I. ‘ 'g .
'I ”"7195“ ---"III

n‘n'

' . .Ir (“flag
",I‘ "IILEJ‘fi‘
.. I.
”HI I
“‘11.“. ““1 1 N I. "I 'J I
in; l. I» I. .. L'

. :I‘Iqll; II'IIJI? I'LL'”:
.II ’Iilz‘j' "I'
,‘I-<I' ”1"}.‘m’ '_ “'3“
‘ ;,:" II .
I' ‘ 3‘.

l..\.\.
.J'.

 

ID.
I...
, In“.
_, 3:",v:I-I-‘5u\
|’.‘L'":Ial
I
"l I. ‘I

. , ...I

If
I I
I
.h
I
‘I
L‘

’3 "‘U-‘.,

 

Ir"

2-

 

Illllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll -

 

 

1293 00639 9807 ,. . ...,_
THESIS LEE??? R Y
Michigan 9mm
l University
‘5' 1"

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

THE EFFECTS OF FREQUENCY OF FEEDBACK ON
PERCEPTIONS OF CONTROL

presented by

Brian T. Loher

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

M.A. _ . Psychology

degree In

 

 

v l

\ K7
Q ,%m 71%;?
/ Drhilajojr professor

. lxevm Ford
Date 4/17/84

 

0-7639 MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

PV1£SI_J RETURNING MATERIALS:
Place in book drop to
LIBRARIES remove this checkout from
__ your record. FINES will

be charged if book is
returned after the date
stamped below.

 

 

 

 

FEB 0 7 I994

1': '1.
'.‘ .II"

 

 

 

THE EFFECTS OF FREQUENCY OF FEEDBACK ON
PERCEPTIONS OF CONTROL

By

Brian T. Loher

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Psychology

1984

ABSTRACT

THE EFFECTS OF FREQUENCY OF FEEDBACK ON
PERCEPTIONS OF CONTROL

By

Brian T. Loher

The presence of some type of feedback appears to be necessary
in order for performance on most types of tasks to increase (Ammons,
1956). This increase in performance has usually been attributed
to the informational and/or motivational effects of the feedback
message. Recently, Ilgen, Fisher, and Taylor (1979) have suggested
that feedback might also impact on the feedback recipient's‘
perceptions of control. A laboratory study was conducted in order
to examine the effects of increasing levels of frequency of
feedback on participants' perceptions of external and personal
control and on task performance and satisfaction with the task.
Results were supportive of the hypothesis that frequency of
feedback has a direct effect on feedback recipients' perceptions
of control. Perception of personal control was positively related
to task performance and satisfaction with the task. Perception
of external control was not significantly related to task

performance and/or intrinsic task satisfaction.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to take this opportunity to thank a few of the
many individuals who have contributed to the completion of this
thesis. First and foremost, I would like to thank the members of
my family, who have always been there when I needed them. The
love and support that they have shown to me can never be repaid.

As the chairperson of my committee, Kevin Ford exhibited a
great deal of patience in dealing with earlier renditions of this
paper. His guidance and nudging have enhanced both the writing in
the paper and the thinking behind it. I would also like to thank
the other members of my committee, Neal Schmitt and Steve Kozlowski.
Their constructive comments and suggestions were invaluable in the
design of the study.

Lisa Marocca and Tom Whipple are also deserving of acknowledgement
for the help they provided in running subjects during the major part
of the experiment.

Finally, I would like to thank my officemates, especially Amy
Lieblein, Susan Schechtman, and Kristine Busk, for putting up with
my many grumblings and monologues during these past months. Their

friendship and optimism has brightened many a rainy day.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF TABLES ....................... v
LIST OF FIGURES ...................... Vll
INTRODUCTION ....................... 1
Conceptual Models of the Feedback Process ........ 2
The Feedback Model ................. 2

An Updated Model .................. 4
Frequency and Control .................. 9
Operational Problems .................. lO
Integration and Hypotheses ............... 12
METHOD ........................... 19
Overview ...................... 19
Subjects ...................... 20

Task ........................ 20

General Procedures ................. 21
Preliminary Study I ................... 24
Design ....................... 24

Results ...................... 25
Preliminary Study II .................. 26
Purpose ...................... 26

Design ....................... 27
Procedures ..................... 28

Results ...................... 28
Implications .................... 31

Major Experiment .................... 32
Design ....................... 32
Independent Variable ................ 32
Dependent Variable ................. 34

Method of Analysis ................. 34

RESULTS .......................... 36
Overview ........................ 36
Manipulation Checks ................... 36
Reliability ....................... 39
Means and Standard Deviations .............. 43
Test of Hypotheses ................... 51
Analysis of Variance ................ 51
Correlational Results ............... 57

iii

DISCUSSION .........................
Overview ........................
Implications of Results for Major Hypotheses ......
Limitations of the Study ................
Implications for Future Studies .............
Implications for Feedback in General ..........

APPENDIX A ............ ............

APPENDIX B ........................

APPENDIX C ....................... .

APPENDIX D ........................

REFERENCES ........................

iv

Table
1. Dimensions of Feedback ................
2. Experimental Design for Preliminary Study II .....
3. Means and Standard Deviations for the Personal
Control Scale for Preliminary Study II ........
4. Means and Standard Deviations for the External
Control Scale for Preliminary Study II ........
5. Explanation of Frequency of Feedback Conditions
in the Major Experiment ...............
6. Participants' Reports of Their Desired Frequency
of Feedback Level ..................
7. Intercorrelations of Performance Across Trials. . . .
8. Reliability Data for the Personal Control Scale . . .
9. Reliability Data for the External Control Scale . . .
10. Means and Standard Deviations for Performance
Across Trials ....................
ll. Results of T-tests for Learning Effect Across
Feedback Conditions .................
12. Means and Standard Deviations for the Personal
Control Scale by Frequency of Feedback Condition. . .
13. Means and Standard Deviations for the External
Control Scale by Frequency of Feedback Condition. . .
14. Means and Standard Deviations for Intrinsic Task
Satisfaction by Frequency of Feedback Condition . . .
lS. Intercorrelation of the Dependent Variables .....
l6. Multivariate and Univariate Tests of Significance

LIST OF TABLES

for the Personal Control, External Control, and

Performance Measures .................

Page
5
27

29

3O

33

38
4T
4T
42

44

46

47

50

50

52

54

Table Page
17. Results of Post-Hoc Contrasts Between Feedback

Conditions for the Personal Control and External

Control Scales ..................... 55

18. Results of Post-Hoc Contrasts Between Feedback
Conditions for Performance ............... 56

19. Univariate Analysis of Variance Results for
Intrinsic Task Satisfaction Scale ........... 56

20. Intercorrelation of the Dependent Variables after
Correction for Attenuation ............... 59

2l. Correlations, Path Coefficients, and Results of the
Path Analyses for Frequency of Feedback Conditions. . . 60

vi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page
1. A model of the feedback process ........... 2
2. An updated model of the feedback process ...... 8

3. Anticipated effects of frequency of feedback
on perception of control, task performance, and

task satisfaction .................. 13
4. Mean performance by frequency of feedback

condition across trials ............... 45
5. Mean perception of personal control by frequency

of feedback condition ............... 48
6. Mean perception of external control by frequency

of feedback condition ................ 51
7. Exploratory path models ............... 61

vii

INTRODUCTION

The concept of feedback has become something of a generic term
within the field of industrial/organizational psychology. In
general, feedback has typically been defined as information
provided by some source to a recipient that pertains to the
effectiveness of the recipient's behavior in a given situation
(Taylor & Walther, 1981). The information may be transmitted to
the recipient either during the time in which the behavior is
occurring or after the behavior has ended (I.M. Bilodeau, 1966).

A recent review of the literature on feedback by Ilgen, Fisher,
and Taylor (1979) has served to highlight the complexity of this
seemingly simple concept. Changes in behavior which result from a
given feedback message may be the outcome of several different
processes. The present research presents a more complex view of
the feedback concept in order to lead to testable hypotheses about
the impact of feedback on process and outcome variables.

The paper will begin by examining the relationship between
feedback and performance and the process variables that have been
suggested by previous researchers in order to explain this

relationship.

2

Conceptual Models of the Feedback Process

The feedback model. Feedback has been of interest to researchers
in industrial/organizationa1 psychology because, in general, it has
been found to have a positive relationship with performance (Ammons,
1956; Annett, 1969; I.M. Bilodeau, 1966; Cook, 1968; Cummings,
Schwab, & Rosen, 1971; Hackman & Lawler, 1971; Hackman & Oldham,
1976; Hundel, 1969; Ilgen et al., 1979; Locke, Shaw, Saari, & Latham,
1981; Vroom, 1969). This positive relationship between feedback and
performance has usually been explained by the unmeasured assumption
that the feedback message had served either an informational or
motivational function for the recipient (Ammons, 1956; Annett & Kay,
1957; I.M. Bilodeau, 1966; Deci, 1975; Ilgen et al., 1979; Locke,
Cartledge, & Koeppel, 1968). A model of the feedback process based

on this perspective is presented as Figure 1.

 

Process Variables Outcome
Feedback ----------------- ~+ Informational -------------- —*Performance
Motivational

figg[e_l, A model of the feedback process

The feedback message, through its informational process, serves
to inform the recipient as to either what has been accomplished by
past behavior or informs the recipient about the extent/direction of
error in past performance (I.M. Bilodeau, 1966; Ilgen et al., 1979;
Locke et al., 1968). The feedback message may also affect performance

through a motivational process in that the feedback message may

3
increase the amount of persistence and effort displayed by the
recipient on the task (Ammons, 1956; I.M. Bilodeau, 1966; Deci, 1975).

The feedback model presented in Figure 1 has a great deal of
appeal as a simple heuristic of feedback and its effects. However,
the model is, at best, an incomplete explanation of the feedback
concept, its impact on the process variables, and the effects of
feedback on various outcomes. Two points illustrate the deficiency
of the model. First, the model in Figure 1 treats feedback as a
unidimensional concept. Several researchers have suggested that
feedback is, in actuality, a multi-dimensional concept (e.g., I.M.
Bilodeau, 1966; Ilgen et al., 1979; Nroten, 1979a). Different
feedback dimensions may have the same or different effects on the
informational or motivational process variables. Second, a change
in task performance is not the only outcome that might potentially
result from a given feedback message (Deci, 1975; Ilgen et al.,
1979). For example, a change in the recipient's self-concept would
be another outcome that might come about as a result of the contents
of a feedback message (Ashford & Cummings, 1984).

At the operational level, there has been a tendency among
previous researchers to simply attribute increases in performance to
the informational and motivational process variables without
measuring these variables in some manner. In other words, the
informational and motivational process variables are assumed to
be present only after the researcher has found a positive

relationship between feedback and performance.

4

The deficiencies of the model in Figure l serve to illustrate
the need for a more complete model of the feedback process. For
the present research, a more complete model is developed within
the framework of the more traditional model presented in Figure 1.

An updated model. The first deficiency of the traditional
model of the feedback process is that it treats feedback as a
unidimensional variable. However, feedback appears to be a
multidimensional variable (Bourne, 1966; Ilgen et al., 1979; Wroten,
1979b). For example, research by Wroten (1979b) has yielded at
least eight possible dimensions of feedback. Nroten's dimensions
and a brief explanation of each are presented in Table l.

Hroten (1979b) has defined the comparativeness dimension of
feedback as involving whether or not the behavior in the feedback
message is described by comparing it to a standard of performance.
The evaluativeness dimension (labeled as the "sign" dimension by
Ilgen et al., 1979) refers to whether or not the feedback message
is primarily positive or negative in nature. The degree to which
the infbrmation given to the feedback recipient attempts to show
how the task should be done in the future defines the
prescriptiveness dimension of feedback. The feedback dimension of
specificity involves the level of ambiguity of the information
provided to the recipient. The accuracy of the feedback is simply
a dimension which describes how closely the information given to
the recipient reflects actual task performance. The quantity
dimension involves how much information is given to a recipient at
a single point in time. The delay between the time of a response

and the presentation of information regarding the accuracy of that

Table 1

Dimensions of Feedback

 

 

Dimension

Explanation

 

Comparativeness

Evaluativeness (sign)

Prescriptiveness

Specificity

Accuracy

Quantity

Immediacy (timing)

Frequency

Is performance described by comparing it to
a standard?

Is the comparison positive or negative?
Does the information attempt to tell how
the task should be performed in the future?
Is the information specific, detailed and
precise vs. being vague, ambiguous and
general?

Is the information a true reflection of
job performance?

The amount of feedback given at any one
time-

Nhat is the time delay between task
performance and the reception of
performance feedback?

Is the feedback constant and continuous

vs. being occasional or nonexistent?

 

(based on Hroten, 1979b)

6
response defines the immediacy (Ilgen et al.'s "timing") dimension
of feedback. Finally, frequency of feedback in Wroten's system
involves how often a response is followed by infbrmation about the
adequacy of that response. (See Bourne (1966) and Ilgen et a1.
(1979) for other potential dimensions of feedback.)

Nroten's dimensions of feedback allow for a clearer understanding
of why two different feedback messages might have quite different
implications for a given recipient. Understanding of the feedback
process might also be increased by further expanding and measuring
the number of process and outcome variables that result from the
feedback message.

