r». is 1..

In“...
it: I: I.

10!.
5%} N.

s 3?:-
u n: "ah“... h"
‘5'...)

i

d}! f

V... :1 x s...
I

. s .
.5; «ton...
.E I... 3. at...
, [10:93?»
:53...-
z
2.32 .l :51? .
t ‘\ (5.. .. \

193,711 7;
.3...

1.51:.
:.

 

 

TI‘VF ‘fii ‘K

192’]!

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled .

UNDERSTANDING AND IMPROVING TRAINING TRANSFER
MOTIVATION: AN APPLICATION OF RECENT
ADVANCES IN MOTIVATIONAL THEORY

presented by

Karen Renae Milner

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph . D . degree in PSYChOlogL >

0 MW‘ mm by
‘7 I Major professor \ I

Date September 30, 2002

MSU i: an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771

 

UBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN Box to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE I DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

i2 MW Moot

 

361107

 

leOiEE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 cJCIRC/DateDuopes—pJS

UNDERSTANDING AND IMPROVING TRAINING TRANSFER MOTIVATION:
AN APPLICATION OF RECENT ADVANCES IN MOTIVATIONAL THEORY

By

Karen Renae Milner

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Psychology

2002

 

CW

{I'd

IO

hie

tr.

tr;

ar

Sk

ABSTRACT

UNDERSTANDING AND IMPROVING TRAINING TRANSFER MOTIVATION:
AN APPLICATION OF RECENT ADVANCES IN MOTIVATIONAL THEORY

By

Karen Renae Milner

Training and learning are becoming more critical to organizational success than
ever before. However, people are often not able to successfully apply what they learn in
training to their work, even when the work environment provides support and opportunity
to do so. Drawing from three areas of recent advances in motivational theory - goal
hierarchies, approach and avoid goals, and implementation intentions — this study
proposed a post-training intervention designed to improve transfer behaviors and
performance. The intervention was expected to impact perceived personal relevance,
self-regulatory focus, and implementation intentions. These motivational constructs were
in turn expected to influence competence valuation, goal variety, and situational cueing,
respectively, and transfer behavior and performance. Although no support was found for
the manipulability of the motivational constructs, the results did indicate that constructs
other than motivation to learn and self-efficacy are valuable in describing and predicting
transfer behavior. In particular, the degree to which trainees valued competence in the
training content increased their use of the skills following training. Stronger approach-
mastery self-regulatory focus was associated with having a wider variety of transfer goals
and using a wider variety of trained skills after training. Greater frequency and variety of

skill use led to more successful transfer performance.

pd
Ihg
{QC

Th ._

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Although I by far hold the record for the number of hours invested directly in this
project, many people made significant contributions much more efficiently with crucial
insights or contributed years of hard work or friendship which found their way onto these
pages. To Kevin Ford, a huge thank you for your patience through my excruciating
process of coming up with an idea, and for your willingness to just let me disappear for
months at a time and still remember what we were talking about when I reappeared! As
always, your support, guidance, and questions shaped the challenge I took on without
ever pulling me through it. Thank you. Speaking of that excruciating idea-generating
process, I owe a huge romp in the park to Maxy Horvath, whose gentle canine
companionship during a rainy spring weekend helped me finally focus on a place to start
(and a big thanks to Mike and Anne Horvath, who kindly went away and left me with
her, and gave their support right through the end). As the ideas shaped up, my committee
members, Dan Ilgen, Neal Schmitt, and Ann Marie Ryan, provided valuable warnings
about weaknesses in my proposal that would have come up to bite me had they gone
unaddressed, plus had a good sense of humor about the whole process. Dan, your focus
on my construct measurement and clarity will stay with me as a larger lesson even for my
non-research future. Neal, your questions about the training content made this
investigation more fun and worthwhile both for me and the undergraduates who
participated in this study. Ann Marie, thank you for your shared disappointment about
the implementation intentions and situational cueing flop, plus your efforts to help me
recruit undergraduate assistants and participants to actually get this thing accomplished.

Thank you to all of you.

iii

My thanks also go to Fred Oswald for his help with recruiting both assistants and
participants. Without your help, I might still be collecting data! Tracy Johnson, Morgan
Barnum, and Rachel Petersen, you were the most fantastic research team I could have
dreamed of — thank you for your tremendous dedication and high spirits through it all.
Your contributions in shaping the negotiation training created a much better workshop,
and your “broken record” negotiations brought in the dependent variables. And you can’t
imagine how thrilled I was to have no rater effects to contend with in my data! Dawn
Kilanowski also earned a big thank you for helping me keep track of all of the recruited
people and of what I was supposed to be doing with them. My head would have spun ~
without your help.

I am grateful to Larry Schultz, Don Werner, and all of the “Stepper Uppers” at
Great Lakes Industry. It is a pleasure working with all of you. Your support throughout
this project made my life much richer and provided constant welcome opportunities to be
excited and challenged about something other than this project! Thank you for all that
you’ve added to my education and my life.

My family and friends deserve special thanks and hugs for all of their support and
encouragement throughout this project and the past five years (and then some). Dan
Weissbein, you contributed hugely both to my study and my sanity. Thanks for reliving
the whole experience with me. I only hope that my memory for it will not be as clear as
yours, though, and wish for you that you never have to relive it again! Beth Pemerewski
and Jennifer Selden, “dissertating” my “little book report” is finally over! Thank you for
your wonderful fiiendships and cheerleading through it all! I was better at all of the

challenges involved because of you. Cori Davis, thanks for the might-have-been-relaxing

iv

flight you invested in my intervention (sorry it didn’t work out!), and for bringing smiles
into my life whether fiom one foot away in Baker 14 or miles away. It’s your turn next!
Kevin Plamondon, thanks for your great pep talks, especially concerning life afier
dissertation. You were needed proof that there really was such a thing.

Most importantly, a great big thank you to Mom, Dad, David, and my wonderful
grandparents! Thanks for all of your encouragement and see you in the Twin Cities! But

no, Dad, I have no idea what you should do about that aching knee... Love, Dr. Karen.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. xi

LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... xiv

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... l

The Need for Effective Training .............................................................................. 2

TRANSFER OF TRAINING ............................................................................................... 5

Conditions of Training Transfer .............................................................................. 6

Research on Learning and Training in Transfer ................................................ 6

Research on Relevance and Reinforcement in Training Transfer ..................... 7

Research on Motivation in Training Transfer .................................................... 8

Expectancy theory ...................................................................................... 10

Self-efficacy ............................................................................................... l 2

Limitations ................................................................................................. 17

NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN MOTIVATION THEORY ................................................. 19

Self-Regulation ................................................................................................ l 9

Goal Hierarchies .................................................................................................... 21

Goal Importance and Motivation ..................................................................... 22

Self-Concept and Personal Relevance ............................................................. 24

Self-Regulatory Failure and Training Transfer ................................................ 26

Approach and Avoid Motivation ........................................................................... 28

Approach and Avoid in Self-Regulation Theories ........................................... 29

Positive and negative feedback loops ........................................................ 29

Approach and Avoid in Self-Discrepancy Theory ........................................... 30

Regulatory reference .................................................................................. 30

Regulatory focus ........................................................................................ 31

Regulatory anticipation .............................................................................. 32

Approach and Avoid in Achievement Motivation Theory .............................. 32

Competence valence as a dimension of achievement goals ....................... 33

Achievement environment ......................................................................... 37

Goal stability and transfer .......................................................................... 38

Summary of Approach and Avoid Convergence ............................................. 40

Implementation Intentions ..................................................................................... 40

Summary ................................................................................................................ 45
Current Applications of Advances in Motivational Theory

to a Prevalent Transfer Intervention ................................................................ 47

Personal Higher-Order Goals in Action Planning ........................................... 48

Approach and Avoid Goals in Action Planning .............................................. 49

Implementation Goals in Action Planning ....................................................... 51

vi

CONCEPTUAL MODEL OF TRANSFER MOTIVATION ............................................ 52

Effects of Transfer Behavior on Transfer Performance ......................................... 53
Effects of Transfer Motivation on Transfer Behavior ........................................... 55
Transfer Behavior ............................................................................................ 55
Self-Efficacy .................................................................................................... 56
Effects of the Mediating Motivational Mechanisms ........................................ 57
Competence valuation ................................................................................ 57
Goal variety ................................................................................................ 58
Situational cueing ....................................................................................... 60
Effects of the Target Motivational Constructs ................................................. 62
Perceived personal relevance ..................................................................... 63
Self-regulatory focus .................................................................................. 64
Implementation intentions ......................................................................... 65
Effects of the Transfer Intervention on Transfer Motivation ................................. 67
Personal Higher-Order Goals ........................................................................... 67
Approach Goals & Bounded Avoid Goals ....................................................... 69
Implementation Goals ...................................................................................... 73
Mediating Relationships ........................................................................................ 75
Explaining the Impact of the Transfer Motivation Intervention
on Transfer Behavior ................................................................................. 76
Explaining the Impact of the Target Motivational Constructs
on Transfer Behavior ................................................................................. 77
METHOD .......................................................................................................................... 78
Overview .......................................................................................................... 78
Design .............................................................................................................. 79
Control groups ........................................................................................... 79
Experimental group .................................................................................... 79
Power Analysis & Participants ........................................................................ 80
Procedure and Intervention .................................................................................... 81
Welcome, Informed Consent, and Introduction ............................................... 82
Pre—Training Motivation Measure .................................................................... 83
Negotiation Training and Practice ................................................................... 83
Post-Training Learning and Motivation Measures .......................................... 84
Transfer Intervention ....................................................................................... 84
Standard action planning intervention ....................................................... 84
Experimental transfer motivation intervention .......................................... 85
Pre-Transfer Motivational Measures ............................................................... 86
Short in Vivo Application Period .................................................................... 86
Pre-Simulation Transfer Behavior Measures ................................................... 87
Transfer Simulation ......................................................................................... 87
Post-Transfer Measures ................................................................................... 88
Debriefing and Dismissal ................................................................................. 88
Measures ................................................................................................................ 88
Pilot Testing ..................................................................................................... 89

vii

Pre-Training Motivation Measure .................................................................... 91

Motivation to learn negotiation .................................................................. 91
Post-Training Learning and Motivation Measures .......................................... 93
Learning ..................................................................................................... 93
Self-efficacy ............................................................................................... 93
Pre-Transfer Motivational Measures ............................................................... 94
Perceived personal relevance ..................................................................... 94
Negotiation competence valuation ............................................................. 94
Self-regulatory focus .................................................................................. 94
Implementation intentions ......................................................................... 95

Goal variety ................................................................................................ 96
Pre-Simulation Transfer Behavior Measures ................................................... 96
Independent negotiation skill use ............................................................... 96
Independent negotiation skill effectiveness ............................................... 97
Transfer Simulation Measures ......................................................................... 97
Transfer behavior (attempts) ...................................................................... 97
Transfer performance ................................................................................. 97
Post-Transfer Measures ................................................................................... 98
Situational cueing ....................................................................................... 99
Perceptions of transfer goal accomplishment ............................................ 99
Demographics ............................................................................................ 99
RESULTS ........................................................................................................................ 100
Data Quality ................................................................................................... 100
Missing data ............................................................................................. 100

Factor Analyses ...................................................................................................... 99
Factor Analyses along Motivational Paths .................................................... 101
Perceived personal relevance and competence valuation ........................ 101
Self-regulatory focus and goal variety ..................................................... 102
Implementation intentions and situational cueing ................................... 104

Factor Analyses across Motivational Paths ................................................... 105
Target motivational constructs ................................................................. 105
Mediating motivational mechanisms ....................................................... 107

Factor Analyses of Learning, Transfer Behavior, and Performance ............. 108
Learning ................................................................................................... 109
Personal life transfer behavior and performance ..................................... 109
Laboratory simulation transfer behavior and performance ...................... 110

Rater Effects ......................................................................................................... 110
Descriptive Statistics ............................................................................................ 111
Demographic characteristics .......................................................................... l 11
Condition means ............................................................................................ 111
Motivation to learn ......................................................................................... 112
Self-efficacy ................................................................................................... l 13
Hypothesis Tests .................................................................................................. 114
Effects of Transfer Behavior on Transfer Performance ................................. 114
Effects of Transfer Motivation on Transfer Behavior ................................... 1 15

viii

Effects of the Mediating Motivational Mechanisms

on Transfer Behavior ......................................................................... l 15
Effects of the Target Motivational Constructs
on the Mediating Motivational Mechanisms ..................................... 117
Perceived personal relevance ............................................................. 117
Self-regulatory focus .......................................................................... 1 18
Implementation intentions ................................................................. 1 18
Effects of the Transfer Intervention on Transfer Motivation ......................... 119
Perceived personal relevance ............................................................. 120
Self-regulatory focus .......................................................................... 120
Implementation intentions ................................................................. 12]
Tests of Mediation ......................................................................................... 122
Explaining the Impact of the Transfer Motivation Intervention
on Transfer Behavior ........................................................................ 122
Effects of experimental condition on transfer behavior ..................... 123

Effects of the target motivational constructs on transfer behavior ....123
Explaining the Impact of the Target Motivational Constructs

on Transfer Behavior ........................................................................ 124
Supplemental Analyses ........................................................................................ 125
DISCUSSION .................................................................................................................. 128
Key Findings and Contributions .......................................................................... 129
Motivation to learn ......................................................................................... 129
Self-efficacy ................................................................................................... 130
Higher-order goals ......................................................................................... 130
Approach and avoid goals .............................................................................. 132
Implementation intentions ............................................................................. 1 3 3
Unexpected Findings ........................................................................................... 135
Different relationship in simulation versus personal life negotiations .......... 142
Lack of support for mediation paths .............................................................. 146
Intervention as a moderator ........................................................................... 147
Lack of relationship between learning and transfer ....................................... 149
Gender effects ................................................................................................ 149
Directions for Future Research ............................................................................ 150
Effects of job responsibilities on perceived personal relevance .................... 151
Different motivational processes for different types of skills ........................ 151
Applying advances in motivational theory to transfer research ..................... 153
Measurement ............................................................................................ 1 53
Alternate models ...................................................................................... 154
Limitations ........................................................................................................... l 59
Laboratory setting .......................................................................................... 160
Self-ratin gs ..................................................................................................... 1 60
Difficulty distinguishing transfer behavior from transfer performance ......... 161
Undergraduate sample ................................................................................... 162
Negotiation training ....................................................................................... 163
Conclusion ........................................................................................................... 1 64

ix

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 165

APPENDIX A: Power Analyses ...................................................................................... 188
APPENDDI B: Informed Consent ................................................................................... 190
APPENDIX C: Experiment Introduction Script .............................................................. 191
APPENDIX D: Negotiation Skills Training .................................................................... 194
APPENDIX E: Negotiation Action Planning Guide (Control) ....................................... 218
APPENDIX F: Negotiation Action Planning Guide (Experimental) .............................. 221
APPENDIX G: Negotiation Simulation Information ...................................................... 229
APPENDIX H: Negotiation Simulation Script ................................................................ 231
APPENDIX 1: Debriefing ................................................................................................ 241
APPENDIX J : Measures .................................................................................................. 242
APPENDIX K: Measurement Pilot Procedure and Results ............................................. 257
APPENDIX L: Factor Analyses ...................................................................................... 266
APPENDIX M: Analysis Plan ......................................................................................... 273
APPENDIX N: Supplemental Analyses Results ............................................................. 278
TABLES .......................................................................................................................... 288
FIGURES ......................................................................................................................... 309

Table 1:

Table 2:

Table 3:

Table 4:

Table 5:

Table 6:

Table 7:

Table 8:

Table 9:

Table 10:

Table 1 1:

Table 12:

Table 13:

Table 14:

LIST OF TABLES

Higgins’ (1997) Conceptualization of Regulatory Reference and Regulatory
Focus ................................................................................................................ 31

Summary of Elliot & McGregor (2001) Study 2 and Study 3 (Selected):
Relationships of Antecedents with the F our-Factor Model of Achievement
Goals ................................................................................................................ 36

Summary of Elliot & McGregor (2001) Study 2 and Study 3 (Selected):
Relationships of the Four-F actor Model of Achievement Goals with

Consequences ................................................................................................... 37
Stability of Achievement Goals over Time (Elliot & McGregor, 2001) ......... 39
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations with Demographic Features for

Motivation and Outcome Variables ............................................................... 288
Correlations among Motivation and Outcome Variables .............................. 289

Regression Analysis: Effects of Transfer Attempts on Simulation
Performance ................................................................................................... 290

Regression Analysis: Effects of Transfer Attempt Variety on Simulation
Performance ................................................................................................... 290

Regression Analysis: Effects of Transfer Attempts on Transfer
Performance in Personal Life ......................................................................... 291

Regression Analysis: Effects of Transfer Attempt Variety on Transfer
Performance in Personal Life ......................................................................... 291

Regression Analysis: Effects of Self-Efficacy on Frequency of Transfer
Behavior Attempts (Simulation) .................................................................... 292

Regression Analysis: Effects of Self-Efficacy on Variety of Transfer
Behaviors Attempted (Simulation) ................................................................ 292

Regression Analysis: Effects of Self-Efficacy on Frequency of Transfer
Behavior Attempts (Personal Life) ................................................................ 293

Regression Analysis: Effects of Self-Efficacy on Variety of Transfer
Behaviors Attempted (Personal Life) ............................................................ 293

xi

Table 15:

Table 16:

Table 17:

Table 18:

Table 19:

Table 20:

Table 21:

Table 22:

Table 23:

Table 24:

Table 25:

Table 26:

Table 27:

Table 28:

Table 29:

Regression Analysis: Effects of Self-Efficacy on Number of Negotiations
Reported (Personal Life) ................................................................................ 294

Regression Analysis: Effects of Competence Valuation on Frequency of
Transfer Behavior Attempts (Simulation) ..................................................... 294

Regression Analysis: Effects of Competence Valuation on Variety of
Transfer Behaviors Attempted (Simulation) .................................................. 295

Regression Analysis: Effects of Competence Valuation on Frequency of
Transfer Behavior Attempts (Personal Life) .................................................. 295

Regression Analysis: Effects of Competence Valuation on Variety of
Transfer Behaviors Attempted (Personal Life) .............................................. 296

Regression Analysis: Effects of Competence Valuation on Number of
Negotiations Reported (Personal Life) .......................................................... 296

Regression Analysis: Effects of Goa! Variety on Frequency of Transfer
Behavior Attempts (Simulation) .................................................................... 297

Regression Analysis: Effects of Goal Variety on Variety of Transfer
Behaviors Attempted (Simulation) ................................................................ 297

Regression Analysis: Effects of Goal Variety on Frequency of Transfer
Behavior Attempts (Personal Life) ................................................................ 298

Regression Analysis: Effects of Goal Variety on Variety of Transfer
Behaviors Attempted (Personal Life) ............................................................ 298

Regression Analysis: Effects of Goal Variety on Number of Negotiations
Reported (Personal Life) ................................................................................ 299

Regression Analysis: Effects of Situational Cueing on Frequency of
Transfer Behavior Attempts (Simulation) ..................................................... 299

Regression Analysis: Effects of Situational Cueing on Variety of
Transfer Behaviors Attempted (Simulation) .................................................. 300

Regression Analysis: Effects of Situational Cueing on Frequency of
Transfer Behavior Attempts (Personal Life) .................................................. 300

Regression Analysis: Effects of Situational Cueing on Variety of
Transfer Behaviors Attempted (Personal Life) .............................................. 30!

xii

 

 

Ta

Tai

Tab

Tab].

Table

Table 30:

Table 31:

Table 32:

Table 33:

Table 34:

Table 35:

Table 36:

Table 37:

Table 38:

Table 39:

Table 40:

Table 41:

Table 42:

Regression Analysis: Effects of Situational Cueing on Number of

Negotiations Reported (Personal Life) .......................................................... 301
Regression Analysis: Effects of Perceived Personal Relevance on

Competence Valuation ................................................................................... 302
Regression Analysis: Effects of Self-Regulatory Focus on Goal Variety
(Simulation) ................................................................................................... 302
Regression Analysis: Effects of Self-Regulatory Focus on Goal Variety
(Personal Life) ............................................................................................... 303
Regression Analysis: Effects of Self-Regulatory Focus on Goal Variety
(Assertive Strategies) ..................................................................................... 303
Regression Analysis: Effects of Implementation Intentions on Situational

Cueing ............................................................................................................ 304

Analysis of Covariance: Effects of Transfer Motivation Intervention on
Perceived Personal Relevance ....................................................................... 304

Analysis of Covariance: Effects of Transfer Motivation Intervention on

Self-Regulatory Focus (Approach-Mastery) .................................................. 305
Analysis of Covariance: Effects of Transfer Motivation Intervention on
Self-Regulatory Focus (Approach-Performance) .......................................... 305
Analysis of Covariance: Effects of Transfer Motivation Intervention on
Self-Regulatory Focus (Avoid) ...................................................................... 306
Analysis of Covariance: Effects of Transfer Motivation Intervention on
Implementation Intentions ............................................................................. 306
Summary of Significant Predictors for Transfer Behavior Variables ............ 307

Significant Empirical Relationships in the Laboratory vs. Personal Life
Settings ........................................................................................................... 143

xiii

Figure 1:

Figure 2:

Figure 3:

Figure 4:

Figure 5:
Figure 6:

Figure 7:

Figure 8:

LIST OF FIGURES

Conceptual model of the impact of the experimental transfer motivation
intervention on transfer motivation, transfer behavior, and transfer

performance ................................................................................................... 308
Expected moderating effect of learning on the relationship between

transfer behavior and transfer performance ..................................................... 54
Heuristic summary of key findings ................................................................ 309
Effects of motivation to learn on approach-mastery self-regulatory

focus, by condition ......................................................................................... 310
Effects of motivation to learn on competence valuation, by condition ......... 31 1
Interrelationships of motivational constructs ................................................. 312

A promising model of the effects of motivation to learn, self-efficacy,
and competence valuation on the quantity of transfer behavior and
resulting performance quality ........................................................................ 313

A promising model of the effects of motivation to learn, self-efficacy,

and approach-mastery self-regulatory focus on the variety of transfer
behavior attempted and the resulting performance quality ............................ 314

xiv

INTRODUCTION

Training and learning are becoming more critical to organizational success than
ever before. Changes at every level of the organizational system (Katz & Kahn, 1978)
are pushing toward an increased need for employee learning and development (as well as
learning and development at the team and organizational levels). Globally, technological
advances are changing the tools and processes used both within organizations and in the
interface of organizations with consumers, and thus changing the competitive
environment in which organizations operate. Nationally, fundamental shifts in our
understanding of what it means for public-sector organizations to provide public goods
and services are causing further changes in organizational competition. At the
organizational level, hierarchical, management-heavy, function—based structures are
giving way to looser, more horizontal structures focused on self-directed, cross-functional
teams. The teams, too, are changing. Increasingly, teams are centered around specific
projects rather than membership, shifting both within and between projects to
accommodate current objectives and needs for expertise. At the center of it all,
individuals are increasingly seeing themselves as marketable service providers, pursuing
their career goals by trying to make themselves attractive to top organizations. Singly
and in combination, all of these forces are driving an increasing need for effective
employee training and development.

Despite the development and growth of training as a full-fledged professional and
scientific field, and the advances in training design and delivery, there continues to be a
sense that people often are not able to successfully apply what they learn in training to

their work. Researchers who have attempted to tackle this problem have developed

prescriptions for training design and for support features embedded into the work
environment, producing improvements in training transfer. However, murmurs in
organizations about the disappointing impact of training on job performance continue,
and researchers find that the constructs and processes implicated in training transfer
cannot tell the whole story about why people do not apply training to the extent desired.

More recent work on training transfer has turned to individual motivation as one
of the neglected influences on transfer. The two main perspectives on transfer motivation
have been applications of expectancy theory and self efficacy approaches. Expectancy
theory has contributed little to our understanding of transfer motivation. Self-efficacy
theory has led to some success, but has not led to a better understanding of how people
translate their self-efficacy beliefs into motivational processes and strategies that help
them transfer training successfully to their work. In addition, motivational theory has
progressed beyond expectancy constructs. Current advances in motivational theory, self-
regulation being at the forefront, center on goals and goal striving. These theories have
generated promising empirical results that have not yet been applied to training transfer.
This investigation focuses on mining current motivational theories for concepts that could
be used to advance our understanding of training transfer and our ability to improve
transfer.

The Need for Effective Training

Training is the primary organizational solution when there is a gap between
organizational needs and employee attitudes, knowledge, and skills. Thus, training plays
a vital role in improving and maintaining organizational productivity. However, training

is costly. Recent estimates of training expenditures in organizations suggest that

companies spend approximately $55 billion on training activities annually (Bassi &
VanBuren, 1999). If all of the time employees spend learning or teaching tasks,
processes, and perspectives that are not formally trained were included, the amount
would grow much larger. And if all of the time that is wasted in organizations on
inefficient processes, rework of goods and services, and desired but lost business
attributable to lack of attitudes, knowledge, and skills that are trainable could be
estimated, the amount that organizations should invest in training and development would
likely become still larger. The importance of its function and the high cost of training
development and delivery demand effectiveness. To be successful, training must deliver
on its promise to improve employee attitudes, knowledge, and skills in alignment with
organizational needs. Indeed, organizational leaders are increasingly concerned that
training investments justify themselves by creating improved organizational performance
(Martocchio & Baldwin, 1997).

Transfer of training is the key link between improvement in employee attitudes,
knowledge, and skill and improvement in organizational performance. Training transfer
involves the application of learned attitudes, knowledge, and skills to job performance
tasks, and the maintenance of this application over time. In terms of Kirkpatrick’s (1976;
1994) four-level model of training evaluation, transfer equates to behavior. No matter
how much attitude, knowledge, and skill improvement results from a training program,
there can be no hope of organizational improvement without application of learning to
the job. A recent meta-analysis (Colquitt, LePine, & Noe, 2000) supported transfer as a
complete mediator of the relationship between skill acquisition and job performance.

Noe and Schmitt (1986) also found that behavior change significantly affected

performance improvement, though in their study, behavior change was unrelated to
measures of learning. Transfer has been supported as the critical link between training
and job performance improvements.

The link between individual job performance and organizational performance,
particularly following training, has been more difficult to support empirically. Although
disappointing scientifically, the lack of evidence on this front is hardly surprising given
the complexity of identifying and measuring appropriate representations of both job
performance and organizational performance criteria (Austin & Villanova, 1992) and
adequately controlling for the many other factors (e. g., the state of the economy) that
contribute to organizational performance and are likely to moderate the relationship
between individual and organizational productivity (Campbell, 1988). Perhaps the
closest inference that can be drawn from empirical work results from MacDuffre’s (1995)
investigation of the effects of bundles of human resource practices on automotive
assembly plant productivity and quality. MacDuffie found that plants providing
extensive training (among other human resource and manufacturing practices)
consistently outperformed plants using more traditional practices (including less initial
and ongoing training for employees). Similarly, Terpstra and Rozell (1993) found that
the extent to which organizations used five employee selection practices was positively
related to both annual profit and profit growth across a range of industries. Presumably,
this positive relationship may have been due at least in part to the contributions that
selected individuals were able to make to the organizations through their individual job
performance. The results of both of these studies must be interpreted with caution, since

they were cross-sectional and correlational in nature, and since neither of them explicitly

examined individual job performance. However, they provide support for the idea that
individual performance contributes to organizational performance, and that training
interventions that successfully improve individual job performance can lead to improved
organizational performance.

In the absence of solid evidence, we must trust that to the extent that job
performance ratings may include both subjective components that are linked to the
organization’s goals, and in some cases objective measures of work output, individual job
performance does ultimately influence organizational performance. Thus, training that
can improve individual performance ought to lead to improvements in organizational
performance as well. Because improvements in individual performance as a result of
training depend completely on successful application of learned attitudes, knowledge, and
skills to the job, it is essential that we understand how to achieve successful transfer. The
purpose of the current study is to further our understanding of how individuals
successfully transfer new attitudes, knowledge, and skills to their work.

Transfer of Training

Clearly, training is important, and because training is important, transfer is
critical. A variety of learning outcomes can result from training, including affective
attitudes and motivation, knowledge, and skills (Kraiger, Ford, & Salas, 1993).

However, without subsequent application to the job, this learning is useless. Training
transfer involves the application of trained attitudes, knowledge, and skills to job
performance tasks, and the maintenance of this application over time.

Training researchers have not been ignorant of our need to understand transfer.

According to a review of transfer research by Baldwin and Ford (1988), investigators

have been studying transfer since 1901, although transfer studies were few and far
between until a surge of activity in the 19508, followed by a decade-long lull, and then
another bout of activity from the 19705 into the present (Ford & Weissbein, 1997). All of
this research activity and the accompanying, though limited, theoretical activity has led to
advances in our understanding of how training design, trainee characteristics, and
characteristics of the organizational environment influence transfer. However, we still
have much to learn about transfer (Baldwin & Ford, 1988; Ford & Weissbein, 1997;
Salas & Cannon-Bowers, 2001). In particular, we need to improve our understanding of
the role individual learners play in creating transfer, and the motivational influences and
processes that enhance or attenuate transfer success.
Conditions of Training Transfer

For decades, training researchers and practitioners have cited three fundamental
conditions necessary for transfer of training to occur: training must be designed well so
that trainees learn the content; the new knowledge, skills, and attitudes must be relevant
to the job and positively reinforced; and trainees must be motivated to apply the content
to their jobs (Baldwin & Ford, 1988; Byham, Adams, & Kiggins, 1976; Mosel, 1957;
Noe, 1999). Research in the first two areas has flourished; research on the effects of
individual motivation on transfer has lagged.
Research on Learning and Training Transfer

With respect to trainee learning, there have been improvements in theory and
practice regarding how to design training programs to maximize learning. Drawing from
cognitive and instructional psychology theories, training transfer researchers have found

support for the impact of training design characteristics such as stimulus variability

(Baldwin, 1992), identical elements (Duncan & Underwood, 1953; Gick & Holyoak,
1987; Underwood, 1951), general principles (Crannell, 1956; Goldbeck, Bernstein, /
Hillix, & Marx, 1957), whole versus part practice (Briggs & Naylor, 1962; Naylor & V
Briggs, 1963), massed versus spaced practice (Digrnan, 1959), overlearning (Atwater,
1953; Gagne & Foster, 1949; Mandler, 1954), and training with problems at various
completion levels (Paas, 1992).

Aside from training design, researchers have also found that cognitive ability has I/
a significant positive impact on training transfer (Gordon & Kleiman, 1976; Neel &
Dunn, 1960; Tubiana & Shakhar, 1982), particularly when ability is conceptualized as
performance on a training sample (Downs, 1970; Gordon, 1955; Gordon & Cohen, 1973;
Gordon & Kleiman, 1976; McGehee, 1948). Higher cognitive ability leads to better
learning, and eventually to better transfer. However, an important conclusion from
research on learning and transfer is that training design and ability do not tell the whole
story about trainee learning, and learning does not tell the whole story about transfer
(Alliger, Tannenbaum, Bennett, Traver, & Shotland, 1997). We cannot understand and
maximize learning and transfer based on training design and trainee ability alone.
Research on Relevance and Reinforcement in Training Transfer

Focus on training relevance has led to advances in how to systematically conduct
needs assessments to produce training that is directly connected to the attitudes,
knowledge, skills, and abilities required for job performance (Goldstein, 1986; McGehee
& Thayer, 1961; Ostroff & Ford, 1989). Emphasis on the importance of the transfer

climate (Hand, Richards, & Slocum, 1973; Rouiller & Goldstein, 1993; Tracey,

Tannenbaum, & Kavanagh, 1995) and supervisory support (Bates, 2000; Brinkerhoff &

Montesino, 1995; Fleischman, 1953; Huczynski & Lewis, 1980) has led researchers to

stress the importance of not only general aspects of the transfer environment, but also

specific elements such as opmMW skills (Ford, Quifiones, Sego, & /I I
Sorra, 1992; Quifrones, Ford, Sego, & Smith, 1996). F acteau, Dobbins, Russell, Ladd, &
Kudisch (1995) argued that it is important to view environmental favorability for transfer

as a multidimensional construct, including both task and social support from various

sources (i.e., top management, supervisor, peer, and subordinate). Recent efforts have

even begun to manipulate work environment characteristics such as supervisp: support to /" I
further test the impact on transfer (Smith-Jentsch, Salas, & Brannick, 2001 ).

Research on the connection between the work environment and transfer of
training has led to the conclusion that training must be relevant to organizational goals
and supported in the work environment in order to produce successful transfer. However,
these factors also fail to tell the whole story about training transfer. Despite training
relevance and supervisory support for transfer, there continues to be unexplained
individual variability in transfer success.

Research on Motivation in Training Transfer

In contrast to the attention focused on trainee learning and training relevance and
reinforcement, research attention to trainee motivation (the third condition for transfer)
has been limited. Only in the past decade have researchers begun to systematically
examine the role of this third contributor to transfer, although it has been discussed in
passing since the 19503. Motivation is a force directing behavior; it includes direction,
intensity, and persistence as dimensions of this force (Kanfer, 1991). Direction describes

the specific behaviors to which effort is invested. Intensity describes the amount of effort

invested in a particular behavior. Persistence describes the continuation of this effort

over time. Training transfer, the application of trained knowledge, skills, and attitudes to

problems and tasks on the job, clearly involves motivation. The person must specifically

direct effort toward applying learning to a particular job situation, and must invest a great

enough intensity of effort and persist over a long enough period of time to accomplish the

application. Moreover, in order to achieve successfirl transfer, the person must do all of

this not just once but many times, in varying job situations, and most likely in the face of

some degree of failure. Despite the trainee’s central role in actually doing transfer,

however, and the increasing expectation in organizations for people to be more proactive

in obtaining new skills (e. g., 360° feedback systems, career development programs), we

know very little about individual motivational characteristics or strategies that affect

training transfer. When Baldwin and Ford reviewed the transfer literature in 1988, they \

concluded that research on motivational effects on transfer outcomes was not only “quite 3

limited” (p. 68), but also characterized by a “lack of a systematic approach . . . [resulting] ll!

in minimal improvements in our understanding of the transfer process” (p. 82). ii
More recently, Ford and Weissbein (1997) concluded that progress is being made

in our understanding of motivational factors involved in training transfer. Some

theoretical models of motivation have begun to be enlisted to explain training transfer,

and more sophisticated conceptual frameworks are being used to organize the

motivational constructs being investigated. Salas and Cannon-Bowers (2001) agreed that

researchers are beginning to investigate training motivation in a more synthesized and

integrated way, rather than through the piecemeal and imprecise studies representing

training motivation research thus far. Expectancy theory (Vroom, 1964) and self-efficacy

\/ .

Cr ’

(Bandura, 1977) have been two dominant influences on training transfer research from
the motivational literature. This section reviews the contributions of these perspectives to
our understanding of the influence of motivation on training transfer.

Expectancy theory. Expectancy theory (V room, 1964) describes motivation in
terms of attempts to achieve desired outcomes. The basic notion of expectancy theory is
that people direct, calibrate, and sustain their effort in behaviors that they believe will
most likely lead to desired outcomes. There are three central beliefs involved in
expectancy theory: expectancy, instrumentality, and valence. Applied to training
transfer, these capture (respectively): the trainee’s belief about the extent to which effort
invested in applying trained knowledge, skills, or attitudes will lead to improvements in
performance; the trainee’s belief about the extent to which the resulting performance
improvements are likely to lead to more distant desired outcomes (e. g., promotion); and
the trainee’s subjective evaluation of the attractiveness of the more distant outcomes. In
general, expectancy theory would predict greater transfer motivation when people believe
their efforts to apply trained knowledge, skills, or attitudes will lead to performance
improvements that will in turn lead to highly desired outcomes.

Expectancy theory has served as a framework for several investigations of the role
of motivation in training transfer. F acteau, Dobbins, Russell, Ladd, & Kudisch (1995)
used an expectancy theory foundation to investigate pretraining motivation. Although
they did not discuss a theoretical framework for their study, they focused on antecedents
of pretraining motivation that are in line with an expectancy theory view of motivation
(e.g., perceived training reputation, training incentives, career exploration and planning,

and organizational commitment). Further, their explanations of hypothesized

10

relationships focus on the trainees’ interest in outcomes that might result from training
and beliefs about whether training will help them achieve those outcomes. Facteau et al.
found that general pretraining motivation was positively related to perceived transfer of
skills fi'om a public sector management training program.

Mathieu, Tannenbaum, and Salas (1992) explicitly used an expectancy theory
perspective in their investigation of training motivation. They found that none of the
antecedents they hypothesized based on the theory (career planning, job involvement,
assignment to training, situational constraints) were significantly related to training
motivation for a particular training program. However, they did find that their
expectancy theory based construal of training motivation had a significant positive
impact on reactions to training. In addition, training motivation was positively related to
learning, especially for people who had positive reactions to the training (i.e., reactions
moderated the relationship between training motivation and learning). Mathieu,
Tannenbaum, and Salas did not directly assess training transfer, but they did measure
performance on a work sample, and found that performance was positively predicted by
learning. Thus, they found partial, but limited, support for an expectancy theory based
notion of training motivation. They concluded by calling for alternate conceptions of
training motivation based on other theories.

As a final example, Noe and Schmitt (1986) used an expectancy theory
framework to investigate motivation to learn and motivation to transfer. However, they
found little support for their operationalizations of motivation based on this theory. Their
analyses suggested that post-training motivation to transfer should be dropped entirely

from their hypothesized model, and pretraining motivation was retained but not

11

 

 

dis
the
amt
with
Unde
dCI'ot.

thater;

      
 

them)“
dlfeCli-I.

1'11ng (.13.,

significantly related to any of the hypothesized antecedents or to learning. In their study,
examining motivation to learn and motivation to transfer from an expectancy theory
perspective did not contribute much to our understanding of training motivation, transfer,
or individual job performance.

Research based on an expectancy theory framework has provided some insight
into the connection between motivation and transfer, and has highlighted the importance
of the outcomes available in work roles. This research has led to recommendations for
interventions that influence trainees’ beliefs about the relationship between their effort to
use trained knowledge, skills, and attitudes and their job performance; highlight the
potential benefits of using trained knowledge, skills, and attitudes; and emphasize
connections between training and organizational rewards such as pay increases or
promotions. However, the expectancy theory view of transfer motivation has produced
disappointing empirical results. Mathieu and Martineau (1997) proposed that expectancy
theory notions of training motivation are better suited for predicting individual choices
among training alternatives than for providing information about individual motivation
within a training program. Expectancy theory provides little guidance to help us
understand the processes involved in the direction, intensity, and persistence of behavior
devoted to training transfer, or the motivational strategies engaged to prompt and sustain
that attention.

Self-efficacy. Self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977) is at the center of social learning

 

theory’s argument that anticipation of future outcomes determines the motivational
direction, intensity, and persistence of behavior. Self-efficacy is a person’s subjective

judgment of whether he or she can successfully perform the behaviors believed to be

12

required to achieve a particular outcome. Applied to training transfer, self-efficacy
describes the person’s judgment of whether he or she can reap the benefits of the trained
knowledge, skills, or attitudes by successfully applying them on the job. Social learning
theory would predict that greater self-efficacy will lead to greater motivation to transfer
training to the job.

Research on the role of self-efficacy in training has provided fairly conclusive
evidence that greater self-efficacy leads to greater learning and performance, and this
construct continues to attract research attention to untangle these relationships more
precisely (Mathieu & Martineau, 1997; Salas & Cannon-Bowers, 2001). Marilyn Gist
and her colleagues have provided an accumulation of evidence, in both laboratory and
field settings. In general, these studies have found that self-efficacy plays a significant
positive role in learning and transfer processes. Gist, Schwoerer, and Rosen (1989) found
that specific self-efficacy (i.e., self-efficacy regarding particular training content) had a
positive relationship with learning how to use a computer software package, even when
factors such as education and experience were controlled. In addition, they found that
training method can impact development of self-efficacy during training, especially when
pretraining self-efficacy is low. In a study comparing two methods for training
innovative problem-solving, Gist (1989) again found that training method impacted self-
efficacy for being able to achieve various levels of performance. A training method
using cognitive modeling with practice and reinforcement led to higher self-efficacy than
training with lecture and practice alone, even after controlling for pretraining self-
efficacy levels. The cognitive modeling method also led to better performance. Self-

efficacy was not evaluated as a mediator of the relationship between training method and

13

performance, so conclusions cannot be drawn about whether self-efficacy was
responsible for the improved performance.

Gist, Stevens, and Bavetta (1991) found that post-training self-efficacy was
positively related to performance of negotiation skills both immediately and seven weeks
after training. Most recently, Stevens and Gist (1997) found that post-training self-
efficacy was significantly related to performance seven weeks after training only in a
condition that received a performance-oriented (i.e., focused on using goal setting to
achieve the best negotiation outcomes) post-training intervention. Self-efficacy was
unrelated to performance in the condition receiving a mastery-oriented intervention (i.e.,
focused on behavioral modeling to achieve skill improvement). In addition, Stevens and
Gist (1997) examined the influences of post-training self-efficacy on trainee cognitions.
They found that in the performance-oriented intervention group, higher self-efficacy led
to reduced cognitive withdrawal, greater use of analytic strategies, and reduced worry
during the delayed performance negotiation task. In the mastery-oriented intervention
group, higher self-efficacy was paradoxically related to greater cognitive withdrawal, was
unrelated to use of analytic strategies, and was related to reduced worry during the
delayed performance negotiation task (as it was in the performance-oriented group).

This research highlights the complexity of the relationship between self-efficacy and
performance depending on whether learning or performance is emphasized in the training
program. The Stevens and Gist study also represents a noteworthy attempt to connect
self-efficacy to the trainees’ cognitive processes.

Other researchers have also expanded our understanding of the role of self-

efficacy in training transfer. In one laboratory study, self-efficacy was considered as an

14

antecedent of motivation to learn (Quif’rones, 1995). Pretraining self-efficacy was
positively related to a self-report scale of motivation to learn the material presented in the
particular training program tested. Motivation to learn in turn positively affected learning
and behavior use following training, though not performance quality nor quantity. Self-
efficacy has also been found to be related to opportunity to perform trained skills (Ford,
Quifiones, Sego, & Sorra, 1992). Higher levels of self-efficacy were related to increases
in two of the three dimensions of opportunity to perform; four months after training,
individuals with higher self-efficacy performed more tasks (breadth) and more complex
and difficult tasks (task type) than trainees with lower self-efficacy. Self-efficacy was
not related to the frequency of performance of trained skills (activity level).

Ford, Smith, Weissbein, Gully, and Salas (1998) found that self-efficacy at the
end of training was related to performance on the experimental transfer task (a radar
operations simulation). Further, this relationship was evident even after the level of
knowledge and skill gained in training was controlled. Self-efficacy was also positively
related to metacognitive activity (choice of practice scenarios, self-monitoring of
learning, and self-evaluation of progress) and choice to practice the most difficult
available scenario, which participants knew was most similar to the transfer task, and was
found to mediate the negative relationship between performance goal orientation and
transfer performance. Thus, self-efficacy was supported as an important motivational
learning outcome that influenced transfer performance. Similar to Quinones’ (1995)
study described above, self-efficacy was not related to activity level, or the frequency

with which participants practiced an important task strategy during the practice exercises.

15

Other researchers have examined the development of self-efficacy during training,
although they have focused on knowledge and skill acquisition rather than transfer.
Mathieu, Martineau, and Tannenbaum (1993) proposed a model that described self-
effrcacy development during training. They found that self-efficacy was partly stable and
partly malleable over the course of the training program (a college bowling course), and
that self-efficacy assessed midway through the program predicted subsequent
performance improvement. Specifically, achievement motivation and choice to
participate in the training were positively related to self-efficacy development.
Individual-level constraints (i.e., competing demands that would reduce practice time)
had a negative impact on self-efficacy. Self-efficacy midway through the training course
contributed to performance at the end of the bowling course over and above self-efficacy
assessed prior to training and initial performance.

Martocchio (1994) tested the effects of influencing trainees’ self-efficacy beliefs
by manipulating their beliefs that skills taught in a training program were fixed (entity)
versus acquirable (incremental). He found that he was able to affect self-efficacy beliefs
as expected. People who received training emphasizing that they could acquire the skills
being trained exited the training with higher self—efficacy than they had entered with,
whereas trainees who were led to believe that they should already possess the skills
needed to succeed and that hard work would not pay off exited the training with lower
self-efficacy than they had entered with (the two groups did not differ in pretraining self-
efficacy). Self-efficacy, in turn, was positively related to acquisition of declarative

knowledge. No measure of transfer was assessed in this study.

16

 

 

 

P0:

165!

evi d
fOIlk
that t
self-t
regar
help 1

ailituh

transfd
(Bandt
that is I

trans fer

 

Similarly, Martocchio and Webster (1992) found that positive versus negative
feedback influenced development of self-efficacy specific to a software training program.
For trainees receiving negative feedback, self-efficacy beliefs lowered during the course
of the training, even though the negative feedback was not based on their true learning or
performance level. In contrast, self-efficacy beliefs of trainees receiving positive
feedback increased. Self-efficacy beliefs were also related to attributions for negative
(but not positive) feedback; people with low self-efficacy made internal attributions for
their poor performance, while those with high self-efficacy made external attributions.
Post-training self-efficacy was also related to performance on the knowledge acquisition
test.

In conclusion, research on self-efficacy in training and transfer has provided
evidence for the importance of the individual’s self-efficacy beliefs before, during, and
following training. In addition, this research provides guidance regarding interventions
that can be used to increase self-efficacy in training. However, research focusing on a
self-efficacy model of motivation in training so far has not provided many leads
regarding how people translate their self-efficacy beliefs into processes and strategies that
help them to direct, calibrate, and persist in applying trained knowledge, skills, and
attitudes to their job successfully.

Limitations. The research that has been done on the role of motivation in training
transfer has primarily focused on expectancy theory (Vroom, 1964) and self-efficacy
(Bandura, 1977). In addition, research has predominantly viewed motivation as a force
that is present prior to training (motivation to learn) and presumably stable, influencing

transfer primarily through its influence on learning. Moreover, the person who is actually

17

 

 

 

oftl
“in
\VhCI

job,

moth
eXami
itself,
Inlliak
deepe
effon

based

doing the work of transfer has been viewed as remarkably passive, at the mercy of
motivational determinants such as information available in the environment to form the
basis for expectancy beliefs, the framing of the training, or the type of feedback available.
Campbell (1988) argued that individual variables such as trainees’ goals, their self-
regulatory behavior, and their self-efficacy before, during, and after training could impact
the ultimate effectiveness of a training program, encouraging a better understanding of
individual-level processes involved in training. Uncovering the motivational processes
involved in training transfer promises to give us a better understanding of why training
works or does not work, the question training reviewers have continued to pose to
researchers (Ford & Weissbein, 1997; Salas & Cannon-Bowers, 2001).

To understand how successful transfer occurs, we must deepen our understanding
of the role motivational processes play in the transfer process, and especially the ways in
which people engage those motivational processes. Successful transfer can result only
when people choose to attempt transfer of trained knowledge, skills, or attitudes to their
job, and bolster that choice with enough effort maintained long enough to result in
successful application. We have begun to tap into people’s general sense of being
motivated and willing to exert effort, but to further our understanding, we need to
examine in more detail the motivational processes operating within the transfer process
itself. We need to deepen our understanding of how and under what conditions people
initiate transfer behaviors. Once the choice to attempt transfer is made, we need to
deepen our understanding of the motivational processes involved in allocating adequate
effort and persistence to the transfer attempt to make it a transfer success. Research

based on expectancy and self-efficacy notions of motivation provide useful information

18

 

 

n

the
cue
(:0(
[bet
Fort
199‘
devc
fiani
(as h.
l<uhk|
COngpl

ScHZR

reguhr
come i.

 

regarding how to arouse and increase motivation to transfer. However, studies applying
expectancy and self-efficacy constructs provide little evidence about the processes
through which motivation operates and the strategies motivated people use to create
successful transfer. The purpose of this study is to deepen our understanding of the
individual motivational processes involved in training transfer.
New Developments in Motivation Theory

Training researchers have achieved significant advances by turning to cognitive
theory for expertise on cognitive components of learning (e.g., memory, information
cueing and retrieval; Cannon-Bowers, Tannenbaum, Salas, & Converse, 1991; Howell &
Cooke, 1989; Lord & Maher, 1991), as well as by applying cognitive constructs and
theory to the entire instructional systems model of training (Coovert & Craiger, 1997;
Ford & Kraiger, 1995; Goldsmith & Kraiger, 1997; Rogers, Maurer, Salas, & Fisk,
1997). However, there is still much potential in motivational perspectives and theories
developed more recently than the much-relied-on expectancy theory and self-efficacy
frameworks. Training researchers have remained seemingly oblivious to these advances
(as have organizational researchers in general; e. g., see a recent review by Ambrose &
Kulik, 1999, which focuses predominantly on seven traditional motivational theories and
conspicuously omits new theoretical work from the section on “emerging areas”).
Self-Regulation

A key emerging area in motivational theory over the past 25 years is self-
regulation. Replacing pure behavioral or cognitive models, self-regulation theories have
come to be the dominant fundamental frameworks for understanding human behavior.

Self-regulation theories attempt to integrate cognitive, motivational, social, and

19

behavioral perspectives on human behavior, and have been used to explain a wide range
of phenomena and contexts, including: our sense of self and personal agency
(Zimmerman, 2000), goal commitment and choice of goal strategies (Shah & Kruglanski,
2000), personality (Matthews, Schwean, Campbell, Saklofske, & Mohamed, 2000),
societal influence on behavior (Jackson, Mackenzie, & Hobfoll, 2000), health behaviors
and coping with illness (Brownlee, Leventhal, & Leventhal, 2000; Maes & Gebhardt,
2000), and learning (Boekaerts & Niemivirta, 2000; Rheinberg, Vollmeyer, & Rollett,
2000). At their core, the self-regulation theories have in common a focus on explaining
why and how people direct our behavior toward particular ends. The basic self-
regulatory process is a cybernetic control loop, in which some indicator of current
performance resulting from behavior is compared against a goal, and behavioral
adjustments are made to reduce the discrepancy between performance and the goal (e. g.,
Carver & Scheier, 2000). With respect to transfer motivation, the key question is how
can self-regulation theories help us understand why and how people might successfirlly
direct behavior toward using the skills they learn in training in their work.

It is beyond the scope of this investigation to provide a complete treatment of the
numerous and diverse self-regulation theories currently being researched (consult
Boekaerts, Pintrich, & Zeidner, 2000 for an overview of these developments) or all of the
potential ramifications self-regulation might have for training transfer. Instead, I will
focus on three components of self-regulation theory that appear to be especially
promising for improving transfer motivation by influencing the intensity, direction, and
persistence with which people choose to apply effort to transferring trained skills. The

three concepts all involve goals as a critical mechanism for understanding motivation.

20

Specifically, they include goal hierarchies, goal valence, and implementation intentions.
These self-regulation concepts have been only somewhat integrated into training transfer
research in the past. In this section, I will review theoretical and empirical developments
in each of these areas and discuss the extent to which each concept has been incorporated
into training transfer theory and research thus far. In the next section, I present a model
of transfer motivation that builds on and extends these connections.

Goal Hierarchies

The first concept from self-regulation theory that could be applied to
understanding and improving transfer motivation involves goal hierarchies. A critical
assumption in self regulation theories is that human behavior is purposeful. People do
things in order to achieve a goal, even if they are not consciously aware of what the goal
is or even if the goal is trivial. Applied to training transfer, this assumption implies that if
people are going to apply trained skills to their work, they need to have some sort of goal
relevant to that application. The new skills must be seen as useful for achieving a goal
the individual currently holds, or a new goal must be created to motivate the person to
use the new behaviors.

Goal hierarchies describe the relative degree of abstractness of various goals.
Powers (1973) argued that feedback loops are hierarchically arranged such that high-level
loops provide goals or standards to the loops just below them, providing increasing
specificity for discrepancy detection and reduction at each lower level. Similarly,
Vallacher and Wegner’s (1987; 1989) action identification theory posits that any given
behavior can be identified, or described, at a variety of hierarchical levels ranging from

abstract representations to specific motor descriptions (e.g., when using a particular

21

negotiation strategy, a person might claim to be “standing up for my personal rights,”
“being assertive,” “trying to get my money back,” “applying the ‘broken record’

9, “

technique, repeating myself over and over again,” or “using my vocal chords”) A
seemingly infinite set of descriptions can be offered for any particular behavior, but the
descriptions reflect very different purposes or goals for engaging in the behavior.
Hi gher-level action identifications describe why the behavior is being enacted; lower-
level action identifications describe how the behavior is being performed. Similarly,
Carver and Scheier (1998) distinguish “be” goals, which describe abstract qualities we
would like to have, from “do” goals, which describe the concrete strategies and behaviors
we engage to reflect those qualities. Higher-order goals provide purpose and give form
and meaning to lower-order goals, which serve as measurable targets.
Goal Importance and Motivzflgn

Connecting the concept of a goal hierarchy to motivation, Carver and Scheier
(1998) point out that goal importance differs as a function of a goal’s location within a
person’s hierarchy and connections to other goals in the hierarchy. Higher-order goals,
which are fundamental to a person’s sense of self, have high importance. However, these
abstract goals are not held at a level that is usefirl for directly guiding behavior—a goal to
stand up for personal rights can be achieved in any number of ways, only one example of
which is being assertive, and being assertive can be achieved in many ways. Although by
definition lower—order goals have less importance than higher-order goals, these
strategies are vital to the accomplishment of higher-order goals. Their importance

relative to competing lower-order goals varies as a result of their connections to the

higher-order goals in two ways. First, lower-order goals that are perceived as directly

22

contributing to the achievement of an important high-level goal have greater importance
than those that are not perceived to directly contribute to accomplishment of an important
high-level goal. Second, lower-order goals that are perceived to contribute to the
accomplishment of more than one higher-order goal are granted more importance than
those that are connected to fewer important high-level goals.

Goal importance is relevant to motivation in two ways. First, goal importance
influences the choices we make about which goals to invest effort to pursuing at any
given moment. We are more likely to pursue lower-level goals that are aligned with one
or more important hi gher-order goals (Macs & Gebhardt, 2000). This could be thought
of as influencing the intensity with which we pursue particular goals—we are likely to
invest more effort, and thus more behavior, toward goals that are more important to us.
Second, goal importance influences our willingness to persist in our efforts to attain a
goal. Goals that are higher in our goal hierarchy, and goals that have more importance to
us because of their association with one or more higher-order goals, are more difficult to
disengage from than goals with less importance. When goals are central to our self-
concepts, we cannot disengage from them, ignore them, or tolerate large discrepancies
between the goals and our present states without reorganizing our value systems, which is
not an impossible option, but is generally less palatable than continuing to persist toward
the goal (Greenwald, 1980; McIntosh & Martin, 1992; Millar, Tesser, & Millar, 1988).
Carver and Scheier (1998) argue that when goals are very important to us, we will persist
longer in trying to achieve them, even when we have doubts about our ability to reach the

goal (i.e., low self-efficacy). Thus, because goals that are higher in our goal hierarchy or

23

are perceived to be firmly connected to higher-order goals have greater importance for us,
we are more likely to both engage in goal pursuit and persist in goal pursuit.
Self-Concept gd Person_al Relevance

Research beyond the realm of self-regulation theories also support the notion that
self-concept and relevance to personal goals enhance motivation as well as having other
effects such as coloring the way we perceive the world around us. Sharnir (1991) argued
that work motivation theories had been limited by their lack of attention to self-concept
as a central motivating force in human behavior. Researchers have found that
congruence or alignment between personal (higher-order) goals and program or
organizational (higher-order) goals is significantly related to exercise behaviors over time
(Duda & Tappe, 1988) and to job enjoyment (Connelly, 1985). With respect to training
transfer, goal congruence would mean that the person would be able to link behaviors
learned in training based on the organization’s goals to his or her personal higher-order
goals, and thus would be expected to be more motivated to use the trained skills.

Others have demonstrated that relevance to our personal goals increases: our
interest in feedback related to that goal (Trope & Pomerantz, 1998); our perceptions of
the seriousness and personal importance of events, and our affective reactions and self-
regulatory responses to those events (Lavallee & Campbell, 1995); our interpretations of
and responses to training messages and life situations (Freeman, Hennessy, & Marzullo,
2001; Sanderson & Cantor, 1995). In addition, there are links between connections of
information to our self-concepts (personal relevance) and memory. We have better
memory for information we have linked to ourselves than for information we link to less

familiar people, for whom we have less well-differentiated memory structures (Bower &

24

Gilligan, 1979). In addition, increased importance resulting from personal relevance can
lead to heightened accessibility of attitudes (Bizer & Krosnick, 2001). In fact, evidence
fi'om brain injury case studies, split-visual-field research, and positron emission
tomography suggests that specialized areas of the brain are active in establishing,
maintaining, and processing personally relevant information, and that injury to these
areas disrupts and distorts recognition and memory for this information (Maguire &
Murnmery, 1999; Ohnesorge & VanLancker, 2001; VanLancker, 1991). This basic level
of attention and memory for things we perceive as relevant to our selves and our personal
goals suggest that personal relevance could have a positive impact on training transfer
motivation if training skills could be linked to personal goals and self-concepts of
trainees.

