View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE

provided by University of Richmond

University of Richmond UR Scholarship Repository

Psychology Faculty Publications Psychology

2006 Self-Efficacy and Adult Development Daniel Cervone

Daniele Artistico

Jane M. Berry University of Richmond, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.richmond.edu/psychology-faculty- publications Part of the Developmental Psychology Commons, and the Theory and Philosophy Commons

Recommended Citation Cervone, Daniel, Daniele Artistico, and Jane M. Berry. "Self-Efficacy and Adult Development." In Handbook of Adult Development and Learning, edited by Carol Hren. Hoare, 169-95. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.

This Book Chapter is brought to you for free and open access by the Psychology at UR Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Psychology Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of UR Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Chapter 8

Self-Efficacy and Adult Development

Daniel Cervone, Daniele Artistico, and Jane M. Berry

Only those who will risk going too far can possibly find out how far one can go. -T. S. Eliot (1931) I believe, therefore I can. -Cavanaugh 6 Green (1990)

A major theme in the contemporary study of human personal agency naturally come to the fore (Caprara development across the life span is that people have & Cervone, 2003). Of course, many citizens of the the capacity for personal agency. Innumerable writers world do not experience these advantageous circum­ emphasize that individuals can exert intentional in­ stances; 3 billion of the world's people still live on $2 fluence over their experiences and actions, the cir­ or less a day (UN Population Fund, 2002) and the life cumstances they encounter, the skills they acquire, span in some nations remains less than 40 years of age and thus ultimately the course of their development. (The Economist, 2002). While not losing site of such This theme undoubtedly reflects historical trends. sobering statistics, one can nonetheless acknowledge Prior to the 1800s, "Wherever he lived, man could that many people today develop in a world in which only count on a short expectation of life, with a few they have the potential to chart their own life paths, extra years in the case of the rich" (Braudel, 1981, p. cultivate competencies of their choosing, and thereby 90). Today, in contrast, life expectancy in some na­ contribute to the course of their own development. tions exceeds 80 years of age (The Economist, 2002). These social changes call for analyses of the psy­ In those parts of the world blessed with key natural chological systems that foster positive development resources (Diamond, 1997), economic growth has into the later years of life. Scholars and practitioners given rise to socioeconomic systems that provide ex­ in the field of aging have responded to this call. Mod­ tensive educational opportunities and foster meri­ els of successful aging (Rowe & Kahn, 1997) and re­ tocratic social mobility. It is in this contemporary search on positive aging (Carstensen & Charles, context-in which opportunities for personal devel­ 2003) appear with increasing regularity. In an effort to opment are vast and the expected life span for realiz­ ensure and enhance quality of life in late adulthood ing one's potentials is lengthy-that questions of and senescence, investigators aim to enable older

169 170 THE SELF-SYSTEM IN ADULT DEVELOPMENT AND LEARNING adults to live engaged, purposeful, and meaningful monitoring is accompanied by feelings of satisfaction lives as free from mental and physical debilities as and dissatisfaction with the self that contribute to self­ possible. Positive attitudes toward aging appear to regulatory efforts (Bandura & Cervone, 1983). The have health benefits (Levy, Hausdorff, Hencke, & study of these self-regulatory functions is central to Wei, 2000; Levy, Slade, & Kasi, 2002) and are related the contemporary field of adult development (Heck­ to longevity (Levy, Slade, Kunkel, & Kasi, 2002). hausen & Dweck, 1998; see also Lang & Heckhausen, More people are living to be centenarians than at any chapter 7, this volume) and the field of psychology at other time in history, and thus it is incumbent on re­ large (Baumeister & Vohs, 2004). searchers in fields of adult development and learning A psychological function of particular centrality to to delineate the modes and mechanisms that will allow personal agency is that of mental "time travel" (Sud­ older adults to lead dignified, meaningful, engaged dendorf & Corballis, 1997). Humans have the capac­ lives. A complete understanding of adults' capacity to ity to mentally reconstruct past events and generate achieve these life outcomes requires careful attention detailed mental images of hypothetical events that to mechanisms of personal agency. may occur in the future. Evidence suggests that ani­ The purpose of this chapter is to review the contri­ mals, in contrast, "are largely stuck in the present bution of self-efficacy mechanisms (Bandura, 1977a, moment ... aware of only a permanent present" 1997) to adults' capacity to learn new skills and con­ (Roberts, 2002, p. 486). People's ability to deliberate tribute to their personal development in an agentic on the past and future, combined with their capacity manner. We do so by first taking a broad look at the to form a sense of self and social identity, enables nature of human agency and the architecture of men­ them to select and shape the environments they en­ tal systems that enable people to regulate their experi­ counter, develop skills to meet future challenges, pur­ ences and actions. sue personal aims, and thereby function as causal agents.

COGNITIVE COMPONENTS Goals and Evaluative Standards OF PERSONAL AGENCY The second type of analysis focuses not on mental What enables members of our species to contribute to functions but on psychological structures and pro­ a plan for the course of their own development? What cesses that enable persons to carry out these functions. are the basic psychological ingredients that enable Just as in the study of cognition one can distinguish a people-more so than others in the animal kingdom­ function that is carried out (e.g., problem solving) to act as intentional, causal agents? This question is from the cognitive components that enable a person to not only of basic scientific interest. It is also central to carry out that function (e.g., working memory), in the the design of interventions that empower people to study of human agency one can distinguish psycholog­ gain control over their lives. ical functions (e.g., behavioral self-regulation) from There are two ways of addressing the question of the component of mental architecture that enable agentic capabilities. One is a functional analysis. persons to execute those functions. Here, the task is to identify the psychological func­ An analysis of cognitive systems that underlie self­ tions that humans are uniquely able to execute and regulation indicates that these cognitions can be un­ that enable them to exert intentional control over derstood as consisting of qualitatively distinct types; their actions and development. Both psychologists both philosophical (Searle, 1998) and psychological and philosophers have taken up this problem, and considerations (Cervone, 2004a) suggest a qualitative their conclusions converge (e.g., Bandura, 1986; distinction among classes of thought. A brief consid­ Harre & Secord, 1972; Kagan, 1998). People have the eration of these distinctions yields an intellectual capability to use language; to develop a sense of self framework within which the psychological variable of (as both a doer and an actor who is observed by oth­ central interest to this chapter, perceived self-efficacy, ers); and to self-regulate their behavior, which entails can be understood. not only monitoring one's actions but also monitoring When analyzing those cognitive capacities that the monitoring of one's own performance. This self- underlie human agency, a fundamental distinction is SELF-EFFICACY AND ADULT DEVELOPMENT 171 one that differentiates among three classes of cogni­ Control Beliefs and Self-Efficacy tion: goals, standards, and beliefs. Some cognitions are mental representations of future states that one is In addition to possessing goals for action and stan­ committed to achieve. Such personal goals may serve dards for evaluating the goodness or worth bf occur­ to organize activities over extended periods of time and rences, people develop beliefs about what the future bring coherence to internal psychological life, guid­ may bring. Converging lines of research suggest that ing people's interpretations of their experiences and the subset of future-oriented beliefs that is most cen­ of prospective challenges (Emmons & Kaiser, 1996; tral to personality functioning across adulthood is be­ Grant & Dweck, 1999). Mental representations of liefs in one's capacity to control significant life events goals are closely linked to mental representations of (Skinner, 1996). strategies for goal achievement (Kruglanski et al., There are different types of control beliefs. For ex­ 2002). The ability to develop and deploy such strate­ ample, one set of beliefs concerns the degree to gies is critical to self-control, self-directed motivation, which the causes of events are, in principle, under and the realization of individual potentials (Cantor, people's control as opposed to being the result of un­ 2003; Mischel & Mendoza-Denton, 2003). controllable external forces (Rotter, 1966). Research In the study of adult development, much work in­ on adult development indicates that higher levels of dicates that goal structures and processes of goal se­ fatalistic beliefs-that is, beliefs that the nature of sig­ lection are an aspect of future-oriented cognition nificant life events is inevitable and thus uncontrol­ that is key to well-being throughout adult develop­ lable (Kohn & Schooler, 1983)-predict higher levels ment (e.g., Heckhausen, 1999, 2002; Pulkkinen, of disability among older adults (Caplan & Schooler, Nurmi, & Kokko, 2002; Staudinger, Freund, Linden, & 2003). Mass, 1999). Findings indicate, for example, that A second aspect of control beliefs involves percep­ people who set goals in a manner that is congruent tions of one's personal capacity to execute courses of with their perceptions of the time available to them action to cope with events. Confidence in one's own in their life span experience social relations that ability to execute actions is, as a psychological con­ are more satisfactory and less stressful (Lang & struct, distinct from beliefs in the controllability of ex­ Carstensen, 2002). ternal events; the different sets of beliefs have, for A second aspect of cognition that is central to per­ example, been shown to have distinct effects on cog­ sonality functioning is evaluative standards. People de­ nitive and motor outcome variables in middle and velop moral, ethical, and performance standards that older adulthood (Caplan & Schooler, 2003). Beliefs they employ as criteria for judging the goodness or in one's capacity to execute courses of action have worth of prospective actions. As has been recognized been studied extensively in the literature on perceived in both classic and contemporary theories (e.g., Ban­ self-efficacy (Bandura, l 977a, 1997). We now tum to dura, 1986; Carver & Scheier, 1998; Cervone, 2004a; this literature and its implications for the study of Higgins, 1987; Mischel, 1973; Rotter, 1954), these adult development and learning. standards function as a kind of internal guidance sys­ tem, enabling individuals to regulate their actions in a coherent manner over significant periods of time and PERCEIVED SELF-EFFICACY across changing social conditions. Evaluating actions with respect to internalized standards of performance, The two quotations that opened this chapter invoke then, is a basic cognitive capability that contributes to the heart of self-efficacy theory (Bandura, l 977a, personal agency. Some circumstances cause people to 1986, 1997). Perceived self-efficacy refers to our disengage these standards, that is, to fail to regulate judgments of what we think we can and can't do. their behavior according to their own typical rules of More formally, self-efficacy refers to our sense of con­ conduct (Bandura & Cervone, 1983). The disengage­ fidence and competence, qualified by specific de­ ment of moral standards can cause people who typi­ mands and features of the situation in which cally conduct themselves in a steadfast manner to self-efficacy judgments are activated. When activated engage in antisocial acts (Bandura, l 999a; Bandura, and the assessment is "I can," high self-efficacy will Barbaranelli, Caprara, & Pastorelli, 1996). lead to new levels of learning and accomplishment. 172 THE SELF-SYSTEM IN ADULT DEVELOPMENT AND LEARNING

When the activated assessment is low-"I can't" - their best (Brown & Latham, 2002). The effects of then self-efficacy will inhibit engagement in chal­ goal setting on self-efficacy have been demonstrated lenging situations, precluding skill development. both empirically and in questionnaire studies of goal The individual who has high expectations for learn­ setting and loss of control. Over an 8-year interval, ing and development- who sets and attempts chal­ adults aged 30-59 years old who experienced loss in lenging go~ls-will be likely to encounter both important domains to self and who subsequently success and failure in goal acquisition, both of which downgraded the importance of goal attainment in shape and inform behavior. Successes provide en­ those domains experienced less loss of perceived con­ couragement and help reinforce facilitative, goal­ trol overall than if goals in the failing domain were directed behaviors. Failures provide information maintained at initial levels (Brandtstadter & Rother­ about mistaken steps toward goals and help narrow mund, 1994). In other words, rescaled or down-scaled down and hone the behavioral repertoire. If opportu­ goals in domains of personal importance can buffer nities for new experiences are avoided and deemed the sense of perceived loss of control in that domain. too risky, neither successes nor failures ensue, and Prudent, careful judgment in many matters becomes windows to learn close. more necessary in older adulthood, when choices are As reviewed in more detail elsewhere (Caprara & fewer and starting over in any number of domains Cervone, 2000), self-efficacy beliefs are of particular (education, vocation, living arrangements) is more importance to intentional action for three reasons. difficult than at younger ages. Recognition and accep­ First, self-efficacy perceptions directly contribute to de­ tance of limits (the worldview of T. S. Eliot notwith­ cisions, actions, and experiences. People commonly re­ standing) is essential, yet remaining open to possibilities flect on their capabilities when deciding whether to and opportunities is an equally compelling life span undertake activities or to persist on tasks when faced task. Reasoned risk taking in older adults may con­ with setbacks. People who judge themselves highly effi­ tribute to continued and new growth in broad do­ cacious tend to be more willing to pursue challenges, mains of functioning. to be more persistent on tasks, and to experience lesser performance-related anxiety (Bandura, 1997). Second, self-efficacy perceptions may moderate CHAPTER OVERVIEW the impact of other psychological mechanisms on de­ velopmental outcomes. For example, as a general We begin with an overview of basic self-efficacy pro­ rule individuals who acquire skills on a task achieve cesses. It is important to recognize that Bandura's self­ greater success; but if people still doubt their capabili­ efficacy theory is just one aspect of his much broader ties despite adequate instruction, they may fail to put social-cognitive theory of personality (Bandura, their knowledge into practice. 1986). In this overview, then, we consider the contri­ Third, self-efficacy beliefs influence other cogni­ bution of self-efficacy processes to adult development tive and emotional factors that in turn contribute to and learning within a broader perspective on social­ performance. Of particular importance are links from cognitive mechanisms in personal functioning (e.g., self-efficacy processes to goal setting (Berry & West, Bandura, l 999b; Cervone, 2004a). We subsequently 1993; Locke & Latham, 1990). People with higher ef­ address the assessment of self-efficacy beliefs in a sim­ ficacy beliefs tend to set more challenging goals and ilar manner; we tackle the issue within a broader remain committed to their goals; these goal mecha­ analysis of cognitive structure, process, organization, nisms, in turn, contribute to motivation and achieve­ and its assessment (Cervone, 2004b; Cervone, ment (Bandura & Locke, 2003). Shade!, & Jencius, 2001 ). A subtext of this coverage is These links from self-efficacy beliefs to goal pro­ that the study of people's agentic capacities requires cesses are particularly important to adult develop­ for its foundation an understanding of the function­ ment and learning. One of the developmental tasks of ing of the whole person-that is, a comprehensive adulthood is appraisal and reappraisal of life goals. understanding of personality systems and their devel­ Research shows that individuals who set learning or opment (Caprara & Cervone, 2003). performance goals acquire higher skills and self­ We then consider a number of domains that are efficacy than those who set no goals (Bandalos, critical to adult development and learning and in Finney, & Geske, 2003) or who are told to merely do which self-efficacy processes contribute to success. SELF-EFFICACY AND ADULT DEVELOPMENT 173

