Download - A Meta-Analytic Investigation of the Within-Person Self-Efficacy Domain: Is Self-Efficacy a Product of Past Performance or a Driver of Future Performance?

PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY2013, 66, 531–568

A META-ANALYTIC INVESTIGATION OF THEWITHIN-PERSON SELF-EFFICACY DOMAIN:IS SELF-EFFICACY A PRODUCT OF PASTPERFORMANCE OR A DRIVER OF FUTUREPERFORMANCE?

TRACI SITZMANNUniversity of Colorado Denver

GILLIAN YEOUniversity of Western Australia

We conducted a meta-analysis to determine whether the within-personself-efficacy/performance relationship is positive, negative, or nulland to compare the strength of the self-efficacy/performance andpast performance/self-efficacy within-person relationships. The self-efficacy/performance within-person corrected correlation was .23 butwas weak and nonsignificant (ρ = .06) when controlling for the lin-ear trajectory, revealing that the main effect was spurious. The pastperformance/self-efficacy within-person corrected correlation was .40and remained positive and significant (ρ = .30) when controlling forthe linear trajectory. The moderator results revealed that at the within-person level of analysis: (a) self-efficacy had at best a moderate, positiveeffect on performance and a null effect under other moderating condi-tions (ρ ranged from –.02 to .33); (b) the main effect of past performanceon self-efficacy was stronger than the effect of self-efficacy on perfor-mance, even in the moderating conditions that produced the strongestself-efficacy/performance relationship; (c) the effect of past performanceon self-efficacy ranged from moderate to strong across moderating con-ditions and was statistically significant across performance tasks, con-textual factors, and methodological moderators (ρ ranged from .18 to.52). Overall, this suggests that self-efficacy is primarily a product of pastperformance rather than the driving force affecting future performance.

Since its inception 35 years ago, self-efficacy has become the mostfrequently studied construct in the self-regulation domain (Vancouver &Day, 2005). Self-efficacy is defined as people’s beliefs regarding theircapability to succeed and attain a given level of performance (Bandura,

We sincerely thank the researchers that contributed data to this meta-analysis. This workwas supported by Australian Research Council grants DP0984782 (Chief InvestigatorsGillian Yeo and Shayne Loft) and DP120100852 (Chief Investigators Andrew Neal, GillianYeo, and Hannes Zacher).

Correspondence and requests for reprints should be addressed to Traci Sitzmann, Univer-sity of Colorado Denver, 3920 Perry St., Denver, CO 80212; [email protected].

C© 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. doi: 10.1111/peps.12035

531

532 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

1977).This construct was derived from self-efficacy theory, which pro-poses that self-efficacy enhances performance via increasing the diffi-culty of self-set goals, escalating the level of effort that is expended,and strengthening persistence (Bandura, 1977, 2012; Bandura & Locke,2003). Providing support for this notion, the overwhelming majority ofresearch has found positive relationships between self-efficacy and per-formance. Self-efficacy has been shown to increase performance by 28%,which is a stronger effect than goal setting, feedback interventions, or be-havior modifications (Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998). In addition, more than93% of studies have found positive correlations between self-efficacy andperformance at the between-persons level of analysis (Sitzmann & Ely,2011; Stajkovic & Lee, 2001).

Yet, the last decade of research has called into question two core con-clusions regarding the legacy that self-efficacy has a strong, positive effecton performance. The first question relates to the direction of this effect. Incontrast to self-efficacy theory, control theory suggests that self-efficacy’seffect on performance could be positive, negative, or null depending onthe way in which self-efficacy beliefs exert their effects (Powers, 1991).The second question relates to the direction of causality and whether self-efficacy is a driver of future performance or a product of past performance.Empirical evidence suggests that the positive relationship observed at thebetween-persons level of analysis is driven by the effect of past perfor-mance on self-efficacy rather than vice versa (Beattie, Lief, Adamoulas,& Oliver, 2011; Vancouver, Thompson, & Williams, 2001). Thus, the al-most unwavering belief that self-efficacy enhances performance may bein jeopardy.

We seek to answer these questions by conducting the first meta-analysis of the self-efficacy domain at the within-person level of analysis.Control theory’s core arguments relate to how confidence and performanceevolve over time, which requires an examination of dynamic, within-person processes (Powers, 1991; Vancouver et al., 2001). Further, althoughbetween-persons research is valuable for determining whether people whohave high self-efficacy outperform those with low self-efficacy, it can-not address the direction of causality between reciprocally related con-structs. Thus, we obtained data from 38 within-person self-efficacy studiesto meta-analyze the within-person relationships among self-efficacy andperformance as well as past performance and self-efficacy to assess thedirection and magnitude of these effects.

Another unique contribution of this meta-analysis is that we investi-gate the role of covariates in contributing to varied conclusions acrossprimary studies. In the self-efficacy domain, there has been little dis-cussion regarding what covariates to use, when to use them, and why;yet, it is impossible to compare results across studies without running

SITZMANN AND YEO 533

comparable analyses. Moreover, both self-efficacy and control theoriesacknowledge that the self-efficacy/performance relationship is affectedby contextual factors (Bandura, 1997, 2012; Vancouver, 2005, 2012), andbetween-persons designs preclude examining whether moderators affectthe self-efficacy/performance or past performance/self-efficacy relation-ships. We draw on arguments from this literature to examine the impactof five moderators representing the performance task, contextual factors,and methodological variables.

In the following sections, we review key propositions from self-efficacy and control theories regarding the relationships between self-efficacy and performance as well as past performance and self-efficacy.We then discuss the effects of covariates and moderators on theserelationships.

Self-Efficacy and Performance

Is the Self-Efficacy/Performance Relationship Positive, Negative, or Null?

Self-efficacy and control theories both acknowledge that discrepancycreation (positive feedback loops) and discrepancy reduction (negativefeedback loops) play a role in motivation (Bandura, 1991; Phillips,Hollenbeck, & Ilgen, 1996; Scherbaum & Vancouver, 2010), althoughthe emphasis placed on these two processes differs across theories. Dis-crepancy creation involves setting goals that are higher than peoples’ pre-vious best performance, whereas discrepancy reduction involves strivingto eliminate goal-performance discrepancies (Phillips et al., 1996).

Self-efficacy theory focuses on continuous improvement through dis-crepancy creation (Bandura, 1977, 1991, 1997). People with high self-efficacy are presumed to set higher goals and outperform those with lowself-efficacy. Discrepancies are created via goal setting, but discrepancyreduction is also required as one exerts effort to achieve goal mastery(Bandura & Locke, 2003). Consistent with its focus on discrepancy cre-ation, self-efficacy theory generally predicts a strong, positive effect ofself-efficacy on performance.

Control theory emphasizes the role of discrepancy reduction in regu-lating goal progress (Carver & Scheier, 1981, 1990, 2000; Powers, 1978;Vancouver, 2005). The optimistic belief that behavior is effective (i.e.,high self-efficacy) results in the current state being perceived as closer tothe goal and less effort being exerted toward goal accomplishment thanwhen self-efficacy is low (Powers, 1973; Vancouver & Kendall, 2011).This process could produce a null or negative effect of self-efficacy onperformance, such as when self-efficacy beliefs are inflated relative to


actual performance levels or performance levels are ambiguous.1 Controltheory also acknowledges that goals operate within a hierarchical system,such that people engage in discrepancy creation for lower level goals toattain higher level goals (Carver & Scheier, 1981, 2000; Phillips et al.,1996; Scherbaum & Vancouver, 2010).

To understand the conditions under which self-efficacy produces pos-itive, negative, or null effects on performance, the relationship should beexamined at the within-person level of analysis (Powers, 1991; Vancouveret al., 2001). Theoretically, self-regulation is a within-person process thatevolves over time as people establish goals, assess their confidence forachieving their goals, exert effort, and subsequently modify their regu-latory processes (Carver & Scheier, 2000; Kanfer & Ackerman, 1989;Sitzmann & Ely, 2011). Furthermore, control theory’s explanation for thevaried effects of self-efficacy are produced by dynamic, within-personprocesses—they concern how fluctuations in self-efficacy within an in-dividual relate to fluctuations in performance (Powers, 1991; Vancouveret al., 2001).

In 2001, Vancouver and colleagues demonstrated a negative effect ofself-efficacy on performance in a context in which the constructs fluctuatedover time within-individuals and performance levels were ambiguous.This sparked a flurry of studies examining the within-person relationshipbetween self-efficacy and performance (e.g., Feltz, Chow, & Hepler, 2008;Richard, Diefendorff, & Martin, 2006; Schmidt & DeShon, 2010; Seo &Ilies, 2009; Vancouver, Thompson, Tischner, & Putka, 2002; Vancouver& Kendall, 2011; Yeo & Neal, 2006). Consistent with the notion thatthe self-efficacy/performance relationship may not be uniformly positive,these studies demonstrated a mix of positive, negative, and null effects.

What Is the Direction of Causality Between Self-Efficacy and Performance?

Consideration of within-person self-efficacy/performance relation-ships raises the issue of reciprocal effects—past performance can affectself-efficacy, which, in turn, can affect subsequent performance. Self-efficacy and control theories agree that past performance has a positive ef-fect on self-efficacy. Past performance is positively related to self-efficacybecause information regarding how one performed in the past can be usedto judge one’s capacity to succeed in the future (Ackerman, Kanfer, &Goff, 1995; Bandura, 1997; Kozlowski et al., 2001; Mitchell, Hopper,

1Note that this negative effect is expected to occur within a goal level; that is, duringthe goal striving phase when discrepancy reduction processes are active. When goal settingprocesses are active, self-efficacy is expected to have a positive effect on goal level andperformance as a function of discrepancy creation (Vancouver, More, & Yoder, 2008).


Daniels, George-Falvy, & James, 1994). When people initially approacha complex, novel task, they reflect on their past performance in similarsituations when judging their self-efficacy (Bandura, 1991, 1997; Wood &Bandura, 1989). In addition, feedback on past performance is comparedto one’s goal level to assess goal–performance discrepancies (Carver &Scheier, 2000). High performance suggests that goal–performance dis-crepancies are small, increasing confidence in goal attainment.

Most research on the self-efficacy/performance relationship has beenconducted at the between-persons level of analysis, and between-personsdesigns cannot distinguish between the effects of self-efficacy on per-formance versus past performance on self-efficacy. As such, the strong,positive, between-persons self-efficacy/performance relationship may bea product of the positive effect of past performance on self-efficacy(Vancouver et al., 2001). Within-person designs are essential for dis-entangling the relative magnitude of reciprocal relationships.

Four within-person studies have examined these reciprocal relation-ships. Vancouver and colleagues (2001) conducted two studies and foundpast performance had a strong, positive effect on self-efficacy, whereasself-efficacy had a weak, negative effect on performance. Similarly, acrosstwo within-person studies, Beattie and colleagues (2011) found past per-formance had a strong, positive effect on self-efficacy and accounted forup to 49% of the variance in self-efficacy. Self-efficacy, in turn, had aweak, negative effect on performance and explained up to 3% of thevariance in performance. In combination, the evidence presented in thissection supports the notion that self-efficacy may primarily be a productof past performance rather than a mobilizer of future performance.

Relative Magnitude of Within- and Between-Persons Effects

Since 2001, researchers have examined the effect of self-efficacy onperformance and vice versa (albeit to a lesser extent) at the within-personlevel of analysis across a variety of performance domains.2 Table 1 reportsthe studies included in the meta-analysis, study information, and bothbetween- and within-person correlations. We do not propose a main effecthypothesis for the direction of the self-efficacy/performance within-personrelationship due to contrasting theoretical arguments and mixed empiricalresults. However, the between-persons and past performance/self-efficacy

2Although some studies conducted prior to 2001 collected repeated measurements ofself-efficacy and performance (e.g., Bandura & Jourden, 1991; Bandura & Wood, 1989), therelationship between self-efficacy and performance was examined at the between-personslevel of analysis. These studies were not included in the meta-analysis because we wereunable to obtain access to the data or within-person correlation matrices.

