Table 3 Key relationships, dependencies... | Emerald Publishing

Table 3

Key relationships, dependencies and findings identified in the literature on virtual feedback

Key relationships and dependencies	Synthesized key findings	Supporting studies
Positive virtual feedback sign influences perception of feedback, acceptance of feedback and response Moderators: Media richness, feedback culture, team identification and trust	Positive virtual feedback strengthens cohesion, collective efficacy, team identification, trust, collaboration, learning, feedback engagement and productivity. Positive virtual feedback fosters a close, friendly atmosphere and a supportive, collaborative team climate These benefits are amplified when feedback is delivered through rich media, embedded in a positive feedback culture and received by individuals with strong team identification	Newcombe and Ashkanasy (2002), Kahai and Cooper (2003), Sivunen (2006), Schepers et al. (2011), Mukherjee et al. (2012), Sung and Mayer (2012), Vinagre and Esteban (2018), Breuer et al. (2020), Mayordomo et al. (2022)
Negative virtual feedback sign influences perception of feedback, acceptance of feedback and response Moderators: Creative self-efficacy, mastery goal orientation and culture	Negative virtual feedback is perceived as less credible, as a sign of conflict and as potentially reducing trust. Perceived negativity of feedback can be perceived as surveillance and can decrease feedback acceptance. Nevertheless, negative virtual feedback perceived as constructive is likely to be accepted These effects are contingent on individual characteristics, such as creative self-efficacy, mastery goal orientation and culture (individualistic vs collectivistic)	Kankanhalli et al. (2006), Golden et al. (2009), Mukherjee et al. (2012), Marler and Marett (2013), Wang et al. (2014), Jaakson et al. (2019), Wong et al. (2021)
High frequency of virtual feedback influences perception of feedback, acceptance of feedback, desire to respond to feedback and response Moderators: Task type, motivation, willingness to seek and utilize the virtual feedback	Frequent virtual feedback improves performance, motivation, satisfaction, trust, cohesion, retention and teamwork skills. Frequent virtual feedback increases perceived effectiveness and availability of the feedback provider Constructive and frequent virtual feedback increases the feedback recipient's perception of feedback usefulness and motivates further developmental behavior	Kayworth and Leidner (2000), Hertel and Geister (2005), Geister et al. (2006), Fan et al. (2014), McLarnon et al. (2019), Andrade et al. (2020), Román-Calderón et al. (2021), Depoo and Hyršlová (2022), Rivera et al. (2024), Jansson and Kangas (2025)
Low frequency of virtual feedback influences perception of feedback, acceptance of feedback and response	Infrequent feedback increases the likelihood of erroneous interpretations and misunderstandings and reduces self-efficacy, motivation and learning Infrequent feedback is perceived as a loss of social connection	Cramton (2001), Hertel and Geister (2005), Sardeshmukh et al. (2012), Gerards et al. (2021)
Immediate virtual feedback influences perception of feedback and response Moderators: media richness, work context	Immediate virtual feedback improves productivity, motivation and virtual team success. Immediate virtual feedback increases social presence, discussion satisfaction, group efficacy and reduces task completion time in virtual teams Immediate virtual feedback is perceived as useful for interpreting the feedback provider's emotional cues in a virtual working environment	Shepherd et al. (1995), Dennis and Kinney (1998), Kahai and Cooper (2003), Hertel et al. (2008), Powers et al. (2011), Fan et al. (2014), Raghuram et al. (2019), Shaik and Makhecha (2019), Chen et al. (2020)
Delayed virtual feedback influences perception of feedback and response	Delayed virtual feedback results in task conflict and increased frustration. Delayed feedback weakens social bonds and reduces trust among coworkers	Friedman and Currall (2003), Kankanhalli et al. (2006), Powers et al. (2011)
High virtual feedback richness influences perception of feedback, acceptance of feedback and response Moderator: Feedback immediacy	High virtual feedback richness provides multiple verbal and non-verbal cues, enables immediate interaction and enhances performance. High virtual feedback richness enhances perceived clarity and usefulness of virtual feedback	Dennis and Kinney (1998), Payne et al. (2009), Eisenberg et al. (2021), Yu and Schunn (2023), Cavalcanti et al. (2025)