These include domains such as performance on intel­ ( 1986, l 999b) and in the work of other investigators lectual and memory tasks, participation in training who analyze the development and functioning of programs, and the solving of everyday problems that social-cognitive systems (reviewed in Caprara & Cer­ can interfere with one's pursuits. In this review, our vone, 2000; Cervone & Shoda, 1999; Mischel, 2004). overall purpose is to position self-efficacy at the inter­ These combined efforts yield a family of social­ section of learning and development in adulthood. cognitive theories that possess three defining features. We focus on the formation, calibration, and refine­ ment of self-efficacy beliefs across the life span as re­ Interaction ism lated to new learning and development. In pursuing these goals, we are cognizant that there exist a num­ The first of these features is that individual develop­ ber of highly related literatures that also shed light ment and functioning are analyzed in a style that is on the role of control beliefs in adult development fully interactionist. Bandura ( 1986) expresses this in­ (e.g., Heckhausen & Schulz, 1995; Little et al., 2003; teractionist perspective in his principle of reciprocal Skinner, 1996). determinism, which posits that personality, environ­ mental influences, and behavior should be analyzed as factors that mutually influence one another-that PERCEIVED SELF-EFFICACY, is, that interact reciprocally in the causal dynamics SOCIAL-COGNITIVE PERSONALITY that underlie expressions of personality. SYSTEMS, AND ADULT It is important to note that this interactionist view DEVELOPMENT goes far beyond the banal assertion that "people and situations influence one another." Instead, it speaks to The psychological construct perceived self-efficacy deeply significant questions about human nature and often is considered in isolation. In empirical work, re­ the best way to construe human psychological quali­ searchers may inquire solely into the link between a ties in a scientific analysis. All serious psychologists self-efficacy measure and an outcome of interest. In realize that people and situations influence one literature reviews, writers may analyze the causes and another. Yet one can find in the contemporary effects of self-efficacy processes while devoting little field well-known theoretical positions whose basic attention to other psychological mechanisms. Few variables-that is, whose core units of analysis­ writers have put self-efficacy into developmental con­ are distinctly noninteractionist. Five-factor theory texts, although the promise of such analyses has been (McCrae & Costa, 1996) posits that personality traits articulated and demonstrated previously (Berry, 1999; are a product of genetic endowment, with people's Berry & West, 1993; Cavanaugh, Feldman, & Hert­ standing on trait dimensions being uninfluenced by zog, 1998; Cavanaugh & Green, 1990). A narrow ap­ environmental experience. Popular forms of evolu­ proach to the review of self-efficacy theory and tionary psychology (e.g., Buss, 1991) contend that the research fails to represent both the broader theoreti­ genome functions as a kind of program that primarily cal framework within which the self-efficacy con­ determines the course of individual development. In struct was developed and the range of psychological recent years, both of these theoretical positions have dynamics that are critical to understanding the nature been weakened in two ways. Theoretical analyses of self-efficacy processes. have made clear that persons-even at the level of the biology of the individual-develop through environ­ mental interactions (e.g., Gottlieb, 1998; Lickliter & Social-Cognitive Perspectives Honeycutt, 2003a, 2003b). Empirical data have pro­ on Individual Development vided evidence of variations across the life span in As noted, Bandura proposed his self-efficacy theory personality trait scores that are unanticipated by five­ (1977a) within a broader framework on personality factor theory (e.g., Helson, Kwan, John, & Jones, 2002; development and functioning (Bandura, l 977b) that Srivastava, John, Gosling, & Potter, 2003; Twenge, itself wa; grounded in the seminal social learning the­ 2002). Investigators have failed to replicate results that ory of Bandura and Walters (1963). In more recent originally had provided the core support for theo­ years, this conceptual framework has been developed retical analyses of social behavior based on evolu­ considerably, both through the efforts of Bandura tionary psychology (DeSteno, Bartlett, Braverman, & 174 THE SELF-SYSTEM IN ADULT DEVELOPMENT AND LEARNING

Salovey, 2002; Miller, Putcha-Bhagavatula, & Peder­ who show the same average tendency to exhibit, for son, 2002). Research reviews indicate a larger role for example, conscientious behavior may differ in the so­ person-situation interactions in the development of cial contexts in which they do and do not exhibit con­ the individual than was anticipated in prominent scientiousness; the patterns of variability thus evolutionary-psychological perspectives (Bussey & function as a "behavioral signature" of the individ­ Bandura, 1999; Wood & Eagly, 2002). In light of ual's personality (Mischel & Shoda, 1995). Both the these developments, interactionist positions on de­ patterns of variability and the social contexts within velopment that were developed years ago (Endler & which one observes meaningful patterns of coher­ Magnusson, 1976) appear prescient. ence in personality functioning may vary idiosyncrati­ cally from one person to the next (Cervone, 2004a). When turned to questions of adult development, the A Systems View natural implication is that any given adult may dis­ A second defining feature of social-cognitive theory is play distinctly different patterns of learning and per­ that it is a systems viewpoint on human development formance in different social contexts. and functioning. Social-cognitive and affective mech­ Before turning to the third feature of social­ anisms are construed as a complex system of interact­ cognitive approaches, we note that the combination ing elements (Mischel & Shoda, 1995, 1998). This of interactionism and systems thinking inherently has systems thinking has significant implications for ex­ an implication that is quite significant. It shifts one's plaining the development of stable personality styles attention away from the charting of individual differ­ and individual differences (Cervone, 1997, 1999; ences in the population and toward the careful analy­ Nowak, Vallacher, & Zochowski, 2002). The develop­ sis of personality structure and organization at the ment of a dynamic system is not prefigured; instead, level of the individual (Cervone, 2005). The view that development occurs gradually via reciprocal interac­ the individual is a coherent psychological system who tions between the system and the environment that it develops in interaction with his or her environment encounters. The full development of personality, naturally raises questions about the internal organiza­ then, is not encoded in the genome but results from tion of psychological structures and dynamics, the na­ dynamic person-environment transactions. These ture of the person-situation interactions at the level transactions include agentic processes in which peo­ of the individual case, and the possibility of individual ple contribute to the development of their own behav­ idiosyncrasy in personality structure and develop­ ioral and affective tendencies (Caprara, Barbaranelli, ment. These themes are not new. In the study of per­ Pastorelli, & Cervone, 2004; Caprara, Steca, Cervone, sonality development, t~ey have been developed with & Artistico, 2003). particular clarity by Magnusson and colleagues (Mag­ A further implication of a systems perspective con­ nusson & Mahoney, 2003; Magnusson & Tiirestad, cerns the explanation of the individual's behavior. 1993). Their holistic interactionist perspective posits Stable patterns of action often can be well described that development cannot be understood by reference by using trait terms found in the natural language to the action of single factors; it must be analyzed (e.g., a person may act in a manner that can be de­ through person-centered methods that illuminate scribed as conscientious or agreeable). In a systems constellations of factors at the level of the coherent, perspective, however, one would not explain those ac­ unique individual (e.g., Bergman, 2002). Highly re­ tion patterns by positing internal psychology con­ lated ideas about conducting analyses at the level of structs that are isomorphic to the behavior one is the individual are found in theoretical work on in­ trying to explain (e.g., conscientiousness, agreeable­ traindividual versus interindividual measurement ness). Instead, in a systems perspective such as social­ strategies (Borsboom, Mellenberg, and van Heerden, cognitive theory, one seeks to specify systems of 2003; Molenaar, Huizenga, & Nesselroade, 2002) interacting cognitive and affective processes that and empirical research that uses growth curve model­ jointly give rise to the observed patterns of behavior ing to chart developmental trajectories at the level of (Cervone, 2004a). A critical implication in this work the individual (e.g., Young & Mroczek, 2003). The is that a given individual's personality system may importance of a holistic perspective in which the ac­ contribute to stable patterns of variability in social be­ tions of a person are explained by reference to the havior (Mischel, 2004). In other words, two people person as a whole, rather than to independent "parts" SELF-EFFICACY AND ADULT DEVELOPMENT 175 of the individual, is elucidated with exceptional clar­ people's development, not with summaries of individ­ ity by Harre ( 1998, 2002) and Bennett and Hacker ual differences in the population. An intraindividual (2003). The fact that developmentalists increasingly focus, then, raises the question of how one can have turned their attention to the psychological func­ comprehensively model within-person psychological tioning of the potentially unique individual in the systems. past decade (e.g., Magnusson, 1996) is an encourag­ This question has been addressed in a recent theo­ ing sign for the field. retical model of the architecture of personality, that This systems-level perspective highlights the limi­ is, a model of the overall design and operating charac­ tations of considering self-efficacy processes "in teristics of those within-person psychological systems isolation." In the flow of thinking, thoughts about self­ that contribute to the uniqueness and coherence of the efficacy inherently are associated with other classes of individual (Cervone, 2004a). Briefly, this model rests cognition. In explaining the actions of a person, it is on three distinctions. One differentiates feeling states best to attribute actions to the person as a whole (see Russell, 2003) from intentional cognitions-where rather than to the isolated variable "self-efficacy." that word intentional is used as in the philosophy of mind (Searle, 1998) to reference cognitive contents that are directed beyond themselves to the representa­ Personality Variables and the tion of objects in the world. (To illustrate, feelings of Architecture of Personality hunger do not represent-that is, symbolically "stand The third defining feature of the social-cognitive ap­ for" -an object or event in the world and thus do not proach within which self-efficacy theory is formulated have the quality of intentionality, whereas thoughts involves the units of analyses through which individu­ about a particular restaurant do.) A second distinction als and their development are analyzed. The question (already noted) is one that differentiates among those here is: How can one model the psychological mech­ cognitive contents that we usually refer to as beliefs, anisms that underlie the coherence of personal func­ evaluative standards, and goals. The third distinction tioning (Cervone & Shoda, 1999)? In other words, was developed by Lazarus ( 1991) in the study of cog­ what are the basic personality variables in social­ nition and emotion: a distinction between knowledge cognitive theory? Such questions are fundamental to and appraisal. This distinction is so central to the the study of personal development; as noted else­ overall model that it is referred to as a knowledge-and­ where, "one cannot advance a science of personality appraisal personality architecture (KAPA). Knowledge and its development without having a conception of refers to enduring mental representations of a typical what is developing" (Caprara et al., 2003, p. 945). attribute or attributes of an entity (e.g., one self, other Before taking up this question, a point of clarifica­ persons, objects in the physical or social world). Ap­ tion is in order. The term personality has taken on praisals, in contrast, are dynamically shifting evalua­ two distinct meanings in the scientific literature (see tions of the personal meaning of events, that is, Cervone, 2005), and the failure to recognize this fact "continuing evaluation[s] of the significance of what has bred confusion. Some investigators in the field of is happening for one's personal well-being" (Lazarus, personality psychology are interested in summarizing 1991., p. 144). Such evaluations generally are con­ major dimensions of variation in behavioral tenden­ ducted by relating features of the self to features of the cies in the population at large. Five interindividual world. The distinctions (a) between knowledge and difference factors do a good job of summarizing these appraisal, and (b) among goals, evaluative standards, variations (McCrae & Costa, 2003). Other investiga­ and beliefs are cross-cutting, yielding a taxonomy of tors address an entirely different task: modeling the six classes of social-cognitive personality variables (see within-person structure of cognitive and affective sys­ figure 8.1). (In the KAPA variable system, the cogni­ tems that contribute to individual's distinctive psycho­ tive construct "strategies" [as used, e.g., in the SOC logical tendencies. When Bandura embeds his model of P. B. Baltes & M. M. Baltes, 1990, discussed self-efficacy theory ( 1997) in a broader social cogni­ later] is viewed as a more molar psychological con­ tive theory of personality (Bandura, 1986, l 999b ), the struct than are individual KAPA variables; strategies personality theory he provides is of this latter sort. So­ commonly consist of integrated systems of goals and cial cognitive theory is concerned with intraindivid­ subgoals, as well as beliefs and evaluative standards ual psychological systems that causally contribute to regarding alternative paths to goal achievement.) 176 THE SELF-SYSTEM IN ADULT DEVELOPMENT AND LEARNING

Intentional States with Alternative Directions of Fit

BELIEFS EVALUATIVE STANDARDS AIMS/GOALS

Beliefs about one's Standards for Evaluating Aims in an Encounter Relation to an Encounter an Encounter (e.g., intentions-in-action, (e.g., self-efficacy appraisals) (e.g., standards for evaluating personal goals during a task) ongoing performance)

Beliefs about Oneself Standards for Evaluating Personal, Interpenonal, and the World Oneself and the World and Social Aims (e.g., self-schemas, (e.g., ethical standards, (e.g., personal goal systems) situational beliefs) criteria for self-worth)

FIGURE 8. l The KAPA system of social-cognitive personality variables. In the variable system, the distinction among beliefs, evaluative standards, and aims holds at both the knowledge and the appraisal levels of the per­ sonality architecture, yielding six classes of social-cognitive variables.

