Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Which efficacy constructs for large-scale social dilemma problems? Individual and collective forms of efficacy and outcome expectancies in the context of climate change mitigation

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Risk Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Effective management of climate change risk requires an understanding of how to encourage positive behaviour change at the collective level. The urgency of the problem and the social dilemma nature of decisions about whether to engage in pro-environmental behaviours raise particular challenges for policy makers and those involved in designing interventions. Evidence reveals that efficacy beliefs (judgements of the ease of carrying out a particular act) and outcome expectancy beliefs (judgements of the value of acts in reaching goals) function as important determinants of human motivation and action (Bandura, 1995). However, efficacy and associated constructs remain poorly theorised at the collective level, particularly in social dilemma situations where goals may exist at both individual and collective levels. We develop a framework that incorporates collective forms of efficacy and outcome expectancy for large-scale, social dilemma situations, and operationalise these constructs. We then discuss how this framework can support us in managing climate change risk by allowing us to identify the specific forms of efficacy and outcome expectancy that should be targeted in research, science communication and policy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Guzzo et al (1993) refer to a related concept entitled group potency, which concerns individual assessment of group perceptions of the group's capability. Jung and Sosik (2003) carried out a study measuring group potency which was measured using eight items developed by Guzzo et al (1993) using statements such as ‘No task is too tough for our group’. However, group potency is a general evaluation of the groups’ capability (Collins and Parker 2010), whereas group efficacy beliefs, similarly to self-efficacy, are much more specific and focus on a specific task (Bandura 1997; Collins and Parker 2010).

  2. This approach is similar to Ajzen and Fishbein's (1980) measurement of ‘valence’ or the desirability of particular outcomes, but applied to the individual versus collective nature of outcomes.

References

  • Ajzen, I. and Fishbein, M. (1980) Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alavi, S.B. and McCormick, J. (2008) The roles of perceived task interdependence and group members’ interdependence in the development of collective efficacy in university student group contexts. British Journal of Educational Psychology 78 (3): 375–393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, K., Bows, A. and Mander, S. (2008) From long-term targets to cumulative emission pathways: Reframing UK climate policy. Energy Policy 36 (10): 3714–3722.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashford, S., Edmunds, J. and French, D.P. (2010) What is the best way to change self-efficacy to promote lifestyle and recreational physical activity? A systematic review with meta-analysis. British Journal of Health Psychology 15 (2): 265–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1977) Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological review 84 (2): 191–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1982) Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist 37 (2): 122–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1986a) Social Foundations of Thought and Action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1986b) Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1995) Self-efficacy in Changing Societies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1997) Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: Worth Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (2000) Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in Psychological Science 9(3): 75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (2002) Social cognitive theory in cultural context. Applied Psychology 51 (2): 269–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (2006) Guide to constructing self-efficacy scales. In: T. Urdan and F. Pajares (eds.) Self-Efficacy Beliefs of Adolescents. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, pp. 307–337.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonniface, L. and Henley, N. (2008) ‘A drop in the bucket’: Collective efficacy perceptions and environmental behaviour. Australian Journal of Social Issues 43 (3): 345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carrico, A.R. and Riemer, M. (2011) Motivating energy conservation in the workplace: An evaluation of the use of group-level feedback and peer education. Journal of Environmental Psychology 31 (1): 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins, C.G. and Parker, S.K. (2010) Team capability beliefs over time: Distinguishing between team potency, team outcome efficacy, and team process efficacy. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 83 (4): 1003–1023.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conner, M. and Norman, P. (eds.) (2005) Predicting Health Behavior: Research And Practice with Social Cognition Models, 2nd edn. Buckingham: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawes, R.M. (1980) Social dilemmas. Annual Review of Psychology 31: 169–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Cremer, D., Snyder, M. and Dewitte, S. (2001) ‘The less I trust, the less I contribute (or not)?’ The effects of trust, accountability and self-monitoring in social dilemmas. European Journal of Social Psychology 31 (1): 93–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Groot, J. and Steg, L. (2007) General beliefs and the theory of planned behavior: The role of environmental concerns in the TPB. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 37 (8): 1817–1836.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Energy Saving Trust. (2011) Top ten tips, http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/Easy-ways-to-stop-wasting-energy/Stop-wasting-energy-and-cut-your-bills/Tips-to-help-you-stop-wasting-energy/Top-ten-tips, accessed 22 July 2011.

