What have researchers found about self-efficacy theory relative to health behaviors

• Journal List
• HHS Author Manuscripts
• PMC4326627

Health Psychol Rev. Writer manuscript; available in PMC 2017 Jun 1.

Published in final edited form equally:

PMCID: PMC4326627

NIHMSID: NIHMS612567

The Confounded Self-Efficacy Construct: Review, Conceptual Analysis, and Recommendations for Future Research

David Williams

^aBrownish Academy, Providence, Rhode Island, USA

Ryan E. Rhodes

^bUniversity of Victoria, Victoria, Canada

Abstract

Cocky-efficacy is central to health behaviour theories due to its robust predictive capabilities. In this paper we present and review bear witness for a cocky-efficacy-as-motivation argument in which standard self-efficacy questionnaires—i.east., ratings of whether participants "can do" the target behaviour—reverberate motivation rather than perceived capability. The potential implication is that associations between self-efficacy ratings (particularly those that employ a "can do" operationalization) and health-related behaviours merely indicate that people are likely to do what they are motivated to do. At that place is some empirical show for the cocky-efficacy-as-motivation argument, with iii studies demonstrating causal effects of effect expectancy on subsequent cocky-efficacy ratings. 3 boosted studies bear witness that—consistent with the self-efficacy-as-motivation statement—controlling for motivation past adding the phrase "if you wanted to" to the end of self-efficacy items decreases associations betwixt self-efficacy ratings and motivation. Likewise, a qualitative study using a thought-listing procedure demonstrates that self-efficacy ratings have motivational antecedents. The available show suggests that the self-efficacy-as-motivation argument is viable, although more than research is needed. Meanwhile, nosotros recommend that researchers look beyond cocky-efficacy to identify the many and diverse sources of motivation for wellness-related behaviours.

Keywords: Self-efficacy, issue expectancy, motivation, perceived adequacy, health behaviour theory

Cocky-efficacy—defined as perceived adequacy to perform a target behaviour (Bandura, 1977, 1986, 1997, 2004)—is a robust predictor of various health behaviours (Armitage & Conner, 2001; Godin & Kok, 1996), including physical activity (Bauman et al., 2012), healthy eating (AbuSabha & Achterberg, 1997), smoking cessation (Gwaltney, Metrik, Kahler, & Shiffman, 2009), alcohol abstinence (Adamson, Sellman, & Frampton, 2009), wellness behaviour change amidst cancer survivors (Park & Gaffey, 2007), and full general health outcomes (Holden, 1991). Cocky-efficacy is the primary explanatory construct in Bandura's (1986, 1997) social cognitive theory—i of the most often used wellness behaviour theories (HBTs) (Glanz & Bishop, 2010)—and is included in several other often-used HBTs, including protection motivation theory (Rogers, 1983), the health belief model (Rosenstock, Strecher, & Becker, 1988), and the transtheoretical model (Prochaska & DiClemente, 1983). Additionally, perceived behavioural control in the theory of planned behaviour is defined and operationalized in ways that are similar to self-efficacy (Ajzen, 1991, 2002). Thus, the concept of self-efficacy is pervasive in health behaviour science.

One of the purported strengths of self-efficacy is that it explains why people are (or are not) motivated to perform health-related behaviours, rather than merely predicting who is (or is non) motivated to perform health-related behaviours. Specifically, according to cocky-efficacy theory (a component of social cognitive theory that emphasizes the office of self-efficacy; Bandura, 1997), self-efficacy is positioned early on in a causal chain of factors that are posited to determine behaviour. Cocky-efficacy influences behaviour directly and through its effects on expected outcomes of the behaviour, the setting of relevant and challenging goals, and perceived barriers to and facilitators of the target behaviour (Bandura, 1997). Cocky-efficacy, in plow, has four sources: mastery experiences, vicarious learning, verbal persuasion, and physiological and affective states at the time of the behavioural opportunity (Bandura, 1997). Thus, in self-efficacy theory, both the sources of self-efficacy and the mechanisms through which it influences behaviour are specified and can be used to pattern behavioural interventions.

Despite the popularity of self-efficacy theory, and the predictive ability of self-efficacy, some authors have argued that, considering of the way that self-efficacy is typically operationalized—confidence that I can do the target behaviour (Bandura, 2006)—self-efficacy ratings are a reflection rather than a determinant of motivation to perform health-related behaviours (Borkovec, 1978; Cahill, Gallo, Lisman, & Weinstein, 2006; Corcoran, 1991, 1995; Eastman & Marzillier, 1984; Kazdin, 1978; Kirsch, 1985, 1995; Maddux, 1999; Williams, 2010; Wolpe, 1978). According to this self-efficacy-as-motivation statement, what people say they can do (i.eastward., self-efficacy ratings) is a proxy for motivation and is thus a function of numerous motivational factors that become well beyond the theorized four sources of self-efficacy. The implications of this argument are that—reverse to self-efficacy theory—research showing that self-efficacy ratings are highly predictive of behaviour simply shows that people are likely to do what they are motivated to practise, and that such findings are of limited use in agreement and irresolute health-related behaviours.

The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the validity of the self-efficacy-as-motivation argument in the context of wellness behaviour research. First, we discuss in more depth the conceptual definition of self-efficacy, its theorized independence and human relationship with upshot expectancy, and its relevance to health behaviour. We and so nowadays in particular the cocky-efficacy-as-motivation argument and evaluate the argument through a review of empirical inquiry. We end the paper with a discussion of implications for wellness behaviour research.

Self-Efficacy Theory

According to self-efficacy theory, cocky-efficacy is defined as perceived adequacy to perform a target behaviour (Bandura, 1977, 1986, 1997, 2004). At the time that self-efficacy was first introduced, dominant theories of behaviour emphasized consequence expectancies: expectations of the outcomes that may result from successfully performing the target behaviour (Feather, 1982). Bandura's (1977) novel insight in his conceptualization of self-efficacy (originally labeled "efficacy expectancy"), was distinguishing between (a) a person's motivation to perform a target behaviour based on expected outcomes of the behaviour and (b) his or her perceived capability to perform the behaviour.