536 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGYTA

BL

E1

Stud

ies

Incl

uded

inth

eM

eta-

Ana

lysi

sW

ith

Stud

yIn

form

atio

nan

dE

ffect

Size

sfo

rth

eW

ithi

n-an

dB

etw

een-

Pers

ons

Self

-Effi

cacy

/Per

form

ance

Rel

atio

nshi

p

Rep

ort

SE/

NSE

/Per

f,w

/in-

Perf

posi

tive,

(par

ticip

ants

PP/S

E,

Self

-pe

rson

nega

tive,

Perf

orm

ance

×re

peat

ed)

betw

een-

Goa

lPe

rfef

ficac

yL

abor

Publ

icat

ion

Stud

ySE

/Per

f?or

null?

mea

sure

mea

sure

s)pe

rson

sr

setti

ngtr

end

scal

efie

ldst

atus

Bau

eret

al.(

2011

)N

ore

port

NA

Inte

llige

nce

colle

cted

invi

deog

ame

1,13

7.1

3,.3

4,.4

0Y

es.5

9*L

iker

tL

abU

npub

Bea

ttie

etal

.(20

01)

Stud

y1

Yes

Nul

lPPG

olf

putti

ng40

8.0

2,.5

9,.8

1Y

es.1

6*U

nipo

lar

Fiel

dPu

b

Bea

ttie

etal

.(20

01)

Stud

y2

Yes

Nul

lPPG

olf

putti

ng50

4.0

6,.6

3,.7

3Y

es.2

6*U

nipo

lar

Fiel

dPu

b

Bec

k&

Schm

idt(

2010

)N

ore

port

NA

Fire

fight

ing

sim

ulat

ion

poin

ts17

6−.

23,.

51,.

69Y

es−.

49*

Uni

pola

rL

abU

npub

Bec

k&

Schm

idt

(201

2b)

Stud

y1

Yes

Eff

ecti

sno

nlin

ear

Stoc

kpr

edic

tion

scor

es85

0.0

2,.3

7,.3

8Y

es−.

28*

Uni

pola

rL

abPu

b

Bec

k&

Schm

idt

(201

2b)

Stud

y2

Yes

Posi

tive

orne

gativ

e,de

pend

ing

ongo

aldi

fficu

lty

Stoc

kpr

edic

tion

scor

es51

6−.

08,.

37,.

40Y

es.0

4U

nipo

lar

Lab

Pub

Bec

k&

Schm

idt

(201

2a)

No

NA

Exa

ms

ina

stat

istic

scl

ass

283

−.07

,.12

,.44

Yes

−.37

*U

nipo

lar

Fiel

dPu

b

Dan

iels

etal

.(20

10)

No

repo

rtN

AE

xam

sin

ast

atis

tics

clas

s35

4.1

6,†,

.39

Yes

−.71

*U

nipo

lar

Fiel

dU

npub

Day

etal

.(20

07)

No

NA

Spac

eFo

rtre

sssc

ores

465

†,.6

9,.5

9N

o.8

8*L

iker

tL

abPu

bD

eSho

net

al.(

2004

)N

oN

ATA

ND

EM

perf

orm

ance

687

.36,†,

.33

Yes

.48*

Lik

ert

Lab

Pub

Feltz

etal

.(20

08)

No

NA

Bac

kdi

vepe

rfor

man

ce32

0.5

2,.6

2,.8

2N

o.6

0*L

iker

tFi

eld

Pub

Gils

onet

al.(

2012

)Y

esPo

sitiv

eLT,P

PW

eigh

tath

lete

sco

uld

squa

t34

5.0

8,−.

12,−

.03

No

.40*

Uni

pola

rFi

eld

Pub

Heg

gest

ad&

Kan

fer

(200

5)N

oN

ASt

imul

usw

ord

pair

reac

tion

time

1,11

0.4

5,.5

7,.6

5N

o.7

8*U

nipo

lar

Lab

Pub

Hep

ler

&Fe

ltz(2

012)

No

NA

Bas

ebal

ldec

isio

nm

akin

g65

0−.

04,−

.06,

−.10

No

−.01

Uni

pola

rL

abPu

b

cont

inue

d


TAB

LE

1(c

ontin

ued) R

epor

tSE

/N

SE/P

erf,

w/in

-Pe

rfpo

sitiv

e,(p

artic

ipan

tsPP

/SE

,Se

lf-

pers

onne

gativ

e,Pe

rfor

man

ce×

repe

ated

)be

twee

n-G

oal

Perf

effic

acy

Lab

orPu

blic

atio

nSt

udy

SE/P

erf?

ornu

ll?m

easu

rem

easu

res)

pers

ons

rse

tting

tren

dsc

ale

field

stat

us

Jund

t(20

09)

No

NA

TAN

DE

Mpe

rfor

man

ce3,

372

.21,

.35,

.32

No

.37*

Lik

ert

Lab

Unp

ubM

cLea

n&

Yeo

(200

6)N

oN

AA

irtr

affic

cont

rold

ecis

ion

poin

ts2,

813

.42,

.63,

.74

Yes

.50*

Uni

pola

rL

abU

npub

Nea

l&Y

eo(2

003)

Stud

y1

Yes

Neg

ativ

eLT,P

PA

irtr

affic

cont

rolp

enal

typo

ints

(rev

erse

scor

ed)

355

−.23

,.29

,−.1

1N

o.3

3*U

nipo

lar

Lab

Unp

ub

Ric

hard

etal

.(20

06)

Stud

y1

Yes

Nul

lLTE

xam

sin

ast

atis

tics

clas

s34

4.1

0,.3

8,.4

9N

o−.

26*

Uni

pola

rFi

eld

Pub

Ric

hard

etal

.(20

06)

Stud

y2

Yes

Nul

lLTor

Posi

tive

Che

mic

alre

acto

rsi

mul

atio

nsc

ores

1,03

6.3

1,.2

0,.1

7N

o.5

9*L

iker

tL

abPu

b

Schm

idt&

DeS

hon

(200

9)Y

esN

egat

ivePP

Mas

term

ind

scor

es59

0−.

09,.

37,.

55N

o.0

7U

nipo

lar

Lab

Pub

Schm

idt&

DeS

hon

(201

0)Y

esN

ullLT

Ana

gram

scor

es28

5−.

26,.

34,.

47Y

es.2

7*U

nipo

lar

Lab

Pub

Seo

&Il

ies

(200

9)Y

esPo

sitiv

eLT,P

PSt

ock

mar

kets

imul

atio

nsc

ores

1,87

0.5

6,.5

0,.6

1Y

es.0

7*U

nipo

lar

Fiel

dPu

b

Sitz

man

n(2

012)

No

NA

Exa

ms

ina

Mic

roso

ftE

xcel

clas

s82

8.2

7,.0

7,.3

1N

o−.

40*

Lik

ert

Fiel

dPu

b

Sitz

man

n&

Ely

(201

0)N

oN

AE

xam

sin

aM

icro

soft

Exc

elcl

ass

776

.36,

.07,

.25

No

−.31

*L

iker

tFi

eld

Pub

Sitz

man

n&

John

son

(201

1)N

oN

AE

xam

sin

aM

icro

soft

Exc

elcl

ass

2,39

2.1

2,.0

8,.2

4N

o−.

15*

Lik

ert

Fiel

dU

npub

Sitz

man

n&

John

son

(201

2)N

oN

AE

xam

sin

aM

icro

soft

Exc

elcl

ass

862

.24,

.10,

.36

No

−.18

*L

iker

tL

abU

npub

Van

couv

er&

Ken

dall

(201

1)Y

esN

ullLT

orN

egat

iveLT

Exa

ms

inan

indu

stri

al-

orga

niza

tiona

lps

ycho

logy

clas

s

296

−.15

,.27

,.54

Yes

.30*

Uni

pola

rFi

eld

Pub

cont

inue

d


BL

E1

(con

tinue

d)

Rep

ort

SE/

NSE

/Per

f,w

/in-

Perf

posi

tive,

(par

ticip

ants

PP/S

E,

Self

-pe

rson

nega

tive,

Perf

orm

ance

×re

peat

ed)

betw

een-

Goa

lPe

rfef

ficac

yL

abor

Publ

icat

ion

Stud

ySE

/Per

f?or

null?

mea

sure

mea

sure

s)pe

rson

sr

setti

ngtr

end

scal

efie

ldst

atus

Van

couv

eret

al.(

2001

)St

udy

1Y

esN

egat

ive

Mas

term

ind

scor

es44

8−.

16,.

34,.

51Y

es.0

4L

iker

t&U

nipo

lar

Lab

Pub

Van

couv

eret

al.(

2001

)St

udy

2Y

esN

egat

ive

Mas

term

ind

scor

es1,

118

.33,

.09,

.62

No

.00

Lik

ert&

Uni

pola

rL

abPu

bV

anco

uver

etal

.(20

02)

Stud

y1

Yes

Neg

ativ

eM

aste

rmin

dsc

ores

579

−.12

,.19

,.47

No

.01

Lik

ert&

Uni

pola

rL

abPu

bV

anco

uver

etal

.(20

02)

Stud

y2

Yes

Neg

ativ

eM

aste

rmin

dsc

ores

965

−.18

,.39

,.51

No

−.02

Lik

ert&

Uni

pola

rL

abPu

bV

anco

uver

etal

.(20

06)

Stud

y1

Yes

Neg

ativ

eLT,P

PPr

oofr

eadi

ngsc

ores

248

.58,

.14,

.57

No

.20*

Uni

pola

rL

abU

npub

Van

couv

eret

al.(

2006

)St

udy

2Y

esN

ullLT

,PP

Ana

gram

scor

es1,

133

.04,

.30,

.75

No

−.09

*U

nipo

lar

Lab

Unp

ubY

eo&

Fred

erik

s(2

011)

Stud

y3

Yes

Neg

ativ

eLT,P

PA

irtr

affic

cont

rolp

enal

typo

ints

(rev

erse

scor

ed)

756

−.06

,.34

,.34

Yes

.03

Uni

pola

rL

abPu

b

Yeo

&N

eal(

2004

)N

oN

AA

irtr

affic

cont

rold

ecis

ion

poin

ts2,

970

.42,

.61,

.75

No

.54*

Uni

pola

rL

abPu

b

Yeo

&N

eal(

2006

)Y

esN

egat

iveLT

,PP

Air

traf

ficco

ntro

ldec

isio

npo

ints

2,69

7.3

8,.6

0,.7

7N

o.4

9*U

nipo

lar

Lab

Pub

Yeo

&N

eal(

2008

)St

udy

1N

oN

AA

irtr

affic

cont

rolp

enal

typo

ints

(rev

erse

scor

ed)

450

−.11

,.28

,−.0

6N

o.1

5*U

nipo

lar

Lab

Pub

Yeo

etal

.(20

09)

Stud

y2

No

NA

Exa

ms

inan

orga

niza

tiona

lbe

havi

orcl

ass

347

−.17

,−.0

3,.3

7N

o−.

62*

Uni

pola

rFi

eld

Pub

Not

e.SE

=se

lf-e

ffica

cy;P

erf=

perf

orm

ance

;PP

=pa

stpe

rfor

man

ce;N

A=

nota

pplic

able

;Pub

=pu

blis

hed;

Unp

ub=

unpu

blis

hed.

Rep

ortw

/in-

pers

onSE

/Per

f?in

dica

tes

whe

ther

the

repo

rtin

clud

esin

form

atio

non

the

with

in-p

erso

nse

lf-e

ffica

cy/p

erfo

rman

cere

latio

nshi

p.SE

/Per

fpo

siti

ve,n

egat

ive,

ornu

ll?

indi

cate

sw

heth

erth

ere

port

conc

lude

sth

ese

lf-e

ffica

cy/p

erfo

rman

cew

ithin

-per

son

rela

tions

hip

ispo

sitiv

e,ne

gativ

e,or

null.

