combining personality variables and goals to predict performance

JOURNAL OF VOCATIONAL BEHAVIOR 38, 288-301 (1991)

Combining Personality Variables and Goals to Predict Performance

SANDRA A. MCINTIRE

Assessment Designs. International, Longwood, Florida

AND

EDWARD L. LEVINE

University of South Florida

This study contrasted the predictions of three theories (Korman, 1970, 1976; Bandura, 1977, 1982a, 1982b, and 1986; Locke, 1968) which propose differing relations between expectations and performance. Task-specific self-esteem (TSSE), operationalized by a 41-item self-report scale, together with self-set or assigned goals, was used to predict typing speed and course grade. Subjects were 252 introductory typing students at a large university and two community colleges. TSSE predicted typing speed at .20 (p G .Ol, two-tailed). TSSE moderated the relation between goals and words per minute typed, and locus of control moderated the relation between change in TSSE and performance. A path analysis was conducted which demonstrated the development of TSSE. The over identified model suggests that task experience and performance directly affect the development of TSSE and the setting of goals. Furthermore TSSE showed an effect on performance by directly influencing goals which subsequently affected performance. The direct links between TSSE and the performance criteria were weak. Theoretical implications for using personality variables and situational cues to predict performance are discussed, and suggestions for future research are made. % 1991 Academic Press. Inc.

There are three theories (Korman, 1970, 1976; Bandura, 1977, 1982a, 1982b, and 1986; Locke, 1968) which seek to explain the relation between expectations and performance. Those of Korman and Bandura view expectations as being linked to the self-concept. Locke’s theory suggests that performance is a result of goals. This study contrasted the theories of Korman, Bandura, and Locke to examine empirically how a self-con-

This project was supported in part by a grant from Sigma Xi, the Scientific Research Society. Please address reprint requests to Sandra A. Mclntire, Assessment Designs, In- ternational, 2180 W. Highway 434, Suite 4100. Longwood, FL 32779.

288

OOOl-8791191 $3.00 Copyright Q 1991 by Academic Press. Inc. All tights of reproduction tn any form reserved.

COMBINING PERSONALITY VARIABLES AND GOALS 289

cept related to a specific task develops and what its relation might be to goal choice and performance.

Korman’s Hypothesis of Work Behavior

Korman’s (1970, 1976) Hypothesis of Work Behavior labels a person’s expectations for performance as task-specific self-esteem (TSSE). He defines TSSE as an individual’s self-perceived competence concerning a particular task or job at hand and explains the relation between TSSE and performance in terms of a need for consistency or balance. Striving for consistency is seen as responsible for the level of goals the individual sets. Korman suggests that there is a significant relation between level of self-esteem and self-set goals, but for high self-esteem persons only. Goal setting for low self-esteem persons is not predictable, because achievement for them is not meaningful and in balance. The origin and development of TSSE is not addressed by Korman.

Bandura’s Theory of Self-Efficacy

Bandura (1977, 1982a,b, 1986) also addresses expectations for performance in his theory of self-efficacy. He defines self-efficacy as a conviction that one can successfully perform the behaviors necessary to achieve the expected outcome. Efficacy information is based on performance accomplishment, vicarious experience, verbal persuasion, and emotional arousal. Performance accomplishment is viewed by Bandura as the most important source of efficacy information. Bandura’s theory has generated numerous empirical studies using a variety of performance criteria (Barling and Abel, 1983; McAuley and Gill, 1983; Meier, McCarthy, and Schmeck, 1984; Gist, Schwoerer, and Rosen, 1989).

Bandura suggests that self-efficacy is increased when persons experience an outcome better than the one they expected or feared or when they learn a new skill for managing a threatening situation. These new feelings of self-efficacy remain weak or temporary until they are tested and found to be reliable. Unexplained success in an apparently threatening or in- timidating situation may leave a person confused. Long-term successes in the ability to cope with perceived threats are needed to develop a robust feeling of self-efficacy.

Changes in self-efficacy due to performance may be moderated by a person’s locus of control with internally oriented individuals more likely to revise their estimates of self-efficacy than externally oriented individuals. According to Rotter (1966), persons with an internal locus of control view reinforcement as contingent upon their own behavior or stable char- acteristics or traits. Persons who perceive reinforcement to be the result of factors outside of themselves are described as having an external locus of control.

