# data[].attributes.headline
Learners can provide and understand what is constructive criticism.          Grades 7-12

# data[].attributes.subject
Learners can provide and understand what is constructive criticism.          Grades 7-12

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
When psychologist Naomi Winstone, PhD, started delving into research about constructive feedback, she found an abundance of literature on how to have these conversations but little on whether the recommended strategies were working. In response, Winstone, director of the University of Surrey's Institute of Education in the United Kingdom, started investigating the effectiveness of different types of feedback and was surprised by what she found. In multiple experiments, Winstone found that people were far more likely to recall evaluative feedback-feedback about something they have already completed-than feedback on how they could improve on a future task, also known as directive feedback (Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, Vol. 44, No. 12, 2018). For Winstone, the findings were somewhat puzzling because in recent years, studies in education have shown that students prefer directive feedback because it motivates them to improve their grades.

"Our results demonstrate how little we know about what happens after feedback is given," she said. "We should not assume people know how to use the information to improve, and my goal is to help people develop skills to leverage this input more effectively."

Winstone and other psychologists at the forefront of feedback research are discovering that the skills needed for both delivering and receiving constructive criticism are not always intuitive, and investigators are starting to understand how to increase the odds that these interactions will help students, employees, researchers, and leaders be successful. For psychologists, the latest findings can inform how they provide feedback in their roles as graduate student advisers, clinical supervisors, journal editors, lab directors, and managers.

Work environment matters

Winstone believes that one of the critical, yet often neglected, elements needed in conversations is time spent teaching people how to use the feedback they receive. Rather than assuming her students will remember comments about how to improve their work, she encourages them to keep a record of feedback. She recently developed an online tool called FEATS (Feedback Engagement and Tracking System) that helps students log the feedback they receive, categorize their strengths and weaknesses, and identify a plan for improvement.

Industrial and organizational (I/O) psychologist Lisa Steelman, PhD, has found that the work environment is another key factor that influences whether people use the feedback they get. At the most recent annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, she presented results of a study in which senior and middle managers received 360-degree feedback from peers and subordinates before participating in a 5-day leadership development program focused on performance improvement. The participants also rated how supportive their work environments were for feedback in areas such as credibility of supervisors, quality of ongoing feedback, levels of empathy when feedback was delivered, and accessibility of leaders for regular check-ins. Then the managers returned to their workplaces to use their newly learned skills.

"We found that leaders in a supportive environment for feedback had much better performance improvement over time than those in the unsupportive feedback environment," said Steelman, a professor of I/O psychology at the Florida Institute of Technology. "This shows that feedback does not happen in a vacuum, and we need to set the stage by creating a growth-oriented environment."

One of the ways she has created a supportive environment is by making herself more accessible to her students. "When students see me walking quickly in the hallways as I rush to class, they assume I am not available," she said. "I noticed that they would approach me with comments like, 'I'm sorry to bother you.' I've intentionally started walking more slowly, and I check in with them proactively to see how they are doing. I may not deliver feedback during these informal interactions, but this sets the stage for later feedback by promoting an environment that supports coaching and mentoring."

Similarly, New York University's Jay Van Bavel, PhD, has fostered a feedback culture in his Social Identity and Morality Lab by modeling the importance of intellectual humility. He shares his draft papers with students in the lab and invites an open discussion where they can offer feedback. "I'm in a position of power, and it's important for my students to see that I am open to receiving criticism," said Van Bavel, an associate professor of psychology and neural science. Everyone working in the lab also shares their papers. "It's not really about one senior person giving feedback, because everyone has a turn giving and receiving comments," he said.

Winstone also emphasizes to students that receiving a critique of their work is just the beginning of the process, not the end. "There is often a power dynamic in which the professor or manager is seen as the gatekeeper and thus the feedback should not be questioned," she said. "But I urge my students to respond to my input and explain why they wrote something in a certain way, because I may have misunderstood or been biased."

The role of empathy

Researchers have also been questioning feedback strategies focused on using a specific sequence of positive versus constructive comments, such as the "feedback sandwich" in which the person giving feedback offers a praise statement before and after constructive criticism. One recent study compared three different forms of feedback given to people who were learning how to work with children with intellectual disabilities: the feedback sandwich, three constructive comments followed by three praise comments, and in-the-moment feedback that was constructive or praising (Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, Vol. 41, No. 1, 2021).

