The Effects of Negative Managerial Feedback on Student Motivation: Implications for Gender Differences in Teacher–Student Relations

P1: GCO/GVG/LOV/GGT/GAY P2: LMD

Sex Roles [sers] PP267-sers-345905 August 30, 2001 10:39 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999

Sex Roles, Vol. 44, Nos. 9/10, 2001

The Effects of Negative Managerial Feedbackon Student Motivation: Implications for GenderDifferences in Teacher–Student Relations

Carolyn Morgan1

University of Wisconsin

Research suggests that boys receive more negative teacher feedback concern-ing failure to follow directions, whereas girls receive more positive feedbackconcerning compliance (e.g., J. Brophy, 1985; K. B. Hoyenga & K. T. Hoyenga,1993). In this study, 5th and 6th graders (79.8% Caucasian, 9.2% Hispanic,6.1% Asian, 2.2% Pacific Islander, and 1.8% African, predominantly lowermiddle class) were randomly assigned to receive 1 of 5 feedback patterns. Allstudents received positive competence-related feedback. Relative to the otherconditions, the typical “male” feedback pattern decreased students’ activityinterest, perceived competence, and liking for the teacher. Students receivingtypical “male” feedback reported less willingness to work with the teacheragain; however, they did not report less willingness to work on the activityeither alone or with a friend.

Teacher–student relations are an important factor influencing student mo-tivation (see Wentzel, 1996). A pattern of increasing consistency in genderdifferences in teacher–student relations across grade level (e.g., Bracken& Crain, 1994; Leaper, 1991; Thorkildsen & Nicholls, 1998; Wentzel, 1998)suggests the possibility that these gender differences are at least partially anoutcome of differential classroom socialization practices. The purpose of thisstudy was to examine whether teachers may influence the development ofgender differences in their relationships with girls and boys through gender-differentiated feedback patterns.

1To whom correspondence should be addressed at Department of Psychology, Universityof Wisconsin, Whitewater, 800 W. Main Street, Whitewater, Wisconsin 53190; e-mail:[email protected].

513

0360-0025/01/0500-0513$19.50/0 c© 2001 Plenum Publishing Corporation



514 Morgan

GENDER-DIFFERENTIATED MANAGERIAL FEEDBACK

A common feature of public school classrooms is teacher feedback fo-cused on managing students’ behavior and work habits. Observational re-search indicates that teacher communication with students tends to be pri-marily negative, reactive, and focused on procedures rather than academicperformance (e.g., Blumenfeld, Hamilton, Bossert, Wessels, & Meece, 1983;Eccles & Blumenfeld, 1985; White, 1975). These negative procedural com-munications have been described variously as reprimands, criticism, and dis-approval focusing on students’ neatness, deportment, timeliness, compliance,attention, and work completion. In this paper, these procedural statements(both negative and positive) that are verbally transmitted by teachers willbe referred to as “managerial feedback.”

Observational research indicates that managerial feedback is even morepervasive than competence-related feedback emphasizing students’ aca-demic ability and performance (e.g., Blumenfeld et al., 1983; Eccles &Blumenfeld, 1985). Nevertheless, experimental research has focusedprimarily on identifying the effects of competence-related feedback ratherthan managerial feedback on students’ motivation (e.g., Deci & Ryan, 1987).In general, studies examining the effects of managerial feedback have fo-cused on students’ level of immediate behavioral compliance with the feed-back. For example, several studies have examined the effectiveness ofreprimands in decreasing off-task behaviors (e.g., Abramowitz & O’Leary,1990).

Although observational research indicates that the use of managerialfeedback is ubiquitous, studies also indicate that, at all grade levels, teacherstend to give boys and girls different kinds of managerial feedback (Morgan,1996, 1997). Relative to girls, boys are more likely to receive managerialfeedback that is negative and that occurs while students are engaged inschool activities (i.e., “on-line”). Girls are less likely than boys to receivemanagerial feedback. However, when they do receive managerial feedback,it is generally positive and received at the end of an activity (e.g., Baker,1987; Brophy, 1985; Eccles & Blumenfeld, 1985; Foote, 1996; Hoyenga &Hoyenga, 1993; Jones & Wheatley, 1990; Sadker & Sadker, 1994).

Only one published study (Dweck, Davidson, Nelson, & Enna, 1978) hasexamined the effects of gender-differentiated feedback patterns on studentoutcomes. This study focused on the effects of gender differences in manage-rial feedback on intrapersonal (i.e., attributions for achievement outcomes)rather than interpersonal aspects of motivation. The lack of research ex-amining the interpersonal effects of managerial feedback is surprising giventhat the process of giving and receiving feedback is inherently interpersonal.Furthermore, research indicates that interpersonal relations with teachers



The Effects of Negative Managerial Feedback 515

are powerful motivators of student behavior (Wentzel, 1996). For example,teacher–student relations may provide students with information about theself, afford emotional support, enhance intellectual functioning, and influ-ence social goal pursuit (Wentzel, 1996).

If gender differences in receipt of managerial feedback influence stu-dents’ motivation and relations with teachers, then there should be evidencethat these effects occur. Gender differences in teacher–student relations aregenerally less apparent in early grades (e.g., Leaper, 1991), emerge in el-ementary, middle, and junior high school and are fairly consistent by highschool (Bracken & Crain, 1994; Simmons & Rosenberg, 1975; Vancouver &Ilgen, 1989). For example, 5th grade girls appear more motivated to pleasetheir teachers than are boys (Thorkildsen & Nicholls, 1998), and 6th gradegirls perceive greater support from their teachers than do 6th grade boys(Wentzel, 1998). High school girls report more positive attitudes toward,and interactions with, their teachers (Baker, 1987; Bernard, Keefauver,Elsworth, & Naylor, 1981) and greater concern with pleasing their teach-ers (Miller, Greene, Montalvo, Ravindran, & Nicholls, 1996) than do boys.This pattern of increasing consistency in gender differences in students’ mo-tivation to work with teachers across grade level suggests that these gen-der differences are at least partially an outcome of differential socializationpractices.

Lee and Gropper (1974) argued that gender-differentiated socializationin the classroom is one factor that leads boys to be less involved with teachers,more involved with peers, and more independent than girls are. However,these researchers did not attempt to isolate particular teacher–student inter-action patterns that might create such gender differences in motivation andbehavior. Grant (1985) observed that Black boys received more reprimandsfrom teachers than did White boys, Black girls, or White girls. In addition,Black boys were less likely than other students to have positive contact withteachers and more likely to have contacts with peers. Though consistent withLee and Gropper’s socialization hypothesis, these correlational data cannotassess the existence of a causal relationship between teacher feedback anddifferences in students’ motivation to work with teachers, peers, or alone.

