INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY, 2004, 39 (3), 205–230

Optimism and realism: A review of self-efficacy from a

cross-cultural perspective

Robert M. Klassen
Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, Canada

T his review critically examines much of the research investigating self-efficacy beliefs through cross-cultural
comparisons. Two sets of cross-cultural comparison groups are examined: Asian (or immigrant Asian)
versus Western, and Eastern European versus Western European and American groups. After an introduction
to self-efficacy theory, some cross-cultural aspects of self and self-beliefs are discussed, and the cultural
dimensions of individualism and collectivism are introduced. Analysis of the articles focuses on differences in
levels of efficacy beliefs, calibration of beliefs with performance, methodological problems, and implications for
practice. Almost all of the 20 studies reviewed found efficacy beliefs to be lower for non-Western cultural
groups, but in some cases these lower beliefs were more predictive of subsequent functioning. There is some
evidence that the mean efficacy beliefs of a cultural group are modified through immigration or political
changes. For some non-Western groups, collective efficacy appears to operate in much the same way as self-
efficacy operates for Western groups. Realistic—as opposed to optimistic—efficacy beliefs do not necessarily
predict poor performance for all cultural groups, as has been suggested by self-efficacy theory. Only a minority
of the studies included measurement of cultural dimensions such as individualism and collectivism, although
most of the studies based conclusions on assumed cultural differences. In some cases, self-efficacy was poorly
defined and bore little resemblance to theoretically derived definitions. Conclusions from this research have
implications especially for applied settings in education and business: Efficacy beliefs and performance appear
to be enhanced when training approaches are congruent with the individual’s sense of self. Lower levels of self-
efficacy beliefs found in some collectivist groups do not always signify lower subsequent performance, but are
instead reflective of differing construals of self.

C ette recension examine d’une manière critique la plupart des recherches étudiant les croyances d’efficacité
personnelle par des comparaisons transculturelles. Deux types de comparaison transculturelle sont
examinés: les groupes asiatiques (ou immigrants asiatiques) versus occidentaux et les groupes d’Europe de l’Est
versus américains. Suite à une introduction à la théorie de l’efficacité personnelle, des aspects transculturels du
soi et des croyances reliées au soi sont discutés et les dimensions culturelles de l’individualisme et du
collectivisme sont introduites. L’analyse de ces articles est axée sur les différences dans les niveaux de croyances
d’efficacité, le calibrage des croyances avec la performance, les problèmes méthodologiques et les implications
pour la pratique. Presque toutes les 20 études recensées ont trouvé que les croyances d’efficacité sont plus faibles
pour les groupes culturels non occidentaux, mais dans certains cas, ces croyances inférieures étaient davantage
prédictives du fonctionnement subséquent. Il existe des évidences que les croyances d’efficacité moyennes d’un
groupe culturel sont modifiées par l’immigration ou les changements politiques. Pour certains groupes non
occidentaux, l’efficacité collective apparaı̂t opérer sensiblement de la même façon que l’efficacité personnelle
chez les groupes occidentaux. Les croyances d’efficacité réalistes – en opposition aux croyances optimistes – ne
prédisent pas nécessairement la pauvre performance pour tous les groupes culturels, tel que suggéré par la
théorie de l’efficacité personnelle. Seulement une minorité des études ont inclus une mesure des dimensions
culturelles comme l’individualisme et le collectivisme, quoique la plupart des études aient basé leurs conclusions
sur des différences culturelles présumées. Dans certains cas, l’efficacité personnelle était pauvrement définie et
présentait peu de ressemblance avec les définitions tirées de la théorie. Les conclusions de cette recherche ont des
implications spécialement pour les milieux appliqués de l’éducation et du travail: les croyances d’efficacité et la
performance apparaissent être augmentées quand les approches d’entraı̂nement sont congruentes avec le sens de
soi de l’individu. Les niveaux inférieurs de croyances d’efficacité personnelle trouvés chez certains groupes

Correspondence should be addressed to Robert M. Klassen, 13624 Blackburn Ave., White Rock, BC Canada, V4B 2Y8
(E-mail: robert_klassen@hotmail.com).

# 2004 International Union of Psychological Science

http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/pp/00207594.html DOI: 10.1080/00207590344000330
206 KLASSEN

collectivistes ne signifient pas toujours une plus faible performance subséquente, mais sont plutôt le reflet de
construits différents du soi.

E sta reseña examina de una manera crı́tica la mayor parte de la investigación sobre creencias de auto
eficacia por medio de comparaciones transculturales. Se examinó dos series de grupos de comparación
transcultural: asiáticos (o de inmigrantes asiáticos) versus occidentales, europeos del este versus europeos
occidentales y estadounidenses. Después de una introducción a la teorı́a de la auto eficacia, se discute sobre
algunos aspectos transculturales del sı́ mismo y de las creencias de sı́ mismo, y se introducen las dimensiones
culturales de individualismo y colectivismo. El análisis de los artı́culos se enfoca a las diferencias en los niveles
de las creencias de eficacia, la calibración de las creencias con el desempeño, problemas metodológicos, y las
implicaciones para la práctica. Casi todos los 20 estudios reseñados encontraron que los grupos culturales no
occidentales mostraban una eficacia más baja, pero en algunos casos, las creencias más bajas predecı́an mejor el
funcionamiento subsiguiente. Existen datos de que las creencias de eficacia promedio de un grupo cultural se
modifican por medio de la inmigración y los cambios polı́ticos. Para algunos grupos no occidentales, la eficacia
colectiva opera aparentemente de la misma manera en la que opera la auto eficacia para los grupos occidentales.
Las creencias de eficacia realistas—opuestas a optimistas—no predicen necesariamente un desempeño deficiente
para todos los grupos culturales, como lo ha sugerido la teorı́a de la auto eficacia. Sólo una minorı́a de los
estudios incluyó medidas de dimensiones culturales, tales como individualismo y colectivismo, aunque la
mayorı́a basó sus conclusiones en diferencias culturales supuestas. En algunos casos, las definiciones de auto
eficacia no eran adecuadas, y mantenı́an poco parecido con las definiciones derivadas de la teorı́a. Las
conclusiones de este estudio tienen implicaciones especialmente para contextos educativos o laborales aplicados:
las creencias de eficacia y el desempeño parecen mejorar cuando los enfoques del entrenamiento son
congruentes con el sentido de sı́ mismo del individuo. Los niveles más bajos de creencias de auto eficacia que se
han encontrado en algunos grupos colectivistas no siempre significan un desempeño subsiguiente más bajo, sino
que reflejan construals del sı́ mismo que difieren entre sı́.

INTRODUCTION ‘‘me’’ and make up ‘‘what we bring to mind when

Psychological theories are often built upon
unexamined cultural assumptions (Triandis,
1996), with the result that ‘‘our theories often
reflect our culture’’ (p. 407). Pajares (2000) calls
for a ‘‘culturally attentive’’ educational psycho-
logy that investigates human functioning in a
range of social and cultural settings. Considerable
research has been devoted to the study of self-
efficacy beliefs in education (e.g., Pajares &
Schunk, 2000; Zimmerman, 2000) and diverse
fields such as health, athletics, and business (see
Bandura, 1997), but most of the work has been
situated in Western, usually American, settings.
Even though self-efficacy has been shown to be a
strong predictor of performance with Western
populations, less is known about how self-efficacy
beliefs operate with non-Western individuals and
cultural groups. Conducting research from a
cross-cultural perspective enhances understanding
of the relationship between culture and self and
increases the generalizability of theories that
explain self-functioning (Marsh, Hau, & Kong,
2002). Pajares (2000) submits that cross-cultural
research can help clarify how different cultural
practices shape self-efficacy beliefs, and how
efficacy beliefs might operate as a function of
culture.
Efficacy beliefs are typically ‘‘self ’’-beliefs: They
consist of statements and thoughts about ‘‘I’’ and
we think about ourselves’’ (Neisser, 1997, p. 4). In
a Western context, perceptions of efficacy are
reported to influence perseverance, resilience, and
task choice (Bandura, 1997). Various researchers
(see Pajares & Graham, 1999) have found self-
efficacy beliefs to be stronger predictors of
subsequent performance than past performance
or other motivation constructs. Bandura pro-
pounds that optimistic efficacy beliefs produce
superior levels of functioning, whereas realistic
efficacy beliefs undermine functioning: ‘‘Human
accomplishments and positive well-being require
an optimistic sense of personal efficacy ….
Realists either forsake the venture, abort their
efforts prematurely when difficulties arise, or
become cynical about the prospects of effecting
significant changes’’ (Bandura, 1995, pp.11–12).
But a particular way of thinking about our selves
may not be universally held: Markus and
Kitayama (1991) propose that self-phenomena
may assume a different form according to the
culturally influenced relationship of self with
others, as described by the cultural dimensions
of independence and interdependence, or indivi-
dualism and collectivism.
Like many psychological theories that aspire to
universal relevance, self-efficacy has been con-
ceived and studied almost exclusively in Western
settings, with little attention paid to the 70% of
humans with non-Western cultural backgrounds

