MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2301036184 · doi:10.1177/0022022116638172

The Role of Regulatory Fit in Framing Effective Negative Feedback Across Cultures

2016· article· en· W2301036184 on OpenAlexaff
Franki Y. H. Kung, Young-Hoon Kim, Daniel Y.‐J. Yang, Shirley Y. Y. Cheng

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cross-Cultural Psychology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicBehavioral Health and Interventions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignChinese University of Hong KongUniversity of Hong Kong
KeywordsRegulatory focus theoryFraming (construction)Negative feedbackSocial psychologyPositive feedbackPromotion (chess)Goal pursuitPsychologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Giving effective negative feedback is not only important but also challenging. Often people struggle as to how ; and perhaps even more so when the feedback receiver comes from a different culture . Building on the regulatory fit theory, the current research examined how negative feedback framing (gain- vs. loss framed) would affect feedback receivers’ motivation as a function of their regulatory focus. We found that European Americans were in general more promotion-focused than Chinese (Study 1) and Indians (Study 2), such that promotion-focused (vs. prevention-focused) participants showed higher motivation after receiving gain-framed (vs. loss-framed) negative feedback. Across two studies, with student and work samples, our findings answered the question of how to give more effective negative feedback and suggested that regulatory fit can be a universal strategy for increasing motivation across the East and West.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.759
Threshold uncertainty score0.473

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.489
Teacher spread0.450 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations27
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cross-Cultural PsychologySame topicBehavioral Health and InterventionsFrench-language works237,207