It reflects confidence in exerting control over ones motivation, behavior, and social environment.

7 Conclusion

Self-efficacy theory and research have made important contributions to the study and understanding of human motivation. Researchers have shown that self-efficacy is a key internal motivational process that can be affected by personal and environmental variables and which influences motivational outcomes of choices, effort, persistence, and achievement. Application of self-efficacy principles to diverse contexts suggests some adaptations needed to the original theory. Researchers will continue to explore the operation of self-efficacy and methods of assessment. The hope is to expand the agenda of self-efficacy theory to diverse contexts and populations.

The Agentic Worldview of Self-Efficacy Theory

Self-efficacy theory emphasizes the importance of the individual and the individual's perceptions of his/her personal capabilities as key determinants of successful outcomes. Self-efficacy theory, and the broader social cognitive theory in which self-efficacy is encompassed, therefore clearly endorses a democratic ideal that suggests that all individuals are competent and capable of being successful, provided they have the opportunities and self-efficacy necessary to pursue their goals. Self-efficacy theory explicitly focuses on how individuals and communities can be empowered with a sense of agency that will facilitate goal attainment. This is important as self-efficacy theory does not presume that individuals who are currently successful are inherently better than those who are not as successful. Rather, self-efficacy theory would suggest that individuals who are currently struggling may not have been provided with opportunities to obtain mastery experiences or modeling necessary to develop high levels of self-efficacy. Self-efficacy theory therefore suggests that it is the responsibility of the government and society to provide everyone with sufficient opportunities to engage in mastery experiences, receive positive social persuasion, and witness positively reinforcing models that will engender a strong sense of self-efficacy.

It is worth noting, however, that self-efficacy theory does not suggest that positive self-efficacy beliefs are the only causes of important outcomes. Rather, as previously discussed, self-efficacy theory is rooted in a theory of triadic reciprocal determinism in which there is a constant interplay between personal factors [i.e., self-efficacy beliefs], behavior, and environmental factors. Self-efficacy theory emphasizes the relative importance of personal factors, but acknowledges that behavioral and environmental factors have profound effects on outcomes. This theory of triadic reciprocal determinism therefore further reinforces the idea that if the effects of the environment are consistent [i.e., an even playing field for all], then self-efficacy beliefs will take on an even greater role in determining human behavior, and ultimately shaping outcomes.

It is also important to note that self-efficacy theory does not advocate a Pollyannaish world view in which positive expectancies for the future are the sole determinant of future outcomes. There has been a recent backlash against positive thinking among many members of the popular press. Books such as Barbara Ehrenreich's Bright-Sided: How the Relentless Promotion of Positive Thinking Has Undermined America have argued that an excessive emphasis on and belief in the benefits of positive thinking has had a detrimental effect on the lives of many individuals and the society as a whole. There is much to be said about identifying the potential pitfalls of naïvely optimistic worldviews or self-help programs that suggest that positive thinking provides almost magical benefits. However, it is important for researchers, clinicians, and the public to recognize the distinction between these less scientific theories of positive thinking and empirically based theories such as self-efficacy. Self-efficacy beliefs are in no way proposed to be a panacea for all of the ills of the world nor are self-efficacy beliefs proposed to be the only psychological factor that may determine important life outcomes. Rather, self-efficacy theory proposes a more measured worldview in which opportunities to experience or witness success may promote positive evaluations of one's capacities to succeed in the future which in turn increases the likelihood of subsequent positive outcomes.

1.3 Self-efficacy Theory

Self-efficacy theory [SET] is a subset of Bandura's [1986] social cognitive theory. According to this approach, the two key determinants of behavior are perceived self-efficacy and outcome expectancies. The latter construct refers to the perceived positive and negative consequences of performing the behavior. See Schwarzer and Fuchs [1996] for a version of this model that incorporates risk perceptions and behavioral intention, as well as components of the action phase of behavior change. No meta-analysis of SET has been published, though there is substantial evidence for the predictive validity of self-efficacy [Schwarzer and Fuchs 1996].

II.C. The Self-Efficacy Theory

According to the self-efficacy theory of Albert Bandura, published in 1977, therapeutic change can be brought about by experiences of mastery arising from successful performance. Bandura has proposed that phobic behavior is influenced more by self-efficacy judgments than by outcome expectations. He argues that a person's self-efficacy can be improved by those psychological procedures, which enhance the level and the strength of the self-efficacy. Implicity, he states that an exposure procedure is not a necessary condition to obtain therapeutic change. Self-efficacy can be improved by various treatment procedures. Field mastery experiences are, however, considered a critical ingredient of treatment of phobic disorders. Thus, in the selfefficacy theory, the psychological mechanism of change is a cognitive one, whereas the most effective psychological procedure is a behavioral one [performance-based]. According to Bandura, perceived self-efficacy through performance successes depend on various personal and situational factors, for example, difficulty of the task, amount of effort subjects expend, and the temporal pattern of their successes and failures. The model posits a central role to information processing. It states that subjects process, weight, and integrate information about their capabilities, and they regulate their behavior and effort accordingly. Strong relationships have been found between perceptions of self-efficacy and changes in phobic behavior by different treatments [including exposure therapy] for various phobias. On the other hand, there is also some evidence that seems in conflict with the self-efficacy theory. Some studies found that although self-efficacy predicted self-reported change, it did not have a significant relationship with behavioral or physiological change.

