See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/226234360

Academic Self-Efficacy Beliefs and Quality of Experience in Learning

Article  in  Journal of Youth and Adolescence · March 2007

DOI: 10.1007/s10964-006-9069-y

CITATIONS READS
99 851

4 authors:

Marta Bassi Patrizia Steca

University of Milan Università degli Studi di Milano-Bicocca
63 PUBLICATIONS   1,049 CITATIONS    93 PUBLICATIONS   2,523 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Antonella Delle Fave Gian Vittorio Caprara

University of Milan University of Southern Mississippi
131 PUBLICATIONS   2,388 CITATIONS    187 PUBLICATIONS   11,221 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Flow studies View project

Eudaimonic and Hedonic Happiness Investigation View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Patrizia Steca on 17 February 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

J Youth Adolescence
DOI 10.1007/s10964-006-9069-y

ORIGINAL PAPER

Academic Self-Efficacy Beliefs and Quality of Experience

in Learning
Marta Bassi · Patrizia Steca · Antonella Delle Fave ·
Gian Vittorio Caprara

C Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Abstract This study investigated learning activities and Keywords Optimal experience . Academic self-efficacy
associated quality of experience of students with different beliefs . Self-regulated learning
levels of perceived academic self-efficacy. Two groups were
formed out of 130 Italian adolescents (age 15–19), one with
Introduction
high and one with low academic self-efficacy beliefs (31 and
32 participants, respectively). Students provided valuation
Time spent learning accounts for a large portion of adoles-
of academic pursuits and aspirations, and were monitored
cents’ life (Csikszentmihalyi and Larson 1984; Alsaker and
for one week with experience sampling method (ESM). At-
Flammer 1999), and success at school generally represents
tention was paid to the association of learning activities with
a desired attainment for both students and their families.
optimal experience, characterized by high perceived environ-
However, not all pupils have a good academic performance,
mental challenges matched by high personal skills, involve-
nor do all value or enjoy learning activities. Disaffection
ment, concentration and intrinsic reward. High self-efficacy
with school and drop-out are not exceptional, as adolescents’
students reported higher academic aspirations and pursuits
social environment is wide and rich in distractions, and par-
than low self-efficacy students. They also spent more time
ents’ monitoring becomes less restrictive than during child-
in homework, and primarily associated learning activities
hood (Furstenberg et al. 1998; Gasperoni 2001). Thus, fos-
with optimal experience. Results have educational impli-
tering adolescents’ motivation and enjoyment in learning has
cations in fostering motivation and enjoyment in learning.
called for great attention from school managers as well as
They also provide empirical support for the combination of
educational theorists (Ranson and Martin 1996; Gasperoni
self-efficacy beliefs and quality of experience in motivational
2001).
research.
Various perspectives and solutions have been proposed.
From a conservative educational position, more discipline,
M. Bassi (
) fixed curricula and higher external standards are consid-
Lecturer of Psychology at the Medical School of the University of
Milan, Italy. She received her Ph.D. in 1999 from the University
of Milan. She has conducted research in human development, A. Delle Fave
focusing on adolescents’ quality of experience and identity Professor of Psychology at the Medical School of the University
building, as well as on methodological aspects of experience of Milan, Italy. Her main research interests are the cross-cultural
sampling procedures. Dipartimento di Scienze Precliniche “LITA investigation of the quality of daily experience and its long-term
Vialba”, Università degli Studi di Milano, Via G.B. Grassi 74, developmental impact. She is supervisor in intervention projects
20157 Milano, Italy on migration, disability and social maladjustment
e-mail: marta.bassi@unimi.it
G. V. Caprara
P. Steca Professor of Personality Psychology at the University of Rome
Assistant Professor at the University of Milan “Bicocca”, Italy. “La Sapienza”, Rome, Italy. His major research interests include
She received her Ph.D. in 2004 from the University of Padua. Her personality development and personality assessment along the life
main interests focus on the study of subjective and psychological span. He is supervisor in longitudinal projects on psychosocial
well-being across the life span, as well as on methodological adjustment from childhood to young adulthood
aspects of longitudinal research

