http://jca.sagepub.com/Journal of Career Assessment

http://jca.sagepub.com/content/8/3/283The online version of this article can be found at:

 DOI: 10.1177/106907270000800306

2000 8: 283Journal of Career AssessmentHeather M. Smith and Nancy E. Betz

Development and Validation of a Scale of Perceived Social Self-Efficacy  

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Journal of Career AssessmentAdditional services and information for    

  http://jca.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

 

http://jca.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:  

http://jca.sagepub.com/content/8/3/283.refs.htmlCitations:  

What is This? 

- Jul 1, 2000Version of Record >>

at FORDHAM UNIV LIBRARY on November 3, 2013jca.sagepub.comDownloaded from at FORDHAM UNIV LIBRARY on November 3, 2013jca.sagepub.comDownloaded from at FORDHAM UNIV LIBRARY on November 3, 2013jca.sagepub.comDownloaded from at FORDHAM UNIV LIBRARY on November 3, 2013jca.sagepub.comDownloaded from at FORDHAM UNIV LIBRARY on November 3, 2013jca.sagepub.comDownloaded from at FORDHAM UNIV LIBRARY on November 3, 2013jca.sagepub.comDownloaded from at FORDHAM UNIV LIBRARY on November 3, 2013jca.sagepub.comDownloaded from at FORDHAM UNIV LIBRARY on November 3, 2013jca.sagepub.comDownloaded from at FORDHAM UNIV LIBRARY on November 3, 2013jca.sagepub.comDownloaded from at FORDHAM UNIV LIBRARY on November 3, 2013jca.sagepub.comDownloaded from at FORDHAM UNIV LIBRARY on November 3, 2013jca.sagepub.comDownloaded from at FORDHAM UNIV LIBRARY on November 3, 2013jca.sagepub.comDownloaded from at FORDHAM UNIV LIBRARY on November 3, 2013jca.sagepub.comDownloaded from at FORDHAM UNIV LIBRARY on November 3, 2013jca.sagepub.comDownloaded from at FORDHAM UNIV LIBRARY on November 3, 2013jca.sagepub.comDownloaded from at FORDHAM UNIV LIBRARY on November 3, 2013jca.sagepub.comDownloaded from at FORDHAM UNIV LIBRARY on November 3, 2013jca.sagepub.comDownloaded from at FORDHAM UNIV LIBRARY on November 3, 2013jca.sagepub.comDownloaded from at FORDHAM UNIV LIBRARY on November 3, 2013jca.sagepub.comDownloaded from at FORDHAM UNIV LIBRARY on November 3, 2013jca.sagepub.comDownloaded from

283-

Development and Validation of a Scale ofPerceived Social Self-Efficacy

Heather M. Smith

Nancy E. BetzThe Ohio State University

The present study involved the development and psychometricevaluation of the Scale of Perceived Social Self-Efficacy (PSSE), ameasure of self-efficacy expectations with respect to a range ofsocial behaviors. A high degree of internal consistency reliability wasfound for the PSSE in a development sample of 354 undergraduatestudents (90 males and 264 females), with coefficient alpha = .94.Test-retest reliability over a 3-week interval was r = .82 (r = .86 formales and r = .80 for females). Data from correlational analysessupported the construct and discriminant validity of the scale in thatsocial self-efficacy was strongly related to both Social Confidenceand Enterprising Confidence (from the Skills Confidence Inventory)but was substantially unrelated to confidence in the other four(Holland) confidence scales. Social self-efficacy was also stronglyrelated to shyness, which has been found to seriously hinder careerdevelopment processes in young adults. Directions for further careerresearch and assessment are discussed.

Keywords: Social self-efficacy, self-efficacy theory, career self-efficacy,social cognitive theory, social confidence

Journal of Career AssessmentVolume 8/Number 3/Summer 2000/Pages

One of the most visible areas of research in vocational behavior andcareer assessment is that on applications of Bandura’s (1977, 1997) self-efficacy theory to the study of career behavior. In brief, Bandura’s theorycontains the postulate that self-efficacy expectations, our beliefs concerningour competence in specific behavioral domains, influence our choices of,performance in, and persistence in areas of endeavor requiring or utilizingthose behavioral competencies. Moreover, Bandura’s theory containspostulates regarding the initial development of self-efficacy expectations fromfour experiential sources of efficacy information, that is personal performanceaccomplishments, vicarious learning or modeling, emotional arousal(anxiety), and social persuasion and encouragement from others. Thesesources of efficacy information are important because they also form thetheoretical foundation for the design of interventions which can increase and

Correspondence concerning this article and requests for offprints should be addressedto Nancy E. Betz, Department of Psychology, 1885 Neil Avenue Mall, The Ohio StateUniversity, Columbus, OH 43120-1222.

Published and copyright @ 2000 by Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc. All rights reserved.

284

strengthen self-efficacy percepts. Thus, for both researchers and practitionersin the field of career psychology, self-efficacy theory may help to explainindividuals’ career decisions and performance and can also provide us witha means by which to conceptualize and design interventions capable ofstrengthening efficacy beliefs in important career domains.

Career domains to which self-efficacy theory has been applied include theextensive work in areas such as mathematics (Lent, Brown, & Gore, 1997),self-efficacy for scientific and technical careers (Lapan, Shaughnessy, &Boggs, 1996; Lent, Brown, & Larkin, 1984), career decision making (Betz &Luzzo, 1996), career search activities (Solberg et al., 1994), specificoccupational tasks (Rooney & Osipow, 1992), and the six themes of Holland’stheory (Betz, Harmon, & Borgen, 1996; Lapan, Boggs, & Morrill, 1989;Lenox & Subich, 1994). The relationship of self-efficacy expectations tovocational interests and the relationships of both of these to vocationaloutcomes have been the focus of an expanded social cognitive theory (Lent,Brown, & Hackett, 1994) and related research (e.g., Fouad & Smith, 1996;Patterson & O’Brien, 1997).One domain with potentially important implications for career development

is that of social behaviors. It is difficult to argue against the importance ofsome level of social skill in developing and maintaining adult relationships,but there is also considerable evidence for the relationship of social skills andcompetence to educational and career development processes. For example,ineffective peer group relationships in college students can result inloneliness, which itself can result in depression, low self-esteem, and pooracademic performance (Blai, 1989; Rotenberg & Morrison, 1993). Ferrari andParker (1992) reported a positive relationship between social self-efficacy andacademic performance in first year college students. Patterson and O’Brien(1997) suggest the possible importance of social self-efficacy expectations inyoung adults’ transition to and retention in college. Considerable recentresearch (e.g., Blustein, Walbridge, Friedlander, & Palladino, 1991; Felsman& Blustein, 1999; O’Brien, 1996) has resulted in the conclusion that thecapacity for close interpersonal relationships in adolescence is related tomore advanced career development and decisional processes. For example,Felsman and Blustein (1999) reported that adolescents who reported greaterlevels of attachment to peers and who had the capacity to experienceintimate relationships with others indicated greater levels of environmentalexploration and greater progress in committing to career choices.

