Educational Psychology

An International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology

ISSN: 0144-3410 (Print) 1469-5820 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cedp20

Effects of cognitive appraisal styles and feedback

types on feedback acceptance and motivation for
challenge

Jongho Shin, Jeongah Kim, Myung-Seop Kim & Yura Son

To cite this article: Jongho Shin, Jeongah Kim, Myung-Seop Kim & Yura Son (2020): Effects
of cognitive appraisal styles and feedback types on feedback acceptance and motivation for
challenge, Educational Psychology, DOI: 10.1080/01443410.2020.1725449

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2020.1725449

Published online: 18 Feb 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 27

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cedp20
EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY
https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2020.1725449

Effects of cognitive appraisal styles and feedback types

on feedback acceptance and motivation for challenge
Jongho Shin, Jeongah Kim , Myung-Seop Kim and Yura Son
Department of Education, Seoul National University, Seoul, Republic of Korea

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of cognitive Received 10 January 2019
appraisal styles (i.e., threat vs. challenge) and feedback types on Accepted 30 January 2020
feedback acceptance and motivation for challenge. We used four
feedback types based on valence (positive vs. negative) and orien- KEYWORDS
tation (person vs. task). Sixth-graders completed the cognitive Cognitive appraisal styles;
feedback valence; feedback
appraisal style questionnaire and wrote an essay on their use of orientation
smartphones. One week after the writing, they received feedback,
and their feedback acceptance and motivation for challenge were
measured. Effective feedback types varied depending on students’
appraisal styles. The challenge style demonstrated the highest
feedback acceptance for positive task-oriented feedback. Negative
task-oriented feedback was the most effective for the threat style.
The challenge style showed higher motivation for challenge when
receiving positive task-oriented and negative person-oriented
feedbacks, whereas the threat style did not. Educators should be
encouraged to provide personalized feedback based on students’
cognitive appraisal styles to maximize feedback effects.

The purpose of the present study was to investigate the effects of cognitive appraisal
styles and feedback types on feedback acceptance and motivation for challenge.
Researchers have proposed that cognitive appraisal styles of threat and challenge
make students respond to stimuli including feedback differently (Lazarus & Folkman,
1987; Skinner & Brewer, 2002). The threat appraisal style focuses selectively on nega-
tive outcomes such as failure. When facing such negative situations, this style consid-
ers failure a threat to their identity or self-worth, where they will try to prevent or
avoid it (Skinner & Brewer, 2002). On the other hand, the challenge appraisal style
pays more attention to positive outcomes such as success than negative outcomes
and strives to improve the current situation (Symes, Putwain, & Remedios, 2015).
Thus far, very limited research is available on the direct relationship between cogni-
tive appraisal styles and feedback. Conversely, research on personal dispositions (e.g.,
low self-esteem, high self-handicapping) which constructs the threat appraisal style
and feedback acceptance is relatively vast. For example, students with low self-esteem
or high self-handicapping tend to seek feedback that is more congruent with their

CONTACT Jeongah Kim jjong0327@snu.ac.kr Department of Education, Educational Psychology Programs,

Seoul National University, 1 Gwanak-ro, Gwanak-gu, Seoul 08266, Republic of Korea
ß 2020 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 J. SHIN ET AL.

view of self and to focus on failure feedback rather than success feedback (Park,
Crocker, & Kiefer, 2007; Thompson & Richardson, 2001; Vandellen, Campbell, Hoyle, &
Bradfield, 2011). This is likely to happen, considering that self-handicapping is often
defined as taking actions or strategies to excuse oneself from failure or enhance per-
ceived competence from success (Schwinger, Wirthwein, Lemmer, & Steinmayr, 2014).
Similarly, studies on personal dispositions (e.g., high self-esteem, optimism) that are
related to the challenge appraisal style help to look into the relationship between the
challenge appraisal style and feedback. High self-esteemed students did not report
lowered feelings of self-worth in negative feedback conditions compared to positive
feedback conditions (Brown, 2010). Optimism, or high expectations for positive out-
comes, indicated high expectations for performance, and optimistic students show
more control over tasks and situations after receiving success feedback (Norem &
Cantor, 1986; O’Malley & Gregory, 2011). In short, previous studies suggest that the
threat style would be more sensitive to failure feedback and attribute their failure to
uncontrollable factors such as low ability, while the challenge style would be more
responsive to success and consider its cause controllable.
Unfortunately, the high-stakes exam-based education systems which intensify competi-
tion and the use of private tutoring to get an edge are likely to promote the threat
appraisal style rather than the challenge style; In many countries, students’ fears of failure
become amplified these days. This is especially the case in South Korea and Eastern Asia
countries due to the overt emphasis of test scores and competitions (Banks & Smyth, 2015;
Shin, Jahng, & Kim, 2019; Sriprakash, Proctor, & Hu, 2016), which causes the students with
the threat appraisal style to be more inclined to adopt maladaptive strategies, such as
defensive pessimism or self-handicapping (Martin, Marsh, Williamson, & Debus, 2003;
Martin & Marsh, 2003). Considering that students are prone to endorse self-handicapping
and failure avoidance as they grow older, students are likely to adopt the threat appraisal
style as they become older (Martin, 2009). Therefore, it is worthwhile to investigate factors
that raise feedback acceptance and motivation for challenge of these students as well as
students with the challenge appraisal style.
In the present study, we tried to examine desirable feedback types for each
appraisal style based on the transactional model of stress and coping (Lazarus &
Folkman, 1984). The model explains that cognitive appraisals modify the level of stress
students receive from performance feedback and that consequent behaviors are either
adaptive or maladaptive depending upon how students accept and interpret the feed-
back (Freund & Staudinger, 2015; Mehu & Scherer, 2015; Power & Hill, 2010; Troy,
Shallcross, & Mauss, 2013). We also included the measure of motivation for challenge
as well as feedback acceptance as dependent measures. The motivation for challenge
would indicate a tendency not to become easily frustrated with failure in learning sit-
uations and to bolster one’s morale by setting a more challenging goal (Abuhamdeh
& Csikszentmihalyi, 2012). Most research on feedback measured the close consequen-
ces of feedback such as feedback acceptance. In order to investigate consequences of
feedback in the relatively long term, it would be better to include motivation for chal-
lenge into research on feedback. We tried to examine the effects of cognitive appraisal
styles and feedback types not only on feedback acceptance but also on motivation
for challenge.
 EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 3

The transactional model of stress and coping

Lazarus and Folkman (1984) introduced the notion of threat and challenge in their
transactional model of stress and coping. According to the model, there are two
stages of cognitive appraisals (Lazarus, 2006; Lazarus & Folkman, 1987). In the primary
appraisal process, the same specific event could be considered either positive, nega-
tive, or irrelevant to stress by one’s appraisal (Drach-Zahavy & Erez, 2002; Lazarus
& Folkman, 1987). When the event is interpreted as being negative, the negative situ-
ation is further considered either a threat or a challenge (Biggs, Brough, & Drummond,
2017). After appraising the situation, the secondary appraisal follows, which is involved
with determining what actions are to be taken. In this secondary appraisal process,
the availability of resources is essential to produce active actions that result in bet-
ter outcomes.
The primary and secondary appraisals interact with each other to determine the
appropriate responses to the situation (Jones, Meijen, McCarthy, & Sheffield, 2009).
Perceived controllability plays an important role in the interaction between primary
and secondary appraisal (Senol-Durak & Durak, 2017). Perceived controllability is the
degree to which an individual believes that one can recreate or affect a stressful per-
son-environment relationship (Troy et al., 2013). Perceived controllability is influenced
by personal and environmental factors associated with demand (stress-enhancing fac-
tors) and resource (stress-alleviating factors) evaluations. Demand evaluation is associ-
ated with a realistic view of events, while resource evaluation is related to looking at
the bright side of situations to cope with them effectively (Mccarthy et al., 2016).
When the resource evaluation of an event is bigger than the demand evaluation, it is
perceived to be more controllable. People tend to invest more efforts into tasks when
they feel that an event is malleable, or controllable (Eitam, Kennedy, & Higgins, 2013;
Zingoni & Byron, 2017).

