J Bus Psychol (2016) 31:33–50

DOI 10.1007/s10869-015-9401-1

ORIGINAL PAPER

Re-examination of Motivation in Learning Contexts:

Meta-analytically Investigating the Role Type of Motivation
Plays in the Prediction of Key Training Outcomes
Kristina N. Bauer • Karin A. Orvis •

Katherine Ely • Eric A. Surface

Published online: 26 February 2015

 Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Abstract declarative knowledge, initial skill acquisition, or transfer.

Purpose The extant research has not been consistent in Yet, there was variability in the strength of the motivation–
the way motivation is conceptualized and measured in training outcome relationships across motivation type.
learning contexts, with prior research utilizing five differ- Implications We recommend that motivation to learn be
ent types of motivation derived from three theoretical used to predict trainee reactions, declarative knowledge,
frameworks—self-determination theory, expectancy the- and initial skill acquisition; motivation to transfer should
ory, and the expectancy-value model. The purpose of the be measured when predicting distal post-training outcomes
present study was to examine whether type of motivation (i.e., transfer of training). Although this recommendation
impacts the motivation–training outcome relationships. may seem intuitive, clearly prior research/practice has used
Design/Methodology We conducted a meta-analysis in- other motivation types in the prediction of these training
vestigating the impact of motivation type (i.e., intrinsic outcomes. Accordingly, we advise that measures of moti-
motivation, motivation to learn, motivation to transfer, vation to learn and motivation to transfer be used more
expectancy motivation, and task value) on four training uniformly.
outcomes. The review of the literature yielded 136 inde- Originality/Value This is the first study to meta-
pendent samples and a total of 25,012 trainees. Relative analytically test whether the relationship between motiva-
weights analysis was also used. tion and training outcomes varies based on the type of
Findings Results suggest that all types of motivation had motivation utilized.
stronger relationships with trainee reactions than with
Keywords Motivation
Meta-analysis
Learning

Training
K. N. Bauer (&)
Department of Psychology, University of West Florida,
11000 University Parkway, Pensacola, FL 32514, USA
e-mail: [email protected] Introduction

K. A. Orvis
The extant training and development research has stressed
Department of Psychology, Old Dominion University,
Norfolk, VA 23529, USA the importance of examining the role of motivation in
e-mail: [email protected] training effectiveness (Burke and Moore 2003; Colquitt et al.
2000; Noe and Schmitt 1986; Tannenbaum and Yukl 1992).
K. Ely
In 2000, Colquitt et al. published a seminal meta-analysis
Fors Marsh Group, 1010 N. Glebe Rd., Suite 510,
Arlington, VA 22201, USA examining the nomological network of the construct of
e-mail: [email protected] motivation to learn—‘‘the desire on the part of trainees to
learn the training material’’ (p. 681). This comprehensive
E. A. Surface
meta-analysis, which summarized over 25 years of research,
ALPS Solutions, 19 W. Hargett Street, Suite 701,
Raleigh, NC 27601, USA enhanced our understanding of this construct. For example,
e-mail: [email protected] Colquitt et al. established several key antecedents of

123
34 J Bus Psychol (2016) 31:33–50

Table 1 Summary of the similarities among and differences between the types of motivation
Motivation Theoretical Unique Point(s) of Training example—trainees are most
type foundation feature(s) overlap motivated if they…

Intrinsic Self- Emphasis on need satisfaction and Shares exclusive focus on Enjoy the content of the course
motivation determination enjoyment learning with MtL &
(IM) theory TV; shares judgments of
interest with TV
Motivation Expectancy Emphasis on E directed toward Shares exclusive focus on Believe effort will lead to successful
to learn theory learning learning with IM & TV; course performance
(MtL)a similar to MtT—only
includes E
Motivation Expectancy Emphasis on E directed toward Similar to MtL—only Believe that effort applied after the
to transfer theory transfer of training includes E course will lead to successful
(MtT)a application of skills on the job
Expectancy Expectancy Multiplicative combination of V, I, Perceive links between personal effort
motivation theory and E; focus on distal outcomes of expended, course performance, and
(EM)a training (e.g., promotion and future outcomes of good course
feelings of self-worth) performance, such as obtaining a
promotion
Task value Expectancy- Additive combination of interest, Shares exclusive focus on Judge the course to be interesting, useful
(TV) value model usefulness, and importance learning with IM & for the job, and important to the them
MtL; shares judgments
of interest with IM
V = valence, I = instrumentality, E = expectancy
a
MtL, MtT, and EM are all grounded in Vroom’s (1964) Expectancy theory, but differ in focus

motivation, such as personality and career planning, and they examined in the training literature may be more or less
distinguished motivation in a learning context from general predictive of various training outcomes.
motivation via its context and correlates. A review of the primary studies in Colquitt et al.’s
Although Colquitt et al. (2000) greatly contributed to the (2000) meta-analysis (e.g., Noe and Schmitt 1986; Tan-
field’s understanding of motivation within learning con- nenbaum et al. 1991; Warr and Bunce 1995) indicates this
texts, their meta-analysis did not address a key issue. meta-analysis included different types of motivation when
Specifically, Colquitt et al. did not distinguish among the empirically examining the nomological network of the
different types of motivation that have been prominent in construct they termed motivation to learn. Clearly, this was
research on learning, including motivation to learn, moti- by necessity, as relatively few studies were available at that
vation to transfer, intrinsic motivation, expectancy moti- time examining motivation in a learning context (i.e., 2–14
vation, and task value.1 For example, Noe (1986) and Noe studies per relationship examined, see Table 1 in Colquitt
and Schmitt (1986) developed measures of motivation to et al.). Now, with over a decade of additional research
learn and motivation to transfer based on Vroom’s (1964) available, this differentiation is feasible. Thus, the purpose
expectancy theory, linking these two types of motivation to of the present study is to meta-analytically investigate the
training outcomes. In contrast, some more recent work in extent to which the type of motivation measured, and by
the training literature (e.g., Bell and Kozlowski 2008) has extension its underlying theoretical framework, impacts the
emphasized intrinsic motivation, which is based on self- strength of its relationships with key training outcomes.
determination theory (Deci et al. 1991). Given that the Clarifying the impact of the type of motivation utilized
underlying assumptions of how motivation operates differ can inform future motivation research. If, as we argue for
according to the theoretical framework utilized, it is likely later, there are differences in the motivation–training out-
that the five different types of motivation commonly comes relationships when the type of motivation is taken
into account, then prior work combining across different
1
Although the word ‘‘type’’ is used to refer to the various motivation types has clouded our understanding of these
motivations that have been assessed in the training literature, the relationships. It could be that one type of motivation is
intent of this meta-analysis is not to develop a typology of training essential for enhancing learning, while another is the key to
motivation with hard and fast distinctions between the various
ensuring greater transfer. For illustrative purposes, let us
motivations. Indeed, there are points of overlap between the
motivations measured, which are noted in Table 1. The word type assume that intrinsic motivation is found to be the moti-
is used for the purpose of creating clarity in writing. vation type most strongly related to learning, while

123
J Bus Psychol (2016) 31:33–50 35

motivation to transfer is most strongly related to transfer. Kraiger et al.’s (1993) well-accepted taxonomy guided
Then, future research could further explore more of a our choice of learning outcomes as it expanded this level of
profile perspective—that is, assess the joint impact of in- Kirkpatrick’s (1976) model. We chose to examine declara-
terventions targeting the drivers of both intrinsic motiva- tive knowledge and initial skill acquisition. Declarative
tion and motivation to transfer, as well as investigate when knowledge is a cognitive learning outcome and reflects
to best encourage each type of motivation during a training trainees’ acquisition of the key facts and principles taught in
course. In short, the present meta-analysis will provide key training (Kraiger et al. 1993). This learning outcome is im-
insight into whether the differentiation among motivation portant because it must precede the acquisition of higher
types is needed; and, as such, whether future research order knowledge (Ackerman 1987; Anderson 1982; Fitts and
should pay close heed to these differences. Posner 1967). Initial skill acquisition is a skill-based learning
Moreover, this study provides best practice recommen- outcome. It refers to the transition from declarative to pro-
dations for organizational trainers interested in assessing, cedural knowledge (Neves and Anderson 1981) and reflects
understanding, and maximizing trainee motivation. For the ability to demonstrate the acquired procedural knowl-
trainers interested in assessing motivation in a learning edge and skills (Kraiger et al. 1993).
context, the goal is to determine which motivation type(s) The final training outcome examined in this meta-ana-
are most relevant to different training outcomes, and then lysis is transfer, defined as using the trained knowledge and
provide recommendations about the type(s) of motivation skills in a new context (Barnett and Ceci 2002; Blume et al.
that should be used when specific outcomes are of interest. 2010). For organizations investing in training, it is para-
For instance, if a leadership program is most concerned mount that trainees transfer the course material back to their
with improving on-the-job behaviors and motivation to job (Goldstein and Ford 2002). Yet, to be clear, learning
transfer is found to be most strongly related to the outcome must precede this arguably more consequential training
of transfer, then trainers should focus their efforts toward outcome (Baldwin et al. 2009). In sum, this meta-analysis
enhancing this motivation type. As another example, if examines four training outcomes (all measured after com-
expectancy motivation is found to be most strongly related pletion of the training course): reactions, declarative
to all the training outcomes, then clearly this motivation knowledge, initial skill acquisition, and transfer.
type should be the target of future interventions aimed at
maximizing trainee motivation. We next define key train- Review of Types of Motivation
ing outcomes.
The five primary types of motivation examined in the
training literature are derived from three different theore-
Key Training Outcomes tical frameworks—self-determination theory, expectancy
theory, and the expectancy-value model. As will be illus-
Kirkpatrick (1976) and Kraiger et al. (1993) guided the trated below, similarities and differences among these five
choice of training outcomes for the present meta-analysis. types of motivation stem from their various theoretical
Kirkpatrick’s taxonomy of training criteria represents the underpinnings. In this section, we seek to highlight the key
most commonly used approach for training evaluation tenets of each theory. See Table 1 for a summary.
(Goldstein and Ford 2002). In order to be consistent with The first theoretical framework is Deci and Ryan’s self-
Kirkpatrick, Colquitt et al.’s (2000) work, and the broader determination theory (see Deci 1975; Deci and Ryan 1985),
training evaluation literature, the present meta-analysis which gives rise to the motivation type of intrinsic moti-
focused on trainee reactions (henceforth called reactions), vation. According to this theory, ‘‘intrinsically motivated
learning, and transfer. These outcomes represent Kirk- behaviors are engaged in for their own sake—for the
patrick’s first (reactions), second (learning), and third pleasure and satisfaction derived from their performance’’
(behavior) levels, respectively. Kirkpatrick’s fourth (re- (Deci et al. 1991, p. 328). Thus, individuals choose to
sults) level was not examined due to a lack of primary engage in behaviors they enjoy. Self-determination theory
studies. Next, we define the specific training outcomes argues that intrinsically motivated behaviors are those that
within each of these levels examined in this meta-analysis. are undertaken to satisfy three needs: competence, relat-
Reactions are the most commonly assessed criterion in edness, and self-determining (Deci 1975). Competence
the training research literature (Saari et al. 1988) and in refers to feelings of confidence or efficacy when perform-
practice (Sugrue and Rivera 2005). They reflect how sat- ing a task, whereas relatedness refers to forming satisfying
isfied trainees were with their experiences during the social connections and self-determining refers to feelings
training course (Sitzmann et al. 2008). Reactions include of autonomy (Deci et al. 1991). This theory suggests that
affective judgments such as enjoyment and usefulness of motivation is highest when individuals engage in particular
the training content (Brown 2005b). behaviors that make them feel competent, related, and self-

