Resistance Self-Efficacy pertains to the confidence in one's ability to avoid substance use prior to its first use. This implies resistance against peer pressure to smoke, drink or take drugs. It has been repeatedly found that the combination of peer pressure and low self-efficacy predicts the onset of smoking and substance use in adolescents (Conrad, Flay & Hill, 1992). Ellickson and Hays (1991) studied the determinants of future substance use in 1,138 eighth and ninth graders in ten junior high schools. As potential predictors of onset, they analyzed prodrug social influence, resistance self-efficacy, and perception of drug-use prevalence. Social influence or exposure to drug users combined with low self-efficacy for drug resistance turned out to predict experimentation with drugs nine months later. Interestingly, resistance self-efficacy was no longer predictive in the subsample of students who were already involved with drugs.
In a study on smoking onset, Stacy, Sussman, Dent, Burton and Flay (1992) examined prosmoking social influence and resistance self-efficacy in a sample of 1,245 California high school students. Perceived self-efficacy moderated the effect of peer pressure. As expected, many adolescents succumbed to prosmoking influence, but those high in resistance self-efficacy were less vulnerable toward interpersonal power.
With these findings in mind, one would expect that the training of resistance skills would raise resistance self-efficacy, which in turn would reduce future drug use. However, intervention studies that have included such a training have not yet been very promising (Hansen, Graham, Wolkenstein & Rohrbach, 1991; Ellickson, Bell & McGuigan, 1993).
Harm-reduction self-efficacy pertains to one's confidence to be able to reduce the risk after having become involved with tobacco or drugs. Once a risk behaviour has commenced, the notion of resistance loses its significance. It is then of superior importance to control further damage and to strengthen the belief that one is capable of minimizing the risk. This is particularly useful since most adolescents at least experiment with cigarettes and alcohol, which can be regarded as a normal stage in puberty when youngsters face developmental tasks including self-regulation in tempting situations. Substance use can be seen as being normative rather than deviant and might reflect a healthy exploratory behaviour and a constructive learning process (Newcomb & Bentler, 1988; Shedler & Block, 1990). The conflict here is between solving normative developmental tasks on the one hand, and, on the other, initiating a risk behaviour that might accumulate and habitualize to a detrimental lifestyle pattern. Thus, the question is, "How can a drug be curiously explored without becoming the gateway drug?" The answer lies in the notion of harm-reduction self-efficacy. The individual must acquire not only the competence and skills, but also the optimistic belief in control of the impending risk. The aim of secondary prevention is to let adolelscents experiment while at the same time empowering them to minimize and eliminate substance use later on.
An intervention study to accomplish this goal has been conducted at the Addictive Behaviours Research Center at the University of Washington (Baer, 1993; Baer, Marlatt, Kivlahan, Fromme, Larimer & Williams, 1992). College students received one of three treatments: (a) an alcohol-information class dealing with negative consequences of alcohol, (b) a moderation-oriented cognitive-behavioural skills-training class, and (c) an assessment-only control group. The second treatment group was trained to enhance their harm-reduction self-efficacy, which indeed resulted in the greatest decrease in alcohol consumption.
The above two types of self-efficacy are related to prevention. When, however, it comes to behaviour change for those who are already addicted, the focus turns to action, coping, and recovery. Action self-efficacy concerns the confidence to attain one's desired abstinence goal (or controlled use). If, for example, someone sets a date for quitting, then a commitment is made, moving the person beyond the mere contemplation stage. When intentions to quit are translated into preparatory acts, the individual needs optimistic self-beliefs to make detailed plans how to refrain from the substance, imagine success scenarios, and take instrumental actions. This applies to unaided cessation as well as to formal treatment settings. Action self-efficacy has been found to predict attempts to quit smoking (Marlatt, Curry & Gordon, 1988; Sussman et al., 1989). As early as 1981, many smoking cessation studies have included self-efficacy to predict abstinence (Baer, Holt & Lichtenstein, 1986; Colletti et al., 1985; Condiotte & Lichtenstein, 1981; DiClemente et al., 1985; Garcia et al., 1990; Godding & Glasgow, 1985; Ho, 1992; Karanci, 1992; Kok et al., 1992; Wilson et al., 1990). These findings corroborate consistently the beneficial influence of optimistic self-beliefs, but this effect is restricted to posttreatment self-efficacy. Typically, pretreatment self-efficacy does not predict relapse, but posttreatment self-efficacy does. This generalizes, by the way, to a broad range of domains of human functioning (Marlatt, Baer & Quigley, 1994; Kavanagh et al., 1993; Kok et al., 1992). Pretreatment self-efficacy is not based on personal experience with quitting and is, therefore, inappropriate for the prediction of treatment outcomes. During the cessation training, self-efficacy is being developed with a realistic sense of one's capabilities, resulting in more accurate self-knowledge that allows one to foresee one's most likely reactions in tempting situations.
Coping self-efficacy relates to anticipatory coping with relapse crises. After one has made a successful attempt to quit, long-term maintenance is at stake. At this stage, quitters are confronted with high-risk situations, such as experiencing negative affect or temptations in positive social situations. Lapses are likely to occur unless the quitter can mobilize alternative coping strategies. Believing in one's coping reservoir assists in making sound judgments and in initiating adaptive coping responses. Relapse prevention training aims at making use of a variety of situation-tailored coping strategies which in turn enhances coping self-efficacy (Curry, 1993; Gruder et al., 1993; Marlatt & Gordon, 1985). This includes behavioural as well as cognitive coping modes.
Recovery self-efficacy is closely related to coping self-efficacy, but both tap different aspects within the maintenance stage (similar to the distinction between resistance and harm-reduction self-efficacy in the prevention stage). If a lapse occurs, individuals can fall prey to the "abstinence violation effect", i.e., they attribute their lapse to internal, stable and global causes, dramatize the event, and interpret is as a full-blown relapse (Marlatt & Gordon, 1985). High self-efficacious individuals, however, avoid this effect by making a high-risk situation responsible and by finding ways to control the damage and to restore hope. Self-efficacy for recovery of abstinence after an initial lapse has been found to promote long-term maintenance. Clinical interventions focus on specific recovery strategies after setbacks, such as reviewing and reattributing the situation, balancing alternative ways of coping, making an immediate plan for recovery (e.g., renew initial commitment to quit, mobilize social support, reframe the lapse as a normal event within a productive learning process) (Curry & Marlatt, 1987). This restores self-efficacy and helps to return quickly to the path of maintenance. However, Haaga and Stewart (1992) found that not high but moderate self-efficacy for recovery leads to the best survival rates (continuation of abstinence). If this finding can be replicated in further research, it would reflect an "overconfidence effect," since too high self-efficacy would embolden trials of risk behaviours.
As these examples from research on addictive behaviours demonstrate, it is essential to identify several stages at which self-efficacy operates in different manners. Specific kinds of self-efficacy are protective as the individual moves through the process of peer influence, substance experimentation, cessation, and abstinence maintenance. Psychological interventions have to be stage-tailored.
4.0 Developments
Over the years, the notion of self-efficacy has become so appealing to health psychologists that it has been adopted as part of most health behaviour theories. Becker and Rosenstock (1987) have incorporated it into their Health Belief Model, mainly by reinterpreting what used to be "barriers" to action. Ajzen (1988, 1991) has extended the Theory of Reasoned Action to the Theory of Planned Behaviour by adding a predictor labeled "perceived behavioural control," which is about the same as self-efficacy (see Conner & Sparks, this volume). Maddux and Rogers (1983) have incorporated self-efficacy as one major determinant of intentions in their Protection Motivation Theory (see also Maddux, 1993; Seydel & Boer, this volume). These theories are described in more detail in other chapters of this book (see also Schwarzer, 1992; Wallston, in press; Weinstein, 1993). Thus, "self-efficacy models" are no longer really distinct from other approaches since the key construct that was originally developed within Bandura's Social Cognitive Theory has meanwhile proven to be an essential component in all major models.
