See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: [610615]

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/247480203
Self-efficacy and educational
development
Article
· January 1995
CITATIONS
380
READS
21,109
1 author:
Barry J. Zimmerman
CUNY Graduate Center
168

PUBLICATIONS

26,164

CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by
Barry J. Zimmerman
on 25 December 2014.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Self-efficacy in Changing Societies

Self-efficacy in Changing
Societies
Edited by
Albert Bandura
Stanford University
CAMBRIDGE
UNIVERSITY PRESS

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS
Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, Sao Paulo, Delhi
Cambridge University Press
The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 8RU, UK
Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York
www.cambridge.org
Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/[anonimizat]
© Cambridge University Press 1995
This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception
and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements,
no reproduction of any part may take place without the written
permission of Cambridge University Press.
First published 1995
First paperback edition 1997
Reprinted 1999
A catalogue record for this publication is available from the British Library
ISBN 978-0-521-47467-2 hardback
ISBN 978-0-521-58696-2 paperback
Transferred to digital printing 2009
Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or
accuracy of URLs for external or third-party Internet websites referred to in
this publication, and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is,
or will remain, accurate or appropriate. Information regarding prices, travel
timetables and other factual information given in this work are correct at
the time of first printing but Cambridge University Press does not guarantee
the accuracy of such information thereafter.

Contents
Foreword page vii
Preface ix
List of contributors xv
1 Exercise of personal and collective efficacy
in changing societies 1
ALBERT BANDURA
2 Life trajectories in changing societies 46
GLEN H. ELDER, JR.
3 Developmental analysis of control beliefs 69
AUGUST FLAMMER
4 Impact of family processes on control beliefs 114
KLAUS A. SCHNEEWIND
5 Cross-cultural perspectives on self-efficacy 149
GABRIELE OETTINGEN
6 Self-efficacy in stressful life transitions 177
MATTHIAS JERUSALEM ANDWALDEMAR MITTAG
7 Self-efficacy and educational development 202
BARRY J. ZIMMERMAN
8 Self-efficacy in career choice and development 232
GAIL HACKETT

vi Contents
9 Changing risk behaviors and adopting health behaviors:
The role of self-efficacy beliefs 259
RALF SCHWARZER AND REINHARD FUCHS
10 Self-efficacy and addictive behavior 289
G. ALAN MARLATT, JOHN S. BAER,AND LORI A. QUIGLEY
Name Index 317
Subject Index 329

Foreword
It has become commonplace to speak of the accelerated rate of social, eco-
nomic, technological, and cultural changes that our world is undergoing.
Genetic engineering, global multimedia communication, superhighways
of information, and other breathtaking innovations no longer belong to
the domain of science fiction. They are now part of our daily lives. Navi-
gating between the reefs of the uncharted waters of our assailed present
and daunting future is disconcerting for the best-prepared adults but even
more so for the youth of our society.
Much ink has flowed on the subject of whether tomorrow's world will
be a true or false El Dorado. Less effort has been invested in prepar-
ing ourselves, and particulary our youth, to cope with the extraordinary
changes they face.
For this reason, I am especially pleased to introduce Albert Bandura's
volume, Self-efficacy in Changing Societies. It is a great honor for the Johann
Jacobs Foundation that the various contributions presented in this volume
originated from the conference held on November 4-6,1993, at our Com-
munication Center, Marbach Castle (Germany), with the participation of
45 international social scientists and young scholars.
In his preface, Albert Bandura summarizes the structure of this volume,
which is built around the central theme that young people's beliefs in their
personal efficacy to manage the demands of rapidly changing societal
conditions help them to meet these challenges.
Convinced of the fruitful applications of many of the ideas presented at
the Marbach Conference on self-efficacy, the Johann Jacobs Foundation
organized a follow-up policy conference on January 28-30,1994, with the
participation of some of the contributors to this volume, as well as promi-
nent policy makers and field workers involved in youth work, particu-
larly school systems.
vn

viii Foreword
It is our hope that the outcome of this policy conference, based on the
inspiring ideas of Al Bandura and his colleagues, will serve as an impetus
to disseminate and implement the theory of self-efficacy to develop and
improve the adaptational capabilities of youth.
It only remains for me to thank Albert Bandura, the main organizer of
the third Johann Jacobs Conference and editor of this volume. He commu-
nicated his vast knowledge and infectious enthusiasm with great talent to
the distinguished group of speakers, panelists, and other participants, all
of whom contributed to the success of the conference sponsored by our
foundation. Since its inception, the foundation has been dedicated to en-
couraging and supporting basic research, research-informed program de-
velopments and field activities, designed to improve our understanding of
human development, with particular focus on the well-being of youth in
the societies in which they live.
I hope that his volume will receive the welcome it deserves, not only
from specialists, but also from the general public interested in the welfare
of our youth.
Klaus J. Jacobs
Chairman of the Board
Johann Jacobs Foundation

Preface
Life in the societies of today is undergoing accelerated social and techno-
logical change as well as growing global interdependence. These challeng-
ing new realities place heavy pressure on people's capabilities to exercise
some control over the course their lives take. The present volume is an
outgrowth of the third annual conference convened by the Johann Jacobs
Foundation at Schloss Marbach to examine the impact of youths' efficacy
beliefs on their modes of adaptation. The volume is structured around the
central theme that youths' beliefs in their personal efficacy to manage life
demands affect their psychological well-being, their accomplishments,
and the direction their lives take. The various chapters analyze the diverse
ways in which efficacy beliefs contribute to the selection, construction,
and management of environments in adaptation under rapidly changing
societal conditions.
In the introductory chapter, Bandura addresses central issues concern-
ing the nature and function of beliefs of personal efficacy. He examines the
different sources of efficacy beliefs and the psychological processes
through which they exert their effects. The bulk of the chapter is devoted
to the influential role played by efficacy beliefs in different spheres of
human functioning. These matters concern the heavy demands on parent-
ing efficacy under the changing structure of family systems; the principal
ways in which efficacy beliefs operate as key contributors to the intellec-
tual development of children; and the way in which such beliefs shape
occupational development and pursuits and affect the quality of health
and psychological well-being. Each of these issues receives detailed analy-
sis in the various chapters in this edited volume. The chapter also exam-
ines how a sense of efficacy operates in individualistic and collectivistic
social systems. It concludes with analysis of the many factors that under-
mine the development of collective efficacy and the ways in which people
strive to regain some measure of control over conditions that affect their
lives.
IX

x Preface
Human development and change is best understood by analysis of lives
in time and historical contexts that present unique opportunities, chal-
lenges, constraints, and threats. In his prior classic studies, Elder docu-
mented how growing up during the Great Depression and during World
War II shaped life trajectories. In his chapter in the present volume, Elder
examines how economic hardships suffered by families living in rural
America and in inner cities affect parents' sense of efficacy to guide their
children's development. In this research, socioeconomic factors, family
processes, and beliefs of personal efficacy are treated as interrelated deter-
minants within an integrated causal structure. This chapter provides new
insights on how personal agency operates within a broader network of
sociostructural influences.
In his chapter, Hammer presents a developmental analysis of beliefs in
one's capability to exercise control. The newborn comes without any sense
of self. It must be socially constructed through transactional experiences
with the environment. Hammer provides a conceptual and empirical anal-
ysis of how infants develop a sense of personal agency. Different periods
of life present certain prototypic competency demands for successful func-
tioning. The chapter traces the changes in control beliefs over the life
course and in different spheres of psychosocial functioning. It also exam-
ines the impact of beliefs in personal control on the development of self-
esteem and on the priorities given to different life pursuits.
The initial experiences that build a sense of agency and personal effi-
cacy are centered in the family. Schneewind's chapter examines the impact
of family practices on children's beliefs in their capabilities to produce
effects. Infants who are taught to be causative are more cognitively com-
petent in later childhood than those who have not had the benefit of early
mastery experiences. Schneewind documents the long-term effects of
early familial experiences on beliefs of personal efficacy in young adult-
hood. This chapter also addresses a number of important issues bearing
on familial sources of efficacy beliefs including the impact of different
family structures, the intergenerational transmission of efficacy beliefs,
and the influence of the larger societal systems within which the family is
embedded.
Oettingen examines how culture affects the development of personal
efficacy. She compares children's self-efficacy beliefs in West Berlin, East
Berlin before the unification, Russia, and the United States. These cross-
cultural variations were chosen to represent individualistic and collectiv-
istic social systems. The educational practices in East Berlin discouraged
in children optimistic beliefs in personal efficacy, whereas children raised

Preface xi
in individualistic systems had higher and more optimistic beliefs in their
causative capabilities. These differences in efficacy beliefs emerged at anearly phase of educational development and became pervasive. Efficacy
beliefs correlate with academic achievement, although the size of the rela-
tionship varies cross-culturally. The findings of this program of cross-cul-tural research underscore the power of societal institutions to shape theefficacy beliefs of its youth.
Jerusalem and Mittag consider a sense of personal efficacy to be an
important personal resource in human adaptation to stressful life transi-
tions. They examine longitudinally the process of coping with stressful life
transitions in the context of migration from East to West Germany beforethe fall of the Berlin Wall. Migrants who had a high sense of coping effi-cacy viewed the migratory move as a challenge to create a new life for
themselves, whereas those with a low sense of efficacy perceived themove as a threat. The negative construal of the life transition produced ahigh level of stress and took a toll on health. In addition to the adaptive
benefits of a sense of personal efficacy, social support and gainful employ-
ment helped migrants to surmount the many problems endemic to socio-cultural change.
The new realities of the information era require advanced cognitive and
self-management competencies to fulfill complex occupational roles and
to manage the maze of demands of contemporary life. Moreover, the rapid
pace of technological change and accelerated growth of knowledge areplacing a premium on capability for self-directed learning throughoutone's lifetime; otherwise, one's competencies quickly become outmoded.Zimmerman analyzes the processes through which children's beliefs intheir capabilities to regulate their own learning and to master academic
subjects set the course of their intellectual development. Such beliefs affect
children's aspirations, academic motivation, level of interest in intellectual
pursuits, vulnerability to scholastic anxiety, and academic accomplish-
ments. The chapter concludes with a comparison of the conceptual andempirical distinctiveness of efficacy beliefs with related constructs de-signed to account for academic development.
The choices people make that affect their occupational development
shape their life courses and the life-style they follow. Hackett reviews a
large body of evidence showing that beliefs of personal efficacy play a key
role in occupational development and pursuits. The higher the people's
perceived efficacy to fulfill occupational roles, the wider the career options
they seriously consider pursuing, the greater the interest they have inthem, and the more successfully they perform their occupational roles.

xii Preface
Demographic trends indicate that societies will have to rely increasingly
on the talents of women and ethnic minorities for scientific, technological,
and economic attainments. Yet most women and minorities are shunning
scientific and technological fields because of a low sense of efficacy for
quantitative activities. Occupational socialization practices are thus at
odds with the human resources societies need for their success. Hackett
discusses both individual and social remedies to restricted aspirations and
occupational pursuits.
People's beliefs in their efficacy also play an important promotive role
in health. Life-style habits and environmental hazards contribute substan-
tially to health status and functioning. This enables people to exercise
some behavioral control over the quality of their health. Peoples' beliefs in
their self-regulatory efficacy affect each of the three basic phases of per-
sonal change. These include initiation of efforts to alter health habits,
mobilization of the self-influences needed to succeed, and enduring main-
tenance of achieved habit changes. Schwarzer and Fuchs review a large
body of evidence on how a sense of personal efficacy operates in concert
with other psychosocial factors to foster life-style changes that enhance
health and to alter those that impair it. They propose a conceptual model
that helps to predict the self-management of health-related behavior and
provides guidelines on how to reduce detrimental health habits.
Abuse of addictive substances is a highly prevalent problem that exacts
heavy personal and social costs. Drug abuse has been a chronic problem in
the American society. Recent sociopolitical changes in Europe have ush-
ered in a soaring narcotics trade that will produce mounting drug-related
problems in European societies as well in the years ahead. Marlatt, Baer,
and Quigley trace the unique role played by perceived self-regulatory effi-
cacy in every phase of addictive behavior. These phases include the devel-
opment of addictive habits, the success in overcoming them, vulnerability
to relapse, and restorative coping that fosters long-term maintenance of
desired changes. After people give up an addictive substance, relapses
often occur even though withdrawal symptoms are no longer present to
drive one to resume use of alcohol, drugs, or cigarette smoking. The chal-
lenging problem is elimination of psychological reliance on addictive sub-
stances for their positive effects or as an escapist mode of coping with dif-
ficult realities. Marlatt and his colleagues, therefore, devote considerable
attention to treatment strategies designed to reduce vulnerability to
relapses.
Many people contributed in various ways to this enterprise, and I am
most pleased to take this opportunity to express my debt of gratitude to

Preface xiii
them. Paul Baltes planted the idea for this project. August Flammer and
Ralf Schwarzer were of invaluable help in selecting the topical coverage
and participants for this conference. Laszlo Nagy, President of the Johann
Jacobs Foundation, provided generous administrative support embel-
lished with touches of humor that help to make one's day. Judith Kressig
skillfully bonded this international network of scholars by her organiza-
tional virtuosity and trusty fax machine. I have been unusually blessed
with the masterful and dedicated assistance of Lisa Hellrich in managing
the details of the conference and in preparing the manuscript for publica-
tion, for which I am profoundly grateful.
I am especially indebted to my coauthors, all of whom fulfilled the pre-
scribed deadlines without fail despite burdensome schedules and calls for
revisions that could easily evoke the wrath of authors. This remarkable
level of responsiveness must be unique in the annals of edited volumes,
which are notorious for their protracted gestations. As editor of this vol-
ume, it was a welcome relief to see those timeless Parkinsonian dictums
refuted. I would also like to express my appreciation to the discussants
and other participants who contributed to the intellectual life of the con-
ference.
Finally, I wish to pay tribute to Klaus Jacobs, chairman of the Johann
Jacobs Foundation, who has devoted considerable time and resources to
promote the betterment of the lives of our youth. We owe much to his
inspiring commitment.
Albert Bandura
Stanford University

Contributors
Albert Bandura, Department of Psychology, Stanford University, Stan-
ford, CA, U.S.A.
John S. Baer, Department of Psychology, University of Washington, Seat-
tle, WA, U.S.A.
Glen H. Elder, Jr., Life Course Studies, University of North Carolina,
Chapel Hill, NC, U.S.A.
August Flammer, Psychological Institute, University of Bern, Bern, Swit-
zerland
Reinhard Fuchs, Institut fur Psychologie, Freie Universitat Berlin, Berlin,
Germany
Gail Hackett, Division of Psychology in Education, Arizona State Univer-
sity, Tempe, AZ
Matthais Jerusalem, Institut fur Padagogische Psychologie, Humboldt-
Universitat zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany
Alan Marlatt, Department of Psychology, University of Washington, Seat-
tle, WA, U.S.A.
Waldemar Mittag, Institut fur Padagogische Psychologie, Humboldt-
Universitat zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany
Gabriele Oettingen, Center for Psychology and Human Development,
Max Planck Institut fur Bildungs forschung, Berlin, Germany
Lori A. Quigley, Department of Psychology, University of Washington,
Seattle, WA, U.S.A.
Klaus A. Schneewind, Institut fur Psychologie, Universitat Miinchen,
Munchen, Germany
Ralf Schwarzer, Institut fur Psychologie, Freie Universitat Berlin, Berlin,
Germany
Barry Zimmerman, Program in Educational Psychology, The City Uni-
versity of New York, New York, NY, U.S.A.
xv

1. Exercise of personal and
collective efficacy in changing
societies
ALBERT BANDURA
People strive to exercise control over events that affect their lives. By exert-
ing influence in spheres over which they can command some control, they
are better able to realize desired futures and to forestall undesired ones.
The striving for control over life circumstances permeates almost every-
thing people do because it can secure them innumerable personal and
social benefits. The ability to affect outcomes makes them predictable. Pre-
dictability fosters adoptive preparedness. Inability to exert influence over
things that adversely affect one's life breeds apprehension, apathy, or
despair. The capability to produce valued outcomes and to prevent unde-
sired ones, therefore, provides powerful incentives for the development
and exercise of personal control.
Although a strong sense of efficacy in socially valued pursuits is condu-
cive to human attainment and well-being, it is not an unmixed blessing.
The impact of personal efficacy on the nature and quality of life depends,
of course, on the purposes to which it is put. For example, the lives of
innovators and social reformers driven by unshakable efficacy are not
easy ones. They are often the objects of derision, condemnation, and per-
secution, even though societies eventually benefit from their persevering
efforts. Many people who gain recognition and fame shape their lives by
overcoming seemingly insurmountable obstacles only to be catapulted to
new social realities over which they have lesser control. Indeed, the annals
of the famed and infamous are strewn with individuals who were both
architects and victims of their destinies.
The vastly enhanced human power to transform the environment can
have pervasive effects not only on current life, but on how future genera-
tions live out their lives. Our technical capability to render uninhabitable
1

2 Albert Bandura
much of the planet on which we reside attests to the growing magnitude
of human power. There is much public concern over where some of thetechnologies we create are leading us. Voracious pursuit of self-interestnot only produces effects that collectively may be detrimental in the longrun, but creates special-interest gridlock that immobilizes efforts to solve
socially the broader problems of society. Without commitment to sharedpurposes that transcend narrow self-interests, the exercise of control candegenerate into personal and factional conflicts of power. People have to
be able to work together if they are to realize the shared destiny they
desire and to preserve a habitable environment for generations to come.
Nature and function of efficacy beliefsBecause of the centrality of control in human lives, many theories about ithave been proposed over the years (Adler, 1956; DeCharms, 1978; Rotter,
1966; White, 1959). People's level of motivation, affective states, and
actions are based more on what they believe than on what is objectivelythe case. Hence, it is people's beliefs in their causative capabilities that is
the major focus of inquiry. Much of the research generated by the various
theories is tied to an omnibus measure of perceived control and devoted
to the search for its psychosocial correlates. To fully understand personalcausation requires a comprehensive theory that explains, within a unified
conceptual framework, the origins of beliefs of personal efficacy, theirstructure and function, the processes through which they operate, and
their diverse effects. Self-efficacy theory addresses all of these sub-
processes both at the individual and collective level (Bandura, in press).By embedding the self-efficacy belief system in a broader sociocognitive
theory, it can integrate diverse bodies of findings in varied spheres of
functioning. The value of a theory is ultimately judged by the power of the
methods it yields to produce desired changes. Self-efficacy theory pro-
vides explicit guidelines on how to develop and enhance human efficacy.
Self-efficacy in the exercise of human agency
People make causal contributions to their own psychosocial functioning
through mechanisms of personal agency. Among the mechanisms of
agency, none is more central or pervasive than people's beliefs of personal
efficacy. Perceived self-efficacy refers to beliefs in one's capabilities to
organize and execute the courses of action required to manage prospective
situations. Efficacy beliefs influence how people think, feel, motivate
themselves, and act. A central question in any theory of cognitive regula-

Exercise of personal and collective efficacy in changing societies 3
tion of motivation, affect, and action concerns the issues of causality. Do
efficacy beliefs operate as causal factors in human functioning? The find-
ings of diverse causal tests, in which efficacy beliefs are systematically
varied, are consistent in showing that such beliefs contribute significantly
to human motivation and attainments (Bandura, 1992a).
Sources of efficacy beliefs
People's beliefs concerning their efficacy can be developed by four main
forms of influence. The most effective way of creating a strong sense of
efficacy is through mastery experiences. They provide the most authentic
evidence of whether one can muster whatever it takes to succeed
(Bandura, 1982; Biran & Wilson, 1981; Feltz, Landers, & Raeder, 1979; Gist,
1989). Successes build a robust belief in one's personal efficacy. Failures
undermine it, especially if failures occur before a sense of efficacy is firmly
established. Developing a sense of efficacy through mastery experiences is
not a matter of adopting ready-made habits. Rather, it involves acquiring
the cognitive, behavioral, and self-regulatory tools for creating and exe-
cuting appropriate courses of action to manage ever-changing life circum-
stances.
If people experience only easy successes they come to expect quick
results and are easily discouraged by failure. A resilient sense of efficacy
requires experience in overcoming obstacles through perseverant effort.
Some difficulties and setbacks in human pursuits serve a useful purpose
in teaching that success usually requires sustained effort. After people
become convinced they have what it takes to succeed, they persevere in
the face of adversity and quickly rebound from setbacks. By sticking it out
through tough times, they emerge stronger from adversity.
The second influential way of creating and strengthening efficacy
beliefs is through the vicarious experiences provided by social models. See-
ing people similar to themselves succeed by perseverant effort raises
observers' beliefs that they, too, possess the capabilities to master compa-
rable activities (Bandura, 1986; Schunk, 1987). By the same token, observ-
ing others fail despite high effort lowers observers' judgments of their
own efficacy and undermines their level of motivation (Brown & Inouye,
1978). The impact of modeling on beliefs of personal efficacy is strongly
influenced by perceived similarity to the models. The greater the assumed
similarity the more persuasive are the models' successes and failures. If
people see the models as very different from themselves their beliefs of

4 Albert Bandura
personal efficacy are not much influenced by the models' behavior and the
results it produces.
Modeling influences do more than simply provide a social standard
against which to judge one's own capabilities. People seek proficient mod-
els who possess the competencies to which they aspire. Through their
behavior and expressed ways of thinking, competent models transmit
knowledge and teach observers effective skills and strategies for manag-
ing environmental demands. Acquisition of better means raises perceived
self-efficacy. Undaunted attitudes exhibited by perseverant models as they
cope with obstacles repeatedly thrown in their path can be more enabling
to others than the particular skills being modeled.
Social persuasion is a third way of strengthening people's beliefs that
they have what it takes to succeed. People who are persuaded verbally
that they possess the capabilities to master given activities are likely to
mobilize greater effort and sustain it than if they harbor self-doubts and
dwell on personal deficiencies when problems arise (Litt, 1988; Schunk,
1989). To the extent that persuasive boosts in perceived self-efficacy lead
people to try hard enough to succeed, self-affirming beliefs promote
development of skills and a sense of personal efficacy.
It is more difficult to instill high beliefs of personal efficacy by social
persuasion alone than to undermine them. Unrealistic boosts in efficacy
are quickly disconfirmed by disappointing results of one's efforts. But
people who have been persuaded that they lack capabilities tend to avoid
challenging activities that can cultivate their potentialities, and they give
up quickly in the face of difficulties. By constricting activities and under-
mining motivation, disbelief in one's capabilities creates its own behav-
ioral validation.
Successful efficacy builders do more than convey positive appraisals. In
addition to raising people's beliefs in their capabilities, they structure situ-
ations for them in ways that bring success and avoid placing people in sit-
uations prematurely where they are likely to fail often. They encourage
individuals to measure their success in terms of self-improvement rather
than by triumphs over others.
People also rely partly on their physiological and emotional states in judg-
ing their capabilities. They interpret their stress reactions and tension as
signs of vulnerability to poor performance. In activities involving strength
and stamina, people judge their fatigue, aches, and pains as signs of phys-
ical debility (Ewart, 1992). Mood also affects people's judgments of their
personal efficacy. Positive mood enhances perceived self-efficacy; despon-
dent mood diminishes it (Kavanagh & Bower, 1985). The fourth way of

Exercise of personal and collective efficacy in changing societies 5
altering efficacy beliefs is to enhance physical status, reduce stress and
negative emotional proclivities, and correct misinterpretations of bodily
states.
It is not the sheer intensity of emotional and physical reactions that is
important but rather how they are perceived and interpreted. For exam-
ple, people who have a high sense of efficacy are likely to view their state
of affective arousal as an energizing facilitator of performance, whereas
those who are beset by self-doubts regard their arousal as a debilitator.
Physiological indicators of efficacy play an especially influential role in
health functioning and in activities requiring physical strength and stam-
ina. Affective states can have widely generalized effects on beliefs of per-
sonal efficacy in diverse spheres of functioning.
Information that is relevant for judging personal efficacy, whether con-
veyed enactively, vicariously, persuasively, or affectively is not inherently
instructive. Rather it gains its significance through cognitive processing.
Therefore, the information conveyed by the different modes of influence
should be distinguished from the cognitive processing by which that
information is selected, weighted, and integrated into self-efficacy judg-
ments. A host of factors, including personal, social, and situational ones,
affect how efficacy-relevant experiences are interpreted (Bandura, in
press). For example, the extent to which performance attainments alter
perceived efficacy will depend on people's preconceptions of their capa-
bilities, the perceived difficulty of the tasks, the amount of effort they
expended, their physical and emotional state at the time, the amount of
external aid they received, and the situational circumstances under which
they performed. Each mode of influence is associated with a particular set
of factors that have diagnostic significance in the self-appraisal of per-
sonal efficacy.
Efficacy-activated processes
Efficacy beliefs regulate human functioning through four major processes.
They include cognitive, motivational, affective, and selection processes.
These different processes usually operate in concert, rather than in isola-
tion, in the ongoing regulation of human functioning.
Cognitive processes
The effects of efficacy beliefs on cognitive processes take a variety of
forms. Much human behavior, being purposive, is regulated by fore-

6 Albert Bandura
thought embodying valued goals. Personal goal setting is influenced by
self-appraisal of capabilities. The stronger the perceived self-efficacy, the
higher the goal challenges people set for themselves and the firmer is theircommitment to them (Locke
& Latham, 1990).
Most courses of action are initially organized in thought. People's
beliefs in their efficacy shape the types of anticipatory scenarios they con-
struct and rehearse. Those who have a high sense of efficacy visualize suc-
cess scenarios that provide positive guides and supports for performance.
Those who doubt their efficacy visualize failure scenarios and dwell on
the many things that can go wrong. It is difficult to achieve much whilefighting self-doubt.
A major function of thought is to enable people to predict events and to
develop ways to control those that affect their
lives. Such problem-solving
skills require effective cognitive processing of information that contains
many complexities, ambiguities, and uncertainties. In learning predictive
and regulative rules people must draw on their knowledge to construct
options, to weight and integrate predictive factors, to test and revise their
judgments against the immediate and distal results of their actions, and to
remember which factors they have tested and how well they have
worked.
It requires a strong sense of efficacy to remain task oriented in the face
of pressing situational demands, failures, and setbacks that have signifi-
cant personal and social repercussions. Indeed, when people are facedwith the task of managing difficult environmental demands under taxing
circumstances, those who harbor a low sense of efficacy become more andmore erratic in their analytic thinking and lower their aspirations, and the
quality of their performance deteriorates (Wood & Bandura, 1989). In con-
trast, those who maintain a resilient sense of efficacy set themselves chal-lenging goals and use good analytic thinking, which pays off in perfor-mance accomplishments.
Motivational processes
Efficacy beliefs play a key role in the self-regulation of motivation. Mosthuman motivation is cognitively generated. People motivate themselvesand guide their actions anticipatorily by the exercise of forethought. They
form beliefs about what they can do. They anticipate likely outcomes ofprospective actions. They set goals for themselves and plan courses of
action designed to realize valued futures. They mobilize the resources attheir command and the level of effort needed to succeed.

Exercise of personal and collective efficacy in changing societies 7
There are three different forms of cognitive motivators around which
different theories have been developed. They include causal attributions,
outcome expectancies, and cognized goals. The corresponding theories are
attribution theory, expectancy-value theory, and goal theory, respectively.Efficacy beliefs operate in each of these types of cognitive motivation. Effi-
cacy beliefs influence causal attributions (Alden, 1986; Grove, 1993;
McAuley, 1991). People who regard themselves as highly efficacious attri-
bute their failures to insufficient effort or adverse situational conditions,
whereas those who regard themselves as inefficacious tend to attributetheir failures to low ability. Causal attributions affect motivation, perfor-mance, and affective reactions mainly through beliefs of personal efficacy
(Chwalisz, Altmaier, & Russell, 1992; Relich, Debus, & Walker, 1986;
Schunk
& Gunn, 1986).
In expectancy-value theory, motivation is regulated by the expectation
that a given course of behavior will produce certain outcomes and the
value placed on those outcomes. But people act on their beliefs about
what they can do as well as on their beliefs about the likely outcomes of
performance. The motivating influence of outcome expectancies is thuspartly governed by efficacy beliefs. There are countless attractive options
people do not pursue because they judge they lack the capabilities for
them. The predictiveness of expectancy-value theory is substantially
enhanced by including the influence of perceived self-efficacy (Ajzen &
Madden, 1986; deVries, Dijkstra, & Kuhlman, 1988; Dzewaltowski, Noble,
& Shaw,
1990; Schwarzer, 1992).
The capacity to exercise self-influence by goal challenges and evaluative
reaction to one's own performances provides a major cognitive mecha-nism of motivation. A large body of evidence shows that explicit, chal-
lenging goals enhance and sustain motivation (Locke & Latham, 1990).
Goals operate largely through self-influence processes rather than regu-
late motivation and action directly. Motivation based on goal setting
involves a process of cognitive comparison of perceived performance to
an adopted personal standard. By making self-satisfaction conditional on
matching the standard, people give direction to their behavior and create
incentives to persist in their efforts until they fulfill their goals. They seek
self-satisfaction from fulfilling valued goals and are prompted to intensify
their efforts by discontent with substandard performances.
Motivation based on goals or personal standards is governed by three
types of self-influences (Bandura, 1991a; Bandura & Cervone, 1986). They
include self-satisfying and self-dissatisfying reactions to one's perfor-

8 Albert Bandura
mance, perceived self-efficacy for goal attainment, and readjustment of
personal goals based on one's progress. Efficacy beliefs contribute to moti-
vation in several ways: They determine the goals people set for them-
selves, how much effort they expend, how long they persevere in the face
of difficulties, and their resilience to failures. When faced with obstacles
and failures, people who distrust their capabilities slacken their efforts or
give up quickly. Those who have a strong belief in their capabilities exert
greater effort when they fail to master the challenge. Strong perseverance
contributes to performance accomplishments.
Affective processes
People's beliefs in their coping capabilities affect how much stress and
depression they experience in threatening or difficult situations, as well as
their level of motivation. Perceived self-efficacy to exercise control over
stressors plays a central role in anxiety arousal (Bandura, 1991b). It does so
in several ways. Efficacy beliefs affect vigilance toward potential threats
and how they are perceived and cognitively processed. People who
believe that potential threats are unmanageable view many aspects of
their environment as fraught with danger. They dwell on their coping
deficiencies. They magnify the severity of possible threats and worry
about things that rarely happen. Through such inefficacious thinking they
distress themselves and impair their level of functioning (Lazarus & Folk-
man, 1984; Meichenbaum, 1977; Sarason, 1975). In contrast, people who
believe they can exercise control over potential threats are neither ever
watchful for threats nor conjure up disturbing thoughts about them.
Sanderson, Rapee, and Barlow (1989) provide striking evidence for the
power of efficacy belief to cognitively transform threatening situations
into benign ones. Although subjected to the same environmental stressors,
individuals who believe they can manage them remain unperturbed,
whereas those who believe the stressors are personally uncontrollable
view them in debilitating ways. The impact of efficacy beliefs on construal
of uncertain life circumstances is also very much evident in wrenching
transitions in life courses. In coping with adaptation to new societal
demands, migrants with a high sense of efficacy treat it as a challenge,
whereas those who distrust their coping capabilities view it as a threat
(Jerusalem & Mittag, 1995).
People have to live continuously with a psychic environment that is
largely of their own making. The exercise of control over ruminative, dis-
turbing thoughts is a second way in which efficacy beliefs regulate anxiety

Exercise of personal and collective efficacy in changing societies 9
arousal and depression. The exercise of control over one's own conscious-
ness is summed up well in the proverb: "You cannot prevent the birds of
worry and care from flying over your head. But you can stop them from
building a nest in your hair/' It is not the sheer frequency of disturbing
thoughts, but the perceived inability to turn them off that is the major
source of distress (Kent & Gibbons, 1987; Salkovskis & Harrison, 1984).
Hence, the frequency of aversive thoughts is unrelated to anxiety when
the effects of perceived thought control efficacy are removed. But per-
ceived thought control efficacy predicts anxiety when variations in fre-
quency of aversive thoughts are removed. Both perceived coping self-effi-
cacy and thought control efficacy operate jointly to reduce anxiety and
avoidant behavior (Ozer & Bandura, 1990).
The causative role of coping efficacy beliefs in human stress and anxiety
is best revealed in studies in which phobics' beliefs in their coping efficacy
is raised to different levels through guided mastery treatment (Bandura,
1988). They display little anxiety and autonomic arousal to threats they
believe they can control. But as they cope with threats for which they dis-
trust their coping efficacy, their anxiety and autonomic arousal mount.
After their perceived coping efficacy is raised to the maximal level by
guided mastery experiences, they manage the same threats without expe-
riencing any distress, autonomic arousal, or activation of stress-related
hormones.
The third way in which efficacy beliefs reduce or eliminate anxiety is by
supporting effective modes of behavior that change threatening environ-
ments into safe ones. Here, efficacy beliefs regulate stress and anxiety
through their impact on coping behavior. The stronger the sense of effi-
cacy the bolder people are in taking on problematic situations that gener-
ate stress and the greater their success in shaping them more to their lik-
ing. Major changes in aversive social conditions are usually achieved
through the exercise of efficacy collectively rather than just individually.
A low sense of efficacy to exercise control breeds depression as well as
anxiety. One route to depression is through unfulfilled aspiration. People
who impose on themselves standards of self-worth they judge they cannot
attain drive themselves to bouts of depression (Bandura, 1991a; Kanfer &
Zeiss, 1983). A second route to depression is through a low sense of social
efficacy to develop social relationships that bring satisfaction to one's life
and cushion the adverse effects of chronic stressors. Social support re-
duces vulnerability to stress, depression, and physical illness. Social sup-
port is not a self-forming entity waiting around to buffer harried people
against stressors. Rather, people have to go out and find or create support-

10 Albert Bandura
ive relationships for themselves. This requires a strong sense of social effi-
cacy. Thus, a low sense of efficacy to develop satisfying and supportive
relationships contributes to depression both directly and by curtailing
development of social supports (Holahan & Holahan, 1987a, b). Support-
ive relationships, in turn, can enhance personal efficacy to reduce vulnera-
bility to depression (Cutrona & Troutman, 1986; Major, Mueller, & Hilde-
brandt, 1985; Major et al., 1990). Supporters do so by modeling for others
how to manage difficult situations, by demonstrating the value of perse-
verance, and by providing positive incentives and resources for effica-
cious coping.
The third route to depression is via thought control efficacy. Much
human depression is cognitively generated by dejecting ruminative
thought. A low sense of efficacy to control ruminative thought contributes
to the occurrence, duration, and recurrence of depressive episodes (Ka-
vanagh & Wilson, 1989). The weaker the perceived efficacy to turn off
ruminative thoughts the higher the depression. Mood and perceived effi-
cacy influence each other bidirectionally. A low sense of efficacy to gain
the things in life that bring self-satisfaction and self-worth gives rise to
depression, and depressive mood, in turn, diminishes belief in one's per-
sonal efficacy in a deepening self-demoralizing cycle. People then act in
accordance with their mood-altered efficacy beliefs.
Selection processes
The discussion so far has centered on efficacy-activated processes that
enable people to create beneficial environments and to exercise some con-
trol over those they encounter day in and day out. People are partly the
product of their environment. Therefore, beliefs of personal efficacy can
shape the courses people's lives take by influencing the types of activities
and environments they choose to get into. In this process, destinies are
shaped by selection of environments known to cultivate certain potentiali-
ties and life-styles. People avoid activities and environments they believe
exceed their coping capabilities. But they readily undertake challenging
activities and select environments they judge themselves capable of man-
aging. By the choices they make, people cultivate different competencies,
interests, and social networks that determine their life courses. Any factor
that influences choice behavior can profoundly affect the direction of per-
sonal development. This is because the social influences operating in
selected environments continue to promote certain competencies, values,
and interests long after the efficacy decisional determinant has rendered
its inaugurating effect.

Exercise of personal and collective efficacy in changing societies 11
The substantial body of research on the diverse effects of perceived per-
sonal efficacy can be summarized as follows: People who have a low sense
of efficacy in given domains shy away from difficult tasks, which they
view as personal threats. They have low aspirations and weak commit-
ment to the goals they choose to pursue. When faced with difficult tasks,
they dwell on their personal deficiencies, the obstacles they will encoun-
ter, and all kinds of adverse outcomes rather than concentrate on how to
perform successfully. They slacken their efforts and give up quickly in the
face of difficulties. They are slow to recover their sense of efficacy follow-
ing failure or setbacks. Because they view insufficient performance as defi-
cient aptitude, it does not require much failure for them to lose faith in
their capabilities. They fall easy victim to stress and depression.
In contrast, a strong sense of efficacy enhances human accomplishment
and personal well-being in many ways. People with high assurance in
their capabilities in given domains approach difficult tasks as challenges
to be mastered rather than as threats to be avoided. Such an efficacious
outlook fosters intrinsic interest and deep engrossment in activities. These
people set themselves challenging goals and maintain strong commitment
to them. They heighten and sustain their efforts in the face of difficulties.
They quickly recover their sense of efficacy after failures or setbacks. They
attribute failure to insufficient effort or to deficient knowledge and skills
that are acquirable. They approach threatening situations with assurance
that they can exercise control over them. Such an efficacious outlook pro-
duces personal accomplishments, reduces stress, and lowers vulnerability
to depression.
The multiple benefits of a resilient sense of personal efficacy do not arise
simply from the incantation of capability. Saying something should not be
confused with believing it to be so. Simply saying that one is capable is
not necessarily self-convincing. Self-efficacy beliefs are the product of a
complex process of self-persuasion that relies on cognitive processing of
diverse sources of efficacy information conveyed enactively, vicariously,
socially, and physiologically (Bandura, 1986, in press). Once formed, effi-
cacy beliefs contribute importantly to the level and quality of human func-
tioning.
Adaptive benefits of optimistic efficacy beliefs
Human accomplishments and positive well-being require an optimistic
sense of personal efficacy. This is because ordinary social realities are
strewn with difficulties. They are full of impediments, adversities, set-
backs, frustrations, and inequities. People must have a robust sense of per-

12 Albert Bandura
sonal efficacy to sustain the perseverant effort needed to succeed. In pur-suits strewn with obstacles, realists either forsake the venture, abort theirefforts prematurely when difficulties arise, or become cynical about theprospects of effecting significant changes.
It is widely believed that misjudgment breeds personal problems. Cer-
tainly, gross miscalculation can get one into trouble. However, the func-tional value of accuracy of self-appraisal depends on the nature of theventure. Activities in which mistakes can produce costly or injurious con-
sequences call for accurate self-appraisal of capabilities. It is a different
matter where difficult accomplishments can produce substantial personaland social benefits and the costs involve one's time, effort, and expendable
resources. Individuals have to decide for themselves which creative abili-ties to cultivate, whether to invest their efforts and resources in venturesthat are difficult to fulfill, and how much hardship they are willing to
endure in pursuits strewn with obstacles and uncertainties. It takes a resil-ient sense of efficacy to surmount the impediments and setbacks that char-acterize difficult undertakings.
When people err in their self-appraisal they tend to overestimate their
capabilities (Taylor, 1989). This is a benefit rather than a cognitive failing
or character flaw to be eradicated. If efficacy beliefs always reflected only
what people could do, routinely they would remain steadfastly wedded to
an overly conservative judgment of their capabilities that begets habitual
performances. Under cautious self-appraisal, people rarely set aspirations
beyond their immediate reach nor mount the extra effort needed to sur-
pass their ordinary performances. Indeed, in social systems where chil-
dren are punished for optimistic beliefs in their capabilities their attain-
ments closely match their conservative view of what they come to expect
of themselves (Oettingen, 1995).
An affirmative sense of efficacy contributes to psychological well-being
as well as to performance accomplishments. People who experience much
distress have been compared in their skills and beliefs in their capabilities
with those who do not suffer from such problems. The findings show thatit is often the normal people who are distorters of reality. But they display
self-enhancing biases and distort in the positive direction. Thus, those
who are socially anxious or prone to depression are often just as sociallyskilled as those who do not suffer from such problems (Glasgow &Arkowitz, 1975; Lewinsohn, Mischel, Chaplin, & Barton, 1980). But the
normal ones believe they are much more adept than they really are. Thenondepressed people also have a stronger belief that they exercise somecontrol over situations that are unmanageable (Alloy
& Abramson, 1988).

Exercise of personal and collective efficacy in changing societies 13
Social reformers strongly believe that they can mobilize the collective
effort needed to bring social change. Although their beliefs are rarely fullyrealized they sustain reform efforts that achieve important gains. Were
social reformers to be entirely realistic about the prospects of transformingsocial systems they would either forego the endeavor or fall easy victim to
discouragement. Realists may adapt well to existing realities. But those
with a tenacious self-efficacy are likely to change those realities.
Innovative achievements also require a resilient sense of efficacy. Inno-
vations demand heavy investment of effort over a long period with uncer-tain results. Moreover, innovations that clash with existing preferencesand practices meet with negative social reactions. Therefore, it comes as
no surprise that one rarely finds realists in the ranks of innovators andgreat achievers. In his review of social reactions to human ingenuity, titled
Rejection, John White (1982) provides vivid testimony that the striking
characteristic of people who have achieved eminence in their fields is aninextinguishable sense of personal efficacy and a firm belief in the worthof what they are doing. This resilient self-belief system enabled them to
override repeated early rejections of their work. Societies enjoy the consid-erable benefits of these persisters' accomplishments in the arts, sciences,and technologies.
In sum, the successful, the venturesome, the sociable, the nonanxious,
the nondepressed, the social reformers, and the innovators take an opti-mistic view of their personal capabilities to exercise influence over eventsthat affect their lives. If not unrealistically exaggerated, such personal
beliefs foster positive well-being and human accomplishments. The influ-
ential role played by efficacy beliefs in different spheres of human func-tioning is reviewed in greater detail in the sections that follow.
Self-efficacy in the changing structure of family systems
The parenting role places continual heavy demands on coping efficacy.Parents not only have to deal with ever-changing challenges as their chil-dren grow older. They also have to manage interdependent relationshipswithin the family system and social links to a host of extrafamilial social
systems including educational, recreational, medical, and caregiving facil-
ities. Parents who have a firm belief in their parenting efficacy are quite
resourceful in promoting their children's competencies (Teti & Gelfand,
1991). Moreover, a strong sense of parenting efficacy serves as a protective
factor against emotional strain and despondency (Cutrona & Troutman,
1986; Olioff & Aboud, 1991).

14 Albert Bandura
The family has been undergoing major structural changes. The number
of single-parent families is on the rise. More and more women are joining
the workforce either by economic necessity or personal preference. In-
creased longevity creates the need for purposeful pursuits that provide
satisfaction and meaning to one's life over the full term of the expanded
lifespan long after the offspring have left home. Hence, women are edu-
cating themselves more intensively and seeking fulfillment in career pur-
suits as well as in their family life. The traditional nuclear family compris-
ing a working father and a homemaker mother is on the decline. The
burden of change is falling heavily on the shoulders of women who find
themselves managing the major share of the familial demands as well as
the demands of their occupational roles. Societal practices lag behind the
changes in familial life in dual-career marriages. The societal changes call
for more equitable division of labor in the home and equality of occupa-
tional opportunities in the workplace.
There is considerable variation among working women in the types of
role demands they face; in the degree to which work and family demands
conflict and disruptively intrude into one another; in the level of shared
responsibility for the care of children and household; in the availability of
adequate child care; and in the types of stressors, satisfactions, and feel-
ings of accomplishment women experience at home and at work. Given
the wide diversity of adaptational conditions, it is not surprising that find-
ings on the effects of managing multiple role demands are ambiguous and
inconsistent. Even under similar conditions, effects differ across individu-
als depending on the coping resources they bring to bear in efforts to ful-
fill the various role demands.
Ozer (1992) presents evidence that perceived self-efficacy to manage the
different aspects of multiple role demands is an influential factor in how
women's lives are affected. Neither family income, heaviness of occupa-
tional workload, nor division of child care responsibility had direct effect
on women's well-being or emotional strain over the dual roles. These fac-
tors operate through their effects on perceived self-efficacy Women who
have a strong sense of efficacy that they can manage the multiple
demands of family and work, that they can exert some influence over their
work schedule, and that they can enlist their husband's aid with different
aspects of child care experience a low level of physical and emotional
strain and a more positive sense of well-being. The effects of combining
dual roles are usually framed in the literature negatively in terms of condi-
tions under which it breeds discord and distress and the buffering role of
protective factors. Ozer's research shows that a sense of efficacy in manag-

Exercise of personal and collective efficacy in changing societies 15
ing dual roles contributes to positive well-being rather than merely pro-tecting against distress. Family income and perceived self-efficacy to enlist
spousal aid with child care is also associated with lowered vulnerability to
physical symptoms. However, women who are beset by self-doubts in
their ability to combine the dual roles suffer both health problems and
emotional strain.
Low-income families experience considerable economic hardships.
Poor families have to cope not only with problems of subsistence; thecommunities in which they live provide meager positive resources for
their children's development and expose them to dangers that can set
them on a negative course of life. Yet many poor parents manage to raise
their children successfully despite the adversities.
The research by Elder and his colleagues sheds light on psychosocial
processes through which economic hardships alter parents' perceived effi-cacy which, in turn, affects how they raise their children (Elder & Ardelt,
1992; Elder, Eccles, Ardelt, & Lord, 1993). Objective economic hardship, by
itself, has no direct influence on parents' perceived efficacy. Rather, objec-
tive financial hardship creates subjective financial strain. In intact house-
holds, subjective strain impairs parental efficacy by fueling marital dis-
cord. A supportive marital relationship enables parents to withstandpoverty without it undermining their belief in their ability to guide theirchildren's development.
Parents' beliefs that they can affect the course of their children's lives is
a more influential contributor to beneficial guidance under disadvantagedconditions than under advantaged conditions, where resources, social
supports, and neighborhood controls are more plentiful. Given the frag-
mentation of social life in impoverished communities and paucity ofresources, parents have to turn inward for their support in times of stress.If it is lacking in the home the mounting stressors begin to overwhelmtheir coping efforts. For single parents, financial strain weakens parents'
sense of efficacy both directly and indirectly by creating feelings ofdespondency. Regardless of family structure, parents who have a high
sense of efficacy are active in promoting their children's competencies.
Social structural theories and psychological theories are often regarded
as rival conceptions of human behavior or as representing different levelsof causation. In the social cognitive theory of triadic reciprocal causation,
social structural and personal determinants are integrated as cofactors
within a unified causal structure. For example, if individuals cannot pro-vide adequately for their livelihood because they lost their job during arecessionary period, their lack of money is a particular type of determi-

16 Albert Bandura
nant that affects their behavior and well-being, not a determinant operat-
ing at a different level of causation. In tracing the path of influence fromeconomic conditions through familial processes to perceived parental effi-cacy and child management practices, Elder and his associates advance
understanding of how personal agency operates within a broader net-work of sociostructural influences.
Under conditions of adversity, families that have an efficacious outlook
are likely to be more satisfied with and attached to their community
because they believe they can change things for the better. In contrast,
families that believe there is little they can do to improve the quality of lifein their communities feel dissatisfied with and estranged from their com-
munities. How families feel about their communities is, indeed, partly
mediated through their sense of efficacy rather than simply reflecting the
objective economic conditions in their communities (Rudkin, Hagell,
Elder,
& Conger, 1992). Parents who believe they can exercise some control
over their everyday lives feel more positive about their communities and
have less desire to move elsewhere. Economic conditions, per se, have
only a weak direct effect on community satisfaction and only indirectly
influence desire to move to the extent that it creates dissatisfaction withthe community.
The influence of perceived familial efficacy on community attachment
will vary depending on the level of economic adversity and the respon-
siveness of institutional systems to change. When both adversity and
prospects for change are dismal, families with a high sense of efficacy areapt to move elsewhere in search of a better life. Migrants with a high senseof efficacy adapt more successfully to their new environment than those oflower perceived efficacy (Jerusalem
& Mittig, 1995). A supportive partner-
ship and gainful employment further help migrants to weather the diffi-
cult sociocultural transition.
Self-efficacy in intellectual development
Educational systems have undergone fundamental change at historic peri-ods of social and technological transitions. Educational systems were orig-inally designed to teach low-level skills in agricultural societies. When
industrialization supplanted agriculture as the major economic enterprise,
the educational system was adapted to the needs of heavy industry and
manufacturing requiring rote performance. Sweeping changes in technol-
ogies are currently mechanizing many of the activities in the modern
workplace that were formerly done manually. In this information era,

Exercise of personal and collective efficacy in changing societies 17
information technology is operating automated production, information
management, and service systems. These electronic technologies are run
by structuring and manipulating information.
The historic transition from the industrial to the information era has
profound implications for educational systems. In the past, youth who
had little schooling had recourse to industrial and manufacturing jobs
requiring little in the way of cognitive skills. Such options are rapidly
shrinking. The new realities require cognitive and self-regulatory compe-
tencies to fulfill complex occupational roles and to manage the demands
of contemporary life. Education has now become vital for an engaged and
productive life.
The rapid pace of technological change and accelerated growth of
knowledge are placing a premium on capability for self-directed learning.
Good schooling fosters psychosocial growth that contributes to the qual-
ity of life beyond the vocational domain. A major goal of formal education
should be to equip students with the intellectual tools, efficacy beliefs, and
intrinsic interests to educate themselves throughout their lifetime. These
personal resources enable individuals to gain new knowledge and to culti-
vate skills either for their own sake or to better their lives.
The efficacy-regulated processes reviewed in the preceding sections of
this chapter play a key role in setting the course of intellectual develop-
ment. They also influence how well preexisting cognitive skills are used in
managing the demands of everyday life. There are three principal ways in
which efficacy beliefs operate as an important contributor to academic
development. These include students' beliefs in their efficacy to regulate
their own learning and to master different academic subjects; teachers'
beliefs in their personal efficacy to motivate and promote learning in their
students; and faculties' collective sense of efficacy that their schools can
accomplish significant academic progress.
Students' cognitive and self-regulatory efficacy
Efficacy beliefs play a vital role in the development of self-directed life-
long learners. Students' belief in their capabilities to master academic
activities affects their aspirations, level of interest in intellectual pursuits,
academic accomplishments, and how well they prepare themselves for
different occupational careers (Hackett, 1985, 1995; Holden, Moncher,
Schinke, & Barker, 1990; Schunk, 1989; Zimmerman, 1995). A low sense of
efficacy to manage academic demands also increases vulnerability to
scholastic anxiety. As Meece, Wigfield, and Eccles (1990) have shown, past

18 Albert Bandura
academic successes and failures arouse anxiety through their effects on
perceived self-efficacy. If failures weaken students' sense of efficacy they
become anxious about scholastic demands. But if their perceived efficacy
is unshaken by failures, they remain unperturbed.
One of the major advances in the study of lifelong cognitive develop-
ment that carries important implications concerns the mechanisms of self-
regulated learning. Until recently, the attention of the psychological
discipline centered heavily on how the mind works in processing, organ-
izing, and retrieving information. The mind as computational program
became the conceptual model for the times. Research on how people pro-
cess information has clarified many aspects of cognitive functioning.
However, this austere cognitivism has neglected self-regulatory processes
that govern human development and adaption. Effective intellectual func-
tioning requires much more than simply understanding the factual
knowledge and reasoning operations for given activities.
Meta-cognitive theorists have addressed the pragmatics of self-regula-
tion in terms of selecting appropriate strategies, testing one's comprehen-
sion and state of knowledge, correcting one's deficiencies, and recogniz-
ing the utility of cognitive strategies (Brown, 1984; Paris & Newman,
1990). Meta-cognitive training aids academic learning. However, students
do not necessarily transfer the skills spontaneously to dissimilar pursuits.
Nor do they always use the meta-cognitive skills with regularity. Clearly,
there is more to the process of self-regulation than meta-cognitive skills.
In social cognitive theory, people must develop skills in regulating the
motivational, affective, and social determinants of their intellectual func-
tioning as well as the cognitive aspects. This requires bringing self-influ-
ence to bear on every aspect of the learning process. Zimmerman (1990)
has been the leading exponent of an expanded model of academic self-
regulation. He and his colleagues have shown that good self-regulators do
much better academically than do poor self-regulators.
Self-regulatory skills will not contribute much if students cannot get
themselves to apply them persistently in the face of difficulties, stressors,
or competing attractions. Firm belief in one's self-regulatory skills pro-
vides the needed staying power. The higher the students' beliefs in their
efficacy to regulate their motivation and learning activities, the more
assured they are in their efficacy to master academic subjects. Perceived
academic efficacy, in turn, promotes intellectual achievement both directly
and by raising academic aspirations (Zimmerman & Bandura, in press;
Zimmerman, Bandura, & Martinez-Pons, 1992).

Exercise of personal and collective efficacy in changing societies 19
Impact of cognitive self-efficacy on developmental trajectories
Children's intellectual development cannot be isolated from the social
relations within which it is embedded or from its social consequences. It
must be analyzed from a sociocultural perspective. The broader develop-
mental impact of perceived cognitive efficacy is revealed in research in
which different facets of perceived self-efficacy are related to different pat-
terns of interpersonal and emotional behavior (Caprara, Pastorelli, &
Bandura, 1992). Children who have a high sense of efficacy to regulate
their own learning and to master academic skills behave more prosocially,
are more popular, and experience less rejection by their peers than do chil-
dren who believe they lack these forms of academic efficacy. Moreover, a
low sense of cognitive efficacy is associated with physical and verbal
aggression and ready disengagement of moral self-sanctions from harm-
ful conduct. The impact of children's disbelief in their academic efficacy
on socially discordant behavior becomes stronger as they grow older.
Peer affiliations promote different developmental courses depending on
the types of values, standards of conduct, and life-styles that are modeled
and sanctioned by those with whom one regularly associates. It is difficult
for children to remain prosocially oriented and retain their emotional
well-being in the face of repeated scholastic failures and snubbing by
peers. Students of low social and intellectual efficacy are likely to gravitate
to peers who do not subscribe to academic values and life-styles. Over
time, growing self-doubts in cognitive competencies foreclose many occu-
pational life courses, if not prosocial life paths themselves. Disengagement
from academic pursuits often leads to heavy engagement in a constella-
tion of problem behaviors (Jessor, Donovan, & Costa, 1991). Indeed, early
academic deficiency is one of the leading predictors of aggressive life-
styles and participation in antisocial activities (Hinshaw, 1992; Patterson,
Capaldi, & Bank, 1991; Rutter, 1979). In these different ways, beliefs of
cognitive efficacy can have reverberating effects on developmental trajec-
tories well beyond the academic domain.
Collective school efficacy
The task of creating environments conducive to learning rests heavily on
the talents and self-efficacy of teachers. Evidence indicates that classroom
atmospheres are partly determined by teachers' beliefs in their instruc-
tional efficacy. Teachers who believe strongly in their instructional efficacy
create mastery experiences for their students (Gibson & Dembo, 1984).

20 Albert Bandura
Those who have low assurance in their instructional efficacy generate neg-
ative classroom environments that are likely to undermine students' senseof efficacy and cognitive development.
Teachers' beliefs in their personal efficacy affect their general orienta-
tion toward the educational process as well as their specific instructionalactivities. Those who have a low sense of instructional efficacy favor a cus-
todial orientation that relies on extrinsic inducements and negative sanc-tions to get students to study. Teachers who believe strongly in theirinstructional efficacy support development of students' intrinsic interestsand academic self-directedness (Woolfolk & Hoy, 1990). In examining the
cumulative impact, Ashton and Webb (1986) report that teachers' beliefs
concerning their instructional efficacy predicts students' levels of aca-demic achievement over the course of the academic year, regardless oftheir entering ability.
Many of the adverse conditions with which schools have to cope reflect
the broader social and economic ills of the society that affect student edu-cability and impair the school environment. Many teachers find them-selves beleaguered day in and day out by disruptive and nonachievingstudents. Eventually, their low sense of efficacy to fulfill academicdemands takes a stressful toll. Teachers who lack a secure sense of instruc-tional efficacy show weak commitment to teaching, spend less time in
subject matters in their areas of perceived inefficacy, and devote less over-
all time to academic matters (Enochs
& Riggs, 1990; Evans & Tribble, 1986;
Gibson & Dembo, 1984). They are especially vulnerable to occupational
burnout. This graphic metaphor encompasses a syndrome of reactions to
chronic occupational stressors that include physical and emotional
exhaustion, depersonalization of the people one is serving, and feelings of
futility concerning personal accomplishments. Chwalisz, Altmaier, andRussell (1992) provide evidence that teachers with high efficacy manage
academic stressors by directing their efforts at resolving problems. In con-trast, teachers who distrust their efficacy try to avoid dealing with aca-demic problems and, instead, turn their efforts inward to relieve theiremotional distress. This pattern of escapist coping contributes to occupa-
tional burnout.
Teachers operate collectively within an interactive social system, rather
than as isolates. Schools in which the staffs collectively judge themselvesas powerless to get difficult students to achieve academic success convey agroup sense of academic futility that can pervade the entire life of the
school. In contrast, schools in which staff members collectively judgethemselves capable of promoting academic success imbue their schools

Exercise of personal and collective efficacy in changing societies 21
with a positive atmosphere for development. Differences between schools
in level of academic achievement are strongly related to the socioeco-
nomic and ethnic composition of the student bodies. However, student
characteristics affect school achievement in large part by altering the
staff's beliefs in their collective instructional efficacy (Bandura, 1993). The
higher the proportion of students from lower socioeconomic levels and of
minority status, the lower the staff's collective beliefs in their efficacy to
achieve academic progress, and the worse the schools fare academically.
Student absenteeism, low achievement, and high turnover also take a toll
on collective school efficacy.
The schools' collective sense of efficacy at the beginning of the academic
year predicts the schools' level of academic achievement at the end of the
year when the effects of the characteristics of the student bodies, their
prior level of academic achievement, and the staff's experiential level are
factored out. With staffs who firmly believe that students are motivatable
and teachable, schools heavily populated with poor and minority stu-
dents achieve high levels on standardized measures of academic compe-
tencies.
Impact of societal changes on school efficacy
Developed countries are experiencing mass migration of people seeking a
better life. Some are fleeing the devastation of armed violence and politi-
cal persecution, others are deserting disintegrating countries that were
held together by authoritarian rule, and many living under impoverished
and desperate circumstances are moved by televised visions of prosperity
in other societies. Migratory pressures will persist or intensify as long as
large economic disparities exist between nations. Rich nations pick off the
most skilled and talented members of poorer nations, which only exacer-
bates the disparities. In addition to the international migrations, there are
the extensive domestic migrations from rural to urban areas as family
farms are progressively eliminated. These major societal changes are alter-
ing the demographic characteristics of school populations.
Migrants are uprooted from their culture and thrust into a foreign one
where they have to learn new languages, social norms, values, world-
views, and unfamiliar ways of life, many of which may clash with their
native culture. As countries become more ethnically diverse, educational
systems face the difficult challenge of fulfilling their mission with stu-
dents of diverse backgrounds and adequacy of academic preparation. Bat-
tles are fought over whether educators should adopt assimilationist or

22 Albert Bandura
multicultural approaches in instructing children of migrants and refugees.
To further complicate matters, cultural and racial conflicts in the larger
society get played out in the educational system. We saw earlier that
school staffs generally have a low sense of efficacy to educate poor and
minority students and do not expect much of them academically. The
more culturally diverse the composition of student bodies the poorer is
the staffs' implementation of programs conducive to academic learning.
Many educational systems are modeled on some form of dual-track
structure in which students pursue either an academic route or a voca-
tional route through an apprenticeship system. Evans and Heinz (1991)
found that there are really four different paths that students take within an
institutionalized dual-track system. In addition to the academic and the
skilled vocational pathway, there are the dropouts from apprenticeships
who are on an uncertain life course and the educationally detached youth
who are only marginal players in the system. Marginalized youth leave
school with a high sense of futility and a bleak vocational livelihood.
Youth adrift with no stake in the system breed societal problems.
Apprenticeship systems, which have fulfilled their mission well, must
adapt to the rapid pace of social and technological change. The modern
workplace requires efficacious individuals with versatile cognitive and
self-management skills that enable them to master changing technologies
throughout their vocational careers. Highly structured transitional sys-
tems offer a more secure passage to occupational careers but may allow
less flexibility and room for changing directions along the way
(Hurrelmann & Roberts, 1991). Systems that provide opportunities to pur-
sue higher levels of learning create the means for continual self-renewal.
The characteristics of efficacious schools have been amply documented
(Anderson, 1982; Brookover, Beady, Flood, Schweitzer, & Wisenbaker,
1979; Good & Brophy, 1986). However, there is a vast difference between
knowing what makes school academically effective and being able to cre-
ate them. There is no shortage of good educational models on how to
build personal efficacy and cognitive competencies in disadvantaged
youth (Comer, 1988; Levin, 1987,1991). But the promise of these models is
not being fully realized because of weak didactic modes of implementa-
tion. This is the vital but weakest link in the models of educational change.
Educational systems operate within a sociopolitical context. It is around
educational interventions that power relations get played out in ways that
all too often impede change. A good model of implementation must pro-
vide effective strategies on how to reconcile conflicting interests, develop

Exercise of personal and collective efficacy in changing societies 23
a common sense of mission and purpose, and mobilize community sup-
port for educational improvement.
Career development and pursuits
The choices people make during formative periods shape the course of
their lives. Such choices determine which of their potentialities they culti-
vate, the types of options that are foreclosed or remain realizable over
their life course, and the life-style they follow. Among the choices that
affect life paths, those that center on occupational choice and develop-ment are of special import. Occupations structure a large part of people's
everyday reality and provide them with a major source of personal iden-
tity and sense of self-worth. The process of structuring a personal career isnot an easy one. In making career decisions, people have to come to gripswith uncertainties about their capabilities, the instability of their interests,
the prospects of alternative occupations, their accessibility, and the type ofidentity people seek to construct for themselves.
Efficacy determination of the slate of options
According to the rational model of human decision making, individuals
supposedly explore a wide range of options, calculate their advantages
and disadvantages, and then choose the option that maximizes expected
utility. It is now well established that people do not behave like wholly
rational utility maximizers. Efficacy beliefs determine the slate of optionsgiven any consideration. People do not regard options in domains of lowperceived efficacy worth considering, whatever benefits they may hold.Such wholesale exclusions of large classes of options are made rapidly onperceived efficacy grounds with little thought to costs and benefits. Effi-cacy beliefs preempt expectancy-valence analyses. Perceived self-efficacy
not only sets the slate of options for consideration, but influences other
aspects of decision making. It affects the type of information that is col-
lected and how it is interpreted and converted into means for managing
environmental challenges.
Beliefs of personal efficacy play a key role in occupational development
and pursuits. The higher people's perceived efficacy to fulfill educational
requirements and occupational roles the wider the career options they
seriously consider pursuing and the greater the interest they have in them
(Betz & Hackett,
1981; Lent, Brown, & Hackett, in press; Matsui, Ikeda, &
Ohnishi, 1989). People simply eliminate from consideration vocations

24 Albert Bandura
they believe to be beyond their capabilities. Efficacy beliefs predict voca-tional considerations when variations in actual ability, prior level of aca-
demic achievement, and vocational interests are controlled. People are
unlikely to invest much effort in exploring career options and their likely
benefits unless they have faith in their capabilities to reach good decisions.
Hence, the stronger the belief in decision-making efficacy the higher the
level of exploratory activity designed to aid selection of a vocation (Blust-ein, 1989).
People act on their beliefs of vocational efficacy as well as entertain
career options. For example, perceived self-efficacy to master scientificknowledge predicts successful academic course work and perseverance in
scientific fields of study (Lent, Brown,
& Larkin, 1984). Efficacy beliefs also
contribute to career pursuits by fostering the development of interests. As
these diverse lines of evidence reveal, occupational development is a mat-ter of acquiring not only new skills and knowledge but also the sense of
efficacy through which innovativeness and productivity are realized.
Occupational self-efficacy and demographic changes
Wide gender disparities exist in career aspirations and pursuits. Although
women make up an increasing share of the workforce, not many of themare choosing careers in scientific and technical fields or, for that matter, ina variety of other occupations that have traditionally been dominated by
men. Women's disbelief in their quantitative and technical capabilities and
their career aspirations are shaped by the family, the educational system,
occupational practices, the mass media, and the culture at large (Hackett
& Betz,
1981; Jacobs, 1989). Dissuading societal norms and practices con-
tinue to lag behind the changing status of women and their growing par-ticipation in the workforce. As a result, women's potential and their con-tribution to the creative and economic life of society remain largely
unrealized.
The same is true of ethnic minorities, who often have to surmount both
discriminatory barriers and socioeconomic disadvantage. They too gener-ally have a low sense of efficacy for scientific and technical careers requir-
ing quantitative skills. While women and minorities are shunning scien-
tific and technological fields, demographic trends indicate that societies
will have to rely increasingly on the talents of women and ethnic minori-
ties to maintain scientific, technological, and economic viability. Societieshave to come to terms with the discordance between their occupational
socialization practices and the human resources needed for their success.

Exercise of personal and collective efficacy in changing societies 25
Societies that fail to develop the capabilities of all their youth jeopardize
their social and economic progress.
From an interactionist perspective, solutions to restricted aspirations
and occupational pursuits require both individual and social remedies. Atthe individual level, the different ways of creating a sense of personal effi-cacy can be enlisted to eliminate self-limiting psychological impedimentsthat have become ingrained through cultural practices and to develop thecompetencies for exercising proactive control over one's occupationalfuture. Remedies at the societal level require eradicating negative institu-
tional biases that diminish educational and vocational aspirations anderect barriers to occupational opportunities and career advancement.
Health-promotive role of self-efficacy
The conception of human health and illness has undergone major changesin recent years. The traditional approaches relied on a
biomedical model,
which places heavy emphasis on infectious agents, ameliorative medica-
tions, and repair of physical impairments. The newer conception adopts a
broader biopsychosocial model (Engel, 1977). Viewed from this perspective,
health and disease are products of interactions among psychosocial and
biological factors. Health is not merely the absence of physical impair-
ment and disease. The biopsychosocial perspective emphasizes health
enhancement as well as disease prevention. It is just as meaningful to
speak of degrees of vitality as of degrees of impairment.
It is now widely acknowledged that people's health rests partly in their
own hands. Apart from genetic endowment, physical health is largelydetermined by life-style habits and environmental conditions (Fuchs,
1974). People often suffer physical impairments and die prematurely of
preventable health-impairing habits. Their nutritional habits place them atrisk for cardiovascular diseases; sedentariness weakens cardiovascularcapabilities and vitality; cigarette smoking creates a major health hazard
for cancer, respiratory disorders, and heart disease; alcohol and drug
abuse contribute to disabilities and loss of life; sexually transmitted dis-
eases can produce serious health consequences; people are maimed or
their lives cut short by physical violence and other activities fraught withphysical risks; and dysfunctional ways of coping with stressors producewear and tear on the body. With regard to injurious environmental condi-
tions, industrial and agricultural practices are injecting carcinogens and
harmful pollutants into the air we breathe, the food we eat, and the waterwe drink, all of which take a heavy toll on the body. Approximately half

26 Albert Bandura
the deaths in the United States are caused prematurely by detrimental
health habits over which people have some control (McGinnis & Foege,
1993). Changing health habits and environmental practices can thus yield
large health benefits.
Perceived self-efficacy has been shown to be an important determinant
of health-promotive behavior. There are two levels at which a sense of per-
sonal efficacy plays an influential role in human health. At the more basic
level, people's beliefs in their capability to cope with the stressors in their
lives activate biological systems that mediate health and disease. The sec-
ond level is concerned with the exercise of direct control over the modifi-
able behavioral aspects of health and the rate of aging.
Biological effects of self-efficacy in coping with stressors
Many of the biological effects of perceived self-efficacy arise in the context
of coping with acute or chronic stressors in the many transactions of
everyday life. Stress has been implicated as an important contributor to
many physical dysfunctions (Krantz, Grunberg, & Baum, 1985; O'Leary,
1990). Controllability is a key organizing principle regarding the nature of
stress effects. It is not stressful life conditions per se but the perceived
inability to manage them that produces the detrimental biological effects
(Bandura, 1992b; Maier, Laudenslager, & Ryan, 1985; Shavit & Martin,
1987).
Social cognitive theory views stress reactions in terms of perceived inef-
ficacy to exercise control over aversive threats and taxing environmental
demands. If people believe they can deal effectively with potential envi-
ronmental stressors they are not perturbed by them. But if they believe
they cannot control aversive events they distress themselves and impair
their level of functioning. The causal impact of beliefs of controlling effi-
cacy on biological stress reactions is verified in experimental studies in
which people are exposed to stressors under perceived inefficacy and after
their beliefs of coping efficacy are raised to high levels through guided
mastery experiences (Bandura, 1992b). Exposure to stressors without per-
ceived efficacy to control them activates autonomic, catecholamine, and
endogenous opioid systems. After people's perceived coping efficacy is
strengthened they manage the same stressors without experiencing any
distress, visceral agitation, or activation of stress-related hormones.
The types of biochemical reactions that have been shown to accompany
a weak sense of coping efficacy are involved in the regulation of the
immune system. Hence, exposure to uncontrollable stressors tends to im-

Exercise of personal and collective efficacy in changing societies 27
pair the function of the immune system in ways that can increase suscepti-
bility to illness (Kiecolt-Glaser & Glaser, 1987; Maier, Laudenslager, &
Ryan, 1985; Shavit & Martin, 1987). Epidemiological and correlational
studies indicate that lack of behavioral or perceived control over environ-
mental demands increases susceptibility to bacterial and viral infections,
contributes to the development of physical disorders, and accelerates therate of progression of disease (Schneiderman, McCabe, & Baum, 1992;Steptoe
& Appels, 1989). The common cold, which plagues us all, provides
but one example of the power of stress to impair resistance to viral infec-
tion (Cohen, Tyrrell, & Smith, 1991). People reporting different levels of
life stress were given nasal drops containing one of five respiratory
viruses or saline. They were then quarantined and monitored for infec-
tious cold symptoms. The higher the life stress the higher were the rates of
respiratory infections and cold symptoms. The relationship between stress
and vulnerability to infectious illness was not altered by statistical control
for variety of other possible determinants.
Most human stress is activated in the course of learning how to exercise
control over environmental demands and while developing and expand-ing competencies. Stress activated in the process of acquiring coping effi-
cacy may have very different physiological effects than stress experienced
in aversive situations with no prospect of ever gaining any self-protective
efficacy. Stress aroused while gaining coping mastery over threatening sit-
uations can enhance different components of the immune system
(Wiedenfeld et al., 1990). Providing people with the means for managing
acute and chronic stressors increases immunologic functioning (Antoni et
al., 1990; Gruber, Hall, Hersh, & Dubois, 1988; Kiecolt-Glaser et al., 1986).
There are substantial evolutionary benefits to experiencing enhanced
immunocompetence during development of coping capabilities vital foreffective adaptation. It would not be evolutionarily advantageous if acute
stressors invariably impaired immune function, because of their preva-
lence in everyday life. If this were the case, people would be bedridden
most of the time with infections or they would be quickly done in.
The field of health functioning has been heavily preoccupied with the
physiologically debilitating effects of stressors. Self-efficacy theory alsoacknowledges the physiologically strengthening effects of mastery over
stressors. A growing number of studies are providing empirical support
for physiological toughening by successful coping (Dienstbier, 1989). Thepsychosocial modulation of health functioning is concerned with thedeterminants and mechanisms governing the physiologically toughening
effects of coping with stressors as well as their debilitating effects.

28 Albert Bandura
Self-efficacy in health-protnotive behavior
Life-style habits can enhance or impair health. This enables people to exert
some behavioral control over their vitality and quality of health. Efficacy
beliefs affect every phase of personal change – whether people even con-
sider changing their health habits; whether they enlist the motivation and
perseverance needed to succeed should they choose to do so; and how
well they maintain the habit changes they have achieved (Bandura, 1992b,
in press). People's beliefs that they can motivate themselves and regulate
their own behavior play a crucial role in whether they even consider
changing detrimental health habits. They see little point to trying if they
believe they do not have what it takes to succeed. If they make an attempt,
they give up easily in the absence of quick results.
Effective self-regulation of health behavior is not achieved through an
act of will. It requires development of self-regulatory skills. To build a
sense of efficacy, people must develop skills on how to influence their own
motivation and behavior. In such programs, they learn how to monitor the
behavior they seek to change, how to set attainable subgoals to motivate
and direct their efforts, and how to enlist incentives and social supports to
sustain the effort needed to succeed (Bandura, 1986). Once equipped with
skills and belief in their capabilities, people are better able to adopt behav-
iors that promote health and to eliminate those that impair it.
Habit changes are of little consequence unless they endure. Mainte-
nance of habit change relies heavily on self-regulatory capabilities and the
functional value of the behavior. Development of self-regulatory capabili-
ties requires instilling a resilient sense of efficacy as well as imparting
skills. Experiences in exercising control over troublesome situations serve
as efficacy builders. This is an important aspect of self-management
because if people are not fully convinced of their personal efficacy, they
rapidly abandon the skills they have been taught when they fail to get
quick results or suffer reverses. Studies of behavior that is amenable to
change but difficult to maintain show that a low sense of efficacy increases
vulnerability to relapse (Bandura, 1992b).
Lifelong health habits are formed during childhood and adolescence.
Children need to learn nutritious eating patterns, recreational skills for
lifelong fitness, and self-management skills to avoid substance abuse,
delinquency and violence, and sexually transmitted diseases (Hamburg,
1992; Millstein, Petersen, & Nightingale, 1993). Preventive efforts are espe-
cially important because many of the patterns of behavior that can seri-
ously compromise health typically begin in early adolescence. It is easier
to prevent detrimental health habits than to try to change them after they

Exercise of personal and collective efficacy in changing societies 29
have become deeply entrenched as part of a life-style. The biopsychosocialmodel provides a valuable public health tool for this purpose.
Health habits are rooted in familial practices. However, schools also
have a vital role to play in promoting the health of a nation. This is the
only place where all children can be easily reached regardless of their age,socioeconomic status, cultural background, or ethnicity. However, belea-guered educators do not want the additional responsibilities of health pro-
motion and disease prevention, nor are they adequately equipped to do so
even if they were willing to undertake this role. They have enough diffi-
culties fulfilling their basic academic mission. Moreover, schools are reluc-tant to get embroiled in societal controversies regarding sexuality, drug
use, and the various social morbidities that place youth at risk. Many edu-
cators rightfully argue that it is not their responsibility to remedy society's
social ills. As long as health promotion is regarded as tangential to the cen-
tral mission of schools, it will continue to be slighted.
The traditional style of health education provides students with factual
information about health without attempting to change the social influ-
ences that shape and regulate health habits. These influences from peers,
family members, the mass media, and the broader society are often in con-flict. As a rule, school health education is long on didactics but short onpersonal enablement. It comes as no surprise that the informationalapproach alone does little to change health attitudes and behavior (Bru-
vold, 1993). Effective programs to promote healthy life-styles must
address the social nature of health behavior and equip youth with themeans to exercise control over habits that can jeopardize their health. Thisrequires a multifaceted sociocognitive approach to the common determi-nants of interconnected health habits rather than piecemeal targeting of a
specific behavior for change. A comprehensive approach is called for
because problem behaviors usually go together as part of
a distinctive life-
style rather than appear in isolation. It is not indefinite holism that is
being recommended but rather focus on the broad network of psychoso-
cial influences that shape and support different health habits. Categoricalfunding of school health programs for specific health-risking behaviors
encourages the fragmentation, often with bureaucratic impediments.
When the more comprehensive approaches are grudgingly allowed into
the schools they are typically implemented in a cursory fashion undertime constraints that essentially strip them of their effectiveness.
The fact that schools provide an advantageous setting for health promo-
tion and early intervention does not mean that educators must be the stan-
dard bearers for the health mission. Health promotion must be structured

30 Albert Bandura
as part of a societal commitment that makes children's health a critical
issue and provides the multidisciplinary personnel and resources neededto foster the health of its youth. This requires creating new school-based
models of health promotion that operate in concert with the home, com-
munity, and the society at
large. Issuing health mandates without support-
ing resources, explicit plans of action, and a system for monitoring prog-
ress will not beget a healthy society.
Experimentation with risky activities is not all that uncommon in the
passage out of childhood status. Whether adolescents forsake risky activi-ties after awhile or become chronically involved in them is determined by
the interplay of personal competencies, self-management efficacy, and the
prevailing social influences in their lives (Jessor, 1986). Some of these
behaviors seriously compromise health. For example, cigarette smoking is
the single most personally preventable cause of death. Alcohol and drugabuse similarly pose serious health problems. Historic sociopoliticalchanges in Europe have ushered in conditions that will produce mounting
drug-related problems in the years ahead. Drug syndicates in South
America, the Balkan states, and Southeast Asia are exploiting the relax-
ation of national border controls and the political chaos in Eastern Europein a soaring narcotics trade. There is no shortage of couriers who can beeasily recruited from the impoverished sectors of society. If certain drug
routes are closed off, new ones are quickly created with a new set of cou-
rier recruits. Banks in countries needing foreign currency run flourishingmoney-laundering schemes for profits generated by the traffic in drugsand arms. Some of the proceeds from the drug trade are used to purchase
arms for regional wars. In addition to the social and health problems cre-ated by drug dependency, high intravenous drug use spreads the HIV
virus.
Exercise of self-directed change
Research on processes of change has added greatly to our understanding
of the essential elements of effective interventions. Effective models rely
on guided mastery experiences as the principal vehicle of personal
change. This approach includes four major components. The first compo-nent is informational, designed to increase awareness and knowledge ofhealth risks. However, factual information alone, much of which is usu-
ally redundant with what people already know, usually produces littlechange. The second component is concerned with the development of
self-regulatory skills needed to translate informed concerns to effective

Exercise of personal and collective efficacy in changing societies 31
exercise of control over health habits and the social influences that pro-
mote them. Self-regulation of motivation is especially important because
many detrimental habits are immediately rewarding, whereas their injuri-ous effects are slowly cumulative and delayed. If people are not fully con-vinced of their personal efficacy they undermine their efforts in difficult
situations and readily abandon the skills they have been taught when theysuffer reverses or fail to get quick results. Therefore, the third componentof self-management is aimed at building a robust sense of efficacy by pro-
viding the participants with repeated opportunities for guided practice in
applying the skills successfully in situations simulating those they arelikely to encounter in their everyday life.
Personal change occurs within a network of social influences. Depend-
ing on their nature, social influences can aid, retard, or undermine efforts
at personal change. The final component involves enlisting and creating
social supports for desired personal changes. Many of the habits that cancomprise health are subjected to social normative influences. There are
two principal ways in which social norms exert a regulative influence on
human behavior. Social norms convey standards of conduct. Adoption ofpersonal standards creates a self-regulatory system that operates through
internalized self-sanctions (Bandura, 1986). People behave in ways thatgive them self-satisfaction and refrain from behaving in ways that violate
their standards because it brings self-censure. Behavior is also regulated
by social sanctions. Social norms are associated with positive and negative
reactions from others. Behavior that violates prevailing social norms elic-its social censure or other negative consequences, whereas behavior that
fulfills socially valued norms is approved and rewarded. Because of their
proximity, immediacy, and prevalency, the interpersonal influences oper-
ating within one's immediate social network claim a stronger regulatoryfunction than do general normative sanctions, which are more distal andapplied only sporadically. Moreover, if the norms of one's immediate net-work are at odds with those of the larger group, the reactions of outsiders
carry less weight, if they are not disregarded altogether.
Health-promotion programs that encompass the essential elements of
the self-regulatory mastery model prevent or reduce injurious health hab-
its, whereas those that rely mainly on providing health information are
relatively ineffective (Botvin & Dusenbury, 1992; Bruvold, 1993; Jemmott,
Jemmott, Spears, Hewitt, & Cruz-Collins, 1991). Comprehensive ap-
proaches that integrate school-based health programs with familial and
community efforts are more successful in promoting health than if schools
try to do it alone (Perry, Kelder, Murray, & Klepp, 1992; Telch, Killen,

32 Albert Bandura
McAlister, Perry, & Maccoby, 1982). Over the years, the models of health
promotion and disease prevention have undergone three generationalchanges to augment their power. They began with an informational modelthat sought to change health habits by imparting knowledge and chang-ing attitudes. They then added a self-regulatory skills component as anintegral feature to enhance personal efficacy to manage health habits and
their social determinants. The model was then further expanded to enlistsocial supports in the wider community for personal change.
Verification that preventive and treatment programs work in part
through the self-efficacy mechanism at every phase of personal changeprovided conceptual guidelines on how to structure programs for success.Numerous studies of preventive and treatment programs for smoking andalcohol and drug abuse reveal that the interventions achieve their resultspartly by instilling and strengthening beliefs of personal efficacy. Thehigher people's sense of personal efficacy, the more successful they are in
controlling addictive habits and social pressures to engage in them andthe less vulnerable they are to slips and relapses (Bandura, in press;DiClemente, Fairhurst, & Piotrowski, in press; Marlatt, Baer, & Quigley,
1995). Should setbacks occur, efficacy beliefs determine how they are con-
strued and managed. People who have strong belief in their efficacy tend
to regard a slip as a temporary setback and reinstate control. In contrast,those who distrust their self-regulatory capabilities display a markeddecrease in perceived self-efficacy after a slip and make little effort to rein-state control.
With achievement of reproductive maturity, adolescents have to learn
how to manage their sexuality. Many engage in unprotected sex with mul-
tiple partners, which puts them at risk of unwanted pregnancies and sexu-ally transmitted diseases, including HIV infection. Change programsincorporating elements of the self-regulatory mastery model enhance effi-
cacy beliefs and reduce risky sexual behavior in adolescents (Gilchrist &Schinke,
1983; Jemmott, Jemmott, & Fong, 1992; Jemmott et al., 1991). The
findings of these studies further corroborate that simply imparting sexual
information without developing the self-regulative skills and sense of effi-cacy to exercise personal control over sexual relationships has little impact
on patterns of sexual behavior.
Promoting healthful life-styles in youth reduces the need for expensive
health services later in life. As people live longer minor dysfunctions at anearlier period have more time to develop into chronic diseases. Chronicdisease has now become the dominant form of illness and the major cause

Exercise of personal and collective efficacy in changing societies 33
of disability (Holman & Lorig, 1992). Unless societies keep people healthy
throughout their expanded lifespan, they will be swamped with burgeon-
ing health costs that drain resources needed for national programs. But
health promotion in formative periods of life is not a priority in most soci-
eties. The excessive medicalization of the determinants of health has fur-
ther downgraded socially oriented efforts to alter the behavioral and envi-
ronmental factors that contribute so heavily to human health and debility.
Economic necessity may eventually force a change in priorities.
Collective efficacy in policy and public health approaches
The quality of the health of a nation is a social as well as a personal matter.
It requires changing the practices of social systems that have detrimentaleffects on health rather than solely changing the habits of individuals. Bil-
lions of dollars are spent annually on lobbying and advertising campaigns
to promote the very products that jeopardize health. Environmental pollu-
tants and hazardous workplaces similarly take a toll on health and impair
the quality of life. Vigorous political battles are fought over environmental
health and safety. It takes a great deal of united effort to dislodge
entrenched detrimental practices. People's beliefs in their collective effi-cacy, therefore, play a vital role in the policy and public health perspective
to health promotion and disease prevention. Such social efforts are aimed
at raising public awareness of health hazards, educating and influencingpolicymakers, mobilizing public support for policy initiatives, and moni-toring and ensuring enforcement of existing health regulations. A com-
prehensive approach to health protection and enhancement must providepeople with the knowledge, skills, and sense of collective efficacy to
mount social and policy initiatives that affect human health (Bandura, in
press; Wallack, Dorfman, Jernigan, & Themba, 1993).
In getting things done collectively, perceived efficacy is concerned with
people's beliefs in their joint capabilities to make health promotion anational priority, to forge divergent self-interests into a shared agenda, toenlist supporters and resources for collective action, to devise effective
strategies and to execute them successfully, and to withstand forcibleopposition and discouraging setbacks. We do not lack sound policy pre-scriptions in the field of health. What is lacking is the collective efficacy to
realize them. Knowledge on how to develop and exercise collective effi-cacy can provide the guidelines for moving us further in enhancing thehealth of a nation's youth.

34 Albert Bandura
Self-efficacy in individualistic and collectivistic social systems
Some writers inappropriately equate self-efficacy with individualism and
pit it against collectivism (Schooler, 1990; Seligman, 1990). Contrary to this
view, a high sense of personal efficacy contributes just as importantly to
group directedness as to self-directedness. In collectively oriented sys-
tems, people work together to produce the benefits they seek. Group pur-
suits are no less demanding of personal efficacy than are individual pur-
suits. Nor do people who work interdependently in collectivistic societies
have less desire to be efficacious in the particular roles they perform thanin individualistically oriented systems. Personal efficacy is valued not
because of reverence for individualism but because a strong sense of per-
sonal efficacy is vital for successful adaptation and change regardless of
whether it is achieved individually or by group members workingtogether.
Group achievements and social change are rooted in self-efficacy. The
research of Earley (1993) attests to the cultural universality of the func-tional value of efficacy beliefs. In comparative studies, beliefs of personalefficacy contribute to productivity by members of collectivist cultures asthey do by those raised in individualistic cultures. Societies are less homo-
geneous than is commonly believed. There are individualists in collectiv-
istic societies and collectivists in individualistic societies. Efficacy beliefsfunction similarly in collectivistic and individualistic societies whether
analyzed at the societal level or the individual level (Earley, 1994). There-
fore, the way in which societies are structured does not say much about
how well its members perform when the influence of their perceived effi-cacy and its motivational effects are factored out. The generalizability ofthe functional role of perceived efficacy is not confined to motivation andaction. A low sense of coping efficacy is just as occupationally debilitatingand stressful in collectivistic societies as in individualistic ones (Matsui &Onglatco, 1992). A collectivist society populated with members who are
consumed by self-doubts about their capabilities and anticipate the futilityof any effort to shape their future would be condemned to a dismal exis-tence.
Another common mistake is to assume that if people's lives are ham-
pered by a low sense of efficacy the problem is exclusively an individualone and that the solution lies solely in personal change. People makecausal contribution to their lives but they are not the sole determiners of
their own destiny. Many other influences also contribute to the courses
their lives take. Within this multicausality, people can improve their lives
by exercising influence in areas over which they have some control. The

Exercise of personal and collective efficacy in changing societies 35
more they bring their influence to bear on changeable conditions that
affect their lives, the more they contribute to their own futures. If the prac-
tices of social systems impede or undermine personal development, a
large part of the solution lies in changing the adverse institutional prac-
tices through the exercise of collective efficacy. Personal and social change
are complementary rather than rival approaches to improving the quality
of life.
Collective efficacy
Developmental life paths are intimately linked to the sociocultural envi-
ronment in which people find themselves immersed. Therefore, human
development and change is best understood through analyses of people's
lives in time as they are shaped by the distinctive life experiences pro-
vided by the eras in which they live (Elder, 1995). The families and youth
of today are going through times of drastic technological and social
change that present unique opportunities, challenges, and constraints.
Wrenching social changes that dislocate lives are not new in history. What
is new is the accelerated pace of informational and technological change
and the extensive globalization of human interdependence. These new
realities place increasing demands on the exercise of efficacy. People's
beliefs in their efficacy play a paramount role in how well they organize,
create, and manage the circumstances that affect their life course.
Many of the challenges of life center on common problems that require
people working together to change their lives for the better. The strength
of families, communities, social institutions, and even nations lies partly
in people's sense of collective efficacy that they can solve the problems
they face and improve their lives through unified effort. People's beliefs in
their collective efficacy influence the type of social future they seek to
achieve, how much effort they put into it, and their endurance when col-
lective efforts fail to produce quick results. The stronger they believe in
their capabilities to effect social change the more actively they engage in
collective efforts to alter national policies and practices (Marsh, 1977;
Muller, 1972; Wiegman, Taal, Van den Bogaard, & Gutteling, 1992; Woll-
man & Stouder, 1991). Those who are beset by a low sense of efficacy are
quickly convinced of the futility of effort to reform their institutional sys-
tems.
Rapidly changing conditions, some of which impair the quality of life
and degrade the environment, call for wide-reaching solutions to human
problems and greater commitment to unified purposes. Such changes can

36 Albert Bandura
be achieved only through the united effort of people who have the skills,
the sense of collective efficacy, and the incentives to shape the direction of
their future environment. As the need for efficacious collective effortgrows, so does the sense of collective powerlessness.
Underminers of collective efficacy
Many of the contemporary conditions of life undermine the development
of collective efficacy. Life in the societies of today is increasingly affected
by transnational interdependencies. What happens economically and
politically in one part of the world can affect the welfare of vast popula-tions elsewhere. There are no handy social mechanisms by which people
can exercise reciprocal influence on transnational systems that affect theirdaily lives. The growing transnational interconnectedness of human lifechallenges the efficacy of governmental systems to exert a determininginfluence over their national life. As nations wrestle with the loss of con-
trolling influence, they experience a crisis in confidence in their political
leaders and institutions (Lipset, 1985). Governmental systems seem inca-
pable of playing a major role in the economic life of the nation. Undersuch conditions, people strive to regain control over their own destinies
by exercising influence over their local circumstances over which they
have some command while expressing growing disaffection and cynicism
about their centralized public institutions. Much of their effort is directed
at preserving the past rather than shaping the social future. Local influ-ence affirms personal efficacy. Not surprisingly, people have a higher
sense of personal efficacy than institutional efficacy. The major challengeto leadership is to forge a collective sense of efficacy to take advantage of
the opportunities of globalization while minimizing the price that prog-
ress extracts.
There are many other factors that serve to undermine the development
of collective efficacy. Modern life is increasingly regulated by complexphysical technologies that most people neither understand nor believethey can do much to influence. Pervasive dependence on the technologiesthat govern major aspects of life imposes dependence on specialized tech-nicians. For example, the citizenry of nations that are heavily dependent
on deteriorating atomic plants for their energy feel powerless to remove
the potentially catastrophic hazard from their lives. The devastating con-sequences of mishaps do not respect national borders.
The social machinery of society is no less challenging. Layers of bureau-
cratic structures thwart effective social action. Collective efforts at social

Exercise of personal and collective efficacy in changing societies 37
change are sustained in large part by the modeled successes of otherreformers and by evidence of progress toward desired goals. Long delays
between action and noticeable results discourage many advocates along
the way. Even the more efficacious individuals, who are not easily de-
terred, find their efforts blunted by mazy organizational mechanisms thatdiffuse and obscure responsibility. Pitting oneself repeatedly against
bureaucratic gauntlets eventually exacts its toll. Rather than developing
the means for shaping their own future, most people grudgingly relin-
quish control to technical specialists and to public officials. In the meta-
phoric words of John Gardner, "Getting things done socially is no sport
for the short winded/'
Effective action for social change requires merging diverse self-interests
in support of common core values and goals. Disagreements among dif-ferent constituencies create additional obstacles to successful collective
action. Leadership increasingly faces the challenge of governing overdiversity in ways that permit both autonomy for constituent communities
to direct their own lives and unity through shared values and purposes
(Esteve, 1992). The voices for parochial interests are typically much
stronger than those for collective responsibility. It requires efficacious
inspiring leadership to forge unity within diversity. The recent years have
witnessed growing social fragmentation of societies into special-interestgroups, each exercising its own factional power. Pluralism is taking the
form of antagonistic factionalism. As a result, it is easier to get people to
block courses of action than to merge them into a unified force for social
change. Contentious factionalism and global market forces create perpet-
ual structural instabilities in societies. Unbridled factionalism erodes con-
nectedness to the larger society. In the more extreme forms of social frag-
mentation, countries are being dismantled with a vengeance along racial,
religious, and ethnic lines. The new social realities pose increasing
challenges on how to preserve identity and local control through regional
autonomy within the context of growing interdependence of human life.
The scope and magnitude of human problems also affect perceived effi-
cacy to find effective solutions for them. Profound global changes in theform of burgeoning populations, shrinking resources, ozone depletion,
and mounting environmental devastation are destroying the ecosystems
that sustain life. These changes are creating new realities requiring trans-national remedies. Worldwide problems of growing magnitude and com-plexity instill a sense of paralysis that there is little people can do that
would have a significant impact on such massive problems. National
self-
interests and the fear of infringement of sovereignty create further obsta-

38 Albert Bandura
cles to developing transnational mechanisms for change. Effective reme-
dial and preventive measures call for concerted action at local, national,
and transnational levels. Local practices contribute to global effects. Each
person, therefore, has a part to play in the solution. The strategy of 'Think
globally, act locally" is an effort to restore in people a sense of efficacy that
there are many things they can do to make a difference.
Bidirectionality of human influence
In analyzing the impediments to human endeavors, it is all too easy to
lose sight of the fact that human influence, whether individual or collec-
tive, is a two-way process rather than one that flows unidirectionally. The
imbalance of social power partly depends on the extent to which people
exercise the influence that is theirs to command. The less they bring their
influence to bear on conditions that affect their lives the more control they
relinquish to others.
The psychological barriers created by beliefs of collective powerlessness
are more demoralizing and debilitating than are external impediments.
People who have a sense of collective efficacy will mobilize their efforts
and resources to cope with external obstacles to the changes they seek. But
those convinced of their collective powerlessness will cease trying even
though changes are attainable through perseverant collective effort.
As a society, we enjoy the benefits left by those before us who collec-
tively fought inhumanities and worked for social reforms that permit a
better life. Our own collective efficacy will in turn shape how future gen-
erations will live their lives. Considering the pressing worldwide prob-
lems that loom ahead, people can ill afford to trade efficacious endeavor
for public apathy or mutual immobilization. The times call for social ini-
tiatives that build people's sense of collective efficacy to influence condi-
tions that shape their lives and that of future generations.
References
Adler, A. (1956). (H. C. Ansbacher & R. R. Ansbacher, Eds.). The individual psychol-
ogy of Alfred Adler. New York: Harper & Row.
Ajzen, I., & Madden, T. J. (1986). Prediction of goal-directed behavior: Attitudes,
intentions, and perceived behavioral control. Journal of Experimental Social Psy-
chology, 22,453-474.
Alden, L. (1986). Self-efficacy and causal attributions for social feedback. Journal of
Research in Personality, 20,460^173.
Alloy, L. B., & Abramson, L. Y. (1988). Depressive realism: Four theoretical perspec-
tives. In L. B. Alloy (Ed.), Cognitive processes in depression. New York: Guilford.
Anderson, C. S. (1982). The search for school climate: A review of the research.
Review of Educational Research, 52,368-420.