Longstanding debates in education underscore the potential impactof gender differences in motivation within different interpersonal contexts.Some researchers hypothesize that girls’ more positive relations with teach-ers lead them to lower levels of intellectual curiosity, risk-taking, and ini-tiative, as well as greater dependence on adult feedback relative to boys(Hoffman, 1972; Kimball, 1989; Lee & Gropper, 1974). Consistent with thisposition, Boggiano, Main, and Katz (1991) found that 4th through 6th gradegirls were more extrinsically motivated than boys. In addition, girls who wereextrinsically motivated reduced their willingness to engage in a challenging



516 Morgan

task after receiving adult feedback; however, this was not the case amongextrinsically motivated boys. In contrast, other researchers have argued thatboys’ lower involvement with teachers relative to girls leads to more asocialclassroom behavior, disinterest in school, and higher dropout rates (Pittman,1991; Trusty & Dooley-Dickey, 1993). Consistent with this position, Wentzel(1998) found that 6th grade girls perceived greater teacher support than did6th grade boys. Perceived teacher support was a positive predictor of schoolinterest, with girls reporting greater school interest relative to boys.

EXAMINING THE EFFECTS OF MANAGERIALFEEDBACK ON MOTIVATION

The effects of competence-related feedback on students’ interest andmotivation have been examined extensively by intrinsic motivation resear-chers (e.g., Deci, 1972; Deci & Ryan, 1987; Kast & Connor, 1988; Koestner,Zuckerman, & Koestner, 1987). Their findings can serve as a guide for explor-ing the effects of managerial feedback. According to cognitive evaluationtheory, feedback varies along the dimensions of controllingness and valence(Deci & Ryan, 1987). The controllingness and valence of feedback messagesaffect individuals’ interest in an activity as well as their motivation to engagein the activity in the future.

Effects of Managerial Feedback on Interest and Perceived Competence

Competence-related feedback perceived as controlling induces peopleto act in particular ways or attain specified outcomes. In turn, this pressureto perform results in reduced motivation to engage in the activity (e.g., Deci& Ryan, 1987). The degree to which feedback is perceived as controllingmay vary as a function of the amount and timing of feedback given duringan activity. For example, an overall performance goal provided as subgoalsduring an activity results in less interest than the same overall goal providedonly at the beginning of an activity. Thus, providing goals during performancemay make the controlling nature of the goals more salient (Harackiewicz,Manderlink, & Sansone, 1984).

The valence of competence-related feedback also may affect motiva-tion (Deci & Ryan, 1987; Sansone, Sachau, & Weir, 1989). Positive com-petence feedback may either enhance or reduce motivation as a functionof its perceived controllingness. Positive competence feedback perceivedas controlling tends to reduce motivation, whereas positive competencefeedback perceived as informational tends to enhance motivation (Kast &Connor, 1988). In contrast, negative competence feedback leads to lower




motivation, regardless of whether it is presented as controlling or not, be-cause of its detrimental effects on perceived ability (Deci & Ryan, 1987).

The managerial feedback boys and girls typically receive differs in bothcontrollingness and valence. Boys receive more managerial feedback thatis negative and highly salient throughout the work process. Indeed, the typ-ical “male” feedback pattern has been described as an overt attempt atcontrolling and managing boys’ behavior during the work process (Eccles &Blumenfeld, 1985). In contrast, girls are more likely to receive either posi-tive managerial feedback or competence feedback only (Dweck et al., 1978).Because the feedback girls typically receive occurs at the end of the workprocess, these two typical “female” feedback patterns are likely to be per-ceived as relatively less controlling than the typical “male” feedback pattern.

To date, research has not examined whether these gender-differentiatedpatterns of managerial feedback produce effects on interest, perceived com-petence, and subsequent motivation similar to the effects found forcompetence-related feedback. If students perceive managerial feedback tobe indicative of their performance, then the typical “male” feedback patternmay decrease interest, perceived competence, and subsequent motivationrelative to the typical “female” feedback patterns. However, Dweck et al.(1978) found that negative managerial feedback ameliorated rather thanexacerbated the effects of negative competence-related feedback on 5thgraders’ perceived competence, thus suggesting that negative managerialfeedback may not necessarily be detrimental to students’ motivation.

Furthermore, the effects of managerial feedback valence on motivationmay vary by gender. Research concerning the valence of competence-relatedfeedback indicates that males’ motivation tends to increase after receivingpositive competence feedback, whereas females’ motivation sometimes de-creases (Deci & Ryan, 1987; Koestner et al., 1987). These researchers sug-gest that, because of differences in gender socialization, females may bemore sensitive to attempts to control their behavior. Thus, for females, thecontrollingness of positive competence feedback may be more salient thanthe information the feedback provides. Whether males and females respondsimilarly to positive managerial feedback is presently not known.

Effects of Feedback on Motivation for Future Activity Engagementin Different Contexts

Although traditional research on intrinsic motivation offers consider-able insight into the potential effects of managerial feedback on students’interest and motivation, such approaches have certain limitations. Thesestudies (e.g., Deci, Cascio, & Krussell, 1973) have tended to focus on howobjective characteristics of activities, contexts, or individuals (e.g., difficulty



518 Morgan

level, receipt of feedback, initial interest level) influence individuals’ subse-quent interest and motivation. In these studies, the activity itself (e.g, solvingpuzzles) is presumed to remain constant. Therefore, individuals’ subsequentmotivation to engage in the activity within different interpersonal contextshas not been examined.

Other research (Sansone & Berg, 1993; Sansone & Harackiewicz, 1996;Sansone & Morgan, 1992) suggests that the manner in which individualsdefine an activity may be flexible (e.g., as work, as play with a friend). Indi-viduals’ activity definitions may change over time as a function of their ownactions (Sansone, Weir, Harpster, & Morgan, 1992) and the feedback theyreceive (Sansone, Sachau, & Weir, 1989). If individuals have different expe-riences while engaged in the same activity, their definitions of that activityare likely to differ also. In turn, as their activity definitions change, factorsinfluencing their motivation are likely to change as well.

This perspective suggests that students’ subsequent motivation to en-gage in an activity may be affected by feedback patterns; however, the inter-personal context of future engagement may be an important determinant ofthose effects. When the future interpersonal context is unspecified, as typi-cally occurs in research that assumes a “constant” activity definition, studentsmay base their decisions concerning future engagement on the context theyjust experienced. Thus, students receiving the typical “male” feedback pat-tern may express less willingness to engage in the activity in the future thanstudents receiving the relatively less controlling “female” feedback patterns.In contrast, when potential future interpersonal contexts are differentiated,differentiation in students’ motivation may be seen as well. Specifically, stu-dents receiving the typical “male” feedback pattern may express less willing-ness to work on the activity with the teacher than students receiving typical“female” feedback. However, these students may not express less willingnessto work on the activity either alone or with a friend. Thus, the typical “male”feedback pattern may not disrupt motivation entirely, but rather lead to apattern of motivation that is distinct from the effects of the typical “female”feedback patterns.

