A Meta-Analysis of Negative Feedback on Intrinsic Motivation

Abstract

The most prominent view in psychological theory has been that negative feedback should generally have a detrimental impact on intrinsic motivation. Competing perspectives and caveats on this view have suggested that negative feedback may sometimes have neutral or even positive effects. This meta-analysis of 78 studies examined the effect of negative feedback on intrinsic motivation in both child and adult samples. Results indicated that negative feedback had no effect on intrinsic motivation when compared to neutral or no feedback. When compared to positive feedback, negative feedback decreased intrinsic motivation. Moderator tests revealed that the effect of negative feedback seemed to be less demotivating when (a) the feedback statement included instructional details on how to improve, (b) criterion-based standards were used to provide feedback, and (c) feedback was delivered in-person. Implications for future research and applications to real-world settings are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

Notes

  1. 1.

    We conducted moderator analyses comparing effects from studies using assumed information to derive effect sizes (ES) with studies with studies using more precise algebraic formulae. For the negative feedback condition vs. neutral/no feedback conditions, there was no evidence of significant moderation of effect size treatment (FE: Q = .27, p = .60, RE: Q = 1.16, p = .28.). Regardless of effect size treatment, both weighted average effects (k = 13 treated effect sizes; k = 32 non-treated effect sizes) were not significantly different from zero. For the negative feedback condition vs. positive feedback conditions, there was no evidence of significant moderation of ES treatment for random effects (RE: Q = 1.97, p = .16), but there was evidence of moderation under fixed effects (FE: Q = 15.81, p = .001). However, under fixed effects, effects for both treated ES (k = 15) and non-treated ES (k = 85) were both in the same direction and significantly different from zero, which supports the main effect that was found. Although non-treated ES studies had larger effects, this is expected because the treated effects were conservative estimates. Also, it should be noted that the sample sizes in the subgroup analysis were heavily unbalanced, and results should be interpreted with some caution as well.

  2. 2.

    Because we tested each moderator separately, there is a possibility that moderators were confounded with one another. Therefore, we examined pairwise relationships between significant moderator variables: social context of feedback, feedback standard, motivational feedback types, task interestingness, and participant age group, and measurement type. Because all variables assessed were categorical, chi-square tests were conducted; however, none of the results were significant, suggesting no evidence of confounding moderators.

References

*Studies included in the meta-analysis are denoted by an asterisk. Full list is in the supplement.

  1. Alexander, P. A., Schallert, D. L., & Hare, V. C. (1991). Coming to terms: how researchers in learning and literacy talk about knowledge. Review of Educational Research, 61(3), 315–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(3), 261–271. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.84.3.261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. *Anderson, S., & Rodin, J. (1989). Is bad news always bad? Cue and feedback effects on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 19, 449–467. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1989.tb00067.x, 6.

  4. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

  5. Ayduk, Ö., Gyurak, A., Akinola, M., & Mendes, W. B. (2013). Consistency over flattery: self-verification processes revealed in implicit and behavioral responses to feedback. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 4(5), 538–545. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550612471827.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bangert-Drowns, R. L., Kulik, C. C., Kulik, J. A., & Morgan, M. T. (1991). The instructional effect of feedback in test-like events. Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 213–238. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543061002213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Baron, R. A. (1988). Negative effects of destructive criticism: impact on conflict, self-efficacy, and task performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(2), 199–207. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.73.2.199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bong, M., & Skaalvik, E. M. (2003). Academic self-concept and self-efficacy: how different are they really? Educational Psychology Review, 15(1), 1–40. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021302408382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Borenstein, M., Higgins, J. P., Hedges, L. V., & Rothstein, H. R. (2017). Basics of meta-analysis: I2 is not an absolute measure of heterogeneity. Research Synthesis Methods, 8(1), 5–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Bracken, C. C., Jeffres, L. W., & Neuendorf, K. A. (2004). Criticism or praise? The impact of verbal versus text-only computer feedback on social presence, intrinsic motivation, and recall. Cyber Psychology & Behavior, 7(3), 349–357. https://doi.org/10.1089/1094931041291358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Brummelman, E., Thomaes, S., Overbeek, G., Orobio de Castro, B., Van den Hout, M. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2014). On feeding those who hunger for praise: person praise backfires among children with low self-esteem. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 143(1), 9–14. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031917.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Bryk, A. S., & Schneider, B. (2002). Trust in schools: acore resource for improvement. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  13. *Burgers, C., Eden, A., van Engelenburg, M. D., & Buningh, S. (2015). How feedback boosts motivation and play in a brain-training game. Computers in Human Behavior, 48, 94–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.01.038.

