Error management of training for developing negotiation skills

Individual Differences in the Effectiveness ofError Management Training for DevelopingNegotiation Skills

Michael J. Cullen*, John P. Muros**, Rena Rasch*** andPaul R. Sackett****

*Human Resources Research Organization, 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1660, Minneapolis, MN55401, USA. [email protected]**AT&T, Dallas, TX 75202, USA***Kenexa High Performance Institute (KHPI), Minneapolis, MN 55402, USA****Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA

This study investigated whether the effectiveness of an error management approach totraining negotiation knowledge and skill depended on individual differences in conscien-tiousness, extraversion, and openness to experience. Participants were randomly assignedto two training programs that incorporated key elements of an error management andbehavioral modeling approach to training, and were trained in the complex interpersonalskill of negotiation. At the end of training, declarative knowledge acquisition, proceduralknowledge acquisition, declarative knowledge retention, and transfer performance were as-sessed at different points in time. Results suggested that the effectiveness of the error man-agement training program was dependent on individual levels of conscientiousness andextraversion. For several learning outcomes, the performance of highly conscientious andextraverted individuals was superior in the error management condition, while the per-formance of less conscientious and introverted individuals was superior in the behavioralmodeling condition. The implications of these findings, and suggestions for future research,are discussed.

1. Introduction

Researchers have recently become interested ininvestigating the effectiveness of error management

training (EMT) for a variety of learning and transfer out-comes. EMT is a relatively new approach to skill acquisi-tion pioneered by cognitive psychologists, primarily inthe educational domain (e.g., Brooks, 1990; Fosnot,1996). The central premise of EMT is that the learningof complex, cognitively laden skills is best accomplishedin an environment in which trainees actively engage inexploration, problem solving, hypothesis testing, makingmistakes, and learning how to recover from mistakes(Ivancic & Hesketh, 1995/1996). The focus in an error-based approach is on reducing training content, increas-ing participant involvement, and encouraging errors.Theoretically, EMT is believed to lead to increaseddepth of processing of information in training and im-

proved encoding, retention, and recall of informationlater on (Chandler & Sweller, 1991; Craik & Lockhart,1972). By forcing trainees to interrupt training and re-flect, errors are hypothesized to lead to better mentalmodels of the material to be learned, and to increasedpractice of behaviors that are the source of the error.Finally, EMT may lead trainees to practice error-recovery strategies, which may increase performance(Frese & Zapf, 1994; Heimbeck, Frese, Sonnentag, &Keith, 2003; Ivancic & Hesketh, 1995/1996).

Recent studies have supported the effectiveness ofEMT in fostering learning. Several studies have reportedmedium to large effect sizes for EMT relative to otherproceduralized training methods that advocate step-by-step instructions and the avoidance of errors (Frese,1995; Nordstrom, Wendland, & Williams, 1998; Wood,Kakebeeke, Debowski, & Frese, 2000). In addition, a re-cent meta-analysis of EMT by Keith and Frese (2008)

bs_b

s_ba

nner

International Journal of Selection and Assessment Volume 21 Number 1 March 2013

© 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.,9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main St., Malden, MA, 02148, USA

found that deliberately incorporating errors into trainingcan be an effective means of promoting learning. Across24 studies that investigated the effectiveness of EMT,they found that EMT led to superior overall learningoutcomes compared to proceduralized methods thatdiscouraged errors or exploratory training methods thatdid not involve explicit encouragement of errors(d = 0.44). Importantly, however, the training tasks in-cluded in these earlier studies, and in the meta-analysis,were confined to a very narrow range of tasks. In mostcases, the training involved using a new computer soft-ware package. None of the studies in the Keith andFrese (2008) meta-analysis examined the effectiveness ofEMT for training a complex interpersonal skill.

The purpose of this study is to investigate whetherthe effectiveness of EMT in training the complex inter-personal skill of negotiation is moderated by individualdifferences in conscientiousness, extraversion, andopenness to experience. To examine this issue, we de-velop two training programs that incorporate key ele-ments of an EMT approach to training interpersonalskills, and a behavioral modeling approach (BMT). Be-cause several different viable EMT and BMT negotiationtraining programs could be developed using fewer ormore of the key elements of an EMT and BMT approach– thus potentially leading to different learning outcomesdepending on which features are included in the trainingprograms – our goal is not to compare the effectivenessof these training programs themselves. Rather, we focuson the role of conscientiousness, extraversion, andopenness as moderators of the effectiveness of an EMTapproach to training interpersonal skills. This researchtherefore responds to Keith and Frese’s (2005) call tocontinue the effort to understand the individual differ-ences potentially affecting the effectiveness of EMTtraining. Although some efforts have been made toinvestigate this issue (e.g., Carter & Beier, 2010; Gully,Payne, Kiechel Koles, & Whiteman, 2002; Keith, Richter,& Naumann, 2010), no studies to date have examinedthe moderating role of important individual differencevariables for a complex interpersonal skill such asnegotiation.

1.1. Training interpersonal skills using behavioralmodeling and error management approaches

Despite the availability of many different methods fortraining interpersonal skills (e.g., lecture, modeling, tu-torial, simulation, discovery, error-based learning), BMThas long been the most popular method. Literally, mil-lions of managers have been taught supervisory andteamwork communication skills using BMT (Wexley &Latham, 2002). Behavioral modeling has its roots in so-cial learning theory, which posits that learning can takeplace by virtue of watching others perform a behavior(Bandura, 1965). Typically, individuals receiving behavi-

oral modeling instruction are taught by a trainer in agroup setting. In that group, trainees (1) receive an in-troduction to a topic, (2) watch a model perform thedesired behaviors, (3) discuss what the model did rightand wrong, (4) practice the desired behaviors via roleplaying, and (5) receive feedback about their perform-ance. Learning is hypothesized to take place as a resultof attentional, retentional, and motivational processesinvoked by the procedure. Introducing an individual to atopic invokes attentional processes. Similarly, watching,discussing, and practicing the relevant behaviors invokesretentional processes. Finally, the provision of feedbackinvokes a motivational process (Bandura, 1969).

Meta-analytic reviews have generally supported theefficacy of behavioral modeling as a method of traininginterpersonal skills. In their recent meta-analysis ofBMT, Taylor, Russ-Eft, and Chan (2005) found large ef-fect sizes for BMT on interpersonal knowledge and skilloutcomes. Among studies employing control groups,the mean population effect size estimate was slightlymore than 1.0 standard deviation (SD), which is compar-able to those found in earlier meta-analyses for similarcriteria (Arthur, Bennett, Edens, & Bell, 2003; Burke &Day, 1986). The mean population effect size estimatefor attitudes was smaller, but still substantial, with an av-erage change of one third of a standard deviation. Fi-nally, the estimated population effect size for on-the-jobperformance behavior was approximately one quarterof a SD. This effect is smaller than the results reportedin other meta-analyses for this criterion (Arthur et al.,2003; Burke & Day, 1986; Guzzo, Jette, & Katzell, 1985),which the authors attribute to the inclusion of more re-cent studies showing smaller BMT effects on behavioraloutcomes (May & Kahnweiler, 2000; Russell, Wexley, &Hunter, 1984; Werner, O’Leary-Kelly, Baldwin, &Wexley, 1994), and the inclusion of a greater number ofunpublished studies than previous meta-analyses.

Although the Taylor et al. (2005) effect size estimateswere positive for all criteria, there was sufficient re-maining variance in training effects, after removingsampling error variance, to warrant a search for mod-erators. On theoretical grounds and on the basis ofprior empirical findings, Taylor et al. decided to invest-igate four training design characteristics that may mod-erate the validity of BMT: (1) learning points (use ofretention aids; display of learning points during model-ing), (2) characteristics of the modeling display (presen-tation of positive-only models vs. mixed models), (3)characteristics of the behavioral rehearsal (instructionto symbolically rehearse newly learned skills; coachingprior to behavioral rehearsal; use of trainee-generatedvs. trainer-provided practice scenarios), and (4) thenumber of hours of training. Results supported thebeneficial effects of many of the training designcharacteristics that had been advocated in the literature,including using learning points presented as rule codes,

2 Michael J. Cullen, John P. Muros, Rena Rasch and Paul R. Sackett

International Journal of Selection and AssessmentVolume 21 Number 1 March 2013

© 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

using mixed rather than positive-only models, and havingtrainees generate some of the scenarios they practice.Not unexpectedly, more hours of training was associ-ated with greater development of procedural know-ledge. In our study, we take these moderator findingsinto account by attempting to include in our behavioralmodeling program the key features found in the Tayloret al. meta-analysis to enhance learning and transfer.

Although BMT has predominated as a method fortraining interpersonal skills, other methods have beenused. For instance, interpersonal skills have been taughtusing the lecture method, programmed instruction, dis-cussion, and various combinations of these methods. Intheir meta-analysis of the effectiveness of different train-ing methods for teaching different categories of skills,Arthur et al. (2003) found a wide range of effect sizesfor these training methods and combinations of meth-ods for teaching interpersonal skills. The effect sizes var-ied considerably (i.e., from d = .22 to d = 1.44)depending on whether reaction, learning, or behavioralcriteria were employed.

Another method for training interpersonal skills thatholds promise is EMT. In contrast to a BMT, in whichthe focus is on guiding learners in an errorless, step-by-step fashion through a preestablished set of trainingmaterial, the focus in an error-based approach is onreducing training content, increasing participant in-volvement, and encouraging errors. In contrast toBMT, the learning processes underlying EMT are onlyjust beginning to be understood. As mentioned earlier,the chief benefit of an error-based approach is that itforces individuals to generate and test hypothesesabout a learning situation, thus increasing the cognitiveload and depth of processing (Chandler & Sweller,1991). Greater depth of processing of information, inturn, is anticipated to lead to better encoding ofinformation, and to better recall (Craik & Lockhart,1972). It also may promote more controlled, as op-posed to automatic, processing of information (Ivancic& Hesketh, 1995/1996) because the errors that occuras a result of the training increase the attentional re-sources that must be devoted to understanding theerror. More controlled processing may in turn play arole in how well principles are learned (Sweller, 1988).A third argument for EMT is that errors are a sourceof negative feedback, and such negative feedback maybe necessary for learning (Frese & Zapf, 1994;Heimbeck et al., 2003).

