PERLINI

Chapter 10 – Personal Control Beliefs

MOTIVATION TO EXERCISE PERSONAL CONTROL

Two Kinds of Expectancy

 The motivation to exercise personal control is predicated on the belief that

we have the personal capacity to produce favorable outcomes in our lives.
o An efficacy expectation is a person's estimate of how likely it is that he or
she can act in a particular way. An efficacy expectation is an expectation that
“I have what it takes to do this.”
o An outcome expectation is a person's estimate of how likely certain
outcomes will follow one carries out that behaviour. An outcome expectation
is an expectation that “what I do will work.”

 BOTH efficacy and outcome expectations MUST BE reasonably high before

behaviour becomes energetic, goal-directed and sustained over time.
o IF we’re NOT confident in our ability to execute a behaviour – and reasonably
assured that an effective performance will pay off – THEN we’ll be reluctant to
engage in the desired activity.

Perceived Control: Self, Action, and Control

 The defined interrelationships of expectancy-motivation (the study of perceived-

control) is how the Self (Agent) can exert Control (Ends). We exert control
through Action (i.e., the “means” by which we exert control is through action).
Self → Action → Control.
 The self does not engage in the action without reasonably high efficacy and outcome
expectations; that is,
Self → ↑ Efficacy Expectations → Action → ↑ Outcome Expectations → Control.

SELF-EFFICACY

 Self-efficacy is one’s judgment/evaluation of HOW WELL (or poorly) one will

cope with (i.e., manage) a situation, given (a) the skills one possesses and (b)
the circumstances one faces (Bandura, 1986).
 Self-efficacy is distinct from ability but it’s an important CATALYST that
TRANSLATES into effective PERFORMANCE.
 Self-efficacy is a “generative capacity,” one that “gives-birth-to the execution of
skill.”

 WHEN circumstances (ie the ‘demands’ of the situation) test us – our self-
efficacy (our assessment of how we’ll cope) – DETERMINES HOW WE’LL
PERFORM.

10 – PERSONAL CONTROL BELIEFS 1

 PERLINI
o **SELF-EFFICACY PREDICTS COPING AND PERFORMANCE above-and-beyond
(i.e., BETTER) THAN HOW ONE’S ABILITY PREDICTS COPING AND
PERFORMANCE because
a. circumstances are unpredictable/stressful and always change, and
b. those circumstances require “coping” or some form of management of
the situational demands **

 IF things start to go wrong during your performance, THEN it’s YOUR self-efficacy
– your evaluation of how well (or poorly) you will cope with the situation – that
motivates you to respond accordingly.
 Self-efficacy – like ability – is an important predictor of performance in many
areas.
 The opposite of self-efficacy is doubt. DOUBT
a. interferes with thinking, planning and decision-making ,
b. causes anxiety, confusion, arousal, tension and distress , which
c. leads to performance drops.
 When circumstances are demanding, doubt kills performance.

Self-efficacy PREDICTS the MOTIVATIONAL BALANCE between

a. the desire to engage in the behaviour and
b. the doubt/apprehension to avoid the behaviour.

SOURCES of Self-Efficacy

Self-efficacy beliefs (in our ability to succeed in specific situations) have four
causes/roots:
1. Personal History (the strongest source of a person's efficacy
expectation/beliefs)
2. Vicarious Experience (modeling or observations of similar others ~ e.g., “if
they can do it, so can I”) ~ second strongest source of efficacy beliefs
3. Verbal Persuasions of others (pep-talks to focus on strengths – efficacy –
rather than weaknesses or inefficacy)
4. Physiological States (presence/absence of tension, fear, anxiety and stress).
Efficacy lowers arousal and inefficacy heightens arousal.

Skill and Self-Efficacy: Chicken or the Egg?

 There is a bidirectional relationship between skill & self-efficacy: skilled-

performance (personal history) AFFECTS self-efficacy AND self-efficacy AFFECTS
skilled-performance.
 However, research shows that THE EFFECTS OF skilled-performance ON self-
efficacy IS STRONGER than is the effects of self-efficacy on skilled
performance. In other words, performing well has a greater effect on our beliefs
in our ability to succeed in specific situations (than the effect that believing in our
ability to succeed has on our performance).