The concern of Ilgen et al. (1979) was that feedback has not
always been found to result in increased performance (e.g., see
Organ, 1977). Ilgen et a1. were particularly concerned that
treating feedback as a unidimensional variable was leading researchers
to focus on a single type of outcome variable (performance) and on
process variables that have been traditionally linked with attempts
to increase performance in organizational settings. Instead, Ilgen
et a1. (1979) suggested that more attention should be paid to the
perceptions of the feedback recipient and, in turn, how those
perceptions impact on outcomes like performance and intrinsic
motivation to perform a task.

Ilgen et a1. (1979) and Deci (1975) have proposed that the
recipient's perceptions of control should also be included as part
of the feedback process. Deci (1975) places such perceptions of
control at the level of process variables when he notes that all

feedback has both an informational and a controlling function.

7
In other words, feedback serves not only to inform and motivate the
recipient; it can also be perceived as an attempt by the feedback
source to control the recipient's behavior. Research by Fisher
(1978) supports the importance of an individual's perception of
control. She found that perception of personal control over
performance was an important antecedent to an individual's intrinsic
motivation to perform a task. Moreover, Fisher reported that if
either performance gr_perception of personal control over that
performance were not high, subjects were not intrinsically motivated
to perform the task.

A related deficiency of the traditional model of the feedback
process has been the heavy use of task performance as the only
outcome variable in feedback research. While task performance is
always an important outcome variable, the inclusion of perceptions
of control as a process variable strengthens the need for research
utilizing additional outcome variables (as in Fisher's, 1978, study
described above). For example, outcome variables such as task
satisfaction (Cook, 1968; Mossholder, 1980), instrinsic motivation
(Arnold, 1976; Deci & Ryan, 1980; Fisher, 1978) and noncompliance
behavior (Organ, 1977) have all been linked in previous research to
changes in perceptions of control.

An updated feedback model is presented as Figure 2. This
updated model retains the same basic configuration of the major
variables as the traditional model in Figure l, but also adds
needed complexity by including dimensions of feedback, perceptions
of control as an additional process variable, and a list of

potential outcome variables. In addition to being a more complete

 

 

Feedback Dimensions ----- -+-Process Variables ---------- -+ Outcomes
Comparativeness Infbrmational Task Performance
Evaluativeness Motivational Intrinsic
Prescriptiveness Controlling Motivation
Specificity Task Satisfaction
Accuracy Self-Concept
Quantity Noncompliance
Immediacy Behavior
Frequency

fjgg§e_g, An updated model of the feedback process

representation of the feedback construct and its possible effects,
the updated model in Figure 2 also serves as an aid in generating
testable hypotheses to increase our understanding of how feedback
impacts on a recipient. For example, one might manipulate a single
dimension of feedback in order to find out how changes in that
dimension affect both the process variables and selected outcome
variables. As an illustration, a study by Cook (1968) examined the
effects of frequency of feedback on performance and recipients'
interest and satisfaction with a business simulation game. Both
performance and recipients' attitudes toward the simulation were
positively related to the frequency with which they were given
performance feedback. Unfortunately, this study provides only a
limited test of the updated model because Cook made no attempt to
measure the informational, motivational or controlling aspects of
the feedback that was provided. The present study builds on the
work of Fisher (1978), Cook (1968), and Ilgen et al. (1979) to
examine the impact of frequency of feedback on perceptions of

control, task performance and task satisfaction.

Frequenqy and Control

There are a large number of studies which could potentially
be performed in order to examine the updated model of the feedback
process. The simplest type of study would be one which attempted
to limit its scope to a single dimension of feedback and a single
process variable. The types of outcome variables measured in such
a study would be determined, in part, by the process variable that
was of interest.

The process variable of perception of control was chosen as the
basis for an exploratory study of the updated model of the feedback
process. This variable was chosen for several reasons. First,
perception of control is the newest process variable to be added to
the model and, therefore, there is still some doubt as to whether or
not such perceptions are affected at all by feedback messages (Ilgen
et al., 1979). Second, Ilgen et a1. (1979) have provided an a priori
rationale for linking a specific dimension of feedback (frequency)
with the process variable of perception of control. These researchers
were concerned that increases in the frequency of feedback beyond a
given level might result in increasing perceptions of external
control on the part of the feedback recipient. Ilgen et a1. (1979)
reasoned that as frequency of feedback is increased, monitoring of
the recipient's behavior might also have to be increased. Monitoring
of behavior has been shown in past research to have an effect on
perceptions of control and on intrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan, 1980).
However, if monitoring of behavior was held constant, would increases
in the frequency of feedback level alone be enough to change

recipients' perception of control? Related to this question would

10
be the issue of how such changes in perception of control might
affect outcome variables like task performance and task satisfaction.
These two issues were used as the basis for a study testing one
part of the updated model of the feedback process.

Operational Problems

 

The benefits resulting from the added complexity of the updated
model at the conceptual level are balanced, in part, by an increase
in the potential number of problems at the operational level.

There are a number of operational problems involved with the updated
model in general and with the dimension of frequency of feedback in
particular. First, while the dimensions of feedback can be separated
at the conceptual level, they can be difficult to separate at the
Operational level. This appears to be eSpecially true for the
dimensions of frequency of feedback and immediacy of feedback. For
example, Taylor and Walther (1981) reported a correlation of .73
between their measures of frequency and immediacy. It appears to

be almost inevitable that as one increases the frequency with which
feedback is given one will also increase the immediacy (i.e.,
decrease the time delay) of the feedback.

A similar operational problem is inherent in the process
variables. Most feedback messages probably serve all three process
functions (informing, motivating, and controlling). What is important
is the relative salience of a given process variable (Deci, 1975). In
the present study, perception of control was the process variable of
interest. Therefore, some attempt would have to be made to control
or minimize the informational and motivational effects of the feedback

messages.

11

A third operational problem pertains to the perception of
control variable. In general, researchers have discussed perceptions
of control as either perception of personal control (e.g., Deci,
1975; Fisher, 1978) or as perception of external control (e.g.,

Ilgen et al., 1979). The nature of the relationship between
perceptions of personal control and external control is not at all
clear. For example, in their discussion, Ilgen et a1. (1979) related
frequency of feedback to "felt external control" (p. 366). However,
Ilgen et al. also seemed to place perception of control on a single
continuum such that any increase in perception of external control
would also result in a decrease in perception of personal control.
This confusion as to the nature of the relationship between personal
control and external control suggests that measures of both
variables merit inclusion in any exploratory study involving the
effects of feedback on perceptions of control.

Another operational problem inherent in a study relating
frequency to perception of control is that of determining the
"desired" level of feedback frequency for the task.. Ilgen et a1.
(1979) argued that frequency of feedback that was higher than a
"given" level would result in an increased perception of external
control on the part of the feedback recipient. This critical level
of frequency is probably dependent upon the nature of the task.

For most tasks, some amount of feedback is necessary in order to
maintain performance (I.M. Bilodeau, 1966). White (1959) and Ashford
and Cummings (1984) have both suggested that the desire for feedback
should increase in situations where the task is unfamiliar or where

outcomes are less than certain. Combining these two facts suggests

12
that for most tasks there exists a "natural" or a "desired" level for
frequency of feedback. This "desired” level of frequency of feedback
may vary from one task to another and across individuals.
Integration and Hypotheses

The general goal of the present study was to examine a series
of hypotheses that were generated from the updated model of the feedback
process presented in Figure 2. In order to control the scope of the
present study, it was necessary to focus on a single dimension of
feedback and a single type of process variable. Frequency of
feedback and perception of control were chosen because previous
theoretical and empirical work (in particular Ilgen et al., 1979)
had indicated that the combination of these two variables might
result in declines in task performance and workers' attitudes
concerning the task. Therefore, the present study was focused on the
linkages between frequency of feedback, perception of control
(using measures of both personal and external control), task
performance, and task satisfaction. Figure 3 presents a series of
illustrations that serve as a guide to the hypothesized links between
these variables.

The first hypothesized linkage is that between frequency of
feedback and perception of control. As previously noted, there has
been some ambiguity as to how one should operationalize perception
of control (i.e., whether feedback frequency affects perception of
personal control or external control). However, some amount of
feedback seems to be necessary in order to maintain task performance
(I.M. Bilodeau, 1966). It has therefore been argued that there is

a "desired" or "natural" frequency of feedback level for any given

13

Frequency of ------------------ ~+ Perception of Control

Feedback

L’,.External Control ~~.~

(external & personal

+ ,- 1 ~.‘ +
,,-v"" i + ~~~“9
Frequency of ------------------- 1 ---------------- —+ Task Performance
Feedback ~. ? E ’L,,~
?~~~~~‘~~ i ' """" +
“*~Personal Control
+ L,.» External Control ~~~~~ . -
aaa 'o It 7 ‘~~~‘$
Frequency of - ------------------ 1----4 ----------- —+ Task Satisfaction
Feedback ~.‘ ? ; L,s
‘~~‘ I ',-v"
? “~~ 4 -¢"' -+

Figure 3.

T’Personal Control '

'

Anticipated effects of frequency of feedback on perception

of control, task performance, and task satisfaction

l4
task. Assuming that the content of the feedback message is
generally positive in sign, one would not anticipate that feedback
given at the "desired" level would negatively affect perception of
control. Therefore, only feedback that is given above the ”desired"
frequency of feedback level for the task would be expected to alter
such perceptions. The first hypothesis for the present study,

therefore, was that:

Hypothesis 1: Increasing the frequency of feedback

 

beyond the desired level for a task will affect the

feedback recipient's perceptions of control.

In particular, Ilgen et a1. (1979) felt that increasing the
frequency with which feedback was given would result in increasing
perception of external control on the part of the feedback recipient.

Therefore, a corollary to the first hypothesis would be that:

Corollary A: Increasing the frequency of feedback

 

beyond the desired level for a task will result in
an increasing perception of external control on the

part of the feedback recipient.

No logically consistent argument regarding the effect of frequency
of feedback on perception of personal control can be made at this
time. One could argue that if increasing the frequency of feedback
level results in increased perception of external control, increased
feedback frequency should also result in decreased perception of
personal control. This line of argument is based on the assumption

that personal control and external control are on opposite ends of

 

 

0f

15

the same continuum or are, at the least, highly negatively correlated
with one another. However, based on previous research, one could
just as easily argue that increasing the frequency of feedback would
result in increased perception of personal control on the part of the
recipient. For example, Cook (1968), Ammons (1956), and others have
consistently found that increasing feedback frequency has a positive
effect on performance.

The relationship between frequency of feedback and perception
of control would be inconsequential if there proved to be no
relationship between these two variables and outcome variables such
as task performance and task satisfaction. However, by including
perception of control as a process variable between frequency of
feedback and the outcome variables of performance and task
satisfaction, one might anticipate that frequency of feedback would
have different effects on these outcome variables. First, there
would be the effect of increased feedback frequency on task performance.
The positiVe relationship between feedback and performance has been
well established in a large number of studies (e.g., Ammons, 1956;
Bourne, 1966; Cook, 1968; Locke et al., 1981). Therefore, the

second hypothesis is that:

Hypothesis 2: Increasing the level of frequency of

 

feedback will lead to an increase in performance on

a task.

If one accepts the link between feedback frequency and perception
of control from Hypothesis 1 but retains some doubt as to the nature

of the relationship between perceptions of external control and

 

.111,

 
 

16

personal control, then performance might be expected to increase for
either of two reasons. First, if feedback messages were perceived
as externally controlling and recipients decided to comply, then one
would expect to find a positive relationship between frequency of
feedback, perception of external control, and performance (Organ,
1977). Such perceived pressure for compliance might be especially
heavy in a psychological laboratory. Therefore, if the feedback
recipient decided to comply with the perceived external attempts

at control, one would find that:

Hypothesis 3: Perception of external control

will be positively related to task performance.

Fisher's (1978) results suggest a second reason why one might
expect to consistently find a positive relationship between increased
frequency of feedback and performance. Fisher (1978) reported in
her study that perception of personal control was positively related
to performance. If increasing frequency of feedback caused a
decrease in perception of personal control, and perception of personal
control was positively related to performance, then one would expect
that more studies would report finding that increased frequency of
feedback resulted in decreased performance. However, if one assumes
that more frequent feedback may have a positive effect on perception
of personal control, then performance increases from increased feedback
frequency might be due to increased personal control over that
performance. In any case, as far as the relationship between personal

control and performance, Fisher's findings suggest that:

17

Hypothesis 4: Perception of personal control will

be positively related to task performance.

The direction of the relationship between frequency of feedback,
perception of control, and task satisfaction would be expected to be
slightly different from that of task performance. Mossholder (1980)
noted that intrinsic task satisfaction and intrinsic motivation have
generally been measured in a similar manner and may be measures of
the same construct. Increasing perceptions of external control and
decreasing perceptions of personal control have been shown in past
research to have a negative effect on intrinsic motivation (Deci,
1975; Deci & Ryan, 1980). If intrinsic motivation and task
satisfaction are similar constructs, one would expect to find a
negative relationship between perceptions of external control and
task satisfaction. One would also expect to find a positive
relationship between perceptions of personal control and task
satisfaction. Therefore, if increasing frequency of feedback
beyond the "desired" level changes the recipient's perceptions of

control, one would expect to find that:

Hypothesis 5: The feedback recipient's perception

 

of external control will be negatively related to

his/her reported satisfaction with the task.

and

Hypothesis 6: The feedback recipient's perception

 

of personal control will be positively related to

his/her reported satisfaction with the task.

