general self-efficacy and control in relation to anxiety and cognitive performance

General Self-Efficacy and Control in Relation to Anxiety and Cognitive

Performance

NORMAN S. ENDLER, RACHEL L. SPEER, JUDITH M. JOHNSON, and GORDON L. FLETT

York University, Toronto

The present investigation employed a general measure of self-efficacy, a measure of perceived control, and items relating to expectation and evaluation (pre and post). The purpose was to determine whether general self-efficacy or perceived control best predicted the criterion variables of state anxiety and performance on a stressful cognitive task (solving anagrams) under conditions of high versus low control. These rela- tionships were tested under the experimental conditions of high and low objective control (i.e., the actual control afforded by the situation). Results showed that general self-efficacy, relative to perceived control was a better predictor of state anxiety in the high and low control conditions but neither predicted actual performance. Participants' expectations of task difficulty, their own performance, and their performance relative to the performance of others taken before the task were compared with their evaluations of difficulty and performance after completing the task. Participants indicated that the task was easier than anticipated, but rated their own performance more poorly after completion of the task.

Chronic beliefs about the self, control, and outcomes reflect key components of an individual's view of the world and of his or her ability to function successfully in that world and thus should be especially potent in shaping reactions to stressful life events (Cozzarelli, 1993; p. 1224).

A testing situation is a good example of a stressful life event that for most, is a manageable stressor. As Cozzarelli (1993) states earlier, beliefs about the self and control are two facets of an individual's experience that should be "potent" in predicting reactions to a stressful life event. We selected self-efficacy, or a belief in one's effectiveness, and the perception of control as the major predictors of anxiety and performance in the [within] study. It was our hope that questions that have been raised about whether self-efficacy and perceived control are separable constructs (Gerin et al., 1995; Litt, 1988; Manstead & van-Eekelen, 1998) could be answered. In support of the separability of constructs, a study by Terry and O'Leary (1995) found that efficacy predicted behavioural intention but not actual behaviour, whereas perceived control predicted behaviour, but not intentions. Based on this finding it may be that perceived control will predict actual performance behavior. If separable, it was also our hope to determine whether self-efficacy o r perceived control accounted for more of the vari-

Current Psychology: Deve lopmenta l ~ Learning ~ Personal i ty ~ Social Spring 2001, Vol. 20, No. l, 36-52.

Endler et al. 37

ance in anxiety and performance during a stressful cognitive task. All testing was done under one of two control conditions: high objective vs. low objective (i.e., participants were, or were not given the opportunity to control the testing situation).

The Multidimensionality of Self-Efficacy

Self-efficacy, a construct which strongly hinges on judgements of personal capabil- ity, has been defined as the belief in one's ability to perform a task or to execute a specified behaviour successfully (Bandura, 1997). According to Bandura (1997), self- efficacy has three components: (1) magnitude, which refers to belief about performance in increasingly difficult aspects of the task; (2) strength, or the effort expended to maintain the behaviour in the face of obstacles; and (3) generality, or the broadness of the applicability of the belief. Bandura has previously discussed task-specific self- efficacy, but he has also discussed "domain-linked" (e.g., social skills or achievement), general, and even collective levels of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1986).

Among the first to measure self-efficacy were Sherer et al. (1982). However, it has been suggested by Woodruff and Cashman (1993) that the Sherer et al. (1982) scale measures self-efficacy within the domains of achievement and social skills, a view which seems to accord with Sherer et al.'s own view (1982). For the purposes of this article, self-efficacy refers to the component of Sherer et al's (1982) measure dealing with general/achievement efficacy.

Perceived vs. Objective Control

In the present study, perceived control refers to an individual's appraisal of the extent to which the situation itself may be brought under the control of the individual (Conway & Terry, 1992). This is not to be confused with perceived behavioural control, which refers to the individual's belief in his/her ability to control his/her own behaviour in context (Ajzen & Madden, 1986).

In contrast, this article is concerned only with the perceived controllability of the situation external to the individual (Conway & Terry, 1992). It has been asserted that control does not have to be objective, but merely perceived as such in order to ameliorate the effects of stress (Thompson, 1991). The perception of control may differ markedly from what may, objectively, be controlled (which we have termed "objective control"). While objective control affects perceptions of control (Thompson, 1991), objective and perceived control are not identical. For example, in a court of law, a defendant may falsely believe that the judge has been paid to give a judgement favouring the defendant. In this example, the defendant would perceive the judge to be under their control, whereas objectively, the defendant has no control of the situation.

