The Effects of Positive and Negative Feedback on Task Performance and Stress

Response in Males versus Females

Kaelyn Thurmond

A Thesis Presented to the Central Magnet Faculty

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements of Graduation May 2022

 Abstract

This thesis examined to what extent there was a difference in the effects of positive and
negative feedback on males versus females in terms of task performance and stress
response. Stress response was gauged by heart rate and cortisol levels and task
performance was gauged based on the accuracy on two different spot the difference
puzzles. The researchers conducted an experiment including 32 participants, half of each
gender. Out of the males alone and then for the females alone, 8 were randomly assigned
to receive negative feedback and the other 8 assigned to positive feedback. The
experiment consisted of a saliva test, initial heart rate recording, a first puzzle, assigned
feedback, a second puzzle, a post saliva sample, and then finally a debrief. Once all
participants went through the experimentation process, an ELISA test was ran on the
saliva samples to determine difference in cortisol levels. Results were analyzed in terms
of proportions. Differences in heart rate and accuracy were averaged to determine trends.
What was found was there was no clear stress response associated with positive feedback,
however negative feedback showed an increased stress response in males and females.
Men expressed their stress primarily through cortisol and females primarily exhibited
their response through heart rate. In addition, the researchers found that males increased
their task performance more when given negative feedback, whereas females increased
their performance more when given positive feedback.

ii
 Acknowledgements

I would like to acknowledge those who were a great help in this thesis process. I

would first like to acknowledge my partner Alli Meikle and thank her for all that she has

put into our experiment and thesis as a whole. She was a wonderful partner to work with

and I’m glad we could navigate this whole process together.

I would also like to acknowledge my parents and thank them for their support

during this process and their help in funding our lab recourses that we needed for our

experiment. I am beyond grateful for all of their kindness.

I would like to acknowledge our mentor, Cynthia Jones. She was a great help in

this process, and I would like to thank her for her contributions.

I would like to acknowledge our field of study advisor Mrs. Harrison and thank

her for all of her help and for allowing us to use resources of hers. Also Mrs. Givens for

her input on how to best analyze our data. And lastly, I would like to acknowledge Dr.

Roland and thank her for her support throughout this whole year.

iii
 Table of Contents

List of Tables .......................................................................................................... vi

List of Figures ......................................................................................................... vi

Chapter 1: Introduction ......................................................................................... 1

Research Question .................................................................................................................... 1

Background Information ......................................................................................................... 2

Research Purpose ...................................................................................................................... 4

Hypothesis.................................................................................................................................. 4

Chapter 2: Review of Literature ............................................................................ 5

Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 5

Stress Response and Sex ........................................................................................................... 5

Positive and Negative Feedback .............................................................................................. 7

Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 8

Chapter 3: Methodology ....................................................................................... 10

Overview .................................................................................................................................. 10

Materials .................................................................................................................................. 10

Participants.............................................................................................................................. 10

Procedure ................................................................................................................................. 11

Data Analysis ........................................................................................................................... 13

iv
Chapter 4: Findings and Discussion .................................................................... 14

Cortisol Response Findings .................................................................................................... 14

Cortisol Response Discussion ................................................................................................. 20

Heart Rate Findings................................................................................................................ 20

Heart Rate Discussion............................................................................................................. 22

Overall Stress Response Discussion ...................................................................................... 23

Task Performance Findings ................................................................................................... 24

Task Performance Discussion ................................................................................................ 25

Overall Discussion................................................................................................................... 25

Chapter 5: Conclusion .......................................................................................... 27

Study Summary....................................................................................................................... 27

Limitations ............................................................................................................................... 28

Implications ............................................................................................................................. 28

Suggestions for Future Study................................................................................................. 28

References .............................................................................................................. 29

v
 List of Tables

Table 1, Cortisol Levels for Negative Feedback Group Females ................................................14

Table 2, Cortisol Levels for Positive Feedback Group Females ..................................................16

Table 3, Cortisol Levels for Negative Feedback Group Males ....................................................17

Table 4, Cortisol Levels for Positive Feedback Group Males......................................................19

Table 5, 95% Confidence Intervals for Average Heart Rate ........................................................22

List of Figures

Figure 1, Initial vs. Post Cortisol Levels in Females given Negative Feedback ..........................15

Figure 2, Initial vs. Post Cortisol Levels in Females Given Positive Feedback ...........................17

Figure 3, Initial vs. Post Cortisol Levels in Males Given Negative Feedback .............................18

Figure 4, Initial vs. Post Cortisol Levels in Males Given Positive Feedback ..............................20

Figure 5, Average Difference Between Initial and Post Feedback Heart Rate ............................21

Figure 6, Average Difference in Percent Accuracy on Task One vs. Task Two .........................24

vi
 Chapter 1: Introduction

Research Question

To what extent is there a difference between how teenage males and females react to

positive and negative feedback when performing a task measuring critical thinking abilities and

how is task performance affected? How do both groups respond in terms of stress through

cortisol levels, and heart rate and how do their responses differ?