Effects of Managerial Feedback on Students’ Goals

Managerial feedback may affect not only students’ motivation but alsotheir goals while working with the teacher. Two types of interpersonal goalsimportant to academic achievement are interdependence goals and indepen-dence goals. Interdependence goals include goals to cooperate, affiliate, andgain social approval (Wentzel, 1989), whereas independence goals includegoals to act on one’s own and to assert oneself (Grieb & Easley, 1984). Two




types of competence goals important to academic achievement are learn-ing goals and performance goals (Sansone & Harackiewicz, 1996). Learninggoals involve skill development and improvement relative to one’s own in-ternal standards, whereas performance goals involve the demonstration ofability relative to others.

There are several ways that managerial feedback may influence stu-dents’ goals. The typical “male” feedback pattern, which is likely to be per-ceived as controlling, may increase student reactance (Brehm & Brehm,1981). That is, in response to controlling feedback, students may becomedefiant or noncompliant in an attempt to restore their freedom (Morgan,2000). Such resistance motivation may be associated with increases in stu-dents’ pursuit of independence goals (e.g., wanting to do the activity on theirown) and decreases in their pursuit of interdependence goals (e.g. wanting togain approval from the teacher). Managerial feedback may indirectly affectstudents’ competence goals as well. If students receiving the typical “male”feedback pattern are less concerned with interdependence goals and moreconcerned with independence goals, then they may focus more on achiev-ing their own internal standards for success (i.e., learning goals) than ondemonstrating their ability relative to others (i.e., performance goals).

METHOD

Participants

Participants were 54 male and 73 female 5th grade students (Meanage = 10.3 years) and 50 male and 50 female 6th grade students (Mean age =11.3 years). This age range was selected to be comparable with existingresearch examining the effects of gender differences in teacher feedback(Dweck et al., 1978). Whether gender differences in students’ competenceand interpersonal goals would be apparent in this age group was unknown.Students were recruited from year-round public elementary schools in anurban area of a western state. The ethnic composition of the sample wasrepresentative of the school district (79.8% Caucasian, 9.2% Hispanic, 6.1%Asian, 2.2% Pacific Islander, and 1.8% African). The socioeconomic statusof students in participating schools was predominantly lower middle class.

Procedures

Because negative managerial feedback and deception were used in thisresearch, certain safeguards were instituted. Clinical, developmental, andsocial psychologists were consulted during the development of the specific



520 Morgan

feedback statements used and IRB approval was obtained. Letters regard-ing the study were sent to parents and only students returning signed paren-tal consent forms were allowed to participate (Mean participation rate =49.6%).

Parents, teachers, and school administrators were informed of the na-ture of the study but were asked not to discuss the study with studentsuntil after students had participated. Prior to their participation, students’written consent was obtained. Students were told that participation was vol-untary and that they could quit the study at any time. Students also were toldthat their participation in the study would not affect their regular classroomgrades in any way and that their regular teachers would not be told anythingabout their performance in the study.

At the end of the teacher–student interaction, all students were givenpositive competence feedback indicating that they had “shown improve-ment” (i.e., a learning goal) and that they had “performed better than theaverage 5th (or 6th) grader” (i.e., a performance goal). At the end of thestudy, students receiving negative managerial feedback were debriefed. In-terviews with students during pilot testing indicated that they understoodthe nature and rationale for the deception used in this study. On the dayof their participation, students were given a letter to take home remindingparents of the study, informing them that their child had participated thatday, and including a phone number if they or their child had any questionsabout the study. No concerns about the study were raised. At the conclusionof the study, students received a thank-you note indicating that they haddone well on the project and a small gift for their help.

Using classroom observation research as a guide, experimental analogsof the typical “male” and “female” feedback patterns were created. As il-lustrated in Fig. 1, five different feedback patterns were examined. All stu-dents received positive competence feedback at the conclusion of the ac-tivity. Thus, any obtained differences in students’ interest and subsequentmotivation were attributable to differences in the receipt of managerialfeedback.

To determine whether girls and boys respond differently to control-ling feedback as a function of valence, the typical “male” feedback patternand the typical “female” pattern involving managerial feedback were ad-ministered using the opposite valence of that generally given. If boys andgirls are equally sensitive to the controllingness of feedback, then the typi-cal “male” feedback pattern and the “male” feedback pattern with positivevalence should diminish interest and perceived competence relative to theless controlling “female” feedback patterns for both genders. However, ifgirls are more sensitive to the controllingness of positive feedback relative toboys, then only boys should respond differently to the controlling feedback




Fig. 1. Experimental design.

as a function of valence. Thus, boys should report less interest and lowerperceived competence after receiving negative controlling feedback but notafter receiving positive controlling feedback. Boys and girls should reportsimilar interest and perceived competence after receiving the relatively lesscontrolling “female” feedback patterns. Similarly, if girls and boys differ insensitivity to controlling feedback, then only boys should display differencesin the degree of motivational differentiation as a function of the valence ofthe typical “male” feedback pattern. In contrast, girls should display sim-ilar degrees of differentiation after receiving the typical “male” feedbackpattern or the typical “male” pattern with positive valence.

Students were blocked on gender and randomly assigned to one of thefive feedback conditions. Random assignment of feedback was necessary toexamine the influence of managerial feedback independent of student be-havior. Although receipt of random feedback may seem relatively unlikely tooccur in actual classrooms, in reality, it is not uncommon for teachers to givefeedback when it is not appropriate and to not give it when it is appropriate(e.g., Acker & O’Leary, 1988; Nafpaktitis, Mayer, & Butterworth, 1985).

The study took place in unoccupied classrooms at the students’ schools.Students were run individually through the experimental procedure bytrained undergraduate research assistants. A research assistant acting as theexperimenter informed the student that he or she would be working with a“student teacher” (in reality, another research assistant) on a project con-cerning an imaginary trip to a foreign country. A social studies project wasused because research has indicated that school projects are a salient activityfor students within the school domain (Berg, Strough, Calderone, Meegan,& Sansone, 1997; Sansone & Morgan, 1992). Furthermore, social studies is



522 Morgan

an accepted part of the upper elementary school curriculum; therefore, suchan activity was presumed to have high ecological validity.

After ensuring that the student understood the meaning of “studentteacher,” the experimenter briefly described the project. The student was toldthat he or she would select one of five file boxes labeled with the names of dif-ferent countries. Inside the file box, the student would find maps, brochures,and information sheets pertaining to that country. The student was then toldthat he or she would work on three exercises. The first exercise involvedplanning what was needed for the trip. The second exercise involved writingas many English questions and sentences that might be important to knowhow to say in the country’s primary language. The third exercise involvedplanning activities for a 5-day trip.

