© Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology

July 2006, Vol. 32, No. 3, 249-254.

The Role of Self-Efficacy and Gender Difference

among the Adolescents

Rajesh Kumar and Roshan Lal

Government College, Chandigarh

The present study examined the role of self-efficacy and gender differences among
the adolescents as revealed by intelligence test. A random sample of 200 students
(100 Boys & 100 Girls) studying in I, II and III year of under-graduation was selected
from different colleges of the city of Chandigarh. Self-efficacy scale developed by
Jerusalem and Schwarzer was used to classify subjects. General Mental Ability Test
developed by Jalota was used to have the dependent variable scores. Analysis of
variance was applied and the F-ratio revealed significant effect of self-efficacy.
Significant gender differences were also found, where female scored higher than their
male counterparts. No interaction was found in self-efficacy and gender.

Self-efficacy is the individuals’ assessment Bandura (1977) proposes the key sources
of their capabilities to organize and execute of self-efficacy as performance accomplish-
actions required to achieve successful levels ments, vicarious experiences, and emotional
of performance (Bandura, 1986). Self-efficacy arousal. Self-efficacy pertains to optimistic
makes a difference in how people feel, think beliefs about being able to cope with a variety
and act. In terms of feeling a low sense of self- of stressors. Litt (1988) finds that self-efficacy
efficacy is associated with depression, anxiety expectations affect performance beyond what
and helplessness. In terms of thinking, a strong would have been expected from past
sense of competence facilitates cognitive performance alone. Changes in self-efficacy
processes and performance in a variety of expectations predict changes in cold pressure
settings, including quality of decision-making tolerance. Self-efficacy affects behavior of the
and academic achievement. In terms of act, individual in different ways: First, self-efficacy
self- related cognition is a major ingredient of influences choice of behavior. People are likely
motivation process in comparison to low self- to engage in tasks in which they feel
efficacy people. Self-efficacy levels can competent and confident and avoid those in
enhance or impede motivation. People with which they do not. Second, self-efficacy may
high self-efficacy choose to perform more help to determine how much effort people will
challenging tasks, they set for themselves expand on an anxiety and how long will they
higher goals and stick to them. Actions are pre- persevere. Third, self-efficacy beliefs influence
shaped in thoughts, and people anticipate individuals’ thought patterns and emotional
either optimistic or pessimistic scenarios in line reactions. People with low self-efficacy may
with their level of self- efficacy. believe that things are tougher than they really
250 Self-Efficacy and Gender Difference

are, a belief that may foster stress and rather separate ones and both are necessary
narrow vision of how best to go about a for success in the workplace. IQ accounts for
problem. Efficacy beliefs are the foundation only about 20% of a person’s success in life
of human agency. Unless people believe that .The balance can be attributed to ‘Emotional
they can produce desired results by their Intelligence’ or EQ
actions, they have little incentive to act or to Singh (2002) defined emotional intelligence
persevere in the face of difficulties. in Indian context as, “the ability of an individual
Bandura distinguishes between the two to appropriately and successfully respond to
components of self-efficacy: an efficacy a vast variety of emotional stimuli being elicited
expectation and an outcome expectation. An from inner self and immediate environment.
outcome expectation refers to a person’s Emotional intelligence constitutes three
belief that a given behavior will lead to a psychological dimensions such as emotional
particular outcome. An efficacy expectation is competency, emotional maturity and emotional
the conviction that the person himself/herself sensitivity, which motivate an individual to
can successfully produce the behavior recognize truthfully, interpret honestly and
required to generate the outcome. handle tactfully and the dynamics of human
Intelligence constitutes the basic behaviour.
characteristic of human beings. The degree The review of the literature suggested that
of intelligence is reflected by the clarity of self–efficacy may be an important personality
purpose, thought and action in an individual’s variable affecting the use of intelligence test.
behavior. It involves understanding the There is a dearth of studies relating interaction
specific situation in which the individual finds effect of self-efficacy and gender on the use
himself, and appropriately responding to it. It of intelligence test; hence the present study
includes assimilation of information, process- was undertaken.
ing of information, judicious selection of an Hypotheses
alternative out of the multitude of alternatives
presented, and rational decision-making. 1) The males score higher than the females
Thus, intelligence consists in acting in a given on intelligence test.
situation with use of past experience, with due 2) High self- efficacy group scores higher
regard to what is novel in the situation, and to on intelligence tests than the Low self-
the whole situation rather than to some striking efficacy group.
part of it. It denotes having insight into the 3) High income group students have better
key to the whole situation or problem. intelligence scores than the low income
Environment contributes to the conditions group students.
i.e., family, economic level, health, facilities, Method
etc. which influences intelligence much more
than heredity does. Flynn has reported that Sample
th
in the late 20 century, IQ scores have risen The initial sample consisted of 350 (175
substantially around the world at all age levels, male and 175 female) students from Govt.
this rise has been interpreted in terms of the College, Sector-46, Govt. College for Girls,
environmental factors such as rising living Sector-11, Govt. College for Girls, Sector-42,
standards, improved diets, better educational S.D. College, Sector-32, of Chandigarh city.
opportunities and exposure to media. These students were studying in First, Second
According to Goleman (1995, 1996), IQ and Third year of undergraduate courses viz.
and EQ are not opposing competencies but B.A, B.Com, B.B.A, B.C.A, B.Sc. Their age
Rajesh Kumar and Roshan Lal 251