Self-expectation. Performance expectancy, which is the individual's rating of their expected performance, has not been well researched in the test-anxiety literature (see Carver & Scheier, 1986). Nonetheless, it is assumed that highly evaluative situations evoke an unfavourable performance expectancy in the test-anxious person due to prior

38 Current Psychology / Spring 2001

failure experiences (Blankstein, Toner, & Flea, 1989). In a study by Rich and Woolever (1988), it was found that an experimentally induced expectancy of success facilitated performance whereas an experimentally induced expectancy of failure resulted in performance decrements (Rich & Woolever, 1988). The issue of group differences in self- expectancy/evaluation needs to be further investigated. Accordingly, the present study examined both pre-test expectancy and post-test evaluation.

Self-efficacy, Perceived Control, and Anxiety

The belief of individuals that they can exert some control over a stressful situation has been found to vary directly with autonomic arousal and performance (Averill, 1973; Bandura, 1983; Folkman, 1984). It is has been suggested that control does not have to be real (i.e., objective) but merely perceived as such in order to reduce distress (Blankstein, 1984). The perception of lack of control has been linked to increased levels of anxiety (e.g., Endler, Speer, Johnson, & Hett, 2000; Glass et al., 1973; Geer & Maisel, 1972).

It has also been found that self-efficacy varies inversely with state anxiety during a stressful situation (Bandura, 1983; Litt, 1988). In fact, it has been found that low self- efficacy is a characteristic feature of anxiety disorders (Maddux, 1991). Further, in studies of academic performance, it has been found that self-efficacy and test anxiety are negatively related (Pintrich & DeGroot, 1990; Smith et al., 1990) and that anxiety is a significant negative predictor of efficacy strength (Meier et al., 1984).

Self-efficacy, Perceived Control, and Performance

Performance has been found to vary directly with perceived self-efficacy (e.g., Litt, 1988) and to be unrelated to self-efficacy (Gerin et al., 1995). In a study of academic achievement in adolescents, it was concluded that both perceived control and self- efficacy were powerful predictors of achievement (Manstead & van Eekelen, 1998). In contrast, Gerin et al. (1995) found that self-efficacy had no effect on either state anxiety or performance (defined as the number of errors) during a mathematical test. There was, however, a main effect for perceived control as more errors were commit- ted under conditions of low control than high, and physiological arousal (heart rate and blood pressure) was significantly higher under the low control condition. While these findings refute previous claims that perceived control and self-efficacy are virtually identical constructs (Ajzen & Madden, 1986), they underscore the need for further investigation of the relative roles of self-efficacy and perceived control in the prediction of anxiety and performance.

The Present Investigation

The present study sought to empirically validate the proposition that self-efficacy predicts lower levels of state anxiety and improved performance during a stressful

Endler et al. 39

cognitive task. Furthermore, this investigation attempted to determine whether self- efficacy or perceived control is the better predictor of state anxiety and task performance in a stressful situation. This investigation attempted to assess these relation- ships under two experimental conditions, referred to as high objective control and low objective control.

The differences between perceived and objective control have not been widely recognised in studies on the effects of control on stress. The difference between the two types of control is essentially the difference between the objective and the subjective. As previously stated, perceived control refers to appraisals of the extent to which the situation is controllable (Conway & Terry, 1992). Mineka and Henderson (1985) found that the effects of perceived control were sufficient to reduce the effects of stress. Furthermore, physiological evidence suggests that the perception of control may be more important in lowering physical indices of distress than objectively available control (Blankstein, 1984). How perceived and objective control are related is an outstanding question of interest.

The level of objective control afforded by a specific stressful situation is often manipulated by making available or eliciting responses that participants can use to alter the event. Examples of strategies that have been used to give participants control include allowing participants to self-administer a stressor, to make decisions, or to get more detailed instructions (Thompson, 1991). As stated by Thompson (1991), "It is assumed that availability of such options increases perceptions of control, although that is usually not measured as part of the research" (p. 608). Thus, it is possible to identify two different kinds of control--subjective (perceived) and objective (actual). Endler et al. (2000) examined both perceived and objective control and found that perceived control was negatively related to emotion-oriented coping and positively related to task-oriented coping, and further, that perceived control was a better predictor of coping than objective control.

A central aim of the present study was to investigate how perceived control and self-efficacy are related to both state anxiety and anagram task performance (a cognitive task) under two experimental conditions: high objective control and low objective control. The hypotheses of this investigation were as follows:

1. Self-efficacy and perceived control will make independent contributions to state anxiety and cognitive performance under conditions of high and low objective control

2. When control is objectively high, perceptions of control and self-efficacy will be negatively related to state anxiety and positively related to cognitive performance

3. When control is objectively low, perceptions of high control will also be negatively related to state anxiety and positively related to cognitive performance

The latter two predictions are based on the belief that the perception of control, and not the control objectively available to the participant, reduces stress and its conse- quent anxiety (Mineka & Henderson, 1985).


