Educational paper literature review 3

oreomocha12

self_efficacy.pdf

Home >Psychology homework help >Educational paper literature review 3

General self-efficacy in various domains of human functioning: Evidence from five countries

Aleksandra Luszczynska

Warsaw University, Poland and Freie Universität

Berlin, Germany

Benicio Gutiérrez-Doña

Universidad Estatal a Distancia, Costa Rica

Ralf Schwarzer

Freie Universität Berlin, Germany

B ased on social-cognitive theory (Bandura, 1997), this paper examined whether perceived self-efficacy is a

universal psychological construct that accounts for variance within various domains of human functioning.

Perceived self-efficacy is not only of a task-specific nature, but it can also be identified at a more general level of

functioning. General self-efficacy (GSE) is the belief in one’s competence to tackle novel tasks and to cope

with adversity in a broad range of stressful or challenging encounters, as opposed to specific self-efficacy, which is

constrained to a particular task at hand. The study aimed at exploring the relations between GSE and a variety

of other psychological constructs across several countries. Relations between general self-efficacy and

personality, well-being, stress appraisals, social relations, and achievements were examined among 8796

participants from Costa Rica, Germany, Poland, Turkey, and the USA. Across countries, the findings provide

evidence for associations between perceived general self-efficacy and the selected variables. The highest positive

associations were with optimism, self-regulation, and self-esteem, whereas the highest negative associations

emerged with depression and anxiety. Academic performance is also associated with self-efficacy as hypothesized.

The replication across languages or cultures adds significance to these findings. The relations between

self-efficacy and other personality measures remained stable across cultures and samples. Thus, perceived general

self-efficacy appears to be a universal construct that yields meaningful relations with other psychological

constructs.

S e basant sur la théorie sociale-cognitive (Bandura, 1997), l’efficacité de soi perçue fut examinée comme un

construit psychologique universel contribuant à la variance dans divers domaines du fonctionnement

humain. L’efficacité de soi perçue n’est pas seulement reliée à une tâche de nature spécifique, mais elle peut aussi

être identifiée comme un niveau de fonctionnement plus général. L’efficacité de soi générale est la croyance

qu’une personne possède la compétence pour faire face aux tâches nouvelles et pour gérer l’adversité dans un

large éventail d’événements représentant un stress ou un défi, à l’opposé de l’efficacité de soi spécifique qui est

restreinte à une tâche particulière. Cette étude visait à explorer les relations entre l’efficacité de soi générale et une

variété d’autres construits psychologiques à travers les pays. Les relations entre l’efficacité de soi générale et la

personnalité, le bien-être, l’évaluation du stress, les relations sociales et les accomplissements furent examinées

parmi 8,796 participants du Costa Rica, de l’Allemagne, de la Pologne, de la Turquie et des États-Unis. À

travers ces pays, les résultats fournissent des évidences d’associations entre l’efficacité de soi générale et les

variables sélectionnées. Les plus fortes associations positives furent avec l’optimisme, l’autorégulation et l’estime

de soi, tandis que les plus fortes associations négatives ont émergé avec la dépression et l’anxiété. Tel qu’attendu,

la performance académique fut également associée avec l’efficacité de soi. La reproduction à travers les langues

et les cultures ajoute une valeur à ces résultats. Les relations entre l’efficacité de soi et les autres mesures de

personnalité demeurent stables à travers les cultures et les échantillons. Ainsi, l’efficacité de soi générale

# 2005 International Union of Psychological Science

http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/pp/00207594.html DOI: 10.1080/00207590444000041

Correspondence should be sent to Dr Aleksandra Luszczynska, Gesundheitspsychologie, Freie Universität Berlin, Habelschwerdter

Allee 45, 14195 Berlin, Germany (E-mail: [email protected]).

The authors wish to thank Judith Bäßler, Matthias Jerusalem, Frederick X. Gibbons, and Mert Teközel for their collaboration on

this project. This research was partially supported with BW1536/5 grant (Polish data collection).

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY, 2005, 40 (2), 80–89

apparaı̂t être un construit universel qui produit des relations convaincantes avec les autres construits

psychologiques.

