SelfEfficacy Beliefs of Adolescents 307337Copyright 2005 by Informat - PDF document

1 Self-Efficacy Beliefs of Adolescents, 30
Self-Efficacy Beliefs of Adolescents, 307–337Copyright © 2005 by Information Age PublishingAll rights of reproduction in any form reserved. 307 A. BANDURA Albert BanduraPerceived self-efficacy is concerned with people’s beliefs in their capabili-ties to produce given attainments (Bandura, 1997). One cannot be allthings, which would require mastery of every realm of human life. Peoplediffer in the areas in which they cultivate their efficacy and in the levels towhich they develop it even within their given pursuits. For example, abusiness executive may have a high sense of organizational efficacy butlow parenting efficacy. Thus, the efficacy belief system is not a global traitbut a differentiated set of self-beliefs linked to distinct realms of function-ing. Multidomain measures reveal the patterning and degree of general-ity of people’s sense of personal efficacy.There is no all-purpose measure of perceived self-efficacy. The measure fits all” approach usually has limited explanatory and predictivevalue because most of the items in an all-purpose test may have little orno relevance to the domain of functioning. Moreover, in an effort to serveall purposes, items in such a measure are usually cast in general termsdivorced from the situational demands and circumstances. This leavesmuch ambiguity about exactly what is being measured or the level of taskand situational demands that must be managed. Scales of perceived self-CHAPTER 14 316A. BANDURAgeneity of the items. Different domains of efficacy require different sets ofscales with item homogeneity within each of the domain-relevant scales. Reliability places an upper limit on the maximum possible correlationthat can be obtained between variables. Internal consistency reliabilitiesshould be computed usi

2 ng Cronbach’s alpha. If the reliability
ng Cronbach’s alpha. If the reliability coefficientsare low, discard or rewrite the items with low correlates. Including only afew items will limit the alpha level. Increase the number of items. Assessment of Perceived Collective EfficacyThe theorizing and research on human agency has centered almostexclusively on personal influence exercised individually. People do notlive their lives autonomously. Many of the outcomes they seek are achiev-able only through interdependent efforts. Hence, they have to worktogether to secure what they cannot accomplish on their own. Social cog-nitive theory extends the conception of human agency to collectiveagency. People’s shared beliefs in their collective power to producedesired results is a key ingredient of collective agency (Bandura, 2000).A group’s attainments are the product not only of shared knowledgeand skills of the different members, but also of the interactive, coordina-tive, and synergistic dynamics of their transactions. Therefore, perceivedcollective efficacy is not simply the sum of the efficacy beliefs of individualmembers. Rather, it is an emergent group-level property. A group oper-ates through the behavior of its members. It is people acting coordina-tively on a shared belief, not a disembodied group mind that is doing thecognizing, aspiring, motivating, and regulating. There is no emergententity that operates independently of the beliefs and actions of the indi-viduals who make up a social system. Although beliefs of collective efficacyinclude emergent aspects, they serve functions similar to those of per-sonal efficacy beliefs and operate through similar processes (Bandura,1997).There are two main approaches to the measurement of a group’s per-ceived efficacy. The first method aggregates the i

3 ndividual members’appraisals of their pe
ndividual members’appraisals of their personal capabilities to execute the particular functionsthey perform in the group. The second method aggregates members’appraisals of their group’s capability operating as a whole. The latterholistic appraisal encompasses the coordinative and interactive aspectsoperating within groups.Some researchers advocate that perceived collective efficacy be mea-sured by having a group arrive at a single judgment of the group’s capa-bility (Guzzo, Yost, Campbell, & Shea, 1993). The discussion approach ismethodologically problematic, however. Constructing unanimity about a Guide for Constructing Self-Efficacy Scales315judgment immediately before each performance. The assessments of per-ceived efficacy and behavior are conducted in different settings and bydifferent assessors to remove any possible carryover of social influencefrom assessment to the performance setting. Does rating one’s self-efficacy affect one’s behavior? If merely record-ing a level of self-efficacy made it so, personal change would be triviallyeasy. People would rate themselves into grand accomplishments. Never-theless, the question arises as to whether making efficacy judgments maycontribute some motivational inducement to improve the match betweenself-judgment and performance. Numerous tests for reactive effects ofself-efficacy assessment have been conducted (Bandura, 1997). The find-ings show that people’s level of motivation, affective reactions, and per-formance attainments are the same regardless of whether they do or donot make prior self-efficacy judgments. The nonreactivity of self-efficacyassessment is corroborated for diverse activities, including coping withthreats, self-regulation of motivation, pain tolerance, cognitive attain-ments, recove

4 ry of functioning after coronary surgery
ry of functioning after coronary surgery, and exercise adher-ence. Nor are efficacy judgments influenced by a responding bias toappear socially desirable, regardless of whether the domain of activityinvolves sexual behavior, alcohol consumption, smoking, dietary prac-tices, or self-management of diabetes.Private recording of efficacy judgments may reduce evaluative concernsand consistency expectations, but it could be argued that it does not elim-inate them entirely. To the extent that people assume their private record-ings will be evaluated at a later time, they may retain some evaluativeconcerns. However, evidence shows that making efficacy judgments doesnot increase congruence between perceived efficacy and behavior undereither high or low social demand for consistency (Telch, Bandura, Vin-ciguerra, Agras, & Stout, 1982).Item Analysis in Scale ConstructionPretest the items. Discard those that are ambiguous or rewrite them.Eliminate items where most people are checking the same response point.Such items do not differentiate among respondents. Items on which thevast majority of respondents check the maximum efficacy category lacksufficient difficulty, challenge, or impediments to distinguish levels of effi-cacy among respondents. Increase the difficulty level by raising the levelof challenge in the item. The items tapping the same domain of efficacy should be correlatedwith each other and with the total score. Factor analyses verify the homo- 314A. BANDURAthreshold of self-assurance is needed to attempt a course of action, buthigher strengths of self-efficacy will result in the same attempt. Thestronger the sense of personal efficacy, however, the greater the perse-verance and the higher the likelihood that the chosen activity will beperformed succ

