differences in task performance as a function of type of feedback: learning-oriented versus...

Differences in Task Performance as a Function of Type of Feedback: Learning-Oriented Versus Performance-Oriented

Feed back'

DEBRA STEELE JOHNSON' University of Houston

RICHARD PERLOW Auburn Universitj

KALEN F. PIEPER University of Houston

A laboratory study was conducted to examine the effects of learning-oriented versus performance-oriented feedback on task performance. The research also examined the role of self-efficacy as a moderator. Subjects were college students partici- pating for course credit. The task involved using a computerized simulation of the Space Shuttle's Remote Manipulation System (RMS). Results provided evidence of the beneficial effects of learning-oriented feedback on performance for the performance dimension addressed in the feedback. Results also provided evidence that self-efficacy moderates the effects of feedback type (learning-oriented versus performance-oriented) on the performance dimension addressed in the feedback. Results are discussed in terms of the cuing and directional functions of feedback and the processes through which feedback influences performance.

The beneficial effects of feedback have been well documented. There is evidence that individuals prefer specific, timely feedback (e.g., Ilgen, Fisher, & Taylor, 1979; Liden & Mitchell, 1985) and that such feedback enhances performance (e.g., Locke & Latham, 1990). Specific feedback is particularly useful to individuals because it can increase knowledge about their performance more than vague feedback or no feedback (Ilgen et al., 1979). In addition, when no goals are present, feedback is posited to serve a cuing function, leading individuals to set goals and develop strategies for performing the task (Taylor, Fisher, & Ilgen, 1984). More specific feedback provides the information needed to set more specific goals (Ilgen et al., 1979) and develop more effective task strategies (Earley, 1986, 1988) which then might enhance

'This work was funded by NASA/Johnson Space Center (Grant #NAG9-398). We thank Dan Turban for his helpful comments on earlier drafts of the manuscript, and we also thank Bowen Loftin and Robert Savely for providing access to the necessary equipment and resources.

'Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Debra Steele Johnson, De- partment of Psychology, University of Houston, 4800 Calhoun, Houston, TX 77204.

Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1993,23, 4, pp. 303-320. Copyright @ 1993 by V. H. Winston & Son, Inc. All rights reserved.

304 JOHNSON, PERLOW, AND PIEPER

performance. Related research indicates that specific goals, if they are diffi- cult and accepted, have greater potential for improving performance than vague or no goals (Locke & Latham, 1990). Similarly, specific feedback is posited to have greater potential benefits to performance than vague or no feedback.

However, the beneficial effects of specific feedback on performance also depend on other characteristics of the feedback provided and might be affected by other individual or situational factors. For example, feedback that focuses an individual’s attention on specific aspects of task performance and instructs the individual in how to improve might enhance performance, compared to less instructive feedback. Further, greater performance im- provements should be observed in those areas addressed in the feedback, compared to other aspects of performance. Indeed, related research has shown that specific goals direct attention to certain aspects of performance and enhance performance most in those areas (Locke & Latham, 1990). Moreover, the effects of feedback oriented toward facilitating learning versus evaluating performance (referred to as feedback type) might be moderated by other factors such as self-efficacy. Related research suggests that positive feedback (i.e., feedback sign) enhances performance through its effects on self-efficacy (Earley, 1986). However, the role of self-efficacy as a moderator of the effects of learning-oriented versus performance-oriented feedback on performance has not been examined, particularly in terms of differential effects depending on which aspects of performance are addressed in the feedback.

Previous research has often demonstrated the beneficial effects of feedback on performance using outcome feedback (i.e., knowledge of results) (Ilgen et al., 1979). Outcome feedback refers to information about performance outcomes (Earley, Northcraft, Lee, & Lituchy, 1990) or response accuracy (Jacoby, Mazursky, Troutman, & Kuss, 1984). Others have referred to similar types of feedback as evaluative (Taylor et al., 1984) or normative if it includes social comparison information (Harackiewicz & Larson, 1986; San- sone, 1986). In the present study, outcome feedback will be referred to as performance-oriented feedback to indicate the focus on performance outcomes.