  • Feltz, D.L. and Lirgg, C.D. (1998) Perceived team and player efficacy in hockey. Journal of Applied Psychology 83 (4): 557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gao, Z., Xiang, P., Lee, A.M. and Harrison, L. (2008) Self-efficacy and outcome expectancy in beginning weight training class: Their relations to students’ behavioral intention and actual behavior. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 79 (1): 92–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, C.B. (1999) Do they do what they believe they can? Group efficacy and group effectiveness across tasks and cultures. The Academy of Management Journal 42 (2): 138–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, C.B. (2001) From knowledge accumulation to accommodation: Cycles of collective cognition in work groups. Journal of Organizational Behavior 22 (2): 121–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gist, M.E. (1987) Self-efficacy: Implications for organizational behavior and human resource management. The Academy of Management Review 12 (3): 472–485.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gully, S.M., Incalcaterra, K.A., Joshi, A. and Beaubien, J.M. (2002) A meta-analysis of team-efficacy, potency, and performance: Interdependence and level of analysis as moderators of observed relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology 87 (5): 819.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guzzo, R.A., Yost, P.R., Campbell, R.J. and Shea, G.P. (1993) Potency in groups: Articulating a construct. British Journal of Social Psychology 32 (1): 87–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heath, Y. and Gifford, R. (2006) Free-market ideology and environmental degradation. Environment and Behavior 38 (1): 48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hillman, M. and Fawcett, T. (2004) How We Can Save the Planet. London: Penguin Global.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holden, G. (1992) The relationship of self-efficacy appraisals to subsequent health related outcomes. Social Work in Health Care 16 (1): 53–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IPCC. (2007) Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Summary for Policymakers. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

  • Jung, D.I. and Sosik, J.J. (2003) Group potency and collective efficacy. Group & Organization Management 28 (3): 366–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katz-Navon, T.Y. and Erez, M. (2005) When collective- and self-efficacy affect team performance. Small Group Research 36 (4): 437–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kerr, N.L. (1989) Illusions of efficacy – The effects of group-size on perceived efficacy in social dilemmas. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 25 (4): 287–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kerr, N.L. (1996) ‘Does my contribution really matter?’: Efficacy in social dilemmas. European Review of Social Psychology 7 (1): 209–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kollock, P. (1998) Social dilemmas: The anatomy of cooperation. Annual Review of Sociology 24: 183–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lam, S.P. (2006) Predicting intention to save water: Theory of planned behavior, response efficacy, vulnerability, and perceived efficiency of alternative solutions1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 36 (11): 2803–2824.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Little, B.L. and Madigan, R.M. (1997) The relationship between collective efficacy and performance in manufacturing work teams. Small Group Research 28 (4): 517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lubell, M. (2002) Environmental activism as collective action. Environment and Behavior 34 (4): 431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luszczynska, A. and Schwarzer, R. (2005) Social-cognitive theory. In: M. Conner and P. Norman (eds.) Predicting Health Behavior, 2nd edn. Buckingham: Open University Press, pp. 127–169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merchant, C. (1992) Radical Ecology: The Search for a Livable World (Revolutionary Thought and Radical Movements). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moritz, S.E., Feltz, D.L., Fahrbach, K.R. and Mack, D.E. (2000) The relation of self-efficacy measures to sport performance: A meta-analytic review. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 71 (3): 280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Multon, K.D., Brown, S.D. and Lent, R.W. (1991) Relation of self-efficacy beliefs to academic outcomes: A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Counseling Psychology 38 (1): 30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ockwell, D., Whitmarsh, L. and O'Neill, S. (2009) Reorienting climate change communication for effective mitigation. Science Communication 30 (3): 305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riggs, M.L. and Knight, P.A. (1994) The impact of perceived group success-failure on motivational beliefs and attitudes: A causal model. Journal of Applied Psychology 79 (5): 755.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodgers, W.M. and Brawley, L.R. (1996) The influence of outcome expectancy and self-efficacy on the behavioral intentions of novice exercisers. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 26 (7): 618–634.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schultz, P.W. (2000) New environmental theories: Empathizing with nature: The effects of perspective taking on concern for environmental issues. Journal of Social Issues 56 (3): 391–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schultz, P.W. (2001) The structure of environmental concern: Concern for self, other people, and the biosphere. Journal of Environmental Psychology 21 (4): 327–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Science and Technology Committee. (2011) Second Report – Behaviour Change. Science and Technology Committee Report, 11 July, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201012/ldselect/ldsctech/179/17902.htm, accessed 30 July 2011.

