{"title":"Model Status as a Determinant of Observational Learning and Performance","authors":"P. McCullagh","doi":"10.1123/JSP.8.4.319","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The primary purpose of this experiment was to determine if model characteristics influence observer performance by exerting their prime influence on the attentional phase of observational learning as predicted by Bandura (1969). A second purpose was to determine whether model characteristics affected actual amount learned or whether merely performance levels were affected by this manipulation. There were two experimental phases. During phase 1, model status (high or low) and time of cueing (pre or post demonstration) were manipulated to test performance and attentional effects of model characteristics. During phase 2, subjects were offered an incentive before performance trials in an attempt to make a learning-versus-performance distinction. Phase 1 results indicated the subjects who viewed a high status model performed better than those viewing a low status model. The lack of any significant cueing effect suggested that model characteristics did not exert their prime influence on the attentional stage of...","PeriodicalId":442839,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Sport Psychology","volume":"136 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1986-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"52","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of Sport Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1123/JSP.8.4.319","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 52
Abstract
The primary purpose of this experiment was to determine if model characteristics influence observer performance by exerting their prime influence on the attentional phase of observational learning as predicted by Bandura (1969). A second purpose was to determine whether model characteristics affected actual amount learned or whether merely performance levels were affected by this manipulation. There were two experimental phases. During phase 1, model status (high or low) and time of cueing (pre or post demonstration) were manipulated to test performance and attentional effects of model characteristics. During phase 2, subjects were offered an incentive before performance trials in an attempt to make a learning-versus-performance distinction. Phase 1 results indicated the subjects who viewed a high status model performed better than those viewing a low status model. The lack of any significant cueing effect suggested that model characteristics did not exert their prime influence on the attentional stage of...