Content uploaded by Howard J. Klein
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Howard J. Klein on Apr 01, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
The Effect of Negative Feedback on Tension and Subsequent Performance:
The Main and Interactive Effects of Goal Content and Conscientiousness
Anna M. Cianci
Drexel University
Howard J. Klein
The Ohio State University
Gerard H. Seijts
The University of Western Ontario
The purpose of this experiment was to examine the interplay of goal content, conscientiousness, and
tension on performance following negative feedback. Undergraduate students were assigned either a
learning or performance goal and then were provided with false feedback indicating very poor perfor-
mance on the task they performed. After assessing tension, participants performed the task again with the
same learning or performance goal. A mediated moderation model was tested, and results were
supportive of our hypotheses. Specifically, individuals assigned a learning goal experienced less tension
and performed better following negative feedback than individuals assigned a performance goal.
Individuals high in conscientiousness experienced greater tension than individuals low in conscientious-
ness. Conscientiousness and goal content interacted in relating to both tension and performance, with
tension as a mediator, such that high conscientiousness amplified the detrimental effect of a performance
goal on tension following negative feedback leading to lower performance. High conscientiousness
facilitated performance for participants with a learning goal.
Keywords: conscientiousness, goals, feedback, affect
Feedback or knowledge of results is a requirement for effective
goal setting. For example, Locke, Shaw, Saari, and Latham (1981)
concluded that goals regulate performance more reliably when
feedback is present than when it is absent. Feedback is provided to
guide, motivate, and reinforce job-relevant behaviors. Positive
feedback is thought to encourage individuals to set or accept
higher goals (e.g., Bandura & Cervone, 1983; Ilies & Judge, 2005;
Latham, 2007). Negative feedback is thought to create awareness
of performance goal discrepancies and to motivate individuals to
work harder or to change their behavioral strategies to reduce these
discrepancies (e.g., Bandura, 1997; Klein, 1989; Locke & Latham,
1990).
A meta-analysis conducted by Kluger and DeNisi (1996) re-
vealed that the effect of feedback on performance is “quite vari-
able” (p. 254). Their results showed that feedback improved,
impaired, or had no effect on performance, suggesting that there
are moderators of the effect of feedback on performance. Kluger
and DeNisi explained that the moderator effect is poorly under-
stood and that additional research is necessary to clarify the effect
of feedback on self-regulatory processes and performance.
The objective of our study is two-fold. First, we seek a better
understanding of the interplay of goal content, a contextual factor,
and conscientiousness, a personality trait, and how these two
variables might facilitate performance following very negative
feedback (treated as a constant in our study). The possible reac-
tions to large performance goal discrepancies are quite varied,
ranging from a redoubling of effort to withdrawing from the task
and abandonment of the goal. Therefore, it is important to under-
stand the individual difference and contextual variables that help to
explain those varied reactions to negative feedback. We focused on
conscientiousness as the individual difference variable in this
study because this trait is directly associated with motivation, goal
striving, and self-regulation. Barrick, Mount, and Strauss (1993),
for example, concluded that “conscientiousness may be the most
important trait-motivation variable in the work domain” (p. 721).
Given our interest in understanding reactions to negative feedback
during goal striving, the contextual variable we chose to examine
was goal content, specifically the assignment of learning versus
performance goals.
Second, we test whether the relationship between negative feed-
back and subsequent performance is mediated by affective re-
sponse. Too often feedback is examined only in terms of its
cognitive, informational value without recognizing the emotional
reactions individuals have to receiving feedback. Studies have
shown that the failure to attain a goal or performance standard
influences an individual’s affective state (e.g., joy or disappoint-
ment; see Alliger & Williams, 1993; Ilies, DePater, & Judge,
2007). This affective state, in turn, has the potential to influence
goal-directed behavior and subsequent performance. In sum, our
study uniquely contributes to understanding the feedback process
by examining how individuals assigned a learning goal and those
assigned a performance goal perform following negative feedback
Anna M. Cianci, LeBow College of Business, Drexel University;
Howard J. Klein, Fisher College of Business, The Ohio State University;
Gerard H. Seijts, The Richard Ivey School of Business, The University of
Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Anna M.
Cianci, LeBow College of Business, Drexel University, 3141 Chestnut
Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104. E-mail: amc66@drexel.edu
Journal of Applied Psychology © 2010 American Psychological Association
2010, Vol. 95, No. 4, 618– 630 0021-9010/10/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0019130
618
and how that performance may depend on conscientiousness and
be mediated by affect.
Goal Setting and Goal Orientation
A goal is a standard or target to shoot for (e.g., Latham, 2007;
Locke & Latham, 2002). The setting or assignment of goals is a
contextual factor that influences behavior and performance. Of
interest in the current study is whether the focus of a goal is on
performance (e.g., achieve 10% market share) or learning (e.g.,
discover three strategies to increase market share; see Seijts,
Latham, Tasa, & Latham, 2004; Winters & Latham, 1996). When
goals are operationalized in this manner, they trigger or induce
goal orientation states. Goal orientation is an important motiva-
tional construct.
Goal orientation has been examined as (a) a trait or a somewhat
stable dispositional variable that is responsible for individual dif-
ferences in self-regulation and subsequent behaviors across do-
mains (e.g., Button, Mathieu, & Zajac, 1996), (b) a domain-
level variable that influences behavior within a particular
general context (e.g., academic settings; see VandeWalle,
1997), and (c) a state that can be induced by the salient features
of a particular situation (e.g., Harackiewicz, Barron, Carter,
Leto, & Elliot, 1997). Our focus in the current study is on goal
orientation as a state induced through a goal setting interven-
tion. We chose to do so for three reasons. First, we were
interested in how individual differences and contextual factors
interact rather than solely individual differences. Second, states
more directly influence behavior than do traits, as the latter
provide only behavioral tendencies. Third, managers can di-
rectly influence states, whereas traits are relatively fixed. For
example, individuals can be taught when and how to set specific
high performance and learning goals. Furthermore, situational
cues can override a person’s dispositional goal orientation (e.g.,
Button et al., 1996; Seijts et al., 2004).
Several models of goal orientation have been put forth, differing
in the number of distinct orientations presented (see DeShon &
Gillespie, 2005). Our focus in this study is on the two primary goal
orientations—learning orientation, which focuses on the develop-
ment of competence, and performance orientation, which focuses
on the demonstration of skills and abilities to others (e.g., Button
et al., 1996; Dweck, 1986; Payne, Youngcourt, & Beaubien, 2007).
Studies have shown that environmental stimuli, such as goal set-
ting interventions, can trigger or induce goal orientation states or
mindsets (e.g., Button et al., 1996; Gist & Stevens, 1998; Koz-
lowski & Bell, 2006). It is well established that goals direct
attention, effort, and action toward goal relevant activities at the
expense of nonrelevant activities (e.g., Locke & Latham, 1990,
2002). As such, a researcher or manager can frame a goal in terms
of the importance of discovering task-relevant strategies or devel-
oping new skills through exploration and learning from errors,
which creates a focus that is consistent with a learning goal
orientation. In contrast, urging an individual to focus on perfor-
mance and to minimize errors creates a mindset consistent with a
performance goal orientation. Chen and Mathieu (2008) concluded
that “goal orientation dispositions and interventions lead to similar
motivational and self-regulation processes” (p. 25).
Goal Content and Negative Feedback
VandeWalle, Cron, and Slocum (2001) argued that the focus on
a learning goal implies the motivation to gain competence and a
desire to learn from experience. Individuals with a learning goal
orientation therefore seek out challenges and persist in striving for
goal attainment despite obstacles and setbacks. Seijts and Latham
(2005) concluded that the purpose of a learning goal is to stimulate
one’s imagination, to engage in discovery, to actively seek feed-
back, and to execute ideas to test newly formed hypotheses. Klein,
Noe, and Wang (2006) found a positive relationship between the
focus on a learning goal and motivation to learn; furthermore,
motivation to learn, in turn, was related to course outcomes,
including satisfaction and grades. These activities are beneficial, in
particular, when individuals are in the process of acquiring new
knowledge and skills that are necessary to perform a task effec-
tively.