In this section, we would like to describe our own extensions of previous models, the Health Action Process Approach (HAPA), that is in particular influenced by Social Cognitive Theory. Its basic notion is that the adoption, initiation, and maintenance of health behaviours must be explicitly conceived as a process that consists of at least two stages, a motivation phase and a volition phase. The latter might be further subdivided into a planning phase, action phase, and maintenance phase. It is claimed that self-efficacy plays a crucial role at all stages, while in contrast other cognitions are of limited scope. For example, risk perceptions serve predominantly to set the stage for a contemplation process early in the motivation phase but do not extend beyond. Similarly, outcome expectancies are chiefly important in the motivation phase when individuals balance the pros and cons of certain consequences of behaviours, but they lose their predictive power after a personal decision has been made. However, if one does not believe in one's capability to perform a desired action, one will fail to adopt, initiate and maintain it.
Behavioural intentions are far from being sufficient to initiate a difficult action such as refraining from smoking or switching to a diet. There is a postintentional and preactional process that can be called a "volitional process," or simply a planning stage (Bagozzi, 1992; Heckhausen & Gollwitzer, 1987; Karoly, 1993; Kuhl & Beckmann, 1993). Several authors have suggested stage models that may account for this phenomenon. Prochaska and DiClemente (1983, 1984), for example, have put forward their Transtheoretical Model of Change that starts with precontemplation where individuals have not thought at all about the health issue. In the subsequent contemplation stage they develop a motivation to change. Afterwards, they enter a preparation stage before the actual behaviour is finally performed. This preparation stage reflects a postintentional preactional state.
Similarly, Weinstein and Sandman (1992) have suggested a six-stage model. They distinguish individuals who are unaware of the issue or unengaged by it from those who are just deciding about acting. Before they finally initiate the new behaviour they have "decided to act." Again, this is a postintentional preactional state that deserves further scientific attention.
In the Health Action Process Approach (HAPA; Schwarzer, 1992; Figure 1) this critical state is also explicitly considered as part of a volition process. It is labeled "action plans" - individuals prepare for the intended behaviour by imagining scenarios of how and under which circumstances they could perform specific acts. In this stage, self-efficacy plays a crucial role because individuals rely more or less on optimistic self-beliefs when facing self-imposed challenges. Subsequent performance then represents a successful outcome of cognitive activities in the planning and preparation stage. The association between self-efficacy and performance thus reflects intermediate cognitive processes that have been left unmeasured in past research. The postintentional preactional state is influenced by self-referent thought about how to prepare and initiate a novel health behaviour which, then, is reflected in individual differences in subsequent health behaviours.
4.1 The Motivation Phase
In the motivation phase, the individual forms an intention to either adopt a precaution measure or change risk behaviours in favour of other behaviours. This has also been conceived as a decision-making stage by some authors (Eiser, 1983; Eiser & Sutton, 1977; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). Today, it is known that self-efficacy and outcome expectancies are the major predictors of intentions. Most previous models treat these two as being unrelated predictors. However, there might be a temporal and causal order among them. Bandura (1989) has underscored that their interrelationship should also be taken into consideration: "...the effects of outcome expectancies on performance motivation are partly governed by self-beliefs of efficacy. There are many activities that, if performed well, guarantee valued outcomes, but they are not pursued if people doubt they can do what it takes to succeed... Self-perceived inefficacy can thus nullify the motivating potential of alluring outcome expectations...When variations in perceived self-efficacy are partialed out, the outcomes expected for given performances do not have much of an independent effect on behaviour" (p. 1180). Outcome expectancies can be seen as precursors of self-efficacy because people usually make assumptions about the possible consequences of behaviours before inquiring whether they can take the action themselves. If self-efficacy is specified as a mediator between outcome expectancies and intention, the direct influence of outcome expectancy on intention may dissipate. But the research findings on this issue are very inconsistent, rendering both cognitions primary candidates for motivating change. Under conditions where individuals have no experience with the behaviour they are contemplating, we assume that outcome expectancies may have a stronger direct influence. Only after a sufficient level of experience is attained does self-efficacy receive the lion's share of the intention variance.
A specific subset of outcome expectancies, namely social outcome expectancies, should also be considered explicitly as determinants within the motivation phase, as proposed in the Theory of Reasoned Action and the Theory of Planned Behaviour, where this has been called subjective norm or normative beliefs. People often develop intentions because they perceive social pressures to do so. Individuals comply with the perceived expectations of significant others in order to receive gratifications or to avoid conflicts or disregard, or because of naive trust in the opinion of others. Previous findings on the predictive value of the subjective norm (or normative beliefs) have not been overwhelming, which is possibly due to limited measurement and theoretical elaboration. The perceived social expectation factor should be viewed from two additional vantage points, i.e., (a) from a social comparison perspective which suggests that our intentions and actions are governed by our desire to maintain or enhance self-esteem or self-consistency within normative reference groups (see Wills, 1990; Wood, 1989), and (b) from a social support perspective which suggests that people draw on their social networks and resources when making decisions, e.g., the intention to quit smoking being facilitated by a network of non-smokers (Cohen et al., 1988). The link between social outcome expectancies and intentions has to be reconsidered with these research perspectives in mind.
The interplay between perceived severity of an illness, perceived vulnerability, and the resulting threat, as hypothesized in the Health Belief Model, is still undetermined. The influential role of threat or risk perception in the motivation and volition process has been overestimated in past research and interventions. Fear appeals are of limited value; the message has to be framed in a way that allows individuals to draw on their coping resources and to exercise skills in order to control health threats. In persuasive communications, a focus should be made on self-percepts of personal coping capabilities to manage effective precaution strategies (Bandura, 1991). This suggests a causal order where threat is specified as a distal antecedent that helps to stimulate outcome expectancies which further stimulate self-efficacy. A minimum level of threat or concern must exist before people start contemplating the benefits of possible actions and ruminate their competence to actually perform them. The direct path from threat to intention may become negligible if expectancies are already well established.
In establishing a rank order among the three direct paths that lead to intention, it is assumed that self-efficacy dominates, followed by outcome expectancies, whereas threat (or risk perceptions) may fail to contribute any additional direct influence. As indirect factors, however, threat may be of considerable significance within the motivation phase. As mentioned above, the context and one's personal experience play a role and may change the pattern of weights.
4.2 The Action Phase
It is common knowledge that good intentions do not necessarily guarantee corresponding actions. Correlations between intentions and behaviours vary tremendously. The previously mentioned theories refer more generally to barriers or costs as the reasons for this gap, and they list a number of impediments, such as situational constraints or lack of willpower. The Theory of Planned Behaviour, which was designed for the case of incomplete control over behaviour, makes an attempt to quantify this problem by specifying a direct link between perceived behavioural control and behaviour, thus circumventing the intention. More theoretical elaborations are required, however, to better understand the processes involved. Relapse prevention theory (Marlatt & Gordon, 1985), volition theory (Heckhausen, 1991; Kuhl, 1983), and self-efficacy theory (Bandura, 1977, 1986) have sparked the following ideas.
While in the motivation phase it is described what people choose to do, in the subsequent action or volition phase it is described how hard they try and how long they persist. The right-hand part of Figure 1 consists of three levels: cognitive, behavioural, and situational. The focus is on cognitions that instigate and control the action, i.e., a volitional or self-regulative process which is subdivided into action plans and action control.