Personal factors: cognitive appraisal styles

People focus on different aspects of stressful situations depending on cognitive
appraisal styles (Drach-Zahavy & Erez, 2002; Senol-Durak & Durak, 2017). In the primary
appraisal stage, negative information attracts the attention of the threat appraisal style
(B

elanger, Lafreniere, Vallerand, & Kruglanski, 2013; Martin & Marsh, 2003). Those with
the threat appraisal style reflect on their mistakes and flaws based on negative cues.
In contrast, those with the challenge appraisal style focus on positive information in
the primary appraisal process. They ponder on their successes and assets based on
past experiences and current positive cues (Putwain, Symes, & Remedios, 2016).
In the secondary appraisal stage, determining how much energy is available to
cope with problems is the main interest (Jones et al., 2009; Mccarthy et al., 2016).
Those with the threat appraisal style adopt avoidance regulation strategies, which are
externally forced or internally pressured, while those with the challenge appraisal style
are intrinsically engaged in the situation as a part of approach regulation (Martin,
2013; Skinner & Brewer, 2002). Thus, contrary to the challenge appraisal style, the
threat appraisal style may induce resource depletion (Oertig et al., 2013; Roskes, Elliot,
Nijstad, & De Dreu, 2013). The threat appraisal style typically experiences more
4 J. SHIN ET AL.

imbalance between demand and resource in high-risk evaluative situations, resulting

in a threat appraisal; however, the challenge appraisal style concentrates on positive
cues, consumes less mental energy and experiences less imbalance between demand
and resource (Skinner & Brewer, 2002).
According to Skinner and Brewer (2002), ‘trait’ cognitive appraisals, which are con-
sistent and relatively stable over time and across situations, are distinguishable from
‘state’ (or event-specific) cognitive appraisals which are changeable. Under situations
without special intervention or manipulation, people are likely to make state appraisals
that match their trait appraisal styles, same as the relationship between trait and state
anxiety (Spielberger, Gorsuch, Lushene, Vagg, & Jacobs, 1983). In sum, the trait chal-
lenge style would enhance the state challenge appraisal as the trait threat style would
enhance the state threat appraisal. In addition, threats and challenges are often
deemed distinct and dichotomous, but they are rather anchors on a continuum of
responses to stress (Peters & Jamieson, 2016). Situational interventions such as feed-
back may affect perceived resources and demands of stressful situations, so state
appraisals may move along the continuum from their appraisal styles towards per-
ceived threat or challenge (Jamieson, Crum, Goyer, Marotta, & Akinola, 2018). That is,
people may have any disposition that falls on the continuum, meaning that being
high in the challenge appraisal style would imply a decrease in the threat appraisal
style. Thus, when discussing the challenge appraisal style in this study, we controlled
for the threat appraisal style, and vice versa.

Environmental factors: feedback

Different components of feedback influence the cognitive appraisal processes in the
transactional model of stress and coping. Valence is an essential component of feed-
back in the primary appraisal (Lazarus & Folkman, 1987). Positive-valence feedback
provides information about successes, and negative-valence feedback focuses on fail-
ures. In the secondary appraisal state, however, feedback orientation is a crucial
component of feedback (Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Kluger & DeNisi, 1996; Lazarus &
Folkman, 1987). Person-oriented feedback presents direct information of individual
ability and competence (Hattie & Timperley, 2007), while task-oriented feedback pro-
vides information on the task itself rather than one’s individual ability (Kluger &
DeNisi, 1996).
Researchers have suggested task-oriented feedback as feedback with high control-
lability and person-oriented feedback as feedback with low controllability (Fishbach,
Eyal, & Finkelstein, 2010; Fong et al., 2018; Zingoni & Byron, 2017). These two types of
feedback were selected in consideration of cognitive appraisal styles. According to the
transactional model of stress and coping on which the appraisal styles are based, an
external environmental factor that differs in perceived controllability would affect the
interaction between the appraisal styles and environment (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984).
Therefore, we tried to manipulate the controllability by giving different types of feed-
back in order to demonstrate changes in the interaction between traits and
environment.
 EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 5

Previous findings suggested that positive task-oriented feedback results in more

acceptance than negative task- and person-oriented feedback and positively affects
students’ motivation to learn (Fong, Patall, Vasquez, & Stautberg, 2019; Senko &
Harackiewicz, 2005). Positive task-oriented feedback is typically evaluated as low
demand (Blascovich, 2008; Mccarthy et al., 2016) . However, as we mentioned above,
personal factors such as cognitive appraisal styles may influence an individual’s focus
of attention and evaluations, so it is hard to say which type of feedback is more effect-
ive without considering personal traits including cognitive appraisal styles.

Cognitive appraisal styles, types of feedback, and feedback acceptance

Feedback acceptance is an internal process that a feedback recipient determines how
useful the feedback is and whether to accept it, which can be measured in terms of
cognition, emotion, or behaviour (Anseel, Van Yperen, Janssen, & Duyck, 2011).
Research findings on how people with the threat appraisal style respond to negative
feedback have been inconsistent. Upon receiving negative feedback, the threat
appraisal style would put more effort into a task to avoid failure (B
elanger et al., 2013;
Martin & Marsh, 2003; Van-Dijk & Kluger, 2004), give up on the task, or even adopt
self-handicapping strategies (Martin & Marsh, 2003; Trope, Gervey, & Bolger, 2003;
Weidinger, Spinath, & Steinmayr, 2016). One of the factors that causes the inconsisten-
cies in subsequent behaviour is feedback orientation (Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Ilgen
& Davis, 2000; Zingoni & Byron, 2017). In general, negative person-oriented feedback
may hurt self-worth of students with the threat appraisal style. However, giving nega-
tive task-oriented feedback may encourage this group of students to think that
they have some chances to overcome problem situations by using the feedback
information, which may lead to increase in feedback acceptance (Clarkson, Hirt, Jia,
& Alexander, 2010; Drach-Zahavy & Erez, 2002; Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Van-Dijk
& Kluger, 2004).
As for students with the challenge appraisal style, they expect success and believe
that they can improve learning outcomes (Jones et al., 2009; Seery, 2011) and regard
positive feedback as information on whether they are doing well on their task
(B
elanger et al., 2013; Van-Dijk & Kluger, 2004). Positive feedback is more congruent
with their tendency to focus on positive information rather than negative feedback
(Blascovich, 2008). They also know that their success in a task plays an important role
in defining their identity but do not think that others’ opinions on their success shape
their identity (Jones et al., 2009; Skinner & Brewer, 2002). They do not seek recognition
from others unlike those with the threat appraisal style (Jones et al., 2009; Skinner &
Brewer, 2002). Therefore, they would perceive more controllability when provided with
positive task-oriented feedback which results in enhanced feedback acceptance
and motivation.