10 – PERSONAL CONTROL BELIEFS 2

 PERLINI

Self-Efficacy Effects on Behaviour

 The more one expects that s/he can successfully perform an action (i.e., the
higher one’s self-efficacy beliefs), the MORE WILLING one is to:

a. choose activities that they feel capable of managing. In contrast, those

with low self-efficacy avoid activities that they see as overwhelming their
coping capacities. The issue here is approach versus avoidance choices: high
self-efficacy → approach

b. expend more effort and sustain effort (persistence) aimed at overcoming

setbacks and difficulties in their performance. These persons quickly recover
after setbacks ~ they are resilient because their beliefs in their abilities
provide the motivation to keep plugging-away when facing challenges. In
contrast, those persons with low self-efficacy beliefs (1) slacken their efforts
when facing challenges or (2) settle on mediocre solutions.

c. remain task-focused as well as analyzing task-feedback to (re) assess

their plans/strategies – in the face of situational demands – making
adjustments, where necessary. Those with low self-efficacy doubt their
capacities, which distracts them from the task-at-hand toward focusing on
negative thoughts (their deficiencies), and
d. visualize success and proficiency, thereby feeling optimism, excitement
and competence (positive emotionality). Those with low self-efficacy dwell
on their deficiencies, focus on the obstacles/threats and feel doubt, dread,
pessimism, and anxiety (negative emotionality).

Learning, Coping, Performing, and Achieving: Self-efficacy BELIEFS

FACILITATE coping, performing and achieving because they facilitate

a. TASK INVOLVEMENT which effects approaching or avoiding challenges and

opportunities
b. EXERTING GREATER (versus less) EFFORT AND PERSISTENCE in the face of
obstacles and challenges (rather than giving up),
c. THINKING CLEARLY on WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE rather than thinking
erratically, negatively and emotionally, and
d. experiencing CONSTRUCTIVE EMOTIONALITY (POSITIVE) such as hope and
interest, rather than counterproductive emotionality, such as fear and
anxiety.

Self-Efficacy OR the Psychological Need for Competence?

 While self-efficacy beliefs appear to be the same as perceived competence, they

are theoretically different motivational constructs.

10 – PERSONAL CONTROL BELIEFS 3

 PERLINI
o Perceived competence is the “general desire” to proactively challenge
ourselves.
o Self-efficacy beliefs are associated with a situation-or task-specific activity ~
that is, a particular competency. Coping behaviours are very situation-specific;
hence, self-efficacy expectations that predict those coping behaviours are
also very situation-specific.

Empowerment
 As self-efficacy beliefs (in our ability to succeed in specific situations) are
acquired/learned, IF these beliefs are low, THEN we can change (i.e.,
improve/increase) them.
 WE CAN teach people the knowledge and skills they need to function
competently and effectively, thereby improving their performance. This is called
empowerment and equipping people with knowledge and skills enables them
to control their lives (cope with challenges).
 Mastery Modeling: One effective method to empower others to control their
lives is the mastery model program. Here, one can (a) model the behaviour for
the novice, then (b) have the novice master the modeled behaviour, providing
positive and corrective feedback with increasing challenging situations .
Research shows this method helps increase people’s self-efficacy to control
their behaviour, rather than remaining doubtful and avoiding an activity.

MASTERY BELIEFS

 Self-efficacy beliefs are related to how well we can manage/cope with a specific-
situation,
 Mastery beliefs are related to our PERCEIVED CONTROL OVER OUTCOMES of our
behaviour (i.e., perception of action → outcome link).
o The stronger and more resilient our mastery (personal control) beliefs, the
more we believe we can affect what happens to us.

Ways of Coping

 HOW we CHOOSE TO COPE with a situation determines (is the cause-of) our
mastery beliefs (i.e., ways of coping → mastery beliefs; see Table 10.1 p. 282).

Mastery Versus Helplessness

Being unable to effect or gain control over a desired outcome is the DEFINITION OF
FAILURE

Our MOTIVATIONAL ORIENTATION determines HOW WE COPE with failure.

 A MASTERY motivational orientation (MMO is hardy & resilient) is one in
which a person responds to failure by remaining (a) task-oriented, (b) focused on

10 – PERSONAL CONTROL BELIEFS 4

 PERLINI
achieving mastery in spite of difficulties and setbacks (when outcomes are hard-
to-control).
 A HELPLESS motivational orientation (HMO is fragile) is one in which a
person responds to failure by (a) giving up and withdrawing from the task, and
(b) acting as-if the situation were out of his/her control when facing difficulties
and setbacks.
 WHEN tasks turn difficult, one with an MMO seizes challenges and become
energized by setbacks. In contrast, one with an HMO shy-away from challenges,
fall-apart in the face of setbacks and doubt their abilities.
 WHEN facing failure-feedback, an MMO increases their efforts and changes
their strategies. In contrast, one with an HMO decreases their efforts, doubts
their abilities and loses hope for future success.
 FAILURE means increased effort, better strategies and more resources for an
MMO (“The harder it gets, the harder I need to try!”). To an HMO, failure means
one is personally inadequate (“I’m no good at this!”).