However, although outcome feedback is commonly used, there is evidence that it might not be beneficial in some task conditions, such as complex, uncertain tasks (e.g., Jacoby et al., 1984). Using a complex, decision making task, Jacoby et at. (1984) found that higher performance was obtained by those who ignored outcome feedback. Further, they posited that feedback will be used primarily when it aids in understanding the results of previous performance or enables the prediction of future performance. Moreover, outcome feedback might cue certain cognitive and behavioral responses that

FEEDBACK EFFECTS ON PERFORMANCE 305

are dysfunctional in complex tasks. For example, outcome feedback might cue a focus on evaluating one's competence rather than on increasing competence, which could result in a maladaptive behavior pattern, including attributing failures to lack of ability and reducing effort and strategy development (Dweck, 1991). Dweck and her associates (Diener & Dweck, 1978; Dweck, 1991) refer to this type of maladaptive pattern as a helpless orientation, contrasting it with a more adaptive, mastery orientation. In addition, outcome feedback might cue goals aimed at proving competence (performance goals; see Dweck, 1991) rather than goals aimed at improving competence (learning goals) which in turn affects how information is processed and responded to. With performance goals, individuals tend to focus more on evaluating their competence rather than on increasing their competence. Thus, outcome feedback (i.e., performance-oriented feedback) might not be beneficial, especially in novel, complex tasks.

Rather, learning-oriented feedback that provides descriptive information on how to perform a task or on how to improve might have more beneficial effects on performance on complex tasks. Taylor et al. (1984) described such feedback as descriptive. Similar types of feedback have also been referred to as process feedback, which provides information about the process of performing a task (Earley et al., 1990), and cognitive feedback, which has been defined as information regarding what underlies response accuracy (Jacoby et al., 1984). Learning-oriented feedback provides individuals with more information for improving task strategies and improving performance, compared to performance-oriented feedback. Further, learning-oriented feedback is posited to foster a mastery orientation and learning goals (Dweck, 199 1 ) and result in beneficial effects on performance on complex tasks. Related research (Ames & Archer, 1988; Dweck, 1991; Elliott & Dweck, 1988; Sansone, 1986; Sansone, Sachau, & Weir, 1989) has shown that situational factors, such as feedback, can cue a focus on increasing one's competence and cue learning goals (versus a focus on evaluating competence and performance goals). Further, a mastery orientation and learning goals are likely to result in adaptive behavior patterns such as increasing effort and strategy development, that in turn are expected to improve performance.

In the current study, the effects of performance-oriented versus learning- oriented feedback are examined using a complex, novel task. Learning- oriented feedback is expected to enhance performance both through its information value and through its cuing function. That is, learning-oriented feedback is expected to have greater information value that is used by the individual to develop more effective task strategies and lead to improved performance. In addition, learning-oriented feedback is expected to cue a mastery orientation and learning goals that result in a more adaptive behavior pattern, including increasing effort and strategy development. In con-


trast, performance-oriented feedback is expected to have less information value to the individual and to cue an orientation focused on self-evaluation and performance goals, resulting in a less adaptive behavior pattern including attributing failure to lack of ability and decreasing effort and strategy development. This behavior pattern is expected to have less beneficial effects on performance. Moreover, because specific feedback focuses attention on specific aspects of performance, learning-oriented feedback is expected to have more beneficial effects on those aspects of performance addressed in the feedback.

H I : Learning-oriented feedback will enhance performance more than performance-oriented feedback, but only on performance dimensions addressed in the feedback.

A second purpose of the current study was to investigate whether self- efficacy moderates the effects of performance-oriented versus learning- oriented feedback (feedback type) on performance. Self-efficacy is a judg- ment of one's capability to perform a task (Bandura, 1986). It is opera- tionalized as an assessment of an individual's confidence that she/ he can demonstrate various levels of performance on a given task (Bandura & Cervone, 1983). Research has shown that individuals with higher self- efficacy demonstrate better performance (e.g., Bandura & Cervone, 1983; Jacobs, Prentice-Dunn, & Rogers, 1984). Other related research suggests that self-efficacy might mediate the feedback sign-performance relationship (Earley, 1986), although research results are mixed (Podsakoff & Fahr, 1989).

However, researchers have not examined whether self-efficacy influences the effects of learning-oriented versus performance-oriented feedback on performance. The current study extends previous research by assessing the role of self-efficacy as a moderator. Self-efficacy is expected to play a less important role in improving performance for those receiving learning- oriented feedback. Further, given that feedback might cue a focus on specific aspects of performance (e.g., Locke & Latham, 1990; Sansone et al., 1989), one might expect the effects of self-efficacy to differentially influence primarily those aspects of performance addressed in the feedback. These expecta- tions are consistent with previous research (Elliott & Dweck, 1989; Nicholls, 1984) suggesting that perceived ability moderates the effects of learning versus performance goals on task choice, performance, and affective reactions. That is, in a performance goal context, individuals with high perceived ability performed better than those with low perceived ability, but no perceived ability effects were observed in a learning goal context. However, Nicholls (1984) posited that perceived ability can be assessed using self-


esteem or self-concept measures, which suggests that a more global construct is being measured than self-efficacy. Also, much of the previous research has been conducted with non-adult populations (e.g., Elliott & Dweck, 1989; Sansone et al., 1989). Finally, previous research has not examined whether self-efficacy differentially influences performance on those dimensions addressed in the feedback.