5 essfully.One could also designate self-e
essfully.One could also designate self-efficacy beliefs in terms of level, that is,the number of activities individuals judge themselves capable of per-forming above a selected cutoff value of efficacy strength. However, con-verting a continuous measure of efficacy strength into a dichotomousmeasure on the basis of a minimal cutoff strength value loses predictiveinformation. If a low cutoff value is selected, a relatively low sense ofefficacy is treated the same as complete self-assurance. Conversely, if thecutoff criterion is set at a high level, a moderately strong sense of capa-bility gets defined as a lack of efficacy. Either too low or too high cut-offs can produce artifactual discrepancies between perceived self-efficacyA more refined microanalysis of congruence is provided by computingthe probability of successful performance as a function of the strength ofperceived self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977). This microlevel analysis retainsthe predictive value of variations in strength of efficacy beliefs. Becauseefficacy strength incorporates efficacy level as well as gradations of cer-tainty above any threshold value, efficacy strength is generally a more sen-sitive and informative measure than efficacy level.Minimizing Response BiasesThe standard procedure for measuring beliefs of personal efficacyincludes a number of safeguards to minimize any potential motivationaleffects of self-assessment. These safeguards are built into the instructionsand the mode of administration. Self-efficacy judgments are recorded pri-vately without personal identification to reduce social evaluative concerns.The self-efficacy scale is identified by code number rather than by name.Respondents are informed that their responses will remain confidentialand be used only with nu

6 mber codes by the research staff. If the
mber codes by the research staff. If the scale islabeled, use a nondescript title such as “Appraisal Inventory” rather thanSelf-Efficacy. To encourage frank answers, explain to the respondents theimportance of their contribution to the research. Inform them that theknowledge it provides will increase understanding and guide the develop-ment of programs designed to help people to manage the life situationswith which they have to cope. People make multiple judgments of their efficacy across the full rangeof task demands within the activity domain rather than making each Guide for Constructing Self-Efficacy Scales313ties. It is easy for people to imagine themselves to be fully efficacious insome hypothetical future. However, in the case of perceived self-regula-tory efficacy to maintain a given level of functioning over time, peoplejudge their efficacy that they can perform the activity regularly over des-ignated periods of time. For example, recovered alcoholics would judgetheir perceived capability to refrain from drinking over specified timeA practice item, such as the capability to lift objects of increasingweight, helps to familiarize respondents with the scale gauging strengthof efficacy belief and reveals any misunderstanding about how to use it.With young children, one can use a physical performance task to familiar-ize them with the scale for rating the strength of their perceived efficacy.For example, one can place markers on the floor at progressively fartherdistances. Children are asked to rate their degree of confidence that theycan jump to each of the distances. They do so by selecting a number fromthe scale with the following descriptors (e.g., cannot do it, not too sure,pretty sure, certain I can do it). They perform the task after each

7 rating.In this concrete way, children le
rating.In this concrete way, children learn how to use numerical scale values toconvey the strength of their perceived self-efficacy.With very young children one may have to use pictorial rather thanverbal descriptors of strength of self-efficacy belief. For example, circleswith progressively larger size could be used with explanation that the sizegradations represent increasing confidence that they can perform thetasks. Happy or sad faces are to be avoided. Children may misread such ascale as measuring their happiness or sadness rather than how confidentthey are that they can perform given tasks.Efficacy beliefs differ in generality, strength, and level. People mayjudge themselves efficacious across a wide range of activity domains oronly in certain domains of functioning. Generality can vary across types ofactivities, the modalities in which capabilities are expressed (e.g., behav-ioral, cognitive, affective), situational variations, and the types of individ-uals toward whom the behavior is directed. Assessments linked to activitydomains, situational contexts, and social aspects reveal the patterningand degree of generality of people’s beliefs in their efficacy. Within thenetwork of efficacy beliefs, some are of greater import than others. Themost fundamental self-beliefs are those around which people structuretheir lives.In addition, efficacy beliefs vary in strength.Weak efficacy beliefs areeasily negated by disconfirming experiences, whereas people who havea tenacious belief in their capabilities will persevere in their effortsdespite innumerable difficulties and obstacles. They are not easily dis-suaded by adversity. Strength of perceived self-efficacy is not necessar-ily linearly related to choice behavior (Bandura, 1977). A certain 312A. BAND

8 URAResponse ScaleIn the standard methodo
URAResponse ScaleIn the standard methodology for measuring self-efficacy beliefs, indi-viduals are presented with items portraying different levels of taskdemands, and they rate the strength of their belief in their ability to exe-cute the requisite activities. They record the strength of their efficacybeliefs on a 100-point scale, ranging in 10-unit intervals from 0 (“Cannotdo”); through intermediate degrees of assurance, 50 (“Moderately certaincan do”); to complete assurance, 100 (“Highly certain can do”). A simplerresponse format retains the same scale structure and descriptors but usessingle unit intervals ranging from 0 to 10. The instructions and standardresponse format are given below.The attached form lists different activities. In the column Confidence, ratehow confident you are that you can do them as of now. Rate your degree ofconfidence by recording a number from 0 to 100 using the scale givenbelow:The sample efficacy scales in the Appendix illustrate some variations informat depending on the age of the respondents and the sphere of effi-Scales that use only a few steps should be avoided because they are lesssensitive and less reliable. People usually avoid the extreme positions so ascale with only a few steps may, in actual use, shrink to one or two points.Including too few steps loses differentiating information because peoplewho use the same response category may differ if intermediate steps wereincluded. Thus an efficacy scale with the 0-100 response format is a stron-ger predictor of performance than one with a 5-interval scale (Pajares,Hartley, & Valiante, 2001). In sensitive measures, the responses are dis-tributed over a good part of the range of alternatives.Efficacy scales are unipolar, ranging from 0 to a maximum strength.They

