Personality and Individual Differences 82 (2015) 58–60

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Short Communication

Relationships between general self-efficacy, planning for the future,

and life satisfaction
Nicole Azizli a, Breanna E. Atkinson b, Holly M. Baughman b, Erica A. Giammarco b,⇑
a
Department of Psychology, Adler Graduate Professional School, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
b
Department of Psychology, The University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In this study we investigated relationships between general self-efficacy, the propensity to plan for the
Received 12 February 2015 future, the consideration of future consequences, and overall life satisfaction. The sample consisted of
Received in revised form 2 March 2015 242 university students, with ages ranging from 16 to 31 (M = 18.5, SD = 1.7). Participants completed
Accepted 4 March 2015
the New General Self-Efficacy Scale (NGSES), the Continuous Planning Scale (CPS), the Consideration of
Future Consequences Scale (CFCS), and the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS). Analyses demonstrated
that all variables were significantly intercorrelated, with general self-efficacy being most strongly related
Keywords:
to the SWLS, followed by the CFCS and the CPS. Implications are discussed.
General self-efficacy
Planning for the future
Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Future consequences
Life satisfaction

1. Introduction Four primary factors influence self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977).

A major function of intelligent thought is to enable people to
predict the probability of future events, and subsequently to exer-
cise control. Perceived self-efficacy refers to individuals’ beliefs
concerning their ability to meet desired outcomes in life (i.e., to
affect events which influence their lives or to achieve goals;
Bandura, 2010). According to Bandura’s (2001) Social Cognitive
Theory, humans are able to exercise self-motivation and control
in order to monitor their behavior. Self-efficacy is also considered
to influence how individuals reason, experience emotions, and
incentivize themselves (Bandura, 1977).
Investigations have identified numerous personality traits
which correlate with self-efficacy; including self-esteem, opti-
mism, well-being, as well as academic and career performance
(e.g., Luszczynska, Gutierrez-Dona, & Schwarzer, 2005). Given that
self-efficacy is associated with goal-oriented behavior, individuals
with a strong sense of self-efficacy are more likely to approach
goals and to exert more effort to attain them (Bandura, 1994).
Further, these individuals are more likely to perceive failure as
internally caused and to be motivated to review their capabilities
in order to improve their perceived weaknesses following failure
(Bandura, 2001).
⇑ Corresponding author at: Department of Psychology, Social Science Centre,
University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario N6A 4C2, Canada. Tel.: +1 519 661
3682.
E-mail address: egiammar@uwo.ca (E.A. Giammarco).
The most significant factor is previous experiences with goal suc-
cess: specifically, self-efficacy is in part established as a result of
whether past events have been met with failure or success.
Vicarious experience is the second factor, whereby an individual
models the behavior of another who is successful at accomplishing
their goals. Vicarious experience not only contributes to self-
efficacy, but also allows for improvement of necessary skills.
Third, individuals who are more easily socially persuaded are more
likely to exert greater effort to achieve goals. Lastly, physiological
factors also contribute to individual differences in self-efficacy:
individuals with high self-efficacy may perceive physiological
arousal as enhancing performance rather than hindering it.
1.1. Self-efficacy and planning for the future
Since performance on a future task is in part predicted via social
comparison or personal experiences, it seems likely that general
self-efficacy influences the extent to which individuals engage in
future planning. Planning is a life management strategy which
allows individuals to structure and to manifest control in their
lives (Prenda & Lachman, 2001). Those who adopt a future-
oriented approach are more likely to be prepared for future tasks
and to exert more control while completing a task (Gollwitzer,
1996; Friedman & Lackey, 1991). These goal-oriented skills allow
individuals to focus on new opportunities to achieve goals
(Prenda & Lachman, 2001). Studies have identified domain-specific

