Docstoc

Self_efficacy

Document Sample
Self_efficacy Powered By Docstoc
					Is the Effect of Self-Efficacy
on Job/Task Performance an
Epiphenomenon?

Timothy A. Judge
Christine Jackson
John C. Shaw
Brent A. Scott
Bruce Louis Rich

University of Florida
                                 1
Self-Efficacy

   Described as the “theory heard
    „round the world”
   Albert Bandura deemed third most
    influential psychologist in history
   Self-efficacy has been the subject of
    8,944 studies
   Has been applied to health, child
    development, sports, clinical
    psychology, education and, bien
    sûr, I-O psychology                 2
Self-Efficacy in I-O/OB
   Learning in training (Martocchio, 1994)
   Naval performance and seasickness (Eden & Zuk, 1995)
   Volunteering for reenlistment (Eden & Kinnar, 1991)
   Speed of re-employment (Eden & Aviram, 1993)
   Sales performance (Barling & Beattie, 1983)
   Managerial performance (Wood et al., 1990)
   Academic performance (Wood & Locke, 1987)
   Reaction to stressors (Jex & Bliese, 1999)
   Success of collegiate hockey teams (Feltz & Lirgg, 1998)
   Salary negotiation (Stevens & Gist, 1997)
   Participation in union activities (Bulger & Mellor, 1997)
   Newcomer socialization and adjustment (Saks, 1995)
   Creativity (Redmond, Mumford, & Teach, 1993)
   Coping with career-related events (Stumpf et al., 1987)
   Skill acquisition (Mitchell et al., 1994)
   Adaptation to advanced technology (Hill et al., 1987)       3
What Is Validity of Self-Efficacy?

   Stajkovic and Luthans (1998)
    meta-analyzed the self-efficacy –
    performance relationship
      ˆ
     ρ =.34
      “…few cognitive determinants of behavior... have
      received as ample and consistent empirical
      support as the concept of self-efficacy” (p. 240)
   However, with some exceptions (Chen,
    Casper, & Cortina, 2001; Phillips &
    Gully, 1997), most estimates do not
    take distal controls into account
                                                          4
Role of Individual Differences

   Self-efficacy is related to various
    individual differences
       Intelligence (Phillips & Gully, 1997)
       Personality (Judge & Ilies, 2002)
       Experience (Shea & Howell, 2000)
   These individual differences are
    thought to be more distal than self-
    efficacy, and thus less direct
   But, this has not been tested in a
    path model
                                                5
           Conceptual Model
                         Self-set
                          goals

                                                       Job/Task
                                                      Performance


                       Self-efficacy




  General        Conscien-       Emotional
                                              Extraversion   Experience
mental ability   tiousness        stability
                                                                          6
Method—Literature Search

   In forming the correlation matrix
    that was used as input into the
    LISREL model, we took two steps
       where meta-analytic estimates were
        available, we used these directly
           Barrick, Mount, & Judge, 2001; Judge & Bono, 2001;
            Judge & Ilies, 2002; Ones, Viswesvaran, & Reiss,
            1996; ; Quiñones, Ford, & Teachout, 1995; Schmidt
            & Hunter, 1998; Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998
           where meta-analytic estimates were
            unavailable (involving GMA and
            experience), we performed our own meta-
            analyses                               7
 Method—Search Results
Relation    Initial   Abstracts Codeable   Samples

GMA-C        124         42       24         34
GMA-ES       760        136       37         38
GMA-E        580         60       34         35
GMA-Goals    188         15        5          8
GMA-SE       635         34       23         26
GMA-Exp      356         74       18         21
Exp-C         32         4         4          6
Exp-ES        55         5         2          2
Exp-E         41         4         3          3
Exp-Goals    221         12        2          2
Exp-SE       132         72       20         21
                                                     8
Method—Moderator Coding

   Several moderator variables were
    coded in the present study
       Type of measure: Likert scale or grid
        (self-efficacy strength and magnitude)
       Job/task complexity
       Knowledge of results
   Pending further analysis
       Feedback, performance measure, study
        setting, sample
       Hierarchical moderator analyses (?)
                                                 9
Meta-Analysis Procedures

   Used procedures developed by
    Hunter and Schmidt (1990)
   We corrected each primary
    correlation for attenuation due to
    unreliability, and then computed the
    sample-weighted average corrected
    correlation
       For studies that did not report
        reliabilities, we used the mean of the
        reliabilities reported for the variables of
        interest                                  10
Overall Correlation Matrix

                      1      2     3     4     5     6     7
1 Intelligence       ---

2 Conscientiousness -.04    ---

3 Emotional stability .10   .26   ---

4 Extraversion       .03    .00   .19   ---

5 Self-set goals     .17    .28   .29   .15   ---

6 Self-efficacy      .20    .22   .35   .33   .50   ---

7 Experience        -.04    .02 -.03 -.22     .17   .24   ---

8 Performance        .51    .31   .19   .12   .29   .34   .27


                                                           11
          Results: Full Mediation Model
                          Self-set
                           goals              .16**

                                                           Job/Task
                               .50**                      Performance
                                              .26**