Springer

ered appropriate steps to foster students’ motivation and
attainment (Ryan et al. 1992). Although this perspective
still has some applications in early infancy, it proved to
be ineffective as children grow up and external rewards or
punishments lose their motivational power. In a recent lit-
erature review, Eccles and Wigfield (2002) have shown that
current motivational theories stress the active role of the
individual in regulating learning activities. Some theories
mainly focus on expectancy about success or failure, and
beliefs about one’s ability and performance. According to
these theories, crucial elements in motivating behavior are
self-efficacy beliefs and personal control (Zimmerman 1995;
Bandura 1997; Boekaerts et al. 2000). Other theories are pri-
marily centered on task value, or the reasons individuals have
for engaging in different achievement tasks. Key elements
are intrinsic rewards, interest, and quality of experience
(Csikszentmihalyi and Larson 1984; Csikszentmihalyi
and Schneider 2000; Ryan and Deci 2000; Hidi and
Harackiewicz 2001).
Within the first set of theories, we will focus on
Bandura’s construct of perceived self-efficacy (1986 2001),
while within the second set we will take into considera-
tion the construct of optimal experience (Csikszentmihalyi
1975 1990; Massimini and Delle Fave 2000). Both have
been applied to the developmental and educational domains,
providing relevant research findings.
Bandura’s social-cognitive theory outlines the central role
of people’s self-efficacy beliefs, namely their perceived ca-
pabilities to exercise control over their level of functioning
and environmental demands. These beliefs influence cogni-
tive, motivational, affective, and decisional processes. They
further extend their influence over aspirations and strength
of goal commitment, level of motivation and perseverance in
the face of difficulties, causal attribution for successes and
failures, perception of environmental challenges and imped-
iments (Bandura 1997).
In academic settings, students’ perceived self-efficacy af-
fects their academic interest and motivation, management
of academic stressors, growth of cognitive competencies
and accomplished achievement (Zimmerman 1995; Bandura
et al. 1996; Bandura 1997; Pajares 1997). Various em-
pirical findings showed that self-efficacy beliefs strongly
mediate the effect of individuals’ skills and other self-
beliefs on subsequent performance and accomplishment, by
influencing effort and persistence in the face of failures
(Zimmerman and Bandura 1994; Zimmerman 1995;
Bandura 1997). At any level of ability, students with high
perceived self-efficacy are more successful in school activ-
ities and use more effective learning strategies (Bouffard-
Bouchard et al. 1991; Zimmerman 1995; Schunk et al. 2000;
Zhang and Zhang 2003). Furthermore, self-efficacy beliefs
in managing specific subject matters are more predictive
of the interests and subsequent academic choices than ob-
Springer
J Youth Adolescence
jective achievement (Lent et al. 1993; Pajares and Miller
1997).
Academic self-efficacy beliefs shape students’ school and
career aspirations (Zimmerman et al. 1992; Zimmerman and
Bandura 1994; Bandura et al. 2001). They not only pro-
mote students’ ability in setting and pursuing academic goals
(Zimmerman et al. 1992; Schunk 2003), but they also pro-
vide profound gratification and satisfaction with their ac-
complishment (Zimmerman 1995; Pajares 1997).
Among the approaches focused on task value, we took
into consideration optimal experience which represents the
central construct of the theory of psychological selection
(Csikszentmihalyi and Massimini 1985; Massimini and
Delle Fave 2000). This theory explores the long-term devel-
opmental impact of the experience that individuals associate
with daily activities. Within this framework, the perceived
quality of experience is related to the subjective evaluation
of the environmental opportunities for action (challenges)
and the personal capabilities (skills) in facing them. When
individuals perceive both high challenges and high skills
in a given activity (Massimini et al. 1987), optimal expe-
rience or flow is likely to arise. Optimal experience is a
state of high concentration, involvement, control of the sit-
uation, clear goals and feedback, satisfaction and intrinsic
reward (Csikszentmihalyi and Csikszentmihalyi 1988). Be-
cause it is an extremely gratifying experience, associated ac-
tivities tend to be preferentially selected and replicated over
time. This process has been defined psychological selection
(Csikszentmihalyi and Massimini 1985): It plays a crucial
role in individual growth, as it directs a person’s life theme,
namely the activities, interests, and goals selectively culti-
vated in life (Csikszentmihalyi and Beattie 1979). The cog-
nitive, motivational and affective profile of optimal experi-
ence has been widely confirmed across countries, and among
activities ranging from work (Delle Fave and Massimini
2003) to leisure (Jackson and Csikszentmihalyi 1999; Delle
Fave et al. 2003), and child rearing (Delle Fave and
Massimini 2004).
In the academic field, learning activities such as school
work and homework are mainly characterized by high en-
gagement and attention, but extremely low intrinsic motiva-
tion and mood (Wong and Csikszentmihalyi 1991; Hektner
1996; Delle Fave and Bassi 2000). Homework is more fre-
quently associated with optimal experience, and school work
with apathy, an experience characterized by below average
challenges and skills (Delle Fave 1996). This discrepancy
may be related to the different degree of autonomy and
self-regulation offered by the two activities (Hektner 2001;
Bassi and Delle Fave 2004). The association of learning ac-
tivities with optimal experience has both short-term conse-
quences in terms of intrinsic reward, and far reaching impli-
cations in promoting longitudinal coherence in the amount of
time devoted to study (Hektner 1996), in shaping individual
J Youth Adolescence
long-term goals (Asakawa and Csikszentmihalyi 1998; Delle
Fave and Massimini 2005), and in predicting the level of aca-
demic career students are willing to pursue (Nakamura 1988;
Wong and Csikszentmihalyi 1991; Hektner 1996).
Reported literature on self-efficacy and optimal expe-
rience clearly shows similarities in approaching learning
behavior, assigning human agency a pivotal role in deal-
ing with environmental challenges. Joining perspectives, a
number of motivational theories has combined cognitive
and experiential constructs in a general model which can
predict individual learning behavior (Eccles and Wigfield
2002). Besides specific characteristics, these theories suggest
that self-efficacy beliefs may influence behavior through the
mediating effect of associated interest and quality of expe-
rience (Eccles et al. 1998; Rheinberg et al. 2000). In spite
of the substantial literature and the elaborate models on the
topic, to date no empirical study has investigated the in-
terplay between daily experience and self-efficacy beliefs in
learning activities. The present study is thus an attempt in this
direction, proposing a basically exploratory and descriptive
analysis of the two constructs in the academic setting.
The present study
For our purposes, two groups of Italian secondary-school
students were selected on the basis of their high and
low perceived academic self-efficacy. We assessed their
past academic self-efficacy beliefs and achievement during
junior high school, as well as their present valuation of aca-
demic pursuits and academic aspirations. These measure-
ments were primarily performed in order to confirm the
identification of the two groups. In line with previous works
(Bandura et al. 1996), we expected to find an early formation
of academic self-efficacy beliefs, and an early differentiation
among students with high and low self-efficacy beliefs, re-
flecting differences in their academic achievement. We fur-
ther expected high self-efficacy students to set higher aca-
demic attainments and to aspire to higher educational levels
than low self-efficacy students.
Through experience sampling method (ESM)
(Csikszentmihalyi et al. 1977), on-line repeated infor-
mation was collected on the students’ daily activities,
associated quality of experience, and the levels of challenges
and skills perceived in the situation. We expected to find
differences between the groups characterized respectively
by high and low academic self-efficacy beliefs. First, we
analyzed students’ day-to-day time allocation, or time
budget, paying specific attention to learning activities,
namely school work (attending lessons), class work (tests
and exams), and homework (studying at home). As we
expected that students would spend more time in activities
associated with positive experiences, we looked for differ-
ences in self-regulated time out of school. In particular, high
self-efficacy students would spend more time in homework
than low self-efficacy ones. We secondly analyzed the
quality of experience of learning activities through the
experience fluctuation model (Massimini et al. 1987). Based
on participants’ levels of perceived challenges and skills,
the model identifies specific experiential profiles, such as
optimal experience, relaxation, apathy, and anxiety. We
expected the two groups of students to perceive different
levels of challenges in the learning activities and to report
different experiential profiles. In general, we hypothe-
sized that high self-efficacy students would preferentially
associate all learning tasks with optimal experience. In
particular, we expected them to find optimal experiences in
class work and homework, activities that could be perceived
as highly challenging and matching high personal skills.
Due to their high personal skills, high self-efficacy students
should rarely perceive anxiety in academic activities, and
report relatively high shares of relaxation and apathy when
confronted with low-challenging learning tasks. On the
opposite, we expected low self-efficacy students to perceive
very few opportunities for optimal experience in academic
tasks. Rather, they would have a prevailing experience of
anxiety in all learning activities, particularly during class
work, and few occasions of relaxation.
Finally, we analyzed the affective, motivational and cog-
nitive components of the experience associated with learning
tasks, both (a) on average, and (b) when students perceived
high challenges and high skills in the activities, the condi-
tion associated with optimal experience. Our first aim was to
identify similarities and differences between the two groups
in the average experience associated with learning tasks and
in optimal experience. As presented above, learning activ-
ities are generally characterized by high engagement and
attention but low intrinsic motivation and mood (Wong and
Csikszentmihalyi 1991; Hektner 1996; Delle Fave and Bassi
2000). We thus expected to replicate previous findings on
school work and homework, for both groups. We did not
formulate any specific expectation about class work as no
previous ESM study has been performed on this topic.
Secondly, in line with the theory of psychological selec-
tion, we expected that experience associated with high per-
ceived challenges and high skills would be significantly more
positive than the average experience. The theory namely
attributes to this improvement a crucial role in promoting
students’ motivation and enjoyment in learning.
Method
Participants
The participants in this study were 130 adolescents, 55 males
and 75 females, ranging in age from 15 to 19 years, with a
Springer