(Triandis, 1995). Cross-cultural research tests ‘‘the
generality of existing psychological theories in
diverse cultural contexts’’ (Miller, 2002) with the
aim of developing more universal explanations of
behaviour. (For the purpose of this paper, the
admittedly problematic terms ‘‘Western’’ and
‘‘Eastern or non-Western’’ are used to denote
culturally Western [American, Canadian, Western
European, Australian; often individualist] and
culturally Eastern [Asian, Eastern and Southern
European; often collectivist] people groups. It is
acknowledged that—as noted by Tweed and
Lehman, 2002—dichotomous cultural labels
always oversimplify rich and complex cultural
differences.)
This paper reviews the literature—primarily in
academic settings, but also including business or
vocational settings—that investigates self-efficacy
beliefs from a cross-cultural perspective. I begin
by briefly describing self-efficacy and its forma-
tion. The dimensions of individualism and
collectivism (I/C) are used to frame an examina-
tion of cultural influence, and differences in the
concept of self in individualist and collectivist
cultures are discussed. Next, I report Bandura’s
‘‘defense’’ of how self-efficacy remains valid in
collectivist settings. Because the cross-cultural
self-efficacy literature in any one domain is rela-
tively limited, I have included studies in academic
and vocational settings that assess efficacy beliefs.
Most of the studies found in the search for this
review involve Asian or Asian immigrant popula-
tions, while a second cluster of studies include
comparisons of Eastern European and Western
European national/cultural groups. The central
questions addressed in this paper are How does
self-efficacy vary across cultures? and Do self-
efficacy beliefs appear to be influenced by the
cultural dimensions of individualism and collecti-
vism? Additionally, the concept of group or
collective efficacy is briefly explored, first as
presented by Bandura, then as presented in the
cross-cultural literature. Finally, I conclude with a
discussion of the practical and theoretical impli-
cations of the findings from this review, and I
make recommendations for future research.
Self-efficacy and its sources
Self-efficacy refers to ‘‘beliefs in one’s capabilities
to organize and execute the courses of action
required to produce given attainments’’ (Bandura,
1997, p. 3). Whereas self-esteem concerns itself
with personal judgments of self-worth, and self-
concept typically refers to a composite self-image
OPTIMISM AND REALISM 207
adopted from the views of others, self-efficacy is
concerned with judgments of ‘‘personal capabil-
ity,’’ and is usually situated in a specific domain.
According to Bandura (e.g., 1995), reasonably
optimistic efficacy beliefs are essential for optimal
functioning. Realistic efficacy beliefs, in fact, are
claimed to hinder significant accomplishments:
One rarely finds realists in the ranks of
innovators and great achievers … The successful,
the venturesome, the sociable … and the
innovators take an optimistic view of their
personal capabilities to exercise influence over
events that affect their lives … such (optimistic)
personal beliefs foster positive well-being and
human accomplishments
(Bandura, 1995, p. 13).
In investigations of self-efficacy in Western
settings, there are many examples of optimism
and overconfidence to complete academic tasks
(e.g., Bandura, 1997; Pajares, 1996). These opti-
mistic estimates of one’s efficacy are hypothesized
to increase effort and persistence, and to promote
accomplishment in challenging circumstances.
Self-efficacy beliefs are formed from four main
sources. First, mastery or enactive experiences
provide direct evidence that one has been capable
of performing a certain task. Bandura (1995,
1997) proposes that mastery experience is in most
cases the strongest source of efficacy beliefs. A
person might learn through vicarious experience,
which refers to the evidence from similar others
that the task is manageable. Observation of
successful others raises the chance of success,
whereas observation of failures undermines moti-
vation. Third, social persuasion can strengthen
efficacy beliefs and persuade people that a task
can be successfully completed. Finally, self-
efficacy beliefs are formed through an analysis
of one’s physiological or emotional state. Cultural
context or cultural dimension—like individualism
and collectivism—may influence any or all of the
four proposed sources of efficacy beliefs.
Individualism and collectivism
The cultural dimensions of individualism/
collectivism (also referred to as independence/
interdependence) refer to the degree of separate-
ness and connectedness of individuals and groups
(Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Triandis, 1995,
2001). Individualist cultures tend to emphasize
‘‘I’’ consciousness, independence, individual
initiative, and right to privacy (Kim, Triandis,
Kagitcibasi, Choi, & Yoon, 1994). In contrast,
208 KLASSEN
collectivist cultures have a tendency to stress ‘‘we’’
consciousness, collective identity, group solidarity,
and duty (Kim et al., 1994). It is important to
note that these dichotomous categories in fact
should be viewed as separate continua, and that
there is considerable variation within cultural
groups, and even within individuals, according to
changing settings (Sinha & Tripathi, 1994). The
individualism and collectivism (I/C) concepts
applied to individuals are termed idiocentrism
and allocentrism, respectively; this terminology
allows for discussion of idiocentrics in collectivist
culture, and allocentrics in individualist cultures
(Triandis, 1990).
Cross-cultural researchers have classified coun-
tries and cultural groups according to degree of
individualism and collectivism. Hofstede’s seminal
work (1980) rated the United States as the most
individualist of 40 countries, followed closely
by Australia, Great Britain, and Canada. All
Western European countries were rated in the top
half of the index of individualism; Asian countries
were all rated in the bottom half, as were
Yugoslavia, Mexico, and South American coun-
tries. In the meta-analysis conducted by Oyser-
man, Coon, and Kemmelmeier (2002), it was seen
that European Americans were considerably more
individualist than respondents from Hong Kong,
India, China, Japan, Korea, Poland, Singapore, and
Taiwan. The overall collectivism results showed that
American respondents were significantly less
collectivist than respondents from Hong Kong,
India, Indonesia, Israel, Japan, China, Taiwan,
Brazil, Mexico, and Nigeria. Within the United
States, Oyserman et al. found that European
Americans were higher in individualism and lower
in collectivism than Asian Americans. Other
researchers (Coon & Kemmelmeier, 2001;
Gaines et al., 1997) reported similar findings,
with European Americans scoring lower on
measures of collectivism than Asian Americans.
There has been recent criticism of the I/C
dimensions. Fiske (2002) argues that individual-
ism is based on how Americans wish to perceive
themselves, whereas collectivism is a simplistic
representation of the ‘‘antithetical other’’ (p. 84).
The use of self-report and surveys to measure
cultural dimensions has been questioned (Bond,
2002; Kitayama, 2002) and characterized as
distorted and biased (Fiske, 2002). Oyserman
et al. (2002) concluded that there is evidence that
these cultural dimensions do influence psycholo-
gical processes, but ‘‘the empirical basis for this
conclusion is not as firm as might be desired’’
(p. 43). In the same way, Voronov and Singer
(2002) suggest that I/C factors are too frequently
‘‘assumed rather than measured’’ (p. 468) and that
poverty, rather than any psychological variable, is
responsible for collectivist practices in many non-
Western settings. Bandura (2002) suggests that
cross-cultural efficacy research using the I/C
framework can lead to misleading findings:
Across-group analyses may mask important
within-group differences, and findings of lower
efficacy beliefs in one cultural group do not
necessarily suggest that efficacy is a less important
motivation variable for all members of that
culture.
In response to these and other criticisms, the
I/C framework continues to be refined (e.g.,
including horizontal and vertical dimensions of
individualism and collectivism), and continues to
have a large impact on psychology (Triandis,
2001). Recent research conducted by Heine
and colleagues (e.g., Heine, Lehman, Peng, &
Greenholtz, in press) provides strong empirical
support for the existence of I/C differences across
East Asian and Western cultures. Heine et al.
propose that between-culture differences are often
confounded by the reference-group effect; that is,
people from contrasting cultures tend to have
referents based on their own culture, which masks
genuine between-group differences in cross-
cultural comparisons.
Bandura’s defence of self-efficacy in
collectivist settings
Self-efficacy theory, with its emphasis on personal
control—‘‘People guide their lives by their beliefs
of personal efficacy’’ and ‘‘Beliefs of personal
efficacy constitute the key factor of human
agency’’ (Bandura, 1997, p. 3)—is firmly seated
in a Western, independent, individualist context.
However, Bandura (1997, 2002) rejects the notion
that self-efficacy plays a lesser role in collectivist
cultures: ‘‘People live their lives neither entirely
autonomously nor entirely interdependently in
any society … Interdependence does not obliter-
ate a personal self’’ (1997, p. 32). He points out
that groups within the collectivist dimension vary
greatly, and that individuals, too, adjust their
behaviour depending on the context. With in-
group members, collectivists display a high level
of communalism; with out-group members, col-
lectivists behave differently. Self-efficacy, Bandura
argues (1997, 2002), is as important for collecti-
vists who carry out collectively oriented tasks, as
it is for individualists who focus on individually
based tasks. Bandura is hesitant to embrace the