One explanation for the posited smaller role of self-efficacy is that the informational content of learning-oriented feedback might lead to increases in performance. This is consistent with research (e.g., Jacoby et al., 1984) suggesting that learning-oriented feedback will be more valued and attended to because it provides the information needed to improve performance on complex or uncertain tasks. Further, learning-oriented feedback might compensate for lower self-efficacy to the extent that such feedback cues a mastery orientation and learning goals. Individuals with high self-efficacy tend to persist following failure and demonstrate other adaptive behaviors (Ban- dura, 1986); learning-oriented feedback might cue the same adaptive behavior pattern in individuals with low self-efficacy. However, self-efficacy might play a more important role in performance improvement in the performance-oriented feedback condition due to the lack of informational content in the feedback and cues in the feedback which focus individuals on proving their competence. Indirect evidence suggesting a moderating role for self- efficacy was offered by Earley et al. (1990). They found that individuals with specific (versus general) goals and specific (versus general) outcome feedback had higher self-confidence, but no relationship was found between process feedback and self-confidence. Thus, research suggests higher self-efficacy will be associated with higher performance, but the strength of these effects might depend on feedback type and the aspects of performance addressed in the feedback.

Hz: Self-efficacy moderates the effects of learning-oriented versus performance-oriented feedback on performance dimensions addressed in the feedback.

H2; Self-efficacy is positively related to performance in the performance-oriented feedback condition but not in the learning- oriented feedback condition and primarily on performance dimensions addressed in the feedback.

Method

A computerized simulation of the Space Shuttle’s Remote Manipulation System (RMS) was used to examine the effects of feedback type on performance.


Subjects

Sixty undergraduate students from a large southwestern university participated in a 3-hr experimental session in exchange for bonus points that could be applied to their psychology course grade and $5.00 to cover travel expenses to NASA. Three subjects (performance-oriented condition n = 2; learning-oriented condition n = 1) were removed because of missing data due to computer simulation malfunctions. Three subjects were also removed (from the learning-oriented condition) for failure to follow task instructions. The final sample included 54 subjects. Half participated in the learning- oriented feedback (11 males; 16 females) and half in the performance- oriented feedback condition (12 males; 15 females). Subjects were randomly assigned to feedback conditions (performance-oriented or learning-oriented) and performed six 10-min task trials.

Task Overview

The study used a computerized task simulation of the Space Shuttle’s Remote Manipulation System (RMS) developed for use in training astro- nauts and payload specialists. The RMS is a robotic arm used to deploy and stow shuttle payloads (e.g., satellites). Task activities were directed toward moving the RMS to retrieve (i.e., grapple) a payload in space and stow it safely in the shuttle’s payload bay. Subjects were seated in a chair fitted with hand controls to manipulate the RMS. The left-hand control (i.e., translator) moved the RMS forward/ backward, left/right, and up/down in relation to the shuttle. The right-hand control (i.e., joystick) rotated the RMS to change pitch, yaw, or roll. Subjects viewed a computer monitor displaying three camera views of the shuttle and RMS and a control panel. A control box and computer mouse at the work station enabled subjects to select and change camera views and complete parts of the grapple and stow task.

Twenty-seven rules governed task performance. Five examples of rules are shown in Table 1. The same performance rules were in effect for all subjects. Subjects could review rules throughout task performance. When subjects performed an action that violated a rule, the error was recorded by the experimenter.

Feedback Type Manipulation

Subjects in the performance-oriented feedback condition were given outcome feedback with no additional instructional information. They were told: “You made different types of errors. You may wish to review the performance rules before performing the next trial.” Subjects were then provided with a list of the rules but were not told which they had violated.


Table 1

Examples of Task Performance Rules

Rule Feedback message

Do not get into singularity.* You reached singularity. Make sure you don’t extend the arm too far out.

Do not touch the payload with the end effector. effector.

Do not tuch the payload with the end

Do not engage in EE Auto mode from too far a distance.

You were too far away from the payload before engaging in EE mode.

Do not back up. You backed up. Don’t get yourself in a position where you have to back UP.

Do not press a wrong button on the control box.

You pressed the wrong button on the control box (describe sequence, e.g., hitting the enter button when engaging in EE Auto mode).

*Each joint has a specified range (i.e., angle) of motion. Singularity occurs when one is close to exceeding the possible range of motion in a joint.