mean age of 17.25 years. They were all secondary school
students.
Data for the present study were collected in 2000 as part
of an ongoing Italian longitudinal research that adopted a
staggered, multiple cohorts design. Participants belonging
to three cohorts were assessed on an annual basis during
elementary and junior high school, and on a two-year basis
during adolescence. They varied widely in socioeconomic
background: They came from families of skilled workers,
farmers, professionals, and local merchants, as well as their
service staffs. The socioeconomic diversity of the sample
adds to the generalizability of the findings. The overall re-
search aim is to identify the psychosocial factors having a
major influence on the transition from childhood to adoles-
cence and to adulthood.
The community adhered to a stringent consent procedure
for research. Proposals had to gain approval from a school
council, parents had to give their consent, and participants
were free to decline participation. The study was described to
school staff, parents and their children as a project designed
to gain better understanding of adolescents’ development.
In 2000, adolescents were contacted via phone by a
researcher who gave explanations on the research which
comprised the administration of the usual batteries of tests
and ESM. They were asked to participate in the study, and to
sign written consent. After testing, they received remunera-
tion of around 30 dollars for their participation.
Instruments and procedure
Participants filled out the academic self-efficacy scale
(Bandura et al. 1996; Pastorelli et al. 2001) referring to
two broad domains of self-efficacy beliefs. The first domain
concerned the perceived capability to successfully master
different curricular areas. The second domain referred to the
perceived capacity for self-regulating learning activities, in-
cluding the ability to structure environments conducive to
learning; to plan and organize studying times and activities;
to use cognitive devices to enhance understanding and mem-
ory of the material being taught; to seek out information and
get teachers and peers to help them with academic problems
when needed; to motivate themselves to do their school work
and assignments within deadlines; and to pursue academic
activities when there are other interesting things to do. For
example, the item “How well can you get teachers to help
you when you get stuck on schoolwork” measures students’
perceived self-efficacy to enlist social resources. Participants
rated the strength of their beliefs on a 5-point response for-
mat ranging from 1 (perceived incapability) to 5 (complete
self-assurance in one’s capability).
Valuation of academic pursuits and academic aspirations
were also assessed (Bandura et al. 1996 2001). Adolescents
rated on a 5-point scale the importance placed on academic
Springer
J Youth Adolescence
attainments, ranging from “not important” to “extremely im-
portant.” They reported the educational levels they expected
to complete on a 6-point scale, ranging from spending few
years in the high school they were enrolled in to gradu-
ation from college. Students’ academic achievement was
appraised by teachers who expressed their evaluations in the
various subject matters using five levels of academic attain-
ments: insufficient, sufficient, good, very good, excellent.
Daily time budget and associated quality of experience
were investigated through the experience sampling method
(ESM) (Csikszentmihalyi et al. 1977). For one week, each
participant was given a digital diary and a booklet of expe-
rience sampling forms (ESFs). Diaries were programmed to
send random acoustic signals 6–8 times a day from 8.00 am
to 10.00 pm. When beeped, participants were asked to fill
out a form, containing a standard set of open-ended ques-
tions and Likert-type 0–12 scales. The open-ended ques-
tions investigated thoughts, activities, locations, and social
context, as well as short- and long-term goals of the activ-
ities: for example, when beeped “what were you doing?.”
Likert-type 0–12 scales measured, from ‘not at all’ to ‘to the
maximum,’ the affective, cognitive, and motivational com-
ponents of experience, along with perceived challenges and
skills.
During scheduled sessions in a local school, participants
were asked to fill out a set of inventories including the aca-
demic self-efficacy scale, and the valuation of academic
pursuits and aspirations. In this occasion, they were also
briefed about the use of ESM. After one week, the partic-
ipants handed in their ESM diaries and booklets, and were
debriefed before getting remuneration.
Data analysis
In a preliminary phase of the study, we calculated a total
score of participants’ academic self-efficacy beliefs, which
corresponded to the mean value of the scores reported on
each of the 17 items of the scale. Academic self-efficacy
beliefs total score ranged from 1.69 to 4.81 in the whole
sample, with a mean value of 3.91 (SD = 0.61). Cronbach
alpha of the scale was 0.87.
In order to identify participants with very high and very
low levels of academic self-efficacy beliefs, we analyzed
the percentile distribution of self-efficacy beliefs total score.
We selected participants falling below the 25th percentile of
the distribution and participants falling above the 75th per-
centile. Thirty-two participants, 20 males and 12 females,
fell into the “low self-efficacy group” (LSE group), whereas
31 participants, 10 males and 21 females, belonged to the
“high self-efficacy group” (HSE group). The mean value
of academic self-efficacy beliefs was 3.09 (SD = 0.51)
in the first group, and 4.59 (SD = 0.14) in the second
group. The difference between the scores was significant,
J Youth Adolescence
(t(61) = −15.95 p < 0.001). As regards gender, the low
self-efficacy group was comprised more of males than fe-
males, and the high self-efficacy group was comprised more
of females than males (χ 2 (2) = 5.77 p = 0.02). This com-
position reflects previous studies on academic self-efficacy,
with girls scoring higher than boys during both childhood
and adolescence (Bandura et al. 2001; Caprara et al. 2002).
Within groups, however, no significant differences in aca-
demic self-efficacy level were detected between females and
males. For this reason and considering the general purposes
of our analysis, we did not take gender into account in data
analysis.
In order to identify differences in the valuation of aca-
demic pursuits and academic aspirations, we compared
groups using t tests. T tests were also used to identify
between-group differences in past evaluations of academic
self-efficacy beliefs and school achievement. In particular,
we examined data collected during the first, second and third
year of junior high school. Students’ past perceived aca-
demic self-efficacy was assessed by the scale described above
(Bandura et al. 1996). Reliability scores were similar to the
one obtained in 2000, with Cronbach alpha = 0.85 for the
first year of junior high school, Cronbach alpha = 0.88 for
the second year, and Cronbach alpha = 0.87 for the third
year. Finally, academic achievement was appraised aggre-
gating teachers’ evaluations in the various subject matters
at the end of each school year. The number of participants
in the comparisons slightly varies because of missing cases
in the examined variables.
As regards data collected by means of ESM, ESFs that
were completed more than 20 min after signal receipt were
discarded from analysis in order to avoid distortions due to
retrospective recall (Larson and Delespaul 1992). For this
purpose, ESFs contain two questions about the time when
the participants were beeped and the time when they filled out
the form. The final data set included 2,403 valid self-reports,
1,195 for low self-efficacy students (average N reports =
37.3) and 1,208 for high self-efficacy students (average N
reports = 39).
In line with ESM literature (Csikszentmihalyi 1997a;
Delle Fave and Bassi 2000; Delle Fave et al. 2003), answers
to open-ended questions were assigned a numeric code and
grouped into larger functional categories. In this study, we
focused on students’ daily activities, which were broadly
aggregated into productive activities, leisure, and mainte-
nance (Csikszentmihalyi 1997a). In particular, specific at-
tention was devoted to the investigation of learning tasks as
they were the core of our analysis. For each group, activ-
ity frequencies were calculated as mean percentages of each
participant’s activity distribution.
As regards scaled variables, we focused on the follow-
ing cognitive, motivational and affective variables: concen-
tration, control, happiness, involvement, wish doing the
activity, satisfaction, and goals perceived in the activity.
These variables belong to the validated ESM standard sheet
(Csikszentmihalyi and Larson 1987), and their labels have
been widely applied in ESM research (Csikszentmihalyi
and Larson 1984; Delle Fave and Bassi 2000). We adopted
a subject-level approach to the analysis of repeated ESM
scores, in which the individual is the unit of data organi-
zation (Larson and Delespaul 1992). This kind of analysis
is conservative in that the assumption of independence is
not violated. Z-scores for each item were obtained for each
participant based on the item’s weekly mean. Aggregated
values (mean z-scores) for the low and high self-efficacy
groups were then calculated on the number of participants
included in each group (Larson and Delespaul 1992).
T tests were performed in order to assess whether mean
z-scores significantly differed from zero within each group.
As we performed a large number of t tests on the same data
set, we corrected significance levels by means of a Bonfer-
roni approach, which consisted in dividing the α level of
significance by the number of t tests performed (Delle Fave
et al. 2003; Bassi and Delle Fave 2004). Therefore, adjusted
p values were obtained by multiplying observed p values by
the number of t tests performed. T tests were also carried out
to compare mean z-scores between groups.
Both the subject-level approach and the Bonferroni α cor-
rection represent rigorous methods in data handling and sta-
tistical analysis. They protect against Type I errors, or the
probability to wrongly reject the null hypothesis. In so do-
ing, however, they also increase the risk of Type II errors,
or the probability to erroneously reject the alternative hy-
pothesis. Considering the gravity of Type I errors and the
exploratory purposes of our study, we opted for a cautious
approach to statistical errors and decided to primarily control
for Type I errors.
The experience fluctuation model
The quality of students’ daily experience was further ana-
lyzed in relation to perceived challenges and skills through
the experience fluctuation model (EFM) (Massimini et al.
1987). The Cartesian plane was partitioned into eight sectors
of 45◦ , called channels. Partitioning was based on specific
ranges of challenges/skills ratios. Values of challenges and
skills were standardized for each participant, and their mean
value—as well as the mean of all participants’ mean—was
equal to zero and corresponded to the center of the model,
called subjective mean (Fig. 1).
A great number of studies has shown that each channel
identifies a specific experiential profile which is consistent
across age, gender, culture, and life domains (Haworth and
Evans 1995; Csikszentmihalyi 1990 1997b; Delle Fave
and Bassi 2000 2003; Delle Fave and Massimini 2004
2005). In particular, when perceived challenges and skills
Springer

