1 Is the Effect of Self-Efficacy on Job/Task Performance an Epiphenomenon? Timothy A. Judge...
-
Upload
brenda-booth -
Category
Documents
-
view
216 -
download
2
Transcript of 1 Is the Effect of Self-Efficacy on Job/Task Performance an Epiphenomenon? Timothy A. Judge...
1
Is the Effect of Self-Efficacy on Job/Task Performance an Epiphenomenon?
Timothy A. JudgeChristine JacksonJohn C. ShawBrent A. ScottBruce Louis Rich
University of Florida
2
Self-Efficacy
Described as the “theory heard ‘round the world”
Albert Bandura deemed third most influential psychologist in history
Self-efficacy has been the subject of 8,944 studies
Has been applied to health, child development, sports, clinical psychology, education and, bien sûr, I-O psychology
3
Learning in training (Martocchio, 1994) Naval performance and seasickness (Eden & Zuk, 1995) Volunteering for reenlistment (Eden & Kinnar, 1991) Speed of re-employment (Eden & Aviram, 1993) Sales performance (Barling & Beattie, 1983) Managerial performance (Wood et al., 1990) Academic performance (Wood & Locke, 1987) Reaction to stressors (Jex & Bliese, 1999) Success of collegiate hockey teams (Feltz & Lirgg, 1998) Salary negotiation (Stevens & Gist, 1997) Participation in union activities (Bulger & Mellor, 1997) Newcomer socialization and adjustment (Saks, 1995) Creativity (Redmond, Mumford, & Teach, 1993) Coping with career-related events (Stumpf et al., 1987) Skill acquisition (Mitchell et al., 1994) Adaptation to advanced technology (Hill et al., 1987)
Self-Efficacy in I-O/OB
4
What Is Validity of Self-Efficacy?
Stajkovic and Luthans (1998) meta-analyzed the self-efficacy – performance relationship =.34
“…few cognitive determinants of behavior... have received as ample and consistent empirical support as the concept of self-efficacy” (p. 240)
However, with some exceptions (Chen, Casper, & Cortina, 2001; Phillips & Gully, 1997), most estimates do not take distal controls into account
ρ̂
5
Role of Individual Differences
Self-efficacy is related to various individual differences Intelligence (Phillips & Gully, 1997) Personality (Judge & Ilies, 2002) Experience (Shea & Howell, 2000)
These individual differences are thought to be more distal than self-efficacy, and thus less direct
But, this has not been tested in a path model
6
Conceptual Model
General mental ability
Conscien-tiousness
Emotional stability Extraversion Experience
Self-efficacy
Self-set goals
Job/Task Performance
7
Method—Literature Search
In forming the correlation matrix that was used as input into the LISREL model, we took two steps where meta-analytic estimates were
available, we used these directly Barrick, Mount, & Judge, 2001; Judge & Bono, 2001; Judge
& Ilies, 2002; Ones, Viswesvaran, & Reiss, 1996; ; Quiñones, Ford, & Teachout, 1995; Schmidt & Hunter, 1998; Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998
where meta-analytic estimates were unavailable (involving GMA and experience), we performed our own meta-analyses
8
Method—Search Results
Relation Initial Abstracts Codeable
Samples
GMA-C 124 42 24 34
GMA-ES 760 136 37 38
GMA-E 580 60 34 35
GMA-Goals 188 15 5 8
GMA-SE 635 34 23 26
GMA-Exp 356 74 18 21
Exp-C 32 4 4 6
Exp-ES 55 5 2 2
Exp-E 41 4 3 3
Exp-Goals 221 12 2 2
Exp-SE 132 72 20 21
9
Method—Moderator Coding
Several moderator variables were coded in the present study Type of measure: Likert scale or grid (self-
efficacy strength and magnitude) Job/task complexity Knowledge of results
Pending further analysis Feedback, performance measure, study
setting, sample Hierarchical moderator analyses (?)
