How can we effectively engage “The Digital Natives” in
the workforce regarding their need for feedback?
And what role does level of education and extraversion play in this relationship?Master’s Thesis
Eline Ruiten (10564055)
Graduate School of Communication Master’s Programme Communication Science
Supervisor: dr. Anke Wonneberger
2 Abstract
The way of working changed in the last few decades. The focus has shifted from top-down
communication and managers, to learning from each other by giving and receiving feedback.
Since generation Z will enter the workforce coming years, it is highly relevant to take a look
into their organizational needs, so that organizations can engage this new generation as
effectively as possible. This study examines the relationship between the currently employed
generation, generation Y, and the new generation of employees, generation Z, and their need
for feedback, plus its relation to employee engagement. It also studies to what extent
extraversion and the level of education are related to the relationship of generation and need
for feedback. A survey was conducted among 227 generation Y and Z employees. Results
showed that need for feedback has a weak, significant effect on employee engagement, and
that, in contrast to the expectations, generation Z employees are less engaged than generation
Y employees. These findings are solely indications, since this is the first time need for
feedback was examined. Future research is needed to further study these concepts and
relationships, so results will be more resilient. Limitations and further research
recommendations are discussed.
Keywords: Generation Y, generation Z, need for feedback, employee engagement,
extraversion, level of education
Introduction
A lot has changed since the rise of the digital era. Think about the education of children, both
at home and in school. Generations before Y and Z (i.e. Baby-Boomers and generation X)
used to play outside and made tests with pencil and paper, while Post-Millennials and part of
the Millennials were raised and educated through computers (Battro & Fisher, 2012). Even at
3
Millennials (i.e. generation Y) are born between 1980 and 1995, and Post-millennials
(i.e. generation Z) between 1996 and 2010 (Monaco, 2018). Since the education has changed,
it would be imaginable that the communication needs in the workforce have changed
correspondingly. The way of working and the focus of managerial activities did shift in the
last few decades. Companies used to have a clear hierarchy, while nowadays, more focus is
given to agile working, where there is maximum flexibility and minimum boundaries
(Fishleigh, 2017). Less attention is given to top-down communication, and a bigger focus lies
on learning from each other by giving and receiving feedback. This new way of working is
implemented in an increasing number of organizations. It seems to suit the needs of
Millennials, but does it fit for the generation thereafter as well? Coming years, generation Z
will enter the workforce, and thus it is highly relevant to take a look into their organizational
needs, so that organizations can engage this new generation as effectively as possible. They
have to carefully look into and redesign their (communication) strategies to reach this
(Chillakuri & Mahanandia, 2018).
Millennials are seen as a generation that have a “want it all” and “want it now” mindset, in terms of a good work/life balance, interesting and challenging work, and making a
contribution to society (Ng, Schweitzer & Lyons, 2010; Fishleigh, 2017). According to
previous research, Millennials value positive feedback, but tend to have difficulties with
accepting criticism (e.g. Crampton & Hodge, 2009; Espinoza, Ukleja & Rusch, 2011;
Twenge, 2006). Post-Millennials are digital natives, the real leaders of the “new mobility paradigm”, characterized by the high mobility of people and things (Monaco, 2018). Due to their creativity and innovativeness, they tend to pursue entrepreneurial inititatives (Adecco,
2015; Half, 2015). To what extent do these generations differ, regarding communication
needs in the workforce? In a few years, the workforce mainly consists of Millennials and
4
constituting the future of the workforce. Therefore, it is important to have insights in the
communication needs of these generations. Especially of generation Z, because, yet, little is
known about this new generation (Chillakuri & Mahanandia, 2018).
Communication needs is a broad term, which is used for various aspects in the
workforce, such as one or two-way communication, top-down communication, encouraging
feedback, etc. (Belonwu, 2018). Since there is less focus given to hierarchy, nowadays, the
focus on giving and receiving feedback to and from colleagues, becomes more important.
Therefore, to specify this research, there was chosen to examine communication needs in
terms of the need for feedback. It can be conceptualized as the longing for information about
the effects of one’s actions or efforts on some criterion of interest to improve future performance of those actions or efforts. This concept has not been studied yet and will be
introduced in the next section.
This study contributes by filling a gap in the literature by examining possible
differences in the need for feedback among generation Y and Z employees, and its relation to
employee engagement. It is relevant to examine the need for feedback, since feedback is
shown to be an important predictor for employee engagement (Menguc, Auh, Fisher &
Haddad, 2013; Mone, Eisinger, Guggenmheim, Price & Stine, 2011; Sexton, et al., 2018),
which is one of the main goals of organizations, since it contributes to the growth of the
company. Employee engagement was defined as “an emotional and intellectual commitment to the organization” (Saks, 2006, p. 601). Based on Saks (2006), employee engagement was divided into job engagement and organization engagement, which will be further explained in
the methodology of this paper. The common thread which is running through this paper is
formulated as follows: How do generation Y and Z employees differ regarding feedback in the
5
Furthermore, an assumption can be made that both level of education and extraversion
are positively related to need for feedback. Research found that there is a positive relationship
between level of performance and feedback seeking (De Jong, Favier, Van der Vleuten, &
Bok, 2017), and extraversion and feedback seeking (Wanberg & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2000;
Wang, Cullen, Yao & Li, 2013; Watson & Hubbard, 1996). Since little to no research has
been done to examine these variables among generation Y and Z employees, literature could
not be compared to expect specific differences. Level of education and extraversion were thus
taken along in this research as independent variables. However, those differences are certainly
an interesting distinction to look at. Therefore, an analysis was conducted afterwards, to
examine if these variables have a moderating effect as well. To retain the overview, there has
been chosen to formulate a second guiding thread: What role does extraversion and level of
education play in the relationship of generation Y and Z employees and their need for feedback?
In the next section, existing literature will be evaluated and discussed, followed by the
methodology of this present study. Afterwards, the results of the conducted survey were
analyzed and conclusions were made. To conclude this study, limitations are discussed.
