A reinforcement sensitivity theory view of seeking behaviors at work: A meta‐analysis
Abstract
Scholarship on seeking behaviors, which refer to deliberate attempts to obtain information or assistance from others, has emerged in multiple silos (e.g., feedback‐seeking, information‐seeking, help‐seeking, and advice‐seeking). Furthering recent synthesis attempts, we draw on reinforcement sensitivity theory (RST) to generate novel predictions concerning the causes of explicit and implicit seeking behaviors and clarify the inconsistencies between theoretical predictions and empirical findings noted in past reviews. We test our arguments through a meta‐analysis of 393 samples drawn from management and applied psychology research. In doing so, we uncover nuances in the associations between seeking behaviors and work outcomes (e.g., in‐role performance and creativity). We discuss how our theorizing and findings challenge, refine, and extend the existing knowledge concerning seeking behaviors at work, provide methodological and practical recommendations, and identify directions for future research.
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?
Domain-specific self-efficacy negatively correlates with feedback and advice-seeking.
“Domain-specific self-efficacy -confidence in a specific area -negatively correlates with feedback and advice-seeking (Sherf et al., 2024).”
From Investigating appropriate reliance on AI-Based decision support systems: the role of expertise, trust, and self-confidence (2025) · cites this paper as Sherf et al., 2024
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 178 · Cited by 15
- Authors
- Sherf, E. N., Gilliam, N., & McElroy, T.
- Affiliations
- University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
- Kenan‐Flagler Business School University of North Carolina Chapel Hill North Carolina USA
- Corresponding author
- Sherf, Elad N.
- ORCID
- Sherf, Elad N.
- Venue
- Personnel Psychology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2023-03-01
- Volume
- 77
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 847-890
- ISSN
- 0031-5826 (ISSN-L)
- 1744-6570
- OpenAlex
- W4319790280
- Cited by
- 15
- References
- 178
- Citations by year
- 2026: 10 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1
- FWCI
- 4.34
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- Locations
- Personnel Psychology (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Job Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Human Resource Development and Performance Evaluation
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Team Dynamics and Performance
- Keywords
- Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory, feedback seeking, information seeking, help-seeking, advice seeking, in-role performance, creativity, work outcomes
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