Grounded in Feedback Intervention Theory (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996), the present study explored the circumstances under which feedback shifts attention away from task execution toward self-referential processing, and the implications of such shifts for performance. The study focused on three key characteristics of feedback: its consistency with prior expectations (consistent vs. inconsistent), its type (comparative vs. absolute), and its valence, examining their influence on rumination and subsequent task performance. A sample of 239 students first completed an initial set of ten Raven's Progressive Matrices items. Participants then received experimentally manipulated feedback aligned with their assigned condition, followed by a second performance task. The results indicated that neither feedback valence nor feedback type significantly shaped ruminative responses. Instead, expectancy-discrepant feedback emerged as the primary predictor, leading to heightened rumination and a decline in subsequent performance. Further analysis revealed that rumination served as a key explanatory mechanism, mediating the relationship between discrepant feedback and reduced performance. These findings highlight the critical role of expectancy violation in shaping cognitive responses to feedback and demonstrate how such responses can undermine performance.
Keywords: Feedback; Rumination; Performance