The psychology behind feedback: giving and receiving feedback (incl. checklist)

Feedback is important – but it's often perceived as an attack rather than an opportunity for further development. Why is this, and what can we do about it? This article explores the psychological factors that play a role and what helps make feedback effective.

Feedback helps us develop – both professionally and personally. Yet it often leads to frustration rather than progress. Companies and managers invest in feedback processes, but the results fall short of expectations. Why do many people take feedback personally, even when it's meant to be constructive? Why is it often difficult to give honest feedback? The answers lie in psychology. 

Why is getting feedback so difficult?

Our brain is programmed to avoid danger – a survival instinct that has accompanied us since the Stone Age (Damasio, 1998). Back then, it was important to react quickly: At the sight of a saber-toothed tiger, hesitation was not an option – those who instinctively fled had a better chance of survival. This automatic protective program is still active today. Our brain often interprets negative feedback as an attack, which triggers stress reactions. Instead of using feedback as a constructive stimulus, we go into fight-or-flight mode – we defend ourselves or withdraw. Many people fend off feedback or look for reasons not to take it seriously. In doing so, they miss the opportunity to learn from it. 

Our brain plays tricks on us – cognitive distortions 

We rarely receive feedback objectively – our brain plays tricks on us. Daniel Kahneman, Nobel laureate and co-founder of behavioral economics, shows that our thinking is characterized by numerous cognitive biases. These unconscious thought patterns often arise from so-called System 1 thinking – a fast and relatively effortless way of processing information, but one that is prone to error (Kahneman, 2012). Cognitive biases arise because our brain often processes information in a simplified manner. Instead of analytically thinking through every decision, our brain resorts to mental "shortcuts" (so-called heuristics) to react quickly. While this makes our everyday lives easier, it can get in the way, especially when it comes to feedback. Below, we look at three typical thinking errors that influence our perception of feedback.

Misconception 1: Defending our positive self-image

Imagine you're presenting a new strategy to a management team. The reactions are overwhelmingly positive: Your arguments are praised, your presentation is considered convincing. You're proud—and rightly so, because it shows that you've done a good job.

Now, a different situation: During a later presentation, you receive critical feedback. Some participants question your ideas, and the discussion becomes heated. Your first thought? "They must have not prepared properly" or "The framework was unclear."

Why do we react this way? One of the reasons is the self-serving bias. We tend to attribute successes to our own abilities, while blaming failures on external circumstances. This bias was studied by Fritz Heider (1958) and later by Miller and Ross (1975). In everyday work, it leads employees to perceive positive feedback as confirmation of their own competence, while critical feedback is often rejected or rationalized. 

Misconception 2: Blaming our failures on external circumstances

A team leader notices that a member of staff is frequently late to meetings. Their first thought: "They're just unreliable." They may even wonder if this member of staff is truly suited to larger projects. Now let's reverse the situation: The team leader himself arrives late once. Their first thought? "The meeting just ran longer than expected" or "I was suddenly held up."

Why this difference in scale? This is where the fundamental attribution error (Ross, 1977) comes into play. We often attribute the behavior of others to their personality, while we explain our own behavior with external circumstances. In practice, this means that a manager interprets a person's poor performance as a sign of a lack of commitment, while the person concerned blames external factors such as unclear targets or a lack of resources. This distortion means that the feedback is often harsher than we would like to hear ourselves.

Misconception 3: Overestimating negative information.

You receive an email from your supervisor with the subject line: "Feedback on your last presentation." Even before you open the message, you feel a lump in your throat. You immediately remember the time a number wasn't right and your supervisor pointed it out to you. Reading the email, you notice that the feedback is mostly positive. Only one small suggestion for improvement is made. But what sticks in your mind? That's right: that one critical comment.

This is due to the negativity bias (Rozin and Royzman, 2001). Our brain gives negative information more weight than positive. If feedback is perceived as criticism, we often react defensively: either with fight (justification, counterattack) or flight (internal resignation, withdrawal from the discussion). This mindset, which originally ensured our survival by giving greater weight to negative emotions like fear, now makes it difficult to see criticism as a valuable stimulus for further development.

The art of good feedback - What managers should consider

Cognitive biases often influence the way we give and receive feedback without our being aware of it. The biggest mistake is believing we are free from them. This so-called bias blind spot (Pronin et al., 2002) describes our tendency to easily recognize biases in others while considering our own thinking to be largely objective.

Managers, in particular, should be aware of this: Those who believe they are making completely unbiased judgments are particularly susceptible to blind spots. However, it's not enough to simply question their own biases – those of their employees also play a role. Only those who consider their own thinking and that of their employees can provide constructive feedback and encourage employees to actively provide feedback themselves. The following five tips show how managers can create an open feedback culture within their team and structure feedback in such a way that everyone uses it as an opportunity for further development.

Tip #1: Create Psychological Safety

Have you ever sat in a meeting and wondered what a certain term means? You look around, but no one asks the question. So you remain silent – for fear of appearing unprofessional. This is psychological (in)security. No one wants to be perceived as incompetent, pushy, or negative in the workplace. Therefore, many – usually unconsciously – rely on strategies to make the impression they make on others as positive as possible (impression management). The problem: learning opportunities are lost. Mistakes go undetected, potential for innovation goes unspoken, and employees contribute less actively to the company's further development.

According to Amy Edmondson (1999), psychological safety is crucial for employees to feel confident in giving and receiving honest feedback. Psychological safety means that team members are not afraid of negative consequences for admitting mistakes or raising concerns. In an environment where mistakes are viewed as part of the learning process, feedback is not a threat but a valuable tool for further development. Leaders play a key role in creating a climate in which employees feel confident in speaking openly.

