Pers Soc Psychol Rev OnlineFirst, published on May 26, 2010 as doi:10.

1177/1088868310368802

Personality and Social Psychology Review

Outcome Expectancy and Self-Efficacy: XX(X) 1­–9

© 2010 by the Society for Personality
and Social Psychology, Inc.
Theoretical Implications of an Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Unresolved Contradiction DOI: 10.1177/1088868310368802

http://pspr.sagepub.com

David M. Williams1

Abstract
According to self-efficacy theory, self-efficacy—defined as perceived capability to perform a behavior—causally influences
expected outcomes of behavior, but not vice versa. However, research has shown that expected outcomes causally influence
self-efficacy judgments, and some authors have argued that this relationship invalidates self-efficacy theory. Bandura has
rebutted those arguments saying that self-efficacy judgments are not invalidated when influenced by expected outcomes.
This article focuses on a contradiction in Bandura’s rebuttal. Specifically, Bandura has argued (a) expected outcomes cannot
causally influence self-efficacy, but (b) self-efficacy judgments remain valid when causally influenced by expected outcomes.
While the debate regarding outcome expectancies and self-efficacy has subsided in recent years, the inattention to this
contradiction has led to a disproportionate focus on self-efficacy as a causal determinant of behavior at the expense of
expected outcomes.

Keywords
expectancies, motivation, goals, attitudes

When deciding on a course of action, people consider what
they stand to gain or lose from performing the behavior. This
weighing of expected consequences is the central tenet of
expectancy-value theories (for a review, see Feather, 1982),
including social learning theory (Rotter, 1954). Bandura’s
(1977) insight—that people’s behavior is also influenced by
their perceived capability to perform the behavior—was a
seminal addition to social learning theory and has had tre-
mendous influence on psychological theory and research.
Indeed, self-efficacy is a robust predictor of behavior (for
meta-analyses, see Holden, 1991; Holden, Moncher, Schinke,
& Barker, 1990; Moritz, Feltz, Fahrbach, & Mack, 2000;
Multon, Brown, & Lent, 1991; Sadri & Robertson, 1993;
Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998), has been incorporated in social
learning models of behavior that previously focused mainly
on expected outcomes (Ajzen, 1985; Maddux & Rogers,
1983; Rosenstock, Strecher, & Becker, 1988), and has been
the target of numerous behavior change interventions (for
reviews, see Bandura, 1984; Hyde, Hankins, Deale, & Marteau,
2008; Marks, Allegrante, & Lorig, 2005).
Bandura introduced self-efficacy in the context of an
explanatory model of human behavior, in which self-efficacy
causally influences expected outcomes of behavior, but
not vice versa (Bandura, 1978, 1984, 1986c, 1995, 1997,
1998, 2004, 2006b). However, in the two decades follow-
ing the introduction of self-efficacy theory, several research-
ers showed that expected outcomes causally influenced
self-efficacy judgments and argued that this relationship called
into question the validity of self-efficacy theory (Borkovec,
1978; Corcoran, 1991, 1995; Eastman & Marzillier, 1984;
Kazdin, 1978; Kirsch, 1982, 1985, 1986, 1995; Teasdale,
1978, Wolpe, 1978). A central point in Bandura’s (1982,
1986a, 1986b, 1995, 1997, 2007) rebuttals to these critiques
was the concession that expected outcomes of behavior can,
indeed, influence self-efficacy ratings but that this relation-
ship does not invalidate such judgments of self-efficacy.
Bandura’s rebuttal, however, creates a contradiction in
his writings on self-efficacy theory. Specifically, Bandura
has argued (a) expected outcomes cannot causally influence
self-efficacy (Bandura, 1978, 1984, 1986c, 1995, 1997,
1998, 2004, 2006b), but (b) self-efficacy judgments remain
valid when causally influenced by expected outcomes (e.g.,
Bandura, 1982, 1986a, 1986b, 1995, 1997, 2007). This con-
tradiction has not received attention among self-efficacy
researchers. Indeed, in the past decade the debate regarding
the causal influence of outcome expectancies on self-efficacy
has mostly subsided (for exceptions see Bandura, 2007;
1
Brown University, Providence, RI
Corresponding Author:
David M. Williams, Brown University, Program in Public Health, Institute
for Community Health Promotion, Box G-S121-8, Providence, RI 02912
Email: david_m_williams@brown.edu

