Professional Writing Service http://StudyHub.vip/A-Review-Of-Literature-On-Training-Tran 👈

1. A Review of Literature on Training Transfer Motivation and Psychological Capital
Andrew West
Newcastle Business School University of Newcastle
Email: Andrew.West@uon.edu.au
Dr Suzanne Ryan
Newcastle Business School University of Newcastle
Email: Suzanne.Ryan@newcastle.edu.au
Page 1 of 19 ANZAM 2011

2. ABSTRACT
As training and development, along with continuous learning has become an important aspect of
work, the effectiveness of the transfer of knowledge, skills and behaviours to the workplace have been
called into question. A meta-analysis of training transfer has called to move beyond contextual
constraints to evaluate the psychological traits and states that impact training transfer motivation.
The recent field of positive organisational behaviour, specifically the positive higher order state,
Psychological Capital, is reviewed in relation to its potential to meet calls to evaluate psychological
traits and states in relation to training transfer motivation. Research questions are posed for future
research incorporating pre-training motivation and trainee’s positive psychological states, through
Psychological Capital.
Keywords: transfer of training / learning, skills development / training, human capital, individual
development.
Page 2 of 19
ANZAM 2011

3. Continuous learning, dynamic work places and enhanced learning organisations are key features of
the future work place. Following the theme of the future of work, this paper reviews literature on
training motivation and training transfer. Trainees who show high positive affect also show high
motivation to apply their learning from training to improve work performance (Naquin & Holton
2002). Due to the significance of pre –training positive affect on training transfer, the application of
the higher order positive psychology concept, Psychological Capital (PsyCap), is considered as an
antecedent to improved training motivation leading to higher levels of training transfer. As
organisational training is recognised as an important aspect of competitive advantage, researchers
have developed theoretical frameworks to improve the overall quality of training and effective
training transfer (Holton, Coco, Lowe & Dutsch 2006). Much of the research on training effectiveness
has been based on contextual constraints, including: organisational climate; employee perceptions of
training (Klein, Noe & Chongwei 2006); and attitudinal variables (Gist, Stevens & Bevetta 1991).
Training motivation is considered basic to training transfer (Pugh and Bergin 2006). One relatively
recent higher order concept not addressed directly in training transfer motivation research is the
individual’s positive psychological state, PsyCap.
Despite calls to develop positive psychological states to enhance training development and
effectiveness (Combs, Luthans, & Griffith 2009), there has been little research in relation to training
transfer motivation. The purpose of this paper is to take an initial step in addressing this deficit with
an overview of literature on training transfer motivation and positive organisational behaviour. The
paper contributes to a discussion of future workplaces by suggesting questions for empirical research
to test the efficacy of PsyCap in understanding training transfer motivation. The paper begins with a
summary of the importance of training and development followed by discussions of training
motivation and its measurements. Focus is then given to positive organisational behaviour and the
development of PsyCap, including its measurement and critiques. The final section reviews previous
research connecting training motivation with PsyCap and concludes with suggestions for research
arising from the review of these two areas of literature.
Page 3 of 19 ANZAM 2011

4. TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT
Training and development are central roles in human resources and organisational development
functions as witnessed by the increasing number of Learning and Development units being established
within Human Resources departments. Training is identified as a competitive advantage to overcome
organisational challenges including globalisation, high quality customer service, managing
interpersonal communications, and technology integration (Noe, Hollenbeck, Gerhart & Wright
1994). Employees able to display congruency that aligns the ability to utilise communicative skills,
coupled with subject matter expertise in response to opportunities and problem solving, add value to
their organisations (Quinn, Anderson & Finkelstein 1996). To gain and maintain competitive
advantage, companies are advised to develop training beyond conventional technical and skills based
training to incorporate psychological and communication abilities to add value (Prager 2003). Due to
this recognition, the size of organisational spend on employee training and development in the United
States alone is in the vicinity of USD125 billion annually (Paradise 2007). In the Australian context,
recent research has put the figure of overall adult training at AUD30 billion (Trendel & Siu 2005),
which incorporates AUD16 billion of direct organisational expenditure (Richardson 2004). Given the
extent of investment in training and development, it is pertinent to question the extent that training is
transferred back to the workplace as an increase in knowledge, skills and behavioural change and to
find ways to increase the transfer.
Despite the large investment by organisations into training and development, training transfer
effectiveness remains in contention. Definitions of training transfer highlight how trained knowledge
and skills are used in the job context for which the training was designed and to be maintained over a
period of time (Baldwin & Ford 1988). The measure of effective organisational training is its positive
transfer to the workplace, however research results question the extent of training transfer
(Tannenbaum & Yukl 1992). The lowest levels of reported results in training effectiveness studies
range from as little as five percent of participants applying training to the workplace (Brinkerhoff &
Gill 1994) to 10 percent of training resulting in behavioural change (Georgeson 1982). Longitudinal
studies found 60 percent of participants demonstrate immediate training transfer but this dissipates to
only 30 percent maintaining the skills transfer after one year (Saks 2002). Companies may increase
Page 4 of 19
ANZAM 2011

5. their spend on corporate training, but Kontoghiorghes (2001) asks whether spend correlates with
training transfer. That is, the extent to which the knowledge and skills gained during training are
applied in the workplace and in other areas of an employee’s life. As elements of training
effectiveness, skills transfer, employee performance improvement, employee well being and training
investment returns are highly relevant theoretical and practical issues (Burke & Hutchins 2007; Bates,
Holton, Seyler & Carvalho 2000).
TRAINING MOTIVATION
One of the important factors identified as having a positive impact on training transfer is training
motivation (Blume, Ford, Baldwin & Huang 2010; Pugh & Bergin 2006). Trainees who are high in
positive affectivity are also higher in motivation to improve their work performance through learning
because they have a sense of steadiness and are able to focus on training tasks, free of other mental
distractions (Naquin & Holton 2002). However, training motivation is a complex issue with multiple
antecedents, correlates and consequences. In developing an integrative framework, Gegenfurtner,
Veermans, Festner and Gruber (2009) identify seven areas of contributions to research affecting
motivation to transfer training (see Figure 1): individual pre-training motivation (attitudes toward
training, motivation to learn, personality traits, work commitment); individual post training
motivation (self efficacy, expectancies, training reactions); training related (pre-training framing);
intervention design; organisational culture; post training organizational factors (job characteristics;
social support); and the overall link between motivation to transfer training and transfer of training.
Given the breadth of research in training motivation, this paper focuses on the first contribution, that
of individual pre-training training motivation.
Training motivation is the persistence or intensity of effort that training participants apply to learning
oriented improvements throughout the whole training process, including pre and post training
(Tannenbaum & Yukl 1992). Since Noe (1986) introduced ‘motivation to transfer’ as a construct,
training effectiveness has shown to be influenced by pre-training motivation to learn. Further studies
demonstrate the importance of the pre-training context, for example, trainees’ individual
characteristics have a greater influence on training transfer than training design effects (Baldwin,
Page 5 of 19 ANZAM 2011

