You are required to write a professional letter to a potential colleague to make him or her aware of
these recent findings of the articles. must be at least 400 words and demonstrate course-related
knowledge.
o For each article, state the research question, sample size, variables of interest,
statistical test used to examine the research question(s), and the conclusions.
Make sure to cite in-text using APA conventions. Note you cannot quote from
the articles you selected – you must put information into your own words for this
entire letter.
o Discuss how the articles work together to strengthen your understanding of the
topic you’ve selected personally and/or professionally, OR why you think their
results are contradictory.
Include a reference section at the end in current APA style for all citations.
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 1 August 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 1689
ORIGINAL RESEARCH
published: 07 August 2019
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01689
Edited by:
Margaret M. Hopkins,
University of Toledo, United States
Reviewed by:
Ivan Herrera-Peco,
Alfonso X El Sabio University, Spain
Eleonora Concina,
University of Padova, Italy
Melissa Christine Davis,
Edith Cowan University, Australia
*Correspondence:
Francisco Manuel Morales-Rodríguez
fmmorales@ugr.es;
Specialty section:
This article was submitted to
Organizational Psychology,
a section of the journal
Frontiers in Psychology
Received: 01 February 2019
Accepted: 04 July 2019
Published: 07 August 2019
Citation:
Morales-Rodríguez FM and
Pérez-Mármol JM (2019)
The Role of Anxiety, Coping
Strategies, and Emotional
Intelligence on General Perceived
Self-Efficacy in University Students.
Front. Psychol. 10:1689.
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01689
The Role of Anxiety, Coping
Strategies, and Emotional
Intelligence on General Perceived
Self-Efficacy in University Students
FranciscoManuelMorales-Rodríguez1
* and JoséManuelPérez-Mármol 2,3
1Department of Educational and Developmental Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, University of Granada, Granada, Spain,
2Department of Physiotherapy, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Granada, Granada, Spain, 3Instituto de Investigación
Biosanitaria ibs.GRANADA, Granada, Spain
The main objective of the present research is to analyze the relationship of levels of self-
efficacy and anxiety, coping strategies, and emotional intelligence in Spanish university
students. This study has a cross-sectional design. The sample was composed of 258
university students recruited from three academic areas. Descriptive, bivariate, and multivariate
regression analyses were performed. Significant bivariate analysis showed a significant
inverse correlation between self-efficacy and state anxiety (r=−0.340) and trait anxiety
(r=−0.466). In addition, a direct correlation was found between self-efficacy and the coping
strategies of problem-solving (r =0.312), emotional expression (r= 0.133), cognitive
restructuring (r=0.195), social withdrawal (r=0.103), and coping with a situation (r=0.303),
as well as with the emotional intelligence dimensions of emotional clarity (r=0.397) and
repair mood (r=0.347). Multivariate regression analysis showed that trait anxiety, problem-
solving, emotional expression, social withdrawal, and emotional clarity were significantly
related to the dependent variable, predicting 39% of total variance on levels of general
perceived self-efficacy. In conclusion, this paper contributes to a better understanding of
the related factors to general perceived self-efficacy in undergraduate students.
Keywords: academic performance, emotional intelligence, self-efficacy, university students, coping strategies
INTRODUCTION
Self-efficacy was initially defined as the judgments that individuals make about abilities, based
on which they organize and execute their actions, in order to achieve the desired performance
(Bandura, 1987). General self-efficacy may have significant effects on the behaviors or activities
involving the individual, on the effort invested, and on the individual’s thoughts and emotional
reactions (Blanco, 2010). At the university context, the general self-efficacy is involved in the
judgments that each student makes about his or her abilities to organize and execute the actions
required by different specific situations (Sanjuán et al., 2000). The interrelationships between
self-efficacy and other psychological and behavioral constructs derive from cognitive-social (clinical)
models and psychoeducational approaches. According to the Bandura’s model, with lower overall
perceived self-efficacy we may find higher levels of psychological distress such as anxiety and
avoidance behaviors (Bandura, 1987; Karademas and Kalantzi-Azizi, 2004; Cabanach etal., 2010).
Morales-Rodríguez and Pérez-Mármol Self-Efficacy in University Students
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 2 August 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 1689
In addition, when certain situations or events exceed the
individual’s own capacities, general self-efficacy decreases, and
this may play an important role in stress generation. In these
situations, coping strategies are needed to manage the high
levels of stress (Piergiovanni and Depaula, 2018). Lazarus and
Folkman (1984), in its model of coping with stress, conceptualized
stress as the interaction between the person and his/her
environment. These authors consider stress to be a stimulus–
response relationship, where the subject labels a given situation
as a threatening or overflowing one that endangers his/her
well-being. In turn, stress may lead to alterations in physiological
and psychological health (Zajacova et al., 2005).
On the other hand, the psychoeducational approach may
be considered as an integral framework for the evaluation and
development of constructs such as self-efficacy, coping strategies,
anxiety, and emotional intelligence (Organisation for Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD), 2005; Castañeda
Fernández, 2016; Morales, 2016; Belaunzaran, 2018). Particularly,
the framework for the development of standards for high-quality
professional education in psychology – EuroPsy justifies the
need to include assessment and intervention competencies related
to emotional management, problem-solving, anxiety and
interpersonal problems in the higher education setting
(Belaunzaran, 2018). In addition, the EuroPsy framework is in
line with the guidelines contemplated by the European Higher
Education Area (Castañeda Fernández, 2016) and the Organization
for Economic Cooperation and Development (Organisation for
Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), 2005), which
highlight the importance of developing systemic competencies.
Some of these competencies include personal resources, adequate
levels of self-efficacy, and low frustration tolerance (Organisation
for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), 2005;
Castañeda Fernández, 2016). Therefore, self-efficacy, the emotional
resources of individuals, and coping strategies should beintegrated
and studied as a whole.
Human emotions may be understood as an emotional
continuum that includes anxiety at the negative pole and
emotional intelligence at the positive pole (Cropanzano et al.,
2003). Commonly, anxiety may be divided into two clinical
dimensions: state anxiety, referring to how one feels at the
moment, and trait anxiety, representing how one generally feels.
Castillo et al. (2016) showed high levels of state anxiety, trait
anxiety, and academic stress in university students. For this
population, many research studies have shown that there may
be several stressors that cause high level of anxiety such as
examinations, lack of time to undertake academic activities,
and academic overload. For this reason, several authors highlight
that variables such as individual expectations and perceived
self-efficacy should be considered to cope with or cushion the
effects of stress and anxiety in the higher education setting
(Shankland etal., 2010; Hendy etal., 2014; Ruiz, 2014; Mathews
et al., 2016). People who doubt their abilities may believe that
things are more difficult than they really are (Pajares and
Schunk, 2001; Contreras etal., 2005). In fact, some investigations
indicate that self-efficacy is associated negatively with anxiety
(Luszczynska etal., 2005; Olivari Medina and Urra Medina, 2007;
Bueno-Pacheco et al., 2017).
As for emotional intelligence in the educational context, a
recent study has shown the importance of the so-called
intrapsychic factors, such as the management of emotions in
the effective coping with stress (Cabanach etal., 2016). Students
with low or medium levels of emotional clarity (individual’s
meta-knowledge of their affective experience) seem to perceive
the environment as more threatening and show greater
psychophysiological responses to stress than those with high
emotional clarity. Furthermore, students with low emotional
attention (ability to detect threatening information quickly)
value beliefs about the performance and the value of content
in a more stressful way than students with high emotional
attention (Boden et al., 2013). In the same vein, a research
analyzed the differences in the perception of academic stressors
and psychophysiological responses of stress based on different
profiles of emotional regulation. Students with higher levels
of acceptance and control over their emotions perceived the
circumstances or the academic environment as less threatening,
and therefore, suffered lower levels of psychological stress
(González-Cabanach et al., 2017). Different studies also point
to the importance of certain socio-emotional factors in learning,
such as organizational, personal, and social obstacles, underlining
the need to pay more attention to them. These obstacles
direct attention toward self-efficacy and its related factors in
university students (Salanova etal., 2010; Medrano etal., 2016;
Del Rosal and Bermejo, 2017).
With regard to coping strategies, these are defined as efforts
to regulate emotions, behaviors, cognitions, psychophysiology,
and environmental aspects in response to the stress of everyday
events. Each problem or situation requires the use of a specific
coping strategy. Therefore, the same strategy can be effective
or ineffective depending on whether or not the individual
perceives the situation as threatening (Lazarus and Folkman,
1984; Carver et al., 1989). More optimistic people use more
effective strategies; however, in uncontrollable situations they
tend to use strategies considered ineffective such as acceptance
or resignation to the problem (Scheier et al., 1986). Higher
education students may face many stressful changes and
transitions that usually increase the number of stressors that
students face in this field. Denovan and Macaskill (2013) found
that university students apply different types of coping strategies
such as optimism, hope, and self-control in stressful situations
to facilitate the adjustment and adaptation process. The choice
of one coping strategy or another may be determined by the
level of self-efficacy perceived (Vandercleyen et al., 2014).
Different studies have found an association between the
perception of self-efficacy and the coping strategies employed
(Vandercleyen et al., 2014; Zambianchi and Ricci-Bitti, 2014;
Gárriz et al., 2015; Piergiovanni and Depaula, 2018); however,
these have not included emotional continuum of individuals
such as anxiety (in a positive sense) or emotional intelligence
(in a negative sense) in the same model.
Many research studies have shown the importance of general
and academic self-efficacy in the educational context. Self-
efficacy has been classically defined as perceived capabilities
within specific domains (Bandura, 1987; Pajares, 1996; Schunk
and Pajares, 2002). Academic self-efficacy is understood as the
Morales-Rodríguez and Pérez-Mármol Self-Efficacy in University Students
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 3 August 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 1689
“students’ perception of their own ability to achieve the proposed
activity, in the process of which students interpret the results
of their activities and academic tasks” (Piergiovanni and Depaula,
2018, p. 18). Students may differ in their beliefs about their
learning skills or if they adapt “effectively” to the context of
learning (Schunk, 1991; Piergiovanni and Depaula, 2018). Both
constructs, general and academic self-efficacy, appear to have
an influence on academic performance and the development
of adaptive academic goals (Pajares, 1996; Valentine et al.,
2004; Wolf et al., 2018). However, although academic self-
efficacy is an important aspect in the educational field, general
self-efficacy can give a more global view of the students’
perception of themselves in several stressful contexts of everyday
life (Sanjuán et al., 2000). That is, although self-efficacy may
be projected as a specific domain factor, a higher or lower
self-efficacy can be also interpreted in a general manner to
identify the global trust or the generalized judgment when
students face novel or stressful situations (Luszczynska et al.,
2005; Bueno-Pacheco et al., 2017). With this background,
wemight expect some generality of self-efficacy from educational
domain to other contexts (Schunk and Pajares, 2002). Therefore,
the study of general self-efficacy and related factors is becoming
increasingly relevant in the educational context, since this
information could be used to achieve academic success, an
effective approach to the educational process, and an improvement
in students’ quality of life.
However, as far as we know, there are no studies focused
on analyzing the relationship between levels of general self-
efficacy and psychoeducational and/or clinical variables, such
as strategies for coping with everyday stress and the emotional
dimension, whether positive (emotional intelligence) or negative
(anxiety) in the university population. Knowledge of these
relationships would help to improve the learning process,
providing guidance, vocational, counseling, and support services
with strategies that will enhance the students’ management of
emotions and the coping with certain conflict situations of
daily living. This information could also promote interventions
that increase the general perception of self-efficacy, prevent
stress in the educational setting, and lead to better academic
performance. For these reasons, the main objectives of this
study are (1) to evaluate the levels of general self-efficacy,
anxiety, coping strategies, and emotional intelligence in a sample
of university students; (2) to analyze if anxiety, coping strategies,
and emotional intelligence are related to the levels of general
self-efficacy in this population.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Research Hypotheses
The research hypotheses of the current study are: (1) a sample
of the Spanish university students reports high levels of
general self-efficacy and anxiety, and low levels of coping
strategies and emotional intelligence; (2) the general self-
efficacy is related to anxiety, coping strategies, and emotional
intelligence in the higher education context; i.e., the higher
levels of general self-efficacy, the lower the levels of anxiety,
the higher the performance in coping stress, and the higher
the emotional intelligence.
