Construct · 5 fields · 10 citations
One name. Different field. Different construct. One map.
● jingle · one name, five constructs Nearest construct by meaningentrepreneurial self-efficacycompare the meaningsEvery construct on the map is compared with every other by the meaning of its definitions, and the closest one is surfaced here. The nearest construct to self-efficacy is entrepreneurial self-efficacy.
Hold this as a prompt, not a verdict. Two constructs sitting close in meaning is a reason to read them side by side and decide for yourself whether they are one idea under two names. It is not proof that they are. Compare the meanings in the Collider.
Spokes are fields; dashed arcs are shared lineage. Tap a field for its definition, unit, and measures.
Drag to watch the word get claimed. Each field appears at the publication date of the earliest source cited for it. Tap a year to see which.
The conviction that one can successfully execute the behaviour required to produce a given outcome, which Bandura distinguished in 1977 from the outcome expectancy that the behaviour will produce it. Efficacy beliefs are formed from four sources (mastery experience, vicarious experience, verbal persuasion, and physiological state) and they determine whether a person tries, how long they persist, and how they feel while doing it. Bandura insisted in 1997 that self-efficacy is domain- and task-specific and should be measured against graded tasks in a named situation; he called global measures of general confidence a different construct with little predictive value. Every field on this map descends from this definition and most of them ignore the specificity clause.[1][2]
A judgement of one's capability to use a computer to accomplish a task, not a judgement of skill at a particular package or command. Compeau and Higgins built the measure in 1995 by asking respondents whether they could complete a job using an unfamiliar software package under ten decreasing levels of support, from having someone show them first to having nothing but the built-in help. The construct kept Bandura's structure (magnitude, strength, and generalizability) and found that efficacy shaped use, anxiety, and affect over and above outcome expectations. What differs is the domain, and the fact that the referent is a generic computer rather than the named task Bandura required; it is specific relative to general efficacy and general relative to any actual job.[6]
Students' judgements of their capability to perform academic tasks at designated levels, as distinct from self-concept, which is a global appraisal of oneself as a student, and from outcome expectations about grades. Pajares reviewed the evidence in 1996 and showed that when efficacy is measured at the level of the task being tested, as Bandura prescribed, it predicts performance strongly; when it is measured globally or mismatched to the criterion, the relationship weakens or vanishes. Zimmerman placed it in 2000 among the motives of self-regulated learning, where it drives effort, persistence, and choice of strategy. Education is the field that took the specificity clause most seriously, which is why its effect sizes are the largest.[7][8]
Belief in one's capability to start, maintain, and recover a health behaviour such as exercise, diet, or medication adherence. Bandura's 2004 statement of health promotion put efficacy at the centre: it determines whether a person even considers changing, how hard they try, and whether a lapse becomes a relapse. Schwarzer's health action process approach split it in 2008 by phase (action self-efficacy for forming an intention, maintenance self-efficacy for keeping the behaviour going against barriers, and recovery self-efficacy for resuming after a lapse) and showed the three predict different stages. The construct here is behaviour-specific, phase-specific, and tied to a relapse model that no other field on this map has.[9][10]
A stable belief in one's ability to cope with a broad range of demands, measured with no task or situation named. Schwarzer and Jerusalem's ten-item General Self-Efficacy scale, published in 1995 and translated into dozens of languages, is the most used; Chen, Gully, and Eden built the eight-item New General Self-Efficacy scale in 2001 to improve on its dimensionality and separate it from self-esteem. Judge, Erez, Bono, and Thoresen then showed in 2002 that generalized self-efficacy, self-esteem, locus of control, and neuroticism load on one factor and predict the same outcomes, and proposed that all four are indicators of a single core self-evaluation. This is the meaning Bandura explicitly disowned, and the meaning most likely to be one trait wearing four names.[3][4][5]
Next
Combine items across the self-efficacy scales to see whether the meanings separate empirically, or export every reference on this page in one click.
Open in ColliderExport BibTeXReport this collisionCited on this page?
If your work is cited behind one of these entries, you know better than we do whether we captured the meaning right. Confirm it, suggest an edit, or dispute it, and your name goes on the entry as an author who has checked it, linked to your ORCID.
Claim your construct