Core self-evaluations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Core self-evaluations (CSE) represent a stable personality trait which encompasses an individual's subconscious, fundamental evaluations about themselves, their own abilities and their own control. People who have high core self-evaluations will think positively of themselves and be confident in their own abilities. Conversely, people with low core self-evaluations will have a negative appraisal of themselves and will lack confidence. The concept of core self-evaluations was first examined by Judge, Locke, and Durham (1997) and involves four personality dimensions: locus of control, neuroticism, generalized self-efficacy, and self-esteem. The trait developed as a dispositional predictor of job satisfaction, but has expanded to predict a variety of other outcomes. Core self-evaluations are particularly important because they represent a personality trait which will remain consistent over time. Furthermore, the way in which people appraise themselves using core self-evaluations has the ability to predict positive work outcomes, specifically, job satisfaction and job performance. These relationships have inspired increasing amounts of research on core self-evaluations and suggest valuable implications about the importance this trait may have for organizations.

Definitions of the four dimensions

Locus of control

The locus of control construct indicates a tendency for individuals to attribute life's events to their own doing or to outside forces beyond their control. There are two basic classifications of locus of control: internals and externals. Internals believe they control their own environment whereas externals believe outside forces control their lives. Those with an internal locus of control are more likely to be satisfied with their job and life because they believe in their own control over the situation.

Neuroticism

Neuroticism, also a Big Five personality trait, is defined as an enduring tendency to experience unpleasant emotions (e.g., anger, anxiety, depression) easily. Those high in neuroticism react more negatively to stress, are prone to anxiety, and susceptible to feelings of helplessness. Neuroticism, when examined as part of core self-evaluations, is conceptualized as its opposite, emotional stability (i.e., non-neuroticism). In fact, because neuroticism and emotional stability are simply labels for two sides of the same trait, they are often used interchangeably in literature.

Generalized self-efficacy

Generalized self-efficacy, adapted from Albert Bandura's original definition of self-efficacy, is defined as an individual's estimate of his or her own ability to perform well and handle a variety of situations. Although an individual can differ in levels of self-efficacy across different domains, generalized self-efficacy is the global estimate of ability across a wide range of situations, and can be considered a stable trait. Individuals high in generalized self-efficacy are more likely to take on new tasks that allow for growth in their ability and are more persistent than those low in generalized self-efficacy.

Self-esteem

Self-esteem reflects a person's overall appraisal of his or her own worth. Self-esteem may, in fact, be one of the most essential core self-evaluation domains because it is the overall value one places on oneself as a person.

Development of the construct

The core self-evaluations trait was developed through the study of job satisfaction. Historically, three models have been used to study job satisfaction.

• The situational/job characteristics approach, which attributes job satisfaction to external factors such as the characteristics of the job itself,
• The dispositional approach, which attributes job satisfaction to internal, stable personality traits, and
• The interactionist approach, which attributes job satisfaction to an interaction between situational and dispositional factors.

The situational and interactionist approaches had received a majority of the support in previous literature. Acknowledging this disparity, core self-evaluations were developed in an effort to increase exploration of the dispositional approach to job satisfaction.

Selection of the core self-evaluation traits

While investigating the dispositional model, Judge et al. (1997) reasoned that the traits most likely to predict job satisfaction would maintain three important characteristics: evaluation-focused, fundamental, and large in scope.

1. Evaluation-focused: An evaluative trait is one that involves a fundamental value judgment about oneself, rather than a simple description ("I am confident and worthy," vs. "I am ambitious"). Job satisfaction is itself an evaluation that people make about their jobs; therefore, an individuals' evaluations, especially those regarding how they think of and value themselves, should have a large effect on their job satisfaction.
2. Fundamental: A fundamental trait, also called a source trait, is one that is basic and underlying. Fundamental traits together cause broader "surface" traits, and affect all other more specific evaluations. For example, self-doubt and frustration are considered to be source traits that commonly predict the surface trait of aggression. Fundamental traits will have a stronger and more consistent effect on job satisfaction than surface traits.
3. Large in scope: A trait which is large in scope, or global, will more likely generalize to the workplace than a specific trait will. For example, a global evaluation of one's worth will better predict overall job satisfaction than a specific evaluation of one's artistic ability.

Using the above characteristics, four well studied personality traits; locus of control, neuroticism, generalized self-efficacy, and self-esteem, were chosen as possible dispositional predictors of job satisfaction. Each trait had previously presented as a relatively powerful predictor of various job outcomes; however, until this time, these traits' predictive powers had only been studied in isolation. When studied together, Judge et al. (1997) discovered that these four traits would form a broader personality trait called core self-evaluations, which could predict job satisfaction better than each individual trait could when examined alone. In other words, relative levels of each of these four traits in an individual can be explained by one broad underlying trait; core self-evaluations. Furthermore, combining these traits allowed for better prediction of job satisfaction, and later, a variety of other outcomes.

Relationship between the traits

Locus of control, neuroticism, generalized self-efficacy, and self-esteem have many conceptual similarities, but beyond stating that the similarities exist, these traits were rarely studied together until their integration into the common underlying trait of core self-evaluations. Many researchers of personality psychology argue that specific traits have been proposed and studied without considering that these traits have a broad, common core. Many such traits correlate so highly that they should be considered measures of the same construct, which is the case with the four traits of core self-evaluations. These traits are very closely related, and each one only predicts a small portion of job satisfaction by itself. However, when combined into one core trait (i.e., core-self evaluations), their predictive power increases.

Comparisons with the Five-Factor Model and positive/negative affectivity

The core self-evaluations trait has proven to be a valuable dispositional predictor of job satisfaction, demonstrating stronger predictive power than the Big Five personality traits or Positive/Negative Affectivity.

Five-Factor Model ("Big Five personality traits")

There is skepticism that core self-evaluations contribute any predictive value above what the Big Five personality traits – agreeableness, conscientiousness, extraversion, neuroticism, openness) – are able to predict. Some argue that trait indicators of core self-evaluations are the same as various conceptualizations of the neuroticism component of the Big Five. Although it is true that some definitions of neuroticism include all four CSE traits, the Big Five does not refer explicitly to self-esteem in the description of neuroticism, nor is self-esteem one of the facets of neuroticism in their model. Therefore, the conceptualization of neuroticism in the Big Five is more narrow than in core self-evaluations. Additionally, no existing neuroticism scales measure self-esteem. Furthermore, measures of neuroticism include only descriptive questions and do not contain an evaluative component.

Positive/negative affectivity (PA/NA)

Affective disposition, the tendency to primarily experience either positive or negative emotional states, has frequently been studied as a correlate of job satisfaction. Although affective disposition does influence job satisfaction, a measure of positive or negative affectivity does not explain unique variance in job satisfaction beyond that explained by the individual core self-evaluations of self-esteem and neuroticism. In fact, measures of core self-evaluations explain significant variance in job and life satisfaction not explained by the PA/NA scales.

Measurement

Previously, attempts to measure the CSE trait were indirect, requiring the trait to be extracted from the four scales that measured each individual trait. However, a direct core self-evaluation scale, the CSES, has recently been developed and proven both reliable and valid. Although some researchers still favor using the individual trait scales to measure core self-evaluations, the use of the direct measure is growing more popular in recent literature.

There are several reasons the previous indirect measurement of the CSE trait was considered a limitation of CSE research:

1. Length: Direct scales are able to measure the underlying trait in a fewer number of items.
2. Validity: Direct scales are likely to be more valid because they are designed to measure the underlying trait itself rather than indicators of the trait.
3. Consistency: Most traits in contemporary personality research are measured with relatively short, direct scales.

The core self-evaluations scale (CSES)

The CSES consists of 12 items, and uses a five-point Likert scale (i.e., strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree, strongly agree) to score responses. Sample items are below:

• "I am confident I get the success I deserve in life."
• "Sometimes I feel depressed."
• "Sometimes when I fail I feel worthless."
• "I am filled with doubts about my competence.
• "I determine what will happen in my life."