Beyond attention and memory, personal relevance has also been found to be
connected to: greater stability of opinions and lower receptivity to superficial elements of
persuasive communication (Petty & Cacioppo, 1984; Petty, Cacioppo, & Goldman, 1981;
Taylor, 1983), harsher interpersonal impressions (Tesser & Campbell, 1982), more
accurate information processing (Sanbonmatsu, Shavitt, & Sherman, 1991), deeper and
more independent decision-making (Allison, Worth, & King, 1990; Trost & Kenrick,
1994), more systematic processing of risk information (Rothman & Schwarz, 1998),
increased information seeking about particular topics (J emmott, Ditto, & Croyle, 1986),
and a stronger relationship between emotional reactions and behavioral intentions (Darley
& Lim, 1992). These connections suggest that personal relevance has many implications
for how deeply we process information and how we evaluate behaviors. Applied to

training transfer motivation, greater personal relevance may make us more likely to

25

 

 

bt

f0

bC

int

 

persist in training-related attitudes and behaviors; judge our transfer attempts to a higher
standard than skills we did not find to be particularly relevant or important, motivating
discrepancy reduction; think more deeply, carefirlly, and systematically about ways to use
our skills; and feel more emotionally invested in using the skills.

Several of the relationships described above resulted fiom manipulations of
personal relevance. In both organizational and educational fields, personal relevance has
been recommended and used as a basis for intervention. Educational researchers have
found that teaching techniques that enable students to discover and create connections
between what they are learning and themselves improves personal relevance of the
information (Neisser, 1975). Bailey and Clarke (2000) recently emphasized the
importance of helping managers relate knowledge management to organizational and
individual goals if these systems are to be used effectively. In this investigation, I
propose that a training transfer intervention that incorporates elements designed to
increase the perceived personal relevance of the trained skills will improve motivation to
transfer and transfer behavior.

Self-Regulatory Failure and Training Transfer

Successful self-regulation occurs when higher-order goals shape lower-order
goals and behavioral goal pursuit in their favor, thus reducing goal-performance
discrepancies at the higher level, and allowing us to achieve the abstract qualities we
value. In contrast, self-regulation fails when higher-order goals are unable to
successfully guide behavior. Baumeister and Heatherton (1996) describe one type of
self-regulatory failure—failure that occurs when a higher-order goal is unable to prevent

impulsive action at a lower level. Carver and Scheier (1998) argue that there is a

26

 

 

IO.‘

01' t,

tO at

in far

 

symmetric type of failure that occurs when a higher-order goal is unable to override
inaction to prompt action in service to the goal. Both of these types of self-regulatory
failure can be applied to training transfer. Depending on the extent of prior experience,
successful transfer can involve either replacing old skills and strategies with new skills
(necessitating prevention of previous or “impulsive” ways to behave in the job) or
prompting entirely new behaviors (replacing inaction).

It is also important to revisit the basic assumption in self-regulation theories that
behavior is goal-directed. An implication of this assumption is that for training transfer,
the so-called impulsive behaviors that must be replaced by new skills have been done in
the service of some goal. If those behaviors must be discontinued in order for newly
trained behaviors to be successful, previous goals or the trainee’s understanding of those
goals must change. For example, if a person formerly engaged in position-based
bargaining to achieve a goal to appear strong and focused, one' of two things must happen
if that person is going to successfully use interest-based bargaining skills. Either the goal
to appear strong and focused must be discarded or otherwise take on reduced importance,
or the person must believe that the new interest-based bargaining skills are likely to lead
to an impression of strength and focus. Failure of transfer goals to drive behavior results
in failure to transfer skills.

Although researchers do not prescribe ways to avoid these types of self-regulatory
failure, it seems intuitive that one approach would be to maximize the importance
assigned to the hi gher- and lower-order goals involved in transfer and increase their
immediate salience to the person. One way to do this might be to encourage the person to

draw connections between the training and as many important higher-order goals as

27

possible. If connections to higher-order goals and the self can be made as deeply and
broadly as possible, and the person perceives alignment among the trained skills and
personal goals, self-regulation is likely to be more successful and therefore lead to greater
motivation.
Approach and Avoid Motivation

A second area of motivational theory that might better inform our understanding
of training transfer motivation are approach and avoid goals. Approach and avoid
motivation does not comprise a single, integrated theory of human motivation. Rather,
these concepts currently exist as an overarching framework that has influenced a number
of areas including self-regulation, self-discrepancy theory, and achievement goal
orientation. In general terms, approach and avoid describe a qualitative dimension of the
directional component of motivation. Traditionally, the direction element of motivation
has simply been used to describe the target of individual effort. Approach and avoid
motivation add specificity by indicating whether an individual’s construal of his or her
situation or behavior is one of moving toward a desired target (approach) or moving
away from an undesired target (avoid). This construal is seen as being perceptual, with
the potential to be influenced by both individual (trait) and situational (state) factors.
Once activated, however, approach and avoidance are hypothesized to be controlled by
very different systems (Gray, 1994). In fact, recent EEG research by Davidson and
colleagues (Davidson, Ekman, Saron, Senulis, & Friesen, 1990) also suggests that distinct
areas of the brain are active in situations linked to approach versus avoidance. Although
approach and avoid are often treated as mutually exclusive alternatives, there is

allowance for the possibility that they are somewhat independent, perhaps operating

28

simultaneously in the same domain (e. g, a person can approach one goal while avoiding
another) or mixing across hierarchical levels (e.g., pursuing a desired target (approach)
by strategically avoiding substeps believed to lead away from that target). Examining
approach and avoid motivation has potential for improving our understanding of training
transfer motivation because of their impact on self-regulatory processes.
Approach and Avoid in Self-Regulation Theories

Positive and negative feedbaclfioops. Carver and Scheier (1998; Carver,
Lawrence, & Scheier, 1996) highlight approach and avoid as critical for understanding
the rational basis of affect. In their model, goals are seen as central to human behavior.
Carver and Scheier describe two types of feedback loops that function around goals to
produce behavior. The first is a discrepancy-reducing, or negative, feedback loop. A
negative feedback loop involves comparing current behavior or results against a desired
goal. By definition, negative feedback loops involve approach toward the desired goal.
When there is a discrepancy between the current and desired states, the person is
motivated to take action to reduce the discrepancy and approach the goal. The second
type of feedback loop is a discrepancy-amplifying, or positive, feedback loop. A positive
feedback loop involves comparing current behavior or results against an undesired
quality. Positive feedback loops involve avoidance of the undesired quality, or
movement as far from that quality as possible. The downside of this type of self-
regulation is that moving away from the undesired quality can theoretically result in
chaotic behavior (i.e., anything that does not approach the undesired quality is a way to
prevent it). However, Carver and Scheier propose that in actual human behavior, people

typically choose something to move toward to avoid the undesired quality, and thus the

29

 

 

hh
int

pai

aCCt I.
TCSD.
inf]UK
Shum

VCI‘SU

 

 

positive loop becomes bounded by a negative (approach) loop. Avoidance, however,
remains the central motivational drive.
Approach and Avoid in Self-Discrmy Theory

Another self regulation theory in which approach and avoidance play a significant
role is Higgins’ (1997) self-discrepancy theory. Focusing on conceptions of the self,
Higgins delves into approach and avoidance motivation in an effort to better understand
the complexities of human behavior and performance and affective outcomes that are
poorly explained by the simple hedonic principle that people approach pleasure and avoid
pain. Higgins stresses the importance of discussing approach and avoidance at different
hierarchical levels of human thought and behavior. Higgins distinguishes three
independent concepts necessary to understand how people approach pleasure and avoid
pain: regulatory reference, regulatory focus, and regulatory anticipation.

Regulatory reference. At the standard, or goal, level, Higgins (1997)
differentiates between self—regulation referenced according to a desired end-state versus
an undesired end-state. A desired reference involves approach; whereas an undesired
reference involves avoidance. Higgins considers the regulatory reference to describe the
system level, or end-state the person is working toward. Approach standards are
associated with nurturance needs, ideals and aspirations, and a concern for
accomplishment. Avoid standards are associated with security needs, oughts and
responsibilities, and a concern for safety. Adoption of approach or avoid standards are
influenced by both individual traits preferring approach or avoidance goals, and
situational elements that highlight approach or avoidance characteristics (e. g., ideals

versus oughts).

30

 

/

apPl’Q

 

 

in\01\

 

Mulatory focus. Regulatory focus concerns the strategic means the person uses

for self-regulation. Higgins conceptualizes actions relevant to the regulatory reference

end-states as either congruent with (matching) or discrepant from (mismatching) the

reference value. Irnportantly, matches and mismatches can occur for either type of

regulatory reference (see Table 1). Thus, strategies employed to attain a desired-state

regulatory reference (i.e., an approach goal) can match, or approach, achievement of the

reference. The strategies can also mismatch the reference, or avoid failure to approach

the reference. Similarly, strategies employed to avoid an undesired-state regulatory

reference (i.e., an avoid goal) can match, or approach, failure to achieve the reference.

The strategies can also mismatch the reference, or avoid achievement of the reference.

Table 1

Higgins’ (1997) Conceptualization of Regulatory Reference and Regulatory Focus

 

 

Regulatory Reference (Goal)

 

Regulatory Focus (Strategy)

Approach

Avoid

 

Approach

Maximize match to desired
end-state (make correct
“hitS”).

e.g., “Engage in behaviors that
will make me a good negotiator.”

Maximize mismatch to
undesired end-state (avoid
errors of omission).

e. g., “Engage in behaviors that
will not make me a poor
negoiiator.”

 

 

Avoid

 

Minimize mismatch to
desired end-state (make

correct rejections).

e.g., “Do not engage in behaviors
that will not make me a good
negrtiator.”

 

Minimize match to
undesired end-state (avoid
errors of commission).

e.g., “Do not engage in behaviors
that will make me a poor
nggotiator.”

 

Irrespective of the nature of the regulatory reference, regulatory focus involves

either an approach or avoid orientation to the strategic pursuit of that reference. An

approach orientation produces what Higgins labels “promotion focus.” Promotion focus

involves sensitivity to whether positive outcomes are present or absent and attention to

31

 

gains and lack of gain. An avoid orientation produces “prevention focus,” which
involves sensitivity to whether negative outcomes are present or absent and attention to
loss and non-loss.

Regulatory anticipgtion. Finally, Higgins (1997) proposes a concept called
regulatory anticipation, which isolates approach and avoidance in terms of anticipated
consequences of self-regulation. Higgins describes regulatory anticipation as a higher-
order concept that describes why a person engages in self-regulation around a particular
goal. The two possible motives are to approach an expected positive outcome or to avoid
an expected negative outcome. Anticipation of pleasure is linked to perseverance when
faced with difficulty, cheerfulness when faced with success, and dejection when faced
with failure. Anticipation of pain is linked to quitting when faced with difficulty,
calmness with faced with success, and agitation when faced with failure.

Higgins (1997) notes that both trait and state influences determine whether people
will choose approach or avoid orientations at any given time. Higgins, Roney, Crowe,
and Hymes (1994) found evidence that trait regulatory focus influenced friendship
strategies. In another study, they found that simply priming promotion or prevention
focus could increase attention to that type of strategy, demonstrating the potential for
situational impact on regulatory focus.

Approach and Avoid in Achievement Motivation Theory

Closely related to self-regulatory theories, achievement goal theory focuses on
orientations related to the pursuit of achievement goals. Elliot (1999) emphasizes
approach and avoidance motivation as critical to understanding how people pursue

achievement goals. The prevailing understanding of achievement goal motivation rests

32

 

(A

a(

dc

di.

 

on a dichotomy between mastery and performance goals (Ames & Archer, 1987; Dweck,
1986; Nicholls, 1984). Elliot argues that the popular distinction between mastery and
performance goal orientations cannot account completely for all of the behaviors
exhibited in achievement goal striving, particularly with respect to the mixed empirical
support for the proposition that performance goals lead to negative processes and
outcomes.

Elliot (1999) specifies that the construct of competence is at the core of
achievement motivation, and argues that there are two dimensions that are integral to
defining competence—the standard used to define competence and the valence, or
direction, implied by the standard. The dimension of competence standard is represented
in the traditional dichotomy between mastery and performance goal orientation. Mastery
goals focus on demonstration of task competence; performance goals focus on
demonstration of competence relative to others. The valence dimension of competence,
however, has not been incorporated explicitly into theories of achievement goals. Elliot
defines the valence dimension as either approach or avoid. Approach and avoidance goal
distinctions have been discussed in early work on achievement motivation as well as in
many other psychological theories (Dweck & Bempechat, 1983; Lewin, Dembo,

F estinger, 1954; Nicholls, 1984; see Elliot, 1999, Table 1, for a comprehensive review).
However, in achievement motivation theory, approach and avoidance have been
subordinated to distinctions of mastery and performance goals.

Competence valence as a dimension of achievement goals. Elliot (1999) defines
the valence dimension of competence as either approach or avoidance. Approach

motivation is directed toward a positive or desirable event or possibility; it is an

33

III

 

 

but

“'an

indcg

bECn

 

 

 

appetitive motivation. Avoidance motivation is directed against a negative or undesirable
event or possibility; it is an aversive motivation. Elliot argues that incorporating a
distinction between approach and avoidance motivation into the mastery-performance
goal orientation framework captures both of the fundamental dimensions of the
underlying competence construct (Elliot & McGregor, 2001), and therefore will better
explain achievement-related behavior, especially with respect to the unreliable processes
and outcomes associated with performance goals. He differentiates mastery-approach,
mastery-avoid, performance-approach, and performance-avoid motivations and goals.
Each of these is defined by how competence is defined and valenced. Mastery-approach
motivation involves competency defined in terms of personal skills and abilities, and
valenced appetitively toward the possibility of a positive outcome (i.e., wanting to
improve personal skills and abilities). Mastery-avoid motivation involves competency
defined in terms of personal skills and abilities, but valenced aversively away from the
possibility of a negative outcome (i.e., wanting to avoid loss of personal skills and
abilities, or avoid failing to understand material one is trying to learn). Performance-
approach motivation involves competency defined relative to others, and valenced
appetitively toward the possibility of a positive outcome (i.e., wanting to be better than
others). Performance-avoid motivation involves competency defined relative to others,
but valenced aversively away from the possibility of a negative outcome (i.e., not
wanting to be worse than others).

Elliot and McGregor (2001) provide empirical evidence supporting the
independence and internal consistency of these four achievement goal types. They have

been able to validly measure the four constructs, as well as demonstrate fairly consistent

34

 

(E
St!
an'
dirt
rel.
In I

the

 

 

and distinct patterns of relationships between the achievement goals and several
antecedents and consequents. Both exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis of a
measure designed to capture the competence definition and competence valence
dimensions of achievement goal motivation support the 2 (competence definition:
mastery or performance) x 2 (competence valence: approach or avoid) conceptualization
of achievement goals. While not perfectly uncorrelated, the achievement goal types are
more strongly correlated with those they share one dimension with than with the goal
type for which they differ on both dichotomies.

Relationships with several proposed antecedents (all analyses were correlational,
precluding firm statements about causality) also support the importance of distinguishing
achievement goals along the dimensions of mastery/performance and approach/avoid
(Elliot & McGregor, 2001), although the picture of relationships is not entirely clear. In
Study 2, Elliot and McGregor found that relationships of achievement goal types with
antecedents varied as a function of both the mastery/performance and the approach/avoid
dimensions (see Table 2). For instance, need for achievement had significantly positive
relationships with both mastery-approach and performance-approach achievement goals.
In fact, mastery and performance goal orientations could be differentiated according to
the two subdimensions of need for achievement examined. Mastery orientation was
significantly related to workrnastery; and performance orientation was significantly
related to competitiveness. In contrast, need for achievement was not significantly
related to either mastery-avoid or performance-avoid achievement goals. Fear of failure
was positively related to performance-approach, performance-avoid, and mastery-avoid

achievement goals. Elliot (1999) predicted that fear of failure could lead to both

35

 

 

 

aClli

 

(Stu;
appr
COHL.

‘0 d1;

performance-approach and performance-avoid goals, but did not differentiate mastery
approach and avoid goals. The lack of significant relationship between fear of failure and
mastery-approach goals in this study supports the need to distinguish between different
types of mastery orientation.

Table 2

Summary of Elliot & McGregor (2001) Study2 and Study 3 (Selected):
Relationships of Antecedents with the F our-Factor Model of Achievement Goals

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Competence Standard (Goal Orientation) &
Valence (Approach or Avoid)
Mastery Performance
Approach Avoid Approach Avoid
Incremental Theory n. S, _ n.s. n.s.
Entity Theory n. S, + n. s, +
Need for Achievement + n. s. + n.s.
--Workmastery Subscale + n. s. n.s. n.s.
--Competitiveness Subscale n. S. n. s. + n.s.
Fear of Failure n. s. + + +
Self-Determination + _ n. S. _
Perceived Class Engagement + + n.s. n.s.
SAT Scores n.s. n.s. + —

 

 

 

 

 

 

+ indicates a significantly positive relationship (a = .05).
— indicates a significantly negative relationship (a = .05).
n.s. indicates no significant relationship.

Finally, Elliot and McGregor (2001) provide empirical evidence that the four
achievement goal types they distinguish have differential effects on cognitive processes
(study strategies) and affective outcomes (anxiety; see Table 3). Only a mastery-
approach achievement goal orientation was positively related to deep processing of

college course material. Mastery-avoid, like performance-avoid, was significantly related

to disorganization in studying; performance—avoid was also related to a tendency for

36

"I

 

 

1'21 irn

moi
achlt

SIIUa

 

surface processing of material. In terms of affect, both types of avoidance orientations
(mastery and performance) were significantly related to test anxiety, whereas the
approach orientations were not significantly related to any of the three test anxiety
measures. In terms of exam performance, only performance orientation was a significant
predictor: performance-approach goals were a positive predictor of exam grade, and
performance-avoid goals were a negative predictor.

Table 3

Summary of Elliot & McGregor (2001) Study 2 and Study 3 (Selected):
Relationships of the Four-Factor Model of Achievement Goa_ls with Consguences

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Competence Standard (Goal Orientation) &
Competence Valence (Approach or Avoid)
Mastery Performance
Approach Avoid Approach Avoid
Deep Processing + n. s. (_) n. s.
Surface Processing n. S. n. S. (+) +
Disorganization n. s. + n. s. +
State Test Anxiety n. s. (+) n. s. +
Worry n.s. + n.s. (+)
Emotionality n. s. + n. S. +
Exam Performance n. S_ n. s. + _

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

+ indicates a significantly positive relationship (a = .05).
— indicates a significantly negative relationship (a = .05).

() parentheses indicate a marginally significant relationship (a = .1)

n.s. indicates no significant relationship.

Achievement environment. Although the dispositional tendencies of achievement
motivation and fear of failure are connected to achievement goal setting, Elliot (1999)
stresses that dispositional tendencies are not the sole determinants of the types of

achievement goals people will set in a particular situation. In fact, he argues that if the

situational demands are strong enough (Caspi & Moffit, 1993), they can overwhelm

37

dispositions and play a central role in determining the types of goals people will set in
that situation. Elliot proposes that this influence can happen at multiple levels of the goal
hierarchy. At a deeper level, situational demands can activate achievement motivations
by influencing whether people are focused on the possibility of success or the possibility
of failure (activating need for achievement and fear of failure, respectively). Even if they
are not strong enough to overwhelm a person’s dispositional achievement motivation,
situational demands of the achievement environment can impact whether these
dispositional tendencies become manifested in approach or avoid goals. Like trait goal
orientation, achievement motivation as an individual disposition may be somewhat
malleable, allowing for training interventions to influence whether people are
fundamentally motivated by approach or avoidance regarding implementation of their
newly-learned skills in their work.

Goal stability and transfer. Elliot and McGregor (2001) emphasize the
importance of goal stability and transfer in understanding achievement motivation and
self-regulation around achievement goals over time. While they make no predictions
about the stability of the achievement goals, they do present some exploratory empirical
results concerning the stability of achievement goals over three measurements one month
apart from each other. The patterns indicated by their findings are summarized in Table
4. According to their results, mastery-avoidance is the least stable type of achievement
goal orientation. Other goal orientations appear to be stable over time, at least with

respect to a single achievement context.

38

Table 4

Stabiliiv of Achievement Goali Over Time (Elliot & McGregor. 2001)

 

Initial Goals Subsequent Goals

 

Mastery-approach Mastery-approach (B = .69)

(—) Performance-avoid (B = —.l6)

 

Mastery-avoid Mastery-avoid (B = .67)
Mastery-approach ([3 = .18)

Performance-approach ([3 = .13)

 

Performance-approach Performance-approach (B = .74)

 

 

Performance-avoid Performance-avoid (B = .67)

 

 

Elliot (1999) suggests that the achievement situation can have a strong and even
disposition-overriding influence on not only single goals a person might set, but also the
orientation behind a whole series of goals the person might adopt in that setting.
Research has not addressed the potential for achievement goal interventions introduced
during training sessions to have lasting influence on learner goal setting and self-
regulation once they return to their job with their newly-learned knowledge and skills.
However, it does appear that goal orientation may be relatively stable over time, at least
with respect to a particular achievement environment (Elliot & McGregor, 2001). An
interesting implication of this finding is that if achievement goal orientation can be
influenced by interventions introduced in the training session or in the workplace

achievement climate, the resultant achievement goal orientations may have lasting impact

39

 

on the way the person sets subsequent goals. The intervention proposed in this
investigation focuses on pointing people toward approach rather than avoid goals.
Summary of Approach and Avoid Convergence

As discussed above, approach and avoid perspectives play a central role in recent
theories of self-regulation, self-discrepancy theory, and goal orientation. The
incorporation of approach and avoid notions into these multiple streams of research and
theory attest to their usefirlness in understanding choice and goal pursuit. Additionally,
as reviewed by Elliot (1999), approach and avoid dimensions have been included in a
wide range of other theoretical perspectives. The distinction between moving toward a
desired possibility versus moving away fi'om an undesired possibility seems to be
important for understanding human cognition, affect, behavior, and achievement.

Notions of approach and avoid dimensions have thus far been applied to training
transfer in a limited way, with little attention to constructing a solid theoretical
foundation for their application. In this investigation, approach and avoidance are
incorporated into an intervention designed to influence the self-regulatory orientation in
which people leave training and begin transfer. By encouraging people to establish
approach goals and bound avoid goals with approach goals, the intervention attempts to
sway people to adopt more of an approach orientation toward transfer. As a result, it is
expected that people will develop a narrower, more focused set of transfer goals,
providing more effective motivational direction for transfer.

Implementation Intentions
A third theoretical advance that has promise for helping us understand and

improve transfer motivation is Gollwitzer’s (1999; Gollwitzer & Brandstiitter, 1997)

40

work on implementation goals and intentions. Gollwitzer and Brandstatter break the goal
striving process down into four main components: predecisional, preactional, actional,
and postactional. The predecisional phase involves setting preferences between
concurrent wishes and desires, and the outcome of this phase is an intention to pursue a
particular goal (e. g., “I intend to use the negotiation skills I learned in this training
program”). The preactional phase involves promoting the initiation of goal-directed
actions, and the outcome of this phase is a more specific intention to perform a particular
action at a particular time (e.g., “I am going to use the ‘broken record technique’ right
now.”). The actional and postactional phases then involve the processes more typically
thought of as self-regulation—detecting and reducing discrepancies between actions and
the goal (e.g., Carver & Scheier, 1998).

Focusing on the preactional phase of goal striving, Gollwitzer and Brandstiitter
(1997) highlight a critical self-regulatory problem involved in goal pursuit—the initiation
of goal-directed action. We are all familiar with having goals that we value highly (e. g.,
completing a dissertation), setting goals that provide appropriate direction for our actions
(e.g., lists of next steps, focusing on what we are trying to accomplish), and yet having
trouble buckling down in pursuit of our goals. Empirical research suggests that this
experience is not uncommon; intentions typically account for only 20% to 30% of the
variance in behavior (Gollwitzer, 1999). Gollwitzer and Brandstéitter point out that
trouble with initiating goal-directed behavior is especially problematic when the
necessary behaviors for goal accomplishment are not well-practiced or routine. This is
likely to be the case for new skills learned in training, making action initiation especially

relevant for understanding training transfer.

41

Gollwitzer and Brandstatter offer three explanations for why it is sometimes
difficult to initiate goal-directed behavior. The first involves conflict over the various
options for behavior. Because most goals can be reached through many different
behaviors, it can be difficult to decide exactly how to pursue a goal. This difficulty
becomes less problematic at lower levels of the goal hierarchy, but even for fairly
specific goals there are multiple behaviors consistent with goal accomplishment. The
second explanation involves the triggering by the goal pursuit context of habitual
behaviors that are not compatible with the new goal. For instance, the work environment
in which transfer goal pursuit occurs is likely to trigger previous behaviors—in a
negotiation setting, previous negotiation strategies and responses are likely to come to
mind and perhaps be put into action before the newly learned strategies are even
considered. Third, good opportunities for goal pursuit may escape our attention or be so
fleeting that we are unable to seize them even if we notice them. For instance, we may
fail to recognize a conflict situation as an opportunity for negotiation, or during a
negotiation, we may not be able to react quickly enough when we do recognize an
opportunity to use a particular skill, and thus “miss the moment.”

To solve these problems with action initiation and improve our self-regulatory
ability to initiate goal-directed behaviors, Gollwitzer and Brandstz'itter (1997) propose the
formation of implementation goals to support higher~order goals. Implementation goals
explicitly connect two components: anticipated future situations that will present
opportunities for goal pursuit and particular goal-directed behaviors that could be used in
those situations. Implementation goals are more specific, lower in the goal hierarchy, or

more proximal than the goals they service, but they are also characterized by being linked

42

il

 

 

bl
CI

TC

(1‘
the
En:

fOn

80a;

prep:

 

to a particular situation, which makes them a special subset of lower-order, proximal
goals. Making the action-situation connection is expected to lead to implementation
intentions, or the actual commitment to pursuing the implementation goal (e. g., “When
my negotiation opponent does not respond to what I am saying, I will repeat what I said
calmly and firmly until they respond”). Motivation thus becomes linked to both the
person’s commitment to their goals and to critical situations for goal accomplishment.

Theoretically, implementation goals and the associated intentions or commitment
to those goals are hypothesized to have their effects by impacting memory accessibility
and ease of retrieval for the goal pursuit opportunities and goal-directed behaviors
(Gollwitzer, 1999; Gollwitzer & Brandstatter, 1997). Mentally linking situations and
behaviors for goal pursuit is believed to create a direct connection in memory that mimics
the connections for automatic skills (Bargh, 1997). As a result, the goal-directed
behaviors take on properties of automaticity when they are activated by the situational
cues—ready accessibility from memory (Dellarosa & Boume, 1984) and rapid
retrievability for implementation (Logan, 1988).

In support of these theoretical mechanisms, Aarts, Dijksterhuis, and Midden
(1999) found evidence that implementation intentions aided goal accomplishment and
that detection of situational opportunities, attention, and memory mediated this success.
Empirical research also suggests that implementation intentions can override habits or
form “instant habits.” Orbell, Hodgkins, and Sheeran (1997) found that in a control
group, previous habit was the best predictor of following through on health behavior
goals. In contrast, when implementation intentions were experimentally induced, the

predictive power of previous habit disappeared, and implementation intentions led to

43

increased goal follow-through. Aarts and Dijksterhuis (2000) found that the speed effects
of habit formation on action initiation could be matched by forming implementation
intentions.

The effectiveness of implementation goals and intentions for improving self-
regulation and goal attainment has been borne out in empirical research, particularly for
goals people perceive to be difficult (e.g., they require less familiar and more complex
action, require more unsuccessful attempts to get started) or when opportunities for goal
pursuit present themselves for only a short time (Gollwitzer & Brandstiitter, 1997).
Gollwitzer and Brandstéitter also found that implementation intentions lead to earlier goal
completion and improved performance for people with high interest in the goal. This
latter point stresses the potential impact of supplementing implementation intentions with
high interest and importance of the goal, as covered in the overview of goal hierarchies
and personal relevance given previously. In addition, Gollwitzer (1999) emphasizes the
importance of learning for subsequent goal accomplishment. If action is initiated but
poorly carried out, implementation intentions will not lead to better performance, only
increased activity.

Research in health behaviors further supports the effectiveness of goal intentions
for promoting various types of goal-directed health behaviors. Orbell, Hodgkins, and
Sheeran (1997) found that when goal pursuit requires immediate actions but provides
only long-term rewards, implementation intentions improved goal accomplishment even
though goal commitment was high. Pairing particular situations with specific actions
also has been found to improve chances for accomplishing daily goals such as taking

vitamins and eating healthy foods (Sheeran & Orbell, 1999; Verplanken & F aes, 1999).

44

Milne, Orbell, & Sheeran (2000) found that induced implementation intentions
substantially increased compliance with a goal to engage in vigorous exercise for twenty
minutes within a week. Voluntarily created (rather than experimentally induced)
implementation intentions have also been linked to following through with surgery
recovery behaviors (Orbell & Sheeran, 2000). People who formed implementation
intentions regarding the specific circumstances and ways in which they would follow the
prescribed behaviors were more likely to actually do them than those who did not form
implementation intentions, even when commitment to recovery behavior goals was high.
Similarly, specific instructions on how, when, and where to engage in health behaviors
have been found to increase performance of those behaviors more effectively than fear
appeals promoting goal intentions (Leventhal, Singer, & Jones, 1965).

Thus, implementation goals have been found to be an effective self-regulatory
strategy between forming a goal and actually acting on it. The research shows that strong
intentions to achieve a goal are not always enough to prompt goal-directed behavior.
Implementation intentions effectively increase the ability of goals to lead to action.
Moreover, implementation goals seem particularly relevant to training transfer situations
because of the likelihood that there will be multiple options for goal pursuit, habitual or
previous skills used effectively in the transfer context, and fleeting or unnoticed
opportunities to use the trained skills.

Summag

To summarize, there is a general consensus among training researchers and

practitioners that there is a “transfer problem”——that is, people are not completely

successful in applying what they learn in training. Research that has attempted to

45

I.—

discover why this is so has focused primarily on training design to maximize learning and
reinforcement in the work environment. However, learning and environmental support
have not been able to completely explain variation in transfer performance, nor
successfully increase it to desired levels. One possible explanation for low and varied
transfer performance despite learning and support is that people are not actually using the
skills they learned in training.

Along this line of thought, recent transfer research has turned to individual
motivation as a key factor in the training transfer process. Applications of expectancy
theory to training transfer have produced disappointing results, failing to shed much light
on the “transfer problem.” Self-efficacy theory has been applied to transfer with more
success, but without leading to a better understanding of how people translate their self-
efficacy beliefs into processes and strategies to help them transfer their skills
successfully. Absent from theories of transfer motivation are recent advances in
motivational theory related to self-regulation and goal pursuit. Goal setting makes
appearances in some of the interventions that have been researched (i.e., self-
management and action planning). However, more recent advances in our understanding
of the complexities of human goal striving such as goal hierarchies, approach and
avoidance motivation, and implementation goals have not yet been incorporated into
theories of transfer motivation.

Research and theory in these areas has a great deal to offer in terms of
understanding and influencing individual motivational processes during transfer.
Drawing from these ideas, this study proposes a model of transfer motivation centered on

personal relevance, self-regulatory focus, and implementation intentions. Further, I

46

design an intervention to improve training transfer motivation by influencing these
motivational constructs, with the aim of increasing actual attempts to use the training as
well as transfer performance.
Current Applications of Advances in Motivational Theory
to a Prevalent Transfer Intervention

Are the advances in motivation theory I have described completely absent from
the training transfer literature? No, they are not. As noted earlier, transfer researchers
have focused on training design, trainee characteristics, and the work environment as key
factors in transfer, and when they have examined transfer motivation, they have
predominantly addressed it from perspectives of expectancy and self-efficacy. However,
training practitioners, realizing that they cannot fully maximize training transfer through
their training design, that they do not have control over selecting trainees based on
individual differences linked to transfer, and that they can exert little control over the
transfer environment or the supervisor’s behavior, have been advocating motivational
interventions directed at the trainee (Broad & Newstrom, 1992; Eitington, 1996;
Silberman, 1995). These interventions are numerous, but fall under three main
categories: action planning (a.k.a. goal setting, behavioral contracting, work statements,
self pledges), self management (a.k.a. self-monitoring, follow-up assessment surveys),
and relapse prevention (a.k.a. obstacle assessment, resistance forces). The most common
of these is action planning; thus, action planning will be focused on as a standard type of
transfer intervention in this investigation.

Action planning is “a commitment to engage in a new behavior resulting from the

impetus of the training experience” (Eitington, 1996, p. 420). In its simplest forms,

47

action planning involves a list of what the person intends to do (goals) following the
training. Often, it also includes more specific information, including strategies for
achieving the goals, deadline dates for achieving the goals, resources required to
accomplish each goal, and criteria to determine whether or not goals are being met.
(Action planning will be used as a control condition in this investigation; for a
prototypical action planning exercise, see Appendix E.) To a limited degree, the
motivational concepts discussed in this investigation—personal higher-order goals,
approach and avoidance goals, and implementation goals—are embedded in action
planning. However, because they are not explicitly incorporated in the intervention, their
impact is left to be haphazard and largely dependent on individual predispositions of the
trainees using the action planning guides.
Personal Higher-Order Goals in Action Planning

Various levels of goal hierarchies are addressed only minimally in action planning
interventions. When people establish their action plan goals, their goals by definition fall
at some level of a goal hierarchy. Because action planning interventions often encourage
people to set “specific” goals, the goals included in the action plan are typically at a
middle level, defining outcomes people would like to achieve or behaviors they intend to
use. Many action planning interventions then encourage people to specify lower-level
strategies they will employ in order to meet each of their goals. Thus, standard action
planning interventions typically push people to establish goals representing several, but
fairly low, hierarchical levels, although there is room for quite a bit of variation both

between and within people.

48

From a motivational perspective, drawing on recent research on goal hierarchies,
what is missing in standard action planning interventions is a focus on higher-order goals
associated with training transfer. Action planning does not address nor acknowledge the
importance of higher-order goals in motivating transfer. Action planning interventions
implicitly assume that the person desires to apply the training because of either personal
motivation or workplace requirements and incentives. Nowhere in the typical action
planning exercise is the issue of interest in applying the training raised. Instead, the
immediate focus is on setting goals for how the person will use the skills, skipping
entirely the question of whether the person wishes to apply the skills at all or why they
might wish to do so.

By ignoring the higher-order goals people are pursuing, action planning allows
the impact of these goals to be largely accidental, shaped by the “tell-and-sell” ideas that
may have been included in the training program to inform trainees about why they ought
to want to use the skills, and personal dispositions of trainees that may have led them to
independently connect some aspect of the training to their own goals. Thus, in typical
action planning interventions, some trainees will be likely to set goals that are attached to
their higher-order goals and sense of personal accomplishment, while others will be
likely to set goals that are much further removed from themselves, anchored instead on
training content, specific behaviors, or work goals that are not as likely to be high
priorities and can be easily discarded.

Approach and Avoid Goals in Action Planning
Motivational direction encompasses two qualitative aspects of goal striving: the

specific targets the person is trying to accomplish, and whether they are moving toward

49

“I

 

 

[(1

int
Se!
Sui
0r

I'm-Ll

 

(approaching) or away from (avoiding) the targets. In typical action planning
interventions, the target content is addressed by having people set specific transfer goals
and detail even more specific strategies for achieving those goals. Thus, as long as
people have learned the training content reasonably well and receive some guidance on
how to formulate their goals, they should benefit from establishing these specific targets.
In contrast, the motivational direction, or self-regulatory focus, with which people are
moving to accomplish their goals is almost completely ignored in action planning
interventions. No explicit attention is given in action planning to influence the direction
of goals people set, and the impact on whether people adopt approach or avoidance
stances with respect to their goals is probably minimal. One exception may be that action
planning interventions influence people to set approach goals at the level of the
behavioral or outcome goals that form the items on their action plans. Instructions for
action planning typically prompt people to “tell when and how you plan to apply material
learned in this course.” The framing of these instructions will most likely lead people to
establish approach goals about what they intend to do; however, the possibility still exists
for people to state goals in terms of what they intend to stop doing, what they will try not
to do, etc.

Moving away from this level in the goal hierarchy, standard action planning
interventions pay no attention to whether approach or avoidance is the person’s dominant
self—regulatory focus. Moving down to the strategy level, where people indicate smaller
sub-steps they will take to accomplish their goals, people are free to set either approach
or avoidance strategies. Moving up to the higher-order goal level, which is not included

in action planning, people are free to have any number of hi gher—order goals, approach or

50

avoid, that they are striving toward through their action planning goals, if they make
these connections at all. With limited influence on self-regulatory focus embedded
within action planning, people are likely to establish goals that reflect their dispositional
tendencies (e.g., achievement motivation or fear of failure), though they may be swayed
toward approach goals at the behavioral or outcome level in the context of action
planning.
Implementation Goals in Action Planning

Implementation intentions are not addressed directly in action planning. Typical
action planning interventions have people set deadlines for goal accomplishment, list
required resources to support goal accomplishment, name measures that can be used to
assess progress, and indicate specific steps they can take to reach their goals (the
behavior side of implementation goals), but make no specific reference to the particular
situations in which people will enact the goals or sub-steps they have listed. While some
people might naturally create implementation goals (Gollwitzer & Brandstiitter, 1997),
there is nothing embedded in typical action planning interventions to prompt them to do
so. Current research on implementation goals suggests that they are an important and
potentially powerfirl way to make good intentions more effective by forming direct
connections between particular situational opportunities for transfer and specific trained
behaviors. Typical action planning interventions ignore the potential importance of this
aspect of goal striving.

Action planning, one of the most common interventions designed to improve
transfer by guiding and directing individual motivational processes, does not explicitly

incorporate several recent advances in motivational theory. By ignoring these aspects of

51

I.-

 

 

motivation and allowing them to operate freely, trainers may be missing out on critical
factors that could better position people to successfully pursue and achieve their post-
training action plans. The purpose of this investigation is to design an intervention that
purposefully embeds theoretical advances in our understanding of goal hierarchies and
higher-order personal goals, approach and avoid goals, and implementation goals to
improve training transfer.

Conceptual Model of Transfer Motivation

The purpose of this study is to design an intervention impacting training transfer
motivation, test the intervention’s effectiveness compared to a prototypical action
planning intervention, and investigate the motivational processes through which these
interventions impact transfer behavior and transfer performance. Drawing from advances
in motivational research that have not previously been explicitly applied to training
transfer, I designed a three-component intervention that focuses on improving transfer by
applying three concepts from self-regulation and goal striving theories to increase
motivational intensity, hone motivational direction, and strengthen motivational
persistence: goal hierarchies, approach and avoidance, and implementation goals.

Figure -1 presents the conceptual model that guides this research. The model
focuses on motivational processes through which the intervention leads people to
increase their skill transfer attempts. I propose that the intervention, which guides people
to form connections between the training skills and their personal hi gher-order goals,
establish approach goals for transfer, and connect the training skills to particular
situational opportunities, will shape training participants’ motivational states and

processes. Further, transfer motivation will increase the extent to which people attempt

52

Cd
thk

 

to apply the skills they learned in training. Finally, transfer behaviors will be positively
related to transfer performance. Learning and self-efficacy are also expected to play
direct and moderating roles in shaping transfer behavior and performance.
Effects of Transfer Behavior on Transfer Performance

Many training transfer investigations select either transfer behavior or transfer
performance as the criterion variable (Baldwin & Ford, 1988; Ford & Weissbein, 1997).
In an effort to better understand the relationship between quantitative attempts to transfer
and the qualitative performance results of those attempts (and the impact of transfer
motivation on both of these areas), this investigation incorporates both of these transfer
criteria. Capturing both behavioral and performance criteria will allow a more precise
understanding of ways to improve transfer. For instance, how closely connected to high
quality of transfer performance are frequency of skill attempts and variety of skill
attempts? When transfer performance quality is low, is it because people are doing a
poor job applying skills, or are they failing to even try to apply the skills? Do deficits in
transfer quality occur when people try to apply too many of the skills they learned?

Ultimately, what is important to people and organizations is effective
performance on tasks related to the trained skills (i.e., transfer quality). People do not
wish to use their skills to no avail, nor will people who apply trained skills ineffectively
contribute positively to the organization. Behavioral application of the trained skills is a
necessary condition for effective transfer performance. If the skills are not used, they
cannot be used well. In general, people who exhibit more attempts to apply the skills

they learned in training are expected to exhibit superior transfer performance.

53

However, skill use is not sufficient to ensure successful transfer performance; the
relationship between transfer behavior and transfer performance is expected to be
moderated by learning. Specifically, knowledge about how and when to use the skills is
expected to impact the quality of transfer performance. People who leave training with
higher levels of procedural and conditional knowledge about how and when to use the
skills will be more likely to realize successful performance from their transfer attempts
than will people with lower levels of knowledge. Thus, the relationship between transfer
behavior and transfer performance will be enhanced when learning is high. In contrast,
lower levels of learning should weaken the positive relationship between transfer
behavior and transfer performance. In this case, use of the trained skills will not always
result in improved performance quality.

F_igpre_2. Expected moderating effect of learning on the relationship between transfer

behavior and transfer performance

Leami g
or —Low
b O
.92 S
2 E /
Q o
._ r,
o.

 

 

 

Low High
Transfer Skill Attempts

Hypothesis 1a. Transfer behavior will be positively related to transfer

 

performance. The extent to which people attempt to apply the trained skills

will be positively related to their transfer performance scores.

54

Hypothesis 1b. Learning will moderate the relationship between transfer behavior
and transfer performance, such that this relationship will be more positive
when learning is high than when learning is low.

Effects of Transfer Motivation on Transfer Beh_avior

The goal of impacting peoples’ motivational states following training is to
increase their transfer behavior. Actual instances of transfer behavior are a necessary
first step toward successful transfer performance. The model presented in this
investigation predicts that the motivational processes affected by the experimental
transfer intervention will positively impact the extent to which people make behavioral
attempts to use what they have learned in training. To provide some explanation for how
the intervention affects transfer motivation, two motivational mechanisms are
hypothesized for each intervention component. Each intervention component is
specifically designed to impact a particular motivational construct; these constructs are
labeled “target motivational constructs.” Next, another set of motivational mechanisms
are believed to mediate the impact of the primary motivational constructs on transfer
behavior; these are labeled “mediating motivational mechanisms.” Continuing to work
backwards through the conceptual model guiding this research, this section first presents
hypotheses concerning the relationship between the mediating motivational mechanisms
and transfer behavior, and then turns to hypotheses regarding the impact of the target
motivational constructs on the mediating mechanisms.
Transfer Behavior

In this investigation, transfer behavior is defined as an attempt to use skills

learned in training. Transfer behavior is distinguished from transfer performance in that

55

the former is a description of attempts to use the training, while the latter is an overall
assessment of whether or not the behavioral attempts have been successful. Two
dimensions of transfer behavior are considered—frequency and variety. Frequency of
transfer behavior simply describes the number of times the person tried to use one of the
skills learned in training. Variety distinguishes whether a person tried to use multiple
skills or selected only a few of the skills to apply.
Self-Efficacy

Because self-efficacy has been a popular and effective motivational construct in
training transfer research, it is included in this investigation. As discussed earlier, in the
context of training transfer, social learning theory predicts that greater self-efficacy will
lead to greater motivation to transfer training. This prediction has been supported by
studies showing that post-training self-efficacy has a positive effect on performance of
trained skills because it improves motivational persistence as well as having other
beneficial consequences (Colquitt, LePine, & Noe, 2000; Gist, Stevens, & Bavetta, 1991;
Stevens & Gist, 1997). Ford, Quifiones, Sego, and Sorra (1992) also found that self-
efficacy is related to attempts to use a broader array of trained skills and attempts to use
the more difficult skills on the job. However, in their study, self-efficacy was not related
to the frequency of attempts to use trained skills. In the transfer motivation model
proposed in this investigation, self-efficacy is expected to impact transfer behavior
attempts. People who leave training with higher self-efficacy regarding their ability to
effectively use the trained skills are expected to apply a greater number and variety of the
skills in transfer situations. Self-efficacy is expected to be positively related to transfer

behavior frequency despite the nonsignificant findings in the Ford et al. study because the

56

behaviors in this study are more discretionary than the basic technical skills taught to Air
Force airmen, and the transfer period used in this investigation is shorter-term than the
four month period Ford et al. measured. Thus, behavior frequency is expected to be more
susceptible to the influences of self-efficacy.

Hypothesis 2. Self-efficacy will be positively related to the frequency and variety

of transfer behavior.

Effects of the Mediating Motivational Meow

The first set of hypotheses relevant to the constructs targeted by the experimental
transfer motivation intervention proposed in this study regard the effects of the
hypothesized mediating motivational mechanisms on transfer behavior. These constructs
are expected to have a more proximal impact on transfer behavior than the motivational
constructs targeted by the intervention. The mediating constructs represent the processes
through which the target constructs are expected to have their effect on transfer behavior.
They include competence valuation, goal variety, and situational cueing.
Competence Valuation

Competence valuation is a construct that represents motivational intensity, or the
quantity of achievement motivation. Competence valuation has been defined as the
degree to which a person feels that competence on a particular task is important (Elliot et
al., 2000; Harackiewicz, 1989). Similar in some senses to the valence component of
valence-instrumentality-expectancy theory (VIE theory, Vroom, 1964), competence
valuation describes the value the person places on skill competence rather than the value
placed on particular outcomes believed to be achievable through competent use of the

skill. Competence valuation thus highlights intrinsic rather than extrinsic motivation

57

(Deci, 1975; Elliot, Faler, McGregor, Campbell, Sedikides, & Harackiewicz, 2000). In
the case of training transfer, competence valuation is the degree to which the person
values acquiring competence at what he or she learned in training. For example, with
respect to negotiation training, competence valuation describes the degree to which a
trainee feels that it is important to be good at negotiation.

Competence valuation has been found to be positively connected to achievement
goal striving; Elliot and McGregor (2001) found that higher competence valuation was
connected to stronger endorsements of achievement goals of all types (mastery-approach
and -avoid and performance-approach and -avoid). Based on the connection between
goals and behavior, increases in goal striving can be expected to lead to increases in
transfer behavior. People are more likely to invest effort in developing and using skills
that are important to them. Thus, competence valuation should be positively associated
with transfer behavior attempts.

Hypothesis 3a. Competence valuation for the training content will be positively

related to frequency and variety of transfer behavior.
Goal Variety

Establishing goals for training transfer is a motivational mechanism or strategy
that provides direction and focus to channel attempts to use trained skills. Goals can be
described according to many attributes (e.g., difficulty, specificity, mastery or
performance orientation; Austin & Vancouver, 1996). Goal variety reflects the breadth
of newly learned skills the person intends to try to apply. Rather than focusing on intra-
goal characteristics, goal variety is an attribute of a person’s entire set of transfer goals,

describing the extensiveness of the person’s goal content. Goal variety can be thought of

58

in a motivational sense, because it quantifies the targets toward which the person intends
to exert effort.

Because goals exert a guiding force on behavior (Austin & Vancouver, 1996;
Carver & Scheier, 1998), goal variety is expected to be positively related to transfer
behavior. Having a variety of transfer goals should lead to a greater variety of transfer
skill attempts, because each goal will demand use of a particular skill in order to reduce
the performance-goal discrepancy. Repeated use of just one or two skills would not be
sufficient to meet multiple goals for using a variety of skills. Assuming the person is
committed to all of the transfer goals, successful self-regulation for a wide variety of
goals will require use of a wide variety of skills. In contrast, if transfer behavior efforts
are focused on a narrow set of transfer goals, the person is likely to be motivated to try to
use only the narrow set of behaviors required to meet those goals, ignoring the other
skills learned in training.

In essence, goal variety also captures the total number of transfer goals a person
sets, since it is unlikely that pe0ple will set numerous redundant goals. Thus, goal variety
should also lead to a greater frequency of transfer attempts. When there are more goals
to strive for, the person will have more discrepancies to reduce, and therefore will need to
engage in more transfer behaviors in order to successfirlly achieve the goals. Whereas a
person with only a couple of transfer goals might be satisfied after only a couple of
transfer attempts, a person with a greater number of transfer goals (varied or not) will
find it impossible to successfully meet all of his or her goals after only a few transfer
attempts. In sum, the more transfer goals a person has, and the greater the number of

skills targeted by those goals, the more likely the person is to display many and varied

59

training behaviors. People with few goals or with goals representing only a small set of
the skills learned in training are likely to show less frequent and less varied attempts to
apply the training.

Hymthesis 3b. Transfer goal variety will be positively related to frequency and

variety of transfer behavior.

Situational Cueing

Situational cueing describes the extent to which particular situations prompt recall
of particular behaviors relevant to that situation. Gollwitzer (1999) implicates the mental
link between effective goal-directed behaviors and suitable opportunities for enacting
those behaviors as the critical mechanism through which implementation goals affect
behavior. The link is formed when a person establishes an implementation goal, and later
helps the person to follow through and enact the behavior with the situation arises. The
identification of appropriate situational opportunities is expected to make it easier for a
person to remember when and where he or she wanted to begin goal pursuit, and also
make the selected situation more easily recognizable when it arises, even when the person
is engaged in other activities. In addition, Gollwitzer (1999) argues that the connection
of the situation with a particular behavior is crucial for prompting actual goal pursuit.
Simply recognizing the situation when it arises is not enough if the person cannot
remember what he or she is supposed to do in that situation. Fortunately, using transfer
situations as cues for behavior has an advantage over the old “string around your finger”
trickl because situations have meaningful associations with particular sets of potential

behaviors. Still, the situational cue must be able to isolate the desired behavior in

 

l “Tying a string around your finger originated from the Anglo-Saxons. . .who thought that tying a string around one’s
finger kept an idea from escaping—in effect, tying the idea to one’s self.” (Midhnott Sol Regintroth, 2001).

60

memory to be optimally effective (as if you were tying a blue string around your finger to
remind yourself to knit a blue mitten).

When situational cues are strongly linked to particular behaviors, Gollwitzer
(1999) argues that their connection acquires features of automaticity. In other words, the
tendency to exhibit the linked behavior when the situation arises will be similar to that of
a habit or a well-learned automatic skill (Bargh, 1997). Automatic skills are
characterized by improved and involuntary accessibility (Dellarosa & Bourne, 1984;
Treisman, Vieira, & Hayes, 1992), rapid memory retrieval (Logan, 1988) and direct
access to long-term memory rather than retrieval of a representation for working memory
(Strayer & Kramer, 1990), improved short-term and long-term retention, applicability of
skills, and endurance on tasks (Dougherty & Johnston, 1996), speeded initial processing
(Ahissar, Laiwand, & Hochstein, 2001), and immunity to across-task interference or
ability to perform simultaneously with other tasks (Treisman, Vieira, & Hayes, 1992).
Initiation of automatic skills is hypothesized to be relatively easy, because few cognitive
resources are required due to automatic rather than controlled processing. As a result of
reducing the cognitive load of simple steps, performance at higher levels can be improved
(Condino, Im-Humber, & Stark, 1990). Gollwitzer and Brandstéitter (1997) argue that the
stimulus recognition and memory enhancements afforded by skill automaticity should
make behavioral enactment easier even when embedded in a complex environment full of
distractions (e. g., a work environment). Situational cueing of training behaviors should
therefore improve transfer behavior by making it easier for trainees to remember to use

their skills in transfer environments.

61

Situational cueing, or the extent to which transfer situations bring to mind trained
skills, is expected to increase transfer behavior attempts. Situational cueing, and its
association with skill automaticity, should make opportunities to perform trained skills
(Ford, Quifiones, Sego, & Sorra, 1992) more salient to people and the associated transfer
skills more readily available in memory. In addition, because people should be able to
access knowledge about the skills more quickly and easily, they will be more likely to be
able to actually implement the skills rather than missing opportunities to do so because
“the moment has passed” (Gollwitzer, 1999). Both transfer behavior frequency and
transfer behavior variety are expected to be impacted by situational cueing. Frequency
will be increased due to the ready availability of trained skills to put into action. Variety
is also likely to increase as a result of situational cueing, although this relationship is
expected to be influenced by both the person’s goal variety and the variety of situational
opportunities that present themselves to the person in a given time period. Low
situational cueing will cause people to have difficulty recalling the skills at appropriate
moments during transfer opportunities, and cause confusion or delays regarding how to
put the skills to use. This lack of readiness to act will result in reduced frequency and
variety of transfer behavior attempts.

Hypothesis 3c. Situational cueing of transfer skills will be positively related to

 

frequency and variety of transfer behavior.
Effects of the Taget Motivational Constructs
The second set of hypotheses relevant to the constructs targeted by the
experimental transfer motivation intervention proposed in this study regard the effects of

the target motivational constructs on the mediating motivational mechanisms. The target

62

constructs are expected to be influenced by the intervention and to set in motion
motivational processes that in turn influence transfer behavior as described above. The
target constructs include perceived personal relevance, self-regulatory focus, and
implementation intentions.
Perceived Personal Relevance

Perceived personal relevance describes the extent to which a person sees
connections between the trained skills and his or her personal goals. Note that it is the
perception of relevance, and not actual relevance, that is believed to be important in
transfer motivation. The links between training skills and personal goals that create the
sense of relevance connect the training to the person’s values or sense of self. The ability
of the trained skills to aid discrepancy reduction and goal accomplishment lends value to
the skills. If these connections to higher-order personal goals are perceived to be fairly
direct or can be made to multiple goals, the value of the trained skills should increase
even further (Carver & Scheier, 1998). It follows that if the skills are valued, a person’s
interest in becoming competent in their use should increase. Competence valuation
describes the degree of interest a person has in becoming good at a particular area.

Competence valuation would be expected to be high when the training is
connected to a value the person holds or to his or her sense of self. Competence
valuation can be thought of as representing the extent to which the person holds
competence on the task as a higher-order goal. In this study, competence valuation is
assumed to be malleable. The intervention attempts to increase competence valuation by
guiding people to think about important personal situations and goals which negotiation

skills might help them achieve. People who see the trained skills as more personally

63

relevant or related to their sense of self and personal goals are expected to have higher
competence valuation for the skills they learn in training.

Hypothesis 4. Perceived personal relevance of trained skills will be positively

related to competence valuation.
Self-Regplatory Focus

Regulatory focus (Higgins, 1997) is a construct that describes the valence of the
strategies a person uses in goal pursuit. A person with an approach, or promotion,
regulatory focus uses active strategies for goal accomplishment. For an approach, or
“do” goal, an approach focus leads people to try to do behaviors that will lead toward the
goal. For an avoid, or “do not” goal, an approach focus leads people to try not to miss
opportunities to do things that will lead away from the goal. In either case, the focus is
one of action to promote goal attainment. In contrast, a person with an avoid, or
prevention, regulatory focus attempts to avoid strategies that counteract goal attainment.
For approach goals, an avoid focus will lead people to try not to do behaviors that will
lead away from the goal. For avoid goals, an avoid focus will lead people to try not to do
behaviors that bring the goal closer. The focus of avoid orientation is inaction to prevent
failure to reach the goal.

In the training transfer context, people with an approach regulatory focus should
be interested in taking advantage of opportunities to use the trained skills or achieve
positive outcomes when they are pursuing approach goals. When pursuing avoid goals,
people with an approach focus should be interested in not letting opportunities to use
their skills or achieve positive outcomes pass them by. Wishing to avoid errors of

omission (Higgins, 1997), approach-focused people may also be interested in not leaving

64

out any of the skills they have learned in training. Thus, approach regulatory focus is
expected to increase transfer goal variety. People who are focused on taking advantage
of opportunities, not letting opportunities for discrepancy-reduction slip away, and not
leaving out skills that could help them achieve their goals are expected to think about
using a wider variety of the skills learned in training.

In contrast, people entering transfer situations with an avoid regulatory focus
should be interested in leaving out behaviors that might not bring their goals to use their
skills or achieve positive outcomes closer. When pursuing avoid goals, people with an
avoid focus should be interested in making sure they do not work against themselves by
using the skills incorrectly, using old skills the training is meant to replace, or doing
something to limit their chances of achieving more positive outcomes. Thus, avoid
regulatory focus is expected to lead people to have less varied transfer goals. People who
are focused on making good choices about when and how not to act, and not messing up
when they do act, are expected to think about using a more limited variety of the skills
learned in training.

Hypothesis 5. Self-regulatory focus will significantly influence goal variety. An
approach focus will be positively related to goal variety. An avoid focus will
be negatively related to goal variety.

Implementation Intentions

Implementation intentions are the willful desire to perform particular actions in
particular situations (Gollwitzer, 1999). This commitment to pursuit of situationally-
embedded goals that will lead to higher-order goals is hypothesized to improve goal

attainment rates. One of the key mechanisms through which implementation goals are

65

believed to have their effect on behavior is the formation of and commitment to mental
connections between specified situational cues and the relevant goal-directed behaviors.
People selectively perceive their environments according to various mental sets (Pashler,
Johnston, & Ruthruff, 2000), such that some features are more salient than others. The
mental representation of anticipated situations for goal pursuit in advance of their
occurrence should make those situations more salient and recognizable when they occur.
Once these situations become salient, they should also promote accessibility from
memory of the goal-directed behaviors with which they were encoded in memory. Thus,
the situations will act as cues for the behaviors when they are encountered.

In a training transfer context, situational cueing should be apparent through
increased perceptions of opportunities to use the trained skills, and perceptions that the
trained skills are easily accessible from memory while the person is in situations
involving opportunities to use the trained skills. The relevant trained skill may not
always be enacted when cued by the situation, but will be brought to mind for
consideration. Situational cueing is expected to be higher when people have formed
strong implementation intentions. By forming action-situation connections mentally, and
committing to them motivationally, people should create a strong tendency for the
relevant situations to cue the relevant behaviors when encountered. In contrast,
situational cueing is expected to be weaker when people have not previously made direct
connections between situations and behaviors and committed to performing the behaviors
when the situation arises.

