Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 339

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Feedback Sign Effect on Motivation: Is it Moderated by Regulatory Focus?

Van‐Dijk, Dina, Kluger, Avraham N.·2004·Applied Psychology

Abstract

Quoi qu’en pense le sens commun qui incite à croire que le feedback (positif vs négatif) a des retombées décisives sur la motivation, l’enemble de la littérature n’apporte pas d’informations claires précisant quand et comment le feedback positif ou négatif accroît ou abaisse la motivation (voir par exemple ). La variabilité dans l’impact du feedback peut être expliquée par la théorie de l’autorégulation (). Plus précisément, des niveaux relativement élevés de motivation sont provoqués aussi bien par l’échec sous focalisation de prévention (manquer à ses obligations) que par le succès sous focalisation de promotion (réaliser un désir). Au cours de deux expériences, la focalisation régulatrice a été opérationnalisée par une manipulation des facteurs de situation (scénarios) et par trois mesures de différences individuelles (les valuers, les professions et les raisons de choisir tel emploi). Les résultats de ces travaux confirment les hypothéses avec les différentes opérationnalisations. D’autres expériences devraient explorer la probable interaction triple entre la focalisation régulatrice de situation, la focalisation régulatrice chronique et la feedback. Despite our common sense notion that indicates that feedback sign (positive vs. negative) has a decisive effect on motivation, the vast literature has no clear specifications regarding when and how positive (negative) feedback increases or decreases motivation (e.g. ). The variability in feedback sign effects can be explained by self‐regulation theory (). Specifically, relatively high levels of motivation are induced either by failure under prevention focus (failure to meet obligations) or by success under promotion focus (fulfilling a desire). In two experiments, regulatory focus was operationalised by a manipulation of situational factors (scenarios) and by three measures of individual differences (values, occupations, and the motives for choosing one's job). Results from these experiments corroborated the hypotheses with all the different operationalisations. Future experiments should investigate the possible three‐way interaction between situational regulatory focus, chronic regulatory focus, and feedback sign.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1464-0597.2004.00163.x

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 10 references

Cited by

See all 339

Metadata

Authors
Van‐Dijk, D., & Kluger, A. N.
Venue
Applied Psychology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2003-12-22
Volume
53
Issue
1
Pages
113-135
ISSN
  • 0269-994X (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-0597
OpenAlex
W2135061949
Cited by
339
References
10
FWCI
7.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Feedback Sign Effect on Motivation: Is it Moderated by Regulatory Focus? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2004.00163.x
The paper
Van‐Dijk, D., & Kluger, A. N. (2004). Feedback Sign Effect on Motivation: Is it Moderated by Regulatory Focus? Applied Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2004.00163.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.