Hello,

I have attached a research article and is looking for some help with a summary of the article. the summary has to have all the requirements listed below

the summary should include:

research question

major hyothesis being tested

research design- setting and subject

independent variable and dependent variable

measurement of independent variable and dependent variable

the psychometric test being used and description of items

the reliability and validity- using data

recommendations and results

Behavior Analysis: Research and
Practice
The Influence of Feedback Statement Sequence and
Goals on Task Performance
Julie M. Slowiak and Areanna M. Lakowske
Online First Publication, April 24, 2017. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/bar0000084 CITATION
Slowiak, J. M., & Lakowske, A. M. (2017, April 24). The Influence of Feedback Statement Sequence
and Goals on Task Performance. Behavior Analysis: Research and Practice. Advance online
publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/bar0000084 Behavior Analysis: Research and Practice
2017, Vol. 0, No. 999, 000 © 2017 American Psychological Association
2372-9414/17/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/bar0000084 The Influence of Feedback Statement Sequence and Goals on
Task Performance
Julie M. Slowiak and Areanna M. Lakowske This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. University of Minnesota Duluth
The purpose of the present study was to examine the use of combined positive and
corrective feedback statements to improve performance in the presence of a performance goal. A within-subjects design was used to expose participants to 4 feedback
statement sequences: (a) no feedback; (b) PCP (positive, corrective, positive); (c) CPP
(corrective, positive, positive); and (d) PPC (positive, positive, corrective). Providing
participants with a combination of positive and corrective feedback statements, regardless of sequence, was hypothesized to lead to higher task performance than not
providing feedback. Ad hoc analyses were conducted to examine the most preferred
feedback statement sequence and type of feedback (positive or corrective), as well as
the influence that core self-evaluation, job satisfaction, goal commitment, and stress on
performance. Results revealed that task performance was higher when feedback, in
general, was provided; a statistically significant difference in task performance did not
exist across the 3 feedback statement sequences. Despite the lack of differential effects
on performance, 47% of participants identified the session during which they received
the CPP feedback statement sequence as their most preferred. Further, 53% of participants self-reported they preferred positive feedback, while 25% preferred corrective
feedback. Individual preferences for feedback statement sequences support the need for
open communication between the feedback receiver and provider to increase task
performance.
Keywords: feedback sequence, goals, feedback preference, task performance Many factors influence task performance and
an individual’s persistence to work toward performance-based goals. Although substantial research supports the use of providing individuals
with feedback that is tied to one’s progress
toward goal attainment (e.g., Balcazar, Hopkins, & Suarez, 1985; Locke & Latham, 2013),
research specifically evaluating characteristics of the feedback statements, themselves, on performance is not widespread. Further, goal setting literature has predominately focused on
individuals’ abilities and willingness to persist
toward easy, moderate, and difficult (yet attainable) performance goals (Jeffrey, Schulz, &
Webb, 2012; Lee, Locke, & Phan, 1997; Locke,
2004; Locke & Latham, 2013; Wright, 1989).
Little work has been done, however, to assess
factors that attenuate the potential negative impact of goals that are too challenging (sometimes referred to as “stretch” goals) on goal
commitment and individual task performance
(Ordonez, Schweitzer, Galinsky, & Bazerman,
2009). Due to the widespread use, acceptance
for, and effectiveness of using feedback and
goal setting simultaneously, the present study
examined the use of positive and corrective
feedback statement sequences as a way to improve performance in the presence of an intended challenging goal. This study contributes
to the small amount of empirical literature on
feedback statement sequences (Henley & Di- Julie M. Slowiak and Areanna M. Lakowske, Department
of Psychology, University of Minnesota Duluth.
This project was supported by internal funds from the
Department of Psychology at the University of Minnesota
Duluth. All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee
and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Julie M. Slowiak, Department of Psychology,
University of Minnesota Duluth, 320 Bohannon Hall, 1207
