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.
Puzzles of Interpersonal Listening: Conflicting Findings, Theories, and Future Research
Guy Itzchakov, Graham D. Bodie
Listening
Listening is widely recognized as essential to human interaction, yet research on it remains conceptually fragmented and
theoretically inconsistent. Although extensive evidence shows that good listening benefits emotional, cognitive, motivational,
and relational outcomes, the field lacks consensus about what listening is, how it should be defined, and under what conditions it helps or hinders interaction. This article synthesizes these tensions by identifying 10 core “listening puzzles” that
reveal contradictions in existing theories and findings: (1) what constitutes good listening and its dimensions such as empathy
and non‐judgment; (2) the paradox of distraction and invisible inattention; (3) the relationship between listening and
agreement; (4) when listening requires follow‐up action; (5) the benefits and risks of silence; (6) asymmetries between
speakers' and listeners' perceptions; (7) the dual role of question‐asking; (8) the role of paraphrasing in demonstrating active
engagement and non‐judgmentalness; (9) the balance between speaking and listening; and (10) the link between listening and
personality. Together, these puzzles demonstrate that listening is neither a fixed skill nor a uniformly positive behavior, but a
context‐dependent, relational process shaped by perception, goals, and situational norms. By mapping these puzzles, the
article provides a foundation for a more integrated and nuanced understanding of how listening operates across interpersonal
and social contexts.
Keep reading
Perceiving others as responsive lessens prejudice: The mediating roles of intellectual humility and attitude ambivalence
Guy Itzchakov , Harry T. Reis , Kimberly Rios
Responsiveness
Can perceived responsiveness, the extent to which an individual feels understood, validated, and cared for by
close others, reduce prejudiced attitudes? We hypothesized that perceived responsiveness by meaningful other
people would increase recipients’ intellectual humility and attitude ambivalence and that these changes would
reduce prejudice. Five studies (total N = 3362), four of which were preregistered, manipulated perceived
responsiveness by a specific person (Studies 1–3, 5) or measured the effects of perceived responsiveness by the
closest social network of the recipient (Study 4). All studies supported the hypotheses. Specifically, Studies 1 and
2 found that perceived responsiveness increased intellectual humility and attitude ambivalence and reduced
prejudice toward a group from a pre-determined list. Study 3 replicated these findings when participants freely
chose the social group. In Study 4, perceived responsiveness from individuals’ closest social networks predicted
the dependent variables a few days afterward, controlling for positive and negative affect and social desirability.
Finally, in Study 5, we added a condition of positive social interaction to rule out the possibility that the prior
findings were due to recalling an affectively positive experience. The effect of perceived responsiveness on
prejudice reduction (i.e., increased attitude favorability toward the social group) was not moderated by attitude
certainty (Study 2), anxious or avoidant attachment style (Study 2), or attitude morality (Study 3). This work
suggests that fostering perceived responsiveness can serve as a strategy for mitigating prejudice and promoting
more open-minded attitudes.
Keep reading