Cognitive appraisal styles, feedback types, and motivation for challenge

A challenging task requires a substantial amount of mental resources. When the pro-
cess of accepting feedback depletes students’ mental resources, they dare not take on
6 J. SHIN ET AL.

difficult tasks with some confidence (Muraven & Baumeister, 2000; Vohs, Baumeister, &
Ciarocco, 2005). Upon receiving positive task-oriented feedback, the challenge
appraisal style would not only accept feedback but invest additional resources to
make further improvement (Dixon, Turner, & Gillman, 2017). On the other hand, stu-
dents with the threat appraisal style would suppose that the same positive feedback
is a signal saying everything is going alright; therefore, they are likely to stop putting
effort in the following learning session because they think they were able to avoid fail-
ure in the previous task, which was their major goal (Martin & Marsh, 2003;
Vancouver, Thompson, Tischner, & Putka, 2002).
The effect of negative feedback on depletion of mental resources may vary accord-
ing to appraisal styles. The challenge appraisal style uses less mental resources than
its threat counterpart (Lazarus & Folkman, 1987; Tugade & Fredrickson, 2004). The
challenge appraisal style regards a stressful situation as an opportunity for improve-
ment, social rewards, mastery, learning, and self-growth by overcoming it (Skinner &
Brewer, 2002). Therefore, even if students with the challenge appraisal style receive
negative task-oriented feedback, they would keep trying despite being less motivated
for the next task than receiving positive task-oriented feedback (Symes et al., 2015;
Tugade & Fredrickson, 2004).
On the other hand, the threat appraisal style would react to negative feedback in
two different ways. First, negative task-oriented feedback would increase students’
feedback acceptance but leave them with limited available resources to be challenged
in the next task (Ilgen & Davis, 2000). Second, negative feedback, in the form of per-
son-orientation, would deplete most of their mental resources (Hattie & Timperley,
2007; Kluger & DeNisi, 1996; Zingoni & Byron, 2017), resulting in decreased motivation
for challenge and feedback acceptance due to the information that would harm their
self-worth (Audia & Locke, 2003).
The present study aims to examine the effect of the cognitive appraisal styles of
threat and challenge and feedback types on feedback acceptance and motivation for
challenge. We divided feedback into four types based on its valence (positive versus
negative) and orientation (person- versus task-oriented). Based on the transactional
model of stress and coping, we assumed that the challenge appraisal style would
show the highest feedback acceptance upon receiving positive task-oriented feedback
(hypothesis 1). On the other hand, the threat appraisal style would show the highest
feedback acceptance upon receiving negative task-oriented feedback (hypothesis 2).
We also expected that the challenge appraisal style would be the most motivated
when provided with positive task-oriented feedback (hypothesis 3), but the threat
appraisal style would not be significantly related to motivation for challenge (hypoth-
esis 4).

Methods
Participants
A total of 172 Korean students in two elementary schools participated in the study. All
participants were sixth-graders including 89 boys (51.74%) and 83 girls (48.26%). Both
schools are located in a metropolitan city in South Korea. The school district
 EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 7

represents the average level of household income and education level in Korea. By
using a between-subject design, they were randomly assigned to one of four experi-
mental conditions in this study: (a) positive task-oriented feedback (n ¼ 43), (b) nega-
tive task-oriented feedback (n ¼ 42), (c) positive person-oriented feedback (n ¼ 40), (d)
negative person-oriented feedback (n ¼ 47).

Procedure
The present study was conducted with a typical classroom-based experiment and had
two sessions with a one-week interval. In the first session, students completed a ques-
tionnaire on the cognitive appraisal styles. Then, they were asked to write a two-page
essay about proper ways to use smartphones for 30 minutes. Two elementary school
teachers, who were ‘blind’ to the purpose of the study, scored the participants’ essays
as good, fair, or poor. The intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) was 0.91. After the
individual scoring, a consensus between teachers was sought to determine the final
score of the student’s writing.
In the following week, students received their essays back with different feedbacks
according to their experimental conditions. Feedback was printed and delivered to
students to minimise the impact of other contextual factors such as characteristics of
a feedback provider and a tone of feedback. The beginning part of feedback stared
with a common statement which says ‘Feedback below are the researchers’ comments
on your writing.’ Each group was additionally provided different comments on their
writing in terms of logical reasoning and creativity. We chose to provide the feedback
based on logical reasoning and creativity as evaluation criteria because they are con-
sidered to be the most important skills in the elementary school writing in Korea. The
specific comments given to each group are shown in Table 1.
After students finished reading their feedback, they filled out a questionnaire on
how likely they were to accept the feedback and whether they wanted to participate

Table 1. Examples of each type of feedback.

Orientation
Valence Task-oriented
Positive The following are the strong points of
your essay. Your essay is highly logical.
Your essay includes good supporting
arguments and strong evidence. Your
essay is also highly creative. Your essay
arguments are supported by
extraordinary ideas that other students
usually do not think of.
Negative The following are the weak points of your
essay. Your essay lacks logic because it
was written with poor supporting
arguments and weak evidence. Your
essay lacks creativity as well. Your
essay arguments are supported by
common ideas that other students also
usually think about.
Person-oriented
The following are your writing strengths.
You are a highly logical writer because
you have the ability to present good
supporting arguments and strong
evidence. You are also a creative
writer. You have the ability to support
your argument with extraordinary
ideas that other students usually do
not think about.
The following are your writing
weaknesses. You are not much of a
logical writer because you lack the
ability to present good supporting
arguments and strong evidence. You
are not much of a creative writer,
either. You lack the ability to support
your argument with extraordinary
ideas that other students also do not
think about.
8 J. SHIN ET AL.

in a more challenging writing task in the next session which was not actually run but
falsely informed for the experiment of the study. After the experiment had been com-
pleted, a debriefing session was held with all of the participants and their parents to
make sure that they all understood the purpose of the study. Of note, prior to the
experimental sessions, approval from the Institutional Review Board (IRB number
1905/002-011) was also obtained.

Measures
Self-reported achievement
Participants were asked to rate their last semester’s academic achievement on a scale
of one to five (1 ¼ poor, 5 ¼ excellent). Self-reported achievement is commonly used
instead of official academic records when researchers cannot gain access to the official
records due to privacy issues and school regulations (Cassady, 2001). The measure was
used to control for the baseline achievement in the analysis.