Theoretical background Need for feedback
In this study, there was chosen to introduce a new concept, need for feedback. Need for
feedback can be conceptualized as the longing for information about the effects of one’s
actions or efforts on some criterion of interest to improve future performance of those actions or efforts. This is based on the definition of feedback, which is “the information about the
effects of one’s actions or efforts on some criterion of interest” (De Jong, Bunderson, & Molleman, 2010, p. 350; Herold & Greller, 1977; Taylor, Fisher & Ilgen, 1984), and on Ende
6
(1983), who pointed out that feedback is a description of what is observed to improve future
performance. It slightly differs from feedback seeking, as Ashford and Cummings researched
for the first time in 1983. Obviously, it is related to one another, but the focus between the
concepts differs. Feedback seeking is about the pro-active search for evaluative and informal
information (Ashford & Cummings, 1983), while in this research, the focus is not on the
pro-active search. Rather it is about the openness to feedback, and accepting it with a positive
attitude, instead of viewing it as pure criticism, regardless of whether it is received passively
or actively, and whether it is informal or formal, which are the two most important criteria for
feedback seeking.
Need for feedback and employee engagement
Feedback promotes learning to enhance job competence, and it increases the probability of
achieving work goals successfully. Therefore, it is an important predictor and key driver of
employee engagement (Bakker & Demerouti, 2008; Menguc, et al., 2013; Mone & London,
2009; Mone, et al., 2011; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004; Sexton, et al., 2018). Need for feedback
is an antecedent of feedback, and therefore closely related to it. As mentioned earlier,
employee engagement was defined as “an emotional and intellectual commitment to the organization” (Saks, 2006, p. 601). Menguc, et al. (2013) and Smither and London (2009a) state that employees perceive constructive feedback as positive and motivating, through
which they feel guided in how to become more effective. Through constructive feedback, they
have the feeling that supervisors are interested in their development and growth, which
assumingly contributes to their engagement. Also Li, Wang and Huang (2018) state that a
feedback seeking climate contributes to team creativity and elevates the employee
self-perceived status, and therefore contributes to the employee engagement. Since feedback
7
comparable effect. When the need for feedback is high, it will also assumingly contribute to
their employee engagement, because it indicates they want to develop themselves and
improve their performance. The study of Sexton, et al. (2018) also shows that in work settings
with feedback, the workforce engagement is higher, compared to work settings without
feedback. Namely, by the means of feedback, the participation in decision-making and growth
opportunities increased, through which the employees felt more connected to quality
improvement. In other words, providing feedback to help employees improving their
performance, and to reinforce their effectiveness, motivates them to be more involved and
engaged (Ashford & Cummings, 1983; Menguc, et al., 2013; Sexton, et al., 2018). As Tkalac Verčič and Pološki Vokić (2017) put it, internal communication – among which feedback – and employee engagement ““feed” each other in a continuous virtual circle” (p. 891).
Moreover, the lack or absence of constructive feedback can create fewer opportunities for
change and innovation, and might lead to lack of stimulation or confusion about what is
expected, which in turn might lead to conflicts (Jaworski & Kohli, 1991). This can lead to less
enthusiasm, and less inspiration for the job and organization, and therefore correspondingly to
less engagement.
Research and arguments above show that feedback is an important predictor of
employee engagement. Therefore, an assumption can be made that when the willingness is
there to improve themselves and their work, the employees will also be more engaged in their
work. In other words, the higher the need for feedback, the higher the employee engagement.
This leads to the first hypothesis:
H1: The higher the need for feedback, the higher the employee engagement
8
Generation Y is a hardworking generation, which has a “want it all”, “want it now” mindset (Ng, Schweitzer & Lyons, 2010; Fishleigh, 2017). Although it might be a challenge to retain
this generation of employees in their working positions, since they are believed to be easily
bored and impatient (Martin, 2005), in the future they are considered to be a benefit to the
profession (Hills, Ryan, Warren-Forward, & Smith, 2012). Since Millennials grew up with
parents who worked/are working long hours, it is argued that they value their social lives with
family and friends more than they value their working lives (Twenge, 2006). This generation
mostly got rewarded for their effort, instead of their performance, which resulted in a constant
seek for praise (Crampton & Hodge, 2009). Next to the suggestion that Millennials value
positive feedback and have a high self-esteem, they tend to have difficulties with accepting
criticism (Crampton & Hodge, 2009; Espinoza, et al., 2011; Murray, Toulson & Legg, 2011;
Twenge, 2006). These arguments indicate they assumingly will not have a high need for
feedback.
Compared to Millennials, Post-Millennials are even more self-confident. They are
optimistic about their future professional life and due to their creativity and innovativeness,
they tend to pursue entrepreneurial inititatives (Adecco, 2015; Half, 2015). Although
generation Z prefers to work on their own, do independent work and be involved in teamwork
as little as possible (Chillakuri & Mahanandia, 2018), they do acknowledge the importance of
communication, since they find communication one of the two most important skills for
succeeding in the workplace (Quillen, 2018).
Although Post-millennials prefer to learn on their own (Chillakuri & Mahanandia,
2018), their eagerness and desire to do succesful business, requires constant personal and
professional development. Moreover, according to Quillen (2018), they do recognize the
9
improve their activities, and to succeed in the workplace, compared to Millennials, who tend
to have difficulties with accepting criticism. The second hypothesis is formulated as follows:
H2: Generation Z employees have a higher need for feedback than generation Y employees
Need for feedback as a mediator
Due to the impatience of Millennials, and their characteristic to be bored easily, it is hard to
retain Millennials in organizations (Martin, 2005). These factors do not contribute to be
highly engaged with a job or an organization. Post-millennials, on the other hand, are
perceived as eager and willing to do successful business (Adecco, 2015; Half, 2015), which
requires constant feedback on their performance. Since feedback is shown to be an important
predictor of employee engagement, (Bakker & Demerouti, 2008; Menguc, et al., 2013; Mone,
et al., 2011; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004; Sexton, et al., 2018), and since Post-millennials are
assumingly more eager for feedback to develop themselves in contrary to Millennials, who
have difficulties to accept constructive feedback (Crampton & Hodge, 2009; Espinoza, Ukleja
& Rusch, 2011; Murray, Toulson & Legg, 2011; Twenge, 2006), an assumption can be made
that, due to their higher need for feedback, generation Z employees will have a higher
employee engagement than generation Y employees, despite their unwillingness to work in a
team. This leads to the third hypothesis:
H3: Need for feedback mediates the relationship between generation and employee engagement: Since generation Z employees have a higher need for feedback than generation Y employees, their employee engagement will be higher as well
10
To look into the second guiding thread, the correlation of both extraversion and level of
education with need for feedback were examined. To find out if there are any differences
between generation Y and Z, a research question is formulated afterwards.
Extraversion and need for feedback
Extraversion was defined as “a personality trait that manifests itself in sociable and
excitement-seeker individuals” (Barceló, 2017, p. 103). Extraverted people can be described
as social, outgoing, gregarious, and assertive. They are confident, and prefer interacting with
others, since they are proficient in social interaction required tasks (Bell & Arthur, 2008).