When a preference for a particular health behaviour has been shaped, the intention has to be transformed into detailed instructions of how to perform the desired action. If, for example, someone intends to lose weight, it has to be planned how to do it, i.e., what foods to buy, when and how often to eat which amounts, when and where to exercise, and maybe even whether to give up smoking as well. Thus, a global intention can be specified by a set of subordinate intentions and action plans that contain proximal goals and algorithms of action sequences. The volition process is hardly influenced by outcome expectancies, but more strongly by self-efficacy, since the number and quality of action plans are dependent on one's perceived competence and experience. Self-efficacy beliefs influence the cognitive construction of specific action plans, for example by visualizing scenarios that may guide goal attainment. These postdecisional preactional cognitions are necessary because otherwise the person would act impulsively in a trial-and-error fashion and would not know where to allocate the available resources.
Once an action has been initiated, it has to be controlled by cognitions in order to be maintained. The action has to be protected from being interrupted and abandoned prematurely due to incompatible competing intentions which may become dominant while a behaviour is being performed. Meta-cognitive activity is needed to complete the primary action and to suppress distracting secondary action tendencies. Daily physical exercise, for example, requires self-regulatory processes in order to secure effort and persistence and to keep other motivational tendencies at a distance (such as the desire to eat, socialize, or sleep) until these tendencies can prevail for a limited time period.
When an action is being performed, self-efficacy determines the amount of effort invested and the perseverance. People with self-doubts are more inclined to anticipate failure scenarios, worry about possible performance deficiencies, and abort their attempts prematurely. People with an optimistic sense of self-efficacy, however, visualize success scenarios that guide the action and let them persevere in face of obstacles. When running into unforeseen difficulties they quickly recover.
Performing an intended health behaviour is an action, just as is refraining from a risk behaviour. The suppression of health-detrimental actions requires effort and persistence as well, and therefore is also guided by a volitional process that includes action plans and action control. If one intends to quit smoking or drinking, one has to plan how to do it. For example, it is important to avoid high-risk situations where the pressures to relapse are overwhelming. Attaining proximal subgoals helps increase the difficulty level of situations until one can resist under all possible circumstances. If someone is craving a cigarette or a drink, action control helps him or her to survive the critical situation. For example, individuals can make favourable social comparisons, refer to their self-concept, or simply pull themselves together. The more these meta-cognitive skills and internal coping dialogues are developed and the better they are matched to specific risk situations, the easier the urges can be controlled. Self-efficacy helps to reestablish the perseverant efforts needed for the accomplishment of self-imposed goals.
One of the major action control paradigms is the delay of gratification pattern. Children already possess the meta-cognitive skills to suppress the craving for a small piece of candy if they are promised to obtain a bigger one at a later point in time; they apply cognitive distraction and other techniques for this purpose (Mischel, 1966, 1973). A similar paradigm can be found in disease prevention. If children comply to brush and floss their teeth regularly, they are promised not to suffer from tooth decay or periodontal disease several decades later. Evidently, it requires an immense volitional strength (after the necessary intention is given) to obtain this kind of gratification, which can hardly be expected from the majority of human beings. After a circumscribed action has been completed, the individual evaluates it as successful or failing and attributes the perceived outcome to possible causes. Dependent on this cognitive event, emotions and expectancies are varied, and the volitional strength may be increased or decreased for subsequent similar actions. Self-reinforcement is seen as a favourable meta-cognitive strategy.
Finally, situational barriers as well as opportunities have to be considered. If situational cues are overwhelming, meta-cognitive skills fail to protect the individual and the temptation cannot be resisted. Actions are not only a function of intentions and cognitive control, but are also influenced by the perceived and the actual environment. A social network, for example, that ignores the coping process of a quitter by smoking in his presence, creates a difficult stress situation which taxes the quitter's volitional strength. If, on the other hand, a spouse decides to quit too, then a social support situation is created that enables the quitter to remain abstinent in spite of lower levels of volitional strength.
In sum, the action phase can be described along three levels: cognitive, behavioural, and situational. The cognitive level refers to self-regulatory processes that mediate between the intentions and the actions. This volitional process contains action plans and action control and is strongly influenced by self-efficacy expectancies, but also by perceived situational barriers and support.
5.0 Operationalization of the Model
The three major cognitions that operate during the motivation phase can be assessed by single items such as the following:
My risk of getting lung cancer is
very low low high very high
compared to the average person of my age and sex.
If I would stop smoking, then it would reduce my risk of lung cancer.
not at all true hardly true somewhat true very true
I am certain that I can resist to smoke even when I drink alcohol with my buddies.
not at all true hardly true somewhat true very true
It is of note that the first kind of cognition, risk perception, need not be the same as threat experience, and the relationship between the two still awaits theoretical and empirical elaboration. To make test construction simple, one can keep in mind that outcome expectancies are best worded with if-then statements, and self-efficacy items as confidence-statements. The semantic structure of outcome expectancies are:
For self-efficacy the corresponding wording could be:
This rule need not be applied rigidly, but should serve as a heuristic. It is suggested to assess a variety of outcome expectancies, including positive and negative ones. People have many reasons why they should quit smoking or why they find it better to continue. The test items should cover the scope of pros and cons that an individual balances. It is also suggested not to present different constructs neatly separated in the questionnaire, but rather to scramble them so that the respondents don't realize at first glance what this is all about.
However, there is no way to determine the reliability of single items, and therefore one might want to consider using psychometric scales that consist of a number of items. These scales are, of course, less economical, but they often help to assure that the theoretical constructs are tapped by the sum score and that they are measured more reliably. Self-efficacy scales that are more or less adequate have been published for all kinds of health behaviours.
Various psychometric instruments have been developed to assess self-efficacy for physical activities, such as the Diving Efficacy Scale by Feltz, Landers and Raeder (1979), the Physical Self-Efficacy Scale by Ryckman, Robbins, Thornton and Cantrell (1982), the Exercise Self-Efficacy Scale by Garcia and King (1991), and others (Barling & Abel, 1983; Fruin, Pratt & Owen, 1991; Fuchs & Schwarzer, 1994; Godin, Valois & Lepage, 1993; Marcus & Owen, 1992; Woolfolk, Murphy, Gottesfeld & Aitken, 1985). Physical exercise self-efficacy scales for patients coping with chronic disease were designed by Holman and Lorig (1992) and Toshima, Kaplan and Ries (1992).
In the field of nutrition and weight control, Stotland, Zuroff and Roy (1991) came up with a "Situation-Based Dieting Self-Efficacy Scale" that presents 25 risk situations and measures adherence to a diet in these situations. Clark, Abrams, Niaura, Eaton and Rossi (1991) devised a 20-item "Weight Efficacy Life-Style Questionnaire" with five situational factors, namely negative emotions, availability of foods, social pressure, physical discomfort, and positive activities.
There are two basic methods to design a risk-behaviour self-efficacy scale. One is to confront the individual with a list or hierarchy of tempting situations and to assess situation-specific self-efficacy in line with these demands. The second approach aims at the restricted use of substances, asking subjects whether in general they feel competent to control the behaviour in question (irrespective of specific risk situations). In the domain of smoking, for example, the first method has been chosen by Colletti et al. (1985), and Velicer et al. (1990). In research on drinking, it has been preferred by Annis (1982), Annis and Davis (1988), DiClemente at al. (1985), and Miller, Ross, Emmerson and Todt (1989). The second approach was chosen by Godding and Glasgow (1985), for example, to assess smoking self-efficacy. For alcohol consumption, instruments were presented by Rychtarik, Prue, Rapp and King (1992), Sitharthan and Kavanagh (1990), and Young, Oei and Crook (1991). A third attempt to assess self-efficacy has been published by Haaga and Stewart (1992), who developed an "articulated thoughts technique" to measure recovery self-efficacy after a setback from smoking abstinence.