Definition of Terms

• Adrenaline- (also known as epinephrine) stress hormone produced in the medulla in the

adrenal glands as well as some of the central nervous systems neurons that plays huge

role in fight or flight responses (Hormone Health Network, 2018)

• Cortisol- a steroid hormone in the body that is made in the adrenal glands (Hormone

Health Network, 2018)

• ELISA- Enzyme immunoassay/enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, Immunoassays are

antibody-based analytical methods for analysis. They target a certain antibody-antigen

reaction to determine the concentration of the antigen being targeted. (Sakamoto, et al.,

2018)

• Positive feedback- signal that a task has been done correctly (Freedberg, et al., 2017)

• Negative feedback- signal that a task has been done incorrectly (Freedberg, et al., 2017)

• Stress- a real or interpreted threat to the physiological or psychological integrity of an

individual that results in physiological and behavioral responses (Verma, et al., 2011)
Background Information

There has been a long, ongoing discussion about the differences between males and

females and how they are wired. Topics ranging from how women act, how men act, their

biological processes, and even their responses to external stimuli. When looked at from a

biological standpoint, males and females have very different features. Women have different

builds from men when looking at the anatomical side. From a hormonal standpoint, women

produce more estrogen while men produce more testosterone, affecting instincts of perceived

manliness from testosterone and perceived motherliness from estrogen. These differences,

however, are the most basic level of sex differences. Researchers have prodded at the question of

whether males and females are truly that different, or if the sexes are more alike than previously

thought. It is no doubt that biologically and physically males and females differ, but on a deeper

level it is up for debate. A widely researched difference is males and females’ reactions to stress.

To understand stress response between genders, it is critical to understand how the body reacts to

stress. Whenever someone is put in a stressful situation, whether phycological stress or

physiological stress, the amygdala (the emotional response area of the brain) is activated and

sends a signal to the hypothalamus (part of the brain that communicates with the rest of the

body). The hypothalamus then prompts the pumping of adrenaline into the blood stream, which

causes blood pressure and heart rate to elevate. Once the initial wave of adrenaline in the body is

through, the hypothalamus activates the secondary part of the stress response system and one of

the primary stress hormones called cortisol is released which keeps the body on high alert

beyond the initial wave of adrenaline (Harvard Medical School, 2020). This response isn’t

gender specific; both males and females go through this bodily process. The question most

2
researchers ask is which group is more effected by this bodily response and if one has a more

robust reaction. Some research has proven to some extent males tend to have a heightened

cortisol response in comparison to women, but subjective stress levels between the genders are

typically similar (Reschke-Hernadez, etal., 2017), but the idea is still up for debate.

Another long going discussion is on the effects of positive and negative feedback. The

idea of someone responding better to “good job” rather than “that wasn’t your best work” is this

idea of positive and negative feedback. One thing to understand is that feedback is not effective

on its own, or in other words, “feedback has no affect in a vacuum” (Hattie and Timperley,

2007). The effects of feedback have to be paired with something to measure. Most research that

has been done has been paired with the effects on learning or self-efficacy. Positive feedback has

been proven to have benefits on learning, but negative feedback has as well. It has been proven

to have a greater effect on student’s likeliness to persist in an activity and have a higher interest,

whereas negative feedback has been proven to be most powerful on a self-level. The negative

feedback institutes dissatisfaction in an individual’s performance, which in result causes the

individual to set higher performance goals and perform at higher levels than those who received

positive feedback (Hattie and Timperley, 2007). The findings on the effects on learning could

potentially be applied to the effects on critical thinking and task performance but the question is

whether that would hold true after experimentation.

What the researchers explored within this thesis was the idea of merging the preexisting

discussions on these topics. They looked at a combination of the research between the effects of

positive and negative feedback and sex differences, all through measuring critical thinking

abilities and stress response in their experiment.

3
Research Purpose

Research involving the understanding the effects of feedback types and stress combined

has not been widely tested. The idea that different feedback types could invoke a certain stress

response within the body, which in turn could impact critical thinking and task performance has

not been experimented upon. Additionally, the idea that the impacts could differ between

genders. Merging all of these ideas into one coherent study was the purpose of this thesis. This

has a practical implication of disproving or proving of gender differences. If differences between

sexes can be understood, they can be better navigated through and gender biases can be

eliminated. This thesis’s purpose also included the ability to learn how to maximize critical

thinking and performance in young males and females because if the differences are understood

it will allow for them to be used to best help young males and females.

Hypothesis

The researchers predicted that both males and females will both have a heightened

response to positive feedback rather than negative in terms of critical thinking and task

performance, but males will have a more robust stress response.

4
 Chapter 2: Review of Literature

Introduction

Literature surrounding this thesis was primarily separated into two different categories.

