The relation of self-efficacy and error-related self-regulation

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2011.01.005Get rights and content

Abstract

Relations between a modifiable psychosocial factor, self-efficacy (SE), and behavioral and neural indices of self-regulation, including post-error behavior, the error-related negativity (ERN), and error positivity (Pe) were examined in young adults during a flanker task emphasizing either accuracy or speed. SE was predicted to be associated with larger ERN and Pe amplitudes, as well as greater post-error behavioral performance during task conditions emphasizing accuracy, but not speed. Results showed that higher SE was associated with greater post-error response accuracy during the accuracy condition, but not the speed condition, and higher SE was related with greater ERN amplitudes across instruction conditions. Further, ERN amplitude mediated the relationship between SE and post-error response accuracy in the accuracy condition. These findings emphasize the role of motivation and incentive on the self-regulatory system and suggest that SE is beneficially related to self-regulatory processes and outcomes.

Research Highlights

► Self-efficacy is positively related with greater post-error accuracy. ► Self-efficacy is positively related with greater ERN amplitude. ► ERN mediates the relationship between self-efficacy and post-error accuracy.

Introduction

Self-efficacy (SE) is the primary variable of interest in social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986, Bandura, 1997). Social cognitive theory specifies four core features of human agency: “intentionality, forethought, self-reactiveness, and self-reflectiveness” (Bandura and Locke, 2003, p. 97). In this framework, SE works within a dual control system that operates both as a proactive agent to institute higher levels of functioning as well as a reactive agent to reduce discrepant outcomes (Bandura, 1991, Bandura, 2001). Specifically, SE reflects individuals' judgments in their capabilities to successfully execute courses of action (Bandura, 1977) and is theorized to influence effort expenditure and perseverance under failure and aversive stimuli (Bandura, 1986), with more efficacious individuals expending more effort and persevering longer than less efficacious individuals. SE has been positively associated with work-related performance (Stajkovic and Luthans, 1998) as well as cognitive performance (Berry and West, 1993, Bouffard-Bouchard, 1990, Lachman and Jelalian, 1984). Further, SE is quite malleable and can be altered through attainments based on mastery experiences, social modeling, and social persuasion (Bandura, 1986) and experimentally induced SE has been positively associated with cognitive task performance (Bouffard-Bouchard, 1990). Finally, SE plays an important role in achievement and self-regulatory adjustments during the completion of challenging tasks or task conditions (Bandura and Cervone, 1983, Cervone and Peake, 1986).

Given the flexibility of SE and its sensitivity to experience, it is important to consider potential ongoing adjustments to both SE and task performance. Specifically, as one engages a task, self-feedback and mastery experiences are obtained. Thus, more information is available to adjust both SE and related self-regulatory processes in order to perform the task in accord with one's intentions. Accordingly, the relations between SE and indices of self-regulation may be adjusted as well. One interpretation of the relation between SE and self-regulation during task execution is that during the initial completion of a task, individuals may still be learning how to engage the task and developing their self-regulatory capabilities (Zimmerman and Kitsantas, 1997). This would lead them to focus more on process goals during task execution. Process goals focus on strategies needed to execute the task (e.g., ensure hands are placed properly on the response buttons; visually focus on the target stimulus). During later performances, individuals would have better developed experience-based self-regulatory skills with the task and would be able focus more on outcome goals. Outcome goals involve the final outcome of task execution (e.g., make the correct response).

An alternative interpretation suggests that process and outcome distinctions may not be warranted for self-regulatory processing in a relatively simple speeded-response task. As such, the goal of self-regulation (improved performance) would remain consistent (outcome goal-oriented) and relations between SE and all indices of self-regulation would be similar across task experiences. In sum, greater experience would uniformly enhance perceptions of SE, self-regulatory function, and subsequent task performance (Bandura and Wood, 1989).

To assess the nature of the relationship between SE and self-regulation across task experience, the measurement of self-regulatory processes and outcomes are required during the completion of a speeded-response task. Assessments of self-regulatory outcomes have come largely from examining post-error behavior; specifically post-error response accuracy and post-error response time (RT; Rabbitt, 1966). These behavioral measures reflect the outcome of self-regulation and provide evidence for the overall implementation and effectiveness of self-regulation. The assessment of self-regulatory processes in the field of psychophysiology has come largely from the investigation of the error-related negativity (ERN; Gehring et al., 1993; or Ne; Falkenstein et al., 1991, Falkenstein et al., 2000) and error positivity (Pe; Falkenstein et al., 2000).