Self-Efficacy Appraisals We note that some investigators use the term self­ Within this model of social-cognitive systems (Cer­ efficacy to reference psychological phenomena that vone, 2004a), the class of thinking that generally is re­ differ from those identified by Bandura ( 1977 a, ferred to as "perceived self-efficacy" can be classified 1997). Specifically, some investigators study "gener­ according to both dimensions of this taxonomy alized self-efficacy," that is, a generalized belief (figure 8.1). Perceived self-efficacy refers to beliefs­ regarding one's overall competence (Sherer et al., specifically, beliefs regarding one's own capabilities 1982). The generalized construct has been criticized for performance. Self-efficacy perceptions also are ap­ on empirical grounds; it sacrifices predictive util­ praisals, that is, they are evaluations of whether one ity (Bandura, 1997; Cervone, 1997; Stajkovic & can cope with ongoing or prospective encounters, Luthans, 1998; Weitlauf, Cervone, Smith, & where those evaluations directly bear on the meaning Wright, 2001) and correlates so highly with other of the encounter for the self. Self-efficacy appraisals, constructs, such as optimism and self-esteem, that it then, are akin to appraisals of coping potential in appears to lack discriminant validity (Judge, Erez, Lazarus's (1991) model. The class of cognitions iden­ Bono, & Thoresen, 2002). It has also been criticized tified by Bandura ( l 977a) in his self-efficacy theory, on theoretical grounds (Bandura, l 997; Cervone, then, are appraisals of one's capabilities to handle 1999). Of necessity, meaningful social actions occur prO!ipective encounters (e.g., "Can I learn the skills re­ in social contexts. The self-efficacy construct is quired to get a new job as a Web page designer?" "Can meant to capture people's thoughts about their capa­ I overcome shyness and reenter the world of dating af­ bilities for executing such actions in context, not in ter a divorce?"), not abstract knowledge about the at­ contextual vacuums. These thoughts are inherently tributes of oneself or the social world (e.g., "Is Web contextualized. When facing challenges, people page design hard?" "Am I attractive?"). Such knowl­ rarely ask themselves, "Can I do things, in general?" edge, however, may come to mind as individuals ap­ They instead ask themselves whether they can praise their efficacy for performance, and systematically cope successfully with the challenges that the world influence those appraisals (Cervone, 1997, 2004a). presents. SELF-EFFICACY AND ADULT DEVELOPMENT 177

ual development, one needs more than merely taxo­ Assessing Perceived Self-Efficacy nomic descriptions. One must identify psychological This analysis of self-efficacy processes has natural im­ systems that are possessed by a given individual and plications for the question of self-efficacy assessment. contribute to his or her development. Social­ The approach to self-efficacy assessment devised by cognitive theory is fundamentally concerned with Bandura (1977 a) can be understood as part of a gen­ identifying these causal dynamics (Bandura, l 999a; eral social-cognitive strategy for the assessment of per­ Cervone, 1999). It thus calls for assessment strategies sonality structures and processes through which that go beyond the mere description of individual dif­ people contribute to the course of their development ferences in the population and that instead identify (Cervone, 2004b; Cervone et al., 2001 ). We briefly re­ psychological mechanisms that causally contribute to view this strategy, then tum specifically to the assess­ the development of the individual (Caprara et al., ment of self-efficacy beliefs. 2003). The social-cognitive strategy of assessment can Strategies for assessing self-efficacy beliefs, then, best be understood by contrast to other approaches. reflect social-cognitive theory's dual concern with (a) Much assessment involves individual differences identifying psychological systems that causally con­ strategies. For example, people may be described in tribute to behavior and personal development while terms of scores on a small set of universal individual (b) remaining sensitive to the possibility that individu­ difference dimensions. The scores usually represent als' thoughts about themselves may vary markedly people's overall average tendency to exhibit a given from one life domain to another. To assess perceived type of experience or action. In computing this aver­ self-efficacy, investigators inquire into people's ap­ age, the test scorer inherently throws away informa­ praisals of the level or type of performance they be­ tion about contextual variability in action; the test lieve they can achieve when facing designated score, for example, tells one about people's overall challenges. This most commonly is accomplished via tendency to be anxious or motivated while revealing structured self-report measures (Bandura, l 977a). nothing about the social contexts in which a given in­ People indicate either the level of performance they dividual experiences greater or lesser anxiety or is believe they can achieve on an activity (level of self­ more or less prone to act in a manner that we call mo­ efficacy), their confidence in attaining designated lev­ tivated. els of achievement (strength of self-efficacy), or both. A social-cognitive analysis suggests two limitations The test items that make up such scales are tai­ to this strategy (Cervone, 2004b, 2005; Cervone et al., lored to tap efficacy beliefs in the particular domain 2001). First, the decision to throw out information of interest. In other words, self-efficacy scales are de­ about variability in action from one context to an­ signed to tap people's confidence in their capabilities other has enormous costs. It sacrifices critical knowl­ for performance in specified circumstances. To deter­ edge about the individual, namely, how the individual mine the content of test items, investigators commonly systematically and distinctively varies his or her be­ analyze the particular challenges that individuals face havior from one life circumstance to another (Mis­ in a domain of interest (Berry, West, & Dennehey, chel, 2004). The second limitation is more subtle. It 1989); this could be done either through a theory­ concerns the nature of psychological constructs. In based analysis of the domain or, as in research on individual-differences strategies (e.g., Costa & Mc­ everyday problem solving among older adults re­ Crae, 1992), individual persons are described ac­ viewed shortly (Artistico, Cervone, & Pezzuti, 2003), cording to psychological constructs that are latent through diary procedures in which research partici­ variables derived from analyzing the population at pants themselves report on significant life challenges. large. Such population-level analyses speak forcefully After this task analysis, items are written to gauge peo­ to the challenge of summarizing variations in the ple's confidence in executing specified behaviors to group. But they are mute with respect to the question cope with each of a variety of challenges. In the mi­ of within-person psychological dynamics at the level croanalytic research strategy of self-efficacy theory of the individual case (see Borsboom et al., 2003). (Bandura, l 977a; Cervone, 1985), self-efficacy assess­ Analyses of individual differences in a population ments are used to gauge not only between-person dif­ yield variables that serve a descriptive taxonomic ferences but also within-person variations in efficacy function. But to understand the dynamics of individ- beliefs across contexts. 178 THE SELF-SYSTEM IN ADULT DEVELOPMENT AND LEARNING

Structured self-efficacy scales are not the only Aging brings changes to internal processes and means of assessing self-efficacy appraisals. For exam­ abilities that bear on new learning and development ple, some work employs think-aloud methods in which and, in theory, on appraisal and evaluation of behav­ research participants' spontaneous self-statements re­ ioral limitations and possibilities. Changes occur in garding their efficacy for performance are analyzed multiple domains in adulthood, including sensory (e.g., Haaga & Stewart, 1992). However, questionnaire and perceptual levels (Anstey, Hofer, & Luszcz, 2003; methods have been the most common method of as­ P. B. Baltes, Lindenberger, & Staudinger, 1997), at­ sessment by far. tentional capacities (McDowd & Birren, 1990; Mc­ With this background on the nature and assess­ Dowd, Filion, Pohl, Richards, & Stiers, 2003), ment of self-efficacy beliefs, we turn to the question of personality traits (Helson et al., 2002; Srivastava et al., the development of self-efficacy beliefs and the capac­ 2003), memory (Park et al., 2002; Verhaegen, Mar­ ity for personal agency. coen, & Goossens, 1993), processing speed (Salt­ house, 1991), problem solving (Allaire & Marsiske, 1999, 2002; Berg & Klaczynski, 1996), and intelli­ THE DEVELOPMENT OF gence (Schaie, 1996). Effective functioning requires SELF-EFFICACY BELIEFS adaptation to changing ability levels and shifts in re­ sources with recognition of what is available and what Personal agency is shaped by the following develop­ is not. Several writers have emphasized the need in mental forces: biological, psychological, sociocultural, old age to conserve resources for use in domains of and life cycle (Cavanaugh & Blanchard-Fields, 2002). significance, importance, and relevance to effective We propose that these developmental forces operate functioning. For example, Rybash, Hoyer, and continuously during life to propel individuals forward Roodin's ( 1986) "encapsulation model" of cognitive through multiple domains and contexts, promoting aging draws upon post-formal views of cognitive de­ (or preventing) growth in each. In early infancy, the velopment (Labouvie-Vief, 1980; Sinnott, 1998) and human organism begins to learn cause-and-effect rela­ describes the development of encapsulated modules tionships, including the reciprocal effects of self in the of knowledge and expertise, which draw processing world. These early experiences shape the child's gen­ resources away from more generalized cognitive­ eral sense of personal agency and contribute to per­ behavioral tasks in the service of these highly schema­ sonal agency in specific behavioral developmental tized and complex expert modules. This model is contexts. We identify or label such context-specific consistent with the general pattern of intellectual agentic beliefs as self-efficacy beliefs, and we argue change that occurs in a~ulthood, the so-called classic that as behavioral strengths and weaknesses develop in aging pattern (P. B. Baltes, 1993; Botwinick, 1987), context, so do the performance-based beliefs associ­ wherein fluid abilities (mechanics) decline and crys­ ated with these behaviors. tallized abilities (pragmatics) maintain or increase The importance of self-efficacy mechanisms to into late life. adult development becomes apparent from a review of What do older adults want or need to learn? What recent theoretical and empirical work. Maurer (2001) are the learning tasks of midlife and old age? One of examined factors in the workplace and organization the tasks of adulthood is learning and accommodating that contributed to midlife and older workers' low the limits of energy, strength, and speed resources. sense of self-efficacy for career-relevant learning and New adaptations are needed for changes in cognitive skill development in the workplace. Maurer believes abilities, personality variables, and roles such as grand­ that low efficacy mediates the relationship between parenting, retirement, and widowhood. Sociocultural age of worker and participation in career development changes, such as technology, urban/suburban/rural and learning opportunities (also see Maurer, Weiss, development, and medical advances may force new Barbeite, 2003). Sahu and Sangeeta (2004) recently learning and development. Beyond adaptations and examined perceptions of self-efficacy among women adjustment to the inevitable changes associated with in the workplace and nonworking women, with results aging, there are changes that are controllable and can indicating positive relations between workplace expe­ be willfully selected and pursued. rience and efficacy beliefs and between efficacy be­ What does lifelong learning really mean for older liefs and a sense of personal well-being. adults? Does new learning cease when resources SELF-EFFICACY AND ADULT DEVELOPMENT 179 become so scarce that they are used solely to preserve & Ford, 2003). Clearly, competency development is and maintain essential abilities and avoid further loss? informed in large part by self-regulatory and self­ Are the oldest old realistically in a position for new feedback mechanisms. learning, or does their reality instead revolve around The most widely studied domains of self-efficacy maintenance of essential behaviors and avoidance of functioning in the elderly are health, intelligence, further loss? Self-efficacy appraisals across domains of and memory. The losses and changes in cognitive functioning will begin to fluctuate as the contingen­ functioning in old age force reappraisals of abilities in cies of behavior change with age. What was once a these domains, leading to new limits on performance. sufficient length of time and set of abilities to master Older adults should set goals that accurately represent new learning may no longer suffice when hearing their competencies, being mindful to avoid injurious, and vision begin to fail and new tasks take greater demoralizing, and even dehumanizing situations. time and effort. In the classic environmental press Sources of efficacy information in older adulthood model of Lawton and Nahemow (1973), adaptive include the same categories of information used (and maladaptive) behaviors emerge as a function of by younger adults (mastery, modeling, persuasion, the interaction between personal resources (weak­ arousal), but the nature of self-efficacy source infor­ strong) and environmental press (weak-strong). If an mation probably changes with age to include greater individual's skill level surpasses the level of challenge proportions of failure experiences relative to success in the environment, the person-environment fit is experiences-a proposition that is consistent with the poor, leading to maladaptive outcomes. Likewise, shift in the ratio of gains to losses in P. B. Baltes's poor fit and lack of adaptive behavior result when the ( 1987) life span model of development. To the extent environmental press exceeds the capabilities and that peers serve as salient points of comparison, the resources of the individual. Ideally, the environment aging individual will have more opportunities in so­ presents levels of challenge within and just beyond cial contexts to observe memory failures, intellectual the individual's capabilities, which yields the best fit slowing, and physical fragility and stiffness (e.g., per­ and maximizes development and sense of compe­ haps witnessing walking with the aid of canes after a tence and mastery (Lawton & Nahemow, 1973). fall, painful attempts to use arthritic feet and hands, Children, adolescents, and adults learn by exam­ etc.). Sources of efficacy information abound­ ple and feedback. Competencies in various domains peers, family, media, stereotypes, doctors, neighbors, are shaped by performance successes and failures, ef­ confidantes-and older adults might optimize their fort and effort attributions, persistence and choice, sense of well-being by attending specifically to posi­ and self- and other-provided feedback. For example, tive, efficacy-building feedback from these environ­ Zimmerman (2002) argues that academic excellence is mental sources (Welch & West, 1995). as much a function of motivational factors (e.g., self­ efficacy) as it is of ability and instruction, and points Health to the critical role of practice among high achievers. High achievers seem to know what they have to do to Research examining health outcomes among middle­ learn and may be more knowledgeable of task de­ age ·and older adults documents the importance of mands and person characteristics (Jenkins, 1979) than family members and health care professionals to self­ low achievers. In research on meta-cognition in the efficacy processes. Family factors are so important that domain of problem solving, Kruger and Dunning when one is predicting psychological outcomes for a ( 1999) found that competent problem solvers appear given family member, the efficacy perceptions of a dif­ to be high in self-awareness, as shown by their more ferent family member may be the most predictive. accurate predictions of their performance outcomes Rohrbauch et al. (2004) conducted a study of health compared to incompetent problem solvers, who management self-efficacy beliefs among cardiac pa­ grossly overestimated their abilities. Thus, experts in tients and their spouses (i.e., where the spouse measures a domain appear to be expert also at knowing their tapped beliefs in the patient's efficacy). Both patient abilities; although not tested directly by Kruger and and spouse efficacy perceptions predicted survival, but Dunning, it is likely that competent problem solvers when one versus the other index was controlled statisti­ have high self-efficacy related to task monitoring, cally, only the spouse ratings were significant predictors. meta-cognitive, and performance variables (Schmidt Research on cardiac rehabilitation also highlights 180 THE SELF-SYSTEM IN ADULT DEVELOPMENT AND LEARNING