Design
This is an observational-descriptive study.
Participants
The global sample was initially composed of 270 university
students recruited from three academic areas of the University
of Granada, Granada, Spain. The data were collected from
January to November 2017. After applying the selection criteria,
the final sample was composed of 258 students. In the final
sample, 94 (36.4%) are men and 164 (63.6%) women. The
mean age of the participants is 21.5 years (SD = 3.7); and
they are aged between 18 and 45 years. The sample belongs
to the academic area of humanities, social and health sciences.
There were no differences between academic areas for sex and
age. A flow chart, with the participant selection process, is
depicted in Figure 1, following the STROBE guidelines for
observational studies (Von Elm et al., 2014).
The inclusion criteria established for this study were: (1) being
a full-time university student and (2) aged between 18 and
65 years old. The exclusion criteria were: (1) students with
special education needs (disabilities or severe behavioral
disorders). Participants were informed about the objectives and
procedures of this study, and it was conducted according to
the Declaration of Helsinki. All participants gave their written
informed consent before being included in the recruitment
phase. The present study protocol was approved by the Ethics
Committee of the University of Granada (Granada, Spain), with
registration number: 328/CEIH/2017. The participants completed
an individual informed consent to participate in the study.
Procedures
Undergraduate students were approached at the conclusion of
a lecture during semester one of 2018 by a non-teaching
member. They were asked to complete a hard copy of the
questionnaires included in the study. The participants were
informed that collected data would remain anonymous and
used only for research purposes. It took participants on average
40min to complete self-report questionnaires. The participants
placed the completed questionnaires in the back of the lecture
theater as they exited.
Instruments
Sociodemographic data were collected by a self-elaborated
questionnaire. It includes information such as age, sex, academic
area, academic year level, and academic performance (with a
score ranging from 0 to 10 points). The academic performance
was calculated by the mean of scores obtained in all subjects
passed until the study completion, i.e., the mean value of the
average grade of the student record.
General Self-Efficacy Scale
The questionnaire has 10 items based on the Likert scale
ranging from 1 to 10, where 1 is never, and 10 is always
(Baessler and Schwarzer, 1996; Sanjuán et al., 2000).
Morales-Rodríguez and Pérez-Mármol Self-Efficacy in University Students
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 4 August 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 1689
This unidimensional scale assesses general self-efficacy in coping
with stress. This scale has a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.87 and a
high validity index and has been used in numerous studies
beforehand (Sanjuán et al., 2000; Serra, 2010; Espada et al.,
2012). The present study has shown a reliability index for this
scale of a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.91.
State Trait Anxiety Inventory
It is made up of a total of 40 items, where the first 20 measure
state anxiety (STAI-state anxiety scale) or how one feels at
the moment, and the last 20 measure trait anxiety (STAI-trait
anxiety scale) or how one generally feels (Spielberger et al.,
1970). The items present specific conditions; respondents are
asked to indicate the level of anxiety experienced in each
condition, rating it on a Likert scale from 0 (=nothing) to 3
(=a lot). This inventory has a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.90 for
state anxiety and 0.94 for trait anxiety (Buela-Casal et al.,
1982). In the current study, the state trait anxiety Inventory
(STAI) has shown a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.85.
Coping Strategies Inventory
This test is divided into two parts (Tobin et al., 1989). In the
first part, the participants are asked to think about a problem
that worries them and externalize it. In the second part of
the test, participants are asked to answer 40 questions considering
the problem; they have to rate their responses on a 4-point
Likert scale, where 0 = absolutely nothing and 4= completely.
These 40 items are grouped into subscales: problem-solving,
self-criticism, expressing emotions, wishful thinking, social
support, cognitive restructuring, problem avoidance, and social
withdrawal. This instrument has been used on many occasions
due to its high reliability and validity (Cano et al., 2007). In
the current study, the Coping Strategies Inventory has shown
a Cronbach’s alpha ranging from 0.73 to 0.87.
Trait Meta-Mood Scale – TMMS-24
The Trait Meta-Mood Scale measures different dimensions of
emotional intelligence (Salovey et al., 1995). This scale includes
items whose answers are rated on a Likert scale that ranges from
FIGURE 1 | Flow diagram of subjects who participated in the study according STROBE statement.
Morales-Rodríguez and Pérez-Mármol Self-Efficacy in University Students
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 5 August 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 1689
1 to 5, where 1 indicates that the person does not agree at all
and 5 that he/she fully agrees. It is made up of a total of 24
items that measure three subscales: the attention that each person
pays to his/her own feelings, that is, if they are able to feel and
express feelings properly (items 1–8); the clarity with which
emotional states are understood (items 9–16); and, finally, the
ability to regulate emotional states correctly, called repair (items
17–24). This instrument is highly reliable, attaining a Cronbach’s
alpha of 0.90 for attention, 0.90 for clarity, and 0.86 for repair
(Fernández-Berrocal etal., 2003). In the present study, this instrument
has shown a Cronbach’s alpha ranging from 0.77 to 0.82.
Data Analysis
SPSS software (version 20.0) was used for statistical analysis. First,
descriptive analysis was performed and normal distribution of
variables was confirmed with the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test. To
determine the association between demographic variables, levels
of anxiety, coping strategies, and emotional intelligence and self-
efficacy scores, the Pearson correlation coefficient, and a multiple
regression model were used. General self-efficacy was determined
as the dependent variable, and age, state anxiety (STAI-state
anxiety scale), trait anxiety (STAI-trait anxiety scale), coping
strategies (Coping Strategies Inventory subscales of problem-solving,
self-criticism, emotional expression, wishful thinking, social support,
cognitive restructuring, problem avoidance, social withdrawal,
coping with a situation), and emotional intelligence (TMMS-24
subscales of emotional attention, clarity, and repair) as independent
variables. Multiple regression analysis included only those
independent variables significantly correlated to self-efficacy
following a stepwise multiple regression model. A p of less than
0.05 was regarded as a statistically significant value in all cases.
Sample Size
In a previous study (Domínguez-Lara, 2016), a significant
bivariate correlation of 0.217 between academic self-efficacy
and coping styles, measured with the EAPESA scale (assessing
self-efficacy) and COPEAU scale (evaluating coping styles),
was used to calculate the sample size required to detect such
effect size in the sample, using G*power 3.1 software. This
calculation showed that a sample size of 225 university students
was needed to provide a confidence interval of 95%, with a
power of 95%, assuming a level of bilateral significance (α)
of 0.05. To avoid possible missing data, drop out of participants,
or badly completed instruments, the recruited sample should
be increased by 10%. Hence, the final sample should include
at least a minimum of 248 participants.
RESULTS
Descriptive Statistics
The sample is composed of 117 undergraduate students (45.3%)
from first year; 60 from second year (23.3%); 33 from third
year (12.8%); 26 from fourth year (10.1%); and 22 from fifth
year (8.5%). Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics of the
average score and the different scales of general self-efficacy
(General self-efficacy scale), anxiety (STAI-state anxiety scale
and STAI-trait anxiety scale), coping strategies (Trait Meta-
Mood Scale), and emotional intelligence (TMMS-24).
Relationship Between Perceived
Self-Efficacy and Academic Performance,
State and Trait Anxiety, Coping Strategies
and Emotional Intelligence Components
Bivariate analysis showed a significant inverse correlation between
self-efficacy and state anxiety (r = −0.340) and trait anxiety
(r=−0.466). In addition, a direct correlation was found between
self-efficacy and the coping strategies of problem-solving
(r = 0.312), emotional expression (r = 0.133), cognitive
restructuring (r = 0.195), social withdrawal (r = 0.103), and
coping of situation (r = 0.303), as well as with the emotional
intelligence dimensions of emotional clarity (r = 0.397) and
repair mood (r= 0.347). Bivariate Pearson correlation between
academic performance, anxiety, coping strategies, emotional
intelligence, and perceived self-efficacy is shown in Table 2.
Multivariate regression analysis showed that trait anxiety,
problem-solving, emotional expression, social withdrawal, and
clarity were significantly related to the dependent variable, predicting
the 39% of total variance (adjusted R2 = 0.386, F = 25.760,
p<0.001) on levels of general perceived self-efficacy, in university
students. The variables that emerged as predictors were trait
anxiety (p < 0.001), problem-solving (p < 0.001), emotional
expression (p= 0.037), social withdrawal (p =0.039), and clarity
(p<0.001). There was no collinearity among the included variables
in the regression model. Table 3 shows the final multiple regression
model of self-efficacy after the selection of independent variables.
TABLE 1 | Mean (SD) and 95% CI of academic performance, state and trait
anxiety, self-efficacy, coping strategies, and emotional intelligence (N=258).
MSD 95% CI
Lower bound Upper bound
Academic
performance
(0–10 points)
7.81 0.87 7.11 8.64
Perceived self-efficacy 73.74 9.26 72.65 74.92
Anxiety
State anxiety 22.81 9.60 21.72 24.03
Trait anxiety 23.21 9.41 22.12 24.42
Coping strategies
Problem-solving 13.92 4.32 13.41 14.41
Self-criticism 8.71 5.32 8.13 9.44
Emotional expression 10.62 4.91 10.02 11.23
Wishful thinking 12.31 4.92 11.73 12.93
Social support 13.23 4.83 12.63 13.84
Cognitive restructuring 10.41 4.22 9.94 10.92
Problem avoidance 7.01 3.92 6.51 7.41
Social withdrawal 7.02 4.64 6.42 7.52
Coping with a
situation
2.73 1.21 2.62 2.82
Emotional intelligence
Emotional attention 26.61 7.01 25.82 27.41
Clarity 25.83 6.62 25.03 26.73
Repair 26.82 6.12 26.01 27.51
M: mean; SD: standard deviation; Confidence interval: 95%.
Morales-Rodríguez and Pérez-Mármol Self-Efficacy in University Students
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 6 August 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 1689
Discussion and Conclusions
The main objective of the present study has been to evaluate
if anxiety, coping strategies, and emotional intelligence are related
to the levels of self-efficacy in a sample of Spanish university
students. The results from the bivariate analyses showed that
general perceived self-efficacy is statistically related to state and
trait anxiety, the coping strategies of problem-solving abilities,
emotional expression, cognitive restructuring, social withdrawal,
and coping, in addition to the emotional intelligence aspects
of emotional clarity and mood repair. In turn, of all the variance
in self-efficacy, 39% was predicted by a model including anxiety,
problem-solving, emotional expression, social withdrawal, and
emotional clarity. This can be explained because self-efficacy is
associated with how university students feel, think, and act in
the academic scenario. Poor performance in academic tasks or
assignments due to limited personal resources (such as ineffective
coping strategies and low emotional intelligence) could becausing
a lower level of self-efficacy in these students (Shankland et al.,
2010; Bodys-Cupak et al., 2016; Huerta et al., 2017). However,
these associations are cross-sectional; therefore, we cannot
determine cause and effect. On the other hand, academic
performance was not related to self-efficacy. Nevertheless, given
that general self-efficacy was measured, it is not appropriate to
assume that the participants’ self-efficacy does represent their
academic self-efficacy. For this reason, it is notable that academic
performance does not correlate with general self-efficacy.
Regarding anxiety, this study showed that state and trait
anxiety are factors associated with self-efficacy. In other words,
when the anxiety components or symptoms increase, the levels
of self-efficacy decrease, or vice versa. These results may
beexplained because the assignments, classes, tutorial attendance,
and exams can be a source of stress that university students
have to cope with. Therefore, higher levels of anxiety may be a
risk factor for low levels of self-perception of efficacy, and
showing high levels of general self-efficacy perception could
be a protective factor against anxiety. Nevertheless, only trait
anxiety was a significant predictor of self-efficacy, probably
because it is more stable and provokes more mental suffering
and makes us more vulnerable to our own negative thoughts.
It is likely that university students may have developed a negative
recurrent thinking process focused on good academic performance
since they usually have to foresee and overcome diverse situations
to pass the subjects. Several studies have found a similar relationship
(Finney and Schraw, 2003; Shankland et al., 2010; Hendy et al.,
2014; Domínguez-Lara, 2016). Ruiz (2014) concluded that both
the levels of general self-efficacy and those of sensitivity to
anxiety are independent predictors of pathological concern.