Low virtual feedback richness influences perception of feedback, acceptance of feedback and response Moderator: Remote working environment	Low virtual feedback richness reduces an individual's self-awareness and may be perceived by the feedback recipient as cognitively demanding. When individuals perceive low virtual feedback richness, their turnover intentions increase	Weisband and Atwater (1999), Hebert and Vorauer (2003), Driskell et al. (2003), Sardeshmukh et al. (2012), Gutworth et al. (2023), Jansson and Kangas (2025)
Virtual feedback availability (feedback vs no-feedback condition) influences perception of feedback, acceptance of feedback and response Moderators: Culture, team composition	The availability of virtual feedback improves reflection, team cooperation, motivation, learning and well-being and reduces errors Further, the availability of virtual feedback changes how recipients perceive their own performance. The acceptance of virtual feedback depends strongly on its perceived usefulness	Henning et al. (1997), Kim et al. (2012), Konradt et al. (2015), He et al. (2017), Glikson et al. (2019), Mishima-Santos et al. (2021), Feng et al. (2021), Ouverson et al. (2021), Hsiao et al. (2022)
Virtual feedback on an individual vs team level influences response Moderators: psychological distance, team identification	Communicating virtual feedback at the individual vs team level has different effects on productivity, performance and task completion speed	Ouverson et al. (2021), Walton and Gilbert (2022), Kwasnitschka et al. (2024)
Feedback source influences perception of feedback, acceptance of feedback, desire to respond to feedback and response Moderators: communication channel, source anonymity, culture, epistemic motivation	Feedback source characteristics influence feedback outcomes: demanding feedback promotes idea generation, whereas encouraging and empathetic feedback enhances creativity. Angry or negative emotional displays reduce perceived source competence, feedback quality, acceptance and willingness to use feedback. Acceptance of feedback increases when sources are perceived as psychologically close, accessible and trustworthy. Accepted feedback strengthens recipients' willingness to respond and improve performance	Milliman et al. (2002), Driskell et al. (2003), Kurtzberg et al. (2005), Van Kleef et al. (2009), Fan et al. (2014), Johnson and Connelly (2014), Wang et al. (2014), Rivera et al. (2024), Jansson and Kangas (2025)

Key relationships and dependencies	Synthesized key findings	Supporting studies
Positive virtual feedback sign influences perception of feedback, acceptance of feedback and responseModerators: Media richness, feedback culture, team identification and trust	Positive virtual feedback strengthens cohesion, collective efficacy, team identification, trust, collaboration, learning, feedback engagement and productivity. Positive virtual feedback fosters a close, friendly atmosphere and a supportive, collaborative team climateThese benefits are amplified when feedback is delivered through rich media, embedded in a positive feedback culture and received by individuals with strong team identification	Newcombe and Ashkanasy (2002), Kahai and Cooper (2003), Sivunen (2006), Schepers et al. (2011), Mukherjee et al. (2012), Sung and Mayer (2012), Vinagre and Esteban (2018), Breuer et al. (2020), Mayordomo et al. (2022)
Negative virtual feedback sign influences perception of feedback, acceptance of feedback and responseModerators: Creative self-efficacy, mastery goal orientation and culture	Negative virtual feedback is perceived as less credible, as a sign of conflict and as potentially reducing trust. Perceived negativity of feedback can be perceived as surveillance and can decrease feedback acceptance. Nevertheless, negative virtual feedback perceived as constructive is likely to be acceptedThese effects are contingent on individual characteristics, such as creative self-efficacy, mastery goal orientation and culture (individualistic vs collectivistic)	Kankanhalli et al. (2006), Golden et al. (2009), Mukherjee et al. (2012), Marler and Marett (2013), Wang et al. (2014), Jaakson et al. (2019), Wong et al. (2021)
High frequency of virtual feedback influences perception of feedback, acceptance of feedback, desire to respond to feedback and responseModerators: Task type, motivation, willingness to seek and utilize the virtual feedback	Frequent virtual feedback improves performance, motivation, satisfaction, trust, cohesion, retention and teamwork skills. Frequent virtual feedback increases perceived effectiveness and availability of the feedback providerConstructive and frequent virtual feedback increases the feedback recipient's perception of feedback usefulness and motivates further developmental behavior	Kayworth and Leidner (2000), Hertel and Geister (2005), Geister et al. (2006), Fan et al. (2014), McLarnon et al. (2019), Andrade et al. (2020), Román-Calderón et al. (2021), Depoo and Hyršlová (2022), Rivera et al. (2024), Jansson and Kangas (2025)