Cognitive appraisal styles of threat and challenge

The cognitive appraisal styles of threat and challenge were measured by the Cognitive
Appraisal Scale (Skinner & Brewer, 2002). The scale of Cognitive Appraisal Style was
provided in Korean. The English-version test was translated into Korean by three
researchers and back-translated into English by another researcher who is bilingual in
both languages. We followed the standard translation and back-translation procedure
by which a document previously translated into one language was re-translated to the
original one (Chen & Boore, 2010). This six-point Likert scale (1 ¼ strongly disagree,
6 ¼ strongly agree) was composed of ten threat appraisal style items (e.g. ‘I feel like a
failure’) and eight challenge appraisal style items (e.g. ‘A challenging situation moti-
vates me to increase my efforts’). Internal consistency coefficients of the scale were
Cronbach’s a ¼ 0.89 for the threat appraisal style and Cronbach’s a ¼ 0.68. for the chal-
lenge appraisal style.
Specifically, on the Cognitive Appraisal Scale (Skinner & Brewer, 2002), the threat
style subscale consists of one trait anxiety item from the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory
and nine items from Self-Presentation Concerns Questionnaire (SPCQ) (Skinner &
Brewer, 1999). SPCQ includes items of trait anxiety, self-presentation concerns, and
trait worry in the threat style subscale. On the other hand, the challenge style subscale
is composed of success expectancy and one’s ability to achieve a goal or positive
results which are relatively stable personal beliefs (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Lazarus,
Kanner, & Folkman, 1980; Smith, 1991). Out of eight items on the challenge style sub-
scale, one item was adopted from the Optimism–Pessimism Questionnaire (Norem &
Cantor, 1986), and the others were developed by Skinner & Brewer (2002) to measure
the construct.

Feedback acceptance
The scale of feedback acceptance was used, which was developed by Anseel, Van
Yperen, Janssen, and Duyck (2011) and later translated into Korean by Kam (2017). It
consisted of five items on a seven-point Likert scale (1 ¼ strongly disagree, 7 ¼ strongly
 EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 9

agree). Students responded to questions asking how likely they are to accept feedback
(e.g. ‘The feedback I received helped me learn how I can improve my performance’). It
showed internal consistency of Cronbach’s a ¼ 0.84.

Motivation for challenge

Motivation for challenge was measured by a single item. Though the reliability of a
single-item measure cannot be calculated, it has its advantage of being efficient in
measurement, when the construct of interest is obvious and specific (Diamantopoulos,
Sarstedt, Fuchs, Wilczynski, & Kaiser, 2012). Moneta and Csikszentmihalyi (1996) also
used a single item to measure the motivation for challenge. In the present study, all
participants were elementary school students, so a single-item measure was chosen to
reduce the number of items to respond as well.
Students read a statement of ‘After I received the feedback, I want to pick up a
more challenging writing task in the next session.’ They rated it on a seven-point
Likert scale (1 ¼ strongly disagree, 7 ¼ strongly agree). The distribution of the item
scores was identified as not skewed. To be specific, the mean of item scores was 4.34
and the standard deviation was 1.82 out of the full score of 7. Moreover, there was no
social pressure when students rated their motivation for challenge because the ques-
tionnaire was administrated anonymously on paper.

Analyses
We conducted linear regression analyses to examine the effects of cognitive appraisal
styles and experimental conditions on feedback acceptance and motivation for
challenge. The regression model included feedback acceptance and motivation for
challenge as dependent variables. Interaction terms between cognitive appraisal styles
and feedback conditions were also added with the main variables of interest (i.e. cog-
nitive appraisal styles and feedback conditions) as independent variables. Gender and
self-reported achievement were used as control variables. The measure of cognitive
appraisal styles was mean-centered for the regression analyses to avoid the possible
multicollinearity problem among the independent variables. When an interaction
effect was found significant, we performed a post-hoc analysis (Cohen, Cohen, West, &
Aiken, 2003).

Results
The effect of feedback types and students’ threat/challenge appraisals on
feedback acceptance
Descriptive statistics and interrelations among the variables of interest in the current
study are found in Tables 2 and 3. Inverse cumulative graphs for the dependent meas-
ures of feedback acceptance and motivation for challenge are also presented in
Figures 1 and 2, respectively.
The correlations between variables were below 0.20, which is relatively low, so we
suggest that there is little concern for multicollinearity. The regression analysis
revealed a significant three-way interaction effect between the two feedback
10 J. SHIN ET AL.

Table 2. Descriptive statistics.

Person Task
Positive (n ¼ 40) Negative (n ¼ 47) Positive (n ¼ 43) Negative (n ¼ 42)
Variable M SD M SD M SD M SD
Self-reported achievement 4.15 0.74 3.94 0.82 3.95 0.85 3.93 0.84
Challenge appraisal 4.63 0.68 4.67 0.64 4.53 0.61 4.53 0.66
Threat appraisal 3.63 1.05 3.45 1.06 3.27 1.10 3.37 0.73
Feedback acceptance 6.12 0.79 5.54 1.04 6.19 0.84 5.37 1.24
Motivation for challenge 4.58 1.69 4.38 1.82 4.67 1.97 3.71 1.67

Table 3. Summary of intercorrelations.

1 2 3 4
1. Self-reported achievement –
2. Challenge appraisal 0.13 –
3. Threat appraisal 0.09 0.19 –
4. Feedback acceptance 0.03 0.11 0.18 –
5. Motivation for challenge 0.06 0.29 0.26 0.41
p < .05, p < .001.

Figure 1. Percentages of students at each rating of motivation for challenge by group.

Figure 2. Percentages of students at each rating of feedback acceptance by group.

conditions (positive/negative and person-orientation/task-orientation) and the

‘challenge’ appraisal style (p<.05) (see Table 4). First, we explored the interaction
effect by the person-oriented and task-oriented feedback conditions, respectively. With
person-oriented feedback, there was no significant interaction effect between the
 EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 11

Table 4. Multiple regression analyses predicting feedback acceptance from feedback types and
students’ threat/challenge appraisals.
Feedback acceptance
Variable B 95% CI t
Constant 6.36 [5.50, 7.22] 14.55
Gender 0.01 [0.34, 0.31] 0.09
Self-reported achievement 0.06 [0.25, 0.12] 0.70
Challenge appraisals 0.24 [0.21, 0.69] 1.05
Threat appraisals 0.14 [0.16, 0.43] 0.92
Feedback type 1 (positive vs. negative) 0.58 [1.00, 0.16] 2.71
Feedback type 2 (person vs. task) 0.12 [0.33, 0.57] 0.54
Challenge appraisal  Feedback type 1 0.04 [0.59, 0.67] 0.13
Challenge appraisal  Feedback type 2 0.39 [0.31, 1.10] 1.10
Threat appraisal  Feedback type 1 0.05 [0.44, 0.34] 0.25
Threat appraisal  Feedback type 1 0.21 [0.63, 0.22] 0.96
Feedback type 1  Feedback type 2 0.25 [0.85, 0.35] 0.82
Challenge appraisal  Feedback type 1  Feedback type 2 1.04 [1.98, 0.10] 2.18
Threat appraisal  Feedback type 1  Feedback type 2 0.81 [0.16, 1.45] 2.46
R2 .23
F 3.52
Note. CI: confidence interval.
p < .05, p < .01, p < .001.

challenge appraisal style and feedback acceptance for both positive (B ¼ 0.24, t ¼ 1.05,
p > .05) and negative valence of feedback (B ¼ 0.28, t ¼ 1.27, p > .05). With task-ori-
ented feedback, negative feedback showed no significant interaction between the
challenge appraisal style and feedback acceptance (B¼0.36, t¼1.57, p > .05), but
for the positive feedback condition, feedback acceptance increased significantly as the
challenge appraisal became stronger (B ¼ 0.63, t ¼ 2.31, p < .05). The feedback accept-
ance of the challenge appraisal style was the highest when receiving positive task-ori-
ented feedback.
A three-way interaction effect of the feedback conditions and the ‘threat’ appraisal
style was also significant (p < .05). The interaction effect was investigated by the per-
son- and task-oriented feedback conditions, respectively. In the person-orientation
condition, there was no significant interaction between the threat appraisal style and
feedback acceptance regardless of feedback valence being positive (B ¼ 0.14, t ¼ 0.92,
p > .05) or negative (B ¼ 0.09, t ¼ 0.64, p > .05). In the task-orientation condition, there
was no significant interaction between the threat appraisal style and feedback accept-
ance for the positive condition (B ¼ 0.07, t ¼ 0.45, p > .05). With negative feedback,
however, the acceptance increased significantly as the threat appraisal became stron-
ger (B ¼ 0.69, t ¼ 3.26, p < .01). The feedback acceptance of the threat appraisal style
was highest when receiving negative task-oriented feedback.