Shankland et al. (2010) reported that high levels of academic
self-efficacy and adequate coping styles have a positive influence
on anxiety symptoms and adaptation to the educational scenario
in students from an alternative teaching context.
Regarding coping strategies, factors such as problem-solving
abilities, emotional expression, cognitive restructuring, social
TABLE 3 | Regression model of anxiety, coping strategies, and emotional intelligence predictive associated factors to perceived self-efficacy in university students.
Perceived self-efficacy (adjusted r2=0.386)
Independent
variables
B95% CI β SE p
Lower bound Upper bound
Anxiety
Trait anxiety −0.469 −0.596 −0.342 −0.459 0.064 <0.001
Coping strategies
Problem-solving 0.442 0.197 0.686 0.210 0.124 <0.001
Emotional expression 0.247 0.016 0.479 0.126 0.118 0.037
Social withdrawal 0.278 0.014 0.541 0.125 0.134 0.039
Emotional intelligence
Clarity 0.355 0.180 0.530 0.250 0.089 <0.001
r2, regression coefficient of determination; B, regression coefficient; CI, confidence interval; β, adjusted coefficient from multiple linear regression analysis; SE, coefficient standard error.
TABLE 2 | Bivariate Pearson correlation between perceived self-efficacy and
other independent variables (academic performance, anxiety, coping strategies,
emotional intelligence).
Variables Self-efficacy
Pearson r p
Age (years) 0.120 0.055
Academic performance
(0–10 points)
0.009 0.899
Anxiety
State anxiety −0.340** <0.001
Trait anxiety −0.466** <0.001
Coping strategies
Problem-solving 0.312** <0.001
Self-criticism −0.057 0.358
Emotional expression 0.133* 0.033
Wishful thinking −0.078 0.212
Social support 0.111 0.076
Cognitive restructuring 0.195* 0.002
Problem avoidance 0.093 0.137
Social withdrawal 0.103* 0.005
Coping with a situation 0.303** <0.001
Emotional intelligence
Emotional attention 0.101 0.106
Clarity 0.397** <0.001
Repair 0.347** <0.001
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.001.
Morales-Rodríguez and Pérez-Mármol Self-Efficacy in University Students
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 7 August 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 1689
withdrawal, and coping were related to self-efficacy in university
students, with problem-solving, emotional expression, and social
withdrawal being significant predictors of this construct. In
line with this, Crego et al. (2016) found that problem-solving,
positive re-evaluation, and search for social support have a
positive effect on self-efficacy; however, other coping strategies
such as venting negative emotions and negative auto-focus
have a negative effect. Cabanach etal. (2010) found that higher
scores are achieved in a student’s academic self-efficacy if they
use active coping styles such as planning and positive
re-evaluation. Nevertheless, these authors found no relationship
between search for social support and the level of self-efficacy.
The investigation performed by Tsarenko and Strizhalova (2013)
analyzed the effects of the level of self-efficacy on active,
expressive, and denial strategies. The main finding reports a
negative effect of self-efficacy on the expressive strategy.
Domínguez-Lara (2016) found that students with higher academic
self-efficacy rely more on their academic abilities and have a
greater tendency to use strategies such as task orientation and
preparation. Bodys-Cupak et al. (2016) evaluated the effect of
self-efficacy on coping strategies and stress levels in nursing
students. They showed that the students who report higher
scores on self-efficacy show lower stress levels and use more
active coping strategies such as search for social support,
planning, positive re-evaluation, and active solutions. Along
the same lines, Zhao et al. (2015) found that transference is
the coping strategy used more frequently by these students.
In addition, this study revealed that self-efficacy is connected
with the frequency of use of optimistic strategies and problem-
solving (Chan et al., 2009; Zhao et al., 2015).
Regarding emotional intelligence, this study shows a
relationship between self-efficacy and emotional clarity and
mood repair, emotional clarity being a significant predictor in
the perception of efficacy. There is previous evidence on the
effect of emotional intelligence on the self-efficacy of professionals
in relation to decision-making (Jiang, 2014). However, to our
knowledge, there are no studies including this aspect in
combination with anxiety and coping strategies to explain self-
efficacy. The study performed by Ruiz-Aranda et al. (2013)
highlighted that female student health professionals with higher
emotional intelligence experience lower perceived stress, and
higher levels of satisfaction and happiness. Therefore, training
programs of emotional intelligence may help university students
to cope with part of the challenges they encounter in health
science disciplines as well as increasing general self-efficacy
in coping with stress. Adeyemo (2007) stated that emotional
intelligence and academic self-efficacy are critical components
in academic performance. Moreover, this researcher highlighted
that emotional intelligence can be a teachable construct.
In conclusion, the results from the present study have shown
that general perceived self-efficacy is related to state and trait
anxiety, the coping strategies of problem-solving abilities,
emotional expression, cognitive restructuring, social withdrawal,
and coping with a situation, as well as the emotional intelligence
aspects of emotional clarity and repair mood. Self-efficacy is
predicted by trait anxiety, problem-solving, emotional expression,
social withdrawal, and emotional clarity, and vice versa.
Limitations, Educational Implications, and
Future Directions
Several limitations are present in this study and should
be considered. First, participants took part voluntarily in the
study and were not selected randomly. However, it was not
considered ethical to obligate that students participate in the
study. Secondly, participants may have answered items in a
socially desirable form since the general self-efficacy scale and
the other instruments are self-report scales therefore, person-
positivity bias may have been present. Thirdly, students were
recruited from several academic areas but they were located
in a single university form a specific geographical location;
hence, the generalizability of the findings may be limited. In
the fourth place, the cross-sectional design of the study does
not allow to establish a causal association between exposure
and outcome.
Several educational implications arise of current findings
such as they may help to improve the learning process, providing
guidance, vocational, counseling and support services with
strategies that will enhance the students´ management of
emotions and the coping with certain conflict situations. In
addition, the results of the study can be used to design
interventions that increase the general perception of self-efficacy,
prevent stress in the educational setting, and lead to better
academic performance.
Hence, future studies should evaluate the effect of
educational interventions considering self-efficacy and strategies
for coping with everyday stress and the emotional dimension,
whether positive (emotional intelligence) or negative (anxiety)
in the university population. On the other hand, since the
study was unicentric, future research in this topic should
be multicentric by including students’ data from several
educative centers. Additionally, multi-level analysis could
beperformed by taking into consideration the specific needs
and demands by discipline, geographical location, or
sociodemographic characteristics (sex, level of course, or
academic performance).
ETHICS STATEMENT
Participants were informed about the objectives and procedures
of this study, and it was conducted according to the Declaration
of Helsinki. All participants gave their written informed consent
before being included in the recruitment phase. The present
study protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of the
University of Granada (Granada, Spain), with registration number:
328/CEIH/2017. The participants completed an individual informed
consent to participate in the study.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
FM-R designed the study and contributed to bibliographic
review, article writing, and data analysis. JP-M contributed to
article writing and data analysis. Both authors revised the
article critically and approved the final manuscript.
Morales-Rodríguez and Pérez-Mármol Self-Efficacy in University Students
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 8 August 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 1689
REFERENCES
Adeyemo, D. A. (2007). Moderating influence of emotional intelligence on the
link between academic self-efficacy and achievement of university students.
Psychol. Dev. Soc. 19, 199–213. doi: 10.1177/097133360701900204
Baessler, J., and Schwarzer, R. (1996). Evaluación de la autoeficacia; Adaptación
española de la escala de autoeficacia general [assessing self-efficacy: Spanish
adaption of the general self-efficacy scale]. Ansiedad Estrés 2, 1–8.
Bandura, A. (1987). Pensamiento y Acción [thought and action]. Madrid:
Prentice Hall.
Belaunzaran, J. (2018). EuroPsy: un Modelo basado en competencias. ¿Es
aplicable a la formación sanitaria especializada en Psicología Clínica?
[descriptive analysis of EuroPsy: a competency-based model. Is this model
applicable to specialised health training in clinical psychology?]. Edu. Méd.
394, 1–9. doi: 10.1016/j.edumed.2018.05.017
Blanco, A. (2010). Creencias de autoeficacia de estudiantes universitarios: un estudio
empírico sobre la especificidad del constructo [self-efficacy beliefs in university
students: an empirical study on the specificity of the construct]. Relieve 16,
1–28. Retrieved from http://www.uv.es/RELIEVE/v16n1/RELIEVEv16n1_2.htm
Boden, M. T., Thompson, R. J., Dizén, M., Berenbaum, H., and Baker, J. P.
(2013). Are emotional clarity and emotion differentiation related? Cognit.
Emot. 27, 961–978. doi: 10.1080/02699931.2012.751899
Bodys-Cupak, I., Majda, A., Zalewska-Puchala, J., and Kaminska, A. (2016).
The impact of a sense of self-efficacy on the level of stress and the ways
of coping with difficult situations in polish nursing students. Nurse Educ.
Today 45, 102–107. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2016.07.004
Buela-Casal, G., Guillén-Riquelme, A., and Seisdedos, N. (1982). Cuestionario
de Ansiedad Estado/Rasgo [state/trait anxiety inventory]. Madrid: TEA.
Bueno-Pacheco, A., Lima-Castro, S., Peña-Contreras, E., Cedillo-Quizhpe, C.,
and Aguilar-Sizer, M. (2017). Adaptación al español de la Escala de Autoeficacia
general para su uso en el contexto ecuatoriano [Spanish adaptation of the
general self-efficacy scale for use in Ecuadorian context]. RIDEP 3, 5–15.
doi: 10.21865/RIDEP48.3.01
Cabanach, R. G., Souto-Gestal, A., González, L., and Souto, S. (2016). Efectos
diferenciales de la atención y la claridad emocional sobre la percepción de
estresores académicos y las respuestas de estrés de estudiantes de fisioterapia
[differential effects of attention and emotional clarity on the perception of
academic stressors and stress response in physiotherapy students]. Fisioterapia
38, 271–279. doi: 10.1016/j.ft.2015.11.003
Cabanach, R., Valle, A., Rodríguez, S., Piñeiro, I., and González, P. (2010).
Las creencias motivacionales Como factor protector del estrés en estudiantes
universitarios [motivational beliefs as a stress-protective factor in university
students]. Eur. J. Educ. Psychol. 3, 75–87. doi: 10.30552/ejep.v3i1.49
Cano, F., Rodríguez, L., and García, J. (2007). Adaptación española del Inventario
de Estrategias de Afrontamiento [Spanish adaptation of the coping strategies
questionnaire]. Actas Esp. Psiquiatr. 35, 29–39.
Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F., and Weintraub, J. K. (1989). Assessing coping
strategies: a theoretically based approach. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 56, 267–287.
doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.56.2.267
Castañeda Fernández, J. (2016). Análisis del desarrollo de los nuevos títulos
de Grado basados en competencias y adaptados al Espacio Europeo de
Educación Superior (EEES) [new educational degree programs based on
competences and adapted to the European Higher Education Area (EHEA)
development analysis]. REDU 14, 135–157. doi: 10.4995/redu.2016.5806
Castillo, C., Chacón, T., and Díaz-Véliz, G. (2016). Ansiedad y fuentes de
estrés académico en estudiantes de carreras de la salud [anxiety and sources
of academic stress in healthcare students]. Investig. Edu. Méd. 5, 230–237.
doi: 10.1016/j.riem.2016.03.001
Chan, C. K., So, W. K., and Fong, D. Y. (2009). Hong Kong baccalaureate
nursing students’ stress and their coping strategies in clinical practice.
J. Prof. Nurs. 25, 307–313. doi: 10.1016/j.profnurs.2009.01.018
Contreras, F., Espinosa, J. C., Esguerra, G., Haikal, A., Polanía, A., and Rodríguez,
A. (2005). Autoeficacia, ansiedad y rendimiento académico en adolescentes
[self-efficacy, anxiety and academic performance in adolescents]. Diversitas
Perspectiv. Psicol. 1, 183–194. doi: 10.15332/s1794-9998.2005.0002.06
Crego, A., Carrillo-Díaz, M., Armfield, J. M., and Romero, M. (2016). Stress
and academic performance in dental students: the role of coping strategies
and examination-related self-efficacy. J. Dent. Educ. 80, 165–172.
