.‫ משוב חיובי משוב שלילי‬,‫ משוב עמיתים‬:‫שאילתה‬
‫תיאוריית מיקוד מטרות הויסות‬
‫ מיקוד מטרות הויסות כמתווך השפעת משוב חיובי לעומת שלילי על רמת‬:‫כותר‬
‫ההנעה והביצוע‬
Regulatory focus as a mediator of positive vs. negative feedback
on motivation and performance level
‫ כנרת חסאן‬:‫מחבר‬
6002 :‫שנה‬
‫עבודת תיזה‬
‫אוניברסיטת חיפ ה‬
: ‫ כדי להיכנס לטקסט מלא‬PDF ‫ללחוץ על הקישור ואז ללחוץ על האייקון של‬
http://digitool.haifa.ac.il/R/?func=d bin - jump full&object_id=220160&local_base=GEN01
Are Success and Failure Experiences Equally Motivational? An
Investigation of Regulatory Focus and Feedback
Shu, Tse-Mei; Lam, Shui-fong
Learning and Individual Differences, v21 n6 p724-727 Dec 2011
The present study extended regulatory focus theory (Idson & Higgins, 2000)
to an educational setting and attempted to identify individuals with high
motivation after both success and failure feedback. College students in Hong
Kong (N = 180) participated in an experiment with a 2 promotion focus (high
vs. low) x 2 prevention focus (high vs. low) x 2 feedback (success vs. failure)
design. The results showed that after success feedback, the students with
promotion focus were more motivated than their counterparts with prevention
focus. This pattern was reversed after failure feedback. However, the results
failed to show that students high in both regulatory focuses were motivated
after success as well as failure feedback. The findings are discussed with
1
reference to the literature on flexibility of regulatory focuses. Practical and
theoretical implications of feedback are also discussed.
Understanding responses to feedback : the potential and
limitations of regulatory focus theory .
Authors:
Watling, Christopher 1
Driessen, Erik 2
van der Vleuten, Cees P M 2
Vanstone, Meredith 3
Lingard, Lorelei 4
Source:
Medical Education. Jun2012, Vol. 46 Issue 6, p593-603. 11p.
Abstract:
Medical Education 2012: 46: 593-603
Objectives Regulatory focus theory posits the existence of two
systems of self-regulation underlying human motivation:
promotion focus, which is concerned with aspirations and
accomplishments, and prevention focus, which is concerned with
obligations and responsibilities. It has been proposed
that regulatory focus theory may help to explain learners' variable
responses to feedback, predicting that positive feedback is motivating
under promotionfocus, whereas negative feedback is motivating
under prevention focus. We aimed to explore this link
between regulatory focus theory and response to feedbackusing
data collected in a naturalistic setting. Methods In a constructivist
grounded theory study, we interviewed 22 early-career academic
doctors about experiences they perceived as influential in their
learning. Although feedback emerged as important, responses
to feedback were highly variable. To better understand
howfeedback becomes (or fails to become) influential, we used the
theoretical framework of regulatory focus to re-examine all
descriptions of experiences of receiving and responding to feedback.
Results Feedback could be influential or non-influential, regardless of
its sign (positive or negative). In circumstances in which the
2
individual's regulatory focus was readily determined, such as in
choosing a career (promotion) or preparing for a high-stakes
examination (prevention), the apparent influence of feedback was
consistent with the prediction of regulatory focus theory. However, we
encountered many challenges in applying regulatory focus theory to
real feedback scenarios, including the frequent presence of a
mixed regulatory focus, the potential for regulatory focus to change
over time, and the competing influences of other factors, such as the
perceived credibility of the source or content of the feedback.
Conclusions Regulatory focus theory offers a useful, if limited,
construct for exploring learners' responses to feedback in the clinical
setting. The insights and predictions it offers must be considered in
light of the motivational complexity of clinical learning tasks and of
other factors influencing the impact of feedback.
When feedback is not enough: The impact of regulatory fit
on motivation after positive feedback.
Authors:
Jarzebowski, Ann-Marie 1
Palermo, Josephine 1 Josephine.palermo@deakin.edu.au
van de Berg, Robert 1
Source:
International Coaching Psychology Review. Mar2012, Vol. 7
Issue 1, p14-32. 19p.
Document Type:
Article
Abstract:
Objectives: Feedback is widely used in coaching practice, however,
empirical findings are inconsistent regarding the motivational effect
of feedback. Positive or negative feedback can be framed in a way
that aligns with an individual's preferred manner during goal pursuit,
that is, their regulatory fit. This study is the first to examine the effect
of regulatory fit within feedback sign on motivation. This study aimed
to investigate the impact of positive feedback framed to fit or not-fit
individuals' regulatory focus on level of motivation. Design: A
repeated measures randomly controlled study design was utilised.
Method: Participants comprised 29 coachees undertaking a five-
3
session coaching programme. They were randomly allocated to two
treatment groups whereby positive non-authentic feedback, framed to
either fit or not-fit an individual's
induced regulatory promotion focus was provided on an online
leadership skills activity. In addition, level of motivation was measured
pre and post feedback. Results: A repeated measure anova analysis
indicated that motivation was significantly higher after
positive feedback in the regulatory fit condition than in the non-fit
condition. There was no relationship between level of mood and
motivation after feedback. Conclusions: Findings suggest
that feedbackframed to fit the regulatory focus of coachees will
increase level of motivation. Implications for coaching practice include
that when providing feedback in coaching,feedback effectiveness may
be increased by framing feedback to the
individuals' regulatory (promotion) focus.