. 18

The direct effect of frequency of feedback on intrinsic task
satisfaction is problematic. The effect would depend upon: (a) how
frequency of feedback affects perception of personal control, and
(b) the relative salience of the recipient's perceptions of
external and personal control. Therefore, no formal hypothesis
will be made regarding the effect of increased feedback frequency
on intrinsic task satisfaction.

The six hypotheses derived from the relationships presented in
Figure 3 formed the basis for a laboratory experiment which attempted
to examine the effects of a single dimension of feedback (frequency)
on the process variable of perception of control and on the outcome

variables of performance and task satisfaction.

METHOD

Overview

There were a number of issues that needed to be resolved prior
to the major experiment. First, a task had to be selected. Second,
a preliminary study was required in order to measure the "natural"
or "desired" level of feedback for the task. Third, it was
necessary to establish how often the feedback recipients' perceptions
of control could be measured without the effects of the repeated
measurement process confounding the effects of different levels of
frequency of feedback. In addition to these issues, there was also
the need to work out some type of data-recording form that would
enable the experimenter to give up-to-the-minute feedback to the
recipient. To address these needs, two separate preliminary studies
were conducted. The first study was used to examine the properties
of the selected task, to develop a data-recording form, and to
estimate the "desired" level of frequency of feedback for the task.
The second preliminary study was conducted in order to measure the
reactivity of the perception of control scales. The results of
both of these preliminary studies were utilized in the major
experiment which examined the effects of frequency of feedback on
perceptions of control, task performance and intrinsic task

satisfaction.

19

20
Subjects

A total of 110 subjects participated in the various stages of
the experiment (8 in the first preliminary study; 25 in the second
preliminary study; and 77 in the major experiment). The subjects
were undergraduate students in introductory psychology courses at
Michigan State University who received extra course credit in return
for their participation. All of the subjects in the second
preliminary study and in the major study were randomly assigned to
an experimental condition.

IEEE.

An adaptation of the Number Facility Task (Moran & Mefferd,
1959) was used in both of the preliminary studies and in the major
experiment. The objective of the Number Facility Task is for the
participant to correctly solve as many simple addition problems as
he or she can within a given period of time. Task performance is
measured by simply counting the total number of correct problem
solutions.

There were a number of reasons for using the Number Facility
Task in the present experiment. First, it was assumed that the need
for feedback is higher when one is initially learning to perform
a task than after one has mastered the skills involved in the task.
The decision was made, therefore, to use a task for which the skills
necessary were either already well learned or which would require a
minimal amount of training. Presumably, the skills required in order
to solve addition problems are already well-learned by most

college-level students.

21

Second, the experiment required a task in which it would be
difficult for the participant to monitor his or her own performance.
Consequently, a task was needed that would result in a large amount
of output within a relatively short period of time in order to make
self-monitoring of performance more difficult for the participant.

Finally, the experiment required a task which could be repeated
over a short period of time and which would be of an approximately
constant level of difficulty for the participant. Because the problems
within the Number Facility Task are randomly constructed, one could
be relatively confident that the task was of about the same level of
objective difficulty on the first trial as it was on the final trial.

General Procedures

 

The procedures used in both the preliminary studies and the
major experiment were similar in nature. The major difference between
the studies related to the "cover" story given to participants and
to the independent variables that were of interest in the studies.

In order to limit the amount of redundancy in explanation, a
description of the general procedures used will be given here and any
deviations from this procedure will be noted when describing the
preliminary and major studies. A detailed outline of the procedures
used in the major experiment is provided in a supplementary Appendix
which appears at the end of this document (see Appendix D). Complete
copies of the instructions, questionnaires, and data collection
sheets are also reproduced in this Appendix.

Each participant was seated across a table from the experimenter.
The experimenter began by telling participants in the preliminary

studies that they would be participating in an experiment examining

22
the effects of fatigue on accuracy. The cover story was used during
the preliminary studies in order to reinforce participants to focus
on accurate problem solutions. No cover story was used during the
major experiment.

The experimenter next proceeded to explain the nature of the
task involved in the experiment. Subjects were told that the task
involved in the experiment would require them to solve several sets
of addition problems. These problems were written on 3 x 5 index
cards and were arranged in eight sets labeled A through H. There were
99 addition problems in each set. Each subject was told that the
objective in the experiment was to correctly answer as many of the
addition problems within a given set as possible within a four minute
time period. The subject was not allowed to make any marks on the
index cards but was allowed to make any kind of mark desired on
available scrap paper. The subject was also told that a single
solution to each addition problem was to be written on one piece
of this scrap paper and that the experimenter would be keeping track
of the number of correct problem solutions. The subject was informed
that the experimenter would be giving feedback about how he/she was
doing from time to time during the course of the experiment.

After answering any questions regarding the procedures, subjects
were asked to choose a letter between A and H. This served as a
method of randomly selecting the first set of addition problems for
each subject.

The experiment was divided into a discrete series of trials.

The exact number of these trials was determined in the first

preliminary study and was based on fatigue and time constraints.

23
Questionnaires containing the personal control and external control
items were given following the completion of a trial. Exactly how
often this type of questionnaire was given was determined in the
second preliminary study. Subjects in the experiment were told
that this type of questionnaire was attempting to measure their
reaction to the set of addition problems which they had just completed.

A second questionnaire was given to each participant following
completion of the final set of addition problems. This second
questionnaire contained the task satisfaction items and the
manipulation-check items for the experiment. Subjects were told
that the purpose of this questionnaire was to elicit their reactions
to the task as a whole. (Subjects in the first preliminary study
were not asked to complete either the first or second type of
questionnaire.) ‘

While the subject was working on a set of addition problems, the
experimenter kept track of the number of correct problem solutions
using the answer key for the set of problems (A-H) in use. The
experimenter also kept track of the amount of time that had passed
in the trial and recorded the letter for the set of problems that
were in use during a given trial. Initially, all data was recorded
on an ordinary piece of notebook paper. For the major experiment,
special data recording sheets were developed that mirrored the

feedback condition for a given subject.

24

Preliminary Study I

 

99299

The principle reason for conducting the first preliminary
study was to estimate the "desired" frequency of feedback level for
the Number Facility Task. To do this, each subject was given what
was called the "question" card. This was a 3 x 5 index card with a
large question mark written on one side. The subject was
instructed that feedback would be received whenever this index card
was held up to the experimenter. The number of times that the
participant actually used the "question" card during the course of
the experiment was recorded by the experimenter and was used as an
estimate of the "desired" level of frequency of feedback for the
task.

Another goal of the first preliminary study was to establish how
many sets of addition problems subjects could reasonably be asked to
complete within approximately a forty-five minute time span.
Therefore, the number of sets of problems which subjects completed
was altered during the course of the study. The first several
subjects were asked to work on four different sets of addition
problems (i.e., 4 four-minute trials). This number was eventually
increased to six sets of addition problems. While there was still
some time available at this level, subjects reported that they were
beginning to feel some fatigue after completing six sets of problems.

Upon completion of the final set of addition problems, the
experimenter conducted an informal interview with the subject. The

purpose of this interview was to debrief the subject and to elicit

25
subjective reactions to the task. The experimenter also asked subjects
to make suggestions about how the experimental procedures might be
improved.
Results

The main objective of the first preliminary study was to estimate
the "desired" level of frequency of feedback for the Number Facility
Task. This was measured by counting the number of times that the
subject used the "question" card to request feedback from the
experimenter. None of the eight subjects made use of the "question"
card. In other words, none of the eight subjects in the first
preliminary study requested verbal feedback from the experimenter
during the course of any of the four-minute trials. Several participants
verbally requested feedback after the completion of a given trial. Two
persons, however, had received no feedback about their performance
from the experimenter after completing three trials. Verbal feedback
was automatically given to these participants following the third
trial. The debriefing interviews conducted at the end of the
experiment revealed that subjects did not want to be "distracted" by
verbal feedback from the experimenter during the course of a trial.
Based on this result, the desired level of frequency of feedback for
the Number Facility Task appeared to be no greater than once per
trial.

Several helpful suggestions for improving the experiment were
made by participants during the course of the debriefing interviews.
One subject suggested letting the participant choose which problem
set he/she would work on for each trial during the experiment rather

than for just the first trial. This suggestion was incorporated

26
into the experimental procedures for both the second preliminary
study and for the major experiment. Another subject suggested that
the experimenter record the number of incorrect problem solutions in
addition to the number of correct problem solutions and that both
numbers should be reported to the participant at the end of each
trial. This suggestion was included in the procedures for the
second preliminary study because the nature of the feedback message

was not critical to the purposes of that study.

Preliminary Study II

 

Purpose

Individuals tend to seek feedback in unfamiliar situations
(Ashford & Cummings, 1984). Conversely, this implies that an
individual's desire for feedback from others will decrease as he
or she becomes increasingly familiar with the nature of the task
and the situation (Annett & Kay, 1957). Therefore, if frequency
of feedback is positively related to perceptions of control,
perceptions of control would be expected to change as experience
with a task increased and frequency of feedback from others
remained constant or increased. This line of reasoning made it
necessary to measure participants' perceptions of control at several
points during the course of the experiment in order to measure any
changes in perceptions of control. The main objective of the second
preliminary study was to examine whether there would be any
side-effects of this use of repeated measurement on participants'

perceptions of personal and external control.

27
Beam

Frequency of feedback was not the variable of interest in the
second preliminary study. Within each condition, feedback was
given only at the end of each trial. This verbal feedback message
from the experimenter contained information about the number of
correct and incorrect problem solutions for a given trial. There
were a total of six trials.

The independent variable in the second preliminary study was
the number of times that a participant was asked to complete the
questionnaire containing the personal control and external control
items. There were five different conditions in the study. These
conditions are illustrated in Table 2. Five subjects were randomly

assigned to each condition.

Table 2

Experimental Design for Preliminary Study II

 

 

Trial After Which Questionnaire was Given

 

Total
Condition 1 2 3 4 5 6 Presentations
1 X X X X X X 6
2 X X X
3 X X 2
4 X X 2
5 X l

 

The dependent variables in the study were the participants'
perceptions of personal and external control. The items used to

measure personal control and external control were adapted from

 

 

28

Fisher (1978). Of particular concern was whether participants'
perceptions of personal and external control would be different
following the sixth and final trial if the only manipulation
involved in the study was the number of times that participants
completed the questionnaire containing these items.
Procedures

The instructions and procedures used in the second preliminary
study were similar to those described above in the section titled
"General Procedures." The procedures differed from those used in
the first preliminary study in that the "question" card and the part
in the instructions concerning its use were eliminated. In addition
to completing the questionnaire containing the personal control and
external control items, a preliminary version of the task satisfaction
scale was included on a final questionnaire. The items composing
this scale were adapted from Mossholder (1980).
Results

Means and standard deviations for the person control scale are
reported by condition in Table 3, while Table 4 presents these same
results for the external control scale. Coefficient 0‘ for each
scale are also included in the tables. Inspection of these results
revealed almost no difference in the mean perceptions of the task,
regardless of the number of times that participants completed the
questionnaire. A one-way univariate analysis of variance reported
no significant differences between conditions on perceptions of
personal control (F = 1.32, NS) or external control (F = 0.59, NS)
following the sixth trial. T-tests comparing conditions by the

number of times the questionnaire had been completed (e.g., comparing

]

 

I .1511 M W" 'f‘w {twain

 

 

 

(Cronba

 

Table 3

29

Means and Standard Deviations for the Personal Control Scale for

Preliminary Study_II

 

 

, Trial
Experimental

Condition 1 2 3 4 5
1 28.0 28.4 28.0 26.6 27.2 27.4
(4.5) (3.9) (4.5) (5.8) (4.0) (4.0)
2 25.8 26.0 23.4
(4.3) (2.8) (6.0)
3 27.6 29.4
(3.9) (5.3)
4 27.0 29.2
(2.0) (3.3)
5 27.0
(4.5)

 

(Cronbach at = .741)

Table 4

30

Means and Standard Deviations for the External Control Scale fOr

Preliminary Study II

 

 

Experimental Trial

Condition 2 3 4 5 6
1 12.0 10.2 11.4 12.2 10.6 9.0
(1.9) (2.2) (2.0) (2.3) (1.5) (1.2)

2 12.2 10.6 11.6
(3.3) (1.7) (2.0)

3 10.4 9.6
(3.0 (3.5)

4 8.0 8.4
(3.0) (3.7)

5 9.6
(5.6)

 

(Cronbach ac = .526)

31
conditions 1 and 2 following Trial 2) were also nonsignificant. The
results also demonstrated the reliability of the personal control scale
and indicated that there were reliability problems with some of the
items in the external control scale.

Implications

 

It appeared that the number of times the participants were asked
to fill out the questionnaire containing the personal control and
external control items did not significantly affect subjects' perceptions
of the task. Lacking a statistical basis for the decision on how often
to give this type of questionnaire, the experimenter decided to use
subjective criteria in order to make this decision. Therefore, the
decision was made on the basis of: (a) the need for enough data
points to be able to detect any potentially nonlinear changes in
perceptions of control, (b) the experimenter's subjective impression
of the length of time that subjects were taking to complete the
questionnaire, and (c) the desire to match the pattern of changes of
frequency of feedback planned for the major experiment. Based on
these criteria, the decision was made to give the questionnaire
containing the personal control and external control items three times,
following the second, fourth, and sixth trials.

In light of their performance during the second preliminary study,
several of the external control items were rewritten in order to

improve the internal consistency of the external control scale.

32

ngor Experiment

 

99299.

