Are self-efficacy measures confounded with motivation? An experimental test

Area of Science:

• Psychology
• Behavioral Science

Background:

• Standard self-efficacy (SE) measures may inaccurately assess perceived capability due to respondent interpretation of "can" as "will."
• This potential confound between perceived capability and motivation can impact the validity of SE assessments.

Purpose of the Study:

• To investigate whether priming the distinct meanings of "can" and "will" influences self-efficacy ratings.
• To determine if clarifying the semantic difference between capability and intention affects how individuals report their self-efficacy.

Main Methods:

• An experimental study involving 134 university students assessing exercise self-efficacy.
• Participants were randomized into control, definition priming (recalled definition of "can"), or side-by-side priming (SE items next to intention items) groups.
• Self-efficacy and definitions of "can" and "will" were collected, with follow-up assessments one month later.

Main Results:

• Side-by-side priming significantly increased self-efficacy ratings compared to the control group (p<.01).
• Definition priming did not yield a significant change in self-efficacy ratings.
• The increase in self-efficacy for side-by-side priming was more pronounced in participants who defined "can" literally (p<.001).

Conclusions:

• Priming the literal meaning of "can" enhances self-efficacy ratings, particularly for individuals with a strict interpretation.
• Standard self-efficacy assessments may be confounded by motivational factors if the distinction between capability and intention is not clear.
• This research suggests a method to improve the precision of self-efficacy measurement by clarifying semantic interpretations.