This article is for use only of students enrolled in GPS 520: Advanced Social Psychology for purposes associated with this course and may not be retained or further disseminated.
Maddux, J. E. (1991).
Self-efficacy. In C. R. Snyder
& D. R. Forsyth (Eds.) Handbook of Social and Clinical Psychology: The
Health Perspective (pp. 57-78). Elmsford,
NY: Pergamon Press.
People
tend to engage in behaviors that they believe will get them what they want and
that they believe they can do. We are more likely to pursue those goals we value
highly than those we value less; we are more likely to pursue those courses of
actions we anticipate will lead to the desired goals than those courses of
action that appear less likely to be profitable; and, all else being equal, we
are more likely to attempt those actions and strategies we believe are within
our capabilities than those means that seem to exceed our capacities. A number
of important psychological theories have been based on some variation or another
of these sound and simple premises concerned with the role of perceived
competence, personal effectiveness, and control in psychological health and
wellbeing (see chapters in this volume by Burns; Higgins; Karoly; Lefcourt;
Schlenker; Seligman; Solomon; Thompson, & Snyder). Self-efficacy theory
(Bandura, 1977, 1982, 1986a) is one of the more recent in a long tradition of
personal competence or efficacy theories and probably has generated more
research in clinical, social, and personality psychology in the past dozen years
than other similar models and theories. The crux of self-efficacy theory is
found in the above premises: that the initiation of and persistence at behaviors
and courses of action are determined largely by (a) outcome value (the
importance of certain outcomes, consequences, or goals); (b) outcome expectancy
(expectations concerning the effectiveness of certain behavioral means in
producing those outcomes); and, most importantly, (c) self-efficacy expectancy
(judgments and expectations concerning behavioral skills and capabilities and
the likelihood of being able to successfully implement the selected courses of
action). Self-efficacy theory also maintains that these same factors play an
important role in psychological adjustment and dysfunction and in effective
therapeutic interventions for emotional and behavioral problems.
The
major purpose of this chapter is to describe and evaluate self-efficacy theory
and the research most directly relevant to the interface of clinical and social
psychology. The chapter will provide an overview of self-efficacy theory,
describe the relationships between self-efficacy theory and other theories of
personal competence and effectiveness, and discuss the role of self-efficacy and
related constructs in psychological health and adjustment, and in
psychotherapeutic interventions. One important assumption guiding this chapter
is that self-efficacy theory is a true "bridging" theory between
social and clinical psychology, a theory of social cognition on which there has
been a tremendous amount of basic research and a theory of therapeutic
behavioral and emotional change of great practical interest to clinical
researchers and practitioners.
MODELS
OF PERSONAL EFFICACY
A
number of theorists have explored the nature of our feelings and beliefs about
personal mastery and competence and the effects of these feelings and beliefs on
behavior and psychological adjustment. Because understanding self-efficacy
theory and research depends on the ability to place the theory in a larger
context, several other models concerned with mastery and efficacy will be
reviewed briefly before self-efficacy theory and research are presented in
detail. The reviews to follow do not do justice to the richness, diversity, and
complexity of this topic, and the reader is urged to consult related chapters in
this volume and the other sources noted for more comprehensive presentations.
Effectance
Motivation
In
attempting to explain human behavior that is not directed toward the
satisfaction of biological needs such as hunger, thirst, and sexual desire,
White (1959) proposed that humans must be motivated by a different kind of goal,
the goal of exploring, manipulating, and mastering the environment. White called
this motivation effectance motivation and said that its satisfaction leads to a
"feeling of efficacy." According to White, we are biologically driven
to explore and master our environment, and we feel good when we explore new
situations, learn about them, and deal with them effectively. White also
proposed that this feeling of efficacy is an aim in itself, apart from the
practical value of the things we learn about the environment.
Achievement
Motivation
The
motivation to strive for achievement, success, and excellence is referred to as
achievement motivation or achievement need (McClelland, Atkinson, Clark, &
Lowell, 1953; McClelland, 1985). Achievement motivation is similar to White's
notion of effectance motivation in that each is an inherent (i.e., biologically
based) traitlike tendency to set mastery-related goals, work toward them, and
gain satisfaction from attaining them. Research has demonstrated that measures
of achievement motivation predict performance on specific achievement-related
tasks, as well as patterns of performance across time and situations
(McClelland, 1985). Theory and research on achievement motivation are concerned
more with what people want or need to accomplish than with what they expect to
accomplish. The positing of a motive to achieve implies that' achieving is
satisfying and pleasurable and that feelings of efficacy and success have
incentive value independent of the material by-products of success.
Level
of Aspiration
Theory
and research on level of aspiration (e.g., Festinger, 1942) are concerned with
what people would like to achieve and how their aspirations influence their
behavior. Level of aspiration is concerned with the goals that people set for
themselves in situations relevant to achievement or mastery, not the levels of
performance people expect to attain (Kirsch, 1986). In much of the early
research on level of aspiration, however, investigators did not make this
distinction clearly. Sometimes they asked people about what they would like to
be able to do or achieve; other times they asked people what they expected to be
able to achieve. The studies that made this important distinction found that
people's levels of aspiration were usually greater than their expectancies for
success (Kirsch, 1986). These older studies also found that expectancies
concerning performance levels were more strongly correlated with past
performance than was level of aspiration. Studies directly comparing the
predictive utility (i.e., predicting behavior) of level of aspiration measures
with expectancy measures have not been conducted, but a reasonable hypothesis
based on these prior studies is that expectancies for success would predict
future performance better than would level of aspiration.
Expectancy-Value
Theory
Expectancy-value
theories deal with the value placed on certain kinds of reward or reinforcement
and with expectations for obtaining these rewards. These theories have a long
tradition in psychology. Tolman's (1932) theory of animal learning, Lewin's
(1938) field theory, and Edwards' (1954) theory of decision-making are all
concerned with the importance of goals or rewards and subjective probabilities
for obtaining them and share the basic assumption that people are likely to
initiate behaviors that they believe will lead to desirable consequences. In his
"social learning theory," Rotter (1954) proposed that the feeling of
success and accomplishment itself is a form of reinforcement that is valued and
sought for its own sake. Recent models in the expectancy-value tradition include
protection motivation theory (Maddux & Rogers, 1983; Rogers, 1975), the
theory of reasoned Ajzen, 1975), and control theory (Carver & Scheier,
1981).
Locus
of Control
Locus
of control (Rotter, 1966; Lefcourt : this volume) refers to the general belief
that one s behavior can have an impact on the environment and that one is
capable of controlling outcomes through one's own behavior. People who believe
that their own behavior controls outcomes and that the environment is generally
responsive to their behavior are said to have an internal locus of control.
People who believe outcomes are determined by luck (good and bad) or powerful
others (such as God) and that the environment is generally unresponsive to their
own efforts are said to have an external locus of control. Locus of control is
more concerned with what people believe they can control than with their need to
control or what they Want to control. Locus of control also is more similar to
an outcome expectancy than to a self-efficacy expectancy because locus of
control is concerned with beliefs about the effect of one's behavior on the
environment rather than one's beliefs about one's ability to execute certain
behaviors. Although measures of locus of control have been shown to be related
to a large array of psychological and behavioral variables (see Lefcourt, this
volume), research on the role of causal attributions in de e io (Burns & -
Seligman, this volume) suggests that the locus of perceived control (i.e.,
whether internal or external) may be less important in some cases than beliefs
about degree of controllability (i.e., the source of control may be internal yet
perceived as uncontrollable).
Self-Concept
and Self-Esteem
Self-concept
consists of the sum total of attitudes and beliefs about the self -the kind of
person one is, one's likes and dislikes, and what one is capable or not capable
of doing well. Self-esteem is one's evaluation of these beliefs, or how one
feels about these beliefs-one's assessment of one's worth or value as a person.
(See Solomon this volume, & Higgins, this volume.) Belief, about mastery and
personal effectiveness are important aspects of self-concept and self-esteem. If
one's sense of competence is high for an ability one values, then this will
contribute to high self-esteem (or low self-esteem if perceived competence for
the valued skill is low). Judgments of inefficacy in unvalued areas of
competence are unlikely to significantly influence self-concept and self-esteem.