idea that a differently construed self might negate
the influence of self-efficacy beliefs. He argues
that personal efficacy is equally valued by
collectivists because ‘‘without a resilient sense of
self, people are easily overwhelmed by adversities
in their attempts to improve their group life
through collective effort’’ (1997, p. 32). What
Bandura rejects, then, is the idea that the self
might vary in its fundamental composition in a
different cultural setting; that is, by claiming that
‘‘a resilient sense of (personal, private) self ’’ is
essential for achievement, he seems to deny the
existence of ‘‘we’’ consciousness (to the exclusion
of an ‘‘I’’-referenced self) referred to by Kim et al.
(1994).
Collective efficacy
Bandura does make reference to a group-level
efficacy belief—collective efficacy—which is
defined as ‘‘a group’s shared belief in its conjoint
capabilities to organize and execute the courses
of action required to produce given levels of
attainments’’ (1997, p. 477). Collective efficacy is
not defined by Bandura as a collectivist substitute
for self-efficacy, but rather as a separate, group-
oriented attribute that acts in addition to self-
efficacy, and is ‘‘rooted in self-efficacy’’ (1997,
p. 480). Recently, research has been conducted
investigating the collective efficacy of schools
(e.g., Goddard, 2001; Goddard, Hoy, & Woolfolk
Hoy, 2000). Other units of ‘‘collectiveness’’ that
have been investigated include classroom, work
unit, sports team, and cultural group (Bandura,
1997). As will be seen below, several researchers
(Earley, 1993, 1994; Earley, Gibson, & Chen, 1999;
Lam, Chen, & Schaubroeck, 2002; Schaubroeck,
Lam, & Xie, 2000) have found disparities in the
ways in which collective or group efficacy operate
across cultures.
METHOD
Search procedure
Two electronic databases—ERIC and PsycINFO—
were searched for the time period 1977–2002 for
the terms ‘‘self-efficacy or collective efficacy’’ and
‘‘cross-cultural or multi-cultural’’ in ABSTRACT.
The beginning of the time period chosen reflects
the publication of Bandura’s publication (1977) of
Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of beha-
vioral change, which is generally acknowledged to
herald the beginning of self-efficacy research.
OPTIMISM AND REALISM 209
Abstracts or (when necessary) articles from the
initial 150 hits were scanned for the inclusion of a
quantitative measure of self- or collective efficacy,
and for inclusion of cross-cultural or cross-
national comparison groupings. In order to
maximize the meaningfulness and generalizability
of the findings of the review, articles that focused
on areas (e.g., health) outside of the broad
domains of education and/or vocational/business
functioning were not included. Business and voca-
tional research was included because (a) some of
the most significant cross-cultural research has
been conducted in this field, and (b) parallels can
be readily drawn between the systems and orga-
nizational structures found in education and
business; i.e., both are concerned with the rela-
tionships between individuals, groups, leaders, and
‘‘work.’’ Cross-discipline research has been recom-
mended as a means of fostering cross-cultural
understanding of psychological phenomena
(Matsumoto, 2001).
Many of the articles found in the initial search
did not include other-culture comparison groups,
and so these studies were dropped from this
review. In order to limit this review to examina-
tion of differences in a single (albeit sometimes
poorly operationalized) construct, it was decided
to limit inclusion to those articles that used the
term ‘‘self-efficacy’’ or ‘‘collective/group efficacy.’’
This preliminary inspection reduced the 150
initial hits to a total of 26 articles that included
cross-cultural comparisons of (author-labelled)
efficacy beliefs in the broad domains of education
or business. Three studies were dropped from the
ensuing analysis due to comparison groups that
were not clearly defined (i.e., ‘‘Hispanic versus
non-Hispanic,’’ or ‘‘White versus racial and ethnic
minorities’’). An additional three studies were
dropped because of ‘‘singleton’’ cultural or national
comparisons (i.e., Australia versus South Africa)
that were not easily interpretable in conjunction
with the remainder of the studies, leaving a
sample size of 20 articles for the analysis. In light
of the stated purpose of this review, i.e., to
investigate differences in self-efficacy beliefs
across cultural groups, with a particular interest
in differences associated with the cultural dimen-
sions of individualism and collectivism, the
resulting 20 studies were classified and analysed
according to broad geographic/cultural groups.
The majority of the studies (13) assessed differ-
ences in self-efficacy between Asian (or Asian
American) and Western participants. A further
cluster of studies (four) examined differences in
efficacy beliefs between the presumably more
210 KLASSEN
collectivist inhabitants of Eastern European
countries and the presumably more individualist
citizens of Western European countries. One
study (Earley et al., 1999) included national
samples from the United States, an Asian country
(China), and an Eastern European country (the
Czech Republic)—results from this study are
discussed in each of the two sections. Finally,
two studies—Scholz, Gutiérrez-Doña, Sud, and
Schwarzer (2002), and Schwarzer and Born
(1997)—investigated general self-efficacy in
multiple contexts.
Only six of the studies included measures of
cultural dimensions (e.g., I/C) that might influence
efficacy beliefs. For the remainder of the studies,
these cultural values are discussed and attributed
to national groups according to previous empiri-
cal research and theorizing on that culture or
country of origin. Hofstede’s work (1980), and
that of more recent theorists and empirical
researchers (e.g., Oyserman et al., 2002; Triandis,
2001), provides some support for allying certain
cultural/national groups (e.g., Asian, especially
Chinese) with a collectivist orientation, and
European Americans, Canadians, and Western
Europeans with an individualist orientation.
Hofstede’s investigation included only the
former Yugoslavia out of the Eastern European
countries—he found a lower rating of individu-
alism in Yugoslavia than in all Western European
countries. Similarly, Oettingen (1995) discusses
the greater individualism of Western European
countries in contrast with the relative collectivism
of Eastern Europe.
Analysis
The principal questions addressed in this paper
are How does self-efficacy vary across cultures?
and Do self-efficacy beliefs appear to be influenced
by cultural dimensions like individualism and
collectivism? The included articles were analysed
for similarities and differences between the
contrasting cultural groups in (1) level of
measured self-efficacy beliefs, (2) relationship
between self-efficacy and performance, (3) emer-
ging themes or trends, (4) any discussion or
reference to cultural dimensions such as indivi-
dualism and collectivism that influence efficacy
beliefs, and (5) any surprising or unexpected
results. Furthermore, the studies as a whole were
examined for (1) common methodological pro-
blems, (2) gaps in the research, and finally (3)
implications for practice and further research. As
themes emerged, articles were re-examined for
convergence or divergence on the particular
trends and themes.
Although most of the studies included self-
efficacy as an independent variable predicting
performance, several of the studies assessed how
diverse independent variables resulted in changes
in self- and collective efficacy beliefs. In order to
keep the structure and themes of this review as
coherent as possible, analysis of the studies with
efficacy as a dependent variable focuses on across-
culture differences in levels of efficacy beliefs and
on the bivariate relationships involving efficacy
beliefs. In these cases, some secondary analysis
and discussion is also made about the relative
influence of variables predicting efficacy beliefs.
FINDINGS
Table 1 lists authors and publication dates,
cultural or national comparison groups, the
performance task and/or domain, the research
question and efficacy measure, a summary of the
levels of efficacy beliefs and the relationship of
efficacy and performance, and a summary of the
ways in which cultural dimensions are measured
or discussed. To begin, the studies were divided
according to cultural or national groups. Most of
the studies included ‘‘Western’’ participants from
the United States (12 studies) with further
representation from Canada, Australia, and
Western Europe. National groups represented in
the ‘‘Eastern’’ cultural groupings included China
(including Hong Kong), Taiwan, Thailand, India,
the Czech Republic, Poland, (the former) East
Germany, Hungary, and the former Soviet Union.
Asian immigrant groups from the United States,
Canada, and Australia were also represented.
(Ethnic group names used in the reviewed articles
are retained in this paper.) Much of the research
in this area has been conducted very recently, with
most (16 of 20) of the articles published between
1997 and 2002. The age-range and domains
investigated were evenly distributed, with four
studies involving school-aged children, three studies
including high school students, four involving
college undergraduates, and seven involving
managers/employees in business settings. (The
studies conducted by Scholz et al., 2002, and
Schwarzer & Born, 1997, are special cases that
investigated large numbers of countries—25 and
13, respectively—with diverse participants.) The
domains investigated included academic efficacy
(seven studies), efficacy for specific business tasks
 TABLE 1
Cross-cultural comparisons of self-efficacy beliefs
Cultural or national Research question
Author comparison groupsa Performance task or domain and self-efficacy measure
Comparisons involving Asian/Asian-heritage cultural groups
Cianni (1994) Asian American, Black, Self-efficacy for social How does ethnicity influence
Hispanic and White and vocational levels of vocational and
managers interaction social self-efficacy? SE scale:
15-item 5-point scale
assessing ‘‘confidence in
the ability to perform
specific tasks’’
Earley (1993) Managers from China, Self-efficacy and group Does I/C moderate the effect
Israel and the efficacy for business task on performance of group
United States type? What is the relation
between group context,
I/C and efficacy beliefs?
SE scale: Using a 100-point
scale, subjects rated their
SE expectations for 5
levels of performance. Group
efficacy mirrored SE
measurement, with subjects
rating their group efficacy
expectations for 5 levels
of group performance
Earley (1994) Managers from Self-efficacy for business How do cultural background
Hong Kong, China, tasks and/or cultural orientation
and the United States (I/C) influence how individual
and group training affect
self-efficacy and performance?
SE scale: Subjects rated
their efficacy for 9 levels
of performance using a
0–100 point ‘‘certainty scale’’
211
Levels of self-efficacy and
relationship between SE
and performance task
Asian American managers
rated their self-efficacy
for initiating informal
interactions with supervisors in
social settings lower than
did other groups.
No performance task
Performance, self-efficacy,
and group efficacy for the more
collectivist Chinese and Israeli
subjects were highest in the
in-group setting. For the
Americans, performance, self-
and group efficacy were highest
in the individual setting
Self-efficacy and
performance were most
enhanced for collectivists
(and Asians)
when training was
group-focused; for individualists
(and Americans), training
was most effective when
directed at the individual
Individualism and collectivism
or other cultural
dimensions
I/C not measured. Cianni
concludes ‘‘cultural
influences may affect the
self-efficacy of Asians
in this (social interaction)
domain’’ (p. 57)
I/C measured with 8-item
5-point scale on a single
continuum, with high score
indicating collectivist beliefs,
and low score indicating
individualist beliefs
8-item 5-point measure
assessed I/C on a single
continuum; i.e., high score
indicated collectivism, low
score indicated individualism
(Continued overleaf)
212
TABLE 1 (Continued)
Cultural or national Research question
Author comparison groupsa Performance task or domain and self-efficacy measure
Earley (1999) Managers from England, Personal and group How does the cultural
France, Thailand, and estimates of collective dimension of power
the United States efficacy for business task distance influence efficacy
beliefs? Collective efficacy
scale: personal and collective
estimates of group’s capability
for 5 levels of performance
using a 100-point
‘‘certainty scale’’
Earley et al. American and Chinese Self-efficacy for a Does cultural dimension
(1999)b managers (and Czech) business task (I/C) interact with type
of feedback (group or
individual)? SE scale:
Participants rated
their self-efficacy for
5 levels of performance
using a 100-point
‘‘certainty scale’’
Eaton & Dembo Asian American and Self-efficacy for What are the differences
(1997) non-Asian ninth graders academic tasks in motivational beliefs
between Asian and
non-Asian American students?
SE scale: 6-item, 4-point
scale assessing students’
perception of success
Levels of self-efficacy and
relationship between SE
and performance task
Power distance correlated
positively with the importance
placed on high status
group members’ collective
efficacy judgments. Personal
and collective group efficacy
scores appeared lower for
Thai participants, but no
direct inter-culture
comparisons were made in
the study
Individualists’ self-efficacy
beliefs were most strongly
influenced by personal
feedback; for collectivists,
both group and personal
feedback influenced efficacy
beliefs. The Chinese appeared
to display the lowest SE
levels under each condition
(although direct country-level
comparisons were
not made)
For Asian American students,
fear of academic
failure best predicted
achievement. Self-efficacy
beliefs for Asian Americans
were lower, but performance
was higher. The correlation
between SE and performance
was higher for Asian
Americans than
non-Asians
Individualism and collectivism
or other cultural
dimensions
I/C was not measured.
Power distance was
assessed using an 8-item
scale. Results showed Thai
and French samples were
significantly higher on power
distance than American
and English samples
I/C was assessed using a
4-item, 5-point scale
coded so that a high
score indicated collectivist
values and a low score
indicated individualist
values (i.e., a single I/C
continuum). The Americans
were significantly more
individualist than the
Chinese
I/C not measured, but
discussed: ‘‘Asian Americans
are socialized to feel
responsible to their family
and community, whose
needs and expectations
prevail over individual
desires’’ (p. 438)
 TABLE 1 (Continued)
Cultural or national Research question
Author comparison groupsa Performance task or domain and self-efficacy measure
Lam et al. (2002) Hong Kong and American Self- and collective How does cultural context
junior bank employees participative decision (and idiocentrism/allocentrism)
making efficacy influence the role played
by self-efficacy and collective
efficacy in participative decision
making? SE scale: 5-item,
5-point scale assessing
confidence for participation
skills; collective efficacy
measured with 5-item,
5-point scale assessing
ability of work unit
Leung (2001) Asian migrant and Social self-efficacy What is the relationship
overseas students and between social self-efficacy,
Anglo-Australian locus of control, and cultural
undergraduates background? SE scale: 20-item,
7-point scale measuring
confidence in dealing with
various social and
academic situations
Mau (2000) American and Taiwanese Career decision-making What is the influence of
college students self-efficacy cultural/national background
on career decision-making
self-efficacy beliefs?
SE scale: 25-item,
5-point scale that
‘‘assessed an individual’s
belief that he or she can
successfully complete tasks
necessary to make career
decisions’’
213
Levels of self-efficacy and
relationship between SE
and performance task
The Hong Kong workers
displayed significantly higher
collective efficacy, individual
performance, and allocentrism
whereas the American workers
displayed higher self-efficacy
and idiocentrism. Cultural
self-construals mediated
the effect of efficacy
beliefs on performance
Two of three Asian groups
(Chinese migrants and
Chinese overseas students)
rated their efficacy beliefs
significantly lower than
Anglo-Australians.
However, self-efficacy
predicted academic satisfaction
for the Asian group, but not
the Anglo-Australians
The efficacy beliefs of
the Taiwanese students were
significantly lower than those
of the American students.
The Asian students were
seen to ‘‘self-criticize’’
and the Americans
to ‘‘self-enhance.’’ Taiwanese
students were more likely
than American students
to adopt a dependent
decision-making style
Individualism and collectivism
or other cultural
dimensions
I/C (or idiocentrism and
allocentrism) measured using
two separate 8-item scales.
Americans showed higher
idiocentrism; Hong Kong
workers displayed
greater allocentrism
I/C not measured, but
discussed. The construct of
locus of control is used as a
proxy of I/C: ‘‘people from
collectivist cultures may be
less internal
than those from individualist
cultures’’ (p. 253)
I/C not measured,
but Mau states
‘‘The culture that is individual
oriented is more conducive
to fostering self-efficacy,
while the collective-oriented
culture may have inhibited
the development of
self-efficacy’’ (p. 374)
(Continued overleaf)
214

TABLE 1 (Continued)

Levels of self-efficacy and Individualism and collectivism

Cultural or national Research question relationship between SE or other cultural
Author comparison groupsa Performance task or domain and self-efficacy measure and performance task dimensions

Randhawa & Canadian and Indian Self-efficacy for How do efficacy beliefs
Gupta (2000) high school students mathematics and performance differ among
students from these two
countries? SE scale: 46-item,
10-point scale measuring
students’ confidence for
(a) everyday math tasks,
(b) completing math courses,
and (c) solving math
problems
Math self-efficacy was I/C not measured and
more predictive of not discussed
achievement for the Canadian
students than the Indian
students. Levels of
self-efficacy varied:
the Indian students displayed
higher SE on the problems
scale, but lower SE on the
courses scale. Performance
was higher for the
Indian students

Salili et al. (2001) Hong Kong Chinese, Academic self-efficacy How do culture (Chinese vs.
European Canadian, and European) and context
Canadian Chinese high (home country) influence
school students self-efficacy beliefs?
SE scale: 7-point scale (number
of items not mentioned). Sample
item: ‘If I have time, I can
do a good job on my school
work’
On the self-efficacy
measure, European Canadians
displayed higher efficacy
ratings than the Canadian
Chinese and the
Hong Kong Chinese.
The correlation between SE
beliefs and performance
was lowest in the
HK Chinese group
and strongest for the
Canadian Chinese
students
I/C not measured. Authors
note ‘‘Collectivist cultures
emphasize filial piety and
family cohesion’’ (p. 241).
Also, the difference in
SE levels is attributed
in part ‘‘to the emphasis
on modesty in Chinese
culture’’ (p. 241)

Schaubroeck Bank tellers from Job self-efficacy and How does cultural context
et al. (2000) Hong Kong and collective efficacy influence the role played
the United States by self-efficacy and
collective efficacy in
job control and demands?
SE scale: 10-item, 6-point
scale assessing confidence for job;
collective efficacy measured with
7-item, 6-point scale
assessing ability of work unit
Self-efficacy was higher
for the American sample,
but collective efficacy
was higher for the Hong
Kong group. For the Hong
Kong sample, collective
efficacy played a similar role
(in predicting job control)
as that played by
self-efficacy in the
American sample
I/C (or idiocentrism and
allocentrism) measured using
two separate 8-item
scales. Americans showed
higher idiocentrism; Hong
Kong workers displayed
greater allocentrism
 TABLE 1 (Continued)
Cultural or national Research question
Author comparison groupsa Performance task or domain and self-efficacy measure
Scholz et al. (2002) 19,000 participants General self-efficacy What are the psychometric
from 25 countries properties of the GSE scale?
What are the differences
in levels of GSE among these
25 nations/cultures?
Schwarzer German, Costa Rican, General self-efficacy What are the differences
et al. (1997) and Hong Kong scale in self-efficacy beliefs
university students among students from these
three cultures? SE scale: 10-item,
4-point generalized
efficacy scale (e.g., ‘‘I
can solve most problems if
I invest the necessary effort’’)
Schwarzer Various participants General self-efficacy Is the GSE scale
& Born (1997) from 13 countries psychometrically equivalent
among the 13 countries?
What are the mean
differences in levels
of SE?
Zane et al. Asian-American and Self-efficacy for social What are the cultural
(1991) Caucasian American functioning and similarities and differences in
undergraduates assertiveness self-efficacy beliefs
for social functioning and
assertiveness? SE scale:
5-item, 100-point scale
ranging from ‘very
uncertain’ to ‘very certain’
for each of 9 assertiveness
scenarios
215
Levels of self-efficacy and
relationship between SE
and performance task
The authors concluded
that perceived GSE appears
to be a unidimensional
and universal construct.
Japanese and Hong Kong
Chinese displayed the lowest
levels of GSE
The Hong Kong students
evinced the lowest level
of generalized self-efficacy.
No performance task.
The Chinese females displayed
significantly lower SE
than males
Significant differences were
found in SE levels for
language and gender
(although effect size
was negligible for gender).
Chinese and Japanese
participants displayed
lowest GSE; Costa Rican,
Russian, and Dutch
displayed highest levels
of GSE
In situations with
strangers, Asian-Americans
displayed significantly lower
self-efficacy beliefs for
assertiveness; in situations with
acquaintances or intimates,
there were no differences
between the two groups.
Self-efficacy predicted assertive
responding for both groups
Individualism and collectivism
or other cultural
dimensions
No cultural dimensions
measured, but suggestion
made that ‘‘self-efficacy
may be rated lower in
collectivistic cultures
than in individualistic
cultures’’
I/C not measured, but
alluded to: ‘‘The low
mean levels of perceived
self-efficacy could
be interpreted as a cultural
difference, as the Chinese
are regarded as less
individualistic than
Westerners’’ (pp. 80–81)
Cultural dimensions
not measured
I/C not measured. Authors
discuss alleged interdependence
of Asians: ‘‘The
results also fail to
support cultural explanations
regarding Asians’ desire
to maintain interpersonal
harmony’’ (p. 68)
(Continued overleaf)
 TABLE 1 (Continued)
216