Fig. 1 The experience
fluctuation model
(SM = subjective mean)
are balanced above subjective mean (channel 2), optimal
experience is reported. On the contrary, when they are
balanced below average (channel 6), apathy emerges. The
mismatch between high challenges and low skills (channel 8)
is associated with anxiety, and the mismatch between low
challenges and high skills (channel 4) with relaxation.
The remaining challenges/skills ratios correspond to the
so-called transition channels (Delle Fave 1996) as they
identify intermediate experiential states, namely arousal
(channel 1), control (channel 3), boredom (channel 5), and
worry (channel 7) (Csikszentmihalyi 1997b).
In the present study, we focused on the distribution of
learning activities in the major channels of the model: op-
timal experience (channel 2), relaxation (channel 4), apathy
(channel 6), and anxiety (channel 8). Finally, we investigated
the quality of experience that the two groups associated with
learning activities, on average and in channel 2 (optimal
experience). Between-group and within-group t-test com-
parisons were carried out in order to highlight significant
differences.
Results
Valuation of academic pursuits and academic aspirations
T tests were performed to compare the mean scores of valua-
tion of academic pursuits and academic aspirations reported
by the two groups. High self-efficacy students placed sig-
nificantly more importance on academic attainments (M =
4.39) and aspired to a higher educational level (M = 5.77)
than low self-efficacy students (M = 3.55 and M = 3.75,
respectively). T-test values were t(61) = −3.44, p < 0.01
for the first comparison, and t(60) = −6.99, p < 0.001 for
the second comparison.
Springer
J Youth Adolescence
Academic self-efficacy beliefs and achievement during
junior high school
As shown in Fig. 2, the two groups also differed in their
past evaluations of academic self-efficacy beliefs, as well
as in the objective achievement assessed by their teachers
during the first, second and third year of junior high school.
More specifically, high self-efficacy students reported higher
beliefs in their academic efficacy in the first (t(59) = −3.64,
p < 0.01), second (t(61) = −4.06, p < 0.001) and third
(t(61) = −5.14, p < 0.001) year of junior high school.
Across the three grades, adolescents with high self-
efficacy beliefs also obtained higher teachers’ evaluations
of their academic achievement: t(50) = −3.84, p < 0.001,
t(60) = −3.03, p < 0.01, and t(61) = −4.03, p < 0.001,
respectively for the first, second and third year of junior high
school.
Daily life activities
Table 1 illustrates the distribution of students’ activities.
Mean percentages were calculated on the basis of each
student’s activity distribution. Five activity categories were
identified: learning tasks, leisure, interactions, maintenance,
and ‘miscellaneous.’
For both groups, learning tasks comprised school work
such as attending lessons, listening to the teacher, and taking
notes; class work, including oral and written tests; ‘other
school activities’ such as doing recess and talking with
schoolmates during lessons; and homework, such as studying
at home. Leisure included activities such as watching televi-
sion, hobbies and sports, reading magazines and books, lis-
tening to music, thinking of various topics and ‘other leisure
activities’ such as having a stroll in town and whistling.
J Youth Adolescence

Fig. 2 Mean values of academic self-efficacy beliefs (ACSE) and achievement (ACH) for high and low self-efficacy students: evaluations during
the first (Y1), second (Y2) and third (Y3) year of junior high school

Maintenance included activities such as grooming, hygiene, Between-group t-test comparisons performed on activity
eating, and sleeping; interactions comprised talking, talking mean percentages showed that high self-efficacy students
on the phone, sending sms messages. Answers referring to spent more time in learning tasks (t(61) = 2.1, p < 0.041)
transport, chores, as well as activities such as waiting and than low self-efficacy students, while low self-efficacy stu-
observing the environment were aggregated in the category dents spent more time in maintenance (t(61) = 3.5, p <
‘miscellaneous.’ 0.001) than high self-efficacy students. In particular, as re-
Both groups spent most of their time in learning tasks, gards learning, the difference was attributed to the differen-
followed by leisure. For the low self-efficacy students, main- tial time investment in homework (t(48) = 2.77, p < 0.008),
tenance was third in frequency, followed by interactions. with high self-efficacy participants studying about twice as
The opposite ranking was reported by the high self-efficacy much as low self-efficacy participants.
students.
Distribution of learning tasks in the channels
Table 1 Mean percentage distribution of activities of the experience fluctuation model
Activities LSE Na Mean % HSE Na Mean %
Table 2 illustrates the distribution of learning tasks in the ma-
Learning tasks 32 30.6 (11.1) 31 37.1 (13.3) jor channels of the EFM. Some activities—especially class
School work 32 19.8 (9) 31 19.4 (8.7) work—were reported by few students, and thus mean per-
Class work 15 4.2 (2.4) 14 4.4 (2.3) centages could have been inflated. Therefore, for each activ-
Other school 20 5.6 (3.3) 22 6.7 (4.8))
ity in each group, percentages were calculated on the number
Home work 23 7.4 (5.3) 27 12.5 (7.5)
Leisure 32 29.6 (12.1) 31 26 (11.6) of self-reports and not on the number of participants.
Interactions 30 14.9 (9.2) 29 16.4 (8.8) High self-efficacy students mostly associated all learning
Maintenance 32 17.8 (7.3) 31 12.3 (5.1) tasks with optimal experience. Relatively high frequencies
Miscellaneous 29 8.9 (6.4) 27 10.6 (6.3) of relaxation and apathy were also reported in school work,
whereas anxiety was frequently reported during class work,
Note. LSE refers to low self-efficacy group; HSE refers to high
self-efficacy group. Mean percentages were calculated on participants’ and apathy with homework. Low self-efficacy students pri-
average distribution of activities. Standard deviations are reported marily associated class work with anxiety, and homework
within parentheses. with optimal experience and relaxation with the same per-
a
N participants. centage. They did not report any predominant experiential
profile during school work.