In contrast, the purpose of a performance goal is to choose to
exert effort and to persist in the attainment of a desired objective
using the knowledge and skills one already possesses (e.g.,
Latham, 2007; Latham, Seijts, & Crim, 2008). Individuals who
have a performance goal orientation— either dispositional or in-
duced—want to demonstrate their competence by attaining the
goal that has been assigned to them. These individuals have a
tendency to view mistakes and negative feedback as an evaluative
threat to the self and to withdraw from the assignment in the face
of setbacks in an effort to protect their egos (e.g., Brown, 2001;
Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Yeo & Neil, 2004).
Feedback is a cornerstone of goal setting and other motivational
interventions (e.g., Bandura, 1997; Locke & Latham, 2002). Re-
search has shown that negative feedback tends to evoke defensive-
ness and denial (e.g., Ilgen, Mitchell, & Fredrickson, 1981; Pod-
sakoff & Farh, 1989). These dysfunctional consequences are of
particular concern when the feedback indicates an individual has
fallen far short of a goal. We argue that a learning goal holds an
advantage over a performance goal following negative feedback in
that a learning goal buffers against negative feedback. A learning
goal urges individuals to focus on gaining competence, to develop
new skills or approaches to mastering a new task, to learn from
experience, and to persist in the face of obstacles or setbacks (e.g.,
Chillarege, Nordstrom, & Williams, 2003; Fisher & Ford, 1998;
Seijts & Latham, 2005). Individuals with a learning goal adopt a
solutions-oriented approach toward problem solving. They view
the assignment as a chance to learn something new and to develop
their competence; errors and negative feedback are perceived as a
natural part of the learning process (e.g., Brown, 2001; Cron,
Slocum, VandeWalle, & Fu, 2005; E. S. Elliott & Dweck, 1988).
Feedback is seen as valuable because it suggests ways to improve
their competencies.
In contrast, individuals assigned a performance goal will be
dissatisfied with their level of achievement following negative
feedback because they want to demonstrate their competence to
others. Some may try to improve their performance, whereas
others may disengage from the task altogether to avoid further
negative feedback or to provide themselves with a convenient
excuse for subsequent failures (e.g., “I wasn’t really trying”; see
Dweck, 1986; Yeo & Neal, 2004).
Kluger and DeNisi (1996) explained that feedback interventions
impact the locus of attention, which, in turn, is related to perfor-
619
GOALS, CONSCIENTIOUSNESS, AND NEGATIVE FEEDBACK
mance. They identified three levels of processes involved in per-
formance regulation, namely, processes that involve the following:
(a) the self, or metatask processes; (b) the focal task, or task
motivation processes; and (c) the details of the focal task, or task
learning processes. The results of their meta-analysis showed that
the benefit of feedback is stronger when the focus is on task
learning processes rather than processes that involve the self (e.g.,
considering the consequences of task failure, including criticism
from supervisors). Kluger and DeNisi thus concluded that feed-
back interventions that contain cues that support learning “can
yield impressive gains in performance” (p. 278). A learning goal
focuses attention on learning and exploration, whereas a perfor-
mance goal often triggers self-preoccupied thoughts or worries
about the consequences of failure to attain the goal. Such negative
and task-irrelevant thoughts tend to have a deleterious effect on
subsequent performance (e.g., Hofmann, 1993; Mikulincer, 1989;
Sarason, Sarason, Keefe, Hayes, & Shearin, 1986), in particular
when individuals work on a complex or cognitive task. For exam-
ple, Kanfer and Ackerman (1989) explained that setting a perfor-
mance goal can distract individuals’ attention from the discovery
and systematic testing of task-relevant strategies and, hence, im-
pair their performance.
Hypothesis 1: Participants assigned a learning goal will per-
form at a higher level following negative feedback than those
assigned a performance goal.
Goal Content and Affect
The assignment of a goal implies the existence of a standard or
norm by which performance will be evaluated (e.g., Locke &
Latham, 1990). Bandura (1997) explained that “it is natural to give
some thought to potential risks in any undertaking and to have
some apprehension about them” (p. 145). For example, Nebeker
and Tatum (1993) found that computer operators who were as-
signed hard goals experienced greater stress than those assigned
easier goals. Their results also showed that the participants in the
Easier Goals ⫻Small Incentive condition reported low stress until
the performance contingent incentive was increased.
Ilies and Judge (2005) explained that receiving performance
feedback is an affective event. Feedback has the potential to
influence an individual’s momentary affective state (e.g., joy,
disappointment, or tension), which can, in turn, influence behav-
ioral regulation and subsequent performance. In the current study,
our focus is on tension and, specifically, tension arousal (e.g.,
Thayer, 1967). Tension arousal (referred to hereafter as tension)
has a negative affective tone and is associated with feelings of
tension, anxiety, frustration, and/or fearfulness (e.g., Thayer,
1989).
The degree of stress or tension experienced under a goal setting
program may be influenced by contextual variables, such as goal
content. As explained previously, the focus of a learning goal is to
engage in discovery and to execute ideas to test newly formed
hypotheses, whereas the focus of a performance goal is on the
outcome of an action and to make a favorable impression. The
assignment of a performance goal is often associated with a
norm-based performance evaluation. Individuals with a perfor-
mance goal may be so apprehensive about making a positive
impression on others that they become tense or frustrated with
negative feedback (e.g., Dweck, Chiu, & Hong, 1995; A. J. Elliott
& McGregor, 1999; Senko & Harackiewicz, 2002; Smiley &
Dweck, 1994). Individuals with a learning goal are not consumed
with these and other negative feelings. It is likely that this different
mindset in approaching goals is associated with differences in
affective reactions in how individuals respond to negative feed-
back.
Hypothesis 2: Participants assigned a learning goal will ex-
perience less tension following negative feedback than those
assigned a performance goal.
Conscientiousness
Individual difference variables, including personality character-
istics, are likely to play a role in the motivation to improve
performance following negative feedback (e.g., Bono & Colbert,
2005). As noted earlier, conscientiousness is one of the most
important personality characteristics in work contexts because of
its relationship with motivation and performance. Individuals high
in conscientiousness are described as ambitious, hard working,
persistent, serious, disciplined, careful, methodical, thorough, en-
during, dependable, and responsible (e.g., Barrick, Stewart, &
Piotrowski, 2002; Digman, 1990; McCrae & Costa, 1987). Con-
scientiousness has been shown to correlate with a number of
important criteria, including job performance and motivational
constructs, such as goals across jobs and settings (e.g., Barrick &
Mount, 1991; Barrick et al., 1993; Barrick, Parks, & Mount, 2005;
Judge, Higgins, Thoreson, & Barrick, 1999). However, it is pos-
sible that given their built-in desire to achieve, high-conscientious
individuals may feel more pressure to meet the challenges that are
given to them compared with low-conscientious individuals.
Therefore, although conscientiousness could relate positively to
performance through effort, it could also relate negatively to
performance through tension. Hence, the focus in the current study
is to clarify when this negative and mediated relationship of
conscientiousness with performance through tension might occur.
A number of studies have examined the relationship between
conscientiousness and tension (e.g., Zellars, Perrewe, Hochwarter,
& Anderson, 2006), but few have specifically examined this rela-
tionship in the context of goal striving following negative feed-
back. High-conscientious individuals demonstrate a will to achieve
and to finish tasks (e.g., Barrick et al., 1993; McCrae & Costa,
1986; Robie & Ryan, 1999). The predisposition to maintain high
levels of effort in the face of difficulties makes high-conscientious
individuals more vulnerable to experience feelings of tension or
frustration to achieve the goal. In contrast, individuals low in
conscientiousness may not experience as much tension, as they are
less likely to feel that they must meet the goal or maintain high
levels of effort. Low-conscientious individuals are less committed
or persistent in goal achievement than their high-conscientious
counterparts; the former are more likely to stop trying to attain the
goal when they encounter setbacks.