Advocates of EMT acknowledge that there are poten-tial downsides to an error-based approach to learning.EMT may create negative emotions and reduced self-efficacy, which could potentially decrease learning. Toaddress this, advocates of EMT promote the use oferror management instructions (Keith & Frese, 2005;Keith & Frese, 2008), which point out that errors are anexpected part of the learning process and are important,

if not essential, to learning. In this manner, the errormanagement instructions aim to reduce the potentiallynegative emotions associated with making errors. An-other way to reduce the anxiety of EMT is to correcterrors that do occur. Once errors occur, there are po-tentially two routes the training designer might take.One route is to allow trainees to correct the error ontheir own, unaided by the trainer (Nordstrom et al.,1998). A second approach is to assist trainees in theresolution of errors (Carlson, Lundy, & Schneider, 1992;Debowski, Wood, & Bandura, 2001), thus potentially al-leviating some of the negative feelings associated witherrors. In this study, we aim to reduce the negativeemotions associated with making errors by incorporat-ing the kind of error management instructions suggestedby other researchers. Once errors have occurred, wefollow the second approach to error correction; weprovide a set of ‘hints’ to help trainees get back on trackduring the training.

1.2. The role of individual differences

As mentioned earlier, because EMT and BMT programscan take a variety of specific forms, it is difficult to testdirectly whether an EMT or BMT approach to traininginterpersonal skills is more effective. Because the resultsobtained will be limited to the specific features of theBMT and EMT training programs developed, any broadgeneralizations about the relative effectiveness of eithertraining program for training negotiation knowledge andskill would not be appropriate. Accordingly, our goal inthis study is to not to compare the relative effectivenessof these two viable approaches to training negotiationknowledge and skill. Rather, we focus on the importantissue of whether the effectiveness of these broad ap-proaches for training a complex interpersonal skill mightbe moderated by key individual differences.

The investigation of whether the effectiveness of atraining method is moderated by individual differences isknown as the study of aptitude treatment interactions(ATI). ATI have been a fertile source of research activityamong educational psychologists, but until recently, havebeen less actively pursued by training researchers (Warr& Allen, 1998). Nonetheless, ATI are important in train-ing research because, when substantiated, they warrantthe placement of trainees to different training methods.The individual and organizational benefits of such differ-ential placement of trainees when ATI exist were docu-mented several decades ago by Cronbach and Gleser(1965).

We believe there are strong theoretical reasons forexpecting interactions between the EMT and BMT train-ing methods and several individual difference character-istics. As Gully et al. (2002) point out, an EMT programis unlikely to work equally well for everyone becauselearners may differ in the extent to which they prefer to

Individual Differences and Error Management Training 3

© 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. International Journal of Selection and AssessmentVolume 21 Number 1 March 2013

engage in, or are able to engage in, active experimenta-tion and exploration of material. Put another way, learn-ers may vary in either their preference for dealing with,or ability to handle, different levels of structure in atraining program.

Within the educational domain, the idea that indi-viduals may learn better in environments that suit theirpreferences is well reflected in the learning styles liter-ature (Pasher, McDaniel, Rohrer, & Bjork, 2008). Anumber of different learning styles models have beenproposed and several assessments based on these mod-els have been created (e.g., Dunn, 1990; Kolb, 1984). Al-though there is little evidence that any of the learningstyles reflected in these models reliably interacts with aneducational treatment, there is evidence for an ATI be-tween level of structure in a training program and twoimportant individual difference variables: cognitive abilityand locus of control. One of the most consistent find-ings in the ATI literature is that individuals higher oncognitive ability learn more when the level of structureduring training is low, and those lower on cognitive abil-ity learn more when the level of structure is high (Snow,1989; Snow & Lohman, 1984). Methods that are low instructure present material at a relatively rapid pace,under incomplete learning conditions where the stu-dents must infer much of the instructional message forthemselves (Snow, 1989; Snow & Lohman, 1984). Incontrast, highly structured methods allow the instructorto maintain a high level of control over learning activ-ities. One explanation for this consistent ATI is thathigh-ability learners may prefer to develop their ownstrategies for learning material, and a low-structure con-dition best facilitates such self-directed learning (Snow &Lohman, 1984). In contrast, low-ability learners mayprefer to have the trainer organize and present thematerial for them (Snow & Lohman, 1984). These differ-ences in learner preferences may in turn affect the mo-tivation of high- and low-ability learners in high- andlow-structure training environments, thereby leading todifferential learning for each group in these two condi-tions. Similar ATI findings have been made for locus ofcontrol, which refers to an individual’s belief aboutwhether his or her successes or failures are a conse-quence of internal or external factors (Rotter, 1966). Anumber of studies have found that students with an ex-ternal locus of control demonstrated better understand-ing of material taught in highly guided instructionconditions, whereas students with an internal locus ofcontrol demonstrated better understanding in lesshighly guided conditions (Daniels & Stevens, 1976;Horak & Horak, 1982; Horak & Slobodzian, 1980;McLeod & Adams, 1980/1981). Like the ATI studies cen-tering on cognitive ability, these studies suggest that dif-ferences in preferences for structure may differentiallyaffect learning in training conditions high and low instructure.

In our study, the BMT and EMT conditions were bothhighly structured throughout the majority of the train-ing. In both conditions, instructional tasks were brokendown into small units, the trainer clarified material fre-quently, and maintained control over the content andpace of learning. However, during the key study manipu-lation, when the negotiation strategies were taught, thelevel of structure was quite different between the pro-grams. In the BMT condition, the negotiation strategieswere taught in a highly structured way. The trainer in-troduced the negotiation strategies and associated keybehaviors, reviewed them one by one with trainees, andpresented trainees with video models enacting the strat-egies and key behaviors. In contrast, in the EMT condi-tion, the trainer did not inform participants what theeffective negotiation strategies and behaviors were, andno modeling videos were employed. Instead, participantsendeavored to learn the strategies and behaviors ontheir own by participating in a novel group brainstorm-ing exercise. Accordingly, the level of structure wasmuch lower in the EMT condition during this trainingcomponent. We believe this difference in the amount ofexploration and experimentation encouraged by thetwo programs during this key training component mayhave differentially affected learning for trainees with dif-ferential standing on three important individual differ-ence variables: conscientiousness, extraversion, andopenness to experience.

1.2.1. ConscientiousnessConscientious individuals are described as efficient, or-ganized, dutiful, thorough, self-disciplined, and deliberate(Costa & McCrae, 1992). The Barrick and Mount(1991), Hough, Eaton, Dunnette, Kamp, and McCloy(1990), and Salgado (1997) meta-analyses indicate thatconscientiousness is positively related to training out-comes. Individuals high on conscientiousness are likelyto pay attention to the training material, organize train-ing content, and use the meta-cognitive strategies ofplanning, monitoring and evaluating to enhance theirlearning. Conscientiousness may also affect learning byaffecting the motivation to learn via its effect on self-efficacy (Colquitt, Lepine, & Noe, 2000). More specificfacets of conscientiousness, such as achievement orien-tation, are also positively related to the motivation tolearn (Mathieu, Martineau, & Tannenbaum, 1993).

Consideration of the preferences of trainees withhigher and lower levels of conscientiousness suggests amoderator hypothesis for this study. Just as less highlyguided classroom conditions may be preferred by indi-viduals with a greater sense of control over their abilityto learn (e.g., Horak & Horak, 1982), a training environ-ment with more student-oriented learning, such as thekey training component in the EMT condition, may allowhighly conscientious trainees to learn the training mater-ial the way they prefer, by organizing the material them-




selves and being self-disciplined and effortful in theirapproach to learning. This should motivate highly con-scientious trainees, leading to greater learning for themthan in the more highly structured BMT componentdealing with the negotiation strategy training. In con-trast, the BMT condition may appeal to trainees low inconscientiousness since it allows them to be less indus-trious by letting the trainer organize the key negotiationstrategy content for them. Additionally, relative to themore structured BMT condition that requires lessorganization of material and self-discipline to learn thenegotiation strategies, conscientious trainees’ organized,self-disciplined and deliberate approach to tasks maymake them much better equipped than those lower inconscientiousness to formulate and execute effectivelearning strategies during the key low-structured EMTtraining segment. Thus we hypothesize

H1: Conscientiousness will interact with trainingcondition to influence learning and performance ofnegotiation skill (EMT > BMT for trainees high inconscientiousness; BMT > EMT for trainees low inconscientiousness).

1.2.2. ExtraversionExtraversion is the tendency to be sociable, assertive,active, and to experience positive emotions such as en-ergy and zeal (Costa & McCrae, 1992). In the Barrickand Mount (1991) meta-analysis, the estimated popula-tion validity of extraversion was higher than for anyother Big Five personality variables (r = .26). One rea-son extraverted trainees may excel in training is the ac-tive stance they take toward learning. Taking an activestance toward learning may improve learning and trans-fer by increasing higher order metacognitive activitiessuch as planning, monitoring, and evaluating, which arein turn related to learning (Bell & Kozlowski, 2008;Keith & Frese, 2008). Consideration of the preferenceof extraverts for an active training program suggests amoderator hypothesis for this study. As is typical of allEMT programs, our training study required active ex-ploration of alternative hypotheses regarding the train-ing material to be learned. In particular, in the EMTcondition, trainees learned the negotiation strategies bybrainstorming with other trainees, and testing hypo-theses about what the effective strategies might be. Incontrast, in the BMT condition, those strategies weretaught directly by the trainer. Thus, during the key ma-nipulation in the study, trainees were much more ac-tively involved in determining the training content in theEMT condition than in the BMT condition. Extravertsmay have preferred this more active approach to learn-ing the strategies than introverts, thereby increasingmotivation to learn, and thus learning itself, in extravertsin the EMT condition. Another reason one might expectan interaction between our training conditions and ex-

traversion has to do with (1) the differing levels of activ-ity in the two training conditions, and (2) the fact thatintroverts have a higher resting state of arousal than in-troverts (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1985). In line with theYerkes–Dodson law, which predicts a curvilinear rela-tionship between arousal level and performance (Yerkes& Dodson, 1908), the less-active, and presumably less-stimulating or arousing BMT condition may be optimalfor introverts, who already have a high resting state ofarousal. In like fashion, the more active EMT conditionmay raise extraverts’ lower resting state of arousal tomore optimal levels for learning. These considerationssuggest the following hypothesis:

H2: Extraversion will interact with training conditionto influence learning and performance of negotiationskill (EMT > BMT for trainees high in extraversion;BMT > EMT for trainees low in extraversion).

1.2.3. Openness to experienceOpenness to experience is the tendency to be imagina-tive, nonconforming, unconventional, autonomous, in-ventive, curious, and innovative (Costa & McCrae,1992). At least three meta-analysis indicate that open-ness to experience is positively related to learning(Barrick & Mount, 1991; Hough et al., 1990; Salgado,1997). A high capacity for deep processing of inform-ation seems likely for learners high in openness in lightof their active approach to learning and willingness totry new things (Barrick & Mount, 1991).