6. Magjuka & Loher 1991; Mathieu, Tannenbaum & Salas 1992). A study by Facteau, Dobbins, Russell,
Ladd, and Kudisch (1995) found a positive correlation of .45 between pre- training motivation and
training transfer as measured by trainees’ supervisors after completion of training.
The importance of motivation in training effectiveness was highlighted by Quinones (1995) in finding
that pre-training needs and trainee attribution determine the extent to which pre-training
characteristics affect training outcomes. Quinones (1995) developed a model to show how framing
training assignments provides feedback that results in higher pre-training training motivation. This
study is supported by Chiabura and Marinova (2005) who measured the positive impact pre-training
motivation has on training transfer for preset outcomes by examining the relationship between two
individual dimensions, goal orientation and training self-efficacy, and two contextual factors,
supervisor and peer support. The results of structural equation modelling found a positive correlation
of 0.24 between the pre-training motivation and skills transfer. The study found a strong positive
correlation between mastery approach, goal orientation (0.66) and to a lesser extent between training
self-efficacy (0.34) and pre- training motivation. When considering the contextual factors, peer
support predicted both pre- training motivation (0.11) and skill transfer (0.65), whereas supervisor
support was unrelated to pre- training motivation (0.04) and correlated negatively with skill transfer
(-0.10). Because of its focus on goal orientation and self-efficacy, Chiabura and Marinova’s (2005)
research relates to the study of PsyCap and pre- training motivation as both these individual
constructs are part of the PsyCap higher order construct. Various studies have found positive
correlation coefficients of between .33 and .75 in predictions of training transfer based on pre-
training motivation (Bell & Ford 2007; Chiaburu & Lindsay 2008; Noe & Wilk 1993; Rowold 2007).
Measuring Training Motivation
Various instruments with different foci have been developed to measure training motivation. The
most common instrument used to assess transfer motivation is Noe and Schmitt’s (1986) 14 item scale
that has an internal consistency reliability estimate of .68. This instrument uses questions such as:
“Before I attend training programs I usually consider how I will use the content of the program”.
Intention to apply knowledge, skills and behaviours learnt during training to the work place is
Page 6 of 19
ANZAM 2011

7. commonly measured by Noe and Wilks’ (1993) 17 item instrument. This instrument includes items to
assess motivation to learn in development activities such as: “I try to learn as much as I can from
training programs” and it has an internal consistency reliability estimate of .81. Using these measures
as a base, an array of variables have been assessed to determine individual traits affecting pre-training
motivation. A meta-analysis of training transfer by Burke and Hutchins (2007) outlines a range of
learner characteristics and highlights the lack of empirical research in relation to ‘motivation to
learn’ and ‘motivation to transfer’ (a summary of the meta-analysis is contained in Figure 2). Burke
and Hutchins (2007) conclude their meta-analysis with three areas requiring further research:
individual profiles that pose barriers to transfer; development strategies to overcome these barriers;
and transfer interventions required for trainees with problematic profiles. The following section
reviews literature in relation to the developing area of positive organisational behaviour and in
particular PsyCap as a possible means to address the questions posed by Burke and Hutchins (2007).
POSITIVE ORGANISATIONAL BEHAVIOUR
The developing area of Positive Organisational Behaviour (POB) has taken the concepts of positive
psychology and applied them to organisational development. POB was introduced as the “study and
application of positively oriented human resource strengths and psychological capacities that can be
measured, developed, and effectively managed for performance improvement in today’s workplace”
(Luthans 2002b:59). The recognition of the effectiveness of positivity in the workplace is not a new
concept. Since the Behaviourist movement in management theory in the 1930s and 1940s there has
been a positive humanistic approach in theory, research and practice. These include: the Hawthorne
effect identifying a link between employees feeling positive and their performance (Henderson 2002)
Maslow’s study of motivation and the first use of ‘Positive Psychology’ (McShane & Travaglione
2003); and McGregor’s findings on enjoyable work (Clegg, Kornberger and Pitsis 2008).
A distinctive feature of POB is that it categorizes previous research through an organising framework
for current and future research on positive states (Roberts 2006). Viewed as a paradigm shift, POB
applies positive constructs to the organisational behaviour field for theory building and research
(Luthans, Youssef & Avolio 2007). There are three specific inclusion criteria for POB. First,
Page 7 of 19 ANZAM 2011