There were a total of five conditions in the major experiment.
A brief explanation of each of the five conditions is provided in
Table 5. Based on the results of the first preliminary study,
Condition #1 was to serve as a baseline condition. Participants in
this condition were provided with verbal performance feedback at the
end of each trial. Subjects in Condition #2 were given feedback at
the middle (i.e., at the 2-minute mark) and at the end of each trial.
Participants in Condition #3 were given verbal performance feedback
each minute during the trial (including the end of the trial).

Conditions #4 and #5 involved changing levels of frequency of
feedback. During the first two trials of Condition #4, feedback was
provided only at the end of the trial. For the third and fourth trials
of Condition #4, feedback was given at the middle (i.e., at the
2-minute mark) and at the end of the trial. Finally, during the fifth
and sixth trials, feedback was provided to the participant during each
minute of the trial. In Condition #5 the frequency of feedback level
was essentially the reverse of that in Condition #4. In other words,
verbal feedback on Condition #5 was provided at every minute during
trials one and two, and decreased in frequency until it was being
provided only at the end of trials five and six.
Independent Variable

The independent variable for the major experiment was the frequency
of verbal performance feedback from the experimenter to the participant.
For all experimental conditions, this feedback message consisted of the

number of correct problem solutions within a given period of time.

33
Table 5

Explanation of Frquencygof Feedback Conditions in the Major Experiment

 

 

Condition Explanation
1 Feedback given only at the end of each trial (1X)
2 Feedback after two minutes and at the end of

each trial (2X)

3 Feedback following the first, second, and third
minutes and at the end of each trial (4X)

4 Feedback on trials 1 & 2 given at the end of
the trial only; feedback on trials 3 & 4 given
twice as in Condition 2; feedback on trials
5 & 6 given four times as in Condition 3
(increasing frequency condition)

5 The reverse of Condition 4; feedback given
4 times on trials 1 & 2, twice on trials
3 & 4, and once on trials 5 & 6 (decreasing

frequency condition)

 

(based on 4-minute trials)

34
Subjects were not told the number of incorrect problem solutions in
order to control for the evaluativeness of the feedback.
Dependent Variables

There were a total of four dependent variables in the major
experiment. The first two dependent variables were the measures of
personal and external control that were originally used in the second
preliminary study. The items composing these scales are presented
as Appendix A. These items appeared on the questionnaire that was
completed by participants following the second, fourth, and sixth
trials and were an adaptation of the personal and external control
items used by Fisher (1978).

The third dependent variable in the major experiment was the
participant's performance during the second, fourth, and sixth trials.
Performance was operationalized as the number of addition problems
solved correctly during a four minute trial. This measure of
performance was consistent with how performance was being reported
to participants during the task. Information on the number of errors
per trial was also collected.

The fourth dependent variable in the major experiment was a scale
designed to measure the subjects' intrinsic task satisfaction. The
items in this scale were adapted from Mossholder (1980). These items
were placed on a final questionnaire along with the manipulation-check
items. The task satisfaction items are presented in Appendix B.

Method of Analysis

 

The data were analyzed in two stages. Because it was anticipated
that the dependent variables in the major experiment would be

intercorrelated, the first stage of the analyses consisted of a

35
multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) using a repeated measures
design. The factors were feedback condition (5) by experimental
trial (3). The dependent variables used in the MANOVA were the
measures of personal control, external control, and performance.
A univariate analysis of variance with one independent variable
(feedback condition) was also conducted using the intrinsic task
satisfaction measure as the dependent variable.

The second stage of the analyses were correlational analyses
conducted to examine the relationship between the measures of personal
and external control and the outcome variables of task performance
and intrinsic task satisfaction. As a final step in this stage of
analysis, several exploratory path analyses were performed in an
attempt to provide tentative models of the causal relationships

between these variables.

RESULTS

Overview

To test the hypotheses of the study, a number of analyses were
conducted. In presenting the results, this section first examines
the manipulation-check items. Next, reliability data for the scales
measuring personal control, external control, and intrinsic task
satisfaction and the inter-trial correlations for performance are
presented followed by the means and standard deviations for the four
dependent variables (personal control, external control, intrinsic
task satisfaction, and performance). Results of the two types of
analysis of variance (MANOVA and univariate ANOVAs) performed on the
data are also presented. The results section concludes by reviewing
the outcome of a correlational analysis and of several exploratory
path analyses which were conducted in order to examine the relationship
between the various dependent measures.

Manipulation Checks

 

Several types of manipulation-check items were included on the
final questionnaire. The first type of manipulation-check item related
to the "desired” level of frequency of feedback for the task. This
"desired" level of feedback had been established as a result of the
first preliminary study. However, due to the relatively small sample
in the first preliminary study (N=8), it was thought that an item
should be included in the major experiment in order to evaluate whether

36

37
or not the majority of individuals involved in the study concurred
with this "desired" level of frequency of feedback for this type of
task. If there was a wide range of response to this item, its
inclusion would also allow us to examine whether or not the spread
was relatively evenly distributed across the experimental conditions.
The item asked participants to respond to the following question:
"If I had to choose, the best rate at which I would have been given
feedback about my performance would have been..." The possible
responses included: (a) at the end of the experiment only, (b) after
each problem set, (c) at the middle and at the end of each problem
set, (d) several times during the problem set, and (e) other (please
explain). The results from this manipulation-check item are presented
in Table 6. As can be seen from the data in Table 6, almost 50% of
those involved in the experiment would have preferred to have received
feedback only at the end of each trial. If one combines the "end of
experiment only" and the "end of trial" categories, then 74% of the
subjects involved in the experiment would have preferred what might
be called a "minimal" feedback condition. Only three of the 77
participants involved in the experiment reported that they wanted to
receive feedback at "several times" during each trial. In general,
these results are supportive of the use of feedback at the end of
each trial as the baseline frequency of feedback condition for the
task. Because this measure of subjects' "desired" level of feedback

2 analysis was

occurred after the experimental manipulation, a x
conducted in order to determine whether the "desired" level of

frequency of feedback reported by subjects might not simply be a

38
Table 6

Participants' Reports of Their Desired Frquency of Feedback Level

 

Experimental Condition
Would prefer to

 

receive feedback: 1 2 3 4 5 Total

End of experiment only 3 5 4 4 4 20

After each trial 12 4 6 8 7 37

At the middle and end 1 5 5 3 3 17

Several times during 0 l l O l 3
each trial

 

function of their experimental condition. The relationship between
"desired" frequency of feedback level and frequency of feedback condition
was not significant (x2 = 10.33, NS).

The other manipulation-check items attempted to measure participants'
perceptions of the frequency of feedback level within their experimental
condition. One item asked the participant to simply check whether the
frequency with which performance feedback was given during the sixth
trial occurred less often, more often, or at the same rate as during
the first trial. Of the 77 persons involved in the experiment, 88.3%
identified the correct solution for their experimental condition.

. A second type of manipulation-check for perceived frequency of
feedback level was made up of two open-ended items. The first item
asked the participant, "How often were you given information about
your performance on the first problem set?" The second item asked the
participant to answer the same question regarding the sixth problem

set. Two criteria were used in analyzing the results from these

39
items. The first criterion required that the participant correctly
identify the exggt_number of times that he/she had been given
performance feedback during both the first and the sixth trials.
Using this strict criterion, 74% of the subjects involved in the
major experiment correctly identified the number of feedback messages
that they had been given during both trials. The second criterion
was less restrictive in that it only required that subjects' answers
on the two items reflect the correct direction of any changes that
had occurred in the frequency of feedback level or be within one of
the correct number of messages (e.g., persons in Condition #3 who
received feedback four times were counted correct if they answered
three to both items). Using this less restrictive criterion, 90.9%
of those involved in the experiment were able to correctly identify
their frequency of feedback condition.

Based on the results from this second type of manipulation-check,
it appears that most of the participants in the experiment accurately
perceived the frequency with which feedback was given to them by the
experimenter.

Reliability

Prior to conducting the reliability analyses, an important
measurement issue had to be addressed. This issue concerned the
nature of the relationship between the external control items and
the items designed to measure perception of personal control. Previous
researchers have been less than clear on the nature of this
relationship. For example, Ilgen et a1. (1979) seemed to imply that
personal control and external control represented opposite ends of the

same criterion. Therefore, a factor analysis with an oblique rotation

W85
C01
fac
anI
' The

C01

“D
M
C01
re
of

011

[31‘

In

CO

CO
to
th
co
co
di

0f

40
was performed using all of the available questionnaires (N=23l)
containing the personal control and external control items. The
factor analysis yielded three potential factors. (The factor loadings
and eigenvalues from the factor analysis are presented in Appendix C.)
A The items composing the first two of these factors generally
corresponded to the items that were written for the personal and
external control scales. However, two of the five items which made
up the external control scale split off into a third factor. The
nature of this third factor was not clear and had very low internal
consistency and was therefore dropped from further analyses. The
results of the factor analysis provided some support for the inclusion
of the measures of personal control and external control as separate
dimensions of control.

Performance of the task was measured by the total number of correct
problem solutions for a given trial. Table 7 presents the
inter-correlations for performance across all six trials for all subjects.
Inspection of these correlations shows that performance was relatively
consistent from one trial to the next.

The items comprising the measures of personal control and external
control were included on the questionnaire that participants completed
following the second, fourth, and sixth trails. Test-retest data were
therefore available for these scales in addition to internal
consistency data. The resulting reliability data for the personal
control scale are presented in Table 8. The numbers appearing in the
diagonal of Table 8 represent the internal consistency (Cronbach ci3)

of the personal control scale for a given measurement point. As can be

Table 7

41

Intercorrelations of Performance Across Trials

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Trial 1 2 3 4 5
‘| -
2 .92 -
3 .86 .90 -
4 .88 .92 .93 -
5 .81 .86 .89 .91 -
6 .80 .86 .89 .88 .93
Table 8
Reliability Data for the Personal Control Scale
Triala 2 4 6
2 .74
4 .72 .82
6 .64 .76 .86
a = Measurement occurred following trials 2, 4, and 6.

0'
ll

Values in diagonal are Cronbach exi's.

42
seen in the Table, the internal consistency of the personal control
measure increased with repeated presentations. The mean internal
consistency for the personal control scale was .807. The off-diagonal
numbers in Table 8 represent the test-retest correlations for the
measure of personal control. These correlations indicate that there
may have been some change in participants' perceptions of personal
control as experience with the task increased. The mean test-retest
correlation for the personal control measure was .71.

The reliability data for the external control scale are presented
in Table 9. As demonstrated in Table 9, the measure of external control
was not as consistent (both internally and over repeated measurements)
as the measure of personal control. Two of the items comprising the
external control scale were deleted because they failed to
intercorrelate with the other three items in the scale. The mean
internal consistency of the shortened external control scale was only
.45. The mean test-retest reliability of the external control measure

was .62.

Table 9
Reliability Data for the External Control Scale

 

 

 

Triala - 2 4 6
2 .31b
4 .62 .49
6 .58 .67 .56
a = Measurement occurred following trials 2, 4, and 6.

a
II

Values in diagonal are Cronbach aL's.

43

Intrinsic task satisfaction was measured using six items that
appeared on the final questionnaire. As a result, intrinsic task
satisfaction was measured only once. The internal consistency
(Cronbach c>4) of the measure of intrinsic task satisfaction was .77.
Means and Standard Deviations

Means and standard deviations for the four dependent variables
are presented below. The mean performance results for the five
experimental conditions are presented in Table 10. In general,
performance appeared to steadily improve across the six trials in
most of the experimental conditions. The only exception to this
generalization was the performance of the individuals in Condition #5
(decreasing frequency of feedback) whose average performance decreased
on the sixth and final trial. The mean performance results are
presented graphically in Figure 4. As can be seen in Figure 4, mean
performance on the sixth trial was lowest in Condition #5 (28.73
correct problem solutions) and highest in Condition #2 (36.53 correct
problem solutions). As Figure 4 illustrates, there did appear to be
a slight learning-effect with increasing experience on the task.
T-tests comparing performance on the firSt trial with performance on
the sixth trial were performed for each experimental condition in order
to test for this learning effect. All of the resulting T-values were
significant (see Table 11).

