Springer Educational Psychology Review: This Content Downloaded From 134.219.212.95 On Fri, 30 Nov 2018 12:31:06 UTC

Academic Self-Concept and Self-Efficacy: How Different Are They Really?
Author(s): Mimi Bong and Einar M. Skaalvik

Source: Educational Psychology Review, Vol. 15, No. 1 (March 2003), pp. 1-40
Published by: Springer
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23361533
Accessed: 30-11-2018 12:31 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Educational
Psychology Review
This content downloaded from 134.219.212.95 on Fri, 30 Nov 2018 12:31:06 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Educational Psychology Review, Vol. 15, No. 1, March 2003 (e> 2003)
Academic Self-Concept and Self-Efficacy: How

Different Are They Really?
Mimi Bong1 3 and Einar M. Skaalvik2
Academic motivation researchers sometimes struggle to decipher the distinc

tive characteristics of what appear to be highly analogous constructs. In this
article, we discuss important similarities between self-concept and self-efficacy
as well as some notable differences. Both constructs share many similarities
such as centrality of perceived competence in construct definition; use of mas
tery experience, social comparison, and reflected appraisals as major informa
tion sources; and a domain-specific and multidimensional nature. Both predict
motivation, emotion, and performance to varying degrees. However, there are
also important differences. These differences include integration vs. separation
of cognition and affect, heavily normative vs. goal-referenced evaluation of
competence, aggregated vs. context-specific judgment, hierarchical vs. loosely
hierarchical structure, past vs. future orientation, and relative temporal stabil
ity vs. malleability. We argue that self-efficacy acts as an active precursor of
self-concept development and suggest that self-concept research separate out
its multiple components and subprocesses and invest more effort toward mak
ing students less preoccupied with normative ability comparisons in school.
KEY WORDS: self-concept; self-efficacy; self-esteem; motivation.
Researchers in personality and social psychology have long been interested

in the role of self-related perceptions. Individuals who are otherwise similar
feel differently about themselves and choose different courses of action,
depending on how they construe themselves—what attributes they think
1 Department of Educational Psychology, University of South Carolina, South Carolina,
Columbia.
2Department of Education, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim,
Norway.
3To whom correspondence should be addressed at Department of Educational Psychol
ogy, 135 Wardlaw Hall, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina. E-mail:
mimibong@sc.edu.
1040-726X/03/0300-0001/O 2003 Plenum Publishing Corporation
Bong and Skaalvik
they possess, what roles they presume they are expected to play, what they
believe they are capable of, how they view they fare in comparison with
others, and how they judge they are viewed by others. Without doubt, these
are beliefs and perceptions about self that are heavily rooted in one's past
achievement and reinforcement history. Yet it is these subjective convictions
about oneself, once established, which play a determining role in individuals'
further growth and development (Bandura, 1997; Markus and Nurius, 1986).
It is only reasonable that these self-perceptions have received a great
deal of attention in educational research (Byrne, 1984). Children with dif
ferent self-beliefs demonstrate different levels of cognitive, social, and emo
tional engagement in school. Because school-related experience makes up
a major portion of children's lives and shapes the early paths to important
life outcomes, educational researchers try to grasp the meaning of self in
students' minds. Various models and theories of self-related cognition have
been proposed and tested within the context of school learning. Self-concept
and self-efficacy are the two self-constructs that have received a lot of at
tention. During the past couple of decades, numerous studies in educational
research have resorted to either self-concept or self-efficacy to explain the
function of self in school contexts. These studies produced abundant evi
dence on the potency of each self-belief. The field now struggles to decipher
the distinguishing characteristics and comparative usefulness of the two be
lief systems.
Making a clear and irrefutable distinction between beliefs of self
concept and self-efficacy is not an easy task. However, it is nonetheless possi
ble to illuminate some of the similarities and differences between these two
conceptions. This is the goal of this article. While more recent reviews on this
topic highlighted differences between the two (e.g.. Bong and Clark, 1999),
we try to deduce also important similarities underlying the formulation of
the two self-beliefs. In doing so, our hope is that the theory and research
in this area become more integrated to give educational researchers and
practitioners better understandings of students' perception of self and what
it does to their cognitive and psychological well-being in school.
DEFINITIONS OF CONSTRUCTS
Self-Concept and Self-Efficacy
Self-concept is colloquially defined as a composite view of one

Rosenberg (1979) defined self-concept as ". . . the totality of
vidual's thoughts and feelings having reference to himself as an
(p. 7). Shavelson, Hubner, and Stanton (1976) provided a s
Self-Concept vs. Self-Efficacy
definition of self-concept that formed the theoretical foundation of con

temporary self-concept research:
In very broad terms, self-concept is a person's perception of himself. . . . We do

not claim an entity within a person called "self-concept." Rather, we claim that
the construct is potentially important and useful in explaining and predicting how
one acts. One's perceptions of himself are thought to influence the ways in which
he acts, and his acts in turn influence the ways in which he perceives himself. . . .
Seven features can be identified as critical to the construct definition. Self-concept
may be described as: organized, multifaceted, hierarchical, stable, developmental,
evaluative, and differentiable. (p. 411)
Self-concept is formed through experiences with the environment and is

influenced especially by environmental reinforcements and significant others
(Shavelson et al., 1976). Skaalvik (1997a) identified some key antecedents to
self-concept in his recent review (see also Rayner and Devi, 2001; Skaalvik
and Skaalvik, in press):
(1) Frames of reference. Self-concept is heavily influenced by frames

of reference or standards against which to judge one's own traits
and accomplishments. Social comparison often serves as the most
potent source of information for self-concept. Frames of reference
play a particularly important role in the development of academic
self-concept (Marsh, 1986,1987).
(2) Causal attributions. The factors to which people attribute their suc
cesses and failures are hypothesized to influence descriptive and af
fective aspects of their self-concept. Self-concept and attributions are
related in a reciprocal manner such that the types of causal attribu
tions made for previous successes and failures influence subsequent
self-concept and the self-concept thus formed affects later attribu
tions (Skaalvik, 1997a; Stipek, 1993; Tennen and Herzberger, 1987).
(3) Reflected appraisals from significant others. Several self-concept re
searchers suggested that people come to view themselves as they
believe how others view them. Sullivan (1947) stated, "The self may
be said to be made up of reflected appraisals" (p. 10). Rosenberg
(1979) also claimed that ". . . there is probably no more critical and
significant source of information about ourselves than other people's
views of us," referring to Mead's conception that in communication
we "take the role of the other." (Mead, 1934)
(4) Mastery experiences. Self-schemas are created from individual's past
experiences in a particular domain. Relevant information and expe
riences are subsequently processed by these self-schemas (Markus
and Nurius, 1986). Although self-concept researchers do not explic
itly emphasize the role of mastery experiences in self-concept for
mation, Skaalvik (1997a) suggested that prior mastery experiences
Bong and Skaalvik
might be of comparable importance to the formation of self-concept

as they are to the formation of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1986).
(5) Psychological centrality. Rosenberg (1979), in his analysis of self
esteem, claimed that self-esteem is based on self-assessments of qual
ities that are perceived as important or psychologically central by
individuals. Skaalvik's (1997a) review found mixed evidence to sup
port this notion. However, Harter and Mayberry (1984) provided
evidence that supports the effects of psychological centrality on self
concept. These investigators asked fifth to seventh graders to rate
both the importance of five different areas (i.e., school, sports, social
relations, physical appearance, and behavior) and their own compe
tency within these areas. Self-esteem was the highest among students
who rated their best areas as also the most important.
Historically, self-concept research has emphasized a global construct

such as general self-concept. Typically, a composite score was computed by
summing self-concept responses from standardized instruments toward var
ious aspects of life and was then treated as an indicator of one's self-concept
(e.g.. Piers and Harris, 1964; see Marsh, 1990a, for an overview). These global
assessments of self-regard that were detached from any specific context con
tributed to earlier views of self-concept research as an "ill-disciplined field"
and "difficult to conceptualize and operationalize" (Hansford and Hattie,
1982). Harter (1982) also observed that "Typically, constructs such as self
concept and self-esteem are vaguely defined at the conceptual level and
therefore do not point to any clear operational definition" (p. 87). Owing
mostly to this ambiguity, the average relationship between the self (variously
termed as self, self-concept, and self-esteem) and academic achievement in
dexed in 128 studies located by Hansford and Hattie was only 0.212. This
was a disappointing result in light of intuitive assumptions and theoretical
arguments that positive self-beliefs should result in improved performance.
The global nature of self-concept has since been criticized as diminish
ing its power to explain behavior (Bandura, 1981) and overlooking impor
tant distinctions children make across activity domains (Harter, 1982). After
decades of research with a myriad of global and undifferentiated views of
self, the field has come to realize that any sound understanding of children's
self-concept and its impact on their functioning in school must take into ac
count the effects of domain on these judgments (Marsh, 1993). As can be
seen in the definition by Shavelson et al. (1976), self-concept is now viewed
as perceptions of oneself that are multidimensional. Recent self-concept
studies that focus on the domain-specific self-concepts have documented
that globality is not necessarily inherent in the construct definition (Byrne,
1996). At the same time, perceived competence emerged as a key component
that has particularly significant bearing on students' motivation and learn

ing among the array of information available in their complex school-related
self-conceptions (Harter, 1990). The work of Marsh and his associates, for
example, reflects both of these recent developments fairly well. Conducted
primarily in the framework of the Shavelson hierarchy, this line of work
has produced more consistent and encouraging results regarding the self
concept effect (Marsh, 1990d, 1993). A recent meta-analysis on math self
concept also showed that studies published after 1986 reported particularly
stronger relations between self-concept and achievement (Ma and Kishor,
1997).
Compared with the self-concept research, research in self-efficacy is
characterized by its relatively short history. Bandura (1977) offered a formal
theoretical definition of self-efficacy:
Perceived self-efficacy refers to beliefs in one's capabilities to organize and execute

the courses of action required to produce given attainments Such beliefs influence
the course of action people choose to pursue, how much effort they put forth in
given endeavors, how long they will persevere in the face of obstacles and failures,
their resilience to adversity, whether their thought patterns are self-hindering or
self-aiding, how much stress and depression they experience in coping with taxing
environmental demands, and the level of accomplishments they realize, (p. 3)
Like self-concept, self-efficacy is presumed to explain and predict one's