SE/P

erf,

PP

/SE

,be

twee

n-pe

rson

sr

indi

cate

sth

ew

ithin

-per

son

self

-effi

cacy

/per

form

ance

and

past

perf

orm

ance

/sel

f-ef

ficac

yco

rrel

atio

nsas

wel

las

the

betw

een-

pers

ons

corr

elat

ion

with

outc

ovar

iate

sin

the

anal

ysis

.LT

indi

cate

sth

est

udy

cont

rolle

dfo

rth

elin

ear

traj

ecto

ry.

PPin

dica

tes

the

stud

yco

ntro

lled

for

past

perf

orm

ance

.†i

ndic

ates

ther

ew

ere

insu

ffici

entd

ata

toei

ther

exam

ine

the

with

in-p

erso

nef

fect

ofse

lf-e

ffica

cyon

perf

orm

ance

orpa

stpe

rfor

man

ceon

self

-effi

cacy

.*p

<.0

5.


within-person correlations should be comparatively strong and positiverelative to the self-efficacy/performance within-person correlation.

Hypothesis 1: The self-efficacy/performance relationship is morepositive at the between-persons level of analysis thanat the within-person level of analysis.

Hypothesis 2: Past performance has a more positive within-personeffect on self-efficacy than self-efficacy has on per-formance.

Controlling for the Linear Trajectory and Past Performance/PastSelf-Efficacy

The linear trajectory and lagged dependent variable are critical co-variates in repeated measures designs. However, primary studies differregarding which (if any) covariates are included in the analyses (seeTable 1), which may in part explain why they reached different conclu-sions regarding within-person self-efficacy effects. A primary contribu-tion of this meta-analysis is we examine whether within-person reciprocalrelationships between self-efficacy and performance are affected by co-variates and provide recommendations to ensure consistency in this lineof research. In the following sections, we clarify why the linear trajectoryand past performance/past self-efficacy should be included as covariatesand provide an overview of the debate regarding whether self-efficacyshould be residualized from past performance.

Linear trajectory. Linear trajectory is called different things acrossstudies, including exam order (Vancouver & Kendall, 2011), trial (Seo &Ilies, 2009), and training module (Sitzmann, Ely, Bell, & Bauer, 2010).For example, Yeo and Neal (2006) controlled for practice, which wascoded 0, 1, 2 . . . 28, 29 to represent the order of the 30 practice trials.Regardless of the title applied, linear trajectory is operationalized as theorder of the repeated measurements.

Statisticians Singer and Willett (2003) suggest that the linear trajectoryis the single most important predictor in repeated measures analyses andshould be included as a predictor in every study of change. Yet, in the self-regulation domain there has been a surge of within-person research withlittle discussion of whether or why it is necessary to control for the lineartrajectory. Controlling for the linear trajectory is important for within-person self-efficacy research because studies often focus on contexts inwhich self-efficacy and performance increase (e.g., skill acquisition tasks)or decline (e.g., tasks that get progressively difficult) across trials. Whenboth constructs trend in the same direction, they share variance as a


function of the linear trajectory that is independent of any true overlapbetween the constructs. If the shared overlap with the linear trajectory isstrong and the true overlap between the constructs is weak, omitting thelinear trajectory can result in a spurious relationship, such that the strengthand/or direction of the effect differs depending on whether the analysisaccounts for this covariate.

For example, consider a pharmaceutical salesperson that recently grad-uated from college. Being new to the job, her performance and self-efficacystart low but both tend to increase each day. Her performance improvesdue to increases in sales skills and product knowledge, whereas her self-efficacy improves as she experiences success in attaining sales targets.Although there is a strong linear trajectory for both self-efficacy and per-formance, these positive correlations will not be perfect; both constructsfluctuate up and down along the trajectory (Figures 1a and 1b). Devia-tions from the trajectory represent variance in the dependent variable thatremains after accounting for the trajectory. Therefore, it is possible forself-efficacy to explain variance in performance (and vice versa), aftercontrolling for the linear trajectory.

In some cases, the self-efficacy/performance within-person relation-ship may be negative; the salesperson may lower her work-related effortto pursue leisurely interests on days that her sales self-efficacy is high,resulting in a small decline in performance. If the linear trajectory is omit-ted as a covariate, the weak negative self-efficacy/performance correlationwill be obscured by the strong positive linear trajectories, resulting in theappearance of a positive within-person relationship (Figure 1c). Plottingself-efficacy and performance after removing variance due to the lineartrajectory reveals a negative within-person correlation (Figure 1d). Basedon the preceding arguments, we predict that the within-person correlationsinvolving self-efficacy and performance will be reduced when controllingfor the linear trajectory.

Past performance and past self-efficacy. To disentangle the self-efficacy–performance and past performance/self-efficacy relationships, itis critical to control for the lagged dependent variable (Beattie et al., 2011;Vancouver et al., 2001). Past behavior is one of the strongest predictorsof future behavior (Ouellette & Wood, 1998). Behavior perpetuates itselfthrough habit formation, behavioral intentions, and automatized routineswhen the behavior is well learned (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975; Ouellette &Wood, 1998; Schneider, & Shiffrin, 1977; Shiffrin & Schneider, 1977).Even when people engage in novel acts, performance remains relativelyconstant due to a multitude of factors (e.g., cognitive ability, motiva-tion) that generate behavioral consistency (Ouellette & Wood, 1998;Seo & Ilies, 2009). If past performance is omitted as a covariate, theself-efficacy/performance relationship may be artificially inflated because


Sel

f-E

ffic

acy

Per

form

ance

Per

form

ance

Dev

iati

ons

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9Trial Number or Linear Trajectory

1a—Self-efficacy trajectory 1b—Performance trajectory

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9Trial Number or Linear Trajectory

1c—Self-efficacy/performance within-person correlation without controlling for the linear trajectory

Self-Efficacy

1d—Self-efficacy/performance within-person correlation controlling for the linear trajectory(data points represent deviations from the trajectory)

0Self-Efficacy Deviations

r = .63 r = .82

r = .48 r = –.07

Per

form

ance

0

Regression line

Progression of self-efficacy and performance across the 10 repeated measurements

Figure 1: The Self-Efficacy/Performance Within-Person Relationship WithPositive Linear Trajectories and a Negative Within-Person

Self-Efficacy/Performance Relationship.Note. Figure 1d represents the relationship between self-efficacy and performance afterremoving variance due to the linear trajectory by plotting the two variables as deviation(i.e., residual) scores from their respective trajectory regression lines. For example,consider the data point for trial number 9 in Figures 1a and 1b. The data point falls abovethe trajectory for self-efficacy (Figure 1a) and slightly below the trajectory forperformance (Figure 1b). In Figure 1d, this data point represents a self-efficacy deviationof .76 and a performance deviation of –.09 so it falls to the right and slightly below thecenter of the figure. Plotting the deviation scores reveals that an increase in self-efficacyfrom one trial to the next was occasionally associated with a decrease in performance,despite the fact that both constructs generally increased across trials.

variance due to past performance will be attributed to self-efficacy (Seo& Ilies, 2009).

Similarly, self-efficacy has been viewed as both a trait and state con-struct because it displays some consistency across situations as well as


variability over time (Bandura, 2012). Thus, past self-efficacy can be astrong predictor of future self-efficacy, and we must control for past self-efficacy to observe the independent relationship between past performanceand self-efficacy. After adding the lagged dependent variable as a covari-ate, within-person self-efficacy relationships should be reduced relative tothe main effects.

Past performance with self-efficacy residualized. Researchers have de-bated the optimal strategy for determining the unique effect of self-efficacyon performance (Heggestad & Kanfer, 2005). Bandura and Locke (2003)argued that it is inappropriate to control for raw past performance. Pastperformance is partially determined by self-efficacy, reducing the variancethat will be attributed to self-efficacy when self-efficacy and past perfor-mance are included as simultaneous predictors of performance. To avoidthis overcorrection, Wood and Bandura (1989) suggested that self-efficacyshould be residualized from past performance to remove the variancein past performance that was caused by self-efficacy. Researchers havefound that, relative to raw past performance, controlling for residualizedpast performance resulted in self-efficacy having a stronger effect on per-formance, although this research was conducted at the between-personslevel of analysis (Bandura & Jourden, 1991; Bandura & Wood, 1989; Feltzet al., 2008; Heggestad & Kanfer, 2005).

We examine the impact of controlling for the linear trajectory, past per-formance/past self-efficacy, and past performance with self-efficacy resid-ualized. A key contribution of this meta-analysis is it examines within-person reciprocal relationships after ruling out the possibility of spuriouseffects.

Hypotheses 3–5: Self-efficacy has a weaker within-person relation-ship with performance when the linear trajectory(Hypothesis 3), past performance (Hypothesis 4),or past performance with self-efficacy residualized(Hypothesis 5) is included as a covariate.

Hypothesis 6: The within-person relationship between self-efficacy and performance is weaker when control-ling for raw past performance than residualized pastperformance.

Hypotheses 7–8: Past performance has a weaker within-person rela-tionship with self-efficacy when the linear trajectory(Hypothesis 7) or past self-efficacy (Hypothesis 8)is included as a covariate.


Moderators

Control theory emphasizes the role of contextual factors in understand-ing when the self-efficacy/performance effect will be positive, negative, ornull (e.g., Vancouver et al., 2001), and self-efficacy theory acknowledgesthe possibility that boundary conditions affect this relationship (Bandura,1997, 2012). However, there has been little consideration of modera-tors of the past performance/self-efficacy relationship. Given the debateregarding the relative magnitude of these two effects and the fact thatbetween-persons research blurs the direction of causality, it is importantto consider moderators of the complete reciprocal relationship. We iden-tified five moderators that could be examined meta-analytically: goal set-ting, the performance trend, the self-efficacy response scale, the researchsetting, and publication status.

Goal setting. Goal setting is the crux of self-regulation (Locke &Latham, 2002) and is a central element of both control and self-efficacytheories (Bandura, 1986; Powers, 1973). Once a goal is either externallyor self-set, other regulatory processes—such as metacognition, attention,effort, and persistence—focus on ensuring goal attainment (Sitzmann &Ely, 2011). According to Bandura (2012), self-efficacy results are unin-terpretable unless people have goals because control theory requires goalsas a comparator to interpret performance feedback.

When examining goal setting as a moderator, we hypothesize thatthe self-efficacy/performance and past performance/self-efficacy relation-ships will both be stronger when people have goals. Goals clarify the per-formance standard people are striving to achieve and render self-efficacyjudgments and performance feedback meaningful for assessing goal at-tainment (Carver & Scheier, 2000). After setting goals, people rely ontheir self-efficacy to decide how much effort should be exerted to attaintheir goals (Bandura, 1989; Vancouver et al., 2001). Without a goal tostrive for, self-efficacy ratings are less useful because confidence in at-taining a standard is intricately related to the level one is striving to attain(Bandura, 2012). Moreover, goals serve as a reference value that peoplerely on to judge whether their past performance is greater or less than thedesired level (Powers, 1991) and are necessary for determining whetherperformance feedback is positive or negative (Bandura, 2012).

Hypothesis 9: Self-efficacy has a stronger within-person relation-ship with performance when goals are set than whengoals are not set.

Hypothesis 10: Past performance has a stronger within-person rela-tionship with self-efficacy when goals are set thanwhen goals are not set.


Performance trend. One of Bandura’s key criticisms of Vancouver andcolleagues’ (2001, 2002) initial demonstrations of negative within-personself-efficacy/performance effects relates to the performance task. He pro-posed that self-efficacy will only exert a beneficial effect on performanceif participants have the opportunity to master a skill and transfer thatskill across trials, permitting successive improvements in performance(Bandura, 2012; Bandura & Locke, 2003). Bandura and Locke (2003) ar-gued that the Mastermind task in Vancouver’s research is inappropriate forassessing self-efficacy’s effects because the activities are disconnected andhinder learning. They proposed that Mastermind is a guessing game with a50–50 chance of success. When participants correctly guessed the solutionto the game, they may have assumed they were becoming more skilled andraised their self-efficacy beliefs, only to have their self-assurance undercutbecause the task precluded skill acquisition (Bandura & Locke, 2003).