Mastery
Orientation
Dweck
and Leggett (1988) have offered a social-cognitive approach to personality and
motivation that seeks to explain patterns of goal-directed behavior by referring
to differences in individuals' "implicit theories" concerning the
relative mutability or controllability of personal attributes (such as
intelligence or social skillfulness) and characteristics of the world (including
other people). According to this model, these implicit theories determine the
types of goals people choose to pursue and how they respond to challenge and
adversity in pursuing goals. Dweck and Leggett describe the mastery-oriented
pattern (as opposed to the helpless pattern) as characterized by the belief or
theory that aspects of oneself and the world are changeable and controllable
rather than fixed, by the pursuit of development or learning goals
(competence-enhancement goals) rather than judgment or performance goals
(competence judgments from others), and by "the seeking of challenging
tasks and the generation of effective strategies in the face of obstacles"
(p. 257).
An
Organizing Framework
The
preceding paragraphs probably do not exhaust the list of terms and concepts in
the psychological literature related to personal efficacy, mastery, and control
(e.g., see Thompson, this volume). They do, however, provide a sense of the
diversity of efficacy and mastery ideas and models. In fact, one of the most
confusing aspects of the body of theory and research on efficacy and mastery is
the diversity of terms that leave the impression of great diversity of and
conflict among ideas. On closer examination, however, this apparent diversity
fades. The basic notions employed in these models can be reduced to five:
1.
Motives- inherent, biologically-based needs to explore, achieve, affiliate, or
otherwise master one's environment
2.
Feelings of esteem -pleasurable affective or emotional (rather than cognitive)
states that result from mastery, achievement, or personal effectiveness
3.
Outcome value- importance attached to specific goals or outcomes in specific
contexts, sometimes referred to as reinforcement value (Rotter, 1954) or
incentive value (McClelland, 1985)
4.
Outcome expectancies- perceived subjective probabilities concerning the
contingency between behavior and outcome, or consequence or set of consequences
5.
Setf-efficacy expectancies- perceived subjective probabilities or judgments
concerning the effective execution of a behavior or course of action.
That
the basic concepts concerning personal effectiveness can be reduced to so few
that recur so often is a testimony to the power and importance of these ideas.
Most models employ more than one of these notions without incorporating all
five. In fact, one of the major differences between the various models of
efficacy concerns which one or two of these five concepts or variables is most
strongly emphasized.
Effectance motivation, for example, is concerned with two of the five variables noted above: a basic, biologically based motive or drive to master the environment, and a pleasurable affective response to mastery and success. It does not deal directly with the role of expectations for attaining mastery, either expectations concerning behaviors and outcomes or expectations concerning personal ability.
Expectancy-value
models are concerned almost exclusively with cognitive rather than motivational
factors or feelings of esteem. In addition, prior to self-efficacy theory, few
expectancy-value models made clear the distinction between outcome expectancy
and self-efficacy expectancy.
Level
of aspiration is concerned with motives and outcome values-what people want or
need to accomplish. As noted earlier, however, research on level of aspiration
has focused sometimes on what people want to achieve and sometimes on what
people expect to be able to achieve without making clear the distinction. Also,
level of aspiration research has not made clear the distinction between motives
and values demonstrated by McClelland (1985) to be important.
Work
on achievement motivation has made clear the distinction between motives and
values (McClelland, 1985) but is less concerned with expectations for success
(i.e., self-efficacy expectancies and outcome expectancies). As noted earlier,
the concept of a motive to achieve implies that achieving results in feelings of
esteem that are sought for their own sake.
Locus
of control is concerned with expectancies rather than motives, outcome values,
or subjective feelings of effectance or esteem. At first glance, locus of
control sounds similar to self-efficacy expectancy. Bandura (1986a) has argued,
however, that locus of control is really a kind of outcome expectancy because it
is concerned with whether one's behavior controls outcomes, not whether one can
or cannot perform certain behaviors that might or might not have an effect on
the environment. Empirical evidence for the distinction between self-efficacy
and locus of control has been provided by Smith (1989) in a study that found
that cognitive-behavioral coping skill strategies taught to test-anxious college
students led to changes on a measure of general self-efficacy but not on a
measure of locus of control. In addition, changes in general self-efficacy were
unrelated to changes in locus of control.
Self-concept
and self-esteem are generalized sets of beliefs and feelings about the self that
consist of expectancies, motives, needs, values, and subjective feelings about
one's skills and abilities. Self-esteem is perhaps most closely related to
White's feeling of efficacy in that both are more affectively charged
constructs, whereas expectancies for success and outcome value are more
cognitive.
Dweck
and Leggett's mastery-oriented pattern might be renamed a "generalized high
expectancy for success" pattern and not lose much in the translation. What
Dweck and Leggett offer is a model of the more basic and general psychological
processes (i.e., the implicit theories) that underlie and explain how people
process success and failure experiences, how and why some people develop a
strong and relatively impervious sense of personal effectiveness in many aspects
of life, and how and why others seem inordinately vulnerable to cessation of
effort and demoralization in the face of adversity. In a study of managerial
skills, for example, Wood and Bandura (1989) demonstrated that managers who
viewed managerial effectiveness as an acquirable skill that could be improved
through experience sustained their self-efficacy expectancies in the face of
difficult challenges and set more difficult goals than managers who viewed
managerial skill as a fixed entity. Dweck and Leggett's framework, however, does
not emphasize the distinction between an outcome expectancy and a self-efficacy
expectancy.
The
various models also differ in the degree of generality or specificity of their
constructs and their predictions. For example, effectance motivation, locus of
control, and need to achieve are generalized, traitlike constructs proposed to
predict long-term trends or patterns in a general class of mastery behaviors
(e.g., achievement, affiliation), whereas self-efficacy expectancy and outcome
expectancy are typically defined and measured with considerable behavioral and
situational specificity and used to predict relatively specific behaviors in
relatively specific contexts.
The
organizational framework described above is far from novel. For example, in a
recent review of theory and research on motivation, McClelland (1985) argued and
provided empirical evidence for distinguishing among motivation, incentive
value, and probability of success, and for the importance of each in predicting
achievement performance and affiliation acts. In McClelland's framework, a
motive is a biologically based tendency to work toward a certain class of goals.
Thus, motives are physiological and affective rather than purely cognitive in
nature. Incentive value, on the other hand, is defined by McClelland as more
cognitive than affective and refers to the magnitude of the reward expected in a
particular situation and the importance of that reward. Probability of success
refers to the probability of goal attainment based on beliefs about skill.
Atkinson's (1957) theory of motivation proposed a similar framework by
postulating that choice of behavior and persistence are determined by expectancy
for success; incentive value of success; and motive, the disposition to strive
for particular kinds of satisfactions. Rotter (1954) also emphasized the
distinction between expectancy for success and reinforcement value of success.
Likewise, self-efficacy theory is concerned largely with expectancies for
success but provides a distinction between an outcome expectancy and a
self-efficacy expectancy.
Self-efficacy
theory focuses on the more cognitive aspects of mastery and effectiveness
-expectancies and values-rather than on more affective constructs such as needs,
motives, and feelings of efficacy. Yet, to focus on cognitions and expectations
is not to diminish the importance of needs, motives, and feelings. The various
models and constructs described here are by no means incompatible with
self-efficacy theory, nor with one another. Any model or explanation of human
behavior and adjustment will be incomplete unless it considers the individual's
inherent motivation toward a general class of goals, the feelings of
satisfaction one achieves from meeting challenges and overcoming obstacles, the
value attached to the specific goal or outcome sought at a given time and place,
and the individual's assessment of the likelihood of attaining the goal or
goals, an assessment that will include beliefs about behavior outcome
contingencies and beliefs about personal ability or skill. Therefore, each of
the models described here, including self-efficacy theory, is incomplete because
one or more important variables are not dealt with directly. Yet, this
incompleteness is to be expected because a theorist's or researcher's choice of
variables to investigate will depend on what he or she wishes to predict.