thought, emotion, and action. However, efficacy judgment is less concerned
with what skills and abilities individuals possess. It considers more important
what individuals believe they can do with whatever skills and abilities they
may possess. This provides a point of comparison with a self-concept judg
ment, which routinely calls for an evaluation of the skills and abilities. While
self-concept represents one's general perceptions of the self in given do
mains of functioning, self-efficacy represents individuals' expectations and
convictions of what they can accomplish in given situations. For example, the
expectation that one can high-jump 6 ft is an efficacy judgment (Bandura,
1986). It is not a judgment of whether one is competent in high-jumping
in general but a judgment of how strongly a person believes that he or she
can successfully jump that particular height under the given circumstances.
Self-efficacy researchers thus emphasize the role played by specific contexts
in efficacy appraisals.
Information for shaping self-efficacy beliefs comes from the following
four major sources (Bandura, 1986,1997):
(1) Enactive mastery experience. One's prior experiences with the tasks
in question provide the most reliable source of information for ef
ficacy beliefs. Successes strengthen self-efficacy, whereas repeated
failures undermine it. A firm sense of efficacy built on the basis of
past successes is believed to withstand temporary failures.
Bong and Skaalvik
(2) Vicarious experience. People also establish their self-efficacy beliefs

on the basis of similar others' performance on the tasks. Modeling
thus serves as another effective source of efficacy information. Vi
carious experience exerts greater influence on self-efficacy formation
when there are no absolute measures of adequacy and when people
perceive similarity between the model and themselves (Schunk and
Hanson, 1985; Schunk, Hanson, and Cox, 1987).
(3) Verbal persuasion. Persuasive communication and evaluative feed
back from significant others also influence one's judgment of self
efficacy. Verbal persuasion is most effective when people who con
vey the efficacy information are viewed knowledgeable and credible
and when the information is viewed realistic. However, disconfirm
ing mastery experience easily outweighs self-efficacy beliefs created
solely on the basis of verbal persuasion.
(4) Physiological reactions. Heightened physiological arousals such as
sweating, heartbeats, fatigue, aches, pain, and mood changes also
send a signal to people that affects their efficacy appraisal. Recog
nition of these somatic symptoms leads to self-efficacy adjustments
through their effects on cognitive processing.
As can be seen, self-concept and self-efficacy share many of the pre

sumed antecedents such as past experience, social comparison, and rein
forcements from significant others. They share many of the presumed out
comes related to cognitive, affective, and behavioral functioning as well.
However, there are also differences in how they are conceptualized and op
erationalized in research. We discuss some of the noticeable trends in more
detail as they pertain to the domain of academic functioning.
Academic Self-Concept and Academic Self-Efficacy
Academic self-concept and academic self-efficacy refer to individuals'

self-concept and self-efficacy beliefs that are formed specifically toward aca
demic (as distinct from nonacademic, general, social, emotional, or phys
ical) domains. More specifically, academic self-concept refers to individu
als' knowledge and perceptions about themselves in achievement situations
(Byrne, 1984; Shavelson and Bolus, 1982; Wigfield and Karpathian, 1991).
Academic self-efficacy refers to individuals' convictions that they can suc
cessfully perform given academic tasks at designated levels (Schunk, 1991).
Both constructs received much attention from educational researchers
because of their purported influence on students' academic functioning. Nu
merous studies reported how positive self-concept or self-efficacy facilitated
students' academic engagement, goal-setting, task choice, persistence and

effort, intrinsic motivation, strategy use, performance and achievement, and
even career selection (see discussion under the Predictive Outcomes be
low). Despite the vast volume of evidence attesting to the powerful nature
of these constructs, it is not always easy to locate specific factors or work
able strategies to enhance these beliefs to realize such desirable outcomes.
This difficulty is in part due to the hazy distinction between self-concept and
self-efficacy, which thwarts any synthesis or integration efforts of the sort.
The rather subtle conceptual distinction between self-concept and self
efficacy applies equally to these academic self-perceptions. Because now
they are both dealing with the same "academic" domain, it is conceivably
more difficult to identify the critical distinction between these two constructs.
Theoretical definitions alone are often not enough to point out specific di
mensions on which they are believed to be similar or different. It becomes
much easier to distinguish academic self-concept from academic self-efficacy
and vice versa when provided with operational definitions of each. On one
hand, the clearer divergence of operational definitions may indicate that the
differences between the two constructs have been exaggerated because of
the different assessment and analytic strategies that are associated with each
theory (Bong and Clark, 1999; Skaalvik and Rankin, 1996a). On the other
hand, operational definitions are manifestation of implicit and explicit the
oretical tenets and, as such, may reflect genuine differences between these
two constructs. Rather than comparing conceptual definitions that are some
times obscure on how best to capture the construct in question, we start with
analyzing the current and representative operationalizations of academic
self-concept and academic self-efficacy.
By far, the most commonly used method of measuring both constructs
is self-reports. Items that are typically used to assess academic self-concept
include "Schoolwork is easy for me," "I have always done well in (a subject),"
and "Compared with others my age, I'm good at (a subject)." Students indi
cate how much they agree with each of these statements on 1-5,1-6, or 1-7
response scales. It is worth noting that there exist different views among re
searchers regarding whether academic self-concept also includes emotional
reactions to the tasks such as interest, enjoyment, and satisfaction. Some
regard these as part of self-concept, whereas others consider them a distinct
construct. Researchers who endorse the former view add items such as "I am
interested in (a subject)" and "I look forward to (a subject)" to academic self
concept assessment (Marsh, 1999a, 1999b). Other researchers (e.g., Eccles
and Wigfield, 1995; Eccles, Wigfield, and Schiefele, 1998; Wigfield, Eccles,
Mac Iver, Reuman, and Midgley, 1991) make clear conceptual distinctions
between ability- or expectancy-related perceptions and task-value compo
nents (e.g., interest, importance, usefulness). The issue of whether or not
Bong and Skaalvik
the competence and affective components of self-concept are empirically

distinguishable has not been resolved.
Another procedure that is frequently used to measure academic self
concept of young children involves presenting two contrasting descriptions
of hypothetical children. For example, a statement, "Some kids do very well
at their classwork," is written on the left column of a page. An opposite
statement, "Other kids don't do very well at their classwork," is on the right
column. Children first select which of the two statements describes them
better. They then judge whether the selected statement is really true for
them or just sort of true for them (Harter, 1982; Harter and Pike, 1984). This
assessment procedure yields self-concept response scores that range from 1
to 4 on each item.
The standard method of measuring academic self-efficacy is to present
problems that are similar to the actual problems students must solve. Stu
dents estimate their confidence that they can solve each problem correctly
(e.g., Bandura and Schunk, 1981). Alternatively, academic self-efficacy items
may include written descriptions of problems or tasks in place of actual
problems—for example, "How sure are you that you can correctly spell all
words in a one-page story or composition?" (Pajares, Miller, and Johnson,
1999), "How confident are you that you can successfully solve equations
containing square rootsT' (Bong, 2002) or "How confident are you that you
will get a grade better than a B in mathematics at the end of this term?"
(Zimmerman and Bandura, 1994). Students rate the degree of their confi
dence for successfully accomplishing each task on a 0-100 or 10-100 scale
in 10-unit intervals. A score of 0 represents absolute lack of confidence and
a 100 represents complete confidence. Other self-efficacy items include "I
expect to do very well in (a subject) class" and "I am sure that I can do
an excellent job on the problems and tasks assigned for (a subject) class"
(Pintrich and De Groot, 1990). As was the case with self-concept items, re
spondents mark how much they agree with each of these efficacy statements
on a Likert-type response scale.
A quick glance at these items makes evident several features that can
be easily overlooked when given only the theoretical definition of each con
struct. First of all, despite several apparent differences in assessment proce
dures, both constructs seem to call for a subjective judgment of perceived
competence in reference to some target domain or activities. In addition to
the cognitive appraisal of one's competence, academic self-concept assess
ment also often inquires about students' affective reactions to the recognized
self and its attributes. Items such as "I enjoy doing work in (a subject)," "I
hate (a subject)," and "I never want to take another (subject) course" (Marsh,
1990b) exemplify this. In judging self-efficacy, respondents make largely
cognitive evaluations of their perceived capability without deliberately
reflecting on their feelings generated by those evaluations (Zimmerman,

1996).
The nature of self-concept and self-efficacy evaluations differ from one
another. Assessing one's capability in academic self-concept relies heavily
on social comparative information and reflected appraisals from significant
others. Items such as "Compared with others my age, I'm good at (a sub
ject)" or "In (a subject), I am one of the best students in my class" are com
monly found in self-concept scales (e.g., Marsh, 1999a). Some self-concept
researchers suggest that students further compare their academic capabil
ity in one domain to their capability in other domains. Such ipsative compa
rison makes performance improvement in one domain cause decrease in self
concepts in other areas (Marsh, 1986). In contrast, self-efficacy items solicit
goal-referenced evaluation and do not directly ask students to compare their
ability to those of others. Although normative information wields tangible in
fluence on self-efficacy estimation at times, efficacy is gauged mainly against
concrete performance standards (Bong and Clark, 1999; Zimmerman,
1996).
Academic self-concept items typically refer to specific school subjects,
whereas self-efficacy items most often refer to specific tasks. Both constructs
are thus closely tied to academic content areas. However, it is noticeable
that the expected performance or features of the outcome against which to
evaluate one's competence are not explicitly stated in self-concept items.
The lack of context-specific information leads students to make some aggre
gated judgments of their competence in the given area. Self-efficacy items
provide respondents with a specific description of required performance as
a referent against which to appraise their competence. Judgments formed
as a result of such appraisal are not only specific to certain academic con
tent but also specific to given performance contexts. Self-concept is orga
nized in multidimensional and hierarchical fashion such that self-concepts
in more specific domains are subsumed under self-concepts in more general
domains (Shavelson et al., 1976). Self-efficacy beliefs are also multidimen
sional in the sense that students form differentiated perceptions of capa
bility across diverse tasks and domains. Relationships among these beliefs
are only loosely hierarchical because self-efficacy in more general areas may
not sufficiently incorporate particularities of diverse contexts that influence
self-efficacy judgments toward more specific tasks.
The theoretical and operational definitions of the constructs, when com
pared, also create the impression that self-concept embodies fairly stable
perceptions of the self that are past-oriented, whereas self-efficacy repre
sents relatively malleable and future-oriented conceptions of the self and its
potential. Despite these differences, self-concept and self-efficacy are used
to predict a fairly similar set of outcomes including motivation, emotion, and
10 Bong and Skaalvik
Table I. Comparison Betwee

Academic
Comparison Academic
dimensions self-concept self-efficacy
1. Working definition Convictions

