- Email: [email protected]
Development and validation of a measure of cognitive and behavioural social self-efficacy
Personality and Individual Differences 59 (2014) 71–76
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Personality and Individual Differences journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid
Development and validation of a measure of cognitive and behavioural social self-efficacy Rachel Grieve a,⇑, Kate Witteveen b, G. Anne Tolan b, Brett Jacobson b a b
University of Tasmania, Australia Australian Catholic University, Brisbane Campus, 1100 Nudgee Rd, Banyo, Queensland 4014, Australia
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 12 July 2013 Received in revised form 9 November 2013 Accepted 14 November 2013 Available online 8 December 2013 Keywords: Social self-efficacy Cognitive social self-efficacy Behavioural social self-efficacy Social intelligence
a b s t r a c t Although social self-efficacy appears influential across a broad spectrum of human behaviour, existing adult measures of social self-efficacy have conceptual and psychometric limitations. The current research brought together the realms of trait social intelligence and self-efficacy to develop and evaluate a measure of social self-efficacy which for the first time included assessment of cognitive domains of social selfefficacy. Items were administered to 301 participants, along with measures of general self-efficacy, subjective wellbeing, social anxiety, depression, general anxiety, and stress. An exploratory factor analysis (Maximum Likelihood with Direct Oblimin extraction) revealed two interpretable factors that were labeled ‘‘Social Understanding Self-efficacy’’ (cognitive) and ‘‘Social Skill Self-efficacy’’ (behavioural). Construct and criterion validity were evident and internal consistency and test–retest reliability were good. It was concluded that the new 18-item measure has sound psychometric properties. As such, this measure may serve as a meaningful tool for researchers and clinicians. While theoretical and empirical frameworks informed the current research, given the exploratory nature of this study, future research should further investigate the psychometric properties of this measure using confirmatory factor analysis and by examining the predictive validity of this measure in a clinical context. Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction While social self-efficacy has considerable clinical relevance (Thomasson & Psouni, 2010), reviews of existing social self-efficacy scales note limitations with conceptualisation and measurement of the construct (Fan, Meng, Zhao, & Patel, 2012; Gaudiano & Herbert, 2003; Smith & Betz, 2000). The current study aimed to develop and provide initial psychometric validation for a new self-report measure of cognitive and behavioural social self-efficacy, with the goal of improving operationalisation of the measurement of confidence to perform in the social realm. 1.1. Social self-efficacy Although no unitary definition exists (Smith & Betz, 2000), social self-efficacy is typically conceptualised as one’s perceived skill and confidence in social situations (e.g., Caprara & Steca, 2005). Even though the perception of one’s ability to perform well in a given task is distinct from one’s actual ability to perform that task, efficacy beliefs can have a pervasive effect on performance ⇑ Corresponding author. Address: School of Psychology, University of Tasmania, Private Bag 30, Hobart, Tasmania 7001, Australia. Tel.: +61 3 6226 2244; fax: +61 3 6226 2883. E-mail address: [email protected] (R. Grieve). 0191-8869/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.11.008
and adaptive psychosocial functioning (Maciejewski, Prigerson, & Mazure, 2000). In any context where interpersonal exchange occurs, people will vary in their perceived ability to successfully engage in social environments, thereby influencing interpersonal outcomes (Mallinckrodt & Wei, 2005; Segrin & Taylor, 2007; Wei, Russell, & Zakalik, 2005). Individuals with low social self-efficacy typically overemphasise personal deficiencies in social situations, leading to feelings of helplessness, negative social expectations and maladaptive social behaviours (Wei et al., 2005), and orientations towards social competence are related to positive emotions (Shim, Wang, & Cassady, 2013). Given the pervasive influence of social self-efficacy in one’s life, sound assessment of the construct may play an important role in understanding and predicting psychosocial functioning. 1.2. Measures of social self-efficacy Reviews of older social self-efficacy scales (Gaudiano & Herbert, 2003; Smith & Betz, 2000) have noted that many scales are psychometrically problematic, with problems replicating factor structures, inconsistent predictive and content validity, and poor internal consistency. Furthermore, some social self-efficacy scales have used standard Likert-style scales with anchors strongly disagree–strongly agree (e.g., Sherer et al., 1982). Smith and Betz (2000) argued that using this scale response format may fail to
72
R. Grieve et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 59 (2014) 71–76
capture the self-evaluative nature of this construct. In line with this, Bandura (2006) has proposed that anchors not at all confident–very confident are typically more appropriate for self-efficacy scales. Smith and Betz (2000) developed the Scale of Perceived Social Self-Efficacy. Although showing excellent internal consistency and good test–retest reliability (Smith & Betz), this measure targets general social behaviours, and does not provide insight into other domains of social functioning and social self-efficacy. 1.3. Cognitive domains of social self-efficacy While measures such as Smith and Betz’s (2000) consider beliefs pertaining to behavioural aspects of social exchange, cognitive processes such as social information processing also underpin social functioning (Petrides, Mason, & Sevdalis, 2011; Ziv, 2013). Social information processing refers to one’s ability to accurately understand and predict social situations (Ziv, 2013). Social information processing can influence how a person interacts with others, as people typically make inferences about others based on socially laden information (Petrides et al., 2011; Ziv, 2013). It would thus seem that including assessment of the cognitive aspect of social self-efficacy may add insight into the construct. 1.4. The current research In summary, as social self-efficacy can impact on an individual’s functioning (Wei et al., 2005), accurate assessment of the construct is important. However, existing operationalisations of social selfefficacy do not typically assess cognitive aspects of social self-efficacy. The current study attempted to address this limitation by developing and providing preliminary validation of a social selfefficacy scale which assesses perceptions related to both behavioural and cognitive aspects of social interaction. In order to achieve this, we drew on social intelligence research to inform the development of cognitive social self-efficacy items. Social intelligence refers to individual differences concerning the relative success people experience in social situations and interpersonal relationships (Kihlstrom & Cantor, 2011). Given the similarities between emotional and social intelligence, it has been suggested that models of social intelligence might parallel the trait-ability approach to emotional intelligence (Grieve & Mahar, 2013). Trait emotional intelligence encompasses emotion-related self-perception (Petrides, Pita, & Kokkinaki, 2007), thus trait social intelligence might encompass social self-perceptions. Drawing on the work of Kirk, Schutte, and Hine (2008), Grieve and Mahar (2013) suggested a paradigm linking social self-efficacy to trait (i.e., self-report), rather than ability social intelligence, and proposed that existing self-report measures such as the Tromsø Social Intelligence Scale (Silvera, Martinussen, & Dahl, 2001) could form the basis of a social self-efficacy measure. The overall goal of the current research was to develop and provide initial psychometric validation for a self-report measure of social self-efficacy. Following item development, the latent factor structure of the items was assessed using exploratory factor analysis, as no a priori model was identified (Fabrigar, Wegener, MacCallum, & Strahan, 1999). Convergent and criterion validity were also examined via correlations with general self-efficacy, social anxiety, subjective wellbeing and psychological distress (depression, general anxiety, and stress). It was anticipated that social self-efficacy would be positively correlated with general self-efficacy (though not to the point of redundancy). Predictions were in line with previous research suggesting that low selfefficacy is linked to poor life satisfaction (Caprara & Steca, 2005; Weber, Ruch, Littman-Ovadia, Lavy, & Gai, 2013) depression (Wei et al., 2005), and social anxiety (Gaudiano & Herbert, 2003;