Extraversion is shown to be positively related to feedback seeking (Wanberg &
Kammeyer-Mueller, 2000; Wang, et al., 2013; Watson & Hubbard, 1996), and thus it would be likely that
it would also be related to need for feedback. In social interactions and feedback sessions,
extraverted individuals ask more questions than introverted individuals, and they want the
feedback received to be clarified (Wanberg & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2000). Results of the study
of Lischetzke and Eid (2006), showed that introverted participants were less able to show
positive affection after watching an affectively conflicting movie, compared to extraverted
participants. This indicates that extraverted people are better able to engage in mood
maintenance after experiencing ambivalent stimuli than introverted people. An example of
ambivalent stimuli could be constructive feedback, in which the performance of the employee
was criticized. This suggests that extraverted individuals are better at processing feedback,
and therefore it is likely that their need for feedback would be higher correspondingly. Next to
that, giving and receiving feedback is an interpersonal interaction between the person
providing the feedback and the person receiving it (Krasman, 2010). Therefore, given the
nature of extraverted people of their preference for social interaction, it is likely that
11
extraverted individuals engage in more social activities than introverted individuals, and
develop correspondingly closer relationships with others, including instructors. Through these
relationships they receive and seek more feedback.
Although extraverts might be less concerned with negative feedback, compared to
positive feedback (Swift & Petreson, 2018), through the high levels of sociability, enthusiasm,
and ambitiousness of extraverted people, and based on the arguments of previous research
above, it can be assumed that they have a higher need for feedback than introverts. Since extraversion is a personality trait, which is embedded in an individual’s character, it can also be assumed that these arguments are not only applicable to the personal environment, but to
the professional environment as well. This leads to the following hypothesis:
H4: Extraverted generation Y and Z employees have a higher need for feedback than introverted generation Y and Z employees
Level of education and need for feedback
Not much research has been done to the relationship between level of education and feedback.
Some research has been done to examine the goal orientation model of feedback seeking
behavior (Teunissen, et al., 2009; VandeWalle & Cummings, 1997). This model states that
individuals with a higher learning goal orientation, perceive more advantages and fewer
disadvantages of feedback (VandeWalle & Cummings, 1997). Individuals with a higher level
of education can understand the importance of feedback more easily than individuals with a
lower level of education. De Jong, et al., (2017) studied the relationship between feedback
seeking and performance level among students. They found that low performing students seek
feedback, because it leads to rewards and it meets external demands, in contrast to high
12
and intrinsically motivated to seek feedback, because the outcome of the task was perceived
as personally important. In these findings, there was found that the higher the level of
performance, the higher the students scored on feedback seeking. This might suggest that high
performing students acknowledge the benefit of feedback of developing themselves. Since
level of performance might be related to level of education, it can be assumed that the same
relation will be found between level of education and feedback. VandeWalle and Cummings
(1997) also argue that from education, individuals learn to understand that feedback seeking is
an important strategy to improve performances, and for personal and professional
development, rather than that it is an indicator of low ability. According to Scivicque (2018),
a higher level of education often means that an individual can understand the big picture, and
how different parts are interconnected. This indicates that they can understand more easily
that feedback helps them to reach their goal of developing themselves, both personally and
professionally. It thus suggests that education contributes to the knowledge of the importance
of feedback. Through this, an assumption can be made that individuals, and therefore also
employees, with a higher level of education have a higher need for feedback than individuals
with a lower level of education.
Based on research findings mentioned above, it is expected that level of education is
positively related to the need for feedback among generation Y and Z employees. The fifth
hypothesis is therefore formulated as follows:
H5: High-educated generation Y and Z employees have a higher need for feedback than low-educated generation Y and Z employees
Until now, no distinction was made to see if there are any differences between the two
13
for feedback. Since there was little to no research to be found about this relationship, no
specific expectations could be formulated. Nevertheless, as mentioned earlier, in a few years
the workforce mainly consists of Millennials and Post-Millennials. Therefore, it is an
interesting distinction to look at, to see if the current needs of the Millennials also suit for the
wishes of Post-Millennials. The research question has therefore been conceptualized as
follows:
RQ: To what extent are there differences between generation Y and Z employees, regarding the effects of extraversion and level of education on need for feedback?
In Figure 1 the hypotheses are conceptualized in a conceptual model.
Figure 1. Conceptual model
Method
The population of this research is generation Y and Z employees between 18 and 38 years old – since people under 18 are not considered as adults – with a relevant job. In order to answer the hypotheses and research questions, an online survey was conducted among 358
respondents of which only 227 completed the survey or provided valid answers (see Appendix
for survey questionnaire). Among the 227 participants, 79.3% was women (n = 180) and
20.7% was male (n = 47; M = 0.79; SD = 0.41), all born between 1980 and 2001 (M =
14
remaining 17.6% (n = 40) to generation Z. Their level of education varied from primary
school to doctorate degree, with an average of an associate’s degree (M = 6.24; SD = 1.55)
and the respondents were quite extravert (M = 5.6; SD = 0.66). The respondents were reached
through social networks, both offline, such as friends, colleagues, family, and their networks,
and online, namely Facebook, LinkedIn, and Instagram.
Prior to the questionnaire, an active informed consent was obtained from the participant,
which contained information that the questionnaire was voluntary, anonymous, and they were
able to withdraw from the questionnaire at any time. Additionally, an ethical review was
requested and approved by the Department of Communication Science at the University of
Amsterdam.
Measures
Need for Feedback: As introduced earlier in this study, need for feedback is a new concept
and can be conceptualized as information about the effects of one’s actions or efforts on some
criterion of interest. Five statements were created to measure this construct. The statements
were 1) “I appreciate it when a colleague gives me feedback on my work”, 2) “I feel I can improve my work after receiving feedback from a colleague”, 3) “Feedback from colleagues helps me to work more effectively”, 4) “I need feedback from my colleagues to improve my own performance”, and a reversed statement was added to see whether the respondents filled in the survey seriously and with full attention – 5) “I feel personally attacked when a colleague gives me feedback on my work”. After conducting a factor analysis, one component was found (Eigenvalue = 2.78; explained variance (%) = 55.61). The reliability analysis
revealed that the items were a reliable measurement of the concept need for feedback (α =
15
Extraversion: Extraversion was defined as “a personality trait that manifests itself in
sociable and excitement-seeker individuals who are more likely to have an active social life,
leading them to join more civic groups” (Barceló, 2017, p. 103; Weinschenk, 2014).