An consequence expectancy is defined as a person's estimate that a given behaviour will lead to certain outcomes. An efficacy expectation is the confidence that 1 tin successfully execute the behaviour required to produce the outcomes. Outcome and efficacy expectations are differentiated, because individuals tin can believe that a item course of activity will produce sure outcomes, but if they entertain serious doubts well-nigh whether they tin perform the necessary activities such information does not influence their behaviour (p. 193).

Thus, according to cocky-efficacy theory, self-efficacy and effect expectancy are conceptually distinct. However, self-efficacy is also posited to have a causal influence on issue expectancy, particularly when at that place are close ties between performance of the behaviour (e.g., winning a tennis match) and potential outcomes of the behaviour (east.g., receiving a trophy) (Bandura, 1997). Conversely, outcome expectancies are not—according to cocky-efficacy theory—a causal source of cocky-efficacy judgments (Bandura, 1978, 1986c, 1997, 2004). That is, what people expect to occur every bit a result of the target behaviour should, according to self-efficacy theory, have no bearing on their perceived capability to perform the behaviour.

Conceptualizing and Assessing Cocky-Efficacy in the Context of Health Behaviour

In the context of health-related behaviours, self-efficacy is oftentimes conceptualized as perceived capability to perform the behavior given various conditions or impediments:

Many areas of functioning are primarily concerned with self-regulatory efficacy to guide and motivate oneself to get things done that one knows how to do. The issue is non whether 1 can do them occasionally but whether one has the efficacy to get oneself to do them regularly in the face up of varied dissuading weather condition. For instance, consider the measurement of perceived self-efficacy to stick to a wellness-promoting exercise routine. Individuals estimate how well they can get themselves to exercise regularly under various impediments, such as when they are under pressure level from work, are tired, or are depressed; in foul weather condition; or when they have other commitments, or more interesting things to exercise (Bandura, 1997, p. 43).

Consistent with Bandura's (1997) conceptualization of self-regulatory efficacy, measures of exercise cocky-efficacy require respondents to rate their conviction that they tin can (or could) exercise in the context of potential barriers, such as when they accept visitors or when there are other more than interesting things to do (Bandura, 2006; Marcus, Selby, Niaura, & Rossi, 1992; McAuley, 1992; Sallis, Pinski, Grossman, Patterson, & Nader, 1988). Measures of self-efficacy for smoking abstinence require respondents to rate their confidence that they could abjure from smoking or drinking in the context of potentially tempting situations, such as when they experience depressed or are celebrating something (Etter, Bergman, Humair, & Perneger, 2000). Likewise, measures of healthy eating behaviour crave respondents to rate their confidence that they tin can (or could) resist eating unhealthy foods or eat good for you foods in a variety of challenging situations, such equally when watching tv set or eating at a restaurant (Bandura, 2006; Clark, Abrams, Niaura, Eaton, & Rossi, 1991).

In contrast to self-regulatory efficacy, chore self-efficacy involves ane's belief that he or she tin or cannot perform a single case of a circumscribed behaviour at different levels of functioning. For instance, assessment of task self-efficacy may involve asking respondents to charge per unit their perceived capability that they can walk around a track within four minutes, six minutes, viii minutes, etc. (McAuley, Courneya, & Lettunich, 1991).

In add-on to distinguishing between chore cocky-efficacy and self-regulatory efficacy, other researchers have distinguished amidst additional self-efficacy subtypes that are relevant to a particular wellness behaviour domain and/or particular contextual features of the behaviour. For example, Schwarzer and Renner (2000) distinguish between action self-efficacy as confidence that the subject field tin (or could) perform the behaviour even when it requires setting goals and planning, and coping self-efficacy every bit conviction that the subject can (or could) perform the behaviour even in the confront of initial setbacks or lack of social back up. In the context of addiction, self-efficacy has been divided into five subtypes, which refer to confidence that one can abstain from the addictive behaviour when nether stress (coping cocky-efficacy), perform treatment-related behaviours such as cocky-monitoring (treatment self-efficacy), recover from a slip or temptation (recovery self-efficacy), abjure in provocative situations (command self-efficacy), or abstain in the face up of cues or triggers (abstinence self-efficacy) (DiClemente, Fairhurst, & Piotrowski, 1995; come across Marlatt, Baer, & Quigley, 1995 for a dissimilar distinction among addiction self-efficacy subtypes, including resistance, harm-reduction, activity, coping, and recovery self-efficacy).

What varies across these conceptualizations of cocky-efficacy is whether perceived adequacy to perform the target behaviour is to be judged in isolation (i.e., job self-efficacy), or under various conditions, such equally in the context of potential barriers (i.e., self-regulatory efficacy), when initiating a new behaviour (i.e., initiation cocky-efficacy), following relapse (i.e., recovery self-efficacy), or in the face of potentially stressful life events (i.e., coping self-efficacy).

Assessing Self-Efficacy: "Tin Yous Do [Target Behavior]?"

Regardless of whether or not self-efficacy judgments are assessed in isolation from a given context (i.east., task self-efficacy) or under various conditions (eastward.g., self-regulatory efficacy, coping self-efficacy), assessment of self-efficacy typically involves asking respondents to charge per unit their confidence that they can (or could) do the target behaviour. Alternatively, rather than explicitly assessing whether the respondent can/could exercise the target behaviour, some cocky-efficacy assessments involve request participants whether they would be able to do the target behaviour (e.m., Rhodes & Courneya, 2004) or assess participants' confidence to practise the target behaviour (versus confidence that one "can" do the target behaviour; east.k., DiClemente, Carbonari, Montgomery, & Hughes, 1994). All of these operationalizations (tin can/could, ability to, or conviction to do the target beliefs) are consistent with the conceptual definition of cocky-efficacy: i.e., perceived adequacy to perform the target behaviour (Bandura, 1977, 1997, 2006).

