Search

Is feedback delivered by an expert sufficient to improve performance? In two studies, we tested, following failure, the influence of group membership (ingroup/outgroup) and source expertise (high/low) on the effectiveness of attributional feedback on performance. Results revealed a significant interactive effect, showing an increase of performance only when the source was an expert ingroup member (Study 1). This interaction was replicated on performance and success expectations in Study 2, which were significantly higher for high compared to low expertise ingroup sources. These data suggest that sharing a common identity with those you lead may help convert expert performance advice into real performance benefits. • Attributional feedback improved performance with an expert ingroup source (Study 1). • Success expectations were higher with an expert ingroup source (Study 2). • Ingroup expert source generated the larger performance improvement (Study 2). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective This experiment investigated, following perceived failure, the immediate, long-term (i.e., durability), and cross-situational (i.e., generalization) effects of attribution-based feedback on expectations and behavioral persistence. Design We used a 3 × 2 (Group × Time) experimental design over seven weeks with attributions, expectations of success, and persistence as dependent measures. Method 49 novice participants were randomly assigned to one of three treatment (attributional feedback) groups: (a) functional (i.e., controllable and unstable); (b) dysfunctional (i.e., uncontrollable and stable); or (c) no feedback. Testing involved three sessions, in which participants completed a total of five trials across two performance tasks (golf-putting and dart-throwing). In order to track whether the attributional manipulation conducted within the context of the golf-putting task in Session 2 would generalize to a new situation, participants performed a dart-throwing task in Session 3, and their scores were compared with those recorded at baseline (in Session 1). Results Analysis of pre- and post-intervention measures of attributions, expectations, and persistence revealed that the functional attributional feedback led to more personally controllable attributions following failure in a golf-putting task, together with increases in success expectations and persistence. In contrast, dysfunctional attributional feedback led to more personally uncontrollable and stable attributions following failure, together with lower success expectations and reduced persistence. These effects extended beyond the intervention period, were present up to four weeks post intervention, and were maintained even when participants performed a different (i.e., dart-throwing) task. Conclusions The findings demonstrate that attributional feedback effects are durable over time and generalize across situations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]