  • Solomon, S., Plattner, G.K., Knutti, R. and Friedlingstein, P. (2009) Irreversible climate change due to carbon dioxide emissions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106 (6): 1704–1709.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stajkovic, A.D., Lee, D. and Nyberg, A.J. (2009) Collective efficacy, group potency, and group performance: Meta-analyses of their relationships, and test of a mediation model. Journal of Applied Psychology 94 (3): 814–828.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stajkovic, A.D. and Luthans, F. (1998) Self-efficacy and work-related performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin 124 (2): 240–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steg, L. (2003) Motives and behaviour in social dilemmas relevant to the environment. In: W. Hendrickx and L. Steg (eds.) Human Decision Making and Environmental Perception. Understanding and Assisting Human Decision Making in Real-life Settings. Groningen, The Netherlands: University of Groningen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stern, P.C. and Dietz, T. (1994) The value basis of environmental concern. Journal of Social Issues 50 (3): 65–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stern, P.C., Dietz, T. and Kalof, L. (1993) Value orientations, gender, and environmental concern. Environment and behavior 25 (5): 322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strecher, V., Devellis, M.E., Becker, M. and Rosenstock, I. (1986) The role of self-efficacy in achieving health behavior change. Health Education & Behavior 13 (1): 73–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Truelove, H.B. (Manuscript under review) An examination of the role of efficacy in intention to mitigate climate change: Self-efficacy, response efficacy, collective efficacy and collective response efficacy.

  • Van Vugt, M. (2009) Averting the tragedy of the Commons: Using social psychological science to protect the environment. Current Directions in Psychological Science 18 (3): 169–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber, J.M., Kopelman, S. and Messick, D.M. (2004) A conceptual review of decision making in social dilemmas: Applying a logic of appropriateness. Personality and Social Psychology Review 8 (3): 281–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitmarsh, L. (2009) Behavioural responses to climate change: Asymmetry of intentions and impacts. Journal of Environmental Psychology 29 (1): 13–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, D.M., Anderson, E.S. and Winett, R.A. (2005) A review of the outcome expectancy construct in physical activity research. Annals of Behavioral Medicine 29 (1): 70–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, K. and Bond, M. (2002) The roles of self-efficacy, outcome expectancies and social support in the self-care behaviours of diabetics. Psychology, Health & Medicine 7 (2): 127–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Social Sciences, School of Education, University of Glasgow, 11 Eldon Street, Glasgow, G3 6NH, UK

    Alexia Koletsou & Rebecca Mancy

Authors
  1. Alexia Koletsou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rebecca Mancy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rebecca Mancy.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Koletsou, A., Mancy, R. Which efficacy constructs for large-scale social dilemma problems? Individual and collective forms of efficacy and outcome expectancies in the context of climate change mitigation. Risk Manag 13, 184–208 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1057/rm.2011.12

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/rm.2011.12

Keywords

Search

Navigation