Social self-efficacy, defined in various ways, has also been found to berelated to career indecision; the Verbal/Interpersonal Self-Efficacy factor ofthe Task Specific Occupational Self-Efficacy Scale (Osipow & Temple, 1996)was related to career indecision in studies by Betz, Schifano, and Kaplan(1999) and Temple and Osipow (1994), and to a measure of careerdecidedness in a study by Tuck, Rolfe, and Adair (1995). Betz et al. (1999)also reported a significant relationship between social confidence (self-efficacy) as measured by the Skills Confidence Inventory (Betz, Borgen, &Harmon, 1996) and career indecision. Niles and Sowa (1992) reportedsignificant relationships of social self-efficacy, measured using the Social Self-Efficacy subscale of the Generalized Self-Efficacy Scale (Sherer et al., 1982),to career decision-making self-efficacy and three scales from Krumboltz’(1988) Career Beliefs Inventory-flexibility, motivation, and preference-suchthat higher social self-efficacy was associated with beliefs that facilitate,rather than impede, the career development process.

285

And social self-efficacy expectations may also be related to or evenunderlie a problem, shyness, which appears to have significant detrimentaleffects on both personal and career development. Shyness has been definedas a problem involving anxious self-preoccupation (social anxiety) andbehavioral inhibition in the presence of others (e.g., Leary, 1983, 1991).Shy people tend to be tense, worried, and awkward in social situations(Leary, 1983). Shyness is distinguishable from characteristics such as lowsociability, which involves a non-fearful preference for not affiliating withothers (Cheek & Buss, 1981) and introversion, which entails an inwardintellectual focus, a preference for solitude, and minimal difficulty in relatingto others when necessary (Buss & Plomin, 1984). Thus, shyness involves amaladaptive, fear-based social avoidance which most likely impedes orreduces the effectiveness of one’s social interactions (Leary, 1991).

Shyness, which is a problem for many college students (42% in a studyby Zimbardo, 1977), appears to have detrimental effects on career develop-ment. Arkin, Lake, and Baumgardner (1986) suggest the maladaptiveeffects of shyness on job interview behaviors. Phillips and Bruch (1988)found that shy college students were significantly less effective in behaviorsnecessary for the career development of young adults than were non-shystudents - for example, shy students tended to express career preferenceslimited to non-interpersonally oriented occupations, engaged in less careerexploration, and were more career undecided, in contrast to non-shyindividuals. In subsequent research, Hamer and Bruch found that shynesswas negatively related to vocational self-concept crystallization and tocareer maturity. Hamer and Bruch summarize this body of research bysaying that &dquo;Shy students are more likely to have difficulty formulating acoherent vocational concept, to have problems in vocational decision-making, to circumscribe choices to non-social fields, and to be relativelymore vocationally immature&dquo; (p. 37). They strongly urge attention toshyness among college students as a way of indirectly helping them tomore successfully complete the developmental tasks necessary forestablishing a satisfying career.

Thus, social self-efficacy and the related constructs of shyness and socialanxiety may be important variables in understanding both the content ofcareer choices and the process or effectiveness with which they are made.The advantage of using self-efficacy, rather than shyness or anxiety, as thecentral concept in research is that the theory itself (Bandura, 1977, 1997)contains both the postulated mechanisms of its initial development andguidelines for its treatment (increasing expectations of efficacy) in the foursources of efficacy information. And many researchers (e.g., Leary, 1991) havein fact suggested the possible utility of self-efficacy theory for research onsocial anxiety itself. For such research to progress, however, carefuldefinition and measurement of social self-efficacy expectations is necessary.Existing measures seem limited psychometrically or in the nature of theirdefinition, as will be discussed below.

Previous research (e.g., Alden, Teschuk, & Tee, 1992; Mahone, Bruch, &Heimberg, 1993) often used 1-item measures which are not usuallyconsidered psychometrically sound (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994; Spector,1992). Among other problems, it would be difficult to represent most domainsof content using only one item and second, internal consistency reliabilitycannot be calculated for one item.

286

The most commonly used measure, the social self-efficacy subscale of theGeneralized Self-Efficacy Scale (Sherer et al., 1982), was derived apparentlyafter the fact. Sherer et al. constructed a 23-item measure of generalized self-efficacy, which they conceptualized as the degree to which a person feels asense of overall confidence that is not tied to a specific situation or behavior(see Bandura, 1997 for a critique of generalized concepts of self-efficacy). Sixof the items did not cluster with the other 17 in the factor analysis, andbecause all six pertained to efficacy beliefs regarding social interactionsthey were defined as constituting a social self-efficacy subscale. Not only isthis post hoc scale derivation poor psychometric practice in general, butthe use of negatively worded items and an agree - disagree response formatare not appropriate for measuring self-efficacy. Self-efficacy expectationsrefer to confidence in one’s ability to engage in specific behavioral tasks-a yes/no or confidence response continuum in reference to specific behaviorsis the appropriate means of measurement. In addition to its item format, thereliability and validity of the social self-efficacy subscale have been questioned.While Sherer et al. reported a value of alpha of .71 (just above the generallyaccepted minimum of .70; e.g., see Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994), other studieshave shown inadequate reliability, for example, Patterson and O’Brien (1997)reported a coefficient of .64. Patterson and O’Brien also questioned theconcurrent validity of the scale based on a correlation of only .34 withanother measure of social self-efficacy, The College Interaction Self-EfficacyQuestionnaire (CISEQ; Fichten, Bourdon, Amsel, & Fox, 1987).

CISEQ (Fichten et al., 1987), was designed to measure college students’confidence in interacting effectively in social contexts involving bothnondisabled and disabled individuals of the same sex; evidence for the reliabilityand validity of the scale is solid, but the focus of the scale is narrower thanwould be desirable in a scale designed for general use. A measure of socialconfidence (self-efficacy) based on Holland’s (1997) theory is available as partof the Skills Confidence Inventory (Betz, Harmon et al., 1996), but its contentis focused on actual vocational activities and school subjects (e.g., teach ortutor children, help a troubled teenager, Counseling Methods). Banduraand his colleagues (Bandura, Pastorelli, Barbaranelli, & Caprara, 1999)have measured social efficacy in middle school children, including itemsassessing perceived capacity for peer relationships, for self-assertiveness, andfor leisure time social activities.

