Emotion regulation refers to the processes by which individuals influence the intensity, duration, and expression of their emotions.
People employ various strategies, such as reappraisal (changing the way they think about a situation) or distraction (focusing on unrelated thoughts or activities), to manage their emotional responses.
In negative-feedback situations, emotion regulation plays a crucial role as individuals often experience negative emotions that may hinder their motivation and ability to learn from the feedback.
For example, when an employee receives critical feedback from their supervisor, they may choose to reappraise the situation as an opportunity for growth or distract themselves by focusing on their strengths to regulate their negative emotions and maintain their goal to improve their performance.
Grundmann, F., Epstude, K., & Scheibe, S. (2024). Whether and how to regulate: Emotion regulation in negative-feedback situations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001566
Key Points
- Negative feedback elicits negative affect, which is associated with a salient goal to feel better.
- The goal to perform better, but not the goal to feel better, influences negative-feedback recipients’ emotion-regulation strategy choice. A salient goal to perform better was associated with a preference for reappraisal over distraction.
- Affect-oriented processes, such as emotion regulation, operate when people receive negative feedback.
- The research highlights the importance of studying alternative goals, given their relevance for how people regulate their emotions.
Rationale
Previous studies on emotion-regulation choice have neglected to account for the relative importance of an emotion-regulation goal in the presence of other goals, such as the goal to perform better.
Negative feedback situations offer an intriguing context to study the interplay of emotion-regulation goals (wanting to feel better) and performance goals (wanting to perform better).
This research aimed to investigate emotion-regulation choice in meaningful contexts that are emotionally potent enough to induce an emotion-regulation goal and a specific alternative goal, such as a performance goal (Grundmann et al., 2021; Ulichney et al., 2022).
Method
The researchers conducted five preregistered online studies (N = 1,087; four experiments) to examine emotion-regulation choice in feedback situations.
They distinguished the choice of whether to regulate (goal to feel better) from the choice of how to regulate (deciding between different emotion-regulation strategies such as reappraisal or distraction).
Participants were recruited from various sources, including university students (Study 2) and online platforms like Prolific (Studies 1, 4, and 5). Sample sizes ranged from 173 to 299 participants per study.
Study 1: Autobiographical Recollections of Feedback Received at Work
Procedure: Participants recalled a moment when they received either negative or positive feedback at work, described the feedback situation, and indicated when it took place.
Measures: General negative affect (measured using a slider scale) and goal salience (to feel better and to perform better, measured using a 5-point Likert scale).
Statistical measures: Mediation analysis was used to test the indirect effect of negative (vs. positive) feedback on the goal to feel better via general negative affect.
Study 2: Concurrent Response to Negative Feedback
Procedure: Participants completed an emotion-perception task and received either negative feedback or no feedback on their performance.
Measures: General negative affect (slider scale), specific negative emotions (anger, disappointment, and shame; slider scale), and goal salience (to feel better and to perform better; 5-point Likert scale).
Statistical measures: Mediation analysis was used to test the indirect effect of negative feedback on participants’ goal to feel better via general negative affect and specific negative emotions.
Study 3: Feedback (Dis)engagement Based on Vignettes
Procedure: Participants read 12 vignettes describing feedback situations that varied in feedback valence (negative or positive) and setting (sport, education, or work). They indicated the perceived likelihood of the protagonist engaging in feedback engagement and disengagement behaviors.
Measures: Perceived likelihood of feedback engagement and disengagement (5-point Likert scale).
Statistical measures: Multilevel analysis was used to examine the separate and joint effects of goal condition (to feel better, to perform better, or no goal) and feedback valence on the perceived likelihood of feedback engagement and disengagement.
Study 4: Personal Strategy Choice Based on Vignettes
Procedure: Participants listened to descriptions of negative-feedback situations and indicated which emotion-regulation strategy (reappraisal or distraction) they would choose if their goal was either to feel better or to perform better.