LEARNED HELPLESSNESS

 Learned helplessness is the psychological state that results WHEN an individual

expects that life’s outcomes are uncontrollable .
 Learned helplessness is measured by the perceived relation between one’s
behaviour and the outcome of that behaviour (i.e., behaviour → outcome)
 A mastery orientation (MMO) reflects a strong-relation between behaviour and
outcome.
 A helpless orientation (HMO) reflects a weak-relation between behaviour and
outcome; that is, our behaviour exerts little-or-no influence over outcome. In other
words, factors “outside-of-one’s-control” DETERMINE YOUR FATE.

Learning Helplessness (Seligman & Maier, 1967)

 Helplessness is learned. This was demonstrated 50+ years ago by Martin

Seligman and his colleague Steven Maier. In 1967, Seligman & Maier exposed
dogs to one of three learning conditions ~ either escapable shock, non-escapable
shock or no-shock.
 After an initial phase of “learning,” all three groups of dogs were then exposed to
a second phase, wherein shock was presented that was BOTH (a) “predictable”
(i.e., dimming-light) and (b) “escapable” by jumping over a barrier.
 Results: The dogs that had earlier received EITHER “no shock” OR “escapable-
shock,” learned to escape the shock in Phase 2.
 In contrast, the dogs that had earlier received “non-escapable shock,” did
NOT learn to escape the shock; instead, they passively-accepted the shock,
simply whimpering until the shock terminated ~ giving up any effort to try to
escape the shock. These latter dogs had previously learned that any active
attempt to escape the shock was NOT associated with a positive outcome and

10 – PERSONAL CONTROL BELIEFS 5

 PERLINI
ultimately learned to behave helplessly (i.e., escape was beyond their
control).

Applications to Humans: Studies on humans – using aversive noise – have

replicated the findings on dogs. When we try to solve problems and come to learn
that our behaviour has no effect on the outcome, WE WITHDRAW AND GIVE-UP.

The Three Components of Learned Helplessness

Outcome expectancies – and perceived control – are AFFECTED BY three

components:

1. Contingency (Connection) ~ defined as the objective relation between one’s

behavioural response and the environmental response/outcome. More
specifically, “to what extent does one’s voluntary, strategic behaviour influence
the outcome in this situation?” Contingency varies on a continuum from 0
(uncontrollable outcome) to 1 (controllable outcome).

2. Cognition: Personal control beliefs are subjective, subject to our interpretation or

PERCEPTION of HOW MUCH CONTROL we have over an OUTCOME. In other words, it’s
not only how controllable outcomes “really” are, but how controllable the person
“thinks” those outcomes are.
Our “interpretations” (of behaviour-outcome relations) are influenced by
a. personal biases such as the illusion of control, which is the tendency to
overestimate our ability to control events,
b. causal attributions: how much control we think we have over our lives is
influenced by our perception of whether negative outcomes (e.g., failure) are
due to internal (versus external) causes, stable (versus temporary) causes
and global (versus domain-specific) causes.
c. expectancies: how much control we think we have over our lives – our
outcome expectancies – is rooted in our personal history (i.e., how much
control over outcomes we’ve had in our past). The more successful outcomes
in the past, the more expectations-of-success in the future.

3. Behaviour: Outcome expectancies and perceived control are AFFECTED BY OUR

COPING BEHAVIOUR, which might be
 alert, active and assertive amongst those who have high levels of perceived
control (mastery-oriented people).
 listless, lethargic and passive amongst those who have little perceived control
(helpless-oriented people).

Helplessness Effects

Over time, EXPOSURE TO UNCONTROLLABLE ENVIRONMENTS creates THREE

EFFECTS:

10 – PERSONAL CONTROL BELIEFS 6

 PERLINI

1. Motivational Deficits: We stop trying (i.e., exerting effort to cope) because

nothing we do (behaviour) effects our desired outcome.

2. Learning Deficits: We begin to expect failure and negative outcomes – that

is, we develop a pessimistic mindset – and we become less-likely to learn
different or new responses to effect outcomes.