Motives or needs may be more useful in predicting general trends in
mastery-oriented behavior over relatively long periods of time. Predicting
relatively specific behaviors in specific situations over relatively brief time
frames is likely to be more successful when specific expectancies and values are
assessed. In fact, self-efficacy theory's most important contribution to the
body of theory and research on personal effectiveness and control -as the rest
of chapter will attempt to demonstrate -is made not by offering an opposing
alternative framework to other models of personal efficacy, but, first, by
emphasizing the distinction between three important mastery/efficacy constructs
-selfefficacy expectancy, outcome expectancy, and outcome value-and, second, by
emphasizing their measurement with a greater degree of behavioral and
situational specificity than has been the case in other theories and bodies of
research.
OVERVIEW
OF SELF-EFFICACY THEORY
Basic
Cognitive Processes
Self-efficacy
theory maintains that all processes of psychological and behavioral change
operate through the alteration of the individual's sense of personal mastery or
efficacy (Bandura, 1977, 1982, 1986a). According to Bandura (1977), "people
process, weigh, and integrate diverse sources of information concerning their
capability, and they regulate their choice behavior and effort expenditure
accordingly" (p. 212). Expectations concerning mastery or efficacy are
assumed to determine our choice of actions, the effort we expend, our
persistence in the face of adversity' and our emotional or affective
experiences. The selfefficacy model holds that three basic, cognitive, mediating
processes are important in explaining and predicting which behaviors people
initiate and to what degree they persist in actions that meet with barriers and
obstacles. These same cognitive mediators also can be viewed as important
components of psychological problems and effective clinical interventions: (a)
self-efficacy expectancies, beliefs concerning one's ability to execute a
specified course of action; (b) outcome expectancies, beliefs concerning the
probability that this specified course of action will lead to certain
consequences or outcomes; and (c) outcome value, the subjective value one places
on certain outcomes or sets of outcomes.
Self-Efficacy
Expectancy
Self-efficacy
expectancy is presumed to have the more powerful influence on behavior (Bandura,
1977). Self-efficacy judgments are concerned "not with the skills one has
but with judgments of what one can do with the skills one possesses" (p.
391) or with one's ability to execute courses of action to deal effectively with
problematic situations or to obtain desired goals. The vast majority of studies
on self-efficacy theory have demonstrated that self-efficacy expectancies are
good predictors of behavior (e.g., Bandura, Adams, & Beyer, 1977; Bandura,
Adams, Hardy, & Howell, 1980; Condiotte & Lichtenstein, 1981).
Experimental research also has been supportive of the importance of
self-efficacy expectancies in directly influencing behavioral intentions and
behaviors (e.g., Bandura, Reese, & Adams, 1982; Maddux & Rogers, 1983;
Maddux, Norton, & Stoltenberg, 1986; Maddux, Sherer, & Rogers, 1982;
Stanley & Maddux, 1986a; Wurtele & Maddux, 1987) and mood states (e.g.,
Davis & Yates, 1982; Kanfer & Zeiss, 1983; Maddux, Norton, & Leary,
1988; Stanley & Maddux, 1986b).
Self-efficacy
expectancies are not personality traits. They are relatively specific cognitions
that can only be understood and defined in relation to specific behaviors in
specific situations or contexts. Although self-efficacy sometimes is used to
refer to one's general sense of competence and effectiveness (e.g., Smith,
1989), the term is most useful when defined, operationalized, and measured as an
expectancy specific to a behavior or set of behaviors in a specific context
(e.g., Kaplan, Atkins, & Reinsch, 1984; Manning & Wright, 1983). For
example, the best way to predict ~ a smoker's attempt and success at giving up
cigarettes is to measure his self-efficacy expectancy for quitting, not his
general self-confidence or selfesteem. In addition, measuring self-efficacy
expectancies for quitting smoking will be more successful if we measure smokers'
expectations for being able to refrain from smoking under specific situations
(e.g., while at a party, after eating, when around other smokers [DiClemente,
19861). Although "general self-efficacy" scales have been developed (Sherer
et al., 1982; Tipton & Worthington, 1984), these scales have not resulted in
much useful research on specific types of behavior change.
Despite
the large number of studies supporting its utility, the self-efficacy expectancy
construct has not escaped criticism (Maddux & Stanley, 1986a, b). For
example, Kirsch (1982, 1983) has raised serious questions about the
relationships between self-efficacy expectancy, fear, and intentions to attempt
a feared behavior. Kirsch has demonstrated that self-efficacy expectancies for
approaching a snake in a glass cage can be enhanced by providing small financial
incentives for approach behavior. He argues that if self-efficacy ratings are of
a ratings perceived ability, then incentives or rewards should not influence
them. Kirsch (1982) found correlations as high as .90between self-efficacy
ratings and ratings of expected fear. He argued (Kirsch, 1986) that in
situations involving fear, self-efficacy expectancy can be regarded as indirect
measures of expected fear, rather than measures of performance capabilities.
Outcome
Expectancy
A
second controversy and area of criticism is the relationship between
self-efficacy and outcome expectancy. In Bandura's framework, outcome
expectancies are viewed as less important and as dependent primarily on
self-efficacy expectancies (Bandura, 1986a), although good studies of their
relationship and relative utility are rare. Bandura (1977) originally proposed
that self-efficacy expectancy and outcome expectancy are independent. This
proposed orthogonality was then and continues to be an important topic of
discussion (Borkovec, 1978; Kazdin, 1978; Kirsch, 1986; Teasdale, 1978). Eastman
and Marzillier (1984) have argued that Bandura does not provide a clear
conceptual distinction between the two expectancies and "has failed to
credit the importance of outcome expectations" (p. 227) as a cognitive
mediator. Bandura (1984) has responded to these criticisms by insisting that
self-efficacy expectancies and outcome expectancies are conceptually distinct
but that the types of outcomes people anticipate are influenced strongly by
self-efficacy expectancies (e.g., my expectations for consequences or results
depend on my expectations concerning the skillfulness of the execution of the
behavior in question).
Most
studies that have examined both self-efficacy expectancy and outcome expectancy
seem to suggest that the two are not orthogonal and that outcome expectancy does
not add significant predictive utility beyond that offered by self-efficacy
expectancy. Many of these studies, however, employed measures of self-efficacy
expectancy and outcome expectancy that are somewhat questionable (see Maddux
& Barnes, 1985; Maddux et al., 1986). For example, in some studies dependent
measures of self-efficacy expectancy and outcome expectancy have failed to make
a clear distinction between perceived ability to perform a behavior or behavior
sequence and the perceived probability that the behavior will lead to certain
outcomes (e.g., Davis & Yates, 1982; Manning & Wright, 1983; Taylor,
1989). In some studies, outcome expectancy has been measured as outcome value by
items that assess the positive or negative valence of consequences instead of
the probability of the occurrence of the consequences (e.g., Cooney, Kopel,
& McKeon, 1982; Lee, 1984a, 1984b). In other studies, traitlike measures of
outcome expectancy, such as locus of control, have been employed rather than
situation-specific and behavior-specific measures (Devins et al., 1982; Meier,
McCarthy, & Schmeck, 1984). Recent research, however, indicates that, when
defined and measured carefully and in a manner consistent with the conceptual
distinction, self-efficacy expectancy and outcome expectancy can be manipulated
and assessed relatively independently and that outcome expectancy can make a
significant independent contribution in predictive formulas (Maddux et al.,
1986).
Outcome
Value
Outcome
value or importance has been proposed as an additional component of the
self-efficacy model (Maddux et al., 1986; Maddux & Rogers, 1983; Teasdale,
1978), but has not been studied extensively in self-efficacy research. Most
researchers seem to assume, logically, that outcome value needs to be high for
self-efficacy expectancy and outcome expectancy to influence behavior.
