Self-Efficacy’s Influence on Persistence: Moderating Effect of Performance Feedback Ambiguity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present investigation was designed to test the predictions of a control theory based view of self-regulation on the complex effects of self-efficacy on persistence (Vancouver, 2008). In particular, self-efficacy was expected to positively affect performance in a context where performance feedback never indicated goal achievement. In such a context, goal choice (i.e., whether to abandon the goal or not) is relevant and high self-efficacy individuals were expected to hold out longer. In contrast, when no performance feedback is available, those with high self-efficacy are more likely to believe they achieved the goal more readily, and thus persist less, than those with low self-efficacy. Participants (87 females and 67 males) were manipulated to have either high or low self-efficacy for a task involving hand grip strength by using a confederate who claimed to have overworked their hand (high manipulated self-efficacy) or to be a tennis player (low manipulated self- efficacy). Feedback ambiguity was manipulated by the presence or absence of a physical barrier between the participant and the confederate as they performed. Performance was assessed by length of time an individual could grip at 50% of their maximum grip strength. The results supported the hypothesized interaction of self-efficacy and feedback condition. Moreover, self-efficacy was found to negatively relate to self-reported effort regardless of feedback condition.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".