patients' subjective beliefs in their caretakers' health sample of adults aged 35-79 years old, a finding repli­ provision efficacy. Patients who exhibit higher confi­ cated by Lachman and Leff ( 1989) in a 5-year longi­ dence in health care professionals' capabilities have tudinal study of elderly adults. been found subsequently to have higher beliefs in their Because older adults' intellectual abilities in the personal efficacy for physical performance and stronger basic mechanics of intelligence change more than exercise intentions (Bray & Cowan, 2004 ). their abilities in pragmatic, crystallized domains (P. Research on exercise, physical fitness, and dis­ B. Baltes, 1993; Botwinick, 1987; Cornelius & Caspi, ability self-efficacy is burgeoning in the aging litera­ 1986;), it might be expected that self-efficacy in these ture. Studies show that self-efficacy is inversely domains would vary accordingly. This developmental related to pain perception (Clark & Nothwehr, 1999; change has important implications for learning in Leveille, Cohen-Mansfield, & Guralnik, 2003; Reid, adulthood: If the intellectual skills that are used to Williams, & Gill, 2003). Moreover, self-efficacy and learn and manipulate novel information (the me­ knee pain taken together mediate the effects of mem­ chanics) are not as sharp in the later years as they bership in an exercise group on time to climb stairs as were in youth, older adults may need to alter their an outcome measure following treatment (Rejeski, learning goals and styles to optimize their learning. Ettinger, Martin, & Morgan, 1998). Empirical tests of For example, detection of abstract relationships among predictions derived directly from self-efficacy theory component parts requires fluid intelligence, which show that verbal persuasion sources of efficacy infor­ occurs less quickly among older learners than younger mation influence exercise outcome efficacy ratings learners. Different pedagogical tools and novel ap­ among older adults through doctors, family, and friends proaches to learning thus may be required when (Clark & Nothwehr, 1999). Other research on exer­ older adults encounter new learning experiences of cise self-efficacy among elderly adults demonstrates this sort. or suggests the importance of self-efficacy expecta­ The acquisition of computer skills represents a do­ tions on commencement, adherence, and mainte­ main of learning that is particularly challenging for nance of exercise regimens (Lach man et al., 1997; Li, current cohorts of older adults because they were not McAuley, Harmer, Duncan, & Chaumeton, 2001; immersed in the information age to the same extent Litt, Kleppinger, & Judge, 2002; Seeman, Unger, as cohorts of younger adults. Learning to use com­ McAvay, & Mendes de Leon, 1999). Together, these puter technology is increasingly necessary for success­ studies provide support for the guiding principle that ful navigation through the business, financial, health, self-efficacy acts as a change mechanism in various education, and leisure markets of the twenty-first cen­ physical and health behavioral domains. Older adults tury. Self-efficacy beliefs may be important in this do­ who are highly efficacious appear to exert the neces­ main; people lacking in computer use efficacy may sary effort required for maintenance and adherence, fail to persist in learning experiences and thus may ac­ with important positive health outcomes. quire only limited knowledge and skills. Studies show that older adults possess lower self-efficacy for com­ puter learning than do younger adults (Laguna & Intelligence Babcock, 2000). Laguna and Babcock found that Lachman was among the first to demonstrate the rela­ computer experience, computer-self-efficacy, and tionship of control perceptions, including intellectual anxiety about computer use mediated the relation­ efficacy beliefs, to intellectual functioning in adults ship between age and working memory. (Lachman, 1983). Her longitudinal studies showed that intellectual efficacy is both an antecedent as well Memory as an outcome of intellectual change across short lon­ gitudinal waves. Lachman found that changes in fluid Cavanaugh et al. (1998) have argued eloquently for intelligence and internal locus of control predicted the self as memory schematic and have outlined a so­ changes in intellectual self-efficacy over a 2-year pe­ cial cognitive research agenda for studying memory riod in older adults. In related research, Cornelius beliefs and behavior across the life span. This model and Caspi ( 1986) found that intellectual self-efficacy is quite consistent with self-efficacy approaches to declined cross-sectionally from midlife to old age in a studying memory and aging, especially in its emphasis SELF-EFFICACY AND ADULT DEVELOPMENT 181 on the dynamic nature of memory processing by the MacArthur studies of successful aging among a "self in context." Their theory proposes that when men and women aged 70-79 years, efficacy beliefs individuals confront memory tasks, they analyze fea­ predicted better performance on verbal memory and tures of the task and environment concurrently with abstract reasoning tests for men but not for women retrieved and known information about self-as­ (Seeman, McAvay, Merrill, & Albert, 1996; Seeman, memorizer. Memory processing as such is an online, Rodin, & Albert, 1993). Although aging is not the constructive process, and just as self-efficacy theory gloomy picture it was once made out to be (Hall, dictates, past and current memory experiences and 1922; Rowe & Kahn, 1987), characterized primarily outcomes shape efficacy and performance in context by multiple losses in most domains of functioning Berry ( 1999) expanded on the Cavanaugh et al. (Botwinick, 1973; Busse, 1969), the ratio of losses to framework, placing greater emphasis on personality gains does indeed increase across the life span (P. B. variables, including a personological-whole person­ Baltes, 1987). How do individuals cope with this shift­ approach to memory self-efficacy. Berry also argued ing balance? How are losses minimized or at least that memory self-efficacy is probably a significant and managed and gains optimized and even exploited? meaningful concept for most older adults, fueled by One explanation is offered in the compelling theory declining memory abilities and prevalent societal ste­ of selective optimization with compensation (SOC; reotypes of negative memory aging. P. B. Baltes & M. M. Baltes, 1990), which we review Empirical work by Lineweaver and Hertzog in a later section. Considered in tandem with Ban­ (1998) focused on memory self-efficacy measurement dura's now classic theory of personal agency captured issues, echoing and refining earlier distinctions by by its central construct-self-efficacy-a powerful West and Berry ( 1994) on the domain specificity of model for understanding development and learning self-efficacy. Lineweaver and Hertzog differentiated in adulthood and old age may be forged. personal from general memory self-efficacy beliefs us­ ing an innovative graphing technique in a sample of adults ranging in age from 18 to 93 years. Their data SELF-EFFICACY AND SKILL showed that negative beliefs about memory aging be­ ACQUISITION IN ADULTHOOD gin to accelerate in midlife and that older adults have significantly poorer memory self-efficacy beliefs than In this section, we explore closely the role of perceived younger and middle-aged adults. self-efficacy in activities that require sustained effort West and colleagues have conducted a series of over prolonged periods. Circumstances in which the memory self-efficacy studies that demonstrate the in­ adult wishes to learn new skills are the prototypical case. terdependent relationship of goals and self-efficacy The adult who wishes to develop new capabilities (West, Thorn, & Bagwell, 2003; West, Welch, & Kn­ through new learning experiences faces challenges abb, 2002; West, Welch, & Thorn, 2001). Collec­ that can be understood as consisting of distinct com­ tively, this line of work has shown that older adults ponents. These include becoming aware of social re­ have poorer memory self-efficacy than younger sources (educational programs, social services) that adults. Moreover, experimentally induced goal set­ are· available to promote skill development; devising ting led to increases in self-efficacy and performance personal plans for taking advantage of these re­ in both younger and older adults, and across multiple sources; and removing psychological or social barriers memory trials, initial memory baseline scores and (e.g., shyness, daily life routines that may interfere) to memory self-efficacy predicted higher self-set goals. partaking in educational opportunities. Consider, for West and colleagues have also obtained sex differ­ example, those who want to enhance their physical ences on measures of object location memory self­ well-being through participation in an exercise pro­ efficacy. Although women had higher performance gram. Systematic research indicates that older adults scores than men overall, they had lower memory self­ who wish to participate commonly confront psycho­ efficacy scores on these performance tests. Older logical challenges, such as a lack of motivation, to at­ adults and men overestimated their location recall tend exercise sessions on a regular basis as well as abilities. In other research, self-efficacy is related to pragmatic barriers, such as.a lack of transportation to performance outcomes for men but not women. In centers that conduct exercise programs (Prohaska, 182 THE SELF-SYSTEM IN ADULT DEVELOPMENT AND LEARNING

Peters, & Warren, 2000). A self-efficacy analysis high­ Skill Development Through lights the fact that the older adult may reflect on his Training Programs or her capabilities to cope with each of these distinct challenges. As a result, if one wants to assess control The contemporary industrialized world puts a pre­ beliefs in a manner that captures the psychological mium on learning. New technologies infiltrate profes­ life of the individual, it may be necessary to attend sions, forcing people at midcareer to acquire new closely to issues of social context. Any given person skills. Many people retire from their primary profes­ may have a high sense of efficacy for meeting some sion 15-20 years before the expected end of their life challenges that arise in some contexts (e.g., doing the span and have the opportunity to partake in learning exercises) and a low sense of self-efficacy in others programs of value to their personal development. (e.g., getting to the exercise center). Leaming new skills may become far more important Across the life span, learning might occur in two or than in the past. Questions about the design of train­ more distinct periods of one's lifetime. People learn not ing programs to confer new skills and the role of self­ only while in school but also later in life in the work­ referent beliefs in the skill acquisition process are place. Retirement may provide time and opportunities thus important both to society's demands and to the for learning new activities that were not available in needs of the individual. Psychological science has previous phases of life. Concordantly, for any given the capacity to illuminate psychological factors that learning task, there might be differences in the sense of contribute to success in training programs aimed in a commitment and perceived challenge among individ­ vast array of cognitive domains (Maurer et al., 2003) uals of different age cohorts. Even subtle variations in over the life span (Poon, Rubin, & Wilson, 1989). the perceived relevance of a task to one's age group can Training programs aimed at improving knowledge influence younger and older adults' perceived abilities are precisely the sort of settings in which questions of to solve the task and their actual task performance personal efficacy arise (Bandura, 1997). Leaming is (Cervone, Artistico, & Orom, 2005). associated with a sense of perceived challenge. There As an illustration of how variations in one's ap­ is much uncertainty at the beginning of new learning, proach to cognitive tasks can influence courses of which reflects the degree to which skills are lacking action that require sustained effort, we consider re­ in initial phases. Moreover, it is sometimes difficult to search on expertise. An interesting feature of expertise gauge how quickly one is acquiring a new skill or the gained through first-hand mastery in a given context is skill level that one will ultimately reach. In such set­ that expertise confers different types of benefits. On tings, people naturally ask themselves questions about the one hand, of course, people become better able to their performance efficacy (i.e., Am I capable of do­ execute well-practiced routines. Yet experts also differ ing this?). Subjective beliefs about one's capacity to in their approach to tasks, specifically in that they are engage and sustain engagement in learning programs more able to generate novel strategies when well­ thus contribute directly to the learning process (Ban­ practiced routines no longer work or can no longer be dura & Schunk, 1981; Schunk & Gunn, 1986). executed, perhaps because of age-related declines. Re­ One means through which self-efficacy processes search by Salthouse ( 1984) provides a clear example. influence learning involves the initial decision to en­ This work compared the performance of younger and roll in a training program. Adult education commonly older typists. Older typists (experts), although their typ­ is a proactive choice. People with a strong sense of ing speed had declined, were found to be more likely self-efficacy for learning are more likely to make the than younger typists to implement task strategies that positive choice to engage the challenge of a training en~bled their overall productivity to remain unaltered. program, as suggested by much research document­ These strategies consisted of looking ahead in the text ing the impact of perceived self-efficacy on academic one or two lines and memorizing the upcoming text. motivation (Schunk & Pajares, 2002). This effect of As a result of this strategy implementation, their over­ self-efficacy on choice processes has been analyzed in all performance did not differ from that of younger detail by Lent, Brown, and Hackett (1994) in their so­ typists. The behavior of expert older typists is well de­ cial cognitive theory of career choice. In this model, scribed by the model of SOC processes that has been self-efficacy is viewed as having both direct and indi­ proposed by P. B. Baltes and M. M. Baltes (1990), dis­ rect effects on career choices. In a direct path, people cussed in greater detail later. with high efficacy perceptions are more likely to take SELF-EFFICACY AND ADULT DEVELOPMENT 183 up challenging careers of interest to them. In an indi­ with self-efficacy perceptions among older adults rect path, self-efficacy beliefs influence the interests (Artistico & Pezzuti, 2003). Subjects trained in solv­ themselves; in other words, feelings of efficacy spur ing everyday problems performed better. on a second feelings of interest in an activity (see Bandura & problem-solving task compared to subjects in the con­ Schunk, 1981 ). A recent meta-analysis of self-efficacy trol group. Importantly, however, variations in perfor­ and interests supports this idea (Rottinghaus, Larson, mance were paralleled by variations in perceived & Borgen, 2003). Rottinghaus et al. found that per­ self-efficacy; these variations partially mediated the re­ ceived self-efficacy predicts a substantial portion of lationship between training and performance on the variance in career interests. An interesting possi­ everyday problem-solving tasks. bility in this area is that the relation between self­ One normally associates the idea of training with efficacy and interest in an activity may be nonlinear; the acquisition of professional skills. However, adults empirical results suggest that activities are relatively also face interpersonal and family systems challenges uninteresting when self-efficacy for performance is ei­ for which they may feel inefficacious and may benefit ther extremely high or extremely low (Silvia, 2003). from systematic training experiences in these areas. Once in a training program, a strong sense of self­ One example of this is parenting. Research suggests efficacy for performance in the given context en­ that there are reciprocal influences between adults' hances achievement (Bandura, 1997). For example, sense of self-efficacy for parenting and the well-being in studies of adults in workplace literacy programs of family members in their care. On one hand, child (Mikulecky, Lloyd, Siemental, & Masker, 1998), characteristics influence parental self-referent beliefs; learners who were confident in their writing and read­ mothers who lack social support and have tempera­ ing abilities (literacy self-efficacy) had higher text mentally difficult children have lower perceptions of comprehension outcomes than those who did not their efficacy for parenting and, in tum, more postpar­ have high levels of literacy self-efficacy. Research by tum depression (Cutrona & Troutman, 1986). Con­ Vinokur, van Ryn, Gramlich, and Price, R.H. (1991) versely, enhanced parental efficacy beliefs can improve provides another illustration. Large numbers of un­ family welfare, and training programs can beneficially employed American adults took part in a brief (eight­ bolster these efficacy beliefs. A training program for session) training program that conveyed skills for parents of young children that involved the mastery identifying and pursuing new employment. Com­ modeling of parenting skills has been shown to build pared to a control condition, this training program parental self-efficacy and reduce family stress (Gross, fostered higher levels of employment and higher Fogg, & Tucker, 1995). Higher levels of parental self­ earnings at a follow-up assessment 2. 5 years later (Vi­ efficacy have been shown to be important not only to nokur et al., 1991). Mediational analyses indicated children but also to the mental health of parents that training had its effects largely through its influ­ (Kwok & Wong, 2000). Parenting is not the only fam­ ence on perceived self-efficacy (van Ryn & Vinokur, ily role in which efficacy beliefs are important. King 1992), which had both a direct and an indirect and Elder ( 1998) found that grandparents' appraisals (though job-search attitudes) influence on the behav­ of self-efficacy for contributing positively to their iors involved in seeking reemployment. This work grahdchildren's lives predicted levels of involvement demonstrates how a relatively brief intervention can en­ with the grandchildren's daily activities. The role of hance learning and developmental outcomes through parenting self-efficacy in family life and prospects for the mediating mechanism of perceived self-efficacy. building these efficacy beliefs through interventions Similar training procedures to those targeted to are reviewed by Coleman and Karraker ( 1997). younger adults, enhanced performance among older Extant research on training programs, self-efficacy adults as well. Older people trained at evaluating im­ beliefs, and their effects suggests a clear message: provement from their self-paced performance were Training programs should include information about more likely to succeed on intellectual tasks (Dittman­ not only the skill acquisition task but also interven­ Kohli, Lachman, Kiegel, Baltes, 1991), and on mem­ tions designed to boost participants' perceptions of ory tasks even when their work was to go through a their capabilities to handle challenges, because these plan of several intervention sections (McDougall, self-efficacy perceptions have a significant effect on 1998). A recent study from our lab addressed learning interests, choices, and motivation. Much work in so­ experiences in everyday problem solving associated cial cognitive theory indicates how this can be done 184 THE SELF-SYSTEM IN ADULT DEVELOPMENT AND LEARNING