Cropanzano, R., Weiss, H. M., Hale, J. M., and Reb, J. (2003). The structure
of affect: reconsidering the relationship between negative and positive
affectivity. J. Manag. 29, 831–857. doi: 10.1016/S0149-2063(03)00081-3
Del Rosal, I., and Bermejo, M. L. (2017). Autoeficacia en estudiantes universitarios:
Diferencias entre el Grado de maestro en Educación Primaria y los grados
en ciencias [differences among university students: differences between the
primary school teaching degree and the degrees in science]. Int. J. Dev.
Edu. Psychol. 1, 115–124. doi: 10.17060/ijodaep. 2017n1.v1.904
Denovan, A., and Macaskill, A. (2013). An interpretative phenomenological
analysis of stress and coping in first year undergraduates. Br. Educ. Res. J.
39, 1002–1024. doi: 10.1002/berj.3019
Domínguez-Lara, S. A. (2016). Afrontamiento ante la ansiedad pre-examen y
autoeficacia académica en estudiantes de ciencias de la salud [coping with
pre-examination anxiety and academic self-efficacy in healthcare students].
Edu. Méd. 99, 1–4. doi: 10.1016/j.edumed.2016.07.007
Espada, J. P., Gonzálvez, M. T., Orgilés, M., Carballo, J. L., and Piqueras, J. A.
(2012). Validación de la escala de autoeficacia general con adolescentes
españoles [validation of the general self-efficacy scale in Spanish teenagers].
Electron. J. Res. Educ. Psychol. 26, 355–370. doi: 10.25115/ejrep.v10i26.1504
Fernández-Berrocal, P., Extremera, N., and Ramos, N. (2003). Inteligencia
emocional y depresión [emotional intelligence and depression]. Encuentros
Psicol. Soc. 1, 251–254.
Finney, S. J., and Schraw, G. (2003). Self-efficacy beliefs in college statistics
course. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 28, 161–186. doi: 10.1016/S0361-
476X(02)00015-2
Gárriz, M., Gutiérrez, F., Peri, J. M., Baillés, E., and Torrubia, R. (2015). Coping
strategies within a personality space. Personal. Individ. Differ. 80, 96–100.
doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2015.02.024
González-Cabanach, R. G., Souto-Gestal, A., and Fernández, R. (2017). Perfiles
de regulación emocional y estrés académico en estudiantes de fisioterapia
[emotional regulation profiles and academic stress in physiotherapy students].
Eur. J. Educ. Psychol. 10, 57–67. doi: 10.1016/j.ejeps.2017.07.002
Hendy, H. M., Schorschinsky, N., and Wade, B. (2014). Measurement of math
beliefs and their associations with math behaviors in college students. Psychol.
Assess. 26, 1225–1234. doi: 10.1037/a0037688
Huerta, M., Goodson, P., Beigi, M., and Chlup, D. (2017). Graduate students
as academic writers: writing anxiety, self-efficacy and emotional intelligence.
High. Educ. Res. Dev. 36, 716–729. doi: 10.1080/07294360.2016.1238881
Jiang, Z. (2014). Emotional intelligence and career decision-making self-efficacy:
national and gender differences. J. Employ. Couns. 51, 112–124. doi: 10.1002/
j.2161-1920.2014. 00046.x
Karademas, E. C., and Kalantzi-Azizi, A. (2004). The stress process, self-efficacy
expectations and psychological health. Personal. Individ. Differ. 37, 1033–1043.
doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2003.11.012
Lazarus, R. S., and Folkman, R. S. (1984). Stress appraisal and coping.
New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company.
Luszczynska, A., Gutiérrez-Doña, B., and Schwarzer, R. (2005). General self-
efficacy in various domains of human functioning: evidence from five
countries. Int. J. Psychol. 40, 80–89. doi: 10.1080/00207590444000041
Mathews, B. L., Koehn, A. J., Abtahi, M. M., and Kerns, K. A. (2016). Emotional
competence and anxiety in childhood and adolescence: a meta-analytic review.
Clin. Child. Fam. Psychol. Rev. 19, 162–184. doi: 10.1007/s10567-016-0204-3
Medrano, L. A., Flores, E., Moretti, L. S., and Pereno, G. L. (2016). Effects of
induction of positive and negative emotional states on academic self-efficacy
beliefs in college students. Psicol. Educ. 22, 135–141. doi: 10.1016/j.
pse.2015.03.003
Morales, F. M. (2016). Predicció d’estratègies d’afrontament a partir de dimensions
emocionals, en infants i adolescents [prediction of coping strategies based
on emotional dimensions, in children and adolescents]. Anu. Psicol. Soc.
Valencia. Psicol. 17, 55–78. doi: 10.7203/anuari.psicologia.17.2.55
Olivari Medina, C., and Urra Medina, E. (2007). Autoeficacia y conductas de
salud [self-efficacy and health behaviors]. Cienc. Enferm. 13, 9–15. doi:
10.4067/S0717-95532007000100002
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (2005).
The definition and selection of key competencies: Executive summary. Retrieved
from http://www.oecd.org/pisa/35070367.pdf
Pajares, F., and Schunk, D. (2001). “Self-beliefs and school success: self-efficacy,
self-concept, and school achievement” in International perspectives on individual
Morales-Rodríguez and Pérez-Mármol Self-Efficacy in University Students
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 9 August 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 1689
differences: Self-perception. eds. R. J. Riding, and S. G. Rayner (Westport,
CT: Ablex), 239–265.
Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Rev. Educ. Res. 66,
543–578.
Piergiovanni, L. F., and Depaula, P. D. (2018). Autoeficacia y estilos de
afrontamiento al estrés en estudiantes universitarios [self-efficacy and stress
coping styles in university students]. Cienc. Psicol. 12, 17–23. doi: 10.22235/
cp.v12i1.1591
Ruiz, F. J. (2014). Psychological inflexibility mediates the effects of self-efficacy
and anxiety sensitivity on worry. Span. J. Psychol. 17, 1–8. doi: 10.1017/
sjp.2014.3
Ruiz-Aranda, D., Extremera, N., and Pineda-Galán, C. (2013). Emotional
intelligence, life satisfaction and subjective happiness in female student health
professionals: the mediating effect of perceived stress. J. Psychiatr. Ment.
Health Nurs. 21, 106–113. doi: 10.1111/jpm.12052
Salanova, M., Schaufeli, W., Martínez, I., and Bresó, E. (2010). How obstacles
and facilitators predict academic performance: the mediating role of study
burnout and engagement. Anxiety Stress Coping 23, 53–70. doi: 10.1080/
10615800802609965
Salovey, P., Mayer, J. D., Goldman, S., Turvey, C., and Palfai, T. (1995). “Emotional
attention, clarity and repair: exploring emotional intelligence using the trait
mood scale” in Emotion, disclosure and health. ed. J. W. Pennebaker (Washington
DC: American Psychological Association), 125–154.
Sanjuán, P., Pérez, A. M., and Bermúdez, J. (2000). Escala de autoeficacia
general: datos psicométricos de la adaptación para población española [general
self-efficacy scale: psychometric data from the adaptation to the Spanish
population]. Psicothema 12, 509–513.
Scheier, M., Weintraub, J., and Carver, C. (1986). Coping with stress: divergent
strategies of optimists and pessimists. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 51, 1257–1264.
doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1257
Schunk, D. H. (1991). Self-efficacy and academic motivation. Educ. Psychol.
26, 207–231. doi: 10.1207/s15326985ep2603&4_2
Schunk, D. H., and Pajares, F. (2002). “The development of academic self-
efficacy” in Development of achievement motivation. eds. A. Wigfield and
J. S. Eccles (San Diego, CA: Academic Press), 15–31.
Serra, J. A. (2010). Autoeficacia y rendimiento académico en estudiantes
universitarios [self-efficacy and academic performance in university students].
Rev. Griot 3, 36–44.
Shankland, R., Genolini, C., Riou, L., Guelfi, J., and Ionescu, S. (2010). Student
adjustment to higher education: the role of alternative educational pathways
in coping with the demands of students life. High. Educ. 59, 353–366. doi:
10.1007/s10734-009-9252-7
Spielberger, C., Gorsuch, R., and Luschene, R. (1970). Manual for the state-trait
anxiety inventory. Palo Alto, California: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Tobin, D., Holroyd, K., Reynolds, R., and Kigal, J. (1989). The hierarchical
factor structure of the coping strategies inventory. Cognit. Therapy Res. 13,
343–361. doi: 10.1007/BF01173478
Tsarenko, Y., and Strizhalova, Y. (2013). Coping with service failures: the role
of emotional intelligence, self-efficacy and intention to complain. Eur. J.
Mark. 47, 71–92. doi: 10.1108/03090561311285466
Valentine, J. C., DuBois, D. L., and Cooper, H. (2004). The relation between
self-beliefs and academic achievement: a meta-analytic review. Educ. Psychol.
39, 111–133. doi: 10.1207/s15326985ep3902_3
Vandercleyen, F., Boudreau, P., Carlier, G., and Delens, C. (2014). Pre-service
teachers in PE involved in an organizational critical incident: emotions,
appraisal and coping strategies. Phys. Educ. Sport Pedagog. 19, 164–178.
doi: 10.1080/17408989.2012.732564
Von Elm, E., Altman, D. G., Egger, M., Pocock, S. J., Gøtzsche, P. C.,
Vandenbroucke, J. P., et al. (2014). The strengthening the reporting of
observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for
reporting observational studies. Int. J. Surg. 12, 1495–1499. doi: 10.1016/j.
ijsu.2014.07.013
Wolf, B., Herrmann, M., and Brandstätter, V. (2018). Self-efficacy vs. action
orientation: comparing and contrasting two determinants of goal setting
and goal striving. J. Res. Pers. 73, 35–45. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2017.11.001
Zajacova, A., Lynch, S. M., and Espenshade, T. J. (2005). Self-efficacy, stress,
and academic success in college. Res. High. Educ. 46, 677–706. doi: 10.1007/
s11162-004-4139-z
Zambianchi, M., and Ricci-Bitti, P. E. (2014). The role of proactive coping
strategies time perspective, perceived efficacy on affect regulation, divergent
thinking and family communication in promoting social well-being emerging
adulthood. Soc. Indic. Res. 116, 493–507. doi: 10.1007/s11205-013-0307-x
Zhao, F. F., Lei, X. L., He, W., Gu, Y. H., and Li, D. W. (2015). The study of
perceived stress, coping strategy and self-efficacy of Chinese undergraduate
nursing students in clinical practice. Int. J. Nurs. Pract. 21, 401–409. doi:
10.1111/ijn.12273
Conflict of Interest Statement: The authors declare that the research was conducted
in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could beconstrued
as a potential conflict of interest.
Copyright © 2019 Morales-Rodríguez and Pérez-Mármol. This is an open-access
article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License
(CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted,
provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that
the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic
practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply
with these terms.
ORIGINAL RESEARCH
Mindfulness and self-efficacy in pain perception,
stress and academic performance. The influence
of mindfulness on cognitive processes
This article was published in the following Dove Press journal:
Psychology Research and Behavior Management
Andrea Margaret Firth
1,
*
Ingvild Cavallini
2,
*
Stefan Sütterlin
3
Ricardo G Lugo
4
1
Department of Psychology, University
Campus Football Business, London, UK;
2
Aarhus University, Copenhagen,
Denmark;
3
Faculty of Health and Welfare,
Østfold University College, Norway and
Division of Clinical Neuroscience, Oslo
University Hospital, Norway;
4
Inland
Norway University of Applied Science,
Lillehammer, Elverum, Norway
*These authors contributed equally to
this work
Purpose: This study seeks to understand the mediating effects of mindfulness on self-
efficacy, academic performance and ability to cope with pain. It further examines the effect
of mindfulness on the capacity to cope with pain-induced stress. Whilst there are physiolo-
gical changes which occur due to mindfulness, it is still not clearly understood how the
mechanisms behind mindfulness work or whether the role of self-efficacy is an agent of
mindfulness which may impact on performance and stress coping.
Participants and methods: A three-part study (n=92) was conducted to test the relation-
ship between mindfulness, self-efficacy and well-being factors, alongside academic perfor-
mance in university students. Part one involved data collection one month prior to an
experiment where trait scores for all factors were used to check pain and well-being
behaviors. Part two consisted of participant randomization into three intervention groups
(control, sham, mindfulness) and then an exposure to a fear induction task followed by
cognitive tasks. The third part consisted of investigating the effect of a short mindfulness
intervention on self-efficacy, pain and well-being in students.