Since individuals higher in openness are imaginative,curious, and enjoy learning things in different ways(Costa & McCrae, 1992), they may prefer to learn thenegotiation strategies in the less-structured EMTcomponent dealing with this content than in the BMTcomponent dealing with this content. In contrast, indi-viduals lower in openness may prefer the traditionalteacher-centered BMT approach for learning the strat-egies. As with conscientiousness, these differences inlearner preferences may lead to differential motivationto learn, and thus learning itself, for trainees higher andlower in openness in the two conditions. In addition,relative to the more structured BMT condition in whichthe negotiation strategy content is fairly easily processedby everyone, trainees higher in openness may be muchbetter able than trainees lower in openness to deeplyprocess the key content in the lower structuredcomponent of the EMT condition (Gully et al., 2002).Thus we hypothesize

H3: Openness to experience will interact with trainingcondition to influence learning and performance ofnegotiation skill (EMT > BMT for trainees high in open-ness; BMT > EMT for trainees low in openness).

To test these hypotheses, we created comprehensiveBMT and EMT programs to train negotiation skills. Our



central goal in creating these training programs was tocreate fair representations of an EMT and BMT ap-proach to training an interpersonal skill such as negoti-ation. Accordingly, for each training method, weendeavored to incorporate as many BMT or EMT fea-tures as we could that had been advocated by researchor theory. In past studies, hypotheses concerning theeffectiveness of EMT compared to other training meth-ods have differed depending on the learning outcome.For instance, in their meta-analysis of the effectivenessof EMT, Keith and Frese (2008) hypothesized that short-term learning and performance may not be superior fortrainees in an EMT condition than those in a moreproceduralized, errorless, training condition. With re-gard to transfer, Keith and Frese (2008) hypothesizedthat EMT may be as effective as other methods thatavoid errors on measures of analogical transfer, butmore effective than such methods on measures ofadaptive transfer. Because the relative efficacy of EMTand BMT may vary by type of learning outcome, we in-cluded four different measures of learning in this study,spread out over time: (1) declarative knowledge acquisi-tion, (2) procedural knowledge acquisition, (3) declara-tive knowledge retention, and (4) transfer performance.Measures of declarative and procedural knowledgeacquisition were administered immediately followingtraining; measures of declarative knowledge retentionand transfer performance were administered 3 weeksafter training. While declarative knowledge measureswere traditional paper-and-pencil measures, proceduralknowledge measures were actual negotiation simula-tions that required trainees to display their knowledge.

In sum, this study contributes to training research inthe following ways. First, this study responds to the callof Keith and Frese (2005) to continue to investigate themoderating role of individual difference variables forEMT programs. Second, just as importantly, it invest-igates the moderating role of important variables in rela-tion to an interpersonal skill. Almost all prior studiesinvestigating either the effectiveness of EMT for learning,or possible mediators or moderators of EMT have doneso using a fairly narrow range of computer tasks. Thus,as advocated by Keith and Frese (2005), this study be-gins to look at the effectiveness of EMT programs for abroader class of skills. Finally, this study examines themoderating effect of individual differences for an espe-cially wide range of learning and transfer outcomesspread out over time.

2. Method

2.1. Sample

One hundred and thirty-two undergraduates were re-cruited from three Midwestern universities. Studentswere recruited from classes for which negotiation train-

ing was a relevant instructional experience, such ascourses in communication studies, persuasion, sales, andmarketing. Participants were paid for their participationin the study, and the top performers received additionalcash prizes. The sample was 53.7% female, and the meanage was 24.16 (SD = 7.68). Approximately 84% ofparticipants were White, 5.9% were African American,7.4% were Asian, and 2.2% were Hispanic. To particip-ate in the study, participants were required to speakEnglish fluently. Only participants with no prior negoti-ation training were eligible for the study.

2.2. Experimental design and procedure

Participants received training in negotiation skills. Thetraining program was developed for use in ‘mixed-motive’ negotiations involving both ‘distributive’ and ‘in-tegrative’ elements. In distributive negotiations, theresource pie is fixed and the negotiator’s chief interestis obtaining as big a piece of this fixed pie as possible. Inintegrative negotiations, the negotiator may be inter-ested in expanding the available pie to satisfy a variety ofimportant interests (Pruitt & Rubin, 1986; Raiffa, 1982;Walton & McKersie, 1965). We chose to train a key setof distributive and integrative strategies, based on thepioneering work of Fisher, Ury, and Patton (1999), andchose to train two key integrative strategies and six keydistributive strategies. The eight strategies, and the keybehaviors associated with those strategies, are de-scribed in Table 1.

2.2.1. Training programThe training program contained six parts. All traineesparticipated in Parts I, II, IV, V, and VI, and all of thesetraining segments were identical for both groups. In PartI, the trainer welcomed trainees and reviewed the train-ing agenda and learning objectives. In Part II, the trainerintroduced trainees to basic negotiation principles, in-cluding key terms and distinctions. In Part IV, the trainerled participants through a mock negotiation role playexercise in which they practiced using the negotiationstrategies. In Part V, the trainer reviewed the negoti-ation strategies taught. In Part VI, the trainer ledparticipants through a goal setting exercise to help mo-tivate them to use the strategies outside of training. Thekey manipulation took place in Part III, when the trainertaught the eight negotiation strategies using either theBMT or EMT training method. The training programs inboth conditions were all taught by the same trainer, anadvanced female graduate student in industrial organ-izational psychology with prior teaching experience.Prior to the training, the trainer underwent severalhours of training regarding how to deliver the BMT andEMT training content. The training program in both con-ditions lasted approximately 3 hours.




2.2.2. Strategy training in the BMT conditionThe typical sequence of learning activities in BMT is pro-vision of the skills behaviors to be learned, prior to, oralong with modeling, and then practice with feedbackfrom either trainees and/or the trainer (Taylor et al.,2005). Feedback serves a correctional function whentrainees do not use the behaviors correctly, and amotivational function, through a focus on reinforcement(i.e., praise) when a trainee performs behaviors cor-rectly (Goldstein & Sorcher, 1974). We made a con-certed effort to include all of these typical features inthe BMT program. In the BMT condition, the trainerfirst reviewed the declarative knowledge to be learned:the eight negotiation strategies and associated keybehaviors. For each strategy, the trainer first presenteda definition of the strategy, presented a rationale for itsuse, and explained the key behaviors associated with thestrategy. Next, to assist in knowledge compilation, thetrainer asked two volunteers to role play eight scenariosin which each of the eight strategies and its associatedkey behaviors were implemented. Each scenario dealtwith one strategy and its associated behaviors. The

scenarios depicted interactions with which participantswould be familiar, such as bargaining for the purchase ofan automobile, or negotiating with a partner aboutwhere to spend a vacation. The scenarios contained ex-amples of both effective and ineffective behaviors. Fol-lowing each role play, the trainer led a group discussionabout key behaviors used, providing corrective and rein-forcing feedback as appropriate.

Participants then watched two videos to help themmodel the behaviors they had learned. The first was a‘negative’ display and showed the actor failing to useany of the correct strategies. The second showed theactor using all of the strategies correctly. In the secondvideo, as each strategy was used, it was flashed on thevideo. According to Taylor et al.’s (2005) BMT meta-analysis, skill development is greatest when learningpoints are presented as rule codes rather than descrip-tions or summaries of what the actor did. Accordingly,in the video displays, the strategies were presented asrule codes. As each video was played, participants an-swered questions in their workbook about which strat-egies were used effectively and ineffectively. At theconclusion of each video presentation, the trainer led adiscussion about which strategies were used effectivelyand ineffectively, again providing corrective and rein-forcing feedback as appropriate.

2.2.3. Strategy training in the EMT conditionEMT contains three characteristics that distinguish itfrom more proceduralized methods such as BMT. First,participants are given minimal guidance and are encour-aged to explore material on their own (Keith & Frese,2008). Second, EMT creates a learning situation in whicherrors are likely to occur (Keith & Frese, 2008). Finally,EMT participants are explicitly informed of the positivevalue of errors and are provided with error manage-ment instructions to reduce the frustration and anxietythat may be induced by errors (Heimbeck et al., 2003;Keith & Frese, 2005). In designing the strategy trainingfor the EMT condition, we made a concerted effort toinclude these typical design elements.

In the EMT condition, the trainer did not review theeight strategies and associated behaviors with particip-ants. Instead, she informed participants that they wouldlearn the strategies on their own by participating in agroup exercise. Prior to commencing the exercise, thetrainer issued a variety of error management instruc-tions to participants that were similar to those used inpast EMT studies. For instance, she told participants‘Don’t worry about making wrong guesses,’ ‘We expectyou to make errors during this process,’ and that errorswill ‘help you in the learning process’ (Debowski et al.,2001; Heimbeck et al., 2003; Keith & Frese, 2005). Thetrainer then began the group exercise. First, participantswere given transcripts of the eight scenarios that were

Table 1. Negotiation strategies and key behaviors

Integrative strategiesStrategy 1: Focus the discussion on interests

• Focus the discussion on interests, not positions• Indicate what your own interests are in the situation• Inquire what the other party’s interests are in the situation

Strategy 2: Appealing to interests• Propose ‘win-win’ solutions• Discuss how your proposal satisfies the other party’s

interests• Highlight the mutual benefits of the proposal

Distributive strategiesCombating stubbornnessStrategy 3: Using silence

• If you don’t like the other party’s proposal, don’t sayanything

Strategy 4: Broken record reiteration of main points• Repeat the same or similar phrases over and over

Strategy 5: Display knowledge of similar situations• Bring up a similar negotiation situation• Ask the other party what they have done in similar

circumstancesCombating attacks and tricksStrategy 6: Responding to tricks or ploys using direct counters

• Question the tactic directly• Refrain from attacking the other party’s personal integrity• Discuss how the tactic makes you feel

Strategy 7: Responding to criticisms of your proposal• If the other party criticizes your proposal, do not attack

their position• Don’t defend your ideas – invite criticism and advice

Combating the strategic use of emotionStrategy 8: Responding to displays of emotion using attitudinalbargaining

• Allow the other side to let off steam• Acknowledge the emotions and make them legitimate• Control your own emotions



role played in the BMT condition. Unlike the BMT scen-arios, however, these scenarios contained correctimplementations of the key behaviors only. Second,participants were asked to read the scenarios on theirown and take notes on which strategy and key behavi-ors they believed were being used. Third, two volun-teers role played each scenario, after which the trainerled a group discussion about which key behaviors hadbeen used in that scenario. Feedback similar to that pro-vided in the BMT condition was then provided. Whenparticipants generated an incorrect key behavior, thetrainer told participants it was not the behavior she waslooking for. When participants generated a correctbehavior, reinforcing feedback was provided and thegroup had a discussion about why that negotiationbehavior was useful in that situation. If, after three suc-cessive tries, the group failed to come up with a correctkey behavior for a scenario, the trainer took the class tothe narrow passage in the scenario where the keybehavior was demonstrated, and asked them a series ofquestions about the passage. Once all the key behaviorsfor a given scenario had been identified, the trainerasked for volunteers to identify the overall strategybeing employed in the scenario. When participants iden-tified the correct content for the strategy, the trainer‘revealed’ this strategy on a PowerPoint slide. The en-tire process was repeated for all eight scenarios.

