From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A young boxer shows confidence in herself and in her equipment.
Confidence is a state of being clear-headed either that a
hypothesis or prediction is correct or that a chosen course of action is
the best or most effective. Confidence comes from a Latin word 'fidere'
which means "to trust"; therefore, having self-confidence is having trust in one's self. Arrogance or hubris,
in comparison, is the state of having unmerited confidence—believing
something or someone is correct or capable when evidence or reasons for
this belief are lacking. Overconfidence or presumptuousness is
excessive belief in someone (or something) succeeding, without any
regard for failure. Confidence can be a self-fulfilling prophecy
as those without it may fail or not try because they lack it and those
with it may succeed because they have it rather than because of an
innate ability.
The concept of self-confidence is commonly defined as self-assurance in one's personal judgment, ability, power, etc. One's self-confidence increases as a result of experiences of having satisfactorily completed particular activities. Self-confidence involves a positive belief that in the future, one can generally accomplish what one wishes to do. Self-confidence is not the same as self-esteem,
which is an evaluation of one's own worth, whereas self-confidence is
more specifically trust in one's ability to achieve some goal, which one
meta-analysis suggested is similar to generalization of self-efficacy. Abraham Maslow
and many others after him have emphasized the need to distinguish
between self-confidence as a generalized personality characteristic, and
self-confidence with respect to a specific task, ability or challenge
(i.e. self-efficacy). Self-confidence typically refers to general
self-confidence. This is different from self-efficacy, which
psychologist Albert Bandura has defined as a “belief in one’s ability to succeed in specific situations or accomplish a task”
and therefore is the term that more accurately refers to specific
self-confidence. Psychologists have long noted that a person can possess
self-confidence in their ability to complete a specific task
(self-efficacy) (e.g. cook a good meal or write a good novel) even
though they may lack general self-confidence, or conversely be
self-confident though they lack the self-efficacy to achieve a
particular task (e.g. write a novel). These two types of self-confidence
are, however, correlated with each other, and for this reason can be
easily conflated.
History
Ideas
about the causes and effects of self-confidence have appeared in English
language publications describing characteristics of a sacrilegious
attitude toward God, the character of the British empire, and the culture of colonial-era American society (where it seemed to connote arrogance and be a negative attribute).
In 1890, the philosopher William James in his Principles of Psychology
wrote, "Believe what is in the line of your needs, for only by such
belief is the need fulled ... Have faith that you can successfully make
it, and your feet are nerved to its accomplishment," expressing how
self-confidence could be a virtue. That same year, Dr. Frederick Needham, in his presidential address to the opening of the British Medical Journal's
Section of Psychology praised a progressive new architecture of an
asylum accommodation for insane patients as increasing their
self-confidence by offering them greater “liberty of action, extended
exercise, and occupation, thus generating self-confidence and becoming,
not only excellent tests of the sanity of the patient, but operating
powerfully in promoting recovery.”
With the arrival of World War I,
psychologists praised self-confidence as greatly decreasing nervous
tension, allaying fear, and ridding the battlefield of terror; they
argued that soldiers who cultivated a strong and healthy body would also
acquire greater self-confidence while fighting. At the height of the Temperance social reform movement
of the 1920s, psychologists associated self-confidence in men with
remaining at home and taking care of the family when they were not
working. During the Great Depression,
Philip Eisenberg and Paul Lazerfeld noted how a sudden negative change
in one's circumstances, especially a loss of a job, could lead to
decreased self-confidence, but more commonly if the jobless person
believes the fault of his unemployment is his. They also noted how if
individuals do not have a job long enough, they became apathetic and
lost all self-confidence.
In 1943, Abraham Maslow
in his paper "A Theory of Human Motivation" argued that an individual
is only motivated to acquire self-confidence (one component of "esteem")
after achieving what they need for physiological survival, safety, and
love and belonging. He claimed that satisfaction of self-esteem led to
feelings of self-confidence that, once attained, led to a desire for “self-actualization."
As material standards of most people rapidly rose in developed
countries after World War II and fulfilled their material needs, a
plethora of widely cited academic research about-confidence and many
related concepts like self-esteem and self-efficacy emerged.
Theories and correlations with other variables and factors
Self-confidence as an intra-psychological variable
Social
psychologists have found self-confidence to be correlated with other
psychological variables within individuals, including saving money, how individuals exercise influence over others, and being a responsible student. Marketing researchers have found that general self-confidence of a person is negatively correlated with their level of anxiety.
