Effects of positive and negative feedback and degree of discrepancy on responses to test results.

Freeman, Harvey R.

doi:10.1037/h0035125

Cited by 11 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Of course, results from the Freeman (1973) study and other Barnum studies may not generalize to authentic clientcounselor interactions because such studies differ markedly from usual counseling practice. In counseling, for example, clients' actual test results are interpreted by a qualified counselor, whereas in Barnum studies, bogus test results are presented to participants, typically in a typewritten format.…”

Section: The Barnum Effectmentioning

confidence: 96%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effects of Test Interpretation Style and Favorability in the Counseling Process

Hanson¹,

Claiborn

2006

Jour of Counseling & Develop

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two styles of test interpretation (TI), delivered and interactive, were manipulated in a 1‐session counseling interview. The favorability of the interpretations (i.e., positive only and mixed) was also manipulated. After completing a well‐known personality test, 46 participants completed the TI session. Participants' thoughts and perceptions of their sessions and counselors did not differ across the 4 experimental conditions. However, their TI acceptance and helpfulness ratings did differ. Implications for TI research and practice are discussed.

show abstract

Section: The Barnum Effectmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…In the only published counseling-like Barnum study, Freeman (1973) investigated the effects of TI favorability and discrepancy on changes in participants' self-report and attitudes toward the counselor. Participants were college students.…”

Section: The Barnum Effectmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Test Interpretation Style and Favorability in the Counseling Process

Hanson¹,

Claiborn

2006

Jour of Counseling & Develop

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, in response to negative self-relevant feedback, people will disparage an intelligence test (Wyer & Frey, 1983) or prefer to read research articles that appear to disparage the test (Frey & Stahlberg, 1986). People also have been shown to devalue a source (e.g., a psychologist or fellow student) whom they believe to have scored or interpreted their test responses in a way that resulted in negative feedback (e.g., Freeman, 1973;Steiner, 1968), and to dislike a source (e.g., a nurse) who is simply an innocent deliverer of negative feedback (e.g., positive cancer biopsy results, Study 2A; John, Blunden, Liu, 2019). Research also shows that people will degrade the accuracy of a bogus diagnosis that they believe to be based on their responses to a psychological assessment as analyzed by a computer program (Ditto & Boardman, 1995).…”

Section: Disparaging Information Following Negative Feedbackmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do People Devalue Sources of Threatening Health Feedback Particularly When Its Criteria Are Ambiguous and Its Consequences Enduring?

Araiza

Freitas

2020

Collabra: Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We tested the pre-registered hypotheses that receiving threatening health feedback would lead participants to disparage the health-assessment tool used to generate it and that quality of the assessment would moderate this effect. In Studies 1–3, undergraduate students completed a questionnaire including both unambiguous and ambiguous health-assessment items and were randomly assigned to receive either negative health feedback or no feedback. In Study 4, participants were randomly assigned to a control condition or to one of two experimental conditions that entailed receiving negative feedback about enduring or fleeting consequences of their health behaviors. Across all studies, contrary to our predictions, there were no significant effects of feedback on participants’ ratings of the accuracy of the assessment procedures. These findings have implications for understanding the specific conditions under which people disparage sources of threatening feedback in the domain of health.

show abstract

“…Persons receiving feedback want to hear positive things about themselves (Schaible & Jacobs, 1975) and will change in the direction suggested by the feedback sender (Miles, 1958). Apparently, both positive and negative feedback are important in producing change, but there are conflicting views about the sequence of feedback necessary for change (Freeman, 1973;Lippitt, 1959).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A controlled study of quantitative feedback in married-couples brief group psychotherapy.

Soeken¹,

Manderscheid²,

Flatter³

et al. 1981

Psychotherapy: Theory, Research & Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study investigated the impact of delayed, written feedback upon the process and outcome of brief group psychotherapy for married couples. A two-group, two-stage design was employed. Prior to the therapy stage, each group participated in a four session, placebo stage. Subsequently, the control group received couple-group therapy. At the same time, members of the experimental group participated in equivalent therapy and received written feedback consisting of self, peer, and therapist ratings on variables selected from a Post Session Questionnaire. Generally, results supported the hypotheses: Feedback variables showed more significant changes in expected directions than did the nonfeedback variables; therapy plus feedback, in contrast to therapy alone, led to the assessment of greater behavioral change; therapy plus feedback was a more effective tool than therapy alone for increasing the degree of congruence between self and peer ratings, and between self and therapist ratings; members of the experimental group perceived con-1 This investigation is part of a research project conducted at the Mental Health Study Center, NIMH, Adelphi, Maryland. This study also represents work completed in partial fulfillment of the Ph.D. degree in Human Development at the University of Maryland by the first author under the guidance of thesis and research advisors. Special thanks are due to Donald S. Rae for computer programming and to Cathy D. Sigman, Karen M. Sheehan, and Teresa J. Bowers for preparing the manuscript. Tables showing mean values ± standard deviations for all Post Session Questionnaire variables are available.

show abstract

Effects of positive and negative feedback and degree of discrepancy on responses to test results.

Cited by 11 publications

References 3 publications

Effects of Test Interpretation Style and Favorability in the Counseling Process

Effects of Test Interpretation Style and Favorability in the Counseling Process

Do People Devalue Sources of Threatening Health Feedback Particularly When Its Criteria Are Ambiguous and Its Consequences Enduring?

A controlled study of quantitative feedback in married-couples brief group psychotherapy.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About