Scales for self-efficacy for smoking, dieting, physical exercise, condom use, cancer screening, and social support provision can be found in Schwarzer (1993). These scales are available in English, Spanish, and German. A generalized self-efficacy scale is available in more languages.
In addition to the assessment of risk perception, outcome expectancies, and self-efficacy, it is essential to identify the individual's motivation stage. A unique way to arrive at some idea about one's stage is given by a single-item self-report measure, the "contemplation ladder" (Biener & Abrams, 1991).
Inconsistency in research findings is partly due to heterogeneous designs of the assessment methods. The present recommendations might help to standardize the construction rationales, but not the inventories themselves.
The Contemplation Ladder
Each rung on this ladder represents where various smokers are in their thinking about quitting. Circle the number that indicates where you are now.
6.0 Application of the Model
To explore the interplay between self-efficacy, outcome expectancies, and risk perceptions, a longitudinal data set of about 800 citizens of Berlin, Germany, was analyzed. In the summer of 1992, participants (18-70 years of age) were asked to fill out a self-administered questionnaire on health cognitions and behaviours. A second wave of measurement took place six months later. Multiple regression analyses presented here are based on the following measures: Self-efficacy toward healthy eating behaviour was assessed by a scale consisting of six items (internal consistency: alpha = .76). A typical item was: "If I commit myself to eating healthy foods, then I can persist with it" (1 - 4). Positive outcome expectancies regarding a healthy eating behaviour were measured by seven items, such as "If I stick to a low-fat diet, my risk of a myocardial infarction would be reduced" (1 - 5). Negative outcome expectancies (5 items) had the same format, but referred to undesired consequences of a healthy eating behaviour, for example "If I stick to a low-fat diet then I need to spend more time for preparing the meals". Risk perception (perceived vulnerability) was assessed by two items: (1) "Compared to other persons of my age and sex, my risk of suffering a heart attack or stroke is... [much smaller ... the same as that of the others ... much higher; 1-7]", and (2) "How likely do you think it is that you will get a heart attack or stroke in the future?" [very unlikely ... very likely; 1-7]. The index healthy eating behaviour was based on frequency responses to 13 items with the format "How often do you usually eat salad or raw vegetables [red meat; cake or cookies; nuts or chips; fresh fruit; sausage (salami, ham, etc.); whole milk...]?" Items were classified into three groups of products (foods high in fat/cholesterol, high in sugar, and high in fiber) and were summed up within each group separately. Finally, these group scores were used to calculate the "healthy eating behaviour" index (the higher the value, the more health-conscious the eating behaviour). The intention to eat healthy foods was measured by two items of the type "I intend to eat as healthfully as possible during the next few months" (1-7).
Hierarchical regression analyses were computed where interaction terms were entered at the second step after all main effects had been considered. The first analysis aimed at the prediction of the intention. Table 1 shows the results separately for men and women.
Table 1 Prediction of the intention to eat healthy foods
Men (n = 534) Women (n = 664)
Predictor b b
Prior Eating Behaviour .16 ** .16 **
Risk Perception -.02 -.03
Self-Efficacy .16 ** .13 **
Positive Outcome .40 ** .37 **
Expectancy -.04 -.10 *
Negative Outcome
Expectancy
Risk Perception x -.07 .03
Self-Efficacy
Pos. Outc. Exp. x .00 -.03
Self-Efficacy .07 .03
Neg. Outc. Exp. x
Self-Efficacy
Pos. Outc. Exp. x Risk -.06 -.04
Percept. -.05 .07
Neg. Outc. Exp. x Risk
Percept.
R = .55 (adj. R2 = R = .54 (adj. R2 =
.29) .28)
Results are similar for both sexes. Health-related cognitions and prior behaviour jointly account for about 28% to 29% of the intention variance, with positive outcome expectancies being most influential. Risk perceptions and all interactions did not contribute to the prediction. The same kind of analysis has been replicated with intentions being measured half a year later, but no substantial differences to the above results emerged. Thus, an interaction model of intention prediction was not supported by the present data.
Next, the same three social-cognitive predictors were used to determine their possible influence at the volition stage of health behaviour. The intention was added as a predictor of healthy eating behaviour half a year later. Table 2 shows the results of the regression analysis.
Table 2 Prediction of healthy eating behaviour half a year later (Wave 2)
Men (n = 353) Women (n = 462)
Predictor b b
Intention to eat healthy .24 ** .12 *
foods
Risk Perception .07 -.01
Self Efficacy .23 ** .28 **
Positive Outcome .19 ** .19 **
Expectancy .01 -.10 *
Negative Outcome
Expectancy
Risk Perception x -.07 -.05
Self-Efficacy
Pos. Outc. Exp. x -.03 .02
Self-Efficacy .00 -.01
Neg. Outc. Exp. x
Self-Efficacy
Pos. Outc. Exp. x Risk .03 .02
Percept. -.08 -.02
Neg. Outc. Exp. x Risk
Percept.
R = .48 (adj. R2 = R = .47 (adj. R2 =
.21) .20)
Sex differences emerged here. For men, intention was a markedly better predictor of future eating behaviour than for women. Most interestingly, self-efficacy was the best predictor in data set of women. Women who believed they can persist eating healthy foods consume indeed less fat and cholesterol and eat more fruits and vegetables than those who did not share this belief.
In the Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen, 1988), perceived behavioural control (that is about the same as perceived self-efficacy) is expected to influence behaviour through intentions, but it can also influence behaviour directly. The explanation for the latter case is that behaviour may not be under volitional control. If an action cannot be performed due to a lack of resources or opportunities then the best intentions are worthless. If, for example, people intend to eat healthfully, but perceive realistically that no health foods are available in a certain situation, perceived behavioural control would be a good direct predictor of the behaviour.
To further clarify the role of self-efficacy, outcome expectancies and risk perception in predicting intention and behaviour, a more complex analysis was computed. Since no interactions had turned out to be of importance, a structural equation model was specified that was limited to main effects which can be subdivided into direct and indirect effects. Such kind of path analysis is appropriate in particular to test mediator hypotheses. Each latent variable was associated with two observed variables. The model was tested by use of the LISREL 8 program (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1993).
----Insert Figure 2 about here----
The path model in Figure 2 refers to the subsample of 353 men and obtained a rather good data fit (c2 = 47.9, df = 41, p = .21, RMR = .049, GFI = .98). Intention was predicted by positive outcome expectancies (.58) and self-efficacy (.29), whereas behaviour was mainly predicted by intention (.50) and self-efficacy (.37). For women, the same structural model also obtained a reasonable data fit; however, the key difference was found in a significant path (.34) from negative outcome expectancy to intention. In sum, these results suggest that self-efficacy cognitions are not only important in establishing a strong readiness to eat healthy foods, but also support the notion that self-efficacy beliefs are crucial for those volitional processes that transform dietary intentions into corresponding actions.
7.0 Future Directions
Theoretical process approaches to the adoption and maintenance of health behaviours should include distinct stages of motivation and volition as well as the construct of self-efficacy, which has turned out to be the most powerful single resource factor. However, self-efficacy is not the "magic bullet" to solve all problems that can arise in the prediction and treatment of behavioural change. Peer pressure usually appears to have higher predictive value, and its counterpart, social support, also has a high potential as a resource factor (Schwarzer & Leppin, 1991). On the other hand, social influence is not unconfounded with self-efficacy. The degree to which peer pressure makes a difference also depends on the individual's resistance self-efficacy; the degree to which social support operates also rests on one's self-efficacy to build, maintain and mobilize social networks.
