Self-Confidence in College Students: Conceptualization, Measurement, and Behavioral Implications

Shrauger, J. Sidney; Schohn, Mary

doi:10.1177/1073191195002003006

Cited by 104 publications

(97 citation statements)

References 62 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…From a definitional standpoint, Shrauger and Schohn's (1995) general selfconfidence used in the present study mirrors general self-efficacy. If their definition of selfconfidence is environmentally-dependent, the courtroom does not appear a likely setting conducive to the influence of this construct.…”

Section: Clarifying Self-efficacy Theory In a Legal Contextmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Broadly speaking, WSE is distinguished from confidence in that confidence is only cognitive and affective (e.g., Shrauger & Schohn, 1995); confidence has no tangible behavioral component.…”

Section: Witness Self-efficacy and Confidencementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Confidence research is often influenced by varying physical environments and conceptual contexts such as organizational/business settings (e.g., Price & Stone, 2004;Stajkovic, 2006), the courtroom (e.g., Sporer et al, 1995;Cramer et al, 2009), and college/young adulthood (e.g., Shrauger & Schohn, 1995). Confidence, and subsequently confidence theory, may in fact be a context dependent phenomenon, especially in regard to how judgments of confidence are made and how they impact perceptions of credibility/accuracy.…”

Section: Conclusion From Existing Confidence Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Self-confidence was measured using the Personal Evaluation Inventory (PEI; Shrauger & Schohn, 1995 (Shrauger & Schohn, 1995). Only the seven item General SelfConfidence subscale was used for the purpose of gathering validity data for the WSES.…”

Section: Mock Witness Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Shrauger and Schohn's (1995) definition of general self-confidence informs witness theory from the standpoint of self-perceptions. Quite simply, a witness's general selfconfidence does not seem to matter for outcomes used in the present study.…”

Section: Clarifying Self-efficacy Theory In a Legal Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Witness self‐efficacy: Development and validation of the construct

Cramer

Neal

DeCoster

et al. 2010

Behavioral Sci & The Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study used a Self-Efficacy Theory (SET; Bandura, 1977Bandura, , 1986 framework to address the need for an outcome measure in witness preparation training. The construct of Witness Self-Efficacy, broadly defined as a witness's perceived ability to testify in court, was developed drawing largely on existing self-efficacy literature. The goal of the study was to establish initial psychometric properties for the Witness Self-Efficacy Scale (WSES).Participants acting either as mock witnesses or jurors took part in a two-phase study.First, 41 mock witnesses were asked to provide a written account of being falsely accused of an act. They were then briefly deposed about the account, and completed the WSES and construct validity questionnaires. Mock witnesses finally testified under cross-examination from a mock attorney about the accusations. In the second portion, a total of 290 mock jurors (six to eight per group) observed videotaped testimonies of participants from phase one. Mock jurors then provided predictive validity ratings of witness credibility, believability, innocence likelihood, efficacy, and agreement with testimony.Bi-variate correlation analyses showed that the WSES was significantly positively related with general self-efficacy, social self-efficacy, and general self-confidence. The WSES was significantly negatively related to introversion. The scale displayed non-significant relations with social desirability, depression, self-esteem, and innocence expectancy. Multivariate regression analyses showed that the scale failed to predict any of the primary mock juror ratings.Follow-up multivariate regression analyses showed that mock juror ratings of witness confidence iii and the WSES predicted dependent measures, although these independent variables were collinear. Finally, there was an interaction between self and observer ratings of the WSES as it predicted witness credibility.Results are discussed with regard to theoretical and applied implications. Contrary to SET, self-reported WSE appears to be largely correlated with confidence and fails to predict outcomes on its own. Concerning witness preparation, the WSES possesses solid construct validity and reliability, but requires further testing within a witness preparation training model to assess its practical utility. A self-efficacy based method of witness preparation is proposed as a manner of continued research using the WSES.

show abstract

Section: Clarifying Self-efficacy Theory In a Legal Contextmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Broadly speaking, WSE is distinguished from confidence in that confidence is only cognitive and affective (e.g., Shrauger & Schohn, 1995); confidence has no tangible behavioral component.…”

Section: Witness Self-efficacy and Confidencementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Conclusion From Existing Confidence Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Mock Witness Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Clarifying Self-efficacy Theory In a Legal Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Witness self‐efficacy: Development and validation of the construct

Cramer

Neal

DeCoster

et al. 2010

Behavioral Sci & The Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

What you are confident of determines your choices in context: Confidence in yourself versus in your ability

Wang

Chang

2019

Behavioral Decision Making

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The notion that consumers' preference is constructed by decision context is well established. Two of such salient manifestations are compromise effect and attraction effect. Although literature has explored the moderators of these effects from the perspective of a decision maker, little is known about whether a significant difference exists between the effects of individual differences as a situational state and as a stable personality. This article approaches this question by examining how specific self‐confidence and general self‐confidence shape consumer's preference for context options. Four studies find that compromise effect is greater for consumer with high specific self‐confidence, whereas attraction effect is greater for consumer with low specific self‐confidence. The two context effects are greater for consumers with low general self‐confidence only in the presence of social influence. In addition, low (vs. high) general self‐confidence strengthens (vs. weakens) the impact of specific self‐confidence on context effects under this condition. This article concludes by discussing the theoretical and practical implications of the findings.

show abstract