Qin Zhao Post, PhD, is a professor of psychology at Western Kentucky University
You will receive the test back and see two numbers: your score and your percentage. Or a performance review shows your ranking and how you stack up against your peers. Which one is more important to how you feel and evaluate yourself and what you expect to do next?
Intuitively, many people believe that ratings are more important. After all, comparisons are everywhere: leaderboards, curves, and “above average” labels. But research tells a different story: your actual, absolute performance has a stronger and more reliable impact on satisfaction with performance, emotions, and future expectations than how you rate others.
Absolute and relative constant feedback
Absolute constant feedback indicates performance relative to a standard (eg, 8 out of 12; 4 out of 5). Relative standing feedback refers to information about standing in comparison to others (eg, “70th percentile”; “above average”). In real life, we often accept both. The question is which one carries more weight in self-evaluation.
What the evidence shows
In several experiments (Zhao, 2022), college students completed math problems and were then randomly assigned to receive high or low absolute scores (e.g., 8 vs. 4 vs. 12) and high or low relative ratings (e.g., 70% vs. 30% of others). This design (see Figure 1) allowed us to test how the absolute score and the relative rating affected the results, as well as how each feedback on its own affected the results. To ensure that the results reflected the effects of assigned feedback, I accounted for participants’ actual performance in the analyses.
The pattern of results was clear:
- Absolute scores (high and low) consistently shaped people’s sense of satisfaction with their performance and influenced their overall positive and negative affect.
- Relative ratings (high and low) had a weaker or sometimes negligible effect on these results.
- In predicting future performance, people used the type of information they were given (scores to predict future scores, percentiles to predict future ratings). But when people got higher absolute scores, the impact of ratings on predicting future ratings decreased.
In other words, knowing that you got an “8” or a “4” is more important to performance and emotional satisfaction than knowing that you are above 70% or 30% of the group. When both were present, the absolute score carried more psychological weight.
Does the reward context change the story?
What if rewards depend on ranking? In classrooms, workplaces, and competitions, people often learn that success is measured by meeting a standard or beating others. If rewards are based on rank, we might expect a relative dominance of feedback.
Nevertheless, a later experiment (Zhao, 2023) showed that regardless of the reward context (points-based or rating-based), absolute scores on a math test (e.g., 6 vs. 8 vs. 2) still had a strong influence on performance satisfaction, positive and negative affect, and sense of belonging to math. Ratings (eg, 70% over 30% others) influenced some results, but their effects were smaller and context-dependent. For example, ratings affected job satisfaction only when students were told that rewards depended on outperforming others.
To create different reward contexts, I instructed students in the score-based group to focus on getting as many questions correct as possible and told them that achieving a certain score (≥ 6/8) would allow them to skip the next set of problems. Students in the ranking-based group were told to focus on outperforming the other participants and that a ranking higher than a certain percentage (≥70%) of the others would allow them to skip the next set.
As in a previous study (Zhao, 2022), participants who received performance feedback (Zhao, 2023) were randomly assigned rather than based on their actual performance. To ensure that the results reflected the effects of the assigned feedback, I took participants’ actual performance into account in the analyses. The study also looked at participants’ tendency to compare themselves to other people.
Why might absolute constant feedback be more important?
In 1954, psychologist Leo Festinger noted that self-esteem is social and comparative in nature, but we tend to look at absolute/objective standards. When absolute criteria are unavailable or unclear, we rely on comparisons with other people, especially those similar to us in ability or circumstances.
The absolute score is usually more accurate and stable because it is based on fixed criteria and does not depend on other people’s performance (for example, a test score of 85 out of 100; a GPA of 3.8 out of 4). The score tells us what we have achieved and what we can strive for next time.
Relative rankings, on the other hand, depend on context: our percentage language can change because the comparison group has changed, not because we did better or worse. This makes relative feedback less stable as a basis for self-evaluation. For example, a score of 75 out of 100 may be the highest score in a low-achieving group, but below average in a high-achieving group. This is not to say that comparisons are unimportant. But absolute performance appears to be the anchor when it comes to how we evaluate ourselves and regulate our emotions in task situations.
Practical recommendations for teaching, coaching and management
- The leader with the score. When giving feedback, clearly state absolutes before rating to support accurate self-assessment. An absolute score provides a clear performance goal and allows people to track progress against the goal over time. Especially in high- or low-achieving groups, absolute feedback can help people avoid underestimating or overestimating their abilities.
- Teach people how to interpret ratings correctly. Relative rankings can be informative in a competitive environment. Always provide a reference group when commenting on ratings. For example, getting 5th out of 10 students is very different from getting 5th out of 100 students.
- Encourage self-improvement, not just social comparison. Highlight what has been accomplished and what will happen next. Continually encourage growth rather than telling people where they stand.
We live in a world where you will be where you are. However, in task performance contexts with clear objective measures, absolute performance measures provide more direct and informative cues to self-evaluation. If the goal is to develop realistic self-evaluations, absolute performance-based feedback is the most powerful tool we have.