The Cocky-Efficacy-as-Motivation Statement

Several previous authors have argued that what people say they can or cannot exercise (i.eastward., cocky-efficacy rating) frequently does not reflect perceived capability (i.e., self-efficacy), but instead reflects the broader concept of motivation, particularly for behaviours that people already assume they are maximally capable of performing (Borkovec, 1978; Corcoran, 1991, 1995; Eastman & Marzillier, 1984; Kazdin, 1978; Kirsch, 1985, 1995; Maddux, 1999; Wolpe, 1978). This position is perhaps best exemplified past Kirsch (1995):

Consider your answers to the following questions: Could y'all eat a live worm? Could you express joy out loud during the centre of a funeral? Could you lot kill a baby kitten? I presume you would respond at to the lowest degree some of these questions negatively. Why? Practice you lack the confidence that you tin successfully execute these behaviours [(Bandura, 1977)]? Do you lack the "capability to organize and execute" these actions [(Bandura, 1986c, p. 391)]? Perhaps you lack the "capabilities to exercise control" over these events [(Bandura, 1989, p. 1175)]. I expect that none of these reasons explain your low self-efficacy ratings. More likely you lot are "unable" to practice these things because doing and so would evoke extreme disgust, embarrassment, guilt, or shame. Clearly, when y'all say yous cannot exercise these things, you mean something different than when you say you cannot solve a difficult calculus trouble, lift a 300-pound weight, or successfully execute the task requirements of an astronaut (p. 338–339).

Kirsch (1995) distinguishes hither between ii meanings of the colloquial use of the phrase tin do. One meaning reflects perceived capability per se based on one'due south interpretation of their actual adequacy to perform a task (i.e. the original definition of efficacy expectancy as distinct from outcome expectancy). The second pregnant reflects motivation based on—in his examples—anticipated "disgust, embarrassment, guilt, or shame". Thus, if the goal is to empathize and/or change behaviour (rather than just predicting behaviour), then it is important to know whether responses to self-efficacy items (i.e., what people say they tin do) reflect perceived capability per se or the much broader concept of motivation. Indeed, relative to perceived capability and its iv theorized sources (Bandura, 1997), motivation is a function of a wider range of sources, including expected positive and negative instrumental and affective outcomes of the behaviour (Ajzen, 1985, Fishbein, 2008).

Ratings of cocky-regulatory efficacy for health-related behaviours may be especially probable to reflect motivation rather than perceived capability because differential responses to each item are a function of what the respondent expects will occur (i.e., event expectancies) if he or she performs the target behaviour in the given context (Williams, 2010). For example, in the context of an practice self-efficacy questionnaire an individual's ratings of whether or not she can exercise are a office of the different contingencies that are nowadays when exercising in each of the specified contexts: when it is raining, when I [respondent] am feeling tired, am under pressure from work, or there is bad weather (Figure 1).

Vernacular estimation of the phrases can do and cannot do in standard self-efficacy assessments. Cocky-efficacy instructions and items adapted from Bandura (2006).

Cocky-efficacy for Health-Related Behaviours: Perceived Capability or Motivation?

The self-efficacy-as-motivation argument is not merely an intellectual exercise. It has potential implications for understanding and facilitating change in health-related behaviours. When people rate themselves as having depression self-efficacy for do, healthy eating, or quitting smoking, it is important to know whether they perceive themselves to be incapable of performing these behaviours (i.e., literal perceived incapability, consistent with the original definition of efficacy expectancy) or if their low cocky-efficacy rating is instead a reflection of low motivation, with its potentially numerous and diverse sources. Below we review three types of prove that suggest that self-efficacy for health-related behaviours may really reflect the broader concept of motivation.

Does Experimental Manipulation of Upshot Expectancy Influence Cocky-Efficacy Ratings?

According to self-efficacy theory, expected outcomes of a target behaviour should not causally influence self-efficacy ratings (Bandura, 1978, 1986c, 1997, 2004). Instead, a causal influence of consequence expectancy on self-efficacy ratings is consistent with the cocky-efficacy-equally-motivation argument, suggesting that self-efficacy ratings reverberate the broader concept of motivation, rather than perceived capability. Nosotros located three studies in which an experimental manipulation focused exclusively on changing expected outcomes of the target behaviour (east.thou., offer of monetary incentives for performing the behaviour) showed effects on subsequent assessments of cocky-efficacy.

First, Corcoran & Rutledge (1989) tested the causal effects of outcome expectancy on self-efficacy ratings amongst college pupil smokers. Participants first responded (yep/no) to the questions "could you lot shoot a basketball through a basket from [increasing distances]" and could y'all quit cigarette smoking for [escalating time periods]". They then rated whether they "could" perform those aforementioned tasks in the context of hypothetical monetary incentives (i.e., outcome expectancies). Participants were more likely to say that they "could" quit smoking or brand basketball shots (i.e., had higher cocky-efficacy) under the hypothetical incentive scenario. The effect of incentives was greater for ratings of smoking cocky-efficacy than basketball self-efficacy thus indicating (consistent with the cocky-efficacy-as-motivation argument) that the causal furnishings of outcome expectancy on self-efficacy is stronger for behaviours that involve regulation of behaviour (i.east., quitting smoking) rather than specialized concrete skills (i.east., basketball shooting).

2nd, Baker and Kirsch (1991) examined the causal effects of outcome expectancy on cocky-efficacy in the context of pain behaviour. College students were randomly assigned to receive either (actual) escalating monetary incentives for longer exposure to pain via the cold-pressor task, or to not receive incentives. Participants rated their self-efficacy for pain tolerance by indicating whether they "expected they would be able to go on their manus immersed" for escalating xxx-second intervals upward to eight minutes. Actual pain-tolerance was assessed via length of voluntary exposure to the cold-pressor. The incentive (i.e., outcome expectancy) manipulation had causal furnishings on both self-efficacy ratings and pain tolerance; thus, the association betwixt self-efficacy and pain behaviour was explained past the fact that those participants who were offered the incentives had higher ratings of self-efficacy.

Third, McDonald and colleagues (2010) conducted a airplane pilot study of a "looming vulnerability" intervention amidst community dwelling smokers. The intervention consisted of iv three-min audio-taped imagery exercises in which participants were instructed to engage in negative imagery regarding the health consequences of smoking. A control status engaged in matched imagery exercises that did not include smoking-related content. Self-efficacy was assessed by first asking respondents to rate (yeah/no) whether they "could command [their] smoking behaviour" in a multifariousness of contexts, and then, for all those items answered affirmatively their "conviction" (on a scale of 10 to 100) that they could control their smoking behaviour. Immediately following the manipulation, participants in the intervention status reported higher self-efficacy relative to participants in the control status. Interestingly, stronger self-efficacy ratings were a causal effect of an intervention focusing on increasing negative outcome expectancies, thus showing that higher self-efficacy ratings tin can exist a part of increased motivation to avoid negative outcomes, as well as motivation to obtain positive outcomes (i.e., incentives).

