Research examining the within-person relationship among self-efficacy, resource allocation, and performance has been decidedly mixed, with positive, null, and even negative relationships being observed. In the present research, we propose that relationship of within-person changes in self-efficacy with subsequent changes in resource allocation and performance depends upon one’s typical level of self-efficacy; that is, increases and decreases in self-efficacy have different implications for individuals that are generally highly efficacious than for individuals who are typically less efficacious. Moreover, we propose that these relationships further depend upon the difficulty of goal being pursued. Support for these arguments is found across two studies. These results provide support for self-efficacy’s non-monotonic relationship with resource allocation, including our proposition that the nature of this non-monotonic relationship differs as a function of difficulty. These results also help further illuminate when and for whom self-efficacy is likely to increase or decrease resource allocation and performance.
Highlights
► Two studies examined within-person self-efficacy effects on resource allocation. ► People with high vs. low absolute efficacy respond differently to efficacy changes. ► Goal difficulty also determines the nature of within-person efficacy effects. ► Support is found for a non-linear and non-monotonic efficacy/resource allocation relationship.
Over the past decade, the nature of the relationships among self-efficacy, resource allocation, and performance have become a point of debate (e.g., Bandura,, 2012, Bandura and Locke, 2003, Vancouver, 2005 and Vancouver, 2012). Self-efficacy refers to one’s perceived ability for a particular task (Bandura, 1997). When examined via between-person analyses, a positive relationship typically emerges: individuals with greater self-efficacy generally invest more resources (e.g., work longer and/or harder) and achieve greater performance than do those with lower self-efficacy (Judge et al., 2007, Moritz et al., 2000, Multon et al., 1991 and Stajkovic and Luthans, 1998). Yet, research using within-person analyses—examining how changes in self-efficacy relate to subsequent changes in resource allocation and performance—has yielded much more variable results ranging from positive (e.g., Seo & Ilies, 2009), to null (e.g., Richard, Diefendorff, & Martin, 2006), and even negative (e.g., Vancouver & Kendall, 2006). Given the central role of self-efficacy in numerous theories of motivation (e.g., Bandura, 1997, Locke and Latham, 1990 and Schunk, 1989), and the frequent advocation of efficacy-boosting interventions as a means to increase performance (e.g., Colquitt et al., 2000 and Stajkovic and Luthans, 1998), understanding the factors responsible for the variable effects of self-efficacy on performance is of considerable theoretical and practical importance.
What accounts for the variable relationships observed at the within-person level? We argue that context matters. In the present manuscript, we introduce and test our proposition that the implications of a change in self-efficacy depend upon the individual and situational context within which those changes occur. In Study 1 we examine an individual context factor, predicting that a person’s average level of self-efficacy (i.e., between-person self-efficacy) will influence how within-person changes in efficacy relate to subsequent variations in resource allocation. We propose that increases (decreases) in self-efficacy may foster engagement (disengagement) among those with relatively low self-efficacy who might otherwise chose to disengage (engage), whereas similar increases (decreases) may lead already confident individuals to perceive that success can be achieved with minimal (substantial) resource investment. In Study 2, we extend the underlying logic of our theoretical model by examining the impact of a situational context factor—goal difficulty. Specifically, we test the proposition that increases in self-efficacy result in greater resource allocation among those pursuing a difficult goal, but reduced resource allocation among those pursuing an easy goal. In so doing, we seek highlight self-efficacy’s role in the judicious allocation of finite resources, such as time and effort—that is, attempting to allocate sufficient resources for success without squandering resources by allocating more resources than necessary or by pursuing lost causes. From this perspective, we argue that both positive and negative effects of self-efficacy on resource allocation can serve adaptive functions.