Exercise of personal and collective efficacy in changing societies 39
Antoni, M. H., Schneiderman, N., Fletcher, M. A., Goldstein, D. A., Ironson, G., &
Laperriere, A. (1990). Psychoneuroimmunology and HIV-1. Journal of Consult-
ing and Clinical Psychology, 58, 38-49.
Ashton, P. T., & Webb, R. B. (1986). Making a difference: Teachers' sense of efficacy and
student achievement. White Plains, NY: Longman, Inc.
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psycholo-
gist, 37,122-147.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1988). Perceived self-efficacy: Exercise of control through self-belief.
In J. P. Dauwalder, M. Perrez, & V. Hobi (Eds.), Annual series of European
research in behavior therapy (Vol. 2, pp. 27-59). Amsterdam/Lisse: Swets &
Zeitlinger.
Bandura, A. (1991a). Self-regulation of motivation through anticipatory and self-
regulatory mechanisms. In R. A. Dienstbier (Ed.), Perspectives on motivation:
Nebraska symposium on motivation (Vol. 38, pp. 69-164). Lincoln: University of
Nebraska Press.
Bandura, A. (1991b). Self-efficacy conception of anxiety. In R. Schwarzer & R. A.
Wicklund (Eds.), Anxiety and self-focused attention (pp. 89-110). New York: Har-
wood.
Bandura, A. (1992a). Exercise of personal agency through the self-efficacy mecha-
nism. In R. Schwarzer (Ed.), Self-efficacy: Thought control of action (pp. 3-38).
Washington, DC: Hemisphere.
Bandura, A. (1992b). Self-efficacy mechanism in psychobiologic functioning. In R.
Schwarzer (Ed.), Self-efficacy: Thought control of action (pp. 355-394). Washing-
ton, DC: Hemisphere.
Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and function-
ing. Educational Psychologist, 28,117-148.
Bandura, A. (in press). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Bandura, A., & Cervone, D. (1986). Differential engagement of self-reactive influ-
ences in cognitive motivation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Pro-
cesses, 38, 92-113.
Betz, N. E., & Hackett, G. (1981). The relationship of career-related self-efficacy
expectations to perceived career options in college women and men. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 28, 399-410.
Biran, M., & Wilson, G. T. (1981). Treatment of phobic disorders using cognitive
and exposure methods: A self-efficacy analysis. Journal of Counseling and Clini-
cal Psychology, 49, 886-899.
Blustein, D. L. (1989). The role of goal instability and career self-efficacy in the
career exploration process. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 35,194-203.
Botvin, G. J., & Dusenbury, L. (1992). Substance abuse prevention: Implications for
reducing risk of HIV infection. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 6, 70-80.
Brookover, W. B., Beady, C, Flood, P., Schweitzer, J., & Wisenbaker, J. (1979). School
social systems and student achievement: Schools make a difference. New York: Prae-
ger.
Brown, A. L. (1984). Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation, and other
even more mysterious mechanisms. In F. E. Weinert & R. H. Kluwe (Eds.),
Metacognition, motivation, and learning (pp. 60-108). Stuttgart: Kuhlhammer.
Brown, I., Jr., & Inouye, D. K. (1978). Learned helplessness through modeling: The
role of perceived similarity in competence. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 36,900-908.

40 Albert Bandura
Bruvold, W. H. (1993). A meta-analysis of adolescent smoking prevention pro-
grams. American Journal of Public Health, 83, 872-880.
Caprara, G. V., Pastorelli, C, & Bandura, A. (1992). Impact of perceived academic self-
efficacy on interpersonal and emotional behavior. Unpublished manuscript, Stan-
ford University, Stanford, CA.
Chwalisz, K. D., Altmaier, E. M., & Russell, D. W. (1992). Causal attributions, self-
efficacy cognitions, and coping with stress, journal of Social and Clinical Psychol-
ogy, 11,377'-400.
Cohen, S., Tyrrell, D. A. J., & Smith, A. P. (1991). Psychological stress and suscepti-
bility to the common cold. New England Journal of Medicine, 325, 606-612.
Comer, J. P. (1988). Educating poor minority children. Scientific American, 259, 42-
48.
Cutrona, C. E., & Troutman, B. R. (1986). Social support, infant temperament, and
parenting self-efficacy: A mediational model of postpartum depression. Child
Development, 57,1507-1518.
DeCharms, R. (1978). Personal causation: The internal affective determinants of behav-
ior. New York: Academic Press.
deVries, H., Dijkstra, M, & Kuhlman, P. (1988). Self-efficacy: The third factor
besides attitude and subjective norm as a predictor of behavioural intentions.
Health Education Research, 3,273-282.
DiClemente, C. C, Fairhurst, S. K., & Piotrowski, N. A. (in press). The role of self-
efficacy in addictive behaviors. In J. Maddux (Ed.), Self-efficacy, adaptation and
adjustment: Theory, research and application. New York: Plenum.
Dienstbier, R. A. (1989). Arousal and physiological toughness: Implications for
mental and physical health. Psychological Review, 96, 84-100.
Dzewaltowski, D. A., Noble, J. M., & Shaw, J. M. (1990). Physical activity participa-
tion: Social cognitive theory versus the theories of reasoned action and
planned behavior. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 12,388^05.
Earley, P. C. (1993). East meets West meets Mideast: Further explorations of collec-
tivistic and individualistic work groups. Academy of Management Journal, 36,
319-348.
Earley, P. C. (1994). Self or group? Cultural effects of training on self-efficacy and
performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39,89-117.
Elder, G. H. (1995). Life trajectories in changing societies. la A. Bandura (Ed.), Self-effi-
cacy in changing societies (pp. 46-68). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Elder, G. H., & Ardelt, M. (1992, March). Families adapting to economic pressure: Some
consequences for parents and adolescents. Paper presented at the Society for Re-
search on Adolescence, Washington, DC
Elder, G. H., Jr., Eccles, J. S., Ardelt, M., & Lord, S. (1993, March). Inner city parents
under economic pressure: Perspectives on the strategies of parenting. Paper pre-
sented at Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research on Child Development,
New Orleans, LA.
Engel, G. L. (1977). The need for a new medical model: A challenge for biomedi-
cine. Science, 196,129-136.
Enochs, L. G., & Riggs, I. M. (1990). Further development of an elementary science
teaching efficacy belief instrument: A preservice elementary scale. School Sci-
ence and Mathematics, 90, 694-706.
Esteve, J. M. (1992). Multicultural education in Spain: The autonomous communi-
ties face the challenge of European unity. Educational Review, 44,255-272.
Evans, E. D., & Tribble, M. (1986). Perceived teaching problems, self-efficacy, and
commitment to teaching among preservice teachers. Journal of Educational
Research, 80, 81-85.

Exercise of personal and collective efficacy in changing societies 41
Evans, K., & Heinz, W. R. (1991). Career trajectories in Britain and Germany. In J.
Bynner & K. Roberts (Eds.), Youth and work: Transition to employment in England
and Germany (pp. 205-228). London: Anglo-German Foundation.
Ewart, C. K. (1992). Role of physical self-efficacy in recovery from heart attack. In
R. Schwarzer (Ed.), Self-efficacy: Thought control of action (pp. 287-304). Wash-
ington, DC: Hemisphere.
Feltz, D. L., Landers, D. M., & Raeder, U. (1979). Enhancing self-efficacy in high
avoidance motor tasks: A comparison of modeling techniques. Journal of Sport
Psychology, 1,112-122.
Fuchs, V. (1974). Who shall live? Health, economics, and social choice. New York: Basic
Books.
Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. H. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 76,569-582.
Gilchrist, L. D., & Schinke, S. P. (1983). Coping with contraception: Cognitive and
behavioral methods with adolescents. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 7, 379-
388.
Gist, M. E. (1989). The influence of training method on self-efficacy and idea gener-
ation among managers. Personnel Psychology, 42, 787-805.
Glasgow, R. E., & Arkowitz, H. (1975). The behavioral assessment of male and
female social competence in dyadic heterosexual interactions. Behavior Ther-
apy, 6,488-498.
Good, T. L., & Brophy, J. E. (1986). School effects. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook
of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 570-602). New York: Macmillan.
Grove, J. R. (1993). Attributional correlates of cessation self-efficacy among smok-
ers. Addictive Behaviors, 18, 311-320.
Gruber, B., Hall, N. R., Hersh, S. P., & Dubois, P. (1988). Immune system and psy-
chologic changes in metastatic cancer patients using relaxation and guided
imagery: A pilot study. Scandinavian Journal of Behaviour Therapy, 17,25-46.
Hackett, G. (1985). The role of mathematics self-efficacy in the choice of math-
related majors of college women and men: A path analysis. Journal of Counsel-
ing Psychology, 32,47-56.
Hackett, G. (1995). Self-efficacy and career choice and development. In A. Bandura
(Ed.), Self-efficacy in changing societies (pp. 232-258). New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Hackett, G., & Betz, N. E. (1981). A self-efficacy approach to the career develop-
ment of women. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 18,326-339.
Hamburg, D. A. (1992). Today's children: Creating a future for a generation in crisis.
New York: Times Books.
Hinshaw, S. P. (1992). Externalizing behavior problems and academic under-
achievement in childhood and adolescence: Causal relationships and underly-
ing mechanisms. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 127-155.
Holahan, C. K., & Holahan, C. J. (1987a). Self-efficacy, social support, and depres-
sion in aging: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Gerontology, 42,65-68.
Holahan, C. K., & Holahan, C. J. (1987b). Life stress, hassles, and self-efficacy in
aging: A replication and extension. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 17, 574-
592.
Holden, G., Moncher, M. S., Schinke, S. P., & Barker, K. M. (1990). Self-efficacy of
children and adolescents: A meta-analysis. Psychological Reports, 66,1044-1046.
Holman, H., & Lorig, K. (1992). Perceived self-efficacy in self-management of
chronic disease. In R. Schwarzer (Ed.), Self-efficacy: Thought control of action (pp.
305-323). Washington, DC: Hemisphere.

42 Albert Bandura
Hurrelmann, K., & Roberts, K. (1991). Problems and solutions. In J. Bynner & K.
Roberts (Eds.), Youth and work: Transition to employment in England and Germany
(pp. 229-250). London: Anglo-German Foundation.
Jacobs, J. A. (1989). Revolving doors: Sex segregation and women's careers. Stanford,
CA: Stanford University Press.
Jemmott, J. B., Ill, Jemmott, L. S., & Fong, G. T. (1992). Reductions in HIV risk-asso-
ciated sexual behaviors among black male adolescents: Effects of an AIDS pre-
vention intervention. American Journal of Public Health, 82,372-377.
Jemmott, J. B., Ill, Jemmott, L. S., Spears, H., Hewitt, N., & Cruz-Collins, M. (1991).
Self-efficacy, hedonistic expectancies, and condom-use intentions among
inner-city black adolescent women: A social cognitive approach to AIDS risk
behavior. Journal of Adolescent Health, 13,512-519.
Jerusalem, M., & Mittig, W. (1995). Self-efficacy in stressful life transitions. In A.
Bandura (Ed.), Self-efficacy in changing societies (pp. 177-201). New York: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Jessor, R. (1986). Adolescent problem drinking: Psychosocial aspects and develop-
mental outcomes. In R. K. Silbereisen et al. (Eds.), Development as action in con-
text (pp. 241-264). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Jessor, R., Donovan, J. E., & Costa, F. M. (1991). Beyond adolescence: Problem behavior
and young adult development. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University
Press.
Kanfer, R., & Zeiss, A. M. (1983). Depression, interpersonal standard-setting, and
judgments of self-efficacy. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 92,319-329.
Kavanagh, D. J., & Bower, G. H. (1985). Mood and self-efficacy: Impact of joy and
sadness on perceived capabilities. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 9, 507-525.
Kavanagh, D. J., & Wilson, P. H. (1989). Prediction of outcome with a group version
of cognitive therapy for depression. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 27, 333-
347.
Kent, G., & Gibbons, R. (1987). Self-efficacy and the control of anxious cognitions.
Journal of Behavior Therapy & Experimental Psychiatry, 18,33-40.
Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K., & Glaser, R. (1987). Behavioral influences on immune func-
tion: Evidence for the interplay between stress and health. In T. Field, P. M.
McCabe, & N. Schneiderman (Eds.), Stress and coping across development (Vol. 2,
pp. 189-206). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K., Glaser, R., Strain, E. C, Stout, J. C, Tarr, K. L., Holliday, J. E., &
Speicher, C. E. (1986). Modulation of cellular immunity in medical students.
Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 9,5-21.
Krantz, D. S., Grunberg, N. E., & Baum, A. (1985). Health psychology. Annual
Reviews in Psychology, 36,349-383.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York:
Springer.
Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (1994). Toward a unifying social cognitive
theory of career and academic interest, choice, and performance. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 45,79-122.
Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Larkin, K. C. (1984). Relation of self-efficacy expecta-
tions to academic achievement and persistence. Journal of Counseling Psychol-
ogy, 31,356-362.
Levin, H. M. (1987). New schools for the disadvantaged. Teacher Education Quar-
terly, 24,60-83.
Levin, H. M. (1991). Learning from accelerated schools. Policy perspectives. Phila-
delphia: The Pew Higher Education Research Program.

Exercise of personal and collective efficacy in changing societies 43
Lewinsohn, P. M, Mischel, W., Chaplin, W., & Barton, R. (1980). Social competence
and depression: The role of illusory self-perceptions. Journal of Abnormal Psy-
chology, 89, 203-212.
Lipset, S. M. (1985). Feeling better: Measuring the nation's confidence. Public Opin-
ion, 2, 6-9,56-58.
Litt, M. D. (1988). Self-efficacy and perceived control: Cognitive mediators of pain
tolerance, journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54,149-160.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Maier, S. R, Laudenslager, M. L., & Ryan, S. M. (1985). Stressor controllability,
immune function, and endogenous opiates. In F. R. Brush & J. B. Overmier
(Eds.), Affect, conditioning, and cognition: Essays on the determinants of behavior
(pp. 183-201). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Major, B., Cozzarelli, C, Sciacchitano, A. M., Cooper, M. L., Testa, M., & Mueller, P.
M. (1990). Perceived social support, self-efficacy, and adjustment to abortion.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59,452-463.
Major, B., Mueller, P., & Hildebrandt, K. (1985). Attributions, expectations, and
coping with abortion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48,585-599.
Marlatt, G. A., Baer, J. S., & Quigley, L. A. (1995). Self-efficacy and alcohol and drug
abuse. In A. Bandura (Ed.), Self-efficacy in changing societies (pp. 289-315). New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Marsh, A. (1977). Protest and political consciousness. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Matsui, T., Ikeda, H., & Ohnishi, R. (1989). Relations of sex-typed socializations to
career self-efficacy expectations of college students. Journal of Vocational Behav-
ior, 35,1-16.
Matsui, T., & Onglatco, M. L. (1992). Career self-efficacy as a moderator of the rela-
tion between occupational stress and strain. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 41,
79-88.
McAuley, E. (1991). Efficacy, attributional, and affective responses to exercise par-
ticipation. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 13, 382-393.
McGinnis, J. M., & Foege, W. H. (1993). Actual causes of death in the United States.
Journal of the American Medical Association, 270,2207-2212.
Meece, J. L., Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (1990). Predators of math anxiety and its
influence on young adolescents' course enrollment intentions and perfor-
mance in mathematics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82,60-70.
Meichenbaum, D. H. (1977). Cognitive-behavior modification: An integrative approach.
New York: Plenum Press.
Millstein, S. G., Petersen, A. C, & Nightingale, E. O. (1993). Promoting the health of
adolescents: New directions for the twenty-first century. New York: Oxford Univer-
sity Press.
Muller, E. N. (1972). A test of a partial theory of potential for political violence. The
American Political Science Review, 66,928-959.
Oettingen, G. (1995). Cross-cultural perspective on self-efficacy beliefs. In A.
Bandura (Ed.), Self-efficacy in changing societies (pp. 149-176). New York: Cam-
bridge University Press.
O'Leary, A. (1990). Stress, emotion, and human immune function. Psychological
Bulletin, 108,363-382.
Olioff, M., & Aboud, F. E. (1991). Predicting postpartum dysphoria in primiparous
mothers: Roles of perceived parenting self-efficacy and self-esteem. Journal of
Cognitive Psychotherapy, 5, 3-14.

44 Albert Bandura
Ozer, E. M. (1992). Managing work and family: The effects of childcare on perceived self-
efficacy and the psychological health of new working mothers. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
Ozer, E. M., & Bandura, A. (1990). Mechanisms governing empowerment effects: A
self-efficacy analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58,472-486.
Paris, S. G., & Newman, R. S. (1990). Developmental aspects of self-regulated
learning. Educational Psychologist, 25, 87-102.
Patterson, G. R., Capaldi, D., & Bank, L. (1991). An early starter model for predict-
ing delinquency. In D. Pepler & K. H. Rubin (Eds.), The development and treat-
ment of childhood aggression. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Perry, C. L., Kelder, S. H., Murray, D. M., & Klepp, K. (1992). Communitywide
smoking prevention: Long-term outcomes of the Minnesota heart health pro-
gram and the class of 1989 study. American Journal of Public Health, 82, 1210-
1216.
Relich, J. D., Debus, R. L., & Walker, R. (1986). The mediating role of attribution
and self-efficacy variables for treatment effects on achievement outcomes. Con-
temporary Educational Psychology, 11,195-216.
Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of
reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80 (1, Whole No. 609).
Rudkin, L., Hagell, A., Elder, G. H., & Conger, R. (1992). Perceptions of community
well-being and the desire to move elsewhere. Unpublished manuscript, University
of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Rutter, M. (1979). Protective factors in children's responses to stress and disadvan-
tage. In M. W. Kent & E. J. Rolf (Eds)., Primary prevention of psychopathology. Vol-
ume III: Social competence in children (pp. 49-74). Hanover, NH: University Press
of New England.
Salkovskis, P. M., & Harrison, J. (1984). Abnormal and normal obsessions – a repli-
cation. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 22,549-552.
Sanderson, W. C, Rapee, R. M., & Barlow, D. H. (1989). The influence of an illusion
of control on panic attacks induced via inhalation of 5.5% carbon dioxide-enriched air.
Archives of General Psychiatry, 46,157-162.
Sarason, I. G. (1975). Anxiety and self-preoccupation. In I. G. Sarason & D. C.
Spielberger (Eds.), Stress and anxiety (Vol. 2, pp. 27-44). Washington, DC:
Hemisphere.
Schneiderman, N., McCabe, P. M., & Baum, A. (Eds.). (1992). Stress and disease pro-
cesses: Perspectives in behavioral medicine. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Schooler, C. (1990). Individualism and the historical and social-structural determi-
nants of people's concerns over self-directedness and efficacy In J. Rodin, C.
Schooler, & K. W. Schaie (Eds.), Self-directedness: Cause and effects throughout the
life course (pp. 19-58). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Schunk, D. H. (1987). Peer models and children's behavioral change. Review of Edu-
cational Research, 57,149-174.
Schunk, D. H. (1989). Self-efficacy and achievement behaviors. Educational Psychol-
ogy Review, 1,173-208.
Schunk, D. H., & Gunn, T. P. (1986). Self-efficacy and skill development: Influence
of task strategies and attributions. Journal of Educational Research, 79,238-244.
Schwarzer, R. (1992). Self-efficacy in the adoption and maintenance of health
behaviors: Theoretical approaches and a new model. In R. Schwarzer (Ed.),
Self-efficacy: Thought control of action (pp. 217-243). Washington, DC: Hemi-
sphere.
Seligman, M. E. P. (1990). Why is there so much depression today? The waxing of
the individual and the waning of the commons. In R. E. Ingram (Ed.), Content-

Exercise of personal and collective efficacy in changing societies 45
porary psychological approaches to depression: Theory, research, and treatment (pp.
1-9). New York: Plenum.
Shavit, Y, & Martin, F. C. (1987). Opiates, stress, and immunity: Animal studies.
Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 9,11-20.
Steptoe, A., & Appels, A. (Eds.). (1989). Stress, personal control and health. New York:
Wiley.
Taylor, S. E. (1989). Positive illusions: Creative self-deception and the healthy mind. New
York: Basic Books.
Telch, M. J., Killen, J. D., McAlister, A. L., Perry, C. L., & Maccoby, N. (1982). Long-
term follow-up of a pilot project on smoking prevention with adolescents.
Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 5,1-8.
Teti, D. M., & Gelfand, D. M. (1991). Behavioral competence among mothers of
infants in the first year: The mediational role of maternal self-efficacy. Child
Development, 62, 918-929.
Wallack, L., Dorfman, L., Jernigan, D., & Themba, M. (1993). Media advocacy and
public health: Power for prevention. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
White, J. (1982). Rejection. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
White, R. W. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence. Psycho-
logical Review, 66, 297-333.
Wiedenfeld, S. A., O'Leary, A., Bandura, A., Brown, S., Levine, S., & Raska, K.
(1990). Impact of perceived self-efficacy in coping with stressors on compo-
nents of the immune system. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59,
1082-1094.
Wiegman, O., Taal, E., Van den Bogaard, J., & Gutteling, J. M. (1992). Protection
motivation theory variables as predictors of behavioural intentions in three
domains of risk management. In J. A. M. Winnubst & S. Maes (Eds.), Lifestyles,
stress and health: New developments in health psychology (pp. 55-70). Leiden,
Netherlands: DSWO Press, Leiden University.
Wollman, N., & Stouder, R. (1991). Believed efficacy and political activity: A test of
the specificity hypothesis. The Journal of Social Psychology, 131, 557-566.
Wood, R., & Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory of organizational manage-
ment. Academy of Management Review, 14, 361-384.
Woolfolk, A. E., & Hoy, W. K. (1990). Prospective teachers' sense of efficacy and
belief about control. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 81-91.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1990). Self-regulating academic learning and achievement: The
emergence of a social cognitive perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 2,
173-201.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1995). Self-efficacy and educational development. In A.
Bandura (Ed.), Self-efficacy in changing societies (pp. 202-231). New York: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Bandura, A. (1994). Impact of self-regulatory influences on
writing course attainment. American Educational Research Journal, 31,845-862.
Zimmerman, B. J., Bandura, A., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1992). Self-motivation for
academic attainment: The role of self-efficacy beliefs and personal goal-setting.
American Educational Research Journal, 29,663-676.

2. Life trajectories in changing
societies
GLEN H. ELDER, JR.
Eras of rapid social change underscore important issues in the study of
lives by generating problems of human dislocation and deprivation, as
well as new opportunities. The extraordinary loss of life during World
War II illustrates this point through a distorted sex ratio and its continuing
influence on the social choices of women (Linz, 1985; Velkoff & Kinsella,
1993). Today Russian women over the age of 65 outnumber men by a fac-
tor of three to one, an imbalance that is greater than that of any other
country in Europe, East or West. From 1940 to the present, the long arm of
wartime mortality has shaped and limited their work and marriage
options.
The historical record of the 20th century is filled with powerful changes
of this kind – violent swings of the economic cycle, rapid industrial
growth, population dislocations, mass migration, and political fragmenta-
tion. Such times prompt fresh thinking about life trajectories, human
agency, and their relation. Indeed, contemporary thinking about such
issues in the life course dates back to the changeful times of the early 20th
century and especially to the pioneering work of W. I. Thomas and his
monumental study with Florian Znaniecki (1918-1920), The Polish Peasant
in Europe and America. This study investigated the migratory experience of
Polish peasants as they left their rural homeland for urban centers in
Europe and the United States during the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
The Polish Peasant provides an ethnographic and historical account of vil-
I acknowledge support by the National Institute of Mental Health (MH 41327, MH 43270,
and MH 48165), a contract with the U.S. Army Research Institute, a grant from the Depart-
ment of Veterans Affairs Merit Review program, research support from the John D. and Cath-
erine T. MacArthur Foundation Program for Successful Adolescent Development Among
Youth in High-Risk Settings, and a Research Scientist Award (MH 00567).
46

Life trajectories in changing societies 47
lage and country life in Poland and of the immigrants' settlement in their
new urban environments.
Immigrant lives embodied the dislocations and strains of their age and
trajectory. They were socialized for a world that soon became only a mem-
ory. Thomas's own life history bears some resemblance to this change. He
was born in 1863, grew up amid the foothills of western Virginia, and
experienced mentors who opened his eyes to the possibilities of graduate
study at the University of Chicago. Later on, Thomas founded a sociology
program of study and research at the university that became known as the
Chicago School of Sociology. The exercise of personal and social control
became central in his biographical approach to human lives in changing
societies.
In his writings Thomas called for a view of people's lives over time in a
changing environment. Continuous life records, whether retrospective or
prospective, offered such a view. He urged (Volkart, 1951, p. 593) that pri-
ority be given to ''the longitudinal approach to life history." Studies
should follow "groups of individuals into the future, getting a continuous
record of experiences as they occur." From this perspective, the basic task
should be one of studying "characters and life-organizations … in their
dynamic concrete development."
Thomas referred to "typical lines of genesis" established by the social
order but also, with Znaniecki, stressed the agentic potential of the indi-
vidual. People construct their own lives by choosing options within struc-
tured situations. Seventy years later we find that many of the ideas ex-
pressed by Thomas and Znaniecki are part of an emerging life course
paradigm that features the effects of changing societies and human
agency.
This chapter surveys the defining elements of this paradigm and then
explores what empirical studies of social change and their linking mecha-
nisms tell us about the role of human agency in life trajectories.
The life course as an emerging paradigm
Life course theory represents a major change in how we think about and
study developmental processes and human lives. It locates people in his-
torical context and life stage, highlights the differential timing and con-
nectedness of people's lives, and stresses the role of individuals in shaping
their own lives. Broadly speaking, this perspective constitutes a new para-
digm, a conceptual shift that has made temporality, contextual forces or
influences, and process more salient dimensions in the social sciences.

48 Glen H. Elder, Jr.
As a multidisciplinary field of ideas and empirical observations, the
paradigm draws on various conceptual streams, including biologically
informed accounts of individual development (Biihler, 1935; Magnusson
& Torestad, 1993); the generational tradition of life history studies
(Thomas & Znaniecki, 1918-1920); the meanings of age in accounts of
birth cohorts and age strata (Elder, 1975; Riley, Johnson, & Foner, 1972;
Ryder, 1965); cultural and intergenerational models (Kertzer & Keith,
1984); and developmental lifespan psychology (Baltes, 1987).
My perspective tends to stress the interplay of changing lives and their
changing social world. Examples include studies of economic decline and
recovery, as in the Great Depression (Elder, 1974) through World War II, as
well as the Great Farm Crisis of the 1980s, when economic indicators
plunged by nearly 50% (Conger & Elder, 1994). In each case, the studytraced adverse influences through family experience to the lives of chil-dren.
Overall, the life course can be viewed as a multilevel phenomenon,
ranging from structured pathways in whole societies (Mayer,
1986; Meyer,
1988), social institutions, and complex organizations to the social trajecto-
ries of individuals and their developmental paths. Unfortunately, theoriesgenerally exist on one level or another and consequently provide little
guidance for life course studies that cross levels. However, Bron-fenbrenner's (1979) nested levels of the social environment, from macro-
to microsystem, represent a conceptual advance in linking social changeand individual lives.
In concept, the life course generally refers to the interweave of age-
graded social trajectories, such as work and family, that are subject tochanging conditions and future options; and to short-term transitions thatextend from birth to retirement and death. Each trajectory can be thought
of as a series of linked states, as in linked jobs across a work history. Achange in state thus marks a transition – a transition from one job to
another, for example. Transitions are always embedded in trajectories that
give them distinctive meaning and form.
Unlike the single careers so widely studied in the past, the life course
paradigm orients analysis to the dynamics of multiple, interlocking path-
ways. Strategies of planning are illustrated in the scheduling of marriage
and parenthood, and in arranging family events according to the
imperatives of a work career (Moen, Dempster-McClain, & Williams,
1992). Family pathways also have implications for children's developmen-
tal course, as when family economic misfortune interacts with the matura-tional history of adolescents to produce change in their concept of self (Ge,

Life trajectories in changing societies 49
Lorenz, Conger, Elder, & Simons, 1994). Histories of family discord andineffective parenting may also be part of this picture.
Another broadening element comes from a view of the full life course,
its continuities and change. With an eye to the two halves of the life
course, analysis is necessarily more sensitive to the impact of early transi-
tions for later experience. Indeed, we now see that the implications of
early adult choices extend even into the later years of retirement and oldage (Clausen, 1993), from the adequacy of economic resources to adaptive
skills and activities. The later years and their quality of life cannot be
understood in full without knowledge of the prior life course. Role
sequences, whether functionally stable or unstable, clearly matter for sub-
sequent health and adaptation.
A core assumption of the life course paradigm asserts that developmen-
tal processes and outcomes are shaped by the life trajectories people fol-low, whether reflective of good or bad times. Likewise, developmental tra-
jectories also influence the choices and careers people follow. The flow of
influence is reciprocal. Thus, more ambitious goals and endeavors arelikely to appeal to efficacious youth and not to those lacking self-confi-dence (Elder, 1974, chap. 6). In turn, the progress of working toward goals
of this kind tends to enhance a sense of personal agency.
The continual interplay between social and developmental trajectories
has much to do with four distinctive features of the life course paradigm
(Elder, in press): (1) human lives in relation to historical times and place,(2) human agency, (3) linked lives, and (4) social timing. Issues of human
agency, linked lives, and timing identify mechanisms by which changing
environments influence the course and substance of human lives.
Changing times and human agency
Especially in rapidly changing societies, differences in year of birth exposepeople to different historical worlds, with their distinctive priorities, con-
straints, and options. Historical effects on the life course take the form of a
cohort effect when social change differentiates the life patterns of succes-sive cohorts, such as older and younger men before World War
II. History
also takes the form of a period effect when the influence is relatively uni-
form across successive birth cohorts. However, birth year and cohort
membership are merely a proxy for exposure to historical change.
Individual lives may reflect historical change, but to know whether this
is so we must move beyond birth cohorts and their historical context to
direct study of the changing environment. The research question should
focus on the social change in question and its life course implications.

50 Glen H. Elder, Jr.
What is the process by which an institutional change, such as political
reform in Eastern Europe, is expressed in particular life patterns?
To answer this question, consider some ways of linking historical effects
to people's lives (Elder, 1991): the different implications for people of dif-
ferences in age (their life stage), the interaction of prior life histories for
adaptations (an accentuation of prior dispositions), the situational impera-
tives of the new arrangements, the effects of losing and regaining personal
control (control cycle), and the social interdependence of individual lives.
From the vantage point of W. I. Thomas's theory of social and personal
change (Elder, 1974, chap. 1), all transitions, whether normative or not,
create a disparity between claims and resources, goals and accomplish-
ments. The resulting loss of control over life outcomes prompts efforts to
regain control; the entire process takes the form of a control cycle, a pro-
cess well documented by studies of reactance behavior. Feelings of reac-
tance occur whenever one or more freedoms or expectations are elimi-
nated or threatened. Such emotions prompt efforts to regain or preserve
control.
The Brehms (1982, p. 375) note that "it is the threat to control (which one
already had) that motivates an attempt to deal with the environment. And
the attempts to deal with the environment can be characterized as
attempts to regain control." Bandura (in press) stresses the motivating
effects of setting higher goals, achieving them, and then setting even
higher goals.
Though all social transitions entail some risk of losing personal control,
whether they produce this outcome or not has much to do with considera-
tions of life stage and situational imperatives. Life stage refers to the age
and social status of the person at the time of change. People of unlike age
experience the same change event in different ways.
A severe economic recession would influence parents and children in
different ways. Indeed, children in the Great Depression were influenced
through the impact on parents (Elder, 1974,1979). Moreover, younger chil-
dren were more adversely influenced by Depression hardship than older
children. Another example comes from military service and the disruptive
effect of late mobilization after the age of 32 in World War II (Elder, Shana-
han, & Clipp, 1994). Early mobilization, just after high school, had differ-
ent consequences as it enlarged the benefits of servicemen in this war.
Typically, the meaning of the new situation and its imperatives depend
on what people bring to it. Dispositions brought to stressful change may
adversely accentuate the impact of the change. Thus, irritable men may
become explosive under economic stress, and less resilient men may shat-

Life trajectories in changing societies 51
ter under the stress of wartime combat (Elder & Caspi, 1990). One of the
earliest cases of accentuation in the research literature comes from the
pioneering research of Newcomb (1943) on women students of newly
established Bennington College in rural Vermont in the 1930s. In the New
Deal environment of Bennington, entering students who were relatively
independent of parental influences tended to shift their social and politi-
cal attitudes more toward the college norm than other students.
Linked lives and their timing
No features of the life course paradigm are more central to an understand-
ing of changing environments in people's lives and their sense of personal
efficacy than the concepts of linked lives and their timing. Studies dating
back to Durkheim's (1897/1951) analysis of social integration and suicide
and to Thomas and Znaniecki's (1918-1920) research on migration have
stressed the interdependence of lives across the generations and among
family, friends, and workmates. Interlocking social relationships structure
the life course with personal constraints and become modes of self-control
and agency through internalization.
All lives are socially timed and patterned according to the meanings of
age, as in age grading. Studies informed by age have stressed the histori-
cal time of the person through birth year, as well as the social timing of
events and transitions (Riley, Foner, & Waring, 1988).
The timing of encounters with major environmental change in a
person's life has much to do with the goodness of fit between lives and
new circumstances. This life stage principle implies that the effects of a par-
ticular social change will vary in type and relative influence across the life
course and thus points to the potential complexity of interactions among
historical, psychological, and biological factors. Mobilization for military
service in World War II and the Korean War illustrates the role of life stage
in structuring historical experience.
Consider two birth cohorts of Japanese men who grew up in the city of
Shizuoka, a large metropolis south of Tokyo (Elder & Meguro, 1987). The
older men (born 1918-1924) were typically mobilized into military service
during World War II, a total of 78%. Nearly two thirds reported family
members who had served. Four out of five also experienced an air raid
and more than half claimed that their family suffered physical war dam-
age. The younger men (born 1927-1930) were typically too young to serve,
and yet they also were exposed to a high level of personal suffering in
relation to wartime conditions, usually through the lives of significant

52 Glen H. Elder, Jr.
others – the military service of family members, the death of a family
member, and war damage to the family home.
The younger men were also mobilized out of school for work groups in
factories and on farms, and thus an understanding of the war's effect in
their lives requires knowledge of their workmates and work experience.
Just as early work experience can accelerate movement into adult roles,
the war-related work of these schoolchildren tended to accelerate their
transition to marriage and parenthood. The mobilized men formed fami-
lies at an earlier age than the nonmobilized, regardless of family back-
ground and level of education.
Time of entry into the armed forces represents one of the most powerful
influences on how the service affected the lives of American men in the
Oakland and Berkeley cohorts (Elder, 1986,1987). The Oakland men were
born at the beginning of the 1920s, the Berkeley men in 1928-1929. Early
entry, shortly after high school, provided special advantages for life
opportunity because it came before family obligations and major work
advances, and ensured access to support for higher education on the GI
Bill. In both cohorts, disadvantaged youth were more likely to be mobi-
lized shortly after high school than other men. Disadvantage refers to a
deprived family background in the 1930s, to poor school grades, and to
feelings of inadequacy in adolescence.
By midlife, the inequality of veterans before the war had largely disap-
peared. Early entry proved to be timely for the Oakland and Berkeley men
because it put them on a pathway to greater opportunity, apart from the
trauma of combat. One important aspect of this trajectory entailed
changes that made the early entrants more ambitious, self-directed, and
disciplined (Elder, 1986). By placing men in a new setting divorced from
home, military service promoted self-direction, mastery, and assertiveness
at a formative point in life, when compared to later entrants or non-
veterans. With its legitimate moratorium from career pressures, there was
time to think through options and do fresh evaluations of future direc-
tions. The early entrants also had greater access to the GI Bill on educa-
tional benefits. In many respects, then, military service had become a
timely developmental experience for a large number of children from dis-
advantaged homes.
To sum up, the interdependence and timing of lives represent key ele-
ments of the life course paradigm as we know it today. In combination,
they provide a fruitful way of thinking about connections between lives
and times as well as about the role of human agency in constructing life
ways. The impact of social change is contingent on the life history people

Life trajectories in changing societies 53
bring to the new situation, on their life stage at the time, and on the
demands of the new situation.
To bring more empirical detail to these conclusions, I turn to studies of
life disadvantage in hard times and their contribution to an understand-
ing of human agency in life trajectories.
Rising above life's disadvantage: the role of personal agency
Children of disadvantage are not expected to do well in life, and yet wefind that a surprising number do prosper in adulthood. This observationapplies to the generations of American children who grew up in the Great
Depression (Elder, 1974, 1979) and became successful members of thepostwar generation, as well as to contemporary children who are growingup in dangerous inner cities (Elder, Eccles, Ardelt, & Lord, 1995) and the
depressed countryside (Elder, 1992). How does this escape occur? What
are the routes out of disadvantage?
One answer involves the variability of historical experience and effica-
cious behavior among families and children (Elder, 1974, 1979). Not allchildren of the Great Depression were exposed to drastic income losses,
and those who were varied markedly in social and personal resources.
They differed in age and maturity, and in parents with educational
resources, self-confidence, and ego resilience.
Each of these resources played a role in moderating the impact of family
hardship. In addition, hard-pressed families differed in how they coped
with adversity. Some aggravated their plight by engaging in self-defeatingadaptations, as in heavy drinking and social withdrawal, while othersmanaged effectively through constructive actions and problem solving.
Some of these differences also appear in the family experience of inner-
city youth today (Elder, Eccles, Ardelt, & Lord, 1995) and in the experi-
ences of rural adolescents in the American Midwest (Elder, Foster, &Ardelt, 1994). I begin with themes from the Depression experience and
then explore key parallels in the contemporary experience of inner-cityand rural youth.
Blunting the impact of depression adversity
American children who were born at opposite ends of the 1920s did not
share the same risk of developmental impairment when they entered theGreat Depression with their families. In theory, the youngest children
were most family dependent and thus encountered the greatest risk. Bycontrast, the oldest children were too young to leave school and face a dis-

54 Glen H. Elder, Jr.
mal employment situation, and they were also too old to be highly depen-
dent on their family and its well-being. Consistent with this life stage
expectation, a longitudinal study of California children in these two age
groups found confirming evidence on the cohort difference (Elder, 1974,
1979). The Oakland Growth Study members were born in 1920-1921; the
Berkeley Guidance members in 1928-1929.
In both cohorts, drastic income loss sharply increased indebtedness and
the curtailment of expenditures. Changes in relationship stemmed from
fathers' loss of earnings and withdrawal from family roles and from fam-
ily economic support. Economic loss increased the relative power and
emotional centrality of mother in relation to boys and girls. Lastly, depri-
vation heightened parental irritability, the likelihood of marital conflicts,
arbitrary and inconsistent discipline of children, and the risk of fathers'
behavioral impairment through heavy drinking, demoralization, and
health disabilities. All of these behaviors raised the level of stress in the
family and increased the likelihood of destructive parent behavior.
Despite the similarity of these family processes in both cohorts, effects
of the Depression crisis were most adverse among the younger Berkeley
boys, and we focus on them for purposes of illustration (Elder, Caspi, &
Van Nguyen, 1986). Family hardship came early in their lives and entailed
a more prolonged deprivation experience, when compared to that of boys
in the Oakland cohort.
Whether middle class or working class, the Berkeley boys from de-
prived families were less likely than the nondeprived to be judged hope-
ful, self-directed, assertive, and confident about the future. At the end of
adolescence, they possessed little confidence in their goals or in their abil-
ity to achieve them. However, not all of the Berkeley boys came out of this
experience with such impairments. Indeed, the data suggest that they
were least likely to be influenced in this manner when they had a support-
ive, nurturant tie to mother; when father was not irritable, explosive, or
punitive; and when the marital relationship remained strong.
The developmental risks of the Berkeley boys is in keeping with other
findings that show family stressors to be most pathogenic for males in
early childhood (Rutter & Madge, 1976). But why did the older Oakland
boys fare much better? Consider status changes in the transition to adult-
hood. Three status changes seemed especially relevant to males in both
cohorts – entry into higher education and its opportunities, the stabilizing
significance of marriage, and a bridge to opportunities through military
service.

Life trajectories in changing societies 55
Military service became the most important transition with its influence
on courtship and marriage, as well as higher education through the GI
Bill. Nine out of ten of the Oakland men entered the service for duty in
World War II, and nearly three fourths of the Berkeley men also served in
the military. In both groups, military service encouraged personal growth
toward mature competence and higher education (Elder & Caspi, 1990).
For the Berkeley males, these changes largely erased the developmental
limitations of their Depression experience. Marriage, higher education,
and military service encouraged the mastery experiences that were typi-
cally lacking in their own Depression households.
There is another angle that deserves consideration: a perspective on the
roles children played in their Depression households. The Oakland boys
were old enough to assume productive responsibilities within the house-
hold, and they did so, whereas the younger Berkeley boys were too
young. During the peak years of the Depression, they were less than four
or five years old.
Helpfulness and agency in depression households
The coming of hard times made the Oakland children more valuable in
the family economy (Elder, 1974). They were called on to meet the
increased labor and economic needs of deprived households, and a large
number managed tasks in the family and earned money on paid jobs. As a
rule, a portion of this money was used for family concerns. Girls tended to
specialize in household chores, while boys were more likely to hold a paid
job.
Boys who acquired paid jobs during the Depression became more
socially independent between junior high and high school when com-
pared to other youth, and they were judged to be more responsible on
financial matters by their mothers. Adolescent jobs in the 1930s typically
included odd jobs in the adult world, from clerking and waiting on tables
to running errands and delivering newspapers, but employment of this
kind carried the important implication that people counted on the work-
ers – that they mattered.
Staff observers judged the working boys to be more efficacious and
energetic than the nonemployed on a set of rating scales. Paid jobs were
undoubtedly attractive to the industrious and a source of enhanced beliefs
of self-efficacy – the flow of influence is reciprocal. A mother of one of the
working boys described him as having "one driving interest after another,
usually a practical one" (Elder, 1974, p. 145). With additional chores in the
household, these working adolescents experienced something like the

56 Glen H. Elder, Jr.
obligations of adult status. To observers who knew them well, they indeed
appeared to be more adult oriented in values, interests, and activities
when compared to other youth.
Deprived households in the Depression became more labor-intensive as
they sought to make ends meet, and this led to roles that children could
perform. The Oakland boys who took on the responsibilities of paid jobs
and household chores were likely to give more thought to the future and
especially to the work they would like to do. Boys who held jobs were
more apt in adulthood to have a crystallized sense of their work career,
when compared to other males. They also settled more quickly on a stable
line of work and displayed less floundering during their 20s. Apart from
education, this pattern of work had much to do with the occupational suc-
cess of men who grew up in hard-pressed Oakland families during the
1930s.
These pathways out of disadvantage were followed by a good many
children of the Great Depression. Do they have any relevance to contem-
porary American youth who are coming of age in the inner cities and
countryside? To answer this question, I turn to a study of inner-city youth
in the city of Philadelphia and to a panel study of midwestern boys and
girls who are growing up in small towns and on farms in the north central
region of Iowa.
Neither sample has reached the adult years and so we cannot know the
adult trajectories they will follow. Nevertheless, there are striking similari-
ties across this historical time, as the following accounts suggest.
Some parallels in contemporary America
Cities and the rural countryside have always been linked in major social
and economic crises. Cities attract rural generations with their opportuni-
ties, whereas urban crises make rural life more appealing, prompting
flows of return migrants. Today, the violence and economic deprivation of
life in the inner city have fueled the outmigration of blacks from large cit-
ies in the United States (Johnson, 1994). At the same time, rich agricultural
regions of the Midwest are losing their young people in extraordinary
numbers. Between 10% and 20% of the residents of rural counties left Iowa
in the 1980s for other regions (Lasley, 1994). A substantial number are
migrating to cities.
The Philadelphia study, launched in 1991, is studying black and white
parents and their young people in high and lower poverty neighborhoods
of the inner city (Elder, Eccles, & Ardelt, 1994; Elder, Eccles, Ardelt, &
Lord, 1995). The single wave sample includes 486 households, black

Life trajectories in changing societies 57
American and white American. Interviews were carried out with a parent,
a child between the ages of 11 and 14, and a near older sibling. Neighbor-
hood poverty rates vary from 10% to 63%.
The Iowa study was launched as a panel design in 1989 with 451 house-
holds in rural counties. The household participants include two parents,
the target children (seventh graders in 1989), and a near sibling. Annualwaves of data collection have been implemented each year from 1989through
1992. Similar measures have been used in the two studies.
In each study, I focus on links between economic hardship and both
parental behavior and children's lives.
The inner city and efficacious parents
Economic trends over the past decades have placed middle- to low-
income families under increasing economic pressure as their standard of
living has declined relative to that of upper-income households. This
change along with high rates of violence and drug use have placed inner-city youth at considerable risk of impaired life chances and early death
(Wilson, 1987). Not all inner-city children are impaired by such disadvan-
tages, and yet we know surprisingly little about the escape routes and
how they work.
In theory and research, the escape is aided by nurturing parents who
maintain high standards of excellence and firm discipline. Beliefs in one's
ability to make such standards a reality are relevant to pathways out ofurban disadvantage, along with efforts to minimize risk and maximizeopportunities outside the family. Parents may involve their children in
recreational organizations and participate actively in their children's edu-
cation through volunteer activities and classroom visits. They may alsoinsist on the presence of an older person on the route home from school,such as a brother or family friend. The Philadelphia study explored theseaspects of effective parent behavior, including family strategies that are
both proactive and preventive within and outside the family
The basic model linked total family income and unstable work-income
to economic pressure, as indicated by felt financial strain and economic
adjustments, such as cutting back on consumption. In theory, economicpressure diminishes the self-efficacy beliefs of adults as parents by
increasing their feelings of emotional depression. We assumed that thiseffect of economic pressure would be greatest when social support is lack-ing, as among single-parent households and discordant marriages. On the

58 Glen H. Elder, Jr.
.12Total
Family
Income
Economic
Pressure
Unstable
Work/Income
rR2=.2ODepressed I
Feeling R2=.O7
Parent
-.28*"
Parental
EfficacyR2=.1O
N=420
*** p< .000
*p<.10
Figure 2.1. Influence of economic hardship on parent's depressed feelings
and efficacy (standardized coefficients).
other hand, relatively strong marriages are likely to minimize the depres-
sive effect of hardship on the quality of parenting.
When inner-city parents believe they can make a positive difference in
their children's lives and behavior, they are also likely to be engaged in
preventive and proactive family strategies, both within and outside of the
family. That is, efficacious parents will be engaged in combating the high
risks to their children by involving them in community organizations and
supervised activities.
Linking economic pressures and parental efficacy
The basic model links economic pressures and parental efficacy through
variations in reported level of emotional distress. Mounting economic
pressures increase the risk of depressed feelings and consequently the
prospect of a diminished sense of parental effectiveness. To put this model
to a test (Figure 2.1), we defined a causal sequence with total family in-
come and unstable work-income as exogenous variables, followed by felt
economic pressure (an average of two measures, financial strain and cut-
backs on purchases), emotional depression (SCL-90), and a sense of paren-
tal efficacy – beliefs that the parent could make a difference in the child
and his or her environment (the two scores were averaged).
As expected, the path diagram shows that depressed feelings do have a
strong negative impact on a parent's sense of efficacy, and that they medi-
ate the adverse effects of economic pressure on this outcome. Increasing
levels of economic pressure increase the risk of emotional depression

Life trajectories in changing societies 59
among black and white parents and in this manner diminish their sense of
personal effectiveness as a parent. This mediational link appears in both
racial groups.
Considering the limitations of our cross-sectional data, it is possible that
hardship conditions might produce greater economic pressure by increas-
ing depressed feelings; or that economic pressures might lead to a dimin-
ished sense of parental efficacy and a depressed outlook. The analytic
model was reestimated with these changes in place, but the results pro-
vide no support for this arrangement. The model does not fit the data
appropriately. The initial sequence still makes more sense.
Types of family structure modify the causal sequence in line with our
expectations. Economic hardship and economic pressure are most predic-
tive of depressed feelings and the absence of mastery attitudes and beliefs
among single-parent households and relatively weak marriages. Hardship
conditions made no difference at all on parental mood and beliefs of par-
enting efficacy when the marriage was strong. This protective influence
occurs in part because supportive marriages are seldom coupled with
depressed feelings.
What do efficacious parents do?
Are efficacious parents more engaged in family strategies, preventive and
proactive, within their neighborhoods? Two types of activities index
socialization strategy inside the household – the use of encouragement
and collaborative activity between parent and child (labeled "work with
child"). Strategies outside the home refer to efforts to involve the child in
community activities, such as the YMCA and recreational groups, and to
employ preventive measures, such as warnings of danger.
To discover what efficacious parents do in their neighborhoods, we
computed zero order correlations between parent efficacy and the four
family management strategies among black and white parents. Neighbor-
hoods in Philadelphia are largely segregated and thus we obtained the
correlations for parents in each racial group. All indications from aggre-
gate level analyses suggest that black parents live in higher-risk neighbor-
hoods when compared to white parents. Thus, one could argue that man-
agement strategies both in and out of the home are more required among
black parents by the risks that their children experience.
The correlations in Table 2.1 show a rather striking racial difference.
Black parents who rank high on personal efficacy are more likely to be
involved in the use of management strategies when compared to white

60 Glen H. Elder, Jr.
Table 2.1. Sense of parental efficacy and family management strategies, in r correlations
Correlates of Parental Efficacy
Family Black White Significance of
Management N = 264-291 N = 117-128 Difference
Strategies r r p
Inside Household
Encouragement .26 .11 .16
Work with child .31 .05 .02
Outside Houshold
Outside .23 .11 .28
programs
Proactive .25 .12 .22
prevention
parents. Indeed, level of personal efficacy as a parent tells very little about
the use of these strategies in the white sample. Some efficacious parents
may use them but others do not. The link is considerably stronger among
black parents, though here too we find a number of efficacious parents
who are not involved in strategies of family management. Clearly, we
must know more about the particularities of neighborhood life in order to
specify the connection between efficacious beliefs and actions.
Black parents rank higher on the use of family management strategies
when compared to white parents, and especially in single-parent families
(Elder, Eccles, & Ardelt, 1994). In particular, the single black mother tends
to make greater use of community resources than white parents in this
family situation. Whether single or not, black parents were devoting more
effort to strategies with their sons, possibly in recognition of the neighbor-
hood dangers to their well-being.
Philadelphia parents who feel efficacious and engaged in family man-
agement activities tend to have children who feel good about themselves
and are engaged in organized activities in the community. They are less
likely than other children to have problems at school. Only time will tell
whether they are more likely than other inner-city children to survive
neighborhood dangers and achieve a productive life.
Rural youth in a transformed world
Hard times in the inner city are mirrored in the agricultural world of
youth in the Midwest. Children who were born in the early 1970s experi-

Life trajectories in changing societies 61
enced the end of agricultural prosperity by the 1980s as the economy
declined by a factor of a third or more (Elder, 1992). Between 1979 and
1982, construction starts and sales, among other indicators, plummeted by
40%. The significance of this change is expressed across three Iowa gener-
ations on the issue of farming. Four out of five of the grandparents in the
study had farmed, and 20% of the parents continue to farm, but only
seven of the young boys expressed any desire to farm when grown up.
The farm crisis of the 1980s reflected long-term forces that have
increased the level of economic inequality between rural and urban
worlds in the United States. These forces include the globalization of mar-
kets, the regionalization of commerce, and depopulation. A drastic deval-
uation of arable land in the crisis set in motion a series of adverse financial
events that changed the face of rural life, sending countless families
deeply into financial debt. An editorial in a small Iowa newspaper (Iowa
Falls Times-Citizen, 1992) captured the losses of the decade:
Rural Iowa has been damaged the most by the changing economic
winds. While not broken, the rural fiber has been stretched until
vacant store fronts, lost jobs, dwindling population, and decaying
small towns dot the rural scene." (Conger & Elder, 1994, p. 4)
The Iowa study was designed in the 1980s to resemble major features of
Children of the Great Depression (Elder, 1974) – in particular, by tracing the
effects of economic hardship through family processes and individual
adaptations to the experience of children. We focused on family processes
while keeping our eyes on the larger scene of economic decline and its
consequences for parents and children. Family processes became a way of
thinking about the behavioral effects of this decline.
The analytic model assumes that economic hardship (low income,
unstable work, and income loss) have adverse consequences for marital
relations and the well-being of parents when they sharply increase the
level of economic pressure. The effect of such pressure may be expressed
through emotional depression and/or more conflict in marriage. In the
second phase, marital discord and individual distress serve as a master
link between economic pressure and ineffective parenting. Marital con-
flict, depressed feelings, and hostility among parents increase the risk of
destructive parenting. In the third and final phase, destructive parenting
links marital and individual distress with child outcomes. The assumption
here is that marital conflict and ill-tempered parents have consequences
for children, primarily by undermining the quality of parent behavior.
For an example of research based on this mediational model, consider a
study of the Iowa boys during the seventh grade (Conger et al., 1992).

62 Glen H. Elder, Jr.
Using both observational and family member reports, we find that objec-
tive family hardship (measured by per capita income, debt to asset ratio,
unstable work, and reported income loss) increased the risk of a depressed
mood among mother and father through felt economic pressure. De-
pressed feelings made conflicted relations in marriage more likely, and
consequently increased the risk of nonnurturing parental behavior in both
parents. These behaviors in turn undermined the self-confidence, peer
acceptance, and school performance of the boys. A similar process has
been observed for girls (Conger et al., 1993).
All project research to date documents this "mediational sequence of
links" and its account of economic hardship in families and life experi-
ence. Each link in the sequence plays an important role. The findings to
date show remarkable correspondence to those obtained on families and
adolescents in the Great Depression and in the Philadelphia project.
The trauma of farm loss
As might be expected, the most severe level of economic hardship
involved families that were pushed off their land, the displaced farm fam-
ilies. A total of 59 of these families lost their farms during the late 1970s
and early 1980s, a good many years before this study began, but they were
still suffering the consequences in bouts of depression and unstable
income. The wife of a man who lost his farm in 1981 observed that "it has
been eight years now since we got off the farm and it's still very vivid in
both of our memories." Her husband added sadly, "I still bear the
wounds."
The history of economic crisis and emotional distress among displaced
fathers points to notable psychological and health risks for their children.
If emotional depression favors self-preoccupation, emotional distress and
feelings of parent rejection should be especially common among the chil-
dren of displaced parents. When compared to farm and nonfarm youth,
the children from displaced farm families emerge very clearly as the high-
risk group on emotional distress during the seventh grade and on the per-
ception of rejection by father and mother. Furthermore, we find that these
effects are concentrated in displaced families that ranked lowest on the
emotional strength of the marriage and on the effectiveness of father's
problem solving. In displaced families with strong marital bonds and
effective problem solving, children held a more positive and resourceful
image of self. Parents as models of mastery are clearly evident in the lives
of these children.

Life trajectories in changing societies 63
As in the Great Depression, the children of hard-pressed families
assumed more responsibilities, from unpaid chores to work on the farm
and paid jobs in rural communities. Time pressures from large familiesand the working hours of mother, labor pressures on farms, and economicpressures jointly played a role in the work experience of the Iowa adoles-
cents. The farm family most fully embraced the collective ethic of required
helpfulness, the responsiveness of family members to the collective wel-
fare of the family.
The contributions of farm boys in particular were valued by their par-
ents. The more these boys earned from their projects, the more positive
their parents' evaluations. By comparison, parental judgments of the
working sons in nonfarm households were more often negative, reflecting
the individualistic nature of work and earnings in these communities.
However, the working boys in both worlds tended to describe themselvesas industrious and efficacious, more so than other youth. The full signifi-cance of this work experience will not be known for some time, though itmay well have shaped important disciplines that favor life success –
dependability, independence, and perseverance.
Self-efficacy and the decision to migrate
When children of the farm crisis complete high school and pursue their
future in the years ahead, they will enter a world that has little in common
with that of their parents' adolescence after World War II. Consider a
small town within the study area where the population has dropped
below 800. A good many farms and young people have left the commu-
nity, the local farms have expanded their acreage, and most families preferto shop in the large cities, thereby contributing to the local business
decline.
A middle-aged father and his 14-year-old son talk about the forces at
work in the region (Shribman, 1991). After a long struggle, the father has
decided to call it quits and give up the family farm. As he puts it, "I am
tired of sitting here … and feeling that what I do is of no value." Not sur-
prisingly, the boy has no desire for his father's life. As he sees it, farmers
"are always in debt, they don't have any fun, they work hard and they
don't get anything out of it." His plans call for college and life in the city.
Judging from the Iowa study, self-efficacy and school success are likely to
be distinctive of this youth's life history.
The importance of living near family or in the same community
declines rather abruptly across the adolescent years of the Iowa sample.

64 Glen H. Elder, Jr.
Among farm boys and girls, identification with parents stands out as the
major determinant of their desire to eventually live near parents. In the
nonfarm group, those most interested in living near home were less suc-
cessful in school and more attached to parents (Elder, Hagell, Rudkin, &
Conger, 1993). This result is consistent with the selective nature of migra-
tion. Outmigration generally attracts the more capable members of the
younger rural generation who have no prospect for life on a farm.
Is adult disenchantment with the declining quality of rural life a factor
in the outmigration intentions of young people? Whatever the actual eco-
nomic level and trend in particular communities, Iowa parents who re-
garded themselves most favorably on a sense of personal mastery were
also most likely to feel satisfied with their hometown and immune to the
lure of other places (Rudkin, Hagell, Elder, & Conger, 1993). For this age
group, failure rather than a promising future has more to do with the
desire to break local ties and move elsewhere. The process has greater kin-
ship with structural displacement than with personal choice and agency.
The Iowans who claim to have control of their lives remain positive about
their communities, no doubt because they believe that they can act to
improve them, no matter how diminished by economic dislocation and
decline. The economic prosperity of the communities was controlled in
the analysis.
Of course, feelings of personal efficacy might simply reflect or mirror
community conditions and not represent a causal force in their own right
relative to community satisfaction. With only cross-sectional data at hand,
we have no way of ascertaining for certain whether influences flow in
both directions or not. Nevertheless, the outmigration sentiments of
fathers in nonfarm occupations did matter in the plans of both sons and
daughters. These sentiments increased the likelihood of similar prefer-
ences across the generations. Though mothers' residential aspirations
were not related to these preferences, both parents tended to characterize
children with such aspirations as industrious. In farm families, fewer chil-
dren held aspirations for living elsewhere, and those who did were not
seen by their parents as industrious.
Conclusion
The course of human lives typically becomes problematic during eras of
social transformation, a time when the ends of life frequently become
obscure. Traditional beginnings through family upbringing and formal
education no longer make sense in light of the changes in society. Neither

Life trajectories in changing societies 65
custom nor contemporary rules provide adequate guidance. As noted in
this chapter, problematic lives in changing times have typically attracted
social inquiry and underscored the role of human agency in forming life
trajectories. The life course paradigm evolved from such inquiry with its
defining orientations: lives and times, linked lives and timing, and human
agency in choice making.
The birth of life-course study occurred during the first decades of this
century, an era of dramatic urban-industrial change. The approach be-
came more complete as we know it today during the 1960s convergence of
two strands of scholarship, one based on social relationships and the other
on age and its meanings. Together, these bodies of work shaped a view of
the age-graded life course, embedded in social relationships with signifi-
cant others, and ever subject to social trends and influences. Once fash-
ioned as a perspective, the life course model encouraged the study of lives
in relation to social change.
This chapter explores three studies that reflect this history, with a focus
on mastery experiences and models in the escape from disadvantage: (1)
studies of children of the Great Depression; (2) an account of black and
white inner-city children in Philadelphia; and (3) studies of rural nonfarm
and farm children. The Depression studies of Americans who were born at
opposite ends of the 1920s show that a successful escape from Depression
hardship had much to do with their life stage when they experienced fam-
ily misfortune and family adaptations. The younger children were more
strongly influenced by economic hardship, especially the younger boys,
but even here strong marriages and nurturant parents protected them
from the full adversity of the times. In the transition to adulthood, military
service played an important role in opening up career opportunities.
In Philadelphia and rural Iowa, the adverse consequences of family
hardship and moderating influences closely resemble those observed
among California families in the Great Depression. Among inner-city par-
ents under economic pressure, economic hardship increased the risk of
strong financial stress, depressed feelings, and a lack of personal efficacy,
thereby reducing parental efforts in positive and protective experiences
for their children. This causal sequence is particularly strong in single-par-
ent households, but remains weak in families where the marriage is
strong. Single black mothers, in particular, relied most heavily upon com-
munity resources.
The 1980s Great Farm Crisis forced a good many families off their farms
and increased the level of family indebtedness to new and threatening lev-
els. As in the Great Depression, lower levels of income, losses of income,

66 Glen H. Elder, Jr.
and unstable work markedly increased the felt economic pressure of fami-
lies, straining marriages and parent-child relations to the limit. These con-
sequences were least severe among families with strong marriages. They
were also least severe when fathers were effective problem solvers.
The Philadelphia and Iowa youth are too young for us to know about
their adult lives in a world that is unlike the world of their parents. They
have no control over the changes that are presently taking place, but their
self-efficacy is certain to count in making choices. A sense of personal con-
trol matters most especially in social worlds that lack stability and conti-
nuity.
References
Baltes, P. B. (1987). Theoretical propositions of life-span developmental psychol-
ogy: on the dynamics between growth and decline. Developmental Psychology,
23, 611-626.
Bandura, A. (in press). Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Brehm, S. S., & Brehm, J. W. (1982). Psychological reactance: a theory of freedom and
control. New York: Academic Press.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA: Har-
vard University Press.
Buhler, C. (1935). The curve of life as studied in biographies. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology, 19,405-409.
Clausen, J. A. (1993). American lives. New York: Free Press.
Conger, R. D., Conger, K. J., Elder, G. H., Jr., Lorenz, F. O., Simons, R. L., &
Whitbeck, L. B. (1992). A family process model of economic hardship and
adjustment of early adolescent boys. Child Development, 63,526-541.
Conger, R. D., Conger, K. J., Elder, G. H., Jr., Lorenz, F. O., Simons, R. L., &
Whitbeck, L. B. (1993). Family economic stress and adjustment of early adoles-
cent girls. Developmental Psychology, 29(2), 206-219.
Conger, R. D., & Elder, G. H., Jr. (1994). Families in troubled times: adapting to change
in rural America. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine DeGruyter.
Durkheim, E. (1951). Suicide (J. A. Spalding & G. Simpson, Trans.). Glencoe, IL:
Free Press. (Original work published 1897.)
Elder, G. H., Jr. (1974). Children of the Great Depression: social change in life experience.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Elder, G. H., Jr. (1975). Age differentiation and the life course. Annual Review of Soci-
ology, 1,165-190.
Elder, G. H., Jr. (1979). Historical change in life patterns and personality. In P. B.
Baltes & O. G. Brim, Jr. (Eds.), Life-span development and behavior (Vol. 2, pp.
117-159). New York: Academic Press.
Elder, G. H., Jr. (1986). Military times and turning points in men's lives. Develop-
mental Psychology, 22(2), 233-245.
Elder, G. H., Jr. (1987). War mobilization and the life course: a cohort of World War
II veterans. Sociological Forum, 2(2), 449-472.
Elder, G. H., Jr. (1991). Lives and social change. In Walter R. Heinz (Ed.), Theoretical
advances in life course research (Vol. 1, pp. 58-86). Weinheim, Germany:
Deutscher Studien Verlag.

Life trajectories in changing societies 67
Elder, G. H., Jr. (1992, March). Children of the farm crisis. Paper presented at the
Society for Research on Adolescence, Washington, DC.
Elder, G. H., Jr. (in press). The life course paradigm: social change and individual
development. In P. Moen, G. H. Elder, Jr., & K. Liischer (Eds.), Examining lives
in context: Perspectives on the ecology of human development. Washington, DC:
APA Press.
Elder, G. H., Jr., & Caspi, A. (1990). Studying lives in a changing society: sociologi-
cal and personological explorations. In A. I. Rabin, R. A. Zucker, & S. Frank
(Eds.), Studying persons and lives (pp. 201-247). New York: Springer. (Henry A.
Murray Lecture Series)
Elder, G. H., Jr., Caspi, A., & Van Nguyen, T. (1986). Resourceful and vulnerable
children: family influence in hard times. In R. K. Silbereisen, K. Eyferth, & G.Rudinger (Eds.), Development as action in context, (pp. 167-186). Berlin:
Springer-Verlag.
Elder, G. H.,
Jr., Eccles, J., & Ardelt, M. (1994). Inner city parents in high risk neigh-
borhoods: their sense of agency and family strategies. Project mimeo.
Elder, G. H., Jr., Eccles, J., Ardelt, M., & Lord, S. (1995). Inner city parents under
economic pressure: perspectives on the strategies of parenting. Unpublishedmanuscript.
Elder, G. H., Jr., Foster, E. M.,
& Ardelt, M. (1994). Children in the household econ-
omy. In R. D. Conger, & G. H. Elder, Jr. (Eds.), Families in troubled times: adapting
to change in rural America (pp. 127-146). Hawthorne, NY: Aldine DeGruyter.
Elder, G. H., Jr., Hagell, A., Rudkin, L., & Conger, R. D. (1994). Looking forward in
troubled times: the influence of social context on adolescent plans and orienta-
tions. In R. K. Silbereisen & E. Todt (Eds.), Adolescence in context: the interplay of
family, school, peers, and work in adjustment (pp. 244-264). New York: Springer.
Elder, G. H., Jr., & Meguro, Y. (1987). Wartime in men's lives: a comparative study
of American and Japanese cohorts. International Journal of Behavioral Develop-
ment, 10,439^166.
Elder, G. H., Jr., Shanahan, M. J., & Clipp, E. C. (1994). When war comes to men's
lives: life course patterns in family, work, and health. Psychology and Aging,
9(1), 5-16.
Ge, X., Lorenz, F. O., Conger, R. D., Elder, G. H., Jr., & Simons, R. L. (1994). Trajecto-
ries of stressful life events and depressive symptoms during adolescence.
Developmental Psychology, 30,467-483.
Johnson, J. (1994, January). Personal communication. University of North Caro-
lina.
Kertzer, D. I., & Keith, J. (Eds.). (1984). Age and anthropological theory. Ithaca, NY:
Cornell University Press.
Lasley, P. (1994). Rural economic and social trends. In R. D. Conger & G. H. Elder,
Jr. (Eds.), Families in troubled times: adapting to change in rural America (pp. 57-
78). Hawthorne, NY: Aldine DeGruyter.
Linz, S. J. (Ed.). (1985). The impact of World War II on the Soviet Union. Totowa, NJ:
Rowman and Allanheld.
Magnussoh, D., & Torestad, B. (1993). A holistic view of personality: a model
revisited. Annual Review of Psychology, 44,427-452.
Mayer, K. U. (1986). Structural constraints on the life course. Human Development,
29(3), 163-170.
Meyer, J. W. (1988). The life course as a cultural construction. In Matilda W. Riley
(Ed.), Social change and the life course (Vol. 1, pp. 49-62). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

68 Glen H. Elder, Jr.
Moen, P., Dempster-McClain, D., & Williams, R. M., Jr. (1992). Successful aging: A
life-course perspective on women's multiple roles and health. American Journal
of Sociology, 97,1612-1638.
Newcomb, T. M. (1943). Personality and social change: Attitude formation in a student
community. New York: Dryden Press.
Riley, M. W., Foner, A., & Waring, J. (1988). The sociology of age. In N. J. Smelser
(Ed.), The handbook of sociology (pp. 243-290). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Riley, M. W., Johnson, M. E., & Foner, A. (Eds.). (1972). Aging and society: a sociology
of age stratification (Vol. 3). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Rudkin, L., Hagell, A., Elder, G. H., Jr., & Conger, R. (1993, April). Perceptions of
community well-being and the desire to move elsewhere. Paper presented at
the British Psychological Association.
Rutter, M., & Madge, N. (1976). Cycles of disadvantage: A review of research. London:
Heinemann.
Ryder, N. B. (1965). The cohort as a concept in the study of social change. American
Sociological Review, 30(6), 843-861.
Shribman, D. (1991, April 24). Iowa farms shrivel as the young people head for the
cities. Wall Street Journal, pp. A7-A8.
Thomas, W. I., & Znaniecki, F. (1918-1920). The Polish peasant in Europe and America,
Vol. 1 and 2. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Velkoff, V, & Kinsella, K. (1993). Aging in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union.
Washington, DC: Economics and Statistics Division, U.S. Department of Com-
merce.
Volkart, E. H. (1951). Social behavior and personality: Contributions of W. I. Thomas to
theory and social research. New York: Social Science Research Council.
Wilson, W. J. (1987). The truly disadvantaged: The inner city, the underclass, and public
policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

3. Developmental analysis of
control beliefs1
AUGUST FLAMMER
The developmental analysis of control beliefs serves at least three pur-
poses – a theoretical one and two practical ones: (1) Understanding how
control beliefs develop may provide insight into how they function. This
is the so-called genetic approach (Baldwin, 1894; Lawler, 1978; Leont'ev,
1959; Piaget, 1947). (2) Knowledge of the developmental level at which a
person is functioning fosters understanding of otherwise strange behav-
ior. (3) Knowledge about normative developmental paths provides guide-
lines for the promotion of further development.
This chapter is about control beliefs and thus only indirectly about con-
trol. I distinguish among controlling (i.e., the actual regulation of a pro-
cess), control (i.e., the potential to control or to regulate a process if neces-
sary), and control belief (i.e., the subjective representation of one's
capabilities to exercise control; Flammer, 1990). The focus of this contribu-
tion is on control beliefs as a mental or cognitive construct. Control beliefs
are important for at least two reasons: (1) They are prerequisites for the
planning, initiation, and regulation of goal-orientated actions and (2) they
are part of the self-concept, where they determine to a large extent feelings
of self-esteem, causing such emotional states as pride, shame, and depres-
sion. Control and control beliefs are mostly domain-specific; nevertheless
there is some generality as shown in cross-domain correlations of individ-
ual differences in control beliefs.
Control beliefs are conceptualized as a composite of contingency beliefs
and competence beliefs. Contingency beliefs are beliefs about the probabil-
ity with which a certain action will lead to a certain outcome; competence
beliefs refer to the ability to produce these actions oneself. This distinction
is prevalent in several contemporary lines of research. Within his model of
coping with stress, Lazarus (1966; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) distinguishes
between primary appraisal (whether a given situation is irrelevant,
benign-positive, or stressful with respect to well-being) and secondary
69

70 August Flammer
Table 3.1. Classical decomposition of control (beliefs)
Lazarus
Bandura
E. A. Skinner
This contributionAppraisal of
(successful)
coping
Control belief
Control beliefs
Control beliefs= Primary +
appraisal
= Response-out- +
come expecta-
tion
= Means-ends +
= Contingency +
beliefsSecondary
appraisal
Efficacy
expectation
Agency belief sa
Competence
beliefs
a Interestingly, agency beliefs typically had higher predictability of performance
than means-ends beliefs and control beliefs (e.g., Chapman, Skinner & Baltes,
1990).
appraisal (whether one has the required resources to cope with the situa-
tional demands). Correspondingly, Bandura (1977) distinguished re-
sponse-outcome expectations and efficacy expectations, and E. A. Skinner
(Skinner & Chapman, 1984; Skinner, Chapman, & Baltes, 1988b) intro-
duced the notions of means-ends beliefs and agency beliefs, which taken
together constitute control beliefs (Table 3.1 ).2
I will discuss the development of control beliefs on three different but
interrelated dimensions: (1) the ontogenetic development of the structure
of control beliefs, (2) the ontogenetic development of individual differ-
ences in the strength of control beliefs, and (3) the microgenesis of a given
control belief. The first dimension describes the long-term structural devel-
opment, the second the long-term quantitative development, and the third
the actual or short-term emergence of a specific control belief.3 There is a
fourth interesting dimension that I will address only briefly. This deals
with variations in the strength and the domains of control beliefs for dif-
ferent age groups and cultures.
The ontogenetic development of the control belief structure
A control belief is a personal construct of considerable complexity that is
linked to environmental influences. Clearly, it is not present at birth but is
gradually constructed during the lifetime of each individual. I will review
the relevant literature, and for the sake of an organizational framework, I
propose to decompose analytically the final product, thereby creating
developmental hypotheses for its reconstruction (see Flammer, 1990). In

Developmental analysis of control beliefs 71
order to provisionally test the empirical plausibility of this conceptual
scheme, I will review the existing literature on the subject.
The logic of the structural composition of control beliefs
To believe in one's own control means to self-consciously know that one is
able to act in such a way that certain effects are produced. Table 3.2 contains a
proposed decomposition of this proposition and the five possible devel-
opmental steps leading to its realization.
Decomposition omits one conceptual constituent after another in a
sequence that leaves the remaining composite of constituents in a form
that still makes sense. Occasionally there is more than one possible omis-
sion. Although this procedure seems straightforward, there is at least one
instance where an alternative is possible, that is, for the transition from (5)
to (4). Instead of skipping the constituent "am able," one could just as well
delete the constituent "self-consciously." Empirical research will have to
verify whether or not both make sense, and if not, which is the more
defensible.
To avoid repetition I will discuss this decomposition from the elemen-
tary to the complex level following the possible ontogenetic lines sketched
out by the heuristic in Table 3.2.
The logical reconstruction and the ontogenetic construction of the control belief
structure
I shall treat the precognitive prerequisites of control beliefs as subde-
velopmental steps that lay the groundwork for my developmental theory.
• The most basic prerequisite for the establishment of a control belief is that effects
happen at all. This prerequisite is met even by nonliving dynamic systems. For
example, the mere physics of our solar system provides effects – water vaporizes
and is transformed into rain, rivers erode mountains, and so forth.
• A second, less trivial prerequisite consists of effects produced prebehaviorally by liv-
ing systems at a purely physical or biochemical level: Breathing transforms oxygen
into carbon dioxide and so forth. Humans share this level of functioning with all
living systems.
• Finally, a third prerequisite may be seen in physical and chemical effects produced by
behavior that is conceived of as mere reflexes and instincts. Although such effects may
alter the preconditions of further behavior through feedback processes, it is not
yet implied that the organism perceives the feedback and regulates its behavior
accordingly. Clearly, humans share this level of functioning with animals. As
with most developmental competencies it is attained at a certain time in life and
from then on remains effective. Even the actions of adults have unnoticed out-
comes that are nevertheless influential.

Conceptual decomposition: From the mature control belief down to the mere production of effects
(5) Control belief as part of
the categorical self-concept
(4) Self-awareness as the
beginning of the
categorical self-concepta
(3) Distinction between
internal and externalcauses
(2) Causal schema(1) Event schema
– (no cognitive component)Self-consciouslySelf-consciously
Cognitionknowing thatknowing that
(Consciously)
knowing that
Knowing
(
= being aware)
that
Knowing
(= being aware)
thatI am able to act in such a
way
I act(ed) in such a
way
I act(ed) in such a
way
certain actions
Competencethat certain effects
are produced.
that certain effects
are produced.
that certain effects
are produced.
produce(d)
certain effects.
certain effects
happen.
Certain effects
happen.
Contingency
concept (Wylie, 1961) or catagorical self (Lewis & Brooks-Gunn, 1979) or "me" (Mead, 1934), as opposed to existential self (Lewis
& Brooks-Gunn, 1979) or "I" (Mead, 1934).

Developmental analysis of control beliefs 73
Level 1. Functional experience: The event schema. The first noticed events in
life are probably connected with one's own activities. They are not noticed
as such but belong to the experience of one's own organism. This is espe-
cially true for the earliest (perceptual) "identification" of such happen-
ings. Newborn babies accommodate their sucking behavior to the shape
and the functional conditions of the mother's nipple; 3-day-old babies rec-
ognize the smell of their mother's milk; and by six days they can differen-
tiate their mother's milk from that of other mothers (MacFarlane, 1975).
Although babies do not produce what they perceive all by themselves,
they participate in this production. To a certain extent they start to regu-
late their behavior so as to maintain a certain set of effects. Learning takes
place through contingent experiences: habituation, classical conditioning,
instrumental conditioning (Janos & Papousek, 1977; Papousek, 1967;
Rovee-Collier & Lippsitt, 1982; Sameroff, 1968,1971; Thoman & Ingersoll,
1993).
J. S. Watson (1966; 1967; 1971; 1979; Siqueland & DeLucia, 1969; Sique-
land & Lippsitt, 1966; Watson & Ramey, 1972) showed that babies as
young as 2 months old increase simple activities like moving their head or
the nonnutritive sucking of a nipple if these actions move a mobile (for a
review see Suomi, 1981). Apparently babies, like all humans, like the expe-
rience of behavior-event contingencies – provided the interval between
the action and its effects is short (typically under 6 seconds) and both take
place within a restricted domain of activities. Infants are also ready to
enter into regulated interaction with their caregivers (Bruner, 1983;
Papousek & Papousek, 1979,1989).
This special liking for contingencies was identified and defined years
ago by Karl Btihler (1919) as "Funktionslust" (meaning "pleasure of func-
tioning") and by Jean Piaget (1936, 1937) as primary circulatory reaction. In
line with Baldwin's (1894) concept of adualism, the primary circulatory
reaction consists in maintaining the pleasurable state of a behavior-effect
feedback loop in which the infant by chance happened to become
engaged.
Research provides considerable support for the hypothesis that the
experience of contingency (or noncontingency) creates expectations that
become generalized to related behavior (Finkelstein & Ramey, 1977;
Ramey & Finkelstein, 1978; Watson & Ramey, 1972).
Level 2. Elementary action towards an effect: The causal schema. According to
Piaget, the first sign of a causal concept can be located in the secondary cir-
culatory reactions. These include the initiation of the production of an

74 August Flammer
effect, based on the perception of what produced that effect before. In the
example of the mobile, after having experienced the contingency between
the head's movement and the mobile's movement, the child sees the (non-
moving) mobile as an invitation to produce the movement again. Piaget
(1936) talks about a "systematic interest for causal relations" and places its
onset around the end of the first half year of life. Such experiences of
means-ends contingency between one's own behavior and perceptible
effects have been shown to foster learning readiness and learning speed in
later development (Finkelstein & Ramey, 1977; Gunnar, 1980a, b). A most
interesting study by Marianne Riksen-Walraven (1978) with 9-month-old
infants and their mothers has demonstrated that it is not stimulation as
such (in terms of amount and variety of environmental objects) but the
fact that handling objects produces contingent effects that fosters explor-
atory behavior and learning efficiency.5 Automoving toys that initially
frightened infants ceased to do so when the infants were able to control
their movements (Gunnar, 1980a, b; Gunnar-VonGnechten, 1978). These
results have important educational implications both for infant caregivers
and for toy designers.
The effects discussed above are not based on the mere observation of
external contingencies but rather on the basic personal activation of
effects. This puts my rational decomposition in question: Are contingen-
cies identified before and without one's own agency?
There is some interesting research about infants' perception of causal
events that they have not produced by themselves. Based on Michotte's
(1963) billiard ball-launching paradigm, Leslie (1982, 1984; Leslie & Kee-
ble, 1987) had infants between 4V5 and 8 months of age watch a brick
moving halfway through a screen and hitting a second stationary brick in
the middle of the screen, which subsequently moved out of the screen,
apparently as a result of being struck. There were several types of events,
for example, hit and launching ("really causal"), delayed movement of the
second brick, no contact/collision between the first and the second brick
but both moving in the same direction as in the first case, no collision and
delay, and no collision/no reaction.
Leslie worked with the habituation-dishabituation procedure. After the
infants had seen the same type of events several times, their fixation time
per event rapidly decreased; they became habituated to it, that is, it lost its
novelty value for the infants. After a series of events of the same type, they
were shown an event of a different type that obviously had more novelty
value and that resulted in prolonged fixation times, that is, the infants

Developmental analysis of control beliefs 75
became dishabituated. Dishabituation turned out to be greater when the
infants were habituated to the "really causal" type of event and then
exposed to another type than with all other type sequences. Oakes and
Cohen (1990) clearly found these effects with 10-month-old but not with 6-
month-old children. Taken together with recent evidence by Cohen and
Oakes (1993), the results show that infants under 6 months of age dis-
tinctly perceive various properties of objects (color, size, etc.), but not
causal relations (hit and launch), whereas 10-month-old infants clearly
perceive causality. Cohen and Oakes (1993) conclude that the causal
schema is not an invariant cognitive module, but a cognitive schema that
is gradually constructed.6
Is it possible that a perceptual causal schema is established without and
before the establishment of a personal causal schema, that is, a schema the
exclusive function of which is to classify one's own causal experiences? Or
stated otherwise: Does the personal agency schema genetically precede a
general causal schema, or is it a general causal schema that is eventually
accommodated to a personal agency schema? The Piagetian tradition
favors the first view, but Leslie's results speak in favor of the second; he is
seconded in this conclusion by J. M. Mandler (1992).7 A definite answer to
this question is not yet clear, as it would have to exclude either the prece-
dence of a personal agency schema or a general causal schema.8
Having identified Piaget's secondary circular reactions as prototypical
level 2 actions, we are led to distinguish tertiary circular reactions as an
additional level not foreseen in my conceptual analysis. I will call it "play-
ing with causal schemata."
Level 2+. Playing with causal schemata. Tertiary circular reactions consist
of arbitrarily varied actions with the apparent aim to create variations in
the effect(s) or to produce a specific new effect (Piaget, 1936, p. 270). Piaget
(as Hetzer in 1931) identified such actions in the object games that occur
within the first months of the second year at the earliest.
Level 3. Doing by oneself: Attribution of internal causes. In the development
so far, actions are aimed at specific goals or effects only because these
effects are enjoyed as such and regardless of who really produced them.
The distinction between me and others as the causal agents constitutes the
next level of development in control beliefs. "Realization of personal
agency requires both the self-observation that outcomes flow from actions
and the recognition that the actions are part of oneself" (Bandura, in press,
chap. 5).

76 August Hammer
Level 3 includes behavior such as refusing help and protesting against
wishes and orders. It is typically introduced by talking about oneself, by
calling one's own name, by talking about "I" and "me," or by repeated use
of the phrase "by myself/7 Some authors have found such self-referential
behavior already evident in 2-year-olds (Geppert & Kiister, 1983; Miiller,
1958). Others have found ignoring help rather than refusing help present
in 1-year-old children (Klostermann, 1984, and Miiller, 1984; both cit. from
Liitkenhaus, Bullock, & Geppert, 1987, pp. 156-157).
Within his developmental analysis of achievement motivation, H.
Heckhausen (1982, pp. 603-604) identified "centering on a self-produced
outcome" as the first element of the achievement motive and "a clearer
indication of achievement motivation" when such activities take the ap-
pearance of "wanting to do it oneself which . . . arises at the age of 2." A
special aspect of the experience that one can personally produce and
change effects is the possibility of not executing or of postponing actions.
Not doing, being told not to do, and doing only when appropriate condi-
tions are present is clearly more demanding than doing when or what one
is told. Luria (1961,1976), following the lead of Vygotsky (1934/1962), has
described such events at length and demonstrated the influential role of
speech in such regulation. Seen developmentally, regulative speech is ini-
tially social speech (from 1 year of age onward), which is subsequently
interiorized to become overt private speech (3 to 4 years) and finally
covert private speech (6 years); for similar results see Bivens and Berk
(1990) and Harris (1990).
Research on delay of gratification (Mischel, 1957, 1974) has shown that
the postponement of rewarding actions depends greatly on diverting
attention from what is to be delayed to other things (Mischel & Mischel,
1983; Patterson & Mischel, 1976) and on happy versus sad mood (Fry,
1975). Although these experiments were conducted with school-age chil-
dren, delay of gratification was repeatedly found in preschool children
(Mischel, Shoda, & Rodriguez, 1989). In a recent study Shoda, Mischel,
and Peake (1990) have shown that tolerance for delay of gratification in
preschool years predicts the ability to cope with frustration and stress in
adolescence.
Following Piaget's (1926) ideas, it is tempting to postulate an additional
level between levels 3 and 4, that is, animistic (and artificialistic) thinking.
However, more recent research has demonstrated that the passage
through one or more of these modes of thinking is far from universal
(Rammer, 1990; Valentin, 1991).

Developmental analysis of control beliefs 77
Level 4. Success and failure, a personal achievement. A success is a personal
achievement that matches a personal standard. H. Heckhausen used pride
and shame as indicators of success or failure respectively (Heckhausen,
1966). (For the identification of feelings of efficacy as developmental pre-
cursors of pride, see Stipek, 1983.) Heckhausen had children play withwooden blocks and construct towers to a certain height. He found that
below 7\/i years of age children were sometimes able to construct the
tower as required, and they were apparently happy about it but not
proud. Also, they often accepted their mothers' help to get the tower built.But after a certain point in life – around 2Vi years of age – they did not
want their mothers to steal the success from them. Joy over effects was
replaced by the pride of being the producer of successes; anger over miss-ing effects was replaced by shame about failures. These expressions ofpride and shame were especially evident under competitive conditions,indicating even more clearly that personal action and success were com-
bined: acting personally instead of relying on someone else (level 3) and
achieving a personal success (or failure).
According to H. Heckhausen's (1966, 1982) research, the ontogenetic
emergence of consciousness of personal success and failure occurs some-
where between
2^/i and 3Vi years of age.9 Later research has demonstrated
that this age may be lower with certain tasks or in certain social transac-
tions (Bullock & Liitkenhaus, 1988; Halisch & Halisch, 1980; J. Heck-hausen, 1988; Liitkenhaus, Bullock, & Geppert, 1987; for a review seeFlammer, 1990, pp. 317-322). Interestingly, pride seems to emerge earlier
than shame (Halisch & Halisch, 1980; H. Heckhausen, 1984; J. Heck-
hausen, 1988).
Level 5. Distinguishing different causes: The control belief. Empirically, the
step from level 4 to level 5 may be very small. Apparently, children at level
4 not only view themselves as the personal causes of effects but also see
themselves as being capable of attaining certain goals. I regard this as ageneralization in the sense that children not only realize that they have
produced a certain effect but that they are capable of producing that and
similar effects in the future. This is a clear expression of an enduring con-
cept of a categorical
self.10
Empirical research has analyzed this level of the emerging distinction
between causal factors that determine the outcomes of actions. These anal-
yses largely follow Weiner's schema of causal attributions (Weiner, Frieze,
Kukla, Reed, Rest, & Rosenbaum, 1971), extrapolating from causal attribu-

78 August Flammer
tions for the past outcomes to control attributions for future outcomes,
that is, ability, effort, task difficulty (and powerful others), and luck.
Although the differentiation may remain problematic in certain domains
of achievement over the course of life, for the task domains in which chil-
dren have abundant experience these differentiations are usually achieved
during school years. There are two main developmental trends at this age.
They include increasing differentiation of the conception of ability and the
gradual reduction of a strong optimism in favor of more realism. I shall
discuss the first trend here and the second later.
Level 5a. The global ability concept. The concept of ability in preschool
children is typically an unstructured compound of ability, effort, visible
outcome, objective feedback, and social feedback (Nicholls, 1978). When
people are successful, children at this age may argue that they are smart
and have put lot of effort into the task solution and were praised for the
success. When they fail, they did so because they were not smart enough
and did not work hard enough and were blamed for the failure. At this age,
competence or smartness is seldom differentiated across performance
domains like the academic or social. For example, a friend might be con-
sidered smart because he or she is neat, behaves well, and gets praised by
the kindergarten teacher (Blumenfeld, Pintrich, & Hamilton, 1986; Stipek,
1981; Stipek & Tannatt, 1984; Yussen & Kane, 1985).
Level 5b. The effort concept. Around school entrance age, most children
begin to focus on effort (intensity and length of work or of training) as the
cause of success or failure (Nicholls, 1978). But, if questioned, they still do
not explicitly distinguish effort from ability and task difficulty. This might
be why the self-concept of young elementary school children is not
affected much by failures. They feel they simply have to try harder (Miller,
1985; Rholes, Blackwell, Jordan, & Walters, 1980).
Level 5c. The concepts of ability and task difficulty. During the middle ele-
mentary school years, children begin to consider personal limits indepen-
dent of effort (Nicholls, 1978), although – correctly – they take ability to be
improvable through further development. But Kunnen (1993) found that
even among 10- to 12-year-old children, many see ability as very unstable
and substantially changeable within days.
A mature ability concept should logically be tied to the concept of task
difficulty ("I am not able to perform tasks of great difficulty, but I am able
to perform other tasks of lesser difficulty"). Nicholls has shown that a

Developmental analysis of control beliefs 79
primitive task difficulty concept (e.g., the length of a song, the number of
puzzle pieces) precedes a normative concept of difficulty, which is tied to
whether a given person or any one of his or her classmates can solve it
(Nicholls, 1980,1984; Nicholls & Miller, 1984).11
Level 5d. The concept of compensation of effort and ability. A full under-
standing of the compensatory relation between effort and ability is
achieved only toward the end of the first decade of life (Karabenick &
Heller, 1976; Kun, 1977; Kun, Parsons, & Ruble, 1974). Typical of this level
is the understanding of the following interplay of ability and effort: If two
persons correctly perform the same task but the first person takes more
time than the second, then the first person is less able than the second.
Certain authors argue that this understanding requires formal operations
according to Piaget's theory of genetic epistemology (Nicholls, 1978).
It is only at level 5 in my conceptual scheme that the structure of a fully
functioning control belief is achieved. This does not mean that this belief
structure is attained in all domains of life, but it exists at least in those in
which one has had considerable experience, such as the area of schooling.
This is also the domain in which research has been largely concentrated. It
is likely that educational experiences foster the differentiations described
in level 5. Younger children have to learn to focus their attention and to
spend enough effort on a task in order to develop a concept of effort. In
the middle grades, individual differences become more consistent, per-
haps through the introduction of performance grading and judgments of
the probability of success in higher grades. Through these considerations
the concepts of ability, task difficulty, and eventually their compensatory
relations emerge.
Development of the concept of luck – luck being a counter-concept to
control – has received little attention. Not surprisingly, young children
include luck and effort in their concept of ability by attributing success to
effort and ability even when the problem is unsolvable or solvable only by
chance (Nicholls & Miller, 1985; Weisz, 1980, 1981). In the study by Skin-
ner, Chapman, and Baltes (1988a), a decrease in luck in means-ends beliefs
and in agency beliefs between the age of 7 and 12 was the most striking
change of all (for comparable results see Rholes et al., 1980). Frieze and
Snyder (1980) and Helmke (1993) found almost no attributions to luck in
the elementary school years. It may be that young children first use the
concept of luck as part of ability or smartness, then begin to realize the
inappropriateness of such a concept and only then use it in an appropriate
and differentiated way.

80 August Flammer
Further development?
In attaining level 5d, the control-belief structure is fully established. Spec-ulation as to whether lawful developments beyond this level and beyond
my conceptual analysis exist is tempting. I have proposed (Flammer, 1990)three further levels that describe consequences of the established control-
beliefs, that is, (6) self-esteem, (7) contemplating and prioritizing values,
and (8) confrontation with decrease in control. These levels most probably
coexist. I therefore prefer to talk about life themes with developmentallychanging priorities.
Self-esteem on the basis ofpersonal control beliefs. The development of self-
conceptions and self-esteem is probably extended over the whole lifespan.
I regard the emergence of the explicit belief in personal agency producingnontrivial and valued effects as an important step in this development
(Gekas
& Schwalbe, 1983).
A certain amount of control over an array of possible events in life is an
important condition for survival. Therefore, being good at exercising con-trol provides physical and/or social power as well as social respect. Peo-ple derive an important part of their self-esteem from the control they
believe to have, as, for example, wielding social power. This is especially
true in phases of life when the personal and social identity of the individ-ual is at stake, especially in adolescence and beyond, but it is already trueat school age.
Erikson (1968, p. 127) described school age identity
as: "I am what I can
learn to make work/' Hausser (1983) related self-esteem to self-perception,the perception of personal control being one of the most important aspects
of one's self-perception.
Research has repeatedly shown that when people have a choice, they
prefer tasks that they believe they can perform with a high probability of
success but lower than 1 (Atkinson, 1957; Stiensmeier, 1986; Strube, Lott,Le-Xuan-Hy, Oxenberg, & Deichman, 1986; Trope, 1982). As Ruble andFlett (1988) and Boggiano, Main, and Katz (1988) have shown, this is espe-
cially true for generally successful students. The chronically unsuccessful
students prefer either very easy or unrealistically difficult tasks so as to
avoid unfavorable evidence about their capabilities.
Contemplating and prioritizing values. In middle adulthood most people
realize that they have more control than they can really exert. Many expe-
rience stress both in not having control over important matters and in hav-ing control over too many – and possibly less important – things. Eventu-

Developmental analysis of control beliefs 81
ally most of them begin to choose, to weigh the opportunities, and to
decide what seems most important to them in the long run. This is espe-
cially difficult if many highly valued personal goals are available or if sev-
eral states of affairs are considered indispensable or even morally
required. Tough decisions have to be made and evoke strong feelings of
personal responsibility.
Confrontation with decline in control and death. As tough as the necessity of
choice might be, it becomes even harder later in the course of life. Indeed
with increasing age some important matters in life are less amenable to
personal control. These include personal matters such as memory, physi-
cal strength, speed of information processing, influence over one's own
children, and professional matters like enforced retirement, loss of politi-
cal power, and so on. Of course there are still choices to be made and there
is still control left, so the phrase "successful aging" (Baltes & Baltes, 1990;
Baltes, Smith, Staudinger, & Sowarka, 1990) is not a euphemy. But it cer-
tainly includes among other things the serene acceptance of certain losses
without falling into desperation or depression.
Most people have decades of life to prepare themselves for this last
stage and even to practice it in specific areas like active elite sports, super-
performances in the arts, and so forth. But it should also be noted that
some people, such as the severely handicapped, are confronted very early
in their lives with difficult and definitive limits.
Boundaries to personal control are omnipresent. Many of them affect
unimportant matters in life; some are overcome through individual devel-
opment and learning (and thus justify optimistic overestimation); some
are exceedingly difficult to change and have always been there; and still
others are more or less a permanent part of one's life (Flammer, 1990, pp.
144-191). There are many ways to deal with these limitations; for example,
one might be despondent about one's state of affairs or accept them as
part of one's life.
Rothbaum, Weisz, and Snyder (1982) proposed to distinguish a second-
ary from a primary mode of control. Secondary control is conceived as a
strategy to change or adapt one's mind in an "attempt at understanding
problems so as to derive meaning from them and to accept them"
(Rothbaum et al., 1982, p. 12). While primary control seeks to change the
environment to make it fit in with subjective aspirations, secondary con-
trol seeks to change subjective states (aspirations, perceptions, and inter-
pretations) in order to make them fit in with the environment. In a strong
sense, primary and secondary control are always coexistent. But the

82 August Flammerweight of secondary control processes is greater following (actual or antic-
ipated) failure of primary control. Presumably there is a gradual shift fromprimary to secondary control over the course of life.
Band and Weisz (1988) have subsumed the following under secondary
control: seeking social and spiritual support, emotion-focused crying,
emotion-focused aggression, cognitive avoidance, pure cognition, and
doing nothing (which clearly includes primary control as well).
12 These
authors interviewed children between 6 and 12 years of age about typical
reactions to stress situations. The study demonstrated a decrease in pri-mary control strategies (direct problem solving, problem-focused crying,problem-focused aggression, and problem-focused avoidance) and an
increase in secondary control strategies with increasing age.
Similarly, Brandtstadter and Renner (1990) distinguished between
assimilative coping (tenacious goal pursuit meaning primary control) and
accommodative coping (flexible goal adjustment meaning secondary con-
trol). They developed a scale to measure both types of coping. Although
both modes of coping are positively correlated with high life satisfaction
and low depression scores, data from a large sample of people between 34and
63 years of age revealed a gradual shift from tenacious goal pursuit to
flexible goal adjustment (see also Brandtstadter, Wentura, & Greve, 1993).
J. Heckhausen and Schulz (1993; in press) have enlarged the concept as
well. In their view, secondary control is all actions targeted toward the self
instead of the external world, these actions being mostly cognitive and
rarely "active behavior." Based on clinical and adult developmental litera-
ture, these authors strongly contend that secondary control is increasingly
used over the adult course of life (to the debit of primary control), espe-cially when it comes to the advanced age level. Secondary control in terms
of accepting imposed changes contributes to the well-being of old persons
(Ryff, 1989).
Conclusion
The concept-analytical system as proposed in this chapter has proven to
have heuristic value in that it integrates a large body of empirical findingsin a coherent developmental system. Some of these findings have led tofurther differentiations (e.g., level 5), some related theorizing has sug-gested an additional level (i.e., level
2+), and some findings and reasoning
have posed the yet unanswered question whether a general causal con-
cept precedes the personal agency concept or vice versa. More im-portantly, my conceptual analysis only addresses development up to ado-

Developmental analysis of control beliefs 83
lescence. I propose three further levels or life themes, albeit without the
same analytic rigor.
Developmental conditions and strength of control beliefs: Control
beliefs and developmental outcomes
The development of control beliefs has not only a structural side but also a
quantitative side. Since the seminal work by Martin E. P. Seligman (Selig-
man, 1975; Seligman & Maier, 1967), scientists share the conviction that
the subjective belief in a minimal amount of control over important mat-
ters is a necessary condition for personal well-being throughout life (e.g.,
Connolly, 1989). This conviction is not only shared by cognitivists and
action theoreticians, but also by psychoanalysts (e.g., Broucek, 1979). A
large body of empirical studies verifies this effect. Many of these studies
were conducted with scales modeled after the locus of control scale (going
back to Rotter, 1954, 1990), others emerged from the learned helplessness
tradition (initiated by Seligman, 1975), and still others from the self-effi-
cacy tradition (initiated by Bandura, 1977). Control beliefs have been
shown to be good predictors of successful learning in school; perfor-
mances in sports; marital satisfaction; health and recovery from illness;
professional success and satisfaction; delay of gratification; happiness in
old age; and coping with social conflicts, unemployment, and many other
types of life problems like depression, withdrawal, and social passivity
(for a review see Bandura, 1982, 1986, in press; Flammer, 1990; Lefcourt,
1976; Schwarzer, 1990,1995; Syme, 1990).
Strength of control and strength of control beliefs over the lifespan
Having acquired the concept of control belief does not imply how much
one believes in control over a specific state of affairs. People differ in
strength of their control beliefs, and these differences also develop over
time.
Human development, at least over the first several decades of life, gen-
erally increases individual control (Claes, 1981; Oleron & Soubitez, 1982).
Physical conditions, psychological competencies, and social skills (e.g.,
power relations) enable most people to increase the number of domains in
which they can exert control. Most humans are probably aware of this, but
they do not take it into account when they are asked how much control
they believe to have in general. As with personal satisfaction and well-
being, people typically judge their personal strength of control by compar-
ing themselves with similar people (Grant, 1988; Michalos, 1985).