Considerable research in expectancy-value theory has shown that outcome value
(reinforcement value, incentive value) is an important predictor of response
strength and response probability (e.g., Kirsch, 1986; McClelland, 1985). Only a
few studies, however, have investigated the role of outcome value in conjunction
with self-efficacy expectancy and outcome expectancy (Maddux et al., 1986;
Manning & Wright, 1983). The findings have been mixed. Maddux et al. (1986)
found that outcome value did not add significantly to the prediction of
behavioral intentions when examined in conjunction with self-efficacy expectancy
and outcome expectancy. Maddux and Barnes (1989), however, corrected a problem
in the measurement of outcome value found in Maddux et al. (1986) and found that
outcome value did serve as a significant predictor variable independent of
self-efficacy expectancy and outcome expectancy.
Dimensions
of Self-Efficacy
Self-efficacy
expectancies are viewed as varying along three dimensions: magnitude, strength,
and generality (Bandura, 1977, 1982, 1986a). Magnitude of self-efficacy, in a
hierarchy of behaviors, refers to the number of steps of increasing difficulty
or threat a person believes himself capable of performing. For example, a person
who is trying to abstain from smoking may believe that he can maintain
abstinence under conditions in which he feels relaxed and in which no others
present are smoking. He may doubt, however, his ability to abstain under
conditions of higher stress and/or when in the presence of other smokers (DiClemente,
1986).
Strength
of self-efficacy expectancy refers to the resoluteness of a person's convictions
that he or she can perform a behavior in question. For example, each of two
smokers may feel capable of abstaining from smoking at a party, but one may hold
this belief with more conviction or confidence than the other. Strength of
self-efficacy expectancy has been related repeatedly to persistence in the face
of frustration, pain, and other barriers to performance (Bandura, 1986b).
Generality
of self-efficacy expectancies refers to the extent to which success or failure
experiences influence self-efficacy expectancies in a limited, behaviorally
specific manner, or whether changes in self-efficacy expectancy extend to other
similar behaviors and contexts (e.g., Smith, 1989). For example, the smoker
whose self-efficacy expectancy for abstinence has been raised by successful
abstinence in a difficult or high-risk situation (e.g., in a bar around other
smokers) may extend his feelings of self-efficacy to other contexts in which he
has not yet experienced success or mastery. In addition, successful abstinence
might generalize to other contexts of self-control such as eating or maintaining
an exercise regimen.
Although
Bandura (1977) has stated that a thorough analysis of self-efficacy expectancy
requires a detailed assessment of magnitude, strength, and generality, most
studies rely on unidimensional measures of self-efficacy expectancy that most
resemble Bandura's strength dimension (e.g., confidence in one's ability to
perform a behavior under certain conditions).
Sources
of Self-Efficacy Information
Four
sources of information are posited to influence self-efficacy expectancies:
performance or enactment experiences, vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion
(or social persuasion), and emotional or physiological arousal (Bandura, 1977,
1986a). These four sources are presumed to differ in their power to influence
self-efficacy expectancies.
Performance
Experiences
Performance
experiences, in particular clear success or failure, are proposed to be the most
powerful sources of self-efficacy information (Bandura, 1977). Success at a
task, behavior, or skill strengthens self-efficacy expectancies for that task,
behavior, or skill, whereas perceptions of failure diminish self-efficacy
expectancy. A person who once tried to quit smoking for a day but failed
probably will doubt his or her ability to quit for a day in the future. On the
other hand, a person who is able to go a full day without smoking may hold
strong self-efficacy expectancies for abstaining for another day.
Vicarious
Experiences
Vicarious experiences
(observational learning, modeling, imitation) influence self-efficacy expectancy
when we observe the behavior of others, see what they are able to do, note the
consequences of their behavior, and then use this information to form
expectancies about our own behavior. The effects of vicarious experiences depend
on such factors as the observer's perception of the similarity between him- or
herself and the model, the number and variety of models, the perceived power of
the models, and the similarity between the problems faced by the observer and
the model (Bandura, 1986a; Schunk , 1986). Vicarious experiences generally have
weaker effects on self-efficacy expectancy than do direct personal experiences
(e.g., Bandura, Adams, & Beyer, 1977).
Verbal
Persuasion
Verbal persuasion (or social persuasion) is presumed to be a less potent source of enduring change in self-efficacy expectancy than performance experiences and vicarious experiences. The potency of verbal persuasion as a source of self-efficacy expectancies should be influenced by such factors as the expertness, trustworthiness, and attractiveness of the source, as suggested by decades of research on verbal persuasion and attitude change (see, Claiborn, Cacioppo, & Petty, this volume). Experimental studies have shown that verbal persuasion is a moderately effective means for changing both self-efficacy expectancies and outcome expectancies (e.g., Maddux & Rogers, 1983; Maddux et al., 1986).
Emotional
Arousal
Emotional
or physiological arousal influences self-efficacy expectancies when people
associate aversive emotional states with poor behavioral performance, perceived
incompetence, and perceived failure. Thus, when a person becomes aware of
unpleasant physiological arousal, he or she is more likely to doubt his or her
behavioral competency than if the physiological state were pleasant or neutral.
Likewise, comfortable physiological sensations (e.g., feelings of relaxation)
are likely to lead one to feel confident in one's ability in the situation at
hand. Physiological indicants of self-efficacy expectancy, however, extend
beyond autonomic arousal because, in activities involving strength and stamina,
perceived efficacy is influenced by such experiences as fatigue and pain, or the
absence thereof (e.g., Bandura, 1986b).
SELF-EFFICACY
AND PROBLEMS OF ADJUSTMENT
A
self-efficacy approach to psychological problems and their treatment assumes
that people become distressed, unhappy, or anxious, get into conflicts with
other people, and experience other emotional and behavioral problems in
adjustment because they hold inaccurate and unrealistic expectations about their
own behavior and the behavior of others, undervalue or overvalue certain
outcomes or consequences, feel nothing can be done to control important life
events and achieve valued life goals, or feel incapable of doing those things
that might control events and obtain goals (things that others seem capable of
doing). Also, a self-efficacy perspective suggests that people are motivated to
seek professional help following the experience of a major failure or series of
failures (or what they believe are failures) in one or more important areas of
their lives such as in their jobs, at school, or in relationships. Because of
these perceived failures, these people may come to hold a number of specific low
self-efficacy expectancies about specific areas of life. These low self-efficacy
expectancies may lead them to give up or stop trying to be effective in their
lives.
Measures of self-efficacy expectancies (or measures of outcome expectancy and outcome value) are not direct measures of psychological adjustment. Low self-efficacy expectancies are not sufficient for diagnosing psychological dysfunction, nor are high self-efficacy expectancies a guarantee of psychological health. Instead, self-efficacy expectancies are important because of their influence on subjective distress (e.g., anxiety, depression, low self-esteem) and on the initiation of and persistence at adaptive behaviors and attempts at coping.
Self-efficacy
theory has inspired a tremendous number of studies on the etiology, assessment,
and treatment of emotional and behavioral problems (Maddux, Stanley, &
Manning, 1987). Research has shown, for example, that low self-efficacy
expectancies are an important feature of depression (see Stanley & Maddux,
1986a, for a review). Depressed people usually believe they are less capable
than other people of performing effectively in their lives and feel little
control over their environments. Low self-efficacy is also an important feature
of anxiety problems and specific fears. Much of the work of Bandura and his
associates has focused on understanding the role of self-efficacy in the
development and treatment of extreme fears or phobias (Bandura, 1986a).
Self-efficacy also seems to be important in social or interpersonal anxiety
(Leary & Atherton, 1986; Maddux et al., 1988). Also, some research has
examined the importance of self-efficacy in many other problems such as
cigarette smoking, alcoholism, obesity, and eating disorders (e.g., bulimia).
The
following section discusses research on the role of self-efficacy in five
general types of problems commonly presented by psychotherapy and counseling
clients: (a) specific fears and phobias; (b) interpersonal or social anxiety;
(c) depression; (d) addictive behaviors and substance abuse; and (e) career
choice. The selection of topics is not meant to be exhaustive but representative
of the research on self-efficacy theory that can most readily be used by
practitioners. Much good research has been conducted on several other topics
that may also be of interest to clinicians, such as pain control (e.g., Manning
& Wright, 1983), academic achievement (Schunk, 1986), athletic performance (Wurtele,
1986), and a variety of other health-related behaviors (Bandura, 1986b; O'Leary,
1985).