The effect of feedback types and students’ threat/challenge appraisals on

motivation for challenge
We conducted the linear regression analysis with motivation for challenge as a dependent
variable. A three-way interaction effect between the two feedback conditions and the
‘challenge’ appraisal style was found (p < .05) (see Table 5). The post-hoc analyses
revealed that for positive person-oriented feedback, there was no significant interaction
12 J. SHIN ET AL.

Table 5. Multiple regression analyses predicting motivation for challenge from feedback types
and students’ threat/challenge appraisals.
Motivation for challenge
Variable B 95% CI t
Constant 5.17 [3.69, 6.66] 6.88
Gender 0.23 [0.32, 0.79] 0.83
Self-reported achievement 0.20 [0.52, 0.12] 1.24
Challenge appraisals 0.26 [0.52, 1.04] 0.66
Threat appraisals 0.27 [0.24, 0.78] 1.05
Feedback type 1 (positive vs. negative) 0.20 [0.93, 0.52] 0.55
Feedback type 2 (person vs. task) 0.43 [0.34, 1.20] 1.10
Challenge appraisal  Feedback type 1 0.69 [0.39, 1.78] 1.26
Challenge appraisal  Feedback type 2 1.57 [0.36, 2.78] 2.57
Threat appraisal  Feedback type 1 0.09 [0.77, 0.58] 0.27
Threat appraisal  Feedback type 1 0.06 [0.78, 0.67] 0.15
Feedback type 1  Feedback type 2 0.96 [2.00, 0.08] 1.83
Challenge appraisal  Feedback type 1  Feedback type 2 2.37 [3,99, 0.75] 2.89
Threat appraisal  Feedback type 1  Feedback type 2 0.59 [0.52, 1.70] 1.05
R2 0.24
F 3.82
Note. CI: confidence interval.
p < .05, p < .01, p < .001.

between the challenge appraisal style and motivation for challenge (B ¼ 0.26, t ¼ 0.65,
p < .05). For the negative person-oriented feedback, however, motivation for challenge
increased as the challenge appraisal became stronger (B ¼ 0.95, t ¼ 2.49, p < .05). In the
task-orientation condition, positive feedback showed a significant interaction between the
challenge appraisal style and motivation for challenge (B ¼ 1.83, t ¼ 0.47, p < .001), but
there was no significant effect for negative feedback (B ¼ 0.15, t ¼ 0.38, p < .05). In sum,
motivation for challenge increased as the challenge appraisal became stronger when
either negative person-oriented feedback or positive task-oriented feedback was provided.
There, however, were no significant three-way and two-way interaction effects
between feedback conditions and the ‘threat’ appraisal style. The main effects of
the variables were not significant at all in the ‘threat’ appraisal style (all ps > .05).

Discussion
In the present study, the challenge appraisal style showed the highest feedback accept-
ance upon receiving positive task-oriented feedback (hypothesis 1). On the other hand,
the threat appraisal style demonstrated the highest feedback acceptance upon receiving
negative task-oriented feedback (hypothesis 2). The challenge appraisal style was the most
motivated for challenge when provided with positive task-oriented feedback (hypothesis
3) and negative person-oriented feedback in the study. The threat appraisal style, however,
was not related to motivation for challenge (hypothesis 4).
The present study showed that the positive effect of negative feedback for students
with the threat appraisal style was contingent on feedback orientation. Negative ‘task’-
oriented feedback turned out to be more accepted by these students than negative
‘person’-oriented feedback. The finding is in line with previous studies showing that
students with the threat appraisal style tend to interpret negative feedback as a signal
that they might fail to reach their learning goal later (Finkelstein & Fishbach, 2012;
Fishbach et al., 2010; Van-Dijk & Kluger, 2004) and that they, therefore, would put
 EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 13

more effort into closing the gap between the current state and the goal state
(Lazarus, 2006; Martin & Marsh, 2003; Vancouver, More, & Yoder, 2008). Previous
research also shows that negative task-oriented feedback would lead students to
reflect on what they have learned and have not learned, whereas negative person-ori-
ented feedback would trigger more helpless responses (Finkelstein & Fishbach, 2012;
Fishbach et al., 2010; Martin & Marsh, 2003; Zingoni & Byron, 2017). Thus, negative
task-oriented feedback would leave some emotional and cognitive resources to resolve
the discrepancy between the current and goal states and to increase efforts for better
learning outcomes because it is more protective of their competence and self-worth
(B

elanger et al., 2013; Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Schmeichel, Vohs, & Baumeister, 2003).
In contrast, positive task-oriented feedback was the most effective feedback for stu-
dents with the challenge appraisal style in the present study. In the positive task-oriented
feedback condition, the challenge appraisal style showed the highest feedback accept-
ance and motivation for challenge. People who endorse the challenge appraisal style
tend to focus on positive outcomes and strive to make improvement (Symes et al.,
2015). Positive feedback would attract their attention and keep them engaged in similar
tasks in the future. Previous research also showed that positive task-oriented feedback
encourages people to put substantial and persistent efforts under the pursuit of a chal-
lenging goal (Bandura & Locke, 2003). Positive task-oriented feedback is perceived as
controllable, which is less demanding and leaves more resource to a feedback recipient
than person-oriented one (Blascovich, 2008; Mccarthy et al., 2016). Therefore, positive
task-oriented feedback would lead the challenge appraisal style to accept the feedback
and step towards a challenging goal.
We also found that the challenge appraisal style demonstrated significant motivation
for challenge upon receiving negative person-oriented feedback as well as positive task-
oriented feedback. This result may be related to the previous findings that students with
the challenge appraisal style are more likely to believe the cause of success or failure as
controllable like effort in the secondary appraisal stage (Muraven & Baumeister, 2000;
Skinner & Brewer, 2002). The challenge appraisal style was willing to take on difficult tasks
because they might not use up all of their mental resources even when receiving negative
person-oriented feedback (Lazarus & Folkman, 1987; Muraven & Slessareva, 2003).
The threat appraisal style, however, was not associated with motivation for chal-
lenge. These findings suggest that students need emotional and cognitive resources to
face challenges (Clarkson et al., 2010; Vohs et al., 2005). Working on a challenging task
without giving it up midway requires a series of self-regulatory processes to cope with
the risk of failure or stress caused by negative feedback (Lazarus & Folkman, 1987).
Even if students who endorsed the threat appraisal style accepted negative task-ori-
ented feedback, they were not willing to risk doing a challenge on the next trial in the
present study. This might imply that the depletion of mental resources might be
caused by acceptance of negative feedback (Clarkson et al., 2010; Skinner & Brewer,
2002; Vohs et al., 2005). Another explanation on the result may be related to the char-
acteristic of the feedback we provided for students. The feedback used in the study
was ‘retrospective’ corrective feedback on content rather than ‘future-altering’ feedback
for a next trial (Chetwynd & Dobbyn, 2011). This might cause students with the threat
appraisal style to avoid a challenge on a next trial.
14 J. SHIN ET AL.