Subjects in the learning-oriented feedback condition were given outcome feedback and additional instructional information regarding how to avoid specific errors in future performance. They were told: “You made different types of errors.” The experimenter then read a specific feedback message for each type of error made (see Table 1). These messages included a restatement of the rule and, where appropriate, a suggestion for avoiding the error in the future. Subjects were not allowed to read the feedback message list, but they could review all rules a t any time during task performance.

Measures

General cognitive ability. General cognitive ability was assessed using the Wonderlic Personnel Test (Wonderlic, 1983). The Wonderlic is a 50-item, 12-min timed test.

Selfefficucy. Two measures of self-efficacy (task specific and general) were assessed prior t o Trials 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. Based on Bandura’s (1986) measure, the task-specific self-efficacy measure included eight performance levels, ranging from 0 to more than 14 errors (in increments of two). For


each level, subjects reported their confidence (i.e., 1 no confidence to 10 total confidence) that they could grapple and stow the payload with that number of errors (e.g., grapple and stow with 14 errors, 12 errors, 10 errors, . . . , 0 errors). The task-specific self-efficacy score was calculated as the mean of the confidence levels reported across the eight performance levels. For the general self-efficacy measure, subjects reported their confidence (i.e., 1 no confidence to 10 total confidence) that they could grapple the payload regardless of the number of errors. Responses obtained prior to Trial 1 were used to assess potential initial group differences. Responses obtained prior to Trials 2 and 5 were used in tests of hypotheses.

Performance measures. Three measures of task performance were obtained for each trial: number of errors, distance from grapple, and grapple success. Number of errors referred to the total number of errors made, including multiple occurrences of any given error type. Distance from grapple referred to the distance between the end effector and the grapple fixture. The X, Y, and Z coordinates for the end effector were recorded at the end of each trial. These values and the grapple fixture coordinates were used to calculate the distance score. Better performers would be able to move the RMS end effector closer to the grapple fixture, even if they were unable to complete the grapple during a task cycle. If the subject grappled the payload, the distance score was zero. Grapple success referred to whether the subject successfully grappled the payload (0 = No; 1 = Yes).

Procedure

Following a brief introduction to the session, subjects completed the general cognitive ability measure and were seated at a RMS workstation. They were given written task instructions explaining the mechanics of and rules governing task performance. They were also given brief written sum- maries listing steps for performing key activities. The experimenter then gave additional instructions to ensure subjects understood the task:

In sum, you are to take the RMS here (experimenter pointed to the tip of the RMS on the computer monitor), move it to within a few inches away from the [payload] (experimenter pointed to the location), grapple the . . . payload, and then move the payload into the payload bay (experimenter pointed to the location). We recommend that you use the translator when moving the RMS. Remember the translator moves the RMS forward and back on the X axis, side to side on the Y axis, and up and down on the Z axis. Only use the joystick when making minor alignments and adjustments. We also recommend that you move and/ or adjust cameras as you feel necessary.

FEEDBACK EFFECTS ON PERFORMANCE 31 1

Subjects then completed a self-efficacy questionnaire and began performing the six task trials. Feedback was provided immediately following each of the first four trials. Subjects completed a self-efficacy questionnaire prior to Trials 2, 3, 4, and 5.

Results

Potential Initial Group Differences

One-way ANOVAs were conducted to examine potential initial group differences in number of errors and distance from grapple. The results indicated no effects for feedback condition on either performance measure at Trial I (see Table 2 for means and standard deviations). A chi-square test was conducted to examine potential initial group differences on Grapple Success (see Table 3 for Trial 1 frequencies). The results indicated no dif- ference between feedback conditions ( x 2 ( 1,53) = 0.35, n.s.). One-way ANOVAs, conducted to examine potential initial group differences in general cognitive ability and self-efficacy a t Trial 1, also revealed no differences between feedback conditions.

EfTects of Feedback Condition and Sew- Efficacy on Performance

Hierarchical multiple regression analyses were conducted at Trials 2 and 5 to assess whether feedback type affects performance (Hypothesis 1) and

Table 2

Means and Standard Deviations for Performance Measures

Feedback condition

Performance measure Trial Performance- Learning- oriented oriented

Mean S D Mean SD

Number of errors 1 6.30 6.02 6.26 4.55 2 6.11 4.70 4.33 3.69 5 8.44 7.65 3.07 3.02

Distance from grapple 1 74.55 93.49 64.71 114.46 2 79.83 98.78 62.95 62.04 5 31.78 58.83 22.01 29.38

~ ~~

More. Trial I reflects a prernanipulation trial, Trials 2 and 5 were used to test hypotheses.