Thus, available measures of social self-efficacy are either psychometricallyinadequate or somewhat narrow in definition and scope, or focused onchildren rather than college-age individuals. A measure of social self-efficacy focusing on the development and maintenance of social interactionsand relationships in college students and young adults would be useful inresearch on the development and correlates of social self-efficacy and wouldalso have potential use as a pre-post measure of the effectiveness oftreatment programs based on Bandura’s (1977, 1997) theory. The presentstudy was designed to develop and evaluate such a measure.

For purposes herein, social self-efficacy was defined as an individual’sconfidence in her/his ability to engage in the social interactional tasksnecessary to initiate and maintain interpersonal relationships. Social self-efficacy, so defined, is postulated to be highly correlated with both shynessand social anxiety; low social self-efficacy may be one major cause ofshyness, though it is not necessarily assumed that all shy people possesslow social self-efficacy.

287

In the present case social anxiety is conceptually similar to Bandura’sconcept of emotional arousal, which he views as a &dquo;coeffect&dquo; of low self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997).Examination of the psychometric adequacy of the measure included

internal consistency reliability, factor structure, test-retest reliability,convergent validity (with other measures of social self-efficacy), discriminantvalidity (against measures of self-efficacy in other career domains), andconstruct validity via measures of the related constructs of social anxiety,shyness, and global self-esteem. In addition, possible differences in socialself-efficacy as a function of race/ethnicity, year in school, and place ofresidence (e.g., residence hall, off-campus apartment) were examined. Theselatter possible differences were examined because significant differences asa function of these variables could help to explicate the nature of theconstruct of social self-efficacy and, also, to provide hypotheses concerningcollege students more likely to lack adequate self-perceived social efficacy.

Method

ParticipantsThe participants were 354 undergraduate students (90 males and 264

females) enrolled in an introductory psychology course at a large midwesternuniversity. Participation was voluntary, and although students receivedcourse credit as compensation, there were other ways of earning this creditand students could choose from a variety of research studies in which toparticipate. Recruitment of the participants was conducted via posted sign-up sheets depicting the location, time, and nature of the study. Because therewere a variety of ways to earn the extra credit, in addition to researchparticipation, experiment sign-up was viewed by the University HumanSubjects Review Board as defacto informed consent. Therefore, requirementsfor informed consent were waived for all participants.

Demographic data indicated that 269 (76%) of the participants identifiedthemselves as Caucasian, 38 (10.7%) as African American, 19 (5.4%) asAsian American, 10 (2.8%) as International Students, 8 (2.3%) as Hispanic,1 (0.3%) as American Indian, and 9 (2.5%) as unspecified or other. Most (76%)were first-year students, 12.7% were sophomores, 7.1% were juniors, and1.1% were seniors, with the remaining 3.1% failing to specify their gradelevel. The mean age of participants was 18.8 years, with a standard deviationof 1.70 years. Because it is plausible that organized living situations suchas residence halls, fraternities, and sororities may provide environments inwhich both friendships and social confidence are more easily developedrelative to off-campus or more solitary housing, the location of eachparticipant’s current residence was also obtained. Accordingly, 65.3%reported living in residence halls, 29.9% in off-campus housing, 2.3% in afraternity or sorority, and 2.5% in some other unspecified form of housing.Of the original sample of 354 students, a subsample of 107 or 30% (29

males and 78 females) returned after a 3-week period to again complete twoof the measures of social self-efficacy. In the retest sample, 85 (79.4%) of thestudents identified themselves as Caucasian, 8 (7.5%) as African American,5 (4.7%) as Asian American, 4 (3.7%) as Hispanic, 3 (2.8%) as InternationalStudents, 1 (0.9%) as American Indian, and 1 (0.9%) as unspecified orother. Most of the retest sample (72.9%) were first-year students, 15% weresophomores, 10.3% were juniors, and 1.9% were seniors. The mean age of

288

retest participants was 18.8 years, with a standard deviation of 1.6 years.Finally, 66.4% of the retesters lived in residence halls, 29% in off-campusdwellings, 2.8% in fraternities or sororities, and 1.9% in other unspecifiedforms of housing.Instrument Development: Measure of Social Self-Efficacy

Given the paucity of psychometrically sound measures of perceived self-efficacy for a broad range of social behaviors for use with older adolescents(e.g., college students) and adults, it was believed that a new instrument wasnecessary to achieve an adequate measure of this construct. Because theAdolescent Social Self-Efficacy Scale (S-EFF; Connolly, 1989) has been shownto be robust in measuring social self-efficacy in younger adolescents, it wasused as a basis for decisions concerning both the nature and number of itemsto be developed for the Scale of Perceived Social Self-Efficacy (PSSE).

Item content for the PSSE was selected to ensure both content andconstruct validity (see Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). First, items werewritten or adapted from the S-EFF based on content relevance to thedefinition, that is, &dquo;the individual’s confidence in her/his ability to engagein the social interactional tasks necessary to initiate and maintaininterpersonal relationships.&dquo; In order to ensure representativeness as wellas relevance, items addressed six areas of social interaction, including:making friends (&dquo;Ask a potential friend out for coffee&dquo;), pursuing romanticrelationships (&dquo;Ask someone out on a date&dquo;), social assertiveness (&dquo;Join alunch or dinner table where people are already sitting and talking&dquo;),performance in public situations (&dquo;Express your opinion to a group of peoplediscussing a subject that is of interest to you&dquo;), groups or parties (&dquo;Go to aparty or social function where you probably won’t know anyone&dquo;), andgiving or receiving help (&dquo;Ask someone for help when you need it&dquo;). Inwriting the items, especially those related to romantic attachments anddates, language which avoided reference to the gender of the &dquo;date&dquo; orfriend was used. Since the concept of self-efficacy expectations itself refersto confidence in one’s ability to engage in a specific behavior, a 5-levelconfidence scale ranging from 1 (no confidence at all) to 5 (completeconfidence) was used. Items are behaviorally focused; therefore the practiceof negatively wording some items, as is common in attitude measurementto minimize the occurrence of response sets, is not usually appropriate inthe assessment of self-efficacy expectations.