Bandura’s arguments may also apply to activities that are connectedand require consistent information processing. Heggestad and Kanfer(2005) found a nonsignificant effect of self-efficacy on performance andconcluded that the results may be due to performance stabilizing quickly.They speculated that self-efficacy may have emerged as a stronger predic-tor if the task was more difficult and had a more positive performance trend.

Neither control nor self-efficacy theories address how the performancetrend should affect the past performance/self-efficacy within-person re-lationship, but similar arguments should apply. Past performance shouldhave a stronger effect when participants improve their performance overtime because the cumulative experience of success should strengthenjudgments of the likelihood of succeeding in the future. Together, thesearguments suggest that within-person self-efficacy effects will be strongestin studies with a positive performance trend.

Hypothesis 11: Self-efficacy has a stronger within-person relation-ship with performance in studies with a more posi-tive performance trend.

Hypothesis 12: Past performance has a stronger within-person re-lationship with self-efficacy in studies with a morepositive performance trend.

Methodological moderators. One of the advantages of meta-analysesis they permit a comparison between studies that differ in methodologicalartifacts (Lipsey, 2003). Controlling for methodological artifacts enablesthe conclusion that observed differences in effect sizes are driven by thehypothesized moderators rather than factors spuriously correlated withthis relationship. Thus, we examined whether self-efficacy within-personrelationships were affected by three methodological moderators: whether


self-efficacy was assessed with a Likert or unipolar scale, whether theresearch was conducted in a laboratory or field setting, and publicationstatus.

Bandura (2012) proposed that self-efficacy should be measured witha unipolar scale ranging from no confidence to complete confidence.However, researchers often use Likert, bipolar anchors to measure self-efficacy, such as strongly disagree to strongly agree. Bandura suggests thatbipolar anchors are only appropriate for constructs that have positive andnegative valences, such as attitudes (e.g., dissatisfaction to satisfaction)and opinions (e.g., disagreement to agreement). When bipolar anchorsare used for self-efficacy, Bandura suggests that the scale midpoint (e.g.,neither agree nor disagree) implies a neutral level of self-efficacy, whichis inconsistent with the notion that people either have no confidence orsome confidence. Further, researchers often convert the bipolar anchors toa unipolar, ordinal scale (e.g., 1 through 5), which distorts the meaning ofthe measure because it construes the neutral midpoint as a moderate levelof self-efficacy.

Studies also differed in whether the research was conducted in a labo-ratory or field setting and in their publication status. The research settingmoderator examines whether results differ between laboratory studies,which afford control over factors that may bias the results, and field stud-ies, which sacrifice control for understanding how constructs are relatedin naturalistic settings. Finally, the publication status moderator exam-ines whether there is evidence of a file drawer problem in within-personself-efficacy research. That is, do published studies report effect sizes thatdiffer from unpublished studies?

Method

Literature Search and Meta-Analytic Sample

Several steps were taken to identify studies for the meta-analysis.First, we searched Sitzmann and Ely’s (2011) database for studies thatmeasured self-efficacy because this construct was included in their meta-analysis of the self-regulation domain. Second, studies cited in Bandura’s(2012) review of the self-efficacy literature were assessed for relevance.Third, we searched the references of studies included in this meta-analysisto identify other relevant studies. Fourth, we conducted literature searchesin PsycInfo and Digital Dissertations to locate studies that may havebeen missed in the previous search efforts. Finally, 142 practitioners andresearchers with expertise in self-efficacy were asked to provide leads onpublished or unpublished work. Studies were included in the meta-analysisif participants were nondisabled, normal functioning adults (i.e., not


coping with physical or mental health challenges) and self-efficacy andperformance were measured a minimum of three points in time.

Thirty-eight studies contributed data to the meta-analysis, including 28published and 10 unpublished studies reporting data gathered from 5,414people. On average, the reports included 8.3 repeated measurements ofself-efficacy and performance. Participants were college students in 32studies, employees in 4 studies, and adults learning nonwork related skillsin 2 studies.

Coding and Interrater Agreement

Five moderators were coded. Our first theoretical moderator is goalsetting. It represents whether (e.g., Schmidt & DeShon, 2010) or not (e.g.,Day et al., 2007) goals were set for the performance standard participantswere striving to achieve. Studies comprising the goal setting categoryincluded those in which goals were self-set by participants or set forparticipants by the researchers.

The second theoretical moderator is the performance trend, which isoperationalized as the correlation between the linear trajectory and perfor-mance. It was positive in studies where people were acquiring a skill (e.g.,air traffic control task; Yeo & Neal, 2006) or honing an already acquiredskill (e.g., squatting performance; Gilson et al., 2012). An example of anull trend is found in Vancouver et al.’s (2001, 2002) studies where partic-ipants played the game Mastermind, and an example of a negative trend isfound in Richard et al.’s (2006, Study 1) research in which undergraduatestook four exams during a one semester statistics course.

We also examined three methodological moderators. First, we com-pared studies where self-efficacy was assessed with a Likert, bipolar scalewith a neutral midpoint (e.g., Bauer, Orvis, Brusso, & Tekleab, 2011;Sitzmann, 2012) to those where the scale was unipolar and ranged fromno confidence to complete confidence (e.g., Heggestad & Kanfer, 2005;Seo & Ilies, 2009). Second, we compared laboratory and field studies.Third, we compared published and unpublished studies.

The two authors independently coded the moderators and their abso-lute agreement was 96%. They then discussed discrepancies and reacheda consensus.

Meta-Analytic Methods

Correlations were calculated using a person-period data set such thateach person had multiple rows of data—one for each repeated measure.


Next, the variables were person-mean centered (i.e., an individual’saverage score across all trials was subtracted from his or her score on eachtrial) and correlated. Person-mean centered within-person correlations ac-count for the interdependence of observations provided by participants andafford an unbiased estimate of the within-person association (Hofmann& Gavin, 1998; Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002; Snijders & Bosker, 1994).The individual study correlations were weighted by the sample size inthe person-period data set when computing the meta-analytic correlationbecause studies with larger sample sizes and more repeated measures aremore reliable (Willett, 1988).

The mean and variance of the correlations were corrected for samplingerror and the reliability of the self-efficacy measures using formulas fromHunter and Schmidt (2004). Forty-two percent of studies did not reportreliability coefficients for self-efficacy so artifact distribution correctionswere employed. When a study reported reliability coefficients for eachrepeated measure, the average reliability was included in the artifact dis-tribution. Range restriction estimates were unavailable so no attempt wasmade to correct for this bias.

A search for outliers was conducted using Huffcutt and Arthur’s (1995)sample-adjusted meta-analytic deviancy (SAMD) statistic. Based on theresults of these analyses and an inspection of studies, no studies warrantedexclusion from the meta-analysis.

The authors of the reports included in this meta-analysis provided rawdata for the covariate analysis. We used HLM software to remove variancein the self-efficacy and performance measures that overlapped with vari-ance in the linear trajectory, past performance/past self-efficacy, and/orpast performance with self-efficacy residualized (Raudenbush, Bryk, &Congdon, 2004). First, we created the past performance with self-efficacyresidualized variable by using the level-1 residual function in HLM toremove the variance in person-mean centered self-efficacy from past per-formance. Next, we used the residual function to create self-efficacy, pastperformance, and performance variables that excluded variance attributedto (a) linear trajectory; (b) past performance/past self-efficacy; (c) lineartrajectory and past performance/past self-efficacy; (d) past performanceresidualized; (e) linear trajectory and past performance residualized. Thelinear trajectory was coded 0, 1, 2 . . . such that the intercept representsscores on the first trial. Other predictors were person-mean centered. Ifa random effect was significant, we retained it in the analysis to ac-count for variability across people in the predictor’s effect. Further, threestudies (Daniels, Kain, Gillespie, & Schmidt, 2010; Day et al., 2007;DeShon, Kozlowski, Schmidt, Milner, & Weichmann, 2004) were ex-cluded from the past performance and/or past self-efficacy residualized


analyses because the constructs were measured three times, precluding ananalysis of time lagged effects.

We examined the independent effects of the moderators with Hunterand Schmidt’s (2004) subgroup analysis to determine the relative magni-tude of the self-efficacy/performance and past performance/self-efficacywithin-person relationships. Weighted least squares (WLS) regression wasalso used to examine the joint effects of the moderators on the mainand covariate effects, consistent with the recommendation of Steel andKammeyer-Mueller (2002). Correlations were weighted by the study sam-ple sizes, and statistical significance was interpreted at the .10 level due tothe directional nature of the hypotheses and the limited number of effectsizes. The performance trend was analyzed as a categorical moderator forthe subgroup analysis—comparing studies where the performance trendwas positive, negative, or null—and a continuous moderator for the WLSanalysis—the correlation between the linear trajectory/performance rela-tionship and either the self-efficacy/performance or past performance/self-efficacy within-person relationship. Categorical variables were dummycoded for the WLS analyses to compare Likert (1) and unipolar (0) scales,laboratory (1) and field (0) studies, published (1) and unpublished (0)studies, and studies where participants had goals (1) to those where par-ticipants did not have goals (0).

Results

Relative Magnitude of Within- and Between-Persons Effects

We began by testing the between- and within-person relationships(Table 2). The between-persons corrected correlation was .42 (k = 38,N = 5,414), revealing that individuals who reported high self-efficacyon average tended to perform better than their counterparts with low self-efficacy. This correlation as well as the corrected within-person correlationbetween past performance and self-efficacy (ρ = .40, k = 36, N = 30,733)were stronger than the within-person correlation between self-efficacy andperformance (ρ = .23, k = 37, N = 34,870). The within-person correla-tions indicate that as individuals increased their performance over time,there was a corresponding increase in self-efficacy, which, in turn, wasassociated with an increase in subsequent performance. The 95% confi-dence interval for the self-efficacy/performance within-person correlationdid not overlap with the confidence intervals for the between-persons orthe past performance/self-efficacy within-person correlations, suggestingthat the correlations are significantly different and supporting Hypotheses1 and 2.


TAB

LE

2M

eta-

Ana

lyti

cM

ain

Effe

cts

and

Mai

nE

ffect

sw

ith

Cov

aria

tes

95%

confi

denc

e80

%cr

edib

ility

Tota

lN

wei

ghte

dV

ar(e

)+

Pop.

%V

ardu

ek

Nm

ean

rρ

var

(a)

var

toar

tifac

tsL

LU

LL

LU

L

Self

-effi

cacy

/per

form

ance

3734

,870

.21

.23

.00

.05

2.12

.13

.30

−.07

.52

Past

perf

orm

ance

/sel

f-ef

ficac

y36

30,7

33.3

8.4

0.0

0.0

52.

24.3

1.4

6.1

2.6

9B

etw

een-

pers

ons

385,

414

.40

.42

.01

.04

11.7

8.3

2.4

8.1

5.6

9

Self

-effi

cacy

/per

form

ance

wit

hco

vari

ates

Lin

ear

traj

ecto

ry37

34,7

71.0

6.0

6.0

0.0

33.

57−.

01.1

2−.

17.2

9Pa

stpe

rfor

man

ce35

30,1

76.0

8.0

8.0

0.0

25.

75.0

2.1

4−.

10.2

7L

inea

rtr

ajec

tory

&pa

st35

30,1

76.0

1.0

1.0

0.0

25.

55−.

05.0

7−.

18.2

0pe

rfor

man

cePa

stpe

rfor

man

ce34

29,0

82.1

7.1

8.0

0.0

52.

40.0

9.2

5−.

