No abstract

Objectives: 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 after failure. Design: We used a 2 (Source: Ingroup, Outgroup) × 2 (Source Expertise: Low, High) experimental design with performance (Studies 1 and 2) and expectations of success (Study 2) as dependent measures. Method: One hundred twenty nine students from a school (Study 1) and one hundred twenty French undergraduate students (Study 2) located in northwest France were randomly assigned to one of four conditions: Ingroup source with Low Expertise, Ingroup source with High Expertise, Outgroup source with Low Expertise, Outgroup source with High Expertise. After completing Trial 1 in a performance task that ensured failure, they were then provided with standardized functional feedback informing them the cause of their performance was within their control (controllable) and something they could change (unstable). Feedback was provided by either an ingroup or outgroup source. After providing the feedback, the source informed the subjects of their expertise (high versus low expertise) in the task. Participants then completed Trial 2 in the same performance task. Results: Study 1 results revealed a significant interactive effect, showing better performance only when the feedback source was an expert ingroup member. Study 2 replicated this interactive effect on performance, as well as demonstrating a significant interactive effect for success expectations, in which higher scores were noted only in the expert ingroup condition. In addition, only those in the ingroup expert condition showed improvement from Trial 1 to Trial 2 in Experiment 1 and the improvement was substantial. In Experiment 2, while performance improved from Trial 1 to Trial 2 in all experimental conditions, those in the ingroup expert condition again showed the most impressive improvement. Conclusions: These data suggest that the sharing of a common identity between coaches, educators, and leaders with those they lead may help convert expert performance advice into real performance benefits.

L’objectif de cette étude était d’observer l’influence de l’intensité d’un feedback de comparaison sociale ascendante sur l’évaluation de soi et la performance motrice d’élèves français lors d’une tâche d’équilibre. L’étude s’est déroulée en deux phases. La première était consacrée à la sélection des cibles de comparaison. Les participants, 76 élèves, 31 filles et 45 garçons (Mâge = 12,7 ans), devaient mentionner le nom des élèves avec lesquels ils avaient l’habitude de se comparer en éducation physique et sportive. Trois semaines plus tard, 35 élèves garçons (Mâge = 12,8 ans) ont participé à la phase 2. Au temps 1, ils réalisaient une première performance puis remplissaient une mesure d’évaluation de soi. La semaine suivante, au temps 2, ils étaient exposés à un feedback de comparaison ascendante (modérée, CAM, performance 1 de la cible de comparaison légèrement supérieure, 30 %, versus forte, CAF, 120 %). Il leur était alors demandé une seconde évaluation de soi, une mesure de leurs attentes de réussite ainsi qu’une seconde performance sur cette même tâche. Les résultats révèlent une diminution de l’évaluation de soi suite au feedback de CAF, ce qui n’est pas le cas dans la condition CAM.

No abstract

The present field experiment investigated the effects of accurate and non-accurate performance feedback on causal attributions, success expectancy, performance, and persistence on a motor task. Forty-six male middle-schoolers were randomly assigned to a Contingent (accurate) feedback, Non-contingent (non-accurate) feedback, or Control (no feedback) group and completed a challenging motor task. An initial treatment phase provided either accurate contingent feedback or yoked non-contingent feedback during the task, and measured task performance, attributions about performance, and success expectancy about future performance. A subsequent testing phase (same task) used the same measures and added a measure of motivation (persistence). Compared to the Contingent and Control groups, Noncontingent outcome feedback during the initial treatment phase led to more personally uncontrollable attributions, lower success expectancy, poorer performance, and lower persistence in the subsequent test phase. Despite a high rate of failure in the motor task for both feedback groups in the treatment phase, the Contingent group—getting accurate feedback about performance—had a higher sense of personal control and expectancy of success than the Non-contingent feedback group initially, and maintained these perceptions in the subsequent test phase where they also had better performance and higher levels of persistence than the Non-contingent group. Non-contingent feedback in an initial motor task appears to induce helplessness deficits in subsequent task performance and persistence. In contrast, providing accurate (contingent) feedback about achieved performance appears to protect against performance and motivational losses.