Twenty-six items were written, with the objective of arriving at a finalscale of 15 to 25 items, depending on how many of the original items wereshown to be highly discriminating in the item analysis. According toNunnally and Bernstein (1994), if a sufficient number of scale items arefound to be adequately discriminating (item-total score correlations above.20) then scale construction can proceed. In the present case we were ableto be more selective, as 25 items had item-total correlations of .50 or greater.Total scores on the PSSE are obtained by summing over all of the items;higher scores indicate greater perceived social self-efficacy.Concurrent Validity MeasuresTwo other measures of social self-efficacy were utilized to examine the

concurrent validity of the new scale. These were the social self-efficacysubscale from the Self-Efficacy Scale (Sherer & Adams, 1983; Sherer et al.,1982) and the Social Confidence Scale from the Skills Confidence Inventory(Betz, Borgen, & Harmon, 1996).

289

As discussed in the introduction, the social self-efficacy subscale of theGeneralized Self-Efficacy Scale (Sherer et al., 1982) was derived from 6items which failed to load with the original 23 items postulated to measuregeneralized self-efficacy. Further, the agree-disagree response format isappropriate to the measurement of attitudes rather than to self-efficacyexpectations. However, because it has been the most frequently usedmeasure of social self-efficacy in the literature, it was used herein to assessconcurrent validity.The Self-Efficacy Scale (Sherer et al., 1982) consists of 23 items, of which

6 constitute the social self-efficacy subscale (SSE). Three of the six items arereverse-scored. All six items are scored on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). An example is &dquo;I have acquiredmy friends through my ability to make friends.&dquo; The reliability of the socialself-efficacy subscale has been reported as alpha = .71. Sherer et al. providedas validity data the significant correlations of both the GSE and SSEsubscales with self-esteem, personal control, and interpersonal competency.The second measure of social self-efficacy was the Social subscale from the

Skills Confidence Inventory (SCI; Betz, Borgen et al., 1996). The SkillsConfidence Inventory is a 60-item measure of self-efficacy expectationswith regard to the activities and tasks associated with each of the sixHolland themes. In Bandura’s original theory, the term &dquo;Confidence&dquo; wasused to indicate strength versus absolute level of self-efficacy expectations.Research on career self-efficacy has generally used confidence or strengthscores, rather than level scores, so the term &dquo;confidence&dquo; is used herein as

interchangeable with that of &dquo;self-efficacy.&dquo; As described in Betz, Harmon,et al. (1996), the scale was developed from an initial item pool of 151 items,which were administered to 1,147 adults and 706 college students. Theemployed adults represented 21 different occupations. Based on data fromitem analyses and other criteria for item retention, six 10-item scalesconstituted the final version of the Skills Confidence Inventory.The internal consistency reliability of the six scales ranges from .84 to .88.

Test-retest reliability over a 3-week interval ranges from .83 to .87 (Parsons& Betz, 1998). Each scale consists of 10 activities, tasks, or school subjectsassociated with the relevant Holland theme. The items of the SocialConfidence Scale are intended to faithfully represent Holland’s (1997) socialtheme, defined using such activities as helping, nurturing, caring for others,teaching and instructing, requiring competencies including social andinterpersonal skills, teaching skills, and the ability to empathize with andunderstand others (Harmon, Hansen, Borgen, & Hammer, 1994). Illustrativeitems ask the individual to indicate his/her confidence in his/her ability to&dquo;teach adults,&dquo; &dquo;meet new people,&dquo; &dquo;help others solve their problems,&dquo; and&dquo;comfort a patient experiencing pain.&dquo; Respondents are asked to indicatetheir degree of confidence in their ability to complete each activity or task.Confidence for a given scale is determined by the mean response over the10 items on that scale.

Initial evidence for concurrent validity of the Skills Confidence Inventorywas obtained from findings that employed adults reported significantlyhigher confidence levels than did college students (Betz, Harmon et al.,1996). In addition, gender differences on the Skills Confidence Inventorywere consistent with theoretical prediction based on past research on theHolland interest themes.

290

Construct and Discriminant Validity

Other Confidence ScalesIn addition to social confidence, the Skills Confidence Inventory also

measures confidence with respect to the other five Holland theme areas. InHolland’s (1973, 1997) hexagonal model, Enterprising and Artistic are thethemes adjacent to Social on the hexagon, while Realistic, Investigative, andConventional are non-adjacent themes. Therefore, a postulate related toconstruct validity is that both the sources and criteria of social self-efficacyor confidence will be more highly related to both Enterprising and ArtisticConfidence than to confidence in the Investigative, Realistic, andConventional themes. Accordingly, the five 10-item SCI confidence scalesmeasuring confidence in these themes were also used.

Social AnxietyThe Interaction Anxiousness Scale (IAS; Leary, 1983) was utilized as a

measure of social anxiety. The IAS consists of 15 items measured on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all characteristic of me) to 5(extremely characteristic of me) and was designed to measure the tendencyto experience social anxiety independent of accompanying inhibited orreticent behaviors. Items include &dquo;I often feel nervous even in casual get-togethers&dquo; and &dquo;Parties often make me feel anxious and uncomfortable.&dquo;Total scores are obtained by reverse-scoring negatively worded items andthen summing across all of the items. Scores range from 15 (low socialanxiety) to 75 (high social anxiety).The scale was normed on samples of university students from universities

of varying sizes and in different parts of the country, and it can thus beconsidered representative of students enrolled in 4-year colleges in theUnited States. It has been shown to possess adequate internal consistencyreliability (alpha = .87), and 8-week test-retest reliability was reported asr = .80. Evidence for the validity of the IAS was given by significantcorrelations with other measures of social anxiety and shyness, as well aswith self-reports of anxiety in real social interactions.

ShynessThe Revised Cheek and Buss Shyness Scale (Cheek, 1983; Cheek & Buss,

1981) was used to assess shyness. Consisting of 13 items, the RevisedShyness Scale measures both anxiety/discomfort and inhibition in thepresence of others. Items are measured on a 5-point Likert scale rangingfrom 1 (very uncharacteristic or untrue) to 5 (extremely characteristic or true).Total scores are calculated by reverse-scoring the four negatively wordeditems and summing all responses. Scores range from 13 to 65, with higherscores indicating more shyness. Items include &dquo;I am socially somewhatawkward&dquo; and &dquo;I feel inhibited in social situations.&dquo;

The shyness scale was normed in samples of college students. Internalconsistency reliability is reported as an alpha of .90, and 45-day test-retestreliability is r = .88. Data support the validity of the scale, as it was foundto correlate significantly with other measures of shyness and social anxiety.