Research has been done involving the relationship between gender and stress response, and

research has been done on the effects of positive and negative feedback without the gender and

stress lens attached to it. Sex and Stress response research is the understanding of how different

sexes react to stress both psychologically and physiologically. Researching the effects of positive

and negative feedback is to better understand how to best help facilitate higher levels of growth

in things like learning, productivity, self-efficacy, and-in the case of this thesis- critical thinking

and task performance. It is important to understand the existing research in order to recognize the

gap in which this thesis was designed to fill.

Stress Response and Sex

Stress response in humans is mainly measured through cortisol levels. There is an

adrenaline response involved in stress but throughout most research stress response is indicted by

cortisol levels. It is also important to acknowledge the other aspects to stress response that go

beyond the biological mechanisms of the body. A topic of research is emotional response in men

and women which works adjacently to stress response since there is a wide variety of emotional

implications to stress. It has been shown, through studies involving invoking emotions in men

and women and measuring their heart rate and their expressivity of those emotions, that men

have a more intense emotional response, whereas women typically have more expressivity of

those emotions, which challenges the gender bias that women are more emotionally driven than

men (Deng, etal., 2016). Understanding the emotional responses in men and women is important

5
in comprehending sex differences and understanding the mechanisms in which men and women

operate under. This correlates with the stress response of men and women since similar results

were found when looked at through bodily stress response and stress expressivity between males

and females. In a study done, men and women were put through two common stress tests and

their cortisol levels were recorded. They were also asked to record their subjective stress, or their

personal perceived stress. After the conclusion of the study, it was shown that men and women

both had similarly high subjective stress, but men had a much more robust cortisol response.

(Reschke-Hernandez, etal., 2017) Separate statistics show that “Women are more likely than

men (28 percent vs. 20 percent) to report having a great deal of stress” (Stress in America, 2012),

regardless of whether their bodily stress response or stress levels were actually higher. This

illustrates the common theme presented throughout research that women typically express their

stress in greater frequency, but men experience the same if not higher bodily response. A

common argument throughout this research is the argument that men have a higher baseline

cortisol level so their response to stress by turn is automatically greater. A study challenged this

argument with results on males and females that were put under psychological stress where

baseline cortisol levels were taken, and males and females showed no statistically significant

difference, whereas the increase of cortisol levels between before and after being put under stress

in males was statistically significantly higher than the female increase (Kirschbaum, etal., 1992).

It is important to understand the differences in stress response in males and females to eliminate

gender bias. The idea that women act irrationally, men have less robust reactions to emotional

stimuli or stress inducing situations, men do not get as stressed as women, men are more stable

than women when faced with stressful situations are common misconceptions that can easily be

6
cured with sex difference research such as these studies. That is one purpose of this category of

research. Another is it also can allow for self-perceptions to change within these gender biases. If

one believes they are more irrational or emotional one can have a warped sense of self, which

this research could prevent. A slight gap of this preexisting research is the implications beyond

understanding oneself or just recognizing gender biases. In order to provide more beneficial

implications, this research category needed to be paired with another lens.

Positive and Negative Feedback

Research on positive and negative feedback requires the feedback to be paired with

something that can be measured. As said in a study, feedback has no power in a vacuum (Hattie

and Timperley, 2007). In order for feedback, positive or negative, to have any implications it

must have something it is supposed to be facilitating. Common topics of discussion revolve

around things such as self-efficacy or just learning. For example, a study involving self-efficacy

was done to gauge the effects of feedback. This involved groups of individuals completing 5

minutes of mental arithmetic tasks. One group was then given positive feedback, another

negative feedback, another was given no feedback. It was shown that positive feedback helped

enhance performance but mainly was found to be a tool in manipulating self-efficacy (which as

defined by the study as the judgment of one’s own abilities to successfully cope with future

demands) (Peifer, etal., 2020). These findings were somewhat frictional to another study on the

effects of feedback on learning. This study used 12 meta- analyses to complete a well-rounded

idea on whether positive or negative feedback was more affective, and to what extent each was.

Through its analysis, the study found that positive feedback played a bigger role in a student’s

willingness to persist in an activity and the student’s self-reported interest. This correlates with

7
other research, but negative feedback made “individuals become more dissatisfied with their

previous performance level, set higher performance goals for their future performance, and

perform at a higher level than those who receive positive feedback or no feedback at all.” (Hattie

and Timperley, 2007), which is frictional to studies in which positive feedback had a larger

effect on what was being analyzed. The discrepancies in research show that the effects of

feedback work adjacently with whatever is being measured or better what it is paired with. That

is critical to understand in order to recognize the gap within this research. The effects of positive

and negative feedback typically are not paired with critical thinking and task performance.

Effects on learning have been evaluated, specifics like self-efficacy as well, but critical thinking

measured by task performance is not a widely researched pairing. The implications of this

research however, whether it be the implications specific to this thesis or that of other research,

would mean the understanding of how-to help best facilitate maximum efficiency in learning and

performance to better help people in a multitude of scenarios such as in the workplace, school,

even home environments.

