Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 403

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 19 of the 19 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The confounded self-efficacy construct: conceptual analysis and recommendations for future research

Open access
Williams, David M., Rhodes, Ryan E.·2016·Health Psychology Review
DOI 10.1080/17437199.2014.941998
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Self-efficacy is central to health behaviour theories due to its robust predictive capabilities. In this paper, we present and review evidence for a self-efficacy-as-motivation argument in which standard self-efficacy questionnaires - i.e., ratings of whether participants 'can do' the target behaviour - reflect motivation rather than perceived capability. The potential implication is that associations between self-efficacy ratings (particularly those that employ a 'can do' operationalisation) and health-related behaviours simply indicate that people are likely to do what they are motivated to do. There is some empirical evidence for the self-efficacy-as-motivation argument, with three studies demonstrating causal effects of outcome expectancy on subsequent self-efficacy ratings. Three additional studies show that - consistent with the self-efficacy-as-motivation argument - controlling for motivation by adding the phrase 'if you wanted to' to the end of self-efficacy items decreases associations between self-efficacy ratings and motivation. Likewise, a qualitative study using a thought-listing procedure demonstrates that self-efficacy ratings have motivational antecedents. The available evidence suggests that the self-efficacy-as-motivation argument is viable, although more research is needed. Meanwhile, we recommend that researchers look beyond self-efficacy to identify the many and diverse sources of motivation for health-related behaviours.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/17437199.2014.941998

Cites

19 of 19 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 19 references

Research works printed but not linked: 56

  1. 10.1016/S0002-8223(97)00273-3 · DOI · Paper page
  2. 10.1037/0022-3514.61.3.504 · DOI
  3. 10.1016/0146-6402(78)90012-7 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Bandura A., 1986, Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory
  5. 10.1037/0003-066X.44.9.1175 · DOI · Paper page
  6. 10.1037/0003-066X.46.2.157 · DOI
  7. 10.1177/1090198104263660 · DOI · Paper page
  8. Bandura A., 2006, Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents, 307
  9. 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60735-1 · DOI · Paper page
  10. 10.1016/0146-6402(78)90003-6 · DOI
  11. 10.1521/jscp.2006.25.2.196 · DOI
  12. 10.1037/0022-006X.59.5.739 · DOI · Paper page
  13. 10.1037/0003-066X.46.2.155 · DOI
  14. 10.1016/0005-7916(95)00020-Z · DOI
  15. 10.1037/h0080563 · DOI
  16. 10.1080/14768320701374626 · DOI
  17. 10.1037/a0030259 · DOI · Paper page
  18. 10.15288/jsa.1994.55.141 · DOI · Paper page
  19. 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2006.01419.x · DOI
  20. 10.1093/her/13.2.197 · DOI
  21. 10.1007/BF01172994 · DOI
  22. 10.1046/j.1360-0443.2000.9569017.x · DOI · Paper page
  23. Feather N. T., 1982, Expectations and actions: Expectancy-value models in psychology
  24. 10.1177/0272989X08326092 · DOI · Paper page
  25. 10.1111/bjhp.12038 · DOI
  26. 10.1080/17437190701492437 · DOI · Paper page
  27. 10.1080/17437190802617668 · DOI · Paper page
  28. 10.1300/J010v16n01_05 · DOI · Paper page
  29. 10.1016/j.amepre.2013.02.022 · DOI
  30. 10.1111/bjhp.12095 · DOI
  31. 10.1016/0146-6402(78)90005-X · DOI
  32. 10.1177/1368430212453632 · DOI
  33. 10.1037/0022-3514.42.1.132 · DOI
  34. 10.1037/0022-3514.49.3.824 · DOI
  35. 10.1007/978-1-4419-6868-5_12 · DOI
  36. 10.1037/10332-001 · DOI
  37. 10.1080/02701367.1992.10607557 · DOI · Paper page
  38. 10.1017/CBO9780511527692.012 · DOI · Paper page
  39. 10.1007/BF00848378 · DOI · Paper page
  40. 10.1093/geront/31.4.534 · DOI
  41. 10.1016/j.addbeh.2010.02.008 · DOI
  42. 10.1007/BF02872667 · DOI · Paper page
  43. 10.1080/17437199.2013.813729 · DOI
  44. 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2007.00184.x · DOI
  45. 10.1080/08870440701421578 · DOI
  46. 10.1348/135910705X52633 · DOI · Paper page
  47. 10.1080/0887044031000080665 · DOI
  48. 10.1080/13548500410001670726 · DOI
  49. 10.1177/0146167210390522 · DOI
  50. Rogers R. W., 1983, Social psychophysiology: A sourcebook, 153
  51. 10.1093/her/3.3.283 · DOI · Paper page
  52. 10.1207/s15324834basp0702_2 · DOI
  53. 10.1177/0146167297233005 · DOI
  54. 10.1177/1088868310368802 · DOI · Paper page
  55. 10.1177/1754073914523052 · DOI · Paper page
  56. 10.1016/0146-6402(78)90011-5 · DOI

Cited by

See all 403

Metadata

Authors
Williams, D. M., & Rhodes, R. E.
Venue
Health Psychology Review
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2014-08-12
Volume
10
Issue
2
Pages
113-128
ISSN
  • 1743-7199 (ISSN-L)
  • 1743-7202
DOI
10.1080/17437199.2014.941998
OpenAlex
W2100012845
Cited by
403
References
19
FWCI
17.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green
Funders
National Institutes of Health (R01 CA155381)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The confounded self-efficacy construct: conceptual analysis and recommendations for future research. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/17437199.2014.941998
The paper
Williams, D. M., & Rhodes, R. E. (2016). The confounded self-efficacy construct: conceptual analysis and recommendations for future research. Health Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2014.941998

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.