Self-efficacy expectancies versus outcome expectancies as determinants of performance deficits and depressive affect

Abstract

To compare the depression etiologies specified by self-efficacy theory versus the revised learned helplessness theory, 108 male and female undergraduates were assigned randomly to either high, low, or no self → response expectancy manipulations and high, low, or no response → outcome expectancy manipulations. Expectancies were modified by combinations of easy or difficult anagrams and graphs showing that most or few students solved the anagrams. Males exhibited performance deficits and depressed affect following manipulations only if self → response expectancy had been set low and other → response expectancy had been set high. Contrary to revised learned helplessness theory, no performance deficit or depressive affect occurred when both self → response and response → outcome expectancies were low. Females' performance and affect were not changed by combined low self → response and high response → outcome manipulations. Repeated subject ratings of self → response and response → outcome expectancies during manipulations suggest that females set their self → response expectancies low before manipulations to avoid depression. Expectancy ratings also showed that self → response expectancies correlated more strongly with performance than did response → outcome expectancies.