Talk:Self-efficacy

Comments
170.215.129.57 (talk) 05:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)'What a crock - every time a psychologist tries to define Information Systems procedures in human terms we end up with a bunch of self-defined self-effacing self-centered worthless research terms to feed the next graduate dissertation, signifying five wasted years of doctoral tuition'From VfD:

Pretty much individual research and a dictdef. It's also vertiginously tautological. Geogre 13:34, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Uncertain: it seems to be a valid psychological topic, however it is little more than a dicdef in its current form. If it can be expanded I would say keep. Otherwise, redirect to self-esteem or some other appropriate page. (If it is kept it needs a '-' of its own though). TPK 14:16, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * A neologism coined (as near as I can tell) by Dr Albert Bandura in 1986 or so. It appears to have caught on in self-help circles.  See plenty of hits at .  Personally, I don't see much distinction between this concept and self-esteem but at least a few of the hits were academic papers splitting this hair.  Keep. Rossami 14:53, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Plain old "efficacy" is a term used in political science (a high feeling of personal efficacy is a strong predictor of whether someone will vote). I vote to move and expand. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 15:46, 2004 Aug 12 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to efficacy. Also redirect self-efficacy there. -Sean Curtin 22:16, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Efficacy article is much different as it relates to pharmacology and healthcare, not psychology.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.227.244.106 (talk) 05:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, obviously. 20 years ago is hardly a "neologism" and Albert Bandura isn't exactly an obscure name. --Tothebarricades.tk 04:19, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, move to cleanup. Rhymeless 05:30, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

Confusion on Theoretical Model
"Social Self-Efficacy has a positive relationship with prosocial behavior which is helping others, sharing, being kind and cooperative. On the other hand, moral disengagement and prosocial behavior has a negative relationship."

To me the article says that Social Self-Efficacy has a positive and negative relationship with prosocial behavior. (as well as a negative relationship with moral disengagement)

Was this a mistake and it was just meant for moral disengagment to be negative? If so, then such a correction should be made.

Does it mean that it's positive with prosocial behavior alone, but negative with prosocial behavior and moral disengagement combined? If so, more clarification should be given.

Or does it just mean that prosocial behavior and moral disengagment are negatively related? If so, this needs to be stated more clearly. The 'On the other hand' phrase implies that these topics are still related to Social Self-Efficacy.

Bobcat64 21:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Excessive Citation Requirements
A glaring example is "One can have self-efficacy beliefs about any human endeavor.[citation needed]" This statement is general enough that no citation is required. Feel free to rebuke me on this, and change it back after I take a couple of these out, but this seems excessive. 24.16.114.225

Examples used may need improvement
The article currently uses three examples of "commonly studied types of self-efficacy beliefs". However, these examples are too school-oriented. For instance: "Self-Regulatory Self-Efficacy: ability to resist peer pressure, avoid high-risk activities Academic Self-Efficacy: ability to do course work, regulate learning activities, meet expectancies"

They seem to be there mostly for the section immediately following it. I'd recommend moving it to that section and making it a little more clear on the later, linked part: "Self-regulatory self efficacy and academic self efficacy have a negative relationship with moral disengagement." There's an explaination later in the paragraph that needs to be written in earlier for clairity. I'd do it, but I'm not sure how to do it according to Wikipedia's style guide.

Regardless if the three examples are moved or deleted, I think a more universal and concrete example would work better in it's place. Ex. Self-Regulatory Self-Efficacy could be replaced by Work Self-Efficacy: ability to get a work done at a reasonable quality, avoid distractions--that feels a little more universal than "resisting peer pressure", an often-loaded term.

(And that's my bias, of course--not everyone thinks in terms of getting things done. Maybe a counter-bias should be introduced? I could be nitpicking, here.) Kennard2 08:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Citation cleanup needed
Quote: "Research shows that the ‘optimum’ level of self efficacy is a little above ability; which encourages people to tackle challenging tasks and gain valuable experience."

Erased [citation needed]; self-explanatory in nature. Citation logically needed due to the fact that 'Research shows' precedes the statement. Cleanup in this context and others would make a much cleaner page.