Conclusion

The research surrounding these topics was very separated. The effects of positive and

negative feedback lived in one corner of researched while the sex differences in stress response

lived in another. The goal of this thesis was to merge the two together to fill a gap this polarized

research had created. The merging of the research can help fill the goal of allowing for better

understanding of sex differences and allowing for the use of feedback to help facilitate

performance through maximizing critical thinking. Also understanding genders reactions to

8
feedback and the differences in how they react allow for one to understand how to handle

genders and if there are differences in terms of feedback that should be given in order to m

9
 Chapter 3: Methodology

Overview

In this experiment the researchers conducted a series of evaluations to gauge the effects

of positive and negative feedback on stress response and thinking abilities in males and females.

The experiment consisted of control findings and then findings after treatments were applied.

The control served to give a baseline for the individuals cortisol levels, heart rate, and task

performance. Then once the feedback type was given, they were reevaluated to analyze if there

was a change based on feedback and if those changes correlated to gender. Data was then

collected and analyzed based on feedback type and gender.

Materials

This experiment did not include a wide array of materials. The main apparatuses used to

collect data included a saliva cortisol ELISA kit, two saliva collection tubes per participant, a

heart rate monitor, and two stop the difference puzzles of similar difficulty. These were only the

main materials; this is not a complete list of everything used.

Participants

The participants used in the experiment were Central Magnet School High schoolers.

They were allowed to volunteer and be a part of the study once they signed a consent form and if

under 18 got a parent’s permission as well. Only volunteers were used in the experiment and all

participants had the option to opt out of continuing with the experiment at any time. Each

individual was given a number to be identified as in the data to allow for participant privacy.

Additionally, since the experiment dealt with negative feedback, each participant was debriefed

10
at the end of the study to ensure they were aware any feedback given was simply for

experimental purposes as a part of the study and not a true reflection of the participant.

Procedure

The procedure for this experiment began with randomly assigning experimental

participants to treatments. It is important to note that the experiment required an equal number of

males and females to eliminate potential bias toward one gender or the other. Each male

participant was assigned a number from 17-32 and each female participant was assigned a

number 1-16. Out of the numbers 17-32, half were randomly selected to be in the positive

feedback group and the other half were put into the negative feedback group. This process was

repeated with numbers 1-16. This method was used to ensure there was an equal number of

males and females in each treatment group to ensure the data was not skewed.

The two treatment groups included a positive feedback group and a negative feedback

group. The positive group received positive feedback in the experiment where the negative group

received negative feedback. Once randomly assigned, participants were brought into a room

away from any other participants (the room did not have any special features or special

conditions). Once the participant was brought in, they were hooked up to the heart rate

monitoring system and the participant was asked to give an initial saliva sample for later testing.

Initial heart rate was recorded. The participant was then told they were going to complete a spot

the difference puzzle. They were then given the puzzle and a total of 2 minutes and 30 seconds to

complete the first puzzle. Their accuracy on the puzzle was recorded.

After the completion of the first puzzle, the participant, depending on which treatment

group they were placed in, was given either positive or negative feedback. The positive group

11
received feedback such as “You completed that puzzle very well” or “You completed that much

easier than some of the other participants”. The negative group received feedback such as “You

seemed to get stuck on a couple things” or “Not terrible, but you were a bit slower in finishing it

than some of the other participants”. No negative feedback given was directed at anything other

than the performance on the puzzle and was in no way directed at the participant themself.

After receiving feedback, the participant’s heart rate was recorded, and they were given a

second spot the difference puzzle to solve. This puzzle was a similar degree of difficulty as the

first and involved the same logic skills. The participant was then given two minutes to solve the

new puzzle and their accuracy was recorded. After the completion of the puzzle, the participant

was asked to give another saliva sample. The participant was then debriefed and told the

feedback given was for experimental purposes only and didn’t have any true reflection on the

participant or their actual performance in the study. This procedure was repeated for each of the

remaining participants.

Once all saliva samples were collected, an ELISA test was run on each of the samples to

determine initial and post cortisol levels in micrograms per deciliter. A TECAN Cortisol Saliva

ELISA kit was used. The complete procedure for the ELISA test can be found in the references,

with the exception that due to resources, an orbital shaker and a microtiter plate reader were not

used. Accurate results did not depend on the shaker (as stated in the kits instructions) and the

final results were based upon the standard concentrations provided in the kit instead of being

read by the reader.

12
Data Analysis

The data analysis for this experiment was mainly quantitative. Heart rate, cortisol levels,

and percent accuracy on both puzzles were all quantitative data that was put into separate tables

and adjacent graphs based on feedback group and gender. This way of organizing the data

allowed for the researchers to see the differences between the effects of gender and feedback

separately to fully encompass the scope of the experiment. In terms of statistical precautions, the

researchers removed any apparent outliers after running a statistical analysis on each of the data

points for each subgroup.

