Cited by 100Innovations in Medical EducationBehavioral Health and InterventionsStudent Assessment and Feedback

Understanding responses to feedback: the potential and limitations of regulatory focus theory

Watling, Christopher, Driessen, Erik, van der Vleuten, Cees P M, Vanstone, Meredith, Lingard, Lorelei·2012·Medical Education

Abstract

Medical Education 2012: 46: 593–603 Objectives Regulatory focus theory posits the existence of two systems of self‐regulation underlying human motivation: promotion focus , which is concerned with aspirations and accomplishments, and prevention focus , which is concerned with obligations and responsibilities. It has been proposed that regulatory focus theory may help to explain learners’ variable responses to feedback, predicting that positive feedback is motivating under promotion focus, whereas negative feedback is motivating under prevention focus. We aimed to explore this link between regulatory focus theory and response to feedback using data collected in a naturalistic setting. Methods In a constructivist grounded theory study, we interviewed 22 early‐career academic doctors about experiences they perceived as influential in their learning. Although feedback emerged as important, responses to feedback were highly variable. To better understand how feedback becomes (or fails to become) influential, we used the theoretical framework of regulatory focus to re‐examine all descriptions of experiences of receiving and responding to feedback. Results Feedback could be influential or non‐influential, regardless of its sign (positive or negative). In circumstances in which the individual’s regulatory focus was readily determined, such as in choosing a career (promotion) or preparing for a high‐stakes examination (prevention), the apparent influence of feedback was consistent with the prediction of regulatory focus theory. However, we encountered many challenges in applying regulatory focus theory to real feedback scenarios, including the frequent presence of a mixed regulatory focus, the potential for regulatory focus to change over time, and the competing influences of other factors, such as the perceived credibility of the source or content of the feedback. Conclusions Regulatory focus theory offers a useful, if limited, construct for exploring learners’ responses to feedback in the clinical setting. The insights and predictions it offers must be considered in light of the motivational complexity of clinical learning tasks and of other factors influencing the impact of feedback.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2012.04209.x

Cites

22 of 22 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Learners actively process some but not all of the information they get in feedback.

    “Learners actively process some (but not all) of the information they get in feedback [25, 26].”
  • Regulatory focus theory might explain some of the observed variability in feedback responses.

    “Kluger and van Dijk [34] proposed that regulatory focus theory might explain some of the observed variability in feedback responses, and Watling et al.’s naturalistic exploration of the usefulness of this theory showed it offered some insights into feedback responses in clinical learning situations [25].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Watling, C., Driessen, E., van der Vleuten, C. P. M., Vanstone, M., & Lingard, L.
Affiliations
  • Western University (CA)
  • Maastricht University (NL)
Corresponding author
Watling, Christopher
Venue
Medical Education
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2012-05-24
Volume
46
Issue
6
Pages
593-603
ISSN
  • 0308-0110 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2923
OpenAlex
W2114783384
Cited by
99
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 3
FWCI
8.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Medical Education (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
Keywords
regulatory focus, feedback response, promotion focus, prevention focus, self-regulation, motivation, positive feedback, negative feedback, clinical learning, feedback credibility
MeSH terms
Clinical Competence, Education, Medical, Feedback, Humans, Learning, Motivation, Physicians

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