Some studies suggest various factors within and beyond an
individual's control that affect their self-confidence. Hippel and
Trivers propose that people will deceive themselves about their own
positive qualities and negative qualities of others so that they can
display greater self-confidence than they might otherwise feel, thereby
enabling them to advance socially and materially.
Others have found that new information about an individual's
performance interacts with an individual's prior self-confidence about
their ability to perform. If that particular information is negative
feedback, this may interact with a negative affective state (low
self-confidence) causing the individual to become demoralized, which in
turn induces a self-defeating attitude that increases the likelihood of
failure in the future more than if they did not lack self-confidence. On the other hand, some also find that self-confidence increases a person's general well-being and one's motivation and therefore often performance. It also increases one's ability to deal with stress and mental health.
A meta-analysis of 12 articles found that generally when
individuals attribute their success to a stable cause (a matter under
their control) they are less likely to be confident about being
successful in the future. If an individual attributes their failure to
an unstable cause (a factor beyond their control, like a sudden and
unexpected storm) they are more likely to be confident about succeeding
in the future.
Therefore, if an individual believes they and/or others failed to
achieve a goal (e.g. give up smoking) because of a factor that was
beyond their control,they are more likely to be more self-confident that
they can achieve the goal in the future.
Whether a person in making a decision seeks out additional sources of
information depends on their level of self-confidence specific to that
area. As the complexity of a decision increases, a person is more likely
to be influenced by another person and seek out additional information.
However, people can also be relatively self-confident about what they
believe if they consult sources of information that agree with their
world views (e.g. New York Times for liberals, Fox News for
conservatives), even if they do not know what will happen tomorrow.
Several psychologists suggest that people who are self-confident are
more willing to examine evidence that both supports and contradicts
their attitudes. Meanwhile, people who are less self-confident about
their perspective and are more defensive about them may prefer
proattitudinal information over materials that challenge their
perspectives. (see also Byrne, 1961; Olson & Zanna, 1982b; for related views in other domains, see Tesser, 2001).
Relationship to social influences
An
individual's self-confidence can vary in different environments, such
as at home or in school, and with respect to different types of
relationships and situations.
In relation to general society, some have found that the more
self-confident an individual is, the less likely they are to conform to
the judgments of others. Leon Festinger
found that self-confidence in an individual's ability may only rise or
fall where that individual is able to compare themselves to others who
are roughly similar in a competitive environment.
Furthermore, when individuals with low self-confidence receive feedback
from others, they are averse to receiving information about their
relative ability and negative informative feedback, and not averse to
receiving positive feedback.
People with high self-confidence can easily impress others, as
others perceive them as more knowledgeable and more likely to make
correct judgments,
despite the fact that often a negative correlation is sometimes found
between the level of their self-confidence and accuracy of their claims. When people are uncertain and unknowledgeable about a topic, they are more likely to believe the testimony, and follow the advice of those that seem self-confident.
However, expert psychological testimony on the factors that influence
eyewitness memory appears to reduce juror reliance on self-confidence.
People prefer leaders with greater self-confidence over those with less self-confidence. Heterosexual men who exhibit greater self-confidence relative to other men more easily attract single and partnered women.
Salespeople who are high in self-confidence tend to set higher goals
for themselves, which makes them more likely to stay employed, yield higher revenues, and generate higher customer service satisfaction.
Self-confident leaders tend to influence others through persuasion
instead of resorting to coercive means. They are more likely to resolve
issues by referring them to another qualified person or calling upon
bureaucratic procedures (organizational policies, regulations, etc.),
which avoid personal involvement.
Others suggest that self-confidence does not affect leadership style
but is only correlated with years of supervisory experience and
self-perceptions of power.
Variation in different categorical groups
Social scientists have discovered that self-confidence operates differently in different categories of people.
Children
Zimmerman
claimed that if children are self-confident they can learn they are
more likely to sacrifice immediate recreational time for possible
rewards in the future, enhancing their self-regulative capability. By adolescence, youth that have little contact with friends tend to have low self-confidence. Successful performance of children in music also increases feelings of self-confidence, increasing motivation for study.
In children, self-confidence emerges differently than adults. For
example, Fenton suggested that only children as a group are more
self-confident than other children.
Students
Many students focus on studies in school. In general, students who
perform well have increased confidence which likely in turn encourages
students to take greater responsibility to successfully complete tasks. Students who perform better receive more positive evaluations report and greater self-confidence. Low achieving students report less confidence and high performing students report higher self-confidence.
Extracurricular activities
can boost confidence in students at earlier age only in school. These
include participating in games/sports, visual and performing arts, and public-speaking among others.
Teachers can greatly affect the self-confidence of their students depending on how they treat them.