84 August Flammer
The academically deficient students in a class typically remain deficient
in their class, even if they make individual progress. If asked repeatedly to
judge their probable performance on the same concrete school tasks, the
judgment of elementary schoolchildren would mirror the actual increase
of competencies over the years. But they do not consider such intra-
individual changes when asked very general questions. Thus, Weisz and
Stipek (1982), in a review of 33 developmental studies using 12 different
locus of control scales over the elementary school age, found a slight over-
all tendency in favor of the increase of internal personal control. In their
review, Skinner and Connell (1986) found the cross-age data on locus of
control inconsistent for childhood, but increasing from childhood to adult-
hood, and virtually constant for adulthood and old age. According to
more recent reviews (Gatz & Karel, 1993; Kogan, 1990; Lachman, 1986a;
Lumpkin, 1986), including both cross-sectional and short-term longitudi-
nal studies, the results for the adults and the older adults are not im-
pressingly consistent either. Clearer patterns emerge when different con-
trol domains are distinguished (Lachman, 1986b). Some but not all of the
studies report a slight increase in internality between the ages of 20 and
60, and some but not all report a decrease in internality after the age of 60.
There are a few indications that control may vary over historical peri-
ods, for example, increase in externality in the American 1960s (Schneider,
1971; cit. from Phares, 1978, p. 293) and in the Australian 1970s (Lange &
Tiggemann, 1980), as well as increase in personal control belief in the
Swiss 1980s (Grob, Flammer, & Neuenschwander, 1992), and decrease in
American externality in parents aged 35 to 50 and in American grand-
mothers aged 55 to 70 between 1971 and 1991 (Gatz & Karel, 1993).
Overestimation of control beliefs and the developmental value of high control
beliefs
Control beliefs influence individual development. Persons high in control
beliefs are not only happier with their present lives but also have a more
positive outlook on their future lives (Brandtstadter, 1985, 1986, 1992;
Brandtstadter, G. Krampen, & Baltes-Goetz, 1989; Brandstadter, Krampen,
& Greve, 1987). They are also more likely to undertake actions that have a
long-lasting bearing on their lives. Although high control beliefs raise the
chances of change and development, people high in control or at least
high in control beliefs may also undertake risky actions which can ad-
versely affect development in the long run. This raises the question
whether too much control could have adverse effects on happiness and

Developmental analysis of control beliefs 85
success. Recent research has demonstrated at least two general findings
concerning this issue:
1. Persons with high social power and responsibility have a higher risk of cardio-
vascular diseases if they are not able to cope adequately with their challenges
(Cohen & Edwards, 1989). Having too much control (and not being truly "in
control of so much control") can apparently impair health and behavioral
functionality.
2. Overestimating one's own share of control seems to be healthier than realisti-
cally estimating one's own control (Alloy & Abramson, 1982,1988; Dunning &
Story, 1991; Seligman, 1991; Taylor, 1989; Taylor & Brown, 1988).
First, I will consider the overestimation of control beliefs and the devel-
opmental value of high control beliefs. I will then identify conditions that
foster high, stable, and generalized control beliefs.
Until recently, most theoretical lines of thinking valued the realistic esti-
mation of life conditions and of one's competencies as the most desirable
attitude in all cases (see Helmke, 1992, pp. 197-201). This appreciation has
changed:
Optimistic self-appraisals are a benefit rather than a cognitive failing
to be eradicated. If self-efficacy beliefs always reflected only what
people can do routinely, people would rarely fail but neither would
they mount the extra effort needed to surpass their ordinary perfor-
mances (Bandura, 1989, p. 732).
Whatever the mechanisms by which illusionary optimists reduce their
vulnerability to depression, overestimation of control makes sense for fur-
ther development. Optimism about the future includes anticipation of
desirable events and self-ascribed competence to bring them about. This
encourages corresponding actions that might be too difficult at first but
can be developed through perseverance (Bandura, 1990; Bjorklund &
Green, 1992; Taylor, 1989). Research has shown that the perception of high
personal control is linked to children's motivation to explore their envi-
ronment and to learn new things (Finkelstein & Ramey, 1977; Lewis &
Goldberg, 1969; Ramey & Finkelstein, 1978). Helmke (1992) has shown
that over a period oilVi years students who were moderately optimistic
achieved more progress in academic performance than students who were
either grossly overoptimistic or unduly pessimistic.
Children. Developmental research on meta-cognition has long shown that
children, especially younger ones, either grossly overestimate their capac-
ities or underestimate the tasks and only during the middle elementary
school years become more realistic (Entwistle & Hayduk, 1978; Helmke,
1993; Nicholls, 1979; Parsons & Ruble, 1977; Piaget, 1925; Skinner, Chap-

86 August Flammer
man, and Baltes, 1988a; and many others as documented in Stipek &
Maclver, 1989, and in Helmke, 1992, pp. 202-203). It is likely that children,
especially young children, often "confuse their desires and their expecta-
tions" (Stipek, 1984, p. 52; see also Schneider, 1989), an idea that fits in
with the observation that preschool children have a very undifferentiated
ability concept and are only beginning to consider the effect of effort.
Effort allows overestimation of any magnitude, because the amount of
possible effort may appear unlimited at this age. In addition, overestima-
tion of one's own control may stem from the overestimation of contin-
gency that characterizes both infancy and adolescence – and often also
adulthood (Weisz, 1983).
Overestimation by children has been documented repeatedly (for a
review see Stipek & Maclver, 1989). For illustrative purposes, I shall
briefly review the (over)estimation of memory capacity (so-called meta-
cognition of memory; Flavell & Wellman, 1977; Schneider, 1989).
If children, especially preschool children, are subjected to a memory
task of a kind they know (memory span, recognition, recall) and asked
how well they expect to do, they typically overestimate their actual attain-
ments. Experience with the task corrects subsequent overestimation but
typically does not eliminate it completely. Interestingly, this overestima-
tion greatly decreases during the school years (cf. Table 3.3). One might
ask whether this is due to a real developmental ceiling in these processes
that the individuals gradually anticipate, or whether it is simply the scho-
lastic experiences and the teacher's feedback that brings the optimism
nearer to realism. According to research on the development of memory
processes there are no reasons to expect that memory capacity reaches a
ceiling toward the end of the first decade of life, not even the memory
span (Schneider & Pressley, 1989). I do not know whether this is also true
for general thinking of laypersons.13
Instead, it is likely that schooling dampens the developmental opti-
mism. The correlation of the academic self-perception with objective
school grades increases rapidly between grades two and five (Maclver,
1988; Nicholls, 1978, 1979). This is especially true if grading in school is
frequent (Maclver, 1987; Rosenholtz & Rosenholtz, 1981; Simpson, 1981),
highly differentiated both within the class and between performance
domains (Maclver, 1988), and if it is made public (Rosenholtz & Simpson,
1984).
Achievement feedback is probably not very corrective for preschool
children. One reason for this is that preschool children and children in the
lower elementary grades rely much more on social feedback than on

Overestimation of one's own memory capacities from preschool to college age (in estimation I objective performance quotients)
Kinder- High
Nursery garten School College
Study Age Range (N) (K) Gr. 1 Gr. 2 Gr. 3 Gr.4 Gr. 5 Gr. 6 (H) (C)
Flavell, N, K, gr. 2, gr. 4 2.06 2.21 1.38 1.12
Friedrichs &Hoyt's (1970):Memory span
Yussen
Levy y.4,y. 8,y.2O 2.47 1.22 1.06
Memory span
Levin, Yussen, gr.l,gr.5,C 2.60 1.96 1.13
DeRose &Pressley (1977):
Free recall
Levin, Yussen, gr. l,gr. 5, C 0.79 0.90 0.70
DeRose
&
Pressley (1977):Recognition
Monroe
& Lange preschool (5.1 1.82 1.10 1.00
Sum of yrs), gr. 2, gr. 5
all free recalltasks
Worden& K, gr. 2, gr. 4, gr. 6 1.54 0.91 0.82 0.86
Sladewski-Awig (1982):
Free recall

88 August Flammer
objective or outcome feedback (Lewis, Wall, & Aronfreed, 1963; Spear &
Armstrong, 1978; Stipek, 1987, for girls). Social feedback in preschool and
in kindergarten is typically as encouraging and positive as possible,
whereas in elementary school social feedback is increasingly combinedwith feedback about the level of academic performance and comparison
with peers. Teachers' feedback becomes less and less arbitrary (Stipek &Daniels,
1988; for a review see Stipek & Maclver, 1989, pp. 532-534).
Another reason might be that schoolchildren have acquired concrete
operations that enable them to coordinate different aspects. For example,
they may realize that they have been weak in a ballgame but are still liked
by their peers. However, this argument would imply that the overestima-
tion of oneself and of peers is similar, which is not the case. Overestima-tion is typically more pronounced for oneself than for others (the so-calledself-serving bias). Is it the case that control beliefs initially operate mainly
in the service of self-esteem and only later guide action planning?
In a comparison of students from East and West Berlin in grades two to
six, the Berlin Max-Planck researchers demonstrated that children in East
Berlin had lower agency beliefs both generally and also with respect to
school performance, but higher means-ends beliefs. In addition, their
agency beliefs were more highly correlated with course grades (Oettingen,
1995; Oettingen, Lindenberger, & Baltes, 1992; Oettingen, Little, Linden-
berger, & Baltes, in press; Stetsenko, Little, Oettingen, & Baltes, in press).
Further analyses showed that the "depressive effects" on agency beliefswere mostly confined to the two thirds of the children at the lower end of
the intelligence dimension (Oettingen & Little, in press). In addition, Oet-tingen convincingly demonstrated that the educational philosophy of the
old GDR exerted considerable social pressure for realistic self-appraisal.Whether this applied to the examined classes and how this was done wasnot empirically assessed. But there is every reason to expect that theseclasses like all others received the official educational diet. Taken together
with findings that control beliefs are correlated with achievement motiva-tion (e.g., Skinner, Wellborn, & Connell, 1990), these studies documentthat educational systems can lower developmental optimism. The more
systematic, emphatic, differentiated, and public the feedback, the greater
its undermining impact. Nevertheless, this optimism does not typically
become completely eradicated but only brought somewhat nearer to real-
ity.
Overestimation with self-serving bias has also been found for motor
performance but is clearly responsive to correction through performance

Developmental analysis of control beliefs 89
feedback (e.g., Bjorklund, Gaultney, & Green, in press; cit. from Bjorklund
& Green, 1992; Stipek & Hoffman, 1980; Stipek, Robert, & Sandborn, 1984)
and for judgments of social competence (Ausubel, Schiff, & Gasser, 1952).
Skinner and Chapman (1987) propose that there are logical and empiri-
cal grounds for two seemingly contradictory hypotheses of developmentin childhood, that is, general increase in internality and decrease from
optimism to realism. This is because the decrease in
absolute values of
internality (optimism to realism) runs parallel to a relative increase of inter-
nality (compared to externality). This is possible because both internality
and externality decrease in absolute values.14
Adolescents, adults, and older adults. Some recent research has shown that
overestimation of personal controllability is present among adults espe-cially in developmentally relevant areas. J. Heckhausen (1990; see also
Heckhausen & Baltes, 1991) has shown that, generally, younger, middle-
aged, and older adults consider desired attributes as being more controlla-
ble than undesired ones, and that older persons (60 to 85 years) believe
that undesired attributes occur later in life and are more controllable thando younger and middle-aged persons. Thus, people who are directlyaffected by important changes hold higher control beliefs over thesechanges than do persons who are not yet directly concerned with those
aspects of life.
Old age clearly involves gradual decrements in capacities. Even if the
control beliefs of aging people are generally higher than expected byyounger people, most aging persons finally adapt their control beliefs totheir objective reality (Lachman, 1983). The good news is that with mostpeople, this "giving in" is not unduly anticipated: The majority of agingpeople are not so pessimistic that their fears tragically become self-fulfill-
ing prophecies (Bandura, 1981).
If individuals are asked to compare their potential influence on devel-
opmental changes with most other people, they typically ascribe morecontrol to themselves (Heckhausen & Kriiger, 1993; Kriiger & Heck-hausen, 1993). This optimism is at least subjectively warranted, as the
same people view their own development in later life more favorably thanother people's development, both for increase and slowness of decrease indesirable attributes and for decrease and slowness of increase in undesir-able attributes. In accordance with their optimism, middle-aged and old-
aged people in the Heckhausen and Kriiger (1993) study perceived them-
selves as appearing and as feeling younger than other people of their age.

90 August Flammer
Self-serving optimism has already been reported years ago (Miller &
Ross, 1975; for a review see Zuckerman, 1979). As to self-ascribed control,
a large sample of Swiss adolescents perceived themselves as generallyhaving more control than their peers. This was the case for eight out ofnine control domains, that is, for personal appearance, personality devel-opment, intimate relations, resolution of conflicts with parents, personalmoney, future working place, natural environment, and institutionalized
learning opportunities. The exception was control of public matters. Notsurprisingly, the few subjects feeling "less control than their peers" gener-
ally held very low control beliefs (Hammer, Grob, & Luthi, 1987). Two
years later, 1988 as compared to 1986, this self-serving optimism had even
increased (Hammer, Grob, Luthi,
& Kaiser, 1989).
Studies about control illusions (Langer, 1975,1983; Miller & Ross, 1975)
are also relevant to the issue of overestimation of personal control. People
believe they are exerting control even over clearly random events. As to
the domains beyond control, Taylor and Brown (1988) have summarizedevidence of systematic illusion phenomena with regard to self-image
(most people think of themselves more positively than of most other peo-
ple) and to the judgment of the future (most people believe that things will
improve for them in the future, that their own future will improve more
than that of others, and that undesirable events will occur to them with
lower likelihood than to others). Taylor and Brown (1988) stress the find-ings that such illusions are positive for mental health, happiness, ability tocare for others, and capacity for creative and productive work. Without
mentioning possible developmental benefits, these effects may at least beregarded as important mediators for positive developmental changes.
Clearly, illusion of control can also be exaggerated. Donovan, Leavitt,
and Walsh (1990), for instance, showed that persons with control illusions
were more susceptible to learned helplessness in a temporarily uncontrol-
lable environment; mothers with high control illusions were also more
prone to depressed mood states (Donovan
& Leavitt, 1989).
Developmental conditions for variations in control beliefs
Even if across average age groups general control beliefs do not reflect realcontrol of and changes in control, such measurements may still reflectveridical and reliable individual differences both in control beliefs and inactual control. Again, since it is desirable to maintain a high sense of con-trol, it is worthwhile studying the conditions under which individuals
develop more or less stable beliefs in high or low control. Research so far

Developmental analysis of control beliefs 91
has mainly centered on educational conditions and has rarely examined
the broader ecology of socialization.
Educational practice. Many studies show that educational practices reflect-
ing warm, supporting, sensitive, and responsive behavior result in posi-
tive attitudes and behavior in children. This is especially true for achieve-
ment motives (Heckhausen, 1991) and social attachment (e.g., Ainsworth,
Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978; Donovan and Leavitt, 1989; Ford & Thomp-
son, 1985). Some of these studies linking educational behavior to
children's control beliefs are reviewed next.15
Infancy and preschool age. Interactive contingent responsiveness to in-
fants' behavior by caregivers is an important condition for the develop-
ment of high control beliefs. Skinner (1986) has demonstrated this with
children between 3V5 and 4V& years. Riksen-Walraven (1991) found that
the girls (not the boys) in her above described sample who were allocated
to the responsivity conditions at 9 to 12 months showed increased ego
resiliency at the ages 7,10, and 12. And several studies demonstrated that
reported consistency of parental behavior (i.e., retrospective parental or
children's reports), and retrospectively reported behavioral and attitudi-
nal clusters like parental warmth, acceptance, and support foster later
belief in internal control in children and adolescents, whereas retrospec-
tively reported punitive and overly "controlling" behavior as well as hos-
tile attitudes produce more belief in external control (see review in
Diethelm, 1991, pp. 15-34). Similarly, observational studies have shown
that contingency of parental behavior in response to infants' behavior is
associated with several desirable outcomes in children and adolescents,
like exploratory behavior at a very young age (Diethelm, 1991, 1992; Van
Aken & Riksen-Walraven, 1992), ego resiliency (Van Aken & Riksen-
Walraven, 1992), and learning efficiency.
From the Fels longitudinal study Katkovsky Crandall, and Good (1967)
reported positive correlations between parental protectiveness, affection,
and approval at the age of 6 and the internality of the adolescent's locus of
control at age 12. Surprisingly and hard to explain, the direction of the
relations was reversed when the adolescents became young adults (Cran-
dall & Crandall, 1983): Observed punitive, critical, and affectively nega-
tive maternal behavior between age 0 and 6 was related to the internality
of the young adults' locus of control. Whether this change over the devel-
opment from infancy to young adulthood is reliable or rather a yet unde-
tected artifact remains to be investigated with new samples. Carefully

92 August Hammer
planned longitudinal studies are needed with direct observation of contin-
gent parental behavior in early infancy and measures of the children's
control beliefs in subsequent years.16
As to further short-term investigations, there is some evidence that par-
ental behavior that is contingent with infants' behavior later results in
high control beliefs (Dunham & Dunham, 1990). Contingent turn taking
between mother and infant was correlated with the level of performance
on a subsequent nonsocial contingency task.
School age. Belief in high personal control over the mastery of tasks has
been shown to be a strong predictor of scholastic achievement (see
Zimmerman, 1995; Hackett, 1995). The concern of this chapter is whether
educational practices have an impact on resultant control beliefs.
There is no doubt that repeated failure to exercise control over outcomes
can create a sense of helplessness. Numerous experimental studies have
used this procedure to induce helplessness, that is, by having subjects try
to solve unsolvable anagrams. For some children school might indeed be a
place of continuous failure.
Schunk (1989) has published numerous studies on how different types
of educational practices affect children's beliefs in their academic efficacy.
Among the identified factors are modeling, attribution feedback, positive
incentives for accomplishments, social comparison with peer accomplish-
ments, and so on.
An important educational asset is the guidance of casual attributions
after success and after failure. Dweck (1975) had helpless children un-
dergo an attribution retraining and found that providing successes alone
was less effective than a training with a mixture of success and failure.
This was true both for subsequent performance and for subsequent effort
attributions.17 Schunk (1983) demonstrated that rewards boosted control
beliefs of former low control and low performance pupils, but only when
they were contingent with successful performance – pity alone or sympa-
thy for the helpless does not help! – and when the feedback was related to
the pupil's own success or failure (Schunk, 1982) – encouragement alone
without attainment may not be helpful either!
Reward per se is not an educational tool to be recommended. Its effects
can be negative depending on whether or not it is contingent with past
attainments, the subjective difficulty of the performance, and many other
situational conditions (Lepper & Greene, 1975). For example, praising suc-
cess on an evidently easy task raises self-confidence of younger children
but lowers the confidence of older children and adults (Barker & Graham,

Developmental analysis of control beliefs 93
1987; Meyer, 1984,1992; Meyer, Bachmann, Biermann, Hempelmann, Plo-
ger, & Spiller, 1979). One might expect comparable effects on control
beliefs.
In sum, schooling generally reduces the overestimation of control be-
liefs, can raise unjustifiably low control beliefs, and fosters accurate self-
evaluation (Stipek, 1981). However, a strong setting of school learning sets
the limitations for change, because acquired low or high control beliefs in
one subject easily become generalized to other subjects that are taught by
the same teacher (Dweck & Reppucci, 1973).18 Entering a new class (i.e.,
having new teachers and new peers) or a new school system with a new
curriculum provides opportunities to raise low control beliefs, but differ-
ent and difficult transitional experiences may also undermine efficacy
expectations (Midgley, Feldlaufer, & Eccles, 1989).
Personality factors. The development of individual differences in control
beliefs is certainly not independent of the development of other personal-
ity characteristics. Possible factors are physical appearance, bodily consti-
tution, intelligence, temperament, and so forth. However, there is no rele-
vant research on this question with a developmental perspective.
Ecological and cultural factors. Ecology refers to the general living condi-
tions in society and in a given culture, as materialized in political and
other institutions, material resources, libraries, traffic systems, leisure op-
portunities, and so on.
Differences in control beliefs have been found among adolescents in dif-
ferent educational tracks by Hammer et al. (1987). Adolescents attending
vocational training in Switzerland had lower control beliefs in most
domains than students of the Gymnasium. This was especially so for
expected control in the near future. Vocational trainees in the so-called
dual system are probably confronted earlier and more directly with eco-
nomical and social realities than are college students. A study by Kumpfer
and Turner (1991) found relationships between school climate and self-
efficacy beliefs (see also Gekas, 1989).
Another example of a specific ecology are nursing homes for permanent
residents. In observing the residents' and staff's behavior, M. M. Baltes,
Burgess, and Stewart (1980) found that while the residents' independent
behavior was discouraged by nonresponsive behavior from the staff,
dependent behavior was reinforced by dependence-supporting behavior.
Although control beliefs were not measured, such practices are likely to
shape control beliefs, reflecting lack of control for some but indirect con-

94 August Flammertrol for others (Baltes, 1982, 1988; Baltes & Skinner, 1983; Baltes & Wahl,
1992; Wahl & Baltes, 1990). Other studies have demonstrated that elderly
residents with opportunities to exercise control were more active, happier,and healthier (Langer & Rodin, 1976; Rodin & Langer, 1977; Schulz, 1976;Schulz
& Hanusa, 1978).
Little is known about cultural differences in control beliefs. Some stud-
ies have stated that individuals in more collectivist cultures rely less onpersonal control and are more prone to secondary control. Such studieshave been conducted with Malayan University students (Essau, 1992;Seginer, Trommsdorff, & Essau, 1993) and with Japanese mothers
(Trommsdorff, 1989, based on interviews). In a quasi-replication study of
Essau's (1992), using the same variant of the Response to Control-FailureQuestionnaire (RCFQ) by Hammer, Zublin, and Grob (1988), Flammer
(1992) found that, confronted with failure of a control attempt, Japanese
adolescents as compared to Swiss adolescents were not more prone to sec-
ondary control but were more ready to relinquish personal control alto-gether, while the Swiss adolescents were more tenacious in primary con-
trol.
Berry and Bennett (1992) investigated Cree
19 conceptions of cognitive
competence with a card sort paradigm. They found that these conceptions
were opposite to the phrase 'lives like a white person" and were associ-ated with "taking time, good, hard-working, careful, patient, self-suffi-
cient, strong developing, bush-related, and easy to see," presumablyunlike "Western notions of intelligence as being fast, analytic and without
social or moral dimensions" (Berry
& Bennett, 1992, p. 73).
The microgenesis of control beliefs (Aktualgenese)The concept of development typically applies to long-term individual
development; only in a broader sense does it also include the short-termdevelopment of competence, ideas, attitudes, and so forth. Following theGestalt psychological distinction between
Ontogenese and Aktualgenese, I
shall call the first ontogenesis and the second microgenesis. Microgenesisis not only a parallel to ontogenesis, but often draws upon ontogenesis.
The microgenetical question in our context is: When people are con-
fronted with a concrete difficult task, why do they come to believe thatthey are able or not able to solve
it?20 Of course, people have had past
experiences, they know something about task demands and about them-
selves. But such knowledge has to be activated, retrieved, or reconstructed
from memory. And in many instances there is good reason to believe that

Developmental analysis of control beliefs 95
certain people underestimate or overestimate their control despite the factthat their own valid experiences could have taught them better.
One reason for erroneous self-assessment may be found in the way peo-
ple organize their knowledge in memory or in the strategies they use in
searching for relevant memory contents. Williams (1988; Moore, Watts, &
Williams, 1988; Williams & Broadbent, 1986; Williams & Dritschel, 1988;
Williams & Scott, 1988) has been able to show that clinically depressive
patients and patients with a foregoing suicide attempt react differentlythan average or "normal" persons if asked to recount a personal experi-
ence in response to a cue word. They were not only generally slower than
"normal" persons, but specifically so in reaction to positive cues (excep-
tion: Williams, 1988); they were also less specific than "normal" persons,
again especially in reaction to positive cues (see also Lloyd & Lishman,
1975).21 This could mean that depressive and suicidal persons have less
salient and less distinct encodings of positive experiences than of negativeexperiences and are therefore less inclined to ascribe control to them-
selves.
A way to examine the cognitive processes in judgment of personal con-
trol is to ask subjects why they think they are able or unable to reach cer-
tain goals. Hammer and coworkers interviewed adolescent and adult sub-
jects about several possible tasks and challenges and eventually asked
them in a seemingly casual way why they responded as they did. Theresults indicate that individuals most often refer to dispositional attri-
butes. Second in frequency are references to personally experienced epi-
sodes.22 If questioned further, the subjects indicated that they trusted more
in those control beliefs for which they had referred to concrete experiences
than in those based on dispositional attributes (Hammer and Kaiser, 1992;
Hammer, Kaiser, Liithi, & Grob, 1990). This in spite of the fact that they
referred to dispositions more often than to experienced episodes. The
latencies before the yes/no answer were shorter, when the following refer-
ence answer was episodical than when it was dispositional (Flammer &
Grob, 1994).
Taken together with the finding that in the oral format the episodic
answers were more frequent than in the written format, these results prob-
ably mean that individuals prefer the episodic foundation of their control
beliefs but often do not have such remembered episodes at hand. Also,
Giiggi (in prep.) has data showing that people trust more in other people'spromise of competence if they refer to repeated former experiences than if
they refer either to their general abilities or to one unique experience.

96 August Flammer
Confronted with the same frame of questioning, elementary school chil-
dren very often answer the why question by recounting how they would
proceed or by commenting on the task. Although the proportion of suchanswers decreases with age, reference to motives actually increases withage (Wicki, Reber, Flammer, & Grob, 1994). This might correspond to the
increased importance of effort attributions for success and failure duringthe school years (see the section "School Age"). It also corresponds to
Flammer and colleagues (1990) and Flammer and Kaiser's (1992) findings
that adolescents, in comparison to older adults, often refer to dispositions
under belief in control and proportionally less under belief in no control. Itseems that adolescents are still very optimistic as to their control unlessthey have experienced specific failures.
Another reason for spontaneously more or less accurate estimations (or
reasonable overestimations) of one's own control may be found in differ-
ent mood states. Positive moods raise control beliefs; negative moodslower them (Alloy, Abramson, & Viscussi, 1981; Amrhein, Salovey, &
Rosenhan, 1982; Brown, 1984; Kavanagh & Bower, 1985; Salovey &
Birnbaum, 1989; Wright & Mischel, 1982; but: Masters & Furman, 1966,
and Underwood, Froming, & Moore, 1980, did not find a correlation
between mood and locus of control). Mood may be part of a vicious circle
in control perception: Failure produces disappointment and bad mood;
bad mood makes failure more salient, so that the individual either avoids
challenges or chooses unsolvable tasks; this produces failures and therepeated perception of one's own deficiencies.
Although the microgenesis of control beliefs is not just a parallel or an
analogy of the individual development of control beliefs, it apparentlydraws on past experiences and development and guides and assists fur-ther development. Recall of past success and failure determines actualconvictions; such remembering might be spontaneous or – in order toavoid vicious circles – therapeutically guided (Luthi, 1990; Flammer &Scheuber-Sahli, in press; Teasdale, 1978).
Conclusion
The developmental analysis of control beliefs has addressed three facets,namely the structural facet, the quantitative and differential facet, and themicrogenetic facet. The first facet included a conceptual analysis covering
the first dozen years in life. The further development of control beliefs up
to old age is conceptually less developed. The structural development ofcontrol beliefs is indeed concluded by adolescence, at least in certain
domains, as in the educational domain. How much and under which con-

Developmental analysis of control beliefs 97
ditions these structures transfer from one domain to another remains an
open question. But even if some positive transfer occurs, there is still the
need for domain-specific experiences, and this is probably what deter-
mines most of the adult development of control beliefs.
Do the three levels proposed for the adult development of control
beliefs represent structural growth in the same sense as the preceding lev-
els? In a way the answer is yes, in that they structure the consequences of
the previous perception of actual control and no control. They add essen-
tial new elements in a nonarbitrary way. Although the limitation element
is not completely new, most limitations in children are surmountable
through effort and learning, whereas adults perceive some of them as less
changeable (Flammer, 1990, pp. 162-192).
The research on the second facet, the quantitative and differential one,
has been explored most extensively. The knowledge from this line of
research is of evident educational and sociopolitical importance.
The least advanced research facet is the third, the microgenesis of con-
trol beliefs. In a way this is surprising because these processes are omni-
present in everyday life. Whether and why one underestimates or greatly
overestimates actual control is very consequential. Teachers and psycho-
therapists focus much of their attention on this.
Notes
1. The author acknowledges valuable comments and/or editorial help from Franchise
Alsaker, Margret M. Baltes, Albert Bandura, Nicki Crick, Jeannine Dumont, Alexan-
der Grob, Gay Ladd, Serge Muhlethaler, Rolf Reber, Emma Smith, Urs Tschanz, and
Werner Wicki.
2. Comparable distinctions have also been proposed by Weisz and Stipek (1982): Contin-
gency judgment + Competence judgment = perceived control; Gurin and Brim (1984):
Judgment of system responsiveness + judgment of personal efficacy = sense of con-
trol; and Ford and Thompson (1985): Perceptions of control + perceptions of compe-
tence = personal agency beliefs.
3. The German Gestalt psychologists distinguished the Ontogenese (ontogenesis, mean-
ing long-term individual development) from the Aktualgenese (the actual and short-
term emergence, or microgenesis, of a mental entity, i.e., a Gestalt).
4. By consciousness in this context I mean that a person deliberately attributes the predi-
cate of doing or being able to do to himself or herself in the sense of the categorical
self. What is done consciously may be recalled on the basis of retrieval from memory
and not only by retrospective inference. I equate the mere knowing that one is able to
act in such a way that certain effects are produced with "feeling of control."
5. However, later data within this longitudinal study showed no correlations between the
children's exploratory competence at 30 months and their exploratory competence at
12 months nor with their mothers' sensitivity (Meij & Riksen-Walraven, 1992).
6. A careful study by Spangler, Brautigam, and Stadler (1984) deserves to be mentioned
here. These authors observed 14 infants between the ages of 14 and 17 months inten-
sively and described behavior categories that represent further differentiations of my

98 August Hammer
levels 2, 2+, and 3. The individual sequence of the first appearance of each categorywas almost perfect, that is overall:
1. short action for immediate short effect (e.g., clapping two wooden blocks) = Level
2. continued action for continued effect (e.g., pulling wooden duck on a string) =
Level 2(+)
3. action for later effect (e.g., throwing a ball) = Level 2(+)
4. seemingly planned action without consideration of the effect (e.g., filling a bucket
with sand) = Level 2+
5. planned action with consideration of the effect (e.g., building and correcting a
wooden pyramid) = Level 2+
6. actions with reference to personal origin (i.e., refusing help, showing what is
achieved) = Levels 3 and 4.
7. Kaye's (1982) data also favor the view that personal agency comes after the general
causal schema. He had 6-month-old infants learn to retrieve objects hidden behind
screens by observing adult models. Having acquired the skill through observation, the
infants generalized it to other objects and transferred the action from one hand toanother. However, these findings may be indicative only of the microgenesis of spe-
cific schemata, not of the very first agency schema.
8. Correctly inferring contingency is not a simple process applicable to any contingent
relation. There is a long cognitive pathway from simple perception of two temporallycontingent events to complicated logical structures of dependency (Shaklee & Gold-
ston, 1988; Shaklee, Holt, Elek, & Hall, 1988; Weisz, 1983).
9. H. Heckhausen (1982, p. 606) identified the "attribution of the outcome of an action to
one's own competence and self-evaluation of competence" as emerging after age 3 asthe 2nd level (or "characteristic") of his developmental theory of achievement motiva-
tion. This corresponds to the levels 4 and 5 of my scheme.
10. Clearly, more primitive "self-concepts" arise earlier in life, depending on the definition
of self-concept (e.g., Stern, 1985).
11. Heinz Heckhausen (1982, p. 608 ff.) postulated "distinguishing between degrees of
task difficulty and personal competence," which according to him is achieved by the5th year as the 3rd level or "characteristic" in his analysis. His 4th level or "character-
istic" consists of "distinguishing between the causal concepts of ability and effort."
The remaining 8 levels or "characteristics" of H. Heckhausen's (1982) analysis are of
special interest to motivation and are therefore not documented here.
12. The secondary control concept was rather heterogeneous from the beginning:
Rothbaum et al. (1982) included predictive, illusionary, vicarious, and interpretive sec-ondary control. Although some researchers have narrowed the concept by focusing on
the postfailure control strategy of discounting the missed goal and highlighting arelated higher-order goal that is presumably preserved and even better served throughthe failure at hand (Essau, 1992; Flammer et al., 1988), others have made it even
broader (Band & Weisz, 1988; Heckhausen & Schulz, in press).
13. This raises the question whether a social representation of the developmental ceiling to
memory exists, maybe specifically for memory span. However, the data in Table 3.3
does not show such a differentiation between different types of memory processes.
14. However, there seems to be a problem with the scale, because internality and external-
ity combined are exhaustive and their sum should therefore remain constant. There isalso a problem with the validity of this finding, because it rests on means-ends belief
data and not on agency data. Internality of agency remained more or less constant inthe Skinner, Chapman, and Baltes (1988a) study (effort decreasing, ability increasing),
and externality of agency too did not markedly change (luck decreasing, powerful
other increasing). Although one could conclude that the controllability judgments (i.e.,

Developmental analysis of control beliefs 99
means-ends judgments) decrease, one cannot conclude from this study that personal
agency judgments or personal control judgments decrease during the normal school
years.
Again, this does not exclude the fact that control indeed increases, but the control
beliefs probably do not. Control beliefs are probably relative to what one thinks every-
one else is able to control and relative to what one thinks is controllable at all (cf. com-
parative results with happiness and well-being).
15. There are many educational studies investigating control beliefs as independent vari-
ables. In contrast to most other contributions, the focus here is on control beliefs as
dependent variables.
16. I know of one such prospective study done in Fribourg and Hamburg; what is reported
so far covers only the first year of the subjects' lives and clearly does not tap control
beliefs yet (Diethelm, 1991). There were positive correlations between contingency of
parental behavior in the 2nd month and exploratory behavior and fearlessness of
unknown adults in the 12th month of life.
17. Although the changes in the Intellectual Achievement Responsibility Scale – a control
belief- like measure by Crandall, Katkovsky, and Crandall (1965) – were inconsistent,
I take the positive effects on effort attributions as an indicator of a possible increase in
control belief. Persistence in trying to solve a task is clearly correlated with high con-
trol beliefs (Liitkenhaus, 1987). For a comparable study see Chapin and Dyck (1976).
18. Again, the dependent measures were only performances and not control beliefs.
19. The Cree are a group of native Indians living in northern Ontario.
20. An additional question would be why people are interested in finding out whether they
are able to master a given task. I skip this interesting literature (e.g., Atkinson, 1957;
Boggiano, Main, & Katz, 1988; Klonowicz & Zawadzka, 1988; Stiensmeier, 1986;
Strube, Lott, Le-Xuan-Hy, Oxenberg, & Deichman, 1986; Trope, 1982; for a review
see Flammer, 1990, pp. 199-202).
21. It must be added that extension studies did not yield the same results neither with ado-
lescents with generally low control beliefs within the "normal" population range
(Flammer & Rheindorf, 1991) nor with clinically depressive adolescents (Avramakis
& Joray, 1991). The last investigation did yield generally less specific answers in
depressive adolescents, but neither pronouncedly less specific nor slower to positive
cues.
22. Surprisingly, in three investigations with a total of 661 subjects and 10 answers each
there were almost no references to models, about 1 out of 100.
References
Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Alloy, L. B., & Abramson, L. Y. (1982). Learned helplessness, depression, and the
illusion of control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42,1114-1126.
Alloy, L. B., & Abramson, L. Y. (1988). Depressive realism: Four theoretical per-
spectives. In L. B. Alloy (Ed.), Cognitive processes in depression: Treatment,
research and theory (pp. 223-265). New York: Guilford.
Alloy, L. B., Abramson, L. Y, & Viscussi, D. (1981). Induced mood and the illusion
of control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41,1129-1140.
Amrhein, J., Salovey, P., & Rosenhan, D. L. (1982). Joy and sadness generate attri-
butional vulnerability in men. Unpublished manuscript. Stanford University.
Atkinson, J. W. (1957). Motivational determinants of risk-taking behavior. Psycho-
logical Review, 64, 359-372.

100 August Flammer
Ausubel, D., Schiff, H., & Gasser, E. (1952). A preliminary study of the develop-
mental trends in socioempathy: Accuracy of perception of own and others'
sociometric status. Child Development, 23,111-128.
Avramakis, J., & Joray, M. (1991). Bereichsspezifische Kontrollattributionen und
autobiographisches Gedachtnis bei Jugendlichen mit depressiver Stimmung
[Domain-specific control attributions and autobiographical memory in depres-
sive adolescents]. Lizentiatsarbeit. University of Berne.
Baldwin, J. M. (1894). The development of the child and of the race. New York: Macmil-
lan.
Baltes, M. M. (1982). Environmental factors in dependency among nursing home
residents: A social ecology analysis. In T. A. Wills (Ed.), Basic processes in helping
relationships (pp. 405-425). New York: Academic.
Baltes, M. M. (1988). The etiology and maintenance of dependency in the elderly:
Three phases of operant research. Behavior Therapy, 19, 301-319.
Baltes, M. M, Burgess, R. L., & Stewart, R. B. (1980). Independence and depen-
dence in self-care behaviors in nursing home residents: An operant-observa-
tional study. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 3,498-500.
Baltes, M. M., & Skinner, E. A. (1983). Cognitive performance deficits and hospital-
ization: Learned helplessness, instrumental passivity, or what? Comment to
Raps, Peterson, Jonas, and Seligman. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
45,1013-1016.
Baltes, M. M., & Wahl, H. W. (1992). The dependency-support script in institutions:
Generalization to community settings. Psychology and Aging, 7, 409-418.
Baltes, P. B., & Baltes, M. M. (Eds.). (1990). Successful aging. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Baltes, P. B., Smith, J., Staudinger, U. M., & Sowarka, D. (1990). Wisdom: One facet
of successful aging? In M. Perlmutter (Ed.), Late life potential (pp. 63-81). Wash-
ington, DC: The Gerontological Society of America.
Band, E. B., & Weisz, J. R. (1988). How to feel better when it feels bad: Children's
perspectives on coping with everyday stress. Developmental Psychology, 24,
247-269.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84,191-215.
Bandura, A. (1981). Self-referent thought: a developmental analysis of self-efficacy.
In J. Flavell & L. Ross (Eds.), Social cognitive development: Frontiers and possible
futures (pp. 200-239). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psycholo-
gist, 37,122-147.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1989). Regulation of cognitive processes through perceived self-effi-
cacy. Developmental Psychology, 25, 729-735.
Bandura, A. (1990). Conclusion: Reflections on nonability determinants of compe-
tence. In R. J. Sternberg & J. Kolligian (Eds.), Competence considered (pp. 315-
362). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Bandura, A. (in press). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Barker, G., & Graham, S. (1987). Developmental study of praise and blame as attri-
butional cues. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79,62-66.
Berry, J. W., & Bennett, J. A. (1992). Cree conceptions of cognitive competence.
International Journal of Psychology, 27,73-88.
Bjorklund, D. F., Gaultney, J. F, & Green, B. L. (in press). "I watch, therefore, I can
do": The development of meta-imitation over the preschool years and the

Developmental analysis of control beliefs 101
advantage of optimism in one's imitative skills. In M. L. Howe & R. Pasnak
(Eds.), Emerging themes in cognitive development (Vol. 2). New York: Springer.
Bjorklund, D. R, & Green, B. L. (1992). The adaptive nature of cognitive immatur-
ity. American Psychologist, 47,46-54.
Bivens, J. A., & Berk, L. E. (1990). A longitudinal study of the development of ele-
mentary school children's private speech. Merrill Palmer Quarterly, 36,443-463.
Blumenfeld, P., Pintrich, P., & Hamilton, V. (1986). Children's concept of ability,
effort, and conduct. American Educational Research Journal, 23, 95-104.
Boggiano, A. K., Main, D. S., & Katz, P. A. (1988). Children's preference for
challenge: The role of perceived competence and control. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 54,134-141.
Brandtstadter, J. (1985). Entwicklungsbezogene Handlungsorientierungen und
Emotionen im Erwachsenenalter [Development-related action orientation and
emotions in adults]. Zeitschrift fiir Entwicklungspsychologie und Padagogische
Psychologie, 17,41-52.
Brandtstadter, J. (1986). Personal self-regulation of development: Cross-sequential
analyses of development-related control beliefs and emotions in the age range
from 30 to 60 years. Research report. Trier, Germany: Universitat Trier.
Brandtstadter, J. (1992). Personal control over development: Some developmental
implications of self-efficacy. In R. Schwarzer (Ed.), Self-efficacy: Thought control
of action (pp. 127-145). Washington, DC: Hemisphere.
Brandtstadter, J., Krampen, G., & Baltes-Goetz, B. (1989). Kontrolliiberzeugungen
im Kontext personlicher Entwicklung [Control beliefs related to personal
development]. In G. Krampen (Ed.), Diagnostik von Attributionen und Kontroll-
iiberzeugungen (pp. 155-171). Gottingen, Germany: Hogrefe.
Brandtstadter, J., Krampen, G., & Greve, W. (1987). Personal control over develop-
ment: Effects on the perception and emotional evaluation of personal develop-
ment in adulthood. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 10, 99-120.
Brandtstadter, J., & Renner, G. (1990). Tenacious goal pursuit and flexible goal
adjustment: Explication and age-related analysis of assimilative and ac-
commodative strategies of coping. Psychology and Aging, 5,58-67.
Brandtstadter, J., Wentura, D., & Greve, W. (1993). Adaptive resources of the aging
self: Outlines of an emergent perspective. International Journal of Behavioral
Development, 16, 323-349.
Broucek, F. (1979). Efficacy in infancy: A review of some experimental studies and
their possible implications for clinical theory. International Journal of Psychoanal-
ysis, 60, 311-316.
Brown, J. (1984). Effects of induced mood on causal attributions for success and
failure. Motivation and Emotion, 8,343-353.
Bruner, J. (1983)). Child's talk: Learning to use language. New York: Norton.
Biihler, K. (1919). Abriss der geistigen Entwicklung des Kindes [Outline of the mental
development of a child]. Leipzig, Germany: Quelle & Meyer.
Bullock, M., Liitkenhaus, P. (1988). The development of volitional behavior in the
toddler years. Child Development, 59,664-674.
Chapin, M., & Dycke, D.G. (1976). Persistence in children's reading behavior as a
function of N length and attribution retraining. Journal of Abnormal Psychology,
85,511-515.
Claes, M. (1981). L'evolution de l'attribution des causes des succes et des echecs au
cours de la scolarite [The evolution of the causal attribution of successes and
failures over the school biography]. Revue de Psychologie Appliquee, 31,275-294.
Cohen, L. B., & Oakes, L. M. (1993). How infants perceive a simple causal event.
Developmental Psychology, 29,421^133.

102 August Flammer
Cohen, S., & Edwards, J. (1989). Personality characteristics as moderators of the
relationship between stress and disorder. In R. Neufeld (Ed.), Advances in the
investigation of psychological stress (pp. 235-283). New York: Wiley.
Connolly, J. (1989). Social self-efficacy in adolescence: Relations with self-concept,
social adjustment, and mental health. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 21,
258-269.
Crandall, V., & Crandall, B. W. (1983). Maternal and childhood behaviors as ante-
cedents of internal-external control perceptions in young adulthood. In H. M.
Lefcourt (Ed.), Research with the locus of control-construct: Vol. I. Assessment meth-
ods (pp. 53-103). New York: Academic.
Crandall, V., Katkovsky, W., & Crandall, V. J. (1965). Children's belief in their own
control of reinforcements in intellectual-academic achievement situations.
Child Development, 36,91-109.
Diethelm, K. (1991). Mutter-Kind-Interaktion. Entwicklung von Kontrollilberzeugungen
[Mother-child interaction. Development of control beliefs]. Bern, Switzerland:
Huber.
Diethelm, K. (1992). Friihe Mutter-Kind-Interaktion und die Entwicklung kom-
potenten Verhaltens [Early mother-child interaction and the development of
competent behavior]. Vierteljahresschrift fur Heilpadagogik und ihre Nach-barwissenschaften, 61,
83-91.
Donovan, W. L., & Leavitt, L. A. (1989). Maternal self-efficacy and infant attach-
ment: Integrating physiology, perceptions, and behavior. Child Development, 60,
460-472.
Donovan, W. L., Leavitt, L. A., & Walsh, R. O. (1990). Maternal self-efficacy: Illus-
ory control and its effect on susceptibility to learned helplessness. Child Devel-
opment, 62,1638-1647.
Dunham, P., & Dunham, F. (1990). Effects of mother-infant social interaction on
infants' subsequent contingency task performance. Child Development, 61, 785-
783.
Dunning, D., & Story, A. L. (1991). Depression, realism, and the overconfidence
effect: Are the sadder wiser when predicting future actions and events? Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 521-532.
Dweck, C. S. (1975). The role of expectations and the alleviation of learned help-
lessness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31,674-685.
Dweck, C. S., & Reppucci, N. D. (1973). Learned helplessness and reinforcement
responsibility in children. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 25, 109-
116.
Entwistle, D., & Hayduk, L. (1978). Too great expectations: The academic outlook of
young children. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York: Norton (dt. Jugend und
Krise. Weinheim, Germany: Klett-Cotta, 1981).
Essau, C. (1992). Primary-secondary control and coping: A cross-cultural comparison.
Regensburg, Germany: Roderer.
Finkelstein, N. W, & Ramey, C. (1977). Learning to control the environment in
infancy. Child Development, 48,806-819.
Flammer, A. (1990). Erfahrung der eigenen Wirksamkeit [Experiencing one's own effi-
cacy]. Bern, Switzerland: Huber.
Flammer, A. (1992). Secondary control in an individual-centered and in a group-
centered culture. In W. Meeus, M. De Goede, W. Kox, & K. Hurrelmann (Eds).,
Adolescence, careers, and cultures (pp. 131-141). Berlin: De Gruyter.

Developmental analysis of control beliefs 103
Rammer, A., & Grob, A. (1994). Kontrollmeinungen, ihre Begriindungen und
Autobiographic [Control beliefs, their justification, and autobiography].
Zeitschrift fiir Experimented und Angewandte Psychologie, 41,17-38.
Hammer, A., Grob, A., & Liithi, R. (1987). Kontrollattributionen bei Jugendlichen
[Control attributions in adolescents]. Research Report. Bern, Switzerland:
Universitat Bern.
Rammer, A., Grob, A., Liithi, R., & Kaiser, F. G. (1989). Kontrollattributionen und
Wohlbefinden von Schweizer Jugendlichen [Control attributions and well-
being in Swiss adolescents]. Research Report Nr. 1989-4. Bern, Switzerland:
University of Bern Department of Psychology.
Rammer, A., & Kaiser, F. G. (1992). Kontrollmeinung und Selbstwissen bei
Jugendlichen [Control-belief and self-knowledge among adolescents]. Re-
search Report Nr. 1992-2. Bern, Switzerland: University of Bern.
Rammer, A., Kaiser, F. G., Liithi, R., & Grob, A. (1990). Kontrollmeinungen und
Selbstwissen [Control beliefs and self-knowledge]. Schweizerische Zeitschrift fiir
Psychologie, 49,159-172.
Rammer, A., & Rheindorf, E. (1991). Control-belief and selective recall from auto-
biography. Archives de psychologie, 59,125-142.
Rammer, A. & Scheuber-Sahli, E. (in press). Selective recall as intervention to mod-
ify control-beliefs in an achievement setting. Swiss Journal of Psychology.
Rammer, A., Ziiblin, C, & Grob, A. (1988). Sekundare Kontrolle bei Jugendlichen
[Secondary control in adolescents]. Zeitschrift fiir Entwicklungspsychologie und
Pddagogische Psychologie, 20,239-262.
Ravell, J., Friedrichs, A., & Hoyt, J. (1970). Developmental changes in memoriza-
tion processes. Cognitive Psychology, 1, 324-340.
RaveU, J., & Wellman, H. (1977). Metamemory. In R. V. Kail & J. W. Hagen (Eds.),
Perspectives on the development of memory and cognition (pp. 3-33). HiUsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Ford, M. E., & Thompson, R. A. (1985). Perceptions of personal agency and infant
attachment: Toward a lifespan perspective on competence development. Inter-
national Journal of Behavioral Development, 8,377-406.
Frieze, I. H., & Snyder, H. L. (1980). Children's belief about the causes of success
and failure in school settings. Journal of Educational Psychology, 72,186-196.
Fry, P. S. (1975). Affect and resistance to temptation. Developmental Psychology, 11,
466-472.
Gatz, M., & Karel, M. H. (1993). Individual change in perceived control over 20
years. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 16,305-322.
Gekas, V. (1989). The social psychology of self-efficacy. Annual Review of Sociology,
15,291-316.
Gekas, V., & Schwalbe, M. L. (1983). Beyond the looking-glass self: Social structure
and efficacy-based self-esteem. Social Psychology Quarterly, 46,77-88.
Geppert, U., & Kiister, U. (1983). The emergence of "wanting to do it oneself7: A
precursor of achievement motivation. International Journal of Behavioral Develop-
ment, 3, 355-369.
Grant, B. T. (1988). Quality of life and visual impairment: Coping strategies and
adaptation procedures. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Mel-
bourne, Australia.
Grob, A., Flammer, A., & Neuenschwander, M. (1992). Kontrollattributionen und
Wohlbefinden von Schweizer Jugendlichen III [Control attributions and well-
being in Swiss adolescents III]. Research Report Nr. 1992-4. Bern, Switzerland:
University of Bern Department of Psychology.

104 August Flammer
Giiggi, S. (in prep.). Confidence in control beliefs. Dissertation. Bern, Switzerland:
University of Bern Department of Psychology.
Gunnar, M. R. (1980a). Contingent simulation: A review of its role in early develop-
ment. In S. Levine & H. Ursin (Eds.), Coping and health (pp. 101-119). New
York: Plenum.
Gunnar, M. R. (1980b). Control, warning signals, and distress in infancy. Develop-
mental Psychology, 16, 281-289.
Gunnar-VonGnechten, M. R. (1978). Changing a frightening toy into a pleasant toy
by allowing the infant to control its action. Developmental Psychology, 14, 157-
162.
Gurin, P., & Brim, O. G. (1984). Change in self in adulthood: The example of sense
of control. In P. B. Baltes & O. G. Brim (Eds.), Life-span development and behavior
(Vol. 6) (pp. 282-234). New York: Academic.
Hackett, G. (1995). Self-efficacy and career choice and development. In A. Bandura
(Ed.), Self-efficacy in changing societies (pp. 232-258). New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Halisch, C, & Halisch, F. (1980). Kognitive Voraussetzungen fruhkindlicher
Selbstbewertungsreaktionen nach Erfolg und Misserfolg. Zeitschrift fiir
Entwicklungspsychologie und Padagogische Psychologie, 12,193-212.
Harris, K. R. (1990). Developing self-regulated learners: The role of private speech
and self-instructions. Special Issue: Self-regulated learning and academic
achievement. Educational Psychologist, 25,35-49.
Hausser, K. (1983). Identitatsentwicklung [Development of identity]. Stuttgart: utb.
Heckhausen, H. (1966). Die Entwicklung des Erlebens von Erfolg und Misserfolg
[The development of the experience of success and failure]. Bild der
Wissenschraft, 7, 547-553.
Heckhausen, H. (1982). The development of achievement motivation. In W. W.
Hartup (Ed.), Review of child development research (Vol. 6) (pp. 600-668). Chi-
cago: University of Chicago Press.
Heckhausen, H. (1984). Emergent achievement behavior: Some early develop-
ments. In J. G. Nicholls (Ed.), The development of achievement motivation (Vol. 3)
(pp. 1-37). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Heckhausen, H. (1991). Motivation and action. New York: Springer.
Heckhausen, J. (1988). Becoming aware of one's competence in the second year:
Developmental progression within the mother-child dyad. International Journal
of Behavioral Development, 11, 305-326.
Heckhausen, J. (1990). Entwicklung im Erwachsenenalter aus der Sicht junger,
mittelalter und alter Erwachsener [Development in adult age viewed from
young, middle-aged and old adults]. Zeitschrift fiir Entwicklungspsychologie und
Padagogische Psychologie, 22,1-21.
Heckhausen, J., & Baltes, P. B. (1991). Perceived controllability of expected psycho-
logical change across adulthood and old age. Journal of Gerontology: Psychologi-
cal Sciences, 46,165-173.
Heckhausen, J., & Kriiger, J. (1993). Developmental expectations for the self and
most other people: Age grading in three functions of social comparison. Devel-
opmental Psychology, 29, 539-548.
Heckhausen, J., & Schulz, R. (1993). Optimisation by selection and compensation:
Balancing primary and secondary control in life span development. Interna-
tional Journal of Behavioral Development, 16,287-303.
Heckhausen, J., & Schulz, R. (in press). A life-span theory of control. Psychological
Review.

Developmental analysis of control beliefs 105
Helmke, A. (1992). Selbstvertrauen und schulische Leistungen [Self-confidence and
academic achievements]. Gottingen, Germany: Hogrefe.
Helmke, A. (1993). Achievement-related motives, self-evaluations, causal attribu-
tions and school experiences of third graders. In F. E. Weinert & W. Schneider
(Eds.), The Munich Longitudinal Study on the Genesis of Individual Competencies
(LOGIC), Report No. 9 (pp. 111-133). Munich: Max-Planck-Institute for Psycho-
logical Research.
Hetzer, H. (1931). Kind und Schaffen [Child and creation]. Jena, Germany: Gustav
Fischer.
Janos, O., & Papousek, H. (1977). Acquisition of appetitional and palpebral condi-
tioned reflexes by the same infants. Early Human Development, 1, 91-97.
Karabenick, J., & Heller, K. (1976). A developmental study of effort and ability
attributions. Developmental Psychology, 12, 559-560.
Katkovsky, W., Crandall, V., & Good, S. (1967). Parental antecedents of children's
beliefs in internal-external control of reinforcements in intellectual achieve-
ments situations. Child Development, 38,765-776.
Kavanagh, D. J., & Bower, G. H. (1985). Mood and self-efficacy: Impact of joy and
sadness on perceived capabilities. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 9,507-525.
Kaye, K. (1982). The mental and social life of babies: How parents create persons. Chi-
cago: University of Chicago Press.
Klonowicz, T., & Zawadzka, G. (1988). Reactivity and personal control over stimu-
lation supply. European journal of Personality, 2,1-10.
Klostermann, M. (1984). Selbermachenwollen bei Kindern in Abhangigkeit vom
Schwierigkeitsgrad [Wanting to do by oneself in children in reference to
degree of difficulty]. Unpublished master's thesis, Ruhr-Universitat, Bochum,
Germany.
Kogan, N. (1990). Personality and aging. In J. E. Birren & K. W. Schaie (Eds.), Hand-
book of the psychology of aging (3rd ed.) (pp. 330-346). New York: Academic.
Kriiger, J., & Heckhausen, J. (1993). Personality development across the adult life
span: Subjective conceptions vs. cross-sectional contrasts. Journal of Gerontol-
ogy: Psychological Sciences, 48, PI 00 – PI 08.
Kumpfer, K. L., & Turner, C. W. (1991). The social ecology model of adolescent sub-
stance abuse: Implications for prevention. International Journal of the Addictions,
25,435^63.
Kun, A. (1977). Development of magnitude-covariation and compensation sche-
mata in ability and effort attributions of performance. Child Development, 48,
862-873.
Kun, A., Parsons, J., & Ruble, D. (1974). Development of integration processes
using ability and effort information to predict outcome. Developmental Psychol-
ogy, 10, 721-732.
Kunnen, S. (1993). Attributions and perceived control over school failure in handi-
capped and non-handicapped children. International Journal of Behavioral Devel-
opment, 16,113-125.
Lachman, M. E. (1983). Perceptions of intellectual aging: Antecedent or conse-
quence of intellectual functioning? Developmental Psychology, 19,482-498.
Lachman, M. E. (1986a). Locus of control in aging research: A case for multidimen-
sional and domain-specific assessment. Psychology and Aging, 1, 34-40.
Lachman, M. E. (1986b). Personal control in later life: Stability, change, and cogni-
tive correlates. In M. M. Baltes & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), The psychology of control and
aging (pp. 207-236). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Lange, R., & Tiggemann, M. (1980). Changes within the Australian population to
more external control beliefs. Australian Psychologist, 15,495-497.

106 August Flammer
Langer, E. J. (1975). The illusion of control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 32,311-328.
Langer, E. J. (1983). The psychology of control. London: Sage.
Langer, E. J., & Rodin, J. (1976). The effects of choice and enhanced personal
responsibility for the aged: A field experiment in an institutional setting. Jour-
nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34,191-198.
Lawler, J. (1978). Dialektische Philosophie und Entwicklungspsychologie: Hegel
und Piaget iiber Widerspruch. In K. Riegel (Ed.), Zur Ontogenese dialektischer
Operationen (pp. 7-29). Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
Lazarus (1966). Psychological stress and the coping process. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal and coping (6th ed). New York:
Springer.
Lefcourt, H. M. (Ed.). (1976). Locus of control: Current trends in theory and research.
New York: Wiley.
Leont'ev, A. N. (1959). Probleme der Entwicklung des Psychischen [Problems of the
psychic development]. Konigstein: Anthenaum.
Lepper, M. R., & Greene, D. (1975). Turning play into work: Effects of adult surveil-
lance and extrinsic rewards on children's intrinsic motivation. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 31,479-486.
Leslie, A. M. (1982). The perception of causality in infants. Perception, 11,173-186.
Leslie, A. M. (1984). Spatiotemporal continuity and the perception of causality in
infants. Perception, 13,287-305.
Leslie, A. M., & Keeble, S. (1987). Do six-month-olds perceive causality? Cognition,
25, 265-288.
Levin, J. R., Yussen, S. R., DeRose, T. M., & Pressley, M. (1977). Developmental
changes in assessing recall and recognition memory capacity. Developmental
Psychology, 13,608-615.
Lewis, M., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (1979). Social cognition and the acquisition of self. New
York: Plenum.
Lewis, M., & Goldberg, S. (1969). Perceptual-cognitive development in infancy: A
generalized expectancy model as a function of the mother-infant interaction.
Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 15, 81-100.
Lewis, M., Wall, M., & Aronfreed, J. (1963). Developmental change in the relative
values of social and nonsocial reinforcement. Journal of Experimental Psychology,
66,133-137.
Lloyd, G. G., & Lishman, W. A. (1975). Effect of depression on the speed of recall of
pleasant and unpleasant experiences. Psychological Medicine, 5,173-180.
Lumpkin, J. R. (1986). The relationship between locus of control and age: New evi-
dence. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 1, 245-252.
Luria, A. R. (1961). The role of speech in the regulation of normal and abnormal behavior.
New York: Basic.
Luria, A. R. (1976). Cognitive development: Its cultural and social foundations. Cam-
bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Liithi, R. (1990). Der Einfluss von Erfahrungen und Erinnerungen auf den Aufbau
und die Veranderung von Selbstkognitionen [The influence of experiences and
their recall on the construction and change of self-cognition]. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of Berne.
Liitkenhaus, P. (1987). Preschoolers' feelings of competence, its function for persis-
tence and its relation to social experiences. Paper presented to the ISSBD Con-
ference in Tokyo, Japan.

Developmental analysis of control beliefs 107
Liitkenhaus, P., Bullock, M, & Geppert, U. (1987). Toddlers' action: Knowledge,
control and the self. In F. Halisch & J. Kuhl (Eds.), Motivation, intention and voli-
tion (pp. 145-161). Berlin: Springer.
MacFarlane, J. (1975). Olfaction in the development of social preferences in the
human neonate. In M. Hofer (Ed.), Parent-infant interaction (pp. 103-117).
Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Maclver, D. (1987). Classroom factors and student characteristics predicting
students' use of achievement standards during ability self-assessment. Child
Development, 58,1258-1271.
Maclver, D. (1988). Classroom environments and the stratification of pupils' ability
perception. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80,494-504.
Mandler, J. M. (1992). How to build a baby: II. Conceptual primitives. Psychological
Review, 99, 587-604.
Masters, J., & Furman, W. (1966). Effects of affective states on noncontingent out-
come expectancies and beliefs in internal or external control. Developmental
Psychology, 12, 481-482.
Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society: From standpoint of a social behaviorist. Chi-
cago: Chicago University Press.
Meij, J., & Riksen-Walraven, J. (1992). Stability of children's competence motivation
from 12 to 30 months in relation to patterns of change in maternal sensitivity.
Paper presented at the Vth European Conference on Developmental Psychol-
ogy in Sevilla, Spain.
Meyer, W. U. (1984). Das Konzept von der eigenen Begabund [The concept of one's
own ability]. Psychologische Rundschau, 35,136-150.
Meyer, W. U. (1992). Paradoxical effects of praise and criticism on perceived ability.
European Review of Social Psychology, 3, 259-283.
Meyer, W. U., Bachmann, M., Biermann, V., Hempelmann, P., Ploger, F. O., &
Spiller, H. (1979). The informational value of evaluative behavior: Influence of
praise and blame on perceptions of ability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71,
259-268.
Michalos, A. (1985). Multiple discrepancies theory (MDT). Social Indicators
Research, 16, 347-413.
Michotte, A. (1963). The perception of causality. London: Methuen.
Midgley, C, Feldlaufer, H., & Eccles, J. S. (1989). Change in teacher efficacy and
student self- and task-related beliefs in mathematics during the transition to
junior high school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81,247-258.
Miller, A. (1985). A developmental study of the cognitive basis of performance
impairment after failure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 529-
538.
Miller, D. T, & Ross, M. (1975). Self-serving biases in the attribution of causality:
Fact or fiction? Psychological Bulletin, 82, 213-225.
Mischel, H. N., & Mischel, W. (1983). The development of children's knowledge of
self-control strategies. Child Development, 54,603-619.
Mischel, W. (1957). Preference for delayed reinforcement. Journal of Abnormal Social
Psychology, 56, 57-61.
Mischel, W. (1974). Processes in delay of gratification. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.),
Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 7) (pp. 249-292). New York: Aca-
demic.
Mischel, W., Shoda, Y., & Rodriguez, M. L. (1989). Delay of gratification in chil-
dren. Science, 244, 933-938.

108 August Flammer
Monroe, E. K., & Lange, G. (1977). The accuracy with which children judge the
composition of their free recall. Child Development, 48, 381-387.
Moore, R. G., Watts, F. N., & Williams, J. M. G. (1988). The specificity of personal
memories in depression. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 27, 275-276.
Miiller, A. (1958). Ueber die Entwicklung des Leistungsanspruchsniveaus. [On the
development of the performance aspiration level]. Zeitschrift fur Psychologie,
162, 238-353.
Miiller, L. (1984). Selbermachenwollen bei Kleinkindern, wenn der erwachsene
Spielpartner voriibergehend den Tatigkeitsvollzug an sich ziehen will. [Want-
ing to do by one-self in situations where the adult partner wants to do part of
the job for a given while]. Unpublished master's thesis, Ruhr-Universitat,
Bochum, Germany.
Nicholls, J. G. (1978). The development of the concepts of effort and ability, percep-
tion of academic attainment, and the understanding that difficult tasks require
more ability. Child Development, 49, 800-814.
Nicholls, J. G. (1979). Development of perception of own attainment and causal
attributions for success and failure in reading. Journal of Educational Psychology,
71,94-99.
Nicholls, J. G. (1980). The development of the concept of difficulty. Merrill-Palmer
Quarterly, 26,271-281.
Nicholls, J. G. (1984). Conceptions of ability and achievement motivation. In A.
Ames & C. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education: Vol. 1. Student moti-
vation (pp. 39-73). New York: Academic.
Nicholls, J. G., & Miller, A. T. (1984). Development and its discontents: The differ-
entiation of the concept of ability. In J. G. Nicholls (Ed.), Advances in motivation
and achievement: Vol. 3. The development of achievement motivation (pp. 185-218).
Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Nicholls, J. G., & Miller, A. T. (1985). Differentiation of the concepts of luck and
skill. Developmental Psychology, 21, 76-82.
Oakes, L. M., & Cohen, L. B. (1990). Infant perception of a causal event. Cognitive
Development, 5,193-207.
Oettingen, G., Lindenberger, U., & Baltes, P. B. (1992). Sind die schulleistungs-
bezogenen Ueberzeugungen Ostberlin'er Kinder entwicklungshemmend? [Do
the school achievement related beliefs of East Berlin children prevent develop-
ment?]. Zeitschrift fur Padagogik, 38,299-324.
Oettingen, G., & Little, T. D. (1993). Intelligenz und Selbstwirksamekeitsurteile bei
ost- und Westberliner Schulkindern. [Influence of age, gender, agency, and
connotations on the self-evaluation of the locus of control in school-age chil-
dren]. Zeitschrift fiir Socialpsychologie.
Oettingen, G., Little, T. D., Lindenberger, U., & Baltes, P. B. (in press). Causality,
agency, and control beliefs and their association with school performance in
East versus West Berlin children: A natural experiment on the role of context.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
Oleron, P., & Soubitez, M. C. (1982). Influence des variables age, sexe, agent et con-
notation sur revaluation du "locus of control" par des enfants d'age scolaire.
Revue de Psychologie Appliquee, 32, 91-104.
Papousek, H. (1967). Experimental studies of appetitional behavior in human new-
borns and infants. In H. W. Stevenson, E. H. Hess, & H. L. Rheingold (Eds.),
Early behavior: Comparative developmental approaches (pp. 249-277). New York:
Wiley.
Papousek, H., & Papousek, M. (1979). Early ontogeny of human social interaction:
Its biological roots and social dimensions. In M. Von Cranach, K. Foppa, W.

Developmental analysis of control beliefs 109
Lepenies, & D. Ploog (Eds.), Human ethology: Claims and limits of a new discipline
(pp. 456-478). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Papousek, H., & Papousek, M. (1989). Stimmliche Kommunikation im fruhen
Sauglingsalter als Wegbereiter der Sprachentwicklung [Vocal communication
in early infancy as promoter of language development]. In H. Keller (Ed.),
Handbuch der Kleinkindforschung (pp. 465-490). Berlin: Springer.
Parsons, J., & Ruble, D. (1977). The development of achievement-related expectan-
cies. Child Development, 48,1075-1079.
Patterson, C. J., & Mischel, W. (1976). Effects of temptation-inhibiting and task-
facilitating plans on self-control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33,
209-217.
Phares, E. J. (1978). Locus of control. In H. London & J. E. Exner (Eds.), Dimensions
of personality (pp. 263-304). New York: Wiley.
Piaget, J. (1925). De quelques formes primitives de causalite chez 1'enfant. [On
some primitive forms of causality in the child]. Annee psychologique, 26,31-71.
Piaget, J. (1926). La representation de monde chez Venfant [The child's representation
of the world]. Paris: Alcan.
Piaget, J. (1936). La naissance de Vintelligence chez Venfant [The birth of infant intelli-
gence]. Neuchatel, France: Delachaux et Niestle.
Piaget, J. (1937). La construction due reel chez Venfant [The child's construction of the
real]. Neuchatel, France: Delachaux et Niestle.
Piaget, J. (1947). Psychologie de Vintelligence. [Psychology of intelligence]. Paris:
Colin.
Ramey, C. T, & Finkelstein, N. W. (1978). Contingent stimulation and infant com-
petence. Journal ofPediatric Psychology, 3,89-96.
Rholes, W., Blackwell, J., Jordan, C, & Walters, C. (1980). A developmental study of
learned helplessness. Developmental Psychology, 16,616-624.
Riksen-Walraven, J. M. (1978). Effects of caregiver behavior on habituation rate
and self-efficacy in infants. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 1,
105-130.
Riksen-Walraven, M. (1991). Die Entwicklung kindlicher Kompetenz im Zusam-
menhang mit sozialer Unterstiitzung [Development of infants' competence as
a function of social support]. In Monks, F. J., & Lehwald, G. (Eds.), Neugier,
Erkundung und Begabund bei Kleinkindern (pp. 77-92). Basel, Germany: Rein-
hardt.
Rodin, J., & Langer, E. J. (1977). Long-term effects of a control-relevant intervention
with the institutionalized aged. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35,
897-903. Erratum to Rodin & Langer: Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 36,462.
Rondal, J. A. (1976). Investigation of the regulatory power of the impulsive and
meaningful aspects of speech. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 94,3-33.
Rosenholtz, S. J., & Rosenholtz, S. H. (1981). Classroom organization and the per-
ception of ability. Sociology of Education, 54,132-140.
Rosenholtz, S. J., & Simpson, C. (1984). The formation of ability conceptions:
Developmental or social construction? Review of Educational Research, 54,31-63.
Rothbaum, F. M., Weisz, J. R., & Snyder, S. S. (1982). Changing the world and
changing the self: a two-process model of perceived control. Journal of Personal-
ity and Social Psychology, 42,5-37.
Rotter, J. B. (1954). Social learning and clinical psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Pren-
tice-Hall.
Rotter, J. B. (1990). Internal versus external control of reinforcement. American Psy-
chologist, 45, 489-493.

110 August Flammer
Rovee-Collier, C. K., & Lippsitt, L. P. (1982). Learning, adaptation and memory in
the newborn. In P. M. Stratton (Ed.), Psychobiology of the human newborn (pp.
147-190). New York: Wiley.
Ruble, D. N., & Flett, G. L. (1988). Conflicting goals in self-evaluative information
seeking: Developmental and ability level analyses. Child Development, 59, 97-
106.
Ryff, C. D. (1989). In the eye of the beholder: Views of psychological well-being
among middle-aged and older adults. Psychology and Aging, 4,195-210.
Salovey, P., & Birnbaum, D. (1989). Influence of mood on health-relevant cogni-
tions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 539-551.
Sameroff, A. J. (1968). The components of sucking in the newborn. Journal of Exper-
imental Child Psychology, 6,607-623.
Sameroff, A. J. (1971). Can conditioned responses be established in the newborn
infant? Developmental Psychology, 5,411-442.
Schneider, J. M. (1971). College students' belief in personal control, 1966-1970. Jour-
nal of Individual Psychology, 27,188.
Schneider, W. (1989). Zur Entzvicklung des Meta-Gedachtnisses bei Kindern [On the
development of meta-memory in children]. Bern, Switzerland: Huber.
Schneider, W., & Pressley, M. (1989). Memory development between 2 and 20. New
York: Springer.
Schulz, R. (1976). Effects of control and predictability on the physical and psycho-
logical well-being of the institutionalized aged. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 33,563-573.
Schulz, R., & Hanusa, B. H. (1978). Long-term effects of control and predictability
enhancing interventions: Findings and ethical issues. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 36,1194-1201.
Schunk, D. H. (1982). Effects of effort attributional feedback on children's per-
ceived self-efficacy and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74,548-
556.
Schunk, D. H. (1983). Reward contingencies and the development of children's
skills and self-efficacy. Journal of Educational Psychology; 1983, 75, 511-518.
Schunk, D. H. (1989). Self-efficacy and cognitive skill learning. In C. Ames & R.
Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education: Vol. 3. Goals and cognitions (pp.
13-44). San Diego: Academic.
Schwarzer, R. (Ed.), (1990). Gesundheitspsychologie [Psychology of health].
Gottingen, Germany: Hogrefe.
Seginer, R., Trommsdorff, G., & Essau, C. (1993). Adolescent control beliefs: Cross-
cultural variations of primary and secondary orientations. International Journal
of Behavioral Development, 16, 243-260.
Seligman, M. E. P. (1975). Helplessness: On depression, development and death. San
Francisco: Freeman.
Seligman, M. E. P. (1991). Learned optimism. New York: Knopf.
Seligman, M. E. P., & Maier, S. F. (1967). Failure to escape traumatic shock. Journal of
Experimental Psychology, 74,1-9.
Shaklee, H., & Goldston, D. (1988). Development in causal reasoning. Information
sampling and judgment rule. Cognitive Development, 4,269-281.
Shaklee, H., Holt, P., Elek, S., & Hall, L. (1988). Covariation judgment: Improving
rule use among children, adolescents, and adults. Child Development, 59, 755-
768.
Shoda, Y, Mischel, W., & Peake, P. K. (1990). Predicting adolescent cognitive and
self-regulatory competencies from preschool delay of gratification: Identifying
diagnostic conditions. Developmental Psychology, 26,978-986.

Developmental analysis of control beliefs 111
Simpson, C. (1981). Classroom structure and the organization of ability. Sociology of
Education, 54,120-129.
Siqueland, E. R., & DeLucia, C. A. (1969). Visual reinforcement of non-nutritive
sucking in human infants. Science, 165,1144-1146.
Siqueland, E. R., & Lippsitt, L. P. (1966). Conditioned head-turning behavior in
newborns. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 3,356-376.
Skinner, E.A., (1986). The origins of young children's perceived control: Mother
contingent and sensitive behavior. International Journal of Behavioral Develop-
ment, 9, 359-382.
Skinner, E.A., & Chapman, M. (1984). Control beliefs in an action perspective.
Human Development, 77,129-133.
Skinner, E. A., & Chapman, M. (1987). Resolution of a developmental paradox:
How can perceived internality increase, decrease, and remain the same across
middle childhood? Developmental Psychology, 23,44-48.
Skinner, E. A., Chapman, M., & Baltes, P. B. (1988a). Children's belief about control,
means-ends, and agency: Developmental differences during middle child-
hood. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 11, 369-388.
Skinner, E.A., Chapman, M., & Baltes, P. B. (1988b). Control, means-ends, and
agency beliefs: A new conceptualization and its measurement during child-
hood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54,117-133.
Skinner, E. A., & Connell, J. P. (1986). Control understanding: Suggestions for a
developmental framework. In M. Baltes & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), The psychology of
aging and control (pp. 35-69). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Skinner, E. A., Wellborn, J. G., & Connell, J. P. (1990). What it takes to do well in
school and whether I've got it: A process model of perceived control and
children's engagement and achievement in school. Journal of Educational Psy-
chology, 82, 22-32.
Spangler, G., Brautigam, I., & Stadler, R. (1984). Handlungsentwicjlung in der
fruhen Kindheit und ihre Abhangigkeit von der kognitiven Entwicklung und
der emotionalen Erregbarkeit des Kindes [Action development in early
infancy as a function of the cognitive development and the emotional
arousability]. Zeitschrift fiir Entwicklungspsychologie und Padagogische Psy-
chologie, 16,181-193.
Spear, P., & Armstrong, S. (1978). Effects of performance expectancies created by
peer comparison as related to social reinforcement, task difficulty, and age of
child. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 25, 254-266.
Stern, D. N. (1985). The interpersonal world of the infants. New York: Basic Books.
Stetsenko, A., Little, T., Oettingen, G., & Baltes, P. B. (in press). Agency, control, and
means-ends beliefs in Moscow children: How similar are they with the beliefs
of Western children? Developmental Psychology.
Stiensmeier, J. (1986). Wichtigkeit und Kontrollerleben als Bedingungen von
Lageorientierung [Importance and experience of controllability as conditions
of state orientation]. Archivfur Psychologie, 138,127-138.
Stipek, D. (1981). Children's perceptions of their own and their class-mates' abili-
ties. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73,404-410.
Stipek, D. (1983). A developmental analysis of pride and shame. Human Develop-
ment, 26,42-54.
Stipek, D. (1984). Young children's performance expectations: Logical analysis or
wishful thinking? In J. G. Nicholls (Ed.), The development of achievement motiva-
tion (pp. 33-56). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Stipek, D. (1987). Emotional responses to objective and normative performance
feedback. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 8,183-195.

112 August Flammer
Stipek, D., & Hoffman, }. (1980). Development of children's performance-related
judgments. Child Development, 51, 912-914.
Stipek, D., & Maclver, D. (1989). Developmental change in children's assessment of
intellectual competence. Child Development, 60, 521-538.
Stipek, D., Robert, T., & Sandborn, M. (1984). Preschool-age children's performance
expectations for themselves and another child as a function of the incentive
value of success and the salience of past performance. Child Development, 55,
1983-1989.
Stipek, D., & Tannatt, L. (1984). Children's judgments of their own and their peers'
academic competence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 75-84.
Stipek, D. J., & Daniels, D. H. (1988). Declining perceptions of competence: A con-
sequence of changes in the child or in the educational environment? Journal of
Educational Psychology, 80, 352-356.
Strube, M. J., Lott, C. L., Le-Xuan-Hy, G. M., Oxenberg, J., & Deichman, A. K.
(1986). Self-evaluation of abilities: Accurate self-assessment versus biased self-
enhancement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51,16-25.
Suomi, S. J. (1981). The perception of contingency and social development In M. E. Lamb &
L. R. Sherrod (Eds.), Infant social cognition (pp. 177-203). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Syme, S. L. (1990). Control and health: An epidemiological perspective. In J. Rodin,
C. Schooler, & K. W. Schaie (Eds.), Self-directedness: Cause and effects throughout
the life course (pp. 213-229). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Taylor, S. E. (1989). Positive illusions: Creative self-deception and the healthy mind. New
York: Basic Books.
Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. D. (1988). Illusion and well-being: A social psychological
perspective on mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103,193-210.
Teasdale, J. D. (1978). Effects of real and recalled success on learned helplessness
and depression. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 87,155-164.
Thoman, E. B., & Ingersoll, E. W. (1993). Learning in premature infants. Develop-
mental Psychology, 29, 692-700.
Trommsdorff, G. (1989). Sozialisation und Werthaltungen im Kulturvergleich
[Socialization and value orientation in cross-cultural comparison]. In G.
Trommsdorff (Ed.), Sozialisation im Kulturvergleich [Socialization and cross-cul-
tural comparison], (pp. 97-121). Stuttgart: Enke.
Trope, Y. (1982). Self-assessment and task performance. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 18, 201-215.
Underwood, B., Froming, W. J., & Moore, B. S. (1980). Mood and personality: A
search for the causal relationship. Journal of Personality, 48,15-23.
Valentin, P. (1991). Weltbilder von Kinern und Jugendlichen: Eine entwicklungs-
psychologische Perspektive [Mental representations of the word in children
and adolescents]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Bern, Swit-
zerland.
Van Aken, M. A. G., & Riksen-Walraven, J. M. (1992). Parental support and the
development of competence in children. International Journal of Behavioral
Development, 15,101-123.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and Language, (transl. by E. Hartman & G. Vakar).
Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press. (Original work
published 1934)
Wahl, H. W., & Baltes, M. M. (1990). Die soziale Umwelt alter Menschen:
Entwicklungsanregende oder -hemmende Pflegeinteraktionen? [The social
environment of old people: Development supporting or development inhibit-
ing interactions with care persons?]. Zeitschrift fiir Entwicklungspsychologie und
Padagogische Psychologie, 22,266-283.

Developmental analysis of control beliefs 113
Watson, J. S. (1966). The development and generalization of "contingency aware-
ness" in early infancy: Some hypotheses. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 12,123-135.
Watson, J. S. (1967). Memory and "contingent analysis" in infant learning. Merrill-
Palmer Quarterly, 13,55-76.
Watson, J. S. (1971). Cognitive perceptual development in infancy. Merrill-Palmer
Quarterly, 18,139-152.
Watson, J. S. (1979). Perception of contingency as a determinant of social respon-
siveness. In E. G. Thoman (Ed.), Origins of the infant's social responsiveness (pp.
33-64). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Watson, J. S., & Ramey, C. T. (1972). Reactions to response-contingent stimulation
in early infancy. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 18,219-227.
Weiner, B., Frieze, I. H., Kukla, A., Reed, L., Rest, S., & Rosenbaum, R. M. (1971).
Perceiving the causes of success and failure. New York: General Learning Press.
Weisz, J. R. (1980). Developmental change in perceived control: Recognizing non-
contingency in the laboratory and perceiving it in the world. Developmental
Psychology, 16, 385-390.
Weisz, J. R. (1981). Illusory contingency in children at the state fair. Developmental
Psychology, 17,481-489.
Weisz, J. R. (1983). Can I control it? The pursuit of veridical answers across the life-
span. In P. B. Baltes & O. G. Grim (Eds.), Life-span development and behavior (Vol.
5) (pp. 233-300). New York: Academic.
Weisz, J. R., & Stipek, D. J. (1982). Competence, contingency, and the development
of perceived control. Human Development, 25,250-281.
Wicki, W, Reber, R., Flammer, A., & Grob, A. (1994). Begriindung der Kontroll-
meinung bei Kindern und Jugendlichen [Justification of control beliefs by chil-
dren and adolescents]. Zeitschrift fiir Entzvicklungspsychologie und Padagogische
Psychologic
Williams, J. M. G. (1988). General and specific autobiographical memory and emo-
tional disturbance. In M. M. Gruneberg, P. E. Morris, & R. N. Sykes (Eds.),
Practical aspects of memory: Volume 1. Memory in everyday life (pp. 295-300). New
York: Wiley.
Williams, J. M. G., & Broadbent, K. (1986). Autobiographical memory in suicide
attempters. journal of Abnormal Psychology, 95,144-149.
Williams, J. M. G., & Dritschel, B. H. (1988). Emotional disturbance and the speci-
ficity of autobiographical memory. Cognition and Emotion, 2,221-234.
Williams, J. M. G., & Scott, J. (1988). Autobiographical memory in depression. Psy-
chological Medicine, 18, 689-695.
Worden, P. E., & Sladewski-Awig, L. J. (1982). Children's awareness of memorabil-
ity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74,341-350.
Wright, J., & Mischel, W. (1982). The influences of affect on cognitive social learn-
ing person variables. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 901-914.
Wylie, R. (1961). The self concept. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Yussen, S., & Kane, P. (1985). Children's conception of intelligence. In S. W. Yussen
(Ed.), The growth of reflection in children (pp. 207-241). New York: Academic.
Yussen, S., & Levy, V. (1975). Developmental changes in predicting one's own span
of short-term memory. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 19, 502-508.
Simmerman, B. (1995). Self-efficacy and educational development. In A. Bandura
(Ed.), Self-efficacy in changing societies (pp. 202-231). New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Zuckerman, M. (1979). Attribution of success and failure revisited, or: The motiva-
tional bias is alive and well in attribution theory. Journal of Personality, 47,
245-287.