C on base en la teorı́a social-cognitiva (Bandura, 1997), se exploró si la auto-eficacia percibida es un

constructo psicológico universal que explica la varianza dentro de diversos dominios del funcionamiento

humano. La naturaleza de la auto-eficacia percibida no sólo es especı́fica de la tarea, sino que puede identificarse

en un nivel más general de funcionamiento. La auto-eficacia general (AEG) es la creencia en la competencia

propia para resolver tareas nuevas y afrontar la adversidad en un amplio espectro de situaciones estresoras y

desafiantes, en contraste con la auto-eficacia especı́fica que se restringe a una tarea particular dada. El estudio se

propuso explorar las relaciones entre la AEG y una variedad de constructos psicológicos entre paı́ses. Se

examinaron las relaciones entre la auto-eficacia general y la personalidad, el bienestar, la evaluación del estrés, las

relaciones sociales, y el desempeño entre 8,796 participantes de Costa Rica, Alemania, Polonia, Turquı́a, y los

Estados Unidos. De un paı́s a otro, los hallazgos sugieren asociaciones entre la auto-eficacia general percibida y

las variables seleccionadas. Las asociaciones positivas más fuertes fueron el optimismo, la autorregulación y la

autoestima, en tanto que las asociaciones negativas más altas se dieron con la depresión y la ansiedad. Tal como

se hipotetizó, el desempeño académico también se asocia con la auto-eficacia. La réplica a través de idiomas y

culturas añade importancia a estos hallazgos. Las relaciones entre auto-eficacia y otras medidas de personalidad

permanecen estables entre culturas y muestras. Por lo tanto, la auto-eficacia general percibida parece ser un

constructo universal que se relaciona con significado a otros constructos psicológicos.

INTRODUCTION

The construct of perceived self-efficacy

Perceived self-efficacy is the belief in one’s

competence to tackle difficult or novel tasks and

to cope with adversity in specific demanding situa-

tions. Self-efficacy makes a difference to how

people feel, think, and act (cf. Bandura, 1997, for a

review of the evidence). People with high self-

efficacy choose to perform more challenging tasks.

They set themselves higher goals and stick to them.

Actions are preshaped in thought, and once an

action has been taken, highly self-efficacious

people invest more effort and persist longer than

those low in self-efficacy. When setbacks occur,

they recover more quickly and remain committed

to their goals. High self-efficacy also allows people

to select challenging settings and explore their

environment or create new ones. Thus, it repre-

sents a belief in one’s competence in dealing with

all kinds of demands. This implies an internal-

stable attribution of successful action and a

prospective view. These characteristics make it a

unique theoretical construct different from related

ones such as self-esteem, locus of control, or self-

concept of ability. Self-esteem has an emotional

connotation (‘‘I feel that I have a good character’’

or ‘‘I am proud of myself’’). Locus of control

refers to an attribution of responsibility for out-

comes (internal agency versus external causation),

and self-concept of ability pertains to a judgment

of one’s competence (‘‘I am good at math’’)

without reference to any subsequent action. Only

self-efficacy (‘‘I am certain that I can quit smoking

even if my partner continues to smoke’’) is of a

prospective and operative nature, which furnishes

this construct with additional explanatory and

predictive power in a variety of research applica-

tions. In sum, perceived self-efficacy can be

characterized mainly as being competence-based,

prospective, and action-related, as opposed to

similar constructs that share only part of this

portrayal (Bandura, 1997, 1999).

Self-efficacy is commonly understood as being

task-specific or domain-specific. But some

researchers have also conceptualized a generalized

sense of self-efficacy that refers to a global

confidence in one’s coping ability across a wide

range of demanding or novel situations (Schwarzer

& Jerusalem, 1995; Sherer, Maddux,

Mercandante, Prentice-Dunn, Jacobs, & Rogers,

1982). General self-efficacy (GSE) aims at a broad

and stable sense of personal competence to deal

effectively with a variety of stressful situations. It

might reflect a generalization across various

domains of functioning in which people judge

how efficacious they are. The present authors

agree with Bandura (1997) that, for the majority

of applications, perceived self-efficacy should be

conceptualized in a situation-specific manner.

However, GSE may explain a broader range of

human behaviours and coping outcomes when the

context is less specific.

In the following section, variables that are

hypothesized to be conceptually related to self-

efficacy are described. In the subsequent Method

section, operationalizations for these variables

that were employed in the present research are

provided.

GENERAL SELF-EFFICACY IN HUMAN FUNCTIONING 81

Self-efficacy and related constructs

The present study aims to explore the relations

between GSE and a variety of other psychological

constructs. Therefore, it is described here why

and how certain variables should be related to

GSE. According to social-cognitive theory,

people are considered to be self-organizing, self-

reflective, self-regulative, and to make judgments

about themselves based on their own activity.

Moreover, self-efficacy beliefs influence personal

motivational processes, affect, and behaviours,

and they should be related to certain personality

characteristics as well as to stress perception,

life satisfaction, and achievements throughout

different areas of functioning (Bandura, 1997).

Self-efficacy and personality. Persons with low

self-efficacy have low self-esteem and harbour

pessimistic thoughts about their accomplishments

and personal development (Bandura, 1997). Self-

esteem refers to a conviction about one’s worth,

whereas self-efficacy pertains to judgments of

personal ability to act (Bandura, 1997).