Thomasson & Psouni, 2010). Finally, internal consistency and test–retest reliability was assessed. 1.4.1. Item development In line with suggestions outlined by Grieve and Mahar (2013), the Tromsø Social Intelligence Scale (Silvera et al., 2001) was amended to reflect a measure of social self-efficacy. While many measures of social intelligence are conceptually and psychometrically problematic, the Tromsø scale consists of 21 self-report items measuring the domains of social information processing, social skills, and social awareness, with a clear factor structure and good psychometric properties (Grieve & Mahar, 2013). Due to the scale’s multidimensional nature (Silvera et al.), it was envisaged that items from the social information processing and social awareness subscales, once adapted, would provide promising means to capture cognitive aspects of social self-efficacy. Based on Bandura’s (2006) recommendations for the development of items measuring self-efficacy, instructions were updated, items were refined, and scale anchors were adjusted to reflect self-efficacy in the social realm, and to tap into the self-evaluative nature of this construct. For example, in the original measure, a social skills item is: I am good at entering new situations and meeting people for the first time, with participants asked to indicate the extent to which they agree or disagree with that statement using a Likert response scale. However, in the revised measure, instructions asked participants to ‘‘Rate your confidence in your ability to’’ Enter situations and meet people for the first time, with response options, 1 = not at all confident; 5 = very confident. Revised instructions, items and scale anchors were developed by the first and second authors, and were then reviewed by an independent panel of experienced researchers for readability, comparability, and face validity. 2. Method 2.1. Participants The total sample consisted of 301 participants who completed the social self-efficacy items for factor analysis (43 male, 258 female; Mean age = 25.22, SD = 9.12). Of these, 289 participants (39 male, 250 female; Mean age = 25.13, SD = 9.07) also completed measures to assess construct and criterion validity. A separate sample (2 male, 11 female; Mean age = 27.85, SD = 11.98) was used to assess test–retest reliability. 2.2. Design The current research consists of two parts. The first element of this study reflects a cross-sectional design. An exploratory factor analysis using Maximum Likelihood extraction and oblique rotation (Direct Oblimin) examined the latent factor structure of the social self-efficacy items. Construct and criterion validity were assessed by considering bivariate correlations with general selfefficacy, subjective wellbeing, social anxiety, depression, general anxiety, and stress. The second element of this study was a longitudinal design. A two week interval separated Time 1 and Time 2, to assess the test–retest reliability of the scale. 2.3. Materials 2.3.1. Social self-efficacy Social self-efficacy was measured using the pool of items described above. Self-reported responses were given for 21 items with participants asked to rate their confidence in their social ability, where 1 = not at all confident and 5 = very confident. A sample
R. Grieve et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 59 (2014) 71–76
item is Predict how others will react to my behavior. Items are presented in the Appendix. 2.3.2. General self-efficacy General self-efficacy was assessed using the General Self-Efficacy Scale (Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 1995). Self-reported responses were given for 10 items using a four point Likert-style scale, where 1 = not true at all and 4 = exactly true. A sample item is I can usually handle whatever comes my way. Internal consistency has been found to be acceptable (a = .74)–excellent (a = .91) (Scholz, Gutiérrez-Doña, Sud, & Schwarzer, 2002). 2.3.3. Subjective wellbeing Subjective wellbeing was measured using the Satisfaction with Life Scale (Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985). Self-reported responses were given on a seven point Likert scale, where 1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree. A sample item is In most ways my life is close to my ideal. This scale has good internal consistency (a = .85, Pavot, Diener, Colvin, & Sandvik, 1991). 2.3.4. Social anxiety Fear and avoidance associated with social anxiety was assessed using the three item Mini-Social Phobia Inventory (Connor, Kobak, Churchill, Katzelnick, & Davidson, 2001). Self-reported responses were given on a five point Likert-style scale, where 0 = not at all and 4 = extremely. A sample item is I avoid activities in which I am the centre of attention. The Mini-SPIN has good internal consistency (a = .85, Weeks, Spokas, & Heimberg, 2007). 2.3.5. Psychological distress Psychological distress was assessed using the three subscales (7 items each) of the Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale-21 (Lovibond & Lovibond, 1995), which measure depression, general anxiety, and stress. Self-reported responses were given on a four point Likert-style scale, indicating symptoms of distress occurring over the last week, where 0 = does not apply to me and 3 = applies to me very much or most of the time. This scale is a widely used measure of psychological distress (Gomez, 2013). A sample item is I couldn’t seem to experience any positive feeling at all (depression subscale). Good–excellent internal consistency for the depression (a = .94), anxiety (a = .87), and stress (a = .91) subscales is evident (Antony, Bieling, Cox, Enns, & Swinson, 1998). 2.4. Procedure Ethical clearance for this study was obtained from the relevant human research ethics committee. Participants were invited to take part in this research via email and posts in social media, and they accessed the test battery via a secure online data collection service (SurveyMonkey). Once participants provided informed consent, the questionnaires were presented in random order. 3. Results Prior to analysis, all relevant assumptions were checked and were met. Preliminary analyses were conducted to examine any influences in the data due to gender. A Bonferroni adjustment for multiple comparisons was used. There was no significant gender difference on any variables, thus all data were combined for analysis. 3.1. Exploratory factor analysis An exploratory factor analysis (Maximum Likelihood) was performed on the 21 Social Self-Efficacy items. Kaiser–Meyer-Olkin’s
73
measure of sampling adequacy was ‘‘marvelous’’ .95, and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity was significant v = 4.73, p < .001, indicating that the data was factorable. Three factors were identified with eigenvalues exceeding 1 (10.74, 2.14, and 1.27) however an examination of the scree plot was ambiguous, suggesting two or three factors. A three-factor solution was attempted (16 iterations), but consisted of cross-loading items and was uninterpretable. A two-factor solution was then attempted using Direct Oblimin rotation. This solution (5 iterations) provided clear factors, accounting for 48.53% and 9.20% of variance. However, there were three cross-loading items (12, 15, and 18): in accordance with the recommendations of Costello and Osborne (2005), these items were removed. The data was then subjected to another exploratory factor analysis. With the three items removed, the scree plot again suggested either a two- or three-factor solution. A three-factor solution was attempted, and resulted in crossloading of all items. A two-factor solution (4 iterations) was then undertaken, and provided clean and interpretable factors accounting for 48.51% and 10.49% of variance in the 18 items. Pattern matrix factor loadings with a minimum loading of .32 (Tabachnik & Fidell, 2007) are presented in Table 1. The content of items suggests Factor 1 reflects cognitive aspects of social self-efficacy (i.e. perceived ability to understand and predict social situations) and Factor 2 appears to capture behavioural aspects (i.e. perceived skill and confidence in social situations). Accordingly, Factor 1 was labeled Social Understanding Self Efficacy and Factor 2 was labeled Social Skill Self-Efficacy. These factors were correlated with each other (r = .55), indicating that an oblique rotation was appropriate (Fabrigar et al., 1999). 3.2. Descriptive statistics Descriptive statistics and scale reliabilities are presented in Table 2, and were generally consistent with previous research (Diener et al., 1985; Lovibond & Lovibond, 1995; Scherbaum, Cohen-Charash, & Kern, 2006; Simpson, Schumaker, Dorahy, & Shrestha, 1996), although social anxiety was higher than those reported by previous research using a similar nonclinical adult sample (M = 1.8, SD = 1.6; Seeley-Wait, Abbott, & Rapee, 2009). Scale reliabilities were good to excellent. 3.3. Construct validity Bivariate correlations are presented in Table 3. 3.3.1. Convergent validity Full scale scores and social understanding and social skill subscales scores were positively and significantly correlated with general self-efficacy, accounting for 18.49%, 11.56%, and 22.09% of variance respectively. 3.3.2. Criterion validity The full scale and social understanding and social skill subscales were positively and significantly correlated with subjective wellbeing, accounting for 9.61%, 4.41%, and 14.44% of variance. However, differences between correlations for full scale and subscale scores concerning depression, general anxiety, and stress were found. While there was no relationship between social understanding self-efficacy and measures of psychological distress, social skill self-efficacy was negatively and significantly correlated with depression, general anxiety, and stress, accounting for 12.25%, 9.61% and 4.84% of variance respectively. Furthermore, the full scale score was negatively and significantly correlated with depression and general anxiety, explaining 3.61% and 2.25% of variance respectively, but was not significantly correlated with stress. The full scale and social understanding and social skill subscales
74
R. Grieve et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 59 (2014) 71–76
Table 1 Exploratory factor analysis. Loadings 1 Understand what others really mean through their expression, body language, etc. Understand other peoples’ feelings Understand others’ wishes Know how many actions will make others feel Realise when I have hurt others Predict how others will react to my behaviour Understand why people might become angry with me Understand others’ choices Predict other people’s behaviour Understand what others are trying to accomplish without the need for them saying anything Anticipate others’ reactions to what I do Anticipate the things people do Find people predictable Enter new situations and meeting people for the first time Fit in easily in social situations Feel comfortable around new people who I don’t know Find good conversation topics Be able to say what I think without people becoming angry or irritated
2
.83 .82 .82 .80 .76 .76 .72 .71 .70 .70 .70 .65 .57 .97 .89 .84 .60 .41
Note: Loadings less than .32 are suppressed.