Extraversion is one of the Big-Five personality traits, next to agreeableness,
conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness. It was measured with the comprehensive instrument of Costa and McCrae’s (1992) NEO Personality Inventory, Revised (NEO-PI-R), which allows measurement of the Big-Five personality traits and six specific items within
each domain. Examples of the items of extraversion are “Warmth” and “Excitement seeking” and respondents must respond on a seven point Likert scale, ranging from “Strongly agree” (1) to “Strongly disagree” (7), to indicate to what extent they agreed in possessing that personality trait themselves. A factor analysis showed that two components were found
(component one: Eigenvalue = 2.11, explained variance (%) = 35.17; component two:
Eigenvalue = 1.10; explained variance (%) = 18.38). However, the second component only consisted of “Assertiveness”. A reliability analysis over all items was acceptable reliable (α = .60), but increased after deleting “Assertiveness” (α = .63). Therefore, there was chosen to exclude “Assertiveness”, and to work with one component.
Employee engagement: Finally, employee engagement can be defined as “an emotional
and intellectual commitment to the organization” (Saks, 2006, p. 601). Since, according to Saks (2006), the two most prevailing aspects for most employees are their job role and their
role as an organizational member, he divided employee engagement into job engagement and
organization engagement. Based on his research, job engagement was measured by the means of five items and organization engagement of six. Examples of items are “I am highly engaged in this job” for job engagement, and “Being a member of this organization is very captivating” for organization engagement. Again, respondents must respond on a seven point Likert scale, ranging from “Strongly agree” (1) to “Strongly disagree” (7), to indicate to what
16
extent they agreed with the statement. A factor analysis on the five items of job engagement
showed only one component (Eigenvalue = 2.87; explained variance (%) = 57.40) and the reliability of the measurement was high (α = .81). A factor analysis on organization engagement, however, showed two components (component one: Eigenvalue = 3.38 and
explained variance (%) = 56.27; component two: Eigenvalue = 1.08; explained variance (%) = 17.88). Yet, after conducting a reliability analysis, the reliability was high (α = .83) and thus there was chosen to work with one component.
Results
The first hypothesis was tested by a multiple regression analysis, with generation and need for
feedback as independent variables, and employee engagement as the dependent variable to
find out if employee engagement can be partly explained by need for feedback and
generation. All other hypotheses were analyzed by the Process macro for SPSS (model 4;
Hayes, 2013), where need for feedback was included as a mediator between the independent
variables (generation, extraversion, and level of education), and the dependent variable,
employee engagement.
Hypothesis 1 predicted that the higher the need for feedback, the higher the employee
engagement. Results revealed that the overall model was significant (R2 = 0.074; F(2,224) =
8.94; p < 0.001; Table 1, Model 2), which means that this regression model can be used to
explain employee engagement. However, only 7.4% of the variation in employee engagement
can be explained by need for feedback and generation. Furthermore, results showed that need
for feedback has a weak, significant direct effect on employee engagement (b = 0.21; t = 3.32;
p = 0.001; 95% CI [0.10;0.39]), which means that for every unit increase of need for
feedback, employee engagement increases with 0.21, controlling for generation. Therefore,
17
Table 1. Regression models to predict need for feedback and employee engagement (N = 227)
Note. Results of process model 4. 1 Model excluding control variables. 2 Model including control variables. * p < .05. *** p < .001
Hypothesis 2 predicted that generation Z employees have a higher need for feedback
than generation Y employees. Results showed that, on average, generation Z employees score
higher on need for feedback than generation Y employees, as summarized in Table 1, Model 1
(b = 0.21; t = 1.21; p = 0.228; 95% CI [-0.12;0.50]). These results were not significant, which
means that there is a chance that these results are a coincidence. Therefore, no support was
found for the second hypothesis.
Hypothesis 3 predicted that generation Z employees have a higher employee
18
showed that there is a negative, moderate, significant, direct effect of generation on employee
engagement (b = -0.40; t = -2.36; p = 0.019; 95% CI [-0.76;-0.07]; Table 1, Model 2), which
means that, on average, generation Z employees score lower on employee engagement than
generation Y employees. Since this is in contrast of what was predicted, there was no support
found for the third hypothesis.
Hypothesis 4 predicted that extraverted generation Y and Z employees have a higher
need for feedback than introverted generation Y and Z employees. Results showed that a
significant, moderate effect was found of extraversion on need for feedback (b = 0.31; t =
5.05; p < 0.001; 95% CI [0.26;0.60]; Table 1, Model 1), which means that the more
extraverted generation Y and Z employees are, the higher their need for feedback is.
Therefore, support was found for the fourth hypothesis.
Hypothesis 5 predicted that high-educated generation Y and Z employees have a higher
need for feedback than low-educated generation Y and Z employees. A positive, weak,
significant effect was found for level of education on need for feedback (b = 0.27; t = 4.14; p
< 0.001; 95% CI [0.08;0.24]; Table 1, Model 1). This means that the higher the level of
education of generation Y and Z employees, the higher their need for feedback is. Therefore,
support was found for the fifth hypothesis as well.
To see if there are any differences between generation Y and Z employees, regarding
the effects of extraversion and level of education on need for feedback, these variables were
analyzed as moderating variables. Results revealed that the overall model was significant (R2
= 0.168; F(5,221) = 8.93; p < 0.001), which means that it can be used to explain need for
feedback. Furthermore, it showed that there is a positive, weak interaction of extraversion on
the relationship between generation and need for feedback (b = 0.21; t = 1.03; p = 0.303; 95%
CI [-0.19;0.61]), which means that extraversion has a greater effect on generation Z
19
is clear that when extraversion increases, the need for feedback among generation Z
employees increases more, than the need for feedback among generation Y employees,
regardless of level of education (Figure 1, Figure 2, and Figure 3). However, the finding was
not significant, which means that there is a chance that this result is based on a coincidence.
