Talk:Self-efficacy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From VfD:

Pretty much individual research and a dictdef. It's also vertiginously tautological. Geogre 13:34, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Uncertain: it seems to be a valid psychological topic, however it is little more than a dicdef in its current form. If it can be expanded I would say keep. Otherwise, redirect to self-esteem or some other appropriate page. (If it is kept it needs a '-' of its own though). TPK 14:16, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• A neologism coined (as near as I can tell) by Dr Albert Bandura in 1986 or so. It appears to have caught on in self-help circles. See plenty of hits at [1]. Personally, I don't see much distinction between this concept and self-esteem but at least a few of the hits were academic papers splitting this hair. Keep. Rossami 14:53, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Plain old "efficacy" is a term used in political science (a high feeling of personal efficacy is a strong predictor of whether someone will vote). I vote to move and expand. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 15:46, 2004 Aug 12 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to efficacy. Also redirect self-efficacy there. -Sean Curtin 22:16, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, obviously. 20 years ago is hardly a "neologism" and Albert Bandura isn't exactly an obscure name. --Tothebarricades.tk 04:19, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, move to cleanup. Rhymeless 05:30, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

Contents 1 Confusion on Theoretical Model 2 Excessive Citation Requirements 3 Examples used may need improvement 4 Citation cleanup needed

[edit] Confusion on Theoretical Model

Social Self-Efficacy has a positive relationship with prosocial behavior which is helping others, sharing, being kind and cooperative. On the other hand, moral disengagement and prosocial behavior has a negative relationship.

To me the article says that Social Self-Efficacy has a positive and negative relationship with prosocial behavior. (as well as a negative relationship with moral disengagement)

Was this a mistake and it was just meant for moral disengagment to be negative? If so, then such a correction should be made.

Does it mean that it's positive with prosocial behavior alone, but negative with prosocial behavior and moral disengagement combined? If so, more clarification should be given.

Or does it just mean that prosocial behavior and moral disengagment are negatively related? If so, this needs to be stated more clearly. The 'On the other hand' phrase implies that these topics are still related to Social Self-Efficacy.

Bobcat64 21:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Excessive Citation Requirements

A glaring example is "One can have self-efficacy beliefs about any human endeavor.[citation needed]" This statement is general enough that no citation is required. Feel free to rebuke me on this, and change it back after I take a couple of these out, but this seems excessive.

24.16.114.225

[edit] Examples used may need improvement

The article currently uses three examples of "commonly studied types of self-efficacy beliefs". However, these examples are too school-oriented. For instance: "Self-Regulatory Self-Efficacy: ability to resist peer pressure, avoid high-risk activities Academic Self-Efficacy: ability to do course work, regulate learning activities, meet expectancies"

They seem to be there mostly for the section immediately following it. I'd recommend moving it to that section and making it a little more clear on the later, linked part: "Self-regulatory self efficacy and academic self efficacy have a negative relationship with moral disengagement." There's an explaination later in the paragraph that needs to be written in earlier for clairity. I'd do it, but I'm not sure how to do it according to Wikipedia's style guide.

Regardless if the three examples are moved or deleted, I think a more universal and concrete example would work better in it's place. Ex. Self-Regulatory Self-Efficacy could be replaced by Work Self-Efficacy: ability to get a work done at a reasonable quality, avoid distractions--that feels a little more universal than "resisting peer pressure", an often-loaded term.

(And that's my bias, of course--not everyone thinks in terms of getting things done. Maybe a counter-bias should be introduced? I could be nitpicking, here.) Kennard2 08:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citation cleanup needed

Quote: "Research shows that the ‘optimum’ level of self efficacy is a little above ability; which encourages people to tackle challenging tasks and gain valuable experience."

Erased [citation needed]; self-explanatory in nature. Citation logically needed due to the fact that 'Research shows' precedes the statement. Cleanup in this context and others would make a much cleaner page.

I disagree. Your snippet is a hypothesis that should be supported with references to published theory or evidence. The best way to clean up this article would be to improve the quality of writing, and supply more specific references. The "citation needed" tags are important reminders that the information in the article can not be considered reliable until verified with references. Nesbit 18:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)