123
36 J Bus Psychol (2016) 31:33–50

determining because fulfilling these needs leads to feelings motivation type with the four training outcomes. The hy-
of enjoyment and satisfaction. potheses focus on comparative relationships. Based on
The second theoretical framework, Vroom’s (1964) Colquitt et al.’s (2000) meta-analysis, we expected the
expectancy theory, has given rise to three types of moti- relationship between each of the motivation types and
vation: motivation to learn, motivation to transfer, and training outcomes to be positive.
expectancy motivation. In the original formulation of ex-
pectancy theory, an individual’s level of motivation to Hypothesized Motivation Type-Training Outcome
engage in a given behavior is a function of three compo- Relationships
nents: valence, instrumentality, and expectancy (Vroom
1964). Valence refers to whether a trainee values outcomes Reactions
of the course, rather than the content area. Additionally,
instrumentality and expectancy are unique additions, Trainees’ reactions are, by definition, judgments of en-
compared to self-determination theory, that account for a joyment and satisfaction either with the course overall or
trainee’s beliefs about whether successful course comple- with certain aspects of the course (Sitzmann et al. 2008).
tion will lead to valued outcomes (instrumentality) and Self-determination theory argues that intrinsically moti-
whether personal effort will lead to successful course vated trainees engage in activities they enjoy because they
completion or enhanced job performance (expectancy). For have a need to feel competent, socially related, and au-
the sake of this meta-analysis, we use the term expectancy tonomous. Thus, intrinsic motivation and reactions share a
motivation to refer to measures of motivation that reflect common core element—enjoyment. According to Noe
Vroom’s (1964) original mathematical specification for (1986), trainees will be motivated to transfer course ma-
motivation (i.e., valence 9 instrumentality 9 expectancy), terial if they have found it useful, which is one of the
combining all three components (see Mathieu et al. 1992). aspects of the course often measured by reactions assess-
Motivation to learn and motivation to transfer, although ments. Similarly, task value involves judgments of interest
grounded in expectancy theory, were developed by Noe and usefulness (Pintrich et al. 1993), linking it to both
and Schmitt (Noe 1986; Noe and Schmitt 1986) and focus usefulness and enjoyment. Thus, both motivation to
chiefly on the expectancy component (i.e., the effort–per- transfer and task value also share a common core element
formance relationship) of Vroom’s theory. According to with reactions. Neither motivation to learn nor expectancy
Noe and Schmitt (1986), motivation to learn is the desire to motivation share a common core element with reactions.
learn the course content, and motivation to transfer is the Instead, both should be more distally related to reactions in
desire to apply the learned material. the causal pathway through effort. Motivated trainees put
Finally, Pintrich and De Groot (1990) used a third theo- forth greater effort to learn the material and should find the
retical framework, a general form of the expectancy-value learning experience more enjoyable having invested a
model of motivation (cf., Pintrich 1988, 1989), to theorize considerable amount of resources (Tracey et al. 2001).
about learner motivation. The expectancy-value model
contains three components—an expectancy component, a H1 Intrinsic motivation, motivation to transfer, and task
value component, and an affective component—but unlike value will be more strongly related to reactions than will
Vroom’s (1964) expectancy theory does not hypothesize (a) motivation to learn or (b) expectancy motivation.
multiplicative combinations of components. More
specifically, Pintrich and De Groot grounded the motivation Learning
type of task value in the value component of the expectancy-
value model, which includes individuals’ goals and reasons The relationships between intrinsic motivation and the
for completing a task. Task value is formally defined as outcomes of declarative knowledge and initial skill ac-
‘‘judgments of how interesting, useful, and important the quisition are expected to be weaker in magnitude relative
course material is to the student’’ (Pintrich et al. 1993, to the other types of motivation. Theoretically, if trainees
p. 802). From the definition, it can be inferred that judgments enjoy the content of a course, they should be more engaged
of interest in a course are similar to the theory underlying in the course and learn the material. Research on intrinsic
intrinsic motivation, but make this type of motivation dis- motivation suggests that this type of motivation is critical
tinct from motivation to learn or motivation to transfer that for task involvement (Harackiewicz and Sansone 1991),
do not include this focus. Additionally, judgments of use- which should lead to positive levels of declarative knowl-
fulness, although similar to those made in expectancy theory, edge and initial skill acquisition.
make task value distinct from intrinsic motivation. Yet, the key assertion of self-determination theory is
In the following sections, hypotheses are developed re- that intrinsically motivated behaviors are accompanied by
garding the expected relationships between each both feelings of enjoyment and perceived choice (Ryan

123
J Bus Psychol (2016) 31:33–50 37

et al. 1991). A large percentage of the courses taken is motivation that only capture trainees’ interest/enjoyment of
mandated by one’s supervisor or organization in the case of a course or those of expectancy motivation that focus on
workplace training or by one’s degree requirements in a the value of more distal extrinsic outcomes. This focus is
college setting. In support of this, the 2014 State of the conceptually similar to motivation to learn and motivation
Industry Report found that mandatory training was among to transfer. Furthermore, Pintrich (2000) suggested that
the top three content areas for organizations (Miller 2014). trainees who think the course is relevant, useful, and im-
Although intrinsically motivated trainees still genuinely portant will be more engaged in the task. Ultimately, en-
enjoy the training content (Deci et al. 1991; Ryan et al. gagement in the task during the course should lead to
1991), they may no longer be intrinsically motivated be- higher levels of learning.
cause they are not engaging in such a course purely for
H2 Motivation to learn, motivation to transfer, and task
their own intrinsic benefit. Rather, learning is now a
value will be more strongly related to declarative knowl-
function of the external mandate to complete the course
edge than will (a) intrinsic motivation or (b) expectancy
rather than a function of intrinsic interest in the course. In
motivation.
other words, it is trainees’ extrinsic motivation that should
better predict these two outcomes. In support of this, H3 Motivation to learn, motivation to transfer, and task
Shayne and Brown (2007) found no relationship between value will be more strongly related to initial skill acquisi-
intrinsic motivation and declarative knowledge (r = 0.04) tion than will (a) intrinsic motivation or (b) expectancy
for students learning about management topics. This does motivation.
not suggest that the relationship between intrinsic motiva-
tion and reactions is attenuated. Trainees who work on a
Transfer
task they enjoy should continue to enjoy the material
throughout the course.
Of the motivation types, motivation to transfer and ex-
Further, expectancy motivation is also conceptually less
pectancy motivation should be most strongly related to
relevant to declarative knowledge or initial skill acquisition
transfer. Trainees with higher motivation to transfer should
than the other types of motivation. First, the valence
engage in more transfer because they desire to apply the
component of expectancy motivation is focused on valuing
knowledge/skills and perceive that putting forth effort to
more distal outcomes such as improving job performance
use these knowledge/skills after course completion will
or feeling good about oneself, compared to only improving
result in improved performance (Noe 1986; Noe and Sch-
performance in the learning context. Second, Chiaburu and
mitt 1986). Recent work in the transfer literature has also
Lindsay (2008) noted that the instrumentality component
theorized that motivation to transfer is a vital predictor of
(e.g., belief that course performance leads to outcomes) of
transfer (Holton et al. 2000; Kontoghiorghes 2004). Two of
expectancy motivation should be associated with more
the three components of expectancy motivation focus on
distal outcomes. As such, assessing expectancy motivation,
distal outcomes of training (i.e., valence and instrumen-
which is focused on distal outcomes, will result in lower
tality), and the instrumentality component should link ex-
correlations with these learning outcomes than other mo-
pectancy motivation with distal outcomes. On the other
tivation types that primarily tap motivation with respect to
hand, none of the other three motivation types have this
course performance. Indeed, empirical research has found
distal focus. Instead, intrinsic motivation, motivation to
weak or no relationship between expectancy motivation
learn, and task value focus on motivation during the
and these two outcomes (e.g., Mathieu et al. 1992; Tracey
training course. Additionally, Noe and Schmitt (1986)
and Cardenas 1996).
specifically positioned motivation to learn as an indirect
Turning to motivation to learn and motivation to trans-
predictor of transfer. As further support of motivation to
fer, these two types of motivation focus on the trainees’
transfer and expectancy motivation being key predictors
beliefs about and desire to actually learn or transfer the
relative to the other three types of motivation, Chiaburu
content learned (Noe and Schmitt 1986). Specifically, Noe
and Lindsay (2008) found that instrumentality and moti-
and Schmitt theorized that motivation to learn was directly
vation to transfer had direct relationships with transfer,
related to immediate learning. With respect to motivation
whereas motivation to learn did not predict transfer. Un-
to transfer, it follows that trainees who are more motivated
fortunately, the study did not assess the other two types of
to transfer should have learned more (Holton 1996); trai-
motivation.
nees who did not learn cannot be motivated to use skills
they do not possess. H4 Motivation to transfer and expectancy motivation
Task value focuses on the usefulness and importance of will be more strongly related to transfer than will (a) in-
the course itself, in contrast to measures of intrinsic trinsic motivation, (b) motivation to learn, or (c) task value.