Levels of self-efficacy and Individualism and collectivism

Cultural or national Research question relationship between SE or other cultural
Author comparison groupsa Performance task or domain and self-efficacy measure and performance task dimensions

Comparisons involving Eastern European groups

Earley et al. American and Czech Self-efficacy for a Does cultural dimension (I/C)
(1999)b managers (and Chinese) business task interact with type of feedback
(group or individual)?
SE scale: Participants rated
their self-efficacy for 5 levels
of performance using a
100-point ‘‘certainty scale’’
Individualists’ self-efficacy
beliefs were most strongly
influenced by personal feedback;
for collectivists, both group and
personal feedback influenced
efficacy beliefs. The Czechs
appeared to express SE beliefs
consistent with those of
the American sample (no
direct comparisons made)
I/C was assessed using
a 4-item, 5-point scale
coded so that a high score
indicated collectivist values
and a low score indicated
individualist values (i.e.,
a single I/C continuum).
The Americans were
significantly more
individualist than the Czechs

Oettingen (1995); East Berlin (before Academic efficacy or How do differences in Schoolchildren from East I/C not measured, but
Oettingen et al. unification) vs. West Berlin ‘‘agency’’ beliefs cultural dimensions/political Berlin had lower discussed, with implication
(1994) schoolchildren (Oettingen [1995] discusses systems between East and academic efficacy beliefs that the academic culture
equivalence of agency West Germany affect academic than did West Berlin children. of East Germany was
and SE) self-efficacy? SE scale: However, correlations between collectivist; the academic
24-item, 4-point efficacy beliefs and course culture of West Germany
scale assessing children’s grades were stronger was more individualist.
judgments of their ‘‘access for the East Berlin children Also, the East German
to the means that influence school system reflected
academic performance’’ large power distance,
strong uncertainty avoidance,
and masculine-oriented
achievement

Oettingen & Schoolchildren from East
Maier (1999) and West Berlin, Los
Angeles and Moscow
Academic self-efficacy
Within similar political systems,
how do cultural differences
influence self-efficacy?
SE scale: not given
Efficacy beliefs were
weaker in West Berlin
compared to Los Angeles,
and in East Berlin
compared to Moscow
Cultural dimensions not
measured. East Berlin and
Moscow were assumed to be
more collectivist; West
Berlin assumed to be less
individualist than
Los Angeles

Oettingen et al. Schoolchildren in East Academic self-efficacy What accounts for Children from East Cultural dimensions not
1997, (as cited in Berlin, Moscow, Prague, differences in self-efficacy Germany possessed the measured. Authors cite
Oettingen & and Warsaw (in 1991) beliefs among these four cities? lowest efficacy beliefs, research suggesting that
Maier, 1999) SE scale: not given possibly as a result of the USSR, Czechoslovakia,
higher collectivism, large and Poland were all more
power distance, and individualist than East
higher conformity Germany
 TABLE 1 (Continued)

Levels of self-efficacy and Individualism and collectivism

Cultural or national Research question relationship between SE or other cultural
Author comparison groupsa Performance task or domain and self-efficacy measure and performance task dimensions

Pastorelli et al. Schoolchildren in Italy, Academic, social, and Are there cross-national
(2001) Hungary, and Poland self-regulatory self-efficacy differences in the pattern
(and factor structure) of
efficacy beliefs? SE scale:
37-item, 5-point scale
assessing perceptions of
academic efficacy, social
efficacy, and
self-regulatory efficacy
Academic SE: Italian Cultural dimensions not
children higher than Hungarian measured. Brief discussion of
children; Social SE: possible higher power distance
Italian children higher in the Eastern European
than Hungarian or Polish countries
children; Self-regulatory
SE: no differences. The
factor structure was
similar across Eastern
and Western European
countries

a
Cultural group labels are written as provided in articles. bEarley et al. (1999) is discussed in both sections (Western vs. Asian participants in first section; Eastern European vs. Western
Europeans and Americans in second section).
217
218 KLASSEN
(six studies), career or job-seeking efficacy (one
study), ‘‘general’’ self-efficacy (three studies), and
self-efficacy for social functioning (three studies).
Comparison of efficacy beliefs of
Asians (and Asian Americans) with
those of non-Asians
In this section, I critically examine the research
studies that contrast the self-efficacy of Asian and
immigrant Asian groups with Western (i.e.,
Western European, European American, or
Canadian) cultural groups. Differences in levels
and predictiveness of efficacy beliefs are noted,
and the way in which the cultural dimensions of
individualism and collectivism are either measured
or attributed to the cultural groups is discussed.
In a study examining the achievement and
motivation of Asian American and non-Asian
(predominantly Anglo-American) high school
students, Eaton and Dembo (1997) found that
the non-Asian students rated their self-efficacy,
measured at the specific task level, significantly
higher than did the Asian American students.
However, performance on the criterial task
(unscrambling 20 words from a reading passage)
was significantly lower for the non-Asian stu-
dents. Results from a multiple regression analysis
predicting achievement motivation showed that
for the Asian Americans, fear of academic failure
was the strongest predictor of achievement,
followed by self-efficacy; for the non-Asians,
fear of failure was not a significant predictor,
while self-efficacy beliefs provided a significant
contribution. The bivariate correlations, which
can be seen as a measure of calibration between
efficacy beliefs and performance, were stronger
for the Asian students; i.e., in this study, Asian
American students were more accurate at cali-
brating their efficacy beliefs with subsequent
performance. The Asian American students dis-
played modest levels of confidence in their
abilities, but outperformed their more confident
non-Asian peers. Although individualism and
collectivism were not directly measured, the fear
of failure variable approximates some aspects of
the cultural dimension of collectivism. The
authors suggested ‘‘Asian Americans are socia-
lized to feel responsible to their family and
community, whose needs and expectations prevail
over individual desires’’ (Eaton & Dembo, 1997,
p. 438). Motivation research, according to the
authors, is ‘‘rooted in individualism’’ (p. 438) and
may be less valid in populations that do not share
this cultural dimension to the same degree.
One problem in cross-cultural comparative
research is assuming the equivalency of context.
Self-efficacy beliefs may vary, for example,
between two cultural groups in different settings
due to the differences in task difficulty or acade-
mic expectations in the settings, rather than to
any real differences in self-beliefs. Salili, Chiu, and
Lai (2001) acknowledged this difficulty when they
explored the academic efficacy beliefs of Hong
Kong Chinese, Canadian Chinese, and European
Canadian high school students. The researchers
attempted to isolate motivation and achievement
differences attributable to culture through com-
parison of the two groups that shared an
academic setting—the Canadian Chinese and the
European Canadian students. Comparisons bet-
ween Hong Kong Chinese and Canadian Chinese
students were an attempt to identify motivation
differences that resulted from differences in
learning context.
Salili et al. (2001) found that the European
Canadian students rated their efficacy beliefs
higher than did the Canadian Chinese, but acade-
mic performance was lower. Similar to the results
in the Eaton and Dembo (1997) study, the corre-
lation coefficient (calibration) between efficacy
and performance was higher for the Canadian
Chinese than for the European Canadians,
although correlations were significant for both
groups. In a multiple regression predicting acade-
mic performance, self-efficacy was a significant
predictor for both cultural groups, but the
ß-weight was stronger (.45) for the Canadian
Chinese than for the European Canadians (.27).
Although the I/C cultural dimension was not
measured, the culturally influenced Family
Oriented Goal (‘‘I do well in school so that my
family will be proud of me’’) was a significant
predictor for the Canadian Chinese, but not for
the European Canadians. For the Hong Kong
Chinese, both self-efficacy and academic perfor-
mance were low, and furthermore, the correlation
between efficacy beliefs and performance was the
lowest among the three groups. The authors
explain the lower self-efficacy of both Chinese
culture groups as the result of an emphasis on the
value of humility in Chinese culture, coupled with
the stringent grading practices in Hong Kong
schools.
In the only study discovered from the search
in this review that investigated the efficacy beliefs
of South Asians, Randhawa and Gupta (2000)
found that math self-efficacy was a stronger
predictor of achievement for a group of Canadian
high school students than it was for the Indian