An open question refers to the optimal degree of specificity or generality of the self-efficacy construct. According to Bandura, perceived self-efficacy should always be as situation-specific as possible. This specificity issue can even be further subdivided into a formal and a substantial facet. In a formal sense, Marlatt et al. (1994) have conceptualized five kinds of self-efficacy that reflect different stages. In a substantial sense, one has to tailor the questions to the situation, for example smoking cessation or condom use. Although there is nothing wrong with more and more specificity, there still exist generalized measures that have considerable predictive value (Mittag & Schwarzer, 1993; Snyder et al., 1991; Wallston, 1992). Self-efficacy can be a generalized trait reflecting a personal resource factor to cope with stress in various life domains. In this sense, it mirrors optimistic self-beliefs that relate to confidence in one's overall coping resources. There are a few theoretical differences between dispositional optimism (as understood by Scheier & Carver, 1992) and generalized self-efficacy, but the empirical association is above .60 (Schwarzer, 1994). Optimism is a broader construct that can be further subdivided into defensive and functional optimism (S. E. Taylor, 1989). Most people are unrealistically optimistic when they assess situation-outcome relationships. They feel less vulnerable towards health threats than they should, and they believe that their reference group is at greater risk for diseases than themselves (Weinstein, 1982). Also, most people believe that their actions will produce positive outcomes and that they are personally capable of coping with their life demands. The former has been called defensive optimism, the latter functional optimism. Functional optimism not only relies on positive outcome expectancies, but more so on personal coping resources, including self-efficacy. If perceptions are distorted, then it is likely that some people overestimate their capabilities. Evidence has only been found by Haaga and Stewart (1992), whose high-efficacy subjects did not recover as well from lapses as their moderate-efficacy subjects. Perceived self-efficacy has to be optimistic to generate motivational power and should be somewhat overly optimistic, not exceeding a certain limit where unrealistic optimism leads to disappointment or harm. Previous interventions have focused on risk communication to lower defensive optimism. The idea was to let people understand how much they really are at risk. This intervention strategy was obviously not very successful. Social Cognitive Theory would emphasize the opposite strategy by making people understand what they are able to change. Resource communication might be met with more acceptance. Individuals should not only be threatened by what they may lose, but they should also be challenged by what they could gain.
8.0 References
Ajzen, I. (1988). Attitudes, personality, and behavior. Milton Keynes, CA: Open University Press.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179-211.
Altmaier, E. M., Russell, D. W., Kao, C. F., Lehmann, T. R., & Weinstein, J. N. (1993). Role of self-efficacy in rehabilitation outcome among chronic low back pain patients. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 40, 335-339.
Annis, H. M. (1982). Inventory of drinking situations. Ontario, Canada: Addiction Research Foundation.
Annis, H. M., & Davis, C. S. (1988). Assessment of expectancies. In D. M. Donovan & G. A. Marlatt (Eds.), Assessment of addictive behaviors (pp. 84-111). New York: Guilford.
Baer, J. S. (1993). Etiology and secondary prevention of alcohol problems with young adults. In J. S. Baer, G. A. Marlatt, & R. J. McMahon (Eds.), Addictive behaviors across the lifespan: Prevention, treatment, and policy issues (pp. 111-137). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Baer, J. S., Holt, C. S., & Lichtenstein, E. (1986). Self-efficacy and smoking reexamined: Construct validity and clinical utility. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 54 (6), 846-852.
Baer, J. S., & Lichtenstein, E. (1988). Classification and prediction of smoking relapse episodes: An exploration of individual differences. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 104-110.
Baer, J. S., Marlatt, G. A., Kivlahan, D. R., Fromme, K., Larimer, M. E., & Williams, E. (1992). An experimental test of three methods of alcohol risk reduction with young adults. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 60, 974-979.
Bagozzi, R. P. (1992). The self-regulation of attitudes, intentions, and behavior. Social Psychology Quarterly, 55 (2), 178-204.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1990). Trying to consume. Journal of Consumer Research, 17, 127-140.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1989). Self-efficacy mechanism in physiological activation and health-promoting behavior. In J. Madden, S. Matthysse, & J. Barchas (Eds.), Adaptation, learning and affect (pp. 1169-1188). New York: Raven.
Bandura, A. (1991). Self-efficacy conception of anxiety. In R. Schwarzer & R. A. Wicklund (Eds.), Anxiety and self-focused attention (pp. 89-110). New York: Harwood.
Bandura, A. (1992). Self-efficacy mechanism in psychobiologic functioning. In R. Schwarzer (Ed.), Self-efficacy: Thought control of action (pp. 355-394). Washington, DC: Hemisphere.
Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Bandura, A., Cioffi, D., Taylor, C. B. & Brouillard, M. E. (1988). Perceived self-efficacy in coping with cognitive stressors and opioid activation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 479-488.
Bandura, A., Reese, L. & Adams, N. E. (1982). Micro-analysis of action and fear arousal as a function of differential levels of perceived self-efficacy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 5-21.
Bandura, A., Taylor, C. B., Williams, S. L., Mefford, I. N., & Barchas, J. D. (1985). Catecholamine secretion as a function of perceived coping self-efficacy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53, 406-414.
Barling, J., & Abel, M. (1983). Self-efficacy and tennis performance. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 7, 265-272.
Basen-Engquist, K. (1992). Psychosocial predictors of "safer-sex" behaviors in young adults. Aids Education and Prevention, 4 (2), 120-134.
Basen-Engquist, K., & Parcel, G. S. (1992). Attitudes, norms, and self-efficacy: A model of adolescents' HIV-related sexual risk behavior. Health Education Quarterly, 19 (2), 263-277.
Beck, K. H., & Lund, A. K. (1981). The effects of health threat seriousness and personal efficacy upon intentions and behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 11, 401-415.
Becker, M. H., & Rosenstock, I. M. (1987). Comparing social learning theory and the health belief model. In W. B. Ward (Ed.), Advances in health education and promotion (Vol. 2, pp. 245-249). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Bernier, M., & Avard, J. (1986). Self-efficacy, outcome and attrition in a weight reduction program. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 10, 319-338.
Biener, L., & Abrams, D. B. (1991). The contemplation ladder: Validation of a measure of readiness to consider smoking cessation. Health Psychology, 10, 360-365.
Brafford, L. J., & Beck, K. H. (1991). Development and validation of a condom self-efficacy scale for college students. Journal of American College Health, 39, 219-225.
Carmody, T. P. (1992). Preventing relapse in the treatment of nicotine addiction: current issues and future directions. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 24 (2), 131-158.
Chambliss, C. A., & Murray, E. J. (1979). Efficacy attribution, locus of control, and weight loss. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 3, 349-353.
Clark, M. M., Abrams, D. B., Niaura, R. S., Eaton, C. A. & Rossi, J. S. (1991). Self-efficacy in weight management. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59, 739-744.
Coates, T. J. (1990). Strategies for modifying sexual behavior for primary and secondary prevention of HIV disease. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 58, 57-69.
Cohen, S., Lichtenstein, E., Mermelstein, R., Kingsolver, K., Baer, J. S., & Kamarck, T. W. (1988). Social support interventions for smoking cessation. In B. H. Gottlieb (Ed.), Marshaling social support. Formats, processes, and effects (pp. 211-240). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Cohen, S., Lichtenstein, E., Prochaska, J. O., Rossi, J. S., Gritz, E. R., Carr, C. R., Orleans, C. T., Schoenbach, V. J., Biener, L., Abrams, D., DiClemente, C., Curry, S., Marlatt, G. A., Cunnings, K. M., Emont, S. L., Giovino, G. & Ossip-Klein, D. (1989). Debunking myths about self-quitting: Evidence from 10 prospective studies of persons who attempt to quit smoking by themselves. American Psychologist, 44, 1355-1365.