Outcomes

Job satisfaction

One of the more consistent and significant relationships that has been examined in the literature is the relationship between core self-evaluations and job satisfaction. In fact, when Judge et al. (1997) developed the construct of core self-evaluations, they did so in an effort to identify a valid dispositional predictor of job satisfaction. Since the creation of this construct in the Judge et al. (1997) study, research has continued to support the relationship between core self-evaluations and job satisfaction, which suggests that people who appraise themselves positively (i.e., rate themselves highly on core self-evaluations) are more likely to be satisfied with their jobs. Additional research has also confirmed that CSE traits can predict job satisfaction over time. People who have positive core-self evaluations are likely to be satisfied with their jobs throughout the duration of their lives spent in the work environment. 

Job satisfaction is an outcome of core self-evaluations that has become well-established throughout psychological literature. However, Judge et al. (1997) suggest that researchers investigate other variables that may influence this relationship. In response, subsequent literature began to examine the influence of a variety of other constructs on the relationship between core self-evaluations and job satisfaction.

Role of perceived job characteristics

Job characteristics are attributes of the job that people traditionally find important, including the extent to which they identify with the tasks they are doing (identity), the extent to which they are assigned diverse tasks (variety), extent to which they feel their work affects others (significance), extent to which they receive productive feedback from their job (feedback), and the extent to which they feel they are allowed to make their own decisions at their job (autonomy). These characteristics play an important role in influencing the relationship between an individual's core self-evaluations and their satisfaction with their job. Studies have found that perceived job characteristics partially mediate the relationship between core self-evaluations and job satisfaction. In other words, a person who appraises themselves positively (i.e., has high core self-evaluations) and has acquired a job which encompasses the aforementioned characteristics of identity, variety, significance, feedback, and autonomy, will be more likely to be satisfied with the job.

There have been various theoretical explanations for this mediation relationship addressed in the literature. Primarily, it is suggested that the relationship between core self-evaluations, job characteristics, and, thus, job satisfaction can be explained by two possible mediation models. The first model, known as the action mediation model, suggests that individuals' respective levels of core self-evaluations influence the actions they take to obtain work with the proper job characteristics. According to this model, those with high core-self evaluations will be more likely to seek out job environments that allow them to make positive conclusions about their work. In other words, those who have positive appraisals of themselves (i.e. high core self-evaluations) will be more likely to search for and obtain jobs that have the necessary job characteristics and will consequently have high job satisfaction. The action mediation model also explains that an individual high in core self-evaluations may take more action to alter the characteristics of a job he or she has already obtained. For example, high core self-evaluation individuals may be more likely to seek feedback than low core self-evaluation individuals and, thus, will perceive higher levels of feedback at their job and higher job satisfaction.

The second model, the perception mediation model, suggests that individuals with high core self-evaluations will be more likely to perceive higher levels of the appropriate job characteristics than individuals with low core self-evaluations. For example, those low in the CSE trait will likely perceive less job autonomy and thus, have lower job satisfaction because they believe outside forces control their lives. On the other hand, those high in the CSE trait will likely perceive higher job autonomy because they believe they control their own environment and will, consequently, also perceive higher job satisfaction.

Lastly, a 2009 study by Stummp et al. expands on previous research of the core self-evaluation, job characteristic, and job satisfaction mediation relationship by examining which job characteristic is most important for this link. This study found that task significance had the strongest influence on the relationship between core self-evaluations and job satisfaction. Using the perception mediation model, this suggests that people high in core self-evaluations will perceive their job as more important to others and, therefore, will be more satisfied. On the other hand, this study acknowledged that another explanation could be that those with high core self-evaluations are confident in their actions and will seek out more ambitious goals, which will lead to higher perceived meaningfulness, and later, higher job satisfaction. This is the explanation the action mediation model would suggest. More than likely, it is a combination of the two models that explains the role of job characteristics in the relationship between core self-evaluations and job satisfaction.

Role of job complexity

The job characteristic studies primarily focus on perceived job characteristics, which are measured subjectively. Nevertheless, it has also been shown that objective measures of job characteristics, such as how challenging a job is (i.e., job complexity) can also influence the relationship between core self-evaluations and job satisfaction. Specifically, job complexity partially mediates the relationship between core self-evaluations and job satisfaction, such that a high CSE individual with a complex job will be more likely to be satisfied with their job. Similar to job characteristics, there is more than one explanation for this relationship. It could be that people high in core self-evaluation are attracted to more complex jobs because they see an opportunity for greater intrinsic rewards. However, it could also be the case that those with high core self-evaluations simply perceive higher complexity in their jobs. Judge et al. (2000) measured job complexity using job titles and confirmed both of these explanations; finding that individuals with high core self-evaluations not only perceived higher job complexity, but were also more likely to hold complex jobs, which led to higher job satisfaction.

Role of goal congruence

Goal congruence also plays a role in influencing the relationship between one's core self-evaluations and the satisfaction one has with one's job. The theory behind goal congruence argues that people who choose self-concordant (i.e., congruent) goals will be happier with the goals they pursue, be more likely to put in effort towards achieving these goals, and, consequently, will be more likely to attain their goals. Self-concordant goals include goals that focus on intrinsic factors. For example, a person pursuing a self-concordant goal will choose a goal that they feel is personally important, and that they will enjoy. On the other hand, goals that are non-self-concordant will focus on more external factors. A person who chooses a non-self-concordant goal will focus on avoiding negative emotions (e.g., anxiety or guilt), satisfying someone else's wishes, or on external rewards, like money. Judge, Bono, Erez, and Locke (2005) found that goal congruence, or choosing self-concordant goals, partially mediates the relationship between core self-evaluations and job satisfaction. The authors explain that individuals with positive self-regard (i.e. high core self-evaluations) believe themselves to be capable and competent and will be less likely to be affected by external factors; thus, they will be more likely to choose self-concordant goals, which will lead to higher satisfaction. On the other hand, individuals with negative self- regard will be susceptible to external factors like anxiety and guilt. These people will be more likely to pursue non-self-concordant goals and will report lower job satisfaction.

Job performance

Job performance is another consistent and important outcome of core-self evaluations. Many theories have developed regarding how the CSE trait is related to job performance; the most popular of these theories argues that people with high core self-evaluations will be more motivated to perform well because they are confident they have the ability to do so. Another theory suggests that the link between core self-evaluations and performance can be attributed to supervisors enjoying the positivity of high CSE individuals and, thus, rating them highly on performance measures. Lastly, literature has argued that high CSE could be an ability factor. This last theory stems from intuitions made about core self-evaluations from previous connections found in literature. For example, literature has connected the construct of positive self-concept, an idea similar to core self-evaluations, to the ability to cope well with organizational change. Furthermore, individual core self-evaluation traits like emotional stability have been linked to job performance in team settings (Mount, Barrick, & Stewart, 1995 as cited in). Finally, it is suggested that those with a positive self-concept will be likely to perform well in customer service settings due to their positive emotional displays. These findings support the possibility that high core self-evaluations could indicate a person who has the ability to cope well with organizational change, to work well in groups, and to display positive emotions, all of which contribute to better performance.

Role of motivation

Despite the variety of theories, motivation is generally the most accepted mediator of the core self-evaluations and job performance relationship. Previous literature suggests that those with negative self-appraisals (low CSE) will see a difficult task and determine that it is beyond their capabilities or out of their control, thus unmanageable. This will lead to low motivation and, consequently, poor performance. High CSE individuals, on the other hand, will be highly motivated to complete challenging tasks because they believe they have the ability and control to complete the tasks successfully. Consequently, high CSE individuals with high motivation will be more likely to perform better in their jobs than low CSE individuals.

Life satisfaction

A majority of the literature that examines core self-evaluations and job satisfaction also examines how both of these constructs relate to a person's overall life satisfaction. Consistently, it has been found that people with high core self-evaluations are more likely to be satisfied with their jobs and with their lives in general than those who have low core-self evaluations.

Job stress

Individuals who appraise themselves positively (i.e., have high core self-evaluations) are more likely to cope actively with job stress situations. They are more likely to try to alter the situation than to let the stress affect them. In other words, high CSE individuals will perceive less job stress than low core self-evaluation individuals.