The participants watched a training video, implemented what they learned in a role-playing exercise, and received feedback on their performance in one of the three ways. Then they role-played and received feedback two more times. The researchers rated the performance of the participants in 10 areas, and all three feedback groups performed equally well.

"This suggests that the order of praise and constructive statements may not matter in the context of teaching a new skill," said study author Summer Bottini, PhD, BCBA-D, a postdoctoral psychology resident at the Marcus Autism Center in Atlanta. In a follow-up survey, the participants also rated their preferences when receiving feedback, and the responses showed that they cared more about the interpersonal abilities of the person giving the feedback than the delivery method. "People want input from someone who is genuine, engaging, kind, and clear," said Bottini.

Although soft skills are valuable when building rapport and trust, leaders who embody these traits are often more likely to feel reluctant to offer constructive criticism because they place a premium on relationships, and delivering negative feedback conflicts with that goal, said I/O psychologist Christopher Rosen, PhD, a professor in the Sam M. Walton College of Business at the University of Arkansas who studies the use of feedback in leadership roles. "Most people agree that constructive criticism is important for learning, but leaders higher in empathy are more at risk of avoiding these conversations and may even be more likely to inflate performance ratings," he said.

To better understand why certain leaders are averse to giving constructive criticism, Rosen and his colleagues conducted several studies, and they found that people who are high in empathy reported increased levels of distress and lower attentiveness while working after providing negative feedback to subordinates. They were also less productive at work after these conversations because they then struggled with executive functioning and problem-solving tasks. Conversely, managers low in empathy reported feeling more attentive and less distressed after delivering negative feedback (Journal of Applied Psychology, in press).

"We found that the experience hijacks them emotionally and cognitively, and it impairs their performance," Rosen said.

Leaders high in empathy can offset the psychological costs by taking breaks after providing constructive criticism, he said. Rosen, who believes he is high in empathy, tries to avoid scheduling these conversations before important deadlines or presentations. He also strives to offer feedback to graduate students frequently so the experience feels less intimidating and is a familiar part of the growth process.

Consistency is key

Although constructive criticism is vital for people who want to improve performance, psychologist Cydney Dupree, PhD, an assistant professor of organizational behavior in Yale University's School of Management, recently found another reason people may be tempted to avoid these important conversations. In a recent study, she discovered that people who identify as White and liberal tended to present themselves as less competent when they interacted with non-White people, while White conservatives presented equal competence when they interacted with White versus Black people. In a series of experiments, she found that White liberals used fewer words related to competence, such as "competitive" or "assertive," when talking with a Black person or mostly Black audience than when talking with a White person or mostly White audience (Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 117, No. 3, 2019).

"This is likely a well-intentioned, yet patronizing, attempt to connect with racial minorities by distancing themselves from stereotypes that depict White Americans as dominant," she said. "Ironically, they are aligning with stereotypes that depict minorities as incompetent."

The findings relate to delivering feedback because leaders unknowingly influenced by this desire to connect with people of color may unintentionally avoid giving negative feedback, or they might patronize researchers of color by trying to appear less competent themselves. To avoid these pitfalls, Dupree suggests that managers, advisers, and mentors create a standardized list of specific topics to provide feedback on and to schedule sessions regularly. "Avoid skipping topics, and update the list regularly, being sure to focus on relevancy to the job," she said.

Increasing the quality and frequency of feedback is also a goal for Carol Falender, PhD, who has worked as a training director of APA-accredited internships for more than 20 years. One of the most common errors she sees among supervisors is a failure to provide frequent feedback. "They may fear that feedback will strain or rupture the relationship," said Falender, an adjunct professor at Pepperdine University and a clinical professor at the University of California, Los Angeles. "But the consequence is that supervisees don't have an opportunity to respond to or learn from this input, and they often feel blindsided when they eventually receive evaluation."

Falender teaches clinical supervisors to incorporate feedback into each supervision session, ideally linking comments to direct observation of patient sessions. For example, a supervisor could observe that the supervisee changed the subject when a patient became angry. "Then the supervisee can reflect or clarify the reasons for their behavior, and this leads to a collaborative discussion," she said.

Feedback from afar

Submitting papers to journals is another aspect of psychologists' work that involves critique, and the protocol for providing feedback can vary widely between editors. Although most researchers agree that rejection is part of the territory, the way editors communicate feedback can significantly influence the experience and possibly the career trajectory of an author.