students. Individualism and collectivism were
neither measured nor discussed. The Indian
students rated their self-efficacy to successfully
complete math courses lower than did the
Canadians, but displayed higher efficacy to
complete individual math problems. There was
no difference between the two groups in efficacy
to complete daily math tasks. The Indian students
performed significantly better than did the
Canadian students on the 40-item mathematics
achievement test. Problems with the lack of
equivalence of the two samples led the authors
to conclude that many variables in addition to
cultural dimensions may have influenced the
outcomes of their study.
Mau (2000), in her study of decision-making
self-efficacy and decision-making styles (rational,
dependent, and intuitive) of Taiwanese and
American (largely Caucasian) college students,
attributed the lower efficacy beliefs of the Asian
students to ‘‘the collective-oriented culture (that)
may have influenced Taiwanese students to rely
less on individual abilities than on group efforts’’
(p. 374). Mau’s study found that although a
majority of American and Taiwanese students
endorsed a rational style of decision-making (e.g.,
‘‘I am very systematic when I go about making an
important decision’’), the Taiwanese chose a
dependent style (‘‘When I make a decision it is
important to me what my friends think about it’’)
as the second most likely choice, while the
Americans were significantly less likely to endorse
a dependent style. Although the cultural dimen-
sions of I/C were not measured, the author
attributed the difference in decision-making style
and in levels of self-efficacy to the Asian emphasis
on social conformity and collective decision-
making.
Parallel to Eaton and Dembo (1997) and Salili
et al. (2001), Mau discusses the ‘‘modesty’’ of the
response style of the Taiwanese students. While
many European Americans display a tendency to
‘‘self-enhancement,’’ Asians display a tendency
for ‘‘self-criticism,’’ which Mau claims is cultu-
rally adaptive because it confirms membership in
the social unit. Although Mau acknowledges that
Asian research respondents may display a
response bias in which they typically provide
lower self-ratings for most self-constructs in most
settings, she suggests that it is the cultural
dimensions of individualism and collectivism
that differentially influence the development of
self-efficacy beliefs: ‘‘The culture that is indivi-
dual-oriented is more conducive to fostering self-
efficacy, while the collective-oriented culture may
OPTIMISM AND REALISM 219
have inhibited the development of self-efficacy’’
(2000, p. 374). In spite of a rigorous translation/
back-translation procedure to establish equiva-
lence of measures, Mau recognizes the difficulties
posed in cross-national research and cautions
that ‘‘language, values, and educational and
vocational structures are nuisances that require
additional control procedures for making valid
comparisons’’ (p. 376).
Zane, Sue, Hu, and Kwon (1991) compared
self-efficacy for assertiveness between Asian
American and Caucasian college students. As in
the previous studies reviewed, the overall self-
efficacy of the Asian American undergraduates
was significantly lower than that of the Caucasian
students; however, the only ‘‘interaction context’’
(interaction with intimates, acquaintances, or
strangers) that showed a statistically significant
self-efficacy difference was efficacy for interac-
tions with strangers. Apart from simply measur-
ing the levels of self-efficacy beliefs between
cultures, Zane et al. were also concerned with
the cross-cultural applicability of self-efficacy
theory. By using hierarchical multiple regression
to test the relative importance of each of the
variables predicting assertiveness, they were able
to show that self-efficacy was the strongest
predictor of self-reported assertion for both
cultural groups, followed in each case by anxiety
outcome expectancy. In spite of the lower level of
efficacy beliefs in the Asian students, especially in
the context of interaction with strangers, the
authors were able to show the validity of self-
efficacy in predicting levels of assertiveness, and
thus concluded that ‘‘self-efficacy is the important
cultural variable to consider with respect to
Asians, as well as other cultural factors that
influence the self-efficacy expectations’’ (p. 68). In
this study, no cultural dimensions were measured
(apart from ethnicity) and the Asian American
students were predominantly American-born
Chinese heritage and Japanese heritage students.
In another study of social self-efficacy, Leung
(2001) examined the social and academic con-
fidence of Anglo-Australian, Asian immigrant
(from eight different Asian countries), Chinese
immigrant, Chinese overseas (i.e., on temporary
student visas), and Southern European immigrant
university students. Leung discusses, but does not
measure, the cultural dimensions of individualism
and collectivism. In terms of levels of social self-
efficacy, two of the three Asian groups (Chinese
immigrants and Chinese overseas students) dis-
played significantly lower efficacy beliefs than
did the Anglo-Australian group. Leung conducted
220 KLASSEN
multiple regression analyses to explore the
contributions of self-efficacy and other variables
to academic satisfaction (defined as satisfaction
with university life coupled with a subjective
rating of academic performance). Although self-
efficacy was rated lower by two of the three Asian
groups than by the Anglo-Australians, it (social
self-efficacy) played a more important role in pre-
dicting academic satisfaction for the (primarily)
Asian immigrants and Asian overseas students. In
contrast, social self-efficacy was significantly
negatively related to psychological distress for
the Anglo-Australians, but not for the primarily
Asian migrant/overseas group. The author recog-
nizes that ‘‘the needs of specific cultural groups
should be taken into consideration in service
provision.’’
Cianni (1994) used 5-point Likert scales to
assess black, white, Hispanic, and Asian man-
agers’ level of confidence to perform specific tasks
related to interactions with senior managers.
Cianni found that Asian managers displayed
lower ‘‘informal interaction’’ self-efficacy than
did black, white, and Hispanic managers.
Although no cultural dimensions were directly
measured, results from an earlier focus group
interview led Cianni to conclude ‘‘cultural influ-
ences may affect the self-efficacy expectations of
Asians in this (social interaction with senior
managers) domain’’ (p. 57).
In the previous studies, the cultural dimensions
of individualism and collectivism were assumed,
rather than measured. In a trio of studies
conducted by Earley and colleagues (Earley,
1993, 1994; Earley et al., 1999), the I/C dimen-
sions were measured and used to explore cultural
differences in efficacy beliefs. In the first study,
Earley (1993) explored self- and collective efficacy
beliefs and outcome expectancies of managers
from the United States, China, and Israel in three
different conditions—working alone, working
with an in-group, and working with an out-
group. The collectivist workers performed sig-
nificantly better with perceived in-group than with
perceived out-group members; that is, for the
collectivists, ‘‘only those contexts for which
performance has implications for his or her in-
group seem to stimulate performance’’ (Earley,
1993, p. 341). With regards to the initial questions
of levels of efficacy beliefs and relationship
between efficacy and performance, the important
finding from Earley’s 1993 study is that efficacy
levels for both collectivists and individualists
depended very much on the work context. For
the collectivists, a focus on individual rewards did
not result in high levels of either efficacy beliefs or
performance. Efficacy beliefs and performance
differed according to context, but were congruent
for both collectivists and individualists.
Earley (1994) refers to Triandis’ (1989) sampling
probability theory in which individualists primarily
evaluate self-referenced information to establish
their self-efficacy whereas collectivists appraise
group-referenced information. To test this theory,
Earley examined the influence of group-focused
and individual-focused training on the self-
efficacy of business managers from individualist
(United States) and collectivist (Hong Kong and
the People’s Republic of China) nations. He
found that for the American participants (low
measured collectivism), self-efficacy was signifi-
cantly higher for the group receiving individual-
focused training than no training; there was no
difference in self-efficacy beliefs for the groups
receiving no training and group-focused training.
The managers from the People’s Republic of
China (high measured collectivism) displayed the
highest level of self-efficacy when training was
group focused, displayed moderate efficacy with
individual-focused training, and displayed the
lowest efficacy beliefs under the no-training condi-
tion. For the managers from Hong Kong (high
measured collectivism), self-efficacy was highest
for groups receiving either form of training; i.e.,
individual focused or group focused, with parti-
cipants under both conditions displaying higher
efficacy beliefs than those in the no-training
group. Perhaps surprisingly, the level of baseline
self-efficacy (in the no-training groups) was not
significantly different among the three national
groups.
In a longitudinal follow-up study (published in
the same report), Earley (1994) examined the
effects of individual- and group-focused training
on the self-efficacy and performance of employees
from the USA and China (People’s Republic of
China) over a period of 6 months. Once again,
Earley found the employees from the United
States (who had higher measured individualism)
to display higher performance and self-efficacy
under the individual-focused training condition,
whereas the Chinese workers displayed higher
self-efficacy and performance when the training
was group focused. Earley’s conclusions transcend
the field of business and are readily applied to
other applied contexts: ‘‘Training should be
congruent with a person’s cultural background
as well as with individual experiences’’ (1994,
p. 114), and ‘‘Self-efficacy is influenced by differ-
ent sources of information that are more or less

persuasive depending on a person’s cultural
values’’ (p. 114). The results from the research
conducted by Earley and colleagues seem to
suggest that a person’s efficacy beliefs are
differentially influenced depending on their cul-
tural orientation and the nature of the training
offered.
In an extension of the previous study, Earley
et al. (1999) explored the effects that different
types of feedback—personal or group based—had
on the self-efficacy and performance of workers
from collectivist (Chinese and Czech) and indivi-
dualist (American) cultures (I discuss the results
involving the Czech workers in the next section).
As predicted, workers from China were more
collectivist than workers from the US. Only indi-
vidual feedback enhanced the self-efficacy beliefs
of American employees, while for the Chinese
workers, both individual and group feedback were
significantly associated with higher efficacy
beliefs. In terms of levels of efficacy beliefs, the
Chinese workers displayed the lowest efficacy
scores under each condition (consisting of fully
crossed low and high individual feedback with
low and high group feedback). The authors then
examined the efficacy beliefs of individualists and
collectivists across cultures. For the individualists,
the results were straightforward: Efficacy beliefs
were most strongly influenced by personal, rather
than group, feedback. For the collectivists, however,
either personal or group feedback resulted in
increases in efficacy judgments. The authors
concluded ‘‘Collectivists appear to develop a
strong sense of efficacy if either personal or
group feedback signals successful performance.
This suggests that a collectivist’s sense of self is
based on both personal and group-based informa-
tion’’ (p. 614). Because the authors did not include
a performance task, the predictiveness of the
efficacy beliefs across cultures or across cultural
dimensions was not discussed.
Although individualism and collectivism may
be the most commonly used cultural framework,
another of Hostede’s cultural dimensions—power
distance—was used by Earley (1999) in an inves-
tigation of the collective efficacy beliefs of
managers from four countries. Collective efficacy
was measured using individual evaluations of a
group’s ability to perform as well as a group
consensus evaluation of a group’s ability to meet
five levels of production goals. Earley found that
the efficacy judgments of higher-status group
members in the high power distance countries
(France and Thailand) were more influential than
the judgments of these group members in the
OPTIMISM AND REALISM 221
lower power distance countries (England and
USA). In a finding directly applicable to other
applied settings, such as education, Earley pro-
poses that culturally based traits possessed by
group members may result in unexpected group
dynamics and interaction.
The influence of individual differences in
individualism and collectivism (termed idiocentr-
ism and allocentrism in this study) on job control
and efficacy perceptions in large samples of
American and Hong Kong Chinese bank tellers
was examined by Schaubroeck et al. (2000). The
authors assessed I/C with two separate scales
(rather than on a single continuum) and found
significantly higher collectivism (allocentrism)
among the Hong Kong sample along with
significantly higher individualism (idiocentrism)
among the American sample. The American
workers rated their job self-efficacy at a signifi-
cantly higher level than did the Asian workers.
Also, and conforming to expectations, collective
or group efficacy was significantly stronger among
the Asian workers than among the American
employees. The authors’ primary concern, how-
ever, was the interaction between efficacy beliefs,
job demands, job control, and coping responses.
For the Americans, self-efficacy, but not collective
efficacy, was significantly negatively correlated
with anxiety, depression, and turnover intention
(an indication of poor coping with job stress). In
contrast, for the Hong Kong sample, collective
efficacy, but not self-efficacy, was significantly
negatively correlated with anxiety, depression,
and turnover intention. In other words, although
the pattern of relationship between efficacy and
the outcome variables was generally the same
between cultures, the nature of the efficacy belief
construct—collective efficacy or self-efficacy—
differed between the groups. For the purpose of
this review, the implication of these results is that
whereas self-efficacy may be less predictive of a
particular outcome depending on cultural context,
a different form of efficacy belief—collective
efficacy—may in fact replace self-efficacy in
more collectivist settings. The results from the
study by Schaubroeck et al. emphasize the
importance of situating performance, or in this
case, coping responses, in a context that acknow-
ledges variation among cultures as well as intra-
individual variations on cultural dimensions.
In a similar study that examined the participa-
tive decision making of workers from Hong Kong
and the USA, Lam et al. (2002) discovered
that Chinese participants displayed higher levels
of allocentrism, individual performance, and
222 KLASSEN
collective efficacy, whereas the American means
were significantly higher for idiocentrism and self-
efficacy. For allocentrics, group or collective
efficacy predicted group performance; for idio-
centrics, self-efficacy predicted individual perfor-
mance. The authors caution that although the
Americans and Hong Kong Chinese displayed
general cultural tendencies toward individualism
and collectivism, respectively, these cultural
dimensions transcend societal boundaries, and
idiocentrism and allocentrism are meaningful
influences irrespective of nationality. Nevertheless,
Lam et al. found regional ‘‘tendencies’’ toward
these cultural dimensions, and conclude that self-
efficacy may have more primacy in generally
individualist cultures, whereas collective efficacy
may play a stronger role in generally collectivist
cultures.
Generalized self-efficacy was the subject of an
investigation conducted by Schwarzer, Baßler,
Kwiatek, Schroder, and Zhang (1997), who
compared general self-efficacy among large
groups of undergraduate students from Germany,
Costa Rica, and Hong Kong. In this study,
efficacy beliefs were measured using a well-
established, 10-item German scale that was
translated and back-translated into Spanish and
Chinese. Although generalized self-efficacy has
been criticized (e.g., Bandura, 1997), Schwarzer
et al. (1997) argue that in addition to the more
commonly explored domain-specific efficacy
beliefs, people also possess ‘‘global confidence in
one’s coping ability across a wide range of
demanding or novel situations’’ (p. 71). Conse-
quently, their 10-item Generalized Self-Efficacy
(GSE) scale included broad-spectrum items such
as ‘‘I can always manage to solve difficult
problems if I try hard enough,’’ and ‘‘It is easy
for me to stick to my aims and accomplish my
goals’’ (p. 88). A body of research conducted by
Schwarzer and colleagues has shown that general-
ized self-efficacy is a potent predictor of ‘‘overall
adjustment in a wide range of health and well-
being variables’’ (p. 72).
In a comparison of levels of self-efficacy beliefs,
the authors found that the Asian students rated
their efficacy lower than either the Costa Rican or
German students. For the German and Hong
Kong samples, the score for males was signifi-
cantly higher than for females. Differences among
the three groups in cultural dimensions were
assumed, rather than measured: ‘‘The low mean
levels of perceived self-efficacy could be inter-
preted as a cultural difference, as the Chinese are
regarded as less individualistic than Westerners’’
(pp. 80–81). In the discussion section of the
article, a call is made for future comparison
studies investigating corresponding levels of
‘‘collective self-efficacy’’ (p. 81), which Schwarzer
et al. suggest may prove to be a relevant factor for
Eastern cultural groups.
In a study comparing levels of general perceived
self-efficacy among 13 cultural groups, Schwarzer
and Born (1997) found that Japanese participants
rated their general self-efficacy the lowest of the
groups on the 10-item, 4-point scale, with a mean
item rating of 2.02. Chinese participants were next
lowest with an item mean rating of 2.31, while in
contrast, participants from Costa Rica (3.32),
Russia (3.20), and the Netherlands (3.10) rated
their efficacy beliefs the highest of the groups. In
addition to exploring cross-cultural similarities
and differences in levels of efficacy beliefs, the
authors’ intention was also to explore the psy-
chometric properties of the scale. Although the
samples varied widely in terms of age, demo-
graphics, and sex ratios, the scale was found to
display satisfactory internal consistency, item–
total correlations, and unidimensionality. In an
extension of this research, Scholz et al. (2002)
examined the scale with a sample of over 19,000
participants from a total of 25 countries (the
researchers included the results from Schwarzer
and Born’s 1997 study). Of the 25 countries/
cultural groups, the presumably more collectivist
participants from Japan (2.02) and Hong Kong
(2.31) again rated general efficacy lower than
other groups, while Costa Ricans (3.32), Danes
(3.29), and French (3.22) participants rated
generalized efficacy beliefs the highest. Although
cultural dimensions were not assessed in this pair
of studies, the authors speculate that people from
collectivist cultures might value hard work and
effort more than perceived efficacy (Scholz et al.,
2002).
Self-efficacy in Eastern Europe
Considerably less attention has been paid to I/C
or efficacy beliefs outside of East Asia and North
America. However, a search of the cross-cultural
self-efficacy literature uncovered a cluster of
studies that focused on comparisons of the
efficacy beliefs displayed in Eastern and Western
European countries. For the most part, Eastern
European countries have been assumed to be
more collectivist and less individualist than
Western European countries. In his investigation
of cultural dimensions in a European context,
Hofstede (1980) found Western European nations