123
38 J Bus Psychol (2016) 31:33–50

Method for expectancy motivation; and a subscale from the Moti-

vated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ; Pin-
Identification of Studies trich et al. 1993) for task value. However, any measures
fitting the operational definition of a type of motivation
An extensive literature search was conducted to identify both were coded as that motivation type. Demographic infor-
published and unpublished studies. First, an electronic search mation was also coded (e.g., year of the paper, gender,
was conducted of Digital Dissertations, ERIC, ProQuest, and mean age, and course topic). A team of five individuals
PsycINFO using the following key words: (training or were trained as coders using the coding scheme, ensuring
education or learning) and (motivation). Consistent with high interrater agreement. Each article was independently
Colquitt et al. (2000), we set a cutoff date of 1975. Second, coded by two members of the team, and discrepancies were
the conference programs for the Society for Industrial and discussed until consensus was reached. Cohen’s Kappa was
Organizational Psychology and the Academy of Management 0.96 for all studies coded after coder training.
were searched using the following key words: motivation or
training. Colquitt et al.’s reference list was also manually Computation of Meta-analytic Coefficients
searched to ensure all relevant studies from that meta-analysis
had been identified. Finally, 156 training researchers and We followed the procedures specified by Hunter and
practitioners were contacted to request relevant unpublished Schmidt (2004) in order to compare the relative magnitude
work. This search strategy represents an improvement over of the relationships between each motivation type and the
that available to Colquitt et al. in that the present study in- training outcomes. Corrections were made for sampling
cluded more than 10 years of additional research studies and error and unreliability. To correct for predictor and crite-
benefited from the availability of electronic databases. Using rion unreliability, artifact distributions were created for
these databases led to the identification of an additional 14 each type of motivation, overall motivation (i.e., across all
published and 14 unpublished studies within the date range types), and each training outcome using the coefficient
used by Colquitt et al. (1975–1998). alphas reported in any relevant identified study (see
Table 2). Corrections for range restriction were not made
Criteria for Inclusion because of a lack of information in the primary studies.
Note that if a study reported multiple correlations between
For an identified study to be included, the participants had to motivation and a single training outcome, the Hunter and
be adults age 18 or older to promote generalizability to Schmidt (2004, pp. 435–439) formula was used to calculate
working adults. The training course had to be a structured, a single composite estimate to ensure that studies are not
formal course (not self-reported learning or on-the-job train- ‘‘double counted.’’ Studies reporting data from multiple
ing). The study had to be in English and include the relevant independent samples were coded separately. Finally, a
correlations (or the necessary information to calculate these search for outliers was conducted before finalizing the
correlations). Declarative knowledge, initial skill acquisition, analyses. Huffcutt and Arthur’s (1995) sample-adjusted
and transfer could not be self-reported, as trainees are not good meta-analytic deviancy statistic was used with formulas
at making self-assessments (Sitzmann et al. 2010). Overall, provided by Beal et al. (2002). No study warranted ex-
120 studies (63 published and 57 unpublished studies) with clusion for theoretical or methodological reasons.
136 independent samples were included.
Table 2 Means and standard deviations for the reliability
distributions
Coding and Interrater Agreement
Variable k M SD
A detailed coding scheme was developed based on the Motivation (all types) 120 0.80 0.12
literature and the operational definitions of the training
Intrinsic motivation 22 0.83 0.13
outcomes and motivation types provided in the introduc-
Motivation to learn 63 0.82 0.10
tion. All outcomes had to be measured after completion of
Motivation to transfer 21 0.87 0.10
the formal training course to be included in this meta-
Expectancy motivation 11 0.76 0.11
analysis. The most common measures assessing each type
Task value 30 0.85 0.09
of motivation included the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory
Reactions 63 0.83 0.11
(Deci and Ryan n.d.) for intrinsic motivation; measures
Declarative knowledge 21 0.69 0.18
based on Noe (1986) and Noe and Schmitt (1986) for
Initial skill acquisition 12 0.90 0.09
motivation to learn and motivation to transfer; the mathe-
Transfer 12 0.75 0.24
matical combinations of valence, instrumentality, and ex-
pectancy ratings (as an example, see Mathieu et al. 1992) k = number of coefficient alpha reliability coefficients

123
J Bus Psychol (2016) 31:33–50 39

Results yielded weighted mean correlations, corrected true relationship with reactions (q = 0.62, CI [0.56, 0.68]). In
score correlations, variance in the uncorrected correlations, comparison, overall motivation was positively, but more
variance due to sampling error and other artifacts, population weakly related, to declarative knowledge (q = 0.19, CI
variance, percentage of variance explained by artifacts, con- [0.15, 0.22]), initial skill acquisition (q = 0.11, CI [0.01,
fidence intervals around the mean correlations (CI), and 0.21]), and transfer (q = 0.15, CI [0.07, 0.23]). Compar-
credibility intervals around the corrected correlations (CV). An isons to Colquitt et al. are explored in the discussion section.
overall meta-analytic correlation matrix is presented in
Table 5 in the Appendix. The CIs were used in the present Hypothesized Motivation–Training Outcome
study to test the significance of a relationship (e.g., the rela- Relationships
tionship between motivation to learn and transfer). If a CI
included zero, then the relationship was not significant. CIs The hypothesized relationships between each motivation
were also used to test for significant differences between cor- type and the four training outcomes are presented in
relations. Non-overlapping CIs suggested that the magnitude Table 3, and relative weights analyses are shown in
of relationships were significantly different from each other Table 4. The results are reported regardless of the k size
(e.g., whether the expectancy motivation–transfer relationship available. However, note that results based on fewer than
was significantly greater in magnitude than the intrinsic mo- five studies should be considered tentative as they are more
tivation–transfer relationship). likely to change when new studies are added (e.g., Her-
Finally, as a further test of the hypotheses, relative shcovis et al. 2007; Keith and Frese 2008; Payne et al.
weights analyses were run using Johnson’s (2000) method 2007). As such, the results that match this criteria are de-
and syntax provided on James LeBreton’s website for noted explicitly in the text below. Cohen’s (1992) effect
relative weights analyses based on a correlation matrix. A size recommendations (0.10, 0.30, and 0.50 for small,
relative weight takes into account the unique contribution medium, and large effect sizes, respectively) are used to
of a given predictor when examined in combination with interpret the strength of a given relationship.
other predictors (Johnson 2000, 2001), and Tonidandel and H1 predicted that intrinsic motivation, motivation to
LeBreton (2011) argued for wider use of this type of transfer, and task value would be more strongly related to
analysis. One relative weights analysis was run for each reactions than would (a) motivation to learn or (b) expectancy
outcome using corrected correlations. Although all avail- motivation. Intrinsic motivation (q = 0.70, CI [0.56, 0.83]),
able motivation types were utilized, it should be noted that motivation to transfer (q = 0.58, CI [0.45, 0.70]), and task
motivation to transfer is typically measured at the same value (q = 0.61, k = 3, CI [0.46, 0.75]) exhibited the
time as reactions and learning. Therefore, the estimates strongest correlations with reactions and their CIs overlap
should be viewed as relative shared variance. Additionally, suggesting that the three correlations are not different from
it should be noted that most intercorrelations among mo- each other. Intrinsic motivation was more strongly related to
tivation types were based on small k estimates. reactions than motivation to learn (q = 0.44, CI [0.36, 0.52])
or expectancy motivation (q = 0.33, CI [0.21, 0.45]), be-
cause the CIs did not overlap. Motivation to transfer and task
Results value were more strongly related to reactions than expectancy
motivation, but the CIs overlapped for motivation to learn.
Demographic Information The relative weights analysis demonstrated that intrinsic
motivation had the largest relative impact on reactions fol-
In total, there were 25,012 trainees (64 % university stu- lowed by task value and motivation to transfer. Overall, these
dents and 36 % employees). Across studies reporting de- results support H1a and largely support H1b. It should also be
mographic data, the average age was 25 years and 45 % of noted that the results for task value are considered tentative as
participants were male. The majority of studies had a there were only three studies.
correlational design (72 %), while 19 % had an ex- H2 stated that motivation to learn, motivation to trans-
perimental design and 9 % had a quasi-experimental de- fer, and task value would be more strongly related to
sign. The courses covered a variety of topics, such as declarative knowledge than would (a) intrinsic motivation
negotiation, leadership development, project management or (b) expectancy motivation. Motivation to learn (q =
skills, performance appraisal rater skills, foreign language 0.18, CI [0.11, 0.25]), motivation to transfer (q = 0.18,
acquisition, and software applications. CI [0.10, 0.26]), task value (q = 0.22, CI [0.16, 0.28]),
We calculated the relationships between overall moti- and intrinsic motivation (q = 0.12, CI [0.01, 0.22]) were
vation (i.e., across all types) and the training outcomes in all weakly related to declarative knowledge; expectancy
order to provide an update to Colquitt et al. (2000). As motivation (q = -0.03, CI [-0.25, 0.19]) did not exhibit
shown in Table 3, overall motivation exhibits a strong a significant relationship. Although all of the CIs

123
40 J Bus Psychol (2016) 31:33–50

Table 3 Meta-analytic results for the motivation–training outcome relationships

k N Mean r Var (r) q Var (meas) Var (q) % VE 95 % confidence 80 % credibility
interval interval
Lower Upper Lower Upper