4. Impact of family processes
on control beliefs
KLAUS A. SCHNEEWIND
The focus of this chapter is on the structural and process-oriented aspects
of family life that are expected to have an influence on children's and
adolescents' acquisition of control beliefs or, more specifically, on the
development of self-efficacy and outcome expectations. After dealing with
some theoretical and assessment issues, I will review available research on
this topic with a special emphasis on parenting and relevant conditions
that influence the parenting process. In addition, I will occasionally inter-
sperse some results from my own research to illustrate in somewhat
greater detail how I have tried to address various questions pertaining to
this topic. Finally, after demonstrating that a fuller understanding of the
development of personal control beliefs makes it necessary to include
influences that are beyond the family system, I will briefly comment on an
integrative model that might serve as a guide for further research in this
field.
Self-efficacy and other control-related constructs
Recent theorizing in the behavioral and social sciences underscores the
need for overarching principles concerning factors that motivate and
guide human behavior. Among these approaches, Bakan's (1966) seminal
work on the "duality of human existence" and his two concepts of "com-
munion" and "agency" have become quite popular in recent years (e.g.,
McAdams, 1988; Wiggins, 1991). In McAdam's (1988, p. 12) words:
Agency refers to the organism's striving to consolidate its individu-
ality, to separate from other organisms, to master the surroundings,
to assert, protect, and expand the self. Communion, on the other
I would like to extend my gratitude to Albert Bandura for his scholarly comments and stylis-
tic help in preparing this chapter.
114

Impact of family processes on control beliefs 115
hand, refers to the organism's striving to lose its individuality by
merging with others and the surrounding environment, to partici-
pate in a "larger organism" of which it is part, to surrender the self
through contact, openness, and cooperation.
It should not go unmentioned, though, that the roots of these concepts
date back to the presocratic Greek philosopher Empedokles, who distin-
guished between "love" and "strife" as two basic "cosmic forces . . .
explaining the possibility of change and of growth and decay, respec-
tively" (Rod, 1976, p. 148).
For the human being these seemingly very broad concepts might be
conceived as "integrative themes in lives" (MeAdams, 1985) expressing
themselves in varying ways depending on the contexts and developmen-
tal status of the individual person. Moreover, the integrative nature of
these concepts implies that they encompass motivational, emotional, cog-
nitive, and actional components, all of which can be thought to be interre-
lated aspects of the intrapersonal system. At the same time both concepts
represent developmentally changing phenonema that, depending on
people's transactions with their environment, especially in times of crisis
and transition, challenge people to restructure their balance and to find
corresponding behavioral expressions (Schneewind, 1994). Although I
will concentrate in the present chapter on human agency as it is affected
by family structure and socialization, it should be emphasized that both
life themes are intrinsically interwoven aspects of human life.
The motivational component of human agency can be seen in a person's
basic need to control and master the environment (e.g., Harter, 1978;
White, 1959). Flammer (1990, p. 115) speaks of an "innate basic need for
control" (Kontrollgrundbediirfnis) that, depending on particular goals that
become salient in the person's life course, is channeled into a multitude of
specific needs for control (Kontrollbedilrfnisse). Thus, the various control
needs are always goal-oriented and manifest themselves in specific con-
trol behaviors that are mediated and accompanied by corresponding cog-
nitive and emotional processes, that is, control beliefs and control feelings
or emotions.
As a consequence of the "cognitive revolution" in psychology, control
beliefs or expectancies became a major theoretical and research issue.
Especially since Rotter (1966, p. 1) introduced his concept of "generalized
expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement" (usu-
ally referred to as "locus of control") as part of his social learning theory of
personality (Rotter, 1954), a vast amount of research has been accumulated
(e.g., Krampen, 1989a; Strickland, 1989; Rotter, 1990). Rotter's concept of

116 Klaus A. Schneewind
locus of control refers to the perception of self as a more or less outcome-
controlling agent. However, perceptions of the self as a more or less com-
petent agent remain unspecified, although they are usually implied.
Bandura's (1977) influential theoretical paper on self-efficacy led to more
conceptual clarity by introducing two kinds of expectations about the self:
outcome expectations, which are "the person's estimate that a given be-
havior will lead to certain outcomes," and efficacy expectations, which
refer to a person's belief "that one can successfully execute the behavior
required to produce the outcomes" (Bandura, 1977, p. 193). In the mean-
time an impressive number of research studies attest to the theoretical and
empirical importance of the self-efficacy construct (for reviews see Ban-
dura, 1986,1989).
In addition, several theoretically similar but differently labeled concepts
have been introduced. Among these are, for instance, Weisz and Stipek's
(1982) distinction between contingency judgments and competence judgments
as essential components of perceived control; Ford and Thompson's (1985)
perceptions of control and perceptions of competence, which both contribute to
what they call personal agency beliefs', Skinner, Chapman, and Baltes' (1988)
theoretical model comprising means-ends beliefs, agency beliefs, and control
beliefs, the latter representing the individual's convictions of the self as an
outcome controlling agent independent of means. In a similar vein, a
research program that I started in 1982 to assess personal control orienta-
tions in children and adolescents was based on an action-theoretic
approach distinguishing between goal control and means control as two
interrelated components of personal control (Schneewind, 1987a, 1987b;
Schneewind & Wiinsche, 1985).
Another "cognate of personal control" (Peterson & Stunkard, 1992) is
the concept of explanatory style, which essentially is a reformulation of
Seligman's (1975) learned helplessness model in terms of attibution theory
(e.g., Peterson, 1991). Theoretically, however, explanatory style refers to
past-oriented attributions of success and failure in attempting to attain
particular goals, whereas personal control beliefs deal with future-ori-
ented expectations concerning a person's more or less effective coping
with upcoming challenges. Thus, although explanatory style and personal
control might refer to interacting aspects of a person's cognitive system, it
makes much sense to keep both constructs clearly distinct at the concep-
tual level.
It should also be mentioned that, from a developmental perspective, the
assumption of differentially operating outcome and self-efficacy expectan-
cies implies a relatively high level of cognitive functioning, that is, rather

Impact of family processes on control beliefs 117
elaborate cognitive representations of self and nonself, means and ends,
knowledge of goals, and so on (e.g., Diethelm, 1991; Hammer, 1990; Weisz
& Stipek, 1982). Thus, for instance, Earl (1987, p. 421) postulated a more
general concept called self-trust that he defined as "the faith (belief plus
action) in one's ability to fulfill a perceived task." According to Earl, self-
trust operates at the intersection of the pre-conscious and conscious level
and is instigated by rather vaguely perceived external cues ("hunches").
In addition, self-trust precedes the decision to engage in specific goal-
directed behaviors that are mediated by efficacy and outcome expecta-
tions. Usually these behaviors become actualized with a high degree of
flexiblity and tenacity in pursuing a particular goal. Viewed this way, self-
trust seems to have much in common with recent concepts of modern
attachment theory, which is based on the assumption that secure attach-
ments lead to a positive model of the self (e.g., Bartholomew, 1990), thus
pointing to the more "communal" antecedents of agency beliefs.
Assessment self-efficacy within the family contextAlthough,
as already mentioned, the concept of self-efficacy is rather pop-
ular in present-day psychology, the amount of research focusing upon
familial antecedents of the development of self-efficacy beliefs is amaz-
ingly scarce. This holds especially true if one keeps to the more precise
definition of efficacy expectations or competence beliefs as mediating cog-
nitive variables within a more general control-theoretic paradigm.
Because the main focus of the present contribution is on familial ante-
cedents of self-efficacy, one important theoretical and empirical question
is how self-efficacy expectations become socialized within the family con-
text. More specifically, one of the central questions is how and to what
extent parents contribute to the development and consolidation of self-
efficacy beliefs in their offspring. This leaves us with the problem of
assessing self-efficacy in children, which is an especially difficult task if
the children are still on a preverbal level.
One way to circumvent this problem is to look at the development of
"contingency awareness" in infants as it has been done by Watson and his
colleagues in a series of ingenious experiments (e.g., Finkelstein & Ramey,
1977; Watson, 1966; Watson & Ramey, 1972.). In Switzerland, Perrez and
his coworkers have further developed this approach by focusing on the
relation of objective behavior-outcome contingencies and subjective con-
tingency perceptions, which are thought to be early precursors of control
beliefs (e.g., Diethelm 1991; Perrez, 1989; Perrez, Ackermann, & Diethelm,
1983). It should be noted, however, that in Bandura's terminology, contin-

118 Klaus A. Schneewind
gency perceptions are roughly equivalent to what he calls outcome expec-
tations. Thus, at best, contingency perceptions are implying that some-thing like a self-efficacy mechanism is operating as a mediating variable.
Things become somewhat easier when children can be asked directly to
report on how self-efficacious they feel with respect to different goal
domains like academic achievements, social competence, or physical fit-
ness. Several instruments are available to assess these perceived compe-
tencies among which Harter's (1982) Perceived Competence Scale for
Children (PCSC) is perhaps most salient (for German adaptations see,Asendorpf & van Aken, 1993; Wiinsche & Schneewind, 1989). Other
assessment devices are Skinner, Chapman, and Baltes' (1988) Control,
Agency, Means-Ends Inventory (CAMI), which separates self-efficacy,
control, and causality beliefs. For my own instrument, called Diagnosis ofPersonal Control (DPK), a questionnaire and a playboard version (the lat-
ter especially designed for younger children) is available (Schneewind,
1987a, 1987b, 1989a; Schneewind, Wiinsche, & Pausch, 1989). As already
mentioned above, the DPK enables one to assess beliefs about
goal control.
This is defined as children's knowledge of important and substitutable
means to attain particular goals in academic, social, or physical domains,
and "means control" of the extent to which children believe that thesegoal-relevant means are actually available and can be influenced by them.Incidentally, means control turned out to be substantially higher corre-lated across goal domains with Harter's (1982) corresponding subscales of
her PCSC (r = .43) than goal control (r = .24), thus attesting not only to theconstruct validity of the means control parameter in our model but also tothe relevance of distinguishing between these two components of per-
sonal control orientations (Schneewind, 1987a).
In other research contexts, as in the realm of children's social behavior,
specific assessment devices using questionnaires or situational scenarios
have been designed to measure how easy or hard it is for children to exe-
cute particular prosocial or aggressive acts to handle certain conflicts inpeer relationships. This is a rather straightforward operationalization ofdomain- and situation-specific self-efficacy expectations. In addition, in
some of these studies outcome expectancies have also been assessed using
the same format, that
is, children are asked to estimate the extent to which
their interventions will be successful to resolve the social conflict (e.g.
Cuddy & Frame, 1991; Wheeler & Ladd, 1982; Perry, Perry & Rasmussen,
1986; Pettit, Harrist, Bates, & Dodge, 1991; Wheeler & Ladd, 1982).
At the adult level, several assessment instruments are available to mea-
sure generalized or specific self-efficacy beliefs. In Germany, for example,

Impact of family processes on control beliefs 119
Schwarzer and his research group have developed a number of question-
naire scales to assess specific perceived academic competencies as well asmore general beliefs of self-efficacy (Jerusalem & Schwarzer, 1986;Schwarzer
& Jerusalem, 1989).
Shifting our focus from the child to the parent, it is of particular interest
in the present context whether generalized and specific parental self-effi-cacy beliefs have an impact on the child. Among the latter, parenting effi-
cacy as measured by parents' conviction to carry out competently neces-sary child-rearing activities is of special importance. It can be argued thatsuch beliefs mediate actual parenting behavior, which, among other
developmental outcomes, might influence the child's own self-efficacy
and control beliefs (for corresponding studies see, e.g. Bugenthal &
Shennum,
1984; Cutrona & Troutman, 1986; Teti & Gelfand, 1991). Some of
the measures that have been used are, for instance, Johnston and Mash's
(1989) Parenting Sense of Competence (PSOC) scale; Abidin's (1986) Sense
of Competence Scale as part of his Parenting Stress Index (PSI); Campis,Layman, and Prentice-Dunn's (1986) Parental Locus of Control Scale
(PLCS), which contains a Parenting Efficacy factor; Gross and Rocissano's(1988) Toddler Care Questionnaire (TCQ); Teti and Gelfand's (1991)
Maternal Self-Efficacy Scale; and our own Parenting Competence Scale
(PCS), which has been devised as an individual (mother, father) and par-
ental team measure to assess perceived competencies in handling infants
and toddlers (Schneewind, Knopp, Schmidt-Rinke, Sierwald, & Vier-
zigmann, 1989).
From a family systems perspective it can be argued that it is not only
parenting efficacy that, via corresponding parental behavior, has animpact on the child's development but also perceived couple efficacy, that
is, the spouses' mutual belief that they can manage their relationship in a
constructive and competent way. Besides strengthening the spousal bond,
couple efficacy can be conceived as a major prerequisite for effective par-enting, which, in turn, feeds back to the marital system (e.g., Belsky, 1990).
Not much research has addressed this particular issue. As a consequence,corresponding assessment instruments are largely missing, except for a
few scales like the Miller Marital Locus of Control Scale (Miller, Lefcourt,
& Ware, 1983) or our own Perceived Couple Competence Scale (Schnee-
wind et al., 1989).
If I now turn to the familial correlates and antecedents of self-efficacy I
will not refer to self-efficacy or competence expectations in only their strict
conceptual sense. Rather, because of the paucity of empirical studies that
are truly faithful to the definition of self-efficacy and its theoretically

120 Klaus A. Schneewind
equivalent constructs, I will also include studies bearing on other aspects
of self-related cognitive representations within a control-theoretic para-
digm, especially personal agency or control beliefs.
Family structure and control beliefs
Considering the variables that are more distal indicators of family func-
tioning, some studies address the relationship between particular struc-
tural aspects of the family like sibling position, family completeness, and
family size with children's or parents' control orientations. Krampen
(1982a, 1994) and Carton and Nowicki (in press) have provided valuable
summaries of this type of research.
Sibling position
With respect to sibling ordinal position several studies have shown that
single and first-born children display more internal control beliefs than
later-born children (e.g., Crandall, Katkovsky, & Crandall, 1965; Hoffman
& Teyber, 1979; Krampen, 1982b). This difference has usually been ex-
plained in terms of first-borns being ascribed more responsibility and
receiving more extended and intensive attention by their parents than
their later-born siblings, thus providing more opportunties for experienc-
ing behavior-outcome contingencies. Furthermore, in some studies also
significant sibling-sex interactions and sibling spacing effects have been
reported (e.g., Hoffman & Teyber, 1979; Marks, 1973). However, like the
effects of sibling position, the interaction effects are rather small in terms
of explained variance.
Family completeness
In some studies, parental loss, especially father absence, which is an
important indicator of family completeness, is reported to have an impact
on children's control beliefs. Children living in single-parent, mother-
headed families tend to show a higher external control orientation (e.g.,
Duke & Lancaster, 1976; Hetherington, 1972; ). More fine-grained analy-
ses, however, reveal that other variables like age and sex of the child,
cause of father absence (death or divorce), or time elapsed since father loss
have differential effects on the children's control orientations. Thus, boys
tend to report higher external control beliefs than girls, especially if the
cause of father absence is death (Parish & Copeland, 1980), although these

Impact of family processes on control beliefs 121
differences disappear when the time interval of father loss is taken into
account (Parish, 1981).
Although some studies have documented higher external control
beliefs as a consequence of parental divorce (e.g., Lancaster & Richmond,
1983; Parish & Boyd, 1983), others were not able to corroberate these find-
ings (e.g., Hainline & Feig, 1978; Parish, 1981). In at least one study paren-
tal divorce was related to internal control expectancies in a sample of
third- and fifth-graders (Kalter, Alpern, Spence, & Plunkett, 1984).
More specifically, parenting efficacy does not seem to be differentially
related to marital status, that is, married versus divorced/separated, as
Luster and Kain (1987) have shown in their analysis of a large sample of
3,000 parents in the United States. However, it should be noted that stud-
ies usually compare averages of children's level of control in complete
versus incomplete families. Differential analyses underscore the import-
ance of considering the impact of potentially moderating variables as, for
example, post-divorce conflict among ex-spouses or children's emotional
adjustment to divorce (e.g., Kurdek, Blisk, & Siesky, 1981; Kurdek & Blisk,
1983; Slater & Haber, Kurdek & Blisk, 1986; Reisel, 1984). Thus, Reisel
(1986) found that only those children who lost their fathers due to divorce
and showed pronounced signs of emotional disturbance to the divorce
were more externally controlled. This is but one example of the necessity
to conduct more elaborate process and outcome analyses on the differen-
tial effects of divorce (e.g., Amato, 1993; Kurdek, 1993). In addition, it
should be noted that global measures of perceived efficacy may mask rela-
tionships that are revealed by more sensitive domain-specific measures.
Family size
Another aspect of family structure that has been related to efficacy or con-
trol beliefs is family size. Walter and Ziegler (1980) found that external
control beliefs, especially in last-born children, increase with the number
of children in the family. Parental efficacy was not related to family size in
Luster and Kain's (1987) study, whereas Ladd and Price (1986) report a
significant albeit small correlation between the parents' perceived diffi-
culty with child-rearing tasks in the social domain and family size. Again,
it is difficult to draw reasonably valid conclusions from these studies
because family size might be confounded with a host of other influences
(e.g., the family's socioeconomic status, racial background, etc.). More
process-oriented aspects of family life, therefore, need to be taken into
account.

122 Klaus A. Schneewind
In sum, the available evidence on the relation between distal indicators
of family structure and children's control beliefs or parental efficacy
expectations reveals that the effects are either small or inconsistent. In any
case, more subtle psychological processes within the family context may
mediate the rather extended explanatory gap between family structure
and personal control orientations. It is to these mediating variables that I
turn next.
Parental influences on children's control beliefs
Based on the assumptions of social learning theory it has long been
hypothesized that, due to their early onset, duration, and intensity, paren-
tal child-rearing practices have an important influence on the develop-
ment and shaping of children's control orientations. The benefits of inter-
nal control beliefs, at least for the Western culture, have been well
documented in numerous studies (e.g., Krampen, 1982a; Lefcourt, 1976;
Mielke, 1982; Phares, 1976; Rotter, 1990; Strickland, 1989). It is therefore of
special interest to examine parental child-rearing practices that suppos-
edly strengthen internal control beliefs and their positive consequences on
children's further personality development. Rotter (1966, p. 24), for exam-
ple, has argued that "the consistency and treatment by parents" might be
essential antecedents of generalized control expectations in children.
Empirical evidence has, indeed, accumulated corroborating this hypothe-
sis. More importantly, specific aspects of parenting practices have been
shown to be especially important contributors to the development of
children's control beliefs (for reviews see Carton & Nowicki, in press;
Diethelm, 1991; Krampen, 1982a, 1994).
Parental correlates of children's control beliefs
The finding concerning the relationship between parenting and children's
internal as opposed to external control beliefs appears to be quite consis-
tent: Parents providing a stimulating family environment (e.g., Bradley &
Caldwell, 1979; Nowicki & Schneewind, 1982; Schneewind, 1982,1989b),
being consistently and contingently responsive to their children's behavior
(e.g., Davis & Phares, 1969; Diethelm, 1991; Schneewind & Pfeiffer, 1978;
Skinner, 1986; Yates, Kennelly, & Cox, 1975), emphasizing early indepen-
dence training (e.g., Chance, 1970; Chandler, Wolf, Cook, & Dugovics, 1980;
Meyer & Wacker, 1970; Wichern & Nowicki, 1976), engaging autonomy
granting and less intrusive interactions (e.g., Gordon, Nowicki, & Wichern,
1981; Lehwald, 1991; Loeb, 1975), using less hostile and more inductive disci-

Impact of family processes on control beliefs 123
plinary techniques (e.g., Davis & Phares, 1969; Krampen, 1989b; Tolor &
Jalowiec, 1968; Whitbeck, 1987), and relating to the child in a warm and
emotionally supportive way (e.g., Krampen, 1989b; MacDonald, 1971; No
wicki & Segal, 1974; Schneewind & Pfeiffer, 1978; Yates, et al., 1975) tend to
have children with a more internal control orientation. Conversely, par-ents who provide less stimulation, who are less responsive and moreauthoritarian, intrusive, overprotective, rejecting, or neglectful are more
likely to have children with an external control orientation.
These summary findings are based on diverse types of studies using (a)
cross-sectional versus longitudinal designs, (b) self-report versus observa-
tional data, (c) maternal versus paternal child-rearing practices, (d) pres-ent versus retrospective reports of parental behavior, (e) boys versus girls
ranging in age from infancy to adolescence, and to a lesser degree (f) gen-
eralized versus domain-specific control expectations, (g) uni- versus mul-tidimensional measures of control beliefs, and (h) intra- versus cross-cul-tural comparisons. It should be mentioned, however, that observationaland longitudinal studies are clearly underrepresented. In addition, mostof the studies are based on mother-child relations, thus falling short of amore complex family systems perspective. More specific control orienta-
tions referring to particular goal domains are also understudied, as are
intra- and intercultural variations of control beliefs.
Longitudinal evidence on parenting antecedents of children's control
beliefsOf particular importance are longitudinal and controlled intervention
studies because, unlike cross-sectional correlational designs, they help toshed more light on the status of parenting behavior as antecedents of per-sonal control. As to possible early precursors of personal control, it has
been suggested that studying the development of "contingency aware-
ness" during infancy (e.g., Finkelstein & Ramey, 1977; Watson & Ramey,
1972) might be particularly promising. In a recent Swiss longitudinal
study, Diethelm (1991) found that the more 2-month-old infants elicited or
received more contingent stimulation from their parents the greater was
their exploratory behavior of their inanimate and social environmentswhen they were
1 year old.
Similarly, Riksen-Walraven (1978) in a well-designed Dutch interven-
tion study demonstrated that 9-month-old infants whose primary care-
givers were trained to provide responsive stimulation for their children
explored their environment more intensively, showed more positive affect

124 Klaus A. Schneewind
while doing so, and learned experimentally induced behavior-outcome
contingencies more rapidly. Moreover, Riksen-Walraven (1978, p. 128)
observed that her intervention program not only had an impact on the
children's active exploration of their environment but also influenced the
parent's efficacy expectations:
As the parent sees that his [sic] acts have effect, he builds up the
expectation that he is effective in influencing the infant's behavior,
and, hence, will be motivated to be more responsive towards hischild. Once changed by the program, the parents' expectationremains stable, because it gives rise to behavior which, by its conse-quences, confirms that expectation.
Thus, both the development of infants' contingency awareness and the
parents' efficacy expectations can be fostered by specific parent-child
transactions at the infant age. More importantly, the long-term impact ofthese early intervention-induced changes were at least partially demon-strated in a 12-year follow-up assessment (Riksen-Walraven, 1991).
On the whole, however, longitudinal studies that extend into later
developmental phases are extremely rare. In fact, in their critical reviewon the antecedents of locus of control, Carton and Nowicki (in press)found just two relevant studies. Whereas the short-term longitudinalstudy by Krampen (1989b) basically confirmed that parental practices con-tribute to children's control orientations, the results of a long-term study
by Crandall and Crandall (1983) differed from the usual pattern in several
respects. Mothers of young adults were observed to be more critical,rejecting, and less affectionate than when their children were in their pre-school years. But they put as much emphasis on independence training ashas been found in other studies. There has been much speculation aboutthe unexpected relationship found in the Crandall and Crandall study.
Besides the usual methodological reservations (e.g., small sample size,questionable psychometric properties of assessment instruments), the
study focused on mother-child relations only, thus omitting the possible
influences of other family members, especially fathers, on children's de-
velopment of personal control.
Our own as yet unpublished study tested 200 German families in 1976
when their children were 9 to 14 years old and then retested them in 1992.We measured the parents' and children's control beliefs as well as various
aspects of parenting style (Schneewind, Beckmann, & Hecht-Jackl, 1985),
that is, parental child-rearing goals, attitudes, and practices as perceived
by the parents and the children respectively (Schneewind & Ruppert,

Impact of family processes on control beliefs 125
1992). The cross-sectional findings based on the 1976 measurement wave
essentially corroborated the previously found pattern of child-rearing
influence on children's internal versus external control orientations (e.g.,
Schneewind, 1982, 1985, 1989b; Schneewind, Beckmann, & Engfer, 1983;
Schneewind & Pfeiffer, 1978).
We now briefly present some of the findings on the predictive relation-
ship of individual differences in parenting practices as perceived by their
children in 1976 to their generalized self-efficacy beliefs as measured 16
years later when they were young adults ranging in age from 25 to 30
years. Generalized self-efficacy was measured with the Jerusalem and
Schwarzer (1986) short version of their corresponding scale, which
assesses mainly people's confidence to master difficult and unforeseen
problems in their lives. In hierarchical multiple regression analyses, 16%
of the variance in generalized efficacy of males and 12% of the variance in
females was predicted by the children's perceived parental behavior
assessed in 1976. Of particular interest, however, is that the configuration
of parental predictors is quite different for males and females. For male
adults, those who during their childhood experienced a close and warm
relationship with their fathers and a somewhat demanding and task-ori-
ented, albeit nonrejecting, relationship with their mothers developed
higher confidence in their general problem-solving efficacy. In addition,
high interparental congruence, especially the use of rewarding and pun-
ishing disciplinary techniques, also contributes to the young men's gener-
alized self-efficacy. In contrast, self-efficacious adult women experienced
more pressure from their fathers to fulfill parental values like demonstrat-
ing status, achievement striving, and educational attainment when they
were young girls. Their mothers tended to rely on psychological influence,
such as appealing to the daughters' sympathy, to make them comply with
their mothers' wishes.
From the results of this long-term prospective study it seems, then, that
the parental antecedents of generalized self-efficacy expectations are dif-
ferently patterned across gender. In addition, although internal locus of
control and self-efficacy are only moderately correlated on the adult level,
boys show more continuity than girls in the parental correlates of control
beliefs. In fact, the correlates of parenting practices with internal locus of
control measured in 1976 were quite similar for boys and girls. For the
sons the more salient child-rearing variables (e.g., paternal closeness) by
and large retained their prognostic value across time whereas there were
some marked changes for girls. For example, the use of maternal psycho-

126 Klaus A. Schneewind
logical methods of influence was a positive predictor of internality in
young adulthood although it was negatively related to an internal control
orientation in childhood. We do not know why these gender-specificchanges occurred. We can only speculate that in our society highly
self-
efficacious and presumably successful young women might have to adopt
a "male" perspective for which they are better prepared by achievement-related parental demands, especially by their fathers.
Besides these gender-specific parental antecedents of young adults'
generalized self-efficacy beliefs, we found a small but longitudinally con-
sistent relationship between children's earlier perceptions of their familyas providing a stimulating environment (i.e., greater variety of commonrecreational activities, higher cultural orientation, more social contactswith nonfamily members) and their control beliefs as young adults. Al-though the predictive correlation explains only about 4% of the variance
in young adults' control beliefs, this relation holds equally for both sexesand for generalized self-efficacy as well as locus of control. In addition,
these results repeat earlier cross-sectional findings for children and ado-
lescents, at which time considerably stronger relations were obtained
between a stimulating family climate and internal control beliefs in the
context of emotionally supportive and flexibly organized family relation-
ships (e.g., Nowicki & Schneewind, 1982; Schneewind, 1982, 1989b). In
any case, these findings are fully in accord with theoretical conjectures,
assuming that variety and responsiveness in the family environment is an
important prerequisite for the development of individual efficacy and
control beliefs.
Intergenerational transmission of control beliefs: The modeling
hypothesisAnother issue that has been addressed in several studies concerns the pos-
sible modeling effects on intergenerational transmission of control beliefs.
This is usually tested by the level of correlation between parental andchildren's control beliefs. Several studies failed to confirm the modeling
hypothesis for children at the preschool level (e.g., Galejs, Hegland, &
King, 1985; Schave & Fox, 1986). However, moderate positive inter-
generational correlations have been found for older children and adoles-cents (e.g., Lifshitz
& Ramot, 1978; Ollendick, 1979; Whitbeck, 1987). Such
findings lend some support to the notion that control orientations may betransmitted from one generation to the other via modeling.

Impact of family processes on control beliefs 127
1976 1992
Father
.24
Mother.54*
Son-
4.30***- Father
.19..08.08
Son
.53***Mother<00
.13
Father.60***
.13\.O8
Daughter-
Mother -.19Father
.05
.33***Mother "39***
Daughter
.04
*p< .05
**p< .01
***p< .001
Figure 4.1. Stabilities and intrafamilial correlations of locus of control for
sons (N = 96) and daughters (N = 98); time interval: 17 years.
Longitudinal data on the modeling issue are virtually nonexistent.
However, we were able to test this notion in our 16 year longitudinal
study on personality and family development (Schneewind & Ruppert,
1992). Figure 4.1 presents the long-term stabilities as well as intra- and
intergenerational correlations of generalized internal versus external con-
trol orientations of our male and female subjects. Central orientations
were measured by German adaptations of Nowicki's children and adult
versions of his locus of control scale (Nowicki & Duke, 1974; Nowicki &
Strickland, 1973; Rinke & Schneewind, 1978).

128 Klaus A. Schneewind
As shown in Figure 4.1, locus of control is moderately stable over time,
especially for parents. But the intrafamilial correlations do not confirm themodeling hypothesis at either measurement point. The one notable excep-
tion is that, over time, daughters seem to have adopted their fathers' con-
trol orientation, thus lending some support to the "male view" hypothesisfor internally controlled young women.
What is still lacking, however, are more fine-grained analyses to explain
how particular familial processes contribute either directly via specific
parenting practices or indirectly via modeling to children's acquisition oftheir control beliefs. One of the few studies shedding some light on thisissue examined the child-rearing antecedents of children's efficacy andoutcome expectations in handling peer conflicts by prosocial and assertiveversus aggressive strategies (Pettit, Harrist, Bates, & Dodge, 1991). Thechildren's social behavior was assessed on the basis of teacher ratings
assuming that the children's actual social behavior in the school setting
was mediated by their corresponding efficacy and outcome expectations,which in turn are determined by specific patterns of parent-child interac-
tions.
With respect to aggression, coercive and intrusive mother-child interac-
tions led to children's higher self-efficacy for aggressive tactics, which fos-
tered greater readiness to resort to aggression in peer relationships. More-
over, further analyses revealed that efficacy expectations were crucial
mediators of children's aggressiveness in peer relations. However, a sim-ilar causal sequence was not obtained for prosocial or assertive behavior.
Although the results of this study provide only partial support of the
impact of specific patterns of mother-child interactions on the child's con-
trol beliefs and their links to behavior, this type of theoretically informedempirical research can advance our understanding of the processes thatcontribute to the transmission of interpersonal style within the family con-text.
Antecedents of parenting efficacyAnother line of theorizing and research concerns parental beliefs about
their parenting role, especially in light of renewed interest in how parental
beliefs translate into actual parental practices (e.g., Goodnow & Collins,
1990; Miller, 1988). Parenting efficacy constitutes a special aspect of paren-
tal belief systems focusing on the beliefs that parents have the capabilitiesto manage the tasks of nurturing and socializing their children. Motherswho believe that they can influence their infants' performances in specificdevelopmental tasks are more involved and stimulating when interacting

Impact of family processes on control beliefs 129
with them (e.g., Parks & Smeriglio, 1986; Smeriglio & Parks, 1983). Simi-larly, Tulkin (1977) reported that compared to working-class mothers,middle-class mothers who engaged in more verbal interactions with theirinfants and provided them with a greater variety of stimulation expressed
stronger beliefs in their ability to influence the development of their chil-
dren. On the negative side, Bugenthal and Shennum (1984) found that
parents who are low on parenting efficacy tend to become more irritatedwhen interacting with an unresponsive child than parents with a highconfidence in their parenting competence. In the realm of child abuse, itwas found that abusive and neglectful mothers reported more unrealistic
expectations for their children (Azar, Robinson, Hekimian,
& Twentyman,
1984) and described themselves as being less satisfied and efficacious as
parents than nonabusive mothers (Mash, Johnston, & Kovitz, 1983).
A few studies have also looked at possible antecedents and the moder-
ating role played by perceived parenting efficacy in relation to actual par-
enting competence (e.g., Cutrona & Troutman, 1986; Donovan & Leavitt,
1989; Teti & Gelfand, 1991; Teti, Gelfand, & Pompa, 1990). In particular,
Teti and Gelfand (1991) were able to demonstrate that observed maternalcompetence, even after controlling for a number of other factors like so-ciodemographic status, maternal depression, spousal support, and diffi-culty of infant temperament, was still related to maternal parenting effi-cacy, thus supporting the relevance of perceived self-efficacy as amediating variable in the parenting process.
Again, these studies are based on cross-sectional designs and thus make
it difficult to disentangle the direction of causation. Infant difficulty, for
example, might either be an antecedent or consequence of parenting effi-
cacy. To test this hypothesis longitudionally on the transition to parent-hood my colleagues and I applied our Parenting Competence Scale (PCS)to a sample of
48 parents to be 1 month before the birth of their first child
and again 3 months and 9 months after they became parents. In addition,
as an indicator of infant difficulty we collected data on the perceived childsoothability scale as part of a more comprehensive instrument to assessindividual differences in infant temperament (Schneewind et al., 1989)
when the infants were 3 and 9 months old. The resulting cross-lagged cor-
relations between parenting competence and infant soothability areshown in Figure 4.2.
From the results presented in Figure 4.2 it becomes evident that for both
sexes parenting competence is quite stable over time, including prebirth
measurement. Moreover, keeping Kenny's (1979) caveats concerning the
causal interpretation of cross-lagged correlations in mind, the data sug-

MothersOne month
before birth of childThree months
after birth of childNine months
after birth of child
Fathers
4.2. Cross-lagged correlations for mother's and father's parenting competence with infant's soothability (N = 48).

Impact of family processes on control beliefs 131
gest that in early infancy the mothers' parenting efficacy is influenced by
their babies' soothability rather than the other way around. For the fa-
thers, however, the data clearly do not support a causal relation between
parenting efficacy and infant soothability. One plausible explanation is
that, in our sample, fathers had limited opportunities for extended inter-
action with their children because they were all working full time.
Further evidence on familial antecedents of individual differences in
parenting efficacy is rather scarce. In one study, Gross, Rocissano, and
Roncoli (1989) found that prior child care experience and, for preterm
births only, birth order of the child were strong predictors of maternal par-
enting confidence during toddlerhood. More directly, Simons and his col-
leagues in a series of recent studies based on the Iowa Youth and Families
Project (e.g., Simons, Beaman, Conger, & Chao, 1993; Simons, Whitbeck,
Conger, & Wu, 1991) found that the quality of grandparents' parenting
(i.e., harsh discipline or supportiveness) is related to the parents' own dis-
cipline and what the authors call parenting impact beliefs, which, in turn,
influence their actual child-rearing practices.
In our Options of Young Couples Project (Schneewind et al., 1992) we
were interested in determining whether the parenting efficacy of young
couples expecting their first child (N = 48) could be predicted from their
retrospectively reported experience with their own mothers and fathers
during childhood. We assumed that perceived quality of parenting, close-
ness to parents, quality of the parents' marital relationship, and several
subtly conveyed parental "delegations" (e.g., pursuing a life-style with or
without children) might be predictive of the young parents' own parent-
ing efficacy.
Using stepwise multiple regression analysis we found that 27% of the
variance in young fathers' parenting efficacy and 18% of the variance of
young mothers' parenting efficacy could be explained by the family-of-
origin variables. However, the most predictive aspects of former family
relationships differed markedly across the sexes. For the young fathers, a
combination of two maternal delegations (i.e., focusing on a successful
work career and at the same time assuring the continuity of family tradi-
tion) contributed most to their own parenting confidence. But the young
mothers' parenting efficacy depended more on the quality of parenting
they received during their childhood. Interestingly, however, the combina-
tion of high maternal but low paternal parenting competence along with a
closer relationship with the mother than with the father was the most
salient predictor of the young mothers' parenting efficacy. Thus it seems
that young fathers derive their sense of parenting competence primarily

132 Klaus A. Schneewind
from rather abstract and subtle maternal delegations, whereas young
mothers rely more on their parents as models of good parenting. In partic-
ular, it appears that perceived parenting and relationship deficits of their
fathers might have motivated the daughters to seek their parenting com-
petence in their mothers.
In sum, the available evidence on the antecedents and consequences of
parenting efficacy highlight its relevance as an important mediating factor
in parent-child transactions. It should be noted, however, that from in-
fancy through adolescence and even beyond, changing developmental
tasks require quite different competencies on the part of the parents in car-
ing for and relating to their children. Thus, for example, a mother who at
an early developmental stage of her child is firmly convinced that she has
the necessary competencies to care for her infant and actually behaves as a
responsive and loving mother might be overwhelmed by the demands
and problems of her child during the transition to puberty. Therefore,
knowledge of age-appropriate developmental tasks and functionally
related parenting practices appear to be crucial prerequisites for parents'
developmentally synchronized adaptation of their sense of parenting
competence. This is a promising field for further research and preventive
intervention.
Perceived couple efficacy in the family context
Individual differences in parenting efficacy might not only be determined
by the parents' familial experience but also by a host of other influences,
especially the couple's relationship. There is ample research evidence that
strained marital relationships are associated with a less effective parenting
style (for reviews see Belsky, 1981, 1990). To explain this finding it has
been suggested that for parents who live in a disharmonious relationship
it might be particularly difficult to build a strong and efficient coparenting
alliance (e.g., Gable, Belsky, & Crnic, 1992). Interestingly, however, most of
the reseach has focused on the assessment of feelings, attitudes, conflicts,
and behaviors in couple relationships without paying much attention to
control beliefs that might also have an impact on the quality of couple
interaction and satisfaction, as has been documented in several studies
(e.g., Brandtstadter, Krampen, & Heil, 1986; Constantine & Bahr, 1981;
Hohmann, 1988). In fact, high couple efficacy (i.e., a couple's confidence in
being able to handle problems and disagreements in a mutually satisfying
way) might be a protective factor in coping with potentially stressful
events, whereas low couple efficacy might make the couple more vulnera-
ble to stress, which can undermine further development for efficacy.

Impact of family processes on control beliefs
6.5133
5.5High initial
competence
1 month before
birth3 months after
birth9 months after
birth
parents non -parents
Figure 4.3. Development of parents and non-parents' couple competence
with high and low initial couple competence.
We tested this hypothesis in a quasi-experimental longitudinal design,
in which the development of young parents with their first child is con-
trasted with the development of a comparable group of nonparents. Cou-
ple efficacy was assessed for both groups using our Couple CompetenceScale (Schneewind et al., 1989)
1 month before birth of the first child in the
parent group, then 10 months later, and finally a year later. In addition, at
the prebirth assessment we divided each of the parent and nonparent
groups in two subgroups, one with high and the other one with low cou-
ple efficacy expectations. The changes in couple efficacy were then mea-sured across time. The results of this study are shown in Figure
4.3.

134 Klaus A. Schneewind
Assuming, as many researchers do, that the transition to parenthood is
a major stress-inducing event in early family development, we expected
that the parent subgroup with initially low couple efficacy scores would
decline in their couple competence over time. As can be seen from Figure
4.3 this hypothesis is clearly confirmed. Moreover, the results show that
the high couple efficacy groups, regardless of whether they are parents or
nonparents, stably remain at a high level of couple competence over the 2-
year period.
The development and consequences of couple efficacy beliefs warrants
greater research attention, especially within a family systems approach,
where personal, couple, and parenting control orientations might operate
as a set of interrelated expectancies that guide the process of family social-
ization.
Beyond the family: The larger developmental context of control beliefs
So far we have dealt mainly with family structure and intrafamilial pro-
cesses as antecedents or correlates of efficacy and control beliefs. How-
ever, as Bronfenbrenner (1979,1986) has aptly shown us in his conceptual
analysis of hierarchically ordered developmental systems, the family is a
microsystem that is related to other microsystems (e.g., school or peer
group) and at the same time embedded into larger societal systems like
the economic, subcultural, and cultural system. We have already seen that
social class has a major influence on parenting efficacy which, in turn, is
related to parental child-rearing practices and children's developmental
outcomes (e.g., Luster & Kain, 1987; Tulkin, 1977). It is here where an inte-
gration of psychological and sociological theorizing provides a broader
perspective on the acquisition and development of personal control orien-
tations.
One hypothesis that has repeatedly been espoused by sociologists con-
tends that there is a strong linkage between social class and parental val-
ues, which then determine the parents' child-rearing practices. Specific-
ally, it has been shown that the lower the parents' socioeconomic status,
the more likely they are to value conformity to external authority. As a
consequence, they tend to put more emphasis on parental values like obe-
dience and good manners, which are enforced with strict and constraining
disciplinary techniques. On the other hand, it has been documented that
parents of higher socioeconomic status favor values like self-direction and
self-responsibility. This, in turn, is reflected in the parents' greater child
support and their preference for inductive disciplinary techniques (e.g.,
Gecas, 1979; Kohn, 1979).

Impact of family processes on control beliefs 135
In a recent study, Luster, Rhodes, and Haas (1989) have replicated these
findings. More importantly, however, they have also shown that the link
between parental values and child-rearing practices is mediated by spe-
cific parental beliefs concerning the appropriateness and effectiveness of
corresponding parenting practices. Such beliefs include spoiling the child
by being too responsive and affectionate or talking and reading to the
child, based on the belief that verbal stimulation promotes children's cog-
nitive development. Such parental beliefs refer to outcome expectancies of
particular parenting practices tied to specific parental goals like rearing an
unspoiled child or having an intelligent child, characteristics that the par-
ents might regard as functionally relevant for integrating the child into the
larger society.
Particular parenting outcome beliefs do not necessarily imply corre-
sponding efficacy beliefs or competent performance of the parenting
behavior. Thus, parents might be convinced that talking and reading a lot
to their children promotes their cognitive development, but nevertheless
may not take the time or have the patience to engage in such activities.
Certain parental beliefs, like avoiding affection and responsiveness in
order to prevent the child from being spoiled, might impair the develp-
ment of a close and warm parent-child relationship even though the par-
ents are certain they could be more affectionate. Thus, more fine-grained
analyses are required to clarify the interplay of social class-related paren-
tal goals, parenting outcome and efficacy beliefs, and parenting practices
in guiding their children's development.
Some of the critics of social class as an explanatory factor in socializa-
tion research have argued that it is a rather distal social address variable
that needs to be further specified in terms of actual conditions of life (e.g.,
Bertram, 1981; Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Vaskovics, 1982). Thus, for example,
the parents' particular occupational experiences and institutional oppor-
tunities and restraints shape their personality and intrafamilial behavior
more directly than traditional social class indicators such as income, edu-
cation, or occupational status.
In an effort to test this hypothesis in the intrafamilial transmission of
generalized control beliefs, we constructed a causal model in which a
restricted ecocontext along with monotonous and less self-directed experi-
ences at the workplace lead to a less active and more controlling family
climate and to a more externally controlled personality structure of the
parents. Furthermore, we hypothesized that the particular constellation of
an unstimulating and controlling family environment and parents' gener-
alized external control beliefs work together to produce an authoritarian

136 Klaus A. Schneewind
FATHER'S EXTERNAL
PERSONALITY
V
FATHER'S
AUTHORITARIANISM
VII
SON'S EXTERNAL
PERSONALITY
Figure 4.4. Intra- and extrafamilial influences on the manifestation of an
external personality (from Schneewind, 1989c, p. 203).
parenting style. If it is perceived as such by the children, they are likely to
develop external control beliefs as part of their personality structure.
Using Wold's (1979) partial least square version of a structural equation
model we tested the causal sequence as specified in our theoretical model
with a sample of 285 father-son dyads (age of sons: 9 to 14 years). Figure
4.4 presents the results of this analysis (Schneewind, 1989c).
As can be seen from the flow of path coefficients, the findings lend some
support to our causal model. Specifically, 19% of the variance of sons'

Impact of family processes on control beliefs 137
internal versus external personality structure could be explained by the
model. It should be kept in mind, however, that these results are based on
cross-sectional data and thus do not allow for a dynamic-transactional
analysis of possible reciprocal influences. Moreover, the model is oriented
more toward structure rather than process, thus omitting the subtle inter-
play of parental values, parental efficacy and outcome expectancies, and
parenting behavior.
Finally, it should not go unmentioned that in all the studies that we
have reviewed thus far the way control beliefs have been conceptualized
is reflective of the self-centered value system of the Western world. As
Rothbaum, Weisz, and Snyder (1982, p. 8) have pointed out, "the
individual's ability to change the environment to fit the self's needs" is
particularly salient in the Western value system. In contrast to this concept
of control, which they call primary control, the same authors have focused
on another aspect of control, called secondary control, which refers to a
person's ability to adjust his or her needs to existing reality. However, this
does not necessarily preclude that secondary control might be highly
functional in pursuing collectivistic goals and thus contribute to the devel-
opment of collective efficacy. Cross-cultural research has shown that pri-
mary control beliefs are typical for societies with an individualistic (West-
ern world) value system, whereas secondary control beliefs are more
dominant in societies with a collectivistic (Eastern world) value system
(e.g., Weisz, Rothbaum, & Blackburn, 1984). It has been documented that
differences in the global societal value system are reflected in correspond-
ing parent-child relations. By contrasting child-related expectations of
German and Japanese parents, Trommsdorff (1989), for example, could
show that German parents, who are said to belong to an individualistic
(i.e., more agency-oriented) society, put more emphasis on their children's
independence, coping with parent-child conflicts, and learning through
sanctions. Japanese parents, who supposedly represent a collectivistic (i.e.,
more communion-oriented) society, expected their children to be more
submissive, learn through imitation, and stay in a harmonious relation-
ship with their parents. Such behavior might well be a necessary prerequi-
site for the children's later adaptation to work life. Moreover, quite in
accordance with theoretical predictions, it turned out that the German
children scored higher on primary control beliefs while the Japanese chil-
dren displayed more secondary control beliefs.
In sum, cultural and subcultural value systems guide concrete parental
expectations that are deemed functionally relevant for the child's adapta-
tion and integration into a given society. Different value systems, how-

138 Klaus A. Schneewind
ever, do not offset the theoretical and empirical importance of the parents'
efficacy and outcome beliefs in pursuing what appears to be their main
task as parents, that is, to prepare their children to become accepted mem-
bers of the society they belong to.
Conclusion: An integrative model for studying control beliefs within
the family context
In considering the research evidence reviewed in the preceding sections a
more comprehensive picture of how control beliefs develop within the
family gradually took shape. Focusing solely on family structure or par-ent-child relations is too narrow an approach for an adequate understand-ing of how children acquire and expand their personal control beliefs.
Therefore, a more comprehensive conceptualization of the processes that
influence children's acquistion and development of control beliefs withinthe family context is presented in Figure 4.5.
Without going much into the detail, I will briefly comment on the basic
reasoning that led to this conceptual model.
To begin with, parental child-
rearing goals are of crucial importance in determining the parents' efficacyand outcome expectations and subsequently their actual behavior whenthey tackle the difficult developmental tasks of giving support, direction,and guidance to their children to help them find their place in society.However, parental goals are tied to particular cultural and subcultural val-ues that the parents experienced while they went through their ownsocialization. In addition, the parents' socialization was influenced by theopportunities and constraints inherent in the specific material and socialconditions of life that were and maybe still are characteristic of their lifespace. More specifically, the place parents found themselves in society andall the corresponding experiences shaped their repertoire of goals, beliefs,and behaviors in dealing with their children. In addition to the overall pat-tern of the parents' prevalent material and social conditions of life, specificfeatures of family structure and family relationships as well as couple andinterparental relationships impinge on the parenting process.
With regard to the children it is important to view their transactions
with their parents as an active, self-constructing process. This involves
active internal representation of events and progressive construction andelaboration of personal goals, belief systems, and corresponding behav-
iors. The same holds true, of course, for other socialization influences to
which children are exposed. It is one of the subtle challenges for parents to
adjust their parenting practices to the child's developmental status, thus

Cultural / Subcultural System
(general/specific material and social life
conditions; general/specific value systems)
Family System
(Family structure; socio-emotional relationships,
activities, rules)
Couple / Parental System
(couple relationship, coparenting
alliance)
XParent – Child System
(parent – child relationship)
Parent
(parenting; child-related goals,
control beliefs, behavior)
Active internal representation
of other socialization influencesActive internal representation
of parenting
Construction and elaboration
of personal goals, control
beliefs, behavior
CHILDActive participat on in
various life settings
4.5. An integrative model for studying control beliefs within the family context.

140 Klaus A. Schneewind
instilling and guiding their children's internal processes that gradually
enable them to participate as independent but also interdependent selves
in various settings within the social system. As developing children con-
tinually participate in these settings they actively construct and integrate
particular self-related cognitions into their self-system. Self-efficacy and
outcome expectations may be conceived as a special class of such self-
related cognitions that, depending on the child's level of cognitive func-
tioning, become elaborated and help guide the course of children's further
self-development.
The implications of this model are specific enough, but sufficiently open
to invite further research addressing the important question of how family
processes mediate between society and the developing self-system.
References
Abidin, R. R. (1986). Parenting Stress Index: Manual. Charlottesvile, VA: Pediatric
Psychology Press.
Amato, P. R. (1993). Children's adjustment to divorce: Theories, hypotheses and
empirical support. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 55,23-38.
Asendorpf, J., & van Aken, M. A. G. (1993). Deutsche Versionen der
Selbstkonzeptskalen von Harter [German versions of Harter's self-concept
scales]. Zeitschrift fiir Entwicklungspsychologie und Padagogische Psychologie, 25,
64-86.
Azar, S. T, Robinson, D. R., Hekimian, E., & Twentyman, C. T. (1984). Unrealistic
expectations and problem-solving ability in maltreating and comparison
mothers. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 52, 687-691.
Bakan, D. (1966). The duality of human existence: Isolation and communion in Western
man. Boston: Beacon Press.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84,191-215.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundation of thoughts and actions: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psycholo-
gist, 44,1175-1184.
Bartholomew, K. (1990). Avoidance of intimacy: An attachment perspective. Journal
of Social and Personal Relationships, 7,147-178.
Belsky, J. (1981). Early human experience: A family perspective. Developmental Psy-
chology, 17,3-23.
Belsky, J. (1990). Children and marriage. In F. D. Fincham & T. N. Bradbury (Eds.),
The psychology of marriage (pp. 172-200). New York: The Guilford Press.
Bertram, H. (1981). Sozialstruktur und Sozialisation: Zur mikroanalytischen Analyse
von Chancenungleichheit [Social structure and socialization: A microanalytic
analysis of inequality of opportunities]. Neuwied, Germany: Luchterhand.
Bradley, R. H., & Caldwell, B. M. (1979). Home environment and locus of control.
Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 8,107-111.
Brandtstadter, J., Krampen, G., & Heil, F. E. (1986). Personal control and emotional
evaluation of development in partnership relations during adulthood. In M.

Impact of family processes on control beliefs 141
M. Baltes & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), The psychology of aging and control (pp. 265-296).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature
and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the family as a context of human develop-
ment. Developmental Psychology, 22,723-742.
Bugenthal, D. B., & Shennum, W. A. (1984). "Difficult" children as elicitors and tar-
gets of adult communication patterns: An attributional-behavioral transac-
tional analysis. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 49
(1), Serial No. 205.
Campis, L. K., Layman, R. D., & Prentice-Dunn, S. (1986). The Parental Locus of
Control Scale: Development and validation. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology,
15,260-267.
Carton, J. S., & Nowicki, S. (in press). Antecedents of individual differences in
locus of control of reinforcement: A critical review. Genetic Psychological Mono-
graphs.
Chance, J. E. (1972). Academic correlates and maternal antecedents of children's
belief in external or internal control of reinforcements. In J. B. Rotter, J. E.
Chance, & E. J. Phares (Eds.), Applications of a social learning theory of personality
(pp. 168-179). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Chandler, T. A., Wolf, F. M., Cook, B., & Dugovics, D. (1980). Parental correlates of
locus of control in fifth graders: An attempt at experimentation in the home.
Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 26,183-195.
Constantine, J. A., & Bahr, S. J. (1981). Locus of control and marital stability. Journal
ofDivorce, 4,11-22.
Crandall, V. C, & Crandall, B. W. (1983). Maternal and childhood behaviors as
antecedents of internal-external control perceptions in young adulthood. In H.
M. Lefcourt (Ed.), Research with the locus of control construct: Vol. 2. Developments
and social problems (pp. 53-103). New York: Academic.
Crandall, V. C, Katkovsky, W., & Crandall, V. J. (1965). Children's belief in their
own control of reinforcements in intellectual-academic achievement situations.
Child Development, 36, 91-109.
Cuddy, M. E., & Frame, C. (1991). Comparison of aggressive and nonaggressive
boys' self-efficacy and outcome expectancy beliefs. Child Study Journal, 21,135-
152.
Cutrona, C. E., & Troutman, B. R. (1986). Social support, infant temperament, and
parenting self-efficacy: A mediational model of post-partum depression. Child
Development, 57,1507-1518.
Davis, W. L., & Phares, E. J. (1969). Parental antecedents of internal-external control
of reinforcement. Psychological Reports, 24, 427-436.
Diethelm, K. (1991). Mutter-Kind-Interaktion. Entwicklung von ersten Kontrollilber-
zeugungen [Mother-child interaction. Development of early control beliefs].
Bern, Switzerland: Huber.
Donovan, W. L., & Leavitt, L. A. (1989). Maternal self-efficacy and infant attach-
ment: Integrating physiology, perceptions, and behavior. Child Development,
60,460^72.
Duke, M. P., & Lancaster, W. (1976). A note on locus of control as a function of
father absence. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 129, 335-336.
Earl, W. L. (1987). Creativity and self-trust: A field study. Adolescence, 22,419^432.
Finkelstein, N. W., & Ramey, C. (1977). Learning to control the environment in
infancy. Child Development, 48, 806-819.

142 Klaus A. Schneewind
Flammer, A. (1990). Erfahrung der eigenen Wirksamkeit [Experience of one's own effi-
cacy]. Bern, Switzerland: Huber.
Ford, M. E., & Thompson, R. A. (1985). Perception of personal agency and infant
attachment: Toward a life-span perspective of competence development. Inter-
national Journal of Behavioral Development, 8, 377-406.
Gable, S., Belsky, J., & Crnic, K. (1992). Marriage, parenting and child development:
Progress and prospects. Journal of Family Psychology, 5, 276-294.
Galejs, I., Hegland, S. M., & King, A. (1985). Social agents and the development of
locus of control in young children. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 146,181-187.
Gecas, V. (1979). The influence of social class on socialization. In W. R. Burr, R. Hill,
F. I. Nye, & I. L. Reiss (Eds.), Contemporary theories about the family (Vol. 1, pp.
365-404). New York: Free Press.
Goodnow,}. J., & Collins, W. A. (1990). Development according to parents: The nature,
causes, and consequences of parents ideas. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gordon, D. A., Nowicki, S., & Wichern, F. (1981). Observed maternal and child
behaviors in a dependency-producing task as a function of children's locus of
control orientation. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 27,43-71.
Gross, D., & Rocissano, L. (1988). Maternal confidence in toddlerhood: Its measure-
ment for clinical practice and research. Nurse Practitioner, 13,19-29.
Gross, D., Rocissano, L., & Roncoli, M. (1989). Maternal confidence during
toddlerhood: Comparisons of preterm and fullterm groups. Research in Nurs-
ing and Health, 12,1-9.
Hainline, L., & Feig, E. (1978). Correlates of childhood father absence in college-
aged women. Child Development, 49,37-^2.
Harter, S. (1978). Effectance motivation reconsidered: Toward a developmental
model. Human Development, 21,34-64.
Harter, S. (1982). The perceived competence scale for children. Child Development,
53, 87-97.
Hetherington, E. M. (1972). Effects of fathers' absence on personality development
in adolescent daughters. Developmental Psychology, 7,313-326.
Hoffman, J. A., & Teyber, E. C. (1979). Some relationships between sibling age
space and personality. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 25, 77-80.
Hohmann, P. M. (1988). Kontrolle und Zufriedenheit in Beziehungen [Control and sat-
isfaction in relationships]. Munich: Profil.
Jerusalem, M., & Schwarzer, R. (1986). Selbstwirksamkeit [Self-efficacy]. In R.
Schwarzer (Ed.), Skalen zur Befindlichkeit und Persdnlichkeit [Scales for measur-
ing states and personality]. (Forschungsbericht 5, pp. 15-18). Berlin: Freie
Universitat.
Johnston, C, & Mash, E. J. (1989). A measure of parenting satisfaction and efficacy.
Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 2,167-175.
Kalter, N., Alpern, D., Spence, R., & Plunkett, J. W. (1984). Locus of control in chil-
dren of divorce. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48,410-414.
Kenny, D. A. (1979). Correlation and causality. New York: Wiley.
Kohn, M. L. (1979). The effects of social class on parental values and practices. In D.
Reiss & H. A. Hoffman (Eds.), The American family: Dying or developing (pp. 45-
68). New York: Plenum.
Krampen, G. (1982a). Differentialpsychologie der Kontrolluberzeugungen [Differential
psychology of control beliefs]. Gottingen: Hogrefe.
Krampen, G. (1982b). Schulische und familiare Entwicklungsbedingungen von
Kontrolluberzeugungen [School and familial conditions for developing control
beliefs]. Schweizerische Zeitschrift fur Psychologie und ihre Anwendungen, 41,16-
35.

Impact of family processes on control beliefs 143
Krampen, G. (1989a). Diagnostik von Attributionen und Kontrolliiberzeugimgen:
Theorien, Geschichte, Probleme [Diagnosis of attributions and control beliefs;
Theories, history, problems]. In G. Krampen (Ed.), Diagnostik von Attributionen
und Kontrolluberzeugungen [Diagnosis of attributions and control beliefs] (pp.
3-19). Gottingen: Hogrefe.
Krampen, G. (1989b). Perceived childrearing practices and the development of
locus of control in early adolescence. International Journal of Behavioral Develop-
ment, 12,177-193.
Krampen, G. (1994). Kontrolluberzeugungen in der Erziehung und Sozialisation
[Control beliefs in education and socialization]. In K. A. Schneewind (Ed.), Psy-
chologie der Erziehung und Sozialisation: Enzyklopadie der Psychologie. Pddago-
gische Psychologie [Psychology of education and socialization. Encyclopedia of
psychology. Educational psychology] (Vol. 1, pp. 375-402). Gottingen:
Hogrefe.
Kurdek, L. A. (1993). Issues in proposing a general model of the effects of divorce
on children. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 55,39-41.
Kurdek, L. A., & Blisk, D. (1983). Dimensions and correlates of mothers' divorce
experience. Journal of Divorce, 6,1-24.
Kurdek, L. A., Blisk, D., & Siesky, A. E. (1981). Correlates of children's long-term
adjustment to their parents' divorce. Developmental Psychology, 17,565-579.
Ladd, G. W., & Price, J. M. (1986). Promoting children's cognitive and social com-
petence: The relation between parents' perceptions of task difficulty and
children's perceived and actual competence. Child Development, 57, 446-460.
Lancaster, W. W., & Richmond, B. D. (1983). Perceived locus of control as a function
of father absence, age and geographic location. Journal of Genetic Psychology,
143,51-56.
Lefcourt, H. M. (1976). Locus of control. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Lehwald, G. (1991). Friiherfassung und Fruhforderung von Begabungen:
Methodische Probleme, empirische Befunde, praktische Konsequenzen [Early
assessment and support of abilities: Methodical problems, empirical findings,
practical consequences]. In F. J. Monks & G. Lehwald (Eds.), Neugier, Er-
kundung und Begabung bei Kleinkindern [Curiosity, exploration, and ability in
early childhood] (pp. 135-144). Munich: Reinhardt.
Lifshitz, M., & Ramot, L. (1978). Toward a framework for developing children's
locus of control orientation. Child Development, 49, 85-95.
Loeb, R. C. (1975). Concomitants of boys' locus of control examined in parent-child
interactions. Developmental Psychology, 11, 353-358.
Luster, T., & Kain, E. L. (1987). The relation between family context and perception
of parental efficacy. Early Child Development and Care, 29,301-311.
Luster, T, Rhoades, K., & Haas, B. (1989). The relation between parental values and
parenting behavior: A test of the Kohn hypothesis. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 52,139-147.
MacDonald, A. P. (1971). Internal-external locus of control: Parental antecedents.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 37,141-147.
Marks, E. (1973). Sex, birth order, and belief about personal power. Developmental
Psychology, 6,184.
Mash, E. J., Johnston, C, & Kovitz, K. (1983). A comparison of the mother-child
interactions of physically abused and nonabused children during play and
task situations. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 12, 337-346.
McAdams, D. P. (1985). Power, intimacy, and the life story: Personological inquiries into
identity. New York: The Guilford Press.

144 Klaus A. Schneewind
McAdams, D. P. (1988). Personal needs and personal relationships. In S. W. Duck
(Ed.), Handbook of personal relationships (pp. 7-22). London: Wiley & Sons.
Meyer, B. U., & Wacker, A. (1970). Die Entstehung der erlebten Selbstverant-
wortlichkeit in Abhangigkeit vom Zeitpunkt der Erziehung [The development
of perceived self-responsibility depending on the timing of educational prac-
tices]. Archiv fur Psychologie, 122,24-39.
Mielke, R. (Ed.). (1982). Interne Iexterne Kontrolliiberzeugung [Internal/external con-
trol belief]. Bern, Switzerland: Huber.
Miller, P., Lefcourt, H. M., & Ware, E. (1983). The construction and development of
the Miller Marital Locus of Control Scale. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science,
15, 266-279.
Miller, S. A. (1988). Parents' beliefs about children's cognitive development. Child
Development, 59,259-285.
Nowicki, S., & Duke, M. P. (1974). A locus of control scale for college as well as non-
college adults. Journal of Personality Assessment, 38,136-137.
Nowicki, S., & Schneewind, K. A. (1982). Relation of family climate variables to
locus of control in German and American students. Journal of Genetic Psychol-
ogy, 141,277-286.
Nowicki, S., & Segal, W. (1974). Perceived parental characteristics, locus of control
orientation, and behavioral correlates of locus of control. Developmental Psy-
chology, 10,33-37.
Nowicki, S., & Strickland, B. R. (1973). A locus of control scale for children. Journal
of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 40,148-154.
Ollendick, D. G. (1979). Parental locus of control and the assessment of children's
personality characteristics. Journal of Personality Assessment, 43,401^105.
Parish, T. S. (1981). The relationship between years of father absence and locus of
control. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 138, 301-302.
Parish, T. S., & Boyd, D. A. (1983). Locus of control as related to family backround
and marital status. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 143,287-288.
Parish, T. S., & Copeland, T. F. (1980). Locus of control and father loss. Journal of
Genetic Psychology, 136,147-148.
Parks, P. L., & Smeriglio, V. L. (1986). Relationships among parenting knowledge,
quality of stimulation in the home and infant development. Family Relations,
35,411-416.
Perrez, M. (1989). Diagnostik von Kontingenzerfahrungen in der fruhen Kindheit
[Diagnosis of contingency awareness in early childhood]. In G. Krampen (Ed.),
Diagnostik von Attributionen und Kontrolliiberzeugungen [Diagnosis of attribu-
tions and control beliefs] (pp. 172-185). Gottingen, Germany: Hogrefe.
Perrez, M., Ackermann, E. & Diethelm, K. (1983). Die Bedeutung der sozialen
Kontingenzen fur die Entwicklung des Kindes im ersten Lebensjahr [The
importance of social contingencies for the child's development in the first year
of life]. Verhaltensmodifikation, 4,114-129.
Perry, D. E., Perry, L. C, & Rasmussen, P. (1986). Cognitive social learning media-
tors of aggression. Child Development, 57, 700-711.
Peterson, C. (1991). The meaning and measurement of explanatory style. Psycholog-
ical Inquiry, 2,1-10.
Peterson, C, & Stunkard, A. J. (1992). Cognates of personal control: Locus of con-
trol, self-efficacy, and explanatory style. Applied and Preventive Psychology, 1,
111-117.
Pettit, G. S., Harrist, A. W., Bates, J. E., & Dodge, K. A. (1991). Family interaction,
social cognition and children's subsequent relationships with peers at Kinder-
garten. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 8, 383-402.

Impact of family processes on control beliefs 145
Phares, E. J. (1976). Locus of control in personality. Morristown, NJ: General Learning
Press.
Reisel, B. (1986). Scheidung aus der Perspektive des Kindes [Divorce from the child's
perspective]. Unpublished dissertation, University of Vienna.
Riksen-Walraven, M. (1978). Effects of caregiver behavior on habituation rate and
self-efficacy in infants. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 1, 105-
130.
Riksen-Walraven, M. (1991). Die Entwicklung kindlicher Kompetenz im
Zusammenhang mit sozialer Unterstiitzung [The development of children's
competence in relation to social support]. In F. J. Monks & G. Lehwald (Eds.),
Neugier, Erkundung und Begabung bei Kleinkindern [Curiosity, exploration and
ability in early childhood] (pp. 77-92). Munich: Reinhardt.
Rinke, R., & Schneewind, K. A. (1978). LOC-E und LOC-K: Zzvei Fragebogen zur
Erfassung internaler versus externaler Kontrolliiberzeugungen bei Erwachsenen und
Kindern [Two questionnaires for assessing internal versus external control
beliefs in adults and children]. Arbeitsbericht 26 aus dem Projekt Eltern-Kind-
Beziehungen. Munich: Universitat Miinchen.
Rod, W. (1976). Die Philosophic der Antike 1: Von Thales bis Demokrit [Philosophy of
the Antique 1. From Thales to Demokrit]. Munich: Beck.
Rothbaum, F. M., Weisz, J. R., & Snyder, S. S. (1982). Changing the world and
changing the self: A two-process model of perceived control. Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology, 42, 5-37.
Rotter, J. B. (1954). Social learning and clinical psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Pren-
tice-Hall.
Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of
reinforcement. Psychlogical Monographs, 80 (1) (whole No. 609), 1-28.
Rotter, J. B. (1990). Internal versus external control of reinforcement. American Psy-
chologist, 45,489-493.
Schave, B., & Fox, F. (1986). Similarities and differences between six-year-old iden-
tical and fraternal twins and their parents on measures of locus of control and
moral development. Educational Research Quarterly, 11,49-56.
Schneewind, K. A. (1982). Familiare Aspekte der Selbstverantwortlichkeit [Familial
aspects of self-responsibility]. In R. Mielke (Ed.), Interne/externe Kontroll-
iiberzeugungen [Internal/external control beliefs] (pp. 199-221). Bern, Switzer-
land: Huber.
Schneewind, K. A. (1985). Entwicklung personaler Kontrolle im Kontext der
Familie [Development of personal control within the context of the family]. In
W. F. Kugemann, S. Preiser, & K. A. Schneewind (Eds.), Psychologie und
komplexe Lebenswirklichkeit [Psychology and the complexity of real life] (pp.
201-233). Gottingen, Germany: Hogrefe.
Schneewind, K. A. (1987a). Validierung eines Instruments zur Diagnostik personaler
Kontrolle bei Kindern (DPK-K) [Validation of an instrument for the Diagnosis of
Personal Control in Children (DPC-C)]. Abschlussbericht an die Deutsche
Forschungsgemeinschaft. Munich: Universitat Miinchen.
Schneewind, K. A. (1987b). Personale Kontrolle: Zur Theorie und Empirie eines
zentralen psychologischen Konstrukts [Personal control: Theoretical and
empirical contributions to a focal psychological construct]. In W. Maiers & M.
Markard (Eds.), Kritische Psychologie als Subjektwissenschaft [Critical psychology
as science of the subject] (pp. 177-191). Berlin: Campus.
Schneewind, K. A. (1989a). Conceptualization and validation of an action-theoretic
model of personal control. In J. P. Forgas & J. M. Innes (Eds.), Recent advances in

146 Klaus A. Schneewind
social psychology: An international perspective (pp. 441-447). North Holland:
Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.
Schneewind, K. A. (1989b). Eindimensionale Skalen zur Erfassung von Kontrol-
luberzeugungen bei Erwachsenen und Kindern [Unidimensional scales for
assessing control beliefs in adults and children]. In G. Krampen (Ed.),
Diagnostik von Attributionen und Kontrolliiberzeugungen [Diagnosis of attribu-
tions and control beliefs] (pp. 80-92). Gottingen, Germany: Hogrefe.
Schneewind, K. A. (1989c). Contextual approaches to family systems research: The
macro-micro puzzle. In K. Kreppner & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Family systems and
life-span development (pp. 197-221). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Schneewind, K. A. (1994). Personlichkeitsentwicklung im Kontext von Erziehung
und Sozialisation [Personality development in the context of education and
socialization]. In K. A. Schneewind (Ed.), Psychologie der Erziehung und
Sozialisation: Enzyklopadie der Psychologie. Padagogische Psychologie [Psychology
of education and socialization. Encyclopedia of Psychology. Educational Psy-
chology] (Vol. 1, pp. 197-225). Gottingen, Germany: Hogrefe.
Schneewind, K. A., Beckmann, M., & Engfer, A. (1983). Eltern und Kinder [Parents
and children]. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
Schneewind, K. A., Beckmann, M., & Hecht-Jackl, A. (1985). Familiendiagnostisches
Testsystem [Family diagnostic test system]. Forschungsberichte aus dem
Institutsbereich Personlichkeitspsychologie und Psychodiagnostik. Munich:
Universitat Munchen.
Schneewind, K. A., Knopp, V., Schmidt-Rinke, M., Sierwald, W., & Vierzigmann, G.
(1989). Optionen der Lebensgestaltung junger Ehen und Kinderwunsch. Material-
band 1 [Options of young couples and their desire to have children. Documen-
tation volume 1]. Munich: Universitat Munchen.
Schneewind, K. A., & Pfeiffer, P. (1978). Elterliches Erziehungsverhalten und
kindliche Selbstverantwortlichkeit [Parenting and children's self-responsibil-
ity]. In K. A. Schneewind & H. Lukesch (Eds.), Familiare Sozialisation [Family
socialization] (pp. 190-205). Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta.
Schneewind, K. A., & Ruppert, S. (1992). Projekt Eltern-Kind-Beziehungen/Nach-
untersuchung: Materialband [The parent-child relations project followup: Docu-
mentation volume 1]. Munich: Universitat Munchen.
Schneewind, K. A., Vaskovics, L. A. (1992). Optionen der Lebensgestaltung junger
Ehen und Kinderwunsch [Options of young couples and their desire to have
children]. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
Schneewind, K. A., & Wiinsche, P. (1985). Diagnostik personaler Kontrolle bei
Kindern (DPK): Theoretische Grundlegung und erste empirische Befunde
[Diagnosis of personal control in children (DPC): Theory and first empirical
findings]. In L. Montada (Ed.), Bericht u'ber die 7. Tagung Entwicklungs-
psychologie in Trier [Proceedings of the 7th conference on developmental psy-
chology in Trier] (p. 297). Trier, Germany: Universitatsverlag.
Schneewind, K. A., Wiinsche, P., & Pausch, H. P. (1989). Zur mehrdimensionalen
Diagnostik personaler Kontrolliiberzeugungen und Attributionen bei Kindern
und Jugendlichen [Multidimensional diagnosis of personal control beliefs and
attributions in children and adolescents]. In G. Krampen (Ed.), Diagnostik von
Attributionen und Kontrolliiberzeugungen [Diagnosis of attributions and control
beliefs] (pp. 146-154). Gottingen, Germany: Hogrefe.
Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (1989). Erfassung leistungsbezogener und
allgemeiner Kontroll- und Kompetenzerwartungen [Assessment of achieve-
ment-related and general control- and competence expectancies]. In G.
Krampen (Ed.), Diagnostik von Attributionen und Kontrolliiberzeugungen [Diag-

Impact of family processes on control beliefs 147
nosis of attributions and control beliefs] (pp. 127-133). Gottingen, Germany:
Hogrefe.
Seligman, M. E. P. (1975). Helplessness: On depression, development, and death. San
Francisco: Freeman.
Simons, R. L., Beaman, J., Conger, R. D., & Chao, W. (1993). Childhood experience,
conception of parenting, and attitudes of spouse as determinants of parental
behavior. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 55,91-106.
Simons, R. L., Whitbeck, L. B., Conger, R. D., & Wu, C. (1991). Intergenerational
transmission of harsh parenting. Developmental Psychology, 27,159-171.
Skinner, E. A. (1986). The origins of young children's perceived control: Mother
contingent and sensitive behavior. International Journal of Behavioral Develop-
ment, 9, 359-382.
Skinner, E. A., Chapman, M., & Baltes, P. B. (1988). Control, means-ends and
agency beliefs: A new conceptualization and its measurement during child-
hood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54,117-133.
Slater, E. J., & Haber, J. D. (1984). Adolescent adjustment following divorce as a
function of familial conflict. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 52,
920-921.
Smeriglio, V. L., & Parks, P. L. (1983). Measuring mothers' perceptions about the
influence of infant caregiving practices. Child Psychiatry and Human Develop-
ment, 13,237-244.
Strickland, B. R. (1989). Internal-external control expectancies: From contingency
to creativity. American Psychologist, M, 1-12.
Teti, D. M., & Gelfand, D. M. (1991). Behavioral competence among mothers of
infants in the first year: The mediational role of maternal self-efficacy. Child
Development, 62, 918-929.
Teti, D. M., Gelfand, D. M., & Pompa, J. (1990). Depressed mothers' behavioral
competence with their infants: Demographic and psychosocial correlates.
Development and Psychopathology, 2,259-270.
Tolor, A., & Jalowiec, J. E. (1968). Body boundary, parental attitudes, and internal-
external expectancy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 32,206-209.
Trommsdorff, G. (1989). Sozialisation und Werthaltungen im Kulturvergleich
[Socialization and values in a cross-cultural perspective]. In G. Trommsdorff
(Ed.), Sozialisation im Kulturvergleich [Socialization in a cross-cultural perspec-
tive] (pp. 97-121). Stuttgart: Enke.
Tulkin, S. R. (1977). Social class differences in maternal and infant behavior. In H.
Leiderman, S. R. Tulkin, & S. Rosenfeld (Eds.), Culture and infancy (pp. 495-
537). New York: Academic.
Vaskovics, L. A. (1982). Sozialokologische Einflussfaktoren familialer Sozialisation
[Socio-ecological influences on familial socialization]. In L. A. Vaskovics (Ed.),
Umweltbedingungen familialer Sozialisation [Environmental conditions of famil-
ial socialization] (pp. 1-24). Stuttgart: Enke.
Walter, D. A., & Ziegler, C. A. (1980). The effects of birth order on locus of control.
Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 15,293-294.
Watson, J. S. (1966). The development and generalization of "contingency aware-
ness" in early infancy: Some hypotheses. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 12, 123-
135.
Watson, J. S., & Ramey, C. T. (1972). Reaction to response-contingent stimulation in
early infancy. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 18,119-127.
Weisz, J. R., Rothbaum, F. M., & Blackburn, T. C. (1984). Standing out and standing
in. The psychology of control in America and Japan. American Psychologist, 39,
955-969.

148 Klaus A. Schneewind
Weisz, J. R., & Stipek, D. J. (1982). Competence, contingency and undevelopment of
perceived control. Human Development, 25, 250-281.
Wheeler, V. A., & Ladd, G. W. (1982). Assessment of children's self-efficacy for
social interactions with peers. Developmental Psychology, 18, 795-805.
Whitbeck, L. B. (1987). Modelling efficacy: The effect of perceived parental efficacy
on the self-efficacy of early adolescents. Journal of Early Adolescence, 7, 175-
177.
White, R. W. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence. Psycho-
logical Review, 66,297-333.
Wichern, R, & Nowicki, S. (1976). Independence training practices and locus of
control orientation in children and adolescents. Developmental Psychology, 12,
77.
Wiggins, J. S. (1991). Agency and communion as conceptional coordinates for the
understanding and measurement of interpersonal behavior. In D. Cicchetti &
W. Grove (Eds.), Thinking clearly about psychology: Essays in honor of Paul Everett
Meehl (pp. 89-113). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Wold, H. (1979). Model construction and evaluation when theoretical knowledge is scarce.
Cahier 79.01 du departement d'econometrie. Geneva: Faculte des sciences
economiques et sociales, Universite de Geneve.
Wiinsche, P., & Schneewind, K. A. (1989). Entwicklung eines Fragebogens zur
Erfassung von Selbst- und Kompetenzeinschatzungen bei Kindern [Develop-
ment of questionnaire for assessing children's self- and competence judge-
ments] (FSK-K). Diagnostica, 35,217-235.
Yates, R., Kennelly, K., & Cox, S. (1975). Perceived contingency of parental rein-
forcements, parent-child relations and locus of control. Psychological Reports,
36,139-146.

5. Cross-cultural perspectives
on self-efficacy
GABRIELE OETTINGEN
The present chapter addresses three major issues. First, we analyze how
culture might affect the various sources of self-efficacy belief systems. For
this purpose, the dimensions of cultural diversity specified by Hofstede
(1980,1991; see also Triandis, 1989) and their impact on the sources of self-
efficacy information in family and school contexts are examined. Second,
we compare children's self-efficacy beliefs in East and West Berlin, Mos-
cow, and Los Angeles based on data from an ongoing research project
coordinated by G. Oettingen, T. D. Little, and P. B. Baltes. The results
demonstrate cross-cultural variations in efficacy beliefs that are congruent
with differences in efficacy-relevant influences hypothesized to be operat-
ing in each culture's school contexts. Third, we discuss the critical ques-
tion of whether self-efficacy effects on cognition, affect, and motivation
are universal across cultures. We speculate on the type of research that
would be needed to demonstrate universality, which raises issues of indi-
vidual versus collective efficacy.
Culture and the sources of self-efficacy information
Bandura (1977, in press) specifies four information sources that people use
in forming their sense of personal efficacy. The most important source is
performance experiences. Successes build a sense of self-efficacy; failures
weaken it. Repeated early failures especially may have the most adverse
effect if they cannot be discounted as due to lack of effort or unfavorable
circumstances. Failures are less detrimental if people have already devel-
oped a strong sense of self-efficacy through early frequent successes. Suc-
cesses achieved in the face of adversities are particularly beneficial. A
strong sense of efficacy acquired in one area of functioning may transfer to
149

150 Gabriele Oettingenother areas, thus creating a general sense of personal efficacy (Bandura,
1977,1986).
Other people's attainments can also influence self-efficacy formation.
First, models provide a standard of judging one's capabilities. Mostachievements – for example, school grades – are judged relatively, andone's own capability is inferred by comparing one's attainments to those
of one's peers (Festinger, 1954). Second, even without personal perfor-mance experiences, individuals may infer their self-efficacy by observingthe successes and failures of others. Thus, through
vicarious experience, the
successes of similar others raise one's own sense of efficacy, whereas theirfailures lead to lowered levels. Observers may derive a boost in self-effi-
cacy even from competent models who are dissimilar simply because they
transmit knowledge, skills, and strategies that enhance competencies.
Competent people can also influence self-efficacy beliefs through active
influence attempts. Such
verbal persuasion can be particularly effective
when the communicator is endowed with trustworthiness, expertise, andattractiveness (Hovland & Weiss, 1952; Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). If, how-
ever, the communicator's appraisals portray the target person as unrealis-
tically efficacious, failure experiences will quickly erase any temporary
boost in self-efficacy.
A final source of efficacy information is provided by one's
physical and
emotional reactions. For example, a low level of arousal while coping with a
difficult or threatening course of action would indicate an assured sense ofefficacy. Conversely, high states of perturbing emotional arousal are likelyto be interpreted as self-inefficacy. With regard to physical states, the expe-rience of pain and fatigue may be viewed as a sign of inefficacy. Moodstates such as depression also affect judgment of personal efficacy. People
judge themselves as efficacious in positive moods and as inefficacious in
depressed moods (Kavanagh & Bower, 1985). It is important to note thatthe interpretation of somatic and emotional states with regard to self-effi-cacy judgments is complex. People take into account the experienced levelof activation as well as their knowledge of how performances have beenaffected by emotional arousal in different past situations (see Bandura,
1977,1986).
Although there are four potential sources of efficacy information, peo-
ple may not always have access to all of them. The opportunity for vicari-
ous experiences, for example, may be limited because there are few com-petent models from whom one can learn. Moreover, individuals maysample selectively and weight and integrate the information available intheir preferred manner. The persuasive efforts of others (e.g., therapists)

Cross-cultural perspectives on self-efficacy 151
may be discounted in light of one's own deferent performances. Con-
versely, one may readily embrace positive verbal persuasions and disre-
gard negative performance experiences.
These considerations imply that forming beliefs of personal efficacy is a
complex process of self-appraisal which entails selecting, weighting, and
integrating information from multiple sources. It is in this appraisal pro-
cess that culture may play its influential role. Culture may affect not only
the type of information provided by the various sources, but also which
information is selected and how it is weighted and integrated in people's
self-efficacy judgments.
How should we conceptualize this role of culture? We assume that cul-
ture reveals its effect on self-efficacy beliefs by affecting the fundamental
systems and institutions of virtually all human societies: the family, the
school, the workplace, and the community. Everyday conduct in these dif-
ferent contexts provides information for one's self-efficacy in different
kinds of pursuits. Understanding how cultures affect everyday conduct in
these major societal systems can help to clarify how people's self-efficacy
appraisals vary across cultures. We will first examine the crucial dimen-
sions on which cultures differ.
Dimensions of cultural differences
Culture may be conceived of as "the collective programming of the mind
which distinguishes the members of one human group from another"
(Hofstede, 1980, p. 25). This definition suggests that value systems consti-
tute one major source of cultural differences. It has long been argued that
cultures differ primarily in their system of values (Inkeles & Levinson,
1969). Recent attempts to investigate empirically these differences have
identified a small number of crucial cultural dimensions (Hofstede, 1980,
1991; Triandis, 1989). Hofstede (1980, 1991) analyzed cultural value sys-
tems in matched samples of employees belonging to the same multina-
tional business in more than 40 countries. He identified four dimensions
of cultural differences, which he defined as follows:
(a) Individualism/Collectivism. Collectivist cultures promote the view that
people belong to in-groups that demand lasting loyalty from which mem-
bers cannot easily free themselves. In return, people receive protection
from the in-group. In contrast, individualist cultures promote the view
that people look primarily after their own welfare and their immediate
family's interests. They value an autonomous definition of the self and
individual goals more than group goals (see also Triandis, McCusker, &
Hui, 1990).

152 Gabriele Oettingen
(b) Power distance. In cultures with large disparity in power, people are
expected to accept inequality in power. This is especially true for the less
powerful members of the culture. People in cultures with small power dis-
tance value a more equal distribution of power.
(c) Uncertainty avoidance. People in cultures of strong uncertainty avoid-
ance are easily distressed by new, unstructured, unclear, or unpredictable
situations. They try to avoid such situations by maintaining strict codes of
conduct and a belief in absolute truths. Members of such cultures tend to
be compulsive, security seeking, intolerant, aggressive, and emotional. In
contrast, people in cultures of weak uncertainty avoidance tend to be
relaxed, tolerant, risk accepting, contemplative, and unaggressive.
(d) Masculinityj¥emininity. A masculine culture strives for a maximal
distinction between men and women. Men are expected to strive for mate-
rial success, to be assertive, ambitious, and competitive, whereas women
are expected to be successful in serving the communal side of life, such as
caring for children and the weak. Women are not expected to take on pro-
fessional jobs. In contrast, feminine cultures also value men who care for
the nonmaterial aspects of life and women who obtain professional and
technical jobs. In higher education men and women tend to pursue stud-
ies in the same subjects, whereas in masculine societies different subjects
are "proper" for men and women.
Similar dimensions of differences in cultural values have been high-
lighted by other researchers (e.g., Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Triandis,
1989). Returning to the question of how culture affects self-efficacy
appraisals, we turn next to an analysis of how the various dimensions
might express themselves in major societal systems and institutions, such
as the family and the school.
Cultural differences and self-efficacy appraisal
Sources of efficacy may vary in three ways: First, some sources may be
more prevalent than others. For example, in societies that are rigidly segre-
gated by gender, women may have less exposure to male models and vice
versa. Second, even when sources are equally prevalent they may take dif-
ferent forms. For example, in collectivist systems children get feedback on
how their in-group performed as well as on their individual performance,
whereas in individualist systems children get feedback only on their per-
sonal performance. Third, sources might differ in how they are valued. For
example, emphasizing individual attainments should be prized more in
individualist systems than in collectivist systems.

Cross-cultural perspectives on self-efficacy 153
Individualism/collectivism. Hofstede (1989, 1991; see also Triandis, 1989;
Triandis et al., 1990) claims that families in cultures high on collectivism
teach their children to love and respect the needs of their in-group. Inschool, children pursue performance goals demonstrating required com-petencies more than learning goals of expanding one's competencies
(Ames, 1992; Dweck & Leggett, 1988), and they create a social reality that
makes their performance outcomes noticeable to their collective. In cul-tures high on individualism, children are expected to learn how to learn.Performance outcomes are seen as instrumental to achieving self-actual-ization and the realization of one's individual potential. This striving doesnot cease when the needs of the in-group are satisfied. Rather, there is aconstant attempt to realize one's individual potential through the pursuit
of personal goals.
Children in individualist cultures should focus their self-appraisals of
efficacy on information concerning their personal performance attain-ments (e.g., improvements or declines; see Rosenholtz & Rosenholtz,
1981). In contrast, in collectivist cultures the evaluation by in-group mem-
bers should be the most important source of efficacy information, with
modeling by other in-group members also being influential. Whereas chil-dren in individualist cultures may be more in tune with their private emo-tional states, children socialized in collectivist cultures should be more
responsive to the preference of their in-group and thus emotions are used
more strategically (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). Accordingly, emotional
states should be a more immediate and thereby more prominent source
for the self-efficacy appraisals of children raised in individualist systemsthan in collectivist systems (i.e., idiocentric versus allocentric orientations,
respectively; see Triandis,
1989; Triandis, Leung, Villareal, & Clack, 1985).
Consider an example. Youth who approach the end of schooling have to
assess their self-efficacy for different occupations in making career deci-
sions (Betz & Hackett, 1986; Lent & Hackett, 1987). If becoming a banker is
considered an appropriate option, people will appraise their efficacy for
performing the banker role. A youngster in an individualist culture would
give heavy weight to past performances in relevant academic domains.
Affective reactions to images of being a banker might also be considered.
For a youth in a collectivist culture, the self-appraisal of efficacy would
center on the in-group's belief that the person has the capabilities to
become a successful banker, and whether other members of the in-group
might have higher talent for this occupation. The differential preferencefor sources of efficacy information by youths raised in individualist versuscollectivist systems should be most pronounced when the goal pursuit in

154 Gabriele Oettingen
question is fully individualist (e.g., promoting one's personal potential) or
fully collectivist (e.g., promoting one's in-group potential), respectively.
Power distance. Hofstede's (1986, 1991) ideas on how power distance or
power disparity affects family and school life focus on young people's
relation to authority. In a culture with large power differential, children
are taught to obey their parents and to treat them as superiors. Education
is teacher-centered (see Stipek, 1988), in which students expect teachers to
control the educational activities. The study material is supposed to reflect
the wisdom of the educational personnel, who are not to be contradicted
or criticized. Parents are expected to support the teachers. In contrast, in
cultures with small power differential, children are encouraged to express
their views freely in the family and to treat parents as equals. Education in
school is child-centered (see Stipek, 1988, 1991). Teachers expect students
to initiate communication, speak up and criticize, and to find their own
direction and pace of learning. The study material can, in principle, be
obtained from any competent person. Parents are expected to side with
the students.
The teacher is a powerful influence agent under conditions of large
power differential. When children assess their self-efficacy in school, their
appraisals should be largely the product of teachers' evaluations and
actions. Accordingly, children would tend to judge their capabilities in
terms of teachers' evaluations. Peers who serve as models are also per-
ceived through the eyes of teachers. Since teachers are endowed with
many attributes of successful influence agents (e.g., expertise, power),
their evaluative feedback should carry heavy weight in children's self-
appraisals of their own capabilities. With respect to affective states, emo-
tional distress over poor academic performance would contribute a sense
of inefficacy. Unquestioned authority of teachers may heighten negative
emotional arousal. Thus, children's emotional states should become a
prevalent informational source for self-efficacy judgments.
For children in cultures of low power differential things are quite differ-
ent. Because children are allowed to exert influence on their direction and
contents of learning, they largely become the creators of their performance
history. Accordingly, evaluating past performance means sampling infor-
mation comparatively free of authorities' influences (e.g., teachers, par-
ents, peer group heroes). The impact of authority is further diminished
because the verbalized evaluations of teachers in such cultures are not
given undue weight. Finally, children's vicarious experiences regarding
peer performances and interpretation of emotional states are compara-

Cross-cultural perspectives on self-efficacy 155
tively less affected by the force of teacher or parent evaluations because of
their lesser influence.
It appears, then, that children in cultures with small power differential
are offered more opportunities to operate as "origins" than as "pawns"
(de Charms, 1968; Deci, Vallerand, Pelletier, & Ryan, 1991; Ryan & Stiller,
1991). Accordingly, we expect the described differences in the appraisal of
self-efficacy to be particularly pronounced when children evaluate their
performances on projects they have chosen for themselves (e.g., to learn
about Miro's paintings by employing various self-chosen strategies) as
compared to children in cultures of large power differential, who pursue
projects structured by authorities (e.g., learn about Miro's paintings by use
of an assigned book).
Uncertainty avoidance. Hofstede (1986,1991) speculates that in families of
cultures with strong uncertainty avoidance, foreign influences are experi-
enced as a source of high threat and stress, while familiarity and predict-
ability are calming. In both family and school settings, emotional reactions
are accepted and self-righteousness is prevalent. Teachers are expected to
have all the right answers and to speak in a formal manner (Stroebe, 1976),
and intellectual disagreement is interpreted as a personal offense. Stu-
dents adapt to highly structured, unidimensional teaching strategies
(Rosenholtz & Rosenholtz, 1981; Rosenholtz & Simpson, 1984), where
materials and assignments are predefined and instructions are detailed.
Students and teachers desire rules and readily embrace them.
In contrast, members of families in cultures with weak uncertainty
avoidance are curious about new and foreign experiences, are unper-
turbed about facing new problems, and respond reflectively rather than
emotionally to ambiguities (see also Sorrentino, Raynor, Zubek, & Short,
1990). Teachers are not expected to know all things. They use plain lan-
guage, take intellectual disagreements as challenges, and seek parents'
opinions and ideas. Students deal effectively with multidimensional
teaching strategies (Rosenholtz & Rosenholtz, 1981; Rosenholtz & Simp-
son, 1984), which entail only partially structured learning materials, gen-
eral instructions, and flexible, individualized pacing.
Children socialized in schools of strong uncertainty avoidance can look
back on a fully designed performance history, since the highly structured
teaching leaves few ambiguities. Regular and frequent performance feed-
back on the same assignments for all students in a given classroom pro-
duces precise rank ordering of one's own ability. The monolithic structure
and social ranking serve as powerful influences in facilitating a precise

156 Gabriele Oettingen
appraisal of one's performance-based self-efficacy. Students know exactly
where they stand in the social comparative judgment of their own efficacy.
Moreover, the verbal communications of the important persuaders (i.e.,
teachers, parents, and peers) are phrased unambiguously and reflect a
high degree of social consensus. The experience of negative emotional
states in dealing with new or unfamiliar activities reinforces a low sense of
efficacy. Negative emotional states arising from unfavorable peer compar-
isons provide further reminders of personal inefficacy. Surpassing one's
peers in the social ranking generates positive emotional states that tend to
enhance self-appraisals of efficacy.
Children raised in families and schools that show less uncertainty
avoidance face more ambiguity when it comes to appraising their efficacy.
Performance feedback and social ranking by performance attainment is
less certain and less possible because of individualized instruction. Hence,
inferences from performance attainments as well as from vicarious experi-
ences provide leeway for personal self-evaluation. This permits self-
enhancing attributions and judgments of capability (Abramson, Seligman,
& Teasdale, 1978; Bandura, 1986; Taylor, 1989; Taylor & Brown, 1988). In
addition, the less authoritative social evaluations can be used in one's own
service. Similarly, emotional states should be a less telling source for self-
efficacy judgments. This is because ambiguity is more of a challenge than
a threat. These effects should be particularly pronounced when children in
strong uncertainty-avoidant cultures strive for certainty-oriented goals
(e.g., becoming a civil clerk) and children in weak uncertainty-avoidant
contexts strive for uncertainty-oriented goals (e.g., becoming a scientist).
Masculinity-Femininity. In masculine societies families stress achievement
and competition. In school, teachers single out high-achieving students as
the ideal and highlight students' academic successes. Students are com-
petitive, publicize their successes, and regard their failures as calamities.
Subject matters that are instrumental to promoting professional careers
are valued, and studying academic subjects that in sex-typed societies are
labeled feminine is seen as irrelevant for men. In societies that are more
feminine, families stress social interrelatedness and try to solve conflicts
through compromises (e.g., countries high on femininity include Den-
mark, Norway, and Sweden). In school, the norm is set by the average stu-
dent, students' social adaptation is valued, and academic failure is not
taken too seriously. The choice of academic subjects is determined by
intrinsic interests, and men feel free to pursue subjects traditionally
regarded as feminine.

Cross-cultural perspectives on self-efficacy 157
Male children in masculine societies face stiff performance competition.
Therefore, they are sensitive of how others are performing in appraising
their own self-efficacy. Successes that exceed those of their competitors
and praise of personal accomplishments in comparison to others increase
self-efficacy. The emotional states stemming from personal comparison
are weighted most heavily. In feminine cultures, performance attainments
should affect self-efficacy judgments, regardless of gender or whether
they surpass those of others or fall below them. Again, the different cul-
tural effects on self-efficacy appraisals should be particularly pronounced
for male children in masculine cultures when pursuing careers stereo-
typed as masculine (e.g., becoming a broker) and for children in feminine
cultures who choose traditionally feminine vocational pursuits (e.g.,
becoming a social worker), respectively.
Summary. The preceding discussion has analyzed how cultural differ-
ences might promote different self-efficacy appraisals. We have relied pri-
marily on the salient cultural dimensions singled out by Hofstede (1980),
and have used his speculations (Hofstede, 1991) on how cultural varia-
tions on these dimensions might be manifested in the social practices of
familial and education systems. These notions suggested ways in which
cultural variations impact on self-efficacy appraisals.
Cultural orientations are not dichotomous, and the cultural dimensions
discussed do not operate in unisono, as the preceding discussion might
imply. These various dimensional properties should be conceived of as
continuous variables operating in concert. Each given culture is character-
ized by a score on each of these dimensions (see Hofstede's 1980 study
with employees of IBM in 40 different countries). Furthermore, the dimen-
sion of individualism/collectivism correlates positively and substantially
with power distance; that is, the more individualist a society is, the
smaller it is in power differential. However, this correlation disappears
when national wealth is partialed out. Uncertainty avoidance and mascu-
linity/feminity are neither interrelated nor related to wealth.
A complete empirical analysis of the link between culture and self-effi-
cacy appraisals would require selection of cultures representing the rele-
vant dimensions. One would then observe social transactions in family
and school settings of the different cultures to verify that they in fact differ
in the expected ways. The social transactions are considered to be media-
tors of cultural effects on self-appraisals. Finally, one would assess the self-
efficacy appraisals of the children.

158 Gabriele Oettingen
At the Max Planck Institute for Human Development and Education,
we chose a more parsimonious test of the effects of culture on self-efficacy
appraisal. We selected several cultures that vary in their cultural orienta-tion and at the same time are known to have created school systems differ-
ing in the respective features. More specifically, we assessed children's
self-efficacy beliefs concerning their perceived academic capabilities in
East Berlin, West Berlin, Moscow, and Los Angeles.
Empirical analysis of the link between culture and self-efficacy
Comparative analysis of East Berlin and West Berlin school systems
Before the fall of the Berlin wall, the school systems in East Berlin and
West Berlin differed in four major ways (DDR: Schule im Aufbruch, 1990;Giessmann, 1990; Klier, 1990; Waterkamp, 1990). They included: (a) the
role of the in-group, (b) respect for and power of teachers, (c) standardiza-tion of learning and teaching strategies, and (d) degree of social compari-
son.
In East Berlin, frequent teacher and peer evaluations were given both
verbally and nonverbally in front of the entire "class collective" through-out the school day (Schnabel, 1977; Tautz, 1978; Week, 1981; Witzlack,
1986). Teachers were expected to evaluate their students publicly at par-
ent-teacher assemblies, at parents' workplaces, at meetings of the state-
run youth organizations (i.e., Pioneers, Free German Youth; Waterkamp,
1990), or at other occasions outside the classroom. Public grading began at
the first grade level. In addition to this early, pervasive, and differentiated
performance feedback, teaching strategies in East Berlin were group-ori-ented and unidimensional. In all schools at given grade levels in the for-
mer GDR (East Germany), children received exactly the same materials,
class assignments, and pace of studying, regardless of the children's
pref-
erences or potential, thereby enhancing evaluative social comparisons ofperformance attainments. Moreover, teachers were expected to adhere
strictly to the prescribed curriculum, assignments, and pace of teaching,
and were discouraged to accommodate the specific interests and needs ofthe individual children (Waterkamp, 1988,1990).
The East Berlin educational practices were part of the general political
program guided by official party doctrine aimed at educating (and reedu-
cating) "harmoniously developed socialistic personalities" (Waterkamp,
1990, p. 263). Accordingly, one central goal of the educational philosophy
in East Berlin was to foster in all students the ability to evaluate them-
selves "adequately" in the sense of adopting the authorities' (e.g., the

Cross-cultural perspectives on self-efficacy 159
teachers') evaluations of students' competence and personality attributes
(Franz, 1987). An "open and honest" atmosphere in the class-collective,
grounded on accurate self- and peer evaluations, was considered to be
essential for the successful development of an independent and responsi-
ble personality and of the collective (Falkenhagen, 1989; Finck, 1989;
Franz, 1982, 1987, 1989; Krause, 1989; Wiese, 1989; see also Waterkamp,
1990). Teaching adequate self-evaluation was a primary objective for the
teacher, the parents, and the class-collective. Finally, characteristics such
as quietness and honesty were regarded as desirable, whereas feelings of
"knowing better" and "superiority" were considered undesirable in
children's personality development (Week, 1981).
From time to time, students had to undergo "learning conferences," in
which, after being required to publicly evaluate themselves, good stu-
dents were praised by the teacher and the class-collective, whereas weak
students had to explain remorsefully why they had failed and how they
planned to avoid future failure (see also Franz, 1982; Schnabel, 1977;
Tautz, 1978; Week, 1981). Such personal revelations were then evaluated
by both teachers and the class-collective. Moreover, every student was
expected to feel responsible for the successes and failures of his or her in-
group or class-collective (for similar regulations in Russia, see Bronfen-
brenner, 1970).
In West Berlin, neither were public self-evaluations used, nor was per-
formance feedback in the form of grades given until the end of the second
grade. Privacy concerning students' grades was emphasized, though it
could not be guaranteed. Children's performance records were kept in the
schools, not to be discussed in public. Teaching strategies were less uni-
dimensional (i.e., materials, assignments, and pacing were more individu-
alized), and teachers were allowed to respect the individual needs of their
students to a greater extent than in East Berlin. These differences in type of
performance feedback and teaching strategies between the school systems
of East Berlin and West Berlin were also reflected in different educational
goals. In West Berlin there was no explicit educational goal of accurate
self-evaluation. Rather, the educational philosophy focused on conveying
factual knowledge to the children, and avoided influencing children to
adopt an absolute truth or any other state-defined value system (Water-
kamp, 1987,1990).
Differences in self-efficacy beliefs
Clearly, in the East German school system, cultural values related to col-
lectivism, large power differential, strong uncertainty avoidance, and

160 Gabriele Oettingen
masculine-oriented achievement striving were more strongly modeledand promoted than in the West Berlin school system. For these reasons wepredicted that East Berlin children would appraise their efficacy differ-
ently than would West Berlin schoolchildren. Specifically, we expected
East Berlin children to have a lower sense of personal efficacy and to bemore congruent in their judgments with their teachers' evaluations.
The commencement of school means that, for the first time, children
have their performance attainments judged by a teacher, and find them-
selves compared to their classmates. School systems high on collectivismand power differential tend to make children's self-appraisals dependent
on the opinions of in-group members (e.g., class-collective) and authori-ties (e.g., teachers). If, in addition, an orientation toward uncertainty
avoidance and masculine strivings prevails, authorities and in-group
members concur in making children classify themselves unambiguouslyin accord with the status assigned to them in the class-collective, therebyfostering adequate self-appraisals.
Adopting adequate self-appraisals should be a problem, however, par-
ticularly for students who are comparatively less intelligent. Given that
children enter school with illusory optimism regarding their capabilities
(Stipek, 1984, 1988), less intelligent students are more frequently con-
fronted with performance feedback that contradicts their naive optimism.
Accordingly, entering school implies for children with low intelligence
that they will have to discard their initial positive self-views and adopt a
critical self-evaluation reflecting their inefficacy. In the course of acknowl-
edging a sense of personal inefficacy, failure feedbacks will more readily
be accepted as accurate.
For intelligent children things are quite different, because the perfor-
mance feedback they experience is largely consistent with their initialnaive optimism. As a consequence, entering school does not imply a cor-
rection of their self-views. Highly intelligent children will thus establish a
robust sense of efficacy regarding their school performances. Disparatefailure experiences will not be integrated in these self-efficacy beliefs, as
they are simply dismissed.
In school contexts where differentiated, unambiguous, and public per-
formance feedback as well as unidimensional teaching strategies are prac-ticed at the outset of schooling, children of low intelligence should be less
able to escape the correction of their naive optimism than those in school
contexts that practice delayed, undifferentiated, ambiguous, and privateperformance feedback on multidimensional teaching activities. In con-
trast, for the self-efficacy judgment of highly intelligent children, feedback

Cross-cultural perspectives on self-efficacy 161
procedures and teaching strategies practiced in a given school context
should carry less weight. Because these children receive predominantly
positive performance feedback, correction of optimistic self-views is not
much of an issue. It is not surprising, then, that the East German educa-
tional goal of teaching students adequate self-evaluation focused mainly
on the low-performing students. It was acknowledged that these students
should find it especially difficult to adopt an accurate self-view (see Franz,
1987; Schnabel, 1977; Week, 1981).
These considerations imply that the differences in school context
between East and West Berlin affect the self-appraisal of less intelligent
children only. More specifically, East Berlin children of low intelligence
should possess a weaker sense of self-efficacy than West Berlin children of
low intelligence, whereas East and West Berlin children of high intelli-
gence should not differ in their relatively strong self-efficacy. In addition,
East Berlin children of low intelligence should conform more readily to
their teachers' evaluations than their West Berlin counterparts, whereas no
differences between East and West Berlin were expected for highly intelli-
gent children.
In June 1990, before the unification of the two Germanies, Oettingen,
Little, Lindenberger, and Baltes (1994) assessed the efficacy beliefs and
school grades in 313 East Berlin children drawn from two schools. Stu-
dents were sampled from grades two to six (i.e., 8 to 12 years of age). Data
were compared to those of an age-matched study conducted 1 year later
with 527 children of West Berlin. We administered the short form of the
Control, Agency and Means-Ends Interview (CAMI; Little, Oettingen,
Stetsenko, & Baltes, 1994a; Oettingen et al., 1994; Skinner, Chapman, &
Baltes, 1988). Fifty-eight items assess (1) causality beliefs reflecting
children's judgments on what causes good or poor school performance,
(2) control beliefs, which measure children's evaluation of the extent to
which they can influence their school performance, and (3) efficacy
(agency) beliefs, which concern children's judgments as to whether they
have access to the means that influence academic performance (i.e., effort,
ability, luck, teachers' assistance). The 4-point response scale for all items
ranged from "never" to "always." Efficacy belief items include: "I can
really pay attention in class" (effort); "I'm pretty smart at school even
without working very hard" (ability). These efficacy beliefs (also called
agency beliefs) combine beliefs about means concerning effort, ability, and
luck as a second-order factor and teachers' assistance as a first-order factor
(Little et al., 1993). The factorial structure of the CAMI measure shows
equivalent factor loadings and covariances across seven cultures, includ-

162 Gabriele Oettingen
4.0 i
3.5 –
_ 3.0 :
CD
c 2.5 iCO
0
2.0 :
1.5 :
1.0East Berlin
West Berlin
Grade Level
Figure 5.1. Mean differences of efficacy beliefs (effort, ability, and luck) by
grade level in East and West Berlin children. Nonoverlapping error bars
mean p < .05 (from Oettingen et al., 1994).
ing East and West Berlin, Moscow, and Los Angeles (Little et al., 1994a),
indicating that it is a valid and reliable instrument across cultures. In con-
trast to the flexible conceptualization of efficacy beliefs, which may be
applied to any type of performance (see Bandura, in press), agency beliefs
refer to discrete a priori defined means (e.g., access to effort, ability, but
also to the entity of luck) relevant in the school performance domain. In
our various samples of children in middle childhood, agency beliefs per-
taining to luck form one factor with those pertaining to effort and ability,
indicating that children of this age group perceive having access to luck as
an issue of their personal control.
East Berlin children had a lower sense of academic efficacy than West
Berlin children on all aspects of personal agency. That is, they believed
themselves to have lesser capability to exert effort in school, to be less
smart, to attract less luck, and to attain less help of their teachers
(Oettingen et al., 1994). The lower perceived efficacy of East Berlin chil-
dren begins in the third grade and is pervasive for the rest of the school
years (Figure 5.1).
Moreover, East Berlin children showed higher correlations between
their efficacy beliefs and course grades than did West Berlin children, indi-

Cross-cultural perspectives on self-efficacy 163
Table 5.1. Efficacy beliefs and course grades by grade level
Grade Level
2345
6East Berlin
.79.74.72
.75*
.88West Berlin
.61
.60.77
.67.83
j .01
p < .001
Source: Oettigen et al., 1994
eating the impact of a consensual construction of competence in the EastBerlin school system. As early as in the second grade level the correlationswere r = .79 for East Berlin students and r
= .61 for West Berlin students
(see Table 5.1). The congruence between efficacy beliefs and course grades
for East Berlin children (overall r = .77) is considerably higher than the
correlations for American children (r's about .30), as reported by Skinner,
Wellborn, and Connell (1990), using a similar instrument.
The differential mean levels (Figure 5.2) between East and West Berlin
children are mainly due to children at the lower levels of intellectual func-tioning, as assessed with the RAVEN matrices (Oettingen & Little, 1993).Highly intelligent children in East and West Berlin do not differ signifi-cantly in their self-efficacy judgments, whereas significantly lower scoresare observed in East as compared to West Berlin children in the low and
medium intelligence groups.
The difference between East and West Berlin children in their readiness
to conform to their teachers' evaluations is also moderated by thechildren's intelligence. For East Berlin children who ranked in the lower
third of intelligence, more than
80% of the variance in efficacy beliefs was
explained by course grades (see Figure 5.3). This was 40% more than inthe comparable West Berlin group. For the children of medium intelli-
gence the difference was
16%, whereas no difference in explained variance
was observed for the high intelligence group. This pattern of results can-
not be explained by differences in variance of teacher evaluations (course
grades) or agency beliefs, because the variances of these variables did notdiffer between groups of different intelligence (RAVEN scores) across andwithin East and West Berlin.
Correlations between efficacy beliefs and course grades increase with
intelligence within the West Berlin sample (see Figure 5.3). This is in line

164 Gabriele Oettingen
• East Berlin
• West Berlin
Low Middle
RAVEN – IQHigh
Figure 5.2. Mean differences of efficacy beliefs (effort, ability, and luck) by
tripartite RAVEN-IQ in East and West Berlin children. Nonoverlapping
error bars mean p < .05 (from Oettingen & Little, 1993).
1.0n
CO
Q)
a; 0.8 H
(D
8
o0.4-
15
Ia2H
0.0
LowEast Berlin
West Berlin
1
Middle
RAVEN – IQHigh
Figure 5.3. Correlations of efficacy beliefs (effort, ability, and luck) with
course grades by tripartite RAVEN-IQ in East and West Berlin children.
Nonoverlapping error bars mean p < .05 (from Oettingen & Little, 1993).