Self-EsteemThe Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965) was used as a

measure of self-esteem. Designed to assess global feelings of self-worth or

291

self-acceptance, the Self-Esteem Scale consists of 10 items that are scoredon a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly agree) to 4 (stronglydisagree). Scores are computed by reverse-scoring negatively worded itemsand summing across all responses, resulting in a score range of 10 to 40 withhigher scores indicating greater self-esteem. Items include &dquo;I certainly feeluseless at times&dquo; and &dquo;I take a positive attitude toward myself.&dquo;The original normative sample for the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale was

5,024 high school juniors and seniors from 10 randomly selected New YorkState high schools. The scale has also been administered in large samplesof college students. Fleming and Courtney (1984) report a Cronbach alphaof .88 and a 1-week test-retest reliability correlation of r = .82. The validityof the scale is supported by positive correlations with the constructs ofgeneral self-regard and social confidence and by negative relationshipswith measures of anxiety and depression.

Procedure

At the beginning of the data collection phase the participants wereinformed of the general nature of the study. Assurance of confidentiality wasgiven by assigning identification numbers rather than names to each answersheet. After completing a demographic questionnaire, respondents completedthe instruments in the following order: the Scale of Perceived Social Self-Efficacy, the Social Self-Efficacy subscale of the Self-Efficacy Scale, theSkills Confidence Inventory, the Interaction Anxiousness Scale, the ShynessScale, and the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. Upon their completion of theinstruments, participants were given a debriefing statement detailing thenature and purpose of the study.

Data AnalysisStatistical analysis began with the calculation of means, standard

deviations, and t tests for gender comparisons for each of the scales. Analysesof variance (ANOVAs) as a function of race/ethnicity, year in school, and typeof residence were also performed. To evaluate the internal consistencyreliability of the new measure of social self-efficacy developed herein, acoefficient alpha was computed. Internal consistency reliability informationfor each of the other instruments utilized with the sample was also obtained.Test-retest reliabilities for the Scale of Perceived Social Self-Efficacy and theSocial Self-Efficacy subscale of the SES were computed for a 3-week interval.Maximum likelihood factor analysis of the PSSE items was conducted toexamine the factor structure of the measure.

Correlational analysis was employed to evaluate the concurrent andconstruct validity of the Scale of Perceived Social Self-Efficacy. Correlationsamong the various measures studied herein were calculated separately formales and females. The statistical significance of differences betweencorrelations within the male and female subsamples was evaluated usingthe t test for the difference between dependent correlation coefficients(Glass & Hopkins, 1984). In addition, correlational analysis was used toexamine the discriminant validity of the measures of social self-efficacy.Accordingly, the measures of social self-efficacy were expected to displayhigher correlations with the Holland themes adjacent to Social on the SCI(e.g., Artistic and Enterprising) than with nonadjacent themes (Investigative,Conventional, and Realistic).

292

Results

Factor Structure

Maximum likelihood factor analysis was conducted on the final 25-itemversion of the PSSE. The results of a scree test revealed that a singlegeneral factor most accurately represented the structure of the inventory.The eigenvalue of this general factor was 10.17 and it accounted for 40.70%of the variance. Loadings on the general factor ranged from .55 (Item 4, &dquo;Helpto make someone you’ve recently met feel comfortable with your group offriends&dquo;) to .72 (Item 22, &dquo;Make friends in a group where everyone elseknows each other&dquo;).

ReliabilityFurther support for the psychometric quality of the Scale of Perceived

Social Self-Efficacy (PSSE) is shown in Table 1, which displays the internalconsistency reliabilities for each of the measures utilized herein. Becauseitem analysis of the PSSE revealed that Item 14 (&dquo;Join a club or sportsteam&dquo;) possessed an item-total correlation of less than .50, it was eliminatedto produce the final 25-item version of the scale. As is shown in Table 1, boththe PSSE and the Social Confidence Scale of the SCI show strong internalconsistency reliability, with coefficient alphas of .94 and .86, respectively.The Social Self-Efficacy subscale (SSE) of the SES failed to reach the levelof reliability considered appropriate in research or clinical settings(Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994), with an alpha of .63.Analyses of test-retest reliability over a 3-week interval were conducted

for the PSSE and the SSE for both the entire retest sample as a whole (n =107) and separately for males (n = 29) and females (n = 78). Results indicatedoverall values of r = .82 and r = .70 for the PSSE and the SSE, respectively.Similar results were found for the male and female subgroups, with valuesof r = .86 and r = .68 for males and r = .80 and r = .69 for females on thePSSE and the SSE, respectively.

Gender ComparisonsTable 2 provides the means, standard deviations, and gender comparisons

for all of the variables studied herein. As shown in the table, femalesreported significantly higher levels of social self-efficacy as measured by theSSE and the Social Confidence Scale of the SCI. However, no significantgender differences were found for social self-efficacy ratings on the PSSE.Males reported greater self-efficacy with respect to the Enterprising,Conventional, Investigative, and Realistic themes of the SCI. There were nosignificant gender differences with respect to Artistic Confidence. Finally,females displayed significantly lower levels of social anxiety and shynessthan males, but no significant gender differences were evident with respectto self-esteem. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) procedures revealed nodifferences in participants’ PSSE scores as a function of their race, primaryplace of residence, or rank in school.

ValidityTable 3 summarizes the results of the correlational analyses conducted

to examine the relationship of the Scale of Perceived Social Self-Efficacy toexisting measures of social self-efficacy and confidence and to the con-ceptually related constructs of social anxiety, shyness, and global self-esteem.

293

Table 1Values of Coefficient Alpha Reliability for

Measures of Social Self-Efficacy, Confidence forHolland Themes, Social Anxiety, Shyness, and Self-Esteem

Note. N = 354; SES = Self-Efficacy Scale.

Table 2

Means, Standard Deviations, and Gender Comparisonsof Measures of Social Self-Efficacy, Confidence for

Holland Themes, Social Anxiety, Shyness, and Self-Esteem

Note. SES = Self-Efficacy Scale.

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

294

In Table 3, values above the diagonal are for males (n = 90), and values belowthe diagonal are for females (n = 264). As was predicted, significant positivecorrelations were found between the measures of social self-efficacy, rangingfrom r = .24 to r = .60 and from r = .36 to r = .62 for males and females,respectively. For the PSSE specifically, correlations with the SSE and SocialConfidence Scale of the SCI were r = .60 and r = .46 among males and r = .62and r = .53 among females. Positive correlations were also found between thethree measures of social self-efficacy and global self-esteem, ranging fromr = .09 to r = .22 and r = .15 to r = .32 for males and females, respectively.This relationship failed to reach significance for males on the PSSE (r = .17)and the Social Confidence Scale of the SCI (r = .09).As shown in Table 3, the majority of the remaining construct validity

correlations were found to be significant in the predicted direction. Inparticular, statistically significant, negative relationships were foundbetween the three measures of social self-efficacy and those of social anxietyand shyness, with a range of r = -.37 to r = -.67 and r = -.39 to r = -.71 formales and females, respectively. The specific correlations between PSSEscores and these measures were r = -.57 (social anxiety) and -.67 (shyness)for males and r = -.68 (social anxiety) and -.71 (shyness) for females.

