-face was consistently more
effective

Slowiak and Lakowske (2015) also
compared feedback from a computer
against feedback from a supervisor,
although participants in their study
could choose whether or not to solicit
feedback from these sources.
They found no differences between
computer and face-to-face feedback
sources.

Kaufman, Codding, and Markus(2013) found when training teachers
to implement a new behavior
intervention, teachers who received
verbal (face-to-face) feedback had amore immediate change inperformance as compared with when
they received written feedback.
However, both were found to berelatively effective and received highacceptability ratings by the teachers.

Chae, Moon, Lee, and Oah (2015)
compared the effects of feedback
delivered via an email with the effects
of feedback delivered face-to-face on
the assembly of mobile phones.
Face-to-face feedback was found tobe consistently more effective thanemail feedback.
For both email and face-to-facefeedback, the same professordelivered the feedback and many ofthe participants had a history with thisprofessor (i.e., former students of his).

Effects of Feedback Modality on Performance
GARRETT WARRILOW & Douglas A. Johnson
Western Michigan University
May 29th, 2016
Association for Behavior Analysis International 42nd Annual Convention, Chicago, IL
Correspondence: garrett.d.warrilow@wmich.edu

Slide 13Overall, the studies to date illustrate
the need for further research.
Inconsistent effects have beendiscovered when comparing face-toface feedback with alternatives.
In addition, little has been done tocompare various alternative modes fordelivering feedback against eachother.
The current study will contribute to theliterature by comparing variety ofdelivery methods for feedback.

Slide 14

Slide 15

This study will utilize a between-grouprepeated measures design withrandom assignment to the following
four experimental conditions:o computer delivered feedbacko feedback via cell phone text
messageo feedback via face-to-faceinteractiono no feedback

Effects of Feedback Modality on Performance
GARRETT WARRILOW & Douglas A. Johnson
Western Michigan University
May 29th, 2016
Association for Behavior Analysis International 42nd Annual Convention, Chicago, IL
Correspondence: garrett.d.warrilow@wmich.edu

Slide 16The experimental task will be a checkproofing task, similar to the job of a
proof operator at a bank and used inmany other studies on feedback

Feedback via face-to-face interaction
The experimenter joined theparticipant in the other room and says,“You entered ____ total checks during
today's session with ___ total checks
entered correctly.”Every effort made by the experimenter
to use an even tone with minimal bodylanguage to insure no evaluative
components are included in thefeedback.

Check-proofing task,
similar to the job of a proof
operator at a bank andused in many other studies(Johnson, 2013; Johnson, Dickinson, &Huitema, 2008; McGee, Dickinson,Huitema, & Culig, 2006; Slowiak,Dickinson, & Huitema, 2011)

Slide 17



Slide 18

In the text message feedback
condition the same statement will bedelivered via a text message 2-5
minutes after the subject has left.

Effects of Feedback Modality on Performance
GARRETT WARRILOW & Douglas A. Johnson
Western Michigan University
May 29th, 2016
Association for Behavior Analysis International 42nd Annual Convention, Chicago, IL
Correspondence: garrett.d.warrilow@wmich.edu

Slide 19

Slide 20

Slide 21

Total Checks Correct - Adj. Means
825.00800.00775.00750.00725.00700.00675.00650.00625.00600.00Covariate

12

No FB

3Comp

Text

4

F2F

5

Computer Delivered Feedback
Participants receive the same
feedback information regarding their
total checks entered and the rate ofchecks completed as the face-to-facecondition, however it will be provided
via the computer instead of verballyfrom the experimenter.

Effects of Feedback Modality on Performance
GARRETT WARRILOW & Douglas A. Johnson
Western Michigan University
May 29th, 2016
Association for Behavior Analysis International 42nd Annual Convention, Chicago, IL
Correspondence: garrett.d.warrilow@wmich.edu

Slide 22

Average Total Checks Correct (Adj. Means)
780
760
740
720
700
680
660
640

No FB

Comp

Text

F2F

Slide 23

Slide 24

garrett.d.warrilow@wmich.edu
www.johnsonresearchlab.com