Hypothesis 3: Conscientiousness will be positively related to
tension following negative feedback.
Goal Content ⴛConscientiousness Interaction
It is important to examine interactions between goals and per-
sonality characteristics because goal-directed behavior and perfor-
620 CIANCI, KLEIN, AND SEIJTS
mance is a function of both contextual and dispositional variables
(e.g., Johns, 2006; Michel, 1977). The assignment of goals and the
receipt of feedback during goal striving are contextual factors. In
terms of the affective response, we previously argued in support of
Hypothesis 2 that individuals assigned a learning goal will expe-
rience lower frustration and distress following negative feedback
relative to those assigned a performance goal. This difference in
tension is predicted to be amplified for individuals high in consci-
entiousness. As stated earlier, a performance goal focuses attention
on achievement and making a favorable impression. Thus, follow-
ing negative feedback, tension should be elevated for those as-
signed a performance goal because they are not demonstrating
competence. This should be particularly true of high-conscientious
individuals who are more ambitious, serious, responsible, and
dependable than those low in conscientiousness. Because of these
characteristics, tension following negative feedback with a perfor-
mance goal should be particularly elevated for high-conscientious
individuals because they pay close attention to their goals and care
about achieving them. This would not be the case for individuals
with low conscientiousness because they are less achievement
oriented and are less likely to be closely regulating the assigned
goal. Conscientiousness is further expected to make less of a
difference when learning goals are assigned, as learning goals do
not create a tension-inducing context. Learning how to approach
the task is salient following the assignment of learning goals, not
achievement. As such, individual differences in conscientiousness
should not make much difference in experienced tension with
learning goals beyond the expected main effect of conscientious-
ness predicted in Hypothesis 3.
Hypothesis 4: The content of assigned goals and conscien-
tiousness will interact in influencing tension following neg-
ative feedback, such that there will be a stronger effect of goal
assignment on tension for high-conscientious individuals.
An interaction between goal content and conscientiousness can
also be expected with regards to subsequent performance. High-
conscientious individuals can be expected to try harder to resolve
and to address negative feedback than individuals low in consci-
entiousness because they have a greater will to achieve and are
more dedicated or disciplined to completing tasks (e.g., Barrick &
Mount, 1991; Barrick et al., 2002; McCrae & Costa, 1987). As
such, they are more likely to increase attention and effort levels
when faced with performance goal discrepancies (e.g., Barrick et
al., 1993; Gellatly, 1996; Yeo & Neal, 2004). That increased
attention and effort, however, does not automatically translate into
higher levels of performance because of the different foci induced
by the two different goal assignments. Conscientiousness should
amplify the proposed effect of goal content on performance, which
means even higher performance when a learning goal is assigned
and even lower performance when a performance goal is assigned.
A performance goal encourages individuals to work harder but
not necessarily smarter (e.g., Locke & Latham, 1990; Seijts et al.,
2004). High-conscientious individuals with performance goals
care more about goal attainment than those low in conscientious-
ness, but the receipt of negative feedback suggests that known
strategies are insufficient because they may give rise to frustration,
distress, and, ultimately, discouragement. High-conscientious in-
dividuals with performance goals can thus be expected to be “hurt”
the most by the negative feedback because they feel compelled to
attain that goal, yet their achievement focus and concern with
making a favorable impression can interfere with mastering the
task-relevant processes necessary to be successful. In the case in
which learning goals are assigned, high-conscientious individuals
will again increase attention and effort, but that effort will be
directed to developing new skills or approaches to master the task
rather than achievement. Because high-conscientious individuals
can be expected to be more disciplined, methodical, and thorough
in searching for procedures to master the task and to strive to learn
from opportunities and mistakes than their low-conscientious
counterparts, we expect learning goals to be most effective for
high-conscientious individuals. In sum, learning and persistence
are triggered in the Learning Goal ⫻High Conscientiousness
condition, whereas tension and discouragement are triggered in the
Performance Goal ⫻High Conscientiousness condition.
Hypothesis 5: The content of assigned goals and conscien-
tiousness will interact in influencing performance following
negative feedback, such that high-conscientiousness individ-
uals assigned learning goals will perform even higher than
their low-conscientious counterparts, and high-conscientious
individuals assigned performance goals will perform even
lower than their low-conscientious counterparts.
Tension and Performance
A high level of tension or anxiety is likely to have a negative
effect on performance on a task that requires concentration, infor-
mation processing, and learning (e.g., Sarason, Pierce, & Sarason,
1996). This is because tension is associated with negative or
off-task thoughts (e.g., self-doubt, worries, and anticipation of
punishment or loss of status) that hinder performance. Tension
makes it difficult for individuals to focus their cognitive resources
toward the attainment of the goal. Task-irrelevant and self-
preoccupied thinking distracts individuals from learning the task
and performing it well. This process is known as cognitive inter-
ference (e.g., Hatzigeorgiadis & Biddle, 1999; Skinner & Brewer,
2002). For example, Mikulincer (1989) found that the more par-
ticipants engaged in mind-wandering while completing a visual
search task, the less accurate their performance was (or the more
errors that were made). As such, tension is predicted to be nega-
tively related to performance.
We also expect tension to mediate the previously discussed role
of goal content on performance as well as the interaction of goal
content and conscientiousness. We are examining tension in this
study as a reaction to negative feedback following goal assignment
and past performance. As such, tension is more proximal to sub-
sequent performance than goal content, which is a preceding
contextual factor aimed at inducing a particular goal orientation
state. As an affective state, tension is also more proximal than
conscientiousness, which is a stable trait. In addition to temporal
proximity, tension helps explain why goal content influences per-
formance and why that relationship is contingent on conscientious-
ness.
The assignment of a challenging goal can be internalized as a
stressful event. Studies have shown that individuals can appraise a
stressful situation as either a threat (e.g., a source of failure) or a
challenge (e.g., an opportunity to learn something new; see Dweck
621
GOALS, CONSCIENTIOUSNESS, AND NEGATIVE FEEDBACK
& Leggett, 1988; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Skinner & Brewer,
2002). Appraising a situation as a threat is often associated with
more negative emotions, fewer positive emotions, and higher
levels of stress than when a situation is viewed as a challenge to be
mastered (e.g., Drach-Zahavy & Erez, 2002; Skinner & Brewer,
2002). Negative feedback is more likely to be viewed as a threat
when performance goals are assigned and as a challenge when
learning goals are assigned. As such, assigning performance goals
can result in poorer performance because of increased tension, and
high-conscientious individuals are thought to be most susceptible
to experiencing tension.
Hypothesis 6: Tension will be negatively related to perfor-
mance and mediate the effects of the content of assigned
goals and conscientiousness.
A model summarizing the relationships predicted in our hypoth-
eses is presented in Figure 1. This mediated moderation model
shows how goal content and conscientiousness interact and operate
through tension to influence performance following negative feed-
back. The model in Figure 1 is what Edwards and Lambert (2007)
refer to as a direct effect and first stage moderation model. Note
that a main effect of conscientiousness on performance is not
predicted given our hypotheses that the goal content–performance
relationship is both moderated by conscientiousness and mediated
by tension. Specifically, we expect that high conscientiousness
will magnify the negative effect of performance goals on tension,
with the differences in tension across conditions accounting for
differences in performance.
Method
Participants and Task
Participants were 73 undergraduate students enrolled at a state
university in the southeast of the United States. Participation was
obtained by sending out a general e-mail to the student body and by
posting flyers in various locations throughout the university inviting
students to participate. Participants were asked to complete a cogni-
tive task involving reading a text passage and then answering com-
prehension and analogy questions. This is a moderately complex task
that is sufficiently dependent on motivation and persistence in this
laboratory context (with minimal contingent consequences).