Cross-cultural perspectives on self-efficacy 165
with findings of a meta-analysis by Mabe and West (1982) and the com-
mon observation in the Western literature that positive performance feed-
back is more readily accepted than negative performance feedback (for
summaries, see Taylor, 1989; Taylor & Brown, 1988). In contrast, in East
Berlin, where accurate self-evaluation was the explicit educational goal,
the less intelligent children accepted their negative social evaluation more
readily than the more intelligent children accepted their positive evalua-
tion. Apparently, the East Berlin school context was successful in forcing
less intelligent students to turn their initial performance optimism into a
more negative self-view.
Implications for East and West Berlin children
Low efficacy beliefs undermine motivation, generate negative affect, and
impair cognitive functioning. For example, people with low self-efficacy
beliefs give up more readily in the face of difficulties, experience more
anxiety, are less effective in using problem-solving strategies, and have
lower aspirations (Bandura, 1986, 1991, in press; Betz & Hackett, 1986;
Multon, Brown, & Lent, 1991; Pintrich & De Groot, 1990; Schunk, 1991;
Wood & Bandura, 1989).
Accordingly, East Berlin children should be more handicapped by moti-
vational and affective problems linked to a low sense of efficacy than their
West Berlin peers. The high correlations between efficacy beliefs and
course grades in East Berlin also suggest negative consequences of having
to judge one's capabilities in accordance with teacher and group evalua-
tions. From the beginning of their schooling, East Berlin children believe
they are capable of achieving only as much as their teachers' opinions sug-
gest.
This is especially true for children functioning at the lower level of intel-
ligence. They are the ones who would really need the motivational and
affective benefits of a positive sense of efficacy. The unusually high corre-
lation of r = .90 between efficacy beliefs and academic performance in the
less intelligent East Berlin children suggests a strong negative prognosis of
low future performance, which considerably narrows their developmental
plasticity (Baltes, 1987).
The unification of East and West Germany requires acculturation for the
East Berlin children (Berry, 1990), because they are adopting the West Ger-
man culture system. In their transition from school to work, East Berlin
youngsters, especially those at lower levels of intellectual functioning,
may be handicapped by a weaker sense of efficacy than their West Berlin
competitors. Moreover, they may be less resilient in dealing with failures,

166 Gabriele Oettingen
because failures readily validate their low self-appraisals of their capabili-
ties.
Our results also suggest implications for the social interactions between
East and West Berliners in the workplace. Misunderstandings might arise
if East Berliners interpret the positive expression of personal efficacy byWest Berliners as presumptuousness and arrogance
(Besserwessi), whereas
West Berliners might tend to interpret the realistic self-appraisals of East
Berliners as inappropriate pessimism. This stereotype is voiced in the West
German popular press, which complains about the chronic motivational
deficits of former East German citizens.
From an ethnocentric West German point of view there is good reason
to be optimistic about effective acculturation of East Germans to the WestGerman society. Our data suggest that a school system issuing repeated
criticism of optimistic self-appraisal can get students to give up their naive
optimism regarding their personal capabilities. When such underminingschool practices are discontinued, which is currently occurring by adop-
tion of the West Berlin school system in the East Berlin schools, the chil-dren are more likely to maintain their positive beliefs in their potential.
Such a West German ethnocentric view might lead one to overlook the
fact that the type of self-efficacy appraisals engaged in East Berlin childrenhad some social advantages for managing life in former East Germany. If
people evaluated themselves adequately, they were engaging in a sociallydesired and valued self-appraisal strategy. Indeed, children who evalu-
ated themselves adequately were rewarded with positions of leadership inthe class-collective (Waterkamp, 1988), whereas voicing an optimistic
sense of personal efficacy brought social censure (Maron, 1992; Week,
1981). The motivational and cognitive benefits of a strong sense of per-
sonal efficacy might thus have incurred social costs.
Comparison of efficacy beliefs in East Berlin and Moscow children
East Berlin had imported the socialistic philosophy of education from the
Soviet Union. In accord with Hofstede's view (1991) that culture manifests
itself in societal institutions, we assumed that East Berlin and Moscowschool systems would show – albeit following the same educational phi-losophies – subtle differences reflecting the cultural value differences
between Russia and East Germany (Stetsenko, Little, Oettingen, & Baltes,
in press).
In the former Soviet Union, both Soviet educational scientists and teach-
ers concurred with the politicians' complaints in the
1980s, that the educa-

Cross-cultural perspectives on self-efficacy 167
tional and political rules were insufficiently obeyed and not effectively
implemented in daily school life. They argued that educational goals andregulations were formally adopted and implemented just as a showcase
(e.g., see Ligachev, 1989). At the same time, youngsters in the upper school
grades frequently complained about their "lack of independence andexcessive petty tutelage by teachers" (Kon,
1989, p. 60). Moreover, Russian
youths commonly disregard school regulations and enjoy making fun of
teachers (Elkonin & Dragunova, 1967; Kon, 1989). This picture of every-day school life fits in with the disrespect for authority and disobedienceexpressed in Russian fairy tales, novels, and proverbs (e.g., "The sky ishigh and the Tsar is far!"). In Hofstede's terms, this type of disrespectpresents a picture of high power distance (see Polivanova, 1992) that isresponded to in a resistant way. In other words, the climate of culturalinstitutions is characterized by rebellion against the authorities' highpower pressures. The school context with its tradition of making fun of
teachers is a case in point. In addition, the Russian political developments
of the past decade indicate an increased readiness for societal change,
which should be accompanied by a value change toward low uncertainty
avoidance.
East Germans, on the other hand, are not known to have rebelled
against the high power distance expressed in their cultural institutions.Rather, they responded by dependence, that is, they respected authoritiesand readily conformed to their power pressures. East Berlin's Prussian tra-dition of submissively dealing with authorities may have prevented resis-tant counterreactions. In addition, East Germany was the last country of
the Eastern bloc to start experimenting with societal change. This indi-
cates that avoiding uncertainty was valued highly in East Germany.Indeed, East Germans waited for the Russians to give allowance and thenreadily accepted West German influences and regulations.
Therefore, children in Moscow, being embedded in a cultural context of
lower power differential (because of counterdependence) and lower un-certainty avoidance than children in East Berlin, should score compara-tively higher on self-efficacy and lower on conformity with teacher evalu-ations. In 1990 we (Little, Oettingen, Stetsenko,
& Baltes, 1994b; Oettingen,
Little, Stetsenko, & Baltes, 1993; Stetsenko et al., in press) assessed the self-
efficacy beliefs of more than 500 children grades two to six of two Moscowschools. The mean levels of self-efficacy beliefs were higher in the Moscow
children than in the East Berlin children, with differences beginning in the
third grade and extending to higher school years. Specifically, the Moscow
children were more confident in being able to mobilize effort, being smart,

168 Gabriele Oettingen
and having luck on their side. The correlations between efficacy beliefs
and course grades were lower in Moscow (r's in the .50s vs. in the .70s in
East Berlin; Stetsenko et al., in press), indicating a lower conformity to the
teachers' competence evaluations in the Moscow than in the East Berlin
children. These findings further suggest that cultural characteristics – in
this case power differential and uncertainty avoidance – influence
children's self-appraisals of efficacy in school settings.
Comparison of efficacy beliefs in Los Angeles and West Berlin children
The effect of cultural variations in educational practices on appraisal of
self-efficacy was also evident in a study comparing more than 600 children
from two Los Angeles schools with our West Berlin sample (Little et al.,
1994b). In the past decades, educational philosophy in the United States
favored school environments that provide opportunities for children to
develop and express their unique potentials (Ames, 1992; Stipek, 1988,
1991). Accordingly, a unidimensional instruction was moderated in favor
of multidimensional teaching. Today, multidimensional teaching practices
are widely used in American schools. Students have much choice as to
what they want to learn (e.g., the subjects of art, math, physics, lan-
guages), how they want to go about it (e.g., materials used, grouping), and
the pace at which they do so. Individualized education makes a clear-cut
ranking of students difficult. Moreover, precise information on where one
actually stands among one's peers does not seem to be a major concern of
teachers, parents, and students.
The everyday school life is in accord with Hofstede's (1980) finding that
the United States is more individualistic than West Germany, the reverse
being true for the dimension of uncertainty avoidance. Indeed, the self-
efficacy beliefs of Los Angeles children were higher than those of the West
Berlin children. At the same time, the correlations between efficacy beliefs
and course grades were lower in Los Angeles than in West Berlin (r's in
the .40s vs. in the .60s in West Berlin; Little et al., 1994b; Little, Oettingen,
Stetsenko, & Baltes, 1993). This suggests that individualist, weak uncer-
tainty-avoidant cultures might promote more optimistic beliefs of per-
sonal efficacy and less comformity with performance evaluations by
teachers than in collectivism strong uncertainty-avoidant cultures.
It seems possible that the observed differences between Los Angeles
and West Berlin may also originate from cultural differences in power dis-
tance. After all, a multidimensional teaching style requires a different
teacher-student relationship than does a unidimensional teaching style.

Cross-cultural perspectives on self-efficacy 169
Indeed, for schools in the United States, Stipek (1988, 1991) postulates a
change in teacher-student relations away from teacher-centered towardchild-centered school practices. Assuming that these changes have beenimplemented to a higher degree in the Los Angeles sample than in the
West Berlin sample, the observed differences in self-efficacy may also be
the result of differences in power distance between teachers and students
in Los Angeles (lower power distance) as compared to West Berlin (higherpower distance). Although Hofstede views the United States, and in par-ticular West Germany, as adhering to low power distance, it is likely that
the West German educational system values power differentials morehighly than the American system. Indeed, the high power differential
characteristic of the West German university system survived the manyreforms aimed at changing an autocratic professor-student relationship.Finally, there are recent complaints about an overemphasis of laissez-faireteaching practices in
U.S. schools.
Summary. Of the four cultural samples, East Berlin children demonstrated
the most pessimistic beliefs of personal efficacy and showed the highest
conformity with teachers' performance evaluations. Descriptive accountsof the educational practices of the East Berlin school system reflect high
collectivism, large power differential, strong uncertainty avoidance, andan emphasis on social comparison. The most optimistic self-efficacy
beliefs and the least pressure for social construction of competence charac-
terized the Los Angeles schoolchildren, who are embedded in a schoolsystem with high levels of individualism and weak ambiguity avoidance.
The West Berlin and Moscow children fell in between in their level of per-
ceived efficacy and conformity with teachers' evaluations.Are the beneficial effects of high self-efficacy universal?Strong efficacy beliefs lead to greater persistence in the face of difficulties,reduce fear of failure, improve problem-focused analytic thinking, andraise aspirations – at least, this is what has been shown in Western cultures
(see Bandura,
1989, in press). But are the beneficial effects of a strong sense
of personal efficacy universal? That is, do they generalize across cultures
irrespective of the different values to which various cultures subscribe?
There is reason to believe that they are indeed universal, because they arefounded in basic psychological principles and mechanisms common tohuman agency in general.
On first sight, however, achieving equivalence across culture in the
assessment of self-efficacy seems hardly feasible. The
public expression of

170 Gabriele Oettingen
high personal efficacy beliefs may incur social costs and these social costs
may differ across cultures. Goffman's (1955,1959) writings on self-presen-
tation point out that allowing others to save face facilitates social interac-
tion. Moderating one's expressions of efficacy in public reduces the risk
that others will feel less efficacious in comparison (i.e., lose face). Cultures
that stress interpersonal harmony (see Markus & Kitayama, 1991;
Rosenberger, 1992) should discourage expressing high self-efficacy beliefs
publicly. This may go so far that even the expression of satisfaction over
personal accomplishments is suppressed. Stipek, Weiner, and Li (1989)
report that the Chinese are less likely than Americans to claim their own
successful efforts as a source of pride. Kitayama and Markus (1990) found
in Japanese subjects that feeling pride (as well as feeling superior, puffed
up) is associated with feelings of indebtedness, shame, and guilt.
But do we have to conclude from these findings that people in cultures
stressing interrelatedness will chronically fail to report on their "true"
sense of personal efficacy, because they succumb to the cultural norm to
be self-effacing? We caution against this conclusion. As Hofstede's de-
scriptions of cultures imply, people in coUectivist cultures focus on pro-
moting the interrelatedness between in-group but not out-group mem-
bers. The described self-effacing expression of efficacy feelings should
therefore solely apply to interactions between in-group members. CoUec-
tivist individuals should feel no qualms expressing a strong sense of effi-
cacy to members of out-groups. As Espinoza and Garza (1985) observed,
collectivist individuals in point of fact fiercely compete with out-group
members, even more so than individualists. In a standard testing situa-
tion, therefore, collectivist individuals should truly report on their self-
efficacy feelings as they are not dealing with their in-group. It is not sur-
prising, then, that Matsui and his colleagues find in Japan the same
self-efficacy effects on career aspirations (Matsui, Ikeda, & Ohnishi, 1989;
Matsui & Onglatco, 1991) and coping with stress (Matsui & Onglatco,
1992) as observed in the United States.
The most frequent criticism of the assumption that self-efficacy effects
are universal, however, is the following: Self-efficacy would by definition
relate to feelings of a single individual's personal efficacy; therefore, the
postulated beneficial effects of self-efficacy on a person's goal pursuit are
to hold only in individualist cultures. But there is no reason to believe that
individuals from collectivist cultures do not form personal goals. Accord-
ing to Hofstede, it is the content of the goals that is different between indi-
vidualist and collectivist cultures. Whereas individualist persons (i.e., idi-
ocentrics; Triandis, 1989) prefer to set goals for themselves that relate to

Cross-cultural perspectives on self-efficacy 171
self-actualization, collectivist individuals (i.e., allocentrics) prefer to set
goals for themselves that relate to promoting the welfare of their in-group.
For both types of goals, it should be the self-efficacious individuals who
make good progress toward realizing their goals, whereas the individuals
plagued by self-doubt should be less effective.
This does not imply that collectivist and individualist society members
feel equally efficacious in individualistic as compared to in-group work
settings. Actually, Earley (1993) observed that members of collectivist cul-
tures felt more self-efficacious in an in-group work setting than members
of individualist cultures, whereas the reverse was true for an individualis-
tic work setting. More important, however, Earley found that the assessed
level of self-efficacy was a highly valid predictor of performance for both
types of work conditions (i.e., individualistic vs. collectivistic) for both
types of people (i.e., individualists vs. collectivists). This latter finding fur-
ther supports the assumption that self-efficacy effects on performance are
universal.
Conclusion remarks
Cross-cultural research on self-efficacy beliefs clarify how efficacy beliefs
originate under different social and institutional practices. It points to the
power of societal institutions, which, in culturally determined ways, mod-
ify prevalence, form, and evaluation of different sources of self-efficacy
information. The research reported in this chapter analyzed how societal
educational institutions differentially affect self-efficacy appraisals of chil-
dren in East Berlin, West Berlin, Moscow, and Los Angeles. Cross-cultural
research also needs to be extended to the effects of the social practices in
the family, the community, and the workplace on self-efficacy appraisals.
The links between cultural differences and their expression in these vari-
ous institutions have yet to be established empirically. Finally, available
evidence indicates that efficacy beliefs have similar effects on human func-
tioning across cultures.
References
Abramson, L. Y., Seligman, M. E. P., & Teasdale, J. D. (1978). Learned helplessness
in humans: Critique and reformulation. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 87, 49-
74.
Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 84,261-271.
Baltes, P. B. (1987). Theoretical propositions of life-span developmental psychol-
ogy: On the dynamics between growth and decline. Developmental Psychology,
23,611-626.

172 Gabriele Oettingen
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84,191-215.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psycholo-
gist, 44,1175-1184.
Bandura, A. (1991). Self-regulation of motivation through anticipatory and self-
reactive mechanisms. In R. A. Dienstbier (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motiva-
tion: Perspectives on motivation. (Vol. 38, pp. 69-164). Lincoln: University of
Nebraska Press.
Bandura, A. (in press). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Berry, J. W. (1990). Psychology of acculturation. In J. J. Berman (Ed.), Nebraska sym-
posium on motivation: Cross-cultural perspectives. (Vol. 37, pp. 201-234). Lincoln:
University of Nebraska Press.
Betz, N. E., & Hackett, G. (1986). Applications of self-efficacy theory to understand-
ing career choice behavior, journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 4,279-289.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1970). Two worlds of childhood. New York: Sage.
DDR: Schule im Aufbruch [East Germany: School awakening]. [Special issue]
(1990). Padagogik, 3.
de Charms, R. (1968). Personal causation: The internal affective determinants of behav-
ior. New York: Academic.
Deci, E. L., Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G, & Ryan, R. M. (1991). Motivation and
education: The self-determination perspective. Special issue: Current issues
and new directions in motivational theory and research. Educational Psycholo-
gist, 26,325-346.
Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and
personality. Psychological Review, 95,256-273.
Earley, P. C. (1993). East meets West meets Mideast: Further explorations of collec-
tivistic and individualistic work groups. Academy of Management Journal, 36,
319-348.
Elkonin, D., & Dragunova, T. (1967). Age-related and individual characteristics of early
adolescents. Moscow: Prosveshenije.
Espinoza, J. A., & Garza, T. (1985). Social group salience and inter-ethnic coopera-
tion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 21, 380-392.
Falkenhagen, H. (1989). Selbstbewusstsein, Selbstregulation und Selbstreflexion
[Self-esteem, self-regulation, and self-reflection]. Erziehungwissenschaftliche
Forschung, 13, 83-90.
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7,
117-140.
Finck, W. (1989). Zu einigen Selbstparametern bei Schulern mit unterschiedlichem
Lernverhalten [On some self-related parameters in school children differing in
learning behavior]. Erziehungswissenschaftliche Forschung, 13,101-110.
Franz, S. (1982). Entwicklung der Selbsteinschatzung bei Schulern [Development of
self-evaluation in school children]. Berlin: Volk und Wissen.
Franz, S. (1987). Unsere Schiller zur Selbsteinschatzung befahigen [Teaching self-evalu-
ation to our students]. Berlin: Volk und Wissen.
Franz, S. (1989). Anforderungsbezogene Selbsteinschatzung bei Abiturstufen-
schiilern und Studenten [Task-related self-evaluation in high school and uni-
versity students]. Erziehungswissenschaftliche Forschung, 13,48-59.
Giessmann, B. (1990). Die FDJ an den Schulen der DDR – Chancen und Grenzen
der Funktionswahrnehmung ["Free German Youth" Organization in schools
in the GDR – Chances and limitations in achieving its political functions].

Cross-cultural perspectives on self-efficacy 173
Zeitschrift fiir Sozialisationsforschung und Erziehungssoziologie (1. Beiheft), 91-
104.
Goffman, E. (1955). On Facework. Psychiatry, 18, 213-231.
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NJ: Double-
day.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related
values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G. (1986). Cultural differences in teaching and learning. International
Journal of Inter cultural Relations, 10, 301-320.
Hofstede, G. (1989). Sozialisation am Arbeitsplatz aus kulturvergleichender Sicht
[Socialization at the workplace from a cross-cultural perspective]. In G.
Trommsdorff (Ed.), Sozialisation im Kulturvergleich [Socialization across culture]
(pp. 156-173). Stuttgart: Enke.
Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. London:
McGraw-Hill.
Hovland, C. I., & Weiss, W. (1952). The influence of source credibility on communi-
cation effectiveness. Public Opinion Quarterly, 15,635-650.
Inkeles, A., & Levinson, D. J. (1969). National character: The study of model per-
sonality and sociocultural systems. In G. Lindsey & E. Aronson (Eds.), The
handbook of social psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 4). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Kavanagh, D. J., & Bower, G. H. (1985). Mood and self-efficacy: Impact of joy and
sadness on perceived capabilities. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 9,507-525.
Kitayama, S., & Markus, H. (1990, August). Culture and emotion: The role of other-
focused emotions. Paper presented at the 98th Annual Convention of the Ameri-
can Psychological Association, Boston.
Klier, F. (1990). Lug Vaterland: Erziehung in der DDR [Lie fatherland: Education in
the GDR]. Munich: Kindler.
Kon, I. S. (1989). The psychology of independence. Soviet Education, 31,57-64.
Krause, C. (1989). Zur Genese des Selbstbildes im Kindes- und Jugendalter –
Ergebnisse und Probleme einer Langsschnittuntersuchung [The development
of the self-image in childhood and adolescence – Results and problems of a
longitudinal investigation]. Erziehungswissenschaftliche Forschung, 13, 7-30.
Lent, R. W., & Hackett, G. (1987). Career self-efficacy: Empirical status and future
directions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 30,347-382.
Ligachev, E. (1989). On the course of restructuring the education system and the
party's tasks in carrying it out. Soviet Education, 31,6-68.
Little, T. D., Oettingen, G., Stetsenko, A., & Baltes, P. B. (1993, July). School perfor-
mance-related beliefs across political system and culture: A comparison of children in
East-, West-Berlin, Moscow, Prague, and Los Angeles. Paper presented at the 3rd
European Congress of Psychology, Tampere, Finland.
Little, T. D., Oettingen, G., Stetsenko, A., & Baltes, P. B. (1994a). A cross-cultural
validity assessment of the revised control, agency, and means-ends interview (CAMI)
using mean and covariance structures (MACS) analyses. Tech. Rep. No. 1. Berlin:
Max Planck Institute for Human Development and Education.
Little, T. D., Oettingen, G., Stetsenko, A., & Baltes, P. B. (1994b). Children's school per-
formance-related beliefs: How do American children compare to German and Russian
children? Unpublished manuscript.
Mabe III, P. A., & West, S. G. (1982). Validity of self-evaluation of ability: A review
and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67,280-296.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cogni-
tion, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98,224-253.
Maron, M. (1992). Zonophobie. Kursbuch, 109,91-96.

174 Gabriele Oettingen
Matsui, T., Ikeda, H., & Ohnishi, R. (1989). Relations of sex-typed socializations to
career self-efficacy expectations of college students. Journal of Vocational Behav-
ior, 35,1-16.
Matsui, T., & Onglatco, M. L. (1991). Instrumentality, expressiveness, and self-effi-
cacy in career activities among Japanese working women. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 39, 241-250.
Matsui, T., & Onglatco, M. L. (1992). Career self-efficacy as a moderator of the rela-
tion between occupational stress and strain. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 41,
79-88.
Multon, K. D., Brown, S. D., & Lent, R. W. (1991). Relation of self-efficacy beliefs to
academic outcomes: A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Counseling Psy-
chology, 38,30-38.
Oettingen, G., & Little, T. D. (1993). Intelligenz und Selbstwirksamkeitsurteile bei
Ost- und Westberliner Schulkindern [Intelligence and performance-related
self-efficacy beliefs in East and West Berlin children]. Zeitschrift filr Sozial-
psychologie, 24,186-197.
Oettingen, G., Little, T. D., Lindenberger, U., & Baltes, P. B. (1994). Causality,
agency, and control beliefs in East versus West Berlin children: A natural exper-
iment on the role of context. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66,579-
595.
Oettingen, G., Little, T. D., Stetsenko, A., & Baltes, P. B. (1993, March). School perfor-
mance-related beliefs across political system and culture: A comparison of children in
East Berlin, West Berlin, Moscow and Los Angeles. Paper presented at the 60th
Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research on Child Development, New
Orleans.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and
peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer.
Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning
components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychol-
ogy, 82,33-40.
Polivanova, K. N. (1992). The modern situation in primary education in Russia. In
A. Tjeldvoll (Ed.), Education in East/Central Europe: Report of the Oslo Seminar
(pp. 225-231). New York: Graduate School of Education Publications.
Rosenberger, N. R. (Ed.). (1992). Japanese sense of self. Cambridge, England: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Rosenholtz, S. J., & Rosenholtz, S. H. (1981). Classroom organization and the per-
ception of ability. Sociology of Education, 54,132-140.
Rosenholtz, S. J., & Simpson, C. (1984). The formation of ability conceptions:
Developmental trend or social construction? Review of Educational Research, 54,
31-63.
Ryan, R. M., & Stiller, J. (1991). The social contexts of internalization: Parent and
teacher influences on autonomy, motivation, and learning. In M. L. Maehr & P
R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement (Vol. 7, pp. 115-149).
Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Schnabel, G. (1977). Die Selbst- und Fremdeinschatzung: Wesentliche Mittel der
Charakterentwicklung [Self- and other evaluations: Critical means for character
development]. Padagogische Lesung. Berlin: Deutsches Institut fur internatio-
nale padagogische Forschung.
Schunk, D. H. (1991). Self-efficacy and academic motivation. Special issue: Current
issues and new directions in motivational theory and research. Educational Psy-
chologist, 26,207-231.

Cross-cultural perspectives on self-efficacy 175
Skinner, E. A., Chapman, M., & Baltes, P. B. (1988). Control, means-ends, and
agency beliefs: A new conceptualization and its measurement during child-hood.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54,117-133.
Skinner, E. A., Wellborn, J. G., & Connell, J. P. (1990). What it takes to do well in
school and whether I've got it: A process model of perceived control and
children's engagement and achievement in school. Journal of Educational Psy-
chology, 82, 22-32.
Sorrentino, R. M., Raynor, J. O., Zubek, J. M, & Short, J.-A. C. (1990). Personality
functioning and change. Informational and affective influences on cognitive,
moral, and social development. In E. T. Higgins & R. M. Sorrentino (Eds.),
Handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behavior (Vol. 2, pp.
193-228). New York: Guilford.
Stetsenko, A., Little, T. D., Oettingen, G., & Baltes, P. B. (in press). Agency, control,
and means-ends beliefs about school performance in Moscow children: How
similar are they to beliefs of Western children? Developmental Psychology.
Stipek, D. J. (1984). The development of achievement motivation. In R. Ames & C.
Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education: Student motivation (Vol. 1, pp.
145-174). Orlando, FL: Academic.
Stipek, D. J. (1988). Motivation to learn: From theory to practice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Stipek, D. J. (1991). Characterizing early childhood education programs. New
Directions for Child Development, 53,47-55.
Stipek, D., Weiner, B., & Li, K. (1989). Testing some attribution-emotion relations in
the People's Republic of China. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56,
109-116.
Stroebe, W. (1976). Is social psychology really that complicated? A review of Mar-
tin Irle's Lehrbuch der Sozialpsychologie. European Journal of Social Psychology,
6,509-511.
Tautz, D. (1978). Erfahrungen bei der Befahigung der Schiller zur realen Selbstein-
schatzung [Experiences with teaching schoolchildren to realistically self-evalu-
ate]. Padagogische Lesung. Berlin: Deutsches Institut fur internationale
padagogische Forschung.
Taylor, S. E. (1989). Positive illusions: Creative self-deception and the healthy mind. New
York: Basic Books.
Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. D. (1988). Illusion and well-being: A social psychological
perspective on mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103,193-210.
Triandis, H. C. (1989). The self and social behavior in differing cultural contexts.
Psychological Review, 96,506-520.
Triandis, H. C, Leung, K., Villareal, M. J., & Clack, F. L. (1985). Allocentric versus
idiocentric tendencies: Convergent and discriminant validation. Journal of
Research in Personality, 19, 395-415.
Triandis, H. C, McCusker, C, & Hui, C. H. (1990). Multimethod probes of individ-
ualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1006-
1020.
Waterkamp, D. (1987). Handbuch zum Bildungswesen der DDR [Handbook of the
educational system of the GDR]. Berlin: Berlin Verlag.
Waterkamp, D. (1988). "Achtung Sammeln": Disziplin in der Schule der DDR
["Attention: Assemble": Discipline in the school of the GDR]. In G. Helwig
(Ed.), Schule in der DDR (pp. 37-64). Cologne, Germany: Wissenschaft und
Politik.

176 Gabriele Oettingen
Waterkamp, D. (1990). Erziehung in der Schule [Education in the school]. In Bun-
desministerium fur innerdeutsche Beziehungen (Ed.), Vergleich von Bildung
und Erziehung in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland und in der Deutschen Demo-
kratischen Republik (pp. 261-277). Cologne, Germany: Wissenschaft und Politik.
Week, H. (1981). Bewertung und Zensierung [Evaluation and grading]. Berlin: Volk
und Wissen.
Wiese, H. (1989). Zur Selbsteinschatzung bei Schiilern 5. und 6. Klassen bezuglich
ihrer Lernmotivation [On self-evaluative judgments of fifth and sixth graders
with respect to their learning motivation]. Erziehungswissenschaftliche For-
schung,13,n7-U3.
Witzlack, G. (1986). Verhaltensbewertung und Schiilerbeurteilung [Evaluating behav-
ior and judging students]. (3rd ed.) Berlin: Volk und Wissen.
Wood, R., & Bandura, A. (1989). Impact of conceptions of ability on self-regulatory
mechanisms and complex decision-making. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 56,407-415.

6. Self-efficacy in stressful
life transitions
MATTHIAS JERUSALEM AND
WALDEMAR MITTAG
During the revolutionary events in East Germany in 1989, more than
300,000 citizens left that country and moved to West Germany. As a result
of this exodus, more than 50,000 migrants settled in West Berlin. Some
came via the West German embassies in Warsaw, Prague, or Budapest, or
fled the country under other dubious and dangerous conditions. A largernumber crossed the border after the fall of the Berlin Wall on November 9,
1989. The aim of our program of research was to investigate psycho-
emotional and health-related adaptation processes within a subgroup ofthese migrants, that is, young adults. The focus centers on two research
issues, both of which concern the contribution of perceived self-efficacy toadaptation processes. The first issue is concerned with whether general
self-efficacy beliefs are affected by this stressful life transition. Thestressors include the environmental constraints in the new country, unem-ployment, and lack of social support. The second issue examined theextent to which interindividual differences in stress appraisals, emotional
states, and health can be predicted by general beliefs in personal efficacy,
employment status, and partnership status as an indicator of access to
social support. In this context, self-efficacy is conceived of not as adomain-specific or situation-specific cognition but as a traitlike generalsense of confidence in one's own capabilities to master different types of
environmental demands.
The decision to leave or flee one's country and home has far-reaching
and severe consequences. According to stress theory, such a migratoryaction can be considered as the onset of a nonnormative critical life transi-tion. As with other critical events (such as accidents, losses, divorce, ill-
ness, etc.) the resultant psychological crisis may have a profound impact
177

178 Matthias Jerusalem and Waldemar Mittag
on personality development, psychosocial functioning, and well-being
(Cohen, 1988; Johnson, 1986; Montada, Filipp, & Lerner, 1992). It is not
only necessary to cope with daily hassles, especially crowded living con-
ditions in camps or makeshift living facilities, but also with the threat of
long-term unemployment and the need to find or cultivate new social net-
works. Thus, the migrants are disadvantaged not only by higher situa-
tional demands than previously, but also by their heightened vulnerability
to stress because they have to deal with loss of their jobs and social sup-
port from former colleagues, friends, and relatives.
According to the cognitive-relational stress theory (Lazarus, 1991;
Lazarus & Folkman, 1987), people's psychological adaptation to new cir-
cumstances may be either facilitated or impeded depending on contextual
factors. These factors include personal resources or vulnerabilities on the
one hand and environmental resources or constraints on the other. In
encounters with stressors, resources, vulnerabilities, and constraints influ-
ence stress appraisals, coping strategies, and subjective well-being. Strong
resources and weak constraints foster adaptive coping strategies that
mediate better psychological and physical well-being than weak resources
and severe constraints (Hobfoll, 1989; Jerusalem, 1993; Jerusalem &
Schwarzer, 1989, 1992). In the research reported here, perceived self-effi-
cacy, employment, and partnership serve as resources in the adaptational
process.
Perceived self-efficacy and adaptation
In the context of stressful life transitions, general beliefs of efficacy may
serve as a personal resource or vulnerability factor (Bandura, 1986, 1991,
1992; Jerusalem, 1990a, 1993; Schwarzer, 1992). People with a high sense of
perceived efficacy trust their own capabilities to master different types of
environmental demands. They tend to interpret demands and problems
more as challenges than as threats or subjectively uncontrollable events.
High perceived efficacy enables individuals to face stressful demands
with confidence, feel motivated by physiological arousal, and judge posi-
tive events as caused by effort and negative events as due primarily to
external circumstances. In these different ways, a generalized belief in
one's efficacy serves as a resource factor that should buffer against dis-
tressing experiences fostering positive "eustress" perceptions instead. In
contrast, individuals who are characterized by low perceived efficacy are
prone to self-doubts, anxiety arousal, threat appraisals of events and per-
ceptions of coping deficiencies when confronted with difficult situations

Self-efficacy in stressful life transitions 179
and demands. Moreover, previous research on anxiety and self-related
cognitions has demonstrated that a low sense of coping efficacy leavespeople vulnerable to aversive experiences because they tend to worry,have weak task-specific competence expectancies, interpret physiologicalarousal as indicative of anxiety, regard social feedback as evaluations ofpersonal value, and feel more personally responsible for failure than for
success (Brown & Siegel, 1988; Carver & Scheier, 1988; Jerusalem, 1990b;
Sarason, 1988; Schwarzer, 1986; Wine, 1982). Distress appraisals under alow sense of efficacy are accompanied by strong negative emotional reac-
tions and somatic complaints, whereas more favorable cognitive interpre-tations of difficult situations under a high sense of efficacy protect against
psychological and physical harm.
Like other traitlike personal characteristics, weak self-efficacy expectan-
cies have numerous causes. A history of failures, lack of supportive feed-
back, and an unfavorable attributional style of one's successes and failuresby parents, teachers, and peers may lead to the development of a tendency
to scan the environment for potential dangers ("sensitizing"), to appraisedemands as threatening, and to cope with problems in dysfunctional
ways. Although general self-efficacy is conceived of as a trait, it is change-
able, especially in response to critical life events by young adults whose
sense of efficacy is not yet as elaborated and stabilized as in older persons.
Thus, changes in the beliefs of personal efficacy might be expected for
young migrants when faced with dramatic shifts in their living condi-
tions. These sociocultural transitions provide totally different starting
points for coping with life demands, new and unfamiliar environmental
opportunities and constraints, societal values and individual skills to
manage them.
Within this stressful transitional adaptation to the new societal living
conditions, self-efficacy can function as a personal resource protecting
against deleterious experiences, negative emotions, and health impair-
ment. Perceived efficacy itself can undergo changes as a result of cumula-tive experiences in coping with complex demands in the new environ-ment.
Environmental constraints and adaptationIn addition to personal resources, environmental constraints are consid-
ered as antecedents of the adaptational dynamics. Among the many daily
hassles that confront migrants are included some major stressors that sig-nificantly threaten the quality of
life. For example, migrants have lost their

180 Matthias Jerusalem and Waldemar Mittag
jobs as well as their former social networks. Because employment and
social integration serve as protective resources in coping with stressful
demands, a lack or impairment of these resources creates personal vulner-
abilities to the adverse effects of unfavorable environmental conditions.
Employment provides income for one's livelihood and a source of
respect in a Western society characterized by high material and economi-
cal values. Thus, the impact of unemployment on personal well-being
goes beyond direct economic costs. Lack or loss of gainful employment
creates insecurity regarding one's future life perspective. Although unem-
ployment can have variable effects, studies generally report impairment of
psychological and physical well-being for the majority of the unem-
ployed, especially those in long-term unemployment (Dooley & Catalano,
1988; Feather, 1990; Mortimer, 1991; Schwefel, Svensson, & Zollner, 1987;
Warr, 1987). Young people are especially vulnerable to such detrimental
psychological consequences because they still are striving to gain an
established and valued position within the society. Unemployment for
them means jeopardizing a hopeful perspective toward the future. The
stressful quality of unemployment is mostly attributable to a weakened
ability to exercise control over one's life because of financial hardships or
disruption of social networks, lowered aspirations, a lot of time without
meaningful activities to break up each day, and reduced opportunities for
social contacts. An enduring status of unemployment requires continuous
adaptational efforts – instrumental actions to eliminate the jobless state as
well as emotional coping to alleviate the distressing experiences of unem-
ployment (Lazarus, 1991). For migrants, unemployment following reloca-
tion appears to be a universal phenomenon not entirely under personal
control. Thus, problem-focused behaviors such as searching or qualifying
for a job may be seen as of limited value. Instead, efforts are focused more
on coping strategies for managing emotional distress, particularly in the
case of extended unemployment. The long-term psychological conse-
quences of unemployment may be feelings of discouragement, hopeless-
ness, and despondency as well as lowered self-worth and health impair-
ment. Kelvin and Jarrett (1985) contend that these adverse effects are
exacerbated by social comparison processes because working people may
perceive the chronically unemployed as inherently inadequate.
A stabile social network is a structural prerequisite to feeling socially inte-
grated and emotionally accepted (Duck, 1990; Lin, Dean, & Ensel, 1986;
Sarason, Sarason, & Pierce, 1990; Schwarzer & Leppin, 1992; Veiel &
Baumann, 1992). Social integration refers to the mere number of social rela-
tionships one has with relatives, friends, colleagues, and the frequency of

Self-efficacy in stressful life transitions 181
contacts with them. Social support refers to the function and quality of ben-
eficial social relationships. Perceived support represents the anticipation of
supportive action if needed, whereas received support reflects the actual
help provided by others in actual social encounters. A general sense that
one is loved and cared for by others, and that these others would help if
really needed, contributes to psychological and physical well-being. Dur-
ing a stressful life transition the perceived availability of social supports
might also help to reduce stress appraisals insofar as the balance between
threat and coping assets may be more favorable. Social support might also
operate as a proactive influence strengthening coping efficacy that dimin-
ishes the threat value of potential stressors (Bandura, 1992). However,
after support is sought, discrepancies between expectation and actuality
may occur. Support received may differ from support expected, either
because members of the social network do not respond appropriately, or
because the amount of available support was underestimated. The most
common and important source of support is an intimate partner with
whom one shares one's dwelling and everyday life.
Partnership can expand social networks and create stronger social
embeddedness because two people usually have a wider range of social
ties than does any one individual. Moreover, a stable partnership might
instill higher confidence in the trustworthiness and the supportiveness of
an intimate partner. Interpersonal commitments to support each other
may also lead to an actual increase in the amount of help given when
needed. For these reasons, partnership should be a prominent predictor of
stress, emotional states, and health. People living with an intimate partner
should suffer less from distressful experiences, and they should benefit
from a more positive psychological and physical well-being than those
who are alone and have no one to turn to in time of need.
The complex stressor of migration
Resource factors may influence psychological and physical well-being
through different mechanisms. Self-efficacy, employment, and partner
support, respectively, may each have either a general benign effect on
well-being or may alleviate stress and its consequences. In the former
case, resources have a direct effect, whereas in the latter instance, re-
sources serve as a buffer or moderator between stressful events and their
consequences. Strong efficacy beliefs might buffer stress effects caused by
unemployment or a lack of a close partner. Employment and partner sup-
port may have a positive long-term influence by strengthening perceived

182 Matthias Jerusalem and Waldemar Mittag
efficacy or at least alleviating some of the negative effects of a weak sense
of efficacy. Resources can differ in psychological significance, making per-
ceived efficacy a dominant predictor and environmental conditions subor-
dinate, or vice versa. Moreover, beneficial and detrimental effects may
depend partly on gender, since both the importance of employment and
social support may differ for men and women (Feather, 1990; Schwarzer &
Leppin, 1992). Last but not least, resource factors might be confounded
with each other at the onset of the adaptation process already. For exam-
ple, rapid reemployment after migration might be a consequence of high
perceived efficacy and respective coping effectiveness, or employed peo-
ple might be more attractive as social partners than unemployed ones.
Such interdependencies must be considered before using separate
resource factors as predictors of stress, emotional reactivity, and health
evaluations.
In accord with these theoretical considerations, the present research
examined individual differences in stress appraisals, anxiety, and subjec-
tive health as a function of perceived self-efficacy, employment status, and
partner support. It was expected that, over time, high self-efficacious
migrants would report more favorable appraisals and well-being than low
self-efficacious migrants. Unemployed persons should perceive more
stressors and experience more anxiety and health complaints than
employed persons. Those having access to a supportive partner should
function better than those living alone. A further issue of interest concerns
the impact of radical social changes on a general sense of personal efficacy
and the effects of employment status and/or supportive partnerships on
changes in perceived self-efficacy. No hypotheses were advanced concern-
ing the interdependencies of personal resources, the occurrence of buffer
or main effects, and the significance of gender differences in effects of
migration.
Analysis of coping with life transitions
In early November 1989, before the opening of the Berlin Wall, a longitudi-
nal study was launched to gain better understanding of the adaptation
processes of refugees and migrants from East Germany. The longitudinal
study included assessments at three points in time. The first wave of
assessment took place around December 1989; data for the second wave
were obtained in the summer of 1990; and the third wave assessment was
conducted in the summer of 1991. The participants were East German
migrants who left their country between August 1989 and February 1990.
Although the sample consisted of 235 migrants, the present analysis is

Self-efficacy in stressful life transitions 183
confined to migrants who were searching for a job because of the theoreti-cal importance of the effects of involuntary unemployment. Housewives
and students were excluded. This subsample comprised
124 young adults,
55 females, and 69 males between 18 and 30 years of age with a median
age of 25 years. Perceived self-efficacy, employment status, partnership,
anxiety, and health indicators were measured by questionnaires at all
three points in time. Stress appraisals were assessed only at the second
and third point in time.
Assessment of variables
Generalized self-efficacy was measured by a German 10-item self-efficacy
scale (Jerusalem & Schwarzer, 1986), based on Bandura's (1977) self-effi-cacy theory. The reliability and predictive validity was verified in prior
studies (Jerusalem & Schwarzer, 1989, 1992; Mittag & Schwarzer, 1993).Sample items include "No matter what comes my way, I am usually ableto handle it," "I remain calm when facing difficulties because I can rely onmy coping abilities."
Employment status was assessed at the three points in time by a single
item on whether the person was employed or unemployed. Employmentstatus was categorized in three separable groups: (a) jobless at all points in
time, (b) jobless at the beginning but employed at Time 3, and (c)
employed at all points in time.
Based on a differentiated family status measure (married, single with or
without partner, etc.), the participants were categorized into two -partner-
ship groups: one group who had a partner at all points in time ("partner"),
the other group who were without a partner at all points in time ("no part-
ner").
Cognitive appraisals were measured by three short psychometric scales
assessing perceived challenge, threat, and loss. The Challenge scale con-
sisted of three items, such as "My present life situation is exciting becauseI am always confronted with new demands."
Threat was measured by a
four-item scale containing statements such as "I worry that I cannot man-age the many new demands."
Loss was represented by four items. A sam-
ple item is: "I am discouraged because since my migration everything has
become even worse."
Anxiety was assessed by a short subscale of four items from the German
version of the State Trait Personality Inventory (STPI; Hodapp, Schwarzer,
Schwenkmezger, Laux, & Spielberger, 1988). A sample item is: "I get tense
and restless when I think of all my worries and problems."

184 Matthias Jerusalem and Waldemar Mittag
Health complaints were measured by 24 items referring to physical com-
plaints such as exhaustion, heart and gastric complaints, and rheumatic
pains (Brahler & Scheer, 1983). In addition, subjects were asked to judge
their current subjective health state on a 4-point Likert scale ("poor," "mod-
erate," "good," "excellent").
Before conducting the detailed statistical analyses, a check of inter-
dependencies among the resource factors yielded no significant correla-
tion coefficients: For both women and men, perceived self-efficacy,
employment status, and partnership turned out to be independent of each
other. To investigate longitudinal adaptation processes, two types of data
analyses were conducted. In a first step, separate analyses of variance with
repeated measures were computed to evaluate longitudinal changes in
perceived self-efficacy as a function of employment status and partner-
ship, respectively. Second, analyses of covariance with repeated measures
were performed to examine effects of the resource factors of perceived
self-efficacy, employment status, and partnership on stress appraisals,
anxiety, and health complaints over time. To control for possible gender
differences, gender was included as a covariant.
Longitudinal changes in self-efficacy
Regarding self-efficacy, neither the sample mean nor the separate means
for different employment status and partnership subgroups changed over
time. Moreover, at all points in time, the environmental resource factors
also did not account for any interindividual differences in perceived self-
efficacy level. The findings were the same for men as for women. In brief,
for the group as a whole, perceived self-efficacy turned out to be stable
over time and was unaffected by employment status, partnership, or gen-
der. However, as we shall see next, migrants varied in their perceived self-
efficacy, which had a strong impact on the quality of their adaptation.
Resources and adaptation processes
To investigate the impact of employment status, partnership, and per-
ceived self-efficacy (at Time 1) on the level and change in adaptation,
three-way analyses of covariance were performed. By median split of the
self-efficacy scores participants were categorized into "low self-efficacy"
and "high self-efficacy" subgroups. Employment status and partnership
were categorized as previously noted. To retain sufficient cell sizes, and in
consideration of the empirical independence among the three resource
factors, each analysis was conducted with only two predictors at a time.

Self-efficacy in stressful life transitions 185
Repeated measures of the dependent variables constituted the within-sub-
jects factors: stress appraisals of challenge, threat, and loss at the last two
points in time, and anxiety, subjective health state, and health complaints
at all points in time. Migrants who were unemployed at point 1 in time
but successfully applied for a job before point 3 in time ("employed at
T3") with respect to all dependent variables ranged between the remain-
ing two employment status groups.
To illustrate most clearly the effects caused by employment status the
figures contain only the two extreme groups, that is, "always employed"
versus "always jobless" young adults. The role of gender is only reported
when it emerges as a significant factor. In all but one of the analyses, per-
ceived self-efficacy, employment status, and partnership had significant
effects on challenge appraisal, perceived threat, and loss. Figure 6.1 dis-
plays the differences for appraisal of challenge at Time 2 and Time 3 as a
function of self-efficacy and partnership. Migrants who expressed a strong
sense of efficacy viewed their social change more as a challenge than did
those of low perceived efficacy. Migrants who had a partner were more
inclined to view the change as a challenge than were migrants without a
partner. Employment status did not account for any differences in ap-
praisal of challenge at any point in time.
Threat appraisals were affected by all resource factors. Main effects
were found for perceived self-efficacy, partnership, and employment sta-
tus. The effects of perceived efficacy and partnership are depicted in Fig-
ure 6.2. Migrants without a close partner viewed their environment as
more threatening than those who had the benefit of a partner. Regardless
of partnerships, migrants of low perceived efficacy felt more threatened
than those of high perceived efficacy. Threat increased slightly for young
migrants living without a partner, whereas threat perceptions clearly
decreased when migrants had the support of a partner. With regard to
employment status, unemployed migrants felt much more threatened
than those who were employed. The former group also suffered from
higher threat compared to those who had found a job during the period of
the study. Over all employment statuses, high self-efficacious persons
reported significantly less threat than low self-efficacious persons. In gen-
eral, males felt more threatened than females. Concerning loss appraisals,
exactly the same patterns of relationships were obtained as with threat
appraisals.
Analyses of anxiety yielded significant effects of perceived self-efficacy
and time indicating a general decline in level of anxiety. However,
changes over time were moderated by partnership. Migrants who had a

No Partner Partner
Challenge
high self-efficacy
low self-efficacy
Time 1 Time 2 Time 3Challenge
10
8-
7-high self-efficacy
low self-efficacy
Time 1 Time 2 Time
6.1. Perceived challenge as a function of perceived personal efficacy and partnership.

No Partner Partner
low self-efficacy
high self-efficacyThreat
10
9-
8-
6-
5low self-efficacy
high self-efficacy(
Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 Time 1
6.2. Perceived threat as a function of perceived personal efficacy and partnership.Time 2 Time

No Partner Partner
Anxiety Anxiety
12
11
9-
8
7-low self-efficacy
high self-efficacy12
11-10-
9-
8
7-
high self-efficacy
Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 Time 1 Time 2 Time
6.3. Level of anxiety as a function of perceived personal efficacy and partnership.

Unemployed Employed
Anxiety Anxiety
high self-efficacy12
11-
10-
9-
87-
6high self-efficacy
Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 Time 1 Time 2
Figure 6.4. Level of anxiety as a function of perceived personal efficacy and employment.

190 Matthias Jerusalem and Waldemar Mittaghigh sense of efficacy felt less anxious than those with low perceived effi-cacy. Partnership did not have an overall effect. However, migrants whohad a close partner became less anxious over time, particularly those oflow self-efficacy, but those who had no partner did not experience anydecline in anxiety over time (see Figure 6.3).
Figure 6.4 shows anxiety level as a function of perceived self-efficacy
and employment status. Apart from the main effect of perceived self-effi-cacy and the general decrease of anxiety over time, there is a statistical ten-
dency for the unemployed to experience more anxiety than the employed.
A theoretically interesting result was found within the group of migrants
who were always employed: Initially those with low perceived efficacy
reported considerably higher anxiety than their high efficacy counter-
parts; but at the last point in time the groups no longer differed in this
respect. This is mainly due to the decline over time in anxiety for the low
self-efficacy group, whereas the high self-efficacy migrants maintainedtheir lower level of anxiety over time.
The effects of perceived efficacy and employment status on subjective
health state are shown in Figure 6.5. The highly efficacious migrants re-
ported better current health than did migrants of low perceived self-effi-cacy. This effect is most evident for long-term unemployed migrants,whereas for the employed ones, perceived self-efficacy seemed to play a
minor role in subjective health. There was also a tendency for the "alwaysemployed" migrants to be in better health than the "always jobless" ones.
Partnership did not exert an unqualified effect on health. Over
time, a gen-
eral improvement in health took place. However, partnership interacted
with perceived efficacy. This interactive effect is shown in Figure 6.6. Low
self-efficacious migrants with a close partner report an improvement inhealth over time, whereas those without a partner did not change for the
better.
Figure 6.7 shows the level of health complaints over time as a function
of employment status and self-efficacy. High perceived self-efficacy wasassociated with fewer health complaints. Over time, these differences
remain much larger in the long-term unemployed than in the always
employed group of young migrants. Indeed, the long-term employed
even attained comparably favorable health complaints scores in high andlow efficacy groups alike. Partnership had no main effect but interactedwith perceived self-efficacy over time. Self-inefficacious migrants withpartners reported a decrease in health complaints, whereas those without
partners reported a decline in health complaints only if they had a high
sense of personal efficacy.

Unemployed Employed
Health
high self-efficacy
low self-efficacy
Time 1 Time 2 Time 3Health
3,5
3-
2,5-high self-efficacy
low self-efficacy
Time 1 Time 2 Time
6.5. Health status as a function of perceived personal efficacy and employment.

No Partner Partner
Health
2,5-high self-efficacy
low self-efficacy
Time 1 Time 2 Time 3Health
3,5
3-high self-efficacy
low self-efficacy
Timel Time 2 Time
6.6. Health status as a function of perceived personal efficacy and partnership.

Unemployed Employed
Health Complaints
Timel Time 2low self-efficacy
high self-efficacy
Time 3Health Complaints
30
20-
10
Timel Time 2low self-efficacy
high self-efficacy
6.7. Health complaints as a function of perceived personal efficacy and employment.

194 Matthias Jerusalem and Waldemar Mittag
In sum, the findings taken as a whole demonstrate that appraisal of
challenges and threats in the new social realities, anxiety, and subjective
health are influenced by both personal and environmental resources.
Long-term unemployment or having no close partner for a long time was
associated with more negative stress appraisals, higher levels of anxiety
and a worse health state. Migrants who had a high sense of efficacy felt
more challenged than threatened by the social changes in their lives. They
reported less anxiety and better health than those of low self-efficacy. Self-
efficacy as a personal resource also seemed to buffer the negative effects
of stressful environmental circumstances. A general sense of efficacy
emerged as a dominant overall predictor, whereas the importance of envi-
ronmental predictors varied depending on the aspect of adaptation being
assessed.
Summary remarks
This research investigated the adaptation processes of young East German
migrants and refugees during a stressful life transition of almost two years
after their move to the West as a reaction to the collapse of the Eastern sys-
tem. A key issue concerned the role of a generalized sense of efficacy to
exercise control over the new and stressful life conditions in this adapta-
tional process. Social resources in the form of employment and close part-
nerships were evaluated as predictors of the adaptation dynamics.
The migrants studied were relatively young. Despite their age, they had
already formed a rather stable trait of general self-efficacy that was not
much affected by the stress of migration, employment, and partnership
status. This stability under substantial environmental change may be
interpreted in several ways. One possibility is that self-beliefs are
crystallised by adolescence or young adulthood and remain resistant to
later environmental influences. An alternative explanation is that youth
who have left their communities in search of a better life continue to
believe in their ultimate capability to succeed. If youths leave countries
permitting little leeway to exercise personal control, they may retain a
sense of efficacy if they have some success in making things happen in
their new environment even though the adaptation involves many
stressors. Realistic anticipations of future barriers, possible setbacks, and
generally difficult circumstances, in conjunction with perceived advan-
tage of being young and the intention to build up a new life, may sustain
beliefs of personal efficacy. Another possibility for the apparent stability
reflects the level at which beliefs of personal efficacy are measured. Global

Self-efficacy in stressful life transitions 195
measures of perceived control may fail to detect changes revealed bydomain-specific measures because they may mask variations across
domains of functioning and different individuals (Lachmann, 1986).
Moreover, this stability of personal efficacy is confined to the time period
observed in this study. It is possible that in the long run repeated failuresto cope with the demands of the new environment would eventually takea toll on perceived self-efficacy.
It is interesting to note that perceived self-efficacy, employment status,
and partnership are not interrelated. General efficacy does not seem to be
an asset on the job market nor an advantage in attracting an intimate part-
ner. Being employed or not and living with a close partner does not affectthe personal belief system. Partnership also does not facilitate job hunting,
and whether young migrants are jobless or employed is irrelevant for
whether they live alone or with a partner. The general nature of the effi-
cacy measure may provide one explanation. Perceived self-efficacy to findgainful employment has been shown to be a good predictor of who suc-ceeds in finding a meaningful job (Kanfer & Hulin, 1985; van Ryn &
Vinokur, 1992). Another possible explanation for this somewhat unex-
pected result is that objective constraints to getting a job are so severe thatneither perceived efficacy nor support of a partner may help to reach that
goal. However, this may change with time. Long-term unemploymentmight weaken generalized self-efficacy beliefs, and weak beliefs might
lead to less persistence in job hunting or even resignation and inactivity,
which in turn can reduce the chances of securing employment. Similar
interrelations may occur in due time regarding partnerships. The crucialquestion could be how long it takes for unemployment and/or living
alone to affect self-worth and self-beliefs.
Perceived self-efficacy proved to be a powerful personal resource
regarding the impact of migration stress on cognitive appraisals as well ason psychological and physical well-being. Perceived self-efficacy had
strong effects on all the aspects of adaptation that were assessed. Highlyself-efficacious migrants perceived the demands in their new life more aschallenges and less as threats. They experienced lower anxiety, betterhealth, and fewer health complaints than low self-efficacious migrants.
The latter group was prone to view the social change as threatening and
stressful, one that took a toll on their physical well-being. A strong senseof personal efficacy seems to reduce the likelihood of negative appraisals
of stressful life demands, and, as a consequence, it provides protection
against emotional distress and health impairments.

196 Matthias Jerusalem and Waldemar Mittag
With regard to environmental factors, employment status also seems to
play an important role in the process of psychological adaptation. Particu-
larly, migrants who remained jobless over two years felt more distressed
and anxious and expressed more health complaints than those who were
employed all along. Thus, long-term unemployment is a risk factor that
increases vulnerability to stress. This adverse effect applies particularly to
young migrants and newcomers who have to start afresh, to strive to
build a secure means of livelihood, and to become accepted within the
new society. Employment is central to fulfilling these aims. To be without
a job means to remain an outsider. Partnership is a second environmental
predictor that accounted only for interindividual differences in cognitive
appraisals: Migrants who had a close partner for support viewed their
new environment more as a challenge than a threat or loss than those who
lived alone all along. Other effects emerged in a time lag. Over time, part-
nered migrants displayed more favorable trends in threat, loss, and anxi-
ety than did those without a close partner. Although moderated by self-
efficacy, similar trends appeared for health complaints. These results
suggest that the direct stress-protective value of a partner's support might
be restricted to appraisals of demands and coping options that in turn
may serve as mediators of indirect support effects on well-being that
become manifest later. Of course, this is rather speculative because the
quality of relationships and the extent to which partners actually offered
support were not evaluated.
Gender differences were found in threat and loss appraisals only.
Females reported less threat and loss experiences than males. Gender did
not interact with employment status and/or partnership in this respect.
Although no gender-specific hypotheses were advanced, it is noteworthy
that the psychological significance of unemployment did not differ with
respect to gender. One might argue that in a society with gender-specific
roles of employed men on the one hand and housewives on the other,
employment might be less important for women than for men. As a conse-
quence, men should be more stressed by unemployment than women. The
lack of gender differences regarding impact of unemployment could be
due to the vocational status of the female population in former East Ger-
many. In contrast to the lower employment rate of women in many West-
ern countries, 80% to 90% of the females had been employed in their home
country. Due to their socialization, previous vocational experience, and its
significance for personal and social standing, employment could be highly
valued and very important for these women. As a consequence, unem-

Self-efficacy in stressful life transitions 197
ployment means a loss of former resources, which affects them just as
much as their male counterparts. Nor were any gender differences found
with regard to partnership. This finding contradicts the social support lit-
erature, which portray women as not more supportive but more depen-
dent on social support than men. Possible reasons for this conflicting
result might be the limitations of the network measure taken to assess
support. Another possibility is that the migrants' common high insecurity
in the new society makes close partnership for males as important as it
does for females.
Considering all three predictors together deepens our understanding of
the psychological dynamics of adaptation to marked life transitions. Not
only were different risk groups of migrants identified, but developmental
trends and mutual buffer mechanisms become evident. When ranking the
subgroups according to their appraisals of stressors, at all points in time
the most unfavorable perceptions of challenge, threat, and loss were
found for low self-efficacious subjects who had no partner or were unem-
ployed. The same detrimental pattern for migrants with prevailing weak
resources emerged regarding their psychological and physical well-being.
It is the multiple handicap of weak personal resources and strong environ-
mental constraints that makes these young migrants most vulnerable to
emotional distress and health impairments. In contrast to the vulnerability
of this high-risk group, migrants characterized by multiple resources, that
is, those with high perceived self-efficacy, a job, and a supportive partner,
benefit substantially from this constellation of factors. They achieved the
most favorable adaptation. The remaining groups characterized by differ-
ent patterns of resources experience levels of stress and impairment of
well-being between the two extreme groups of multiple high resources
and multiple vulnerabilities, respectively. A comparison of the relative
standing of each group illustrates the especially strong psychological
impact produced by multiple risk conditions: The group with the highest
personal and social resources experienced better adaptational outcomes
than those with fewer resources and considerably better than those with
very limited resources.
Subgroups of distinguishable risk conditions also differ with regard to
stress dynamics. For example, in threat appraisals partnership is the deci-
sive factor for change over time: Threat and loss perceptions change for
the better if a partner is available, and for the worse if not. Different pat-
terns also appear for anxiety and health complaints. Although both indi-
cators of negative well-being generally decrease over time, a supportive

198 Matthias Jerusalem and Waldemar Mittag
relationship contributes to this beneficial change. Anxiety levels of
migrants without a supportive partner remain stable; the anxiety of those
living with a partner declines over time. The reduction in anxiety is
greater for the low than for the high self-efficacy group. A supportive part-
ner seems not only to further positive emotional changes but, over time,
may also serve as a buffer that alleviates negative impact of weak general-
ized beliefs.
A similar stress-buffering influence is exerted by perceived self-efficacy
concerning the impact of unemployment on subjective health status. For
employed migrants, perceived self-efficacy does not differentiate reported
health status. For the unemployed ones, however, high self-efficacy beliefs
buffer detrimental influences of unemployment on health. To a lesser
degree perceived self-efficacy also seems to reduce the negative conse-
quences of a lack of a supportive partner on health complaints. These
complex interrelations underline the need to consider different resources
and constraints simultaneously to gain full understanding of the determi-
nants and dynamics of migration stress.
From a theoretical point of view, personal resources and environmental
constraints differ somewhat in their influence on the adaptation process.
Generalized self-efficacy beliefs serve as key moderators for the impact of
environmental demands on stress experiences as represented by cognitive
appraisals and well-being in managing the difficult circumstances of a
major life transition that all migrants must face. A high sense of efficacy
makes life subjectively less stressing, whereas low self-efficacy is accom-
panied by strong distress. Employment status and partnership, in con-
trast, are not clear moderators, but they are personal risk conditions that
change the life situation itself and thereby intensify or lower stress, inde-
pendent of general beliefs.
To a large extent, the empirical findings are in accord with the theoreti-
cal expectations. However, certain limitations of this research should be
acknowledged. Assessment of health status relied on subjective reports.
Stress appraisals were assessed only at two points in time. Therefore,
nothing can be said about initial interindividual differences in appraisals
or whether developmental trends occur that may already begin at the out-
set. Finally, the design implicitly assumes a causal influence of environ-
mental constraints on negative appraisals and affects. Although this direc-
tion is highly reasonable, it cannot be ruled out that the causality operates
in the opposite direction. For example, feeling anxious and sick can be a
justification for not searching for a job or a reason for not being hired. On

Self-efficacy in stressful life transitions 199
the other hand, healthy and psychologically stable individuals usually
have a better chance of finding a job and of staying employed.
Despite some limitations, there is no doubt that for the young migrants
strong self-efficacy beliefs, employment, and a supportive partnership
serve as protective resources against unfavorable appraisals of environ-
mental stress, emotional disturbance, and health impairment. Regarding
the validity and generalizability of these effects, the empirical evidence is
most convincing for the importance of perceived self-efficacy as a per-
sonal resource in adaptation and change. Its overall effects surpass those
of environmental factors. Generalizations about employment and partner
support, however, are more qualified. Employment was assessed only as a
dichotomous variable that does not consider job quality, job satisfaction,
contract conditions, and other conditions of work. In the case of partner-
ship, its psychological relevance might become more evident if indicators
such as perceived and received social support, its subjective evaluation,
size of the social network, and the qualitative character of social relation-
ships or of social support were considered as well.
The major strength of the present study can be seen in its ecological
validity in assessing adaptation in a natural life setting longitudinally. It is
also the only available panel study of psychological changes in East Ger-
man migrants. It is necessary, however, to take into account some pecu-
liarities of the East Germans observed here that make their psychosocial
situation quite different from that of migrants in other cultural settings.
With regard to West Germans, East German immigrants have the same
language, cultural heritage, and perhaps even close relatives. Compared
with these commonalities, migration presents more formidable problems
to migrants who confront barriers of language, cultural patterns, ethnic
differences, and hostility as intruders. It certainly requires a very resistant
sense of efficacy to surmount these multiple barriers. For that reason, the
generalizability of the findings needs to be tested with other migrant
groups adapting to different cultural milieus.
References
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84,191-215.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1991). Self-efficacy conception of anxiety. In R. Schwarzer & R. A.
Wicklund (Eds.), Anxiety and self-focused attention (pp. 89-110). London: Har-
wood Academic Publishers.

200 Matthias Jerusalem and Waldemar Mittag
Bandura, A. (1992). Exercise of personal agency through the self-efficacy mecha-
nism. In R. Schwarzer (Ed.), Self-efficacy: Thought control of action (pp. 3-38).
Washington, DC: Hemisphere.
Brahler, E. & Scheer, J. (1983). Giessener Beschwerdefragebogen (GBB) [Health Com-
plaints Rating Scale]. Bern, Switzerland: Huber.
Brown, J. D., & Siegel, J. M. (1988). Attributions for negative life events and depres-
sion: The role of perceived control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
54, 316-322.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1988). A control-process perspective on anxiety. Anx-
iety Research, 1,17-22.
Cohen, L. H. (Ed.) (1988). Life events and psychosocial functioning: Theoretical and
methodological issues. London: Sage.
Dooley, C. D., & Catalano, R. A. (1988). Psychological effects of unemployment.
Journal of Social Issues, 4.
Duck, S. (Ed.) (1990). Personal relationships and social support. London: Sage.
Feather, N. T. (1990). The psychological impact of unemployment. New York: Springer.
Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing
stress. American Psychologist, 44,513-524.
Hodapp, V., Schwarzer, R., Schwenkmezger, P., Laux, L., & Spielberger, C. D.
(1988). State-Trait Personality Inventory (STPI). Unpublished manuscript.
Dusseldorf, Germany: Heinrich-Heine Universitat Dusseldorf.
Jerusalem, M. (1990a). Persdnliche Ressourcen, Vulnerability und Stresserleben [Per-
sonal resources, vulnerability, and stress]. Gottingen, Germany: Hogrefe.
Jerusalem, M. (1990b). Temporal patterns of stress appraisals for high- and low-
anxious individuals. Anxiety Research, 3,113-129.
Jerusalem, M. (1993). Personal resources, environmental constraints, and adapta-
tional processes: The predictive power of a theoretical stress model. Personality
and Individual Differences, 14,15-24.
Jerusalem, M, & Schwarzer, R. (1986). Selbstwirksamkeit [Self-Efficacy Scale]. In R.
Schwarzer (Ed.), Skalen zur Befindlichkeit und Personlichkeit (pp. 15-28). Berlin:
Freie Universitat, Institut fur Psychologic
Jerusalem, M, & Schwarzer, R. (1989). Anxiety and self-concept as antecedents of
stress and coping: A longitudinal study with German and Turkish adolescents.
Personality and Individual Differences, 10, 785-792.
Jerusalem, M., & Schwarzer, R. (1992). Self-efficacy as a resource factor in stress
appraisal processes. In R. Schwarzer (Ed.), Self-efficacy: Thought control of action
(pp.195-213). Washington, DC: Hemisphere.
Johnson, J. H. (1986). Life events as stressors in childhood and adolescence. Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage.
Kanfer, R., & Hulin, C. L. (1985). Individual differences in successful job searches
following lay-off. Personnel Psychology, 38, 835-848.
Kelvin, P., & Jarrett, J. E. (1985). Unemployment: Its social psychological effects. Cam-
bridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Lachmann, M.E. (1986). Personal control in later life: Stability, change, and cogni-
tive correlates. In M. M. Baltes & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), The psychology of control and
aging (pp. 207-236). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. London: Oxford University Press.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1987). Transactional theory and research on emo-
tions and coping. European Journal of Personality, 1,141-169.
Lin, N., Dean, A., & Ensel, W. (Eds.) (1986). Social support, life events, and depression.
New York: Academic.

Self-efficacy in stressful life transitions 201
Mittag, W., & Schwarzer, R. (1993). Interaction of employment status and self-effi-
cacy on alcohol consumption: A two-wave study on stressful life transitions.
Psychology and Health, 8, 77-S7.
Montada, L., Filipp, S.-H., & Lerner, M. J. (1992). Life crises and experiences of loss in
adulthood. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Mortimer, J. T. (1991). Employment. In R. M. Lerner, A. C. Peterson, & J. Brooks-
Gunn (Eds.), Encyclopaedia of Adolescence (pp. 311-318). New York: Garland.
Sarason, B. R., Sarason, I. G., & Pierce, G. R. (Eds.) (1990). Social support: An interac-
tional view. New York: Wiley.
Sarason, I. G. (1988). Anxiety, self-preoccupation, and attention. Anxiety Research, 1,
3-8.
Schwarzer, R. (Ed.) (1986). Self-related cognitions in anxiety and motivation. Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Schwarzer, R. (Ed.) (1992). Self-efficacy: Thought control of action. Washington, DC:
Hemisphere.
Schwarzer, R., & Leppin, A. (1992). Social support and mental health: A conceptual
and empirical overview. In L. Montada, S.-H. Filipp, & M. J. Lerner (Eds.), Life
crises and experiences of loss in adulthood (pp. 435-458). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Schwefel, D., Svensson, P. G., & Zollner, H. (Eds.) (1987). Unemployment, social vul-
nerability, and health in Europe. Berlin: Springer.
van Ryn, M., & Vinokur, A. D. (1992). How did it work? An examination of the
mechanisms through which an intervention for the unemployed promoted
job-search behavior. American Journal of Community Psychology, 20,577-597.
Veiel, H. O. F., & Baumann, U. (Eds.) (1992). The meaning and measurement of social
support. Washington, DC: Hemisphere.
Warr, P. B. (1987). Work, unemployment, and mental health. Oxford: Clarendon.
Wine, J. D. (1982). Evaluation anxiety: A cognitive-attentional construct. In H. W.
Krohne & L. Laux (Eds.), Achievement, stress, and anxiety (pp. 207-219). Wash-
ington, DC: Hemisphere.

7. Self-efficacy and educational
development
BARRY J. ZIMMERMAN
The ultimate goal of the educational system is to shift to the individual the burden
of pursuing his [sic] own education. – John W. Gardner (1963, p. 21), former U.S.
secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare
With few exceptions, the most demanding cognitive and motivational
challenge that growing children face concerns their development of aca-
demic competencies. This formidable task, which begins for most young-
sters even before they enter school, occupies most of their waking hoursuntil adulthood. It is public, competitive, and self-defining in the sense
that academic records predetermine public reactions and occupational
paths. Within this educational crucible, children acquire their self-concep-
tions of academic agency. It is their growing sense of self-efficacy and pur-pose that serve as major personal influences in their ultimate level ofaccomplishment. To enable these youth to reach John Gardner's (1963)goal of self-education, schools must go beyond teaching intellectual skills
– to foster students' personal development of the self-beliefs and self-regu-
latory capabilities to educate themselves throughout a lifetime.
Although the role of self-conceptions in academic performance has long
been recognized (McCombs,
1989), their measurement and scientific study
has been hampered historically by a variety of conceptual and psychomet-ric problems (Wylie, 1968; Zimmerman, 1989b). This impasse was sur-mounted in 1977 with Bandura's seminal treatise that proposed a theoryof the origins, mediating mechanisms, and diverse effects of beliefs of per-sonal efficacy. It also provided guidelines for measurement of self-efficacy
beliefs for different domains of functioning.
I would like to express my gratitude to Albert Bandura for his helpful comments on an ear-lier draft of this chapter.
202

Self-efficacy and educational development 203
This chapter reviews research regarding the causal or mediational role of
perceived self-efficacy on students' educational development – that is,
how efficacy beliefs affect motivation to learn, affective response to these
efforts, and ultimate academic attainment. Special attention will be de-
voted to the acquisition of self-regulatory capabilities to preside over
one's own learning activities (Zimmerman, 1989a, 1990). This analysis of
causality will also include empirical evidence bearing on the distinctive-
ness of perceived self-efficacy from related theoretical constructs. Closely
associated research on the effects of academic instruction on students' per-
ceived efficacy and its impact on performance will not be addressed here
unless the research sheds light on the issue of causality or predictiveness.
The research literature on the impact of instruction on perceived efficacy
has been reviewed elsewhere and will not be discussed here (e.g., Schunk,
1989,1991). Also excluded from the present chapter is research on the role
of teachers' personal and collective efficacy and students' self-efficacy for
career choices, which has been treated elsewhere (Ashton & Webb, 1986;
Bandura, 1993; Hackett, 1995).
Unique features of academic self-efficacy
Perceived academic self-efficacy is defined as personal judgments of one's
capabilities to organize and execute courses of action to attain designated
types of educational performances (see Bandura, 1977; Schunk 1989). Ban-
dura (1977, 1986) developed scales to measure perceived academic effi-
cacy as part of a microanalytic procedure to assess its level, generality, and
strength across activities and contexts. In terms of academic functioning,
self-efficacy level refers to variations across different levels of tasks, such as
increasingly complex math problems; generality pertains to the transfer of
self-efficacy beliefs across activities, such as different academic subject
matters; strength of perceived efficacy is measured by degrees of certainty
that one can perform given tasks.
A number of unique properties of the construct of self-efficacy are im-
plicit in the assessment methodology. First, self-efficacy involves judg-
ments of capabilities to perform activities rather than personal qualities
such as one's physical characteristics or psychological traits. Students
judge their capabilities to fulfill given task demands, not who they are as
people or how they feel about themselves in general. Second, efficacy be-
liefs are multidimensional rather than a single disposition. Consequently,
efficacy beliefs are linked to different domains of functioning. Thus, effi-
cacy beliefs for mathematics may differ from efficacy beliefs for English

204 Barry J. Zimmerman
composition or artistic production. Third, because many nonability influ-
ences can facilitate or impair the execution of skills, self-efficacy measures
are context-dependent. For example, students may express a lower sense
of efficacy to learn in competitive classroom structures than in cooperative
ones.
A fourth feature of self-efficacy measures, related to their strength
dimension, is their dependence on a mastery criterion of performance
rather than normative or other criteria. For example, students rate their
certainty that they can solve mathematical problems of varying difficulty,
not how well they expect to do in comparison to other students (Bandura
& Schunk, 1981). Finally, self-efficacy is measured before students perform
the relevant activities. This antecedent property provides the temporal
ordering for evaluating the role of self-efficacy beliefs in causal structures.
Self-efficacy and academic motivation
A key empirical issue concerns the validity of self-efficacy beliefs in pre-
dicting students' motivation. Bandura (1977) hypothesized that efficacy
beliefs influence level of effort, persistence, and choice of activities. Stu-
dents with a high sense of efficacy for accomplishing an educational task
will participate more readily, work harder, and persist longer when they
encounter difficulties than those who doubt their capabilities. Two mea-
sures of effort have been employed in research on self-efficacy. These
include rate of performance and expenditure of energy. There is evidence
that self-efficacy is associated with both indices of motivation. For exam-
ple, perceived self-efficacy for learning correlates positively with students'
rate of solution of arithmetic problems (Schunk & Hanson, 1985; Schunk,
Hanson, & Cox, 1987). Self-efficacy is positively related to self-rated men-
tal effort and achievement during students' learning from text material
that was perceived as difficult (Salomon, 1984).
Considerable support has also been found regarding the effects of per-
ceived self-efficacy on persistence. For example, Schunk (1981) found that
modeling and didactic forms of arithmetic instruction increased students'
self-efficacy beliefs, persistence during the posttest, and acquisition of
arithmetic skills in students who were very low achievers in mathematics.
Path analyses of causality revealed (see Figure 7.1) that the instructional
treatments influenced children's arithmetic skills directly as well as indi-
rectly, through their perceived efficacy beliefs. Students' perceived self-
efficacy influenced their skill acquisition both directly and indirectly by
heightening their persistence. The direct effect indicates that perceived

Self-efficacy and educational development 205
INSTRUCTIONAL
TREATMENT
Figure 7.1. Path model showing effects of instructional treatment, self-effi-
cacy, and persistence on subsequent skillful performance (Schunk, 1984).
Adapted from "Self-efficacy perspective on achievement behavior" by D.
H. Schunk, Educational Psychologist, 19, p. 51. Copyright 1984 by the Ameri-
can Psychological Association. Reprinted by permission.
self-efficacy influences students' learning through cognitive as well as
motivational mechanisms.
Bandura (1993) has posited that perceived self-efficacy encompasses
more than beliefs that effort determines performance. Judgments of one's
knowledge, skills, strategies, and stress management also enter into the
formation of efficacy beliefs. Berry (1987) similarly found that perceived
efficacy contributes to memory performance both directly and by enhanc-
ing persistence. The role of efficacy beliefs in supporting persistence in the
face of failure and in transferring this motivation to new tasks has also
been investigated. Lyman and his associates studied the effects of success
and failure on self-efficacy and persistence using a pattern-matching task
with conduct-disordered children. Perceived self-efficacy was related to
persistence in the face of negative feedback (Lyman, Prentice-Dunn, Wil-
son, & Bonfilio, 1984). Zimmerman and Ringle (1981) demonstrated the
generalized effect of efficacy beliefs on persistence in research using
unsolvable problem tasks. Elementary schoolchildren who had observed
an optimistic model not only continued to be more self-efficacious and
persistent during problem solving on a similar nonverbal task than
youngsters who had viewed a pessimistic model; they also generalized
their efficacy beliefs and motivation to different verbal problems. This evi-
dence of transfer is of particular significance because it indicates that the

206 Barry J. Zimmerman
motivational effects of efficacy beliefs are not limited to a specific task but
extend to other tasks in the same context.
Efficacy beliefs have also been studied in relation to students' persis-
tence and academic success in pursuing a major in college. Lent, Brown,
and Larkin (1984) investigated self-efficacy for attaining each of 15 scien-
tific and technical occupations. During a 1-year followup, students with
strong belief in their ability displayed greater persistence and achieved
significantly higher grades in science and engineering courses than those
with low confidence. Perceived efficacy correlated positively with objec-
tive measures of mathematics aptitude and high school achievement.
These findings were replicated in subsequent research (Lent, Brown, &
Larkin, 1986), and additionally, self-efficacy was found to predict persis-
tence and academic performance in the science/engineering major even
when the variance attributable to other variables was controlled.
People's appraisal of their efficacy is strongly influenced by social com-
parisons (Bandura & Jourden, 1991). This is especially true in educational
contexts where academic performances are subjected to a great deal of
modeling and comparative evaluation. The successes and failures of oth-
ers can affect one's own efficacy and motivation through perceived simi-
larity. Brown and Inouye (1978) studied the role of perceived similarity in
competence with a peer model. College students judged self-efficacy for
solving anagrams and then attempted to solve them. Subjects were told
they performed better than, or the same as, a model, who was observed to
fail on this task. Observers maintained a high sense of efficacy and did not
slacken their efforts, despite repeated failure, after exposure to a failing
model whom they believed to be of lower ability. In contrast, observing a
model of comparable ability fail had a detrimental effect on observers'
self-efficacy and persistence. The more their self-efficacy was undermined
by vicarious failure, the more readily they gave up when they encoun-
tered difficulty.
When tasks are solvable in persistence studies, self-efficacious children
will solve them quicker (and have no need to persist) than those who
doubt their capabilities. Such test conditions can yield the seemingly para-
doxical finding that self-efficacious children are less persistent. The moti-
vation effects of efficacy beliefs are, therefore, best tested on difficult or
unsolvable problems. On such tasks, self-efficacious children tend to be
more persistent than inefficacious youngsters.
The third measure of students' motivation that has been studied is their
choice of activities. Bandura (1977) theorized that students with a high
sense of efficacy will undertake difficult and challenging tasks readily,

Self-efficacy and educational development 207
whereas youngsters who doubt their capabilities will avoid difficult tasks.
This hypothesis has been investigated in several studies providing choice
of activities and assessments of intrinsic interest. Bandura and Schunk
(1981) studied the effects of proximal and distal goal setting on children's
mastery of arithmetic operations through self-directed learning. Learning
under proximal goals enhanced their perceived self-efficacy, rate of prob-
lem solving, and arithmetic attainments. Children were later given an
opportunity to continue to do subtraction problems or to engage in a dif-
ferent type of task. The higher the children's sense of efficacy the greater
their intrinsic interest in the arithmetic activity. Blom and Zimmerman
(Zimmerman, 1985) also studied the influence of self-efficacy on choice
behavior involving students' problem solving tasks. Providing feedback
that conveyed competence to the youngsters increased not only their per-
ceptions of self-efficacy but also their choice of this task in tests of intrinsic
interest. Competence feedback also increased students' valuation of the
task.
Perceived self-efficacy is also positively correlated with students' choice
of majors in college, the success in course work, and perseverance in the
field of study (Hackett & Betz, 1989; Lent, Brown, & Larkin, 1984). The rel-
ative roles of self-efficacy and math attitudes on students' achievement
has been compared using structural modeling techniques. Randhawa,
Beamer, and Lundberg (1993) found that perceived self-efficacy mediated
the causal impact of math attitudes but not the reverse. Students' attrac-
tion toward the subject was insufficient to motivate them to achieve if
they doubted their math capabilities.
The overall findings of cross-sectional, longitudinal, and experimental
studies are quite consistent in showing that beliefs in personal efficacy
enhance effort and persistence in academic activities. In a meta-analytic
review, Multon, Brown, and Lent (1991) identified 68 published and
unpublished studies of self-efficacy and academic outcomes during the
period of 1977-1989. Measures of student motivation were employed in 18
of these studies: 7 studies involved time spent on task (persistence), 9
studies used number of tasks attempted (rate), and 2 studies focused on
the number of academic semesters completed (activity choice). This meta-
analysis revealed a significant positive effect size of r = .34. Students' self-
efficacy beliefs accounted for 12% of the variance in their task persistence.
Interestingly, students' self-efficacy judgments were more predictive of
the rate measure (r = .48) and the semester measure (r = .34) than they
were of the persistence time measures (r = .17). The lower effect size for
persistence may reflect the fact that a high sense of efficacy may foster per-

208 Barry J. Zimmerman
sistence on difficult tasks but low persistence through quick solution of
moderately difficult tasks.
Self-efficacy and academic achievement
Because perceived self-efficacy fosters engagement in learning activities
that promote the development of educational competencies, such beliefs
affect level of achievement as well as motivation. Schunk (1989,1991) and
his coworkers have conducted a program of research in which children
with major academic deficiencies engaged in self-directed learning of
mathematical and language skills. The subject matter was structured for
them in easily mastered steps in which they learned the basic principles
and practiced applying the knowledge. Instructional influences were
added that could alter children's perceptions of cognitive efficacy. These
included modeling of cognitive strategies, self-verbalization of cognitive
operations and strategies, goal setting, self-monitoring, social comparison,
and attributional feedback. The instructional programs and supplemen-
tary social experiences enhanced children's self-appraisal of their intellec-
tual capabilities.
Low-achieving children who observe an adult model arithmetic opera-
tions while verbalizing the underlying cognitive strategies display greater
acquisition of perceived efficacy and academic skills than youngsters who
receive didactic instruction involving step-by-step descriptions of the
operations (Schunk, 1981). Training students to verbalize the component
steps of higher order strategies increases efficacy beliefs and learning even
further because it enhances attention to important task features and the
encoding of the information for retention (Schunk & Rice, 1984). Perfor-
mance feedback has been studied by Schunk as another adjunct to strat-
egy instruction. When feedback for prior performance successes is attrib-
uted to effort, students perceive greater progress, maintain higher
motivation, and a stronger source of efficacy for further learning (Schunk,
1987). Another form of instructional feedback compares students' perfor-
mance level to that of other students. Social comparative feedback reveal-
ing that other students can master the academic material increases beliefs
of personal efficacy, skill acquisition, and performance (Schunk, 1983a).
Clearly, social and evaluative feedback accompanying formal instruction
influences self-efficacy beliefs, which in turn enhance development of aca-
demic competencies.
Schunk has shown that the frequency and immediacy of performance
feedback also affect perceptions of personal efficacy. For example, regard-

Self-efficacy and educational development 209
less of whether daily progress in learning is monitored by a teacher or by
students themselves, it creates higher perceptions of efficacy and arithme-
tic skill (Schunk, 1983b). When students adopt or personally set a learning
goal, they experience an increase in efficacy for attaining it that is further
strengthened by progress in learning. Setting proximal goals enhances
self-efficacy and skill development more effectively than distal goals
because the proximal attainments provide evidence of expanding capabil-
ities (Bandura & Schunk, 1981). Schunk (1984) examined the joint effects
of proximal goal setting and performance contingent rewards for progress
made in learning. Although both instructional procedures were effective,
their combination produced the highest level of self-efficacy and arithme-
tic skill. Providing students with a clear standard against which to gauge
progress significantly enhanced their responsiveness to performance feed-
back. Finally, encouraging students to set their own goals improved not
only their efficacy beliefs but their commitment to attaining them as well
(Schunk, 1985).
In these investigations, Schunk and colleagues have demonstrated the
impact of efficacy beliefs on engagement in learning and academic
achievement (Schunk, 1989). Children's belief in their efficacy for learning
predicts their rate of problem solutions during instructional sessions
(range of r's = .33 to .42) and posttest level of self-efficacy and academic
skill (range of r's = .46 to .90). Regression analyses reveal that efficacy
beliefs made unique contributions to increment academic attainment over
and above instruction (range of R2 = .17 to .24). As previously noted, path
analyses conducted by Schunk and others have established the causal role
of efficacy beliefs in the development of academic competencies (Berry,
1987; Schunk, 1981).
This instructional research bears on the issue of causality in several
important ways. Participants in these studies have little or no skill in the
subject matter to provide a source of perceived efficacy. Instead efficacy
beliefs are raised to differing levels by systematic variation in instructional
treatment, removing ambiguity concerning causality. The acquisition of
cognitive subskills is measured throughout the sessions so that the size of
the independent contribution of perceived self-efficacy to academic per-
formance can be gauged. These studies consistently demonstrate that effi-
cacy beliefs are influenced by acquisition of skills but are not merely a
reflection of them. Students with the same level of cognitive skill develop-
ment vary in their intellectual performances depending on the strength of
their perceived self-efficacy. Signs of progress are appraised cognitively in

210 Barry J. Zimmerman
forming efficacy beliefs, which in turn affect the consistency and effective-
ness with which students apply their skills. Moreover, the different types
of psychosocial influences, such as evaluative feedback and social com-
parative information, contribute to efficacy beliefs independently of skills.
Finally, the treatments build academic competencies in educational set-
tings, which increases the generality of the results to everyday classroom
learning.
In investigations by Schunk and colleagues as well as by others, three
indices of academic achievement have been studied in relation to stu-
dents' efficacy beliefs. These include basic cognitive skills, performance in
academic course work, and standardized achievement tests. Efficacy
beliefs have been shown to affect all three forms of academic performance.
In their meta-analysis, Multon, Brown, and Lent (1991) examined
the effect of efficacy beliefs on students' academic achievement. They
identified 38 published and unpublished studies that measured academic
performance. Twenty-five studies assessed basic cognitive skills, 9 investi-
gated performance in academic course work, and 4 studies used standard-
ized achievement tests. The analyses yielded a positive effect size of .38,
indicating that self-efficacy accounted for approximately 14% of the vari-
ance in students' academic performance across a variety of student sam-
ples, experimental designs, and criterion measures. The effect sizes were
much larger when posttreatment efficacy beliefs serve as predictors (.58)
than for pretreatment efficacy beliefs (.32). When children's perceived aca-
demic efficacy is raised by guided mastery experiences, instructional
modeling, and supportive feedback, the altered efficacy beliefs rather than
the pretest beliefs are the relevant predictors of subsequent academic
attainments.
Multon and his colleagues reported several additional interesting find-
ings. A stronger relationship between efficacy beliefs and student achieve-
ment was found among low-achieving students (.56) than among youth
making good academic progress (.33). Whether this difference is partly
due to ceiling effects among high-achieving students needs to be exam-
ined. The relationship between perceived self-efficacy and academic
attainment was also higher for high school and college subjects (.41 and
.35 respectively) than for elementary school youngsters (.21). Multon and
his colleagues speculated that older students may be better able to assess
their academic capabilities because of their greater experience in school.
However, Assor and Connell (1992) found that level of accuracy did not
diminish the validity of perceived efficacy measures in predicting their

Self-efficacy and educational development 211
engagement on academic tasks and performance attainments beyond the
second grade. A more plausible explanation for the differential effect size
concerns the growing importance of self-directedness with advances in
education.
Finally, Multon and colleagues noted that the relation between efficacy
beliefs and achievement depended on the type of outcome measure
selected, with the strongest effect size attained for basic cognitive skills
(.52), an intermediate effect for performance in course work (.36), and the
smallest effect by standardized tests (.13). This pattern of correlations is in
accord with the domain relatedness of efficacy judgments. Most of the
studies measure efficacy to perform basic cognitive operations. Were chil-
dren to judge their efficacy for course grades or percentile ranks on stan-
dardized achievement tests, the correlations would probably be higher.
The latter two measures not only tap cognitive functioning but other fac-
tors as well. Moreover, they are quantified in terms of relative standing
rather than absolute performance.
Although gender differences in self-efficacy did not emerge across tasks
and outcome measures in this meta-analysis (Multon et al., 1991), there is
evidence they occur in research on mathematics. This issue was investi-
gated because boys have often scored higher on standardized tests of
mathematical achievement than girls (Kimball, 1989). Research revealed
that boys surpass girls in perceived efficacy in math at elementary school
(Schunk & Lilly, 1984), high school (Randhawa, Beamer, & Lundberg,
1993), and college levels (Betz & Hackett, 1983).
When the causal role of efficacy beliefs was compared with that of
attitudes and anxiety about mathematics, efficacy beliefs were found to be
the primary mediator of achievement outcomes (Meece, Wigfield, &
Eccles, 1990; Randhawa, Beamer, & Lundberg, 1993). In fact, self-efficacy
beliefs were a better predictor of college students' choice of a major than
prior mathematical achievement (Hackett & Betz, 1989). Although no gen-
der differences in the causal role of self-efficacy on math achievement
emerged in path analyses (Meece, Wigfield, & Eccles, 1990; Randhawa,
Beamer, & Lundberg, 1993), the higher perceived math efficacy of males
was linked directly to their greater choice of math-related careers (Betz &
Hackett, 1983). Moreover, a measure of a masculine sex role orientation
(regardless of students' actual gender) was significantly related to stu-
dents' math efficacy beliefs, whereas a feminine orientation was not.
Because the superior achievement of boys in math cannot be attributed
merely to differences in classroom behavior (Randhawa, 1991) and be-