Individuals with high self-esteem should have

high self-efficacy, since they undertake more

challenging goals than those with low self-esteem

(Bandura, 1997). Self-regulation among persons

with high self-esteem works more efficiently

because the belief in potential capabilities enables

individuals to achieve ambitious goals.

Similar to self-efficacy, optimism is theorized

to influence human behaviour through its effect

on goal striving and motivation. As a disposition,

it is expected that optimism has relevance across

diverse situations. Optimism is a generalized

expectancy regarding future outcomes (cf.

Scheier, Carver, & Bridges, 1994). Optimists,

who hold positive expectancies for their future,

should also harbour optimistic beliefs about

their own ability to accomplish various goals.

The pursuit lasts as long as optimistic beliefs

about possible success (that is, self-efficacy) are

sufficiently favourable (cf. Scheier et al., 1994).

Future orientation is defined as a general

preoccupation with the future or future events,

and the ability to plan for the future (Strathman,

Gleicher, Boninger, & Edwards, 1994). Persons

with high future orientation are characterized as

pursuing their goals and engaging in daily plan-

ning of their activities, and preferring a problem-

solving approach (cf. Strathman et al., 1994).

Those who are highly future-oriented believe in

their own ability to produce a desired effect and

to lead a more active and self-determined life.

Therefore, they should also be more self-

efficacious.

Self-efficacy describes individuals’ beliefs in their capabilities to exercise control over challen-

ging demands and over their own functioning. In

contrast, self-regulation refers to any effort by an

individual to alter his or her own responses,

overriding impulses, and substituting them with

another response that leads the person’s behaviour

towards a selected aim (cf. Luszczynska, Diehl,

Gutiérrez-Doña, Kuusinen, & Schwarzer, 2004a). Thus, persons with high self-regulation are

expected to be highly self-efficacious.

Social comparison orientation is a tendency to

compare oneself with others in different areas of

life (Gibbons & Buunk, 1999). The tendency to

make social comparisons involves uncertainty

about one’s own capabilities. Comparison-

oriented people assess their own ability on the basis of other people’s judgments, not their own

beliefs about personal capabilities (Gibbons &

Buunk, 1999). Therefore, it might be expected that

GSE beliefs should remain either negatively

related or unrelated to the tendency to make

social comparisons.

Self-efficacy and stress appraisals. Self-efficacy determines the cognitive appraisal of stressful

situations (Bandura, 1997). People with strong

self-efficacy recognize that they are able to over-

come obstacles and focus on opportunities, and,

therefore, they perceive stressful situations as more

challenging than those who harbour self-doubts

about their ability to overcome difficulties (cf.

Jerusalem & Schwarzer, 1992).

Self-efficacy and well-being. Self-efficacy is

related to positive and negative emotions. One of

the sources of self-efficacy is emotional arousal, that

is, one may experience a low level of negative emo-

tions in a threatening situation and, as a result, may

feel capable of mastering the situation (Bandura,

1997). Self-efficacy leads to effective problem solving, followed by increase of positive emotions.

A low sense of self-efficacy is associated with

negative emotions and helplessness. Persons who

are burdened with a belief of self-inefficacy suffer

distress and negative emotions, such as anxiety and

depression (cf. Bandura, 1997; Schwarzer, 1992).

Self-efficacy, achievements, and social relations.

A strong sense of competence facilitates informa-

tion processing and performance in a variety of

settings, including quality of decision-making and

academic achievement (Bandura, 1997). Those who

are high in self-efficacy are more successful in

82 LUSZCZYNSKA, GUTIÉRREZ-DOÑA, SCHWARZER

solving conceptual problems at school or at work

(Bandura, 1997, 1999). Self-efficacy can enhance

motivation. Involvement in different social activ-

ities as well as personal aspirations and school

achievement depend on an individual’s beliefs

about their own capabilities. High efficacy beliefs

are also related to the expansion of satisfying social

relations that bring about life satisfaction to

an individual (Bandura, 1997). Therefore, social

quality of life and satisfaction with accomplish-

ments should be high in self-efficacious

individuals.

Associations between self-efficacy and related constructs across cultures

General self-efficacy is a universal construct,

which means that it characterizes a basic belief

that is inherent in all individuals. A cross-cultural

commonality of beliefs about efficacy to produce

effects by personal action might be expected

(Bandura, 2002). Therefore, it might be assumed

that associations between self-efficacy and related

constructs might be similar across the cultures.

These assumptions, however, have not been tested

so far across countries that differ in social,

economical, and cultural background.

The present study examines the hypothesized

relations between GSE and the variables that have

been described in the previous section. According

to social-cognitive theory (Bandura, 1997), GSE

should be related to selected personality or

individual difference variables, negative and posi-

tive affectivity, quality of life, school or job

performance, and satisfaction, as portrayed above.