13
 Chapter 4: Findings and Discussion

Cortisol Response Findings

Once we gained the results from the ELISA test run on the participants first and second

saliva test, we organized all the results by treatment group and by gender, looking at the data in

terms of negative group females, positive group females, negative group males, and positive

group males. Results were measured in micrograms per deciliter. The results of the ELISA were

gauged based on the standard concentrations. The colors of the final ELISA results were

matched to the color of the standard to determine results. All results were categorized under

standards A, B, or C so concentrations 0.00 μg/dl, 0.015 μg/dL, or 0.04 μg/dL. Based on this we

organized and analyzed our findings.

Table 1, Cortisol Levels for Negative

Feedback Group Females
Participant Initial Post Cortisol Difference
Number Cortisol Levels in Cortisol Table 1 includes the cortisol levels of the
(μg/dL) (μg/dL) (μg/dL)
females given negative feedback. It

0.04 0.04 0 includes their initial levels at the beginning

1
0.015 0.015 0 of the test, their post cortisol levels after
2
0.015 0.04 0.025 getting feedback and performing their
3
0.04 0.04 0 second task, and in the final column the
8
0.015 0.04 0.025 difference between the participants two
12
0.015 0.04 0.025 levels. All participants cortisol levels either
14
0.015 0.04 0.025 rose or stayed the same. 50% of females
16
0.015 0.015 0 given negative feedback showed an
17

14
increase in cortisol levels. Given that 0% of females given negative feedback showed a decrease

in cortisol levels, this proved that it was more likely for an increase than decrease, but also the

levels could stay the same. Based on these proportions, a 90 % confidence interval was

constructed, which showed that the true proportion of women that would show an increase in

cortisol levels lies between 0.2092 and 0.7908. All of this shows that women did tend to have an

elevated stress response to negative feedback, however it proved to be a somewhat small

response.

Figure 1, Initial vs. Post Cortisol Levels in Females given Negative Feedback

Initial vs. Post Cortisol Levels in Females: Negative Feedback Group Figure 1 is a
initial cortisol (μg/dL) post cortsol levels (μg/dL)
0.045
graphical
0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04
0.04

0.035 representation
0.03
of the results
Cortisol Level (μg/dL)

0.025

0.02 displayed in
0.0150.015 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.0150.015 0.015
0.015
Table 1.
0.01

0.005

0
1 2 3 8 12 14 17 16
Participant #

15
Table 2, Cortisol Levels for Positive Feedback Group Females

Participant Initial Post Difference Table 2 includes the cortisol levels of the females
Number Cortisol Cortisol in Cortisol
(μg/dL) Levels (μg/dL) given positive feedback. It includes their initial
(μg/dL)
0.04 0.015 -0.025 levels at the beginning of the test, their post
4
0.04 0.015 -0.025 cortisol levels after getting feedback and
5 performing their second task, and the difference
0.015 0.015 0
6 between the participants two levels. Participant’s
0 0.015 0.015
7 cortisol levels in this group seemed to exhibit less
0.015 0.04 0.025
of a clear pattern as opposed to the negative
9
0.015 0.015 0 feedback group. 37.5% of females given positive
10
0.015 0.015 0 feedback exhibited a decrease in cortisol levels,
11
0.04 0.015 -0.025 37.5% of participants levels stayed the same, and
13 25.0% increased. While the majority showed a

decrease in cortisol levels, it was not a very large majority. Based on these proportions, a 90%

confidence interval was constructed and found that the true proportion of women who would

show a decrease in cortisol levels lies between 0.0935 and 0.6565. This interval shows smaller

proportions than the negative feedback group did with an increase in cortisol levels. This and the

spread across increased, decreased, and unmoved shows that positive feedback did not show

quite as strong of a trend as negative feedback did in women and there was not as clear of a

stress response associated with positive feedback.

16
Figure 2, Initial vs. Post Cortisol Levels in Females Given Positive Feedback

Initial vs. Post Cortisol Levels in Females: Postive Feedback Group Figure 2 is a
initial cortisol (μg/dL) post cortsol levels (μg/dL)

0.045

0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04

graphical
0.04

0.035 representation of
0.03

the results
Cortisol Level (μg/dL)

0.025

0.02
displayed in table 2.
0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015
0.015

0.01

0.005

0
0
4 6 7 9 10 11 13 5
Participant #

Table 3, Cortisol Levels for Negative Feedback Group Males

Participant Initial Post Difference Table 3 includes the cortisol levels of the males
Number Cortisol Cortisol in Cortisol
(μg/dL) Levels (μg/dL) given negative feedback. It includes their initial
(μg/dL)
0.015 0.04 0.025 levels at the beginning of the test, their post
18
0.015 0.015 0 cortisol levels after getting feedback and
19
0.015 0.04 0.025 performing their second task, and the difference
22
0.015 0.015 0 between the participants two levels. In this
28
0.015 0.04 0.025
29 group, all participants cortisol levels either
0.04 0.04 0
30 stayed the same or went up, in the same way the
0.015 0.04 0.025
33 females who received negative feedback did.
0.015 0.04 0.025
21 The majority of their levels went up. 62.5% of

the males in this group showed an increase in cortisol levels. Based on this a 90% confidence

interval was created, and the true proportion of men who would show an increase in cortisol

17
levels after receiving negative feedback would lie between 0.3435 and 0.9065. This shows that

negative feedback evoked a stress response in males. This interval and our sample proportion

show that males exhibited a larger stress response than females did to negative feedback. It was

not by a large margin but there was still a larger response.