11.4

7re

sidu

aliz

edL

inea

rtr

ajec

tory

&pa

st34

29,0

82.0

3.0

3.0

0.0

34.

46−.

04.1

0−.

18.2

5pe

rfor

man

cere

sidu

aliz

ed

Pas

tpe

rfor

man

ce/s

elf-

effic

acy

wit

hco

vari

ates

Lin

ear

traj

ecto

ry36

30,7

33.2

9.3

0.0

0.0

34.

08.2

2.3

5.0

9.5

2Pa

stse

lf-e

ffica

cy34

29,0

78.3

0.3

2.0

0.0

33.

52.2

4.3

7.0

9.5

5L

inea

rtr

ajec

tory

&pa

st34

29,0

78.3

0.3

2.0

0.0

34.

40.2

4.3

6.1

1.5

2se

lf-e

ffica

cy

Not

e.k

=th

enu

mbe

rof

stud

ies

incl

uded

inth

ean

alys

is;ρ

=m

ean

corr

ecte

dco

rrel

atio

n;V

ar(e

)+

Var

(a)=

sam

plin

ger

ror

vari

ance

plus

vari

ance

due

toun

relia

bilit

yin

self

-effi

cacy

mea

sure

s;L

L=

low

erlim

it;U

L=

uppe

rlim

it.


Controlling for the Linear Trajectory and Past Performance/PastSelf-Efficacy

Next we tested Hypotheses 3 through 6, which relate to the self-efficacy/performance relationship. Hypotheses 3 through 5 predict thatthis relationship is weaker, relative to the main effect, when controllingfor the linear trajectory (Hypothesis 3), past performance (Hypothesis4), or past performance residualized (Hypothesis 5). The meta-analyticcorrected correlations that accounted for covariates were .06 for thelinear trajectory, .08 for past performance, .01 for the linear trajectoryand past performance, .18 for past performance residualized, and .03for the linear trajectory and past performance residualized. SupportingHypothesis 3, controlling for the linear trajectory significantly reduced thewithin-person effect of self-efficacy on performance, relative to the maineffect, as suggested by nonoverlapping confidence intervals. Hypotheses4 and 5 were not supported. Controlling for raw or residualized pastperformance in isolation reduced the effect sizes relative to the maineffect, but the overlapping confidence intervals suggest that the reductionswere not statistically significant.

Hypothesis 6 predicts that the within-person self-efficacy/performancerelationship is weaker when controlling for raw than residualized pastperformance. The meta-analytic corrected correlation was .10 less whencontrolling for raw than residualized past performance (ρ = .08, .18, re-spectively). However, the overlapping confidence intervals suggest that thedifference is not statistically significant, failing to support the hypothesis.

We now turn to Hypotheses 7 and 8, which relate to the pastperformance/self-efficacy relationship. We predict that this relationshipis weaker, relative to the main effect, when controlling for the lineartrajectory (Hypothesis 7) or past self-efficacy (Hypothesis 8). The meta-analytic corrected correlations that accounted for covariates were .30 forthe linear trajectory, .32 for past self-efficacy, and .32 for the linear tra-jectory and past self-efficacy. These effect sizes are each weaker thanthe main effect, but the overlapping confidence intervals suggest that thedifference is not statistically significant, failing to support the hypotheses.

Moderator Analyses

Regardless of which covariates were included in the analyses, lessthan 6% of the variance in the within-person relationships were accountedfor by statistical artifacts, and the 80% credibility intervals were wide(ranging from .37 to .59). Together this suggests that there are likelymoderators of these relationships.


First, we used Hunter and Schmidt’s (2004) subgroup proce-dure to determine the magnitude of self-efficacy within-person re-lationships without accounting for covariates (Table 3). The self-efficacy/performance within-person relationship ranged from weak andnegative to moderate and positive across moderating conditions (ρ rangedfrom –.02 to .33). In contrast, the past-performance/self-efficacy within-person relationship was moderate to strong and positive across all moder-ating conditions (ρ ranged from .18 to .52). Moreover, the 95% confidenceinterval lower limit for the past performance/self-efficacy within-personrelationship was always greater than zero, suggesting that this relationshipwas statistically significant across all moderating conditions.

Second, we used WLS regression analysis to examine the joint effectof the moderators on self-efficacy within-person relationships with andwithout accounting for covariates in order to test the study hypotheses(Table 4). We will start with the three methodological moderators andthe self-efficacy/performance within-person relationship. At Step 1, themethodological moderators jointly accounted for between 0% and 20% ofthe variance. Field studies reported stronger effect sizes than laboratorystudies when both the linear trajectory and raw or residualized past per-formance were included as covariates (β = –.36, –.39, respectively, p <

.05). This was the only methodological moderator that had a significanteffect on this relationship.

For the past performance/self-efficacy within-person relationship, themethodological moderators jointly accounted for between 17% and 28%of the variance at Step 1. The type of self-efficacy scale had a significanteffect, regardless of which covariates were included in the analyses, suchthat past performance had a more positive effect when self-efficacy wasassessed with a unipolar than a Likert scale (β ranged from –.33 to –.45).In addition, laboratory studies reported stronger effect sizes than fieldstudies when controlling for both the linear trajectory and past self-efficacy(β = .29, p < .10). Publication status did not have a significant effect,regardless of whether or not covariates were included in the analyses.

Next, we tested the effects of the two theoretical moderators. For theself-efficacy/performance within-person relationship, the theoretical mod-erators jointly accounted for 32% of the variance when no covariates wereincluded in the analysis and between 1% and 18% of the variance whencovariates were included in the analyses. For the past performance/self-efficacy within-person relationship, the theoretical moderators jointly ac-counted for 35% of the variance when no covariates were included in theanalysis and between 18% and 21% of the variance when covariates wereincluded in the analyses.

Hypotheses 9 and 10 predict that self-efficacy within-person re-lationships are stronger when participants have goals. In contrast to


TAB

LE

3C

ateg

oric

alM

eta-

Ana

lyti

cM

oder

ator

Res

ults

95%

confi

denc

e80

%cr

edib

ility

inte

rval

inte

rval

Nw

eigh

ted

Var

(e)+

Pop.

%V

ardu

ek

Tota

lNm

ean

rρ

var

(a)

var

toar

tifac

tsL

LU

LL

LU

L

Mod

erat

ors

ofth

ese

lf-e

ffica

cy/p

erfo

rman

cere

lati

onsh

ipG

oals

etti

ngY

es15

11,3

83.2

1.2

2.0

0.0

71.

89.0

8.3

4−.

12.5

7N

o22

23,4

87.2

2.2

3.0

0.0

42.

32.1

1.3

2−.

04.4

9Pe

rfor

man

cetr

end

Posi

tive

1820

,903

.31

.33

.00

.04

2.23

.18

.45

.08

.58

Non

sign

ifica

nt8

5,62

2−.

02−.

02.0

0.0

34.

35−.

14.1

0−.

26.2

2N

egat

ive

118,

345

.12

.13

.00

.02

7.14

.01

.24

−.05

.30

Self

-effi

cacy

resp

onse

scal

eL

iker

t13

14,5

18.1

7.1

8.0

0.0

23.

87.0

6.2

9−.

02.3

8U

nipo

lar

2823

,460

.21

.22

.00

.07

1.75

.11

.31

−.12

.56

Lab

orat

ory

vs.fi

eld

stud

yL

abor

ator

y24

25,8

03.2

1.2

2.0

0.0

51.

89.1

0.3

2−.

07.5

1Fi

eld

139,

067

.22

.24

.00

.05

2.75

.09

.36

−.06

.53

Pub

lica

tion

stat

usU

npub

lishe

d10

12,8

42.2

1.2

2.0

0.0

33.

05.0

4.3

7.0

1.4

3Pu

blis

hed

2722

,028

.22

.23

.00

.07

1.90

.12

.32

−.10

.56

cont

inue

d


TAB

LE

3(c

ontin

ued)

95%

confi

denc

e80

%cr

edib

ility

inte

rval

inte

rval

Nw

eigh

ted

Var

(e)+

Pop.

%V

ardu

ek

Tota

lNm

ean

rρ

var

(a)

var

toar

tifac

tsL

LU

LL

LU

L

Mod

erat

ors

ofth

epa

stpe

rfor

man

ce/s

elf-

effic

acy

rela

tion

ship

Goa

lset

ting

Yes

139,

575

.48

.51

.00

.02

5.57

.39

.57

.33

.69

No

2321

,158

.34

.36

.00

.05

1.92

.24

.44

.06

.66

Perf

orm

ance

tren

dPo

sitiv

e18

19,3

74.4

9.5

2.0

0.0

32.

89.3

8.6

0.3

0.7

4N

onsi

gnifi

cant

85,

048

.24

.26

.00

.03

6.05

.12

.36

.05

.46

Neg

ativ

e10

6,31

1.1

7.1

8.0

0.0

28.

19.0

5.2

8.0

0.3

5Se

lf-e

ffica

cyre

spon

sesc

ale

Lik

ert

1311

,943

.23

.24

.00

.03

3.90

.11

.35

.03

.46

Uni

pola

r27

21,5

56.4

4.4

6.0

0.0

42.

45.3

5.5

2.1

9.7

3L

abor

ator

yvs

.fiel

dst

udy

Lab

orat

ory

2423

,474

.42

.44

.00

.04

2.50

.34

.50

.19

.69

Fiel

d12

7,25

9.2

7.2

8.0

0.0

62.

50.1

1.4

3−.

04.6

1P

ubli

cati

onst

atus

Unp

ublis

hed

911

,174

.35

.37

.00

.04

1.98

.22

.48

.11

.63

Publ

ishe

d27

19,5

59.4

0.4

2.0

0.0

52.

37.3

1.4

9.1

3.7

2

Not

e.k

=th

enu

mbe

rof

stud

ies

incl

uded

inth

ean

alys

is;ρ

=m

ean

corr

ecte

dco

rrel

atio

n;V

ar(e

)+

Var

(a)=

sam

plin

ger

ror

vari

ance

plus

vari

ance

due

toun

relia

bilit

yin

self

-effi

cacy

mea

sure

s;L

L=

low

erlim

it;U

L=

uppe

rlim

it.


BL

E4

Wei

ghte

dL

east

Squa

res

Reg

ress

ion

Mod

erat

orR

esul

ts

Lin

ear

traj

ecto

ry&

Lin

ear

Past

perf

orm

ance

/pa

stpe

rfor

man

ce/

Past

traj

ecto

ry&

past

No

Lin

ear

past

self

-pa

stse

lf-

perf

orm

ance

perf

orm

ance

Mod

erat

ors

cova

riat

estr

ajec

tory

effic

acya

effic

acya

resi

dual

ized

resi

dual

ized

Mod

erat

ors

ofth

ese

lf-e

ffica

cy/p

erfo

rman

cere

lati

onsh

ipSt

ep1:

Met

hodo

logi

calm

oder

ator

sL

iker

t(1)

vs.u

nipo

lar

(0)

scal

e−.

03.2

8−.

08.2

3−.

29.1

5L

abor

ator

y(1

)vs

.fiel

d(0

)st

udy

−.03

−.19

−.24

−.36

*−.

16−.

39*

Publ

ishe

d(1

)vs

.unp

ublis

hed

(0)

.02

.01

−.02

.09

.04

.12

R2

.00

.12

.06

.20†

.11

.20†

Step

2:T

heor

etic

alm

oder

ator

sG

oals

ettin

g(1

)vs

.no

goal

setti

ng(0

)−.

05−.

03−.

03.0

5−.

05.0

7Pe

rfor

man

cetr

end

.67*

.14

.27

−.07

.49*

−.05

R2

chan

ge.3

2*.0

1.0

6.0

1.1

8*.0

1M

oder

ator

sof

the

past

perf

orm

ance

/sel

f-ef

ficac

yre

lati

onsh

ipSt

ep1:

Met

hodo

logi

calm

oder

ator

sL

iker

t(1)

vs.u

nipo

lar

(0)

scal

e−.

