A recent multiple-stage model posits that the individual-difference factors influencing performance vary depending on skill acquisition stage (P. L. Ackerman, 1989, 1990). In the current study, the authors examine the effect of ability in early skill acquisition and extend earlier research by examining the roles of self-efficacy and task familiarity. Furthermore, learning-curve modeling with multilevel models is used to alleviate prior analytical problems. Subjects (N = 115) performed an air traffic control simulation task. Nonlinear learning-curve parameters were estimated for each subject using a negative exponential model (see D. R. Rogosa & J. B. Willett, 1985). Cognitive ability, self-efficacy, and task familiarity were then used to predict learning-curve parameters: learning-rate constant and asymptotic performance. Results revealed that ability, self-efficacy, and familiarity predicted the learning-rate constant, whereas self-efficacy predicted asymptotic performance.

A laboratory study was conducted to examine the effects of learning‐oriented versus performance‐oriented feedback of task performance. The research also examined the role of self‐efficacy as a moderator. Subjects were college students participating for course credit. The task involved using a computerized simulation of the Space Shuttle's Remote Manipulation System (RMS). Results provided evidence of the beneficial effects of learning‐oriented feedback on performance for the performance dimension addressed in the feedback. Results also provided evidence that self‐efficacy moderates the effects of feedback type (learning‐oriented versus performance‐oriented) on the performance dimension addressed in the feedback. Results are discussed in terms of the cuing and directional functions of feedback and the processes through which feedback influences performance.

We investigated the role of multiple forms of feedback and of alternative measures of motivation in feedback‐goal‐performance processes. Results indicated that when performance‐based and normative‐based feedback are both provided, the two forms of feedback have differential effects on personal goals and intrinsic motivation, supporting our predictions. Moreover, measures of self‐efficacy and personal goals worded in relation to performance were more strongly related to performance‐based feedback, while self‐efficacy and personal goals measures worded in relation to normative information were more strongly related to normative‐based feedback, as predicted. These results highlight the importance of investigating more complex feedback environments and examining the role of alternative measures of motivational variables to increase our understanding of motivational processes.

A laboratory study examined the effects of components of need for achievement on goal commitment and performance. It was predicted that need for mastery and need for work are related to goal commitment. It was also predicted that need for mastery and need for work are more highly related to goal commitment than competitiveness, given the characteristics of the task environment. Finally, goal commitment was expected to mediate the effects of need for mastery and need for work on performance. Fifty‐four undergraduate students performed nine trials of a complex task and completed a need for achievement scale composed of four subscales. Support was obtained for the first two predictions, and evidence of a sequential model partially supported the third prediction.

No abstract