"It's painful to have a paper rejected, but it's even more difficult when the feedback is brief, with words like 'the paper wasn't a good fit,'" said Thalia Goldstein, PhD, editor of Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts. "A more detailed explanation can help authors improve their work or take the paper to another journal."

Although it takes time to flesh out a critique, Goldstein, an assistant professor of applied developmental psychology at George Mason University, simplifies the process by using a template that starts with an introduction about how the paper was reviewed and the reason for the rejection. The next section includes a more detailed explanation of questions or concerns from reviewers, and she always includes comments about the paper's strengths. "Every paper has positives and negatives," she said. "The goal is to help the field of psychology, so I try to give some sense of encouragement."

Like Goldstein, Robin Codding, PhD, editor of School Psychology, uses a template to guide all of her feedback on journal submissions. In a rejection letter, she often recommends other journals that might be a better match for the paper. "I always recognize the work the authors have done and express my appreciation for their effort," said Codding, an associate professor in the Department of Applied Psychology at Northeastern University.

Researchers also frequently receive feedback about their work on social media, but etiquette online can be unpredictable, said Goldstein. "I'm active on Twitter, and I enjoy seeing research that would not otherwise cross my desk," she explained. "But it can be a risky environment to exchange feedback because negative comments can go viral."

For Van Bavel, this reality overtly contradicts the feedback culture he is trying to encourage in his lab. "It is crucial for scientists to be open to critical feedback, but the social media environment makes this difficult when moral outrage is often encouraged because it generates more attention," he said.

When he disagrees with research findings posted on social media, Van Bavel is careful to explain why he disagrees and link his opinion to supporting evidence. He also avoids tagging people when he offers criticism to reduce the chances of igniting a negative-feedback firestorm.

"When people feel threatened, they become more closed-minded," said Van Bavel, who studies social threat and belongingness. "Both in person and online, we should criticize with kindness. Rather than attacking people as individuals, we need to focus on behavior that can be changed."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When psychologist Naomi Winstone, PhD, started delving into research about constructive feedback, she found an abundance of literature on how to have these conversations but little on whether the recommended strategies were working. In response, Winstone, director of the University of Surrey's Institute of Education in the United Kingdom, started investigating the effectiveness of different types of feedback and was surprised by what she found.

# data[].attributes.headline
Difference Between Subjective and Objective

# data[].attributes.subject
Difference Between Subjective and Objective

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Difference Between Subjective and Objective Information - 2022 - MasterClass

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When comparing subjective information versus objective information, know that one deals with fact while the other is based on opinion or experience. Read on to learn more about subjective versus objective information.

# data[].attributes.headline
How to give and receive constructive criticism. 

# data[].attributes.subject
How to give and receive constructive criticism. 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
1. Positive - Start by focusing on the recipient's strengths and highlight what you like about what they have done.

Example: "I really liked the depth of content you covered in your presentation."

Improvement - Provide the criticism by focusing on what they need to improve on.

Example: "However you can improve the design and color palette of your slides. The ones you used were a bit hard to process and didn't do justice to your content."

Positive - Finally, round off the feedback with an encouraging comment that reiterates the positive comment you gave at the start. Also highlight the positive results that can be expected if the criticism is acted upon. This helps to build trust and confidence in the recipient.
Example: "Having said that, I really like the overall flow and feel of it. With a few tweaks in the areas I've mentioned, I think you have a winner. Please reach out to the design team for some tips and they will help you to take things to the next level. I'm excited to see the end product!"

2. Offer a 'Feedback Sandwich'This is a popular method of giving constructive criticism and is often used in Toastmasters and in the corporate environment. It is called the "feedback sandwich" because you wedge your criticism between an opening and an ending (like a burger wedged between two buns) using the PIP analogy which stands for Positive-Improvement-Positive.
With PIP, your feedback can be broken down into 3 segments as follows:
Example:"I loved your idea of creating a new advertising plan for our IT training programme. However, I think that the outline of the initiative could be more detailed in explaining exactly what is on offer and how it will assist individuals in our organisation in their everyday work activities."
Focus on the situation, not the person Good constructive criticism should never be about what the other person is, or what they believe, but what they have done. It should also focus on the behavior that you want to see more of, rather than the behavior that you observed and did not like.

