Paradoxical Effects of Praise and Criticism on Perceived Ability

Meyer, Wulf‐Uwe

doi:10.1080/14792779243000087

Cited by 55 publications

(56 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Alternately, Hofer (cited in Meyer, 1992) argued that praise indicates that performance exceeds expectations and criticism indicates that performance is below expectations. The communication of these expectations is taken as a communication of perceived ability, for example, that a lower score was expected from the praised child and that she is less able.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Conceptions of Ability and the Interpretation of Praise, Blame, and Material Rewards

Miller

Hom

1996

The Journal of Experimental Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Conceptions of Ability and the Interpretation of Praise, Blame, and Material Rewards

Miller

Hom

1996

The Journal of Experimental Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…However, older subjects interpreted teacher ability attributions to be lower for the praised student and higher for the blamed student. Meyer (1992) argued that these apparently paradoxical ndings could be explained by subscribing to two attribution principles: (1) students link teacher feedback to expended effort and not ability (Weiner & Kukla, 1970); and (2) ability and effort are tied to each other in an inverse fashion (Kun, 1977) such that ability mediates the effect of effort on performance. Barker and Graham (1987) conducted a follow-up study with a developmental twist using students from ages 8 to 12.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…Research on achievement motivation has demonstrated the positive effects of teacher blame (Meyer, 1992;Meyer et al, 1979Meyer et al, , 1986. Typically, German participants of various ageswere asked to make judgements about the perceived ability and effort of two ctitious students who achieved the same outcome on a mathematics test but received differential evaluative comments from the teacher in the form of praise or blame versus neutral feedback.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cultural Considerations: Interpretations of blame and perceived ability among children in India

Parameswaran¹,

Hom²

2001

Educational Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the rst study, children's ability attributions following teacher blame was assessed for 218 Tamil-speaking children in India between 6 and 12 years of age. Indian children of all ages attributed low ability to the child that was blamed and high ability to the child who was not blamed by the teacher. This nding does not conform to expectations based on studies conducted in the West. In the second study, children between the ages of 6 and 12 were given questionnaires that attempted to explore their conceptions of ability and effort. It was found that the Indian sample did not clearly distinguish between ability and effort. Studies conducted in the West have found that older children clearly differentiate between ability and effort and value ability more than effort. The reasons for these culturally different ndings in children's attributions is examined, and several possible explanations are offered.

show abstract

“…However, Meyer (1992) found that praise and other behaviors such as pity, help, assignment of easy tasks, which are mostly regarded as positive and desirable, can actually have negative impacts as they can unintentionally convey messages of perceived low-ability. In addition, praise has been found to create excessive pressure to continue performing well in the future (Baumeister et al, 1990), discourage risk taking (Gunderson et al, 2013), and reduce perceived autonomy (Birch et al, 1984).…”

Section: The Negative Impact Of Praisementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Managers should be aware of the importance of paying attention to how they praise for achievements that come easily, such as routine tasks, as this praise can have a demotivating effect, be considered offensive, and eventually lead to complacent behavior (Meyer, 1992). Therefore, it is recommended that managers differentiate between the degrees of praise needed for exceptional performance as opposed to regular praise for routine tasks.…”

Section: Managerial Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

When good news is bad news: the negative impact of positive customer feedback on front-line employee well-being

Nasr

Burton

Gruber

2015

Journal of Services Marketing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose – Front-line employee (FLE) well-being is an under-researched field. Contrasting the prevailing view that Positive Customer Feedback (PCF) can only have ‘positive’ impacts, this study aims to answer the counterintuitive question: Could the apparently positive construct ‘Positive Customer Feedback’ have a negative impact on the well-being of front-line employees? Consequently, working within the Transformative Service Research (TSR) framework, we investigate whether PCF can negatively affect the eudaimonic and hedonic well-being dimensions of FLEs, thus decreasing their overall psychological well-being level. Design/methodology/approach – A multidisciplinary literature review was conducted, particularly in the social psychology, human resources and organizational behavior fields, to examine the potential negative impacts of PCF. Subsequently, an exploratory qualitative study consisting of seven focus groups with 45 FLEs and 22 in-depth interviews with managers working across various service industries were performed. All the transcripts were analyzed via an iterative hermeneutical process. Findings – A model describing ten negative impacts and six key contingencies of PCF was developed. The identified impacts can negatively affect the eudaimonic and hedonic well-being dimensions of FLEs. PCF can have a negative impact on the eudaimonic dimensions such as harmony, respect and support. Moreover, PCF appears to increase the negative affect by creating tension, fear, strain and stress, thus, negatively affecting the happiness level of FLEs (hedonic well-being). The identified contingencies play a crucial role in determining the direction and intensity of the negative impact of PCF. Therefore, the overall psychological well-being level of FLEs can suffer as a result of PCF. This study also discusses managerial challenges associated with PCF management. Research limitations/implications – The article discusses important managerial implications in the field of FLE well-being and PCF management and suggests directions for future research aiming to expand the boundaries of the current TSR agenda and service human resources. Originality/value – This study is the first to explore the negative side of PCF from a TSR perspective. It extends the understanding of the overlooked area of PCF and FLE well-being.

show abstract

Paradoxical Effects of Praise and Criticism on Perceived Ability

Cited by 55 publications

References 19 publications

Conceptions of Ability and the Interpretation of Praise, Blame, and Material Rewards

Conceptions of Ability and the Interpretation of Praise, Blame, and Material Rewards

Cultural Considerations: Interpretations of blame and perceived ability among children in India

When good news is bad news: the negative impact of positive customer feedback on front-line employee well-being

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About