Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Publisher: British Psychological Society
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: manop
Objectives: The Feedforward Interview (FFI) is a means of structuring conversations (Kluger \ud & Nir, 2006), such as performance appraisals, or indeed coaching in organisations. Conceptually situated in a positive psychological paradigm, FFI techniques build on appreciative inquiry (Cooperrider \ud & Srivastva, 1987), positive psychology (Seligman \ud & Csikszentmihalyi, 2002) and Feedback Intervention Theory ( Kluger \ud & DeNisi, 1996). The objective of this research was to investigate how FFI affects individual outcomes compared to traditional feedback as part of a coaching session. Design: we conducted a quasi-experimental longitudinal study allocating Fifty four participants randomly to either a FFI or Feedback based coaching intervention. Methods: We measured self-efficacy, mood and strengths-confidence as well goal attainment before and after each intervention. Results: Self-efficacy significantly increased following FFI compared to feedback; participants were more likely to obtain their goals in the FFI condition. There were no significant differences for mood; and no main effects for strengths-knowledge but a significant interaction. Conclusions: The results indicate that FFI appears a valid intervention to facilitate positive psychological change as part of a coaching session. We discuss the potential for further research including the evaluation of transfer of learning arising from FFI in experimental paradigms as well as behavioural observations.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Anseel, F., & Lievens, F. (2006). Certainty as a moderator of feedback reactions? A test of the strength of the self-verification motive. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 79, 533-551.
    • Aspinwall, L & Staudinger, U. M. (2003). A psychology of human strength: Fundamental questions and future directions for a positive psychology. Towards a psychology of human strengths. Washington DC: APA Books.
    • Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioural change. Psychology Review, 84, 191-215.
    • Bandura A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: a social cognitive theory. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
    • Barsade, S. G. (2002). The ripple effect: Emotional contagion and its influence on group behaviour. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 644-675.
    • Bolger, N., DeLongis, A., Kessler, R. C., & Schilling, E. A. (1989). Effects of daily stresson negative mood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(5), 808-818.
    • Bouskila-Yam, O. & Kluger, A.N. (2011). Strength-based performance appraisal and goal setting. Human Resource Management Review, 21(2), 137-147. DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2010.09.001
    • Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1981). Attention and self-regulation: A control theory to human behaviour. New York: Springer-Verlag.
    • Cooperrider, D. L., & Srivastva, S. (1987). Appreciative Inquiry in Organizational Life. In Passmore, W. & Woodman, R. (Eds.), Research in Organizational Chance and Development. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
    • Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational Processes Affecting Learning. American Psychologist, 41(10), 1040-1048.
    • Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology - The broaden and built theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56, 218-226.
    • Govindji, R. & Linley, P. A. (2007). Strengths use, self-concordance and well-bring: Implications for strengths coaching and coaching psychologists. International Coaching Psychology Review, 2(2), 143-153.
    • Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta- analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 268-279.
    • Hermans, H. J. M., Kempen, H. J. G., & Van Loon, R. J. P. (1992). The dialogue self: Beyond individualism and rationalism. American Psychologist, 47, 23-33.
    • Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of Interventions and Performance: A Historical review, a meta-analyses, and a preliminary Feedback Intervention Theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 2, 254-284.
    • Kluger, N. K., & Nir, D. (2006). Feedforward first - feedback later. Keynote lecture delivered at the 26th International Congress of Applied Psychology. Athens, Greece.
    • Kluger, N. K., & Nir, D. (2010). The Feedforward interview. Human Resource Management Review, 20, 235-246.
    • Linley, P. A., Garcea, N., Hill, J., Minhas, G., Trenier, E. & Willars, J. (2010). Strengthspotting in coaching: Conceptualisation and development of theStrengthspotting Scale. International Coaching Psychology Review, 5(2), 165-176.
    • Linley, P.A. & Harrington, S. (2006). Strengths Coaching: A potential-guided approach to coaching psychology. International Coaching Psychology Review, 1(1), 37-36
    • Linley, P.A., Wollston, L. & Biswas-Diener, R. (2009). Strengths Coaching with leaders. International Coaching Psychology Review, 4(1), 37-46
    • Locke, E.A. & Latham, G.P. (1990). Work Motivation and Satisfaction: Light at the End of the Tunnel. Psychological Science, 240-246, doi: 10.1111/j.1467- 9280.1990.tb00207.x
    • McDowall, A. ( 2012). Using Feedback in Coaching. In Passmore, J. (Eed, 2nd Ed.).