4. Discussion
Table 2 Descriptive statistics and scale reliabilities.
18-item social self-efficacy scale Social understanding self-efficacy subscale Social skill self-efficacy subscale General self-efficacy Subjective wellbeing Social anxiety Depression General anxiety Stress
Mean
SD
Cronbach’s a
86.88 64.75 22.12 30.03 23.77 5.45 3.94 3.12 5.86
17.67 12.93 6.64 3.99 6.89 3.32 4.58 3.80 4.49
.94 .94 .88 .86 .89 .86 .91 .85 .85
were negatively and significantly correlated with social anxiety, explaining 8.41%, 2.25%, and 24.01% of variance respectively. 3.4. Scale reliability 3.4.1. Internal consistency Internal consistency was good–excellent. Please see Table 2. 3.4.2. Test–retest reliability Test–retest reliability of the 18-item scale over a two week interval was good, r(11) = .75, p = .003, between Time 1 (M = 92.77; SD = 10.31) and Time 2 (M = 93.77; SD = 12.42).
This study aimed to develop and undertake preliminary evaluation of a new measure of social self-efficacy. An 18-item measure comprised of two subscales was developed, with good internal and temporal stability. By assessing social self-efficacy beliefs relating to social information processing (e.g., Fan et al., 2012; Gaudiano & Herbert, 2003), the Social Understanding Self-Efficacy subscale allows operationalisation of a previously unexamined cognitive social self-efficacy domain. The Social Skill Self-Efficacy subscale appears to measure behavioural social self-efficacy. It would seem that the full scale (‘‘Cognitive-Behavioural Social Self-Efficacy Scale’’) therefore facilitates assessment of cognitive and behavioural aspects of social functioning. Although further validation is required, the multidimensionality of this scale may provide a more cohesive conceptual understanding of social self-efficacy. Given that social self-efficacy and general self-efficacy involve self-evaluative judgments about one’s functioning, the positive correlation seen here is consistent with what one would expect from a measure of social self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997). In addition, the full scale and subscales were moderately and negatively correlated with social anxiety, paralleling previous research with clinically (Gaudiano & Herbert, 2003) and non-clinically socially anxious adults (Thomasson & Psouni, 2010). Additionally, social self-efficacy was more strongly correlated with social anxiety than depression, general anxiety, or stress, as might be expected from a measure of social self-efficacy. Further, social anxiety was more
Table 3 Bivariate correlations. 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 *
18-item social self-efficacy scale Social understanding self-efficacy subscale Social skill self-efficacy subscale General self-efficacy Subjective wellbeing Social anxiety Depression General anxiety Stress
p < .05. p < .01. *** p < .001. **
2 .95*** .81*** .43*** .30*** .30*** .18** .14* .08
3
.59*** .34*** .21*** .15*** .07 .03 .001
4
.47*** .38*** .49*** .35*** .31*** .22***
5
.39*** .34*** .38*** .32*** .28***
.25*** .59*** .34*** .31***
6
7
8
.33*** .42*** .25***
.66*** .69***
.69***
9
R. Grieve et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 59 (2014) 71–76
strongly correlated with social skill self-efficacy than general selfefficacy; and social self-efficacy was moderately (positively) correlated with subjective wellbeing. Taken together, these findings suggest construct validity is good. The current findings provide preliminary support for the premise postulated by Grieve and Mahar (2013) that amending a measure of trait social intelligence may provide a psychometrically robust measure of social self-efficacy, while providing insight into the nomological nature of self-reported social intelligence. Specifically, it is possible that a trait-ability model of social intelligence could be meaningfully applied whereby social self-efficacy would reflect a dimension of trait social intelligence. 4.1. Implications Even when individuals with low self-efficacy are capable of sustaining healthy interpersonal relationships, it has been suggested that they are unlikely to do so because they doubt their social ability (Bandura, 1997). Therefore, the quality and nature of interpersonal relationships can be shaped by social self-efficacy (Segrin & Taylor, 2007). While it is unclear from the current research design whether low social self-efficacy leads to psychological distress (as this relationship could be bidirectional), the association between social self-efficacy, subjective wellbeing, and psychological distress may be due to the effect of social self-efficacy on interpersonal relationships. Indeed, research suggests that having intimate and satisfying interpersonal relationships correlates with high life satisfaction (Segrin & Taylor, 2007; Vecchio, Gerbino, Pastorelli, Bove, & Caprara, 2007) and psychological wellbeing (Segrin & Taylor, 2007; Wei et al., 2005). Thus, although the current study used a nonclinical sample, the Cognitive-Behavioural Social Self-Efficacy Scale could potentially be useful in clinical settings. Specifically, by identifying social self-efficacy as a problematic area that could be addressed in treatment, this measure might inform the assessment of clinical interventions for psychosocial problems contributing to social anxiety and depression. 4.2. Additional considerations and future directions While preliminary results from this study are promising, it is important not to overgeneralise findings. It is recommended that future research investigate the properties of the new scale using confirmatory factor analysis, perhaps with SEM used to investigate relationships among variables seen here. Although an interpretable factor structure was found, it should be noted that it is unlikely that this scale captures all relevant domains of social self-efficacy. For example, this scale does not assess efficacy beliefs relating to memory processes relevant to social functioning, such as one’s perceived ability to remember the names and faces of others. This may reflect a conceptual limitation of the Cognitive-Behavioural Social Self-Efficacy Scale. While a cross-sectional design was considered sufficient for the purposes of this study (as validity assessment was informed by well-established theoretical links between self-efficacy, psychological distress and subjective wellbeing, e.g. Maciejewski et al., 2000; Vecchio et al., 2007; Wei et al., 2005), examining the predictive validity of the Cognitive-Behavioural Social Self-Efficacy Scale using a longitudinal approach would be beneficial. As part of this, it may be useful to incorporate performance-based measures. Importantly, this approach would advance the validity of the scale, as validity assessment would be based on theoretical links between self-efficacy and social behaviour (e.g., Bandura, 1997), and allow for common method variance to be minimised (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). Austin and O’Donnell (2013) recently noted that considering negative aspects of interpersonal interaction is indicated. In terms
75
of furthering understanding of social self-efficacy as a construct, it may be prudent to consider its role in negative contexts. In addition, it may be helpful to consider not only perceived social ability, but also motivation to use that ability (Parks-Leduc, Pattie, Pargas, & Eliason, 2014). 4.3. Conclusions The utility of current adult social self-efficacy scales is limited as the cognitive aspects of social self-efficacy are not usually included in existing operationalisations of the construct. To address this, the research presented here aimed to develop and validate a new measure of social self-efficacy, informed by theoretical and empirical frameworks. The current findings provide encouraging psychometric evidence for the Cognitive–Behavioural Social SelfEfficacy Scale. While the development of this social self-efficacy scale is at a preliminary stage, with continued research and development, this measure may serve as a meaningful tool in research and clinical settings. Appendix A 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21.