Anxiety and Fear
Problems involving anxiety, fear, and avoidance have provided fertile ground for self-efficacy research. In their earlier studies, Bandura and his colleagues used people with specific fears or phobias to test both the basic assumptions and hypotheses of self-efficacy theory and to demonstrate its practical clinical utility. A self-efficacy model of anxiety is concerned primarily with the anticipation or expectation that danger or harm is imminent and the expectation that one will not be able to prevent or otherwise cope effectively with the anticipated aversive event. Perceptions of coping ability can be viewed in terms of both outcome expectancy, the belief that the means for preventing the aversive event are at hand, and, most importantly, self-efficacy, the belief that one will be able to implement the course of action that seems likely to avert the threat.
According
to Bandura (1986a), anxiety is the direct result of low self-efficacy
expectancies. People who have confidence in their ability to deal effectively
with a threatening situation will approach the situation with self-assurance and
calm, whereas those who have serious doubts about their coping skills will
anticipate catastrophes and generate a state of affective arousal that will then
interfere with effective functioning. A recent study by Tilley and Maddux (1989)
provides evidence for the causal link between self-efficacy expectancies and
anxiety. This study induced self-efficacy for coping with imagined stressful
life events (e.g., a difficult exam, an important social encounter) and found
that low self-efficacy expectancies were associated with anticipated anxiety.
Self-efficacy theory also hypothesizes that the key element common to all
successful clinical interventions for anxiety disorders is increasing the
client's sense of self-efficacy in mastering the anxiety-provoking situation
(Bandura, 1977).
Beck's
cognitive model of anxiety disorders (Beck, Emery, & Greenberg, 1985)
includes elements identical to those of self-efficacy theory. In Beck's model,
anxiety is elicited when a person anticipates danger or threat and anticipates
that he or she will not be able to cope with the threat. The anxious person is
viewed as following a set of "rules" about danger, vulnerability, and
his or her inability to cope with perceived danger of threat. Beck et al. (1985)
define vulnerability as "a person's perception of himself as subject to
internal or external dangers over which his control is lacking or is
insufficient to afford him a sense of safety" (p. 67). The vulnerable
person lowers his assessment of his abilities and focuses on his weakness and
ineptness and makes predictions about being unable to cope with the threatening
situation. Thus, Beck's formulation gives a prominent role to low self-efficacy
expectancies.
Barlow
(1988) has noted that research on the power of self-efficacy in predicting
anxiety as an emotional response has not been as compelling as research on the
ability of self-efficacy to predict approach and avoidance behaviors. He also
has noted, however, that Bandura proposed self-efficacy theory as a model for
behavioral change, not of emotional experience. As Bandura (1984) has stated,
"Self-efficacy scales ask people to judge their performance capabilities
and not if they can perform nonanxiously" (p. 238). Barlow (1988) credits
self-efficacy theory with generating considerable useful research on anxiety and
fear problems, but he also suggests that application to the most common clinical
anxiety disorders, panic disorder and generalized anxiety disorder, may be
limited because these disorders are characterized primarily by anxiety states
rather than behavioral avoidance patterns. A recent study suggests, however,
that self-efficacy is related not just to control of behavior, but to control of
cognitions related to anxiety. In a study of dental anxiety, Kent and Gibbons
(1987) found that people low in dental anxiety had fewer negative thoughts about
dental appointments than did people high in dental anxiety, and, more important,
that low-anxiety people expressed having more control over their negative
thoughts than high-anxiety people. If self-efficacy can be applied to the
control of anxiety-related cognitions, then it also might be applied effectively
to control of anxiety states.
Phobic Disorders
The earliest application of self-efficacy theory to clinical problems was the exploration of the relationship between self-efficacy expectancies and specific phobias and phobic avoidance behavior (Bandura, 1977). This research has found consistently that self-efficacy expectancies are significant predictors of phobic individuals' ability to approach feared stimuli. This effect has been reported for subjects who experience phobias of snakes and spiders (Bandura et al., 1977; Bandura et al., 1980; Bandura et al., 1982), heights (Williams & Watson, 1985), driving (Williams, Dooseman, & Kleinfield, 1984), and the dark (Biran & Wilson, 1981). The effect also has been demonstrated with agoraphobic subjects (Bandura et al., 1980) despite the controversy regarding the appropriateness of classifying agoraphobia as a true phobic disorder (Turner, McCann, Beidel, & Messick, 1986).
The
relationship between self-efficacy expectancies and phobic approach and
avoidance behavior has been reported following diverse types of treatment
(Bandura, 1986a). Self-efficacy expectancy measures at posttreatment appear to
be better predictors of approach behavior and therapeutic outcome than perceived
danger and subjective anxiety measures (Williams, Dooseman, & Kleinfield,
1984; Williams, Turner, & Peer, 1985; Williams & Watson, 1985).
Self-efficacy theory also has been invoked to explain the treatment-enhancing
effect of imipramine (an antidepressant) in exposure-based behavioral
interventions with agoraphobics. Research by Telch and his colleagues (e.g.,
Telch, 1988) suggests that, by elevating mood, imipramine leads agoraphobic
clients to judge their behavioral success more positively, generating greater
feelings of self-efficacy.
Social Anxiety
Anxiety or discomfort during social or interpersonal situations is one of the most common problems of behavioral and emotional adjustment (Buss, 1980; Leary, 1983). Schlenker and Leary's (1982) self-presentational model proposes that all instances of social anxiety arise from concerns with how we are perceived and evaluated by others. In this model, social anxiety occurs when we are motivated to make a particular impression on others but hold a low subjective probability that we will do so. Most existing research supports the hypothesized link between self-presentational concerns and social anxiety (Leary, 1983; Schlenker & Leary, 1982; Schlenker, this volume).
In
an elaboration of the self-presentational model, Maddux et al. (1988)
demonstrated that the subjective probability of making the impression one
desires can be better understood as a combination of self-presentational outcome
expectancy (the belief that certain interpersonal behaviors, if performed
competently, will lead to the desired impression) and self-presentational
efficacy expectancy (the belief that one is or is not capable of performing the
necessary interpersonal behaviors). This distinction has implications for the
situational and dispositional antecedents of social anxiety, other affective
reactions that may accompany social anxiety, the attributions people make about
the causes of their interpersonal difficulties, and the treatment of social
anxiety and inhibition (Leary, 1987). For example, a self-efficacy analysis
suggests that social skills training should include explicit efforts to ensure
that socially anxious clients perceive the improvement in their social skills (a
focus on self-efficacy expectancy as well as skills) and that setting realistic
interpersonal goals or outcomes also may be crucial (a focus on outcome
expectancies). Finally, a self-efficacy approach suggests that successful social
experiences will be the best source of efficacy information for the socially
anxious client, perhaps even more important than systematic training in specific
social skills (Leary, 1987; Leary & Atherton, 1986).
Depression
Depression is probably the most common diagnosis in the practice of clinical psychology and psychiatry (Goodwin & Guze, 1984). In recent years, cognitive approaches to the study and treatment of depression have dominated the literature (see Coyne & Gotlib, 1983, for review of theories). The two models that have received the most attention and support, the revised learned helplessness theory (Abramson, Seligman, & Teasdale, 1978) and Beck's cognitive theory (Beck, 1976), both emphasize the individual's perceptions of control over his or her own behavior and, more important, over environmental events. Also, both deal with general and specific expectancies and beliefs about the contingencies between personal behavior and positive and negative life events. Self-efficacy theory offers a third but related perspective on the role of cognitions, particularly expectancies for control, in depression.
In
the self-efficacy model, depression is predicted under conditions of high
outcome value, high outcome expectancy, and low self-efficacy expectancy
(Bandura, 1982). Specifically, when people believe that highly valued outcomes
are obtainable through the performance of certain behaviors (high outcome
expectancy), and believe that they are incapable of performing the requisite
behaviors (low self-efficacy expectancy), they will display performance deficits
(e.g., lack of behavioral initiative and persistence), self-devaluation, and
depressed affect. This perspective is compatible with other cognitive models of
depression. For example, self-efficacy theory incorporates both an emphasis on
perceptions of response-outcome noncontingency, which is important in the
revised learned helplessness theory, and an emphasis on perceptions of personal
incompetence and selfdevaluation, which is important in Beck's (1976) cognitive
model.
