Varying reactions to feedback and their effects on observer accuracy and feedback omission

Matey et al. (2021) ran a lab test with neurotypical adults.

Each adult watched videos and scored child behavior.

A helper then gave feedback. Sometimes the helper smiled and said thanks. Other times the helper stayed quiet or sounded annoyed.

The team asked: does the helper’s reaction change how well the adult keeps scoring?

Positive reactions kept observer accuracy high. Staff also kept giving feedback later.

Neutral or negative reactions hurt accuracy. Staff later skipped giving feedback more often.

In short, a warm “thank you” protects both good data and future feedback.

Choi et al. (2018) saw the same pattern. They gave staff steady praise and work rose. Mixed praise and blame buffered feelings but hurt output. Both studies show: keep praise clear and frequent.

Fuesy et al. (2025) adds a twist. They paired feedback with self-monitoring in group homes. Staff only stayed accurate while someone was watching. Matey’s lab result now looks like the best-case: praise still helps, but real homes may need visible observers or extra cues.

Minard et al. (2026) solved the watcher problem. Preschool teachers used self-monitoring sheets plus later feedback. Positive interactions stayed high even when the boss was gone. Combine Matey’s warm reactions with Minard’s sheets and you get both accuracy and freedom from constant eyes.

You give feedback every day. A quick smile and “I like how you caught that behavior” costs nothing. It keeps data sharp and keeps staff willing to speak up next time. Pair that warmth with simple self-monitoring tools and you can step away without losing quality. Start tomorrow: end every feedback chat with genuine thanks and a one-line check sheet for the staff to track their own next steps.