9 do not include negative numbers because
do not include negative numbers because a judgment of completeincapability (0) has no lower gradations. Bipolar scales with negative gra-dations below the zero point that one cannot perform a given level ofactivity do not make sense.Preliminary instructions should establish the appropriate mindset thatparticipants should have when rating the strength of belief in their per-sonal capability. People are asked to judge their operative capabilities asof now, not their potential capabilities or their expected future capabili-0102030405060708090100Cannotcertain can do Guide for Constructing Self-Efficacy Scales311factors that, in fact, determine quality of functioning in the domain ofinterest.Gradations of ChallengePerceived efficacy should be measured against levels of task demandsthat represent gradations of challenges or impediments to successfulperformance. Self-efficacy appraisals reflect the level of difficulty indi-viduals believe they can surmount. If there are no obstacles to over-come, the activity is easily performable and everyone is highlyefficacious.The events over which personal influence is exercised can vary widely.It may entail regulating one’s own motivation, thought processes, perfor-mance level, emotional states, or altering environmental conditions. Thecontent domain should correspond to the area of functioning one seeks tomanage. The nature of the challenges against which personal efficacy isjudged will vary depending on the sphere of activity. Challenges may begraded in terms of level of ingenuity, exertion, accuracy, productivity,threat, or self-regulation required, just to mention a few dimensions ofperformance demands.Many areas of functioning are primarily concerned with self-regula-tory efficacy to guide and motivate oneself to

10 get things done that oneknows how to do
get things done that oneknows how to do. In such instances, self-regulation is the capability ofinterest. The issue is not whether one can do the activities occasionally,but whether one has the efficacy to get oneself to do them regularly inthe face of different types of dissuading conditions. For example, in themeasurement of perceived self-efficacy to stick to a health-promotingexercise routine, individuals judge how well they can get themselves toexercise regularly under various impediments, such as when they areunder pressure from work, are tired or depressed, are in foul weather,or when they have other commitments or more interesting things to do(see Appendix).Constructing scales to assess self-regulatory efficacy requires prelimi-nary work to identify the forms the challenges and impediments take.People are asked in open-ended interviews and pilot questionnaires todescribe the things that make it hard for them to perform the requiredactivities regularly. The identified challenges or impediments are builtinto the efficacy items. In the formal scale, participants judge their abilityto meet the challenges or to surmount the various impediments. Suffi-cient gradations of difficulties should be built into the efficacy items toavoid ceiling effects. 310A. BANDURAConceptual Analysis ofSelf-Efficacy MulticausalityThe construction of sound efficacy scales relies on a good conceptualanalysis of the relevant domain of functioning. Knowledge of the activitydomain specifies which aspects of personal efficacy should be measured.Consider the self-management of weight as an example. Weight is deter-mined by what people eat, by their level of exercise, which burns caloriesand can raise the body’s metabolism, and by genetic factors that regulatemetabolic proces

11 ses. A comprehensive self-efficacy asses
ses. A comprehensive self-efficacy assessment would belinked to the behavioral factors over which people can exercise some con-trol. This would include perceived capability to regulate the foods that arepurchased, to exercise control over eating habits, and to adopt and stickto an increased level of physical activity. Behavior is better predicted bypeople’s beliefs in their capabilities to do whatever is needed to succeedthan by their beliefs in only one aspect of self-efficacy relevant to thedomain. In the present example, perceived self-efficacy will account formore of the variation in weight if the assessment includes perceived capa-bility to regulate food purchases, eating habits, and physical exercise thanif it is confined solely to eating habits.The preceding example further illustrates how different facets of per-ceived efficacy operating within a domain may weigh in more heavily indifferent phases of a given pursuit. Perceived efficacy to purchase health-ful foods that make it easier to manage one’s weight accounts for dailycaloric and fat intake prior to treatment when self-regulatory skills areinfirm. After self-regulatory skills are developed, however, perceived effi-cacy to curb overeating maintains ret intake, and per-ceived efficacy to manage what one brings home fades in importance.Apparently, savory foods are not a problem as long as one can eat them inmoderation. If negative affect triggers overeating, assessment of per-ceived efficacy for affect regulation will explain additional variance in self-management of weight. Thus, multifaceted efficacy scales not only havepredictive utility but provide insights into the dynamics of self-manage-ment of behavior.If self-efficacy scales are targeted to factors that, in fact, have little orno

12 impact on the domain of functioning, suc
impact on the domain of functioning, such research cannot yield apredictive relation. If, for example, relaxation does not affect drug use,then perceived self-efficacy to relax will be unrelated to consumption ofdrugs because the causal theory is faulty. Under these circumstances, neg-ative findings will reflect faulty theory rather than limitations of self-effi-cacy beliefs. In short, self-efficacy scales must be tailored to activitydomains and assess the multifaceted ways in which efficacy beliefs operatewithin the selected activity domain. The efficacy scales must be linked to Guide for Constructing Self-Efficacy Scales309nant of intention, but the two constructs are conceptually and empiri-cally separable. Perceived self-efficacy should also be distinguished from other con-structs such as self-esteemlocus of controloutcome expectancies. Perceivedefficacy is a judgment of capability; self-esteem is a judgment of self-worth. They are entirely different phenomena. Locus of control is con-cerned, not with perceived capability, but with belief about outcome con-tingencies—whether outcomes are determined by one’s actions or byforces outside one’s control. High locus of control does not necessarilysignify a sense of enablement and well-being. For example, students maybelieve that high academic grades are entirely dependent on their perfor-mance (high locus of control) but feel despondent because they believethey lack the efficacy to produce those superior academic performances.Another important distinction concerns performance outcome expec-tations. Perceived self-efficacy is a judgment of capability to execute giventypes of performances; outcome expectations are judgments about theoutcomes that are likely to flow from such performances. Outcome expec-t

