What Determines Whether Observers Recognize Targeted Behaviors in Modeling Displays?

Abstract

Observational learning is based on a critical assumption that trainees can and do recognize critical modeled behaviors. This assumption has been virtually untested in applied settings. We studied the effects of work experience and instructions on the ability of 59 observers to recognize target behaviors in an observational learning paradigm similar to existing ones. Additionally, we investigated the effects of two key factors that were hypothesized to affect the recognition process in observational learning. The results indicated that only observers who had a minimum of work experience (i.e., intermediate and experienced observers in the study) were able to consistently recognize targeted behaviors. Additionally, recognition was influenced by the level of detail of instructions given to the participants. Finally, characteristics of the modeled behaviors greatly affected recognition: Overall, examples of negative behaviors were better recognized than were positive examples. Behaviors whose consequence was shown were also better recognized than those that were neither reinforced nor punished in the video. The results are discussed in terms of their implications for the design of observational learning as a training strategy in complex and applied social learning situations. The applications of this work include the design of training, and the training of evaluators and observers.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Baldwin, T. T. (1992). Effects of alternative modeling strategies on outcomes of interpersonal-skills training. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(2), 147–154.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Rockville, MD: National Institutes of Mental Health.

Berry, D. C. (1991). The role of action in implicit learning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 43A(4), 881–906.

Blandin, Y. , Lhuisset, L. , & Proteau, L. (1999). Cognitive processes underlying observational learning of motor skills. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 52A(4), 957–979.

Blandin, Y. , & Proteau, L. (2000). On the cognitive basis of observational learning: Development of mechanisms for the detection and correction of errors. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 53A(3), 846–967.

Borman, W. C. , & Hallam, G. L. (1991). Observation accuracy for assessors of work-sample performance: Consistency across task and individual-differences correlates. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(1), 11–18.

Bruner, J. S. , Goodnow, J. J. , & Austin, G. A. (1956). A study of thinking. New York: Wiley.

Doireau, P. , Wioland, L. , & Amalberti, R. (1997). La détection des erreurs humaines par des opérateurs extérieurs à l'action: Le cas du pilotage d'avion [The detection of human errors by observers external to the action: The case of aircraft piloting, in French]. Le Travail humain, 60(2), 131–157.

Gioia, D. A. , & Manz, C. C. (1985). Linking cognition and behavior: A script processing interpretation of vicarious learning. Academy of Management Review, 10, 527–539.

10.

Jentsch, F. , Bowers, C. , Martin, L. , Barnett, J. , & Prince, C. (1998). Identifying training needs for junior fist officers. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Symposium on Aviation Psychology (pp. 1304-1309). Columbus: The Ohio State University.

11.

Knapp, P. A. , & Deluty, R. H. (1989). Relative effectiveness of two behavioral parent training programs. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 18(4), 314–322.

12.

Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science. New York: Harper & Row.

13.

Mann, R. B. , & Decker, P. J. (1984). The effect of key behavior distinctiveness on generalization and recall in behavior modeling training. Academy of Management Journal, 27(4), 900–910.

14.

National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). (1994). Safety study: A review of flightcrew-involved, major accidents of U.S. carriers, 1978 through 1990 (NTSB/SS-94/01). Washington, DC: National Technical Information Service.

15.

Nunns, C. G. , & Bluen, S. D. (1992). The impact of behavior modeling training of self-reports of White supervisors in two South African mines. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 28(3), 433–444.

16.

Reed, H. (1987). A comparative study of the effectiveness of a mixed vs. a positive only model in the management/supervisory training technique, behavior modeling [Abstract only]. Unpublished dissertation, University of Massachusetts. Dissertation Abstracts International, 49(A-03), 409.

17.

Smith-Jentsch, K. A. , Jentsch, F. G. , Payne, S. C. , & Salas, E. (1996). Can pretraining experiences explain individual differences in learning? Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(1), 110–116.

18.

Smith-Jentsch, K. A. , Salas, E. , & Baker, D. (1996). Training team performance-related assertiveness. Personnel Psychology, 49(4), 909–936.

19.

Thelen, M. H. , & Rennie, D. L. (1972). The effect of vicarious reinforcement on imitation: A review of the literature. In B. A. Maher (Ed.), Progress in experimental personality research (pp. 83-108). New York: Academic.

20.

Trimble, S. K. , Nathan, B. R. , & Decker, P. J. (1991). The effect of positive and negative models on learning in behavior modeling training: Testing for proactive and retroactive interference. Journal of Human Behavior and Learning, 7(2), 1–12.