Learning Orientation and

Goal Orientation Context:

Relationships with Cognitive
and Affective Learning Outcomes

Joseph J. Martocchio, Edward J. Hertenstein

A field experiment of ninety-six employees tested a model of the

relationships among dispositional learning orientation, self-efficacy, goal
orientation context, and declarative knowledge. Specifically, the model
predicted positive influences of task-specific self-efficacy (pre- and mid-
training) and declarative knowledge in the relationship between learning
orientation and posttraining self-efficacy. In addition, the model included a
positive path from goal orientation context (0 ⫽ performance; 1 ⫽ learning)
to posttraining self-efficacy. Finally, the model included the interactive effect
of learning orientation and goal orientation context on posttraining self-
efficacy. The setting was an introductory Microsoft Access 97 software
training course. But for three, the hypotheses were supported, including the
hypothesized interaction effect. Tests of three alternative models showed
poorer fits to the data than the hypothesized model.

Since the mid-1980s, the main effects of dispositional and contextual factors
have been examined on a variety of affective, cognitive, and skill-based learn-
ing outcomes in training contexts (Colquitt, LePine, & Noe, 2000; Salas &
Cannon-Bowers, 2001). Most of this empirical research emphasized either the
main effects of dispositional or contextual factors. Researchers have strongly
argued that future research should study the interactive effects of dispositional
and situational factors on training outcomes (Murtha, Kanfer, & Ackerman,
1996).
Several researchers have turned their attention to the relationships between
dispositional goal orientation and different training outcomes (Button,
Mathieu, & Zajac, 1996; Ford, Smith, Weissbein, Gully, & Salas, 1998). This
article highlights the current state of this literature. Goal orientation is a broad

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY, vol. 14, no. 4, Winter 2003

Copyright © 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 413
414 Martocchio, Hertenstein

construct with two specific dimensions: learning orientation and performance

orientation (Elliott & Dweck, 1988). Research beginning in children has
shown that the conception of ability is related to goal orientation (Dweck &
Leggett, 1988). Conceiving of ability as a fixed entity leads to a performance
orientation that is characterized by setting performance goals. In other words,
those with a conception of a fixed entity set goals to try to outperform others
rather than to improve their ability (Brett & VandeWalle, 1999). Thinking of
ability as an acquirable skill leads to a learning orientation. Past research has
reasoned and demonstrated that learning orientation represents an adaptive
response style that promotes higher learning (Ford et al., 1998). Conversely,
performance orientation represents a maladaptive response style that is unre-
lated to (Phillips & Gully, 1997) or inhibits (Fisher & Ford, 1998) learning.
Button et al. (1996) have shown that dispositional goal orientation is a
bidimensional construct, and others have argued that goal orientation is a mul-
tidimensional construct (VandeWalle, 1997). Despite this debate, research has
shown different effects of these goal orientation factors on learning and moti-
vational outcomes, and learning orientation is associated with more positive
outcomes (Steele-Johnson, Beauregard, Hoover, & Schmidt, 2000).
Although performance and learning orientations were originally believed
to be individual differences (Elliott & Dweck, 1988), research has shown that
training contexts can be established to induce learning- and performance-
oriented response patterns that influence a variety of training outcomes
(Stevens & Gist, 1997; Wood & Bandura, 1989). Button et al. (1996) fall on
the side that goal orientation is a relatively stable (but not an intransient) indi-
vidual difference variable subject to situational influences. They seem to be
open to the idea that situational factors may cause people to adopt less acute
response patterns, suggesting possible interactions between each dispositional
orientation factor and goal orientation context.
The purpose of this research is to improve on our understanding of the roles
that dispositional learning orientation and goal orientation context (both per-
formance and learning) play in learning. We chose not to focus on performance
orientation primarily on theoretical grounds and secondarily on empirical con-
siderations. Nevertheless, we assessed performance orientation as a possible
control variable. Theoretically, performance orientation is based on the belief that
ability is immutable (Elliott & Dweck, 1988), which is inconsistent with the
intended role of training as an intervention for promoting individual learning and
subsequent transfer. From a self-regulation perspective, people rating high in per-
formance orientation are not likely to exert effort because, in their minds, it will
not enhance ability, which is necessary for learning. From a cognitive interfer-
ence standpoint, performance-oriented people typically divert attentional
resources away from task engagement to thoughts concerning their limited com-
petence (Hofmann, 1993). Thus, a relationship between performance orienta-
tion and learning is not anticipated. Recent investigations have provided support
for these theory-based conjectures. For example, Fisher and Ford (1998)
Learning Orientation and Goal Orientation Context 415

demonstrated that performance-oriented people exhibited significantly greater

off-task attention than less performance-oriented people. Others showed that
performance orientation and learning are not significantly related (Ford et al.
1998; Button et al., 1996; Phillips & Gully, 1997). We found that performance
orientation did not show statistically significant correlations with any of the study
variables. We studied two particular types of learning—declarative knowledge
and task-specific self-efficacy—which represent cognitive- and affective-based
learning outcomes, respectively (Kraiger, Ford, & Salas, 1993). Declarative
knowledge refers to knowledge of facts (Anderson, 1985). Self-efficacy refers to
the judgments an individual makes about his or her capabilities to mobilize the
motivation, cognitive resources, and courses of action needed to orchestrate
future performance on a specific task (Gist & Mitchell, 1992). The setting for this
study was an introductory Microsoft Access 97 software training course for
employees.
We believe that this study holds value to HRD researchers and practition-
ers alike who ultimately strive to improve employee performance. This objec-
tive fits well with the idea of a continuous improvement philosophy in which
employees are no longer assumed to passively receive and perform what others
decide for them. Instead, there are greater expectations that employees will
proactively manage their performance and be ready to learn (Berge, 2001;
Downs, 1995). However, not all employees are predisposed to engage proac-
tively in learning activities, particularly given whether the context for training
is supportive of learning. By understanding whether the training context
(learning or performance oriented) enhances or diminishes the impact of
predisposition to learn (that is, learning orientation), HRD researchers and
practitioners will make strides toward understanding employee performance
and establishing training contexts that are supportive of learning, all of which
is consistent with a continuous learning philosophy.
Figure 1 depicts the model under study. We propose that dispositional
learning orientation indirectly affects posttraining self-efficacy through pre- and
midtraining self-efficacy and the acquisition of declarative knowledge. We also
were interested in whether goal orientation context influences posttraining self-
efficacy. Finally, we examined whether the interaction between dispositional
learning orientation and goal orientation context is related to posttraining
self-efficacy. We describe the theoretical rationale for this model.