METHOD

Research Participants

Participants for the present study were 40 male and 40 female undergraduate psychology students from York University. Racial and ethnic information was not col- lected; however, study participants were predominantly Caucasian.

Measures

Self-efficacy. Self-efficacy was measured using the Self-efficacy Scale developed by Sherer et al. (1982). The full scale measures self-efficacy in the 'domains' of social skills and vocational competence (Bandura, 1997; Sherer et al., 1982; Woodruff & Cashman, 1993). As there is little of a social nature in the laboratory task selected for this study, we used only the 17-item General Self-Efficacy subscale dealing with vocational competence. A re-examination of the Self-Efficacy Scale (Woodruff & Cashman, 1993) found that the scale captures the essence of Bandura's conception of self-efficacy. Sample items include: "I avoid trying to learn new things when they look too difficult for me" (magnitude); "If I can't do a job the first time, I keep trying until I can" (strength); and "I feel insecure about my ability to do things" (generality). All responses are measured on a 7-point Likert scale. The obtained Cronbach's alpha for self-efficacy in the present study was .92. Furthermore, this measure has been shown to be reliable and valid in a variety of contexts (e.g., Mallinckrodt, 1992).

Perceived control. Perceived control was measured using a scale called the Event Perception Measure, which assessed the participant's appraisal of the control afforded by the situation (Jimmieson & Terry, 1997). Sample items include: "How much choice were you given when performing this activity?" and "How much influence did you have over the way you completed this activity?" Responses were given on a 5-point Likert scale, with higher values indicating greater control. The obtained Cronbach's alpha for perceived control in the present study was .79.

Self expectancy. Before the anagram task, participants answered three questions (pre--measures) relating to their expectations in relation to the difficulty of the task, their performance, and their performance in relation to the performance of others. For example, participants were asked, "How well do you think you will perform on the anagram test?" Higher values indicate a greater expectation of successful performance. After the test, they were again asked three questions in order to evaluate the difficulty of the task, their performance, and their performance in relation to the performance of others: For example, "Indicate how well you think you performed on the anagram test." As these were single item measures, no alpha reliabilities were computed. A variable called expectancy/evaluation was computed, which was the net of the expectancy minus the evaluation.

Anagrams. The presentation of 10 anagrams in the lab comprised the stressful situation, and the number which the participant completed correctly served as the measure of performance. The anagrams chosen had median solution times ranging

Endler et al. 41

between 57 and 240 seconds, with 7 of the 10 having a median solution time of less than 100 seconds. Examples of anagrams presented are A T R Y P (party) with a median solution time of 65 seconds, and T B O A N (baton) with a median solution time of 194 seconds (Tresselt & Mayzner, 1966). Anagrams were chosen because they minimize differences in experience or knowledge, and no gender differences in perfor-

mance have been found (Bourne et al., 1971; Mendelsohn et al., 1966). Anxiety. State anxiety (anxiety in response to the anagram task as opposed to

general dispositional levels of anxiety) was measured using the Endler Multidimen-

sional Anxiety Scales--State subscale (EMAS-S; Endler, Edwards, & Vitelli, 1991), a self-report measure of one's present level of anxiety. This 20 item measure uses a 5-

point Likert scale. Sample items include "Distrust myself ' and "Feel tense." The

obtained Cronbach's alpha for state anxiety scale was .93. Objective control. Objective control was manipulated through random assignment

of participants to a high control and a low control condition. According to Thompson (1991), one way to increase feelings of control is to provide an individual with a

response that can be used to affect an event, for example, giving a self-administered stressor or making a choice or decision relevant to the stressful event. Availability of options should therefore increase perceptions of control. Following this line of reason-

ing, the degree of choice of participants completing the anagram task was manipulated. A more complete description of the two conditions follows in the Procedure

section.

Procedure

Participants came to the lab and on arrival were asked either to seat themselves wherever they liked (high control condition), or in a specified chair facing one-way glass (low control condition). They were then given a package of questionnaires. Prior to the anagram task, the self-efficacy questionnaire was administered along with items questioning the participants' expectation of: (1) the difficulty of the task; (2) their own performance; and (3) their performance in relation to the performance of others. The anagram task followed. In order to make this task seem more stressful, participants in both conditions were told their performance would be compared with the performance norms of other undergraduates.