45*

−.33

†−.

39*

−.37

*L

abor

ator

y(1

)vs

.fiel

d(0

)st

udy

.26

.23

.18

.29†

Publ

ishe

d(1

)vs

.unp

ublis

hed

(0)

−.02

−.05

−.14

−.06

R2

.28*

.17

.19†

.23*

Step

2:T

heor

etic

alm

oder

ator

sG

oals

ettin

g(1

)vs

.no

goal

setti

ng(0

).2

2†.3

2†.3

1†.1

9Pe

rfor

man

cetr

end

.64*

.40*

.37*

.44*

R2

chan

ge.3

5*.2

1*.1

8*.1

8*

Not

e.T

heco

lum

nhe

ader

lists

the

cova

riat

esin

clud

edin

the

anal

yses

.The

cont

inuo

uspe

rfor

man

cetr

end

mod

erat

orw

asus

edin

thes

ean

alys

es.

aW

eco

ntro

lled

for

past

perf

orm

ance

whe

nex

amin

ing

the

self

-effi

cacy

/per

form

ance

rela

tions

hip;

we

cont

rolle

dfo

rpa

stse

lf-e

ffica

cyw

hen

exam

inin

gth

epa

stpe

rfor

man

ce/s

elf-

effic

acy

rela

tions

hip.

†p<

.10.

*p<

.05.


Hypothesis 9, goal setting did not have a significant effect on the self-efficacy/performance relationship (β ranged from –.05 to .07). However,the results primarily support Hypothesis 10. The past performance/self-efficacy relationship was stronger if goals were established when no co-variates were included in the analysis or either the linear trajectory or pastself-efficacy was the only covariate (β = .22, .32, .31, respectively, p <

.10), but this effect was nonsignificant when both the linear trajectory andpast self-efficacy were included as covariates (β = .19, respectively).

Hypotheses 11 and 12 predict that self-efficacy within-person rela-tionships are stronger in studies with a more positive performance trend.Self-efficacy had a more positive effect on performance when the perfor-mance trend was positive in the analyses with no covariates (β = .67, p <

.05) and after controlling for past performance residualized (β = .49, p <

.05). However, the performance trend did not have a significant moderat-ing effect when other covariates were included in the analyses (β rangedfrom –.07 to .27), providing limited support for Hypothesis 11. The pastperformance/self-efficacy within-person relationship was strongest whenthe performance trend was positive, and this effect was significant regard-less of which covariates were included in the analysis (β ranged from .37to .64), supporting Hypothesis 12.

Discussion

Major advances in multilevel research were not attained until the 1980s(Hitt, Beamish, Jackson, & Mathieu, 2007), which was after Bandura de-rived self-efficacy theory in 1977. Thus, initial research nearly universallyfocused on self-efficacy at the between-persons level of analysis. With thebenefit of hindsight, it is clear that self-efficacy should be examined asboth a within- and between-persons construct because about 25% to 35%of its variance lies at the within-person level of analysis (Beck & Schmidt,2012b). In the following sections, we review key research findings re-garding within-person self-efficacy effects, study limitations, directionsfor future research, and implications for the science and practice of peo-ple at work.

Is the Self-Efficacy/Performance Relationship Positive, Negative, or Null?

Self-efficacy’s meta-analytic corrected within-person correlation withperformance is positive and significantly greater than zero, suggestingthat when people increase their confidence, their performance also tendsto increase. This is consistent with self-efficacy theory’s assumption thatdiscrepancy creation is the primary source of motivation, resulting in


self-efficacy having a positive effect on performance (Bandura, 1991).However, this effect is not invariant. Over one-third of studies found theself-efficacy/performance within-person relationship is negative. Thus,self-efficacy is not beneficial under all circumstances, supporting controltheory (Powers, 1973; Vancouver et al., 2001) and suggesting that con-textual factors affect this relationship (Bandura, 2012; Vancouver et al.,2001, 2008).

Indeed, the performance trend moderated the self-efficacy/performance within-person relationship, such that the relationship wasstrongest when performance improved over time. However, controllingfor the linear trajectory and/or past performance cancelled out this mod-erator’s effect, suggesting that the performance trend does not explainvariability beyond that accounted for by the covariates. Furthermore, thewithin-person self-efficacy/performance main effect was reduced signif-icantly to near zero when the linear trajectory was added as a covariate,revealing that the main effect was spurious.

Overall, this pattern of results suggests that the self-efficacy/performance within-person relationship is null. This conclusion is sup-ported by control theory but lies in stark contrast to self-efficacy the-ory. It also raises the question of how this could be possible, given theoverwhelming evidence that self-efficacy and performance are positivelyrelated at the between-persons level of analysis. To answer this questionit is essential to disentangle the reciprocal within-person relationshipsbetween self-efficacy and performance.

What Is the Direction of Causality Between Self-Efficacy and Performance?

Both the between-persons self-efficacy/performance and within-person past performance/self-efficacy correlations were significantlygreater than the within-person self-efficacy/performance correlation.These results are consistent with Vancouver and colleagues’ (2001,p. 605) claim that “the strong positive relationships between self-efficacyand performance are a function of performance’s influence on self-efficacy, not the influence of self-efficacy on performance.” To further testthis assertion, we ran a post-hoc analysis and found the between-personseffect correlates .69 with the past performance/self-efficacy within-personrelationship but only .31 with the self-efficacy/performance within-personrelationship. This suggests that the reason there are performance differ-ences between people with high and low self-efficacy is because thosewith high self-efficacy have been successful in the past.

The strength of the past performance/self-efficacy relationship com-pared to its reciprocal counterpart is further supported by the covariate


and moderator analyses. Controlling for the linear trajectory and/or pastself-efficacy reduced the past performance/self-efficacy within-personrelationship, but the magnitude of the reduction was less than forthe self-efficacy/performance relationship. Moreover, past performanceand self-efficacy maintained a moderate and significant within-personrelationship—sharing 9% of their variance—after accounting for the co-variates.

Theory has traditionally focused on moderators of the self-efficacy/performance relationship, ignoring the fact that there may also beboundary conditions for the past performance/self-efficacy relationship(Bandura, 2012; Bandura & Locke, 2003; Vancouver & Kendall, 2011).Moreover, the vast majority of moderator analyses have focused on thebetween-persons level of analysis (e.g., Sitzmann & Ely, 2011; Stajkovic& Luthans, 1998), which confounds these two relationships. As such, weknow little about the impact of moderators on the past performance/self-efficacy component of this reciprocal relationship.

Disentangling these two effects suggests that established modera-tors affect the within-person effect of past performance on self-efficacyrather than vice versa. The performance trend moderated the pastperformance/self-efficacy within-person relationship in the same man-ner as the self-efficacy/performance relationship, and the effect remainedsignificant for the past performance/self-efficacy relationship after con-trolling for other moderators and both the linear trajectory and pastself-efficacy. Bandura claimed that self-efficacy will only exert a ben-eficial effect on performance when learning has occurred (Bandura, 2012;Bandura & Locke, 2003). The current findings suggest that this claimneeds to be reversed to indicate that past performance will exert itsstrongest effect on self-efficacy in contexts that enable learning. In suchcontexts, the cumulative experience of performance improvements shouldstrengthen the belief that an increase in performance will lead to futuresuccess.

Three other moderators are potentially important for understanding thepast performance/self-efficacy within-person relationship: goal setting,the self-efficacy response scale, and the research setting. Past performancehad a more positive within-person effect on self-efficacy when goals wereset (than when goals were not set), which may be attributed to the fact thatperformance feedback is more meaningful in these contexts. Goals serveas the comparator in control theory; without goals, performance feedbackis rendered meaningless (Bandura, 2012; Carver & Scheier, 2000). Thus,feedback has a more powerful effect on confidence when people are awareof the level they are attempting to achieve.

The past performance/self-efficacy within-person relationship wasalso stronger when self-efficacy was assessed with a unipolar rather than


Likert scale. This finding is similar to Bandura’s (2012) prediction, ex-cept his focus was on the self-efficacy/performance relationship, whichwas unaffected by the response scale. Finally, laboratory settings reportedstronger past performance/self-efficacy within-person relationships thanfield settings when controlling for both the linear trajectory and past self-efficacy.

Overall, the moderator results suggest that self-efficacy has at best amoderate, positive effect on performance, and this effect is weak or nullunder other moderating conditions. In contrast, past performance has amoderate to strong, positive and significant within-person effect on self-efficacy under all conditions, and this effect is especially strong whenthe performance trend is positive or when people are striving to achievetheir goals. Relying on within-person analyses allowed us to disentanglethe target of the moderating effects and revealed that core assumptionsregarding when self-efficacy enhances performance may be misguided—the boundary conditions influenced the effect of past performance onself-efficacy not the converse.

These results indicate that self-efficacy is primarily a product ofpast performance rather than a driver of subsequent performance. Thisfinding is important because it challenges self-efficacy theory’s assump-tion that self-efficacy is the compelling force in human agency (Ban-dura, 1989; Bandura & Locke, 2003). In addition, although a null self-efficacy/performance effect is accounted for by control theory, most theo-retical and empirical attention has focused on when and why self-efficacyhas a negative effect on performance, and little research has focused onthe role of past performance in guiding judgments of confidence.

Recommendations Regarding Control Variables

Our meta-analytic results underscore the importance of controllingfor the linear trajectory in repeated measures self-efficacy research. Themajority of research has been conducted in contexts in which self-efficacyand performance increase—due to skill acquisition—or decline—due tothe task becoming progressively difficult—over time. If both constructstrend in the same direction and the linear trajectory is omitted as a covari-ate, the trajectory may obscure the degree of overlap between self-efficacyand performance. Let’s consider the example of Richard and colleagues(2006, Study 2), who examined the process by which novices learn to use achemical reactor simulation. Over time, students became more skilled andmore confident, as evidenced by positive performance and self-efficacytrajectories. Without controlling for the linear trajectory, the within-person correlation was .31; yet, this correlation was reduced to .15 after


controlling for the trajectory. Thus, some overlap in the constructs wasspurious, resulting in Richard et al.’s conclusion that self-efficacy doesnot have a motivational effect on performance.

We also heeded Bandura’s (2012) suggestion and examined the impli-cations of controlling for past performance with self-efficacy residualized.Bandura proposed that controlling for raw past performance is an over-correction because it removes some of the true effect of self-efficacy onperformance, and residualizing past performance from self-efficacy per-mits an examination of the true effect of self-efficacy on performance.In contrast, Heggestad and Kanfer (2005) suggest that the residualizationprocedure removes excessive variance from the past performance measure,beyond that accounted for by self-efficacy, resulting in self-efficacy havingan artificially inflated effect on performance when examined in concertwith residualized past performance. Consistent with both perspectives,self-efficacy had a stronger within-person effect on performance whencontrolling for residualized than raw past performance. However, this dif-ference was not statistically significant and neither effect was significantlydifferent from the main effect without covariates.

In combination, our findings suggest that the linear trajectory is themost important covariate in this line of research, and controlling for pastperformance/past self-efficacy may not influence the substantive inter-pretation of results. It would be impossible to draw these conclusionsfrom a qualitative review of the literature because there is inconsistencyin whether covariates are accounted for and little justification for suchdecisions. To bring consistency to this research stream, we recommendcontrolling for the linear trajectory in every study at the within-personlevel of analysis, which is consistent with the recommendation of Singerand Willett (2003; see also Bliese & Ployhart, 2002). Researchers shouldalso carefully consider whether to control for the lagged dependent vari-able and provide a rationale for their decision, including a discussionof whether their decision affects the substantive interpretation of results.This is consistent with Becker’s (2005, p. 284) conclusion that “a clearand convincing statement regarding why certain variables are controlledis an essential hallmark of good science.”