Predict other people’s behaviour. Understand others’ choices. Know how my actions will make others feel. Feel comfortable around new people who I don’t know. Anticipate the things people do. Understand other peoples’ feelings. Fit in easily in social situations. Understand why people might become angry with me. Understand others’ wishes. Enter new situations and meeting people for the first time. Be able to say what I think without people becoming angry or irritated. Get along with other people. Find people predictable. Understand what others are trying to accomplish without the need for them saying anything. Get to know others well. Realise when I have hurt others. Predict how others will react to my behaviour. Get on good terms with new people. Understand what others really mean through their expression, their body language etc. Find good conversation topics. Anticipate others’ reactions to what I do.
References Antony, M. M., Bieling, P. J., Cox, B. J., Enns, M. W., & Swinson, R. P. (1998). Psychometric properties of the 42-item and 21-item versions of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS) in clinical groups and a community sample. Psychological Assessment, 10, 176–181. Austin, E. J., & O’Donnell, M. (2013). Development and preliminary validation of a scale to assess managing the emotions of others. Personality and Individual Differences, 55, 834–839. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman. Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.). Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (Vol. 5, pp. 307–337). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Caprara, G. V., & Steca, P. (2005). Affective and social self-regulatory efficacy beliefs as determinants of positive thinking and happiness. European Psychologist, 10, 275–286. Connor, K. M., Kobak, K. A., Churchill, L. E., Katzelnick, D., & Davidson, J. R. T. (2001). Mini-SPIN: A brief screening assessment for generalized social anxiety disorder. Depression and Anxiety, 14, 137–140. Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. W. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. E-Journal of Practice Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 10, 1–9.
76
R. Grieve et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 59 (2014) 71–76
Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The Satisfaction with Life Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71–75. Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4, 272–299. Fan, J., Meng, H., Zhao, B., & Patel, T. (2012). Further validation of a US adult social self-efficacy inventory in Chinese populations. Journal of Career Assessment, 20, 463–478. Gaudiano, B. A., & Herbert, J. D. (2003). Preliminary psychometric evaluation of a new self-efficacy scale and its relationship to treatment outcome in social anxiety disorder. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 27, 537–555. Gomez, R. (2013). Depression Anxiety Stress Scales: Factor structure and differential item functioning across women and men. Personality and Individual Differences, 54, 687–691. Grieve, R., & Mahar, D. (2013). Can social intelligence be measured? Psychometric properties of the Tromsø Social Intelligence Scale – English Version. Irish Journal of Psychology, 34, 1–12. Kihlstrom, J. F., & Cantor, N. (2011). Social intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg & S. B. Kaufman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of intelligence (pp. 564–581). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Kirk, B. A., Schutte, N. S., & Hine, D. W. (2008). Development and preliminary validation of an emotional self-efficacy scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 45, 432–436. Lovibond, P. F., & Lovibond, S. H. (1995). The structure of negative emotional states: Comparison of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS) with the Beck Depression and Anxiety Inventories. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 33, 335–343. Maciejewski, P. K., Prigerson, H. G., & Mazure, C. M. (2000). Self-efficacy as a mediator between stressful life events and depressive symptoms: Differences based on history of prior depression. British Journal of Psychiatry, 176, 373–378. http://dx.doi.org/10.1192/bjp.176.4.373. Mallinckrodt, B., & Wei, M. (2005). Attachment, social competencies, social support, and psychological distress. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 358–367. Parks-Leduc, L., Pattie, M. W., Pargas, F., & Eliason, R. G. (2014). Self-monitoring as an aggregate construct: Relationships with personality and values. Personality and Individual Differences, 58, 3–8. Pavot, W., Diener, E., Colvin, C. R., & Sandvik, E. (1991). Further validation of the Satisfaction with Life Scale: Evidence for the cross-method convergence of wellbeing measures. Journal of Personality Assessment, 57, 149–161. Petrides, K. V., Mason, M., & Sevdalis, N. (2011). Preliminary validation of the construct of trait social intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 50, 874–877. Petrides, K. V., Pita, R., & Kokkinaki, F. (2007). The location of trait emotional intelligence in personality factor space. British Journal of Psychology, 98, 273–289. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903. Scherbaum, C. A., Cohen-Charash, Y., & Kern, M. J. (2006). Measuring general selfefficacy: A comparison of three measures using Item response theory. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66, 1047–1063.
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., & Jerusalem, M. (1995). Generalized Self-Efficacy scale. In: J. Weinman, S. Wright, & M. Johnston (Eds.), Measures in health psychology: A user’s portfolio. Causal and control beliefs (pp. 35–37). Windsor, UK: NFERNELSON. Seeley-Wait, E., Abbott, M. J., & Rapee, R. M. (2009). Psychometric properties of the Mini-Social Phobia Inventory. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 11, 231–236. http:// dx.doi.org/10.4088/PCC.07m00576. Segrin, C., & Taylor, M. (2007). Positive interpersonal relationships mediate the association between social skills and psychological well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 637–646. Sherer, M., Maddux, J. E., Mercandante, B., Prentice-Dunn, S., Jacobs, B., & Rogers, R. W. (1982). The self-efficacy scale: Construction and validation. Psychological Reports, 51, 663–671. Shim, S. S., Wang, C., & Cassady, J. C. (2013). Emotional well-being: The roles of social achievement goals and self-esteem. Personality and Individual Differences, 55, 840–845. Silvera, D. H., Martinussen, M., & Dahl, T. I. (2001). The Tromsø social intelligence scale, a self-report measure of social intelligence. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 42, 313–319. Simpson, P. L., Schumaker, J. F., Dorahy, M. J., & Shrestha, S. N. (1996). Depression and life satisfaction in Nepal and Australia. The Journal of Social Psychology, 136, 783–790. Smith, H. M., & Betz, N. E. (2000). Development and validation of a scale of perceived social self-efficacy. Journal of Career Assessment, 8, 283–301. Tabachnik, B., & Fidell, L. (2007). Understanding multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston, Mass: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon. Thomasson, P., & Psouni, E. (2010). Social anxiety and related social impairment are linked to self-efficacy and dysfunctional coping. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 51, 171–178. Vecchio, G. M., Gerbino, M., Pastorelli, C., Bove, G. D., & Caprara, G. V. (2007). Multifaceted self-efficacy beliefs as predictors of life satisfaction in late adolescence. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 1807–1818. Weber, M., Ruch, W., Littman-Ovadia, H., Lavy, S., & Gai, O. (2013). Relationships among higher-order strengths factors, subjective well-being, and general selfefficacy – The case of Israeli adolescents. Personality and Individual Differences, 55, 322–327. Weeks, J. W., Spokas, M. E., & Heimberg, R. G. (2007). Psychometric evaluation of the Mini-Social Phobia Inventory (Mini-SPIN) in a treatment-seeking sample. Depression and Anxiety, 24, 382–391. Wei, M., Russell, D. W., & Zakalik, R. A. (2005). Adult attachment, social self-efficacy, self-disclosure, loneliness, and subsequent depression for freshman college students: A longitudinal study. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 602–614. Ziv, Y. (2013). Social information processing patterns, social skills, and school readiness in preschool children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 114, 306–320.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Personality and Individual Differences journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid
Development and validation of a measure of cognitive and behavioural social self-efficacy Rachel Grieve a,⇑, Kate Witteveen b, G. Anne Tolan b, Brett Jacobson b a b
University of Tasmania, Australia Australian Catholic University, Brisbane Campus, 1100 Nudgee Rd, Banyo, Queensland 4014, Australia
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 12 July 2013 Received in revised form 9 November 2013 Accepted 14 November 2013 Available online 8 December 2013 Keywords: Social self-efficacy Cognitive social self-efficacy Behavioural social self-efficacy Social intelligence