Job burnout

Job burnout stems from stress at work. A person suffering from burnout is exhausted, cynical, and lacks motivation. Similar to job stress, job burnout has also been related to the core self-evaluations construct. Individuals with low core self-evaluations will consistently feel that they are unable to handle work tasks because they lack the ability or control. For this reason, those with low core self-evaluations will be more susceptible to job burnout than those with high core self-evaluations, who appraise themselves positively and have confidence in their ability to manage the situation. This is particularly important because of job burnout's consistent relationship with voluntary turnover behavior (e.g., individuals choosing to leave the job), which is very costly for all organizations.

Economic success

Judge and Hurst (2007) conducted a longitudinal study that assessed core self-evaluations in relation to income level in individuals as young adults and later as they entered mid-life. The authors found that core self-evaluations have a positive relationship with income level. In other words, individuals with high core self-evaluations will be more likely to obtain higher levels of income. This could be because those high in the CSE trait seek out better jobs, which offer opportunities for upward mobility and thus, higher income. The effect could also occur as a function of the relationship between core self-evaluations, motivation, and performance. High core self-evaluations are indicative of a person who will be highly motivated to perform competently, which will lead to better performance, and later, perhaps, a higher salary.

Furthermore, the authors assessed the role core self-evaluations may play in moderating the established relationship between family socioeconomic status and individual's academic achievement as predictors of economic success later in life. Previous literature has confirmed that if you grow up in an affluent family and have a higher degree of education, then you will be more economically successful. Judge and Hurst (2007) found that core self-evaluations could strengthen this relationship. In other words, an individual high in core self-evaluations will be more likely to capitalize on the advantages given to them via their families economic success or through their own academic achievements and will consequently be more likely to be financially successful later on in life. The authors explain that individuals high in core self-evaluations cope better with events and situations they encounter in life and are motivated to consistently increase their performance and thus, are more likely to capitalize on the educational and financial advantages they already possess in young adulthood. This will allow them to have greater economic success, as measured by their income, in mid-life.

New directions/developments

In the most recent literature, core self-evaluations have been linked to:

• Strength training participation: The CSE trait was found to positively influence older adults' participation in progressive resistance training, which is a type of strength training. Generalization studies should be conducted to determine if core self-evaluations are predictive of participation in other types of training across all populations.
• Performance management behavior: Along with conscientiousness, high CSE predicted a more positive judgment of team effectiveness and ability (i.e., high collective efficacy), which in turn leads to improved performance management team behavior (e.g., establishing team goals, coordinating tasks, monitoring progress toward goal). This suggests that research on core self-evaluations expand to include how CSE traits may influence teams and their performance.
• Inter-role conflict and enrichment: Those with high CSE tend to perceive and seek out greater levels of support, allowing them to effectively manage multiple life roles (e.g., their role at home, their role at work, etc.).
• Vocational identity: High CSE relates positively to vocational identity (i.e., commitment and exploration into one's identity as a worker), which is positively related to life satisfaction. This adds additional insight into the relationship between core self-evaluations and life satisfaction.
• Career decision-making difficulties: Females raised with an authoritarian parenting style developed negative core self-evaluations, which caused them greater difficulty in making a career decision later in life. Future studies should be conducted in order to more broadly determine the effects of parenting style on core self-evaluations and, subsequent career decision-making capabilities.
• Emotional exhaustion and cynicism: High CSE is associated with lower levels of emotional exhaustion and cynicism, both of which are related to low job satisfaction.
• Work-family enrichment: Even when perceived organizational support is low, individuals with high CSE reported feeling higher work-family enrichment (i.e., events in one role, whether they be work or family related, enhance quality of life in the other) than those with low CSE.
• Work-school conflict and work-school enrichment: Similarly, higher levels of CSE correlate negativity with work-school conflict and positively with work-school enrichment.
• Leader-member exchange: High levels of subordinate and leader CSE increase the subordinate's role clarity (i.e., understanding of job responsibilities and organizational role), which in turn leads to more positive leader-member exchanges (i.e., interactions between leaders and members).
• Team effectiveness: High levels of CSE enhance team social networks, which in turn increases team effectiveness. Once again, this research suggests the need to expand the exploration of core self-evaluations beyond individual performance to the performance of groups and teams.

Practical implications

Core self-evaluations have primarily been studied with two of the most important work outcomes: job satisfaction and job performance. Due to the consistent relationships between core self-evaluations and these outcomes found in the literature, it is important to examine the implication these findings have on the use of core self-evaluation measures in an applied business setting.

Personnel selection

Personnel selection is the process an organization uses to choose the appropriate individual to hire for a job position. Due to its direct relationship to job satisfaction and job performance, it seems logical that core self-evaluations should be included in personnel selection methods. In fact, researchers do support this idea to an extent. Below are advantages and disadvantages of using core self-evaluations in selection as suggested by Judge, Erez, & Bono (1998).

Advantages

1. Provided that all facets of core self-evaluations (i.e., locus of control, emotional stability, generalized self-efficacy, and self-esteem) are included, the measure will remain a valid predictor of job satisfaction and performance.
2. Measures of each core self-evaluation facet are primarily accessible to the public, as opposed to proprietary like the Big Five personality measures.
3. Research reveals no adverse impact of core self-evaluations against minorities or older employees. Adverse impact describes a practice that disproportionally affects members of a minority group. These research findings suggest that core self-evaluation levels do not differ disproportionally in older employees or minority groups, and, thus, will not prevent members of these groups from being selected for a job.

Disadvantages

1. Core self-evaluations demonstrate slight to moderate adverse impact against women.
2. The majority of research suggests that applicants do not believe personality measures are relevant for selection. Thus, applicants may not perceive a fair selection system if a personality measure is included.
3. Similar to other personality measures, social desirability, where participants attempt to "fake" or respond with answers which will be viewed favorably by others as opposed to answering honestly, is a disadvantage of using core self-evaluations in selection.

Due to the advantages for employers in employing individuals with high core self-evaluations, more research is necessary to determine the practicality of the core self-evaluation measure as part of a selection method.

Drawbacks of hyper-CSE

Although CSE is generally thought to be a positive trait, hyper-CSE (i.e., very high levels of core self-evaluations) can lead to negative outcomes. Hiller and Hambrick (2005) suggest that hyper-CSE, common in executives, can lead to tainted decision making (e.g., less comprehensive and more centralized strategic decision-making process, greater organizational persistence in pursuing strategies launched by the executive). Additionally, because those with high core self-evaluations are likely to have more confidence in themselves and believe that they control their own environment, hyper-CSE may also result in overconfidence effect and/or illusion of control.

Criticisms

As research increases on the construct of core self-evaluations, two major criticisms of the trait have developed.

Theoretical support

The theory behind the core self-evaluations construct is abstract. It posits that a person's own fundamental evaluations can influence most other appraisals they make about their self and their environment. For this reason, it is difficult to empirically test the CSE trait and its subconscious effect on locus of control, neuroticism, self-esteem, and generalized self-efficacy. Moreover, it is unclear why CSE theory chose the four dimensions that it encompasses.

• Locus of control was originally not included in the list of traits that would make up core self-evaluations. It was added as a consideration later because "it generally meets the criteria set forth by Judge et al. (1997)" of being a core self-evaluation trait. Later, although some researchers agreed that it was less self-oriented than the other variables because it has an external dimension, it became a part of the theory for two primary reasons: 1) Its scale measured many self-oriented items, and 2) because it was conceptually and empirically related to generalized self-efficacy (a meta-analysis confirms a correlation of .56, one of the lowest correlations between CSE traits).
• Other traits like dispositional optimism, a tendency to believe that things will turn out positively, were also considered but later not included. The reasons behind this decision are not clear, but include the fact that this construct is not as well represented in literature. It has also been suggested that dispositional optimism may not be distinct from neuroticism or other dispositional traits. Future research should examine the theory more empirically and provide a distinction of how broad, fundamental, and evaluative a trait must be in order to be included in core self-evaluations research.

Conceptualization of the trait

Previous studies have theorized that CSE is an underlying (i.e., latent) trait that explains the relationship between locus of control, neuroticism, self-efficacy, and self-esteem. However, it has also been suggested that core self-evaluations can be conceptualized as an "aggregate construct," which is composed of or predicted by its four dimensions. In other words, an individual's levels on each of these traits may predict their level of core self-evaluations as opposed to the other way around. This conceptualization difference has important implications for how CSE is measured and, thus, has important implications for the effects found when researching this construct. For this reason, additional research is necessary to examine this conceptualization discrepancy.

