Review by: Seufert, Sabine (2006-03-07)

The purpose of the article is to analyse the effects of action control on management training transfer. Based on Kuhl's motivation theory (1996) the authors distinguish between two main modes of action control:- self-regulation: reprents a democratic style of action control, refers to the indivual ability to form goals in ac-cordance with the personal need structure (self-maintenance) and according to Kuhl's theory of action control refers to flexible use of self-regulatory strategies to resolve action-related conflicts. This style activates the re-ward system of the person which is accompanied by positive emotions.- self-control: authoritan style of action control, self-disciplined style, refers to the person's ability to pursue goals by suppressing any tempting alternatives, means that the goals are not embedded in the personal need structure in comparison to self-regulation. This type of action control activates the punishment system coupled with negative emotions.

The empirical study focuses on the main question: how do these two related volitional factors "self-regulation" and "self-control" influence transfer?In that context, the following three hypotheses were analysed in the study:1. self-regulators remember intentions better than self-controllers, or in other words: self-chosen goals are better remembered than assigned goals ("self-choice effect").2. self-regulation is associated with positive emotions, whereas self-control is associated with negative emotions.3. self-regulation increases the success of training courses, whereas self-control impedes the success of training courses.

The research method represents a longitudinal field study conducted with 82 managers participating in two 2-days training courses at an insurance company. The measurement took place at three different times: at the start of the training, at the end of the training and three months after training. As measurement instruments the authors used the Volitional Components Inventory (VCI, as a self-report questionnaire) developed and validated by Kuhl and Fuhrmann (1998) for measuring self-regulation and self-control (start of training). The second questionnaire contains criteria for measuring the success of the training (based on mentioned criteria by the managers) and idiosyncratic intentions as open response field (at the end of the training). Three months after training the follow-ing criteria variables were measured: intention memory (free recall of the given intentions at the start time of the training and the assessment which intentions were correctly remembered), emotions (measured with a set of five bipolar items), intention realisation, and criteria fulfilment.

The results of the study are the follows:The findings support Hypothesis 1 and 2. Self-regulators remember intentions better than self-controllers, and self-regulation is associated with positive emotions, whereas self-control with negative emotions. Hypothesis 3 is only partly supported: self-regulation does completely increase the success of training transfer, whereas self-control increases the success only in terms of intention realization but not with respect to criteria fulfilment. However, the authors conclude that the study presents coherent findings insofar that self-regulation is positively associated with intention memory, emotions when enacting intentions, and success in training transfer, whereas self-control has negative effects on these indicators. Furthermore, the authors conclude that the research findings prove the assumption of the action control theory, that self-regulation is associated with higher "volitional com-petence".

Overall, the research study provides interesting findings which might be transferred to the design of learning environments in two respects:1. trainers should reinforce self-regulation (instead of "pushing self-control" in terms of exact pre-formulated learning goals) as an indirect intervention approach,2. training courses could be designed for improving self-regulatory skills (direct intervention) in order to use the potential for the training transfer.The authors state the limitations of the study such as that only explicit knowledge (self-reports of the memory) can be analysed. Not stated as limitation is the fact that as for a longitudinal study one might think about a longer period than just three months after the training.