to display high levels of individualism, along
with either large power distance (France, Italy,
Belgium) or small power distance (Germany,
Austria, the Netherlands, and Scandinavian
countries), whereas the sole Eastern European
nation included in his survey—Yugoslavia—was
found to display low individualism in conjunction
with large power distance.
It might be assumed that other Eastern
European nations, especially before the fall of
communism, displayed similar collectivist traits.
Oettingen and her colleagues (e.g., Oettingen,
1995; Oettingen & Maier, 1999) make persuasive
arguments about enforced collectivism in com-
munist-era Eastern Europe, but these claims are
based on observation of social and cultural
systems, and not measurement of cultural
dimensions. Oettingen (1995) suggests that the
East German school system emphasized the role
of the in-group that was aimed at creating
‘‘harmoniously developed socialistic personalities’’
(Waterkamp, 1990, as cited in Oettingen, 1995). In
light of the cultural/political divergence between
pre-1990 East and West Berlin, Oettingen
hypothesized that East German schoolchildren
would display lower, but better-calibrated, perso-
nal efficacy beliefs than would schoolchildren in
West Germany. In a more recent meta-analysis of
50 studies investigating cross-national compari-
sons of I/C, Oyserman et al. (2002) found mixed
support for the predicted high collectivism and
low individualism among Central and East
European countries. From their limited sample
of studies involving East European countries, they
found most countries in that region to be lower in
individualism than the United States, but so too
were most countries in Western Europe. Eastern
European countries such as Russia, Slovenia, and
Hungary were higher in collectivism than the US,
as were the Western Europe countries of Spain,
Portugal, and Italy. In contrast, Germany,
France, and Italy were not more collectivist
than the United States.
One of the factors not discussed in the
Oyserman et al. (2002) meta-analysis was how
cultural dimensions might change as a function of
sociopolitical changes. The work by Oettingen
and her colleagues directly addresses how self-
beliefs might differ as a result of political shifts.
In a study comparing West Berlin and East
Berlin school children before German unification,
Oettingen, Little, Lindenberger, and Baltes (1994)
found, as predicted, that East German children
displayed lower but better-calibrated self-efficacy;
that is, they performed at a lower level, but
OPTIMISM AND REALISM 223
displayed a higher level of accuracy in the
calibration of efficacy beliefs and school perfor-
mance. The authors attribute this greater ‘‘rea-
lism’’ to the collectivist character of former East
German society: Students in this educational sys-
tem regularly participated in peer and teacher-
directed appraisal before the ‘‘class collective,’’
teaching strategies were group-oriented, and
students were held accountable for the perfor-
mance of their class collective. Although the East
Berlin and West Berlin political and educational
systems evolved into distinctly different entities,
the two halves of the separated city did share a
long history of mutual culture, values, and self-
beliefs that was broken for a period of only about
40 years. In terms of collectivist/individualist
orientation, this relatively brief political fracture
apparently resulted in people with differing self-
beliefs, at least for children in the school setting.
Oettingen and Maier (1999) found that children
in (pre-unification) East Berlin rated their efficacy
beliefs lower than school children in Moscow;
likewise, children in West Berlin rated their self-
efficacy lower than children in Los Angeles. In the
case of the East Berlin/Moscow comparison,
Oettingen and Maier suggest that although both
the East German and Soviet governments at the
time espoused the importance of the in-group
(class collective) and the authority of the teacher,
the two countries differed in the people’s adher-
ence to and respect for governmental regulations.
In the East Berlin and Moscow educational
systems, the children with lower efficacy beliefs
also weighted their teachers’ evaluations more
heavily than did children from the higher efficacy
groups. For the West Berlin/Los Angeles compar-
ison, the authors attributed differences in efficacy
beliefs to differences in individualism (with students
from Los Angeles described as more individua-
listic) and power distance (with the German
school system described as incorporating a large
power distance between students and teachers).
The authors conclude ‘‘cultures with collectivist
values promote a less optimistic sense of self-
efficacy and more conformity than cultures with
comparatively more individualist values’’ (p. 177).
As a further exploration of efficacy beliefs in
former Eastern-bloc countries, Oettingen and
her colleagues (Oettingen, Maier, Kotaskova,
Smolenska, & Stetsenko, 1997, as cited in
Oettingen & Maier, 1999) assessed efficacy beliefs
of children in Prague and Warsaw in 1991 and
made comparisons with the data previously
collected in East Berlin and Moscow. In this
four-way comparison, children in East Berlin
224 KLASSEN
evinced the lowest levels of efficacy beliefs, a
finding the authors attribute to the concurrence of
higher collectivism and political conformity, along
with greater power distance. In this scenario,
political context, coupled with cultural values,
together influenced the formation of children’s
academic self-efficacy beliefs.
In a cross-cultural study comparing American
and Czech managers (Earley et al., 1999), the
Czech managers were more collectivist than
the Americans (see above for a discussion of
American/Chinese comparison). Comparisons of
self-efficacy beliefs revealed that for the Czechs,
group feedback, but not individual feedback, had
a significant effect on self-efficacy levels, whereas
for the Americans, the opposite was true.
Comparisons of mean efficacy levels by country
were not provided. Based on the results from all
three of the countries, Earley et al. concluded that
individualists (from any cultural background)
benefited primarily from individual-referenced
feedback whereas a collectivist’s efficacy beliefs
are enhanced by either group-based or individual-
based referents. These results are consistent with
Bandura’s claim (1997) that collectivism does not
preclude the importance of personal efficacy
beliefs. In the Czech context, self-efficacy beliefs
were highest when high group feedback was
coupled with high individual feedback.
Pastorelli, Caprara, Barbaranelli, Rola, Rozsa,
and Bandura (2001) investigated the replicability
of the Children’s Perceived Self-Efficacy Scale
(CPSE), which measures efficacy beliefs for acade-
mic, social, and self-regulatory functioning, across
one Western European and two Eastern European
countries—Italy, Hungary, and Poland—during the
time of sociopolitical transition in Eastern Europe
in the early 1990s. For the most part, the factor
structure of the CPSE was the same across
countries, suggesting that the measure was gen-
eralizable across cultures. In terms of levels of
efficacy beliefs, the Italian children showed higher
mean academic beliefs than did the Hungarian
children. The comparisons of the social self-
efficacy scale revealed that the Italian children
judged themselves more socially capable than did
either the Hungarian or Polish children. There
were no differences between the three groups in
self-regulatory self-efficacy. The authors do not
discuss the cultural dimensions of individualism and
collectivism; however, they do note that author-
itarian or hierarchical educational systems may
increase students’ efficacy to achieve when under
the guidance of authority figures, like teachers, but
decrease students’ efficacy to achieve independently.
The Eastern European countries of Poland,
Hungary, and Russia were included in the
international general self-efficacy survey con-
ducted by Schwarzer and Born (1997) and
Scholz et al. (2002). The Russian sample scored
above the overall mean, while the means for
Poland and Hungary were lower than the overall
mean (direct comparisons among these national
groups were not made; significance values are not
reported). As discussed by Oettingen and Maier
(1999), the Russian culture may be relatively
individualist in comparison with these other
Eastern European countries. Complications with
the equivalency of the samples weaken any
conclusions drawn about national comparisons.
In any case, these data only provide very tentative
support of the link between the cultural values of
I/C and corresponding levels of efficacy beliefs.
IMPLICATIONS
It is clear from this summary of the research that
efficacy beliefs operate differently in non-Western
cultures than they do in Western cultures. In
almost all of the studies that included direct
comparisons of levels of efficacy beliefs, whether
the studies compared pairs of cultural groups
(e.g., Eaton & Dembo, 1997) or a large number of
cultural groups (e.g., the 25 countries included in
the study by Scholz et al., 2002), self-efficacy
beliefs were typically higher for participants from
Western, individualist cultures than for the
participants from Asian, presumably collectivist,
settings. On first glance, the results from this
review support Eaton and Dembo’s claim that
‘‘traditional measures of self-efficacy may be less
valid for this (collectivist) population’’ (1997,
p. 438). Investigators of self-beliefs other than self-
efficacy have arrived at similar conclusions.
Whang and Hancock (1994), for example, found
that Asian-American students displayed a lower
‘‘self-concept of ability,’’ yet had higher math
achievement scores than the non-Asian students.
The Asian-American students also perceived their
parents as being less happy with their school
performance. These authors concluded ‘‘theories
of achievement motivation are rooted in indivi-
dualism and may have validity primarily for
American and other similar cultures’’ (p. 315).
A theoretical basis for cultural differences in
self-efficacy beliefs has been discussed: One would
predict that an interdependent or collectivist sense
of self would be reflected in differing self-beliefs;
self-efficacy, as a kind of self-belief, reflects these
differences. The results from this review point to

