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

No abstract

The basic premise of self-efficacy theory is that “people's beliefs in their capabilities to produce desired effects by their own actions” (Bandura, 1997, p. vii) are the most important determinants of the behaviors people choose to engage in and how much they persevere in their efforts in the face of obstacles and challenges. Self-efficacy theory also maintains that these efficacy beliefs play a crucial role in psychological adjustment, psychological problems, physical health, as well as professionally guided and self-guided behavioral change strategies. This chapter provides an overview of self-efficacy theory and research by addressing three basic questions: (a) What is self-efficacy? (b) Where do self-efficacy beliefs come from? (c) Why is self-efficacy important? The chapter also discusses “collective efficacy”—group members' beliefs in their ability to collectively accomplish shared goals.

No abstract

A factorial experiment tested two alternative explanations of the persuasive effects of source expertness, source physical attractiveness, and the presence or absence of supporting arguments. The data rejected the hypothesis, derived from Kelman's functional approach to social influence, that an expert source's effect on persuasion is more dependent on supporting argumentation than is an attractive source's. The manipulation of expertness varied only expertise on the message topic and held constant other variables that have been used to manipulate expertness (e.g., education, intelligence). The results disclosed that agreement with the source was greater if the source was an expert rather than a nonexpert on the communication topic. Agreement also was greater if the sources provided supporting arguments than if they did not. The analyses also revealed that the persuasive impact of source expertness and argumentation was independent and additive. Physical attractiveness had no main or interaction effects on persuasion despite large perceived differences in the physical attractiveness of the sources, suggesting that under some conditions attractive sources may have to possess expertise or provide supporting argumentation to persuade an audience. In addition to disconfirming predictions based on the functional approach, the data were consistent with hypotheses derived from the Yale reinforcement approach to persuasion.According to Kelman (1961), when the the source's association with a position; for source of a communication is attractive, atti-the audience, the correctness of the advocated tude change is mediated by the process of position and the arguments supporting it are identification; when the source is expert, the incidental to establishing a desired relationprocess of mediation is internalization. Mills ship with the source. However, if the source's and Harvey (1972) and Norman (1976) persuasive power base is expertise, the effect tested the hypothesis, derived from Kelman's of the communicator on persuasion is medifunctional theory, that the processes produc-ated by supporting argumentation because ing agreement with an expert communicator internalization is based on the content of the differ from those producing agreement with communication. an attractive communicator. According to Kel-Based on these assumptions, Mills and man, if a source's persuasive power base is Harvey (1972) hypothesized that whether attractiveness, influence occurs simply through the source is identified before or after the communication would have less effect on its ~~Z'., ,.~T. ~persuasiveness when the source is attractive The preparation of this article was partially sup-.-. ., . T /r t u • it *• ported by Grant 1011 from the Research Grants ™ther than expert. If the source is attractive Committee of the University of Alabama to the sec-and influence is based on association of the ond author. The authors thank Alice Eagly for pro-source with a position, then it should be relaviding the materials from which the communications tive...