Finally, evidence for the discriminant validity of the social self-efficacyinstruments is provided in Table 4, which shows the correlations of themeasures of social self-efficacy and self-efficacy (confidence) for the adjacentand non-adjacent Holland themes of the Skills Confidence Inventory.Correlations between the social self-efficacy measures and the Hollandconfidence scores were substantially higher with Enterprising than with anyother theme, including Artistic. The &dquo;average&dquo; correlation across measuresof social self-efficacy and for both genders combined was .55 for Enterprising,and was in the .20s for all other confidence scores, ranging from .22 forRealistic confidence to .29 for Artistic Confidence. Although many of the

Table 3Correlations Among Measures of Social Self-Efficacy,

Social Anxiety, Shyness, and Self-Esteem Within Gender

Note. Values above the diagonal are for males (n = 90); values below the diagonal arefor females (n = 264). For males, absolute r values of .21 are significant at p < .05 andabsolute values of .27 are significant at p < .01. For females, absolute r values of .16 aresignificant at p < .05 and absolute r values of .21 are significant at p < .01. SES = Self-Efficacy Scale; SCI = Skills Confidence Inventory.

295

latter group of correlations were statistically significant, they do not suggestimportant amounts of shared variance. On the PSSE in particular, scoresof the male participants were correlated with Holland themes of the SCI asfollows: .68 (Enterprising); .45 (Artistic); .29 (Realistic); .27 (Conventional);and .20 (Investigative). Correlations within the female subgroup were asfollows: .65 (Enterprising); .33 (Conventional); .31 (Artistic); .29 (Realistic);and .27 (Investigative).The t test for the difference between dependent correlation coefficients

(Glass & Hopkins, 1984) indicated that, for both males and females, thecorrelations between PSSE scores and those on the SCI EnterprisingConfidence Scale were significantly greater than the correlations betweenPSSE scores and those for Artistic, Realistic, Conventional, and InvestigativeConfidence. In addition, PSSE scores were significantly more stronglycorrelated with Artistic Confidence scores (r = .45) than with InvestigativeConfidence (r = .20) among males.

Discussion

Research on social self-efficacy has been limited by the existinginstruments for measuring the construct. Thus, the purpose of the presentstudy was to develop and evaluate a new instrument for assessing perceivedsocial self-efficacy for a wide range of social behaviors for use with collegestudents and adults.

The results provided evidence in support of the reliability of the measuredeveloped herein, the Scale of Perceived Social Self-Efficacy (PSSE). ThePSSE was found to be internally consistent (coefficient alpha = .94) andstable over a 3-week interval, with a test-retest reliability coefficient of .82.The scale was found to have a unidimensional factor structure, accountingfor 41% of the total variance, on which the loadings of the 25 items rangedfrom .55 to .72.

In terms of its concurrent validity, the PSSE was found to be stronglyrelated to both the social self-efficacy subscale of the Self-Efficacy Scale(r = .60 and .62 for males and females, respectively) and the SocialConfidence scale of the Skills Confidence Inventory (r = .46 and .53 formales and females, respectively). Evidence for construct validity wasprovided by strong relationships of the PSSE to social anxiety (rs of -.57 and-.68 in male and female students, respectively) and shyness (rs of -.67and -.71 for males and females, respectively). Correlations of the PSSEwith global self-esteem, while statistically significant in females (though notmales), were significantly smaller in magnitude (p < .001, as tested by thet test for dependent correlations) than were those with social anxiety andshyness-the values for global self-esteem were r = .17 and r = .32 formales and females, respectively.

Additional support for construct validity was evident in relatively highcorrelations between PSSE scores and Enterprising confidence as measuredby the SCI, (r = .68 and r = .65 for males and females, respectively) andsignificantly smaller correlations between PSSE scores and confidence in non-adjacent theme areas. Correlations with Artistic confidence, a theme adjacentto Social on the Holland hexagon but which is not substantively similar toSocial, were similar in magnitude to the correlations of social self-efficacy withconfidence in the Realistic, Investigative, and Conventional themes.

296

»0

’Caa)

0CS-<~

Ssa)a)

6CH<M’3

ccbc«

o~a)axAcc

£0)’s

~3cO~3 0!3tC ~

~5’cau

sM<MZM

c~’30cc

0?7h

cc«Q)

Sbeao

Im

aO

.r.,«

’~ir00

~ &dquo;

~ ~

~ ~h ~O U<=! s

z 4r~ ~-t-. cc

~ ~ II

u co

~ H.~~cc ~,

Cd &dquo;

C~<~ ca~ ~0 E!

m cz<D ,~

~ ~

~ ~’~ S)~ ~+~ U

-2 ~1~j~ <~)

&copy;fl~~

’

C4~C mCd N

0 cC

V k.

o.~-~ ~~Ss ~

b!=! C~boo kinm o

S V~ ~4-1C-1 Cd

O <s ~~ ’sb.0 ~£ fl ~ §

.

Cm

044.c0 o ~ciz c0 ~

~ g > ~ §0. r5 ’&dquo;~~3~ Ca rn

297

The closer association of Social (S) self-efficacy and Enterprising (E)self-efficacy, versus Artistic (A) self-efficacy, even though both A and Eare adjacent to Social on the Holland hexagon, is consistent with otherfindings regarding the hexagon. First, correlations are higher between S andE, versus S and A (e.g., Harmon et al., 1994; Holland, 1985). For example,Holland reported a correlation of r = .43 between Social and Enterprisingand of r = .24 between Social and Artistic in a sample of women aged 26 to65 years. Second, studies of variables discriminating adjacent types suggestmany more such variables discriminating S and A than S and E. Forexample, Holland (1968) reported that Social and Artistic types differedsignificantly from each other in orientation toward People versus Data,dealing with people versus dealing with feelings, ideas, or facts, clericalaptitude (higher) and spatial perception (lower), among other characteristics.In contrast, Social types differed from Enterprising types in higher preferencefor scientific and technical activities versus business contact, numericalaptitude (less) and less interest in activities involving processes, machines, ortechniques versus social welfare. The fact that Social and Artistic types aredifferentiated by orientation toward People versus Data would seem to supportthe findings of lower correlations with social self-efficacy.