In particular, Steele and Aronson established that black students
perform more poorly on exams (relative to white students) if they must
reveal their racial identities before the exam, a phenomenon known as
“stereotype threat.”
Keller and Dauenheimer find a similar phenomenon in relation to female
student's performance (relative to male student's) on math tests.
Sociologists of education Zhou and Lee have observed the reverse
phenomenon occurring amongst Asian-Americans, whose confidence becomes
tied up in expectations that they will succeed by both parents and
teachers and who claim others perceive them as excelling academically
more than they in fact are.
In one study of UCLA students, males (compared to females) and
adolescents with more siblings (compared to those with less) were more
self-confident. Individuals who were self-confident specifically in the
academic domain were more likely to be happy but higher general
self-confidence was not correlated with happiness. With greater anxiety,
shyness and depression, emotionally vulnerable students feel more
lonely due to a lack of general self-confidence.
Another study of first year college students found men to be much more
self-confident than women in athletic and academic activities.
In regards to inter-ethnic interaction and language learning, studies
show that those who engage more with people of a different ethnicity and
language become more self-confident in interacting with them.
Men versus women
Barber
and Odean find that male common stock investors trade 45% more than
their female counterparts, which they attribute greater recklessness
(though also self-confidence) of men, reducing men's net returns by 2.65
percentage points per year versus women's 1.72 percentage points.
Some have found that women who are either high or low in general
self-confidence are more likely to be persuaded to change their opinion
than women with medium self-confidence. However, when specific high
confidence (self-efficacy) is high, generalized confidence plays less of
a role in affecting their ability to carry out the task.
Research finds that females report self-confidence levels in
supervising subordinates proportionate to their experience level, while
males report being able to supervise subordinates well regardless of
experience.
Evidence also has suggested that women who are more
self-confident may receive high performance evaluations but not be as
well liked as men that engage in the same behavior. However confident women were considered a better job candidates than both men and women who behaved modestly.
In the aftermath of the first wave of feminism and women's role in the
labor force during the World War, Maslow argued that some women who
possessed a more “dominant” personality were more self-confident and
therefore would aspire to and achieve more intellectually than those
that had a less “dominant” personality—even if they had the same level
of intelligence as the “less dominant” women. However, Phillip Eisenberg
later found the same dynamic among men.
Another common finding is that males who have low generalized
self-confidence are more easily persuaded than males of high generalized
self-confidence. Women tend to respond less to negative feedback and be more averse to negative feedback than men.
Niederle and Westerlund found that men are much more competitive and
obtain higher compensation than women and that this difference is due to
differences in self-confidence, while risk and feedback-aversion play a
negligible role.
Some scholars partly attribute the fact to women being less likely to
persist in engineering college than men to women's diminished sense of
self-confidence.
This may be related to gender roles, as a study found that after
women who viewed commercials with women in traditional gender roles,
they appeared less self-confident in giving a speech than after viewing
commercials with women taking on more masculine roles.
Such self-confidence may also be related to body image, as one study
found a sample of overweight people in Australia and the US are less
self-confident about their body's performance than people of average
weight, and the difference is even greater for women than for men.
Others have found that if a newborn is separated from its mother upon
delivery, the mother is less self-confident in her ability to raise that
child than one who was not separated from her children, even if the two
mothers did not differ much in their care-taking abilities.
Furthermore, women who initially had low self-confidence are likely to
experience a larger drop of self-confidence after separation from their
children than women with relatively higher self-confidence.
Stereotype threat
Stereotype threat examines how a social identity
that is negatively stereotyped causes vulnerabilities in a
stereotype-relevant situation. This concept examines factors such as
difficulty of the task while experiencing stereotype threat, beliefs
about abilities, as well as the interplay of the relevance of the
stereotype to the task.
Self-confidence in different cultures
Some
have suggested that self-confidence is more adaptive in cultures where
people are not very concerned about maintaining harmonious
relationships. But in cultures that value positive feelings and
self-confidence less, maintenance of smooth interpersonal relationships
are more important, and therefore self-criticism
and a concern to save face is more adaptive. For example, Suh et al.
(1998) argue that East Asians are not as concerned as maintaining
self-confidence as Americans and many even find Asians perform better when they lack confidence.
Athletes
Many
sports psychologists have noted the importance of self-confidence in
winning athletic competitions. Amongst athletes, gymnasts who tend to
talk to themselves in an instructional format tended to be more
self-confident than gymnasts who did not.
Researchers have found that self-confidence is also one of the most
influential factors in how well an athlete performs in a competition.
