Skip to main content
Article
Feedback specificity, information processing, and transfer of training.
USF St. Petersburg campus Faculty Publications
  • Jodi S. Goodman
  • Robert E. Wood
  • Zheng Chen
SelectedWorks Author Profiles:

Zheng Chen

Document Type
Article
Publication Date
2011
Disciplines
Abstract

This study examines the effects of feedback specificity on transfer of training and the mechanisms through which feedback can enhance or inhibit transfer. We used concurrent verbal protocol methodology to elicit and operationalize the explicit information processing activities used by 48 trainees performing the Furniture Factory computer simulation. We hypothesized and found support for a moderated mediation model. Increasing feedback specificity influenced the exposure trainees had to different task conditions and negatively affected their levels of explicit information processing. In turn, explicit information processes and levels of exposure to different task conditions interacted to impact transfer of training. Those who received less specific feedback relied more heavily on explicit information processing and had more exposure to the challenging aspects of the task than those who received more specific feedback, which differentially affected what they learned about the task. We discuss how feedback specificity and exposure to different task conditions may prime different learning processes.

Comments
Abstract only. Full-text article is available through licensed access provided by the publisher. Published in Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 115, 253-267. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.01.001 Members of the USF System may access the full-text of the article through the authenticated link provided.
Language
en_US
Publisher
Academic Press
Creative Commons License
Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0
Citation Information
Goodman, J. S., Wood, R. E., & Chen, Z. (2011). Feedback specificity, information processing, and transfer of training. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 115, 253-267. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.01.001