Negative Relationships Between Self-Efficacy and Performance Can Be Adaptive: The Mediating Role of Resource Allocation

Abstract

This research speaks to the ongoing debate regarding the role of self-efficacy in self-regulation. Specifically, we argue that both positive and negative relationships between self-efficacy and resource allocation are part of an adaptive process. We present the results of two empirical studies demonstrating that a negative relationship between self-efficacy and resource allocation is not always maladaptive and, in fact, can lead to positive indirect effects on performance. In Study 1, we observed natural fluctuations in self-efficacy as individuals completed a mathematics test, finding that the tendency to reduce resource allocation with high self-efficacy is most clearly observed when time is scarce. In turn, an inverted-U relationship between resource allocation and overall performance under high time scarcity emerged such that moderate levels of resource allocation resulted in the highest levels of performance. Study 2 used an experimental design in which self-efficacy was manipulated. Replicating core findings from Study 1, individuals drew upon self-efficacy to balance resource allocation across competing demands. We conclude with a discussion of the theoretical and practical implications of our results.

Academic commitment and self-efficacy as predictors of academic achievement in additional materials science

“…In addition, Khezri azar, Lavasani, Malahmadi, and Amani (2010) report a direct effect of self-efficacy on mathematics outcomes. Self-efficacy influences performance because it determines the resources (time and effort) people choose to allocate to tasks (Beck & Schmidt, 2015). We could find no research examining self-efficacy in the domain of Materials Science, although we would expect a similar pattern of results to those reported by Dalgety and Coll for Chemistry (2006).…”

“…The mechanism primarily responsible for the association between self-efficacy and performance is resource allocation (Beck & Schmidt, 2015). So, students who perceive themselves as having high levels of self-efficacy in academe (identity-level, i.e.…”

How do career adaptability and proactive career behaviours interrelate over time? An inter‐ and intraindividual investigation

“…In control theory (Carver & Scheier, 2001;Powers, 1973), the discrepancy reduction tendency is emphasized, meaning that individuals regulate their invested effort (e.g., proactive career behaviours) to maintain a desired state (e.g., a career goal, current career track). Consistent with this prediction, several past studies have shown on an intraindividual level that higher self-efficacy is associated with decreases in task effort (e.g., Vancouver, Thompson, Tischner, & Putka, 2002;Vancouver, Thompson, & Williams, 2001), resource allocation (Beck & Schmidt, 2015), and performance levels (Shea & Howell, 2000;Vancouver et al, 2002), whereas lower self-efficacy motivates increased effort, resource allocations, and performance. Consequently, people with higher levels of control may decrease their effort in working towards eliminating goal-state discrepancies, due to their anticipation of less needed resources to reach their goals.…”

“…First, we elucidate the shape and variability of intraindividual trajectories of career adaptability and proactive career behaviour. Third, we extend CCT by rationales from control theory (Carver & Scheier, 1990;Powers & Powers, 1973) and self-efficacy research (Bandura & Locke, 2003;Beck & Schmidt, 2015). Second, by disentangling inter-and intraindividual developments, the interdependence between the respective initial levels and changes in career adaptability and proactive career behaviour can be analysed in further detail (Duncan, Duncan, & Strycker, 2013;Preacher, 2008).…”

“…We investigate whether both constructs develop in a parallel fashion (i.e., increase/decrease in one construct goes along with increase/decrease in another construct) or not. Third, we extend CCT by rationales from control theory (Carver & Scheier, 1990;Powers & Powers, 1973) and self-efficacy research (Bandura & Locke, 2003;Beck & Schmidt, 2015). By doing so, we investigate potential negative effects of higher initial career adaptability levels on intraindividual changes of proactive career behaviours over time.…”