Results: The results indicate that self-efficacy had a positive effect on well-being factors
(study 1 & 3) and in the experiment (study 2).
Conclusion: Self-efficacy influenced pain intensity and pain unpleasantness and signifi-
cantly predicted academic performance. Mindfulness had mixed results in how it influenced
self-efficacy. While it influenced well-being and lowered stress (study 1 & 2) in the long
term, the mindfulness intervention significantly decreased self-efficacy.
Keywords: self-efficacy, stress, mindfulness, short-term intervention
Introduction
Pain has been defined by the International Association for the Study of Pain
1
as an
unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with actual or potential
tissue damage, or described in terms of such damage. Pain can divert attention from
other stimuli onto the pain-focused situation which then requires further action.
2
Such action is based on the level of current pain and the intensity of pain percep-
tion. Studies have indicated that pain perception and ability to function with pain
can be influenced by perceived self-efficacy.
3,4
Self-efficacy plays a major part in daily functioning, affecting decision making,
behavior and cognition. Stemming from social cognitive theory,
5,6
self-efficacy
concerns the ability to self-regulate and control personal destiny.
7,8
It is generally
thought to be specific in that it concerns personal evaluation of the ability to complete
Correspondence: Ricardo G Lugo
Inland Norway University of Applied
Sciences, PO Box 400, 2418 Elverum,
Norway
Tel +47 6 128 8156
Email [email protected]
Psychology Research and Behavior Management Dovepress
open access to scientific and medical research
Open Access Full Text Article
submit your manuscript | www.dovepress.com Psychology Research and Behavior Management 2019:12 565–574 565
DovePress © 2019 Firth et al. This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php
and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution –Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/). By accessing the work
you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For
permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms (https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php).
http://doi.org/10.2147/PRBM.S206666
Psychology Research and Behavior Management downloaded from https://www.dovepress.com/ by 174.228.19.180 on 25-Jun-2020
For personal use only.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
1 / 1
a specific task.
9,10
However, it need not be restrained to
specific situations and in terms of general self-efficacy can
be broadly applied. This type of self-efficacy is central to
coping ability and wide-scale functioning as it is directly
linked to coping skills.
11
Self-efficacy is a mediating factor
in a number of coping mechanisms and positive behavioral
health responses both psychologically
12
and physically,
including the ability to cope with pain.
4,13
Self-efficacy
has also been found to be a mediating factor in self-regula-
tion skills such as mindfulness skills
14
which in turn is
correlated with satisfaction with life.
15
General self-efficacy can predict effort, perseverance
and success in more than one unrelated task
16
and the ability
to cope well in stressful circumstances.
17
Furthermore, gen-
eralized self-efficacy is versatile with high levels of general
self-efficacy incorporating the ability to self-motivate, con-
trol emotional states, problem solve and apply positivity
and optimism in the accomplishment of relevant tasks.
18
General self-efficacy also helps coping skills along with
persistence and effort in motivating conduct toward goals
and belief in the ability to reach these goals.
9
A large amount of research is dedicated to finding
different ways to reduce stress and pain and both mind-
fulness-based and self-efficacy-based interventions have
had beneficial effects. Mindfulness is a broad concept
that can be conceptualized as the ability to regulate atten-
tion, whilst not attending to any detailed focus on present
experience, yet remaining accepting, open and curious of
this experience.
19
Mindfulness requires attentional
resources while maintaining a non-judgmental awareness
of the present moment.
20
The Mindfulness-Based Stress
Reduction (MBSR) program was developed to reduce pain
and stress using different mindfulness techniques.
21
These
were based on studies using healthy populations and when
compared to a non-treatment condition, showed a signifi-
cant reduction in general stress after completion of the
stress reduction intervention.
22
Self-efficacy, breathing-based mindfulness
and pain-related behavior
Bandura’s social cognitive theory argues that via self-reg-
ulation individuals have the ability to control their
actions.
8
Self-efficacy can increase self-regulated behavior
through motivation, where past mastery performance rein-
forces the expectation of future success leading to
increased learning and positive behavior. It increases indi-
vidual expectation of future success in similar situations
based on successful past mastery experience. In other
words, personal belief in the ability to perform the action
required and in self-regulated behavior is increased.
23
Social cognitive theory purports that self-regulated
behavior is fundamental to human action.
5
Both physical
and mental control are areas in which self-regulation has
demonstrated positive effect in pain management. The
ability to control one’s situation, to lower anxiety and
conditioned fear is psychologically beneficial, resulting in
reduced perceptions of pain.
24
Due to the debilitating
nature of pain and the accompanying stress, enhancing
coping mechanisms deserves further investigation.
In chronic pain patients, self-efficacy predicts avoidant
behaviors and having mediating effects on pain intensity
that may lead to disability.
25–27
Low self-efficacy also
influenced the expectation of pain. People with higher
levels of self-efficacy cope better with stress and self-
efficacy mediates stress-related depression and perception
of pain in university students.
28
It also moderates negative
affect.
29,30
Recent studies on mindfulness have highlighted that
mindfulness practice has a broad range of benefits including,
increasing working-memory, psychological functioning and
decreasing depressive symptoms including negative affect
and rumination.
20
MBSR significantly reduces both Post-
Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and depressive symptoms
in abuse victims by increasing self-efficacy.
31
For instance,
an eight-week mindfulness intervention reduced stress whilst
increasing self-efficacy and motivation in unemployed job
seekers.
32
Similarly, mindfulness appeared to increase self-
efficacy in stress perception in college students.
33
Mindfulness-based interventions have improved efficacy in
preventing depression in pregnant women.
34
The relationship between self-esteem, mindfulness
ability and satisfaction with life directly impacts on coping
mechanisms and behavioral functioning. The mediating
relationship of general self-efficacy on these constructs is
worth further investigation as potential interventions that
increase general self-efficacy could mediate optimum psy-
chological and physical functioning.
Previous research on both mindfulness and self-effi-
cacy suggests they have an important role in both coping
with stress, pain, and the promotion of positive affect,
increased satisfaction with life and self-esteem.
22,35
The
ability to function at an optimal level, cope with stress and
minimize the effects of perceived pain has economic,
personal as well as social implications. Mindfulness is
associated with self-efficacy and self-efficacy improves
Firth et al Dovepress
submit your manuscript | www.dovepress.com
DovePress
Psychology Research and Behavior Management 2019:12
566
Psychology Research and Behavior Management downloaded from https://www.dovepress.com/ by 174.228.19.180 on 25-Jun-2020
For personal use only.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
1 / 1
the ability to cope better with pain.
36
Likewise, self-effi-
cacy is also related to academic.
37–40
However, the effec-
tiveness of mindfulness in improving self-efficacy is not
fully established. Cautiousness around mindfulness inter-
ventions should also be taken. Mindfulness-based inter-
ventions had detrimental effects in several patient
groups.
41
Mindfulness practices based on focused atten-
tion, but not body awareness, have also elicited unwanted
effects in mindfulness practitioners.
42
Other negative
effects include meditation practitioners suffering from
severe and long-lasting distress
43
and even skilled mind-
fulness practitioners can experience negative
consequences.
42,43
Mindfulness-based interventions have been shown to
have positive effects on student populations. Such inter-
ventions are now included in medical training to prevent
future burn-out.
44
Such interventions were effective in
training nurses in moral decision making whilst improving
quality of life reports.
45
Mindfulness-based interventions
also improved memory and attentional processed in health
science students.
46
Short duration mindfulness intervention (1-time, 5–15
mins duration) can improve cognitive control and
performance,
47
decrease stress
48
and inhibit craving for.
49
Mindfulness-based interventions have good effects even
between similar conditions vs control. For example,
between a mindfulness group, a group interacting with a
dog and a control group.
48
The purpose of this study is to investigate the effects of
mindfulness on self-efficacy on academic performance,
pain perception and stress, and also to investigate the
effect of self-efficacy on well-being outcomes when com-
pared to placebo and control groups. It is expected that
higher self-efficacy coupled with mindfulness would
report less stress (part 1 and 3) and pain (part 2). Also,
that a brief mindfulness intervention would increase per-
ceived self-efficacy and moderate the relation of self-effi-
cacy on pain reports (part 2) and perceived stress (part 3).
Methods
Participants
Ninety-two undergraduate students (65.9% female;
M
Age
=22.01, SD=4.84) from a Norwegian university col-
lege were invited to participate in a three-part study.
Seventy of the original ninety-two participants were then
exposed to an experimental condition followed by a four-
week intervention followed by post-test reporting. Some
attrition of participants was present in the third part of the
study as sixty-three of the initial seventy from study 2
(90%; M
age
=22.9; SD=5.42) participants responded to
post-test surveys. The sample was randomized into three
groups (control, sham, mindfulness) for the second and
third parts of the studies.
Part one –relationships of mindfulness, self-efficacy
and emotions
Participants were instructed to fill out several self-report
questionnaires one month prior to the experiment:
The International Positive and Negative Affect
Schedule (PANAS) is a 5-point Likert scale consisting of
20 words related to positive affect (PA) and negative affect
(NA).
50
Cronbach’s alpha has been found to range
between 0.88 and 0.90.
51
The Perceived Stress Scale (PSS) is a 14-item 5-point
Likert scale that measures perceived stress in daily life.
52
Cronbach’s alpha ranged between 0.74 and 0.80.
The Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) is a 5-item
7-point Likert scale.
53
Cronbach’s alpha ranges from 0.82
to 0.87.
The Mindfulness Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS)
is a 15-item questionnaire that aims to measure present-
moment awareness of actions, interpersonal communica-
tion, thoughts, emotions and physical states.
54
The items
range from 1 (agree strongly) to 5 (strongly disagree);
scoring is based on the mean of the items with a high
mean score indicating lower levels of mindfulness. Studies
have found a Cronbach’s alpha for the MAAS of 0.87.
55
The Generalized self-efficacy scale (GSES) is a 10-
item 4-point Likert scale designed to measure perceived
mastery in new and difficult situations.
56
Cronbach’s alpha
ranged from 0.82 to 0.93.
Part two –experimental effects of intervention on
pain and stress
The second part of the study consisted of an experiment
where participants were randomized into three groups;
control (n=26), sham (placebo; n=22) and mindfulness
(n=22) groups. Randomization occurred when students
came three at a time to the psychology lab of the univer-
sity and picked one of three doors. Each door led to a
room that was one condition of the experiment.
Participants were then exposed to a fear induction
task,
57
using a Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve
Stimulation (TENS/EMS) machine that induced an
uncomfortable muscular stimulation in the extensor digi-
torum muscle. During such muscle stimulation, the hand
Dovepress Firth et al
Psychology Research and Behavior Management 2019:12 submit your manuscript | www.dovepress.com
DovePress 567
Psychology Research and Behavior Management downloaded from https://www.dovepress.com/ by 174.228.19.180 on 25-Jun-2020
For personal use only.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
1 / 1
and fingers contract uncontrollably, resulting in an experi-
enced loss of bodily control. In addition to the uncomfor-
table sensation felt, visual feedback resulted in an increase
in anxiety/fear of possible further discomfort. Participants
were then asked to rate their current level of stress on a
Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) (1 no pain −10 severe pain/
as bad as it could be).
58
After the first stress measurement,
the participants were given shocks and the level of voltage
was increased until the participant rated it as 7 in terms of
unpleasantness.
The mindfulness group received a 4-mins mindfulness
breathing intervention (awareness of breath). The breath-
ing intervention was a recording from a mindfulness prac-
titioner. This approach was based on previous findings of
Shearer et al,
48
who also had 5 mins interventions over 4
weeks, but while theirs was done on site, the condition in
this study was done with reminders off-campus.
The sham group listened to a 4 mins long musical piece
(Pachelbel –Canon in D). Music can have positive effects
on anxiety in pre-operative settings but does not have any
effects on physiological processes
59
thus making an appro-
priate placebo intervention that could be measured against
both the mindfulness intervention and the control situation.
The control group was asked to sit quietly for four min-
utes. The participants were then informed that within a
specific time restriction, they were required to respond to
nine cognitive performance tasks, including three cogni-
tive reflections tasks.