(Bandura, 1986, 1997). Self-efficacy beliefs are best fail to participate because they dwell on potential ob­ enhanced by firsthand experiences of personal mas­ stacles to participation; qualitative research has indi­ tery. Training programs should be structured such cated that for older people, to start and then maintain that they .contain proximal performance goals that a learning program often means more than having participants can reach and clear feedback to partici­ the required skills and knowledge to do it, because pants when they reach them. the real challenge is to begin putting one's knowledge and skills into action (Williamson, 2000). Moreover, when people are committed to a valued COGNITIVE SKILLS IN LEARNING course of action that they believe they can achieve, they may fail to act on their intentions because of situa­ In many areas of everyday life, people can base their tional factors that distract them from intended pursuits. judgments of personal efficacy on past personal expe­ Helping individuals generate strategies for solving daily rience. Past successes and failures form a basis for ap­ social, interpersonal, or intrapersonal problems that praising one's capabilities for future action. However, interfere with planned activities might, then, facilitate past experiences are sometimes lacking. Circum­ daily adherence among older adults and reduce attri­ stances may contain features that are so novel that the tion from these programs. individual faces the challenge of judging personal ef­ Older adults' participation in learning programs ficacy under conditions of substantial uncertainty thus may hinge on their ability to solve everyday prob­ (Cervone & Peake, 1986). lems that can interfere with their taking part in valu­ When perceived self-efficacy cannot be solely able learning activities. This raises the challenge of based on previous experience, one possibility is to understanding factors that may influence older adults' base self-efficacy appraisals on past experiences that problem solving abilities-a challenge that has been seem similar to the new challenge one is facing. De­ met by research on everyday problem solving. termining what past situations are relevant and how relevant they are involves judgmental processes that Everyday Problem Solving are fraught with subjectivity. When older adults face challenges for which they have no direct prior Historically, in cognitive psychology, the term prob­ experience-for example, adjusting to retirement, be­ lem solving typically has been applied to the solution coming a grandparent, adopting a new medical or ex­ of abstract analytical tasks; a problem such as the ercise regimen to cope with a medical problem-they Tower of Hanoi puzzle (in which the research partici­ must appraise their efficacy for performance and for­ pant moves geometric shapes of different sizes in ac­ mulate goals under conditions of high uncertainty. cordance with logical constraints on their movement) In such circumstances, stereotypes or other judgmen­ is an example (Anzai & Simon, 1979). On such tasks, tal influences may systematically distort these self­ people are confronted with a well-defined problem, appraisals, in some instances causing individuals to and reasoning may lead the individual through a fixed underestimate their capacities for performance. In problem space iri which there is one well-defined so­ the language of the KAPA model noted earlier (Cer­ lution (Reitmann, 1964; Simon, 1973). Although the vone, 2004a), the stereotypes would function as en­ study of such tasks may provide meaningful insight during knowledge that biases efficacy appraisals. into human cognition, these problem-solving para­ In addition to assessing past experiences, another digms capture only a limited subset of the cognitive cognitive activity that is central to self-efficacy judg­ challenges faced by adults, particularly in the later ment under uncertainty involves futurecoriented cog­ years of life. To illustrate the point, consider a typical nition. People may mentally simulate pathways to everyday problem. Suppose an older adult living in a goal achievement, and the ease with which they can condominium complex finds that meetings of the envision reaching their goals may influence self­ local condo association frequently are disrupted by efficacy appraisals. Research with older adults indeed disagreements and arguing among the association indicates that peoples' cognitive capacity to generate members (example derived from Artistico et al., strategies for overcoming barriers to participation in 2003), and the individual wants to improve the tone programs is important to the learning process (Pro­ of the meetings. Here the problem is not defined as haska et al., 2000). People with adequate skills may sharply as a typical laboratory task; it is hard to know SELF-EFFICACY AND ADULT DEVELOPMENT 185 what options are available to solve the problem or adults on everyday problems (Cornelius, 1984; Cor­ how much improvement in the problem is even pos­ nelius & Caspi, 1987) or in which some forms of sible. In this problem of daily life, there also is no sin­ everyday cognition are highly correlated with tradi­ gle solution, as there is on a laboratory task. Any given tional measures of basic cognitive abilities (Allaire & solution may fail or work only temporarily. Many dis­ Marsiske, 1999), many research findings suggest that tinct strategies and forms of solution thus may have to everyday problem solving is a distinct cognitive do­ be devised to make progress on the problem. main in which experience-based knowledge that is These considerations have given rise to a scientific gained across adulthood may facilitate performance; literature on everyday problem solving or being able yet "experience cannot completely nullify the effects to successfully cope with everyday challenges (Den­ of aging" (Denney, 1990, p. 340). ney & Palmer, 1981) that turned out to be of particu­ lar relevance to the study of cognitive aging. Everyday Problem Solving Especially when cognitive decline becomes substan­ and Perceived Self-Efficacy tial (Salthouse, 1991; Salthouse, Berish, & Miles, 2002), skilled use of everyday problem-solving func­ Several factors contribute to everyday problem­ tioning and competence becomes crucial for main­ solving ability. It has been increasingly reported that taining an unaltered sense of well-being among older in addition to bringing knowledge to bear on tasks, individuals (M. M. Baltes & Lang, 1997; M. M. Baltes, older adults may enhance everyday problem solving Maas, Wilms, Borchelt, & Little, 1999). Findings re­ performance by engaging effective use of self-regulatory veal that when compared to the declines that are evi­ strategies (Sinnott, 1989). Studying regulatory pro­ dent on tests of fluid intelligence or abstract reasoning, cesses in later adulthood is a key factor for under­ declines in performance on everyday problem-solving standing how older adults are able to compensate for tasks are small, moderate, or nonexistent. This con­ declines in virtually any cognitive ability (Artistico & clusion holds with respect to studies examining Lang, 2002). A key question, therefore, is to under­ problem-solving fluency or the number of safe and ef­ stand how older people exert the goal-directed effort fective solutions generated (Denney & Palmer, 1981; required to attain knowledge and develop task strate­ Denney & Pearce, 1989; Denney, Pearce, & Palmer, gies about everyday problem solving (Berg & 1982), or with respect to studies examining quality of Klaczynski, 1996; Blanchard-Fields, Chen, & Norris, everyday problem-solving reasoning (Allaire & Mar­ 1997; Hess & Blanchard-Fields, 1999). siske, 1999, 2002; Berg, Meegan, & Klaczynski, 1999, Older adults do not always perform optimally on Cornelius & Caspi, 1987). everyday problem solving tasks, but if they do so, it is generally because they have high confidence in their ability to solve everyday problems or perceived self­ Everyday Problem Solving Across the efficacy (Artistico et al., 2003). Generating solutions Life Span requires sustained cognitive effort, and people who Denney and her associates studied problem solving possess robust efficacy beliefs are more likely to exert trajectories over the life span (Denney & Palmer, that effort, rather than abandon attempts at problem 1981; Denney & Pearce, 1989; Denney et al.,1982). solving (Bandura, 1989). Variations in perceived self­ They indicated that although performance on tradi­ efficacy predict problem-solving ability, specifically, tional laboratory tasks tends to decrease linearly after viable solutions that individuals are able to generate early adulthood, a different pattern is found on every­ for everyday problems (Artistico et al., 2003). Impor­ day problems. Performance on everyday problem­ tantly, it is not merely the case that some people are solving items increases from young adulthood to generally good and others generally poor problem middle age, but then decreases in the elderly. Older solvers. Instead, we found significant within-person participants were found to perform less well than variability in self-efficacy beliefs and problem-solving middle-age persons even when working on items that abilities across contexts. When problems were typical were nominated by a sample of older persons as being of older persons' daily experiences (e.g., dealing with particularly relevant to their age group (Denney & incompetent medical personnel), they judged them­ Pearce, 1989). Although exceptions are occasionally selves as relatively capable of solving the problems found in which older adults outperform younger and exhibited superior levels of cognitive performance. 186 THE SELF-SYSTEM IN ADULT DEVELOPMENT AND LEARNING

In contrast, in domains that were less familiar to them, Taken as a whole, research on everyday problem older adults had lower efficacy beliefs and perfor­ solving and research directed by the distinction be­ mance than did younger adults. Moreover, the results tween crystallized and Ruid intelligence indicate that from this study suggest that perceived self-efficacy op­ personal experiences associated with assessment of an erates as a cognitive mediator of age-related perfor­ individual's perceived efficacy might better explain mance differences on problem-solving tasks among cognitive performance in later age. Next we tum our young and older adults (Artistico et al., 2003). attention to a family of factors that might enhance our understanding of people's ability to engage in com­ plex behavior, such as learning. These factors include Crystallized and Fluid Intelligence strategies that are particularly relevant to older adults' An early and persistent question in the field of psy­ everyday functioning and performance and were chological aging was to understand what types of in­ briefly introduced earlier under the guise of the SOC tellectual abilities older people use to achieve high model. levels of performance on cognitive tasks. One answer was found in the distinction made between two or­ thogonal types of general intellective ability, namely, SOC MODEL AND PERCEIVED crystallized and Ruid intelligence (Cattell, 1971 ). SELF-EFFICACY Crystallized intelligence normally underlies tasks that test knowledge that is accumulated through expe­ The ability to maximize one's potentials across the rience and years of education (P. B. Baltes, 1997). On life span rests on two key factors: being able to gener­ the other hand, Ruid intelligence is an ability used for ate viable solutions to problems of life and having a spatial and abstract reasoning tasks, such as solving strong enough sense of efficacy to put these solutions numerical or spatial puzzles. The distinction between into practice. This combination of factors can help crystallized and Ruid intelligence is somewhat analo­ buffer individuals against cognitive declines that oc­ gous to the distinction between everyday problem cur with age. Converging evidence indicates that age solving and laboratory problem solving. Crystallized deficits in prefrontal cortical activity in working intelligence might be conceptually relevant to solving memory are disruptive to higher order functioning in everyday problems, whereas Ruid intelligence could older adults (e.g., Raz, 2000; Rypma, Prabhakaran, be instrumental in solving abstract reasoning tasks. Desmond, & Gabrieli, 2001; Salthouse, 1991). As we In research on intellectual aging and the crystal­ saw, solving tasks that are ecologically relevant to lized/fluid distinction, older people scored signifi­ older adults and that foster use of crystallized intelli­ cantly higher and perceived themselves as more gence may prompt better performance and higher efficacious to perform on a crystallized intelligence self-efficacy perceptions among older people. Study­ test than did younger people (Lachman & Jelalian, ing regulatory processes in older adults could be key 1984). In contrast, younger people scored higher and for understanding how elderly people are able to perceived themselves as more efficacious to perform compensate for cognitive declines. To illustrate this on a fluid intelligence test than did older people point, consider once again the example of older typ­ (Lachman & Jelalian, 1984). Similar results were ists (Salthouse, 1984) introduced earlier in the chap­ found in a study in which fluid intelligence was mea­ ter. Older typists, regardless of their cognitive decline, sured with a working memory task, and crystallized were as fast as younger typists in typing a lengthy work in!elligence was measured by asking people to offer assignment. This conclusion held because, as Salt­ wisdom with respect to critical interpersonal dilem­ house ( 1984) and others noted as well (P. B. Baltes, mas. Older adults were as capable as young adults of 1987; P. B. Baltes & M. M. Baltes, 1990), experts in generating solutions for critical interpersonal situa­ general are able to compensate with their skilled use tions and making life decisions and were as fast as of strategies for the impact of cognitive declines on younger people. Younger adults were more proficient performance. We will discuss compensatory strategies than older adults on working memory tasks (for to buffer against cognitive declines within a model an overview of these results, see P. B. Baltes & that is central to discourse in the contemporary field Staudinger, 2000). of psychology and aging, the SOC model. SELF-EFFICACY AND ADULT DEVELOPMENT 187

vast array of domains are more able to persist on chal­ SOC Model lenging tasks compared to those people who perceive P. B. Baltes and M. M. Baltes (1990) identified "a of themselves as less efficacious (Bandura, 1997). prototypical strategy of successful aging" (p. 21) that There are two ways that different aspecu; of perceived involves managing cognitive declines by focusing on self-efficacy are generally assessed (see Bandura, actions through which these can be overcome. Their 1977a; Cervone & Scott, 1995): (1) the absolute type model identifies patterns of selection, optimization, of performance that one is envisioning to achieve and compensation that promote successful develop­ (levels of self-efficacy), and (2) personal confidence ment. Successful adult development can be achieved in being able to attain designed levels of performance by selecting life goals that are manageable within the (strength of self-efficacy). constraints of biology and sociocultural opportunities; Analysis of these two dimensions of self-efficacy optimizing the use of personal and social resources in would provide several options for identifying the em­ the pursuit of one's aims; and by developing strategies pirical joint between perceived self-efficacy and spe­ to compensate for declines that inevitably arise across cific task strategies, such as those in the SOC model. the life course. In the domain of learning, the SOC Imagine asking Rubinstein before a piano concert to model implies that disengagement is not a necessary indicate his level of self-efficacy for his confidence to result of age-related declines in capabilities. Instead, perform optimally (even pieces that would require by focusing (i.e., selection), practicing (i.e., optimiza­ fast movements). Presumably, the reply would fall in tion), and invoking the role of experience (i.e., com­ the upper range of a self-efficacy scale-a number pensation), adults can continue to acquire valuable that would express the artist's great confidence in his new experiences across the life course. piano-playing performance ability. Imagine also re­ Reports of strategy use for managing specific prob­ peating this assessment many times over several con­ lems ought to refer to everyday problems that are rep­ certs played over several nights. Such an approach resentative of those that are actually encountered by would yield measures of self-efficacy level, strength, individuals. Consider a well-known example of re­ and generalizability (Bandura, 1977a), which could silient performance provided by P. B. Baltes and M. in tum be combined with the various compensatory, M. Baltes ( 1990). Pianist Arthur Rubinstein main­ selection, and optimization strategies employed by tained extraordinarily high levels of artistic perfor­ the artist over the successive nights. These measure­ mance in older adulthood through strategies that ments would no doubt yield fluctuations in Rubin­ compensated for age-related losses of motor speed stein's own self-efficacy judgments that would covary and flexibility. In a television interview he "told that systematically with the various possible performance he reduces his repertoire and plays a smaller number outcomes (e.g., length of applause, requests for en­ of pieces (selection); second, he practices these more cores, perceptions of the orchestra, critics' reviews, often (optimization); and third, he slows down his and so forth). This whimsical scenario illustrates the speed of playing prior to fast movements, thereby pro­ type of investigation that could be conducted in more ducing a contrast that gives the impression of speed in realistic musical venues (e.g., music conservatories, the fast movements (compensation)" (example re­ choral societies, orchestras) to test hypotheses derived ported in P. B. Baltes & M. M. Baltes, 1990, p. 26). conjointly from self-efficacy theory and the SOC model. In fact, research on music self-efficacy has found that greater confidence in playing piano is re­ Level and Strength of Self-Efficacy lated to assessors' evaluations of the quality of stu­ and SOC dents' musical performance during examinations On logical grounds, it has been theorized that develop­ (McCormick & McPherson, 2003). ment in later years involves streamlining one's efforts: Rubinstein's piano performance style in later life is increasing effort in valued and important domains for an exceptional illustration of selective optimization which performance can realistically be maintained, with compensation and the judicious, effective appli­ while decreasing effort and investment in others (P. cation of compensatory strategies. Many older adults B. Baltes, 1987). People who can rely on great levels face accommodative difficulties in far more mundane of perceived self-efficacy to perform optimally in a yet equally salient and personally important domains 188 THE SELF-SYSTEM IN ADULT DEVELOPMENT AND LEARNING