290 MCINTIRE AND LEVINE

Locke’s Theory of Goal Setting

In this theory, an individual’s performance is not dependent upon the self-concept, but merely upon the level of performance aimed for, given the appropriate level of ability. Campbell (1982) suggests that performance may be controlled or motivated by manipulating situation-specific factors such as goal setting.

Early research on goal setting and performance failed to show effects on performance by personality variables such as self-esteem, locus of control, or need for independence (Latham and Yukl, 1976; Dossett, Latham, and Mitchell, 1979). Locke, Frederick, Lee, and Bobko’s (1984) laboratory study was more useful in explaining the impact of attitudes and personality traits on goal setting and performance. Locke et al. state, “The most unexpected finding of this study was the very powerful effect of self-efficacy even with ability and past performance controlled. Self- efficacy was found to affect goal level, task performance, goal commitment (when goal was self-set), and even the choice to set a specific (quantitative) rather than non-specific goal” (p. 241). This study also found past performance to be a key determinant of self-efficacy. Performance and self- efficacy were not viewed as being the same construct.

Task-Specific Self Esteem

In order to examine the relation between a self-concept based on expectations and performance, we have drawn most heavily from Korman’s theory, seeking to operationalize Korman’s construct of TSSE. Our notion of TSSE, based on previous research (McIntire and Levine, 1984), is one of an enduring disposition that manifests itself in specific situations or domains. However, it is similar to Bandura’s concept of self-efficacy in that it is not a mere prediction of performance or the simple expression of past performance. In terms of a theoretical network, our construct of TSSE is a facet of the self-concept which is motivational and has its effects in terms of intention, effort, and persistence. The construct is changeable only in the sense that it is a trait that develops over time as a result of situational factors, experience, and attributions, similar to those Bandura describes for self-efficacy.

In order to examine predictions made by the three theories described, we operationalized the construct we call TSSE in a self-report measure designed to measure subjects’ expectations for typing performance. The following hypotheses were proposed:

Hypothesis 2. TSSE would predict training performance by being significantly and positively correlated with the dichotomous variable, task completion/task withdrawal, and by significantly and positively correlating with two criteria of training performance, words per minute typed and course grade, after controlling for prior typing experience, in accordance with predictions made by Korman and Bandura.


Hypothesis 2. Goals set by low TSSE persons would have greater variance than goals set by high TSSE persons, in accordance with Korman’s (1970) contention that high self-esteem persons set consistent goals and low self-esteem persons set unpredictable and unmeaningful goals. This hypothesis is contrary to Bandura’s suggestion that all persons set goals for performance consistent with their feelings of self-efficacy for the task.

Hypothesis 3. Self-set goals would be significantly more highly correlated with performance for high TSSE persons than for low TSSE persons. Korman (1970) suggests that high self-esteem persons set goals and perform consistently with their self-esteem. Low self-esteem persons, he con- tends, set goals indiscriminately, but perform consistently with their self- esteem.

Hypothesis 4. Locus of control would moderate change in TSSE in that internal locus of control persons would show an increase or decrease in their TSSE depending upon whether or not they were successful in mas- tering the task. External locus of control persons were expected to show less improvement in TSSE with successful performance than internal locus of control persons. Bandura (1977) makes these predictions concerning changes in self-efficacy based on causal attributions.

Path model. A model similar to that of Locke, Frederick, Lee, and Bobko (1984) was proposed in which initial TSSE is related to typing experience, and goals set are related to initial TSSE, as predicted by Korman (1970, 1976) and Bandura (1977). Typing speed achieved is related to goals, in accordance with Locke et al. (1984). Instructors assign grades based on typing speed achieved, and final TSSE is influenced by typing speed and course grade, as suggested by Bandura. The model is a restricted model in which paths were proposed for all variables except from task experience to final TSSE, self-set goals to course grade, and self-set goals to final TSSE. The stipulation of no causal linkage between these variable pairs was based on these assumptions: (1) only recent performance experiences would be effective in changing TSSE, (2) goals were not set for grades, and (3) self-set goals would directly affect typing speed, but not final TSSE.

