Cited by 63Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesEducation, Achievement, and GiftednessSport Psychology and Performance

Examining the relationships between self‐efficacy, task‐relevant attentional control , and task performance: Evidence from event‐related brain potentials

Themanson, Jason R., Rosen, Peter J.·2015·British Journal of Psychology

Abstract

Self‐efficacy ( SE ) is a modifiable psychosocial factor related to individuals’ beliefs in their capabilities to successfully complete courses of action and has been shown to be positively associated with task performance. The authors hypothesized that one means through which SE is related with improved performance is through enhanced task‐relevant attentional control during task execution. To assess this hypothesis, we examined the relationships between SE and behavioural and neural indices of task performance and task‐relevant attentional control for 76 young adults during the completion of a flanker task. Results showed that greater SE was associated with greater response accuracy and P3b amplitude across task conditions, and faster RT under more difficult task conditions. Additionally, P3b amplitude was found to mediate the relationship between SE and task performance in the difficult condition. These findings suggest that greater attentional allocation to task‐relevant processes, including monitoring stimulus‐response relationships and focusing attention on working memory operations, may help explain the association between SE and improved task performance.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/bjop.12091

Cites

61 of 61 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Higher self-efficacy is associated with greater attention to task error cues and greater response accuracy during task execution with faster reaction time during more difficult or incongruent task conditions.

    “Higher self-efficacy was associated with greater attention to task error cues (Themanson et al., 2008) and greater response accuracy during task execution with faster reaction time (RT) during more difficult or incongruent task conditions (Themanson & Rosen, 2015).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Themanson, J. R., & Rosen, P. J.
Affiliations
  • Illinois Wesleyan University (US)
  • Washington State University (US)
Corresponding author
Themanson, Jason R.
Venue
British Journal of Psychology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2014-09-13
Volume
106
Issue
2
Pages
253-271
ISSN
  • 0007-1269 (ISSN-L)
  • 2044-8295
OpenAlex
W2082802076
Cited by
63
References
61
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 1
FWCI
1.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • British Journal of Psychology (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Digital Commons at Illinois Wesleyan University (Illinois Wesleyan University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Illinois Wesleyan University
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Education, Achievement, and Giftedness
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Sport Psychology and Performance
Keywords
self-efficacy, task performance, flanker task, response accuracy, reaction time, mediation, working memory, young adults
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Attention, Brain, Cognition, Electroencephalography, Evoked Potentials, Female, Humans, Male, Memory, Reaction Time, Regression Analysis, Task Performance and Analysis, Self Efficacy, Young Adult

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