a b s t r a c t Although social self-efficacy appears influential across a broad spectrum of human behaviour, existing adult measures of social self-efficacy have conceptual and psychometric limitations. The current research brought together the realms of trait social intelligence and self-efficacy to develop and evaluate a measure of social self-efficacy which for the first time included assessment of cognitive domains of social selfefficacy. Items were administered to 301 participants, along with measures of general self-efficacy, subjective wellbeing, social anxiety, depression, general anxiety, and stress. An exploratory factor analysis (Maximum Likelihood with Direct Oblimin extraction) revealed two interpretable factors that were labeled ‘‘Social Understanding Self-efficacy’’ (cognitive) and ‘‘Social Skill Self-efficacy’’ (behavioural). Construct and criterion validity were evident and internal consistency and test–retest reliability were good. It was concluded that the new 18-item measure has sound psychometric properties. As such, this measure may serve as a meaningful tool for researchers and clinicians. While theoretical and empirical frameworks informed the current research, given the exploratory nature of this study, future research should further investigate the psychometric properties of this measure using confirmatory factor analysis and by examining the predictive validity of this measure in a clinical context. Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction While social self-efficacy has considerable clinical relevance (Thomasson & Psouni, 2010), reviews of existing social self-efficacy scales note limitations with conceptualisation and measurement of the construct (Fan, Meng, Zhao, & Patel, 2012; Gaudiano & Herbert, 2003; Smith & Betz, 2000). The current study aimed to develop and provide initial psychometric validation for a new self-report measure of cognitive and behavioural social self-efficacy, with the goal of improving operationalisation of the measurement of confidence to perform in the social realm. 1.1. Social self-efficacy Although no unitary definition exists (Smith & Betz, 2000), social self-efficacy is typically conceptualised as one’s perceived skill and confidence in social situations (e.g., Caprara & Steca, 2005). Even though the perception of one’s ability to perform well in a given task is distinct from one’s actual ability to perform that task, efficacy beliefs can have a pervasive effect on performance ⇑ Corresponding author. Address: School of Psychology, University of Tasmania, Private Bag 30, Hobart, Tasmania 7001, Australia. Tel.: +61 3 6226 2244; fax: +61 3 6226 2883. E-mail address: [email protected] (R. Grieve). 0191-8869/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.11.008
and adaptive psychosocial functioning (Maciejewski, Prigerson, & Mazure, 2000). In any context where interpersonal exchange occurs, people will vary in their perceived ability to successfully engage in social environments, thereby influencing interpersonal outcomes (Mallinckrodt & Wei, 2005; Segrin & Taylor, 2007; Wei, Russell, & Zakalik, 2005). Individuals with low social self-efficacy typically overemphasise personal deficiencies in social situations, leading to feelings of helplessness, negative social expectations and maladaptive social behaviours (Wei et al., 2005), and orientations towards social competence are related to positive emotions (Shim, Wang, & Cassady, 2013). Given the pervasive influence of social self-efficacy in one’s life, sound assessment of the construct may play an important role in understanding and predicting psychosocial functioning. 1.2. Measures of social self-efficacy Reviews of older social self-efficacy scales (Gaudiano & Herbert, 2003; Smith & Betz, 2000) have noted that many scales are psychometrically problematic, with problems replicating factor structures, inconsistent predictive and content validity, and poor internal consistency. Furthermore, some social self-efficacy scales have used standard Likert-style scales with anchors strongly disagree–strongly agree (e.g., Sherer et al., 1982). Smith and Betz (2000) argued that using this scale response format may fail to
72
R. Grieve et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 59 (2014) 71–76
capture the self-evaluative nature of this construct. In line with this, Bandura (2006) has proposed that anchors not at all confident–very confident are typically more appropriate for self-efficacy scales. Smith and Betz (2000) developed the Scale of Perceived Social Self-Efficacy. Although showing excellent internal consistency and good test–retest reliability (Smith & Betz), this measure targets general social behaviours, and does not provide insight into other domains of social functioning and social self-efficacy. 1.3. Cognitive domains of social self-efficacy While measures such as Smith and Betz’s (2000) consider beliefs pertaining to behavioural aspects of social exchange, cognitive processes such as social information processing also underpin social functioning (Petrides, Mason, & Sevdalis, 2011; Ziv, 2013). Social information processing refers to one’s ability to accurately understand and predict social situations (Ziv, 2013). Social information processing can influence how a person interacts with others, as people typically make inferences about others based on socially laden information (Petrides et al., 2011; Ziv, 2013). It would thus seem that including assessment of the cognitive aspect of social self-efficacy may add insight into the construct. 1.4. The current research In summary, as social self-efficacy can impact on an individual’s functioning (Wei et al., 2005), accurate assessment of the construct is important. However, existing operationalisations of social selfefficacy do not typically assess cognitive aspects of social self-efficacy. The current study attempted to address this limitation by developing and providing preliminary validation of a social selfefficacy scale which assesses perceptions related to both behavioural and cognitive aspects of social interaction. In order to achieve this, we drew on social intelligence research to inform the development of cognitive social self-efficacy items. Social intelligence refers to individual differences concerning the relative success people experience in social situations and interpersonal relationships (Kihlstrom & Cantor, 2011). Given the similarities between emotional and social intelligence, it has been suggested that models of social intelligence might parallel the trait-ability approach to emotional intelligence (Grieve & Mahar, 2013). Trait emotional intelligence encompasses emotion-related self-perception (Petrides, Pita, & Kokkinaki, 2007), thus trait social intelligence might encompass social self-perceptions. Drawing on the work of Kirk, Schutte, and Hine (2008), Grieve and Mahar (2013) suggested a paradigm linking social self-efficacy to trait (i.e., self-report), rather than ability social intelligence, and proposed that existing self-report measures such as the Tromsø Social Intelligence Scale (Silvera, Martinussen, & Dahl, 2001) could form the basis of a social self-efficacy measure. The overall goal of the current research was to develop and provide initial psychometric validation for a self-report measure of social self-efficacy. Following item development, the latent factor structure of the items was assessed using exploratory factor analysis, as no a priori model was identified (Fabrigar, Wegener, MacCallum, & Strahan, 1999). Convergent and criterion validity were also examined via correlations with general self-efficacy, social anxiety, subjective wellbeing and psychological distress (depression, general anxiety, and stress). It was anticipated that social self-efficacy would be positively correlated with general self-efficacy (though not to the point of redundancy). Predictions were in line with previous research suggesting that low selfefficacy is linked to poor life satisfaction (Caprara & Steca, 2005; Weber, Ruch, Littman-Ovadia, Lavy, & Gai, 2013) depression (Wei et al., 2005), and social anxiety (Gaudiano & Herbert, 2003;
Thomasson & Psouni, 2010). Finally, internal consistency and test–retest reliability was assessed. 1.4.1. Item development In line with suggestions outlined by Grieve and Mahar (2013), the Tromsø Social Intelligence Scale (Silvera et al., 2001) was amended to reflect a measure of social self-efficacy. While many measures of social intelligence are conceptually and psychometrically problematic, the Tromsø scale consists of 21 self-report items measuring the domains of social information processing, social skills, and social awareness, with a clear factor structure and good psychometric properties (Grieve & Mahar, 2013). Due to the scale’s multidimensional nature (Silvera et al.), it was envisaged that items from the social information processing and social awareness subscales, once adapted, would provide promising means to capture cognitive aspects of social self-efficacy. Based on Bandura’s (2006) recommendations for the development of items measuring self-efficacy, instructions were updated, items were refined, and scale anchors were adjusted to reflect self-efficacy in the social realm, and to tap into the self-evaluative nature of this construct. For example, in the original measure, a social skills item is: I am good at entering new situations and meeting people for the first time, with participants asked to indicate the extent to which they agree or disagree with that statement using a Likert response scale. However, in the revised measure, instructions asked participants to ‘‘Rate your confidence in your ability to’’ Enter situations and meet people for the first time, with response options, 1 = not at all confident; 5 = very confident. Revised instructions, items and scale anchors were developed by the first and second authors, and were then reviewed by an independent panel of experienced researchers for readability, comparability, and face validity. 