Locus of control

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

In personality psychology, locus of control is the degree to which people believe that they have control over the outcome of events in their lives, as opposed to external forces beyond their control. Understanding of the concept was developed by Julian B. Rotter in 1954, and has since become an aspect of personality studies. A person's "locus" (plural "loci", Latin for "place" or "location") is conceptualized as internal (a belief that one can control one's own life) or external (a belief that life is controlled by outside factors which the person cannot influence, or that chance or fate controls their lives).

Individuals with a strong internal locus of control believe events in their life derive primarily from their own actions: for example, when receiving exam results, people with an internal locus of control tend to praise or blame themselves and their abilities. People with a strong external locus of control tend to praise or blame external factors such as the teacher or the exam.

Locus of control generated much research in a variety of areas in psychology. The construct is applicable to such fields as educational psychology, health psychology and clinical psychology. Debate continues whether specific or more global measures of locus of control will prove to be more useful in practical application. Careful distinctions should also be made between locus of control (a concept linked with expectancies about the future) and attributional style (a concept linked with explanations for past outcomes), or between locus of control and concepts such as self-efficacy.

Locus of control is one of the four dimensions of core self-evaluations – one's fundamental appraisal of oneself – along with neuroticism, self-efficacy, and self-esteem. The concept of core self-evaluations was first examined by Judge, Locke, and Durham (1997), and since has proven to have the ability to predict several work outcomes, specifically, job satisfaction and job performance. In a follow-up study, Judge et al. (2002) argued that locus of control, neuroticism, self-efficacy and self-esteem factors may have a common core.

History

Locus of control is the framework of Rotter's (1954) social-learning theory of personality. In 1966 he published an article in Psychological Monographs which summarized over a decade of research (by Rotter and his students), much of it previously unpublished. In 1976, Herbert M. Lefcourt defined the perceived locus of control: "...a generalised expectancy for internal as opposed to external control of reinforcements". Attempts have been made to trace the genesis of the concept to the work of Alfred Adler, but its immediate background lies in the work of Rotter and his students. Early work on the topic of expectations about control of reinforcement had been performed in the 1950s by James and Phares (prepared for unpublished doctoral dissertations supervised by Rotter at The Ohio State University).

Another Rotter student, William H. James studied two types of "expectancy shifts":

• Typical expectancy shifts, believing that success (or failure) would be followed by a similar outcome
• Atypical expectancy shifts, believing that success (or failure) would be followed by a dissimilar outcome

Weiner's attribution theory as
applied to student motivation

	Perceived locus of control
	Internal	External
Attributions of control	Ability	Chance/Luck
Attributions of no control	Effort	Task difficulty

Additional research led to the hypothesis that typical expectancy shifts were displayed more often by those who attributed their outcomes to ability, whereas those who displayed atypical expectancy were more likely to attribute their outcomes to chance. This was interpreted that people could be divided into those who attribute to ability (an internal cause) versus those who attribute to luck (an external cause). Bernard Weiner argued that rather than ability-versus-luck, locus may relate to whether attributions are made to stable or unstable causes.

Rotter (1975, 1989) has discussed problems and misconceptions in others' use of the internal-versus-external construct.

Personality orientation

Rotter (1975) cautioned that internality and externality represent two ends of a continuum, not an either/or typology. Internals tend to attribute outcomes of events to their own control. People who have internal locus of control believe that the outcomes of their actions are results of their own abilities. Internals believe that their hard work would lead them to obtain positive outcomes. They also believe that every action has its consequence, which makes them accept the fact that things happen and it depends on them if they want to have control over it or not. Externals attribute outcomes of events to external circumstances. People with an external locus of control tend to believe that the things which happen in their lives are out of their control, and even that their own actions are a result of external factors, such as fate, luck, the influence of powerful others (such as doctors, the police, or government officials) and/or a belief that the world is too complex for one to predict or successfully control its outcomes. Such people tend to blame others rather than themselves for their lives' outcomes. It should not be thought, however, that internality is linked exclusively with attribution to effort and externality with attribution to luck (as Weiner's work – see below – makes clear). This has obvious implications for differences between internals and externals in terms of their achievement motivation, suggesting that internal locus is linked with higher levels of need for achievement. Due to their locating control outside themselves, externals tend to feel they have less control over their fate. People with an external locus of control tend to be more stressed and prone to clinical depression.

Internals were believed by Rotter (1966) to exhibit two essential characteristics: high achievement motivation and low outer-directedness. This was the basis of the locus-of-control scale proposed by Rotter in 1966, although it was based on Rotter's belief that locus of control is a single construct. Since 1970, Rotter's assumption of uni-dimensionality has been challenged, with Levenson (for example) arguing that different dimensions of locus of control (such as beliefs that events in one's life are self-determined, or organized by powerful others and are chance-based) must be separated. Weiner's early work in the 1970s suggested that orthogonal to the internality-externality dimension, differences should be considered between those who attribute to stable and those who attribute to unstable causes.

This new, dimensional theory meant that one could now attribute outcomes to ability (an internal stable cause), effort (an internal unstable cause), task difficulty (an external stable cause) or luck (an external, unstable cause). Although this was how Weiner originally saw these four causes, he has been challenged as to whether people see luck (for example) as an external cause, whether ability is always perceived as stable, and whether effort is always seen as changing. Indeed, in more recent publications (e.g. Weiner, 1980) he uses different terms for these four causes (such as "objective task characteristics" instead of "task difficulty" and "chance" instead of "luck"). Psychologists since Weiner have distinguished between stable and unstable effort, knowing that in some circumstances effort could be seen as a stable cause (especially given the presence of words such as "industrious" in English). 

Regarding locus of control, there is another type of control that entails a mix among the internal and external types. People that have the combination of the two types of locus of control are often referred to as Bi-locals. People that have Bi-local characteristics are known to handle stress and cope with their diseases more efficiently by having the mixture of internal and external locus of control. People that have this mix of loci of control can take personal responsibility for their actions and the consequences thereof while remaining capable of relying upon and having faith in outside resources; these characteristics correspond to the internal and external loci of control, respectively.

Measuring scales

The most widely used questionnaire to measure locus of control is the 23-item (plus six filler items), forced-choice scale of Rotter (1966). However, this is not the only questionnaire; Bialer's (1961) 23-item scale for children predates Rotter's work. Also relevant to the locus-of-control scale are the Crandall Intellectual Ascription of Responsibility Scale (Crandall, 1965) and the Nowicki-Strickland Scale. One of the earliest psychometric scales to assess locus of control (using a Likert-type scale, in contrast to the forced-choice alternative measure in Rotter's scale) was that devised by W. H. James for his unpublished doctoral dissertation, supervised by Rotter at Ohio State University; however, this remains unpublished.

Many measures of locus of control have appeared since Rotter's scale. These were reviewed by Furnham and Steele (1993) and include those related to health psychology, industrial and organizational psychology and those specifically for children (such as the Stanford Preschool Internal-External Control Index for three- to six-year-olds). Furnham and Steele (1993) cite data suggesting that the most reliable, valid questionnaire for adults is the Duttweiler scale. For a review of the health questionnaires cited by these authors, see "Applications" below. 

The Duttweiler (1984) Internal Control Index (ICI) addresses perceived problems with the Rotter scales, including their forced-choice format, susceptibility to social desirability and heterogeneity (as indicated by factor analysis). She also notes that, while other scales existed in 1984 to measure locus of control, "they appear to be subject to many of the same problems". Unlike the forced-choice format used on Rotter's scale, Duttweiler's 28-item ICI uses a Likert-type scale in which people must state whether they would rarely, occasionally, sometimes, frequently or usually behave as specified in each of 28 statements. The ICI assess variables pertinent to internal locus: cognitive processing, autonomy, resistance to social influence, self-confidence and delay of gratification. A small (133 student-subject) validation study indicated that the scale had good internal reliability (a Cronbach's alpha of 0.85).

Attributional style

Attributional style (or explanatory style) is a concept introduced by Lyn Yvonne Abramson, Martin Seligman and John D. Teasdale. This concept advances a stage further than Weiner, stating that in addition to the concepts of internality-externality and stability a dimension of globality-specificity is also needed. Abramson et al. believed that how people explained successes and failures in their lives related to whether they attributed these to internal or external factors, short-term or long-term factors, and factors that affected all situations.