It was hypothesized that associations between self-

efficacy and related constructs should be similar in

different cultures. Countries included in the study

represent three continents, and they might vary in

terms of culture, in ways that reflect their

differences in economic development, religion,

and current and previous social and political

situations. The study included economically

developed countries (Germany and USA) from

different regions of the world, a post-communist

developing country (Poland), a developing country

from Latin America (Costa Rica), and an Asian

developing country (Turkey).

METHOD

Participants

The GSE scale was completed by 8796 respon-

dents, both men (47.2%) and women, in five

countries: Costa Rica (n51865), Germany

(n55106), Poland (n5660), Turkey (n5626), and

the USA (n5539). In Costa Rica and Germany,

several samples in each country were collected and

combined. In all cases, samples cannot be pre-

sumed to be representative for the population in

each country.

In Poland, Turkey, and the USA, participants

were students who were recruited in schools and

who responded to the questionnaires after class.

Data were collected at six high schools from the

urban areas of Lublin and Warsaw in Poland, four

high schools in Ames, Iowa, USA, and seven high

schools in Izmir, in Turkey (cf. Luszczynska,

Gibbons, Piko, & Tekozel, 2004b).

In Germany and Costa Rica, the composition of

participants was more diverse. Three German

samples were combined. The first sample includes

East German migrants who moved to the West

after the German reunification in 1989, and others

who remained in East Germany (Schwarzer,

Hahn, & Jerusalem, 1993). There were no sub-

stantial differences between the two groups in the

variables under investigation, and therefore they

were treated as one homogeneous sample. The

second German sample consists of schoolteachers

from various German states who participated

in a project called ‘‘Self-Efficacious Schools’’

(Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 1999). The third

German sample includes high school students

from the same schools as in the second German

sample. The first Costa Rican sample consists of

university students (cf. Schwarzer, Bäßler,

Kwiatek, Schröder, & Zhang, 1997a), and the

second of factory workers employed by two

international companies.

Table 1 displays the number and the mean age

of participants, broken down by nation and gender.

Procedure

Respondents did not receive any compensation for

their participation in the study. The questionnaires

were self-administered under supervision of

research team members, who were responsible

for ensuring confidentiality and who responded to

participants’ questions.

Measures

The German version of the General Self-Efficacy

(GSE) scale, developed by Jerusalem and

Schwarzer in 1979, originally consisted of 20

items. In 1981, it was reduced to 10 items and

subsequently adapted to 28 languages (cf.

GENERAL SELF-EFFICACY IN HUMAN FUNCTIONING 83

Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 1995). A typical item is,

‘‘Thanks to my resourcefulness, I can handle unforeseen situations.’’ Scoring is done by adding

the responses made to the 10 items. Possible

responses were 1 5 not at all true, 2 5 hardly

true, 3 5 moderately true, and 4 5 exactly true,

yielding a total score between 10 and 40. Bilingual

native speakers adapted the 10 self-efficacy items

to foreign languages, based on the German and

English versions of the GSE scale (cf. Scholz, Gutiérrez-Doña, Sud, & Schwarzer, 2002). The

adaptations followed the ‘‘group consensus

model,’’ with several bilingual translators partici-

pating. The procedure included back translations

and group discussions.

High reliability, stability, and construct validity

of the GSE scale were confirmed in several studies

(Leganger, Kraft, & Røysamb, 2000; Schwarzer

et al., 1997a; Schwarzer & Born, 1997; Schwarzer,

Born, Iwawaki, Lee, Saito, & Yue, 1997b;

Schwarzer, Mueller, & Greenglass, 1999). The

GSE scale appears to be configurally equivalent across 28 nations, and it corresponds to only one

global dimension. The assumption of unidimen-

sionality was supported by confirmatory factor

analysis (Leganger et al., 2000; Scholz et al., 2002).

The following Cronbach’s alphas were obtained

for the GSE scale: .85 (workers from Costa Rica),

.90 (students from Costa Rica), .88 (East German

migrants), .86 (German teachers), .79 (German students), .81 (Polish students), .79 (American

students), .82 (Turkish students). Means and

standard deviations of the scale, broken down by

gender and country, are displayed in Table 1.

A set of measures to assess personality variables,

positive and negative affect, quality of life, life

satisfaction, stress appraisals, and social relation-

ships/achievements, was chosen for each of the

samples. Measures were selected that have an

English version as well as a language version for a

respective country. Only measures with good

psychometric properties across the language ver-

sions were included. Names of scales, item

examples, numbers of items, response format,

and Cronbach’s alphas for all samples are shown

in Table 2. The psychometric properties of the

English version, translation procedures and

psychometric properties of the German, Spanish,

Polish, and Turkish versions were analysed in

previous studies (cf. Table 2). All measures

included in the study had obtained satisfactory

validity and reliability. Missing values were treated

by pairwise deletion.

