See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/315326674

Persuasive Self-Efficacy: Dispositional and Situational Correlates

Article in Communication Research Reports · March 2017

DOI: 10.1080/08824096.2017.1297224

CITATIONS READS

7 1,855

2 authors:

John A Daly Charee M Thompson

University of Texas at Austin University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
84 PUBLICATIONS 4,733 CITATIONS 33 PUBLICATIONS 506 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by John A Daly on 23 October 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Communication Research Reports
Vol. 34, No. 3, 2017, pp. 249–258

Persuasive Self-Efficacy: Dispositional

and Situational Correlates
John A. Daly & Charee M. Thompson

People vary in their self-efficacy as persuaders. After devising a brief measure of

persuasive self-efficacy, we find that the construct correlates positively with a number
of variables relevant to social interaction, including self-esteem, self-monitoring, extro-
version, and openness to new experiences, and negatively with other variables, including
communication apprehension and neuroticism. Social self-efficacy had a modest but
significant relationship with persuasive self-efficacy. Drawing from research on contex-
tual self-efficacy, we also examine some of the social situations where persuasive self-
efficacy may matter and find that people vary in their self-efficacy as a persuader as a
function of the context.

Keywords: Communication; Persuasion; Self-Efficacy

There is an extensive history in scholarship on social influence, focusing on the role of

individual differences. Early work found that variables such as self-esteem, dogmatism
and authoritarianism, and tolerance for ambiguity all affected the impact of persuasive
messages. Later, variables such as need for cognition, self-monitoring, and cognitive
complexity, among others, became important in understanding both how people
process persuasive messages as well as how they went about constructing them.
Drawing from Bandura’s (1997) social cognitive theory, we propose that people
vary in their self-efficacy as a persuader. Some people, we suggest, see themselves as
far more effective persuaders than others. We introduce a brief measure of the
construct and then examine some correlates of the construct. In addition, we argue
that one’s self-efficacy as a persuader varies as a function of situations. Drawing from

John A. Daly (PhD, Purdue University, 1977) is a Professor in the Department of Communication Studies at the
University of Texas. Charee M. Thompson (PhD, University of Texas, 2013) is an Assistant Professor in the
School of Communication Studies at Ohio University. Correspondence: Charee M. Thompson, School of Com-
munication Studies, Ohio University, Athens, OH 45701; E-mail: thompsc3@ohio.edu

ISSN 0882-4096 (print)/ISSN 1746-4099 (online) © 2017 Eastern Communication Association

DOI: 10.1080/08824096.2017.1297224
250 J. A. Daly & C. M. Thompson
work on the psychology of social contexts (Forgas, 1979; Wish & Kaplan, 1977), we
provide initial evidence that while people may systematically vary in how efficacious
they feel about their persuasiveness, their feelings of persuasive self-efficacy differ as a
function of the context.
Bandura (1997) argued that, based upon appraisals of personal experiences and compar-
isons with others, people develop beliefs in “one’s capabilities to organize and execute the
courses of action required to produce given attainments” (p. 3). People are more likely to
seek out, expend greater effort in, and persevere in situations where they feel more
efficacious. Self-efficacy is about feelings of “can” rather than “will” (Bandura, 2006). People’s
performance on a task is determined, in part, by what they believe they can do. Moreover, the
amount of anxiety and stress people feel when performing an action is related to their sense
of self-efficacy about that action (Pajares, 1997). Critically, self-efficacy is tied to specific sorts
of tasks rather than broad assessments of ability. The vital role of self-efficacy has been
demonstrated in a variety of settings (academic, politics, technology, work, exercise, pain
management, relationships) with children, adolescents, and adults.
While there has not been systematic research on the idea that people vary in their
persuasive self-efficacy, persuasion has long been part of self-efficacy theory. In
Bandura’s work one source of information for forming a sense of self-efficacy is
positive verbal persuasion—suggestions and encouragement that enhance people’s
sense of confidence and competence (Newlin, 1997). People can, he suggests, be
persuaded to become more self-efficacious in a domain. Our focus, though, is on
the degree to which people feel self-efficacious about their ability to influence others.
Several strands of research suggest both the construct and its importance. One strand is
research on social self-efficacy, self-efficacy as a communicator, and self-efficacy in perform-
ing in presentations. In these studies, social efficacy is positively correlated with public
speaking success (Christie & Segrin, 1998) and self-perceived interpersonal communication
competency (Rubin, Martin, Bruning, & Powers, 1993), and inversely related to social
anxiety (Maddux, Norton, & Leary, 1988). In design competitions, self-perceived commu-
nication competence is positively correlated with self-efficacy about performing as well as in
discussing and defending one’s designs (Housley Gaffney, 2011). A second strand is located
in settings that include persuasion. For instance, salespeople’s self-efficacy is positively
correlated with persistence and amount of sales activities and sales performance (Yang,
Kim, & McFarland, 2011). Prosocial persuasive skills are positively associated with children’s
academic, physical, and social self-concept and inversely related with anxiety. Further,
persuasive self-efficacy is positively linked to peer and teacher ratings of influence (Wheeler
& Ladd, 1982). Persuasiveness is a vital social skill, and people’s beliefs in how efficacious
they are when it comes to being persuasive may significantly affect them and their lives. In
this article we start exploring the nature of persuasive self-efficacy.
Our first question concerns the degree to which persuasive self-efficacy is related to other
important social-communicative constructs. These constructs are self-esteem, communica-
tion apprehension, self-monitoring, social self-efficacy, and the personality variables that
make up the Big Five. Self-esteem and persuasive self-efficacy should, we hypothesize, be
positively associated. In their meta-analysis, Judge, Erez, Bono, and Thoresen (2002) found a
strong positive correlation between generalized self-efficacy and self-esteem.
 Communication Research Reports 251