The topic of attribution theory (introduced to psychology by Fritz Heider) has had an influence on locus of control theory, but there are important historical differences between the two models. Attribution theorists have been predominantly social psychologists, concerned with the general processes characterizing how and why people make the attributions they do, whereas locus of control theorists have been concerned with individual differences.

Significant to the history of both approaches are the contributions made by Bernard Weiner in the 1970s. Before this time, attribution theorists and locus of control theorists had been largely concerned with divisions into external and internal loci of causality. Weiner added the dimension of stability-instability (and later controllability), indicating how a cause could be perceived as having been internal to a person yet still beyond the person's control. The stability dimension added to the understanding of why people succeed or fail after such outcomes. Although not part of Weiner's model, a further dimension of attribution, that of globality-specificity, was added by Abramson, Seligman and Teasdale.

Applications

Locus of control's best known application may have been in the area of health psychology, largely due to the work of Kenneth Wallston. Scales to measure locus of control in the health domain were reviewed by Furnham and Steele in 1993. The best-known are the Health Locus of Control Scale and the Multidimensional Health Locus of Control Scale, or MHLC. The latter scale is based on the idea (echoing Levenson's earlier work) that health may be attributed to three sources: internal factors (such as self-determination of a healthy lifestyle), powerful others (such as one's doctor) or luck (which is very dangerous as lifestyle advice will be ignored – these people are very difficult to help).

Some of the scales reviewed by Furnham and Steele (1993) relate to health in more specific domains, such as obesity (for example, Saltzer's (1982) Weight Locus of Control Scale or Stotland and Zuroff's (1990) Dieting Beliefs Scale), mental health (such as Wood and Letak's (1982) Mental Health Locus of Control Scale or the Depression Locus of Control Scale of Whiteman, Desmond and Price, 1987) and cancer (the Cancer Locus of Control Scale of Pruyn et al., 1988). In discussing applications of the concept to health psychology Furnham and Steele refer to Claire Bradley's work, linking locus of control to the management of diabetes mellitus. Empirical data on health locus of control in a number of fields was reviewed by Norman and Bennett in 1995; they note that data on whether certain health-related behaviors are related to internal health locus of control have been ambiguous. They note that some studies found that internal health locus of control is linked with increased exercise, but cite other studies which found a weak (or no) relationship between exercise behaviors (such as jogging) and internal health locus of control. A similar ambiguity is noted for data on the relationship between internal health locus of control and other health-related behaviors (such as breast self-examination, weight control and preventative-health behavior). Of particular interest are the data cited on the relationship between internal health locus of control and alcohol consumption. 

Norman and Bennett note that some studies that compared alcoholics with non-alcoholics suggest alcoholism is linked to increased externality for health locus of control; however, other studies have linked alcoholism with increased internality. Similar ambiguity has been found in studies of alcohol consumption in the general, non-alcoholic population. They are more optimistic in reviewing the literature on the relationship between internal health locus of control and smoking cessation, although they also point out that there are grounds for supposing that powerful-others and internal-health loci of control may be linked with this behavior. It is thought that, rather than being caused by one or the other, that alcoholism is directly related to the strength of the locus, regardless of type, internal or external. 

They argue that a stronger relationship is found when health locus of control is assessed for specific domains than when general measures are taken. Overall, studies using behavior-specific health locus scales have tended to produce more positive results. These scales have been found to be more predictive of general behavior than more general scales, such as the MHLC scale. Norman and Bennett cite several studies that used health-related locus-of-control scales in specific domains (including smoking cessation), diabetes, tablet-treated diabetes, hypertension, arthritis, cancer, and heart and lung disease.

They also argue that health locus of control is better at predicting health-related behavior if studied in conjunction with health value (the value people attach to their health), suggesting that health value is an important moderator variable in the health locus of control relationship. For example, Weiss and Larsen (1990) found an increased relationship between internal health locus of control and health when health value was assessed. Despite the importance Norman and Bennett attach to specific measures of locus of control, there are general textbooks on personality which cite studies linking internal locus of control with improved physical health, mental health and quality of life in people with diverse conditions: HIV, migraines, diabetes, kidney disease and epilepsy.

During the 1970s and 1980s, Whyte correlated locus of control with the academic success of students enrolled in higher-education courses. Students who were more internally controlled believed that hard work and focus would result in successful academic progress, and they performed better academically. Those students who were identified as more externally controlled (believing that their future depended upon luck or fate) tended to have lower academic-performance levels. Cassandra B. Whyte researched how control tendency influenced behavioral outcomes in the academic realm by examining the effects of various modes of counseling on grade improvements and the locus of control of high-risk college students.

Rotter also looked at studies regarding the correlation between gambling and either an internal or external locus of control. For internals, gambling is more reserved. When betting, they primarily focus on safe and moderate wagers. Externals, however, take more chances and, for example, bet more on a card or number that has not appeared for a certain period, under the notion that this card or number has a higher chance of occurring.

Organizational psychology and religion

Other fields to which the concept has been applied include industrial and organizational psychology, sports psychology, educational psychology and the psychology of religion. Richard Kahoe has published work in the latter field, suggesting that intrinsic religious orientation correlates positively (and extrinsic religious orientation correlates negatively) with internal locus. Of relevance to both health psychology and the psychology of religion is the work of Holt, Clark, Kreuter and Rubio (2003) on a questionnaire to assess spiritual-health locus of control. The authors distinguished between an active spiritual-health locus of control (in which "God empowers the individual to take healthy actions") and a more passive spiritual-health locus of control (where health is left up to God). In industrial and organizational psychology, it has been found that internals are more likely to take positive action to change their jobs (rather than merely talk about occupational change) than externals.

Consumer research

Locus of control has also been applied to the field of consumer research. For example, Martin, Veer and Pervan (2007) examined how the weight locus of control of women (i.e., beliefs about the control of body weight) influence how they react to female models in advertising of different body shapes. They found that women who believe they can control their weight ("internals"), respond most favorably to slim models in advertising, and this favorable response is mediated by self-referencing. In contrast, women who feel powerless about their weight ("externals"), self-reference larger-sized models, but only prefer larger-sized models when the advertisement is for a non-fattening product. For fattening products, they exhibit a similar preference for larger-sized models and slim models. The weight locus of control measure was also found to be correlated with measures for weight control beliefs and willpower.

Political ideology

Locus of control has been linked to political ideology. In the 1972 U.S. Presidential election, research of college students found that those with an internal locus of control were substantially more likely to register as a Republican, while those with an external locus of control were substantially more likely to register as a Democrat. A 2011 study surveying students at Cameron University in Oklahoma found similar results, although these studies were limited in scope. Consistent with these findings, Kaye Sweetser (2014) found that Republicans significantly displayed greater internal locus of control than Democrats and Independents. 

Those with an internal locus of control are more likely to be of higher socioeconomic status, and are more likely to be politically involved (e.g., following political news, joining a political organization) Those with an internal locus of control are also more likely to vote.

Familial origins

The development of locus of control is associated with family style and resources, cultural stability and experiences with effort leading to reward. Many internals have grown up with families modeling typical internal beliefs; these families emphasized effort, education, responsibility and thinking, and parents typically gave their children rewards they had promised them. In contrast, externals are typically associated with lower socioeconomic status. Societies experiencing social unrest increase the expectancy of being out-of-control; therefore, people in such societies become more external.

The 1995 research of Schneewind suggests that "children in large single parent families headed by women are more likely to develop an external locus of control". Schultz and Schultz also claim that children in families where parents have been supportive and consistent in discipline develop internal locus of control. At least one study has found that children whose parents had an external locus of control are more likely to attribute their successes and failures to external causes. Findings from early studies on the familial origins of locus of control were summarized by Lefcourt: "Warmth, supportiveness and parental encouragement seem to be essential for development of an internal locus". However, causal evidence regarding how parental locus of control influences offspring locus of control (whether genetic, or environmentally mediated) is lacking.

Locus of control becomes more internal with age. As children grow older, they gain skills which give them more control over their environment. However, whether this or biological development is responsible for changes in locus is unclear.