Theoretical Rationale for the Model:

Learning Outcomes
Focusing on declarative knowledge and self-efficacy beliefs may seem to be
restrictive. Declarative knowledge and self-efficacy beliefs are just two
outcomes among several (Kraiger et al., 1993). Following past rationale and
evidence, we maintain that self-efficacy beliefs and declarative knowledge
represent two basic training evaluation criteria for the reasons described.
416 Martocchio, Hertenstein

Figure l. Hypothesized Model for the Interaction Effect of Learning

Orientation and Goal Orientation Context on Posttraining Efficacy
⫹
Cognitive Declarative
Ability Knowledge

⫹ ⫹ ⫹
⫹

Pretraining ⫹ Midtraining ⫹ Posttraining

Self-Efficacy Self-Efficacy Self-Efficacy

⫹ ⫹

Learning Goal Orientation

Orientation ⫹ ⫺ Context

Note: Goal orientation context: 0 ⫽ performance; 1 ⫽ learning.

Declarative Knowledge. Declarative knowledge is an important learning

construct. Theoretically, the initial phase of learning centers on the acquisition
of declarative knowledge (Anderson, 1985). Declarative knowledge is acquired
from instruction (for example, telling Microsoft Access 97 users which button
to click to enter design mode). People must first acquire declarative knowl-
edge, which is a necessary but not sufficient condition for higher-order learn-
ing (Ackerman, 1987). Successful acquisition of declarative knowledge should
enable people to combine specific pieces of this knowledge and apply them in
practice exercises and exploration using the software during training (Kraiger
et al., 1993).
Self-Efficacy. Eden’s work (Eden & Kinnar, 1991) on the Galatea effect
supports task-specific self-efficacy as a critical outcome of training. The Galatea
effect can be produced by raising people’s self-efficacy beliefs through some
agent other than the employees’ supervisors, with the expectation that higher
self-efficacy will lead to desired outcomes.
For example, Eden and Kinnar (1991) studied whether the self-efficacy of
willingness to volunteer could be influenced within a sample of candidates for
volunteer special forces service based on two recruiting methods: recruiting
sessions in which a standard videotape of expectations of the special forces ser-
vice members was augmented with vicarious experience and verbal persuasion
(experimental group) versus recruiting sessions in which only the standard
videotape was used (control group). The results showed a gain in self-efficacy
for candidates in the experimental group and a reduction in self-efficacy for
the control group members. Also, results indicated that a higher percentage of
candidates in the experimental group compared to the control group actually
volunteered for service following the completion of training. In addition, a
Learning Orientation and Goal Orientation Context 417

meta-analysis, or quantitative review, clearly shows a significant, positive rela-

tionship between self-efficacy and work-related learning across a variety of task
domains (Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998). Thus, examining self-efficacy as a
training outcome is pertinent, and it holds implications for subsequent job
performance.
Learning Orientation → Posttraining Self-Efficacy
Indirectly Through Pretraining and Midtraining
Self-Efficacy, and Declarative Knowledge
Learning Orientation → Pretraining Self-Efficacy. Conceptually, Kanfer
(1991; Kanfer & Ackerman, 1989) argued that distal theories of motivation
explain mediating influences on action through proximal motivational states.
Dispositional learning orientation may direct the allocation of attentional
resources within learning (Fisher & Ford, 1998). Task-specific self-efficacy
represents a person’s plans to allocate mental or physical effort to achieve a
targeted level of performance (Kanfer, 1987). Drawing from this perspective,
we maintain that task-specific self-efficacy represents a proximal motivational
mechanism through which the generalized distal motivational tendencies of
learning orientation manifest themselves in higher declarative knowledge and
posttraining self-efficacy.

HYPOTHESIS 1: Learning orientation will be positively related to pretraining

self-efficacy.

Learning Orientation → Posttraining Self-Efficacy. We also expect that

learning orientation will be positively related to posttraining self-efficacy.
Learning-oriented people maintain effective striving under difficult conditions
and respond to difficulty (for example, not understanding a particular point
from instruction) with “solution-oriented self-instructions, as well as sustained
or increased positive affect and sustained or improved performance” (Elliott &
Dweck, 1988, p. 5). Elliott and Dweck’s argument fits with Kanfer’s view
(1987) of self-efficacy as an individual’s intentions to allocate mental or phys-
ical effort to achieve a targeted level of performance. Thus, we hypothesize the
following:

HYPOTHESIS 2: Learning orientation will be positively related to posttraining

self-efficacy.

Pretraining Self-Efficacy → Midtraining Self-Efficacy. During training,

we expect that pretraining self-efficacy will predict midtraining self-efficacy
based on the following rationale. Early judgments of self-efficacy depend on a
complex analysis of several factors, including task requirements, an attribu-
tional analysis of experience, and an assessment of personal and situational
resources (Gist & Mitchell, 1992). Once the training commences, demands on
418 Martocchio, Hertenstein

people’s cognitive resources will be diverted to acquiring and comprehending

declarative knowledge (Kanfer & Ackerman, 1989). With this diversion of
resources, we expect that pretraining self-efficacy will be an important deter-
minant of self-efficacy during a training program (midtraining self-efficacy in
this study). Research shows that heightened efficacy beliefs result in beginning
and continuing task-related coping efforts that increase the attainment of suc-
cessful outcomes (Bandura, 1991). People whose self-efficacy is low dwell
on their personal deficiencies (Bandura, 1991) and become more self-diagnostic
than task diagnostic (Kanfer, 1987), which will diminish self-efficacy. Based on
this rationale, we hypothesize the following:

HYPOTHESIS 3: Pretraining self-efficacy will be positively related to midtraining

self-efficacy.

Midtraining Self-Efficacy → Declarative Knowledge. Research has

demonstrated that self-efficacy has had positive influences on the acquisition
of declarative knowledge in software training contexts (Gist, Schwoerer, &
Rosen, 1989) and on a variety of learning in training settings (Colquitt et al.,
2000). Mitchell, Hopper, Daniels, George-Falvy, and James (1994) found sup-
port for a hypothesis that a capacity measure such as task-specific self-efficacy
will be a better predictor of learning initially than will goals that may be set by
a person’s estimates of self-efficacy. During the early phases of knowledge
acquisition, both the novelty and complexity of task performance drain atten-
tional resources as an individual focuses attention on stimulus-response
(Kanfer & Ackerman, 1989). Focusing attention on goal development and
attainment diverts resources away from initial skill acquisition. Over time,
practice promotes internalization of complex behaviors. As an individual inter-
nalizes complex behaviors, resources are freed up for strategy development
through goal-setting processes as well as self-monitoring and self-evaluation
to promote future performance (Kanfer, 1991). Based on this rationale and the
rationale for hypothesis 3, we offer the following hypothesis:

HYPOTHESIS 4: Midtraining self-efficacy will be positively associated with declarative

knowledge and posttraining self-efficacy.