In both training conditions, we created a mocknegotiation role play to facilitate the development ofprocedural knowledge. The purpose of the role play wasto give trainees practice in using the strategies andeffective behaviors, and to provide informational feed-back about their use of the strategies. The role playcontained two roles: a sales representative for a com-pany seeking to purchase photocopiers, and an agent forthe vendor. To facilitate the role play, each role wasprovided with a set of background materials. Sales rep-resentatives were presented with a tentative offer bythe vendor. They were instructed that their negotiationobjective was to satisfy as many of their financial andnonfinancial interests as possible by using as many of thekey negotiation behaviors they could. To that end, theywere provided with a list of their nonfinancial interests.The agent for the vendor was provided with backgroundinformation about the tentative offer that had alreadybeen made, and a list of her own nonprice-based inter-ests. The agent for the vendor was also provided with arole play script to guide the mock negotiation. Thescript was designed to loosely structure the dialogue sothat the sales representative would have the opportun-ity to use all of the key negotiation strategies andbehaviors. At the conclusion of the role plays, thetrainer led a group discussion about (1) how the negoti-ation went, (2) which aspects of the negotiation werechallenging, and (3) which specific strategies participantshad struggled to use.

Following the practice role plays, trainees were askedto consider how setting goals for using the strategiesand associated behaviors could be a useful tool for re-membering the strategies, and motivating them to usethe strategies, in the weeks to come.

The study utilized a between-subjects design. In bothtraining conditions, participants began the trainingsession by completing a set of premeasures. Subse-quently, they completed the training program, a set ofpostmeasures, a knowledge acquisition measure, andparticipated in a mock negotiation role play to assessprocedural knowledge acquisition. Three weeks later,participants returned to complete a measure of declar-ative knowledge retention and to participate in a trans-fer role play assessment. Before the transfer assessmentcommenced, participants also completed a short ques-tionnaire about whether, and how often, they had at-tempted to use the negotiation strategies since thetraining program.

The long duration of this training program made it ef-ficient to administer the training to groups of students.Accordingly, small groups, rather than individuals, wererandomly assigned to one of the two experimental con-ditions. Groups were roughly equally heterogeneousin terms of their ethnic, gender, and age composition. Inaddition, none of the personality variables investigated inthis study were significantly correlated with trainingcondition (see Table 2), providing further evidence ofthe success of random assignment.

In order to increase trainee motivation to learn thenegotiation strategies, participants were told in Part Iof the training that the top three performers on theassessments would receive cash bonuses of $100, $50,and $25, respectively, and that if they scored in thetop one third of participants on the assessments,they would be entered into a lottery for three morecash bonuses in the same amount. We asked par-ticipants in a posttraining questionnaire whether theywere motivated by those potential bonuses to learnthe negotiation strategies. The mean response tothese questions on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = stronglydisagree and 7 = strongly agree) were 4.90 (SD = 1.01)for the effect of the bonuses for the three top per-formers, and 4.60 (SD = 1.01) for the effect of the lot-tery bonuses, indicating that both bonuses had amoderately positive effect on motivation to learn thenegotiation strategies.

2.3. Measures

2.3.1. Performance measures2.3.1.1. Declarative knowledge acquisition. Declarativeknowledge acquisition was assessed with a 30-item testof the extent to which participants had learned the eightnegotiation strategies and the key behaviors associatedwith each of the strategies. Participants were asked to




list the eight negotiation strategies and key behaviors as-sociated with each (1 point for each strategy andbehavior, for 26 possible points), to identify which strat-egies and key behaviors they would use in specificnegotiation settings (12 total points), and to identifystrategy use in a set of scenarios (13 total points). Thetotal score for this test was the sum of scores for thesequestions, for a total possible score of 51. Scoresranged from 5 to 51, with a mean of 28.31 (SD = 11.61).Coefficient alpha for this test was .74.

2.3.1.2. Declarative knowledge retention. Declarativeknowledge retention was assessed with a 36-item testassessing the same elements as those measured on thetest of declarative knowledge acquisition, but using dif-ferent items to avoid confounding retention of know-ledge and memory for specific test items. The totalpossible test score on this test was 53. Scores rangedfrom 5 to 44, with a mean of 24.88 (SD = 9.91). Coeffi-cient alpha for this test was .67.

2.3.1.3. Procedural knowledge acquisition. Proceduralknowledge acquisition was assessed using a mocknegotiation role play exercise that took place immedi-ately following training. The role play was structurallyidentical to the one participants had practiced duringtraining, but involved the purchase and sale of comput-ers instead of photocopiers. Role plays were conductedwith one of four confederates, who recorded whethereach of the 18 key behaviors was used and whether thebehaviors were used in the proper sequence. The roleplay commenced with one of the four confederates play-ing the role of the vendor. The confederates had eitherrecently attained a PhD in psychology or were advancedindustrial organizational psychology graduate students.As in the negotiation scenario practiced during training,

the vendor led participants through a scripted role playdesigned to give participants the opportunity to use allof the negotiation strategies and associated behaviors.To make the negotiation realistic, the vendor occasion-ally lowered the offer price in response to the correctuse of behaviors during the negotiation. However, thevendor did not lower the price each time a correctbehavior was used. Given the large number of keybehaviors to be displayed in the negotiation, we rea-soned that it would be too taxing on the vendor, andtoo unrealistic, for the vendor to lower the price when-ever one of the 18 available key behaviors was dis-played. Accordingly, rather than assigning a score basedon the final offer price negotiated, as has been done insome previous studies (e.g., Gist, Stevens, & Bavetta,1991), participants were scored on their actual use ofthe key behaviors.

The mock role plays were not videotaped. Rather,confederates kept track of the use of key behaviors ona scoring protocol in real time as the negotiation pro-ceeded. The scoring protocol was divided into sixseparate sections, as follows: (1) opening strategy: fo-cusing the discussion on interests (three points), (2)second strategy: appealing to interests (11 points), (3)attack 1: threat to end negotiation (three points),(4) third set of strategies: moving past stubbornness(three points), (5) attack 2: expression of frustration(three points), and (6) attack 3: criticism of position(two points). In general, one point was awarded foreach key behavior used. However, for the secondstrategy, appealing to interests, we granted one pointfor each win-win solution proposed. Because therewere nine possible financial and nonfinancial interestscapable of being exchanged, nine total points wereavailable for proposing exchanges of these interests. Fi-nally, four points were available for using behaviorswithin the first two strategies in the right order, as

Table 2. Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1. Training condition .51 .50 –Performance2. Knowledge acquisition 28.82 11.60 .23 .743. Knowledge retention 25.22 9.99 .01 .72 .674. Procedural knowledge 15.10 5.61 .00 .54 .51 .755. Transfer performance 15.12 6.54 .08 .53 .51 .71 .70

Premeasures6. Pretraining self-efficacy 0.00 1.83 .11 .05 -.04 -.07 -.07 .957. Pretraining desire to learn 0.00 1.93 -.14 .01 .02 .11 .02 .40 .96

Moderators8. Openness to experience 3.70 0.56 .14 .19 .04 .29 .21 .17 .23 .789. Conscientiousness 3.56 0.65 -.13 .01 .17 -.06 -.10 .06 .12 -.11 .81

10. Extraversion 3.55 0.80 .10 .06 -.07 .07 .09 .36 .14 .30 .06 .89

Note: N = 127. Training condition was dummy-coded 0 for the BMT condition and 1 for the EMT condition.Positive correlations with training condition indicate the EMT condition scored higher. Internal consistency reliability coefficients are on the diagonalwhere appropriate. Correlations greater than .18 are significant at p < .05.



taught in training. Additional points were not awardedfor repeated use of key behaviors.

Ideally, to eliminate the possibility of rater effects,procedural knowledge acquisition would have been as-sessed by the same person. From a practical and logist-ical standpoint, however, this was not possible, so weused four different raters. We employed two strategiesto control for rater effects. First, to eliminate the poss-ibility that raters’ judgments of transfer performancemight be affected by prior knowledge of performanceon the measure of task performance, we ensured thatfor any one participant, different raters rated task per-formance and transfer performance. Second, all four rat-ers underwent rater training.

The total possible score for the test was 29. Scoresranged from 1 to 25, with a mean of 14.79 (SD = 5.80).Four confederates were used, and each one receivedtraining from the lead confederate on how to score thebehaviors using videotaped sessions of practice roleplays. Ratings were standardized within rater to controlfor any rater differences in scale use. Coefficient alphafor this test was .75.

2.3.1.4. Transfer. For the transfer assessment, particip-ants negotiated a compensation package for a new job.Participants attempted to use as many key negotiationbehaviors as possible to help them achieve all of theirfinancial and nonfinancial objectives, and behaviors werescored by the confederate using a scoring documentidentical in its structure to the one used for scoringprocedural knowledge acquisition. Because, structurally,the transfer task was similar to the negotiation taskpracticed during training, the transfer task was an ana-logical rather than an adaptive transfer task (Ivancic &Hesketh, 1995/1996; Keith & Frese, 2008). The totalpossible score for this test was also 29. Scores rangedfrom 1 to 28, with a mean of 15.12 (SD = 6.54). Onceagain, four confederates trained in scoring the relevantbehaviors were used. Ratings were standardized withinrater to control for any rater differences in scale use.Coefficient alpha for this test was .70.

2.4. Premeasures

In this research, we created four premeasures, whichwe expected to be at least moderately positively relatedto one or more dependent variables. The purpose ofcreating these premeasures was to use them as co-variates in the research, thereby increasing the overallpower of the research to detect differences in learningoutcomes due to the choice of training method (Arvey& Cole, 1991).

2.4.1. Pretraining self-efficacy for learning negotiation skillsSelf-efficacy has been demonstrated to be a significantpredictor of training outcomes in many previous studies

(Gist et al., 1991; Martocchio & Webster, 1992;Quiñones, 1995). Accordingly, we created two specificnegotiation-related measures of self-efficacy. The firstmeasure was a six-item measure of pretraining self-efficacy for learning negotiation skills. Sample items in-cluded ‘I believe that I can meet the challenges of thisnegotiation training program’ and ‘I am certain that I canmanage the requirements of this negotiation training.’Coefficient alpha for this scale was .93.

2.4.2. Pretraining negotiation self-efficacyWe used a six-item measure adapted from a similarmeasure created by Bell and Ford (2007). Sample itemsincluded ‘I can meet the challenge of negotiating ineveryday conditions’ and ‘I can negotiate effectivelywithout help from others.’ Coefficient alpha for thisscale was .94.