Communication apprehension, a person’s predisposition to seek and enjoy or fear and avoid
communication, should be inversely related to persuasive self-efficacy. Studies have linked
variants of communication apprehension to other sorts of social self-efficacy (Yang et al.,
2011). The self-monitoring construct taps into the degree to which people are willing to
adapt to changing situational requirements. Research has found that generalized self-efficacy
is positively associated with self-monitoring (Harrison, Chadwick, & Scales, 1996). Social
self-efficacy is a midrange measure of self-efficacy and should be moderately related to
persuasive self-efficacy. If the correlation between the two constructs is high, then questions
emerge about the value of a persuasive-specific measure of efficacy. Finally, we hypothesize,
based on prior research (e.g., Hartman & Betz, 2007), that persuasive self-efficacy would be
positively related to extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness to new
experiences and inversely associated with neuroticism. In sum, we predict:
H1: Persuasive self-efficacy is positively related to self-esteem, self-monitoring, social
self-efficacy, extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness to new
experiences.
H2: Persuasive self-efficacy is negatively related to communication apprehension and
neuroticism.
The second question we examine is the role of persuasive self-efficacy in people’s
confidence about persuading in different contexts. Nested in Bandura’s (1977) work is the
argument that self-efficacy is not independent of context. Certain settings demand higher
levels of performance than others and thus require stronger levels of self-efficacy. For
example, self-efficacy for many different sorts of activities may be higher in low-risk and
low-difficulty settings. Conceptually, Morse, Neel, Todd, and Funder (2015) argue that
“situations are opportunities to pursue and express motives and that perceptions of situa-
tions will reflect those motives” (p. 390). Research finds that self-efficacy is more strongly
related to performance measures when tasks are less complex and is a weaker predictor with
complex tasks (Stajkovic & Luthens, 1998). Among children, persuasive self-efficacy varies
as a function of the degree of conflict involved in schoolroom situations (Wheeler & Ladd,
1982). We selected a number of different contextual variables that might affect people’s
confidence as a persuader. Theoretically, some were derived from work by Wish and Kaplan
(1977), and others were generated to reflect situations that, in line with work by Matsumoto
(2012), people would typically experience when attempting to persuade others and should
affect their sense of persuasive efficacy.
RQ1: In which contexts do individuals perceive themselves to have the greatest
persuasive self-efficacy?

Method
Participants
The sample consisted of 428 undergraduate students enrolled at a large Southwestern
university. They were offered extra credit for their participation. On average, partici-
pants (66.8% were female) were 19.88 years old (SD = 2.16).1
252 J. A. Daly & C. M. Thompson
Measures
Persuasive self-efficacy
Five items were generated by the authors to measure perceived self-efficacy related to
persuasiveness. A list of the items, as well as information about the principle compo-
nents factor analysis, can be found at https://osf.io/dwugd/. Internal consistency for
the five items was .75 (M = 3.93, SD = .57). Correlations among the variables can be
found in Table 1.

