Nicoletta G. Dimitrova

Behind the wheel: What drives the effects of error handling?

ABSTRACT Existing research comparing error management (a strategy focusing on increasing the positive and decreasing the negative consequences of errors) to error prevention (a strategy focusing on working faultlessly), has identified error management as beneficial for multiple outcomes. Yet, due to various methodological limitations, it is unclear whether the effects previously found are due to error prevention, error management, or both. We examine this in an experimental study with a 2 (error prevention: yes vs. no) × 2 (error management: yes vs. no) factorial design. Error prevention had negative effects on cognition and adaptive transfer performance. Error management alleviated worry and boosted one’s perceived self-efficacy. Overall, the results show that error prevention and error management have unique outcomes on negative affect, self-efficacy, cognition, and performance.

Error prevention, error management, or both?

All people make errors, but how people think and perform after errors is theorized to be affected by the way errors are framed. The literature differentiates between two error-handling strategies: error prevention, which focuses on removing all errors, and error management, which focuses on catching errors, learning from them, and minimizing their negative consequences. In the present study we develop and test a theoretical model in order to establish whether it is the presence or absence of error management or error prevention instructions, or their combination that influence peoples cognitions and performance. Our findings show that error prevention has negative effects on cognition (fewer on-task thoughts; more negative self-related off-task thoughts) and adaptive transfer performance (trend), while error management dampens peoples appraisal of errors as threats. Thus, error prevention has more negative effects, whereas error management reduces negative effects rather than strengthening positive effects. The results indicate that the way error prevention and error management act and interact is more complex than previously thought and work that incorporates full-factorial designs is necessary in order to establish what drives the effects we find