2.4.3. Pretraining desire to learn negotiation strategiesInterest in a domain has also been demonstrated to bepositively related to learning. For instance, Schiefele,Krapp, and Winteler (1992) investigated over 121interest–achievement correlations and found a mean rof .32. Accordingly, we created two interest-relatedpremeasures. The first measure was a six-item measureof desire to learn negotiation strategies adapted froma negotiation study conducted by Weissbein (2000).Sample items included ‘I am motivated to learn the skillsemphasized in the training program’ and ‘I am interestedin learning the training material.’ On a 7-point Likertscale (1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree), themean score on this measure was 5.93, indicating thatparticipants had a strong pretraining desire to learn thenegotiation skills. Coefficient alpha for this scale was .94.

2.4.4. Pretraining willingness to expend effort to learnnegotiation strategies

A six-item measure of willingness to expend effort tolearn negotiation strategies was also adapted from ascale used by Weissbein (2000). Sample items included ‘Iintend to try my best to become a good negotiator inthis training’ and ‘I intend to work hard to learn thematerial in this training course.’ On a 7-point Likertscale (1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree), themean score on this measure was 5.93, indicating thatparticipants had a strong pretraining intention to workhard to learn the negotiation skills. Coefficient alpha forthis scale was .97.

2.5. Postmeasures

Postmeasures were developed to permit the assessmentof whether conscientiousness, extraversion, and open-ness moderated the effect of training condition onnegotiation performance.




2.5.1. PersonalityConscientiousness, extraversion, and openness were allmeasured using Goldberg’s (1999) 50-item InternationalPersonality Item Pool. The scale is composed of 10phrases related to standing on each of the Big Five traitsconscientiousness, openness to experience, emotionalstability, extraversion, and agreeableness. Goldberg(1999) reports the mean coefficient alpha for each ofthe five scales (10 items each) to be .84, indicating anacceptable degree of internal consistency. The data forthis study were consistent with this finding, with alphasof .81, .89, and .78 respectively, for the conscientious-ness, extraversion, and openness scales.

2.6. Analyses

Means, standard deviations, and correlations among allstudy variables were first computed. To determine theeffects of training condition on learning, the four negoti-ation performance indices were all separately regressedon training condition using a variety of covariates.We controlled for college affiliation and class size,pretraining self-efficacy, and pretraining desire to learnin all analyses. While we intended to control for allfour self-efficacy and motivation-related premeasuresseparately, subsequent analyses revealed that thetwo pretraining self-efficacy measures, and the twopretraining desire and willingness measures, were highlycorrelated (r = .67 and .86, respectively). Accordingly, toavoid analytical difficulties arising from collinearityamong these two sets of variables, we created twoseparate unit-weighted composites, one for the self-efficacy measures (i.e., a new pretraining self-efficacycomposite) and one for the measures of desire and will-ingness (i.e., a new pretraining desire to learn compos-ite). Power to detect a moderate (d = .5) effect sizeusing a two-tailed test at alpha = .05 was .87 or higherfor each of the four outcome variables.

To examine whether the effectiveness of trainingmethods was moderated by cognitive ability, opennessto experience, or conscientiousness, the standard mod-erated multiple regression approach used in differentialprediction research was used (Cohen & Cohen, 1983).As recommended by Aiken and West (1991), continu-ous predictor variables were centered prior to conduct-ing the moderated regression analyses. Since we used aBig Five measure to assess the three personality vari-ables for which we had specific hypotheses, we alsoconducted post hoc tests on the other Big Five traits.

3. Results

3.1. Study means and intercorrelations

Table 2 presents means, SDs, and correlations for keystudy variables. Not surprisingly, the strongest correla-

tions are for the two measures of declarative know-ledge (i.e., declarative knowledge acquisition andretention, r = .72) and the two measures of proceduralknowledge (i.e., procedural knowledge acquisitionand transfer performance, r = .71). However, the twomeasures of declarative knowledge are also stronglycorrelated with the measures of procedural knowledgesince knowledge of the negotiation strategies wasnecessary to implement those strategies in the mocknegotiation sessions. The correlations with individualdifference variables were largely consistent with pastfindings. As expected, openness was moderatelycorrelated with three of the four negotiation perform-ance measures (r = .19, .29, and .21, respectively, fordeclarative knowledge acquisition, procedural know-ledge acquisition, and transfer performance). Somewhatunexpectedly, conscientiousness was only moderatelypositively correlated with one of the learning out-comes, declarative knowledge retention (r = .17). Extra-version was not correlated with any of the learningoutcomes.

3.1.1. Main effects of training condition on negotiationperformance

Table 3 indicates that the coefficients for training condi-tion were not significant for any of the four outcomevariables. Therefore, neither training method was super-ior to the other in promoting declarative knowledgeacquisition, procedural knowledge acquisition, declar-ative knowledge retention, or transfer performance.

3.1.2. Interactions between training method and individualdifferences

Hierarchical regression was used to test for potentialinteraction effects between training condition andconscientiousness, extraversion, and openness to ex-perience. The covariates used in the analyses of maineffects in Table 3 were entered individually first. Subse-quently, the training condition variable was entered, fol-lowed by the individual difference variable, followed bythe interaction term. There was a statistically significantinteraction between training condition and conscien-tiousness for declarative knowledge acquisition (p < .05).In addition, the interaction between training conditionand conscientiousness was marginally significant in thehypothesized direction for declarative knowledge reten-tion (p < .10). Finally, there was a marginally significantinteraction between training condition and extraversionfor declarative knowledge acquisition (p < .10). There-fore, as described below, we found partial support forhypotheses 1 and 2.

Table 4 displays the interactions for conscientious-ness and extraversion. Results support the presence ofan interaction between conscientiousness and trainingmethod for declarative knowledge acquisition (DR2 =



Table 3. Effect of training method on declarative knowledge acquisition, procedural knowledge acquisition, declarative knowledgeretention, and transfer performance

Step and variable Declarativeknowledgeacquisition

Proceduralknowledgeacquisition

Declarativeknowledgeretention

Transferperformance

Step 1: Control variables B (SE B)College 1 0.01 (3.32)** -0.38 (0.29)** 1.19 (3.37)** -0.23 (0.32)**College 2 -4.49 (3.34)** -0.32 (0.29)** -1.53 (3.10)** -0.42 (0.30)**Class size -0.38 (0.26)** -0.05 (0.02)** -0.32 (0.26)** -0.03 (0.03)**Pretraining self-efficacy 0.31 (0.57)** -0.05 (0.05)** -0.12 (0.54)** -0.05 (0.05)**Pretraining desire to learn -0.27 (0.55)** 0.05 (0.05)** -0.07 (0.51)** 0.02 (0.05)**

R2

.218** .168** .129** .124**Step 2: Training method B (SE B)

BMT versus EMT 2.39 (2.17)** -0.22 (0.19)** -1.57 (2.02)** -.01 (0.19)**R2

.226** .178** .134** .124**DR2

.008** .010** .005** .000**

Note: N = 126 for declarative knowledge acquisition; N = 122 for procedural knowledge acquisition; N = 119 for declarative knowledge retention andtransfer performance. Betas are unstandardized coefficients. College 1 and College 2 are dummy variables; College 3 is the omitted reference vari-able. BMT = behavioral modeling training. EMT = error management training. BMT was dummy-coded ‘0’ and EMT was dummy-coded ‘1.’ * = p < .05.** = p < .01.

Table 4. Interactions between conscientiousness, extraversion, and training method for declarative knowledge acquisition and de-clarative knowledge retention

Declarative knowledgeacquisition

Declarative knowledgeretention

Declarative knowledgeacquisition

Step and variable Conscientiousness Extraversion

Step 1: Control variables B (SE B)College 1 2.26 (3.32)** 2.64 (3.35)** -0.56 (3.31)**College 2 -5.00 (3.30)** -2.59 (3.04)** -3.61 (3.34)**Class size -0.23 (0.26)** -0.22 (0.26)** -0.45 (0.26)**Pretraining self-efficacy 0.30 (0.56)** -0.11 (0.52)** 0.26 (0.60)**Pretraining desire to learn -0.47 (0.54)** -.21 (0.50)** -0.31 (0.55)**

R2

.208** .129** .208**Step 2: Training method B (SE B)

BMT versus EMT 2.82 (2.13)** -0.98 (1.97)** 1.95 (2.17)**R2

.215** .134** .215**DR2

.007** .005** .007**Step 3: Personality variable B (SE B)

Conscientiousness or extraversion -2.28 (2.12)** 0.68 (1.95)** -1.40 (1.79)**R2

.224** .173** .219**DR2

.009** .039** .004**Step 4: Interaction term B (SE B)

Conscientiousness ¥ method orextraversion ¥ method

7.82 (2.97)** 4.85 (2.74)** 4.45 (2.39)**

R2

.268** .196** .242**DR2

.044** .023** .023**

Note: N = 125 for declarative knowledge acquisition; N = 119 for declarative knowledge retention. Betas are unstandardized coefficients. College 1and College 2 are dummy variables; College 3 is the omitted reference variable. BMT = behavioral modeling training. EMT = error management train-ing. BMT was dummy-coded ‘0’ and EMT was dummy-coded ‘1.’ * = p < .10. ** = p < .05.




.044, p < .05). The interaction is displayed graphically inFigure 1, which indicates that trainees who are higherin conscientiousness obtained higher scores on themeasure of declarative knowledge acquisition in theEMT condition than in the BMT condition, and thattrainees who are lower in conscientiousness obtainedhigher scores on this measure in the BMT condition.

For the dependent variable declarative knowledge re-tention, the interaction between conscientiousness andtraining method was marginally significant (DR2 = .023,p < .10). The interaction is displayed graphically inFigure 2, and indicates a similar pattern of results to thatreflected in Figure 1.

As Table 4 reflects, the hierarchical results supportthe presence of a marginally significant interaction be-tween extraversion and training method for declarativeknowledge acquisition (DR2 = .023, p < .10). This interac-tion is displayed graphically in Figure 3, and indicates asimilar pattern of interactions to those found for con-scientiousness. Figure 3 illustrates that participants whoare more extraverted scored higher on the measure ofdeclarative knowledge acquisition in the EMT conditionthan in the BMT condition, and that participants whoare more introverted scored better on this measure inthe BMT condition.

Table 5 indicates that the interactions between extra-version and procedural knowledge acquisition (b = .18,t = 1.47, p = .14), and extraversion and transfer perform-

ance (b = .20, t = 1.57, p = .11) were close to beingstatistically significant. The form of these nonsignificantinteractions was similar to the forms displayed in Fig-ures 1, 2, and 3.

4. Discussion

The purpose of this research was to determinewhether the effectiveness of an error management ap-proach to training an important interpersonal skill suchas negotiation is moderated by individual differences inconscientiousness, extraversion, or openness. To ad-dress this question, we created two negotiation train-ing programs, which contained key features of BMTand EMT training methods, and assessed declarativeknowledge acquisition, declarative knowledge retention,task performance, and transfer performance at differ-ent points in time.