13 ations take three different forms (Bandu
ations take three different forms (Bandura, 1986). They include the posi-tive and negative physical, social, and self-evaluative outcomes. Withineach form, the positive expectations serve as incentives, the negative onesas disincentives. The outcomes people anticipate depend largely on theirjudgments of how well they will be able to perform in given situations. Perceived efficacy plays a key role in human functioning because itaffects behavior not only directly, but by its impact on other determinantssuch as goals and aspirations, outcome expectations, affective proclivities,and perception of impediments and opportunities in the social environ-ment (Bandura, 1995, 1997). Efficacy beliefs influence whether peoplethink erratically or strategically, optimistically or pessimistically. They alsoinfluence the courses of action people choose to pursue, the challengesand goals they set for themselves and their commitment to them, howmuch effort they put forth in given endeavors, the outcomes they expecttheir efforts to produce, how long they persevere in the face of obstacles,their resilience to adversity, the quality of their emotional life and howmuch stress and depression they experience in coping with taxing envi-ronmental demands, and the life choices they make and the accomplish-ments they realize. Meta-analyses across different spheres of functioningconfirm the influential role of perceived self-efficacy in human self-devel-opment, adaptation, and change (Boyer et al., 2000; Holden, 1991;Holden, Moncher, Schinke, & Barker, 1990; Moritz, Feltz, Fahrbach, &Mack, 2000; Multon, Brown, & Lent, 1991; Sadri & Robertson, 1993; Sta-jkovic & Luthans, 1998). 308A. BANDURAefficacy must be tailored to the particular domain of functioning that isthe object of inter

14 est.Although efficacy beliefs are multif
est.Although efficacy beliefs are multifaceted, social cognitive theoryidentifies several conditions under which they may co-vary even acrossdistinct domains of functioning (Bandura, 1997). When differentspheres of activity are governed by similar sub-skills there is some inter-domain relation in perceived efficacy. Proficient performance is partlyguided by higher-order self-regulatory skills. These include genericskills for diagnosing task demands, constructing and evaluating alterna-tive courses of action, setting proximal goals to guide one’s efforts, andcreating self-incentives to sustain engagement in taxing activities and tomanage stress and debilitating intrusive thoughts. Generic self-manage-ment strategies developed in one realm of activity are serviceable inother activity domains with resulting co-variation in perceived efficacyamong them. Co-development is still another correlative process. Even if differentactivity domains are not sub-served by common sub-skills, the same per-ceived efficacy can occur if development of competencies is sociallystructured so that skills in dissimilar domains are developed together.For example, students are likely to develop similarly high perceived self-efficacy in dissimilar academic subjects, such as language and mathe-matics in superior schools, but similarly low perceived efficacy in inef-fective schools, which do not promote much academic learning in anysubject matter.And finally, powerful mastery experiences that provide striking testi-mony to one’s capacity to effect personal changes can produce atransfor-mational restructuring of efficacy beliefs that is manifested across diverserealms of functioning. Extraordinary personal feats serve as transformingexperiences.The conceptual and methodological iss

15 ues regarding the nature andstructure of
ues regarding the nature andstructure of self-efficacy scales are discussed in detail in Chapter 2 in thebook Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control and will not be reviewed here. Thepresent guide for constructing self-efficacy scales supplements that con-ceptual and empirical analysis.Content ValidityEfficacy items should accurately reflect the construct. Self-efficacy isconcerned with perceived capability. The items should be phrased interms of can do rather than will do is a judgment of capability; willis a statement of intention. Perceived self-efficacy is a major determi- Guide for Constructing Self-Efficacy Scales337Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, F. (1998). Self-efficacy and work-related performance:A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 240-261.Telch, M. J., Bandura, A., Vinciguerra, P., Agras, A., & Stout, A. L. (1982). Socialdemand for consistency and congruence between self-efficacy and perfor-mance. Behavior Therapy, 13, 694-701. 336A. BANDURAREFERENCESBandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioralPsychological Review, 84, 191-215.Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Bandura, A. (Ed.). (1995). Self-efficacy in changing societies. New York: CambridgeUniversity Press.Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. CurrentDirections in Psychological Science, 9, 75-78 Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual review(Vol. 52, pp. 1-26). Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews.Boyer, D. A., Zollo, J. S., Thompson, C. M., Vancouver, J. B., Shewring, K., & Sims,E. (2000, June). A quantitative review of th

16 e effects of manipulated self-efficacy o
e effects of manipulated self-efficacy on. Poster session presented at the annual meeting of the AmericanPsychological Society, Miami, FL.Earley, P. C. (1999). Playing follow the leader: Status-determining traits in relationto collective efficacy across cultures. Organizational Behavior and Human Deci-sion Processes, 80, 192-212.Gully, S. M., Incalcaterra, K. A., Joshi, A., & Beaubien, J. M. (2002). A meta-analy-sis of team-efficacy, potency, and performance: Interdependence and level ofanalysis as moderators of observed relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology,, 819-832.Guzzo, R. A., Yost, P. R., Campbell, R. J., & Shea, G. P. (1993). Potency in groups:Articulating an construct. British Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 87-106.Holden, G. (1991). The relationship of self-efficacy appraisals to subsequenthealth related outcomes: A meta-analysis. Social Work in Health Care, 16Holden, G., Moncher, M. S., Schinke, S. P., & Barker, K. M. (1990). Self-efficacy ofchildren and adolescents: A meta-analysis. Psychological Reports, 66, 1044-1046.Moritz, S. E., Feltz, D. L., Fahrbach, K. R., & Mack, D. E. (2000). The relation ofself-efficacy measures to sport performance: A meta-analytic review. ResearchQuarterly for Exercise and Sport, 71, 280-294.Multon, K. D., Brown, S. D., & Lent, R. W. (1991). Relation of self-efficacy beliefsto academic outcomes: A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of CounselingPsychology, 38, 30-38.Pajares, F., Hartley, J., & Valiante, G. (2001). Response format in writing self-effi-cacy assessment: Greater discrimination increases prediction. Measurementand Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 33, 214-221.Sadri, G., & Robertson, I. T. (1993). Self-efficacy and work-related behavior: Areview and meta-analysis. Applied Psycholo

