Supervisor beware: Contemptuous feedback harms low performers and taxes working memory of rejection sensitive persons

Abstract

In this independent constructive replication and generalizability study, we revisit Melwani and Barsade’s laboratory study on receiving contempt in a work context. They found that recipients of contempt had better task performance than the recipients of neutral, angry, or no failure feedback. They also found social status moderates this link, such that the low-status recipients of contempt performed significantly better than high-status recipients. The present study revisits the emotional feedback and performance link by focusing on objective task performance in a supervisor–subordinate setting. Participants (N = 124) were randomly assigned to one of three scripted negative feedback conditions (neutral, anger, and contempt) and interacted with the team using an online messenger platform. Participants completed three copyediting tasks and received three rounds of negative written feedback. Results indicated that contempt led to a distinct pattern: subjects with low baseline performance on copyediting tasks consistently performed worse in the contempt condition than those in other conditions. We also extend the replication by showing how working memory is taxed differentially across feedback conditions. We found that rejection-sensitive participants incurred greater working memory deficits when receiving contempt. Our results inform research on Golem and Underdog effects and can also have implications for inclusive management practices in online work.

Keywords

Contempt remote work objective task performance‌working memory rejection sensitivity Golem effect underdog effect‌

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bandura

(1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of self-control. Freeman.

Barone

D. F.

Maddux

J. E.

Snyder

C. R.

(1997). Self-regulation: The pursuit of goals. In Barone

D. F.

Maddux

J. E.

Snyder

C. R.

(Eds.), Social cognitive psychology: History and current domains (pp. 277–303). Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-5843-9_10

Bear

J. B.

Cushenbery

London

Sherman

G. D.

(2017). Performance feedback, power retention, and the gender gap in leadership. Leadersh Q, 28(6), 721–740. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.02.003

Berenson

K. R.

Downey

Rafaeli

Coifman

K. G.

Paquin

N. L.

(2011). The rejection–rage contingency in borderline personality disorder. J Abnorm Psychol, 120(3), 681–690. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023335

Berenson

K. R.

Gyurak

Ayduk

Ö.

Downey

Garner

M. J.

Mogg

Bradley

B. P.

Pine

D. S.

(2009). Rejection sensitivity and disruption of attention by social threat cues. J Res Personality, 43(6), 1064–1072. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2009.07.007

DeShon

R. P.

Gillespie

J. Z.

(2005). A motivated action theory account of goal orientation. J Appl Psychol, 90(6), 1096–1127. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1096 (Special Section: Theoretical Models and Conceptual Analyses–Second Installment)

Eden

(1992). Leadership and expectations: Pygmalion effects and other self-fulfilling prophecies in organizations. Leadersh Q, 3(4), 271–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(92)90018-B

Ehrlich

K. B.

Gerson

S. A.

Vanderwert

R. E.

Cannon

E. N.

Fox

N. A.

(2015). Hypervigilance to rejecting stimuli in rejection sensitive individuals: Behavioral and neurocognitive evidence. Pers Individ Differ, 85, 7–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.04.023

Engle

R. W.

(2018). Working memory and executive attention: A revisit. Perspect Psychol Sci, 13(2), 190–193. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617720478

10.

Faul

Erdfelder

Buchner

Lang

A.-G.

(2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behav Res Methods, 41(4), 1149–1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149

11.

Fischer

Giner-Sorolla

(2016). Contempt: Derogating others while keeping calm. Emotion Rev, 8(4), 346–357. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073915610439

12.

Fischer

A. H.

Roseman

I. J.

(2007). Beat them or ban them: The characteristics and social functions of anger and contempt. J Pers Soc Psychol, 93(1), 103–115. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.1.103

13.

Fitness

Fletcher

G. J.

(1993). Love, hate, anger, and jealousy in close relationships: A prototype and cognitive appraisal analysis. J Pers Soc Psychol, 65(5), 942–958. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.65.5.942

14.

Fossati

(2019). Circuit based anti-correlation, attention orienting, and major depression. CNS Spectrums, 24(1), 94–101. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1092852918001402

15.

Gerber

Wheeler

(2009). On being rejected: A meta-analysis of experimental research on rejection. Perspect Psychol Sci, 4(5), 468–488. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01158.x

16.

Gervais

M. M.

Fessler

D. M.

(2017). On the deep structure of social affect: Attitudes, emotions, sentiments, and the case of “contempt”. Behav Brain Sci, 40, E225. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X16000352

17.

Hutcherson

C. A.

Gross

J. J.

(2011). The moral emotions: A social–functionalist account of anger, disgust, and contempt. J Pers Soc Psychol, 100(4), 719–737. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022408

18.

Izard

C. E.

(1977). Human emotions (2nd ed.). Plenum.

19.