8. constructs are based on theory, research and valid measurement. Second, the constructs must be state-
like, as opposed to the more fixed trait-like or behavioural, and thus open to development. Finally, the
constructs must have performance impact (Luthans 2002a). Using these criteria, the higher order
construct of Psychological Capital (PsyCap) was developed to include states that had previously been
used in positive psychology but not used in organisational behaviour. These include self-efficacy,
optimism, hope and resilience (Luthans, Youssef & Avolio 2007).
PSYCHOLOGICAL CAPITAL
Psychological Capital is a higher order construct that represents “individual motivational propensities
that accrue through positive psychological constructs” (Luthans et al. 2007: 542). Although in general
English use there may be overlap in the use of the four terms: hope, optimism, resilience and self-
efficacy, in Positive Psychology they hold separate distinctive attributes. Definitions of each of these
constructs are as follows. First, is the construct of hope defined by Snyder et al. (1996: 287) as a
“positive motivational state that is based on an interactively derived sense of successful (a) agency
(goal directed energy) and (b) pathways (planning to meet goals).” Hope consists of three major
conceptual foundations: agency, pathways and goals. The agency component of hope can be thought
of as having the will to accomplish the intended or desired effect (Snyder 2000, 2002). The second
construct that constitutes PsyCap is optimism, defined by Seligman (1998) as a cognitive process
involving positive outcome expectancies and causal attributions that are external, temporary and
specific in interpreting bad or negative events and internal, stable and global for good or positive
events. The third construct is resilience, characterised by positive coping and adaptation in the face of
significant risk or adversity (Masten 2001; Masten and Reed 2002). Resilience theory and research are
largely drawn from clinical psychology work with adolescent children that have succeeded despite
great adversity (Werner and Smith 1992). The final construct in PsyCap is self-efficacy. Bandura
(1997) describes four key sources of self-efficacy: enactive mastery (success experiences); vicarious
learning (modelling); verbal persuasion (coaching and encouragement); and managing physiological
states (reducing the emotional threat of failures).
Page 8 of 19
ANZAM 2011

9. Measuring PsyCap
For the personality traits of PsyCap to be applied to pre- training motivation, a 24 item Psychological
Capital Questionnaire (PCQ) was developed by Luthans, Avolio, Avey and Norman (2007). The
criteria used by Luthans et al. (2007) to select the appropriate constructs include: being grounded in
theory and research; achieving valid measurement, being state like and hence open to development
and change as opposed to a fixed trait; and finally, having a positive impact on work related aspects
(Luthans 2002a). Using these criteria, the composite concept of PsyCap was constructed as “an
individual’s positive psychological state of development and is characterised by self efficacy,
optimism, hope and resilience” (Luthans 2002a: 3). PsyCap as a unit of analysis is focused at the
individual level of personality traits as opposed to group or organisational levels of collective
organisational psychology.
PsyCap has been confirmed as a higher order construct within several studies (Peterson 2006; Bakker
& Schaufeli 2008; Luthans 2010). For this to occur each of the four positive constructs need to be
shown to have conceptual independence (Bandura 1997; Snyder 2002). Each of the components has
demonstrated discriminant validity across various samples when compared with each other (Bryant &
Cvengros 2004; Carifio & Rhodes 2002; Youssef & Luthans 2007). There is an underlying link that
runs between them to form the higher order construct namely, a shared contribution to a motivational
propensity to accomplish tasks or goals. Even though there is discriminant validity, there also exists a
unique theoretical and measurable higher order core construct of PsyCap, that is “one’s positive
appraisal of circumstances and probability for success based on motivated effort and perseverance”
(Luthans et al. 2007: 550). The four constructs were selected based on face and content validity being
temporal and state like. From Luthans et al.s’ (2007) study, the reliability of the overall PsyCap
measure in all four samples was consistently above this standard. Similarly, the Cronbach alphas were
over .77 for the four individual constructs in Youssef et al.’s (2007) study.
Criticisms of Psychological Capital
Despite convincing evidence of the strength of PsyCap, it has not avoided criticism in relation to its
construct validity, overlap with other constructs and research method used. First, although PsyCap
Page 9 of 19 ANZAM 2011