Participants in the high control condition were instructed: "Your job is to complete as many anagrams as you can in 10 minutes. You can do them in any order you want. You can skip ones and go back to them later if you have time. Please write down anything you want to on the paper. You can use the back of the sheet if you need more

writing space. I will stop you when the 10 minutes is up." Participants in the low control condition were instructed: "There are 10 anagrams to

be solved in 5 minutes. Please do not write anything on the paper except your final answer. In other words, solve them in your head. You must solve them in the order in

which they appear and to prevent you from looking ahead, you must use the black sheet of paper we have provided you with to cover up the remainder of the test. Under

no circumstances are you to go back to solve an anagram that has passed. What will

42 Current Psychology I Spring 2001

TABLE 1 Means, standard deviations, and alpha reliabilities

Mean Sample Alpha Variable Male Female Mean Reliabilites

State anxiety 38.05 38.72 38.29 .93 (12.63) (15.42) (13.97)

General self-efficacy 86.59 89.15 87.88 .92 (16.45) (18.64) (17.53)

Perception of control 19.51 18.92 19.11 .79 (6.10) (5.28) (5.71)

N=80 Note: Standard deviations are bracketed.

happen is I will say 'start anagram 1.' You will move the black paper so that only anagram 1 is visible. Write your solution in the blank space under the anagram. After 30 seconds, I will say 'start anagram 2. '"

After completing the anagram task, participants completed the EMAS-S, the perceived control measure, and three items relating to their evaluation of: (1) the difficulty of the task; (2) their performance; and (3) their performance in relation to the performance of others.

RESULTS

Preliminary Analyses

Three concerns were addressed in preliminary analyses: (1) effectiveness of the manipulation of objective control; (2) stressfulness of the anagram task; and (3) gender differences.

Upon completion of the anagram task, in order to ascertain whether or not the manipulation of objective control was effective, participants were asked to "Rate the degree to which you perceive this situation as one in which you can express some control; that is, the extent to which you feel you "have a say' in the procedures." A one-way ANOVA revealed that participants in the "high objective control" condition scored significantly higher on this question than participants in the "low experimental control" condition [t (78) =-3.35, p < .001]. Thus, the manipulation of control was effective.

The stressfulness of the anagram task was ascertained by comparing scores on the state anxiety measure for participants in this study (M = 37.85 for males; M = 38.72

TA

BL

E 2

Pa

ired

sam

ples

t-t

est

of d

iffe

renc

e fo

r se

lf e

xpec

tanc

y/ev

alua

tion

que

stio

ns

Dif

ficu

lty

P

re:

Ho

w d

iffi

cult

do

you

expe

ct t

he a

nag

ram

tes

t w

ill

be?

Pos

t: H

ow

dif

ficu

lt w

as t

he a

nagr

am t

est?

Std

M

ean

D

ev

4.06

1.

05

3.16

0.

93

Net

Dif

f.

-0.9

0 -5

.74*

*

en

Per

form

ance

P

re:

Ho

w w

ell

do y

ou t

hink

you

wil

l p

erfo

rm o

n th

e

anag

ram

tes

t?

Pos

t: I

ndic

ate

ho

w w

ell

you

thin

k yo

u pe

rfor

med

on

the

anag

ram

tes

t.

Per

form

ance

in

rela

tion

to p

erfo

rman

ce o

f ot

hers

P

re:

Ho

w w

ill

your

per

form

ance

on

this

tes

t co

mpa

re

to t

he p

erfo

rman

ce o

f ot

her

stud

ents

? P

ost:

Ho

w d

id y

our

perf

orm

ance

on

thi

s te

st c

ompa

re

to t

he p

erfo

rman

ce o

f ot

her

stud

ents

?

4.54

1.

02

2.93

1.

20

4.54

0.

86

2.73

0.

83

-1.6

1

-1.8

1

-9.0

4**

-12.

20"*

**p<

.O1

TA

BL

E

3 C

orre

lati

on m

atri

ces

for

con

dit

ion

s of

hig

h a

nd

low

ob

ject

ive

con

trol

Hig

h O

bjec

tive

Con

trol

1

2 3

4 5

1.

Sel

f-ef

fica

cy

2.

Per

ceiv

ed c

ontr

ol

3.

Sta

te a

nxie

ty

4.

An

agra

m p

erfo

rman

ce

-

5.

Net

of

perf

orm

ance

exp

ecta

ncy

less

per

form

ance

eva

luat

ion

.16

-.42

**

.12

-.04

-.34

* .0

5 .0

0

- -.

10

-.18

- .4

5**

Lo

w O

bjec

tive

Con

trol

1

1.

Sel

f-ef

fica

cy

2.

Per

ceiv

ed c

ontr

ol

3.

Sta

te a

nxie

ty

4.

An

agra

m p

erfo

rman

ce

5.