The above measures not only help build trust within the team, but also counteract a common thinking bias: the self-serving bias. Those who feel confident can acknowledge mistakes as part of the learning process instead of blaming them on external circumstances. 

Tip #2: Give appreciative feedback, not just praise

"Companies don't give enough praise." This statement is often heard. But it's not just about giving praise more often; it's also about providing the right kind of recognition. Employees don't just want to hear the occasional nice remark; they want their performance to be truly recognized. They expect appreciative, substantive feedback that promotes their professional development. Studies show that 32% of employees complain about a lack of appreciation (DGB Good Work Index, 2019). Furthermore, lack of recognition is the second most common reason for leaving a job (Manpower Group, 2017).

Positive feedback and praise are not the same. Praise is usually vague and without a clear explanation ("You did a great job!" or "Good work"). Appreciative feedback, on the other hand, is concrete: It describes an observed behavior, the resulting positive effects, and expresses targeted recognition. While genuine feedback shows that the feedback provider has engaged with the person and their work, praise often remains general and superficial—in some cases, it can even seem condescending. Moreover, praise quickly wears thin if used excessively. 

Tip #3: Use storytelling to properly build constructive feedback

Criticism should always be expressed as part of constructive feedback. It's not enough to simply point out deficiencies – it's crucial that feedback also highlights concrete development opportunities. Good constructive feedback typically includes the following four points:

To provide constructive feedback as gently as possible and to reduce resistance, managers can use the sandwich method (Ash, 1984). This method involves embedding the constructive feedback within two positive feedback statements. It begins with a positive introduction ("I liked the fact that your presentation..."), followed by the observation and the suggestion for improvement, and ends with a motivating statement ("Your project reports are always structured. I am convinced that you can also incorporate this structure into your presentations"). However, the sandwich method should only be used in specific situations and requires a certain degree of communicative skill, as otherwise it can quickly seem unnatural and lose its positive effect.

Despite all due care, critical feedback can initially trigger resistance. This is where the SARA model (Shock, Anger, Resistance, Acceptance) comes in. It describes the typical phases people go through when receiving critical feedback – from initial shock, through anger and resistance, to acceptance (e.g., Kern, 2024). The model helps leaders better understand and manage the emotional reactions of the feedback recipient. By formulating feedback in an appreciative manner, giving the other person space for their reaction, and asking targeted, open questions, they encourage reflection and facilitate the transition to acceptance. This way, constructive feedback can not only be better processed but also used as a genuine stimulus for development.

Tip #4: Encourage self-reflection among your employees

An effective method for making feedback more constructive is to first ask the feedback recipient to assess their own performance ("How did you perceive your performance?"). This promotes self-reflection, increases openness to constructive feedback, and strengthens identification with the feedback. Furthermore, a realistic self-assessment helps reduce the self-serving bias described above – the natural tendency to attribute successes to one's own abilities while blaming failures on external circumstances.

A particularly effective concept for promoting self-reflection is the Seven Pillars of Resilience (Nuber, 2005; Reivich and Shatté, 2003), which provides strategies for strengthening psychological resilience. Three central pillars are particularly well-suited to dealing with feedback:

Tip #5: Consider timing and context

Feedback isn't just a matter of words, but also of timing. It shouldn't come too late, which would otherwise lose its relevance, nor should it be given too late, which would cause more harm than good.

A calm, appreciative environment is crucial, especially when dealing with critical issues – ideally without anyone listening in the background. Giving feedback in passing or inserting it between meetings risks it not being properly received. Shortly before the weekend or directly after a stressful meeting are also unfavorable times for constructive feedback. It is therefore a good idea to actively announce a feedback meeting so that the person you are giving can mentally prepare for it. Announcements such as, "Let's sit down together later; I have a few thoughts on your presentation" help to reduce resistance. Restraint can also be wiser for the person giving feedback in emotionally charged situations. For example, if you are annoyed with a team member directly after a difficult meeting, you should not react immediately. A moment of reflection helps to sort out emotions and formulate criticism more constructively.

However, collecting and postponing feedback for too long can also be problematic. Holding back criticism for too long risks building frustration and overwhelming the recipient with suggestions for improvement in a single conversation. Small, continuous prompts, delivered in a timely and targeted manner, are better than a long list of potential improvements that must be addressed all at once.

Sources

• Ash, M.K. (1984). Mary Kay on People Management. New York: Grand Central Pub.
• Damasio, AR (1998). Emotion in the perspective of an integrated nervous system. Brain Research Reviews , 26 (2-3), 83-86.
• Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly , 44, 350–383.

• Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relationships. New York: Wiley.
• Kahneman, D. (2012). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Penguin Books Ltd.
• Kern, S. (2024). Empathy–Feedback & Communication–Resilience–Reflection. In The Transformation Management Office–Deep Dive: Implementing Agile and Digital Transformations with a Hands-On Mentality (pp. 81–92). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
• Miller, D.T., & Ross, M. (1975). Self-serving biases in the attribution of causality: Fact or fiction? Psychological Bulletin, 82(2), 213-225.
• Nuber, U. (2005). Resilience: Immune to Fate? Psychology Today, 9 (2005).
• Pronin, E., Lin, DY, & Ross, L. (2002). The bias blind spot: Perceptions of bias in self versus others. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 28 (3), 369-381.
• Reivich, K., & Shatté, A. (2003). The Resilience Factor: 7 Keys to Finding Your Inner Strength and Overcoming Life's Hurdles. New York: Broadway Books.
• Ross, L. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 10, pp. 173–220). New York: Academic Press.
• Rozin, P., & Royzman, E. B. (2001). Negativity bias, negativity dominance, and contagion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5(4), 296–320