Declarative Knowledge → Posttraining Self-Efficacy. We anticipate that

learning also will be positively associated with posttraining self-efficacy. Gist
and Mitchell (1992) discussed a model of factors that influence the estima-
tion of self-efficacy. Initially, an individual estimates self-efficacy based on an
analysis of task requirements and experience, and an assessment of personal
and situational resources or constraints. Then self-efficacy influences perfor-
mance as described. Internal or external feedback following performance
instigates the process of subsequently estimating self-efficacy (Gist & Mitchell,
1992).
Learning Orientation and Goal Orientation Context 419

Bandura (1986) indicated that an individual’s interpretations of emotional

states based on recent experiences are a source of internal feedback. Positive
feedback conveys that a person has performed well, which should contribute
to higher self-efficacy, and negative feedback conveys that a person has not per-
formed well, which should lower self-efficacy estimates (Bandura, 1991). Con-
sistent with this theory, a field experiment in a microcomputer training context
showed that random positive feedback following a test of declarative knowl-
edge boosted self-efficacy and random negative feedback reduced self-efficacy
(Martocchio & Webster, 1992). Based on past rationale and evidence, we
hypothesize the following:

HYPOTHESIS 5: The acquisition of declarative knowledge will be positively related to

posttraining self-efficacy.

Goal Orientation Context → Posttraining Self-Efficacy. In work organi-

zations, researchers have discussed how an employee’s immediate environment
or context provides cues that he or she uses to interpret events (Salancik &
Pfeffer, 1978). Salancik and Pfeffer (1978) argued that the social context
focuses an individual’s attention on certain information, making that informa-
tion more salient, and provides expectations concerning individual behavior.
Their theory suggests that motivational state may be influenced simply by
establishing the context.
Past research has demonstrated that a goal orientation context can be
established by directing people to think of their ability as a fixed entity or
acquirable skill (Martocchio, 1994; Stevens & Gist, 1997). Martocchio (1994)
showed that the learning context led employees to experience less anxiety and
higher task-specific self-efficacy than employees in a performance context dur-
ing training. Stevens and Gist (1997) similarly manipulated the context during
a posttraining session on people’s negotiation skill maintenance. They found
that students in the learning context engaged in more interim skill-
maintenance activities, planned to exert more effort, and showed more posi-
tive affect than those in the performance context. In a learning context, Wood
and Bandura (1989) demonstrated that students participating in a simulation
maintained a strong sense of self-efficacy even in the face of difficult standards,
set challenging goals, and used analytic strategies efficiently compared to stu-
dents in the performance context.
Based on these studies, people who are instructed to think of ability as an
acquirable skill believe that their ability can be continually increased by gain-
ing knowledge and building their capabilities through practice (Elliott &
Dweck, 1988). These people are more likely to interpret mistakes as useful
feedback for developing strategies to improve future performance because they
believe they can successfully orchestrate the personal and external resources
necessary for desired task completion (Wood & Bandura, 1989). Thus, on
reinforcement of learning cues, it seems reasonable that self-efficacy at the end
of training will be bolstered.
420 Martocchio, Hertenstein

People who are directed to think of ability as a fixed entity focus on eval-
uative concerns about personal capability, which they believe demonstrate
intellectual capacity (Elliott & Dweck, 1988). Mistakes represent personal and
social evaluative threats, which imply an absence of personal control (Bandura,
1991). When threatened, people who subscribe to an entity view may adopt
avoidant strategies for coping (Thompson, 1981). Subscribers to the entity
view are likely to experience low self-efficacy beliefs because they tend to dwell
on their deficiencies and perceive environmental demands as more pressing
than they are (Wood & Bandura, 1989). Based on this rationale, we make the
following hypothesis:

HYPOTHESIS 6: Goal orientation context will be related to posttraining self-efficacy

such that self-efficacy will be higher for people in the learning context than in the
performance context.

Learning Orientation-by-Goal Orientation Context → Posttraining

Self-Efficacy. Researchers have not examined possible interaction effects
between levels of goal orientation and goal orientation context. Button et al.
(1996) conjectured that situations may cause people to adopt response pat-
terns suggesting possible simple interactions between each dispositional goal
orientation and goal orientation context. Earlier, we provided a rationale for
both dispositional and contextual effects, neither of which spoke to an inter-
action between them.
Murtha et al. (1996) discussed the idea of a situational-dispositional rep-
resentation of personality traits to explain the ways that situations may inter-
act with personality to modify the strength of behavioral or cognitive
responses. Following Mischel (1990), traits are composed of families of related
trait responses. Murtha et al. (1996) have argued that the magnitude of the
relationship between a trait factor and its response depends on whether the sit-
uation is consistent with the trait.
Situationalists (Endler & Magnusson, 1976) maintain that behavior or
cognition is determined solely by salient cues in the present context, which
manifest in low cross-situational consistency in behavioral and cognitive
responses. Trait theorists argue that dispositions drive behavioral and cogni-
tive responses, which manifest in high cross-situational consistency.
Murtha et al. (1996) deduced the situational-dispositional representation of
personality traits from two patterns of research findings in the personality liter-
ature. They noted that different correlations between measures of the same per-
sonality factors and responses were obtained in dissimilar situations. They
recognized that some research showed cross-situational consistency and
prediction when situations are more similar. And they found support for the
situational-dispositional representation of two personality traits (conscientious-
ness and agreeableness). They demonstrated that responses to these personality
scales can be arranged in terms of the similarity of the correspondence between
the trait and situations.
Learning Orientation and Goal Orientation Context 421

Situational factors may modify the strength of the relationship between

an individual’s trait or disposition and training outcomes. The idea is that
situations amplify the expected effects of a dispositional characteristic on out-
come variables that are consistent with each other versus dispositional charac-
teristics on outcome variables that are inconsistent with each other.
We believe that Murtha et al.’s hypothesis and findings (1996) establish a
basis for examining the interaction of dispositional learning orientation and
goal orientation context. Based on past theory for the influence of learning ori-
entation and the effects of goal orientation context on self-efficacy, we hypoth-
esized the following:

HYPOTHESIS 7: There will be an interactive effect of learning orientation and goal

orientation context on posttraining self-efficacy. We expect significantly higher post-
training self-efficacy ratings when learning orientation and goal orientation con-
text are most similar than when learning orientation and goal orientation context
are dissimilar.