Self-Efficacy and Learned
Helplessness
The revised learned helplessness model of depression (Abramson et al., 1978) is concerned primarily with the perception of the controllability of aversive outcomes. According to Peterson and Seligman (1984), "the central prediction of the reformulation is that individuals who have an explanatory style that invokes internal, stable, and global causes for bad events tend to become depressed when bad events occur" (p. 347). Research on the model has demonstrated that depressed people are characterized by a particular style of causal attributions concerning the noncontingency or uncontrollability of past and present negative life events, that these attributions lead to expectancies of future uncontrollability, and that these expectancies concerning negative life events and their uncontrollability are the proximal cause of depressed mood (e.g., Riskind, Rholes, Brannon, & Burdick, 1987).
Self-efficacy
expectancy and outcome expectancy are directly related to noncontingency and
uncontrollability, which are often used interchangeably in the depression
literature. A low outcome expectancy is a perception of noncontingency between a
behavior and a desired consequence. A low self-efficacy expectancy, however, is
a perception not of noncontingency but of inability to perform a behavior upon
which a given outcome may or may not be contingent. Both low self-efficacy
expectancies and low outcome expectancies can contribute to one's perceptions of
the uncontrollability of outcomes because, to obtain desired outcomes or prevent
aversive outcomes, one must believe that a particular behavioral strategy will
have the desired consequence and that one is capable of implementing the course
of action. From an attributional standpoint, people who attribute the causes of
bad events to personal flaws and defects also are expressing low self-efficacy
expectancies or lack of confidence in their skills and abilities. Such people
are likely to believe that bad outcomes are uncontrollable not because they
perceive responses and outcomes as noncontingent, but because they perceive
themselves as incapable of implementing the necessary courses of action.
The
distinction between self-efficacy expectancy and outcome expectancy may clarify
the revised learned helplessness theory's distinction between "personal
helplessness," the belief that one is uniquely deficient in the ability to
control specific outcomes, and "universal helplessness," the belief
that no one is able to control the outcome or outcomes in question. In
self-efficacy theory, universal helplessness can be defined in terms of either
universal low outcome expectancies (no responses can control the outcome) or
universal self-efficacy expectancies (no one is capable of implementing the
behaviors that might control the outcome). Personal helplessness, however, is a
combination of high outcome expectancy and low self-efficacy expectancy; the
personally helpless individual believes that certain behaviors might or will
lead to the desired outcomes (or prevent a negative outcome), that others are
capable of performing these behaviors, but that he or she is not.
Self-Efficacy and Cognitive
Theory
According to Beck's
(1976) cognitive theory, depressed people hold negative views of themselves
(seeing themselves as defective and deficient), neg- ative views of the world
(seeing the world as difficult, uncaring, and fraught with obstacles and
problems), and negative views of the future (viewing their condition as hopeless
and their future as bleak). The depressed person's negative view of self can be
seen as a generalized low self-efficacy expectancy that is the product of and is
manifested in numerous situation-specific and behavior-specific low
self-efficacy expectancies (e.g., Kanfer & Zeiss, 1983). The negative view
of the world can be defined as a set of low outcome expectancies, a set of
expectations about response-outcome noncontingency-the world is filled with
obstacles that cannot be overcome because nothing works to change undesirable
situations. Finally, the depressed person's negative view of the future can be
expressed as a set of low outcome expectancies (the world will continue to be as
it is) and low self-efficacy expectancies (he or she will remain incapable and
incompetent).
Research on Self-Efficacy
and Depression
Correlational studies provide evidence for the relationship between specific and general low selfefficacy expectancies and depressive symptoms (Devins et al., 1982; Kanfer & Zeiss, 1983; Rosenbaum & Hadari, 1985; Stanley & Maddux, 1986b). In addition, experimental studies that have attempted to induce self-efficacy expectancies (Stanley & Maddux, 1986b & c; Tilley & Maddux, 1989) have provided evidence a causal relationship between low self-efficacy expectancies and depressed mood. Perceived uncontrollability of outcomes seems to be the heart of the cognitive problem of depressed people, and low self-efficacy expectancies appear to be more important than low outcome expectancies in depressed people's perceptions of uncontrollability (Anderson, Horowitz, & French, 1983; Anderson & Arnoult, 1985). A self-efficacy analysis might aid the clinician in determining which component of a cognitive intervention program to emphasize for a particular client. For example, should unrealistic outcome expectancies or inappropriate outcome values be the primary target of change? Or should the client's inaccurate perceptions of his or her interpersonal skills be emphasized?
The
low self-efficacy expectancies held by depressed people may be accurate
estimations of skills deficits rather than cognitive errors or distortions (Lewinsohn,
Mischel, Chaplin, & Barton, 1980). Therefore, research is needed on the
accuracy of depressed people's low self-efficacy expectancies at different times
during depression. This issue may have important treatment implications in that
the clinician could focus either on enhancing an unskilled client's social
skills or helping a relatively skilled client to recognize and take credit for
the skills he or she is capable of exercising (or both approaches could be
taken) (e.g., skills training vs. persuasion).
Addictive Behaviors and
Substance Abuse
A number of recent
studies indicate that self-efficacy theory is a useful model for exploring the
process of addictive behavior change and the impact of clinical interventions,
especially the prediction of relapse and maintenance (DiClemente, 1986). The
role of self-efficacy expectancies in smoking cessation has been studied most
thoroughly, but the application of self-efficacy theory to understanding alcohol
abuse and eating disorders such as obesity and bulimia also has received good
initial support.
DiClemente
(1986) has proposed that addictive behavior change efficacy can best be
conceptualized and assessed in terms of (a) treatment behavior efficacy (the
client's ability to perform treatment behaviors such as self-monitoring and
stimulus control); (b) recovery efficacy (the client's ability to recover from a
temporary relapse in addictive behavior control); (c) and control efficacy or
abstinence efficacy (the client's confidence in his or her ability to abstain
from engaging in the problem behavior in a variety of situations that typically
serve as cues for the behavior).
Smoking
has received the most attention from self-efficacy researchers. Scales based on
self-efficacy theory have proven useful in predicting successful completion of a
treatment program (Myerson, Foreyt, Hammond, & DiClemente, 1980),
posttreatment relapse (Coehlo, 1984; Condiotte & Lichtenstein, 1981;
DiClemente, 1981), and smoking rates following treatment (Coletti, Supnik, &
Rizzo, 1981; DiClemente, Prochaska, & Gibertini, 1985; Godding &
Glasgow, 1985; Nicki, Remington, & MacDonald, 1984). Research suggests,
however, that self-efficacy for abstinence assessed at pretreatment may predict
treatment program attendance but not treatment success. Also, efficacy ratings
increase during successful treatment, and posttreatment self-efficacy
assessments are significant predictors of maintenance of smoking cessation for
at least 3 to 6 months after treatment. To the author's knowledge, the
relationship between outcome expectancy and smoking behavior has been assessed
in only one published study (Godding & Glasgow, 1985), and no significant
correlation was found.
Efficacy
scales designed for alcohol abuse (Annis, 1982; Chambliss & Murray, 1979;
DiClemente, Gordon, & Gibertini, 1983; Marlatt & Gordon, 1985), obesity
(O'Leary, 1985; Weinberg, Hughes, Critelli, England, & Jackson, 1984;
Weinberg & Agras, 1984), and bulimic behavior (Schneider, O'Leary, &
Agras, 1985) have shown some promise in predicting treatment success for these
problems. Self-efficacy for weight loss has been a significant predictor of
actual weight loss (Weinberg et al., 1984), and self-efficacy to resist bulimic
behaviors has been found predictive of binge-and-purge episodes. In alcoholism
treatment, self-efficacy expectancy measures have been related to relapse
categories identified in previous research (Marlatt & Gordon, 1985), alcohol
use patterns, and deterioration (DiClemente, 1986). These scales were developed
primarily for research purposes and have been used mainly. in research settings,
but most are suitable for common clinical use. Utility of these scales in
typical private practice clinical settings remains an important area for
research. A clinician could use scales based on self-efficacy theory to
determine which clients would benefit most from extensive relapse prevention.