Katz

L. F.

Gottman

J. M.

(1993). Patterns of marital conflict predict children's internalizing and externalizing behaviors. Dev Psychol, 29(6), 940–950. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.29.6.940

20.

Kirchner

W. K.

(1958). Age differences in short-term retention of rapidly changing information. J Exp Psychol, 55(4), 352–358. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043688

21.

Köhler

Cortina

J. M.

(2021). Play it again, Sam! An analysis of constructive replication in the organizational sciences. J Manage, 47(2), 488–518. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206319843985

22.

Krzeminska

Austin

R. D.

Bruyère

S. M.

Hedley

(2019). The advantages and challenges of neurodiversity employment in organizations. J Manage Organ, 25(4), 453–463. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2019.58

23.

Lin

Callahan

C. P.

Moser

J. S.

(2018). A mind full of self: Self-referential processing as a mechanism underlying the therapeutic effects of mindfulness training on internalizing disorders. Neurosci Biobehav Rev, 92, 172–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2018.06.007

24.

MacNamara

Jackson

T. B.

Fitzgerald

J. M.

Hajcak

Phan

K. L.

(2019). Working memory load and negative picture processing: Neural and behavioral associations with panic, social anxiety, and positive affect. Biol Psychiatry Cogn Neurosci Neuroimaging, 4(2), 151–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpsc.2018.04.005

25.

Mann

Feddes

A. R.

Leiser

Doosje

Fischer

A. H.

(2017). When is humiliation more intense? The role of audience laughter and threats to the self. Front Psychol, 8, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00495

26.

Melwani

Barsade

S. G.

(2011). Held in contempt: The psychological, interpersonal, and performance consequences of contempt in a work context. J Pers Soc Psych, 101(3), 503–520. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023492

27.

Melwani

Mueller

J. S.

Overbeck

J. R.

(2012). Looking down: The influence of contempt and compassion on emergent leadership categorizations. J Appl Psychol, 97(6), 1171–11185. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030074

28.

Miceli

Castelfranchi

(2018). Contempt and disgust: The emotions of disrespect. J Theory Soc Behav, 48(2), 205–2229. https://doi.org/10.1111/jtsb.12159

29.

Nease

A. A.

Mudgett

B. O.

Quiñones

M. A.

(1999). Relationships among feedback sign, self-efficacy, and acceptance of performance feedback. J Appl Psychol, 84(5), 806–814. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.84.5.806

30.

Nurmohamed

(2020). The underdog effect: When low expectations increase performance. Acad Manage J, 63(4), 1106–1133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2019.07.009

31.

Eden

(1994). Restraining the Golem: Boosting performance by changing the interpretation of low scores. J Appl Psychol, 79(5), 744–754. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.79.5.744

32.

Psychology Software Tools Inc. (2016). E-Prime 3.0 . https://www.pstnet.com

33.

Redick

T. S.

Shipstead

Meier

M. E.

Montroy

J. J.

Hicks

K. L.

Unsworth

Kane

M. J.

Hambrick

D. Z.

Engle

R. W.

(2016). Cognitive predictors of a common multitasking ability: Contributions from working memory, attention control, and fluid intelligence. J Exp Psychol Gen, 145(11), 1473–1492. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000219

34.

Savickas

M. L.

Nota

Rossier

Dauwalder

J.-P.

Duarte

M. E.

Guichard

Soresi

Van Esbroeck

van Vianen

A. E. M.

(2009). Life designing: A paradigm for career construction in the 21st century. J Vocat Behav, 75(3), 239–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2009.04.004

35.

Van Kleef

G. A.

(2009). How emotions regulate social life: The Emotions As Social Information (EASI) model. Curr Dir Psychol Sci, 18(3), 184–188. https://doi.org/www.jstor.org/stable/20696025

36.

Van Kleef

G. A.

(2010). The emerging view of emotion as social information. Soc Pers Psychol Compass, 4(5), 331–343. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00262.x

37.

Van Kleef

G. A.

(2014). Understanding the positive and negative effects of emotional expressions in organizations: EASI does it. Hum Relat, 67(9), 1145–1164. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726713510329

38.

Van Kleef

G. A.

Côté

(2022). The social effects of emotions. Ann Rev Psychol, 73, 629–658. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-020821-010855

39.

Van Kleef

G. A.

Lange

(2020). How hierarchy shapes our emotional lives: Effects of power and status on emotional experience, expression, and responsiveness. Curr Opin Psychol, 33, 148–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2019.07.009

40.

Vroom

V. H.

(1964). Work and motivation. Wiley.

41.

Weiss

H. M.

Merlo

K. L.

(2020). Affect, attention, and episodic performance. Curr Dir Psychol Sci, 29(5), 453–459. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721420949496

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.

0.00 MB

0.08 MB