Self-esteem
Self-esteem was measured using Rosenberg’s (1965) 10-item Self-Esteem Scale. We
chose this instrument based on both its popularity and its use in the Judge et al.
(2002) meta-analysis that found a strong positive relationship between generalized
self-efficacy and esteem. Internal consistency for the 10 items was .87 (M = 5.64,
SD = .97).

Communication apprehension
McCroskey’s (1982) Personal Report of Communication Apprehension (PRCA-24)
measured participants’ apprehension in four domains: group discussion (six items),
meetings (six items), interpersonal interactions (six items), and public speaking (six
items). Cronbach’s alphas for the subscales were good: group discussion, α = .94
(M = 14.92, SD = 5.22); meetings, α = .93 (M = 15.13, SD = 5.12); interpersonal
interactions, α = .85 (M = 13.30, SD = 4.17); and public speaking, α = .93 (M = 17.78,
SD = 5.32). A total communication apprehension score was computed by summing
across subscales (α = .93, M = 60.92, SD = 16.72).

Self-monitoring
Self-Monitoring was measured using Snyder’s (1974) 25-item Self-Monitoring Scale.
Scores ranged from 4 to 25, with higher scores reflect higher self-monitoring (α = .65,
M = 14.56, SD = 3.73).

Social self-efficacy
Sherer et al.’s (1982) six-item Social Self-Efficacy subscale of the general Self-Efficacy
Scale was used. One item was dropped in order to improve reliability from .73 to .75
(“If I meet someone interesting who is hard to make friends with, I’ll soon stop trying
to make friends with that person”). Scores were computed as the sum of the five items
(M = 18.11, SD = 3.38).

Big five personality traits

The Big Five Inventory (John & Srivastava, 1999) was used to measure agreeableness
(α = .78, M = 34.70, SD = 5.88), neuroticism (α = .80, M = 22.21, SD = 5.74),
Table 1 Correlations Among the Variables
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

1. Persuasive Self-Efficacy –
2. Self-Esteem .27* –
3. Self-Monitoring .29* −.06 –
4. Social Self-Efficacy .30* .34* .22* —
5. Extraversion .39* .33* .28* .67* –
6. Agreeableness .002 .29* −.10 .33* .17* –
7. Conscientiousness .09 .34* −.15 .15 .11 .22* –
8. Openness .30* .11 .12 .18* .19* .01 −.05 –
9. Neuroticism −.17* −.48* .01 −.37* −.32* −.38* −.18* −.07 –
10. Meeting Apprehension −.39* −.23* −.15 −.34* −.44* −.03 −.10 −.26* .31* –
11. Group Discussion Apprehension −.31* −.17 −.18* −.38* −.50* −.08 −.05 −.21* .32* .77* –
12. Interpersonal Interactions Apprehension −.33* −.29* −.13 −.56* −.56* −.11 −.12 −.29* .33* .58* .55* –
13. Public Speaking Apprehension −.35* −.24* −.17* −.28* −.40* −.09 −.16 −.18* .36* .67* .59* .45* –
14. Communication Apprehension −.41* −.26* −.19* −.45* −.56* −.10 −.11 −.27* .39* .90* .87* .74* .82* –
*p < .00385 (Bonferroni-adjusted p value).
Communication Research Reports
253
254 J. A. Daly & C. M. Thompson
Table 2 Contextual Dimensions of Persuasive Self-Efficacy
Dimension α M SD r with Persuasive Self-Efficacy p value for r

Challenging Situation .76 2.68 .66 .45 <.001

Topic Relevance .67 4.53 .57 .33 <.001
Informality-Intimacy .76 4.15 .58 .35 <.001
Harmony .73 4.02 .55 .27 <.001
Familiarity-Preparation .76 4.61 .51 .41 <.001
Task-Formality .69 3.47 .76 .32 <.001
Topic Superficiality .31 2.79 .72 .07 .16
Unfamiliar People .83 2.78 .91 .29 <.001
Note. All correlations, except that for topic superficiality, are significant using a Bonferroni-adjusted p value of
.00625.

extraversion (α = .86, M = 28.85, SD = 6.17), conscientiousness (α = .80, M = 32.73,

SD = 5.83), and openness (α = .78, M = 37.30, SD = 6.04).