ranged from 16-18 years. The stratified of intelligence. The questions of this test are
random sampling technique was applied. The related to seven different fields-synonyms list,
final sample consisted of 200 (100 male and antonyms list, best responses, inference,
100 female) subjects. They were selected on analogies, classification, and number series.
the basis of their self-efficacy scores and There are 10-10 questions each related to first
gender. four areas and 20 questions each from the
other three areas. The subject is given ‘one’
Tools
mark for every correct response, then M.A. is
Two test materials were used to collect calculated from the total score gathered, and
data. They are:1. Generalized Perceived self- IQ is calculated by the formula IQ=MA/CA x100.
efficacy scale The reliability co-efficient of this test is .938.
Jerusalem and Schwarzer originally Procedure
developed the German version of this scale in
Initially, the self-efficacy scale was
1981, first as a 20-item version and later as a
administered on a group of 175 male and 175
reduced 10-item version (Jerusalem &
female students. A median split (Median=30)
Schwarzer, 1992). The scale consists of 10-
was used and those scoring above median
items and four responses / choices were
were treated as high self-efficacy and those
provided for each item i.e. (1) Not at all true,
scoring below median were considered as low
(2) Hardly true, (3) Almost true, and (4) Very
self-efficacy. 200 subjects conforming to the
true. Typical items are, “Thanks to my
2x2 (self-efficacy: High and low; sex: males and
resourcefulness, I know how to handle
females) design were finally selected. Thus,
unforeseen situations, and when I am
there were 50 subjects in each cell. The
confronted with a problem, I can usually find
subjects were then administered General
several solutions.” It has been used in
Mental Ability Test (GMAT) and the statistical
numerous research projects, where it typically
analysis of the data were done.
yielded internal consistencies between alpha=
.75 and .91. This scale is not only parsimonious Results
and reliable; it has also proven valid in terms For a 2×2 factorial design, F-values were
of convergent and discriminate validity. calculated to see whether males and females
2. General Mental Ability Test: as well as higher self–efficacy (HSE) and lower
self-efficacy (LSE) subjects differed
There are 100 questions in this test and
significantly in intelligence. The means and
the total time of completing them is 20 minutes
standard deviations of the scores for
(Jalota, 1972). This is a verbal and group test
intelligence are given in Table-1.

Table 1: Means and Standard Deviation for Intelligence.

