Is a different perspective helpful? Assessing the validity of peer ratings of goal orientation.

The present study was the first to examine the validity of peer ratings of goal orientation. I examined peer-assessed goal orientation in a collaborative training environment with a complex task. The reliability and structural, convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity of peer ratings were examined. Regarding predictive validity, I examined the incremental contribution of peer ratings above and beyond self ratings in the prediction of skill acquisition and post-training self-efficacy. The results showed that (1) self and peer ratings have similarly high levels of internal consistency, (2) there is little agreement and convergence between self and peer ratings, (3) self and peer ratings have similar structures, and (4) peer ratings provide incremental validity beyond both self ratings and prior performance in predicting future skill acquisition and post-training self-efficacy

Collaborative Training With a More Experienced Partner: Remediating Low Pretraining Self-Efficacy in Complex Skill Acquisition

Objective: This study examined the effectiveness of collaborative training for individuals with low pretraining self-efficacy versus individuals with high pretraining selfefficacy regarding the acquisition of a complex skill that involved strong cognitive and psychomotor demands. Background: Despite support for collaborative learning from the educational literature and the similarities between collaborative learning and interventions designed to remediate low self-efficacy, no research has addressed how selfefficacy and collaborative learning interact in contexts concerning complex skills and human-machine interactions. Method: One hundred fifty-five young male adults trained either individually or collaboratively with a more experienced partner on a complex computer task that simulated the demands of a dynamic aviation environment. Participants also completed a task-specific measure of self-efficacy before, during, and after training. Results: Collaborative training enhanced skill acquisition significantly more for individuals with low pretraining self-efficacy than for individuals with high pretraining self-efficacy. However, collaborative training did not bring the skill acquisition levels of those persons with low pretraining self-efficacy to the levels found for persons with high pretraining self-efficacy. Moreover, tests of mediation suggested that collaborative training may have enhanced appropriate skill development strategies without actually raising self-efficacy. Conclusion: Although collaborative training can facilitate the skill acquisition process for trainees with low self-efficacy, future research is needed that examines how the negative effects of low pretraining self-efficacy on complex skill acquisition can be more fully remediated. Application: The differential effects of collaborative training as a function of self-efficacy highlight the importance of person analysis and tailoring training to meet differing trainee needs.Yeshttps://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/manuscript-submission-guideline

The sources of leader violence: A comparison of ideological and non-ideological leaders

Recent events have called attention to the potential of ideological leaders to incite violence. The present study examined 80 historically notable leaders. Violent and non-violent leaders were compared to violent and non-violent ideological leaders in a historiometric analysis examining individual, group, organization, and environmental variables that might predispose ideological leaders to violence. When criteria examining different manifestations of violence were regressed on the discriminant function scores resulting from this comparison of leader types, it was found that attributes of ideological leadership influenced the amount of violence, and the occurrence of institutional and cultural violence — accounting for variance in institutional and cultural violence above and beyond characteristics of leaders, in general, found to contribute to violence. The implications of these observations for understanding the sources of leader violence and the origins of violence among ideological leaders are discussed

Violence in Ideological and Non-Ideological Groups: A Quantitative Analysis of Qualitative Data

Multiple models have been proposed to account for violence among ideological groups. To identify critical variables contributing to violent behavior in these groups, violent ideological groups were compared to relevant comparison groups. A historically based content analysis was conducted to assess these groups with respect to a number of variables examining leader, group, organizational, and environmental attributes held to influence violence. Discriminant analyses revealed that violent ideological groups differed from comparison groups with respect to leader extremism, group righteousness, organizational indoctrination, and environmental conflict and disruption. Regression analyses revealed that these discriminant functions predicted a number of notable violent and ideological criteria. The implications of these findings for understanding the origins of violence in ideological groups are discussed