Motivation and cognitive abilities: An integrative/aptitude-treatment interaction approach to skill acquisition.

Kanfer, Ruth; Ackerman, Phillip L.

doi:10.1037/0021-9010.74.4.657

Cited by 1,736 publications

(2,142 citation statements)

References 110 publications

Supporting

104

Mentioning

2,010

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Similar to the SOC model, Kanfer and Ackerman (2004) argue that age-related shifts in the prioritization of goals are caused by intra-individual change trajectories, such as the perception of time. In addition, Kanfer and Ackerman's (1989) resource model predicts that individuals allocate personal resources, such as effort and time, toward goal Determinants of Intra-individual Change in Work Motivation 10 accomplishment based on perceptions of the utility of outcomes or performance. Therefore, age-related changes in motive strength (that is, motivation at work) influence motivation to work.…”

Section: Hypothesis 5: Promotion Focus Mediates the Positive Associatmentioning

confidence: 99%

Future time perspective and promotion focus as determinants of intraindividual change in work motivation.

Kooij¹,

Bal

Kanfer

2014

Psychology and Aging

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the near future, workforces will increasingly consist of older workers. At the same time, research has demonstrated that work-related growth motives decrease with age.Although this finding is consistent with life span theories, such as the Selection Optimization and Compensation model, we know relatively little about the process variables that bring about this change in work motivation. Therefore, we use a four-wave study design to examine the mediating role of future time perspective and promotion focus in the negative association between age and work-related growth motives. Consistent with the SOC model, we found that future time perspective was negatively associated with age, which in turn was associated with lower promotion focus, lower work-related growth motive strength, and lower motivation to continue working. These findings have important theoretical implications for the literature on aging and work motivation and practical implications for how to motivate older workers.

show abstract

Section: Hypothesis 5: Promotion Focus Mediates the Positive Associatmentioning

confidence: 99%

Future time perspective and promotion focus as determinants of intraindividual change in work motivation.

Kooij¹,

Bal

Kanfer

2014

Psychology and Aging

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The second research history concerns the effects of two related features of goal setting in CDCTs: goal-specificity (e.g., Burns & Vollmeyer, 2002;Owen & Sweller, 1985;Sweller & Levine, 1982;Vollmeyer, Burns, & Holyoak, 1996), and goal-difficulty (e.g., Kanfer & Ackerman, 1989;Kanfer, Ackerman, Murtha, & Nelson, 1994). In studies of the goal specificity effect, participants are either instructed to first learn about a complex control system by controlling it to a criterion (SG: Specific Goal), or are simply told to explore the system (NSG: Non-Specific Goal).…”

Section: Control Behavior: Research Histories Of Cdctsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Positive transfer and negative transfer/antilearning of problem-solving skills.

Osman¹

2008

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study examined how self-regulatory processes influenced problem solving behavior under conditions in which people were either re-exposed to their prior learning, or experienced someone else's. In a series of four experiments, participants solved two complex control tasks that were identical in structure but varied in presentation format. Participants either learnt to solve the second task, based on their original learning phase from the first task, or learnt to solve the second task based on another participant's learning phase. Experiment 1 showed that, under conditions in which participants' learning phase was experienced twice, performance deteriorated in the second task compared to the first. In contrast, when the learning phases in the first and second task differed, performance improved in the second task.Experiment 2 introduced instructional manipulations that induced the same response patterns as Experiment 1, and Experiment 3 showed that participants differentially weighted the learning phase in the second task. In Experiment 4, judgments of selfefficacy were shown to track control performance. The implications of these findings for induction, self-regulation, and insight are discussed. examples share a precise goal that involves accurately and reliably controlling a complex dynamic control task (CDCT-i.e., the aircraft). Control behavior in this, and other types of CDCTs (e.g., air-traffic control, naval mine sweeping, car driving) depends on the development of expertise (e.g., Brehmer, 1992;Funke, 2001; Gonzalez, Lerch, & Lebiere, 2003;Kerstholt, 1996;Randel & Pugh, 1996;Sweller, 1988;.Expertise involves both monitoring-through self-evaluation of goal-directed actions (e.g., Bandura & Locke, 2003; Ericsson & Lehman, 1996;Karoly, 1993;Lerch & Harter, 2001;Rossano, 2003;VanLehn, 1996)-and control, or the generation and selection of goal-directed actions (e.g., Lerch & Harter, 2001; Locke & Latham, 2002;Rossano, 2003;Sweller, 1988;VanLehn, 1996;Vollmeyer, Burns, & Holyoak, 1996). Both behaviors are also interrelated (e.g., Bandura & Locke, 2003; Ericsson & Lehman, 1996;Karoly, 1993;Lerch & Harter, 2001;Rossano, 2003;VanLehn, 1996). However, studies of skill learning in CDCTs have overlooked this relationship, particularly how it influences the transferability of expertise (e.g., Berry, 1991;Berry & Broadbent, 1988;Burns & Vollmeyer, 2002). Without an Anti-Learning 5 understanding of how individuals monitor their behavior, little can be said about how evaluative processes are employed when transferring learnt skills to achieve unpracticed goals.For instance, the critical difference between the examples above is that, in the first case, training (i.e., control performance) and assessment (i.e., monitoring) are based on self-generated behavior; whereas, in the second, assessment is based on comparing self-and other-generated training behavior. These types of training procedures are often used in educational (Pintrich & De Groot, 1990;Pressley, & Ghatala, 1990;Zimmerman, 1990), clin...

show abstract

“…Prior research shows that individuals given specific goals perceive greater time pressure than do Goal Setting in Teams 7 individuals who receive "do your best" goals (Kanfer & Ackerman, 1989). High specificity in team learning goals may also lead to perceptions of increased time pressure.…”

Section: Goal Setting In Teamsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Goal setting in teams: The impact of learning and performance goals on process and performance

Nahrgang

DeRue

Hollenbeck

et al. 2013

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Motivation and cognitive abilities: An integrative/aptitude-treatment interaction approach to skill acquisition.

Cited by 1,736 publications

References 110 publications

Future time perspective and promotion focus as determinants of intraindividual change in work motivation.

Future time perspective and promotion focus as determinants of intraindividual change in work motivation.

Positive transfer and negative transfer/antilearning of problem-solving skills.

Goal setting in teams: The impact of learning and performance goals on process and performance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About