10. purports to be a higher order construct with discriminant and convergent validity, it is criticised for
minimal exploration of the conceptual basis of its constructs on the grounds that the four constructs
are similar and without construct validity (Hackman 2009). Further, PsyCap appears to have
conceptual similarities to Core Self Evaluations (CSEs) which is a multidimensional construct
consisting of fundamental subconscious self-appraisals such as: self-esteem; generalized self efficacy;
locus of control; and emotional stability affecting an individual’s self evaluation (Judge & Bono
2001). There seems to be overlap in composition between PsyCap and CSE constructs between the
following sets of concepts: generalised and specific efficacy; locus of control and optimism;
emotional stability and resilience. Supporters of PsyCap acknowledge the similarities between
PsyCap and CSEs but defend PsyCap on the grounds of there being an acceptable convergent and
discriminant validity between the two (Avey et al. 2010). Mitchell and Jolly (2004) argue that to
achieve discriminant validity between two unrelated constructs a near zero score is required, a score
between -.20 and +.20 is acceptable. For discriminant validity the near zero correlation is not required.
Three studies have addressed the issue of validity. First, Luthans et al. (2007) compared CSE and
PsyCap and found a strong positive correlation with r=.60 for CSE, and a moderate relationship with
extraversion (r=.36) and conscientiousness (r=.39). This was explained by Luthans et al. (2007) as
the result of a theoretical overlap between the two constructs meaning that convergence will occur,
however, regression analysis shows that PsyCap contributed greater to the job satisfaction measure
than CSE. Second, Gooty, Gavin, Johnson, Frazier and Snow (2009) used confirmatory factor
analysis and chi square to find two distinct factors. Third, Larson and Luthans’ (2006) found PsyCap
unrelated to human capital but significantly related to social capital using a correlation of r=.422.
The second major critique of PsyCap focuses on the use of a single methodology that lacks rigour and
robustness (Hackman 2009). The methodology is based on self-report measures with correlation tests
so that there is a problem arising from risk of common method variance that reduces the
interpretability of the research. From the outset, Luthans (2002a) has been clear to develop PsyCap
based on valid measures and research methodologies. In later research, Luthans et al. (2007)
acknowledge the opportunity for bias arising from self-reports, especially in relation to performance.
Page 10 of 19
ANZAM 2011

11. The difficulty is in gathering objective performance indicators as they are time consuming and may be
outdated and inadequate in measuring the desired outcomes as they are not designed for the specific
research. To overcome this, multiple measures or a test-retest design may be used. As studies into the
effectiveness of PsyCap in the work place have been related to job performance based measures, the
reliance on self-reporting is a major criticism that can only be overcome by the use of other multiple
source measurement methodologies (Fineman 2006).
Although PsyCap has been applied to a range of organisational issues including job performance,
engagement, well being, absenteeism and leadership, it remains a relatively new construct that is
under researched in terms of its application to training and development. The following section
reviews those few studies that have applied PsyCap, or elements of it, to training and training
motivation.
PSYCHOLOGICAL CAPITAL AND TRAINING
Studies into various aspects of positive states include the impact of individual psychological states on
the effectiveness of training and development programs and the relationship between self efficacy,
one of four PsyCap individual construct, and training transfer. A study of performance and outcome
by Erez and Isen (2002) found positive affect influences all three components of Vroom’s (1964)
expectancy theory. Expectancy theory predicts that individuals will be motivated by good
performance (expectancy) and this performance will lead to three secondary outcomes of rewards,
recognition and satisfaction. Erez and Isen (2002) conclude that influence on motivation occurs not
by response bias or general activation, but through influence on cognitive processes involved in
motivation. A study into the relationship between a single PsyCap construct, self-efficacy and training
by Combs and Luthans (2007) found an employee’s level of self-efficacy can be improved to facilitate
higher levels of training transfer into the work place. This study specifically examined diversity
training in the United States and found, inter alia, that high levels of diversity self efficacy as a trainee
personality characteristic were an important success factor in diversity training.
Page 11 of 19 ANZAM 2011