The present study demonstrated that a dynamic interplay between personal traits
of cognitive appraisal and feedback types exists through the primary and secondary
appraisal processes. The same stressful situation may result in different intensity and
types of responses depending on personal traits (e.g. cognitive appraisal styles) and
environmental factors (e.g. feedback types) (Biggs et al., 2017; Ebner & Singewald,
2017; Iida, Gleason, Green-Rapaport, Bolger, & Shrout, 2017). Martin and Marsh (2003)
proposed that a fear of failure can be either a friend helpful for improvement or a foe
yielding high anxiety at the same time. Feedback should be a message telling that it
will help students to improve their learning eventually. In order to do so, feedback
orientation and valence and how to deliver feedback should be considered differently
according to students’ psychological characteristics.
The current study, however, included some limitations. First, feedback acceptance
and motivation for challenge were measured by using self-report instruments. More
objective measures are needed to better assess how much students appreciate the
usefulness of feedback for improvement and how likely they are to accept it. We could
not observe students’ follow-up behaviours after they received feedback due to the
limited sessions for the study. It would be necessary in future studies to examine how
students really react to feedback when students have a chance to revise their writing.
Second, the effects of the appraisal styles and feedback types on feedback acceptance
and motivation for challenge may be restricted to the writing domain. There is a need
for caution in generalising the results to other subjects or academic activities. Third,
this study mainly focussed on retrospective feedback on content. Future-altering feed-
back such as what to do for better performance on a next trial, however, can be
planned and presented to students (Chetwynd & Dobbyn, 2011). Future-altering com-
ments on content may be more useful to improve performance and enhance students’
motivation for challenge. Further research needs to consider the effect of this different
type of feedback on feedback acceptance and motivation for challenge. Fourth, we
only included the personal traits of the feedback recipients (i.e. cognitive appraisal
styles) out of diverse characteristics of feedback providers and recipients. This limita-
tion is due to the nature of the experimental design, which cannot include a number
of variables unlike survey research. Although other characteristics of feedback were
not manipulated in this study, factors such as characteristics of the feedback provider
or feedback expectations of the recipient can be taken into account in future follow-
up research.
Notwithstanding the limitations, the present findings have some useful academic
and practical implications. First, the current study contributes to the existing research
on feedback by investigating the effects of individual traits on feedback acceptance
and motivation for challenge. Previous studies on feedback have focussed on external
features of feedback rather than individual traits of students who accept it (Hattie &
Timperley, 2007). Feedback is engaged with interaction between a provider and a
recipient, and an individual evaluation on feedback decides whether to accept it or
not. Thus, prior to research on feedback types and how to present them, students’
traits must be taken into consideration to maximise the effectiveness. The present
study set traits of students who are the major recipients of feedback as a main
variable to take one step further from existing studies.
 EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 15

Second, the present findings could help educators develop feedback practices
reflecting upon students’ characteristics. Indeed, many educators are interested in pro-
viding feedback based on performance (Saunders, Goldenberg, & Gallimore, 2009).
However, the current findings indicate that the effectiveness of feedback can vary
according to students’ cognitive styles. These findings are in agreement with previous
studies that students are motivated by information which matches their traits (Fo €rster,
Grant, Idson, & Higgins, 2001; Van-Dijk & Kluger, 2004).
Third, in the long term, cognitive appraisal styles may be changeable through expe-
riences; educators may consider developing intervention programmes to help change
the threat to the challenge appraisal style. Such intervention programmes may be
effective for changing the style that enhances attainment value and usefulness value
of a task (Putwain, Symes, & Wilkinson, 2017; Putwain et al., 2016), emphasise cooper-
ation between peers (Chein, Albert, O’Brien, Uckert, & Steinberg, 2011), and increase
controllability beliefs through successive experiences of success (Roick & Ringeisen,
2017). The programmes can be used to possibly change the threat-sensitive cognitive
style to the more self-confident challenge cognitive style. A follow-up study is neces-
sary to confirm this intervention possibility.
It might be difficult for teachers to identify each student’s cognitive appraisal style in
classrooms considering the high student-teacher ratio. A validated psychological test such
as the Cognitive Appraisal Scale (Skinner & Brewer, 2002) used in this study might be
used to assess students’ cognitive appraisal styles, if needed. In addition to the use of a
psychological test, a teacher’s observations on students’ behaviour during the class activ-
ities would be used as valuable information for identifying students’ styles of cognitive
appraisals. Some students enjoy and do not fear being challenged to learn new things,
whereas others would show very reluctant responses to tasks with some difficulty due to
their fear of failure. This kind of information would be useful for teachers to decide how
to deliver academic feedback differently to students with different cognitive characteristics.

Acknowledgement
We really thank Alex McCarthy-Donovan for his thoughtful comments and proofreading services
to improve the quality of the final paper.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

ORCID
Jeongah Kim http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8479-5693

References
Abuhamdeh, S., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2012). The importance of challenge for the enjoyment of
intrinsically motivated, goal-directed activities. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38,
317–330. doi:10.1177/0146167211427147
16 J. SHIN ET AL.