Net

of

perf

orm

ance

exp

ecta

ncy

less

per

form

ance

eva

luat

ion

2 3

.14

-.35

*

-.21

4

- .1

4

.23

-.03

5 -.05

.18

-.02

.74*

*

n =

40,

*p<

.05,

**p

<.01

Endler et al. 45

for females) against normative data for Canadian undergraduates (M = 32.41 for males; M = 29.22 for females) obtained by Endler et al. (1991, p. 6). Thus, state anxiety levels in this study were significantly higher than the norm for males (t = 15.83,p < .01) and females (t = 10.56,p = < .01).

Means, standard deviations, and alpha reliabilities were computed for measures of state anxiety, general self-efficacy, and perceived control. These results are contained in Table 1. A series of t-tests was conducted to determine whether any gender differences were present. These tests for both the high and low objective control conditions revealed no gender differences on any of the variables employed in the present study.

Paired sample t-tests were conducted to compare the pre-test expectation with the post-test evaluation of the difficulty of the task, their performance, and their performance in relation to the performance of others. The post-test evaluation items were significantly lower than their pre-test self expectation on all three items (Results are presented in Table 2).

Correlational A nalyses

Separate correlation matrices were computed according to condition (high objective control, low objective control) and are displayed in Table 3. Computed correlation matrices were very similar for both the high and low objective control groups. There was a negative relationship between self-efficacy and state anxiety in both the high (r =-.42, p < .01) and low objective control (r =-.35, p < .01) conditions. Perceived control had a negative relationship with state anxiety, but only in the high control condition (r =-.34, p <.05). Finally, there was a positive relationship between the net performance expectancy/evaluation (i.e., performance expectancy minus performance evaluation), and anagram performance in both the high objective control (r = .45, p <.01) and low objective control (r = .74, p < .01) conditions. The relationship of the net expectancy/evaluation to actual performance was stronger in the low objective control condition. No other correlations were significant.

Analysis of Variance

A univariate analysis of the general linear model predicting state anxiety was conducted of the entire sample using gender (M/F), and objective control (high vs. low) as factors, with general self-efficacy, perceived control, and the number of anagrams solved as covariates. Neither factor, namely, gender or objective control, contributed to the model. However, both perceived control (F (1, 79) = 4.06, p < .05) and self- efficacy (F (1, 79) = 10.52, p < .01) were significant in relation to state anxiety (See Table 4 for results). A second similar analysis was conducted in which the number of anagrams solved served as the criterion variable. Factors and covariates were the same, except that state anxiety was added as a covariate. In this second analysis, no variable was related to anagram task performance.


TABLE 4 Results of analysis of general linear model of state anxiety by gender, objective control, with

general self-efficacy, perceived control, and number of anagrams solved as covariates

Covariates Sum of Souares d__f Mean Sauare _F

General self efficacy 1695.98 1 1695.98 10.37"* Perceived control 690.04 1 690.04 4.22* No. of anagrams solved 28.93 1 28.93 .18

Main Effects

Gender l 4.20 1 14.20 .09 Objective control 18.98 1 18.98 .12

N = 80, *p<.05, **p<.01

Multiple Regression Analyses

Four multiple regression analyses were conducted. Models were constructed for the conditions of high and low objective control, predicting performance (number of anagrams solved) and state anxiety.

Results for high objective control. Two analyses of the high control condition were performed. In the first, the number of anagrams solved, perceived control, and self- efficacy were simultaneously entered into the model predicting state anxiety. Self- efficacy was predictive of state anxiety (13=-0.26, p < .05) and perceived control approached significance (13=-0.88, p = .06). In the second analysis, perceived control, self-efficacy, and state anxiety were simultaneously entered into the model predicting anagram task performance. No variable was predictive of performance. The results of the regression analysis for the high objective control group are presented in Table 5(a).

Results for low objective control. Two analyses of the low control condition were also performed. In the first, the number of anagrams solved, perceived control, and self-efficacy were entered simultaneously into the model predicting state anxiety. Self- efficacy was predictive of state anxiety ([~=-0.3, p < .05). In the second, perceived control, self-efficacy, and state anxiety were simultaneously entered into the model predicting anagram task performance. No variable was predictive of anagram task performance. The results of the analyses for low objective control are displayed in Table 5(b).