We located four additional studies that showed no effects of an effect expectancy manipulation on subsequent self-efficacy ratings. However, in these studies the goose egg furnishings of the outcome expectancy manipulation on cocky-efficacy may accept been due to a weak manipulation. Indeed, in two studies involving the utilise of monetary incentives, in that location was no issue of the intervention on whatsoever of the measured outcomes, including the targeted behaviour (i.e., pain endurance and concrete activity) and multiple hypothesized mediators, including self-efficacy (Hunter et al., 2013; Symbaluk et al., 1997). In a 3rd written report, the effects of budgetary incentives again showed no influence on the target behaviour (i.e., exercise persistence) or on cocky-efficacy, just did show an effect on exercise enjoyment (Kerr et al., 2012). A 4th study showed no effect of a former print-based communication emphasizing the outcomes of quitting smoking on cocky-efficacy ratings taken 2 weeks later, with the intervention affecting simply three of 10 measured event expectancy subtypes (Dijkstra et al., 1998). Thus, the potential bear witness against the self-efficacy-as-motivation argument is somewhat tempered by the apparently weak manipulations of outcome expectancy in these studies.

Finally, in four studies outcome expectancy was manipulated simply effects on self-efficacy were not assessed (Dijkstra, Conijn, & De Vries, 2006; Strecher et al., 2008) or focused on ease or difficulty of the behaviour rather than perceived capability per se (e.k., "quitting smoking would be very difficult and uncomfortable for me" (Maddux & Rogers, 1983); "it would be easy for me to complete the viii-week [exercise] plan" (Stanley & Maddux, 1986)), and thus were non in accordance with self-efficacy theory.

Does Holding Motivation Constant Affect Self-Efficacy Ratings?

Since, according to cocky-efficacy theory, self-efficacy is divers as perceived capability contained of motivation (Bandura, 1977, 1986, 1997), there should be no difference betwixt responses to a standard cocky-efficacy assessment and an assessment of self-efficacy in which motivation is held constant. Conversely, if standard measures of self-efficacy really tap the broad concept of motivation (i.e., the cocky-efficacy-as-motivation statement), then holding motivation constant should lead to responses that differ from responses to standard self-efficacy assessments.

In a series of studies, Rhodes and colleagues assessed exercise cocky-efficacy by request participants to rate their confidence that they "could" exercise (Rhodes & Blanchard, 2007), that they "volition be able to" exercise (Rhodes & Courneya, 2004), or a combination of these two formats (Rhodes & Courneya, 2003). In all three studies, self-efficacy was assessed with and without the qualifier "if you wanted to" (due east.g., "How confident are you lot that you volition exist able to exercise regularly over the next ii weeks if y'all really wanted to"; accent added), thus attempting to assess participants' perceived capability for performing practice independent of motivational factors. In all three studies, cocky-efficacy items in which motivation was held at a constant positive (i.e., "if you wanted to") resulted in higher hateful scores than standard self-efficacy items in which motivation was non held constant, thus indicating that responses to the standard items incorporate motivation. Additionally, in all three studies, the association between the modified self-efficacy items and behavioural intention was weaker relative to the association between standard assessments of self-efficacy and behavioural intention. The latter findings may be due in function to a ceiling effect—i.e., the modified self-efficacy items were not predictive considering responses approached maximum perceptions of adequacy when motivation was controlled, and thus were not helpful in predicting intention. Taken together, these findings again point that standard self-efficacy items are not conceptually distinct from assessments of motivation (i.e., behavioural intention).

Practise People Cite Motivational Factors as Reasons for Their Cocky-Efficacy Ratings?

Finally, if, as indicated in self-efficacy theory, self-efficacy is independent of motivation, then motivational factors should non exist considered in responses to standard self-efficacy assessments. However, when Rhodes and Blanchard (2007) used a idea-list procedure to appraise the reasons for participants' responses to exercise self-efficacy items, respondents indicated that expectations of improved wellness (xxx%), enjoyment (nineteen%), and motivation (37%) influenced their cocky-efficacy ratings (Rhodes & Blanchard, 2007). Consequent with the self-efficacy-as-motivation argument, these findings advise that motivational factors have a causal influence on self-efficacy ratings.

An Important Caveat

The self-efficacy-as-motivation statement—as alluded to by Kirsch (1995) and explicated herein—directly applies to operationalizations of self-efficacy employing the format: "I tin can do [target behaviour]", because of a trend to interpret colloquial use of the phrase "I can" as "I will". This method of operationalizing self-efficacy in terms of what the respondent tin exercise is directly in line with Bandura's conceptualization of self-efficacy and guidelines for constructing self-efficacy scales (Bandura, 1997, 2006). However, as noted above, not all operationalizations of cocky-efficacy follow this can do format. Thus, it remains an open question every bit to whether the self-efficacy-equally-motivation argument, which focuses on vernacular use of the phrase tin practise, also applies to other cocky-efficacy operationalizations.

Intuitively, the self-efficacy-equally-motivation argument should also apply to operationalizations of cocky-efficacy in which respondents are asked to rate whether they would exist able to practice the target behaviour (Rhodes & Courneya, 2004) or that assess participants' confidence in performing the target behaviour (DiClemente et al., 1994), rather than explicitly assessing whether the respondent can do the target behaviour. Indeed, use of the word "would" in the would be able to format is consequent with cess of behavioural intention, perhaps making this format particularly susceptible to the self-efficacy-as-motivation argument. Moreover, among the studies reviewed higher up, which support the cocky-efficacy-every bit-motivation argument, two used the would be able to format (Baker & Kirsch, 1991; Rhodes & Courneya, 2004) and a 3rd report used a combination of can practice and would exist able to formats (Rhodes & Courneya, 2003). These findings suggest that the self-efficacy-as-motivation argument, which direct refers to the can do phrasing (Kirsch, 1995), may also apply to other subtly different self-efficacy operationalizations. Withal, more research is needed. At a minimum, researchers should employ discriminant validity checks when assessing both self-efficacy and motivation (i.e., behavioural intention).