Age

Some studies showed that with age people develop a more external locus of control, but other study results have been ambiguous. Longitudinal data collected by Gatz and Karel imply that internality may increase until middle age, decreasing thereafter. Noting the ambiguity of data in this area, Aldwin and Gilmer (2004) cite Lachman's claim that locus of control is ambiguous. Indeed, there is evidence here that changes in locus of control in later life relate more visibly to increased externality (rather than reduced internality) if the two concepts are taken to be orthogonal. Evidence cited by Schultz and Schultz (2005) suggests that locus of control increases in internality until middle age. The authors also note that attempts to control the environment become more pronounced between ages eight and fourteen.

Health locus of control is how people measure and understand how people relate their health to their behavior, health status and how long it may take to recover from a disease. Locus of control can influence how people think and react towards their health and health decisions. Each day we are exposed to potential diseases that may affect our health. The way we approach that reality has a lot to do with our locus of control. Sometimes it is expected to see older adults experience progressive declines in their health, for this reason it is believed that their health locus of control will be affected. However, this does not necessarily mean that their locus of control will be affected negatively but older adults may experience decline in their health and this can show lower levels of internal locus of control. 

Age plays an important role in one's internal and external locus of control. When comparing a young child and an older adult with their levels of locus of control in regards to health, the older person will have more control over their attitude and approach to the situation. As people age they become aware of the fact that events outside of their own control happen and that other individuals can have control of their health outcomes.

A study published in the journal Psychosomatic Medicine examined the health effect of childhood locus of control. 7,500 British adults (followed from birth), who had shown an internal locus of control at age 10, were less likely to be overweight at age 30. The children who had an internal locus of control also appeared to have higher levels of self-esteem.

Gender-based differences

As Schultz and Schultz (2005) point out, significant gender differences in locus of control have not been found for adults in the U.S. population. However, these authors also note that there may be specific sex-based differences for specific categories of items to assess locus of control; for example, they cite evidence that men may have a greater internal locus for questions related to academic achievement.

A study made by Takaki and colleagues (2006), focused on the gender differences with relationship to internal locus of control and self-efficacy in hemodialysis patients and their compliance. This study showed that females that had high internal locus of control were less compliant in regards to their health and medical advice compared to the men that participated in this study. Compliance is known to be the degree in which a person's behavior, in this case the patient, has a relationship with the medical advice. For example, a person that is compliant will correctly follow his/her doctor's advice. 

A 2018 study that looked at the relationship between locus of control and optimism among children aged 10-15, however, found that an external locus of control was more prevalent among young girls. The study found no significant differences had been found in internal and unknown locus of control.

Cross-cultural and regional issues

The question of whether people from different cultures vary in locus of control has long been of interest to social psychologists. Japanese people tend to be more external in locus-of-control orientation than people in the U.S.; however, differences in locus of control between different countries within Europe (and between the U.S. and Europe) tend to be small. As Berry et al. pointed out in 1992, ethnic groups within the United States have been compared on locus of control; African Americans in the U.S. are more external than whites when socioeconomic status is controlled. Berry et al. also pointed out in 1992 how research on other ethnic minorities in the U.S. (such as Hispanics) has been ambiguous. More on cross-cultural variations in locus of control can be found in Shiraev and Levy (2004). Research in this area indicates that locus of control has been a useful concept for researchers in cross-cultural psychology. 

On a less broad scale, Sims and Baumann explained how regions in the United States cope with natural disasters differently. The example they used was tornados. They "applied Rotter's theory to explain why more people have died in tornado[e]s in Alabama than in Illinois". They explain that after giving surveys to residents of four counties in both Alabama and Illinois, Alabama residents were shown to be more external in their way of thinking about events that occur in their lives. Illinois residents, however, were more internal. Because Alabama residents had a more external way of processing information, they took fewer precautions prior to the appearance of a tornado. Those in Illinois, however, were more prepared, thus leading to fewer casualties.

Self-efficacy

Self-efficacy is a person's belief that he or she can accomplish a particular activity. It is a related concept introduced by Albert Bandura, and has been measured by means of a psychometric scale. It differs from locus of control by relating to competence in circumscribed situations and activities (rather than more general cross-situational beliefs about control). Bandura has also emphasised differences between self-efficacy and self-esteem, using examples where low self-efficacy (for instance, in ballroom dancing) are unlikely to result in low self-esteem because competence in that domain is not very important to an individual. Although individuals may have a high internal health locus of control and feel in control of their own health, they may not feel efficacious in performing a specific treatment regimen that is essential to maintaining their own health. Self-efficacy plays an important role in one's health because when people feel that they have self-efficacy over their health conditions, the effects of their health becomes less of a stressor.

Smith (1989) has argued that locus of control only weakly measures self-efficacy; "only a subset of items refer directly to the subject's capabilities". Smith noted that training in coping skills led to increases in self-efficacy, but did not affect locus of control as measured by Rotter's 1966 scale.

Stress

The previous section showed how self-efficacy can be related to a person's locus of control, and stress also has a relationship in these areas. Self-efficacy can be something that people use to deal with the stress that they are faced with in their everyday lives. Some findings suggest that higher levels of external locus of control combined with lower levels self-efficacy are related to higher illness-related psychological distress. People who report a more external locus of control also report more concurrent and future stressful experiences and higher levels of psychological and physical problems. These people are also more vulnerable to external influences and as a result they become more responsive to stress.

Veterans of the military forces who have spinal cord injuries and post-traumatic stress are a good group to look at in regards to locus of control and stress. Aging shows to be a very important factor that can be related to the severity of the symptoms of PTSD experienced by patients following the trauma of war. Research suggests that patients who suffered a spinal cord injury benefit from knowing that they have control over their health problems and their disability, which reflects the characteristics of having internal locus of control. 

A study by Chung et al. (2006) focused on how the responses of spinal cord injury post-traumatic stress varied depending on age. The researchers tested different age groups including young adults, middle-aged, and elderly; the average age was 25, 48 and 65 for each group respectively. After the study, they concluded that age does not make a difference on how spinal cord injury patients respond to the traumatic events that happened. However, they did mention that age did play a role in the extent to which the external locus of control was used, and concluded that the young adult group demonstrated more external locus of control characteristics than the other age groups to which they were being compared.

Self-efficacy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Self-efficacy is, according to psychologist Albert Bandura who originally proposed the concept, a personal judgment of "how well one can execute courses of action required to deal with prospective situations".

Psychologists have studied self-efficacy from several perspectives, noting various paths in the development of self-efficacy; the dynamics of self-efficacy, and lack thereof, in many different settings; interactions between self-efficacy and self-concept; and habits of attribution that contribute to, or detract from, self-efficacy. Educator Kathy Kolbe adds, "Belief in innate abilities means valuing one's particular set of cognitive strengths. It also involves determination and perseverance to overcome obstacles that would interfere with utilizing those innate abilities to achieve goals."

Self-efficacy affects every area of human endeavor. By determining the beliefs a person holds regarding their power to affect situations, it strongly influences both the power a person actually has to face challenges competently and the choices a person is most likely to make. These effects are particularly apparent, and compelling, with regard to behaviors affecting health.

Theoretical approaches

Social cognitive theory

Psychologist Albert Bandura has defined self-efficacy as one's belief in one's ability to succeed in specific situations or accomplish a task. One's sense of self-efficacy can play a major role in how one approaches goals, tasks, and challenges. The theory of self-efficacy lies at the center of Bandura's social cognitive theory, which emphasizes the role of observational learning and social experience in the development of personality. The main concept in social cognitive theory is that an individual's actions and reactions, including social behaviors and cognitive processes, in almost every situation are. influenced by the actions that individual has observed in others. Because self-efficacy is developed from external experiences and self-perception and is influential in determining the outcome of many events, it is an important aspect of social cognitive theory. Self-efficacy represents the personal perception of external social factors. According to Bandura's theory, people with high self-efficacy—that is, those who believe they can perform well—are more likely to view difficult tasks as something to be mastered rather than something to be avoided.

Social learning theory

Social learning theory describes the acquisition of skills that are developed exclusively or primarily within a social group. Social learning depends on how individuals either succeed or fail at dynamic interactions within groups, and promotes the development of individual emotional and practical skills as well as accurate perception of self and acceptance of others. According to this theory, people learn from one another through observation, imitation, and modeling. Self-efficacy reflects an individual's understanding of what skills he/she can offer in a group setting.