Figure 3, Initial vs. Post Cortisol Levels in Males Given Negative Feedback

Initial vs. Post Cortisol Levels in Males: Negative Feedback Group Figure 3 is a
initial cortisol (μg/dL) post cortsol levels (μg/dL)

0.045

0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04

graphical
0.04

0.035
representation of
0.03
Cortisol Level (μg/dL)

0.025
the results
0.02

0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015

displayed in table
0.015

0.01 3.
0.005

0
18 19 22 28 29 30 33 21
Participant #

18
Table 4, Cortisol Levels for Positive Feedback Group Males
Participant initial post difference Table 4 includes the cortisol levels of the males
Number cortisol cortisol in cortisol
(μg/dL) levels Levels given positive feedback. It includes their initial
(μg/dL) (μg/dL)
levels at the beginning of the test, their post
20 0.015 0.015 0
cortisol levels af. ?>”xßΩter getting feedback

23 0.015 0.015 0 and performing their second task, and the

25 0.04 0.04 0 difference between the participants two levels.

Similarly, to the females given positive

26 0.015 0.04 0.025
feedback, the responses for males given positive
27 0.015 0.04 0.025
feedback showed less of a clear trend. 25%
32 0.04 0.015 -0.025
showed an increase in cortisol levels, 37.5%

36 0.015 0 -0.015 showed a decrease and 37.5% showed no

31 0.04 0.015 -0.025 change. Based upon this, positive feedback did

not show a clear trend in terms of stress response in males. A 90% confidence interval was

created and found that the true proportion of males who would experience a decrease in cortisol

levels lies between 0.09346 and 0.6565. The majority went down or stayed the same, but the

interval shows that compared to negative feedback for males, and for females, there was not as

strong of a trend, which aligned with the findings in terms of positive feedback in females.

19
Figure 4, Initial vs. Post Cortisol Levels in Males Given Positive Feedback
Initial vs. Post Cortisol Levels in Males: Postive Feedback Group
initial cortisol (μg/dL) post cortsol levels (μg/dL)
Figure 4 is a
0.045

0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 graphical

0.04

0.035
representation
0.03

of the results
Cortisol Level (μg/dL)

0.025

0.02 displayed in
0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015
0.015

table 4.
0.01

0.005

0
0
31 20 23 25 26 27 32 24
Participant #

Cortisol Response Discussion

In terms of positive and negative feedback, we found that there was a higher stress response

associated with negative feedback. While some exhibited a decreased stress response to positive

feedback, it was not prevalent enough to establish a concrete correlation. The negative feedback

did prove to invoke more of a stress response across both genders.

In terms of males and females, as we hypothesized, males showed a more robust

cortisol response, especially when given negative feedback. While both males and females did

show an elevated stress response to negative feedback, males had a slightly larger response when

looking at the proportion of those who experienced an increase in cortisol levels. Both genders

exhibited no clear stress trend in terms of positive feedback.

Heart Rate Findings

Cortisol levels were not the sole factor used in gauging stress response. We paired cortisol with

heart rate to further determine what or if any stress response occurred. Heart rate was taken at the

20
beginning of the experiment to set a baseline and then taken again after the participant was given

feedback to gauge the difference. We then took the post feedback heart rate and subtracted the

initial from that to get how much of an increase or decrease there was for each of the participants

individually. We then averaged out the differences to determine any overall trends. A 95%

confidence interval was created for each of the heart rate groups to determine overlap and those

intervals can be found in table 5.

Figure 5, Average Difference Between Initial and Post Feedback Heart Rate

Average Difference between Initial and Post Feedback

Heart Rate
Negative Positive
8 7.5
7.125 7.3125
7

6
BPM (Beats per Minute)

3 2.375
2
1.1333
1
-0.2857
0
Males Females Males and Females
-1

Figure 5 depicts the average difference in heart rate for each of the groups. Starting with the left

most column, we have males. Males who were given negative feedback showed on average an

increase in heart rate of about 7.1 beats per minute. Whereas males who were given positive

feedback on average showed an increase of around 2.4 beats per minute. The confidence interval

for the male groups overlaps slightly, but still there is a difference between the two in terms of

the average difference in heart rate. Moving to the middle column, we have females. The females

21
given negative feedback on average showed an increase of 7.5 beats per minute in their heart

rate, and the females given positive feedback showed on average a decrease of -0.29 beats per

minute.