Anseel, F., Van Yperen, N. W., Janssen, O., & Duyck, W. (2011). Feedback type as a moderator of
the relationship between achievement goals and feedback reactions. Journal of Occupational
and Organizational Psychology, 84(4), 703–722. doi:10.1348/096317910X516372
Audia, P. G., & Locke, E. A. (2003). Benefiting from negative feedback. Human Resource
Management Review, 13, 631–646. doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2003.11.006
Bandura, A., & Locke, E. A. (2003). Negative self-efficacy and goal effects revisited. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 88(1), 87–99. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.1.87
Banks, J., & Smyth, E. (2015). Your whole life depends on it’: Academic stress and high-stakes
testing in Ireland. Journal of Youth Studies, 18, 598–616. doi:10.1080/13676261.2014.992317
Be
langer, J. J., Lafreniere, M. A. K., Vallerand, R. J., & Kruglanski, A. W. (2013). Driven by fear: The
effect of success and failure information on passionate individuals’ performance. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 104(1), 180–195. doi:10.1037/a0029585
Biggs, A., Brough, P., & Drummond, S. (2017). Lazarus and Folkman’s psychological stress and cop-
ing theory (pp. 349–364). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Blascovich, J. (2008). Challenge and threat. In A. J. Elliot (Ed.), Handbook of approach and avoid-
ance motivation (pp. 1387–1433). New York, NY: Psychology Press. doi:10.4324/
9780203888148.ch25
Brown, J. D. (2010). High self-esteem buffers negative feedback: Once more with feeling.
Cognition and Emotion, 24, 1389–1404. doi:10.1080/02699930903504405
Cassady, J. C. (2001). Self-reported GPA and SAT: A methodological note. Practical Assessment,
Research and Evaluation, 7, 1–6.
Chein, J. M., Albert, D., O’Brien, L., Uckert, K., & Steinberg, L. (2011). Peers increase adolescent
risk taking by enhancing activity in the brain’s reward circuitry. Developmental Science, 14,
F1–16. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2010.01035.x.]
Chen, H. Y., & Boore, J. R. P. (2010). Translation and back-translation in qualitative nursing
research: Methodological review. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 19, 234–239. doi:10.1111/j.1365-
2702.2009.02896.x
Chetwynd, F., & Dobbyn, C. (2011). Assessment, feedback and marking guides in distance educa-
tion. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 26(1), 67–78. doi:10.1080/
02680513.2011.538565
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(1), 29–46. doi:10.1037/a0017539
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation ana-
lysis for the behavioral sciences. Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. doi:
10.4324/9780203774441
Diamantopoulos, A., Sarstedt, M., Fuchs, C., Wilczynski, P., & Kaiser, S. (2012). Guidelines for
choosing between multi-item and single-item scales for construct measurement: A predictive
validity perspective. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40, 434–449. doi:10.1007/
s11747-011-0300-3
Dixon, M., Turner, M. J., & Gillman, J. (2017). Examining the relationships between challenge and
threat cognitive appraisals and coaching behaviours in football coaches. Journal of Sports
Sciences, 35, 2446–2452. doi:10.1080/02640414.2016.1273538
Drach-Zahavy, A., & Erez, M. (2002). Challenge versus threat effects on the goal-performance
relationship. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 88, 667–682. doi:10.1016/
S0749-5978(02)00004-3
Ebner, K., & Singewald, N. (2017). Individual differences in stress susceptibility and stress inhibi-
tory mechanisms. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 14, 54–64. doi:10.1016/j.cobeha.2016.
11.016
Eitam, B., Kennedy, P. M., & Higgins, E. T. (2013). Motivation from control. Experimental Brain
Research, 229, 475–484. doi:10.1007/s00221-012-3370-7
Finkelstein, S. R., & Fishbach, A. (2012). Tell me what I did wrong: Experts seek and respond to
negative feedback. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(1), 22–38. doi:10.1086/661934
 EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 17

Fishbach, A., Eyal, T., & Finkelstein, S. R. (2010). How positive and negative feedback motivate
goal pursuit. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4, 517–530. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.
2010.00285.x
Fong, C. J., Patall, E. A., Vasquez, A. C., & Stautberg, S. (2019). A meta-analysis of negative
feedback on intrinsic motivation. Educational Psychology Review, 31(1), 121–162. doi:10.1007/
s10648-018-9446-6
Fong, C. J., Williams, K. M., Williamson, Z. H., Lin, S., Kim, Y. W., & Schallert, D. L. (2018). "Inside
out”: Appraisals for achievement emotions from constructive, positive, and negative feedback
on writing. Motivation and Emotion, 42(2), 236–257. doi:10.1007/s11031-017-9658-y
Fo€rster, J., Grant, H., Idson, L. C., & Higgins, E. T. (2001). Success/failure feedback, expectancies,
and approach/avoidance motivation: How regulatory focus moderates classic relations.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 253–260. doi:10.1006/jesp.2000.1455
Freund, A. M., & Staudinger, U. M. (2015). The value of “negative” appraisals for resilience. Is
positive (re)appraisal always good and negative always bad? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 38,
29–30. doi:10.1017/s0140525x14001526
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1),
81–112. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03542.x
Iida, M., Gleason, M., Green-Rapaport, A. S., Bolger, N., & Shrout, P. E. (2017). The influence of
daily coping on anxiety under examination stress: A model of interindividual differences in
intraindividual change. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43, 907–923. doi:10.1177/
0146167217700605
Ilgen, D. R., & Davis, C. A. (2000). Bearing bad news: Reactions to negative performance feed-
back. Applied Psychology, 49, 550–565. doi:10.1111/1464-0597.00031.
Jamieson, J. P., Crum, A. J., Goyer, J. P., Marotta, M. E., & Akinola, M. (2018). Optimizing stress
responses with reappraisal and mindset interventions: An integrated model. Anxiety, Stress
and Coping, 31, 245–261. doi:10.1037/a0025719
Jones, M., Meijen, C., McCarthy, P. J., & Sheffield, D. (2009). A theory of challenge and threat
states in Athletes. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 2, 161–180. doi:10.
1080/17509840902829331
Kam, M.-Y. (2017). Relationship between feedback types and task persistance: Moderating effects
of feedback acceptance. Journal of Curriculum and Evaluation, 20(1), 143–163. doi:10.29221/
jce.2017.20.1.143
Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). Effects of feedback intervention on performance: A historical
review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin,
119, 254–284. doi:10.1037//0033-2909.119.2.254
Lazarus, R. S. (2006). Emotions and interpersonal relationships: Toward a person-centered con-
ceptualization of emotions and coping. Journal of Personality, 74(1), 9–46. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
6494.2005.00368.x
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York, NY: Springer.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1987). Transactional theory and research on emotions and coping.
European Journal of Personality, 1, 141–169. doi:10.1002/per.2410010304
Lazarus, R. S., Kanner, A. D., & Folkman, S. (1980). Emotions: A cognitive-phenomenological ana-
lysis. In R. Plutchik & H. Kellerman (Eds.), Emotion: Theory, research and experience. Volume 1:
Theories of emotion, (pp. 189–217). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-
558701-3.50014-4
Martin, A. J. (2009). Motivation and engagement across the academic life span: A developmental
construct validity study of elementary school, high school, and university/college students.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 69, 794–824. doi:10.1177/0013164409332214
Martin, A. J. (2013). Academic buoyancy and academic resilience: Exploring “everyday” and
“classic” resilience in the face of academic adversity. School Psychology International, 34,
488–500. doi:10.1177/0143034312472759
Martin, A. J., & Marsh, H. W. (2003). Fear of failure: Friend or foe? Australian Psychologist, 38(1),
31–38. doi:10.1080/00050060310001706997
18 J. SHIN ET AL.

Martin, A. J., Marsh, H. W., Williamson, A., & Debus, R. L. (2003). Self-handicapping, defensive pes-
simism, and goal orientation: A qualitative study of university students. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 95, 617–628. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.95.3.617
Mccarthy, C. J., Lambert, R. G., Lineback, S., Fitchett, P., Baddouh, P. G., & Lambert, R. G. (2016).
Assessing teacher appraisals and stress in the classroom: Review of the classroom appraisal of
resources and demands. Educational Psychology Review, 28, 577–603. doi:10.1007/s10648-015-
9322-6
Mehu, M., & Scherer, K. R. (2015). The appraisal bias model of cognitive vulnerability to depres-
sion. Emotion Review, 7, 272–279. doi:10.1177/1754073915575406
Moneta, G. B., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). The effect of perceived challenges and skills on the
quality of subjective experience. Journal of Personality, 64, 275–310. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.
1996.tb00512.x
Muraven, M., & Baumeister, R. F. (2000). Self-regulation and depletion of limited resources: Does
self-control resemble a muscle?. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 247–259. doi:10.1037//0033-2909.
126.2.247
Muraven, M., & Slessareva, E. (2003). Mechanisms of self-control failure: Motivation and limited
resources. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 894–906. doi:10.1177/
0146167203253209
Norem, J. K., & Cantor, N. (1986). Anticipatory and post hoc cushioning strategies: Optimism and
defensive pessimism in “risky” situations. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 10, 347–362. doi:10.
1007/bf01173471
O’Malley, A. L., & Gregory, J. B. (2011). Don’t be such a downer: Using positive psychology to
enhance the value of negative feedback. The Psychologist-Manager Journal, 14, 247–264. doi:
10.1080/10887156.2011.621776
Oertig, D., Sch€uler, J., Schnelle, J., Brandst€atter, V., Roskes, M., & Elliot, A. J. (2013). Self-regulatory
resources. Journal of Personality, 81, 1–11. doi:10.1111/jopy.12019
Park, L. E., Crocker, J., & Kiefer, A. K. (2007). Contingencies of self-worth, academic failure, and
goal pursuit. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 1503–1517. doi:10.1177/
0146167207305538
Peters, B. J., & Jamieson, J. P. (2016). The consequences of suppressing affective displays in
romantic relationships: A challenge and threat perspective. Emotion, 16, 1050–1066. doi:10.
1037/emo0000202
Power, T. G., & Hill, L. G. (2010). Individual differences in appraisal of minor, potentially stressful
events: A cluster analytic approach. Cognition and Emotion, 24, 1081–1094. doi:10.1080/
02699930903122463
Putwain, D. W., Symes, W., & Remedios, R. (2016). The impact of fear appeals on subjective-task
value and academic self-ef fi cacy: The role of appraisal. Learning and Individual Differences,
51, 307–313. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2016.08.042
Putwain, D. W., Symes, W., & Wilkinson, H. M. (2017). Fear appeals, engagement, and examin-
ation performance: The role of challenge and threat appraisals. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 87(1), 16–31. doi:10.1111/bjep.12132
Roick, J., & Ringeisen, T. (2017). Self-efficacy, test anxiety, and academic success: A longitudinal
validation. International Journal of Educational Research, 83, 84–93. doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2016.12.
006
Roskes, M., Elliot, A. J., Nijstad, B. A., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2013). Time pressure undermines per-
formance more under avoidance than approach motivation. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 39, 803–813. doi:10.1177/0146167213482984
Saunders, W. M., Goldenberg, C. N., & Gallimore, R. (2009). Increasing achievement by focusing
grade-level teams on improving classroom learning: A prospective, quasi-experimental study
of title I schools. American Educational Research Journal, 46, 1006–1033. doi:10.3102/
0002831209333185
Schmeichel, B. J., Vohs, K. D., & Baumeister, R. F. (2003). Intellectual performance and ego deple-
tion: Role of the self in logical reasoning and other information processing. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 85(1), 33–46. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.85.1.33
 EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 19

Schwinger, M., Wirthwein, L., Lemmer, G., & Steinmayr, R. (2014). Academic self-handicapping
and achievement: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106, 744–761. doi:10.
1037/a0035832
Seery, M. D. (2011). Challenge or threat? Cardiovascular indexes of resilience and vulnerability to
potential stress in humans. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 35, 1603–1610. doi:10.
1016/j.neubiorev.2011.03.003
Senko, C., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2005). Regulation of achievement goals: The role of competence
feedback. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 320–336. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.97.3.320
Senol-Durak, E., & Durak, M. (2017). Cognitions about problematic internet use: The importance
of negative cognitive stress appraisals and maladaptive coping strategies. Current Psychology,
36, 350–357. doi:10.1007/s12144-016-9424-4
Shin, K., Jahng, K. E., & Kim, D. (2019). Stories of South Korean mothers’ education fever for their
children’s education. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 39, 338–356. doi:10.1080/02188791.
2019.1607720
Skinner, N., & Brewer, N. (2002). The dynamics of threat and challenge appraisals prior to stress-
ful achievement events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 678–692. doi:10.1037/
0022-3514.83.3.678
Skinner, N., & Brewer, N. (1999). Temporal characteristics of evaluation anxiety. Journal of Anxiety
Disorders, 13(3), 293–314. doi:10.1016/s0887-6185(99)00005-5
Smith, C. A. (1991). The self, appraisal, and coping. In C. R. Snyder & D. R. Forsyth (Eds.),
Handbook of social and clinical psychology: The health perspective (pp. 116–137). New York,
NY: Pergamon. doi:10.5860/choice.28-6501
Spielberger, C. D., Gorsuch, R. L., Lushene, R., Vagg, P. R., & Jacobs, G. A. (1983). Manual for the
state-trait anxiety inventory, Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Sriprakash, A., Proctor, H., & Hu, B. (2016). Visible pedagogic work: Parenting, private tutoring
and educational advantage in Australia. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education,
37, 426–441. doi:10.1080/01596306.2015.1061976
Symes, W., Putwain, D. W., & Remedios, R. (2015). The enabling and protective role of academic
buoyancy in the appraisal of fear appeals used prior to high stakes examinations. School
Psychology International, 36, 605–619. doi:10.1177/0143034315610622
Thompson, T., & Richardson, A. (2001). Self-handicapping status, claimed self-handicaps and
reduced practice effort following success and failure feedback. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 71(1), 151–170. doi:10.1348/000709901158442
Trope, Y., Gervey, B., & Bolger, N. (2003). The role of perceived control in overcoming defensive
self-evaluation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39(5), 407–419. doi:10.1016/S0022-
1031(03)00035-0
Troy, A. S., Shallcross, A. J., & Mauss, I. B. (2013). A person-by-situation approach to emotion
regulation: Cognitive reappraisal can either help or hurt, depending on the context.
Psychological Science, 24, 2505–2514. doi:10.1177/0956797613496434
Tugade, M. M., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2004). Resilient individuals use positive emotions to bounce
back from negative emotional experiences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86,
320–333. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.86.2.320
Vancouver, J. B., More, K. M., & Yoder, R. J. (2008). Self-efficacy and resource allocation: Support
for a nonmonotonic, discontinuous model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1), 35–47. doi:10.
1037/0021-9010.93.1.35
Vancouver, J. B., Thompson, C. M., Tischner, E. C., & Putka, D. J. (2002). Two studies examining
the negative effect of self-efficacy on performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 506–516.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.3.506
Vandellen, M. R., Campbell, W. K., Hoyle, R. H., & Bradfield, E. K. (2011). Compensating, resisting,
and breaking: A meta-analytic examination of reactions to self-esteem threat. Personality and
Social Psychology Review, 15(1), 51–74. doi:10.1177/1088868310372950
Van-Dijk, D., & Kluger, A. N. (2004). Feedback sign effect on motivation: Is it moderated by regu-
latory focus? Applied Psychology, 53(1), 113–135. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2004.00163.x
20 J. SHIN ET AL.

Vohs, K. D., Baumeister, R. F., & Ciarocco, N. J. (2005). Self-regulation and self-presentation:
Regulatory resource depletion impairs impression management and effortful self-presentation
depletes regulatory resources. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 632–657. doi:
10.1037/0022-3514.88.4.632
Weidinger, A. F., Spinath, B., & Steinmayr, R. (2016). Why does intrinsic motivation decline follow-
ing negative feedback? The mediating role of ability self-concept and its moderation by goal
orientations. Learning and Individual Differences, 47, 117–128. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2016.01.003
Zingoni, M., & Byron, K. (2017). How beliefs about the self influence perceptions of negative
feedback and subsequent effort and learning. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 139, 50–62. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2017.01.007