Table 3

Frequency of Grapple Success

Feedback condition

Trial Performance- oriented X 2

Learning- oriented

Number % Number %

1 1 3.70 2 7.41 0.35

2 4 14.81 0 0.00 4.32*

5 13 48.15 10 37.04 0.68

Note. Trial 1 reflects a premanipulation trial, Trials 2 and 5 were used to test hypotheses. *p < .05. **p < .01.

whether self-efficacy moderates the feedback type-performance relationship (Hypothesis 2). Analyses were conducted on number of errors and distance from grapple. (A chi-square analysis was conducted on grapple success and is described below.) A Trial 1 performance covariate (number of errors or distance from grapple), feedback type, and self-efficacy were entered into the equation first. The Feedback Type X Self-Efficacy interaction effect was entered in the second step. The analyses were conducted both using the task-specific self-efficacy and the general self-efficacy measures.

For number of errors, the full model was significant a t Trials 2 and 5 for both self-efficacy measures. In support of Hypothesis I , results indicated significant effects for feedback condition at Trials 2 and 5 (see Table 4). As predicted, learning-oriented feedback was associated with fewer errors. Further, partial support was obtained for Hypothesis 2. The increment in variance accounted for by the Feedback Type X Self-Efficacy interaction effect was significant a t p < .05 for the general self-efficacy measure at Trial 5 and at p < . 10 for the task-specific self-efficacy measure at Trials 2 and 5. Thus, the results are suggestive of a moderating effect of self-efficacy on the feedback type-performance relationship for the performance dimension addressed in the feedback-number of errors.

T o further examine the Feedback Type X Self-Efficacy interaction effect, a post hoc analysis was conducted using the general self-efficacy measure at Trial 5. Performance was regressed on the covariate and self-efficacy within each feedback condition. The results indicated that self-efficacy is positively related to number of errors in the learning-oriented condition ( B = .30, t = I .81, p < . lo), indicating poorer performance, and negatively related to

Tab

le 4

Eff

eciiv

e of F

eedb

ack

Con

ditio

n an

d Se

lf-E

ffic

acy

on P

erfo

rman

ce

Dep

ende

nt

Tria

l Se

lf-ef

ficac

y m

easu

re

vari

able

Pr

edic

ator

s Ba

R

2 F

b A

R2

FC

Num

ber

of e

rror

s

Num

ber

of e

rror

s

Num

ber

of e

rror

s

Num

ber

of e

rror

s

2 Ta

sk-s

peci

fic s

elf-

effic

acy

2 G

ener

al s

elf-

effic

acy

5 Ta

sk-s

peci

fic s

elf-

effic

acy

5 G

ener

al s

elf-

effic

acy

Cov

aria

te

Feed

back

con

ditio

n Se

lf-ef

ficac

y Fe

edba

ck X

Sel

f-ef

ficac

y

Cov

aria

te

Feed

back

con

ditio

n Se

lf-ef

ficac

y Fe

edba

ck X

Sel

f-ef

ficac

y

Cov

aria

te

Feed

back

con

ditio

n Se

lf-ef

ficac

y Fe

edba

ck X

Sel

f-ef

ficac

y

Cov

aria

te

Feed

back

con

ditio

n Se

lf-ef

ficac

y Fe

edba

ck X

Sel

f-ef

ficac

y

.38*

* -.5

5*

-.23

.4

6b

.40*

* -.

52*

.42

-.I8

.22d

-.

71**

-.

27d

.4 I

.20d

-.8

8**

-.41

* .5

7*

.I9

.25

.I9

.23

.24

.28

.25

.33

3.99

* 4.

03**

3.97

* 3.

67**

5.30

**

4.82

**

5.68

**

6.02

**

.06

3X

d

rn

n n

rn

0

4

cn

0

.04

2.79

d z 0

.08

5.52

* p 2 0

rn

Not

e. N

o co

vari

ate

was

use

d in

Tri

al 2

for

Dis

tanc

e fr

om G

rapp

le d

ue to

vio

latio

n of

cov

aria

nce

anal

ysis

ass

umpt

ions

.

*p <

.05.

**

p <

.01.

Ta

ble

cont

inue

s 0

aSta

ndar

dize

d re

gres

sion

wei

ghts

. bdf

(3,5

0), d

f(4,

49).

‘df( 1

,49)

. dp <

.lo.