60
They were also informed that
incorrect responses may be “punishable”by a repetition
of the unpleasant muscle stimulation they had previously
received but with a ten percent increase in voltage.
“Punishment”was decided on whether the roll of two die
combined to add up to one of two numbers selected prior
to the rolling of the die. This was done in order to maintain
stress levels during the experiment and counteract any
learned behaviors. Situational stress and self-efficacy mea-
surements were assessed via visual analog scales before
the cognitive tasks, after the fourth task and at the end of
the experiment.
Part three –long term intervention effects on self-
efficacy and academic performance
The third part of the study consisted of a 4-week period
where participants, who were randomly assigned into one
of three groups from study two (mindfulness, music, con-
trol), were instructed and reminded weekly to perform the
same task under the experimental condition (mindful
breathing, music) while the control group was instructed
to look at a picture of balloons for 5 mins once a week.
Looking at neutral pictures had no influence on emotion
regulation.
61
After four weeks, participants were required
to retake the questionnaires from part one of the study in
order to compare the effects of mindfulness and placebo
(listening to music) to the control group. During Week
four, participants also performed a Cognitive Psychology
academic examination to see if general self-efficacy levels
predicted their academic performance in examination con-
ditions, and how the mindfulness intervention influenced
this relation.
Procedure
Data reduction and analysis
All scales were centered and normalized and SPSS version
24 was used for statistical analysis. For study 1, linear
regressions were calculated where well-being measures
were entered as the dependent variable and mindfulness
and self-efficacy were entered as independent variables.
For study 2, repeated measures ANOVAs for stress and
self-efficacy were calculated, and for study 3, repeated
measures ANOVAs were computed for self-efficacy and
satisfaction with life. Also in study 3, ANOVAs were
computed to see if the groups differed on their course
grade and a regression was calculated to see how post
intervention self-efficacy influenced the grade.
Ethical approval
The study conformed to institutional guidelines of applying
to the Norwegian Social Science Data Services (NSD)
ethical guidelines for experimental studies. After initial
NSD online application was filled in, formal application
was not required since only non-identifiable and non-
health-related data were used in this research. Participants
gave their informed consent verbally prior to the study and
were debriefed about the study’s purpose after completing
the data collection. Participants were informed that they
could withdraw from participation at any time and without
any consequences throughout and after the session.
Results
Results for part 1
One month prior to the intervention phase of this study,
data were collected on trait scores for all factors includ-
ing trait mindfulness, generalized self-efficacy, pain tol-
erance and well-being behaviors. Groups were checked
for differences on the mindfulness scale to check for
Firth et al Dovepress
submit your manuscript | www.dovepress.com
DovePress
Psychology Research and Behavior Management 2019:12
568
Psychology Research and Behavior Management downloaded from https://www.dovepress.com/ by 174.228.19.180 on 25-Jun-2020
For personal use only.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
1 / 1
initial group differences and were understood to be simi-
lar (MAAS; F=0.55, p=0.580).
Descriptives and correlations are presented in Tables 1
and 2.
A multiple regression hypothesis that mindfulness and
higher self-efficacy would report less stress was calcu-
lated. Results support the hypothesis (F(1,91)=20.38,
p<0.001, R
2
=0.314, Adjusted R
2
=0.299). Both mindful-
ness (β=0.370, t=4.014, p<0.001) and self-efficacy (β=
−0.361, t=3.313, p<0.001) were significant moderate pre-
dictors of stress. Self-efficacy alone accounted for 12.7%
of the total variance (R
2
). Mindfulness was checked to see
if it mediated the relationship between self-efficacy and
stress following Baron & Kenny’s instruction,
62
but this
relationship was not significant (z=0.802, p=0.146)
Results of part 2 –effect of intervention
on stress
There was a general group interaction effect on stress
(F(2, 62)=3.374, p=0.040, η
2
=0.092). Tukey’s post hoc com-
parisons found that the mindfulness (M
diff
=1.106, p=0.020)
was significantly different than the control group. The sham
condition (M
diff
=0.915, p=0.058) indicated tendencies that
differed from the control condition, but there was no signifi-
cant difference between the mindfulness and sham conditions.
Further results from the experiment show that the
mindfulness intervention did not have an effect on self-
efficacy (p=0.539) during the experiment. There was no
significance between group differences in self-efficacy
based on stress perception. Thus, intervention type did
not affect perception of self-efficacy under the experimen-
tal stress-induced situation.
In part one, a median split was calculated to see how
general self-efficacy influenced the experiment.
Participants in the intervention groups (mindfulness,
music) who rated themselves as high in self-efficacy
reported tendencies toward lower levels of stress com-
pared to the control group (F(2, 68)=2.853, p=0.064,
ƞ
2
=0.067) between high and low self-efficacy in stress
effect for the different experimental groups. A Tukey’s
post hoc test showed that both the mindfulness group
(M
diff
=0.999, p=0.043) and the sham group (M
diff
=0.970,
p=0.035) were significantly different from the control
group. There was no significant difference between the
mindfulness group and sham group (p>0.05). This sug-
gests that both mindfulness and music listening helped
individuals with high self-efficacy in negating the effects
of stress.
Self-efficacy together with the experimental condition
was used to explain pain intensity and unpleasantness
during the experiment. Only the mindfulness group pre-
dicted lower pain intensity (F(1,22)=15.21, p=0.001
β=−0.608, R
2
=0.369, Adjusted R
2
=0.345) and pain unplea-
santness (F(1,22)=12.154, p=0.002, β=−0.564, R
2
=0.319,
Adjusted R
2
=0.292) compared to the other conditions.
Results of part 3
To test hypothesis 3, a short mindfulness-based intervention
would have positive influence on self-efficacy, pain and well-
being (stress) in students, repeated measures ANOVAs were
Table 2 Relationship of pre-experiment questionnaires
23 4 5 6 7
PANAS PosAf 0.131 −0.148 0.249* −0.011 −0.325** 0.323
**
PANAS Neg Af 1 0.443
**
−0.426
**
0.248* 0.453
**
−0.329
**
MAAS 1 −0.174 0.380
**
0.433
**
−0.407**
SE 1 −0.172 −0.426** 0.377
**
PCS 1 0.368** −0.104
PSS 1 −0.526**
SWLS 1
Notes: *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Table 1 Descriptives
Minimum Maximum M SD
PANAS PosAf 1.70 6.40 3.68 0.70
PANAS Neg Af 0.60 5.00 2.01 0.65
MAAS 1.13 4.80 2.60 0.62
SE pre 17.0 57.0 31.35 5.37
SE post 20.0 57.0 32.24 5.57
PSS pre 5.0 48.0 22.35 7.93
PSS post 8.0 44.0 22.62 8.24
PCS pre 0.00 63.00 14.89 10.00
PCS post 0.00 38.0 12.10 8.22
Abbreviations: PANAS, positive and negative affect scale; MAAS, mindfulness
attention and awareness scale; SE, general self-efficacy scale; PSS, perceived stress
scale; PCS, pain catastrophizing scale.
Dovepress Firth et al
Psychology Research and Behavior Management 2019:12 submit your manuscript | www.dovepress.com
DovePress 569
Psychology Research and Behavior Management downloaded from https://www.dovepress.com/ by 174.228.19.180 on 25-Jun-2020
For personal use only.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
1 / 1
computed on change scores. To test any differences within
groups, paired sample t-tests were performed.
There were no between-group interaction effects on
any of the outcome variables: self-efficacy (F=0.16,
p=0.891), stress (F=0.46, p=0.635) and pain catastrophiz-
ing (F=1.92, p=0.155). However, there were within group
findings on several scales, self-efficacy (F=5.30, p=0.008,
ƞ
2
=0.150) did change, but not in the direction expected.
While both the control (t=−2.75, df=18, p=0.013, Cohen’s
d=0.94) and sham (t=−1.01, df=21, p=0.325, Cohen’sd
=0.31) groups showed improvements in self-efficacy
scores after 4 weeks, the mindfulness group (t=2.45,
df=21, p=0.023, Cohen’sd=0.60) reported worse scores
after the intervention (see Figure 1).
Negative trends were highlighted for the mindfulness
group on pain catastrophizing (t=−1.69, df=21, p=0.105).
There was no difference between the groups in performance
on the academic examination (F=0.48, p=0.620), but an
increase in self-efficacy, irrespective of condition, was signifi-
cant in predicting grades (F=5.05, p=0.028, β=2.77, t=2.25).
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to test if mindfulness had an
effect on self-efficacy in pain perception and stress, and to
test if self-efficacy had an effect on self-esteem, perceived
stress and pain perception through pre/post-testing consist-
ing of self-report questionnaires and experimentation fol-
lowed by an intervention. The results from this study
further demonstrate the importance of self-efficacy as a
mediating factor in coping with pain and performance
outcomes. The students with high self-efficacy reported
to have more overall positive affect and less stress than
the students with low self-efficacy. These results are con-
sistent with other studies.
63,64
Levels of self-efficacy pre-
dicted positive affect, and negative affect was related to
lower levels of self-efficacy.
65
Results from the first part of
the study support the initial hypothesis that people with
high self-efficacy have higher satisfaction with life and is
consistent with the findings of Azizili et al,
29
that having a
sense of mastery predicts well-being.
For the second part of the study, an acute mindfulness
intervention had mixed results. Mindfulness had a signifi-
cant influence on stress reduction, but no impact on self-
efficacy. The effects of the mindfulness intervention
reduced stress levels but only lasted for the initial part of
the experiment (T1-T2) while there was no difference in
stress levels at time 3 of the experiment between condi-
tions. The mindfulness group however reported less pain
intensity and unpleasantness. This result was not shared in
the sham and control group. These results are comparable
to the findings that mindfulness has good therapeutic
outcomes.
31,66
Both mindfulness and listening to music
may be comparable activities (see Gillen et al for review
on effects of music on anxiety).
59
This may explain why
both the mindfulness intervention and sham condition had
similar results on several aspects during the experiment.
Listening to music is beneficial as an intervention and may
have parallels to mindful exercise.
59
The results from
study two might highlight the effectiveness of music as
an intervention.
Hypothesis 3, in which mindfulness intervention
would improve self-efficacy, could not be supported.
The findings were contrary to what was expected.
Mindfulness can reduce anxiety and depression but
other findings show that mindfulness may also increase
risk factors.
31,67–69
Indeed, mindfulness increased false
memory production on the Deese-Roediger-McDermott
paradigm due to reduced reality monitoring.
70
Also, par-
ticipants who were active in mentally discarding their
thoughts were better at forming non-judgmental
thoughts.
71
This process is the opposite of mindful
awareness where thoughts are not to be analyzed or
engaged with, but instead, are given attention and coped
with by not forming negative self-judgments. Several
problematic factors that can arise from using mindfulness
techniques have been identified but most studies on
mindfulness do not include reports of adverse effects.
42,72
However, these adverse effects have now been included
in mindfulness-based intervention guidelines.
43
35
Group
Control
Sham
Mindfulness
34
33
32
31
30
29
12
Pre - post experimentation
Self-efficacy score
Figure 1 Change in self-efficacy after intervention.
Firth et al Dovepress
submit your manuscript | www.dovepress.com
DovePress
Psychology Research and Behavior Management 2019:12
570
Psychology Research and Behavior Management downloaded from https://www.dovepress.com/ by 174.228.19.180 on 25-Jun-2020
For personal use only.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
1 / 1
Previous studies
43
used a mixed methods design on
mindfulness practitioners. It identified several domains
where after effects could arise, including the cognitive
domain, where problems with executive functioning (eg,
memory, concentration) were identified as well as
increased negative cognitive processing (mind racing and
vivid imagery). Negative affective changes were also
reported (increased anxiety) alongside somatic changes
(loss of sleep, increased pain, gastrointestinal distress,
cardiac irregularities). For motivational aspects, mindful-
ness had also increased anhedonia and avolition (loss of
goal pursuit motivation). These results might shed light on
the detrimental effects of how the mindfulness intervention
had opposite effects on the experimental group than was
expected. In the current study, the participants (college
students) were approaching the semester examination per-
iod, which would be expected to increase stress in all
students. While the control and sham the group could
actively deal with negative cognitions and emotions that
may have arisen during the four weeks, the experimenta-
tion group underwent a weekly mindfulness intervention
where they were briefly instructed to refrain from focusing
on cognitions and to focus on their breathing once a week
for 4 mins. Participants may have adopted this intervention
and used it actively, and thus may have experienced
adverse cognitions and behaviors further supporting pre-
vious findings.
