Document Type



Doctor of Philosophy


Psychology, Industrial and Organizational

Date of Defense


Graduate Advisor

John Meriac, Ph.D.


Stephanie Merritt, Ph.D.

Matthew Taylor, Ph.D.

Cody Ding, Ph.D.


Feedback is a critical component of almost all performance management systems (Aguinis, 2009), and is often positively associated with individual and organizational effectiveness (e.g., Kluger & DeNisi, 1996; Kim et al., 2016). Given this, researchers and practitioners have long sought to understand how and when feedback is likely to be most effective. Some promising new work has explored feedback orientation (FO), which describes a person’s overall receptivity to performance feedback (Linderbaum & Levy, 2010; London & Smither, 2002). Initial research has shown that FO is positively associated with feedback seeking (Dahling et al., 2012; Whitaker et al., 2012) and feedback reactions (Braddy et al., 2013), as well as job performance (Dahling et al., 2012; Whitaker et al., 2012) and contextual performance (Whitaker et al., 2012). The current studies add to our understanding of FO by testing some core assumptions of the construct. The first study used an ESM approach to establish that self-report FO is consistent across time and situations, supporting the assumption that it is a relatively stable individual difference. The second study examined multisource ratings of FO, finding that both peer and direct-report ratings are positively associated with supervisor-rated performance. However, there was low agreement between self and other FO ratings, and self-ratings were not significantly related to performance. Combining this with other research, this suggests that FO leads to positive performance if the value placed on feedback results in feedback-related behaviors. Taken together, the results of this study support the conceptualization and use of FO as a stable individual trait and establish that self-ratings do meaningfully differ from other-source ratings.