From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Psychology (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Comments[edit] (talk) 05:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)'What a crock - every time a psychologist tries to define Information Systems procedures in human terms we end up with a bunch of self-defined self-effacing self-centered worthless research terms to feed the next graduate dissertation, signifying five wasted years of doctoral tuitionFrom 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)
  • Efficacy article is much different as it relates to pharmacology and healthcare, not psychology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep, obviously. 20 years ago is hardly a "neologism" and Albert Bandura isn't exactly an obscure name. 04:19, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, move to cleanup. Rhymeless 05:30, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

Confusion on Theoretical Model[edit]

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)

Excessive Citation Requirements[edit]

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.

Examples used may need improvement[edit]

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)

Citation cleanup needed[edit]

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)

Confirmation from contributors?[edit]

This sentence (second paragraph) seems to conflict with the rest of the article:

"Self-esteem relates to a person’s perception of their ability to reach a goal, whereas self-efficacy relates to a person’s sense of self-worth."

Where the article opens with specific mention of goal-attainment, it seems that "self-esteem" and "self-efficacy" have been transposed. azwaldo (talk) 02:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Possibly awkward "a.k.a." wording (under "Factors affecting self-efficacy")[edit]

I just added a redirect for enactive attainment, which was the term used to describe mastery experience in the university class I learned about self-efficacy in. I emulated the a.k.a. construct from "2. Modeling - a.k.a. 'Vicarious Experience'" for consistency but I think it's awkward. I don't think it's appropriate to simply delete the alternate terms enactive attainment and vicarious experience because (1) this would surprise anyone redirected from enactive attainment (how did I get here?), (2) my experience leads me to believe that these alternate terms are valid and reasonably common in this specific context, so it will likely be helpful to others searching for these terms. Is there a better wording for mentioning the alternate terms here? Maybe there's a style guide I don't know about? Firefeather (talk) 19:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

"those with high self-efficacy seem to be more able to live stress-free lives"[edit]

While I understand this statement is in the 'POSSIBLE applications' section, it seems straight forward and significant enough that someone would have done research on this. I'd like to believe the statement is true (and have seen indications of it), but I don't think everyone believes that. While I've done some reading on self-efficacy (with a particular focus), I'm not an expert on it. Therefore, I marked it as citation needed. If this article were about self-esteem than maybe that could stand as is, but a belief in ones ability to accomplish things is not the same as ones "overall evaluation or appraisal of her or his own worth" (from the self-esteem article). --BillCamp (talk) 14:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Word-for-word like another site that seems to predate the text here[edit]

I still haven't figured out an easy or reliable way to determine whether text used in WP articles is copied from other sites, or the other way around. The text in "How self-efficacy affects human function / Health Behaviors" has a citation style not standard to WP, which made me start looking around. It looks as though this text first appeared on Dec. 14, 2008, on, before appearing here on Jan. 4, 2009. Other sections are identical as well, but don't show up in this article until later.

I've been editing the article, and so some of the word-for-wordness has disappeared, but I'm concerned about what remains. Am I wrong in suspecting that this text was not original to WP? If I'm right, what should be done?

Thanks. -- Everything Else Is Taken (talk) 02:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)