1. Self-efficacy, self-esteem and performance among students taking research methods
Dr Andy Lane

2. Research supported by:
Tracey Devonport,
Ruth Hewston,
Ross Hall,
Helen Lane,
John Lane,
Karen Milton,
& Laura Williams

4. 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)

5. The Study: Two theoretical constructs Self-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)

6. 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).

7. 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)

8. 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)

9. 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

10. 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)

11. . 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

12. 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.

13. After Success High self-esteem Low 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

14. After Failure High self-esteem Low 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.

15. 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)

16. 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!)

17. 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.

18. 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.

19. 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.

20. 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

21. 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.

22. 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

23. 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

24. 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.

25. 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.

26. 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.

27. 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.

28. 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.

29. 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.

30. Results

31. Results

32. 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).

33. 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.

34. 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.

35. 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

36. 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

37. 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

38. 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.
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.
Lane, J., & Lane, A. M. (2001). Self-efficacy and academic performance. Social Behavior and Personality, 29,
Lane, J., & Lane, A. M. (2002). Predictive validity of variables used to select students onto post-graduate courses. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 90,