The effect of negative feedback on tension and subsequent performance: The main and interactive effects of goal content and conscientiousness.
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 performance 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 conscientiousness. 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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it