James E. Maddux

The Self-Efficacy Scale: Construction and Validation

Self-efficacy theory asserts that personal mastery expectations are the primary determinants of behavioral change. Further, it is suggested that individual differences in past experiences and attribution of success to skill or chance result in different levels of generalized self-efficacy expectations. To measure these generalized expectancies, a Self-efficacy Scale was developed. A factor analysis yielded two subscales: a General Self-efficacy subscale (17 items) and a Social Self-efficacy subscale (6 items). Confirmation of several predicted conceptual relationships between the Self-efficacy subscales and other personality measures (i.e., Locus of Control, Personal Control, Social Desirability, Ego Strength, Interpersonal Competence, and Self-esteem) provided evidence of construct validity. Positive relationships between the Self-efficacy Scale and vocational, educational, and military success established criterion validity. Future research and clinical uses of the scale were discussed.

Protection Motivation and Self-Efficacy: A Revised Theory of Fear Appeals and Attitude Change

The effects of fear appeals on persuasion were investigated in a factorial experiment that was designed to test a combined model of protection motivation theory and self-efficacy theory. As predicted, the probability of a threats occurrence and the effectiveness of a coping response both had positive main effects on intentions to adopt a recommended preventive health behavior. More importantly, the findings provided support for self-efficacy expectancy as a fourth component of protection motivation theory: Self-efficacy had a direct influence on intentions and interacted with two other variables of protection motivation theory. The interaction effect was interpreted in terms of two new decision-making strategies that people use when confronted with a fear appeal: a precaution strategy and a hyperdefensiveness strategy. In addition, the results replicated previous findings on the relationship between self-efficacy expectancy and outcome expectancy. A model incorporating protection motivation theory and self-efficacy theory is presented as a possible general model of attitude change.

Self-Efficacy Theory

In the course of even the most ordinary lives, people face an infinite number of decisions, problems, and challenges. Despite the statistics on the prevalence of emotional and behavioral dysfunction, most people most of the time are able to effectively make decisions, solve problems, and overcome challenges. Understanding how people adapt and adjust to life’s infinite challenges is, perhaps, the most important problem for scientific psychology. Not surprisingly, most of the important models of human learning, cognition, emotion, personality, and social interaction have tried to account for the individual’s capacity for adaptively responding to environmental changes, often referred to as competence (e.g., Sternberg & Kolligan, 1990; White, 1959). The study of beliefs about personal competence and the role of such beliefs in human adaptation and adjustment have a long history in clinical, personality, and social psychology. The theories of effectance motivation (White, 1959), achievement motivation (McClelland, Atkinson, Clark, & Lowell, 1953), social learning (Rotter, 1966), and helplessness (Abramson, Seligman, & Teasdale, 1978) are just a few of the many theories that have sought to explore and explain the relationship between perceptions of personal competence and adaptation, adjustment, and psychological well-being.

Social cognitive models of health and exercise behavior: An introduction and review of conceptual issues

Abstract This article reviews the major social cognitive models of adherence or compliance in health and exercise behavior and attempts to show that these models are more similar to each other than different from each other. Self-efficacy theory and the theory of reasoned action/planned behavior have guided most of the theory-based research on exercise behavior. Two other models, protection motivation theory and the health belief model, have guided much research on the role of social cognitive factors in other health behaviors. These models are comprised largely of the same basic set of social cognitive variables: self-efficacy expectancy, outcome expectancy, outcome value, and intention. Two other factors, situational cues and habits, although not common to all the models, round out the theoretical picture by explaining how the relationship between the major social cognitive variables and behavior may change with repeated performance of a behavior over time.An integration of these models is offered using...

Self-Efficacy Expectancy and Outcome Expectancy: Their Relationship and Their Effects on Behavioral Intentions.

Self-efficacy theory maintains that self-efficacy expectancy, a belief about ones ability to successfully perform a behavior, is independent of outcome expectancy, a belief about the likelihood of the behavior leading to a specific outcome. This experiment tested the hypothesis that self-efficacy and outcome expectancy are independent and have independent effects on behavior change. Subjects read communications that differed in descriptions of the difficulty of learning and performing a behavior (self-efficacy expectancy) and the effectiveness of the behavior in producing a desired outcome (outcome expectancy). Results disclosed that increments in outcome expectancy increased intentions to perform the behavior. Increments in self-efficacy expectancy yielded nonsignificant increases in intentions. Also, the outcome expectancy manipulation influenced expectations of self-efficacy. When the behavior was presented as relatively difficult to perform, subjects who believed that the behavior was more likely to result in a favorable outcome expressed greater confidence in their ability to perform the behavior than those who perceived a relatively weak relationship between the behavior and its outcome. It was suggested that the degree of risk involved in attempting yet failing to perform correctly a behavior may determine the extent to which self-efficacy expectancy affects decisions about behavior.