17 gy: An International Review, 42152..Staj
gy: An International Review, 42152..Stajkovik, A. D., & Lee, D. S. (2001, August). A meta-analysis of the relationshipbetween collective efficacy and group performance. Paper presented at meeting ofthe National Academy of Management, Washington, DC. Guide for Constructing Self-Efficacy Scales335Perceived Collective Family EfficacyThe statements below describe situations that commonly arise in fami-lies. For each situation please rate how certain you are that your family,working together as a whole, can manage them effectively. Your answerswill be kept strictly confidential and will not be identified by name.Rate your degree of confidence by recording a number from 0 to 100 using thescale given below:0102030405060708090100Cannotdo at all Moderately Highly certainConfidence(0-100)How well, working together as a whole, can your family:Set aside leisure time with each other when other things press for attentionAgree to decisions that require giving up personal interestsResolve conflicts when family members feel they are not being treated fairlyPrevent family disagreements from turning into heated argu-mentsGet family members to share household responsibilitiesSupport each other in times of stressBounce back quickly from adverse experiencesHelp each other to achieve their personal goalsBuild respect for each other's particular interestsHelp each other with work demandsGet family members to carry out their responsibilities when they neglect themBuild trust in each otherFigure out what choices to make when the family facesimportant decisionsFind community resources and make good use of them for the Get the family to keep close ties to their larger familyCelebrate family traditions even in difficult timesServe as a good example for the communityRemain confid

18 ent during difficult timesAccept each me
ent during difficult timesAccept each member’s need for independenceCooperate with schools to improve their educational practices______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 334A. BANDURACollective Efficacy to Promote MathematicsRating for Your School as a WholeListed below are eight different levels of achievement scores on the cri-terion referenced test (CRT). Please rate how certain you are that school as a whole can attain the different average levels of CRT scores bythe end of the school year. Record the appropriate number to the right ofeach of the eight levels of school average levels of CRT scores.Rate your degree of confidence by recording a number from 0 to 100 using thescale given below:0102030405060708090100Cannotdo at all Moderately Highly certainCRT school average byend of school year:Confidence(0-100)30% correct40% correct50% correct60% correct70% correct80% correct90% correct100% correct________________________________________________ Guide for Constructing Self-Efficacy Scales333Collective Efficacy to Promote ReadingRating for Your School as a WholeListed below are eight different levels of achievement scores on the cri-terion referenced test (CRT). Please rate how certain you are that school as a whole can attain the different average levels of CRT scores bythe end of the school year. Record the appropriate number to the right ofeach of the eight levels of school average levels of CRT scores.Rate your degree of confidence by recording a number from 0 to 100 using thescale given below:0102030405060708090100Cannotdo at all Moderately Highly certainCRT school average byend of school year:Confidence(0-100)30% correct40% correct50% correct60% correct70% cor

19 rect80% correct90% correct100% correct__
rect80% correct90% correct100% correct________________________________________________ 332A. BANDURATeacher Self-Efficacy to Promote MathematicsListed below are eight different levels of achievement scores on the cri-terion referenced test (CRT). Please rate how certain you are that can attain the different average levels of CRT scores by the end ofthe school year. Record the appropriate number to the right of each ofthe eight levels of school average levels of CRT scores.Rate your degree of confidence by recording a number from 0 to 100 using thescale given below:0102030405060708090100Cannotdo at all Moderately Highly certainCRT class average byend of school year:Confidence(0-100)30% correct40% correct50% correct60% correct70% correct80% correct90% correct100% correct________________________________________________ Guide for Constructing Self-Efficacy Scales331Teacher Self-Efficacy to Promote ReadingRatings for Your Class OnlyListed below are eight different levels of achievement scores on the cri-terion referenced test (CRT). Please rate how certain you are that can attain the different average levels of CRT scores by the end ofthe school year. Record the appropriate number to the right of each ofthe eight levels of school average levels of CRT scores.Rate your degree of confidence by recording a number from 0 to 100 using thescale given below:0102030405060708090100Cannotdo at all Moderately Highly certainCRT class average byend of school year:Confidence(0-100)30% correct40% correct50% correct60% correct70% correct80% correct90% correct100% correct________________________________________________ 330A. BANDURAEfficacy to Exercise Control over High-Risk BehaviorPrevent your children from doing things you do not want them to dooutside the homePreven

20 t your children from becoming involved i
t your children from becoming involved in drugs or alcoholPrevent your children from becoming involved in prematuresexual activityGet your children to quit drugs or alcohol if you found them using itManage the situation if you found that your children were sexually active____________________________________Efficacy to Influence the School SystemAffect what teachers expect your children to be able to do in school Have a say in what is taught in your children’s schoolMake your children’s school a better place for them to learnInfluence the social activities in your children’s schoolGet parents involved in the activities of your children’s schoolMake your children’s school a friendly and caring placeMake parents feel welcome in your children’s schoolHave a say in what is taught in your children’s schoolAffect what your children do after school______________________________________________________Efficacy to Enlist Community Resources for School DevelopmentGet neighborhood groups involved in working with schoolsGet businesses involved in working with schoolsGet local colleges and universities involved in working with schoolsGet public funds for specific programs in the school________________________Efficacy to Influence School ResourcesHelp your children’s school get the educational materials and equipmentthey need______Self-Efficacy to Control Distressing RuminationStop yourself from worrying about thingsTake your mind off upsetting experiencesStop yourself from being upset by everyday problemsKeep your mind on the things you are doing after you have had an upsetting experience________________________Resiliency of Self-EfficacyKeep tough problems from getting you downBounce back after you tried your best and failedGet yourself to keep trying when things

