Psychology
Project Topic: Bandura’s Self-Efficacy Theory
Albert Bandura, born in 1925, is one of the leading psychologists of the twentieth century. His contribution to the field of psychology rests on his viewpoint that behavior is learned and formed in a social learning context. He stresses that virtually all forms of behavior can be learned without experiencing any reinforcement. In Bandura’s approach, the self is not some psychic agent that determines or causes behavior. Rather, the self is a set of cognitive processes and structures concerned with though and perception. Self-efficacy is an important aspect of the self (Schultz & Schultz, 2013).
According to Bandura, how well we meet our behavioral standards determines our self-efficacy. Bandura uses the term self-efficacy to refer to ‘feelings of adequacy, efficiency and competence in coping with life’. Bandura held that people low in self-efficacy would feel helpless and unable to exercise control over life events, as they would believe that their efforts were futile. On encountering obstacles, they would quickly give up their initial attempt. In contrast, those with high self-efficacy would deal effectively with events and situations. Because they would expect to succeed in overcoming obstacles, they would persevere at tasks and would often perform at a high level. Bandura theorized that people form their judgment about their self efficacy from performance attainment, vicarious experience, verbal persuasion and physiological and emotional arousal (Schultz & Schultz, 2013, p. 337).
Three research papers have been selected that study the linkages of self-efficacy with work life, life satisfaction and college performance respectively. The research papers are summarized in subsequent pages.
Summary: Research Article #1
Mensah, A.O., & Lebbaeus, A. (2013). The influence of employees’ self-efficacy on their quality of work life: the case of Cape Coast, Ghana. International Journal of Business and Social Science 4/2: 195-205.
Mensah and Lebbaus observe that while employees spend a lot of time at the workplace, many resist work because they believe they do not have the ability to perform their duties successfully. The researchers, therefore, studied how people’s self-efficacy relates to their quality of work life (QWL). The dependent variable is QWL, and the independent variable is self-efficacy. The study is important as it bridges a void in existing research, as little work has been hitherto done on determining linkages between self-efficacy and quality of work life. The authors define QWL as including aspects of work-related life such as wages, work environment, career prospects and human relations. They defined self-efficacy as the conviction of a person that he can execute behaviors relevant to his work. The research questions were to determine (a) to what extent self-efficacy related to QWL of employees in the Cape Coast metropolis, (b) to determine the current status of employees’ self-efficacy and QWL, (c) to assess the link between age, tenure and self-efficacy, and (d) to determine if educational levels affected self-efficacy. The research design for the study was a descriptive survey from a target population consisting of all employees in service, financial and tertiary educational institutions in Cape Coast metropolis. A stratified random sample was taken to ensure representation of each type of institution, age range, gender, educational background, position and tenure. The research instrument consisted of closed ended questions measuring self-efficacy on a predetermined scale, and a QWL assessing questionnaire. The researchers found significant positive correlation between self-efficacy and QWL of employees. This implies that if employees know they are equipped with skills and abilities to do the job, they would be effective on their jobs. The researchers found the current state of self-efficacy of the employees to be good, as the averages were above the mid points of the sample. Using ANOVA, researchers observed that age of employees and their tenures did not affect their belief in their self-efficacy. They further found that educational level of employees affected their self-efficacy and QWL (Mensah & Lebbaeus, 2013).
Summary: Research Article #2
Natovová, L. & Chylová, H. (2014). Is there a relationship between self-efficacy, well-being and behavioral markers in managing stress at university students? ERIES Journal 7/1: 14-18.