Also having potentially important implications were the high correlationsbetween social self-efficacy and shyness. Correlations between the PSSE andthe measure of shyness were r = -.67 and r = -.71 (for males and females,respectively) and suggest substantial shared variance among these constructs.Given the substantial inverse relationships of shyness to indices of bothpersonal and career adjustment, the question of whether interventionsfocused on social self-efficacy expectations could help to address problemsof shyness is an important one needing empirical attention.Although the PSSE was related to the Social Confidence Scale, it should

be noted herein that these two scales tap different dimensions of socialbehavior. The Social Confidence Scale was constructed using manyoccupationally specific activities and school subjects (e.g., counseling,teaching, social work) while the PSSE pertains more to the social behaviorsrequired to initiate and maintain personal relationships and team/groupactivities. It is likely that social confidence may be more highly related toactual educational and career choices, while the Scale of Perceived SocialSelf-Efficacy may be more predictive of effective/mature career developmentprocesses and career search behaviors. Thus, a possible next study wouldbe to examine the relationship of social confidence and social self-efficacyto the types of career options considered and to both career decision-making(Betz & Luzzo, 1996) and career search (Solberg et al., 1994) self-efficacy.The PSSE appears to be psychometrically sound in this sample of college

students, but further research is necessary before generalizations to otherpopulations can be made. Because the present sample consisted largely ofCaucasian first-year students at one midwestern university, it is unclearwhether the results will generalize to other populations. For instance, thelack of ethnic differences in PSSE scores herein may have been due to thesmall sample sizes for some of the groups. Future research employinglarger samples of these and other ethnic groups would provide informationregarding the utility of the PSSE as a measure of social self-efficacy inmore heterogeneous populations. Furthermore, although the PSSE isintended to be useful with adults in general, future research involvingadults of varying ages is necessary before a definitive assertion of thePSSE’s utility in this context can be made.

298

In addition to research examining the utility of the PSSE in otherpopulations, research on the relationships of social self-efficacy to othervariables important in the career development process should be undertaken.For example, the relationship of social self-efficacy to vocational interests maybe profitable. Researchers such as Barak (in press; Barak, Librowski, &Shiloh, 1989), Betz (1999), and Lent et al. (1994) postulate the possiblereciprocal relationships of self-efficacy expectations and interests, so furtherresearch on the role of self-efficacy in interest development would be useful.In addition, research investigating the relationship of social self-efficacy tooutcome variables in the career development or work adjustment processwould be useful. For example, since the quality of interpersonal relationshipswith supervisors, colleagues, and supervisees is central to both jobperformance and worker satisfaction, social self-efficacy expectations andsocial skills may facilitate the process of work adjustment.Another important area for further research concerns the relationship of

social self-efficacy to social skills (e.g., as measured by the Social SkillsInventory of Riggio, 1989) and the effectiveness of Social Skills Training (e.g.,see Corey, 1995; Curran, 1977) on social self-efficacy expectations as wellas on social anxiety and shyness. Moreover, the previously mentionedpositive relationship of social and career decision-making self-efficacysuggests the possible utility of interventions combining social skills trainingand career education in the treatment of career indecision and low careerdecision-making self-efficacy.

In a related vein, this study has begun to address a need stated by Leary(1991) for more research on the relationships of social anxiety, shyness,and related concepts and, especially, for research based on theories, such asself-efficacy theory, which may contribute to both the understanding andtreatment of these difficult problem areas. We suggest herein that usingsocial self-efficacy expectations as the theoretical basis for research andtreatment efforts may prove fruitful.

In conclusion, the present study represents the first step in theenhancement of measurement techniques for assessing perceived socialself-efficacy for a broad range of social behaviors in college student andadult populations. The Scale of Perceived Social Self-Efficacy is apsychometrically sound instrument which may prove useful in furtherexaminations of the relationships of social self-efficacy and career choices,maturity, and adjustment.

ReferencesAlden, L. E., Teschuk, M., & Tee, K. (1992). Public self-awareness and withdrawal from

social interactions. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 3(16), 249-267.

Arkin, R. M., Lake, E. A., & Baumgardner, A. H. (1986). Shyness and self-presentation.In W. H. Jones, J. M. Cheek, & S. R. Briggs (Eds.), Shyness: Perspectives on research andtreatment (pp. 189-203). New York: Plenum Press.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman.

Bandura, A., Pastorelli, C., Barbaranelli, C., & Caprara, G. U. (1999). Self-efficacypathways to depression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 258-269.

299

Barak, A. (in press). A cognitive view of the nature of vocational interests: Implicationsfor career assessment, counseling, and research. In F. T. L. Leong & A. Barak (Eds.),Contemporary models in vocational psychology: A volume in honor of Samuel H. Osipow.Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Barak, A., Librowski, I., & Shiloh, S. (1989). Cognitive determinants of interests. Journalof Vocational Behavior, 34, 318-334.

Betz, N. E. (1999). Getting clients to act on their interests: Self-efficacy as a mediator of theimplementation of vocational interests. In M. L. Savickas & A. R. Spokane (Eds.), Occupationalinterests: Their meaning, measurement, and use in counseling (pp. 327-344). Palo Alto, CA:Davies Black.

Betz, N., Borgen, F., & Harmon, L. (1996). Manual for the Skills Confidence Inventory. PaloAlto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Betz, N. E., Harmon, L. W., & Borgen, F. H. (1996). The relationships of self-efficacy forthe Holland themes to gender, occupational group membership, and vocational interests.Journal of Counseling Psychology, 43, 90-98.

Betz, N., & Luzzo, D. (1996). Career assessment and the Career Decision-Making Self-Efficacy Scale. Journal of Career Assessment, 4, 313-328.

Betz, N., Schifano, R., & Kaplan, A. (1999). Relationships among measures of perceived self-efficacy with respect to basic domains of vocational activity. Journal of Career Assessment,7, 213-226.

Blai, B. (1989). Health consequences of loneliness: A review of the literature. Journal ofAmerican College Health, 37, 162-167.

Blustein, D. L., Walbridge, M. M., Friedlander, M. L., & Palladino, D. E. (1991).Contributions of psychological separation and parental attachment to the career developmentprocess. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38, 39-50.

Buss, A. H., & Plomin, R. (1984). Temperament: Early developing personality traits.Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Cheek, J. M. (1983). The revised Cheek and Buss shyness scale. Unpublished manuscript,Wellesley College, Wellesley, MA.

Cheek, J. M., & Buss, A. H. (1981). Shyness and sociability. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 41, 330-339.