Knowledge and perceptions for
about oneself in successfully performing
achievement situations given academic tasks at
designated levels
2. Central element Perceived competence Perceived confidence
3. Composition Cognitive and affective Cognitive appraisal of self
appraisal of self
4. Nature of competence Normative and ipsative Goal-referenced and
evaluation normative
5. Judgment specificity Domain-specific Domain-specific and
context-specific
6. Dimensionality Multidimensional Multidimensional
7. Structure Hierarchical Loosely hierarchical
8. Time orientation Past-oriented Future-oriented
9. Temporal stability Stable Malleable
10. Predictive outcomes Motivation, emotion, and Motivation, emotion,
performance cognitive and
self-regulatory processes,
and performance
performance. In addition, self-efficacy predicts cognitive and self-regulatory

processes. Table I lists the working definition of academic self-concept an
self-efficacy used in this article and summarizes the key dimensions of com
parison including central element, composition, nature of competence eva
ation, judgment specificity, dimensionality, structure, temporal stability, an
predictive outcomes. Below we elaborate and present evidence for the pu
ported similarities and differences on each of these dimensions.
CENTRAL ELEMENT
One of the most glaring similarities between the concept

self-concept and self-efficacy is the central role played by one's
perceptions. Perceived competence in defined domains or activit
the single most critical element in both self-beliefs (Eccles et al
temporary academic self-concept researchers assert that stu
tions of competence in given areas provide key ingredient
concepts (e.g., Harter, 1982; Marsh, 1990a, 1992; Shavelson an
Wigfield et al., 1997; Wigfield and Karpathian, 1991). Percei
in reference to specific academic tasks and domains is also
constituent of academic self-efficacy judgments (Pajares, 199
Many researchers recognize that academic self-concept in
efficacy component and that this component may be the m
Self-Concept vs. Self-Efficacy 11
building block in one's self-concept

Pajares (1996) suspected that at the
self-concept and self-efficacy belief
searchers have reported that stude
Questionnaire, one of the popular se
factors: cognitive and motivational
1996). The cognitive academic self-c
guishable from the academic self-ef
and Rankin, 1996a). Because few st
of self-concept and self-efficacy resp
to draw any firm conclusion regard
these two constructs. At minimum,
be conducted.
At present, there is still some room for debate whether the perceived
competence component in self-concept is indeed identical to percepts of
self-efficacy. For example, different information sources have been known
to affect the two self-systems to different degrees, as is shown later in this
article. The two self-beliefs, in turn, have sometimes yielded different psy
chological and behavioral outcomes. Nevertheless, it seems reasonable to
assume, on the basis of limited available evidence, that there is at least con
siderable overlap in the makeup of academic self-concept and academic
self-efficacy and that perception of academic capability is the major com
mon denominator between the two.
COMPOSITION
Although perceived capability constitutes the core in contem

views of academic self-concept, self-concept has long been recogn
flect more than one's competence perceptions. Scheirer and Kraut (19
example, argued that self-concept consists of at least four distinguish
pects. These include descriptive categorization of self in terms of soc
and personality traits, evaluation of the self-attributes according to
sirability, comparison of qualities through which individuals determi
"ranking relative to other people on a specific dimension," and emoti
titudes toward the self—called self-esteem. More recently, Skaalv
distinguished between descriptive, evaluative, and affective/mot
aspects of self-concept. However, consistent with the observ
Shavelson et al. (1976), he claimed that a clear empirical distinct
tween self-description and self-evaluation often could not be made. H
... self-conceptions like "I am tall" and "I learn mathematics easily" include both
scriptive and evaluative aspects. The descriptive or cognitive component represe
knowledge and beliefs that

(see Markus, 1977); for exam
However, a person's belief t
of an evaluation. When a pe
description can therefore n
or his mathematics abilities
descriptive/evaluative, (p. 5
With specific regard

(1997a) argued that its
matics easily") could be
(e.g., "I am proud of m
a similar vein, Bong an
consists of cognitive a
sion is further differen
attributes. We conjectur
rise to the affective/m
self as smart almost u
(Covington, 1984b, 199
valued, students who re
good about that aspect
toward the self are beli
tivation. As Wigfield a
tasks and situations th
in an attempt to main
The tendency to avoid
predictions of the social
determined by the resu
ilar others is believed to
1954). These presumed
theoretical as well as
clude a mixture of com
and motivation in domains under consideration. Instruments intended to
measure academic self-concept vary with respect to which of these different
aspects they stress. For example, although Harter (1998) fully acknowledged
the importance of affect in many theoretical conceptualizations of self and
its integration with cognitive and social processes, she nonetheless made a
distinction between perceived competence, anxiety, and motivational ori
entation (Silon and Harter, 1985). Her self-concept instrument, the Per
ceived Competence Scale, concentrates on children's perceptions of compe
tence, the dimension she believed most central to children's self-evaluation
(Harter, 1982). Expectancy-value theorists (e.g., Eccles and Wigfield, 1995;
Eccles et al., 1998; Wigfield et al., 1991) also distinguish between perceived
competence from task-value perceptions.
In comparison, the Self Descriptio

and his associates (e.g., Marsh, 1999
badly in tests of mathematics") and
concept (e.g., "I hate mathematics"
two dimensions of self-concept do
Skaalvik and Rankin, 1996b; Tanzer
Experiments 3 and 4) also reported t
students' responses to the Reading
were perceptions of difficulty with
reading, and attitudes toward readi
components and their relations with
different age groups. Again, these
of academic self-concept—whether
both part of self-concept or wheth
constructs—are a relatively recent i
investigators cited above reported e
components, most existing academic
porated such a distinction explicitly. A
academic self-concept measures tend
including some forms of cognitive ev
Measures of academic self-efficacy
cognitive aspect of students' self-perc
dents to judge how well they can exec
ously, this judgment involves an evalu
of performing. Hence, the cognitiv
efficacy measures include a strong
may be a distinct difference in the na
tions that are generated thereafter.
efficacy never refer to affective or m
ory presumes that self-efficacy belief
emotion through a self-regulatory
Miller, 1994; Schunk and Zimmerm
(1986) claimed that ". . . those who
suffer much anxiety and stress" (p
efficacy is indeed a strong predicto
Pastorelli, Barbaranelli, and Caprara
Kranzler, 1995; Pajares and Miller, 1
In sum, both academic self-concep
tions are related to how students f
searchers traditionally tend to view
tations as an important aspect of self-
definition of the construct. Self-effic
the close link between co

However, they conside
mainly a correlate or c
essary constituent for
intrinsic interest/value
within the cyclical self-
Zimmerman, 2000).
NATURE OF COMPETENCE EVALUATION
The social comparison theory of Festinger (1954) suggests th

objective standards of comparison are not provided, people app
selves using significant others in their immediate environment
of comparison. Many self-concept investigations demonstrated
of social comparison on academic self-concept. For example, Rog
and Coleman (1978) rank-ordered and assigned students to high-
and low-achieving groups either on the basis of their within-classr
ings or on the basis of their achievement scores irrespective of the
classroom standing. Across reading and math, significant group
on various academic and nonacademic self-concepts were obser
when the trichotomy was conducted in the context of students'
The investigators thus concluded, "the most meaningful way to
the relation between academic achievement and self-concept is
context of the social comparison group or classroom" (p. 56).
formance standards are only implicitly alluded to in self-concept as
students often engage in social comparison processes as an alter
of evaluating how good they are or how well they do academica
Social comparison effects on self-concept were documented
special populations. Renick and Harter (1989) found that a ma
learning disabled students spontaneously compared themselves
classroom students when reporting their self-concepts. When they
self-concepts suffered. Coleman and Fults (1982) reported ana
ings with gifted students. Students identified as gifted and who su
participated in the special gifted program soon formed less favo
of themselves, presumably because of their new, comparably p
peers. Those who stayed in the regular classes maintained their
concept. Because social comparison is one of the most powerful
evaluative information for judging self-concept (Marsh, 1990d,
dents in the high-ability schools often experience loss in their acad
concept. Marsh (1987) observed that, after the difference in individ
was controlled for, school-average ability demonstrated negative
students' academic self-concept. In o

less capable in the environment with
in the environment with less able pee
effect on self-concept the big-fish-lit
Another comparative frame of r
demic self-concept is internal com
dents base their academic self-conce
how their ability compares with th
ternal comparison) but also on how
with their abilities in other subjec
comparison is presumed to create a
ment in one domain and self-conce
students' achievement levels in math i
improve. At the same time, their re
make them believe that their math
ity. This recognition subsequently
joint effects of internal and exter
are assumed to balance each other
tion between math and verbal self
parison tends to result in a positiv
and math self-concepts because ver
highly correlated. The internal com
correlation between students' verb
on the weight assigned to each com
and math self-concepts can be posit
stantially reduced in magnitude fro
tween achievements. Predictions of th
of studies (Marsh, 1990b; Skaalvik
1998).
People's inferences about themselves are also affected by how others
perceive them. Reflected appraisals from significant others provide useful
information for molding one's self-concept. In his classic volume on self
concept, Rosenberg (1979) refers to a large body of research indicating that
individuals actually tend to view themselves as they are seen by others.
Students are believed to shape their academic self-concept in part on the
basis of their impressions of how their parents, teachers, and peers appraise
their academic ability (Harter, 1990). In the absence of absolute standards
against which to estimate one's capabilities, students determine how good
they are in the given subject by comparing their ability to those of their
peers and, at the same time, monitoring other people's appraisals of their
ability. Reflected appraisals function as an important source of evaluative
information in academic self-concept formation.
In contrast, a sense of
by one's previous encou
Bong and Clark, 1999;
own prior mastery expe
than vicarious inform
(Bandura, 1977). Because
goals and standards, ther
comparison. Instead, the
the described performa
judgments are hence g
relativistic impressions
comparison than is self
critical information fo
dents often gather eff
especially when the tas
ate standard for evalua
1987; Schunk and Hans
ability to be comparabl
the model have stronger
1987).
The internal comparison processes described by the I/E model (Marsh,
1986) do not seem relevant in self-efficacy estimation. Predictions from the
I/E model are not supported by academic self-efficacy measures (Bong, 1998;
Marsh, Walker, and Debus, 1991; Skaalvik and Rankin, 1990). More specifi
cally, verbal and math self-efficacy perceptions usually demonstrate a strong
positive correlation that is commensurate with the corresponding correla
tion between verbal and math achievements. Moreover, high achievement
in the verbal area does not necessarily lower efficacy judgments in math or
vice versa.
On the other hand, reflected appraisals are implicit in self-efficacy judg
ments. Verbal persuasion by credible others is known to influence percep
tions of self-efficacy. Verbal persuasion, in effect, is a concrete manifestation
of how a person is perceived or evaluated by significant others. It was pointed
out above that when the task is novel or when the criteria for success are not
clear, students estimate their efficacy perceptions primarily on the basis of so
cial comparative information (Bandura, 1977). Under such circumstances,
their efficacy beliefs are also more heavily swayed by verbal persuasion
of significant and knowledgeable others. However, percepts of efficacy in
stilled purely by verbal persuasion can only be maintained when followed by
successful mastery experiences. Self-efficacy increase to an unrealistic level
wanes quickly by disappointing failures. Therefore, the difference between
self-concept and self-efficacy regarding social comparison and reflected
appraisals is one of degree. These so