Endler et al. 47

TABLE 5(a) Results of the multiple regression analyses for the high control experimental condition

Criterion Variables State Anxiety Performance

(EMAS-S) (no. of anagrams solved)

Standard Standard Predictors b error t b error t

No. of Anagrams solved -0.22 0.82 -0.27 Perceived control -0.88 0.45 -1.93]" 0.00 0.10 0.09 Self efficacy -0.26 0.10 -2.52* 0.00 0.02 0.50 State Anxiety 0.00 0.03 -0.27

TABLE 5(b) Multiple regression analyses for low control experimentation condition

Criterion Variables State Anxiety Performance

(EMAS-S) (no. of anagrams solved)

Standard Predictors b error _t

No. of Anagrams solved -0.39 0.93 -0.42 Perceived control -0.57 0.54 -1.06 Self efficacy -0.30 0.14 -2.15" State Anxiety

Standard b error t

0.12 0.10 1.30 0.00 0.03 -1.15 0.00 0.03 -0.42

n=40 Note: all degrees of freedom are 1. *p<.05, t P = .06


Summary of Results

The main finding of this study is that self-efficacy and perceived control are related to state anxiety in both the high and low objective control conditions. Regression analyses indicated that perceived control was more strongly related to state anxiety when objective control was high, and was unrelated when objective control was low. It is to be noted that the performance expectancy/evaluation variable was positively related to the actual performance on the test. There was a greater decrement in the evaluation of performance in those who performed poorly on the task. Finally, in contrast to what we had predicted, neither self-efficacy nor perceived control had any significant effect on anagram task performance.

DISCUSSION

The current study examined the extent to which general self-efficacy and perceived control were associated with state anxiety and performance when levels of controllability were manipulated while participants completed a challenging anagram task. Our analyses showed that self-efficacy was predictive of state anxiety in both the high and low objective control conditions. As current efficacy beliefs are partially formulated on the basis of past successes and failures (Bandura, 1997), feelings of self-inefficacy would be expected to elicit state anxiety. However, the current results show further that the association between self-inefficacy and anxiety is comparable across situations that are relatively high versus low in controllability. A goal for future research will be to examine whether the link between self-inefficacy and state anxiety is still evident under conditions of moderate control or where levels of control are uncertain.

Although self-efficacy was associated with state anxiety in both experimental conditions, general self-efficacy did not predict performance. This may be an artefact of the sample chosen, as students must learn to perform in spite of their lack of self- confidence. Even those with low self-efficacy may still achieve a high level of cognitive performance based on ability and past experience. However, our findings are in keeping with other research which shows that general self-efficacy is highly correlated with self-esteem, but self-efficacy is a poor predictor of test performance (see Stanley & Murphy, 1997). Overall, it seems that general self-efficacy is associated with el- evated performance expectations but it is not necessarily associated with actual levels of performance, at least as assessed in the situations included in the current study.

Perceived Control

Additional results showed that the manipulation of perceived controllability was highly effective; analyses of the Event Perception Measure (Jimmieson & Terry, 1997) showed that higher levels of controllability were indeed reported by those participants in the high control condition. Our decision to use the relatively new Event Perception Measure was supported further by evidence indicating that the scale had an adequate level of internal consistency in this study.

Endler et al. 49

Analyses of the more substantive findings involving the Event Perception Measure indicated that perceived control was associated significantly with state anxiety in the high control condition, but this association did not attain conventional levels of significance in the low control condition. Clearly, the replicability of these finding needs to be determined in subsequent research. There are many possible explanations for this pattern of findings. Although it is speculative, perhaps the most parsimonious explana- tion is that the lack of control evident in the low control condition led most individuals to attribute their performance to the task characteristics and the test situation rather than to themselves, while those in the high control condition were more likely to emphasise their personal role in determining the performance outcome. If so, then the stronger association between low perceived control and anxiety reflects the higher ego threat involved in the high control condition.

Three additional points about perceived control need to be mentioned. First, perceived control was not associated with performance in either the high or low control conditions. Although it might be expected that higher perceived control will translate into higher levels of performance, it is often the case that the controllability of a task and levels of performance are unrelated in achievement situations (for a discussion, see Mikulincer, 1989). Mikulincer (1989) notes that anxiety is often a better predictor of performance, but neither anxiety nor perceived control predicted performance in the current study.

Second, findings regarding the relationship of perceived control and self-efficacy have been equivocal, with some studies indicating that the constructs overlap, while other studies suggest that they are relatively independent (see Ajzen & Madden, 1986; Chwalisz et al., 1992; Cozzarelli, 1993; Gerin et al., 1995; Litt, 1988; Manstead & van-Eekelin, 1998). Our findings suggest that general self-efficacy (Sherer et al., 1982) and perceived control (Conway & Terry, 1992) are separable constructs, which seems to be the case when the focus is on general self-efficacy as a personality style rather than situation-specific efficacy beliefs. For instance, Smith (1989) showed that general levels of self-efficacy were affected by coping skills training, whereas, levels of control were not affected. Smith (1989) suggested that efficacy and control are influenced by different "parameters of experience" (p. 228) and our results are in keeping with this observation.

Finally, it has been suggested that the perception of control, rather than the objectively available control is sufficient to ameliorate the effects of stress (Thompson, 1991). The results of the current study support this view. It was the perception of control that was found to be significant in the model predicting state anxiety, whereas the objective control condition was not significantly related to state anxiety.