The means and standard deviations for the measure of personal
control are presented in Table 12. In this table, an increasing
numeric value indicates an increasing perception of personal control.
These results are illustrated in Figure 5. Inspection of Figure 5

indicates that perceptions of personal control appeared to change

44
Table 10

Means and Standard Deviations for Performance Across Trials

 

 

Trial
Experimental
Condition 1 2 3 4 5 6
l 29.13 31.06 31.81 32.13 32.88 33.88
(7.8) (7.9) (8.0) (7.5) (9.1) (8.6)
2 30.00 31.00 34.00 34.67 35.13 36.53
(7.8) (7.7) (8.6) (7.3) (8.4) (9.1)
3 28.06 31.00 31.88 32.13 32.13 34.00
(8.3) (8.7) (8.5) (7.8) (7.8) (8.7)
4 29.20 31.13 32.27 33.13 33.73 34.07
(6.4) (6.0) (6.8) (6.4) (5.9) . (5.2)
5 23.13 25.87 27.73 28.80 29.33 28.73

(6.7) (5.9) (5.6) (5.8) (5.3) (5.5)

Total Samp1e 27.92 30.04 31.55 32.17 32.64 33.46
(7.7) (7.5) (7.7) (7.1) (7.5) (7.9)

 

45

37 <——-Condition 2

   

36
35
34
33
32
31
3O
29
28
27
26
25

Condition 4
/°<'—Condition 3

e——Condition l

‘,rCondition 5

24
23
22

 

 

Trial

Figure 4. Mean performance by frequency of feedback condition

across trials

Table 11

46

Results of T-tests for Learning Effect Across Feedback Conditions

 

 

 

Condition N Trial 6 Trial 1 T
l 16 33.88 29.13 3.13**
2 15 36.53 30.00 4.94***
3 16 34.00 28.06 5.49***
4 15 34.07 29.20 6.99***
5 15 28.73 23.13 3.31**

Total 77 33.46 27.92 9.83***

* p < .05
** p < .01

*‘k'k

p < .001

47’
Table 12
Means and Standard Deviations for the Personal Control Scale by

Frequency of Feedback Condition

 

 

Trial
Experimental
Condition 2 4 6
l 20.56 20.25 19.56
(5.2) (5.0) (6.6)
2 22.47 22.53 22.33
(3.1) (2.9) (3.9)
3 21.31 21.75 22.13
(2.6) (4.2) (3.5)
4 22.73 22.53 22.47
(3.2) (3.7) (3.1)
5 21.60 22.40 23.00
(4.1) (2.4) (2.2)
Total 21.74 21.87 21.87

(3.8) (3.8) (4.3)

 

48

  

 

 

 

24 “(Condition 5
O
23 3:. __ O(Condition 4
22 _____ o“‘Condition 2
o-— ——---0""' '\
° Condition 3
21
20 o._____________LL~—~_‘-——_‘——O¢/Condition 1
19
18
2 4 6

Trial

Figure 5. Mean perception of personal control by frequency

of feedback condition

49
very little from the time of trial 2 to trial 6. Participants in
Condition #5 (decreasing frequency of feedback condition) reported
perceiving the greatest amount of personal control following the
sixth trial (23.0) and participants in Condition #1 (feedback at the
end of the trial only) on the average perceived that they had the
least amount of personal control (19.6). Only the persons in
Condition #1 appeared to differ from the other conditions in their
perceptions of personal control.

The means and standard deviations for the external control
scale are presented in Table 13 and are presented graphically in
Figure 6. Again, an increasing number in Table 13 indicates an
increasing perception of external control. Following the sixth
trial, mean perceptions of external control were greatest in
Condition #5 (13.0; decreasing frequency condition) and least in
Condition #1 (8.81; feedback at the end of the trial only).
Inspection of Figure 6 reveals that only participants in Condition
#1 appeared to differ to any significant extent in their perceptions
of external control.

Perceptions of intrinsic task satisfaction were measured by
items on the final questionnaire given at the end of the experiment.
The resulting means and standard deviations for each experimental
condition are presented in Table 14. Once again, increasing
satisfaction with the task is indicated by an increasing numeric
value in Table 14. On the average, subjects in Condition #2
(feedback at the middle and end of each trial) reported feeling the

greatest amount of satisfaction with the task (X = 30.0). Persons

Table 13

Means and Standard Deviations for the External Control Scale by

 

Frequency of Feedback Condition

 

 

 

 

Trial
Experimental
Condition 2 4
1 8.44 9.63 8.81
(3.1) (3.8) (2.9)
2 12.93 12.80 12.73
(2.1) (2.5) (3.5)
3 12.69 11.75 12.25
(3.2) (3.8) (4.0)
4 11.13 12.07 12.07
(2.9) (2.6) (3.2)
5 11.73 12.40 13.00
(4.1) (3.5) (4.2)
Total 11.36 11.70 11.74
(3.5) (3.4) (3.8)
Table 14

Means and Standard Deviations for Intrinsic Task Satisfaction Scale

by Frequency of Feedback Condition

 

Experimental Condition

 

l 2 4 Total
X 27.19 30.00 29.13 28.60
S.D. (5.9) (5.5) (5.8) (5.2)

 

51

 

 

 

14
13 ezz’Condition 5
BIT‘ I 4_._—————"'° Condition 2
‘\L T ”jg/Condition 3
12 :x‘ ,Ir’“ —-°~'-—— Condition 4
’/ ‘0»
O/
ll
10
9 o/°\9....condition l
8
2 4 6
Trial

Figure 6. Mean perception of external control by frequency

of feedback condition

in the baseline condition (Condition #1) were the least satisfied of
the experimental groups (X = 27.19).
Test of Hypotheses

 

Analysis of variance. To test the hypotheses of the experiment,

 

two types of analyses were performed. The first of these analyses
pertained to the effects of the different experimental conditions
on perception of control, task performance, and intrinsic task
satisfaction. Two types of analysis of variance were performed.
First, a multivariate analysis of variance or MANOVA (Hull & Nie,
1981) was performed using a 5 (feedback conditions) x 3 (repeated
measures) design. The measures of personal control and external

control collected following the second, fourth, and sixth trials

52
were entered into the MANOVA as dependent variables. Performance
(measured by the number of correct problem solutions) for the second,
fourth, and sixth trials was also included as a dependent variable in
the MANOVA. Because intrinsic task satisfaction was measured only
once and because this measurement was separate from the other
dependent variables, intrinsic task satisfaction was not included as
a dependent variable in the overall MANOVA.

Use of MANOVA was based on the assumption that the dependent
variables would be moderately intercorrelated. This assumption proved
to be justified. Table 15 presents the correlation coefficients for
the four dependent variables. The correlations appearing in Table 15
were calculated based on performance during the sixth trial and
subjects' perceptions following the sixth trial. Of these four
dependent variables, only intrinsic task satisfaction was not

included in the overall MANOVA.

Table 15

Intercorrelation of the Dependent Variables

 

Variables l 2 3 4

 

1. Personal control -

 

2. External control .37** -

3. Performance .27* .07 -

4. Satisfaction .29* .03 .29* -
* p < .05

** p < .01

53

The results of the MANOVA are presented in Table 16. While the
multivariate tests for trials and the interaction of feedback condition
by trials proved to be nonsignificant, the main effect of feedback
condition was significant using Wilks multivariate test of significance
(@ F = 5.42, 12 df, p < .001). As the next step of the analysis
process, a series of univariate ANOVAs were calculated. The first
hypothesis was that frequency of feedback beyond the "desired" level
for the task would affect the feedback recipient's perception of
control. Univariate F-tests for feedback condition were significant
for both the measures of personal control (F = 3.16, p < .015) and
external control (F = 9.94, p < .001). As was anticipated from .
inspection of Figure 5 illustrating the results for personal control
and Figure 6 for perception of external control, post-hoc contrasts
showed that persons in Condition #1 (feedback at the end of the trial
only) perceived that they had significantly less personal control and
external control during the experiment (see Table 17).

The second hypothesis was that increasing the frequency with
which feedback was given would have a positive effect on task
performance. The univariate F-test for feedback condition was
significant for task performance (F = 4.73, p < .001). Post-hoc
contrasts supported the earlier inspection of mean performance in
that performance in Condition #5 (decreasing feedback frequency)
proved to be significantly lower than performance in the other four
feedback conditions (see Table 18).

No a priori hypothesis was made concerning the effect of frequency

of feedback on intrinsic task satisfaction. The measure of intrinsic

Table 16

54

Multivariate and Univariate Tests of Significance for the Personal

Control, External Control, and Performance Measures

 

Multivariate AnalySTs of Variance Using Wilks
Multivariate Test of Significance

 

 

‘Approx. Hyp. Sign.
Effect Value F df of F
Condition .750 5.42 12 .001
Trials .961 1.44 6 NS
Condition x Trials .971 .27 24 NS

 

 

Univariate Analysis of Variance for Frequency of

Feedback Condition

 

 

Dependent THyp. Error Sign. of
Variable SS SS F F
Performance 1023.07 11680.72 4.73 .001
Personal control 193.55 3311.46 3.16 .015
External control 449.50 2441.96 9.94 .001

 

with (4,216) df

55
Table 17
Results of Post-Hoc Contrasts Between Feedback Conditions for the

Personal Control and External Control Scales

 

Personal Control Scale

 

 

Condition 1 Strd. Sign. of
vs. Condition: Coeff. Error T-value T
2 2.319 .812 2.85 .01
1.604 .799 2.01 .05
4 2.453 .812 3.02 .01
5 2.208 .812 2.72 .01

 

(using simple contrasts)

 

TExternal Control Scale

 

 

Condition 1 Strd: Sign. of
vs. Condition: Coeff. Error T-value T
2 3.864 .698 5.54 .001
3.271 .686 4.77 .001
4 2.797 .698 4.01 .001
5 3.419 .698 4.90 .001

 

(using simple contrasts)

Table 18

56

Results of Post-Hoc Contrasts Between Feedback Conditions for Performance

 

 

Condition 5 Strd. Sign. of
vs. Condition: Coeff. Error T-value T

1 4.554 1.526 2.98 .003

2 6.267 1.550 4.04 .001

3 4.575 1.526 3.00 .01

4 4.978 1.550 3.21 .01

 

(using simple contrasts)

task satisfaction was analyzed using a one-way analysis of variance

(ANOVA) SPSS program (Nie, Hull, Jenkins, Steinbrenner, & Bent, 1975)

with frequency of feedback condition as the sole independent variable.

The results of this ANOVA proved to be nonsignificant (F = 0.632, NS).

These results are presented in Table 19.

Table 19

Univariate Analysis of Variance Results for Intrinsic Task

Satisfaction Scale

 

 

Sign.
Source df SS MS F of F
Condition 4 70.48 17.62 .632 NS
Error 72 2008.04 27.89
Totals 76 2078.52

 

57

Correlational Results. The final stage of the data analysis was
to conduct a correlational analysis to examine the relationship
between the feedback recipients' perceptions of control and the
outcome variables of task performance and intrinsic task satisfaction.
As the final step in this part of the data analysis, a series of
exploratory path analyses were performed in order to gather preliminary
data on the potential causal links between these variables. The
intercorrelations between these variables were previously presented
as Table 15. For the purposes of the correlational analysis, the
personal and external control variables in Table 15 refer to the
measures of personal control and external control that appeared on the
questionnaire completed by participants following the sixth trial.
Similarly, “performance" refers to participants' perfbrmance on the
sixth trial.

The third hypothesis of the present experiment was that there
would be a positive relationship between perception of external
control and task performance. This hypothesis was not supported.

The correlation between participants' perception of external control
and their task performance was not significant (r = .07, NS). In
contrast, the fourth hypothesis that participants' perception of
personal control would be positively related to task performance
did receive support in the major experiment. Subjects' perceptions
of personal control were significantly related to their task
performance (r = .27, p < .05).

The fifth and sixth hypotheses of the present study involved
the expected relationship between feedback recipients' perceptions

of personal control and external control and the outcome variable

58
of intrinsic task satisfaction. The fifth hypothesis was that
participants' perceptions of external control would be negatively
related to their satisfaction with the task. This hypothesis was
not supported by the results of the major experiment. The correlation
between perception of external control and intrinsic task
satisfaction was not significant at the .05 level (r = .03, NS). The
sixth hypothesis pertained to the expected positive relationship between
participants' perceptions of personal control and intrinsic task
satisfaction. The correlation between perception of personal control
and intrinsic task satisfaction was significant (r = .29, p < .05), so
the sixth hypothesis was supported.

One issue that caused confusion in predicting how increasing
frequency of feedback would affect the outcome variables was the
relationship between perception of external control and perception
of personal control. In the present study, these two types of
perception of control were positively related (r = .37, p < .01).
However, some caution should be used in generalizing from this
finding. Common method variance may explain both the magnitude
and direction of the relationship that was found between perceptions
of personal and external control.

The final step in the correlational analysis stage was to conduct
a series of exploratory path analyses. Path analyses were conducted
using the path analysis routine from PACKAGE (Hunter, Gerbing, Cohen,
& Nicol, 1980). Prior to entering the intercorrelations into the
path analysis program, the correlations between the dependent variables
were corrected for attenuation due to unreliability in the measure.

These corrected correlation coefficients appear as Table 20.

59

Table 20

Intercorrelation of the Dependent Variables After Correction for

Attenuation

 

 

Variables 1 2 3 4

 

—l
0

Personal control -

2 External control .53 -
3. Performance .29 .09 -
4 Satisfaction .36 .05 .33 -

 

Frequency of feedback condition was dummy-coded so that it could
be included in the path analyses and allow for a more complete test
of the updated model of the feedback process. The resulting
correlations between frequency of feedback condition and each of
the four dependent variables are presented in the upper portion of
Table 21. As can be seen from the values presented in the Table,
the size of the correlations between frequency of feedback conditions
and perceptions of personal and external control were generally low.
The path coefficients for the five frequency of feedback conditions
and the results of the path analyses for each condition are also
presented in Table 21. The two "best" path models in terms of
minimizing the sum of squared deviations are presented as Figure 7.
Both of these models exhibit a direct relationship between personal
control, performance, and task satisfaction. The only difference

between the two models is the position of the performance and

60

Table 21
Correlations, Path Coefficients, and Results of the Path Analyses

for Frequency of Feedback Conditions

 

a Frequency of Feedback Conditions
2

 

3 4 5

Correlations

Personal control -.28 .05 .03 .07 .13

External control -.39 .13 .07 .04 .16

Performance .03 .19 .04 .04 -.3O

Satisfaction -.14 .13 -.05 .05 .01
Path Coefficientsb

Personal control -.28 .05 .03 .07 .13

External control -.27 .10 .05 .Ol .09
Results

Sum of Squared

Deviations .04 .07 .03 .03 .14

 

a = For Condition 1, the path coefficient for the link between
personal and external control was .46 rather than .53.
b = Values for path coefficients and for the sum of squared

deviations were identical for Model A and Model B.