12. Individual positive psychological concepts have been studied to ascertain their co-relation with pre-
training motivation. These include constructs that constitute PsyCap, namely: goal orientation as an
element of hope (Klein, Noe & Chongwei 2006); goal mastery as an element of optimism (Chiabura
& Marinova 2005) and self-efficacy (Colquitt, Lepine & Noe 2000; Combs & Luthans 2007).
Independently these positive states correlate with pre- training motivation and training transfer,
however, it is not known whether a combination of the four states which constitute the higher order
construct, PsyCap, will result in higher correlation levels than individual positive states. If this proves
to be the case, then PsyCap will have valuable and practical implications for pre- training
interventions to maximise training transfer.
A link between positive states for training and PsyCap was found by Combs et al. (2009). They
argued that PsyCap characterises the cognitive factors and processes necessary for sustained learning
and training motivation. Thus, PsyCap may positively relate to trainee motivation in a training and
development context. While no empirical research investigates whether the development of PsyCap
raises training transfer motivation directly, indirect evidence for the PsyCap relationship is found in
studies examining psychological well-being (Avey, Luthans, Smith & Palmer 2010), organizational
change (Avey, Wernsing & Luthans 2008) and turnover and job satisfaction (Luthans, Avolio, Avey
& Norman 2007).
CONCLUSION
This paper has reviewed previous research in training transfer motivation and positive psychological
states and demonstrated the value of PsyCap to furthering understanding of training transfer
motivation. The review raises three issues for further research. First, based on the meta analysis of
training transfer motivation by Burke and Hutchins (2007), there is a need for further research into
the relationship between positive psychological traits and states and training transfer motivation to
develop trainee profiles that allow appropriate interventions to enhance training transfer. PsyCap is
worthy of being employed in such research to assess the psychological traits and states. Second,
because the use of PsyCap in training motivation has been limited to only one of its four constructs,
self-efficacy (Combs & Luthans 2007), there is a need to incorporate all four PsyCap constructs (self-
Page 12 of 19
ANZAM 2011

13. efficacy plus hope, optimism and resilience) to test whether PsyCap as a higher order construct has a
higher correlation to increasing training transfer motivation than each of the individual constructs.
Third, and in the longer term, longitudinal studies should be employed to evaluate whether higher
training transfer motivation is achieved after PsyCap interventions.
Training, as an essential of the learning organisation, will gain increased attention in workplaces of
the future and part of this attention must be given to improving training transfer. A deeper
understanding of pre-training environment and training antecedents will assist in post training transfer
of knowledge, skills and desired behaviours. This paper contributes to the relatively new field of POB
by suggesting a further application of PsyCap to training transfer motivation taking it beyond previous
research on job performance, job satisfaction, well being and engagement. A further contribution is to
better understand pre- training motivation and training transfer through the inclusion of PsyCap.
Acknowledgement
We wish to thank the anonymous reviewer for her or his positive suggestions, almost all of which we
have tried to incorporate in the paper.
Page 13 of 19 ANZAM 2011

14. REFERENCES
Avey J, Luthans F, Smith R & Palmer N (2010) Impact of Positive Psychological Capital on
employee well-being over time, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 15(1): 17-28.
Avey J, Wernsing T & Luthans F (2008) Can positive employees help positive organizational change?
Impact of Psychological Capital and emotions on relevant attitudes and behaviours, Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science 44(1): 48-70.
Bakker A & Schaufeli W (2008) Positive organizational behaviour: engaged employees in flourishing
organizations, Journal of Organizational Behavior 29(2): 147-154.
Baldwin T & Ford J (1988) Transfer of training: A review and directions for future Research,
Personnel Psychology 41: 63–105.
Baldwin T, Magjuka R & Loher B (1991) The perils of participation: Effects of choice of training on
trainee motivation and learning, Personnel Psychology 44: 51-65.
Bandura A (1997) Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control, Freeman, New York, NY.
Bates R, Holton E, Seyler D & Carvalho M (2000) The Role of interpersonal factors in the application
of computer-based training in an industrial setting, Human Resource Development
International 3: 19-42.
Bell B & Ford J (2007) Reactions to skill assessment: The forgotten factor in explaining motivation to
Learn, Human Resource Development Quarterly 18: 33-62.
Blume B, Ford J, Baldwin T & Huang J (2010) Transfer of training: A meta-analytic review, Journal
of Management 36(4): 1065-1105.
Brinkerhoff R & Gill S (1994) The Learning Alliance, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Burke L & Hutchins H (2007) Training transfer: An integrative literature review. Human Resource
Development Review 6: 263-296.
Bryant F & Cvengros J (2004) Distinguishing hope and optimism, Journal of Social and Clinical
Psychology 23: 273-302.
Carifio J & Rhodes L (2002) Construct validities and the empirical relationships between optimism,
hope, self-efficacy and locus of control, Work 19: 125-136.
Chiaburu D & Marinova S (2005) What predicts skill transfer? An exploratory study of goal
orientation, training self-efficacy and organizational supports. International Journal of Training
and Development 9: 110–123.
Chiaburu D & Lindsay D (2008) Can do or will do? The importance of self-efficacy and
instrumentality for training transfer, Human Resource Development International 11(2): 199 -
206.
Clegg S, Kornberger M & Pitsis T (2008) Managing and Organizations: An Introduction to Theory
and Practice, Sage, London.
Combs G & Luthans F (2007) Diversity training: An analysis of the impact of self-efficacy, Human
Resource Development Quarterly 18(1): 91-120.
Page 14 of 19
ANZAM 2011