Hypothesis 6. Intentions to implement particular trained skills in particular

situations will be positively related to situational cueing.

66

Effectsrof the Transfer Intervention on Transfer Motivation

Most importantly, this model predicts that the motivational components
embedded in the experimental transfer intervention (personal hi gher-order goals,
approach goals and bounded avoid goals, and implementation goals) will positively
impact the extent to which people are motivated to attempt to use the skills they have
learned. The motivational states and processes that the intervention surfaces and puts in
motion are the key mechanisms through which the intervention is ultimately expected to
increase transfer behavior and performance.

Personal Hi er-Order Goals

One requirement for motivation to transfer is a basic level of caring about the
knowledge, skills, and attitudes learned in training and a desire to use them. This caring
and desire provides motivational intensity directed toward achieving transfer. As
discussed above, the extent to which people feel that the training is personally relevant to
them is expected to increase their competence valuation, or how much they care about
being good at the skills. By influencing the amount of energy and effort the person is
willing to direct at transfer, competence valuation is expected to increase transfer
behavior. If people do not feel that the training is personally relevant to them, they are
likely to dismiss it as useless without even trying to use the skills.

Current training programs typically address this challenge through training design
or workplace environment interventions. Attempts to increase peoples’ motivational
intensity are embedded in training content as attention-grabbing examples of successes
achieved when training content is used or stories of common failures that could be

prevented through use of the training. Some organizations set expectations and reward

67

contingencies to specifically encourage people to use trained skills. Some companies
make sure supervisors are involved in helping people plan to use new skills or providing
opportunities for skill use. Apparently content with these options, developers of action
planning guides have not incorporated specific elements to increase motivational
intensity. Rather, this basic desire to apply the training is assumed to already exist in
trainees when they write action plans.

Advances in self-regulation theories related to goal hierarchies, self-concept, and
personal relevance suggest another alternative for impacting motivational intensity——
direct intervention to help people discover and define why the training is personally
relevant and meaningful to them in light of their individual situations and goals. The
existence of goal hierarchies suggests that there are multiple ways to link trained skills
and behaviors to learners’ goals. However, Carver, Lawrence, and Scheier (1996) argue
that goals at more abstract hierarchical levels are more important to a person’s overall
sense of self, contribute more strongly to the person’s emotional states, and are less easily
discarded than goals at more specific levels. Linked to a person’s sense of self, higher-
order goals encourage people to act not only to accomplish specific achievements, but
also to choose activities that support their definition of who they are or wish to become
(Markus & Nurius, 1986; Markus & Wurf, 1987). This implies that abstract goals are,
ultimately, the most important and motivating forces on behavior. Thus, it follows that
transfer will be greater when trained skills are linked to the accomplishment of
fundamental values the person holds, rather than only linked to goals lower in the goal

hierarchy. Trained skills linked to the person’s sense of self and self-worth are likely to

68

result in greater transfer than those that do not appear to be connected to values the
person holds.

Approaching the challenge of encouraging people to want to use trained skills
from an individual motivational perspective highlights the importance of goals that are
highest in a person’s hierarchy and closest to their sense of self for driving behavioral
choices. We all know from experience that we will work harder to learn and use things
that we care about. The research on goal hierarchies and goal importance suggests that
transfer motivation will be improved when transfer goals take on importance by being
connected to higher-order personal goals. The model presented in this study proposes
that it is possible to influence perceived personal relevance by guiding people to connect
training with personal experiences and goals. Explicitly asking people to find
connections between the training skills and their own goals, rather than goals suggested
by the trainer, should improve the person’s sense of personal relevance.

Hypothesis 7. People who participate in the experimental transfer motivation

 

intervention, which incorporates forming connections to personal higher-order
goals, will report higher perceived personal relevance of the training content
than those who participate in a typical action planning intervention or receive
training without a transfer intervention.
Approach Goals & Bounded Avoid Goals
It is not enough for people to simply want to use the skills they learned in
training; they must direct their efforts toward appropriate targets that will encourage

transfer attempts and ultimately successful performance. Two aspects of goal targets are

69

important for providing direction: goal content (what the person is focusing on) and goal
valence (whether the person is moving toward or away from the target).

(hrrrent training programs typically address the challenge of motivational
direction through training design, workplace environment interventions, or post-training
goal setting. Training content influences motivational direction by focusing attention on
specific, discrete behaviors and skills that are meant to be targets for trainee behavior. In
some cases, training content also influences goal valence by highlighting either positive
(approach), negative (avoid), or both aspects of the skills being trained (Baldwin, 1992).
Organizational performance expectations and reward contingencies may also clarify
appropriate targets for behavior, and make reward (approach) or punishment (avoid)
more salient. Post-training goal setting interventions (e.g., action planning, or less
commonly, self management) give people goals to strive for and some structure to guide
their accomplishment. However, beyond basic admonitions to set specific, challenging
goals, these interventions usually include very little guidance regarding the kinds of
targets people should establish. Furthermore, no explicit attention is given to goal
valence, although current motivational theory suggests that this is an important aspect of
goal striving that has broad implications for behavior, performance, and affect (Carver &
Scheier, 1998; Elliot, 1999; Higgins, 1997). The model presented in this study proposes
that it is possible and desirable to provide more specific guidance regarding goal valence.
Rather than leaving this important aspect of goal pursuit to chance or personal
disposition, the intervention presented here attempts to directly influence goal valence to

help people pursue their transfer goals in better ways.

70

Regulatory focus (Higgins 1997) is a construct that describes the valence of the
strategies a person uses in goal pursuit. A person with an approach, or promotion,
regulatory focus uses strategies that actively move toward a target. It is important to note
that regulatory focus describes the person’s strategic orientation and activities toward the
goal, not the valence of the goal itself. Approach strategies, which are lower in the goal
hierarchy than the goal, can be used to attain either approach or avoid goals. Thus, an
approach focus can lead to trying to do behaviors that will lead to an approach goal or
trying not to miss opportunities to do things that will lead away from an avoid goal. In
either case, the focus is one of action to promote goal attainment. In contrast, a person
with an avoid, or prevention, regulatory focus attempts to avoid strategies that counteract
goal attainment. An avoid focus can lead to trying not to do behaviors that will lead
away from an approach goal or trying not to do behaviors that bring an avoid goal closer.
The focus of avoid orientation is to prevent failure to reach the goal.

The second component of the transfer motivation intervention proposed in this
study is designed to influence self-regulatory focus. The proclivity toward action
engendered by an approach focus is likely to be more conducive to promoting transfer
behavior than an avoid focus, which favors inaction (Higgins, 1997). Approach has
generally been theoretically and empirically associated with more positive outcomes than
avoidance in other research areas as well. For instance, Carver, Lawrence, and Scheier
(1996) propose that approach goals will be linked with elation and depression, whereas
avoid goals will be linked with relief and anxiety. Anxiety has been found to have a
negative relationship with motivation to learn, motivation for training, and pretraining

and post-training self-efficacy (Bandura, 1982; Colquitt, LePine, & Noe, 2000; J ex &

71

Gudanowski, 1992; Martocchio, 1994; Warr & Bunce, 1995; Webster & Martocchio,
1993). Training interventionists have clearly devoted attention to reducing anxiety
during training and transfer (e. g., relapse prevention). In achievement motivation
research, approach goals have been empirically linked with positive learning, affective,
and performance outcomes such as learning engagement, need for achievement, self-
determination, and deep processing, while avoid goals have been associated with a static
view of intelligence, fear of failure, surface processing, and disorganized learning (Elliot
& McGregor, 2001). Emotionally, avoid goals were associated with anxiety, worry, and
emotionality, while approach goals were free of these connections.

Thus, the intervention in this investigation aims to increase approach self-
regulatory focus and to decrease avoid self-regulatory focus. The intervention guides
people to set approach goals for training transfer. Higgins (1997) points out that strategic
regulatory focus can either match or mismatch goal valence, but notes that both
dispositional and situational characteristics will influence which type of strategy people
will choose to pursue their goals. Thus, it is expected that goal valence will exert some
influence on strategy choice, making approach strategies somewhat more common when
approach goals are set. To strengthen the press to ad0pt an approach focus even further,
the intervention also addresses avoid goals. Recognizing that some people are
dispositionally likely to hold avoidance goals even when instructed to set approach goals,
the intervention encourages people to acknowledge their avoid goals and then bound
them with approach goals (Carver & Scheier, 1998). This is expected to provide further
situational pressure to adopt an approach focus toward goal pursuit. As a result, people

should be more focused on approach than avoid as they leave training and begin transfer.

72

The limited inclusion of approach and avoid motivation in standard action planning
interventions should have a similar, but weaker, effect on people’s focus on approach
versus avoidance.

Hypothesis 8a. People who participate in the experimental transfer motivation
intervention, which incorporates setting approach goals and bounding avoid
goals with approach goals, will report higher approach self-regulatory focus
and lower avoid self-regulatory focus than those who participate in atypical
action planning intervention or receive training without a transfer intervention.

Hypothesis 8b. Because standard action planning interventions incorporate
approach motivation to some degree, people who participate in standard
action planning will report higher approach self-regulatory focus and lower
avoid self-regulatory focus than those who receive training without a transfer
intervention.

Implementation Goals

Despite having good goals to pursue and good intentions to pursue them, people
often still have trouble accomplishing their goals (Gollwitzer, 1999). The problem is a
failure to initiate action in pursuit of the goal, which has been linked with indecision
about how to pursue the goal, inability to override habitual behaviors triggered by the
relevant situation, and failure to identify specific situations as opportunities for goal
pursuit (Gollwitzer & Brandstéitter, 1997). All of these are potentially relevant to training
transfer situations and pursuit of transfer goals.

Current training programs address issues of action initiation through training

design and action planning interventions. Training content is often delivered in enough

73

detail to provide some guidance for how to implement particular skills, and practice time
is sometimes included to allow people to begin to form habits in using the new skills.
Specific situations for using the skills might also be provided or elicited during the
training. However, this is not always the case, and it is quite possible for trainees to leave
a training program without sufficient preparation to make action initiation in the work
environment easy. When action planning is used, it typically requires people to break
goals down into more specific sub-steps that provide better guidance for behaviors.
However, as Gollwitzer (1999) points out, simply setting more specific or proximal goals
does not capture the important situational connection involved in implementation goals.
In addition, people completing action plans may be encouraged to think of concrete
examples of opportunities they will have to apply their skills and relate their action plan
goals to those situations. However, action planning interventions typically do not do this
at the level of detail implied in implementation intentions research. For instance, trainees
might identify an upcoming negotiation opportunity when they will be able to apply their
negotiation skills, but then set goals for that situation without specifically emphasizing
the situational cues that should prompt each negotiation strategy they intend to use.
Training transfer could benefit if research on implementation intentions were more firmly
embedded in transfer interventions.

The intervention proposed in this study explicitly tries to enhance implementation
intentions, or the intention to enact a particular behavior in a particular anticipated
circumstance, by having people set implementation goals to support their transfer goals.
The intervention focuses pe0ple on connecting the behavioral strategies they learned in

training to particular situations in which they will have the best opportunities to use those

74

strategies. The act of forming and recording goals linking the behaviors and situations is
expected to increase the extent to which people hold specific goals to use particular
strategies in particular negotiation circumstances rather than being committed only to
more vague goals for using the negotiation skills. People who do not receive the
experimental intervention are not expected to form implementation intentions to the same
degree, although some people may be inclined to form implementation intentions for
their goals without being prompted (Gollwitzer, 1999).

Hypothesis 9. People who participate in the experimental transfer motivation
intervention, which incorporates connecting behavioral strategies to particular
situations, will report stronger implementation intentions than those who
participate in atypical action planning intervention or receive training without
a transfer intervention.

Mediating Relationships

The model proposed in this investigation is a process model of transfer motivation
and predicts several mediating relationships. Although several levels of mediation are
implied by the model, two are of primary interest in this investigation and will be tested.
First, the target motivational constructs are expected to explain the impact of the
experimental transfer intervention on transfer behavior (irrespective of whether the
proposed mediating motivational mechanisms explain this process). Second, because
they are more proximal to transfer behavior, the mediating motivational mechanisms are
expected to explain the impact of the target motivational constructs on transfer behavior.
These two sets of mediating relationships are critical to understanding how the

motivational theories that have been applied to training transfer in this investigation have

75

the expected and intended effects on transfer behavior and how the theories might be
applied more effectively to improving transfer. Thus, hypotheses about these mediating
relationships will be examined in this investigation.
Explaining the Impact of the Transfer Motivation Intervention on Transfer Behavior
The transfer motivation intervention proposed in this investigation has been
specifically designed to impact three target motivational constructs (perceived personal
relevance, self-regulatory focus, and implementation intentions). These target constructs
are expected to explain how the intervention impacts transfer behavior. Analyzing
whether or not these mediating relationships are supported will add clarity to the results
of this investigation by indicating whether, in fact, the intervention “works” by
effectively increasing transfer attempts, as well as whether the theorized motivational
constructs are responsible for these effects or whether additional processes may be
implicated in explaining the wheels set in motion by the intervention exercises.
Hypothesis 10a. The experimental transfer motivation intervention will increase
the frequency and variety of transfer attempts through perceived personal
relevance.
Hypothesis 10b. The experimental transfer motivation intervention will increase
the frequency and variety of transfer attempts through self-regulatory focus.
Hypothesis 10c. The experimental transfer motivation intervention will increase
the frequency and variety of transfer attempts through implementation

intentions.

76

Explaining the Impfl of the Target Motivatiofl Constructs on Transfer Behayior

The experimental transfer motivation intervention is specifically designed to
impact particular motivational constructs. In turn, each of the three target motivational
constructs (perceived personal relevance, self-regulatory focus, and implementation
intentions) is expected to influence transfer behavior through a mediating motivational
mechanism that is more proximal to the behavior (competence valuation, goal variety,
and situational cueing, respectively). These mediators are expected to contribute to an
explanation of how the target motivational constructs impact transfer behavior. Support
for these hypotheses will indicate support for the theoretical foundations underlying this
investigation, provide a clearer understanding of why it is possible to influence transfer
behavior through the target constructs, and suggest further opportunities for increasing
the use of trained skills.

Hypothesis 11a. Perceived personal relevance will be positively related to the

 

frequency and variety of transfer attempts through competence valuation.
Hypothesis 11b. Approach self-regulatory focus will be positively related to the
frequency and variety of transfer attempts through goal variety.
Hypothesis 11c. Implementation intentions will be positively related to the

frequency and variety of transfer attempts through situational cueing.

77

METHOD

Overview

By definition, transfer of training involves people taking advantage of
opportunities to apply trained knowledge, skills, abilities, and attitudes in their work.
When opportunities are readily available, people must be motivated to respond by
attempting to use their new skills. When opportunities are not as clearly available or
presented, people must be motivated to create their own opportunities to practice and use
their new skills. The transfer motivation that leads people to create and take advantage of
opportunities to use training in their work is a major and essential step toward successful
transfer of training. All three aspects of motivation—intensity, direction, and
persistence—must be brought to bear on transfer to maximize the likelihood that people
will attempt to transfer what they have learned in training to their work and will be
successful in their attempts.

The model of transfer motivation in this investigation suggests that an
intervention designed to impact transfer motivation will improve the extent to which
people attempt to apply what they have learned in training. Increased frequency and
variety of transfer behavior are expected to improve transfer performance quality. This
investigation tested the effectiveness of the transfer motivation model and intervention.
Participants in the investigation completed a training course in issue-based negotiation,
received the experimental transfer motivation intervention or one of two comparison
interventions, had a brief opportunity to use the negotiation skills outside of the lab in

their own lives, and then attended a negotiation transfer simulation.

78

Design

This study was conducted with a one-factor design. The design included one
group receiving the experimental transfer motivation intervention, a control group
receiving a standard transfer intervention (action planning), and a control group receiving
no transfer intervention. All groups received identical negotiation training (described
later in this section).

Contrflroups. The two control groups represent common occurrences in actual
training interventions in organizations. In the first control group, participants received
only the negotiation training, with no explicit attention to transfer motivation or planning.
In the second control group, participants followed a prototypical action planning process
at the conclusion of their negotiation training session. This process was modeled after
the types of action planning that are commonly used in well-designed organizational
training programs (Broad & Newstrom, 1992; Eitington, 1996; Silberman, 1995). It
included standard minimal guidance focused on setting challenging, specific goals,
articulating strategies to accomplish those goals, listing resources needed to accomplish
the goals, establishing deadlines for goal accomplishment, and identifying data that will
indicate goal accomplishment. No explicit attention was given to the motivational
constructs and processes incorporated purposefully into the experimental intervention.

Experimental grppp. The experimental group received a transfer intervention
based on the transfer motivation model proposed in this study. In this intervention,
participants completed several activities designed to enhance their transfer motivation.
The intervention included: (1) an exercise designed to help people form connections

between the negotiation training and their personal hi gher-order goals to heighten their

79

sense that the training is personally relevant and increase the extent to which they value
building competence in negotiation, (2) a modified version of action planning that guided
people to set approach goals and bound avoid goals with approach goals to shape their
self-regulatory focus and increase the variety of goals they would set as initial transfer
targets, and (3) a guided exercise that focused on making connections between the
behavioral skills and particular situations in which they could best be used to prompt
formation of implementation intentions and situational cueing of the trained skills during
transfer opportunities. This intervention is described in detail in the procedure section.
Power An_alysis & Participants

Previous research did not suggest likely effect sizes for the transfer motivation
intervention being tested in this study. Power analysis for the experimental design
described above indicated that to achieve 80% power with a = .05, an overall sample size
of 63 participants would be required to find large effects (d = .8), 156 participants to find
medium effects (d = .5), and 966 participants to find small effects (d = .2) (see Appendix
A; Cohen, 1992). Data collection was therefore targeted to obtain data for at least 52
participants in each of the three conditions. 204 undergraduates at a large midwestem
university participated and received credit in partial fulfillment of course requirements.
Participants were predominantly female (71%), and 88% were 23 years old or younger.
Demographic items are included in Appendix J. Chi-square analyses indicated that there
were no significant differences in participant gender or age across the three experimental

conditions, {(2,1v: 186) = 1.77, n.s.; {(6, N: 186) = 6.54, n.s.

8O

Procedure and Intervention

The experiment was divided into two parts, with approximately a one-week gap
between parts. For the first part, participants attended one of several group sessions led
by an experimenter/trainer. The format for these sessions was: (1) welcome, informed
consent, and introduction, (2) pretraining motivation measure, (3) negotiation training
and practice, (4) post-training learning and self-efficacy measures, (5) transfer
intervention (none, standard action planning, or the experimental intervention), and (6)
pre-transfer motivational measures. Each group session presented only one experimental
or control condition to all participants. Participants selected their group session blindly,
with no information about the transfer intervention they would receive. Random
assignment was used to determine which condition would be used in each scheduled
group session. Thus, there should not have been any systematic variation between
participants in experimental and control groups. The introduction was slightly modified
to appropriately reflect the content of each experimental condition. The control condition
that did not include a transfer intervention skipped Step 5. All other aspects of the group
sessions were identical across conditions.

Before leaving the group session, participants scheduled a time to return for an
individual session approximately one week after their group session. The one-week gap
was included to supplement the laboratory transfer measures with an opportunity to
collect measures of real-life transfer of the negotiation skills. Although one week is a
short period of time and may not offer many opportunities for participants to use the
skills they learned in training (Ford, Quifrones, Sego, & Sorra, 1992), Fisher and Ury

(1991) argue that negotiation is a daily part of life. Thus, it was expected that most

81

participants would have some opportunities to use the negotiation skills during this week
if they chose to do so, and that a one-week period would be adequate to supplement the
measures of maximal transfer gathered in the laboratory with measures of typical transfer
(Ackerman & Heggestad, 1997; Goff & Ackerman, 1992; Willerrnan, Turner, &
Peterson, 1976).

For the second part of the experiment, participants returned to the laboratory for
individual sessions led by an experimenter. The format for these sessions was: (1) pre-
simulation measures, (2) transfer simulation, (3) post—transfer measures, and (4)
debriefing and dismissal. The format for the individual sessions was identical for all
participants. The experimental procedure and interventions are described in detail below;
measures are described in the following section.

Welcome, Informed Consent, and Introduction

Upon arrival at the group session, each participant received a consent form to
review and a sealed training and measures manual. Each participant was assigned a
participant number to assure confidentiality of their responses. The experimenter
welcomed participants and told them that the purpose of the experiment was to
investigate how people respond to a training program and how well they are able to use
what they learn in the training program. The experimenter then requested everyone’s
consent to participate and collected participants’ signed forms (see Appendix B). Next,
the experimenter gave participants an overview of what to expect during the session. The
overview was tailored slightly to appropriately describe each experimental condition (see

Appendix C).

82

Pre-Training Motivation Measure

Following the overview, participants completed a pre-training measure of
motivation to learn negotiation. The experimental transfer intervention was expected to
influence motivational states regardless of pre-training motivation to learn. In addition,
random assignment of participants to experimental conditions should have resulted in a
random, unbiased distribution of motivation to learn across conditions, allowing a sound
test of the intervention’s effectiveness in influencing transfer motivation. However, to
check these assumptions, the motivation to learn measure was collected to be used as a

control variable in the analyses.

 

Negotiation Training and Practice

When all participants had completed the pretraining measures, the
experimenter/trainer began the negotiation training (see Appendix D). The training was
identical for all experimental conditions. The training was based on materials
reconstructed by Daniel Weissbein (2000) from research reports by Gist and colleagues
(Gist, Bavetta, & Stevens, 1990; Gist, Stevens, & Bavetta, 1991; Stevens & Gist, 1997).
The training delivery included classroom instruction by the experimenter/trainer,
modeling of the negotiation skills, group discussion, and skill practice. The training
content included four sets of strategies based on principled bargaining and assertiveness.
Following a brief introduction to the philosophy behind these strategies, the strategies
were presented, modeled, discussed, and practiced. The training and practice portion of

the experimental session lasted approximately 90 minutes.

83

Post-Training Learning and Motivation Measures _

At the conclusion of the group training and practice session, participants
completed a knowledge test assessing their negotiation knowledge and skill
understanding, and a measure of negotiation self-efficacy. At this point, participants also
received an overview of the upcoming negotiation simulation (see Appendix G).
Tran§fer Intervention

Next, the experimenter presented the transfer planning intervention for the
appropriate experimental condition—either standard action planning or the experimental
transfer motivation intervention. The control group not receiving a transfer intervention
skipped this step and went directly to the next set of measures. To avoid contaminating
effects resulting fiom extreme differences in the time participants spent digesting or
applying the transfer planning techniques, the experimenter led and paced each session.

Standard action planning intervention. In the standard action planning control
condition, the experimenter led participants through an action planning guide included in
their manual (see Appendix E). As is typical in actual training sessions, the experimenter
provided little guidance beyond what was included in the action planning form. Rather,
the experimenter’s role was to pace participants’ progress through the action plan and
emphasize key points. The action planning instructions focused on setting challenging,
specific goals. Participants also articulated strategies to accomplish those goals, listed
resources needed to accomplish the goals, established deadlines for goal accomplishment,
and identified data that would indicate goal accomplishment. No explicit attention was
given to the motivational constructs and processes targeted by the experimental transfer

intervention. The action planning exercise took approximately 20 minutes.

84

Experimental transfer motivation intervention. In the experimental intervention
condition, the experimenter briefly highlighted concepts included in the participants’
manuals, and led participants through exercises where they applied those concepts (see
Appendix F). The full intervention took approximately 20 minutes. The first element of
the intervention focused on the importance of forming connections between the training
and hi gher-order personal goals. The experimenter stressed that it was important for each
participant to draw connections between the negotiation training skills they had learned
and their personal goals. In the exercise, participants identified and briefly described
qualities and values that were important to them and connected these to the negotiation
skills, and then identified personal goals which they felt the negotiation skills they had
learned might help them achieve.

The second element of the intervention included information about the importance
of action planning and setting particular kinds of goals to enhance transfer and
negotiation achievement. The experimenter highlighted the importance of keeping in
mind the motivational direction of goals—what participants were trying to achieve and
what they were trying to leave behind or stay away from. In addition, the intervention
instructions highlighted the importance of focusing primarily on approach (pull) goals
and bounding avoid (push) goals with approach goals to guide transfer efforts. Following
these instructions, participants completed the goal setting portion of the action planning
exercise in their manuals. The instructions called for participants to set approach goals
and to recognize their avoid goals and bound them with approach goals.

The third and final element of the intervention focused on forming

implementation goals that specifically connect behavioral skills to situational

85

opportunities for using them. The experimenter and instructions highlighted the
importance of making specific connections between the goals set in Part 2 of the planning
guide and situations that will provide the best opportunities for achieving each goal.
Participants then completed an exercise in which they set implementation goals for each
of the goals they had established in Part 2. For each goal, they were asked to form one
implementation intention for a real negotiation they intended to have in the coming week,
and one implementation intention for the negotiation simulation.
Pre-Transfer Motivational Measures

At the conclusion of the transfer planning intervention, participants completed the
pre-transfer motivational measures included in their manuals. These measures included
perceived personal relevance of the training, negotiation competence valuation, self-
regulatory focus, implementation intentions, and goal variety. These measures assessed
the motivational mechanisms through which the experimental transfer intervention was
expected to impact transfer behavior. Situational cueing was not measured at this time
because the participants had not yet been in transfer situations.
Short in Vivo Application Period

At this point, the first session of the experiment was concluded. Participants
arranged a time to return for the negotiation simulation approximately one week
following the training session. The experimenter encouraged people to use the week to
prepare for their simulation by reviewing their skills and using them in real negotiations.
Participants who had completed an action plan or the experimental transfer intervention
received a copy of their plan. Participants also were permitted to take home the overview

of the upcoming negotiation simulation, as well as a one-page review of the strategies.

86

Pre-SimulzLion Transfer Behavior Measures

When participants returned one week later for their negotiation transfer
simulation, they began by completing a self-report measure of negotiation skill use. This
measure captured their perceptions of the frequency and variety of transfer attempts they
had made independently during the week following training.
Transfer Simulation

After completing the measure, participants met their negotiation opponent, a
confederate of the experimenter/trainer who was blind to the hypotheses of the study and
participants’ experimental condition. The confederate negotiator began the negotiation
according to a script (Appendix H). The negotiation simulation involved a salary
negotiation in which the participant sought to obtain a high salary offer from their
opponent, who was in the role of an employer. Confederate negotiators were trained to
negotiate according to a standard procedure of responses to participant negotiation
attempts. They learned to identify the negotiation strategies used by the participants and
to respond accordingly in the negotiation. At fixed salary levels, the confederates used
aggressive verbal and nonverbal negotiation tactics to provide participants an opportunity
to use their assertive negotiation strategies. The negotiation continued until the
participant agreed to a salary offer made by the confederate or until a maximum salary
level was reached (none of the participants achieved the maximum salary). During the
negotiation simulation, the confederate recorded all negotiation strategies attempted by

the participant.

87

Post-Tran_sfer Measures

Following the transfer simulation, participants completed the final set of
measures. Participants responded to a measure of goal variety that asked them to
retrospectively report the content of their goals for the negotiation simulation. Next, they
completed the situational cueing scale, which assessed the extent to which situations that
had occurred during their real-life negotiations or during the negotiation simulation had
cued specific negotiation strategies. In addition, participants were asked to indicate their
perceptions of the extent to which they had accomplished their transfer goals. Finally,
participants completed demographic items.
Debriefingand Dismissal

When participants had completed all measures, they received a general
description of the purpose of the study and what I hoped to learn from the data they had
contributed (see Appendix I). They received credit for their participation, and were
thanked and dismissed by the confederate.

Measures

As noted above, participants were asked to respond to self-report measures at five
different points during the experiment. Prior to training, participants completed a
measure of motivation to learn. Between the training session and transfer planning
intervention, participants completed measures of learning and self-efficacy. Immediately
following the transfer planning intervention, participants completed the key motivational
construct measures. A week later, when they returned for the negotiation simulation,
participants reported on the transfer behavior attempts they had made independently

during the week. Finally, after the negotiation simulation, participants responded to a

88

measure of situational cueing and reported on their transfer experience and their
demographic characteristics. In addition to these self-report measures, participants’
exercises in the transfer planning conditions and behaviors during the negotiation
simulation were assessed. The measures are described below. Instructions given to
participants and items are included in Appendix J.
Pilot Testing

Validated measures of the central motivational constructs included in this research
are not currently available. Thus, I had to create measures based on the theoretical
research reviewed in the introduction. Concerns about the quality of these measures, and
especially the degree of overlap among items intended to measure theoretically distinct
constructs, necessitated pilot testing of the measurement items. This section describes the
pilot testing procedure; detailed results for each measurement scale are reported as part of
the general description of each scale following this section.

Materials summarizing the pilot procedure and results are included in Appendix
K. The pilot test procedure included several steps. First, I reviewed the entire set of
scales proposed for the investigation for potential item overlap. Based on analysis of
item content and administration proximity, I identified five scales as potentially
problematic and requiring pilot testing. I judged the remaining scales to be sufficiently
independent to be used without pilot testing, either because their item content was
identifiably unique from the other scales, or because they would be administered a week
apart from other similar scales.

Second, I randomly sorted the originally-proposed items for the five troublesome

scales and distributed them to eighteen raters familiar with common psychological

89

constructs and their measurement. Raters received a brief definition of each of the five
constructs, and instructions to assign each of the 59 original items to the appropriate
construct or constructs. Because my intent was to identify potential problems with
construct measurement overlap, the instructions specifically directed raters to assign an
item to multiple constructs if they could not make a clean determination regarding which
construct the item represented. Fourteen raters provided construct assignments for the
items and comments regarding measurement quality.

Based on the construct assignment responses and item content, I made one of the
following choices for each item: include the item as written on its original scale, revise
the item and include it on its original scale, include the item as written on a different scale
than originally intended, or discard the item. Several decision criteria guided the choice
for each item. For scales used in prior research, all but 2 of the 20 items achieved 86% of
their construct assignments on the intended construct. The remaining two items achieved
at least 64% intended assignments, with no more than 21% assignment to a single
alternate construct. All items on these scales were left intact. For the 39 items developed
for this investigation, decision criteria included: the number of intended-construct versus
unintended-construct assignments, item content, retention of a minimum of six items per
construct to allow empirical measurement scale revisions, and ability to reword the item
to better distinguish it from unintended assigned constructs. Approximately 60% of the
items created for this investigation were reworded and retained on their originally-
intended scale based on these criteria. Of the remaining 40%, eight items were retained

exactly as written representing their intended construct, five items were discarded

9O

completely, and two items that were consistently assigned by raters to an unintended
construct and had appropriate content were switched to the identified construct.

The third step in the measurement pilot test involved redistributing the revised
items to the raters. For this step, the items were grouped in their intended scales to reflect
the way participants in the investigation would encounter them, and construct definitions
were repeated. Raters were instructed to identify any items that did not appear to reflect
the intended construct or that still appeared to reflect multiple constructs. All nine raters
who responded perceived the items to be adequately connected within scales and distinct
across scales.

Pre-Training Motivation Measure

Participants completed a measure of motivation to learn before participating in the
training workshop. Responses to each item were given on a 5-point likert scale (1 =
“Strongly Disagree,” 3 = “Neutral,” 5 = “Strongly Agree”).

Motivation to learn negotiation. Motivation to learn has been found to play an
important role in training success, influencing knowledge acquisition and reactions to
training, and also impacting transfer through skill acquisition and posttraining self-
efficacy (Colquitt, LePine, & Noe, 2000). Previous studies have had difficulty
supporting motivational constructs related to training and transfer (Noe & Schmitt, 1986)
or distinguishing transfer motivation from motivation to learn (Noe & Wilk, 1993), even
to the extent that they have combined the two components into one construct representing
motivation to improve work through learning (MTIW L; Baldwin, Ford, & Naquin, 2000).
Thus, although the focus of this study is on influencing motivation to transfer rather than

untangling the conceptual relationship between these constructs, motivation to learn will

91

be assessed to determine whether the transfer intervention affects transfer behavior
beyond the influence of participants’ motivation to learn negotiation, which is also
expected to be related to transfer based on previous research. As noted earlier, random
assignment of participants to the experimental conditions is expected to minimize the
potential impact of individual differences in motivation to learn negotiation; however,
this assumption will be checked with this measure.

The intervention presented in this investigation is specifically targeted at raising
motivation to use skills after training, rather than to learn them during training. Thus, it
is expected to have an impact that is more proximal to transfer behavior. In addition,
because the intervention occurs after training, once participants are familiar with the
specific skills presented in the training, it more specifically focuses people on using these
particular skills, in contrast to the more general assessment of pretraining motivation to
learn negotiation skills. Participants responded to eleven items adapted from Weissbein’s
(2000) pretraining motivation to learn scale. The revised scale included five items
capturing desire to learn about negotiation and six items capturing willingness to invest
effort to learn about negotiation. Weissbein adapted the desire to learn dimension from
Noe’s (1985) motivation to learn scale, and created the willingness to invest effort items.
Weissbein’s scale, which also included confidence items that were not included in this
investigation, was unidimensional and had acceptable reliability. A sample desire to
learn item is “I want to improve my negotiation skills.” A sample item designed to
capture willingness to invest effort is “I am going to really try and learn the negotiation

strategies and how to use them.”

92

Post-Training Learning and Motivation Measures

Following training, participants completed a learning test and a measure of self-
efficacy.

Learning. A test of procedural and conditional knowledge recall was given
following the training. Participants completed a 10-item sentence completion quiz
adapted fiom Gist, Bavetta, and Stevens (1990) by Weissbein (2000). I further modified
the test to require behavioral descriptions of the negotiation strategies rather than simply
strategy names, because knowing the list of strategy names does not imply that people
would know how to use the strategy successfully in a negotiation. No memory aids were
provided to assist with recall. Because it is difficult to argue that only one strategy is
appropriate in each situation described on the quiz, responses were scored without regard
to the item prompt. That is, participants were given credit for adequately describing the
negotiation strategies even if they did not describe the strategy that was the intended
response for each quiz item. Participants were awarded full credit, partial credit, or no
credit for each strategy they described, for a maximum of 20 points. The scoring schema
for the learning measure is included in Appendix J.

Self-efficacy. Post-training self-efficacy has been significantly related to transfer
across a number of studies (Colquitt, LePine, & Noe, 2000). Because of its known
contribution for explaining transfer motivation, and because the differential impact of the
experimental conditions on self-efficacy was unknown, self-efficacy was included as a
control variable in tests of the motivational mechanisms hypothesized to influence
transfer behavior in this investigation. Participants completed a 9-item measure of self-

efficacy adapted from Pintrich and DeGroot (1990). A sample item is, “My negotiation

93

skills are excellent compared with others in this training workshop.” Responses to each
item were given on a 5-point likert scale (1 = “Strongly Disagree,” 3 = “Neutral,” 5 =
“Strongly Agree”).

Pre-Transfer Motivational Measures

The following measures were completed immediately after the transfer planning
intervention, before participants left the negotiation training workshop. Responses to
each item were given on a 5-point likert scale (1 = “Strongly Disagree,” 3 = “Neutral,” 5
= “Strongly Agree”).

Perceived personal relevance. A 6-item measure of perceived personal relevance
was developed for this investigation. A sample item is, “I can already think of .ways that
I could use the negotiation skills I learned today.”

Negotiation competence valuation. Previous studies examining competence
valuation have used single-item measures (e. g., Harackiewicz & Elliot, 1993) or two-item
measures (e. g., Elliot & McGregor, 2001). For this study, I developed additional items to
form an ll-item measure designed to capture competence valuation. Good reliability and
predictive utility for the two-item measure (Elliot, F aler, McGregor, Campbell,
Sedikides, & Harackiewicz, 2000) bode well for the psychometric properties of a more
extensive measure of this construct. A sample item is “I really value negotiation as
something I want to be good at.”

Self-regulatory focus. Self-regulatory focus was measured with a 22-item
measure. Fifteen of the items were adapted from a 3-factor measure of goal orientation
recently developed and validated by Horvath, Scheu, and DeShon (2001). As discussed

earlier, mastery and performance goal orientation describe the standard used to define

94

competence. Mastery goals focus on reaching standards related to task competence;
performance goals focus on demonstrating normative competence. Though there is still
debate about how mastery and performance relate to approach and avoid, there seems to
be consensus that they are both important aspects of goal striving. The 15-item goal
orientation measure includes five items capturing mastery-approach orientation (e.g., “I
will enjoy the challenge and difficulty of using my new negotiation skills”), five items
capturing performance-approach orientation (e. g., “I want others to recognize that I am
one of the best negotiators”), and five items capturing performance-avoid orientation
(e. g., “I don’t want others to see that others are better than me at negotiation”).

Theory and research on goal orientation remain equivocal about the viability of a
four-factor measure including mastery-avoid orientation. Currently, none of the trait
measures of goal orientation include this subfactor. However, because avoid motivation
is central to this study, I supplemented the Horvath et al. scale with adaptations of the
three mastery-avoid items developed by Elliot and McGregor (2001). A sample item is
“Sometimes I’m afraid that I may not understand things that I am learning as thoroughly
as I’d like.” Finally, because the goal orientation measures do not reflect the strategic
goal striving underpinnings highlighted by Higgins (1997), I wrote two additional items
reflecting the attempts to strategically match or mismatch approach and avoid goals (see
Table l). A sample approach item is, “To achieve my negotiation goals, I will need to
make sure I don’t miss opportunities to use these skills.”

Implementation intentions. Implementation intentions describe the strength of a
person’s commitment to engaging in particular behaviors when they encounter particular

situations. In this investigation, participants in the experimental group were induced to

95

set implementation goals following the training workshop. Participants in the action
planning control condition were induced to set goals, but without any particular
instructions to connect behaviors to particular situations. Participants in the control
condition with no transfer intervention did not set any goals. The strength of
implementation intentions was assessed with six items asking people about the detail
level of their plans for using the negotiation skills during the coming week and when they
returned for the negotiation simulation, and their intentions to follow their plans. A
sample item is, “For my negotiation simulation, 1 have planned when I will use each
strategy I intend to use.”

Goal variety. To report their transfer goal variety, participants responded to the
questions, “How likely is it that you will use each of the following strategies during the
coming week?” and “How likely is it that you will use each of the following strategies
during your negotiation simulation?” They rated the likelihood that they would use each
strategy on a Sepoint likert scale (1 = “Very Unlikely,” 3 = “Somewhat Likely,” 5 =
“Very Likely”). The number of strategies they rated as 3 or higher was summed to
represent goal variety. Thus, the maximum variety score was eleven strategies for each
transfer setting (simulation and personal life).

Pre-Simulation Trapsfer Behavior Measures

When participants returned a week after the negotiation training workshOp for the
negotiation simulation, they responded to a measure of independent transfer behavior
prior to participating in the negotiation simulation.

Independent negotiation skill use. First, participants reported the number of times

they had engaged in a negotiation during the week since their negotiation training

96

workshop. They were asked to indicate whether they had participated in zero, one, two,
three, or more than three negotiations. Then, participants reported the number of times
they had used each of the negotiation strategies presented in the training workshop, using
the same scale from “zero” to “more than three.” The experimenter then tallied for each
participant: the mean number of attempts to use each negotiation strategy across all
negotiation incidents (frequency), and how many of the 11 negotiation strategies were
attempted in any of the negotiations at least once (variety).

Independent negotiation skill effectiveness. In addition, participants provided a
self-report assessment of how well they believed they had used their negotiation skills
overall. Participants responded to five items regarding the effectiveness of their skill
attempts. A sample item is, “Overall, I think I used the negotiation strategies
effectively.” Responses to each item were given on a 5-point likert scale (1 = “Strongly
Disagree,” 3 = “Neutral,” 5 = “Strongly Agree”).

Trapsfer Simulation Measures

Transfer behavior (attempts). During the negotiation, the confederate negotiator
recorded each attempt the participant made to use one of the negotiation strategies. The
experimenter then tallied for each participant: the total number of attempts to use the
negotiation strategies during the simulation (frequency) and how many of the 11
negotiation strategies were attempted at least once during the simulation (variety).

Igansfer performance. Transfer performance was assessed based on the final
salary level reached in the negotiation. To distinguish transfer performance from transfer
behavior, the scoring scheme used by Weissbein (2000) was altered to replace the focus

on performance quantity with a focus on performance quality. For each negotiation

97

strategy, a dichotomous quality rubric was developed to provide guidelines for quality
judgments. Confederate negotiators learned the performance criteria for each strategy.
When participants exhibited that strategy, confederates assessed whether or not the
quality criteria had been reached. If they had, the strategy was noted as an effective
attempt, and participants were rewarded with a $1000 increase in salary offered by the
confederate. If the participant had failed to meet the performance quality criteria for the
strategy, the confederate recorded the attempt as unsuccessfirl, and did not change their
salary offer to the participant. In addition, bonus points were added when participants
effectively achieved gains in a non-salary area of negotiation (e. g., moving expenses).
Thus, the negotiation performance score rewarded good skill performance. The transfer
behavior and transfer performance scores were highly correlated, but not completely
intertwined. An increase in transfer performance was by definition coupled with an
increase in transfer attempts. However, an increase in transfer attempts did not
automatically imply an increase in transfer performance. It was possible for a person to
make many transfer attempts and never achieve the quality criteria, thereby receiving a
transfer performance score of zero. Participants were not given any information about
the negotiation scoring scheme.
Post-Transfer Measures

The final set of measures included a retrospective measure of one of the
motivational mechanisms in the model; self-report data concerning transfer goal
accomplishment; reactions to the utility of transfer planning goals; and demographic

characteristics.

98

Situatiofl cueing. Situational cueing was measured with six retrospective items
developed for this investigation. All of the items tapped the extent to which people had
been prompted by the negotiation simulation or other negotiation situations to think of
particular negotiation strategies and had a sense that the strategies were easy to recall
while negotiating. Three of the items mentioned difficulty thinking of particular
negotiation strategies during a negotiation and were reverse-coded. Items referred to
both the opportunities the person may have had to negotiate during the week following
the training and preceding the negotiation simulation, as well as to the negotiation
simulation. A sample item is, “As soon as the first opportunity came up in the
negotiation simulation, I knew which strategy I wanted to use.” Responses to each item
were given on a 5-point likert scale (1 = “Strongly Disagree,” 3 = “Neutral,” 5 =
“Strongly Agree”).

Perceptions of transfer goal accomplishment. To supplement data collected to test
the main hypotheses, participants selected one of four options written for this
investigation to indicate the extent to which they felt they had accomplished their goals
concerning attempts to use the negotiation strategies during the simulation. This item
was included to tap peoples’ thoughts regarding how effective the intervention was in
helping them achieve their goals.

Demographics. Finally, participants were asked to report their gender, age, and

year in college.

99

RESULTS

This study used a one-way design with three levels representing the three transfer
intervention groups (no transfer intervention, prototypical action planning, experimental
transfer motivation intervention). Analysis of variance and hierarchical regression were
used to test the hypotheses comparing the motivational effects of the experimental
transfer motivation intervention to the two control groups and to evaluate the relationship
of the key motivational constructs with transfer behavior and transfer performance.

Data Quality

Prior to data analysis, the quality of the questionnaire and observation data were
evaluated. This evaluation included examination of missing and unusable data, factor
analyses of scale structure, and measurement reliability analyses.

Missing Data

Of the 204 participants who began the experiment, 15 participants could not be
included in the analyses. Eight participants failed to attend the negotiation simulation
session (four from the training-only control condition, three from the action planning
condition, and one from the experimental motivation planning condition). Five
participants could not complete the negotiation simulation within the allotted two-week
time frame. Two participants from the standard action planning condition failed to
follow the simulation instructions by refusing to accept a salary offer. All data from
these 15 participants was deleted from the analyses. Of the 189 participants included in
the analyses, 10% omitted at least one item in their questionnaire responses. Only 3%

omitted an entire scale, and only one participant did not respond to a key independent

100

 

variable 11

to affect a

Pr
determine
were used
expected 1
pattern ma
also examj
these resul

analyses tc

the model.

 

variable measure (situational cueing). The small amount of missing data is not expected
to affect analyses.
Factor Analyses

Principal factors extraction with promax (oblique) rotation was performed to
determine whether the data supported the intended scale structure. Oblique rotations
were used to provide the best simple structure among motivational factors that were
expected to be correlated, reducing cross-loadings. Appendix L reports the rotated factor
pattern matrices. Principal components analyses and varimax (orthogonal) rotations were
also examined to test the consistency of support for the factor structure; for simplicity,
these results are not reported because they extracted the same factors. Separate factor
analyses tested the independence of the motivational variables along each path through
the model. Additional factor analyses tested the independence of the target motivational
constructs and of the mediating motivational mechanisms, and the distinction of each set
from motivation to learn and self-efficacy. Criteria for factor extraction were a
combination of: eigenvalues greater than 1.0 (Guttrnan, 1954; Kaiser, 1960, 1970), large
relative change in the eigenvalues according to the scree plot, and interpretability of
factors.

Factor Analyses along Motivational Paths

Perceived Personal Relevance and Competence Valuation

The first factor analysis examined the observed structure of the items intended to
measure perceived personal relevance and competence valuation. Results from this
factor analysis are reported in Appendix L, Table L1. Two factors were extracted

(eigenvalue for third factor = 0.50), explaining 96% of the common variance and with a

101

correlatiol
.32, indie:
petCClVCd
2090 Over]
able 10 P“
item c0”c
know ch‘
the other I
releViinCC 3
items 0“ l}
Oi'erlappln
(a = .94 )-
Tilt
to measure
rcponed in
extracted.
Seienth fat
(eigem'al u

q-

Lolllrnon

 

some of t}

 

“are “a

Cross-lea"

correlation of .60. All items loaded on their intended scale; cross-loadings were less than
.32, indicating less than 10% overlapping variance. One item (question 24) on the
perceived personal relevance scale had a factor loading less than .45, indicating less than
20% overlapping variance, and a communality of .18, indicating that the factors were not
able to predict a substantial proportion of the variance in this item. Analysis of the inter-
item correlations confirmed that this reverse-scored item, “Other people might need to
know negotiation skills, but I don’t see how I could use them,” was not closely related to
the other items in the scale. Thus, the item was dropped from the perceived personal
relevance scale yielding a scale with an internal consistency reliability (a) of .84. All
items on the competence valuation scale had factor loadings indicating 40% or greater
overlapping variance and cross-loadings less than .32; this scale was analyzed as intended
(a = .94).
Self-Rgulatory Focus and Goal Variety

The second factor analysis examined the observed structure of the items intended
to measure self-regulatory focus and goal variety. Results from this factor analysis are
reported in Appendix L, Table L2. According to the Kaiser criteria, seven factors were
extracted. However, an examination of the scree plot and the factor content for the
seventh factor (a single item), suggested that six factors would better represent the data
(eigenvalue for the seventh factor was 1.02). The six factors explained 82% of the
common variance. The observed factor structure was largely as theorized; however,
some of the factor loadings and cross-loadings suggested revisions to the intended scales.
There was little overlap between the self-regulatory focus and goal variety factors; all

cross-loadings were less than .32 (less than 10% overlapping variance).

102

least 209 0 C
between the
1110 subfactt

8 respecti \

FOI' g1

CL.
5. .
(I

  
   
 

‘tinctions h
Personal life.
strategies We
Simulation or

[tidings great.

The self-regulatory focus items formed three factors. Avoid self-regulatory focus
was observed as one factor as intended. However, two of the items intended for this scale
did not load above .32 on any factor. These were item 48, “During negotiations, I am not
going to use skills that will show that others are better than me at negotiation” (h2 =.O6),
and item 53, “To achieve my negotiation goals, I will need to avoid falling back on my
typical reactions in conflict situations” (h2 = .21). Inter-item correlations confirmed that
these two items were not closely related to other items in the scale (average r = .10 and
.16, respectively) so the items were dropped. Another avoid self-regulatory focus item
(item 54) had just under 20% overlapping variance, but the communality was .32 and
average r = .28, so the item was retained. The reliability (a) for the scale was .86. The
approach self-regulatory focus items were unexpectedly split between those items based
on mastery orientation and active attempts versus items with a performance orientation
basis. For each factor, item loadings were greater than .45, indicating all items had at
least 20% overlapping variance. Communalities were .32 or greater. Correlation
between the two approach self-regulatory focus factors was .12. This scale was split into
two subfactors for analysis: approach-mastery and approach-performance (a = .83 and
.78, respectively).

For goal variety, three factors were observed. As intended, two factors reflected
distinctions between goals for the negotiation simulation and goals for negotiations in
personal life. Unexpectedly, a third factor was formed from goals to use the three
strategies presented during the training as “assertiveness strategies” in either the
simulation or personal life setting. These items formed a clean scale with all factor

loadings greater than .55 (30% overlapping variance) and cross-loadings less than .32.

103

This seal
strategic:
to use 1hr
simulatic
scale W35
((1 = .8 l ).
commune
.32); inter
to capture
factors we
1mm
Th
intentions
W0 0f th‘t
interfactm
faClOl’ 103d
implement.
indicating
llle faclOrs

HU'IKQK er.

 

 

 

This scale had an internal consistency reliability (a) equal to .79. For the non-assertive
strategies, separate factors for goals to use the strategies during the simulation and goals
to use the strategies during the week were observed as expected. Factor loadings for the
simulation goals all exceeded .45 and none of the cross-loadings exceeded .32. Thus, a
scale was formed reflecting goals to use the non-assertive strategies during the simulation
(a = .81). For personal life goals, two items’ loadings were less than .45 but
communalities and cross-loadings were acceptable (h2 = .38 and .56, cross-loadings <
.32); inter-item correlations were also acceptable. A scale was created from these items
to capture goals to use the non-assertive strategies in personal life (a = .67). These three
factors were used in all analyses concerning goal variety.
Implementation Intentions and Situational Cueing

The third factor analysis examined items intended to measure implementation
intentions and situational cueing (see Appendix L, Table L3). Two factors explaining
90% of the common variance were extracted (eigenvalue for third factor = 0.69). The
inter-factor correlation was -.03. Revisions to the intended scales were suggested by low
factor loadings for several items, coupled with high cross-loadings for two items. For
implementation intentions, one item (question 60) had a factor loading less than .45,
indicating less than 20% overlapping variance, and a communality of .14, indicating that
the factors were not able to predict a substantial proportion of variance in this item.
However, the item cross-loading was .05 and analysis of the inter-item correlations
indicated that the item, “When I get in a negotiation, I know that I will be very focused
on using the strategies I learned today,” was reasonably well-related to other items on the

implementation intentions scale (average r = .25). In addition, removal of this item did

104

no! lmPrO“
scale as intt
F 0T
«Certain thj
negotiation
situationil] ‘
overlfil’Piné
that happen
strategies I
nuance on
intentionS)-
situational 1
The correla

situational 1

Target Mot

Fae
constructs .
motivation
Appendix

Howe.

 

'CI', .

Would bet:

fftClOrs eyj
' 1

 

not improve the reliability of the scale (Aa = .01). Thus, the item was retained in the
scale as intended (a = .77).

For situational cueing, two items had problematic factor loadings. Item 17,
“Certain things that happened in my life this week made me think of particular
negotiation strategies I learned in the training,” had a factor loading less than .45 on the
situational cueing factor coupled with a high cross-loading indicating nearly 10%
overlapping variance with the implementation intentions factor. Item 19, “Certain things
that happened during the negotiation simulation made me think of particular negotiation
strategies I learned in the training,” had a similar pattern, with roughly equal overlapping
variance on both factors (.33 for situational cueing and .29 for implementation
intentions). To minimize overlap between the measures of implementation intentions and
situational cueing, both items were removed from the situational cueing scale (a = .68).
The correlation between the resulting factors for implementation intentions and
situational cueing was -.O8.

Factor Analyses across Motivational Paths
Target Motivational Constructs

Factor analysis of the items intended to represent the target motivational
constructs supported the distinction of these constructs from each other and from
motivation to learn and self-efficacy. Results of this factor analysis are reported in
Appendix L, Table L4. According to the Kaiser criteria, eight factors were extracted.
However, an examination of the scree plot and factor content suggested that seven factors
would better represent the data (eigenvalue for the eighth factor was 1.06). The seven

factors explained 80% of the common variance. The observed factor structure supported

105

the minor I'l
motivation:
the target it
items had a
On the pers
none of the
supporting

focus fonm
cross-loadii
prior factor
focus factor
TESpectiVell
factor anal)
lWO facmrs
factor 103d]-
deSlgned tc

l ~ as ..
mum,“

 

VananCe \\

than 109-a ..

 

exarmnln :l

mtaimed a.

 

the minor revisions to the intended scales suggested by the factor analyses along each
motivational path. Both motivation to learn and self-efficacy formed factors unique from
the target motivational constructs included in this study. For both of these factors, all
items had at least 10% overlapping variance, and all cross-loadings were less than .32.
On the personal relevance scale, all items had at least 20% overlapping variance, and
none of the items had high cross-loadings. Self-regulatory focus formed three factors,
supporting the factor analysis reported above for these scales. Avoid self-regulatory
focus formed one factor with all factor loadings greater than .32 and only one item with a
cross-loading greater than .32 (this item loaded -.34 on the self-efficacy factor). As in the
prior factor analysis, items 48 and 53 did not load highly on the avoid self-regulatory
focus factor, but instead with the approach-performance and personal relevance factors,
respectively. These items were dropped from the final scale. Consistent with the prior
factor analysis of these items, the intended approach self-regulatory focus scale split into
two factors: approach-mastery and approach-performance. Each factor was supported by
factor loadings greater than .32 and cross-loadings less than .32. Finally, the items
designed to capture implementation intentions formed a factor with all items having at
least 20% overlapping variance and cross-loadings indicating less than 10% overlapping
variance with other factors. The only exception was item 60, which did not share more
than 10% variance with any of the factors (h2 = .36), and had a factor loading of only .19
on the implementation intentions factor. For the reasons described in the factor analysis
examining implementation intentions and situational cueing, however, this item was

retained as part of the scale.

106

Fa
meehanisr
motix'atior
Appendix
.92). The
supported
motix'atior
the target 1
itcrns had ;
items had t
overlappin
situational
a‘SSignCd It)
Elnal.\"'sis. 5

Competenc.

 

 

 

 

Mediating Motivational Mechanisms

Factor analysis of the items intended to represent the mediating motivational
mechanisms supported the distinction of these constructs from each other and from
motivation to learn and self-efficacy. Results of this factor analysis are reported in
Appendix L, Table L5. Eight factors were extracted (eigenvalue for the ninth factor was
.92). The eight factors explained 85% of the common variance. The factor structure
supported the revisions to the intended scales suggested by the factor analyses along each
motivational path. Both motivation to learn and self-efficacy formed factors unique from
the target motivational constructs included in this study. For both of these factors, all
items had at least 10% overlapping variance. However, three of the motivation to learn
items had cross-loadings on other factors greater than .3 2, indicating about 10%
overlapping variance of these items with the eighth factor, comprised of two of the
situational cueing items. Based on item content, the motivation to learn items were
assigned to their intended scale based on the support from this and the preceding factor
analysis. None of the self-efficacy items had cross-loadings greater than .32. The
competence valuation scale was strongly supported by the factor analysis. Item factor
loadings all exceeded .71 (50% overlapping variance), with cross-loadings all less than
.15. As in the prior analysis, the goal variety items formed three factors rather than the
expected two. Factor loadings for the simulation goals all exceeded .52; cross-loadings
were less than .32. For personal life goals, all factor loadings were greater than .32 and
the largest cross-loading was .32. The third factor, capturing goals to use the assertive
negotiation strategies either in the simulation or in personal life, was supported by factor

loadings indicating at least 30% overlapping variance and cross-loadings indicating less

107

than 10% (
items (17 2
on a separ;
than 10° 0 (
these item:
included tl
orerlappin
factor cont

In t
the intende
Constructs .
factors fror
mOliValiOn
rePresentq
fmm the p(
and m-O llc
focus “aria
Om": 8031.l

Th.

 

leaned tht

lOuSethe:

 

than 10% overlapping variance with other factors. Finally, for situational cueing, the two
items (17 and 19) recommended for removal in the factor analysis reported earlier loaded
on a separate factor from the remainder of the situational cueing items, and shared less
than 10% overlapping variance with the main situational cueing factor. Thus deletion of
these items was further supported by this analysis. The main situational cueing factor
included the remaining four items, which had factor loadings indicating at least 30%
overlapping variance, with cross-loadings less than .13 except for relationships with the
factor containing the eliminated items.

In conclusion, the factor analyses of the motivational constructs largely supported
the intended factor structure. Motivation to learn and self-efficacy, the motivational
constructs examined nearly exclusively in prior training transfer research, formed distinct
factors from the motivational constructs introduced in this investigation. The proposed
motivational constructs were also supported as distinguishable from each other and
represented by the intended items in most cases. Exceptions were deletion of one item
from the personal relevance scale, two items from the avoid self—regulatory focus scale,
and two items from the situational cueing scale, treatment of the approach self-regulatory
focus variable as two separate factors reflecting mastery and performance, and separation
of the goals to use assertive strategies from the goal variety measures regarding other
strategies in the simulation and in personal life.