Reactions 66 10,217 0.51 0.030 0.62 0.007 0.036 21.53 0.56 0.68 0.38 0.86
Intrinsic motivation 15 3551 0.58 0.030 0.70 0.006 0.036 19.87 0.56 0.83 0.45 0.94
Motivation to learn 39 5977 0.37 0.042 0.44 0.006 0.053 14.61 0.36 0.52 0.15 0.74
Motivation to transfer 15 2615 0.49 0.030 0.58 0.005 0.035 17.64 0.45 0.70 0.34 0.81
Expectancy motivation 10 2325 0.26 0.019 0.33 0.004 0.022 23.97 0.21 0.45 0.14 0.52
Task value 3 259 0.51 0.008 0.61 0.009 0.000 100 0.46 0.75 0.61 0.61
Declarative knowledge 96 15,895 0.14 0.019 0.19 0.006 0.023 33.40 0.15 0.22 -0.01 0.38
Intrinsic motivation 9 1270 0.09 0.007 0.12 0.007 0.000 100 0.01 0.22 0.12 0.12
Motivation to learn 35 4305 0.13 0.021 0.18 0.008 0.023 39.30 0.11 0.25 -0.02 0.38
Motivation to transfer 11 1348 0.14 0.011 0.18 0.008 0.004 78.96 0.10 0.26 0.10 0.26
Expectancy motivation 7 1375 -0.02 0.045 -0.03 0.005 0.077 11.53 -0.25 0.19 -0.38 0.33
Task value 41 8633 0.17 0.011 0.22 0.005 0.011 45.07 0.16 0.28 0.08 0.35
Initial skill acquisition 33 3521 0.09 0.029 0.11 0.009 0.028 32.14 0.01 0.21 -0.10 0.33
Intrinsic motivation 10 1044 0.02 0.021 0.02 0.010 0.015 46.34 -0.16 0.21 -0.13 0.18
Motivation to learn 17 3062 0.11 0.009 0.13 0.006 0.004 65.05 0.05 0.20 0.04 0.21
Motivation to transfer 6 1476 0.10 0.002 0.11 0.004 0.000 100 0.06 0.16 0.11 0.11
Expectancy motivation 6 1591 0.08 0.025 0.10 0.004 0.031 15.35 -0.14 0.35 -0.12 0.33
Task value 7 759 -0.04 0.029 -0.04 0.009 0.025 33.30 -0.36 0.28 -0.25 0.16
Transfer 18 1709 0.11 0.014 0.15 0.011 0.006 76.13 0.07 0.23 0.05 0.25
Intrinsic motivation 0 – – – – – – – – – – –
Motivation to learn 11 1174 0.08 0.021 0.10 0.010 0.019 46.55 -0.03 0.23 -0.08 0.27
Motivation to transfer 7 509 0.17 0.011 0.21 0.014 0.000 100 0.11 0.32 0.21 0.21
Expectancy motivation 2 325 0.15 0.002 0.20 0.007 0.000 100 0.08 0.31 0.20 0.20
Task value 1 106 0.00 – 0.00 – – – – – – –
k = number of validity coefficients; N = sample size; Mean r = sample size weighted mean r; Var (r) = sample size weighted variance of the
mean r; q = mean correlation corrected for sampling error, predictor unreliability, and criterion unreliability; Var (meas) = sampling error
variance plus the variance due to unreliability in the predictor and criterion measures; Var (q) = variance of the corrected correlation;
% VE = the proportion of variance in the observed correlation due to statistical artifacts; – indicates that the statistic cannot be computed; q’s in
italics are based on k \ 5 and therefore considered tentative

Table 4 Results of the relative Type of motivation Reactions Declarative knowledge Initial skill acquisition Transfer
weights analyses using
corrected correlations as input Intrinsic motivation 0.32 (35 %) 0.02 (9 %) 0.01 (8 %) –
Motivation to learn 0.08 (8 %) 0.04 (19 %) 0.02 (24 %) 0.01 (10 %)
Motivation to transfer 0.21 (23 %) 0.03 (11 %) 0.01 (15 %) 0.04 (30 %)
The first number is the raw Expectancy motivation 0.10 (11 %) 0.07 (31 %) 0.02 (24 %) 0.05 (39 %)
relative weight; the number in Task value 0.21 (23 %) 0.07 (30 %) 0.02 (29 %) 0.03 (21 %)
parentheses is the relative R2
0.919 0.234 0.064 0.127
weight as a percentage of R2

overlapped, there is evidence to support the hypothesis. initial skill acquisition than would (a) intrinsic motivation
Intrinsic motivation had the lowest relative contribution or (b) expectancy motivation. Motivation to learn
in the relative weights analysis (H2a), and expectancy (q = 0.13, CI [0.05, 0.20]) and motivation to transfer
motivation was not significantly related to declarative (q = 0.11, CI [0.06, 0.16]) were weakly related to initial
knowledge (H2b). skill acquisition, whereas task value (q = -0.04, CI [-0.36,
H3 posited that motivation to learn, motivation to 0.28]), intrinsic motivation (q = 0.02, CI [-0.16, 0.21]),
transfer, and task value would be more strongly related to and expectancy motivation (q = 0.10, CI [-0.14, 0.35])

123
J Bus Psychol (2016) 31:33–50 41

were not related to initial skill acquisition. Despite over- which the type of motivation utilized and its underlying
lapping CIs, only motivation to learn and motivation to theoretical framework impacts the strength of its relation-
transfer exhibited significant relationships with the out- ships with four key training outcomes. On the surface, our
come and intrinsic motivation again had the lowest relative results suggest that the motivation–training outcome rela-
contribution in the relative weights analysis. These results tionships are more similar within a given training outcome
provide support for H3. than within a given motivation type. However, delving
H4 predicted that motivation to transfer and expectancy more deeply into the meta-analytic findings and relative
motivation would be more strongly related to transfer than weights analyses suggests that when it comes to assessing
would (a) intrinsic motivation, (b) motivation to learn, or and enhancing the various training outcomes, not all mo-
(c) task value. There were no studies reporting a correlation tivation types are created equal. We return to these note-
between intrinsic motivation and transfer, precluding a test worthy findings and their value for professional trainers
of H4a. Moreover, only one study reported a correlation and researchers in the implications for practice section.
between task value and transfer, preventing a comparison Before doing so, it is important to first place the current
of CIs (for H4c). Motivation to transfer (q = 0.21, CI study within the broader training literature, highlighting
[0.11, 0.32]) and expectancy motivation (q = 0.20, k = 2, how this work both corroborates and extends several prior
CI [0.08, 0.31]) were weakly related to transfer; motivation relevant meta-analyses (i.e., Blume et al. 2010; Colquitt
to learn (q = 0.10, CI [-0.03, 0.23]) was not related to et al. 2000; Sitzmann et al. 2008). As these prior meta-
transfer. This result provides some support for H4b. Mo- analyses focused on overall motivation, we focus our
tivation to transfer and expectancy motivation had the comparisons at this level. However, before drawing any
largest relative contribution in the relative weights analy- comparisons, we want to emphasize that one key substan-
sis, supporting H4. tive contribution this study makes beyond all extant meta-
analytic research is the examination of motivation type in
Supplemental Analyses understanding the role of motivation in learning contexts.

In order to be confident that the results generalize to Comparison to Prior Meta-analytic Work
working adults, it is important to determine whether the
motivation–training outcome relationships differ depend- We first compare the current study with Colquitt et al.’s
ing on sample type and publication status. Therefore, eight (2000) seminal meta-analysis—the most direct com-
subgroup moderator analyses were run on the overall mo- parison. Generally, overall motivation exhibited a moder-
tivation–training outcomes relationships.2 Specifically, ate-to-strong relationship with reactions, but exhibited
four analyses (one per outcome) compared student and weak relationships with declarative knowledge, initial skill
employee samples, and four analyses compared published acquisition, and transfer. The current results provide an
versus unpublished studies. Only two significant differ- important contribution, above that of Colquitt et al., in that
ences were found; the motivation–reactions (q = 0.70, CI the present estimates include more than a decade of addi-
[0.62, 0.78] vs. q = 0.45, CI [0.36, 0.53]) and motivation– tional research. Generally, effect sizes were similar across
declarative knowledge (q = 0.22, CI [0.17, 0.27] vs. the two studies with one notable exception. Specifically,
q = 0.08, CI [0.01, 0.16]) relationships were stronger in Colquitt et al. found a stronger relationship between mo-
student rather than employee samples. tivation and transfer (q = 0.58 vs. 0.15) than the current
study. In reconciling this discrepancy, researchers have
noted that meta-analytic effect sizes based on fewer than
Discussion five studies should be interpreted with caution and con-
sidered tentative (e.g., Payne et al. 2007). The effect size
In the training literature, five types of motivation based on for this relationship was based on two studies in Colquitt
three different underlying motivational frameworks have et al.; thus, the larger number of studies in the current
been developed and utilized. Yet, the impact that motiva- meta-analysis (k = 18) provides much higher confidence in
tion type plays in the prediction of training outcomes has the estimate.
not been examined. Accordingly, the primary goal of this More recently, Sitzmann et al. (2008) meta-analytically
study was to meta-analytically investigate the extent to examined the nomological network of trainee reactions and
Blume et al. (2010) examined key predictors of transfer
2
The overall motivation relationships were chosen due to a reduced and moderators of those relationships. Similar to these
number of samples when dividing within motivation type. Because of
meta-analyses, the current study also found a moderate-to-
the generally non-significant findings and to save journal space, we do
not report these results in full. A copy of the results can be obtained strong effect size for the motivation–reactions relationship
from the first author upon request. and a small relationship between motivation and non-self-

123
42 J Bus Psychol (2016) 31:33–50

report transfer. Taken together, the current meta-analysis motivation type for the prediction of transfer. Although this
corroborates this prior meta-analytic work, while providing may seem obvious to some, the sheer volume of prior studies
additional clarity to the literature. In sum, we demonstrate correlating motivation to learn with transfer (as compared the
that overall motivation exhibits small effect sizes with other motivation types) suggests this sentiment may not be
learning outcomes, a strong effect size with reactions, and a widespread across all training researchers and practitioners.
small effect size with non-self-report transfer. The next Finally, with regard to reactions, the results demon-
section returns to the substantive contribution of the strated that intrinsic motivation, motivation to transfer, and
manuscript by making recommendations regarding the task value exhibited the strongest relationships with and
optimal motivation type to employ in future research and relative contribution to the prediction of reactions. How-
practice given the specific training outcome(s) of interest. ever, for several reasons, we recommend that professional
trainers would be justified to only use motivation to learn
Implications for Practice when interested in this outcome. First, motivation to learn
has been studied with the most frequency, providing the
The meta-analytic results in combination with the relative most validity evidence. Second, we argue against the use of
weights analyses suggest that when it comes to assessing intrinsic motivation, as it may be theoretically redundant
and enhancing declarative knowledge and initial skill ac- with reactions. In fact, when examining items tapping re-
quisition, not all motivation types are commensurate pre- actions (e.g., I enjoyed the course) and a sample item from
dictors. Surprisingly, although all of the motivation types the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (e.g., I enjoyed doing
were hypothesized to be positively related to these two this activity very much), the item content is almost iden-
outcomes, several types were actually not significantly tical. This is particularly true when the variables are both
related. Specifically, expectancy motivation, intrinsic mo- measured post-training—an unfortunately common prac-
tivation, and task value were founded to be unrelated with tice for studies using intrinsic motivation. Third, as afore-
one or both of these learning outcomes in the meta-analytic mentioned, motivation to transfer does not meet the criteria
results. In contrast, motivation to learn and motivation to for drawing causal inferences as commonly measured in
transfer demonstrated significant positive relationships. practice. Finally, only three studies have examined task
However, motivation to transfer does not meet the guide- value and reactions, suggesting that future research is
lines for establishing a causal relationship with these two needed before widespread use in organizations.
learning outcomes (Cohen et al. 2003), unless it is mea- In summary, these findings suggest that a single measure
sured prior to these outcomes. A review of the primary of motivation may not be adequate when multiple training
studies in this meta-analysis revealed that the most com- outcomes are of interest. We recommend that practitioners
mon practice is to measure motivation to transfer and and researchers focus their efforts on motivation to learn
learning simultaneously. Furthermore, motivation to learn when reactions and/or learning outcomes are of interest,
had a stronger relative weight in the relative weights ana- and on motivation to transfer for maximizing the outcome
lyses than motivation to transfer when examining both of transfer. Although this recommendation may seem in-
declarative knowledge and initial skill acquisition. In sum, tuitive, clearly prior research/practice has used many other
these results demonstrate that to assess and enhance these motivation types in the prediction of these various out-
two learning outcomes, not any type of motivation will do; comes. For example, just over 50 studies have used a
instead, motivation to learn is the ideal choice. motivation type other than motivation to learn when ex-
Turning now to transfer, which is arguably the training amining declarative knowledge. Accordingly, given our
outcome of most value to training practitioners interested in findings, we advise that training practitioners more uni-
realizing a full return on investment in training (Blume et al. formly use measures of motivation to learn and motivation
2010; Goldstein and Ford 2002). As will be noted in the to transfer based on their outcome(s) of interest.
limitations section, fewer studies have been conducted in-
vestigating the relationship between motivation and the out- Limitations and Future Research Directions
come of transfer. Despite this limitation, we uncovered
somewhat surprising findings. Consistent with Hypothesis 4, A limitation of the current meta-analysis is the small k and
motivation to transfer and expectancy motivation had the n for a few of the motivation types within training out-
largest relative contribution in predicting transfer. However, comes as well as among types of motivation. In particular,
only two studies examined expectancy motivation and there were fewer studies investigating the outcome of
transfer making conclusions based on the results tentative. transfer, the motivation type of expectancy motivation, and
Somewhat surprisingly, motivation to learn was not sig- measures of motivation from different theoretical per-
nificantly related to this outcome in the meta-analytic results. spectives. In terms of transfer, the motivation to learn–
These findings point to motivation to transfer as being the key transfer relationship was studied the most (k = 11),