(e.g., everyday routines). Choices between tasks are tively secure in the knowledge that they could adopt a made on a daily basis and at short-term and long-term lifestyle in which their ancestors had lived successfully levels. As at any age, older adults are confronted with for generations. In contrast, rapid changes in social and the ordinary time management tasks and "to-do" lists family life reduce personal feelings of certainty about of a given day. He or she might select between grocery one's life course; for example, although college-aged shopping today, returning library books tomorrow, Americans today have an abundance of opportunities, and doing laundry on Sunday, whereas longer- term they also are more likely to believe that the outcome of tasks such as entering a fitness or community volun­ important life events may be beyond their personal teer program are deferred until physical, mental, and control, as compared to the beliefs expressed by their even economic resources allow such choice and cohorts only a few decades earlier (Twenge, Zhang, & selectivity. Research paradigms developed in everyday Im, 2004). When faced with choice and uncertainty, learning contexts could assess how older adults learn people naturally reflect on themselves and their capac­ to manage trade-offs between physical and cognitive ities to handle the challenges ahead. Thus we live to­ limitations with selections of optimal functioning in day in a world where reflections on self-efficacy are key their most desired domains. to personal development. As we have seen in the re­ Research across different adulthood learning do­ search reviewed herein, people with stronger beliefs in mains that integrates personality in context, the self­ their efficacy for performance are more likely to de­ regulatory components of self-efficacy theory, and the velop the skills and exert the self-control and persistent behavioral choices and balance implied by the SOC effort that are required to tackle the challenges that model would provide a comprehensive understand­ world presents. ing of how older adults manage the myriad chal­ Regarding the self-efficacy construct, we have pro­ lenges and opportunities oflife. Basic research should moted a perspective that is integrative rather than aim to explicate both developmental differences at isolationist. In the early days of self-efficacy theory the group level as well as the substantial within­ (Bandura, 1977a), it was important to document that person variability in self-efficacy and learning pro­ self-efficacy was a unique construct, that is, one that cesses across the life span. When basic research captured distinctive aspects of mental life that uniquely findings translate into beneficial applications, one of contribute to human achievement and well-being. the core missions of the field of psychological science These efforts can be declared a success (see Bandura, is fulfilled. 1997). Now, after more than a quarter century of re­ search effort, it is equally important to recognize that self-efficacy beliefs are-just one aspect of the overall CONCLUSIONS architecture of human mental systems (Cervone, 2004a). The advantages of this latter perspective are This chapter has reviewed diverse programs of theory dual. First, as noted herein, it can yield an integrative and research. Yet its primary ideas can be well sum­ view of human development in which the insights of marized by two simple themes. The first concerns the differenttheoretical traditions (e.g., P. B. Baltes, 1987; nature of human development, and the second con­ Bandura, 1986) are seen to be complementary and to cerns the nature of the psychological construct on yield an overall portrait of development that has which we have focused, perceived self-efficacy. much power and scope. Second, it shifts one's atten­ In our contemporary world, in which many citizens tion from a particular variable-self-efficacy-to a experience long life spans and enhanced freedom of target of investigation of greater interest: the whole, choice, the twists and turns of psychological develop­ coherent, multifaceted individual and his or her de­ ment increasingly are determined by personal decision velopment across the course oflife. making. Especially within Western individualistic cul­ tures, the major roles and contexts of one's life­ involving profession, family, location of residence, and ACKNOWLEDGMENTS During the preparation of so on-are not conceived as fixed or inevitable. In­ this chapter, Daniel Cervone was supported by Na­ stead, people recognize that they can choose among tional Institute on Drug Abuse grant DAI 4136, life paths. This increases not only opportunity but Daniele Artistico was supported by Grant 1 R03 uncertainty. Ages ago, individuals may have been rela- AgG23271-0l from the National Institute on Aging, SELF-EFFICACY AND ADULT DEVELOPMENT 189

and these authors also received support from the Mid­ models of human development (5th ed., pp. 1029- west Roybal Center for Health Maintenance. 1144). New York: Wiley. Baltes, P. B., & Staudinger, U. M. (2000). Wisdom: A methateuristic (pragmatic) to orchestrate mind and References virtue toward excellence. American Psychologist, 55, 122-136. Allaire, J. C., & Marsiske, M. (1999). Everyday cogni­ Bandalos, D. L., Finney, S. J., & Geske, J. A. (2003), A tion: Age and intellectual ability correlates. Psychol­ model of statistics performance based on achieve­ ogy and Aging, 14, 627-644. ment goal theory. Journal of Educational Psychol­ Allaire, J. C., & Marsiske, M. (2002). Well- and ill- de­ ogy, 95, 604-616. fined measures of everyday cognition: Relationship Bandura, A. ( l 977a). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying to older adults' intellectual ability and functional theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, status. Psychology and Aging, 17, 101-115. 84, 191-215. Anstey, K. J., Hofer, S. M., & Luszcz, M.A. (2003). A la­ Bandura, A. (1977b). Social learning theory. Englewood tent growth curve analysis of late-life sensory and Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. cognitive function over 8 years: Evidence for spe­ Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and cific and common factors underlying change. Psy­ action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. chology and Aging, 18, 714-726. Bandura, A. ( 1989). Regulation of cognitive processes Anzai, Y., & Simon, H. A. ( 1979). The theory oflearning through perceived self-efficacy. Developmental Psy­ by doing. Psychological Review, 86, 124-140. chology, 25, 729-735. Artistico, D., Cervone, D., & Pezzuti, L. (2003). Per­ Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. ceived self-efficacy and everyday problem solving New York: Freeman. among young and older adults. Psychology and Ag­ Bandura, A. (1999a). Moral disengagement in the perpe­ ing, 18, 68-79. tration of inhumanities. Personality and Social Psy­ Artistico, D., & Lang, F. (2002). The regulation of the self chology Review, 3, 193-209. across adulthood: Personality processes in context. Bandura, A. ( l 999b ). Social cognitive theory of personal­ Symposium at the 11th European Conference of ity. In D. Cervone & Y. Shoda (Eds.), The coherence Personality, Univerisity of Jena, Germany. of personality: Social-cognitive bases of consistency, Artistico, D., & Pezzuti, L. (2003). Training in everyday variability, and organization (pp. 185-241). New problem solving increases self-efficacy and everyday York: Guilford Press. problem solving performance among older adults. Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., & Pas­ Poster session presented at GSA's 56th Annual torelli, C. (1996). Mechanisms of moral disengage­ Meeting, November 21-25, 2003, San Diego, CA. ment in the exercise of moral agency. Journal of Baltes, M. M., & Lang, F. (1997). Everyday functioning Personality and Social Psychology. 71, 364-374. and successful aging: The impact of resources. Psy­ Bandura, A., & Cervone, D. (1983). Self-evaluative and chology and Aging, 12, 433-443. self-efficacy mechanisms governing the motiva­ Baltes, M. M., Maas, I., Wilms, H. U., Borchelt, M., & tional effects of goal systems. Journal of Personality Little, T. D. (1999). Everyday competence in old and Social Psychology, 45, 1017-1028. and very old age: Theoretical considerations and Bandura, A., & Locke, E. A. (2003). Negative self­ empirical findings. In P. B. Baltes & K. U. Mayer efficacy and goal effects revisited. Journal ofApplied (Eds.), The Berlin Aging Study: Aging from 70 to Psychology, 88, 87-99. 100 (pp. 384-402). Cambridge: Cambridge Uni­ Bandura, A., & Schunk, D. H. (1981). Cultivating com­ versity Press. petence, self-efficacy, and intrinsic interest through Baltes, P. B. ( 1987). Theoretical propositions of life-span · proximal self-motivation. Journal of Personality and developmental psychology: On the dynamics be­ Social Psychology, 41, 586--598. tween growth and decline. Developmental Psychol­ Bandura, A., & Walters, R. ( 1963). Social learning and ogy, 23, 611-626. personality development. New York: Holt, Rinehart Baltes, P. B. (1993). The aging mind: Potential and lim­ &Winston. its. Gerontologist, 33, 580-594. Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D (Eds.). (2004). Hand­ Baltes, P. B. ( 1997). On the incomplete architecture of book of self regulation: Research, theory, and appli­ human ontogeny: Selection, optimization, and cations. New York: Guilford Press. compensation as foundation of developmental the­ Bennett, M. R., & Hacker, P. M. S. (2003). Philosophical ory. American Psychologist, 52, 366--80. foundations of neuroscience. Oxford: Blackwell. Baltes, P. B., & Baltes, M. M., (1990). Successful aging: Berg, C. A., & Klaczynski, P. (1996). Practical intelli­ Perspective from the behavioral sciences. Cam­ gence and problem solving: Searching for perspec­ bridge: Cambridge University Press. tives. In F. Blanchard-Fields & T. M. Hess (Eds.), Baltes, P. B., Lindenberger, U., & Staudinger, U. (1997). Perspectives on cognition in adulthood and aging Life-span theory in developmental psychology. In (pp. 323-357). New York: McGraw-Hill. W. Damon (Series Ed.) & R. Lerner (Vol. Ed.), Berg, C. A, Meegan, S. P., & Klaczynski, P. (1999). Age Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 1. Theoretical and experiential differences in strategy generation 190 THE SELF-SYSTEM IN ADULT DEVELOPMENT AND LEARNING

and information requests for solving everyday prob­ (pp. 49--60). Washington, DC: American Psycho­ lems. International foumal of Behavioral Develop­ logical Association. ment, 23, 615-639. Caplan, L. J., & Schooler, C. (2003). The roles of fatal­ Bergman, L. R. (2002). Studying processes: Some ism, self-confidence, and intellectual resources in methodological considerations. In L. Pulkkinen & the disablement process in older adults. Psychology A. Caspi (Eds.), Paths to successful development: and Aging, 18, 551-561. Personality in the life course (pp. 177-199). Cam­ Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Pastorelli, C., & Cer­ bridge: Cambridge University Press. vone, D. (2004). The contribution of self-efficacy Berry, J. M. (1999). Memory self-efficacy in its social beliefs to psychosocial outcomes in adolescence: cognitive context. In T. M. Hess & F. Blanchard­ Predicting beyond past behavior and global disposi­ Fields (Eds.), Social cognition and aging (pp. tional tendencies. Personality and Individual Differ· 69-96). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. ences, 37, 751-763. Berry, J.M., & West, R. L. (1993). Cognitive self-efficacy Caprara, G. V., & Cervone, D. (2000). Personality: De· in relation to personal mastery and goal setting terminants, dynamics, and potentials. New York: across the life span. International fournal of Behav­ Cambridge University Press. ioral Development, 16, 351-379. Caprara, G. V., & Cervone, D. (2003). A conception of Berry, J.M., West, R. L., & Dennehey, D. M. (1989). personality for a psychology of human strengths: Reliability and validity of the Memory Self­ Personality as an agentic, self-regulating system. In Efficacy Questionnaire. Developmental Psychol­ L. G. Aspinwall & U. M. Staudinger (Eds.), A psy­ ogy, 25, 701-713. chology of human strengths: Fundamental questions Blanchard-Fields, F., Chen, Y., & Norris, L. (1997). and future directions for a positive psychology (pp. Everyday problem solving across the adult life span: 61-74). Washington, DC: American Psychological Influence of domain specificity and cognitive ap­ Association. praisals. Psychology and Aging, 12, 684--693. Caprara, G. V., Steca, P., Cervone, D., & Artistico, D. Borsboom, D., Mellenbergh, G. J., & van Heerden, J. (2003). The contribution of self-efficacy beliefs to (2003). The theoretical status of latent variables. dispositional shyness: On social-cognitive systems Psychological Review, 110, 203-219. and the development of personality dispositions. Botwinick, J. (1973). Aging and behavior. New York: foumal of Personality, 71, 943-970. Springer. Carstensen, L. L., & Charles, S. T. (2003). Human ag­ Botwinick, J. (1987). Aging and behaviors (3rd ed.). New ing: Why is even good news taken as bad? In L. G. York: Springer. Aspinwall & U. M. Staudinger (Eds.), A psychol­ Brandtstadter, J., & Rothermund, K. (1994). Self­ ogy of human strengths: Fundamental questions percepts of control in middle and later adulthood: and future directions for a positive psychology (pp. Buffering losses by rescaling goals. Psychology and 75-86). Washington, DC: American Psychologi­ Aging, 9, 265-273. cal Association. Braudel, F. (1981). The structures of everyday life: Civi­ Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1998). On the self­ lization and capitalism, 15th-18th century (Vol. 1). regulation of behavior. New York: Cambridge Uni­ New York: Harper & Row. versity Press. Bray, S. R., & Cowan, H. (2004). Proxy efficacy: Implica­ Cattell, R. B. ( 1971 ). Abilities: Their structure, growth, tions for self-efficacy and exercise intentions in car­ and action. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. diac rehabilitation. Rehabilitation Psychology, 49, Cavanaugh, J. C., & Blanchard-Fields, F. (2002). Adult 71-75. development and aging (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Brown, T. C., & Latham, G. P. (2002). The effects of be­ Wadsworth!Thomson Leaming. havioural outcome goals, learning goals, and urging Cavanaugh, J.C., Feldman, J.M., & Hertzog, C. (1998). people to do their best on an individual's teamwork Memory beliefs as social cognition: A reconceptual­ behaviour in a group problem-solving task. Cana­ ization of what memory questionnaires assess. Re­ dian Journal of Behavioural Science, 34, 276-285. view of General Psychology, 2, 48-65. Buss, D. M. ( 1991 ). Evolutionary personality psychology. Cavanaugh, J. C., & Green, E. E. (1990). I believe, , Annual Review of Psychology, 42, 459-491. therefore I can: Self-efficacy beliefs in memory ag­ Busse, E.W. ( 1969). Theories of aging. In E.W. Busse & ing. In E. A. Lovelace (Ed.), Aging and cognition: E. Pfeiffer (Eds.), Behavior and adaptation in late Mental processes, self-awareness, and interventions life (pp. 11-32). Boston: Little, Brown. (pp. 189-230). Amsterdam: North Holland. Bussey, K., & Bandura, A. (1999). Social cognitive theory Cervone, D. ( 1985). Randomization tests to determine of gender development and differentiation. Psycho­ significance levels for microanalytic congruences logical Review, 106, 676-713. between self-efficacy and behavior. Cognitive Ther­ Cantor, N. E. (2003). Constructive cognition, personal apy and Research, 9, 3 57-365. goals, and the social embedding of personality. In Cervone, D. ( 1997). Social-cognitive mechanisms and L. G. Aspinwall & U. M. Staudinger (Eds.), A psy­ personality coherence: Self-knowledge, situational chology of human strengths: Fundamental ques­ beliefs, and cross-situational coherence in per­ tions and future directions for a positive psychology ceived self-efficacy. Psychological Science, 8, 43-50. SELF-EFFICACY AND ADULT DEVELOPMENT 191