Springer
 J Youth Adolescence

Table 2 Percentage of youths’ time spent on learning activities across the four channels

School work Class work Home work

Channels LSE % (N = 230)a HSE % (N = 234)a LSE % (N = 23)a HSE % (N = 25)a LSE % (N = 66)a HSE % (N = 132)a

2—Optimal exp. 13.5 19.2 – 28 13.6 25

4—Relaxation 9.1 14.5 4.4 4 13.6 6.8
6—Apathy 14.4 14.1 13.0 8 9.1 15.9
8—Anxiety 13.5 9 26.1 16 10.6 9.1

Note. LSE refers to low self-efficacy group; HSE refers to high self-efficacy group. The dash indicates that LSE students never associated class
work with optimal experience.
a
N self-reports.

Quality of experience associated with learning tasks
We finally investigated the quality of experience associated
with school work, class work and homework, both on av-
erage and in channel 2 of the EFM, which corresponds to
optimal experience (challenges and skills values above sub-
jective mean). Table 3 reports the values of the variables
concentration, control, happiness, involvement, wish doing
the activity, satisfaction, and goals in the two groups of stu-
dents. T tests were performed for each group in order to
assess score differences from the mean (zero). Due to the
large number of tests performed on the same data set, signif-
icance values were corrected using the Bonferroni approach
as described above. T tests were also performed to compare
scores between groups. In this case, the Bonferroni correc-
tion was not required because of the small number of tests
carried out on the same data set.
In both groups, the average quality of experience asso-
ciated with school work was characterized by significantly
negative values of wish doing the activity (LSE students:
t(31) = 6.80, p < 0.004; HSE students: t(30) = 4.51,
p < 0.005), and by a significantly negative value of hap-
piness for the low self-efficacy students (t(31) = 4.24,
p < 0.007). A significant difference was detected between
the two groups for concentration (t(61) = 2.57, p < 0.013).
Class work was associated with below average satisfaction
(t(14) = 4.03, p < 0.042) by low self-efficacy students. A
significant between-group difference was detected for this
variable (t(27) = 3.08, p < 0.005). Finally, both groups as-
sociated homework with below average values of wish doing
the activity (LSE students: t(22) = 5.33, p < 0.004; HSE
students: t(26) = 4.88, p < 0.005). High self-efficacy stu-
dents also reported significantly above-average concentra-
tion (t(26) = 4.92, p < 0.005) and goals (t(26) = 6.45, p <
0.005). T-test comparisons highlighted significant between-
group differences for concentration (t(48) = 2.09, p < 0.05),
control (t(48) = 2.57, p < 0.02), and satisfaction (t(48) =
3.40, p < 0.002).
In channel 2 (optimal experience), high self-efficacy stu-
dents reported significantly high satisfaction during school
work (t(20) = 3.80, p < 0.047), and concentration and con-
trol during homework (t(16) = 5.51, p < 0.005, and t(16)
= 4.00, p < 0.043, respectively). As regards homework, sig-
nificant between-group comparisons were detected for wish
doing the activity (t(20) = 2.56, p < 0.019), and satisfaction
(t(20) = 2.49, p < 0.022).

Table 3 Quality of experience in learning activities on average and in channel 2

School work Class work Home work

LSE HSE LSE HSE LSE HSE
Average Ch. 2 Average Ch. 2 Average Ch. 2 Average Ch. 2 Average Ch. 2 Average Ch. 2
Variables (32)a (16)a (31)a (21)a (15)a (0)a (14)a (7)a (23)a (5)a (27)a (17)a

Concentration 0.17 0.45 − 0.17 0.45 0.28 0.70 0.96 0.17 0.36 0.57∗∗∗ 0.94∗∗∗
Control − 0.04 0.35 − 0.19 0.54 − 0.22 0.22 0.68 − 0.26 0.01 0.16 0.72∗
Happiness − 0.28∗∗ 0.09 − 0.18 0.47 − 0.34 − 0.17 0.03 − 0.44 0.22 − 0.23 − 0.06
Involvement − 0.05 0.42 − 0.08 0.42 0.46 0.44 0.54 − 0.13 0.15 0.07 0.38
Wish doing activity − 0.43∗∗∗ − 0.16 − 0.39∗∗∗ 0.01 − 0.57 − 0.11 − 0.05 − 0.85∗∗∗ − 1.13 − 0.59∗∗∗ − 0.00
Satisfaction − 0.10 0.11 − 0.03 0.59∗ − 0.90∗ 0.07 0.45 − 0.35 − 0.41 0.14 0.38
Goals 0.35 0.33 0.37 0.82 0.49 0.78 0.92 0.54 0.26 0.83∗∗∗ 0.75

Note. LSE refers to low self-efficacy group; HSE refers to high self-efficacy group.
a
N participants. On the basis of the Bonferroni approach, α levels must be divided by the number of t tests performed. Therefore to obtain adjusted
p values, observed p values were multiplied by the number of t tests performed. For the low self-efficacy group, N t tests = 35, thus ∗ p < 0.05
(where 0.05 = 0.0014 × 35); ∗∗ p < 0.01 (where 0.01 = 0.00028 × 35); ∗∗∗ p < 0.005 (where 0.005 = 0.00014 × 35). For the high self-efficacy
group, N t tests = 42, thus ∗ p < 0.05 (where 0.05 = 0.00119 × 42); ∗∗∗ p < 0.005 (where 0.005 = 0.000119 × 42).