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.03.006
0191-8869/Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 N. Azizli et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 82 (2015) 58–60
self-efficacy as having a moderating effect on types of planning and
behavior (e.g., Luszczynska, Schwarzer, Lippke, & Mazurkiewicz,
2011).
1.2. Self-efficacy and consideration of future consequences
Individual differences exist in the extent to which people adopt
an immediate versus a distant approach when conceptualizing the
future consequences of their behavior. Individuals who focus on
long term consequences are more likely to sacrifice immediate
gains in exchange for long term benefits. Alternatively, individuals
who are less concerned with future consequences tend to adopt a
present-oriented approach to life and to behave in ways that maxi-
mize immediate self-gratification (Strathman, Gleicher, Boninger,
& Edwards, 1994).
In a cross-cultural comparison of self-efficacy and other vari-
ables, Luszczynska, Gutierrez-Dona, and Schwarzer (2005) found
that individuals who scored higher on the General Self-Efficacy
Scale were more future-oriented than those who scored lower.
However, it should be noted that this study used a condensed ver-
sion of the scale and a replication study is needed to confirm its
findings.
1.3. Self-efficacy and life satisfaction
Life satisfaction is defined as a subjective sense of well-being
that alludes to one’s overall happiness with life (Lent et al.,
2005). Life satisfaction is evaluated based on a cognitive judgmen-
tal process in which individuals compare their current state with
their desired level of satisfaction (Emmons & Diener, 1985). Life
satisfaction and general well-being are influenced by various per-
sonality traits, cognitive processes, behavioral characteristics, as
well as positive and negative affect (See Emmons & Diener, 1985,
or Bandura, 2001 for review).
Results from Luszczynska et al.’s (2005) cross-cultural study
demonstrated a positive relationship between general self-efficacy
and academic, vocational, and social satisfaction. A model of
subjective well-being constructed by Lent et al. (2005) showed that
goal self-efficacy was correlated with life satisfaction. Specifically,
goal self-efficacy was directly related to domain satisfaction, and
indirectly related to overall life satisfaction. Thus, individuals
experience positive emotions and satisfaction with success in a
specific domain, and this in turn contributes to their sense of
overall life satisfaction.
1.4. Present study
The purpose of the present study is to further investigate
relationships that these planning and satisfaction variables have
with general self-efficacy, as compared to domain-specific efficacy.
Specifically, we examine the propensity to engage in future plan-
ning, to consider future consequences, and overall life satisfaction
in relation to general self-efficacy. It is predicted that: (1) those
higher in general self-efficacy will be more motivated to plan for
the future, and will be more likely to consider the long term con-
sequences of their actions; (2) those higher in general self-efficacy
will experience greater life satisfaction; and (3) those higher in
planning for the future will experience greater life satisfaction.
2. Method
2.1. Participants
Participants were 242 undergraduate students (64 males, 171
females, 7 unspecified) who were recruited from a first year
59
research pool. The participants ranged in age from 16 to 31 years
old (M = 18.5, SD = 1.7). Participants completed the study to satisfy
the requirements of their course.
2.2. Measures
2.2.1. New General Self-Efficacy Scale (NGSES)
Self-efficacy was measured using the NGSES (Chen, Gully, &
Eden, 2001). The NGSES comprises eight items that require
individuals to rate the extent to which they agree with statements
on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree).
Example items from this measure are, ‘‘I can solve most problems
if I invest the necessary effort,’’ and, ‘‘I can remain calm when fac-
ing difficulties because I can rely on my coping abilities.’’ Chen
et al. (2001) reported Cronbach’s reliability coefficients for the
NGSES ranging from .86 to .90.
2.2.2. Continuous Planning Scale (CPS)
The extent to which individuals plan for the future was mea-
sured using the CPS (Prenda & Lachman, 2001). The CPS consists
of five items that require individuals to rate the extent to which
statements are representative of themselves, on a 4-point Likert
scale (4 = a lot, 1 = not at all). An example item from this scale is,
‘‘I find it helpful to set goals for the near future.’’ Cronbach’s alphas
for this scale ranging from .63 to .67 have been reported (Prenda &
Lachman, 2001), reflecting its brevity.
2.2.3. Consideration of Future Consequences Scale (CFCS)
The CFCS is a self-report questionnaire in which individuals’
propensity to consider the future implications of their behaviors
is assessed through 12 items (Strathman et al., 1994). Individuals
are asked to indicate whether or not statements are characteristic
of them on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = extremely uncharacteristic,
5 = extremely characteristic). An example statement is, ‘‘I consider
how things might be in the future, and try to influence those things
with my day to day behavior.’’ This scale has demonstrated good
internal consistency, with alphas ranging from .80 to .86
(Strathman et al., 1994).
2.2.4. Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS)
Life satisfaction was measured using the SWLS (Diener,
Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985), which consists of 12 items.
Individuals are asked to indicate their agreement with statements
on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly agree, 7 = strongly disagree).
Example statements are ‘‘In most ways my life is close to my ideal,’’
and ‘‘If I could live my life over, I would change almost nothing.’’
Cronbach’s alpha of .87 has been reported for this measure
(Diener et al., 1985).
2.3. Procedure
Participants were first provided with a letter of information and
were requested to give informed consent. Participants were then
directed to the website Survey-Monkey, where they completed
the study electronically. On this website, participants were asked
to complete a demographics form, as well as the CFCS, CPS,
SWLS, and NGSES. Upon completion of the study, participants read
a debriefing form and were thanked for their participation.
3. Results
Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations for scores on the
NGSES, CPS, CFCS, and SWLS are presented in Table 1. As reported
along the main diagonal, Cronbach’s reliability coefficients indicate
moderate to acceptable internal consistency for each of the four