61

Model A
* .20
Feedback -------------- -+ Personal -------------- -+-Performance
Condition Control L,
: “\‘3’5 A25
‘x 1 \I .’ .
* ‘~.‘ .53 : Task Satisfaction
s“ +
“4 External
Control
W
*
Feedback -------------- -+ Personal ----=g§---+-Task Satisfaction
Conditiop Control‘ 29 ,1”
“~~ ' ~‘s: ’l”025
‘~.“ E ‘~9Performance
* ‘sss““ .53i
‘\ External
Control

fjggrg_z, Exploratory path models

* = Values for these path coefficients are presented in Table 21.

62

intrinsic task satisfaction variables. In other words, some ambiguity
remains following the path analyses as to the nature of the relationship
between these two outcome variables. In addition, both of the models
virtually ignore the external control variable. Only the perception of
control variable appears to have any significant impact on the external
control variable. The data do not allow for an unequivocal decision

as to which of these two models best represents the "true" relationship

between the dependent variables.

DISCUSSION

Overview

The discussion is divided into several sections. The first
section discusses the implications of the results of the major
experiment for the hypotheses of the study. The next section
deals with the limitations of the major experiment. This is
followed by a section dealing with implications of the present
experiment for future studies. The discussion section concludes
by examining the implications of the present study for feedback
research in general.
Implications of Results for Major Hypotheses

The first hypothesis for the major experiment was that increasing
the frequency of feedback beyond the "desired" level for a task would
affect the feedback recipient's perceptions of control. Both
perceived external and personal control were measured in the major
experiment. The first hypothesis was supported for both measures
of perceived control. The univariate ANOVA reported that there was
a significant main effect for the frequency of feedback condition on
perceptions of both external and personal control. In addition,
Corollary A stated that increasing the frequency of feedback beyond
the desired level would result in an increasing perception of

external control on the part of the feedback recipient. This

63

64

corollary received partial support in the results of the major study.
The first preliminary study established that, in general, people
performing the Number Facility Task preferred to receive a minimal
amount of feedback (usually once per trial). In Condition #1 of

the major experiment, the participant received feedback about his

or her performance only at the end of each trial. The results of
the post-hoc contrasts showed that persons in Condition #1 reported
perceiving significantly less external control than persons in the
other four frequency of feedback conditions. However, a glance at
Figure 5 reveals that increasing violation of the "desired" level for
feedback frequency did not translate into a linear increase in
perception of external control. The results for the measure of
personal control show that persons who received feedback at the
"desired" frequency level perceived that they had significantly
1e§§.personal control than did individuals who received more
frequent feedback. The measures of personal control and external
control that were used in the major experiment had a relatively high
positive intercorrelation (r = +.37, p < .05; corrected for
unreliability, r = +.53).

The second hypothesis was that increasing frequency of feedback
levels would lead to increases in task performance. This hypothesis
received some support in the major experiment. The univariate ANOVA
reported that there was a significant main effect for frequency of
feedback condition for performance. However, mean performance was
not highest in the condition that received the most frequent
feedback (Condition #3). Instead, the highest average performance

was found in the group that received feedback only twice per trial

65

(Condition #2). It is possible that the more frequent feedback
messages in Condition #3 interfered with subjects' concentration

on the task. This potential problem with frequent feedback
messages was cited by several of the participants in the first
preliminary study as the reason for their low level of "desired"
feedback while a trial was in progress. In addition, significantly
lower performance was found in the condition in which feedback
frequency was reduced as the experiment progressed (Condition #5).

The third hypothesis was that there would be a positive
relationship between perceptions of external control and performance
on the task. This hypothesis was based on the assumption that the
demand characteristics of the laboratory situation would increase
compliance with external attempts to control the participant's
behavior. This hypothesis was not supported by the results of the
major experiment. The correlation between perception of external
control and performance was in the correct direction but was not
significantly different from zero (r = .07, NS).

The fourth hypothesis was that there would be a positive
relationship between perception of personal control and task
performance. This hypothesis was supported by the results of the
major experiment. The correlation between personal control and
performance was significantly different from zero (r = .27, p < .05).
This supports the findings of Fisher (1978) that personal control
is positively related to performance.

The fifth hypothesis dealt with the relationship between

perception of external control and intrinsic task satisfaction.

66

Based on Cognitive Evaluation Theory (Deci, 1975) and Mossholder's

(1980) arguments about the relationship between measures of intrinsic
motivation and measures of task satisfaction, the fifth hypothesis
proposed that persons who thought that they were being externally
controlled should have reported less satisfaction with the task.

This did not prove to be the case in the major experiment. Participants'
perceptions of external control were not significantly correlated with
their perceived task satisfaction (r = .03, NS).

The final hypothesis concerned the relationship between
perception of personal control and intrinsic task satisfaction. Again
based on the arguments of Deci (1975) and Mossholder (1980), the
sixth hypothesis for the major experiment was that there would be a
positive relationship between participants' perceptions of personal
control and their intrinsic satisfaction with the task. The results
of the major experiment supported this hypothesis. There was a
significant positive correlation between perceived personal control
and the intrinsic task satisfaction scale (r = .29, p < .05).

Limitations of the Study

 

There are a number of limitations to the generalizability of the
present study. The first such limitation is the type of task used.
While addition problems possessed a number of desirable characteristics
for the theoretical purposes of the present study, the external
validity of any of the results of the study are limited by the use of
such a task. Future studies examining the effects of feedback
dimensions on the various process and outcome variables might wish
to employ tasks which more closely simulate tasks that are performed
in the regular work environment (e.g., data entry or judgemental

tasks).

67

A second limitation of the study was that only one of the three
proposed process variables (informational, motivational, and perception
of control) was actually measured during the course of the experiment.
As a result, one must resort to subjective observation of the way that
people reacted during the experiment in order to infer whether or not
the feedback messages impacted on the other two process variables in
addition to affecting perception of control. Based on this type of
informal observation of participants' behavior, it can be argued
that some of the decline in performance in Condition #5 was due to
a lack of information and/or a decline in motivation to perform the
mundane task. There is little doubt on the part of this experimenter
that the feedback messages were having either a motivational or an
informational effect on many of the participants in the experiment.
Many of these persons seemed to "get into" the competitive aspects of
the task by using the previous trial's performance as a self-set
goal and using the feedback messages during the next trial as a means
of monitoring performance in relation to that goal. However, it is
impossible to tell from these informal observations whether the
feedback message itself was motivating these individuals or was simply
serving to inform them about their performance in relation to a self-
set specific goal (see Locke et al., 1981).

A third limitation of the present study involves the measures
of personal control, external control, and task satisfaction. Even
though there was some amount of change in participants' perceptions
of control during the course of the experiment, the true purposes of
the questionnaires may have been perceived by the participants. One
would also expect to find that the correlations between these three

variables were inflated to a certain extent due to common method bias.

68

However, while this explanation might account fbr part of the
moderate correlation between the measures of perception of personal
control and external control (r = .37), it does not account for the
fact that the external control measure was not significantly related
to the measure of intrinsic task satisfaction (r = .03) while the
personal control measure had a moderate correlation (r = .30) with
the measure of task satisfaction. The relatively low level of
internal consistency—for the external control measure may also have
seriously affected the size of any intercorrelation between this
variable and the other dependent variables.
Implications for Future Studies

Frequency of feedback did not have the expected effect on
perceptions of external control. However, Ilgen et al.'s (1979)
argument that frequency of feedback would increase perception of
external control was based on the assumption that, in an industrial
setting, monitoring of performance would have to be increased in
order to increase frequency of feedback. This change in the level
of monitoring of behavior did not occur in the present experiment.
Monitoring of behavior was constant in all of the frequency of
feedback conditions. Future experiments which alter the level of
surveillance in addition to frequency of feedback might find more
support for a relationship between frequency of feedback and perception
of external control.

Previous researchers have tended to assume that an increase in
perceived external control would result in a decrease in perceived
personal control. However, the measures of personal and external

control used in the present study were positively correlated with one

69

another (r = .37). This finding has two potential implications for
the measurement of perception of control. First, the size and direction
of the intercorrelation between the measures of perceived personal and
external control suggests the possibility of combining these two
scales into a single measure of the construct of perceived control.
If, however, personal control and external control represent separate
constructs, then more effort is required to develop better measures
of these constructs. This suggests that more effort needs to be
placed on validating the constructs and measures of perceived personal
control and perceived external control.

Future studies are also needed that examine the effects of
withdrawing feedback. The post-hoc contrasts confirmed that
perfbrmance was significantly worse in the condition in which feedback
decreased in frequency during the course of the experiment (Condition #5).
In addition, this feedback condition was the only one in which
performance declined rather than increased on the final trial.
An article by Salmoni, Schmidt, and Walter (1984) suggests that the
difference between performance on a task when feedback from an external
source is present and when it is withdrawn represents a measure of
learning for the task. According to Salmoni et a1. (1984), if
external feedback is given too frequently, the individual may not
learn the informational cues that are provided by the task itself.
These findings highlight the need to more closely examine the impact
of withdrawal of feedback on recipients' perceptions and performance.
Salmoni et a1. (1984) argue that experiments which use external
feedback should include a minimal feedback condition in order to

monitor the "true" level of learning and performance for the task.

70

In the case of the present experiment, this would suggest the
addition of a seventh trial in which all participants received
feedback at only the end of the trial.

In the future, studies should also attempt to include measures
of all three of the process variables shown in Figure 2 (i.e.,
informational, motivational, and controlling). For example, in a
recent study using addition problems, Matsui, Okada, and Osamu (1983)
suggested that feedback may only have motivational or controlling
effects for persons who are not making adequate progress towards
some goal. Matsui et a1. (1983) measured motivation by asking
subjects how hard they intended to work on the second half of a
trial based upon their first half performance. This study illustrates
one rather simple method of operationalizing the motivational process
variable. It might be possible to measure the informational process
variable in a similar manner by asking participants to respond to
simple objective questions regarding their performance both at the
middle and end of one or more trials. For example, subjects in the
present experiment might have been asked whether their performance
on the present trial was worse than, the same, or better than their
performance at the same point in the previous trial. Understanding
of the outcomes of the present experiment would have been increased
if data had been collected on the informational and motivational value
of the feedback. Without this information, one was forced to rely
on subjective impressions gathered during the course of running subjects
rather than on hard data. However, it should be kept in mind that
the present study represents the first attempt to directly measure
the effects of frequency of feedback on the process variable of

perception of control.

71

Studies which examine the effects of the other dimensions of
feedback on specific process variables might also prove fruitful.
The updated model of the feedback process presented in Figure 2 can
act as an aid in generating testable hypotheses involving the other
dimensions of feedback. For example, the dimensions of
prescriptiveness and evaluativeness might be perceived as either
informational or externally controlling by a feedback recipient.
The quantity of feedback that is received at one time might be
expected to affect the informational value of feedback. Using the
model provided in Figure 2, future studies should attempt to
evaluate which dimensions of feedback have the greatest impact on
the process variables.

The effects of the "desired" frequency of feedback level on
perceptions of personal and external control are worthy of future
study. Persons in the "desired" frequency of feedback condition
(Condition #1) reported perceiving low levels of both personal and
external control. The reasons for the low level of perceived personal
control in this condition merit closer attention.

Implications for Feedback in General

 

The major implication of the study is that changes in the
dimensions of feedback may have effects on perceptions of control.
This supports the notion that we can increase our understanding of
how feedback affects outcome variables by studying intervening
perceptual process variables. How the feedback message is perceived
ultimately determines its impact. The significant correlations that

were found between perception of personal control and the measures of

72

performance and intrinsic task satisfaction support the merits of
the inclusion of perceptual variables in studying the effects of
feedback on performance. However, this may not be a one-way
process. To a certain extent people who are able to perform
well on a task may feel that they have more personal control than
do lesser performers.

The effects of the frequency of feedback conditions on performance
did not support the notion that more feedback is always better. In
this case, the group that received slightly more feedback than was
originally desired (i.e., two times per trial) proved to have the
best performance. As was noted previously, this effect may be due
to the amount of interference that the more frequent messages caused.
However, persons in the conditions in which frequency of feedback
changed during the course of the experiment had two trials in which
they too only received feedback twice for each trial. In neither of
these conditions did the mean performance on these two trials increase
to any dramatic extent. Therefore, the interference explanation
should be treated with some caution.

Finally, Larson (1984) has suggested that researchers should
also examine the effects of givigg_feedback on the perceptions of
the feedback ggurgg, According to Larson (1984), regardless of the
effect that a feedback message may have on the perceptions of
subordinates, the act of providing feedback alone may increase
supervisors' perceptions of power and control over those subordinates.
These perceptions may have future behavioral implications for both

the supervisor and the subordinate.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

73

APPENDIX A

Personal Control Items

The amount of effort that I put in determined how well I
performed on this set of problems.

The number of problems that I finished in this set was primarily
the result of my own ability.

How hard I tried determined how well I performed on this set

of problems.

How hard I concentrated on the task determined the number of

problems that I was able to complete in this set.

External Control Items

*4.

*5.

The number of problems that I finished in this set was affected
by the difficulty level of the items.

The number of problems that I completed was affected by the
number of outside distractions.

In comparison with the previous problems, the problems in this
set seemed a little harder.

It seemed that I had little control over how many problems I
finished in this set.