After this introduction, the experimenter explained that the travelproject was a new activity developed by teachers from a nearby universityfor students in the 5th (or 6th) grade. The experimenter further explainedthat teachers at the university were interested in knowing what 5th (or 6th)grade students thought of this new project so that they could decide whetherto use the project with other students in the future. Therefore, the studentwas told, after he or she had finished the project, the experimenter wouldreturn and ask the student some questions about his or her experiences withthe travel project. To enhance the interpersonal nature of the upcoming in-teraction, the experimenter then mentioned that the student teacher mightbe coming to the student’s school in the near future to do his or her studentteaching. Thus, it was possible that the student might get to work with thestudent teacher again in his or her regular classroom.

The student was then introduced to a same-gender research assistant.Ideally, teacher gender would have been examined as an independent vari-able. However, the primary focus of the study was to examine the influenceof specific patterns of managerial feedback on motivation rather than theeffects of teacher gender. Because the majority of elementary teachers arefemale, it was assumed that boys have received less negative feedback frommale teachers than from female teachers. Therefore, girls’ and boys’ historiesof receiving negative managerial feedback were assumed to be more similarwhen boys worked with male teachers.

After the experimenter left, the student teacher continued the intro-duction. To further enhance the perceived potential for future interaction,the student teacher repeated that he or she might be working in the student’sregular classroom in the near future. Then, the student teacher reviewed theexercises with the student and asked the student to select a country.

After returning to the desk with the appropriate file box, the studentwas allowed to examine the materials for 2 min. Then, the teacher gave thestudent the first exercise and asked the student to write his or her name at




the top of the page. The teacher read the instructions aloud and informedthe student that he or she had “about 10 min” to work on the exercise andthat he or she would tell the student when it was time to turn in the exercise.

As the student turned in each exercise, the student teacher visually ex-amined the student’s work and gave feedback appropriate to the experimen-tal condition. All feedback statements were delivered in a low volume voicewith slight inflection and either a brief nod or shake of the head. This means offeedback conveyance is consistent with research indicating that the degree ofaffectivity displayed by teachers tends to be slight (Blumenfeld et al., 1983).

Students receiving positive or negative managerial feedback after eachexercise received the following three messages: (1) “You are (not) writ-ing neatly”; (2) “You are (not) keeping your work area organized”; and(3) “You are (not) working in an orderly manner.” Students receiving man-agerial feedback at the end of the activity heard only the third feedback mes-sage at the appropriate time. These feedback statements were constructedto represent typical forms of teachers’ managerial statements identified inprevious research rather than any specific criticism or reprimand. Pilotingindicated that students interpreted the negative managerial feedback as in-dicating that they were “not being neat enough,” “not writing good,” “notorganized,” “not keeping work together,” “being messy,” “not following di-rections,” “being rude,” or “misbehaving.” All of these interpretations areconsistent with the negative managerial feedback category. As indicated pre-viously, all students received positive competence feedback at the conclusionof the activity. Specifically, students were told that they “showed improve-ment on the three exercises” (mastery feedback) and that their grade onthe entire project would be “somewhat better than the average 5th (or 6th)grade student” (performance feedback).

After feedback was given, the teacher left the classroom. To reempha-size the possibility of future interaction, as the teacher was leaving, he orshe said goodbye to the student and commented that “maybe we’ll be seeingeach other again in a few weeks.”

At this point, the experimenter returned and interviewed the student.An interview was used rather than a self-report questionnaire because ofvariability in students’ reading skills and attentiveness. The experimenterwas blind to the student’s feedback condition and the hypotheses of thestudy at the time of the interview. At the beginning of the interview, theexperimenter assured the student that his or her responses would be con-fidential and that the student’s name would not be on the questionnaire.In addition, the student was told that he or she would place the completedquestionnaire in a large pile of other students’ questionnaires, so that his orher responses would be unidentifiable. After the interview was completed,the student was debriefed.



524 Morgan

Assessment of Interest, Perceived Competence, and Liking for the Teacher

Five-point Likert scale questions were used to assess students’ inter-est while engaged in the activity, perceived competence, and liking for theteacher. Items assessing students’ interest included the following: “How in-teresting was the social studies project?” and “How much did you enjoyworking on the social studies project?” (r = .58). These two items were av-eraged to obtain a mean interest score. To assess perceived competence,students were asked “How well do you think you did on the social studiesproject?” To measure their liking for the teacher, students were asked “Howwell did you like Ms./Mr. , your teacher during the project?”

Assessment of Motivation for Future Activity Engagement

Students’ motivation for future activity engagement was assessed thro-ugh a series of four 5-point Likert scale questions. First, students were askedhow willing they would be to work on the social studies project again in thefuture. This question reflects the traditional approach of research concerningthe effects of controlling feedback on motivation that has not addressed thepossibility that motivation may be diminished in some contexts but main-tained in others. To examine the possibility of differentiation in motivationin response to controlling feedback, students were asked three questionsconcerning their willingness to engage in the activity in the future under thefollowing conditions: with the teacher, with a friend, and by themselves.

Assessment of Students’ Goals

Students’ retrospective reports of their interdependence, independence,learning, and performance goals while working on the project were assessedusing two 5-point Likert scale questions for each goal type (1 being not at alltrue and 5 being very much true). Items for these scales were derived fromprevious work on students’ goals (Nicholls, Cheung, Lauer, & Patashnik,1989; Wentzel, 1989, 1998). The two items assessing students’ interdepen-dence goals were “You wanted to make the teacher happy by doing goodwork” and “You wanted the teacher to be proud of you.” The two itemsassessing students’ independence goals were “You wanted to work on yourown” and “You wanted to do the work without the teacher’s help.” Thetwo items assessing students’ mastery goals were “You wanted to learn asmuch as possible” and “You wanted to learn something new.” The two itemsassessing students’ performance goals were “You wanted to know how your




Table I. Intercorrelations Among Goal Items

Goal item 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Make Teacher Proud .64∗∗ .00 .00 .47∗∗ .49∗∗ .20∗∗ .34∗∗Make Teacher Happy .06 .12 .39∗∗ .41∗∗ .16∗ .35∗∗Do Work Without Help .36∗∗ .08 .00 .01 .15∗Do Work On Own .04 .05 .04 .15∗Learn As Much as Possible .53∗∗ .19∗∗ .36∗∗Learn Something New .26∗∗ .47∗∗Compared to Others .29∗∗Better Than Others

Note. N = 229.∗ p < .05. ∗∗ p < .01.

work compared with other students” and “You wanted to do better than ev-eryone else.” Intercorrelations among the goal items are displayed in Table I.