Likewise, measures of perceived behavioural command—when operationalized in terms of ease/difficulty of the beliefs or control over the behavior (i.e., Ajzen, 1991)—may also exist confounded past motivation. That is, questionnaire respondents may consider expected outcomes of the target behavior when rating its ease/difficulty or their perceived control over the behaviour. Indeed, a recent report shows that standard perceived behavioral control questionnaire items (i.e., ease/difficulty and controllability) also tap perceived adequacy (i.east., self-efficacy), thus suggesting overlap in these items (Johnston, Dixon, Hart, Glidewell, Schröder, & Pollard, 2014). Moreover, Rhodes and Courneya (2004)—in their study in which they controlled for motivation when assessing self-efficacy by adding the qualifier "if you wanted to" to each item (see above)—obtained similar findings for items assessing ease/difficulty of exercise. That is, ease/difficulty items in which motivation was held at a constant positive resulted in higher mean scores and weaker correlations with behavioural intention than standard ease/difficulty items in which motivation was non held abiding, thus indicating that responses to the standard items contain motivation. On the other hand, ii studies on exercise (Stanley & Maddux, 1986) and smoking cessation (Maddux & Rogers, 1983) did not testify an effect of an upshot expectancy manipulation on ease/difficulty items. Thus, more research is needed to make up one's mind whether the cocky-efficacy-every bit-motivation argument also applies to perceived behavioural control.

Give-and-take

The bones premise of the original conceptualization of self-efficacy—a premise that fabricated the concept novel in the prevailing outcome-expectancy-dominated theoretical mural—was that perceived adequacy to perform a target behaviour is conceptually contained of motivation to perform the behaviour (Bandura, 1977). Conversely, according to the cocky-efficacy-as-motivation argument, ratings of self-efficacy (i.e., "I can do [target behaviour]") really reflect the much broader concept of motivation, including (but not limited to) expected outcomes of the behaviour.

We reviewed inquiry that provides a straight test of the self-efficacy-every bit-motivation statement. Evidence was mixed in experimental studies, with three studies showing causal effects of upshot expectancy on subsequent self-efficacy ratings and four studies showing nada effects. However, there was some indication that the zippo effects in the latter studies—particularly in two of the four studies—may take been due to weak manipulations of upshot expectancy. An additional three studies showed that controlling for motivation by adding the phrase "if y'all wanted to" to the end of cocky-efficacy items led to increased self-efficacy ratings and decreased associations between self-efficacy ratings and motivation (i.eastward., behavioural intention). Finally, a unmarried qualitative study demonstrated that self-efficacy ratings have motivational antecedents.

A conservative interpretation of the findings is that the self-efficacy-equally-motivation statement remains a feasible approach to interpreting self-efficacy research. All the same, more enquiry is needed given the relatively small number of supporting studies. Nonetheless, the continued viability of the self-efficacy-as-motivation argument has significant implications for ongoing attempts to understand and modify health-related behaviours. If the statement continues to be supported, information technology would suggest that while self-efficacy ratings tell the states that people are motivated to appoint in the target health behaviour, they tell united states of america little nearly why people are motivated. For instance, in the context of practise, cocky-efficacy ratings may be a office of (a) perceived physical incapability (consistent with self-efficacy theory); only besides (b) expected instrumental and melancholia outcomes of exercising, (c) expected outcomes of not performing competing alternative behaviours (east.g., work, chores), or (d) any number of other motivational factors that lead people to say they "can" or "cannot" perform the behaviour in question (e.g., liking/disliking practice versus competing sedentary behaviours).

Culling Approaches to Research on Self-Efficacy

Although straight recommendations may exist premature given the demand for further inquiry, nosotros offering the post-obit suggestions to illustrate the potential implications of the self-efficacy-as-motivation statement. Commencement, the vast literature in which self-efficacy is predictive of health-related behaviours (e.g., Gwaltney, 2009), every bit well as inquiry on how to change cocky-efficacy ratings (Prestwich et al., 2014), should non be ignored even if the measures of self-efficacy in this literature are confounded with motivation. Instead, cocky-efficacy assessments may be viewed every bit an culling assessment of motivation (perhaps labelled "tin can-do motivation"), with the vast literature on self-efficacy and health-related behaviour reinterpreted to indicate that motivation—not only perceived adequacy—is predictive of wellness-related behaviour. "Can-do motivation" would then be positioned as the most proximal determinant of behaviour, as is currently the case with behavioural intention (Effigy 2), with the caveat that tin can-practise motivation and behavioural intention may often be largely redundant (Rhodes & Courneya, 2003).

According to the self-efficacy-as-motivation argument, "I tin do" is colloquially interpreted as motivation (eastward.g., "I will do"). Accordingly, "self-efficacy" should exist relabelled and repositioned as "tin can-do motivation" in the context of health behaviour theories such equally social cognitive theory, the theory of planned behaviour, and protection motivation theory.

2nd, the jargon-free term perceived capability might be used equally a label for perceptions of physical and mental power, capacity, or competence to perform a specific circumscribed behaviour independent of motivation to perform the behaviour. This concept of perceived capability would be similar to Bandura's (1977) original efficacy expectancy. However, in measuring perceived adequacy, steps might be taken to ensure that ratings are independent of motivational factors (run across Cahill et al., 2006; Rhodes & Blanchard, 2007; Rhodes & Courneya, 2003, 2004). Although it is an empirical question, we venture to approximate that perceived capability—if free from motivational confounds—is not probable to be predictive of most health behaviours in virtually populations, with the possible exception of some clinical populations (e.g., perceived adequacy for airing following a hip replacement). Nonetheless, parsing of perceived adequacy from motivational factors would allow researchers and interventionists to place the (likely few) populations and behaviours for which perceived capability is likely to be low and thus a viable target for intervention.