2. Method 2.1. Participants The total sample consisted of 301 participants who completed the social self-efficacy items for factor analysis (43 male, 258 female; Mean age = 25.22, SD = 9.12). Of these, 289 participants (39 male, 250 female; Mean age = 25.13, SD = 9.07) also completed measures to assess construct and criterion validity. A separate sample (2 male, 11 female; Mean age = 27.85, SD = 11.98) was used to assess test–retest reliability. 2.2. Design The current research consists of two parts. The first element of this study reflects a cross-sectional design. An exploratory factor analysis using Maximum Likelihood extraction and oblique rotation (Direct Oblimin) examined the latent factor structure of the social self-efficacy items. Construct and criterion validity were assessed by considering bivariate correlations with general selfefficacy, subjective wellbeing, social anxiety, depression, general anxiety, and stress. The second element of this study was a longitudinal design. A two week interval separated Time 1 and Time 2, to assess the test–retest reliability of the scale. 2.3. Materials 2.3.1. Social self-efficacy Social self-efficacy was measured using the pool of items described above. Self-reported responses were given for 21 items with participants asked to rate their confidence in their social ability, where 1 = not at all confident and 5 = very confident. A sample
R. Grieve et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 59 (2014) 71–76
item is Predict how others will react to my behavior. Items are presented in the Appendix. 2.3.2. General self-efficacy General self-efficacy was assessed using the General Self-Efficacy Scale (Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 1995). Self-reported responses were given for 10 items using a four point Likert-style scale, where 1 = not true at all and 4 = exactly true. A sample item is I can usually handle whatever comes my way. Internal consistency has been found to be acceptable (a = .74)–excellent (a = .91) (Scholz, Gutiérrez-Doña, Sud, & Schwarzer, 2002). 2.3.3. Subjective wellbeing Subjective wellbeing was measured using the Satisfaction with Life Scale (Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985). Self-reported responses were given on a seven point Likert scale, where 1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree. A sample item is In most ways my life is close to my ideal. This scale has good internal consistency (a = .85, Pavot, Diener, Colvin, & Sandvik, 1991). 2.3.4. Social anxiety Fear and avoidance associated with social anxiety was assessed using the three item Mini-Social Phobia Inventory (Connor, Kobak, Churchill, Katzelnick, & Davidson, 2001). Self-reported responses were given on a five point Likert-style scale, where 0 = not at all and 4 = extremely. A sample item is I avoid activities in which I am the centre of attention. The Mini-SPIN has good internal consistency (a = .85, Weeks, Spokas, & Heimberg, 2007). 2.3.5. Psychological distress Psychological distress was assessed using the three subscales (7 items each) of the Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale-21 (Lovibond & Lovibond, 1995), which measure depression, general anxiety, and stress. Self-reported responses were given on a four point Likert-style scale, indicating symptoms of distress occurring over the last week, where 0 = does not apply to me and 3 = applies to me very much or most of the time. This scale is a widely used measure of psychological distress (Gomez, 2013). A sample item is I couldn’t seem to experience any positive feeling at all (depression subscale). Good–excellent internal consistency for the depression (a = .94), anxiety (a = .87), and stress (a = .91) subscales is evident (Antony, Bieling, Cox, Enns, & Swinson, 1998). 2.4. Procedure Ethical clearance for this study was obtained from the relevant human research ethics committee. Participants were invited to take part in this research via email and posts in social media, and they accessed the test battery via a secure online data collection service (SurveyMonkey). Once participants provided informed consent, the questionnaires were presented in random order. 3. Results Prior to analysis, all relevant assumptions were checked and were met. Preliminary analyses were conducted to examine any influences in the data due to gender. A Bonferroni adjustment for multiple comparisons was used. There was no significant gender difference on any variables, thus all data were combined for analysis. 3.1. Exploratory factor analysis An exploratory factor analysis (Maximum Likelihood) was performed on the 21 Social Self-Efficacy items. Kaiser–Meyer-Olkin’s
73
measure of sampling adequacy was ‘‘marvelous’’ .95, and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity was significant v = 4.73, p < .001, indicating that the data was factorable. Three factors were identified with eigenvalues exceeding 1 (10.74, 2.14, and 1.27) however an examination of the scree plot was ambiguous, suggesting two or three factors. A three-factor solution was attempted (16 iterations), but consisted of cross-loading items and was uninterpretable. A two-factor solution was then attempted using Direct Oblimin rotation. This solution (5 iterations) provided clear factors, accounting for 48.53% and 9.20% of variance. However, there were three cross-loading items (12, 15, and 18): in accordance with the recommendations of Costello and Osborne (2005), these items were removed. The data was then subjected to another exploratory factor analysis. With the three items removed, the scree plot again suggested either a two- or three-factor solution. A three-factor solution was attempted, and resulted in crossloading of all items. A two-factor solution (4 iterations) was then undertaken, and provided clean and interpretable factors accounting for 48.51% and 10.49% of variance in the 18 items. Pattern matrix factor loadings with a minimum loading of .32 (Tabachnik & Fidell, 2007) are presented in Table 1. The content of items suggests Factor 1 reflects cognitive aspects of social self-efficacy (i.e. perceived ability to understand and predict social situations) and Factor 2 appears to capture behavioural aspects (i.e. perceived skill and confidence in social situations). Accordingly, Factor 1 was labeled Social Understanding Self Efficacy and Factor 2 was labeled Social Skill Self-Efficacy. These factors were correlated with each other (r = .55), indicating that an oblique rotation was appropriate (Fabrigar et al., 1999). 3.2. Descriptive statistics Descriptive statistics and scale reliabilities are presented in Table 2, and were generally consistent with previous research (Diener et al., 1985; Lovibond & Lovibond, 1995; Scherbaum, Cohen-Charash, & Kern, 2006; Simpson, Schumaker, Dorahy, & Shrestha, 1996), although social anxiety was higher than those reported by previous research using a similar nonclinical adult sample (M = 1.8, SD = 1.6; Seeley-Wait, Abbott, & Rapee, 2009). Scale reliabilities were good to excellent. 3.3. Construct validity Bivariate correlations are presented in Table 3. 3.3.1. Convergent validity Full scale scores and social understanding and social skill subscales scores were positively and significantly correlated with general self-efficacy, accounting for 18.49%, 11.56%, and 22.09% of variance respectively. 3.3.2. Criterion validity The full scale and social understanding and social skill subscales were positively and significantly correlated with subjective wellbeing, accounting for 9.61%, 4.41%, and 14.44% of variance. However, differences between correlations for full scale and subscale scores concerning depression, general anxiety, and stress were found. While there was no relationship between social understanding self-efficacy and measures of psychological distress, social skill self-efficacy was negatively and significantly correlated with depression, general anxiety, and stress, accounting for 12.25%, 9.61% and 4.84% of variance respectively. Furthermore, the full scale score was negatively and significantly correlated with depression and general anxiety, explaining 3.61% and 2.25% of variance respectively, but was not significantly correlated with stress. The full scale and social understanding and social skill subscales
74
R. Grieve et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 59 (2014) 71–76
Table 1 Exploratory factor analysis. Loadings 1 Understand what others really mean through their expression, body language, etc. Understand other peoples’ feelings Understand others’ wishes Know how many actions will make others feel Realise when I have hurt others Predict how others will react to my behaviour Understand why people might become angry with me Understand others’ choices Predict other people’s behaviour Understand what others are trying to accomplish without the need for them saying anything Anticipate others’ reactions to what I do Anticipate the things people do Find people predictable Enter new situations and meeting people for the first time Fit in easily in social situations Feel comfortable around new people who I don’t know Find good conversation topics Be able to say what I think without people becoming angry or irritated
2
.83 .82 .82 .80 .76 .76 .72 .71 .70 .70 .70 .65 .57 .97 .89 .84 .60 .41
Note: Loadings less than .32 are suppressed.
