Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T07:20:01.408Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Dark and Bright Sides of Self-Efficacy in Predicting Learning, Innovative and Risky Performances

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 January 2013

Marisa Salanova ,
Laura Lorente  and
Isabel M. Martínez
Marisa Salanova*
Affiliation:
Universitat Jaume I (Spain)
Laura Lorente
Affiliation:
Universidad de of Valencia (Spain)
Isabel M. Martínez
Affiliation:
Universitat Jaume I (Spain)
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Marisa Salanova. Department of Social Psychology, Universitat Jaume I. Av. Sos Baynat, s/n. 12071. Castellón (Spain). E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The objective of this study is to analyze the different role that efficacy beliefs play in the prediction of learning, innovative and risky performances. We hypothesize that high levels of efficacy beliefs in learning and innovative performances have positive consequences (i.e., better academic and innovative performance, respectively), whereas in risky performances they have negative consequences (i.e., less safety performance). To achieve this objective, three studies were conducted, 1) a two-wave longitudinal field study among 527 undergraduate students (learning setting), 2) a three-wave longitudinal lab study among 165 participants performing innovative group tasks (innovative setting), and 3) a field study among 228 construction workers (risky setting). As expected, high levels of efficacy beliefs have positive or negative consequences on performance depending on the specific settings. Unexpectedly, however, we found no time × self-efficacy interaction effect over time in learning and innovative settings. Theoretical and practical implications within the social cognitive theory of A. Bandura framework are discussed.

El objetivo de este estudio es analizar el papel de las creencias de eficacia en la predicción del desempeño en situaciones de aprendizaje, innovadoras y arriesgadas. Nuestra hipótesis es que los altos niveles de autoeficacia en situaciones de aprendizaje e innovadoras tienen consecuencias positivas (es decir, un mejor desempeño académico e innovador, respectivamente), mientras que en situaciones de riesgo tienen consecuencias negativas (es decir, menor rendimiento en seguridad). Para lograr este objetivo, se llevaron a cabo tres estudios, 1) un estudio de campo longitudinal de dos tiempos con 527 estudiantes de pregrado (situación de aprendizaje), 2) un estudio de laboratorio longitudinale de tres tiempos con 165 participantes que realizaron tareas innovadoras en grupo (situación de innovación), y 3) un estudio de campo con 228 trabajadores de la construcción (situación de riesgo). Como era de esperar, los altos niveles de autoeficacia tienen consecuencias positivas o negativas en el desempeño en función de la situación o ambiente específico. Inesperadamente, sin embargo, no encontramos efecto de la interacción tiempo × autoeficacia en situaciones de aprendizaje e innovadoras. Se discuten las implicaciones teóricas y prácticas de este estudio en el marco de la teoría social cognitiva de Albert Bandura.