43
The awareness of breath intervention
could actually be counterproductive by allowing cogni-
tions to arise without ever having learned how to be mind-
ful in that situation. The participants were never trained in
mindfulness, even though it was part of their course curri-
culum in cognitive psychology. While the control and
sham groups could actively deal with their cognitions (ie,
distraction, avoidance) as in previous studies,
71
the mind-
fulness group could have had a weekly reminder of nega-
tive cognitions that caused rumination and therefore worse
outcomes. While both the control (t=−2.75, df=18,
p=0.013, Cohen’sd=0.94) and sham (t=−1.01, df=21,
p=0.325, Cohen’sd=0.31) groups illustrated improve-
ments in self-efficacy scores after 4 weeks, the mindful-
ness group had negative effects (t=2.45, df=21, p=0.023,
Cohen’sd=0.60).
An increase in self-efficacy could predict higher grades
irrespective of the experimental condition, consequently
supporting our hypothesis that increased self-efficacy can
predict higher academic performance and lends additional
support to the similar findings that personality affects self-
efficacy but that self-efficacy predicts scholastic grades.
73
While the findings from the first two parts of this study
further support existing research findings that increasing
self-efficacy is beneficial to various positive outcomes, our
results suggest that mindfulness practices may have mixed
influences. Although effective in acute stress situations
(part 2), the mindfulness intervention had significant detri-
mental effects on self-efficacy (part 3) and did not improve
well-being scores, whereas the control (satisfaction with
life, self-esteem pain catastrophizing) and sham (pain cat-
astrophizing) indicated some positive outcomes. This is
the opposite of the previous research demonstrating bene-
ficial findings.
48
Previous studies allowed participants to
conduct their brief mindfulness exercise together in the
presence of other participants, while the participants of
this study were instructed to do their exercise individually
may account for the difference in findings.
Limitations
Limitations include the number of participation dropouts
from part 1 to part 3 (27 in total). This resulted in the
exclusion of some results due to the lack of stress mea-
surement both before and after pain induction in a few
participants. During the experiment, there were some pro-
blems with apparatus in administration of the electrical
stimuli. Two of the participants had to have the shock
applied to the other side of the arm on the flexor carpi
ulnaris muscle because the electrode could not be fastened
on the extensor digitorum muscle as planned. This could
potentially have had a different effect on the pain inflic-
tion. An additional limitation is the lack of the ability to
control whether the students followed the reminders dur-
ing the four-week intervention period. Previous studies
that adopted this brief intervention were conducted in the
presence of others meaning social influence have been a
contributing factor, which could not have been the case in
the current study. Also, there was potentially insufficient
difference between the mindfulness experiences of the
(sham) music group, and the mindfulness group.
Conclusion
Self-efficacy had a positive influence on cognition and
satisfaction with life but the contrary was true for stress
and negative affect. Self-efficacy also lowered both pain
intensity and pain unpleasantness, and significantly pre-
dicted academic results. The participants in the mindful-
ness or sham group with pre-existing high self-efficacy
had significantly lower level of stress compared to the
control group. Furthermore, both mindfulness and placebo
Dovepress Firth et al
Psychology Research and Behavior Management 2019:12 submit your manuscript | www.dovepress.com
DovePress 571
Psychology Research and Behavior Management downloaded from https://www.dovepress.com/ by 174.228.19.180 on 25-Jun-2020
For personal use only.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
1 / 1
reduced stress compared to no intervention. Mindfulness
almost indicated a significant effect as a mediator between
self-efficacy in perceived stress with a single mindfulness
intervention. The long-term mindfulness intervention on
the other hand did not show a significant increase in self-
efficacy. Results suggest that an increase in self-efficacy
can have various positive outcomes and that mindfulness
may increase self-efficacy short term but not necessarily in
the long term. Based on these results, further research on
investigating specific elements of mindfulness such as the
focused breathing element in enhancing self-efficacy
would be of interest. Especially, when coupled with inves-
tigating the mediating element of self-efficacy on factors
such as academic performance.
Disclosure
The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.
References
1. Loeser JD, Treede RD. The kyoto protocol of IASP basic pain terminol-
ogy. Pain.2008;137(3):473–477. doi:10.1016/j.pain.2008.04.025
2. Eccleston C, Crombez G. Pain demands attention: a cognitive-affec-
tive model of the interruptive function of pain. Psychol Bull.
1999;125(3):356–366.
3. Carpino E, Segal S, Logan D, Lebel A, Simons LE. The interplay of
pain-related self-efficacy and fear on functional outcomes among
youth with headache. J Pain.2014;15(5):527–534. doi:10.1016/j.
jpain.2014.01.493
4. Wright CJ, Schutte NS. The relationship between greater mindfulness
and less subjective experience of chronic pain: mediating functions of
pain management self-efficacy and emotional intelligence. Aust J
Psychol.2014;66(3):181–186. doi:10.1111/ajpy.2014.66.issue-3
5. Bandura A. Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organ Behav Hum
Decis Process.1991;50:248–257. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90022-L
6. Bandura A. Social cognitivetheory: an agentic perspective. Annu Rev
Psychol.2001;52:1–26. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1
7. Bandura A. Perceived self-efficacy in the exercise of personal agency.
Psychologist.1989;2:411–424.
8. Bandura A. Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy.
Curr Dir Psychol Sci.2000;9:75–78. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.00064
9. Bandura A. Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioural
change. Psychol Rev.1977;84(2):191–215.
10. Gist M, Mitchell T. Self-efficacy: a theoretical analysis of its deter-
minants and malleability. Acad Manage Rev.1992;17(2):183–211.
doi:10.5465/amr.1992.4279530
11. Luszczynska A, Scholz U, Schwarzer R. The general self-efficacy
scale: multicultural validation studies. J Psychol.2005;139(5):439–
457. doi:10.3200/JRLP.139.5.439-457
12. Heath NL, Joly M, Carsley D. Coping self-efficacy and mindfulness
in non-suicidal self-injury. Mindfulness.2016;7(5):1132–1141.
doi:10.1007/s12671-016-0555-3
13. Rokke PD, Fleming-Ficek S, Siemens NM, Hegstad HJ. Self-efficacy
and choice of coping strategies for tolerating acute pain. J Behav
Med.2004;27(4):343–360.
14. Luberto CM, Cotton S, McLeish AC, Mingione CJ, O’Bryan EM.
Mindfulness skills and emotion regulation: the mediating role of
coping self-efficacy. Mindfulness.2014;5(4):373–380. doi:10.1007/
s12671-012-0190-6
15. Tan J, Yang W, Ma H, Yu Y. Adolescents’core self-evaluations as
mediators of the effect of mindfulness on life satisfaction. Soc Behav
Pers.2016;44(7):1115–1122. doi:10.2224/sbp.2016.44.7.1115
16. Lindley LD, Borgen FH. Generalized self-efficacy, holland theme
self-efficacy, and academic performance. J Career Assess.2002;10
(3):301–314. doi:10.1177/10672702010003002
17. Khodarahimi S. General self-efficacy and worry in an Iranian ado-
lescents and youths samples. Educ Res.2010;1(2):15–20.
18. Ross-Stewart L, Short SE. The frequency and perceived effectiveness
of images used to build, maintain, and regain confidence. J Appl Sport
Psychol.2009;21(S1):S34–S47. doi:10.1080/10413200802582813
19. Bishop SR, Lau M, Shapiro S, et al. Mindfulness: a proposed opera-
tional definition. Clin Psychol-Sci Pr.2004;11(3):230–241.
20. Chambers R, Lo B, Allen N. The impact of intensive mindfulness
training on attentional control, cognitive style, and affect. Cognit
Ther Res.2007;32(3):303–322. doi:10.1007/s10608-007-9119-0
21. Kabat-Zinn J. Wherever You Go, There You Are: Mindfulness
Meditation in Everyday Life. New York: Hachette Books; 2009.
22. Chiesa A, Serretti A. Mindfulness-based stress reduction for stress
management in healthy people: a review and meta-analysis. J Altern
Complement Med.2009;15(5):593–600. doi:10.1089/acm.2008.0495
23. Zimmerman BJ, Bandura A, Martinez-Pons M. Self-motivation for
academic attainment: the role of self-efficacy beliefs and personal
goal setting. Am Educ Res J.1992;29(3):663–676. doi:10.3102/
00028312029003663
24. Hansen GR, Streltzer J. The psychology of pain. Emerg Med Clin.
2005;23(2):339–348. doi:10.1016/j.emc.2004.12.005
25. Asghari A, Nicholas M. Pain self-efficacy beliefs and pain behaviour.
A prospective study. Pain.2001;94(1):85–100.
26. Arnstein P, Caudill M, Mandle C, Norris A, Beasley R. Self-efficacy
as a mediator of the relationship between pain intensity, disability and
depression in chronic pain patients. Pain.1999;80(3):483–491.
27. Meredith P, Strong J, Feeney J. Adult attachment, anxiety, and pain
self-efficacy as predictors of pain intensity and disability. Pain.
2006;12(3):146–154. doi:10.1016/j.pain.2006.02.025
28. Sawatzky RG, Ratner PA, Richardson CG, Washburn C, Sudmant W,
Mirwaldt P. Stress and depression in students: the mediating role of
stress management self-efficacy. Nurs Res.2012;61(1):13–21.
doi:10.1097/NNR.0b013e31823b1440
29. Azizli N, Atkinson B, Baughman H, Giammarco E. Relationships
between general self-efficacy, planning for the future, and life satisfac-
tion. Pers Individ Dif.2015;82:58–60. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2015.03.006
30. Lightsey JO, Maxwell D, Nash T, Rarey E, McKinney V. Self-control
and self-efficacy for affect regulation as moderators of the negative
affect–life satisfaction relationship. J Cogn Psychother.2011;25
(2):142–154. doi:10.1891/0889-8391.25.2.142
31. Kimbrough E, Magyari T, Langenberg P, Chesney M, Berman B.
Mindfulness intervention for child abuse survivors. J Clin Psychol.
2010;66(1):17–33. doi:10.1002/jclp.20624
32. De Jong A, Hommes M, Brouwers A, Tomic W. Effects of mind-
fulness-based stress reduction course on stress, mindfulness, job self-
efficacy and motivation among unemployed people. Aust J Career
Dev.2013;22(2):51–62. doi:10.1177/1038416213486095
33. Caldwell K, Harrison M, Adams M, Quin R, Greeson J. Developing
mindfulness in college students through movement-based courses:
effects on self-regulatory self-efficacy, mood, stress, and sleep qual-
ity. J Am Coll Health.2010;58(5):433–443. doi:10.1080/
07448480903540481
34. Yazdanimehr R, Omidi A, Sadat Z, Akbari H. The effect of mind-
fulness-integrated cognitive behavior therapy on depression and anxi-
ety among pregnant women: a randomized clinical trial. J Caring Sci.
2016;5(3):195. doi:10.15171/jcs.2016.021
35. van der Riet P, Rossiter R, Kirby D, Dluzewska T, Harmon C. Piloting
a stress management and mindfulness program for undergraduate nur-
sing students: student feedback and lessons learned. Nurse Educ Today.
2015;35(1):44–49. doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2014.05.003
Firth et al Dovepress
submit your manuscript | www.dovepress.com
DovePress
Psychology Research and Behavior Management 2019:12
572
Psychology Research and Behavior Management downloaded from https://www.dovepress.com/ by 174.228.19.180 on 25-Jun-2020
For personal use only.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
1 / 1
36. St. Marie R, Talebkhah KS. Neurological evidence of a mind-body
connection: mindfulness and pain control. Am J Psychiatry Resid J.
2018;13(4):2–5. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp-rj.2018.130401
37. Bandura A. Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: W.H.
Freeman and Company; 1997.
38. Choi N. Self-efficacy and self-concept as predictors of college stu-
dents’academic performance. Psychol Sch.2005;42(2):197–205.
doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1520-6807
39. Klassen RM, Usher EL. Self-efficacy in educational settings: recent
research and emerging directions. In: Urdan TC, Karabenick SA,
editors. The Decade Ahead: Theoretical Perspectives on Motivation
and Achievement. Binlgley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited;
2010:1–33.
