Performance-feedback

Feedback plays a critical role in shaping beliefs, guiding decisions, and improving performance. We conduct an online experiment to study the nature and effectiveness of qualitative feedback. Although qualitative feedback is widely used, it has received little attention in experimental economics, where the primary focus has been on quantitative feedback. We find a kindness bias: Evaluators give feedback that is more positive than their true opinions. However, recipients anticipate the bias and update their beliefs appropriately. In particular, subjects do not interpret written feedback in a way that is unduly favorable to themselves. This contrasts with work on quantitative feedback that finds a significant upward bias in interpretation. Unlike prior work, we find no difference in how feedback is given to men and women. We identify two channels through which feedback influences decisions: a belief-updating channel and an encouragement channel. Women respond to both, while men are less responsive to encouragement. We find improved performance for individuals who receive feedback that includes more concrete advice.

Publication Details

Journal
The Faculty Digital Archive (New York University)
Published
2025-08-28
Primary Topic
Plant Pathogenic Bacteria Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Performance-feedback

The Faculty Digital Archive (New York University)
Plant Pathogenic Bacteria Studies
article

Performance-feedback

article en

Abstract

Feedback plays a critical role in shaping beliefs, guiding decisions, and improving performance. We conduct an online experiment to study the nature and effectiveness of qualitative feedback. Although qualitative feedback is widely used, it has received little attention in experimental economics, where the primary focus has been on quantitative feedback. We find a kindness bias: Evaluators give feedback that is more positive than their true opinions. However, recipients anticipate the bias and update their beliefs appropriately. In particular, subjects do not interpret written feedback in a way that is unduly favorable to themselves. This contrasts with work on quantitative feedback that finds a significant upward bias in interpretation. Unlike prior work, we find no difference in how feedback is given to men and women. We identify two channels through which feedback influences decisions: a belief-updating channel and an encouragement channel. Women respond to both, while men are less responsive to encouragement. We find improved performance for individuals who receive feedback that includes more concrete advice.

The Faculty Digital Archive (New York University)
Openalex Percentile: Top 32%
Plant Pathogenic Bacteria Studies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.