powerful for self-efficacy adjustment
ternal comparison only influences self
JUDGMENT SPECIFICITY
Students express academic self-concept and academic self-effic

are both domain-specific. Domain-specificity of self-perception
tained when these perceptions are differentiated clearly across differ
tent areas and when they relate only to relevant outcomes in the sam
area and not to those in different areas. Because academic self-per
are commonly assessed at the school subject level (e.g., math self-
domain-specificity is often viewed synonymous to subject-specif
though subject-specificity certainly attests to the domain-specificity
struct, the term domain-specificity should not be equated to a p
measurement level. Rather, a domain can represent from relativel
skill areas such as reading comprehension in English to broader
areas such as social science.
Although both constructs are associated with certain a degree of
domain-specificity, traditional measures of self-concept and self-efficacy dif
fer with respect to the level of measurement specificity (Pajares, 1996). Aca
demic self-concept, even when assessed in reference to particular domains,
has been measured at more general levels. Students typically report their
overall feelings of doing well or poorly in given subject areas. Compared with
the self-concept assessment, beliefs of self-efficacy have been examined at
more specific levels, usually in the context of performing specific tasks within
a particular domain. Self-efficacy has also been measured at a more general
level beyond particularized tasks or academic subjects. The primary reason
for assessing self-efficacy at different levels of specificity, both specific and
general, has been to ensure correspondence between self-efficacy percep
tions and performance criterion. For example, when the researchers' goal
is to predict performance of broader scope such as course grades and over
all grade point averages, perceived self-efficacy at correspondingly broader
levels are assessed (e.g., Pajares and Miller, 1995; Randhawa, Beamer, and
Lundberg, 1993; Zimmerman, Bandura, and Martinez-Pons, 1992).
Researchers express little disagreement as regards the purported dif
ferences between task-specific academic self-efficacy and subject-specific
academic self-concept (e.g., Marsh et al., 1991; Pajares, 1996). However,
when the two constructs are put side by side at the same level of measure
ment specificity, the opposing arguments collide. Academic self-efficacy re
searchers express pessimistic views that self-concept can ever be assessed at
task-specific or problem
Academic self-concept r
utility of self-efficacy
yses of performance.
self-efficacy theories co
levels of measurement
Self-concept items ra
performance. This omi
evaluations of themsel
stated that "... a man'
sessment of his consti
qualities that count" (p
plicable to domain-spec
tions of their competen
explicit information ab
viduals should take int
left to the individuals
is most salient and rea
interest tends to domin
An important require
should be tailored so a
formance (Bandura, 1
of aggregating differen
becomes fairly irrelevan
portant features of task
outcomes are clearly sp
context-specificity hel
and to reach more acc
particular tasks (Mische
beliefs with diverse p
content and specificity
criterial performance (J
1991; Pajares and Mille
One recent study pro
ences between the mea
Low (1999) assessed fou
speaking, reading, and w
with the measurement
self-concepts appear to
academic self-efficacy (
we examine the questi
is more profound tha
students' self-concepts in different sk

ject portion of the Self Description Qu
For example, English speaking self-c
"Compared with other students, I'm
hopeless when it comes to speaking
well in speaking (in English)." Resp
who were enrolled in English-as-a-s
In providing definitions of these sk
dents, listening typically refers to un
and social situations and in academ
refers to activities such as the delivery
another person in class and out of clas
of written prose, understanding of vo
nonacademic purposes; and writing re
reports, and all other work in the wr
their respective disciplines at the u
assumptions made by the researchers
by respondents. When students resp
students, I'm good at speaking in Engl
their competence on the basis of their
glish conversations, whereas others
making public speeches and class pr
levels are now skill-specific, but the a
each skill area are still being solicite
It is perhaps a useful exercise to try
for this particular skill area. An ass
diction is students' proficiency in spe
Three items are readily conceivable on
speaking in English (Lau et al., 1999
successfully deliver a talk in English i
are you that you can carry out Eng
confident are you that you can succes
outside your class?" More detailed e
self-efficacy items at task-specific an
specificity are provided in Tables II an
whether the measurement level is spe
out students' overall reactions towar
items specify different aspects or lev
Earlier, we suggested that domain
when self-perceptions in one area r
same content area and not to those in
researchers have repeatedly demons
Table II. Sample Academic Self

Levels (e.g.. Writing
Writing self-concept
Writing self-eff
I have How confident are

always you that you can
done ...
well in
writing.
Work in writing is easy for me. correctly spell all words in a one-page story or
composition?
Compared with others my age I correctly punctuate a one-page story or composition?
am good at writing.
I get good marks in writing. correctly use parts of speech such as nouns, verbs,
adjectives, or adverbs?
I learn things quickly in writing. write a simple sentence with good grammar?
I'm hopeless when it comes to correctly use singulars and plurals, verb tenses,
writing." prefixes, and suffixes?
It is important to me to do well write a strong paragraph that has a good topic sentence
in writing. or main idea?
I am satisfied with how well I write a paragraph with details that support the topic
do in writing. sentence or main idea?
organize sentences into a paragraph that clearly
expresses an idea?
write a well-organized and well-sequenced paper that
has a good introduction, body, and conclusion?
Note. Self-concept items were adapted from the Academic Self Description Questionnaire I
(Marsh, 1999a); Self-efficacy items were reprinted from Pajares, Miller, and Johnson (1999)
with permission from the first author.
"Negatively worded items.
particular school subject relates most strongly with achievement indexes

in the same subject area. Its relations to achievement measures in other
school subjects are considerably weaker (e.g., Byrne and Shavelson, 1986;
Marsh, 1992; Marsh, Byrne, and Shavelson, 1988; Skaalvik and Rankin, 1995;
Skaalvik and Vals, 1999). Self-efficacy investigators typically include mea
sures that belong to a single academic domain and, as such, have not fre
quently tested whether the within-domain relations between self-efficacy
and performance are stronger than their cross-domain relations. However,
several recent studies reported evidence of strong content-specificity of aca
demic self-efficacy beliefs that is comparable to that obtained in academic
self-concept research. Joo et al. (2000), for instance, measured students' biol
ogy self-efficacy, Internet self-efficacy, written biology test performance, and
Internet biology test performance during Web-based instruction in biology.
Students' biology self-efficacy predicted their written biology test scores,
whereas students' self-efficacy for using the Internet predicted their biology
test performance based on the Internet search. Bong (2002) also reported
that when multiple self-efficacy and achievement indexes in English and
math entered the same predictive equation, English self-efficacy emerged as
the sole predictor of English performances, with math self-efficacy as the sole
Table III. Sample Academic Self-Concept a

Measurement Levels (e.g.. Math
Math self-concept Math self-efficacy
Mathematics is
Howone
confidentof my
are you best
that you can . . .
subjects
I often need help in pass mathematics at the end of this term?
mathematics."
1 look forward to mathematics pass mathematics at the end of this term with a grade
classes. better than a D?
I have trouble understanding get a grade better than a D+ in mathematics?
anything with mathematics in
it."
I enjoy studying for get a grade better than a C in mathematics?
mathematics."
I do badly in tests of get a grade better than a C in mathematics?
mathematics."
I get good marks in get a grade better than a C+ in mathematics?
mathematics.
1 never want to take another get a grade better than a B~ in mathematics?
mathematics course."
I have always done well in get a grade better than a B in mathematics?
mathematics.
1 hate mathematics." get a grade better than a B+ in mathematics?
get a grade better than an A~ in mathematics?
get an A in mathematics?
Note. Self-concept items were reprinted from the Self Description Questionnaire II (Marsh,
1999b); Self-efficacy items were adapted from Zimmerman and Bandura (1994) with
permission from the first author.
"Negatively worded items.
predictor of math performances. Relations of self-efficacy in one academic

domain to performance scores in the other domain were not significant.
Therefore, although the context-specificity issue is still a ground for much
debate, evidence is fairly consistent that both academic self-beliefs reflect
domain-specific judgments.
DIMENSIONALITY AND STRUCTURE
Self-concept is a multidimensional construct that is differentiat

domains of functioning. These domain-specific perceptions are hiera
structured with the most general perceptions at the apex of the
(Shavelson et al., 1976). With regard to the academic arena, Sha
al. hypothesized that a general academic self-concept would subs
area-specific self-concepts. Although their basic tenets of multid
ity and hierarchy of self-concept still hold, researchers later discov
the nature of academic self-concept hierarchy was slightly diffe
what Shavelson et al. originally envisioned. Specifically, students
self-concepts in the verb

cannot be represented
Shavelson, 1986; Marsh
demic portion of the S
verbal and math—high
Shavelson, 1985).
Although the multidim
searchers do not alway
structure (Harter, 1990
internal structure of s
tioned the validity of
ask whether the statisti
chological structure as
(p. 579). Evidence is no
support potential self-c
and Worth Gavin, 1996
that skill-specific self-c
writing English self-co
factor. Moreover, this
to be equivalent to an
factor. English self-conc
cific self-concept facto
with directly assessed
2000, Studies 3 and 5).
for the hierarchical natu
Evidence suggests that
a multidimensional an
structure. Students mak
judgments across diffe
var, in press). The degre
on gender, grade, and
dents also make a dist
efficacy beliefs at diffe
Lent, Brown, and Gore
(Shell, Colvin, and Bru
was the case with acade
and quantitative academi
academic self-efficacy b
of whether self-efficacy
1997) or with subject-le
can do an excellent job
subject] class"; Bong, 2
However, questions still remain as t