Y

2

8 2

Tabl

e 4

Con

tinue

d P

Dep

ende

nt

Tria

l Se

lf-ef

ficac

y m

easu

re

Pred

icat

ors

pa

R’

~b

AR

’ F

C

varia

ble

Dis

tanc

e fro

m

2 gr

appl

e

Dis

tanc

e fro

m

2 gr

appl

e

Dis

tanc

e fro

m

5 gr

appl

e

Dis

tanc

e fr

om

5 gr

appl

e

Task

-spe

cific

sel

f-ef

ficac

y

Gen

eral

sel

f-ef

ficac

y

Task

-spe

cific

sel

f-ef

ficac

y

Gen

eral

sel

f-ef

ficac

y

Feed

back

con

ditio

n Se

lf-ef

ficac

y

Feed

back

X S

elf-

effic

acy

Feed

back

con

ditio

n

Self-

effic

acy

Feed

back

X S

elf-

effic

acy

Cov

aria

te

Feed

back

con

ditio

n

Self-

effic

acy

Feed

back

X S

elf-

effic

acy

Cov

aria

te

Feed

back

con

ditio

n

Self-

effic

acy

Feed

back

X S

elf-

effic

acy

-.26

-.33d

.21

-. 16

-.07 .08

.03

-.32

-.23

.3 1

. 00

-.31

-.44*

.25

.07

1.85

.08

1.43

.0

1 .6

2

.01

.29

1

(n 0

z -D

rn n 6 3 D z 0

.02

.49

.05

.60

.03

1.23

.I2

2.22

d

.I3

1.85

.0

1 .7

7

Not

e. N

o co

vari

ate

was

use

d in

Tria

l 2 fo

r D

ista

nce

from

Gra

pple

due

to v

iola

tion

of c

ovar

ianc

e an

alys

is a

ssum

ptio

ns.

aSta

ndar

dize

d re

gres

sion

wei

ghts

. bdf(3,50), df

(4,4

9).

“df(

1,4

9). d

p < .lo

. *p

< .0

5.

**p <

.01.


errors in the performance-oriented feedback condition (0 = -.36, t = -1.92, p < .lo), indicating better per f~rmance .~ Hence higher self-efficacy levels were associated with better performance in the performance-oriented condition but with worse performance in the learning-oriented feedback condition, as predicted.

Taken together, these results indicated that subjects in the learning- oriented feedback condition tended to make fewer errors, compared to those in the performance-oriented feedback condition. However, within feedback conditions, higher self-efficacy had beneficial effects on performance (i.e., fewer errors) in the performance-oriented but dysfunctional effects in the learning-oriented feedback condition.

For distance from grapple, the analyses revealed no significant effects for feedback type or for Feedback Type X Self-Efficacy interactions. Feedback type was not related to performance nor did self-efficacy moderate the effect of feedback type on distance from grapple.

Finally, a chi-square analysis on grapple success revealed an effect for feedback condition but not in the direction predicted and only in Trial 2 (see Table 3). Four subjects in the performance-oriented feedback condition successfully grappled the payload in Trial 2, compared with no subjects in the learning-oriented feedback condition. No other differences between feedback conditions were obtained.

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to assess the effects of learning-oriented versus performance-oriented feedback on performance and to examine whether other factors moderate these feedback effects. We expected that learning-oriented feedback would enhance performance more than performance-oriented feedback, but only on the dimension of performance addressed in the feedback (Hypothesis 1). We also predicted that the effects of feedback type on the performance dimension addressed in the feedback would be moderated by self-efficacy (Hypothesis 2). The results provided support for the hypotheses.

In support of our hypotheses, the results revealed that those in the learning-oriented feedback condition demonstrated better performance in terms of errors, compared to those in the performance-oriented condition. That is, subjects in the learning-oriented condition made fewer errors than did those in the performance-oriented condition. Further, no significant effects for feedback were observed on performance dimensions not made

'The p level for significance was set a t .I0 for the preceding tests to increase the power for detecting effects given the small sample size within feedback conditions.


salient in the feedback. Although subjects’ performance improved in terms of number of errors, no differences in performance were observed for distance from grapple and grapple success was significant only in Trial 2 and in the opposite direction predicted.

These results suggested that learning-oriented feedback can be more beneficial than performance-oriented feedback for this novel, complex task, but the beneficial effects would depend on the performance dimension(s) addressed in the feedback. These results are consistent with previous research which suggests that feedback will enhance performance if it increments knowledge about the task (Ilgen et al., 1979) or helps individuals understand task performance (Jacoby et al., 1984), especially for complex or uncertain tasks. Further, the results are consistent with research relating to helpless versus mastery orientations and performance versus learning goals (Diener & Dweck, 1978; Dweck, 1991). Situational factors such as feedback can cue different orientations and goals (Ames & Archer, 1988; Dweck, 199 I) , and a mastery orientation and learning goal will result in an adaptive behavior pattern following failure: increasing effort, developing task strategies, and attempting to increase competence (Diener & Dweck, 1978; Dweck, 1991). Given that failure is likely to occur as individuals work on a complex, novel task, feedback which cues individuals to adopt an orientation and goal that focuses on increasing competence rather than on evaluating current competence should be particularly beneficial. Thus, the beneficial effects of learning-oriented feedback were consistent with previous research addressing the informational value of feedback and the cuing function of feedback.