Table 5, 95% Confidence Intervals for Average Heart Rate

Table 5 includes the low and high ends of a
low end high end
95% confidence interval for each of the
(bpm-beats (bpm-beats
groups. As you can see the only group in
Group per minute) per minute)
which the positive and negative groups
male positive -4.6188 9.3688
exhibited any kind of overlap was males
male negative 6.0648 13.3638
alone. Their overlap was on the small side so
female positive -2.9934 2.4219
we can still determine that it is possible that
female negative 2.8992 12.1008
there was a difference between how much
combined positive -2.3932 4.6599
positive and negative feedback changed heart
combined negative 5.8704 11.1963
rate. All of the other groups showed no

overlap and given that we had a relatively small sample size, no overlap shows that in males and

females together and in females in particular, there was a difference between how much positive

and negative feedback altered heart rate.

Heart Rate Discussion

So overall, negative feedback proved to increase heart rate in males and females alike.

This response supports the idea that negative feedback invokes a stress response. In terms of

heart rate and negative feedback, there was virtually no difference in males versus females and

how much their heart rate fluctuated, which is different than the findings present in the cortisol

22
levels. It still stands that males had a higher cortisol response; this just means that females heart

rate showed more fluctuation when given negative feedback and means that negative feedback

elicited a stress response in males and females. This shows that males stress response was

exhibited more through cortisol whereas females exhibited it more through heart rate. It is

important to note that when given negative feedback females still did show a cortisol response it

was just slightly less than the response shown by males and that males still did show a heart rate

response like females it was just slightly less.

Positive feedback proved to increase heart rate less than negative feedback by a pretty

large margin. Positive feedback, on average, did not prove to decrease heart rate substantially.

Meaning that positive feedback showed to not invoke a decreased enough stress response to

decrease heart rate by a large margin. Females showed to have a less of an increase in heart rate

associated with positive feedback than males did, but both show similar trends. Similar to

negative feedback, females showed a larger response in terms of heart rate than males did. And

similar to cortisol levels, overall positive feedback did not prove to show a strong trend in

decreased stress response.

Overall Stress Response Discussion

Looking at cortisol levels and heart rate combined, we found that there was an increased

stress response associated with negative feedback that was able to be seen across both males and

females and in both heart rate and cortisol levels. Trends of decreased stress response with

positive feedback was not strongly evident in either cortisol levels or heart rate data.

Additionally, we found that females showed their stress response more in heart rate and males

showed their stress response more in cortisol.

23
Task Performance Findings

In order to observe and tie in all stress indicators mentioned, the participants needed to be

given a task that would adequately measure their critical thinking abilities and also be able to

induce stress when feedback was given. We decided to us a common “Spot-The-Difference”

puzzle that was meant to be slightly challenging for participants so we could see how positive or

negative feedback would either aid or harm their performance and affect the overall accuracy on

each puzzle. ). How this data was formed was we took the participants score on the puzzle after

feedback and subtracted their initial score from that. The stop the difference puzzles each had 10

differences to find which then how many the participant found out of 10 was then transformed

into a percentage out of 100. Below we’ve attached a graph representing the data and accuracy

on the

Figure 6, Average Difference in Percent Accuracy on Task One vs. Task Two
participants’ task performance.
Average Difference in % Accuracy on Task
1 vs. Task 2
Postive Group Negative Group
Figure 6 Shows the average
60
difference in accuracy between 48
50
40
Percent Accuracy

39
the two spot the difference 40
34

puzzles the participants were 30

20
given (one before feedback, one
10
after). What the data showed was
0
that males typically enhanced Females Males

their performance by a larger margin when given negative feedback rather than positive

24
feedback. Males scores on average increased by 48% when given negative feedback where it

only increased by 40% when given positive. The exact opposite was true for females, whose

performance was better enhanced by positive feedback. Females’ performance on average

increased by 34% when given negative feedback where it increased 39% on average when given

positive feedback. Males showed a greater increase when given negative feedback than females

did, but males and females change when given positive feedback was virtually the same. Males

typically increased by 48% when given negative whereas females increased by 39%. And there

was only a 1% difference between the average difference in males and females in positive

feedback.

Task Performance Discussion

What this shows is that in terms of task performance males reacted better to negative

feedback and females reacted better to positive feedback. Males were able to achieve a higher

change in accuracy with negative feedback where females achieved a higher change in accuracy

with positive feedback.

Overall Discussion

Overall, what we found is that different feedback types do react differently with different

genders. Negative feedback proves to react more with males in terms of stress response and task

performance, whereas positive feedback only really reacted with females in terms of task

performance. Negative feedback invokes a stress response in both males and females alike, just

they present the brunt of their stress in their body in slightly different ways.

25
 We can use this to help different genders in maximizing their task performance, but also

being careful with their stress response. This is applicable to schools, workplaces, and other

environments alike. This could look like giving a male constructive negative feedback that is

enough to increase his task performance while not evoking too strong of a stress response in him.

