Ðóñ Eng Cn Translate this page:
Nota Bene. Books, journals, publishing technologies.
Please select your language to translate the article


You can just close the window to don't translate ☒
Library
 Your profile
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Back to contents

Psychology and Psychotechnics
Reference:

Shchebetenko S.A. Trait Efficacy: At the Crossroads of the Dispositional and Cognitive Approaches to Personality

Abstract: The article taps into an approach integrating the dispositional and social cognitive paradigms of personality under a unified umbrella. The key element of the dispositional approach to personality is the concept of traits, i.e. individual combinations of motives and patterns of behavior that describe and allow to predict one's actions. On the contrary, cognitive theories of personality emphasize the crucial role of situational and contextual factors. For this purpose, a construct of trait efficacy is introduced being referred to as an aspect of a trait which underscores that an individual may identify her or his skills and habits to respond adequately to situations which exert cues relevant to the given trait. It is assumed that in certain cases trait efficacy more adequately describes invidual's behavior including academic success and achievements. 1030 students from a Russian university filled in the Big Five Inventory that measures personality traits (the so called five-factor model) and the modified version of the Inventory designated to measure the dispositional efficacy. The researchers measured the two types of academic achievement, university success at the end of academic terms and Unified State Exam scores (Russian and math subtests). The traits were shown to correlate strongly with respective trait efficacy; meanwhile, in terms of mean differences, each trait was found to differ substantially from its trait efficacy counterpart. Academic achievement indicators correlated weakly with personality traits. Dispositional efficacy reproduced those correlations but obtained effects were higher except for the correlation between diligence and university success. In five cases out of seven personality traits related indirectly to academic achievement indicators. In other words, these links were mediated by respective trait efficacy. Theoretically, compared to personality traits dispositional efficacy is a more changeable construct that involves acquisition of personal behavioral schemes and identification therewith. Being a personality trait, dispositional efficacy is, psychometrically, a product of autobiographic memory. The findings obtained and corresponding theorisations promote a further opportunity to contemplate the construct of personality trait in a way of its inner structural differentiation.

Keywords:

self-efficacy, the Big Five, academic achievement, congitive theories of personality, integrative frameworks, five-factor model, personality traits, autobiographical memory, questionnaires, Big Five Inventory

This article can be downloaded freely in PDF format for reading. Download article