METHOD

Subjects

Subjects were 252 typing students, 99 men and 153 women, with ages ranging from 18 to 54 and a median age of 20. Seventy-eight were enrolled in introductory typing classes at two community colleges in the Tampa Bay area, and 174 were introductory typing students at the University of South Florida. The students were taught by six instructors, who taught two classes each.


Task

The task was learning to type, operationalized as participating in a 15- week introductory typing course. The course was open to all students- those learning typing for personal use as well as those enrolled as a requirement for a degree.

Measures

Task-specific self-esteem (TSSE). This scale was developed to measure subjects’ self-perceptions of their ability and satisfaction with learning and/or improving typing skills. A pool of 102 items was generated from materials provided by job experts and typing instructors. Items also were drawn from the Academic Self-Esteem Scale (McIntire and Levine, 1984). Item format was a 5-point Likert scale with anchors. After extensive item analysis, 41 items were retained for the final scale. Their internal reliability was estimated at .91. Examples of final items are: Finger skills like typing are easy for me; I am a capable student; and I am a good speller. A complete description of the development of this scale is presented by McIntire (1986).

Internal-external focu.s of control. Developed by Rotter (1966) this scale assesses subjects’ perception or expectancy of how reinforcement is controlled. It is a 29-item forced-choice test which includes six filler items. A high score indicates a more external orientation. Internal consistency estimates have ranged from .65 to .79.

Prior task experience. This variable was assessed by a 3-item measure which was a sum of self-reports on prior training, task experience, and current typing speed.

Performance criteria. Criteria were: (1) whether or not subjects finished the course with a passing grade, (2) typing speed (words per minute) achieved at end of course, and (3) letter grade received.

Manipulation. All subjects were given information on typing speeds achieved by students. Then, subjects in the self-set goals condition were asked to set a goal for typing speed. Subjects in the assigned goal condition were assigned a goal of 40 words/min.

Procedure

Data were collected during two semesters. Subjects were told the study was being conducted for research purposes to assess attitudes of students toward themselves and their training. They were advised that all scores and information would be kept confidential and that participation would be voluntary.

During the first week of class, the TSSE and locus of control scales were administered, and subjects completed a questionnaire which assessed typing experience. Goal setting conditions, assigned vs self-set, were es-


tablished by asking subjects to set a goal for the typing speed they would like to achieve or by assigning a goal of 40 words/min, a goal which the instructors indicated would be challenging, yet achievable. All persons in the same class received the same goal condition. Classes from community colleges and the university were alternately assigned to each condition. The questionnaire asked both groups how confident they were about reaching their goals and how much effort they would exert to do so.

Prior to final exams, the TSSE and locus of control scales were again administered. A questionnaire similar to the first was given to the subjects asking them to recall their goals.

RESULTS

Means, standard deviations, and pair-wise correlations for each variable are listed in Table 1. There was a significant increase in mean TSSE and typing experience from pre- to post-test. These increases were expected due to task experience and skill development. TSSE at the pretest and correlated significantly with all scales except the post-test for locus of control. TSSE at the post-test was correlated significantly with typing experience at the post-test. Split-half reliability of the TSSE scale was .85 (pretest) and .89 (post-test). Locus of control did not significantly correlate with any of the performance criteria. Typing experience was highly and significantly correlated with typing speed and course grade, but not with course completion.

When performance criteria were checked for contamination, the null hypothesis that variation of typing speed and course grade by instructor was due to chance was rejected. In order to correct for this contamination, criterion scores for typing speed and course grade were adjusted by the instructor to the grand mean.

A check for sex differences revealed that means for typing experience for men and women differed significantly (p G .Ol, two-tailed) at pretest and post-test. Variance was not significantly different at pretest or post- test. Women also set significantly higher goals (p G .05, two-tailed), and the variance of goals set was significantly greater for women than for men (p G .Ol, two-tailed). At the post-test, women’s mean score for locus of control (10.36) was significantly different (p 6 .Ol, two tailed) or more external than the men’s mean score (8.60). Variance of scores for men and women did not differ significantly for any of the measures. Mean typing speed for women was 37.84; for men, it was 34.44, significantly different at p G .Ol, two-tailed. Variance was not significantly different. Since there were sex differences on certain variables, differences in results between male and female subjects were examined for those hypotheses in which subgrouping would not reduce power to unacceptably low levels.