RESULTS

GSE and personality

According to the structural features described

above, it was expected that GSE should be related

to constructs described in personality theories that

refer to self-regulatory beliefs. The correlation

coefficients (absolute values) are shown in

Figure 1. As expected, optimism, self-regulation,

self-esteem, and orientation towards the future

were positively related to GSE. The coefficients

were moderate to low. The relationship between

GSE and self-regulation was significant, positive,

and strong. Relations between GSE and the social

comparison orientation were nonsignificant.

GSE and affect

As hypothesized, positive correlations between

GSE and positive affect measured with subscales

TABLE 1

Number of participants, mean age and mean General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSES) scores broken down by country and gender

Country/sample n Men n Women

Mean (SD) age Age range

(total)

Mean (SD) GSES

Men Women Men Women

Costa Rica

Students 356 607 21.00 (6.27) 21.30 (6.85) 16–77 34.44 (4.14) 33.06 (4.58)

Workers 515 387 30.90 (7.58) 30.60 (7.13) 19–69 30.32 (4.54) 28.84 (4.84)

Germany

East Germans 734 801 30.00 (8.70) 28.00 (9.10) 18–68 30.27 (4.37) 28.31 (4.96)

Teachers 104 209 – – 23–65 29.24 (4.75) 29.02 (4.12)

Students 1663 1592 15.90 (1.54) 15.80 (1.67) 14–16 30.00 (3.90) 29.40 (4.01)

Poland

Students 230 430 16.83 (16.83) 16.75 (0.97) 13–20 29.71 (4.25) 27.60 (4.81)

Turkey

Students 300 326 16.83 (0.95) 16.67 (1.03) 14–19 32.33 (4.18) 31.92 (4.86)

USA

Students 248 290 16.38 (1.00) 16.22 (1.12) 13–19 31.52 (4.48) 30.64 (4.45)

84 LUSZCZYNSKA, GUTIÉRREZ-DOÑA, SCHWARZER

of the PANAS and Quality of Life questionnaires

were found. Strong efficacy beliefs were related

to higher life satisfaction. GSE was negatively

related to results obtained with inventories

that assess anxiety, depression, anger, and nega-

tive affect. Quality of life correlated positively

with self-efficacy. The relationships between GSE,

affect, and quality of life were all significant with a

low to moderate range of coefficients. Absolute

values of the correlation coefficients for the

samples are displayed in Figure 2.

GSE, stress appraisals, and social relationships

As hypothesized, GSE was positively related to

appraising stressful situations as challenges.

The correlation coefficient (the absolute value is

TABLE 2

Description of personality, positive and negative emotions, stress appraisal, and social relationships measures

Variable

(Name of measure or item example)

Used in sample

number a

Number of

items

Answers

range

Range of

Differences in

correlations b

Personality

Dispositional Optimism (LOT–R; Gutiérrez-Doña,

2003; Scheier et al., 1994; Wieland-Eckelmann &

Carver, 1990)

1, 2, 3, 5 6 1–4 .70–.84 7.79

Self-esteem scale (Feffing & Filipp, 1996;

Rosenberg, 1965)

3 9 1–4 .81

Future orientedness (The Consideration of Future

Consequences [shortened]; Luszczynska et al.,

2004b; Strathman et al., 1994)

6, 7, 8 6 1–5 .70–.81 15.16***

Self-regulation (Luszczynska et al., 2004a) 2, 4 10 1–4 .75–.82 1.10

Social comparison tendencies (Scale of Social

Comparison Orientation; Gibbons & Buunk,

1999; Luszczynska et al., 2004b)

6, 7, 8 11 1–5 .77–.81 0.98

Positive and negative affect

Anxiety (Hopkins Symptoms Checklist; Derogatis,

Lipman, Rickels, Uhlenhuth, & Covi, 1974;

Gutiérrez-Doña, 2003)

1, 2, 3, 5 6 1–4 .77–.83 111.06***

Depression (Hopkins Symptoms Checklist;

Derogatis et al., 1974; Gutiérrez-Doña, 2003)

1, 2, 3, 5 11 1–4 .70–.86 41.36***

Negative affect (PANAS; Gutiérrez-Doña, 2003;

Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988)

2 10 1–4 .87

Positive affect (PANAS; Gutiérrez-Doña 2003;

Watson et al., 1988)

2 10 1–4 .83

Anger (STPI, trait–anger subscale; Schwarzer &

Schwarzer, 1982; Spielberger, 1979)

3 10 1–4 .73

Quality of life (psychological aspect; QoL–BREF,

Power, Bullinger, Harber, & WHOQoL-group,

1999; Gutiérrez-Doña, 2003)

2 6 1–5 .82

Life satisfaction (The Satisfaction with Life Scale;

Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985)

6, 7, 8 5 1–7 .81–.88 29.05***

Stress perception

Challenge (Cognitive Appraisal Scale; Gutiérrez-

Doña, 2003; Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 1995)

2, 4, 5 3 1–4 .61–.64 30.56***

Social relationships/work

Quality of Life (social; QoL–BREF; Gutiérrez-

Doña, 2003; Power et al., 1999)

2 3 1–5 .67

School grades (‘‘What grades do you usually get in

school?’’)