the finding that levels of efficacy beliefs vary
depending on cultural context, with efficacy lower
in collectivist settings and higher in individualist
settings. Although many of the studies reviewed in
this paper suggest that there are cross-cultural
differences in levels of efficacy beliefs, there is also
evidence that efficacy beliefs do play an important
role in the motivation of non-Western cultural
groups: Self-efficacy was seen to be highly
predictive of performance in both Western and
non-Western settings.
The differences in levels of efficacy beliefs
found in this study do not necessarily mean, as
has been suggested, that self-efficacy is a cultur-
ally bound Western construct that operates only
as an imposed etic in non-Western cultural
settings. Previous research has shown that indi-
vidualists share a tendency toward ‘‘self-serving’’
or ‘‘self-enhancement’’ in contrast to the ‘‘self-
effacing’’ bias found among collectivists (e.g.,
Kagitçibasi, 1997; Kitayama, Markus, Matsumoto,
& Norasakkunkit, 1997). Chen, Lee, and Stevenson
(1995) found that Japanese and Chinese students
were more likely to rely on the use of Likert scale
midpoints than were American and Canadian
students, who were more likely to use scale
extremes. They concluded, however, that cultur-
ally influenced response styles were responsible
for only a small proportion of the differences
between cultural group means on a variety of
measures. Kagitçibasi (1997) proposed that the
typically lower scores obtained by Asians on self-
measures, like self-esteem, were the result of a
‘‘modesty bias’’ whereby Asians perceive self-
enhancement in a negative light, combined with a
low degree of ‘‘self-focusing’’ associated with an
emphasis on collective functioning. In a similar
fashion, Stigler, Smith, and Mao (1985) found
that the Asian children tended to downgrade their
self-competence and self-worth in comparison to
American children, in spite of higher academic
functioning and stronger correlations between
perceived academic functioning and actual
academic functioning.
The evidence from this qualitative review
suggests that among collectivists, efficacy beliefs
are typically lower but equally or even more
predictive of performance, and that the calibra-
tion of their efficacy beliefs and subsequent
functioning may be more accurate than among
individualists. Second, concepts of self, like self-
efficacy, appear not to be fixed, but are amenable
to change depending on the context. Finally, the
role played by collective efficacy is possibly more
salient among those with collectivist orientations
OPTIMISM AND REALISM 225
and may, to some extent, replace the role played
by self-efficacy.
Optimistic and realistic calibration of
self-efficacy
How are efficacy beliefs influenced by the cultural
dimensions of individualism and collectivism?
When self-efficacy comparisons between individu-
alist and collectivist cultures were made, the
results almost invariably showed that collectivists
rated their efficacy lower than individualists,
regardless of level of performance. However,
when some form of calibration was included, in
almost all cases the efficacy beliefs of the non-
Western groups were more predictive of subse-
quent performance (Eaton & Dembo, 1997;
Oettingen, 1995; Salili et al., 2001); that is,
participants from the collectivist groups inclined
towards greater accuracy or ‘‘realism’’ in predic-
ting subsequent performance. In the Eaton and
Dembo study, the authors make note of the lower
efficacy beliefs of Asian-American students, but
they fail to note the stronger correlation between
these students’ efficacy beliefs and subsequent
achievement. Oettingen comments that in East
Berlin (before unification), optimistic efficacy
beliefs incurred social censure and were detri-
mental to successful classroom functioning. She
concluded that strong self-efficacy beliefs were
relevant and desirable for all cultural groups,
because ‘‘they are indeed universal … they are
founded in basic psychological principles and
mechanisms common to human agency in gen-
eral’’ (p. 169). Salili et al. found that Canadian
Chinese students displayed lower but more
accurate efficacy beliefs than European Canadian
high school students.
It seems, then, that the claim (e.g., Bandura,
1995; Pajares, 1996; Pajares & Valiante, 1997)
that optimistic self-efficacy promotes the comple-
tion of challenging tasks may not hold true for
all groups. The lower but more realistic self-
efficacy beliefs held by many collectivists do
not seem to hamper high levels of performance:
For example, Asian Americans, with a more
collectivist orientation and more modest efficacy
beliefs, often outperform European Americans on
academic measures (e.g., Fulgini, 1997). Bandura’s
assertion that ‘‘an optimistic sense of efficacy
fosters psychological well-being and personal
accomplishments’’ (1997, p. 75) may apply to
individuals from Western cultures, but this
positive miscalibration of beliefs may not operate
the same way for other cultural groups.
226 KLASSEN
Efficacy beliefs and life changes
Another finding of interest pertains to ratings of
self-efficacy beliefs in relation to life changes.
Research investigating self-efficacy beliefs longi-
tudinally among immigrant populations has not
been conducted, but examining the efficacy beliefs
of immigrant cultural groups (Salili et al., 2001)
and cultural groups that have been separated by
political forces (Oettingen, 1995) lends prelimi-
nary insight into how groups, and perhaps
individuals, might change important self-beliefs
over time. Some aspects of the self, and the make-
up of an individual’s concept of ‘‘self,’’ show
evidence of change in parallel with contextual
changes. In the research investigating European
Canadian, Chinese Canadian, and Hong Kong
Chinese students (Salili et al., 2001), the immi-
grant group rated their self-efficacy beliefs
between the individualist European Canadian
group and the collectivist Hong Kong Chinese
group. From these results, one might speculate
that the immigrant group—the Chinese Canadian
group—had undergone a cultural shift in con-
strual of self-beliefs: Their self-efficacy, and
perhaps their conception of self, had metamor-
phosed with changes in the cultural context. The
differences in self-efficacy beliefs between the East
and West Berlin schoolchildren (Oettingen, 1995)
also lends credence to the possibility of a shifting
sense of self, and resulting efficacy beliefs, over a
relatively brief period of time, in this case due to
political/cultural variations.
Does collective efficacy replace self-
efficacy in some contexts?
For collectivists, group or collective beliefs also
appear to be key motivational components that
foster achievement. Earley (1993) discovered that
managers from generally collectivist cultures
appeared to express the highest levels of efficacy
beliefs (and performance) when they believed they
were working with an in-group. Conversely,
managers from a predominantly individualist
cultural background performed best, and
expressed the highest self-efficacy beliefs, when
they believed they were working alone. Earley’s
1994 study showed that group-level training was
most effective for improving expectations,
effort, and performance in managers with a
collectivist orientation whereas managers from
an individualist cultural orientation benefited
primarily from individual-level instruction.
Schaubroeck et al. (2000) found bank tellers in
Hong Kong to draw on group-oriented efficacy
beliefs when facing job stress, in contrast to
American bank tellers, who relied most heavily on
beliefs of self-efficacy. Lam et al. (2002) dis-
covered that for allocentrics (collectivists), group
decision making was predicted by level of
collective efficacy; for idiocentrics (individualists),
decision making was predicted by level of self-
efficacy. Earley et al. (1999) supported the notion
that while individualists benefit primarily from
individual-referenced instruction, collectivists
benefit from either group- or individual-focused
instruction. Bandura’s claim that ‘‘Belief in one’s
ability to produce desired effects fosters accom-
plishments in all cultures’’ (1997, p. 32) does not
tell the whole story across all cultures.
Several of the studies included in this review
that did not explore collective efficacy never-
theless concluded that the efficacy of the group or
collective might be especially relevant for indivi-
duals from non-Western cultures: ‘‘It is possible
that the collective-oriented culture may have
influenced Taiwanese students to rely less on
individual abilities than on group efforts’’ (Mau,
2000, p.374). Eaton and Dembo (1997) concluded
‘‘Asian Americans are socialized to feel respon-
sible to their family and community, whose needs
and expectations prevail over existing desires’’
(p. 438). In terms of conception of self, Asian
American high school students presumably view
themselves as more closely connected to their
in-group and respond to different motivational
factors than do non-Asian students. Expectations
from the in-group and concerns over family
or community reaction to achievement level
may be as significant as levels of individual
efficacy.
If Triandis’s (1989) sampling probability model
holds true, self-efficacy, or sampling from a
private self, might be replaced for some groups
by collective efficacy, or sampling from a
collective self. Thus, a student or worker in a
collectivist setting might ask ‘‘Am I expected (by
my in-group) to attempt this task?’’ and ‘‘Am I
(or ‘‘Is my in-group’’) capable of completing this
task?’’ The findings from this review offer
preliminary support for this view. Little is
known about how collective or group efficacy
beliefs are formed, or how educational and
vocational variables such as group-focused
versus individual-focused training affect efficacy
beliefs. For those working in multicultural
settings, a deeper understanding of these issues
may help inform training and instructional
practice.

Methodological problems
Recent concern (Fiske, 2002; Oyserman et al.,
2002) has been expressed about lumping together
ethnic groups under one cultural banner without
first examining similarities and differences on the
dimensions that presumably connect them. In this
review, many of the studies combined ethnic
groups, for example, under the heading of Asian
American. Great diversity is found among Asian
cultures; the label Asian ‘‘includes people cultu-
rally identified with thousands of cultures com-
prising more than half the world’s population’’
(Fiske, 2002). Although there are doubtless
similarities among many of these cultures on
some dimensions, there are significant differences
on the individualism/collectivism dimension
between Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and Indian
samples (Fiske, 2002).
For cross-cultural psychological research, it is
essential to measure the cultural dimension that
presumably separates comparison groups rather
than merely assume that participants from
different national backgrounds share a common
cultural composition. Only a minority of the
studies included in this review actually measured
any form of cultural dimension; nevertheless, a
majority of the studies assumed cultural char-
acteristics based on generalizations about national
cultural orientations, or on Hofstede’s (1980)
ratings of individualism. As noted by Oyserman
et al. (2002), using Hofstede’s ratings (or any
previous measurement, for that matter) makes
the assumptions that mean levels of individualism
do not change according to domain, are stable
over time, and are relevant to individual-level
assessment. A further assumption made is that
the results from Hofstede’s sampling of interna-
tional IBM employees hold true for other
segments of society in each of the countries
included.
A third difficulty was found in the literature
reviewed in this paper. Although self-efficacy has
a strong theoretical base and has been well
explored in a Western cultural setting, the
construct loses explanatory power when it is ill-
defined in practice (Klassen, 2002; Pajares, 1997).
Other motivational beliefs—self-concept of abil-
ity, self-esteem, competence beliefs—are similar in
some ways, but self-efficacy is concerned with
judgments of personal capability in a specific
context. Some of the self-efficacy items encoun-
tered in the studies in this review strayed some
distance from theoretically derived definitions of
self-efficacy. Consider the following items from
measures labelled as self-efficacy measures: ‘‘I
OPTIMISM AND REALISM 227
have devoted much effort to looking for jobs,’’
and ‘‘I am very proud of my job skills and
abilities.’’ These items may be important ques-
tions to ask in some contexts, but they bear little
relation to self-efficacy as it is typically defined.
Finally, several of the studies measured ‘‘general’’
self-efficacy beliefs, which juxtaposition some
theorists would consider contradictory. Bandura,
for example, warned, ‘‘It is no more informative
to speak of self-efficacy in general terms than
to speak of nonspecific social behavior’’ (1997,
p. 14). Removing the context from self- or
collective efficacy assessment removes much of
the relevance and predictiveness of the construct.
Implications for educational and
vocational settings
The principal finding from this review is that
people from collectivist cultural backgrounds
typically rate their efficacy beliefs lower than
do their more individualist counterparts, even
when performance levels are equivalent or higher.
In multicultural educational settings, it is impor-
tant to understand that for some students,
expressions of efficacy may be somewhat muted,
and related more to different cultural practices
and beliefs than lack of confidence. For some
individuals from non-Western cultures, a sense
of realism about one’s efficacy beliefs is func-
tional, and is a result of shared cultural influ-
ences rather than evidence of motivational
shortcomings.
In the realm of business, Earley found that
efficacy beliefs and performance were most
enhanced when congruent with a person’s cultural
background: ‘‘individualists performed best when
exposed to training focused at an individual level,
whereas collectivists performed best when exposed
to training at a group level’’ (1994, p. 112). The
results from Earley’s work suggest that a worker’s
(or student’s) perception of ‘‘self’’ influences his or
her response to training or instruction. Cultural
background, level of connectedness with others,
and current setting may have an impact on a
person’s efficacy beliefs and performance. Teach-
ers and managers need an awareness of how
cultural background influences students’ or
employees’ responses to group and individual
training. There is some evidence that efficacy
beliefs and performance are differentially influ-
enced by group- and individual-focused instruc-
tion according to the cultural dimensions
discussed in this paper.
228 KLASSEN
Conclusions and future research
Bandura (1997) claims ‘‘people guide their lives by
their beliefs of personal efficacy’’ (p. 3) and that
‘‘interdependence does not obliterate a personal
self’’ (p. 32), but these claims may not apply to
some collectivist individuals in some collectivist
settings. The concept of collective efficacy might,
to some extent, replace self-efficacy in certain
cultural settings, leading to the possibility that
‘‘some people (in some contexts) guide their lives
by their beliefs of collective efficacy.’’ Like
individuals who vary their own efficacy beliefs
in relation to context, the self, too, might be seen
as neither wholly independent nor entirely inter-
dependent, but instead mutable, or changeable
according to the cultural setting. Self conceived as
an active verb (Fay, 1996) or as an understanding
(Martin & Sugarman, 2001) helps us understand
how self-beliefs might shift and change over time
and place.
Can self-efficacy be considered an etic, or
universal construct? Because of questionable cul-
tural equivalence of efficacy measures, the cross-
cultural uniformity of self-efficacy has recently
been questioned (Creed, Patton, & Watson, 2002).
There is evidence from this review that lower self-
efficacy ratings in some groups do not signify a
lower level of performance or functioning (e.g.,
Eaton & Dembo, 1997; Salili et al., 2001) and as
discussed, there is convincing evidence that self-
efficacy ratings are lower for those from collecti-
vist cultures. There is also some suggestion that
group or collective efficacy is more pertinent in
some contexts (Earley, 1994, Earley et al., 1999;
Lam et al., 2002; Schaubroeck et al., 2000).
However, there is considerable convergence of the
finding that efficacy beliefs, although rated dif-
ferently, remain important factors in the motiva-
tional functioning of people from individualist
and collectivist cultural groups.
Much more work can be done in investigating
the differential roles that self-efficacy and collec-
tive efficacy play in changing societies. The role of
cultural dimensions—including, but not limited
to, individualism and collectivism—and their
influence on formation of efficacy beliefs can
bear further exploration. Cross-cultural research
provides one way of developing a more inclusive
and universal psychology and, furthermore,
provides direction and understanding for those
working in multicultural applied settings. In order
to extend and strengthen self-efficacy theory,
more research needs to be directed at three
areas. First, it would be helpful to investigate
collective versus self-efficacy in a variety of
settings with a variety of cultural groups. Further
cross-cultural investigation might focus on how
individual versus group-directed feedback influ-
ences efficacy beliefs and performance. Second,
further study of the relative importance of the
sources of self-efficacy in differing cultural con-
texts would be useful for theoretical and practical
purposes. Cross-cultural examination of the for-
mation of efficacy beliefs may lead to an under-
standing of how efficacy and performance might
be enhanced in instructional settings. Finally,
qualitative research would help us gain a more in-
depth understanding of how efficacy beliefs do (or
do not) figure in the academic motivation of
individuals and would provide more of an emic
approach to a heretofore imposed etic construct.
Self-efficacy research has been shown to be a valid
motivational construct in specific settings; con-
siderable further research will help us understand
how cultural factors influence and modify self-
efficacy theory.
Manuscript received January 2003
Revised manuscript accepted September 2003
REFERENCES
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying
theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review,
84, 191–215.
Bandura, A. (1995). Self-efficacy in changing societies.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of
control. New York: Freeman.
Bandura, A. (2002). Social cognitive theory in cultural
context. Journal of Applied Psychology: An
International Review, 51, 269–290.
Bond, M. H. (2002). Reclaiming the individual from
Hofstede’s ecological analysis—A 20-year odyssey:
Comment on Oyserman et al. (2002). Psychological
Bulletin, 128, 73–77.
Chen, C., Lee, S., & Stevenson, H. W. (1995). Response
style and cross-cultural comparisons of rating scales
among East Asian and North American students.
Psychological Science, 6, 170–175.
Cianni, M. (1994). Self-efficacy, race, and gender.
Applied HRM Research, 5, 44–63.
Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2001). Cultural
orientations in the United States: (Re)Examining
differences among ethnic groups. Journal of Cross-
Cultural Psychology, 32, 348–364.
Creed, P. A., Patton, W., & Watson, M. B. (2002).
Cross-cultural equivalence of the career decision-
making self-efficacy scale—Short form: An
Australian and South African comparison. Journal
of Career Assessment, 10, 327–342.
Earley, P. C. (1993). East meets West meets Mideast:
Further explorations of collectivistic and indivi-
dualistic work groups. Academy of Management
Journal, 36, 319–348.
Earley, P. C. (1994). Self or group? Cultural effects of

