SELF-EFFICACY

Albert Bandura’s CONSTRUCT to describe a person’s or a team’s belief in their capacity to produce a desired or intended result under specific conditions is self-efficacy. It is a cognitive mechanism that affects behavior. As conditions change, so might someone’s belief in their competence to bring about the result might change, as might the strength of their COMMITMENT. So, self-efficacy is specific to situations and changeable. Marcia Milne et al. identify three specific types of self-efficacy: (1)

task, involving judgments about capabilities in specific contexts; (2) barrier, about the capability to overcome personal and social constraints; and (3) scheduling, meaning planning strategies. The word ‘‘efficacy’’ shares a common root with efficiency, the Latin efficax, which means creating a desired outcome. Unlike SELF-CONFIDENCE, which suggests trust and assurance in

oneself across a range of endeavors, self-efficacy relates to particular tasks, which might include, for example, a particular physical activity, REHABILITATION from INJURY, or recovering from ALCOHOLISM or another kind of DEPENDENCE. It also relates to conditions. A recovering alcoholic might experience self-efficacy, but only if he steers clear of his old drinking friends; a marathon runner might believe she excels in most weathers, apart from when the temperature drops below 32 degrees Fahrenheit (0 degrees Celsius). It differs in another important respect, pointed out by Jeffrey

Katula and Edward McAuley: ‘‘Self-efficacy is a form of self-evaluation in which several sources of information (for example, performance accomplishments, interpretations of physiological arousal) are appraised to form perceptions of capabilities.’’ Self-confident individuals are unlikely to rely on such ‘‘efficacy-relevant mastery information’’; their self-assurance is usually implicit. Katula and McAuley’s study examined the impact of a mirror in a gym studio: ‘‘Participants reported significantly greater exercise self-efficacy in the mirror condition as compared to the no mirror condition.’’ Steven Bray’s research implemented methods designed to develop

self-efficacy include vicarious experience, verbal persuasion (for example, seeing and hearing about others’ success), and guided MASTERY (exposure to enjoyable forms of physical activity). The conclusion was that self-efficacy can be built independently of actually achieving intended goals. Complementary research though in a completely different CONTEXT by Bradley Cardinal and Maria Kosma, on muscular fitness training, pointed out ways in which self-efficacy

is instilled using behavioral and cognitive strategies, some of them quite minor, such as subscribing to a FITNESS magazine or learning how to perform certain exercises. The effects of self-efficacy as both a determinant and a consequence

of EXERCISE BEHAVIOR are well documented (and reviewed by McAuley and Blissmer). The exercise environment, physical and social, can also affect the development of self-efficacy, as can the GENDER of other trainers. Gender is relevant to self-efficacy, as is RACE, according to the research of Zan Gao and Louis Harrison, who revealed that men experienced significantly more self-efficacy than women. In the same study, African Americans scored higher than whites on

self-efficacy, but not in their physical task performances. The self-efficacy differences were consistent with other research on EXPECTANCY, and perceived physical ABILITY as well as on STEREOTYPE THREAT and the SELF-FULFILLING PROPHECY. Self-efficacy is valuable in understanding why performers are

motivated to continue performing in a domain where they have experienced success yet tend to avoid activities they perform poorly. It is not so useful in explaining engagement in areas of activity where individuals might initially have difficulties and might even continue to struggle, yet persist with DELIBERATE PRACTICE and ultimately improve.