Factor Analyses of Learning, Transfer Behavior. and Performance

The dependent variables in this investigation captured how well participants

learned the negotiation strategies taught in the training workshop, the number of attempts

to use the negotiation skills in personal life or during the simulation, the variety of

108

strategic

presente

negotiat:
and pert}
anal _\'sis
.291 Fat
variance.
among cr
Although
retained a
training u
&
ltansfer b.-
Pfindpalg
COWUnon \
Elf-rating
‘50t0-76.

[Filings 0f

 

indicating

    

negmlalli‘

dld 1101 Cr

strategies attempted, and the success of attempts to use the strategies. The factor analyses
presented in this section examined these relationships.

Learning. Because the items measuring how well participants had learned the
negotiation strategies were conceptually distinct from the measures of transfer behavior
and performance, these items were factor analyzed separately. The principal factors
analysis extracted a single factor for these items (eigenvalue for the second factor was
.29). Factor loadings ranged from .20 to .54, indicating a maximum of 30% overlapping
variance. Reliability for the learning measure was fairly weak (a = .55); correlations
among credit earned for descriptions of the various strategies were generally low.
Although a stronger measure of learning would have been desirable, this measure was
retained as the best indicator available of the participants’ level of learning following the
training workshop.

Personal life transfer behavior and performance. The self-report items measuring
transfer behavior and performance were evaluated to determine their independence.
Principal axis analysis with promax rotation extracted two factors explaining 90% of the
common variance (eigenvalue for the third factor was .89). The first factor represented
self-ratings of strategy use in negotiations during the week. Factor loadings ranged from
.50 to .76, with cross-loadings all less than .22. The second factor represented self-
ratings of negotiation effectiveness in personal life. Item 16 had a factor loading of .28,
indicating less than 10% overlapping variance. This item, “When I tried to use the
negotiation strategies, I discovered that I need more practice to be able to do them well,”

did not correlate highly with the other items on the scale, so it was dropped, resulting in a

109

 

reliabilit

cross-lo:

simulatit
distinct r
expected
some oft
Was not e
was 1101 6
rating der

negotiatic

ratings, 5

 

reliability (a) of .79. Remaining items had factor loadings between .58 and .84, with
cross-loadings less than .10.

IA) simulation transfer behavior and performance. The raters in the negotiation
simulation recorded the number and success of participants’ attempts to use each of the
distinct negotiation strategies. Participants’ attempts to use the strategies were not
expected to be highly correlated, but rather it was expected that people would focus on
some of the strategies more than other strategies. Thus, unidimensional factor structure
was not expected for the transfer behavior ratings, and factor structure for this measure
was not evaluated In addition, because the transfer performance measure was a single
rating derived from the transfer behavior ratings made by experimenters during the
negotiation simulation, it was not expected to be independent from the transfer behavior
ratings. Rather, the salary variable represented an attempt to disentangle the quality of
transfer performance from the quantity of transfer behavior attempts. Because transfer
behavior and performance measures from the negotiation simulation were closely tied
and evaluated by the same rater, they were expected to be highly correlated. Thus, no
factor analyses were performed to try to distinguish these measures.

Rater Effects

Participants from the three experimental conditions were assigned equally to the
three experimenters who performed the negotiation simulations and rated participants’
attempts to use the negotiation strategies, x2(4, N = 189) = 7.20, p = .13. Controlling for
motivation to learn and learning, there were no significant effects of experimenter on
transfer performance (salary), F (4, 184) = 3.74, p = .14. When participant gender was

taken into account, experimenter did not significantly impact ratings of the number of

110

 

transfer atti
experiment

attempted .

Tat
\\ ell as me
conelatior
among the

De
correlated
behavior,
expcficncc
allcmpts it
WICeiVed
amid Self
fOCqung (
CLlClng. 31‘

SlgnifiCap

 

and that 1.

genera”;

 

only COn :

transfer attempts made, F (3, 182) = 3.61, p = .05. When self-efficacy was considered,
experimenter did not significantly impact ratings of the variety of negotiation strategies
attempted F(3, 185) = 3.92,p = .07.

Descriptive Statistics

Table 5 presents overall means for all variables included in the investigation, as
well as means within each of the three experimental conditions. It also includes
correlations between the variables and gender and age. Table 6 presents correlations
among the motivation and outcome variables in this investigation.

Demographic Meteristics. As noted in Table 5, gender was significantly
correlated with four of the motivational constructs and with one measure of transfer
behavior. Male participants reported greater self-efficacy than females (r = -.20),
experienced stronger situational cueing of the strategies (r = -.16), and made more
attempts to use the strategies during the simulation (r = -. 16). Female participants
perceived the training as more personally relevant than males (r = .17) and had stronger
avoid self-regulatory focus (r = .15). Gender was included as a covariate in analyses
focusing on self-efficacy, personal relevance, avoid self-regulatory focus, situational
cueing, and number of attempts to use strategies during the simulation. Age was not
significantly correlated with any of the variables in this investigation.

Condition means. Examination of the condition means suggests that there is little
difference among the three experimental conditions in transfer behavior and performance,
and that the small differences are opposite the expected direction. This pattern is
generally repeated for the motivational variables as well, with participants in the training-

only control condition tending to show the most favorable levels of motivation. For

111

several

maem
efiicacy
than in t
statistice
0.68. p =
to expen
average .
conditior

three cor

POSlllVeh
”“9511ng
frOm .17 l
pmbnnar
assertive

bCchQn l

 

MO“Van.

 

the medx‘
I
tranSfEr F

 

several key variables, analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed to test whether
these differences were statistically meaningful. Although means for learning and self-
efficacy following the training were slightly higher in the training-only control condition
than in the action or motivation planning conditions, these differences were not
statistically significant. Learning was equivalent across the three conditions, F (2,186) =
0.68, p = .51. ANOVA supported the assumption that random assignment of participants
to experimental conditions and presentation of identical training would result in a similar
average level of post-training negotiation self-efficacy within each of the three
conditions, F (2,186) = 2.84, p = .06. Motivation to learn means were identical across the
three conditions, F(2,186) = 0.06, p = .94. This provides evidence that random
assignment of participants to the experimental conditions resulted in unbiased distribution
of motivation to learn across the three conditions.

Motivation to learn. As shown in Table 6, motivation to learn was significantly
positively correlated with many of the motivational constructs introduced in this
investigation, but was not identical to these constructs (significant correlations ranged
from .17 to .48). Motivation to learn was not significantly related to approach-
performance self-regulatory focus, avoid self-regulatory focus, or goal variety for the
assertive negotiation strategies. This pattern of correlations suggests a distinction
between motivation to learn and motivational constructs involving social impressions.
Motivation to learn also was not significantly correlated with situational cueing, nor with
the measures of strategy use during the simulation or in personal negotiations. The only
transfer behavior measure that was significantly related to motivation to learn was the

participants’ report of the number of negotiations they had between training and the

112

simulation.
to use the st
use the stra
learn was 5.
personal lit

Self

 

variables it
regulatory

Significant‘.
correlation
positive bLl
positively

experimcn

COmbincd

 

Fri

Mmficar

"L

 

simulation. This pattern suggests that motivation to learn was connected to opportunities
to use the strategies, but that motivation to learn was not connected to specific attempts to
use the strategies in opportunities arising following the training. Finally, motivation to
learn was significantly correlated with transfer performance in both the simulation and
personal life settings.

Self-efficacy. Self-efficacy was significantly related to all of the motivational
variables introduced in this investigation (.21 _<_ r S .42; correlation with avoid self-
regulatory focus was negative, all others were positive). Self-efficacy also was
significantly positively related to all but one of the measures of transfer behavior; the
correlation with number of attempts to use the strategies during the simulation was
positive but non-significant. With respect to transfer performance, self-efficacy was
positively related to self-ratings of strategy use in personal life, but was unrelated to
experimenter ratings of strategy use during the simulation. This pattern of correlations,
combined with the fact that self-efficacy was unrelated to performance on the learning
measure, suggests that participants’ ratings of their own abilities and success may have
been somewhat upwardly biased compared to ratings by a trained observer.

Based on the descriptive statistics, it was expected that little evidence would be
found to support the hypothesized effectiveness of the transfer motivation intervention,
but that the motivational constructs introduced in this investigation might contribute to a
richer understanding of transfer behavior and performance.

Hypothesis Tests
For all statistical tests, or = .05 was used as the criterion for judging statistical

significance. Appendix M provides a summary of the analysis plan, including a list of

113

bipolltes't
to test the
significar.
performat
detailed b

“5
transfer pt
relationsh;
impact on
Personal li
Strategies ;
SIC'P 0f eac
Personal lj:
Variables it
re? essiong
SUPPOII in
and Perfon
PeTSOna] ll‘

QR: = .04

   
  

 

no SUPPOn

Pt‘rfmnan-

hypotheses and descriptions of the hierarchical regressions or analyses of covariance used
to test them. Figure 3 presents a heuristic summary of the key findings, showing the
significant connections between transfer motivation, transfer behavior, and transfer
performance in the laboratory and personal life settings. Results for each hypothesis are
detailed below.
Effects of Tiansfer Behagior on Transfer Performance

Hypothesis 1a predicted that transfer behavior would be positively related to
transfer performance, and Hypothesis lb predicted that learning would moderate this
relationship. Hierarchical regression was used to test these hypotheses separately for the
impact on transfer performance in the simulation and in negotiations in participants’
personal lives. Both the frequency of negotiation strategy attempts and the variety of
strategies attempted were examined. Relevant control variables were entered in the first
step of each regression (motivation to learn for both settings, plus self-efficacy for the
personal life ratings of transfer performance), followed by the hypothesized independent
variables in Step 2 and the interaction term in Step 3. Tables 7—10 present results for the
regressions. Hypothesis la, linking transfer behavior with transfer performance, received
support in both the laboratory simulation, where the experimenters rated transfer behavior
and performance (AR2 = .56 for strategy attempts; AR2 = .49 for strategy variety), and in
personal life, where participants self-assessed their transfer behavior and performance
(AR2 = .04 for strategy attempts; AR2 = .02 for strategy variety). Hypothesis lb received
no support; learning did not impact the relationship between transfer behavior and

performance, nor did it have a direct effect on transfer performance outcomes.

114

Hit
behavior. 1
experiment
14. The hy
was positiv
not the nun‘
not signific!
attempted t
However, 5
rePOFIed ha
motivation
Htr
mechanism
WSllvaIy r

llat'e bCC‘n \

 

Performam
regreSSlQn
the SeCOnd
Llr‘dergtand

Co:

“fgouanw

 

Effects of Transfer Motivation on Transfer Behavior
gm of the Mediatirag Motivatml Mechanisms on Transfer Behavior

Hypothesis 2 predicted that self-efficacy would be positively related to transfer
behavior. Results from the hierarchical regressions testing this hypothesis for the
experiment simulation and negotiations in participants’ lives are presented in Tables 11-
14. The hypothesis received mixed support. In the laboratory simulation, self-efficacy
was positively related to the variety of negotiation strategies attempted (AR2 = .03) but
not the number of strategies attempted. In negotiations in personal life, self-efficacy was
not significantly related to the fi'equency or variety of strategies people said they
attempted to use once the number of negotiations they reported was taken into account.
However, self-efficacy was positively related to the number of negotiations people
reported having during the week between the training and their simulation, even after
motivation to learn was controlled (see Table 15, AR2 = .05).

Hypotheses 3a, 3b, and 30 predicted that three additional motivational
mechanisms, competence valuation, goal variety, and situational cueing, would be
positively related to transfer behavior. Because motivation to learn and self-efficacy
have been supported in previous research as predictors of transfer behavior and
performance (Colquitt, LePine, & Noe, 2000), they were entered in the first step of each
regression. Competence valuation, goal variety, and situational cueing were entered in
the second steps of the regressions to test whether each construct would add to our
understanding of transfer based on self-efficacy and motivation to learn.

Competence valuation was significantly positively related to the number of

negotiation strategies attempted in personal life, even after the number of negotiations

115

reported it":
good at neg
strategies p
prediction.
attempted c
either in tht
related to tl
simulation .
Dur
relationship
Simulation ‘
[0 use dun
ICliiled 1.0 w
“willy Cllt‘
during the t
511816ng (“t

€0ntrolled'

 

1101 Sigmfik

25),

Silt;

 

l'ersus 111 r C
{Plated to It

expel) chCt,

 

 

reported was controlled (see Table 18, AR2 = .03). People who had stronger desires to be
good at negotiation following the training reported that they attempted to use more
strategies per negotiation than those who had weaker competence valuation. Contrary to
prediction, competence valuation was not significantly related to the number of strategies
attempted during the laboratory simulation, nor to the variety of strategies attempted
either in the lab or in real life (see Tables 16-19). Competence valuation also was not
related to the number of negotiations people reported having between the training and the
simulation one week later (see Table 20).

During the negotiation simulation, goal variety did not have a significant
relationship with the number or variety of strategies people attempted to use during the
simulation (see Tables 21 and 22). In participants’ reports of the strategies they had tried
to use during the week between the training and simulation, goal variety was significantly
related to transfer behavior (see Tables 23 and 24; AR2 = .02 and .05). Participants who
strongly endorsed their intentions to use a wider variety of the nonassertive strategies
during the week also reported that they had used more strategies and a wider variety of
strategies over that week, even after the number of negotiations they reported was
controlled. Having goals to use a variety of negotiation strategies during the week was
not significantly related to the number of negotiations people reported having (see Table
25).

Situational cueing was related to transfer behavior differently in the simulation
versus in real-life negotiations. For the simulation, situational cueing was significantly
related to transfer behavior (see Tables 26 and 27). People who reported that they had

experienced situational cues helping them think of particular strategies were rated as

116

using more 1
by the exper
during the it
related to tr:

In C(
mediating it
support. Ea
behavior, 1

Hip
experiment
mechanism
mechanism
C*thelated (

m
PCOple pew
le‘v'el 0f C01
hierarchic a

ctxlmpct en k

 

 

using more negotiation strategies (AR2 = .09) and a wider variety of strategies (AR2 = .05)
by the experimenters. In contrast, for negotiations participants had in their own lives
during the week, easily being able to think of particular strategies was not significantly
related to transfer behavior (see Tables 28-30).

In conclusion, for Hypotheses 3a, 3b, and 3c regarding the impacts of the
mediating motivational mechanisms on transfer behavior, the data provided partial
support. Each of the three constructs was significantly related to some aspects of transfer
behavior.

Effects of the Targgt Motivational Constructs on Mediating Motivational Mechanisms

Hypotheses 4 through 6 predicted that the motivational constructs targeted by the
experimental transfer motivation intervention would each influence another motivational
mechanism more proximal to transfer behavior. Because the mediating motivational
mechanisms that served as dependent variables in these analyses were not highly
correlated (see Table 6, -.05 < r < .39), independent regressions were conducted.

Perceivegrersonal relevance. Hypothesis 4 predicted that the extent to which

 

people perceived the training to be relevant to their personal goals would influence their
level of competence valuation for the training. This hypothesis was tested using
hierarchical regression, controlling for the potential impact of motivation to learn on
competence valuation. Hypothesis 4 was supported; perceived personal relevance was
significantly positively related to competence valuation even when participants’
motivation to learn negotiation strategies was taken into account (see Table 31, AR2 =

.27).

117

_S_e_l
fOCUS fOllU
SpeClilCdll
avoid Oriel
hierarChica
Conceminé
simulation.
32). R623“
life. self-ICE
Approach-n
strategies. \\
negotiation :
and effort or
having goal:
about poor 5
't‘anety for it
significantly

other in the

 

Regulialion \

the assertive

  
  

 

“it? l
“d Positi‘

tea» .~
evasion C“

 

Self-regalatog focus. Hypothesis 5 predicted that a person’s self-regulatory
focus following training would impact the variety of goals they held regarding transfer.
Specifically, an approach orientation was predicted to enhance goal variety, while an
avoid orientation was predicted to limit variety. This hypothesis was tested using
hierarchical regression, controlling for the potential impact of motivation to learn.
Concerning the variety of strategies people said they would try to use during the
simulation, self—regulatory focus was not significantly related to goal variety (see Table
32). Regarding the variety of goals people endorsed for their negotiations in personal
life, self-regulatory focus was a significant predictor (see Table 33, AR2 = .12).
Approach-mastery self-regulatory focus, or focusing attention and effort on mastering the
strategies, was positively related to having goals to use a variety of the nonassertive
negotiation strategies. Approach-performance self-regulatory focus, or focusing attention
and effort on getting desired outcomes in the negotiations, was also positively related to
having goals to use a variety of strategies. Avoid self-regulatory focus, or being worried
about poor strategy understanding or others’ perceptions, was negatively related to goal
variety for negotiations in personal life. Finally, only avoid self-regulatory focus was
significantly related to the variety of goals people had for using the assertive strategies
either in the lab or their personal lives (see Table 34, AR2 = .04). Being worried about
negotiation skills and outcomes was significantly negatively related to intending to use
the assertive strategies.

Implementation intentions. Hypothesis 6 predicted that implementation intentions
would positively impact situational cueing. This hypothesis was tested with hierarchical

regression, entering motivation to learn in the first step and implementation intentions in

118

the second
cueing of]
controlled
Su'
the target 1
partial sup
relevance ;
goal variet

intentions

Hv
interventio
atllOn plar
“We tester
exPluratorj
iml‘laCi of 1

gen trial I l’

  
  
   
 
 

titultivamvd
confilatio:
mime]? St
inlention.
Tab]e 6).

Eileen 0 l

 

the second step. Irnplementation intentions were not significantly related to situational
cueing of particular negotiation strategies after gender and motivation to learn were
controlled (see Table 35).

Summarizing the results for Hypotheses 4 — 6 related to the relationships between
the target motivational constructs and the mediating motivational mechanisms, only
partial support was found for the proposed model of transfer motivation. Personal
relevance and competence valuation were related as expected, self-regulatory focus and
goal variety were related as expected only for specific subfactors, and implementation
intentions and situational cueing were not significantly related.

Effects of the Transfer Intervention on Trgsfer Motivation

Hypotheses 7, 8, and 9 predicted that the experimental transfer motivation
intervention would lead to higher levels of the target motivational constructs than the
action planning intervention or the training-only control conditions. These hypotheses
were tested with analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). Because this investigation is
exploratory, focuses on between-subject differences, and has not hypothesized relative
impact of the intervention on the various motivational states, and because univariate tests
generally have higher power and less restrictive assumptions, they were selected over
multivariate tests (Harris, 1985; Huberty & Morris, 1989). There was some degree of
correlation among the target motivational constructs, particularly between approach-
mastery self-regulatory focus and both personal relevance (r = .54) and implementation
intentions (r = .42). Relationships among the other constructs ranged from .00 to .28 (see
Table 6). Conclusions from the separate regressions may include some overlap of the

effects of the interventions on a common underlying construct.

119

E;
transfer in
prototvpic
interventit
controlling
condition
not suppot
significant
erperimen
interventic
letels of a

the Control

“35 Contra

that the tvv

 

 

 

Perceived perswl relevance. Hypothesis 7 predicted that the experimental
transfer intervention would lead to higher levels of perceived personal relevance than the
prototypical action planning intervention or the control condition with no transfer
intervention. This hypothesis was tested using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA),
controlling for gender and motivation to learn. The transfer motivation intervention
condition was contrasted with the two control conditions combined. This hypothesis was
not supported (see Table 36). Gender and motivation to learn prior to training had a
significant relationship with perceived personal relevance following the training, but
experimental condition did not have a significant impact on perceived personal relevance.

Self-regalatog focus. Hypothesis 8a predicted that the experimental transfer
intervention would lead to higher levels of approach self-regulatory focus and lower
levels of avoid self-regulatory focus than the prototypical action planning intervention or
the control condition with no transfer intervention. The transfer motivation intervention
was contrasted against the two control conditions combined. Hypothesis 8b predicted
that the two control conditions would also differ in levels of self-regulatory focus,
because action planning interventions may implicitly create somewhat stronger approach
than avoid focus. This hypothesis was tested with the contrast between the action
planning group and the control condition with no transfer intervention. The hypotheses
were tested separately for approach-mastery, approach-performance, and avoid self-
regulatory focus.

For approach-mastery self-regulatory focus, Hypothesis 8a received no support;
there was no significant main effect for condition (see Table 37). Hypothesis 8b also was

not supported; in fact, there was a significant relationship counter to the direction

120

lHlEn'e
lflannu

ANCC

 

COUdh

 

hypothesized. Participants in the training-only control condition had significantly greater
approach-mastery self-regulatory focus than participants in the action planning condition,
F(l,183) = 14.42, p < .05 for the contrast. Motivation to learn had a significant positive
relationship with approach-mastery self-regulatory focus, and there was a significant
interaction effect (see Figure 4). The relationship between motivation to learn and
approach-mastery self-regulatory focus was more positive in the action planning
condition. A post hoc comparison of means in the action planning condition versus the
training-only and motivation planning conditions indicated that this difference was
statistically significant (F = 9.04, p < .05). For approach-performance self-regulatory
focus, neither motivation to learn nor experimental condition had a main effect (see Table
38). Thus, Hypotheses 8a and 8b were not supported. For avoid self-regulatory focus,
experimental condition did not have a main effect (see Table 39). Thus, Hypotheses 8a
and 8b were not supported. Gender had a significant impact on avoid self-regulatory
focus (female participants tended to have significantly stronger avoid self-regulatory
focus), but motivation to learn did not have any effect on avoid self-regulatory focus.

Implementation intentions. Hypothesis 9 predicted that the experimental transfer

 

intervention would lead to stronger implementation intentions than the prototypical action
planning intervention or the control condition with no transfer intervention. The
ANCOVA for this hypothesis revealed a significant main effect for motivation to learn
on implementation intentions, but no effect of experimental condition or interaction of

condition with motivation to learn (see Table 40). Hypothesis 9 was not supported.

121

 

imp
four
inde
betvv
relati
dcmc
disap‘.
analys

itch

Would
motive
lmpler.
larger 1
have n

learn a

Menu.

Tests of Mediation

The final set of hypotheses proposed two sets of mediating relationships
important for testing the proposed model and intervention. Tests of mediation require
four component analyses: (1) demonstration of significant relationships between the
independent variables and the mediators, (2) demonstration of significant relationships
between the mediators and the dependent variables, (3) demonstration of significant
relationship between the independent variables and the dependent variables, and (4)
demonstration that the relationships between the independent and dependent variables
disappear when the mediators are included in the model (James & Brett, 1984). These
analyses are described below for each set of mediation hypotheses.
Explaining the Impact of the Transfer Motivation Intervention on Transfer Behavior

Hypotheses 10a, 10b, and 10c predicted that the transfer motivation intervention
would have significant positive effects on transfer behavior through the target
motivational constructs (perceived personal relevance, self-regulatory focus, and
implementation intentions). The relationships between experimental condition and the
target motivational constructs were tested in Hypotheses 7, 8, and 9, and were found to
have no effect, with the exception of the significant interactions between motivation to
learn and experimental condition on approach and avoid self-regulatory focus. Given the
lack of significant relationship between the intervention and the target motivational
constructs, a mediation model tracing the impact of the intervention on transfer behavior
was not supported. However, additional exploratory analyses were conducted to examine

potential relationships between the experimental condition and transfer behavior, and

122

bet

h}?

111011
1111115
imp:
the 5
had C
there
traini:

plann

target
transit
Was 1e
Cfi‘lCag
PCISOn
People
Simuh1
and Sel
Person
Sitarcgl

(See T:

 

between the target motivational constructs and transfer behavior. Results for these non-
hypothesized relationships are reported in Appendix N and described below.

Effects of experimental condition on transfer behafvior. Controlling for
motivation to learn and self-efficacy, the effects of the transfer motivation intervention on
transfer behavior were tested with ANCOVA. The intervention did not have a significant
impact on the number or variety of negotiation strategies participants tried to use during
the simulation or in their personal negotiations, nor the number of negotiations people
had during the week following training (see Appendix N, Tables N1-N5). In summary,
there were no significant differences in transfer behavior among the groups receiving
training only, training plus action planning, or training plus experimental motivation
planning.

Effects of the target motivatiM constructs on transfer behavior. Although the
target motivational constructs were not significantly influenced by the experimental
transfer motivation intervention as intended, their potential impact on transfer behavior
was tested using hierarchical regression controlling for motivation to learn and self-
efficacy in the first step. Post-training perceptions that the training material was
personally relevant were significantly positively related to the number of negotiations
people reported that they had during the week between training and the transfer
simulation. This relationship was significant even after motivation to learn negotiation
and self—efficacy with negotiation strategies had been controlled (see Table N10).
Personal relevance was not significantly related to the number or variety of negotiation
strategies participants tried to use during the simulation or in their personal negotiations

(see Tables N6-N9). Participants’ post-training self-regulatory focus was not

123

moti
posit
using
Tablt
numt
Vanet
summ
Si gnit'
lives: 1
behavi

t'percet
Would
mSCha;
Situatic
cOtistru
and 6.
01mph

mecha:

 

significantly related to the number or variety of negotiation strategies attempted during
the simulation or in real-life negotiations, nor was it significantly related to the number of
negotiations participants reported having (see Tables N1 l-Nl 5). The final target
motivational construct, post-training implementation intentions, was significantly
positively related to the number and variety of negotiation strategies participants reported
using during their negotiations during the week between training and the simulation (see
Tables N18 and N19). Implementation intentions were not significantly related to the
number of negotiations people had during the week (see Table N20) nor the number or
variety of strategies they used during the simulation (see Tables N16 and N17). In
summary, the target motivational constructs had limited influence on transfer behavior.
Significant relationships were limited to the negotiations people reported in their personal
lives; no significant relationships were found between these constructs and transfer
behavior during the simulation.
Explaining the Impact of the Target Motivational Constructs on Transfer Behavior
Hypotheses 11a, 1 lb, and 11c predicted that the target motivational constructs
(perceived personal relevance, self-regulatory focus, and implementation intentions)
would positively influence transfer behavior through three mediating motivational
mechanisms more proximal to transfer behavior (competence valuation, goal variety, and
situational cueing, respectively). The relationships between the target motivational
constructs and the mediating motivational mechanisms were tested in Hypotheses 4, 5,
and 6. In general, these analyses provided support for the relationships among these sets
of motivational constructs. The relationships between the mediating motivational

mechanisms and transfer behavior were tested in Hypotheses 3a, 3b, and 3c. These

124

 

arm
on 1

0011:

on p
requ

perft:

exper
Only (
interat

\‘aluatt

H
O\
(,J
or

training
COmpet
Plannin
reSpect

the San

l‘l‘llelH1

 

 

 

analyses provided limited support for the impact of particular motivational mechanisms
on particular transfer behaviors. The relationships between the target motivational
constructs and transfer behavior were tested in the exploratory analysis described above.
Again, limited support was found for the impact of certain target motivational constructs
on particular transfer behaviors. None of the relationships tested fulfilled the first three
requirements for conclusions of mediation. Therefore, no additional analyses were
performed.
Supplemental Analyses

Although not hypothesized, analyses were conducted to test the effect of the
experimental transfer motivation intervention on the mediating motivational mechanisms.
Only one relationship was significant and is reported here. There was a significant
interaction effect for transfer motivation condition and motivation to learn on competence
valuation, even after controlling for the impact of perceived personal relevance, F (2,1 82)
= 6.38, p < .05, A122 = .03. Figure 5 depicts this interaction effect. For participants in the
training-only control condition, the relationship between motivation to learn and
competence valuation was not significant, R2 = .03, p = .20. In the action and motivation
planning conditions, this relationship was significantly positive (R2 = .41 and R2 = .21,
respectively, p < .05). For those high in motivation to learn, competence valuation was
the same across conditions, F(l,l82) = 0.10, p = .76; however, for those low in
motivation to learn negotiation, competence valuation was significantly lower for those in
the action and motivation planning conditions than in the training-only control condition,

F(1,182) = 5.24,p < .05.

125

 

constrt
bent ee
perforr
Si gill lit
after or
= .02.

ofnegt

were Ct

motiva
statistit|
Goal v
stairs.
period
.05, A1
UCgQI;

‘

\
‘

 

 

 

 

Further analyses tested for relationships between the target motivational
constructs and transfer performance outcomes. There were no significant relationships
between personal relevance, self-regulatory focus, or implementation intentions and
performance in the negotiation simulation. Approach-mastery self-regulatory focus was
significantly positively related to self-ratings of negotiation performance in personal life
after motivation to learn and self-efficacy were controlled, F (3,180) = 20.25, p < .05, AR2
= .02. Implementation intentions were also significantly positively related to self-ratings
of negotiation performance in personal life afier motivation to learn and self-efficacy
were controlled, F(3,180) = 20.98, p < .05, AR2 = .03.

Similar analyses were conducted to test relationships between the mediating
motivational mechanisms and transfer performance. Only two relationships were
statistically significant. Competence valuation was not related to transfer performance.
Goal variety for negotiations in personal life during the week following training was
significantly positively related to self-ratings of negotiation performance during this
period after motivation to learn and self-efficacy were controlled, F (3,1 80) = 20.59, p <
.05, AR2 = .03. Situational cueing was significantly positively related to salary in the
negotiation simulation after motivation to learn was controlled, F (2,185) = 15.94, p < .05,
A122 = .10.

To summarize, several, but not all, of the hypotheses in this investigation were
supported or partly supported. Although the transfer motivation intervention had
virtually no impact on transfer behavior and performance, the new motivational
constructs introduced in this investigation were significantly related to each other and to

transfer behavior, though not always as predicted. Table 41 presents a summary of the

126

int

 

significant predictors for each of the transfer behavior outcomes. In the next section, I

integrate and evaluate these findings and present implications for future research.

127

trainet
influe

unden

W35 U5

trainin

conncc
£03115 3
Pdnicu

|
and pc
m011\‘a
new In

relatit.

   

 

dflflgc

anda,

DISCUSSION

The purpose of this study was to determine whether ideas drawn from recent
advances in motivational theory could improve our understanding of and ability to impact
successful training transfer. The existing literature regarding transfer has supported
trainee motivation, and specifically motivation to learn and self-efficacy, as important
influences on transfer. However, this literature has been limited in its ability to help us
understand the processes by which people translate their beliefs into successful transfer
behavior, or the individual’s role in shaping their own transfer goals and motivation.
Research in goal hierarchies, approach and avoid goals, and implementation intentions
was used to create a conceptual model of training transfer motivation, as well as a post-
training intervention designed to improve transfer motivation and outcomes.

The model suggested that explicit attention to helping trainees (a) identify
connections between training content and personal higher-order goals, (b) set approach
goals and bound avoid goals with approach goals, and (c) connect behavioral strategies to
particular anticipated situations would improve transfer motivation and transfer behavior
and performance. This model received only partial support from the data. The transfer
motivation intervention did not have the anticipated effects on transfer motivation. The
new motivational constructs did impact transfer behavior and performance over and
above our understanding based on motivation to learn and self-efficacy; however,
relationships were not consistent in the laboratory and personal life settings. People
differed in important ways in the extent to which they perceived the training as personally
relevant, how much they valued being good at negotiation, the strength of their approach

and avoid self-regulatory focus, the variety of goals they held for using the negotiation

128

under

6.1116111

pnorr
conuil
proces
monva
u)uinc
moliVa'
reactior
111 this ;
I0 the n
MOIlVa
a“)? oft
Eten “I
Were nt
“asrel

11 COuiL

 

Mm“ g4.

 

strategies, their intentions to use particular strategies in particular situations, and the
extent to which they felt reminded of the strategies by the situations they encountered.
Each of these motivational constructs had some connection to the other motivational
variables or transfer behaviors they were expected to impact. In some cases, the impact
of the motivational intervention on the motivational variables was limited by individuals’
prior motivation to learn negotiation. Overall, this investigation’s most significant
contribution is the identification of some specific individual differences in motivational
processes that impact training transfer behavior and performance.
Key Findings and Contributions

Motivation to learn. One of the key contributions of this study is the finding that
motivational constructs other than motivation to learn and self-efficacy impact the extent
to which people try to use skills learned in training. Prior research has shown that
motivation to learn is positively related to declarative knowledge, skill acquisition,
reactions to training, motivation to transfer, and transfer (Colquitt, LePine, & Noe, 2000).
In this study, motivation to learn negotiation strategies prior to training was related only
to the number of negotiations people reported having during the week following training.
Motivation to learn was not related to the number or variety of skills people attempted in
any of the negotiations they had, including the simulated negotiation in the laboratory.
Even when people reported that they were motivated to learn the training content, they
were not more likely to try to use the strategies. In addition, while motivation to learn
was related to nearly all of the more recent motivational constructs included in the model,
it could not completely explain how these newer constructs related to each other.

Motivation to learn remained an important part of the picture of training transfer, but the

129

constr
discus

relatio

transfe
Gull y.
investi
Panicii
to use t
lives. 1
the stra
during .
impftrtz

this stu.

 

 

 

constructs investigated here provided significant improvements to this picture. As will be
discussed later, the intervention tested in this investigation also moderated the
relationship between motivation to learn and the other motivational constructs.

Self-efficacy. In previous research, self-efficacy has been positively connected to
transfer performance (Ford, Quifiones, Sego, & Sorra, 1992; Ford, Smith, Weissbein,
Gully, & Salas, 1998; Gist, Stevens, & Bavetta, 1991; Stevens & Gist, 1997). In this
investigation, self-efficacy was related to some aspects of transfer behavior as predicted.
Participants’ post-training self-efficacy predicted the variety of strategies they attempted
to use during the simulation and the number of negotiations people had in their personal
lives. However, self-efficacy was not related to the number of times people tried to use
the strategies during the simulation nor to the number or variety of attempts they made
during each negotiation in their personal lives. Even though self-efficacy had some
importance in determining transfer behavior, the motivational constructs investigated in
this study added to the ability to predict transfer attempts.

Higher-order goals. The motivation literature suggests that goal hierarchies play
an important role in directing behavior and sustaining goal-directed energy (Carver &
Scheier, 1998). Further, relevance to important personal goals has been connected to
self-regulatory responses (Levallee & Campbell, 1995), interest in feedback (Trope &
Pomerantz, 1998), and memory (Bower & Gilligan, 1979). Prior research has also found
personal relevance beliefs to be susceptible to manipulation (N eisser, 1975).
Competence valuation has been positively connected to achievement goal striving (Elliot
& McGregor, 2001). In this study, competence valuation was expected to be an

antecedent of personal relevance. An exercise encouraging people to draw connections

130

betvveer

to imprt

people 2
(perhap
tv'orksht
transfer
goals te
to learn
tum pol
Strategii
relevan
having
Were 16
“Umber
lllOse m
Pi’rcept
underst
Sleight
chCepz
hISIQr}.

C‘v'idem

 

between the training program’s content and their important personal goals was expected
to improve personal relevance, competence valuation, and transfer behavior.

Although the intervention was unsuccessful at influencing the degree to which
people appeared to make connections between the training and their higher-order goals
(perhaps because these connections were readily apparent simply based on the training
workshop), perceived personal relevance and competence valuation were related to
transfer behavior. People who perceived the training as more relevant to their personal
goals tended to value competence in negotiation, regardless of their reported motivation
to learn negotiation strategies. Competence valuation at the conclusion of training was in
turn positively related to the number of times people reported attempting to use the
strategies in negotiations during the week following training. Perceived personal
relevance also had a direct relationship with the number of negotiations people reported
having during the week. Both perceived personal relevance and competence valuation
were related to motivation to learn; however, motivation to learn was not related to the
number of negotiations reported nor the number of attempts to use the strategies during
those negotiations. Thus, this investigation suggests that individual differences in
perceptions of personal relevance and competence valuation are able to add to our
understanding of transfer behavior. This supports the conclusion of Yelon, Reznich, and
Sleight (1997) that the first step in the dynamic process of transfer is a learner’s
perception that an idea is “functionally significant” (i.e., related to his or her personal
history, purposes or goals, or needs in the work environment). Further, there was no

evidence to suggest that perceived personal relevance or competence valuation acted as

131

mediat

these c

been p:
Scheie;
favoret'
interve
motiva
self-reg
The ext
P60ple
for thei
bchavic

Pimple .

 

 

mediators of a relationship between motivation to learn and transfer behavior. Rather,
these constructs were important in their own right.

Approach and avoid goals. Another area of motivation research which has not
been previously applied to training transfer is approach and avoid motivation (Carver &
Scheier, 1998; Higgins, 1997; Elliot, 1999). Approach motivation has generally been
favored for a number of cognitive, affective, behavioral, and outcome advantages. The
intervention designed in this investigation aimed to increase trainees’ focus on approach
motivation and decrease their focus on avoid motivation. It was further expected that
self-regulatory focus would impact the variety of transfer goals trainees would endorse.
The experimental intervention was unsuccessful at influencing the degree to which
people adopted approach or avoid self-regulatory focus, or the variety of goals they held
for their negotiations. However, these motivational variables were related to transfer
behavior and performance. Self-regulatory focus was related to the variety of goals
people endorsed for negotiations in both their personal lives and the laboratory
simulation. Interestingly, the relationship differed depending on the type of strategies.
Regarding the non-assertive strategies, both approach-mastery and approach-performance
self-regulatory focus were positively related to a broader variety of goals to use the
strategies in personal life. Conversely, avoid self-regulatory focus led to a narrower
variety of goals for strategy use in personal life. Regarding the assertive strategies, which
involve directly confronting a negotiation opponent about their behavior, only avoid self-
regulatory focus was important. Being worried about negotiation skills and outcomes led

to endorsing a narrower variety of goals for both the simulation and personal life.

132

focus. b
interver
(used as
self-reg
instruct
more or
individ.
focused
assigm:
the nun
negOlld
mOIiVa:

our U11:

[0 the 11
r escargl
(GOllvv
W31" 10
prov-idK
110(1ng

 

 

Motivation to learn was positively related to approach-mastery self-regulatory
focus, but there was some evidence that this relationship could be moderated by
interventions. Interestingly, it appears that the standard action planning intervention
(used as a control condition in this investigation) led to low levels of approach-mastery
self-regulatory focus among participants. Having trainees set goals without any specific
instruction to make them learning improvement goals may have led participants to focus
more on negotiation outcomes and anxieties. An alternative explanation is that the
individuals in the action planning condition tended to be more approach or mastery-
focused by nature than individuals in the other two conditions, despite random
assignment. With respect to transfer behavior, goal variety was significantly related to
the number and variety of strategies people reported using in each of their personal
negotiations. Self-regulatory focus and goal variety did not act as mediators between
motivation to learn and transfer behavior, but rather made independent contributions to
our understanding of transfer behavior.

Irrprlementation intentions. The third area of motivational theory that was applied
to the training transfer process in this study was implementation intentions. Prior
research has found that behavioral intentions are not sufficient to produce behavior
(Gollwitzer, 1999). Recent theory has advanced specific implementation intentions as a
way to improve the link between goals and behavior, and early investigations have
provided evidence that this is effective (Aarts, Dijksterhuis, & Midden, 1999; Orbell,
Hodgkins, & Sheeran, 1997; Aarts & Dijksterhuis, 2000). Applying this research to

training transfer, the intervention proposed in this investigation prompted people to set

133

ex

rep
evit

SUO

SUCiIC
Wider
C0mir
made
161T 031
[1131 p3

cueing

 

implementation goals. By making particular transfer opportunities more salient, it was
expected that situational cueing of the strategies during a negotiation would be enhanced.

Although the transfer intervention did not have a significant impact on self-
reported implementation intentions or situational cueing, this investigation did find
evidence linking these constructs to transfer behavior. People who reported having
stronger intentions to use particular strategies in particular situations also reported using
more strategies, and a wider variety of strategies, in negotiations in their personal lives.
Their specific intentions may have enhanced their memories for the strategies.
Participants who reported experiencing stronger situational cueing of the negotiation
strategies during the simulation were rated as using more negotiation strategies and a
wider variety of strategies. This suggests that when participants experienced strategies
coming to mind during the simulation, they tried to use them. This interpretation must be
made with caution, since the measure of situational cueing was completed
retrospectively, after the actual behaviors had taken place. While it is difficult to argue
that participants who used more negotiation strategies did not experience situational
cueing, it is not necessarily the case that these cues were related to their implementation
intentions. Future research should more carefully trace the content of implementation
intentions, experiences of situational cueing, and transfer behavior to determine whether
the behavior and cues are directly tied to implementation intentions formed prior to the
transfer opportunity.

In summary, the key contribution of this investigation is support for the
importance of motivational constructs apart from pre-training motivation to learn and

post-training self-efficacy in predicting transfer behavior and performance. Recent

134

develc
motive
10 use
vvere It
the trai
the per
covere
on the
situatic
enviror

and hbl
expectt

“01‘th

tMUSIC}
Sisttit‘tt
intentit!

l
Planm 1'
1111611»e

did Hm

developments in motivational theory can contribute to our understanding of the
motivational processes involved in training transfer. The extent to which trainees attempt
to use the skills learned in training depends on factors other than how motivated they
were to learn the training content or how confident they felt about their skills following
the training. Transfer behavior also depends on more specific trainee beliefs involving
the personal relevance of the training and the importance of being competent in the area
covered by training. Trainee attempts to use what they learned in training also depends
on the variety of goals trainees have in mind when they leave training, as well as the
situational specificity of those goals and the cueing they experience in the transfer
environment.

Unexpected Findings

There were several expectations related to this study’s theory-based intervention
and hypothesized relationships that were not supported empirically. In addition to the
expected findings examined above, these nonsignificant or unexpected findings are
worthy of attention.

Impact of intervention. Contrary to predictions, the transfer motivation
intervention had no main effects on the motivational constructs, transfer behavior, or
transfer performance. The only mean difference that even approached statistical
significance (p = .09) indicated marginal distinction among strength of implementation
intentions in the three conditions (3.09 in the training-only control, 3.21 for action
planning, and 3.32 for motivation planning). Even in less stringent follow-up tests of the
intervention, where motivation to learn and self-efficacy were not controlled because they

did not differ significantly across the three conditions, the transfer intervention had

135

virtua
anal vs

experi

intervt

the sin

'c:
L)!
N

signifi.
the mo
possibi
Plannit
negotie
or per.
trainin‘
apply t
Sugges
Prograt

peISO p

In(ll-Ca:

 

fell 111;:
that th

lmPFEs

 

virtually no impact. In fact, the only significant differences between conditions in these
analyses favored the training-only control condition over the action planning or
experimental motivation planning conditions.

People in the training-only control condition, who received no transfer
intervention, reported a significantly greater number of negotiations between training and
the simulation than did people in the motivation planning condition, F (2,1 86) = 3.55, p <
.05; t = 7.06, p < .05. People in the training-only control condition also attempted a
significantly wider variety of negotiation strategies during the simulation than people in
the motivation planning condition, F (2,186) = 3.40, p < .05; t = 6.72, p < .05. There is a
possibility that these differences resulted from a tendency of participants in the action
planning intervention conditions to be more focused in their attempts to use the
negotiation strategies than they otherwise would have been. However, their planfulness,
or perhaps overreliance on the action plan they created immediately following the
training at the expense of being thoughtful or watchful for additional opportunities to
apply the training, did not benefit them in the end. Overall, the results of this study
suggest that they would have been more successful, at least with this particular training
program, had they used a more scattered approach to applying the strategies in more
personal negotiations and tried a wider variety of strategies during the simulation.

Participants’ own evaluations of their transfer performance during the simulation
indicated that only 11% felt they had accomplished all of their transfer goals, while 70%
felt that they had accomplished only some of their goals (a widespread acknowledgement
that they did not have enough motivation to overcome knowledge, skill, social

impression, or other barriers to transfer). There was no difference in self-assessments of

136

transft
vvhcth
and tc

in the

attemt,

and at
bchlnt
both t
The ir
transft
could

al'enu,
lIllCl'Vg
imEru

Possib

releva,

lmpm.

 

desj Er:

    
 
 

tirnjn 2
pr 9581:

Panic

transfer goal accomplishment across conditions, F (2,182) = 0.09, p = .92. Regardless of
whether they had been induced to set transfer goals, participants seemed to have goals
and to end up feeling similarly about their success in meeting those goals despite efforts
in the intervention to influence these processes.

The intervention designed in this investigation represents the first systematic
attempt to incorporate the motivational research areas of hi gher-order goals, approach
and avoid motivation, and implementation intentions into training transfer. The theory
behind this intervention is new and largely unapplied, unmeasured, and untested. Thus,
both the model and intervention proposed here can be considered relatively exploratory.
The intervention failed to significantly impact participants’ motivational processes or
transfer behavior and performance. The question that cannot be resolved by this study is:
could the intervention be made powerful enough to have a strong impact? Two potential
avenues for improvement and fixture research stand out: increasing the power of the
intervention to affect the target motivational constructs, or shifting the focus of the
intervention to motivational targets more proximal to transfer behavior. These two
possibilities will be discussed.

First, it is possible that an intervention targeting perceptions of personal
relevance, self-regulatory focus, and implementation intentions could successfully
improve transfer motivation and performance, but that this particular intervention’s
design was ineffective. Three possible areas for intervention design improvement are the
timing, duration, and guidance provided. With respect to timing, the intervention was
presented immediately following the training, near the end of a three-hour session.

Participants may have been fatigued or mentally overloaded by the volume of training

137

COlllCl‘.

intervc

 

transfc
be imp
progra
ovvn c.
they 11‘.
this stt
etfecti
makin

them,

 

content presented rapidly throughout the training session, and thus unable to complete the
intervention effectively. Additionally, Weissbein (2000) found that his pre-training
transfer intervention was more effective than a parallel post-training intervention. It may
be important to influence trainee motivation prior to their exposure to the training
program rather than attempting to influence motivation after trainees have drawn their
own conclusions about the personal relevance of the training or the self-regulatory focus
they intend to adopt as they apply their skills. A post-training intervention was chosen in
this study despite Weissbein’s conclusion that pre-training manipulations may be more
effective to try to take advantage of the opportunity to have trainees be in charge of
making their own personal connections and setting transfer goals that were meaningful to
them. Research on adult learning supports the effectiveness of allowing for learner
control and proactivity rather than spelling everything out for adult learners. Because of
the nature of the intervention components, it was thought that trainees needed to first
learn the training content before they would be able to connect the content to their higher-
order goals or set approach or especially implementation goals, which require specifying
particular strategies for application. Although some familiarity with the content is indeed
necessary to complete the intervention, perhaps a timing compromise could be achieved
that would allow the intervention to have an impact prior to training. For instance, the
concepts involved in the intervention could be introduced prior to training, and trainees
could be given worksheets to jot thoughts on during the training and complete at the end
of training. This would enable trainees to set specific goals as they became familiar with
the training content and would have the added advantage of influencing the way people

think about their motivation to apply the trained skills right from the start of training.

138

if patti
first th

the int

”10111;?
111211 or
they n
reactir
intert-
10 [he
10 1h e

relate.

 

 

Along with the intervention’s post-training timing, its brevity may have hindered
success. In some training programs, participants are given a window of time following
the training course to complete an action plan, sometimes in collaboration with their
supervisor. Perhaps the intervention tested in this study would have been more effective
if participants had more time to think about their responses rather than just writing the
first things that came to mind. Further, the amount of guidance and coaching regarding
the intervention exercises was minimal. Perhaps additional explanations, instructions, or
samples of how to complete each exercise well would have improved the intervention’s
effectiveness. For instance, since approach-mastery and approach-performance self-
regulatory focus were empirically distinct, perhaps providing more specific focus on
mastery versus performance goals would have improved the impact of the intervention.
Prior research has shown that mastery and performance goal orientation do have
manipulable state components (Dweck, 1986; Elliot & Dweck, 1988; Stevens & Gist,
1997)

The second area for potential improvement of the intervention is targeting
motivational constructs more proximal to transfer behavior. The motivational constructs
that were the intended targets of the intervention did predict transfer behavior. However,
they may be influenced predominantly by relatively stable individual differences or by
reactions to the training itself, and thus not susceptible to the transfer planning
interventions. Perceptions of personal relevance may have been dominated by reactions
to the training content, which included several examples intended to be directly relevant
to the participants. It is possible that participants naturally thought of personal goals

related to the training content, and as a result, the transfer planning exercise did not add

139

anvt
peop
mast
com]
bnef
enou
have
differ
intent
imple
incor]
So the
Panic
impac
iU‘tpler
Callng
by det

accur;

Will d.

 

 

 

anything. Higgins (1997) notes that both trait and state influences determine whether
people adopt approach or avoid self-regulatory focus in a particular situation. Similarly,
mastery and performance goal orientation have been argued to have both trait and state
components. What is unclear is the relative contributions of these two influences. The
brief intervention aimed at self-regulatory focus in this study may not have been strong
enough to overpower participants’ natural tendencies. Implementation intentions may
have been influenced either by the examples provided in the training or by individual
differences in tendencies to adopt these kinds of goals. The research on implementation
intentions has shown that both voluntarily created and experimentally induced
implementation intentions can occur and influence behavior. The training specifically
incorporated some suggestions regarding when each strategy would be most appropriate,
so these connections may have played the role of implementation goals for all
participants. Encouraging people to set implementation goals may not have had a big
impact on whether they adopted these goals. In addition, the research to date on
implementation intentions has focused on setting goals for individual pursuits such as
eating healthy foods, exercising, or performing surgery recovery behaviors. Negotiation,
by definition, is an interpersonal activity. It may be more difficult for people to set
accurate implementation goals because they do not know in advance what their opponent
will do. Thus, their implementation goals are limited to opportunities they know they can
create or uncertain predictions of what their opponent may do during the negotiation.
This line of reasoning may explain why participants’ ratings of their implementation
intentions were unrelated to participants’ experience of situational cueing during their

negotiations.

140

mort
relev

vv hy

mucl
valua
inves
seeing
desire
COmn‘
fTom t

impOr

trans it
80315.

51(11 ls

 

UaHSh

hatin_

 

Possit
Comm:

 

Rather than targeting these constructs, perhaps it would be more effective to focus
_ the intervention directly on the motivational process variables that are hypothesized to be
more proximally linked to transfer behavior. For instance, the intervention might be
more successful if it focused directly on competence valuation rather than personal
relevance. Direct discussions during the training, or with work supervisors, regarding
why it is important to be good at the training content, might help pe0ple think about how
much they value practicing and using the skills they have learned. Competence
valuation, more so than personal relevance, was related to transfer behavior in this
investigation. Apparently, wanting to be good in an area adds something beyond simply
seeing the training as relevant to personal goals. Focusing trainees’ attention on their
desires to become good at the training content may help them leave training with stronger
commitment to putting the skills to use. In addition to these constructs, other constructs
from the theoretical perspectives examined here or others could be identified that are
important to the transfer motivation process.

Similarly, focusing the intervention directly on goal variety, which was related to
transfer behavior, may have been more effective than focusing on approach and avoid
goals. Trainees could be directly encouraged to set goals to use a wide variety of the
skills learned in training, and the benefits of using multiple approaches within and across
transfer situations could be emphasized. Clearly, with a training subject like negotiation,
having more strategies at your disposal in a negotiation gives you an advantage that is not
possible by perfecting the use of a few particular strategies. The same is true for
common training topics such as leadership, and the same philosophy could easily apply

even to training of mechanical skills where mastering an entire process is important.

141

neg
beh
trou
that
impl

res pt

no in
imprt

hEIJor

antici
perft'tr
Separ.

ll’Om

 

Ofthc.

311’ch

Perhaps more direct attention to situational cues rather than just implementation
goals would be more effective. The negotiation training workshop for this investigation
addressed situational cueing during the training by emphasizing appropriate moments to
use each strategy during a negotiation. Thus, the training itself may have influenced the
degree to which participants experienced situational cueing during their subsequent
negotiation opportunities. Emphasizing specific cues for trained skills (e. g., employee
behaviors prompting leadership responses, mechanical trouble signals prompting
troubleshooting actions), and perhaps having participants create implementation plans
that include ways to be alert for those cues, could be more effective than simply creating
implementation goals without focusing on the significance of being alert to and
responding to situational cues in the transfer environment.

In summary, it is unclear why the intervention designed in this investigation had
no impact on the motivational constructs. Two possible explanations include the need for
improvements to the design of the intervention, or to the focus on motivational constructs
hypothesized to have more proximal connections to transfer behavior.

Different relationships in simulation vs. personal life ngegotiations. It was
anticipated that the relationships between transfer motivation and transfer behavior and
performance would be largely parallel. The personal life setting was included not as a
separate factor in the experiment, but with the intention of strengthening conclusions
from a laboratory investigation by incorporating the opportunity to study participants’ use
of the trained strategies in their personal lives as well as in the lab. Contrary to

expectations, this investigation found many differences between the two settings. Table

142

42:

exp

Tab

 

 

42 summarizes the significant relationships in each setting. Two possible reasons
explaining the discrepant findings stand out.

Table 42

Significant Empirical Relationships in the Laboratogy vs. Person4al Life Settings

 

 

 

Hypothesis Laboratory Setting Personal Life Setting
(1a) Transfer Behavior 9 Experimenter ratings of Self-ratings of transfer
Transfer Performance transfer behavior 9 behavior9
Experimenter ratings of Self-ratings of transfer
transfer performance performance
(2) Self-efficacy 9 SE 9 Variety of attempts SE 9 Number of negotiations
Transfer Behavior
(3a) Competence Valuation 9 n.s. CV 9 Number of attempts
Transfer Behavior
(3b) Goal Variety 9 n.s. GV 9 Number of attempts
Transfer Behavior 9 Variety of attempts
(3c) Situational Cueing 9 SC 9 Number of attempts n.s.
Transfer Behavior 9 Variety of attempts
(5) Self-regulatory Focus 9 n.s. Approach-mastery SRF 9
Goal Variety Goal Variety (nonassertive)
Approach-performance SRF9

Goal Variety (nonassertive)
Avoid SRF (—)9

Goal Variety (nonassertive)
Avoid SRF (—)9

Goal Variety (assertive)

 

First, some of the discrepant results between the laboratory and personal life data may
result from measurement choices in this investigation. For instance, goal variety was
significantly related to transfer behavior and performance in personal life, but not in the
laboratory setting. Participants provided self-report data regarding their strategy use for
each strategy and performance self-ratings regarding how effectively they thought they

had used the strategies overall. Their ratings of strategy use and performance may have

143

been influenced by a variety of biases including the desire to present themselves as
having met their transfer goals, imprecise memory of actual strategy attempts, or
effectiveness ratings focusing on negotiation outcomes rather than demonstration of skill
using the particular strategies. Ratings of skill use during the simulation by the
experimenters may have been subject to other biases, but raters would not be inclined to
provide performance ratings consistent with participants’ goals, especially since the
experimenters were blind to participants’ prior goal-setting. Similar measurement
problems may also lie behind the discrepant findings for other relationships tested,
particularly since many of the measures used in this investigation have not been
evaluated in prior research.

An alternative explanation for the discrepant findings between the laboratory and
personal life data is that the motivational processes in fact differed between these settings
due to characteristics of the settings or the particular negotiations participants had in each
setting. The relationships among the motivational constructs may be more complex than
suggested by the proposed model. For example, demand characteristics may have
influenced participants’ transfer behavior in the negotiation simulation but not in their
personal lives. Participants who valued being competent at negotiation may have been
very motivated to practice the strategies in their personal lives, but not particularly
concerned with using the strategies during the simulation, explaining the lack of impact
of competence valuation on simulation transfer behaviors. People may have felt more
committed to pursuing a variety of strategies in their personal negotiations than they did
in the laboratory, particularly following ineffective negotiation attempts. Because their

negotiations in personal life had real outcomes for them, participants may have been

144

more willing to persist with a greater number of strategies than in the laboratory, where
they received the same credit no matter how many strategies they used. Situational
cueing may have been more effective in the simulation because the experimenter
provided relatively more familiar prompts for the strategies in a negotiation similar to
those practiced in training; participants may have had a harder time anticipating and
being alert to situational cues in the negotiations in their personal lives. In addition, they
may have struggled more with mapping the situational cues in their personal negotiations,
which could be about any problem, back to the training regarding when each strategy
would be most appropriate.

Another possibility involves complex interactions of the motivational constructs
across the three paths based on the intervention elements. For instance, goal variety and
situational cueing may interact in ways that make them mutually exclusive under certain
conditions. Despite having high levels of goal variety in both the simulation and personal
life, participants were likely more committed to the goals relevant to negotiations in their
own lives. Thus, in the personal life setting, goal variety may have outweighed the more
opportunistic motivation presented by situational cueing to motivate transfer behavior. In
the simulation, however, participants may not have been as committed to their goals to
use the strategies. In this case, situational cueing of particular strategies may have been
more important for motivating transfer behavior. It is impossible to understand whether
the differences in relationships between the laboratory and real life settings found in this
investigation represent true differences in the motivational processes in these settings

without additional research.

145

Lackostupport for mediation paths. The model proposed in this investigation
hypothesized three sets of mediating relationships linking the new motivational
constructs to each other and to transfer behavior. These mediating relationships were not
supported, suggesting that a different model would better describe the pattern of
relationships connecting the motivational constructs to each other, to additional
motivational constructs such as motivation to learn and self-efficacy, and to transfer
behavior. For example, although self-regulatory focus was related to goal variety, and
goal variety was related to transfer behavior, self-regulatory focus was not related to
transfer behavior. This suggests that a motivational intervention focusing more directly
on helping people set a variety of transfer goals regardless of their self-regulatory focus
might be more effective. Also, as measured in this study, implementation intentions were
not significantly related to situational cueing. This is surprising given the theoretical
focus on situational cueing as a key explanation for the effectiveness of irnplementation
intentions on behavior. Both implementation intentions and situational cueing were
related to transfer behavior, but in different ways, with implementation intentions
predicting transfer behavior in personal life and situational cueing predicting transfer
behavior in the lab. Speculation regarding this relationship has been offered above.
Because the theory, and especially the supporting empirical research, in the motivation
areas applied in this investigation are so young, the model examined in this study
represents an initial, exploratory attempt to pull several disconnected theoretical ideas
together into a single cohesive model and intervention. In many ways, it is not surprising
that the model was not supported. Additional theoretical and empirical work in the three

areas drawn together in this model will no doubt help to uncover a better representation

146

of how these constructs influence one another and come together in the transfer
motivation process.