6, 7, 8 1 1–7 13.36***

Job satisfaction (job satisfaction items from Job

Diagnostic Survey; Gutiérrez-Doña, 2003;

Hackman & Oldham, 1975)

2, 4, 5 3 1–4 .69 24.00***

a Sample numbers: 15university students, Costa Rica; 25workers, Costa Rica; 35East Germans; 45German teachers; 55German

high-school students; 65Polish high-school students; 75Turkish high-school students; 85high-school students in the USA. b Differences in correlation coefficients between samples: x

2 for at least three samples; Z for two samples.

*** p,.001.

GENERAL SELF-EFFICACY IN HUMAN FUNCTIONING 85

displayed in Figure 3) was moderate. For further

examination, measures of social aspects of quality

of life, school grades, and job (or school) satisfac-

tion were chosen (cf. Figure 3). In line with the

expectations, GSE was positively related to quality

of life (social aspect), job satisfaction or satisfac-

tion with school, and school grades. The same

result patterns were found irrespective of the

sample.

Relations between self-efficacy and the other

variables differ across samples. To examine this

issue, the between-samples differences of correla-

tion coefficients between self-efficacy and

related constructs were calculated (cf. Table 2).

Figure 1. Correlation coefficients (absolute value) between General Self-Efficacy (GSE) and personality. * p,.05, *** p,.001, for all countries.

Figure 2. Correlation coefficients (absolute value) between General Self-Efficacy (GSE) and affect, psychological aspect of quality of life, and life satisfaction. * p,.05, for all countries.

86 LUSZCZYNSKA, GUTIÉRREZ-DOÑA, SCHWARZER

Correlation coefficients differed only in size, not in

direction.

DISCUSSION

Across countries, general self-efficacy was related

to the selected constructs, as hypothesized. The

correlations between GSE and personality factors

such as optimism, self-regulation, orientation

towards the future, and self-esteem remained

significant and mostly in the moderate range.

Therefore, the amount of variance shared between

these variables was moderate.

Self-appraisal through social comparisons is

seen as a way to raise or weaken self-efficacy

beliefs. Individuals who perceive themselves as

performing better than others have higher self-

efficacy than those who perceive themselves as

performing worse than others (Bandura, 1997). In

the present study, correlations between GSE and

social comparison orientation were negligible. The

Scale of Social Comparison Orientation measures

the general tendency to compare oneself with

others, without any reference to the direction of

such comparisons. Some individuals might gen-

erate more upward comparisons, others more

downward comparisons. This might result in a

lack of significant relations between the general

tendency to produce social comparisons and GSE.

The nonsignificant relation between GSE and

social comparison orientation suggests that indi-

viduals reported their self-efficacy irrespective of

their need for social approval.

The second group of variables consisted of

measures of positive and negative affect, life

satisfaction, and quality of life. As mentioned

before, according to both the theory and the

growing body of evidence, high self-efficacy is

expected to be related to low negative affect, high

positive affect, higher achievement, and more

life satisfaction. The relations between GSE and

positive and negative affect obtained in the present

study were similar to previous findings. Among

Norwegian adolescents, Leganger et al. (2000)

found significant correlations between this GSE

scale and positive affect and life satisfaction,

and reverse coefficients with negative affect. In

two other German longitudinal samples (obese

women and residents of senior citizen homes),

GSE was consistently moderately related to

depression and anxiety (cf. Schwarzer, 1993).

Analysing data from cardiac surgery patients,

Schröder, Schwarzer, and Konertz (1998) found

that patients with high GSE had recovered better

1 week after surgery and experienced better quality

of life half a year later than their low GSE

counterparts.

GSE was related to the appraisal of stressful

situations as challenges. The positive relations

between self-efficacy and stress appraisals were

also found in other samples. As has been demon-

strated in a laboratory experiment, persons with

high GSE perceived stressful anagram tasks as

being more challenging than low GSE individuals

did (Jerusalem & Schwarzer, 1992).

Workers with higher social life satisfaction and

higher job satisfaction and students with higher

school achievements had high GSE scale scores.

These results are in line with other studies

regarding social relationships that provide further

confirmation of the validity of the GSE measure.

In a study among East German refugees, those

with high GSE were socially better integrated and

more frequently employed 2 years after the

Figure 3. Correlation coefficients (absolute value) between General Self-Efficacy (GSE) and stress appraisal and social relationships. * p,.05, for all countries.

