Altered emotional and BOLD responses to negative, positive and ambiguous performance feedback in OCD

Performance feedback signals to people where they stand in their goal progress. Positive feedback suggests that one is on a good track to achieve a goal. Negative feedback indicates that another strategy or greater effort is required. However, not everyone reacts equally to such feedback. Through four studies using a variety of methods, we examined how individuals’ experience of power affects motivation and performance depending on whether they receive negative or positive performance feedback. While results were not completely uniform, a general pattern could be observed. Specifically, a meta‐analysis across all studies showed that negative feedback had an overall detrimental effect on motivation and performance of low‐power individuals but not of high‐power individuals. Positive feedback neither impacted low‐ nor high‐power individuals' motivation but increased low‐power individuals’ performance relative to their high‐power counterparts. Our findings imply that performance feedback needs to be tailored to the recipient's experience of power.

Entrepreneurship has gained a lot of theoretical and practical attentions. Adopting the research method of simulation experiments, this study explored the dynamic process and mechanisms of entrepreneurial decision-making, specifically the effect of regulatory focus and past performance feedback on the entrepreneurial intention. Using a sample of 64 MBA and business management majored students, we conducted a laboratory-based simulation experiment study. Based on the experiment data, we mainly took repeated measures variance analysis to test our hypothesis. The results indicate that, (1) The level of entrepreneurial intention under promotion focus situations is higher than that under prevention focus situations. (2) With a positive past performance feedback, the entrepreneurial intention is higher than that of negative past performance feedback. (3) Contextual regulatory focus and previous performance feedback have an interactive effect on the level of entrepreneurial intention; under the negative performance feedback, the gap of entrepreneurial intention between the promotion regulatory focus and prevention one is much wider, while under the positive performance feedback, the gap is relatively narrower. That is to say, under the positive performance feedback, the prevention regulatory focus group has experienced a greater increase in their entrepreneurial intention. Finally, the implication of these results are discussed as well.

Motivation -- To gather an understanding about the relation between system complexity, self-efficacy and stress in senior computer interaction. Research approach -- An empirical study was employed in which 30 seniors performed a number of tasks on a low and high complexity search system. Self-efficacy was manipulated by positive and negative performance feedback. Self-efficacy and perceived stress were both measured by self-reports. Findings/Design -- The results revealed that stress plays a role in senior computer interaction. Negative performance feedback increases stress and decreases self-efficacy. Furthermore, it was found that positive performance feedback significantly increases seniors' self-efficacy during computer interaction. Moreover, a significant effect was found of self-efficacy on stress. Perceived stress increased with decreasing self-efficacy. Although system complexity significantly influenced self-efficacy, no relation was found between system complexity and stress. Research limitations/Implications -- The findings can be used in the design of interaction devices for seniors. To increase self-efficacy and to decrease stress in senior computer interaction, it is advised to present seniors with positive performance feedback; negative performance feedback should rather be avoided for satisfying interaction. Originality/Value -- The research contributes to the need of designers to target senior users by creating satisfying interaction for these groups. Take away message -- To increase seniors' confidence with computers, i.e. to increase self-efficacy, it is vital to provide positive performance feedback and high accessibility. Furthermore, increasing self-efficacy reduces the stress experience of seniors during computer interaction.

We propose that while positive performance feedback is positively related to firm sentiment, negative performance feedback is negatively associated with the firm sentiment. Additionally, overconfident Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) will improve the positive relationship between positive performance feedback and firm sentiment and reduce the negative relationship between negative performance feedback and firm sentiment. Using 7,182 firm-year observations for the 2004−2017 period, we show that positive performance feedback positively affects firm sentiment, and negative performance feedback negatively influences firm sentiment. We also found that higher levels of CEO overconfidence will minimize the negative impact of negative performance feedback on firm sentiment. Our research extends the current discourse on organizational impression management (proxied by firm sentiment) and CEO overconfidence research as we provide a nuanced relationship between firm performance feedback and organizational impression management. Our findings have theoretical and practical implications for corporate governance leaders and shareholders.