Ordean Court, Duluth, MN 55812-3011. E-mail: jslowiak@
d.umn.edu
1 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. 2 SLOWIAK AND LAKOWSKE Gennaro Reed, 2015; Sundberg, 2015) through
its evaluation of individually tailored feedback
sequence statements that provided individuals
with information related to both the quality and
quantity of their performance in relation to an
assigned goal. This study sought to demonstrate
that providing participants with a combination
of positive and corrective feedback statements,
regardless of sequence, would increase task performance in comparison to not providing feedback. Additionally, ad hoc analyses were used
to examine the influence that core selfevaluation, job satisfaction, goal commitment,
and stress may have on performance toward a
goal when individuals are provided with various
feedback statement sequences.
Performance Feedback
This study contributes to the performance
feedback literature that currently describes performance feedback as a provision of information about previous performance that allows
individuals to change or adjust their future behavior (Daniels & Daniels, 2006). Applications
of feedback to improve performance have been
implemented across a variety of settings and
behaviors, including to provide safety hazard
feedback for department supervisors in manufacturing production (Sulzer-Azaroff & de Santamaria, 1980), to provide written and verbal
performance feedback regarding lifting techniques for employees in a residential facility
(Alavosius & Sulzer-Azaroff, 1986), and to increase safety belt frequency in pizza delivery
service (Ludwig & Geller, 1991). Feedback’s
widespread use is supported by its presence
within the literature, having been identified as
the most common independent variable cited in
both the Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis
(JABA) and the Journal of Organizational Behavior Management (JOBM; Balcazar, Shupert,
Daniels, Mawhinney, & Hopkins, 1989; Nolan,
Jarema, & Austin, 1999; Prue & Fairbank,
1981).
Balcazar, Shupert, Daniels, Mawhinney, and
Hopkins’s (1989) evaluation of the effectiveness of performance feedback revealed that performance feedback, by itself, was only effective
in 28% of studies, but the effectiveness of performance feedback jumped to 53% when feedback and goal setting were combined. Similar
reviews of the feedback literature 10 years later revealed that the number of studies including
applications of feedback had increased to 71%
and supported many of the primary findings of
Balcazar, et al.’s (1989) review (e.g., Alvero,
Bucklin, & Austin, 2001; Nolan et al., 1999).
Due to continued and increasing research interests concerning the effects of feedback, JOBM
published a special issue titled, Performance
Feedback: From Component Analysis to Application (Houmanfar, 2013).
Function of Feedback
To effectively use performance feedback, it is
important to understand the function of feedback.
Ilgen, Fisher, and Taylor (1979) examined the
multidimensional nature of feedback and its ability to influence individual behavior. Specifically,
they emphasized three major aspects of feedback
that influence behavior: (a) the way feedback is
perceived, (b) the extent to which feedback is
accepted, and (c) the willingness of the recipient to
respond to the feedback. Ilgen et al. (1979) suggest that the recipient of the feedback must accept
the information being provided in order for the
intervention to be effective and improve performance. Further, Ilgen et al. (1979) contend that
goal setting acts as an intermediate step between
feedback and performance improvement; feedback provides information that can be used to
evaluate the current level of performance in relation to goal and informs the need for change in
future performance. Lastly, the authors suggested
that future studies should look at how the recipient
perceives negative (i.e., corrective) feedback (e.g.,
accuracy) and how the recipient perceives the
source of the feedback (e.g., trustworthy). Following their recommendation, Ilgen and Davis (2000)
investigated the receptivity of negative feedback
and suggested that the most critical issue for delivering negative feedback is the balance between
having individuals accept responsibility for substandard performance and, at the same time, preventing a decrease in one’s self-concept because
of receiving negative feedback. From a behavioral
perspective, this may relate to the use of feedback
supported by data (objective vs. subjective), a
focus on behavior that is within the performer’s
control, and identification and discussion of environmental and social factors outside the performer’s control that may influence performance. Although Ilgen and Davis (2000) emphasize the