This could also look like using positive feedback when dealing with women, given that they

showed no real stress response to positive feedback, yet they showed an increase in task

performance, to better help them in their task performance.

26
 Chapter 5: Conclusion

Study Summary

So overall our study included prior research, experimenting, and analysis. We wanted to

answer the research question “To what extent is there a difference between how teenage males

and females react to positive and negative feedback when performing a task measuring critical

thinking abilities and how is task performance affected? How do both groups respond in terms of

stress through cortisol levels, and heart rate and how do their responses differ?” We set out to

understand this research question by conducting an experiment in which we measured

individuals heart rate and cortisol levels before and after receiving positive or negative feedback,

all the while performing two different spot the difference puzzles (one before and one after

feedback) to gauge task performance.

What we discovered is that positive feedback did not show a clear trend in terms of stress

response, where negative feedback showed trends of elevated stress response across both

genders. Males and females proved to primarily express their stress response to negative

feedback in different manners. Males had a more robust cortisol response and females had a

more robust heart rate response, but both showed trends regarding the other as well (i.e., males

still showed a heart rate response and females still showed a cortisol response it just wasn’t as

big as their primary stress response listed). In terms of task performance, we found that males

showed a larger increase in performance when given negative feedback and females showed a

larger increase when given positive feedback.

27
Limitations

Our study did include some limitations. While we were still able to get accurate cortisol

results, due to lack of lab resources we were unable to use a reader for the ELISA test to

determine pinpoint cortisol concentration. This would have made the ELISA process less

troublesome and more accurate. We also could not ensure that all participants followed proper

precautionary procedure explained in an email sent to them for their saliva test before

experimentation. This was an external factor in which we had minimal control and it could have

impacted results, but we are confident the results we obtained still have merit.

Implications

This research can better help men and women across multiple fields. This can be used in

the workplace, schools, and other institutions. This can be used to help maximize performance

while managing stress, which can better facilitate productivity and success in males and females

alike.

Suggestions for Future Study

In future study I would propose using higher tech lab equipment because using a

microplate reader would mean more pinpoint results which would be useful in future

experimentation. I would even suggest using cortisol testing kits that are not ELISA. I would

also propose testing different age groups in future studies to determine if the trends that are

present in high schoolers are present across a multitude of age groups.

28
 References

Deng Y, Chang L, Yang M, Huo M, Zhou R (2016) Gender Differences in Emotional Response:

Inconsistency between Experience and Expressivity. Plos One 11(6)

Freedberg, M., Glass, B., Filoteo, J. V., Hazeltine, E., & Maddox, W. T. (2017). Comparing the

effects of positive and negative feedback in information-integration category learning.

Memory & cognition, 45(1), 12–25.

Harvard Medical School. (2020, July 6). Understanding the stress response. Harvard Health.

Retrieved November 11, 2021, from https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-

healthy/understanding-the-stress-response.

Hattie, J., Timperly, H (2007). The Power of Feedback. Review of educational research, 77(1),

81-112.

Hormone Health Network. (2018) Cortisol. Hormone.org, Endocrine Society, retrieved 11

November 2021, https://www.hormone.org/your-health-and-hormones/glands-and-

hormones-a-to-z/hormones/cortisol

Hormone Health Network, (2018) Adrenaline, Hormone.org, Endocrine Society, retrieved 11

November 2021, https://www.hormone.org/your-health-and-hormones/glands-and-

hormones-a-to-z/hormones/adrenaline

Kirschbaum, C., wust, S., Hellhammer, D., (1992) Consistent Sex Differences in Cortisol

Responses to Psychological Stress. Psychosomatic Medicine, 54, 648-657.

Peifer, C., Schönfeld, P., Wolters, G., Aust, F., & Margraf, J. (2020). Well Done! Effects of

Positive Feedback on Perceived Self-Efficacy, Flow and Performance in a Mental

Arithmetic Task. Frontiers in psychology, 11, 1008

29
Reschke-Hernández, A. E., Okerstrom, K. L., Bowles Edwards, A., & Tranel, D. (2017). Sex and

stress: Men and women show different cortisol responses to psychological stress induced

by the Trier social stress test and the Iowa singing social stress test. Journal of

Neuroscience Research, 95(1-2), 106–114.

Sakamoto, S., Putalun, W., Vimolmangkang, S., Phoolcharoen, W., Shoyama, Y., Tanaka, H., &

Morimoto, S. (2018). Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for the

quantitative/qualitative analysis of plant secondary metabolites. Journal of natural

medicines, 72(1), 32–42.

Stress in America. (2012). Gender and stress. American Psychological Association. Retrieved

November 11, 2021, from https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/stress/2010/gender-

stress.

Verma, R., Balhara, Y. P., & Gupta, C. S. (2011). Gender differences in stress response: Role of

developmental and biological determinants. Industrial psychiatry journal, 20(1), 4–10.

30