3. Emotional Deficits: we view coping as futile and develop depression-related

emotionality (i.e., listlessness, apathy and depression), instead of energy-mobilizing
emotionality (i.e., fear, anger, assertiveness, frustration ~ the latter which typically
mobilize us).

Helplessness and Depression

 Learned helplessness has been proposed as a model of depression. The

subjective personal control beliefs of a depressed person are theorized to be that
the person thinks outcomes are uncontrollable.
 Research investigating this hypothesis has found that, IN FACT, it’s people
who are NOT depressed that have an exaggerated sense of personal control.
 In other words, people who are depressed are in fact accurate judges of how
much control they have over a situation.

Attributions and Explanatory Style

 Bernard Weiner’s Attribution Theory (seeks to explain the causes of an event or

behaviour) is the outgrowth of his earlier study on achievement motivation (Weiner
studied under John Atkinson @ the University of Michigan) and spent his career as a
Professor at UCLA.
 When explaining WHY a particular success or failure outcome happened,
people typically rely on “attributions” (i.e., causal explanation) such as effort,
ability, strategy, luck and task-ease/difficulty. Other attributions (causal
explanations) of success & failure might be intelligence, experience, task-
enjoyment or support-from-others.

 Attributions are typically classified along three causal dimensions:

1. locus of control: internal/dispositional (personal effort, traits, motives,
beliefs) vs. external/situational (task-difficulty)
2. stability: do causes change over-time/across-situations (luck) or are they
fixed/enduring (knowledge, ability, talent)?
3. controllability: causes one can control (skills, effort) vs. causes one cannot
control (luck and others-actions)]

 Explanatory Style is a relatively stable, cognitively based personality variable

that reflects the way people explain the reasons why bad things

10 – PERSONAL CONTROL BELIEFS 7

 PERLINI
(failures/setbacks) happen to them.
o An optimistic explanatory style is one in which we explain bad events with
attributions that are unstable and controllable. For example, one in which a
person places no blame on themselves, believes there is room for change and
that the bad experience was specific to that particular event (not generalized
to other events)
o A pessimistic explanatory style is one in which we explain bad events
with attributions that are stable and uncontrollable. For example, one in
which a person places fault on themselves, believes there is NO room for
change in the future and is generally problematic across situations, rather
than specific to that particular event.

 Of the three causal dimensions of attribution, the MOST CRITICAL DIMENSIONS

critical dimensions for explanatory style are STABILITY AND CONTROLLABILITY.

Pessimistic Explanatory Style

 Reacting to setbacks and failure by INCREASING EFFORT (i.e., trying harder

than before) is reflective of one with an optimistic explanatory style.
 In contrast, reacting to failure/setbacks by “giving-up” (reducing effort) is
reflective of one with a pessimistic explanatory style. The latter is a passive,
fatalistic coping-style.
o Research shows that a pessimistic explanatory style is associated with (a)
academic failure, (b) impaired job performance, (c) depression and (d) electoral
defeat in a presidential election.

Optimistic Explanatory Style

 A reason WHY one would have an optimistic explanatory style is because such
persons maintain an illusion of control ~ a tendency to overestimate their
ability to control events.
 The reason WHY one has an illusion of control is because of a self-serving
cognitive bias; that is, one sees SUCCESS as due to internal/personal factors
(e.g., effort, ability, intelligence ~ I got an A on the test because I studied) and
FAILURE as due to external-environmental factors ~ I got a C on the test
because the test-questions were confusing).
 Despite being self-deceptive and delusional, an optimistic explanatory style (a)
enhances our self-esteem, (b) maintains personal efficacy beliefs and (c) promotes
an optimistic view of the future.

Alternative Explanations (for Outcomes)

 A helpless motivational orientation (HMO) has been linked to a pessimistic

explanatory style that explains/attributes bad events (failure/setbacks) to
uncontrollable factors (external factors). [Note: Recall that those with HMO see
10 – PERSONAL CONTROL BELIEFS 8
 PERLINI
failure as reflecting personal inadequacy (“I’m no good at this!”), so they tend to
give-up when facing difficulties].
 WHAT causes one TO PERCEIVE an OUTCOME as UNCONTROLLABLE is WHETHER the
outcome is unpredictable. In other words, WHEN life’s outcomes are unpredictable
and uncontrollable, FAILURE is met with (a) decreases in effort (stop trying), (b)
decreases in alternative problem-solving strategies, and (c) listlessness/apathy and
depression.