60 N. Azizli et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 82 (2015) 58–60
Table 1
Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations for NGSES, CPS, CFCS and SWLS.
Variables M SD 1 2 3 4
1. General self-efficacy 3.72 0.87 .84 .41 ***
.64 ***
2. Continuous planning 1.97 0.65 .63 .15*
3. Consideration of future 3.37 0.84 .77
consequences
4. Satisfaction with life 4.64 1.47
Note: Cronbach’s alpha for each scale reported along the main diagonal.
*
Indicates significance at p < .05.
**
p < .01.
***
p < .001.
measures, with alphas ranging from .63 to .84. As indicated in
Table 1, all correlations between the variables were statistically
significant. In particular, the CPS, CFCS and SWLS were all posi-
tively correlated with the NGSES at the p < .001 level. Notably, gen-
eral self-efficacy was most highly correlated with the SWLS
(r = .67), followed by the CFCS (r = .64), and the CPS (r = .41).
4. Discussion
The present study examined relationships between general
self-efficacy, planning for the future, consideration of future
consequences, and overall life satisfaction. Continuous planning,
consideration of future consequences, and life satisfaction are all
significantly positively correlated with general self-efficacy, as well
as with each other.
Life satisfaction correlated the most strongly with general
self-efficacy. Although the present study’s focus is on general
self-efficacy and overall life satisfaction, a positive relationship is
consistent with previous studies that examined domain-specific
efficacy and life satisfaction (Lent et al., 2005; Luszczynska et al.,
2005). This is not surprising given that future planning, considera-
tion of future consequences, and facets of self-efficacy are likely to
be predictors of life satisfaction to varying degrees. Future plan-
ning produces feelings of control and preparedness, which may
influence life satisfaction. This is supported by evidence that links
control to well-being (Prenda & Lachman, 2001). The present study
also supports the bidirectional relationship evidenced between
affect and well-being (Bandura, 2001). Life satisfaction was posi-
tively correlated with both continuous planning and consideration
of future consequences. This is reflected in past research in which
planning has been associated with goal achievement (Gollwitzer &
Sheeran, 2006). Further, goal achievement is associated with posi-
tive emotions and feelings of satisfaction (Prenda & Lachman,
2001). In a study conducted by Prenda and Lachman (2001),
future-oriented planning was also found to be related to overall life
satisfaction. It is notable that this relationship was mediated by the
sense of control that individuals felt over their lives.
Finally, a positive relationship between general self-efficacy and
continuous planning for the future was found. Previous research
indicates that individuals who plan for the future also possess a
greater sense of general self-efficacy (Gollwitzer, 1996; Friedman
& Lackey, 1991). This can further be explained by the positive
correlation between continuous planning and life satisfaction, indi-
cating that those who are more satisfied with their lives benefit
.67*** from their future-oriented approach to life and therefore continue
.22** to engage in future planning.
.49***
4.1. Limitations and future research
.84
A limitation of the present study was the less than desirable
reliability of the CPS. This likely contributed to the relatively low
correlation between continuous planning and self-efficacy. A sec-
ond limitation was that the sample was undergraduate students
who showed little variability in their age. A study conducted by
Cameron, Desai, Bahador, and Dremel (1977) found a negative
relationship between age and the extent to which individuals
adopted a future-orientated view towards life.
How individuals view their competencies and capabilities is
indicative of their life satisfaction and their consideration of future
consequences. Identifying predictors of general self-efficacy and
offering services and programs that enhance self-efficacy beliefs
should be of practical value. Future research should focus on
identifying predictors of general and domain-specific self-efficacy.
References
Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human
behavior (4, pp. 71–81). New York: Academic Press.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215.
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of
Psychology, 52(1), 1–26.
Bandura, A. (2010). Self-efficacy. Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology., 1–3.
Cameron, P., Desai, K. G., Bahador, D., & Dremel, G. (1977). Temporality across the
life-span. The International Journal of Aging & Human Development, 8(3),
229–259.
Chen, G., Gully, S. M., & Eden, D. (2001). Validation of a new general self-efficacy
scale. Organizational Research Methods, 4(1), 62–83.
Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life
scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71–75.
Emmons, R. A., & Diener, E. (1985). Personality correlates of subjective well-being.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 11(1), 89–97.
Friedman, M. I., & Lackey, G. H. (1991). The psychology of human control: A general
theory of purposeful behavior. New York, NY, England: Praeger Publishers.
Gollwitzer, P. M. (1996). In P. M. Gollwitzer & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), The volitional benefits
of planning. New York, NY, US: Guilford Press.
Gollwitzer, P. M., & Sheeran, P. (2006). Implementation intentions and goal
achievement: A meta- analysis of effects and processes. Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 69–119.
Lent, R. W., Singley, D., Sheu, H., Gainor, K. A., Brenner, B. R., Treistman, D., et al.
(2005). Social cognitive predictors of domain and life satisfaction: Exploring the
theoretical precursors of subjective well-being. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
52(3), 429–442.
Luszczynska, A., Gutierrez-Dona, B., & Schwarzer, R. (2005). General self-efficacy in
various domains of human functioning: Evidence from five countries.
International Journal of Psychology, 40(2), 80–89.
Luszczynska, A., Schwarzer, R., Lippke, S., & Mazurkiewicz, M. (2011). Self-efficacy
as a moderator of the planning-behaviour relationship in interventions
designed to promote physical activity. Psychology and Health, 26(2), 151–166.
Prenda, K. M., & Lachman, M. E. (2001). Planning for the future: A life management
strategy for increasing control and life satisfaction in adulthood. Psychology and
Aging, 16(2), 206–216.
Strathman, A., Gleicher, F., Boninger, D. S., & Edwards, C. S. (1994). The consideration
of future consequences: Weighing immediate and distant outcomes of
behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(4), 742–752.