Keywords

efficacy beliefslearning performanceinnovative performancerisky performancecreencias de eficaciadesempeño académicodesempeño innovadordesempeño de riesgo
Type
Research Article
Information
The Spanish Journal of Psychology , Volume 15 , Issue 3 , November 2012 , pp. 1123 - 1132
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arthur, W., Bell, S. T., & Edwards, B. D. (2007). A longitudinal examination of the comparative criterion-related validity of additive and referent-shift consensus operationalizations of team efficacy. Organizational Research Methods, 10, 35–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1094428106287574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bandura, A. (1995). Self-efficacy in changing societies. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511527692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511527692Google Scholar
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bandura, A., & Locke, E. A. (2003). Negative self-efficacy and goal effects revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 87–99. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.1.87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caprara, G. V., Fida, R., Vecchione, M., Del Bove, G., Vecchio, G. M., Barbaranelli, C., & Bandura, A. (2008). Longitudinal analysis of the role of perceived self efficacy for regulated learning in academic continuance and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 525–534. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.100.3.525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chan, D. (1998). Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different levels of analysis: Atypology of composition models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 234–246. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.83.2.234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (2008). Expert forecast on emerging psychosocial risks related to occupational safety and health. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.Google Scholar
European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (2005). IV European Working Conditions Survey. Retrieved from http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/pubdocs/2006/98/en/2/ef0698en.pdfGoogle Scholar
Henson, R. K. (2001). Understanding internal consistency reliability estimates: A conceptual primer on coefficient alpha. Measurement and Evaluation in Counselling and Development, 34, 177–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
International Labor Organization (2008). International Occupational Safety and Health. Information Centre of the International Labor Organization. Retrieved from http://www.ilo.org/dyn/cisdoc/index_html?p_lang=e.Google Scholar
Iverson, R. D., & Maguire, C. (2000). The relationship between job and life satisfaction: Evidence from a remote mining community. Human Relations, 53, 807–839. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0018726700536003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1993). Rwg: An assessment of within group interrater agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 306–339. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.78.2.306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kontos, A. P. (2004). Perceived risk, risk taking, estimation of ability and injury among adolescent sport participants. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 29, 447–455. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jpepsy/jsh048CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kozlowski, S. W., & Klein, K. J. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal and emergent processes. In Klein, K. J., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 3–90). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Latham, G. (2005). Work motivation theory and research at the dawn of The Twenty-First Century. Annual review of Psychology, 56, 485–516. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142105CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Llewellyn, D., Sanchez, X., Asghar, A., & Jones, G. (2008). Self-efficacy, risk taking and performance in rock climbing. Personality and Individual Differences, 45, 75–81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.03.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li-Ping, T., Baldwin, L., & Frost, A. (1997). Locus of control as a moderator of the self-reported performance feedback-personal sacrifice relationship. Personality and Individual Differences, 22, 201–211.Google Scholar
Midgley, C., Maehr, M. L., Hruda, L. Z.,Anderman, E., Anderman, L., Freeman, K. E, … Urdan, T. (2000). Manual for patterns of adaptive learning scales. Michigan, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Nunnaly, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Pearce, J. L., & Porter, L. W. (1986). Employee responses to formal performance appraisal feedback. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 211–218. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.71.2.211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Podsakoff, P. M., Mackenzie, S. B., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Powers, W. T. (1991). Commentary on Bandura's “human agency”. American Psychologist, 46, 151–153. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0003-066X.46.2.151.bCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rousseau, D. M. (1985). Issues of level in organizational research: Multilevel and cross-level perspectives. In Cummings, L. L. & Staw, B. M. (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior. (Vol. 7, pp. 1–37). Greenwich, CT: JAI.Google Scholar
Salanova, M., Schaufeli, W. B., Xanthopoulou, D., & Bakker, A. (2009). The gain spiral of resources and work engagement. In Bakker, A. & Leiter, M. (Eds.) Work engagement: Recent developments in theory and research. New York, NY: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Stanjovic, A. D., & Luthans, F. (1998). Self-efficacy and work-related performance:Ameta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 240–262.Google Scholar
Stanjovic, A. D., Lee, D., & Nybert, A. J. (2009). Collective efficacy, group potency, and group performance: Meta-analyses of their relationships, and test of a mediation model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 814–828.Google Scholar
Stone, D. N. (1994). Overconfidence in initial self-efficacy judgements: Effects on decision processes and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 59, 452–474. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1994.1069CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tasa, K., Taggar, S., & Seijts, G. H. (2007). The development of collective efficacy in teams: A multilevel and longitudinal perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 17–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.17CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. (2011). Creative self-efficacy development and creative performance over time. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 277–293. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0020952CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vancouver, J. B., & Kendall, L. N. (2006). When self-efficacy negatively relates to motivation and performance in a learning context. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1146–1153. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.5.1146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vancouver, J. B., Thompson, C. M., Tischner, E. C., & Putka, D. J. (2002). Two studies examining the negative effect of self-efficacy on performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 506–516. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.87.3.506CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vancouver, J. B., Thomson, C. M., & Williams, A. A. (2001). The changing signs in the relationships among self-efficacy, personal goals and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 605–620. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.86.4.605CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Whyte, G., Saks, A., & Hook, S. (1997). When success breeds failure: The role of self efficacy in escalating commitment to a losing course of action. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18, 415–432. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199709)18:5<415::AID-JOB813>3.0.CO;2-G3.0.CO;2-G>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2009). Work engagement and financial returns: A diary study on the role of job and personal resources. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 82, 183–200. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/096317908X285633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., Heuven, E., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2008). Working in the sky: A dairy study among flight attendants. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 13, 345–356. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.13.4.345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yeo, G., & Neal, A. (2006). An examination of the dynamic relationship between self- efficacy and performance across levels of analyses and levels of specificity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1088–1101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.5.1088CrossRefGoogle Scholar