Springer
J Youth Adolescence
Compared with the average learning experience, both
groups reported a general increase in the values of most
variables in optimal experience (channel 2). Paired t-tests
were performed within each group on the participants who
reported a given activity both on average and in chan-
nel 2. Significant differences were detected only among
high self-efficacy students, in school work for the vari-
ables concentration (t(20) = 3.12, p < 0.006), control
(t(20) = 3.27, p < 0.004), happiness (t(20) = 4.38,
p < 0.0003), involvement (t(20) = 3.15, p < 0.006),
and satisfaction (t(20) = 4.22, p < 0.0004); and in
homework, for the variables concentration (t(16) = 2.74,
p < 0.015), control (t(16) = 5.05, p < 0.0001), involve-
ment (t(16) = 2.17, p < 0.05), and wish doing the activity
(t(16) = 4.29, p < 0.0006).
Discussion
The present study allowed us to shed light on the long-term
and day-to-day meaning students attach to learning tasks
from the subjective agentic perspective shared by both
perceived self-efficacy and optimal experience constructs.
Past self-efficacy beliefs and academic achievement strongly
confirmed the identification of two groups. Students with
high self-efficacy beliefs reported feeling more efficacious
than students with low self-efficacy beliefs in managing
academic activities during the first, second and third year
of junior high school. Furthermore, across the three grades,
high self-efficacy adolescents had received better teachers’
evaluations and reported higher grades at the end of the
year. These findings confirm the strong link between
students’ self-efficacy beliefs and their actual performance
and attainments (Zimmerman 1995; Bandura 1997; Pajares
1997). Results do not allow us to make any inference about
times and processes of the building and consolidation of
children’s beliefs in their capacity to successfully manage
learning activities. However, they point to an early distinc-
tion between children belonging to the lower extreme and
those belonging to the upper extreme of the self-efficacy
distribution. The identification of the two groups was
further confirmed by the analysis of academic pursuits
and aspirations: High self-efficacy students attributed more
importance to academic attainments and aspired to higher
educational levels than low self-efficacy students.
In line with Bandura (1997), we hypothesized that
participants, according to their levels of perceived academic
self-efficacy, would preferentially devote their time to
activities they felt competent in. We also added that,
according to the theory of psychological selection, the
quality of experience associated with daily activities plays a
crucial, motivating role in performing them (Hektner 1996;
Massimini and Delle Fave 2000; Rheinberg et al. 2000):
Activities perceived as opportunities for optimal experience
are likely to be pursued and cultivated for their own sake.
Through ESM on-line sampling, we explored students’
time budget. As hypothesized, crucial differences in time al-
lotment were identified. Low self-efficacy participants spent
significantly less time doing their homework. Most likely,
when free to choose what to do with their self-regulated time
out of compulsory school hours, low self-efficacy students
eschewed studying and exam preparation to the advantage
of other activities. In particular, they were significantly more
often involved in relaxing and low-challenging maintenance
activities–such as eating, resting and grooming–than high
self-efficacy students.
We next analyzed the distribution of learning activities in
the major channels of the EFM. In line with our hypothesis,
high self-efficacy students mostly associated school work,
class work, and homework with optimal experience. In par-
ticular, they seemed to be well equipped to deal with ex-
tremely challenging situations, such as class work and ex-
aminations. They also successfully invested their skills in
dealing with the odds of externally-regulated activities, such
as school work. School work, however, was associated with
relaxation and apathy as well. This can be related to the
fact that students are not offered personalized educational
projects: As the levels of challenges are generally set as a
global standard by teachers, high self-efficacy students may
find them not challenging enough considering their personal
skills. During homework, these students retrieved a high per-
centage of optimal experiences, but also reported a relatively
high percentage of apathy when confronted with perceived
low challenges. Contrary to high self-efficacy students, low
self-efficacy students did not perceive a great amount of op-
portunities for optimal experience in learning tasks. During
schoolwork, no prevailing experiential profile was identi-
fied. This group primarily associated class work with anx-
iety. Tests and exams very often exceeded personal skills,
and were never occasions for optimal experience. During
class work, these students also reported a relatively high
frequency of apathy, showing cognitive, affective and mo-
tivational disengagement from activities they perceived as
unchallenging and imposed upon. As concerns homework,
they reported equal percentages of optimal experience and
relaxation. In particular, when confronted with perceived low
challenges, low self-efficacy students more frequently expe-
rienced relaxation rather than apathy. Data seem to hint that
low self-efficacy students preferentially associated learning
activities with globally positive experiences as long as they
could stringently select them during their studying time. In
so doing, they greatly restricted homework time, and man-
aged to avoid consistent shares of apathy compared with high
self-efficacy students. However, they also got fewer chances
to build on their skills and extend optimal experiences to
other more challenging learning domains, such as classwork.
Springer