Procedure and Goal Content Manipulation
Participants were randomly assigned to one of two conditions:
learning goal condition or performance goal condition. The exper-
iment lasted approximately 1 hr, but there was no imposed time
limit. The students were paid $15 for their participation. We
collected all data using a computer-based questionnaire. There
were no missing data for any of our measured variables because of
the way the survey was programmed.
The instructions given to participants in the learning goal con-
dition (n⫽40) were as follows:
Your goal throughout the next task is to learn how to approach the task
as well as possible. You should view this as an opportunity to learn and
develop your ability to perform this task. The process by which you learn
to do and understand the task should be your concern, as you may be
asked to show a younger student how to approach the task.
The instructions given to the participants in the performance goal
condition (n⫽33) were as follows:
Your goal throughout the next task is to perform as well as possible,
achieving the highest score possible. You should view this as an
opportunity to demonstrate your ability to perform this task. Your
absolute level of performance should be your concern in that it tests
your intellectual ability.
The learning goal condition was coded as –1, and the performance
goal condition was coded as 1.
In both conditions, the participants began the experiment by read-
ing and signing an informed consent form. They then completed the
measure of conscientiousness. Participants next read the instructions
for the first of two trials, which included the goal content manipula-
tion. Participants were asked to read one-and-a-half pages of text, and
then they completed 10 reading comprehension and five analogy
questions. They received false negative feedback on their perfor-
mance. Participants were informed they had “performed very poorly
on this task.” The specific feedback provided was as follows: “The
average score on this task for [name of university] students is 95%.
Your individual score on this task, rounded to the nearest 5%, is
60%.” After receiving this false feedback, the tension scale was
administered. Participants then read the instructions for the second
trial, which repeated the same goal content manipulation as was
provided for the first trial. They then completed the second trial,
which consisted of reading a different text passage and then complet-
ing another set of 10 reading comprehension and five analogy ques-
tions. Finally, participants completed a postexperiment questionnaire
containing the manipulation check items, were debriefed, and thanked
for their participation.
Measures
Task performance. Participants performed the task twice
(i.e., Trial 1 and Trial 2) and were presented with a different set of
Figure 1. Summary model of hypothesized relationships. H ⫽Hypothesis.
622 CIANCI, KLEIN, AND SEIJTS
task materials (i.e., the text passages and corresponding compre-
hension and analogy questions) for each trial. These two sets of
materials (A and B) were presented in a randomized order such
that half of the participants completed the A materials on the first
trial and the B materials on the second trial, whereas the others
received the B materials first and then the A materials. This was
done to counterbalance any unexpected differences inherent be-
tween the two sets of task materials. The number of correct
responses on Trial 2 performance served as the dependent variable.
Because there were differences in average performance across the
two versions of the task materials, a “task version” variable was
created and used as a control variable in the statistical analyses.
Additionally, we controlled for participants’ performance on Trial
1. That first trial thus served as an opportunity for all participants
to have an equal amount of temporally proximal practice with the
task prior to introducing the feedback intervention, and it provided
a proxy for task ability.
Conscientiousness. We measured conscientiousness using the
NEO Five-Factor Inventory (Costa & McCrae, 1989). The NEO
Five-Factor Inventory is a short version of the NEO Personality
Inventory—Revised (Costa & McCrae, 1992) that assesses the Big
Five personality factors but not the subfacets within each factor.
When we used this instrument, our data demonstrated a Cron-
bach’s alpha of .98. The Conscientiousness scale contains 12 items
(e.g., “I am pretty good about pacing myself so as to get things
done on time”). Respondents answered each item using a Likert
scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree)to6(strongly agree).
Responses to the 12 items were summed, and those scale scores
were then mean-centered. The centered values were used in all
analyses. Mean-centering was needed for the independent vari-
ables examined in the moderated regression analysis: goals and
conscientiousness. Centering is done to reduce multicollinearity
between the component measures and their associated higher order
terms and to facilitate the interpretation of coefficients on first-
order terms when higher order terms are in a regression equation
(e.g., Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003; Cronbach, 1987).
Tension. We assessed participants’ current emotional states
using Thayer’s Activation–Deactivation Adjective Check List (AD
ACL; Thayer, 1989). The AD ACL is a multidimensional model of
self-rated activation consisting of a set of activation descriptive
adjectives that individuals could use to rate their momentary states
of activation or arousal. The construct validity and internal con-
sistency reliability coefficient of the AD ACL are well established
(e.g., Purcell, 1982; Thayer, 1978, 1986). Participants completed
this scale after they received feedback on their Trial 1 perfor-
mance. Participants indicated on a 4-point scale, ranging from 1
(definitely feel)to4(definitely do not feel), the extent to which five
adjectives (jittery, intense, fearful, clutched-up, and tense) de-
scribed their feeling “at this moment.” The items were reverse-
scored and then summed so that the higher the score, the more the
participant experienced the affective state of tension. A Cron-
bach’s alpha of .88 was observed with our data for this scale.
Manipulation checks. We included two manipulation checks
in the postexperiment questionnaire. The first was a check on the
goal content manipulation and asked respondents about the in-
structions they were given prior to each trial. Respondents were
given the following response options: (a) to learn (i.e., to develop
my abilities), (b) to perform (i.e., to demonstrate my abilities), or
(c) no specific goal was given. The second manipulation check
item was for the feedback manipulation and also served as an
indirect assessment of feedback acceptance. That item asked par-
ticipants whether they performed very poorly, poorly, or very well
on the first trial relative to the average performance for (name of
university) students.
Results
Initial Analyses
An examination of responses to the first manipulation check
item revealed that in the learning goal condition, 38 participants
indicated that they had received a learning goal instruction, no one
indicated that they had received a performance goal instruction,
and two participants indicated that they had received a no goal
instruction,
2
(1, N⫽40) ⫽32.40, p⬍.001. In the performance
goal condition, 32 participants indicated that they had received a
performance goal instruction, no one indicated that they had re-
ceived a learning goal instruction, and one participant indicated
that s/he had received a no goal instruction,
2
(1, N⫽33) ⫽
29.12, p⬍.001. We eliminated the three participants from the
statistical analyses who did not correctly answer this manipulation
check question. With regard to the feedback manipulation check
item, all participants who answered the goal content manipulation
check correctly also answered the feedback manipulation check
correctly by indicating that they had performed “very poorly” on
the first trial relative to the average performance for (name of
university) students. Thus, the final sample used in the analyses
consisted of 70 respondents.
Independent sample ttests showed that participants with a
learning goal had lower tension, t(68) ⫽– 4.25, p⬍.001, and
higher performance on Trial 2, t(68) ⫽3.50, p⬍.01, than
participants with a performance goal. The mean tension score was
9.26 (SD ⫽2.62) for participants with a learning goal, compared
with 12.63 (SD ⫽3.97) for participants with a performance goal.
The mean level of performance for participants with a learning
goal was 10.47 (SD ⫽2.33) versus 7.56 (SD ⫽4.46) for perfor-
mance goal participants. Overall means, standard deviations, and
correlations are presented in Table 1 for all variables.
Tests of Hypotheses
Using hierarchical regression, we tested Hypotheses 1 and 5,
which predicted that participants assigned a learning goal would
perform better following negative feedback than those assigned a
performance goal and that conscientiousness would moderate this
relationship. The control variables (task version and Trial 1 per-
formance) were entered as a set in an initial hierarchical step
followed by the goal content manipulation and conscientiousness
in a second hierarchical step. The interaction term, the cross-
product of the goal content manipulation and conscientiousness,
was entered as a third hierarchical step. The results of this analysis,
presented in Table 2, indicate that the goal content manipulation
and conscientiousness together explained a significant amount of
incremental variance in Trial 2 task performance beyond the 23%
explained by the control variables. The beta weight for the goal
content manipulation was statistically significant and in the ex-
pected direction supporting Hypothesis 1.