On the contrary, there was found a significant, negative, weak interaction of level of
education on the relationship between generation and need for feedback (b = -0.18; t = -2.12;
p = 0.03; 95% CI [-0.35;-0.01]), which means that level of education has a greater effect on
generation Y employees than on generation Z employees, as is also seen when Figure 1,
Figure 2, and Figure 3 are compared. The figures show, that when level of education
increases, the need for feedback among generation Y employees increases more than the need
for feedback among generation Z employees, regardless of extraversion. First of all, the
figures show that both high educated generation Y and Z employees have a higher need for
feedback than both low educated generation Y and Z employees, which corresponds to the
findings of the fifth hypothesis. Furthermore, the figures show that among both low,
moderate, and high educated generation Y and Z employees, extraverted employees have a
higher need for feedback than less extraverted employees. This is also in line with what the
fourth hypothesis predicted. Then, looking at the moderating effects, the figures show that if
extraversion increases with low educated employees, the need for feedback increases more
among generation Z employees than generation Y employees. Among moderate educated
generation Z employees, extraversion has quite an impact. Namely, introverted, moderate
educated generation Z employees, have a lower need for feedback than introverted, moderate
educated generation Y employees. Yet, when moderate educated generation Z employees are
extraverted, they have a higher need for feedback than extraverted, moderate educated
20
need for feedback then generation Z employees. Also their need for feedback increases when
extraversion increases.
Figure 1. Conditional effects of extraversion among low educated employees on need for
feedback
Figure 2. Conditional effects of extraversion among moderate educated employees on need
21
Figure 3. Conditional effects of extraversion among high educated employees on need for
feedback
Conclusion and discussion
The aim of this research was to take a look into the communication needs of generation Y and
Z employees, to see if the change in the way of working, regarding the increasing focus on
giving and receiving feedback, will also suit generation Z – the next generation entering the
workforce. In order to answer the common thread of this paper: “How do generation Y and Z
employees differ regarding feedback in the workforce and does that relate to their employee engagement?”, a survey was conducted among 227 generation Y and Z employees, to obtain
information concerning their need for feedback and their employee engagement.
First a multiple regression analysis was conducted to find out what relationships exist
between need for feedback and employee engagement, and generation and employee
engagement. As predicted, it turned out that there indeed was a positive relationship between
need for feedback and employee engagement. In other words, when an employee is willing to
receive feedback, he will be more engaged in the job and organization than his colleague who
is not open to feedback and perceives it as criticism. That corresponds with previous research,
which showed that providing feedback to help employees improving their performance,
motivates them to be more involved, and thus engaged (Ashford & Cummings, 1983;
Menguc, et al., 2013; Sexton, et al., 2018). This is an important finding, yet it should be
considered as an indication. Not only because this is the first study which researched need for
22
the effect of need for feedback on employee engagement (i.e. extraversion, level of education,
and gender), results slightly differ and, most importantly, they lose their significance (Table 1;
Model 3). The reason that in this study there has been chosen to use the model without control
variables (i.e. Table 1; Model 2), is because these variables were not taken into account to
predict employee engagement. Yet, it stresses the importance of the need of more research
into this new construct and these relationships. If this finding is actually true, the need for
feedback could be stimulated and trained among employees. Namely, when employees will
experience positive results of receiving feedback, their attitude towards it might change and
their need for it might increase accordingly. Organizations could anticipate by implementing
feedback rounds among colleagues to trigger this aspect, to eventually benefit from it, since it
might increase the engagement accordingly. Yet again, this present study did not research
whether and how need for feedback can be changed. Future research should find out if and to
what extent this assumption is actually true.
The finding that generation Z employees have a higher need for feedback than
generation Y employees was in line with what was expected and with previous research.
Generation Z employees tend to pursue more entrepreneurial initiatives (Adecco, 2015; Half,
2015), which might explain their higher need for feedback, and generation Y employees seem
to value their social lives more than their working lives (Twenge, 2006) and tend to have
difficulties with accepting criticism (e.g. Crampton & Hodge, 2009; Espinoza, Ukleja &
Rusch, 2011; Murray, Toulson & Legg, 2011), which might explain their lower need for
feedback. Yet, this finding was not significant, which means that there is a chance that it is
based on a coincidence.
Results did reveal a significant finding of the relationship between generation and
employee engagement. Namely, that generation Z employees were less engaged in their job
23
what was expected. It could be due to the small sample of generation Z employees (n = 40), or
the fact that assumingly most of them do not have a relevant, full-time job yet, given their
age. There is a possibility that their attitude towards their side-jobs will eventually differ from
their attitude towards their full-time jobs in possibly another organization, since side-jobs
might be less interesting than their future full-time jobs, in possibly more admirable
organizations. Assumingly, that will affect their job and organization engagement. This
should be investigated in future research by taking the attitude towards their job and the
organization into account.
On the other hand, this result could be a clarification for the insignificant finding that
showed that generation Z employees had a higher need for feedback than generation Y
employees, because this finding is not in line with the finding that generation Y employees
scored higher on employee engagement than generation Z employees, together with the
finding that need for feedback is positively related to employee engagement. These findings
indicate that generation Y employees have a higher need for feedback than generation Z
employees. Therefore, it is indeed possible that the previous finding is based on a
coincidence. Future research is needed to find out if that is the case, by taking a greater
sample, for instance.
To answer the second guiding thread of this paper “What role does extraversion and
level of education play in the relationship of generation Y and Z employees and their need for feedback?”, a conclusion can be made that both extraversion and level of education are
positively related to need for feedback. This finding was expected and in line with previous
research which examined extraversion and feedback seeking. Previous research found that
extraverts prefer social interaction (Krasman, 2010; Wang, et al, 2013), that they are more
confident than introverts (Bell & Arthur, 2008), and that they want received feedback to be
24
level of education is positively related to need for feedback was expected. Although not much
research was done to that relationship, there was found earlier that individuals with a higher
level of education can understand the importance of feedback more easily than individuals
with a lower level of education (Scivicque, 2018; VandeWalle & Cummings, 1997).
Organizations could now focus more on the lower educated and introverted employees to
trigger and stimulate their need for feedback. Or they could find out which factor(s), other
than need for feedback, better predict(s) the engagement among those employees, so they
could adjust the focus.
Finally, when generation Y and Z employees were compared in these relationships,
extraversion turned out to have a greater effect on generation Z employees than on generation
Y employees. Yet, no conclusions can be drawn from this finding, since it was not significant.
More research is needed to be able to tell if this finding was indeed based on a coincidence or
not. However, for the level of education, a significant result was found. It turned out that level
of education has a greater effect on generation Y employees than on generation Z employees.
In other words, when level of education increases, the need for feedback among generation Y
employees increases more than the need for feedback among generation Z employees. Still,
there is an increase of it. Therefore, it remains a relevant factor when looking at the need for
feedback of new generations of employees, but might decrease in relevance in the future.