RESULTS

Effects of Feedback on Interest, Perceived Competence, and Likingfor the Teacher

The effects of feedback pattern and student gender on students’ interestwere examined using a 5 (Feedback condition)× 2 (Student gender) analysisof variance (ANOVA). There was a significant main effect of feedback con-dition on students’ interest, F(4, 218) = 3.02, p < .05, eta2 = .23. As shownin Table II, post hoc protected t tests indicated that students receiving the

Table II. Effects of Managerial Feedback on Students’ Activity Interest, PerceivedCompetence, and Liking for the Teacher Giving Feedback

Activity Perceived Liking forFeedback condition interest competence teacher

No managerial feedback 4.34b (0.69) 4.21b (0.71) 4.69b (0.59)(Typical “female” pattern I)

Negative managerial feedback 4.05a (0.81) 3.51a (0.86) 3.98a (0.94)(Typical “male” pattern)

Positive managerial feedback 4.52b (0.63) 4.21b (0.71) 4.56b (0.73)Positive managerial at end only 4.46b (0.67) 3.91b (0.72) 4.64b (0.64)

(Typical “female” pattern II)Negative managerial feedback 4.25ab (0.74) 3.82ab (0.87) 4.45b (0.82)

at end only

Note. N = 229. Students’ activity interest, perceived competence, and liking for theteacher were assessed using 5-point Likert-type scale items with 1 being not at all and5 being definitely. Within columns, means with different superscripts differ at p < .05.Standard deviations are indicated in parentheses.



526 Morgan

typical “male” feedback pattern reported significantly less interest whileworking on the project than students receiving the typical “female” patternof competence feedback only, t(1, 218) = 2.75, p < .05, and students receiv-ing the typical “female” pattern of managerial and competence feedbackat the end of the activity, t(1, 218) = 3.89, p < .05. Furthermore, studentsreceiving the typical “male” feedback pattern reported significantly less in-terest than students receiving the “male” pattern with opposite valence,t(1, 218) = 4.46, p < .05. In contrast, students receiving the typical “female”feedback pattern of both managerial feedback and competence feedback atthe end of the activity did not differ in interest from students receiving itsopposite-valenced counterpart. No main effect of gender or interaction ofgender and feedback was indicated.

A 5 (Feedback condition) × 2 (Student gender) ANOVA on students’perceived competence indicated a significant main effect of feedbackcondition, F(4, 219) = 6.64, p < .001, eta2 = .32. As shown in Table II, pro-tected t tests indicated that students receiving the typical “male” feedbackpattern reported that they had performed significantly less well on the projectthan students receiving the “female” patterns of competence feedback only,t(1, 219) = 4.32, p < .05, and managerial and competence feedback at theend of the activity, t(1, 219) = 2.47, p < .05. In addition, students receiv-ing the typical “male” feedback pattern reported lower perceived compe-tence than students receiving the “male” pattern with opposite valence,t(1, 219) = 4.32, p < .05. Once again, students receiving the “female” pat-tern of managerial and competence feedback at the end of the activity did notdiffer from students receiving the “female” pattern with opposite valence.No effects involving gender were indicated.

A 5 (Feedback condition) × 2 (Student gender) ANOVA on students’liking for the teacher revealed a significant main effect of feedback con-dition, F(4, 219) = 6.79, p < .001, eta2 = .33. As shown in Table II, pro-tected t tests indicated that students receiving the typical “male” feedbackpattern reported liking the teacher significantly less than students receivingthe typical “female” pattern of competence feedback only, t(1, 219) = 6.39,p < .05, and students receiving the typical “female” pattern of positivemanagerial feedback and competence feedback at the end of the activity,t(1, 219) = 5.94, p < .05. Similar to the results for interest scores, studentsreceiving the typical “male” feedback pattern reported significantly less lik-ing for the teacher than did students in the “male” pattern with oppositevalence condition, t(1, 219) = 5.22, p < .05. In contrast, students receivingthe “female” pattern of managerial and competence feedback at the end ofthe activity did not differ significantly from students receiving the “female”pattern with opposite valence. No effects involving gender were indicated.




Effects of Feedback on Future Activity Engagement

The primary aim of the study was to determine whether differencesin the feedback girls and boys typically receive could create differences intheir motivation toward future activity engagement as a function of differ-ences in interpersonal context. The effects of feedback pattern and studentgender on students’ motivation for future activity engagement were exam-ined using a 5 (Feedback pattern) × 2 (Student gender) × 4 (Interpersonalcontext of activity engagement: unspecified, with teacher, with friend, andalone) repeated-measures ANOVA, with the within-subjects factor beinginterpersonal context.

This analysis revealed a significant main effect of interpersonal context,F(3, 657) = 117.28, p < .001, eta2 = .33. Protected t tests indicated that stu-dents reported significantly less willingness to work on the activity in thefuture by themselves (M = 3.10) than with the teacher (M = 4.22), witha friend (M = 4.42), or in the unspecified-interpersonal context condition,M = 4.30, ts (1, 657) = 14.05, 16.47, and 15.00, p < .001, respectively forteacher/alone, friend/alone, and unspecified context/alone comparisons. Inaddition, students reported being more willing to work on the project againwith a friend than with the teacher, t(1, 657) = 2.42, p < .05.

As illustrated in Table III, however, this main effect of interpersonalcontext was qualified by a significant interaction with feedback pattern,F(12, 657) = 2.18, p = .01, eta2 = .03. Protected t tests indicated that moti-vation for future activity engagement matched the results for students’ inter-est scores only in certain contexts (i.e., when the interpersonal context was

Table III. Effects of Managerial Feedback on Students’ Willingness to Engage in the Activityin the Future in Various Interpersonal Contexts

Specified interpersonal context

Feedback condition None Teacher Friend Alone

No managerial feedback 4.45b (0.79) 4.43b (0.79) 4.41 (0.88) 2.92 (1.20)(Typical “female” pattern I)

Negative managerial feedback 3.88a (1.18) 3.85a (1.16) 4.46 (0.71) 2.93 (1.20)(Typical “male” pattern)

Positive managerial feedback 4.50b (0.71) 4.27b (0.89) 4.30 (1.00) 3.14 (1.32)Positive managerial at end only 4.42b (0.77) 4.37b (0.90) 4.45 (0.86) 3.12 (1.15)

(Typical “female” pattern II)Negative managerial feedback 4.25ab (0.99) 4.16ab (0.97) 4.39 (0.93) 3.45 (1.20)

at end only

Note. N = 229. Students’ willingness to engage in the activity under varying interpersonalcontexts was assessed using 5-point Likert-type scale items with 1 being not at all willing and5 being definitely willing. Within columns, means with different superscripts differ at p < .05.Standard deviations are indicated in parentheses.



