Effects of Correct Versus Incorrect Response Feedback on Work Performance

Feedback is one of the most common tools supervisors use to shape performance—but not all feedback works the same way. This study examines whether it’s more effective to tell someone when they’re right or when they’re wrong. For BCBAs and clinical supervisors who coach staff daily, the answer has real implications for how we structure observations, supervision notes, and performance systems.

What is the research question being asked and why does it matter?

This study asked a straightforward question: is it better to give feedback when someone does something right, or when they do something wrong?

In many workplaces, people hear about mistakes more often than successes. Clinicians and supervisors face this same choice when coaching staff, RBTs, or other team members.

This matters because “feedback” is not one thing. Two supervisors can both say they “give feedback,” but one mostly praises correct steps while the other mostly points out errors. If those two approaches lead to different results, we should pick the one that best matches our goal—whether that’s safety, accuracy, or speed.

The study also matters because some feedback systems are very thin. A simple “correct” or “incorrect” with no detail is common in real settings. People may only learn they were off after the fact, without learning what to change next time.

What did the researchers do to answer that question?

The researchers recruited 120 college students and randomly assigned them to three groups. One group got feedback only when they completed a task correctly. One group got feedback only when they made an error. The last group got no feedback at all.

Everyone completed the same computer-based welding simulation. To count as correct, the person had to follow seven safety rules while completing each work unit. Each person completed 100 units, and the main outcome was how many of those 100 were correct.

The feedback itself was minimal—no coaching, no explanation. A small pop-up would appear saying either “Correct” or “Incorrect,” depending on the group. It didn’t say which rule was missed or what to do next.

The researchers also measured how long it took to finish all 100 units. This helps supervisors think about trade-offs between accuracy and speed.

How you can use this in your day-to-day clinical practice

If your top goal is accuracy and safety, build your feedback system to notice and label correct performance. In this study, people who received “correct” feedback completed more tasks accurately than those who got “incorrect” feedback or none at all. A practical step: plan ahead for what “correct” looks like—a short checklist or clear definition—and make sure you comment on it when you see it. Don’t assume staff already know what they did right. Noticing the right steps helps those steps happen more often.

If you mostly tell people when they’re wrong, don’t expect accuracy to improve from that alone. In this study, “incorrect” feedback didn’t outperform no feedback. For a BCBA supervising staff, a simple “No,” “That’s wrong,” or “Fix it” may not change much by itself—especially when someone is still learning. If you must use error-focused feedback (for safety or compliance, say), pair it with clear information about what to do differently.

Keep your feedback connected to the outcome you want, and be honest about trade-offs. The “correct feedback” group took longer to finish the same amount of work. They slowed down and got more right. If your setting needs both speed and accuracy, you may need to coach fluency over time—not just accuracy today. Start with “do it right,” then practice toward “do it right faster,” rather than pushing speed first and hoping accuracy follows.

Don’t copy this study’s thin feedback as your full supervision plan. The feedback here was only the word “correct” or “incorrect.” The error message didn’t tell the learner what went wrong. In real supervision, that’s a recipe for frustration and guessing. When you correct errors, include one small, usable next step—like “Start with gloves and sleeves before touching materials” or “Check your PPE step before moving on.” This respects the learner’s time and keeps the plan focused on building skills, not assigning blame.

Use this study more for “what to emphasize” than for exact schedules. The pop-ups came on a variable ratio schedule—not every correct response got feedback. In practice, you can give more frequent feedback when someone is new, then thin it out later. What seems most important is that correct performance was noticed and labeled at all, not the exact timing.

Be careful about generalizing these results without checking fit. These were college students doing a short, one-time lab task for a small payment that didn’t depend on quality. Your staff have different motivation, history with feedback, and real consequences for errors. Also, the task required following seven rules, and “incorrect” could mean one missed step or many—that lack of detail may make error-only feedback look weaker than it might be with better coaching. Treat this finding as a reason to test more “catch them doing it right” feedback in your setting, not as proof that error feedback never works.

A reasonable next step: adjust your supervision notes and observation forms. Add a section that requires you to record at least one clearly described correct action during each observation. If you record an error, write a brief, specific “next time do X” note and plan a quick practice opportunity. This keeps feedback balanced, supports dignity, and increases the chance that feedback actually changes behavior—instead of just documenting problems.

Works Cited

Lee, J., Choi, E., & Li, A. (2025). Effects of correct versus incorrect response feedback on work performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management. https://doi.org/10.1080/01608061.2025.2578475