Downloaded from psr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 8, 2016

2 Personality and Social Psychology Review XX(X)
Cahill, Gallo, Lisman, & Weinstein, 2006). Meanwhile,
self-efficacy has gained prominence in psychological theory
and research.
The purpose of the present article is to rekindle the debate
regarding the causal influence of expected outcomes on self-
efficacy, with particular focus on the conceptual contradic-
tion outlined above. It is argued herein that the inattention to
this conceptual contradiction has led to a disproportionate
focus on self-efficacy as a causal determinant of behavior at
the expense of expected outcomes. It is further argued that
the vast literature supporting the predictive power of self-
efficacy does not immunize the construct from this con-
ceptual critique. Finally, it is argued that to resolve the
contradiction, either (a) the operationalization of self-efficacy
must be revised such that self-efficacy judgments are free
from the influence of expected outcomes or (b) self-efficacy
theory must be revised such that expected outcomes are
acknowledged as an important causal determinant of self-
efficacy. In making these arguments, I (a) summarize the
central tenets of self-efficacy theory, (b) review previous
conceptual critiques and associated empirical findings
regarding the causal influence of expected outcomes on self-
efficacy, (c) summarize Bandura’s rebuttal to those critiques,
(d) discuss the conceptual contradiction inherent in Bandu-
ra’s rebuttal, (e) discuss the theoretical and practical implica-
tions of this contradiction, and (f) provide directions for
future research.
Self-Efficacy Theory
Self-efficacy theory—a component of social cognitive
theory—focuses on the interrelationships among self-efficacy,
outcome expectancies, and behavior (Bandura, 1997). Self-
efficacy involves people’s perceptions that they are capable
of successfully performing a behavior (Bandura, 1977, 1986c,
1997). Thus, self-efficacy can be distinguished from inten-
tions because intentions involve willingness to do a behav-
ior, whereas self-efficacy involves belief that one can do a
behavior (Bandura, 1997, p. 43). Self-efficacy is situation
specific; for example, people’s self-efficacy to resist cake is
independent of their self-efficacy to solve math problems.
Self-efficacy is involved with perceived capability rather
than actual capability (Bandura, 1997). Finally, according to
self-efficacy theory, self-efficacy judgments are derived
from four sources: mastery experiences (i.e., previous suc-
cessful behavioral performance), modeling (i.e., observation
of successful behavioral performance), verbal persuasion,
and physiological and affective states at the time of the self-
efficacy rating (Bandura, 1997).
According to self-efficacy theory, self-efficacy should be
assessed with respect to various “gradations of challenge”
(Bandura, 1997, 2006a). For example, basketball shooting
self-efficacy might be assessed by asking respondents to rate
their capability to make 5 of 10 shots, 6 of 10 shots, and so
Downloaded from psr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 8, 2016
on. For behaviors that require self-regulatory skills rather
than specialized physical or mental skills, self-efficacy is not
merely perceived capability to carry out the necessary motor
response but involves perceived capability to perform the
behavior in the context of competing demands and impedi-
ments (Bandura, 1997). For example, exercise self-efficacy
may be assessed by asking respondents to rate their capabil-
ity to exercise when it is raining, when they feel they have
little time to spare, and so on (Bandura, 2006a). Self-efficacy
for discrete motor acts (e.g., self-efficacy for basketball
shooting) is often referred to as task self-efficacy (e.g.,
Woodgate, Brawley, & Weston, 2005), whereas self-efficacy
for overcoming obstacles or impediments to regulate behav-
ior over time (e.g., self-efficacy for exercise) is referred to as
self-regulatory efficacy (Bandura, 1982, 1997) or barrier
self-efficacy (e.g., Blanchard et al., 2007). Importantly,
regardless of the self-efficacy subtype, self-efficacy generally
refers to perceived capability to perform a behavior (Bandura,
1977, 1986c, 1997).
The other central construct in self-efficacy theory is out-
come expectancies. “An outcome expectancy is defined as a
person’s estimate that a given behavior will lead to certain
outcomes” (Bandura, 1977, p. 193). According to self-efficacy
theory, outcome expectancies are clearly distinguished from
self-efficacy because self-efficacy is perceived ability to do
a behavior, whereas outcome expectancies are judgments
about the likelihood of outcomes that flow from behavior
(Bandura, 1977, 1986c, 1997).1
For a theory to be useful in explaining behavior, it must
specify the causal pathways among the posited determinants
of behavior (Weinstein & Rothman, 2005). In self-efficacy
theory, self-efficacy causally influences outcome expectan-
cies, but not vice versa (Bandura, 1978, 1984, 1986c, 1995,
1997, 1998, 2004, 2006b). This theorized relationship
between the two constructs has been depicted in graphi-
cal representations (e.g., Bandura, 1998, p. 629; Bandura,
2004, p. 146) and is a widely accepted tenet of self-efficacy
theory (Maddux, 1991, 1993; Maddux & Stanley, 1986;
S. L. Williams, 1992). Indeed, in response to the proposal
that outcome expectancies may causally influence self-
efficacy judgments (Eastman & Marzillier, 1984), Bandura
(1997) stated:
The outcomes people anticipate depend largely on
their judgments of how well they will be able to per-
form in given situations. To claim . . . that people visu-
alize outcomes and then infer their own capabilities
from the imagined outcomes is to invoke a peculiar
system of backward causation in which the outcomes
that flow from actions are made to precede the actions.
(p. 21)
Thus, according to self-efficacy theory, outcome expectancies
are not a causal determinant of self-efficacy.
Williams 3
The Critique: Expected Outcomes