3rd, wellness behaviour scientists should attempt to place the sources of variance in "tin can-do motivation" (i.e., traditional measures of self-efficacy) that go beyond perceived capability, including diverse motivational factors that influence health-related behaviours. In this paper we have focused on the causal influence of instrumental consequence expectancies on self-efficacy assessments in guild to illustrate empirical back up for the self-efficacy-as-motivation argument. However, studies have repeatedly shown that traditional measures of cocky-efficacy explain variance in behavior beyond that accounted for by instrumental result expectancies (for reviews see Bandura, 1984, 1991). Thus, it is necessary to identify additional motivational factors that explain variance in traditional measures of self-efficacy (i.e., "can-do motivation") and, in turn, health-related behaviors. Several contempo articles illustrate the potential for expanding research on motivational determinants of wellness related behaviours, including affective processes (Desteno, Gross, & Kubzansky, 2013; Williams & Evans, in press), nonconscious processes (Hofmann, Friese, & Wiers, 2008; Sheeran, Gollwitzer, & Bargh, 2013), perceived opportunity to perform the target behaviour (Rhodes, Blanchard, & Matheson, 2006), perceived temporal proximity of behavioural outcomes (de Ridder & de Wit, 2007; Hall & Fong, 2007), and competing motives for alternative behaviours (Rhodes & Blanchard, 2008; Richetin, Conner, & Perugini, 2011).

Conclusions

Self-efficacy is arguably the most pop and predictive construct in health-behaviour research, and a cocky-efficacy-type construct has been included within all of the predominant HBTs. Despite this enormous popularity, the self-efficacy-as-motivation statement holds that—opposite to cocky-efficacy theory—self-efficacy ratings are highly predictive of behaviour merely considering such ratings reflect a broad range of behavioural motives. Such conceptual and operational inconsistencies in self-efficacy research are potentially hindering our understanding of wellness behaviours and masking appropriate antecedent targets in interventions. Enquiry reviewed herein suggests that the self-efficacy-every bit-motivation argument is a viable interpretation of the voluminous literature on cocky-efficacy, although more research is needed. Meanwhile, we recommend that researchers focus greater attention on the many and diverse sources of motivation that are ofttimes neglected in the wellness behaviour literature.