Overall, a conclusion can be made that this research gained useful knowledge about the
new entering generation into the workforce, regarding their need for feedback, and its relation
to employee engagement. The first and perhaps most important finding of the positive
relationship between need for feedback and employee engagement, might be given attention
to by organizations. Although generation Y employees seem to accept and appreciate the new
way of working (i.e. agile working), with a high level of giving and receiving feedback, there
25
understand the value of feedback, before it will increase their engagement. Otherwise, there
might be even a counter-effect of the relationship, because when they do not value the
feedback, it assumingly might result in a lower need for it, which might negatively affect the
employee engagement in return. Future research is needed to further examine these concepts,
so results will be more resilient.
Implications and recommendations
As mentioned earlier, there should be taken into account that need for feedback is a newly
introduced concept which has not been researched yet. More research is needed to test the
items to see if it really measures the construct. For example, in this survey need for feedback
is defined as a longing for feedback, and not for a literal need for it, which definition is also
possible in other issues. Naturally, it does not exclude one another, yet the focus in this survey
is merely on the longing for feedback. It suggests that the employee is willing to receive the
feedback, instead of that he actually needs the feedback to adjust his work to improve his
performance. Focusing on the literal need for it, might lead to different results in, for example,
employee engagement. Because assumingly, when the need for feedback is high to actually change an employee’s behavior to improve his performance, the satisfaction would probably be lower, through which, correspondingly, the engagement will be lower as well. In this way,
the concept is negatively related to employee engagement.
Next to that, in this research, a focus was given to feedback from colleagues. There
could be a difference in findings, when feedback is provided by managers, for example. It
could be that some employees find it hard to accept feedback from their colleagues, since they
are on the same level, but do accept it from their managers or CEO’s. Some studies already
examined feedback given from managerial level among ordinary employees, and found a
26
interesting to compare these levels of feedback abreast, to see if there are any differences
between receiving feedback from colleagues, or from managers or CEO’s.
Furthermore, there has not been made a comparison in the value of the feedback,
regarding compliments or constructive feedback. This might lead to different findings, since it
is obvious that an employee who receives a compliment as feedback, is more satisfied than an
employee who received constructive feedback. This distinction in value has not been done yet
in this field of research. The study of Fong, et al. (2018) to emotions, however, showed that
different values of feedback indeed has different outcomes. Future research could therefore
make a comparison in different values of feedback and its relation to employee engagement.
Another suggestion for future research might be to look at the need for feedback on an
organizational level and to compare this between generations. It is now measured for
individual performance only, yet it could also be about the organizational performance. In
other words, how high is the need for feedback among different generational employees to
improve the overall performance of the organization? In this way, an answer can be found on
how badly the employees want the organization to grow, and to see if there are generational
differences in involvement in the organization.
Limitations
This study also has some limitations. Starting with the fact that there could be a difference
between the attitude towards receiving feedback and the behavior after actually receiving
feedback. In this study, only the attitude towards receiving feedback was examined, not the
actual behavior. Yet, people can have a certain attitude towards a subject, but their behavior
after receiving it might be the opposite. For example, an employee could say he is open to
receiving feedback to improve his performance, but after actually receiving it, he might be
27
with self-reported measures of attitude, because answers might be influenced by social
desirability concerns (e.g. Hofmann, Gawronski, Gschwendner, Le & Schmitt, 2005; Lopez,
Melendez, Sauer, Berger & Wyssmann, 1998). Therefore, future research could take actual
received feedback into account, when considering the relationship between need for feedback
and employee engagement. This difference in attitude and behavior has not been taken into
consideration in this research and could be interesting to look at, since behavior is ultimately
the actual reaction to feedback, which is obviously interesting for organizations.
Another limitation of the present survey is that a non-probability sampling technique
was used, which means that the sample may not represent the population, because respondents
are not randomly chosen. However, many of the researcher’s network shared the survey with
their network again, through which a new public was reached.
Besides that, the number of participants who belonged to generation Y (n = 187) is
significantly higher than those who belonged to generation Z (n = 40). This small sample
gives a greater chance of results being based on a coincidence, since there is a smaller chance
that it represents the population. However, it can be explained by the fact that generation Z is
not yet fully part of the working population. Generation Z employees are people born from
1997 to 2010, but because only adults (born in or before 2001) could participate in this study,
a great part of generation Z was already excluded. This explains the difference in number of
participants of the generations.
Also, there was a great difference in number of women (n = 180) and men (n = 47) who
participated in this research, which might affect the results. In this research, gender turned out
to be negatively related to both need for feedback (r = -0.10; p = 0.123) and employee
engagement (r = -0.03; p = 0.685), which means that men slightly have a higher need for
feedback and are slightly more engaged than women. However, both correlations were very
28
If future research take gender into account in these relationships, it should have a better
division between men and women.
A disadvantage of an online survey is that the respondents’ participation cannot be
controlled. They can be doing something else or multitasking, during filling out the survey or
scrolling through it quickly without filling it out seriously. Next to that, a survey provides
information more than it gives understanding, since it explores relationships instead of causal
effects. Also, it is not possible to explore issues in depth, because there is no possibility for
follow-up questions.
Finally, the reliability analysis for extraversion appeared to be just acceptable (α = .60).
When the item “Assertiveness” was deleted from the construct, the reliability increased a little (α = .63). Since these results are not very high, it could be that the items were not understood well enough by the participants. A suggestion for future research is therefore to specify the
items by describing their definition or giving an example of its meaning.
The main implications of this present study, is that there was not made a distinction
between attitude and behavior, and that need for feedback could be interpreted in different
ways. While in this research the focus was on the longing for feedback, it could also be
understood as the literal need for it. When taking into account behavior, or when considering
need for feedback as a literal need for it, it both might lead to different results. Therefore,
future research is needed to make a distinction in these variables and definitions to examine
this and to contribute to the literature.