                      Self-efficacy




     .19**        .16**        .23**      .35**         .33**
  General        Conscien-       Emotional
                                                  Extraversion   Experience
mental ability   tiousness        stability
                                                                          12
             Results: Full Model with Distals
                          Self-set
                           goals              .02

                                                             Job/Task
                               .50**                        Performance
                                              .02

                      Self-efficacy

                                       .54** .31** .02            .16**     .31**



     .19**        .16**        .23**      .35**           .33**
  General        Conscien-       Emotional
                                                    Extraversion          Experience
mental ability   tiousness        stability
                                                                                    13
    Role of Job Complexity
                              Low         Medium         High
Intelligence                  .36**        .52**         .63**
Conscientiousness             .27**        .31**         .34**
Emotional stability          -.02          .02           .06*
Extraversion                  .06          .15**         .23**
Self-set goals               -.05           .02          .08**
Experience                    .22**         .31**        .38**
Self-efficacy                 .33**         .04         -.22**
R                              .66**        .69**         .77**
R2                             .44**        .48**         .59**
Notes: Estimates are path coefficients. * p < .05. ** p < .01.
                                                                 14
Other Moderating Influences
                     Bivariate   Multivariate
Measure
Grid                   .43**        .16**
Likert                 .36**        .04
Knowledge of Results
No                     .38**        .13**
Yes                    .41**        .08
Notes: ** p < .01.
                                                15
Results: SUMMARY

   In the overall analysis, inclusion of
    distal variables undermines effects
    of self-efficacy on performance
   Relative impact of self-efficacy,
    though, depends on situation
       Positive in low complexity jobs/tasks
       Nil in medium complexity jobs/tasks
       Negative in high complexity jobs/tasks
       Measure also matters

                                             16
Discussion

   Why the negative effect in high
    complexity jobs?
       Resource allocation theory (Kanfer &
        Ackerman, 1989) predicts that self-
        regulation “steals” valuable cognitive
        resources from complex skill acquisition
       However, multiple-resource models have
        been criticized (Neumann, 1987) and it
        does not appear that self-regulation
        requires significant attentional resources
        (DeShon, Brown, & Greenis, 1996)

                                                     17
Implications

   Is self-efficacy epiphenomenal?
       In some situations, yes
       In some situations, no
   Upshot
       Realize that in some situations self-
        efficacy may be unimportant or even
        detrimental
   Other moderators will be studied
       Feedback

                                                18
Ed’s Comments (E=Ed, T=Tim)
E Stajkovic has a new MA of group efficacy
  studies--they come out as well as the
  individual studies
T We did not study group efficacy (but could if there
  were a sufficient number of correlations)
E Logically, distal variables should work thru
  proximate variables--did you try actual
  mediation or partial r tests?
T This may seem logical, but our results support a
  partially mediated model (indirect and direct
  effects of the distal variables); a fully mediated
  model was not supported by the results
                                                    19
Ed’s Comments (Continued)
E What does the model look like using only
  SE measured quantitatively (i.e.,
  confidence summed over a series of
  performance outcomes after Ss had some
  task feedback)?
T These are the results for the grid measures
  (which indeed do suggest higher validities); if the
  point is that SE is only meaningful when a grid
  measure is used and with feedback, then one
  needs to confine the generalizations of SE to
  these situations

                                                    20
  Ed’s Comments (Continued)
E Did you only include studies that included ALL
  of your variables?
T There are no studies that include all these variables,
  which is why path analysis of meta-analytic data is
  used, as it has in many recent studies
E There are thousands of SE studies but you
  have only a very small sample (and dozens of
  studies showing actual causal effects)
T We include roughly the same number of SE-
  performance studies as Stajkovic and Luthans ;
  studies of causal effects do not have the same
  variables as this study
                                                      21
Ed’s Comments (Continued)
E When you put goals and SE together in a
  model, they steal variance from each other
  because of being highly correlated
T This is certainly something we can look at (though
  shouldn’t both be in causal model?)
E The r's for the big 5 seem much higher
  than most meta analysis have shown
  (usually measn r is about .20 isn't it?)
T The personality validities are from a meta-analysis
  of existing meta-analyses (Barrick, Mount, &
  Judge, 2001); for conscientiousness, the validity
  is the same as Mount and Barrick (1995)
                                                   22
 Ed’s Comments (Continued)
E SE cannot have negative effects on complex
  tasks--this makes no sense--and goal effects
  are smaller on complex tasks not stronger--
  maybe due to inclusion of goals with SE
T There may be a suppression effect (we can
  eliminate goals from model)
E In your search results table, you only have
  SE-GMA, SE-Exp, and goals only once--how
  did you fill your correlation matrix with so
  much data missing???
T We relied on existing meta-analyses for the other
  bivariate relations (see slide 7)
                                                  23
Ed’s Comments (Continued)
E The self set goal perf. mean r is unusually
  low isn't it (see the meta analyses in our
  book)--this means it may not be a
  representative sample of studies
T We relied on the most thorough meta-analysis on
  the validity of self-set goals (Harkins & Lowe,
  2000); the validity of self-set goals is lower than
  for assigned goals
  We would be happy to use a different meta-
  analytic result if we felt it was more valid


                                                    24

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:34
posted:10/15/2011
language:English
pages:24
opzroyikiwizik opzroyikiwizik
About