Study Limitations and Directions for Future Research

In between-persons correlations, the sample size is the number of par-ticipants. Thus, primary study sample sizes can be small, increasing thevariance attributed to sampling error in between-persons meta-analyses.In within-person correlations, the sample size is the number of participantsmultiplied by the number of repeated measures. Larger sample sizes limit


the variance attributed to sampling error in within-person meta-analyses.Further, the reliability coefficients for the self-efficacy measures were highacross studies, and we did not correct for reliability in the performancemeasures. Together, these factors minimized the variance attributed tostatistical artifacts. Research is needed to examine whether artifact cor-rection formulas should be adjusted to account for differences in within-and between-persons analyses.

Our conclusion—that self-efficacy has a null effect on performanceand is primarily a product of past performance—challenges one ofthe most steadfast assumptions within the field of organizational psy-chology and related disciplines. Although this conclusion is consistentwith Vancouver’s writings (e.g., Vancouver et al., 2001, 2008), it hasnot been widely accepted. As such, it is likely to have some shockvalue—generating potential counterarguments and raising a number ofquestions.

One potential counterargument relates to experimental designs. Ourexamination of self-efficacy at the within-person level of analysis is ap-propriate for determining the relative magnitude of reciprocal effects, butexperimental designs are required for establishing unequivocally that pastperformance causes self-efficacy rather than vice versa. Boyer and col-leagues (2000) conducted a meta-analysis of studies that experimentallymanipulated self-efficacy and found positive effects for self-efficacy 94%of the time. This led Bandura (2011, p. 11) to conclude that “altered self-efficacy beliefs cannot be dismissed as reflectors of prior performance.”However, the majority of studies that manipulate self-efficacy rely on mas-tery experiences or modeling to increase confidence, which confoundsincreases in self-efficacy with increases in the skills required to achievesuccess (Boyer et al., 2000). It is only by experimentally manipulatingself-efficacy without affecting performance that we can distinguish thedirection of causality in this relationship (for an example, see Vancouveret al., 2008).

People may also question what self-efficacy influences, if not per-formance. Self-efficacy theory argues that confidence affects the qual-ity of human functioning via a range of cognitive, motivational, affec-tive, and decisional processes (Bandura, 2012). Similarly, Vancouver andcolleagues (2008) expect self-efficacy to have its most proximal effecton motivation. One motivational element is goal level, and self-efficacy(Bandura, 1997) and control (Vancouver, 2012) theories agree that self-efficacy has a positive effect on the difficulty of self-set goals. They divergein relation to another element—resource allocation; self-efficacy theorypredicts a positive effect (Bandura, 2012) whereas control theory predictsa negative effect (Vancouver et al., 2008). There are insufficient data toexamine these relationships meta-analytically at the within-person level.


Nevertheless, limited within-person research as well as extensive between-persons research has demonstrated that self-efficacy is related to planning,attention, goal level, resource allocation, persistence, satisfaction, andother factors that affect performance (e.g., Schmidt & DeShon, 2010; Seo& Ilies, 2009; Sitzmann et al., 2008; Sitzmann & Ely, 2011; Vancouveret al., 2008). Thus, it is possible that self-efficacy has an indirect effect onperformance via these mechanisms.

Moreover, this meta-analysis was based on 38 studies—which is im-pressive in just 12 years—but it is too early to conclude that the meta-analytic effects apply across all contexts. Substantial variability was un-accounted for by the moderators, suggesting that we need more researchto clarify how these relationships differ across situations.

One potentially fruitful area for research involves comparing self-efficacy’s causes and effects across single and multiple goal contexts.Multiple goal contexts are aligned with control theory’s assumption thatone source of motivation is a negative feedback loop that eliminates goal-performance discrepancies, such that people turn their attention towardother pursuits once one goal is reached (Powers, 1973). People typicallyjuggle multiple goals and rely on their expectancies for goal attainmentwhen deciding whether to persist or disengage from each of the goalscompeting for their time (Bandura, 1991; Schmidt & Dolis, 2009). If self-efficacy is inflated relative to actual performance, it may cause people toswitch their focus to the second task too early or too late, resulting inthe failure to attain both goals and a negative self-efficacy/performancewithin-person relationship. Further, if the cumulative demands of multiplegoals exceed available resources, individuals may choose to abandonone goal to ensure the attainment of another goal (Schmidt & Dolis,2009). Self-efficacy plays a critical role in this decision, suggesting thatconfidence may exert its strongest effect on performance in multiple goalcontexts. The studies available for this meta-analysis focused on singlegoal contexts, which may have attenuated the within-person effect ofself-efficacy on performance.

Future research should also distinguish between the goal settingand goal striving phases when developing a comprehensive model ofwithin-person self-efficacy/performance reciprocal effects. Self-efficacyand control theories agree that high self-efficacy results in settingmore challenging goals and, thus, higher performance as a functionof discrepancy creation (Bandura, 1986; Vancouver et al., 2008). Thenegative self-efficacy effects proposed by control theory occur duringthe goal striving phase; when discrepancy reduction processes are active,high self-efficacy may result in the current state being perceived as closerto the goal and less effort being exerted toward goal accomplishmentthan when self-efficacy is low (Powers, 1973; Vancouver & Kendall,


2011). Vancouver and colleagues (2008) showed that self-efficacy waspositively related to the decision to allocate resources during goal settingbut negatively related to resource allocation during goal striving. Whenexamining goal striving, researchers must ensure that people are holdingtheir goal level constant, which may be challenging because there is someuncertainty regarding whether people are truly striving for goals that areset for research purposes (Vancouver et al., 2001).

Finally, Schmidt and colleagues (Beck & Schmidt, 2012b, Schmidt& DeShon, 2009, 2010) have made important strides in the search forboundary conditions for the self-efficacy/performance relationship by ex-amining the moderating effects of goal progress, performance ambiguity,past performance, average self-efficacy, and goal difficulty. We urge re-searchers to continue collectively developing an integrative frameworkof the mediating and moderating mechanisms that affect reciprocal self-efficacy/performance relationships.

Practical Implications

For several decades, self-efficacy has been promoted as the drivingforce leading to effective performance. This has led to recommenda-tions to hire people who are confident they can succeed and to enhanceself-efficacy to increase training transfer and job performance, and theserecommendations have been implemented around the world (Colquitt,LePine, & Noe, 2000; Fu, Richards, Hughes, & Jones, 2010; Parker,1998; Salas & Cannon-Bowers, 2001; Shantz & Latham, 2012; Stajkovic& Luthans, 1998; Yang, Kim, & McFarland, 2011). The current resultsdemonstrate that hiring people with high self-efficacy or boosting self-efficacy may not generate any return on investment because self-efficacyaccounted for practically no variability in performance after controllingfor potential confounds. Moreover, newcomers with high self-efficacywill not necessarily outperform others in the future, and if they do, it islikely due to the fact that past behavior predicts future behavior. As such,a greater return on investment may be achieved by selecting applicantsbased on indicators of past performance (e.g., work samples or structuredinterview questions).

Regarding self-efficacy interventions, research promoting the benefitsof such programs typically confounded the effects of past performanceand self-efficacy. For example, Shantz and Latham (2012) trainedemployees to improve their interview skills and supplemented thetraining with a written self-guidance program that encouraged peopleto envision the use of newly acquired skills. The positive effects of thisand other self-efficacy enhancing interventions are likely driven by the


fact that the interventions inadvertently also enhance performance, andtargeting self-efficacy directly should not lead to greater performanceimprovements over interventions that strictly focus on improvingperformance.

The current results lend credence to the vantage point that providingopportunities for successful performance is one way to enhance self-efficacy and demonstrate that the effect of past performance on self-efficacy is strongest in contexts that allow for successive performanceimprovements. The theory of small wins (Weick, 1984) can be used todevise a strategy for performance improvement. Specifically, small, man-ageable steps should be taken to advance performance incrementally,which will ultimately enhance the productivity of individual employeesand develop positive synergy in the workplace. Increasing self-efficacymay not prove beneficial for enhancing performance, but, as discussedabove, self-efficacy may be positively related to goal setting, satisfaction,and other outcomes of value to organizations. Thus, monitoring and man-aging employees’ confidence in their ability to succeed should still beworthwhile.

Conclusion

For over 2 decades, prominent theorists have been debating when thedirection of the self-efficacy/performance relationship is positive, neg-ative, or null and whether self-efficacy theory or control theory moreaccurately explains this relationship. Our results suggest that conductingresearch solely at the between-persons level of analysis has led to mis-statements regarding the role of self-efficacy in driving life’s successesas well as the conditions under which self-efficacy’s effects are mostpowerful. Examining both components of this reciprocal relationship atthe within-person level of analysis indicates that self-efficacy is not thedriving force compelling higher performance; rather, it is an indicator ofwhether people have succeeded in the past.

The main effect, moderator, and covariate analyses provide strongsupport for this conclusion. Together the main effect and moderatoranalyses suggest that at the within-person level of analysis: (a) self-efficacy has at best a moderate, positive effect on performance and anull effect under other moderating conditions; (b) the main effect ofpast performance on self-efficacy is stronger than the effect of self-efficacy on performance, even in the moderating conditions that pro-duce the strongest self-efficacy/performance relationship; (c) the effectof past performance on self-efficacy ranges from moderate to strongacross moderating conditions, and the effect is statistically signifi-cant across performance tasks, contextual factors, and methodological


moderators. The covariate analyses provide further support for this con-clusion. Specifically, the within-person self-efficacy/performance rela-tionship is near zero after controlling for the linear trajectory and pastperformance, whereas the past performance/self-efficacy relationship re-mains moderate and positive after controlling for the linear trajectoryand past self-efficacy. Overall, this pattern of results suggests that pastperformance enlightens assessments of confidence rather than confidencecompelling higher performance.

REFERENCES

References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the meta-analysis that arealso discussed in the text.

Ackerman PL, Kanfer R, Goff M. (1995). Cognitive and noncognitive determinants andconsequences of complex skill acquisition. Journal of Experimental Psychology:Applied, 1, 270–303.

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

Bandura A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Pren-tice Hall.

Bandura A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist, 44,1175–1184.

Bandura A. (1991). Self-regulation of motivation through anticipatory and self-reactivemechanisms. In Deinstbier RA (Ed.), Perspectives on motivation (pp. 69–164).Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

Bandura A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman.Bandura A. (2012). On the functional properties of perceived self-efficacy revisited. Journal

of Management, 28, 9–44.Bandura A, Jourden FJ. (1991). Self-regulatory mechanisms governing the impact of so-

cial comparison on complex decision-making. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 60, 941–951.

Bandura A, Locke EA. (2003). Negative self-efficacy and goal effects revisited. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 88, 87–99.

Bandura A, Wood R. (1989). Effect of perceived controllability and performance standardson self-regulation of complex decision making. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 56, 805–814.

*Bauer KN, Orvis KA, Brusso R, Tekleab A. (2011, May). Feedback, goal revision, andthe mediating effects of self-regulatory processes. Poster presented at the AnnualMeeting of the Association for Psychological Science, Washington, DC.

*Beattie S, Lief D, Adamoulas M, Oliver E. (2011). Investigating the possible negativeeffects of self-efficacy upon golf putting performance. Psychology of Sport andExercise, 12, 434–441.

*Beck JW, Schmidt AM. (2010, April). Overall self-efficacy moderates within-personeffects on performance. Poster presented at the 25th Annual Conference of theSociety for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Atlanta, GA.

*Beck JW, Schmidt AM. (2012a). State-level goal orientations as mediators of the rela-tionship between time pressure and performance: A longitudinal study. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 98, 354–363.


*Beck JW, Schmidt AM. (2012b). Taken out of context? Cross-level effects of between-person self-efficacy and difficulty on the within-person relationship of self-efficacywith resource allocation and performance. Organizational Behavior and HumanDecision Processes, 119, 195–208.

Becker TE. (2005). Potential problems in the statistical control of variables in organizationalresearch: A qualitative analysis with recommendations. Organizational ResearchMethods, 8, 274–289.