References

• AbuSabha R, Achterberg C. Review of self-efficacy and locus of command for diet- and health-related behaviour. Journal of the American Dietetic Association. 1997;97:1122–1132. doi: ten.1016/S0002-8223(97)00273-3. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Adamson SJ, Sellman JD, Frampton CM. Patient predictors of booze treatment outcome: a systematic review. Journal of Substance Abuse and Treatment. 2009;36:75–86. doi: 10.1016/j.jsat.2008.05.007. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Ajzen I. From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behaviour. In: Kuhl J, Beckmann J, editors. Activeness control: From noesis to behaviour. New York: Springer; 1985. pp. 11–39. [Google Scholar]
• Armitage CJ, Conner One thousand. Efficacy of the Theory of Planned Behaviour: A meta-analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology. 2001;twoscore:471–499. doi: 10.1177/1359105307080615. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Baker SL, Kirsch I. Cognitive mediators of pain perception and tolerance. Periodical of Personality and Social Psychology. 1991;61:504–510. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.61.3.504. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Bakery SL, Kirsch I. Cognitive mediators of pain perception and tolerance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1991;61:504–510. doi: x.1037/0022-3514.61.3.504. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Bandura A. Cocky-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioural change. Psychological Review. 1977;84:191–215. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.84.ii.191. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Bandura A. Reflections on self-efficacy. Advances in Behaviour Research and Therapy. 1978;1:237–269. doi: 10.1016/0146-6402(78)90012-7. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Bandura A. Cocky-efficacy mechanism in homo agency. American Psychologist. 1982;37:122–147. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.37.2.122. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Bandura A. The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology. 1986a;4:359–373. doi: ten.1521/jscp.1986.4.3.359. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Bandura A. Fearful expectations and avoidant deportment as coeffects of perceived self-inefficacy. American Psychologist. 1986b;41:389–391. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.41.12.1389. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Bandura A. Social foundations of thought and activity: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1986c. [Google Scholar]
• Bandura A. Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist. 1989;44:1175–1184. doi: x.1037/0003-066X.44.9.1175. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Bandura A. On rectifying conceptual ecumenism. In: Maddux JE, editor. Self-efficacy, adaptation, and adjustment:Theory, research, and application. New York: Plenum; 1995. pp. 347–375. [Google Scholar]
• Bandura A. Self-efficacy: The practise of command. New York: W.H. Freeman and Co; 1997. [Google Scholar]
• Bandura A. Recycling misconceptions on perceived self-efficacy. Cognitive Therapy and Research. 1984;eight:231–255. [Google Scholar]
• Bandura A. Human agency: The rhetoric and the reality. American Psychologist. 1991;46:157–162. [Google Scholar]
• Bandura A. Wellness promotion past social cerebral means. Health Teaching and Behavior. 2004;31:143–164. doi: 10.1177/1090198104263660. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Bandura A. Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In: Pajares F, Urdan TC, editors. Cocky-efficacy beliefs of adolescents. Greenwich, CT: Information Historic period; 2006. [Google Scholar]
• Bandura A. Much ado over a faulty conception of perceived self-efficacy grounded in faulty experimentation. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology. 2007;26:641–658. doi: 10.1521/jscp.2007.26.6.641. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Bauman AE, Reis RS, Sallis JF, Wells JC, Loos RJ, Martin BW. Correlates of physical activity: why are some people physically active and others not? Lancet. 2012;380:258–271. doi: x.1016/S0140-6736(12)60735-one. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Borkovec TD. Cocky-efficacy: Cause or reflection of behavioural change? Advances in Behaviour Research and Therapy. 1978;ane:163–170. Retrieved from: http://world wide web.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/01466402. [Google Scholar]
• Cahill SP, Gallo LA, Lisman SA, Weinstein A. Willing or able? The meanings of self-efficacy. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology. 2006;25:196–209. doi: 10.1521/jscp.2006.25.two.196. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Clark MM, Abrams DB, Niaura RS, Eaton CA, Rossi JS. Cocky-efficacy in weight management. Periodical of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 1991;59:739–744. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.59.5.739. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Corcoran KJ. Efficacy, "skills," reinforcement, and pick behaviour. American Psychologist. 1991;46:155–157. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.46.two.155. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Corcoran KJ. Understanding cognition, choice, and behaviour. Periodical of Beliefs Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry. 1995;26:201–207. doi: 10.1016/0005-7916(95)00020-Z. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Corcoran KJ, Rutledge MW. Efficacy expectation changes as a function of hypothetical incentives in smokers. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors. 1989;three:22–29. doi: 10.1037/h0080563. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Quango JR, Ahern DK, Follick MJ, Kline CL. Expectancies and functional impairment in chronic depression back pain. Hurting. 1988;33:323–331. doi: x.1016/0304-3959(88)90291-6. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• de Ridder D, de Wit J. Current problems and new directions in Psychology and Wellness: Back to the future: What good are wellness goals in the presence of immediate interests? Psychology and Health. 2007;22:513–516. doi: 10.1080/14768320701374626. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Deci EL, Ryan RM. Intrinsic motivation and cocky-determination in human behaviour. New York: Plenum; 1985. [Google Scholar]
• Desteno D, Gross JJ, Kubzansky 50. Affective science and health: The importance of emotion and emotion regulation. Health Psychology. 2013;32:474–486. doi: x.1037/a0030259. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• DiClemente CC, Carbonari JP, Montgomery RP, Hughes SO. The Alcohol Abstinence Self-Efficacy scale. Journal of Studies on Alcohol. 1994;55:141–148. Retrieved from www.jsad.com. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• DiClemente CC, Fairhurst SK, Piotrowski NA. Cocky-efficacy and addictive behaviours. In: Maddux JE, editor. Self-efficacy, adaptation, and adjustment: Theory, research, and application. New York: Plenum; 1995. pp. 109–142. [Google Scholar]
• Dijkstra A, Conijn B, De Vries H. A match-mismatch test of a phase model of behaviour alter in tobacco smoking. Addiction. 2006;101:1035–1043. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2006.01419.ten. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Dijkstra A, De Vries H, Roijackers J. Computerized tailored feedback to alter cognitive determinants of smoking: a Dutch field experiment. Health Education Research. 1998;thirteen:197–206. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Eastman C, Marzillier JS. Theoretical and methodological difficulties in Bandura's self-efficacy theory. Cognitive Therapy and Research. 1984;8:213–229. doi: 10.1007/BF01172994. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Etter JF, Bergman MM, Humair JP, Perneger Television receiver. Development and validation of a scale measuring cocky-efficacy of electric current and former smokers. Habit. 2000;95:901–913. doi: ten.1080/09652140050031644. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Feather NT. Expectations and actions: Expectancy-value models in psychology. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1982. [Google Scholar]
• Fishbein M. A reasoned action approach to health promotion. Medical Conclusion Making. 2008;28:834–844. doi: 10.1177/0272989X08326092. [PMC costless article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• French DP. The office of self-efficacy in changing wellness-related behaviour: cause, effect or spurious association? British Journal of Health Psychology. 2013;18:237–243. doi: 10.1111/bjhp.12038. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Glanz 1000, Bishop DB. The role of behavioural science theory in evolution and implementation of public health interventions. Annual Review of Public Wellness. 2010;31:399–418. doi: ten.1146/annurev.publhealth.012809.103604. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Godin G, Kok G. The theory of planned behaviour: A review of its applications to health-related behaviours. American Journal of Health Promotion. 1996;11:87–98. doi: 10.4278/0890-1171-xi.2.87. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Gwaltney CJ, Metrik J, Kahler CW, Shiffman Southward. Cocky-efficacy and smoking cessation: a meta-assay. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors. 2009;23:56–66. doi: ten.1037/a0013529. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Hall PA, Fong GT. Temporal self-regulation theory: A model for individual health behaviour. Health Psychology Review. 2007;1:six– 52. doi: ten.1080/17437190701492437. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Hofmann West, Friese M, Wiers RW. Impulsive versus cogitating influences on health behaviour: A theoretical framework and empirical review. Health Psychology Review. 2008;ii:111–137. doi: x.1080/17437190802617668. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Holden Chiliad. The human relationship of cocky-efficacy appraisals to subsequent health related outcomes: A meta-analysis. Social Work in Health Intendance. 1991;xvi:53–93. doi: 10.1300/J010v16n01_05. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Hunter RF, Tully MA, Davis 1000, Stevenson M, Kee F. Concrete activity loyalty cards for behavior change: A quasi-experimental report. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2013;45:56–63. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2013.02.022. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Hyde J, Hankins K, Deale A, Marteau TM. Interventions to increase self-efficacy in the context of addiction behaviours: A systematic literature review. Periodical of Health Psychology. 2008;13:607–623. doi: x.1177/1359105308090933. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Johnston M, Dixon D, Hart J, Glidewell L, Schröder C, Pollard B. Discriminant Content Validity (DCV): A quantitative methodology for assessing content of theory-based measures, with illustrative applications. British Periodical of Health Psychology. 2014;19:240–257. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Kazdin AE. Conceptual and assessment issues raised by cocky-efficacy theory. Advances in Behaviour Research and Therapy. 1978;1:177–185. Retrieved from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/periodical/01466402. [Google Scholar]