REACTANCE THEORY

 The motivation to exercise personal control over what does and does not happen
to you is an important psychological need ~ to be AUTONOMOUS, or self-
determined.
 WHEN OTHERS pressure/control/coerce us to think, feel and behave in particular
ways, we “react.” REACTANCE is the psychological and behavioural attempt at re-
establishing (reacting against) a threatened freedom. In other words, when we’re
restricted in some way, we feel a strong need to resist and fight back in order to re-
gain our freedom.

Reactance and Helplessness

 Reactance Theory focuses upon HOW WE REACT TO UNCONTROLLABLE OUTCOMES.

QUESTION: Do we react to a loss of control BY
a. becoming more active (e.g., exerting more effort) or
b. becoming more passive (e.g., exerting less effort & quitting)?
 ANSWER: It DEPENDS upon our EXPECTATIONS that our COPING BEHAVIOUR will
re-establish control over the outcome.
a. IF WE EXPECT to be able to control an important outcome, THEN we become
more active to re-establish control (i.e., reactance).
b. IF WE DO NOT EXPECT to be able to control an outcome, THEN we become
more passive because we learn that our control-attempts are futile (i.e.,
helplessness).

TAKE-AWAY ON REACTANCE:
a. “expectations of control” foster reactance (reacting against a threatened
freedom)
b. “expectations of no-control” foster helplessness (exerting less effort &
quitting)

HOPE

University of Kansas psychologist Charles Snyder was the pioneer of hope

research. He proposed that hope is associated with positive outcomes (eg
happiness, achievement, etc), the belief that we can shape or control those
outcomes, and the motivation to reach those desired outcomes.

10 – PERSONAL CONTROL BELIEFS 9

 PERLINI
 People high on agreeableness and extraversion tend to have more hope, while
those who are more neurotic (emotional instability), generally have less hope.
Hopeful people aren't necessarily overtly cheerful types, but tend to be
pragmatic
 Hope is good for us. Having faith/believing in our future increases our
likelihood of success because hopeful thinking is goal-oriented and reflects a
belief in the control of outcomes (e.g., more hopeful students go on to greater
academic success; in work, hope is associated with higher-levels of
productivity).
 Having hope feels good (hope is associated with positive emotions). Like
optimism, hope is important for happiness and well-being.

The emotional experience of “hope” motivates us WHEN we have

a. high self-efficacy beliefs. We believe we have the ability to perform, which
supports “confidence”; agentic thinking), and
b. high outcome-beliefs/mastery beliefs. Perceived control over the
outcome, which supports “optimism.” Having more than one
route/pathway/means to influence the outcome (called ‘pathways’
thinking) – given the challenges and obstacles we’ll face – contributes to
high outcome beliefs.

EXPECTANCY-VALUE THEORY

Theorists in this tradition (Eccles et al.’s Expectancy–Value Model of Achievement

Performance and Choice) argue that one’s CHOICE (to approach/avoid), PERSISTENCE,
and PERFORMANCE can be explained by two cognitive and learned sources of
motivation:

a. their outcome expectancies (i.e., beliefs about how well they will perform on
the activity). EXPECTANCIES predict PERFORMANCE.
b. the perceived (subjective) value of the task (i.e., the extent to which
they “value” the activity). VALUE predicts approach vs avoidance CHOICES of
ACTIVITY.

 Eccles et al. (1983) defined FOUR different components of ACHIEVEMENT

VALUES:
a. attainment value is the importance of doing well on a given task; relevance
to one’s identity or self-concept,
b. intrinsic value is the interest or enjoyment one gains from doing the task.
When individuals do tasks that are intrinsically valued, there are important
psychological consequences for them, most of which are quite positive.

1
10 – PERSONAL CONTROL BELIEFS 0
 PERLINI
c. utility (usefulness or perceived importance) value refers to how a task fits
into an individual’s future plans, for instance, taking a statistics class to fulfill a
requirement for a psychology degree.
d. cost refers to how the decision to engage in one activity (e.g., doing
schoolwork) limits access to other activities (e.g., calling friends),
assessments of how much time/ effort will be taken to accomplish the
activity, and its emotional cost.

 This EV Model of Achievement has most widely been applied and used in
research in the field of EDUCATION.

 The EV Model of motivation suggests that EXPECTANCIES AND VALUES INTERACT
to predict important outcomes such as
a. engagement,
b. continuing interest, and
c. academic achievement.

1
10 – PERSONAL CONTROL BELIEFS 1