Bliese PD, Ployhart RE. (2002). Growth modeling using random coefficient models: Modelbuilding, testing, and illustrations. Organizational Research Methods, 5, 362–387.

Boyer DA, Zollo JS, Thompson CM, Vancouver JB, Shewring K, Sims E. (2000, June). Aquantitative review of the effects of manipulated self-efficacy on performance. Postersession presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Society,Miami, FL.

Carver CS, Scheier MF. (1981). Attention and self-regulation: A control-theory approachto human behavior. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.

Carver CS, Scheier MF. (1990). Origins and functions of positive and negative affect: Acontrol-process view. Psychological Review, 97, 19–35.

Carver CS, Scheier MF. (2000). On the structure of behavioral self-regulation. In BoekaertsM, Pintrich PR, Zeidner M (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation research (pp. 41–84).San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Colquitt JA, LePine JA, Noe RA. (2000). Toward an integrative theory of training moti-vation: A meta-analytic path analysis of 20 years of research. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 85, 678–707.

*Daniels MA, Kain JM, Gillespie JZ, Schmidt AM. (2010, August). Latent profiles of goalorientation and motivational outcomes. In Schmidt AM (Chair), A lens on the world:Traits and states influencing motivational processes. Symposium presented at theannual meeting of the Academy of Management, Montreal, Canada.

*Day EA, Boatman PR, Kowollik V, Espejo J, McEntire LE, Sherwin RE. (2007). Col-laborative training with a more experienced partner: Remediating low pretrainingself-efficacy in complex skill acquisition. Human Factors, 49, 1132–1148.

*DeShon RP, Kozlowski SWJ, Schmidt AM, Milner KR, Weichmann D. (2004). A multiple-goal, multilevel model of feedback effects on the regulation of individual and teamperformance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 1035–1056.

*Feltz DL, Chow GM, Hepler TJ. (2008). Path analysis of self-efficacy and diving perfor-mance revisited. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 30, 401–411.

Fishbein M, Ajzen I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction totheory and research. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.

Fu FQ, Richards KA, Hughes DE, Jones E. (2010). Motivating salespeople to sell newproducts: The relative influence of attitudes, subjective norms, and self-efficacy.Journal of Marketing, 74, 61–76.

*Gilson TA, Chow GM, Feltz DL. (2012). Self-efficacy and athletic squat performance:Positive or negative influences at the within and between levels of analysis? Journalof Applied Social Psychology, 42, 1467–1485.

*Heggestad ED, Kanfer R. (2005). The predictive validity of self-efficacy in training per-formance: Little more than past performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology:Applied, 11, 84–97.

*Hepler TJ, Feltz DL. (2012). Self-efficacy and decision-making performance on a simu-lated baseball task. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 83, 55–64.

Hitt MA, Beamish PW, Jackson SE, Mathieu JE. (2007). Building theoretical and empiricalbridges across levels: Multilevel research in management. Academy of ManagementJournal, 50, 1385–1399.


Hofmann DA, Gavin MB. (1998). Centering decisions in hierarchical linear models: Im-plications for research in organizations. Journal of Management, 24, 623–641.

Huffcutt AI, Arthur W. (1995). Development of a new outlier statistic for meta-analyticdata. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 327–334.

Hunter JE, Schmidt FL. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting for bias in researchfindings (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

*Jundt DK. (2009). Adaptability from a process perspective: Examining the effects of taskchange type and a metacognitive intervention on adaptive performance. Dissertation.Michigan State University, East Lansing.

Kanfer R, Ackerman PL. (1989). Motivation and cognitive abilities: An integrative/aptitude-treatment interaction approach to skill acquisition. Journal of Applied Psychology,74, 657–690.

Kozlowski SWJ, Gully SM, Brown KG, Salas E, Smith EM, Nason ER. (2001). Effects oftraining goals and goal orientation traits on multidimensional training outcomes andperformance adaptability. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,85, 1–31.

Lipsey MW. (2003). Those confounded moderators in meta-analysis: Good, bad, and ugly.The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 587, 69–81.

Locke EA, Latham GP. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal theory ofgoal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57,705–717.

*McLean K, Yeo G. (2006, April). The moderating effects of goal orientations on reactionsto goal-performance discrepancies. Presented at the 33rd Australian ExperimentalPsychology Conference, Brisbane.

Mitchell TR, Hopper H, Daniels D, George-Falvy J, James LR. (1994). Predicting self-efficacy and performance during skill acquisition. Journal of Applied Psychology,79, 506–517.

*Neal A, Yeo G. (2003). Does self-efficacy help or harm performance? An examinationof the direction of the relationship between self-efficacy and performance at thewithin-person level of analysis. Australian Journal of Psychology, 55 (Supplement1), 138.

Ouellette JA, Wood W. (1998). Habit and intention in everyday life: The multiple processesby which past behavior predicts future behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 54–74.

Parker SK. (1998). Enhancing role breadth self-efficacy: The roles of job enrichment andother organization interventions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 835–852.

Phillips JM, Hollenbeck JR, Ilgen DR. (1996). Prevalence and prediction of positive dis-crepancy creation: Examining a discrepancy between two self-regulation theories.Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 498–511.

Powers WT. (1973). Behavior: The control of perception. New York, NY: Hawthorne.Powers WT. (1978). Quantitative analysis of purposive systems: Some spadework at the

foundations of scientific psychology. Psychological Review, 85, 417–435.Powers WT. (1991). Commentary on Bandura’s “human agency.” American Psychologist,

46, 151–153.Raudenbush SW, Bryk AS. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data

analysis methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Raudenbush SW, Bryk AS, Congdon R. (2004). HLM 6 for Windows [Computer software].

Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International, Inc.*Richard EM, Diefendorff JM, Martin JH. (2006). Revisiting the within-person self-efficacy

and performance relation. Human Performance, 19, 67–87.Salas E, Cannon-Bowers JA. (2001). The science of training: A decade of progress. Annual

Review of Psychology, 52, 471–499.


Scherbaum CA, Vancouver JB. (2010). If we produce discrepancies, then how? Testing acomputational process model of positive goal revision. Journal of Applied SocialPsychology, 40, 2201–2231.

*Schmidt AM, DeShon RP. (2009). Prior performance and goal progress as moderators ofthe relationship between self-efficacy and performance. Human Performance, 22,191–203.

*Schmidt AM, DeShon RP. (2010). The moderating effects of performance ambiguity onthe relationship between self-efficacy and performance. Journal of Applied Psychol-ogy, 95, 572–581.

Schmidt AM, Dolis CM. (2009). Something’s got to give: The effects of dual-goal dif-ficulty, goal progress, and expectancies on resource allocation. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 94, 678–691.

Schneider W, Shiffrin RM. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information process-ing: I. Detection, search, and attention. Psychological Review, 84, 1–66.

*Seo M, Ilies R. (2009). The role of self-efficacy, goal, and affect in dynamic motivationalself-regulation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 109, 120–133.

Shantz A, Latham GP. (2012). Transfer of training: Written self-guidance to increaseself-efficacy and interviewing performance of job seekers. Human Resource Man-agement, 51, 733–746.

Shiffrin RM, Schneider W. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information process-ing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending, and a general theory. PsychologicalReview, 84, 127–190.

Singer JD, Willett JB. (2003). Applied longitudinal data analysis: Modeling change andevent occurrence. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

*Sitzmann T. (2012). A theoretical model and analysis of the role of self-regulation in the at-trition process from voluntary online training. Learning and Individual Differences,22, 46–54.

Sitzmann T, Brown KG, Casper WJ, Ely K, Zimmerman R. (2008). A review and meta-analysis of the nomological network of trainee reactions. Journal of Applied Psy-chology, 93, 280–295.

*Sitzmann T, Ely K. (2010). Sometimes you need a reminder: The effects of promptingself-regulation on regulatory processes, learning, and attrition. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 95, 132–144.

Sitzmann T, Ely K. (2011). A meta-analysis of self-regulated learning in work-relatedtraining and educational attainment: What we know and where we need to go.Psychological Bulletin, 137, 421–442.

Sitzmann T, Ely K, Bell BS, Bauer KN. (2010). The effects of technical difficulties onlearning and attrition during online training. Journal of Experimental Psychology:Applied, 16, 281–292.

*Sitzmann T, Johnson SK. (2011). Delving into the realm of the unconscious: Examiningthe cyclical causes and effects of unconscious affect in online training. Unpublishedmanuscript.

*Sitzmann T, Johnson SK. (2012). When is ignorance bliss? The effects of inaccurateself-assessments of knowledge on learning and attrition. Organizational Behaviorand Human Decision Processes, 117, 192–207.

Snijders T, Bosker RJ. (1994). Modeled variance in two-level models. Sociological Methods& Research, 22, 342–363.

Stajkovic AD, Lee DS. (2001, August). A meta-analysis of the relationship between col-lective efficacy and group performance. Paper presented at the 61st Annual Meetingof the Academy of Management, Washington, DC.


Stajkovic A, Luthans F. (1998). Self-efficacy and work-related performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 240–261.

Steel PD, Kammeyer-Mueller JD. (2002). Comparing meta-analytic moderator estimationtechniques under realistic conditions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 96–111.

Vancouver JB. (2005). The depth of history and explanation as benefit and bane for psy-chological control theories. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 38–52.

Vancouver JB. (2012). Rhetorical reckoning: A response to Bandura. Journal of Manage-ment, 38, 465–474.

Vancouver JB, Day DV. (2005). Industrial and organisation research on self-regulation:From constructs to applications. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 54,155–185.

*Vancouver JB, Gullekson NL, Thomas CM, Morse BJ. (2011). Looking for a positivedirect effect of self-efficacy on performance: Can you believe in it? Unpublishedmanuscript.

*Vancouver JB, Kendall LN. (2006). When self-efficacy negatively relates to motivation andperformance in a learning context. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1146–1153.

Vancouver JB, More KM, Yoder RJ. (2008). Self-efficacy and resource allocation: Supportfor a nonmonotonic, discontinuous model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 35–47.

*Vancouver JB, Thompson CM, Tischner EC, Putka DJ. (2002). Two studies examiningthe negative effect of self-efficacy on performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,87, 506–516.

*Vancouver JB, Thompson CM, Williams AA. (2001). The changing signs in the relation-ships between self-efficacy, personal goals, and performance. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 86, 605–620.

Weick KE. (1984). Small wins: Redefining the scale of social problems. American Psy-chologist, 39, 40–49.

Willett JB. (1988). Questions and answers in the measurement of change. Review of Re-search in Education, 15, 345–422.

Wood RE, Bandura A. (1989). Social cognitive theory of organizational management.Academy of Management Review, 14, 361–384.

Yang B, Kim Y, McFarland RG. (2011). Individual differences and sales performance: Adistal-proximal mediation model of self-efficacy, conscientiousness, and extraver-sion. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 31, 371–382.

*Yeo GB, Frederiks E. (2011). Cognitive and affective regulation: Scale validation andnomological network analysis. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 60,546–575.

*Yeo G, Loft S, Xiao T, Kiewitz C. (2009). Goal orientations and performance: Differentialrelationships across levels of analysis and as a function of task demands. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 94, 710–726.

*Yeo GB, Neal A. (2004). A multilevel analysis of effort, practice, and performance: Effectsof ability, conscientiousness, and goal orientation. Journal of Applied Psychology,89, 231–247.

*Yeo GB, Neal A. (2006). An examination of the dynamic relationship between self-efficacy and performance across levels of analysis and levels of specificity. Journalof Applied Psychology, 91, 1088–1101.

*Yeo G, Neal A. (2008). Subjective cognitive effort: A model of states, traits, and time.Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 617–631.

Download - A Meta-Analytic Investigation of the Within-Person Self-Efficacy Domain: Is Self-Efficacy a Product of Past Performance or a Driver of Future Performance?

Top Related