Leo Xiong
Have you ever been in a situation where you try your hardest to avoid something, say spilling the glass of water you are holding as you walk, but end up doing it anyway? It’s frustrating, isn’t it? We’ve all experienced this in some form: the overwhelming concentration on a single specific task ultimately leads to failure. It’s counterintuitive, yet it feels almost natural. The Ironic Process Theory best illustrates this. It states that “people sometimes find themselves making movement errors that represent the ironic opposite of what they intended to do.”
The theory is best documented by Daniel Wegner in 1994. He proposed that the brain operates through two mental systems: the intentional process and the monitoring process. According to Wegner, the intentional process “searches for mental contents that will yield the desired state,” while the monitoring process “searches for mental contents that signal the failure to achieve the desired state.” Essentially, the intentional process aims to execute what is instructed, whereas the monitoring process checks for signs of failure. When mental capacity is compromised, such as under stress or high cognitive load, monitoring control can dominate, often leading to the very failure we wish to avoid.
For instance, a footballer instructed “don’t miss the goal” may focus on “missing” rather than on hitting the target, resulting in a missed opportunity. Similarly, a student told “don’t make silly mistakes” may concentrate on those mistakes instead of ensuring their answers are correct.
So then, how is feedback framing important? Feedback framing significantly influences performance, emotions and attention. eedback can be presented in two ways: positively (aim to do X) and negatively (aim to not do Y). As demonstrated by Ironic Process Theory, F negative framing often leads to unintended results by emphasising what not to do. In contrast, positive framing directs attention towards desired outcomes, making success more likely.
Several theories support the effectiveness of positive framing over negative framing. For example, Self-Determination Theory posits that “humans are innately motivated to grow and are best supported by environments that fulfil their basic psychological needs for autonomy.” In simpler terms, people perform better when they feel autonomous (in control) and connected to others. Positive feedback, such as “you’ve done well; focus on improving X for next time,” reinforces a clear and autonomous direction for growth. Conversely, feedback framed negatively, like “don’t do Y, that’s bad,” makes the recipient feel less in control, focusing on failure and undermining their confidence and autonomy. By framing feedback in a way that fosters self-driven improvement rather than merely compliance, we encourage sustained intrinsic growth.
The term “growth mindset” is frequently plastered in discussions about achievement and all over social media, encouraging hard work and discipline in order to improve. However, this concept only scratches the surface of what the Growth Mindset Theory is about. This theory emphasises that individuals who believe their abilities are changeable are more likely to demonstrate resilience and overcome challenges.
When linked to feedback, positive framing, such as “you are improving; keep developing X” reinforces the belief in growth and development. In contrast, “you can’t do it” suggests a fixed mindset, discouraging the recipient and limiting their potential.
It is clear that great feedback framing has a significant impact – not only on physical and academic performance but also on how people perceive themselves and others. Feedback serves as a form of communication, which is fundamental to our daily interactions in school, at home and in our relationships. If the way we frame feedback can have such a profound effect, it’s worth giving more careful consideration to the words we choose and how we express them. Small changes in thought and phrasing may be the key differentiators between ‘success’ and ‘failure.’