IntroductionLong-term memory retention is enhanced after testing compared to restudying (testing effect). Notably, memory retrieval further improves when correct-answer feedback is provided after the retrieval attempt (test-potentiated encoding–TPE).MethodsTo evaluate whether explicit positive or negative feedback further enhances memory performance beyond the effect of TPE, in two experiments additional explicit positive or negative performance-contingent feedback was presented before providing correct-answer feedback. After an initial exposure to the full material, 40 participants learned 210 weakly associated cue-target word pairs by either restudying or testing (Experiment 1). Depending on the accuracy of the retrieval attempt, the tested word pairs were followed by positive or negative performance feedback (50%) or no feedback (50%). Irrespective of the type of repetition, trials were followed by a restudy opportunity. Participants returned to perform a final cued-recall test (Day 2).ResultsFinal test results replicated the testing effect (better memory performance for tested compared to restudied items). Explicit performance feedback in addition to correct-answer feedback increased retrieval performance, but only on Day 2. This pattern of results was replicated in Experiment 2 in an independent sample of 25 participants. To assess the specific effects of learning history, we also examined retrieval accuracy and reaction times during repetition cycles: Explicit feedback improved retrieval for material successfully encoded in the initial study phase (consistent positive feedback) as well as for material learned during the repetition phase (mixed positive and negative feedback).DiscussionPerformance feedback improves learning beyond the effects of retrieval practice and correct-answer feedback, suggesting that it strengthens memory representations and promotes re-encoding of the material.

A considerable literature on attribution theory has shown that healthy individuals exhibit a positivity bias when inferring the causes of evaluative feedback on their performance. They tend to attribute positive feedback internally (e.g., to their own abilities) but negative feedback externally (e.g., to environmental factors). However, all empirical demonstrations of this bias suffer from at least one of the three following drawbacks: First, participants directly judge explicit causes for their performance. Second, participants have to imagine events instead of experiencing them. Third, participants assess their performance only after receiving feedback and thus differences in baseline assessments cannot be excluded. It is therefore unclear whether the classically reported positivity bias generalizes to setups without these drawbacks. Here, we aimed at establishing the relevance of attributions for decision-making by showing an attribution-related positivity bias in a decision-making task. We developed a novel task, which allowed us to test how participants changed their evaluations in response to positive and negative feedback about performance. Specifically, we used videos of actors expressing different facial emotional expressions. Participants were first asked to evaluate the actors’ credibility in expressing a particular emotion. After this initial rating, participants performed an emotion recognition task and did—or did not—receive feedback on their veridical performance. Finally, participants re-rated the actors’ credibility, which provided a measure of how they changed their evaluations after feedback. Attribution theory predicts that participants change their evaluations of the actors’ credibility toward the positive after receiving positive performance feedback and toward the negative after negative performance feedback. Our results were in line with this prediction. A control condition without feedback showed that correct or incorrect performance alone could not explain the observed positivity bias. Furthermore, participants’ behavior in our task was linked to the most widely used measure of attribution style. In sum, our findings suggest that positive and negative performance feedback influences the evaluation of task-related stimuli, as predicted by attribution theory. Therefore, our study points to the relevance of attribution theory for feedback processing in decision-making and provides a novel outlook for decision-making biases.

As organizations increasingly adopt artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance performance, ensuring that employees use AI in compliance with organizational policies becomes crucial for realizing its full value. However, employees’ AI compliance is not guaranteed and can vary based on how their AI use is managed. This study offers timely and actionable insights into how performance feedback—both positive and negative—influences employees’ AI compliance, and how these effects vary with AI identity. Drawing on feedback intervention theory, we conduct a longitudinal field study and a randomized experiment and find that positive performance feedback promotes AI compliance, whereas negative performance feedback reduces it. Importantly, employees with high AI identity respond more strongly to both types of performance feedback. Our findings further uncover distinct underlying mechanisms—task-motivation, task-learning, and meta-cognitive processes—that channel the effects of positive and negative performance feedback on AI compliance. Taken together, organizations should tailor performance feedback as part of AI governance by considering employees’ AI identity. Positive reinforcement of AI compliance is especially effective for employees with high AI identity, whereas cautions are needed when delivering negative performance feedback to avoid undermining AI compliance. Policy guidelines should support identity-sensitive performance feedback in practice.