Moreover, the learning-oriented feedback exhibited a directional function in that performance improved primarily in the dimension addressed in the feedback. Subjects in the learning-oriented feedback condition improved significantly only in terms of errors. Although mean performance indicated that subjects in the learning-oriented condition were approaching the grapple fixture more closely (i.e., performing better), the results were not significant. Further, although significant only in Trial 2, subjects in the performance-oriented feedback condition attained a greater number of successful grapples. Thus, feedback directed attention to a specific aspect of performance, and the beneficial effects of that feedback did not generalize to other performance dimensions. These results are consistent with research on goal setting, which shows that goals focus attention on specific performance dimensions and enhance performance most on those dimensions (Locke & Latham, 1990).

Similarly, the research results provided support for the hypothesis that self-efficacy moderates the feedback type-performance relationship, again primarily on the dimension addressed in the feedback. Self-efficacy was


expected to be negatively related to number of errors in the performance- oriented feedback condition but not related to number of errors in the learning-oriented feedback condition. Indeed, the results showed that at Trial 5 higher self-efficacy was associated with better performance (i.e., fewer errors) in the performance-oriented feedback condition. Research on self-efficacy suggests that individuals with high-self-efficacy will persist following failure, attempting to overcome obstacles and attain future success (Bandura, 1986). Thus, our results showing that high self-efficacy individuals receiving performance-oriented feedback performed better in terms of errors than low self-efficacy individuals are consistent with previous research (Ban- dura, 1986). High self-efficacy individuals might already possess an adaptive mastery orientation and learning goal, even in the absence of cues from learning-oriented feedback. Moreover, due to the feedback provided, the mastery orientation and learning goal was focused primarily on reducing errors.

However, the results also revealed that higher self-efficacy was associated with poorer performance (i.e., more errors) in the learning-oriented condition. One possible explanation for this result is that subjects with higher self-efficacy in the learning-oriented condition became overconfident and made more errors. Alternately, subjects with higher self-efficacy in the learning-oriented condition might have been more actively engaged in strategy development and testing (Earley et al., 1990). This could have resulted in higher error rates because subjects were using ineffective strategies or because errors are a natural result of the process of testing alternate strategies. Finally, it is possible that high self-efficacy individuals perceived the learning-oriented feedback as controlling, which could have lessened their intrinsic interest in the task (Harackiewicz & Larson, 1986; Sansone et al., 1989) or that high self-efficacy individuals developed personal goals that conflicted with the goal cued by the learning-oriented feedback resulting in dysfunctional effects on performance (Dweck, 199 1). Learning-oriented feedback might compensate for lower self-efficacy to the extent that such feedback cues a mastery orientation and learning goals, resulting in en- hanced performance. In contrast, learning-oriented feedback might be redundant for individuals with higher self-efficacy if they already possess a mastery orientation and learning goals, interfering with performance. How- ever, further research is needed to examine these possible explanations.

Another interesting aspect of the results relating to self-efficacy as a moderator is that stronger results were obtained for the general measure of self-efficacy. The more commonly used task-specific measure of self-efficacy was less strongly related to performance, which seems inconsistent with previous research (e.g., Bandura & Cervone, 1983). However, it highlights the importance of the design of self-efficacy measures. The task-specific


measure in the current study related to both grappling and stowing the payload with varying numbers of errors, rather than to grappling only. In contrast, the general self-efficacy measure assessed subjects’ confidence that they could grapple a payload regardless of the number of errors. Thus, for the current study, the general measure was more appropriate for assessing self-efficacy-performance relationships and was found more strongly related to performance.

The results of this study also raise an interesting question for future research relating to feedback sign. That is, past research has generally manipulated feedback sign using outcome feedback (e.g., Harackiewicz & Larson, 1986; Sansone, 1986). The differential effects of learning-oriented and performance-oriented feedback on performance, though, raise the issue of whether feedback sign has differential effects on performance, depending on which feedback type is provided. Specifically, the high informational value and cuing function of learning-oriented feedback might compensate for the potentially dysfunctional effects of negative feedback. To the extent that learning-oriented feedback provides information that can be used to correct performance and cues individuals to adopt a mastery orientation and learning goal, learning-oriented feedback might result in more adaptive behavior patterns following failures, at least in those aspects of performance addressed in the feedback.