623
GOALS, CONSCIENTIOUSNESS, AND NEGATIVE FEEDBACK
The third hierarchical step explained a statistically significant
incremental 4% of the variance in performance. We plotted this
interaction, which is illustrated in Figure 2, using the resulting
regression equation and inputting the dummy coded values for the
goal content manipulation and the high and low values (defined as
the mean plus and minus one standard deviation) for conscien-
tiousness. The form of this interaction is consistent with Hypoth-
esis 5, as it shows that conscientiousness amplifies the effects of
goal content on performance such that individuals high in consci-
entiousness performed even better than those low in conscientious-
ness when a learning goal was assigned but performed even worse
than those low in conscientiousness when a performance goal was
assigned. The simple slope when conscientiousness is high
(⫺2.47) is significantly different from zero (t⫽5.10, p⬍.05),
whereas the slope when conscientiousness is low (⫺0.95) is not
significantly different from zero (t⫽1.95, ns), indicating a stron-
ger relationship between the goal manipulation and performance
for individuals high in conscientiousness than for low-
conscientious individuals.
We also examined Hypotheses 2– 4 using hierarchical multiple
regression, with tension as the dependent variable. These hypoth-
eses predicted that participants assigned a performance goal and
those high in conscientiousness would experience more tension
following negative feedback than participants assigned a learning
goal or those low in conscientiousness and that goal content and
conscientiousness would interact in influencing tension. Tension
was first regressed on the set of control variables in an initial
hierarchical step, followed by the goal content manipulation and
conscientiousness in a second hierarchical step, and the interaction
term in a final step. The results of this analysis are also presented
in Table 2. With tension as the dependent variable, the two control
variables were not statistically significant. The goal content ma-
nipulation and conscientiousness together explained a significant
31% of the variance in tension. Consistent with Hypotheses 2 and
3, the beta weights for both the goal content manipulation and
conscientiousness were statistically significant and in the expected
direction.
The third hierarchical step in this analysis explained a statisti-
cally significant incremental 4% of the variance in tension. This
interaction is illustrated in Figure 3. Again here, the simple slope
when conscientiousness is high (2.42) is significantly different
from zero (t⫽4.54, p⬍.05), whereas the slope when conscien-
tiousness is low (0.83) is not significantly different from zero (t⫽
1.55, ns), indicating a stronger relationship between the goal
manipulation and tension for high-conscientious individuals than
for individuals low in conscientiousness. Consistent with Hypoth-
Table 1
Means, Standard Deviations, Intercorrelations, and Reliabilities
Variable MSD 123 4 56
1. Task version 1.54 0.50 —
2. Trial 1 performance 9.74 2.13 .53
ⴱⴱ
—
3. Goal content
a
0.00 1.00 ⫺.02 .14 —
4. Conscientiousness
b
0.00 18.99 .10 .17 .11 (.98)
5. Tension 10.80 3.69 ⫺.04 ⫺.04 .46
ⴱⴱ
.34
ⴱⴱ
(.88)
6. Trial 2 performance 9.14 3.74 ⫺.38
ⴱⴱ
.05 ⫺.39
ⴱⴱ
⫺.08 ⫺.51
ⴱⴱ
—
Note. Parenthetical numbers on the diagonal are the coefficient alphas.
a
Goal content manipulation was coded as ⫺1 for the learning goal and 1 for the performance goal; goal content
was mean-centered.
b
Conscientiousness was mean-centered.
ⴱⴱ
p⬍.01.
Table 2
Regression Results for the Effects of Goal Content and Conscientiousness on Performance
and Tension
Dependent variable
Performance Tension
Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3
Step 1
Task version ⫺.57
ⴱⴱ
⫺.63
ⴱⴱ
⫺.66
ⴱⴱ
⫺.03 .03 .06
Trial 1 performance .35
ⴱⴱ
.45
ⴱⴱ
.43
ⴱⴱ
⫺.03 ⫺.17 ⫺.15
Step 2
Conscientiousness ⫺.04 ⫺.02 .31
ⴱⴱ
.29
ⴱⴱ
Goal content
a
⫺.46
ⴱⴱ
⫺.46
ⴱⴱ
.45
ⴱⴱ
.44
ⴱⴱ
Step 3
Conscientiousness ⫻Goal Content ⫺.20
ⴱ
.21
ⴱ
⌬R
2
.23
ⴱⴱ
.21
ⴱⴱ
.04
ⴱ
.00 .31
ⴱⴱ
.04
ⴱ
R
2
.23
ⴱⴱ
.44
ⴱⴱ
.48
ⴱⴱ
.00 .32
ⴱⴱ
.36
ⴱⴱ
Note. Standardized regression weights are presented.
a
Goal content manipulation was coded as ⫺1 for the learning goal and 1 for the performance goal.
ⴱ
p⬍.05.
ⴱⴱ
p⬍.01.
624 CIANCI, KLEIN, AND SEIJTS
esis 4, this graph shows that the effects of goal assignment on
tension are more pronounced for individuals high in conscientious-
ness than for those low in conscientiousness. Thus, the results
support the prediction that following the receipt of negative feed-
back, high conscientiousness amplifies the effects of goal content
on tension.
Hypothesis 6 predicted that tension would mediate the effects of
the goal content manipulation and conscientiousness on perfor-
mance. As demonstrated above, however, significant interactions
were observed between the goal content manipulation and consci-
entiousness in relating to both tension and performance. As such,
we applied the procedures outlined in Preacher, Rucker, and Hayes
(2007) to evaluate mediated moderation as depicted by the model
presented in Figure 1. Consistent with other methodologists (e.g.,
Edwards & Lambert, 2007; Muller, Judd, & Yzerbyt, 2005),
Preacher et al. recommended directly examining the indirect ef-
fects using a product of coefficients approach rather than the
causal steps approach (e.g., Baron & Kenny, 1986), though their
procedure does incorporate aspects of the causal steps procedure.
This approach also uses bootstrapping rather than the Sobel test to
directly examine the indirect effects. Bootstrapping is recom-
mended to avoid power problems introduced by the unrealistic
distributional assumptions made with the Sobel test (e.g., Edwards
& Lambert, 2007; MacKinnon, Lockwood, & Williams, 2004).
Specifically, we used the SPSS macro developed by Preacher et al.
to facilitate estimating the indirect effects when both moderation
Figure 2. Interaction between goal content and conscientiousness on performance. Low and high conscien-
tiousness are defined as ⫺1.0 and 1.0 standard deviation from the mean, respectively.
Figure 3. Interaction between goal content and conscientiousness on tension. Low and high conscientiousness
are defined as ⫺1.0 and 1.0 standard deviation from the mean, respectively.
625
GOALS, CONSCIENTIOUSNESS, AND NEGATIVE FEEDBACK
and mediation are present. This macro provides a method for
probing the significance of conditional indirect effects at different
values of the moderator variable and uses a bootstrap approach to
test the significance of those indirect effects.
Preacher et al.’s (2007) procedures involve first examining the
mediator model, which we have already presented in Table 2—the
regression analysis predicting tension. As was reported in discuss-
ing that analysis, the coefficients for the goal content manipula-
tion, conscientiousness, and their interaction are all significant
(p⬍.01). Next, the dependent model is examined. The results for
the first two steps of the analysis for the dependent model are
identical to those reported in Table 2 predicting performance. In
the third and final step, tension is included along with the inter-
action term. The full results from just the third and final step of this
analysis are presented in Table 3. In this model, the coefficients for
tension and the goal content manipulation were statistically sig-
nificant, whereas the coefficients for conscientiousness and the
interaction between conscientiousness and the goal manipulation
were not. This pattern of regression results suggests that tension
fully mediates the effects of conscientiousness (as well as the
interaction between conscientiousness and goal content) and par-
tially mediates the effects of the goal content manipulation on
performance.