Finally, we investigated the quality of experience associ-
ated with learning tasks, on average and in channel 2. The
average experiential profiles associated with school work
and homework was similar to those found in previous works
(Wong and Csikszentmihalyi 1991; Hektner 1996; Delle
Fave and Bassi 2000). The experience of school work was
globally negative and dissatisfying, with both groups signif-
icantly wishing to be doing a different activity. Low self-
efficacy students, however, perceived themselves as signifi-
cantly more concentrated than high self-efficacy students.
Since exams and tests are not scheduled on a daily ba-
sis in Italian schools, class work was reported by a small
number of participants. Generally, it was characterized by
high concentration, involvement, and perceived relevance
for students’ goals. In these activities, low self-efficacy
students reported significantly lower satisfaction than high
self-efficacy students. Finally, homework was associated on
average with significantly low values of wish doing the ac-
tivity by both groups. Homework usually takes place during
free time, when adolescents can engage in leisure and so-
cializing activities instead. Nevertheless, high self-efficacy
students reported significantly positive values of concentra-
tion and goals, thus perceiving the long-term importance of
studying not only to pass exams or the year, but also to
have access to university and/or a good job in the future.
Moreover, these participants reported significantly higher
levels of concentration during homework than low self-
efficacy students, and also derived from it higher control and
satisfaction.
In line with theoretical expectations and a number of
empirical findings (Csikszentmihalyi and Csikszentmihalyi
1988; Massimini et al. 1987; Delle Fave 1996), differences
were identified between the experience reported on aver-
age and in channel 2 (challenges and skills values above
subjective mean). In channel 2, high self-efficacy students
perceived significantly higher concentration, control, hap-
piness, involvement, and satisfaction during school work.
While studying at home, they also perceived significantly
higher-than-average concentration, control, involvement and
wish doing the activity, as well as significantly higher levels
of satisfaction and wish doing the activity than low self-
efficacy students. In contrast, among low self-efficacy stu-
dents, no significant differences were detected between the
experience reported on average and in channel 2. This is
likely to be related to the small number of low self-efficacy
students retrieving optimal experience during learning ac-
tivities. In particular, this is true of class work which they
never associated with optimal experience. However, results
from high self-efficacy students show that the association of
learning activities with high challenges and high skills can
enhance related quality of experience. Under this condition,
students derive high cognitive investment, involvement, sat-
isfaction, and meaningful future goals from academic tasks
Springer
J Youth Adolescence
even if, as typical of teenagers (Bassi and Delle Fave 2004),
the variable wish to be doing the activity did not obtain
a significantly positive score. Thus, building on personal
skills and calibrating challenges to individual capabilities
may not only prepare students for entering the job mar-
ket in the future (Csikszentmihalyi and Schneider 2000), but
also provide opportunities for short- and long-term gratifying
experiences.
Joining perspectives on learning
Results highlighted significant differences in the time budget
and associated quality of experience between high and low
self-efficacy students, and also brought forward implications
for practice. The two groups of students clearly diverged in
their investment in learning activities not only in terms of
time and effort, but also in terms of enjoyment and gratifi-
cation. In particular, findings suggest that the more students
feel competent in an activity and enjoy it, the more fre-
quently they perform it. On the one hand, these data stress
the crucial role of academic self-efficacy in motivating stu-
dents to pursue academic goals in the long and short terms.
On the other hand, they underline the importance of the
quality of experience as a mediating element in the moti-
vational process (Rheinberg et al. 2000). Thus, considering
the amount of apathy and relaxation reported by both high
and low self-efficacy students at school, the assessment of
their academic self-efficacy as well as their quality of expe-
rience in learning activities can provide teachers with useful
information. Indeed, teachers play a crucial role in provid-
ing complex and at the same time enjoyable educational
challenges adequate to pupils’ skills (Bassi and Delle Fave
2004). To this regard, social-cognitive theory gives clear
directions to intervention programs that aim to raise compe-
tence and confidence mainly through successful experiences
of mastery in the various learning tasks (Bandura 1997). As
academic self-efficacy beliefs seem to develop quite early
in students’ academic career, timely intervention is needed.
Consistently, the theory of psychological selection empha-
sizes the need for providing students with challenging op-
portunities for action and skill development in the school
environment. Optimal experiences can promote students’ en-
joyment in performed activities, independently of the contin-
gent marks (Delle Fave and Bassi 2000; Massimini and Delle
Fave 2000). Finally, both theories identify self-regulation as
a powerful means for enhancing personal competence and
gratification.
The present study was only an initial attempt to join the
two theoretical perspectives together. Our goal was to explore
the interplay between daily experience and self-efficacy be-
liefs in the learning domain. The use of on-line experience
sampling served this purpose, providing rich ecologically-
valid data. However, it was also time consuming and rather
J Youth Adolescence
costly, thus bringing forward a number of limitations. The
most serious one regards sample size. Given the conserva-
tive approach to data handling and statistical analysis we
adopted in this study, the relatively small sample size af-
fected the statistical power in the analysis of the quality of
experience associated with learning activities. Future studies
should rely on larger samples to augment statistical power.
However, when research hypotheses are extremely detailed,
the subsamples suitable to test them become less numerous.
In this kind of investigation, therefore, the sample size prob-
lem can only partly be overcome. In addition, the limited
sample size did not allow us to delve deeper into gender
differences. Social-cognitive studies have reported that girls
show higher perceived capabilities to manage learning tasks
and school activities, aspire to higher academic levels, and
set more ambitious achievement goals, than the males of the
same age (Bandura et al. 2001; Caprara et al. 2002). These
issues require further investigation. Stratification of high and
low self-efficacy groups with equal gender numbers could be
an appropriate step.
In spite of these limitations, this study gathered detailed
phenomenological information on the daily life and asso-
ciated quality of experience of students with high and low
academic self-efficacy beliefs. Results opened up a series
of challenging questions and suggestions for more complex
data analyses. In line with the motivational theories dis-
cussed in the introduction (Eccles et al. 1998; Rheinberg
et al. 2000), we expected self-efficacy beliefs to direct be-
havior through the mediation of perceived quality of experi-
ence, and of optimal experience in particular. However, the
relation between the two constructs could be far more com-
plex. Optimal experience in learning activities could have
both synchronic and diachronic, cumulative consequences.
By providing intrinsic reward, optimal experience can sus-
tain long-term perseverance and effort in cultivating asso-
ciated activities. It could also represent a feedback to per-
ceived self-efficacy: Direct experience of competence in high
challenges/high skills situations could be cognitively elab-
orated into rather stable self-efficacy beliefs. In their turn,
these beliefs could direct time and energy investment into
activities in which individuals perceive themselves as highly
competent vis à vis current challenges. This process would
facilitate the retrieval of optimal experiences and the de-
velopment of lasting high self-efficacy beliefs. In the long
run, this process could go on in a virtuous circle, promot-
ing individual development, with respect to skill cultivation,
satisfaction, and goal setting. Further investigation is needed
to test these hypothesized relations in order to shed light on
adolescents’ motivational processes as well as offer guide-
lines for promoting enjoyment and engagement in the school
setting.
References
Alsaker F, Flammer A (eds) (1999) The adolescent experience.
European and American adolescents in the 1990s. Erlbaum,
Hillsdale, NJ
Asakawa K, Csikszentmihalyi M (1998) The quality of experience of
Asian American adolescents in activities related to future goals.
J Youth and Adolesc 27:141–163
Bandura A (1986) Social foundations of thought and action: a social
cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall, Englewoods Cliffs, NJ
Bandura A (1997) Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. New York,
Freeman
Bandura A (2001) Social cognitive theory: an agentic perspective. Annu
Rev Psychol 52:1–26
Bandura A, Barbaranelli C, Caprara GV, Pastorelli C (1996) Multi-
faceted impact of self-efficacy beliefs on academic functioning.
Child Dev. 67:1206–1222
Bandura A, Barbaranelli C, Caprara GV, Pastorelli C (2001) Self-
efficacy beliefs as shapers of children’s aspirations and career
trajectories. Child Dev 72:187–206
Bassi M, Delle Fave A (2004) Adolescence and the changing context
of optimal experience in time: Italy 1986–2000. J Happiness Stud
5:155–179
Boekaerts M, Pintrich PR, Zeidner MH (eds) (2000) Handbook of self-
regulation. Academic, San Diego, CA
Bouffard-Bouchard T, Parent S, Larivée S (1991) Influence of self-
efficacy on self-regulation and performance among junior and
senior high-school aged students. Int J Behav Dev 39:280–282
Caprara GV, Delle Fratte A, Steca P (2002) Determinanti personali
del benessere in adolescenza: Indicatori e predittori [Personal de-
terminants of adolescents’ well-being: indicators and predictors].
Psicologia Clinica dello Sviluppo 2:203–223
Csikszentmihalyi M (1975) Beyond boredom and anxiety. San
Francisco, Jossey-Bass
Csikszentmihalyi M (1990) Flow. The psychology of optimal experi-
ence. Harper and Row, New York
Csikszentmihalyi M (1997a) Activity, experience and personal growth.
In: Curtis J, Russell S (eds) Physical activity in human experience:
interdisciplinary perspectives. Human Kinetics, Champaign, IL,
pp 59–88
Csikszentmihalyi M (1997b) Finding flow. The psychology of engage-
ment with everyday life. Basic Books, New York
Csikszentmihalyi M, Beattie O (1979) Life themes: a theoretical and
empirical exploration of their origins and effects. J Humanistic
Psychol 19:45–63
Csikszentmihalyi M, Csikszentmihalyi I (eds) (1988) Optimal
experience—psychological studies of flow in consciousness.
Cambridge, Cambridge University Press
Csikszentmihalyi M, Larson R (1984) Being adolescent: conflict and
growth in the teenage years. Basic Books, New York
Csikszentmihalyi M, Larson R (1987) Validity and reliability of the
Experience Sampling Method. J Nerv Ment Dis 175:526–536
Csikszentmihalyi M, Larson R, Prescott S (1977) The ecology of ado-
lescent activity and experience. J Youth and Adolesc 6:281–294
Csikszentmihalyi M, Massimini F (1985) On the psychological selec-
tion of bio-cultural information. New Ideas in Psychol 3:115–
138
Csikszentmihalyi M, Schneider B (2000) Becoming adult: how
teenagers prepare for the world of work. Basic Books, New York
Delle Fave A (1996) Esperienza ottimale e fluttuazioni dello stato di
coscienza: risultati sperimentali [Optimal experience and fluctua-
tion in the state of consciousness]. In: Massimini F, Inghilleri P,
Delle Fave A (eds) La Selezione Psicologica Umana—Teoria e
Metodo D’analisi. Cooperativa libraria I.U.L.M., Milano, pp 541–
568
Springer

