This mixed-methods study examined how learners’ competence-based and affect-based trust in their teachers predicted their feedback-seeking behaviors both directly and indirectly through their internal cost–value analyses. Questionnaire data were collected from 207 foreign language learners at a North American university, and interviews were conducted with seven participants with high vs. low levels of trust in their teachers. Multiple regression results showed that competence-based and affect-based trust predicted learners’ feedback-seeking behaviors (both monitoring and inquiry), and these relationships were mostly mediated either positively by feedback value or negatively by the self-presentation cost of feedback-seeking. Analysis of the qualitative data supported the quantitative findings, highlighting radically different concerns for students with high vs. low levels of teacher trust. Overall, the findings confirm that students’ trust in their teacher shapes students’ cognitions about the costs and benefits of feedback-seeking behavior, thereby influencing their engagement in this behavior. Theoretical and pedagogical implications have been discussed.
Abi-KaramF.PapiM. (in revision). Achievement goals, anxiety and enjoyment: Pathways to feedback-seeking behaviors. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching.
2.
AnseelF.BeattyA.S.ShenW.LievensF.SackettP.R. (2015). How are we doing after 30 years? A meta-analytic review of the antecedents and outcomes of feedback-seeking behavior. Journal of Management, 41, 318–348.
3.
BaronR.M.KennyD.A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.
4.
BitchenerJ. (2017). Why some L2 learners fail to benefit from written corrective feedback. In NassajiH.KartchavaE. (Eds.), Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning (pp. 129–140). Routledge.
5.
BoggsJ.A.ManchónR.M. (2023). Feedback literacy in writing research and teaching: Advancing L2 WCF research agendas. Assessing Writing, 58, Article 100786.
6.
BondarenkoA.V. (2020). Self-efficacy as a generative mechanism for future self-guides and feedback-seeking behavior in language learning. Doctoral dissertation, The Florida State University. ProQuest.
7.
BraunV.ClarkeV. (2012). Thematic analysis. In CooperH.CamicP. M.LongD. L.PanterA. T.RindskopfD.SherK. J. (Eds.), APA handbook of research methods in psychology. Research designs: Quantitative, qualitative, neuropsychological, and biological (Vol. 2. pp. 57–71). American Psychological Association.
8.
CarlessD.BoudD. (2018). The development of student feedback literacy: Enabling uptake of feedback. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 43, 1315–1325.
9.
ChoiB.K.MoonH.K.NaeE.Y. (2014). Cognition- and affect-based trust and feedback-seeking behavior: The roles of value, cost, and goal orientations. The Journal of Psychology, 148, 603–620.
10.
DewaeleJ.M.ChenX.PadillaA.M.LakeJ. (2019). The flowering of positive psychology in foreign language teaching and acquisition research. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article 2128.
11.
DewaeleJ.M.WitneyJ.SaitoK.DewaeleL. (2018). Foreign language enjoyment and anxiety: The effect of teacher and learner variables. Language Teaching Research, 22, 676–697.
12.
EllisR.HeX. (1999). The roles of modified input and output in the incidental acquisition of word meanings. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 285–310.
13.
GassS.M. (1988). Integrating research areas: A framework for second language studies. Applied Linguistics, 9, 198–217.
14.
GkonouC. (2022). Teacher–learner relationships. In GregersonT.MercerS. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of the psychology of language learning and teaching (pp. 275–284). Routledge.
15.
GkonouC.MercerS. (2017). Understanding emotional and social intelligence among English language teachers. British Council.
16.
GkonouC.MercerS. (2018). The relational beliefs and practices of highly socio-emotionally competent teachers. In MercerS.KostoulasA. (Eds.), Language teacher psychology (pp. 158–177). Multilingual Matters.
17.
HanY. (2017). Mediating and being mediated: Learner beliefs and learner engagement with written corrective feedback. System: An International Journal of Educational Technology and Applied Linguistics, 65, 133–143.
18.
HattieJ. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Routledge.
19.
KesslerM. (2023). Written corrective feedback in an online community: A typology of English language learners’ requests and interlocutors’ responses. Computers and Composition, 67, Article 102752.
20.
KhajavyG.H.SmidD.MercerS.Murillo-MirandaC. (2025). Embarrassment in English language classrooms: Conceptualization, antecedents, and consequences. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 47, 181–204.
21.
LekiI. (1991). The preferences of ESL students for error correction in college-level writing classes. Foreign Language Annals, 24, 203–218.
22.
LiH. (2023). Perceived teacher–student relationship and growth mindset as predictors of student engagement in foreign student engagement in foreign language learning: The mediating role of foreign language enjoyment. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, Article 1177223.
23.
LiY.ZhangL. (2024). Exploring the relationships among teacher–student dynamics, learning enjoyment, and burnout in EFL students: The role of emotional intelligence. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, Article 1329400.
24.
MacIntyreP.D.GregersenT.MercerS. (2019). Setting an agenda for positive psychology in SLA: Theory, practice, and research. Modern Language Journal, 103, 262–274.
25.
MackeyA.GassS. (2022). Second language research: Methodology and design. Routledge.
26.
McAllisterD.J. (1995). Affect- and competence-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 24–59.
27.
MercerS.GkonouC. (2020). Relationships and good language teachers. In GriffithsC.TajeddinZ. (Eds.), Lessons from good language teachers (pp. 164–174). Cambridge University Press.
28.
MillerE.R.GkonouC. (2018). Language teacher agency, emotion labor and emotional rewards in tertiary level English language programs. System, 79, 49–59.
29.