Natovová and Chylová wanted to determine if a correlation could be found between the subjective evaluation of life satisfaction, including aspects like self-efficacy and behavioral indicators of vulnerability to the stress experienced by university students in Czech University of Life Sciences. The dependent variable is stress, and the independent variable is self-efficacy. The study is important as it addresses the important question of student progression and retention in the stressful environment of academic universities. The researchers used a descriptive, correlational research design, administering the Self-Efficacy scale, Satisfaction with Life Scale and Stress Vulnerability Scale to 211 undergraduate students. The research aimed to determine the correlation between the various scales administered. The researchers found that there was a positive correlation between general self-efficacy and subjective well-being. This implied that people who consider themselves capable to handle difficulties in life would have a higher satisfaction in life. The researchers found a negative correlation between self-efficacy and health related behavior connected to vulnerability to stress. This implied that people with higher self-efficacy would probably have a healthier lifestyle. The researchers also found a negative correlation between behavioral markers connected to vulnerability and subjective well being, indicating that people experiencing lower stress would experience a higher level of well-being. While the research done indicates significant correlations between the stated variables, the study does not delve into the reasons why these relationships exist the way they are. The researchers recommend further data analysis through regression analysis and testing of theoretical models to determine the aspect of causality (Natovová & Chylová, 2014).
Summary: Research Article #3
Zajacova, A., Lynch, S.M., & Espenshade, T.J. (2005). Self-efficacy, stress, and academic success in college. Research in Higher Education 46/6: 677-706.
Zajacova, Lynch and Espenshade observe that though enrolments in US postsecondary institutions are rising, there is increased prevalence of weak academic performance and high dropout rates. The researchers examine the joint effects of academic self-efficacy and stress on the academic performance and retention of college freshmen. The dependent variable is academic performance, and the independent variables are self-efficacy and stress. The study is important as the researcher focus on the relative importance of self-efficacy and stress in explaining college success, an endeavor not attempted before. They hypothesize that while both academic stress and self-efficacy have an effect on academic outcome, self-efficacy is a better predictor. The research questions aim to (a) determine the relationship between academic self-efficacy and stress, (b) determine the relationship between grades, credits and persistence, (c) determine the absolute and relative effects of self-efficacy and stress on academic outcomes and (d) determine the effect of demographic factors on academic success. The researchers used a representative sample of 107 freshmen from a City University campus for the study. The participants completed questionnaires seeking information on academic performance and measuring self-efficacy and stress. The researchers followed up the questionnaire a year later by obtaining the grades of the participants from the University. The researchers analyzed the data to determine whether self-efficacy and stress could be considered different constructs. They also analyzed the effect of self-efficacy and stress on the outcomes of college GPA, credit hours and subsequent enrolment in the third semester. They found that stress and self-efficacy, despite being measured similarly in the survey, were different constructs. Using structural analysis, they found that stress had little association with the academic outcomes on its own. They also found that background variables had little effect on the outcomes. In contrast, they found that self-efficacy had significant and positive effects on credits and GPA, but no effect on subsequent enrolment. They found that stress had a positive effect on enrolment. They found that the three measures of academic success- GPA, credits and re-enrolment were positive correlated to one another. They could conclude that self-efficacy had a larger impact than stress in predicting GPA and credits, but not on re-enrolment. This indicated that students, despite having a belief in their capabilities, could desist from re-enrolment due to other factors, including stress. Thus, the hypothesis of the researchers stands validated. The realization of the importance of stress on the decision to re-enroll provides the path for future studies on the subject.
References
Mensah, A.O., & Lebbaeus, A. (2013). The influence of employees’ self-efficacy on their quality of work life: the case of Cape Coast, Ghana. International Journal of Business and Social Science 4/2: 195-205. Retrieved March 16, 2016, from http://ijbssnet.com/journals/Vol_4_No_2_February_2013/21.pdf
Natovová, L. & Chylová, H. (2014). Is there a relationship between self-efficacy, well-being and behavioral markers in managing stress at university students? ERIES Journal 7/1: 14-18. Retrieved March 16, 2016, from http://www.eriesjournal.com/_papers/article_224.pdf
Schultz, D.P., & Schultz, S.E. (2013). Theories of personality. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Zajacova, A., Lynch, S.M., & Espenshade, T.J. (2005). Self-efficacy, stress, and academic success in college. Research in Higher Education 46/6: 677-706. Retrieved March 16, 2016, from https://www.princeton.edu/~tje/files/Self%20Efficacy%20and%20Stress%20Zajacova%20Lynch%20Espenshade%20Sept%202005.pdf