self-efficacy belief resembles the h
Although Bong's series of studies (
vided enough evidence to confirm t
of academic self-efficacy beliefs, they
to confirm the hierarchical organizati
be demonstrated, as self-concept re
et al., 2000), that the common factor
beliefs is equivalent in content to th
assessed at the more general level.
successful empirically, Bandura (198
up with such a simplified measure
ing behavior. He wrote, "The most
detailed assessment of the level, str
efficacy commensurate with the pa
performance is measured. . . . part
of efficacy surpass global measures
(p. 397).
There has been at least one consistent discrepancy between what appear
to be otherwise similar internal structures. While academic self-concepts in
verbal and math areas are nearly uncorrected (Byrne and Shavelson, 1986;
Marsh et al., 1988; Skaalvik and Rankin, 1995), verbal and math academic
self-efficacy are almost always highly correlated (Bong, 1997, 2001a; Marsh
et al., 1991; Skaalvik and Rankin, 1995). Whether this difference reflects a
true construct-related difference or some artifact of methodological proce
dures is not yet known. As discussed previously, the internal and external
frames of reference model of academic self-concept (Marsh, 1986; Marsh
et al., 1991) explains the near-zero correlation between verbal and math
self-concepts as a result of simultaneous operation of internal and external
comparison processes. Students do not undergo internal comparison pro
cesses when judging their self-efficacy (Bong, 1998) and, therefore, express
efficacy beliefs in different domains that are more highly correlated.
Recently, Bong and Hocevar (in press) compared three academic self
efficacy scales that differed in terms of measurement specificity, using a mul
titrait, multimethod framework. Academic self-efficacy factors at different
levels of specificity were positively correlated within each domain. Further,
the types of problems/tasks included in the measure and the subject ar
eas from which these problems/tasks were drawn concomitantly determined
students' responses to problem-specific and task-specific self-efficacy items.
In contrast, students' responses to subject-specific self-efficacy items were
more or less uniform within each academic domain and did not differ much
by the individual items. More interestingly, students' percepts of efficacy in
different school subject

cific problems and leas
statements. Compared w
of contemporary acade
sures (e.g., Self Descri
This finding, therefor
strengths of relations
been created, at least in
TIME ORIENTATION
It is worth noting that most academic self-concept items b

phrases that read "I am good . . "I am hopeless . . or "I have done
well . . (see Byrne, 1996). Self-efficacy items usually start with "How
confident are you that you can . . .?" "How well can you . . .?" or "I am
confident that I will be able to . . (see also Pajares, 1996). The wording
of self-concept items tends to direct the attention of respondents toward
their past accomplishments, whereas that of self-efficacy items focuses the
attention of students on their future expectancies (see Wigfield and Eccles,
2000, for related discussion).
Although self-concept and self-efficacy items make salient the past or
the future time frames, respectively, both types of judgments are primarily
a product of past experiences. Even when self-concept items refer to the
current self, for example, "Mathematics is easy for me," such judgments can
only be formed on the basis of one's mathematics achievements in the past.
As pointed out by Markus and Nurius (1986), self-concepts are past-oriented
because relevant information and experiences need to be processed by self
schemas and these schemas are created from individuals' past experiences in
a particular domain. Self-efficacy perceptions are inherently future-oriented
because they represent individuals' confidence for successfully accomplish
ing the imminent tasks. Yet these expectations, too, are in large part results
of self-schemas that are created from their earlier experiences.
The same previous experiences in the domain provide vital information
for carving both one's self-concept and self-efficacy beliefs. However, indi
viduals do not necessarily reach the same conclusion. Because self-efficacy
items make an explicit reference to outcomes in the upcoming future, there
is ample room for the same individual or for different individuals with sim
ilar achievement records to arrive at drastically different expectations for
success. Consider two students who believe that they have always done well
in mathematics and that they are good at mathematics compared with oth
ers their age. These two students may or may not express similar strength
of certitude for accomplishing suc

tion problems or getting a grade b
end of the term. Math self-concep
general competence in math, wher
judgments of what they could do
ing the specified math tasks. Depe
pare the given achievement situat
lar tasks, their confidence for succ
be strengthened or weakened. On t
equally efficacious that they can su
tasks may or may not regard the
(Pajares, 1996).
The relative emphasis on the past an
with how much specific aspects of th
into account in coming up with a fina
that are being called for are most
compelling reason either for research
the current situation or for respond
Schemas, by definition, are a constel
many isolated experiences. Individu
area based on the past self-schema
of any single event (Markus, 1977)
report their likelihood of success o
be performed, they need to consider
these tasks. Otherwise, their judgm
performance on these tasks could
affordances and constraints. This dif
between academic self-concept and
their difference in temporal stability
TEMPORAL STABILITY
Self-schemata is "cognitive generalizations about the se

when well articulated, should demonstrate "cross-situational c
(Markus, 1977). Consistent with this claim, one of the fe
Shavelson et al. (1976) identified as critical to the definition of sel
is its stability. Shavelson and Bolus (1982) subsequently report
coefficients between 0.56 and 0.81 with general and subject-matter
self-concepts assessed over a 4-month time lag. More importan
concepts appeared more stable than the corresponding achievem
and Yeung (1998, Study 2) also reported that subject-specific as we
academic self-concepts
strated high stability co
its resistance to change,
experimental manipula
found that, although s
improved somewhat by
only modest at best.
ture of academic self-
the stability of these p
are more flexible, whe
tablished (Skaalvik and
grow older, their self
others' evaluation of t
It is interesting to not
been investigated. Ban
of self-efficacy is resili
that it is fundamentally
as one of the personali
(1999) reported that ma
than math self-efficacy
self-concept scores did
efficacy scores did. Th
the more demanding na
that more research with
this exemplifies well t
self-efficacy judgments
assessed before the tar
beliefs could change gr
In discussing the stabi
that as one descends the
more specific situations
the apex of the hierarch
at lower levels are expec
is frequently measured
els of the Shavelson hi
represents relatively
ported repeated succes
perceptions in a relati
were experiencing gre
1987; Schunk and Cox
Swartz, 1993). These exp
of self-efficacy beliefs.
PREDICTIVE OUTCOMES
Both academic self-concept and self-efficacy research und

the construct is important as a desirable outcome in itself as we
tial mediator of academic motivation and performance. Whi
the conceptual and methodological differences between the tw
Marsh et al. (1991) wrote, "both self-efficacy and self-concept re
posited to reflect more than just an objective assessment of exis
ment levels.... In this sense, self-efficacy and self-concept m
after partialling out the effects of prior achievement—are
tribute to the prediction of subsequent behaviors that are
active choice, motivation, and sustained effort" (p. 336).
In accordance with this self-enhancement view, numerous
documented strong relations between measures of academic s
academic self-efficacy and a variety of motivational and perf
cators. Academic self-concept has been shown to relate sys
teachers' ratings of level of engagement and persistence in c
ities (Skaalvik and Rankin, 1996b; Skinner, Wellborn, and Co
students' effort ratings (Skaalvik and Rankin, 1995), help-see
(Ames, 1983), course-selection (Marsh and Yeung, 1997b), in
vation (Gottfried, 1990; Harter, 1982; Mac Iver, Stipek, and
Meece, Blumenfeld, and Hoyle, 1988; Skaalvik, 1997b, 1998;
Rankin, 1996b), and achievement (Marsh, 1992; Marsh et al
and Yeung, 1997a; Shavelson and Bolus, 1982; Skaalvik and H
Skaalvik and Vals, 1999).
Academic self-efficacy beliefs have been found to strongly r
choice (Bandura and Schunk, 1981; Pajares and Miller, 1995)
tion (Betz and Hackett, 1981,1983), persistence and performa
Barbaranelli, Caprara, and Pastorelli, 1996; Lent, Brown, and
Multon et al., 1991; Pajares and Miller, 1994; Pajares et al., 1
and Johnson, 1996; Schunk, 1981,1982, 1983,1984; Schunk an
Schunk and Hanson, 1985, 1989; Schunk and Swartz, 1993),
and academic aspirations (Bandura et al., 1996; Zimmerman
Zimmerman and Bandura, 1994), cognitive strategy use and s
(Pintrich and De Groot, 1990; Wolters and Pintrich, 1998), p
(Bong, 2001b; Meece, Wigfield, and Eccles, 1990), mastery go
(Bong, 2001a; Meece and Holt, 1993; Roeser, Midgley, and U
Skaalvik, 1997b), and intrinsic interest and self-satisfactions
and Kitsantas, 1997, 1999).
Although both theories emphasize the predictive and expl
of these self-judgments, academic self-concept and self-effi
ditionally been paired with slightly different sets of outcom
Clark, 1999). Favorite

course grades, standar
and anxiety. Self-effic
setting, persistence, eff
recent studies in both
For example, Skaalvik
positively to student
that both self-concept
and self-enhancing eg
tively with self-defeat
and his colleagues (Paj
and Miller, 1994) demon
anxiety.
In general, self-concept better predicts affective reactions such as anxi
ety, satisfaction, and self-esteem, whereas self-efficacy better predicts cogni
tive processes and actual performance. Such relative superiority notwith
standing, both constructs have been found useful for predicting similar
outcomes. Because self-efficacy researchers have used both correlational
and experimental designs, self-efficacy effects are more clearly established
(see Pajares, 1997, for an overview). Self-concept researchers, primarily us
ing survey designs and correlational analyses, are still debating the causal
relations between self-concept and achievement (see Skaalvik, 1997a, for an
overview). Nevertheless, academic self-concept and academic self-efficacy
research shares the basic premise that the construct plays a significant
role in enhancing students' intrinsic motivation, positive emotion, and
performance.
WHAT NOW? SOME DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
The purpose of this article was to illuminate conceptually the

ities and differences between academic self-concept and self-effic
self-constructs known to wield critical influence on students' academic at
tainment and psychological well-being in school. The two conceptualizations
share important similarities such as their treatment of perceived competence
as the most integral element in construct definition and assessment. Both
self-beliefs use prior mastery experience, social comparison, and reflected
appraisals as major information sources. Beliefs of academic self-concept
and self-efficacy are also domain-specific and multidimensional such that
students hold perceptions that are unique to each academic domain and
reasonably differentiated across diverse areas. These two constructs predict
subsequent motivation, emotion, and performance to varying degrees.
There are also important difference

concept include cognitive evaluation
actions toward results of such evaluat
distinction between these componen
separate construct that is mainly a co
While competence evaluation in sel
parison and hence tends to be normat
goal-referenced and most strongly
Academic self-concept reflects an a
sion of one's competence in given a
beliefs tend to be past-oriented, sta
Academic self-efficacy reflects a hig
competence, although repeated success
durable. The dynamic and malleable
ders them more amenable to experi
enhancement.
Need to Separate Multiple Components of Academic Self-Concept
Presently, the dominant view of academic self-concept is that it is a