Intelligence Mean (M) Standard Deviation (SD)
High Self-Efficacy (A1) 102.527 58.136
Low Self-Efficacy (A2) 94.765 53.735
Males (B1) 95.74 54.288
Females (B2) 101.552 57.584
High Self-Efficacy Males (A1B1) 100.83 57.174
Low Self-Efficacy Males (A2B1) 90.65 51.402
252 Self-Efficacy and Gender Difference

High Self-Efficacy Females (A1B2) 104.225 59.099

Low Self-Efficacy Females (A2B2) 98.88 56.068

Analysis of variance revealed that doing well in studies (It could be due to hard
significant gender differences were found in work, unending efforts, patience, interest,
intelligence, F (1, 76) = 16.65, p< .01 (Table motivation, etc). Thus, intelligent persons seem
2). At this level the females scored higher than to show a deeper understanding of the causes
the males. This disproves the prediction that of success and failure outcomes, and have
males have better intelligence than their female greater probability of displaying desirable
counterparts. A significant effect of self-efficacy behavioral acts and giving up undesirable
was also found, F (1, 76) = 9.34, p< .01 Table ones to achieve important goals.
1 show that high self-efficacy group scored
The less intelligent students are liable to
higher than the low self– efficacy group. No
have less sharp cognitive and analytical skills,
significant interaction effect of self-efficacy and
and they perhaps, would not appropriately
gender was found in intelligence.
understand the contingency between the
Discussion behavior and outcomes. Also, less intelligent
The purpose of this study was to examine students do not display high levels of autonomy
the function of self-efficacy and gender in their behavior. Since, they are unsure of
differences as revealed in the intelligence test. their capacities and performance, they tend
Results show significant gender differences in to depend more on others for guidance,
intelligence, females have scored higher than eventually, this may form an integrated part of
their male counterparts. This disproves the their motivational make-up, and they may end
hypothesis that males score higher than up doing a task not for the sake of itself, but
females. This may be due to our social norms due to other reasons such as obeying rules,
and family restrictions, females are not much gaining adult approval, avoiding negative
exposed to the outside environment and they consequences, guilt, anxiety, and the like. Ellis
do not direct their feelings and devote (1965) has remarked that difference in
maximum time to indoor activities and achievement levels is due to difference in
intellectual pursuits. Though the males seem intelligence quotient and is associated with
to be careless and inconsistent in their studies, mental age.
it cannot be established that they are less Intelligence has been found to be
intelligent than the females. This could be due moderately related to IAR (Intellectual
to the different variables controlling their Achievement Responsibility) (Crandall,
behavioral pattern. They often share the Katkovsky & Crandall, 1965) a construct
burden of the family and remain preoccupied related to locus of control. It seems that
with different assignments. That may have a intelligent children would tend to assume
negative bearing on the performance of the greater responsibility for their intellectual
males in comparison to the females who, achievements as compared to less intelligent
generally, remain confined to their homes. or dull children. Consequently, they shall more
Intelligent persons can better understand readily see their success and failure in an
how the outcomes are related to their own objective manner.
behavior. Their sharper intellectual skills seem Kagan and Freeman (1963) found that in
to have facilitated their understanding of the case of boys, the only consistent correlate of
behavior outcome linkage. And intelligent high intelligence in childhood is involvement
person would understand why he/she was
Rajesh Kumar and Roshan Lal 253

in intellectual mastery during adolescence. self-efficacy (HSE) group, in spite of having