Method
Sample. The sample contained ninety-six clerical workers at a Midwest-
ern university. The participants were 84 percent female, and the average age
was 41.9 years (SD ⫽ 10.1). Over 95 percent had never used this software
prior to the training. One hundred three participants enrolled in and attended
the classes. Ninety-six completed the training, representing a response rate of
93.2 percent.
Training and Procedure. A free four-hour introductory course about
Microsoft Access 97 software was offered to clerical workers. The personnel
office at the university provided a complete mailing list of clerical employees.
The advertisement, mailed to a random sample of those employees, offered
participants a choice of several four-hour sessions, from which they were asked
to select one based on scheduling convenience. The advertisement also indi-
cated that the training was being offered as part of a research project and out-
lined the main topics to be covered during training: creating a database,
creating a report, using the query feature, and converting into Microsoft Access
97 from other database software.
Classes were held in a computer classroom with twenty computer work-
stations. We conducted ten identical four-hour sessions to accommodate
employees’ work schedules. The two of us taught the classes, following the same
written script and procedures for administering surveys and tests. We each
taught the same number of participants. Multivariate analysis of variance did
not reveal a significant multivariate effect of instructor or session for the demo-
graphic variables or baseline variables discussed below. T tests revealed that
none of the outcome variables in this research differed by instructor.
Participants completed several scales and training activities in the same
sequence. Prior to the start of the training, participants signed informed-consent
422 Martocchio, Hertenstein

forms and completed several scales: cognitive ability, dispositional goal orien-
tation (both learning and performance), and pretraining self-efficacy. Then they
were provided two and one-half hours of lectured instruction during which
they practiced the concepts and facts. After the instruction, midtraining self-
efficacy was assessed followed by a test of declarative knowledge and a manip-
ulation check. Fourth, trainees completed hands-on exercises at their own pace.
Finally, posttraining self-efficacy was assessed, and a second manipulation check
was administered.
Goal Orientation Inductions. The inductions were embedded in the topic
outlines that the instructor asked the participants to read carefully over the
course of the training and in the instructions for the exercises. The inductions
were adapted from past research (Martocchio, 1994; Wood & Bandura, 1994)
and were designed to induce performance- or learning-oriented responses.
The participants were given folders at the beginning of the session that
contained class materials, including the test instruments, outlines of each
topic, and exercises. Participants received a packet with either learning or
performance orientation inductions on a random basis in each class. Neither
instructor knew which induction the participants received. Equal numbers
of both inductions were prepared for each session by an individual not
involved in the research project, and the instructors did not view the con-
tent of the packets. Each instructor followed a detailed script for delivering
training that excluded learning- or performance-oriented response patterns.
Furthermore, each instructor followed the same procedure for answering
participants’ questions by answering the question exclusively based on fact
without remarks that could induce a learning- or performance-oriented
response pattern.
The following is a performance goal induction: “As you go through the
Microsoft Access 97 training, you will benefit most by using features of the pro-
gram. You will have more than one opportunity to perform 5 hands-on exer-
cises. Focus on performing these exercises well by minimizing the mistakes
you make. The fewer mistakes you make, the better you can use the Microsoft
Access 97 program. So, try to keep mistakes to a minimum.”
The following is an example of a learning goal induction: “Learning how to
use Microsoft Access 97 is developed through persistence and hard work. The
old saying ‘Practice makes perfect’ holds true for computer skills. You will prob-
ably make mistakes. That’s normal. People who learn how to use Microsoft
Access 97 do not begin with faultless performance. Again, it is important to
remember that the more practice you have, the more capable you will become.”

Measures
General Cognitive Ability. Cognitive ability was assessed with the re-
vised form of the Wonderlic Personnel Test, Form 1 (Wonderlic & Associates,
1992). The Wonderlic is a twelve-minute timed test with fifty items arranged
Learning Orientation and Goal Orientation Context 423

in order of increasing difficulty. Internal consistency (KR-20) was .86 in this

study.
Self-Efficacy. Self-efficacy was measured with a twelve–item scale based
on previous research (Martocchio & Dulebohn, 1994). An example from the
scale follows: “I feel confident that I can learn to use Access 97.” Participants
responded on seven-point Likert-type scales ranging from “strongly disagree”
to “strongly agree.” This instrument was administered three times during the
study. Coefficient alphas were .92 for the pretraining assessment, .85 for
the midtraining assessment, and .95 for the posttraining assessment.
Dispositional Goal Orientation. Performance orientation and learning
orientation were assessed with two eight-item scales developed by Button et al.
(1996). Participants responded using a seven-point Likert-type scale ranging
from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.” A sample item from the perfor-
mance orientation is: “The things I enjoy the most are the things I do best.”
For the learning orientation, a sample item is: “I do my best when I’m work-
ing on a fairly difficult task.” Coefficient alphas were .81 for the performance
orientation scale, and .83 for the learning orientation scale.
Declarative Knowledge. Declarative knowledge was measured with a ten-
item test of specific knowledge regarding the features of Microsoft Access 97
software. These were multiple-choice questions, sampled from the course
domain. Each item was scored 1 for correct or 0 for incorrect, and the total
score was the number of correct items. Average item difficulty was .61, which
indicates that the test was powerful in differentiating between those who did
and did not learn (Ghiselli, Campbell, & Zedeck, 1981).