123
J Bus Psychol (2016) 31:33–50 43

followed by motivation to transfer (k = 7), with relatively have noted since the early days of meta-analysis that there
few studies examining the other motivation types. Fur- may be a file drawer problem, that is, only significant results
thermore, only 18 samples were found that measured the are published creating the potential for bias (Rosenthal
relationship between motivation and transfer (after ex- 1979). Additionally, given the intent to generalize to work-
cluding self-reports of transfer), regardless of the motiva- ing adults, it is important to determine whether motivation–
tion type examined. Although disappointing, perhaps this training outcome relationships differ for employees versus
paucity of research is not surprising, given the challenges students. First, the results of the supplemental analyses
associated with gathering measurements of transfer either demonstrated that whether the sample was published or un-
back on the job or within another context beyond the published was not a significant moderator. This finding is
training course. Clearly, future research must continue to consistent with Dalton et al.’s (2012) conclusion that the file
tackle this difficult, yet important challenge. drawer problem is less of a threat to validity than previously
Expectancy motivation was the least studied motivation thought. However, the supplemental analyses did reveal that
type and was the only type of motivation where the average the motivation–reactions and motivation–declarative
reliability distribution was below 0.80. Therefore, we rec- knowledge relationships were stronger in student rather than
ommend training professionals utilize motivation to learn employee samples. In terms of the motivation–reactions re-
and motivation to transfer, unless measures of expectancy lationship, it appears that employees are better able to dis-
motivation undergo further development and validation. criminate between motivation and reactions items as the
Yet, future research is needed to explore the finding that correlation for employees is more in line with theoretical
expectancy motivation is related to transfer. The two avail- expectations. In other words, the strength of the correlation
able studies exhibited a meta-analytic relationship with for student samples seems to suggest that they view moti-
transfer that was similar to motivation to transfer. It would vation and reactions as more similar than do employees.
also be interesting to determine whether a specific compo- There are several reasons that the relationship between
nent of expectancy motivation (i.e., valence, instrumentality, motivation and declarative knowledge differs for students
or expectancy) is the underlying reason for the relationship. and employees. As one example, a reviewer astutely pointed
Specifically, future research could expand on Chiaburu and out that estimates of valence, instrumentality, and ex-
Lindsay’s (2008) finding that instrumentality predicted pectancy could be different in the context of participating in a
transfer by measuring all components of expectancy moti- training study for extra credit or course requirement versus
vation and by utilizing a non-self-report measure of transfer. learning a skill for a promotion at work. Presumably, for
With respect to the intercorrelations among the types of employees participating in training for a promotion, valence
motivation, a majority of these correlations are based on and hence motivation would be high. When learning is
fewer than five studies (i.e., 8 of the 10 intercorrelations). assessed in this type of course, the standard of evaluation is
Moreover, 20 studies have examined multiple measures of known and meeting the standard has consequences. In this
motivation and only five appear in the published literature. employee case, the situation can be classified as one eliciting
Most of the studies measuring multiple types of motivation maximum (vs. typical) performance, which is driven more
have focused on motivation to learn and motivation to by ability because motivation is constrained to be high
transfer, both measures grounded in Vroom’s (1964) ex- (Klehe and Anderson 2007; Sackett et al. 1988). This con-
pectancy theory. Thus, future research incorporating all five straint on motivation would produce low variability, and
types of motivation into a single study is sorely needed in therefore, the smaller correlation that was found.
order to derive an integrated model of training motivation A third limitation of the present study is that the percent
that accounts for the unique contributions of different types of variance accounted for by artifacts and the CVs suggest
of motivation on training outcomes. Research examining that moderators are operating within the examined rela-
task value is especially needed as task value was studied least tionships. Empirically identifying theoretically relevant
frequently with other types of motivation. As a final note on moderators of these relationships is a valuable avenue for
types of motivation, extrinsic motivation was not included in future research. For example, recent research suggests that
the current meta-analysis due to a lack of primary studies but trainees’ ratings of instructor quality are affected by whe-
may provide insight into the weaker correlations motivation ther trainees have been given feedback on their own course
exhibited with declarative knowledge and initial skill ac- performance (Rechlin et al. 2011). Thus, the timing of
quisition. As mandatory training is somewhat prevalent measurement of reactions may be a valuable moderator; a
(Miller 2014), more research investigating extrinsic moti- factor that training practitioners should also consider when
vation and its relationship to learning outcomes in both assessing this training outcome in their courses.
voluntary and involuntary training contexts is needed. Other moderators future research should examine are
A second limitation of the present study could be the how the motivation type–training outcome relationships
number of unpublished and student samples. Researchers may depend on the specific training content or the training

123
44 J Bus Psychol (2016) 31:33–50

method used. Campbell (1989) warned about treating 1 day to 24 weeks. Accordingly, a second reason for the
‘‘training as training,’’ and similarly, treating trainees as if smaller effect sizes could be the length of time between the
they fell from ‘‘some great trainee bin in the sky’’ (p. 479). measurements of motivation and the subsequent outcomes.
Therefore, we should not be solely interested in identifying Measurements taken farther apart in time are less related to
which type of motivation is most germane to enhancing a each other (Cohen et al. 2003), pointing to the need for
given training outcome. But rather, the more important measurement of motivation, among other process variables
questions to address are context-specific questions such as: during the course (Orvis et al. 2009b). As such, organiza-
Are managers more motivated to transfer certain leadership tional trainers and researchers are encouraged to consider
skills/topic areas over others? Or, how should training be trainees’ motivation throughout the course. For example, it
structured differently depending on a trainee’s level of is not sufficient to assume that if trainees’ begin a course
motivation and the skill type being trained in order to with high levels of motivation to learn that this high mo-
maximize learning and transfer? These are the tough tivation will remain fully intact. Instead, as a best practice,
questions that our field has yet to adequately address. trainee motivation should be assessed throughout the
This challenge becomes even more difficult with respect course in order to examine the motivational trajectory. This
to a meta-analytic study, as the variable of interest must be type of measurement would illuminate when to incorporate
described across the majority of primary studies in order to interventions designed to maintain or enhance motivation
meta-analytically examine its influence. Indeed, 20 years in order to maximize learning and subsequent transfer.
after Campbell’s admonition, Blume et al. (2010) continue
to lament the lack of primary training research that includes
a description of the training content or learning objectives, Conclusion
and they call for future context-specific examinations.
Although we believe the literature has improved with regard The extant research has not been consistent in the way
to this call, further advancement is clearly needed if training motivation is conceptualized and measured in learning
researchers hope to tackle the most critical questions facing contexts, with prior research utilizing five different types of
today’s trainers and educators. motivation derived from three theoretical frameworks. The
Likewise, the degree of alignment between training present meta-analysis examined whether the type of moti-
content/course learning objectives and work requirements vation influences the strength of the effect of motivation on
deserves future consideration as a potential moderator of four key training outcomes. Our findings suggest that when
the motivation type–outcome relationships. For workplace it comes to assessing and enhancing the various outcomes,
training, training needs assessment (TNA) can be used to not all motivation types are equivalent. First, we suggest
assess the degree of linkage between training content and that a single measure of motivation may not be adequate
work requirements; a well-executed TNA ensures this when multiple training outcomes are of interest. Second, we
alignment (Surface 2012). While critical to training suc- recommend that professional trainers and researchers focus
cess, there is a dearth of evidence that TNA is done con- their efforts on motivation to learn when reactions and/or
sistently in training practice (Arthur et al. 2003; Surface learning outcomes are of interest, and on motivation to
2012). Indeed, this may also more directly address the transfer for maximizing the outcome of transfer. In sum, we
question posed earlier regarding whether certain skills may suggest that by introducing strategies designed to increase
be more likely to be transferred back to the workplace. It students’ motivation to learn and motivation to transfer
could be that the skills with greater transference are those throughout the learning process, training practitioners can
with higher ‘valence’ per expectancy theory, given their help facilitate positive learning outcomes and the actual
more direct link to work requirements. In short, skills with transfer of critical skills into the workplace, leading to
greater valence may promote higher levels of motivation to beneficial outcomes for individuals and organizations alike.
transfer these skills. Therefore, we encourage future studies
to examine such context-specific factors, and include the Acknowledgments This article is based on Kristina N. Bauer’s
thesis completed at Old Dominion University. We thank Jose Cortina
necessary data regarding these factors to enable future
and Traci Sitzmann for their helpful comments on earlier versions of
meta-analytic testing. this article. We would also like to thank Alyssa Chambers, Brandy
Another valuable avenue for future research is to un- Parker, and Danny Stanhope for their assistance with the manuscript.
ravel the question of ‘‘when is motivation most impor-
tant?’’ It is quite possible that motivation may play an even
more influential role on learning and transfer, depending on Appendix
when motivation is assessed. The training courses in the
studies included in this meta-analysis ranged in length from See Table 5.