Interestingly, although we do not form any hypo-theses concerning the main effects of training methodon any of the learning outcomes, the results indicatedthat neither training method was superior to the otherin developing declarative knowledge acquisition, proced-ural knowledge acquisition, declarative knowledge re-tention, or transfer performance. These findings areinteresting, but for at least two reasons, they are notnecessarily surprising. First, both training methods have

Error management training (r = .27)

Behavioral modeling training (r = -.19)

Dec

lara

tive

kno

wle

dge

acqu

isit

ion,

net

of

cont

rol v

aria

bles

Conscientiousness

Figure 1. Interaction between conscientiousness and training method for declarative knowledge acquisition.




Dec

lara

tive

kno

wle

dge

rete

ntio

n, n

et o

f co

ntro

l var

iabl

es

Conscientiousness


Figure 2. Interaction between conscientiousness and training method for declarative knowledge retention.


Dec

lara

tive

kno

wle

dge

acqu

isit

ion,

net

of

cont

rol v

aria

bles


Extraversion

Figure 3. Interaction between extraversion and training method for declarative knowledge acquisition.




well-established empirical records attesting to theireffectiveness in promoting learning and transfer, albeitfor a more restricted task domain for EMT (e.g., Keith &Frese, 2008; Taylor et al., 2005). Second, from a theor-etical standpoint, both training methods can marshalpersuasive arguments as to why they should be effectivemethods for training interpersonal skills. We suspectthat these results may not be surprising to BMT andEMT researchers either. In their meta-analyses of EMT,Keith and Frese (2008) suggested there may not bemuch difference between the amount of short-termlearning and performance in EMT and moreproceduralized training conditions. This is due to thefact that the difficulties introduced by EMT duringtraining, while important for promoting knowledgestructures used during transfer, may not assist withshort-term learning and performance. Regarding trans-fer, Keith and Frese (2008) argued that the cognitiveprocesses elicited by EMT, such as metacognition,should be more helpful for developing knowledgestructures used in structurally distinct adaptive transfertasks than for structurally similar analogical transfertasks such as the one used in this study. Accordingly,Keith and Frese (2008) hypothesized that there may befew differences between EMT and BMT for analogicaltransfer.

4.1. Interaction effects

Traditionally, the study of ATI has been largely ignoredin the training domain, perhaps because the interac-tional portion of the variance accounted for by ATI isquite small (Warr & Allen, 1998). However, in recentyears, training researchers have called for more studyof ATI (Campbell, 1988, 1989; Campbell & Kuncel,2002; Ford & Weissbein, 1997; Tannenbaum & Yukl,1992). In training research, ATI are potentially import-ant because, depending on the form of the interaction,they may suggest differential placement of traineesto training methods is warranted (Campbell, 1989;Campbell & Kuncel, 2002). For instance, in the case ofa disordinal interaction between training method andaptitude (i.e., where the regression lines relating learn-ing outcome and aptitude cross for two differenttreatments), trainees with high standing on a givencharacteristic will learn more when taught using one ofthe training methods, while trainees with lower stand-ing on that characteristic will learn more whentaught using the other training method. In this study,we obtained such disordinal interactions betweentraining method and conscientiousness for (1) de-clarative knowledge acquisition and (2) declarativeknowledge retention, and between training methodand extraversion for declarative knowledge acquisition.Potentially, therefore, if these interactions could bereliably replicated, they may provide a rationale for dif-ferential placement of trainees into the two trainingconditions.

The interactions displayed in Figures 1 and 2 be-tween conscientiousness and the two learning out-comes suggest that highly conscientious individualslearned and recalled negotiation strategies and behavi-ors better in the EMT condition than in the BMTcondition, and that individuals lower in conscientious-ness learned and recalled the strategies and behaviorsbetter in the BMT condition than in the EMT condi-tion. In attempting to understand these findings, it isimportant to appreciate the magnitude of the differ-ences in the relationships between conscientiousnessand declarative knowledge acquisition and retentionfor the two training conditions. For instance, for theoutcome declarative knowledge acquisition, the cor-relation between conscientiousness and learning inthe EMT condition is r = .27. In contrast, in the BMTcondition, the correlation is r = -.19. Similarly, for theoutcome declarative knowledge retention, the correla-tion between conscientiousness and learning is r = .29in the EMT condition, and r = -.04 in the BMTcondition.

The strong, negative relationship between conscien-tiousness and declarative knowledge acquisition isparticularly surprising since two meta-analyses have es-timated the relationship between conscientiousness and

Table 5. Nonsignificant interactions for moderator variablesinvestigated

Moderator variable b t p

Declarative knowledge acquisition1. Openness .05 .39 .702. Emotional stability .07 .59 .553. Agreeableness .15 1.20 .23

Procedural knowledge acquisition1. Conscientiousness .02 .16 .872. Extraversion .18 1.47 .143. Openness .01 .07 .944. Emotional stability .05 .37 .715. Agreeableness .15 1.18 .24

Declarative knowledge retention1. Extraversion .05 .39 .692. Openness -.02 -.14 .893. Emotional stability .15 1.10 .274. Agreeableness .14 1.03 .30

Transfer performance1. Conscientiousness .09 .69 .492. Extraversion .20 1.57 .113. Openness -.09 -.65 .524. Emotional stability -.01 -.09 .935. Agreeableness .01 .04 .97

Note: b = the standardized beta weight for the interaction between themoderator variable and training method in the final regression models.For all variables, N = 125 for declarative knowledge acquisition;N = 122 for procedural knowledge acquisition; N = 119 for declarativeknowledge retention; N = 119 for transfer performance.



learning to be between .31 and .39 (Barrick & Mount,1991; Salgado, 1997). What could account for the rathersurprising form of these disordinal interactions in Fig-ures 1 and 2? One possible theoretical explanation issuggested by earlier ATI studies in the field of ‘strategytraining,’ which found a positive relationship betweencognitive ability and learning in one training condition,and a negative relationship between cognitive ability andlearning in the other condition (e.g., Dansereau et al.,1979; Gray, 1983; Rigney, Munro, & Crook, 1979). Atthe time, such findings were very puzzling becausecognitive ability was presumed to be an effective pre-dictor of learning outcomes regardless of the trainingmethod employed.

In one representative study from this literature,Dansereau et al. (1979) randomly assigned students toa control condition in which no strategy trainingoccurred, and a second condition in which a learningstrategy called ‘networking’ was taught. In the net-working condition, students were shown how to trans-form text into conceptual networks. Students werelater tested in their knowledge of conceptual net-works, and an interesting ATI appeared. For studentsin the control condition, there was a strong, positivecorrelation between cognitive ability and learning.In the strategy condition, however, a negative relation-ship between cognitive ability and learning wasobserved. Thus, strategy training had helped low-abilityparticipants, but had somehow hurt high-abilitystudents. Dansereau speculated that the resultsstemmed from the lowered motivation of high-abilityindividuals to learn the strategies; in brief, the strat-egies may have interfered with the preferences of highg participants to take the test the way they wanted totake it.

Very similar results were obtained in a study byRigney et al. (1979), in which researchers attemptedto teach procedural and monitoring strategies forself-directed learning, and a study by Gray (1983),which sought to teach the strategies of grouping,elaborating, and reorganizing materials to be learned.Due to the foresight of the researchers in thislast study, it was possible to obtain some insightfrom the high-ability participants themselves as to pos-sible reasons for their poorer performance in thestrategy training condition. In this study, high-abilitystudents in the strategy condition complained that thestrategies forced on them by the investigators hadinterfered with their ability to use the strategiesthey normally used. Thus, Dansereau’s intuition aboutcognitive interference as an explanation for thedisordinal ATI seemed to be correct. Snow andLohman (1984) joined Dansereau in this interpretationof results. They theorized that a negative slope be-tween cognitive ability and learning occurred whenan instructional method made cognitive demands on

the learner that were inconsistent with the style ofcognitive processing preferred by the learner (Snow &Lohman, 1984).

In our research, it is possible that a similar kind ofinterference is taking place for highly conscientioustrainees in the BMT condition. For instance, it is pos-sible that the highly structured, organized nature of theBMT program interfered with conscientious trainees’ability to use, and preference for using, their own so-phisticated mechanisms for organizing the material. Ineffect, in the BMT condition, the trainer was beingconscientious for trainees during the strategy training.Prior to training, the trainer had already carefullyorganized all of the strategies and behaviors, and pro-ceeded in a step-by-step fashion to explain them oneby one. Subsequently, the trainer led trainees througha carefully crafted set of role plays illustrating thebehaviors. Then, trainees watched actors who modeledeffective behaviors for them. In brief, much as thestrategy training in earlier studies interfered with thepreference of high-ability trainees to devise their ownlearning strategies, it is possible that the highly organ-ized and structured BMT condition interfered withhighly conscientious trainees’ preference for organizingthe training material the way they wanted. In contrast,the EMT condition required trainees to be extremelyconscientious in paying attention to the strategies theygenerated as a group, and then organizing them in away that worked for them. In sum, conscientious indi-viduals may have preferred the ability to freely usetheir own organizing mechanisms during the key strat-egy training portion of the EMT condition. In contrast,less conscientious individuals may have preferredhaving the trainer organize and make sense of thematerials for them, as was done in the strategy trainingportion of the BMT condition.

If this hypothesis is correct, we would expect con-scientious trainees to be more satisfied with EMT as aninstructional method than BMT. The results for trainingprogram satisfaction tend to support this. In the EMTcondition, the correlation between conscientiousnessand self-reported satisfaction with the instructionalmethod was r = .26; in the BMT condition, this correla-tion was r = -.22. More generally, the correlation be-tween conscientiousness and overall satisfaction withthe training program was r = .26 in the EMT conditionand -.18 in the BMT condition.

Interestingly, the hypothesized interactions for con-scientiousness were not observed for proceduralknowledge acquisition and transfer performance. Onepossibility is that any increased motivation to learnfostered by EMT for trainees high on conscientiousnessheightened only those processes related to declar-ative knowledge acquisition and retention, such as at-tention, encoding, and retrieval of learned material,not processes related to skill performance, such as




automatization of learned behaviors (Anderson, 1982,1989).

We also found an interaction between trainingmethod and extraversion for declarative knowledgeacquisition. The interactional pattern was similar tothe ones found for conscientiousness. As Figure 3indicates, highly extraverted trainees in the EMT condi-tion achieved higher scores on the measure of declar-ative knowledge acquisition than highly extravertedtrainees in the BMT condition. In contrast, more in-troverted trainees achieved higher scores on this meas-ure in the BMT condition than in the EMT condition.Interestingly, as Table 5 makes clear, the interactionsbetween extraversion and procedural knowledgeacquisition and extraversion and transfer performancewere very close to being significant. Both of these non-significant interactions took the same form as the onesin Figure 3.