Why does intrinsic motivation decline following negative feedback? The mediating role of ability self-concept and its moderation by goal orientations

<i>Performance feedback</i> and firms search behaviors: Role of corporate governance in companies around the world

Cardiac concomitants of feedback processing

Based on the behavioral theory of the firm, we research how performance feedback influences the formation of CEOs’ passion. We articulate that previous performance directly increases CEOs’ passion. Specifically, positive affective outcomes (performance above aspiration-level) advance CEOs’ positive feelings and motivation toward the domains of success (obsessive passion). For instance, when a firm accomplishes performance objectives, such as reaching sales goals, CEOs’ positive feelings toward developing current products would be boosted. Moreover, negative affective outcomes (performance below aspiration-level) would also positively impact CEOs’ passion since the CEOs would endeavor to reduce the difference between performance and their aspiration-level. As such, performance feedback is a critical antecedent of CEOs’ obsessive passion. In addition, we apply human capital as a moderator between performance feedback and CEOs’ obsessive passion. Results based on multiphase survey data from 189 CEOs of Korean small- and medium-sized enterprises indicate that both positive and negative performance feedback positively increase CEOs’ obsessive passion. Moreover, human capital negatively moderates the relationship between positive performance feedback and CEOs’ obsessive passion and positively moderates the relationship between negative performance feedback and CEOs’ obsessive passion.

Performance feedback on sales growth and M&A: Evidence from China

Performance feedback and firms’ relative strategic emphasis: The moderating effects of board independence and media coverage

Fear of negative evaluation, such as negative social performance feedback, is the core symptom of social anxiety. The present study investigated the neural correlates of anticipation and perception of social performance feedback in social anxiety. High (HSA) and low (LSA) socially anxious individuals were asked to give a speech on a personally relevant topic and received standardized but appropriate expert performance feedback in a succeeding experimental session in which neural activity was measured during anticipation and presentation of negative and positive performance feedback concerning the speech performance, or a neutral feedback-unrelated control condition. HSA compared to LSA subjects reported greater anxiety during anticipation of negative feedback. Functional magnetic resonance imaging results showed deactivation of medial prefrontal brain areas during anticipation of negative feedback relative to the control and the positive condition, and medial prefrontal and insular hyperactivation during presentation of negative as well as positive feedback in HSA compared to LSA subjects. The results indicate distinct processes underlying feedback processing during anticipation and presentation of feedback in HSA as compared to LSA individuals. In line with the role of the medial prefrontal cortex in self-referential information processing and the insula in interoception, social anxiety seems to be associated with lower self-monitoring during feedback anticipation, and an increased self-focus and interoception during feedback presentation, regardless of feedback valence.

Previous research has identified a component of the event-related brain potential (ERP), the feedback-related negativity, that is elicited by feedback stimuli associated with unfavourable outcomes. In the present research we used event-related functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and electroencephalographic (EEG) recordings to test the common hypothesis that this component is generated in the caudal anterior cingulate cortex. The EEG results indicated that our paradigm, a time estimation task with trial-to-trial performance feedback, elicited a large feedback-related negativity (FRN). Nevertheless, the fMRI results did not reveal any area in the caudal anterior cingulate cortex that was differentially activated by positive and negative performance feedback, casting doubt on the notion that the FRN is generated in this brain region. In contrast, we found a number of brain areas outside the posterior medial frontal cortex that were activated more strongly by positive feedback than by negative feedback. These included areas in the rostral anterior cingulate cortex, posterior cingulate cortex, right superior frontal gyrus, and striatum. An anatomically constrained source model assuming equivalent dipole generators in the rostral anterior cingulate, posterior cingulate, and right superior frontal gyrus produced a simulated scalp distribution that corresponded closely to the observed scalp distribution of the FRN. These results support a new hypothesis regarding the neural generators of the FRN, and have important implications for the use of this component as an electrophysiological index of performance monitoring and reward processing.