123
 J Bus Psychol (2016) 31:33–50

Table 5 Meta-analytic intercorrelation matrix

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
k (N) q k (N) q k (N) q k (N) q k (N) q k (N) q k (N) q k (N) q

1 Intrinsic motivation
2 Motivation to learn 4 (718) 0.73
3 Motivation to transfer 2 (331) 0.35 14 (3167) 0.48
4 Expectancy motivation 3 (638) 0.70 6 (3047) 0.77 4 (1399) 0.48
5 Task value 3 (737) 0.60 3 (402) 0.61 1 (307) 0.43 1 (166) 0.76
6 Reactions 15 (3551) 0.70 39 (5977) 0.44 15 (2615) 0.58 10 (2325) 0.33 3 (259) 0.61
7 Declarative knowledge 9 (1270) 0.12 35 (4305) 0.18 11 (1375) 0.18 7 (1375) -0.03 41 (8633) 0.22 37 (4599) 0.10
8 Initial skill acquisition 10 (1044) 0.02 17 (3062) 0.13 6 (1476) 0.11 6 (1591) 0.10 7 (759) -0.04 21 (2764) 0.17 20 (1925) 0.36
9 Transfer 0 (0) – 11 (1174) 0.10 7 (509) 0.21 2 (325) 0.20 1 (106) 0.00 12 (2843) 0.13 15 (1713) 0.29 7 (671) 0.40
The intercorrelations between training outcomes should not be viewed as representative of all published work on training outcomes. Instead, the estimates are limited to those studies that
measured motivation and a training outcome. k = number of validity coefficients; N = sample size; q = mean correlation corrected for sampling error, predictor unreliability, and criterion
unreliability; – indicates that the statistic cannot be computed; All intercorrelations among the motivation types are significant as are the intercorrelations among the training outcomes;
Relationships between motivation type and the training outcomes are identical to the meta-analytic results for the motivation–training outcome relationships; q’s in italics are based on k \ 5
and therefore considered tentative
45

123
46 J Bus Psychol (2016) 31:33–50

References knowledge as mediators of performance effects. Unpublished

doctoral dissertation, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge.
*Brown, K. G. (2005a). A field study of employee e-learning activity
and outcomes. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 16,
465–480.
References marked with an asterisk indicate studies Brown, K. G. (2005b). An examination of the structure and
included in the meta-analysis nomological network of trainee reactions: A closer look at
‘‘smile sheets’’. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 991–1001.
Ackerman, P. L. (1987). Individual differences in skill learning: An *Brown, K. G., Rietz, T., & Sugrue, B. (2005). The effects of
integration of psychometric and information processing perspec- videoconferencing, class size, and learner characteristics on
tives. Psychological Bulletin, 102, 3–27. training outcomes. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 18,
*Al-Ammar, S. (1994). The influence of individual and organizational 59–82.
characteristics on training motivation and effectiveness. Unpub- *Burke, L. A. (1997). Improving positive transfer: A test of relapse
lished doctoral dissertation, University at Albany, NY. prevention training on transfer outcomes. Human Resource
*Al-Ansari, E. M. (2005). The dynamic interplay of student Development Quarterly, 8, 115–128.
motivation and cognition in the College of Education students Burke, L. A., & Moore, J. E. (2003). A perennial dilemma in OB
at Kuwait University. Social Behavior and Personality, 33, education: Engaging the traditional student. Academy of Man-
341–350. agement Learning & Education, 2, 37–52.
Anderson, J. R. (1982). Acquisition of cognitive skill. Psychological *Caldwell, E. R. (2006). A comparative study of three instructional
Review, 89, 369–406. modalities in a computer programming course: Traditional
*Arnold, H. J. (1985). Task performance, perceived competence, and instruction, Web-based instruction, and online instruction.
attributed causes of performance as determinants of intrinsic Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of North Carolina,
motivation. Academy of Management Journal, 28, 876–888. Greensboro.
Arthur, W, Jr, Bennett, W, Jr, Edens, P. S., & Bell, S. T. (2003). Campbell, J. P. (1989). The agenda for theory and research. In I.
Effectiveness of training in organizations: A meta-analysis of Goldstein (Ed.), Training and development in organizations (pp.
design and evaluation features. Journal of Applied Psychology, 469–486). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
88, 234–245. *Campbell, M. M. (2000). Motivational strategies, learning strate-
*Axtell, C. M., Maitlis, S., & Yearta, S. K. (1997). Predicting gies, and the academic performance of African-American
immediate and longer-term transfer of training. Personnel students in a college business environment: A correlational
Review, 26, 201–213. study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Nova Southeastern
Baldwin, T. T., Ford, J. K., & Blume, B. D. (2009). Transfer of University, Fort Lauderdale-Davie, FL.
training 1988-2008: An updated review and new agenda for *Campbell, M., & Beier, M. E. (2006). Examining knowledge
future research. In G. P. Hodgkinson & J. K. Ford (Eds.), structure development and predictors of performance. Poster
International review of industrial and organizational psychology presented at the 21st Annual Conference of the Society for
(Vol. 24, pp. 41–70). Chichester, UK: Wiley. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Dallas, TX.
*Baldwin, T. T., Magjuka, R. J., & Loher, B. T. (1991). The perils of *Chesebro, J. L., & McCroskey, J. C. (2001). The relationship of
participation: Effects of choice of training on training motivation teacher clarity and immediacy with student state receiver
and learning. Personnel Psychology, 44, 51–65. apprehension, affect, and cognitive learning. Communication
*Barker, J. R. (1997). An evaluation of the effects of self-regulated Education, 50, 59–68.
learning on USMLE Step 1 scores at the University of Chiaburu, D. S., & Lindsay, D. R. (2008). Can do or will do? The
Mississippi School of Medicine. Unpublished doctoral disserta- importance of self-efficacy and instrumentality for training
tion, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN. transfer. Human Resource Development International, 11,
Barnett, S. M., & Ceci, S. J. (2002). When and where do we apply 199–206.
what we learn?: A taxonomy for far transfer. Psychological *Chiaburu, D., & Tekleab, A. (2005). Individual and contextual
Bulletin, 128, 612–637. influences on multiple dimensions of training effectiveness.
Beal, D. J., Corey, D. M., & Dunlap, W. P. (2002). On the bias of Journal of European Industrial Training, 29, 604–626.
Huffcutt and Arthur’s (1995) procedure for identifying outliers *Christophel, D. M. (1990). The relationships among teacher
in the meta-analysis of correlations. Journal of Applied Psy- immediacy behaviors, student motivation, and learning. Com-
chology, 87, 583–589. munication Education, 39, 323–340.
*Bell, B. S., & Ford, J. K. (2007). Reactions to skill assessment: The *Chuang, A., Liao, W.-C., & Tai, W.-T. (2005). An investigation of
forgotten factor in explaining motivation to learn. Human individual and contextual factors influencing training variables.
Resource Development Quarterly, 18, 33–62. Social Behavior and Personality, 33, 159–174.
*Bell, B. S., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2008). Active learning: Effects of *Clarke, R. B. (2006). Undergraduate mathematic students: How do
core training design elements on self-regulatory processes, learning, differences in motivation and learning strategy use affect
and adaptability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 296–316. performance? Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
*Bell, B. S., & Roberson, Q. M. (2006). [Diversity training research.] Memphis, TN.
Unpublished raw data. Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112,
*Bembenutty, H. (2007). Self-regulation of learning and academic 155–159.
delay of gratification: Gender and ethnic differences among Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied
college students. Journal of Advanced Academics, 18, 586–616. multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral
Blume, B. D., Ford, J. K., Baldwin, T. T., & Huang, J. L. (2010). sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Transfer of training: A meta-analytic review. Journal of *Cole, M. S., Feild, H. S., & Harris, S. G. (2004). Student learning
Management, 36, 1065–1105. motivation and psychological hardiness: Interactive effects on
*Bourgeois, N. T. (2007). Error training: An examination of students’ reactions to a management class. Academy of Man-
metacognition, emotion control, intrinsic motivation, and agement Learning & Education, 3, 64–85.