21 are going really badlyKeep up your spir
are going really badlyKeep up your spirits when you suffer hardshipsGet rid of self-doubts after you have had tough setbacksKeep from being easily rattledOvercome discouragement when nothing you try seems to work__________________________________________ Guide for Constructing Self-Efficacy Scales329Parental Self-EfficacyThis questionnaire is designed to help us gain better understanding ofthe kinds of things that create difficulties for parents to affect their chil-dren’s academic development. Please rate how certain you are that youcan do the things discussed below by writing the appropriate number.Your answers will be kept strictly confidential and will not be identified byRate your degree of confidence by recording a number from 0 to 100 using thescale given below:0102030405060708090100Cannotdo at all Moderately Highly certainConfidence(0-100)Efficacy to Influence School-Related PerformanceGet your children to see school as valuableGet your children to work hard at their schoolworkGet your children to stay out of trouble at schoolHelp your children get good grades at schoolGet your children to enjoy schoolShow your children that working hard at school influences later success____________________________________Efficacy to Influence Leisure-Time ActivitiesGet your children into activities outside of school (e.g., music, art, dancelessons, sports)Get your children to keep physically fitFind time for leisure activities with your children__________________Efficacy in Setting Limits, Monitoring Activities, and Influencing Peer AffiliationsKeep track of what your children are doing when they are outside the homePrevent your children from getting in with the wrong crowd of friendsGet your children to associate with friends who are good for themGet your

22 children to do things you want at homeM
children to do things you want at homeManage when your children go out and when they have to be inInstill your values in your childrenSpend time with your children and their friendsWork with other parents to keep the neighborhood safe for your childrenKeep your children from going to dangerous areas, corners, or play-grounds______________________________________________________ 328A. BANDURATeacher Self-Efficacy ScaleThis questionnaire is designed to help us gain a better understandingof the kinds of things that create difficulties for teachers in their schoolactivities. Please rate how certain you are that you can do the things dis-cussed below by writing the appropriate number. Your answers will bekept strictly confidential and will not be identified by name.Rate your degree of confidence by recording a number from 0 to 100 using thescale given below:0102030405060708090100Cannotdo at all Moderately Highly certainConfidence(0-100)Efficacy to Influence Decision Making Influence the decisions that are made in the schoolExpress my views freely on important school mattersGet the instructional materials and equipment I need__________________Instructional Self-EfficacyGet through to the most difficult studentsGet students to learn when there is a lack of support from the homeKeep students on task on difficult assignmentsIncrease students’ memory of what they have been taught in previous Motivate students who show low interest in schoolworkGet students to work well togetherOvercome the influence of adverse community conditions on students’ learningGet children to do their homework________________________________________________Disciplinary Self-EfficacyGet children to follow classroom rulesControl disruptive behavior in the classroomPrevent problem behavi

23 or on the school grounds________________
or on the school grounds__________________Efficacy to Enlist Parental InvolvementGet parents to become involved in school activitiesAssist parents in helping their children do well in schoolMake parents feel comfortable coming to school__________________Efficacy to Enlist Community InvolvementGet community groups involved in working with the schoolGet businesses involved in working with the schoolGet local colleges and universities involved in working with the school__________________Efficacy to Create a Positive School ClimateMake the school a safe placeMake students enjoy coming to schoolGet students to trust teachersHelp other teachers with their teaching skillsIncrease collaboration between teachers and the administration to make the school run effectivelyReduce school dropoutReduce school absenteeismGet students to believe they can do well in school work______________________________________________________ Guide for Constructing Self-Efficacy Scales327Self-Efficacy for Leisure Time Skills and Extracurricular ActivitiesLearn sports skills wellLearn dance skills wellLearn music skills wellDo the kinds of things needed to work on the school newspaperDo the things needed to serve in school governmentDo the kinds of things needed to take part in school playsDo regular physical education activitiesLearn the skills needed for team sports (for example, basketball, volleyball, swimming, football, soccer)________________________________________________Self-Regulatory EfficacyResist peer pressure to do things in school that can get me into troubleStop myself from skipping school when I feel bored or upsetResist peer pressure to smoke cigarettesResist peer pressure to drink beer, wine, or liquorResist peer pressure to smoke marijuanaResist peer pressure to

24 use pills (uppers, downers)Resist peer
use pills (uppers, downers)Resist peer pressure to have sexual intercourseControl my temper________________________________________________Self-Efficacy to Meet Others’ ExpectationsLive up to what my parents expect of meLive up to what my teachers expect of meLive up to what my peers expect of meLive up to what I expect of myself________________________Social Self-EfficacyMake and keep friends of the opposite sexMake and keep friends of the same sexCarry on conversations with othersWork well in a group________________________Self-Assertive EfficacyExpress my opinions when other classmates disagree with meStand up for myself when I feel I am being treated unfairlyGet others to stop annoying me or hurting my feelingsStand firm to someone who is asking me to do something unreasonableor inconvenient________________________Self-Efficacy for Enlisting Parental and Community SupportGet my parents to help me with a problemGet my brother(s) and sister(s) to help me with a problemGet my parents to take part in school activitiesGet people outside the school to take an interest in my school(for example, community groups, churches)________________________ 326A. BANDURAChildren's Self-Efficacy ScaleThis questionnaire is designed to help us get a better understanding ofthe kinds of thingsthat are difficult for students. Please rate how certainyou are that you can do each of the things described below by writing theappropriate number. Your answers will be kept strictly confidential andwill not be identified by name.Rate your degree of confidence by recording a number from 0 to 100 using thescale given below:0102030405060708090100Cannotdo at all Moderately Highly certainConfidence(0-100)Self-Efficacy in Enlisting Social ResourcesGet teachers to help me when I get st