The ERN is a negative-going component of the response-locked event-related brain potential (ERP) with a fronto-central maximum and peaks around 50-100 ms after an incorrect response. The ERN is typically identified as either a reinforcement learning index of error detection (Holroyd and Coles, 2002) or an early indicator of response conflict in association with erroneous task performance (Yeung et al., 2004). Specifically, the ERN is believed to index the self-regulatory detection of behavioral conflict or an error during task execution. This detection process appears to exist outside of conscious awareness (Nieuwenhuis et al., 2001) and an array of variables and factors appear to influence ERN amplitude and this detection process. These include psychological factors such as neuroticism (Pailing and Segalowitz, 2004a), negative affect (Hajcak et al., 2004, Luu et al., 2000), depression (Chiu and Deldin, 2007), and motivation and incentive (Hajcak et al., 2005, Pailing and Segalowitz, 2004a). Given the strong, positive relationships SE has with motivation (Bandura, 1977, Bandura, 1986, Bandura, 1993) and neuroticism (Judge et al., 2002), a relation between SE and ERN fits well with the established state and trait influences on the ERN and self-regulatory processing.

Additionally, task instructions stressing accuracy over speed (Gehring et al., 1993) have been associated with enhanced ERN amplitudes, suggesting motivational factors associated with an increased salience of errors under accuracy instructions (Gehring et al., 1993, Hajcak et al., 2005), a greater certainty of error commission during more careful task completion (Pailing and Segalowitz, 2004b), or an increase in attentional focus on the target stimulus leading to a more rapid upsurge in post-error activation of the correct response (Yeung et al., 2004) may influence this component. Finally, ERN amplitude has been found to be smaller for older, compared to younger, adults (Band and Kok, 2000, Nieuwenhuis et al., 2002, Themanson et al., 2006, Themanson et al., 2008). This difference is believed to reflect an age-related degradation in self-regulatory processing, which is consistent with the notion that cognitive health peaks during young adulthood (Salthouse and Davis, 2006) and older adults exhibit deficits in executive control processes (Kramer et al., 1999, West, 1996).

The Pe is a positive-going component observed in response-locked ERP averages of error responses. It is maximal over centro-parietal recording sites and peaks after the ERN (about 300 ms following an incorrect response). The Pe has been described as an emotional reaction to the commission of an error (Falkenstein et al., 2000, van Veen and Carter, 2002), a post-response evaluation of an error (Davies et al., 2001, Falkenstein et al., 1990), or the allocation of attention toward an error following error commission (Mathewson et al., 2005). More specifically, Davies et al. (2001) found strong correlations between Pe and P3 amplitude, suggesting that the Pe could be a P3-like self-regulatory response to the internal detection of an error, with the error response being the salient stimulus to which attention is allocated.

To date, one study has investigated the relationship between SE and neural and behavioral indices of self-regulation (Themanson et al., 2008). This study examined high- and low-SE older participants during the execution of a modified flanker task under speed and accuracy instruction conditions. Results indicated that SE was related to ERN amplitude following performance errors and SE moderated a positive linear relationship between ERN amplitude and post-error response accuracy, with a relationship present in the high-SE group, but not the low-SE group. These findings were evidenced under accuracy instructions, but not speed instructions, suggesting that under circumstances where errors are more salient and participants have more motivational incentive to detect and correct their errors, SE is associated with enhanced functioning of self-regulatory processes above and beyond the influence of task parameters (Themanson et al., 2008). However, this study focused specifically on an older adult population and performed a median split on SE scores to create high- and low-SE groups, which limits the findings and implications of the study. Aging has been associated with the decline of higher-order cognitive processes (West, 1996), including self-regulatory processes (Band and Kok, 2000, Nieuwenhuis et al., 2002, Themanson et al., 2006). Thus, findings of an effect in older adults may not be generalizable as more room exists to find such cognitive effects in older adults compared to younger adults, who are at their peak cognitive health (Salthouse and Davis, 2006). Additionally, SE is a continuous variable that is best examined along a continuum to avoid artificial or arbitrary groupings of disparate individuals (Bandura, 2006). Finally, this study did not examine the dynamics of the relation between SE and self-regulatory processes across the participants' task experiences. This leaves the nature of SE/self-regulation relationship undefined over the course of task execution and does not address whether the association between SE and self-regulation is uniform over experience or dynamically shifts as task experience grows.