The examination of the indirect effects is the final step in
Preacher et al.’s (2007) approach. Because it is a moderated effect
that is proposed to be mediated, Preacher et al.’s macro estimates
and tests indirect effects for three values of conscientiousness
corresponding to the mean as well as one standard deviation above
and below the mean. These values are presented in the bottom half
of Table 3. At mean levels of conscientiousness and at one stan-
dard deviation above the mean, the indirect effect of the goal
condition manipulation on performance is statistically significant.
The indirect effect is not significant at one standard deviation
below the mean. Therefore, when conscientiousness is low, tension
does not mediate the effects of the goal content manipulation on
performance. At average or high levels of conscientiousness, ten-
sion does partially mediate the effects of the goal content manip-
ulation as predicted.
Discussion
We investigated the main and interactive effects of goal content
and conscientiousness on tension and performance on a complex
task following negative feedback. We were specifically interested
in determining whether conscientiousness and tension could help
explain the previously demonstrated difference between assigning
goals to facilitate either a learning or performance goal orientation
state. The results of our experiment support our hypotheses. Par-
ticipants assigned a learning goal outperformed those with a per-
formance goal. This finding is consistent with prior studies (e.g.,
Noel & Latham, 2006; Seijts et al., 2004; Winters & Latham,
1996). What is noteworthy about our finding is that we studied the
effects of goal content on performance after we provided the
participants with negative feedback on an initial trial. Cues em-
bedded in the task instructions that urged individuals to focus on
learning or mastering the task reduced tension vis-a`-vis an empha-
sis on the need to perform at a high level. Tension had a debili-
tating effect on subsequent performance.
The pattern of results that emerged after participants received
negative feedback is intriguing and of practical importance as both
groups received identical feedback. A learning goal appears to
buffer against negative feedback. This finding therefore reinforces
the results of prior studies that have concluded that a learning goal
should be set when individuals are in the process of learning a
complex task. Our results also show that affective reactions to
negative feedback—such as tension, anxiety, or frustration—are
less intense when a learning goal, as opposed to a performance
goal, is assigned. We thus conclude that a learning goal helps to
overcome obstacles and significant setbacks that are a natural part
of the learning process.
Table 3
Test of Indirect Effects of Goal Content on Performance Through Tension Conditional on
Conscientiousness
Variable BSEB t
Regression results from the third and final step
in the regression analysis
Task version ⫺.63 ⫺4.73 0.73 ⫺6.48
ⴱⴱ
Trial 1 performance .37 0.65 0.18 3.71
ⴱⴱ
Conscientiousness .09 0.02 0.02 1.05
Goal content
a
⫺.29 ⫺1.07 0.35 ⫺3.02
ⴱⴱ
Conscientiousness ⫻Goal Content ⫺.12 ⫺0.02 0.02 ⫺1.35
Tension ⫺.39 ⫺0.39 0.10 ⫺3.80
ⴱⴱ
⌬R
2
.13
ⴱⴱ
R
2
.58
ⴱⴱ
Conditional indirect effects Indirect effect Boot SE Boot z
⫺1SD conscientiousness (⫺18.99) ⫺0.34 0.25 ⫺1.35
Mean conscientiousness (0.00) ⫺0.64 0.26 ⫺2.44
ⴱ
1SD conscientiousness (18.99) ⫺0.94 0.39 ⫺2.43
ⴱ
Note. Bootstrap sample size ⫽5,000.
a
Goal content manipulation was coded as ⫺1 for the learning goal and 1 for the performance goal.
ⴱ
p⬍.05.
ⴱⴱ
p⬍.01.
626 CIANCI, KLEIN, AND SEIJTS
Goal content does not, however, have a uniform effect on
performance. Features of the person have been shown to moderate
goal effects. Senko and Harackiewicz (2002) explained that it is
important to understand when and for whom learning and perfor-
mance goals affect performance. Along those lines, we examined
the moderating effects of conscientiousness following negative
feedback. There was a positive relationship between conscien-
tiousness and tension. It is important to reemphasize that we
measured tension after participants received the negative feedback
on their Trial 1 performance, whereas conscientiousness was mea-
sured at the start of the experiment. This ordering of manipulation
and measurements allows for the interpretation that high-
conscientious individuals experienced more tension as a result of
the negative feedback than did their low-conscientious counter-
parts. This result is explained by high-conscientious individuals
being more ambitious and wanting to succeed and thus devoting
more effort to pursue their goals than individuals with lower levels
of conscientiousness. As such, individuals high in conscientious-
ness reacted more negatively and experienced greater tension
when encountering obstacles to goal achievement.
Conscientiousness also interacted with the content of the as-
signed goals in influencing tension and performance. High-
conscientious participants who worked on a learning goal experi-
enced less tension after they had received negative feedback
compared with their high-conscientious counterparts who worked
on a performance goal. High-conscientious individuals assigned
performance goals experienced the most tension; and they per-
formed the poorest. Tension mediated the effects of the Goal
Content ⫻Conscientiousness interaction on performance when
conscientiousness was average or high but not when conscien-
tiousness was low. The pattern of results illustrated in Figures 2
and 3 similarly indicate that the effect of the goal content manip-
ulation was more pronounced when individuals were high rather
than low in conscientiousness. The practical significance of this
finding is that assigning the wrong goal to high-conscientious
individuals can have significant consequences on performance.
High conscientiousness and the assignment of performance goals
are two of the most consistent, strong antecedents of performance
in the literature. Yet, in this study, following the receipt of negative
feedback on a complex task, the overall effect of conscientiousness
on performance was nonsignificant, and when high conscientious-
ness is combined with a performance goal, the resulting tension
and outcome focus lead to poorer performance. This result thus
speaks to the importance of exploring when and for whom the
different types of goals are most effective.
Limitations and Future Research
Several limitations of this research should be recognized. First,
the conduct of the study in a laboratory setting allowed us to
carefully isolate the effects of the assigned goal content manipu-
lation and to hold feedback constant (at a high negative level), but
other factors were not operating that would likely be present in
field settings (e.g., the ability to seek additional feedback, direc-
tion, or task-specific training). Future research should thus repli-
cate and extend our results in organizational contexts. In addition,
the task used was cognitive in nature, and our results may not
generalize to other tasks, differing in the extent to which they
involve cognitive versus physical effort as well as differing de-
grees of novelty and complexity. For example, it could be argued
that on a simple task in which effort and persistence to execute
known strategies are needed to perform well, high-conscientious
individuals assigned a performance goal outperform their low-
conscientious counterparts as well as individuals with a learning
goal. Another task related concern is that similar tasks have been
used to assess aspects of cognitive ability (e.g., the Scholastic
Aptitude Test) and, as such, may not have been appropriate for the
objectives of this study. However, had the task solely reflected
ability, our hypotheses would not have been supported, as they
assume that differences in performance reflect differences in mo-
tivation and emotion-based processes. We also examined the effect
of negative feedback over a relatively short time frame. Thus,
caution is warranted in generalizing our results to workplace
settings involving a longer time horizon for learning and perfor-
mance. Future research should examine what happens when indi-
viduals with a high learning goal receive ongoing negative feed-
back.
Second, our operationalization of feedback related to perfor-
mance, not learning, and, as such, may have been more salient to
participants in the performance goal condition. Similarly, we fo-
cused on performance as our dependent variable rather than learn-
ing. Future research is needed to examine whether the effects of
goal content and conscientiousness found in our study extend to
measures or processes that focus on learning. In addition, we had
only indirect evidence that participants accepted the false feedback
that they received. It is also recommended that future studies
include measures that directly assess whether participants felt the
feedback was credible and useful in improving their performance.
Third, we did not assess self-set performance and learning goals.
For example, individuals who fail to achieve an assigned perfor-
mance goal might revise that performance goal or shift their focus
to a self-set learning goal; furthermore, those who had a learning
goal might switch to a self-set performance goal. Consonance or
conflict between self-set and assigned goals could ameliorate
tension or exacerbate it to an excessive level. We thus recommend
that future studies assess the personal goals toward which individ-
uals are striving. In addition to self-set goals, there are several
other mediators, unmeasured in this study, that have been shown to
be related to goal striving, including goal commitment, self-
efficacy, incentives, and normative comparisons. Although we did
not account for these omitted variables, they are not alternative
explanations for the observed effects but rather are additional
likely mediating or concurrent processes. Such finer grained ex-
aminations are warranted given the general relationships we have
demonstrated.