In particular, "robust self-confidence beliefs" are correlated with
aspects of "mental toughness," or the ability to cope better than your
opponents with many demands and remain determined, focused and in
control under pressure.
In particular, Bull et al. (2005) make the distinction between "robust
confidence" which leads to tough thinking, and "resilient confidence"
which involves over-coming self doubts and maintaining self-focus and
generates "tough thinking." These traits enable athletes to "bounce back from adversity."
When athletes confront stress while playing sports, their
self-confidence decreases. However feedback from their team members in
the form of emotional and informational support reduces the extent to
which stresses in sports reduces their self-confidence. At high levels
of support, performance related stress does not affect self-confidence.
In a group, their desire for success and confidence can also be
related. It was found that groups that had a higher desire for success
did better in performance than the group with a weaker desire. The more
frequently a group succeeded, the more interest they had for the
activity and their desire for success grew.
Success can influence a group to have higher goals and strive to work
harder. However, it may not apply to tasks that are extrinsically
motivating. However, over-confidence can cause people to load which can
hinder a group's performance. Individuals with high confidence whose
performance were identifiable are less likely to loaf than the
individuals with less confidence within the same situation. Individuals
confidence makes for a successful team performance which improves the
team's confidence.
Measures
One
of the earliest measures of self-confidence used a 12-point scale
centered on zero, ranging from a minimum score characterizing someone
who is “timid and self-distrustful, Shy, never makes decisions, self
effacing” to an upper extreme score representing someone who is “able to
make decisions, absolutely confident and sure of his own decisions and
opinions.”
Some have measured self-confidence as a simple construct divided
into affective and cognitive components: anxiety as an affective aspect
and self-evaluations of proficiency as a cognitive component.
The more context-based Personal Evaluation Inventory (PEI),
developed by Shrauger (1995), measures specific self-esteem and
self-confidence in different aspects (speaking in public spaces,
academic performance, physical appearance, romantic relationships,
social interactions, athletic ability, and general self-confidence).
Other surveys have also measured self-confidence in a similar way by
evoking examples of more concrete activities (e.g. making new friends,
keeping up with course demands, managing time wisely, etc.).
The Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2 (CSAI-2) measures on a scale
of 1 to 4 how confident athletes feel about winning an upcoming match.
Likewise, the Trait Robustness of Sports-Confidence Inventory (TROSCI)
requires respondents to provide numerical answers on a nine-point scale
answering such questions about how much one's self-confidence goes up
and down, and how sensitive one's self-confidence is to performance and
negative feedback.
Others, skeptical about the reliability of such self-report
indices, have measured self-confidence by having examiners assess
non-verbal cues of subjects, measuring on a scale of 1 to 5 whether the
individual
- maintains frequent eye contact or almost completely avoids eye contact,
- engages in little or no fidgeting, or, a lot of fidgeting,
- seldom or frequently uses self-comforting gestures (e.g. stroking hair or chin, arms around self),
- sits up straight facing the experimenter, or, sits hunched over or rigidly without facing the experimenter,
- has a natural facial expression, or, grimaces,
- does not twiddle hands, or, frequently twiddles something in their hand, or,
- uses body and hand gestures to emphasize a point, or, never uses
hand or body gestures to emphasize a point or makes inappropriate
gestures.
Wheel of Wellness
The Wheel of Wellness was the first theoretical model of Wellness based in counseling theory. It is a model based on Adler's individual psychology and cross-disciplinary research on characteristics of healthy people who live longer and with a higher quality of life. The Wheel of Wellness includes five life tasks that relate to each other: spirituality, self-direction, work and leisure, friendship, and love. There are 15 subtasks of self-direction areas: sense of worth, sense of control, realistic beliefs, emotional awareness and coping, problem solving and creativity, sense of humor, nutrition, exercise, self-care, stress management, gender identity, and cultural identity.
There are also five second-order factors, the Creative Self, Coping
Self, Social Self, Essential Self, and Physical Self, which allow
exploration of the meaning of wellness within the total self. In order
to achieve a high self-esteem, it is essential to focus on identifying
strengths, positive assets, and resources related to each component of
the Wellness model and using these strengths to cope with life
challenges.
Implicit vs. explicit
Implicitly measured self-esteem has been found to be weakly correlated with explicitly measured self-esteem.
Two experiments were conducted to examine implicit self-esteem by using
a self-other Implicit Association Test (IAT.) Participants were asked
to complete two different self-other IAT's. One esteem-IAT had the other
be unspecified and one in which the other specified to be a close
friend. Friend other-IAT was just a replication of unspecified
other-IAT, but the specified person could be either a dating partner or a
close friend of the opposite sex. The order that it was taken was
first, unspecified and then specified to avoid participants from
associating the specified person to the unspecified other-IAT.