GENERAL SELF-EFFICACY IN HUMAN FUNCTIONING 87

stressful transition than their low GSE counter-

parts (Schwarzer et al., 1993).

Other studies on GSE and personality, affect, and social relationships, in which other measures

of GSE were used, showed moderate associations

with personal control, ego strength, self-esteem

(Lennings, 1994; Sherer et al., 1982), and mental

health (Hays & Buckle, 1992). GSE was also

related to school or university accomplishments,

although the relationships remained low in most

cases (Lennings, 1994). General self-efficacy is a very close concept to hope, which taps the self-

referential, cross-situational beliefs that the person

will initiate and continue goal-directed actions (cf.

Snyder, 2002). Further studies should address the

relations between these two constructs.

The hypothesis regarding similar associations

between self-efficacy and related constructs across

the countries was only partially supported. The present study shows that relations between GSE

and other variables remained at different magni-

tudes, depending on the sample. These results are

in line with Triandis’ (1977) model, suggesting that

cognitions and social determinants of behaviours

(and relations between them) are influenced by

such variables as culture, ecology, social situation,

and historical background. Differences between countries and samples may reflect differences in

other variables that might determine the variation

of both self-efficacy and other variables in the

present study. For example, discrepancies in

socioeconomic status between the samples might

moderate relations between self-efficacy and other

variables (cf. Luszczynska et al., 2004b). In most

cases, differences were found for relations between self-efficacy and social functioning, stress apprai-

sals, emotions, or future orientation that might be

under stronger influence of education or socio-

economic status. Relations between self-efficacy

and personality constructs remained similar across

samples. The intracultural diversity that might

result from differences in education and socio-

economic status can be broader than intercultural diversity.

Given the character of the samples, the present

study has various limitations. The subsamples

employed in this study were not representative for

the countries. Participants from the subsamples

differed in terms of proportions of gender, age,

and occupation. Many constructs used here were

assessed only in some selected samples, not across all samples and countries. Besides the role of

culture, the direct effects of other variables (such

as social and economic status) that might moder-

ate the associations between self-efficacy and

related constructs should be considered. Future

research should also aim at testing the relations

between GSE and task-specific self-efficacy.

Regardless of discrepancies between countries,

some conclusions might be drawn. All hypothe-

sized relations between self-efficacy and other

variables were confirmed by the data. The

coefficients were different, but of low or moderate

size, except for the relation between self-efficacy

and self-regulation. GSE is connected to a broad

range of psychological constructs pertaining to

various domains of human functioning, and it may

be a useful addition to task-specific self-efficacy

measures in future studies within and across

cultures. Manuscript received September 2003

Revised manuscript accepted February 2004

REFERENCES

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.

Bandura, A. (1999). A social cognitive theory of personality. In L. Pervin & O. John (Eds.). Handbook of personality (2nd ed., pp. 154–196), New York: Guilford Press.

Bandura, A. (2002). Social cognitive theory in cultural context. Journal of Applied Psychology: An International Review, 51, 269–290.

Derogatis, L. R., Lipman, R. S., Rickels, H., Uhlenhuth, K. R., & Covi, L. (1974). The Hopkins Symptom Checklist (HSCL): A self-report symptom inventory. Behavioral Science, 19, 1–15.

Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The Satisfaction with Life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71–75.

Feffing, D., & Filipp, S.-H. (1996). Messung des Selbstwertgefühls: Befunde zu Reliabiltät, Validität und Stabilität der Rosenberg-Skala [Measurement of self-esteem: Findings on reliability, validity, and stability of the Rosenberg scale]. Diagnostica, 42, 284–292.

Gibbons, F. X., & Buunk, B. P. (1999). Individual differences in social comparison: Development of a scale of social comparison orientation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 129–142.

Gutiérrez-Doña, B. (2003). Coping with stress at work. A longitudinal study on health outcomes and quality of life. Retrieved June 15, 2003, from http:// www.diss.fu-berlin.de/2003/44/index.html

Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1975). Development of the Job Diagnostic Survey. Applied Psychology, 60, 159–170.

Hays, J. R., & Buckle, K. E. (1992). Self-efficacy among hospitalized mentally ill patients. Psychological Reports, 70, 57–58.

Jerusalem, M., & Schwarzer, R. (1992). Self-efficacy as a resource factor in stress appraisal. In R. Schwarzer (Ed.), Self-efficacy: Thought control of action, (pp. 195–216). Washington, DC: Hemisphere.

Leganger, A., Kraft, P., & Røysamb, E. (2000). Perceived self-efficacy in health behavior research: Conceptualisation, measurement and correlates. Psychology and Health, 15, 51–69.