Fourth, we did not include a control condition with neutral goal
content or a do-your-best instruction. The inclusion of a control
condition would have allowed us to examine how each condition
compares with the absence of any assigned goal. Future studies
should include a neutral goal condition to allow for such fine-
grained comparisons between learning and performance goals.
Fifth, the learning goal we assigned included the information
that the participants “may be asked to show a younger student how
to approach the task.” Although this manipulation still focused the
participant’s attention on learning rather than performance, this
instruction differs from those used in prior learning goal assign-
ment manipulations and may have introduced an element of mak-
ing a social contribution for the benefit of someone else. This
627
GOALS, CONSCIENTIOUSNESS, AND NEGATIVE FEEDBACK
statement and resulting social obligation might have led the par-
ticipants to exert effort despite the negative feedback and to
increase the level of tension experienced.
A sixth and final limitation concerns the low correlation be-
tween performance on Trials 1 and 2, which could be interpreted
as demonstrating low test–retest reliability. However, stability
across trials was not expected, as both the goal content intervention
and the provision of negative feedback occurred between the two
tasks. These contextual factors were hypothesized to influence
performance and thus should have attenuated the correlation. The
observed difference in difficulty between the two task versions
also appears to have been a contributing factor. In fact, when
controlling for version, as was done in testing all of the hypothe-
ses, the partial correlation between performance on the two trials
increases to .32 ( p⬍.01). It could still be argued that because of
the difference in difficulty, performance on the two trials captured
different performance domains. Had this been the case, however,
this would have reduced or negated the proposed effects of nega-
tive feedback, as feedback is more likely to affect performance
within the same domain than performance in other domains. As
such, the possible unreliability would have worked against us
finding the proposed relationships rather than being a spurious
alternative explanation for our findings. Nevertheless, future re-
search examining other tasks and performance over longer and
additional performance cycles is needed to establish the general-
izability of our findings.
Practical Implications
The practical implications of our results suggest that it is im-
portant to distinguish between learning and performance goals.
The results presented here indicate that employees working on a
new or complex task should focus initially on learning how to
perform the task well rather than on a specific level of performance
to attain because learning goals buffer against negative feedback
and subsequent tension experienced. Tasks that require learning
how to perform them are commonplace in organizations because
employees are continuously adapting to new organizational reali-
ties and, hence, must master new tasks or responsibilities.
Our results also suggest that a focus on performance goals is
likely to hurt high-conscientious individuals the most. These indi-
viduals reported the highest tension and performed the poorest
following negative feedback. In contrast, high-conscientious par-
ticipants with a learning goal outperformed all other participants.
This finding indicates that high conscientiousness is an asset in
some, but not all, situations. Goals do not have a uniform effect on
affective reactions and subsequent performance when individuals
receive negative feedback. Managers therefore should consider
how contextual and dispositional variables can facilitate or under-
mine performance and personal development. Specifically, man-
agers are well advised to (a) coach their employees to adopt a
learning orientation during the process of mastering a new or
complex task, (b) assess employees’ conscientiousness to better
manage how employees react to negative feedback, and (c) be
cognizant of how cues in the work environment direct employees
to commit to performance or learning goals. Such cues may be
embedded in leadership behavior and human resources manage-
ment systems.
Conclusion
Our study looked at the role of affect as a mediator and consci-
entiousness as a moderator to better understand the operation of
learning and performance goals following poor performance. We
chose to examine large negative performance goal discrepancies
because those are among the most difficult performance manage-
ment situations and the situations in which continued goal pursuit
is most uncertain. Our results demonstrate that conscientiousness
and goal content do interact in influencing tension and perfor-
mance as predicted and that tension does mediate the effects of
goal content and the interaction between conscientiousness and
goal content on performance, except when conscientiousness is
low. In essence, learning goals reduce the amount of tension
experienced when confronted with negative feedback, thereby
allowing for higher performance. This buffering effect of learning
goals is particularly true for participants high in conscientiousness
who are more likely to experience tension following the receipt of
negative feedback. These results, and the suggested future research
identified above, allow for a greater understanding of how to
maximize performance through setting goals with the correct con-
tent for given types of tasks and employees.
References
Alliger, G. M., & Williams, K. J. (1993). Using signal-contingent experi-
ence sampling methodology to study work in the field: A discussion and
illustration examining task perceptions and mood. Personnel Psychol-
ogy, 46, 525–549.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY:
Freeman.
Bandura, A., & Cervone, D. (1983). Self-evaluative and self-efficacy
mechanisms governing the motivational effects of goal systems. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 1017–1028.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable
distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and
statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
51, 1173–1182.
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimen-
sions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44,
1–26.
Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Strauss, J. P. (1993). Conscientiousness
and performance of sales representatives: Test of the mediating effects
of goal setting. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 715–722.
Barrick, M. R., Parks, L., & Mount, M. K. (2005). Self-monitoring as a
moderator of the relationships between personality traits and perfor-
mance. Personnel Psychology, 58, 745–767.
Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., & Piotrowski, M. (2002). Personality and
job performance: Test of the mediating effects of motivation among
sales representatives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 43–51.
Bono, J. E., & Colbert, A. E. (2005). Understanding responses to multi-
source feedback: The role of core self-evaluations. Personnel Psychol-
ogy, 58, 171–203.
Brown, K. G. (2001). Using computers to deliver training: Which employ-
ees learn and why? Personnel Psychology, 54, 271–296.
Button, S. B., Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. (1996). Goal orientation in
organizational research: A conceptual and empirical foundation. Orga-
nizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67, 26 – 48.
Chen, G., & Mathieu, J. E. (2008). Goal orientation dispositions and
performance trajectories: The roles of supplementary and complemen-
tary situational inducements. Organizational Behavior and Human De-
cision Processes, 106, 21–38.
Chillarege, K. A., Nordstrom, C. R., & Williams, K. B. (2003). Learning
628 CIANCI, KLEIN, AND SEIJTS
from our mistakes: Error management training for mature learners.
Journal of Business and Psychology, 17, 369 –385.
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple
regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1989). The NEO PI/FFI manual
supplement: Personality Inventory manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological
Assessment Resources.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality
Inventory (NEO-PI–R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) pro-
fessional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Cron, W. L., Slocum, J. W., VandeWalle, D., & Fu, Q. (2005). The role of
goal orientation on negative emotions and goal setting when initial
performance falls short of one’s performance goal. Human Performance,
18, 55– 80.
Cronbach, L. J. (1987). Statistical tests for moderator variables: Flaws in
analyses recently proposed. Psychological Bulletin, 102, 414 – 417.
DeShon, R. P., & Gillespie, J. Z. (2005). A motivated action theory account
of goal orientation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1096 –1127.
Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor
model. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 417– 440.
Drach-Zahavy, A., & Erez, M. (2002). Challenge versus threat effects on
the goal–performance relationship. Organizational Behavior and Hu-
man Decision Processes, 88, 667– 682.
Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American
Psychologist, 41, 1040 –1048.
Dweck, C. S., Chiu, C., & Hong, Y. (1995). Implicit theories and their role
in judgments and reactions: A world from two perspectives. Psycholog-
ical Inquiry, 6, 267–285.
Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to
motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256 –273.
Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. (2007). Methods for integrating moder-
ation and mediation: A general analytical framework using moderated
path analysis. Psychological Methods, 12, 1–22.
Elliott, A. J., & McGregor, H. A. (1999). Test anxiety and the hierarchical
model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 628 – 644.
Elliott, E. S., & Dweck, C. S. (1988). Goals: An approach to motivation
and achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54,
5–12.