More recently, Bandura extended the self-efficacy theory by stating that phobic anxiety derives from both low self-efficacy for performing overtly, and from low self-efficacy for exercising control over scary thoughts. Overall, self-efficacy seems a powerful measure in predicting dysfunctional behavior. The self-efficacy mechanism has recieved considerable support from research in describing the relationship between what subjects think they can manage and what they can manage both before and after treatments for phobic complaints.

Self-Efficacy and Identity

In line with self-efficacy theory’s tenet that efficacy in related but broader domains may generalize to more specific domains [Bandura, 1997], a few studies [Bui & Baruch, 2011; Tierney & Farmer, 2002] have found a connection between job self-efficacy and CSE, with one study [Tierney & Farmer, 2011] detecting a pattern in which jobs self-efficacy predicted CSE during a 6-month time period. Interestingly, a study examining a more general self-efficacy across domains found no association with CSE [Baron & Markman, 2004]. In terms of other self-concept constructs, studies have found that individuals who held creativity as part of their individual identity profile through either a personal creative identity [Jaussi, Randel, & Dionne, 2007; Karwowski et al., 2013] or a creative role identity [Tierney & Farmer, 2011] reported a stronger sense of confidence in their creative capacity.

Cognition: Self-Efficacy

Bandura’s [1997] self-efficacy theory has been central in the field of human motivation and offers a sound framework that can partly accommodate the effects of self-talk on performance. Among the sources of self-efficacy, Bandura, in his original formulation of the theory, identified the small but potentially important role of verbal persuasion from others. Further considering the role of the verbal persuasion source, Hardy, Jones, and Gould [1996] argued for the importance of one’s own self-persuasion through self-talk. Athletes can enhance their self-efficacy through statements addressed to themselves regarding their capabilities to attain certain outcomes. As self-talk has been linked to performance, self-efficacy may have an important mediating role in this relationship.

In a primary attempt to test this hypothesis, Hardy, Hall, Gibbs, and Greenslade [2005] examined the effects of instructional and motivational self-talk has on self-efficacy using a sit-up task. In general, the results revealed that both instructional and motivational self-talk were positively related to self-efficacy. Additionally, self-efficacy was positively related to sit-up performance, but neither self-talk dimension was related to performance. Hatzigeorgiadis, Zourbanos, Goltsios, and Theodorakis [2008] examined the effects of a self-talk intervention on self-efficacy and performance among young tennis players. The results revealed that the use of motivational self-talk significantly increased both self-efficacy and performance, compared to a control group. In addition, it was revealed that increases in self-efficacy were related to increases in performance, thus providing supporting evidence for the mediating role of self-efficacy. Similar findings have been reported by Zetou, Vernadakis, Bebetsos, and Makraki [2012] who examined the effects of instructional self-talk on the learning of a volley service skill and self-efficacy among young female volley players. The results indicated that the self-talk group displayed better performance and reported increased self-efficacy compared to a control group. Chang et al. [2014] examined the effects of self-talk on softball-throwing performance and self-efficacy. The results revealed that both instructional and motivational self-talk improved performance; in addition, they reported increases in self-efficacy for the motivational self-talk group. Overall, the self-efficacy hypothesis has received more research attention compared to other potential mechanisms, and considerable support as a plausible self-talk mechanism.

Theoretical Bases

Guided mastery therapy is based on the self-efficacy theory. In contrast to purely behavioral formulations, this theory holds that cognitive processes play a dominant role in the acquisition and retention of new behavior patterns. From observing others, one forms a conception of how new behavior patterns are performed. From observing the effects of one's actions, one forms a conception of the appropriate behavior. Efficacy expectations are distinguished from outcome expectations. An efficacy expectation can be defined as a person's conviction that one can successfully execute the behavior required to produce certain outcomes, whereas an outcome expectation is the estimate that a given behavior will lead to the outcomes. For instance, a person may refrain from acting friendly toward others either because he/she does not believe this will lead to desired outcomes or because he/she does not believe he/she has the capability to act friendly.

A main assumption of the self-efficacy model is that psychological procedures, whatever their form, serve as means of creating or strengthening expectations of personal efficacy. Self-efficacy may be affected by verbal persuasion, vicarious experience [seeing another person cope with the task], imaginal enactment [imagining oneself doing it], or emotional arousal, but direct performance accomplishments are believed to provide far the most convincing evidence that one possesses the needed abilities. Thus, although the self-efficacy model is based on a cognitive mechanism, it postulates that change is achieved mainly through behavior.