Cervone, D. (!999). Bottom-up explanation in personal­ cess, self-awareness and intelligence. Amsterdam: ity psychology: The case of cross-situational coher­ North Holland Elsevier. ence. In D. Cervone & Y. Shoda (Eds.), The Denney, N. W., & Palmer, A. M. (!981). Adult age dif­ coherence of personality: Social-cognitive bases of ferences on traditional and practical· problem solv­ consistency, variability, and organization (pp. ing measures. Journal of Gerontology, 36, 323-328. 303-341). New York: Guilford Press. Denney, N. W., & Pearce, K. A. (1989). A developmen­ Cervone, D. (2004a). The architecture of personality. tal study of practical problem solving in adults. Psy­ Psychological Review, 111, 183-204. chology and Aging, 4, 438-442. Cervone, D. (2004b). Personality assessment: Tapping Denney, N. W., Pearce, K. A., & Palmer, A. M. (1982). A the social-cognitive architecture of personality. Be­ developmental study of adults' performance on tra­ havior Therapy, 35. ditional and practical problem-solving tasks. Experi­ Cervone, D. (2005). Personality architecture: Within­ mental Aging Research, 8, 115-118. person structures and processes. Annual Review of DeSteno, D., Bartlett, M. Y., Braverman, J., & Salovey, Psychology, 56, 423-452. P. (2002). Sex differences in jealousy: Evolutionary Cervone, D., Artistico, D., & Orom, H. (2005). Context mechanism or artifact of measurement? Journal of and everyday problem solving among younger and Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1103-1116. older adults. Manuscript submitted for publication. Diamond, J. (1997). Guns, germs, and steel: The fates of Cervone, D., & Peake, P. K. (1986). Anchoring, efficacy, human society. New York: Random House. and action: The influence of judgmental heuristic Dittman-Kohli, F., Lachman, M. E., Kiegel, R., & on self-efficacy judgments and behavior. Journal of Baltes, P. B. (1991). Effects of cognitive training Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 492-501. and testing on intellectual efficacy beliefs in elderly Cervone, D., & Scott, W. D. (1995). Self-efficacy theory adults. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sci­ of behavioural change. In W. O'Donohoue & L. ences, 46, 162-164. Krasner (Eds.), Theories of behavior therapy (pp. The Economist (2002). Pocket world in figures (2003 ed.) 349-383). Washington, DC: American Psychologi­ London: Profile Books. cal Association. Eliot, T. S. ( 1931 ). Preface to Transit of Venus, Poems by Cervone, D., Shade!, W. G., & Jencius, S. (2001). H. Crosby. Paris: Black Sun Press. Social-cognitive theory of personality assessment. Emmons, R. A., & Kaiser, H. A. ( 1996). Goal orientation Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 33-51. and emotional well-being: Linking goals and affect Cervone, D., & Shoda, Y. (Eds.). (1999). The coherence through the self. In L. L. Martin & A. Tesser, of personality: Social-cognitive bases of consistency, (Eds.), Striving and feeling: Interactions among variability, and organization. New York: Guilford goals, affect, and self-regulation (pp. 79-98). Mah­ Press. wah, NJ: Erlbaum. Clark, D. 0., & Nothwehr, F. (1999). Exercise self­ Endler, N. S., & Magnusson, D. (1976). Toward an in­ efficacy and its correlates among socioeconomically teractional psychology of personality. Psychological disadvantaged adults. Health Education and Behav­ Bulletin, 85, 956-974. ior, 26, 535-546. Gottlieb, G. (1998). Normally occurring environmental Coleman, P. K., & Karraker, K. H. (1997). Self-efficacy and behavioral influences on gene activity: From and parenting quality: Findings and future applica­ central dogma to probabilistic epigenesis. Psycho­ tions. Development Review, 18, 47-85. logical Review, 105, 792-802. Cornelius, S. W. (1984). Classic pattern of intellectual Grant, H., & Dweck, C. (1999). A goal analysis of per­ aging: Test familiarity, difficulty, and performance. sonality and personality coherence. In D. Cervone Journal of Gerontology, 39, 201-206. & Y. Shoda (Eds.), The coherence of personality: Cornelius, S. W., & Caspi, A. ( 1986). Self-perceptions of Social-cognitive bases of consistency, variability, and intellectual control and aging. Educational Geron­ organization (pp. 345-371). New York: Guilford tology, 12, 345-357. Press. Cornelius, S. W., & Caspi, A. (1987). Everyday problem Gross, D., Fogg, L., & Tucker, S. (1995). The efficacy of solving in adulthood and old age. Psychology and parent training for promoting positive parent­ Aging, 2, 144-153. toddler relationships. Research in Nursing and Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R.R. (!992). Revised NEO per­ Health, 18, 489-499. sonality inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO FiveFactor Haaga, D. A. F., & Stewart, B. L. (1992). Self-efficacy for Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa, recovery from a lapse after smoking cessation. Journal FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. ofConsulting and Clinical Psychology, 60, 24-28. Cutrona, C. E., & Troutman, B. R. (1986). Social Hall, G. S. ( 1922). Senescence. London: Appleton. support, infant temperament, and parenting self­ Harre, R. ( 1998). The singular self An introduction to the efficacy: A mediational model of post-partum de­ psychology of personhood. London: Sage. pression. Child Development, 57, 1507-1518. Harre, R. (2002). Cognitive science: A philosophical in­ Denney, N. W. (1990). Adult age differences in tradi­ troduction. London: Sage. tional and practical problem solving. In E. A. Harre, R., & Secord, P. ( 1972). The explanation of social Lovelace (Ed.), Aging and cognition: Mental pro- behavior. Oxford: Blackwell. 192 THE SELF-SYSTEM IN ADULT DEVELOPMENT AND LEARNING

Heckhausen, J. (1999). Developmental regulation in Lachman, M. E. (1983). Perceptions of intellectual aging: adulthood: Age normative and sociostructural con­ Antecedent or consequence of intellectual function­ straints as adaptive challenges. New York: Cam­ ing? Developmental Psychology, 19, 482-498. bridge University Press. Lachman, M. E., & Jelalian, E. (1984). Self-efficacy and Heckhausen, J. (2002). Developmental regulation oflife­ attributions for intellectual performance in young course transitions: A control theory approach. In L. and elderly adults. Journal of Gerontology, 39, Pulkkinen & A. Caspi (Eds.), Paths to successful de­ 577-582. velopment: Personality in the life course (pp. Lachman, M. E., Jette, A., Tennstedt, S., Howland, J., 257-280). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Harris, B. A., & Peterson, E. (1997). A cognitive­ Heckhausen, J., & Dweck, C. S. (Eds.) (1998). Motiva­ behavioural model for promoting regular physical tion dand self-regulation across the life span. Cam­ activity in older adults. Psychology Health and Med­ bridge: Cambridge University Press. icine, 2, 251-261. Heckhausen, J., & Schulz, R. (1995). A life-span theory Lachman, M. E., & Leff, R. (1989). Perceived control of control. Psychological Review, 102, 284-304. and intellectual functioning in the elderly: A 5-year Helson, R., Kwan, V. S. Y., John, 0. P., & Jones, C. longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 25, (2002). The growing evidence for personality 722-728. change in adulthood: Findings from research with Laguna, K. D., & Babcock, R. (2000). Computer testing personality inventories. Journal of Research in Per­ of memory across the adult life span. Experimental sonality, 36, 287-306. Aging Research, 26, 229-243. Hess, T. M., & Blanchard-Fields, F. (Eds). (1999). Social Lang, F., & Carstensen, L. (2002). Time counts: Future cognition and aging. San Diego, CA: Academic time perspective, goals, and social relationships. Press. Psychology and Aging, 17, 125-139. Higgins, E.T. (1987). Self-discrepancy: A theory relat­ Lawton, M. P., & Nahemow, L. (1973). Ecology and the ing self and affect. Psychological Review, 94, aging process. In C. Eisdorfer & M. P. Lawton 319-340. (Eds.), The psychology of adult development and ag­ Jenkins, J. J. (1979). Four points to remember: A tetrahe­ ing (pp. 619-674). Washington, DC: American dral model of memory experiments. In L. S. Cer­ Psychological Association. mak & F. I. M. Craik (Eds.), Levels of processing in Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. New human memory. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. York: Oxford University Press. Judge, T. A., Erez, A., Bono, J. E., & Thoresen, C. J. Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (1994). Toward (2002). Are measures of self-esteem, neuroticism, a unifying social-cognitive theory of career and aca­ locus of control, and generalized self-efficacy indi­ demic interest, choice, and performance. Journal of cators of a common core construct? Journal of Per­ Vocational Behavior, 45, 79-122. sonality and Social Psychology, 83, 693-710. Leveille, S. G., Cohen-Mansfield, J., & Guralnik, J.M. Kagan, J. (1998). Three seductive ideas. Cambridge, MA: (2003). The impact of chronic musculoskeletal Harvard University Press. pain on exercise attitudes, self-efficacy, and physical King, V., & Elder, G. H. Jr. (1998). Self-efficacy and activity. Journal of Aging and Physical Activity, 11, grandparenthood. Journals of Gerontology Series B, 275-283. Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 53, Levy, B. R., Hausdorff, J. M., Hencke, R., & Wei, J. Y. 249-257. (2000). Reducing cardiovascular stress with positive Kohn, M. L., & Schooler, C. (I 983). Work and personal­ self-stereotypes of aging. Journals of Gerontology Se­ ity: An inquiry into the impact of social stratifica­ ries B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, tion. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. 55B, P205-P213. Kruger, J., & Dunning, D. (1999). Unskilled and un­ Levy, B. R., Slade, M. D., & Kasi, S. V. (2002). Longitu­ aware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one's dinal benefit of positive self.perceptions of aging on own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. functional health. Journals of Gerontology Series B: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 57B, 1121-1134. P409-P417. Kruglanski, A. W., Shah, J. Y., Fishbach, A., Friedman, Levy, B. R., Slade, M. D., Kunkel, S. R., & Kasi, S. V. ' R., Chun, W. Y., & Sleeth-Keppler, D. (2002). (2002). Longevity increased by positive self­ A theory of goal-systems. In M. Zanna (Ed.), perceptions of aging. Journal of Personality and So­ Advances in experimental social psychology (vol. 34; cial Psychology, 83, 261-270. pp. 331-378). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Li, F., McAuley, E., Harmer, P., Duncan, T. E., & Kwok, S., & Wong, D. (2000). Mental health of parents Chaumeton, N. R. (2001). Tai chi enhances self­ with young children in Hong Kong: The roles of efficacy and exercise behavior in older adults. Jour­ parenting stress and parenting self-efficacy. Child nal ofAging and Physical Activity. 9, 161-171. and Family Social Work, 15, 57-65. Lickliter, R., & Honeycutt, H. (2003a). Developmental Labouvie-Vief, G. (1930). Beyond formal operations: dynamics: Toward a biologically plausible evolu­ Uses and limits of pure logic in life-span develop­ tionary psychology. Psychological Bulletin, 129, ment. Human Development, 23, 141-161. 819-835. SELF-EFFICACY AND ADULT DEVELOPMENT 193