Causally Influence Self-Efficacy Ratings
Since Bandura’s (1977) introduction of self-efficacy, some
authors have challenged the notion that self-efficacy is free
from the causal influence of expected outcomes (Borkovec,
1978; Corcoran, 1991, 1995; Eastman & Marzillier, 1984;
Kazdin, 1978; Kirsch, 1982, 1985, 1986, 1995; Teasdale,
1978, Wolpe, 1978; Maddux, 1999). Indeed, a number of
experimental studies have demonstrated that outcome expec-
tancies do influence self-efficacy. In Kirsch’s (1982) semi-
nal study, snake-fearful college students were asked to rate
their perceived capability (i.e., self-efficacy) to approach and
interact with a snake and to throw wadded-up paper into a
basket from increasing distances. Participants were then
offered hypothetical incentives (i.e., expected outcomes) for
performing each behavior. Results showed that self-efficacy
for both behaviors increased as a result of increasing mon-
etary incentives, with self-efficacy to approach the snake
increasing significantly more than for the paper-throwing task
as a result of the increasing incentives. Kirsch’s (1982) find-
ings were replicated among light to moderate smokers. Spe-
cifically, hypothetical incentives led to greater increases in
self-efficacy for quitting smoking over escalating time periods
than for making basketball shots over increasing distances
(Corcoran & Rutledge, 1989), thus indicating that expected
outcomes of behavior can influence self-efficacy and that this
effect is stronger for behaviors that involve regulation of
behavior (i.e., approaching a snake, quitting smoking) rather
than specialized physical skills (i.e., basketball shooting).
The effects of expected outcomes on self-efficacy ratings
have also been shown using actual incentives. In one study,
college students were randomly assigned either to receive
(actual) escalating monetary incentives for longer exposure
to pain via the cold-pressor task or to not receive incentives
(Baker & Kirsch, 1991). Participants who were offered the
incentives had higher ratings of self-efficacy and tolerated
the pain for longer periods. Importantly, both the presence of
incentives and expected pain intensity were predictive of
self-efficacy for longer pain tolerance, which in turn
influenced actual pain tolerance. Although the relationship
between expected pain and self-efficacy to tolerate pain was
merely associative, the impact of expected monetary rewards
on self-efficacy to tolerate pain was causal because the pres-
ence of monetary incentives was manipulated based on
random assignment. The same findings were obtained in
a similar study in which snake approach behavior was tar-
geted (Schoenberger, Kirsch, & Rosengard, 1991): Manipu-
lation of expected monetary rewards affected self-efficacy to
approach the snake, which in turn mediated the effects of
outcome expectancies on snake approach behavior.
In addition to experimental data, some researchers have
argued that outcome expectancies consistently influence
ratings on self-efficacy scales because, when rating their
Downloaded from psr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 8, 2016
capability, respondents automatically perceive a context for
the behavior, which elicits expected outcomes of performing
the behavior in that context (Eastman & Marzillier, 1984;
Wolpe, 1978). The influence of expected outcomes on self-
efficacy judgments is made explicit in measures typically
used to assess self-regulatory efficacy for repetitive behav-
iors (Bandura, 2006a). As noted above, when formulating
their exercise self-efficacy
individuals judge how well they can get themselves to
exercise regularly under various impediments, such as
when they are under pressure from work, are tired or
depressed; in foul weather; or when they have other
commitments or more interesting things to do. (Bandura,
1997, p. 43)
Responses to these self-efficacy items are a function of
expected outcomes of exercising when one expects that
exercise will result in falling further behind at work, becoming
more exhausted, getting cold and/or wet from exercising in
bad weather, or missing an opportunity to do something
more interesting (see Figure 1). Interitem variability on
these self-efficacy scales is an indication that perceived
capability to perform the behavior changes as a function of
expected outcomes of performing the behavior in the various
contexts delineated in each item (Corcoran, 1995; Eastman
& Marzillier, 1984; Wolpe, 1978).
Expected outcomes influence self-efficacy ratings even
when respondents are not explicitly encouraged to consider
specific contexts for the behavior. As noted by Rhodes
and Courneya (2003), “Unmotivated individuals towards
a behavior will likely respond that a behavior is difficult, and
lack confidence/capability to perform it, regardless of whether
they perceive they have the skills, opportunities, or resources
to enact the behavior” (p. 81). For example, in a study con-
ducted among chronic pain patients, participants were asked
to rate their self-efficacy to perform a series of functional
behaviors (Council, Ahern, Follick, & Kline, 1988). Self-
efficacy was a strong predictor of functional behavior. How-
ever, when questioned about the reason for their submaximal
ratings of self-efficacy (83% of responses reflected less than
100% self-efficacy), participants cited expected pain (83%),
fear of injury (12%), and lack of ability (5%), suggesting that
“although self-efficacy expectancies ultimately determined
performance, pain response expectancies may have exerted
their influence at an earlier point in a causal sequence”
(Council et al., 1988, p. 328). Similarly, when college stu-
dents were asked to give the reason or reasons for their self-
efficacy for exercise, they indicated that expectations of
improved health (30%), enjoyment (19%), and motivation
(37%) influenced their self-efficacy judgment (Rhodes &
Blanchard, 2007).
Taken together, these studies show that outcome expec-
tancies causally influence self-efficacy ratings. Moreover,
4 Personality and Social Psychology Review XX(X)