Data Analysis
We conducted multivariate analysis of covariance as a preliminary analysis
prior to testing model fit and the statistical significance of paths because of
multiple related dependent measures of baseline and posttraining outcomes
(Cohen & Cohen, 1983). That is, we wanted to be sure that the relationship
between the set of independent variables (learning orientation, pretraining self-
efficacy) and the set of dependent variables (posttraining self-efficacy, learn-
ing) was not the result of a chance occurrence. A statistically significant
MANCOVA analysis indicates that there is a multivariate effect of the treatment
and covariate variables on the outcome variables.
Path analysis using maximum likelihood estimation (Analysis of
Moment Structures, Arbuckle, 1994; Hox, 1995) tested the hypothesized
model. Path analysis allowed us to test the effects of the independent vari-
ables on the dependent variables in one analysis rather than testing parts of
it in separate analysis. This analysis allowed us to make stronger conclu-
sions about the operation of the theory. Specifically, we examined the over-
all fit of the hypothesized model in Figure 1 to the data as well as the
parameters for the paths.
424 Martocchio, Hertenstein

The input data were a correlation matrix, which we corrected for atten-
uation using scale reliability scores (Ghiselli et al., 1981); that is, we
removed the effects of any measurement error. The hypothesized interaction
term between learning orientation and goal orientation context was also cor-
rected for attenuation with a formula developed by Busemeyer and Jones
(1983).
Consistent with an hierarchical approach to path modeling (Cohen &
Cohen, 1983), we first tested the hypothesized model containing main effects
only (that is, we excluded the interaction between learning orientation and
goal orientation context). Then we tested the model with the interaction term
(we subsequently included the interaction between learning orientation and
goal orientation context). This term was added to the path model as an exoge-
nous variable (that is, as a variable that serves as an independent variable only),
without correlation to either of the main effect variables. Following these tests,
we examined theoretically plausible alternative models to determine whether
these fit the data better than the hypothesized model.
Seven fit indices guided our judgment regarding whether the hypothesized
model was the best theoretical fit to the data: ␹2兾degrees-of-freedom (df) ratio,
goodness-of-fit index (GFI), adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI), non-
normed fit index (NNFI), comparative fit index (CFI), root-mean-square error
of approximation (RMSEA), and likelihood ratio (LR) test of ␦␹2 (Bollen,
1995). ␹2兾df ratios less than two-to-one are suggestive of adequate model fit
(Bentler & Chou, 1987). GFI, CFI, and AGFI indicate better fit as they
approach 1, and a score of .9 or better is generally considered to be indicative
of good fit. The NNFI, also known as the Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), indicates
better fits as it approaches 1; unlike other indices, it is not limited to the range
of 0 to 1 (Bentler & Bonett, 1980). The RMSEA measures the average fitted
residual, and a score less than .1, and preferably less than .08, is desired
(Bollen, 1995).
There is some concern that smaller samples (particularly, n ⫽ 200) may
lead to biased results in maximum likelihood estimation (Boomsma, 1987).
Bentler and Chou (1987) have suggested that minimum sample size depends
on the model complexity. Specifically, the recommended ratio of sample to esti-
mated parameter is 5-to-1 or higher for reliable estimates. The ratio in this
study approaches this recommendation closely at 4.6-to-1. To provide greater
confidence in the results based on maximum likelihood estimation, we com-
pare those results with the results based on the ordinary least squares (OLS)
estimation method, which is less dependent on sample size.

Results
Zero-order correlations for the observed study variables are presented in Table 1.
The table also displays the means and standard deviations overall as well as by
condition.
 Table 1. Zero-Order Correlations and Descriptive Statistics for the Study Variables
Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Pretraining measures
1. Cognitive ability 23.81 5.54 1.00
2. Pretraining self-efficacy 66.96 8.69 .15 1.00
3. Learning orientation 47.27 4.51 ⫺.03 .43 1.00
Midtraining measures
4. Goal orientation context .53 .50 .22 .09 .17 1.00
(0 ⫽ performance; 1 ⫽ learning)
5. Midtraining self-efficacy 68.97 10.02 .16 .73 .37 .05 1.00
6. Declarative knowledge 6.71 1.74 .32 .18 ⫺.01 .15 .25 1.00
Posttraining measures
7. Posttraining self-efficacy 67.55 11.48 .21 .69 .30 .00 .88 .19 1.00
Context
Performance M 22.18 66.13 45.95 — 68.51 6.56 67.38
SD 5.01 9.43 4.16 — 10.93 1.79 12.06
Learning M 25.29 68.00 47.93 — 69.41 6.93 67.83
SD 5.97 8.44 4.73 — 10.19 1.68 11.53
Note: Total N ⫽ 96, Performance N ⫽ 45, Learning N ⫽ 51; .20 ⬍ r ⬍ .24, p ⬍ .05; r ⬎ .24, p ⬍ .01 (two-tailed).
426 Martocchio, Hertenstein

Preliminary Analyses. No differences were found across experimental

conditions for age [t(89) ⫽ 1.01, ns], job tenure [t(93) ⫽ 1.14, ns], pretraining
self-efficacy [t(93) ⫽ .92, ns], sex [␹2 (1, N ⫽ 96) ⫽ .62, ns], and education
level [␹2 (4, N ⫽ 95) ⫽ 1.92, ns]. There was a significant difference for cogni-
tive ability [t(92) ⫽ 2.23, p ⬍ .05], which we controlled for in the test of the
hypothesized model.
For the MANCOVA analysis, goal orientation context served as the inde-
pendent variable with three pretraining covariates (pretraining self-efficacy,
cognitive ability, and learning orientation) in predicting midtraining self-
efficacy and posttraining (declarative knowledge and posttraining self-efficacy).
The analysis revealed a significant multivariate effect of goal orientation con-
text and the covariates on the outcome variables. The multivariate effect of the
pretraining covariates was significant [Wilks’s lambda ⫽ .34, F(9, 225) ⫽
10.81, p ⬍ .001].
The manipulation check was successful. Goal orientation context was per-
ceived as intended. At the midtraining assessment, trainees in the learning con-
text felt that they were less encouraged to show the instructor or their peers in
the class that they could do well either by telling what they knew or by show-
ing that they could use the software, compared to trainees in the performance
goal context [t(90)⫽ ⫺2.01, p ⬍ .05; learning context: M ⫽ 2.18, SD ⫽ 1.16;
performance context: M ⫽ 2.72, SD ⫽ 1.40]. At the posttraining assessment,
trainees in the learning context did not feel that making mistakes probably
meant that they were not doing well, compared to trainees in the performance
context [t(84)⫽ ⫺1.68, p ⬍ .05; learning context: M ⫽ 4.04, SD ⫽ 1.50; per-
formance context: M ⫽ 4.58, SD ⫽ 1.46].
Test of the Hypothesized Model. Table 2 shows a summary of the fit indices
for the hypothesized and alternative models. We first tested the hypothesized
model without the interaction term and found that it fit the data well. Then we
added the interaction term and found that the hypothesized path model dis-
played in Figure 1 fit the data well. The difference between the models without
and with the interaction term was not statistically significant, suggesting that
both models fit the data about equally well. Although the main effects model
with fewer degrees of freedom is more parsimonious than the interactive
model with eight additional degrees of freedom, we retained the latter based on
the theoretical rationale that situations may influence the operation of disposi-
tional characteristics. Finally, the hypothesized path model shows significant
improvement over the null model.
Figure 2 shows the standardized path coefficients for this analysis.
Hypotheses 1, 3, 4, and 7 were supported. The path coefficients corre-
sponding to hypotheses 1, 3, 4, and 7 were statistically significant and in
the predicted directions (at p ⬍ .01). Hypothesis 6 was not supported
because the path coefficient did not reach statistical significance, indicating
that goal orientation context was not related to posttraining self-efficacy.
The statistically significant paths from learning orientation to posttraining
 Table 2. Fit Statistics for Hypothesized and Alternative Models
LR of ⌬␹2
(hypothesized
Model ␹2 df ␹2兾df GFI AGFI CFI NNFI RMSEA vs. alternative)
Hypothesized model 17.51 14 1.25 .95 .89 .99 .99 .05
with interaction
Hypothesized model 8.34 8 1.04 .97 .69 .99 .99 .02 9.16, df ⫽ 6
without interaction
Alternative models
1. Interaction model with 51.46 16 3.21 .89 .77 .93 .87 .15 33.95*, df ⫽ 2
paths removed from
cognitive ability to
pretraining self-efficacy
and to posttraining
self-efficacy
2. Interaction model with 55.98 15 3.73 .89 .75 .92 .84 .17 38.47*, df ⫽ 1
path removed from
declarative knowledge to
posttraining self-efficacy
3. Alternative model 1 with 66.99 17 3.94 .87 .74 .90 .83 .17 49.48*, df ⫽ 3
path removed from
declarative knowledge to
posttraining self-efficacy
Note: df ⫽ degrees of freedom, RMSEA ⫽ root-mean-square error of approximation, GFI ⫽ goodness-of-fit index, AGFI ⫽ adjusted goodness-of-fit index, CFI ⫽
comparative fit index, NNFI ⫽ non-normed fit index, LR ⫽ likelihood ratio test.
*p ⬍ .001.
428 Martocchio, Hertenstein