All but 1 of the 98 persons assigned a typing speed goal of 40 words/min reported accepting the goal. Confidence in achieving the goal correlated

TA

BL

E 1

Mea

ns S

tand

ard

Dev

iatio

ns,

Sam

ple

Size

s, a

nd P

air

Wis

e C

orre

latio

ns f

or A

ll V

aria

bles

Var

iabl

es

1.T

SSE

(1)

2.T

SSE

(2)

3. L

ocus

of

cont

rol

(1)

4. L

ocus

of

cont

rol

(2)

5. T

ypin

g ex

peri

ence

(1)

6. T

ypin

g ex

peri

ence

(2)

7.C

ours

e co

mpl

etio

n

8.T

ypin

g sp

eed

9.C

ours

e gr

ade

10.

Self-

set

goal

s

Mea

nSD

12

34

56

78

910

132.

60(2

43)

141.

47(1

88)

10.0

3(2

34)

9.60

(171

)5.

42**

(250

)6.

73(1

91)

36.5

(220

)2.

88(2

45)

(pJ2

)

18.M

-

(243

)20

.62

(188

)4.

03(2

34)

4.33

(171

)2.

00(2

50)

1.98

(191

)

9.51

(220

)1.

32(2

45)

(lZ2)

.55

-.19

*-.

07

.21*

(180

)(2

27)

(164

)(2

41)

--

.03

-.lO

.13

(175

)(1

68)

(187

)-

.65’

.02

(160

)(2

33)

-.1

9*(1

71)

-

.25*

(180

).2

0*(1

83)

(P;‘,

).1

9*(1

68)

.83*

(187

)-

.02

(241

)N

A .07

(233

)N

A

.11

(241

)N

A

.20*

(220

).2

9*(1

88)

.03

(220

).1

2(1

71)

.52*

(220

)

( & NA

.13

(245

).3

9*(1

88)

-.04

(233

)-.

06

(171

).3

2*(2

45)

.33*

(191

)N

A .49*

(220

)

.24

(152

).3

2*(1

02)

ilY2)

.13

(102

).5

3(1

52)

.50

(187

).0

7(1

52)

.42*

(102

).1

5(1

02)

-

Nor

e. S

D,

stan

dard

dev

iatio

n; (

l),

pret

est;

(2),

pos

t-te

st;

TSS

E,

task

-spe

cifi

c se

lf-e

stee

m s

cale

. Sa

mpl

e si

ze i

s sh

own

in p

aren

thes

es.

NA

, da

ta n

ot a

vaila

ble

for

thos

e w

ho d

id n

ot c

ompl

ete

the

cour

se.

* p

< .0

5,

two-

taile

d.**

Sign

ific

ant

(p G

.05)

inc

reas

e fr

om p

rete

st t

o po

st-t

est.


at .21 (p G .05, two-tailed) with beginning TSSE. Estimates of effort which would be exerted correlated at .03 (NS) with beginning TSSE. At the end of the study 47 subjects indicated they did not recall their assigned goal and only 29 remembered their goals correctly. Of the 154 persons asked to set goals for typing speed, 152 persons did so. Confidence in achieving goals (r = .29, p < .Ol, two-tailed) and estimates of effort to be exerted (r = .17, p < .05) correlated with beginning TSSE.

In the self-set condition, goals set at the beginning of the study correlated .74 (p G .Ol, two-tailed) with those recalled at the end of the study. For all subjects in the study, goals assigned or set at the beginning of the study correlated .69 (p 6 .Ol, two-tailed) with those recalled at the end of the study.

Hypothesis I. It was predicted that TSSE would significantly and positively correlate with course completion, typing speed, and class grade. Initial TSSE correlated with successful completion of the course at .02 (NS), with words per minute typed at .20 (p G .Ol, two-tailed) and with course grade at .13 (NS). With the effects of typing experience partialled out, the initial TSSE did not significantly correlate with any criterion. Final TSSE correlated with words per minute typed at .29 (p < .Ol, two- tailed) and with course grade at .39 (p G .Ol, two-tailed). Correlations of TSSE with the criteria when analyzing for men and women separately were not significantly different from those found for the group as a whole. When the effects of sex were partialled out, the correlation between beginning TSSE and typing speed was .18 (p s .Ol, two-tailed).