Self-concept theory

Self-concept theory seeks to explain how people perceive and interpret their own existence from clues they receive from external sources, focusing on how these impressions are organized and how they are active throughout life. Successes and failures are closely related to the ways in which people have learned to view themselves and their relationships with others. This theory describes self-concept as learned (i.e., not present at birth); organized (in the way it is applied to the self); and dynamic (i.e., ever-changing, and not fixed at a certain age).

Attribution theory

Attribution theory focuses on how people attribute events and how those beliefs interact with self-perception. Attribution theory defines three major elements of cause:

• Locus is the location of the perceived cause. If the locus is internal (dispositional), feelings of self-esteem and self-efficacy will be enhanced by success and diminished by failure.
• Stability describes whether the cause is perceived as static or dynamic over time. It is closely related to expectations and goals, in that when people attribute their failures to stable factors such as the difficulty of a task, they will expect to fail in that task in the future.
• Controllability describes whether a person feels actively in control of the cause. Failing at a task one thinks one cannot control can lead to feelings of humiliation, shame, and/or anger

How it affects human function

Choices regarding behavior

People generally avoid tasks where self-efficacy is low, but undertake tasks where self-efficacy is high. When self-efficacy is significantly beyond actual ability, it leads to an overestimation of the ability to complete tasks. On the other hand, when self-efficacy is significantly lower than actual ability, it discourages growth and skill development. Research shows that the optimum level of self-efficacy is slightly above ability; in this situation, people are most encouraged to tackle challenging tasks and gain experience. Self-efficacy is made of dimensions like magnitude, strength, and generality to explain how one believes they will perform on a specific task.

Motivation

High self-efficacy can affect motivation in both positive and negative ways. In general, people with high self-efficacy are more likely to make efforts to complete a task, and to persist longer in those efforts, than those with low self-efficacy. The stronger the self-efficacy or mastery expectations, the more active the efforts. However, those with low self-efficacy sometimes experience incentive to learn more about an unfamiliar subject, where someone with a high self-efficacy may not prepare as well for a task. A negative effect of low self-efficacy is that it can lead to a state of learned helplessness. Learned helplessness was studied by Martin Seligman in an experiment in which shocks were applied to animals. Through the experiment, it was discovered that the animals placed in a cage where they could escape shocks by moving to a different part of the cage did not attempt to move if they had formerly been placed in a cage in which escape from the shocks was not possible. Low self-efficacy can lead to this state in which it is believed that no amount of effort will make a difference in the success of the task at hand.

Work performance

Self-efficacy theory has been embraced by management scholars and practitioners because of its applicability in the workplace. Overall, self-efficacy is positively and strongly related to work-related performance. This relationship, though, depends on task complexity. For more complex tasks, the relationships between self-efficacy and work performance is weaker than for easier work-related tasks. The implications of this research is that managers should provide accurate descriptions of tasks and provide clear and concise instructions and they should provide the necessary supporting elements for employees to be successful.

Thought patterns and responses

Self-efficacy has several effects on thought patterns and responses:

• Low self-efficacy can lead people to believe tasks to be harder than they actually are. This often results in poor task planning, as well as increased stress.
• People become erratic and unpredictable when engaging in a task in which they have low self-efficacy.
• People with high self-efficacy tend to take a wider view of a task in order to determine the best plan.
• Obstacles often stimulate people with high self-efficacy to greater efforts, where someone with low self-efficacy will tend toward discouragement and giving up.
• A person with high self-efficacy will attribute failure to external factors, where a person with low self-efficacy will blame low ability. For example, someone with high self-efficacy in regards to mathematics may attribute a poor test grade to a harder-than-usual test, illness, lack of effort, or insufficient preparation. A person with a low self-efficacy will attribute the result to poor mathematical ability. See Attribution Theory.

Health behaviors

Choices affecting health, such as smoking, physical exercise, dieting, condom use, dental hygiene, seat belt use, and breast self-examination, are dependent on self-efficacy. Self-efficacy beliefs are cognitions that determine whether health behavior change will be initiated, how much effort will be expended, and how long it will be sustained in the face of obstacles and failures. Self-efficacy influences how high people set their health goals (e.g., "I intend to reduce my smoking", or "I intend to quit smoking altogether"). A number of studies on the adoption of health practices have measured self-efficacy to assess its potential to initiate behavior change. With increased self-efficacy, individuals have greater confidence in their ability and thus are more likely to engage in healthy behaviors. Greater engagement in healthy behaviors, result in positive patient health outcomes such as improved quality of life.

Relationship to loss of control

Bandura showed that difference in self-efficacy correlates to fundamentally different world views. People with high self-efficacy generally believe that they are in control of their own lives, that their own actions and decisions shape their lives, while people with low self-efficacy may see their lives as outside their control. For example, a student with high self-efficacy who does poorly on an exam will likely attribute the failure to the fact that they did not study enough. However, a student with low self-efficacy who does poorly on an exam is likely to believe the cause of that failure was due to the test being too difficult or challenging, which the student does not control.

Factors affecting self-efficacy

Bandura identifies four factors affecting self-efficacy.

1. Experience, or "enactive attainment" – The experience of mastery is the most important factor determining a person's self-efficacy. Success raises self-efficacy, while failure lowers it. According to psychologist Erik Erikson: "Children cannot be fooled by empty praise and condescending encouragement. They may have to accept artificial bolstering of their self-esteem in lieu of something better, but what I call their accruing ego identity gains real strength only from wholehearted and consistent recognition of real accomplishment, that is, achievement that has meaning in their culture."
2. Modeling, or "vicarious experience" – Modeling is experienced as, "If they can do it, I can do it as well". When we see someone succeeding, our own self-efficacy increases; where we see people failing, our self-efficacy decreases. This process is most effectual when we see ourselves as similar to the model. Although not as influential as direct experience, modeling is particularly useful for people who are particularly unsure of themselves.
3. Social persuasion – Social persuasion generally manifests as direct encouragement or discouragement from another person. Discouragement is generally more effective at decreasing a person's self-efficacy than encouragement is at increasing it.
4. Physiological factors – In stressful situations, people commonly exhibit signs of distress: shakes, aches and pains, fatigue, fear, nausea, etc. Perceptions of these responses in oneself can markedly alter self-efficacy. Getting 'butterflies in the stomach' before public speaking will be interpreted by someone with low self-efficacy as a sign of inability, thus decreasing self-efficacy further, where high self-efficacy would lead to interpreting such physiological signs as normal and unrelated to ability. It is one's belief in the implications of physiological response that alters self-efficacy, rather than the physiological response itself.

Genetic and environmental determinants

In a Norwegian twin study, the heritability of self-efficacy in adolescents was estimated at 75 percent. The remaining variance, 25 percent, was due to environmental influences not shared between family members. The shared family environment did not contribute to individual differences in self-efficacy.

Theoretical models of behavior

A theoretical model of the effect of self-efficacy on transgressive behavior was developed and verified in research with school children.

Prosociality and moral disengagement

Prosocial behavior (such as helping others, sharing, and being kind and cooperative) and moral disengagement (manifesting in behaviors such as making excuses for bad behavior, avoiding responsibility for consequences, and blaming the victim) are negatively correlated. Academic, social, and self-regulatory self-efficacy encourages prosocial behavior, and thus helps prevent moral disengagement.

Over-efficaciousness in learning

In certain circumstances, lower self-efficacy can be helpful. One study examined foreign language students' beliefs about learning, goal attainment, and motivation to continue with language study. It was concluded that over-efficaciousness negatively affected student motivation, so that students who believed they were "good at languages" had less motivation to study.

Health behavior change

Social-cognitive models of health behavior change cast self-efficacy as predictor, mediator, or moderator. As a predictor, self-efficacy is supposed to facilitate the forming of behavioral intentions, the development of action plans, and the initiation of action. As mediator, self-efficacy can help prevent relapse to unhealthy behavior. As a moderator, self-efficacy can support the translation of intentions into action.

