Self-efficacy, self-esteem and performance among students

taking research methods

Dr Andy Lane

Research supported by:

Tracey Devonport,

Ruth Hewston,

Ross Hall,

Helen Lane,

John Lane,

Karen Milton,

& Laura Williams

Background

• Students find statistics difficult (Lane et al., 2002)• Statistics is a subject that is critical to dissertation

performance (Milton et al., 2003)• Students to tend cope with statistics using avoidance

coping strategies (Devonport et al., 2003)• Avoidance of the problem is associated with a number

of negative psychological states such as anxiety and depression

• Low confidence corresponds with poor performance (Lane & Lane, 2001, Milton et al., 2003)

The Study: Two theoretical constructsSelf-efficacy and self-esteem

• Self-esteem is stable and universal (trait)– Self-esteem is defined as “the awareness of good

possessed by the self, and the level of global self regard that one has for the self as a person” (Campbell, 1984)

• Self-efficacy is transient and specific (state)– Self-efficacy is defined as the “Self-assessment of

ability to master a task or achieve mastery over a specific situation or set of circumstances” (Bandura, 1977)

Nature of self-efficacy

• Personal efficacy expectations are proposed to influence:– initiating behavior– how much effort will be applied to attain a successful

outcome in the face of difficulties and setbacks (Bandura, 1977, 1986, 1997).

• Self-efficacy has been found to academic predict performance (Bandura, 1997; Multon et al., 1991; Lane & Lane, 2001; Lane et al., 2002, in press; Milton et al., 2003).

PROPOSED SOURCES OF HIGH SELF-EFFICACY

• Performance accomplishments• Vicarious experiences• Verbal persuasion• Emotional arousal (control of negative

emotions)

• General support found in boxing environment (Lane & Terry, 1997)

(Bandura, 1977)

Nature of self-efficacy

• Performances perceived successful are proposed to raise self-efficacy

• Performances perceived unsuccessful are proposed to lower self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997).

• The cognitive appraisal of information from the four sources is proposed to influence self-efficacy and not the objective information per se (Bandura, 1977; Lane, 2002)

Self-efficacy and performance

• The measure of self-efficacy and what performance comprises (Lane et al., 2002)

• How close self-efficacy is assessed before performance (Lane & Lane, 2001)

• Personal meaning attached to the performance

Self-esteem

• Defined as “the awareness of good possessed by the self, and the level of global self regard that one has for the self as a person” (Campbell, 1984)

. Differences in self-concept by self-esteem

• High Self-esteem (HSE)

• Describe themselves positively and are clear. They feel that they have more compartments /strengths

• Low Self-esteem (LSE)

• Describe themselves negatively and are less clear. They feel that they have less compartments /strengths

Positive belief in self concept is vital to develop and maintain self esteem

Achievement situations• Approach to situation

– High self-esteem• Confident about succeeding in task.

• Not overly concerned with failing.

• Look at setting as an opportunity to do well.

– Low self-esteem• Considerable uncertainty,

• Doubt their positive attributes,

• Expect negative attributes.

• Concerned about failing, may even prepare for failure.

After Success• High self-esteem

– Attribute success to ability. – Believe/feel good about positive feedback. – Believe positive feedback. – Feel in control of outcomes.

– Motivated to spend time practising after success.

• Low self-esteem– Affective responses positive, but cognitive responses negative and

confused. – Surprised because success is inconsistent with self concept. – Discrepancy between what they thought would happen and what occurred

produces negative affect. – Motivated to search for explanation, attribute success to external causes. – Feel pressure after success

After Failure

• High self-esteem– Surprised because doesn’t fit into their self

perception. – Work harder to get success next time.

• Low self-esteem– Not surprised, because consistent with their past

experiences. – Decrease motivation because they feel they will fail

again. – Withdraw from tasks.

Self enhancement and Self Protection-Consistency

• What do High self-esteem and Low self-esteem do to cope in achievement situations?– High Self-esteem

• Access strengths (multifaceted self) suppress weaknesses (Dodgson & Wood, 1998)

– Low self-esteem• Increase effort for negative reasons (self protect) over

generalisation after failure (Carver & Ganellan, 1989)

WHY do low self-esteem individuals behave like this?

• Lack of self-concept

• Cannot dismiss weaknesses

• Unsure of strengths

• Look to others for reinforcement

• Accept negative feedback as much as possible (and believe it!)

Purpose of the study

• The aim of the research is to investigate the influence of self-esteem on the processing of efficacy related information

• The objective was to assess self-esteem, performance accomplishments, and self-efficacy and investigate relationships among these variables.

Methodology• The research was explored using two

methods. – A quantitative investigation was conducted to

test hypotheses stemming from theoretical predictions.

– A qualitative investigation was conducted to explore students perceptions of the dissertation experience and the interplay between efficacy expectations, self-esteem and performance.

Participants

• All students registered on a Level 2 Sports Studies Research Methods module were asked to volunteer to participate in a research project.

• Ninety-seven participants volunteered to take part (Age: M = 22.23, SD = 4.35 years).

• The research methods module is a prerequisite module for the Dissertation.

Development of a self-efficacy scale

• Lecturers looked at module guide and self-efficacy questionnaires developed by Lane et al. (2002) and Milton et al. (2002).

• The aim was to develop, or modify and existing self-efficacy measure

Recent measures of self-efficacy

• Lane et al. (2002) • 1) Lecture behaviour; 2) Using information

technology; 3) Motivated behaviour; 4) Time management; 5) Statistical theory; and a 6) General competencies

• Milton et al. (2002) • 1) Maintaining motivation, 2) planning, 3)

obtaining support, 4) understanding theory, 5) organising time, and 6) effectively writing the dissertation.