Hypothesis 2. The second prediction was that the goals set by low TSSE persons would have greater variance than those set by high TSSE persons. The median score of the TSSE pretest was used to separate high and low TSSE. Those with high TSSE set goals ranging from 25 to 83 words/min with a mean of 46.80 and a variance of 107.48. Low TSSE persons set goals ranging from 25 to 60 words/min with a mean of 43.45 and a variance 49.98. Variances for the two distributions were found to be significantly different at p 6 .05 (df = 69, 66); however, their difference was in a direction opposite to that predicted. The means were also significantly different (p G .05, two-tailed.) When the data were analyzed for men and women separately, women showed a significant difference in variance for high and low TSSE similar to the group as a whole. Men did not show a significant difference.

Hypothesis 3. It was predicted that the correlation between self-set goals and performance would be moderated by TSSE. When typing speed was regressed upon self-set goals, TSSE, and the interaction term for goals and TSSE, the multiple R was .46. Final j3 (p G .Ol, df = 100) were - .18 for TSSE and .56 for the interaction term.

Hypothesis 4. It was predicted that locus of control would moderate change in TSSE. Internal locus of control persons were expected to show


an increase or decrease in their TSSE depending upon their outcomes in learning to perform the task. External locus of control persons were expected to show less change in TSSE. This hypothesis was tested by using TSSE at the pretest, the performance criterion, locus of control, and the interaction term for performance and locus of control to predict final TSSE. When final TSSE was regressed on initial TSSE, typing speed, locus of control, and the interaction term for typing speed and locus of control, the multiple R was 60. Final j3s were 51 for initial TSSE, .46 for typing speed, .47 for locus of control, - .69 and for the interaction term. All fis were significant (p G .Ol, df = 144).

When final TSSE was regressed on initial TSSE, course grade, locus of control, and the interaction term for course grade and locus of control, the multiple R was 59. Final ps were .50 for initial TSSE, .37 for course grade, .14 for locus of control, and - .22 for the interaction term. All ps were significant (p c .Ol, df = 147).

Path Analysis

A path model was proposed in which paths were chosen using the Locke et al. (1984) model, the description of the development of self- efficacy provided by Bandura (1986), and the predictions about TSSE made by Korman (1970, 1976). In this model, typing experience, TSSE at the pretest, self-set goals, typing speed, and course grade were used to predict TSSE at the post-test.

All path coefficients were significant (p c .Ol, df = 96 - k - 1, where k is the number of independent variables). Multiple R for variables predicting self-set goals was 57 (JJ G .Ol, df = 2.93). Multiple R for variables predicting typing speed was .67 @ G .Ol, df = 3.92). Multiple R for variables predicting course grade was .51 (p c .Ol, df = 2.93). Figure 1 shows the model with path coefficients. The model was supported by the data in all but one case, i.e., the path from TSSE at the pretest to course grade is negative. When the model was tested for adequacy as suggested by Pedhazur (1982), who gives a goodness of fit index, Q in which as Q approaches 1.0 the fit becomes maximal, Q was .8809. Q may also be tested for significance using a large sample x2 test. Using the x2 test for goodness of fit, the null hypothesis that the model fit the data was not rejected at p G .05. Although a better fit could have been achieved by changing the path coefficient from TSSE at the pretest to course grade to zero, this was not done because of lack of theoretical justification.

DISCUSSION This study used the theoretical frameworks provided by Korman, Ban-

dura, and Locke to examine empirically the development of the self- concept as related to specific tasks and its relation to goal choice and performance. Korman and Bandura suggest that one’s self-esteem or self-


TYPING

TYPING EXPERIENCE

A SPEED

1

\

.51 .24

-b TSSE(2)

/ .23

\ GRADE ’ COURSE

FIG. 1. Path analysis of the development of TSSE (N = 98).

efficacy related to the task will influence task performance. In this study, the initial measure of TSSE correlated significantly with one performance criterion, typing speed, but not with course completion or course grade.

Korman (1970) suggests that persons with high TSSE will be consistent with their self-concept in setting goals and persons with low TSSE will be inconsistent in setting goals. Therefore the prediction was made that goals set by low TSSE persons would have greater variance than those set by high TSSE persons. Variances for the two distributions were found to be significantly different, but in the opposite direction, from those hypothesized. Self-set goals were consistent with TSSE in that the mean goal level of high TSSE persons was significantly greater than the mean goal level of low TSSE persons. This outcome supports Bandura’s (1986) consistency position that all persons, not just high self-efficacy persons, set goals based on their self-efficacy for the task, rather than Korman’s position that only high TSSE persons are consistent. The significant correlation of initial TSSE with self-set goals (r = .24) provides evidence that all persons will set goals consistent with their feelings of self-efficacy for the task.