212 Barry J. Zimmerman
cause girls do as well as boys according to teacher-assigned grades (Kim-
ball, 1989), there is strong reason for educators to focus on improving
girls' perceptions of efficacy in mathematics.
Self-efficacy and academic affect
Student's beliefs about their efficacy to manage academic task demands
influence emotional states, such as stress, anxiety, and depression, as well
as motivation and academic achievement (Bandura, 1993). In social cogni-
tive theory, perceived ability to control potentially threatening events
plays a central role in anxiety arousal and coping behavior. Because anxi-
ety has both cognitive and physiological aspects (Morris & Liebert, 1970),
it can intrude on and impair intellectual functioning.
There is evidence that students' performance in academically threaten-
ing situations depends more on efficacy beliefs than on anxiety arousal.
Meece, Wigfield, and Eccles (1990) studied the role of math anxiety and
two types of efficacy beliefs on students' math performance. The two effi-
cacy beliefs – perceived mathematical ability and math performance ex-
pectancies – represented a domain-specific and a course-specific measure
of efficacy, respectively. Meece and colleagues hypothesized that per-
ceived math ability would affect math performance expectancies longitu-
dinally because the former is less tied to specific performance contexts
than the latter. Performance expectancies would, however, directly influ-
ence academic performance because of their contextual specificity. Both
types of efficacy beliefs were hypothesized to affect math anxiety directly,
whereas the effects of anxiety on academic performance should be medi-
ated through math performance expectancies.
Path analyses revealed support for these hypotheses. Both perceived
ability and performance expectations were predictive of math anxiety. A
low sense of efficacy arouses anxiety over math rather than the other way
around. In addition, students' perceptions of their math ability influenced
their efficacy beliefs for math performance, which in turn affected their
subsequent academic attainment. The effects of math anxiety were medi-
ated through performance expectancies. These results clearly demon-
strated the causal priority of self-efficacy: These beliefs influenced anxiety
level and level of math performance, whereas the students' anxiety had no
direct effect on academic performance.
Other studies confirm that efficacy beliefs are more predictive of math
performance than is math anxiety (Siegel, Galassi, & Ware, 1985). When
the effects of math ability were controlled statistically, the strength of effi-

Self-efficacy and educational development 213
cacy beliefs accounted for more than 13% of the variance in their final
math grades, whereas math anxiety did not prove to be a significant pre-
dictor. Together these studies support Bandura's (1993) recommendation
that educators should focus on fostering a sense of personal efficacy rather
than providing palliatives for scholastic anxiety.
Comparing self-efficacy and related constructs
A rather major issue regarding the causal or mediational function of be-
liefs of personal efficacy concerns its conceptual and empirical distinctive-
ness from closely related constructs. Many of these related constructs,
such as academic ability, causal attributions, and perceived self-compe-
tence, have been emphasized in other theoretical accounts of educational
development.
Academic ability
Students who have developed their abilities should perform well on stan-
dardized tests of achievement such as those in mathematics. Bandura
(1993) has noted, however, that merely possessing knowledge and skills
does not mean that one will necessarily use them effectively under diffi-
cult conditions. For example, students with the same level of ability may
differ considerably in their perceived efficacy to manage academic
demands because successful performance requires self-regulation of moti-
vation, disruptive thought processes, and aversive emotional reactions.
Efficacy beliefs, therefore, contribute to academic performance over and
above actual ability (Bandura, 1993).
Empirical support for this view has been reported in several investiga-
tions. For example, Collins (1982) identified children of either high or low
perceived math efficacy within each of three levels of mathematical ability.
At each level of ability, students who were assured in their efficacy dis-
carded faulty solution strategies more quickly, reworked more failed prob-
lems, and achieved higher performance than did children of equal ability
who doubted their capabilities. Collins found that self-efficacy was a bet-
ter predictor of positive attitudes toward mathematics than actual ability.
Bouffard-Bouchard (1989) selected children at two levels of ability and
created different levels of perceived efficacy experimentally rather than by
selection. This provides a strong basis for causal inference. Efficacy beliefs
were systematically varied through arbitrary feedback that the children
excelled or fell short of a comparison group on a novel problem-solving
task. Although they did not differ in ability at pretest from students whose

214 Barry J. Zimmerman
efficacy was lowered, those whose efficacy was raised used more effective
strategies and were more effective in problem solving. The higher the effi-
cacy beliefs, the more successfully the students performed. Clearly, per-
ceived self-efficacy is distinguishable from actual academic ability.
Attributions
Efficacy beliefs are influenced by prior accomplishments, but performance
experiences must be appraised cognitively when judging personal effi-
cacy. Some of the factors used in the self-appraisal of efficacy are ones that
are singled out in attribution theory, such as attributing performance
attainments to high effort. In self-appraisal of efficacy, succeeding without
having to exert much effort would signify higher efficacy than success
achieved through laborious effort. According to attribution theorists
(Nicholls, 1978; Weiner, 1985), students' judgments of the cause of their
academic successes and failures will determine their expectancies for
future performance: Attributions of failure to insufficient effort would
heighten performance motivation, whereas attributions to inability would
decrease it. Research reveals a bidirectional relation between causal attri-
butions and beliefs of personal efficacy. Perceived self-efficacy influences
causal attributions. Students of high efficacy attribute failure to insuffi-
cient effort, whereas those of low efficacy ascribe it to deficient ability
(Collins, 1982; Silver, Mitchell, & Gist, 1989). Schunk and his colleagues
(e.g., Schunk, 1981; Schunk & Cox, 1986) have shown that attributional
feedback influences perceptions of efficacy.
A key issue is whether attributional feedback for learning successes
enhances students' learning and motivation directly or indirectly as effects
are perceived. Redlich, Debus, and Walker (1986) demonstrated through
path analyses that attribution retraining in which children's successes
were attributed to ability increased children's perceived self-efficacy and
academic attainments. Perceived self-efficacy had a significant direct in-
fluence on children's math achievement, whereas attribution retraining
exerted its effects through changes in efficacy beliefs. Schunk and his col-
leagues have also shown that causal attributions influence achievement
through changes in perceived efficacy (Schunk & Gunn, 1986; Schunk &
Rice, 1986).
Expectations and values
Expectancy-value theories (e.g., Atkinson, 1957; Feather, 1982) assume that
human behavior is a joint function of people's expectations that a particu-

Self-efficacy and educational development 215
lar behavior will bring certain outcomes and the value of those outcomes.
Clearly if an educational outcome is thought to be unattainable or worth-
less, students will not be motivated. Bandura (1991a) has argued that out-
come expectations and values by themselves are insufficient to motivate
high performance. Students may believe that social rewards and commen-
dations are attainable and value those rewards but do not choose to pur-
sue the academic activity because they believe they lack the capability to
succeed. To predict behavior one must, therefore, measure people's effi-
cacy beliefs as well. For activities in which outcomes are either inherent to
the actions or tightly linked to them by social codes, people's beliefs about
what they can do determine the outcomes they expect. In academic activi-
ties, quality of performance largely determines the outcomes one experi-
ences.
The relation between self-efficacy and outcome expectancies was stud-
ied by Shell, Murphy, and Bruning (1989) in research on reading and writ-
ing achievement. Self-efficacy was measured in terms of perceived capa-
bility to perform various reading and writing activities, whereas outcome
expectancies measured the importance of reading and writing skills in
attaining various outcomes in employment, social pursuits, family life,
education, and citizenship. Efficacy beliefs and outcome expectancies
jointly predicted 32% of the variance in reading achievement with per-
ceived efficacy accounting for virtually all the variance (28%). Only per-
ceived self-efficacy was a significant predictor of writing achievement.
The predictive primacy of efficacy beliefs is corroborated in other aca-
demic activities (Lent, Lopez, & Bieschke, 1991). The explanatory and pre-
dictive value of expectancy-value theories is substantially increased by
including the self-efficacy factor (Ajzen & Madden, 1986; Dzewaltowski,
Noble, & Shaw, 1990; McCaul, O'Neill, & Glasgow, 1988).
Perceived self-competence
Closely associated with the construct of self-efficacy is that of perceived
self-competence. This construct emerged initially from White's (1959) the-
ory of effectance motivation conceptualized as an intrinsic drive to feel
competent. Harter (1978,1985) extended this theory and devised general-
ized measures for cognitive, social, and physical perceived competence.
Effectance theory and self-efficacy theory differ in several important
respects (Bandura, 1986). In the latter theory, perceived efficacy reflects an
acquirable self-belief system; in the former theory it is an expression of an
innate drive. Beliefs of personal efficacy are measured in terms of per-

216 Barry J. Zimmerman
ceived capability to fulfill different levels of challenges in specified do-
mains of functioning; perceived competence is measured in a general way
using normative criteria: Children are asked to compare themselves with
other children in their capabilities, for example, "How good in math are
you?"
Harter (1985) found developmental declines in perceived scholastic
competence from sixth through eighth grades, but not among younger
elementary school children. However, other researchers using self-compe-
tence scales for specific subject matters, such as reading and math, found
declines from the first through the fifth grades (Eccles, Wigfield, Harold, &
Blumenfeld, 1993; Nicholls, 1979). These diminished levels of perceived
competence were sustained or declined even further during adolescence
(Eccles, Midgely, & Adler, 1984). This developmental decline has been
attributed to unrealistically high perceptions of competence of young chil-
dren relative to their peers. As the youngsters progressed through elemen-
tary school, however, their self-perceptions of competence became more
consonant with their teachers' normative assessments of them (Nicholls,
1978; Stipek & Hoffman, 1980).
In contrast to these developmental declines in perceived competence,
students display an increasing trajectory in perceived efficacy from the
fifth through the eleventh grades (Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1990). In
this research, the children's perceived math and verbal efficacy was
assessed in terms of perceived capability to solve problems of increasing
complexity.
Development of academic and self-regulatory efficacy increases aca-
demic attainments. Other investigators (Pintrich & De Groot, 1990) have
found similarly that perceived self-efficacy was predictive of students' use
of cognitive and self-regulative learning strategies in classroom situations,
and that these strategies were in turn predictive of academic attainment.
Thus, self-efficacy is predictive of students' cognitive engagement during
learning as well as their academic accomplishments.
Perceived self-efficacy and perceived competence are concerned to
some extent with beliefs of personal capability. However, efficacy beliefs
are measured in greater depth and are differentiated across domains and
contexts of performance in recognition that the same skills may be differ-
entially applied under different contextual conditions. In judging personal
efficacy to manage given task demands, individuals have to consider not
only their cognitive and behavioral skills but their skills in managing their
motivation and their stress and discouragement in the face of threats and
difficulties. Social cognitive theory describes the origins, mechanisms, and

Self-efficacy and educational development 217
differential effects of efficacy beliefs and provides guides on how to create
and enhance them.
Perceived control
The construct of perceived control, which emerged from earlier research
on locus of control (Rotter, 1966), is concerned with general expectancies
that outcomes are controlled by one's behavior or by external forces. An
internal locus of control would support directed courses of behavior,
whereas an external locus of control would discourage them. In recent
research, Skinner and her colleagues (Skinner, Wellborn, & Connell, 1990)
distinguished among control beliefs that one can produce a given out-
come, means-end strategy beliefs, and agency beliefs that one possesses
the appropriate means beliefs. In order to be motivated to achieve, stu-
dents must believe that (a) certain means are effective, (b) they possess the
means, and (c) they can control the desired outcomes. Self-efficacy is most
closely allied to agency beliefs, although obviously perceived control is
also implicated.
Bandura (1986) has questioned the value of disembodied perceptions of
control that are not tied to personal agency beliefs. People exercise control
by using appropriate means. It is difficult to conceive of controlling out-
comes without a person wielding influence though certain means. Inter-
estingly, Skinner, Wellborn, and Connell (1990) found that the best predic-
tor of student engagement in classroom learning and achievement was a
combination of control beliefs plus an interaction term that includes
agency and strategy beliefs. From a social cognitive perspective (Bandura,
1991a), beliefs that actions control outcomes, although important, are
insufficient to motivate students to pursue academic activities. If students
believe they lack the capability to master academic demands, they will
tend to avoid them even through outcomes are academically achievable.
For example, students might believe that they can control their learning
setting, but they feel they lack the capacity or strategy to learn. In accord
with this view, Smith (1989) reports that perceived efficacy but not locus of
control predicted improvements in performance and reductions in anxiety
in highly self-anxious students who underwent an intensive coping skills
training program.
Self-concept
Although the conceptual distinction between self-efficacy and self-con-
cept beliefs is often overlooked, Bandura (1986) has pointed out that the

218 Barry J. Zimmerman
two constructs represent different phenomena. Self-efficacy is a context-
related judgment of personal ability to organize and execute a course of
action to attain designated levels of performance; whereas self-concept is a
more general self-assessment that includes other self-reactions. Self-con-
cepts do not focus on accomplishing a particular task but instead incorpo-
rate all forms of self-knowledge and self-evaluative feelings (English &
English, 1958).
Historically, self-concept has been defined by phenomenologists as a
global perception of oneself and one's self-esteem or self-worth reactions
to that self-perception (McCombs, 1989). Measures of students' global self-
concept have not been related consistently to their academic performance
(Wylie, 1968). More recently, Shavelson, Huber, and Stanton (1976) have
proposed a multidimensional view of students' self-concept that is differ-
entiated by subject domain and organized hierarchically, with general self-
concept at the apex and content area self-concepts at the bottom (e.g., for
math or reading). They have developed course-particular evaluative ques-
tions, such as "Are you a good math student?" In contrast, self-efficacy
questions minimize the evaluative dimension and focus on certainty
about performing particular academic tasks successfully; for example
"Can you solve this type of math problem?" Although Bandura (1986) has
cautioned against global assessment of self-efficacy, his' guidelines have
not always been followed, and this has led to some misinterpretations of
results.
Recently, the roles of self-efficacy beliefs and domain-particular self-
concepts in students' academic performance have been compared. Par-
jares and Miller (1994) used path analysis procedures to examine the pre-
dictive and mediational roles of these two constructs in mathematical
problem solving by college students. These researchers found that math
self-efficacy was more predictive of problem solving than math self-con-
cept, perceived usefulness of mathematics, prior experience with mathe-
matics, or gender. Self-efficacy also mediated the effect of gender and
prior math experience on self-concept, perceived usefulness, and problem
solving. The poorer performance and lower self-concept of collegiate
women in comparison with men were largely due to lower judgments of
self-efficacy. Similarly, the effect of prior math experiences on math prob-
lem solving was mediated primarily by self-efficacy beliefs, not one's self-
concept. Thus, when self-concept and self-efficacy beliefs are differenti-
ated, self-efficacy beliefs are the principal predictor of math performance.
These results underscore the need to distinguish between self-efficacy and
even multifaceted measures of self-concept in academic learning and per-

Self-efficacy and educational development 219
formance. In comparative tests of predictiveness, the self-concept of abil-
ity does not fare well.
Self-efficacy and educational self-regulation
According to Bandura (1986), "Self-regulatory capabilities require tools of
personal agency and the self-assurance to use them effectively" (p. 435). In
social cognitive theory, self-regulation operates through a set of psycho-
logical subfunctions (Bandura, 1986, 1991b). These include self-monitor-
ing of one's activities, applying personal standards for judging and direct-
ing one's performances, enlisting self-reactive influences to guide and
motivate one's efforts, and employing appropriate strategies to achieve
success (Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1986,1988,1990). It is one thing to
possess self-regulatory skills but another thing to be able to get oneself to
apply them persistently in the face of difficulties, stressors, or competing
attractions. Students register the highest sense of efficacy to manage the
content aspects of instruction, but a low sense of efficacy to manage them-
selves to get their academic activities done (Zimmerman, Bandura, &
Martinez-Pons, 1992). Thus, the aspect of self-regulated learning that
plays a central role – the capability to mobilize, direct, and sustain one's
instructional efforts – has received relatively little attention in studies of
academic self-directedness.
A number of studies have examined the causal role of self-efficacy
beliefs in the operation of the various subfunctions of self-regulation.
Goal setting
Beliefs of personal capabilities affect the goals people select and their com-
mitment to them. The more capable that people judge themselves to be,
the more challenging goals they set for themselves (Bandura, 1986).
Zimmerman, Bandura, and Martinez-Pons (1992) examined the impact of
two facets of efficacy beliefs on goal setting and achievement. Self-efficacy
for self-regulated learning measured students' perceived capability to use
a variety of self-regulated learning strategies. Previous research on stu-
dents' use of these learning strategies revealed a common self-regulation
factor (Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1988). Self-efficacy for academic
achievement measured students' perceived capability to achieve in nine
domains: mathematics, algebra, science, biology, reading and writing,
computer use, foreign language proficiency, social studies, and English
grammar. Efficacy beliefs as well as students' grade goals and the goal
aspirations their parents had for them were measured at the beginning of
the school year.

Figure 7.2. Path coefficients for significant paths between variables in the sociocognitive model of students' self-motivation and
class grades (*p < .05). From "Self-motivation for Academic Attainment: The Role of Self-efficacy Beliefs and Personal Goal-set-
ting" by B. J. Zimmerman, A. Bandura, & M. Martinez-Pons, American Educational Research Journal, 29, p. 671. Copyright 1992
by American Educational Research Association. Adapted by permission of the publisher.

Self-efficacy and educational development 221
The role played by efficacy beliefs in the causal structure was analyzed
by path analysis. Perceived efficacy for self-regulated learning enhanced
perceived efficacy for academic attainment (see Figure 7.2). Perceived aca-
demic self-efficacy in turn raised the academic goals students set for them-
selves and their final academic achievement at the end of the year. Stu-
dents' prior grades were predictive of their parents' grade goals for them,
which in turn were linked to the grade goals their children set for them-
selves. Efficacy beliefs and personal goal setting accounted for 31% of the
variance in their final grades.
Self-evaluation
Self-efficacy beliefs not only influence the goals students set for them-
selves but also their evaluative reactions toward their own performances
(Bandura, 1991a). Zimmerman and Bandura (1994) studied this aspect of
self-regulation in a study of writing proficiency. Skill in formulating ideas
and expressing them well in written form contributes importantly to suc-
cess in all types of academic activities. However, writing presents special
challenges to self-regulation (Bandura, 1986; Bereiter & Scardamalia,
1987; Wason, 1980). This is because writing activities are usually self-
scheduled, performed alone, require creative effort sustained over long
periods with all too frequent stretches of barren results, and what is even-
tually produced must be repeatedly revised to fulfill personal standards of
quality.
Not surprisingly, even professional writers have to resort to varied tech-
niques of self-discipline to promote their writing activities (Barzon, 1964;
Gould, 1980; Wallace & Pear, 1977). A recent national assessment of the
quality of students' writing revealed major deficits in this vital skill (De
Witt, 1992). The processes governing the development of writing profi-
ciency are, therefore, a matter of considerable import.
Instruction in writing strategies and verbal self-guidance have been
shown to enhance perceived self-efficacy and to improve the schematic
structure and quality of compositions (Graham & Harris, 1989a; Schunk &
Swartz, 1993). The present study sought to clarify the self-regulatory
mechanisms through which instruction in strategies for creative writing
fosters the development of writing proficiency.
The role of self-efficacy beliefs concerning the academic attainment and
regulation of writing, academic goals, and self-standards in the develop-
ment of writing proficiency was studied with college freshmen using path
analysis. These self-regulatory variables were measured at the beginning
of a writing course and related to final writing proficiency. Students were

222 Barry J. Zimmerman
tested for their perceived efficacy to regulate writing activities and per-
ceived efficacy for academic attainment in the writing course. They were
also assessed for their grade goals and their self-evaluative standards.
These were measured in terms of the students' level of satisfaction and
dissatisfaction for different levels of writing attainment. Students' verbal
scholastic aptitude and level of instruction were included in the analysis.
Figure 7.3 presents the paths of influence in the development of writing
proficiency. Enhancement of perceived self-efficacy for writing through
instruction raised both perceived academic self-efficacy and personal stan-
dards for the quality of writing considered self-satisfying. High personal
standards and perceived academic self-efficacy in turn fostered adoption
of goals for mastering writing skills. Neither level of writing instruction
nor verbal aptitude had any direct link to course grades. Verbal aptitude
affected development of writing proficiency only indirectly by its influ-
ence on personal standards. Perceived academic self-efficacy influenced
writing attainments both directly and through its impact on personal goal
setting. The full set of predictive variables accounted for 35% of the vari-
ance in writing achievement.
Self-monitoring
Self-monitoring is not simply a mechanical audit of one's behavior but is
rather a selective process in which self-beliefs influence which aspects of
one's performance are given most attention, how they are perceived, and
how the performance information is organized (Bandura, 1986). Bouffard-
Bouchard, Parent, and Larivee (1991) studied the effects of efficacy beliefs
on self-monitoring during concept learning with junior high and high
school students at two levels of cognitive ability. Regardless of academic
grade and level of cognitive ability, efficacy beliefs exerted significant
effects on concept learning. Students of high perceived efficacy were bet-
ter at monitoring their working time, were more persistent, were less
likely to reject correct hypotheses prematurely, and were better at solving
conceptual problems than students of equal ability but of low perceived
efficacy. This study shed light on how efficacy beliefs influence self-moni-
toring processes. Perceived self-efficacy is not simply a reflection of cogni-
tive ability because this factor was controlled.
Time planning and management
As a component of forethought, efficacy beliefs can motivate people to
predict events and to develop ways to control those events that affect

SELF-REGULATORY
EFFICACY FOR
WRITINGSELF-EFFICACY
FOR ACADEMIC
ACHIEVEMENT
WRITING
INSTRUCTIONVERBAL
APTITUDEWRITING
GOALSWRITING
PROFICIENCY
SELF-EVALUATIVE
STANDARDS
Figure 7.3. Path coefficients for the significant paths of influence between variables in the model of self-regulation and final aca-
demic grades (ps < .05). From "Impact on Self-regulatory Influences on Writing Course Attainment" by B. }. Zimmerman & A.
Bandura, American Educational Research Journal, 1994. Copyright 1994 by the American Educational Research Association.
Adapted by permission of the publisher.

224 Barry J. Zimmerman
them (Bandura, 1986, 1991a). Support for this hypothesis emerged in a
longitudinal study of college students' management of their academic
study time. Britton and Tesser (1991) identified a distinct self-efficacy fac-
tor in their scale, which concerned feelings of being in charge of one's
time. Not only did efficacy beliefs predict academic achievement four
years later, but it accounted for three times more variance than did a stan-
dardized scholastic aptitude test. Clearly, effective management of one's
study time contributes importantly to academic self-development (see
Zimmerman, Greenberg, & Weinstein, 1994).
Strategy use
In self-efficacy theory, efficacy beliefs affect human functioning through
four intervening processes (Bandura, 1986). These include motivational,
cognitive, affective, and choice processes. The motivational effects are
rooted in goal setting and outcome expectations. The cognitive effects
include among other things the anticipatory success and failure scenarios
people generate and the acquisition and deployment of strategies for man-
aging environmental demands. Zimmerman and Martinez-Pons (1990)
investigated efficacy beliefs and use of various learning strategies for self-
regulated learning by students in the fifth, eighth, and eleventh grades.
Developmental increases in strategy use and perceived verbal and mathe-
matical efficacy were observed. The study revealed a substantial relation
(16% to 18% shared variance) between efficacy beliefs and strategy use
across the three grade levels of schooling.
In an experimental study bearing on the issue of causality, Schunk and
Swartz (1991) taught gifted fourth-grade students to use a five-step writ-
ing strategy. These youngsters were then encouraged to focus on either
process or products of their writing and were given feedback of progress.
Despite comparable training, only the students who monitored the pro-
cess of strategy applications with feedback increased their perceived writ-
ing efficacy and writing achievement. The higher the students' perceived
efficacy the better was their writing achievement. Students with an en-
hanced sense of efficacy to manage their writing activities continued to
use the writing strategies effectively in followup assessments.
Social cognitive development of educational self-regulation
Virtually all theories of self-regulated learning acknowledge that skills in
self-regulation alone are insufficient to ensure that they will be used well
in particular conditions of learning (Zimmerman & Schunk, 1989). Issues

Self-efficacy and educational development 225
of motivation and development of self-regulation are intimately inter-
twined. Vygotskian sociocultural views of children's self-regulatory de-
velopment emphasize reciprocal teaching and internalization. But this
approach says little about the source of children's motivation except that
they will be motivated when learning activities are embedded in a social
system involving joint participation in learning with peers and/or teach-
ers (Henderson & Cunningham, 1994).
In contrast, social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1993) provides a multifac-
eted approach to children's motivation and self-regulatory development.
Within this conceptual framework, children's efficacy beliefs play a prom-
inent role in regulating cognitive, affective, and motivational factors that
operate in concert in the development of children's capabilities to manage
their own learning and intellectual attainments. This body of research pro-
vides detailed knowledge on how instructional practices influence
children's development of a sense of personal efficacy as well as their self-
regulatory capabilities. Guided mastery is the main vehicle for the cultiva-
tion of intellectual competencies. In this approach, instructive aids and
cognitive modeling are used to convey relevant knowledge and strategies
in graduated steps. Opportunities are provided for guided practice with
instructional feedback in when and how to use cognitive strategies in the
solution of the new problems they face in different situations. Self-involv-
ing motivation and continued personal improvement is ensured by care-
ful structuring of activities, incentives, and personal challenges. Self-
directed mastery experiences are provided to strengthen and generalize
children's growing sense of self-efficacy. Each of these sources of influence
is organized to foster students' self-beliefs that they have what it takes to
exercise control over their educational development.
The present body of research has implications for educational policy as
well as for individual development: Students' improvements in perceived
efficacy and self-regulation cannot be implemented fully unless there is
greater flexibility in the curriculum. For example, if the time constraints
for completion of academic assignments and test preparation were indi-
vidualized, study time could be self-managed more effectively. This adap-
tion in the school curriculum would not only increase students' percep-
tions of self-efficacy but also their motivation and academic success
(Zimmerman, Greenberg, & Weinstein, 1994). Similar benefits would be
obtained if other dimensions of academic learning could be altered to
allow greater self-regulation, such as students' method of learning, type of
motivation, and use of behavioral, environmental, and social supports
(Zimmerman, 1994). When students have both the training and opportu-

226 Barry J. Zimmerman
nity to self-regulate their learning, they are more likely to assume respon-
sibility for their academic achievement.
Conclusion
The research reviewed in this chapter lends validity to the causal role of
students' perceived academic efficacy in different aspects academic func-
tioning – their level of motivation, affective reactions to this process, per-
formance achievements, and most important, their facility in regulating
their own learning. The causal influence of efficacy beliefs on motivation
and achievement is not only pervasive across experimental, cross-sec-
tional, and longitudinal studies (Multon, Brown, & Lent, 1991), it is con-
ceptually and empirically distinct from a wide array of related constructs.
Research establishing the role of efficacy beliefs in key self-regulatory
processes is of importance to educational development. Efforts to promote
self-directed learning must focus on self-referential processes, especially
students' appraisal of their efficacy. Enhancing these key sources of per-
sonal agency, along with meta-cognitive skills, prepares students not only
to gain new knowledge and cultivate new skills but to accept responsibil-
ity for their own education – John Gardner's (1963) ultimate educational
goal.
References
Ajzen, I., & Madden, T. J. (1986). Prediction of goal-directed behavior: Attitudes,
intentions, and perceived behavioral control. Journal of Experimental Social Psy-
chology, 22,453-474.
Ashton, P. T., & Webb, R. B. (1986). Making a difference: Teachers' sense of efficacy and
student achievement. White Plains, NY: Longman.
Assor, A., & Connell, J. P. (1992). The validity of students: Self-reports as measures
of performance affecting self-appraisals. In D. H. Schunk & J. Meece (Eds.),
Student perceptions in the classroom (pp. 25-47). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Atkinson, J. W. (1957). Motivational determinants of risk-taking behavior. Psycho-
logical Review, 64,359-372.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavior change.
Psychological Review, 84,191-215.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1991a). Self-regulation of motivation through anticipatory and self-
regulatory mechanisms. In R. A. Dienstbier (Ed.), Perspectives on motivation:
Nebraska symposium on motivation (Vol. 38, pp. 69-164). Lincoln: University of
Nebraska Press.
Bandura, A. (1991b). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance, 50,248-287.

Self-efficacy and educational development 227
Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and function-
ing. Educational Psychologist, 28,117-148.
Bandura, A., & Jourden, F. J. (1991). Self-regulatory mechanisms governing the
impact of social comparison on complex decision making. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 60,941-951.
Bandura, A., & Schunk, D. H. (1981). Cultivating competence, self-efficacy, and
intrinsic interest through proximal self-motivation. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 41,586-598.
Barzon, J. (1964). Calamaphobia, or hints towards a writer's discipline. In H. Hull
(Ed.), The writer's book, (pp. 84-96). New York: Barnes & Noble.
Bereiter, G, & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Berry, J. M. (1987, September). A self-efficacy model of memory performance. Paper pre-
sented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, New York.
Betz, N. E., & Hackett, G. (1983). The relationship of mathematics self-efficacy
expectations to the selection of science-based college majors. Journal of Voca-
tional Behavior, 18,329-345.
Bouffard-Bouchard, T. (1989). Influence of self-efficacy on performance in a cogni-
tive task. Journal of Social Psychology, 130, 353-363.
Bouffard-Bouchard, T., Parent, S., & Larivee, S. (1991). Influence of self-efficacy on
self- regulation and performance among junior and senior high-school age stu-
dents. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 14,153-164.
Britton, B. K., & Tesser, A. (1991). Effects of time-management practices on college
grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83,405-410.
Brown, I., Jr., & Inouye, D. K. (1978). Learned helplessness through modeling: The
role of perceived similarity in competence. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 36, 900-908.
Collins, J. L. (1982, March). Self-efficacy and ability in achievement behavior. Paper pre-
sented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Associa-
tion, New York City.
De Witt, K. (1992, April 16). Survey shows U. S. children write seldom and not
well. New York Times, p. A-l.
Dzewaltowski, D. A., Noble, J. M., & Shaw, J. M. (1990). Physical activity participa-
tion: Social cognitive theory versus the theories of reasoned action and
planned behavior. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 12, 388-405.
Eccles, J. S., Midgely, C, & Adler, T. (1984). Grade-related changes in the school
environment: Effects on achievement motivation. In J. G. Nicholls (Ed.), The
development of achievement motivation (pp. 283-331). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Eccles, J., Wigfield, A., Harold, R. D., & Blumenfeld, P. (1993). Age and gender dif-
ferences in children self- and task perceptions during elementary school. Child
Development, 64, 830-847.
English, H. B., & English, A. C. (1958). A complete dictionary of psychological and psy-
choanalytic terms. New York: McKay Co.
Feather, N. T. (Ed.). (1982). Expectations and actions: Expectancy-value models in psy-
chology. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gardner, J. W. (1963). Self-renewal. New York: Harper & Row.
Gould, J. (1980). Experiments on composing letters: some facts, some myths, and
some observations. In L. Gregg & E. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writ-
ing, (pp. 97-127). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1989a). Components analysis of cognitive strategy
instruction: Effects on learning disabled students' compositions and self-effi-
cacy. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81,353-361.

228 Barry J. Zimmerman
Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1989b). Improving learning disabled students' skills at
composing essays: Self-instructional strategy training. Exceptional Children, 56,
210-214.
Hackett, G. (1995). Self-efficacy and career choices and development. In A.
Bandura, (Ed.), Self-efficacy in changing societies (pp. 232-258). New York: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Hackett, G., & Betz, N. E. (1981). A self-efficacy approach to career development of
women. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 18,326-339.
Hackett, G., & Betz, N. E. (1989). An exploration of the mathematics self-effi-
cacy/mathematics performance correspondence. Journal for Research in Mathe-
matics Education, 20,263-271.
Harter, S. (1978). Effectance motivation reconsidered: Toward a developmental
model. Human Development, 21,34-64.
Harter, S. (1985). Manual for the self-perception profile for children (revision of the Per-
ceived Competence Scale for Children). Denver, CO: University of Denver
Press.
Henderson, R. W., & Cunningham, L. (1994). Creating interactive sociocultural
environments for self-regulated learning. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman
(Eds.), Self-regulation of learning and performance: Issues and Educational Applica-
tions, (pp. 255-281). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kimball, M. M. (1989). A new perspective on women's math achievement. Psycho-
logical Bulletin, 105,198-214.
Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Larkin, K. C. (1984). Relation of self-efficacy expecta-
tions to academic achievement and persistence. Journal of Counseling Psychol-
ogy, 31,356-362.
Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Larkin, K. C. (1986). Self-efficacy in the prediction of
academic performance and perceived career options. Journal of Counseling Psy-
chology, 33,265-269.
Lent, R. W., Lopez, F. G., & Bieschke, K. J. (1991). Mathematics self-efficacy: Sources
and relation to science-based career choice. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38,
424-430.
Lyman, R. D., Prentice-Dunn, S., Wilson, D. R., & Bonfilio, S. A. (1984). The effect of
success or failure on self-efficacy and task persistence of conduct-disordered
children. Psychology in the Schools, 21, 516-519.
McCaul, K. D., O'Neill, K., & Glasgow, R. E. (1988). Predicting the performance of
dental hygiene behaviors: An examination of the Fishbein and Ajzen model
and self-efficacy expectations. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18,114-128.
McCombs, B. L. (1989). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: A phe-
nomenological view. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated
learning and academic achievement: Theory, Research, and Practice, (pp. 51-82).
New York: Springer.
Meece, J. L., Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (1990). Predictors of math anxiety and its
influence on young adolescents' course enrollment intentions and perfor-
mance in mathematics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 60-70.
Morris, L. W., & Liebert, R. M. (1970). Relationship of cognitive and emotional
components of test anxiety to physiological arousal and academic perfor-
mance. Journal of Clinical and Consulting Psychology, 35,332-337.
Multon, K. D., Brown, S. D., & Lent, R. W. (1991). Relation of self-efficacy beliefs to
academic outcomes: A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Counseling Psy-
chology, 18,30-38.

Self-efficacy and educational development 229
Nicholls, J. (1978). The development of the concepts of effort and ability, percep-
tions of academic attainment, and the understanding that difficult tasks re-
quire more ability. Child Development, 49, 800-814.
Nicholls, J. (1979). Development of perception of own attainment and causal attri-
butions for success and failure in reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71,
94-99.
Pajares, R, & Miller, M. D. (1994). Role of self-efficacy and self-concept beliefs in
mathematical problem solving: A path analysis. Journal of Educational Psychol-
ogy, 86,193-203.
Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning
components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psy-
chology, 82, 33-40.
Randhawa, B. S. (1991). Gender differences in academic achievement: A closer look
at mathematics. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 37,241-257.
Randhawa, B. S., Beamer, J. E., & Lundberg, I. (1993). Role of mathematics self-effi-
cacy in the structural model of mathematics achievement. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 85,41-48.
Redlich, J. D., Debus, R. L., & Walker, R. (1986). The mediating role of attribution
and self-efficacy variables for treatment effects on achievement outcomes. Con-
temporary Educational Psychology, 11,195-216.
Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of
reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80,148-154.
Salomon, G. (1984). Television is "easy" and print is "tough": The differential
investment of mental effort in learning as a function of perceptions and attri-
butions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76,647-658.
Schunk, D. H. (1981). Modeling and attributional feedback effects on children's
achievement: A self-efficacy analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 93-
105.
Schunk, D. H. (1983a). Developing children's self-efficacy and skills: The roles of
social comparative information and goal setting. Contemporary Educational Psy-
chology, 8, 76-86.
Schunk, D. H. (1983b). Progress self-monitoring: Effects on children's self-efficacy
and achievement. Journal of Experimental Education, 51,89-93.
Schunk, D. H. (1984). Enhancing self-efficacy and achievement through rewards
and goals: Motivational and information effects. Journal of Educational Research,
78,29-34.
Schunk, D. H. (1985). Self-efficacy and classroom learning. Psychology in the Schools,
22,208-223.
Schunk, D. H. (1987). Peer models and children's behavioral change. Review of Edu-
cational Research, 57,149-174.
Schunk, D. H. (1989). Self-efficacy and achievement behaviors. Educational Psychol-
ogy Review, 2,173-208.
Schunk, D. H. (1991). Self-efficacy and academic motivation. Educational Psycholo-
gist, 26,207-231.
Schunk D. H., & Cox, P. D. (1986). Strategy training and attributional feedback
with learning-disabled students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 201-209.
Schunk, D. H., & Gunn, T. P. (1986). Self-efficacy and skill development: Influence
of task strategies and attributions. Journal of Educational Research, 79, 238-244.
Schunk, D. H., & Hanson, A. R. (1985). Peer models: Influence on children's self-
efficacy and achievement behaviors. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 313-
322.

230 Barry J. Zimmerman
Schunk, D. Hv Hanson, A. R., & Cox, P. D. (1987). Peer model attributes and
children's achievement behaviors. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 54-61.
Schunk, D. H., & Lilly, M. W. (1984). Sex differences in self-efficacy and attribu-
tions: Influence of performance feedback. Journal of Early Adolescence, 4, 203-
213.
Schunk, D. H., & Rice, M. J. (1984). Strategy self-verbalization during remedial lis-
tening comprehension instruction. Journal of Experimental Education, 53, 49-54.
Schunk, D. H., & Rice, M. J. (1986). Extended attributional feedback: Sequence
effects during remedial reading instruction. Journal of Early Adolescence, 6, 55-
66.
Schunk, D. H., & Swartz, C. W. (1993). Goals and progress feedback: Effects on self-
efficacy and writing achievement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 18,
337-354.
Schunk, D. H., & Swartz, C. W. (1991). Writing strategy instruction with gifted stu-
dents: Effects of goals and feedback on self-efficacy and skills. Roeper Review,
15,225-230.
Shavelson, R. J., Hubner, J. J., & Stanton, G. C. (1976). Self-concept: Validation of
construct interpretations. Review of Educational Research, 46,407-441.
Shell, D. R, Murphy, C. C, & Bruning, R. H. (1989). Self-efficacy and outcome
expectancy mechanisms in reading and writing achievement. Journal of Educa-
tional Psychology, 81, 91-100.
Siegel, R. G., Galassi, J. P., & Ware, W. B. (1985). A comparison of two models for
predicting mathematics performance: Social learning versus math aptitude-
anxiety. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 32, 531-538.
Silver, W. S., Mitchell, T. R., & Gist, M. E. (1989). The impact of self-efficacy on causal
attributions for successful and unsuccessful performance. Unpublished manuscript,
University of Washington.
Skinner, E. A., Wellborn, J. G., & Connell, J. P. (1990). What it takes to do well in
school and whether I've got it: A process model of perceived control and
children's engagement and achievement in school. Journal of Educational Psy-
chology, 82,22-32.
Smith, R. E. (1989). Effects of coping skills training on generalized self-efficacy and
locus of control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56,228-233.
Stipek, D. J., & Hoffman, D. (1980). Children's achievement related expectancies as
a function of academic performance histories and sex. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 72,861-865.
Wallace, I., & Pear, J. (1977). Self-control techniques of famous novelists. Journal of
Applied Behavioral Analysis, 10, 515-525.
Wason, P. C. (1980). Specific thoughts on the writing process. In L. W. Gregg & E. R.
Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 129-137). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion.
Psychological Review, 92,548-573.
White, R. W. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence. Psycho-
logical Review, 66,297-333.
Wylie, R. (1968). The present status of self-theory. In E. Borgotta & W. Lambert
(Eds.), Handbook of personality theory and research (pp. 728-787). Chicago: Rand
McNally.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1985). The development of "intrinsic" motivation: A social
learning analysis. In G. J. Whitehurst (Ed.), Annals of Child Development (Vol. 2,
pp. 117-160). Greenwich, CT: JAI.

Self-efficacy and educational development 231
Zimmerman, B. J. (1989a). A social cognitive view of self-regulated learning. Jour-
nal of Educational Psychology, 82,297-306.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1989b). Models of self-regulated learning. In B. J. Zimmerman &
D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theory,
research, and practice (pp. 1-25). New York: Springer.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1990). Self-regulating academic learning and achievement: An
overview. Educational Psychology Review, 2,173-201.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1994). Dimensions of academic self- regulation: A conceptual
framework for education. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regu-
lation of learning and performance: Issues and educational applications (pp. 3-21).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Bandura, A. (1994). Impact of self-regulatory influences on
writing course attainment. American Educational Research Journal, 31,845-862.
Zimmerman, B. J., Bandura, A., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1992). Self-motivation for
academic attainment: The role of self-efficacy beliefs and personal goal setting.
American Educational Research Journal, 29,663-676.
Zimmerman, B. J., Greenberg, D., & Weinstein, C. E. (1994). Self-regulating aca-
demic study time: A strategy approach. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman
(Eds.), Self-regulation of learning and performance: Issues and educational applica-
tions, (pp. 181-199). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1986). Development of a structured inter-
view for assessing student use of self-regulated learning strategies. American
Educational Research Journal, 23,614-623.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1988). Construct validation of a strategy
model of student self-regulated learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80,
284-290.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1990). Student differences in self-regu-
lated learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 51-59.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Ringle, J. (1981). Effects of model persistence and statements
of confidence on children's self-efficacy and problem solving. Journal of Educa-
tional Psychology, 73,485-493.
Zimmerman, B. J., & D. H. Schunk (Eds.). (1989). Self-regulated learning and aca-
demic achievement: Theory, research, and practice. New York: Springer-Verlag.

8. Self-efficacy in career choice and
development
GAIL HACKETT
There are few other decisions that exert as profound an influence on people's lives
as the choice of a field of work or career. Not only do most people spend consider-
ably more time on the job than in any other single activity (save, arguably, sleep),
but choice of occupation significantly affects one's lifestyle. Work adjustment is
intimately associated with mental health and physical well-being. – Hackett &
Betz, in press.
This chapter addresses the role of efficacy beliefs in the important area of
human functioning concerning career decision making and career devel-
opment.
Theories of career development
Some psychologists have always been concerned with work. However,
career development has received less attention in the mainstream literature
(Osipow, 1986). Career development, as opposed to training for job skills
(e.g., vocational education), can be defined as the preparation for, choice
of, entry into, and adjustment to work throughout the life span (Super,
1990). Although the demand for career guidance has long been high
among adolescents and young adults, career counseling has not received
the attention it warrants from most applied psychologists (Hackett, 1993;
Spokane, 1991). In today's rapidly changing job markets the need for
career services is only likely to increase.
The earliest forms of vocational guidance, now commonly termed
career counseling or career intervention, were rooted in differential psy-
chology (Crites, 1981). The approaches to career counseling based on trait
and factor or "matching men [sic] and jobs" models, historically atheoreti-
I would like to acknowledge the influence of my colleagues Bob Lent, Nancy Betz, and Steve
Brown on the ideas expressed herein. I am particularly appreciative of the support and
invaluable assistance of Albert Bandura in the preparation of this chapter.
232

Self-efficacy in career choice and development 233
cal, have now been reconceptualized in the form of "person-environment
(P-E) fit" theories (Hackett, Lent, & Greenhaus, 1991). Within the career
development literature the dominant contemporary P-E fit theories are
Holland's (1985) theory of careers and the theory of work adjustment
(Dawis & Lofquist, 1984). Both theories posit that the degree of congru-
ence between personality (in the form of interests, work values, ability,and other "person" variables) and the demands of an occupational envi-ronment determine occupational success, satisfaction, and tenure (Hackett
& Lent, 1992). The P-E fit theories are concerned with the
content of career
choices, that is, which occupation is chosen.
In contrast, the other two dominant theories, developmental and social
learning, focus on the process rather than the outcome of career choice. In
his developmental theory, Super (1990) describes the tasks individualsnegotiate in developing a vocational identity, exploring the world of
work, making career choices, entering an occupation, changing career
fields, and adjusting to work. Career maturity, or the effectiveness with
which youth and adults handle the career development tasks they con-
front, has been a major focus of research within this theoretical tradition.The social learning perspective on career development also emphasizes
the process of career decision making but eschews any sort of stage frame-
work in favor of articulating the mechanisms whereby career interests,
work values, career-related beliefs, and decision making skills are learned
(Mitchell
& Krumboltz, 1990).
Sociological theories have also strongly influenced the vocational litera-
ture (Hotchkiss & Borow, 1990; Osipow, 1983). However, they are not gen-
erally discussed among the major career development theories within the
contemporary vocational psychology literature, largely because they havenot been particularly useful in guiding career interventions. Moreover,
social forces affecting career behavior (e.g., socioeconomic status, oppor-
tunity structures) have been incorporated to some degree within the most
influential psychological and interactional theories of career development.For example, social learning theory specifically acknowledges the effectson career behavior of structural factors such as job and training opportu-
nities, social policies, technological developments, family and community
resources, the educational system, and various other environmental forces
(Mitchell & Krumboltz, 1990).
Despite substantive differences across the dominant theories, the main-
stays of the empirical literature on career development have been voca-
tional interests, aptitudes and abilities, work values, personality traits ofvarious sorts, and career decision making (Hackett et al., 1991). Cognitive

234 Gail Hackett
perspectives have been conspicuously absent. The notion of the person asan active agent in shaping his or her career directions has always beenacknowledged by career theorists, but only recently have the potentialcontributions of cognitive psychology to career development been for-
mally acknowledged (Lent
& Hackett, in press).
There is now persuasive empirical evidence for the role of cognitive
mechanisms, perceived self-efficacy in particular, in career choice and
development (Bandura, in press; Lent & Hackett, in press). Research find-ings strongly suggest that efficacy beliefs not only exert a strong, directinfluence on career decision making and career choice, but self-efficacyalso significantly affects the development of core vocational choice predic-
tors such as interests, values, and goals (Bandura, 1986; Betz & Hackett,
1986; Hackett & Lent, 1992; Lent, Brown, & Hackett, in press).
In this chapter I will summarize the major findings from the research lit-
erature on career-related self-efficacy, explore some of the most salient
issues within this literature, and identify promising trends in career self-
efficacy theory and application. Investigations of perceived efficacy withrespect to the career development tasks confronting youth and adoles-
cents are featured, namely, self-efficacy for career decision making andcareer-related choices. The substantial body of research on educational
self-efficacy (see Schunk, in press; Zimmerman, 1995) and the theoretical
and empirical literature on the career self-efficacy of adult employees (see
Hackett & Lent, 1992; Wood & Bandura, 1989) are also germane, but notcentral to the purposes of this review.Applications of self-efficacy theory to careers
Explicit applications of Bandura's (1977,1986, in press) self-efficacy theory
to career development originated within the literature on women's career
development. The problem of the underutilization of women's talents and
abilities in career pursuits and the underrepresentation of women inhigher-status (usually male-dominated) positions and occupations haslong been a concern of vocational theorists and researchers (Betz & Fitz-
gerald, 1987). Hackett and Betz (1981) hypothesized that career efficacy
beliefs play a more powerful role than interests, values, and abilities in the
restriction of women's career choices. Traditionally feminine sex-typedexperiences in childhood often limit women's exposure to the sources of
information necessary for the development of strong beliefs of efficacy in
many occupational areas. Lowered perceived efficacy along important
career-related dimensions could, in turn, unduly restrict the types of occu-

Self-efficacy in career choice and development 235
pations considered (e.g., traditionally male or female dominated) and af-
fect performance and persistence in the pursuit of a chosen occupation.
Thus, Hackett and Betz (1981) argued that self-efficacy theory provides a
heuristic framework for understanding the cognitive and affective media-tors of women's gender-role socialization experiences, and the resultinggender differences in career choice patterns that can still be observed in
the workforce.
Many of the earliest studies in this area therefore investigated gender
differences in perceived self-efficacy for occupations, and the links be-
tween occupational or, more broadly, career self-efficacy, and the consider-ation of traditional (for women) and nontraditional (for women) careerpursuits. In career theory parlance, most studies have examined the role of
perceived efficacy in determining the content of career-related choices.
More recently, researchers have turned to examining the role of efficacy
beliefs in enhancing the
process of career decision making, or how effec-
tively one goes about exploring occupational options and deciding on a
career.
Self-efficacy and career-related choices
Occupational self-efficacy of college students
In the initial empirical test of the usefulness of self-efficacy theory inunderstanding career choice, Betz and Hackett (1981) found no significantgender differences in overall self-efficacy across a wide range of occupa-
tional fields (Betz & Hackett, 1981). However, gender differences didemerge when nontraditional and traditional occupations were examined
separately. College men's occupational self-efficacy was equivalent across
occupations, but women's occupational self-efficacy was significantlylower than men's for traditionally male-dominated occupations, and sig-nificantly
higher for traditionally female-dominated occupations. In addi-
tion, occupational self-efficacy, in combination with gender and voca-tional interests, was predictive of the range of occupations studentsconsidered as viable options.
Occupational self-efficacy also predicted occupational interests, and
self-efficacy was a much more powerful predictor of the range of occupa-
tional alternatives considered than were objective achievement measures.
The results from this investigation were strongly supportive of the role of
efficacy beliefs in influencing the career choices of male and female college
students, and the usefulness of self-efficacy theory in understanding
women's career dilemmas. Basically, if female students prematurely close

236 Gail Hackett
off viable (and overwhelmingly higher-status) nontraditional career op-
tions due to weak efficacy beliefs, their chances of ultimately choosing a
satisfying, well-paid career path are significantly lowered.
Subsequent studies with college students have largely replicated, but
also extended, the major findings from the Betz and Hackett (1981) inves-
tigation: (a) occupational self-efficacy is clearly predictive of career inter-
ests, occupational consideration, and career choice (Branch & Lichtenberg,
1987; Layton, 1984; Rooney & Osipow, 1992); (b) gender differences in
occupational self-efficacy are common in diverse samples of college stu-
dents (Betz & Hackett, 1981; Wheeler, 1983); (c) gender differences are
manifested at an aggregate level (across a range of male- and female-dom-
inated occupations); at the level of specific occupations (Church, Teresa,
Rosebrook, & Szendre, 1992); and across job tasks and work activities
(Matsui & Tsukamoto, 1991; Rooney & Osipow, 1992); and (d) gender dif-
ferences are not usually found in homogenous samples, for example, with
high-achieving students or students who have already embarked on ad-
vanced studies (Clement, 1987; Lent, Brown, & Larkin, 1984,1986).
There also appear to be certain moderators of observed gender differ-
ences in self-efficacy. Gender differences are particularly likely to arise in
response to gender-stereotypical tasks, activities, and careers, that is, in
domains where women are unlikely to have efficacy-building experiences,
or in which gender-role pressures may undermine perceived efficacy (Betz
& Hackett, 1983; Hackett, Betz, O'Halloran, & Romac, 1990; Wheeler,
1983). There is a direct connection between gender differences in career
self-efficacy and the percentages of males and females in varying occupa-
tions (Bores-Rangel, Church, Szendre, & Reeves, 1990; Church et al., 1992;
Wheeler, 1983).
Relationships between occupational self-efficacy and other gender-re-
lated variables have also been found, supporting the hypothesis that past
gender-role socialization and current gender-role beliefs are influential in
producing gender differences in career self-efficacy (Matsui, Ikeda, &
Ohnishi, 1989; Rotberg, Brown, & Ware, 1987). That is, traditional attitudes
about gender roles and accompanying stereotypes about appropriate
occupational roles for men and women undermine women's efficacy for
pursuing nontraditional careers. Conversely, liberal gender-role attitudes
and a variety of same-sex occupational role models enhance career effi-
cacy beliefs and consequently expand the range of nontraditional careers
women consider. Occupational self-efficacy also appears to be more
strongly predictive of nontraditional career choices by women for whom a
career is salient or important (Layton, 1984).

Self-efficacy in career choice and development 237
The findings from studies of white Americans appear to be generaliz-
able to other Western countries (Clement, 1987; Matsui, Matsui, &
Ohnishi, 1990; Matsui & Onglatco, 1991; Matsui & Tsukamoto, 1991;
Wheeler, 1983), as well as to racial/ethnic minority groups within the
United States (Bores-Rangel et al, 1990; Church et al., 1992; Rotberg et al.,
1987). The interaction of gender and ethnicity, however, has not been
explored to any great extent (Williams & Leonard, 1988). Post, Stewart,
and Smith (1991), for example, found some important differences between
African-American men and women in the relationship of career self-effi-
cacy to career choice. Both occupational self-efficacy and occupational
interests were predictive of the math/science occupations considered by
African-American men, but interests were the only significant predictors
of math/science occupational consideration for African-American wom-
en. For all African-American students, occupational self-efficacy was sig-
nificantly predictive of interest in math/science occupations, indicating
an indirect effect of self-efficacy, through interests, on the range of alterna-
tives considered.
Measurement issues
Most of the studies of the occupational self-efficacy of college students
have either used or slightly modified Betz and Hackett's (1981) instrument
measuring efficacy for occupations. There are several studies, however,
that have measured career self-efficacy quite differently. Wheeler (1983)
operationalized occupational self-efficacy as "perceived ability match"
and "ease of success" with respect to various occupations. Clement (1987)
and Rotberg and colleagues (1987) provided occupational information
along with job titles in their assessment of occupational self-efficacy,
whereas Matsui and Tsukamoto (1991) and Rooney and Osipow (1992;
Osipow, Temple, & Rooney, 1993) measured self-efficacy for discrete work
activities and job tasks.
The influence of occupational information on the measurement of self-
efficacy expectations has not been directly examined. Nevertheless, it is
very likely that providing information is an intervention in itself. There-
fore, providing job information may yield a misleading estimate of career
self-efficacy, given that people generally make decisions about occupa-tional pursuits
on the basis of stereotypic information. Likewise, there are
some serious problems with attempts to assess overall career efficacy
beliefs via discrete work tasks. People simply do not make judgments
about their ability to successfully pursue different lines of work by exam-

238 Gail Hackett
ining the discrete subskills required for effective job performance. Efficacy
beliefs across clusters of work tasks are not equivalent to overall occupa-
tional self-efficacy. For example, perceived efficacy for job tasks and effi-
cacy for occupational roles are only modestly interrelated (Ayers, 1980;
Matsui & Tsukamoto, 1991; Rooney & Osipow, 1992).
Self-efficacy for multiple roles
A new and promising direction in research on career self-efficacy is repre-
sented by a few recent studies of efficacy for coping with multiple roles.
Because women who work outside the home remain responsible for the
lion's share of household and child-care responsibilities within families,
the impact of multiple roles on women's work behavior and career devel-
opment has received increasing attention (Hackett et al., 1991). Most of the
research has examined the multiple role conflicts of adult workers. How-
ever, research has recently shifted to investigations of the influence of
girls' anticipation of multiple role conflicts on their career choices. Girls
and women often adopt "satisficing" strategies, choosing traditionally
female occupations that are perceived to be easier to combine with home/
family responsibilities rather than optimally translating their interests and
abilities into career pursuits (Fitzgerald & Weitzman, 1992). Multiple role
efficacy may play an important role in governing whether girls and
women lower their aspirations and settle for a career that is "good
enough" or attempt to pursue more challenging careers.
College women consistently report stronger efficacy for managing mul-
tiple roles in conjunction with traditional versus nontraditional careers
(Bonett & Stickel, 1992; Lefcourt & Harmon, 1993; Stickel & Bonett, 1991).
College-age women also report feeling more efficacious than men in bal-
ancing work/home demands with traditional career pursuits. Interest-
ingly, the efficacy beliefs of college men and women are equivalent for
combining nontraditional careers and home/family demands. Overall,
college-age women report fairly high levels of confidence in their ability to
manage multiple roles (Lefcourt & Harmon, 1993).
In addition to indicating that it is women rather than men whose career
self-efficacy varies as a function of the traditionality of occupations, this
work further underscores the complexity of women's career choices. It is
not yet clear whether the data from these college samples, most of whom
were single, can be generalized to working women actively confronted
with multiple role conflicts. Nevertheless, self-efficacy theory and research
on adult workers suggests that strong efficacy expectations should have a

Self-efficacy in career choice and development 239
beneficial effect on coping with multiple role demands, and therefore on
career choice and adjustment (Bandura, 1986; Ozer, 1992).
Occupational self-efficacy of younger students
The majority of the studies on occupational self-efficacy have been con-
ducted with postsecondary students; a handful of investigations have
examined occupational self-efficacy with younger students. In the first of
these investigations, Post-Kammer and Smith (1985) replicated the Betzand Hackett (1981) study with eighth and ninth graders. Few differencesin the occupational efficacy beliefs of boys and girls were found and voca-
tional interests were more strongly related to the occupations being con-
sidered than self-efficacy To explain their findings, the authors suggested
that gender stereotyping may become more pronounced with age. What
Post-Kammer and Smith (1985) did not consider is that their sample,drawn from a private suburban school, was uniformly above average inability and undoubtedly quite homogeneous in other ways. There is a
good chance that restriction in the range of ability and self-efficacy ac-counted for the relative absence of gender differences. Nor was the influ-ence of self-efficacy on interests taken into account.
We will return to these
issues later in this chapter.
Contrary to Post-Kammer and Smith's (1985) findings, subsequent
investigations demonstrated gender differences in the occupational self-
efficacy of precollege students that were quite similar in magnitude to thegender differences observed in college samples (Hannah & Kahn, 1989;
Lapan & Jingeleski, 1992; Lauver & Jones,
1991; Noble, Hackett, & Chen,
1992). In only one study was socioeconomic status (SES) found to be re-
lated to occupational self-efficacy; Hannah and Kahn (1989) reported that
high SES 12th-grade girls were more efficacious than low SES girls, and
also more likely to consider nontraditional, higher-status careers.
Both interests and occupational self-efficacy are significant predictors of
occupational consideration for disadvantaged precollege students (Post-
Kammer & Smith, 1986), and for 9th-, 10th-, and llth-grade rural high
school students of diverse racial/ethnic backgrounds (Lauver & Jones,
1991; Noble et al., 1992). Among students about to enter college, occupa-
tional self-efficacy was more predictive than interests of the consideration
of math/science than non-math/science occupations (Post-Kammer &
Smith, 1986). For all students, both strength of occupational self-efficacy
and level of interest in different occupations was related to the extent to
which students considered each occupation as an option for themselves

240 Gail Hackett
(Lauver & Jones, 1991; Noble et al., 1992). Interestingly, occupational effi-
cacy beliefs were more important predictors for women than men in mostof the research conducted with high school students.
Slight differences between racial/ethnic groups in occupational and
academic self-efficacy were evident in these studies, attributable in themain to the lower self-efficacy of American Indian students (Lauver &
Jones, 1991; Noble et al., 1992). Indian students living on reservations are
far less likely than their non-Indian peers to be exposed to a range of effi-cacy-building experiences. Despite these minor group differences, neither
gender nor ethnicity was strongly related, in isolation, to the range ofcareers students considered (Noble et
al., 1992). That is, gender and ethnic-
ity may influence the types of experiences contributing to the develop-ment of efficacy beliefs, but it is self-efficacy that is most strongly related
to important career and educational attitudes and choices across groups.
Students with higher levels of confidence in their ability to successfullycomplete high school and stronger beliefs in the relationship between aca-
demic and occupational success were more likely, despite their ethnic
background, to aspire to higher levels of education and consider occupa-
tions requiring advanced training (Noble et al., 1992).
Self-efficacy and choice of college major
Some researchers have focused on the career-related choices of immediate
concern and relevance to college students, namely, choosing a major.
Because of the continuing problem of the underrepresentation of women
in scientific and technical career fields, much of this research has focused
on the power of math/science self-efficacy to predict choice of andachievement and persistence in scientific/technical college majors. In het-
erogeneous samples (e.g., students in introductory college courses), col-
lege men consistently report stronger math/science self-efficacy than do
college women; higher levels of math self-efficacy are, in turn, directlyrelated to the choice of math- and science-related college majors (Betz &
Hackett, 1983; Hackett, 1985; Hackett & Betz, 1989). Research indicates
that gender and gender role beliefs influence the selection of high schoolmath courses, which in turn influence math self-efficacy and math
achievement in college (Hackett, 1985). Further, perceived efficacy formathematics and science is the immediate and strongest predictor of
students' choice of math/science college majors (Hackett, 1985). Evidence
also supports the theoretically based hypothesis that math self-efficacy is

Self-efficacy in career choice and development 241
of greater importance than ability or past experience in predicting career-
related choice behavior (Hackett & Betz, 1989).
Linkages between perceived efficacy for math/science and achieve-
ment, persistence in, and consideration of scientific college majors have
also been conclusively supported (Brown, Lent, & Larkin, 1989; Lent et al.,
1984, 1986; Williams & Leonard, 1988). Both self-efficacy for scientific
occupations and self-efficacy for "academic milestones" (confidence in
one's ability to negotiate major hurdles in an engineering/science pro-
gram) are predictive of the range of scientific occupations students con-
sider (Lent et al., 1984,1986). Students who are confident of their abilities
to succeed academically persist in demanding college majors and achieve
higher levels of academic success than students with weaker efficacy
beliefs. In virtually all of the studies on engineering majors men and
women expressed equivalent levels of academic and occupational self-
efficacy, undoubtedly due to comparable ability levels and efficacy-build-
ing experiences.
An investigation of science self-efficacy with ethnically diverse engi-
neering students yielded similar results (Hackett, Betz, Casas, & Rocha-
Singh, 1992). Majority students did express higher levels of self-efficacy
for engineering careers than did Mexican-American students, but these
differences in perceived efficacy were due primarily to differences in aca-
demic preparation. Hackett and colleagues (1992) found that neither gen-
der nor ethnicity alone were related to the academic achievement of engi-
neering majors. Ethnicity appears to be related to access to quality
education, which in turn influences academic and career self-efficacy. Effi-
cacy beliefs ultimately produce observed differences in academic achieve-
ment. However, in one study of African-American college students grades
were found to be more predictive of academic persistence and achieve-
ment than occupational self-efficacy (Williams & Leonard, 1988). This
finding does not negate the bulk of the evidence in this area; perceived
occupational efficacy ought to be strongly predictive of career consider-
ation, but not academic persistence and achievement. Academic self-effi-
cacy was never measured in this investigation, seriously limiting the sig-
nificance of the research.
Finally, Brown and colleagues (1989) reported findings in support of the
role of self-efficacy in moderating the relationship between aptitude and
academic achievement and persistence. Occupational self-efficacy was not
a strong predictor of the achievement and persistence of high-ability stu-
dents, who were already likely to do well academically. However, occupa-

242 Gail Hackett
tional self-efficacy did have a strong facilitative effect on students of mod-
erate aptitude levels.
Occupational self-efficacy and career interests
Self-efficacy theory posits the causal role of efficacy judgments in the
development of vocational interests (Bandura, 1986). Occupational self-
efficacy and interests have consistently been found to be moderatelyrelated. Theoretically, strong career efficacy beliefs should give rise toenhanced occupational interests (Lent, Brown, & Hackett, in press). How-ever, due to the historical emphasis on vocational interests as the primary
determinant of career choice, some writers have questioned whether the
two variables are conceptually distinct (e.g., Lapan & Jingeleski, 1992).Researchers have therefore attempted to grapple directly with the nature
and extent of the self-efficacy/interest correspondence.
In several studies a simple relationship was found between interests
and occupational self-efficacy: The stronger the efficacy beliefs, the more
interest students expressed in a given occupational area (Betz & Hackett,
1981; Lapan, Boggs, & Morrill, 1989; Post-Kammer & Smith, 1985). In one
of these studies causal modeling analyses supported theoretical predic-tions that occupational self-efficacy, influenced by past performance ac-complishments, enhances occupational interests (Lapan et al., 1989). Lent,Larkin, and Brown (1989) also found that both variables uniquely contrib-
uted to the prediction of career-related behavior – career self-efficacy and
career interests jointly predicted career choice. Conversely, Lapan and
Jingeleski (1992) found that career self-efficacy, vocational interests, and
expectations for occupational attainment (i.e., expectations about the job
students felt they were likely to actually enter) were highly interrelated.
They argued that these three variables are simply different manifestations
of a single construct. In this latter study, however, theoretical propositionsabout cause and effect relationships between self-efficacy and interests
were not directly tested. Actually, Lapan and Jingeleski's (1992) arguments
run counter to most of the empirical evidence in the career self-efficacy lit-erature.
The career self-efficacy model has been tested against two alternate
models derived from competing career theories (Lent, Brown, & Larkin,
1987). Lent and colleagues (1987) reported that both interests and self-effi-
cacy were significantly predictive of the range of career options students
considered, but self-efficacy was the stronger predictor of academicachievement and persistence. That is, although efficacy beliefs and career

Self-efficacy in career choice and development 243
interests will in combination determine whether a given occupation will
be considered, stronger efficacy beliefs are more likely than high interest
to predict persistence and achievement. Results from the Lent and col-
leagues (1987) study also suggested that when career-related behaviorsother than occupational choice are being considered – for example, career
decision making and career exploration (e.g., seeking out information
about career options) – assessments tailored to the area under study are
preferable to generic self-efficacy measures (Lent et al.,
1987). This finding
is consistent with the domain-specific nature of efficacy beliefs. Since effi-cacy beliefs concern personal capabilities for specific tasks, problems, andactivities, assessments of efficacy for occupations should be predictive of
the content of career choice – the fields students are considering – butwould not necessarily be predictive of satisfactory career decision making
(Lent
& Hackett, 1987). The next section reviews investigations of the pro-
cess of career development, in particular, efficacy for career decision mak-ing.
Self-efficacy and career decision-making processes
Career decision making and career indecision have received a great deal
of attention in the career literature over the years (Hackett et al., 1991).Several elements of effective career decision making have been identified,including goal selection, career exploration, problem-solving capabilities,planning skills, and realistic self-appraisal skills (Crites, 1981). Taylor and
Betz (1983) developed the Career Decision Making Self-efficacy (CDMSE)Scale to assess perceptions of efficacy with regard to these five dimensions
of career decision making. One assumption guiding this research has beenthat effective career decision making involves not only the development
of skills but also confidence in one's decision-making abilities. Taylor andBetz (1983) hypothesized that weak decision making self-efficacy couldimpede career exploratory behavior and the development of decision-making skills, and thus may be predictive of career indecision and otherproblems in career decision making.
Research findings have largely supported the usefulness of the CDMSE
scale in predicting career indecision, particularly the aspects of indecisionrelating to lack of structure and lack of confidence in decisional outcomes
(Robbins,
1985; Taylor and Betz, 1983). Few gender differences in CDMSE
scores have been found. Career decision-making self-efficacy and occupa-
tional self-efficacy are only modestly interrelated, an anticipated and un-derstandable finding (Taylor & Popma, 1990). The steps in the process of

244 Gail Hackett
making a career decision are largely independent of which careers are
being considered.
Other important results from research on self-efficacy for career deci-
sion making include the following: (a) weak self-efficacy for career deci-
sion making is associated with anxiety over the career choice process
(Matsui & Onglatco, 1992); (b) flexible self-perceptions of gender roles
facilitate stronger self-efficacy for career decision making (Arnold & Bye,
1989; Matsui & Onglatco, 1992); conversely, rigid, stereotypical attitudes
about gender roles are associated with weaker efficacy for career decision
making and higher levels of choice anxiety; and (c) more assertive women
with stronger career decision-making efficacy are more willing to engage
in nontraditional career activities (Nevill & Schlecker, 1988). All of these
research findings are congruent with theoretical predictions.
Quite a bit of research has now been conducted on the relationships
between decision-making self-efficacy and a variety of other career-related
variables (Luzzo, 1993; Niles & Sowa, 1992; O'Hare & Beutell, 1987;
O'Hare & Tamburri, 1986). Career decision-making self-efficacy appears
to influence the extent of career exploratory behavior (Blustein, 1989); the
more confidence people have in their decision-making capabilities, the
more likely they will actively pursue information about their career op-
tions. It has also been found that efficacy beliefs with regard to career deci-
sion making can be enhanced through the use of computerized, self-
directed career guidance programs (Fukuyama, Probert, Neimeyer, Nevill,
& Metzler, 1988). Finally, college students' abilities to effectively process
and integrate complex information enhance perceptions of efficacy for
career decision making (Nevill, Neimeyer, Probert, & Fukuyama, 1986).
Sources of career self-efficacy
One of the benefits to counselors of career self-efficacy theory is that it pro-
vides guidelines for intervening to correct detrimental self-beliefs. That is,
the four major sources of efficacy information – performance accomplish-
ments, vicarious learning, physiological arousal and affective states, and
verbal persuasion – all provide means whereby unrealistic efficacy beliefs
can be modified. However, the direct, causal relationships between effi-
cacy sources and career self-efficacy has only begun to receive sustained
attention.
Causal influences of performance on self-efficacy
Several experimental analog studies have been conducted to test the hy-
pothesis that performance accomplishments directly influence career-

Self-efficacy in career choice and development 245
related efficacy beliefs. Studies have demonstrated that success on tasks
tapping skills relevant to occupational pursuits enhances self-efficacy and,
to a lesser extent, interest, whereas task failure weakens self-efficacy and
interest (Campbell & Hackett, 1986; Hackett et al., 1990; Hackett & Camp-
bell, 1987). Men consistently express stronger efficacy beliefs than women
with respect to gender-stereotypical (e.g., math) tasks, but women's and
men's level of self-efficacy is generally equivalent on gender-neutral (e.g.,
verbal) tasks. Women's efficacy beliefs appear to be more vulnerable to
failure than men's (Hackett et al., 1990). College women also tend to
ascribe success externally (e.g., to luck) and task failure internally (e.g., to
lack of ability), whereas college men exhibit the opposite attributional pat-
tern, with successful performance attributed to ability (internal attribu-
tion) and unsuccessful performance attributed to task difficulty (external
attribution). Some authors have suggested that gender directly influences
attributions, and attributions then mediate the effects of self-efficacy on
future performance. That is, the tendency for women to attribute success
externally and failure internally causes lowered efficacy beliefs, which in
turn produces performance decrements (e.g., Zilber, 1988). However,
social cognitive theory posits the converse – low or weak perceived effi-
cacy causes maladaptive attributions, whereas strong efficacy percepts en-
hance appropriate attributional patterns.
The finding that self-efficacy judgments are more sensitive than inter-
ests to successes and failures provides indirect support for theoretical pre-
dictions that career self-efficacy influences vocational interests. This
research also supports the notion of a temporal lag in the cultivation of
interests in response to experience (Hackett et al., 1990). Successful perfor-
mance enhances career-related efficacy beliefs; over time, interests may
blossom in areas where efficacy is strong. Educators and psychologists
must be particularly mindful of this process when working with students
who exhibit low levels of intrinsic interest in academic and career pur-
suits.
Sources of math self-efficacy
Researchers have also used correlational methods to test the role of the
four major sources of efficacy information in the cultivation of self-effi-
cacy. Retrospective ratings of sources of efficacy information have been
found to be predictive of current levels of math self-efficacy. Past perfor-
mance accomplishments appear to be most strongly related to college
students' math self-efficacy beliefs (Matsui et al., 1990). In one study, gen-
der and past performance accomplishments, in interaction, were the

246 Gail Hackett
strongest predictors of math self-efficacy; men who had a history of suc-
cess in mathematics and science expressed the strongest math self-efficacy
beliefs (Lent, Lopez, & Bieschke, 1991, 1993). Outcome expectations may
also influence the relationship between self-efficacy and career-relatedchoices. Students who both expressed strong efficacy beliefs and who per-
ceived positive outcomes as a result of success in mathematics and sciencecourses were more likely than other students to choose math/science col-lege majors (Lent et al, 1991,1993).
In these studies performance accomplishments were found to exert the
most powerful effect on perceived efficacy; the perceived effects of theother sources of efficacy information accounted for less of the variance in
self-efficacy (Lent et al., 1991; Lopez & Lent, 1992; Matsui et al., 1990).
However, studies relying on recall of a lifelong series of influences areunlikely to reveal much about the actual processes affecting efficacy be-liefs over time. Memories tapped in retrospective research of this type are
heavily influenced by current attitudes. Further, individuals are far morelikely to recall their own successes and failures than to remember com-
ments by others or observational experiences. Thus, the results of thisresearch on efficacy sources must be viewed with caution.Methodological issuesIn the research on career self-efficacy, as in any research area, there areexamples of studies where the self-efficacy construct is inappropriately
operationalized or weak research designs have been employed. However,in well-designed studies where self-efficacy is measured adequately, sub-stantial support has been found for Bandura's (1977, 1986) theoreticalpropositions. Evidence exists, for example, for the direct and indirect con-tribution of perceived efficacy to career choice and development. Studiesthat have compared self-efficacy theory with alternate theoretical models
convincingly demonstrate that self-efficacy is a powerful predictor ofcareer choice, and a more important predictor than other career-relatedvariables.
Researchers must now refocus their attention, moving beyond the basic
questions that have been investigated to tackle some of the additional
complexities regarding occupational pursuits. Investigations of efficacy-
based career interventions are important, as are psychometric studies
refining the measurement of career self-efficacy and examining the effectsof different assessment procedures. Because career development occurs
over extended periods of time, longitudinal research exploring the ongo-

Self-efficacy in career choice and development 247
ing causal relationships among self-efficacy and other important variables
influencing career choice and development is vital. The gender-related
and cultural dynamics influencing observed gender and racial/ethnic dif-
ferences in career self-efficacy likewise require attention. And finally, work
has begun on the formulation of an explicit set of theoretical propositionsderived from social cognitive theory, clarifying the interrelationships
among career self-efficacy and other career-relevant variables, includingsocial contextual factors (Lent, Brown, & Hackett, in press). This workmay well guide future research that can importantly advance our under-
standing of how people's efficacy beliefs shape their career paths.
Summary of research findings
There are a number of conclusions that can be confidently drawn from the
literature on the career self-efficacy of youth. Overall, it appears that
career self-efficacy is strongly predictive of a wide range of career-related
behaviors from early high school through college and beyond (Hackett &
Lent,
1992; Lent & Hackett, 1987). Self-efficacy assessments tailored to par-
ticular domains of functioning yield more predictive utility than broad,generic measures (e.g., Betz & Hackett, 1983; Lent et al., 1986). As antici-
pated by theory, beliefs are most predictive of a given area of functioningif they are relevant to that domain. For example, occupational self-efficacyis strongly predictive of the fields students choose, whereas academic
self-
efficacy is a better predictor of academic persistence and achievement.
Self-efficacy for career decision making is theoretically and empirically
unrelated to the content of career choice, but is very useful in understand-ing the process of career decision making and the problems that may
interfere with students' ability to make decisions (Taylor & Betz, 1983;Taylor
& Popma, 1990).
Career efficacy beliefs causally mediate the effects of past performance
on educational and occupational choices. Performance accomplishmentscontribute to the development of strong career self-efficacy, but perceived
career efficacy is the more powerful predictor of career-related behavior
(Hackett & Lent, 1992). Research on the sources of career self-efficacy sug-
gests that mastery experiences are powerful contributors to the develop-ment of a strong sense of personal efficacy. The extent to which the other
three efficacy sources influence career self-efficacy over and above theeffects of past performance remains unclear from the research (Lent et al.,
1991; Lopez & Lent, 1992; Matsui et al., 1990). As mentioned previously,
research on sources of efficacy has been largely retrospective, and there-

248 Gail Hackett
fore cannot address the exact nature of the complex interrelationships
among sources of efficacy information. It is likely, for example, that career-
related modeling, encouragement, and lowered anxiety and arousal not
only enhance efficacy directly, but also facilitate successful performance
attempts in occupationally related areas. Performance accomplishments in
turn further enhance perceived efficacy (Lent et al., in press).
Occupational self-efficacy is also related to other important predictors
of career choice, in particular vocational interests (Lapan et al., 1989). Data
support a social cognitive model wherein past experiences influence both
interests and self-efficacy. However, career interests are not likely to de-
velop in areas where perceived efficacy is weak (e.g., Lent et al., 1987,
1991). Career self-efficacy and interests are moderately related but past
performance affects interests through career self-efficacy. Career self-effi-
cacy consequently influences future performance and choice directly and
indirectly through interests (Hackett & Lent, 1992).
Gender differences in academic and career self-efficacy are associated
with past gender-role socialization, current gender-role pressures, and the
perceptions of the gender-relatedness of tasks, activities, or occupations
(e.g., Betz & Hackett, 1983; Hackett et al., 1990; Wheeler, 1983). The
stronger the perceived gender linkage of an activity or occupation, the
more likely it is that gender differences in self-efficacy will arise (Hackett
et al., 1990). Within the career self-efficacy literature, however, investiga-
tions have not yet focused on the specific self-regulatory mechanisms gov-
erning gender-linked choices suggested by social cognitive theory (Ban-
dura, 1986; Bussey & Bandura, 1992).
Finally, studies of career self-efficacy in Britain and Japan suggest that
career self-efficacy has international applicability (e.g., Clement, 1987;
Matsui et al., 1989, 1990). Investigations conducted in the United States
with ethnic/minority populations likewise suggests that the findings
from research on career self-efficacy are relevant across subcultures
(Hackett et al., 1992; Noble et al., 1992; Post et al., 1991). Nevertheless,
some ethnic differences have been reported and the topic requires further
attention (e.g., Hackett et al., 1992; Noble et al., 1992). Not only are studies
exploring cultural influences on career self-efficacy rare, but often they
simply examine racial/ethnic differences rather than the effects of culture
and ethnic identity on career self-efficacy and career development. While
it is mildly interesting to describe cultural differences, it is of much greater
import to explore the processes by which ethnicity affects career self-effi-

Self-efficacy in career choice and development 249
cacy, to examine similarities across racial/ethnic groups, and to studyintragroup variability.
Future directions
I would like to conclude with a few of the possible implications of career
self-efficacy research for guiding services to youth in changing societies.
The most obvious implication of this body of research is that, for all stu-
dents, theory-based interventions designed to enhance academic and
career efficacy beliefs are crucial. We currently have at our disposal anarray of interventions to effectively enhance students' educational
achievement and career decision making. Self-efficacy theory provides theconceptual scaffolding for organizing existing career interventions so thattheir impact on efficacy beliefs will be maximized. Efficacy for academic
pursuits influences academic performance and has some spillover effectson career self-efficacy and work behavior. However, strong academic effi-cacy beliefs will not
necessarily translate into career behavior without
direct attention to career development and the enhancement of career effi-
cacy.
As just one example of the problems with isolating academics from
work, let us consider what is now occurring in the United States. Over the
past several years highly controversial debates have revolved around theneed for major educational reform in the United States. One of the chiefcatalysts for the calls for dramatic school reform has been the presumed
erosion of the quality of the American workforce (National Commissionon Excellence in Education, 1983). In particular, schools have been in-
dicted for failing to prepare high school graduates to move directly intothe workforce. In response to the demand to upgrade the workforce and
prepare youth to respond effectively to ever-changing marketplaces, aca-demic standards are being raised and job skills training and youth appren-
ticeship programs are being instituted (Olson, 1993).
The perception that our young people are poorly prepared for the labor
market is at least partially a function of the structure and expectations of
business and industry. For example, the fact that academic accomplish-
ments in high school are rarely recognized as important in hiring deci-
sions for entry-level jobs (despite the relationship between academic andwork success) serves as a serious disincentive to many youth (Bandura, in
press). However, the educational system bears some of the responsibility

250 Gail Hackett
as well. School systems currently do very little to socialize students into
the workforce save for vocational education programs. Moreover, what
has not yet appeared in the proposals for reform issued by either business
or education is a comprehensive and coordinated plan to facilitate the
career development of youth.
In the 1970s educators and psychologists promoted comprehensive
career development programs, in particular career education:
Career education is an effort aimed at refocusing American educa-
tion and the actions of the broader community in ways that will help
individuals acquire and utilize the knowledge, skills, and attitudes
necessary for each to make work a meaningful, productive and satis-
fying part of his or her way of living (Hoyt, 1977, p. 5).
Many students may never experience work as inherently meaningful – as
more than a means of economic survival. Nevertheless, career develop-
ment programs that have been instituted have been fairly successful in ori-
enting students to work and enhancing career decision making (Isaacson
& Brown, 1993). For example, some of the most important predictors of
job success and satisfaction have more to do with work-related attitudes,
habits, and interpersonal skills (all addressed in career education pro-
grams) than with the specific job skills emphasized in vocational training
programs (Fitzgerald, 1986). Due to the back-to-basics movement in the
1980s, however, career education was all but abandoned by the schools
(Isaacson & Brown, 1993). Contemporary emphases on the school-to-work
transition have unaccountably lost sight of the context of career develop-
ment, perhaps because the movement is being driven by the immediate
demands of employers for skilled workers rather than by the educational
and career development needs of students.
One of the demands of the educational reform movement is for the
adoption of a German-style apprenticeship system. Overemphasis on ap-
prenticeships, however, fails to account for the fundamental differences
between American education and education in Germany and most other
countries. In the United States much more emphasis has been placed on
higher education, including the extensive community college system, for
preparing students for work (Berliner, 1993). American students have the
luxury of taking more time to complete their education, and the American
educational system is also highly permeable; students can reenter the sys-
tem for additional education and training fairly easily. The labor market in
the United States is likewise fairly open compared to many other coun-
tries. Our young people have a much wider range of possible occupa-
tional options, and can delay their choice of a career for most fields much

Self-efficacy in career choice and development 251
longer than their counterparts in Germany, Japan, and other countries. An
apprenticeship system of the type that works so well in Germany may beproblematic in the United States. Our pressing need is to provide system-atic assistance in career exploration and decision making for our K-16 stu-
dent population.
Thus, job training and apprenticeship programs are certainly important,
but they ought to be but one component of comprehensive career explora-
tion programs. It is especially vital that career exploration begin in the ele-
mentary years instead of in high school. Effective career education at the
elementary level includes self-exploration (e.g., of interests and work val-
ues), cultivation of career decision-making skills, and information about
and exposure to a wide range of occupations. In order to make informedand satisfying career decisions, students must understand both them-
selves and the world of work, and have the necessary skills to obtain
information about relevant career pursuits (Herr
& Cramer, 1988). Hierar-
chical exposure to the world of work, for example, through written mate-rials and multimedia presentations, followed by interviews with adult
workers and active exploratory activities such as job shadowing (follow-
ing a worker for a day or week), are effective in clarifying the career direc-tions of junior high and early high school students. Part-time and summer
jobs, vocational education programs, and apprenticeships ought to occur
later in the hierarchy of career exploratory experiences in high school, cul-minating in entry into jobs, advanced education, or training after high
school graduation. Furthermore, although academic-track students usu-ally receive some guidance in college selection, little
career exploration
occurs. College-bound students cannot indefinitely delay career choices.
College course work does serve as a sort of mechanism for career explora-
tion but does not usually provide the sorts of experiences that will maxi-
mally enhance career decision making and eventuate in satisfying career
choices.
Although carefully planned career education programs can be effective
in easing the school-to-work transition, they too have often been limitedin crucial ways. Often career counselors assume that vocational interestsare somehow innate, needing only to be "discovered" through explor-
atory activities. To the contrary, overwhelming evidence exists in supportof the influence of efficacy in the cultivation of intrinsic interests and other
work motivators (e.g., work values). We also know that academic and
career self-efficacy are interrelated but not interchangeable. Educators and
counselors must certainly be concerned with strengthening academic
self-
efficacy, but for most students such efforts will not translate directly into

252 Gail Hackett
work/career self-efficacy without focused attention on career develop-
ment.
Nowhere is the need for efficacy-based academic and career interven-
tions more pressing than with students "at risk" for academic failure. The
high dropout rate among disadvantaged, predominantly racial /ethnic
minority students, has prompted compensatory programs aimed at bol-
stering academic skills (Richardson, Casanova, Placier, & Guilfoyle, 1989).
The potential contributions of self-efficacy theory are untapped within
this literature. For example, students labeled at risk for academic failure
often lack interest, motivation, and a sense of purpose or life direction
(Richardson et al., 1989). Academic remediation may foster a certain level
of perceived efficacy, but sole emphasis on basic, low-level academic
skills, as found in most compensatory programs, will not engender the
types of mastery experiences and challenging goals prerequisite to the
development of strong efficacy and inherent interests (Bandura, 1986).
Programs that accelerate the pace of instruction for at-risk students are far
more likely than compensatory programs to generate academic self-effi-
cacy (Levin, 1987; Richardson et al., 1989). But such programs also require
explicit attention to work/career efficacy beliefs.
Research on career self-efficacy also contains some noteworthy im-
plications for work with girls and women, and with racial/ethnic minor-
ity students. Societies are increasingly in need of scientists, engineers, and
workers with technological expertise. The changing demographics in
American higher education and the U.S. workforce indicate a dramatic
increase in the proportions of female and minority college students and
workers. Yet both women and minorities have historically been, and con-
tinue to be, severely underrepresented in the ranks of scientific and tech-
nology training programs due to both external barriers and internal con-
straints such as unrealistically low efficacy beliefs (Betz, 1991). For
example, stereotypical socialization experiences undermine girls' sense of
efficacy for quantitative activities and leaves them unprepared to pursue
quantitative and technical fields (Betz & Hackett, 1983; Hackett, 1985).
Empirical work on math/science self-efficacy clearly indicates that cur-
rent inequities in the representation of men and women of color and white
women in scientific and technological fields can be successfully ad-
dressed. Once again, however, the enhancement of academic achievement
alone will not correct the problem. Multipronged interventions designed
to cultivate strong math/science efficacy beliefs of women and racial/eth-
nic minorities are critical adjuncts to academic interventions. White

Self-efficacy in career choice and development 253
women and women of color not only require special assistance in devel-
oping robust scientific efficacy beliefs, realistically high career aspirations,
and a sense of agency in career pursuits, but they also need to develop
strong efficacy for managing science-related and other demanding careers
along with family responsibilities (Betz & Hackett, 1987; Lefcourt & Har-mon, 1993).
Finally, as Bandura (in press) has argued, we must not forget the role of
self-efficacy in generating options and creating opportunities. This proac-
tive role of self-efficacy, and career efficacy beliefs in particular, is import-ant in working with all youth. Cultivating a strong sense of agency is
absolutely vital for assisting youth who may have particularly difficult
circumstances to overcome or barriers to surmount.
References
Arnold, ]., & Bye, H. (1989). Sex and sex role self-concept as correlates of career
decision-making self-efficacy. British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 17,
201-206.
Ayers, A. L. (1980). Self-efficacy theory: Implications for the career development of
women. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University, Columbus.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84,191-214.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (in press). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Berliner, D. (1993). Educational reform in an era of disinformation. Educational Pol-
icy Analysis Archives, 1, Listserv@asuacad.bitnet.
Betz, N. E. (1991). What stops women and minorities from choosing and completing
majors in engineering and science? Washington, DC: Federation of Behavioral,Psychological, and Cognitive Sciences.
Betz, N. E, & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1987). The
career psychology of women. San Diego: Aca-
demic.
Betz, N. E., & Hackett, G. (1981). The relationship of career-related self-efficacy
expectations to perceived career options in college women and men. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 28, 399-410.
Betz, N. E., & Hackett, G. (1983). The relationship of mathematics self-efficacy
expectations to the selection of science-based college majors. Journal of Voca-
tional Behavior, 23,329-345.
Betz, N. E., & Hackett, G. (1986). Applications of self-efficacy theory to under-
standing career choice behavior. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 4, 279-
289.
Betz, N. E., & Hackett, G. (1987). The concept of agency in educational and career
development. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 34,299-308.
Blustein, D. L. (1989). The role of goal instability and career self-efficacy in the
career exploration process. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 35,194-203.
Bonett, R. ML, & Stickel, S. A. (1992). A psychometric analysis of the Career Attitude
Scale. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 25,14-25.

254 Gail Hackett
Bores-Rangel, E., Church, T. A., Szendre, D v & Reeves, C. (1990). Self-efficacy in
relation to occupational consideration and academic performance in high
school equivalency students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 37, 407^118.
Branch, L. E., & Lichtenberg, J. W. (1987, August). Self-efficacy and career choice.
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Associ-ation, New York City.
Brown, S. D., Lent, R. W., & Larkin, K. C. (1989). Self-efficacy as a moderator of
scholastic aptitude-academic performance relationships.
Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 35, 64-75.
Bussey, K., & Bandura, A. (1992). Self-regulatory mechanisms governing gender
development. Child Development, 63,1236-1250.
Campbell, N. K., & Hackett, G. (1986). The effects of mathematics task performance
on math self-efficacy and task interest. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 28,149-
162.
Church, A. T., Teresa, J. S., Rosebrook, R., & Szendre, D. (1992). Self-efficacy for
careers and occupational consideration in minority high school equivalency
students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 39,498-508.
Clement, S. (1987). The self-efficacy expectations and occupational preferences of
females and males. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 60,257-265.
Crites, J. O. (1981). Career counseling: Methods, models and materials. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Dawis, R., & Lofquist, L. (1984). A psychological theory of work adjustment. Minnea-
polis: University of Minnesota Press.
Fitzgerald, L. F. (1986). On the essential relations between education and work.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 28,254-284.
Fitzgerald, L. F, & Weitzman, L. M. (1992). Women's career development: Theory
and practice from a feminist perspective. In H. D. Lea & Z. B. Leibowitz (Eds.),
Adult career development: Concepts, issues and practices (2nd ed., pp. 124-160).
Alexandria, VA: National Career Development Association.
Fukuyama, M. A., Probert, B. S., Neimeyer, G J., Nevill, D. D., & Metzler, A. E.
(1988). Effects of DISCOVER on career self-efficacy and decision making of
undergraduates. Career Development Quarterly, 37, 56-62.
Hackett, G. (1985). The role of mathematics self-efficacy in the choice of math-
related majors of college women and men: A path analysis. Journal of Counsel-
ing Psychology, 32,47-56.
Hackett, G. (1993). Career counseling and psychotherapy: False dichotomies and
recommended remedies. Journal of Career Assessment, 1,105-196.
Hackett, G, & Betz, N. E. (1981). A self-efficacy approach to the career develop-
ment of women. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 18,326-339.
Hackett, G, & Betz, N. E. (1989). An exploration of the mathematics self-effi-
cacy/mathematics performance correspondence. Journal for Research in Mathe-
matics Education, 20,261-273.
Hackett, G, & Betz, N. E. (in press). Career choice and development. In J. E. Mad-
dux (Ed.), Self-efficacy, adaptation, and adjustment: Theory, research, and applica-
tion. New York: Plenum.
Hackett, G., Betz, N. E., Casas, J. M., & Rocha-Singh, I. (1992). Gender, ethnicity,
and social cognitive factors predicting the academic achievement of students
in engineering. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 39,527-538.
Hackett, G, Betz, N. E., O'Halloran, M. S., & Romac, D. S. (1990). Effects of verbal
and mathematics task performance on task and career self-efficacy and inter-est.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 37,169-177.

Self-efficacy in career choice and development 255
Hackett, Gv & Campbell, N. K. (1987). Task self-efficacy and task interest as a func-
tion of performance on a gender-neutral task. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 30,
203-215.
Hackett, G., & Lent, R. W. (1992). Theoretical advances and current inquiry in
career psychology. In S. D. Brown & R. W. Lent (Eds.), Handbook of Counseling
Psychology (2nd Ed., pp. 419-452). New York: Wiley.
Hackett, G., Lent, R. W., & Greenhaus, J. H. (1991). Advances in vocational theory
and research: A 20-year retrospective. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 38,3-38.
Hannah, J. S., & Kahn, S. E. (1989). The relationship of socioeconomic status and
gender to the occupational choices of grade 12 students. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 34,161-178.
Herr, E. L., & Cramer, S. H. (1988). Career guidance and counseling through the
lifespan: Systematic approaches (3rd Ed.). Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman/Little.
Holland, J. L. (1985). Making vocational choices (2nd Ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Hotchkiss, L., & Borow, H. (1990). Sociological perspectives on work and career
development. In D. Brown, L. Brooks, and Associates, Career choice and develop-
ment (2nd Ed., pp. 262-307). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hoyt, K. B. (1977). A primer for career education. Washington, DC: Office of Career
Education.
Isaacson, L. E., & Brown, D. (1993). Career information, career counseling, and career
development (5th Ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Lapan, R. T, Boggs, K. R., & Morrill, W. H. (1989). Self-efficacy as a mediator of
Investigative and Realistic General Occupational Themes on the Strong-Camp-
bell Interest Inventory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 36,176-182.
Lapan, R. T, & Jingeleski, J. (1992). Circumscribing vocational aspirations in junior
high school. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 39, 81-90.
Lauver, P. J., & Jones, R. M. (1991). Factors associated with perceived career options
in American Indian, White, and Hispanic rural high school students. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 38,159-166.
Lay ton, P. L. (1984). Self-efficacy, locus of control, career salience, and women's career
choice. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, Minneapo-
lis.
Lefcourt, L. A., & Harmon, L. W. (1993, August). Self-efficacy expectations for role
management (SEERM): Measure development. Paper presented at the annual con-
vention of the American Psychological Association, Toronto, Ontario.
Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (in press). Toward a unifying social cogni-
tive theory of career and academic interest, choice, and performance. Journal of
Vocational Behavior.
Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., and Larkin, K. C. (1984). Relation of self-efficacy expecta-
tions to academic achievement and persistence. Journal of Counseling Psychol-
ogy, 31, 356-362.
Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., and Larkin, K. C. (1986). Self-efficacy in the prediction of
academic performance and perceived career options. Journal of Counseling Psy-
chology, 33,165-169.
Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Larkin, K. C. (1987). Comparison of three theoretically
derived variables in predicting career and academic behavior: Self-efficacy,
interest congruence, and consequence thinking. Journal of Counseling Psychol-
ogy, 34,293-298.
Lent, R. W., & Hackett, G. (1987). Career self-efficacy: Empirical status and future
directions [Monograph]. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 30,347-382.

256 Gail Hackett
Lent, R. W., & Hackett, G. (in press). Sociocognitive mechanisms of personal
agency in career development: Pantheoretical prospects. In M. L. Savickas & R.
W. Lent (Eds.), Convergence in theories of career choice and development. Palo Alto,
CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Lent, R. W., Larkin, K. C, & Brown, S. D. (1989). Relation of self-efficacy to invento-
ried vocational interests, journal of Vocational Behavior, 34,279-288.
Lent, R. W., Lopez, F. G., & Bieschke, K. J. (1991). Mathematics self-efficacy: Sources
and relation to science-based career choice. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38,
424-430.
Lent, R. W., Lopez, F. G, & Bieschke, K. J. (1993). Predicting mathematics-related
choice and success behaviors: Test of an expanded social cognitive model. Jour-
nal of Vocational Behavior, 42,223-236.
Levin, H. M. (1987). New schools for the disadvantaged. Teacher Education Quar-
terly, 14, 60-83.
Lopez, F. G., & Lent, R. W. (1992). Sources of mathematics self-efficacy in high
school students. Career Development Quarterly, 41, 3-12.
Luzzo, D. A. (1993). Value of career decision-making self-efficacy in predicting
career-decision-making attitudes and skills. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
40,194-199.
Matsui, T., Ikeda, H., & Ohnishi, R. (1989). Relations of sex-typed socialization to
career self-efficacy expectations of college students. Journal of Vocational Behav-
ior, 35, 1-16.
Matsui, T., Matsui, K., & Ohnishi, R. (1990). Mechanisms underlying math self-effi-
cacy learning of college students. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 37,225-238.
Matsui, T., & Onglatco, M. L. (1991). Instrumentality, expressiveness, and self-effi-
cacy in career activities among Japanese working women. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 39, 241-250.
Matsui, T., & Onglatco, M. L. (1992). Career orientedness of motivation to enter the
university among Japanese high school girls: A path analysis. Journal of Voca-
tional Behavior, 40, 351-363.
Matsui, T., & Tsukamoto, S. (1991). Relation between career self-efficacy measures
based on occupational titles and Holland codes and model environments: A
methodological contribution. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 38, 78-91.
Mitchell, L. K., & Krumboltz, J. D. (1990). Social learning approach to career deci-
sion making: Krumboltz7 theory. In D. Brown, L. Brooks, and Associates, Career
choice and development (2nd Ed., pp. 145-196). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
National Commission on Excellence in Education (1983). A nation at risk: The
imperative of educational reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing
Office.
Nevill, D. D., Neimeyer, G. J., Probert, B., & Fukuyama, M. (1986). Cognitive struc-
tures in vocational information processing and decision making. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 28,110-122.
Nevill, D. D., & Schlecker, D. I. (1988). The relation of self-efficacy and assertive-
ness to willingness to engage in traditional/nontraditional career activities.
Psychology of Women Quarterly, 12, 91-98.
Niles, S. G., & Sowa, C. J. (1992). Mapping the nomological network of career self-
efficacy. Career Development Quarterly, 41,13-21.
Noble, A. J., Hackett, G, & Chen, E. C (1992, April). Relations of career and academic
self-efficacy to the career aspirations and academic achievement of ninth and tenth
grade at risk students. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, San Francisco.