Self-Efficacy and Depression

Problems of adaptation and adjustment manifest themselves in both affective and behavioral difficulties. When people decide, however, to seek professional assistance for their problems in adjustment, they usually do so not because they view their behavior as dysfunctional, but because they are in emotional distress. Among the painful emotional states, depression is the most common problem leading to referral to medical or psychological professionals (Goodwin & Guze, 1984). Although depression has been investigated from a variety of theoretical perspectives (e.g., psychoanalytic, existential, behavioral), in recent years social cognitive approaches have predominated. Those that have received the most attention are the helplessness/hopelessness model (Abramson, Seligman, & Teasdale, 1978; Alloy, Kelly, Mineka, Clements, 1990) and Beck’s cognitive model (Beck, 1976). The application of self-efficacy theory to depression has received less attention than these other two models, but holds promise for contributing to our understanding of depression. This chapter presents a self-efficacy theory of depression, reviews empirical studies of the application of self-efficacy theory to understanding depression, and discusses the relationship between self-efficacy theory and helplessness/hopelessness theory and cognitive theory. A basic premise of this chapter is that self-efficacy theory is not an alternative or competing approach to understanding depression, but it is compatible with other theories.

Self-Efficacy and Healthy Behavior

People do not always act in their own best interest. Too many of us smoke too much, drink too much, eat too much, drive too fast, get too much sun, engage in high-risk sexual activities, fail to wear seat belts—the list goes on. Psychologists have devoted much effort to understanding why people engage in behavior that seems self-destructive, and why they fail to do what they surely know is good for them, or at least will be in the long run (e.g., Baumeister & Scher, 1988). Health psychologists have been among the most active in the search for an understanding of why people engage in unsafe and unhealthy behaviors and why they have such great difficulty altering unhealthy behavior patterns and adapting healthier ones. Beliefs about personal control or efficacy are featured prominently in each of the major models or theories of health-related behavior change. This chapter is concerned with the role of perceived personal control in people’s decisions about behaviors that affect their physical health, with a major focus on self-efficacy theory and research.

Predictors of Psychological Help Seeking in Clinical and Counseling Psychology Graduate Students.

Psychologists are often called upon to provide supervision, mentorship, and training to graduate student therapists-in-training. In these roles, psychologists may influence whether graduate students enter personal therapyduring their training. This study investigated variables (including perceived faculty attitudes about students in personal therapy) that predict psychotherapy help seeking in clinical and counseling psychology graduate students (N = 262). The findings indicated that confidentiality issues, general attitudes about therapy, and perceptions of the importance of personal therapy for professional development were important predictors of graduate student help seeking. The implications for faculty, supervisors, and mentors of therapists-in-training are discussed.

Self-Efficacy and Adjustment

Despite the continuing controversy over what psychological health is and how one might best achieve it, psychologists seem to agree on at least one principle—that a sense of control over our behavior, our environment, and our own thoughts and feelings is essential for good psychological adjustment (e.g., Korchin, 1976). When the world seems predictable and controllable and when behavior, thoughts, and emotions seem within their control, people are better able to meet life’s challenges, deal with stress, build healthy relationships, and achieve personal satisfaction and peace of mind (e.g., Kobasa, 1979; Taylor, 1983; Thompson, 1981, 1991). Although a sense of control, competence, or mastery does not ensure good psychological adjustment, good adjustment is difficult, if not impossible, without such beliefs. The most common complaints of emotional distress that lead people to seek professional help—anxiety and depression (Smith, Glass, & Miller, 1980)—are both characterized by the belief that the good things in life cannot be obtained and that the bad things in life cannot be avoided through one’s own efforts. Sometimes perceptions of lack of control are the direct result of ineffective behavior; but such perceptions also can produce ineffective behavior, as well as inaction and inertia.

Looking for Common Ground

To close this volume, I decided to use my “editor’s prerogative” of getting in the last word by making a few remarks on the commentaries by Kirsch and Bandura. Because of space limitations, I will restrict my comments to four issues. Two are issues on which Kirsch and Bandura seem to disagree but on which common ground seems greater than at first glance. The first of these is Kirsch’s distinction between two uses of the term “outcome expectancies”—means-Cend beliefs and personal outcome expectancies. The second concerns Kirsch’s distinction between task-Cself efficacy and coping self-efficacy and the nonutility of assessing self-efficacy as the belief in one’s ability to perform simple motor acts. As often happens in these kinds of exchanges, Kirsch and Bandura are in greater agreement on these issues than it would appear from reading their comments. The difficulty is a reflection of the complexity of what may seem to be simple conceptual issues. Two additional issues that I will address briefly are Kirsch’s claims about response expectancies and Bandura’s concept of attainment markers and outcomes. Although I find myself in disagreement with each on various points, I am nonetheless very grateful to them for taking the time to contribute their comments.