training on self-efficacy and performance.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 89–117.
Earley, P. C. (1999). Playing follow the leader: Status-
determining traits in relation to collective efficacy
across cultures. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 80, 192–212.
Earley, P. C., Gibson, C. B., & Chen, C. C. (1999).
‘‘How did I do?’’ versus ‘‘How did we do?’’ Cultural
contrasts of performance feedback use and self-
efficacy. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 30,
594–619.
Eaton, M. J., & Dembo, M. H. (1997). Differences in
the motivation beliefs of Asian American and non-
Asian students. Journal of Educational Psychology,
89, 443–440.
Fay, B. (1996). Contemporary philosophy of social
science. Oxford: Blackwell.
Fiske, A. P. (2002). Using individualism and collec-
tivism to compare cultures—A critique of the
validity and measurement of the constructs:
Comment on Oyserman et al. (2002). Psychological
Bulletin, 128, 78–88.
Fulgini, A. J. (1997). The academic achievement of
adolescents from immigrant families: The roles of
family background, attitudes, and behavior. Child
Development, 68, 351–363.
Gaines, S. O., Marelich, W. D., Bledsoe, K. L., Steers,
W. N., Henderson, M. C., Granrose, C. S., Barajas,
L., Hicks, D., Lynde, M., Takahashi, Y., Yum, N.,
Rios, D. I., Garcia, B. F., Farris, K. R., & Page,
M. S. (1997). Links between race/ethnicity and
cultural values as mediated by racial/ethnic
identity and moderated by gender. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1460–1476.
Goddard, R. D. (2001). Collective efficacy: A neglected
construct in the study of schools and student
achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology,
93, 467–476.
Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Woolfolk Hoy, A.
(2000). Collective efficacy: Its meaning, measure,
and impact on student achievement. American
Educational Research Journal, 37, 479–507.
Heine, S. J., Lehman, D. R., Peng, K., & Greenholtz, J.
(in press). What’s wrong with cross-cultural com-
parisons of subjective Likert-scales? The reference-
group effect. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences:
International differences in work-related values.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Kagitçibasi, C. (1997). Individualism and collectivism.
In J. W. Berry, M. H. Segall, & C. Kagitçibasi
(Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology,
Volume3: Social behavior and applications
(pp. 1–50). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Kim, U., Triandis, H. C., Kagitcibasi, C., Choi, S. C.,
& Yoon, G. (1994). Introduction. In U. Kim, H. C.
Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S. C. Choi, & G. Yoon
(Eds.), Individualism and collectivism: Theory,
methods and applications (pp. 1–16). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kitayama, S. (2002). Culture and basic psychological
processes—toward a system view of culture:
Comment on Oyserman et al. (2002). Psychological
Bulletin, 128, 89–96.
Kitayama, S., Markus, H. R., Matsumoto, H., &
Norasakkunkit, V. (1997). Individual and collective
OPTIMISM AND REALISM 229
processes in the construction of the self: Self-
enhancement in the United States and self-criticism
in Japan. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 72, 1245–1267.
Klassen, R. (2002). Writing in early adolescence: A
review of the role of self-efficacy beliefs. Educational
Psychology Review, 14, 173–204.
Lam, S. S., Chen, X. P., & Schaubroeck, J. (2002).
Participative decision making and employee
performance in different cultures: The moderating
effects of allocentrism/idiocentrism and efficacy.
Academy of Management Journal, 45, 905–1005.
Leung, C. (2001). The psychological adaptation of
overseas and migrant students in Australia.
International Journal of Psychology, 36, 251–259.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the
self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and
motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224–253.
Marsh, H. W., Hau, K. T., & Kong, C. K. (2002).
Multilevel causal ordering of academic self-concept
and achievement: Influence of language of
instruction (English compared with Chinese) for
Hong Kong students. American Educational
Research Journal, 39, 727–764.
Martin, J., & Sugarman, J. (2001). Is the self a kind of
understanding? Journal for the Theory of Social
Behaviour, 31, 103–114.
Matsumoto, D. (2001). Introduction. In D. Matsumoto
(Ed.), The handbook of culture and psychology
(pp. 3–7). New York: Oxford University Press.
Mau, W. C. (2000). Cultural differences in career
decision-making styles and self-efficacy. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 57, 365–378.
Miller, J. G. (2002). Bringing culture to basic
psychological theory—beyond individualism and
collectivism: Comment on Oyserman et al. (2002).
Psychological Bulletin, 128, 97–109.
Neisser, U. (1997). Concepts and self-concepts. In
U. Neisser & D. A. Jopling (Eds.), Conceptual self
in context (pp. 3–12). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Oettingen, G. (1995). Cross-cultural perspectives on
self-efficacy. In A. Bandura (Ed.), Self-efficacy in
changing societies (pp. 149–176). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Oettingen, G., Little, T. D., Lindenberger, U., & Baltes,
P. B. (1994). Causality, agency, and control beliefs
in East versus West Berlin children: A natural
experiment on the role of context. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 579–595.
Oettingen, G., & Maier, H. (1999). Where political
system meets culture: Effects on efficacy appraisal.
In Y. T. Lee, C. R. McCauley, & J. G. Draguns
(Eds.), Personality and person perception across
cultures (pp. 163–190). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates Inc.
Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M.
(2002). Rethinking individualism and collectivism:
Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-
analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 3–72.
Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic
settings. Review of Educational Research, 66,
543–578.
Pajares, F. (1997). Current directions in self-efficacy
research. In M. Maehr & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.),
Advances in motivation and achievement. Vol. 10
(pp. 1–49). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
230 KLASSEN
Pajares, F. (2000, April). Seeking a culturally attentive
educational psychology. Paper presented at the
meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, New Orleans.
Pajares, F., & Graham, L. (1999). Self-efficacy, motiva-
tion constructs, and mathematics performance of
entering middle school students. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 24, 124–139.
Pajares, F., & Schunk, D. H. (2000). Self-beliefs and
school success: Self-efficacy, self-concept, and school
achievement. In R. J. Riding & S. G. Rayner (Eds.),
Self perception: International perspectives on indi-
vidual differences, Vol. 2 (pp. 239–265). Westport,
CT: Ablex Publishing.
Pajares, F., & Valiante, G. (1997). Influence of self-
efficacy on elementary students’ writing. The Journal
of Educational Research, 90, 353–360.
Pastorelli, C., Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Rola,
J., Rozsa, S., & Bandura, A. (2001). The structure of
children’s perceived self-efficacy: A cross-national
study. European Journal of Psychological
Assessment, 17, 87–97.
Randhawa, B. S., & Gupta, A. (2000). Cross-national
gender differences in mathematics achievement,
attitude, and self-efficacy within a common intrin-
sic structure. Canadian Journal of School Psychology,
15, 51–66.
Salili, F., Chiu, C. Y., & Lai, S. (2001). The influence of
culture and context on students’ motivational
orientation and performance. In F. Salili, C. Y.
Chie, & Y. Y. Hong (Eds.), Student motivation: The
culture and context of learning (pp. 221–247). New
York: Kluwer.
Schaubroeck, J., Lam, S. S., & Xie, J. L. (2000).
Collective efficacy versus self-efficacy in coping
responses to stressors and control: A cross-cultural
study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 512–525.
Scholz, U., Gutiérrez-Doña, B., Sud, S., &
Schwarzer, R. (2002). Is general self-efficacy a
universal construct? Psychometric findings from 25
countries. European Journal of Psychological
Assessment, 18, 242–251.
Schwarzer, R., Baßler, J., Kwiatek, P., Schroder, K., &
Zhang, J. X. (1997). The assessment of optimistic
self-beliefs: Comparison of the German, Spanish,
and Chinese versions of the General Self-efficacy
Scale. Applied Psychology: An International Review,
46, 69–88.
Schwarzer, R., & Born, A. (1997). Optimistic self-
beliefs: Assessment of general perceived self-efficacy
in 13 cultures. World Psychology, 3, 177–190.
Sinha, D., & Tripathi, R. C. (1994). Individualism in a
collectivist culture: A case of coexistence of oppo-
sites. In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi,
S. C. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and
collectivism: Theory, methods and applications
(pp. 123–137). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Stigler, J. W., Smith, S., & Mao, L. W. (1985). The
self-perception of competence by Chinese children.
Child Development, 56, 1259–1270.
Triandis, H. C. (1989). The self and social behavior in
differing cultural contexts. Psychological Review, 96,
506–520.
Triandis, H. C. (1990). Cross-cultural studies of
individualism and collectivism. In J. Berman
(Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 1989
(pp. 41–133). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska
Press.
Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism.
Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Triandis, H. C. (1996). The psychological measurement
of cultural syndromes. American Psychologist, 51,
407–415.
Triandis, H. C. (2001). Individualism and collectivism:
Past, present, and future. In D. Matsumoto (Ed.),
The handbook of culture and psychology (pp. 35–50).
New York: Oxford University Press.
Tweed, R. G., & Lehman, D. R. (2002). Learning
considered within a cultural context: Confucian and
Socratic approaches. American Psychologist, 57,
89–99.
Voronov, M., & Singer, J. A. (2002). The myth of
individualism-collectivism: A critical review. The
Journal of Social Psychology, 142, 461–480.
Whang, P. A., & Hancock, G. R. (1994). Motivation
and mathematics achievement: Comparisons
between Asian-American and non-Asian students.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 302–
322.
Zane, N. W. S., Sue, S., Hu, L., & Kwon, J. H. (1991).
Asian-American assertion: A social learning analysis
of cultural differences. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 38, 63–70.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Self-efficacy: An essential
motive to learn. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 25, 82–91.