    • Palmer, S. & McDowall, A. (2010). The Coaching Relationship. Putting people first. An introduction. In Palmer, S. & McDowall, A. (2010). Putting People First. Understanding Interpersonal Relationships in Coaching. London: Routledge
    • McDowall, A. & Millward, L. (2010). Feeding back, feeding forward and setting goals. In Palmer, S. & McDowall, A. (2010). Putting People First. Understanding Interpersonal Relationships in Coaching. London: Routledge
    • McDowall, A. & Mabey, C (2008). Developing a framework for assessing effective development activities. Personnel Review, 37(6), 629-646
    • McDowall, A. & Kurz. R. (2008). How to get the best out of 360 degree feedback in coaching. The Coaching Psychologist, 4 (1), 7-19
    • Minhas, G. (2010). Developing realised and unrealised strengths: Implications for engagement, selfesteem, life satisfaction and well-being. Assessment and Development Matters, 2(1), 12- 16.
    • Nir, D. (2008). Thriving through inner conflict: The negotiational-self theory and its application for reaching integrative solutions to inner conflict. Paper presented at the 4th European Conference on Positive Psychology, Rijeka, Croatia.
    • Oades, L.G., Crowe, T.P & Nguyen, M. (2009). Leadership coaching transforming metnal health systems from the inside out: The Collaborate Recovery Model as personcentred strengths based coaching psychology. International Coaching Psychology Review, 4(1), 25-31
    • Proctor, C., Maltby, J. & Linley, P. A. (2009). Strengths use as a predictor of well-bring and healthrelated quality of life. Journal of Happiness Studies, 10, 583-630.
    • Roberts, L. M., Dutton, J. E., Spreitzer, C. M., Heaphy, E. D., & Quinn, R. E. (2005). Composing the reflected best-self-portrait: Building pathways for becoming extraordinary in work organizations. Academy of Management Review, 30, 712-736.
    • Russell, J. A., & Carroll, J. M. (1999). On the bipolarity of positive and negative affect. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 3-30.
    • Scholz, U., Dona, B, G., Sud, S., & Schwarzer R. (2002). Is general self-efficacy a universal construct? Psychometric findings from 25 different countries. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 18(3), 242-251.
    • Schwarzer, R. (1993). Measurement of perceived self-efficacy: Psychometric scales for crosscultural research. Berlin: Freie
    • Schwarzer, R., Babler, J., Kwiatek, P., & Schroder, K. (1996). The assessment of optimistic beliefs: Comparison of the German, Spanish and Chinese versions of the General Self-efficacy scale. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 46(1), 69-88.
    • Sherer, M., Maddux, J. E., Mercandante, B., Prentice-Dunn, A., Jacobs, B. (1982). The self efficacy scale: Construction and validation. Psychology Review, 51, 663-71.
    • Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist, 55, 5-14.
    • Sharpe, T. (2011). The primacy of positivity - applications in a coaching context. Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice. 4(1), 42-49. DOI: 10.1080/17521882.2010.550897
    • Smedley, T. (2007). The powers that BAE. People Management, 13(22), 40-43.
    • Snyder, C. R., & Cowles, C. (1979). Impact of positive and negative feedback based onpersonality and intellectual assessment. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 47(1), 207-209.
    • Taenzer, P., Melzack, R., & Jeans, M. E. (1985). Influence of psychological factors onpostoperative pain, mood and analgesic requirements. Pain, 3, 331-342.
    • Teychenne, P. (2008). Social factors affect mood-exercise link for women. InternationalJournal of Behavioural Nutrition and Physical Activity, 1-13.
    • Trope, Y., & Pomerantz, E. M. (1998). Resolving conflicts among self-evaluative motives: Positive experiences as a resource from overcoming defensiveness. Motivation and Emotion, 22, 53- 72.
    • Van-Dijk, D., & Kluger, A. N. (2004). Feedback sign effect on motivation: Is it moderated by regulatory focus? Applied Psychology: An international Review, 53, 113-135.
    • Watson, D. & Clark, L. A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063-1070.
  • No related research data.
  • Discovered through pilot similarity algorithms. Send us your feedback.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article