Self-efficacy scales might also be useful for planning appropriate
individualized follow-up treatment.
Career and Vocational Choice
Although decision-making about career or vocation is not usually considered a topic for clinical or abnormal psychology, few decisions one makes about one's life can have such long-lasting effects on happiness and adjustment as one's choice of work. Research and theory on vocational and career choice have been dominated by trait and developmental approaches (Betz & Hackett, 1986). Only recently have social cognitive models been applied systematically to the "planation, prediction, and modification of career and vocational behavior. Among social cognitive models, self-efficacy theory has been the most thoroughly investigated, especially in relation to women's career and vocational issues. The concept of self-efficacy helps us understand two continuing problems in women's career development: (a) women's continued underrepresentation in many male-dominated career fields, such as mathematics, engineering, and the sciences; and (b) the underutilization of women's talents and skills in career pursuits (Betz & Hackett, 1986). Betz and Hackett (1981, 1986) propose that gender differences in self-efficacy expectancies significantly influence the career choices of young women and that these self-efficacy expectancies are derived from sex role socialization experiences that are different from those of men.
In
their review of career self-efficacy, Lent and Hackett (1987) evaluate research
relating self-efficacy to career entry behavior, college major choice, academic
achievement, career choice, career decision-making, career adjustment, and
gender differences in career behavior. They conclude that self-efficacy measures
have been useful in predicting some aspects of career and vocational behavior,
but that the "incremental contribution" of self-efficacy measures to
interest and ability measures is questionable. They also point out that research
is especially needed on the causal links between self-efficacy and career
behavior.
Betz
and Hackett (1986) suggest that self-efficacy theory may not lead to the
development of completely new interventions in career decision-making but should
lead to the enhancement of existing interventions by encouraging the development
of multiple-intervention packages. The self-efficacy model also should enhance
these interventions by providing more focused goals (e.g., the enhancement of
specific self-efficacy expectancies, more accurate and reliable measures of
intervention success).
CLINICAL
APPLICATIONS OF SELF-EFFICACY THEORY
In
addition to contributing to the understanding of the etiology of emotional and
behavioral problems, self-efficacy theory offers guidelines for their assessment
and treatment. In trying to understand and help people who are experiencing
emotional or psychological problems, evaluating specific self-efficacy
expectancies about specific behaviors and specific life goals is usually more
useful than simply examining a person's general sense of competence or
effectiveness because specificity helps a clinician determine exactly what
beliefs and behaviors need to be changed to help the person experience success
and begin to feel and be more effective and productive. Once a client begins to
experience some success in one or two aspects of his or her life, the client may
develop stronger self-efficacy expectancies for behaviors in other areas of
life. For "ample, an extremely shy client may be helped with calling a
friend to arrange a lunch date, or a severely depressed person may be encouraged
to simply get up and get dressed in the morning. According to self-efficacy
theory, these small successes strengthen the client's sense of self-efficacy and
his or her expectations for additional, more important successes. Most effective
clinical interventions help people experience success as a way of restoring high
self-efficacy expectancies and a general sense of personal efficacy (Goldfried
& Robins, 1982).
Clinical Assessment
In
assessing clients' problems, the self-efficacy model and the considerable
research on measurement of self-efficacy expectancies may be useful in two ways.
First, an assessment of self-efficacy before treatment, at various stages in
treatment, and following treatment can help the clinician target specific
competency-related beliefs and situations, predict areas of potential
difficulty, and tailor interventions to meet a client's special needs. For
"ample, a self-efficacy scale that provides detailed information about
"at risk" situations for clients with eating problems or substance
abuse problems (e.g., DiClemente, 1986; Schneider et al., 1985) can help the
therapist clarify, anticipate, and prevent problems clients typically encounter
when attempting new or anxiety-provoking behaviors such as being assertive,
controlling food intake in the face of temptation, or refusing a drink when
offered one at a party. Such information can also assist in the timing of
interventions because the therapist and the client are better able to predict
relapse.
Second,
self-efficacy measures may be helpful in the evaluation of treatment
effectiveness. Most theories and models of psychotherapy emphasize the
importance of helping the client attain a greater sense of personal mastery or
competence (Goldfried & Robins, 1982). Perceptions of personal mastery, if
measured at all as a part of treatment outcome, usually have been measured as
global traitlike constructs (e.g., locus of control, self-esteem). Self-efficacy
theory has encouraged research on the development of assessment instruments that
are more problem specific and therefore more useful clinically. Such measures
should be of particular interest to behavioral and cognitive-behavioral
clinicians.
Most
measures of self-efficacy expectancies have been developed for research rather
than for direct clinical use, but many of them share a number of characteristics
that make them suitable for use in clinical settings. Most have good logical or
face validity, are brief and straightforward, are highly specific regarding
problem behaviors and problem situations, and lend themselves to use at frequent
intervals to provide efficient monitoring of client progress. (See previous
section on specific disorders and problems.)
Although
a number of measures of self-efficacy expectancies have been developed that are
suitable for clinical use, the measurement of outcome expectancy and outcome
value has been largely ignored. Research suggests that outcome expectancy and
outcome value can be useful predictor variables along with self-efficacy
expectancy. Thus, the development of measures of these constructs deserves
attention. For example, an outcome expectancy measure might consist of a list of
possible coping strategies for a specific problem and allow for ratings of the
client's perception of the potential effectiveness of these strategies. An
outcome value measure might consist of a list of the anticipated consequences
(both positive and negative) that might result from being more assertive or
losing weight, and the extent to which these consequences are desired or feared
(e.g., Saltzer, 1981). Both kinds of measures might assist the therapist in
assessing a client's motivation for treatment in general, the value they place
on attaining certain treatment goals, and their expectations about the
effectiveness of specific intervention strategies (see Thompson, this volume,
for additional information about the use of outcome expectancy in
psychotherapy).
Enhancing Self-Efficacy in
Psychotherapy
In
social learning (e.g., cognitive-behavioral) approaches to clinical psychology,
assessment and intervention are integrated activities rather than conceptually
and procedurally distinct. Therefore, a self-efficacy theory approach to
clinical interventions is guided by the same principle that guides the use of
self-efficacy theory in assessment -that situational and behavioral specificity
are crucial to understanding clinical problems and designing successful
therapeutic procedures. Few theories or models provide explicit step-by-step
guidelines for conducting clinical interventions, but a good theory should
provide the clinician with a conceptual framework that serves as a general guide
to understanding and conducting the clinical situation (Kanfer, 1984). Goldfried
and Robins (1982) suggest that self-efficacy theory can be most useful not by
suggesting new strategies for engineering initial behavior change but by
providing an index of the way clients cognitively process behavior changes and
experiences that occur in psychotherapy. They point out that many clients may
encounter success experiences in certain areas of their lives but may fail to
benefit fully from these experiences because they interpret these experiences in
ineffective ways, such as by overlooking, ignoring, or discounting the
importance of these success experiences. In other words, "selfefficacy
expectancies often lag behind behavior change" (Goldfried & Robins,
1982, p. 373).
Sources of Efficacy
Information
All
four sources of self-efficacy informationverbal persuasion, vicarious
experience, emotional arousal, and performance experience-are important in
effective. clinical interventions. Most forms of psychotherapy rely strongly on
verbal persuasion as a means of enhancing a client's sense of self-efficacy and
encouraging clients to take small risks that may lead to small successes
(Harvey, Weary, Maddux, Jordan, & Galvin, 1985). Almost all psychotherapists
rely initially upon their own powers of persuasion to convince clients that they
can make some small changes in their behavior. In cognitive and
cognitive-behavioral therapies, the therapist engages the client in a discussion
of the client's dysfunctional beliefs, attitudes, and expectancies, and helps
the client see the irrationality and self-defeating nature of such beliefs. The
therapist encourages the client to adopt new, more adaptive beliefs, and the
client is then encouraged to act on these new beliefs and expectancies and to
encounter the success that will lead to more enduring alterations in
self-efficacy expectancies and adaptive behavior. (See Hollon & Beck, 1986,
and Ingram & Kendall, this volume, for reviews of cognitive and
cognitive-behavioral psychotherapy.)
