This study examines how three factors affect students' reactions to critical feedback on an assignment--amount of feedback (none vs. low amount vs. high amount), source of feedback (instructor-provided feedback vs. peer-provided feedback), and the situational context of the feedback (revision of paper is or is not possible). An incomplete 3 × 2 × 2 between-subjects experimental design was used to expose students enrolled in a basic marketing course to hypothetical feedback scenarios that varied the aforementioned factors. N-way analyses of variance and analyses of covariance revealed main and interaction effects. Students generally responded more negatively to higher versus lower amounts of critical feedback provided by the instructor. By contrast, when peers provided the feedback, students in most cases responded similarly to low and high levels of feedback, and they indicated that a high level of peer feedback was more helpful than a low level of peer feedback. Allowing students the opportunity to revise their work had two interesting effects. The revision opportunity made them feel more dissatisfied with their current grade, and it also made them more receptive to the critical feedback. The results suggest much promise for increased use of peer-provided feedback as well as judicious use of instructor-provided critical feedback.