Theoretically, there are two possible explanationsfor these results. One possibility is that extraverts, be-cause of their active stance toward learning, preferredthe EMT training program because of its more active,exploratory approach to learning the key negotiationskills than the more didactic, passive BMT approach tolearning those skills during the key study manipulationwhere trainees learned the negotiation strategies. Ifthis hypothesis is correct, we would expect extra-verted trainees to be more satisfied with EMT as aninstructional method than BMT. The results for train-ing program satisfaction, while not conclusive, aresuggestive. In the EMT condition, the correlation be-tween extraversion and overall satisfaction with thetraining program was r = .14; in the BMT condition, itwas -.14.

A second possible reason for the observed interac-tion between extraversion and training method has todo with the fact that more active or stimulating trainingenvironments facilitate greater learning in extravertsthan introverts, and less-active or stimulating environ-ments stimulate greater learning in introverts. Past stud-ies have demonstrated that learning and performanceare higher for extraverts in more stimulating environ-ments, and higher for introverts in less-stimulating envi-ronments. For instance, in an early study, Revelle,Amaral, and Turriff (1976) examined performance ongraduate record examination (GRE) verbal items undera relaxed condition, a time pressure condition, and atime pressure condition in which participants were given200 mg of caffeine. Results indicated that the perform-ance of introverts decreased by 0.6 SDs over the threeconditions, while the performance of extraverts in-creased by a like amount over those conditions. Similarresults were found by other researchers (e.g., Ander-son, 1985; Gilliland, 1976) for low to moderately highlevels of arousal. However, at very high levels of arousal,the performance of extraverts decreased.

The theoretical explanation for these findings rests ontwo postulates, each one of which has received a greatdeal of empirical support: (1) introverts have a higherresting state of arousal (i.e., resting internal stimulation)than extraverts (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1985) and (2)learning and performance are curvilinearly related (in aninverted U shape) to arousal (i.e., resting internal stimu-lation) level. The first postulate was introduced byEysenck, who argued that general stimulation levelrepresents nonspecific activity in the ascending reticularactivating system (Eysenck, 1967). The second postulateis a restatement of the ‘Yerkes–Dodson’ law (Yerkes &Dodson, 1908). The mechanisms responsible for the re-lationships underlying the Yerkes–Dodson law have notbeen definitively identified, but could include distractibil-ity, narrower cue utilization, and decreased efficiencyin storing, retrieving and rehearsing learned informationin very high states of stimulation (Easterbrook, 1959;Eysenck, 1974).

In combination, these postulates predict that intro-verts will learn and perform better in nonstimulatingenvironments than stimulating ones. If the learningenvironment is very active and stimulating, the intro-vert’s relatively high resting state of internal arousal maybe elevated to levels where learning is compromised. Incontrast, if the learning environment is unstimulating,the extravert’s relatively lower resting state of internalarousal may not be elevated to levels where learning isoptimized.

In our research, trainees’ responses to questions in aposttraining questionnaire indicate that they experi-enced the EMT condition to be quite a bit more active,and therefore, presumably, more stimulating and arous-ing, than the BMT condition. For instance, trainees’mean rating for the statement ‘The training programwas a very active learning process’ was 5.48 in the EMTcondition and 5.00 in the BMT condition (t = 2.15,p < .05; d = .39). In addition, trainees’ mean rating forthe statement ‘The training program really kept us busywith learning activities’ was 5.41 in the EMT conditionand 4.89 in the BMT condition (t = 2.10, p < .05; d = .39).

In this research, the heightened state of activity inthe EMT condition may have led to more optimal lev-els of stimulation, and thus more optimal learning, forextraverts than introverts. In contrast, the less-activeBMT condition may have provided the optimal level ofarousal for introverts than extraverts, leading togreater learning for introverts, rather than extraverts,in the BMT condition. According to the Yerkes–Dodson law, however, this explanation would onlymake sense if stimulatory levels in the EMT conditionwere moderate, not high. In accordance with this re-quirement, trainees’ moderately high mean ratings forthe two questions inquiring about activity level suggestmore moderate, rather than high, levels of stimulationin the EMT condition.



4.2. Contributions, limitations, and directions forfuture research

This research makes several important contributions.From a practical perspective, this study reinforces Gullyet al.’s (2002) conclusion that the effectiveness of EMTmay depend on individual differences. Thus, this studyreinforces the point stressed by many other researchers(Campbell, 1988, 1989; Campbell & Kuncel, 2002; Ford& Weissbein, 1997; Tannenbaum & Yukl, 1992) that it isimportant to resist a ‘one size fits all’ approach to train-ing. Individual differences can have an important impacton relevant training outcomes, and thus individual differ-ences ought to be incorporated into the needs assess-ment process (Gully et al., 2002). This research alsohighlights the important role motivation to learn mayplay in learning when considered in combination with in-dividual difference characteristics. Although the focusof this research was on how individual differencesdifferentially affected learning in EMT and BMT condi-tions, several of our hypotheses focused on how suchdifferences may differentially affect motivation to learn.Future research should examine more directly whetherindividual differences differentially affect motivation tolearn in EMT and more proceduralized conditions byusing motivation to learn as an outcome measure. Fi-nally, this research examined both short- and long-termdeclarative knowledge and procedural knowledge out-comes for a complex interpersonal skill. Because of thetime investment required for interpersonal skills train-ing, and the logistical hurdles involved in having particip-ants return weeks later for transfer assessments,the examination of such a diverse range of learningoutcomes over an extended time period is rare forinterpersonal skills training research. However, it wasimportant to include all of these learning measuresbecause training researchers have suggested differenthypotheses concerning the effectiveness of each methoddepending on whether the learning outcome was de-clarative or procedural knowledge, near- or far-termtransfer, or whether the transfer task was analogicalrather than adaptive in nature (Ivancic & Hesketh, 1995/1996; Keith & Frese, 2008; Smith, Ford, & Kozlowski,1997).

This research contains some limitations. One relatesto the generalizability of the results to other learnerpopulations and other interpersonal skills. In designingthis study, we made an effort to enhance thegeneralizability of the study findings to real-worldpopulations in three ways. First, by recruiting studentsfrom classes for which negotiation training would be arelevant learning experience (e.g., communication stud-ies, persuasion, sales, and marketing), we attempted toobtain a highly motivated study population. Second, weattempted to increase the motivation of our studypopulation even more by offering performance-related

bonuses. Third, we included negotiation tasks (e.g., thepurchase and sale of manufactured items, and thenegotiation for a salary compensation package) thatwould be relevant to workers in many organizations.However, it is possible that results may differ using aneven more highly motivated group of participants, suchas employees in organizations. More generally, our re-sults are limited to the very narrowly defined interper-sonal skill of negotiation in mixed-motive contexts. It isnot necessarily the case that the results obtained inthis research will generalize to other important inter-personal skills, such as supervisory or teamwork skills.A third limitation of this research relates to the dura-tion of the training. For practical purposes, we limitedthis training to one 3-hour session. It is not clearwhether the results obtained in this research wouldobtain if training was distributed over the course ofseveral sessions, or if trainees were trained to mastery(e.g., May & Kahnweiler, 2000). A fourth limitation re-lates to the differences in structure in the two condi-tions. Hypothesized interactions for openness werepremised on important differences in structure in thetwo conditions. Because those differences were largelyconfined to the key training component when negoti-ation strategies training took place, it may be that thedifferences in structure were not sufficient to obtainthe expected interactions for openness. Finally, sincewe did not include pretraining measures of negotiationknowledge and skill, we are not able to claim with ab-solute certainty that either training method actually in-creased negotiation knowledge or skill at all. However,we believe it is reasonable to assume that scores onany such premeasures would have been close to zero.For instance, it is doubtful that anyone who had notundergone the specialized training in this researchwould be able to name the eight negotiation strategiesor 18 key behaviors.

In sum, BMT and EMT have both amassed significantempirical and theoretical support for the propositionthat they are effective methods for training differentkinds of skills. This study suggests both methods can beused effectively for training interpersonal skills. How-ever, it also suggests that neither EMT nor BMT may bethe best method for everyone. Future research shouldcontinue to explore aptitude–treatment interactionsusing an expanded set of outcomes variables, such asmotivation to learn.

Acknowledgements

We thank the US Army Research Institute for theBehavioral and Social Sciences for providing the fundingfor this study. The authors would like to thank HannahJackson Foldes, Emily Duehr, and Stacy Davies for theirassistance with data collection.




References

Aiken, L., & West, S. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and in-terpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Anderson, J. R. (1982). Acquisition of cognitive skill. Psycholog-ical Review, 89, 369–403.

Anderson, J. R. (1989). A theory of human knowledge. ArtificialIntelligence, 40, 313–351.

Anderson, K. J. (1985). Impulsivity, Caffeine and Task Difficulty: Awithin-subjects test of the Yerkes–Dodson law. Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation, Colgate University.

Arthur, W., Bennett, W., Edens, P. S., & Bell, S. T. (2003).Effectiveness of training in organizations: A meta-analysis ofdesign and evaluation features. Journal of Applied Psychology,88, 234–245.

Arvey, R. D., & Cole, D. A. (1991). Evaluating change due totraining. In I. L. Goldstein (Ed.), Training and development inorganizations (pp. 89–117). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bandura, A. (1965). Influences of models’ reinforcement con-tingencies on the acquisition of imitative responses. Journalof Personality and Social Psychology, 1, 589–595.

Bandura, A. (1969). Principles of behavior modification. NewYork: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personalitydimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. PersonnelPsychology, 44, 1–26.

Bell, B. S., & Ford, J. K. (2007). Reactions to skill assessment:The forgotten factor in explaining motivation to learn.Human Resource Development Quarterly, 18, 33–62.

Bell, B. S., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2008). Active learning: Effectsof core training design elements on self-regulatory pro-cesses, learning, and adaptability. Journal of Applied Psychology,93, 267–306.

Brooks, J. G. (1990). Teachers and students: Constructivistsforging new directions. Educational Leadership, 47, 68–71.

Burke, M. J., & Day, R. R. (1986). A cumulative study of theeffectiveness of management training. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 71, 232–245.

Campbell, J. P. (1988). Training design for performance im-provement. In J. Campbell & R. J. Campbell (Eds.), Productiv-ity in organizations (pp. 177–215). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Campbell, J. P. (1989). The agenda for theory and research. InI. L. Goldstein (Ed.), Training and development in organizations(pp. 469–486). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Campbell, J. P., & Kuncel, N. R. (2002). Individual and teamtraining. In N. Anderson, D. S. Ones, H. K. Sinangil, &C. Viswesvaran (Eds.), Handbook of industrial, work andorganizational psychology (pp. 278–312). Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.