528 Morgan

unspecified and when it was specified as including the teacher). Specifically,within the unspecified interpersonal context condition, students receivingthe typical “male” feedback pattern reported being significantly less willingto work on the project again than students receiving the “female” feedbackpatterns of competence feedback only at the end, t(1, 657) = 3.32, p < .05,and both positive managerial feedback and competence feedback at the endof the activity, t(1, 657) = 3.02, p < .05. In addition, students receiving thetypical “male” feedback pattern reported less willingness to work on theproject again than students receiving the “male” pattern with opposite va-lence, t(1, 657) = 3.63. Students receiving the “female” feedback pattern ofmanagerial and competence feedback at the end did not differ from studentsreceiving the “female” pattern with negative valence.

Similarly, post hoc comparisons within the teacher-specified context in-dicated that students receiving the typical “male” feedback pattern reportedbeing significantly less willing to work on the project again with the teacherthan students receiving the “female” patterns of competence feedback only,t(1, 657) = 3.44, p < .05, and positive managerial and competence feedbackat the conclusion of the activity, t(1, 657) = 3.14, p < .05. Students receiv-ing the typical “male” pattern also reported significantly less willingness towork with the teacher again than did students receiving the “male” patternwith positive valence, t(1, 657) = 2.55, p < .05. Students receiving the “fe-male” pattern of managerial and competence feedback at the end did notdiffer from students receiving the “female” feedback pattern with negativevalence.

In contrast, protected t tests within the alone-specified context indicatedno significant effects of feedback condition. Similarly, comparisons within thefriend-specified context revealed no significant effects of feedback condition.

Finally, within the typical “male” feedback pattern condition, protectedt tests comparing the teacher-specified context with the friend-specified con-text revealed that these students were significantly less willing to work on theproject again with the teacher than with a friend, t(1, 657) = 3.50, p < .05.In contrast, this differentiation of the teacher-specified and friend-specifiedcontexts was not significant for students receiving the “female” patterns offeedback or students receiving the “male” feedback pattern with positivevalence.

Effects of Feedback on Students’ Goals

The effects of feedback pattern and student gender on students’ retro-spective reports of their competence and interpersonal goals while work-ing on the activity were examined using eight 5 (Feedback condition) × 2




Table IV. Means and Standard Deviations for Goal Variables

Overall means Girls BoysGoal item (You wanted . . . ) (N = 229) (n = 123) (n = 106)

Interdependence goalsthe teacher to be proud of you 4.32 (0.91) 4.37 (0.80) 4.25 (1.02)to make the teacher happy by doing good work 4.08 (1.10) 4.12 (1.04) 4.03 (1.17)

Independence goalsto work on your own 2.81 (1.40) 2.83 (1.33) 2.79 (1.48)to do the work without the teacher’s help 2.42 (1.33) 2.34 (1.19) 2.52 (1.48)

Learning goalsto learn something new 4.63 (0.63) 4.63 (0.60) 4.63 (0.67)to learn as much as possible 4.66 (0.65) 4.69 (0.62) 4.69 (0.68)

Performance goalsto know whether you did the work better

than other students 3.79 (1.27) 3.75 (1.23) 3.85 (1.32)to do better than everyone else 4.28 (0.97) 4.18 (1.02) 4.41 (0.90)

(Student gender) ANOVAs. No main effects or interactions between feed-back pattern and student gender were obtained for any of the goal scales.Thus, neither feedback pattern, student gender, nor their interaction affectedwhat students reported wanting to accomplish during the activity. Means andstandard deviations for the eight goal items are presented in Table IV.

DISCUSSION

The results suggest that gender-differentiated managerial feedback pat-terns may influence teacher–student relations. Within the context of a briefteacher–student interaction, boys and girls receiving feedback similar to thatwhich boys typically receive reported less interest in the activity, lower per-ceived competence, and less liking for the teacher than students receivingfeedback similar to that which girls typically receive. These effects were evi-dent even though all students received identical positive competence-relatedfeedback at the end of the activity.

Given this more negative experience for students receiving the typical“male” feedback pattern, decreases in students’ motivation toward futureactivity engagement would be expected. For example, studies examining stu-dents’ responses to controlling feedback have indicated that after receivingfeedback designed to control their behavior, students are less motivated toengage in a similar activity during a free-choice period (e.g., Deci, 1972; Kast& Connor, 1988). However, this effect does not entirely fit with research con-cerning gender differences in students’ motivation toward school. Boys, whogenerally receive more negative and controlling feedback than girls do, arenot, in general, less motivated to achieve in school. In fact, boys can and doperform as well in school as girls in many ways. For example, boys tend to



530 Morgan

score as high as girls on many standardized achievement tests (Jacklin, 1989;Kimura, 1992) and measures of school self-concept and self-esteem (Alpert-Gillis & Connell, 1989; Harter, 1982), and have been found to score higheron scales of intrinsic motivation (Boggiano et al., 1991). In addition, boys aresometimes perceived as more independent and autonomous in their workand thinking than girls are (Grieb & Easley, 1984).

The present results may help us understand such paradoxical findings.The typical “male” feedback pattern may not lead to a general lack of in-terest in working on an activity in the future relative to the typical “female”feedback patterns, but rather lead to greater differentiation in the contextsreported desirable for future activity engagement. In this study, all studentsreported greater willingness to work on the activity again in interpersonalcontexts than alone. However, students receiving the typical “male” feed-back pattern reported less willingness to work on the activity again thanstudents receiving the typical “female” feedback patterns and the “male”feedback pattern with positive valence. Similar results were obtained whenstudents were asked how willing they would be to work on the project againwith the teacher. Thus, these students appeared to define the activity asinvolving the teacher even when teacher involvement was not explicit. Fur-thermore, this negative teacher involvement seemed to reduce subsequentmotivation toward the activity.

In contrast, when students were asked about their willingness to workon the activity again with a friend or by themselves no effects of teacherfeedback were evident. Thus, for students in the typical “male” feedbackcondition, the relatively more negative experience while working with theteacher did not generalize to activity engagement in other contexts. This sug-gests an important addendum to cognitive evaluation theory (e.g., Deci &Ryan, 1987): controlling feedback may be detrimental to motivation onlywhen the teacher (or other conveyor of feedback) is a part of how studentsdefine the activity. Over time, gender-differentiated teacher feedback pat-terns may alter students’ expectations for future interactions, leading malestudents to less involvement in teacher-centered activities and more involve-ment in peer-oriented and independent activities relative to girls. Observa-tional research examining teacher feedback patterns (e.g., Brophy, 1985;Hoyenga & Hoyenga, 1993) suggests that gender differences in students’expectations for teacher-student interactions are likely to be well-founded.