 * I disagree. Your snippet is a hypothesis that should be supported with references to published theory or evidence. The best way to clean up this article would be to improve the quality of writing, and supply more specific references. The "citation needed" tags are important reminders that the information in the article can not be considered reliable until verified with references. Nesbit 18:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Confirmation from contributors?
This sentence (second paragraph) seems to conflict with the rest of the article:"'Self-esteem relates to a person’s perception of their ability to reach a goal, whereas self-efficacy relates to a person’s sense of self-worth.'"Where the article opens with specific mention of goal-attainment, it seems that "self-esteem" and "self-efficacy" have been transposed. azwaldo (talk) 02:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC) It does seem that vice versa would be more suitable in the above definition. Vorbee (talk) 16:43, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Possibly awkward "a.k.a." wording (under "Factors affecting self-efficacy")
I just added a redirect for enactive attainment, which was the term used to describe mastery experience in the university class I learned about self-efficacy in. I emulated the a.k.a. construct from "2. Modeling - a.k.a. 'Vicarious Experience'" for consistency but I think it's awkward. I don't think it's appropriate to simply delete the alternate terms enactive attainment and vicarious experience because (1) this would surprise anyone redirected from enactive attainment (how did I get here?), (2) my experience leads me to believe that these alternate terms are valid and reasonably common in this specific context, so it will likely be helpful to others searching for these terms. Is there a better wording for mentioning the alternate terms here? Maybe there's a style guide I don't know about? Firefeather (talk) 19:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

"those with high self-efficacy seem to be more able to live stress-free lives"
While I understand this statement is in the 'POSSIBLE applications' section, it seems straight forward and significant enough that someone would have done research on this. I'd like to believe the statement is true (and have seen indications of it), but I don't think everyone believes that. While I've done some reading on self-efficacy (with a particular focus), I'm not an expert on it. Therefore, I marked it as citation needed. If this article were about self-esteem than maybe that could stand as is, but a belief in ones ability to accomplish things is not the same as ones "overall evaluation or appraisal of her or his own worth" (from the self-esteem article). --BillCamp (talk) 14:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Word-for-word like another site that seems to predate the text here
I still haven't figured out an easy or reliable way to determine whether text used in WP articles is copied from other sites, or the other way around. The text in "How self-efficacy affects human function / Health Behaviors" has a citation style not standard to WP, which made me start looking around. It looks as though this text first appeared on Dec. 14, 2008, on http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Self-efficacy, before appearing here on Jan. 4, 2009. Other sections are identical as well, but don't show up in this article until later.

I've been editing the article, and so some of the word-for-wordness has disappeared, but I'm concerned about what remains. Am I wrong in suspecting that this text was not original to WP? If I'm right, what should be done?

Thanks. -- Everything Else Is Taken (talk) 02:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

correlation confusion
In the 'subclassifications' section it is stated that:

"Both groups of researchers suggest that social self-efficacy is strongly correlated with shyness and social anxiety."

Presumably this is a negative correlation - i.e. low social self-efficacy correlates with high shyness and social anxiety. Could somebody clarify this point in the article? 81.153.245.152 (talk) 19:52, 14 July 2015 (UTC) Almost a year later it just says, "Researchers suggest that social self-efficacy is strongly correlated with shyness and social anxiety.", but that doesn't help much, because it still seems like it is almost certainly a negative correlation! Perhaps a citation would help to resolve confusion? UnderEducatedGeezer (talk) 02:36, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I would also say that it is a negative correlation. As self-efficacy increases, a person will feel more confident in their ability to perform a certain task. A person who is more confident in their ability to succeed in a specific social setting is going to experience less shyness and anxiety than a person who lacks the confidence to succeed at that same task. If you consider public speaking, a person with high self-efficacy for giving a speech is likely to be less shy and anxious than a person with low self-efficacy for giving a public speech. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lauren.goldstein (talk • contribs) 22:23, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Baileymahler (talk) 17:35, 6 December 2017 (UTC)=== Adding a Section on how Self-efficacy Impacts Learning ===

I believe that there should be an addition to the wikipedia page. Self-efficacy is crucial to a student's success. The paragraph should include ways to promote self-efficacy in the classroom. We should also include why this is important to learning.Baileymahler (talk) 17:35, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree that this section should be added. In the section on "How it affects human function", there is one part regarding academic productivity. It might be beneficial to elaborate on this portion and add in another paragraph since many of the other applications of self-efficacy go a lot more in depth. Another option could be to elaborate on this topic in the part of the page "Applications" in which "Academic contexts" are discussed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lauren.goldstein (talk • contribs) 19:09, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Okay Lauren.goldstein. I agree that adding the section in the application section under academic contexts may work best. So far, this is information I have taken from the project you and I did together as well as my inclusion of another paragraph. I edited the original paragraph slightly.