Afterward, participants completed an explicit measure of self-esteem
through a self-semantic differential, a self-feeling thermometer, and
the Rosenberg (1965) Self-Esteem Scale. There was no correlation found
in the relationship between implicit and explicit measures of esteem. This leads some critics[who?]
to assume that explicit and implicit self-confidence are two completely
different types of self-esteem. Therefore, this has drawn the
conclusion that one will either have a distinct, unconscious self-esteem
OR they will consciously misrepresent how they feel about themselves.
Recent studies have shown that implicit self-esteem doesn't particularly
tap into the unconscious,
rather that people consciously overreport their levels of self-esteem.
Another possibility is that implicit measurement may be assessing a
different aspect of conscious self-esteem altogether. Inaccurate self-evaluation is commonly observed in healthy populations. In the extreme, large differences between oneʼs self-perception
and oneʼs actual behavior is a hallmark of a number of disorders that
have important implications for understanding treatment seeking and
compliance.
Extent
Motivation theories have suggested that successful performance hinges on both skill and will.
Yet, even a motivated and skilled individual can fail to perform if
they do not have a personal belief that they can handle what it takes or
what needs to be done. Overconfidence frequently occurs in patients
with schizophrenia, which is a defining feature of delusions. Metacognitive training for psychosis (MCT) reduces delusions and hallucinations according to a meta-analysis, which is attributed to the attenuation of response confidence.
Lack of self-confidence
Self-confidence has an effect on interest and/or enthusiasm and self-regulation. Evidence says that self-confidence is the base of striving to accomplish goals and improve performance.
Self-confidence is not motivation, but it plays a factor in what one
perceives they are capable of performing. Low confidence makes it less
likely that a person will initiate action and more likely that a person
will disengage because they doubt they can handle what needs to be done.
Even with skill and motivation, without confidence, goals are not
likely to be met. In certain fields of medical practice patients
experience lack of self-confidence during the recovery period. This is
commonly referred to as DSF or "defectum sui fiducia" from the Latin
etymology of lack of self-confidence. For example, this can be the case
after stroke whereby the patient refrains from using the weaker lower
limb due to fear of it not being strong enough to hold their weight
whilst standing or walking.
The mindset that an individual has towards their goals is
influenced by self-confidence. As well as “to mediate the relationship
between goals intentions and motivation.” Research has shown that the
higher the confidence is, the higher the goals. Due to the belief that
they can accomplish and are able to commit to greater goals. When people
do not accomplish their goals, they are not content. Bandura (1986)
predicts that people who had a higher self-confidence will become even
more persistent to accomplish their goals.
Whereas those who put themselves down and have doubts will lean more
towards giving up quickly. Higher self-confident individuals will change
their goals to cater more towards them. The lower self-confident
individuals will “become discouraged and abandon their goal altogether.”
Kavanagh and Hausfeld (1986) reported that “induced moods” did not change the expectation of their confidence.
However, Bandura (1988) has argued that individuals perceived
confidence indicates capability rather than their “physiological arousal
condition.” It is in their mind, if people do not believe that they are
capable of coping then they experience disruption which lowers their
confidence about their performance. Research shows evidence that anxiety
symptoms is not related to the “frightful cognition,” but due to the
individual's self-confidence to manage them.
Confidence bias
There are several debates concerning the overconfidence phenomenon and what its source is.
It is suggested that the confidence bias can be explained by a noisy
conversion of objective evidence (observation) into subjective estimates
(judgment), whereas noise is defined as the mixing of memories during
the storing (observing/learning) and retrieval process
(remembering/judgment). The information-theoretic logic behind this explanation is very similar to the mechanism that can also lead to the conservatism bias,
and holds that we mix true and false evidence during storage and
retrieval of evidence to and from our memories. The confidence bias
results because as judges we "look inside our own memory" (evaluate our
confidence) and find evidence that is more extreme than when we retrieve
evidence for our judgements (which are conservative due to mixing of
extreme values during retrieval). This explanation is very simple and
straightforward, but nevertheless sufficient mechanism to generate both,
overconfidence (in situations where judges are very sure) and
underconfidence (in cases when judges openly state to lack the required
knowledge).
Others have described evolutionary models which explain that
"counterintuitively, overconfidence maximizes individual fitness and
populations tend to become overconfident, as long as benefits from
contested resources are sufficiently large compared with the cost of
competition".
.jpg)