importance of turning negative feedback into a This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. FEEDBACK STATEMENT SEQUENCE AND GOALS learning experience, they did not examine the use
of specific feedback statements.
Researchers have pointed out the similarities
between feedback procedures and reinforcement or punishment procedures (e.g., Duncan &
Bruwelheide, 1985; Peterson, 1982), which explains why feedback is sometimes posited to
function as a reinforcer or punisher (Mangiapanello & Hemmes, 2015). Prue and Fairbank
(1981) argued that feedback could introduce a
positive reinforcement contingency into a setting that typically supports negative reinforcement contingencies. For example, when a supervisor scolds an employee for not meeting
their monthly sales quota, a negative reinforcement contingency would be in effect if the employee increases their production just enough to
meet the sales quota and avoid being scolded by
the supervisor again). As an alternative to
“scolding,” a supervisor might choose to provide the employee with feedback in a way that
the employee will better accept (e.g., objective
performance data in comparison to their goal).
If this type of feedback evokes an increase in
desired performance in order to achieve one’s
goal, one might say that the feedback has introduced a positive reinforcement contingency into
this setting, as the employee is no longer working to avoid negative consequences (i.e., scolding). There is, however, some controversy over
this perspective because the behavioral function
of feedback is often unknown or may simultaneously serve multiple functions (Duncan &
Bruwelheide, 1985; Peterson, 1982). Despite
the varying views, implications, and procedures
used to implement feedback, providing individuals with feedback is suited for settings in
which there is a desire to increase performance
with a relatively low cost commitment (Daniels
& Daniels, 2006; Prue & Fairbank, 1981).
Johnson (2013) demonstrated feedback reinforcement and punishment procedures in a component analysis where the effects of objective
feedback (description of the previous day’s performance) and evaluative feedback (statements
consistent with excellent, good, average, or
poor performance on the previous day) were
dissociated. Although both types of feedback
were associated with higher performance in
comparison to a no-feedback condition, results
revealed that performance was considerably
higher when the two types of feedback (i.e.,
objective and evaluative) were combined and 3 provided to participants. Johnson reasoned that
the evaluative feedback might have acted as an
establishing or abolishing operation, influencing
the effectiveness of objective feedback as either
a reinforcer or punisher, respectively.
Feedback Statement Sequencing
The Feedback “Sandwich”
Few researchers have explored the impact of
the combined use of positive and negative statements on an individual’s performance; therefore, this study seeks to expand the literature on
feedback statement sequences. The most recognizable form of this type of combined feedback
has been referred to as the feedback “sandwich.” While using the feedback sandwich, the
feedback deliverer (e.g., teacher, manager, or
trainer) provides a positive statement followed
by a corrective statement followed by another
positive statement. Wyatt Woodsmall developed the feedback sandwich while conducting
research for the United States Army on how
teachers could deliver effective feedback to new
recruits (James & Shephard, 2001). The sandwich sequence has gained a great deal of support across a variety of disciplines ranging from
physicians providing feedback to staff in a family practice (Dohrenwend, 2002) to coaches administering feedback to their athletes during
practice and competition (Hanson, n.d.).
According to Daniels (2009), however, there
are few empirical studies to support this recommendation or that the use of the feedback sandwich sequence improves individual performance. Daniels noted the sandwich sequence
may confuse the recipient and obscure the real
meaning for the performance feedback (i.e., the
explanation and discussion of the corrective
statement). By placing corrective feedback in
the middle of two positive statements, the corrective feedback tends to be overshadowed by
the positive points in the beginning (primacy
effect) or at the end (recency effect). As such,
the feedback sandwich sequence may cause individuals to anticipate that a criticism will always follow a positive statement. Further, Daniels explained that this sequence can jeopardize
the worth of positive feedback when it is continuously associated with corrective feedback.
Over time, employees may begin to doubt their
manager’s honesty regarding positive perfor- This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. 4 SLOWIAK AND LAKOWSKE mance feedback. Lastly, if managers create
statements about positive behaviors in order to