Self-efficacy in career choice and development 257
O'Hare, M. M, & Beutell, N. J. (1987). Sex differences in coping with career deci-
sion making, journal of Vocational Behavior, 31,174-181.
O'Hare, M. M., & Tamburri, E. (1986). Coping as a moderator of the relation
between anxiety and career decision making. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
33,255-264.
Olson, L. (1993, June 23). Clinton to urge state systems for school-job link. Educa-
tion Week, pp. 1, 36.
Osipow, S. H. (1983). Theories of career development (3rd Ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Osipow, S. H. (1986). Career issues through the life span. In M. S. Pallak & R. O.
Perloff (Eds.), Psychology and work: Productivity, change, and employment (pp.
141-168). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Osipow, S. H., Temple, R. D., & Rooney, R. A. (1993). The short form of the task-
specific occupational self-efficacy scale. Journal of Career Assessment, 1,13-20.
Ozer, E. M. (1992). Managing work and family: The effects of childcare on perceived self-
efficacy and the psychological health of new working mothers. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Stanford University, Stanford, California.
Post, P., Stewart, M. A., & Smith, P. L. (1991). Self-efficacy, interest, and consider-
ation of math/science and non math/science occupations among college
freshmen. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 38,179-186.
Post-Kammer, P., & Smith, P. L. (1985). Sex differences in career self-efficacy, con-
sideration, and interests of eighth and ninth graders. Journal of Counseling Psy-
chology, 32, 551-559.
Post-Kammer, P., & Smith, P. L. (1986). Sex differences in math and science career
self-efficacy among disadvantaged students. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 29,
89-101.
Richardson, V., Casanova, U., Placier, P., & Guilfoyle, K. (1989). School children at
risk. London: Falmer.
Robbins, S. B. (1985). Validity estimates for the Career Decision-making Self-effi-
cacy Scale. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 18, 64-
71.
Rooney, R., & Osipow, S. H. (1992). Task-specific occupational self-efficacy scale:
The development and validation of a prototype. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
40,14-32.
Rotberg, H. L., Brown, D., & Ware, W. B. (1987). Career self-efficacy expectations
and perceived range of career options in community college students. Journal
of Counseling Psychology, 34,164-170.
Schunk, D. H. (in press). Education and instruction. In J. E. Maddux (Ed.), Self-effi-
cacy, adaptation, and adjustment: Theory, research, and application. New York: Ple-
num.
Spokane, A. R. (1991). Career intervention. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Stickel, S. A., & Bonett, R. M. (1991). Gender differences in career self-efficacy:
Combining a career with home and family. Journal of College Student Develop-
ment, 32,297-301.
Super, D. E. (1990). A life-span, life-space approach to career development. In D.
Brown, L. Brooks, and Associates, Career choice and development (pp. 197-261).
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Taylor, K. M, & Betz, N. E. (1983). Applications of self-efficacy theory to the under-
standing and treatment of career indecision. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 22,
63-81.

258 Gail Hackett
Taylor, K. ML, & Popma, J. (1990). An examination of the relationships among
career decision-making self-efficacy, career salience, locus of control, and voca-
tional indecision. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 37,17-31.
Wheeler, K. G. (1983). Comparisons of self-efficacy and expectancy models of occu-
pational preferences for college males and females. Journal of Occupational Psy-
chology, 56, 73-78.
Williams, T. ML, & Leonard, M. M. (1988). Graduating black undergraduates: The
step beyond retention. Journal of College Student Development, 29,69-75.
Wood, R., & Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory of organizational manage-
ment. Academy of Management Review, 14,361-384.
Zilber, S. M. (1988, August). The effects of attributional styles, sex, and task performance
on task and career self-efficacy expectations. Paper presented at the Annual Con-
vention of the American Psychological Association, Atlanta, Georgia.
Zimmerman, B. (1995). Self-efficacy and educational development. In A. Bandura
(Ed.), Self-efficacy in changing societies (pp. 202-231). New York: Cambridge
University Press.

9. Changing risk behaviors and
adopting health behaviors:
The role of self-efficacy beliefs
RALF SCHWARZER AND REINHARD FUCHSDiseases can have a variety of causes, but a major cause is health-risk
behaviors, such as smoking, alcohol consumption, poor nutrition, lack of
physical exercise, risky sexual practices, and ignoring preventive health
screenings. Moreover, many people try to cope with stress by regulating
their emotions through health-impairing activities. For example, they
might attempt to calm down by smoking or taking drugs. People oftendistract themselves from stressful encounters by resorting to behaviorsthat may alleviate discomfort in the short run, but at the expense of health
in the long run. Public health efforts continually aim to reduce risk behav-
iors, which has produced some progress in this regard. There are many
reasons – some personal, others social – why risk behaviors are attractiveand persistent. Therefore, no single public health strategy can counteract
them all effectively. This chapter will focus on individual determinants of
behavioral change, although environmental conditions also deserve atten-
tion. A few introductory remarks will provide the context for this analysis.
Health behaviors in the context of macrosocial change
We live in a world that is characterized by rapid and uncertain macroso-
cial changes. In Europe, for example, the breakdown of the communist
system, the economic recession, and the large influx of immigrants havecreated a great deal of social stress. The hardships of migration, unem-
ployment, and poverty foster drug use, crime, and risky health habits. Thegrowth of multiethnic and disadvantaged populations displaced fromtheir native countries places additional strains on national and local pub-
lic health systems.
One major health-risk behavior is smoking. It is more highly prevalent
among lower social classes and in Eastern European countries than in the
259

260 Ralf Schwarzer and Reinhard Fuchs
West. Smoking as well as alcohol and drug abuse vary with level of educa-
tion and social class, and with degree of westernization. Of all people over
14 years of age, 34% are smokers in the former East Germany, compared to
27% in the former West Germany. This gap widens when only heavy
smokers are considered. Smoking significantly increases the risk of cancer,
coronary heart disease, and other ailments. It not only has an independent
effect on these health conditions but also interacts with other risk behav-
iors, such as drinking.
Sexual risk behaviors and intravenous drug use have become major
health threats with the global spread of the AIDS epidemic (Ellickson &
Hays, 1992; Pryor & Reeder, 1993). Drugs are now being shipped in mas-
sive quantities to Eastern Europe, which is submerged in severe instability,and within the European Community, with its now-open borders. In addi-
tion to political efforts to control drug trafficking, public health efforts aim
at preventing individual drug use and at motivating the use of condoms.
Although condoms provide protection against infection with sexually
transmitted disease, they are used only by a minority of those at risk
(Desjarlais, 1992; European Center, 1992; Jemmott, Jemmott, Spears,
Hewitt, et al., 1992). Effective interventions are clearly needed (Abraham,Sheeran, Spears,
& Abrams, 1992).
Adolescents represent an important group for health promotion. Many
smoke, drink, experiment with drugs, drive recklessly, and practice unsafesex, perhaps because they are not aware of the risks they are taking. Per-ceived invulnerability is one potential cause for risky behaviors. However,
many young people do understand the risks they are taking but choose to
ignore them because they weight other values more heavily (Bell
& Bell, in
press; Fischhoff, 1992; Jessor, 1993; Jessor, Donovan, & Costa, 1992). Recent
research has shown that adolescents exhibit an optimistic bias in their per-ception of personal risks to the same degree as adults do. Thus, they do
not constitute a unique age group that feels less vulnerable than adults
(Jacobs Quadrel,
Fischhoff, & Davis, 1993). If this is true, they need much
more than risk information to motivate them to reduce their risk-taking
behavior.
Smoking and sexual risks are salient examples of detrimental behaviors
that can impair health. Poor eating habits, lack of physical exercise, and
avoidance of recommended health screenings are other behaviors that
contribute to health problems. Although some constraints exist, individu-
als in general have the freedom and capability to exercise influence over
their health-related behavior. Public health campaigns can support thisindividual potential. However, unless well designed and appropriately

Changing risk behaviors and adopting health behaviors 261
tailored to particular audiences, such campaigns can waste a lot of re-
sources. Psychologists have identified a number of factors that play aninfluential role in fostering motivation and adaptation of health-promot-
ing habits. For example, goal setting and other decisional processes set the
stage for personal change. However, good intentions are not sufficient toget people to adopt health practices or to refrain from risky ones.
Self-
referent thought intervenes at various stages of the initiation and mainte-nance of beneficial actions. Consideration of these processes in public
health campaigns and in targeted interventions is of considerable import-
ance. The present chapter analyzes these health-related cognitions and
their impact on health behavior.
Optimistic self-belief s as facilitators of health-related thought and
action
Adopting health-promoting behaviors and refraining from health-impair-
ing behaviors is difficult. Most people have a hard time making the deci-
sion to change, and an even harder time maintaining the adopted changes
when they face inducements to revert to their prior habits. This chapter
reviews evidence on social-cognitive factors that facilitate this process of
change and presents new findings that increase understanding the role of
self-beliefs. According to social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986), human
motivation and action are extensively regulated by forethought. This
anticipatory control mechanism involves three types of expectancies: (a)
situation-outcome expectancies, in which consequences are produced by
environmental events independent of personal action; (b) action-outcome
expectancies, in which outcomes flow from personal action; and (c) per-
ceived self-efficacy, which is concerned with people's beliefs in their capa-
bilities to perform courses of action required to attain a desired outcome.
The likelihood that people will adopt a valued health behavior (such as
physical exercise) or give up a detrimental habit (such as smoking) may
depend on three sets of cognitions: (a) the expectancy that one is at risk ("I
have a high risk of getting cancer from smoking"); (b) the expectancy that
behavioral change would reduce the threat ("If I quit smoking, I will
reduce my risk"); and (c) the expectancy that one is sufficiently capable of
exercising control over a risky habit ("I am capable of quitting smokingpermanently"). Most people are optimistic when they assess situation-
outcome relationships. They feel less vulnerable toward health threats
than they should, but they believe that their reference group is at higherrisk for diseases (Weinstein, 1982). Also, most people believe that their
actions will produce positive outcomes and that they are personally capa-

262 Ralf Schwarzer and Reinhard Fuchs
ble to cope with their life demands. The former has been called defensive
optimism, the latter functional optimism (Schwarzer, 1994; Taylor, 1989).
Functional optimism relies not only on positive outcome expectancies but
also on personal coping resources. To initiate and maintain health behav-
iors, it is not sufficient to perceive an action-outcome contingency. One
must also believe that one has the capability to perform the required
behavior. A large body of research has examined the role of optimistic self-
beliefs as a predictor of behavior change in the health domain (for an over-
view see Bandura, 1992; O'Leary, 1992; Schwarzer, 1992). Behavioral
change goals exert their effect through optimistic self-beliefs. These beliefs
slightly overestimate perceived coping capabilities.
Both outcome expectancies and efficacy beliefs play influential roles in
adoption of health behaviors, in elimination of detrimental habits, and in
the maintenance of change. In adopting a desired behavior, individuals
first form an intention and then attempt to execute the action. Outcome
expectancies are important determinants in the formation of intentions
but are less so in action control. Self-efficacy, on the other hand, seems to
be crucial in both stages of the self-regulation of health behavior. Positive
outcome expectancies encourage the decision to change one's behavior.
Thereafter, outcome expectancies may play a lesser role as problems arise
during the adoption of the behavior and its maintenance. At this stage,
perceived self-efficacy continues to operate as a controlling influence.
Perceived self-efficacy represents the belief that one has the capability to
change risky health behaviors by personal action. Behavior change is seen
as dependent on one's perceived capability to cope with stress and bore-
dom and to mobilize one's resources and courses of action required to
meet the situational demands. Efficacy beliefs affect the intention to
change risk behavior, the amount of effort expended to attain this goal,
and the persistence to continue striving in spite of barriers and setbacks
that may undermine motivation. Perceived self-efficacy has become a
widely applied theoretical construct in models of addiction and relapse
(e.g., Annis & Davis, 1988; Baer & Lichtenstein, 1988; Donovan & Marlatt,
1988; Marlatt & Gordon, 1985). These theories assume that success in cop-
ing with high-risk situations depends partly on people's beliefs that they
operate as active agents of their own actions and that they possess the nec-
essary skills to reinstate control should a slip occur.
Self-efficacy and specific health behaviors
A number of studies on adoption of health practices have measured self-
efficacy to assess its potential influences in initiating behavior change. As

Changing risk behaviors and adopting health behaviors 263
people proceed from considering precautions in a general way toward
shaping a behavioral intention, contemplating detailed action plans, and
actually performing a health behavior on a regular basis, they begin to
crystallize beliefs in their capabilities to initiate change. In an early study
of adoptive behavior, Beck and Lund (1981) exposed dental patients to a
persuasive communication designed to alter their beliefs about periodon-
tal disease. Neither perceived disease severity nor outcome expectancy
were predictive of adoptive behavior when perceived self-efficacy was
controlled. Perceived self-efficacy emerged as the best predictor of the
intention to floss (r = .69) and of the actual behavior, frequency of flossing
(r = .44). Seydel, Taal, and Wiegman (1990) report that outcome expectan-
cies as well as perceived self-efficacy are good predictors of intention to
engage in behaviors to detect breast cancer (such as breast self-examina-
tion, see also Meyerowitz & Chaiken, 1987; Rippetoe & Rogers, 1987).
Perceived self-efficacy was found to predict outcomes of a controlled-
drinking program (Sitharthan & Kavanagh, 1990). Perceived self-efficacy
has also proven to be a powerful personal resource in coping with stress
(Lazarus & Folkman, 1987). In addition, there is evidence that perceived
self-efficacy in coping with stressors affects immune function (Wiedenfeld
et al., 1990). Subjects with high efficacy beliefs are better able to tolerate
pain than those of low self-efficacy (Litt, 1988; Manning & Wright, 1983).
Self-efficacy has been shown to affect blood pressure, heart rate, and
serum catecholamine levels in coping with challenging or threatening sit-
uations (Bandura, Cioffi, Taylor, & Brouillard, 1988; Bandura, Reese, &
Adams, 1982; Bandura, Taylor, Williams, Mefford, & Barchas, 1985).
Recovery of cardiovascular function in postcoronary patients is similarly
enhanced by beliefs in one's physical and cardiac efficacy (Taylor,
Bandura, Ewart, Miller, & DeBusk, 1985). Cognitive-behavioral treatment
of patients with rheumatoid arthritis enhanced their efficacy beliefs,
reduced pain and joint inflammation, and improved psychosocial func-
tioning (O'Leary, Shoor, Lorig, & Holman, 1988). Perceived self-efficacy
predicted degree of therapeutic change.
Smoking
Another area in the health field where perceived self-efficacy has been
studied extensively is smoking. Quitting the habit requires optimistic self-
beliefs, which can be instilled in smoking cessation programs (Baer &
Lichtenstein, 1988; Carmody, 1992; Devins & Edwards, 1988; Haaga &
Stewart, 1992; Ho, 1992; Karanci, 1992; Kok et al., 1992). Efficacy beliefs to
resist temptation to smoking predict reduction in the number of cigarettes

264 Ralf Schwarzer and Reinhard Fuchs
smoked (r = -.62), the amount of tobacco per smoke (r = -.43), and the
nicotine content (r = -.30) (Godding & Glasgow, 1985). Pretreatment self-
efficacy does not predict relapse, but posttreatment self-efficacy does
(Kavanagh, Pierce, Lo, & Shelley, 1993). Mudde, Kok, and Strecher (1989)
found that efficacy beliefs increase after treatment, and those who had
acquired the highest levels of self-efficacy remained successful quitters as
assessed in a one-year period (see also Kok, DeVries, Mudde, & Strecher,
1991).
Various researchers have verified relationships between perceived self-
regulatory efficacy and relapse occurrence or time of relapse, with correla-
tions ranging from -.34 to -.69 (Colletti, Supnick, & Payne, 1985; Condiotte
& Lichtenstein, 1981; DiClemente, Prochaska, & Gibertini, 1985; M. E. Gar-
cia, Schmitz, & Doerfler, 1990; Wilson, Wallston, & King, 1990). Hierar-
chies of instigating situations correspond to hierarchies of self-efficacy:
The more a critical situation induces craving, the greater the perceived
efficacy needed to prevent relapse (Velicer, DiClemente, Rossi, & Pro-
chaska, 1990). In a program of research on smoking prevention with
Dutch adolescents, Kok and colleagues (1991) conducted several studies
on the influence of perceived self-efficacy on nonsmoking intentions and
behaviors. Cross-sectionally, they could explain 64% of the variance of
intentions as well as of behavior, which was due to the overwhelming pre-
dictive power of perceived self-efficacy (r = .66 for intention, r – .71 for
reported behavior) (DeVries, Dijkstra, & Kuhlman, 1988). These relation-
ships were replicated longitudinally, although with somewhat less
impressive coefficients (DeVries, Dijkstra, & Kok, 1989). Also, studies of
the onset of smoking in teenagers have shown that perceived self-efficacy
mediates peer social influence on smoking (Stacy, Sussman, Dent, Burton,
& Flay, 1992).
Physical exercise
Motivating people to engage in regular physical exercise depends on sev-
eral factors, among them optimistic self-beliefs of being able to get oneself
to do it in the face of many dissuading conditions. Perceived self-efficacy
has been found to be a major influence in forming intentions to exercise
and in maintaining the practice for an extended time (Dzewaltowski,
Noble, & Shaw, 1990; Feltz & Riessinger, 1990; McAuley, 1992,1993; Shaw,
Dzewaltowski, & McElroy, 1992; Weinberg, Grove, & Jackson, 1992; Weiss,
Wiese, & Klint, 1989). Various psychometric instruments have been devel-
oped to assess self-efficacy for physical activities, such as the Diving Effi-

Changing risk behaviors and adopting health behaviors 265
cacy Scale by Feltz, Landers, and Raeder (1979), the Physical Self-efficacyScale by Ryckman, Robbins, Thornton, and Cantrell (1982), the ExerciseSelf-efficacy Scale by Garcia and King (1991), and others (Barling & Abel,
1983; Fruin, Pratt, & Owen, 1991; Godin, Valois, & Lepage, 1993; Marcus &
Owen, 1992; Woolfolk, Murphy, Gottesfeld, & Aitken, 1985).
Dzewaltowski (1989) has compared the predictiveness of the theory of
reasoned action (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975), and social cognitive theory in
the field of exercise motivation. The exercise behavior of 328 students was
recorded for seven weeks and then related to prior measures of different
cognitive factors. Behavioral intention was measured by asking the indi-
viduals the likelihood that they would perform exercise behavior. Attitudetoward physical exercise, perceived behavioral control, and beliefs about
the subjective norm concerning exercise were also assessed. The theory of
reasoned action fit the data, as indicated by a path analysis. Exercise
behavior correlated with intention (.22), attitude (.18), and behavioral con-
trol beliefs (.13). In addition, three social cognitive variables were
assessed: (a) strength of self-efficacy to participate in an exercise program
when faced with impediments, (b) 13 expected outcomes multiplied by
the evaluation of those outcomes, and finally, (c) self-satisfaction or dissat-
isfaction with the participants' level of activities and with the multiple
outcomes of exercise. Exercise behavior was correlated with perceived
self-efficacy (.34), outcome expectancies (.15), and dissatisfaction (.23), as
well as with the interactions of these factors. The higher the three social
cognitive constructs were at the onset of the program, the more days theyexercised per week. Persons who were confident that they could adhere tothe strenuous exercise program were dissatisfied with their present levelof physical activity and expected positive outcomes, and they were highly
successful in adhering to a regular program of exercise. The variables in
the theory of reasoned action did not account for any unique variance in
exercise behavior after the influences of the social cognitive factor was
controlled. These findings indicate that social cognitive theory providespowerful explanatory constructs.
The role of efficacy beliefs in initiating and maintaining a regular pro-
gram of physical exercise has also been studied by Desharnais, Bouillon,
and Godin (1986); Long and Haney (1988); Sallis and colleagues (1986);
Sallis, Hovell, Hofstetter, and Barrington (1992); and Wurtele and Maddux
(1987). Endurance in physical performance was found to be dependent on
experimentally created efficacy beliefs in a series of experiments on com-petitive efficacy by Weinberg, Gould, and Jackson (1979); Weinberg,
Gould, Yukelson, and Jackson (1981); and Weinberg, Yukelson, and Jack-

266 Ralf Schwarzer and Reinhard Fuchs
son (1980). In terms of competitive performance, tests of the role of effi-cacy beliefs in tennis performance revealed that perceived efficacy wasrelated to 12 rated performance criteria (Barling
& Abel, 1983).
Patients with rheumatoid arthritis were motivated to engage in regular
physical exercise by enhancing their perceived efficacy in a self-manage-ment program (Holman
& Lorig, 1992). In applying self-efficacy theory to
recovery from heart disease, patients who had suffered a myocardial
infarction were prescribed a moderate exercise regimen (Ewart, 1992).Ewart found that efficacy beliefs predicted both underexercise and overex-ertion during programmed exercise. Patients with chronic obstructive pul-monary diseases tend to avoid physical exertion due to experienced dis-
comfort, but rehabilitation programs insist on compliance with an exerciseregimen (Toshima, Kaplan, & Ries, 1992). Compliance with medical regi-mens improved after patients suffering from chronic obstructive pulmo-nary disease received a cognitive-behavioral treatment designed to raiseconfidence in their capabilities. Efficacy beliefs predicted moderate exer-cise (r = .47), whereas perceived control did not (Kaplan, Atkins, &Reinsch, 1984).
Nutrition and weight control
Dieting and weight control are health-related behaviors that have also
been shown to be governed by self-efficacy beliefs (Bernier & Avard, 1986;
Chambliss & Murray, 1979; Glynn & Ruderman, 1986; Hofstetter, Sallis, &
Hovell, 1990; Shannon, Bagby, Wang, & Trenkner, 1990; Slater, 1989; Wein-
berg, Hughes, Critelli, England, & Jackson, 1984). Chambliss and Murray
(1979) found that overweight individuals were most responsive to behav-
ioral treatment when they had a high sense of efficacy and an internallocus of control. Other studies on weight control have been published byBagozzi and Warshaw (1990) and Sallis, Pinski, Grossman, Patterson, andNader (1988). Stotland,
Zuroff, and Roy (1991) have developed a Situa-
tion-Based Dieting Self-efficacy Scale that presents 25 risk situations and
measures adherence to a diet in these situations. Clark, Abrams, Niaura,Eaton, and Rossi (1991) developed a 20-item Weight Efficacy Life-styleQuestionnaire that includes five situational factors, namely negative emo-
tions, availability of foods, social pressure, physical discomfort, and posi-
tive activities. It has been found that self-efficacy operates best in concert
with general life-style changes, including physical exercise and provision
of social support. Self-confident clients of intervention programs were less
likely to relapse to their previous unhealthful diet.

Changing risk behaviors and adopting health behaviors 267
Sexual risk behavior
Perceived self-efficacy has been studied with respect to prevention of
unprotected sexual behavior, for example, the resistance of sexual coer-
cions and the use of contraceptives to avoid unwanted pregnancies. For
example, teenage women with a high rate of unprotected intercourse have
been found to use contraceptives more effectively if they believed they
could exercise control over their sexual activities (Levinson, 1986). Gil-
christ and Schinke (1983) taught teenagers through modeling and role
playing how to deal with pressures and ensure the use of contraceptives.
This mode of treatment significantly raised their sense of perceived effi-
cacy and self-protective skills. Sexual risk-taking behavior such as not
using condoms to protect against sexually transmitted disease has also
been studied among homosexual men with multiple partners and intrave-
nous drug users. Beliefs in one's capability to negotiate safer sex practices
emerged as the most important predictor of such behaviors (Basen-
Engquist, 1992; Basen-Engquist & Parcel, 1992; Kasen, Vaughn, & Walter,
1992; McKusick, Coates, Morin, Pollack, & Hoff, 1990; O'Leary, Goodhart,
Jemmott, & Boccher-Lattimore, 1992).
Influencing health behaviors that contribute to the prevention of AIDS
has become an urgent matter. Perceived self-efficacy has been shown to
play a role in such behaviors. Kok and colleagues (1991) reported a study
from their Dutch laboratory that analyzed condom use and clean needle
use by drug addicts. Intentions and behaviors were predicted by attitudes,
social norms, and especially by efficacy beliefs. Perceived self-efficacy cor-
related with the intention to use clean needles (.35), with reported clean
needle use (.46), with the intention to use condoms (.74), and with
reported condom use (.67) (Paulussen, Kok, Knibbe, & Kramer, 1989).
Bandura (1994) has summarized a large body of research relating per-
ceived self-efficacy to the exercise of control over HIV infection.
Condom use requires not only some technical skills but interpersonal
negotiation as well (Bandura, 1994; Brafford & Beck, 1991; Coates, 1990).
Convincing a resistant partner to comply with safer sex practices calls for
a high sense of efficacy to exercise control over sexual activities. Programs
have been launched to enhance self-efficacy and to build self-protective
skills in various segments of the population to prevent the spread of the
HIV virus. In particular, studies with homosexual men have focused on
their perceived efficacy to adopt safer sex (Ekstrand & Coates, 1990;
McKusick et al., 1990). Jemmott and his associates have conducted a num-
ber of interesting intervention studies that successfully raised self-regula-

268 Ralf Schwarzer and Reinhard Fuchs
tory efficacy and intentions to adopt a safer sex practice (Jemmott, Jem-mott, & Fong, 1992).
In sum, perceived self-efficacy has been found to predict intentions and
health habits in different domains of health functioning. The intention to
engage in a certain health behavior and the actual behavior itself are posi-
tively associated with beliefs in one's personal efficacy. Efficacy beliefs
determine appraisal of one's personal resources in stressful encounters
and contribute to the forming of behavioral intentions. The strongerpeople's efficacy beliefs, the higher the goals they set for themselves, and
the firmer their commitment to engage in the intended behavior, even inthe face of difficulties and setbacks (Locke
& Latham, 1990).
Relationships between perceived self-efficacy, health behaviors, risk
perceptions, and intentions to change
In the following section, perceived self-efficacy is explored within the
broader context of health-related variables. Rather than evaluating effi-
cacy beliefs and corresponding health behavior, the research examines
how efficacy beliefs may operate within a more complex and theory-based
network of health-related variables. According to modern health behavior
approaches such as protection motivation theory (Rogers, 1983), the the-
ory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1988), and the health action processapproach (Schwarzer, 1992), behavioral intentions are seen as importantdeterminants of health behavior change. Intentions are themselves influ-enced by a number of antecedents such as risk status, risk perceptions,
attitudes, outcome expectancies, and perceived self-efficacy. Some of these
variables were studied within four health domains: smoking, physical
exercise, nutrition, and condom use.
A questionnaire was developed that includes, among other factors, four
sets of scales that assess the perceived self-efficacy to execute the fourclasses of health behaviors (cf. Schwarzer, 1993). Perceived self-efficacy toresist inducement to smoke is measured by eight four-point scales, such as
"Even if I am exhausted or nervous, I can resist the urge to smoke" and"Even if I drink alcohol, I don't let myself be tempted to smoke"
(Cronbach's alpha = .83). Perceived self-efficacy for physical exercise is
measured by 12 seven-point scales, such as "I am confident that I can per-
form a planned exercise even if… 'friends are visiting'… 'I feel tense'…
etc." (Cronbach's alpha = .82). Perceived self-efficacy to adhere to healthy
eating behavior is measured by four 4-point scales, such as "I know for
sure that I could adhere to a healthful diet if I really wanted to" and "I

Changing risk behaviors and adopting health behaviors 269
doubt that I could manage to really carry through a healthful diet" (re-versed) (Cronbach's alpha = .65). Perceived self-efficacy to use condoms is
measured by eight 4-point scales, such as "Even if
I am extremely aroused
sexually, I can still manage to use a condom" and "If my partner declinesto use a condom, I cannot insist upon it" (reversed) (Cronbach's alpha =
.80).
Past behaviors are assessed in terms of habitual activities, such as (a)
"How often per week do you exercise? – Hours – Minutes" (b) "I am used
to eating health foods {not at all true, hardly true, almost true, exactly true)."
(c) "If I have had intimate contacts it is only with a condom {not at all true,
hardly true, almost true, exactly true)." For smoking behavior, first the
smoker status was determined by distinguishing between smokers, ex-
smokers and never-smokers. For smokers only, three levels of risk behav-
ior were designated: (a) frequent smoker (more than 10 cigarettes daily),
(b) less frequent smoker (less than 10 cigarettes daily), (c) irregular smoker(smoking only at special occasions, e.g., at parties).
Behavioral intentions are measured by single items with a 4-point
response format: (a) "I intend to practice more physical exercise in thenear future," (b) "I intend to eat (even) more healthy foods in the near
future," (c) "I intend to smoke less or to refrain from smoking," and (d) "I
intend to use condoms in the future if I should engage in a new intimate
relationship."
Risk perceptions are measured with 7-point scales where the median is
anchored by the average risk for the reference group: "Compared to otherpersons of my age and sex, my risk to get lung cancer one day is … 1 =much smaller, 2 = smaller, 3 = somewhat smaller, 4 = the same as that of
the others, 5 = somewhat higher, 6 = higher, 7
= much higher." In the same
manner, the risks for myocardial infarct, HIV infection, pregnancy, and
overweight were rated.
The instruments were administered to 970 university students in Costa
Rica,1 of whom 37% were male and 63% were female. Their average age
was 21.2 years {SD = 6.64).
Predicting behavioral intentions
The research was designed to verify the predictors of intentions to executehealth behaviors. Past behaviors, risk perceptions, and efficacy beliefswere used in a hierarchical regression analysis as predictors of nonsmok-
ing, physical exercise, healthy eating, and condom use. Because the poten-tial contribution of perceived self-efficacy is of main interest here, a con-

270 Ralf Schwarzer and Reinhard Fuchs
servative strategy was chosen by entering this variable as the last in the
regression equation, after the other variables had been considered. The
analyses were carried out separately for men and women.
Smoking
Table 9.1 presents the correlations of the predictors with intention to stop
smoking or to smoke less, and the beta weights (standardized partial
regression coefficients) that specify the contribution of each variable to the
prediction when all the other variables are statistically controlled. Similar
prediction patterns were found for females and males, but different
amounts of variance were explained. Without self-efficacy, 17% of the
variation in intention was explained in the female subsample. Self-efficacy
explained an additional 7% of the variance. Past smoking behavior (r =
.37), perceiving a personal risk of lung cancer (r = -.39), and perceived self-
efficacy to quit (r = .47) were about equally correlated with the intention to
smoke less or not at all. The less the young women smoked in the past and
the stronger they believed they could control their smoking behavior, the
more they intended to do so. Surprisingly, higher risk perception was
associated with lower intention to quit. When all predictors are included
in the regression equation, only self-efficacy remained as a significant con-
tributor, making all others negligible. A similar pattern emerged for the
males. Only 6% of the variation in intention was explained without the
self-efficacy variable, and 11% was explained with it. Risk perceptions did
not correlate significantly with intentions. Smoking infrequently (r = -.22)
and belief in one's capability to stop smoking (r = .25) were correlated
with intentions. But in the final regression equation, perceived self-effi-
cacy again was the only significant predictor of behavioral intentions (beta
= .31). For perceived risk of lung cancer (beta = .27), a borderline signifi-
cant association could be identified (p = .08). In sum, for both males and
females, perceived self-efficacy emerged as the best predictor of intention
to smoke less or to quit smoking.
Physical exercise
Similar results were obtained for physical exercise. Table 9.2 shows that
past level of exercise did not make a difference when it came to intentions
to improve one's fitness. Also, the perceptions of risk for heart disease or
for being overweight did not make a great difference (for women, the
threat of heart disease was somewhat influential [beta = -.11]). Only per-
ceived self-efficacy was positively associated with one's behavioral goals.

Changing risk behaviors and adopting health behaviors 271
Table 9.1. Prediction of the intention not to smoke or to smoke less
Smoking
Risk heart disease
Risk lung cancer
Self-efficacy
Multiple R without
self-efficacy
Multiple R with
self-efficacy
* p< .05
**p< .01
Healthy eatingFemales
r
37
-.15
-.39
.47{n = 96)
beta
.03
-.02
-.15
.36"
.41
.49Males (n
r
.22
-.07
-.04
.25= 78)
beta
.17
-.11
.27
.31*
.25
.33
Only a small amount of variance in intention could be explained for
healthy nutrition (see Table 9.3). Past eating patterns, body mass index,
and risk perceptions were of negligible importance, whereas the zero-
order correlations between efficacy beliefs and intention were significant
(r = .15 for females, r = .27 for males). For females, efficacy beliefs yielded
an increase from 2% to 4% explained variance. For males, an increase from
2% to 9% was obtained. In terms of beta weights, no other coefficient
exceeded the one for perceived self-efficacy.
Condom use
The only health behavior where a different pattern of relationships
emerged was condom use (see Table 9.4). Here, past behavior was the
dominant predictor of intentions to use condoms in the future (r = .55 for
females, r = .46 for males). Perceived self-efficacy was the second best pre-
dictor (r = .25 for females, r = 37 for males). Obviously, it was more
important in the male subsample. Perceived risk for infection with the
HIV virus or pregnancy did not play a significant role. A substantial
amount of intention variance was explained (34% for females, 25% for
males). Although there was only a 2% increase in explained variance by
self-efficacy for females, the gain was significant.

272 Ralf Schwarzer and Reinhard Fuchs
Table 9.2. Prediction of the intention to exercise
Exercise
Risk heart disease
Risk overweight
Self-efficacy
Multiple R without
self-efficacy
Multiple R with
self-efficacy
1 V < -05
v< .01Females (n
r
.01
-.17
-.10
.23= 529)
beta
-.03
-.11*
-.03
.21**
.17.27Males (n
r
-.02-.06
-.03
.21= 316)
beta
-.05-.01
.01.22.06.22
In sum, past behavior predicted mainly the anticipated use of condoms
with new partners. However, it did not predict other health behaviors
when efficacy beliefs were also entered in the regression equations. Risk
perceptions was the weakest predictor if at all for the factors. Perceived self-
efficacy played a consistently significant role in all domains of health func-
Table 9.3. Prediction of the intention to eat healthy foods
EatingBody
mass index
Risk heart disease
Risk overweight
Self-efficacy
Multiple R without
self-efficacy
Multiple R with
self-efh'cacy
p< .05
**p< .01Females (n
r
.10.03
-.11-.03
.15=
517)
beta
.09*
.03
-.07
.02
.12**
.15.19Males
(n
r
.07
-.05
.01
-.10
.27= 308)
beta
.07
.01
.09
-.09
.27**
.15.30

Changing risk behaviors and adopting health behaviors 273
Table 9.4. Prediction of the intention to use condoms with a new partner
Condom use
Risk HIV infection
Risk pregnancy
Self-efficacy
Multiple R without
self-efficacy
Multiple R with
self-efficacy
p < .05
**p < .01Females (n
r
.55
.11
.0525=
295)
beta
.53"
.08
.13*
.14"
.57.58Males
(n
r
.46
-.09
n.a.
.37= 255)
beta
.37"
-.05
n.a.
.21"
.46.50
tioning and was the dominant predictor except in condom use. Theseresults, however, should be interpreted with caution because of the cross-
sectional design of the research. However, a large body of experimentalresearch verifying the causal contribution of efficacy beliefs to humanmotivation and behavior (Bandura, 1992) add some confidence to causal
inference.
Relationship between self-efficacy and cancer screening behavior
The focus of another study was on predicting intention to participate in a
medical cancer prevention examination. It was hypothesized that past
behavior, perceived self-efficacy, and risk perceptions are important pre-
cursors of the intention to perform cancer screening behavior. In addition,
outcome expectancies toward cancer screening were measured. Previousstudies have shown that outcome expectancies of the type "If I participate
in cancer prevention examinations, it is possible to detect cancer early
enough to stop the disease" may be a strong predictor not only of the
intention, but of the actual cancer screening behavior as well (Frazier &Cummings, 1990; Lerman, Rimer, Trock, Balshem, & Engstrom, 1990;
Seydel et al., 1990). The present study investigated the possible synergetic
and interactive effects of self-efficacy, outcome expectancies, and vulnera-
bility cognitions in the motivational process that leads to a regular cancer
screening behavior.

274 Ralf Schwarzer and Reinhard Fuchs
Participants were randomly selected citizens of Berlin. Complete data
were obtained from 1,184 adults (age 18 to 70), who were asked to com-
plete a self-administered questionnaire. Among other variables, the fol-
lowing were measured: Self-efficacy to engage in cancer screening behav-
ior was assessed by three items: 'There are barriers that make it difficult to
attend a cancer screening. How confident are you that you could over-
come the following barriers? … (1) I am able to overcome my aversion of
an unpleasant medical examination. (2) I am able to cope with the fear that
the physician might detect cancer. (3) I am able to find the time and
patience necessary for undergoing cancer screening." Outcome expectan-
cies regarding cancer screening behavior were measured by seven items,
such as "If I attend cancer screenings on a regular basis (at least once a
year) then I feel much safer" or "… then the doctoral visit takes me a lot of
time and planning in advance." All outcome expectancies were summed
up to an index reflecting the perceived benefits of cancer screening behav-
ior. Perceived vulnerability to cancer was assessed by asking "Compared
to other persons of my age and sex, my risk of getting cancer is … much
smaller (1), smaller (2), somewhat smaller (3), the same as that of the oth-
ers (4), somewhat higher (5), higher (6), much higher (7)." Past behavior
was assessed with the item "How often have you had a cancer preventive
examination during the last 5 years" and the response categories "several
times per year," "once per year," "once every few years," and "never." The
intention to engage in cancer screening behavior was measured by the
item "I intend to have a cancer preventive examination done within the
next 12 months."
Predicting the intention toward cancer screening
To predict intention to engage in cancer screening behavior, hierarchical
regression analyses were performed with the past behavior as predictor in
the first step; perceived self-efficacy, outcome expectancies, and vulnera-
bility as predictors in the second step (main effects predictors); all possible
two-way interactions in the third step; and the three-way interaction in
the fourth step.
Table 9.5 summarizes the results of the regression analyses that were
computed for four subgroups separately: younger men (age 18 to 40),
younger women (age 18 to 40), older men (age 41 to 70), and older women
(age 41 to 70). In all subgroups, past behavior was always the strongest
predictor of the intention toward cancer screening in the future. After con-
trolling for past behavior, only outcome expectancies emerged as a further

Changing risk behaviors and adopting health behaviors
Table 9.5. Four stepwise regression analyses (for four different sex x age groups) to
predict the intention toward cancer screening behavior275
Step
1
2
3
4
><><Predictor
Past cancer screening behavior
Outcome expectancies
Perceived self-efficacy
Vulnerability (risk perception)
Self-efficacy x outcome
expectancies
Vulnerability x self-efficacy
Vulnerability x outcome
expectancies
Self-efficacy x outcome
expectancies x vulnerability
.05
.01Subgroups
18-40 years
Males
beta
.25"
.17*
.14
.05
-.06
.07
-.03
-.08Females
beta
.47"
.10*
.18**
.04
-.13"
.07
-.05
.0441-70 years
Males
beta
.43"
.26"
.19**
.03
-.10
-.07
-.02
.07Females
beta
.47**
.23**
.21**
.11*
-.19**
-.05
-.08
-.06
predictor that was significant in all subgroups. Self-efficacy turned out to
be predictive in three of the four subgroups (it was no predictor in youn-
ger men), and perceived vulnerability to cancer contributed to the predic-
tion only among older women.
A closer inspection of the coefficients shows that the intention toward
cancer screening behavior is only weakly predictable in younger men,
probably because "cancer prevention" is not yet an issue of great interest
to this age group. Furthermore, the results suggest that in men (especially
in older men) outcome expectancies may be more important for motiva-
ting cancer screening behavior than perceived self-efficacy. This is consis-
tent with findings reported by Seydel and colleagues (1990), and it sup-
ports the general assumption that men's health-preventive actions are
likely to be influenced more by outcome expectancies than by assessments
of their own capabilities. In younger women, on the other hand, perceived
self-efficacy seems to be the more decisive factor in predicting cancer pre-
vention behavior; outcome expectancies here only play a marginal role.

276 Ralf Schwarzer and Reinhard Fuchs
Intention Towards Cancer Screening
6,716,56,36,15,95,75,5High
Self-Efficacy
Low
Self-Efficacy
Low High
Positive Outcome Expectancies
Figure 9.1. Interaction between self-efficacy and outcome expectancies in
women.
The two-way interactions that were entered into the regression equation
in the third step yielded a significant Self-Efficacy x Outcome Expectan-
cies interaction in women of both age groups. The graphic display of this
interaction is presented in Figure 9.1. The figure shows the result of an
analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) based on all women (age 18 to 70) with
intention as the dependent variable, self-efficacy and outcome expectan-
cies as predictors, and past behavior as a covariate. For this analysis bothpredictors were dichotomized at the median. The significant interaction
effect suggests that positive outcome expectancies may help to raise the
intention to screen for cancer in women of lower self-efficacy. Women of
high self-efficacy intend on engaging in screening activities regardless of
outcome expectancies. This result sheds light on the interplay of health-related cognitions in the motivational process. The data suggest that a low
sense of efficacy can be compensated by a high outcome expectancy. The
behavioral intention seems to decline only if both self-efficacy and out-
come expectancy are low.
Contrary to Rogers's (1983) motivation protection theory, risk percep-
tions (vulnerability) had virtually no effect in motivating cancer screening
behavior. In particular, the hypothesized interaction effects of vulnerabil-
ity by self-efficacy and vulnerability by outcome expectancies (see Wurtele
& Maddux, 1987) did not emerge. Together with similar results of other
studies (Seydel et al, 1990), the finding suggests that the role of vulnera-

Changing risk behaviors and adopting health behaviors 277
bility beliefs in the process of adoption and maintenance of preventive
health behaviors needs to be seriously reexamined.
Theoretical status of perceived self-efficacy in health behavior
changes: The health action process approach
There is overwhelming evidence that perceived self-efficacy is closely
associated with behavioral intentions and health behavior change. How-
ever, the strength of relationships differs somewhat from domain to
domain and from sample to sample. Adding efficacy beliefs to a set of pre-
dictors not only yields a significant gain in explained variance, but often
self-efficacy turns out to become the most powerful single predictor.
Beyond this evidence, it is desirable to identify the causal status of opti-
mistic efficacy beliefs within a more comprehensive theoretical frame-
work. Adopting precautions or changing risky habits must be seen as a
self-regulation process that can be subdivided into a number of stages (see
Prochaska, Norcross, Fowler, Follick, & Abrams, 1992; Weinstein & Sand-
man, 1992). Having formed an intention to change is the endpoint of the
motivation phase, and subsequent events can be subsumed under the
heading of volition processes (Gollwitzer, 1993; Kuhl & Beckmann, 1994).
In this section, a brief outline of the health action process approach is
given (see Figure 9.2). Three groups of cognitions are influential in estab-
lishing a behavioral goal or intention: (a) risk perceptions, (b) outcome
expectancies, and (c) perceived self-efficacy. Risk perceptions include
one's perceived vulnerability and the perceived severity of a disease or
other critical event. These risk perceptions are often distorted and reflect
an "optimistic bias" that leads to underestimate the objective risk (Taylor,
1989; Weinstein, 1980; for an overview see Schwarzer, 1994). Nevertheless,
some degree of threat is involved that may have motivational value in the
decision-making process. In terms of causal order it is hypothesized that
risk perceptions only set the stage for subsequent contemplations. Their
effect on intentions is seen as being rather indirect than direct. Therefore,
threat appraisal or risk perception often disappears as a determinant
when entered into a regression equation to predict behavioral intentions.
When stable outcome expectancies and self-beliefs are already formed, the
motivational value of risk perceptions may become negligible.
Outcome expectancies represent specific contingency knowledge. Feel-
ing threatened may stimulate the acquisition of such knowledge. People
learn to see actions as causes of events and believe in the changeability of
health risks and risky habits. But beliefs in action-dependent conse-

Outcome
ExpectanciesPerceived
Self-Efficacy
V J
>
Risk
Perceptions
>-\
Goal
Intentions -•(\
\
Action 1
P/ans J1*Action
Control
1 1
Health Action
t
VExternal Barriers
and Resources
j
9.2. The health action process approach.

Changing risk behaviors and adopting health behaviors 279
quences does not necessarily imply that people see themselves as agents
of change. Perceptions of personal agency can be distinguished from
means-ends beliefs (Skinner, 1992; Skinner, Chapman, & Baltes, 1988; Sny-
der et al., 1991) and refer to an internal attribution of actions. In the devel-
opment of personal goals it is possible that agency comes later than
means-ends beliefs. Thus, the hypothesized causal order in the motivation
phase may proceed from threat to knowledge to agency, or in other words,
from risk perceptions to outcome expectancies to perceived self-efficacy.
However, a different causal order is also possible. If people believe they
have no power to effect change, they do not waste time thinking about dif-
ferent means. Agency is then exercised through means. If people believe
they can effect change, they consider the best means to do so. This confu-
sion about causal order may have to do with the level of analysis. If peo-
ple believe that general means to solve a problem must exist, they scruti-
nize their capability for appropriate actions and watch out for the best
means available to them only if they feel capable. In cross-sectional
research designs, all three groups of cognitions are confounded, and it can
happen that risk perceptions not only fail to contribute to the intention,
but can even have a reversed sign, indicating a counterintuitive influence:
the lower the risk, the higher the goal. This may simply reflect the domi-
nating force of optimistic self-beliefs because those who believe they have
personal control over their future need no longer worry about critical
health changes. The anticipated adoption of a health behavior leads to a
reduction in current risk perception (Weinstein & Nicolich, 1993). From a
different viewpoint, one could state that high-risk perception leads to low
intentions to change because excessive fear leads to avoidance behavior.
Good intentions do not necessarily guarantee corresponding actions.
Correlations between goals and behaviors vary greatly. Therefore, post-
intentional self-regulation processes deserve more scientific attention.
While in the motivation phase, it is described what people choose to do; in
the subsequent action or volition phase it is described how hard they try
and how long they persist. The right-hand part of Figure 9.2 consists of
three levels: cognitive, behavioral, and situational. The focus is on cogni-
tions that instigate and control the action, that is, a volitional or self-regu-
lative process that is subdivided into action plans and action control.
When a preference for a particular health behavior has been shaped, the
intention has to be transformed into detailed instructions on how to per-
form the desired action. If, for example, someone intends to lose weight, it
has to be planned how to do it, that is, what foods to buy, when and how

280 Ralf Schwarzer and Reinhard Fuchs
often to eat which amounts, when and where to exercise, and maybe even
whether to cease smoking as well. Thus, a global intention can be speci-
fied by a set of subordinate intentions and action plans that contain proxi-
mal goals and algorithms of action sequences. The volition process seems
not to be influenced by outcome expectancies, but more strongly by self-
efficacy, as the number and quality of action plans have to be dependent
on one's perceived competence and experience. Self-efficacy beliefs influ-
ence the cognitive construction of specific action plans, for example, by
visualizing scenarios that may guide goal attainment. These postinten-
tional preactional cognitions are necessary because otherwise the person
would impulsively act in a trial-and-error fashion and would not know
where to allocate the available resources.
Once an action has been initiated, it has to be controlled by cognitions in
order to be maintained. The action has to be protected from being inter-
rupted and from being given up prematurely due to incompatible compet-
ing intentions that may become dominant while a behavior is being per-
formed. Meta-cognitive activity is needed to complete the primary action
and to suppress distracting secondary action tendencies. Daily physical
exercise, for example, requires self-regulatory processes in order to secure
effort and persistence and to keep competing motivations – such as the
desire to eat, socialize, or sleep – weak for the time being.
When the action is being performed, self-efficacy determines the
amount of effort invested and the level of perseverance. People with self-
doubts are more inclined to anticipate failure scenarios, worry about their
possible performance deficiencies, and abort their attempts prematurely.
People with an optimistic sense of self-efficacy, however, visualize success
scenarios that guide the action and let them persevere in the face of obsta-
cles. When they run into unforeseen difficulties they quickly recover.
Performing an intended health behavior is an action, just as is not per-
forming a risk behavior. The control of health-detrimental actions also
requires effort and persistence, and therefore is also guided by a volitional
process that includes action plans and action control. If one intends to quit
smoking or drinking alcohol, one has to plan how to do it. For example, it
is important to avoid high-risk situations where the pressures to relapse
are overwhelming (Mariatt, 1985). Attaining proximal subgoals contrib-
utes to increase in perceived efficacy to manage more difficult situations
until one can resist under all possible circumstances. If someone is craving
for a cigarette or a drink, action control helps to overcome the critical situ-
ation. For example, individuals can make favorable social comparisons,

Changing risk behaviors and adopting health behaviors 281
engage in competing actions, or seek social support to help resist smoking
and drinking. The more these meta-cognitive skills and internal coping
dialogues are developed and the better they are matched to specific risk
situations, the easier the urges can be controlled. Self-efficacy helps to
reestablish the perseverant efforts needed for the accomplishment of self-
imposed goals.
Finally, situational barriers as well as opportunities have to be consid-
ered. If situational cues are overwhelming, meta-cognitive skills fail to
protect the individual and the temptation cannot be resisted. Actions not
only are a function of intentions and cognitive control but are also influ-
enced by the perceived and the actual environment. A social network, for
example, that ignores the coping process of a quitter by smoking in his
presence creates a difficult stress situation which taxes the quitter's voli-
tional strength. If, on the other hand, the spouse decides to quit too, then a
social support situation is created that enables the quitter to remain absti-
nent in spite of lower levels of volitional strength.
In sum, the action phase can be described along three levels: cognitive,
behavioral, and situational. The cognitive level refers to self-regulatory
processes that mediate between the intentions and the actions. This voli-
tional process contains action plans and action control and is strongly
influenced by self-efficacy expectancies but also by perceived situational
barriers and support.
Conclusions
Numerous studies have shown that health cognitions regulate adoption of
health-promoting behaviors and elimination of health-impairing behav-
iors. Among them, perceived self-efficacy stands out as a major contribu-
tor that affects not only the decision-making process but also the initiation
and maintenance process. Studies have been conducted to compare the
role of perceived self-efficacy with that of risk perceptions and past behav-
ior. The intention to use condoms with a new partner was best predicted
by past behavior, although the intention to stop smoking, to eat healthy
foods, and to exercise were mainly determined by self-efficacy. The inten-
tion to undergo cancer screening was also influenced by self-efficacy, but
this effect was qualified by age, sex, and interactions with outcome expec-
tancies. These findings have implications for the further development of a
health behavior theory that comprises multiple stages of motivation and
volition.

282 Ralf Schwarzer and Reinhard Fuchs
Note
1. The study was conducted by Judith Bassler (1993).
References
Abraham, C, Sheeran, P., Spears, R., & Abrams, D. (1992). Health beliefs and pro-
motion of HIV-preventive intentions among teenagers: A Scottish perspective.
Health Psychology, 11, 363-370.
Ajzen, I. (1988). Attitudes, personality, and behavior. Milton Keynes, CA: Open Uni-
versity Press.
Annis, H. M., & Davis, C. S. (1988). Assessment of expectancies. In D. M. Donovan
& G. A. Marlatt (Eds.), Assessment of addictive behaviors (pp. 84-111). New York:
Guilford.
Baer, J. S., & Lichtenstein, E. (1988). Classification and prediction of smoking
relapse episodes: An exploration of individual differences, journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 56,104-110.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1990). Trying to consume. Journal of Consumer
Research, 17,127-140.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1992). Self-efficacy mechanism in psychobiologic functioning. In R.
Schwarzer (Ed.), Self-efficacy: Thought control of action (pp. 355-394). Washing-
ton, DC: Hemisphere.
Bandura, A. (1994). Social cognitive theory and exercise of control over HIV infec-
tion. In R. DiClemente & J. Peterson (Eds.), Preventing AIDS: Theory and practice
of behavioral interventions (pp. 25-59). New York: Plenum.
Bandura, A., Cioffi, D., Taylor, C. B., & Brouillard, M. E. (1988). Perceived self-effi-
cacy in coping with cognitive stressors and opioid activation. Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology, 55,479-488.
Bandura, A., Reese, L., & Adams, N. E. (1982). Micro-analysis of action and fear
arousal as a function of differential levels of perceived self-efficacy. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 5-21.
Bandura, A., Taylor, C. B., Williams, S. L., Mefford, I. N., & Barchas, J. D. (1985).
Catecholamine secretion as a function of perceived coping self-efficacy. Journal
of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53,406-414.
Barling, J., & Abel, M. (1983). Self-efficacy and tennis performance. Cognitive Ther-
apy and Research, 7,265-272.
Basen-Engquist, K. (1992). Psychosocial predictors of "safer-sex" behaviors in
young adults. AIDS Education and Prevention, 4,120-134.
Basen-Engquist, K., & Parcel, G. S. (1992). Attitudes, norms, and self-efficacy: A
model of adolescents' HIV-related sexual risk behavior. Health Education Quar-
terly, 19,263-277.
Bassler, J. (1993). Erprobung psychometrischer Skalen im Rahmen eines Kulturvergleichs
zur diagnostischen Erfassung von allgemeinen und spezifischen Selbstwirksamkeits-
erwartungen [Evaluation of psychometric scales within a cross-cultural study to
measure general and specific self-efficacy]. Unpublished diploma thesis. Ber-
lin, Freie Universitat Berlin, Institut fur Psychologic
Beck, K. H., & Lund, A. K. (1981). The effects of health threat seriousness and per-
sonal efficacy upon intentions and behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychol-
ogy, 11,401-415.

Changing risk behaviors and adopting health behaviors 283
Bell, N. J., & Bell, R. W. (Eds.), (in press). Perspectives on adolescent risk taking. New-
bury Park, CA: Sage.
Bernier, M., & Avard, J. (1986). Self-efficacy, outcome and attrition in a weight
reduction program. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 10, 319-338.
Brafford, L. }., & Beck, K. H. (1991). Development and validation of a condom self-
efficacy scale for college students. Journal of American College Health, 39, 219-
225.
Carmody, T. P. (1992). Preventing relapse in the treatment of nicotine addiction:
Current issues and future directions. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 24, 131—
158.
Chambliss, C. A., & Murray, E. J. (1979). Efficacy attribution, locus of control, and
weight loss. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 3, 349-353.
Clark, M. M., Abrams, D. B., Niaura, R. S., Eaton, C. A., & Rossi, J. S. (1991). Self-
efficacy in weight management. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
59,739-744.
Coates, T. J. (1990). Strategies for modifying sexual behavior for primary and sec-
ondary prevention of HIV disease. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
58,57-69.
Colletti, G., Supnick, J. A., & Payne, T. J. (1985). The Smoking Self-Efficacy Ques-
tionnaire (SSEQ): Preliminary scale development and validation. Behavioral
Assessment, 7,249-260.
Condiotte, M. M., & Lichtenstein, E. (1981). Self-efficacy and relapse in smoking
cessation programs. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 49, 648-658.
Desharnais, R., Bouillon, J., & Godin, G. (1986). Self-efficacy and outcome expecta-
tions as determinants of exercise adherence. Psychological Reports, 59, 1155-
1159.
Desjarlais, D. C. (1992). The first and second decades of AIDS among injecting
drug users. British Journal of Addiction, 87, 347-353.
Devins, G. M., & Edwards, P. J. (1988). Self-efficacy and smoking reduction in
chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 26,
127-135.
DeVries, H., Dijkstra, M, & Kok, G. J. (1989). Self-efficacy as a determinant of the onset
of smoking and interventions to prevent smoking in adolescents. Paper presented at
the First European Congress of Psychology, Amsterdam.
DeVries, H., Dijkstra, M, & Kuhlman, P. (1988). Self-efficacy: The third factor
besides attitude and subjective norm as a predictor of behavioural intentions.
Health Education Research, 3,273-282.
DiClemente, C. C, Prochaska, J. O., & Gibertini, M. (1985). Self-efficacy and the
stages of self-change of smoking. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 9,181-200.
Donovan, D. M., & Marlatt, G. A. (Eds.). (1988). Assessment of addictive behaviors.
New York: Guilford.
Dzewaltowski, D. A. (1989). Toward a model of exercise motivation. Journal of Sport
& Exercise Psychology, 11, 251-269.
Dzewaltowski, D. A., Noble, J. M., & Shaw, J. M. (1990). Physical activity participa-
tion: Social cognitive theory versus the theories of reasoned action and
planned behavior. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 12, 388-405.
Ekstrand, M., & Coates, T. J. (1990). Maintenance of safer sexual behaviors and pre-
dictors of risky sex: The San Francisco Men's Health Study. American Journal of
Public Health, 80,973-977.
Ellickson, P. L., & Hays, R. D. (1992). On becoming involved with drugs: Modeling
adolescent drug use over time. Health Psychology, 11,377-385.

284 Ralf Schwarzer and Reinhard Fuchs
European Center for the Monitoring of AIDS. (1992). AIDS surveillance in Europe
(Quarterly Report), 32.
Ewart, C. K. (1992). The role of physical self-efficacy in recovery from heart attack.
In R. Schwarzer (Ed.), Self-efficacy: Thought control of action (pp. 287-304). Wash-
ington, DC: Hemisphere.
Feltz, D. L., Landers, D. M., & Raeder, V. (1979). Enhancing self-efficacy in high-
avoidance tasks: A comparison of modeling techniques. Journal of Sport Psy-
chology, 1,112-122.
Feltz, D. L., & Riessinger, C. A. (1990). Effects of in vivo emotive imagery and per-
formance feedback on self-efficacy and muscular endurance. Journal of Sport &
Exercise Psychology, 12,132-143.
Fischhoff, B. (1992). Risk taking: A developmental perspective. In J. F. Yates (Ed.),
Risk taking behavior (pp. 133-162). New York: Wiley.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduc-
tion to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley
Frazier, T. G., & Cummings, R D. (1990). Motivational factors for participation in
breast cancer screening. Journal of Cancer Education, 5, 51-54.
Fruin, D. J., Pratt, C, & Owen, N. (1991). Protection Motivation Theory and
adolescents' perceptions of exercise. Journal of Applied Psychology, 22, 55-^69.
Garcia, A. W., & King, A. C. (1991). Predicting long-term adherence to aerobic exer-
cise: A comparison of two models. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 13,
394-410.
Garcia, M. E., Schmitz, J. M., & Doerfler, L. A. (1990). A fine-grained analysis of the
role of self-efficacy in self-initiated attempts to quit smoking. Journal of Consult-
ing and Clinical Psychology, 58,317-322.
Gilchrist, L. D., & Schinke, S. P. (1983). Coping with contraception: Cognitive and
behavioral methods with adolescents. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 7, 379-
388.
Glynn, S. M., & Ruderman, A. J. (1986). The development and validation of an eat-
ing self-efficacy scale. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 10,403-420.
Godding, P. R., & Glasgow, R. E. (1985). Self-efficacy and outcome expectations as
predictors of controlled smoking status. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 9, 583-
590.
Godin, G., Valois, P., & Lepage, L. (1993). The pattern of influence of perceived
behavioral control upon exercising behavior: An application of Ajzen's Theory
of Planned Behavior. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 16, 81-102.
Gollwitzer, P. M. (1993). Goal achievement: The role of intentions. In M. Hewstone
& W. Stroebe (Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 141-185).
Chichester, England: Wiley.
Haaga, D. A. F, & Stewart, B. L. (1992). Self-efficacy for recovery from a lapse after
smoking cessation. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 60, 24-28.
Ho, R. (1992). Cigarette health warnings: The effects of perceived severity, expec-
tancy of occurence, and self-efficacy on intentions to give up smoking. Austra-
lian Psychologist, 27,109-113.
Hofstetter, C. R., Sallis, J. F, & Hovell, M. F. (1990). Some health dimensions of self-
efficacy analysis of theoretical specificity. Social Science and Medicine, 31,1051-
1056.
Holman, H. R., & Lorig, K. (1992). Perceived self-efficacy in self-management of
chronic disease. In R. Schwarzer (Ed.), Self-efficacy: Thought control of action (pp.
305-323). Washington, DC: Hemisphere.
Jacobs Quadrel, M., Fischhoff, B., & Davis, W. (1993). Adolescent (in)vulnerability.
American Psychologist, 48,102-116.

Changing risk behaviors and adopting health behaviors 285
Jemmott, J. B., Jemmott, L. S., & Fong, G. T. (1992). Reductions in HIV risk-associ-
ated sexual behaviors among black male adolescents: Effects of an AIDS pre-
vention intervention. American Journal of Public Health, 82, 373-377.
Jemmott, J B., Jemmott, L. S., Spears, H., Hewitt, N., et al. (1992). Self-efficacy,
hedonistic expectancies, and condom use intentions among inner-city Black
adolescent women: A social cognitive approach to AIDS risk behavior. Journal
of Adolescent Health, 13, 512-519.
Jessor, R. (1993). Successful adolescent development among youth in high-risk set-
tings. American Psychologist, 48,117-126.
Jessor, R., Donovan, J. E., & Costa, F. M. (1992). Beyond adolescence. New York: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Kaplan, R. M., Atkins, C. J., & Reinsch, S. (1984). Specific efficacy expectations
mediate exercise compliance in patients with COPD. Health Psychology, 3, 223-
242.
Karanci, N. A. (1992). Self-efficacy-based smoking situation factors: The effects of
contemplating quitting vs. relapsing in a Turkish sample. International Journal
of the Addictions, 27, 879-886.
Kasen, S., Vaughn, R. D., & Walter, H. J. (1992). Self-efficacy for AIDS preventive
behaviors among tenth grade students. Health Education Quarterly, 19, 187-
202.
Kavanagh, D. J., Pierce, J., Lo, S. K., & Shelley, J. (1993). Self-efficacy and social sup-
port as predictors of smoking after a quit attempt. Psychology and Health, 8,
231-242.
Kok, G., Den Boer, D., DeVries, H., Gerards, E, Hospers, H. J., & Mudde, A. N.
(1992). Self-efficacy and attribution theory in health education. In R. Schwarzer
(Ed.), Self-efficacy: Thought control of action (pp. 245-262). Washington, DC:
Hemisphere.
Kok, G., DeVries, H., Mudde, A. N., & Strecher, V. J. (1991). Planned health educa-
tion and the role of self-efficacy: Dutch research. Health Education Research, 6,
231-238.
Kuhl, J., & Beckmann, J. (Eds.). (1994). Volition and personality: Action versus state ori-
entation. Gottingen, Germany: Hogrefe.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1987). Transactional theory and research on emo-
tions and coping. European Journal of Personality, 1,141-170.
Lerman, C, Rimer, B., Trock, B., Balshem, A., & Engstrom, P. F. (1990). Factors asso-
ciated with repeat adherence to breast cancer screening. Preventive Medicine,
19,279-290.
Levinson, R. A. (1986). Contraceptive self-efficacy: A perspective on teenage girls'
contraceptive behavior. Journal of Sex Research, 22, 347-369.
Litt, M. D. (1988). Self-efficacy and perceived control: Cognitive mediators of pain
tolerance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54,149-160.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance.
Englewood, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Long, B. C, & Haney, C. J. (1988). Coping strategies for working women: Aerobic
exercise and relaxation interventions. Behavior Therapy, 19, 75-83.
Manning, M. M., & Wright, T. L. (1983). Self-efficacy expectancies, outcome expec-
tancies, and the persistence of pain control in childbirth. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 45, 421-431.
Marcus, B. H., & Owen, N. (1992). Motivational readiness, self-efficacy and deci-
sion-making for exercise. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22,3-16.
Marlatt, G. A. (1985). Cognitive factors in the relapse process. In G. A. Marlatt & J.
R. Gordon (Eds.), Relapse prevention (pp. 128-200). New York: Guilford.

286 Ralf Schwarzer and Reinhard Fuchs
Marlatt, G. A., & Gordon, J. R. (Eds.). (1985). Relapse prevention. New York:
Guilford.
McAuley, E. (1992). The role of efficacy cognitions in the prediction of exercise
behavior in middle-aged adults. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 15, 65-88.
McAuley, E. (1993). Self-efficacy and the maintenance of exercise participation in
older adults. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 16,103-113.
McKusick, L., Coates, T. J., Morin, S. R, Pollack, L., & Hoff, N. (1990). Longitudinal
predictors of reductions in unprotected anal intercourse among gay men in
San Francisco – The AIDS Behavioral Research Project. American Journal of Pub-
lic Health, 80, 978-983.
Meyerowitz, B. E., & Chaiken, S. (1987). The effect of message framing on breast
self-examination attitudes, intentions, and behavior. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 52, 500-510.
Mudde, A., Kok, G., & Strecher, V. (1989). Self-efficacy and success expectancy as pre-
dictors of the cessation of smoking. Paper presented at the First European Con-
gress of Psychology, Amsterdam.
O'Leary, A. (1992). Self-efficacy and health: Behavioral and stress-physiological
mediation. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 16,229-245.
O'Leary, A., Goodhart, R, Jemmott, L. S., & Boccher-Lattimore, D. (1992). Predic-
tors of safer sex on the college campus: A social cognitive theory analysis. Jour-
nal of American College Health, 40,254-263.
O'Leary, A., Shoor, S., Lorig, K., & Holman, H. R. (1988). A cognitive-behavioral
treatment for rheumatoid arthritis. Health Psychology, 7, 527-542.
Paulussen, T., Kok, G. J., Knibbe, R, & Kramer, T. (1989). AIDS en intraveneus
druggebruik [AIDS and IV-drug use]. Tijdschrift voor Sociale Gezondheitszorg, 68,
129-136.
Prochaska, J. O., Norcross, J. C, Fowler, J., Follick, M. J., & Abrams, D. B. (1992).
Attendance and outcome in a worksite weight control program: Processes and
stages of change as process and predictor variables. Addictive Behaviors, 17,35-
45.
Pryor, J. B., & Reeder, G. D. (Eds.). (1993). The social psychology of HIV infection.
HiUsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Rippetoe, P. A., & Rogers, R. W. (1987). Effects on components of protection moti-
vation theory on adaptive and maladaptive coping with a health threat. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 52,596-604.
Rogers, R. W. (1983). Cognitive and physiological processes in fear appeals and
attitude change: A revised theory of protection motivation. In J. R. Cacioppo &
R. E. Petty (Eds.), Social psychology: A sourcebook (pp. 153-176). New York:
Guilford.
Ryckman, R. M, Robbins, M. A., Thornton, B., & Cantrell, P. (1982). Development
and validation of a physical self-efficacy scale. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 42,891-900.
Sallis, J. F, Haskell, W. L., Fortmann, S. P., Vranizan, K. M., Taylor, C. B., & Solo-
mon, D. S. (1986). Predictors of adoption and maintenance of physical activity
in a community sample. Preventive Medicine, 15, 331-341.
Sallis, J. F, Hovell, M. F, Hofstetter, C. R, & Barrington, E. (1992). Explanation of
vigorous physical activity during two years using social learning variables.
Social Science and Medicine, 34,25-32.
Sallis, J. F, Pinski, R. B., Grossman, R. M., Patterson, T. L., & Nader, P. R. (1988). The
development of self-efficacy scales for health-related diet and exercise behav-
iors. Health Education Research, 3,283-292.

Changing risk behaviors and adopting health behaviors 287
Schwarzer, R. (1992). Self-efficacy in the adoption and maintenance of health
behaviors: Theoretical approaches and a new model. In R. Schwarzer (Ed.),
Self-efficacy: Thought control of action (pp. 217-242). Washington, DC: Hemi-
sphere.
Schwarzer, R. (1993). Measurement of perceived self-efficacy: Psychometric scales for
cross-cultural research. Berlin: Freie Universitat Berlin, Institut fur Psychologic
Schwarzer, R. (1994). Optimism, vulnerability, and self-beliefs as health-related
cognitions: A systematic overview. Psychology and Health, 9,161-180.
Seydel, E., Taal, E., & Wiegman, O. (1990). Risk-appraisal, outcome and self-effi-
cacy expectancies: Cognitive factors in preventive behavior related to cancer.
Psychology and Health, 4, 99-109.
Shannon, B., Bagby, R., Wang, M. Q., & Trenkner, L. (1990). Self-efficacy: A contrib-
utor to the explanation of eating behavior. Health Education Research, 5, 395-
407.
Shaw, J. M., Dzewaltowski, D. A., & McElroy, M. (1992). Self-efficacy and causal
attributions as mediators of perceptions of psychological momentum. Journal
of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 14,134-147.
Sitharthan, T., & Kavanagh, D. J. (1990). Role of self-efficacy in predicting out-
comes from a programme for controlled drinking. Drug and Alcohol Depen-
dence, 27, 87-94.
Skinner, E. (1992). Perceived control: Motivation, coping, and development. In R.
Schwarzer (Ed.), Self-efficacy: Thought control of action (pp. 91-106). Washington,
DC: Hemisphere.
Skinner, E. A., Chapman, M., & Baltes, P. (1988). Control, means-ends, and agency
beliefs: A new conceptualization and its measurement during childhood. Jour-
nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54,117-133.
Slater, M. D. (1989). Social influences and cognitive control as predictors of self-effi-
cacy and eating behavior. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 13, 231-245.
Snyder, C. R., Harris, C, Anderson, J. R., Holleran, S. A., Irving, L. M, Sigmon, S.
T., Yoshinobu, L., Gibb, J., Langelle, C, & Harney, P. (1991). The will and the
ways: Development and validation of an individual-differences measure of
hope. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60,570-585.
Stacy, A. W., Sussman, S., Dent, C. W, Burton, D., & Flay, B. R. (1992). Moderators
of peer social influence in adolescent smoking. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 18,163-172.
Stotland, S., Zuroff, D. C, & Roy, M. (1991). Situational dieting self-efficacy and
short-term regulation of eating. Appetite, 17,81-90.
Taylor, C. B., Bandura, A., Ewart, C. K., Miller, N. H., & DeBusk, R. F. (1985). Exer-
cise testing to enhance wives' confidence in their husbands' cardiac capability
soon after clinically uncomplicated acute myocardial infarction. American Jour-
nal of Cardiology, 55,635-638.
Taylor, S. E. (1989). Positive illusions: Creative self-deception and the healthy mind. New
York: Basic Books.
Toshima, M. T, Kaplan, R. M., & Ries, A. L. (1992). Self-efficacy expectancies in
chronic obstructive pulmonary disease rehabilitation. In R. Schwarzer (Ed.),
Self-efficacy: Thought control of action (pp. 325-354). Washington, DC: Hemi-
sphere.
Velicer, W. F., DiClemente, C. C, Rossi, J. S., & Prochaska, J. O. (1990). Relapse situ-
ations and self-efficacy: An integrative model. Addictive Behaviors, 15, 271-283.
Weinberg, R., Grove, R., & Jackson, A. (1992). Strategies for building self-efficacy in
tennis players: A comparative analysis of Australian and American coaches.
Sport Psychologist, 6,3-13.

288 Ralf Schwarzer and Reinhard Fuchs
Weinberg, R. S., Gould, D., & Jackson, A. (1979). Expectations and performance: An
empirical test of Bandura's self-efficacy theory. Journal of Sport Psychology, 1,
320-331.
Weinberg, R. S., Gould, D., Yukelson, D., & Jackson, A. (1981). The effect of preex-
isting and manipulated self-efficacy on competitive muscular endurance task.
Journal of Sport Psychology, 4,345-354.
Weinberg, R. S., Hughes, H. H., Critelli, J. W, England, R., & Jackson, A. (1984).
Effects of preexisting and manipulated self-efficacy on weight loss in a self-
control program. Journal of Research in Personality, 18, 352-358.
Weinberg, R. S., Yukelson, D., & Jackson, A. (1980). Effects of public and private
efficacy expectations on competitive performance. Journal of Sport Psychology,
2,340-349.
Weinstein, N. D. (1980). Unrealistic optimism about future life events. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 806-820.
Weinstein, N. D. (1982). Unrealistic optimism about susceptibility to health prob-
lems. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 5,441-460.
Weinstein, N. D., & Nicolich, M. (1993). Correct and incorrect interpretations of
correlations between risk perceptions and risk behaviors. Health Psychology, 12,
235-245.
Weinstein, N. D., & Sandman, R M. (1992). A model of the precaution adoption
process: Evidence from home radon testing. Health Psychology, 11,170-180.
Weiss, M. R., Wiese, D. M., & Klint, K. A. (1989). Head over heels with success: The
relationship between self-efficacy and performance in competitive youth gym-nastics.
Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 11, 444-451.
Wiedenfeld, S. A., O'Leary, A., Bandura, A., Brown, S., Levine, S., & Raska, K.
(1990). Impact of perceived self-efficacy in coping with stressors on compo-
nents of the immune system. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59,
1082-1094.
Wilson, D. K., Wallston, K. A., & King, J. E. (1990). Effects of contract framing, moti-
vation to quit, and self-efficacy on smoking reduction. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 20,531-547.
Woolfolk, R. L., Murphy, S. M., Gottesfeld, D., & Aitken, D. (1985). Effects of mental
rehearsal of task motor activity and mental depiction of task outcome onmotor skill performance.
Journal of Sport Psychology, 7,191-197.
Wurtele, S. K., & Maddux, J. E. (1987). Relative contributions of protection motiva-
tion theory components in predicting exercise intentions and behavior. Health
Psychology, 6,453^66.

10. Self-efficacy and addictive
behavior
G. ALAN MARLATT, JOHN S. BAER, AND
LORI A. QUIGLEY
Perceived self-efficacy plays a unique role in the addictive behaviors field.
Such beliefs influence both the initial development of addictive habits and
the behavior change process involving the cessation of such habits and
maintenance of abstinence. In both the acquisition and modification of
smoking, for example, individuals are faced with a choice between start-
ing to smoke or not (initiation), and for smokers, between attempting to
quit or not. Most of the research reviewed in this chapter deals with the
role of perceived self-efficacy in preventing the onset of addictive behav-
ior (e.g., resistance self-efficacy) or in facilitating the quitting process (e.g.,
self-efficacy for coping with relapse crises). It is important to note, how-
ever, that self-efficacy can cut both ways at the choice point: In addition to
resistance self-efficacy, self-efficacy is also involved in attempts to initiate
an addictive habit, such as becoming a smoker.
As an illustration of this latter point, the senior author recalls his experi-
ence of taking up smoking at the age of 14 – a habit he unfortunately
maintained for thirty years afterward. On vacation with his family in
Hawaii, he met a 16-year-old boy who smoked. Wanting to impress his
older friend, he lied and said that he too was a smoker. "Prove it!" he was
told by the older boy, who offered him his first cigarette, a Cool menthol.
In response to this challenge he wondered: "Can I do what it takes to be a
smoker? Can I inhale without choking and giving away my lie?" He
recalled his smoking grandmother and how she handled cigarettes as a
model of what to do. He felt confident that he could pass as a seasoned
smoker. Taking the cigarette, he lit it, taking his first drag. It tasted awful
and he coughed, but by the second puff he managed to fake it by holding
the smoke in his mouth and blowing it out later without inhaling. "Pretty
cool, smoking Kools!" the older boy exclaimed, making his new friend feel
confident and accepted in his first encounter with nicotine.
289

290 G. Alan Marlatt, John S. Baer, and Lori A. Quigley
As this anecdote demonstrates, self-efficacy can lead one into addictive
behavior as well as prevent its onset, depending on one's personal goals
and outcome expectancies. If youngsters believe that smoking, drinking,
or other drug use makes them look "cool" or provides other advantages,
the question of efficacy is directed to the behaviors required to experiment
with or initiate the habit. A conflict often develops between resistance self-
efficacy (to "Just Say No") and peer pressures to indulge ("Just Say Yes").
A similar conflict arises concerning attempts to give up addictive habits. If
the smoker believes that nicotine enhances one's level of functioning or
helps keep excess weight off, efficacy concerning one's ability to quit is
jeopardized. Conflicts of this kind, between starting and not starting or
between stopping and not stopping, uniquely characterize the problem of
addictive behavior.
This review explores the various ways in which self-efficacy theory ap-
plies to change in addictive behavior. We begin with an overview of how
self-efficacy is involved in the initiation of or resistance to drug use (focus
on prevention). The role of self-efficacy in changing addictive habits is
then analyzed for both initiating a change and maintaining the change
over time (relapse prevention). Recent research on the prevention and
treatment of addictive behaviors and relapse prevention is selectively
reviewed to illustrate various applications of self-efficacy theory. Most of
the research to date on self-efficacy and addiction deals with the two most
frequently consumed substances in the general population: tobacco and
alcohol. The paper concludes with a discussion of emerging clinical issues
and directions for future research.
Types of self-efficacy in addictive behavior change
In a recent paper on the role of perceived self-efficacy in addictive behav-
iors, DiClemente and colleagues (DiClemente, Fairhurst, & Piotrowski, in
press) describe five different types of efficacy self-appraisals: (1) coping
self-efficacy, referring to "belief in one's ability to cope successfully with
specific situations such as resisting pressure from friends to use the sub-
stance or talking with someone when emotionally distressed instead of
using the addictive substance"; (2) treatment behavior self-efficacy, per-
taining to clients' beliefs in their ability to perform the tasks required to
achieve personal change, such as self-monitoring; (3) recovery self-effi-
cacy, concerning judgments of capability to recover from slips or lapses;
(4) control self-efficacy, referring to perceived capability to control or mod-
erate the target behavior (e.g., to avoid excessive drinking or eating); and

Self-efficacy and addictive behavior 291
(5) abstinence self-efficacy, concerned with one's perceived capabilities to
abstain from using the addictive substance.
Although a useful taxonomy, DiClemente's categories of self-efficacy
are limited in the following ways. First, all five types of self-efficacy are
tied to treatment and relapse prevention. Self-efficacy as a factor in the ini-
tial development of addictive behavior is not included in this list. As a sec-
ond point, there seems to be considerable overlap among categories of
beliefs: self-efficacy to master various therapeutic tasks would seem to
subsume all the other types to the extent that treatment includes training
in alternative coping skills, recovery from lapses, and resistance to urges
to violate abstinence. The last two categories, control and abstinence self-
efficacy, reflect different treatment goals – whether to seek abstinence or
use the substance in controlled moderation. These forms of personal effi-
cacy overlap with coping and self-efficacy to fulfill therapeutic tasks.
Building on and extending DiClemente's taxonomy, we propose the fol-
lowing five categories of efficacy beliefs. Our typology includes self-effi-
cacy for both the initiation and subsequent change of addictive behaviors.
In the initiation phase, a distinction is made between (1) resistance self-effi-
cacy, judgments about one's ability to avoid use prior to first use, and (2)
harm-reduction self-efficacy, risk reduction efficacy following initial use. In
the behavior change stage, (3) action self-efficacy, or beliefs in one's capabil-
ities to achieve the desired goal of abstinence or controlled use, is distin-
guished from self-efficacy for long-term maintenance of the achieved
change. Maintenance efficacy is further differentiated into (4) coping self-
efficacy, concerned with anticipatory efficacy to cope with relapse crises,
and (5) recovery self-efficacy, involving restorative coping following lapse
and relapse episodes. Each of these five types of efficacy is analyzed
below in greater detail. A selective review of research pertaining to these
types of efficacy is then presented.
Self-efficacy for primary and secondary prevention
The development of an addictive behavior pattern involves two phases.
The first concerns the initial use or experimentation with a substance. Pri-
mary prevention programs have focused on enhancing resistance self-effi-
cacy to deter initial drug use. Once the individual crosses the abstinence
barrier, however, efficacy for remaining drug free is no longer at issue. The
second phase concerns secondary prevention, namely the efficacy to
reduce the amount of harm one experiences. Here self-efficacy is directed
toward behaviors designed to minimize the risk or harm of ongoing drug

292 G. Alan Marlatt, John S. Baer, and Lori A. Quigley
use, including both moderate use, such as drinking in moderation, and/or
abstinence.
Resistance self-efficacy
In the context of primary prevention, resistance self-efficacy refers to one'sperceived ability to resist pressure to drink or use drugs (Hays & Ellick-
son, 1990; Rohrbach, Graham, Hansen, & Flay, 1987). Research has shown
that low resistance self-efficacy coupled with prodrug social influences
(e.g., exposure to drug offers) predicts both intentions and actual use of
alcohol and tobacco by adolescents (Conrad, Flay, & Hill, 1992; Ellickson
& Hays, 1991, 1992; Lawrence & Rubinson, 1986). As a result, many pri-
mary prevention programs focus on training children and adolescents toresist interpersonal pressures or intrapersonal temptations to experimentwith drugs (e.g., Pentz, 1985).
Harm-reduction self-efficacy
Once drug use has been initiated, harm-reduction self-efficacy comes intoplay. Initial experimentation with drugs such as tobacco, alcohol, and
marijuana frequently occurs in young people and does not necessarilylead to habitual drug abuse or dependence. Indeed, some authors havequestioned whether drug experimentation should be considered norma-tive rather than deviant, given the frequency with which it occurs in ado-lescence. According to Newcomb and Bentler (1988), "In fact, experimen-tal use of various types of drugs, both licit and illicit, may be considered anormative behavior among contemporary United States teenagers interms of prevalence" (p. 214).
In one influential longitudinal study, adolescents who did experiment
with drugs were found to be psychologically more well adjusted thanthose who never used or those who progressed to drug abuse (Shedler &
Block, 1990). According to these authors:
When the psychological findings are considered as a set, it is difficultto escape the inference that experimenters are the psychologically
healthiest subjects, healthier than either abstainers or frequent users
(p. 614).
Other research clearly shows, on the other hand, that early experimenta-
tion with alcohol or other drugs may set the stage for future drinking ordrug problems in later adolescence or early adulthood (Jessor, Donovan,
& Costa, 1991). The goal of a harm-reduction approach to secondary pre-
vention is to minimize the harm of ongoing drug use by reducing the

Self-efficacy and addictive behavior 293
amount of use or stopping further drug abuse. For alcohol use, moderate
or social drinking is an acceptable harm-reduction goal (Marlatt, Larimer,
Baer, & Quigley, 1993). For other drug use, including smoking, cutting
back with an eventual goal of abstinence is also consistent with this goal
(Marlatt & Tapert, 1993). As such, harm reduction offers an alternative
goal for preventing drug abuse among initial alcohol or drug users. In a
recent critical review of adolescent substance use prevention programs,
Brown and Horowitz (1993) conclude:
The harm reduction approach represents an alternative to the tradi-
tional AOD [alcohol and other drugs] prevention strategies exam-
ined here. This approach is not based on the view of the AOD user as
deviant. Instead, the focus is on reducing the potential that an ado-
lescent will go on to become an abuser of AODs and the harm to the
individuals and society resulting from AOD abuse, (p. 549)
Self-efficacy for harm reduction is a new concept and will be discussed in
greater detail later in this chapter.
Self-efficacy for change, treatment, and relapse prevention
Once an addictive behavior has become established, the individual may
or may not embark on an attempt to change. In terms of the "stages of
change" model proposed by Prochaska and DiClemente (1992), individu-
als who have moved from precontemplation (not considering change) into
the contemplation stage are considering moving into the preparation and
action stages of habit change. Self-efficacy for action involving reducing or
eliminating an addictive behavior is a critical factor, beginning with a
commitment to action (e.g., selection of a quit date for smoking). Both cop-
ing efficacy (confidence in one's ability to resist relapse) and recovery effi-
cacy (confidence in one's ability to recover from a lapse or setback) are
central to the maintenance stage of habit change. As Bandura (1991) has
noted:
Perceived efficacy can affect every phase of personal change –
whether people even consider changing their health habits, whether
they can enlist the motivation and perseverance needed to succeed
should they choose to do so, and whether they adequately maintain
the changes they have achieved, (p. 258)
Action self-efficacy
Many people with addictive behavior problems remain mired in the pre-
contemplation or contemplation stages of behavior change. Precontem-

294 G. Alan Marlatt, John S. Baer, and Lori A. Quigley
plators may remain stuck because they perceive themselves incapable of
giving up drug use (e.g., smoking) and therefore do not even try to quit
(Brod & Hall, 1984). Contemplators may postpone initial action because of
doubts about their efficacy to change. DiClemente and Hughes (1990)
assessed self-efficacy for abstinence in the context of the stages of change
model for clients in an outpatient alcoholism treatment program. Both
abstinence self-efficacy and temptations to drink were found to be related
to the clients' stage of change. Among precontemplators or contemplators
those classified as uninvolved or discouraged about changing had the
lowest level of self-efficacy and the highest levels of temptation.
Although abstinence is a common goal for initial action, moderation or
controlled use may be an alternative goal for changing addictive behavior.
Although both abstinence and moderation may be target goals for behav-
ior change, we prefer the term action self-efficacy to refer to the initiation of
change. Action self-efficacy can be assessed both for individuals who
attempt to change on their own and for those who join self-help groups or
seek professional treatment.
Coping self-efficacy
Once an individual has passed through the action stage of personal
change, long-term maintenance becomes the challenge. Relapse rates are
high in the modification of addictive behavior. In the cognitive-behavioral
model of relapse presented by Marlatt and Gordon (1985), self-efficacy
plays a critical role. According to this model, individuals in the mainte-
nance stage are frequently confronted with high-risk situations for relapse.
These may take the form of negative emotional states, interpersonal con-
flicts, or social pressures to use the substance. Such situations may trigger
an initial lapse unless the individual engages in effective coping strategies.
Low self-efficacy for coping with high-risk situations often occurs in con-
junction with positive outcome expectancies for substance use.
Relapse prevention techniques are designed to enhance self-efficacy
for coping with high-risk situations, urges, and temptations (Chaney,
O'Leary, & Marlatt, 1978). Research by Shiffman (Shiffman, 1984; Shiffman
& Wills, 1985) demonstrates the critical role of behavioral and cognitive
coping in the prevention of relapse in smoking cessation. Coping self-effi-
cacy has also been found to be a predictor of treatment outcome for ado-
lescent substance abuse (Myers, Brown, & Mott, 1993). Issues concerning
the prediction of relapse based on self-efficacy assessed at pretreatment
and posttreatment are discussed in greater detail later in this chapter.

Self-efficacy and addictive behavior 295
Recovery self-efficacy
Individuals in the maintenance stage of habit change often experience
lapses or slips as they progress. One's reactions to such setbacks may
undermine efficacy for long-term maintenance, leading to relapse or even
abandonment of the habit change attempt altogether. One such debilitat-
ing reaction to lapses is an attributional response known as the abstinence
violation effect, or AVE (Collins & Lapp, 1991; Curry, Marlatt, & Gordon,
1987; Ross, Miller, Emmerson, & Todt, 1989). Individuals with this reaction
attribute their lapses to internal, stable, and uncontrollable factors (e.g.,
lack of willpower or disease factors beyond one's individual control).
Relapse prevention methods include procedures to enhance recovery effi-
cacy, based on the assumption that mistakes are common in the process of
habit change and should not be interpreted as a sign of personal failure.
As Bandura (1991) has noted:
Entrenched habits rarely yield to a single attempt at self-regulation.
Success is usually achieved through renewed effort following failed
attempts. Human attainments, therefore, necessitate a resilient sense
of personal efficacy. To strengthen the staying power of self-beliefs,
health communications should emphasize that success requires per-
severant effort, so that people's sense of efficacy is not undermined
by a few setbacks, (pp. 259-260).
We next review existing research programs that assess and test these
types of efficacy in addictive behaviors.
Resistance self-efficacy: Primary prevention
Rates of drinking, smoking, and marijuana use are high among adoles-
cents in the United States. A recent national study reported that by eighth
grade, 70% of young adolescents acknowledged having tried alcohol and
more than a quarter (27%) acknowledged having been drunk at least once.
(National Institute on Drug Abuse [NIDA], 1992). This study also reports
that almost half (44%) of eighth graders have tried smoking cigarettes and
14% have smoked in the previous month (NIDA, 1992). Twenty-eight per-
cent of high school seniors reported smoking cigarettes in the previous
month and 19% report daily smoking (NIDA, 1992). In addition, 10% of
high school sophomores acknowledged that they have tried marijuana
(NIDA, 1992).
Substance abuse programs that target adolescents and younger children
as a whole are primary prevention efforts that seek to deter initiation to

296 G. Alan Marlatt, John S. Baer, and Lori A. Quigley
substance use. Studies of adolescent initiation to drug use focus primarilyon the onset of alcohol consumption, cigarette smoking, and marijuana
use because these are among the most commonly used substances and
because they are considered to be potential "gateway drugs," which may
lead to the use of more harmful substances (Jessor & Jessor, 1977; Kandel
& Faust, 1975; Kandel, Yamaguchi, & Chen, 1992). Self-efficacy has beeninvestigated as a potentially important factor in determining the onset ofdrug use among adolescents. This research has focused on
resistance self-
efficacy, or confidence in one's ability to resist using a substance despite
social pressures to do so (Ellickson & Bell, 1990; Ellickson, Bell, &
McGuigan, 1993; Ellickson & Hays, 1991; Hansen, Graham, Wolkenstein,
& Rohrbach, 1991; Hays & Ellickson, 1990). A recent review of research in
adolescent smoking onset reported that resistance self-efficacy emerged asa strong prospective predictor of smoking initiation (Conrad et al., 1992).
In a natural history study of adaptation to drug use, Ellickson and Hays
(1991) evaluated the importance of prodrug social influence, perceptions
of resistance self-efficacy, and beliefs about the prevalence of drug use indetermining future substance use among 1,138 eighth and ninth gradersin
10 junior high schools. This study tested a model that hypothesized that
social pressures to use drugs, resistance self-efficacy, and perceived preva-lence of substance use among peers would influence drug use ninemonths later, both directly and indirectly. Indirect influences were hypoth-
esized to be mediated by expectations of future drug use. This model was
tested separately for users and nonusers of alcohol, tobacco, and mari-
juana with structural equation modeling. For students who had never
experimented with drugs, prodrug social influences, such as drug offers
or exposure to people who use drugs, and low self-efficacy for drug resis-tance predicted drug involvement nine months later. Beliefs about theprevalence of drug use among peers did not predict future drug use, norwere expectations of future use a mediator for the other antecedents
(Ellickson
& Hays, 1991).
The model for students who had already initiated drug use differed
from that of nonusers in that low resistance self-efficacy did not have a
direct effect on future drug use but rather exerted an indirect effectthrough the mediation of expected drug use. Social influences towarddrug use predicted subsequent use both directly and indirectly throughthe cognitive mediator of expected use. It should be noted that in bothmodels social influence was a stronger predictor than resistance self-effi-cacy. For adolescent drug users, social pressures toward drug use and lowperceptions of efficacy in resisting drug use both enhanced expectations of

Self-efficacy and addictive behavior 297
future use, which in turn led to drug taking behavior (Ellickson & Hays,
1991). Although the mechanisms affecting drug use differ for substance
users and nonusers, both social influences and judgments about resistance
self-efficacy play an important role in future drug use (Ellickson & Hays,
1991).
Stacy and his colleagues (Stacy, Sussman, Dent, Burton, & Flay, 1992),
evaluated potential moderators of peer social influence in predicting
smoking among 1,245 southern California high school students. Not sur-
prisingly, the social influence of friends was determined to have the larg-
est effect in predicting smoking. However, this effect was moderated by
students' judgments of their perceived self-efficacy to resist smoking. For
students with low self-efficacy, peer influence was the better predictor of
tendency to smoke. However, high self-efficacy served as a protective fac-
tor against social pressures to smoke. The authors concluded that, "greater
belief in the ability to resist social influences reduces the strength of
friends social influence on smoking" (p. 170).
One study compared the relative effectiveness of two alcohol preven-
tion programs for fifth grade students (Hansen et al., 1991). The first pro-
gram, Normative Education, sought to correct erroneous beliefs about the
rates and peer acceptability of adolescent alcohol consumption. The sec-
ond program, Resistance Training, provided training in alcohol refusal
skills. The Resistance Training program was hypothesized to have a
greater impact on resistance self-efficacy and on instructor ratings of alco-
hol refusal skills. Although resistance training enhanced refusal skills, it
did not increase self-efficacy to avoid alcohol consumption. However,
quality of program had a moderating effect. Classes that implemented the
resistance training well, as rated by observers, enhanced resistance self-
efficacy. Thus, the quality of program implementation affects the success
of the self-efficacy intervention. Interestingly, the Normative Education
program did increase resistance self-efficacy even though observer's rat-
ings of refusal skills remained unchanged (Hansen et al., 1991). Appar-
ently, efficacy for resistance can be increased with interventions that do
not specifically target resistance skills.
Perceived social pressure and resistance self-efficacy have been shown
to generalize across substances for alcohol, cigarettes, and marijuana
(Hays & Ellickson, 1990). However, contrary to studies which have found
self-efficacy evaluations to generalize across situations (Baer & Lichten-
stein, 1988a; DiClemente, Prochaska, & Gibertini, 1985), adolescents' judg-
ments of their ability to avoid drug use did not transfer across dating and
party situations thus reflecting distinct although moderately correlated

298 G. Alan Marlatt, John S. Baer, and Lori A. Quigley
domains of efficacy (Hays & Ellickson, 1990). Although these findings
suggest the need for situation-specific efficacy enhancement, substance
specific training may not be needed because the resistance skills transfer
across substances (Hays & Ellickson, 1990). Not surprisingly, there was an
inverse relationship of prodrug pressure and feelings of efficacy to avoid
drug use. Hence, adolescents reported feeling less able to resist drug use
when they felt social pressures to conform.
Because of the strong association between resistance self-efficacy and
future drug use, some researchers have designed interventions that focus
specifically on enhancing students' self-efficacy to resist drugs (Ellickson
et al., 1993; Ellickson & Bell, 1990; Hansen et al., 1991; Pentz, 1985). In one
such study, Ellickson and her associates (Ellickson et al., 1993; Ellickson &
Bell, 1990) directed and evaluated a junior high school drug preventionprogram designed to enhance both the motivation to resist drug use and
the skills required to do so. The Project ALERT program was delivered to6,527 students in 20 junior high schools. Eight lessons were taught oneweek apart to the seventh grade and three booster lessons were taught
when the children reached the eighth grade. The purpose of these lessonswas to help students identify and resist internal and external pressures to
use drugs, to identify reasons and benefits of refraining from drug use,and to provide accurate normative information about the prevalence of
drug use. The programs were presented in an interactive format thatincluded role modeling, small group exercises, skills practice, and ques-tion-and-answer periods. In half of the intervention schools the programs
were taught by older teens with assistance from adult teachers; in theother half programs were taught by adult health educators. Ten additionalschools, which did not receive the Project ALERT program, served as com-parison schools. Although this program was designed primarily to pre-vent drug use, some students were experimenters or regular drug users at
baseline, while students were in the seventh grade. The impact of the
Proj-
ect ALERT program on early initiators was evaluated and reported as well
as for the nonusers.
Early results for students at end of the seventh grade indicated that this
program reduced drinking rates for all students. These beneficial effectswere due primarily to the teen-led programs, underscoring the strongimpact of peers. Initiation to drinking was reduced by 28% for baseline
nondrinkers. By eighth grade, the gains regarding alcohol use were lost so
that students in the intervention and comparison schools did not differ.
Project ALERT did not affect cigarette smoking in initial nonusers. More
smoking experimenters, or those who had previously used tobacco, quit

Self-efficacy and addictive behavior 299
smoking and those who continued to smoke reduced their cigarette use.
However, smoking levels increased by 20% to 30% for students who were
smokers at the beginning of the study. This unexpected boomerang effectmay have implications for differential targeting of students at risk forheavy smoking. Program effects for marijuana use included substantialdecreases in initiation for nonusers who were also not tobacco smokers,
and decreases in levels of use for those who had already initiated mari-
juana use or were thought to be at higher risk for use due to baseline
smoking status.
A long-term follow-up assessment yielded disappointing findings
(Ellickson et al, 1993). By 10th and 12th grades the general treatment
effects for drug use were no longer significant. It should be noted thatthere was a temporary increase in drinking frequency among baseline
drinkers who had received the Project ALERT program from teen leaders.
This boomerang effect faded by 12th grade. Significant effects on the
enhancement of resistance self-efficacy had been demonstrated in the 7th
through 9th grades but disappeared by 10th grade. Program effects onnormative perceptions of drug use and consequences of use remained sig-nificant in 10th grade primarily in teen-led groups. However, even these
effects declined by 12th grade (Ellickson et al., 1993).
Other programs designed both to build resistance skills for cigarette
smoking and to present accurate normative smoking information have
had more favorable long-term outcomes (Perry, Kelder, Murray, & Klepp,
1992; Telch, Killen, McAlister, Perry, & Maccoby, 1982). Perry (Perry et al.,
1992) reported a 40% reduction in smoking prevalence over a six-year
period for adolescents who received the school-based program as part of alarger community preventive effort. Telch (Telch et al., 1982) reported sim-
ilar reductions in smoking prevalence for adolescents who had received a
school-based intervention 33 months earlier. Both of these programsinvolved resistance skills training within a broader social effort. Althoughresistance efficacy expectations may have been enhanced by these pro-
grams, perceived self-efficacy was not assessed.Harm reduction self-efficacy: Secondary prevention
As reviewed above, most programs designed to prevent substance initia-
tion or abuse indiscriminately target adolescents with messages designedto help them refrain from using drugs. Limited effectiveness over time
(Ellickson et al., 1993) as well as the inevitability of youthful experimenta-
tion suggest the need for secondary prevention programs designed for

300 G. Alan Marlatt, John S. Baer, and Lori A. Quigley
adolescents who have already said yes and are at risk for problems of sub-stance abuse. These programs target adolescents who have already initi-
ated smoking, drinking, or using other drugs. One goal of this harm-reduction approach is to avoid the escalation of drug use by alienating
early initiators who have thus far not learned how to "just say no" or have
been unwilling to do
so. The emphasis with this subgroup is on enhancing
self-efficacy to exercise control over the escalation of drug use into drug
abuse or dependency.
The High Risk Drinkers Project (Baer, 1993; Baer et al, 1992; Fromme,
Kivlahan, & Marlatt, 1986; Kivlahan, Marlatt, Fromme, Coppel, & Wil-
liams, 1990) conducted at the Addictive Behaviors Research Center at the
University of Washington is an example of such a secondary prevention
program. In the first of these programs (Kivlahan et al., 1990), college stu-dents were recruited who were interested in learning more about orchanging their drinking and who reported a pattern of heavy drinking,
but with few or no signs of physical dependency. They were randomly
assigned to either a cognitive-behavioral program that taught skills on
how to maintain moderation in drinking, an alcohol information class thatfocused on negative consequences of drinking, or an assessment-only con-trol group. The cognitive-behavioral program included interventions
designed to enhance self-efficacy to maintain moderation through deci-
sion making and exercise of personal control (Fromme et al., 1986). Fol-
low-up assessments conducted at 4, 8, and 12 months posttreatment re-
vealed significant reductions in alcohol consumption for all three groups
but that the moderation-oriented skills training group achieved the great-
est decrease in consumption in retrospective reports of drinking (Kivlahanet al., 1990).
Lower efficacy beliefs at pretreatment to control overdrinking during
negative emotional states were associated with higher dependency on
alcohol and more alcohol-related consequences (Fromme et al., 1986).
Curiously, high baseline beliefs of efficacy to avoid overdrinking in social
influence situations were associated with more frequent monthly drinkingand higher weekly consumption, but with fewer dependency symptoms.Efficacy beliefs to avoid overdrinking under social pressure and negativeaffect assessed at baseline, posttreatment, and 4 months posttreatmentincreased over time for all groups. However, changes in efficacy level from
pretreatment to posttreatment and follow-up did not correspond tochanges in alcohol consumption from baseline to posttreatment and fol-low-up (Fromme et al., 1986).