Low frequency of virtual feedback influences perception of feedback, acceptance of feedback and response	Infrequent feedback increases the likelihood of erroneous interpretations and misunderstandings and reduces self-efficacy, motivation and learningInfrequent feedback is perceived as a loss of social connection	Cramton (2001), Hertel and Geister (2005), Sardeshmukh et al. (2012), Gerards et al. (2021)
Immediate virtual feedback influences perception of feedback and responseModerators: media richness, work context	Immediate virtual feedback improves productivity, motivation and virtual team success. Immediate virtual feedback increases social presence, discussion satisfaction, group efficacy and reduces task completion time in virtual teamsImmediate virtual feedback is perceived as useful for interpreting the feedback provider's emotional cues in a virtual working environment	Shepherd et al. (1995), Dennis and Kinney (1998), Kahai and Cooper (2003), Hertel et al. (2008), Powers et al. (2011), Fan et al. (2014), Raghuram et al. (2019), Shaik and Makhecha (2019), Chen et al. (2020)
Delayed virtual feedback influences perception of feedback and response	Delayed virtual feedback results in task conflict and increased frustration. Delayed feedback weakens social bonds and reduces trust among coworkers	Friedman and Currall (2003), Kankanhalli et al. (2006), Powers et al. (2011)
High virtual feedback richness influences perception of feedback, acceptance of feedback and responseModerator: Feedback immediacy	High virtual feedback richness provides multiple verbal and non-verbal cues, enables immediate interaction and enhances performance. High virtual feedback richness enhances perceived clarity and usefulness of virtual feedback	Dennis and Kinney (1998), Payne et al. (2009), Eisenberg et al. (2021), Yu and Schunn (2023), Cavalcanti et al. (2025)
Low virtual feedback richness influences perception of feedback, acceptance of feedback and responseModerator: Remote working environment	Low virtual feedback richness reduces an individual's self-awareness and may be perceived by the feedback recipient as cognitively demanding. When individuals perceive low virtual feedback richness, their turnover intentions increase	Weisband and Atwater (1999), Hebert and Vorauer (2003), Driskell et al. (2003), Sardeshmukh et al. (2012), Gutworth et al. (2023), Jansson and Kangas (2025)
Virtual feedback availability (feedback vs no-feedback condition) influences perception of feedback, acceptance of feedback and responseModerators: Culture, team composition	The availability of virtual feedback improves reflection, team cooperation, motivation, learning and well-being and reduces errorsFurther, the availability of virtual feedback changes how recipients perceive their own performance. The acceptance of virtual feedback depends strongly on its perceived usefulness	Henning et al. (1997), Kim et al. (2012), Konradt et al. (2015), He et al. (2017), Glikson et al. (2019), Mishima-Santos et al. (2021), Feng et al. (2021), Ouverson et al. (2021), Hsiao et al. (2022)
Virtual feedback on an individual vs team level influences responseModerators: psychological distance, team identification	Communicating virtual feedback at the individual vs team level has different effects on productivity, performance and task completion speed	Ouverson et al. (2021), Walton and Gilbert (2022), Kwasnitschka et al. (2024)
Feedback source influences perception of feedback, acceptance of feedback, desire to respond to feedback and responseModerators: communication channel, source anonymity, culture, epistemic motivation	Feedback source characteristics influence feedback outcomes: demanding feedback promotes idea generation, whereas encouraging and empathetic feedback enhances creativity. Angry or negative emotional displays reduce perceived source competence, feedback quality, acceptance and willingness to use feedback. Acceptance of feedback increases when sources are perceived as psychologically close, accessible and trustworthy. Accepted feedback strengthens recipients' willingness to respond and improve performance	Milliman et al. (2002), Driskell et al. (2003), Kurtzberg et al. (2005), Van Kleef et al. (2009), Fan et al. (2014), Johnson and Connelly (2014), Wang et al. (2014), Rivera et al. (2024), Jansson and Kangas (2025)