Contrary to research indicating gender differences in sensitivity to con-trolling feedback (e.g., Deci, 1972; Kast & Connor, 1988), student gender didnot interact with feedback pattern in affecting students’ motivation. Specif-ically, for both girls and boys, the typical “male” feedback pattern resultedin greater decrements to students’ interest, perceived competence, liking forthe teacher, and willingness to engage with the teacher than did the typical




“male” feedback pattern with positive valence. Thus, positive managerialfeedback presented in a controlling manner did not have the same effecton motivation as negative controlling feedback, and girls and boys reactedsimilarly to both feedback patterns. In addition, the typical “female” patternof positive managerial feedback and competence feedback at the end of theactivity and the “female” feedback pattern with negative valence did notdifferentially affect students’ motivation.

Although these results are informative, the study was limited in a num-ber of ways. In order to examine the causal relationship between teacherfeedback and student motivation, feedback was given in the context of a con-trolled one-on-one interaction. In contrast, teachers typically give individ-ual students feedback within the classroom context (e.g., Blumenfeld et al.,1983; Eccles & Blumenfeld, 1985). Giving managerial feedback privately asopposed to publicly may have different effects on student motivation. Fur-thermore, to insure that any obtained differences in motivation could beattributed to the effects of the feedback, all students in the present studyreceived positive competence feedback at the end of the activity. However,in typical classroom situations, some students are likely to receive negativemanagerial feedback in other feedback contexts (e.g., with no competencefeedback or with negative competence feedback). Interestingly, Dweck et al.(1978) found that negative managerial feedback combined with negativecompetence feedback was less detrimental to students’ performance attri-butions than negative competence feedback alone. It is possible, however,that this same pattern of negative managerial feedback and negative compe-tence feedback would have different effects on subsequent teacher–studentinteractions.

In this study, results concerning feedback effects on students’ compe-tence and interpersonal goals were not as predicted. Specifically, students’retrospective reports of their interpersonal and competence goals duringthe activity were not influenced by the feedback they received from a same-gender teacher. In addition, no effects of student gender or interactionsbetween student gender and feedback pattern on students’ goals were evi-dent. However, given that negative managerial feedback decreased students’reported willingness to work with the teacher again, it is likely that such feed-back might influence students’ goals for future teacher–student interactions.Indeed, ongoing research (Morgan, 2001) suggests that negative managerialfeedback may interact with student gender to influence fifth graders’ compe-tence and interpersonal goals for future interactions with a female teacher.These findings also suggest the need to examine the impact of teacher genderon students’ responses to managerial feedback.

If the results of this study are replicable, they may support a social-psychological explanation for why boys are less concerned with teacher



532 Morgan

approval (Boggiano et al., 1991), less motivated to please teachers (Milleret al., 1996; Thorkildsen & Nicholls, 1998), less likely to perceive supportfrom teachers (Wentzel, 1998), and less likely to have positive relations withteachers (Baker, 1987) relative to girls. In addition, these results may help ex-plain certain observed ethnic differences in student motivation and behavior.For example, in one elementary classroom study, Grant (1985) observed thatBlack boys received more negative managerial feedback than Black girls,White boys, or White girls. In addition, the incidence of noncompliant be-havior and the ratio of peer interactions to teacher interactions were higherfor Black boys than for other students. Research using a social-psychologicalapproach and combining experimental and observational techniques (e.g.,Arnold, McWilliams, & Arnold, 1998; Lytton & Zwirner, 1975) may be help-ful in clarifying the causal relations that exist among these variables.

In summary, the results of this initial study suggest that negative man-agerial feedback similar to that which boys typically receive in the class-room may create subtle differences in student motivation over and beyondpreexisting motivational and behavioral differences. In particular, motiva-tion toward interaction with the teacher and motivation toward the activitymay become differentiated over time because of the feedback students re-ceive. The possibility that teachers may inadvertently promote differentialmotivation for teacher-centered, peer-centered, and independent learningthrough fairly innocuous feedback given in the classroom suggests the needfor greater awareness of the potential consequences of these actions.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This research was supported by an Eccles Fellowship for Public PolicyResearch from the University of Utah and a research grant from the Univer-sity of Wisconsin,Whitewater. The study was completed as partial fulfillmentof the requirements for the PhD at the University of Utah. I thank my ad-visor Carol Sansone and committee members Fred Rhodewalt, Cindy Berg,Carol Werner, and Deb Wiebe for their support. In addition, I thank SharonCheney, Tiffany Ford, Paige Haslam, Paul Gilbert, and Wei-Chin Hwangfor their help in planning, piloting, and data collection. Most importantly, Ithank all of the students, parents, teachers, and school administrators whosupported this research.

REFERENCES

Abramowitz, A., & O’Leary, S. (1990). Effectiveness of delayed punishment in an appliedsetting. Behavior Therapy, 21, 231–239.




Acker, M., & O’Leary, S. (1988). Effects of consistent and inconsistent feedback on inappro-priate child behavior. Behavior Therapy, 19, 619–624.

Alpert-Gillis, L., & Connell, J. (1989). Gender and sex-role influences on children’s self-esteem.Journal of Personality, 57, 97–114.

Arnold, D., McWilliams, L., & Arnold, E. (1998). Teacher discipline and child misbehaviorin day care: Untangling causality with correlational data. Developmental Psychology, 34,276–287.

Baker, D. (1987). Sex differences in classroom interactions in secondary science. Journal ofClassroom Interaction, 22, 6–12.

Berg, C., Strough, J., Meegan, S., Calderone, K., & Sansone, C. (1997). Planning to preventeveryday problems from occurring. In S. L. Friedman & E. K. Scholnick (Eds.), Why, how,and when do we plan? The developmental psychology of planning. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bernard, M. E., Keefauver, L. W., Elsworth, G., & Naylor, F. D. (1981). Sex-role behavior andgender in teacher-student evaluations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 681–696.

Blumenfeld, P., Hamilton, V., Bossert, S. T., Wessels, K., & Meece, J. (1983). Teacher talk andstudent thought: Socialization into the student role. In J. M. Levine & M. C. Wang (Eds.),Teacher and student perceptions: Implications for learning. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Boggiano, A. K., Main, D. S., & Katz, P. (1991). Mastery motivation in boys and girls: The roleof intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 25, 511–520.

Bracken, B. A., & Crain, R. M. (1994). Children’s and adolescents’ interpersonal relations:Do age, race, and gender define normalcy? Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 12,14–32.

Brehm, S. S., & Brehm, J. W. (1981). Psychological reactance: A theory of freedom and control.New York: Academic Press.

Brophy, J. (1985). Interactions of male and female students with male and female teachers. In L.C. Wilkinson & C. B. Marrett (Eds.), Gender influences in classroom interaction. Orlando,FL: Academic Press.

Deci, E. L. (1972). Intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and inequity. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 22, 113–120.