• Kerr NL, Feltz DL, Irwin BC. To pay or non to pay? Practice extrinsic incentives modify the Köhler group motivation proceeds? Grouping Processes and Intergroup Relations. 2012;16:257–268. doi: 10.1177/1368430212453632. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Kirsch I. Efficacy expectations or response predictions: The pregnant of efficacy ratings as a function of task characteristics. Periodical of Personality and Social Psychology. 1982;42:132–136. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.42.i.132. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Kirsch I. Self-efficacy and expectancy: Old wine with new labels. Periodical of Personality and Social Psychology. 1985;49:824–830. doi: 10.1177/1088868310368802. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Kirsch I. Cocky-efficacy and outcome expectancy: A concluding commentary. In: Maddux JE, editor. Self-efficacy, accommodation, and adjustment: Theory, research, and application. New York: Plenum; 1995. pp. 341–345. [Google Scholar]
• Lee LL, Arthur A, Avis M. Using self-efficacy theory to develop interventions that help older people overcome psychological barriers to concrete activity: A word paper. International Periodical of Nursing Studies. 2008;45:1690–1699. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2008.02.012. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Maddux JE. Expectancies and the social-cognitive perspective: Basic principles, processes, and variables. In: Kirsch I, editor. How expectancies shape experience. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 1999. pp. 17–39. [Google Scholar]
• Maddux JE, Rogers RW. Protection motivation and self-efficacy: A revised theory of fear appeals and attitude modify. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 1983;19:469–479. doi: 10.1016/0022-1031(83)90023-9. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Marcus BH, Selby VC, Niaura RS, Rossi JS. Cocky-efficacy and the stages of exercise behaviour change. Inquiry Quarterly for Exercise and Sport. 1992;63:threescore–66. doi: 10.1080/02701367.1992.10607557. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Marlatt GA, Baer JS, Quigley LA. Self-efficacy and addictive behaviour. In: Bandura A, editor. Cocky-efficacy in changing societies. New York: Cambridge Academy; 1995. pp. 289–315. [Google Scholar]
• McAuley Eastward. The office of efficacy cognitions in the prediction of exercise behaviour in middle-anile adults. Journal of Behavioral Medicine. 1992;fifteen:65–88. doi: 10.1007/BF00848378. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• McAuley East, Courneya KS, Lettunich J. Effects of acute and long-term exercise on cocky-efficacy responses in sedentary, centre-aged males and females. The Gerontologist. 1991;31:534–542. doi: ten.1093/geront/31.4.534. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• McDonald D, O'Brien J, Farr Due east, Haaga DA. Airplane pilot written report of inducing smoking cessation attempts by activating a sense of looming vulnerability. Addictive Behaviours. 2010;35:599–606. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2010.02.008. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Park CL, Gaffey AE. Relationships between psychosocial factors and health behaviour change in cancer survivors: an integrative review. Annals of Behavioral Medicince. 2007;34:115–134. doi: 10.1080/08836610701564089. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Prestwich A, Kellar I, Parker R, MacRae S, Learmonth 1000, Sykes B, Castle H. How can cocky-efficacy be increased? Meta-analysis of dietary interventions. Health Psychology Review. 2014;8:270–285. doi: 10.1080/17437199.2013.813729. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Rhodes RE, Blanchard CM. What do confidence items measure in the physical action domain? Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 2007;37:759–774. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2007.00184.10. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Rhodes RE, Blanchard CM. Do sedentary motives adversely affect physical activeness? Adding cantankerous-behavioural cognitions to the theory of planned behaviour. Psychology and Health. 2008;23:789–805. doi: x.1080/08870440701421578. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Rhodes RE, Blanchard CM, Matheson DH. A multicomponent model of the theory of planned behaviour. British Journal of Health Psychology. 2006;11:119–137. doi: x.1348/135910705X52633. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Rhodes RE, Courneya KS. Self-efficacy, controlability, and intention in the theory of planned behaviour: Measurement redundancy or causal independence? Psychology and Health. 2003;xviii:79–91. doi: ten.1080/0887044031000080665. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Rhodes RE, Courneya KS. Differentiating motivation and control in the theory of planned behaviour. Psychology, Health, and Medicine. 2004;9:205–215. doi: 10.1080/13548500410001670726. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Rhodes RE, Plotnikoff RC, Spence JC. Creating parsimony at the expense of precision? Conceptual and practical problems of aggregating belief-based constructs in physical activity inquiry. Health Education Inquiry. 2004;xix:392–405. doi: x.1093/her/cyg043. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Richetin J, Conner Thou, Perugini Grand. Not doing is non the opposite of doing: implications for attitudinal models of behavioural prediction. Personality and Social Psychology Message. 2011;37:40–54. doi: 10.1177/0146167210390522. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Rogers RW. Cerebral and physiological processes in fearfulness appeals and attitude alter: A revised theory of protection motivation. In: Cacioppo JT, Footling RE, editors. Social psychophysiology: A sourcebook. New York: Guilford; 1983. pp. 153–176. [Google Scholar]
• Rosenstock IM, Strecher VJ, Becker MH. Social learning theory and the Health Belief Model. Health Education Quarterly. 1988;15:175–183. doi: 10.1177/109019818801500203. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Sallis JF, Pinski RB, Grossman RM, Patterson TL, Nader PR. The development of self-efficacy scales for health-related diet and exercise behaviours. Health Education Research. 1988;three:283–292. doi: 10.1093/her/3.3.283. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Schoenberger NE, Kirsch I, Rosengard C. Cognitive theories of man fear: An empirically derived interogation. Anxiety Inquiry. 1991;4:ane–13. doi: 10.1080/08917779108248760. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Schwarzer R, Renner B. Social-cognitive predictors of health behavior: Action self-efficacy and coping self-efficacy. Health Psychology. 2000;19:487–495. doi: x.1037/0278-6133.19.5.487. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Sheeran P, Gollwitzer PM, Bargh JA. Nonconscious processes and health. Health Psychology. 2013;32:460–473. doi: 10.1037/a0029203. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Skinner EA. A guide to constructs of control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1996;71:549–570. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.71.three.549. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Stanley MA, Maddux JE. Cerebral processes in health enhancement: Investigation of a combined protection motivation and self-efficacy model. Basic and Applied Social Psychology. 1986;7:101–113. doi: 10.1207/s15324834basp0702_2. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Strecher VJ, McClure J, Alexander Yard, Chakraborty B, Nair V, Konkel J, Pomerleau O. The function of engagement in a tailored web-based smoking cessation plan: Randomized controlled trial. Journal of Medical Internet Inquiry. 2008;10:e36. doi: 10.2196/jmir.1002. [PMC gratis article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Symbaluk DG, Heth CD, Cameron J, Pierce WD. Social modeling, monetary incentives, and pain endurance: The role of self-efficacy and pain perception. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 1997;23:258–269. doi: x.1177/0146167297233005. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Williams DM. Outcome expectancy and cocky-efficacy: theoretical implications of an unresolved contradiction. Personality and Social Psychology Review. 2010;14:417–425. doi: x.1177/1088868310368802. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Williams DM, Anderson ES, Winett RA. A review of the outcome expectancy construct in physical activity research. Annals of Behavioral Medicine. 2005;29:lxx–79. doi: x.1207/s15324796abm2901_10. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Williams DM, Evans DR. Current emotion research in health behaviour science. Emotion Review. 2014;vi:277–287. doi: x.1177/1754073914523052. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Wolpe J. Self-efficacy theory and psychotherapeutic change: A square peg for a round hole. Advances in Behaviour Enquiry and Therapy. 1978;1:231–236. Retrieved from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/01466402. [Google Scholar]
• Woodgate J, Brawley LR, Weston ZJ. Maintenance of cardiac rehabilitation adherence: Effects of task and self-regulatory self-efficacy. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 2005;35:183–197. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2005.tb02099.ten. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

freemanarborl.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4326627/

Share this post