In the present study, we investigated the relationship between SE and self-regulatory processes in conjunction with task instructions emphasizing either speed or accuracy. We examined SE as a continuous variable in a sample of healthy young adults to extend our previous investigation of SE effects on self-regulation (Themanson et al., 2008). We measured ERN, Pe, and post-error behavior (accuracy, RT) while participants made responses during a modified Eriksen flanker task (Eriksen and Eriksen, 1974). Further, we examined the order of instruction conditions to determine whether the relations between SE and self-regulatory processes would be sensitive to the amount of experience gained by the participants.

We predicted positive relationships for SE with ERN and Pe amplitudes, as well as post-error response accuracy and response slowing, with higher SE associated with greater ERN, Pe, post-error accuracy, and post-error slowing in the accuracy condition, but not the speed condition, extending our previous findings (Themanson et al., 2008). No relationships were predicted to exist between SE and ERPs on correct trials (CRN, correct trial Pe) in either instruction condition as self-regulatory processes are not implemented to the same degree following correct task execution. These findings would suggest greater levels of self-regulatory processing for more efficacious individuals when task instructions emphasized the salience of errors (Gehring et al., 1993, Hajcak et al., 2005, Themanson et al., 2008). That is, greater SE might heighten self-regulatory adjustments following error commission to improve subsequent task performance, especially when errors are more meaningful and aversive to the individual, corroborating the influence of SE on self-reactive processes described by social cognitive theory (Bandura and Locke, 2003). Further, we predicted that SE would linearly moderate the relationship between ERN and post-error task performance, extending our previous finding in older adults, with high-SE participants exhibiting a stronger relationship between the ERN and post-error performance measures. Finally, we examined the influence of prior task experience on the relation between SE and self-regulation in the accuracy instruction condition: if the relations between SE and ERN, Pe, and post-error behavior are differentially sensitive to levels of task experience; this may suggest that the goal orientation of self-regulation is actively developing from process goals to outcome goals across participants' engagement in the task (Zimmerman and Kitsantas, 1997). This difference in process or outcome orientation would be evidenced through accuracy-first participants showing relatively stronger relationships with the ERN and Pe, indices of the process of detecting and evaluating errors, and weaker relations with post-error accuracy, an outcome index of self-regulation, when compared to accuracy-second participants. If all aspects of self-regulation are similarly influenced by task experience, the goal orientation of self-regulation is consistent for the duration of task engagement and experience should strengthen the relations between SE and all indices of self-regulation.

Section snippets

Participants

Seventy-two healthy adults (18–25 years) were recruited from undergraduate kinesiology courses at the University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign. Participants received extra course credit in exchange for their participation. Participants (n = 5) with fewer than six errors in each task condition (i.e., accuracy, speed) were discarded from the analyses (Olvet and Hajcak, 2009, Pontifex et al., 2010) as were participants (n = 4) who did not perform above 50% accuracy in each task condition, resulting

Self-efficacy

In the accuracy condition (accuracy-SE), the mean (± SD) SE score was 64.7 (± 15.2) with scores ranging from 31 to 96 on a scale with a possible range of 0 to 100. In the speed condition, the mean SE score (speed-SE) was 61.1 (± 16.9) with scores ranging from 29 to 100. The correlation between the two SE measures was significant, r = .71, p < .001, suggesting the two measures were related, but not identical. A paired-samples t test indicated a significant difference in SE across task conditions, t(62) =

Discussion

The present data confirm that beneficial relationships exist between SE and both behavioral and neural indices of self-regulation. SE was associated with greater post-error response accuracy during accuracy instruction conditions, corroborating previous evidence relating SE to self-regulatory processes (Themanson et al., 2008) and extending the literature to include young adults using a more robust continuous assessment of SE. Additionally, support is provided for social cognitive theory, which

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by grants from the National Institute of Mental Health (F31 MH076463) and Illinois Wesleyan University to Jason Themanson and the National Institute on Aging (RO1 AG021188) to Charles Hillman.

