Variations in Group Process Due to Valence, Response Mode, and Directness of Feedback

Abstract

Differences in group cohesion, trust, attraction, and perceptions of feedback were evaluated due to interpersonal feedback which varied in valence, response mode, and directness. Seventy-two undergraduates were randomly assigned to groups of eight subjects each to meet once for a two-hour session. Groups completed exercises designed to build intimacy for one hour, and then groups were randomly assigned to exchange interpersonal feedback which varied in the following ways: (1) positive valence, verbal feedback; (2) positive valence, fantasized or nonverbal feedback; (3) negative valence, verbal feedback; or (4) negative feedback, nonverbal feedback. In addition, feedback varied within each group as to whether it was advice, interpretive, behavioral, or emotional in response mode with two subjects in each group delivering each type of feedback. Results indicated that while response mode did not effect feedback ratings or cohesion ratings, the valence of the feedback effected each measure. In addition, fantasizing feedback can heighten effects of the feedback on trust, leading to greater trust for positive feedback and less trust with fantasizing negative feedback.

Exploring the Impact of Receiving Sender‐Based Negative and Positive Feedback on Team‐Level Process Outcomes Using a Mobile Application

“…This result supports prior research finding that positive feedback was rated as more accurate, desirable, more helpful than negative feedback, and positive feedback resulted in increased cohesiveness and trust (Rotheram et al, 1982). However, the positive sender explain scale did not have an impact.…”

“…In the same abovecited study, Rotheram et al (1982) also found that positive feedback resulted in higher mean levels of group cohesion and trust. In the same abovecited study, Rotheram et al (1982) also found that positive feedback resulted in higher mean levels of group cohesion and trust.…”

“…Work-related research has long shown (Meyer, 1991) that employees tend to have an inflated assessment of their own performance. In an experimental design using undergraduates working in groups, Rotheram et al (1982) found that receiving negative feedback resulted in lower mean levels of perceived accuracy, helpfulness, and desirability, but a higher level of impact. In an experimental design using undergraduates working in groups, Rotheram et al (1982) found that receiving negative feedback resulted in lower mean levels of perceived accuracy, helpfulness, and desirability, but a higher level of impact.…”

“…Based on Yilmaz and Hunt (2001), team trust was defined as respondents' confidence in the integrity and reliability of team members, and team commitment was defined as a feeling of personal attachment to one's group. Prior research focusing on undergraduate group or team-level outcomes has measured team trust (Rotheram, La Cour, & Jacobs, 1982), team commitment, and team value-goal fit (Lee, Smith, & Sergueeva, 2016). Prior research focusing on undergraduate group or team-level outcomes has measured team trust (Rotheram, La Cour, & Jacobs, 1982), team commitment, and team value-goal fit (Lee, Smith, & Sergueeva, 2016).…”

“…Based on Cable and Judge (1996), team value-goal fit was defined as perceiving consistency between one's values/goals and the team's values/goals. Prior research focusing on undergraduate group or team-level outcomes has measured team trust (Rotheram, La Cour, & Jacobs, 1982), team commitment, and team value-goal fit (Lee, Smith, & Sergueeva, 2016).…”