Performance inhibitions and deficits are obvious features of anxiety, and, as mentioned above, a self-efficacy model has in particular been applied to the analysis and treatment of anxiety problems and disorders. People perceive threat and become anxious when they believe that they will be hurt, regardless of what they do. This belief may either be based on efficacy or on outcome expectations: people can experience threat because they lack a sense of efficacy in achieving the behavior required to avert the dangerous events, or because they believe that the events are uncontrollable, although they may be assured of their capabilities. Theorists from various orientations may agree on these statements. However, the self-efficacy theory makes the additional claim that anxiety and anxiety disorders are primarily maintained by low self-efficacy that one is not able to exercise personal control, and not by beliefs that the threatening events themselves are uncontrollable. Recently, the concept of self-efficacy has been extended to covert activity. It is supposed that an individual's perceived ability to control and dismiss scary thoughts may be an important determinant of anxiety.

This general view of anxiety is reflected in self-efficacy models of specific clinical disorders. For instance, the self-efficacy model holds that agoraphobia is maintained by beliefs that one lacks the capabilities required to perform the feared activities. Low self-efficacy is maintained by avoidance behavior and by performing feared activities in an awkward and restricted way. By contrast, cognitive therapy models holds that agoraphobia results from catastrophic misinterpretations of bodily sensations. Agoraphobic avoidance is construed as safety behavior, designed to avert the occurrence of uncontrollable events such as getting a heart attack or going crazy. Both these models contrast with behavioral accounts, where agoraphobic avoidance is seen as a way of reducing anxiety and panic. With regard to panic disorder, self-efficacy for exercising control over negative internal states such as feelings of panic, anxiety-related bodily symptoms, or scary trains of thought is suggested as an important target of treatment.

There is an interesting mismatch between the general self-efficacy model of anxiety and the principles of anxiety treatment. In the general model, it is assumed that self-efficacy is enhanced by demonstrations that one is able to behaviorally prevent the occurrence of a threatening, aversive event. For instance, to prevent falling when feeling dizzy in heights, or to prevent being knocked down when assaulted. In guided mastery practice, on the other hand, one relies heavily on demonstrations that one is able to overcome the tendencies to avoid feared activities or to use defensive behaviors during performance. Direct evidence that one is able to exert personal control over the occurrence of a threatening event is seldom involved. Thus, self-efficacy with respect to overcoming avoidant and defensive tendencies and self-efficacy with respect to behavioral control over threatening events should be conceptually separated. This distinction may lead to more differentiated treatment interventions. In some cases, it may be useful to seek out or produce the threatening situation in order to experience direct control. For instance, a height phobic may benefit from producing dizziness by deliberately overbreathing when in heights and experience that he/she is still able to prevent falling.

Self-Efficacy and DM

The social cognitive theory, in particular Bandura's [1977] self-efficacy theory, has important implications in sport DM. The beliefs athletes hold in their ability to make the right decision at the right time can be viewed as a coping strategy for handling pressure under competitive conditions. Self-efficacy in the context of sport DM has two dimensions: [a] confidence one has in successfully anticipating and selecting the right response, and [b] the efficacy one has in executing the selected response. The current research indicates that self-efficacy in anticipatory decisions differs among novice, intermediate, and expert athletes. For instance, in fast ball games, experts display moderate levels of self-efficacy in their anticipatory decisions at early stages of response preparation. After an executive decision is made [e.g., the racket-ball contact], experts DM related efficacy beliefs increases sharply. In novice and intermediate players, anticipatory self-efficacy remains moderate throughout the full duration of the task.

The dynamic changes in self-efficacy reported by experts and novices is likely due to the fact that perceptual decisions and confidence judgments do not share the same neural circuits in the brain. Specifically, neuropsychological evidence suggests that DM and confidence judgments are likely processed and encoded in different areas in the prefrontal cortex [Grimaldi et al., 2015]. Notwithstanding, it is important to note that once an executive decision has been made and implemented, experts are able to engage in retrospective metacognitive thinking [see Fleming and Dolan, 2012], whereas novices cannot. That is, drawing from their extensive domain-specific mental representations, experts are able to confidently judge whether their decision was accurate or not.

3.5 Self-Efficacy

The two opposite phenomena of social loafing and social facilitation can be explained through the self-efficacy theory. Thus, the effort that individuals are willing to make will depend on the level of self-efficacy for the task. If they perceive themselves as having high self-efficacy for the task, they will probably be willing to work hard when they perform alone or alongside coactors [social facilitation]. Individuals in this situation feel responsible and self-confident about their performance. In contrast, individuals who believe that they have low self-efficacy for the task are less likely to work hard, especially when their performance is being evaluated [social loafing].

Trait-Robustness of Self-Confidence Inventory [TROSCI]

[Beattie et al., 2011].