123
J Bus Psychol (2016) 31:33–50 47

Colquitt, J. A., LePine, J. A., & Noe, R. A. (2000). Toward an Goldstein, I. L., & Ford, J. K. (2002). Training in organizations:
integrative theory of training motivation: A meta-analytic path Needs assessment, development, and evaluation (4th ed.).
analysis of 20 years of research. Journal of Applied Psychology, Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
85, 678–707. *Gravill, J. (2004). Self-regulated learning strategies and computer
*Colquitt, J. A., & Simmering, M. S. (1998). Conscientiousness, goal software training. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University
orientation, and motivation to learn during the learning process: of Western Ontario, Ontario, Canada.
A longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, *Green, E. C. (2002). The influence of individual and work
654–665. environment characteristics on trainee motivation and training
*Coyne, T. H. (2008). Examining the systemic influences of trainee, effectiveness measures. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, North
training design and work environment characteristics on learn- Carolina State University, Raleigh.
ing, retention, and transfer. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, *Griffith, S. L. (1997). The relationship between learning strategies
Columbia University, New York. and academic achievement in community college engineering
Dalton, D. R., Aguinis, H., Dalton, C. A., Bosco, F. A., & Pierce, C. technology students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Univer-
A. (2012). Revisiting the file drawer problem in meta-analysis: sity of San Francisco, CA.
An empirical assessment of published and non-published *Guerrero, S., & Sire, B. (2001). Motivation to train from the
correlation matrices. Personnel Psychology, 65, 221–249. workers’ perspective: Example of French companies. Interna-
*Debowski, S., Wood, R. E., & Bandura, A. (2001). Impact of guided tional Journal of Human Resources Management, 12, 988–1004.
exploration and enactive exploration on self-regulatory mechan- *Guzley, R. M., Avanzino, S., & Bor, A. (2001). Simulated computer-
isms and information acquisition through electronic search. mediated/video-interactive distance learning: A test of motiva-
Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1129–1141. tion, interaction satisfaction, delivery, learning and perceived
Deci, E. L. (1975). Intrinsic motivation. New York: Plenum Press. effectiveness. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 6.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self- Retrieved November 8, 2006 from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol6/
determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum. issue3/guzley.html.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (n.d.). Intrinsic motivation inventory. *Handler, C. A. (1999). The influence of climate for belief in the
Retrieved May 31, 2009 from http://www.psych.rochester.edu/ overseas mission on cross-cultural training effectiveness. Un-
SDT/measures/intrins.html. published doctoral dissertation, Louisiana State University,
Deci, E. L., Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., & Ryan, R. M. (1991). Baton Rouge.
Motivation and education: The self-determination perspective. Harackiewicz, J., & Sansone, C. (1991). Goals and intrinsic
Educational Psychologist, 26, 325–346. motivation: You can get there from here. In P. R. Pintrich &
*Dunigan, B. A. (2003). Motivation and learning strategies of M. L. Maehr (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement:
students in distance education. Unpublished doctoral disserta- Goals and self-regulatory processes (pp. 21–49). Greenwich,
tion, University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg. CT: JAI Press.
*Essary, V. L. (2001). The influences of self-efficacy on training Hershcovis, M., Turner, N., Barling, J., Arnold, K., Dupre, K., Inness,
transfer. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, California School of M., et al. (2007). Predicting workplace aggression: A meta-
Professional Psychology, San Diego. analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 228–238.
*Farquharson, F. (2004). A comparison of community college *Hess, J. A., & Smythe, M. J. (2001). Is teacher immediacy related to
students’ anxiety, motivation, and achievement in two learning student cognitive learning? Communication Studies, 52,
models for teaching developmental algebra: Instructor-directed 197–219.
computer mediated model and traditional lecture model. Holton, E. F, I. I. I. (1996). The flawed four-level evaluation model.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of South Florida, Human Resource Development Quarterly, 7, 5–21.
Tampa. Holton, E. F, I. I. I., Bates, R. A., & Ruona, W. E. A. (2000).
Fitts, P. M., & Posner, M. (1967). Human performance. Monteray, Development of a generalized learning transfer system invento-
CA: Brooks/Cole. ry. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 11, 333–360.
*Frymier, A. (1994). A model of immediacy in the classroom. *Howey, S. C. (1999). The relationship between motivation and
Communication Quarterly, 42, 133–144. academic success of community college freshman orientation
*Frymier, A. B. (2005). Students’ classroom communication effec- students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Kansas State
tiveness. Communication Quarterly, 53, 197–212. University, Manhattan.
*Garcia, T., & Pintrich, P. R. (1996). The effects of autonomy on *Hsu, J. (1997). Value, expectancy, metacognition, resource man-
motivation and performance in the college classroom. Contem- agement, and academic achievement: A structural model of self-
porary Educational Psychology, 21, 477–486. regulated learning in a distance education context. Unpublished
*Gardner, R. C., Moorcroft, R., & Metford, J. (1989). Second doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, Los
language learning in an immersion programme: Factors influ- Angeles.
encing acquisition and retention. Journal of Language and Huffcutt, A. I., & Arthur, W. (1995). Development of a new outlier
Social Psychology, 8, 287–305. statistic for meta–analytic data. Journal of Applied Psychology,
*Gardner, R. C., Tremblay, P. F., & Masgoret, A. (1997). Towards a 80, 327–334.
full model of second language learning: An empirical investi- Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis:
gation. Modern Language Journal, 81, 344–362. Correcting error and bias in research findings (2nd ed.).
*Gaudine, A. P., (1997). A longitudinal field experiment of post- Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
training interventions and transfer of training of the McGill *Iverson, K. M., Colky, D. L., & Cyboran, V. (2005). E-learning
model of nursing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Concordia takes the lead: An empirical investigation of learner differences
University, Montreal, Canada. in online and classroom delivery. Performance Improvement
*Ghetaldi, L. R. (1998). The effect of self-modeling on climber self- Quarterly, 18(4), 5–18.
efficacy, motivation, actual and perceived rock climbing skills, Johnson, J. W. (2000). A heuristic method for estimating the relative
and knowledge in beginning rock climbers. Unpublished doctoral weight of predictor variables in multiple regression. Multivariate
dissertation, University of Colorado, Greeley. Behavioral Research, 35, 1–19.

123
48 J Bus Psychol (2016) 31:33–50

Johnson, J. W. (2001). The relative importance of task and contextual *Martineau, J. (1995). A contextual examination of the effectiveness
performance dimensions to supervisor judgments of overall of a supervisory skills training program. Unpublished doctoral
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 984–996. dissertation, Pennsylvania State University, State College.
*Justice, E. M., & Dornan, T. M. (2001). Metacognitive differences *Martocchio, J. J., & Webster, J. (1992). Effects of feedback and
between traditional-age and nontraditional-age college students. cognitive playfulness on performance in microcomputer soft-
Adult Education Quarterly, 51, 236–249. ware training. Personnel Psychology, 45, 553–578.
Keith, N., & Frese, M. (2008). Effectiveness of error management *Mathieu, J., Tannenbaum, S., & Salas, E. (1992). Influences of
training: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, individual and situational characteristics on measures of training
59–69. effectiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 828–847.
Kirkpatrick, D. (1976). Evaluation of training. In R. Craig (Ed.), *McClendon, R. C. (1993). Construct validity of the MSLQ and
Training and development handbook: A guide to human resource cognition as related to motivation and learning strategy use of
development (3rd ed., pp. 301–319). New York: McGraw Hill. preservice teachers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Univer-
Klehe, U.-C., & Anderson, N. (2007). Working hard and working sity of Akron, Ohio.
smart: Motivation and ability during typical and maximum *McKenzie, K., & Gow, K. (2004). Exploring the first year academic
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 978–992. achievement of school leavers and mature-age students through
*Klein, H. J., Noe, R. A., & Wang, C. (2006). Motivation to learn and structural equation modeling. Learning and Individual Differ-
course outcomes: The impact of delivery mode, learning goal ences, 14, 107–123.
orientation, and perceived barriers and enablers. Personnel Miller, L. (2014, November). 2014 State of the industry report:
Psychology, 59, 665–702. Spending on employee training remains a priority. TD Magazine.
Kontoghiorghes, C. (2004). Reconceptualizing the learning transfer Retrieved from https://www.td.org/Publications/Magazines/TD/
conceptual framework: Empirical validation of a new systemic TD-Archive.
model. International Journal of Training and Development, 8, *Myers, S. (1997). The role of person, outcome, environmental, and
210–221. learning variables in training effectiveness. Unpublished doc-
Kraiger, K., Ford, J. K., & Salas, E. (1993). Application of cognitive, toral dissertation, University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
skill-based, and affective theories of learning outcomes to new *Naumann, W. (1998). Predicting first-semester grade point average
methods of training evaluation. Journal of Applied Psychology, using self-regulated learning variables. Unpublished doctoral
78, 311–328. dissertation, University of Nebraska, Lincoln.
*Kubeck, J., Miller-Albrecht, S., & Murphy, M. (1999). Finding *Nease, A. (2000). Do motives matter? An examination of reasons for
information on the World Wide Web: Exploring older adults’ attending training and influences on training effectiveness. Unpub-
exploration. Educational Gerontology, 25, 167–183. lished doctoral dissertation, Rice University, Houston, Texas.
*Kuchinke, K. P. (2000). The role of feedback in management Neves, D. M., & Anderson, J. R. (1981). Knowledge compilation:
training settings. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 11, Mechanisms for the automatization of cognitive skills. In J.
381–401. R. Anderson (Ed.), Cognitive skills and their acquisition (pp.
*Kuo, Y. (2004). Assessment of students’ motivation to use computer 335–359). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
tools in a web enhanced counseling course. Unpublished *Niemczyk, M. C., & Savenye, W. C. (2001). The relationship of
doctoral dissertation, West Virginia University, Morgantown. student motivation and self-regulated learning strategies to
LeBreton, J. (n.d.). SPSS syntax file for conducting relative weight performance in an undergraduate computer literacy course.
analysis based on a correlation matrix. Retrieved August 8, 2014 Paper presented at the 24th National Convention of the
from http://www1.psych.purdue.edu/*jlebreto/downloads.html. Association for Educational Communications and Technology,
*Lee, L. H. (1998). Goal orientation, goal setting, and academic Atlanta, GA.
performance in college students: An integrated model of Noe, R. A. (1986). Trainees’ attributes and attitudes: Neglected
achievement motivation in school settings. Unpublished doctoral influences on training effectiveness. Academy of Management
dissertation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles. Review, 11, 736–749.
*Lewis, J. P. (2006). Effects of self-regulated learning on metacog- Noe, R. A., & Schmitt, N. (1986). The influence of trainee attitudes on
nitive strategies, academic performance, and transfer of preser- training effectiveness: Test of a model. Personnel Psychology,
vice teachers in an educational technology class. Unpublished 39, 497–523.
doctoral dissertation, University of South Alabama, Mobile. *Noels, K. A., Clement, R., & Pelletier, L. G. (1999). Perceptions of
*Long, L. K. (2005). The role of trainee reactions in online training. teachers’ communicative style and students’ intrinsic and
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Kent State University, Kent, extrinsic motivation. Modern Language Journal, 83, 23–34.
OH. *Orvis, K. A., Horn, D. B., & Belanich, J. (2008). The roles of task
*Lynch, D. J. (2006). Motivational factors, learning strategies and difficulty and prior videogame experience on performance and
resource management as predictors of course grades. College motivation in instructional videogames. Computers in Human
Student Journal, 40, 423–428. Behavior, 24, 2415–2433.
*MacIntyre, P. D., & Charos, C. (1996). Personality, attitudes, and *Orvis, K. A., Horn, D. B., & Belanich, J. (2009a). An examination of
affect as predictors of second language communication. Journal the role individual differences play in videogame-based training.
of Language and Social Psychology, 15, 3–26. Military Psychology, 21, 461–481.
*Mangos, P. M., Steele-Johnson, D., & Heintz, P., Jr. (2001). Goal Orvis, K. A., Fisher, S. L., & Wasserman, M. E. (2009b). Power to the
orientation and task complexity cues: Effects on task percep- people: Using learner control to improve trainee reactions and
tions, motivation, and performance. Paper presented at the 16th learning in web-based instructional environments. Journal of
Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organiza- Applied Psychology, 94, 960–971.
tional Psychology, San Diego, CA. Payne, S. C., Youngcourt, S. S., & Beaubien, J. M. (2007). A meta-
*Mangos, P. M., Steele-Johnson, D., & Heintz, P., Jr. (2001). Goal analytic examination of the goal orientation nomological net.
orientation effects on task motivation: Moderating influences of Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 128–150.
ability and task demands. Paper presented at the 16th Annual Pintrich, P. R. (1988). A process oriented view of student motivation
Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational and cognition. New Directions for Institutional Research, 57,
Psychology, San Diego, CA. 65–79.