Connolly, J. (1989). Social self-efficacy in adolescence: Relations with self-concept, socialadjustment and mental health. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 21, 258-269.

Corey, G. (1995). Theory and practice of group counseling (4th ed.). Pacific Grove, CA:Brooks/Cole.

Curran, J. P. (1977). Skills training as an approach to the treatment of heterosexual - socialanxiety. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 140-157.

Felsman, D. E., & Blustein, D. L. (1999). The role of peer relatedness in late adolescentcareer development. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54, 279-295.

Ferrari, J. R., & Parker, J. T. (1992). High school achievement, self-efficacy, and locus ofcontrol as predictors of freshman academic performance. Psychological Reports, 1, 515-518.

Fichten, C. S., Bourdon, C. V., Amsel, R., & Fox, L. (1987). Validation of the collegeInteraction Self-Efficacy Questionnaire: Students with and without disabilities. Journal ofCollege Student Personnel, 28, 449-458.

Fleming, J. S., & Courtney, B. E. (1984). The dimensionality of self-esteem: Hierarchicalfacet model for revised measurement scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,46, 404-421.

Fouad, N., & Smith, P. L. (1996). Test of a social-cognitive model for middle schoolstudents: Math and science. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 43, 338-346.

Glass, G., & Hopkins, K. (1984). Statistical methods in education and psychology (2nd ed.).Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Hamer, R. J., & Bruch, M. A. (1997). Personality factors and inhibited career development:Testing the unique contribution of shyness. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50, 382-400.

Harmon, L. W., Hansen, J. C., Borgen, F. H., & Hammer, A. L. (1994). Strong InterestInventory: Applications and technical guide. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

300

Holland, J. L. (1968). Exploration of a theory of vocational choice: VI. A longitudinalstudy using a sample of typical college students. Monograph Supplement. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 52, No. 1, Part 2.

Holland, J. L. (1973). Making vocational choices: A theory of careers. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice Hall.

Holland, J. L. (1985). Professional manual for the Self-Directed Search. Odessa, FL:Psychological Assessment Resources.

Holland, J. S. (1997). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities andwork environments (3rd ed.). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Krumboltz, J. D. (1988). Manual for the Career Beliefs Inventory. Palo Alto, CA: ConsultingPsychologists Press.

Lapan, R. T., Boggs, K. R., & Morrill, W. H. (1989). Self-efficacy as a mediator ofInvestigative and Realistic General Occupational Themes on the Strong Interest Inventory.Journal of Counseling Psychology, 36, 176-182.

Lapan, R. T., Shaughnessy, P., & Boggs, K. (1996). Efficacy expectations and vocationalinterests as mediators between sex and choice of math/science college majors: A longitudinalstudy. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 49, 277-291.

Leary, M. T. (1983). Social anxiousness: The construct and its measurement. Journal ofPersonality Assessment, 47, 66-75.

Leary, M. (1991). Social anxiety, shyness, and related constructs. In J. P. Robinson, P. R.Shaver, & L. W. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes(pp. 161-194). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Lenox, R., & Subich, L. (1994). The relationship between self-efficacy beliefs and inventoriedvocational interests. Career Development Quarterly, 42, 302-313.

Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Gore, P. A., Jr. (1997). Discriminant and predictive validityof academic self-concept, academic self-efficacy, and mathematics-specific self-efficacy.Journal of Counseling Psychology, 44, 307-315.

Lent, R. L., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (1994). Toward a unifying social cognitive theoryof career and academic interest choice and performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 45,79-122.

Lent. R. W., Brown, S. D., & Larkin, K. C. (1984). Relation of self-efficacy expectations toacademic achievement and persistence. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 31, 356-362.

Mahone, E. M., Bruch, M. A., & Heimberg, R. G. (1993). Focus of attention and socialanxiety: The role of negative self-thoughts and perceived positive attributes of the other.Cognitive Therapy and Research, 17(3), 209-224.

Niles, S. G., & Sowa, C. J. (1992). Mapping the nomological network of career self-efficacy.Career Development Quarterly, 41, 13-21.

Nunnally, J., & Bernstein, I. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.

O’Brien, K. M. (1996). The influence of parental separation and parental attachment onthe career development of adolescent women. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 48, 257-274.

Osipow, S. H., & Temple, R. D. (1996). Development and use of the Task-SpecificOccupational Self-Efficacy Scale. Journal of Career Assessment, 4, 445-456.

Parsons, E., & Betz, N. (1998). Test-retest reliability and validity studies of the SkillsConfidence Inventory. Journal of Career Assessment, 6, 1-12.

Patterson, R. M., & O’Brien, K. M. (1997, August). An analysis of social self-efficacy incollege students: A test of theory and implications for counseling. Paper presented at the105th annual convention of the American Psychological Association, Chicago.

Phillips, S. D., & Bruch, M. A. (1988). Shyness and dysfunction in career development.Journal of Counseling Psychology, 35, 159-165.

Riggio, R. E. (1989). Manual for the Social Skills Inventory. Palo Alto, CA: ConsultingPsychologists Press.

Rooney, R. A., & Osipow, S. H. (1992). Task-Specific Occupational Self-Efficacy Scale:The development and validation of a prototype. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 40, 14-32.

Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: PrincetonUniversity Press.

301

Rotenberg, K. M., & Morrison, J. (1993). Loneliness and college achievement: Do lonelinessscale scores predict college drop-out? Psychological Reports, 73, 1283-1288.

Sherer, M., & Adams, C. (1983). Construct validation of the Self-Efficacy Scale. PsychologicalReports, 53, 899-902.

Sherer, M., Maddux, J. E., Mercadante, B., Prentice-Dunn, S., Jacobs, B., & Rogers, R. W.(1982). The Self-Efficacy Scale: Construction and validation. Psychological Reports, 51,663-671.

Solberg, V. S., Good, G. E., Nord, D., Holm, C., Hohner, R., Zima, N., Heffernan, M., &

Malen, A. (1994). Assessing career search expectations: Development and validation of theCareer Search Efficacy Scale. Journal of Career Assessment, 2, 111-124.

Spector, P. E. (1992). Summated rating scale construction. New York: Appleton CenturyCrofts.

Temple, R. D., & Osipow, S. H. (1994). The relationship between task-specific self-efficacy,egalitarianism, and career indecision for females. Journal of Career Assessment, 2, 448-455.

Tuck, B., Rolfe, J., & Adair, U. (1995). Career indecision and self-efficacy among adolescents.Australian Journal of Career Development, 4, 60-63.

Zimbardo, P. G. (1977). Shyness: What it is; what to do about it. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.