For girls, intelligence was found to predict the potentiality to face stressful situation, often
several variables of period of adolescence cannot openly express its anger or hostility for
including concern with intellectual the fear of the powerful people or situations
competence. Moreover, intelligence may be and therefore they repress their feelings. On
related to intrinsic motivation, and this, in turn, the other hand, the low self efficacy (LSE) and
may be related to such motivational resources less intelligent group used reaction formation
as considered in the present context (Deci & against the frustrating situations, self-assured
Ryan, 1993). and able to compensate inferiority feelings,
The result of present study show that the showed adventurous and risk taking behavior
high self-efficacy (HSE) group scored better to cope up with the stressful situation. Self-
on intelligence test than the low self-efficacy efficacy expectancies refer to personal action
(LSE) group. Here, the hypothesis No. 2 has control and this “can do” – cognition mirrors a
been proved that high self-efficacy (HSE) sense of control over one’s environment. It
group scores higher on intelligence test than reflects the belief of being able to control
the low self- efficacy (LSE) group. High self- challenging environmental demands by taking
efficacy (HSE) subjects are more confident adaptive action.
about their potentialities. They take the The subjects were also studied according
stressful situations as challenging and believe to their economic parameters. On the basis of
in their achieving abilities thereby increase their their family income, they can be grouped into
efforts to cope with them as compared to the the high-income and low-income categories.
low self-efficacy (LSE) subjects (Bandura, However, it was seen that with all the facilities
1986; Podsakoff & Farh; 1989). Individuals of available, the high-income group students are
high self-efficacy (HSE) group are to not necessarily better in intelligence than the
experience feelings of satisfaction, low-income group students who can outscore
competence, persistence and control (Baron, them in studies and in day-to-day life. In the
1998; Kloosterman, 1997; Wassertein, 1995). present study no significant interaction effect
Payne (2000) in a recent study also found that of gender and self-efficacy was found.
a relationship exists between general self-
References
efficacy and physical aggression.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thoughts
The High self-efficacy (HSE) group has the and action: A social cognitive theory, Englewood
capacity to use the intellectual efforts in more Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
creative tasks and always tries to explore new
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying
horizons of success. They prove to be helpful,
theory of behavioral change. Psychological
graceful, energetic, aesthetic, and optimistic, Review, 84, 191-215.
do not easily loose their temperament and
Baron, J. (1998). Using learner centered
adjust with the environment as per the demand.
assessment on a large scale. In N. Lambert
Low self-efficacy (LSE) group scored less and B.McCombs (Eds.). How students learn:
on the intelligent test and the individuals of this Reforming schools through learner centered
group may use reversal in denial or repression education (pp. 211-240). Washington, DC:
against the people or event. If the people’s American Psychological Association.
attitude toward the low intelligent individual is Crandall, V.C., Katkovsky, W.J., & Crandall, V.J.
cold, abusive, and inconsistent, it lays (1965). Children’s beliefs in their own control of
foundation for the individual to develop a sense reinforcements in intellectual- academic
of basic hostility toward the people. The High achievement situations. Child Development, 36,
91-109.
254 Self-Efficacy and Gender Difference

Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R.M. (1993). The initiation & Litt, M.D. (1988). Self-Efficacy and perceived
regulation of intrinsically motivated learning and control: Cognitive mediators of pain tolerance.
achievement. Psychological Abstracts, 80, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
32836. 54, 149-160.
Ellis, R.S. (1965). Educational psychology. New Payne, C. A. (2000). General Self-efficacy, fear of
Delhi: Affiliated East-West Press. powerlessness, and physical aggression.
Goleman, D. (1995a) Emotional intelligence. New Dissertation Abstracts International, 61, 897-
York: Bantan Books. 898-A.

Goleman, D.(1996). Emotional Intelligence: Why Podsakoff, P.M., & Farh, J. (1989). Effects of
it can matter more than I.Q. New York: Bantan Feedback sign and credibility on goal setting
Books. and task performance. Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, 44, 45-67.
Jerusalem, M., & Schwarcer, R. (1992). Self-
efficacy as a resource factor in stress appraisal Singh, D.(2001). Emotional intelligence at work: A
process. In R. Schwarcer (Ed.), Self-efficacy: professional guide. New Delhi: Response
Thought control of action (pp 195-211). Books.
Washington, D.C.: Hemisphere. Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Intelligence applied. San
Kloosterman, P. (1997). Assessing student diego H.B.I.
motivation in high school mathematics. Paper Wasserstein, P. (1990). What middle scholars say
presented at the annual meeting of the American about their schoolwork? Educational
Education Research Association, Chicago. Leadership, 53, 41-43.
Kagan, J., & Freeman, M. (1963). Relation of
childhood intelligence, material behaviors, social Received: October 13, 2005
class to behavior during adolescence. Child Accepted: June 20, 2006
Development, 34, 899-911.

Rajesh Kumar, is presently Lecturer and Head in the Department of Psychology,

Government College, Sector-46, Chandigarh
Roshan Lal, is Lecturer in the Department of Psychology, Government College,
Sector-46, Chandigarh

Pakistan Journal of Psychological Research

(PJPR)
Invites original contributions based on empirical research from “third world”
countries for publication in PJPR.
For further details please contact:
Dr. Naeen Tariq National Institute of Psychology
Editor & Quid-I-Azam University
Director NIP Islamabad - Pakistan