1. Willing or Able? The meanings of self efficacy Willing or Able? The meanings of self efficacy Shown P. Cahill, Laurie A Gallo, Stephen A Lisman, And Alison weinsten Journal of Social And Clinical Psychology Vol. 25, No. 2, 2006, PP: 196-209

2. Introduction

3. Outcome & Self efficacy expectancies  person’s estimate that a given behavior will lead to a certain outcome انجام رفتاری خاص کسب نتیجه مورد نظر  The conviction that one can successfully execute the behavior required to produce the outcome. اطمینان ازتوانایی انجام موفقیت آمیز رفتارهای پیش نیاز Bandura (1977)

4. Introduction Within the field of phobic disorders, self efficacy is highly predictive of behavioral performance (bandura & others)

5. Introduction predict Self efficacy Avoidance behavior Anxiety Avoidance behavior Self efficacy predict Anxiety

6. Introduction Predictive validity of self efficacy has demonstrated Predictive validity of self efficacy has demonstrated what measures of self-efficacy assess, varies across tasks? Question Construct validity

7. Introduction measures of self efficacy assess the theoretical construct of self- efficacy for some tasks, but not other tasks. (Kirsch, 1982)

8. Introduction Example: most people are able to walk toward a cage, place their hand on it, reach to the cage, etc. but highly phobic individuals will report that they cannot perform these activities when the cage contains a phobic object.

9. Introduction For fearful individual Not able Not willing

10. Introduction People’s decisions Outcome expectancy Equating willingness with ability for such aversively motivated tasks is a common linguistic habit

11. Introduction In contrast skill-based task Weight lifting Calculus People who report that they cannot accomplish the target performance are providing estimates of their ability level And not simply their level of willingness

12. Introduction Initial test Target group: students who reported being afraid of snakes Method: rating their expected performance on two different activities 1. Snake BAT 2. Basket shooting task

13. Introduction Participants were offered a range of hypothetical incentives for reports of increased performance in each task. Participants were far more likely to increase estimates of their BAT performance

14. Introduction Incentives AbilityWillingness The pattern of results was consistent with Kirsch’s hypothesis

15. Introduction Single dissociation Single dissociation One independent variable (incentive) has a strong effect on one measure (self efficacy for BAT), but little or no effect on a second measure (self efficacy for BAT). One independent variable (incentive) has a strong effect on one measure (self efficacy for BAT), but little or no effect on a second measure (self efficacy for BAT).

16. Introduction Hypotheses Disambiguating instruction Basket shooting task Little effect Willing to try > able to do strong effect Snake BAT able to do > Willing to try

17. Materials & Methods

18. Method participants participants 120 (97 females) undergraduate students enrolled in psychology courses at Binghamton university. 120 (97 females) undergraduate students enrolled in psychology courses at Binghamton university.

19. Method Materials 1. Task Descriptions - several photograph of different people handling a non-poisonous snake, four feet in length. - several photograph of different people handling a non-poisonous snake, four feet in length. - Some basic facts about snakes( they are dry in comparison with the myth) - Some basic facts about snakes( they are dry in comparison with the myth)

20. Method - BAT consisted of 18 graded steps: Step1: looking at a snake in a glass cage from a distance Step2-17: Touching, lifting, and then reaching in to the cage, first with a gloved hand and later with a bare hand Step 18: sitting in a chair and allowing snake to be placed on his/her lap

21. Method - Basket shooting task consisted of: Step1: throwing a wadded piece of paper at a distance of two feet. Step2: increased to five feet Step3-15: increased to 70 feet Step 16-18: increased to 100 feet. To help participants distances were compared to basketball court.

22. Method 2. Anticipated performance - Separate measures of anticipated performance were constructed for BAT & basket-shooting modeled after Bandura’s self efficacy questionnaire. - participants were instructed to make two judgments about their anticipated performance for each of 18 steps in both tasks.

23. Method - Half of participants indicated those steps they felt “able to do” and then rate their confidence in their ability to perform each steps (0-100 scale). - the remaining indicated “willing to try” steps and then rate them.

24. Method 3. Disambiguating Instructions Vignette 1: lifting weight Vignette 2: experiencing loneliness

25. Results

27. Discussion

28. discussion hypothesis hypothesis The meaning of measures of self efficacy differs across tasks.

29. discussion Skill-based Fear-motivated ability willingness Theoretical definition

30. Conclusions Strong evidence for the predictive validity of a measure should not be confused with evidence of construct validity. Strong evidence for the predictive validity of a measure should not be confused with evidence of construct validity. Drug/tobacco/ alcohol abstinence Drug/tobacco/ alcohol abstinence Condom use Condom use Weight loss Weight loss exercise exercise

31. recommendation Investigation of the construct validity of measures of self efficacy should be a research priority for self efficacy theorists. Investigation of the construct validity of measures of self efficacy should be a research priority for self efficacy theorists.