Fisher, S. L., & Ford, J. K. (1998). Differential effects of learner effort and
goal orientation on two learner outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 51,
397– 419.
Gellatly, I. R. (1996). Conscientiousness and task performance: Test of a
cognitive process model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 474 – 482.
Gist, M. E., & Stevens, C. K. (1998). Effects of practice conditions and
supplemental training method on cognitive learning and interpersonal
skill generalization. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Pro-
cesses, 75, 142–169.
Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Carter, S. M., Leto, A. T., & Elliot,
A. J. (1997). Predictors and consequences of achievement goals in the
college classroom: Maintaining interest and making the grade. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1284 –1295.
Hatzigeorgiadis, A., & Biddle, S. (1999). The effects of goal orientation
and perceived competence on cognitive interference during tennis and
snooker performance. Journal of Sport Behavior, 22, 479 –501.
Hofmann, D. A. (1993). The influence of goal orientation on task perfor-
mance: A substantively meaningful suppressor variable. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 23, 1827–1846.
Ilgen, D. R., Mitchell, T. R., & Fredrickson, J. W. (1981). Poor performers:
Supervisors’ and subordinates’ responses. Organizational Behavior and
Human Performance, 27, 386 – 411.
Ilies, R., DePater, I. E., & Judge, R. (2007). Differential affective reactions
to negative and positive feedback, and the role of self-esteem. Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 22, 590 – 609.
Ilies, R., & Judge, T. A. (2005). Goal regulation across time: The effects
of feedback and affect. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 453– 467.
Johns, G. (2006). The essential impact of context on organizational behav-
ior. Academy of Management Review, 31, 386 – 408.
Judge, T. A., Higgins, C. A., Thoreson, C. J., & Barrick, M. R. (1999). The
Big Five personality traits, general mental ability and career success
across the life span. Personnel Psychology, 52, 621– 652.
Kanfer, R., & Ackerman, P. L. (1989). Motivation and cognitive abilities:
An integrative/aptitude-treatment interaction approach to skill acquisi-
tion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 657– 690.
Klein, H. J. (1989). An integrated control theory model of work motivation.
Academy of Management Review, 14, 150 –172.
Klein, H. J., Noe, R. A., & Wang, C. (2006). Motivation to learn and course
outcomes: The impact of delivery mode, learning goal orientation, and
perceived barriers and enablers. Personnel Psychology, 59, 665–702.
Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions
on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary
feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 254 –284.
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Bell, B. S. (2006). Disentangling achievement
orientation and goal setting: Effects on self-regulatory processes. Jour-
nal of Applied Psychology, 91, 900 –916.
Latham, G. P. (2007). Work motivation: History, theories, research, and
practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Latham, G. P., Seijts, G., & Crim, D. (2008). The effects of learning goal
difficulty level and cognitive ability on performance. Canadian Journal
of Behavioural Science, 40, 220 –229.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New
York, NY: Springer.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task
performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory
of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American
Psychologist, 57, 705–717.
Locke, E. A., Shaw, K. N., Saari, L. M., & Latham, G. P. (1981). Goal
setting and task performance: 1969 –1980. Psychological Bulletin, 90,
125–152.
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., & Williams, J. (2004). Confidence
limits for the indirect effect: Distribution of the produce and resampling
methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 99 –128.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1986). Personality, coping, and coping
effectiveness in an adult sample. Journal of Personality, 54, 385– 405.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1987). Validation of the five-factor
model of personality across instruments and observers. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 52, 81–90.
Michel, W. (1977). The interaction of person and situation. In D. Magnus-
son & N. Endler (Eds.), Personality at the crossroads: Current issues in
interactional psychology (pp. 333–352). New York, NY: Erlbaum.
Mikulincer, M. (1989). Cognitive interference and learned helplessness:
The effect of off-task cognitions on performance following unsolvable
problems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 129 –135.
Muller, D., Judd, C. M., & Yzerbyt, V. Y. (2005). When moderation is
mediated and mediation is moderated. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 89, 852– 863.
Nebeker, D. M., & Tatum, B. C. (1993). The effects of computer moni-
toring, standards, and rewards on work performance, job satisfaction,
and stress. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23, 508 –536.
Noel, T. W., & Latham, G. P. (2006). The importance of learning goals
versus outcome goals for entrepreneurs. International Journal of Entre-
preneurship and Innovation, 7, 213–220.
Payne, S. C., Youngcourt, S. S., & Beaubien, J. M. (2007). Meta-analytic
examination of the goal orientation nomological net. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 92, 128 –150.
629
GOALS, CONSCIENTIOUSNESS, AND NEGATIVE FEEDBACK
Podsakoff, P. M., & Farh, J. (1989). Effects of feedback sign and credi-
bility on goal setting and task performance. Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, 44, 45– 67.
Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing mod-
erated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Mul-
tivariate Behavioral Research, 42, 185–227.
Purcell, A. T. (1982). The structure of activation and emotion. Multivariate
Behavioral Research, 17, 221–251.
Robie, C., & Ryan, A. M. (1999). Effects of nonlinearity and heterosce-
dasticity on the validity of conscientiousness in predicting overall job
performance. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 7,
157–169.
Sarason, I. G., Pierce, G. R., & Sarason, B. R. (1996). Domains of
cognitive interference. In I. G. Sarason, G. R. Pierce, & B. R. Sarason
(Eds.), Cognitive interference: Theories, methods, and findings (pp.
139 –152). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Sarason, I. G., Sarason, B. R., Keefe, D. E., Hayes, B. E., & Shearin, E. N.
(1986). Cognitive interference: Situational determinants and trait-like
characteristics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 215–
226.
Seijts, G. H., & Latham, G. P. (2005). Learning versus performance goals:
When should each be used? Academy of Management Executive, 19,
124 –131.
Seijts, G. H., Latham, G. P., Tasa, K., & Latham, B. W. (2004). Goal
setting and goal orientation: An integration of two different yet related
literatures. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 227–239.
Senko, C., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2002). Performance goals: The mod-
erating roles of context and achievement orientation. Journal of Exper-
imental Social Psychology, 38, 603– 610.
Skinner, N., & Brewer, N. (2002). The dynamics of threat and challenge
appraisals prior to stressful achievement events. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 83, 678 – 692.
Smiley, P. A., & Dweck, C. S. (1994). Individual differences in achieve-
ment goals among young children. Child Development, 65, 1723–1743.
Thayer, R. E. (1967). Measurement of activation through self-report.
Psychological Reports, 20, 663– 678.
Thayer, R. E. (1978). Factor analytic and reliability studies on the
Activation–Deactivation Adjective Check List. Psychological Reports,
42, 747–756.
Thayer, R. E. (1986). Activation–Deactivation Adjective Check List: Cur-
rent overview and structural analysis. Psychological Reports, 58, 607–
614.
Thayer, R. E. (1989). The biopsychology of mood and arousal. New York,
NY: Oxford University Press.
VandeWalle, D. (1997). Development and validation of a work domain
goal orientation instrument. Educational and Psychological Measure-
ment, 8, 995–1015.
VandeWalle, D., Cron, W. J., & Slocum, J. W. (2001). The role of goal
orientation following performance feedback. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology, 86, 629 – 640.
Winters, D., & Latham, G. P. (1996). The effect of learning versus outcome
goals on a simple versus a complex task. Group and Organization
Management, 21, 235–250.
Yeo, G. B., & Neal, A. (2004). A multilevel analysis of effort, practice, and
performance: Effects of ability, conscientiousness, and goal orientation.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 231–247.
Zellars, K. L., Perrewe, P. L., Hochwarter, W. A., & Anderson, K. S.
(2006). The interactive effects of positive affect and conscientiousness
on strain. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11, 281–289.
Received December 1, 2008
Revision received December 9, 2009
Accepted December 15, 2009 䡲
630 CIANCI, KLEIN, AND SEIJTS
A preview of this full-text is provided by American Psychological Association.
Content available from Journal of Applied Psychology
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