The luck of the draw played a role in how well I did on this

problem set.

These items were later excluded due to reliability problems

APPENDIX B

74

APPENDIX B
l ---------- 2 ---------- 3 ---------- 4 ---------- 5 ---------- 6 ---------- 7
Very Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied Very
Dis- I Satisfied
satisfied

REACTION
l. This is how I would describe the feelings of 1'
accomplishment that I got from the task.
2. This is how I feel about the chance to do
something that made use of my math abilities.
3. This is how I feel about the amount of
competition that was present in the task.
4. How satisfied were you about working with

the task itself?

5. To what degree do you think that this task was interesting?

1 ---------- 2 ---------- 3 ---------- 4 ---------- 5 ---------- 6 ---------- 7
Very Interesting Neutral Boring Very
Inter- Boring
esting

6. How much did you enjoy working on this task?

1 ---------- 2 ---------- 3 ---------- 4 ---------- 5 ---------- 6 ---------- 7
Strongly Disliked Neutral Enjoyable Very
Dis- Enjoyable

liked

APPENDIX C

75
APPENDIX C

Results of Factor Analysis with Oblique Rotation

Structure Matrix

 

 

 

Factors
Items l 2 3
l .78 .24 -.27
2 .57 .36 -.45
3 .86 .25 -.26
4 .70 .37 -.02
5 .43 .97 -.lO
6 .09 .38 .l5
7 .09 .23 .l5
8 -.32 -.06 .40
9 -.04 .19 .56
Eigenvalues 2.68 .92 .55
Pct. of Var. 64.6 22.2 13.2

Note. Item order corresponds to the order in which the items appear

in Appendix A.

APPENDIX D

(Supplemental Materials)

76

APPENDIX D

Outline of Experimental Procedures

Before subject arrives:

1.

Plug in adapter for the calculator and make sure that the
calculator is working.

Make sure that there is plenty of scrap paper.

Have problem sets arranged in order from A to H. Also, make
sure that each set starts with card number 1 (ex. A-l).

Get a new informed consent form and place on the table where
the subject will sit.

From the shelves, get 3 copies of the problem questionnaire
and 1 copy of the final questionnaire. In the upper
right-hand corner of the final questionnaire, write the
future subject's subject number. In the upper right-hand
corner of the problem questionnaire, write the future
subject's number ang_what problem set the questionnaire will
be given after. For example, for subject number 2, the
questionnaire that will be given following the 4th problem
set should be coded as 2-4. Remember,hproblem set
questionnaires are to be given following the completion of the

second, fourth, and sixth problem sets (A.K.A. trials). 50,

 

before subject number 2 arrives, you would write 2-2 on one

copy of the problem set questionnaire, 2-4 on another, and

2-6 on the third copy.

Look at the sheet entitled "Assignment of Subjects to Conditions."
Find the condition under which the upcoming subject's number is

listed. That will tell you which data collection sheet you need.

77

For example, subject number 1 is in condition 2, so you would

get a sheet labeled "Data Collection Sheet 2." The data collection
sheet itself helps tell you how often you should give feedback

in that condition. Make sure that you write the subject's

number in the space provided at the top of the data collection

sheet.

After subject arrives:

l.
2.

Ask the subject to read but not sign the infbrmed consent form.

Read the instructions from page T of the instructions sheet

to the subject.

At the appropriate time (cued at the end of the instructions),

ask the subject to sign the informed consent form. Then collect

the consent form and place it on the appropriate pile on the
shelves.

Give the subject the practice problems.

Before the subject starts on a problem set:

a) record which problem set (A-H) the subject is working
on in the space provided on the data collection sheet.

b) get the proper "correct answer sheet" (A-H) ready.

c) cut the start of the problem set deck so that the subject
is starting with a problem between l and 20 but not with
numbers l, 5, l0, l5, or 20.

d) give the subject about 30 seconds warning before the start
of each trial.

Subjects have 4 minutes to do as many problems as they can.

When the subject writes down a problem solution, check the

answer with your answer sheet. Use the calculator to keep

10.

ll.

12.

I3.

78

track of the number correct. Make a slash mark in the
appropriate space when the subject gets a problem wrong.

WHEN GIVING FEEDBACK ALWAYS SAY "X CORRECT IN V MINUTES."

If the subject asks about the number he/she got wrong, tell
him/her that you will be willing to discuss that at the gflg_
of the experiment.

Cross off the time numbers on the data collection sheet to help
you keep track of time passed within the trial.

At the end of a trial, write the total number correct in the
space provided. NOTE: the total correct should always equal
the number right after 4 minutes.

To give the subject a short break between trials, sort the
problem set cards back into their proper order after the
subject has finished the problem set. This also helps to

cut turnaround time between subjects.

Before you give the first problem questionnaire, read the
instructions for the problem set questionnaires on page 2 of
the instructions sheet to the subject. Always make sure that
you have the questionnaire that is coded to be given after the
just-completed trial. When giving the problem set questionnaire
for the second and third time, simply remind the subject that
the questionnaire is attempting to get his/her reaction to the
problem set which he/she has just completed. REMEMBER: give
the problem set questionnaires AEI§3_the subject has completed
the second, fourth, and sixth trials.

00 NOT STARE AT A SUBJECT WHILE HE/SHE IS FILLING OUT ANY OF
THE QUESTIONNAIRES.

14.

15.

79
Give the final questionnaire after the subject has finished
filling out the problem set questionnaire for trial 6. Before
giving the final questionnaire, read the instructions for the
final questionnaire (p. 2 of the instructions sheet) to the
subject.
After the subject has completed the final questionnaire, read
the statement listed under "Debriefing" (p. 2 of the instruction
sheet) to the subject and attempt to answer any questions that

the subject may have about the experiment.

After subject leaves:

1.

Place the completed data collection sheet, problem set
questionnaires, and final questionnaire in their proper folders.
Cross off the subject's number from the sheet entitled
"Assignment of Subjects to Conditions."

Throw away the used scrap paper.

Prepare the necessary materials for the next subject. Even if
this was the last subject of the day, getting everything set

up will make it easier to get started the next day.

NOTE:

80

Instructions

 

Read the following instructions after the participant has read
the consent form and prior to their signing the consent form:

In this experiment you will be asked to solve several sets
of addition problems. The problems are written on 3 x 5 cards
(show cards). Your task is to write the solution to a given
problem on those small blank pieces of paper (show scrap paper).
You are not allowed to make any marks on the 3 x 5 cards
themselves but you are allowed to make any kind of mark that
you desire on the scrap paper. After writing down your
solution, we ask that you place the answer paper somewhere in
the center of the table so that I can read it. You will then
continue on with the next problem. I will check your answers
and keep track of your total number correct for each set of
problems. From time to time, I will also give you feedback
about how you are doing. Please work as fast and as
accurately as you can. You will have a time limit of four
minutes for each set of problems. It is important that you
remember that the trial is not over until I say "Time!" We
will be doing a total of six problem sets.

I will also be asking you to fill out two different types
of questionnaires. One type will be given after every other
problem set and attempts to get your reactions to that problem
set. After a short break we will then continue on with the next
set of problems. The second type of questionnaire will be given
at the end of the experiment and attempts to get your reactions

to the task as a whole. Do you have any questions regarding

Bl

the task? (Answer questions) If not, I would ask you to
sign the consent form now. (after collecting signed consent
form) We will begin with some practice problems. These are
not checked and you can do as many of them or as few of them
as you like. (after practice problems) Please pick a letter
between A and H.

After second problem set:

I now ask you to fill out this short questionnaire.
Remember that the items on this questionnaire attempt to get
your reactions to this problem set. (give shgrt break after
finish filling our questionnaire)

1 now ask you to fill out this final questionnaire.
Remember that the items on this questionnaire attempt to get

your reactions to the task as a whole.

DEBRIEFING

 

This experiment is attempting to study the effects of feedback
on performance on a mundane task and on people's perceptions

of that task. Several recent theories have suggested that one
way to increase motivation and performance is to increase the
amount of feedback that is given to the worker. We are
attempting to see if this is true and also examine some possible
side-effects this increase in feedback might have. Do you

have any questions?

82

- Data Collect 8 set
Subject lumber:

Condition 30.: l
Qiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiifififii{iiiiiiiiQGQOGQ§OO§§§IGOOGQOOGOQQOGQIfiiiiifiiii§ilii

1. Problem Set: lo Questionnaire
Iron
W[; a;;er ] ninutes
fine 1 2 3 4 total Correct:
seeeeeeeeeeeeeeseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeseeseesseeeeesseeeeeeeeassesses373335.ees
2. Problem Set: Cive Questionnaire
vro
ML; a;;er ] minutes
Pine 1 2 3 4 total Correct:
eseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeseeeeeeeeeeeeseeeassesaeeeesseeeeesseeeeeaeeeesetifiizieeea
3. Problem Set: lo Questionnaire
Iron
Mel; a;;e er 1 minutes
Time 1 2 3 A total Correct:
easesassesseseuseseesaeeeeseeeseeseeeeseeeeeeeeeeseeeeseseeeeeesefifiifi=beeee
4. Problem Set: Give Questionnaire
""" Iron
I rith a;;e r 1 minutes
Time 1 2 3 4 total Correct:
easesaserases«noseeaseesseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeseeeeseseeeeiTTETieeas
5. Problem Set: lo Questionnaire

 

fight a ter minutes

 

time 1 2 3 4 total Correct:
.OOOOOCC{GOOOQOQGOOQ9‘}..0.0C95......OOOOOOOfiiifiiiffiifiiiOffiiiifi§ififi§§§§Oifii
6. Problem Set:_ Give Questionnaire
r

:ngL; a;;e er 1 minutes

Time 1 2 3 4 total Correct:

83

ta 01 ct o heet2
Subject lumber:

 

Condition lo.: 2
iii...Oi...lOCOG.Oi!OGQGOGGO§O§§§§§§OQO§GGQQQ§OOGCOOiifiOiiififiiifiiiiiifil{if

1. Problem Set: In Questionnaire:

-__' I wrong -

I :1th after Hrs? 2 I ri a er nutes

 

 

 

 

mine.
time 1 2 3 4 total Correct:
{fififiiiliiiiififififiififiiiiiiiiI§§*§C§§*..Q.§§.§§§5"...§O§§§§§‘::::=‘GGQGQC*5.
2. Problem Set: Give Questionnaire!

 

. um

I right after 2 :Inutes I r1 a er m nutes

 

 

i

 

 

 

 

Time 1 2 3 4 Total Correct:
§O§§§*§I§§§§OO095§§§QOOGQG{.O§§.§.§§Q§§§§*CC§Oi.§Q§GQOGC§§§§OCGGOQOOOGfiO§{Q
3. Problem Set: lo Questionnaire!

. 3 Lucas
I right a er n nutes I right after 6 minutes

time 1 2 3 4 total Correct:
§§GGG§§§§§§§GQO§§§§§§*GG§O§O§Iiii§§I§§§§{§§§§*§I§*§§§§*§§§§§i§§§**§§§*iiiii
4. Problem Set: Cive Questionnaire!

 

- Lime

 

 

1:

I ri t a er n nutes I ri a er m nutes

Time 1 2 3 4 total Correct:
iiiiiififiiiiii#§§§§§§*§ifififiI§Q§§§GOC§§iiiiiifiifiiiiiiifiiifii§§§§§§§§§§§§§{COGi

5. Problem Set: lo Questionnaire!
I vggng

I ri Lt‘ifter 2 :Inutes I rig er nutes

8
time 1 2 3 total Correct:
Offififiiifiiiiiiiiil§Q§§§§§§§iiiiifiififfifififiiififififiiOi9!.QGGG‘§§O§O§§OQG§GQOOlOOi

6. Problem Set: Give Questionnaire!

1 wrong

I ri lt‘after 2 minutes I ri a er nutes

8
Time 1 2 3 total Correct:

 

 

l:

 

 

 

l:

84

Data Collection Sheet}

Subject lumber:

Condition lo. : a
****§}§*l§§§§§§§§ fiiifififiiiiiiiliiiiiifiifiifiiiiC!!!§§§§§§§§§§ifiiifiiiifiiiiii§

1. Problem Set: lo Questionnaire!
I wrong

I right a or 1 2 I gr 3 I L;; a;;er 4

min. - min. min. min.

 

 

  

Time 1 2 3 4 Total Correct:
z!iiiiiiiliGOGQOQOG§§§§§§O§§i§Q5.00iiifiiiiiifiififiifiifififiiii§§O§§§ii§5§§§§§§G
2. Problem Set:* Give Questionnaire
(wrong
I right —lterI 1 r g a ter 2 I£; 3E; a;;er 3 I L; 3;; a;ter 4
min. min. min. min.

