Optimism and realism: A review of self‐efficacy from a cross‐cultural perspective

Abstract

This review critically examines much of the research investigating self‐efficacy beliefs through cross‐cultural comparisons. Two sets of cross‐cultural comparison groups are examined: Asian (or immigrant Asian) versus Western, and Eastern European versus Western European and American groups. After an introduction to self‐efficacy theory, some cross‐cultural aspects of self and self‐beliefs are discussed, and the cultural dimensions of individualism and collectivism are introduced. Analysis of the articles focuses on differences in levels of efficacy beliefs, calibration of beliefs with performance, methodological problems, and implications for practice. Almost all of the 20 studies reviewed found efficacy beliefs to be lower for non‐Western cultural groups, but in some cases these lower beliefs were more predictive of subsequent functioning. There is some evidence that the mean efficacy beliefs of a cultural group are modified through immigration or political changes. For some non‐Western groups, collective efficacy appears to operate in much the same way as self‐efficacy operates for Western groups. Realistic—as opposed to optimistic—efficacy beliefs do not necessarily predict poor performance for all cultural groups, as has been suggested by self‐efficacy theory. Only a minority of the studies included measurement of cultural dimensions such as individualism and collectivism, although most of the studies based conclusions on assumed cultural differences. In some cases, self‐efficacy was poorly defined and bore little resemblance to theoretically derived definitions. Conclusions from this research have implications especially for applied settings in education and business: Efficacy beliefs and performance appear to be enhanced when training approaches are congruent with the individual's sense of self. Lower levels of self‐efficacy beliefs found in some collectivist groups do not always signify lower subsequent performance, but are instead reflective of differing construals of self.