Deci, E. L., Cascio, W. F., & Krussell, J. (1973). Cognitive evaluation theory and some commentson the Calder and Staw critique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 81–85.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). The support of autonomy and the control of behavior.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1024–1037.

Dweck, C. S., Davidson, W., Nelson, S., & Enna, B. (1978). I. Sex differences in learned helpless-ness. II. The contingencies of evaluative feedback in the classroom. III. An experimentalanalysis. Developmental Psychology, 14, 268–276.

Eccles, J. S., & Blumenfeld, P. (1985). Classroom experiences and student gender: Are theredifferences and do they matter? In L. C. Wilkinson & C. B. Marrett (Eds.), Gender influencesin classroom interaction. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Foote, C. J. (1996). Attribution feedback in the elementary classroom. Dissertation Abstracts,57(6), 2354A.

Grant, L. (1985). Race–gender status, classroom interaction, and children’s socialization in ele-mentary school. In L. C. Wilkinson & C. B. Marrett (Eds.), Gender influences in classroominteraction. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Grieb, A., & Easley, J. (1984). A primary school impediment to mathematical equity: Casestudies in rule-dependent socialization. In M. W. Steinkamp & M. L. Maehr (Eds.), Womenin Science (Vol. 2, pp. 317–362). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Harackiewicz, J. M., Manderlink, G., & Sansone, C. (1984). Rewarding pinball wizardry: Ef-fects of evaluation and cue value on intrinsic interest. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 47, 287–300.

Harter, S. (1982). The Perceived Competence Scale for Children. Child Development, 53, 87–97.Hoffman, L. W. (1972). Early childhood experiences and women’s achievement motives. Journal

of Social Issues, 28, 129–155.Hoyenga, K. B., & Hoyenga, K. T. (1993). Gender-related differences: Origins and outcomes.

Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.



534 Morgan

Jacklin, C. N. (1989). Female and male: Issues of gender. American Psychologist, 44, 127–133.Jones, M. G., & Wheatley, J. (1990). Gender differences in teacher–student interactions in

science classrooms. National Association for Research in Science Teaching. New York:Wiley.

Kast, A., & Connor, K. (1988). Sex and age differences in response to informational and con-trolling feedback. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 14, 514–523.

Kimball, M. M. (1989). A new perspective on women’s math achievement. PsychologicalBulletin, 105, 198–214.

Kimura, D. (1992). Sex differences in the brain. Scientific American, 267, 118–125.Koestner, R., Zuckerman, M., & Koestner, J. (1987). Praise, involvement, and intrinsic motiva-

tion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 383–390.Leaper, C. (1991). Influence and involvement in children’s discourse: Age, gender, and partner

effects. Child Development, 62, 797–811.Lee, P., & Gropper, N. (1974). Sex role culture in the elementary school curriculum. Harvard

Educational Review, 44, 369–410.Lytton, H., & Zwirner, W. (1975). Compliance and its controlling stimuli observed in a natural

setting. Developmental Psychology, 11(6), 769–779.Miller, R. B., Greene, B. A., Montalvo, G. P., Ravindran, B., & Nichols, J. D. (1996). Engagement

in academic work: The role of learning goals, future consequences, pleasing others, andperceived ability. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 388–422.

Morgan, C. (1996). Gender differences in academic goal choice: The importance of teacher-student interactions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

Morgan, C. (1997, April). Feedback effects on the interpersonal focus of students’ activity def-initions. Poster session presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest PsychologicalAssociation, Chicago, Illinois.

Morgan, C. (2000, March). A framework for understanding gender differences in resistance be-havior. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association of Women in Psychology,Salt Lake City, Utah.

Morgan, C. (2001, August). Gender differences in interpersonal goals: The impact of teacherfeedback. Poster session presented at the annual meeting of the American PsychologicalAssociation, San Francisco, CA.

Nafpaktitis, M., Mayer, G. R., & Butterworth, T. (1985). Natural rates of teacher approvaland disapproval and their relation to student behavior in intermediate school classrooms.Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 362–367.

Nicholls, J., Cheung, P., Lauer, J., Patashnick, M. (1989). Individual differences in academic mo-tivation: Perceived ability, goals, beliefs, and values. Learning and Individual Differences,1, 63–84.

Pittman, R. B. (1991). Social factors, enrollment in vocational/technical courses, and high schooldropout rates. Journal of Educational Research, 84, 288–295.

Sadker, M., & Sadker, D. (1994). Failing at Fairness: How America’s Schools Cheat Girls. NewYork: Charles Scribner’s Sons.

Sansone, C., & Berg, C. A. (1993). Adapting to the environment across the lifespan: Differentprocess or different inputs? International Journal of Behavioral Development, 16, 215–241.

Sansone, C., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (1996). I don’t feel like it: The function of interest in self-regulation. In L. Martin & A. Tesser (Eds.), Striving and feeling: Interactions between goalsand affect. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Sansone, C., & Morgan, C. (1992). Intrinsic motivation and education: Competence in context.Motivation and Emotion, 16, 249–270.

Sansone, C., Sachau, D., & Weir, C. (1989). Effects of instruction on intrinsic interest: Theimportance of context. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 819–829.

Sansone, C., Weir, C., Harpster, L., & Morgan, C. (1992). Once a boring task always a boringtask? Interest as a self-regulatory mechanism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,63, 379–390.

Simmons, R. G., & Rosenberg, F. (1975). Sex, sex roles, and self-image. Journal of Youth andAdolescence, 4, 229–258.




Thorkildsen, T. A., & Nicholls, J. G. (1998). Fifth graders’ achievement orientations and beliefs:Individual and classroom differences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 179–201.

Trusty, J., & Dooley-Dickey, K. (1993). Alienation from school: An exploratory analysis ofelementary and middle school students’ perceptions. Journal of Research and Developmentin Education, 26, 232–242.

Vancouver, J. B., & Ilgen, D. R. (1989). Effects of interpersonal orientation and the sex-typeof the task on choosing to work alone or in groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74,927–934.

Wentzel, K. R. (1989). Adolescent classroom goals, standards for performance, and academicachievement: An interactionist perspective. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 131–142.

Wentzel, K. R. (1996). Introduction: New perspectives on motivation at school. In J. Juvonen& K. R. Wentzel, (Eds.), Social motivation: Understanding children’s school adjustment.London: Cambridge University Press.

Wentzel, K. R. (1998). Social relationships and motivation in middle school: The role of parents,teachers, and peers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 202–209.

White, M. A. (1975). Natural rates of teacher approval and disapproval in the classroom. Journalof Applied Behaviour Analysis, 8, 367–372.

Documents

The Effects of Negative Managerial Feedback on Student Motivation: Implications for Gender Differences in Teacher–Student Relations