Measures: Emotion-regulation strategy choice (reappraisal or distraction).
Statistical measures: Logistic regression was used to test the effect of goal condition (to feel better, to perform better, or control/best goal) on emotion-regulation strategy choice.
Study 5: The Relative Importance of the Goals to Feel and to Perform Better
Procedure: Participants completed a performance task that provided feedback on six dimensions. They reported the salience of their goals to feel and perform better and chose an emotion-regulation strategy (reappraisal or distraction) before receiving feedback on each dimension.
Measures: Goal salience (to feel better and to perform better; 5-point Likert scale) and emotion-regulation strategy choice (reappraisal or distraction).
Statistical measures: Multilevel logistic regression was used to test the effects of the goals to feel and perform better on emotion-regulation strategy choice.
Results
The studies supported the hypothesis that negative feedback is associated with a salient goal to feel better via negative affect.
However, the goal to perform better, rather than the goal to feel better, influenced emotion-regulation strategy choice in negative-feedback situations.
A salient goal to perform better was associated with an increased likelihood of choosing reappraisal over distraction.
Insight
The findings suggest that recipients of negative feedback may not necessarily tune out due to the positivity of their self being threatened, but rather because of their weak goal to perform better.
The research also offers three explanations for why negative-feedback recipients fail to learn from their mistakes:
- Choosing disengagement strategies due to a weakly activated goal to perform better,
- Reappraising the feedback in ways that reduce motivation, and
- Downregulating negative affect, which may reduce the salience of the goal to perform better.
Strengths
- The studies employed various methodological approaches, including:
- Experimental designs
- Vignette-based studies
- Assessing the relative importance of goals
- The research focused on meaningful contexts (negative feedback situations) that reliably induce both emotion-regulation and performance goals.
- The studies used large sample sizes (N = 1,087 across five studies), increasing the statistical power and generalizability of the findings.
- The researchers used preregistration for all studies, which enhances the transparency and credibility of the research.
- The studies employed a range of statistical methods, such as mediation analysis, multilevel analysis, and logistic regression, allowing for a comprehensive examination of the relationships between variables.
Limitations
- The studies primarily relied on samples from Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic (WEIRD) societies, which may limit the generalizability of the findings.
- Cultural differences in emotional experiences, regulation, and goals were not explicitly examined, which may have obscured potential variations in how individuals respond to negative feedback.
- The studies mainly used self-report measures, which may be subject to social desirability bias or inaccurate recall of emotional experiences.
- The research did not investigate the long-term effects of emotion-regulation strategies on performance improvement following negative feedback.
- The studies did not account for individual differences in personality traits or cognitive abilities that may influence emotion regulation and goal pursuit in negative feedback situations.
Implications
The findings have implications for understanding the feedback-performance gap and why people sometimes fail to learn from negative feedback.
The research highlights the importance of considering the interplay between emotion-regulation goals and performance goals in feedback situations.
Practitioners should be aware that the way individuals regulate their emotions in response to negative feedback may influence their motivation and ability to improve their performance.
References
Primary reference
Grundmann, F., Epstude, K., & Scheibe, S. (2024). Whether and how to regulate: Emotion regulation in negative-feedback situations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001566
Other references
Grundmann, F., Scheibe, S., & Epstude, K. (2021). When ignoring negative feedback is functional: Presenting a model of motivated feedback disengagement. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 30(1), 3-10. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721420969386
Ulichney, G., Jarcho, J., & Helion, C. (2022). The self, emotion, & regulation model of giving and receiving constructive feedback. https://doi.org/10.31234/OSF.IO/9VSP4
Keep Learning
Here are some reflective questions related to this study that could prompt further discussion:
- How might cultural differences in emotional experiences and regulation influence the way individuals respond to negative feedback?
- What strategies can be employed to help individuals maintain a strong goal to perform better when facing negative feedback?
- How can practitioners, such as managers or educators, provide negative feedback in a way that minimizes disengagement and promotes learning and growth?