References
Adecco (2015). Generation Z vs. Millennials. Retrieved from http://pages.adeccousa.com
29
Ashford, S. J., & Cummings, L. L. (1983). Feedback as an Individual Resource: Personal
Strategies of Creating Information. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance,
32(3), 370–399. doi:10.1016/0030-5073(83)90156-3
Bakker, A. B. & Demerouti, E. (2008). Towards a Model of Work Engagement. Career
Development International, 13(3), 209-223. doi:10.1108/13620430810870476
Barceló, J. (2017). The Association between Agreeableness, Extraversion, and Support for
Secessionist Movements: Evidence from a Large Survey of More than 33,000
Respondents in Catalonia. Personality and Individual Differences, 107, 102-107. doi:
10.1016/j.paid.2016.11.029
Battro, A. M., & Fischer, K. W. (2012). Mind, Brain, and Education in the Digital Era. Mind,
Brain, and Education, 6(1), 49-50. doi:10.1111/j.1751-228X.2011.01137.x
Bell, S. T. & Arthur, W. (2008). Feedback Acceptance in Developmental Assessment
Centers: The Role of Feedback Message, Participant Personality, and Affective
Response to the Feedback Session. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29(5), 681–
703. doi:10.1002/job.525
Belonwu, V. (2018, May 8). 20 Ways to Communicate Effectively with Your Team. Retrieved
from:
https://smallbiztrends.com/2013/11/20-ways-to-communicate-effectively-in-the-workplace.html
Chillakuri, B. & Mahanandia, R. (2018). Generation Z Entering the Workforce: The Need for
Sustainable Strategies in Maximizing their Talent. Human Resource Management
International Digest, 26(4), 34-38. doi:10.1108/HRMID-01-2018-0006
Costa Jr., P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). 4 Ways 5 Factors are Basic. Personality and
Individual Differences, 13(6), 653-665
Crampton, S. M. & Hodge, J. W. (2009). Generation Y: Uncharted Territory. Journal of
30
De Jong, L. H., Favier, R. P., Van Der Vleuten, C. P. M., & Bok, H. G. J. (2017). Students’ Motivation toward Feedback-Seeking in the Clinical Workplace. Medical Teacher,
39(9), 954-958. doi:10.1080/0142159X.2017.1324948
De Jong, S., Bunderson, J., & Molleman, E. (2010). Power Asymmetry and Learning in
Teams: The Moderating Role of Performance Feedback. Organization Science, 21(2),
347-361. doi:10.1287/orsc.1090.0452
Ende J. (1983). Feedback in Clinical Medical Education. JAMA 250(6), 777–781.
doi:10.1001/jama.1983.03340060055026
Espinoza, C., Ukleja, M. & Rusch, C. (2011). Managing the Millennials: Discover the Core
Competencies for Managing Todays Workforce. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons
Fishleigh, J. (2017). Agile Working, the Entreployee and Generational Issues: Brave New
World or Still Business as Usual at the Office? Legal Information Management, 17(1),
20-23. doi:10.1017/S1472669617000093
Fong, C., Williams, K., Williamson, Z., Lin, S., Kim, Y., & Schallert, D. (2018). “Inside Out”: Appraisals for Achievement Emotions from Constructive, Positive, and Negative Feedback on Writing. Motivation and Emotion, 42(2), 236-257.
doi:10.1007/s11031-017-9658-y
Glazer, S., Mahoney, A.C., & Randall, Y. (2019). Employee Development’s Role in Organizational Commitment: A Preliminary Investigation Comparing Generation X and
Millennial Employees. Industrial and Commercial Training, 51(1), 1-12.
doi:10.1108/ICT-07-2018-0061
Half, R. (2015, August 1). Get Ready for Generation Z. Retrieved from:
https://www.roberthalf.com/sites/default/files/Media_Root/images/rh-pdfs/rh_0715_
31
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process
Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach. New York, NY: The Guilford Press
Herold, D. M., & Greller, M. M. (1977). Feedback: Definition of a Construct. Academy of
Management Journal, 20(1) 142–147. doi:10.5465/255468
Hills, C., Ryan, S., Smith, D. R. & Warren-Forward, H. (2012). The Impact of “Generation Y” Occupational Therapy Students on Practice Education. Australian Occupational
Therapy Journal, 59, 156–163. doi:10.1111/j.1440-1630.2011.00984.x
Hofmann, W., Gawronski, B., Gschwendner, T., Le, H., & Schmitt, M. (2005). A
Meta-Analysis on the Correlation Between the Implicit Association Test and Explicit
Self-Report Measures. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(10), 1369-1385.
doi:10.1177/0146167205275613
Jaworski, B. J., & Kohli, A. K. (1991). Supervisory Feedback: Alternative Types and their
Impact on Salespeople's Performance and Satisfaction. Journal of Marketing Research,
28(2), 190–201. doi:10.1177/002224379102800206
Krasman, J. (2010). The Feedback-Seeking Personality: Big Five and Feedback-Seeking
Behavior. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 17(1), 18-32.
doi:10.1177/1548051809350895
Li, R., Wang, H., & Huang, M. (2018). From Empowerment to Multilevel Creativity: The
Role of Employee Self-Perceived Status and Feedback-Seeking Climate. Journal of
Leadership & Organizational Studies, 25(4), 430-442. doi:10.1177/1548051818760998
Lischetzke, T., & Eid, M. (2006). Why Extraverts are Happier than Introverts: The Role of
Mood Regulation. Journal of Personality, 74(4), 1127-1162.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2006.00405.x
Lopez, F. G., Melendez, M. C., Sauer, E. M., Berger, E., & Wyssmann, J. (1998). Internal
32
Students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 45(1), 79-83.
doi:10.1037/0022-0167.45.1.79
Martin, C. A. (2005). From High Maintenance to High Productivity: What Managers Need to
Know about Generation Y. Industrial and Commercial Training, 37, 29–44.
doi:10.1108/00197850510699965
Menguc, B., Auh, S., Fisher, M., & Haddad, A. (2013). To Be Engaged or Not To Be
Engaged: The Antecedents and Consequences of Service Employee Engagement.
Journal of Business Research, 66(11), 2163-2170. doi;10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.01.007
Monaco, S. (2018). Tourism and the New Generations: Emerging Trends and Social
Implications in Italy. Journal of Tourism Futures, 4(1), 7-15.
doi:10.1108/JTF-12-2017-0053
Mone, E. M., & London, M. (2009). Employee Engagement through Effective Performance
Management: A Manager’s Guide. New York, NY: Routledge.
