The Effects of Self-Efficacy on Behavior in Escalation Situations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two experiments were conducted to investigate the hypothesis that perceptions of self-efficacy influence, in various ways, behavior in escalation situations. Self-efficacy beliefs for finding oil were measured for 527 petroleum geologists as they decided, at increasing levels of negative feedback in the form of dry wells, whether to persist with an unproductive venture in petroleum exploration. Experiment 1 employed a within-subject design and found a significant main effect of both negative feedback and initial self-efficacy. Differences in intentions to escalate between low and high self-efficacy individuals were apparent at all levels of negative feedback. No moderating effect of self-efficacy, however, was discernible. Experiment 2 employed a between-subjects design and multiple regression analysis. Like Experiment 1, Experiment 2 revealed a significant main effect of negative feedback and initial self-efficacy. Post-feedback self-efficacy was found to mediate the effects of negative feedback on the escalation tendency. Implications of these results for the self-efficacy and escalation literatures are discussed.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".