15. Combs G, Luthans F & Griffith J (2009) Learning motivation and transfer of human capital
development: Implications from Psychological Capital in R J Burke and C L Cooper (Eds) The
Peak Perming Organizations, Routledge, Taylor and Francis, New York :73-91.
Erez A & Isen A (2002) The influence of positive affect on the components of expectancy motivation,
Journal of Applied Psychology 87(6): 1055-1067.
Facteau J, Dobbins G, Russell J, Ladd R & Kudisch J (1995) The influence of general perceptions of
the training environment on pre- training motivation and perceived training transfer, Journal of
Management 21: 1-25.
Fineman S (2006) On being positive: concerns and counterpoints, Academy of Management Review
31: 270-291.
Gegenfurtner A, Veermans K, Festner D & Gruber H (2009) Motivation to transfer training: An
integrative literature review, Human Resource Development Review, 8(3): 403-423.
Georgenson D (1982) The problem of transfer calls for partnership, Training and Development
Journal 36: 75–78.
Gist M, Stevens C & Bavetta A (1991) Effects of self-efficacy and post-training intervention on the
acquisition and maintenance of complex interpersonal skills, Personnel Psychology 44(4): 837-
861.
Gooty J, Gavin M, Johnson P, Frazier L & Snow B (2009) In the eyes of the beholder:
Transformational leadership positive psychological capital and performance, Journal of
Leadership & Organizational Studies 15(4): 353-367.
Hackman J (2009) The perils of positivity, Journal of Organizational Behavior 30: 309-319.
Henderson L (2002) The effects of social environment, , in S.R. Clegg (ed.), Central Currents in
Organization Studies I: Frameworks and Applications, Volume 2. London, Sage: 299-313.
Holton E, Coco M, Lowe J & Dutsch J (2006) Blended delivery strategies for competency-based
training, Advances in Developing Human Resources 8(2): 210-228.
Judge T, Thoresen C, Bono J & Patton G (2001) The job satisfaction-job performance relationship: A
qualitative and quantitative review, Psychological Bulletin 127: 376-407.
Klein H, Noe R & Chongwei W (2006) Motivation to learn and course outcomes: The impact of
delivery mode, learning goal orientation, and perceived barriers and enablers, Personnel
Psychology 59(3): 665-702.
Kontoghiorghes C (2001) Factors affecting training effectiveness in the content of the introduction of
new technology: A U.S. case study, International Journal of Training and Development 5(4):
248-260.
Larson M & Luthans F (2006) Potential added value of psychological capital in predicting work
attitudes, Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 13(2): 75-92.
Luthans F (2002a) The need for and meaning of positive organizational behaviour, Journal of
Organizational Behavior 23: 695-706.
Luthans F (2002b) Positive organizational behaviour: Developing and managing psychological
strengths, Academy of Management Executive 16: 57-72.
Page 15 of 19 ANZAM 2011