Self-esteem

• Self Esteem– Rosenberg’s Self-esteem Scale (Rosenberg,

1965) was used to assess self-esteem. – Respondents completed the scale by indicating

their agreement with each of the 10 items (e.g. “On the whole I am satisfied with myself”, “I certainly feel useless at times”) on a 4-point scale (4 = strongly agree, 1 = strongly disagree).

– In the present study, the alpha coefficient was .72, hence indicating an internally reliable scale

Performance

• Performance• Performance will be assessed using the

marking criteria for the module. • Performance comprised a statistics

assignment in which students had to do a different test, a correlation or chi-square analysis.

• University uses a F0 to A16 scale

Procedure

• Participants completed a background information questionnaire that assessed previous experience of academic performance (Lane & Lane, 2001)

• At the same time participants also completed the Rosenberg self-esteem (Rosenberg, 1965) scale.

Procedure

• Participants completed the self-efficacy measure three times during the module; – 1) at the beginning of the module, – 2) one week before the first assignment

was due;– 3) one week after the mark for the first

assignment has been given back to students.

• Note that there were difficulties in gathering data.

Data analysis

• Data were analysed by dividing participants into a high and low self-esteem group based on a median split.

• Performance data will also be grouped into a good performance and poor performance using a median split.

Statistical analysis

• Repeated measures factorial (time x self-esteem x performance) ANOVA was used to test the extent to which changes in self-efficacy over time were associated with an interaction between self-esteem and self-efficacy.

Hypotheses

• We hypothesised that – 1) successful performance would lead to

increased self-efficacy, and that self-efficacy would predict performance.

– 2) self-esteem will influence the impact of performance accomplishments on self-efficacy.

Hypotheses

– Poor performance will be associated with significantly greater reductions in self-efficacy among students who are low in self-esteem.

– Individuals high in self-esteem tend to attribute failure externally to protect self-efficacy. Individuals low in self-esteem tend to embrace failure, and this serves to reduce self-efficacy.

Results

55

60

65

70

75

80

Low self-esteem & Poorgrade

Low self-esteem & Goodgrade

Low self-esteem & Poorgrade

Low self-esteem &Good grade

Low self-esteem & Poorgrade

Low self-esteem &Good grade

Results

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90 Poor grade

Good grade

High self-esteem & Poorgrade

High self-esteem &Good grade

High self-esteem & Poorgrade

High self-esteem & Goodgrade

Results

• Repeated measures factorial ANOVA results indicated a significant interaction effect for changes in self-efficacy over time by self-esteem and performance groups (Pillai's Trace 2, 92 = .09,

F = 4.27, p = .017, Eta2 = .09). • There was a significant main effect for

– self-esteem group (F = 13.44, p = .000, Eta2 = .13)– performance group (F = 15.66, p = .000, Eta2 = .14).

Results

• Results show that the impact of performance on self-efficacy was influenced to some degree by self-esteem scores.

• The difference in self-efficacy scores following performance are much greater in the low self-esteem group than in the high self-esteem group.

Results

• In the high self-esteem group, participants reported similar self-efficacy scores regardless of performance.

• By contrast, in the low self-esteem group, self-efficacy declined significantly following poor performance and increased significantly following success.

Discussion

• Self-esteem influences changes in self-efficacy following defeat

• Low self-esteem is characterised by poor coping skills

• High self-esteem is associated with effort to maintain a positive self-image

• Knowledge of self-esteem and coping strategies can help practitioners devise interventions to bring improved performance

Application

• Identify self-esteem in Level 1.

• Teach students coping skills, especially relevant to low self-esteem students

• Assess self-efficacy to achieve key competencies early in modules

• Assess the effects of feedback on self-efficacy

Publication related to this project

• Lane, Lane, & Hall. (2002). Self-efficacy and academic performance among sports studies students taking research methods. Paper presented at the World Congress of Applied Psychology, Singapore, June 2002.

• Milton, Devonport, Lane, & Williams. SELF-EFFICACY TOWARD SUCCESSFUL PERFORMANCE AMONG SPORT STUDENTS. Paper presented at Student British Association of Sport and Exercise Sciences Conference, British Olympic Medical Centre, March 2002.

• Devonport, Lane, Milton and Williams. Self-efficacy as a predictor of strategies used to cope with Dissertation stress. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the British Psychological Society, Bournemouth, March 2003.

• Milton, Devonport, Lane, & Williams. Self-efficacy and Dissertation Performance among Sport Students. Paper presented at Student British Association of Sport and Exercise Sciences Conference, Coventry April 2003

Publications

• Lane, A. M., Hall, R., & Lane, J. (2002). Development of a measure of self-efficacy specific to statistic courses in sport. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism Education. http://www.hlst.ltsn.ac.uk/johlste/vol1no2/contents.html

• Lane, J., Lane, A. M., & Cockerton, T. (2003). Prediction of academic performance from self-efficacy and performance accomplishments among master’s degree students. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism Education. http://www.hlst.ltsn.ac.uk/johlste/vol2no1/contents.html

• Lane, J., & Lane, A. M. (2001). Self-efficacy and academic performance. Social Behavior and Personality, 29, 687-694.

• Lane, J., & Lane, A. M. (2002). Predictive validity of variables used to select students onto post-graduate courses. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 90, 1239-1247.