Self-Efficacy Theory Research

Joedie May A. Valeros August 26, 2015
Maria Keanna Muyargas Psych 180
Self-Efficacy Theory: Implications for Social Facilitation and Social Loafing
In Sanna's article entitled Self-Efficacy Theory: Implications for Social Facilitation and Social Loafing, he presented and tested an expectancy-based model of social facilitation and social loafing, particularly Banduira's Self-efficacy Theory. In Triplett's social facilitation experiment, as cited by Sanna (1992), he concluded that working together led to better performance than when working alone. Contrary, Ringelmann's social loafing experiment, as also cited in the article, said that working atogether ld to worse performance than working alone. Sanna (1992) uses the Self-Efficacy

In the first experiment, participant's efficacy expectancy and outcome expectancy were manipulated. Sanna (1992) provide false performance feedback (high and low) after participants work on a task to manipulate their efficacy expectancy. On the other hand, their outcome expectancies were also manipulated by doing a task in 3 conditions: perform alone (low-outcome expectancy), in coacting pairs but evaluated individually (high-outcome expectancy), or in collective pairs in which performances could be evaluated together (low-outcome expectancy). There were 144 participants, 24 of them were in alone condition and 12 pairs in each of the coaction and collective conditions, randomly assigned to the six cells of the research design. The participants arrived alone or in pairs. They were instructed to sit on a table, in front of personal computers, with a partition to prevent pairs from seeing each other. Near the floor, there was a third, larger computer without a monitor or keyboard, which was positioned on a box. They were also asked to read the instructions on their computer monitor. Sanna (1992) used vigilance task to study the performance of people on a given task. After the trial were complete, participants were given a false performance feedback. In high-efficacy condition, the participants received the highest possible performance ranking while in low-efficacy

The experimenter also emphasized the alone, coaction and collective manipulation. The participants then asked a series of questions designed to assess the success of manipulation. After that, they were asked to rate the extent to which they believed they would be able to answered correctly, the extent to which they believe the experimenter would be able to determined exactly how many correct answered they individually detected , the extent to which they believed the experiment would directly compare their individual performance with others, the extent to which they believed the experimenter evaluated their performance positively and the extent to which they believed their performance would be evaluated negatively (Sanna,