Figure 2. Results for the Model

.47*
Cognitive Declarative
Ability Knowledge

.32* .15*
.20* ⫺.19*

Pretraining .83* Midtraining 1.04* Posttraining

Self-Efficacy Self-Efficacy Self-Efficacy

.52* ⫺.04

Learning Goal Orientation

Orientation ⫺.10* ⫺.20* Context

*p ⬍ .01.

self-efficacy (hypothesis 2) and from declarative knowledge to posttrain-

ing self-efficacy (hypothesis 5) have negative path coefficients, which should
have been positive based on theoretical rationale.
A perusal of the correlation coefficients in Table 1 reveals that learning ori-
entation and declarative knowledge are acting as suppressor variables in the
context of the midtraining self-efficacy variable, which also is a predictor of
posttraining self-efficacy. “Suppression can be understood to indicate that the
relationship between the independent or causal variables is hiding or sup-
pressing their real relationships with Y, which would be larger or possibly of
opposite sign were they not correlated” (Cohen & Cohen, 1993, p. 95). In this
study, the coefficients for the two paths in question are negative, but the zero-
order correlations between learning orientation and posttraining self-efficacy
as well as between declarative knowledge and posttraining self-efficacy are pos-
itive and statistically significant. A further examination of the correlations con-
firms suppression effects: the product of the correlations between declarative
knowledge and midtraining self-efficacy (r ⫽ .25) and between midtraining
self-efficacy and posttraining self-efficacy (r ⫽ .88) equals .22, which is greater
than the correlation between declarative knowledge and posttraining self-
efficacy (r ⫽ .19). The same pattern was found for learning orientation, fur-
ther substantiating the operation of learning orientation as a suppressor
variable. The suppression effect does not render the model uninterpretable.
Fortunately, several recent examinations found a positive relationship
between learning orientation and posttraining self-efficacy (Ford et al., 1998;
Phillips & Gully, 1997). Also, the rationale presented earlier for a positive rela-
tionship between declarative knowledge and subsequent self-efficacy (Gist &
Mitchell, 1992) is sufficiently well-grounded in theory. Finally, as indicated in
Table 1, the zero-order correlations between learning orientation and
posttraining self-efficacy and between declarative knowledge and posttraining
Learning Orientation and Goal Orientation Context 429

self-efficacy are positive and statistically significant. Together, these facts and
rationale are supportive of these hypothesized effects.
Hypothesis 7 predicted an interactive effect of learning orientation and
goal orientation context on posttraining self-efficacy. Specifically, we expected
significantly higher posttraining self-efficacy ratings where learning orientation
and goal orientation context are most similar (within the learning context, self-
efficacy will be significantly greater for people rating high in learning orienta-
tion than low in learning orientation) than in situations where learning
orientation and goal orientation context are most dissimilar (within the
performance context, self-efficacy ratings will not be significantly different
based on learning orientation).
The path coefficient for the interaction term was statistically significant. A
view of the interaction plot in Figure 3 shows strong support for this hypothe-
sis. In the learning context, the difference between posttraining self-efficacy for
high and low learning orientation (based on the median split) was statistically
significant and in the predicted direction (high learning orientation, M ⫽ 76.60,
SD ⫽ 8.04; low learning orientation, M ⫽ 69.89, SD ⫽ 12.94, t ⫽ 1.72,
p ⬍ .05). In the performance context, the difference between posttraining self-
efficacy was not statistically significant (high learning orientation, M ⫽ 64.47,
SD ⫽ 11.52; low learning orientation, M ⫽ 65.92, SD ⫽ 9.67, t ⫽ ⫺.51, ns).
For high learning-oriented trainees, posttraining self-efficacy was higher in the
learning context than in the performance (learning context, M ⫽ 76.60, SD ⫽
8.04; performance context, M ⫽ 64.47, SD ⫽ 11.52, t ⫽ ⫺3.67, p < .01). For
low learning-oriented people, there was no significant difference in self-efficacy

Figure 3. Interaction Effect of Learning Orientation and Goal

Orientation Context on Posttraining Self-Efficacy
78
76
74
Posttraining Efficacy

72
70
68
66
64
62
High Learning Orientation
60 Low Learning Orientation
58
Performance Learning

Note: Units represent the sum of the responses to each of the self-efficacy questions. Larger numbers
correspond with higher levels of self-efficacy.
430 Martocchio, Hertenstein

by context (learning context, M ⫽ 69.89, SD ⫽ 12.94; performance context,

M ⫽ 65.92, SD ⫽ 9.67, t ⫽ ⫺1.13, ns).
Alternative Model Testing. We tested three alternative models to examine
whether other theoretically plausible models fit the data better than the hypoth-
esized model. For the first alternative model, the paths from cognitive ability
to pretraining self-efficacy and to posttraining self-efficacy were removed. The
second alternative model removed the path from declarative knowledge to post-
training self-efficacy, and the third alternative removed all three of the paths
that were removed in the other two alternative models. Table 2 shows the dif-
ferences in fit indices among the various models tested. We found that the
hypothesized model exhibited much better fit than any of these alternative
models. The LR test of ⌬␹2 is used to examine this relationship, since the alter-
native models are nested within the interaction model (Bollen, 1995). Signifi-
cant increases in ␹2 indicate that none of the alternative models based on
additional paths fit the data better than the hypothesized model.