  14. *Butler, R. (1987). Task-involving and ego-involving properties of evaluation: effects of different feedback conditions on motivational perceptions, interest and performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 474–482. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.79.4.474, 4.

  15. *Butler, R. (1998). Age trends in the use of social and temporal comparisons for self-evaluation: examination of a novel developmental hypothesis. Child Development, 69, 1054–1073. https://doi.org/10.2307/1132362, 4.

  16. Butler, D. L., & Winne, P. H. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: a theoretical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65(3), 245–281. https://doi.org/10.2307/1170684.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Cerasoli, C. P., Nicklin, J. M., & Ford, M. T. (2014). Intrinsic motivation and extrinsic incentives jointly predict performance: a 40-year meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 140(4), 980–1008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Cianci, A. M., Klein, H. J., & Seijts, G. H. (2010). The effect of negative feedback on tension and subsequent performance: the main and interactive effects of goal content and conscientiousness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(4), 618–630. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. *Cohen, G. L., Steele, C. M., & Ross, L. D. (1999). The mentor’s dilemma: providing critical feedback across the racial divide. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 1302–1318. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167299258011, 10.

  20. Cooper, H. (1998). Synthesizing research: a guide for literature reviews (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Cooper, H., Hedges, L. V., & Valentine, J. C. (Eds.). (2009). The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Corpus, J. H., Ogle, C. M., & Love-Geiger, K. E. (2006). The effects of social-comparison versus mastery praise on children’s intrinsic motivation. Motivation and Emotion, 30(4), 335–345. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-006-9039-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. *Dahling, J. J., & Ruppel, C. L. (2016). Learning goal orientation buffers the effects of negative normative feedback on test self-efficacy and reattempt interest. Learning and Individual Differences, 50, 296–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2016.08.22.

  24. De Muynck, G., Vansteenkiste, M., Delrue, J., Aelterman, N., Haerens, L., & Soenens, B. (2017). The effects of feedback valence and style on need satisfaction, self-talk, and perseverance among tennis players: an experimental study. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology., 39(1), 67–80. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.2015-0326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. *Deci, E. L., & Cascio, W. F. (1972). Changes in intrinsic motivation as a function of negative feedback and threats. Paper presented at the eastern psychological association meeting, Boston, MA.

  26. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985a). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York, NY: Plenum Press.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985b). The general causality orientations scale: Self-determination in personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 19(2), 109–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/0092-6566(85)90023-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2016). Optimizing students’ motivation in the era of testing and pressure: a self-determination theory perspective. In W. C. Liu, J. C. K. Weng, & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Building autonomous learners (pp. 9–29). Singapore: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  29. *Deci, E. L., Cascio, W. F., & Krusell, J. (1973). Sex differences, verbal reinforcement, and intrinsic motivation. Paper presented at the meeting of the eastern psychological association, Washington, DC.

  30. Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125(6), 627–668. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.125.6.627.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Duijnhouwer, H., Prins, F. J., & Stokking, K. M. (2012). Feedback providing improvement strategies and reflection on feedback use: effects on students’ writing motivation, process, and performance. Learning and Instruction, 22(3), 171–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.10.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. (2000). A nonparametric “trim and fill” method of accounting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 95(449), 89–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.2000.10473905.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. *Dyck, D. G., Vallentyne, S., & Breen, L. J. (1979). Duration of failure, causal attributions for failure, and subsequent reactions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 15, 122–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(79)90024-6, 2.