References (62)

  • D. Olvet et al.

    The error-related negativity (ERN) and psychopathology: toward an endophenotype

    Clin. Psychol. Rev.

    (2008)
  • P.E. Pailing et al.

    The effects of uncertainty in error monitoring on associated ERPs

    Brain Cogn.

    (2004)
  • T.A. Salthouse et al.

    Organization of cognitive abilities and neuropsychological variables across the lifespan

    Dev. Rev.

    (2006)
  • J.R. Themanson et al.

    Cardiorespiratory fitness and acute aerobic exercise effects on neuroelectric and behavioral measures of action monitoring

    Neuroscience

    (2006)
  • J.R. Themanson et al.

    Age and physical activity influences on neuroelectric indices of action monitoring during task switching

    Neurobiol. Aging

    (2006)
  • J.R. Themanson et al.

    Self-efficacy effects on neuroelectric and behavioral indices of action monitoring in older adults

    Neurobiol. Aging

    (2008)
  • A. Bandura

    Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change

    Psychol. Rev.

    (1977)
  • A. Bandura

    Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory

    (1986)
  • A. Bandura

    Self-Regulation of Motivation through Anticipatory and Self-Regulatory Mechanisms

  • A. Bandura

    Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning

    Educ. Psychol.

    (1993)
  • A. Bandura

    Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control

    (1997)
  • A. Bandura

    Social cognitive theory: an agentic perspective

    Annu. Rev. Psychol.

    (2001)
  • A. Bandura

    Guide for Constructing Self-Efficacy Scales

  • A. Bandura et al.

    Self-evaluative and self-efficacy mechanisms governing the motivational effects of goal systems

    J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.

    (1983)
  • A. Bandura et al.

    Negative self-efficacy and goal effects revisited

    J. Appl. Psychol.

    (2003)
  • A. Bandura et al.

    Effect of perceived controllability and performance standards on self-regulation of complex decision making

    J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.

    (1989)
  • R.M. Baron et al.

    The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations

    J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.

    (1986)
  • J.M. Berry et al.

    Cognitive self-efficacy in relation to personal mastery and goal setting across the life span

    Int. J. Behav. Dev.

    (1993)
  • T. Bouffard-Bouchard

    Influence of self-efficacy on performance in a cognitive task

    J. Soc. Psychol.

    (1990)
  • D. Cervone et al.

    Anchoring, efficacy, and action: the influence of judgmental heuristics on self-efficacy judgments and behavior

    J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.

    (1986)
  • P.H. Chiu et al.

    Neural evidence for enhanced error detection in major depressive disorder

    Am. J. Psychiatry

    (2007)
  • Cited by (28)

    • Costs and benefits of self-efficacy: Differences of the stress response and clinical implications

      2017, Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews
      Citation Excerpt :

      The amplitude of the P300 (P3b) is an event-related brain potential index of task-relevant attentional control that has been found to be a mediator for higher self-efficacy and indices of better task performance (Themanson and Rosen, 2015). The error-related negativity as a neuroelectric index for response to trials, which reflects cognitive conflicts such as when an error is present, also mediated the effects on accuracy in a cognitive task (Themanson et al., 2008; Themanson et al., 2011). Although many benefits of self-efficacy on performance have been established across diverse domains, the evidence does not uniformly support these positive effects when different methodological paradigms and further covariates are considered.

    • Alterations in error-related brain activity and post-error behavior over time

      2012, Brain and Cognition
      Citation Excerpt :

      Thus, these relationships appear to be equivocal across the existing literature, unlike the relationship ERN has with emotional stability/neuroticism, which was evidenced in the present findings as well as both of the aforementioned studies (Boksem et al., 2006; Pailing & Segalowitz, 2004). Additionally, while SE exhibited a significant zero-order relationship with ERN and post-error behavior in the current study, corroborating previous findings (Themanson, Hillman, et al., 2008; Themanson et al., 2011), these relationships were not evident when accounting for the influence of overall task performance. This finding may be due to a difference in task instructions in the current study.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text