Discussion
This research extends our knowledge of the role of learning orientation and
goal orientation context in training settings by examining the interactive effect
of these two variables on affective and cognitive learning outcomes. While past
research studied main effects of dispositional goal orientation or the corre-
sponding context (Ford et al., 1998; Wood & Bandura, 1989), this investiga-
tion examined the moderating role of goal orientation context in the
relationship between learning orientation and posttraining self-efficacy.
The results endorsed past research findings that dispositional learning orien-
tation is positively related to learning outcomes, but it did not replicate previ-
ous research findings that goal orientation context affects learning outcomes.
Given our emphasis on the moderating role of goal orientation context in this
study, the lack of support for a goal orientation context main effect does not
represent a problem. Interpreting statistically significant main effects of
the constituent variables is relatively meaningless in the face of a statistically
significant interaction effect (Cohen & Cohen, 1983). The statistically signifi-
cant and predicted effect of the interaction informs our knowledge of the mod-
erating role of goal orientation context.
Support for the interactive effect is consistent with Murtha et al.’s
situational-dispositional hypothesis (1996) that situations may interact with
dispositional factors to modify the strength of behavioral or cognitive responses
to dispositional influences. Murtha et al. (1996) argued that the strength of the
dispositional–outcome relationship will be stronger when the disposition and
situation match than when the disposition and situation match less well. Our
results showed that the relationship between learning orientation and post-
training self-efficacy was statistically significant in the learning context but not
in the performance context.
Learning Orientation and Goal Orientation Context 431

In the learning context, trainees rating high on learning orientation

exhibited substantially higher posttraining self-efficacy than trainees who rated
lower on learning orientation. It appears that the learning cues amplified the
influence of learning orientation on self-efficacy to a greater extent than
for trainees rating low in learning orientation. In the performance context,
posttraining self-efficacy was approximately the same regardless of learning
orientation level and lower than posttraining self-efficacy in the learning con-
text. Apparently, the performance cues overwhelmed the influence of learning
orientation on posttraining self-efficacy.
The results for the interaction also fit well with Button et al.’s conjecture
(1996) that situational characteristics may modify the influence of goal
orientation. Although these researchers did not explicitly state the nature of an
interaction, our results suggest that situational and dispositional consistency
enhance the learning orientation–self-efficacy relationship, whereas such
inconsistency mitigates the learning orientation–self-efficacy relationship. We
encourage researchers to conceptualize how other relevant situations may
modify the relationships between learning orientation and learning outcomes
and to test these. For example, mandatory employment job training may
promote performance-oriented response patterns to the extent that doing well
on tests and work samples influences employment status. Yet offering a wide
range of training opportunities to employees on a voluntary basis may promote
learning-oriented responses to the extent that supervisors do not monitor
performance. Additional conceptual and empirical work should enhance our
knowledge of how learning orientation operates in different contexts.
The main effect of learning orientation on posttraining self-efficacy fit well
with the tenets of this construct and past findings on the relationships between
learning orientation and self-efficacy (Phillips & Gully, 1997). The influence
of learning orientation on the acquisition of declarative knowledge and post-
training self-efficacy operates through self-efficacy throughout the training
process. These findings are consistent with arguments from the self-regulation
literature regarding the role of attributions and perseverance in the face of
challenge (Kanfer, 1987). In addition, these results provide support that distal
dispositional factors (learning orientation) operate through more proximal
motivational factors (self-efficacy).
Implications for Human Resource Development Researchers and
Practitioners. The results of this study clearly indicate that the context estab-
lished in training has an impact on learning orientation. In this study, we showed
that a learning context boosted the influence of learning orientation, which led
to higher self-efficacy. This result makes sense insofar as the host organization
offers training opportunities to employees who choose to seek self-improvement.
The very act of offering training options fits with learning-oriented individuals’
desire for mastery. Lacing the context with learning-oriented cues substantially
benefited these individuals. It would be interesting to test the influence of per-
formance orientation in mandatory training situations in which the status of an
432 Martocchio, Hertenstein

employee (for example, pay raise amounts, promotional opportunities) is at

stake. Given the nature of performance-oriented individuals, we might expect to
find that a performance context amplifies these individuals’ natural tendencies
to behave in a manner that places them in the best possible light. Future research
is needed to check the veracity of this conjecture.
Limitations. Although this study sheds light on the conjoint effect of
dispositional and goal orientation context in learning settings, it is not with-
out limitations. Our sample may represent only a limited range of the more
learning oriented. The training was voluntary. The more learning-oriented
employee probably elected training, and the less learning-oriented employee
probably chose not to take training. We might expect stronger effects without
this possible range restriction. Nevertheless, we found support for the overall
fit of the model and the particular paths. Future research should examine the
relationship between learning orientation and learning outcomes where train-
ing is mandatory, in which case the range of learning orientation will probably
be greater. In addition, future research should study the influence of goal
orientation along with other theoretically pertinent dispositional factors. We
also temper our conclusions based on the fact that the sample size was
relatively small.
We were concerned about the possible effect of using two instructors to pro-
vide the training for this study. For that reason, we tested another model that
included paths from the instructor to the three outcome variables of midtraining
self-efficacy, posttraining self-efficacy, and declarative knowledge. This model did
not fit the data as well as the hypothesized model, with a GFI of .93, AGFI of .85,
CFI of .97, NNFI of .96, and RMSEA of .08. In addition, the paths in the hypoth-
esized model were changed little with the addition of the instructor variable. Only
one path changed by as much as .05: the path from midtraining self-efficacy to
declarative knowledge, which changed from .32 in the hypothesized model
to .27 in the instructor model.
In conclusion, the results of this study extend our knowledge of the train-
ing process, which has focused on the main effects of situational or disposi-
tional antecedents of learning, by demonstrating that the interaction between
learning orientation and goal orientation context also contributes to learning.
Our results are important because the hypotheses were deduced from aspects
of the literatures on dispositions and motivation. Greater confidence in our
findings is encouraged from the tests of three plausible equivalent models,
none of which provided a better fit to the data than the original model. We
encourage researchers to study the moderating role of context in the relation-
ship between dispositions and learning in training.