  34. *Elliot, A. J., Faler, J., McGregor, H. A., Campbell, W. K., Sedikides, C., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2000). Competence valuation as a strategic intrinsic motivation process. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 780–794. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167200269004, 7.

  35. Fishbach, A., & Finkelstein, S. R. (2012). How feedback influence persistence, disengagement, and change in goal pursuit. In H. Aarts & A. Elliot (Eds.), Goal-directed behavior (pp. 203–230). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Fitzsimmons, G. M., & Fishbach, A. (2010). Shifting closeness: interpersonal effects of personal goal progress. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(4), 535–549. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018581.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Fong, C. J., Warner, J. R., Williams, K. M., Schallert, D. L., Chen, L., Williamson, Z. H., & Lin, S. (2016). Deconstructing constructive criticism: the nature of academic emotions associated with constructive, positive, and negative feedback. Learning and Individual Differences, 49, 393–399. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2016.05.019.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Fong, C. J., Schallert, D. L., Williams, K. M., Williamson, Z. H., Warner, J. R., Lin, S., & Kim, Y. W. (2018a). When feedback signals failure but offers hope for improvement: a process model of constructive criticism. Thinking Skills and Creativity. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2018.02.014.

  39. Fong, C. J., Williams, K. M., Williamson, Z. H., Lin, S., Kim, Y. W., & Schallert, D. L. (2018b). “Inside out”: appraisals for achievement emotions from constructive criticism, positive feedback, and negative feedback on writing. Motivation & Emotion, 42(2), 236–257. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-017-9658-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Gaines, L. M., Duvall, J., Webster, J. M., & Smith, R. H. (2005). Feeling good after praise for a successful performance: the importance of social comparison information. Self and Identity, 4(4), 373–389. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298860500280223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Greenhouse, J. B., & Iyengar, S. (1994). Sensitive analysis and diagnostics. In H. Cooper & L. V. Hedges (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 383–398). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  42. *Grouzet, F. M. E., Vallerand, R. J., Thill, E. E., & Provencher, P. J. (2004). From environmental factors to outcomes: a test of an integrated motivational sequence. Motivation and Emotion, 28, 331–346. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-004-2387-z, 4.

  43. Grubbs, F. E. (1950). Sample criteria for testing outlying observations. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 21(1), 27–58. https://doi.org/10.1214/aoms/1177729885.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Harris, L. R., Brown, G. T., & Harnett, J. A. (2014). Understanding classroom feedback practices: a study of New Zealand student experiences, perceptions, and emotional responses. Educational Assessment, Evaluation, and Accountability, 26(2), 107–133. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-013-9187-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers: maximizing impact on learning. New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Hedges, L. V., & Vevea, J. L. (1998). Fixed and random effects models in meta-analysis. Psychological Methods, 3(4), 486–504. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.3.4.486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Henderlong, J., & Lepper, M. R. (2002). The effects of praise on children’s intrinsic motivation: a review and synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 128(5), 774–795. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.128.5.774.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Heyman, G. D., & Dweck, C. S. (1992). Achievement goals and intrinsic motivation: their relation and their role in adaptive motivation. Motivation and Emotion, 16(3), 231–247. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00991653.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Hirst, M. K. (1988). Intrinsic motivation as influenced by task interdependence and goal setting. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(1), 96–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Hu, X., Chen, Y., & Tian, B. (2016). Feeling better about self after receiving negative feedback: when the sense that ability can be improved is activated. The Journal of Psychology, 150(1), 72–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2015.1004299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Ilgen, D. R., & Davis, C. A. (2000). Bearing bad news: reaction to negative performance feedback. Applied Psychology, 49(3), 550–565. https://doi.org/10.1111/1464-0597.00031.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Ilies, R., Judge, T. A., & Wagner, D. T. (2010). The influence of cognitive and affective reactions to feedback on subsequent goals. European Psychologist, 15(2), 121–131. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a0000011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. *Kamins, M. L., & Dweck, C. S. (1999). Person versus process praise and criticism: implications for contingent self-worth and coping. Developmental Psychology, 35, 835–847. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.35.3.835, 3.

