Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

When friends exchange negative feedback

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Motivation and Emotion Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In four studies, we document an increase in the amount of negative feedback friends and colleagues exchange as their relationship deepens. We find that both actual and perceived relationship depth increase the amount of negative feedback people seek from and provide to each other, as well as their tendency to invest in a focal (relationship or performance) goal in response to negative feedback. The amount of positive feedback on goal pursuit, by contrast, remains stable as the relationship deepens. We attribute the increase in negative feedback to the different meaning of such feedback for people in deep versus shallow relationships: only in the context of deep relationships does negative feedback signal insufficient resource investment in the focal goal, and hence close friends and colleagues seek, provide, and respond to negative feedback.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Sample size in Study 1 and later studies was determined based on studies on research measuring seeking responsiveness to feedback (e.g., Finkelstein and Fishbach 2012). We report all data exclusions and all conditions in our studies. Following Zhou and Fishbach (2016), we tested for attrition. 6 participants dropped the survey after being assigned to condition. This number was 4 from the deep condition and 2 from the shallow condition.

  2. Following Zhou and Fishbach (2016), we tested for attrition. 30 participants dropped the survey before being assigned to a depth condition. An additional 25 dropped out after being assigned to a condition and before completing the survey: 6 from negative-deep, 8 from positive-deep, 4 from negative-shallow, and 7 from positive-shallow.

References

  • Anseel, F., Lievens, F., & Levy, P. E. (2007). A self-motives perspective on feedback-seeking behavior: Linking organizational behavior and social psychology research. International Journal of Management Reviews, 9, 211–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashford, S. J., Blatt, R., & Walle, D. V. (2003). Reflections on the looking glass: A review of research on feedback-seeking behavior in organizations. Journal of Management, 29, 773–799.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashford, S. J., & Cummings, L. L. (1983). Feedback as an individual resource: Personal strategies of creating information. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 32, 370–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashford, S. J., & Tsui, A. A. (1991). Self-regulation for managerial effectiveness: The role of active feedback-seeking. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 251–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aspinwall, L. G. (1998). Rethinking the role of positive affect in self-regulation. Motivation and Emotion, 22, 1–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker, L. R., & McNulty, J. K. (2013). When low self-esteem encourages behaviors that risk rejection to increase interdependence: The role of relational self-construal. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104, 995–1018.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 2, 248–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berscheid, E., Snyder, M., & Omoto, A. (2004). Measuring closeness: The relationship closeness inventory (RCI) revisited. In D. J. Mashek & A. Aron (Eds.), The handbook of closeness and intimacy (pp. 81–101). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blumberg, H. H. (1972). Communication of interpersonal evaluations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 23, 157–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolles, R. C. (1972). Reinforcement, expectancy, and learning. Psychological Review, 79, 394–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brennan, K. A., & Morns, K. A. (1997). Attachment styles, self-esteem, and patterns of seeking feedback from romantic partners. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 23–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brunstein, J. C., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (1996). Effects of failure on subsequent performance: The importance of self-defining goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 395–407.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1998). On the self-regulation of behavior. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cavallo, J. C., Fitzsimons, G. M., & Holmes, J. G. (2009). Taking chances in the face of threat: Romantic risk regulation and approach motivation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 737–751.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, M. S., & Lemay, E. P., Jr. (2010). Close relationships. In S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (5th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 898–940). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarkson, J. J., Hirt, E. R., Jia, L., & Alexander, M. B. (2010). When perception is more than reality: The effects of perceived versus actual resource depletion on self-regulatory behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 29–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Custers, R., & Aarts, H. (2005). Positive affect as implicit motivator: On the nonconscious operation of behavioral goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 129–142.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Depaulo, B. M., & Kashy, D. A. (1998). Everyday lies in close and casual relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 63–79.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feather, N. T. (1982). Expectations and actions: Expectancy-value models in psychology. Hillsdale, N.J: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feeney, B. C., & Lemay, E. P. (2012). Surviving relationship threats the role of emotional capital. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 1004–1017.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Finkelstein, S. R., & Fishbach, A. (2012). Tell me what I did wrong: Experts seek and respond to negative feedback. Journal of Consumer Research, 39, 22–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fishbach, A., & Dhar, R. (2005). Goals as excuses or guides: The liberating effect of perceived goal progress on choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 32, 370–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fishbach, A., Eyal, T., & Finkelstein, S. R. (2010). How positive and negative feedback motivate goal pursuit. Social Psychology and Personality Compass, 4, 517–530.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fishbach, A., & Ferguson, M. J. (2007). The goal construct in social psychology. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishbach, A., & Finkelstein, S. R. (2012). How feedback influences persistence, disengagement, and change in goal pursuit. In H. Aarts & A. Elliot (Eds.), Goal directed behavior (pp. 203–230). Hove: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishbach, A., Koo, M., & Finkelstein, S. R. (2014). Motivation resulting from completed and missing actions. In M. P. Zanna & J. Olson (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 50, pp. 257–307). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1974). Attitudes towards objects as predictors of single and multiple behavioral criteria. Psychological Review, 81, 59–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fitzsimons, G. M., & Bargh, J. A. (2003). Thinking of you: Nonconscious pursuit of interpersonal goals associated with relationship partners. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 148–164.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Fitzsimons, G. M., & Finkel, E. J. (2010). Inter-personal influences on self-regulation. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19, 101–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gagné, F. M., & Lydon, J. E. (2004). Bias and accuracy in close relationships: An integrative review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 322–338.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hepper, E. G., & Carnelley, K. B. (2010). Adult attachment and feedback-seeking patterns in relationships and work. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 448–464.

    Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, E. T. (1987). Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect. Psychological Review, 94, 319–340.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hui, C. M., Molden, D. C., & Finkel, E. J. (2013). Loving freedom: Concerns with promotion or prevention and the role of autonomy in relationship well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105, 61–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Izard, C. (1960). Personality similarity and friendship. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 61, 47–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kappes, A., Oettingen, G., & Pak, H. (2012). Mental contrasting and the self-regulation of responding to negative feedback. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 845–857.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kelley, H. H., Berscheid, E., Christensen, A., Harvey, H. H., Huston, T. L., Levinger, G., et al. (1983). Close relationships. New York: Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelley, H. H., & Thibaut, J. W. (1978). Interpersonal relations: A theory of interdependence (p. 341). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keltner, D., Young, R. C., Heerey, E. A., Oemig, C., & Monarch, N. D. (1998). Teasing in hierarchical and intimate relations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1231–1247.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Koo, M., & Fishbach, A. (2008). Dynamics of self-regulation: How (un)accomplished goal actions affect motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 183–195.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kraus, M. W., & Chen, S. (2009). Striving to be known by significant others: Automatic activation of self-verification goals in relationship contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 58–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kruglanski, A. W. (1996). Goals as knowledge structures. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kwang, T., & Swann, W. B. (2010). Do people embrace praise even when they feel unworthy? A review of critical tests of self-enhancement versus self-verification. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14, 263–280.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Linville, P. W. (1987). Self-complexity as a cognitive buffer against stress-related illness and depression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 663–676.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Maisel, N., & Gable, S. L. (2009). The paradox of received social support: The importance of responsiveness. Psychological Science, 20, 928–932.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Morrison, E. W., & Weldon, E. (1990). The impact of an assigned performance goal on feedback seeking behavior. Human Performance, 3, 37–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., & Griffin, D. W. (2000). Self-esteem and the quest for felt security: How perceived regard regulates attachment processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 478–498.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Oppenheimer, D. M., Meyvis, T., & Davidenko, N. (2009). Instructional manipulation checks: Detecting satisficing to increase statistical power. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 867–872.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(4), 717–731.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rafferty, J. N., & Bizer, G. Y. (2009). Negative feedback and performance: The moderating effect of emotion regulation. Personality and Individual Differences, 47, 481–486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reis, H. T., Clark, M. S., & Holmes, J. G. (2004). Perceived partner responsiveness as an organizing construct in the study of intimacy and closeness. In D. J. Mashek & A. Aron (Eds.), Handbook of closeness and intimacy (pp. 201–228). Mahweh, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reis, H. T., & Shaver, P. (1988). Intimacy as an interpersonal process. In S. Duck & D. F. Hay (Eds.), Handbook of personal relationships: Theory, research, and interventions (pp. 367–389). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Renn, R. W., & Fedor, D. B. (2001). Development and field test of a feedback seeking, self-efficacy, and goal setting model of work performance. Journal of Management, 27, 563–583.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richards, J. M., Butler, E. A., & Gross, J. J. (2003). Emotion regulation in romantic relationships: The cognitive consequences of concealing feelings. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 20(5), 599–620.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rusbult, C. E., Finkel, E. J., & Kumashiro, M. (2009). The michaelangelo phenomenon. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18, 305–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rusbult, C. E., & Van Lange, P. A. (2003). Interdependence, interaction, and relationships. Annual Review of Psychology, 54(1), 351–375.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sedikides, C., & Strube, M. J. (1995). The multiply motivated self. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 1330–1335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shiota, M. N., Campos, B., Keltner, D., & Hertenstein, M. J. (2004). Positive emotion and the regulation of interpersonal relationships. The Regulation of Emotion, 5, 127–155.