provide employees with constructive criticism,
individuals may leave with an overstated and
inaccurate understanding of how they are actually performing (Daniels, 2009).
Von Bergen, Bressler, and Campbell (2014)
examined the sandwich sequence with regard to
the benefits experienced by both the deliverer
(individual providing the feedback) and the receiver (individual receiving the feedback). Von
Bergen et al. (2014) identified many reasons
why managers choose to use the sandwich sequence instead of other techniques when delivering constructive criticism. Foremost, managers are often taught to deal with workers’ poor
performance by using the feedback sandwich
because this feedback statement sequence
makes the deliverer (i.e., manager) feel “better”
about providing criticism; however, it is unsure
whether this lesson is learned in school or a
recommendation from another manager. When
managers were queried about why they use the
sandwich sequence, they confirmed that the approach alleviated some of the pressure when
delivering negative (i.e., corrective) performance feedback and that starting the conversation with a positive statement relaxed them (the
managers). From a behavior analytic viewpoint,
then, the delivery of feedback in this manner
may elicit positive feelings or evoke positive
self-talk (i.e., “I’m a good manager”); thus,
“feeling better” and “feeling relaxed” would be
a positive reinforcer for the manager’s behavior.
According to Nelson and Quick (2013), the
intent behind the sandwich sequence is to reduce defensiveness, improve useful communication, and make the information better tolerated by the person receiving the feedback. Thus,
using the feedback sandwich sequence may result in avoidance of negative consequences associated with the receiver’s reaction to corrective feedback (e.g., emotional outburst) or the
escape from a negative conditioned emotional
response (e.g., anxiety, pressure) in anticipation
of delivering corrective feedback; in this case,
the manager’s behavior would be a negatively
reinforced. It is important to note, however, that
when employees were asked how they preferred
to receive feedback on their job performance,
most employees stated they only wanted the
substance (i.e., the criticism; Von Bergen et al.,
2014). Other Feedback Statement Sequences
Although research has typically focused on
the traditional sandwich sequence, Davies and
Jacobs (1985) evaluated four feedback statement sequences including positive-negativepositive (PNP), positive-positive-negative
(PPN), negative-positive-negative (NPN), and
negative-negative-positive (NNP). Groups of
eight participants engaged in a problem-solving
exercise and received an assigned feedback
statement sequence in front of the group from
each member. Participants rated on a scale of
1–9 which feedback statement sequence they
felt was the most credible, desirable, and their
emotional reaction (strong or weak) to the feedback. Higher scores on the scale represented
higher credibility and desirability, and a stronger emotional reaction to the feedback statement sequence. Results indicated no significant
difference between PNP and PPN feedback ratings. However, PNP ratings were significantly
higher than the NPN ratings for credibility and
desirability, and PPN ratings were significantly
higher than NNP. The authors did not find any
significant difference between PPN and NPN
ratings. Additionally, there were no significant
differences in strength of emotion ratings across
the four feedback statement sequences. Although Davies and Jacobs (1985) studied a variety of feedback statement sequences, they did
not measure the impact of these sequences on an
individual’s performance or in conjunction with
assigned performance goals.
Performance Goals
Locke and Latham (2013) define a goal as
“the object or aim of an action,” such as, to
attain a specific standard of proficiency (p. 4).
Similarly, Fellner and Sulzer-Azaroff (1984)
describe a goal as the desired outcome of a
particular behavior or set of behaviors, typically
utilized in a predetermined time frame. In their
review of the goal setting literature, Locke,
Shaw, Saari, and Latham (1981) found strong
support for the use of goals of varying levels of
difficulty to influence individual behavior. In
the literature, goal difficulty refers “loosely” to
the probability of attaining the goal, and researchers generally classify goals as (a) easy;
(b) moderate; (c) difficult (challenging, yet attainable); or (d) not specified (Lee, Locke, & This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. FEEDBACK STATEMENT SEQUENCE AND GOALS Phan, 1997). In addition to these categories,
“stretch” goals are identified in the literature
and distinguished from difficult goals as challenging and typically unattainable goals (Jeffrey, Schulz, & Webb, 2012). In addition to
being extremely difficult, stretch goals have
also been described as novel (Zhang & Jia,
2013). Although goal-setting literature research
consistently reports a positive relationship between goal difficulty and performance (Locke
& Latham, 2002), Ordonez, Schweitzer, Galinsky, and Bazerman (2009) discuss the negative
impact of goals that are too challenging
(“stretch” goals) on performance when the environment is not set up to support these goals.
Ordonez et al. (2009) suggest that challenging
goals can inspire effort, commitment, and performance; however, when the work environment is not supportive, failure to reach goals
may be associated with risky attitudes, unethical
behavior, and psychological costs. According to
Daniels (2009), goals that are too challenging,
such as stretch goals, are often set without providing necessary work environment resources,
such as training and coaching, time, support
personnel, equipment, and other support items.
Without an environment that supports the expected changes in performance necessary to
meet these goals, negative outcomes are more
likely to occur (e.g., unhappy boss, counterproductive employee behavior, fired employee).
Research supports the contention that specific
and challenging goals lead to higher levels of
persistence toward the goal and higher task performance than easy goals, “do your best” goals,
or no goals (Locke, Chah, Harrison, & Lustgarten, 1989; Locke & Latham, 2002). One reason
do-your-best goals may be less successful at
improving performance is because they have no
external referent and are often defined idiosyncratically (Locke & Latham, 2002). When performance is fully controllable, goal specificity
does reduce variation in performance by reducing the ambiguity about what is to be attained
(Locke et al., 1989).
Two primary approaches for assigning goals
at various levels of difficulty exist within the
literature: (a) “one goal for all” and (b) abilitybased. Using the “one goal for all” approach,
Lee, Locke, and Phan (1997) defined three levels of goal difficulty: easy (.90 expected probability of attaining the goal), moderate (.50 expected probability of attaining the goal), and 5 difficult or challenging (.10 expected probability of attaining the goal). Jeffrey, Schulz, and
Webb (2012) added challenging but achievable
goals to Lee et al. (1997) original goal difficulty
categories and described these as goals for
which there is a 20%–50% probability of individual goal attainment.
Ability-based goals can be used and assigned
in a variety of ways, such as setting a unique
goal for each individual (Chow, Lindquist, &
Wu, 2001; Slowiak, 2015) or having multiple
goal levels, which are assigned to individuals
based on ability groupings that are determined
by past performance on the task (Bateman &
Ludwig, 2003; Locke, 2004). In a recent study,
Slowiak (2015) assigned individually tailored
goals based on individuals’ pretest session performance; goals were categorized as: easy (set
at the same level as pretest performance), moderate (10% above the participant’s pretest session performance), and difficult (20% above the
participant’s pretest session performance).
Slowiak (2015) had participants engage in the
task before assigning each participant a tailored
performance goal. Though Slowiak’s (2015) research provides an insightful framework for the
assignment of individual goals, pilot data revealed that most participants met their “difficult” goal during one of the three experimental
sessions. In addition, self-report data indicated
that only one participant perceived their difficult goal as “difficult.” Therefore, future research should consider these findings when using a similar approach to define levels of goal
difficulty.
Over 400 studies have examined the relationship of goal difficulty and specificity with performance, and results have consistently shown
that people adjust their effort to align with the
difficulty of the task (Jeffrey et al., 2012; Locke
& Latham, 2002). Jeffrey and colleagues found
“ability-based” goals are more effective at improving performance than a “one goal for all”
approach. While customizing individual abilitybased goals, feedback providers are able to review previous performance, create goals, and
provide useful information that reflects an individual’s current and past performance. Although the one goal for all approach may be
more convenient to implement, it may result in
decreased motivation for lower or higher performing individuals since goal assignment is
based on the group’s previous “average” perfor- This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. 6 SLOWIAK AND LAKOWSKE mance (Fisher, Peffer, & Sprinkle, 2003). Further, in order to calculate probabilities associated with goal attainment for the one goal for a...

 

Attachments:

• 1506697687-psy 7.pdf