Feedback Intervention Theory

Feedback intervention theory (FIT), first proposed by Avraham Kluger and Angelo DeNisi in 1996, attempts to explain why feedback is not always effective in improving subsequent performance. Because feedback is an important component of many educational programs and interventions, it is critical to understand more about how feedback actually affects subsequent behavior. This entry first explains the origin of FIT and then examines the arguments critical to understanding feedback effects as well as how the three views of the self affect feedback. Finally, implications of the theory are considered.

FIT grew out of the results of a meta-analysis of over 600 effect sizes dealing with the relationship between feedback and subsequent performance. Traditionally, feedback was viewed as being an effective tool for changing behavior, but the results of this meta-analysis indicated that, in almost one third of the cases, feedback had a negative effect on subsequent performance. That is, individuals receiving performance feedback did more poorly on subsequent tasks than did individuals who received no feedback. Furthermore, these results were independent of the sign of the feedback; positive feedback had the same type of effect as did negative feedback. Interestingly, the review and meta-analysis revealed that there had always been evidence that feedback had such mixed effects, but that inconsistencies with the way some past reviews were conducted had obscured this fact. These results, and their implications, necessitated a proposed theory to explain when feedback would likely have the positive effects usually associated with it and when those effects might be negative, and this was termed feedback intervention theory.

The development of FIT begins with noting that the usual assumptions underlying studies of feedback effectiveness (i.e., that behavior was regulated by attempts to reduce the discrepancy between feedback and standards for performance) were too simplistic, on their own, to fully explain feedback effects. Instead, building upon control theory, FIT argued that, in addition to the usual standards-discrepancy arguments, understanding feedback effects required two other arguments. The first was that not all feedback–standards gaps could receive attention and only those that did receive attention could be related to behavior regulation. The second, and more critical argument, was that feedback interventions changed the locus of attention and therefore affected behavior.

This second argument was central to understanding the inconsistent effects of feedback on performance. Attention can be directed to the self, to the task at hand, or to the details of the task at hand. Feedback interventions that direct attention to the task at hand are likely to produce positive effects, regardless of the sign of the feedback, just as has always been suggested. Feedback that directs attention to the details of the task at hand can have positive effects, but there is also a potential problem of feedback recipients focusing too much on details. Feedback that directs attention to the self, however, is the most problematic, as it diverts cognitive resources away from task performance and produces affective reactions that can interfere with task performance. Partial tests of FIT found that feedback interventions containing both praise and criticism produce lower positive and some negative effects on performance when they direct attention to the self.

...