  56. Kanouse, D. E., Gumpert, P., & Canavan-Gumpert, D. (1981). The semantics of praise. In J. H. Harvey, W. Ickes, & R. F. Kidd (Eds.), New directions in attribution research (pp. 97–115). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Kiemer, K., Gröschner, A., Pehmer, A.-K., & Seidel, T. (2015). Effects of a classroom discourse intervention on teachers’ practice and students’ motivation to learn mathematics and science. Learning and Instruction, 35, 94–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.10.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Kluger, A. N., & Denisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: a historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254–284. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Kulhavy, R. W. (1977). Feedback in written instruction. Review of Educational Research, 47(2), 211–232. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543047002211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Kulhavy, R. W., & Stock, W. A. (1989). Feedback in written instruction: the place of response certitude. Educational Psychology Review, 1(4), 279–308. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01320096.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Lepper, M., & Chabay, R. W. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and instruction: conflicting view on the role of motivational processes in computer-based education. Educational Psychologist, 20(4), 217–230. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2004_6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. *Lim, W. (2005). Cognitive and motivational effects of reinforcement: a dual processing model of the impact of evaluation on creativity (unpublished doctoral dissertation). Indiana University, Bloomington, IN.

  63. Lin, L., Atkinson, R. K., Chistopherson, R. M., Joseph, S. S., & Harrison, C. J. (2013). Animated agents and learning: does the type of verbal feedback they provide matter? Computers and Education, 67, 239–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Lipsey, M. W., Puzio, K., Yun, C., Hebert, M. A., Steinka-Fry, K., Cole, M. W., … & Busick, M. D. (2012). Translating the statistical representation of the effects of education interventions into more readily interpretable forms. National Center for Special Education Research.

  65. Liu, N. F., & Carless, D. (2006). Peer feedback. The learning element of peer assessment Teaching in Higher education, 11(3), 279–290. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510600680582.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation. American Psychologist, 57(9), 707–717. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.57.9.705.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Mabbe, E., Soenens, B., De Muynk, G.-J., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2018). The impact of feedback valence and communication style on intrinsic motivation in middle childhood: experimental evidence and generalization across individual differences. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 170, 134–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2018.01.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Mangels, J. A., Rodriguez, S., Ochakovskaya, Y., & Guerra-Carrillo, B. (2017). Achievement goal task framing and fit with personal goals modulate the neurocognitive response to corrective feedback. AERA Open, 3, 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Mayer, R. E. (1996). Learners as information processors: legacies and limitations of educational psychology’s second metaphor. Educational Psychologist, 31(3-4), 151–161. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.1996.9653263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & the PRISMA Group. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine, 6(7), e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Morris, S. B., & DeShon, R. P. (2002). Combining effect size estimates in meta-analysis with repeated measures and independent-groups designs. Psychological Methods, 7(1), 105–125. https://doi.org/10.1037/1-82-989X.7.1.105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Niemiec, C. P., & Ryan, R. M. (2009). Autonomy, competence, and relatedness in the classroom: applying self-determination theory to educational practice. Theory and Research in Education, 7(2), 133–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477878509104318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Noddings, N. (2002). An ethic of caring and its implications for instructional arrangements. American Journal of Education, 96, 215–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Patall, E. A., Cooper, H., & Robinson, J. C. (2008). The effects of choice on intrinsic motivation and related outcomes: a meta-analysis of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 134(2), 270–300. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.2.270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Phye, G. D., & Sanders, C. E. (1994). Advice and feedback: elements of practice for problem solving. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19(3), 286–301. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1994.1022.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Polanin, J. R., Tanner-Smith, E. E., & Hennessy, E. A. (2016). Estimating the difference between published and unpublished effect sizes: a meta-review. Review of Educational Research, 86(1), 207–236. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315582067.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. *Pretty, G. H., & Seligman, C. (1984). Affect and the overjustification effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(6), 1241–1253. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.46.6.1241.