Colletti, G., Supnick, J. A., & Payne, T. J. (1985). The smoking self-efficacy questionnaire (SSEQ): Preliminary scale development and validation. Behavioral Assessment, 7, 249-260.
Condiotte, M. M., & Lichtenstein, E. (1981). Self-efficacy and relapse in smoking cessation programs. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 49, 648-658.
Conrad, K. M., Flay, B. R., & Hill, D. (1992). Why children start smoking cigarettes: Predictors of onset. British Journal of Addiction, 87, 1711-1724.
Curry, S. J. (1993). Self-help interventions for smoking cessation. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61, 790-803.
Curry, S., & Marlatt, G. A. (1987). Building self-confidence, self-efficacy, and self-control. In W. M. Cox (Ed.), Treatment and prevention of alcohol problems (pp. 117-138). New York: Academic Press.
Desharnais, R., Bouillon, J., & Godin, G. (1986). Self-efficacy and outcome expectations as determinants of exercise adherence. Psychological Reports, 59, 1155-1159.
Devins, G. M., & Edwards, P. J. (1988). Self-efficacy and smoking reduction in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 26, 127-135.
De Vries, H., Dijkstra, M., & Kok, G. J. (1989). Self-efficacy as a determinant of the onset of smoking and interventions to prevent smoking in adolescents. Paper presented at the First European Congress of Psychology. Amsterdam: The Netherlands.
De Vries, H., Dijkstra, M., & Kuhlman, P. (1988). Self-efficacy: The third factor besides attitude and subjective norm as a predictor of behavioural intentions. Health Education Research, 3, 273-282.
DiClemente, C. C., Prochaska, J. O., Fairhurst, S. K., Velicer, W. F., Velasquez, M. M., & Rossi, J. S. (1991). The process of smoking cessation: An analysis of precontemplation, contemplation, and preparation stages of change. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59, 295-304.
DiClemente, C. C., Prochaska, J. O., & Gibertini, M. (1985). Self-efficacy and the stages of self-change of smoking. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 9, 181-200.
Donovan, D. M., & Marlatt, G. A. (Eds.). (1988). Assessment of addictive behaviors. New York: Guilford Press.
Dzewaltowski, D. A. (1989). Toward a model of exercise motivation. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 11, 251-269.
Dzewaltowski, D. A., Noble, J. M., & Shaw, J. M. (1990). Physical activity participation: Social cognitive theory versus the theories of reasoned action and planned behavior. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 12, 388-405.
Eiser, J. R. (1983). Smoking, addiction and decision-making. International Review of Applied Psychology, 32 , 11-28.
Eiser, J. R., & Sutton, S. R. (1977). Smoking as a subjectively rational choice. Addictive Behaviors, 2, 129-134.
Ekstrand, M., & Coates, T. J. (1990). Maintenance of safer sexual behaviors and predictors of risky sex: The San Francisco Men's Health Study. American Journal of Public Health, 80, 973-977.
Ellickson, P. L., Bell, R. M., & McGuigan, K. (1993). Preventing adolescent drug use: Long-term results of a junior high program. American Journal of Public Health, 83 (6), 856-861.
Ellickson, P. L., & Hays, R. D. (1991). Beliefs about resistance self-efficacy and drug prevalence: Do they really affect drug use? International Journal of the Addictions, 25 (11A), 1353-1378.
Ewart, C. K. (1992). The role of physical self-efficacy in recovery from heart attack. In R. Schwarzer (Ed.), Self-efficacy: Thought control of action (pp. 287-304). Washington, DC: Hemisphere.
Feltz, D. L., Landers, D. M., & Raeder, V. (1979). Enhancing self-efficacy in high-avoidance tasks: A comparison of modeling techniques. Journal of Sport Psychology, 1, 112-122.
Feltz, D. L., & Riessinger, C. A. (1990). Effects of in vivo emotive imagery and performance feedback on self-efficacy and muscular endurance. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 12, 132-143.
Fishbein, M. & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Fruin, D. J., Pratt, C., & Owen, N. (1991). Protection Motivation Theory and adolescents' perceptions of exercise. Journal of Applied Psychology, 22, 55-69.
Fuchs, R. (in press). Causal models of physical exercise participation: Testing the predictive power of the construct "pressure to change". Journal of Applied Social Psychology.
Fuchs, R., & Schwarzer, R. (1994). Selbstwirksamkeit zur sportlichen Aktivität: Reliabilität und Validität eines neuen Meßinstruments [Self-efficacy toward physical exercise: Reliability and validity of a new instrument]. Zeitschrift für Differentielle und Diagnostische Psychologie, 15.
Garcia, A. W., & King, A. C. (1991). Predicting long-term adherence to aerobic exercise: A comparison of two models. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 13, 394-410.
Garcia, M. E., Schmitz, J. M., & Doerfler, L. A. (1990). A fine-grained analysis of the role of self-efficacy in self-initiated attempts to quit smoking. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 58, 317-322.
Gilchrist, L. D., & Schinke, S. P. (1983). Coping with contraception: Cognitive and behavioral methods with adolescents. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 7, 379-388.
Glynn, S. M., & Ruderman, A. J. (1986). The development and validation of an eating self-efficacy scale. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 10, 403-420.
Godding, P. R., & Glasgow, R. E. (1985). Self-efficacy and outcome expectations as predictors of controlled smoking status. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 9, 583-590.
Godin, G., Valois, P., & Lepage, L. (1993). The pattern of influence of perceived behavioral control upon exercising behavior: An application of Ajzen's Theory of Planned Behavior. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 16, 81-102.
Gruder, C. L., Mermelstein, R. J., Kirkendol, S., Hedeker, D., Wong, S. C., Schreckengost, J., Warnecke, R. B., Burzette, R., & Miller, T. Q. (1993). Effects of social support and relapse prevention training as adjuncts to a televised smoking-cessation intervention. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61, 113-120.
Haaga, D. A. F., & Stewart, B. L. (1992). Self-efficacy for recovery from a lapse after smoking cessation. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 60 (1), 24-28.
Hansen, W. B., Graham, J. W., Wolkenstein, B. H., & Rohrbach, L. A. (1991). Program integrity as a moderator of prevention program effectiveness: Results for fifth-grade students in the adolescent alcohol prevention trial. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 52 (6), 568-579.
Heckhausen, H. (1991). Motivation and action. Berlin: Springer.
Heckhausen, H., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (1987). Thought contents and cognitive functioning in motivational vs. volitional states of mind. Motivation and Emotion, 11, 101-120.
Ho, R. (1992). Cigarette health warnings: The effects of perceived severity, expectancy of occurrence, and self-efficacy on intentions to give up smoking. Australian Psychologist, 27 (2), 109-113.
Hofstetter, C. R., Sallis, J. F., & Hovell, M. F. (1990). Some health dimensions of self-efficacy: Analysis of theoretical specificity. Social Science and Medicine, 31 (9), 1051-1056.
Holman, H. R., & Lorig, K. (1992). Perceived self-efficacy in self-management of chronic disease. In R. Schwarzer (Ed.), Self-efficacy: Thought control of action (pp. 305-323). Washington, DC: Hemisphere.
Jemmott, J. B., Jemmott, L. S. , & Fong, G. T. (1992). Reducing the risk of sexually transmitted HIV infection: Attitudes, knowledge, intentions, and behavior. American Journal of Public Health, 82, 371-378.