Intervention as a moderator. The transfer motivation intervention to which
participants were exposed changed the relationship between motivation to learn and
several of the new motivational constructs investigated. No hypotheses were made
concerning differential effectiveness of the intervention, but in fact, some differences in
the effects of the intervention occurred based on individuals’ motivation to learn. When
motivation to learn was high, approach-mastery self-regulatory focus also tended to be
high regardless of the intervention to which participants were exposed (Figure 4). At
lower levels of motivation to learn, however, participants in the three conditions showed
lower levels of approach—mastery self-regulatory focus. In the standard action planning
condition, the difference in self-regulatory focus between those high in motivation to
learn and those low in motivation to learn was particularly drastic. The reason for this
effect is unclear. Motivation to learn and approach-mastery self-regulatory focus are
similar constructs. Although they were identified as distinct in the factor analyses, their
correlation (r = .48) is among the highest between motivational constructs included in
this investigation.

It is not surprising that these constructs are highly related, but why would their
relationship change across the three conditions? Because self-regulatory focus was only
measured after the intervention, it is impossible to conclude that the action or motivation
planning exercises lowered approach self-regulatory focus for those low in motivation to
learn. However, if it can be assumed that immediately after the training, participants in

these two conditions had similar levels of self-regulatory focus to participants in the

147

control condition receiving no intervention, this may be the case. During the transfer
planning exercises, people who had relatively low motivation to learn negotiation
strategies may have focused their planning on outcomes, thus shifiing their attention even
further from learning more about the strategies. Although the mean differences were not
significant, the pattern of means is consistent with this explanation. Those low in
motivation to learn who completed a traditional action planning exercise that does not
provide guidance relative to approach and avoid self-regulatory focus, or to mastery or
performance orientation, had the lowest approach-mastery self-regulatory focus. In the
experimental motivation planning condition, this effect may have been somewhat
mitigated by the explicit attention to helping people set approach goals. People with low
motivation to learn in the control condition with no transfer planning had the highest
levels of approach-mastery self-regulatory focus, although still moderate. The impact of
approach-mastery self-regulatory focus on goal variety was the same across conditions,
so whatever the difference in its relationship with motivation to learn, there was no
difference in outcomes across'the three conditions.

Another unexpected moderating effect is depicted in Figure 5. For those high in
motivation to learn, competence valuation was also strong across all three conditions. In
contrast, for those low in motivation to learn, competence valuation was strong in the
training-only control condition but weak in the two transfer planning conditions. The
most plausible explanation for the difference in the relationship between motivation to
learn and competence valuation is that the transfer planning interventions reduced
competence valuation for individuals low in motivation to learn. Perhaps thinking about

using the strategies reminded people who had expressed relatively low motivation to

148

learn negotiation strategies at the beginning of training of their lack of concern for
learning or being good at the skills. Interestingly, competence valuation predicted the
number of strategies people used in their negotiations in personal life equally well across
the three conditions. Despite the differences in the relationship between motivation to
learn and competence valuation, the outcomes were the same for each condition.
Although these differences were not hypothesized in this investigation, it is not unusual
to find this type of aptitude by treatment interaction in training research.

Lack of relationship between learning and transfer. While learning was not
hypothesized to have a large effect on transfer, it was expected that learning would
moderate the relationship between transfer behavior and transfer performance.
Participants who could more successfully describe the negotiation strategies at the end of
training were expected to be able to use the strategies more effectively. However, this
was not the case. The learning measure was not significantly related to transfer
performance, nor, in follow-up analyses not reported here, was learning significantly
related to transfer behavior. Based on the meta-analysis by Colquitt, LePine, and Noe
(2000), this finding is not surprising. In their model, declarative knowledge was not
significantly related to transfer. Only skill acquisition, which was not measured in this
investigation, was related to transfer behavior.

Gender effects. Although no gender effects were hypothesized in this
investigation, participant gender did end up playing a significant role in some of the
motivational processes studied. Female participants expressed stronger perceived
personal relevance for the negotiation training than did male participants. In light of

females’ lower self-efficacy for negotiation, and stronger sense of avoid self-regulatory

149

focus, this may indicate that the women participating in the training workshop felt that
they had more to gain from negotiation training than the men, who were more confident
in their negotiation skills and less worried about using the strategies. Female participants
also reported less situational cueing of the strategies, and were rated as attempting fewer
strategies during the simulation. Apparently, women had a more difficult time recalling
and using the strategies in this situation than did men. There were no differences
between male and female participants in the self-reported number of strategies attempted
in personal life negotiations. These findings are not particularly shocking given that
negotiation is traditionally a masculine rather than feminine activity, although it is
somewhat more surprising to find this effect related to principle-based bargaining, which
has a more collectivist slant than traditional position-based bargaining.

Not surprisingly given the exploratory nature of this investigation, there were
many unanticipated findings. While potential explanations have been offered above,
these findings raise many new questions about transfer motivation processes. The next
section describes potential directions for future research to answer some of these
questions.

Directions for Future Research

Both the expected and unexpected findings in this investigation suggest directions
for fiiture research regarding motivational processes in training transfer. Throughout this
discussion, speculations and additional questions regarding the findings of this
investigation have been detailed; their implied hypotheses will not be repeated here. In
addition to those previously discussed, there are several additional possibilities for future

research regarding the origins and consequences of perceived personal relevance, the

150

distinctions between assertive and nonassertive negotiation strategies, and the complex
interrelationships among the new motivational constructs with motivation to learn and
self-efficacy. The implications of each of these observations from the current study for
future research are discussed below.
Effectsfiof Job Responsibilities on Perceived Persopal Relevance

In this experiment, post-training perceived personal relevance was positively
related to the number of negotiations people reported having during the week following
training. It would be interesting to determine the causal direction of this relationship.
Was perceived personal relevance simply a consequence of participants’ knowledge,
prior to the training, of the number of personal negotiations they would be involved in
during the week following training? Or, did the training influence perceptions of
personal relevance and motivate people to engage in negotiations during the week
following training that they otherwise might not have had? Training practitioners have
built on both of these notions with ideas such as recommending pre-training meetings
with supervisors to discuss reasons for attending training and how the skills are expected
to apply to job responsibilities, and encouraging trainees to seek or create opportunities to
use their new skills following the training. Future research could provide insight
regarding the processes leading to perceptions of personal relevance and the
consequences of these perceptions in altering the likelihood that trainees will take
advantage of, seek, or create opportunities to use their newly learned skills.
Different Motivational Processes for Different Types of Slflls

Following the training and transfer intervention, participants were asked to

indicate their goals to use each of the negotiation strategies during the negotiation

151

simulation and in negotiations in their personal lives over the week between training and
the simulation. It was expected that goals for the two transfer settings would form
independent factors. This was the case for most of the strategies; however, a third factor
reflecting goals to use the three assertive strategies in either setting was also observed
unexpectedly. The assertiveness strategies were presented as a distinct unit in the
training, and participants seemed to distinguish them fi'om the other strategies in their
intentions to apply these strategies in their negotiations. Whether this reflects an effect of
the presentation of the training or perceptions of the trainees regarding the strategies
themselves, it is clear that trainees’ goals to use different categories of trained skills can
be distinct. This implies that different transfer processes may come into play for different
types of skills.

In this investigation, attempts to transfer the negotiation strategies could not be
reliably classified into distinct factors representing assertive versus nonassertive
strategies, so these processes could not be fully examined. Future research could
investigate differences in motivational processes for distinct sets of trained skills that can
be reliably classified based on characteristics such as assertiveness. Another example of
a skill characteristic that may have implications for transfer goal setting or other transfer
motivation processes is whether skill performance is public or private. F eedback-seeking
research has found that pe0ple will behave more conservatively in situations where they
must perform publicly versus in private situations (Ashford & Northcraft, 1992;
Northcraft & Ashford, 1990). Trained skills that must be practiced in public settings (i.e.,
directly observed by a supervisor, coworkers, or employees) may require greater, or

different kinds of, transfer motivation than skills that can be implemented privately.

152

Applying Admes in Motivatiomrl Theory to Transfer Research

This study identified three perspectives from motivational theory previously
unapplied to transfer research. From these perspectives, six motivational constructs were
shown to have potential for improving our understanding of transfer motivation. The
failure of the proposed model to adequately capture the set of relationships among the
motivational constructs and transfer behavior and performance indicates that additional
research is needed to develop a clearer picture of how each construct might contribute to
our understanding of the transfer process and how the constructs interact with each other
in particular situations to motivate transfer behavior. This section reviews several
opportunities for future research to build on the current investigation.

Measurement. First, development of more valid and reliable measures of the

 

constructs might help to clarify the relationships among them. The measures for all of
the newly applied motivational constructs were developed specifically for this
investigation. Although the measures used in this investigation were empirically distinct
based on the factor analysis, it may be possible to improve them further. Particular
attention should be given to ensuring that the measurement items for each construct are
conceptually distinct. Theoretical consideration should also be given to the state versus
trait nature of these constructs and the timing and source of measurement. In this
investigation, the constructs proved impervious to manipulation, but stronger or different
manipulations, or training content or conditions, may demonstrate that these motivational
constructs have a state component. Theoretical rationale mapping the formation of or
importance of these motivational constructs during training may also lead to more precise

models regarding the interrelationships of the constructs. While this investigation

153

proposed mediating relationships suggesting that some of the motivational constructs
create others (e. g., perceiving the training as personally relevant was hypothesized to lead
to valuing competence in the training content), other types of relationships are also
possible. Carefirl consideration of these theoretical issues may lead to timing the
measurement of each construct at different points relative to each other and to training
programs. Finally, creation of measures that do not involve direct self-reports could also
improve research regarding these motivational constructs.

Alternate models. Additional theoretical and empirical work is also needed to
better capture the complex relationships among these constructs. The model proposed in
this investigation emphasized the new motivational paths along which the transfer
motivation intervention was intended to have its impact on transfer behavior and
performance. These paths were tested independently, with motivation to learn and self-
efficacy controlled in all relevant analyses. The correlation matrix presented in Table 6,
however, clearly shows that many of the newly introduced motivational constructs are at
least moderately correlated with each other as well as with motivation to learn and self-
efficacy. Simple exploratory regressions indicated that there are a number of significant
relationships among the motivational constructs beyond those hypothesized in this
investigation. The motivational constructs do not fall on distinct paths as proposed here
based on the separate bodies of research from which each pair of constructs was derived.
Rather, they are interrelated in complex ways reaching across the paths (see Figure 6).

In fact, it is easier to describe the nonsignificant relationships than the significant
ones for most of the constructs. Personal relevance and competence valuation were

significantly related to all of the other motivational constructs except avoid self-

154

regulatory focus, goals to use the assertive strategies, and situational cueing. Both
approach-mastery and approach-performance self-regulatory focus were significantly
related to all of the constructs except situational cueing. Avoid self-regulatory focus was
significantly related (negatively) only to self-efficacy and situational cueing. All three
types of goal variety were significantly related to both implementation intentions and
self-efficacy. Implementation intentions and situational cueing were also related to self-
efficacy.

In addition, the motivational constructs impacted various aspects of transfer
behavior differently. For instance, in this investigation, self-efficacy and personal
relevance both had a strong relationship with the number of negotiations people reported
having in their personal lives during the week following training. Motivation to learn
could not add to the ability of these constructs to predict the extent to which people chose
to engage in negotiations. Apparently, when people felt that negotiation strategies were
important to their life goals and were confident about their ability to use the negotiation
strategies, they either initiated or participated in more negotiations immediately following
the training.

Once people were involved in negotiations, however, other motivational
constructs were important for predicting skill use. Competence valuation was most
relevant for predicting how many strategies people reported trying to use, while post-
training goal variety was most relevant for predicting the variety of strategies people
reported trying to use. Wanting to be good at negotiation may have encouraged people to
persist with practicing the same strategies several times. Explicitly setting goals to use a

number of the strategies may have encouraged people to be broader in their transfer

155

attempts. In the lab simulation, the experience of situational cueing of particular
strategies was able to dominate the effects of gender and self-efficacy on the number and
variety of strategies attempted. Clearly, the constructs examined in this investigation
were active in different decisions and behaviors in the transfer process.

Examining these three complexities, future research should attempt to untangle
the web of connections among the motivational constructs, examine the differential
impact of motivational constructs on different aspects of transfer behavior, and elaborate
on the connections between particular motivational constructs and the sequence of goals
and choices relevant to transfer behavior. A better understanding of specific decisions
and behaviors related to training transfer, and when and how various motivational
constructs influence transfer, might allow us to develop more targeted interventions to
improve training transfer. In an effort to provide some guidance for future investigations
based on the current research, a final set of analyses was undertaken to explore ways in
which the new motivational constructs proposed in this investigation might, along with
motivation to learn and self-efficacy, contribute to our understanding of transfer behavior
and performance.

As noted previously, many of the newly introduced motivational constructs were
at least moderately correlated with each other as well as with motivation to learn and self-
efficacy. Additionally, many of the motivational constructs were significantly correlated
with transfer behavior and performance in personal life. Based on these correlations, a
series of exploratory models (e. g., alternative mediation paths to the ones proposed in this

investigation, moderating relationships) were created and tested. For simplicity, only the

156

two clearest models connecting the motivational constructs with transfer behavior and
performance are reported here.

The first promising model focused on predicting transfer performance through the
number of times participants reported using each of the negotiation strategies during
negotiations in their personal lives. Skill use, and the resulting negotiation performance,
were best predicted with a combination of motivation to learn, self-efficacy, and
competence valuation. Figure 7 depicts the model suggested by the current data and
presents standardized beta weights supporting the relationships based on the current data.
Both motivation to learn and competence valuation predicted the number of strategies
participants reported using in their negotiations during the week following training (the
reported coefficients reflect partial contributions of motivation to learn and competence
valuation, after controlling for number of negotiations as well in both cases). The effect
of motivation to learn on attempts to use the negotiation strategies in actual negotiations
was moderated by participants’ self-efficacy for using the strategies. Implementation
intentions were also able to add to predicted use of strategies, but the resulting change in
R2 was so small that it was not worth adding confusion to the model with this construct.
Concerning the quality of transfer performance, the quantity of strategies attempted was a
significant predictor, and mediated the relationship between competence valuation and
transfer performance quality. Motivation to learn also had a significant main effect on
transfer performance quality after the quantity of strategies attempted was taken into
account (its partial coefficient is reported). Thus, the impact of these motivational
constructs clearly cannot be boiled down simply to their impact on trying out more

behaviors. Altogether, the constructs included in this model were able to account for

157

approximately 30% of the variance in self-ratings of transfer performance quality. It is
difficult to cleanly evaluate this model with the current data because of the relationship
between gender and self-efficacy for using negotiation strategies. Future research should
focus on a training task that is not gender-biased to develop a clearer picture of the role of
self-efficacy in transfer behavior and performance along with these other constructs.
Without this limitation, it will be easier to investigate how the impact of motivation to
learn and self-efficacy on transfer behavior and performance might depend on the degree
to which trainees personally value achieving competence in the training content.

The second promising model focused on predicting transfer performance through
the variety of strategies participants reported using during negotiations in their personal
lives. Skill variety and the resulting negotiation performance were best predicted with a
combination of motivation to learn, self-efficacy, and approach-mastery self-regulatory
focus, working through the variety of transfer goals endorsed. Together these variables
predicted about 30% of the variance in transfer performance quality; nearly 40% of
variance in transfer goals was accounted for with this model. Figure 8 depicts the model
and presents standardized beta weights based on the current data. The effect of
motivation to learn on the variety of strategies participants planned to use in actual
negotiations was moderated by self-efficacy for using the strategies and approach-
mastery self-regulatory focus (standardized coefficients for the main effect of motivation
to learn and for the three-way interaction are reported in Figure 8). Variety of transfer
goals, in turn, led to quality of transfer performance both directly and mediated through
actual variety of transfer behaviors (coefficients for the mediation path and the partial

coefficient for the main effect path are reported). Apparently, people who had a variety

158

of goals followed through with a wider variety of actual transfer behaviors, but their
goals had an additional unexplained impact on transfer performance quality.
Implementation intentions were also able to add to predicted variety of strategies, but the
resulting change in R2 was so small that it was not worth adding confusion to the model
with this construct. Future research may wish to consider whether implementation
intentions are important to such a model, however.

As these alternate models and interrelationships among motivational constructs
(see Table 6 and Figure 6) suggest, some of the constructs introduced in this investigation
may be redundant in terms of their ability to help us predict transfer behavior. While
conceptual distinctions and factor analyses may support the independence of these
constructs, researchers should strive to find the most parsimonious sets of motivational
constructs to explain training transfer. In the models described above, competence
valuation and approach-mastery self-regulatory focus were able to make valuable
prediction contributions. These constructs may be a good focus for additional research
efforts. The models derived here also suggest that transfer researchers could benefit from
examining predictors of different dimensions of transfer behavior, such as quantity and
variety, and their contributions to transfer performance quality. Although the quantity
and variety of transfer behaviors reported from personal life negotiations were highly
correlated in this investigation (r = .85), these two dimensions of transfer behavior appear
to be best predicted by different sets of antecedents. The motivational processes involved
when trainees make frequent attempts to use what they learned in training may be
different from the processes involved in trainees’ attempts to apply a wide variety of

specific skills learned in training. Better understanding of these processes might allow us

159

to appropriately target the relevant transfer behavior goals for training programs,
depending on the extent to which frequency versus variety of transfer applications is
important. Future research might also identify and investigate whether additional
dimensions of transfer behavior such as situational variety (as opposed to skill variety)
are relevant to understanding transfer motivation.

Future research could evaluate these or other alternative models, as well as
additional constructs drawn from advances in motivational research (e.g., relating recent
work in complex goal structures and multiple, competing goals to transfer behavior), and
interventions that might be more successful in influencing transfer motivation than the
one proposed here. The current study is only a beginning to the research that is possible
concerning the application of motivational theory to training transfer. In addition to the
ideas outlined above, future research could also build on this study by addressing the
limitations presented in the next section.

Limitations

Several limitations of this investigation constrain the conclusions that can or
should be drawn based on the findings. This study attempted to examine complex
transfer motivation processes in a laboratory environment. The limitations of this design
are fivefold, as the study is restricted by the laboratory setting, the dominant focus on
self-report data, the difficulty distinguishing transfer behavior from performance, the
undergraduate sample, and the focus on one particular training program.

Laboratory setting. First, the predominantly laboratory setting has some
disadvantages relevant to the model being tested in this investigation. Although every

attempt was made to make the brief negotiation strategy workshop similar to actual

160

workplace training sessions, several potentially important elements could not be
represented in the laboratory. For instance, when proper needs assessments are
conducted in organizations, training programs are directly connected to trainees’ jobs in
the organization. Participants in this investigation may or may not have a real need for
negotiation skills. In real organizations, a similar training program may have been longer
in duration to more adequately cover the strategies and provide time for practice and
additional examples. Regarding measures of transfer behavior and performance, a cross
between the observer-rating method used in the laboratory and the negotiations
performed outside the laboratory would have been a better representation of participants’
use of the strategies and success in doing so. Finally, other factors that may influence
transfer motivation, such as performance-based compensation, supervisor impressions,
and coworker skills and expectations, could not be represented in this investigation.
Nevertheless, this study provided a preliminary analysis of the transfer motivation model
presented, suggesting that the constructs derived fi'om motivation theory can influence
transfer behavior and performance. Replication in a field setting would provide evidence
concerning whether these motivational processes do influence transfer behavior and
performance in the workplace.

Self-ratings. For transfer behavior and performance outside the lab, participants
provided self-ratings. This measurement choice carries risks of bias or demand
characteristics that make interpretation of results ambiguous. In this investigation,
relationships in the lab and real life settings often were not parallel, making interpretation
of the findings especially uncertain. For instance, goal variety was related to self-reports

of transfer behavior in real life but not to experimenter ratings of transfer behavior in the

161

simulation. Rather than indicating that a broader variety of post-training transfer goals
indeed led to use of a broader variety of negotiation strategies, this relationship might
indicate that participants recalled their level of commitment to using each strategy
following training and reported that they had indeed used the strategies to that extent.
Particularly with respect to transfer behavior and performance, ratings by a trained
observer in natural settings would have been preferable to self-ratings. A further
complication in this study was the use of newly created measures to test the central
constructs. Established measures would have been preferred if available. Unfortunately,
however, the research work in these areas has focused on theoretical development
unaccompanied by measurement development.

Difficulty distirgpishipg transfer behavior fi'om transfer performance. Third, this
study might have benefited from clearer distinctions between transfer behavior and
transfer performance. The degree of success trainees experience with early attempts to
use what they learned in training is likely to influence their level of motivation to
continue trying to apply the skills. Despite efforts to begin to distinguish attempts to
transfer trained skills, which may or may not be successfitl, from the resulting
performance, the salary measure was highly correlated with transfer behavior measures in
the laboratory simulation (r = .76 for number of attempts, r = .72 for variety of attempts).
Different types of training tasks or behavioral observations and performance measures
that are less closely tied together should be used in future research. Further, transfer
motivation could be assessed at several points before, during, and following training to
examine how motivation might change because of experiences in those settings. In

particular, the relationship between attempts to practice trained skills, and the impact of

162

the success or failure of those attempts on subsequent transfer motivation and attempts,
could be examined if transfer behavior and performance could be more cleanly
distinguished.

Undeggraduate sample. Fourth, this study sampled undergraduate students to
participate in the negotiation strategies workshop. The processes by which
undergraduates are accustomed to learning and applying knowledge and skills may differ
from those developed by working adults. People taking training for particular jobs might
have an easier time identifying ways to apply the training than undergraduates taking a
training course outside of the context of any particular job. Further, undergraduates
participating in psychological research may have different levels of motivation than
adults participating in training programs. Participants had to play the role of a job
applicant in the negotiation simulation; undergraduates are not likely to be familiar with
salary negotiations. There may be many similarities between how the undergraduate
participants in this investigation responded to the training, intervention, and opportunities
to apply the negotiation strategies; however, this assumption is not supported by
empirical data. A better test of this model and intervention would be to use a sample of
people taking a particular training program for a particular job in a realistic setting.

Nggotiation trainirg. Finally, focusing on only a single training program clearly
limits the generalizability of the findings of this investigation. Negotiation training has
particular characteristics that may not apply to other types of training programs. For
instance, negotiation skills are cognitive and interpersonal. Thus, the results found in this
investigation may not be similar to those found for training programs focusing on more

physical or individual skills. In addition, there were several gender effects related to the

163

negotiation training that may not be similar for other training programs. Caution should
be used to avoid overgeneralizing these results until they can be replicated with other
types of training programs. An ideal test of whether the intervention and motivational
model are impacted by the type of training program would be to incorporate different
types of training as a factor in an investigation.
Conclusion

Transfer researchers need to move beyond tried-and-true models of motivation to
learn and self-efficacy to search for additional theoretical perspectives that could improve
our understanding of transfer processes. The model tested in this investigation was an
initial attempt to apply recent advances in motivational theory to advance our
understanding of and ability to influence training transfer motivation. Clearly there is
more work to be done, particularly with respect to transfer motivation interventions based
on these theoretical applications. What is equally clear, however, is that transfer

researchers have several previously-ignored theoretical avenues to explore.

164

REFERENCES

Aarts, H., Dijskterhuis, A. (2000). Habits as knowledge structures: Automaticity
in goal-directed behaviors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 53-63.

Aarts, H., Dijskterhuis, A., & Midden, C. (1999). To plan or not to plan? Goal
achievement of interrupting the performance of mundane behaviors. European Journal
of Social Psychology, 29, 971-979.

Ackerman, P.L., & Heggestad, ED. (1997). Intelligence, personality, and
interests: Evidence for overlapping traits. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 219-245.

Ahissar, M., Laiwand, R., & Hochstein, S. (2001). Attentional demands
following perceptual skill training. Psychological Science, 12, 56-62.

Alliger, G.M., Tannenbaum, S.I., Bennett, W., Traver, H., & Shotland, A. (1997).
A meta-analysis of the relations among training criteria. Personnel Psychology, 50, 341-
358.

Allison, S.T., Worth, L.T., & King, MC. (1990). Group decisions as social
influence heuristics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 801-811.

Ambrose, M.L., & Kulik, CT. (1999). Old fiiends, new faces: Motivation
research in the 1990S. Journal of Management, 25, 231-292.

Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in classroom: Student
learning strategies and motivation process. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 260-
267.

Ashford, S.I., & Northcraft, GB. (1992). Conveying more (or less) than we
realize: The role of impression management in feedback seeking. Organizational

Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 53, 3 1 0-3 34.

165

Atwater, SK. (1953). Proactive inhibition and associative facilitation as affected
by degree of prior learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46, 400-404.

Austin, J. T., & Vancouver, J. B. (1996). Goal constructs in psychology:
Structure, process and content. Psychological Bulletin, 120, 338-375.

Bailey, C., & Clarke, M. (2000). How do managers use knowledge about
knowledge management? Journal of Knowledge Management, 4, 235-243.

Baldwin, T.T. (1992). Effects of alternative modeling strategies on outcomes of
interpersonal skills training. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 147-154.

Baldwin, T.T., & Ford, J .K. (1988). Transfer of training: A review and directions
for future research. Personnel Psychology, 41, 63-103.

Baldwin, T.T., Ford, J .K., & Naquin, SS. (2000). Managing transfer before
learning begins: Enhancing the motivation to improve work through learning. In E.F.
Holton, T.T. Baldwin, & S.S. Naquin (Eds.), Managing and changing learning transfer
systems (pp. 23-35). San Francisco: Berrett-Kohler.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavior change.
Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.

Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American
Psychologist, 37, 122-147.

Bargh, J .A. (1997). The automaticity of everyday life. In R.S. Wyer, Jr. (Ed.),
The automaticity of everyday life: Advances in social cognition (Vol. 10, pp. 1-61).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bassi, L.J., & VanBuren, ME. (1999). The 1999 AST D State of the Industry

Report. Alexandria, VA: American Society for Training and Development.

166

Bates, RA. (2000). Developing managerial competency as learning transfer
agents. In E.F. Holton, T .T. Baldwin, & S.S. Naquin (Eds), Managing and changing
learning transfer systems (pp. 49-62). Advances in developing human resources, 8.

Baumeister, B.F., & Heatherton, T.F. (1996). Self-regulation failure: An
overview. Psychological Inquiry, 7, 1-15.

Bizer, G.Y., & Krosnick, J .A. (2001). Exploring the structure of strength-related
attitude features: The relation between attitude importance and attitude accessibility.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 566-586.

Boekaerts, M., & Niemivirta, M. (2000). Self-regulated learning: Finding a
balance between learning goals and ego-protective goals. In M. Boekaerts, P.R. Pintrich,
& M. Zeidner (Eds), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 417-451). San Diego: Academic
Press.

Boekaerts, M., Pintrich, P.R., & Zeidner, M. (Eds). (2000). Handbook of self-
regulation. San Diego: Academic Press.

Bower, G.H., & Gilligan, S.G. (1979). Remembering information related to
one’s self. Journal of Research in Personality, 13, 420-432.

Briggs, G.E., & Naylor, J .C. (1962). The relative efficiency of several training
methods as a function of transfer task complexity. Journal of Experimental Psychology,
64, 505-512.

Brinkerhoff, R.O., & Montesino, M.U. (1995). Partnership for training transfer:
Lessons fi'om a corporate study. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 6, 263-274.

Broad, M.L., & Newstrom, J .W. (1992). Transfer of training: Action-packed

strategies to ensure high payoff from training investments. Reading, MA: Perseus.

167

Brownlee, S., Leventhal, H., & Leventhal, E.A. (2000). Regulation, self-
regulation, and construction of the self in the maintenance of physical health. In M.
Boekaerts, P.R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 369-
416). San Diego: Academic Press.

Byham, W.C., Adams, D., & Kiggins, A. (1976). Transfer of modeling training
to the job. Personnel Psychology, 29, 345-349.

Campbell, J .P. (1988). Training design for performance improvement. In J .P.
Campbell, R]. Campbell, & Associates (Eds), Productivity in organizations: New
perspectives from industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 177-215). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Cannon-Bowers, J .A., Tannenbaum, S.I., Salas, E., & Converse, SA. (1991).
Toward an integration of training theory and technique. Human Factors, 33, 281-292.

Carver, C.S., Lawrence, J .W., & Scheier, M.F. (1996). A control-process
perspective on the origins of affect. In L.L. Martin & A. Tesser (Eds), Striving and
feeling: Interactions among goals, aflect, and self-regulation (pp. 11-52). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.

Carver, C.S., & Scheier, M.F. (1998). On the self-regulation of behavior. New
York: Cambridge.

Carver, C.S., & Scheier, M.F. (2000). On the structure of behavioral self-
regulation. In M. Boekaerts, P.R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds), Handbook of self-
regulation (pp. 41-84). San Diego: Academic Press.

Caspi, A., & Moffit, T. (1993). When do individual differences matter? A

paradoxical theory of personality coherence. Psychological Inquiry, 4, 247-271.

168

Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155-159.

Colquitt, J .A., LePine, J .A., & Noe, RA. (2000). Toward an integrative theory
of training motivation: A meta-analytic path analysis of 20 years of research. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 85(5), 678-707.

Condino, R., Im-Humber, K., & Stark, RE. (1990). Cognitive processing in
specifically language-impaired children. Journal of Psychology, 124, 465-479.

Connelly, S.L. (1985). Work spirit: Channeling energy for high performance.
Training and Development Journal, 39(5), 50-54.

Coovert, M.D., & Craiger, JP. (1997). Modeling performance and establishing
performance criteria in training systems. In J .K. Ford (Ed.), Improving training
effectiveness in work organizations (pp. 47-71). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Crannell, CW. (1956). Transfer in problem solution as related to the type of
training. Journal of General Psychology, 54, 3-14.

Darley, W.K., & Lim, J. (1992). The effect of consumers’ emotional reactions
on behavioral intention: The moderating role of personal relevance and self-monitoring.
Psychology and Marketing, 9, 329-346.

Davidson, R.J., Ekrnan, P., Saron, C.D., Senulis, J .A., & Friesen, W.V. (1990).
Approach-withdrawal and cerebral asymmetry: Emotional expression and brain
pathology: I. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 330-341.

Deci, EL. (1975). Intrinsic motivation. New York: Plenum.

Dellarosa, D., & Bourne, LE. (1984). Decisions and memory: Differential
retrievability of consistent and contradictory evidence. Journal of Verbal Learning and

Verbal Behavior, 23, 669-682.

169

Digman, J .M. (1959). Growth of a motor skill as a function of distribution of
practice. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 5 7, 310-3 16.

Daugherty, K.M., & Johnston, J .M. (1996). Overleaming, fluency, and
automaticity. Behavior Analyst, 19, 279-292.

Downs, S. (1970). Predicting training potential. Personnel Management, 2, 26-
28.

Duda, J.L., & Tappe, MK. (1988). Predictors of personal investment in physical
activity among middle-aged and older adults. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 66, 543-549.

Duncan, C.P., & Underwood, 8.1. (1953). Transfer in motor learning as a
function of degree of first task learning and inter-task similarity. Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 46, 445-452.

Dweck, CS. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American
Psychologist, 41, 1040-1048.

Dweck, C.S., Bempechat, J. (1983). Children’s theories of intelligence. In S.
Paris, G. Olsen, & H. Stevenson (Eds), Learning and motivation in the classroom (pp.
239-256). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Eitington, J .E. (1996). The winning trainer: Winning ways to involve people in
learning (3rd ed.). Houston, TX: Golf.

Elliot, A.J. (1999). Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals.
Educational Psychologist, 34(3), 169-189.

Elliot, A.J., & Church, MA. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach and
avoidance achievement motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72,

218-232.

170

Elliot, A.J., & Dweck, CS. (1988). Goals: An approach to motivation and
achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 5-12.
Elliot, A.J., Faler, J ., McGregor, H., Campbell, W., Sedikides, C., &

Harackiewicz, J. (2000). Competence valuation as a strategic intrinsic motivation

process. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 780-794.

Elliot, A.J., & Harackiewicz, J .M. (1996). Approach and avoidance achievement

goals and intrinsic motivation: A mediational analysis. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 70, 461-475.
Elliot, A.J., & McGregor, HA. (2001). A 2 x 2 achievement goal framework.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(3), 501-519.
Facteau, J .D., Dobbins, G.H., Russell, J .E.A., Ladd, R.T., & Kudisch, JD.

(1995). The influence of general perceptions of the training environment on pretraining

motivation and perceived training transfer. Journal of Management, 21, 1-25.

Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human

Relations, 7, 117-140.
Fisher, R., & Ury, W. (1991). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without

giving in (2"d ed.). New York: Penguin.

Ford, J .K., & Kraiger, K. (1995). The application of cognitive constructs and
principles to the instructional systems model of training: Implications for needs
assessment, design, and transfer. In C.L. Cooper & I.T. Robertson (Eds), International

review of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 10, pp. 1-48). London: Wiley.

Ford, J .K., Quifiones, M.A., Sego, D.J., & Sorra, J .S. (1992). Factors affecting

he opportunity to perform trained tasks on the job. Personnel Psychology, 45, 511-527

171

 

Ford, J.K., Smith, E.M., Weissbein, D.A., Gully, S.M., & Salas, E. (1998).
Relationships of goal orientation, metacognitive activity, and practice strategies with
learning outcomes and transfer. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 218-233.

Ford, J .K., & Weissbein, DA. (1997). Transfer of training: An updated review

and analysis. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 10(2), 22-41.

Ford, ME. (1992). Motivating humans: Goals, emotions, and personal agency

beliefs. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

F leishman, E. (1953). Leadership climate, human relations training, and

supervisory behavior. Personnel Psychology, 6, 205-222.

Freeman, M.A., Hennessy, E.V., & Marzullo, D.M. (2001). Defensive
evaluation of antismoking messages among college-age smokers: The role of possible
selves. Health Psychologi, 20, 424-433.

Gagne, R.M., & Foster, H. (1949). Transfer to a motor skill from practice on a

pictured representation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 39, 342-354.
Gist, M.E., Bavetta, A.G., & Stevens, CK. (1990). Transfer training method: Its
influence on skill generalization, skill repetition, and performance level. Personnel
psychology, 43, 501-523.
Gick, M.L., & Holyoak, KJ. (1987). The cognitive basis of knowledge transfer.
In S.M. Cormier & J .D. Hagman (Eds), Transfer of training: Contemporary research
and applications (pp. 9-42). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Gist, ME. (1989). The influence of training method on self-efficacy and idea

generation among managers. Personnel Psychology, 42, 787-805.

172

 

Gist, M., Schwoerer, C., & Rosen, B. (1989). Effects of alternative training

methods on self-efficacy and performance in computer software training. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 74, 884-891.
Gist, M.E., Stevens, C.K., & Bavetta, AG. (1991). Effects of self-efficacy and

post-training intervention on the acquisition and maintenance of complex interpersonal

skills. Personnel Psychology, 44, 837-861.
Goff, M., & Ackerrnan, PL. (1992). Personality-intelligence relations:

Assessment of typical intellectual engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84,
537-552.

Goldbeck, R.A., Bernstein, B.B., Hillix, W.A., & Marx, M.H. (1957).
Application of the half split technique to problem solving tasks. Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 53, 330-338.

Goldsmith, T.E., & Kraiger, K. (1997). Applications of structural knowledge
assessment to training evaluation. In J .K. Ford (Ed.), Improving training eflectiveness in
work organizations (pp. 73-96). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Goldstein, LL. (1986). Training in organizations: Needs assessment,

development, and evaluation (2nd ed.). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Gollwitzer, RM. (1999). Implementation intentions: Strong effects of simple

plans. American Psychologist, 54, 493-503.
Gollwitzer, P.M., & Brandstéitter, V. (1997). Implementation intentions and

effective goal pursuit. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 186-199.

Gordon, L.V. (1955). Time in training as a criterion of success in radio code.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 39, 311-313.

173

 

 

Gordon, M.E., & Cohen, S.L. (1973). Training behavior as a predictor of

trainability. Personnel Psychology, 26, 261-272.
Gordon, M.E., & Kleiman, LS. (1976). The prediction of trainability using a

work sample test and an aptitude test: A direct comparison. Personnel Psychology, 29,

243-253.
Gray, J .A. (1994). Personality dimensions and emotional systems. In P. Ekman

& R.J. Davidson (Eds), The nature of emotion: Fundamental questions (pp. 329-331).

New York: Oxford University Press.

Greenwald, AG. (1980). The totalitarian ego: Fabrication and revision of

personal history. American Psychologist, 35, 603-618.

Guttrnan, L. (1954). Some necessary conditions for common factor analysis.

Psychometrika, 19, 149-1 61 .
Hand, H.H., Richards, M.D., & Slocum, J .M. (1973). Organization climate and

the effectiveness of a human relations program. Academy of Management Journal, 16,

185-195.

Harackiewicz, J .M. (1989). Performance evaluation and intrinsic motivation
processes: The effects of achievement orientation and rewards. In D. Buss & N. Cantor

(Eds), Personality psychology: Recent trends and emerging directions (pp. 128-137).

New York: Springer-Verlag.
Harackiewicz, J .M., & Elliot, A.J. (1993). Achievement goals and intrinsic

motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 904-915.

Harris, R.J. (1985). A primer of multivariate statistics (2'1d ed.). Orlando, FL:

Academic Press.

174

 

Higgins, E.T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist,

52(12), 1280-1300.
Higgins, E.T., Roney, C., Crowe, E., & Hymes, C. (1994). Ideal versus ought

predilections for approach and avoidance: Distinct self-regulatory systems. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 276-286.
Horvath, M., Scheu, C.R., & DeShon, RP. (2001). Goal orientation: Integrating

theory and measurement. Paper presented at the 16th Annual Conference of the Society

for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Diego, CA.

Howell, W.C., & Cooke, NJ. (1989). Training the human information processor:
A review of cognitive models. In I.L. Goldstein & Associates (Eds), Training and

development in organizations (pp. 1 2 l - I 82). San Francisco: J ossey-Bass.

Huberty, C.J., & Morris, J .D. (1989). Multivariate analysis versus multiple

univariate analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 302-308.
Huczynski, A.A., & Lewis, J .W. ( 1980). An empirical study into the learning

transfer process in management training. Journal of Management Studies, ml. 227-240.
Jackson, T. Mackenzie, J ., & Hobfoll, SE. (2000). Communal aspects of self-

regulation. In M. Boekaerts, P.R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds), Handbook of self-

regulation (pp. 275-300). San Diego: Academic Press.
James, L.R., & Brett, J .M. (1984). Mediators, moderators, and tests for

mediation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 307-321.
J emmott, J .B., Ditto, P.H., & Croyle, RT (1986). Judging health status: Effects

of perceived prevalence and personal relevance. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 50, 899-905.

175

 

 

Jex, S.M., & Gudanowski, D.M. (1992). Efficacy beliefs and work stress: An

exploratory study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 509-517.

Kaiser, H.F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis.

Educational and Psychological Measurements, 20, 141-151.
Kaiser, HF. (1970). A second generation Little Jiffy. Psychometrika, 35, 401-

417.
Kanfer, R. (1991). Motivation theory and industrial and organizational

psychology. In M.D. Dunnette & L.M. Hough (Eds), Handbook of industrial and

organizational psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 75-170). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting

Psychologists Press.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R.L. (1978). The social psychologr of organizations. NY:

Wiley.
Kirkpatrick, D.L. (1976). Evaluation of training. In R.L. Craig (Ed.), Training

and development handbook (2nd ed., pp. 301-319). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Kirkpatrick, D.L. (1994). Evaluating training programs: The four levels. San

Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Kraiger, K., Ford, J .K., & Salas, E. (1993). Application of cognitive, skill-based,

and affective theories of learning outcomes to new methods of training evaluation.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(2), 311-328.
Lavallee, L.F., & Campbell, J .D. (1995). Impact of personal goals on self-

regulation processes elicited by daily negative events. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 69, 341-352.

176

 

 

Leventhal, H., Singer, R., & Jones, S. (1965). Effects of fear and instructions on

how to cope with danger. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6, 313-321.

Lewin, K., Dembo, T., Festinger, L., & Sears, PS. (1944). Level of aspiration.

In J.M. Hunt (Ed.), Personality and the behavior disorders (Vol. 1, pp. 333-378). New

York: Ronald Press.
Logan, GD. (1988). Toward an instance theory of automatization.

Psychological Review, 95, 492-527.
Lord, R.G., & Maher, KJ. (1991). Cognitive theory in industrial/organizational

psychology. In M.D. Dunnette & L.M. Hough (Eds), Handbook of industrial and

organizational psychology (2‘1d ed., Vol. 2, pp. 1-62). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting

Psychologists Press.
MacDuffie, J .P. (1995). Human resource bundles and manufacturing

performance: Organizational logic and flexible production systems in the world auto

industry. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 48, 197-221.
Maes, S., & Gebhardt, W. (2000). Self-regulation and health behavior: The

health behavior goal model. In M. Boekaerts, P.R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds),

Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 343-368). San Diego: Academic Press.
Maguire, E.A., & Mummery, C.J. (1999). Differential modulation of a common

memory retrieval network revealed by positron emission tomography. Hippocampus, 9,

54-61 .
Mandler, G. (1954). Transfer of training as a firnction of response overleaming

Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47, 411-417.

177

 

 

Markus, H., & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. American Psychologist, 41 ,
954-969.

Markus, H., & Wurf, E. (1987). The dynamic self-concept: A social
psychological perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 38, 299-337.

Martocchio, J .J . (1994). Effects of conceptions of ability on anxiety, self-
eflicacy, and learning in training. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 819-825.

Martocchio, J .J ., & Baldwin, T.T. (1997). The evolution of strategic
organizational training. Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management, 15,
1-46.

Martocchio, J .J ., & Webster, J. (1992). Effects of feedback and cognitive
playfulness on performance in microcomputer software training. Personnel Psychology,
45, 553-578.

Mathieu, J .E., & Martineau, J .W. (1997). Individual and situational influences
on training motivation. In J .K. Ford (Ed.), Improving training effectiveness in work
organizations (pp. 193-221). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Mathieu, J .E., Martineau, J .W., & Tannenbaum, S.I. ( 1993). Individual and
situational influences on the development of self-efficacy: Implications for training
effectiveness Personnel Psychology, 46, 125-147.

Mathieu, J.B., Tannenbaum, S.I., & Salas, E. (1992). Influences of individual
and situational characteristics on measures of training effectiveness. Academy of
Management Journal, 35, 828-847.

Matthews, G., Schwean, V.L., Campbell, S.E., Saklofske, D.H., & Mohamed,

A.A.R. (2000). Personality, self-regulation, and adaptation: A cognitive-social

178

 

 

framework. In M. Boekaerts, P.R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds), Handbook of self-
regulation (pp. 171-207). San Diego: Academic Press.

McGehee, W. (1948). Cutting training waste. Personnel Psychology, 1, 331-
340.

McGehee, W., & Thayer, P.W. (1961). Training in business and industry. New
York: Wiley.

McIntosh, W.D., & Martin LL. (1992). The cybemetics of happiness: The
relation of goal attainment, rumination, and affect. In M.S. Clark (Ed.), Review of
personality and social psychology: Vol. 14. Emotion and social behavior (pp. 222-246).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Midhnott Sol Regintroth. (2001). http://www.midhnottsol.org/roots.
Copyrighted by The Midhnott Sol Regintroth Har Rede.

Millar, K.U., Tessar, A., & Millar, MG. (1988). The effects of a threatening life
event on behavior sequences and intrusive thought: A self-disruption explanation.
Cognitive Therapy and Research, 12, 441-458.

Milne, S.E., Orbell, S., & Sheeran, P. (2000). Prediction and intervention in
health-related behavior: A meta-analytic review of protection motivation theory. Journal
of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 106-143.

Mosel, J .N. (1957). Why training programs fail to carry over. Personnel, 56-64.

Naylor, J .C., & Briggs, GE. (1963). The effect of task complexity and task
organization on the relative efficiency of part and whole training methods. Journal of

Experimental Psychology, 65, 217-224.

179

Neel, R.G., & Dunn, RE. (1960). Predicting success in supervisory training
programs by the use of psychological tests. Journal of Applied Psychology, 44, 358-360.

Neisser, U. (1975). Self-knowledge and psychological knowledge: Teaching
psychology from the cognitive point of view. Educational Psychologist, 11, 158-170.

Nicholls, J .G. (1984). Achievement motivation: Conceptions of ability,
subjective experience, task choice, and performance. Psychological Review, 91, 328-346.

Noe, R.A. (1985). Trainee attitudes and attributes: Neglected influences of
training program effectiveness (Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1985).
Dissertation Abstracts International.

Noe, R.A. (1999). Employee Training and Development. New York: McGraw-
Hill.

Noe, R.A., & Schmitt, N. (1986). The influence of trainee attitudes on training
effectiveness: Test of a model. Personnel Psychology, 39, 497-523.

Noe, R.A., & Wilk, S.L. (1993). Investigation of the factors that influence
employees' participation in development activities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78,
291-302.

Northcrafi, G.B., & Ashford, SJ. (1990). The preservation of self in everyday
life: The effects of performance expectations and feedback context on feedback inquiry.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 4 7, 42-64.

Ohnesorge, C., & VanLancker, D. (2001). Cerebral laterality for famous proper
nouns: Visual recognition by normal subjects. Brain and Language, 7 7, 135-165.

Orbell, S., Hodgkins, S., & Sheeran, P. (1997). Implementation intentions and

the theory of planned behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 945-954.

180

Orbell, S., & Sheeran, P. (2000). Motivational and volitional processes in action
initiation: A field study of the role of implementation intentions. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 30, 780-797.

Ostroff, C., & Ford, J .K. (1989). Assessing training needs: Critical levels of
analysis. In I.L. Goldstein (Ed.), Training and development in organizations. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Owens, W.A., & Schoenfeldt, LR (1979). Toward a classification of persons.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 567-607.

Paas, F .G.W.C. (1992). Training strategies for attaining transfer of problem-
solving skills in statistics: A cognitive overload approach. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 84, 429-434.

Pashler, H., Johnston, J .C., & Ruthruff, E. (2000). Attention and performance.
Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 629-651.

Petty, R.E., & CaciOppo, J .T. (1984). The effects of involvement on responses to
argument quantity and quality: Central and peripheral routes to persuasion. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 69-81.

Petty, R.E., Cacioppo, J .T., & Goldman, R. (1981). Personal involvement as a
determinant of argument-based persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 41, 847-855.

Pintrich, P.R., & DeGroot, E.V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning
components of a classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology,
82, 33-40.

Powers, W.T. (1973). Behavior: The control of perception. Chicago: Aldine.

181

Quifiones, MA. (1995). Pretraining context effects: Training assignment as
feedback. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 226-238.

Quifiones, M.A., Ford, J.K., Sego, D.J., & Smith, E. (1996). The effects of
individual and transfer environment characteristics on the opportunity to perform trained
tasks. Training Research Journal, 1, 29-48.

Rheinberg, F ., Vollmeyer, R., & Rollett, W. (2000). Motivation and action in
self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P.R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds), Handbook
of self-regulation (pp. 503-531). San Diego: Academic Press.

Rogers, W.A., Maurer, T.J., Salas, E., & Fisk, AD. (1997). Training design,
cognitive theory, and automaticity: Principles and a methodology. In J .K. Ford (Ed.),
Improving training effectiveness in work organizations (pp. 19-45). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.

Rothman, A.J., & Schwarz, N. (1998). Constructing perceptions of vulnerability:
Personal relevance and the use of experiential information in health judgments.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 1053-1064.

Rouiller, J .Z., & Goldstein, LL. (1993). The relationship between organizational
transfer climate and positive transfer of training. Human Resource Development
Quarterly, 4(4), 377-390.

Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J .A. (2001). The science of training: A decade of
progress. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 471-499.

Sanbonmatsu, D.M., Shavitt, S., & Sherman, SJ. (1991). The role of personal
relevance in the formation of distinctiveness-based illusory correlations. Personality and

Social Psychology Bulletin, 1 7, 124-132.

182

Sanderson, C.A., & Cantor, N. (1995). Social dating goals in late adolescence:
Implications for safer sexual activity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68,
1121-1134.

Shah, J .Y, & Kruglanski, A.W. (2000). Aspects of goal networks: Implications
for self-regulation. In M. Boekaerts, P.R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds), Handbook of
self-regulation (pp. 85-110). San Diego: Academic Press.

Shamir, B. (1991). Meaning, self, and motivation in organizations. Organization
Studies, 12, 405-424.

Sheeran, P., & Orbell, S. (1999). Implementation intentions and repeated
behavior: Augmenting the predictive validity of the theory of planned behavior.
European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 349-369.

Silberman, M. (1995). 101 ways to make training active. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.

Smith-Jentsch, K.A., Salas, E., & Brannick, M.T. (2001). To transfer or not to
transfer? Investigating the combined effects of trainee characteristics, team leader
support, and team climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 279-292.

Solomon, R.L. (1980). The opponent-process theory of acquired motivation: The
costs of pleasure and the benefits of pain. American Psychologist, 35, 691-712.

Stevens, C.K., & Gist, ME. (1997). Effects of self-efficacy and goal-orientation
training on negotiation skill maintenance: What are the mechanisms? Personnel

Psychblogy, 50, 955-978.

183

Strayer, D.L., & Kramer, AF. (1990). An analysis of memory-based theories of
automaticity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition,
16, 291-304.

Taylor, MC. (1983). The black-and-white model of attitude stability: A latent
class examination of opinion and nonopinion in the American public. American Journal
of Sociology, 89, 373-401.

Terpstra, D.E., & Rozell, El. (1993). The relationship of staffing practices to
organizational level measures of performance. Personnel Psychology, 46, 27-48.

Tesser, A., & Campbell, J .L. (1982). Self-evaluation maintenance and the
perception of friends and strangers. Journal of Personality, 50, 261-279.

Tracey, J .B., Tannenbaum, S.I., & Kavanagh, MJ. (1995). Applying trained
skills on the job: The importance of the work environment. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 80(2), 239-252.

Treisman, A., Vieira, A., & Hayes, A. (1992). Automaticity and preattentive
processing. American Journal of Psychology, 105, 341-362.

Trope, Y., & Pomerantz, EM. (1998). Resolving conflicts among self-evaluative
motives: Positive experiences as a resource for overcoming defensiveness. Motivation
and Emotion, 22, 53-72.

Trost, M.R., & Kenrick, D.T. (1994). Ego involvement in the minority influence
paradigm: The double-edged sword of minority advocacy. In S. Moscovici & A.

Mucchi-Faina (Eds), Minority influence (pp. 149-161). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.

184

Tubiana, J .H., & Ben-Shakar, G. (1982). An objective group questionnaire as a
substitute for a personal interview in the prediction of success in military training in
Israel. Personnel Psychology, 35, 349-357.

Underwood, B.J. (1951). Associative transfer in verbal learning as a function of
response similarity and degree of first-line learning. Journal of Experimental
Psycholog, 42, 44-53.

Vallacher, R.R., & Wegner, D.M. (1987). What do people think they’re doing?
Action identification and human behavior. Psychological Review, 94, 3-15.

Vallacher, R.R., & Wegner, D.M. (1989). Levels of personal agency: Individual
variation in action identification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5 7,
660-671.

VanLancker, D. (1991). Personal relevance and the human right hemisphere.
Brain and Cognition, 17, 64-92.

Verplanken, B., & F aes, S. (1999). Good intentions, bad habits, and effects of
forming implementation intentions on healthy eating. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 29, 591-604.

Vroom, V. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: Wiley.

Warr, P., & Bunce, D. (1995). Trainee characteristics and the outcomes of open
learning. Personnel Psychology, 48, 347-375.

Webster, J ., & Martocchio, J .J . (1993). Turning work into play: Implications for
microcomputer software training. Journal of Management, 19, 127-146.

Weiner, B. (1979). Human motivation. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

185

Weissbein, DA. (2000). Improving training effectiveness through motivation:
Creating a psychological states intervention (Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State
University, 2000). Dissertation Abstracts International, 61, OSB.

Willerman, L., Turner, R.G., & Peterson, M. (1976). A comparison of the
predictive validity of typical and maximal personality measures. Journal of Research in
Personality, 10, 482-492.

Zimmerman, B.J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive
perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P.R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds), Handbook of self-

regulation (pp. 13-39). New York: Academic Press.

186

APPENDICES

187

APPENDIX A

POWER ANALYSIS

Sample Size Requirements (Overall) for Power = .80 (Cohen, 1992)

 

N required for or = .05

 

Hypothesis

Analysis

Small

Medium

Large

 

1a: Transfer behavior will be positively related
to transfer performance. The extent to which
people attempt to apply the trained skills will be
positively related to their transfer performance
scores.

_1_b: Learning will moderate the relationship
between transfer behavior and transfer
performance, such that this relationship will be
more positive when learning is high than when
learning is low.

Regression (2 IV)

481

67

30

 

2: Self-efficacy will be positively related to the
fi'equency and variety of transfer behavior.

_3_a: Competence valuation for the training
content will be positively related to fiequency
and variety of transfer behavior.

3_b: Transfer goal variety will be positively
related to frequency and variety of trans fer
behavior.

3_c: Situational cueing of transfer skills will be
positively related to frequency and variety of
transfer behavior.

Regression (5 IVs)

645

91

42

 

4: Perceived personal relevance of trained skills
will be positively related to competence
valuation.

Regression (2 IVs)

481

67

30

 

5: Self-regulatory focus will significantly

influence goal variety. An approach focus will
be negatively related to goal variety. An avoid
focus will be positively related to goal variety.

Regression (3 IVs)

547

76

34

 

6: Intentions to implement particular trained
skills in particular situations will be positively
related to situational cueing.

Regression (2 IVs)

481

67

30

 

 

2: People who participate in the experimental
transfer motivation intervention, which
incorporates forming connections to personal
higher-order goals, will report higher perceived
personal relevance of the training content than
those who participate in a typical action planning
intervention or receive training without a
transfer intervention.

Regression (3 IVs)

547

76

34

 

 

ANOVA (3 groups)
(Total sample size)

 

966

 

156

 

63

 

188

 

 

N required for a = .05

 

Hypothesis

Analysis

Small

Medium

Large

 

Q: People who participate in the experimental
transfer motivation intervention, which
incorporates setting approach goals and
bounding avoid goals with approach goals, will
report higher approach self-regulatory focus and
lower avoid self-regulatory focus than those who
participate in a typical action planning
intervention or receive training without a
transfer intervention.

8b: Because standard action planning
interventions incorporate approach motivation to
some degree, people who participate in standard
action planning will report higher approach self-
regulatory focus and lower avoid self-regulatory
focus than those who receive training without a
transfer intervention.

Regression (3 IVs)

547

76

34

 

ANOVA (3 groups)
(Total sample size)

966

156

63

 

2: People who participate in the experimental
transfer motivation intervention, which
incorporates connecting behavioral strategies to
particular situations, will report stronger
implementation intentions than those who
participate in a typical action planning
intervention or receive training without a
transfer intervention.

Regression (3 IVs)

547

76

34

 

ANOVA (3 groups)
(Total sample size)

966

156

63

 

 

103: The experimental transfer motivation
intervention will increase the frequency and
variety of transfer attempts through perceived
personal relevance.

Eb: The experimental transfer motivation
intervention will increase the frequency and
variety of transfer attempts through self-
regulatory focus.

199: The experimental transfer motivation
intervention will increase the frequency and
variety of transfer attempts through
implementation intentions.

Regressions
(maximum: 8 IVs)

757

107

50

 

_l_1_a_: Perceived personal relevance will be
positively related to the frequency and variety of
transfer attempts through competence valuation.

LIL: Approach self-regulatory focus will be
positively related to the frequency and variety of
transfer attempts through goal variety.

l_1c_: Implementation intentions will be
positively related to the frequency and variety of
transfer attempts throrgh situational cueirg.

Regressions
(maximum: 8 IVs)

757

107

50

 

 

CONCLUSION:

Based on the sample size requirements to
achieve 80% power for each test at a = .05,
Hypotheses 7-9 demand the largest sample size.

 

 

966

 

156

 

63

 

189

 

APPENDIX B

Participant Number:

 

INFORMED CONSENT

The purpose of this experiment is to investigate how people respond to a training
program (similar to those given in work settings) and how well people are able to use
what they learn in the training program.

The total time required for this experiment is approximately 4 hours over two
nonconsecutive days This time will include several hours of training and practice in
negotiation strategies. We will ask you to fill out various questionnaires during the study
regarding your perceptions, feelings, and understanding of the material being presented.
The final stage of the study involves participating in a negotiation simulation in a one-on-
one format. At the end of the first session, we will arrange a time for the simulation
session (approximately one week after your first session).

All information you provide during the experiment is confidential. Your privacy will be
protected to the maximum extent allowable by law. Only a participant number will
identify you and only the experimenters will have access to your individual responses.
Your responses will be grouped with those of many others in any presentations of this
research. There are no foreseeable risks associated with your participation in this study.