types of evidence showing that self-efficacy is a more impor-

Outcome tant predictor of behavior than outcome expectancies. The
Self-Efficacy Behavior
Expectancies first type of evidence involves studies that have assessed
both self-efficacy and outcome expectancies and have shown
self-efficacy to be a vastly superior predictor of behavior (for
I expect that exercise I am capable of a review, see Bandura, 1995). The second type of evidence
will result in: exercising when:
involves correlational studies showing that self-efficacy is
• Falling further • I am under predictive of behavior even when the effects of outcome
behind at work pressure from work
• Becoming more • I am tired or
expectancy are statistically controlled (for reviews, see
exhausted depressed Bandura, 1984, 1991; S. L. Williams, 1992, 1995). These lines
• Getting cold and/or • There is foul
wet from weather
of evidence, however, do nothing to support or refute the
exercising in bad experimental evidence that self-efficacy judgments are caus-
weather
• Failing to follow • I have other
ally influenced by expected outcomes.
up on my other commitments The second theme of Bandura’s rebuttal is directed at
commitments
• Missing an • I have more
Kirsch’s interpretation of the findings that outcome expec-
opportunity to do interesting things tancies causally influence self-efficacy. Specifically, Bandura
something more to do
interesting
concedes that self-efficacy judgments can be causally influ-
(Adapted from enced by outcome expectancies but argues that, contrary to
Bandura, 1997, p.43) Kirsch and others (Cahill et al., 2006; Corcoran, 1995;
Kirsch, 1982, 1985, 1986, 1995), such a relationship does
Figure 1. Example of the causal influence of outcome not invalidate those self-efficacy judgments (Bandura, 1982,
expectancies on self-efficacy judgments 1986a, 1986b, 1995, 1997, 2007; also see Cervone &
Scott, 1995, p. 363). Indeed, in response to Kirsch’s (1982,
1985, 1986, 1995) critiques, Bandura (1986b) states,
assessments of self-efficacy in the studies reviewed
above are consistent with Bandura’s (1997, 2006a) guide- He [Kirsch] seems to assume that if one can boost
lines for constructing self-efficacy scales and with the people’s beliefs in their efficacy by the prospect of
vast body of self-efficacy research in which Bandura’s escalated benefits, this somehow challenges the status
guidelines have been followed. Thus, the findings imply of self-efficacy measures in phobic domains of func-
that judgments of self-efficacy in previous research in tioning, as though self-efficacy judgments are authen-
similar domains of functioning (e.g., anxiety-related avoid- tic only if unalterable by social influences. (p. 390;
ance behavior; pain-related behavior; health behaviors, also see Bandura, 1986a, p. 367)
including smoking and exercise) have likely been influ-
enced by outcome expectancies. It is reasonable to expect Thus, according to Bandura (e.g., 2007), self-efficacy ratings
that the same relationship occurs in additional behavioral are valid indicators of self-efficacy even when influenced by
domains. outcome expectancies.
Kirsch (1982, 1985, 1986, 1995) and others (Cahill et al.,
2006; Corcoran, 1995) have concluded from the data reviewed
above that self-efficacy ratings are invalid (i.e., do not actu- The Contradiction
ally reflect respondents’ perceived capability to perform the Although Bandura’s rebuttal to Kirsch and others preserves
behavior) when influenced by outcome expectancies because, the validity of existing operationalizations of self-efficacy
according to Bandura’s self-efficacy theory, outcome expec- (see Bandura, 1997, 2006a), it represents a conceptual con-
tancies cannot causally influence self-efficacy judgments tradiction in his writings on self-efficacy theory. That is, if
(Bandura, 1978, 1997, 2006b). Kirsch’s interpretation implies self-efficacy ratings remain valid when influenced by out-
that assessments of self-efficacy in the voluminous literature come expectancies, then empirical findings showing such a
examining self-efficacy in similar behavioral domains (e.g., relationship should also be considered valid. Such a relation-
anxiety-related avoidance behavior, pain-related behavior, ship, however, is contrary to Bandura’s repeated statements
health behavior), as well as the conclusions drawn from such that outcome expectancies cannot causally influence self-
literature, have also been invalid.2 efficacy (e.g., Bandura, 1978, 1997, 2006b; see the above
section on self-efficacy theory).
The status quo in self-efficacy research is consistent
The Rebuttal with the conceptual contradiction described above. That is,
Bandura’s rebuttal to the critique discussed above has had researchers use existing operationalizations of self-efficacy
two themes. First, Bandura (1984, 1991, 1995) cites two (which are causally influenced by expected outcomes) but do