collection of a host of related perceptions: competence, self-worth, interest,
enjoyment, and intentions, to name a few. It is conceivable that self-concept
measures, which reflect this complexity, better predict outcomes that are
jointly influenced and determined by these factors. Such outcomes tend to
involve choice and performance measures at more general levels of speci
ficity. Although this composite view toward academic self-concept may in
deed mirror students' actual thought patterns in certazn situations, several
researchers demonstrated the need as well as usefulness of separating out
some of these components. Wigfield et al. (1997), for example, reported that
even elementary school children were able to differentiate their perceived
ability and interest within the same activity domains. Studies that distinguish
between competence and task-value perceptions provide evidence that each
predicts certain outcomes better than the other. Generally, perceived com
petence predicts academic performance better, whereas task-value predicts
choice behaviors better (e.g., Meece et al., 1990).
Self-efficacy researchers have argued that self-efficacy is the most useful
self-construct because it predicts subsequent motivation and performance
better than the other constructs, including self-concept (e.g., Bandura, 1986;
Pajares and Miller, 1994). One reason for its stronger predictive power owes
to the fact that it purposefully avoids intermixing different components un
der the rubric of self-efficacy. Instead, it concentrates on students' subjective
judgments of capability
ignated levels (Schunk,
that include perceived co
ious self-processes (e.g.
from self-efficacy with
2000). For example, self
evaluation and self-satisf
phase, the results of whi
expectations, and subseq
We believe that academ
separating perceived co
amining the specific con
should generate specif
within the broader self-
predictive and explanat
Self-Efficacy as an A
The previous discussi

components and the ce
ponents bring to light
include whether the p
concept are equivalent to
beliefs influence the dev
Lent et al. (1997) inve
efficacy components b
concept and self-effica
self-concept and self-e
researchers thus concl
self-efficacy. However,
separately with differ
tors that explicitly inc
fective/motivational c
clusion. As discussed p
Pietsch (1999) reported
rated into two factors a
on the same factor with
This finding does not
sues discussed in this
uation, content-specifici
malleability. Neverthel
it is the perceived competence com

dicts performance and that, within th
to distinguish between academic self-c
We suggest that academic self-eff
basis for developing academic self-c
article and by others in the field (
1999; Pajares, 1996), represents a co
perceptions that are swayed mainly
judgments do not easily take into
as the scope and levels of specific task
ing circumstances under which one ha
competence perceptions in academic
numerous experiences within a giv
academic self-concept in its very in
cross-situational variability because
such generalization difficult. It is pos
stage of development is indistinguisha
As students acquire more enactive
feedback from significant others, the
task or domain gradually become m
achievement situations with the same
gated sense of their own academic c
or failure experiences. Depending on
reflects favorably or unfavorably on
ative affective reactions. Perceptions
how students feel about themselves
enjoy the particular domain, and eve
ticular academic domain is (e.g., Har
self-efficacy judgments toward partic
not be equal to the perceived compe
ceived self-efficacy in typical achieve
with academic self-concept in that a
and self-concept will become weak
more distinctive elements. Under th
will demonstrate particularly superi
intentions, motivation, and performa
Educational Implications
Perhaps the most fundamental si

search of academic self-concept and se
addressed, is their under

that the ultimate goal of
students function and
Researchers try to do
selves in academic contex
outcomes.
Studies from both camps have demonstrated that positive perce

self generate many desirable outcomes. Strong self-efficacy and positiv
concept lead students to set challenging yet attainable academic go
themselves, feel less anxious in achievement settings, enjoy their a
work more, persist longer on difficult tasks, and, overall, feel better a
themselves as a person and as a student. Though it is far from suf
research in both areas has answered many questions on the "what
"why" of academic motivation. Investigators examined issues such
is the nature of academic self-concept and self-efficacy, why students
different self-evaluations, or why learners express different levels
fidence when their past achievement histories are similar. To some
researchers also analyzed the process of "how," such as how academ
concept and self-efficacy beliefs are created and how they affect subse
motivation, learning, and performance.
Some questions consistent with the original aim of both self-th
but which still need considerably more research are How can we,
searchers and practitioners, change students' self-perceptions to a p
direction? How can we strengthen their self-confidence toward difficu
previously unsuccessful academic tasks? How can we make student
alize their heightened self-regards in given areas to other achievem
performance contexts? Most importantly, how can we help students fo
curate yet optimistic self-perceptions and, at the same time, help them
their low academic self-perceptions to negatively affect their self-wor
Many experiments now exist on how to raise or alter students' acad
self-efficacy beliefs by implementing a variety of instructional proced
Schunk and his colleagues have been particularly instrumental in o
specific strategies that could, with a little bit of mindfulness, be easily
porated in classroom instruction. Teachers can, among other things, pr
students with proximal rather than distal goals (Schunk, 1983), combin
cess goals with progress feedback (Schunk and Swartz, 1993), emplo
who share similar attributes to their students as teaching and learning
(Schunk and Hanson, 1985; Schunk, Hanson, and Cox, 1987), furnish
attributional feedback for students' progress (Schunk and Cox, 198
prompt students to self-evaluate (Schunk and Ertmer, 1999). These m
are all known to enhance students' perceptions of self-efficacy and
performance.
Most self-concept investigators stu

academic self-concept and achieveme
students' self-perceptions. Therefore
working to bolster students' academic
lack of experimental evidence in acad
Clark, 1999). As a result, we have only
fully bring about change in students' o
ability comparison, for example, is pr
nitive process that is proven to exerc
concept formation. Evidence shows
ability augments one's self-concept i
However, artificially manipulating stud
desirable, if not impossible. We cannot
low-achieving students in an attempt t
frames to other students. Reflected a
other known antecedent of self-conc
praised for work by the teacher is som
dent lacks ability compared with other
have unpredictable effects and is not a
self-concept.
The important question for self-co
to be not how we change students' self-
can make students less preoccupied w
school. Recent work in the areas of a
strated that students' personal goal a
their schools, teachers, and parents app
1988; Midgley, Anderman, and Hick
tive comparison concerns are greater
being better than others and whose
(Anderman and Midgley, 1997). Altho
did not examine the impact of percei
on academic self-concept, they did repo
phasis on percepts of self-efficacy. Sim
at work with how students feel about themselves.
The problem with improving students' academic self-concept, especially
if it has to be achieved in a relatively short period of time, also owes to
the more stable characteristics of self-concept. Changing one's academic
self-concept may require considerably more time and effort compared with
strengthening one's self-efficacy. It is relatively easier to enhance students'
efficacy perceptions toward specific academic tasks, as Schunk's series of ex
periments demonstrated. Heightened self-efficacy, in turn, is associated with
higher goal setting, more effort and persistence, more effective strategy use,
and better performance

through self-reflection
in future learning episo
be better off investing in
cially when the primary
mance, (2) creating envi
ability comparisons, and
on students' self-worth.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank Allan Wigfield and Barry Zimmerman for their hel

ments on an earlier version of this article. We also thank Herb Marsh for his
suggestion to prepare this article.
REFERENCES
Ames, R. (1983). Help-seeking and achievement orientation: Perspectives from attr

ory. In: DePaulo, B., Nadler, A., and Fisher, J. (eds.), New Directions in Helping
Press, New York, pp.165-188.
Ames, C., and Archer, J. (1987). Mother's belief about the role of ability and effor
learning. J. Educ. Psychol. 79: 409-414.
Ames, C., and Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Students' lear
gies and motivation processes. J. Educ. Psychol. 80: 260-267.
Anderman, E. M., and Midgley, C. (1997). Changes in achievement goal orientations
academic competence, and grades across the transition to middle-level schools. C
Educ. Psychol. 22:269-298.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Bandura, A. (1981). Self-referent thought: A developmental analysis of self-efficacy
J. H., and Ross, L. D. (eds.). Cognitive Social Development: Frontiers and Possible
Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 200-239.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cogniti
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control, Freeman, New York.
Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., and Pastorelli, C. (1996). Multifacet
self-efficacy beliefs on academic functioning. Child Dev. 67:1206-1222.
Bandura, A., Pastorelli, C., Barbaranelli, C., and Caprara, G. V. (1999). Self-effica
to childhood depression. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 76:258-269.
Bandura, A., and Schunk, D. H. (1981). Cultivating competence, self-efficacy, a
interest through proximal self-motivation. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 41: 586-598.
Betz, N. E., and Hackett, G. (1981). The relationship of career-related self-effi
tions to perceived career options in college women and men. J. Couns. Psych
410.
Betz, N. E„ and Hackett, G. (1983). The relationship of mathematics self-efficacy ex

to the selection of science-based college majors. J. Vocat. Behav. 23:329-345.
Bong, M. (1997). Generality of academic self-efficacy judgments: Evidence of hie
lations. J. Educ. Psychol. 89:696-709.
Bong, M. (1998). Tests of the internal/external f