Are success and failure experiences equally motivational? An
investigation of regulatory focus and feedback.
Authors:
Shu, Tse-Mei, annieshu@gmail.com
Lam, Shui-fong
Source:
Learning & Individual Differences; Dec2011, Vol. 21 Issue 6,
p724-727, 4p
Document Type:
Article
Abstract:
Abstract: The present study extended regulatory focus theory (Idson
& Higgins, 2000) to an educational setting and attempted to identify
individuals with high motivation after both success and
failure feedback. College students in Hong Kong (N =180) participated
in an experiment with a 2 promotion focus (high vs. low)×2
preventionfocus (high vs. low)×2 feedback (success vs. failure)
design. The results showed that after success feedback, the students
with promotion focus were more motivated than their counterparts with
prevention focus. This pattern was reversed after failure feedback.
However, the results failed to show that students high in
bothregulatory focuses were motivated after success as well as
4
failure feedback. The findings are discussed with reference to the
literature on flexibility of regulatoryfocuses. Practical and theoretical
implications of feedback are also discussed.
Feedback Sign Effect on Motivation: Is it Moderated
by Regulatory Focus?
Authors:
Van-Dijk, Dina 1 dinav@bgumail.bgu.ac.il
Kluger, Avraham N. 1 mskluger@pluto.mscc.huji.ac.il
Source:
Applied Psychology: An International Review. Jan2004, Vol. 53
Issue 1, p113-135. 23p. 5 Charts, 4 Graphs.
Document Type:
Article
Abstract (English):
Despite our common sense notion that indicates that feedback sign
(positive vs. negative) has a decisive effect on motivation, the vast
literature has no clear specifications regarding when and how positive
(negative) feedback increases or decreases motivation (e.g. ). The
variability in feedback sign effects can be explained by self-regulation
theory ( ). Specifically, relatively high levels of motivation are induced
either by failure under prevention focus (failure to meet obligations) or
by success under promotion focus(fulfilling a desire). In two
experiments, regulatory focus was operationalised by a manipulation
of situational factors (scenarios) and by three measures of individual
differences (values, occupations, and the motives for choosing one's
job). Results from these experiments corroborated the hypotheses with
all the different operationalisations. Future experiments should
investigate the possible three-way interaction between
situational regulatory focus, chronic regulatory focus,
andfeedback sign. [
5
Success/Failure Feedback, Expectancies, and
Approach/Avoidance Motivation: How Regulatory Focus Moderates
Classic Relations
Authors:
Jens Förster a, f2 ,
Heidi Grant b ,
Lorraine Chen Idson b ,
E.Tory Higgins b
Source:
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. May2001, Vol. 37
Issue 3, p253. 8p. 4 Charts.
Abstract
Applying regulatory focus theory (17), we hypothesized that success-related
approach motivation and increased expectancies are more likely to occur
when performers are in a promotion than a prevention focus and that failurerelated avoidance motivation and decreased expectancies are more likely to
occur when performers are in a prevention than a promotion focus. Study 1
used arm flexion pressure as an on-line measure of approach strength and
arm extension pressure as an on-line measure of avoidance strength. Study 2
used a persistence measure of motivational strength. The “goal looms larger”
effect of increased motivational strength as one moves closer to a goal was
greatest for approach when there was success feedback and promotion focus
framing and was greatest for avoidance when there was failure feedback and
prevention focus framing. Performance expectancies were increased more by
promotion than prevention success and were decreased more by prevention
than promotion failure. These effects support the hypotheses and were
independent of one another.
6
Feedback : the complexity of self - perception and the transition
from 'transmit' to 'received and understood'.
Authors:
Murdoch-Eaton, Deborah 1
Source:
Medical Education. Jun2012, Vol. 46 Issue 6, p538-540. 3p.
Document Type:
Article
Abstract:
The author discusses the article by C. Watling and colleagues, which
explores self-perception theories' regulatory focus theory to describe
the response of individuals to feedback. She says that the use of such
theory shows that feedback is affected by the
personal regulatory focus of the learner and the complexities
in feedbackresponses. She adds that factors such as accuracy,
responsibility, and motivating for evaluative judgments
enable feedback to impact self-perceptions of learners.
The Nature of Feedback: How Different Types of Peer Feedback Affect
Writing Performance
Nelson, Melissa M.; Schunn, Christian D.
Instructional Science: An International Journal of the Learning Sciences, v37
n4 p375-401 Jul 2009
Although providing feedback is commonly practiced in education, there is no
general agreement regarding what type of feedback is most helpful and why it
is helpful. This study examined the relationship between various types of
feedback, potential internal mediators, and the likelihood of implementing
feedback. Five main predictions were developed from the feedback literature
in writing, specifically regarding feedback features (summarization, identifying
problems, providing solutions, localization, explanations, scope, praise, and
mitigating language) as they relate to potential causal mediators of problem or
solution understanding and problem or solution agreement, leading to the final
outcome of feedback implementation. To empirically test the proposed
feedback model, 1,073 feedback segments from writing assessed by peers
7
was analyzed. Feedback was collected using SWoRD, an online peer review
system. Each segment was coded for each of the feedback features,
implementation, agreement, and understanding. The correlations between the
feedback features, levels of mediating variables, and implementation rates
revealed several significant relationships. Understanding was the only
significant mediator of implementation. Several feedback features were
associated with understanding: including solutions, a summary of the
performance, and the location of the problem were associated with increased
understanding; and explanations of problems were associated with decreased
understanding. Implications of these results are discussed.
8