Effect of Feedback on Interpersonal Sensitivity in Laboratory Training Groups

Self-Confrontation Reviewed: A Conceptualization for Video Playback in Teacher Education

“…A feedback group showed lower discrepancy between ratings received and ratings anticipated than did control subjects who received no feedback (Myers, Myers, Goldberg, & Welch, 1969). The bulk of the evidence seems to indicate that it can.…”

The Effectiveness of Training to Improve Person Perception Accuracy: A Meta-Analysis

“…Four effect sizes were in the domain of perceiving others' level of comprehension (Jecker, MacCoby, & Breitrose, 1965;Machida, 1986;Webb, Diana, Luft, Brooks, & Brennan, 1997). The final domain included other person perception tasks (nine studies, 24%), including judging others' status, intimacy, kinship, and competition on the Interpersonal Perception Task (Costanzo, 1992;Nixon & Bull, 2005), perceiving interpersonal rapport (Gillis, Bernieri, & Wooten, 1995), judging another's perceptions of oneself (Myers, Myers, Goldberg, & Welch, 1969), judging supervisors' job-related traits (Heneman, 1988), and judging personality (Crow, 1957). There were no studies included in this meta-analysis that trained participants in basic emotion recognition accuracy (i.e., identifying whether a target is displaying one of a number of emotional categories).…”

“…Empathic accuracy is the ability to accurately infer thoughts and feelings. 1 Sixteen articles reporting 21 independent effect sizes representing a within-subjects approach were found, and a separate meta-analysis was conducted on these studies (Allport, 1924;Barone et al, 2005;Danish & Kagan, 1971;Delaney & Heimann, 1966;Elfenbein, 2006;Endres & Laidlaw, 2009;Frank, Paolantonio, Feeley, & Servoss, 2004;Gutierrez & Wallbrown, 1983;Jenness, 1932;Lanzetta & Kleck, 1970;Myers, Myers, Goldberg, & Welch, 1969;Nixon & Bull, 2005;Robbins et al, 1979;Russell, Chu, & Phillips, 2006;Savage, 1975;Webb, Diana, Luft, Brooks, & Brennan, 1997). Combining the 21 effect sizes from within-subjects designs, the random effects mean effect size was r ¼ .44 (Z ¼ 7.06, p < .001) and the fixed, weighted mean effect size was r ¼ .40 (Z ¼ 10.50, p < .001).…”