1996 1993 1997 1996 1992 1991 1992 1999 1999 2000 1976 1990 2002 1983 1989 2002 1967 1977 1992 1992 1992 1997 1997 2003 1967 1979 1973 1992 1990 1990 1995 2003 1998 1988 1998 2004 1996 Survivor In sum, the present study aimed to address the following specific research questions: (a) Does the type (valence) of peer feedback influence children’s subsequent feedback preferences? (b) Are the effects of feedback valence moderated by children’s level of depressive symptoms? (c) Do differences in state mood at baseline account for these potential effects of depression? and (d) Are the effects of feedback valence and depressive symptoms on subsequent feedback seeking mediated by changes in mood from pre to post-feedback? 1973 1992 Method Participants M SD Procedure 1981 1993 Survivor contest Upon arrival, the participant was seated in front of a laptop computer equipped with a web-cam to have their photo taken. Participants were told that their picture would allow all the contestants to see what each of the other children looked like. Prior to beginning (Time 1), participants completed a computer-administered baseline mood measure, i.e., a one-item mood scale ranging from 1 (extremely negative) to 10 (extremely positive). In an attempt to add both to the credibility and the attractiveness of the contest, the opening bars of the hit ‘Survivor’ (produced by the band “Destiny’s Child”) were played at the start of the game. In addition, an eye-catching logo of the American TV-show appeared on the computer display. The objective and rules of the contest were presented on screen. Participants were encouraged to read the information, which was pre-tested on comprehensibility for children in this age-range, carefully in their own pace and click “continue” to progress to the next screen. Participants were informed that they would be playing against four same-sex contestants of comparable age (all of them were computerized fictitious co-players) from four different schools in the same area, and that all participants would be evaluated by a jury consisting of 16 members, eight boys and eight girls. Specifically, participants were explained that each judge would give them a score between 0 and 100, with higher scores reflecting higher levels of perceived likeability. M M M M Subsequent to answering all the biographical questions, participants were informed that pictures and descriptions of each of the other contestants would be presented one-at-a-time for review. Upon clicking “continue,” the picture of the first bogus co-player was displayed together with his or her self-description. The latter consisted of the alleged answers to the same questions that the participant had answered earlier. To enhance credibility of the bogus co-players, actual self-descriptions were taken from those of same-age children participating in another study. These participants gave their explicit consent to have this information viewed by other children, provided that the alleged self-description profiles would contain randomly combined personal information from at least three different children. Participants progressed through the game examining each of the profiles at their own pace. success , failure control favorably unfavorably Debriefing 2006 Towards the end of the debriefing, participants were encouraged to ask questions or voice their concerns. All children reported that they understood the purposes of the research, as well as the necessity of having been deceived. The credibility of the deception manipulation was also assessed during the debriefing by asking each participant whether they had believed that they were playing against other children. With no exception, participants indicated that they believed that the game was genuine. Finally, all participants reported that prior to participating they had not talked with classmates about Survivor. At the conclusion of the debriefing, participants were urged to observe complete secrecy by not talking with their classmates about Survivor until all the other children had participated. To increase adherence to this instruction, children were asked to sign a non-disclosure agreement and were then provided a choice of one of several possible small gifts for playing the game (e.g., a small tape recorder, a gift certificate worth about 3 dollars). Measures State mood 2006 1998 SD 1981 1984 2002 1992 M SD 2006 1986 Table 1 Means and standard deviations of baseline measures by condition  Feedback condition  n n n Measure M SD M SD M SD Depressive symptoms  7.83 7.18  8.34 6.78  8.11 6.00 Social acceptance  3.72 27.47  3.90 27.63  3.02 26.75 Age (months) 134.62 8.22 134.17 8.11 132.38 7.52 Social standing in the peer group 1993 M SD 1993 Self- reported feedback preference Subsequent to receiving the bogus peer evaluation outcome, participants responded to the measure assessing the valence of feedback preferences (i.e., positive versus negative). The specific dichotomous probe included: ‘Which judges would you prefer to get feedback from, those that hold a positive view on you or those that hold a negative view on you’? Results Preliminary analyses t) t r p t r p Equivalence of the experimental groups 1 Change in state mood: Effects of the feedback manipulation 2 Table 2 Means and standard deviations for state mood at baseline (Time 1) and immediately post feedback (Time 2) by condition  Feedback condition  n n n  M SD M SD M SD Time 1 7.83 1.52 8.03 1.08 8.02 1.47 Time 2 8.83 1.25 8.19 1.19 6.84 2.05 Note Effects for success feedback F p F p η 2 F p η 2 p Effects for failure feedback F p F p η 2 F p η 2 p Do depressive symptoms, social acceptance, or gender moderate change in state mood? 1991 t t t Moderator effects for success feedback p Moderator effects for failure feedback p Self-reported feedback preferences: Effects of the feedback manipulation 3 Table 3 Feedback preferences across conditions broken down by CDI status  Feedback condition  n n n  Preferred Preferred Preferred Preferred Preferred Preferred CDI status positive (%) negative (%) positive (%) negative (%) positive (%) negative (%) Low (Bottom third) CDI<5 94.5 5.5 82.4 17.6 83.3 16.7 High (Top third) CDI>10 88.2 11.8 93.7 6.3 35.7 64.3 Total sample 91.5 8.5 91.5 8.5 66.7 33.3 Effects of success feedback 3 p Effects of failure feedback p p Do depressive symptoms, social acceptance, or gender moderate feedback preferences? t t t Moderator effects for success feedback t, t p Moderator effects for failure feedback t p p p 1 Are the effects of feedback valence on feedback preferences mediated by changes in state mood from pre- to post-feedback? 1986 1 Fig. 1 Mediational model of feedback preferences  Our analyses revealed that the second condition for mediation was not met, as evidenced by a non-significant relation between changes in state mood and feedback preferences. Taken together, our findings show that neither state mood at baseline (see above), nor changes in affect from pre- to post-feedback were significantly associated with children’s feedback preferences. Discussion The present study sought to advance our knowledge on how sub-clinical depression in pre-adolescent children is associated with self-reported feedback preferences. To our knowledge, this is the first study to investigate this linkage in response to an experimentally manipulated, ecologically relevant emotion-eliciting event in real time. In so doing, we included both a positive and a negative peer feedback manipulation, along with the assessment of the roles of state mood at baseline, changes in affect from pre- to post-feedback, and actual standing in the peer group. Data on participants’ immediate changes in state mood in response to the feedback manipulation revealed that the Survivor contest was successful in eliciting differential affective reactions in the expected direction as a function of feedback valence. Moreover, our debriefing interviews revealed that children were involved in the activity and that none of the participants reported being aware that the feedback they received was bogus. Taken together, these data suggest that the Survivor contest was successful in achieving its major objective of providing a credible and ecologically relevant emotion-eliciting event. 1973 relative 1973 1992 2003 1997 1997 1967 1976 1992 2003 1987 1990 2006 preferences behavior. 1997