academic self-efficacy and frame-specific a
102-110.
Bong, M. (1999). Personal factors affecting the generality of academic self-efficacy judgments:
Gender, ethnicity, and relative expertise. J. Exp. Educ. 67: 315-331.
Bong, M. (2001a). Between- and within-domain relations of academic motivation among middle
and high school students: Self-efficacy, task-value, and achievement goals. J. Educ. Psychol.
93: 23-34.
Bong, M. (2001b). Role of self-efficacy and task-value in predicting college students' course
performance and future enrollment intentions. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 26: 553-570.
Bong, M. (2002). Predictive utility of subject-, task-, and problem-specific self-efficacy judg
ments for immediate and delayed academic performances. J. Exp. Educ. 70:133-162.
Bong, M., and Clark, R. E. (1999). Comparison between self-concept and self-efficacy in aca
demic motivation research. Educ. Psychol. 34:139-154.
Bong, M„ and Hocevar, D. (2002). Measuring self-efficacy: Multitrait-multimethod comparison
of scaling procedures. Appl. Meas. Educ. 15:143-171.
Byrne, B. M. (1984). The general/academic self-concept nomological network: A review of
construct validation research. Rev. Educ. Res. 54: 427^156.
Byrne, B. M. (1996). Measuring Self-Concept Across the Life Span: Issues and Instrumentation.
American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.
Byrne, B. M., and Shavelson, R. J. (1986). On the structure of adolescent self-concept. J. Educ.
Psychol. 78: 474-481.
Byrne, B. M., and Worth Gavin, D. A. (1996). The Shavelson model revisited: Testing for
structure of academic self-concept across pre-, early, and late adolescents. J. Educ. Psychol.
88:215-228.
Chapman, J. W., and Tunmer, W. E. (1995). Development of young children's reading self
concepts: An examination of emerging subcomponents and their relationship with reading
achievement. J. Educ. Psychol. 87:154-167.
Coleman, J. M., and Fults, B. A. (1982). Self-concept and the gifted classroom: The role of social
comparisons. Gifted Child Q. 26(3): 116-120.
Covington, M. V. (1984a). The motive for self-worth. In: Ames, R., and Ames, C., (eds.), Research
on Motivation in Education. Vol. 1: Student Motivation, Academic Press, Orlando, FL,
pp. 77-113.
Covington, M. V. (1984b). The self-worth theory of achievement motivation: Findings and
implications. Elem. Sch. J. 85: 5-20.
Covington, M. V. (1992). Making the Grade: A Self-Worth Perspective on Motivation and School
Reform, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Craven, R. G., Marsh, H. W., and Debus, R. L. (1991). Effects of internally focused feedback
and attributional feedback on enhancement of academic self-concept. J. Educ. Psychol.
83:17-27.
Eccles, J. S., and Wigfield, A. (1995). In the mind of the actor: The structure of adolescen
achievement task values and expectancy-related beliefs. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 3: 2
225.
Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., and Schiefele, U. (1998). Motivation to succeed. In: Damon, W. (Ser
ed.) and Eisenberg, N. (Vol. ed.), Handbook of Child Psychology. Vol. 3: Social, Emotional,
and Personality Development (5th Ed.), Wiley, New York, pp. 1017-1095.
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Hum. Relat. 7:117-140.
Gottfried, A. (1990). Academic intrinsic motivation in young elementary school children.
Hansford, B. C., and Hattie, J. A. (1982). The relationship between self and achie
ment/performance measures. Rev. Educ. Res. 52:123-142.
Harter, S. (1982). The perceived competence scale for children. Child Dev. 53:87-97.
Harter, S. (1990) Causes, correlates, and the functional role of global self-worth: A life-sp
perspective. In: Sternberg, R. J., and Kolligian, J. (eds.), Competence Considered, Yal
University Press, New Haven, CT, pp. 67-97.
Harter, S. (1998). The develo

Eisenberg, N. (Vol. ed.), H
Personality Development (5
Harter, S., and Mayberry, W
One's Aspirations and One's
of Denver, Denver, CO.
Harter, S., and Pike, R. (198
tance for young children.
Joo, Y. J., Bong, M., and Cho
self-efficacy, and Internet s
48(2): 5-18.
Lau, I. C., Yeung, A. S., Jin, P., and Low, R. (1999). Toward a hierarchical, multidimensional
English self-concept. J. Educ. Psychol. 91: 747-755.
Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., and Larkin, K. C. (1986). Self-efficacy in the prediction of academic
performance and perceived career options. J. Couns. Psychol. 33: 265-269.
Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D„ and Gore, P. A., Jr. (1997). Discriminant and predictive validity
of academic self-concept, academic self-efficacy, and mathematics-specific self-efficacy. J.
Couns. Psychol. 44: 307-315.
Ma, X., and Kishor, N. (1997). Attitude toward self, social factors, and achievement in mathe
matics: A meta-analytic view. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 9: 89-120.
Mac Iver, D., Stipek, D„ and Daniels, D. (1991). Explaining within semester changes in student
effort in junior high school and senior high school courses. J. Educ. Psychol. 83: 201
211.
Markus, H. (1977). Self-schemata and processing information about the self. J. Pers. Soc.
Psychol. 35: 63-78.
Markus, H., and Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. Am. Psychol. 41: 954-969.
Marsh, H. W. (1986). Verbal and math self-concepts: An internal/external frame of reference
model. Am. Educ. Res. J. 23:129-149.
Marsh, H. W. (1987). The big-fish-little-pond effect on academic self-concept. J. Educ. Psychol.
79:280-295.
Marsh, H. W. (1990a). Causal ordering of academic self-concept and academic achieveme
multiwave, longitudinal panel analysis. J. Educ. Psychol. 82: 646-656.
Marsh, H. W. (1990b). Influences of internal and external frames of reference on the form
of math and English self-concepts. J. Educ. Psychol. 82: 107-116.
Marsh, H. W. (1990c). The structure of academic self-concept: The Marsh/Shavelson mode
Educ. Psychol. 82: 623-636.
Marsh, H. W. (1990d). A multidimensional, hierarchical self-concept: Theoretical and emp
justification. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 2: 77-172.
Marsh, H. W. (1992). Content specificity of relations between academic achievement a
demic self-concept. J. Educ. Psychol. 84:35-42.
Marsh, H. W. (1993). Academic self-concept: Theory, measurement, and research. In: S
(ed.). Psychological Perspectives on the Self (Vol. 4), Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 59-
Marsh, H. W. (1999a). Academic Self Description Questionnaire - I: ASDQ I, University
Western Sydney, Self-concept Enhancement and Learning Facilitation Research Ce
Macarthur, Australia.
Marsh, H. W. (1999b). Self Description Questionnaire - II: SDQ II, University of W
Sydney, Self-concept Enhancement and Learning Facilitation Research Centre, Macart
Australia.
Marsh, H. W., Byrne, B. M., and Shavelson, R. J. (1988). A multifaceted academic self-concept:
Its hierarchical structure and its relation to academic achievement. J. Educ. Psychol. 80:
366-380.
Marsh, H. W„ and Shavelson, R. J. (1985). Self-concept: Its multifaceted, hierarchical structure.
Marsh, H. W., Walker, R., and Debus, R. (1991). Subject-specific components of academic
self-concept and self-efficacy. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 16: 331-345.
Marsh, H. W., and Yeung, A. S. (1997a).

demic achievement: Structural equation mo
41-54.
Marsh, H. W„ and Yeung, A. S. (1997b). Coursework selection: Relations to academic self
concept and achievement. Am. Educ. Res. J. 34: 691-720.
Marsh, H. W., and Yeung, A. S. (1998). Top-down, bottom-up, and horizontal models: The
direction of causality in multidimensional, hierarchical self-concept models. J. Pers. Soc.
Psychol. 75: 509-527.
Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, Self and Society, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Meece, J. L., Blumenfeld, P. C., and Hoyle, R. H. (1988). Students' goal orientations and cog
nitive engagement in classroom activities. J. Educ. Psychol. 80: 514—523.
Meece, J. L„ and Holt, K. (1993). A pattern analysis of students' achievement goals. J. Educ.
Psychol 85:582-590.
Meece, J. L„ Wigfield, A., and Eccles, J. S. (1990). Predictors of math anxiety and its influence
on young adolescents' course enrollment intentions and performance in mathematics. J.
Midgley, C., Anderman, E„ and Hicks, L. (1995). Differences between elementary and middle
school teachers and students: A goal theory approach. J. Early Adolesc. 15: 90-113.
Mischel, W. (1977). On the future of personality measurement. Am. Psychol. 32: 246-254.
Multon.K. D.. Brown, S. D., and Lent, R. W. (1991). Relation of self-efficacy beliefs to academic
outcomes: A meta-analytic investigation. J. Couns. Psychol. 38:30-38.
Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Rev. Educ. Res. 66:543-578.
Pajares, F. (1997). Current directions in self-efficacy research. In: Maehr, M„ and Pintrich,
P. R. (eds.), Advances in Motivation and Achievement (Vol. 10), JAI Press, New York,
pp. 1-49.
Pajares, F., and Graham, L. (1999). Self-efficacy, motivation constructs, and mathematics per
formance of entering middle school students. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 24:124-139.
Pajares, F., and Johnson, M. J. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in the writing of high school students:
A path analysis. Psychol. Sch. 33:163-175.
Pajares, F., and Kranzler, J. (1995). Self-efficacy beliefs and general mental ability in mathe
matical problem-solving. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 20: 426^43.
Pajares, F., and Miller, M. D. (1994). Role of self-efficacy and self-concept beliefs in mathemat
ical problem solving: A path analysis. J. Educ. Psychol. 86: 193-203.
Pajares, F., and Miller, M. D. (1995). Mathematics self-efficacy and mathematics performances:
The need for specificity of assessment. J. Couns. Psychol. 42:190-198.
Pajares, F., Miller, M. D., and Johnson, M. J. (1999). Gender differences in writing self-beliefs
of elementary school students. J. Educ. Psychol. 91:50-61.
Piers, E. V., and Harris, D. B. (1964). Age and other correlates of self-concept in children. J.
Pietsch, J. (1999). Self-Efficacy, self-Concept and Academic Achievement: An Empirical Com
parison of Self-Efficacy and Self-Concept, and the Relative Predictive Utility of These Self
Perceptions Within Academic Contexts. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Sydney,
Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Pintrich, P. R., and De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components
of classroom academic performance. J. Educ. Psychol. 82:33^10.
Randhawa, B. S., Beamer, J. E., and Lundberg, I. (1993). Role of mathematics self-efficacy in
the structural model of mathematics achievement. J. Educ. Psychol. 85:41-48.
Rayner, S. G., and Devi, U. (2001). Self-esteem and self-perceptions in the classroom: Valu
ing circle time? In: Riding, R. J., and Rayner, S. G. (eds.), International Perspectives on
Individual Differences. Vol. 2: Self Perception, Ablex, Westport, CO, pp. 171-208.
Renick, M. J., and Harter, S. (1989). Impact of social comparisons on the developing self
perceptions of learning disabled students. J. Educ. Psychol. 81:631-638.
Roeser, R. W., Midgley, C., and Urdan, T. C. (1996). Perceptions of the school psychological
environment and early adolescents' psychological and behavioral functioning in school:
The mediating role of goals and belonging. J. Educ. Psychol. 88:408^122.
Rogers, C. M., Smith, M. D.