Time 1 2 3 A Total Correct:
G*ifii#§§**§§§§Q§§§§§§§§§QOO§§§§§§§O§§GO§CQQOQO§§§*OO§§§§§§§§§§§fififiiiifififififi
3. Problem Set: In Questionnaire

ron
I rig: 3a a er 2
line

   

Total Correct:
it!tfiiiiiiii§§iiiiiiiii!!!iiiifiiiiifiiifiifififiiliii§§§§§§§§§*iiififiiiiiiiiiiifi

A. Problem Set: Give Questionnaire
(wrong

I right alter 1 I r - g g ter 4

 

min.
Time 1 2 3 4 Total Correct:
iii§§§§§§§§§§iififlililiififiiiifiiifififififii§§§§§§§O§§§§§§fi§§§QOQOQOGQGiiiiiiififi

5. Problem Set: lo Questionnaire
- ron

 

 

Total Correct:
G§§§§i§§§’0’!!!i!G{.10.{ii}.0%.0*}!§*5.§§§§§OQ§§§§G§§§*§OGGOG§ii§§§§§fiifi§§§

6. Problem Set: Give Questionnaire
ron

 

Time 1 2 3 4 Total Correct:

W

Subject lumber:

Condition 10.: 4

iiiiiii*§**§*iiiifiixxiii!§§§§§*§§§O§§§§i§§§§§§iidiiiiifi§iiiiiiiifii[OGOGGGGC

1. Problem Set: In Questionnaire
vron

 

ater minutes

 

Time 1 2 3 4 Total Correct:
eses«assessseasonseseeseeeeesseeeeseessseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeseeeeeeeu '3"'ieeee
2. Problem Set: Give Questionnaire

Ir n

I rig a er minutes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Time 1 2 3 4 Total Correct:
§§§§§l§§§§§GG‘fiifiiQO§Q§§Qiiififififiiilif.iiifilifi§§§§§Q§§iiiifii{Giiii{fififiififiifl
3. Problem Set: lo Questionnaire

_ , vron
I righ a ter ns. Mg[t after 4 iIns.

Time 1 2 3 4 Total Correct:
ifiifiiiififiiiifii§fiiiiiifiififififii§§i§§§O§§§§§§Q§§§§§OQO§OliGGIOGGOQO§§§§OGOGGQGG
4. Problem Set: Give Questionnaire

IriLfit after 2 minutes I wriglt after 4 minutes

Time 1 2 3 4 Total Correct:
iifiiifiiiiiiiifiiliiifiiiifiififiifii§§§§§§§§*§§§§§§§§§§GGG§QI§§§i§§§§§05§§§O§CO§
5. Problem Set: lo Questionnaire

_ ron
I rig a er a or 3» I'L;;;;:;;;1L 4
min. min.

Time 1 2 3 4 Total Correct:
eeseessseeeeeeeseesassesesseeseeasseseseeseesesaeesseeeeeeeeeeese33773ieaea
6. Problem Set: Give Questionnaire

 

 

I1
Time 1 2 3 4 Total Correct:

86

Data C llecti Sheet
Subject lumber:

Condition 10.:
O§§§§§§§§§§§§§§{GQOOQGOGOGOCOO§§§§§§I{OQCQOQOOOGOOOQOOQOOOOOIiiiiilliGOO...

1. Problem Set:_ lo Questionnaire

 

   

 

  
   

 

 

 

 

 

 

, I riso
min. 8min. min. un.

Time 1 2 3 Total Correct:
sseeeseeseeeeeeeeseeseeseeeeeeeeeeeeseeeeeesseeeeseasseeeeesseese373335sass
2. Problem Set: - . Give Questionnaire

. ron
I riga er 1 I rlgll alter 2
min. min.

Time 1 2 3 4 Total Correct:
if}ifilfififiiifiiifi...*fifiiifiiiiiiiiiGIi{GOO*OIOO{QOOOOGGGOifiiifiifiliiiilfiifiiii
3. Problem Set: lo Questionnaire

uron
I right a or m nutes a er nutes

Time 1 2 38 4 Total Correct:
Giliiiiiiiiiifififiiiiiiiiiiiiiifi§fiiiifiiiiQfifififfifiiiiifi.OOI§O§§§§§§§§§§§§OCQG
4. Problem Set: Give Questionnaire

L i wrong
I rig a or m nutes I ri a er minutes

Time 1 2 3 4 Total Correct:
§§OQ§§§§OOIGIQI‘OG0...}....GOOO‘OODIOGOQOOIGO‘OOIIO§§§G§OC§§§§§§§Qlifiifiiil
5. Problem Set: lo Questionnaire

~ I wrong
I ri a or minutes

Time 1 2 3 4 Total Correct:
Oi§§iii!if!IO...Qiii...Q{if{9...}.QOOOQOOOOQOODOOOOQCCIIOQ5...{OiifiilifiiiiQ
6. Problem Set: Give Questionnaire

I wrong

minutes
Time 1 2 3 4 Total Correct:

 

87
Problem Set Questionnaire
INSTRUCTIONS. Please give your reactions on the following set of
statements as they apply to the set of problems which you have just

completed. Please use the following scale to answer statements

 

l thru 9:

l ---------- 2 ---------- 3 ---------- 4 ---------- 5 ---------- 6 ---------- 7
Strongly Disagree Mildly Neutral Mildly Agree Strongly
Disagree Disagree Agree Agree

 

 

 

T

REACTION

l. The amount of effort that I put in determined how well
I performed on this set of problems.

2. The number of problems that I finished in this set was
affected by the difficulty level of the items.

3. The number of problems that I finished in this set was
primarily the result of my own ability.

4. How hard I tried really determined how well I performed
on this set of problems.

5. The number of problems that I completed was affected
by the number of outside distractions.

6. In comparison with the previous problems, the problems
in this set seemed a little harder.

7. How hard I concentrated on the task determined the
number of problems that I was able to complete in this set.

8. It seemed that I had little control over how many
problems I finished in this set.

9. The luck of the draw played a role in how well I did

on this problem set.

i

88

Final Questionnaire
INSTRUCTIONS. Please give your reactions to the following set of
statements as they apply to the task as a whole. Please use the

following scale to answer items 1 thru 4:

 

 

 

l ---------- 2 ---------- 3 ---------- 4 ---------- 5 ---------- 6 ---------- 7
Very Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied Very
Dissatisfied Satisfied

REACTION
l. This is how I would describe the feelings of accomplish- 1'

ment that I got from the task.
2. This is how I feel about the chance to do something
that made use of my math abilities.
3. This is how I feel about the amount of competition
that was present in the task.
4. How satisfied were you about working with the task
itself?
On items 5 and 6, please place a check over the number that best
describes your reaction.

5. To what degree do you think that this task was interesting?

l ---------- 2 ---------- 3 ---------- 4 ---------- 5 ---------- 6 ---------- 7
Very Interesting Neutral Boring Very
Interesting , Boring

6. How much did you enjoy working on this task?

l ---------- 2 ---------- 3 ---------- 4 ---------- 5 ---------- 6 ---------- 7
Strongly Disliked Neutral Enjoyable Very
Disliked Enjoyable

 

89

In relation to the last set of problems that I did, I would have

liked to have been told how I was doing on the set of problems:

more often.

at about the same rate.

less often.

Did you feel that the experimenter was trying to increase your

performance from one trial to the next?

a)

not at all

b)

C)
d)

only a little bit

he was trying to increase my performance

he was making an obvious effort to increase my performance

If you answered b, c, or d above, how did you react to this influence

attempt?

I tried to increase the number of problems that I did across

the trials.
I felt that it was more important to work at my own pace

rather than the experimenter's pace.

I specifically tried to keep my performance at about the same

level across the six tables.

I tried to increase the number of problems that I did and

didn't worry about errors.

I tried to decrease the number of problems that I attempted.

other (please explain)

 

 

10.

ll.

l2.

l3.

90
If I had a choice, the best rate at which I would have been given
feedback about my performance would have been:
_____at the end of the experiment only.
_____after each problem set.
_____;at the middle and at the end of each problem set.
_____several times during the problem set.

other (please explain)

 

 

The frequency of information about my performance on the last set

of problems, as compared with the first set of problems, was given:

less often.
at the same rate.

more often.

How often were you given information about your performance on the
first problem set?
How often were you given infOrmation about your performance on

the last problem set?

 

How many problems did you get correct on:

Set l? Set 4?
Set 2? Set 5?
Set 3? Set 6?

(If you can't remember, please give your best guess.)

9l

Consent Form

 

The behaviors necessary and the task involved in this experiment
have been explained to me.’ Any questions I might have about the task,
including any inherent risk involved, have been answered to my
satisfaction.

The experiment should require approximately one hour to complete.
My participation in the experiment is voluntary. While my participation
will provide me with extra class credit in my psychology course, a
decision not to participate will not affect my present course grade.

I understand that all results of my performance will be treated
with strict confidence and that all participants' performance records
will remain anonymous. Within these restrictions, the final results
of the experiment will be made available to me upon written request.

I understand that I will be fully debriefed at the conclusion
of the experiment. Any questions I have that arise during the

experiment will be answered at that time.

I have read and understand the above statement. I will consent
to participate in this experiment without waiving my right to
discontinue my participation in the experiment at any time without

recrimination.

 

Signature of stodent

REFERENCES

REFERENCES

Amnons, R.B. (1956). Effects of knowledge of performance: A
survey and tentative theoretical formulation. Journal of
General Psychology, 54, 279-299.

 

Annett, J. (1969). Feedback and human behavior. Baltimore, MD:
Penguin Books.

Annett, J., & Kay, H. (1957). Knowledge of results and skilled
performance. Occupational Psychology, 31, 69-79.

Arnold, H.J. (1976). Effects of performance feedback and extrinsic
reward upon‘high intrinsic motivation. Organizational Behavior
and Human Performance, 11, 275-288.

 

Ashford, S.J., & Cummings, L.L. (1984). Feedback as an individual
resource: Personal strategies of creating information.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, in press.

Bilodeau, I.M. (1966). Information feedback. In E.A. Bilodeau (Ed.),
Acquisition of skill. New York: Academic Press.

Bourne, L.E., Jr. (1966). Comments on Professor I.M. Bilodeau's
paper. In E.A. Bilodeau (Ed.), Acquisition of skill. New York:
Academic Press.

 

Cook, D.M. (1968). The impact on managers of frequency of feedback.
Academy of Management Journal, 11, 263-277.

Cummings, L.L., Schwab, D.P., & Rosen, M. (1971). Performance and
knowledge of results as determinants of goal setting. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 55, 526-530.

 

Deci, E.L. (l975). Intrinsic motivation. New York: Plenum Press.

 

Deci, E.L., Cascio, W.F., & Krusell, J. (1975). Cognitive evaluation
theory and some comments on the Calder and Staw critique. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 81-85.

Deci, E.L., & Ryan, M. (1980). The empirical exploration of intrinsic

motivational processes. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology,
13, 39-77.

92

93

Fisher, C.D. (1978). The effects of personal control, competence,
and extrinsic reward systems on intrinsic motivation.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 51, 273-288.

Hackman, J.R., & Lawler, E.E. (1971). Employee reactions to job
characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology Monograph, 55,
259-286.

 

Hackman, J.R., & Oldham, G.R. (1976). Motivation through the
design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and
Human Performance, 15, 250-279.

 

Hopkins, K.D., & Glass, G.V. (1978). Basic statistics for the
behavioral science. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

 

Hull, C.H., & Nie, N.H. (1981). SPSS update 7-9: New procedures
and facilities for releases 7-9. New York: McGraw-Hilli

 

Hundel, P.S. (1969). Knowledge of performance as an incentive in
repetitive industrial work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 55,
224-226. ‘

Hunter, J.E., Gerbing, D.W., Cohen, S.H., & Nicol, T. (1980).
Package, 1980: A system of Fortran routines for the ana1ysis
of correlational data. Unpublished manuscript.

 

Ilgen, D.R., Fisher, C.D., & Taylor, M.S. (1979). Consequences of
individual feedback on behavior in organizations. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 51, 349-371.

 

Larson, J.R. (1984). The performance feedback process: A
preliminary model. Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance, 55, 42-76.

 

Locke, E.A., Cartledge, N., & Koeppel, J. (1968). Motivational
effects of knowledge of results: A goal-setting phenomenon.
Psychological Bulletin, 19, 474-485.

Locke, E.A., Shaw, K.N., Saari, L.M., & Latham, G.P. (1981). Goal
setting and task performance: 1969-1980. Psychological Bulletin,
90, 125-153.

Matsui, T., Okada, A., & Osamu, I. (1983). Mechanism of feedback
affecting task performance. Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance, 51, 114-122.

Moran, L.J., & Mefferd, R.B. (1959). Repetitive psychometric
measures. Psychological Bulletin, 5, 269-275.

94

Mossholder, K.W. (1980). Effects of externally mediated goal setting
on intrinsic motivation: A laboratory experiment. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 55, 202-210.

 

 

Nie, N.H., Hull, C.H., Jenkins, J.G., Steinbrenner, K., & Brent, B.H.
(1975). Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (2nd ed.).
New York: McGraw-Hilli

 

Organ, D.W. (1977). Intentional versus arousal effects of goal
setting. Qgganizational Behavior and Human Performance, 15,
378-389.

Salmoni, A.W., Schmidt, R.A., & Walter, C.B. (1984). Knowledge of
results and motor learning: A review and critical reappraisal.
Psychological Bulletin, 55, 355-386.

 

Taylor, M.S., & Walther, F. (1981). The relationship of feedback
dimensions to work attitudes and behavior: Process and practical
implications. Paper presented at Midwest Academy of Management,
1981.

 

Vroom, V.H. Industrial social psychology. In Handbook of social

5 cholo (2nd ed.). Lindzey, G., & Aronson, E. (Eds.)’Vol. 5.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

White, R.W. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of
competence. Psychological Review, 55, 297-333.

Wroten, S.P. (1979a). Performance feedback: A conceptual and
operational investigation of the construct in the context of a
work design theory. Masters thesis, The Ohio State University,
Columbus, OH. '

 

Wroten, S.P. (1979b). An investigation of the multidimensionality
of the feedback construct within the core dimensions model.
Unpublished manuscript, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.