88 LUSZCZYNSKA, GUTIÉRREZ-DOÑA, SCHWARZER

Lennings, C. J. (1994). An evaluation of a generalized self-efficacy scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 16, 745–750.

Luszczynska, A., Diehl, M., Gutiérrez-Doña, B., Kuusinen, P., & Schwarzer, R. (2004a). Measuring one component of dispositional self-regulation: Attention control in goal pursuit. Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 555–566.

Luszczynska, A., Gibbons, F. X., Piko, B., & Tekozel, M. (2004b). Self-regulatory cognitions, social comparisons, perceived peers’ behaviors as predictors of nutrition and physical activity: A comparison among adolescents in Hungary, Poland, Turkey and USA. Psychology and Health, 19, 577–593.

Power, M., Bullinger, M., Harper, A., WHOQoL-group, (1999). The World Health Organization WHOQoL- 100: Test of the universality of quality of life in 15 different cultural groups world-wide. Health Psychology, 18, 495–505.

Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Scheier, M. F., Carver, C. S., & Bridges, M. W. (1994). Distinguishing optimism from neuroticism (and trait anxiety, self-mastery, and self-esteem): A re- evaluation of the Life Orientation Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 1063–1078.

Scholz, U., Gutiérrez-Doña, B., Sud, S., & Schwarzer, R. (2002). Is general self-efficacy a universal construct? Psychometric findings from 25 countries. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 18, 242–251.

Schröder, K. E. E., Schwarzer, R., & Konertz, W. (1998). Coping as a mediator in recovery from cardiac surgery. Psychology and Health, 13, 83–97.

Schwarzer, R. (Ed.) (1992). Self-efficacy: Thought control of action. Washington, DC: Hemisphere.

Schwarzer, R. (1993). Measurement of perceived self- efficacy. Psychometric scales for cross-cultural research. Berlin: Forschung an der Freien Universität Berlin.

Schwarzer, R., Bäßler, J., Kwiatek, P., Schröder, K., & Zhang, J. X. (1997a). The assessment of optimistic self-beliefs: Comparison of the German, Spanish, and Chinese versions of the General Self-Efficacy scale. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 46, 69–88.

Schwarzer, R., & Born, A. (1997). Optimistic self-beliefs: Assessment of general perceived self-efficacy in thirteen cultures. World Psychology, 3, 177–190.

Schwarzer, R., Born, A., Iwawaki, S., Lee, Y.-M., Saito, E., & Yue, X. (1997b). The assessment of optimistic self-beliefs: Comparison of the Chinese, Indonesian, Japanese and Korean versions of the

General Self-Efficacy scale. Psychologia: An International Journal of Psychology in the Orient, 40, 1–13.

Schwarzer, R., Hahn, A., & Jerusalem, M. (1993). Negative affect in East German migrants: Longitudinal effects of unemployment and social support. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 6, 57–69.

Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (1995). Generalized Self-Efficacy scale. In J. Weinman, S. Wright & M. Johnston (Eds.), Measures in health psychology: A user’s portfolio. Causal and control beliefs (pp. 35–37). Windsor, UK: NFER-NELSON.

Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (Eds.) (1999) Skalen zur Erfassung von Lehrer- und Schülermerkmalen [Scales for the assessment of teacher and student character- istics]. Berlin, Germany: Freie Universität Berlin.

Schwarzer, R., Mueller, J., & Greenglass, E. (1999). Assessment of perceived general self-efficacy on the internet: Data collection in cyberspace. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 12, 145–161.

Schwarzer, R., & Schwarzer, C. (1982). Ärger als Zustand und als Disposition [Anger as a state and as a trait]. Zeitschrift für Differentielle und Diagnostische Psychologie, 3, 27–33.

Sherer, M., Maddux, J. E., Mercandante, B., Prentice- Dunn, S., Jacobs, B., & Rogers, R. W. (1982). The Self-Efficacy scale: Construction and validation. Psychological Reports, 51, 663–671.

Snyder, C. R. (2002). Hope theory: Rainbows in the mind. Psychological Inquiry, 13, 249–275.

Spielberger, C. D. (1979). Preliminary manual for the State-Trait Personality Inventory. Tampa, FL: University of South Florida.

Strathman, A., Gleicher, F., Boninger, D. S., & Edwards, C. S. (1994). The consideration of future consequences: Weighing immediate and distant out- comes of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 747–752.

Triandis, H. C. (1977). Interpersonal behavior. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Watson, D., Clark, A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070.

Wieland-Eckelmann, R., & Carver, C. (1990). Dispositionelle Bewältigungsstile, Optimismus und Bewältigung: Ein interkultureller Vergleich [Dispositional coping styles, optimism and coping: A cross-cultural comparison]. Zeitschrift für Differentielle und Diagnostische Psychologie, 3, 167–184.

GENERAL SELF-EFFICACY IN HUMAN FUNCTIONING 89