The relationship between
50-57.
Rosenberg, M. (1968). Psychological selectivity in self-esteem formation. In: Gordon, C., and
Gergen, K. J. (eds.), The Self in Social Interaction, Wiley, New York, pp. 339-346.
Rosenberg, M. (1979). Conceiving the Self, Basic Books, New York.
Scheirer, M. A., and Kraut, R. E. (1979). Increasing educational achievement via self concept
change. Rev. Educ. Res. 49:131-150.
Schunk, D. H. (1981). Modeling and attributional effects on children's achievement: A self
efficacy analysis. J. Educ. Psychol. 73: 93-105.
Schunk, D. H. (1982). Effects of effort attributional feedback on children's perceived self
efficacy and achievement. J. Educ. Psychol. 74: 548-556.
Schunk, D. H. (1983). Ability versus effort attributional feedback: Differential effects on self
efficacy and achievement. J. Educ. Psychol. 75: 848-856.
Schunk, D. H. (1984). Sequential attributional feedback and children's achievement behaviors.
J. Educ. Psychol. 76:1159-1169.
Schunk, D. H. (1991). Self-efficacy and academic motivation. Educ. Psychol. 26: 207-231.
Schunk, D. H., and Cox, P. (1986). Strategy training and attributional feedback with learning
disabled students. J. Educ. Psychol. 78: 201-209.
Schunk, D. H., and Ertmer, R A. (1999). Self-regulatory processes during computer skill acqui
sition: Goal and self-evaluative influences. /. Educ. Psychol. 91: 251-260.
Schunk, D. H., and Hanson, A. R. (1985). Peer models: Influence on children's self-efficacy and
achievement. J. Educ. Psychol. 77: 313-322.
Schunk, D. H„ and Hanson, A. R. (1989). Self-modeling and children's cognitive skill learning.
J. Educ. Psychol. 81: 155-163.
Schunk, D. H., Hanson, A. R., and Cox, P. (1987). Peer-model attributes and children's achieve
ment behaviors. J. Educ. Psychol. 79: 54-61.
Schunk, D. H., and Swartz, C. W. (1993). Goals and progress feedback: Effects on self-efficacy
and writing achievement. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 18:337-354.
Schunk, D. H., and Zimmerman, B. J. (1997). Social origins of self-regulatory competence.
Shavelson, R. J., and Bolus, R. (1982). Self-concept: The interplay of theory and methods. J.
Shavelson, R. J., Hubner, J. J., and Stanton, G. C. (1976). Self-concept: Validation of construct
interpretations. Rev. Educ. Res. 46: 407^41.
Shell, D. E, Murphy, C. C., and Bruning, R. H. (1989). Self-efficacy and outcome expectancy
mechanisms in reading and writing achievement. J. Educ. Psychol. 81:91-100.
Shell, D. E, Colvin, C., and Bruning, R. H. (1995). Self-efficacy, attribution, and outcome ex
pectancy mechanisms in reading and writing achievement: Grade-level and achievement
level differences. J. Educ. Psychol. 87:386-398.
Silon, E. L., and Harter, S. (1985). Assessment of perceived competence, motivational orien
tation, and anxiety in segregated and mainstreamed educable mentally retarded children.
J. Educ. Psychol. 77: 217-230.
Skaalvik, E. M. (1997a). Issues in research on self-concept. In: Maehr, M., and Pintrich,
P. R. (eds.), Advances in Motivation and Achievement (Vol. 10), JAI Press, New York,
pp. 51-97.
Skaalvik, E. M. (1997b). Self-enhancing and self-defeating ego-orientation: Relations with task
and avoidance orientation, achievement, self-perceptions, and anxiety. J. Educ. Psychol.
89:71-81.
Skaalvik, E. M. (1998). Self-Enhancing and Self-Defeating Ego-Goals: Relations with Task and
Avoidance Goals, Achievement, and Self-Perceptions, Paper presented at the annual meet
ing of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
Skaalvik, E. M., and Hagtvet, K. A. (1990). Academic achievement and self-concept: An anal
ysis of causal predominance in a developmental perspective. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 58:
292-307.
Skaalvik, E. M., and Rankin, R. J. (1990). M

The internal/external frame of reference
structure. J. Educ. Psychol 82: 546-554.
Skaalvik, E. M., and Rankin, R. J. (1992). M
Testing the Internal/External Frame of Re
Skaalvik, E. M., and Rankin, R. J. (1995). A te
Model at different levels of math and verba
Skaalvik, E. M., and Rankin, R. J. (1996a). Self
Paper presented at the annual meeting of th
New York.
Skaalvik, E. M., and Rankin, R. J. (1996b). Studies of Academic Self-Concept Using a Norwe
gian Modification of the SDQ, Paper presented at the XXVI International Congress of
Psychology, Montreal, Canada.
Skaalvik, E. M., and Skaalvik, S. (2000). Math and Verbal Achievement. Motivation, Anxiety,
and Study Behavior: A Study of Relations in a Developmental Perspective, Paper presented
at the 7th Workshop on Achievement and Task Motivation, Leuven, Belgium.
Skaalvik, E. M., and Skaalvik, S. (2002). Internal and external frames of reference for academic
self-concept. Educ. Psychol. 37: 233-244.
Skaalvik, E. M., and Vals, H. (1999). Achievement and Self-Concept in Mathematics and Ver
bal Arts: A Study of Relations, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.
Skinner, E. A., Wellborn, J., and Connell, J. (1990). What it takes to do well in school and
whether I've got it: A process model of perceived control and children's engagement and
achievement in school. J. Educ. Psychol. 82: 22-32.
Stipek, D. J. (1993). Motivation to Learn: From Theory to Practice, Allyn and Bacon, Boston,
MA.
Sullivan, H. S. (1947). Conceptions of Modern Psychiatry: The First William Alanson White
Memorial Lectures, William Alanson White Psychiatric Foundation, Washington, DC.
Tanzer, N. K. (1996). Interest and Competence as Components of Academic Self-Concepts for
the Self Description Questionnaire I, Paper presented at the XXVI International Congress
of Psychology, Montreal, Canada.
Tennen, H., and Herzberger, S. (1987). Depression, self-esteem, and the absence of self
protective attributional biases. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 52:72-80.
Vispoel, W. P. (1995). Self-concept in artistic domains: An extension of the Shavelson, Hubner,
and Stanton (1976) model. J. Educ. Psychol. 87:134-153.
Wigfield, A., and Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation.
Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 25: 68-81.
Wigfield, A., Eccles, J. S., Mac Iver, D., Reuman, D. A., and Midgley, C. (1991). Transitions dur
ing early adolescence: Changes in children's domain-specific self-perceptions and general
self-esteem across the transition to junior high school. Dev. Psychol. 27:552-565.
Wigfield, A., Eccles, J. S., Yoon, K. S., Harold, R. D., Arbreton, A. J. A., Freedman-Doan, C.,
et al. (1997). Change in children's competence beliefs and subjective task values across the
elementary school years: A 3-year study. J. Educ. Psychol. 89: 451-469.
Wigfield, A., and Karpathian, M. (1991). Who am I and what can I do? Children's self-concepts
and motivation in achievement situations. Educ. Psychol. 26: 233-261.
Wolters, C. A., and Pintrich, P. R. (1998). Contextual differences in student motivation and
self-regulated learning in mathematics, English, and social studies classrooms. Instr. Sci.
26:27-47.
Yeung, A. S., Chui, H. S., Lau, I. C., Mclnerney, D. M., Russell-Bowie, D., and Suliman, R.
(2000). Where is the hierarchy of academic self-concept? J. Educ. Psychol 92:556-567.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1995). Self-efficacy and educational development. In: Bandura, A. (ed.).
Self-Efficacy in Changing Societies, Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 202-231.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1996). Misconceptions, Problems, and Dimensions in Measuring Self
Efficacy, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, New York.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000).
Boekaerts, M„ Pintrich, P.
Press, New York, pp. 13-39.
Zimmerman, B. J., and Ban
course attainment. Am. Educ. Res. J. 31: 845-862.
Zimmerman, B. J., Bandura, A., and 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.
Zimmerman, B. J., and Kitsantas, A. (1997). Developmental phases in self-regulation: Shifting
from process goals to outcome goals. J. Educ. Psychol. 89:29-36.
Zimmerman, B. J., and Kitsantas, A. (1999). Acquiring writing revision skill: Shifting from
process to outcome self-regulatory goals. J. Educ. Psychol. 91: 241-250.

Springer Educational Psychology Review: This Content Downloaded From 134.219.212.95 On Fri, 30 Nov 2018 12:31:06 UTC

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Springer Educational Psychology Review: This Content Downloaded From 134.219.212.95 On Fri, 30 Nov 2018 12:31:06 UTC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Academic Self-Concept and Self-Efficacy: How Different Are They Really?

Author(s): Mimi Bong and Einar M. Skaalvik

Academic Self-Concept and Self-Efficacy: How

Academic motivation researchers sometimes struggle to decipher the distinc

Researchers in personality and social psychology have long been interested

1040-726X/03/0300-0001/O 2003 Plenum Publishing Corporation

Self-Concept and Self-Efficacy

Self-concept is colloquially defined as a composite view of one

definition of self-concept that formed the theoretical foundation of con

In very broad terms, self-concept is a person's perception of himself. . . . We do

Self-concept is formed through experiences with the environment and is

(1) Frames of reference. Self-concept is heavily influenced by frames

might be of comparable importance to the formation of self-concept

Historically, self-concept research has emphasized a global construct

that has particularly significant bearing on students' motivation and learn

Perceived self-efficacy refers to beliefs in one's capabilities to organize and execute

Like self-concept, self-efficacy is presumed to explain and predict one's

(2) Vicarious experience. People also establish their self-efficacy beliefs

As can be seen, self-concept and self-efficacy share many of the pre

Academic Self-Concept and Academic Self-Efficacy

Academic self-concept and academic self-efficacy refer to individuals'

students' academic engagement, goal-setting, task choice, persistence and

the competence and affective components of self-concept are empirically

reflecting on their feelings generated by those evaluations (Zimmerman,

Table I. Comparison Betwee

1. Working definition Convictions

performance. In addition, self-efficacy predicts cognitive and self-regulatory

One of the most glaring similarities between the concept

building block in one's self-concept

Although perceived capability constitutes the core in contem

knowledge and beliefs that

With specific regard

In comparison, the Self Descriptio

the close link between co

NATURE OF COMPETENCE EVALUATION

The social comparison theory of Festinger (1954) suggests th

students' academic self-concept. In o

appraisals is one of degree. These so

Students express academic self-concept and academic self-effic

students' self-concepts in different sk

Table II. Sample Academic Self

I have How confident are

particular school subject relates most strongly with achievement indexes

Table III. Sample Academic Self-Concept a

Math self-concept Math self-efficacy

predictor of math performances. Relations of self-efficacy in one academic

DIMENSIONALITY AND STRUCTURE

Self-concept is a multidimensional construct that is differentiat

self-concepts in the verb

However, questions still remain as t

different school subject

It is worth noting that most academic self-concept items b

of certitude for accomplishing suc

Self-schemata is "cognitive generalizations about the se

Both academic self-concept and self-efficacy research und

Clark, 1999). Favorite

WHAT NOW? SOME DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

The purpose of this article was to illuminate conceptually the

There are also important difference

Need to Separate Multiple Components of Academic Self-Concept

Presently, the dominant view of academic self-concept is that it is a

The previous discussi