Jemmott, J. B., Jemmott, L. S., Spears, H., Hewitt, N. et al. (1992). Self-efficacy, hedonistic expectancies, and condom use intentions among inner-city Black adolescent women: A social cognitive approach to AIDS risk behavior. Journal of Adolescent Health, 13 (6), 512-519.
Kaplan, R. M., Atkins, C. J., & Reinsch, S. (1984). Specific efficacy expectations mediate exercise compliance in patients with COPD. Health Psychology, 3, 223-242.
Karanci, N. A. (1992). Self efficacy-based smoking situation factors: The effects of contemplating quitting vs. relapsing in a Turkish sample. International Journal of the Addictions, 27 (7), 879-886.
Karoly, P. (1993). Mechanisms of self-regulation: A system view. Annual Review of Psychology, 44, 23-52.
Kasen, S., Vaughn, R. D., & Walter, H. J. (1992). Self-efficacy for AIDS preventive behaviors among tenth grade students. Health Education Quarterly, 19 (2), 187-202.
Kavanagh, D. J., Pierce, J., Lo, S. K., & Shelley, J. (1993). Self-efficacy and social support as predictors of smoking after a quit attempt. Psychology and Health, 8, 231-242.
Kok, G., de Vries, H., Mudde, A. N., & Strecher, V. J. (1991). Planned health education and the role of self-efficacy: Dutch research. Health Education Research, 6 (2), 231-238.
Kok, G., Den Boer, D., DeVries, H., Gerards, F., Hospers, H. J., & Mudde, A. N. (1992). Self-efficacy and attribution theory in health education. In R. Schwarzer (Ed.), Self-efficacy: Thought control of action (pp. 245-262). Washington, DC: Hemisphere.
Kuhl, J. (1983). Motivation, Konflikt und Handlungskontrolle [Motivation, conflict, and action control]. Berlin: Springer.
Kuhl, J., & Beckmann, J. (Eds.). (1993). Volition and personality: Action versus state orientation. Göttingen/Toronto: Hogrefe.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1987). Transactional theory and research on emotions and coping. European Journal of Personality, 1, 141-170.
Levinson, R. A. (1982). Teenage women and contraceptive behavior: Focus on self-efficacy in sexual and contraceptive situations. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.
Lichtenstein, E., & Glasgow, R. E. (1992). Smoking cessation: What have we learned over the past decade? Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 60, 518-527.
Litt, M. D. (1988). Self-efficacy and perceived control: Cognitive mediators of pain tolerance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 149-160.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Long, B. C., & Haney, C. J. (1988). Coping strategies for working women: Aerobic exercise and relaxation interventions. Behavior Therapy, 19, 75-83.
Maddux, J. E. (1991). Self-efficacy. In Snyder, C. R., & Forsyth, D. R. (Eds.), Handbook of social and clinical psychology: The health perspective (pp. 57-78). New York: Pergamon Press.
Maddux, J. E. (Ed.). (1993). Self-efficacy, adaptation, and adjustment: Theory, research, and application. New York: Plenum.
Maddux, J. E., & Rogers, R.W. (1983). Protection motivation and self-efficacy: A revised theory of fear appeals and attitude change. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 469-479.
Manning, M. M., & Wright, T. L. (1983). Self-efficacy expectancies, outcome expectancies, and the persistence of pain control in childbirth. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 421-431.
Marcus, B. H., & Owen, N. (1992). Motivational readiness, self-efficacy and decision-making for exercise. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22, 3-16.
Marlatt, G. A., Baer, J. S., & Quigley, L. A. (1994). Self-efficacy and addictive behavior. In A. Bandura (Ed.), Self-efficacy in changing societies. Marbach, Germany: Johann Jacobs Foundation.
Marlatt, G. A., Curry, S., & Gordon, J. R. (1988). A longitudinal analysis of unaided smoking cessation. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 715-720.
Marlatt, G. A., & Gordon, J. R. (Eds.). (1985). Relapse prevention. New York: Guilford.
McAuley, E. (1992). The role of efficacy cognitions in the prediction of exercise behavior in middle-aged adults. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 15 (1), 65-88.
McAuley, E. (1993). Self-efficacy and the maintenance of exercise participation in older adults. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 16, 103-113.
McKusick, L., Coates, T. J., Morin, S. F., Pollack, L., & Hoff, N. (1990). Longitudinal predictors of reductions in unprotected anal intercourse among gay men in San Francisco - The AIDS Behavioral Research Project. American Journal of Public Health, 80, 978-983.
Meyerowitz, B. E., & Chaiken, S. (1987). The effect of message framing on breast self-examination attitudes, intentions, and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 500-510.
Miller, P. J., Ross, S. M., Emmerson, R. Y., & Todt, E. H. (1989). Self-efficacy in alcoholics: Clinical validation of the Situational Confidence Questionnaire. Addictive Behaviors, 14 (2), 217-224.
Mischel, W. (1973). Toward a cognitive social learning reconceptualization of personality. Psychological Review, 80, 252-283.
Mittag, W., & Schwarzer, R. (1993). Interaction of employment status and self-efficacy on alcohol consumption: A two-wave study on stressful life transitions. Psychology and Health, 8, 77-87.
Mudde, A., Kok, G., & Strecher, V. (1989). Self-efficacy and success expectancy as predictors of the cessation of smoking (Paper presented at the First European Congress of Psychology). Amsterdam: The Netherlands.
Newcomb, M. D., & Bentler, P. M. (1988). Consequence of adolescent drug use: Impact on the lives of young adults. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
O'Leary, A. (1992). Self-efficacy and health: Behavioral and stress-physiological mediation. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 16, 229-245.
O'Leary, A., Goodhart, F., Jemmott, L. S., & Boccher-Lattimore, D. (1992). Predictors of safer sex on the college campus: A social cognitive theory analysis. Journal of American College Health, 40 (6), 254-263.
O'Leary, A., Shoor, S., Lorig, K., & Holman, H. R. (1988). A cognitive-behavioral treatment for rheumatoid arthritis. Health Psychology, 7, 527-542.
Orleans, C. T., Kristeller, J. L., & Gritz, E. R. (1993). Helping hospitalized smokers quit: New directions for treatment and research. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61, 778-789.
Paulussen, T., Kok, G. J., Knibbe, R., & Kramer, T. (1989). AIDS en intraveneus druggebruik [AIDS and IV-drug use]. Tijdschrift voor Sociale Gezondheitszorg (Dutch Journal of Social Health Care), 68, 129-136.
Prochaska, J. O., & DiClemente, C. C. (1983). Stages and processes of self-change of smoking: Toward an integrative model of change. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51, 390-395.
Prochaska, J. O., & DiClemente, C. C. (1984). The transtheoretical approach: Crossing traditional boundaries of change. Homewood, IL: Irwin.
Rippetoe, P.A., & Rogers, R.W. (1987). Effects on components of protection motivation theory on adaptive and maladaptive coping with a health threat. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 596-604.
Rychtarik, R. G., Prue, D. M., Rapp, S. R., & King, A. C. (1992). Self-efficacy, aftercare and relapse in a treatment program from alcoholics. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 53 (5), 435-440.
Ryckman, R. M., Robbins, M. A., Thornton, B., & Cantrell, P. (1982). Development and validation of a physical self-efficacy scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 891-900.
Sallis, J. F., Haskell, W. L., Fortmann, S. P., Vranizan, K. M. et al. (1986). Predictors of adoption and maintenance of physical activity in a community sample. Preventive Medicine, 15, 331-341.
Sallis, J. F., Hovell, M. F., Hofstetter, C. R., & Barrington, E. (1992). Explanation of vigorous physical activity during two years using social learning variables. Social Science and Medicine, 34, 25-32.
