Reciprocal Predictions Between Interest, Self-Efficacy, and Performance During a Task

Abstract

In this study, we examined how situational interest, self-efficacy, and performance predict each other during task engagement, and how they, in turn, contribute to continued interest. Finnish fourth-graders (N = 263) did a computerized inductive reasoning task consisting of two sections. Before and after each section, the students reported their situational interest and self-efficacy, and at the end of the task, students stated whether they would like to do similar tasks again (i.e., continued interest). Students' domain-specific interest and self-concept in mathematics, and gender differences were controlled. A cross-lagged reciprocal effects model with repeated measures, control variables, and outcomes within the structural equation modeling framework was estimated. The results showed situational interest to have a stronger effect on self-efficacy than vice versa, and that they both partly contributed to task performance. Continued interest was influenced only by situational interest at the end of the task. The patterning of predictions across the different stages of the task suggests these effects to be somewhat sensitive to task characteristics.

Mutual relationships between the levels and changes in interest, self-efficacy, and perceived difficulty during a task

“…Evidence on task-specific relations and predictions still comes mostly from cross-sectional studies (e.g., associations between situational interest and selfefficacy in a writing task; Hidi et al, 2002Hidi et al, , 2007 or studies on unidirectional effects (e.g., the effects of pre-and mid-task interest on post-task efficacy in different kinds of tasks; Ainley et al, 2009). A recent study on reciprocal effects showed interest and self-efficacy to predict both each other and performance during an inductive reasoning task, although the effects were not consistent across the different sections of the task (Nuutila et al, 2020). This is in line with studies demonstrating the connections between interest and self-efficacy to depend partly on task characteristics (Ainley et al, 2009).…”

“…As for the third question (Q3), we expect, based on previous findings (Barba et al, 2016;Burns et al, 2020;Hidi, 1990;Niemivirta & Tapola, 2007;Nuutila et al, 2020;Richardson et al, 2012;Rotgans & Schmidt, 2018;Schöber et al, 2018;Talsma et al, 2018;Vainikainen et al, 2015), the initial levels of situational interest and self-efficacy to be predictive of task performance. Similarly, in line with both direct and indirect evidence (Andres, 2019;Guthrie et al, 2009;Power et al, 2020;Steensel et al, 2019), we presume the level of perceived difficulty to have a negative effect on performance, beyond and above the effects of self-efficacy and interest.…”

“…Research shows situational interest to be linked with increased persistence (Ainley et al, , 2005Fulmer & Frijters, 2011;Hidi, 1990), positive affect (Flowerday & Shell, 2015), higher attention and efficient cognitive processing (Hidi et al, 2004;McDaniel et al, 2000), and, subsequently, enhanced performance and learning (Barba et al, 2016;Nuutila et al, 2020;Rotgans & Schmidt, 2018;Vainikainen et al, 2015). Similarly, self-efficacy contributes to performance (Burns et al, 2020;Schöber et al, 2018;Talsma et al, 2018) through, for example, higher persistence and effort (Honicke & Broadbent, 2016), and more efficient cognitive processing (Phan, 2014).…”

“…This is one of the aims of the present study. Research on on-task motivation has mostly focused on correlations or predictions (Ainley et al, 2009;Hidi et al, 2002Hidi et al, , 2007Nuutila et al, 2020) between the above mentioned motivational factors, while less attention has been paid to their mean-level changes, the mutual relations of those changes, as well as their effects on performance during a specific task (see, Chen et al, 2016;Niemivirta & Tapola, 2007;Rodriguez-Aflecht et al, 2018). Given that interest, self-efficacy, and perceived difficulty all reflect dynamic motivational processes that fluctuate over time as a function of the interaction between the individual and the task Efklides, 2001;Krapp, 2000), this would seem particularly relevant.…”

Temperamental Sensitivities Differentially Linked With Interest, Strain, and Effort Appraisals

“…Studies also show interest to predict such effort independently and in interaction with trait conscientiousness ( Trautwein et al, 2015 ), and support persistence in spite of difficulties encountered ( Hidi and Renninger, 2006 ). Despite these connections with various learning-enhancing processes, the effect of interest on performance or academic achievement has sometimes been inconsistent ( Nuutila et al, 2020 ), weak ( Marsh et al, 2005 ), or even non-existent ( Tanaka, 2007 ; Tapola et al, 2013 ). Yet, some evidence shows positive changes (instead of the level) in interest to facilitate task performance ( Niemivirta and Tapola, 2007 ).…”