Downloaded from psr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 8, 2016

Williams 5
not acknowledge that outcome expectancies influence self-
efficacy. The result is that (a) self-efficacy ratings are highly
predictive of behavior because they encompass the causal
influence of expected outcomes (see Figure 1) and (b) out-
come expectancies are not acknowledged as a source of
self-efficacy judgments because this is inconsistent with
self-efficacy theory. It is this approach to self-efficacy
research that has led to the disproportionate attention to self-
efficacy at the expense of attention to outcome expectancies
in the context of theoretical models and as targets of behav-
ior change interventions.
Reconciling Theoretical and
Operational Definitions of Self-Efficacy
The conceptual contradiction discussed above can be
addressed in two ways. Either the operational definition of
self-efficacy must be modified such that expected outcomes
cannot influence self-efficacy (consistent with current con-
ceptualizations of self-efficacy theory) or self-efficacy the-
ory must be modified such that outcome expectancies can
influence self-efficacy (consistent with empirical findings
using current operationalizations of self-efficacy). These
approaches are discussed below along with potential prob-
lems with each approach.
Altering Operational Definitions of Self-Efficacy to Be Consistent
With Self-Efficacy Theory. If the existing operational definition
of self-efficacy is considered invalid because it is influenced
by outcome expectancies (Cahill et al., 2006; Corcoran, 1995;
Kirsch, 1982, 1985, 1986, 1995), then the operational defini-
tion of self-efficacy must be modified to be consistent with
self-efficacy theory. In such an operational definition, self-
efficacy ratings would not be causally influenced by expected
outcomes. There is some evidence to suggest that such a
measurement approach is possible. For example, in a study
on use of the “broken-record technique” in assertiveness
training, participants were asked to rate their self-efficacy
by indicating agreement with the statement “I could use the
broken-record technique if I wanted to [emphasis added]”
(Maddux, Norton, & Stoltenberg, 1986, p. 785), thus
attempting to hold outcome expectancies constant. As a
result of this methodology, self-efficacy and outcome expec-
tancies were uncorrelated but independently predictive of
behavioral intention. Rhodes and colleagues (Rhodes &
Blanchard, 2007; Rhodes & Courneya, 2003, 2004) also
assessed self-efficacy with the qualifier “if I wanted to” and
found that relationships between self-efficacy and outcome
expectancies decreased relative to a traditional, unqualified
assessment of self-efficacy. In addition, participants had
higher mean ratings on self-efficacy items with the “if
I wanted to” qualifier than self-efficacy items without the
qualifier, and the qualified self-efficacy ratings had sig-
nificantly weaker relationships with intentions, suggesting
Downloaded from psr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 8, 2016
causal independence of self-efficacy from outcome expec-
tancy (Rhodes & Blanchard, 2007; Rhodes & Courneya,
2003, 2004).
The findings reviewed above show some promise for
operationalizing self-efficacy in a way that is independent of
outcome expectancies and thus consistent with self-efficacy
theory. However, in using this assessment approach, all out-
come expectancies may not be adequately held constant
with the phrase “if I wanted to” (Rhodes & Blanchard,
2007). Although Rhodes and Blanchard (2007) see this
issue as a potential barrier to be overcome by further refine-
ment of measurement methodology, Marzillier and Eastman
(1984) see it as a more serious obstacle:
Since human activity can be seen as a continuous inter-
change between behavior and environmental response
(outcome), any assessment about how well one is
going to perform a particular activity must take into
account not only one’s own estimation of competence
but also an assessment of what likely outcomes may
occur. (p. 259; also see Feather, 1992, p. 114; Teasdale,
1978, p. 214)
Altering Self-Efficacy Theory to Be Consistent With Empirical
Findings. If the existing operationalization of self-efficacy is
to be considered valid despite the fact that such ratings are
influenced by expected outcomes (e.g., Bandura, 2007),
then self-efficacy theory must be modified to allow for the
causal influence of outcome expectancy on self-efficacy.
However, parallel to the difficulty in operationalizing
self-efficacy as independent from outcome expectancies (see
above), self-efficacy may be difficult to conceptually and
empirically disentangle from the influence of expected out-
comes if the current operational definition of self-efficacy is
maintained. For example, in interpreting someone’s self-
efficacy to perform a breast self-examination, it would be
critical to determine whether any perceived incapability is a
function of expected negative outcomes of such an exam or
perceived lack of skills to perform the exam. However, if there
are no attempts made to hold expected outcomes constant in the
assessment of self-efficacy, then assessments of self-efficacy
will encompass expected outcomes of the exam, making it dif-
ficult to conceptualize, label, and extract the variance in self-
efficacy that is independent of outcome expectancies.
An additional problem with preserving the current
operationalization of self-efficacy is that, when using this
approach, respondents are able to impose their own defini-
tion of capability vis-à-vis expected outcomes. For example,
imagine that two dieters with equal expected outcomes for
cake eating (e.g., expected deliciousness of the cake) are
asked to rate their capability to resist eating a piece of cake
(i.e., self-efficacy for resisting cake). Dieter 1 personally
defines capability in such a way that expected outcomes of
cake eating cannot influence his capability to resist the cake
6 Personality and Social Psychology Review XX(X)
and thus rates his perceived capability to resist the cake (i.e.,
self-efficacy) as 100%, despite his high expectations that the
cake will taste delicious. Dieter 2 has a more liberal personal
definition of capability, in which expected outcomes of cake
eating can influence his capability, and thus rates his capa-
bility to resist the cake (i.e., self-efficacy) as 10%, based on
his equally high expectation that the cake will taste deli-
cious. An observer concludes that Dieter 1 has stronger self-
efficacy for resisting cake than Dieter 2. However, the
apparent variability in cake-resisting self-efficacy is an arti-
fact of the two dieters’ differing definitions of capability.
It can be seen from this example that ratings of self-
efficacy are highly influenced by the way in which capabil-
ity is defined by respondents.3 Thus, self-efficacy assessments
that do not specify the definition of capability vis-à-vis
expected outcomes provide a test of how people use lan-
guage. The outcomes of that language test, for which there
are no predefined right or wrong answers, are implicitly
incorporated into self-efficacy ratings. In short, some partici-
pants may incorporate expected outcomes into their self-
efficacy ratings, whereas others may believe that it is against
natural language conventions to do so.
Indeed, Cahill and colleagues (2006) showed that partici-