Mone, E., Eisinger, C., Guggenheim, K., Price, B., & Stine, C. (2011). Performance
Management at the Wheel: Driving Employee Engagement in Organizations. Journal of
Business and Psychology, 26(2), 205-212. doi:10.1007/s10869-011-9222-9
Murray, K., Toulson, P. & Legg, S. (2011). Generational Cohorts’ Expectations in the
Workplace: A Study of New Zealanders. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 49,
476–493. doi:10.1177/1038411111423188
Ng, E. S. W., Schweitzer, L., & Lyons, S. T. (2010). New Generation, Great Expectations: A
Field Study of the Millennial Generation. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(2),
281–29. doi:10.1007/s10869-010-9159-4
Quillen, A. (2018, June 4). The Workforce’s Newest Members: Generation Z. Retrieved from:
33
Saks, A. M. (2006). Antecedents and Consequences of Employee Engagement. Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 21(7), 600-61. doi:10.1108/02683940610690169
Schaufeli, W. B. & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job Demands, Job Resources, and their
Relationship with Burnout and Engagement: A Multi‐Sample Study. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 25(3), 293-315. doi:10.1002/job.248
Scivicque, C. (2018). 5 Characteristics that Define Higher Level Professionals | Advancing
on the Job Series. Retrieved from: https://www.ivyexec.com/career-advice/2018/
characteristics-define-professionals/
Sexton, J. B., Adair, K. C., Leonard, M. W., Frankel, T. C., Proulx, J., Watson, S. R., …
Frankel, A. S. (2018). Providing Feedback Following Leadership WalkRounds is
Associated with Better Patient Safety Culture, Higher Employee Engagement and
Lower Burnout. BMJ Quality & Safety, 27(4), 261. doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2016-006399
Smither, J. W., & London, M. (2009a). Best Practices in Performance Management. In J. W.
Smither & M. London (Eds.), Performance management: Putting research into action.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass
Swift, V. & Petreson, J. B. (2018). Improving the Effects of Performance Feedback by
Considering Personality Traits and Task Demands. PLoS ONE 13(5), 1-18.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0197810
Taylor, M. S., Fisher, C. D., & Ilgen, D. R. (1984). Individuals’ Reactions to Performance
Feedback in Organizations: A Control Theory Perspective. K. M. Rowland, G. R.
Ferris, eds. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management. JAI Press,
Greenwich, CT, 81–124
Teunissen, P. W., Stapel, D. A., van der Vleuten, C., Scherpbier, A., Boor, K., & Scheele, F.
34
Feedback-Seeking Behavior in Relation to Night Shifts. Academic Medicine, 84(7),
910–917. doi:10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181a858ad
Tkalac Verčič, A. & Pološki Vokić, N. (2017). Engaging Employees through Internal
Communication. Public Relations Review, 43(5), 885-893. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2017.04.005
Twenge, J. M. (2006). Generation Me. New York, NY: Free Press
Twenge, J. M. (2010). A Review of the Empirical Evidence on Generational Differences in
Work Attitudes. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(2), 201-210. doi:10.1007/s10869-010-9165-6
VandeWalle D., & Cummings, L. L. (1997). A Test of the Influence of Goal Orientation on
the Feedback-Seeking Process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(3), 390-400.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.82.3.390
Wanberg, C. R., & Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D. (2000). Predictors and Outcomes of Proactivity
in the Socialization Process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(3), 373-385.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.85.3.373
Wang, Y., Cullen, K. L., Yao, X., & Li, Y. (2013). Personality, Freshmen Proactive Social
Behavior, and College Transition: Predictors beyond Academic Strategies. Learning
and Individual Differences, 23, 205-212. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2012.09.010
Watson, D., & Hubbard, B. (1996). Adaptational Style and Dispositional Structure: Coping in
the Context of the 5-Factor Model. Journal of Personality, 64(4), 737-774.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1996.tb00943.x
Weinschenk, A. C. (2014). Personality Traits and the Sense of Civic Duty. American Politics
35 Appendix Survey questionnaire Section 1: Documentation
Dear participant,
With this letter, I would like to invite you to participate in a research study to be conducted
under the auspices of the Graduate School of Communication, a part of the University of
Amsterdam.
In the online survey, you will be asked about your personality, your feedback needs, and your
work experiences, regarding your job and the organization you work for. The goal of this
research is to generate insight into the communication needs in terms of feedback of
generation Z employees, and the differences between them and generation Y employees, to be
able to engage the new generation as much as possible in the workforce coming years.
Since the study is focused on generation Z and generation Y employees, only individuals born
between 1980 and 2001 with work experiences may participate in this study. It will take no
longer than 10 minutes and would mean a great deal to me.
As this research is being carried out under the responsibility of the ASCoR, University of
Amsterdam, I can guarantee that:
1. Your anonymity will be safeguarded, and that your personal information will not be
passed on to third parties under any conditions, unless you first give your express
permission for this;
2. You can refuse to participate in the research or cut short your participation without
having to give a reason for doing so. You also have up to 24 hours after participating
36
3. Participating in the research will not entail your being subjected to any appreciable
risk or discomfort, the researchers will not deliberately mislead you, and you will not
be exposed to any explicitly offensive material;
4. No later than five months after the conclusion of the research, we will be able to
provide you with a research report that explains the general results of the research.
For more information about the research and the invitation to participate, you are free to
contact me at any time.
Should you have any complaints or comments about the course of the research and the
procedures it involves as a consequence of your participation in this research, you can contact
the designated member of the Ethics Committee representing ASCoR, at the following
address: ASCoR Secretariat, Ethics Committee, University of Amsterdam, Postbus 15793, 1001 NG Amsterdam; 020‐525 3680; ascor‐secr‐fmg@uva.nl.
Any complaints or comments will be treated in the strictest confidence.
I hope that I have provided you with sufficient information and would like to thank you in
advance for your assistance with this research. It is greatly appreciated.
Kind regards,
Eline Ruiten
Section 2: Informed consent
I hereby declare that I have been informed in a clear manner about the nature and method of
the research, as described in the invitation for this study.
I agree, fully and voluntarily, to participate in this research study. With this, I retain the right
to withdraw my consent, without having to give a reason for doing so. I am aware that I may
37
If my research results are used in scientific publications or are made public in another way,
this will be done such a way that my anonymity is completely safeguarded. My personal data
will not be passed on to third parties without my express permission.
If I wish to receive more information about the research, either now or in the future, I can
contact Eline Ruiten. Should I have any complaints about this research, I can contact the
designated member of the Ethics Committee representing the ASCoR, at the following
address: ASCoR secretariat, Ethics Committee, University of Amsterdam, Postbus 15793, 1001 NG Amsterdam; 020‐ 525 3680; ascor‐secr‐fmg@uva.nl.
o I understand the text presented above, and I agree to participate in the research study.
Section 3: Demographic details
1: What is your gender?
o Female
o Male
o I’d rather not say 2: What is your age?
Open question
3: Where do you live?
Open question
4: What is your highest completed education?
o None
o Primary school (Basisonderwijs)