Self-efficacy is an individual's confidence in his/her ability to complete or succeed at a specific task (writing an essay, taking a test, etc.). A person with high self-efficacy has more confidence in their abilities, making success more likely. High self-efficacy often results in people challenging themselves and overcoming any slight failures. For example, a student who is confident in his/her ability to solve a math problem is going to be more motivated to solve those problems as well as more challenging ones. The student will react less severely than a student with low self-efficacy when obstacles and occasional failures are encountered. People with low self-efficacy for performing certain tasks can eventually reach a state of learned-helplessness, an idea developed by Martin Seligman. People who have reached this state of mind believe that putting in effort makes no difference because they are going to fail no matter what they do. For example, a student with low self-efficacy who has reached a stage of learned helplessness would not study for an exam because they believe they are going to fail and studying won't make any difference. These students then end up failing exams due to the lack of studying. To better understand self-efficacy there is also the video “Importance of Self-Efficacy Animation Video.”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VW5v6PQ5PEc This video gives many examples of how self-efficacy can be used, ranging from in the classroom, to school activities outside of the classroom, such as sports. There are many different factors that affect a person's self efficacy, which are listed below.

Another youtube video also illustrates the impact self-efficacy has on learning and its importance. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VW5v6PQ5PEc Sara.pickowitz (talk) 23:32, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Self-efficacy affects student’s behavior in three ways, “Choice of tasks,” “Persistence of Tasks,” and “Response to Failure.” (Global textbook 117-119). “Choice of tasks” refers to the concept that students will chose a task they already feel confident in. For example, if a student feels confident in their ability to complete an English essay they are more likely to do it. Unfortunately, this concept works in reverse as well. If a student is unconfident in their ability to do math, they are more likely to not do the math homework. These two ideas can define the type of student someone becomes. Student’s that are confident are more likely to achieve academic success than those students who are lacking confidence. (Global Text 117). Baileymahler (talk) 17:35, 6 December 2017 (UTC) This video demonstrates how important self efficacy is for the learning of students: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zo1_azZwvxQ JuliaTestori (talk) 23:53, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I have read that part over and it looks good. I have added a section on the relationship between failure and self-efficacy that has been added to the paragraph we are working on in the google docs that has been created. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lauren.goldstein (talk • contribs) 20:45, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I've read this paragraph and I think it's coming together really well. I'm going to add a part talking about the growth and fixed mindset because I don't see that anywhere else in the page, and I think it helps to further this idea about thinking about failing and failing as a result of it. I think it's good to add terminology for this. (Mackmace (talk) 15:30, 11 December 2017 (UTC))

Contradictory example
Under [Thought patterns and responses](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-efficacy#Thought_patterns_and_responses) in the last bullet point, it says: "For example, someone with high self-efficacy in regards to mathematics may attribute a poor test grade to a harder-than-usual test, illness, lack of effort, or insufficient preparation. A person with a low self-efficacy will attribute the result to poor mathematical ability."

However, under [Relationship to locus of control](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-efficacy#Relationship_to_locus_of_control), it says at the end: "However, a student with low self-efficacy who does poorly on an exam is likely to believe the cause of that failure was due to the test being too difficult or challenging, which the student does not control."

So we are saying it is characteristic of both high and low self-efficacy students to attribute failure to the difficulty of the test. Needs clarification. EditorPerson53 (talk) 04:43, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research and Practice in Wikipedia
— Assignment last updated by DarthVetter (talk) 19:45, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - SP23 - Sect 201 - Thu
— Assignment last updated by Zl4474 (talk) 21:37, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Child Development
I was reading through environment and I was curious about the development of self-efficacy in children who have grown up in abusive households. I feel that it would be a great addition to this topic as it provides many different kinds of advice for people who are attempting to build a better self-efficacy. I imagine those who experienced such things have a low self-efficacy and might need a better understanding of themselves and understanding their potential. I apologize if I misunderstood what the talk section is used for. ~ Iceman2077 (talk) 21:39, 1 May 2023 (UTC)