Sallis, J. F., Pinski, R. B., Grossman, R. M., Patterson, T. L., & Nader, P. R. (1988). The development of self-efficacy scales for health-related diet and exercise behaviors. Health Education Research, 3, 283-292.
Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (1992). Effects of optimism on psychological and physical well-being: Theoretical overview and empirical update. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 16, 201-228.
Schwarzer, R. (1992). Self-efficacy in the adoption and maintenance of health behaviors: Theoretical approaches and a new model. In R. Schwarzer (Ed.), Self-efficacy: Thought control of action (pp. 217-242). Washington, DC: Hemisphere.
Schwarzer, R. (1993). Measurement of perceived self-efficacy: Psychometric scales for cross-cultural research. Berlin: Freie Universität Berlin, Institut für Psychologie.
Schwarzer, R. (1994). Optimism, vulnerability, and self-beliefs as health-related cognitions: A systematic overview. Psychology and Health, 9, 161-180.
Schwarzer, R. & Leppin, A. (1991). Social support and health: A theoretical and empirical overview. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 8, 99-127.
Seydel, E., Taal, E., & Wiegman, O. (1990). Risk-appraisal, outcome and self-efficacy expectancies: Cognitive factors in preventive behavior related to cancer. Psychology and Health, 4, 99-109.
Shannon, B., Bagby, R., Wang, M. Q., & Trenkner, L. (1990). Self-efficacy: A contributor to the explanation of eating behavior. Health Education Research, 5, 395-407.
Shaw, J. M., Dzewaltowski, D. A. & McElroy, M. (1992). Self-efficacy and causal attributions as mediators of perceptions of psychological momentum. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 14 (2), 134-147.
Shedler, J., & Block, J. (1990). Adolescent drug use and psychological health: A longitudinal inquiry. American Psychologist, 45, 612-630.
Shiffman, S. (1993). Assessing smoking patterns and motives. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61, 732-742.
Sitharthan, T., & Kavanagh, D. J. (1990). Role of self-efficacy in predicting outcomes from a programme for controlled drinking. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 27, 87-94.
Slater, M. D. (1989). Social influences and cognitive control as predictors of self-efficacy and eating behavior. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 13, 231-245.
Snyder, C. R., Harris, C., Anderson, J. R., Holleran, S. A., Irving, L. M., Sigmon, S. T., Yoshinobu, L., Gibb, J., Langelle, C., & Harney, P. (1991). The will and the ways: Development and validation of an individual-differences measure of hope. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 570-585.
Stacy, A. W., Sussman, S., Dent, C. W., Burton, D., & Flay, B. R. (1992). Moderators of peer social influence in adolescent smoking. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 163-172.
Stotland, S., Zuroff, D. C., & Roy, M. (1991). Situational dieting self-efficacy and short-term regulation of eating. Appetite, 17, 81-90.
Sussman, S., Whitney Saltiel, D. A., Budd, R. J., Spiegel, D. et al. (1989). Joiners and non-joiners in worksite smoking treatment: Pretreatment smoking, smoking by significant others, and expectation to quit as predictors. Addictive Behaviors, 14, 113-119.
Taylor, C. B., Bandura, A., Ewart, C. K., Miller, N. H. & DeBusk, R. F. (1985). Exercise testing to enhance wives' confidence in their husbands' cardiac capability soon after clinically uncomplicated acute myocardial infarction. American Journal of Cardiology, 55, 635-638.
Taylor, S. E. (1989). Positive illusions: Creative self-deception and the healthy mind. New York: Basic Books.
Toshima, M. T., Kaplan, R. M., & Ries, A. L. (1992). Self-efficacy expectancies in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease rehabilitation. In R. Schwarzer (Ed.), Self-efficacy: Thought control of action (pp. 325-354). Washington, DC: Hemisphere.
Velicer, W. F., DiClemente, C. C., Rossi, J. S., & Prochaska, J. O. (1990). Relapse situations and self-efficacy: An integrative model. Addictive Behaviors, 15, 271-283.
Wallston, K. A. (1992). Hocus-pocus, the focus isn't strictly on locus: Rotter's social learning theory modified for health. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 16, 183-199.
Wallston, K. A. (1994). Theoretically based strategies for health behavior change. In M. P. O'Donnell & J. S. Harris (Eds.), Health promotion in the workplace (2nd ed., pp. 185-203). Albany, NY: Delmar Publishers.
Weinberg, R., Grove, R., & Jackson, A. (1992). Strategies for building self-efficacy in tennis players: A comparative analysis of Australian and American coaches. Sport Psychologist, 6 (1), 3-13.
Weinberg, R. S., Gould, D., & Jackson, A. (1979). Expectations and performance: An empirical test of Bandura's self-efficacy theory. Journal of Sport Psychology, 1, 320-331.
Weinberg, R. S., Gould, D., Yukelson, D., & Jackson, A. (1981). The effect of preexisting and manipulated self-efficacy on competitive muscular endurance task. Journal of Sport Psychology, 4, 345-354.
Weinberg, R. S., Hughes, H. H., Critelli, J. W., England, R., & Jackson, A. (1984). Effects of preexisting and manipulated self-efficacy on weight loss in a self-control program. Journal of Research in Personality, 18, 352-358.
Weinberg, R. S., Yukelson, D., & Jackson, A. (1980). Effects of public and private efficacy expectations on competitive performance. Journal of Sport Psychology, 2, 340-349.
Weinstein, N. D. (1982). Unrealistic optimism about susceptibility to health problems. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 5, 441-460.
Weinstein, N. D. (1993). Testing four competing theories of health-protective behavior. Health Psychology, 12, 324-333.
Weinstein, N. D., & Sandman, P. M. (1992). A model of the precaution adoption process: Evidence from home radon testing. Health Psychology, 11, 170-180.
Weiss, M. R., Wiese, D. M., & Klint, K. A. (1989). Head over heels with success: The relationship between self-efficacy and performance in competitive youth gymnastics. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 11, 444-451.
Wiedenfeld, S. A., O'Leary, A., Bandura, A., Brown, S., Levine, S., & Raska, K. (1990). Impact of perceived self-efficacy in coping with stressors on components of the immune system. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1982-1094.
Wills, T. A. (1990). Multiple networks and substance use. Special Issue: Social support in social and clinical psychology. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 9, 78-90.
Wilson, D. K., Wallston, K. A., & King, J. E. (1990). Effects of contract framing, motivation to quit, and self-efficacy on smoking reduction. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20, 531-547.
Wood, J. (1989). Theory and research concerning social comparisons of personal attributes. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 231-248.
Woolfolk, R. L., Murphy, S. M., Gottesfeld, D., & Aitken, D. (1985). Effects of mental rehearsal of task motor activity and mental depiction of task outcome on motor skill performance. Journal of Sport Psychology, 7, 191-197.
Wurtele, S. K. & Maddux, J. E. (1987). Relative contributions of protection motivation theory components in predicting exercise intentions and behavior. Health Psychology, 6, 453-466.
Young, R. M., Oei, T. P. S., & Crook, G. M. (1991). Development of a drinking self-efficacy questionnaire. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 13, 1-15.
Figure Captions
Figure 1. The Health Action Process Approach.
Figure 2. LISREL-model to predict healthy eating behaviour: Subsample of men (n
= 353). The paths from risk perception to positive outcome expectancy, from risk
perception to intention, and from negative outcome expectancy to intention were also
specified, but turned out to be not significant. Positive and negative outcome
expectancies were correlated with .15.
* indicates path coefficient significant at p < .05, ** p < .01.