Delle Fave A, Bassi M (2000) The quality of experience in adolescents’
daily life: developmental perspectives. Genet Soc Gen Psychol
Monogr 126:347–367
Delle Fave A, Bassi M (2003) Italian adolescents and leisure: the role of
engagement and optimal experience. In: Verma S, Larson R (eds)
Examining adolescent leisure time across cultures: developmental
opportunities and risks. New directions in child and adolescent
development. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, pp 79–93
Delle Fave A, Bassi M, Massimini F (2003) Quality of experience
and risk perception in high-altitude rock climbing. J Appl Sport
Psychol 15:82–99
Delle Fave A, Massimini F (2003) Optimal experience in work and
leisure among teachers and physicians: Individual and bio-cultural
implications. Leisure Stud 22:323–342
Delle Fave A, Massimini F (2004) Parenthood and the quality of ex-
perience in daily life: a longitudinal study. Soc Indicators Res
67:75–106
Delle Fave A, Massimini F (2005) The investigation of optimal expe-
rience and apathy: developmental and psychosocial implications.
Eur Psychol 10:4
Eccles JS, Wigfield A (2002) Motivation beliefs, values, and goals.
Annu Rev Psychol 53:109–132
Eccles JS, Wigfield A, Schiefele U (1998) Motivation to succeed. In:
Damon W, Eisenberg N (eds) Handbook of child psychology,
Vol. 3. Wiley, New York, pp 1017–1095
Furstenberg FF, Cook TD, Eccles JS, Elder GH, Sameroff A (1998)
Managing to make it: urban families and adolescent success. Uni-
versity of Chicago Press, Chicago
Gasperoni G (2001) La scuola [The school]. In: Buzzi C, Cavalli A, De
Lillo A (eds) Giovani Del Nuovo Secolo. Quinto Rapporto IARD
Sulla Condizione Giovanile in Italia. Il Mulino, Bologna, Italy,
pp 20–24
Haworth J, Evans S (1995) Challenge, skill and positive subjective
states in the daily life of a sample of YTS students. J Occup Organ
Psychol 68:109–121
Hektner JM (1996) Exploring optimal personality development: a lon-
gitudinal study of adolescents. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Chicago
Hektner JM (2001) Family, school, and community predictors of ado-
lescent growth conducive experiences: global and specific ap-
proaches. Appl Dev Sci 5:172–183
Jackson SA, Csikszentmihalyi M (1999) Flow in sports: the keys to
optimal experiences and performances. Human Kinetics, Cham-
paign, IL
Hidi S, Harackiewicz JM (2001) Motivating the academically unmoti-
vated: a critical issue for the 21st century. Rev Educ Res 70:151–
180
Larson R, Delespaul PAEG (1992) Analysing experience sampling
data: a guidebook for the perplexed. In: deVries M (ed) The ex-
perience of psychopathology—investigating mental disorders in
their natural settings. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp
58–78
Lent RW, Lopez FG, Bieschke KJ (1993) Predicting mathematics-
related choice and success behaviors: test of an expanded social
cognitive model. J Vocat Behav 42:223–236
Springer
View publication stats
J Youth Adolescence
Massimini F, Csikszentmihalyi M, Carli M (1987) The monitoring of
optimal experience. A tool for psychiatric rehabilitation. J Nerv
Ment Dis 175:545–549
Massimini F, Delle Fave A (2000) Individual development in a bio-
cultural perspective. Am Psychol 55:24–33
Nakamura J (1988) Optimal experience and the use of talent. In:
Csikszentmihalyi M, Csikszentmihalyi I (eds) Optimal
experience—psychological studies on flow in consciousness.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 319–326
Pajares F (1997) Current directions in self efficacy research. In: Maeher
ME, Pintrich PR (eds) Advances in motivation and achievement.
JAI Press, Greenwhich, CT, pp 1–49
Pajares F, Miller MD (1997) Mathematics self-efficacy and mathe-
matical problem solving: implications of using different forms of
assessment. J Exp Educ 65:213–228
Pastorelli C, Caprara GV, Barbaranelli C, Rola J, Rozsa S, Bandura
A (2001) The structure of children’s perceived self efficacy: a
cross-national study. Eur J Psychol Assess 17:87–97
Ranson S, Martin J (1996) Towards a theory of learning. Br J Educ
Stud 44:9–26
Rheinberg F, Vollmeyer R, Rollett W (2000) Motivation and action
in self-regulated learning. In: Boekaerts M, Pintrich PR, Zeidner
MH (eds) Handbook of self-regulation. Academic, San Diego, CA,
pp 503–529
Ryan R, Deci E (2000) Self-determination theory and the facilitation
of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. Am
Psychol 55:68–78
Ryan R, Connell J, Grolnick W (1992) When achievement is not intrin-
sically motivated: a theory of internalization and self-regulation
in school. In: Boggiano A, Pittman T (eds) Achievement and mo-
tivation: a social-development perspective. Cambridge University
Press, New York, pp 167–188
Schunk DH (2003) Self-efficacy for reading and writing: influence of
modeling, goal setting, and self-evaluation. Reading and Writing
Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties 19:159–172
Schunk DH, Ertmer PA, Boekaerts M (2000) Self-regulation and
academic learning: self-efficacy enhancing interventions. In:
Boekaerts M, Pintrich PR, Zeidner M (eds) Handbook of self-
regulation. Academic Press, San Diego, CA, pp 631–649
Wong MM, Csikszentmihalyi M (1991) Motivation and academic
achievement: the effects of personality traits and the quality of
experience. J Pers 59:539–574
Zhang L, Zhang X (2003) A study of the relationships among learning
strategy use, self-efficacy, persistence and academic achievement
in middle school students. Psychol Sci 26:603–607
Zimmerman BJ (1995) Attaining reciprocality between learning
and development through self-regulation. Human Dev 38:367–
372
Zimmerman BJ, Bandura A (1994) Impact of self-regulatory influ-
ences on writing course attainment. Am Educ Res J 31:845–
862
Zimmerman BJ, Bandura A, Martinez-Pons M (1992) Self-
motivation for academic attainment: the role of self-efficacy
beliefs and personal goal setting. Am Educ Res J 29:663–
676