Future research is also needed to examine whether the results obtained generalize to other tasks and situations and to extend current findings by using revised measures of self-efficacy. A laboratory study was used with a task from a work setting. College students participated for course credit. It would be interesting to determine whether similar results are obtained using employees who need the training to perform their job adequately. Also, as mentioned above, a task-specific measure of self-efficacy is needed to determine whether the results generalize.

In conclusion, the current study provides evidence that learning-oriented and performance-oriented feedback differentially affect Performance. Learn- ing-oriented feedback might be more beneficial to performance on a novel, complex task than performance-oriented feedback due to its high informational value and cuing function, especially for low self-efficacy individuals. Further, learning-oriented feedback might differentially enhance specific performance dimensions, depending on which performance dimensions feedback directs attention toward. Thus, the beneficial effects of feedback might not be uniform across various aspects of performance. Rather, feedback effects might generalize only to other dimensions of performance that are correlated with the dimension on which feedback is provided. As tasks in work settings become more complex and as employees are asked to learn new tasks with developing and changing technologies, the role of feedback


becomes increasingly important. Given that individuals are likely to experience failure as they learn to perform new, complex tasks, feedback that provides high information value and cues individuals to focus on increasing competence rather than on proving their current competence could be especially beneficial. Moreover, because the feedback provided might focus an individual on one or a few dimensions of performance, one might need to ensure that the feedback provided addresses the most important dimensions of performance to maximize the beneficial effects.

References

Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Stu- dents' learning strategies and motivation processes. Journal of Educa- tional Psychology, 80,260-267.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bandura, A., & Cervone, D. (1983). Self-evaluative and self-efficacy mechanisms governing the motivational effects of goal systems. Journal of Ap- plied Psychology, 45, 1017-1028.

Diener, C. I . , & Dweck, C. S. (1978). An analysis of learned helplessness: Continuous changes in performance, strategy, and achievement cogni- tions following failure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36,

Dweck, C. S. (1991). Self-theories and goals: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. In R. Dienstbier (Ed.), Perspectives on motivation: Nebraska Symposium on Motivation 1990 (pp. 199-235). Lin- coln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

Earley, P. C. (1986). An examination of the mechanisms underlying the relation of feedback to performance. Academy of Management Best Paper Proceedings, 2 14-2 18.

Earley, P. C. (1988). Computer-generated performance feedback in the magazine-subscription industry. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 41, 50-64.

Earley, P. C., Northcraft, G. B., Lee, C., & Lituchy, T. R. (1990). Impact of process and outcome feedback on the relation of goal setting to task performance. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 87- 105.

Elliott, E. S., & Dweck, C. S. (1988). Goals: An approach to motivation and achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54,5- 12.

Harackiewicz, J. M., & Larson, J. R., Jr. (1986). Managing motivation: The impact of supervisor feedback on subordinate task interest. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 547-556.

llgen, D. R., Fisher, C. D., & Taylor, M. S. (1979). Consequences of indi-

45 1-462.


vidual feedback on behavior in organizations. Journal of Applied Psy-

Jacobs, B., Prentice-Dunn, S., & Rogers, R. W. (1984). Understanding per- sistence: An interface of control theory and self-efficacy theory. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 5,333-347.

Jacoby, J., Mazursky, D., Troutman, T., & Kuss, A. (1984). When feedback is ignored: Disutility of outcome feedback. Journal of Applied Psychol-

Liden, R. C., & Mitchell, T. R. (1985). Reactions to feedback: The role of attributions. Academy of Management Journal, 28, 291-308.

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Nicholls, J. G . (1984). Achievement motivation: Conceptions of ability, sub- jective experience, task choice, and performance. Psychological Review,

Podsakoff, P. M., & Fahr, J. (1989). Effects of feedback sign and credibility on goal setting and task performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 44, 45-67.

Sansone, C . (1986). A question of competence: The effects of competence and task feedback on intrinsic interest. Journal of Personality and Social

Sansone, C., Sachau, D. A., & Weir, C. (1989). Effects of instruction on intrinsic interest: The importance of context. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 8 19-829.

Taylor, M. S., Fisher, C . D., & Ilgen, D. R. (1984). Individuals’reactions to performance feedback in organizations: A control theory perspective. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 2 , 8 1- 124.

Wonderlic, E. F. (1983). Wonderlic Personnel Test manual. Northfield, IL: E. F. Wonderlic and Associates.

chology, 64, 349-371.

ogy, 69,531-545.

91,328-346.

Psychology, 51,9 18-93 1.

differences in task performance as a function of type of feedback: learning-oriented versus...

Documents