In support of Locke’s theory, goals were a powerful determinant of performance. In this study, the setting of goals was low-key and neither the adherence to goals nor even a simple reminder of goals was mentioned to subjects after goals were set. Yet goals show a significant correlation (r = .42) with typing speed. As found by Bandura and Schunk (1981), long-term goals are often lost sight of. The manipulation check for goals revealed that of 98 persons assigned goals only 29 remembered their goal


correctly. However, the correlation of self-set goals with recalled goals was .74 indicating that most persons were generally aware of the mag- nitude of the goal although most did not remember the actual number. Since subjects were left to recall and respond to their goals without as- sistance or reinforcement, it is interesting to see how well goals did predict performance. When factors such as goals and other situational constraints are strong, personality variables tend to be overridden. In this case, the weakness of the goal setting manipulation allowed the effect of the situation-specific personality trait, TSSE, to be detected.

It was also hypothesized in this study that self-set goals would be significantly more highly correlated with performance for high TSSE persons than for low TSSE persons. Korman’s suggestion that TSSE moderates the relation between self-set goals and typing speed was supported. The data reveal a definite pattern in which self-set goals do not appear to provide the impetus for low TSSE persons to perform that they do for high TSSE persons. Moreover, the combination of TSSE and self-set goals appears to provide a powerful predictor of performance.

The final hypothesis was that locus of control would moderate change in TSSE. Internal locus of control persons were expected to show an increase or decrease in their TSSE depending upon their outcomes in learning to perform the task. External persons were expected to show less change in TSSE. This prediction was true for both performance measures, typing speed, and course grade. The strong and positive main effect of the performance criteria on change in TSSE supports the assumption that successful performance raises TSSE. The significant interaction term supports Bandura’s assumption that change is more likely to take place for internal locus of control persons than for external locus of control persons.

Performance outcomes are likely to influence changes in TSSE for internal locus of control persons more than for external locus of control persons. These results provide substantial support for Bandura’s (1977) contention that performance outcomes are more likely to increase self- efficacy for persons who see themselves as responsible for causing those outcomes. Although confidence about achieving goals was related to TSSE for both goal conditions, only subjects in the self-set condition showed a significant, positive correlation between the effort they intended to expend to achieve their goals and TSSE. These results are similar to a finding of Locke et al. (1984) in which self-efficacy was related to goal commitment only in the self-set condition and in contrast to those of Locke et al. (1981) who found that participative goal setting did not lead to greater commitment.

The path model proposed suggests a process in which personality variables and situational cues together determine performance outcomes. It shows that an assessment of TSSE and information on goals can be an


effective combination for accurately predicting task performance. A definite path can be seen from initial TSSE, based on experience, to goal setting which influences both performance measures, typing speed, and course grade, resulting in a reassessment of TSSE. In both cases, final TSSE is more highly correlated with performance measures than initial TSSE. Likewise, initial TSSE did not significantly correlate with any criterion when typing experience was partialled out. Bandura suggests that self-efficacy is based primarily on prior performance, and expectations of performance of those without task experience will be weak and inaccurate until confirmed through practice. No attempt was made to monitor TSSE or goal acceptance during the 15-week period. If, as Bandura and Schunk (1981) suggest, persons with long-term goals set intermediary short-term goals for themselves, then the cycle represented in the path analysis may have occurred repeatedly during the 15-week period.

Since the women in the study reported more typing experience than the men in the study, they also set higher goals. These differences were also reflected in typing speed. The measures taken of TSSE did not show gender differences. Although the amount of noise contributed by gender was small, investigation of a task which is not subject to these differences would perhaps yield more precise results.

A variety of other motivational variables which were not controlled, such as social, economic, or physical problems, may also have affected the situation. Although some control for effects of instructor was intro- duced statistically, there is no indication of the ways in which instructors differed and how these differences affected subjects.