References
Ackerman, P. L. (1987). Individual differences in skill learning: An integration of psychometric
and information processing perspectives. Psychological Bulletin, 102, 3–27.
Anderson, J. R. (1985). Cognitive psychology and its implications. New York: Freeman.
Learning Orientation and Goal Orientation Context 433

Arbuckle, J. L. (1994). AMOS: Analysis of moment structures. Psychometrika, 59, 135–137.

Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 50, 248–287.
Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of
covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588–606.
Bentler, P. M., & Chou, C. (1987). Practical issues in structural modeling. Sociological Methods
and Research, 16, 78–117.
Berge, Z. L. (2001). The context of distance training. In Z. L. Berge (Ed.), Sustaining distance train-
ing: Integrating learning technologies into the fabric of the enterprise (pp. 3–12). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Bollen, K. A. (1995). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.
Boomsma, A. (1987). The robustness of maximum likelihood estimation in structural equation
models. In P. Cuttance & R. Ecob (Eds.), Structural equation modeling by example
(pp. 160–188). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brett, J. F., & VandeWalle, D. (1999). Goal orientation and goal content as predictors of perfor-
mance in a training program. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 863–873.
Busemeyer, J., & Jones, L. (1983). Analysis of multiplicative combination rules when the causal
variables are measured with error. Psychological Bulletin, 93, 549–562.
Button, S. B., Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. (1996). Goal orientation and organizational research:
A conceptual and empirical foundation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
67, 26–48.
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral
sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Colquitt, J. A., LePine, J. A., & Noe, R. A. (2000). Toward an integrative theory of training moti-
vation: A meta-analytic path analysis of 20 years of research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85,
678–707.
Downs, S. (1995). Learning to learn. In S. Truelove (Ed.), The handbook of training and develop-
ment (2nd ed., pp. 79–112). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality.
Psychological Review, 95, 256–273.
Eden, D., & Kinnar, J. (1991). Modeling Galatea: Boosting self-efficacy to increase volunteering.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 770–780.
Elliott, E. S., & Dweck, C. S. (1988). Goals: An approach to motivation and achievement. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 5–12.
Endler, N. S., & Magnusson, D. (1976). Interactional psychology and personality. Washington, DC:
Hemisphere.
Fisher, S. L., & Ford, J. K. (1998). Differential effects of learner effort and goal orientation on two
learning outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 51, 397–420.
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.
Ghiselli, E. E., Campbell, J. P., & Zedeck, S. (1981). Measurement theory for the behavioral sciences.
New York: Freeman.
Gist, M. E., & Mitchell, T. R. (1992). Self-efficacy: A theoretical analysis of its determinants and
malleability. Academy of Management Review, 17, 183–211.
Gist, M. E., 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.
Hox, J. J. (1995). Amos, EQS, and LISREL for Windows: A comparative review. Structural
Equation Modeling, 2, 79–91.
Kanfer, R. (1987). Task-specific motivation: An integrative approach to issues of measurement,
mechanisms, processes, and determinants. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 5,
237–264.
434 Martocchio, Hertenstein

Kanfer, R. (1991). Motivation theory and industrial and organizational psychology. In M. D.

Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology
(pp. 75–170). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Kanfer, R., & Ackerman, P. L. (1989). Motivation and cognitive abilities: An integrative/aptitude-
treatment interaction approach to skill acquisition. Journal of Applied Psychology [Monograph],
74, 657–689.
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 [Monograph], 78, 311–328.
Martocchio, J. J. (1994). Effects of conceptions of ability on anxiety, self-efficacy, and learning in
training. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 819–825.
Martocchio, J. J., & Dulebohn, J. (1994). Performance feedback effects in training: The role of
perceived controllability. Personnel Psychology, 47, 357–373.
Martocchio, J. J., & Webster, J. (1992). Effects of feedback and cognitive playfulness on perfor-
mance in microcomputer software training. Personnel Psychology, 45, 553–578.
Mischel, W. (1990). Personality dispositions revisited and revised: A view after three decades. In
L. Pervin (Ed.), Handbook of personality theory and research (pp. 111–134). New York: Guilford
Press.
Mitchell, T. R., Hopper, H., Daniels, D., George-Falvy, J., & James, L. R. (1994). Predicting self-
efficacy and performance during skill acquisition. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 506–517.
Murtha, T. C., Kanfer, R., & Ackerman, P. L. (1996). Toward an interactionist taxonomy of
personality and situations: An integrative situational-dispositional representation of personality
traits. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 193–207.
Phillips, J. M., & Gully, S. M. (1997). Role of goal orientation, ability, need for achievement, and
locus of control in the self-efficacy and goal-setting process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82,
792–802.
Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social information processing approach to job attitudes
and task design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 224–253.
Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (2001). The science of training: A decade of progress. Annual
Review of Psychology, 52, 471–499.
Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, F. (1998). Self-efficacy and work-related performance: A meta-
analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 240–261.
Steele-Johnson, D., Beauregard, R. S., Hoover, P. B., & Schmidt, A. M. (2000). Goal orientation
and task demand effects on motivation, affect, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,
85, 724–738.
Stevens, C. K., & Gist, M. E. (1997). Effects of self-efficacy and goal orientation on negotiation
skill maintenance: What are the mechanisms? Personnel Psychology, 50, 955–978.
Thompson, S. C. (1981). Will it hurt less if I can control it? A complex answer to a simple
question. Psychological Bulletin, 90, 89–101.
VandeWalle, D. (1997). Development and validation of a work domain goal orientation
instrument. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 57, 995–1015.
Wonderlic, E. F., & Associates (1992). Wonderlic Personnel Test and Scholastic Level Exam.
Libertyville, IL: Author.
Wood, R., & Bandura, A. (1989). Impact of conceptions of ability on self-regulatory mechanisms
and complex decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 407–415.

Joseph J. Martocchio is professor of labor and industrial relations, University of Illinois

at Urbana-Champaign.

Edward J. Hertenstein is assistant professor of labor and industrial relations, University

of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.