The present field experiment investigated the effects of accurate and non-accurate performance feedback on causal attributions, success expectancy, performance, and persistence on a motor task. Forty-six male middle-schoolers were randomly assigned to a Contingent (accurate) feedback, Non-contingent (non-accurate) feedback, or Control (no feedback) group and completed a challenging motor task. An initial treatment phase provided either accurate contingent feedback or yoked non-contingent feedback during the task, and measured task performance, attributions about performance, and success expectancy about future performance. A subsequent testing phase (same task) used the same measures and added a measure of motivation (persistence). Compared to the Contingent and Control groups, Noncontingent outcome feedback during the initial treatment phase led to more personally uncontrollable attributions, lower success expectancy, poorer performance, and lower persistence in the subsequent test phase. Despite a high rate of failure in the motor task for both feedback groups in the treatment phase, the Contingent group--getting accurate feedback about performance--had a higher sense of personal control and expectancy of success than the Non-contingent feedback group initially, and maintained these perceptions in the subsequent test phase where they also had better performance and higher levels of persistence than the Non-contingent group. Non-contingent feedback in an initial motor task appears to induce helplessness deficits in subsequent task performance and persistence. In contrast, providing accurate (contingent) feedback about achieved performance appears to protect against performance and motivational losses.