When self-efficacy negatively relates to motivation and performance in a learning context.

Abstract

Recent reviews of the training literature have advocated directly manipulating self-efficacy in an attempt to improve the motivation of trainees. However, self-regulation theories conceive of motivation as a function of various goal processes, and assert that the effect of self-efficacy should depend on the process involved. Training contexts may evoke planning processes in which self-efficacy might negatively relate to motivation. Yet the typical between-persons studies in the current literature may obscure the effect. To examine this issue, 63 undergraduate students completed a series of questionnaires measuring self-efficacy and motivation before 5 class exams. Self-efficacy was negatively related to motivation and exam performance at the within-person level of analysis, despite a significant positive relation with performance at the between-persons level.

Examining the moderating effects of time on task and task complexity on the within person self-efficacy and performance relationship

“…In other words, when assessing 3 such reciprocal effects, the structure of the on-going activity should be challenging (as 4 challenging tasks seem to serve the impetus for the mobilisation of effort; e. performance, a target zone was used to measure putting performance improvements over time 10 rather than absolute putts obtained. The final limitation addressed the possibility that negative 11 efficacy effects may be accounted for by stable easy tasks by splitting the learning task into two 12 learning conditions.…”

“…In turn, such efficacy beliefs help 2 maintain and increase effort and performance (Bandura, 1997). Self-efficacy is defined as 3 "beliefs in one's capabilities to organise and execute courses of action required to produce given 4 attainments" (Bandura, 1997, p. 3). However, recent research has questioned exactly how useful 5 self-efficacy beliefs actually are in reciprocating its positive effect upon performance (e.g., 6 Beattie analysis.…”

“…The data sets were then collapsed into one data set for M A N U S C R I P T Thus as absolute performance increased across trials, the less participants thought they could 2 improve upon in subsequent trials. After controlling for trial and previous absolute performance, 3 self-efficacy magnitude and strength had slight non-significant negative relationships with 4 subsequent performance improvement (γ 30 = -.06, p = .15; γ 30 = -.04, p = .27; see Figure 1). This γ 20 = -.710, p < .001).…”

Jak zatrzymać wartościowych pracowników w organizacji? Wyzwania dla strategicznego ZKL (zarządzania kapitałem ludz- kim) / How to retain valuable employees in the organization? Challenges for strategic HRM

“…Eisenberger ze współpracownikami (2001) wskazują, że stwarzanie pracownikom możliwości rozwoju powoduje obligację do odwzajemnienia w postaci zachowań zorientowanych na organizację, między innymi redukuje intencję odejścia. Podkreśla się także, iż efektem zapewnienia możliwości rozwoju pracownikom jest oszczędność kosztów absencji i fluktuacji [Kaye, Jordan-Evans 2000] i większe przywiązanie pracowników do organizacji, którzy to dostrzegają zbieżność własnych celów z celami organizacji [Vancouver, Kendall 2006]. Ponadto jako cechy wpływające na intencje odejścia wskazuje się ocenę szeroko pojętej polityki organizacji, a w szczególności jej polityki rozwojowej [Byrne 2005;Grawith i in.…”

Why So Difficult? Exploring Negative Relationships between Educational Leaders: The Role of Trust, Climate, and Efficacy

“…It could be that high self-efficacy may reduce one's goal discrepancy and motivation to improve one's knowledge and skills as a result of a lack of self-doubt about one's ability that may support learning and reflection, which may result not only in an overestimation of one's own capacity but also in an underestimation of others' performance ( Vancouver and Kendall 2006;Wheatley 2002). This overconfidence may reinforce leaders' selfperception of high efficacy and their underestimation of others' efficacy (Kennedy et al 2011).…”