Are success and failure experiences equally motivational? An investigation of regulatory focus and feedback

Shu, Tse-Mei; Lam, Shui‐fong

doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2011.08.002

Cited by 26 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Namely, it is the negative feedback that increased motivation much more than the positive feedback. Aforementioned results gained additional confirmation in a recent study of Shu & Lam (2011) and Jarzebowski, Palermo, and Van de Berg (2012).…”

Section: Promotion Vs Prevention Orientationmentioning

confidence: 62%

The effect of emotions, promotion vs. prevention focus, and feedback on cognitive engagement

Wytykowska

Gabińska

2015

Polish Psychological Bulletin

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of the study was to explore the role of emotions, promotion-prevention orientation and feedback on cognitive engagement. In the experiment participants had the possibility to engage in a categorization task thrice. After the first categorization all participants were informed that around 75% of their answers were correct. After the second categorization, depending on the experimental condition, participants received feedback either about success or failure. Involvement in the third categorization was depended on participants’ decision whether to take part in it or not. Each time, before and after categorization, the emotional state was assessed. Results showed that promotion orientation predicted experiencing curiosity before the task, which in turn led to a higher cognitive engagement in the first categorization. Promotion and prevention orientation moderated the type of emotional response to positive feedback. Promotion orientation also predicted cognitive engagement after the feedback of success was provided. Generally results confirmed the positive effect of positive emotions as well as promotion orientation on cognitive engagement.

show abstract

Section: Promotion Vs Prevention Orientationmentioning

confidence: 62%

The effect of emotions, promotion vs. prevention focus, and feedback on cognitive engagement

Wytykowska

Gabińska

2015

Polish Psychological Bulletin

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Granted, some cadets might experience increased motivation to perform better if they receive an F for a 66.9% on WPR1 in PL100, but others may not. Shu and Lam (2011) found that success and failure feedback was differentially motivating for students who were high vs. low in a desire to achieve positive outcomes or to prevent negative outcomes. Students who were high in the desire to attain positive outcomes were highly motivated after success feedback but not failure feedback, while students high in the desire to prevent negative outcomes were more highly motivated after failure feedback.…”

Section: Assessment Of Options and Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 96%

How Using a Restricted Grading Range Distorts GPAs and Disproportionately Penalizes Low-Performing Students

Wetzler

2019

Front. Educ.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study evaluates how combining multiple grading practices and policies designed to promote excellence, differentiate among high-performing students, or prevent grade inflation at an elite institution affects GPA outcomes for low-performing students. The author evaluated archived performance data from 3,274 cadets completing a required course during a 3-year period at the United States Military Academy (USMA) at West Point. Common grading practices use a restricted percentage range with a high cutoff value for the D category (67.0-69.9%), and, although used for other grades, USMA policy prohibits the use of plus/minus demarcations for the D grade in GPA calculations. Grade distributions were highly irregular, and, when combined with the lack of plus/minus demarcations for D's in GPA calculations, the restricted D range in the grading scale resulted in disproportionate GPA penalties for low-performing students. These penalties masked other notable performance differences at higher levels. Recommendations include (a) conducting a benchmark study to determine the appropriate cutoff score for the current course and (b) conducting a comprehensive, retrospective review of cadets' academic performance data across different courses and semesters to determine the percentage of cadets affected by the disproportionate penalty before deciding on a future course of action.

show abstract

“…Attainment value therefore also predicts effort and determination [17,18]. Value is sometimes equated as a combination of the value of the input (i.e., costs) plus the value of the output.…”

Section: Expectancy Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring Engineering Faculty Views about Benefits and Costs of Using Student-Centered Strategies

Judson¹,

Ross²,

Middleton

et al. 2017

Int. J. Eng. Ped.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-Dispositions of 286 engineering faculty members were assessed to determine views about three student-centered classroom strategies and how frequently faculty used those strategies. The student-centered classroom strategies examined were: using formative feedback to adjust instruction, integrating real-world applications, and promoting student-to-student discussions during formal class time. The Value, Expectancy, and Cost of Testing Educational Reforms Survey (VECTERS), based on expectancy theory, was designed, tested, and validated for this purpose. Results indicate using strategies, such as formative feedback, are significantly tied to perceived benefits and expectation of success. Using student-centered strategies is inversely related to the perceived cost of implementation -with more frequent users perceiving lower cost of time and materials.

show abstract

Are success and failure experiences equally motivational? An investigation of regulatory focus and feedback

Cited by 26 publications

References 27 publications

The effect of emotions, promotion vs. prevention focus, and feedback on cognitive engagement

The effect of emotions, promotion vs. prevention focus, and feedback on cognitive engagement

How Using a Restricted Grading Range Distorts GPAs and Disproportionately Penalizes Low-Performing Students

Measuring Engineering Faculty Views about Benefits and Costs of Using Student-Centered Strategies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About