To receive credit for your participation, you must complete both the negotiation training
workshop (session one) and the negotiation simulation (session two). You are free to
withdraw your consent and discontinue participation in this study at any time without
penalty. You can be removed from the study for disruptive behavior. If you are removed
from the study, you will not receive credit for your participation.

If you have any questions or concerns about this study, please contact the investigator,
Karen Milner, at 355-2171 or milnerka@msu.edu. If you have any questions about
participants’ rights as human subjects of research please contact the Chair of the
University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects, Dr. Ashir Kumar, M.D.,
at 355-2180. Please sign below if you agree to participate in this investigation.

1 freely give consent to participate in this investigation.

 

Signature Date

 

Print Your Name

190

APPENDIX C

EXPERIMENT INTRODUCTION SCRIPT

General Welcome
[Identical for all conditions]

Hello. My name is Karen Milner. I am working on my doctorate in Industrial
and Organizational Psychology. The research you are participating in today and next
week is my dissertation work, and I want to thank you for agreeing to take part in it.

I work with many different kinds of organizations — ranging from the Lansing
Police Department to Michigan State Government to a small company in Jackson that
manufactures precision steel tractor parts to a small community bank with a handful of
branch offices. One of the things I am most interested in is helping companies provide
training and development opportunities for their employees that really help people in
their jobs That means providing high-quality training that helps people not only gain
new skills, but also be able to use them after the training is over.

It is similar to how you might think about your college courses. You are learning
lots of stuff in your classes, right? And you’ve already heard stories about how much of
it you are likely to use in the jobs you will have, right? The same thing can happen in
training programs at work — people may learn lots of stuff, but not learn it well enough or
in the right ways to make it useful to them in their day-to-day work (or sometimes it
wasn’t the right stuff to begin with!). Part of my work is to improve the way companies
approach training and helping people get ready to use their skills in their work. The
study you have agreed to participate in today tests some of my ideas about how to do that.

Pre-Training Introduction
[Identical for all conditions]

Throughout the study, I will ask you to tell me about yourself and your
experiences learning and using the negotiation skills that I will present. Please respond
honestly — all of your responses are confidential, and the things you tell me about what
this is like for you will help me do a better job of designing training that will help people
learn skills they need to do their jobs well.

Before we begin the negotiation training, there are a few questions I would like to
ask you to answer about yourself. You will read the questions from your participant
workbook and respond by filling in the appropriate bubble on your response form. Please
read the instructions carefully, make sure you know what response each bubble
represents so you don’t accidentally fill them in backwards, and keep track of what item
number you are on so your responses are entered in the right place. If you have any

191

questions about what an item means or how the response sheet works, please raise your
hand and I will come over and help you.

Please open your workbook to the first section and respond to items 1 through 11.
When everyone is finished, we will begin the training.

Negotiation Training Introduction
[Identical for all conditions]

The training program you will participate in today has been designed to help you
improve your negotiation skills. It will cover a variety of strategies that are useful for
one-on-one negotiations. Although there are dozens of potential negotiation strategies,
including unethical tricks and the common threat, we will focus on above-board
strategies you can use to be an effective negotiator.

The strategies included in this training program have been drawn from two major
areas: principled bargaining and assertiveness. I don’t take credit for developing these
strategies. Principled bargaining concepts were developed at Harvard and tested on
Harvard MBA students. Assertiveness is a popular area in social psychological research
and corporate training, and these concepts are also well-tested. Although we will be
focusing on strategies for one-on-one negotiations, these perspectives and strategies are
also increasingly popular in many business relationships where negotiation is almost a
daily reality, such as in collective bargaining (where employee unions negotiate contracts
with organizations) and arbitration (where a third party helps people or groups settle
apparently irreconcilable differences).

The training you will participate in today will be fast-paced. This program has
been condensed from a much longer course in order to cover the strategies effectively in
a minimum amount of time. People have paid anywhere fiom $500 to $1000 for the full-
length version of such courses. We will cover four sets of negotiation strategies during
the workshop today, and you will have a chance to practice the strategies as we go
through them. At times, you will be asked to practice the strategies with the group; other
times you will complete individual written exercises. During all of the practice
opportunities, please focus on learning the strategies as well as you can so you will be
able to use them after the training. Don’t worry about making mistakes — your mistakes
may even help you and others learn how to use the strategies better.

Transfer Plannimr Introduction
[Given prior to training. Slightly tailored for the control condition receiving training
only, as shown below]

[Control condition with training only.] Following the training today, I will ask
you to respond to some items to let me know about your experiences participating in the
training today. Then we will arrange a time for you to return in approximately one week
to participate in the negotiation simulation portion of the study, and you will be
dismissed.

192

[Control condition with action planning and experimental condition with transfer
planning] Following the training today, I will guide you through an action planning
exercise. This exercise is specifically designed to help you use the negotiation strategies
you will learn today. You will receive a copy of your action plan to take home. After the
action plans are completed, I will ask you to respond to some items to let me know about
your experiences participating in the training today. When you have responded to those
items, we will arrange a time for you to return in approximately one week to participate
in the negotiation simulation portion of the study, and you will be dismissed.

193

APPENDIX D

GET WHAT YOU WANT — NEGOTIATION STRATEGIES

Odors from decaying food wafting through the air when the door is
opened, colorful mold growing between a wet gym uniform and the damp
carpet underneath, and the complete supply of bath towels scattered
throughout the bedroom can become wonderful opportunities to help your
teenager learn once again that the art of living in a community requires
compromise, negotiation, and consensus.

Barbara Coloroso,
Parent educator and author.
Kids Are Worth It (1994) Chapter 9.

You may not realize it, but negotiation is something you do every day. People differ, and
we use negotiation to settle our differences and come to agreement. Negotiation is a fact

of life—it is how you get what you want from others, and how others get what they want

from you. When each side has some interests that are shared and others that are opposed,
negotiation finds the balance.

Just because we use negotiation fi'equently doesn’t mean it’s easy to do well, though.
Many of the negotiation strategies we learn leave us dissatisfied and exhausted, and
damage our relationships with others. We tend to see negotiation as being about “getting
our way” versus “giving in.” We know the outcome we want, and we argue for it until
we feel that the other side is stronger, and then they win and we lose.

The Position Approach to Negotiation

The approach to negotiation described above is called the Position Approach. It is the
approach most of us learned in childhood and have been practicing ever since. It begins
when each side expresses the outcome we would like (our position). We go through
several rounds of give and take with our opponent, reluctantly granting concessions from
our initial positions and trying to trick our opponent into backing down, until finally we
end up somewhere in the middle.

In the position approach, negotiation is a game. Both sides start with exaggerated
positions, and know that the other side is doing that too. Neither side believes the other
side is serious, and each side selectively chooses information that supports their own
position, ignoring information that supports the other side or considering it invalid. In the
end, the person that is most unreasonable will usually get the better split. Neither side is
pleased with the negotiated decision, and the side that has lost more feels particularly
bitter.

194

The Isspe Approach to Negotiation

There is an alternative to the position approach to negotiation that is almost always more
successful in both the short and long term. It is called the issue approach. The M
Approach involves focusing on interests rather than outcomes, inventing win-win
solutions, using objective criteria rather than force, and separating the people from the
problem being negotiated.

In the issue approach, negotiation becomes an information exchange. Each side
expresses the underlying issues that are important to them, but remains flexible about the
exact means for satisfying those issues. Discussion and creativity lead to ideas about
how to best satisfy the issues for each side. Wherever possible, mutual gains are sought;
where interests truly conflict, fair standards are used based on the merits of the issues. In
the end, both sides win, suffering losses only where their demands were objectively
unreasonable.

The training you will receive today is based on the issue approach to negotiation. The
issue approach was developed by Roger Fisher and William Ury, director and co-founder
of the Harvard Negotiation Project, which was undertaken to answer the question, “What
is the best way for people to deal with their differences?” After years of research, Fisher
& Ury answered that question with issue-based negotiation, and the skills you will learn
today.

Four Negotiation Strengths

There are four basic negotiation strengths we are going to cover. The four strengths are
listed on your review page. I am going to describe specific strategies that make up each
of the strengths, and you will have a chance to practice them during the workshop today.
Then you will be able to try them out in your own life, as well as when you return for
Part 2 of this experiment.

195

Strength #1 - Negotiation Attitude
We will start with the most fundamental negotiation strength - your Negotiation Attitude.

Many things are going on all at once during a negotiation. Focusing on the details of
what your opponent is offering and requesting, what you are going to offer and request,
and what strategies you will use to get what you want, you may forget one of the most
important aspects of negotiation—how you come across to your opponent.

There are two parts of your Negotiation Attitude that are critical to your success:
Confidence and Contained Enthusiasm. Let’s look at them one at a time.

Confidence

Confidence is critical to successful negotiation. If you don’t appear confident about your
issues, how will you expect the other person to take them seriouslyf? They will try to get
you to give up your desires instead of trying to accommodate them. Without being
brutish, you have to make it very clear that your issues are important to you and that the
only outcomes that will be acceptable to you will satisfy your issues in some way.

What are some behaviors that demonstrate confidence?

0 Steady eye contact
0 No laser eyes
0 No evasive space-staring
o No looking over their shoulder
0 Strong, still posture
o No tension
0 No fidgeting
o No trying to sink into your chair
0 Calm, determined tone of voice
0 No nervous trembling
o No meekness and whispering
0 Direct, clear words
0 No “Could you possibly. . .?” “Maybe...” “About...”
0 State exactly what you want them to do or consider

By demonstrating confidence, you make it clear to your opponent that your issues need to

be taken seriously. Without having to bully or threaten, you convey that your requests
are reasonable and that you expect them to be included in whatever agreement is reached.

196

Contained Enthusiasm

The second important part of your Negotiation Attitude is Contained Enthusiasm. When
someone makes you an offer that could meet your interests, it is reasonable to be
enthusiastic, and to show it. BUT you need to let your opponent know that they are
hitting on something that works for you without throwing away the opportunity for
further negotiation by sounding too excited.

To keep the negotiation rolling and maintain leverage, it is appropriate to express some
pleasant enthusiasm but to keep it contained. For example:

0 Let’s say that you have just told me you want to buy my car.
0 What would you think if my response was, “I’m so glad you like
it! You’re the only person who’s come to see it!”
o What if instead, I responded with, “Yeah, it’s a great car. I’m glad
you have an interest in it.”
Exercise

Now you try it. I will make you an offer. On your review sheet, write down a BAD
example of how you might respond.

0 “I would like to hold this job for you until after you graduate from MSU.
I will pay you $200,000 per year with full benefits and 6 weeks of
vacation.”

0 Write down an incorrect way to accept my offer. (e.g., “Wow, that
sounds great! When can I start?”)

0 Now write down a response that would show Contained
Enthusiasm. (e.g., “I’m excited about getting started in the
industry. I appreciate your faith in me.”)

0 Now find a partner and SHARE your responses with each other.

0 Ask for best bad and best good example from each pair.

By showing Contained Enthusiasm, you make it clear to your opponent that the
discussion is on a track that you find interesting, but also that you still have additional
interests that need to be satisfied. You make it clear that you do not believe a final
solution has been reached yet, and that you are not willing to just jump at the offer
they’ve given you.

Be prepared by knowing what would really excite you, and focus on containing your
enthusiasm during the negotiation. Afier you get what you want, you can go home and
dance a little jig about your success in achieving it.

What kind of negotiation attitude should you portray? The key is to be right in the
middle. You need to be firm about the issues that are important to you—not aggressive
and not wishy-washy. You also need to show a “just right” level of excitement about
how the negotiation is going—not appear to be too satisfied too soon, and not appear to
be to aloof and disinterested.

197

Strength #2 - Research & Objectivity

The second key strength in negotiating involves knowing what you are talking about and
being able to show that you’re not the only one who sees it this way.

This strength can help you in two ways:

1.

You can use research and objectivity to give your own issues and proposed outcomes
more weight in the negotiation—to show that what you are offering or asking for is
reasonable.

You can use research and objectivity to demonstrate that your opponent’s position
and demands are unreasonable anchors.

Remember that one of the biggest downfalls of position-based negotiation is that
often the most unreasonable person wins. They are often able to do this by getting
their opponent (you) to negotiate based on an unreasonable anchor.

What is an anchor? An anchor is a psychological trick negotiators use to try to take
advantage of opponents who don’t know what they’re talking about. For instance, if
I’m selling a piece of fumiture and you ask me how much I want for it, I might say
“$100.” I may know the piece is only worth $50, but I want to try to get as much as I
can for it, and you might not know it’s only worth $50. So you will start negotiating
me down from $100, and you might be happy if I drop my price to $70! But you
would be paying way too much for the piece of furniture.

Research and Objectivity allows you to show your opponent that you know how
unreasonable they are being and that you know better than to let them pressure you.
Stating objective standards shows that you know what you are talking about and that
you are trying to negotiate a fair outcome.

Using this strength includes two parts: Knowing the Ballpark and Stating the Contrast.

Know the Ballpark

The key to using this strength is that you have to do your homework. You have to do
some research and find information to use as a standard. Make sure you are
knowledgeable about similar negotiations and their outcomes.

0 Know how what you are offering and asking stacks up against others, and
know the ballpark you should expect your opponent to be in.

0 Make sure you obtain your information from good sources, so your
opponent can’t just dismiss it as invalid.

0 Compare apples to apples.

198

State the Contrast

Once you Know the Ballpark, this strength is easy to use. You need to do three things:
1. State the contrast
2. State your source

3. Point out similarities that make it a good comparison

For instance:

0 “I have looked up all of the house sales in this neighborhood over the past two
years in the town’s public records. Other houses of similar age and size in this
neighborhood have sold for $10K less.”

0 “The Kelly Blue Book value of the car is $1,000 less than what you are asking for
this particular vehicle and condition.”

0 “Mom, a 2.5 in Math 103 is good. It’s above the average for the class, which our
professor gave us for the past five years.”

0 “At the student book stores, used texts are typically at least 50% off, and they
don’t have this much writing in them.”

Exercise

Now you try it. Suppose you are trying to buy a used computer from a friend of yours.
The computer is several years old, but your friend is only reducing the price a little bit.
When you suggested a much lower price, he said, “You’re nuts! This is a great
computer! I’ve never had any problems with it or anything!” You suggest that you talk
more about it later.

How might you be able to use Research and Objectivity to show your friend that you’re
not being unreasonable? What information would you need to use as a contrast? Write
down what you would say to your friend the next time you talk with him about the
computer.

Now share your reply with your partner.

Ask for best examples from each pair.

199

Strength #3: Focus on Interests

The heart of negotiation is finding an agreement that meets BOTH your interests and
your opponents’ interests. The best agreements result when you can focus on interests
and discuss various ways to meet them, instead of focusing on positions and outcomes.

Focusing on Interests includes six strategies. We’ll go through them one at a time.
Issues before Resolutions

Most people negotiate using the Position Approach, because that is what they are used to.
Your opponent will jump directly to his or her offer and expect you to state your counter-
offer right away.

Also, there are many times in negotiations when one side might wish to bring the matter
to a rapid conclusion to reduce the chances that they will have to make concessions.

For instance, if you are coming to buy my car, and I am asking $7,000 for it, we both
pretty much know that I am not later going to raise my asking price UP to $9,000. I’m
only going to be negotiated DOWN from my asking price. Therefore, I will try to sell
you the car quickly to prevent you from being able to talk the price down. If I can get
you to go directly to the price, I don’t have to hear your arguments, but can have you
adjust from my anchor right now.

In a negotiation, you may need to suggest that the two sides place Issues before
Resolutions in order to have an opportunity to find out your opponent’s interests and to
voice your own. This technique involves suggesting that there are other things to discuss
before you get around to discussing the positions. The purpose is to keep the negotiation
open. With the negotiation open, both sides can express and clarify their interests, look
for alternative ways of meeting them, and determine priorities.

To use this technique, you simply explicitly say:
0 “There are some issues I’d like to consider before we discuss the final salary.”

0 “Before we get to a specific arrangement, there are some things I’d like to talk
about.”

This technique is also helpful when your opponent tries to get you to state a position
(e.g., what you are willing to pay, or your salary range). Don’t answer them!! Instead,
steer the negotiation toward issues instead of positions. Say that you aren’t even willing
to talk about the final solution yet. Then follow up with the next strategy...

200

Target Opmnent’s Interests

Think about this for a second -- When is your opponent going to be most inclined to meet
your interests? (When you are meeting their interests.)

We often forget this simple leverage point during negotiations. In the position approach,
we learn that we have to focus on our OWN interests — if WE don’t, no one else will. But
you really stand to gain more when you emphasize your opmnent’s interests and state
how you can meet them.

You have to take your opponent’s point of view. What are THEY trying to get out of
this? What are THEIR priorities? “1 want you to lower the price because I am already in
debt” is not speaking with their interests in mind. You have to give THEM a reason to
want to lower the price.

In most cases, your opponent’s interests will not be clear. Your opponent may not
volunteer information about the reasons for their position, offers, and demands. Instead,
they may just say,

“We’re prepared to offer you $40,000 as a starting salary, plus medical
and dental insurance, and you would have to start work in two wee .”

It is a mistake to assume that you understand everything your opponent is interested in.
In most negotiations, people have many different interests underlying the outcomes they
want. There may be things your opponent is contending with that you are not taking into
account. What are some interests that may be underneath the offer I just gave?

Discovering Opponent’s Interests

Using this strategy requires two things: (1) you must discover your opponent’s interests,
and (2) you must directly appeal to their interests. First, you can discover their interests
by:

0 Asking them directly. Use language and a tone that seeks understanding rather
than justification to avoid making them defensive. “What is your concern in
asking for that?” “What things make for a good employee here?”

0 Asking “Why not?” Why don ’t they wish to meet your interests? From their
point of view, what are the pros and cons associated with meeting your interests?

The Why Not side can be just as helpful as asking them what their interests are. If you
can discover what is making your opponent say NO, you can understand their priorities
(e.g., looking for someone right away and therefore willing to pay higher vs. keeping
salary lower is more important but they could wait for you to finish school). If you feel
you are at a stalemate with your opponent, you may be able to discover important
interests that have not been included in the discussion that provide new opportunities for
exchanges and agreement.

201

Stating How You Can Meet Their Interests

Then, make direct appeals to their interests. Force them to consider alternatives besides
the specific outcomes they have in mind for satisfying their interests. Clearly describe to
them how what you have to offer meets their interests (NOT how they meet yours!).
Give them reasons to say “Yes!”

0 “I understand that a big concern for you is whether a new college grad like myself
has enough experience to be able to do this job. I have done internships for the
past two years and have made it a point to interview people about their job
successes and failures so that I could learn through their experiences in addition to
my own.”

Exercise

You and your best fiiend have decided to get an apartment together after graduation.
You have both landed jobs in the same city. You want to live in the city, but your friend
wants to live outside of the city. Your friend has voiced the following arguments. What
do you think are the underlying interests behind what your fiiend’s arguments? What
interests would you appeal to in trying to convince him or her to live in the city?

Friend’s Stated Arguments

Cities are noisy

Crime rates in the city are higher

Family and friends live in the suburbs

Car insurance is too expensive in the city

I know a nice area only 15 miles outside of the city
The same money buys larger apartments in the suburbs

Group Discussion

Let’s work all together this time, but I want to hear from at least one member of each pair
for these questions.

1. What are the apparent interests behind your best friend’s arguments?
2. How could you discover or confirm your assumptions about his or her interests?

3. How would you appeal to your fiiend’s interests to convince him or her to live in
the city?

202

If. . .Then

The third strategy that focuses on interests makes the interests of one person contingent
on the interests of the other person. You connect the interests by saying that IF one of
them happens, THEN the other will happen. If. . .Then options look out for the interests
of both sides by tying important outcomes together: “IF this happens (my interest),
THEN that happens (your interest).”

If. . .Then options are often used as protection. One side may be concerned about the
ability of the other side to live up to an obligation. Thus, a benefit desired by the doubted
opponent is made dependent on the fiilfillment of the obligation. You can use this
strategy when you have doubts about your opponent’s ability to follow through, or to
reassure an opponent who has doubts in your ability to follow through on something you
know you can do.

For instance:
0 “IF a mechanic checks out the car and says it’s OK, THEN I’ll buy it.”
0 “IF the house is completed by March, THEN the builder gets a bonus.”

0 “How about we agree to a review of my performance in six months and IF
it is acceptable THEN my salary increases by $5,000?”

203

Unique Features

Another strategy focused on interests involves pointing out the Unique Features included
in what you are offering that appeal to your opponent. This involves suggesting that
something you are offering your opponent can’t be found elsewhere and can’t be
removed or held back. It is a perk, or extra, that is worth compensation. It might be
beyond normal interests or expectations, but it is still appealing or meets interests your
opponent may not have considered.

There are three keys to using the Unique Features strategy:
1. Clearly state what the feature is.

2. Describe why you believe the feature is worth compensation according to your
opponent’s interests.

3. State what level of compensation you believe the feature is worth.

For instance:

I “This is a numbered painting in a limited series, which makes it more valuable to
you in terms of its uniqueness and resale value. The uniqueness and value are
worth $300 on top of the value of the painting itself.”

- “Our company is the only one in the state licensed to offer you this product,
saving you import taxes. Our prices may seem higher than out-of-state
competitors, but since you pay no import taxes with us, we are actually less costly
for you.”

204

Seek & Grant Compensatorv Offers

 

In any negotiation, we usually want more than one thing at the same time. Any position
we take in a negotiation reflects a number of underlying interests, which we try to satisfy
as best we can. Our opponent does the same thing.

Because of the numerous interests involved on both sides of the negotiation, you can
often attempt to balance a shortcoming in one area with gains in another. Compensatog
Offers are compromises that make up for a lack in one area by providing more in another
area that might have lower priority but is still important.

If your opponent has pointed out a weakness of yours, you can offer to compensate by
offering something else your opponent values. For instance:

0 Keep the price of the watch the same, but add a better watchband.

0 Offer to make up for weak technical skills by applying your strengths as team
leader of a special project.

You can also try to get your opponent to compensate for his or her weaknesses by
offering you something else that meets another interest of yours. If they have no control,
or won’t budge but you’re still not satisfied, you try to get them to compensate you in
some area they do have control over, or that they are willing to concede on, or that is
outside the main area of the negotiation.

For example:

0 When your opponent has gone as far as you think he or she will in one area, but
might be willing to give more in another area of interest to you.

0 Take the salary being oflered, but add another week of vacation time.

0 When your opponent doesn’t have control over some aspects of the situation, but
does have control over others.

0 “There is no apartment with more closet space, but 1 do have a storage space in
the basement that is not being used which you could have. "

a When one side can meet important interests of the other side at little cost to
themselves.

0 Keep the price of the car the same, but arrange better financing to save the buyer
money.

205

Role Plaflixercise

For this exercise, you will be working with a partner on a negotiation role play. Please
pair up with someone near you. If we have an odd number, form one team of three and
have two people play the employer position together.

Introduce yourself and decide who would like to act as the employer and who would like
to be the employee.

-) Hand out role descriptions

You will have five minutes to prepare for the role play, and then ten minutes to act it out
with each other. When the time is up, we will talk about strategies people used and how
effective they seemed to be.

206

Role 1: Employer

You have five minutes to prepare for the negotiation. Take some time to consider the
interests of both your side and the job candidate ’s side in the negotiation. Review the
negotiation strategies we 've covered so far and write some notes about how you can
practice each of them in the negotiation. F eel free to be creative. Then, negotiate with
your opponent to strike a deal! !

Who you are — A hiring manager looking for a good employee

Your Situation:

You work for a big company with plenty of resources

Your company’s name carries prestige - people want to work for you

You have a big competitor, Tyson Corporation, you’re always competing with
You need the person you hire to start right away — in one week

Ideally, you would like to pay $50,000, which is at the low end of the market

You are willing and authorized to go up to $65,000

Your company offers a standard benefits package, no flexibility (health and dental
insurance, 2 weeks of vacation, 401K matching)

The job is in a big city, and you can pay moving costs up to $2,000

Candidate’s Strengths:

You think the candidate has very good skills

You’re impressed with the candidate’s technical knowledge

It’s hard to find someone with the computer skills this candidate has
The candidate is a good student

Candidate’s Weaknesses:

You have concerns about the candidate’s experience

The candidate has very little project management experience, and will be
expected to lead project teams

You think you can get others who are fresh out of school cheaper

The candidate will need training

Think About:

Your interests

Your goals

How will you use your negotiation strategies to strike a deal with this candidate
that you can feel comfortable with?

STARTING OFFER = $45,000

207

Role 2: Employee

You have five minutes to prepare for the negotiation. Take some time to consider the
interests of both your side and the company ’s side in the negotiation. Review the
negotiation strategies we ’ve covered so far and write some notes about how you can
practice each of them in the negotiation. F eel flee to be creative. Then, negotiate with
your opponent to strike a deal!!

Who you are — A person fresh out of college and looking for a job!

Your Situation:
0 This company is a big one, and their name carries prestige
0 People leaving this company typically get big salaries elsewhere
0 The company has a big competitor, Tyson Corporation, and you are looking at

them too

You have student loans to pay off — about $15,000

The market appears to show the range from $40,000 to $80,000, average $55,000
Student insurance runs out when you graduate in two weeks

Working for this company will require you to move to a new city with a high cost
of living

Your Strengths:

You think you have very good skills

Relative to most people, you have strong technical knowledge
You have much better computer skills than most people

You have won awards for your computer programming

You are a very good student

Your Weaknesses:

You don’t have much work experience
You don’t have any other offers yet

Think About:

Your interests

Your goals

How will you use your negotiation strategies to strike a deal with this employer
that you can feel comfortable with?

208

N ggotiation J uiitsu

Sometimes your opponent will point out, or even attack, you or your position or interests.
They’ll point out your weaknesses. Your temptation might be to dig in and defend
yourself or to counterattack. If they push you, you might be tempted to push back.

However, this may lead you to fall back into position-based bargaining. They lock into
their position and attack, and you defend yourself and get locked into your position.

When your opponent forcefully states his or her position or attacks you or your position
and interests, instead of pushing back, simply step aside. This is called Negotiation
Jujitsu. You simply sidestep their attack and deflect it on the problem instead of yourself.
Rather than getting defensive, you agree with their point but reframe the attack into
something positive. Wow!

The keys to using this strategy well are to:
I. Agree with the criticism. Don’t try to downplay it or justify it.
2. Turn the exact same thing into a positive from their point of view (glass half full).

Potential Client: Come on, your company is puny! You’ve never handled an account
this size! Your company could go under and we’d be stuck.

Advertising Guy: It is true that you would be our biggest client. However, we have a
great deal of experience with other good-sized accounts. Plus, our
size ensures that you’ll know who you’re dealing with, and you’ll be
our top priority. And by signing with us, you’d be helping to ensure
our continued security.

Potential Buyer: This car is old and has 30,000 miles on it! You must be stupid
thinking you can get that kind of money for it.

Seller: Yes, the car does have some years and some miles on it, and I can see
that it would be a concern. But, when you consider the fact that it is
five years old and has only 30,000 miles on it, you can see that’s only
6,000 miles per year. Less than most used cars.

Father: I’m not going to give you any money to buy a car. At your age, you
should be able to buy one yourselfl

Grown Kid: Yes, Dad, I agree that most 23-year-olds are monetarily independent,
but most of them are not as dedicated to school and volunteering as I
am.

Notice in each example that the person does not disagree with the point being made. In
fact, they agree with the attack but then refrarne it into a strength.

When you use this technique, don’t just make excuses. “You’re right, but I’m just a
student” isn’t good enough. You have to find a strength!

209

Negotiation Jujitsu Exercise

The first thing you need to get used to is not getting upset when you’re attacked. Realize
that in a negotiation, your opponent just wants to get you off balance. I’m going to throw
some attacks at you and I want you to just practice calmly agreeing with them and
pointing out an associated strength that will appeal to my interests.

0 “You don’t know anything about negotiation!”

Now practice turning attacks into strengths. Imagine that you work for an airline. Your
company is in trouble, and you’re trying to merge with another airline to keep it afloat.
You and a committee had an emergency meeting and sketched out some initial ideas, and
you are presenting them to the Board of Directors of the airline you are interested in
merging with. Here are some potential criticisms from them. How could you use
Negotiation Jujitsu to turn these comments around?

(Have them write responses to each one. Then share with a partner.)
0 “Your proposal is totally unclear about the details.”

0 “Your company is another one of those ‘employee-owned’ failures. No wonder
you’re looking for a merger.”

0 “Don’t you think you are wasting your time and ours coming here so early in the
process?”

0 “Your proposal overlooks the fact that despite your new equipment, you have a
horrible ‘on time’ record. We pride ourselves in our time record. Maybe this is a
bad fit.”

Notice that it will be easier to use Negotiation Jujitsu if you can anticipate the criticisms
ahead of time and be prepared to respond to them. Preparation is critical in negotiation!

<< 5 Minute Break >>

210

Strength #4: React with Assertiveness
Be Silent

Let’s pretend that you are trying to buy my car. We both know it’s worth about $10,000,
but you decide to come in with a low ball offer. You decide to try $4,000. Go ahead and
offer me $4,000 for the car.

What did that response convey?
0 “Come on, that’s not a serious offer. That’s not even worth responding to.”

Maintaining Silence is a technique that involves responding to an inadequate offer or
answer to a question by simply saying nothing. The length of the silence should be long
enough to make the other person uncomfortable. A good rule of thumb is to count 10
seconds and just keep looking at your opponent. Ideally, your opponent should be the
one to break the silence.

Silence is a powerfiil tool in communication. Although we don’t usually notice a brief
silence, longer silences at important times can be very useful. Most people get
uncomfortable with silence, especially if they have just said something that they expect
you to respond to. They will usually feel the need to explain further, or even
acknowledge that their offer or answer was poor. The silence is a stalemate, and they
want to get things going again.

To use silence:

- If your opponent makes an offer that is unreasonable, just stay quiet, maintain
some eye contact (you don’t have to stare them down), and use facial expressions
and body language that subtly convey that you don’t think the offer is adequate.

- If your opponent provides an insufficient answer to a question, remain silent.
Keep looking at them as if you expect them to say more.

0 Be committed. Silence is not effective unless you hang in there and pressure your
opponent to respond.

211

Broken Record

One assertiveness guru likes to say, “You lose because you give up too easily.” On many
issues, people only have so many “No”s in them. By being persistent and not giving up
after the first one, you have a much better chance for success. We’re trained to be “nice”
and try to please people. So, most of us feel that we can’t just ignore the “No” and keep
demanding what we want if someone doesn’t appear to be interested in helping us But
the reality is - you CAN ignore the “N o” and continue to ask for what you want.

It is important to be persistent and keep saying the same thing over and over again — like
a Brolgr Record. On top of that, you need to stay calm. Don’t get irritated, angry,- or
loud. Just keep repeating what you want calmly but firmly. So, there are two steps:

(1) Tell your opponent whaLvou want him or her to do. Be clear and succinct. Many
people skip this step. For example, when we complain about a product or service, we
have a remedy in mind (“This food was horrible. I want them to take this off the
bill.”) But, when we complain, we end up just telling them what was wrong, without
clearly stating what we want them to do (“This food was horrible”). Then they might
just offer you another one. You should say, “I would like this taken off the bill,

please.”

(2) Repeat your request calmly but firmly. Don’t get caught up in too much talking when
someone tells you “why” or gives you a “reason” for not doing what you want. Don’t
become irate and unreasonable — you will just give them reasons to justify ignoring
you. Just repeat your request.

The Broken Record technique is particularly useful when your opponent does not appear
to be listening or is not responding to your requests or interests.

Example: True story. I picked up a pizza, and they accidentally gave me a supreme loaded with stuff I
don’t like. And charged me for it. It seemed expensive, but I didn’t think much of it at the time. When I
got home, I realized what had happened, so I drove back, explained what had happened, and asked for the
correct pizza and my money back. The woman said “No.” It went like this:

Customer:
Employee:
Customer:
Employee:
Customer:
Employee:
Customer:

Manager:

Customer:

Manager:

Customer:

Manager:

Customer:

Manager:

I’d like my money back please. It was $5 extra that I was charged.

We can give you the pizza, but I’m not sure about the money.

I’d like my $5 please.

Well, how about some more breadsticks?

I don’t need any more food. I’d like my $5.

I can’t do that. Only my manager can.

I understand. Please get the manager so I can get my $5 back.

(After explanation) But, you see, you don’t have a receipt.

You didn’t give me a receipt, but I’ve returned the wrong pizza to you, and I’d like my $5
Well, we throw the receipts away (points to a big bucket full). Without a receipt, I can’t
refund any money. How about some breadsticks or salad, or a large drink?

No, I have plenty of food. I understand that it’s a problem, but I didn’t throw the receipt
away, you did. So I’d like my $5 back.

Look, ma’am, people behind you are waiting.

Yes, I’m waiting too. I understand that you want to serve them, but I want my $5 back.
(annoyed) Lucy, find the receipt in that pile and give her the money back.

212

Speak Up about Bad Behavior

There are lots of dirty tricks people can use in negotiations. Your opponent may try to
make you feel uncomfortable and catch you off guard. For example:

Non-verbal signs of annoyance — sighs, refusal to make eye contact, pencil
tapping, etc.

Threats and insults - “You must be an idiot to ask for that.”

Physical location — make you feel uncomfortable and off balance by putting you
in a low chair, with light in your eyes, having your back to a busy open door, etc.

Good cop/bad cop — Two people negotiate with you. One person attacks you
while the other acts as if they’re on your side and are trying to help and protect
you. They want you to bond with them and give in to them.

There are three nonproductive responses most people make to these tactics:

Ignore the bad behavior and hope things turn around, which conveys that it is OK
with you to be treated in those ways and gives the other person power.

Try to appease the person by giving in a bit, which rewards the bad behavior.

Fight fire with fire — they make threats, you make threats. This usually leads to
neither side getting what they want, and even to dropping the negotiation entirely.

What are some more useful responses you can have to such behavior?

(1) Tactfully address the behavior. You don’t have to accuse them or get angry, but

calmly point out their behavior. Most of the time, they expect you not to addreSs
it or even realize it is happening. Addressing it can make your opponent feel silly
or petty.

(2) State your desires and maintain your principles. Tell them what you would like

for them to do. When possible, back it up with a principle.

0 “Excuse me, is something wrong? You seem distracted. Perhaps we should
do this another time.”

o “I seem to be facing the sun here. Why don’t we close the blinds a bit before
we continue.”

0 “The salary you suggested seems very low. I think we need to determine the
price based on fair and objective standards.”

213

Role Play Exercise

Let’s try another role play. This time, we’ll focus on the assertiveness strategies you’ve
just learned, but feel flee to practice the other strategies too. This role play will work
basically the same way as the last one. Pair up with your partner again, only this time,
swap employee and employer roles

'9 Hand out role descriptions

You will have a few minutes to plan your negotiation strategies. Then you will have time
to negotiate to an agreement and we will discuss how well you were able to use the
strategies.

214

Role 1: Employer

You have five minutes to prepare for the negotiation. Read the description and pay
special attention to the negotiation tactics you should use in your role play (described at
the bottom of this page). Focus on trying to put your opponent of balance so that you
can keep the salary as low as possible. In this negotiation, your job is to make it difficult
for your opponent to focus on issues — but be responsive when they use eflective
strategies. F eel free to be creative. Then, negotiate with your opponent to strike a deal! !

Who you are — A hiring manager looking for a good employee
Your Situation:

You work for a mid-sized company and don’t have a lot of resources
Your boss is sick of looking and wants you to fill the position soon!
You are not authorized to offer more than $42,000
You know bi gger firms offer more money
You have great benefits
0 Health and dental insurance, 2 weeks vacation, 401K matching, $1,000
personal development money the candidate could use for training, etc.
0 Benefits kick in after six months, but exceptions are often made
0 You can give up to 1 week additional vacation if you need to
You are given $5,000 to use any way you want — to give a l-time bonus, moving
costs, etc.

Candidate’s Strengths:

Master’s degree from a very good school
Has worked for one of your company’s big clients, which is a big plus
Some previous work experience before graduate school, so may start fast

Candidate’s Weaknesses:

Very little management experience, and would be responsible for several people
Several years unaccounted for on their resume — what’s that all about?

Tactics:

Start to close the deal immediately. Say something like, “We’d like you to join
our team. We’re going to offer you our standard package, $34,500 with full
benefits after six months. So shall we get the paperwork out of the way?”
Guilt them if they try to negotiate. Say something like, “Don’t you like our
company? What’s the big hang up? There is more to life than money.”

If they ask for something from you, agree to give them what they want, but come
back with a ridiculously low offer. For instance, if they request additional
vacation time, offer them just one day more.

Ask about the gap in their resume and play it up as a huge concern.

If they ask you a question, ignore it and keep talking about your last point.

Get annoyed. Say something like, “Is this how you want to start a new job?”

215

Role 2: Employee

You have five minutes to prepare for the negotiation. Take some time to consider how
your opponent may approach the negotiation and how you could respond. Focus on how
you can keep your balance and stay focused on issues rather than positions. F eel free to
be creative. Then, negotiate with your opponent to strike a deal! !

Who you are — A person fresh out of a master’s degree program and looking for a job!

Your Situation:

This company is mid-sized

The company is located in an area where you really would like to live

You have credit card debt to pay off - about $4,000

The market appears to show the range from $30,000 to $55,000, average $45,000
You won a trip to Hawaii and you need to use it within six months.

You’re going to have to move to a new city to take this job, and it will cost you
$1,000 to break your lease.

Your Strengths:

You are coming out with a Master’s degree from a very strong school
You have worked with one of the company’s big clients

You have some previous work experience before graduate school
You’re a reasonably good student

You have good writing skills

Your Weaknesses:

You know you don’t have quite the management experience they want
You have a gap in your resume because you got fired after a personality conflict
with a boss (who you think was crazy!)

Think About:

How your opponent might try to negotiate with you

How you can prepare to use the strategies you have learned to respond to your
opponent

Keeping your balance and keeping the negotiation focused on issues rather than
positions

216

Conclusion

In this workshop, we began by distinguishing between two different philosophies of
negotiation — the position approach and the issue approach. Most of the time, people
think only about positions during a negotiation, and end up with arbitrary and fi'ustrating
outcomes. The negotiation strategies we have covered today are based on the issue
approach to negotiation. This philosophy involves looking at a negotiation as an
opportunity to exchange information and create a win-win outcome, so that both sides are
satisfied.

We talked about four negotiation strengths you can practice and use during negotiations —
negotiation attitude, research and objectivity, focus on interests, and react with
assertiveness.

To be able to use these strategies effectively, you will have to practice and prepare.
During an actual negotiation, you will have many things to think about all at once. If you
think ahead of time about how you will use these strategies, you will be more successful.

I am going to distribute a description of the negotiation simulation you will participate in
next week. I ’11 give you a minute to read it, and then we’ll continue. You will be able to
take the description home with you today to help you prepare.

217

APPENDIX E

NEGOTIATION ACTION PLANNING GUIDE

In this training, you have learned a set of negotiation strategies that you could use in
many different situations to help you achieve your goals. But the strategies won’t help
you if you don’t use them!

Action Planning

Now I’m going to help you create an action plan. Action planning will help you make
the most of your new negotiation skills because you will:

0 develop GOALS for using your negotiation skills,

0 detail the main STEPS you will have to take to reach your goals,

0 identify any RESOURCES you will need to meet your goals,

0 set a TIMELINE for meeting your goals, and

0 focus on MEASUREMENTS you can observe to determine whether you
are accomplishing your goals.

Settirg Goals

As you create your action plan, keep in mind that the best goals are:
(l) SPECIFIC so they can guide you to do exactly the things you want to do.

(2) CHALLEN GIN G so they encourage you to achieve a little bit more than you
think you can (but not so difficult that you don’t believe you can achieve them).

If you have any questions along the way, please ask.

Action Plan

Line up your carbon paper. First, think of a negotiation you will have during the coming
week. Write who you will negotiate with and what the negotiation will be about at the
top of the page.

Now think about your goals in that negotiation. You may have goals for the negotiation
as well as goals for using your new strategies. Fill out the first column on the page.

0 Remember to make your goals specific and challenging.

218

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.N
. H
2.8%?“ 5:988“ $08 $on some 482: Ed ~83
H m .50qu H HHHB BoHH H on 90539888 35$ £29888 H :3, 5:3 2 mEow H Em macaw :23 Snow >8 E :33
mHZmEmMDm<mHE mmUMDOmmHyH mmszHmHSHHH. mnHmHm m..H<OO

 

 

 

3:on 828mg so» :3» «as?

 

$83 £5 £3» ofiuowoe so» EB 23»

new has £85 5 so: 35%? a: an 2...: 8%. oesxo tom .Emzfibwwm: as .ngE o wane: 8mm wage. $28., 3.: SH .335
985 hmaaHoSmm 98: 3A 8.5 $3» bawzgu has .0550th En scab 23 on H23 39% ES LonEmEux 6H3“. 283.com»: is: 58% on: S 35:: 30A
23 352.8 .33 2363 eV «.3 S has: couscous: as 5 .833 35:8 2: one Hug 63%»ma 8.22 305 20A 35 >8: 3852.. S? 333 288%»: S SE

359: 39a «£5»an .8 .98: S «59% use 48% 39$ 3% 233.com? e SSHIHHS“. 283.com»: 58A 3.: S «lagging 98: 5.: 39A bHeatomno
28 33a «5: 2:9: :3 ~33 EM :3. 32 AS: ~28 $53203: 3 $23 3% 39A AH»: $3 «82 M2: couscous: Hams 28 :33 3 S .43ch 58A MSSBEK

den—«Huang Z in: .SnH I 53 «.834 m2

219

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Snow ha anHmaooom $3: 3on some 6805 “2qu ““83
H .HH 322 H :3 303 H ow mHonhooSOmE :53 amHanoooa H HHHB can? 8 mfiow H 8m 8on :33 Snow m8 a “an?
mHZmHEmMHDm<mH2 mmUMHDOmmHMH mZH‘HmHHzHH. mmmhm mA<OO

 

 

 

220

63% tea 3285 s a} 3&3an 3% 3» E 88E 265% «gm Ezmzmxbmwm: Es QESE a EU «:95 3E9; 3&3 3wa
865 33.3383 96: 3A 8.5 $8M GEOZMEU .28 DNKHUmmm. Ba scab 3.3 on 2.5» 39A :2: xmeEmme 6H3“. :SBHBMmz as: .SoA ma: 8 3225
30A 33 waHSHuzo .83 canon =3 8.3: «.3 2 $83 couanomg 2: 2H 33.3 H338 2: Eu “SHE imam ammo wag 30A 35 223.20%»: .333 nocAzummh
2: BEN .EmEtumxu 35 335980 ES 2023353 gaseous: 2: .8x. 55? 39A :23 £3“. 202383: Sea 8:83. 2 szatcmnd =3 2.3 2.2: no»

nouaHafiHm 563332 2: .Sm I .53 :ouo< >2

APPENDIX F

NEGOTIATION ACTION PLANNING GUIDE

In this training, you have learned a set of negotiation strategies that you could use in
many different situations to help you achieve your goals. But the strategies won’t help
you if you don’t use them!

Action Planning

Now I’m going to help you create an action plan. Action planning will help you make
the most of your new negotiation skills because you will:

0 connect your negotiation skills to the PERSONAL GOALS you value
most highly (Part 1),

0 develop TOWARD & AWAY GOALS for using your negotiation skills
(Part 2), and

0 identify WHEN you will have opportunities to pursue your application
goals, and plan specific ACTIONS you will take when those opportunities

arise (Part 3).

Setting Goals

As you create your action plan, keep in mind that the best goals are:
(3) SPECIFIC so they can guide you to do exactly the things you want to do.

(4) CHALLENGING so they encourage you to achieve a little bit more than you
think you can (but not so difficult that you don’t believe you can achieve them).

If you have any questions along the way, please ask.

Why You Care about Negotiation Skills
Action Planning Guide Part 1

First I want you to st0p and think about why these skills are important to m. Ify9_1_1 are

really going to commit to using these skills and continue developing your negotiation
expertise, you have to believe that these skills can be useful to m.

221

How Negotiation Can Help You Meet Your Personal Goals

Your personal goals and values shape the decisions you make and the things you do.
Think about the courses you will take as electives at MSU. Think about the things you
will choose to do today. You select certain choices over others because of your goals and
values.

You will invest more energy in using your negotiation skills if you see how they relate to
your goals and values. However, we don’t always recognize that something new is
relevant to our goals and values. (How many times have you found yourself wishing you
had paid more attention to learning something you now realize would be useful?)

I want you to think about two kinds of goals and values:

1. The kind ofierson you want to be — These are goals and values concerning
qualities you strive to have and display.

a. The negotiation skills you learned today may support the kind of person you
would like to be and how you would like to interact with others.

b. Keeping these goals and values in mind provides motivation to use the skills
you have learned and to focus on why they are important to you.

2. The things you want to achieve — These are goals and values concerning
outcomes you would like to achieve (e. g., things you want to do, recognition you
hope to deserve, things or rewards you desire).

a. The negotiation skills you learned today may help you achieve some of the
things you would like to accomplish or have in life.

b. Keeping in mind what you can accomplish with the negotiation skills will help
you muster the energy to put them to use.

222

Who I Want to Be &
How Negotiation Will Help Me

Think about the kind of person you want to be. By making connections between the
negotiation skills you have learned and your personal goals and values, you will be able
to use the skills to your best advantage. This exercise will help you to consider how the
negotiation skills can help you achieve your most important values.

 

When I think about the kind of
person I want to be and how I
want to interact with others, the The n_egotiation strategie_s I learned in this workshop
qualities and values that are could help me be this type of person by. . .(describe how
most important to me are: usingthese strategies will helgyou show these values).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

223

 

What I Want to Achieve &
How Negotiation Will Help Me

Think about things you want to do, recognition you hope to deserve, rewards or things
you desire, etc. By making connections between the negotiation strategies you have
learned and your personal goals, you will be able to use the skills to your best advantage.
This exercise will help you to consider how the negotiation strategies can help you
achieve your most important goals.

 

When I think about what I

want out of life, the things that The negotiation strategies I learned in this workshop
are most important for me to could help me achieve this goal by. . .(describe how
achieve are: using these strategies will help you reach your goal).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

224

Planning To Use Your Negotiation Skills
Action Planning Guide Part 2

One way to help yourself use the negotiation skills you have learned is to set goals that
will give you something to shoot for. Many training programs encourage people to set
goals about how they would like to use what they have learned. You may even have
some goals in mind right now about how you would like to be able to use your new
negotiation skills. However, one thing people aren’t usually aware of is the direction
they are setting themselves up to move in. The direction you try to move in impacts how
successful you are in getting there.

Focus on the direction you are movingn!

You may not have thought about it this way, but your goals can point you in one of two
directions—toward something you want to accomplish, or away from something you
want to avoid.

o TOWARD Goals — TOWARD goals remind you of the positive things you are
trying to achieve and pull you TOWARD them. With TOWARD goals, you
always know where you are headed.

o AWAY Goals — AWAY goals only remind you of what you are trying to
avoid or prevent, so they push you AWAY from them. However, they don’t
tell you exactly where you should go.

- TOWARD goals will help you more than AWAY goals because they tell you
exactly where you need to be. All you have to do is figure out how to get
there. Set TOWARD goals that will keep you focused on the good things you
want to accomplish, rather than distracted by what you don’t want.

0 AWAY goals can easily be turned into TOWARD goals! All you have to do
is figure out one or more specific things you can do or places you can go that
will allow you to stay away from the things you don’t want. Then you can
turn your attention to where you want to go, knowing that you won’t end up
doing what you wish to avoid.

Turn to Page 3 and line up your carbon paper. First, think of a negotiation you will have
during the coming week. Write who you will negotiate with and what the negotiation
will be about at the top of the page.

Now think about your goals in that negotiation. You may have goals for the negotiation
as well as goals for using your new strategies. Fill out the first column on the page.
0 What are your TOWARD goals?
0 What are your AWAY goals — and how can you turn them into TOWARD goals?
0 Remember to make your goals specific and challenging.

225

When Situation X Occurs, I Will Do Y!!
Action Planning Guide Part 3

If you have done a good job of setting goals, they will help you use your skills in your
negotiation. However, many of these skills may be new to you and you have had limited
time to practice them today. Therefore, you may have some trouble using them
comfortably in spite of your goals. In the middle of your negotiation, you may find
yourself suddenly confused about which of the strategies to use. Or, you may fall back
on old habits and forget to use your new skills until it’s too late.

By spending just a little more time preparing to use your new negotiation skills, you can
greatly improve your chances of successfully achieving the goals you have just set. This
final exercise will help you create powerful situation-action pairs by:

' identifying opportunities to use your new skills in pursuit of your goals, and

. committing to using the particular skills when those opportunities arise.

I Know When I Will Use My Negotiation Skills!

Think about the negotiation you are going to have. How do you think the negotiation
will go? What are the central issues in the negotiation likely to be? What specific
opportunities will you have during the negotiation to use your new skills? What
strategies is your opponent likely to use, and how can you respond effectively?

For each goal you wrote, think of the b_est strategies that will help you meet that goal.
List those strategies in Column 2.

Now think about the be_st opportunity you might have to use each strategy during your
negotiation. Write a specific statement of what the opportunitywill be in Column 3.

You have just created action goals — read one out loud to yourself by going backward.
You should say, “When situation X occurs, I will do Y! !”
Ngotiation Simulation Flaming

Now turn the page and line up your carbon paper again. You will do the same thing for
the negotiation simulation you will participate in next week.

Read the description of the negotiation. How do you think the negotiation will go? What
are the central issues in the negotiation likely to be? What specific opportunities will you

have to use your new negotiation skills? What strategies is your opponent likely to use?

Fill out all three columns for your simulation goals.

226

 

 

 

 

 

.N

A
Adv :38 8080880 89383 .8288 8 8380806 28m >8 8008 28m 9230b + ><3<
>>m88um :08 8: 9 383.598 won 06 2 80:3 2 om: 3 o8 8m $8283 “won 08 0.8 855 co Bow 9230b
Snow >8 2 8:3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

88% 828mg 50> EB :83

$83 25 ~23 288mb: :o> EB 9:5

“88%“: 38>. 33 :8: .28 .93 2 323 82838 88> 2 3&2th 8S: «8&2th 228.28%»: 28: 88> 3.: 2 26: 8A 3.:

nomazztemmo 2&8“? 8g «.8 2 823 8.238%»: 2: 2.2 83.3 8.888 2% m8 8g 6238.5 2.2: iofi 38> 85 38: 28282. .33 =88 228mm: 2 23
339: 8A M55282. 8 .28: S 958% 8.8 38>. >85 8A ”8.28.283: 8 84:12.8}. 8228mm: 88> 8.3 8 o2: 5:8 2: 2.58 28: ~23 38>. 538828
28 338 «5: 2.283 8% 8.?» 8M 8% 3»: >88 28 @8283: 8 .288 SM 8A 22‘ 2.3» «82: 8.2: 228.28%»: 83 28 2.32 8 E 23.... 88> MSohoEk

:etnuewoz >2 8m I .85 85¢. >2

227

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.m

4
A88 8&8 8888888 893883 .8288 8 88888885 288w N8 8888 snow 9230.8. + ><3<
338888 8888 cm: 3 38888888 “won 88 2 8883 9 8: 8 88 8.8 823888 “won 85 88 8883 no :88 9230b
2888 >8 2 88>?

$8888 8883: 88> EB 88:5 3883 25 583 88838 88> 53 BE.

«8:88.88: 88% 8:: 388 8:8 .88: 88 888.8 888888888 88.nk 88.888828 28 .8 8238.88 8S: «8238.88 8.88.83: 28: 88>. 8.3
88 8:88 88> 8.8: 8888:8888 8.388% 888 «.88 88 888.8 8.88.883: 28 :8 88.3 88:88 888 8.8 88:: 888.8% :888 88: 88A 88 8.88.883: 8.88.8 888.88.88.88
28 888% 8:28.888 8.88 885888 8.8 88888.8. 8.88.83: 28 8\:§88: 88A :28: 88.888 8.88.883: 88>. 88.8.8.3 88 8.858888 :8 888 8.8: 88>

:888_=8_m 88888832 85 8h I :85 88:84 >2

228

APPENDIX G

NEGOTIATION SIMULATION INFORMATION

When you return for PART II of this experiment, you will participate in a negotiation simulation similar
to the role plays we have done during the training workshop today. You will be CHRIS THOMPSON,
and you will meet with the Personnel Director from Price Waterhouse to discuss a job that you are very
interested in. Using the strategies you learned today, you will try to create the best agreement possible
between CHRIS and Price Waterhouse. Here are your instructions.. .

You are a 28-year-old engineer and have worked for your current employer, Arthur Andersen (a major
competitor of Price Waterhouse) for five years. Until two years ago, you were a “rising star.” You
regularly worked 70-80 hours per week and jumped at every opportunity to travel for the company. Since
your car accident two years ago, which nearly cost you your right leg, your work pace has slowed.

Afier the car accident, the physical therapy necessary to save your leg became your top priority. As a
result, you reduced your work hours to 40 per week Unfortunately, your current supervisor, Pat Robbins,
arrived on the scene just after you came out of the hospital. As a result, Pat has not seen you perform at
your full potential. Because you told Pat that no project or deadline was more critical to you than your
physical therapy, Pat has generally kept you off projects that require critical problem-solving ability and
instead put you on simpler projects.

It is now over two years since the accident. Last week, your physical therapist told you that the strength in
your leg is fiilly restored, and you can stop therapy. This news could not have come at a better time. Just
last week you learned that Price Waterhouse is looking for someone to take a senior consultant position to
redesign a computer-based accounting system which is currently causing a major client to lose substantial
sums of money.

You feel that you are the best candidate for the position due to your graduate training (you have an MBA
from MSU with a concentration in accounting) and the fact that the senior consultant will be asked to
troubleshoot the problem with the head of the Management Information Systems group in the client firm —
Terry Manns. Terry was your supervisor at Arthur Andersen for three years prior to your accident, and
unlike most people, you get along with Terry fantastically. (Most others are put off by Terry’s inflated ego
and quick temper.) It is very difficult to engage in healthy, productive problem solving in conflict-ridden
situations. You know that your working relationship with Terry would be like it was when Terry
supervised you — smooth, highly motivating, and productive.

You have scheduled an appointment with the Director of Personnel at Price Waterhouse to discuss your
interest in the senior consultant position and the salary you desire. You are currently making $40,000 a
year. You suspect your current salary is on the low end of what Price Waterhouse pays its senior
consultants. At least your research indicates that $40,000 is on the low end for this type of position in
general, and that $60,000 is the high end. An increase in salary is certainly something you need right now
to help you pay the enormous medical expenses of your physical therapy.

Getting the senior consultant position is more important to you than salary, however. Above all else, you
want to re-establish your reputation as an outstanding analyst. Your current supervisor, Pat, has prevented
you from demonstrating this because of the “Mickey Mouse” assignments you have been getting assigned
to.

This latter point and your unique “personality fit” with Terry Manns are points you must stress in your
upcoming negotiations with the Personnel Director. You fear that your reduced work pace and absence

229

from significant work in the last two years may make you appear less able than others to adequately fill the
senior consultant position. You are also not confident that Pat will give you a strong recommendation.

Your goal is to negotiate with the Personnel Director until you achieve an acceptable salary and
arrangements for the senior consultant position. You do not want to walk away from this
opportunity without getting the job. Of course, you wish to balance this with getting the highest
salary you can. You know that the Personnel Director is very busy and you should anticipate that
you will only have about fifteen minutes to negotiate the salary you want as senior consultant with
Price Waterhouse. Plan wisely...

230

APPENDIX H

NEGOTIATION SIMULATION SCRIPT

Confidential Instructions for the Personnel Director (Confederate)

You are the Director of Personnel at Price Waterhouse. Over the last six months, one of your major clients
has been losing substantial sums of money due to a computer-based accounting system that is not well
suited to their needs. At a meeting with your top management last week, it was decided that your analysts
were preoccupied with too many other projects to give suflicient attention to the critical and costly problem
your client is facing. Therefore, top management decided to advertise a senior consultant position. This
person’s exclusive responsibility would be to remedy this critical problem.

Against your wishes, top management additionally decided that the senior consultant would troubleshoot
the problem with the head of the Management Information Systems group in the client firm, Terry Manns.
You opposed the idea since most people in the company have difficulty working with Terry as a result of
Terry’s inflated ego and quick temper. It is very difficult to engage in healthy, productive problem solving
in conflict-ridden situations, and successful problem solving is exactly what is needed to solve the client’s
expensive accounting problem. You fear that pairing a senior consultant with Terry will limit the success
of the project — or at least slow it down substantially.

One of the first people to call you about the senior consultant position is Chris Thompson (who has been
with your competitor, Arthur Andersen, for the last five years). Terry Mann supervised Chris for three
years before becoming the head of the Management Information Systems group at the client firm two years
ago. When supervised by Terry, Chris performed outstandingly - Chris worked 70-80 hours per week
routinely, and jumped at every opportunity to travel for the company. During that time, Chris was well
known in the field for having exceptionally quick and thorough analytical abilities. Chris has an MBA
from MSU with a concentration in accounting. Unlike most others in the company, Chris got along
fantastically with Terry Manns, and therefore you think Chris may be the best candidate for the newly
created senior consultant position for this project.