  78. Raaijmakers, S. F., Baars, M., Schaap, L., Paas, F., & Van Gog, T. (2017). Effects of performance feedback valence on perceptions of invested mental effort. Learning and Instruction, 51, 36–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.12.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Reeve, J. (2016). Autonomy-supportive teaching: what is it, how to do it. In W. C. Liu, J. C. K. Weng, & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Building autonomous learners (pp. 129–152). Singapore: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  80. *Richards, T. A. (1991). Effects of constructive feedback on perceived competence and intrinsic motivation (unpublished doctoral dissertation). Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ.

  81. Richardson, M., Abraham, C., & Bond, R. (2012). Psychological correlates of university students' academic performance: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 138, 353–387. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026838.

  82. Robbins, S. B., Lauver, K., Le, H., Davis, D., Langley, R., & Carlstrom, A. (2004). Do psychosocial and study skill factors predict college outcomes? A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 261–288. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.130.2.261.

  83. Rosenthal, R. (1994). Parametric measures of effect sizes. In H. Cooper & L. V. Hedges (Eds.), Handbook of research synthesis (pp. 231–244). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

  84. Rosenthal, R., & Rubin, D. B. (2003). Requivalent: a simple effect size indicator. Psychological Methods, 8, 492–496.

  85. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Ryan, R. M., Mims, V., & Koestner, R. (1983). Relation of reward contingency and interpersonal context to intrinsic motivation: a review and test using cognitive evaluation theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(4), 736–750.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Ryan, R. M., Koestner, R., & Deci, E. L. (1991). Ego-involved persistence: when free-choice behavior is not intrinsically motivated. Motivation and Emotion, 15(3), 185–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18(2), 199–144. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00117714.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Sedikides, C., Gaertner, L., & Toguchi, Y. (2003). Pancultural self-enhancement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(1), 60–79. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.1.60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. *Shanab, M. E., Peterson, D., Dargahi, S., & Deroian, P. (1981). The effects of positive and negative verbal feedback on the intrinsic motivation of male and female subjects. The Journal of Social Psychology, 115, 195–205. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1981.9711659, 2.

  91. *Shu, T., & Lam, S. (2016). Is it always good to provide positive feedback to students? The moderating effects of culture and regulatory focus. Learning and Individual Differences, 49, 171–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2016.06.012.

  92. Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153–189. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654307313795.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Skipper, Y., & Douglas, K. (2015). The influence of teacher feedback on children's perceptions of student-teacher relationships. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(3), 276–288. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12070.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Steingut, R. R., Patall, E. A., & Trimble, S. S. (2017). The effect of rationale provision on motivation and performance outcomes: a meta-analysis. Motivation Science, 3(1), 19–50. https://doi.org/10.1037/mot0000039.

  95. Swann Jr., W. B. (2011). Self-verification theory. In P. A. M. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (Vol. 2) (pp. 23–42). London, UK: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  96. Swann, W. B., Pelham, B. W., & Chidester, T. R. (1988). Change through paradox: using self-verification to alter beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(2), 268–273.

  97. *Tang, T. L. (1990). Factors affecting intrinsic motivation among university students in Taiwan. The Journal of Social Psychology, 130, 219–230. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1990.9924572, 2.

  98. *Tang, T. L., & Sarsfield-Baldwin, L. (1991). The effects of self-esteem, task label, and performance feedback on task liking and intrinsic motivation. The Journal of Social Psychology, 131, 567–572. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1991.9713886, 4.