Possible applications

Academic contexts

Parents' sense of academic efficacy for their child is linked to their children's scholastic achievement. If the parents have higher perceived academic capabilities and aspirations for their child, the child itself will share those same beliefs. This promotes academic self-efficacy for the child, and in turn, leads to scholastic achievement. It also leads to prosocial behavior, and reduces vulnerability to feelings of futility and depression. There is a relationship between low self-efficacy and depression.

In a study, the majority of a group of students questioned felt they had a difficulty with listening in class situations. Instructors then helped strengthen their listening skills by making them aware about how the use of different strategies could produce better outcomes. This way, their levels of self-efficacy were improved as they continued to figure out what strategies worked for them.

STEM

Self-efficacy has proven especially useful for helping undergraduate students to gain insights into their career development in STEM fields. Self-efficacy theory has been applied to the career area to examine why women are underrepresented in male-dominated STEM fields such as mathematics, engineering, and science. It was found that gender differences in self-efficacy expectancies importantly influence the career-related behaviors and career choices of young women. Moreover, researchers have reported that mathematics self-efficacy is more predictive of mathematics interest, choice of math-related courses, and math majors than past achievements in math or outcome expectations.

Technical self-efficacy was found to be a crucial factor for teaching computer programming to school students, as students with higher levels of technological self-efficacy achieve higher learning outcomes. The effect of technical self-efficacy was found to be even stronger than the effect of gender.

Writing

Writing studies research indicates a strong relationship linking perceived self-efficacy to motivation and performance outcomes.

Motivation

One of the factors most commonly associated with self-efficacy in writing studies is motivation. Motivation is often divided into two categories: extrinsic and intrinsic. McLeod suggests that intrinsic motivators tend to be more effective than extrinsic motivators because students then perceive the given task as inherently valuable. Additionally, McCarthy, Meier, and Rinderer explain that writers who are intrinsically motivated tend to be more self-directed, take active control of their writing, and see themselves as more capable of setting and accomplishing goals. Furthermore, writing studies research indicates that self-efficacy influences student choices, effort, persistence, perseverance, thought patterns, and emotional reactions when completing a writing assignment. Students with a high self-efficacy are more likely to attempt and persist in unfamiliar writing tasks.

Performance outcomes

Self-efficacy has often been linked to students' writing performance outcomes. More so than any other element within the cognitive-affective domain, self-efficacy beliefs have proven to be predictive of performance outcomes in writing. In order to assess the relationship between self-efficacy and writing capabilities, several studies have constructed scales to measure students' self-efficacy beliefs. The results of these scales are then compared to student writing samples. The studies included other variables, such as writing anxiety, grade goals, depth of processing, and expected outcomes. However, self-efficacy was the only variable that was a statistically significant predictor of writing performance.

Public speaking

A strong negative relationship has been suggested between levels of speech anxiety and self-efficacy.

Healthcare

As the focus of healthcare continues to transition from the medical model to health promotion and preventive healthcare, the role of self-efficacy as a potent influence on health behavior and self-care has come under review. According to Luszczynska and Schwarzer, self-efficacy plays a role in influencing the adoption, initiation, and maintenance of healthy behaviors, as well as curbing unhealthy practices. 

Healthcare providers can integrate self-efficacy interventions into patient education. One method is to provide examples of other people acting on a health promotion behavior and then work with the patient to encourage their belief in their own ability to change. Furthermore, when nurses followed-up by telephone after hospital discharge, individuals with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) were found to have increased self-efficacy in managing breathing difficulties. In this study, the nurses helped reinforce education and reassured patients regarding their self-care management techniques while in their home environment.

Other contexts

At the National Kaohsiung First University of Science and Technology in Taiwan, researchers investigated the correlations between general Internet self-efficacy (GISE), Web-specific self-efficacy (WSE), and e-service usage. Researchers concluded that GISE directly affects the WSE of a consumer, which in turn shows a strong correlation with e-service usage. These findings are significant for future consumer targeting and marketing.

Furthermore, self-efficacy has been included as one of the four factors of core self-evaluation, one's fundamental appraisal of oneself, along with locus of control, neuroticism, and self-esteem. Core self-evaluation has shown to predict job satisfaction and job performance.

Researchers have also examined self-efficacy in the context of the work–life interface. Chan et al. (2016) developed and validated a measure "self-efficacy to regulate work and life" and defined it as "the belief one has in one’s own ability to achieve a balance between work and non-work responsibilities, and to persist and cope with challenges posed by work and non-work demands" (p. 1758). Specifically, Chan et al. (2016) found that "self-efficacy to regulate work and life" helped to explain the relationship between work–family enrichment, work–life balance, and job satisfaction and family satisfaction. Chan et al. (2017) also found that "self-efficacy to regulate work and life" assists individuals to achieve work–life balance and work engagement despite the presence of family and work demands.

Subclassifications

While self-efficacy is sometimes measured as a whole, as with the General Self-Efficacy Scale, it is also measured in particular functional situations. 

Social self-efficacy has been variably defined and measured. According to Smith and Betz, social self-efficacy is "an individual’s confidence in her/his ability to engage in the social interactional tasks necessary to initiate and maintain interpersonal relationships." They measured social self-efficacy using an instrument of their own devise called the Scale of Perceived Social Self-Efficacy, which measured six domains: (1) making friends, (2) pursuing romantic relationships, (3) social assertiveness, (4) performance in public situations, (5) groups or parties, and (6) giving or receiving help. More recently, it has been suggested that social self-efficacy can also be operationalised in terms of cognitive (confidence in knowing what to do in social situations) and behavioral (confidence in performing in social situations) social self-efficacy.

Matsushima and Shiomi measured self-efficacy by focusing on self-confidence about social skill in personal relationship, trust in friends, and trust by friends.

Researchers suggest that social self-efficacy is strongly correlated with shyness and social anxiety.

Academic self-efficacy refers to the belief that one can successfully engage in and complete course-specific academic tasks, such as accomplishing course aims, satisfactorily completing assignments, achieving a passing grade, and meeting the requirements to continue to pursue one's major course of study. Various empirical inquiries have been aimed at measuring academic self-efficacy.

Other areas of self-efficacy that have been identified for study include teacher self-efficacy and technological self-efficacy.

Clarifications and distinctions

Self-efficacy versus Efficacy

Unlike efficacy, which is the power to produce an effect—in essence, competence—the term self-efficacy is used, by convention, to refer to the belief (accurate or not) that one has the power to produce that effect by completing a given task or activity related to that competency. Self-efficacy is the belief in one's efficacy.

 

Self-efficacy versus Self-esteem

Self-efficacy is the perception of one's own ability to reach a goal; self-esteem is the sense of self-worth. For example, a person who is a terrible rock climber would probably have poor self-efficacy with regard to rock climbing, but this will not affect self-esteem if the person doesn’t rely on rock climbing to determine self-worth. On the other hand, one might have enormous confidence with regard to rock climbing, yet set such a high standard, and base enough of self-worth on rock-climbing skill, that self-esteem is low. Someone who has high self-efficacy in general but is poor at rock climbing might have misplaced confidence, or believe that improvement is possible.

 

Self-efficacy versus Confidence

According to Albert Bandura, "the construct of self-efficacy differs from the colloquial term 'confidence.' Confidence is a nonspecific term that refers to strength of belief but does not necessarily specify what the certainty is about. I can be supremely confident that I will fail at an endeavor. Perceived self-efficacy refers to belief in one's agentive capabilities, that one can produce given levels of attainment. A self-efficacy belief, therefore, includes both an affirmation of a capability level and the strength of that belief.

 

Self-efficacy versus Self-concept

Self-efficacy comprises beliefs of personal capability to perform specific actions. Self-concept is measured more generally and includes the evaluation of such competence and the feelings of self-worth associated with the behaviors in question. In an academic situation, a student's confidence in their ability to write an essay is self-efficacy. Self-concept, on the other hand, could be how a student's level of intelligence affects their beliefs regarding their worth as a person.

 

Self-efficacy as part of core self-evaluations

Timothy A. Judge et al. (2002) has argued that the concepts of locus of control, neuroticism, generalized self-efficacy (which differs from Bandura's theory of self-efficacy) and self-esteem are so strongly correlated and exhibit such a high degree of theoretical overlap that they are actually aspects of the same higher order construct, which he calls core self-evaluations.