Contexts for persuasion

A list of 43 items was generated by the authors to reflect situations in which
individuals may or may not believe they are good at persuading people. The list was
drawn from prior work on situations and contexts (e.g., Bond, 2013; Brown, Neel, &
Sherman, 2015; Forgas, 1979; Kelley et al., 2003; Morse et al., 2015; Ten Berge & De
Raad, 2002; Wish & Kaplan, 1977) as well as brief interviews with students from the
same group our sample was chosen from. Information about the principle component
factor analysis, as well as a list of the final items used for the eight contexts, can be
found at https://osf.io/dwugd/. Context relabilities, means, and standard deviations
can be found in Table 2.

Results
Correlational Analysis
Pearson product-moment correlations using a Bonferroni-adjusted p value of .00385
were computed between persuasive self-efficacy and the 13 variables hypothesized to
be related to the construct. As expected, persuasive self-efficacy was positively and
significantly related to self-esteem, self-monitoring, extraversion, and openness to new
experiences. Importantly, while the correlation between persuasive self-efficacy and
social self-efficacy was significant and positive, the magnitude was modest. Had it
been very strong, we would question whether we were simply measuring a variant of
social self-efficacy.
As expected, persuasive self-efficacy was negatively and significantly related to
neuroticism, all four sources of communication apprehension, and general commu-
nication apprehension. There were nonsignificant correlations between persuasive
 Communication Research Reports 255

self-efficacy and both agreeableness and conscientiousness. Table 1 provides a correla-

tion matrix of the variables. Thus, H2 was supported and H1 was mostly supported.2

Contextual Analysis
Our research question asked in which contexts individuals perceive themselves to have
the greatest persuasive self-efficacy. Using paired t-tests, we found that most of the
means were significantly different (p < .05) from one another with the exception of the
comparison between unfamiliar people and topic superficiality (p = .78). Detailed
results from these mean comparisons can be obtained from the first author. Based on
a Bonferroni-adjusted p value of .00625, seven of the eight situational self-efficacy
variables were significantly and positively related with generalized persuasive self-
efficacy (see Table 2), the exception being topic superficiality. Broadly, the data
suggest that people feel more efficacious in their ability to persuade when the topic
is relevant, they are well prepared, there is informality and intimacy, and the setting is
harmonious. People feel less efficacious in settings where they face many challenges,
the task is formal, the topic is superficial, and they are talking with unfamiliar people.

Discussion
In this project we proposed that persuasive self-efficacy would be significantly related
to a number of social-communicative dispositions. To examine this we created a brief
measure of the construct of persuasive self-efficacy. We found that persuasive self-
efficacy was positively associated with self-monitoring, self-esteem, extraversion,
openness to new experiences, and inversely with communication apprehension and
neuroticism. These results suggest that to the degree the various personality measures
tap social and communicative effectiveness, the greater people’s self-efficacy about
persuasion, the more socially effective they may be. Each of the personality variables
included in this study has been tied to social behaviors that have important con-
sequences (e.g., relational satisfaction, organizational success, interpersonal effective-
ness). In future research we will need to explore the consequences of persuasive self-
efficacy. One could easily argue that people who are more self-confident about their
persuasiveness should be both more effective socially and more willing to use persua-
sive moves to get what they need and want.
Of course, there is the question of whether persuasive self-efficacy affects the actual
persuasiveness of people. Broadly, theory does not claim that self-efficacy, in and by
itself, should predict behavioral outcomes. Instead self-efficacy taps into the confi-
dence people have in their sense of being able to effectively engage in tasks. Future
research may want to explore how persuasive self-efficacy arises—perhaps as research
on the development of personal agency has developed (David, Newen, & Vogeley,
2008).
The second way we explored persuasive self-efficacy was by looking at situations
that might affect people’s sense of persuasive self-efficacy. Activities happen in
256 J. A. Daly & C. M. Thompson
contexts. As Banduara (1997) says, “Efficacy beliefs should be measured in terms of
particularized judgments of capability that may vary across realms of activity… .
Personal efficacy is not a contextless global disposition” (p. 42). Our suspicion was
that people would feel more or less efficacious depending upon specific persuasive
challenges. Drawing from research on situations, we generated a list of situations
where one might need to be persuasive and asked people to indicate their sense of
persuasive efficacy in those contexts. We identified eight dimensions and found
significant differences in people’s sense of persuasive efficacy in these contexts. All
of the contextual dimensions except topic superficiality were significantly and posi-
tively related with persuasive self-efficacy. However, there were a number of signifi-
cant differences in persuasive self-efficacy depending upon the situational
characteristics.
To the degree that context matters, research on social influence may need to more
carefully consider the role situations play. One might wonder how dimensions such as
task-versus-social or familiar-unfamiliar might affect the outcomes of past studies. We
know, for example, from research in deception that familiarity matters (Reinhard,
Sporer, Scharmach, & Marksteiner, 2011). Indeed, we see hints of the importance of
situational persuasive self-efficacy in the different patterns of sex differences, which we
discuss in the first footnote. More broadly, a focus on situations returns us to high-
lighting the value of interactionist perspectives in social influence. One limitation of
the current work is that the situational dimensions were created inductively. Future
research may want to explore more theoretic approaches to situations (Brown et al.,
2015) or perhaps use linguistic markers (e.g., Edwards & Templeton, 2005).