Since Chris’ car accident two years ago, however, Chris has not been outstanding, and therefore you have
some doubts about Chris’ suitability for the senior consultant position. You know it was the intensive
physical therapy Chris had to go through that caused Chris to drop back to 40 hours per week and refuse
travel opportunities. Chris’ current supervisor, Pat Robbins, who replaced Terry Manns just after Chris
came out of the hospital, told you that because no project or deadline was more important to Chris than the
physical therapy, Pat has kept Chris off of projects that require critical problem solving and instead
assigned Chris to projects that require simple (less time consuming) thinking. Therefore, Pat was not able
to give you an opinion regarding Chris’ current analytical competence.

On the phone, Chris told you that physical therapy was no longer needed. You have scheduled an
appointment with Chris to discuss your interest in filling the senior consultant position and negotiate a
salary you will pay Chris if hired (you are also talking with several others). You know that Chris is
currently making $40,000. Senior consultants at Price Waterhouse generally earn between $40,000 and
$60,000, depending on their tenure with the company, performance record, and degree of education.

You believe Chris wants this position very badly in order to make a “career comeback” and re-establish a
strong reputation in the field. You think Chris would probably settle for a salary as low as $42,000 for the
mere opportunity to take the critically important responsibility of senior consultant and heroically save the
company from more profit losses. To justify paying Chris a low salary for the position, you must stress in
the upcoming negotiation that Chris’ analytical competence and drive are questionable given Chris’
absence from work and reduced work pace and challenge over the past two years. Three other candidates
are similar to Chris in all respects (experience and education) except for Chris’ known ability to work well
with Terry Manns. And you know that you would have to pay others a greater salary (relative to what you
think Chris would take) to get them to take what you know will be a very time consuming project.

231

Negotiation Simulation Protocol
(Part II Session)

Greeting & Measures (10-15 minutes)
1. WRITE the date, time, and location of the session in the scantron signature box.

2. FILL IN your experimenter number under “form” on the scantron (Morgan = 1,
Rachel = 2, Tracy = 3).

3. GREET participant. SAY, “Hello, I’m {your name}. Thank you for coming.”

4. GIVE measure of negotiation skill use, scantron, and pencil. SAX, “Please spend
some time thinking back over the week since you took the training and complete this
measure carefully. We have allowed plenty of time for you to think about it.” They
complete items 1-15.

Negotiation Simulation

5. GIVE a copy of the participant role description and the negotiation strategy review
page if they do not have them. _SA_Y, “We’ll begin the negotiation next. Do you
remember the description of your background, Chris? You will have a few minutes
to prepare while I get my materials together.” PREPARE script & rating form.

6. WAIT up to five minutes. SAY, “Let’s start our roles for the negotiation now.
Please go into the hallway and knock on the door, and I will greet you.” WRITE the
Start Time on the Rating Form. START tape recorder.

7. _Silx, “Hello, Chris. It’s nice to meet you. I am {your own name}, the Personnel
Director for Price Waterhouse. I’m glad you could come in to talk with me about the
senior consultant position. I have talked with our management group, and we are
interested in having you join Price Waterhouse. We can offer you $42,000.”

8. RESPOND to the participant’s comments and requests according to our negotiation
rules. Be consistent across participants. Each time the participant takes a turn, decide
(a) whether he or she is using one of the negotiation strategies, and (b) whether the
attempt is effective. RECORD the behaviors on the observation sheet and respond
accordingly with your salary offer.

9. @ $60,000 OR when the participant accepts your offer, end the negotiation and
WRITE the End Time on the Rating Form. STOP tape recorder.
Measures & Debriefing

10. GIVE the goal helpfirlness measure. SAY, “This is the final part of the experiment.
Please complete it carefully.” FINISH the rating form (evaluate Negotiation Attitude
and add all bonus points; write the final salary at the top of the sheet).

11. GIVE the debriefing form. SAY, “This is a brief description of the purpose of this
study. If you have any questions, please contact Karen.”

12. STAMP their card if they have it. SAY, “Thank you for participating in the study.”

13. Each Monday at our meeting, TURN IN your materials from the previous week,
including a list of “no show” participants.

232

Negotiation Script

General Info:

You are a position-based bargainer. You are interested in hiring Chris, but within the
limits you’ve established. You feel this is a terrific opportunity for Chris, and you expect
that Chris realizes this. Sure, Chris will try to haggle over salary a little because
everyone does that. But there really isn’t anything else to discuss. You just want to find
out for yourself if the things you have heard about Chris are true, settle things quickly,
and save both money AND hassle with Terry Manns (compared to the other applicants).

Your job is to hold costs down but still attract the best person for the job, and you don’t
want to rule Chris out simply by being stingy. You are a reasonable person, and can be
swayed by the right arguments and evidence, though you pride yourself on not being a
doorrnat. If Chris gives you reason to believe $42,000 is not enough, you’re quite willing
to offer a higher salary or other perks. You are authorized to go up to $60,000 if Chris
can really knock your socks off. In addition, you are able to offer a premium insurance
package, moving expenses, extra vacation days, or other things that would appeal to
Chris but cost Price Waterhouse little.

Begin the Negotiatiofistay as close to script a_s possible):

“Hello, Chris. It’s nice to meet you. I am {your own name}, the Personnel Director
for Price Waterhouse. I’m glad you could come in to talk with me about the senior
consultant position.

I think this is a really exciting position, and we’re happy that you’re interested in it.
I have talked with our management group, and we think you are a good candidate
for the position. I have been looking forward to talking with you about joining the
Price Waterhouse team.

I think we’ve put a good package together for you. After considering your
application and qualifications, we’ve decided that we can offer you $42,000.”

Your Script at Particular Salary Levels or Other Events:

AFTER the briefest issue discussion you can manage, S_AX, “Now, how about we get
back to salary. I am offering you {state current salary} to come join our team. Are you
in?” (Trying to prompt Placing Issues before Resolutions. Do this EVERY time you
discuss an issue (use different words). This shouldn 't be mean — just show that you are
focused on salary and the Qfler, not on the issues.)

WHEN participant asks about benefits, SAY, “Our benefits package does not kick in
until you have one year of service behind you.” (Do not give any further information --
trying to prompt Silence.) If they successfully put you on the spot with questions about
benefits, S_fl, “The package will include basic health and dental coverage and 2 weeks
vacation.”

 

233

@ $43,000, SAY, “What salary are you looking for?” (Trying to prompt Placing Issues
before Resolutions.)

 

@ $45,000, evaluate Attitudinal Bargaining.

+ If the person appears confident and has shown contained enthusiasm so far,
RECORD an “A” under “Effective” and CROSS OFF $46,000. The next time
they use an effective strategy, RECORD it on the $45,000 line and RAISE your
offer to $47,000.

- If the person does not show confidence and/or contained enthusiasm so far,
RECORD an “A” under “Ineffective.” The next time they use an effective
strategy, RECORD it on the $45,000 line and RAISE your offer to $46,000.

@ $47,000, S_AX, “I am taking a risk even offering you this position. You don’t come
with a very high recommendation from your previous supervisor, and your record over
the past two years clearly shows that your performance and motivation are under par.”
(Looking for Negotiation Jujitsu.)

@ $48,000, TAP your pencil (not too outrageous, this is just build-up). Continue doing
this and at $49,000, ACT annoyed and S.M., “You’re asking for much more than you’re
worth. You must be crazy to think that we would pay you that much money.” (This is a
personal attack to elicit Directly Countering Dirty Tricks.)

 

@ $50,000, SAY, “Chris, I’ll be honest. Pat told me about the kinds of projects she’s
been able to put you on for the past two years, and fiankly, they’re not impressive. Your
recent work experience is a real weakness in my book.” (Looking for Negotiation
Jujitsu.)

 

@ $51,000 (or the next opportunity), IGNORE the participant’s demand, request, or
question. Simply return to what you were saying, state the current offer again, or give a
short response that doesn’t address what they said well at all (e.g., “That’s not possible,”
“No.”). (Trying to prompt Broken Record by making it clear to them that they are
unheard!)

@ $53,000, _SA_Y, “Do you want to work for Price Waterhouse or not? That’s plenty of
money for this position. I’ve got other things to do. Why don’t you give me a call when
you are serious about working here.” GATHER papers as if you are done. (This is a
personal attack to elicit Directly Countering Dirty Tricks.)

@ $55,000 (or the next opportunity), IGNORE the participant’s demand, request, or
question. Simply return to what you were saying, state the current offer again, or give a
short response that doesn’t address what they said well at all (e. g., “That’s not possible,”
“No.”). (Trying to prompt Broken Record by making it clear to them that they are
unheard!)

234

WHEN participant accepts your offer (below $60,000), SAY, “I’m glad we were able
to come to an agreement. We’re happy to have you on board, Chris.” Follow the
Protocol from Step 8.

IF the participant asks to get back to you, SAY, “I’m sorry, but I really need a firm
decision fi'om you today. I can give you a minute or two to think about it now.”

 

If they continue to try to get out of committing, SAY, “It surprises me that you are
reluctant to accept this offer. After our conversation, I understand that our initial offer
was somewhat low. But I think we’ve been able to address that and bring it up to a fair
salary for your qualifications during this conversation. We really do need to move
forward with this position, and since I have other candidates for the job, unfortunately I
can’t wait for your decision. Perhaps another minute to consider the offer would help.”

@ $60,000, END the negotiation. SAX, “I’m sorry it’s turned out this way, but it looks
as though Price Waterhouse will be unable to meet your salary demands. I would be
happy to hire you for $60,000 and with the other agreements we’ve made, but I simply
can’t go any higher than that.” If the person continues to try to negotiate, STAND and
SAY, “You’ll have to excuse me, Chris, I have an important meeting that I am already
running late for. I can’t talk to you any more today.” Follow the Protocol from Step 8.

 

235

Experimenter Responses to Participant Negotiation Strategies:

Contrasting against Objective Standards (C)

 

GOOD
"That’s interesting. Where did you get that information?”
{response}

BAD (over $60,000, wild)
“That’s interesting. Where did you get that
information?”

{response}

 

BAD
“I don’t think you understand
the qualifications that people
at the top end of that range
bring to our company. They
have more experience,
advanced degrees, and proven
performance records.”

GOOD
“You’re right, our offer is
on the lower end. But we
also have senior
consultants making only
$40,000. Based on your
history, I can offer you an
additional $1000.”

 

“You must have been looking at jobs very different
from ours. Our own research indicates that we pay our
senior consultants top wages compared to other
companies our size after you make adjustments for cost-
of-living in various regions.”

 

 

 

If it is something other than salary, make reasonable substitutions to this format.

 

Placing Issues before Resolutions (Issues)

 

 

GOOD
{lf they just suggest placing issues first}

“Sure. What would you like to talk about?”
Then rate “Talking about Issues. "

 

BAD
{No explicit statement or has already stated salary
range. }
“Maybe we can discuss that later, but for now I need to
know whether or not you are accepting my offer.”

 

Talking about Interests (Int)

 

 

GOOD
{they ask your interests}

“We have an important client having problems with an
accounting system that doesn’t fit their needs well. We
need someone who can devote their entire attention to
this project and solve the problems quickly and within
budget, since we are already losing money on the
system.”

“We also need someone who can effectively work with
the client’s top MIS person.” --DO NOT say ‘Terry.’

Record the strateg use but don 't increase salary until
next ejfective strategy.

 

BAD
{they talk about their own needs/wants without asking
yours, e.g., “I was hoping for more. "}

“I’m sure that is very important to you. However,
that doesn’t change what we can pay for this position. If
you would like to make trade-offs in another area, we can
discuss your preferences.”

They cannot use M interests to increase the overall
offer, but they can request how things are allocated IF
you agree (e.g., you probably won 't agree to reduce
vacation time and increase salary, but you might agree to

qrposite).

 

If ...Then (If/T)

 

 

GOOD
“That sounds like a fair trade, Chris. I can’t commit to
the level you requested, but what if I increase your salary
by $1000 and give you {reduced level of what they asked
for}?”

 

BAD
“That really doesn’t sound like a fair trade for me, Chris.
I can’t offer what you’re requesting just for {what they
offered}.”

 

Unique Features (U)

 

 

GOOD
“You’re right, Chris. I hadn’t fully considered what that
would add to our team. I can offer you an additional
$1000.”

 

BAD
“I’m glad you feel so confident about your qualifications
in that area. I’m sure that will be beneficial, but it just
isn’t enough for me to increase what we can offer you.”

 

236

 

 

 

 

 

Seek & Grant Compensatory Offers (CO)

 

 

GOOD
{Their weakness}
“Yes, it really helps out that you can offer {compensating

strength} even though you aren’t as strong in {weakness}.

1 can increase your salary by $1000 {or substitute other

perk}?

{flag weakness)

“1 agree that {weakness} is not a strength for us. Your
proposal for compensation in {the other area} will work
fine for me {increase salary by $1000 or other perk}.”

 

BAD
{M weakness}
“I’m glad that you feel you’re strong in {strength}, Chris.
However, I really just need someone who can meet the
requirements of the position. When it comes to getting
the job done, your strength in {other area} won’t make up
for your lack of {weakness}.”

{Your wealmess)

“I agree that {weakness} is not a strength for us.
However, I can’t just increase {the other area} because of
that.”

 

Negotiation Jujitsu (J)

 

 

GOOD
{Agrees calmly & immediately turns into positive.)
“I never thought about it that way. You’re right, that
would really be beneficial to us. In fact, I can offer you
$1000 more for being able to contribute that strength.”

 

BAD
{Debates weakness, fails to turn into convincing positive.)
“I don’t think you understand how much that weakness
would directly impair your work.”

{If you get stuck in a loop on this)

“Listen, you’re simply not going to be able to convince
me that this is a strength. Why don’t we move on to
something else?”

 

Maintaining Silence (S)

 

 

GOOD
{Silent & serious for 10 seconds.)
“From your lack of response, I assume {my offer} isn’t
quite what you had in mind. What do you think about
{new offer, add $1000}?”

 

BAD
{They talk before 10 seconds is up.)
Let them continue. Remember to mark ineffective use of
silence.

{They wait for you to break. but lose composure.)
“How does that sound to you?”

They can use silence as many times as they want, but not
back-to-back.

 

Broken Record (B)

 

 

GOOD
{Demand/request you have ignored)
“Clearly this is something that’s important to you. How
about if I raise your offer by $ 1000 {or other perk}?”

{Question you have ignored)

“I guess you really want an answer to that. {Answer
question. }”

Raise $1000 with next eflective strategy.

BAD
{Irritated or you 've already responded.)
“Yes, I heard you the first time, but my offer still
stands.”

{Quits before you respond)
Say nothing. rate as ineflective.

 

 

Speak Up About Bad Behavior / Direct Counter (D)

 

 

GOOD
{Polite principles, specific request for change)
“Oh, I’m sorry. I didn’t realize {what they pointed
out}.”
Raise 3 I 000 with next effective strategy.

 

BAD
{Confrontational, no request, points out after responding
to you.)
“You really don’t seem to be a very easy-going person.
We really need a team player here.”

 

237

 

 

 

 

 

@ END of Negotiation {while person answers final set of questions):

FILL IN “End Time” for the negotiation at the top of the rating form.

Evaluate Negotiation Attitude
(Ignore pre-$45, 000, which you already rated. These ratings should be independent.)

+ If the person appeared confident and showed contained enthusiasm from $45,000
through the end of the negotiation, WRITE $ 1000 in the Attitudinal Bargaining
Bonus in the bottom lefi corner.

- If the person did not show confidence and/or contained enthusiasm from $45,000
through the end of the negotiation, WRITE $0 in the Attitudinal Bargaining Bonus
in the bottom left corner. Please do not just leave the line blank — make it clear
that you rated them as ineffective.

Evaluate Other Bonuses

+ If the person got you to agree to perks besides higher salary during the negotiation,
COUNT the number of times they increased each perk. For each increase, add
$ 1000 bonus. WRITE the total $ bonus for each type of perk in the bottom left
corner.

- If the person did not negotiate any non-salary perks, WRITE $0 on each line in the
bottom left corner. Please do not just leave the lines blank.

Compute Final Salarfy
ADD all of the bonus points to the actual negotiated salary.

RECORD the total amount on the “Final Salary” line in the upper right comer.

238

Negotiation Strategy Quality Criteria

 

 

Negotiation
Attitude

(Evaluate at $45, 000
and at end of
negotiation.)

confidence, contained enthusiasm

 

Eflective:

Demonstrates composure, uses eye
contact, still posture, interested facial
expression, calm voice, clear words
without qualifiers, says things to
express interest in what you offer

 

Ineffective:

Appears to try to be confident but ends
up losing composure, fidgeting, using
hedging language, shaky voice, or goes
overboard and appears disinterested in
the negotiation

 

Contrasting against
Objective
Standards

objective standard, sense of relativity, other market salaries, other offers, putting

requests in perspective

 

Eflective:

Provides a comparison with a legitimate
external source, states the source
clearly, compares apples to apples,
convincingly shows similarities

 

Ineffective:

Provides a comparison without a
legitimate external source, compares
apples to oranges

 

Issues First

points out desire to talk about issues before numbers

 

Eflective:

Explicitly states that he/she would like
to talk about issues before salary offer,
uses this strategy when you ask him/her

 

Ineffective:

Begins a conversation about issues
instead of salary without explicitly
telling you he/she wants to talk about

 

 

 

to state a salary range issues first, states a salary range before
turning to this strategy
Target Opponent’s addresses issues rather than positions, what you are each looking for instead of
Interests money
Efl'ective: Inefl'ective:
Asks you what your interests are and Focuses on his/her own needs/wants,
then indicates how he/she could meet raises an interest you have expressed but
them (e.g., relevant experience, quality fails to adequately describe how he/she
of education, personal qualities) can meet that interest, asks you about
your interests but then fails to say
anything about how he/she might meet
them
If...Then win-win, probation at higher salary, raise/bonus comment on performance

 

Eflective:

Directly connects one of your expressed
interests with one of their own, pairs up
contingent interests that are of roughly
equal value, uses this strategy when you
express concern about his/her ability to
follow through, or when you suggest
that you “might” be able to provide
something

 

Ineffective:

Pairs up contingent interests that are not
of similar value, does not provide detail
about the specific agreement desired

 

 

Unique Features

value of special qualities (e. g., special training or experience, able to counsel others)

 

 

Effective:

Points out special qualities (that can’t be
held back) and describes why they are
worth compensation

 

Ineffective:

Points out special qualities but does not
directly connect them to your interests or
make clear why they deserve
compensation

 

239

 

 

 

 

 

Seek & Grant balangg weaknesses witlimins, throwingiisomethingiextra
Compensatory Eflective: Ineflective:
Offers Offers something to compensate for a Offers something as compensation to you
Their Weakness weakness of theirs, when you have that has little to no benefit to you, uses
pointed out a wealmess of theirs this strategy to compensate for a
weakness of theirs that you have not
raised
Asks you to compensate for a weakness
Your Weakness of yours by requesting something that Requests that you compensate with
you have control over and that won’t something you can’t control or is costly
cost you much, uses this strategy when compared to what is being offered, uses
you have stated that you are not willing this strategy before you have stated that
to go firrther in a certain area or that you you are not willing to go further or don’t
don’t have control over a certain area have control over an area
Negotiation Jujitsu sidestepping and reframing attacks, acknowledges correctness but moves discussion

to underlyinLissue, tums into a strength

 

Eflective:

Agrees calmly with your attack or
criticism and turns it into a positive that
appeals to your interests, uses this
strategy as soon as you point out the
weakness

Ineflective:

Debates the weakness first, then later
agrees, agrees about the weakness but
fails to convincingly show how it is a
positive, agrees too enthusiastically with
your attack (“you are absolutely right”)

 

 

Maintain Silence

10 seconds without saying anythifl

 

Effective:

Maintains eye contact and serious
expression, uses silence afier you have
said something unreasonable or
responded to a question inadequately

Ineflective:

Looks away or loses composure, remains
silent for at least 10 seconds but then
breaks the silence before you do

 

 

Broken Record

repeats message when you don’t listen

 

Eflective:

Calmly but firmly repeats the message
without getting irritated, angry, or loud;
uses this strategy when you ignore what
he/she has said and move to something
else; persists until you respond to the
message

Ineffective:

Repeats the message but shows irritation,
uses this strategy when you have already
responded to what they said, repeats the
message several times but then quits
before you respond

 

 

Speak Up about
Bad Behavior

calls you on your non-verbal communicat

ion in a direct but polite way

 

 

Effective:

Calmly and tactfirlly calls you on your
behavior, identifies principles that
support what they want you to do, state
directly what they request for you to do
differently, enforce the demand by
pointing out your behavior again when
you persist, uses this strategy as soon as
you show bad behavior

Ineflective:

Calls you on your behavior in a
confrontational, accusatory, or angry
manner; points out your behavior but
does not follow with a request for what
you should do; makes a request to
change the interaction but does not point
out your bad behavior; fails to enforce
the request to change behavior by giving
in to you afier you persist in behaving
badly; makes the change request but then
follows it with a threat; responds to you
first and then points out bad behavior

 

 

240

 

APPENDIX I

DEBRIEF IN G

The purpose of this experiment is to investigate how people respond to a training program
and how well they are able to use what they learn in the training program. In particular,
we are interested in how various training methods impact your responses to the training
program and how well you are able to use the skills you learned. We assigned participants
to a variety of training methods, asked you to answer some questions about yourself and
your experience in the training, and asked you to participate in a simulation in which you
had an opportunity to use the negotiation skills that were taught.

There was no deception involved in this experiment, but we cannot tell you now the
specific variables we are investigating. If you wish to have more information about the
details or results of this study, you may contact Karen Milner at 355-2171 or
milnerka@msu.edu afier data collection is complete (in 4-6 months). Individual results
will not be available because we are looking only at aggregate data.

Thank you for participating!

241

APPENDIX J

MEASURES

Pre-Training Motivation Measure

Motiyation to Learn Negotiation

Before we begin the negotiation training, think about how much it matters to you to learn
negotiation skills. Please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with each of these
statements.

Desire
1. I am motivated to learn the negotiation skills emphasized in this training program.
2. I will try to learn as much as I can from the negotiation training.
3. I am interested in learning negotiation skills.
4. One reason I decided to attend today was to improve my negotiation skills.
5. I want to improve my negotiation skills.

Willingness to Invest Effort
6. I am willing to exert considerable effort to improve my negotiation skills.
7. I intend to work hard to learn the material in this training course.
8. I am going to put forth a lot of effort if needed to learn the material.
9. I intend to concentrate and try to learn the information 1n this training.
10.1 intend to try my best in this training to become a good negotiator.
111 am going to really try and learn the negotiation strategies and how to use them.

Post-Training Measures
Leamin
To use the negotiation skills successfully, you need to understand when to use them and
how to use them well. Check your understanding of when and how to use the negotiation
skills you have learned. Fill in the correct response for each item below by describing the

strategy you would use.

DO NOT simply fill in the name of the strategy — to successfully use these strategies, you
need to remember more about them than just the name!

242

If your opponent does not hear or is not responsive to what you are saying, an effective
way to deal with that would be to

Use the broken record technique by calmly but firmly repeating the same request over
and over again, without getting irritatedLangry, or loud.

There are two components of your “negotiation attitude.” Briefly describe both.
Appear confident by maintaining eye contact, not fidgeting, being calm, using a
determined tone of voice. and using solid words. Express enthusiasm about
interesting offers, but in a contained way so you don ’t weaken your position.

When you want to indicate to an opponent that what they said is too unreasonable to
be considered, or if they have responded to a question inadequately, you should

Use silence by saying nothing for 10-15 seconds. At the same time. maintain eye
contact and raise your eyebrows to show that the offer is ridiculous to you;

You believe your opponent is making excessive demands compared to the features of
what he or she is offering. You can try to show this by.

Using a contrast effect. Present objective. factual information that shows that your
gfer is reasonable. Compare your foer to average similar offers to demonstrate that
it is in the right ballpark.

Your opponent points out a real weakness in your position. To regain momentum in
the negotiation, your best bet would be to respond by

Using negotiation iujitsu orvfogging to sidestep the attack and avoid getting defensive
and dug in to your position. This works by agreeing with the weakness but reframing
it as a positive.

To successfully convince your opponent that he or she would like what you have to
offer, you should

Appeal to your opponent’s interests by taking their point of view. State thepros g”

your offer that are in line with their interests.

243

7.

10.

Your opponent is acting annoyed and angry with you and being rather insulting. The
best response would be to

Make a direct tacgful counter by calmly pointing out their behavior to show that you
are aware that it ip happening and are not afraid to address it. State what you want
them to do and back it up with a principle.

Your opponent is very focused on talking exactly about what he or she wants and
exactly what he or she is willing to give. Your best response is to

Draw attention to Mes before resolutions by suggesting that there are other things to
discuss bgore discussing positions. Convey thatyou are notyet willig to talk about a
final solution bgfore discussirg the issues.

You are approaching the end of the negotiation. The person does not appear willing to
budge on the area you’ve been discussing anymore. You might still make some gains
by

Nggotiating for compensatory offers. Try to the opponent to compensate for a
weakness in their main offer by offering something of another type. Ask for
concessions in other areas that are important to you and over whiclgour opponent

has some control.

When you are concerned that your opponent may not be able to come through on some
aspect of the potential deal you are discussing, you should

Protect yoursefl by proposing contingent options for mutual gain. Linkyour offers to
the abiligy of the other side to come through with their obligations in the agreement.

T Igy must fulfill their part in orderforyou tofulfill yours.

244

Coding Definitions for Learning Measure

0 = Blank answer

1 = Attitudinal Bargaining
Two parts necessary for full credit:
(1) Confidence: eye contact, posture, direct words, tone of voice
(2) Contained Enthusiasm: not aggressive, not wishy-washy, enthusiastic but not too
much, poker face, not over excited, calm, not over emphasize emotions

2 = Contrast
Full credit: Research comparable standards, compare similar products, compare
apples to apples, state the contrast, and know the ballpark
Partial credit: using the term research or contrast with nothing further

3 = Issues First
Full credit: Request to discuss issues before decision can be reached, some issues I'd
like to discuss, before we get to that I have some questions
Partial credit: ‘ask other questions’

4 = Target Opponent’s Interests

Two parts necessary for full credit:

(1) Emphasize opponent's interests: Ask opponent what is important, ask opponent
what makes for a good employee, asks why opponent is not interested in
something

(2) State how you can meet interests or needs, match what you have to offer with
what they want

5 = If...Then
Full credit: almost any example of an if. . .then situation as long as what each side
will give is clear
Partial credit: If I give you blank than what will you give me, if you don’t blank than
I won’t blank, states ‘use if. . .then strategy’ with nothing further

6 = Unique Features
Two parts necessary for full credit:
(1) Name unique qualities, special qualities, highlight the features
(2) Explain why worth compensation
Partial credit: states unique features with nothing further

7 = Compensatory Offers
Full credit: Compromises to make up for lack in one area by
providing more in another area benefiting opponent, OR asks for compensation from
opponent in an area opponent is lacking, gets opponent to throw in extra
Partial credit: the term compensation or seek and grant compensatory offers without
further explanation
Compromise synonym for compensatory

245

II

 

8 = Jujitsu
Two parts necessary for firll credit:
(1) Admit to weakness or agree with criticism
(2) Explain weakness is really a strength, or a positive, or an asset
Partial credit: explains weakness, makes excuses

9 = Silence
Two parts necessary for full credit:
(1) Remain silent, long silence, 10 second silence, don’t say anything
(2) Maintain eye contact, stare at opponent, keep looking at opponent

10 = Broken Record
Full credit: Repeat calm but firmly, without becoming annoyed, without raising
voice
Partial credit: ‘use broken record strategy,’ or ‘repeat’ with nothing further

11 = Counter Dirty Tricks
Two parts necessary for firll credit:
(1) Address behavior, point out bad behavior
(2) Calmly, tactfully
Partial credit: ask to reschedule for another time, is this a bad time without pointing
out opponent’s misbehavior.
No credit if behavior is not addressed or is ignored.

12 = Answer given, but what they describe is not related to any of the strategies
covered in training.

246

Self-Efficacy

Now that you have completed the negotiation training, how do you feel about your
negotiation skills? Please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with each of these
statements.

1. Compared with other people in this training workshop, I expect to do well at
negotiation.

I’m certain that I understand the negotiation ideas taught in this workshop.

I expect to do very well at negotiation.

Compared with others in this training workshop, I think I’m a good negotiator.
I’m sure I can do an excellent job in the negotiation simulation.

I think I will achieve a good outcome in the negotiation simulation.

My negotiation skills are excellent compared with others in this training workshop.
Compared with other people in this workshop, I think I know a great deal about
negotiation.

9. I know that I will be able to use the negotiation skills from this workshop well.

”S9999!"

Pre-Transfer Motivational Measures
Perceived Personal Relevance

The items below ask you to reflect on whether you feel that the training you received today
is personally relevant to you. Please use the 5-point scale to indicate how strongly you
agree or disagree with each item.

1. The negotiation skills I learned in this training workshop will help me be the kind of
person I want to be.

2. The negotiation skills I learned in this training workshop will help me get the things I

want out of life.

In my life, I will have many opportunities to use negotiation skills.

4. (R) Other people might need to know negotiation skills, but I don't see how I could use
them.

5. I think negotiation skills can help me achieve goals and outcomes that are important to
me.

6. I can think of interactions in my life where negotiation skills could help me get what I
want.

5"

247

Negotiation Competence Valuation

The items below ask you to reflect on how much you care about being good at negotiation.
Please use the 5-point scale to indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with each

item.

How much I care about being good at negotiation...

.03"?pr

It is important to me to be good at negotiation.

Being a good negotiator is something I really value.

I want to have strong negotiation skills.

I really want to be a good negotiator.

I really value negotiation as something I want to be good at.
I care very much about how good I am at negotiation.

Self-Regalatorv Focus

The items below ask you about what matters to you when you think about your negotiation
skills. As you begin to use your skills, what will you be focusing on? Please use the 5-
point scale to indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with each item.

Approach Focus (Mastery)
How much I will focus on mastering the negotiation strategies...

1.

2.

As I use my negotiation skills, I am going to focus on my personal growth in my
ability to apply them.

I want to try to use my negotiation skills in ways that are challenging and difficult
so I'll learn something new.

I am going to try to take advantage of opportunities to extend the range of my
negotiation abilities.

As I use my negotiation skills, I am going to focus on learning new things about
them.

I am going to try to use my negotiation skills in ways that are challenging rather
than tried-and-true.

Approach Focus (Performance)
How much I will focus on getting what I want in negotiations...

6.

7.
8.
9.

When I think I am going to be able to successfully outperform my negotiation
opponent, I hope someone will be able to see my negotiation.

As I use my negotiation skills, I am going to try hard to perform better than others.
I am going to talk about my negotiation successes with others.

As I use my negotiation skills, I will focus on proving my ability to my negotiation
opponent.

10. I want to know that I am better than others at negotiation.

248

Approach Focus (active maximizing)
How much I’ll focus on using my skills...

11. To achieve my negotiation goals, I will need to really concentrate on finding
opportunities to use these skills.

12. To achieve my negotiation goals, I will need to make sure I act on Opportunities to
use these skills so they don’t pass me by.

Avoid Focus (Mastery)
How much I will focus on what I didn’t learn...

13. When I start using my negotiation skills, 1 will be worried that I haven't learned all
that I possibly could about the strategies.

14. As I use my negotiation skills, I will be concerned that I do not understand the
negotiation skills as thoroughly as I'd like.

15. When I use my skills in real negotiations, I am going to be concerned about
missing something important that would help me learn more about negotiation.

Avoid Focus (Performance)
How much I care about not getting what I want in negotiations...

16. During negotiations, I am not going to use skills that will show that others are
better than me at negotiation.

17. It makes me anxious to know that my negotiation skills will be up against those of
my opponent.

l8. Knowing that my negotiation skills will be compared to those of others makes me
nervous, so I will probably avoid using them.

19. When I start using my negotiation skills, I will be worried about finding out that
others are better than me at negotiation.

20. I am reluctant to try out my negotiation skills because others may think I’m
incompetent.

Avoid Focus (inactive minimizing)
How much I will focus on watching out for problems...

21. To achieve my negotiation goals, I will need to avoid falling back on my typical
reactions in conflict situations.
22. I am going to focus on trying not to mess up when I use my new negotiation skills.

Implementation Intentions

The items below ask you about your plans for using the negotiation strategies. Please use
the 5-point scale to indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with each item.

How much I’ve planned when to use each strategy...

1. I already know exactly when 1 will use my negotiation strategies during the coming
week.

249

2. I have thought about particular situations during the coming week in which I might use
the negotiation strategies.

3. For my negotiation simulation, I have planned which strategies I will use.

4. For my negotiation simulation, I have planned when I will use each strategy I intend to
use.

5. I have thought about specific opportunities I might have to use the negotiation
strategies, and I intend to use them at those times.

6. When I get in a negotiation, I know that I will be very focused on using the strategies I
learned today.

Goal Variety IPersorgrl Life)

The questions below ask you about how many of the strategies you intend to try to use
during the coming week, and how likely it is that you will use each strategy this week in a
real negotiation in your life.

How likely is it that you will use each of the following skills during the coming week?

Negotiation Attitude (show confidence & contained enthusiasm)

Research & Objectivity (know the ballpark & state the contrast)

Issues before Resolutions (talk about interests before solutions)

Target Opponent’s Interests (ask what they care about & tell how you meet it)
If. . .Then (create a win-win trade)

Unique Features (point out special qualities and tell why they are worth more)

>199?pr

Seek & Grant Compensatory Offers (make up for weakness with a different
strength)

8. Negotiation Jujitsu (sidestep and reframe attacks into positives)
9. Be Silent (look at your opponent and wait for him or her to continue)
10. Broken Record (clearly state and repeat your message calmly)

ll. Speak Up about Bad Behavior (point out aggressive or disrespectful behavior and
state desires and principles)

12. How many of the 11 negotiation strategies do you think you will use during the
coming week?

a.None b.1—3 c.4—6 d.7—9 e. 10—11

250

Goal Variety (Simulation)

The questions below ask you about how many of the strategies you intend to try to use
during your negotiation simulation, and how likely it is that you will use each strategy
during the simulation.

How likely is it that you will use each of the following skills during your negotiation

simulation?
1. Negotiation Attitude (show confidence & contained enthusiasm)
2. Research & Objectivity (know the ballpark & state the contrast)
3. Issues before Resolutions (talk about interests before solutions)
4. Target Opponent’s Interests (ask what they care about & tell how you meet it)
5. If. . .Then (create a win-win trade)
6. Unique Features (point out special qualities and tell why they are worth more)
7. Seek & Grant Compensatory Offers (make up for weakness with a different

strength)

8. Negotiation Jujitsu (sidestep and reframe attacks into positives)

10.
ll.

12.

Be Silent (look at your opponent and wait for him or her to continue)
Broken Record (clearly state and repeat your message calmly)

Speak Up about Bad Behavior (point out aggressive or disrespectful behavior and
state desires and principles)

How many of the 11 negotiation strategies do you think you will use during your
negtiation simulation?

a.None b.1—3 c.4—6 d.7—9 e.lO-ll

251

Pro-Simulation Measures

Negotiation Skill Use

Before we begin the negotiation, please give me some information about how much you
have used the negotiation skills since you attended the training workshop about a week

ago.

How much I’ve used my negotiation skills since the training...

1.

Since attending the negotiation training workshop, how many negotiations have
you engaged in? (Count negotiations, not negotiation sessions. If you spoke
with the same person about buying a particular car three times, count that as
ONE negotiation. If you spoke with your roommate about three diflerent issues,
count them as THREE negotiations.)

A. None B. One C. Two D. Three B. More than 3 negotiations

Now think about the strategies you used during those negotiations. How often did you use
each of the following skills during your negotiations?

Answer this set of questions using the following responses.

13.
14.
15.
l6.
17.
18.
19.

20.
21.
22.
23.

A. None B. 1 time C. 2 times D. 3 times E. More than 3 times

Negotiation Attitude (show confidence & contained enthusiasm)

Research & Objectivity (know the ballpark & state the contrast)

Issues before Resolutions (talk about interests before solutions)

Target Opponent’s Interests (ask what they care about & tell how you meet it)
If. . .Then (create a win-win trade)

Unique Features (point out special qualities and tell why they are worth more)

Seek & Grant Compensatory Offers (make up for weakness with a different
strength)

Negotiation Jujitsu (sidestep and reframe attacks into positives)
Be Silent (look at your opponent and wait for him or her to continue)
Broken Record (clearly state and repeat your message calmly)

Speak Up about Bad Behavior (point out aggressive or disrespectful behavior and
state desires and principles)

252

Negotiation Skill Effectiveness

Now that you ’ve told me which negotiation strategies you tried to use, please give me
some information about how well you thought you were able to use them overall. Please
use the 5-point scale above to indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with each item.
If you did not try to use any of the strategies, please skip these four questions & be sure to
skip these items on your scan sheet.

1. Overall, I think I used the negotiation strategies effectively.
2. I think the trainer would have said that I used the strategies well.

3. My use of the negotiation strategies could be included in the negotiation training as
examples of how to do the strategies well.

4. When I tried to use the negotiation strategies, I discovered that I need more practice to
be able to do them well.

253

Start Time:

(What salary are you looking for? - 1F)

(evaluate & record Negotiation Attitude)

(Point out shaky past 2 yrs & poor rec— J)

(More than you’re worth, crazy - D)

(Pat told me about low level projects - J)

(Plenty of S, you don’t want to work - D)

(maximum offer; compute bonus points)

(starting offer)

(Ignore what they say - B)

(Ignore what they say - B)

End Time:

42000

43000

44000

45000

46000

47000

48000

49000

50000

51000

52000

53000

54000

55000

56000

57000

58000

59000

60000

Final Salary (w Bonus): $

Effective Attempts (+1000)

Negotiation Behavior & Quality Checklist

Ineffective Attempts (stay)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bonus Points Morth $1000 each at end of negotiation): Contrast (C)

 

 

llll

Premium Insurance
Moving Expenses
Extra Vacation Days

Talking about Interests (Int)

If...Then (If/T)

Unique Features Worth (U)
Compensatory Offers (CO)

 

Negotiation Attitude at end of negotiation (A)

Prompted Strategies:
Issues First (Issues)
Silence (S)

Broken Record (B)
Direct Counter (D)
Jujitsu (J)

 

254

 

Post-Tran_sfer Measures

Situational Cueig

The items below ask you about how easy you thought it was to remember the negotiation
strategies while you were negotiating. Please use the 5-point scale to indicate how
strongly you agree or disagree with each item.

1.

2.

Certain things that happened in my life this week made me think of particular
negotiation strategies I learned in the training.

(R) When I got into a real negotiation this past week, I had trouble thinking of
specific negotiation strategies I could use. (Please leave this item blank if you did
not have any negotiations, and be sure to skip it on your scan sheet. ).

Certain things that happened during the negotiation simulation made me think of
particular negotiation strategies I learned in the training.

(R) During the negotiation simulation, I had difficulty thinking of the specific
negotiation strategies taught in the workshop

As soon as the first opportunity came up in the negotiation simulation, I knew
which strategy I wanted to use.

(R) I often had to stop and think about which strategy to use during the
negotiation simulation.

Perceptions of Transfer Goal Accomplishment

Now that you have finished your negotiation simulation, please indicate the extent to
which you feel you accomplished your goals for using negotiation strategies during the
simulation.

1.

To what extent do you feel you accomplished your goals for using the negotiation
skills during the simulation? (Please choose the ONE statement that best
represents your response and mark it on the Scan Sheet.)

a. I did not have any goals for using the negotiation strategies during the
simulation.

b. I had strategies I wanted to try to use during the simulation in mind, but I did
not use any of them.

c. I accomplished some of my goals conceming strategies I wanted to try to use
during the simulation.

(1. I fillly accomplished all of my goals concerning strategies I wanted to try to
use during the simulation.

255

Demogzaphics

The next set of items asks you to describe certain characteristics about yourself so that I
can provide an overall description of my research sample.

1. Gender
a. Male b. Female
2. Age
a. Less than 18 b. 18—19 c.20—21 d.22—23 e. 24 orolder

3. Year in college
a. First year b. Sophomore c. Junior (1. Senior e. Other

256

APPENDIX K

MEASUREMENT PILOT PROCEDURE AND RESULTS

PLEASE HELP ME CLEAN UP MY MEASURES!!!

 

 

My goal: Try to uncover some of the motivational processes that are important in training
transfer.

Problem: The processes I’m looking at aren’t neat and clean, and there are few validated
measures to help me examine them. I’m afraid that everything in the middle of my
model between my intervention and transfer behavior is going to end up in one big messy
lump!

Please help me make my scales as distinct as possible before I collect my data! This
should only take about 10 minutes. Please return to me by FRIDAY, JANUARY 25.
1. Read the six construct definitions below.

2. For each item, circle the construct(s) you think it represents. Try to respond
somewhere between “forced choice” and “all that apply.” If an item sounds mostly like a
single construct to you, just circle that construct, even if it sounds a little bit like one or
more of the others. But if you’re really stuck on an item, circle the constructs you’re
confused between. I will be looking for these confusing items plus items people assign
differently from what I intended to try to clean up my scales.

3. If you have any questions, I’m almost always on email during the day
milnerka@msu.ed_u.

THANK Y OU!!

 

Construct Definitions

Motivation to Learn - Prior to training, how much people desire to learn about a
particular topic and the extent to which they are willing to invest effort in learning about
the topic.

Self-Efficacy - After training, people’s subjective judgment of whether they can
successfully perform the behaviors learned in training to achieve desired outcomes.

Personal Relevance — After training, the extent to which people believe that what they
learned in training is relevant to their own personal goals and sense of self.

Competence Valuation — After training, the degree to which people feel that achieving
competence in the trained skills is important to them.

257

 

Approach Self-Regulatory Focus — When planning skill transfer, the direction of
strategies to be used to pursue transfer goals. Approach focus involves acting to move
toward a desired goal or away from an undesired goal.

Avoid Self-Regulatory Focus - When planning skill transfer, the direction of strategies
to be used to pursue transfer goals. Avoid focus involves NOT acting to move away
from an undesired goal or toward a desired goal.

Decision Criteria

0 For the scales established in prior research (motivation to learn and self-efficacy), no
more than 5 raters placed at least one vote on an unintended scale. The wording for
these items and scale structure was preserved. For motivation to learn, one item had
5 votes on other scales, 2 items had 2 misvotes, 5 items had 1 misvote, and 3 items
had zero misvotes. Administration of the motivation to learn measure prior to
training is expected to further minimize confusion between this scale and other post-
training scales. For self-efficacy, one item had 4 misvotes, 4 items had 2 misvotes, 1
item had 1 misvote, and 3 items had zero misvotes.

o For the remaining scales...

0 All items with 6 or more misvotes were either reworded or switched to the dominant-
vote scale. Several items with fewer than six misvotes were also reworded to
improve clarity and distinction among the constructs being tapped.

0 Several items were deleted completely due to large number of misvotes and difficulty
clarifying content without overlapping other items.

0 For approach/avoid, preference was for rewording rather than deleting due to basis on
established scale. Many revisions were made to focus items more on strategy level.

258

Revised Scales

Results fi'om 14 “expert” respondents. Frequency of identification of each item on the
six scales.

Shaded box indicates intended scale.
Bold text indicates scale items were assigned to based on expert ratings and content.

Italic text indicates items deleted based on unclear links to a single construct.
Rewarding indicated under original item wording.

 

Motivation
to Learn

Self-
Efficacy

Personal
Relevance

Competence
Valuation

SR
Focus
Approach

SR
Focus
Avoid

 

. I am motivated to learn the

negotiation skills emphasized
in this training program

14

 

I will try to learn as much as I
can from the negotiation
training

13

 

I am interested in leaming
negtiation skills

14

 

One reason I decided to attend
today is to improve my
negotiation skills

 

I want to improve my
negotiation skills

13

 

I am willing to exert
considerable effort to improve
my negotiation skills

13

 

I intend to work hard to learn
the material in this training
course

13

 

I am going to put forth a lot of
effort if needed to learn the
material

13

 

I intend to concentrate and try
to learn the information in this
training

14

 

10.

I intend to try my best in this
training to become a good
negotiator

13

 

11.

I am going to really try and
learn the negotiation strategies
and how to use them

12

 

 

12.

Compared with other people in
this training workshop, I
expect to do well at
negotiation

 

 

12

 

 

 

 

 

259

 

 

Motivation
to Learn

Self-
Efficacy

Personal
Relevance

Competence
Valuation

SR
Focus
Approach

SR
Focus
Avoid

 

13. I’m certain that I understand
the negotiation ideas taught in
this workshop

12

 

14. I expect to do very well at
negotiation

14

 

15. Compared with others in this
training workshop, I think I’m
a good negotiator

12

 

16. I’m sure I can do an excellent
job in the negotiation
simulation

14

 

17. I think I will achieve a good
outcome in the negotiation
simulation

13

 

18. My negotiation skills are
excellent compared with others
in this training workshOp

12

 

19. Compared with other people in
this workshop, I think I know a
great deal about negotiation

12

 

20. I know that 1 will be able to
use the negotiation skills from
this workshop well

11

 

21 . The negotiation skills I learned
in this training workshop will
help me be the kind of person I
want to be

14

 

22. The negotiation skills I learned
in this training workshOp will
help me get the things I want
out of life

13

 

23. Negotiation skills are

something I could use often
Reword: In my life, I will have many
gpportunities to use negotiation skills.

 

24. I can already think of ways
that I could use the negotiation
skills I learned today

 

 

25. (R) Negotiation skills are fine,
but I don’t see how I could use
them

Reword: Other people might need to

know negotiation skills, but I don’t see

howl could use them

 

 

 

10

 

 

 

 

260

 

 

Motivation
to Learn

Self-
Efficacy

Personal
Relevance

Competence
Valuation

SR
Focus
Approach

SR
Focus
Avoid

 

26. I think these negotiation skills
will be useful to me

10

6

 

27. I think negotiation skills can
help me achieve goals and
outcomes that are important to
me

11

 

28. Negotiation skills will clearly
be useful for helping me get
the things I want in life

Switch scale.

Reword: I can think of interactions in my

life where negotiation skills could help

me get what I want.

13

 

29. It is important to me to be

good at negotiation
Test within set of items.

 

30. Being a good negotiator will
help me feel good about
myself

Reword: Being a good negotiator is
something I really value.

13

 

31. I think that negotiation skills

are good to have
Reword: I want to have strong
negotiation skills.

 

32. One reason I decided to
participate in this experiment
is because I want to be good at
negotiation

 

33. 1 will probably continue to
take advantage of
opportunities to improve my
negotiation skills because I
really want to be a good

negotiator
Reword: I really want to be a good
ne otiator

1O

 

34. I will be disappointed in myself
if I don 't become good at
negotiation

 

35. I really value negotiation as

something I want to be good at
OK because timing will separate from
motivation to learn.

11

 

36. I care very much about how
good I am at negotiation

 

 

 

 

 

10

 

 

 

261

 

 

Motivation
to Learn

Self-
Efficacy

Personal
Relevance

Competence
Valuation

SR
Focus
Approach

SR
Focus
Avoid

 

3 7. If I don ’t use these negotiation
skills, I will have a lower
chance of having the kind of
life I want

13

 

38. I think using these negotiation

skills will help me grow
Reword: As I use my negotiation skills, I
am going to focus on my personal growth
in my ability to apply them.

13

 

39. I will enjoy the challenge and
difficulty of using my new
negotiation skills

Reword: I want to try to use my

negotiation skills in ways that are

challenging and difficult so I’ll learn
something new.

 

40. I will enjoy the opportunity to
extend the range of my
negotiation abilities

Reword: I am going to try to take

advantage of opporttmities to extend the

range of my negotiation abilities.

 

41. The opportunity to learn new
things about negotiation is
important to me

Reword: As I use my negotiation skills, I

am going to focus on learning new things
about them.

 

42. The opportunity to face
negotiation challenges is
important to me

Reword: I am going to try to use my

negotiation skills in ways that are

‘ challenging rather than tried-and-true.

 

43. It will make me feel good to
have others know that I
outperformed my negotiation

opponent
Reword: When I think I am going to be
able to successfully outperform my
negotiation opponent, I hope someone
will be able to see my negotiation.

 

44. It is important to me to
perform better than others in
negotiation

Reword: As I use my negotiation skills, I

am going to try hard to perform better
than others.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

262

 

 

Motivation
to Learn

Efficacy

Personal
Relevance

Competence
Valuation

SR
Focus
Approach

SR
Focus
Avoid

 

45. I want others to recognize that
I am one of the best

negotiators
Reword: I am going to talk about my
negotiation successes with others.

10

 

46. I will enjoy proving my ability
to my negotiation Opponent
Reword: As I use my negotiation skills, I
will focus on proving my ability to my

ggotiation opponent.

 

47. I will feel good when I can
prove to myself that I am
better than others at
negotiation

Reword: 1 am going to pay attention to

how others negotiate so I can prove to
myself that I am better than others at

negotiation.

 

48. To achieve my negotiation
goals, I will need to really
concentrate on finding
opportunities to use these
skills

13

 

49. To achieve my negotiation

goals, I will need to make sure
I don’t miss opportunities to
use these skills
Reword: To achieve my negotiation
goals, I will need to make sure I act on

opportunities to use these skills so they
don’gass me by.

11

 

50. I am worried that I may not
have learned all that I possibly
could about the negotiation

skills

Reword: When I start using my
negotiation skills, 1 will be worried that I
haven’t learned all that I possibly could
about the straggles.

10

 

51. Now that I’m thinking about
how to use them, I realize that
I do not understand the
negotiation skills as
thoroughly as I’d like

Reword: As I use my negotiation skills, I

will be concerned that I do not
understand the negotiation skills as

 

 

 

11

 

 

 

 

 

263

 

 

Motivation
to Learn

Self-
Efficacy

Personal
Relevance

Competence
Valuation

SR
Focus
Approach

SR
Focus
Avoid

 

thorougfly as I’d like

 

52. I am concerned that I may not
have learned all there is to
learn about the negotiation
skills

Reword: When I use my skills in real
negotiations, I am going to be concerned
about missing something important that
would help me learn more about

11

 

flotiation.

53. 1 don’t want others to see that
others are better than me at
negotiation

Reword: During negotiations, I am not

going to use skills that will show that
others are better than me at negotiation.

 

54. It makes me anxious to know
that my negotiation skills will
be compared against those of

my opponent
Reword: It makes me anxious to know
that my negotiation skills will be up
against those ofgmy opponent.

 

55. Knowing that my negotiation
skills will be compared to
those of others makes me so
nervous that I will avoid using
them

13

 

56. I don’t want to find out that
others are better than me at
negotiation

Reword: When I start using my

negotiation skills, 1 will be worried about

finding out that others are better than me
at negotiation.

 

57. I am reluctant to try out my
negotiation skills because
others may think I’m
incompetent

13

 

58. To achieve my negotiation
goals, I will need to make sure
I don’t fall back on my typical

reactions in conflict situations
Reword: To achieve my negotiation
goals, I will need to avoid falling back on
my typical reactions in conflict situations.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

264

 

 

 

Reword: I am going to focus on trying
not to mess up when I use my new
negotiation skills.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Motivation Self- Personal Competence SR SR
to Learn Efficacy Relevance Valuation Focus Focus
Approach Avoid
59. To achieve my negotiation
goals, I will need to make sure
I don’t mess up when I try to
use these new skills 1 2 3 8

 

265

 

APPENDIX L

FACTOR ANALYSES

Table L1

 

Oblipue Rotated Factor Pattern and Communalities for Perceived Personal Relevance
(PR) and Competence ValgatiorLlCfl

 

 

Item Factor 1 Factor 2 h2
CV 28 .92 * -.O6 .78
CV 32 .89 * -.07 .73
CV 31 .88 * .03 .81
CV 30 .80 * .10 .74
CV 27 .76 * .12 .71
CV 29 .62 * .23 .62
PR 25 .06 .76 * .64
PR 23 -.05 .74 * .50
PR 26 .01 .67 * .46
PR 22 .18 .63 * .57
PR 21 .24 .51 * .46
PR 24 .02 .41 * .18
Variance Explained 82% 14%

Inter-Factor Correlations

Factor 1 .60

 

* Factor loadings > .32 (10% overlapping variance) are marked with an asterisk.

266

Table L2

 

Oblique Rotated Factor Pattern and Communalities for Self-Regplatory Focus and Goal
Variety

 

 

Itema Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3b Factor 4 Factor 5 Factor 6c h2
GVS 78 .76 "‘ -.05 -.04 -.01 .01 -.04 .57
GVS 73 .76 "‘ -.05 -.03 .00 .01 .05 .57
GVS 79 .71 "' .01 -.05 .05 -.04 .18 .53
GVS 76 .69 “ -.02 -.04 -.14 .16 .02 .54
GVS 75 .68 * .01 .00 .07 .03 -.05 .52
GVS 80 .59 * .04 -.07 .27 -.04 .05 .47
GVS 77 .57 "‘ -.03 -.01 -.01 .02 -.06 .33
GVS 74 .54 "' -.07 .07 .13 .04 .06 .46
AVD 53 .29 .23 .20 -.07 .01 -.ll .21
AVD 45 -.10 .82 * .06 .06 .15 -.04 .68
AVD 46 -.07 .78 * .04 .07 .05 -.O7 .61
AVD 47 -.03 .75 * .10 -.06 .13 -.05 .59
AVD 51 .11 .70 * -.13 .00 -.06 .18 .55
AVD 50 -.l l .65 "' -.15 .10 -.09 -.02 .47
AVD 49 .07 .64 * .03 -.09 .01 .12 .46
AVD 52 -.07 .63 * -.15 -.08 -. l 3 -.03 .51
AVD 54 .30 .43 "' .19 .03 -.14 .02 .32
APPR 34 -.08 -.07 .75 * .01 .05 .05 .57
APPR 35 .02 -.08 .74 * -.04 .01 .03 .56
APPR 37 -.03 -.06 .73 * -.05 .03 -.07 .51
APPR 36 -.08 -.01 .70 "' .00 .09 -.05 .51
APPR 44 .04 .07 .58 * .08 -.19 .30 .45
APPR 33 .17 .07 .57 * .07 .1 1 -.ll .54
APPR 43 -.03 .21 .50 * .10 -.25 .29 .39
GVS 82 -.01 -.06 .01 .76 "‘ -.09 .02 .55
GVS 81 .09 .09 -.02 .70 * -.03 -.09 .50
GVW 70 -.14 .03 .12 .66* .17 .ll .56
GVS 83 .l l -.12 -.04 .63 * .07 -.12 .52
GVW 69 -.02 .1 l -.02 .61 * .10 -.ll .39
GVW 71 .12 -.04 .03 .57 "‘ .11 -.06 .47
GVW 67 .06 .07 -.06 .07 .67 * .14 .55
GVW 66 .02 .09 -.05 .00 .65 * .17 .48
GVW 61 .l l -.08 -.01 .05 .60 * .10 .50
GVW 68 .03 -.01 -.10 .27 .55 * .03 .46
GVW 62 -.ll -.20 .16 .10 .54 "' .08 .43
GVW 63 .26 .11 .14 -.07 .49 * -.ll .50
GVW 65 .22 .02 .05 .04 .42 * .03 .38
GVW 64 .32 .07 .30 -.16 .38 * -.19 .56
APPR 42 -.03 .01 -.01 -.10 .06 .74 * .55
APPR 41 .02 -.07 .07 -.04 -.01 .69 * .49
APPR 39 .07 -. 10 .10 -.02 .20 .61 * .50
APPR 38 -.02 .04 -.07 -.03 .18 .54 * .32
APPR 40 -.03 .15 -.l l -.01 .27 .48 * .32
AVD 48 .06 .05 .10 -.08 -.ll .18 .06

 

267

 

Itema Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 31’ Factor 4 Factor 5 Factor 6c h2

 

Ema?“ 35% 16% 10% 9% 8% 5%
xplamed

Inter-Factor

Correlations

Factor 1 -.03 .39 .35 .51 .09
Factor 2 .04 -.l l -.04 .07
Factor 3 .23 .39 .12
Factor 4 .35 .1 1
Factor 5 .l 1

 

“ The two intended factors for self-regulatory focus were approach (APPR) and avoid
(AVD). The two intended factors for goal variety were goals for negotiations during the
week following training in personal life (GVW) and goals for the negotiation simulation
(GVS).

b Approach-mastery.

° Approach-performance.

* Factor loadings > .32 (10% overlapping variance) are marked with an asterisk.

Table L3

Obligue Rotated Factor Pattern and Communalities for Implementation Intentions (II)
and Situational Cueing (SC)

 

 

 

Item Factor 1 Factor 2 h2
11 57 .70 * .02 .49
II 55 .69 * .05 .47
II 58 .65 * -.14 .44
II 59 .59 * -.O7 .36
II 56 .58 * -.01 .34
II 60 .37 * .05 .14
SC 17 .37 * .31 .23
SC 20 .00 .69 * .47
SC 21 .12 .57 * .33
SC 22 -.18 .55 * .34
SC 18 -.O6 .47 * .23
SC 19 .29 .33 * .19
Variance Explained 56% 35%

Inter-F actor Correlations

Factor 1 -.O3

 

* Factor loadings > .32 (10% overlapping variance) are marked with an asterisk.