Expectancy and Evaluation

It is informative that although the task was rated as easier than expected after it was attempted, self-evaluations of performance became lower after performing the task, according to analyses conducted on the pre-task estimates and post-task evaluations. In


the case of the expectation/evaluation of performance on the task, the fact that it had a strong relationship with the actual number of anagrams solved in the low objective control condition, and only a moderate relationship for those in the high objective control condition suggests that participants were able to retain a more positive view in the high objective control condition.

Past research on self-efficacy and performance has shown that most students feel quite efficacious and tend to overestimate their actual task performance when asked to make prior estimates (see Meier et al., 1984). Even though our data suggest that there was a general tendency for most participants to evaluate themselves more negatively after the task, it is important to reiterate that higher state anxiety was reported prima- rily by the subset of individuals characterised by low levels of general self-efficacy. Taken together, then, the results of this study suggest that self-efficacy beliefs and, to a lesser extent, the perception of control may act as a buffer against stress (in this case, state anxiety). Further, although the result only approached conventional levels of significance (p = .06, see Table 5a), the data suggest that perceptions of control must be authentic in order to be predictive of state anxiety (i.e., actual control of the situation must be available to the participant).

Future Directions

The present investigation indicates that self-efficacy may be of importance in predicting state anxiety during a stressful cognitive task. While this finding is important, future investigations should attempt to employ a greater variety of stressful situations, including in vivo situations. It remains to be seen whether the relationship between generalised self-efficacy and state anxiety will hold in other stressful situations. It is also possible that appraisal of personal efficacy can change throughout the course of an enduring stressful situation (Litt, 1988) and studies that involve a joint examination of generalised efficacy and situation-specific efficacy may be especially informative. Given the results of the present study which showed that an effect was suggested for perceived control only where objective control was high, future research is needed to test this effect. It may be that objective control, mediated by the perception of control, is actually related to anxiety.

NOTES

Accepted for publication: 1 ! January 2000. Address correspondence to: Norman S. Endler, Department of Psychology, York University, 4700

Keele St., North York, Ontario, Canada, M3J 1P3. Norman S. Endler, Judith M. Johnson, and Gordon L. Flett, Department of Psychology, York Univer-

sity, Rachel L. Speer, now at Compusearch Micromarketing Data & Systems, Toronto. The study reported in this article was supported, in part, by Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council Grant No. 410- 94-1473 to Norman S. Endler.

Endler et al. 51

REFERENCES

Ajzen, I. & Madden, T.J. (1986). Prediction of goal-directed behaviour: Attitudes, intentions, and perceived behavioural control. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22,453-474.

Averill, J.R. (1973). Personal control over aversive stimuli and its relationship to stress. Psychological Bulletin, 80, 286--303.

Bandura, A. (1983). Self-efficacy determinants of fears and calamities. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45,464-469.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, N J: Prentice-Hall. Bandura, A. (1988). Self-efficacy conception of anxiety. Anxiety Research, 1,77-98. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman. Blankstein, K.R. (1984). Psychophysiology and perceived locus of control: Critical review, theoretical

speculation and research directions. In H.M. Lefcourt (Ed.), Research with the locus of control construct. Vol. 3. pp. 73-95. Orlando: Academic Press.

Blankstein, K.R., Toner, B.B. & Flett, G.L. (1989). Test anxiety and the contents of consciousness: Thought-listing and endorsement measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 23,269-286.

Bourne, L. E., Jr., Edstrand, B. R. & Dominowski, R. I., (1971). The psychology of thinking. Englewood Cliffs, N J: Prentice-Hall.

Carver, C. S. & Scheier, M. F. (1986). Self and the control of behavior. In L. M. Hartman & K. R. Blankstein (Eds.), Advances in the study of communication and affect: Vol II. Perception of self in emotional disorder and psychotherapy (pp. 5-35). New York: Plenum Press.

Chwalisz, K., Altmaier, E.M. & Russell, D.W. (1992). Causal attributions, self-efficacy cognitions, and coping with stress. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 11,377-400.

Conway, V. J. & Terry, D. J. (1992). Appraised controllability as a moderator of the effectiveness of different coping strategies: A test of the goodness of fit hypothesis. Australian Journal of Psychology, 44, 1-7.

Cozzarelli, C. (1993). Personality and self-efficacy as predictors of coping with abortion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology ,65, 1224-1236.

Endler, N.S., Speer, R.L., Johnson, J.M. & Flett, G.L. (2000). Controllability, Coping, efficacy, and distress. European Journal of Personality, 14,245-264

Endler, N.S., Edwards, J.M. & Vitelli, R. (1991 ). Endler Multidimensional Anxiety Scales (EMAS): Manual. Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services.