Notes
[1] Self-efficacy research finds that males generally report slightly higher self-efficacy than
females in a variety of domains, including academic work (Huang, 2013; Pajares, 1997;),
health management (Wangberg, 2008), and negotiation (Stevens, Bavetta, & Gist, 1993).
Given this, we did a post hoc analysis to see if the difference was so with persuasiveness
self-efficacy. There was a significant difference between males and females in their self-
efficacy as persuaders, t(424) = −2.30, p < .05, Cohen’s d = .24. Males (M = 4.01, SD = .59)
perceived themselves as slightly but statistically significantly more persuasive than females
(M = 3.88, SD = .56). For the contexts for persuasion, females (M = 2.59, SD = .66) had a
significantly lower, t(426) = −4.15, p < .001, Cohen’s d = .42, mean on challenging situation
than males (M = 2.87, SD = .61). The same was true for task-formality, t(426) = −4.36,
p < .001, Cohen’s d = .45 (Female M = 3.36, SD = .78; Male M = 3.69, SD = .67), and
informal-intimate, t(426) = −2.13, p < .05, Cohen’s d = .21 (Female M = 4.11, SD = .59; Male
M = 4.23, SD = .54), situations.
[2] We assessed the potential consequences of collinearity among our variables. First, we com-
puted a multiple regression with persuasive self-efficacy as the criterion variable and the
various personality variables as predictors. Indicators of multicollinearity showed little cause
for concern: Variance inflation factor (VIF) scores for each predictor were relatively small,
less than 2.0, except for the VIF associated with extroversion (2.11), and none of the
tolerances was less than .48 (Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, & Tatham, 2005). Second, we
computed a series of two-step multiple regressions. For each, persuasive self-efficacy was the
criterion, and we included all the personality variables except one in the first step. We entered
 Communication Research Reports 257
2
the excluded variable in the second step. We found significant changes in R for openness,
extroversion, self-monitoring, self-esteem, and communication apprehension. There was no
significant improvement in R2 for conscientiousness, neuroticism, openness to new experi-
ence, or agreeableness. Regardless of our analyses, it is important to recognize that in studies
where relationships among personality dispositions are examined, there are often correlations
among the variables.