NassajiH.KartchavaE. (2020). Corrective feedback and good language teachers. In GriffithsC.TajeddinZ. (Eds.), Lessons from good language teachers (pp. 151–163). Cambridge University Press.
30.
PapiM. (2021). The role of motivational and affective factors in L2 writing performance and written corrective feedback processing and use. In ManchónR.M.PolioC. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and writing (pp.152–165). Routledge.
31.
PapiM.BondarenkoA.V.WawireB.JiangC.ZhouS. (2020). Feedback-seeking behavior in second language writing: Motivational mechanisms. Reading and Writing, 33, 485–505.
32.
PapiM.HiverP. (2025). Proactive language learning theory. Language Learning, 75, 295–329.
33.
PapiM.KhajavyG.H. (2021). Motivational mechanisms underlying second language achievement: A regulatory focus perspective. Language Learning, 71, 537–572.
34.
PapiM.KhajavyG.H. (2023). Second language anxiety: Construct, effects, and sources. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 43, 127–139.
35.
PapiM.RiosA.PeltH.OzdemirE. (2019). Feedback-seeking behavior in language learning: Basic components and motivational antecedents. The Modern Language Journal, 103, 205–226.
36.
PapiM.TabariM.A.SatoM. (2024). The importance of seeking feedback for benefiting from feedback: A case of second language writing. The Modern Language Journal, 108, 489–512.
37.
PapiM.WolffD.NakatsukasaK.BellwoarE. (2021). Motivational factors underlying learner preferences for corrective feedback: Language mindsets and achievement goals. Language Teaching Research, 25, 858–877.
38.
RummelS.BitchenerJ. (2015). The effectiveness of written corrective feedback and the impact Lao learners’ beliefs have on uptake. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 38, 66–84.
39.
SaitoK.LysterR. (2012). Effects of form-focused instruction and corrective feedback on L2 pronunciation development of /ɹ/ by Japanese learners of English. Language Learning, 62, 595–633.
40.
SatoM. (2013). Beliefs about peer interaction and peer corrective feedback: Efficacy of classroom intervention. The Modern Language Journal, 97, 611–633.
41.
SatoM.LoewenS. (2018). Metacognitive instruction enhances the effectiveness of corrective feedback: Variable effects of feedback types and linguistic targets. Language Learning, 68, 507–545.
42.
StorchN.WigglesworthG. (2010). Learners’ processing, uptake, and retention of corrective feedback on writing: Case studies. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 303–334.
43.
SunY.HuangY. (2023). The relationships among Chinese university EFL learners’ feedback-seeking behavior, achievement goals, and mindsets. Behavioral Sciences, 13, Article 190.
44.
SunY.ShiW. (2022). On the role of teacher–student rapport and teacher support as predictors of Chinese EFL students’ affective learning. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 856430.
45.
TahmouresiS.PapiM. (2021). Future selves, enjoyment and anxiety as predictors of L2 writing achievement. Journal of Second Language Writing, 53, Article 100837.
46.
TakimotoM. (2006). The effects of explicit feedback on the development of pragmatic proficiency. Language Teaching Research, 10, 393–417.
47.
TeimouriY. (2018). Differential roles of shame and guilt in L2 learning: How bad is bad?. The Modern Language Journal, 102, 632–652.
48.
TeimouriY.GoetzeJ.PlonskyL. (2019). Second language anxiety and achievement: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41, 363–387.
49.
WallerL.PapiM. (2017). Motivation and feedback: How implicit theories of intelligence predict L2 writers’ motivation and feedback orientation. Journal of Second Language Writing, 35, 54–65.
50.
WubbelsT.BrekelmansM.Den BrokP., et al. (2014). Teacher–student relationships and classroom management. In EmmerE.SabornieE.J. (Eds.), Handbook of classroom management (pp. 363–386). Routledge.
51.
XuJ. (2021). Chinese university students’ L2 writing feedback orientation and self-regulated learning writing strategies in online teaching during COVID-19. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 30, 563–574.
XuJ.WangY. (2023). Individual differences in L2 writing feedback-seeking behaviors: The predictive roles of various motivational constructs. Assessing Writing, 56, Article 100698.
54.
XuJ.WangY. (2024). Do I need feedback or avoid it in L2 writing? Impacts of self-efficacy and shyness on feedback-seeking behavior. Assessing Writing, 59, Article 100805.
55.
YaoY.ZhuX. (2024). Modeling Chinese high school EFL writers’ language mindsets, goal orientations, and feedback-seeking behavior: The interaction effect between language mindsets and writing competence. Reading and Writing, 37, 539–561.
56.
ZhanJ.YaoY.ZhuX. (2023). The mediating effect of feedback-seeking behavior on the relationship between ideal L2 writing self and story continuation writing performance: A multigroup structural equation modeling approach. System, 113, Article 102976.
57.
ZhangG. (2023). English writing mindsets and feedback-seeking behaviors of Chinese college EFL students. International Journal of Education and Humanities, 11, 475–479.
58.
ZhangY. (2025). The impact of teacher academic support and L2 writing self on feedback-seeking behavior. Reading and Writing, 38, 1197–1215.
59.
ZhangY.JiangZ. (2025). Modeling the interplay between teacher support, anxiety and grit in predicting feedback-seeking behavior in L2 writing. Assessing Writing, 64, Article 100920.
60.
ZhouJ.DeneenC.TaiJ.DawsonP. (2023). Feedback seeking by first-year Chinese international students: Understanding practices and challenges. Assessing Writing, 57, Article 100757.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