10
Meta-Analysis Procedures
Used procedures developed by Hunter and Schmidt (1990)
We corrected each primary correlation for attenuation due to unreliability, and then computed the sample-weighted average corrected correlation For studies that did not report reliabilities,
we used the mean of the reliabilities reported for the variables of interest
11
Overall Correlation Matrix
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 Intelligence ---
2 Conscientiousness -.04 ---
3 Emotional stability .10 .26 ---
4 Extraversion .03 .00 .19 ---
5 Self-set goals .17 .28 .29 .15 ---
6 Self-efficacy .20 .22 .35 .33 .50 ---
7 Experience -.04 .02 -.03 -.22 .17 .24 ---
8 Performance .51 .31 .19 .12 .29 .34 .27
12
Results: Full Mediation Model
.33**.35**.16** .23**
.16**
.50**.26**
.19**
General mental ability
Conscien-tiousness
Emotional stability
Extraversion Experience
Self-efficacy
Self-set goals
Job/Task Performance
13
.33**.35**.16** .23**
.31**.16**.02.31**.54**
.02
.50**.02
.19**
General mental ability
Conscien-tiousness
Emotional stability
Extraversion Experience
Self-efficacy
Self-set goals
Job/Task Performance
Results: Full Model with Distals
14
Role of Job Complexity
Low Medium High
Intelligence .36** .52** .63**
Conscientiousness .27** .31** .34**
Emotional stability -.02 .02 .06*
Extraversion .06 .15** .23**
Self-set goals -.05 .02 .08**
Experience .22** .31** .38**
Self-efficacy .33** .04 -.22**
R .66** .69** .77**
R2 .44** .48** .59**
Notes: Estimates are path coefficients. * p < .05. ** p < .01.
15
Other Moderating Influences
Bivariate Multivariate
Measure
Grid .43** .16**
Likert .36** .04
Knowledge of Results
No .38** .13**
Yes .41** .08
Notes: ** p < .01.
16
Results: SUMMARY
In the overall analysis, inclusion of distal variables undermines effects of self-efficacy on performance
Relative impact of self-efficacy, though, depends on situation Positive in low complexity jobs/tasks Nil in medium complexity jobs/tasks Negative in high complexity jobs/tasks Measure also matters
17
Discussion
Why the negative effect in high complexity jobs? Resource allocation theory (Kanfer &
Ackerman, 1989) predicts that self-regulation “steals” valuable cognitive resources from complex skill acquisition
However, multiple-resource models have been criticized (Neumann, 1987) and it does not appear that self-regulation requires significant attentional resources (DeShon, Brown, & Greenis, 1996)
18
Implications
Is self-efficacy epiphenomenal? In some situations, yes In some situations, no
Upshot Realize that in some situations self-
efficacy may be unimportant or even detrimental
Other moderators will be studied Feedback
19
Ed’s Comments (E=Ed, T=Tim)
E Stajkovic has a new MA of group efficacy studies--they come out as well as the individual studies
T We did not study group efficacy (but could if there were a sufficient number of correlations)
E Logically, distal variables should work thru proximate variables--did you try actual mediation or partial r tests?
T This may seem logical, but our results support a partially mediated model (indirect and direct effects of the distal variables); a fully mediated model was not supported by the results
20
Ed’s Comments (Continued)
E What does the model look like using only SE measured quantitatively (i.e., confidence summed over a series of performance outcomes after Ss had some task feedback)?
T These are the results for the grid measures (which indeed do suggest higher validities); if the point is that SE is only meaningful when a grid measure is used and with feedback, then one needs to confine the generalizations of SE to these situations
21
Ed’s Comments (Continued)
E Did you only include studies that included ALL of your variables?
T There are no studies that include all these variables, which is why path analysis of meta-analytic data is used, as it has in many recent studies
E There are thousands of SE studies but you have only a very small sample (and dozens of studies showing actual causal effects)
T We include roughly the same number of SE-performance studies as Stajkovic and Luthans ; studies of causal effects do not have the same variables as this study
22
Ed’s Comments (Continued)
E When you put goals and SE together in a model, they steal variance from each other because of being highly correlated
T This is certainly something we can look at (though shouldn’t both be in causal model?)
E The r's for the big 5 seem much higher than most meta analysis have shown (usually measn r is about .20 isn't it?)
T The personality validities are from a meta-analysis of existing meta-analyses (Barrick, Mount, & Judge, 2001); for conscientiousness, the validity is the same as Mount and Barrick (1995)
23
Ed’s Comments (Continued)
E SE cannot have negative effects on complex tasks--this makes no sense--and goal effects are smaller on complex tasks not stronger--maybe due to inclusion of goals with SE
T There may be a suppression effect (we can eliminate goals from model)
E In your search results table, you only have SE-GMA, SE-Exp, and goals only once--how did you fill your correlation matrix with so much data missing???
T We relied on existing meta-analyses for the other bivariate relations (see slide 7)
24
Ed’s Comments (Continued)
E The self set goal perf. mean r is unusually low isn't it (see the meta analyses in our book)--this means it may not be a representative sample of studies
T We relied on the most thorough meta-analysis on the validity of self-set goals (Harkins & Lowe, 2000); the validity of self-set goals is lower than for assigned goals
We would be happy to use a different meta-analytic result if we felt it was more valid