Unpacking on-task effort in performance-based learning: Information-knowledge gaps guide effort allocation decisions.

IF 9.4 1区 心理学 Q1 MANAGEMENT Journal of Applied Psychology Pub Date : 2024-01-01 Epub Date: 2023-08-03 DOI:10.1037/apl0001140
Jay H Hardy, Eric Anthony Day, Maddison N North, Justine Rockwood
{"title":"Unpacking on-task effort in performance-based learning: Information-knowledge gaps guide effort allocation decisions.","authors":"Jay H Hardy, Eric Anthony Day, Maddison N North, Justine Rockwood","doi":"10.1037/apl0001140","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Learning and adaptation are essential for success. However, human effort is inherently finite, which creates a dilemma for employees. Is it better to prioritize capitalizing on existing knowledge structures to maximize immediate performance benefits (exploitation) or develop adaptive capabilities (exploration) at the expense of short-term productivity? Understanding how employees answer this question can inform the design of evidence-based interventions for optimizing and sustaining learning amidst workplace challenges. In this article, we attempt to unpack the composition of on-task effort during performance-based learning by testing the proposition that the <i>information-knowledge gap</i>-a regulatory discrepancy between unknown aspects of a task and a person's perceived competence in dealing with that task-is the psychological mechanism responsible for guiding effort-allocation decisions during performance-based learning. In Study 1, we found that larger information-knowledge gaps resulted in increased subsequent investments of on-task attention within a sample of adults learning to perform a complex task (<i>N</i> = 121). As participants learned, information-knowledge gaps systematically shrank, resulting in a reduced emphasis on learning-oriented effort (i.e., exploration) relative to achievement-oriented effort (i.e., exploitation) over time. In Study 2 (<i>N</i> = 176), a task-change paradigm revealed that introducing novel demands caused information-knowledge gaps to suddenly expand, which prompted participants to increase on-task effort and shift their focus away from achievement and back toward learning as an adaptive response. Collectively, these findings support the notion that information-knowledge gaps shape how (and when) on-task effort is spent and present a framework for understanding how learners strategically structure their limited attentional resources. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":15135,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Applied Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":9.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Applied Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0001140","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/8/3 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Learning and adaptation are essential for success. However, human effort is inherently finite, which creates a dilemma for employees. Is it better to prioritize capitalizing on existing knowledge structures to maximize immediate performance benefits (exploitation) or develop adaptive capabilities (exploration) at the expense of short-term productivity? Understanding how employees answer this question can inform the design of evidence-based interventions for optimizing and sustaining learning amidst workplace challenges. In this article, we attempt to unpack the composition of on-task effort during performance-based learning by testing the proposition that the information-knowledge gap-a regulatory discrepancy between unknown aspects of a task and a person's perceived competence in dealing with that task-is the psychological mechanism responsible for guiding effort-allocation decisions during performance-based learning. In Study 1, we found that larger information-knowledge gaps resulted in increased subsequent investments of on-task attention within a sample of adults learning to perform a complex task (N = 121). As participants learned, information-knowledge gaps systematically shrank, resulting in a reduced emphasis on learning-oriented effort (i.e., exploration) relative to achievement-oriented effort (i.e., exploitation) over time. In Study 2 (N = 176), a task-change paradigm revealed that introducing novel demands caused information-knowledge gaps to suddenly expand, which prompted participants to increase on-task effort and shift their focus away from achievement and back toward learning as an adaptive response. Collectively, these findings support the notion that information-knowledge gaps shape how (and when) on-task effort is spent and present a framework for understanding how learners strategically structure their limited attentional resources. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
解读基于绩效的学习中的任务努力:信息-知识差距引导努力分配决策。
学习和适应是成功的关键。然而,人的努力本身是有限的,这就给员工带来了两难选择。是优先利用现有的知识结构来最大化眼前的绩效收益(利用),还是以牺牲短期生产力为代价来发展适应能力(探索)?了解员工如何回答这个问题,可以为设计基于证据的干预措施提供参考,从而在工作场所面临挑战时优化和维持学习。在这篇文章中,我们试图通过检验 "信息-知识差距 "这一命题来揭示基于绩效的学习过程中任务努力的构成。"信息-知识差距 "是指任务的未知方面与个人处理该任务的感知能力之间的调节性差异,它是指导基于绩效的学习过程中努力分配决策的心理机制。在研究1中,我们发现,在一个学习执行复杂任务的成人样本中,较大的信息-知识差距会导致随后对任务的注意力投入增加(样本数=121)。随着参与者的学习,信息-知识差距系统性地缩小,导致学习导向的努力(即探索)相对于成就导向的努力(即利用)的重要性随着时间的推移而降低。在研究2(N = 176)中,任务变化范式显示,引入新要求会导致信息知识差距突然扩大,这促使参与者增加任务努力,并将注意力从成就转向学习,以此作为一种适应性反应。总之,这些研究结果支持这样一种观点,即信息-知识差距决定了如何(以及何时)在任务上花费精力,并为理解学习者如何战略性地安排其有限的注意力资源提供了一个框架。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, 版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
17.60
自引率
6.10%
发文量
175
期刊介绍: The Journal of Applied Psychology® focuses on publishing original investigations that contribute new knowledge and understanding to fields of applied psychology (excluding clinical and applied experimental or human factors, which are better suited for other APA journals). The journal primarily considers empirical and theoretical investigations that enhance understanding of cognitive, motivational, affective, and behavioral psychological phenomena in work and organizational settings. These phenomena can occur at individual, group, organizational, or cultural levels, and in various work settings such as business, education, training, health, service, government, or military institutions. The journal welcomes submissions from both public and private sector organizations, for-profit or nonprofit. It publishes several types of articles, including: 1.Rigorously conducted empirical investigations that expand conceptual understanding (original investigations or meta-analyses). 2.Theory development articles and integrative conceptual reviews that synthesize literature and generate new theories on psychological phenomena to stimulate novel research. 3.Rigorously conducted qualitative research on phenomena that are challenging to capture with quantitative methods or require inductive theory building.
期刊最新文献
How context shapes collective turnover over time: The relative impact of internal versus external factors. A tale of two narratives: The role of event disruption in employee affective and behavioral reactions to authoritarian leadership. Emboldened in the rap "game": How severely stigmatized video models navigate disrespect and vulnerability to workplace mistreatment. Euphemism as a powerful framing device that influences moral judgments and punitive responses after wrongdoing. Examining the effectiveness of interventions to reduce discriminatory behavior at work: An attitude dimension consistency perspective.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1