pants who were given vignettes illustrating the independence
of capability from expected outcomes had greater increases
in subsequent ratings of self-efficacy than participants not
given the vignettes. The findings show that respondents’
self-efficacy ratings are dependent on the meaning of the word
capability vis-à-vis expected outcomes. Moreover, the find-
ings suggest that at least some respondents will consider the
influence of expected outcomes in rating their self-efficacy
unless explicitly instructed not to do so. If meanings of the
words (i.e., capability) that define a psychological construct
(i.e., self-efficacy) are moving targets, then how can one test
hypotheses based on that construct?
Summary and Recommendations
for Future Research
The findings reviewed herein indicate that currently used
operational definitions of self-efficacy are likely to be influ-
enced by expected outcomes. Thus, it is critical that research-
ers either (a) modify operationalizations of self-efficacy to
be independent of expected outcomes or (b) acknowledge
the causal influence of outcome expectancies on self-efficacy.
In addition, it is recommended that researchers discontinue
current practices in which respondents are allowed to refer
to their personal definitions of capability when responding
to self-efficacy items—definitions that may or may not be
consistent with those of other respondents and researchers.
Moreover, these issues must be considered when inter-
preting prior research on self-efficacy. Specifically, prior
research on self-efficacy, which shows self-efficacy to
be highly predictive of behavior, must not be interpret­ed
Downloaded from psr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 8, 2016
to mean that self-efficacy—independent of expected
outcomes—is an important predictor of behavior. Likewise,
previous self-efficacy research must be interpreted with
the knowledge that participants have been free to refer to
their own definitions of capability when responding to
self-efficacy items.
In conducting future research on self-efficacy, research-
ers must be clear about their theoretical position regarding
self-efficacy and outcome expectancies (i.e., self-efficacy
either is or is not causally independent from outcome expec-
tancies). Likewise, researchers should operationally define
self-efficacy in a way that is consistent with their theoretical
perspective. If self-efficacy is theorized to be independent of
outcome expectancies, this may involve qualifying perceived
capability items with the phrase “if I wanted to” (Maddux
et al., 1986; Rhodes & Blanchard, 2007; Rhodes & Courneya,
2003, 2004) as well as explicitly informing respondents that
perceived capability is independent of expected outcomes
(Cahill et al., 2006). Alternatively, if ratings of perceived
capability (i.e., self-efficacy) are theorized to incorporate
the causal influence of outcome expectancies, then research-
ers should explicitly inform respondents that they should
consider expected outcomes when rating their self-efficacy.
The above recommendations are relevant for all self-efficacy
subtypes and regardless of whether or not outcome expectan-
cies are also assessed.
Finally, both proposed alternatives to reconciling self-
efficacy conceptualization and operationalization have poten-
tial pitfalls. Thus, depending on one’s perspective, research
is needed to (a) improve methodology for assessing self-
efficacy as independent from outcome expectancies or
(b) conceptually and empirically disentangle self-efficacy from
the influence of expected outcomes.
Practical Implications
Regardless of whether one believes that ratings of per-
ceived capability are valid indicators of self-efficacy when
influenced by outcome expectancies, such ratings of per-
ceived capability are indeed influenced by outcome expec-
tancies (Baker & Kirsch, 1991; Corcoran & Rutledge, 1989;
Council et al., 1988; Kirsch, 1982; Rhodes & Blanchard,
2007; Shoenberger et al., 1991) and highly predictive of
behavior (Holden, 1991; Holden et al., 1990; Moritz et al.,
2000; Multon et al., 1991; Sadri & Robertson, 1993; Stajkovic
& Luthans, 1998). Thus, understanding people’s expected
outcomes of behavior is critical to understanding what they
say they are capable of (regardless of whether this is a valid
indicator of their self-efficacy), which in turn has been shown
to be highly predictive of behavior. To return to the example
of cake eating, consider a dieter who reports low self-
efficacy to resist cake based on his expectation that the cake
will taste delicious and thus eats the cake. Depending on
one’s perspective, the dieter’s self-efficacy rating may or
Williams 7
may not be considered valid because it is dependent on
outcome expectancies. Either way, the dieter’s expected
outcomes of eating or resisting the cake will influence
his self-efficacy rating (valid or not) and ultimately his
behavior. If such outcome expectancies are not thoroughly
assessed, it will appear as though the dieter’s low per-
ceived capability—independent of expected outcomes—is
the critical determinant of his behavior. Thus, reports of
low self-efficacy should prompt clinicians to consider
assessment of and intervention on expected outcomes of
the target behavior.
In doing so, outcome expectancies should be conceptu-
alized and operationalized broadly. Truncated conceptual-
izations of outcome expectancies have led to a focus on
(a) temporally distal, but not temporally proximal outcomes;
(b) instrumental, but not affective outcomes; (c) positive, but
not negative outcomes; and (d) outcomes of the target
behavior, but not outcomes of salient alternative behaviors
(D. M. Williams, Anderson, & Winett, 2005; for some
exceptions, see Gilovich, Griffin, & Kahneman, 2002; Hsee,
Hastie, & Chen, 2008; Lawton, Conner, & McEachan, 2009;
Mellers, 2000; van der Pligt & de Vries, 1998; D. M. Williams,
2008). Indeed, in changing most behaviors that are the target
of self-regulatory interventions, people must overcome expec-
tations of immediate, negative affective outcomes associated
with the adaptive behavior (e.g., nicotine withdrawal symp-
toms, displeasure of resisting high-calorie foods, aversive
phobic stimuli) and resist expectations of immediate positive
affective outcomes of maladaptive behaviors (e.g., the plea-
sure of smoking and indulging in high-calorie foods and the
relief of avoiding phobic stimuli). Alternatively, expected
positive outcomes of adaptive behaviors are often distal and
uncertain (e.g., reduced risk of disease and early death).
Such lopsided expectations favoring maladaptive behavior
are what lead people to not want to perform adaptive behav-
iors, thus making behavioral change notoriously difficult to
adopt and maintain.
Concluding Remarks
The notion that self-efficacy as currently operationalized
(valid or not) is a function of outcome expectancies is poten-
tially controversial because it implies that failure to engage in
adaptive behavior is often a result of lack of motivation based
on perceived consequences rather than incapability indepen-
dent of perceived consequences. This may be especially dis-
concerting for clients with addictions or phobias (Bandura,
1986a, 2007; S. L. Williams, 1995). However, expected out-
comes of behavior need not be viewed as trivial reasons for
performing (or not performing) a behavior. Indeed, “in real