123
J Bus Psychol (2016) 31:33–50 49

*Pintrich, P. R. (1989). The dynamic interplay of student motivation of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology,
and cognition in the college classroom. In M. L. Maehr & C. New York.
Ames (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement: Motiva- *Simmering, M. J. (1999). The effects of learner control and
tion enhancing environments (pp. 117–160). Greenwich, CT: JAI individual differences on learning outcomes. Unpublished doc-
Press. toral dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing.
Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated *Sitzmann, T. (2006). [correlations among measures]. Unpublished
learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), raw data.
Handbook of self-regulation. San Diego: Academic Press. Sitzmann, T. (2006). Final report on NATO school evaluation.
Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self- Alexandria, VA: Advanced Distributed Learning Co-Laboratory.
regulated learning components of classroom academic achieve- Sitzmann, T., Brown, K. G., Casper, W., Ely, K., & Zimmerman, R. D.
ment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33–40. (2008). A review and meta-analysis of the nomological network of
*Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. trainee reactions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 280–295.
(1993). Reliability and predictive validity of the Motivated Sitzmann, T., Ely, K., Brown, K. G., & Bauer, K. N. (2010). Self-
Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational and assessment of knowledge: A cognitive learning or affective
Psychological Measurement, 53, 801–813. measure? Academy of Management Learning & Education, 9,
*Poteet, M. L. (1996). The training transfer process: An examination 169–191.
of the role of individual, motivational, and work environmental *Skidmore, R. L. (2003). Predicting final examination grades in a
factors. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Ten- self-paced introductory psychology course: The role of motiva-
nessee, Knoxville. tional orientation, learning strategies, procrastination, and
*Quiñones, M. (1995). Pretraining context effects: Training assign- perception of daily hassles. Paper presented at the Annual
ment as feedback. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 226–238. Meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association,
*Ramirez, A. E. (2000). Individual, attitudinal, and organizational Biloxi, MS.
influences on training effectiveness: A test of Noe’s model. *Spiros, R. K. (2003). Individual differences in motivation during
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Tulsa, OK. distance training: The influence of goal orientation and self-
*Ray, M. W. (2003). The role of aptitude and achievement in efficacy on learning outcomes. Unpublished doctoral disserta-
developmental college students’ motivational beliefs, percep- tion, University of California.
tions of self-regulated learning, and accuracy of grade predic- Sugrue, B., & Rivera, R. J. (2005). State of the industry: ASTD’s
tions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri, annual review of trends in workplace learning and performance.
Kansas City. Alexandria, VA: ASTD.
Rechlin, A. M., Surface, E. A., & Kraiger, K. (2011). The role of post- *Sullivan, M. E. (2003). Self-regulated learning of medical students:
training performance feedback on trainer ratings. Paper pre- Assessment of a social cognitive model. Unpublished doctoral
sented at the 26th Annual Meeting of the Society for Industrial dissertation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.
and Organizational Psychology, Chicago, IL. *Sullivan, T. A., Sharma, M., & Stacy, R. (2002). Effects of a brief
*Reed, B. J. (2003). Influences upon academic achievement: The training program for lay health volunteers to facilitate smoking
relationships among cognitive strategies, metacognitive strate- cessation among African Americans. Journal of Alcohol and
gies and motivation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Wayne Drug Education, 47, 4–17.
State University, Detroit, MI. *Surface, E. A. (2006). [Language acquisition 1]. Unpublished raw
*Richmond, V. P. (1990). Communication in the classroom: Power data.
and motivation. Communication Education, 39, 181–195. *Surface, E. A. (2007). [Language acquisition 2]. Unpublished raw
Rosenthal, R. (1979). The file drawer problem and tolerance for null data.
results. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 638–641. *Surface, E. A. (2008). [Language acquisition 3]. Unpublished raw
*Rowold, J. (2007a). Individual influence on knowledge acquisition data.
in a call center training context in Germany. International *Surface, E. A. (2010). [Language acquisition 4]. Unpublished raw
Journal of Training and Development, 11, 21–34. data.
*Rowold, J. (2007b). The impact of personality on training-related *Surface, E. A. (2011a). [Primary data collection 1]. Unpublished raw
aspects of motivation: Test of a longitudinal model. Human data.
Resource Development Quarterly, 18, 9–31. *Surface, E. A. (2011b). [Primary data collection 2]. Unpublished raw
Ryan, R. M., Koestner, R., & Deci, E. L. (1991). Ego-involved data.
persistence: When free-choice behavior is not intrinsically Surface, E. A. (2012). Training needs assessment: Aligning learning
motivated. Motivation and Emotion, 15, 185–205. and capability with performance requirements and organization-
Saari, L. M., Johnson, T. R., McLaughlin, S. D., & Zimmerle, D. M. al objectives. In M. Wilson, W. Bennett, S. Gibson, & G. Alliger
(1988). A survey of management training and education (Eds.), The handbook of work analysis: The methods, systems,
practices in U.S. companies. Personnel Psychology, 41, applications and science of work measurement in organizations.
731–743. New York: Routledge.
Sackett, P. R., Zedeck, S., & Fogli, L. (1988). Relations between *Tai, W.-T. (2006). Effects of training framing, general self-efficacy
measures of typical and maximum job performance. Journal of and training motivation on trainees’ training effectiveness.
Applied Psychology, 73, 482–486. Personnel Review, 35, 51–65.
*Seibert, D. C. (2002). Effects of engagement principles in a video *Tannenbaum, S. I., Mathieu, J. E., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J.
teleconferencing environment on the development of knowledge, A. (1991). Meeting trainees’ expectations: The influence of
motivation, and clinical expertise. Unpublished doctoral disser- training fulfillment on the development of commitment, self-
tation, University of Maryland, College Park. efficacy, and motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76,
*Sekowski, G. J. (2002). Evaluating training outcomes: Testing an 759–769.
expanded model of training outcome criteria. Unpublished Tannenbaum, S. I., & Yukl, G. (1992). Training and development in
doctoral dissertation, DePaul University, Chicago. work organizations. Annual Review of Psychology, 43, 399–441.
*Shayne, L., & Brown, K. G. (2007). Giving goodies in training: Are *Tellis, J. Y. T. S. (2004). Relationships of individual, situational,
there benefits? Paper presented at the 22nd Annual Conference motivational, training reaction factors, and motivation to

123
50 J Bus Psychol (2016) 31:33–50

transfer training. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Auburn transfer of training improvement strategies. Journal of Occupa-
University, AL. tional Psychology, 64, 167–177.
*Thomas, C., & Gadbois, S. (2007). Academic self-handicapping: *Van Cleave, A. (1995). Engagement and training outcomes:
The role of self-concept clarity and students’ learning strategies. Extending the concept of motivation to learn. Unpublished
British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 101–119. doctoral dissertation, University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
*Thompson, C. A. C. (1992). The relationships among teachers’ *Vansteenkiste, M., Zhou, M., Lens, W., & Soenens, B. (2005).
immediacy behaviors, credibility, and social style and students’ Experience of autonomy and control among Chinese learners:
motivation and learning: Comparisons among cultures. Unpub- Vitalizing or Immobilizing? Journal of Educational Psychology,
lished doctoral dissertation, West Virginia University, 97, 468–483.
Morgantown. Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: Wiley.
*Tombs, M., & Patrick, J. (2008). Training motivation: Test of a *Warr, P., Allan, C., & Birdi, K. (1999). Predicting three levels of
model in a military training setting. Poster presented at the 23rd training outcome. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organiza- Psychology, 72, 351–375.
tional Psychology, San Francisco, CA. *Warr, P., & Bunce, D. (1995). Trainee characteristics and the
Tonidandel, S., & LeBreton, J. (2011). Relative importance analysis: outcomes of open learning. Personnel Psychology, 48, 347–375.
A useful supplement to regression analysis. Journal of Business *Warr, P., & Downing, J. (2000). Learning strategies, learning
& Psychology, 26, 1–9. anxiety and knowledge acquisition. British Journal of Psy-
*Towler, A. (2002). Effects of trainer expressiveness, seductive chology, 91, 311–333.
details, and trainees’ mastery orientation on training outcomes. *Watson, M., McSorley, M., Foxcroft, C., & Watson, A. (2004).
Paper presented at the 17th Annual Conference of the Society for Exploring the motivation orientation and learning strategies of
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Toronto, Ontario, first year university learners. Tertiary Education and Manage-
Canada. ment, 10, 193–207.
*Towler, A. J., & Dipboye, R. L. (2001). Effects of trainer *Webster, J., & Martocchio, J. J. (1993). Turning work into play:
expressiveness, organization, and trainee goal orientation on Implications for microcomputer software training. Journal of
training outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 4, 664–673. Management, 19, 127–146.
*Tracey, J. B., & Cardenas, C. G. (1996). Training effectiveness: An *Weissbein, D. (2000). Improving training effectiveness through
empirical examination of factors outside the training context. motivation: Creating a psychological states intervention. Un-
Hospitality Research Journal, 20, 113–123. published doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, East
*Tracey, J. B., Hinkin, T. R., Tannenbaum, S., & Mathieu, J. E. Lansing.
(2001). The influence of individual characteristics and the work *Wise, A., Chang, J., Duffy, T., & Del Valle, R. (2004). The effects
environment on varying levels of training outcomes. Human of teacher social presence on student satisfaction, engagement,
Resource Development Quarterly, 12, 5–23. and learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 31,
*Tremblay, P. F., Gardner, R. C., & Heipel, G. (2000). A model of the 247–271.
relationships among measures of affect, aptitude, and perfor- *Yi, M., & Davis, F. (2003). Developing and validating an
mance in introductory statistics. Canadian Journal of Be- observational learning model of computer software training
havioural Science, 32, 40–48. and skill acquisition. Information Systems Research, 14,
*Tziner, A., & Falbe, C. M. (1993). Training related variables, 146–169.
gender, and training outcomes: A field investigation. Interna- *Zusho, A., Pintrich, P. R., & Coppola, B. (2003). Skill and will: The
tional Journal of Psychology, 28, 203–221. role of motivation and cognition in the learning of college
*Tziner, A., Haccoun, R. R., & Kadish, A. (1991). Personal and chemistry. International Journal of Science Education, 25,
situational characteristics influencing the effectiveness of 1081–1094.

123
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.