Gain–loss versus reinforcement–affect ordering of student ratings of teaching: Effect of rating instructions.

Turcotte, Shelly J.; Leventhal, Les

doi:10.1037/0022-0663.76.5.782

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This relation is reflected in a number of social psychological theories. A familiar example is the gain–loss phenomenon (Aronson & Linder, 1965; Turcotte & Leventhal, 1984). For instance, subjects toward whom a confederate first expressed negative attitudes and then expressed positive attitudes liked the confederate more than did subjects toward whom the confederate constantly expressed positive attitudes (Aronson & Linder, 1965).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Velocity relation: Satisfaction as a function of the first derivative of outcome over time.

Hsee

Abelson²

1991

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

270

164

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Social scientists have found that satisfaction with an outcome is positively related not just to the position (i.e., actual level) of the outcome, but also to the displacement (i.e., directional difference) between the current level and a reference level. Extending the displacement notion, the present research hypothesized that satisfaction is positively related to the velocity (i.e., rate) at which the outcome changes over time, and tested this hypothesis by using hypothetical outcomes presented in questionnaires (Study 1) and displayed on a computer screen (Study 2). Results from both studies supported the hypothesis. The findings are discussed with regard to their implications for a formal model of the outcome-satisfaction relationship and for a dynamic analysis of human behavior.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Velocity relation: Satisfaction as a function of the first derivative of outcome over time.

Hsee

Abelson²

1991

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

270

164

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Session 2 measures, since the four Session 1 treatment combinations failed to produce significantly different Session 2 no-show rates, X 2 (3) = 3.71, p > .05. Nor did Session 2 mortality seem to limit generalizability of conclusions about treatment effects, since subjects who dropped out and nonsuspicious subjects (see next section) who completed the study failed to differ significantly on Lecture 1 quiz scores or Lecture 1 rating measures 3 except the first Hildebrand and Wilson factor, on which no shows awarded slightly higher ratings (.45 on the 5-point scale), t(59) = 2.35, p = .022.…”

Section: Subject Mortalitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Primacy/recency effects in student ratings of instruction: A reinterpretation of gain–loss effects.

Leventhal¹,

Turcotte²,

Abrami³

et al. 1983

Journal of Educational Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article describes how the effects of initial and final lecture quality on endof-course student ratings can be predicted from seemingly unrelated gain-loss theory. The effects were investigated, along with the effect on ratings of student belief that the instructor will use midterm rating feedback to improve teaching. Using videotaped lectures in a 2 X 2 X 2 laboratory analogue study, we manipulated Lecture 1 (good, poor), Lecture 2 (good, poor), and whether students were told that feedback to the instructor about Lecture 1 would be used to improve teaching (yes, no). Employing Lecture 2 ratings as the principal measure, we found that ratings varied moderately and inversely with Lecture 1 quality (negative primacy effect), greatly and directly with Lecture 2 quality (positive recency effect), and trivially with feedback. The primacy/ recency findings confirmed gain-loss predictions and illustrate how gain-loss theory can be interpreted as primacy/recency effects. We discuss implications for expectancy research and field research on instructors using midterm ratings to improve instruction in the final portion of the course.Student ratings of college instruction ratings will be called recency effects.The often lead to the classification of teachers as practical purpose of this study was to degood or poor, with the tacit assumption that termine the degree to which primacy and performance was consistently good or con-recency effects can be found in end-of-course sistently poor. Performance may not be ratings. The theoretical purpose was to consistent, however. For example, an in-show how these effects can be predicted from structor who obtains midcourse feedback on seemingly unrelated gain-loss theory, his or her teaching may go to great lengths to change. Accordingly, to aid in the inter-Gain-Loss Theory pretation of end-of-course ratings, it would be useful to determine the degree to which Gain-loss theory (Aronson & Linder, they are affected by initial and final teaching 1965) makes precise predictions about priperformance. The effects of initial teaching macy/recency effects, but the rationale is long performance on end-of-course ratings will be and complex. Aronson and Linder studied called primacy effects, and the effects of how the sequence of favorable and unfavorfinal teaching performance on end-of-course able information about oneself affected one's evaluation of the person giving the infor-. mation. They found that evaluations were This research was supported by Grant S76-0345 from most favorable for the negative-positive the Canada Council. condition (negative information followed by Portions of this article were presented at the annual positive information), which was followed, meeting of the American Educational Research Assom order, by the positive-positive, nega-^^JSfiS^^tol-l^^ tive-negative, and positive-negative condi-Department of Psychology, University of Manitoba, tlons -i njs ordering ot conditions Will be Winnipeg, Canada R3T 2N2.called the gain-loss findings.

show abstract

Understanding student/alumni satisfaction from a consumer's perspective: The effects of institutional performance and program outcomes

Hartman

Schmidt²

1995

Res High Educ

126

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Gain–loss versus reinforcement–affect ordering of student ratings of teaching: Effect of rating instructions.

Cited by 4 publications

References 10 publications

Velocity relation: Satisfaction as a function of the first derivative of outcome over time.

Velocity relation: Satisfaction as a function of the first derivative of outcome over time.

Primacy/recency effects in student ratings of instruction: A reinterpretation of gain–loss effects.

Understanding student/alumni satisfaction from a consumer's perspective: The effects of institutional performance and program outcomes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About