40. Zimmerman BJ. Attaining self-regulation: a social cognitive perspec-
tive. In: Vohs KD, Baumeister RF, editors. Handbook of Self-
Regulation. New York: Elsevier; 2000:13–39.
41. Lustyk M, Chawla N, Nolan R, Marlatt GA. Mindfulness meditation
research: issues of participant screening, safety procedures, and
researcher training. Adv Mind Body Med.2009;24(1):20–30.
42. Cebolla A, Demarzo M, Martins P, Soler J, Garcia-Campayo J.
Unwanted effects: is there a negative side of meditation? A multi-
centre survey. PLoS One.2017;12(9):1–11. doi:10.1371/journal.
pone.0183137
43. Lindahl JR, Fisher NE, Cooper DJ, Rosen RK, Britton WB. The
varieties of contemplative experience: a mixed-methods study of
meditation-related challenges in Western Buddhists. PLoS One.
2017;12(5):1–38. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0176239
44. Taylor M, Hageman JR, Brown M. A mindfulness intervention for
residents: relevance for pediatricians. Pediatr Ann.2016;45(10):
e373–e376. doi:10.3928/19382359-20160912-01
45. Sanko J, Mckay M, Rogers S. Exploring the impact of mindfulness
meditation training in pre-licensure and post graduate nurses. Nurse
Educ Today.2016;45:142–147. doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2016.07.006
46. Joice S, Ramkumar T. Impact of meditation in memory of health
science students. J Med Sci Clin Res.2015;1(3):6353–6358.
47. Larson MJ, Steffen PR, Primosch M. The impact of a brief mind-
fulness meditation intervention on cognitive control and error-related
performance monitoring. Front Hum Neurosci.2013;7(308):1–12.
doi:10.3389/fnhum.2013.00001
48. Shearer A, Hunt M, Chowdhury M, Nicol L. Effects of a brief mindfulness
meditation intervention on student stress and heart rate variability. Int J
Stress Manag.2016;23(2):232. doi:10.1037/a0039814
49. Andreu CI, Cosmelli D, Slagter HA, Franken IH. Effects of a brief
mindfulness-meditation intervention on neural measures of response
inhibition in cigarette smokers. PLoS One.2018;13(1):1–16.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0191661
50. Watson D, Clark LA, Tellegen A. Development and validation of brief
measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. J Pers Soc
Psychol.1988;54(6):1063. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063
51. Crawford JR, Henry JD. The Positive and Negative Affect Schedule
(PANAS): construct validity, measurement properties and normative
data in a large non-clinical sample. Br J Clin Psychol.2004;43
(3):245–265. doi:10.1348/0144665031752934
52. Cohen S, Kamarck T, Mermelstein R. A global measure of perceived
stress. J Health Soc Behav.1983;24(4):385–396. doi:10.2307/2136404
53. Diener ED, Emmons RA, Larsen RJ, Griffin S. The satisfaction with life
scale. J Pers Assess.1985;49(1):71–75. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa4
901_13
54. Carlson LE, Brown KW. Validation of the Mindful Attention
Awareness Scale in a cancer population. J Psychosom Res.2005;58
(1):29–33. doi:10.1016/j.jpsychores.2004.04.366
55. Schütze R, Rees C, Preece M, Schütze M. Low mindfulness predicts
pain catastrophizing in a fear-avoidance model of chronic pain. Pain.
2010;148:120–127. doi:10.1016/j.pain.2009.10.030
56. Schwarzer R, Jerusalem M. Generalized self-efficacy scale. Meas
Health Psychol.1995;1(1):35–37.
57. Grillon C, Baas JP, Lissek S, Smith K, Milstein J. Anxious responses
to predictable and unpredictable aversive events. Behav Neurosci.
2004;118(5):916–924. doi:10.1037/0735-7044.118.5.916
58. Freyd M. The graphic rating scale. JEduc Psychol.1923;43:83–102.
doi:10.1037/h0074329
59. Gillen E, Biley F, Allen D. Effects of music listening on adult
patients’pre-procedural state anxiety in hospital. Int J Evid Based
Healthc.2008;6(1):24–49. doi:10.1111/j.1744-1609.2007.00097.x
60. Frederick S. Cognitive reflection and decision-making. J Econ
Perspect.2005;18(4):25–42. doi:10.1257/089533005775196732
61. Johnsen SÅK, Rydstedt LW. Active use of the natural environment
for emotion regulation. Eur J Psychol.2013;9(4):798–819.
doi:10.5964/ejop.v9i4.633
62. Baron RM, Kenny DA. The moderator–mediator variable distinction
in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical
considerations. J Pers Soc Psychol.1986;51(6):1173–1182.
63. Arnold J, Silvester J, Cooper CL, Robertson IT, Patterson FM. Work
Psychology: Understanding Human Behaviour in the Workplace.
London: Pearson Education; 2005.
64. Yu Y, Peng L, Tang T, Chen L, Li M, Wang T. Effects of emotion
regulation and general self-efficacy on posttraumatic growth in
Chinese cancer survivors: assessing the mediating effect of positive
affect. Psycho-Oncology.2014;23(4):473–478. doi:10.1002/
pon.3434
65. Van Zundert RM, Engels RC, Kuntsche E. Contextual correlates of
adolescents’self-efficacy after smoking cessation. Psychol Addict
Behav.2011;25(2):301. doi:10.1037/a0023629
66. Moss D, O’Niell B. Just another technique? Possibilities and para-
doxes in working with mindfulness. Clin Psychol.2003;31:29–33.
67. Miller JJ, Fletcher K, Kabat-Zinn J. Three-year follow-up and clinical
implications of a mindfulness meditation-based stress reduction inter-
vention in the treatment of anxiety disorders. Gen Hosp Psychiatry.
1995;17(3):192–200.
68. Segal ZV, Teasdale J. Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy for
Depression.New York: Guilford Publications; 2018.
69. Teasdale JD, Segal ZV, Williams JMG, Ridgeway VA, Soulsby JM,
Lau MA. Prevention of relapse/recurrence in major depression by
mindfulness-based cognitive therapy. J Consult Clin Psychol.
2000;68(4):615. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.68.4.615
70. Wilson BM, Mickes L, Stolarz-Fantino S, Evrard M, Fantino E. Increased
false-memory susceptibility after mindfulness meditation. Psychol Sci.
2015;26(10):1567–1573. doi:10.1177/0956797615593705
71. Briñol P, Gascó M, Petty RE, Horcajo J. Treating thoughts as material
objects can increase or decrease their impact on evaluation. Psychol
Sci.2013;24(1):41–47. doi:10.1177/0956797612449176
72. Lustyk MK, Chawla N, Nolan RS, Marlatt GA. Mindfulness medita-
tion research: issues of participant screening, safety procedures, and
researcher training. Adv Mind Body Med.2017;24:20–30.
73. Di Giunta L, Alessandri G, Gerbino M, Kanacri PL, Zuffiano A, Caprara
GV. The determinants of scholastic achievement: the contribution of
personality traits, self-esteem, and academic self-efficacy. Learn Individ
Differ.2013;27:102–108. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2013.07.006
Dovepress Firth et al
Psychology Research and Behavior Management 2019:12 submit your manuscript | www.dovepress.com
DovePress 573
Psychology Research and Behavior Management downloaded from https://www.dovepress.com/ by 174.228.19.180 on 25-Jun-2020
For personal use only.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
1 / 1
Psychology Research and Behavior Management Dovepress
Publish your work in this journal
Psychology Research and Behavior Management is an international,
peer-reviewed, open access journal focusing on the science of psychol-
ogy and its application in behavior management to develop improved
outcomes in the clinical, educational, sports and business arenas.
Specific topics covered in the journal include: Neuroscience, memory
and decision making; Behavior modification and management; Clinical
applications; Business and sports performance management; Social
and developmental studies; Animal studies. The manuscript manage-
ment system is completely online and includes a very quick and
fair peer-review system, which is all easy to use. Visit http://www.
dovepress.com/testimonials.php to read real quotes from published
authors.
Submit your manuscript here: https://www.dovepress.com/psychology-research-and-behavior-management-journal
Firth et al Dovepress
submit your manuscript | www.dovepress.com
DovePress
Psychology Research and Behavior Management 2019:12
574
Psychology Research and Behavior Management downloaded from https://www.dovepress.com/ by 174.228.19.180 on 25-Jun-2020
For personal use only.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
1 / 1
Running Header: STUDY ANALYSIS 1
Study Analysis
Institutional Affiliate
Date
STUDY ANALYSIS 2
For the first article, the analysis intends to comprehend the arbitrating impacts of
mindfulness on coping with pain, self-efficacy, and academic performance. It also explores the
impact of mindfulness on the ability to deal with stress caused by pain. The second article
analyzes the correlation between the levels of anxiety and self-efficacy, emotional intelligence,
and handling tactics (Firth, 2019). The sample size in the first article was initially made up of 92
graduate students from a university in Norway. Each participant was invited to take part in the
three-part analysis. Seventy of them were involved in an experimental situation accompanied by
an intervention that lasted four weeks and, lastly, a post-test summary. After the reduction of
some participants, sixty-three of them took part in the third section of the analysis. The
participants were randomly placed in three groups labeled as sham, mindfulness, and control for
the intervention and post-test summary.
In the second article, the primary sample was made up of 270 students got from the
University of Granada. The information took eleven months to gather since it began in January
2017 and concluded in November 2017. The sample was further reduced through selection
standards to 258 students. The final sample was made up of 94 men and 164 women whose mean
age was 21.5 years. In the first article, the measures were normalized and combined, and the
statistical analysis was done using SPSS version 24. The first study involved the calculation of
linear regressions where prosperity models were labeled as dependent variables, whereas self-
efficacy and mindfulness were considered independent variables. In the second study, the
variables centered around self-efficacy and stress, whereas the third study involved satisfaction
and self-efficacy.
STUDY ANALYSIS 3
In the second article, a multiple regression model and a corresponding coefficient were
utilized. Self-efficacy was set as the dependent variable, whereas coping strategies, state anxiety,
emotional intelligence, trait anxiety, and age were set as independent variables. In the first
article, different statistical tests were used for the three studies. In the first study, the dependent
and independent variables were determined using linear regressions. In the second study,
ANOVAs were used repeatedly to calculate and measure self-efficacy and stress. In the third
study, duplicated standard ANOVAs were calculated for satisfaction with life and self-efficacy.
As seen in all the studies, the independent variable is self-efficacy, whereas the remaining
variables were seen to be dependent.
In the second article, statistical analysis was done using SPSS software. The detailed
review was done, and the routine circulation of variables was validated using the Kolmogorov–
Smirnov test (Morales-Rodríguez, 2019). To understand the correlation between the different
levels of anxiety, emotional intelligence, demographic variables, and self-efficacy scores, a
multiple regression design and the Pearson correlation coefficient were used. The multiple
regression analysis involved the variables that were and independent and significantly linked to
self-efficacy. In the first article, it can be concluded that self-efficacy had an effect on pain
unpleasantness and pain intensity. It also made significant predictions on one's academic
performance. Mindfulness exhibited mixed conclusions on how it impacted one's well-being and
reduced stress. The intervention involving mindfulness significantly reduced self-efficacy.
In the second article, the findings from the existing analysis indicate that self-efficacy
correlates to anxiety, the coping methods of the ability to solve problems, social withdrawal, and
the emotional intelligence features of repair mood and emotional clarity. Self-efficacy is foretold
STUDY ANALYSIS 4
through anxiety, emotional expression, social isolation, and vice versa. The two articles work
together to help one understand the correlation between self-efficacy and a number of aspects
and how they influence each other.
STUDY ANALYSIS 5
Reference
Firth, A. M., Cavallini, I., Sütterlin, S., & Lugo, R. G. (2019). Mindfulness and self-efficacy in
pain perception, stress and academic performance. The influence of mindfulness on
cognitive processes. Psychology Research and Behavior Management, 12, 565.
Morales-Rodríguez, F. M., & Pérez-Mármol, J. M. (2019). The role of anxiety, coping strategies,
and emotional intelligence on general perceived self-efficacy in University
students. Frontiers in Psychology, 10.