268

Table L4

Oblique Rotated Factor Pattern Jand Communalities for Target Motivational Constructs

 

 

Itema Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor I’-
1 2 3 4 5b 6° 7

MOT 10 .84 * -.13 -.19 .19 -.09 .07 .07 .77
MOT 11 .80 * -.10 -.O7 .19 -.O4 .05 .01 .71
MOT 7 .77 * -.13 -.11 -.10 .19 -.03 -.O4 .62
MOT 9 .76 * -.12 -.10 .20 -.03 .03 -.03 .64
MOT 6 .74 * -.10 -.14 -.11 .13 .03 .03 .55
MOT 1 .73 * .25 .22 -.12 -.04 -.10 .07 .69
MOT 5 .73 * .15 .18 .04 -.08 .00 -.O9 .58
MOT 3 .70 * .16 .14 .10 -.06 -.02 .05 .63
MOT 2 .70 * .00 .09 .27 -.O6 .08 .01 .65
MOT 8 .69 "‘ -.07 -.16 -.15 .29 -.O9 -.05 .60
MOT 4 .41 * .26 .15 -.27 .20 -.Ol .06 .41
SE 18 .11 .80 * -.02 -.19 -.06 .12 .03 .69
SE 16 -.02 .75 * -.16 .02 -.02 .05 .07 .69
SE 15 -.02 .75 * .00 -.01 .10 .11 -.12 .61
SE 12 -.10 .72 * -.15 .11 -.08 .09 -.01 .61
SE17 .06 .71 * -.07 .14 -.02 -.03 .11 .64
SE19 .12 .69 * .02 -.17 .10 .19 -.01 .60
SE 14 -.07 .63 * -.22 .14 .01 .10 .08 .62
SE 20 -.13 .57 * -.1O .22 .01 -.O3 .16 .50
SE13 -.12 .38 * -.14 .27 .12 -.16 .12 .39
AVD 45 -.06 -.Ol .85 * .04 .10 -.Ol -.11 .73
AVD 46 -.05 -.05 .83 * .14 .04 -.07 -.11 .70
AVD 47 -.04 -.03 .82 * .16 .08 -.O4 -.15 .69
AVD 51 .00 -.21 .56 * -.05 -.04 .21 .16 .52
AVD 49 .01 -.16 .55 * .06 .04 .15 .11 .44
AVD 52 -.01 -.26 .49 * -.13 -.12 -.01 .13 .44
AVD 50 .04 -.34 * .43 * -.18 -.O7 .04 .17 .47
AVD 54 .02 -.12 .36 * .26 .06 .06 .21 .31
PR 23 .10 .08 .03 .73 * -.08 .06 -.26 .59
PR 26 -.O9 .15 .07 .71 * -.02 -.14 .03 .52
PR 25 .09 .10 .08 .66 * .08 -.02 -.01 .56
PR 22 .02 -.01 -.O4 .59 * .24 .15 .05 .57
PR 21 .01 -.O3 .01 .52 * .31 .08 .05 .51
PR 24 .10 .03 .01 .50 * -.10 -.06 -.13 .26
AVD 53 -.03 -.17 .16 .48 * .05 -.05 .21 .32
H 60 -.01 .06 .07 .30 .31 -.O7 .19 .36
APPR 44 -.O8 -.21 -.08 .17 .67 * .31 -.05 .55
APPR 37 .09 .13 .03 .03 .64 * -.12 -.07 .52
APPR 36 .01 .28 .14 .00 .61 * -.16 .00 .58
APPR 35 .17 .05 -.08 .06 .61 * .00 .05 .56
APPR 34 .14 .24 .05 -.05 .57 * -.02 .02 .56
APPR 43 -.02 -.18 .11 -.05 .53 * .27 .05 .38
APPR 33 .17 .13 .13 .29 .38 * -.08 .04 .52

269

(table continues on next page)

 

 

Itema Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor I12
1 2 3 4 5b 6° 7

APPR 42 -.02 .15 .08 -.16 .09 .74 * -.11 .61

APPR 41 -.14 .08 -.06 -.01 .11 .66 "' .05 .51

APPR 39 -.05 .19 -.Ol .18 .09 .58 * -.03 .49

APPR 38 .09 .15 .10 -.O6 -.10 .53 * .00 .33

APPR 4O .07 .15 .21 .02 -.17 .51 * .07 .36

AVD 48 .07 -.08 -.07 -.01 .05 .23 .06 .06

H 58 -.08 .06 .01 -.17 .00 -.02 .79 * .62

II 57 .03 .06 -.01 -.15 .05 -.O3 .75 * .60

II 55 .00 .10 .04 .00 .04 .04 .58 * .41

II 59 .06 .OO -.09 .26 .02 -.05 .50 * .39

II 56 .11 .01 .01 .22 -.O9 .12 .49 * .37

van?“ 31% 17% 1 1% 8% 5% 5% 4%

Explamed

Inter-Factor

Correlations

Factor 1 .21 .10 .29 .36 -.03 .23

Factor 2 -.26 .21 .34 .14 .22

Factor 3 -.06 .08 .1 l .09

Factor 4 .35 .09 .13

Factor 5 .10 .31

Factor 6 .16

 

‘ The intended factors were motivation to learn (MOT), self-efficacy (SE), avoid self-

regulatory focus (AVD), personal relevance (PR), implementation intentions (II), and

approach self-regulatory focus (APPR).

b Approach-mastery.
° Approach-performance.

* Factor loadings > .32 (10% overlapping variance) are marked with an asterisk.

270

Table L5

Oblique Rotated Fggor Pattern and Communalities for Mediating Motivational
Constructs

 

 

Item“ F1 F2 F3 F4 1:5b F6 F7 F8 h2
MOT 7 .83 * —.04 —.O6 -.02 .03 .04 .04 -.1o .65
MOT 1o .83 * .03 .15 .oo -.07 ..07 -.02 -.08 .73
MOT 11 .81 . -113 .09 -.01 .01 -.03 .05 .08 .71
MOT 8 .81 * .05 -.12 -.01 -.O3 .04 .09 -.18 .63
MOT 6 .80 * -.04 -.14 .02 .04 .04 .03 ..05 .60
MOT 9 .77 * -.09 .08 .07 .05 -.05 .08 -.06 .64
MOT 2 .66 * -.02 .20 .07 .04 -.1o —.04 .16 .65
MOT 1 .64 * .10 -.08 -.O6 .04 .05 -.08 .38 * .68
MOT 5 .62 . .oo .07 .02 -.09 -.02 -13 .28 .62
MOT 3 .60 * .03 .09 .05 -.01 -.07 -.1o .37 =1 .70
SE 16 .03 .88 * .10 -.09 -.03 .01 .03 -.12 .76
SE 14 -.02 .82 * -.01 .04 -.02 -.02 -14 -.15 .62
SE 18 .07 .81 =1 ..05 -.O6 .04 -.07 .01 .07 .66
SE 12 -.14 .78 * .08 .03 -.11 -.01 -.02 .01 .60
SE 17 .10 .76 * .16 -.07 -.03 .03 -.02 .02 .66
SE 15 -.01 .70 * -.08 .oo .07 .11 .oo .11 .58
SE 19 .09 .64 * -.14 .09 .02 .02 .12 .16 .55
SE 20 -.O8 .61 * .03 .10 .06 ..05 .05 .07 .45
813 13 -.O6 .40 * .05 .21 .12 -.17 .10 .05 .28
ovs 78 .04 .04 .70 * -.03 .03 .03 .08 -.O3 .53
GVS 73 -.04 .17 .70 * .01 -.01 .01 -.04 .13 .62
GVS 76 .02 .02 .69 * .01 -.11 .14 -.03 -.13 .54
ovs 75 .05 .06 .69 * .00 .03 -.02 -.O3 .05 .55
GVS 77 .07 -14 .67 * -.os .04 -.03 .13 -.O6 .42
GVS 79 .01 .01 .64 * -11 .04 .14 .04 .13 .51
GVS 8O -14 -.03 .53 * .07 .26 .03 ~.04 .09 .49
ovs 74 -.05 .12 .52 * .07 .13 .10 -.01 -.04 .49
cv 31 .05 .00 -.12 .92 * .09 -.03 .02 .12 .85
CV 30 .03 -.03 .01 .83 * .05 .01 .01 .08 .76
cv 28 -.03 .08 -.09 .83 * -.03 .12 .00 .04 .77
cv 27 -.03 .04 .11 .81 * -.04 -.03 -112 .06 .73
cv 32 .02 .14 -.03 .80 * -13 .07 -.09 .01 .74
cv 29 .06 -.05 .08 .77 * .03 -.05 -.09 -.03 .63
GVS 82 -.07 .03 .06 -.02 .81 * -14 -.O6 -.03 .62
GVS 81 .08 -.09 .06 -14 .71 * -.01 -.09 .18 .59
GVS 83 .04 .11 .09 .02 .64 * .00 .03 -.15 .51
GVW 70 .05 .04 -.13 .05 .63 * .24 .01 -.O6 .55
ovw 71 .03 .05 .12 .13 .62 * .06 .09 -22 .59
GVW 69 -.02 -.04 .00 -.Ol .58 * .06 -.05 .11 .38

gable continues on next page)

271

 

Item“ F1 F2 F3 F4 F5“ F6 F7 F8 1:2

 

GVW 67 -.13 .02 .14 -.O6 -.02 .70 * .00 .13 .56

GVW 66 -.O3 -.12 .09 .00 .00 .64 * -.O4 .08 .46

GVW 62 .OO .19 -.09 .02 .09 .60 * .13 -.11 .50

GVW 68 -.11 -.O8 .04 -.01 .24 .60 "‘ .00 .22 .57

GVW 61 .05 .11 .12 .00 .02 .57 * -.11 -.04 .49

GVW 63 .16 -.ll .20 .15 -.O9 .53 * -.06 -.O8 .54

GVW 64 .09 -.05 .32 .15 -.16 .40 "‘ .02 .06 .46

GVW 65 .07 -.12 .26 .20 .07 .33 * .00 -.15 .40

SC 20 .02 .06 .05 -.O4 -.10 .02 .74 "' .21 .54

SC 21 .07 -.10 .09 .05 -.Ol -.05 .62 "' .46 * .42

SC 18 .03 .03 .08 -.13 .06 -.O6 .59 "' .08 .34

SC 22 -.05 .06 -.10 -.03 -.05 .02 .58 * .22 .35

SC 19 -.O3 -.01 .10 .13 -.O7 -.02 .29 .51 * .30

MOT 4 .38 "‘ .14 -.26 -.O6 .07 .19 .05 .47 "' .48

SC 17 -.11 .05 .03 .13 -.Ol .05 .29 .46 * .26

Ema?“ 35% 14% 12% 7% 6% 4% 4% 4% 85%
xplamed

Inter-Factor

Correlations

Factor 1 .15 .27 .35 .09 . 17 -.05 .21

Factor 2 .22 .33 .22 .26 - .19 .15

Factor 3 .40 .33 .44 -.12 .17

Factor 4 .21 .46 -.Ol .14

Factor 5 .37 -.10 .10

Factor 6 -.09 .06

Factor 7 -.3O

 

" The intended factors were motivation to learn (MOT), self-efficacy (SE), goal variety
for the simulation (GVS), competence valuation (CV), goal variety for the week
following training (GVW), and situational cueing (SC).

b Goal variety for assertive strategies.

* Factor loadings > .32 (10% overlapping variance) are marked with an asterisk.

272

 

.8333 8.893 .8 bore.» ES 8883 9 .6838 39533
3 53 $33 8.88.8 mango B8886 .qmdflododxm

 

 

 

b08> .8333 83:3 .8 but? 38 8883
«£30 38885 handgun 9 @222 33:88 3 E? but? 3% 8355. .flwflfig
.03.—.5 :80 8.38;. 39:82 Exm 88385 .
a mmhmv 858:5 388980 bot—S .8333
8580i 8&8 .8 burg 88 .3882.“ 9 @828 33:88 3 EB
unseen—om 88882 £3 880m 8280 988.5 05 8m 8833 0383800 .g
A 3 mmhmv :83 8 859582 a $89 833%— 8.38.5.
.8333 8353 Mo bag; 28 8880b
“:efimuuwom .37—988$ “.5 9 @832 30388 3 :3» 5880.23 .33
.32 mm $8.80— :33
Am mmhmv A x mu. :3“ .32 fl maggo— a33 928a 688 3 :3, 388928
£5 86 8% .3888th 8385 88 8333 8.88
AN mmhmv 8: 8333" 8.38:. 8253 93808:: 05 88308 EB w83 .mjafldafl
EoEmmomm<u=Om

Ad ”8.804— 083 8:38sz .888 0380th
2 mmkmv F304 8 83858: n 8888:?” 8.7.8.8 8385 :65 9 8338 3328a 3 :3, £38 853 05 ban
8 5888 £83 8E3 9 88.8 23. 6088033 838.:
"8.39.9”— .820885 9 @828 36258 3 :3, 8333 838$. .fldfiflafl

amok flmofieghfl

 

 

 

Z<Am mHm>A<Z<

2 592.954.

273

 

 

 

3. H399 838.5 8388828:
3 Emv 88a— 3 8.23322 n ”52.0 88855 .8328
_80888 9 @828 32,388 3 :3, $8888 83389
“888..me 1829883 5 3:8 858 83288 82838 9 «48885 .ledd; 805
203..
888%
a 8.8 2.8m 33.—83.8.0.
2 mmhmv E84 8 85.382 a 33.—.5 .86 8.88;. .3033 8% 9 8828 32688 3 =3, 88.“ 296 34. .338.»
Row 9 @328 32583 3 :3» £88 8888 94. .3093 Bow
"888.8% 83888:.— oocoscfi 3:83:88 EB 88.3 308—88.23 .3850
AN .5ka 888.8% _a8m8m 8388a
2 “5ka :88.— 3 839382 n 8825» 3:23:80

“888..“3— _aoEuaahoE

.8823 0088qu0 9 @822 30868 3
:5 25m 858 .8 888—2 8888 .838qu .lwlldm; mm 08 m

 

 

8H.

 

38.—8%:

 

 

274

 

@3588 952980 35:8 95 05 .m> gang—85 gauge—Z Bush 33.5.80

.aouaotofim

3.38.5 a 522.3 magma 0388 8 nouaotofim wag—n nouoa
30:5 a E 33693 on? 088 55 88:85 nozsfiaoag
Homaobm toga 53 6:28.58 53:58 9 momwouabm 38323
$38.88 8980383 £033 $280285 522608

Smash _Saoatoqxo 05 5 2369mm on? 038“— $an

 

downer—85 Emma—ab a 3293 E58“ 0238 0:3

82: ~85 macaw boas—smokbom 205 332 98 mace.“ ~082nt
”:3 £8053 BANE tone“ :5 mag—n cocoa 5 838.98.“
on? 0303 Gamay Eden 2 aouSEoE £8893 £80985
maouaotoufi Manama move.” 33qu 338m .33
downer—85

5355 a 3055 magma 9:88 8 59.9,“ch mega notes
32%. a E 83693 0:3 805 55 £68 bean—awokhom
296 332 was £60m beam—$053,.” nomohaa kiwi toga =15
.flmow £883.” 83» 28m 20% wfivgon 98 “snow Augean
wfluom 83.5983 €33 dominion": couguoe Bung
_Sauatoaxu 05 S 2362an on? oEoom .mwmlmmmug

 

cog—>302 hommqflh
Essa: 88$ 338
335385 26 .9280
AN mmkmv 555:85 than;
2 mmHmv 53w— 8 529582 n 2855:: 55358295
"gamer—mom 13293.85
actuatefi oz .9 aouuoESE magma song.
3:388 32:38 3.280 28 05 .m> aouaotefi savage} Hough
"33.5.30
55>qu 52,5.
35:53 8E5 3280
€220,388 02v 3280
an mth E55235 .5395. Eo><
£805.?
2 mmkmv 9:34 3 539582 u 2.8,.— Ecaaauuméom
"aofiaouwom .322an
35988 802980 7:88 23 05 .m> couaotefl 55>on 5388 38.5.80
cowaéo—Z “£389
@3583 85$ _obuoo
Aaouaotows 076 3580
a mmemv 53523.: £2.25
2 mmhmv 53A 8 52332 n 85%—mm 2:83.—
338.5.—

Eommwohmum 3929.23:

.couaotoufi 5.“me a 8923 magab

0332 8 gouging magi Genoa .850 a E 83693
on? 805 55 8088 mafia“ 05 mo 3531: 3:839
328th kiwi tog“: EB £30m 320.3ng :88qu 9
328288 minnow moufiofioofi €33 £0:quan cowguoe
twang 588598 05 3 83698 on? £38 .blwmmlofiafl

 

 

amok

 

mac—zen»:

 

 

275

 

a Ea

a $96

2 Emv

a mmpmv

2 “FE

a $99

Afimmhmv

833.32 human—8H

ages: 88$ _aaoo

€88>§5 ozv .380
5.33585 .52—Eh.

anon—.85 nous—5:335
2.3m fo~a3uafl$~m
3:96—3— iaofiom 3:8qu

moauEméam
534 8 E5253:

835602 5888

snag.” 88$ _oaaoo

AaouaoESE oz» 3250
5:528:— have;

moauEméom
534 8 25.—>32

28:—.8:— ESSEEuEEH
33h Ecuaiwoméom
35323— .aaonuum coloflfl

moauEm—éom
534 3 act—«>302

o 28 .w K 8850an 8m «BEBE

u €59 .8333— 3.3528
>9 A. 2 AI 2

u E59 .8333— .5228
>9 A: E

u 959 3.35m 335;.
>G AI 33:82

33:32 AI >—

Amncummouuom _anuEuuaueEv «7.222 53532

.8288": cocSaoEoEE 3:85 3988?
5ng mo botg new $5.62.“ 05 9.3805 :5 coasts":
aozguoa Momma 388C095 2E. .uddlafifigm

.308 b9£=m2..:8 5985 395%
Smash mo but? 28 zones—god 05 0.8205 :5 593385
aouagoa “£895 382—635 2; be m 050

$8863“ Ecofloa 333qu 5:85 89:83
8.35.: we buts, can 5839a 05 8385 :3» gouging
cocguofi Smash Ecofitoaxo BF .mauflwqfldmxfl

 

 

~88

 

ammo—toga

 

 

276

 

28:—.35 confinofioEEH

2.3m roan—sueméom
Am mmhmv Sago—om 22.8.39 323qu
9:25 Quota—Em
.03.—S» :30 have;
3 mmhmv .35—i=5 8:809:90
585m¢3m
C mmhmv F894 8 .83—«>332 u €59 .3323— 532.28
>9 A. E A: >—
33 >9 A. BEBE
oo— 93 £2 .2: 885233 5m new»? >: A. Z
on 28 in .am momofiogm .8.“ 8335‘ >9 AI 33:32
0 98 .m .v 8353mm 5.“ $ng .8253: AI 2

"Amacmmmouuom Esau—9.98:5 £9222 5:232

.wamoao 3:09:56

"3:85 89:83 Banach mo bone, 28 55329 05 9 toga—o.—
bozzmoq on E? maouaoufi nonficofioafifi .%

.botg Rom 5:85

39:83 5.385 mo but? 98 zoaoscob 05 9 @832 bo>Emoa
on EB goo.“ boaadawoufiom 5852 a: Edda. mam. .

downs—S, 0882580

swap—5 99:88 homagb mo but? 98 35:62.“ 05 9 @828
33:63 on EB Sago—8 _aaofloq nozoouom a: mm 05 I

 

 

amok.

 

«_moficgfl

 

 

277

APPENDIX N

SUPPLEMENTAL ANALYSIS RESULTS

Table N1

An_alysis of Covariance: Effects of Transfer Motivation Intervention on F requencg of

Transfer Behavior Attempts (Simulatiom

 

 

 

Source df MS F
Between persons
Gendera 1 46.92 482*
Motivation to Learn (M) 1 8.45 0.87
Self-Efficacy (SE) 1 15.37 1.58
Motivation Condition (C) 2 11.47 1.18
M x C 2 5.20 0.53
SE x C 2 9.69 0.99
Within persons
Error 176 9.75
a 0 = male, 1 = female.
* p < .05.
Table N2

Analysis of Covariance: Effects of Transfer Motivation Intervention on Variety of

Transfer Behaviors Attempted (Simulation)

 

 

 

Source df MS F
Between persons
Motivation to Learn (M) 1 1.95 0.67
Self-Efficacy (SE) 1 15.86 5.41 *
Motivation Condition (C) 2 7.66 2.61
M x C 2 3.20 1.09
SE x C 2 2.62 0.89
Within persons
Error 180 2.93
* p < .05.

278

Table N3

Analysis of Covariance: Effects of 'Lnamsfer Motivation Intervention on Frequency of
Transfer Be_h_2yior Attempts (Personal Li fe)

 

 

 

Source df MS F
Between persons
Number of Negotiations 1 38.91 127.21 *
Motivation to Learn (M) 1 0.32 1.04
Self-Efficacy (SE) 1 0.98 3.21
Motivation Condition (C) 2 0.22 0.71
M x C 2 0.69 2.25
SE x C 2 0.35 1.15
Within persons
Error 1 79 0.3 1
* p < .05.
Table N4

Analysis of Covariance: Efiects of Transfer Motivation Intervention on Variety of
Transfer Behaviors Attempted (Personal Life)

 

 

 

Source df MS F
Between persons
Number of Negotiations 1 447.78 7638*
Motivation to Learn (M) 1 2.50 0.43
Self-Efficacy (SE) 1 20.33 3.47
Motivation Condition (C) 2 11.06 1.89
M x C 2 3.87 0.66
SE x C 2 6.20 1.06
Within persons
Error 179 5.86
* p < .05.

279

Table N5

Analysis of CovariJance: Effecg of Transfer Motivation Intervention on Number of
Negotiations Reported (Personal Life)

 

 

 

Source df MS F
Between persons
Motivation to Learn (M) 1 14.05 9.89*
Self-Efficacy (SE) 1 16.11 1135*
Motivation Condition (C) 2 3.88 2.74
M x C 2 0.66 0.46
SE x C 2 0.76 0.53
Within persons
Error 180 1.42
* p < .05.
Table N6

Regession An+alysis: Effects of Perceived Personal Relevance on Frequency of Transfer
Behavior Attempts (Simulation)

 

 

Variable B SE B AR2

Step 1 .04
Gendera -1 .00* 0.52
Motivation to Learn 0.22 0.37
Self-Efficacy 0.51 0.41

Step 2 .00
Personal Relevance -0. 14 0.48

 

N91; Regression weights given are incremental effects when all prior variables have
been entered into the regression.
N = 186.
a O = male, 1 = female.
* p < .05.

280

Table N7

Regression Analysis: Effects of Perceived Personal Relevance on Variety of Trgsfer
Behaviors Attempted (Simulatiop)

 

 

Variable B SE B A122

Step 1 .03
Motivation to Learn 0.06 0.20
Self-Efficacy 0.51 * 0.22

Step 2 .00
Personal Relevance 0.08 0.26

 

Note. Regression weights given are incremental effects when all prior variables have
been entered into the regression.

N = 189.
* p < .05.
Table N8

Regression Analysis: Effects of Perceived Personal Relevance on Frequency of Transfer
Behavior Attempts (Personal Life)

 

 

Variable B SE B AR2

Step 1 .41
Number of Negotiations 0.36* 0.03
Motivation to Learn -0.09 0.07
Self-Efficacy 0.13 0.07

Step 2 .01
Personal Relevance 0.1 3 0.08

 

fie. Regression weights given are incremental effects when all prior variables have
been entered into the regression.
N = 189.
* p < .05.

281

Table N9

Regression Analysis: Effects of Perceived Personal Relevance on Variety of Transfer
Behaviors Attempted (Personal Life)

 

 

Variable B SEB AR2

Step 1 .30
Number of Negotiations 1.18* 0.15
Motivation to Learn -0.28 0.29
Self-Efficacy 0.59 0.32

Step 2 .00
Personal Relevance -0.25 0.36

 

N__o___te. Regression weights given are incremental effects when all prior variables have
been entered into the regression.
N=189.

*p<.05.

Table N10

Regession Amlysis: Effects of Perceived Personal Relevance on Number of
Negotiations Reported (Person_al Life)

 

 

Variable B SEB ARZ

Step 1 .10
Motivation to Learn 0.32* 0.14
Self-Efficacy 0.51* 0.15

Step 2 .03
Personal Relevance 0.39* 0. 1 7

 

N_o_t§_. Regression weights given are incremental effects when all prior variables have
been entered into the regression.
N = 189.
* p < .05.

282

Table N1 1

Regression Analysis: Effects of Self-Regulatory Focus on Frequency of Transfer
Beh_avior Attempts LSimulation)

 

 

Variable B SE B AR2

Step 1 .04
Gender“ -1.00* 0.52
Motivation to Learn 0.22 0.37
Self-Efficacy 0.51 0.41

Step 2 .01
Approach-Mastery -0.22 0.50
Approach-Performance -0.32 0.35
Avoid SR Focus -0.07 0.38

 

N_o_te; Regression weights given are incremental effects when all prior variables have
been entered into the regression.
N = 186.
a 0 = male, 1 = female.
* p < .05.

Table N12

Regression Analysis: Effects of Self-Regulatory Focus on Variety of Transfer Behaviors
Attempted (Simulation)

 

 

Variable B SE B AR2

Step 1 .03
Motivation to Learn 0.06 0.20
Self-Efficacy 0.51* 0.22

Step 2 .01
Approach-Mastery 0. 1 8 0.28
Approach-Performance -0. 13 0.19
Avoid SR Focus 0.02 0.21

 

1&1}; Regression weights given are incremental effects when all prior variables have
been entered into the regression.
N = 189.
* p < .05.

283

Table N13

Reggession Analysis: Effects of Self-Regulatory Focus on Frequency of Transfer
Behavior Attempts (Personal Life)

 

 

Variable B SE B ARZ

Step 1 .41
Number of Negotiations 0.36* 0.03
Motivation to Learn -0.09 0.07
Self-Efficacy 0.13 0.07

Step 2 .02
Approach-Mastery 0.1 1 0.09
Approach-Performance 0.01 0.06
Avoid SR Focus 0.11 0.07

 

DEL; Regression weights given are incremental effects when all prior variables have
been entered into the regression.
N = 189.
* p < .05.

Table N14

Regression Analysis: Effects of Self-Regulatory Focus on Variety of Transfer Beh_agiors
Attempted (Personal Life)

 

 

Variable B SEB AR2

Step 1 .30
Number of Negotiations 1.18* 0.15
Motivation to Learn -0.28 0.29
Self-Efficacy 0.59 0.32

Step 2 .02
Approach-Mastery 0. 14 0.39
Approach-Performance 0.1 8 0.27
Avoid SR Focus 0.54 0.29

 

Nata Regression weights given are incremental effects when all prior variables have
been entered into the regression.
N = 189.
* p < .05.

284

Table N15

R_egession Analysis: Effects of Self-Rgalatory Focus on Number of Negotiations
Reported (Personal Life)

 

 

Variable B SEB AR’
Step 1 .10
Motivation to Learn 0.32* 0.14
Self-Efficacy 0.51* 0.15
Step 2 .01
Approach-Mastery 0.22 0.19
Approach-Performance 0.00 0.13
Avoid SR Focus -0.13 0.14

 

Nata Regression weights given are incremental effects when all prior variables have
been entered into the regression.
N = 189.
* p < .05.

Table N16

Regression Analysis: Effects of Implementation Intentions on Frquency of Transfer
Behavior Attempts (Simulation)

 

 

Variable B SEB AR2
Step 1 .04
Gendera -1 .00* 0.52
Motivation to Learn 0.22 0.37
Self-Efficacy 0.51 0.41
Step 2 .01
Implementation -0.44 0.37
Intentions

 

Not; Regression weights given are incremental effects when all prior variables have
been entered into the regression.
N = 186.
a 0 = male, 1 = female.
* p < .05.

285

Table N17

Regpession Analysis: Effects of Implementation Intentions on Variety of Transfer
Behayiors Attempted (Simulation)

 

 

Variable B SE B AR2
Step 1 .03
Motivation to Learn 0.06 0.20
Self-Efficacy 0.51* 0.22
Step 2 .00
Implementation -0.14 0.21
Intentions

 

Mtg Regression weights given are incremental effects when all prior variables have
been entered into the regression.
N = 189.
* p < .05.

Table N18

Regpession Analysis: Effects of Implementation Intentions on Fraquency of Transfer
Behavior Attempts (Personal Life)

 

 

Variable B SE B AR2
Step 1 .41
Number of Negotiations 0.36* 0.03
Motivation to Learn -0.09 0.07
Self-Efficacy 0.13 0.07
Step 2 .02
Implementation 0. 1 5 * 0.07
Intentions

 

Mag. Regression weights given are incremental effects when all prior variables have
been entered into the regression.
N = 189.
* p < .05.

286

 

Table N19

R_egression An_alysis: Effects of Implementation Intention; on Varietmf Transfer
Behaviors Attempted (Personal Life)

 

 

Variable B SE B AR2
Step 1 .30
Number of Negotiations 1.18* 0.15
Motivation to Learn -0.28 0.29
Self-Efficacy 0.59 0.32
Step 2 .03
Implementation 0.75* 0.28
Intentions

 

Nata Regression weights given are incremental effects when all prior variables have
been entered into the regression.
N = 189.
* p < .05.

Table N20

Mession Analysia: Effects of Implementation Intention_s on Number of Negotiations
Reported (Personal Life)

 

 

Variable B SEB M2
Step 1 .10
Motivation to Learn 0.32* 0.14
Self-Efficacy 0.51* 0.15
Step 2 .00
Implementation 0.01 0. 14
Intentions

 

ME; Regression weights given are incremental effects when all prior variables have
been entered into the regression.
N = 189.
* p < .05.

287

TABLES

288

Table 5

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations with Demographic Features for Motivation and

Outcome Variables

 

 

Overall Within Condition Correlation
Training- Action Motivation

Variable Mean SD Only Control Planning Planning Sex‘I Age_
Motivation to Learn 3.80 0.64 3.82 0.75 3.80 0.63 3.78 0.56 .08 .07
Self-Efficacy 3.46 0.5 9 3.60 0.6 7 3.35 0.61 3.44 0.47 -.20* -.01
Learning 11.45 3.48 11.85 3.00 11.40 3.81 11.14 3.60 .14 -.02
Personal Relevance 4.29 0. 55 4.39 0. 46 4.26 0.62 4.25 0.55 .17” -.02
Competence Valuation 4.12 0.6 7 4.25 0. 61 4.06 0. 71 4.06 0. 69 .02 .05
Self-Regulatory Focus

Approach-Mastery 3.72 0.57 3.81 0.58 3.75 0. 62 3.61 0.51 -.03 -.01

Approach-Performance 3.28 0. 71 3.23 0. 77 3.28 0. 70 3.31 0.68 -.09 -.06

Avoid 2.70 0.73 2.70 0.73 2.82 0.84 2.60 0.60 .15* -.01
Goal Variety

Simulation 7.59 1.16 7.77 0. 74 7.34 1.56 7.64 1.04 .05 -.01

Week 7.47 1.08 7.59 0.92 7.41 1.30 7.41 1.03 .01 .02

Assertive Strategies 4.78 1.69 5.07 1.36 4.36 2.03 4.89 1.5 7 .04 .06
Implementation Intentions 3 .21 0. 6 7 3 .09 0. 6 7 3 .2 1 0. 75 3 .32 0. 60 .07 .08
Situational Cueing 2.83 0.80 2.89 0.8 7 2.76 0.83 2.84 0. 72 -.16* .03
Transfer Behavior

Number of Attempts (Simulation) 7.16 3.13 7.79 3. 77 6.91 2. 70 6.83 2. 79 -. 16* .07

Variety of Attempts (Simulation) 5.61 2.09 5.46 1.88 5.22 1.85 4.74 1.46 -.06 .01

Number of Negotiations (Personal) 2.94 1.26 3.26 1.38 2.91 1.19 2.69 1.15 -.05 .00

Number of Attempts (Personal) 2.06 0.72 2.14 0.78 2.10 0.6 7 1.95 0.70 -.03 -. 10

Variety of Attempts (Personal) 6.57 2.88 6.70 3.02 6.97 2.64 6.13 2.93 -.05 -.06
Transfer Performance

Salary (Simulation) 47370 2741 47672 2993 47207 2706 47243 255] -.O9 . 12

Self-Ratings (Personal) 3.09 0. 72 3.14 0.65 3.02 0.86 3.09 0. 6 7 -.02 .00

 

Note. N = 189. For most variables, the possible response scale ranged from 1 to 5. Exceptions were:

Learning 0-20 points, Goal Variety for the Simulation or Week 0-8 strategies, Goal Variety for the
Assertive Strategies 06 strategies, Number of Attempts (Simulation) 0-oo attempts, Variety of Attempts
(Simulation) 0-11 strategies, Number of Negotiations in Personal Life 04 points, Number of Attempts
(Personal Life) average response on a 0-4 scale across the 11 strategies, Variety of Attempts (Personal Life)
0-11 strategies, Salary $42,000-$60,000, Self-Ratings 1-4 points.
“ Correlations > .143 or < -.143 are significant at alpha = .05.

a For sex, 1=Male, 2=Female.

289

no. n 838 8 2.80me8 08 m3: v 8 m3. A macaw—02200 ._
.anwflv 05 no 8282 5 0.8 828... 05 .28 83:38:02 23?. .

 

 

8T2
2. 8. .8. .8. .8. 8. 8. .2. .8. z. .8. .2. .8.- 2. .8. .8. .8. 8. .2.. .8. 2808888828 2
8. .3. 8.- 8. 2. .8. .8. .8. 8. 8. 8. 8. 8.- 2.- :. 2. 2. 2. 8. .8. 808882228 2
nudge-BA Swag-"H.
.8. 8.- 8. .8. .8. 2. 8. 8. .8. 2. .8. 8. 8. .2. .2. .8. 2. 2.- .8. 8. 28888388058883» e:
.8. 8. .8. 8. .8. 2. 8. .2. .8. 8. .8. 8. 8.- 2. .8. .8. .8. 8.- .8. 8. 28589888538882 8:
.8. 2. .8. .8. .3. 2. 8. 2. 2. 8. .2. 8.- 2.- 8. .8. .8. .8. 8. .8. .8. 28888 88.88.28.852 .:
8. .8. 2. 2. 2. 2.. .8. .8. 8. 8.- 8. 8.- 8.- 8. :. 2. 8. 8. .2. 8. Aeecaaammvaaeeefiebefi> 82
8. .8. 8. 8. 8. .8. 2.. .8. .- 8. 8. 8. 2.- 8.- 8. 8. 8. 8. 2. 8. 88.882988850588872 .2
hogfiomuowmguh.
.2. .8. 8. .2. 2. .8. .8. 8. 8. 8.- 8. 8.- .8.- 8.- 8. 8. 8.- 8. .8. 8. 853288.38 8
.8. 8. .8. .8. 2. 8. 8.- 8. .8. .8. .2.. .8. 8. .2. .2.. .8. .8. 8. .8. .88. 82825888882882 8
2. 8. 2. 8. 8. 8.- 8. 8.- .8. 2. .8. .8..2.- 8. .2. 2. 2. 8. .8. 8. 88388883.... 8
.8. 8. .8. .8. .2. 8. 8. 8. .2.. .8. 8. .2. 2.- .8. .8. .8. .8. 8. .8. .8. 02-28088 8
.2. 8. 8. 8. 8.- 8.- 8. 8.- .8. .8. .8. 8. 8. 2. .2. .8. .8. 8. .8. .2. 8:228 8
8.5280 .
.8.- 8.- 8. 8.- 2.- 8.- 2.- .8.- 8. .2.- 2.- 8. 8. 2. 8. 8. 8. 8. .2..- 8. 292. 8
2. 2.- .2. 2. 8. 8. 8.- 8.- .2. 8. .8. 2. 2. 8. .8. .8. .2. 8.- .8. 8. 888028-8888... 8
.8. :. .2. .8. .8. :. 8. 8. .2.. .2. .8. .2. 8. .8. 8. .8. .8. .8. .2.. .8. 2228-8889.. 8
280m 208—$92.:an
.8. 2. .8. .8. .8. 2. 8. 8. .8. 2. .8. .8. 8. .8. .8. 8. .8. .2. .8. .8. 882988.888 8
.8. 2. 2. .8. .8. 8. 8. 8.- .8. 2. .8. .8. 8. .2. .8. .8. 8. .2. .8. .8. 853328028 a
8. 2. 2.- 8.- 8. 8. 8. 8. 8. 8. 8. 8. 8. 8.- .8. .2. .2. 8. 8. .2. 8:53 m
.2.. 8. .8. .8. .8. .2. 2. .8. .8. .8. .8. .8. .2..- .8. .2.. .8. .8. 8. 8. .8. 888828 8
.8. .8. 8. 8. .8. 8. 8. 8. .8. 8. .8. .2. 8. 8. .2.. .8. .8. .2. .8. .8. 5.3 958.82 2
2 2 o: 8: a: 82 .2 a w 8 8 8 be 8 8 m a m 8 2 e38;

 

 

852.23 08850 98 8828282 macaw mecca—2.80

o 2an

290

Table 7

Regression An_alysis: Effects of Transfer Attempts on Simulation Performance

 

 

Variable B SE B AR2

Step 1 .06
Motivation to Learn 85038" 307.04
Learning (L) 76.36 56.72

Step 2 .56
Strategy Attempts (A) 656.73* 39.97

Step 3 .00
L x A -8.68 11.43

 

Erie. Regression weights given are incremental effects when all prior variables have
been entered into the regression.
N = 189.
* p < .05.

Table 8

Regression Analysis: Effects of Transfer Attempt Variety on Simulation Performance

 

 

Variable 3 SE B A122
Step 1 .06
Motivation to Learn 85038“ 307.04
Learning (L) 76.36 56.72
Step 2 .49
Variety of Attempts (V) 1107.41 * 78.19
Step 3
L x V -7.47 20.64 .00

 

1103; Regression weights given are incremental effects when all prior variables have
been entered into the regression.
N = 189.
* p < .05.

291

Table 9

Regression Analysis: Effects of Transfer Attempts on Transfer Performance in Personal
L12

 

 

Variable B SE B ARZ

Step 1 .24
Motivation to Learn 0.15* 0.08
Self-Efficacy 0.55* 0.08
Learning (L) -0.0l 0.01

Step 2 .04
Attempts (A) 0.22* 0.07

Step 3 .00
L x A -0.01 0.02

 

Note. Regression weights given are incremental effects when all prior variables have
been entered into the regression.

N=184.
*p < .05.
Table 10

Regression Analysis: Effects of Transfer Attempt Variety on Transfer Performance in
Personal Life

 

 

Variable B SEB A122

Step 1 .24
Motivation to Learn 0.15* 0.08
Self-Efficacy 0.55“ 0.08
Learning (L) -0.0l 0.01

Step 2 .02
Variety of Attempts (V) 0.04* 0.02

Step 3 .00
L x V 0.00 0.01

 

blot; Regression weights given are incremental effects when all prior variables have
been entered into the regression.
N = 184.
* p < .05.

292

Table 1 l

Mession Analysis: Effcfis of Self-Efficacy on Frequency of Transfer Behavior
Attempts (Simulatirm

 

 

Variable B SEB AR2
Step 1 .03
Gender21 -1.15* 0.51
Motivation to Learn 0.33 0.36
Step 2 .01
Self-Efficacy 0.51 0.41

 

N_otg Regression weights given are incremental effects when all prior variables have
been entered into the regression.
N = 186.
a O = male, 1 = female.
* p < .05.

Table 12

figmssion Analysis: Effects of Self-Efficacy on Variety of Tran_sfer Behgviors
Attempted (Simulation)

 

 

Variable B SEB AR2

Step 1 .00
Motivation to Learn 0.16 0.20

Step 2 .03
Self-Efficacy 0.51* 0.22

 

Mtg Regression weights given are incremental effects when all prior variables have
been entered into the regression.
N = 189.
* p < .05.

293

Table 13

Regression Analysis: Effects of Self-Efficacy on Frequency of Transfer Behavior

Attempts (Personal Life)

 

 

Variable B SE B AR2
Step 1 .40
Number of Negotiations 0.37* 0.03
Motivation to Learn -0.07 0.06
Step 2 .01
Self-Efficacy 0.13 0.07

 

Note. Regression weights given are incremental effects when all prior variables have

been entered into the regression.

N= 189.
*p < .05.
Table 14

Regression Analysis: Effects of Self-Efficacy on Variety of Transfer Behaviors

Attempted (Personal Life)

 

 

Variable B SE B AR2
Step 1 .29
Number of Negotiations 1.25* 0.15
Motivation to Learn -O.18 0.28
Step 2 .01
Self-Efficacy 0.59 0.32

 

Note. Regression weights given are incremental effects when all prior variables have

been entered into the regression.
N = 189.
* p < .05.

294

Table 15

Regression Analysis: Effects of Self-Efficacy on Number of Negotiatms Reported
(Personal Life)

 

 

Variable B SE B AR2

Step 1 .05
Motivation to Learn 0.42* 0.14

Step 2 .05
Self-Efficacy 0.51“ 0.15

 

Note. Regression weights given are incremental effects when all prior variables have
been entered into the regression.

N= 189.
*p < .05.
Table 16

Regression Analysis: Effects of Competence Valuation on Frequency of Transfer
Behavior Attempts (Simulation;

 

 

Variable B SE B AR2

Step 1 .04
Gender3 -1 .00* 0.52
Motivation to Learn 0.22 0.37
Self-Efficacy 0.51 0.41

Step 2 .00
Competence Valuation 0.24 0.40

 

N_o_te_. Regression weights given are incremental effects when all prior variables have
been entered into the regression.
N = 186.
a 0 = male, 1 = female.
* p < .05.

295

Table 17

_Rggression Analysis: Effects of Competence Valuation on Variety of Transfer Beh_ayiors

Attempted (Simulation)

 

 

Variable B SE B ARZ
Step 1 .03
Motivation to Learn 0.06 0.20
Self-Efficacy 0.51 * 0.22
Step 2 .01
Competence Valuation 0.21 0.22

 

Note. Regression weights given are incremental effects when all prior variables have
been entered into the regression.

N= 189.
*p < .05.
Table 18

Mession Analysis: Effects of Competence Valuation on Frequency of Trapsfer
Behavior Attempts (Personal Life)

 

 

Variable B SE B AR2
Step 1 .41
Number of Negotiations 0.36‘“ 0.03
Motivation to Learn -0.09 0.07
Self-Efficacy 0.13 0.07
Step 2 .03
Competence Valuation 0.20* 0.07

 

_Npt_e_. Regression weights given are incremental effects when all prior variables have
been entered into the regression.
N = 189.
* p < .05.

296

Table 19

Regression An_alysis: Effects of Competence Valuation on Variety of Transfer Behaviors
Attempted (Personal Life)

 

 

Variable B SEB ARZ
Step 1 .30
Number of Negotiations 1.18* 0.15
Motivation to Learn -0.28 0.29
Self-Efficacy 0.59 0.32
Step 2 .01
Competence Valuation 0.48 0.31

 

Note. Regression weights given are incremental effects when all prior variables have
been entered into the regression.

N = 189.
* p < .05.
Table 20

Regression Analysis: Effects of Competence Valuation on Number of Negotiations
Reported (Personal Life)

 

 

Variable B SEB ARZ

Step 1 .10
Motivation to Learn 0.32* 0.14
Self-Efficacy 0.51* 0.15

Step 2 .01
Competence Valuation 0.22 0.15

 

m Regression weights given are incremental effects when all prior variables have
been entered into the regression.
N = 189.
* p < .05.

297

Table 21

Regession Analysis: Effects of Goal Variety on Frequency of Transfer Behavior
Attempts (Simulation)

 

 

Variable B SEB AR2

Step 1 04

Gender3 -1 .00* 0.52

Motivation to Learn 0.22 0.37

Self-Efficacy 0.51 0.41
Step 2 .00

Goal Variety 0.01 0.21

(nonassertive strategies)

Goal Variety -0.02 0.1 5

(assertive strategies)

 

Nag Regression weights given are incremental effects when all prior variables have
been entered into the regression.
N = 186.
“‘0 = male, 1 = female.
* p < .05.

Table 22

Regression Analysis: Effects of Goal Variety on Variety of Transfer Behaviors
Attempted (Simulation)

 

 

Variable B SEB AR2
Step 1 .03
Motivation to Learn 0.06 0.20
Self-Efficacy 0.51”“ 0.22
Step 2 .01
Goal Variety -0.05 0.12
(nonassertive strategies)
Goal Variety -0.07 0.08

(assertive strategies)

11191;; Regression weights given are incremental effects when all prior variables have
been entered into the regression.
N = 189.
* p < .05.

298

Table 23

fission Analysis: Effects of Goal Variety on Frequency of Transfer Beh_avior
Attempts (Personal Life)

 

 

Variable B SEB AR2
Step 1 .41
Number of Negotiations 0.36* 0.03
Motivation to Learn -0.09 0.07
Self-Efficacy 0.13 0.07
Step 2 .02
Goal Variety 0.09* 0.04
(nonassertive strategies)
Goal Variety -0.00 0.03

(assertive strategies)

 

Note. Regression weights given are incremental effects when all prior variables have
been entered into the regression.

N = 189.
* p < .05.
Table 24

R_egression Analysis: Effects of Goal Variety on Varieg/ of Transfer Behagviors
Attempted (Personal Life)

 

 

Variable B SEB AR2
Step 1 .30
Number of Negotiations 1.18* 0.15
Motivation to Learn -O.28 0.29
Self-Efficacy 0.59 0.32
Step 2 .05
Goal Variety 0.58* 0.18
(nonassertive strategies)
Goal Variety 0.03 0.1 1

(assertive strategies)

N_ot_e_. Regression weights given are incremental effects when all prior variables have
been entered into the regression.
N = 189.
* p < .05.

299

Table 25

Regression An_aflysis: Effects of Goal Variety on Number of Negotiatiops Reported
(Personal Life)

 

 

Variable B SEB AR2
Step 1 .10
Motivation to Learn 0.32* 0.14
Self-Efficacy 0.51* 0.15
Step 2 .01
Goal Variety 0.09 0.09
(nonassertive strategies)
Goal Variety -0.02 0.06

(assertive strategies)

 

Note. Regression weights given are incremental effects when all prior variables have
been entered into the regression.

N = 189.
* p < .05.
Table 26

kgession Analysis: Effects of Situational Cueing on Frequency of Transfer Behflior
Attempts (Simulation)

 

 

Variable B SEB AR2

Step 1 .04
Gender3 - l .00* 0.52
Motivation to Learn 0.22 0.37
Self-Efficacy 0.51 0.41

Step 2 .09
Situational Cueing 1.22* 0.29

 

Nptg Regression weights given are incremental effects when all prior variables have
been entered into the regression.
N = 186.
a 0 = male, 1 = female.
* p < .05.

300

Table 27

Regression Analysis: Effects of Situational Cueirg on Variety of Trgsfer Beh_aviors

Attempted (Simulation)

 

 

Variable B SE B AR2

Step 1 .03
Motivation to Learn 0.06 0.20
Self-Efficacy 0.51"“ 0.22

Step 2 .05
Situational Cueing 0.49* 0.16

 

Note. Regression weights given are incremental effects when all prior variables have
been entered into the regression.

N= 188.
*p < .05.
Table 28

Regression Analysis: Effects of Situational Cueing on Frequency of Tranafer Behavior
Attempts (Personal Life)

 

 

Variable B SEB AR2

Step 1 .41
Number of Negotiations 0.36* 0.03
Motivation to Learn -0.09 0.07
Self-Efficacy 0.13 0.07

Step 2 .00
Situational Cueing 0.04 0.05

 

Not; Regression weights given are incremental effects when all prior variables have
been entered into the regression.
N = 188.
* p < .05.

301

Table 29

Regression Analysis: Effects of Situatiprral Cueirfln Variety of Transfer Behaviors
Attempted (Personal Life)

 

 

Variable B SEB AR2

Step 1 .30
Number of Negotiations 1.18* 0.15
Motivation to Learn -0.28 0.29
Self-Efficacy 0.59 0.32

Step 2 .00
Situational Cueing —0.05 0.23

 

Note. Regression weights given are incremental effects when all prior variables have
been entered into the regression.

N: 188.
*p < .05.
Table 30

Regression Analysis: Effects of Situational Cueing on Number of Negotiations Reported
(Personal Life)

 

 

Variable B SEB AR2

Step 1 .10
Motivation to Learn 0.32* 0.14
Self-Efficacy 0.51* 0.15

Step 2 .01
Situational Cueing 0. 10 0.1 l

 

Not; Regression weights given are incremental effects when all prior variables have
been entered into the regression.
N = 188.
* p < .05.

302

Table 31

Regression Analysis: Effects of Perceived Personal Relevance on Competence Valuation

 

 

Variable B SEB AR2

Step 1 .17
Motivation to Learn 0.43* 0.27

Step 2 .27
Personal Relevance 0.69* 0.07

 

Note. Regression weights given are incremental effects when all prior variables have
been entered into the regression.

N= 189.
*p < .05.
Table 32

Regression Analysis: Effects of Self-Regulatory Focus on Goal Variety (Simularion)

 

 

Variable B SE B AR2

Step 1 .03
Motivation to Learn 0.31* 0.13

Step 2 .02
Approach-Mastery 0. l 8 0.1 7
Approach-Performance 0. l 8 0.12
Avoid 0.00 0.12

 

Nptp. Regression weights given are incremental effects when all prior variables have
been entered into the regression.
N = 189.
* p < .05.

303

Table 33

Regression Analysis: Effects of Self-Regrfltory Focus on Goal VarietsLLPersonal Life)

 

 

Variable B SE B AR2

Step 1 .05
Motivation to Learn 0.39* 0.12

Step 2 .12
Approach-Mastery 0.29* 0.15
Approach-Performance 0.41* 0.1 1
Avoid -0.23* 0.10

 

Note. Regression weights given are incremental effects when all prior variables have
been entered into the regression.

N = 189.
* p < .05.
Table 34

R_egression Analysis: Effects of Self-Regulatory Focus on Goal Variety (Assertive
Strategies)

 

 

Variable B SE B AR2

Step 1 .01
Motivation to Learn 0.24 0.19

Step 2 .04
Approach-Mastery 0.48 0.25
Approach-Performance -0.03 0.1 8
Avoid -0.40* 0.17

 

_Npt_e_. Regression weights given are incremental effects when all prior variables have
been entered into the regression.
N = 189.
* p < .05.

304

 

 

 

Table 35

Regression Analysis: Effects of Implementation Intention_a on Situational Cueing

 

 

 

Variable B SEB AR2
Step 1 .03
Gendera -0.30* 0.13
Motivation to Learn 0.09 0.09
Step 2 .00
Implementation 0.00 0.09
Intentions

 

fit; Regression weights given are incremental effects when all prior variables have
been entered into the regression.
N = 188.
a O = male, 1 = female.
* p < .05.

Table 36

Analysis of Covariance: Effects of Transfer Motivation Intervention on Perceived
Personal Relevance

 

 

Source df MS F

Between persons

Gendera 1 1 .65 6.40"=

Motivation to Learn (M) 1 6.62 25.70”“

Motivation Condition (C) 2 0.33 1.29

M x C 2 0.45 1.73
Within persons

Error 179 0.26

 

a Female participants expressed stronger perceived personal relevance of the negotiation
training than did male participants.
* p < .05.

305

Table 37

An_alysis of Covariance: Effects of Transfer Motivation Intervention on Self-Regulatory

Focus (Approach-Mastery)

 

 

 

Source df MS F
Between persons
Motivation to Learn (M) l 13.94 5939*
Motivation Condition (C) 2 0.62 2.63
M x C 2 1.67 7.11“
Within persons
Error 183 0.23
* p < .05.
Table 38

Analysis of Covariance: Effects of Transfer Motivation Intervention on Self-Reflatory
Focus (Approach-Performance)

 

Source df MS F

 

Between persons

 

Motivation to Learn (M) 1 0.08 0.15
Motivation Condition (C) 2 0.12 0.25
M x C 2 0.81 1.60
Within persons
Error 183 0.51
* p < .05.

306

Table 39

Analysis of Covariance: Effect; of Transfir Motivation Intervention on Self-Regplatory
Focus (Avoid)

 

 

 

Source df MS F
Between persons
Gender8 1 2.25 4.50”“
Motivation to Learn (M) l 0.05 0.10
Motivation Condition (C) 2 0.67 1.34
M x C 2 1.47 2.95
Within persons
Error 179 0.50
a 0 = male, 1 = female.
* p < .05.
Table 40

Analysis of Covariance: Effects of Transfer Motivation Intervention on Implementation
Intentions

 

Source df MS F

 

Between persons

 

Motivation to Learn (M) l 8.65 21 .62*
Motivation Condition (C) 2 0.96 2.39
M x C 2 0.74 1.84
Within persons
Error 183 0.40
* p < .05.

307

Table 41

Summa_ry of Significant Predictora for Tmfer Behavior Variables

 

Transfer Behavior Variable

Significant Predictors

 

Personal Life
Number of Negotiations

Number of Strategies Attempted

Variety of Strategies Attempted

Negotiation Simulation
Number of Strategies Attempted

Variety of Strategies Attempted

Motivation to Learn
Self-Efficacy
Personal Relevance

Competence Valuation
Goal Variety (nonassertive strategies)
Implementation Intentions

Goal Variety (nonassertive strategies)
Implementation Intentions

Gender
Situational Cueing

Self-Efficacy
Situational Cueing

308

 

 

 

 

FIGURES

309

 

 

”£531—

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

beefimeem
$2335.
83685 839.53% S ammmmshm.
macaw Baozflém e aouficoEoEEH . a ~e§>u§m M§om2§0

N
a:
a \ 3 29% t». 3 £80 «88%? SS
botw> n.s.: boES Boo AIIImIAi camouflage. All. A+V £30 39? MSRSSM
3:30 [[ 55:”.on All msoom bouszwomfium we ”BOD $8.33. 3.5%.
2 £832 EVE m

macaw
oo§>2om xmhéimxmfi Nazcrmm
coum2m> 8983800 41ml. Ecoflom 33023 n 2 39:82:69 3&5on
35.58.53 SSE—om mEmEagoo—z 32...:ch teazmimus
Sufi—Eh noun—.38 3:23:82 953?»: Enema—9:82 «awash gauge: smxwtug

53.3332 buggy.

.ooawgotoa “$833 was cor/Eon
Smash £23388 5?qu no scanning 223288 commas: 3:08:35 05 .Ho 83:: 05 MO 338 333280 ..~l.o.eme.

310

 

 

 

 

megawazom F304 8 539:3:

 

 

 

 

 

‘

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ESBEQ
32885 xfiaucgum S mmmmfiuhm
mfioso _maoumgmm cowficoEoEEH NEQESEM Matuuzzob

92$ 3.: =5

:2 a a: a Allqom a

.a 3 .mn A .H 385 as £30m aucoxmmwfig
£3va 38V mfihzaom
bogs» :36 All Soon bouflsmomfiom my £35 «ocoESV magma

cowgfi>mfiom omD =Em

o _ can Alll 0

$4 E: m as 3:8qu «Bob
oo§>£om xmthifiME thorwm
cogs—5w 8:809:00 Allin. Ecofiom 838an S Escumaaou MEESK
coca—Eaton .8323— mEmEaaoo—Z 30% acmBmESS
gamma—EH noun—.58 _auctgcoz $5332 _«aeuaZS—z $35. .8333: guxweak

 

$35234 Lemma—2H

.mwfincm >8— mo $883 05982 .m warm

311

Ema; 8 5.3522
m m

‘—

 

\

 

 

 

mcEcwE cozgozlol
35$. :82 Isl

 

 

.9500 lol

 

 

 

 

 

c2328 3
.300". foam—:moméow 3332-53.34. :0 53.. 8 2029302 .0 3”.th .v!a...:_m_n_.

smog Moaelnfiaa-uas qoemddv

312

53.. 8 5.3232
m 0

Y-

 

 

 

acEcmE cozmzsélol
mcEcmE :83. I?!
6550 III

\

 

 

 

\

 

 

 

 

cozicoo .3 .:o_~m:_m> 3:83:30 :0 Encl— 2 539222 h_o mfiwtm .m S_zumlr...

uouenleA aauaodwoa

313

magnum—flow

 

 

283:8:—
wfiosv 883255 8335:888—
momwuufium «28.—33‘ 295.
32.8.? Xflfl msoom
£5 88mg: \ oouaaaotoméuacand‘
:80 bofizwomfiom

2:235

8:813 3:83:80

 

mania—.82 8838282 £8332

boamazéoacan<

 

3.88—om

 

8898; .833qu

 

F804 8 838382

 

395.5280 8858382 8 8h

 

 

 

8:958: 828:1

.Bosbmcoo 388388 .8 Raucous—abuzz .03me

314

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

£20 1 on.
ooggofium 8855 4 E83 9 88382
885m
Atom
m _ .-
mm. 2.-
39:82 8320mm 8823/
8.88.89 .8 88.30 om. 8588.80

 

 

 

 

 

 

5:28 8580,23 mafia“: 98 8833
Hannah 8 388:: 05 8 8853, 082388 98 .zomofiofiom .882 8 88388 .8 muooto 2: 8 888 mammmaoa < .N. maximum

315

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

£80m
bo88wom£om
b882388§<
m 3.
\ mowowmmfiom
838 mm. 280
8888.83 .8888 4 888.8; 8 588$
mm.
mm. 888883 8032833 mm. 883 8 88382
“888.3. .8 botw>

 

 

 

5:88 3888on 83:38 8: 88 88888 803388 .8888 .8 >888
8: 8 888 88288338 88.88.88.888 88 808050.338 8.88 8 838388 .8 808.8 85 .8 _888 88808 < .w 838m

316