Lickliter, R., & Honeycutt, H. (2003b). Developmental McDougall, G. H. (1998). Increasing memory self­ dynamics and contemporary evolutionary psychol­ efficacy use in Hispanic elders. Clinical Gerontolo­ ogy: Status quo or irreconcilable views? Reply to gist, 19, 57-76. Bjorklund (2003), Krebs (2003), Buss and Reeve McDowd, J.M., & Birren, J.E. (1990). Aging and atten­ (2003), Crawford (2003), and Tooby et al. (2003). tional processes. In J. E. Birren & K. W. Schaie Psychological Bulletin, 129, 866-872. (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of aging (3rd Lineweaver, T. T., & Hertzog, C. (1998). Adults' efficacy ed., pp. 222-233). New York: Academic Press. and control beliefs regarding memory and aging: McDowd, J.M., Filion, D. L., Pohl, P. S., Richards, L. Separating general from personal beliefs. Aging: G., & Stiers, W. (2003). Attentional abilities and Neuropsychology and Cognition, 5, 264-296. functional outcomes following stroke. Journal of Litt, M. D., Kleppinger, A., & Judge, J. 0. (2002). Initia­ Gerontology, 58B, P45-P53. tion and maintenance of exercise behavior in older Mikulecky, L., Lloyd, P., Siemental, P., & Masker, S. women: Predictors from the social learning model. ( 1998). Transfer beyond workplace literacy classes: Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 25, 83-97. Twelve case studies and a model. Reading Psychol­ Little, T. D., Miyashita, T., Karasawa, M., Mashima, M., ogy, 19, 51-138. Oettingen, G., Azuma, H., & Baltes, P. B. (2003). Miller, L. C., Putcha-Bhagavatula, A., & Pedersen, W. The links among action-control beliefs, intellective C. (2002). Men's and women's mating preferences: skill, and school performance in Japanese, US, and Distinct evolutionary mechanisms? Current Direc­ German school children. International Journal of tions in Psychological Science, 11, 88-93. Behavioral Development. 27, 41-48. Mischel, W. (1973). Toward a cognitive social learning Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal reconceptualization of personality. Psychological setting and task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Review, 80, 252-283. Prentice Hall. Mischel, W. (2004). Toward an integrative science of the Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. New person. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 1-22. York: Oxford University Press. Mischel, W., & Mendoza-Denton, R. (2003). Harnass­ Magnusson, D. (1996). The lifespan development of ing willpower and socioemotional intelligence to individuals: Behavioral, neurobiological, and psy­ enhance human agency and potential. In L. G. As­ chosocial perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge pinwall & U. M. Staudinger (Eds.), A psychology of University Press. human strengths: Fundamental questions and future Magnusson, D., & Mahoney, J. L. (2003). A holistic per­ directions for a positive psychology (pp. 211-226). son approach for research on positive development. Washington, DC: American Psychological Associa­ In L. G. Aspinwall & U. M. Staudinger (Eds.), A tion. psychology of human strengths: Fundamental ques­ Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (1995). A cognitive-affective tions and future directions for a positive psychology system theory of personality: Reconceptualizing sit­ (pp. 227-243). Washington, DC: American Psy­ uations, dispositions, dynamics, and invariance in chological Association. personality structure. Psychological Review, 102, Magnusson,.D., & Tiirestad, B. ( 1993). A holistic view of 246-286. personality: A model revisited. Annual Review of Molenaar, P. C. M., Huizenga, H. M., & Nesselroade, J. Psychology, 44, 427-452. R. (2002). The relationship between the structure Maurer, T. J. (2001). Career-relevant learning and devel­ of inter-individual and intra-individual variability: A opment, worker age, and beliefs about self-efficacy theoretical and empirical vindication of develop­ for development. Journal of Management, 27, mental systems theory. In U. M. Staudinger & U. 123-140. Lindenberger (Eds.), Understanding human devel­ Maurer, T. J., Weiss, E. M., & Barbeite, F. G. (2003). A opment (pp. 339-360). Dordrecht: Kluwer. model of investment in work-related learning and Nowak, A., Vallacher, R. R., & Zochowski, M (2002). The development activity: The effects of individual, sit­ emergence of personality: Personal stability through uational, motivational, and age variables. Journal of interpersonal synchronization. In D. Cervone & W. Applied Psychology, 88, 707-724. Mischel (Eds.), Advances in personality science (pp. McCormick, J., & McPherson, G. (2003). The role of 292-331). New York: Guilford Press. self-efficacy in a musical performance examination: Park, D. C., Lautenschlager, G., Hedden, T., Davidson, An exploratory structural equation analysis. Psychol­ N., Smith, A. D., & Smith, P. (2002). Models of vi­ ogy of Music, 31, 37-50. suospatial and verbal memory across the adult life McCrae, R.R., & Costa, P. T. (1996). Toward a new gen­ span. Psychology and Aging, 17, 299-320. eration of personality theories: theoretical contexts Poon, L. W., Rubin, D. C., & Wilson, B. A. (1989). for the five-factor model. In J. S. Wiggins (Ed.), The Everyday cognition in adulthood and late life. New five-factor model of personality: Theoretical perspec­ York: Cambridge University Press. tives (pp. 51-87). New York: Guilford Press. Prohaska, T. R., Peters, K., & Warren, J. S. (2000). McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (2003). Personality in Sources of attrition in a church-based exercise pro­ adulthood: A five-factor theory perspective (2nd gram for older African-Americans. American Jour­ ed.). New York: Guilford Press. nal of Health Promotion, 14, 380-385. 194 THE SELF-SYSTEM IN ADULT DEVELOPMENT AND LEARNING

Pulkkinen, L., Nurmi, J., & Kokko, K. (2002). Individ­ Salthouse, T. A. (1984). Effects of age and skill in typing. ual differences in personal goals in mid-thirties. In foumal of Exeperimental Psychology: General, 70, L. Pulkkinen & A. Caspi (Eds.), Paths to successful 345-371. development: Personality in the life course (pp. Salthouse, T. A. (1991). Theoretical perspectives on cogni­ 331-352). Cambridge: Cambridge University tive aging. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Press. Salthouse, T. A., Berish, D. E., & Miles, J. D. (2002). Raz, N. (2000). Aging of the brain and its impact on cog­ The role of cognitive stimulation on the relations nitive performance: Integration of structural and between age and cognitive functioning. Psychology functional findings. In F. I. M. Craik, & T. A Salt­ and Aging, 17, 548-557. house (Eds.), The handbook of aging and cognition Schaie, K. W. (1996). Intellectual development in adult­ (2nd ed., pp. 1-90). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. hood. In J.E. Birren & K. W. Shaie (Eds.), Handbook Reid, M. C., Williams, C. S., & Gill, T. M. (2003). The of the psychology ofaging (4th ed., pp. 266-286). San relationship between psychological factors and dis­ Diego, CA: Academic Press. abling musculoskeletal pain in community­ Schmidt, A. M., & Ford, J. K. (2003). Leaming within a dwelling older persons. foumal of the American learner control training environment: The interac­ Geriatrics Society, 51, !092-1098. tive effects of goal orientation and metacognitive Reitman, W. R. (1964). Heuristic decision procedures, instruction on learning outcomes. Personnel Psy­ open constraints, and the structure of ill-defined chology, 56, 405-429. problems. In M. W. Shelly & G. K. Bryan (Eds.), Schunk, D. H., & Gunn, T. P. (1986). Self-efficacy and Human judgments and optimality (pp. 282-3 I 5). skill development: Influence of task strategies and New York: Wiley. attributions. foumal of Personality and Social Psy­ Rejeski, W. J., Ettinger, W. H., Martin, K., & Morgan, T. chology, 79, 238-244. (1998). Treating disability in knee osteoarthritis Schunk, D. H., & Pajares, F. (2002). The development with exercise therapy: A central role for self-efficacy of academic self-efficacy. In A Wigfield & J. Eccles and pain. Arthritis Care and Research, 11, 94-101. (Eds.), Development of achievement motivation. A Roberts, W. A (2002). Are animals stuck in time? Psy­ volume in the educational psychology series (pp. chological Bulletin, 128, 473-489. 15-31 ). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Rohrbauch, M. J., Shoham, V., Coyne, J.C., Cranford, Searle, J. R. (1998). Mind, language, and society: Philos­ J. A., Sonnega, J. S., & Niklas, J.M. (2004). Beyond ophy in the real world. New York: Basic Books the "self" in self-efficacy: Spouse confidence pre­ Seeman, T., McAvay, G., Merrill, S., & Albert, M., et al. dicts patient survival following heart failure. /oumal ( 1996). Self-efficacy beliefs and change in cognitive of Family Psychology, 18, 184-193. performance: MacArthur studies on successful ag­ Rotter, J.B. (1954). Social learning and clinical psychol­ ing. Psychology and Aging, 11, 538-551. ogy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Seeman, T. E., Rodin,J., & Albert, M. (1993). Self-efficacy Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for inter­ and cognitive performance in high-functioning nal versus external control of reinforcement. Psy­ older individuals: MacArthur studies of successful chological Monographs, 80. aging. Journal of Aging and Health, 5, 455-474. Rottinghaus, P. J., Larson, L. M., & Borgen, F. H. Seeman, T. E., Unger, J.B., McAvay, G., & Mendes de (2003 ). The relation of self-efficacy and interests: A Leon, C. F. (1999). Self-efficacy beliefs and per­ meta-analysis of 60 samples. foumal of Vocational ceived declines in functional ability: MacArthur Behavior, 62, 221-236. studies of successful aging. foumals of Gerontology Rowe, J. W., & Kahn, R. L. (1987). Human aging: Usual Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sci­ and successful. Science, 237, 143-149. ences, 54B, P214-P222. Rowe, J. W., & Kahn, R. L. (1997). Successful aging. Sherer, M., Maddux, J. E., Mercandante, B., Prentice­ Gerontologist, 37, 433-440. Dunn, B. J., & Rogers, R. W. (1982). The self. Russell, J. A (2003). Core affect and the psychological efficacy scale: Construction and validation. construction of emotion. Psychological Review, 110, Psychological Reports, 51, 663-671. 145-172. Silvia, P. J. (2003). Self-efficacy and interest: Experimen­ Rxbash, J. M., Hoyer, W. J., & Roodin, P. A (1986). tal studies of optimal incompetence. /oumal of Vo­ Adult cognition and aging: Developmental changes cation Behavior, 62, 237-249. in processing, knowing and thinking. Elmsford, NY: Simon, H. A. (1973). The structure of ill structured prob­ Pergamon Press. lems. Artificial Intelligence, 4, 145-180. Rypma, B., Prabhakaran, V., Desmond, J. E., & Sinnott, J. D. (1989). Everyday problem solving: theory Gabrieli, J. D. E. (2001). Age differences in pre­ and applications. New York: Praeger. frontal cortical activity in working memory. Psy­ Sinnott, J. D. (1998). The development of logic in adult­ chology and Aging, 16, 371-384. hood: Postformal thought and its applications. New Sahu, F. M., & Sageeta, R. (2004). Self-efficacy and York: Plenum. well-being in working and non-working women: Skinner, E. A. ( 1996). A guide to constructs of control. The moderating role of involvement. Psychology Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, and Developing Societies, 15, 187-200. 549-570. SELF-EFFICACY AND ADULT DEVELOPMENT 195

Srivastava, S., John, 0. P., Gosling, S. D., & Potter, J. tion for the unemployed. Journal of Applied Psy­ (2003). Development of personality in early and chology, 76, 213-219. middle adulthood: Set like plaster or persistent Weitlauf, J., Cervone, D., Smith, R. E., & Wright, P. M. change? fournal of Personality and Social Psychol­ (2001). Assessing generalization in perceived self­ ogy, 84, 1041-1053. efficacy: Multidomain and global assessments of the Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, F. (1998). Self-efficacy and effects of self-defense training for women. Personal­ work-related performance: A meta-analysis. Psycho­ ity and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1683-1691. logical Bulletin, 124, 240-261. Welch, D. C., & West, R. L. (1995). Self-efficacy and Staudinger, U. M., Freund, A. M., Linden, M., & Mass, mastery: Its application to issues of environmental I. ( 1999). Self, personality, and life regulation: control, cognition, and aging. Developmental Re­ Facets of psychological resilience in old age. In P. view, 15, 150-171. B. Baltes & K. U. Mayer (Eds.), The Berlin aging West, R. L., & Berry, J. M. ( 1994). Age declines in mem­ study: Aging from 70 to 100 (pp. 302-328). Cam­ ory self-efficacy: General or limited to particular bridge: Cambridge University Press. tasks and measures? In J. D. Sinnott (Ed.), Interdis­ Suddendorf, T., & Corballis, M. C. ( 1997) Mental time ciplinary handbook of adult lifespan learning (pp. travel and the evolution of the human mind. Gene­ 426-445). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. tic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, West, R. L., Thom, R. M., & Bagwell, D. (2003). Mem­ 123, 133-167. ory performance and beliefs as a function of goal set­ Twenge, J. M. (2002). Birth cohort, social change, and ting and aging. Psychology and Aging, 18, 111-125. personality: The interplay of dysphoria and individ­ West, R. L., Welch, D. C., & Knabb, P. D. (2002). Gender ualism in the 20th century. In D. Cervone & W. and aging: Spatial self-efficacy and location recall. Mischel (Eds.), Advances in personality science (pp. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 24, 71-80. 196-218). New York: Guilford Press. West, R. L., Welch, D. C., & Thorn, R. M. (2001). Ef­ Twenge, J.M., Zhang, L., & Im, C. (2004). It's beyond my fects of goal-setting and feedback on memory per­ control: A cross-temporal meta-analysis of increasing formance and beliefs among older and younger extemality in locus of control, 1960-2002. Personality adults. Psychology and Aging, 16, 240-250. and Social Psychology Review, 8, 308-391. Williamson, A. (2000). Gender issues in older adults' United Nations Population Fund (2002). State of world participation in learning: viewpoints and experi­ population 2002: People, poverty, and possibilities. ences of learners in the University of Third Age. New York: United Nations. Education Gerontology, 26, 49-60. van Ryn, M., & Vinokur, A. D. ( 1992). How did it work? Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (2002). A cross-cultural analy­ An examination of the mechanisms through which sis of the behavior of women and men: Implica­ an intervention for the unemployed promoted job­ tions for the origins of sex differences. Psychological search behavior. American Journal of Community Bulletin, 128, 699-727. Psychology, 20, 577-597. Young, J. F., & Mroczek, D. K. (2003). Predicting in­ Verhaeghen, P., Marcoen, A., & Goossens, L. ( 1993 ). traindividual self-concept trajectories during ado­ Facts and fiction about memory aging: A quantita­ lescence. Journal ofAdolescence, 26, 589-603. tive integration of research findings. fournal of Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Achieving academic excel­ Gerontology, 48, Pl57-Pl71. lence: A self-regulatory perspective. In M. Ferrari Vinokur, A. D., van Ryn, M., Gramlich, E. M., & Price, (Ed), The pursuit of excellence through education. R. H. ( 1991 ). Long-term follow-up and benefit-cost The educational psychology series (pp. 85-110). analysis of the Jobs Program: A preventive interven- Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.