25 uck on schoolworkGet another student to
uck on schoolworkGet another student to help me when I get stuck on schoolworkGet adults to help me when I have social problemsGet a friend to help me when I have social problems________________________Self-Efficacy for Academic AchievementLearn general mathematicsLearn scienceLearn biologyLearn reading, writing, and language skillsLearn to use computersLearn a foreign languageLearn social studiesLearn English grammar______________________________________________________Self-Efficacy for Self-Regulated LearningFinish my homework assignments by deadlinesGet myself to study when there are other interesting things to doAlways concentrate on school subjects during classTake good notes during class instructionUse the library to get information for class assignmentsPlan my schoolwork for the dayOrganize my schoolworkRemember well information presented in class and textbooksArrange a place to study without distractionsGet myself to do school work____________________________________________________________ Guide for Constructing Self-Efficacy Scales325Pain Management Self-EfficacyPeople sometimes do things to reduce their pain without taking medi-cation. Please rate how certain you are that you can reduce the differentlevels of pain described below?Rate your degree of confidence by recording a number from 0 to 100 using thescale given below:0102030405060708090100Cannotdo at all Moderately Highly certain(0-100)Reduce a DULL PAINA small reductionA moderate reductionA large reduction__________________Reduce an ACHING PAINA small reductionA moderate reductionA large reduction__________________Reduce a PENETRATING PAINA small reductionA moderate reductionA large reduction__________________Reduce an EXCRUCIATINGPAINA small reductionA moderate reductionA large redu

26 ction__________________ 324A. BANDURAPro
ction__________________ 324A. BANDURAProblem-Solving Self-EfficacyPlease rate how certain you are that you can solve the academic prob-lems at each of the levels described below. Rate your degree of confidence by recording a number from 0 to 100 using thescale given below:0102030405060708090100Cannotdo at all Moderately Highly certainConfidence(0-100)solve 10% of the problems______ 20% ''''''______ 30% ''''''______ 40% ''''''______ 50% ''''''______ 60% ''''''______ 70% ''''''______ 80% ''''''______ 90% ''''''______ 100% ''''''______ Guide for Constructing Self-Efficacy Scales323Driving Self-Efficacyrate how certain you arethat you candrive in the situationsdescribed below.Rate your degree of confidence by recording a number from 0 to 100 using thescale given below:0102030405060708090100Cannotdo at all Moderately Highly certainConfidence(0-100)Drive a few blocks in the neighborhood______Drive around in residential areas______Drive on a downtown suburban business street______Drive on a main arterial road______Drive on a freeway______Drive into the city______Drive on narrow mountain roads______ 322A. BANDURASelf-Efficacy to Regulate Eating HabitsA number of situations are described below that can make it hard tostick to a diet that is low in fat. Please rate in each of the blanks on the col-umn how certain you are that you can stick to a healthy diet on a regularbasisRate your degree of confidence by recording a number from 0 to 100 using thescale given below:0102030405060708090100Cannotdo at all Moderately Highly certain(0-100)While watching television______Feeling restless or bored______During holiday times______Feeling upset or tense over job-related matters______Eating at a friend’s house for dinner______Preparing meals for others______Eating at a r

27 estaurant alone______When angry or annoy
estaurant alone______When angry or annoyed______When very hungry______When depressed______When you want to sit back and enjoy food______When lots of high fat food is available in the house______Feel like celebrating with others______Someone offers you high fat foods______Feel a strong urge to eat foods high in fat that you like______When you are entertaining visitors______During vacations______Eating out with others when they are ordering high fat meals______Parties where a lot of appetizing high fat food is served______At recreational and sport events where high fat fast foods are served______When visiting a city and needing a quick meal______Airplane meals with high fat items______When visiting a city and wanting to experience the local food andrestaurants______Holidays and celebrations where high fat foods are served______When upset over family matters______When you want some variety in your diet______When eating breakfast in a restaurant______Others bring or serve high fat foods______When you have to prepare your own meals______When faced with appealing high fat foods in the supermarket______ Guide for Constructing Self-Efficacy Scales321Self-Efficacy to Regulate ExerciseA number of situations are described below that can make it hard tostick to an exercise routine. Please rate in each of the blanks in the col-umn how certain you are that you can get yourself to perform your exer-cise routine regularly (three or more times a week).Rate your degree of confidence by recording a number from 0 to 100 using thescale given below:0102030405060708090100Cannotdo at all Moderately Highly certainConfidence(0-100)When I am feeling tired_____When I am feeling under pressure from work_____During bad weather_____After recovering from an injury that caused me t

28 o stop exercising_____During or after ex
o stop exercising_____During or after experiencing personal problems_____When I am feeling depressed_____When I am feeling anxious_____After recovering from an illness that caused me to stop exercising_____When I feel physical discomfort when I exercise_____After a vacation_____When I have too much work to do at home_____When visitors are present_____When there are other interesting things to do_____If I don’t reach my exercise goals_____Without support from my family or friends_____During a vacation_____When I have other time commitments_____After experiencing family problems_____ 320A. BANDURAPractice RatingTo familiarize yourself with the rating form, please complete this prac-tice item first.If you were asked to lift objects of different weights , how cer-tain are you that you can lift each of the weights described below?Rate your degree of confidence by recording a number from 0 to 100 using thescale given below:0102030405060708090100Cannotdo at all Moderately Highly certainPhysical StrengthConfidence(0-100) pound object______ct“______ct“______ct“______100ct“______150ct“______200ct“______300ct“______ Guide for Constructing Self-Efficacy Scales319and predictive validity. The construct of self-efficacy is embedded in atheory that explains a network of relationships among various factors.Construct validation is a process of hypothesis testing. People who scorehigh on perceived self-efficacy should differ in distinct ways from thosewho score low in ways specified by the theory. Verifications of predictedeffects provide support for the construct’s validity.Perceived self-efficacy can have diverse effects on motivation, thought,affect, and action, so there are many verifiable consequences that can betested. There is no single validity coefficient. Con