References
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavior change. Psychological
Bulletin, 84(2), 191–213. doi:10.1037/0033-295x.84.2.191
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman.
Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy measures. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.),
Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 307–337). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
Bond, M. H. (2013). Refining Lewin’s formula: A general model for explaining situational influence
on individual behavior. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 16(1), 1–15. doi:10.1111/
ajsp.12012
Brown, N. A., Neel, R., & Sherman, R. A. (2015). Measuring the evolutionarily important goals of
situations: Situational affordances for adaptive problems. Evolutional Psychology, 13(3), 1–15.
doi:10.1177/1474704915593662
Christie, V., & Segrin, C. (1998). The influence of self-efficacy and of gender on the performance of
social and nonsocial tasks. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 26(4), 374–389.
doi:10.1080/00909889809365515
David, N., Newen, A., & Vogeley, K. (2008). The “sense of agency” and its underlying cognitive and
neural mechanisms. Consciousness and Cognition, 17(2), 523–534. doi:10.1016/j.
concog.2008.03.004
Edwards, J. A., & Templeton, A. (2005). The structure of perceived qualities of situations. European
Journal of Social Psychology, 35(6), 705–723. doi:10.1002/ejsp.271
Forgas, J. P. (1979). Social episodes: The study of interaction routines. London, UK/New York, NY:
Academic Press.
Hair, J. F., Black, B., Babin, B., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2005). Multivariate data analysis
(6th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson.
Harrison, J. K., Chadwick, M., & Scales, M. (1996). The relationship between cross-cultural adjust-
ment and the personality variables of self-efficacy and self-monitoring. International Journal
of Intercultural Relations, 20(2), 167–188. doi:10.1016/0147-1767(95)00039-9
Hartman, R. O., & Betz, N. E. (2007). The five-factor model and career self-efficacy: General and
domain specific relationships. Journal of Career Assessment, 15(2), 145–161. doi:10.1177/
1069072706298011
Housley Gaffney, A. L. (2011). Measuring students’ self-efficacy for communication in design
critiques and studios. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 30(2), 211–225.
doi:10.1111/j.1476-8070.2011.01702.x
Huang, C. (2013). Gender differences in academic self-efficacy: A meta-analysis. European Journal of
Psychology of Education, 28(1), 1–35. doi:10.1007/s10212-011-0097-y
John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big-Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and
theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory
and research (Vol. 2, pp. 102–138). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Judge, T. A., Erez, A., Bono, J. E., & Thoresen, C. (2002). Are measures of self-esteem, neuroticism,
locus of control, and generalized self-efficacy indicators of a common core construct? Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(3), 693–710. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.83.3.693
Kelley, H., Holmes, J., Kerr, N., Reis, H., Rusbult, C., & Van Lange, P. (2003). An atlas of
interpersonal situations. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
 258 J. A. Daly & C. M. Thompson
Maddux, J. E., Norton, L. W., & Leary, M. R. (1988). Cognitive components of social anxiety: An
investigation of the integration of self-presentation theory and self-efficacy theory. Journal of
Social and Clinical Psychology, 6(2), 180–190. doi:10.1521/jscp.1988.6.2.180
Matsumoto, D. (2012). The psychological dimensions of context. Acta de Investigacion Psicologica, 2
(2), 611–622.
McCroskey, J. C. (1982). An introduction to rhetorical communication (4th Ed.). Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Morse, P. J., Neel, R., Todd, E., & Funder, D. (2015). Renovating situation taxonomies: Exploring the
construction and content of fundamental situation types. Journal of Personality, 83(4), 389–
403. doi:10.1111/jopy.12111
Newlin, M. H. (1997). An examination of the effects of verbal persuasion on an individual’s judgment
of self-efficacy (Unpublished PhD dissertation). Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.
Pajares, F. (1997). Current directions in self-efficacy research. In M. Maehr & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.),
Advances in motivation and achievement (Vol. 10, pp. 1–49). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Reinhard, M., Sporer, S., Scharmach, M., & Marksteiner, T. (2011). Listening, not watching:
Situational familiarity and the ability to detect deception. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 101(3), 467–484. doi:10.1037/a0023726
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.
Rubin, R. B., Martin, M. M., Bruning, S. S., & Powers, D. E. (1993). Test of a self-efficacy model of
interpersonal communication competence. Communication Quarterly, 41(2), 210–220.
doi:10.1080/01463379309369880
Sherer, M., Maddux, J. E., Mercandante, B., Prentice-Dunn, S., Jacobs, B., & Rogers, R. W. (1982).
The self-efficacy scale: Construction and validation. Psychological Reports, 51(2), 663–671.
doi:10.2466/pr0.1982.51.2.663
Snyder, M. (1974). Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 30(4), 526–537. doi:10.1037/h0037039
Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthens, F. (1998). Self-efficacy and work-related performance: A meta-analysis.
Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 240–261. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.124.2.240
Stevens, C. K., Bavetta, A. G., & Gist, M. E. (1993). Gender differences in the acquisition of salary
negotiation skills: The role of goals, self-efficacy, and perceived control. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 78(5), 723–735. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.78.5.723
Ten Berge, M. A., & De Raad, B. (2002). The structure of situations from a personality perspective.
European Journal of Personality, 16(2), 81–102. doi:10.1002/per.435
Wangberg, S. C. (2008). An Internet-based diabetes self-care intervention tailored to self-efficacy.
Health Education Research, 23(1), 170–179. doi:10.1093/her/cym014
Wheeler, V., & Ladd, G. W. (1982). Assessment of children’s self-efficacy for social interactions with
peers. Developmental Psychology, 18(6), 795–805. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.18.6.795
Wish, M., & Kaplan, S. J. (1977). Toward an implicit theory of interpersonal communication.
Sociometry, 40(3), 234–246. doi:10.2307/3033530
Yang, B., Kim, Y., & McFarland, R. G. (2011). Individual differences and sales performance: A distal-
proximal mediation model of self-efficacy, conscientiousness, and extraversion. Journal of
Personal Selling & Sales Management, 31(4), 371–381. doi:10.2753/PSS0885-3134310401

View publication stats