  99. Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. D. (1988). Illusion and well-being: a social psychological perspective on mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103(2), 193–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. Tesser, A., & Rosen, S. (1975). The reluctance to transmit bad news. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. New York, NY: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  101. Thorndike, E. L. (1911). Animal intelligence: experimental studies. Macmillan.

  102. *Vallerand, R. J., & Reid, G. (1984). On the causal effects of perceived competence on intrinsic motivation: a test of cognitive evaluation theory. Journal of Sport Psychology, 6, 94–102, 1.

  103. *Vallerand, R. J., & Reid, G. (1988). On the relative effects of positive and negative verbal feedback on males and females' intrinsic motivation. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 20, 239–250. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0079930

  104. Van der Kleij, F. M., Feskens, R. C., & Eggen, T. J. (2015). Effects of feedback in a computer-based learning environment on students’ learning outcomes: a meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 85(4), 475–511. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654314564881.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  105. *Van-Dijk, D., & Kluger, A. N. (2004). Feedback sign effect on motivation: is it moderated by regulatory focus? Applied Psychology: An International Review, 53, 113–135. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2004.00163.x, 1.

  106. *Viciana, J., Cervello, E. M., & Ramirez-Lechuga, J. (2007). Effect of manipulating positive and negative feedback on goal orientations, perceived motivational climate, satisfaction, task choice, perception of ability, and attitude toward physical education lessons. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 105, 67–82. https://doi.org/10.2466/PMS.105.5.67-82, 5.

  107. Voerman, L., Korthagen, F. A., Meijer, P. C., & Simons, R. J. (2015). Feedback revisited: adding perspectives based on positive psychology. Implications for theory and classroom practice. Teaching and Teaching Education, 43, 93–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2014.06.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  108. Weidinger, A. F., Steinmayr, R., & Spinath, B. (2017). Math grades and intrinsic motivation in elementary school: a longitudinal investigation of their association. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(2), 187–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  109. Weiner, B. (2014). The attribution approach to emotion and motivation: history, hypotheses, home runs, headaches/heartaches. Emotion Review, 6(4), 353–361. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073914534502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  110. Wicker, F. W., Brown, G., & Paredes, V. (1990). Competing activities and measures of intrinsic motivation. Journal of Social Psychology, 130(6), 813–819. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1990.9924633.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  111. Williams, K. J., Donovan, J. J., & Dodge, T. L. (2010). Self-regulation of performance: goal establishment and goal revision processes in athletes. Human Performance, 13(2), 159–180. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327043hup1302_3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  112. Winstone, N. E., Nash, R. A., Parker, M., & Rowntree, J. (2017). Supporting learners’ agentic engagement with feedback: a systematic review and a taxonomy of recipinece processes. Educational Psychologist, 52(1), 17–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2016.1207538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  113. *Woodcock, A. J. (1990). The effect of verbal feedback on intrinsic motivation and perceived competence of cricketers (unpublished doctoral dissertation). Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ.

  114. *Yeager, D. S., Purdie-Vaughns, V., Garcia, J., Apfel, N., Brzustoski, P., Master, A., Hessert W. T., Williams M. E. Cohen, G. L. (2014). Breaking the cycle of mistrust: wise interventions to provide critical feedback across the racial divide. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 143, 804–824. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033906, 2.

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Carlton J. Fong.

Electronic supplementary material

Table S1

(DOCX 47 kb)

ESM 1

(DOCX 574 kb)

ESM 2

(DOCX 106 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fong, C.J., Patall, E.A., Vasquez, A.C. et al. A Meta-Analysis of Negative Feedback on Intrinsic Motivation. Educ Psychol Rev 31, 121–162 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-018-9446-6

Download citation

Keywords

  • Negative feedback
  • Criticism
  • Praise
  • Intrinsic motivation
  • Perceived competence
  • Meta-analysis