Folkman, S. (1984). Personal control and the stress and coping process: a theoretical analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46,839-852.

Geer, J. & Maisel., E. (1972). Evaluating the effects of the prediction-control confound. Journal of Person- ality and Social Psychology, 23, 314-319.

Gerin, W., Litt, M., Deich, J. & Pickering, T.G. (1995). Self-efficacy as a moderator of perceived control effects on cardiovascular reactivity: Is enhanced control always beneficial? Psychosomatic Medicine, 57, 390-397.

Glass, D.C., Singer, J.E., Leonard, H.S., Krantz, D., Cohen, S. & Cummings, H. (1973). Perceived control of aversive stimulation and the reductions of stress responses. Journal of Personality, 41,577-595.

Jimmieson, N. L. & Terry, D. J. (1997). Responses to an in-basket activity: The role of work stress, behavioral control, and informational control. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 2, 1-12.

Litt, M.D. (1988). Self-efficacy and perceived control: Cognitive mediators of pain tolerance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 149-160.

Maddux, J.E. (1991). Self-efficacy. In C.R. Snyder. & D.R. Forsyth. Handbook of Social and Clinical Psychology (pp. 57-78). New York: Pergamon Press.

Mallinckrodt, B. (1992). Childhood emotional bonds with parents, development of adult social competen- cies and availability of social support. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 39, 453-461.

Manstead, A. S. R. & van Eekelen, S. A. M. (1998). Distinguishing between perceived behavioral control and self-efficacy in the domain of academic intentions and behaviors. Journal of Applied Social Psy- chology, 28, 1375-1392.

Meier, S., McCarthy, P. R. & Schmeck, R. R. (1984). Validity of self-efficacy as a predictor of writing performance. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 8, 107-120.

Mendelsohn, G. A., Griswold, B. B. & Anderson, M. L. (1966). Individual differences in anagram-solving ability. Psychological Reports, 2,429-439.

Mikulincer, M. (1989) Cognitive interference and learned helplessness: The effects of off-task cognitions on performance following unsolvable problems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 129- 135.

Mineka, S. & Henderson, R.W. (1985). Controllability and predictability in acquired motivation. Annual Review of Psychology, 36,495-529.


Morgan, C.H., Owen, D.W., Miller, A. & Watts, M.L. (1986). Variations in stress responses as a function of cognitive and personality variables. Psychological Reports, 59, 575-583.

Notani, A. S. (1998). Moderators of perceived behavioral control's predictiveness in the theory of planned behavior: A meta-analysis. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 7, 247-271.

O'Leary, A. (1985). Self-efficacy and health. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 23,437-451. Pintrich, P. R. & DeGroot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom

academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33-40. Rich, A. R. & Woolever, D. K. (1988). Expectancy and self-focused attention: Experimental support for

the self-regulation model of test anxiety. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 7, 246-259. Rotter, J. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psycho-

logical Monographs, 80,609. Sherer, M., Maddux, J., Mercandante, B., Prentice-Dunn, S., Jacobs, B. & Rogers, R. (1982). The self-

efficacy scale: Construction and validation. Psychological Reports, 51,663~571. Smith, R.E. (1989). Effects of coping skills training on generalized self-efficacy and locus of control.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 228-233. Smith, R. J., Arnkoff, D. B. & Wright, T. L. (1990). Test anxiety and academic competence: A comparison

of alternative models. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 37, 313-321. Stanley, K. D. & Murphy, M.R. (1997). A comparison of general self-efficacy with self-esteem. Genetic,

Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 123, 79-99. Terry, D.J. & O'Leary, J.E. (1995). The theory of planned behavior: The effects of perceived behavioral

control and self-efficacy. British Journal of Social Psychology, 34, 199-220. Thompson, S.C. (1991). Intervening to enhance perceptions of control. In Snyder, C.R., & Forsyth, D.R.

Handbook of Social and Clinical Psychology (pp. 89-101). New York: Pergamon Press. Tresselt, M. E. & Mayzner, M. S. (1966). Normative solution times for a sample of 134 solution words and

378 associated anagrams. Psychonomic Monograph Supplements, 1,293-298. Woodruff, S. L. & Cashman, J. F. (1993). Task, domain, and general efficacy: A re-examination of the

Self-Efficacy Scale. Psychological Reports, 72,423-432. Wortman, C.B., Panciera, L., Shusterman, L. & Hibscher, J. (1976). Attributions of causality and reactions

to uncontrollable outcomes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 12, 301-316.

general self-efficacy and control in relation to anxiety and cognitive performance

Documents