Further field investigations are needed which are designed to control for threats to internal validity, such as differences in experience at pretest. Studies are needed in which the cyclical development of TSSE is inves- tigated to show how subjects respond to goals over time and how much of that response is affected by TSSE. Further studies are also needed in which the variables in the path model proposed here and plausible alternative models can be manipulated to establish causal linkages more firmly.

In summary, results of this study suggest that the situation-specific personality variable, TSSE, affects performance by influencing how persons will set their own situational goals. Perceptions of competence and confidence concerning performance of the task will influence the goals, probably informal as well as formal, which a person sets. In turn, those goals influence the effort which the person exerts to achieve the goal. Finally, the effect which that performance has on future feelings of com- petency and goal setting is influenced by performance outcomes and by persons’ interpretations of their responsibility for those outcomes.

Thus, personality variables play at least three important roles in de- termining level of performance. First, they may influence the goals which


people will set. Second, they influence the degree of commitment which people will make. Third, they may influence how people conceptualize their outcomes.

REFERENCES Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psycho-

logical Review, 84, 191-215. Bandura. A. (1982a). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist. 37,

122-147. Bandura, A. (1982b). The self and mechanisms of agency. In J. Suls (Ed.), Psychological

perspectives of se/f (Vol. 1). Hillsdale. NJ: Erlbaum. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. A social cognitive theory.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Bandura, A. & Schunk. D. H. (1981). Cultivating competence, self-efficacy, and intrinsic

interest through proximal self-motivation. Journal of Persona&y and Social Psychology. 41, W-598.

Barling, J.. & Abel, M. (1983). Self-efficacy beliefs and tennis performance. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 71, 265-272.

Campbell, D. J. (1982). Determinants of choice of goal difficulty level: A review of situational and personality influences. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 55, 79-95.

Cohen, R. S., & Lefkowitz. J. (1979). Self-esteem, locus of control, and task difficulty as determinants of task performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 15, 193-206.

Dossett. D. L., Latham. G. P., & Mitchell, T. R. (1979). Effects of assigned versus par- ticipatively set goals, knowledge of results. and individual differences on employee behaviors when goal difficulty is held constant. Journal of Applied Psychology. 64,291- 298.

Gist, M. E., Schwoerer, C., & Rosen, B. (1989). Effects of alternative training methods on self-effcacy and performance in computer software training. Journal of Applied Psychology. 74, 884-891.

Greenhaus, J., & Badin, .I. (1974). Self-esteem, performance and satisfaction: Some tests of a theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 54, 722-726.

Korman. A. K. (1970). Toward an hypothesis of work behavior. Journal of Applied Psy- chology, 54, 31-41.

Korman, A. K. (1976). Hypothesis of work behavior revisited and an extension. Academy of Management Review, 1, l-37.

Latham. G. P., & Yukl, G. A. (1976). Effects of assigned and participative goal setting on performance and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 166171.

Locke, E. A. (1968). Toward a theory of task motivation and incentives. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 3, 157-189.

Locke, E. A.. Frederick, E., Lee. C., & Bobko, P. (1984). Effect of self-efficacy, goals and task strategies on task performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 241-251.

Locke, E. A., Shaw, K. N., Saari, L. M., & Latham, G. P. (1981). Goalsetting and task performance: 1969-1980. Psychological Bulletin, 90, 125-152.

McAuley, E.. & Gill, D. (1983). Reliability and validity of the physical self-efficacy scale in a competitive sport setting. Journal of Sport Psychology, 5, 410-418.

McIntire, S. A. (1986). Task-specific self-esteem and goal setting as predictors of training performance. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of South Florida, Tampa.

McIntire, S. A., & Levine. E. L. (1984). An empirical investigation of self-esteem as a composite construct. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 25, 290-303.

Meier. S., McCarthy, P. R., & Schmeck. R. R. (1984). Validity of self-efficacy as a predictor of writing performance. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 2. 107-120.


Pedhazur, E. J. (1982). Multiple regression in behavioral resenrch. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychologicaf Monographs, 80 (1, Whole No. 609).

Simpson, K. C., & Boyle, D. (1974). Esteem construct generality and academic performance. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 35, 897-904.

Tharenou, P. (1979). Employee self-esteem: A review of the literature. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 15, 316-346.

Received: June 11, 1990

combining personality variables and goals to predict performance

Documents