Some
clinical interventions use vicarious means for enhancing self-efficacy. For
example, modeling films and videotapes have been used successfully to encourage
socially withdrawn children to interact with other children. In such films, the
socially withdrawn child observes another child similar to himself or herself
encounter and then master problems similar to his or her problems. The child
model initially expresses some fear about approaching another group of children,
but then takes a chance and starts talking to the children and joins in their
play. The child watching the film sees the model child, someone much like
himself or herself, experience success and comes to believe that he or she too
can do the same thing (see Conger & Keane, 1981, for a review.) In vivo
modeling has been used successfully in the treatment of phobic individuals. This
research has shown that changes in self-efficacy expectancies for approach
behaviors mediate therapeutic behavioral changes (Bandura, 1986a).
Biofeedback,
relaxation training, and meditation are attempts to reduce emotional or
physiological arousal (e.g., anxiety) and to reduce the association between this
arousal and low selfefficacy. As noted above, actual performance of behaviors
that lead to success is perhaps the most powerful way to enhance personal
efficacy in psychotherapy. For example, the most effective treatments for
phobias and fears involve in vivo experience with the feared object or situation
during therapy sessions and between sessions as homework assignments (Bandura,
1986a; Barlow, 1988). In cognitively based treatments of depression, depressed
clients are provided structured guidance in the arrangement of success
experiences that will counteract low self-efficacy expectancies (Beck, Rush,
Shaw, & Emery, 1979).
Most
psychotherapy and counseling approaches involve combinations of more than one
source of self-efficacy information. For example, successful treatment with
agoraphobic clients may require intervention using all four sources of efficacy
information: (a) emotional arousal, teaching the client to relax and feel less
anxious when out in public; (b) verbal persuasion, encouraging the client to
attempt feared behaviors and challenging the client's expectations of
catastrophe; (c) vicarious experiences, observation of filmed or live models
(such as the therapist) engaging in feared behaviors or participation in an
agoraphobic group; (d) performance experiences, actual practice in engaging in
feared behaviors such as leaving one's home and approaching a feared situation
or setting, such as a supermarket.
A Self-Efficacy Focus for
Psychotherapy
Goldfried
and Robins (1982) suggest that a self-efficacy framework can be useful in
helping clients process success experiences more beneficially in four specific
ways. First, the self-efficacy model suggests that therapists should help
clients discriminate between past and present behavior to more accurately gauge
their progress. For example, therapists can help clients feel more
self-efficacious by encouraging them to contrast recent successful coping
strategies with past ineffective behaviors and view competence not as a trait
but as a set of specific behaviors performed in specific situations, and by
discouraging them from comparing their behavior with others who may seem more
competent. Second, therapists can encourage clients to attribute successful
behavioral changes to effort and competence rather than to environmental
circumstances.
Third,
therapists and counselors can encourage clients to retrieve past success
experiences to use as a guide for future behavior. In other words, "clients
must not only behave in competent ways but must also view these behavior
patterns as being part of their personal history" (Goldfried & Robins,
1982, p. 371). Fourth, therapists can assist clients in aligning or attaining
greater consonance among expectancies, anticipatory feelings, behaviors,
objective consequences of behaviors, and their self-evaluation. For example,
Goldfried and Robins point out that clients may perform adequately in
threatening situations yet feel unpleasant emotional arousal and thus face two
conflicting sources of self-efficacy information. In such situations, the
therapist needs to emphasize that the emotional arousal did not predict the
outcome of the situation and thereby discount a source of efficacy information
that previously had great importance for the client but was maladaptive. (See
Thompson, this volume, for additional strategies.)
FUTURE
DIRECTIONS
Since
the publication of Bandura's (1977) Psychological Review article,
"self-efficacy" has become one of the most ubiquitous terms in the
literature of social, clinical, counseling, health, and personality psychology
and probably will continue to be the subject of considerable research by
psychologists interested in the cognitive mediation of behavior and emotion. A
sampling of this literature reveals that most researchers, regardless of their
specialty field, are concerned with a relatively small number of questions on
the role of basic cognitive processes in human behavior and affective
experience, including the following:
1.
What is the role of perceived ability or competence in the individual's decision
to engage in certain behaviors and to persist in the face of obstacles or
failure?
2.
How are perceptions of competence related to the expected consequences of
behavior?
3.
How well can these "cognitive" factors predict behavior and affect?
4.
How are these cognitions related to the development and treatment of
psychological, behavioral, and emotional maladjustment?
Two
different but overlapping research goals probably will continue to receive the
most attention. The first of these concerns the relative utility of
self-efficacy expectancy, outcome expectancy, and outcome value (including
similar concepts with different names) in predicting and influencing a wide
variety of behaviors. These studies are concerned with the relationships of
various. cognitive patterns and styles to behavior and emotion. The second line
of research is concerned with the relationships among these cognitive mediators,
such as studies on the orthogonality of self-efficacy expectancy and outcome
expectancy. These goals and lines of research are mutually informative. Studies
of the relationship of cognition to affect and behavior will shed light on the
relationships among the cognitive mediators. More important, assessing the
utility of cognitive mediators, alone and in combination, in predicting behavior
and emotion is dependent on a clear understanding of their relationships to one
another, which itself is dependent on clear definition and measurement. The
following goals and guidelines are suggested for future research on
self-efficacy and related constructs.
Theory
and research involving self-efficacy expectancy, outcome expectancy, and outcome
value (and similar concepts) should begin to employ a common set of terms to
avoid confusion and to facilitate communication among researchers in various
areas. For example, Kirsch (1986) reviewed research on such topics as expectancy
and achievement motivation and argued that much of this past research deals with
self-efficacy expectancy but refers to the construct by various other terms.
Thompson (this volume) provides additional evidence for this problem by noting
the many terms in the literature on "control" that are used for
similar concepts and by showing the similarity between control terms and
self-efficacy theory's terms. The use of a common set of terms by researchers
and theorists working in the broad area of personal competence, efficacy, and
control (including researchers in clinical, social, health, and
industrial/organizational psychology) would facilitate communication and enhance
research efforts and theory development by allowing researchers to more easily
see the links between their own work and that of others.
The classification of personal efficacy concepts as (a) motives, (b)
feelings of esteem, (c) outcome value, (d) outcome expectancies, and (e)
self-efficacy expectancies may provide a starting point (see earlier
discussion).
Further
attention needs to be given to the role that behavioral intention, commitment,
or behavioral plan may play in mediating the relationship between behavior and
self-efficacy expectancy, outcome expectancy, and outcome value. The
relationships among attitudes, beliefs, intentions, and behaviors continue to be
the topic of research, most of which is based on Fishbein and Ajzen's (1975;
Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980) theory of reasoned action. This theory proposes that
the most powerful and immediate influence on behavior is behavioral intention,
which in turn is determined by the attitude toward the behavior and perceptions
of social norms regarding the behavior. (See Chaiken & Stangor, 1987, for
review of recent research). If self-efficacy expectancies, outcome expectancies,
and outcome value are viewed as beliefs and attitudes, then a model integrating
self-efficacy theory with the theory of reasoned action, now revised as the
theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1985), may be possible. Such integration
might involve measuring attitudes toward the behavior as self-efficacy
expectancies and outcome expectancies for the behavior in question and the
importance or value placed on the anticipated consequences. Social norms also
might be measured in terms of expected social support for engaging in the
behavior in question and the value of social support. In addition, theoretical
and conceptual links need to be established between self-efficacy theory and
related theories, such as learned helplessness theory (Abramson et al., 1978),
control theories (Carver & Scheier, 1981; Thompson, this volume),
attributional theories (e.g., Harvey, Ickes, & Kidd, 1978), and general
behavior theory (McClelland, 1985). This chapter has explored briefly some of
these links, but much more work is needed.