Commun Psychol. 2026 Jun 12;4(1):95. doi: 10.1038/s44271-026-00487-8.
ABSTRACT
As technology-based learning environments increasingly employ automated feedback, understanding how learners process feedback in real time is essential. This study examined how automated cognitive and metacognitive failure feedback delivered by a humanoid robot affected performance and how effects were moderated by feedback characteristics and learner characteristics. Ninety adults (18-59 years, Mage = 29.53, 61 female, 27 male, 2 diverse) completed a learning task in three conditions: (1) fixed guidance condition with fixed-frequency and content-generic feedback, (2) basic-adaptive condition with frequency-adaptive but content-generic feedback, or (3) personalized-adaptive condition with frequency-adaptive and content-personalized feedback adjusting content to learners specific errors and prior steps. A three-level generalized path model (trials nested within time blocks within learners) was estimated to investigate effects of failure feedback on immediate task performance and cross-level moderation effects. Results showed that cognitive and metacognitive failure feedback increased the likelihood of a correct subsequent response across conditions. Relative to fixed guidance (condition 1), the implemented form of frequency-adaptive feedback (condition 2) did not show statistically significant moderation to these effects. Content-personalized feedback (condition 3) reduced effectiveness of cognitive failure feedback on immediate performance but improved overall performance as compared to content-generic feedback (condition 2). Across conditions, learners with higher cognitive ability benefited less, while those reporting higher momentary on-task boredom benefited more from cognitive feedback. These findings highlight that the effectiveness of automated failure feedback depends on both its design and learners’ situational cognitive and emotional states, illustrating how a situational, temporally sensitive approach can help open the “black box” of feedback effectiveness.
PMID:42286158 | DOI:10.1038/s44271-026-00487-8