4. Discussion
Table 2 Descriptive statistics and scale reliabilities.
18-item social self-efficacy scale Social understanding self-efficacy subscale Social skill self-efficacy subscale General self-efficacy Subjective wellbeing Social anxiety Depression General anxiety Stress
Mean
SD
Cronbach’s a
86.88 64.75 22.12 30.03 23.77 5.45 3.94 3.12 5.86
17.67 12.93 6.64 3.99 6.89 3.32 4.58 3.80 4.49
.94 .94 .88 .86 .89 .86 .91 .85 .85
were negatively and significantly correlated with social anxiety, explaining 8.41%, 2.25%, and 24.01% of variance respectively. 3.4. Scale reliability 3.4.1. Internal consistency Internal consistency was good–excellent. Please see Table 2. 3.4.2. Test–retest reliability Test–retest reliability of the 18-item scale over a two week interval was good, r(11) = .75, p = .003, between Time 1 (M = 92.77; SD = 10.31) and Time 2 (M = 93.77; SD = 12.42).
This study aimed to develop and undertake preliminary evaluation of a new measure of social self-efficacy. An 18-item measure comprised of two subscales was developed, with good internal and temporal stability. By assessing social self-efficacy beliefs relating to social information processing (e.g., Fan et al., 2012; Gaudiano & Herbert, 2003), the Social Understanding Self-Efficacy subscale allows operationalisation of a previously unexamined cognitive social self-efficacy domain. The Social Skill Self-Efficacy subscale appears to measure behavioural social self-efficacy. It would seem that the full scale (‘‘Cognitive-Behavioural Social Self-Efficacy Scale’’) therefore facilitates assessment of cognitive and behavioural aspects of social functioning. Although further validation is required, the multidimensionality of this scale may provide a more cohesive conceptual understanding of social self-efficacy. Given that social self-efficacy and general self-efficacy involve self-evaluative judgments about one’s functioning, the positive correlation seen here is consistent with what one would expect from a measure of social self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997). In addition, the full scale and subscales were moderately and negatively correlated with social anxiety, paralleling previous research with clinically (Gaudiano & Herbert, 2003) and non-clinically socially anxious adults (Thomasson & Psouni, 2010). Additionally, social self-efficacy was more strongly correlated with social anxiety than depression, general anxiety, or stress, as might be expected from a measure of social self-efficacy. Further, social anxiety was more
Table 3 Bivariate correlations. 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 *
18-item social self-efficacy scale Social understanding self-efficacy subscale Social skill self-efficacy subscale General self-efficacy Subjective wellbeing Social anxiety Depression General anxiety Stress
p < .05. p < .01. *** p < .001. **
2 .95*** .81*** .43*** .30*** .30*** .18** .14* .08
3
.59*** .34*** .21*** .15*** .07 .03 .001
4
.47*** .38*** .49*** .35*** .31*** .22***
5
.39*** .34*** .38*** .32*** .28***
.25*** .59*** .34*** .31***
6
7
8
.33*** .42*** .25***
.66*** .69***
.69***
9
R. Grieve et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 59 (2014) 71–76
strongly correlated with social skill self-efficacy than general selfefficacy; and social self-efficacy was moderately (positively) correlated with subjective wellbeing. Taken together, these findings suggest construct validity is good. The current findings provide preliminary support for the premise postulated by Grieve and Mahar (2013) that amending a measure of trait social intelligence may provide a psychometrically robust measure of social self-efficacy, while providing insight into the nomological nature of self-reported social intelligence. Specifically, it is possible that a trait-ability model of social intelligence could be meaningfully applied whereby social self-efficacy would reflect a dimension of trait social intelligence. 4.1. Implications Even when individuals with low self-efficacy are capable of sustaining healthy interpersonal relationships, it has been suggested that they are unlikely to do so because they doubt their social ability (Bandura, 1997). Therefore, the quality and nature of interpersonal relationships can be shaped by social self-efficacy (Segrin & Taylor, 2007). While it is unclear from the current research design whether low social self-efficacy leads to psychological distress (as this relationship could be bidirectional), the association between social self-efficacy, subjective wellbeing, and psychological distress may be due to the effect of social self-efficacy on interpersonal relationships. Indeed, research suggests that having intimate and satisfying interpersonal relationships correlates with high life satisfaction (Segrin & Taylor, 2007; Vecchio, Gerbino, Pastorelli, Bove, & Caprara, 2007) and psychological wellbeing (Segrin & Taylor, 2007; Wei et al., 2005). Thus, although the current study used a nonclinical sample, the Cognitive-Behavioural Social Self-Efficacy Scale could potentially be useful in clinical settings. Specifically, by identifying social self-efficacy as a problematic area that could be addressed in treatment, this measure might inform the assessment of clinical interventions for psychosocial problems contributing to social anxiety and depression. 4.2. Additional considerations and future directions While preliminary results from this study are promising, it is important not to overgeneralise findings. It is recommended that future research investigate the properties of the new scale using confirmatory factor analysis, perhaps with SEM used to investigate relationships among variables seen here. Although an interpretable factor structure was found, it should be noted that it is unlikely that this scale captures all relevant domains of social self-efficacy. For example, this scale does not assess efficacy beliefs relating to memory processes relevant to social functioning, such as one’s perceived ability to remember the names and faces of others. This may reflect a conceptual limitation of the Cognitive-Behavioural Social Self-Efficacy Scale. While a cross-sectional design was considered sufficient for the purposes of this study (as validity assessment was informed by well-established theoretical links between self-efficacy, psychological distress and subjective wellbeing, e.g. Maciejewski et al., 2000; Vecchio et al., 2007; Wei et al., 2005), examining the predictive validity of the Cognitive-Behavioural Social Self-Efficacy Scale using a longitudinal approach would be beneficial. As part of this, it may be useful to incorporate performance-based measures. Importantly, this approach would advance the validity of the scale, as validity assessment would be based on theoretical links between self-efficacy and social behaviour (e.g., Bandura, 1997), and allow for common method variance to be minimised (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). Austin and O’Donnell (2013) recently noted that considering negative aspects of interpersonal interaction is indicated. In terms
75
of furthering understanding of social self-efficacy as a construct, it may be prudent to consider its role in negative contexts. In addition, it may be helpful to consider not only perceived social ability, but also motivation to use that ability (Parks-Leduc, Pattie, Pargas, & Eliason, 2014). 4.3. Conclusions The utility of current adult social self-efficacy scales is limited as the cognitive aspects of social self-efficacy are not usually included in existing operationalisations of the construct. To address this, the research presented here aimed to develop and validate a new measure of social self-efficacy, informed by theoretical and empirical frameworks. The current findings provide encouraging psychometric evidence for the Cognitive–Behavioural Social SelfEfficacy Scale. While the development of this social self-efficacy scale is at a preliminary stage, with continued research and development, this measure may serve as a meaningful tool in research and clinical settings. Appendix A 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21.