    Google Scholar 

  • Showers, C. J., & Kling, K. C. (1996). Organization of self-knowledge: Implications for recovery from sad mood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 578–590.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Swann, W. B. (1987). Identity negotiation: Where two roads meet. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1038–1051.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tesser, A. (1988). Toward a self-evaluation maintenance model of social behavior. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 21, pp. 181–222). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tesser, A., & Rosen, S. (1975). The reluctance to transmit bad news. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 8, 193–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trope, Y., & Neter, E. (1994). Reconciling competing motives in self-evaluation: The role of self-control in feedback seeking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 646–657.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vohs, K. D., & Finkel, E. J. (2006). Self and relationships: Connecting intrapersonal and interpersonal processes. New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, J. R., & Johnson, M. A. (2000). Self-supervisor agreement: The influence of feedback seeking on the relationship between self and supervisor ratings of performance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 275–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yariv, E. (2006). “Mum effect”: Principals’ reluctance to submit negative feedback. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21, 533–546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, H., & Fishbach, A. (2016). The pitfall of experimenting on the web: How unattended selective attrition leads to surprising (yet false) research conclusions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111(4), 493–504.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This study was partially funded from the Templeton Foundation (New Paths to Purpose Grant).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Marketing, Zicklin School of Business, Baruch College, 55 Lexington Ave, New York, NY, 10010, USA

    Stacey R. Finkelstein

  2. Booth School of Business, University of Chicago, 5807 S. Woodlawn, Chicago, IL, 60637, USA

    Ayelet Fishbach

  3. Department of Marketing, Warrington College of Business Administration, University of Florida, Stuzin Hall, Box 117155, Gainesville, FL, 32611, USA

    Yanping Tu

Authors
  1. Stacey R. Finkelstein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ayelet Fishbach
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yanping Tu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stacey R. Finkelstein.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Appendix: Manipulations of relationship depth—Study 2

Appendix: Manipulations of relationship depth—Study 2

Coworker (feedback recipient) gains depth scenario

“Welcome to the coworker evaluation study. In this study, we’d like you to imagine that you have been working at your firm for 2 years and that you are part of a team that is pitching a new product to a potential client. A coworker of yours [who is a new member of the team and has been around for 2 weeks/is an experienced member of the team and has been around for 2 years] has been asked to deliver a part of the pitch to the new client. Before your team gives a presentation like this, your team tapes a practice talk in front of a mock audience in an environment similar to the one the actual pitch will be given in. The mock audience members are encouraged to ask clarification questions if necessary but to leave other questions for after the first part of the pitch is completed.

“Your job is to evaluate the practice presentation and give feedback to your coworker. Keeping in mind that [your coworker is a new member of the team and has been around for 2 weeks/your coworker is an experienced member of the team and has been around for 2 years], we’d like for you to evaluate your co-worker and list your coworker’s strengths and weaknesses in the pitch.”

Participant (feedback provider) gains depth scenario

“Welcome to the coworker evaluation study. In this study, we’d like you to imagine that you are part of a team that is pitching a new product to a potential client. [You are a new member of the team and have only been working with your team for two weeks/You are an experienced member of the team and have been working with your team for 2 years]. Your coworker, a team member of yours who has been with the team for 2 years, has been asked to deliver a part of the pitch to the new client. Before your team gives a presentation like this, your team tapes a practice talk in front of a mock audience in an environment similar to the one the actual pitch will be given in. The mock audience members are encouraged to ask clarification questions if necessary but to leave other questions for after the first part of the pitch is completed.

“Your job is to evaluate the practice presentation and give feedback to your coworker. Keeping in mind that [you are a new member of the team and have been around for 2 weeks/you are an experienced member of the team and have been around for 2 years], we’d like for you to evaluate your co-worker and list your coworker’s strengths and weaknesses in the pitch.”

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Finkelstein, S.R., Fishbach, A. & Tu, Y. When friends exchange negative feedback. Motiv Emot 41, 69–83 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-016-9589-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-016-9589-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation