Understanding the influence of emotions and reflection upon multi-source feedback acceptance and use
Abstract
Introduction Receiving negative performance feedback can elicit negative emotional reactions which can interfere with feedback acceptance and use. This study investigated emotional responses of family physicians' participating in a multi-source feedback (MSF) program, sources of these emotions, and their influence upon feedback acceptance and use.Methods The authors interviewed 28 volunteer family physician participants in a pilot study of MSF, purposefully recruited to represent the range of scores. The study was conducted in 2003-2004 at Dalhousie University.Results Participants' emotional reactions to feedback appeared to be elicited in response to an internal comparison of their feedback with self-perceptions of performance. Those agreeing with their feedback; i.e., perceiving it as generally consistent with or higher than self-perceptions responded positively, while those disagreeing with their feedback; i.e., seeing it as generally inconsistent with or lower than self-perceptions, generally responded with distress. For the latter group, these feelings were often strong and long-lasting. Some eventually accepted their feedback and used it for change following a long period of reflection. Others did not and described an equally long reflective period but one which focused on and questioned MSF procedures rather than addressed feedback use. Participants suggested providing facilitated reflection on feedback to enhance assimilation of troubling emotions and interpretation and use of feedback.Conclusions Negative feedback can evoke negative feelings and interfere with its acceptance. To overcome this, helpful interventions may include raising awareness of the influence of emotions, assisting recipients to focus their feedback on performance tasks, and providing facilitated reflection on feedback.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Sargeant invoked feedback intervention theory to explain the difficulty practising physicians experienced in accepting and using negative or critical multisource feedback.
“Sargeant invoked this theory to explain the difficulty practising physicians experienced in accepting and using negative or critical multisource feedback [31].”
From Guidelines: The do’s, don’ts and don’t knows of feedback for clinical education. (2015) · cites this paper as [31]
Practising doctors who received negative feedback that conflicted with their self-assessment experienced distressing and long-lasting emotions that limited their ability to accept and act upon the feedback.
“In a study done two years after practising doctors received multisource feedback, she found that those who had received negative feedback that conflicted with their self-assessment experienced distressing and long-lasting emotions that limited their ability to accept and act upon the feedback [31].”
From Guidelines: The do’s, don’ts and don’t knows of feedback for clinical education. (2015) · cites this paper as [31]
Factors such as the emotional reaction of the learner, the credibility of the educator, or the time interval within which feedback is given may all affect how learners perceive and interpret the feedback message.
“Other factors -such as the emotional reaction of the learner, the credibility of the educator, or the time interval within which feedback is given -may all affect how learners perceive and interpret the feedback message. 14,18-21”
From Medical student perceptions of feedback and feedback behaviors within the context of the “educational alliance.” (2017) · cites this paper as [20]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 27 · Cited by 274
- Authors
- Sargeant, J., Mann, K., Sinclair, D., Van der Vleuten, C., & Metsemakers, J.
- Affiliations
- Dalhousie University (CA)
- Maastricht University (NL)
- Corresponding author
- Sargeant, Joan
- ORCID
- Sargeant, Joan
- Venue
- Advances in Health Sciences Education
- Published
- 2006-11-08
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 275-288
- ISSN
- 1382-4996 (ISSN-L)
- 1573-1677
- OpenAlex
- W2034921045
- Cited by
- 274
- References
- 27
- Citations by year
- 2026: 12 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 22 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 19 · 2012: 15
- FWCI
- 3.67
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- Advances in Health Sciences Education (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
- Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
- Keywords
- multisource feedback, feedback acceptance, feedback use, negative performance feedback, general practitioners, emotional distress
- MeSH terms
- Education, Medical, Continuing, Educational Measurement, Emotions, Feedback, Female, Humans, Interviews as Topic, Male, Nova Scotia, Physicians, Surveys and Questionnaires
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review