Predict other people’s behaviour. Understand others’ choices. Know how my actions will make others feel. Feel comfortable around new people who I don’t know. Anticipate the things people do. Understand other peoples’ feelings. Fit in easily in social situations. Understand why people might become angry with me. Understand others’ wishes. Enter new situations and meeting people for the first time. Be able to say what I think without people becoming angry or irritated. Get along with other people. Find people predictable. Understand what others are trying to accomplish without the need for them saying anything. Get to know others well. Realise when I have hurt others. Predict how others will react to my behaviour. Get on good terms with new people. Understand what others really mean through their expression, their body language etc. Find good conversation topics. Anticipate others’ reactions to what I do.
References Antony, M. M., Bieling, P. J., Cox, B. J., Enns, M. W., & Swinson, R. P. (1998). Psychometric properties of the 42-item and 21-item versions of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS) in clinical groups and a community sample. Psychological Assessment, 10, 176–181. Austin, E. J., & O’Donnell, M. (2013). Development and preliminary validation of a scale to assess managing the emotions of others. Personality and Individual Differences, 55, 834–839. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman. Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.). Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (Vol. 5, pp. 307–337). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Caprara, G. V., & Steca, P. (2005). Affective and social self-regulatory efficacy beliefs as determinants of positive thinking and happiness. European Psychologist, 10, 275–286. Connor, K. M., Kobak, K. A., Churchill, L. E., Katzelnick, D., & Davidson, J. R. T. (2001). Mini-SPIN: A brief screening assessment for generalized social anxiety disorder. Depression and Anxiety, 14, 137–140. Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. W. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. E-Journal of Practice Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 10, 1–9.
76
R. Grieve et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 59 (2014) 71–76
Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The Satisfaction with Life Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71–75. Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4, 272–299. Fan, J., Meng, H., Zhao, B., & Patel, T. (2012). Further validation of a US adult social self-efficacy inventory in Chinese populations. Journal of Career Assessment, 20, 463–478. Gaudiano, B. A., & Herbert, J. D. (2003). Preliminary psychometric evaluation of a new self-efficacy scale and its relationship to treatment outcome in social anxiety disorder. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 27, 537–555. Gomez, R. (2013). Depression Anxiety Stress Scales: Factor structure and differential item functioning across women and men. Personality and Individual Differences, 54, 687–691. Grieve, R., & Mahar, D. (2013). Can social intelligence be measured? Psychometric properties of the Tromsø Social Intelligence Scale – English Version. Irish Journal of Psychology, 34, 1–12. Kihlstrom, J. F., & Cantor, N. (2011). Social intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg & S. B. Kaufman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of intelligence (pp. 564–581). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Kirk, B. A., Schutte, N. S., & Hine, D. W. (2008). Development and preliminary validation of an emotional self-efficacy scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 45, 432–436. Lovibond, P. F., & Lovibond, S. H. (1995). The structure of negative emotional states: Comparison of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS) with the Beck Depression and Anxiety Inventories. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 33, 335–343. Maciejewski, P. K., Prigerson, H. G., & Mazure, C. M. (2000). Self-efficacy as a mediator between stressful life events and depressive symptoms: Differences based on history of prior depression. British Journal of Psychiatry, 176, 373–378. http://dx.doi.org/10.1192/bjp.176.4.373. Mallinckrodt, B., & Wei, M. (2005). Attachment, social competencies, social support, and psychological distress. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 358–367. Parks-Leduc, L., Pattie, M. W., Pargas, F., & Eliason, R. G. (2014). Self-monitoring as an aggregate construct: Relationships with personality and values. Personality and Individual Differences, 58, 3–8. Pavot, W., Diener, E., Colvin, C. R., & Sandvik, E. (1991). Further validation of the Satisfaction with Life Scale: Evidence for the cross-method convergence of wellbeing measures. Journal of Personality Assessment, 57, 149–161. Petrides, K. V., Mason, M., & Sevdalis, N. (2011). Preliminary validation of the construct of trait social intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 50, 874–877. Petrides, K. V., Pita, R., & Kokkinaki, F. (2007). The location of trait emotional intelligence in personality factor space. British Journal of Psychology, 98, 273–289. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903. Scherbaum, C. A., Cohen-Charash, Y., & Kern, M. J. (2006). Measuring general selfefficacy: A comparison of three measures using Item response theory. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66, 1047–1063.
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., & Jerusalem, M. (1995). Generalized Self-Efficacy scale. In: J. Weinman, S. Wright, & M. Johnston (Eds.), Measures in health psychology: A user’s portfolio. Causal and control beliefs (pp. 35–37). Windsor, UK: NFERNELSON. Seeley-Wait, E., Abbott, M. J., & Rapee, R. M. (2009). Psychometric properties of the Mini-Social Phobia Inventory. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 11, 231–236. http:// dx.doi.org/10.4088/PCC.07m00576. Segrin, C., & Taylor, M. (2007). Positive interpersonal relationships mediate the association between social skills and psychological well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 637–646. Sherer, M., Maddux, J. E., Mercandante, B., Prentice-Dunn, S., Jacobs, B., & Rogers, R. W. (1982). The self-efficacy scale: Construction and validation. Psychological Reports, 51, 663–671. Shim, S. S., Wang, C., & Cassady, J. C. (2013). Emotional well-being: The roles of social achievement goals and self-esteem. Personality and Individual Differences, 55, 840–845. Silvera, D. H., Martinussen, M., & Dahl, T. I. (2001). The Tromsø social intelligence scale, a self-report measure of social intelligence. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 42, 313–319. Simpson, P. L., Schumaker, J. F., Dorahy, M. J., & Shrestha, S. N. (1996). Depression and life satisfaction in Nepal and Australia. The Journal of Social Psychology, 136, 783–790. Smith, H. M., & Betz, N. E. (2000). Development and validation of a scale of perceived social self-efficacy. Journal of Career Assessment, 8, 283–301. Tabachnik, B., & Fidell, L. (2007). Understanding multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston, Mass: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon. Thomasson, P., & Psouni, E. (2010). Social anxiety and related social impairment are linked to self-efficacy and dysfunctional coping. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 51, 171–178. Vecchio, G. M., Gerbino, M., Pastorelli, C., Bove, G. D., & Caprara, G. V. (2007). Multifaceted self-efficacy beliefs as predictors of life satisfaction in late adolescence. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 1807–1818. Weber, M., Ruch, W., Littman-Ovadia, H., Lavy, S., & Gai, O. (2013). Relationships among higher-order strengths factors, subjective well-being, and general selfefficacy – The case of Israeli adolescents. Personality and Individual Differences, 55, 322–327. Weeks, J. W., Spokas, M. E., & Heimberg, R. G. (2007). Psychometric evaluation of the Mini-Social Phobia Inventory (Mini-SPIN) in a treatment-seeking sample. Depression and Anxiety, 24, 382–391. Wei, M., Russell, D. W., & Zakalik, R. A. (2005). Adult attachment, social self-efficacy, self-disclosure, loneliness, and subsequent depression for freshman college students: A longitudinal study. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 602–614. Ziv, Y. (2013). Social information processing patterns, social skills, and school readiness in preschool children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 114, 306–320.