This article written in Russian. You can find original text of the article here .
References
1. Zuckerman M. Personality science: Three approaches and their applications to the causes and treatment of depression. Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association, 2011.
2. Shchebetenko S. “The best man in the world”: Attitudes toward personality traits // Psychology. Journal of the Higher School of Economics. 2014. Vol. 11, ¹ 3. pp. 129–148.
3. Verhage M. L., Oosterman M., Schuengel C. Parenting self-efficacy predicts perceptions of infant negative temperament characteristics, not vice versa. // Journal of Family Psychology. 2013. Vol. 27, ¹ 5. pp. 844–849.
4. Saucier G., Goldberg L. R. The language of personality: Lexical perspectives on the five-factor model // In: The five-factor model of personality: Theoretical perspectives (pp. 21–50). New York, NY, US: Guilford Press, 1996.
5. Preacher K. J., Hayes A. F. Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. // Behavior Research Methods. 2008. Vol. 40, ¹ 3. pp. 879–891.
6. Musek J. A general factor of personality: Evidence for the Big One in the five-factor model. // Journal of Research in Personality. 2007. Vol. 41, ¹ 6. pp. 1213–1233.
7. Ng K.-Y., Ang S., Chan K.-Y. Personality and leader effectiveness: A moderated mediation model of leadership self-efficacy, job demands, and job autonomy. // Journal of Applied Psychology. 2008. Vol. 93, ¹ 4. pp. 733–743.
8. Mischel W. Continuity and change in personality. // American Psychologist. 1969. Vol. 24, ¹ 11. pp. 1012–1018.
9. McCrae R. R., Costa Jr. P. T. Personality in adulthood: A five-factor theory perspective (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press, 2003.
10. Kelly G. A. The psychology of personal constructs. New York: Norton, 1955.
11. Löckenhoff C. E., Duberstein P. R., Friedman B., Costa Jr. P. T. Five-factor personality traits and subjective health among caregivers: The role of caregiver strain and self-efficacy. // Psychology and Aging. 2011. Vol. 26, ¹ 3. pp. 592–604.
12. John O. P., Naumann L. P., Soto C. J. Paradigm shift to the integrative Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and conceptual issues. // In: O. P. John, R. W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 114–158). New York, NY: Guilford Press, 2008.
13. John O. P., Donahue E. M., Kentle R. L. The Big Five Inventory:Versions 4a and 5. — Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley, Institute of Personality and Social Research, 1991.
14. Hanin Y., Eysenck S. B. G., Eysenck H. J., Barrett P. A cross-cultural study of personality: Russia and England. // Personality and Individual Differences. 1991. Vol. 12, ¹ 3. pp. 265–271.
15. Goldberg L. R. The structure of phenotypic personality traits. // American Psychologist. 1993. Vol. 48, ¹ 1. pp. 26–34.
16. Goldberg L. R. A broad-bandwidth, public domain, personality inventory measuring the lower-level facets of several five-factor models. // In: I. Mervielde, I. Deary, F. De Fruyt, & F. Ostendorf (Eds.), Personality psychology in Europe (Vol. 7, pp. 7–28). Tilburg, The Netherlands: Tilburg University Press, 1999.
17. Eysenck H. J. Dimensions of personality. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 1950/1998.
18. Goldberg L. R. An alternative “description of personality”: The Big-Five factor structure. // Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1990. Vol. 59, ¹ 6. pp. 1216–1229.
19. Digman J. M. Higher-order factors of the Big Five. // Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1997. Vol. 73, ¹ 6. pp. 1246–1256.
20. DeYoung C. G., Peterson J. B., Higgins D. M. Higher-order factors of the Big Five predict conformity: Are there neuroses of health? // Personality and Individual Differences. 2002. Vol. 33, ¹ 4. pp. 533–552.
21. DeYoung C. G., Hirsh J. B., Shane M. S., Papademetris X., Rajeevan N., Gray J. R. Testing predictions from personality neuroscience: Brain structure and the Big Five. // Psychological Science. 2010. Vol. 21, ¹ 6. pp. 820–828.
22. Cattell R. B. The description of personality: basic traits resolved into clusters // The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 1943. Vol. 38, ¹ 4. pp. 476–506.
23. Delahaij R., van Dam K., K, W., Soeters J. Predicting performance under acute stress: The role of individual characteristics. // International Journal of Stress Management. 2011. Vol. 18, ¹ 1. pp. 49–66.
24. Caprara G. V., Delle Fratte A. Steca P. Determinanti personali del benessere nell’adolescenza: indicazioni e predittori. // Psicologia Clinica Dello Sviluppo. 2002. ¹ 2.
25. Caprara G. V., Caprara M., Steca P. Personality’s correlates of adult development and aging. // European Psychologist. 2003. Vol. 8, ¹ 3. pp. 131–147.
26. Caprara G. V. Personality psychology: Filling the gap between basic processes and molar functioning. // In: L. Backman & C. von Hofsten (Eds.), Psychology at the turn of the millennium, Vol. 2: Social, developmental and clinical perspectives. Psychology Press, 2002.
27. Brezina T., Topalli V. Criminal self-efficacy exploring the correlates and consequences of a “successful criminal” identity. // Criminal Justice and Behavior. 2012. Vol. 39, ¹ 8. pp. 1042–1062.
28. Bandura A., Reese L., Adams N. E. Microanalysis of action and fear arousal as a function of differential levels of perceived self-efficacy. // Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1982. Vol. 43, ¹ 1. pp. 5–21.
29. Bandura A. Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. // Psychological Review. 1977. Vol. 84, ¹ 2. pp. 191–215.
30. Allport G. W., Odbert H. S. Trait-names: A psycho-lexical study // Psychological Monographs. 1936. Vol. 47, ¹ 1. pp. i–171.
31. Anderson S. L., Betz N. E. Sources of social self-efficacy expectations: Their measurement and relation to career development. // Journal of Vocational Behavior. 2001. Vol. 58, ¹ 1. pp. 98–117.
32. Shepeleva E.A. Osobennosti uchebnoi i sotsial'noi samoeffektivnosti shkol'nikov. // Avtoreferat… kand. psikhol. nauk. M., 2008.
33. Kh'ell, L., Zigler, D. Teorii lichnosti. Osnovnye polozheniya, issledovaniya i primenenie SPb.: Piter, 1997. 608 c.
34. Shvartser R., Erusalem M., Romek V. Russkaya versiya Shkala obshchei samoeffektivnosti R. Shvartsera i M. Erusalema // Inostrannaya psikhologiya, 1996. ¹7. S. 71–76.
35. Merlin, V. S. Ocherk teorii temperamenta. M., 1964. 118 s.
36. Pervin L., Dzhon O. Psikhologiya lichnosti: Teoriya i issledovaniya. M.: Aspekt Press, 2001. 607 s.
37. Knyazev G. G., Mitrofanova L. G., Bocharov V. A. Validizatsiya russkoyazychnoi versii oprosnika L. Goldberga «Markery faktorov ”Bol'shoi Pyaterki”» // Psikhologicheskii Zhurnal. 2010. T. 31. ¹ 5. S. 100–110.
38. Gaidar M.I. Razvitie lichnostnoi samoeffektivnosti studentov-psikhologov na etape vuzovskogo obucheniya. // Avtoreferat… kand. psikhol. nauk. Kursk, 2008.
Nota Bene
 
For authors
 
Other
 
Our sites
© 1998 – 2024 Nota Bene. Publishing Technologies. NB-Media Ltd.