16. Luthans F, Avey J, Avolio B & Peterson S (2010) The development and resulting performance impact
of positive Psychological Capital, Human Resource Development Quarterly 21(1): 41-67.
Luthans F, Avolio B, Avey J & Norman S (2007) Psychological Capital: Measurement and
relationship with performance and satisfaction, Personnel Psychology 60: 541-72.
Luthans F, Youssef C & Avolio B (2007) Emerging Positive Organizational Behavior, Journal of
Management 33(3): 321-49.
Masten A (2001) Ordinary magic: Resilience process in development, American Psychologist 56:
227-239.
Masten A & Reed M (2002) Resilience in Development, In C. Snyder and S. Lopez (Eds.) Handbook
of Positive Psychology, pp. 74-88, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
Mathieu J, Tannenbaum S & Salas E (1992) The influences of individual and situational
characteristics on measures of training effectiveness, Academy of Management Journal 35:
828-847.
McShane S & Travagliona T (2003) Organisational Behaviour on the Pacific Rim, McGraw Hill,
Sydney.
Mitchell M & Jolley J (2004) Research design explained, Wadsworth Thomas Learning, Belmont,
CA.
Naquin S & Holton III E (2002) The effects of personality, affectivity, and work commitment on
motivation to improve work through learning, Human Resource Development Quarterly 13(4):
357–376.
Noe R (1986) Trainees’ attributes and attitudes: Neglected influences on training effectiveness, The
Academy of Management Review 11(4) 736-749.
Noe R, Hollenbeck J, Gerhart B & Wright P (1994) Human Resource Management: Gaining a
Competitive Advantage, Austen Press, Burr Ridge, Illinois.
Noe R & Schmitt N (1986) The influence of trainee attitudes on training effectiveness: Test of a
model, Personnel Psychology 39: 497–523.
Noe R & Wilk S (1993) Investigation of the factors that influence employees' participation in
development activities, Journal of Applied Psychology 78(2): 291-302
Paradise A (2007) State of the industry: ASTD’s annual review of trends in workplace learning and
performance. Alexandria, VA: ASTD.
Peterson C (2000) The future of optimism, American Psychologist 55: 44-55.
Prager H (2003) Gaining a competitive advantage through customer service training, Industrial &
Commercial Training 35(6): 259-262.
Pugh K & Bergin D (2006) Motivational influences on transfer, Educational Psychologist 41: 147-
160.
Quinn J, Anderson P & Finkelstein S (2005) Leveraging Intellect, Academy of Management Executive
19(4): 78-94.
Quinones M (1995) Pre-training context effects: Training assignment as feedback. Journal of Applied
Psychology 80: 226–238.
Page 16 of 19
ANZAM 2011

17. Richardson S (2004) Employers’ contribution to training. Formal Report: National Centre for
Vocational Education Research (NCVER).
Rowold J (2007) The impact of personality on training-related aspects of motivation: Test of a
longitudinal model, Human Resource Development Quarterly 18(1): 9-31.
Saks A (2002) So what is a good transfer of training estimate? A reply to Fitzpatrick The Industrial-
Organizational Psychologist 39: 29–30.
Seligman M (1998) Learned Optimism, Pocket Books, New York.
Snyder C, Sympson S, Ybasco F, Borders T, Babyak M & Higgins R (1996) Development and
validation of the state hope scale, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 70: 321-335.
Snyder C (2000) Handbook of Hope, Academic Press, San Diego.
Snyder C (2002) Hope Theory: Rainbows in the mind, Psychological Inquiry 13(4): 249-276.
Tannenbaum S & Yukl G (1992). Training and development in work organizations, Annual Review of
Psychology 43: 399-441.
Trendel B & Siu J (2005) Investment in training and public policy - a review. Unpublished Working
Paper. The Labour Market Research Unit, Queensland Department of Employment and
Training.
Vroom V (1964) Work and motivation. New York: Wiley.
Werner E & Smith R (1992) Overcoming The Odds: High Risk Children From Birth to Adulthood,
Cornell University Press, New York.
Youssef C & Luthans F (2007) Positive organizational behavior in the workplace: The impact of
hope, optimism, and resilience, Journal of Management 33(5): 774-800.
Page 17 of 19 ANZAM 2011

18. FIGURES
Figure 1: An Integrative Model of Motivation to Transfer Training (Gegenfurtner, Veermans,
Festner & Gruber 2009)
Page 18 of 19
ANZAM 2011

19. Figure 2: Summary of the Learner Characteristics - Transfer Link (Burke & Hutchins 2007)
Page 19 of 19 ANZAM 2011