life, alternatives may come with a heavy price in emotional,
financial, or physical consequences, which may result in other
avenues being pursued; nevertheless, those alternatives are
available” (Corcoran, 1995, p. 204).
Downloaded from psr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 8, 2016
For example, a single mother may say that she “cannot”
exercise 5 days per week because she must care for her chil-
dren, complete household chores, and work long hours to
have enough money for food and housing. Although most
would agree that these are good reasons for not exercising,
they, nonetheless, reflect a lack of motivation to exercise
based on expected consequences, including expectations that
her children would be neglected, her home would be in disar-
ray, and she would ultimately lose her job. The extent to
which these expected outcomes of exercise can validly influ-
ence self-efficacy is up for debate. Either way, such expected
outcomes must be recognized as the crucial mechanism of
change so that theoretical frameworks can be appropriately
revised, research findings can be consistently interpreted,
and novel interventions can be designed.
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank Richard Winett and Beth Lewis as well as
the anonymous reviewers for their comments on previous versions
of this article. Additional thanks to Eileen Anderson and Robert
Stephens for stimulating my interest in this topic and tolerating
lengthy debates on the causal precedence of outcome expectancy
and self-efficacy.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interests with
respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.
Financial Disclosure/Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research and/or
authorship of this article.
Notes
1. The preceding definitions of self-efficacy and outcome expec-
tancy are consistent with self-efficacy theory as articulated in
the most recent publications by Bandura (e.g., 1997, 2006a).
Some researchers have been critical of alleged changes over
time in Bandura’s definitions of self-efficacy (e.g., Corcoran,
1995; Eastman & Marzillier, 1984) and narrow definition of
outcome expectancy (e.g., Kirsch, 1985, 1995). Although these
issues are relevant to this article, they are not necessary for the
conceptual contradiction that is the focus of this article. That
is, the purpose of this article is to highlight a previously un-
explored conceptual problem in Bandura’s writings that exists
when defining self-efficacy and outcome expectancy in a way
that is consistent with his most recent writings on self-efficacy
theory.
2. Kirsch (1982, 1985, 1986, 1995) also argues that the influence
of outcome expectancies on self-efficacy ratings is an indica-
tion that such self-efficacy ratings actually reflect behavioral
intentions and that this phenomenon occurs when the target
behavior is a “choice” behavior rather than a “skill” behavior.
These additional arguments are often a target of Bandura’s
(e.g., 1995) rebuttals; however, they are unnecessary to the
8 Personality and Social Psychology Review XX(X)
main thesis of the present article—that outcome expectancies
can causally influence self-efficacy ratings.
3. When assessing perceived capability (i.e., self-efficacy), per-
ceptions of capability are at the discretion of the perceiver (e.g.,
Bandura, 1997), but it is necessary that researchers and respon-
dents are all using the same definition of capability.
References
Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planed
behavior. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckmann (Eds.), Action control: From
cognition to behavior (pp. 11-39). New York, NY: Springer.
Baker, S. L., & Kirsch, I. (1991). Cognitive mediators of pain per-
ception and tolerance. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 61, 504-510.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of
behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.
Bandura, A. (1978). Reflections on self-efficacy. Advances in
Behaviour Research and Therapy, 1, 237-269.
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency.
American Psychologist, 37, 122-147.
Bandura, A. (1984). Recycling misconceptions on perceived self-
efficacy. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 8, 231-255.
Bandura, A. (1986a). The explanatory and predictive scope of self-
efficacy theory. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 4,
359-373.
Bandura, A. (1986b). Fearful expectations and avoidant actions as
coeffects of perceived self-inefficacy. American Psychologist,
41, 389-391.
Bandura, A. (1986c). Social foundations of thought and action.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1991). Human agency: The rhetoric and the reality.
American Psychologist, 46, 157-162.
Bandura, A. (1995). On rectifying conceptual ecumenism. In
J. E. Maddux (Ed.), Self-efficacy, adaptation, and adjustment:
Theory, research, and application (pp. 347-375). New York,
NY: Plenum.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York,
NY: Freeman.
Bandura, A. (1998). Health promotion from the perspective of
social cognitive theory. Psychology and Health, 13, 623-649.
Bandura, A. (2004). Health promotion by social cognitive means.
Health Education and Behavior, 31, 143-164.
Bandura, A. (2006a). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In
F. Pajares & T. C. Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adoles-
cents (pp. 307-337). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
Bandura, A. (2006b). Toward a psychology of human agency. Per-
spectives on Psychological Science, 1, 164-180.
Bandura, A. (2007). Much ado over a faulty conception of per-
ceived self-efficacy grounded in faulty experimentation.
Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 26, 641-658.
Blanchard, C. M., Fortier, M., Sweet, S., O’Sullivan, T., Hogg, W.,
Reid, R. D., et al. (2007). Explaining physical activity levels
from a self-efficacy perspective: the physical activity counsel-
ing trial. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 34, 323-328.
Downloaded from psr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 8, 2016
Borkovec, T. D. (1978). Self-efficacy: Cause or reflection of behav-
ioral change? Advances in Behaviour Research and Therapy,
1, 163-170.
Cahill, S. P., Gallo, L. A., Lisman, S. A., & Weinstein, A. (2006).
Willing or able? The meanings of self-efficacy. Journal of
Social and Clinical Psychology, 25, 196-209.
Cervone, D., & Scott, W. D. (1995). Self-efficacy theory of behav-
ioral change: Foundations, conceptual issues, and therapeutic
implications. In W. T. O’Donohue & L. Krasner (Eds.), Theories
of behavior therapy: Exploring behavior change (pp. 349-383).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Corcoran, K. J. (1991). Efficacy, “skills,” reinforcement, and choice
behavior. American Psychologist, 46, 155-157.
Corcoran, K. J. (1995). Understanding cognition, choice, and
behavior. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psy-
chiatry, 26, 201-207.
Corcoran, K. J., & Rutledge, M. W. (1989). Efficacy expectation
changes as a function of hypothetical incentives in smokers.
Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 3, 22-29.
Council, J. R., Ahern, D. K., Follick, M. J., & Kline, C. L. (1988).
Expectancies and functional impairment in chronic low back
pain. Pain, 33, 323-331.
Eastman, C., & Marzillier, J. S. (1984). Theoretical and method-
