The Moderating Effect of Performance Feedback and the Mediating Effect of Self-Set Goals on the Primed Goal-Performance Relationship
Abstract
The effect of feedback and a self-set goal on the relationship between a goal primed in the subconscious and performance were examined in three laboratory experiments and one field experiment (n = 241, 465, 201, 74 respectively), using normative (bogus) and absolute feedback manipulations, and different performance tasks that were coded for both performance quality (i.e. creativity) and quantity. The hypothesis that providing feedback, a moderator in goal-setting theory, amplifies the causal effect of a primed goal on performance was supported. Specifically, in experiment 1, participants were randomly assigned to a 2 (prime of effective vs. ineffective performance) × 3 (positive, negative, no feedback) factorial design. The primed goal for effective performance led to higher performance than the negative primed goal. In addition, feedback, regardless of its sign, increased both task and creative performance when a primed goal for effective performance was presented but did not do so when the goal primed ineffective performance. This effect was replicated in two subsequent laboratory experiments which employed three primed goal conditions (effective/neutral/ineffective). In experiments 2 and 3, a consciously set goal, with no prompting by an experimenter, mediated the relationship between a primed goal and performance when feedback was provided. Experiment 4 provided a conceptual replication in a work setting, involving employees in a customer service department of a large communication company. Finally, a meta-analysis of these four experiments indicated an average effect size of d = 0.36, 95 percent CI [0.23, 0.49] with no evidence of heterogeneity across the four experiments. These findings suggest that not only are subconscious goals a foundation for the difficulty level of consciously set goals but in addition, subconscious goals and conscious goals work together in affecting performance.
Empathic listening satisfies speakers’ psychological needs and well-being, but doesn’t directly deepen solitude experiences: A registered report
Netta Weinstein, Guy Itzchakov
Listening
A live discussion experiment was designed to test the effects of highly empathic (vs. moderately empathic) listening on solitude experiences. Participants were assigned to three conditions in which they: 1) Discussed a negative personal experience with a confederate (ostensibly another participant) exhibiting highly empathic listening; 2) Discussed an experience with a confederate exhibiting moderately empathic listening; or, 3) Engaged in a positive reframing exercise. Building on previous listening theory (Weinstein et al., 2022) and research (Itzchakov & Weinstein, 2021; Itzchakov, Weinstein, et al., 2022). We then assessed the two posited mechanisms of autonomy and relatedness and tested the expectations to be in solitude. All participants were instructed to spend ten minutes alone, phones off, and distractions stored away. While highly empathic listening enhanced participants’ (i.e. speakers) autonomy and relatedness need satisfaction compared to the other two conditions and predicted initial increases in self- and social-connection, it did not subsequently improve solitude experiences, with no direct effects found predicting self-connection, peaceful affect, loneliness, or self-insight. Indirect effects linked empathic listening to self-connection and self-insight through autonomy satisfaction. While empathic listening fosters immediate psychological need satisfaction in social contexts, deeper listening interventions may be necessary to improve subsequent solitude periods.
Keep reading
How do people perceive listeners?
Guy Itzchakov, Geoffrey Haddock and Sarah Smith
Listening
Listening is essential in shaping social interactions,
relationships and communication. While listening research
has generated significant insights on how speakers benefit
from good listening, one fundamental question has been
largely overlooked: how do people perceive listeners?
This gap is crucial for understanding how perceptions of
listeners impact relational dynamics. In three studies (two
preregistered; total N = 1509), we assessed the attributes
and behaviours associated with good and bad listeners, and
whether the favourability of these attributes and behaviours
impact downstream consequences. In Study 1, participants
identified an acquaintance they judged as a good or bad
listener. Good listeners were rated higher in positive listening
attributes and behaviours, which mediated their perceived
warmth, competence and values. Study 2 replicated this using
a reverse correlation technique: one sample generated faces
of a good or bad listener, which were then evaluated by a
second, naïve sample. Consistent with Study 1, good listener
faces were rated higher in positive listening attributes and
behaviours, mediating perceptions of warmth, competence,
humility and values. Study 3 extended Study 2 by showing
that the effects were not due to a general positivity bias,
demonstrating the significant interpersonal consequences of
being perceived as a good or bad listener.
Keep reading