Self-efficacy and addictive behavior 301
In summary, peer influence is a primary factor in initiation to drug use
among adolescents (EUickson & Hays, 1991; Hays & EUickson, 1990; Stacy
et al., 1992). Indeed, adolescents appear to make distinctions in the relative
difficulty of avoiding drug use in different social settings (Hays & EUick-
son, 1990). Perceived self-efficacy generalizes across substances, such that
those who judge that they are able to avoid smoking cigarettes would also
feel confident in their ability to refuse pressure to use marijuana (Hays &
EUickson, 1990).
The impact of social influence appears to be moderated by beliefs in
personal efficacy to resist pressure to use substances (Stacy et al., 1992).
Programs have been designed specifically to enhance resistance self-effi-
cacy across substances and have shown promising results in the short
term (EUickson et al., 1993; EUickson & Bell, 1990). The long-term results
for school-based programs alone are mixed and suggest the need to inte-
grate school-based programs in a broader community-oriented effort. Spe-
cial interventions are also needed to reduce escalation of drug use to prob-
lematic levels for those who have already initiated drug use. Secondary
prevention programs may help individuals manage risks associated with
continued substance use (Baer, 1993; Baer et al., 1992; Fromme et al., 1986;
Kivlahan et al., 1990), although the role of efficacy for harm reduction has
yet to be demonstrated in behavioral changes (Fromme et al., 1986). Self-
management of substance use fluctuates over time. This requires more
sensitive investigatory designs in which ongoing covariation in changes
in efficacy beliefs or level of substance use are continuously measured
rather than only at arbitrary discrete points in time. Other complex moti-
vational factors need to be addressed within programs aimed at risk
reduction as well (Baer, 1993).
Self-efficacy for treatment and relapse prevention
A review of the treatment literature reveals that self-efficacy is consistently
and significantly associated with attempts to stop addictive behaviors
(action self-efficacy), success in initial cessation attempts (coping self-effi-
cacy), and relapse (recovery self-efficacy). Self-efficacy judgments reflect
treatment gains, and such judgments are often significant predictors of
subsequent behavior even when other predictors are statistically con-
trolled. Studies vary, however, in the use of different efficacy scales, in the
time frame of behavioral prediction, the type of behavioral prediction, and
in the magnitude of observed relationships. The application of efficacy

302 G. Alan Marlatt, John S. Baer, and Lori A. Quigley
theory across different addictive substances (i.e., alcohol and smoking) is
just beginning.
Assessment of self-efficacy
Self-efficacy scales for drug use vary from single items (Erickson, Tiffany,Martin, & Baker, 1983) to scales with 100 items or more (Annis, 1982). The
most common scale for assessing coping self-efficacy measures strength of
confidence to avoid substance use in specific situations (e.g., Annis, 1982;
Colletti, Supnick, & Payne, 1985; Condiotte and Lichtenstein, 1981;
DiClemente et al., 1985). The development of these scales was guided bythe assumption that relapses are triggered by specific situational influ-ences (Marlatt
& Gordon, 1985), and that beliefs in coping efficacy are situ-
ationally specific (Bandura, 1977). Thus, if beliefs about one's ability to
resist addictive behavior in specific situations predict coping success, cli-
ents could be taught how to manage high-risk situations to preventrelapse.
Factor analytic studies of coping self-efficacy scales reveal a strong prin-
ciple component (Baer & Lichtenstein, 1988b; DiClemente et al., 1985).
This finding had led to the view that efficacy beliefs may not be specific to
situations. However, more recent studies have revealed both a higherorder factor and situational efficacy beliefs (Velicer, DiClemente, Rossi, &
Prochaska, 1990). Efficacy scales have also been developed to assess per-
ceived ability to restrict use of substances (Fromme et al.,
1986; Godding &
Glasgow, 1985; Sitharthan & Kavanaugh, 1990; Young, Oei, & Crook, 1991)
and to remain abstinent over given periods of time (Rychtarik, Prue, Rapp,
& King, 1992).
Haaga (1989; Haaga & Stewart, 1992) has more recently assessed effi-
cacy beliefs using an articulated thoughts technique. Subjects are asked to
verbalize thoughts about coping and the outcome of tempting situationsfor addictive behaviors (smoking in this case). These verbalized or articu-
lated thoughts are transcribed and then coded by trained raters forexpressed confidence in ability to either resist smoking or to continue ces-sation efforts after a temptation. Although potentially useful in testingtheoretical aspects of relapse and the role of self-efficacy, the articulated
thoughts technique does not lend itself to convenient clinical application.
Action and coping self-efficacy and smoking cessation
Efficacy beliefs are generally associated with motivation and readiness tomake attempts to quit smoking (action self-efficacy). DiClemente et al.

Self-efficacy and addictive behavior 303
(1991) have shown that complex relationships exist between efficacy
beliefs and change processes at different points in time. The types of
efforts toward change vary as a function of the individual's stage of
change. Action self-efficacy predicts attempts to quit smoking in a wide
range of studies, from professionally led worksite programs (Sussman et
al., 1989) to self-initiated New Year's resolutions (Marlatt, Curry, & Gor-
don, 1988).
Within smoking treatment programs self-efficacy consistently has been
predictive of abstinence (Baer, Holt, & Lichtenstein, 1986; Coehlo, 1984;
Condiotte & Lichtenstein, 1981; DiClemente, 1981; Mclntyre, Lichtenstein,
& Mermelstein, 1983; Wojcik, 1988). Pretreatment efficacy ratings (action
self-efficacy) – one's confidence in one's ability to quit – generally are not
related to eventual success in treatment (Baer & Lichtenstein, 1988b). This
is to say that if treatment raises an individual's sense of efficacy, behavior
will be regulated by current efficacy beliefs rather than by past efficacy
beliefs. Presumably, efficacy judgments made prior to quitting are based
on fears or optimism about quitting, but not based on prior performance
experience in actually avoiding cigarettes and are thus not relevant. In
contrast, efficacy ratings made after cessation is attempted (coping self-
efficacy) are more likely to be based on recent experience (resistance of
smoking) as well as program effects, and are thus better predictors of diffi-
culty in the future.
The prediction of successful abstinence with posttreatment efficacy has
been demonstrated in several studies (Baer et al., 1986; Condiotte &
Lichtenstein, 1981; Coehlo, 1984; Mclntyre et al., 1983). It is noteworthy
that in at least two of these studies, efficacy retains statistically significant
predictive power when only successful quitters are examined (Baer et al.,
1986; Mclntyre et al., 1983), thus demonstrating unique predictive capac-
ity beyond that of behavioral attainment. Haaga and Stewart (1992), using
an articulated thoughts technique described above, have further sug-
gested that subjects with moderate efficacy ratings fared somewhat better
than those with the highest efficacy scores. Although this result is only of
marginal statistical significance, it is the first suggestion of an "overconfi-
dence" effect in smoking cessation. Overconfidence is a clinical issue com-
mon in addictions (see discussion below regarding alcohol treatment). In
theory, persons who do not fear a relapse are likely to test themselves by
using the substance. Bandura (1991) has recently argued that successful
abstinence requires high resistance or coping efficacy but moderate recov-
ery efficacy, so as not to lead to trials of substance use. Future research in
smoking (and other addictions) will need to utilize measures that assess

304 G. Alan Marlatt, John S. Baer, and Lori A. Quigley
different components of efficacy as well as scales that provide a range of
difficulty of efficacy so that overconfidence might be assessed. Although
in need of replication, the articulated thoughts technique may provide
greater variability to assess differences at a high end of confidence.
The study of smoking cessation efficacy has further been associated
with processes thought to be important in the maintenance of cessation
long after initial and successful attempts to quit. Marlatt and Gordon
(1985) in a cognitive-behavioral model of relapse, propose that coping self-
efficacy plays a critical role in managing urges and temptations to use sub-
stances. After a slip, recovery self-efficacy for continued abstinence drops
(Shiffman, 1984). McDermut, Haaga, & Shayne (1991) have further dem-
onstrated that persons who rate negative affect situations as more difficult
than social situations were more likely to lapse during a 12-month follow-
up period. Such individual differences in efficacy for managing different
types of situations, if reliable, could be used to tailor treatments (see dis-
cussion below). It is noteworthy that the relationship between situation-
specific efficacy and actual coping in situations has been difficult to
demonstrate using other methodologies (Baer & Lichtenstein, 1988a).
Action and coping self-efficacy: Studies of alcohol and other drug addiction
Research applying the self-efficacy theory to alcohol and other drug prob-
lems is less well developed than that for research on smoking (see
DiClemente et al., in press, for a review). Given the similarities between
addictive problems and the application of the same cognitive-behavioral
model (Marlatt & Gordon, 1985), most of the theoretical and practical
issues are similar to those in smoking cessation. Annis and Davis (1988,
1989), in fact, have developed a complete treatment program for alcohol
problems based on an assessment of self-efficacy across situations.
Studies on self-efficacy theory and application have only recently ap-
peared in the research literature on drug addiction. For example, Heller
and Krauss (1991) report on the development of an efficacy scale with 63
polysubstance abusers enrolled in an inpatient detoxification center. Sub-
jects rated their confidence in their ability to perform behaviors necessary
to enter aftercare, and a 17-item scale was developed with high internal
reliability. The scale did correlate modestly (r = .28) with eventual entrance
into aftercare. Stephens, Wertz, and Roffman (1993) examined self-efficacy
as a predictor of success in an outpatient marijuana treatment program.
Using a 19-item scale assessing confidence in avoiding marijuana use in
different situations, self-efficacy was prospectively predictive of rates of

Self-efficacy and addictive behavior 305
use up to 1 year after treatment, but was unrelated to the experience of
marijuana-related problems.
Coping self-efficacy has also been studied in an opiate drug treatment
program. Gossop, Green, Phillips, and Bradley (1990) studied 80 opiate
addicts immediately after discharge and again 6 months later. Self-efficacy
was assessed by asking subjects to rate their ability to stay off opiates over
six different periods of time ("from the evening after leaving hospital
through six months after discharge" to "for the rest of your life"). A sum-
mary score from these six responses was found to significantly and pro-
spectively predict drug use at both 2 and 6 months after discharge.
More data pertaining to self-efficacy are available for treatments of alco-
hol abuse. Individuals who have successfully abstained from drinking
after treatment report markedly higher efficacy for resisting alcohol than
individuals who are just entering treatment (Miller, Ross, Emmerson, &
Todt, 1989). Self-efficacy for controlling drinking is associated with fewer
problems and lower rates of consumption (Collins & Lapp, 1991). Self-effi-
cacy is also related to readiness to change behavior. DiClemente and
Hughes (1990) found that patients appearing for treatment who were
uninvolved or discouraged about changing expressed the lowest efficacy
for abstinence compared to patients who showed a greater readiness to
change. These authors recommend assessment of other constructs in rela-
tion to self-efficacy (e.g., temptation to drink) to provide a complete pic-
ture of clients' motivational states.
Within alcohol treatment, Sitharthan and Kavanaugh (1990) found that
efficacy beliefs predicted drinking in a controlled drinking program even
after removing the possible influence of demographic variables, alcohol
dependence history, and level of consumption during treatment. Annis
and Davis (1988) reported with a small sample (n = 41) that efficacy beliefs
increase dramatically over treatment, and that specific situational efficacy
scores predicted drinking lapses during treatment. Predictable situations
were those of heavier drinking; occasions of lighter drinking during treat-
ment were not associated with situational efficacy ratings. Solomon and
Annis (1990) reported that efficacy ratings taken prior to treatment were
strongly associated with the extent of drinking during follow-up, but
failed to distinguish those who drank from those who did not.
Two studies have examined the role of coping efficacy in more tradi-
tional drug and alcohol treatment programs. Burling, Reilly, Moltzen, and
Ziff (1989) evaluated coping self-efficacy among 419 male substance
abuse inpatients at an American Veteran's Administration hospital. The
inpatient treatment facility utilized a therapeutic community for self-

306 G. Alan Mariatt, John S. Baer, and Lori A. Quigley
governance, and the program utilized cognitive and behavioral skillstraining, education, didactic classes, and group therapy. Self-efficacy wasassessed using the Situational Confidence Questionnaire (SCQ; Annis,
1982, modified to allow ratings of both drugs and alcohol) monthly dur-
ing treatment. A number of methodological issues plague this study. First,
the patient population reported abuse of a number of many different sub-stances, most commonly alcohol (43%) and cocaine
(23%). Further, only 81
of 419 patients were available for interview approximately 6 months afterdischarge to determine drug use posttreatment. "Any drug use" was con-
sidered "relapse," a criterion that may mask important differences in out-
come. Nevertheless, results revealed a number of interesting relationships
between efficacy and addictive treatment. Consistent with research in
smoking cessation, judgments of ability to refrain from substance use
were low on admission, and rose dramatically during treatment. Further,
low self-efficacy was associated with longer stays in treatment, and dis-
charge under more negative circumstances.
In this study, prediction of relapse from self-efficacy scores revealed a
pattern not previously reported: although pretreatment and posttreatmentSCQ scores were not related to relapse, the
change in efficacy over the
treatment period was predictive of outcome (Burling et al., 1989). Morespecifically, although patients who maintained sobriety reported lowerefficacy ratings at treatment entry, they changed more during treatmentthan those who relapsed during follow-up. Further, the situational effi-
cacy of patients who had generally low sense of efficacy at entry to treat-ment was related to actual relapse situations. The authors suggest thatpatients in drug and alcohol treatment can be "overconfident," particu-larly those forced into treatment, less motivated for treatment, or in denial
about the severity of their difficulties. These patients are less likely to
expend energy in treatment or appraise accurately their abilities to avoid
relapse. In contrast, those lower in efficacy initially are more accurate in
judging their efficacy in high-risk situations, tend to gain more from treat-
ment, and do better during follow-up. The authors suggest that this may
be one important way in which patients in treatment for alcohol or other
drug problems are different from smokers. The large number of method-ological problems noted above, of course, caution interpretations of find-
ings.
Rychtarik and colleagues (1992) reported a similar study with some-
what different results. This study of 87 male alcoholics also took place at a
Veterans' Affairs Treatment Unit. Patients completed a version of the Con-
fidence Questionnaire (Condiotte & Lichtenstein, 1981) modified to reflect

Self-efficacy and addictive behavior 307
beliefs about "what percentage of time they believed they would be able
to resist the urge to drink in that situation/' Considerably more method-
ological rigor was present in the Rychtarik and colleagues study than that
of Burling and colleagues. The self-efficacy questionnaire was completed
at intake, discharge, 2 weeks, and 1, 2, 3, 6, and 12 months postdischarge
from a 28-day inpatient treatment program; 80% of the sample was suc-
cessfully followed. Consistent with Burling and colleagues (1989) and
many other studies, self-efficacy was generally low at treatment entry and
increased significantly during treatment. In contrast to the Burling and
colleagues study, and the literature from smoking, pretreatment efficacy
was associated with relapse: Those with higher confidence at treatment
entry were less likely to relapse. In no analysis did posttreatment scores
predict relapse, nor did change in efficacy judgments predict relapse.
Rychtarik and colleagues (1992) note a number of differences between
their results and those reported by Burling and colleagues (1989). The two
studies used different scales to measure self-efficacy, and their popula-
tions were somewhat different. In particular, the Rychtarik study included
only those who completed a 28-day inpatient alcoholism treatment pro-
gram, whereas Burling and colleagues (1989) attempted to follow drop-
outs from a long residential community (although proportionally few
were found). Rychtarik and colleagues further express concerns about
ceiling effects in self-efficacy scales, particularly at posttreatment assess-
ments. These investigators note that such ceiling effects could be method-
ological. Restricting the study to the cases who successfully completed the
treatment would curtail this range of scores and restrict the magnitude of
relationships. Rychtarik and colleagues further question if efficacy rating
scales might reflect unrealistic expectations or impression management by
patients at discharge. Nevertheless, high and invariant ratings preclude
any predictive capacity of posttreatment ratings among these populations.
Other studies, noted above, particularly those with moderation goals
(Sitharthan & Kavanaugh, 1990), have shown good predictive relation-
ships from posttreatment efficacy, and no evidence of an overconfidence
effect. It may be that overconfidence is a psychological state that creates
risk for relapse, particularly for abstinence goals. Only Haaga and Stewart
(1992) have data to suggest this relationship in smoking cessation; such a
finding is in great need of replication. In the alcoholism treatment studies
reviewed, both Burling and colleagues (1989) and Rychtarik and col-
leagues (1992) adopt such an interpretation, albeit with very different
scales, methods, and results (in Rychtarik and colleagues' case to explain
why posttreatment scores are too high and nonpredictive, and for Burling

308 G. Alan Marlatt, John S. Baer, and Lori A. Quigley
and colleagues to explain why high pretreatment scores predict difficulty
in treatment). As noted above, overconfidence is a common concern in
addictions treatment associated with attributions of "denial." Given avail-
able research, we can only conclude that the data for overconfidence are,
at best, weak. Clearly, only continued research, using measures of efficacywith a full range of difficulty and that assess different components of con-
fidence (coping, recovery) can evaluate this issue (Bandura, 1991). Fur-thermore, all of the research reviewed above tends to treat efficacy some-thing like a personality trait. Bandura (1977) has proposed that efficacy is
most appropriately considered a state that changes over time with experi-
ence. Research programs need to address how efficacy beliefs regulate
addictive behavior in an ongoing manner as emotional experiences, cop-
ing successes, and situational influences change. Issues such as "overcon-fidence" could perhaps be best tested with a methodology that assessed
efficacy closer in time to the behavior it is hypothesized to influence.
Recovery self-efficacy
Both coping self-efficacy and recovery self-efficacy are central concepts inrelapse prevention (Marlatt & Gordon, 1985; Shiffman & Wills, 1985).
Whereas coping self-efficacy relates to the maintenance of action-stage
goals (e.g., abstinence or moderate use), recovery self-efficacy is concerned
with the individual's confidence in reinstating control should a relapse
occur. The distinction between coping and recovery self-efficacy is similar
to the distinction proposed earlier between resistance self-efficacy (main-taining abstinence prior to first use) and harm-reduction self-efficacy (riskreduction following first use).
Little research has been conducted on the role of self-efficacy following
an initial lapse or setback. In most of the coping self-efficacy research re-
viewed above, self-efficacy is assessed prior to relapse, at pretreatment or
posttreatment. As such, these measures assess anticipatory coping
self-
efficacy. Recovery self-efficacy refers to restorative coping or confidencethat one can successfully recover from lapses.
Research has, however, assessed attributional processes following a
lapse. Studies have documented a helplessness reaction to the first slip or
setback (among subjects committed to abstinence) termed the abstinence
violation effect (Collins
& Lapp, 1991; Marlatt & Gordon, 1985; Ross et al.,
1989). Individuals experiencing this reaction tend to attribute the cause of
initial lapses (e.g., after smoking the first cigarette after a quit attempt) to
internal, stable, and uncontrollable factors such as lack of willpower or

Self-efficacy and addictive behavior 309
biological craving/withdrawal. Such an attributional pattern is associated
with greater relapse rates compared to individuals who attribute lapses to
deficient coping with changing situational demands that are perceived to
be under personal control (Curry, Marlatt, & Gordon, 1987).
In the relapse prevention literature a number of intervention techniques
have been described to bolster and restore self-efficacy following setbacks.
Since clients often experience a motivational crisis in the midst of a lapse
and are in danger of giving up or dropping out of treatment, enhancing
recovery efficacy is a critical challenge. Curry and Marlatt (1987) offer a
number of clinical methods to help clients cope with slips and the absti-
nence violation effect, including consulting a reminder card that details
specific restorative coping instructions. Clients are advised to im-mediately stop the addictive behavior and recognize the triggering situa-tion and their emotional reactions. By reviewing the situation leading upto the lapse, clients can enlist coping strategies that reverse the course of
behavior. Recovery efficacy is also enhanced by invoking a plan for recov-
ery (e.g., seeking help, renewing initial commitment to change, develop-ing a relapse recovery contract). Structuring reactions to setbacks that
restore efficacy and enhance coping help clients to prevent being over-
whelmed with a sense of failure. Relapse prevention programs attempt toreframe relapse as a natural part of the recovery learning process. Future
research should clarify the role of recovery self-efficacy and should pavethe way for the development of additional relapse prevention methods.
Clinical implications of coping self-efficacy
The findings concerning the modification of smoking and drinking behav-
ior only show that what is already being done effectively changes self-effi-
cacy. More conceptually, self-efficacy theory could be useful in structuring
treatments in at least three ways. First, self-efficacy theory can guide thedevelopment of treatments that better facilitate a sense of personal effi-
cacy, and hence lead to better outcomes (Curry & Marlatt, 1987). Forexample, self-efficacy is altered by performance mastery experience, socialmodeling, verbal persuasion, and from emotional states. Treatmentshould be structured and implemented in ways that capitalize on these
different sources of influence. For example, Fairhurst (1990, cited in
DiClemente et al., in press) suggests that performance attainments are a
major contributor to perceived efficacy to control smoking behavior (see
also, Baer & Lichtenstein, 1988b; Tiffany, Martin, & Baker, 1986). Most
treatment programs seek to reduce substance use through mastery experi-

310 G. Alan Marlatt, John S. Baer, and Lori A. Quigley
ence. Future performance attainments alone do not necessarily instill a
high sense of efficacy. Witness the variation in perceived efficacy among
individuals who have all quit smoking by the end of treatment. It is notperformance attainments, per se, but what is made of them that deter-
mines perceived efficacy. Self-efficacy theory suggests ways of structuring
experience to maximize their impact on beliefs in one's capability to con-
trol addictive behavior.
Second, self-efficacy ratings are used to identify clients at greatest risk
for difficulty. This includes identifying which persons are unprepared tochange at the current time and those most at risk for relapse. The timing of
treatment steps could also be based on level of perceived self-efficacy. Peo-
ple may not be ready to make specific changes without more time or train-ing. Such a treatment scheme naturally requires that efficacy judgments
prospectively predict success in the change process. Given the variabilityof scales measuring different facets of self-efficacy at different phases ofchange and for different addiction problems, more research is needed to
specify which efficacy scales for what problems will best direct treatmentdecisions and different phases of change.
Third, efficacy judgments could be used to assess which particular
places or times pose high risk for given individuals. Theoretically, beliefsabout coping capabilities in specific situations could guide tailoring of
treatment and developing specific coping strategies for specific situations
(i.e. Annis & Davis, 1988). Although attempts at situational predictions
have not always met with success, recent studies using different analyticmethods (Annis
& Davis, 1988; Burling et al., 1989; McDermut et al., 1991;
Velicer et al., 1990) suggest that efficacy beliefs may vary across different
classes of situational and emotional conditions that tax coping capabili-
ties. It remains a problem of future research to determine how best to iden-
tify the patterning of risks for given individuals based on the structure oftheir efficacy beliefs.
"The swimming
hole": A final comment
On a hot, slow, summer day, a 15-year-old boy happens upon a quiet, coolpond. At the edge of the pond is a large sign that reads "no swimming." Itis reasonable to assume that such a situation would place this boy in amotivational dilemma. How can perceptions of self-efficacy be applied to
this situation? One might ask the boy about his confidence in his ability toresist the urge to dive in. Yet such a question and such a response likely
involve a number of different types of motivational states and efficacy
beliefs. We might also ask the youngster about his confidence in his ability

Self-efficacy and addictive behavior 311
to have a good time or cool off without diving in. On further analysis onemight ask the boy about his confidence in his ability to swim! Or about his
ability to cool off and enjoy himself without getting caught. All of these
judgments, of course, are relative to the heat of the day, the coolness of the
pond, the size of the sign, and the social norms for this kind of activity.Imagine the young man's conflict if, immediately beyond the large sign,he sees three of his friends frolicking about in the water experiencing no
apparent negative consequences. Perhaps most realistically, still others are
present, many who do not jump in but heed the sign.
This analogy, we believe, demonstrates the self-regulatory complica-
tions involved in the study of addictive behaviors. The goals for behavior
(and efficacy) are often unclear. Despite a behavior pattern that creates
considerable health risks, the goal of any individual client can vary con-
siderably along a continuum from "go" to "no go." Such mixed motiva-tions must be carefully assessed, in our view, because they indicate whattypes of self-efficacy beliefs are most relevant for predicting and explain-ing addictive behaviors.
References
Annis, H. M. (1982). Inventory of drinking situations. Ontario: Addiction Research
Foundation.
Annis, H. M, & Davis, C. S. (1988). Self-efficacy and the prevention of alcoholic
relapse: Initial findings from a treatment trial. In T. B. Baker & D. S. Cannon
(Eds.), Assessment and treatment of addictive disorders (pp. 88-112). New York:
Praeger.
Annis, H. M., & Davis, C. S. (1989). Relapse Prevention. In R. K. Hester & W. R.
Miller (Eds.), Handbook of alcoholism treatment approaches: Effective alternatives
(pp. 170-182). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Baer, J. S. (1993). Etiology and secondary prevention of alcohol problems with
young adults. In J. S. Baer, G. A. Marlatt, & R. J. McMahon (Eds.), Addictive
behaviors across the lifespan: Prevention, treatment, and policy issues (pp. 111-137).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Baer, J. S., Holt, C. S., & Lichtenstein, E. (1986). Self-efficacy and smoking reexam-
ined: Construct validity and clinical utility. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 54, 846-852.
Baer, J. S., & Lichtenstein, E. (1988a). Classification and prediction of smoking
relapse episodes: An exploration of individual differences. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 56,104-110.
Baer, J. S., & Lichtenstein, E. (1988b). Cognitive assessment in the treatment of
smoking addiction. In D. M. Donovan & G. A. Marlatt (Eds.), Assessment of
addictive behaviors: Behavioral, cognitive, and physiological procedures (pp. 198-
213). New York: Guilford.
Baer, J. S., Marlatt, G. A., Kivlahan, D. R., Fromme, K., Larimer, M. E., & Williams,
E. (1992). An experimental test of three methods of alcohol risk reduction with
young adults. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 60, 974-979.

312 G. Alan Marlatt, John S. Baer, and Lori A. Quigley
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavior change.
Psychological Review, 84,191-215.
Bandura, A. (1991). Self-efficacy mechanism in physiological activation and health-
promoting behavior. In J. Madden, IV (Ed.), Neurobiology of learning, emotion
and affect (pp. 229-269). New York: Raven.
Brod, M. I., & Hall, S. M. (1984). Joiners and non-joiners in smoking treatment: A
comparison of psychosocial variables. Addictive Behaviors, 9, 217-221.
Brown, J. H., & Horowitz, J. E. (1993). Deviance and Deviants: Why adolescent
substance use prevention programs can't work. Evaluation Review, 17, 529-
555.
Burling, T. A., Reilly, P. M, Moltzen, J. O., & Ziff, D. C. (1989). Self-efficacy and
relapse among inpatient drug and alcohol abusers: A predictor of outcome.
Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 50,354-360.
Chaney, E. E, O'Leary M. R., & Marlatt, G. A. (1978). Skill training with alcoholics.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46,1092-1104.
Coelho, R. J. (1984). Self-efficacy and cessation of smoking. Psychological Reports, 54,
309-310.
Colletti, G., Supnick, J. A., & Payne, T. J. (1985). The Smoking Self-Efficacy Ques-
tionnaire (SSEQ): Preliminary scale development and validation. Behavioral
Assessment, 7,249-260.
Collins, R. L., & Lapp, W. M. (1991). Restraint and attributions: Evidence of the
abstinence violation effect in alcohol consumption. Cognitive Therapy and
Research, 15,69-84.
Condiotte, M. M., & Lichtenstein, E. (1981). Self-efficacy and relapse in smoking
cessation programs. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 49, 648-658.
Conrad, K. M., Ray, B. R., & Hill, D. (1992). Why children start smoking cigarettes:
Predictors of onset. British Journal of Addiction, 87,1711-1724.
Curry, S., & Marlatt, G. A. (1987). Building self-confidence, self-efficacy, and self-
control. In W. M. Cox (Ed.), Treatment and prevention of alcohol problems (pp. 117-
138). New York: Academic.
Curry, S., Marlatt, G. A., & Gordon, J. R. (1987). Abstinence violation effect: Valida-
tion of an attributional construct with smoking cessation. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 55,145-149.
DiClemente, C. C. (1981). Self-efficacy and smoking cessation maintenance: A pre-
liminary report. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 5,175-187.
DiClemente, C. C, Fairhurst, S. K., & Piotrowski, N. A. (in press). The role of self-
efficacy in the addictive behaviors. In J. Maddux (Ed.), Self efficacy, adaptation
and adjustment: Theory, research and application. New York: Plenum.
DiClemente, C. C, & Hughes, S. O. (1990). Stages of change profiles in alcoholism
treatment. Journal of Substance Abuse, 2, 217-235.
DiClemente, C C, Prochaska, J. O., Fairhurst, S. K., Velicer, W. F, Velasquez, M.
M., & Rossi, J. S. (1991). The process of smoking cessation: An analysis of pre-
contemplation, contemplation and preparation stages of change. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59,295-304.
DiClemente, C C, Prochaska, J. O., & Gibertini, M. (1985). Self-efficacy and the
stages of self-change of smoking. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 9,181-200.
Ellickson, P. L., & Bell, R. M. (1990). Drug prevention in junior high: A multisite
longitudinal test. Science, 247,1299-1305.
Ellickson, P. L., Bell, R. M., & McGuigan, K. (1993). Preventing adolescent drug use:
Long-term results of a junior high program. American Journal of Public Health,
83,856-861.

Self-efficacy and addictive behavior 313
Ellickson, P. L., & Hays, R. D. (1991). Beliefs about resistance self-efficacy and drug
prevalence: Do they really affect drug use? International journal of the Addic-
tions, 25,1353-1378.
Ellickson P. L., & Hays, R. D. (1992). On becoming involved with drugs: Modeling
adolescent drug use over time. Health Psychology, 11,377-385.
Erickson, L. M, Tiffany, S. T., Martin, E. M., & Baker, T. B. (1983). Aversive smoking
therapies: A conditioning analysis of therapeutic effectiveness. Behaviour Re-
search and Therapy, 21,595-611.
Fairhurst, S. K. (1990). Predictors of smoking abstinence self-efficacy. Unpublished
master's thesis.
Fromme, K., Kivlahan, D. R., & Marlatt, G. A. (1986). Alcohol expectancies, risk
identification, and secondary prevention with problem drinkers. Advances in
Behavior Research and Therapy, 8, 237-251.
Godding, P. R., & Glasgow, R. E. (1985). Self-efficacy and outcome expectations as
predictors of controlled smoking status. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 9, 583-
590.
Gossop, M., Green, L., Phillips, G., & Bradley, B. (1990). Factors predicting outcome
among opiate addicts after treatment. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 29,
209-216.
Haaga, D. A. F. (1989). Articulated thoughts and endorsement procedures for cog-
nitive assessment in the prediction of smoking relapse. Psychological Assess-
ment: A Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1,112-117.
Haaga, D. A. F., & Stewart, B. L. (1992). Self-efficacy for recovery from a lapse after
smoking cessation. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 60,24-28.
Hansen, W. B., Graham, J. W., Wolkenstein, B. H., & Rohrbach, L. A. (1991). Pro-
gram integrity as a moderator of prevention program effectiveness: Results forfifth-grade students in the adolescent alcohol prevention
trial. Journal of Studies
on Alcohol, 52, 568-579.
Hays, R. D., & Ellickson, P. L. (1990). How generalizable are adolescents' beliefs
about pro-drug pressures and resistance self-efficacy? Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 20, 321-340.
Heller, M. C, & Krauss, H. H. (1991). Perceived self-efficacy as a predictor of after-
care treatment entry by the detoxification patient. Psychological Reports, 68,
1047-1052.
Jessor, R., Donovan, J. E., & Costa, F. M. (1991). Beyond adolescence: Problem behavior
and young adult development. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University
Press.
Jessor, R., & Jessor, S. L. (1977). Problem behavior and psychosocial development: A lon-
gitudinal study. New York: Academic.
Kandel, D. B., & Faust, R. (1975). Sequences and stages in patterns of adolescent
drug use. Archives of General Psychiatry, 32, 923-932.
Kandel, D. B., Yamaguchi, K., & Chen, K. (1992). Stages of progression in drug
involvement from adolescence to adulthood: Further evidence for the gatewaytheory.
Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 53,447^157.
Kivlahan, D. R., Marlatt, G. A., Fromme, K., Coppel, D. B., & Williams, E. (1990).
Secondary prevention with college drinkers: Evaluation of an alcohol skills
training program. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 58, 805-810.
Lawrence, L., & Rubinson, L. (1986). Self-efficacy as a predictor of smoking behav-
ior in young adolescents. Addictive Behaviors, 11,367-382.
Marlatt, G. A., Curry, S., & Gordon, J. R. (1988). A longitudinal analysis of unaided
smoking cessation. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56,715-720.

314 G. Alan Marlatt, John S. Baer, and Lori A. Quigley
Marlatt, G. A., & Gordon, J. R. (Eds.). (1985). Relapse prevention: Maintenance strate-
gies in the treatment of addictive behaviors. New York: Guilford.
Marlatt, G. A., Larimer, M. E., Baer, J. S., & Quigley, L. A. (1993). Harm reduction
for alcohol problems: Moving beyond the controlled drinking controversy.
Behavior Therapy, 24,461-504.
Marlatt, G. A., & Tapert, S. F. (1993). Harm reduction: Reducing the risks of addic-
tive behaviors. In J. S. Baer, G. A. Marlatt, & R. McMahon (Eds.), Addictive
behaviors across the lifespan (pp. 243-273). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
McDermut, W., Haaga, D. A. R, & Shayne, V. T. (1991). Schemata and smoking
relapse. Behavior Therapy, 22,423-434.
Mclntyre, K. O., Lichtenstein, E., & Mermelstein, R. J. (1983). Self-efficacy and
relapse in smoking cessation: A replication and extension. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 51,632-633.
Miller, P. J., Ross, S. M., Emmerson, R. Y, & Todt, E. H. (1989). Self-efficacy in alco-
holics: Clinical validation of the Situational Confidence Questionnaire. Addic-
tive Behaviors, 14,217-224.
Myers, M. G., Brown, S. A., & Mott, M. A. (1993). Coping as a predictor of adoles-
cent substance abuse treatment outcome. Journal of Substance Abuse, 5,15-29.
National Institute on Drug Abuse. (1992). Smoking, drinking, and illicit drug use
among American secondary school students, college students, and youngadults, 1975-1991 (Volume II). Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug
Abuse.
Newcomb, M.,
& Bentler, P. (1988). Consequences of adolescent drug use: Impact on the
lives of young adults. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Pentz, M. A. (1985). Social competence and self-efficacy as determinants of sub-
stance abuse in adolescence. In S. Shiffman & T. A. Wills (Eds.), Coping and sub-
stance abuse (pp. 117-139). Orlando, FL: Academic.
Perry, C. L., Kelder, S. H., Murray, D. M., & Klepp, K. (1992). Communitywide
smoking prevention: Long-term outcomes of the Minnesota Heart Health Pro-
gram and the class of 1989 study. American Journal of Public Health, 82, 1210-
1216.
Prochaska, J. O., & DiClemente, C. C. (1992). Stages of change in the modification
of problem behaviors. In M. Hersen, R. M. Eisler, & P. M. Miller (Eds.), Progress
in behavior modification (Vol. 28, pp. 184-214). Sycamore, IL: Sycamore Publish-
ing.
Rohrbach, L. A., Graham, J. W., Hansen, W. B., & Flay, B. R. (1987). Evaluation of
resistance skills training using multitrait-multimethod role play skill assess-ments.
Health Education Research, 2,401-407.
Ross, S. M., Miller, P. J., Emmerson, R. Y, & Todt, E. H. (1989). Self-efficacy, stan-
dards and abstinence violation: A comparison between newly sober and long-
term sober alcoholics. Journal of Substance Abuse, 1, 221-229.
Rychtarik, R. G., Prue, D. M., Rapp, S. R., King, A. C. (1992). Self-efficacy, aftercare
and relapse in a treatment program from alcoholics. Journal of Studies on Alco-
hol, 53,435-440.
Shedler, J., & Block, J. (1990). Adolescent drug use and psychological health: A lon-
gitudinal inquiry. American Psychologist, 45,612-630.
Shiffman, S. (1984). Cognitive antecedents and sequelae of smoking relapse crises.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 14,296-309.
Shiffman, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985). Coping and substance abuse. New York: Academic.
Sitharthan, T., & Kavanagh, D. J. (1990). Role of self-efficacy in predicting outcomes
from a programme for controlled drinking. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 27,
87-94.

Self-efficacy and addictive behavior 315
Solomon, K. E., & Annis, H. M. (1990). Outcome and efficacy expectancy in the pre-
diction of post-treatment drinking behaviour. British Journal of Addiction, 85,
659-665.
Stacy, A. W., Sussman, S., Dent, C. W., Burton, D., & Flay, B. R. (1992). Moderators
of peer social influence in adolescent smoking. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 18,163-172.
Stephens, R. S., Wertz, J. S., & Roffman, R. A. (1993). Predictors of marijuana treat-
ment outcomes: The role of self-efficacy. Journal of Substance Abuse, 5, 341-354.
Sussman, S., Whitney-Saltiel, D. A., Budd, R. J., Spiegel, D., Brannon, B. R,
Hansesn, W. B., Johnson, C. A., and Flay, B. R. (1989). Joiners and non-joiners
in worksite smoking treatment: Pretreatment smoking, smoking by significant
others, and expectation to quit as predictors. Addictive Behaviors, 14,113-119.
Telch, M. J., Killen, J. D., McAllister, A. L., Perry, C. L., & Maccoby, N. (1982). Long-
term follow-up of a pilot project on smoking prevention with adolescents.
Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 5,1-8.
Tiffany, S. T., Martin, E. M., & Baker, T. B. (1986). Treatment for cigarette smoking:
An evaluation of the contributions of aversion and counseling procedures.
Behaviour Research and Therapy, 24,437—452.
Velicer, W. F, DiClemente, C. C, Rossi, J. S., & Prochaska, J. O. (1990). Relapse situ-
ations and self-efficacy: An integrative model. Addictive Behaviors, 15, 271-283.
Wojcik, J. V. (1988). Social learning predictors of the avoidance of smoking relapse.
Addictive Behaviors, 13,177-180.
Young, R. M., Oei, T. P. S., & Crook, G. M. (1991). Development of a drinking self-
efficacy questionnaire. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 13,
1-15.

Name index
Abel, M., 265,266
Abidin, R. R., 119
Aboud, R E., 13
Abraham, C, 260
Abrams, D., 260
Abrams, D. B., 266,277
Abramson, L. Y, 12, 85, 96,156
Achermann, E., 117
Adams, N. E., 263
Adler, A., 2
Adler, T., 216
Ainsworth, M. D. S., 91
Aitken, D., 265
Ajzen,I.,7,215,265,268
Alden, L., 7
AUoy, L. B., 12,85,96
Alpern, D., 121
Altmaier, E. M., 7, 20
Amato, P. R., 121
Ames, C, 153,168
Amrhein, J., 96
Anderson, C. S., 22
Annis, H. M., 262,302,304, 305, 306,
310
Antoni, M. K, 27
Appels, A., 27
Ardelt, M, 15, 53, 56, 60
Arkowitz, H., 12
Armstrong, S., 88
Arnold, J., 244
Aronfreed, J., 88
Asendorpf, J., 118
Ashton, P. T., 20, 203
Assor,A.,210
Atkins, C. J., 266
Atkinson, J. W., 80,214
Ausubel, D., 89
Avard, J., 266
Ayers, A. L., 238
Azar, S. T., 129
Bachmann, M., 93
Baer, J. S., xii, 32,262,263,293,297,
300,301, 302,303,304,309Bagby, R., 266
Bagozzi, R. P., 266
Bahr,S.J.,132
Bakan, D., 114
Baker, T. B., 302, 309
Baldwin, J. M, 69, 73
Balshem, A., 273
Baltes, M. M., 81, 93, 94
Baltes, P. B., xiii, 48, 70, 79, 81, 86, 88,
89,116,118,149,161,165,166,167,
168,279
Baltes-Goetz, B., 84
Band, E. B., 82
Bandura, A., vii, viii, ix, 2,3,5,6,7,8,
9,10,18,19, 21,26,28, 31, 32, 33,50,
70,75,83,85,89,116,149,150,156,
162,165,169,178,181,202,203, 204,
205,206,207, 209,212,213,215, 217,
218,219,221, 222,224,225,234,239,
242,246,248, 252,261,262, 263,267,
273,293, 295, 302,303,308
Bank, L., 19
Barchas, J. D., 263
Barker, G., 92
Barker, K. M., 17
Barling, J., 265,266
Barlow, D. H., 8
Barrington, E., 265
Bartholomew, K., 117
Barton, R., 12
Barzon, J., 221
Basen-Engquist, K., 267
Bates, J.E., 118,128
Baum, A., 26,27
Baumann,U.,180
Beady, C, 22
Beaman,J., 131
Beamer,J.E.,207,211
Beck, K. H., 263,267
Beckmann, J., 277
Beckmann, M., 124,125
Bell, N.J., 260
Bell, R. M, 296,298,301
Bell, R. W., 260
317

318 Name Index
Belsky,J.,119,132
Bennett, J. A., 94
Bereiter, C, 221
Berk, L. E., 76
Berliner, D., 250
Bernier, M., 266
Berry, J. W., 94,165,205,209
Bertram, H., 135
Betz, N. E., 23,24,153, 207,211,232,
234,235,236, 237,239,240,241,243,
247,248,252,253
Beutell,N.J.,244
Biermann, V., 93
Bieschke, K. J., 215,246
Biran, M., 3
Birnbaum, D., 96
Bivens, J. A., 76
Bjorklund, D. R, 85, 89
Blackburn, T.C, 137
Blackwell,J.,78
Blehar, M., 91
Blisk, D., 121
Block, J., 292
Blumenfeld,R,78,216
Blustein, D. L., 24,244
Boccher-Lattimore, D., 267
Boggiano, A. K., 80
Boggs, K. R., 242
Bonett, R. M., 238
Bonfilio, S. A., 205
Bores-Rangel, E., 236,237
Borow, H., 233
Botvin, G. J., 31
Bouffard-Bouchard, T., 213,222
Bouillon, J., 265
Bower,G.H.,4,96,150
Boyd, D. A., 121
Bradley, B., 305
Bradley, R. H., 122
Brafford, L. J., 267
Brahler, E., 184
Branch, L. E., 236
Brandtstadter, J., 82, 84,132,134,135
Brehm, J. W., 50
Brehm, S. S., 50
Britton, B. K., 224
Broadbent, K., 95
Brod, M. L, 294
Bronfenbrenner, U., 48,159
Brookover, W. B., 22
Brophy, J. E., 22
Broucek, E, 83Brouillard, M. E., 263
Brown, A. L., 18
Brown, D., 236,250
Brown, I., Jr., 3,206
Brown, J., 96
Brown, J. D., 85,90,156,165,179
Brown, J. H., 293
Brown, S. A., 294
Brown, S. D., 23,24,165,206,207,210,
226,234,236, 241,242,247
Bruner, J., 73
Bruning, R. H., 215
Bruvold, W. H., 29,31
Bugenthal, D. B., 119,129
Biihler, C, 48
Biihler, Karl, 73
Bullock, M., 76,77
Burgess, R. L., 93Burling,
T. A., 305,306,307,310
Burton, D., 264,297
Bussey, K., 248
Bye, H., 244
Cacioppo, J. T., 150
Caldwell, B. M., 122
CampbeU, N. K., 245
Campis, L. K., 119
Cantrell, P., 265
Capaldi, D., 19
Caprara, G. V., 19
Carmody, T. P., Devins, G. M., 263
Carton, J.S., 120,122,124
Carver, C. S., 179
Casanova, L. L., 252
Casas, J. M, 241
Caspi, A., 51,54,55
Catalano, R. A., 180
Cervone, D., 7
Chaiken, S., 263
Chambliss, C. A., 266Chance,
J. E., 122
Chandler, T. A., 122
Chaney, E. E, 294
Chao,W.,131
Chaplin, W., 12
Chapman, M, 70, 79,85,89,116,118,
161,279
Chen, E. C, 239
Chen, K., 296
Church, A. T., 236,237
Chwalisz, K. D., 7,20
Cioffi, D., 263

Name Index 319
Clack, R L., 153
Claes, Mv 83
Clark, M. M., 266
Clausen, J. A., 49
Clement, S., 236,237,248
Clipp, E. C, 50
Coates, T. J., 267
Coehlo, R. J., 303
Cohen, L. B., 75
Cohen, L. H., 178
Cohen, S., 27,85
Colletti, G., 264,302
Collins, J. L., 213,214
Collins, R. L., 295,305,308
Collins, W. A., 128
Comer, J. P., 22
Condiotte, M. M, 264,302,303,306
Conger, R. D., 16,48,49,61,62,64,131
ConneU, J. P., 84, 88,163, 210,217
Connolly, J., 83
Conrad, K. M., 292,296
Constantine, J. A., 132
Cook, B., 122
Copeland, T. R, 120
Coppel, D. P., 300
Costa, F.M., 19,260,292
Cox, P. D., 204,214
Cox, S., 122
Cramer, S. H., 251
Crandall, B. W., 91
Crandall, V. C, 91,120,124
Crandall, V. J., 120,124
Critelli,J.W.,266
Crites,J.O.,232,243
Crnic, K., 132
Crook, G. M, 302
Cruz-Collins, M., 31
Cuddy, M.E., 118
Cummings, P. D., 273
Cunningham, L., 225
Curry, S., 295,303,309
Cutrona, C. E., 10,13,119,129
Daniels, D. H., 88
Davis, C. S., 262,304,305, 310
Davis, Wv 260
Davis, W.L., 122,123
de Charms, R., 155
DeGroot,E.V.,165,216
De Witt, K., 221
Dean, A., 180
Debus, R. L., 7,214DeBusk, R. R, 263
DeCharms, R., 2
Deci, E. L., 155
Deichman, A. K., 80
DeLucia, C. A., 73
Dembo,M.H.,19,20
Dempster-McClain, D., 48
Dent, C. W., 264,297
DeRose, T. M., 87
Desharnais, R., 265
Desjarlais, D. C, 260
deVries, H., 7,264
DiClemente, C. C, 32,264,290,291,
293,294,297, 302,303,304, 305, 309
Dienstbier, R. A., 27
Diethelm, K., 91,117,122,123
Dijkstra, M., 7, 264
Dodge, K. A., 118,128
Doerfler, L. A., 264
Donovan, D. M., 262
Donovan, J. E., 19,260, 292
Donovan, W. L., 90,91,129
Dooley, C. D., 180
Dorfman, L., 33
Dragunova, T., 167
Dritschel, B. H., 95
Dubois, P., 27
Duck, S., 180
Dugovics, D., 122
Duke, M. P., 120,127
Dunham, R, 92
Dunham, P., 92
Dunning, D., 85
Durkheim, E., 51
Dusenbury, L., 31
Dwais, R., 233
Dweck, C. S., 92, 93,153
Dzewaltowski, D. A., 7,215,264,265
Earl, W. L., 117
Earley,PC,34,171
Eaton, C. A., 266
Eccles, J. S., 15,17,53,56,60,93,211,
212,216
Edwards, J., 85
Edwards, P. J., 263
Ekstrand, M, 267
Elder, G. H., Jr., x, 15,16, 35,48,49, 50,
51,52,53,54,55,56,60,61,64
Elkonin, D., 167
Ellickson, P. L., 260,292,296,297,298,
299,301

320 Name Index
Emmerson, R. Y, 295, 305
Engel,G.L.,25
Engfer, A., 125
England, R., 266
English, A. C, 218
English, H.B., 218
Engstrom, P. E, 273
Enochs, L. G., 20
Ensel,W.,180
Entwistle, D., 85
Erickson, L. M., 302
Erikson, E. H., 80
Espinoza,J. A., 170
Essau, C, 94
Esteve, J. M., 37
Evans, E. D., 20
Evans, K., 22
Ewart,CK.,4,263,266
Fairhurst, S. K., 32,290, 309
Falkenhagen, H., 159
Faust, R., 296
Feather, N. T., 180,182, 214
Feig, E., 121
Feldlaufer, H., 93
Feltz, D. L., 3,264,265
Festinger, L., 150
Filipp, S.-H., 178
Finck, W., 159
Finkelstein, N. W., 73,74,85,117,123
Fischhoff, B., 260
Fishbein, M., 265
Fitzgerald, L. R, 234,238,250
Flammer, A., x, xiii, 69,76,77, 80,81,
83,84,90,93,94,95,96,97,115,117
Flavell, J., 86, 87
Hay, B. R., 264, 292,297
Hett, G. L., 80
Hood, P., 22
Foege, W. H., 26
Folkman, S., 8, 69,178,263
Follick, M. J., 277
Foner, A., 48,51
Fong, G. T., 32,268
Ford,M. E.,91,116
Foster, E. M., 53
Fowler, J., 277
Fox, R, 126
Frame, C, 118
Franz, S., 159,161
Frazier, T. G., 273Friedrichs, A., 87
Frieze, I. H., 77,79
Froming, W. J., 96
Fromme,K.,300,301,302
Fruin, D. J., 265
Fry, P. S., 76
Fuchs, R., xii
Fuchs, V., 25
Fukuyama, M. A., 244
Furman, W., 96
Gable, S., 132
Galassi,J.R,212
Galejs, L, 126
Garcia, A. W., 265
Garcia, M. E., 264
Gardner, J. W., 37,202,226
Garza,T.,170
Gasser, E., 89
Gatz, M, 84
Gaultney, J. R, 89
Ge, X., 48
Gecas,V.,134
Gekas, V, 80, 93
Gelfand, D. M., 13,119,129
Geppert, U., 76, 77
Gibbons, R., 9
Gibertini, M, 264,297
Gibson, S., 19, 20
Giessmann, B., 158
Gilchrist, L. D., 32,267
Gist, M. E., 3, 214
Glaser, R., 27
Glasgow, R. E., 12,215,264,302
Glynn, S. M., 266
Godding, P. R., 264,302
Godin, G., 265,265
Goffman,E., 170
Goldberg, S., 85
Gollwitzer, P. M., 277
Good, S., 91
Good, T. L., 22
Goodhart, R, 267
Goodnow, J. J., 128
Gordon, D. A., 122
Gordon, J. R., 262,294,295, 302,303,
304,308, 309
Gossop, M., 305
Gottesfeld, D., 265
Gould, D., 265
Gould, J., 221

Name Index 321
Graham, J.W., 292,296
Graham, S., 92,221
Grant, B. T., 83
Green, B. L., 85, 89
Green, L., 305
Greenberg, D., 224,225
Greene, D., 92
Greenhaus, J. H., 233
Greve,W.,82,84
Grob, A., 84,90, 94,95,96
Gross, D., 131
Grossman, R. M, 266
Grove, J. R., 7
Grove, R., 264
Gruber, B., 27
Grunberg, N. E., 26
Guggi,S.,95
Guilfoyle, K., 252
Gunn, T. P., 7,214
Gunnar, M. R., 74
Gunnar-VonGnechten, M. R., 74
Gutteling, J. M., 35
Haaga, D. A. R, 263, 302,303, 304,307
Haas, B., 135
Haber,J.D.,121
Hackett, G., xi, 17, 23,24,92,153,203,
207,211,232,233,234,235, 236,237,
238,239,240,241,242,243,245,247,
248,252,253
Hagell, A., 16,64
Hainline, L., 121
Halisch, C, 77
Halisch, R, 77
Hall, N. R., 27
Hall, S. M., 294
Hamburg, D. A., 28
Hamilton, V., 78
Haney, C. J., 265
Hannah, J. S., 239
Hansen, W. B., 292,296,297,298
Hanson, A. R., 204
Hanusa, B. H., 94
Harmon, L. W., 238,253
Harold, R. D., 216
Harris, K. R., 76,221
Harrison, J., 9
Harrist, A. W., 118,128
Harter, S., 115,118,215,216
Hausser, K., 80
Hayduk, L., 85Hays, R. D, 260,292,296,297,298,301
Hecht-Jackl,A.,124
Heckhausen, H., 76,77,91
Heckhausen, J., 77,82,89
Hegland, S. M., 126
Heil, R E., 132
Heinz, W. R., 22
Hekiman, E., 129
Heller, K., 79
Heller, M. C, 304
Helmke, A., 79,85,86
Hempelmann, R, 93
Henderson, R. W., 225
Herr, E. L., 251
Hersh,S.R,27
Hetherington, E. M., 120
Hetzer, H., 75
Hewitt, N., 31,260
Hildebrandt, K., 10
Hill, D., 292
Hinshaw, S. P., 19
Ho, R., 263
Hobfoll,S.E.,178
Hodapp, V, 183
Hoff, N., 267
Hoffman, D., 216
Hoffman, J., 89
Hoffman, J. A., 120
Hofstede, G., 149,151,153,154,155,
157,166,167,168,169,170
Hofstetter, C. R., 265,266
Hohmann, P. M., 132
Holahan,CJ.,10
Holahan, C. K., 10
Holden, G., 17
Holland, J. L., 233
Holman, H. R., 33, 263, 266
Holt, C. S., 303
Horowitz, J. E., 293
Hotchkiss, L., 233
HoveU, M. R, 265,266
Hovland, C L, 150
Hoy, W. K., 20
Hoyt,J.,87
Hoyt, K. B., 250
Huber,J.J.,218
Hughes, H. H., 266
Hughes, S. O., 294,305
Hui,CH.,151
Hulin, C. L., 195
Hurrelmann, K., 22

322 Name Index
Ikeda,H.,23,170,236
Ingersoll, E. W., 73
Inouye, D. K., 3,206
Isaacson, L. E., 250
Jackson, A., 264,265,266
Jacobs, J. A., 24
Jacobs Quadrel, M., 260
Jalowiec, J. E., 123
Janos, O., 73
Jarrett,J. E., 180
Jemmott, J. B., iii, 31,32,260,268
Jemmott, L. S., 31, 32,260, 267,268
Jernigan, D., 33
Jerusalem, M., xi, 8,16 119,125,178,
179,183
Jessor, R., 19,30,260,292,296
Jessor, S. L., 296
JingeleskiJ.,239,242
Johnson, J., 56
Johnson, J. H., 178
Johnson, M. E., 48
Johnston, C, 119,129
Jones, R. M., 239,240
Jordan, C, 78
Jourden, F. J., 206
Kahn, S. E., 239
Kain, E. L., 134
Kaiser, F. G., 90,95,96
Kalter, N., 121
Kandel, D. B., 296
Kane, P., 78
Kanfer, R., 9,195
Kaplan, R. M., 266
Karabenick,J.,79
Karanci, N. A., 263Karel, M. H., 84
Kasen, S., 267
Katkovsky,W.,91,120
Katz, P. A., 80
Kavanagh, D. J., 4,10,96,150,263, 264,
302,305, 307
Keeble, S., 74
Keith, J., 48
Kelder, S. H., 31,299
Kelvin, P., 180
Kennely, K., 122
Kenny, D. A., 129
Kent, G., 9
Kertzer, D. I., 48
Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K., 27Killen,J.D.,31,299
Kimball, M. M, 211King, A., 126King,
A. C, 265,302
King, J.E., 264
Kinsella,K.,46
Kitayama, S., 152,153,170
Kivlahan, D. R., 300,301
Kkurdek, L. A., 121
Klepp,K.,31,299
Klier, R, 158
Klint, K. A., 264
Klostermann, M., 76
Knibbe,R.,267Knopp,V.,119
Kogan, N., 84
Kohn, M. L., 134
Kok, G., 263,264, 267
Kon,I.S.,167
Kovitz, K., 129
Kramer, T., 267
Krampen, G., 84,115,120,122,123,
124,132
Krantz, D. S., 26Krause, C, 159Krauss, H. H., 304Kressig,
Judith, xiii
Kriiger, J., 89
Krumboltz, J. D., 233
KuhlJ.,277
Kuhlman, P., 7,264
Kukla, A., 77
Kumpfer, K. L., 93
Kun, A., 79
Kunnen, S., 78
Kiister, U., 76
Lachman, M. E., 84, 89,195
Ladd, G. W., 118,121
Lancaster, W., 120,121
Landers, D. M., 3,265
Lange, G., 87
Lange, R., 84
Langer, E. J., 90,94
Lapan, R. T., 239, 242,248
Lapp, W. M, 295,305, 308
Larimer, M. E., 293
Larivee, L., 222
Larkin, K. C, 24,206,207, 236,241,242
Lasley, P., 56
Latham, G. P., 6, 7,268
Laudenslager, M. L., 26,27

Name Index 323
Lauver, P. J., 239,240
Laux, L., 183
Lawler, J., 69
Layman, R. D., 119
Layton, P. L., 236
Lazarus, R. S., 8, 69,178,180,263
Le-Xuan-Hy, G. M., 80
Leavitt,L.A.,90,91,129
Lefcourt, H. M., 83,119,122
Lefcourt, L. A., 238,253
Leggett, E. L., 153
Lehwald, G., 122
Lent, R. W., 23,24,153,165,206,207,
210,215, 226,233,234,236,241, 242,
243,246,247,248
Leonard, M. M., 237,241
Leont'ev, A. NL, 69
Lepage, L., 265
Lepper, M. R., 92
Leppin,A., 180,182
Lerman, C, 273
Lerner, M. J., 178
Leslie, A. ML, 74,75
Leung, K., 153
Levin, H. M., 22,252
Levin, J. R., 87
Levinson, R. A., 267
Levy, V., 87
Lewinsohn, P. M, 12
Lewis, M., 85,88
Li, K., 170
Lichtenberg, J. W., 236
Lichtenstein, E., 262,263,264,297, 302,
303,304, 306, 309
Liebert, R. M, 212
Lifshitz, M., 126
Ligachev, E., 167
Lilly, M. W., 211
Lin, N., 180
Lindenberger, U., 88,161
Linz, S. J., 46
Lippsitt, L. P., 73
Lipset, S. ML, 36
Lishman, W. A., 95
Litt, M. D., 4,263
Little, T. D., 88,149,161,162,163,166,
167,168
Lloyd, G.G., 95
Lo, S. K., 264
Locke, E. A., 6,7,268
Loeb, R. C, 122
Lofquist, L., 233Long, B. C, 265
Lopez, KG., 215,246,247
Lord, S., 15,53,56
Lorig, K., 33,263,266
Lott, C. L., 80
Lumpkin, J. R., 84
Lund, A. K., 263
Lundberg, I., 207,211
Luria, A. R., 76
Luster, T., 134,135
Liithi, R., 90,95,96
Liitkenhaus, P., 76, 77
Luzzo, D. A., 244
Lyman, R. D., 205
Mabe, P. A., Ill, 165
Maccoby,N.,29,32
McAdams, D. P., 114,115
McAlister, A. L., 32,299
McAuley, E., 7,264
McCabe, P. M., 27
McCaul, K. D., 215
McCombs,B.L.,202,218
McCusker, C, 151
McDermut, W., 304,310
MacDonald, A. P., 123
McElroy, M., 264
MacFarlane, J., 73
McGinnis, J. M., 26
McGuigan, K., 296
Mclntyre, K. O., 303
Madver, D., 86, 88
McKusick, L., 267
Madden, T.J., 7,215
Maddux, J. E., 276
Madge, N., 54
Magnusson, D., 48
Maier, S. E, 26,27, 83
Main, D. S., 80
Major, B., 10
Mandler,J.M.,75
Manning, M. M., 263
Marcus, B. H., 265
Marks, E., 120
Markus, H. R., 152,153,170
Marlatt, G. A., xii, 32,262,280,293,
294,295,300, 302,303,304, 308,309
Maron, M., 166
Marsh, A., 35
Martin, E. M., 302,309
Martin, E C, 26,27
Martinez-Pons, M., 18,216,219,224

324 Name Index
Mash, E. J., 119,129
Masters, J., 96
Matsui, K., 237
Matsui, T., 23, 34,170,236,237,238,
244,245,246, 247,248
Mayer, K. U., 48
Meece,J.L.,17,211,212
Mefford, I. N., 263
Meguro, Y., 51
Meichenbaum, D. H., 8
Mermelstein, R. J., 303
Metzler, A. E., 244
Meyer, B. U., 122
Meyer, J. W., 48
Meyer, W. U., 93
Meyerowitz, B. E., 263
Michalos, A., 83
Michotte, A., 74
Midgely,C,93,216
Mielke, R., 122
MiUer, A. T., 78,79
Miller, D. T., 90
Miller, M. D., 218
MiUer, N. H., 263
MiUer, P., 119
Miller, P. J., 295,305
Miller, S. A., 128
Millstein, S. G., 28
Mischel, H. N., 76
Mischel, W., 12, 76, 96
Mitchell, L. K., 233
Mitchell, T. R., 214
Mittag, W., xi, 8,16
Moen, P., 48
Moltzen, J. O., 305
Moncher,M. S., 17
Monroe, E. K., 87
Montada, L., 178
Moore, B. S., 96
Moore, R. G., 95
Morin, S. E, 267
Morrill, W. H., 242
Morris, L. W., 212
Mortimer, J. T., 180
Mott, M. A., 294
Mudde, A., 264
Muddux,J.E.,265
Mueller, P., 10
Muller, A., 76
Muller, E. N., 35
Muller, L., 76
Multon, K. D., 165,207,210,211,226Murphy, C. C, 215
Murphy, S. M., 265
Murray, D. M., 31,299
Murray, E. J., 266
Myers, M. G., 294
Nader, P. R., 266
Neimeyer, G. J., 244
Neuenschwander, M., 84
Nevill, D. D., 244
Newcomb, T. M., 51
Newman, R. S., 18
Niaura, R. S., 266
Nicholls, J. G., 78, 79, 85, 86,214,216
Nicolich, M., 279
Nightingale, E. O., 28
Niles, s. G., 244
Noble, A. J., 239, 240,248
Noble, J.M., 7,215,264
Norcross, J. C, 277
Nowicki, S., 120,122,123,124,127
Oakes, L. M., 75
Oei, T. P. S., 302
Oettingen, G., x, 12, 88,149,161,162,
163,166,167,168
Ohnishi, R., 23,170,236,237
Oleron, P., 83
Olioff,M.,13
Ollendick, D. G., 126
Olson, L., 249
Onglatco, M. L., 34,170,237, 244
Osipow, S. H., 232,233,236, 237,238
Owen, N., 265
Oxenberg,J.,80
Ozer, E. M., 9,14,239
O'Halloran, M. S., 236
O'Hare, M. M., 244
O'Leary, A., 26,262,263,267
O'Leary, M. R., 294
O'Neill, K., 215
Papousek, H., 73
Papousek, M., 73
Parcel, G. S., 267
Parent, S., 222
Paris, S. G., 18
Parish, T. S., 120,121
Parjares,E, 218
Parks, P. L., 129
Parsons, J., 79, 85
Pastorelli, C, 19

Name Index 325
Patterson, C. J., 76
Patterson, G. Rv 19
Patterson, T. L., 266
Paulussen, Tv 267
Pausch, H. P., 118
Payne, T. J., 264, 302
Peake, P. K., 76
Pear, J., 221
Pelletier, L. G., 155
Pentz, M. A., 292,298
Perrez, M, 117
Perry, C.L., 31,32,299
Perry, D. E., 118
Perry, L. C, 118
Petersen, A. C, 28
Peterson, C, 116
Pettit,G.S.,118,128
Petty, R. E., 150
Pfeiffer, P., 122,123,125
Phares, E. J., 84,122, E. J., 123
Phillips, G., 305
Piaget, J., 69, 73, 74, 75, 76, 79, 85
Pierce, G. R., 180
Pierce, J., 264
Pinski, R. B., 266
Pintrich,P,78,165,216
Piotrowski, N. A., 32,290
Placier, P., 252
Ploger, R O., 93
Plunkett,J.W.,121
Polivanova, K. N., 167
Pollack, L., 267
Pompa,J.,129,243,247
Post, P., 237, 248
Post-Kammer, P., 239, 242
Pratt, C, 265
Prentice-Dunn, S., 119, 205
Pressley, M, 86,87
Price, J.M., 121
Probert, B. S., 244
Prochaska, J. O., 264, 277, 293,297,302
Prue, D. M., 302
Pryor,J.B.,260
Quigley, L. A., xii, 32, 293
Raeder, U., 3
Raeder, V, 265
Ramey, C. T., 73,74,85,117,123
Ramot, L., 126
Randhawa, B. S., 207,211
Rapee, R. M, 8Rapp, S. R., 302
Rasmussen, P., 118
Raynor, J. O., 155
Reber, R., 96
Redlich,J.D.,214
Reed, L., 77
Reeder, G. D., 260
Reese, L., 263
Reeves, C, 236
Reilly, P. M., 305
Reinsch, S., 266
Reisel, B., 121
Relich, J. D., 7
Renner, G., 82
Reppucci, N. D., 93
Rest, S., 77
Rhodes, K., 135
Rholes, W., 78, 79
Rice, M. J., 208
Richardson, V., 252
Richmond, B. D., 121
Ries, A. L., 266
Riessinger, C. A., 264
Riggs, I. M., 20
Riksen-Walraven, M., 74, 91,123,124
Riley, M. W., 48, 51
Rimer, B., 273
Ringle, J., 205
Rinke, R., 127
Rippetoe, P. A., 263
Robbins, M. A., 265
Robbins, S. B., 243
Robert, T., 89
Roberts, K., 22
Robinson, D. R., 129
Rocha-Singh, I., 241
Rocissano, L., 131
Rod, W., 115
Rodin, J., 94
Rodriguez, M. L., 76
Roffman, R. A., 304
Rogers, R. W., 263, 268,276
Rohrbach, L. A., 292,296
Romac, D. S., 236
Roncoli, M., 131
Rooney, R., 236,237,238
Rosebrook, R., 236
Rosenbaum, R. M., 77
Rosenberger, N R., 170
Rosenhan, D. L., 96
Rosenholtz, S. H., 86,153,155
Rosenholtz, S. J., 86,153,155

326 Name Index
Ross, M., 90
Ross, S. M, 90,295, 305,308
Rossi, J. S., 264,266,302
Rotberg, H. L., 236,237
Rothbaum, F. M, 81,137
Rotter, J. B., 2, 83,115,122,217
Rovee-Collier, C. K., 73
Roy, M., 266
Ruble, D. N., 79,80, 85
Ruderman, A. J., 266
Rudkin,L.,16,64
Ruppert, S., 124,126
Russell, D. W., 7,20
Rutter, M, 54,119
Ryan, R. M, 155
Ryan, S. M., 26,27
Rychtarik, R. G., 302,306,307
Ryckman, R. M., 265
Ryder, N. B., 48
Ryff, C. D., 82
Salkovskis, P. M., 9
Sams,J.F.,265,266
Salovey, P., 96
Sameroff, A. J., 73
Sandborn, M., 89
Sanderson, W. C, 8
Sandman, P. ML, 277
Sarason, B. R., 180
Sarason, I. G., 8,179,180
Scardamalia, M, 221
Schave, B., 126
ScheerJ.,184
Scheier, M. R, 179
Scheuber-Sahli, E., 96
Schiff, H., 89
Schinke,S.R,17,32,267
Schlecker, D. I., 244
Schmidt-Rinke, M., 119
Schmitz, J. M., 264
Schnabel,G.,158,159,161
Schneewind, K. A., x, 115,116,118,119,
122,123,124,125,126,127,129,131,
133,136
Schneider, J. M., 84
Schneider, W., 86
Schneiderman, N., 27
Schooler, C, 34
Schulz, R., 82, 94
Schunk, D. H., 3,4, 7,17,92,165, 203,
204,207,208, 209,210,211,214,221,
224,234Schwalbe, M. L., 80
Schwarzer, R., xii, xiii, 7,83,119,125,
178,179,180,182,183,262,268, 277
Schwefel, D., 180
Schweitzer, J., 22
Schwenkmezger, P., 183
Scott, J., 95
Segal, W., 123
Seginer, R., 94
Seligman, M. E. P., 34, 83, 85,116,156
Seydel, E., 263,273,275,276
Shanahan, M. J., 50
Shannon, B., 266
Shavelson, R. J., 218
Shavit, Y, 26,27
Shaw,J.M.,7,215,264
Shayne,V.T.,304
Shedler,J.,292
Sheeran, P., 260
Shell, D. E, 215
Shelley, J., 264
Shennum, W. A., 119,129
Shiftman, S. 294,304,308
Shoda, Y, 76
Shoor, S., 263
Short, J.-A.C, 155
Shribman, D., 63
Siefel, J. M, 179
Siegel, R. G., 212
Siervald,W.,119
Siesky, A. E., 121
Silver, W. S., 214
Simons, R. L.,49,131
Simpson, C, 86,155
Siqueland, E. R., 73
Sitharthan, T., 263,302,305, 307
Skinner, E. A., 70,79,84,85, 88,89,91,
94,116,118,122,161,163,217, 279
Sladewski-Awig, L. J., 87
Slater, E.J., 121
Slater, M. D., 266
Smeriglio, V. L., 129
Smith, A. P., 27
Smith, J., 81
Smith, P. L., 237,239,242
Smith, R.E., 217
Snyder, C. R., 279
Snyder, H. L., 79
Snyder, S. S., 81,137
Solomon, K. E., 305
Sorrentino, R. M., 155
Soubitez, M. C, 83

Name Index 327
Sowa, C. J., 244
Sowarka, D., 81
Spear, P., 88
Spears, H., 31,260
Spears, R., 260
Spence, R., 121
Spielberger, C. D., 183
Spiller, H., 93
Spokane, A. R., 232
Stacy, A. W., 264,297,301
Stanton,G.C.,218
Staudinger, U. M., 81
Stephens, R. S., 304
Steptoe, A., 27
Stetsenko, A., 88,161,166,167,168
Stewart, B. L., 262, 302,303,307
Stewart, M. A., 237
Stewart, R. B., 93
Stickel, S. A., 238
Stiensmeier, J., 80
Stiller, J., 155
Stipek, D. J., 77, 78, 84, 86, 88, 89,93,
116,117,154,160,168,169,170,216
Story, A. L., 85
Stotland, S., 266
Stouder, R., 35
Strecher, V., 264
Strickland, B. R., 115,122,127
Stroebe,W.,155
Strube, M. J., 80
Stunkard, A. J., 116
Super, D. E., 232,233
Supnick,J. A.,264,302
Sussman, S., 264,297
Svensson, P. G., 180
Swartz, C. W., 221,224
Syme, S. L., 83
Szendre, D., 236
Taal, E., 35,263
Tannatt, L., 78
Tapert, S. R, 293
Tautz, D., 158,159
Taylor, C. B., 262,263
Taylor, K. M., 243,247
Taylor, S. E., 12, 85, 90,156,165,277
Teasdale,J.D.,96,156
Telch,M.J.,31,299
Temple, R. D., 237
Terresa, J. S., 236
Tesser, A., 224
Teti, D. M., 13,119,129Teyber, E. C, 120
Themba, M., 33
Thoman, E. B., 73
Thomas, W. L, 46,47,48,50,51
Thompson, R. A., 91,116
Thornton, B., 265
Tiffany, S. T, 302,309
Tiggemann, M., 84
Todt, E. H., 295,305
Tolor, A., 123
Torestad, B., 48
Toshima, M. T, 266
Trenkner. L., 266
Triandis, H. C, 149,151,152,153,170
Tribble, M., 20
Trock, B., 273
Trommsdorff, G., 94,137
Troutman, B. R., 10,13,119,129
Tsukamoto, S., 236, 237,238
Tulkin, S. R., 129,134
Turner, C. W., 93
Twentyman, C. T., 129
Tyrrell, D. A. J., 27
Underwood, B., 96
Valentin, P., 76
Vallerand,R.J.,155
Valois, P., 265
vanAken,M.A.G.,91,118
vanRyn,M.,195
Van den Bogaard, J., 35
Van Nguyen, T., 54
Vaskovics, L. A., 135
Vaughn, R. D., 267
Veiel, H. O. R, 180
Velicer, W. R, 264,302,310
Velkoff, V, 46
Vierzigmann, G., 119
Villareal, M. J., 153
Vinokur,A.D.,195
Viscussi, D., 96
Vygotsky, L. S., 76,225
Wacker, A., 122
Wahl, H. W., 94
Walker, R., 7,214
Wall, M., 88
Wall, S., 91
Wallace, I., 221
Wallack, L., 33
Wallston, K. A., 264

328 Name Index
Walsh, R. O., 90
Walter, D. A., 121
Walter, H.J., 267
Walters, C, 78
Wang, M. Q., 266
Ware, E., 119
Ware, W. B., 212,236
Waring, J., 51
Warshaw, P. R., 266
Wason, P. C, 221
Waterkamp, D., 158,159
Waters, E., 91
Watson, J. S., 73,117,123
Watts, F. N., 95
Webb, R. B., 20,203
Week, H., 158,159,161,166
Weinberg, R. S., 264,265,266
Weiner,B., 77,170,214
Weinstein, C. E., 224,225
Weinstein, N. D., 261,277,279
Weiss, M. R., 264
Weiss, W., 150
Weisz, J. R., 79, 81, 82, 84, 86,116,117,
137
Weitzman, L. M, 238
Wellborn, J. G., 88,163, 217
Wellman, H., 86
Wentura, D., 82
Wertz, J. S., 304
West, S.G., 165
Wheeler, K. G., 236, 237,248
Wheeler, V. A., 118
Whitbeck, L. B., 123,126,131
White, J., 13
White, R. W., 2,115,215
Wichern, E, 122
Wicki, W., 96
Wiedenfeld, S. A., 27,263
Wiegman, O., 35,263
Wiese, D. M., 264
Wiese, H., 159
Wigfield, A., 17,211,212,216
Wiggins, J.S., 114
Williams, E., 300
Williams, J.M.G., 95
Williams, R. M., Jr., 48Williams, S. L., 263
Williams, T. M., 237,241
Wills, T. A., 294,308
Wilson, D. K., 264
Wilson, D. R., 205
Wilson, G. T., 3
Wilson, P. K, 10
Wilson, W. J., 57
Wine, J.D., 179
Wisenbaker,J.,22
Witzlack, G., 158
Wo, C, 131
Wojcik,J.V.,303
Wold, H., 136
Wolf, E M., 122
Wolkenstein, B. H., 296
Wollman, N., 35
Wood, R., 6,165,234
Woolfolk, A. E., 20
Woolfolk, R. L., 265
Worden, P. E., 87
Wright, J., 96
Wright, T. L., 263
Wiinsche, P., 116,118
Wurtele, S. K., 265, 276
Wylie,R.,202,218
Yamaguchi, K., 296
Yates, R., 122,123
Young, R. M., 302
Yukelson, D., 265
Yussen, A., 87
Yussen, S. R., 78,87
Ziegler, C. A., 121
Ziess, A. M., 9
Ziff, D. C, 305
Zilber, S. M., 245
Zimmerman, B. J., xi, 17,18,92,202,203,
205,207,216,219,221,224,225,234
Znaniecki, Florian, 46,47,48,51
Z611ner,H.,180
Zubek, J. M., 155
Ziiblin, C, 94
Zuckerman, M., 90
Zuroff, D. C, 266

Subject index
Abstinence self-efficacy, 290
Academic achievement, 16-21,92-93,
163-164,208-212,216,218,247
Academic anxiety, 17-18,211-213
Action plans and control, 280
Action self-efficacy, 290,293-294, 301,
303-307
Adaptation, 177-181
Addiction
relapse in, 293
self-efficacy in
abstinence, 290
action, 290,292-293,301-307
coping, 290,293-294,301
control, 289
harm reduction, 290-291,298-300
recovery, 289-290,294, 302,307-
308
resistive, 288, 290-291,294-298,
302
treatment of, 300-309
Adversity
and coping efficacy, 15-16,57-60
economic, 15-16, 50, 53-59,61-62,65
resilience to, 15-16,53,149
Agency
and control beliefs, 69-70,116,118,
279
mechanisms of, 2
origins of, 70-75
Aggression, 128
AIDS, 32,267-268
Alcoholism, 263
Anticipatory mechanisms
goals in, 6-8, 261
outcome expectations in, 6-7,261-
262
self-efficacy in, 6-8,261
Anxiety
and autonomic arousal, 26
elimination of
cognitive restructuring, 8,266
guided mastery, 9,26-27,30-31
and perceived control, 1, 8-9,11-13self-efficacy determinant, 8-9,11-
13,17-18,178-179,181-182,
185-198,211-213,244
Apprenticeship systems, 22,250-251
Assumed similarity, 3
Attribution, 7, 75, 77-80,98,156, 208,
214,245
Biomedical model, 25
Biopsychosocial model, 25
Burnout
manifestations of
depersonalization, 20
futility, 20
physical and emotional exhaus-
tion, 20
and perceived inefficacy, 20
Cancer screening, 274-277
Career choice and development
cross cultural, 237, 248
and educational reforms, 249-252
and ethnicity, 237,240-242
gender differences in, 24-25,234-
235,239
measurement issues in, 237-238
and school-to-work transition, 22,
250-251
self-efficacy in 23-24,206,235-242,
247
and sources of self-efficacy, 244-246
and technological changes, 16-17
theories of
career maturity, 233
person-environment, 233
social cognitive, 234
sociological, 233
trait, 232
Causal schema, 73-75,98
Cognitive-behavioral treatment, 263,
266,299
Cognitive development, 16-21
Collective efficacy
in collectivistic societies, 34,169-171
329

330 Subject index
Collective efficacy (cont'd)
in individualistic societies, 34
member homogeneity, 34
personal efficacy in, 34and productivity, 34
of schools, 19-21
in social change, 38
Collectivism, 34,151,153-154,157,
159,169-171
Control beliefs
in academic achievement, 84,92-93,
163-164,217
age changes in, 89
competence, 69,116contingency, 69,91-92,116
cultural differences in, 94,161-164and family structure, 120-122
and health behavior, 265
intergenerational, 126-128microgenesis, 70-80,97
mood effects on, 96overestimation in, 84-90,116
parental influences on, 122-128predictiveness, 83,217and self-esteem, 80structure of, 70-80, 97
See Self-efficacy
Controllability, 26-27,89,178
Controlled moderation, 299Control self-efficacy, 289
Coping
emotional, 82,180
escapist, 82
problem-solving, 82,180self-efficacy in, 8-9,26-27,178-179,
289-291,293-294,301, 303-307
Couple efficacy, 132-134Cross-cultural efficacy, 88,153-155,
160-165,167-169
Cultural values
individualism-collectivism, 151,153-
154,157,159-160
masculinity-femininity, 152,156-
157,160
power distance, 152,154-155,157,
159-160,167-169
uncertainty-avoidance, 152,155,
159-160,168
Decision making
career, 233-235, 243-244
rational, 23self-efficacy in, 10-11,23-24,234,
243-244
Depression
and parental efficacy, 57-59
self-efficacy in
aspirational, 9
social, 9-11
thought control, 9
and social support, 9
Developmental trajectories
and historical changes, 35,47-49,
60-61
self-efficacy determinants, 10-11,23
Drug addiction, 30,304-305
Dual roles
benefits of, 14
management of, 14-15self-efficacy in, 14-15,238-239
stressors in, 14,238-239
Educational systems
apprenticeship systems in,
22, 250-
251
and collective efficacy, 19-21
and cultural conflicts, 21
cultural practices in, 21,152-157,
159-160,171
dual track, 22, 93multicultural-assimilative, 21-22teacher efficacy in, 19-21,203
Effectance motivation, 215Efficacious schools, 22-23Endogenous opioids, 26Environmental constraints, 179-181Event schema, 73
Expectancy-value model, 7, 23Explanatory style, 116Failure
resilience to,
6,11-13
undermining, 3-4
Family systems, 13-16,59,120-122
Forethought, 5-6,261
Gender differences
career choice and development, 24-
25,152,234-235
decision-making efficacy, 24-25
in employment, 182
and gender-role orientation, 211,236
in health habits, 271
in parenting efficacy, 131-132

Subject index 331
in self-efficacy, 24-25,235-242
in threat appraisal, 196
Goals
cognitive comparison processes, 7
commitment to, 6
effects of
interest enhancement, 207
motivational, 2, 6-8,207
performance, 6-8,219-221
self-efficacy, 3,207,209
group, 3,35
intentions as, 7,261
mechanisms governing
self-efficacy, 4,219-221
self-evaluation, 7-8,221-222
motivating power, 6-8,207
properties of
challenge, 7
proximity, 207-280
specificity, 7
shared, 2,35
self-set, 289
subgoals, 207
See also Internal standards
Guided mastery, 9,26-27, 30-31, 225,
210,247,308-309
Harm reduction, 290-291,298-300
Health communications, 263
Health habits
advertising influences on, 33
change by
community programs, 31,300
policy initiatives, 33
school-based programs, 29-30,
297-298,300
self-regulation, 28-33,290
and cardiovascular disease, 25,263,
266
in chronic diseases, 32-33,266
psychological vs. biomedical model,
25
self-efficacy in, 26-33,179,262-268,
290-294
Healthy eating, 266, 271
Identity, 23,233,248
Immune function, 26-27
Individualism-collectivism, 34,151,
153-154,157,159,169-171
Intentions, 262,264,268-273,277-279,
291Innovation
impediments to, 1,13
resilient efficacy in, 1,13
Internal standards
in depression, 9
in self-evaluation, 9, 219
in self-motivation, 6-8, 31,219,221-
222
in self-regulation, 6-8,31, 219,221-
222
and self-satisfaction, 9
See also Goals
Intrinsic interest
self-efficacy in, 11,242-243,248
Life course perspective, 49, 65
Life transitions
and coping self-efficacy, 178-179,
182,185-194
and employment, 180,182,185
school to work, 250-251
and social support, 178,181-182,185
timing of, 50-53
Locus of control, 115-116,119,124-
125,207,266
Marital discord, 61-62
Memory, 205
Meta-analysis of self-efficacy effects,
207,210
Meta-cognition, 18, 85,280-281
Migration
domestic, 16,21,46, 56, 64,182,259
and employment, 180-183,185-195
and health, 190-195
international, 21, 259
self-efficacy in, 8,16, 63-64,185-195,
197
and social support, 181-182
Misjudgment
benefits of, 11-13,85,90,166
of causal efficacy, 12-13
cost of, 12,90,169-170
Mood
effect on efficacy judgment, 4-5,10,
150
Motivation
anticipatory mechanisms in, 6-8,
261-262
attribution, 7,214
mechanisms
goal, 6-8,18

332 Subject index
Motivation (cont'd)
self-efficacy, 6-8,18
self-evaluation, 6-8
theories of
attribution, 7
expectancy-value, 7,23,214-215,
265
goal, 6-8
Optimism-realism
cross-cultural, 12,150-159,168
effects of, 85,90,205,261-264
influence of cultural practices, 12,
162-164,168
Overconfidence, 11-13, 84-90,116
Overestimation of control, 84-90,95-96
Outcome expectations, 6-7,23, 70,114,
116-118,215, 217,224,265,277-278
Parenting efficacy, 13-16, 57-61,119,
122,12^126,128-132
Peer influences, 19,295-297
Perceived control, 217
See Self-efficacy
Perceived self-competence, 215-217
Phobic behavior, 9
Physical exercise, 264-266
Perseverance, 1,11-13,18
Predictability, 1,6
Prevention, 261,273-277,290-291,294-
298
Primary control, 81-82,137
Reciprocal causation, 15,38,49,55
Relapse
in addictions, 293,300-309
self-efficacy in, 289-294,300-309
self-regulatory skills, 28, 32, 264
and situational-dispositional fac-
tors, 31
Relapse prevention, 289-290,293,297,
300-309
Resilience
to adversity, 15-16, 53,149
development of, 3
in innovations, 1,13
self-efficacy in, 3, 6,11-13,15-16,28,
262,294
Resources, 15,49, 53,178,181-182
Risk perception, 277
Ruminative thought, 9-10Secondary control, 69-70,81-82,94,
98,137
Self-concept, 69, 217-219
Self-directedness, 6-8,17-18,52
Self-efficacy
and achievement strivings, 17-19,
92-93,204-208,234,241
in activation of endogenous opioids,
26
and anxiety arousal, 1, 8-9,11-13,
17-18,26-27,165,185-195, 211-
213
in burnout, 20
in cancer screening, 274-277
in career development and pursuits,
23-25,170, 206,234-238,240-
241,243-244
in catecholamine secretion, 26,263
in cognitive development, 16-21
cognitive processing of information
enactive, 3
persuasory, 4
physiological, 4r-5
vicarious, 3-4,208
collective
factional, 2,
school, 19-21
and social change, 12,13,33
underminers of, 2, 36-38
versus individualistic, 34-36
and control
behavioral, 8
cognitive, 8-9
cross-cultural, 12,88,153-155,160-
165,167-169
cultural influences on, 134-139,153-
155,160-165,167-169
in decision making, 10-11,23-24,
206,235-242,247
defined, 2, 203, 289
in depression, 1,4,9-11, 85,212
derived from
enactive mastery, 3, 5,19-20,26-
27,149,156,210,225, 244-245,
247,308
physiological states, 4-5,150,244,
308
social persuasion, 4-5,150,244,
308
vicarious experience, 3-4,150,
154-155,157,225,244,308

Subject index 333
determinant of intentions, 7,262,
264,268-273
and educational practices, 19-21
effects on
choice behavior, 2,10-11,23-24,
204,206-207,224, 234-242,247
effort expenditure, 2, 7-8,11,203-
204,224,262
emotional arousal, 2,8-10,203-
224
persistence, 7,11,204-207,242-
243,247,262
thought patterns, 2,5,11,224
functional value of, 1,11-13,85,178-
179,181-182,261-262
in gender differences, 24-25,125-
126,131-132,236-240
and goal setting, 5-8,219-221
and guided mastery, 9,30-31,210
in health behavior, 26-33,190-195,
262-268,281
in human agency, 1-2
in immune function, 26-27, 263
individualistic, 34-35
influence on attributions, 214
in innovations, 1,13, 24
and interest, 11,207,234-235,242-
243,248
in memory, 205
meta-analysis of, 207,210-211
in migration, 8,16, 63-64
microanalysis of
generality, 203
level, 203
strength, 203
and mood, 4-5,10,150
in motivation, 6-8
in multiple role, 14-15,238-239
in occupational development, 17,
23-24,206,235-242,247
in pain control, 263
parenting, 13-16,57-61,119,122,
124-126,128-132
in perseverance, 1,11-13,18, 38, 85,
169
and preventive health habits, 28-29,
32,261,273-277,290-291
and probabilistic judgment, 5
in relapse processes, 3, 6,11-13,15-
16,28,262,294
in resiliency, 1-3,6,11-13,15-16,28,
149,262,294in risk judgement, 277
in self-directedness, 6-8,17-18, 52,
219
in self-regulated learning, 17-18,
203,216,219-226
in self-regulation, 18,28-33,203,
216,264
and sexual behavior, 32,260,267-
268,271
and smoking behavior, 263-264,270
in social change, 1-2,13,38
social comparison processes in, 3,
150,154-155,157-158,206,210
and social support, 9-10
teacher, 19-21,203
and technological changes, 16-17,22
thought control, 8-9
and threat appraisal, 8,185-187,
196-197
underminers of, 36-38
and vulnerability, 9,11,17-18, 32,
85,132,179,276-277
in weight regulation, 266
Self-enhancing bias, 12,88,90,156
Self-esteem, 23-80
Self-evaluation in
academic achievement, 219,221-222
cognitive motivation, 6-8
depression, 9
educational systems, 158-160
self-regulation, 7,221-222,265
Self-interest, 2
Self-monitoring, 28,208,219,222, 289
Self-regulated learning
in academic achievement, 17-18,
216,219-226
pragmatics of, 18
self-efficacy in, 17-18, 203,216,219-
226
Smoking behavior, 263-264, 270
Social change
by collective action, 2
impediments to
bureaucratic barriers, 2,36-37
formidableness of problems, 37-
38
social fragmentation, 37
technological complexities, 36
transnational interdependencies,
36
and power imbalances, 38
resistance to, 2, 36-37

334 Subject index
Social change (cont'd)
self-efficacy in, 2,13,22
and vested interests, 2
Social cognitive theory of
anxiety, 8-10
cognitive development, 18-21
depression, 9-10
self-motivation, 6-7
self-regulation, 18,219-224
Social comparison
in efficacy appraisal, 3,150,154-
155,157-158,206,208,210
Social interdependence, 50
Social reformers, 13
Social support
benefits of, 9-10,180-182
and depression, 9-10
and health, 190
proactive, 10,181
social efficacy in, 8-9,14-15
Sociocultural transitions, 21,179
Special interest gridlock, 1
Stress
and coping self-efficacy, 8-9,14-15,
178-179,182,263
in dual roles, 14-15
and health, 26-27,180,190-195marital, 132-134
migratory, 21,178-179,185-197
in sociocultural change, 8,178-179
Teacher efficacy, 19-21
Teaching styles
cross-cultural, 152-156,158-159
effect on self-efficacy, 153-155,160-
165
Technological change, 16-17, 22
Tempermental difficulty, 129-131
Thought control
and anxiety, 8-9
and depression, 8-9
Threat appraisal, 8,185-187,196-197
Time management, 222, 224
Transnational interdependencies, 36
Unemployment, 180-183,185-196
Universality of efficacy beliefs, 34,169-
171
Values, 7,23, 80-81,151,153-154,157,
159-160,214-215,233
Weight regulation, 266
View publication statsView publication stats