29 struct validation is anongoing process i
struct validation is anongoing process in which both the validity of the postulated causal struc-ture in the conceptual scheme and the self-efficacy measures are beingScientific advances are greatly accelerated by methodological develop-ment of assessment tools for key determinants of human functioning.Quality of assessment provides the basis for stringent empirical tests oftheory. Given the centrality of efficacy beliefs in people’s lives, soundassessment of this factor is crucial to understanding and predictinghuman behavior. Human behavior is richly contextualized and condition-ally manifested. Self-efficacy assessment tailored to domains of function-ing and task demands identify patterns of strengths and limitations inperceived capability. This type of refined assessment not only increasespredictiveness, but provides guidelines for tailoring programs to individ-ual needs.The value of a psychological theory is judged not only by its explana-tory and predictive power, but by its operational power to effect change.Perceived self-efficacy is embedded in a broader theory of human agencythat specifies the sources of self-efficacy beliefs and identifies the pro-cesses through which they produce their diverse effects (Bandura, 1997,2001). Knowing how to build a sense of efficacy and how it works providesfurther guidelines for structuring experiences that enable people to real-ize desired personal and social changes. 318A. BANDURAmembers’ dependence on one another has important bearing on gaugingemergent properties. It is commonly assumed that an emergent propertyis operative if differences between groups remain after statistical methodsare used to control variation in characteristics of individuals within thegroups. The analytic logic is fine, but the re

30 sults of such statistical controlscan be
sults of such statistical controlscan be quite misleading. Because judgments of personal efficacy take intoconsideration the unique dynamics of a group, individual-level controlscan inadvertently remove most of the emergent group properties.The relative predictiveness of the two indexes of collective efficacy willdepend largely on the degree of interdependent effort needed to achievedesired results. For example, the accomplishments of a gymnastics teamare the sum of successes achieved independently by the gymnasts,whereas the accomplishments of a soccer team are the product of playersworking intricately together. Any weak link, or a breakdown in a sub-system, can have ruinous effects on a soccer team despite an otherwisehigh level of talent. The aggregated holistic index is most suitable for per-formance outcomes achievable only by adept teamwork. Under low sys-tem interdependence, members may inspire, motivate, and support eachother, but the group outcome is the sum of the attainments producedindividually rather than by the members working together. Aggregatedpersonal efficacies are well suited to measure perceived efficacy for thelatter types of endeavors.A growing body of research attests to the impact of perceived collectiveefficacy on group functioning (Gully, Incalcaterra, Joshi, & Beaubien,2002; Stajkovic & Lee, 2001). Some of these studies have assessed themotivational and behavioral effects of perceived collective efficacy usingexperimental manipulations to instill differential levels of perceived col-lective efficacy. Other investigations have examined the effects of natu-rally developed beliefs of collective efficacy. The latter studies haveanalyzed diverse social systems, including educational systems, businessorganizations, athletic team

31 s, combat units, urban neighborhoods, an
s, combat units, urban neighborhoods, andpolitical systems.The findings taken as a whole show that the higher the perceived col-lective efficacy, the higher the groups’ motivational investment in theirundertakings, the stronger their staying power in the face of impedimentsand setbacks, and the greater their performance accomplishments.Predictive and Construct ValidationAs noted earlier, self-efficacy scales should have face validity. Theyshould measure what they purport to measure, that is, perceived capabil-ity to produce given attainments. But they should also have discriminative Guide for Constructing Self-Efficacy Scales317group’s efficacy via group discussion is subject to the distorting vagaries ofsocial persuasion by members who command power and other types ofpressures for social conformity. Indeed, a group’s collective judgment ofits efficacy reflects mainly the personal judgments of higher status mem-bers rather than those of subordinate members (Earley, 1999). The dis-cussion approach is likely to produce reactive effects in that persuasoryefforts to reach consensus will alter members’ views. Assessments thatoperate through social influence should be avoided. A method of mea-surement should not change what it is measuring. Moreover, no social sys-tem is a monolith with a unitary sense of efficacy (Bandura, 1997). Aforced consensus to a single judgment masks the variability in efficacybeliefs among the various factions within a social system and misrepre-sents their beliefs.The two informative indices of perceived collective efficacy differ in therelative weight given to individual factors and social interactive ones, butthey are not as distinct as they might appear. Being socially situated, andoften interdependently so, individuals’ judgm

32 ents of their personal effi-cacy are not
ents of their personal effi-cacy are not detached from the other members’ enabling or impedingactivities. Rather, a judgment of individual efficacy inevitably embodiesthe coordinative and interactive group dynamics. Judgment of efficacy ina group endeavor is very much a socially embedded one, not an individu-alistic, socially disembodied one. To take an athletic example, in judgingthe collective efficacy of their football team, the quarterback obviouslyconsiders the quality of his offensive line, the fleetness and blocking capa-bilities of his running backs, the adeptness of his receivers, and how wellthey work together as an offensive unit. Conversely, in judging the effi-cacy of their team, members certainly consider how well key teammatescan execute their roles. Players on a basketball team would judge theirteam efficacy quite differently depending on whether or not a key super-star was in the lineup. Self-efficacy theory distinguishes between the source of the data (i.e.,individual) and the level of the phenomenon being measured (i.e., per-sonal efficacy or group efficacy). As noted earlier, there is no group mindthat believes. Perceived collective efficacy resides in the minds of mem-bers as beliefs in their group’s capability. All too often the source of thejudgment is misconstrued as the level of the measured phenomenon. Thelevel is concerned with whether the efficacy of an individual or the groupis being judged. Given the interdependent nature of the appraisal process, linking effi-cacy measured at the individual level to performance at the group leveldoes not necessarily represent a cross-level relation. The two indexes ofcollective efficacy are at least moderately correlated and predictive ofgroup performance. The fact that appraisals of gr