Carlson, R. A., Lundy, D. H., & Schneider, W. (1992). Strategyguidance and memory aiding in learning problem-solvingskill. Human Factors, 34, 129–145.

Carter, M., & Beier, M. E. (2010). The effectiveness of errormanagement training with working-aged adults. PersonnelPsychology, 63, 641–675.

Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory andthe format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8, 293–332.

Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.

Colquitt, J. A., LePine, J. A., & Noe, R. A. (2000). Toward anintegrative theory of training motivation: A meta-analyticpath analysis of 20 years of research. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 85, 678–707.

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO personalityinventory and NEO five-factor inventory professional manual.Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Craik, F. I. M., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: Aframework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learningand Verbal Behavior, 11, 671–684.

Cronbach, L. J., & Gleser, G. C. (1965). Psychological testsand personnel decisions. Urbana: University of IllinoisPress.

Daniels, R. L., & Stevens, J. P. (1976). The interaction betweenthe internal-external locus of control and two methods ofcollege instruction. American Educational Research Journal, 13,103–113.

Dansereau, D. F., McDonald, B. A., Collins, D. W., Garland, J.,Holley, C. D., Diekhoff, G. M., & Evans, S. H. (1979). Evalu-ation of a teaching strategy system. In H. F. O’Neill & C. D.Spielberger (Eds.), Cognitive and affective learning strategies(pp. 3–43). New York: Academic Press.

Debowski, S., Wood, R. E., & Bandura, A. (2001). Impact ofguided exploration and enactive exploration on self-regulatory mechanisms and information acquisition throughelectronic search. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1129–1141.

Dunn, R. (1990). Rita Dunn answers questions on learningstyles. Educational Leadership, 48, 15–19.

Easterbrook, J. A. (1959). The effect of emotion on cue utiliza-tion and the organization of behavior. Psychological Review,66, 183–201.

Eysenck, H. J. (1967). The biological basis of personality. Spring-field, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

Eysenck, H. J. (1974). Individual differences in speed of re-trieval from semantic memory. Journal of Research in Person-ality, 8, 302–323.

Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, M. W. (1985). Personality and indi-vidual differences. New York: Plenum Press.

Fisher, R., Ury, W., & Patton, B. (1999). Getting to yes: Negotiat-ing agreement without giving in (3rd ed.) New York: PenguinBooks.

Ford, J. K., & Weissbein, D. A. (1997). Transfer of training: Anupdated review and analysis. Performance Improvement Quar-terly, 10, 22–41.

Fosnot, C. T. (1996). Constructivism: A psychological theoryof learning. In C. T. Fosnot (Ed.), Constructivism: Theory, per-spectives and practice (pp. 8–33). New York: Teachers Col-lege Press.

Frese, M. (1995). Error management in training: Conceptualand empirical results. In C. Zucchermaglio, S. Bagnara, & S.U. Stucky (Eds.), Organizational learning and technologicalchange, series F: Computer and systems sciences (Vol. 141, pp.112–124). Berlin, Germany: Springer.

Frese, M., & Zapf, D. (1994). Action as the core of workpsychology: A German approach. In H. C. Triandis, M. D.Dunnette, & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial andorganizational psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 271–340). Palo Alto,CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Gilliland, K. (1976). The Interactive Effect of Introversion-Extraversion with Caffeine-Induced Arousal on Verbal Perform-



ance. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, NorthwesternUniversity.

Gist, M. E., Stevens, C. K., & Bavetta, A. G. (1991). Effects ofself-efficacy and post-training intervention on the acquisitionand maintenance of complex interpersonal skills. PersonnelPsychology, 44, 837–861.

Goldberg, L. R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public domain,personality inventory measuring the lower-level facets ofseveral five-factor models. In I. Mervielde, I. Deary, F. DeFruyt, & F. Ostendorf (Eds.), Personality psychology in Europe(Vol. 7, pp. 7–28). Tilburg, the Netherlands: Tilburg Univer-sity Press.

Goldstein, A. P., & Sorcher, M. A. (1974). Changing supervisorybehavior. New York: Pergamon Press.

Gray, L. E. (1983). Aptitude Constructs, Learning Processes andAchievement. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, StanfordUniversity.

Gully, S. M., Payne, S. C., Kiechel Koles, K. L., & Whiteman, J.K. (2002). The impact of error training and individual differ-ences on training outcomes: An attribute-treatment interac-tion perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 143–155.

Guzzo, R. A., Jette, R. D., & Katzell, R. A. (1985). The effectsof psychologically based intervention programs on workerproductivity: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 38, 275–291.

Heimbeck, D., Frese, M., Sonnentag, S., & Keith, N. (2003).Integrating errors into the training process. The function oferror management instructions and the role of goal orienta-tion. Personnel Psychology, 56, 333–361.

Horak, V. M., & Horak, W. J. (1982). The influence of studentlocus of control and teaching method on mathematicsachievement. Journal of Experimental Education, 51, 18–21.

Horak, W. J., & Slobodzian, K. A. (1980). Influence on instruc-tional structure and locus of control on achievement ofpreservice elementary science teachers. Journal of Researchin Science Teaching, 17, 213–222.

Hough, L. M., Eaton, N. K., Dunnette, M. D., Kamp, J. D., &McCloy, R. (1990). Criterion-related validities of personalityconstructs and the effect of response distortion on thosevalidities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 581–595.

Ivancic, K., & Hesketh, B. (1995/1996). Making the best oferrors during training. Training Research Journal, 1, 103–125.

Keith, N., & Frese, M. (2005). Self-regulation in error manage-ment training: Emotion control and metacognition as media-tors of performance effects. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90,677–691.

Keith, N., & Frese, M. (2008). Effectiveness of error manage-ment training: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology,93, 59–69.

Keith, N., Richter, T., & Naumann, J. (2010). Active/exploratory training promotes transfer even in learners withlow motivation and cognitive ability. Applied Psychology, 59,97–123.

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall.

Martocchio, J. J., & Webster, J. (1992). Effects of feedback andcognitive playfulness on performance in microcomputersoftware training. Personnel Psychology, 45, 553–578.

Mathieu, J. E., Martineau, J. W., & Tannenbaum, S. I. (1993). In-dividual and situational influences on the development ofself-efficacy: Implications for training effectiveness. PersonnelPsychology, 46, 125–147.

May, G. L., & Kahnweiler, W. M. (2000). The effect of a mas-tery practice design on learning and transfer in behaviormodeling training. Personnel Psychology, 53, 353–373.

McLeod, D. B., & Adams, V. M. (1980/1981). Locus of controland mathematics instruction: Three exploratory studies.Journal of Experimental Education, 49, 94–99.

Nordstrom, C. R., Wendland, D., & Williams, K. B. (1998). ‘Toerr is human’: An examination of the effectiveness of errormanagement training. Journal of Business and Psychology, 12,269–282.

Pasher, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2008).Learning styles: Concepts and evidence. Psychological Sciencein the Public Interest, 9, 103–119.

Pruitt, D. G., & Rubin, J. Z. (1986). Social conflict: Escalation,stalemate, & settlement. New York, NY: Random House.

Quiñones, M. A. (1995). Pretraining context effects: Trainingassignment as feedback. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80,226–238.

Raiffa, H. (1982). The art and science of negotiation. Cambridge,MA: Harvard University Press.

Revelle, W., Amaral, P., & Turriff, S. (1976). Introversion-extraversion, time-stress, and caffeine: Effect on verbal per-formance. Science, 192, 149–150.

Rigney, J. W., Munro, A., & Crook, D. E. (1979). Teachingtask-oriented selective reading. A learning strategy. In H. F.O. ‘Neill & C. D. Spielberger (Eds.), Cognitive and affectivelearning strategies (pp. 177–206). New York: AcademicPress.

Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies of internal ver-sus external control of reinforcements. Psychological Mono-graphs, 80 (Whole no. 609).

Russell, J. S., Wexley, K. N., & Hunter, J. E. (1984). Question-ing the effectiveness of behavioral modeling training in an in-dustrial setting. Personnel Psychology, 40, 455–488.

Salgado, J. F. (1997). The five factor model of personality andjob performance in the European Community. Journal of Ap-plied Psychology, 82, 30–43.

Schiefele, U., Krapp, A., & Winteler, A. (1992). Interest as apredictor of academic achievement: A meta-analysis of re-search. In K. A. Renninger, S. Hidi, & A. Krapp (Eds.), Therole of interest in learning and development (pp. 183–211).Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Smith, E. M., Ford, J. K., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (1997). Buildingadaptive expertise: Implications for training design strat-egies. In M. A. Quiñones & A. Ehrenstein (Eds.), Training fora rapidly changing workplace (pp. 89–118). Washington, DC:American Psychological Association.

Snow, R. E. (1989). Cognitive-conative aptitude interactions inlearning. In R. Kanfer & P. L. Ackerman (Eds.), Abilities, mo-tivation, and methodology: The Minnesota symposium on learningand individual differences (pp. 435–474). Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.

Snow, R. E., & Lohman, D. F. (1984). Toward a theory ofcognitive aptitude for learning from instruction. Journal ofEducational Psychology, 76, 347–376.

Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Ef-fects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12, 257–285.




Tannenbaum, S. I., & Yukl, G. (1992). Training and develop-ment in work organizations. Annual Review of Psychology, 43,399–441.

Taylor, P. J., Russ-Eft, D. F., & Chan, D. W. L. (2005). A meta-analytic review of behavioral modeling training. Journal of Ap-plied Psychology, 90, 692–709.

Walton, R. E., & McKersie, R. B. (1965). A behavioral theory oflabor negotiations: An analysis of a social interaction system.New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Warr, P., & Allen, C. (1998). Learning strategies and occupa-tional training. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), In-ternational Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology,13, 83–121.

Weissbein, D. A. (2000). Improving Training Effectiveness throughMotivation: Creating a psychological states intervention. Unpub-lished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, MI.

Werner, J. M., O’Leary-Kelly, A., Baldwin, T. T., & Wexley, K.N. (1994). Augmenting behavior-modeling training: Testingthe effects of pre- and posttraining interventions. HumanResource Development Quarterly, 5, 169–183.

Wexley, K. N., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Developing and traininghuman resources in organizations (3d ed.). Upper SaddleRiver, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Wood, R. E., Kakebeeke, B. M., Debowski, S., & Frese, M.(2000). The impact of enactive exploration on intrinsicmotivation, strategy, and performance in electronic search.Applied Psychology: An International Review, 49, 263–283.

Yerkes, R. M., & Dodson, J. D. (1908). The relation of strengthof stimuli to rapidity of habit-formation. Journal of Compar-ative Neurology and Psychology, 18, 459–482.



Error management of training for developing negotiation skills

Documents

Transcript of Error management of training for developing negotiation skills