ological difficulties in Bandura’s self-efficacy theory. Cognitive
Therapy and Research, 8, 213-229.
Feather, N. T. (1982). Expectations and actions: Expectancy-value
models in psychology. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Feather, N. T. (1992). Values, valences, expectations, and actions.
Journal of Social Issues, 48, 109-124.
Gilovich, T., Griffin, D., & Kahneman, D. (2002). Heuristics and
biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment. New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Holden, G. (1991). The relationship of self-efficacy appraisals to
subsequent health related outcomes: A meta-analysis. Social
Work in Health Care, 16, 53-93.
Holden, G., Moncher, M. S., Schinke, S. P., & Barker, K. M. (1990).
Self-efficacy of children and adolescents: A meta-analysis. Psy-
chological Reports, 66, 1044-1046.
Hsee, C. K., Hastie, R., & Chen, J. (2008). Hedonomics: Bridging
decision research with happiness research. Perspectives on Psy-
chological Science, 3, 224-243.
Hyde, J., Hankins, M., Deale, A., & Marteau, T. M. (2008). Inter-
ventions to increase self-efficacy in the context of addiction
behaviours: A systematic literature review. Journal of Health
Psychology, 13, 607-623.
Kazdin, A. E. (1978). Conceptual and assessment issues raised
by self-efficacy theory. Advances in Behaviour Research and
Therapy, 1, 177-185.
Kirsch, I. (1982). Efficacy expectations or response predictions:
The meaning of efficacy ratings as a function of task characteris-
tics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 132-136.
Kirsch, I. (1985). Self-efficacy and expectancy: Old wine with
new labels. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49,
824-830.
Williams 9
Kirsch, I. (1986). Response expectancy and phobic anxiety:
A reply to Wilkins and Bandura. American Psychologist, 41,
1391-1393.
Kirsch, I. (1995). Self-efficacy and outcome expectancy: A conclud-
ing commentary. In J. E. Maddux (Ed.), Self-efficacy, adaptation,
and adjustment: Theory, research, and application (pp. 341-345).
New York, NY: Plenum.
Lawton, R., Conner, M., & McEachan, R. (2009). Desire or reason:
Predicting health behaviors from affective and cognitive atti-
tudes. Health Psychology, 28, 56-65.
Maddux, J. E. (1991). Self-efficacy. In C. R. Snyder & D. R. Forsyth
(Eds.), Handbook of social and clinical psychology: The health
perspective (pp. 57-78). New York, NY: Pergamon.
Maddux, J. E. (1993). Social cognitive models of health and exer-
cise behavior: An introduction and review of conceptual issues.
Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 5, 116-140.
Maddux, J. E. (1999). Expectancies and the social-cognitive per-
spective: Basic principles, processes, and variables. In I. Kirsch
(Ed.), How expectancies shape experience (pp. 17-39).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Maddux, J. E., Norton, L. W., & Stoltenberg, C. D. (1986). Self-
efficacy expectancy, outcome expectancy, and outcome value:
Relative effects on behavioral intentions. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 51, 783-789.
Maddux, J. E., & Rogers, R. W. (1983). Protection motivation
and self-efficacy: A revised theory of fear appeals and atti-
tude change. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19,
469-479.
Maddux, J. E., & Stanley, M. A. (1986). Self-efficacy theory in
contemporary psychology: An overview. Journal of Social and
Clinical Psychology, 4, 249-255.
Marks, R., Allegrante, J. P., & Lorig, K. (2005). A review and synthe-
sis of research evidence for self-efficacy-enhancing interventions
for reducing chronic disability: Implications for health education
practice (part II). Health Promotion Practice, 6, 148-156.
Marzillier, J. S., & Eastman, C. (1984). Continuing problems with
self-efficacy theory: A reply to Bandura. Cognitive Therapy and
Research, 8, 257-262.
Mellers, B. A. (2000). Choice and the relative pleasure of conse-
quences. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 910-924.
Moritz, S. E., Feltz, D. L., Fahrbach, K. R., & Mack, D. E. (2000).
The relation of self-efficacy measures to sport performance:
A meta-analytic review. Research Quarterly for Exercise and
Sport, 71, 280-294.
Multon, K. D., Brown, S. D., & Lent, R. W. (1991). Relation of
self-efficacy beliefs to academic outcomes: A meta-analytic
investigation. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38, 30-38.
Rhodes, R. E., & Blanchard, C. M. (2007). What do confidence
items measure in the physical activity domain? Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 37, 759-774.
Downloaded from psr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 8, 2016
Rhodes, R. E., & Courneya, K. S. (2003). Self-efficacy, control-
lability and intention in the theory of planned behavior: Mea-
surement redundancy or causal independence? Psychology and
Health, 18, 79-91.
Rhodes, R. E., & Courneya, K. S. (2004). Differentiating motiva-
tion and control in the theory of planned behavior. Psychology,
Health, and Medicine, 9, 205-215.
Rosenstock, I. M., Strecher, V. J., & Becker, M. H. (1988). Social
learning theory and the health belief model. Health Education
Quarterly, 15, 175-183.
Rotter, J. B. (1954). Social learning and clinical psychology.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Sadri, G., & Robertson, I. T. (1993). Self-efficacy and work related
behavior: A review and meta-analysis. Applied Psychology: An
International Review, 42, 139-152.
Schoenberger, N. E., Kirsch, I., & Rosengard, C. (1991). Cogni-
tive theories of human fear: An empirically derived integration.
Anxiety Research, 4, 1-13.
Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, F. (1998). Self-efficacy and work-
related performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin,
124, 240-261.
Teasdale, J. D. (1978). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory
of behavioural change? Advances in Behaviour Research and
Therapy, 1, 211-215.
van der Pligt, J., & de Vries, N. K. (1998). Expectancy-value mod-
els of health behavior: The role of salience and anticipated
affect. Psychology and Health, 13, 289-305.
Weinstein, N. D., & Rothman, A. J. (2005). Commentary: Revi-
talizing research on health behavior theories. Health Education
Research, 20, 294-297.
Williams, D. M. (2008). Exercise, affect, and adherence: An inte-
grated model and a case for self-paced exercise. Journal of
Sport and Exercise Psychology, 30, 471-496.
Williams, D. M., Anderson, E. S., & Winett, R. A. (2005). A review
of the outcome expectancy construct in physical activity research.
Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 29, 70-79.
Williams, S. L. (1992). Perceived self-efficacy and phobic dis-
ability. In R. Schwarzer (Ed.), Self-efficacy: Thought control of
action (pp. 149-176). Washington, DC: Taylor and Francis.
Williams, S. L. (1995). Self-efficacy and anxiety and phobic disor-
ders. In J. E. Maddux (Ed.), Self-efficacy, adaptation, and adjust-
ment: Theory, research, and application (pp. 69-107). New York,
NY: Plenum.
Wolpe, J. (1978). Self-efficacy theory and psychotherapeutic change:
A square peg for a round hole. Advances in Behaviour Research
and Therapy, 1, 231-236.
Woodgate, J., Brawley, L. R., & Weston, Z. J. (2005). Maintenance
cardiac rehabilitation exercise adherence: Effects of task and
self-regulatory self-efficacy. Journal of Applied Social Psychol-
ogy, 35, 183-197.