Practice Variability and Transfer of Training: The Role of Self-Efficacy Generality
- Marcela Peterson
- Jan 21
- 1 min read
Courtney L. Holladay
Miguel A. Quiñones
Keywords: Training, Self-Efficacy, Practice Variability, Transfer, Motivation
The Study: The article provides a comprehensive examination of how practice variability during training affects learning transfer, emphasizing self-efficacy generality as the central psychological mechanism. The authors argue that exposure to diverse task conditions fosters broader beliefs about one’s capabilities, whereas constant practice leads to narrower, task-specific efficacy beliefs. Using an air-defense simulation task, the study compared constant and variable practice formats and assessed their effects on dimensions of self-efficacy as well as on near and far transfer performance.
Main Findings: Variable practice produced less stable performance during training but significantly improved self-efficacy generality, leading participants to see their abilities as applicable across different task conditions. Constant practice yielded higher immediate performance but limited the generalization of capability beliefs. Far transfer — performance on new or modified tasks — was predicted by both self-efficacy intensity and generality, with generality mediating the relationship between variable practice and improved performance in novel situations.
Practical Implications: The findings suggest that training programs aimed at fostering adaptability should incorporate structured practice variability. This approach broadens trainees’ capability beliefs and enhances their ability to transfer learned skills to unfamiliar contexts. Organizations operating in dynamic environments may achieve better results by replacing highly standardized, repetitive training with scenarios that include controlled variation and complexity.
Reference: Holladay, C. L., & Quiñones, M. A. (2003). Practice variability and transfer of training: The role of self-efficacy generality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(6), 1094–1103.
Comments