Bonus Tip: Use the "l" language technique as a way of opening up communication more effectively and eliminating the chances of miscommunication. Using phrases such as "I think, "I feel" and "I suggest" helps the individual receiving the feedback to understand that the criticism is about the situation or behavior and not about them as a person. It also confirms your point of view, and lets the recipient know how you see the situation. This will make it easier for the other individual to separate the criticism from himself and understand things from your point of view.
Vague Criticism "Hi Julie, I wish you would start writing some articles on marketing."
3. Be specific with your feedbackThe more specific and detailed your feedback is, the more actionable it will be. Do not make vague, blanket statements--instead list out objections or behavior changes you want to see in detail. This makes it easier for the other person to address and change things.
Here is an example of vague vs. specific feedback:

Specific Criticism: "Hi Julie, I would love for you to write a marketing article on how to identify and communicate with your target audience. Please let me know when you start and if you need any further suggestions."

The vague comment is very broad and confusing because marketing is a very general topic. In contrast, the specific comment provides clarity and makes the task more actionable because it is so precise. Using this approach will encourage your workers to better understand their work demands rather than feel uncertain or anxious about what and how the job needs to be done.

Bonus Tip: Here's how you can make your feedback specific and more actionable:

Focus more on objective points rather than subjective opinions. Rather than saying "I don't like it", state the specific things you do not like (e.g., the purple lettering on yellow background made my eyes hurt).

Break your feedback down into key points or themes for better clarity before sharing it point by point. Don't give your feedback in one big chunk.

Give specific examples for each feedback poin t. Point out 1 or 2 exact situations where the person has displayed the behaviors that you want them to change. This helps to (a) illustrate what you mean and (b) raise the person's awareness to patterns of behavior that he / she may be oblivious about.

4. Give recommendations on how to improveThe key reason for giving feedback is to help the person improve--remember, good feedback is a gift! Giving recommendations on what the person can do to improve will (a) allow them to better understand you and your expectations, (b) give them a clear picture of what you have in mind and (c) provide a powerful call to action. It will also help them act on what you have discussed, rather than procrastinate.

Bonus Tip: It is also important to be specific with your recommendations and briefly explain the rationale behind your suggestions.

Example: Giving feedback on a presentation

Weak recommendation: "The presentation is too long. Make it shorter."

Good recommendation:"The presentation can easily be reduced from 30 minutes to 20 minutes if you limit 1 example to each point. This will make it more concise and impactful. At the moment you have 2- 3 examples per point which detracts from the main message."
Criticism: Assumption: "The presenter doesn't have any workshop experience." "The presenter was a bit hesitant and the session didn't really flow."
The first recommendation is not very helpful because it is possible to reduce the presentation time in several ways (i.e., reducing the number of points, removing examples, talking faster, etc). The second point is better because it is very specific and demonstrates your point of view to the person by explaining your rationale.

5. Avoid making assumptionsGive recommendations only when you know the facts about that specific topic or person. Do not just jump to conclusions or have a presumptuous attitude - observe instead. Wrong assumptions not only put a person into a negative light, but also makes you look bad and can cause a great deal of trouble and distress in the workplace.

Here is an example to highlight the difference between an assumption and a critique: Feedback on a workshop presentation

This assumption is not necessarily true. Experienced presenters can be nervous when facilitating workshops, especially when presenting in a new environment and to a new audience.

To assume that someone is inexperienced just because they appear slightly hesitant comes across as pompous. The recipient of that feedback would likely discount any criticism that followed even if it was accurate.

5 tips to avoid when giving constructive criticism

1. Do not criticize who the other person is, or what they believe. Focus on observable actions or behaviors rather than identity, personality, or motivations.

2. Do not store up issues and drag up old events long after they have happened. Feedback is more effective when given promptly and while the events are still fresh in everyone's minds.

3. Do not give feedback when you or the other person is angry. Wait until you are calmer as this will enable you to keep the conversation constructive .

4. Do not give feedback when the person is not in a position to hear potentially unpleasant news (i.e., tired, upset, etc). It is important to give feedback at a time when the other person is ready to hear it.

5. Do not complain about your colleagues behind their back. It makes it harder to give objective feedback that the recipient can hear and trust.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How to give and receive constructive criticism at work | BetterUp

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
1. Positive - Start by focusing on the recipient's strengths and highlight what you like about what they have done. Example: "I really liked the depth of content you covered in your presentation." Improvement - Provide the criticism by focusing on what they need to improve on.

# data[].attributes.headline
How can I provide constructive criticism? 

# data[].attributes.subject
How can I provide constructive criticism? 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What is Constructive Criticism | Explained in 2 min

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Join an activity with your class and find or create your own quizzes and flashcards.