Graduate Theses and Dissertations
Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and
Dissertations
2018
Undergraduate research training environments:
Impact on research self-efficacy, perceived utility of
research, and willingness to engage in research post-
graduation
Kaitlyn Burke
Iowa State University
Follow this and additional works at: https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/etd
Part of the Counseling Psychology Commons, and the Educational Psychology Commons
This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Dissertations at Iowa State University Digital
Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Iowa State University Digital
Repository. For more information, please contact digirep@iastate.edu.
Recommended Citation
Burke, Kaitlyn, “Undergraduate research training environments: Impact on research self-efficacy, perceived utility of research, and
willingness to engage in research post-graduation” (2018). Graduate Theses and Dissertations. 16555.
https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/etd/16555
Undergraduate research training environments: Impact on research self-efficacy,
perceived utility of research, and willingness to engage in research post-graduation
by
Kaitlyn Burke
A thesis submitted to the graduate faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
Major: Psychology
Program of Study Committee:
Loreto Prieto, Major Professor
Patrick Armstrong
Marcus Crede
The student author, whose presentation of the scholarship herein was approved by the
program of study committee, is solely responsible for the content of this thesis. The
Graduate College will ensure this thesis is globally accessible and will not permit
alterations after a degree is conferred.
Iowa State University
Ames, Iowa
2018
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF FIGURES ………………………………………………………………………………………
iv
LIST OF TABLES
……………………………………………………………………………………….. v
ABSTRACT……………………………….
……………………………………………………..
vi
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ………………………………………………………………..
1
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW ………………………………………………………
5
Research Training in Psychology ………………………………………………………………
5
Social Cognitive Theory …………………………………………………………………………..
8
Social Cognitive Career Theory…………………………………………………………………
10
Research Self-Efficacy……………………………………………………………………………..
15
Research Training Environments
……………………………………………………………….
24
The Undergraduate Research Training
Environment (URTE)……………………………………………………………………………….
31
Measurement of RTEs ……………………………………………………………………………..
38
Other Outcomes Associated with
Research Self-Efficacy and the RTE ………………………………………………………….
41
The Current Study
……………………………………………………………………………………
47
CHAPTER 3.
METHOD ……………………………………………………………………………
50
Procedure
……………………………………………………………………………………………
50
Participants ……………………………………………………………………………………………
51
Measures
……………………………………………………………………………………………
52
Research Hypotheses ……………………………………………………………………………….
56
CHAPTER 4.
RESULTS ……………………………………………………………………………
58
CHAPTER 5.
DISCUSSION ………………………………………………………………………
73
Summary of Findings
……………………………………………………………………………….
74
The Importance of Research Self-Efficacy
………………………………………………….
74
The Importance of Willingness
to Use Research Skills ……………………………………………………………………………..
75
The Importance of the Utility
of Research Skills ……………………………………………………………………………………
76
The Role of RTEs ……………………………………………………………………………………
77
iii
Implications for Future Research
……………………………………………………………….
78
Implications for Undergraduate
Training of Psychology Students ……………………………………………………………….
80
Limitations ……………………………………………………………………………………………
81
Conclusions
……………………………………………………………………………………………
84
REFERENCES ……………………………………………………………………………………………
85
APPENDIX A: INITIAL EMAIL: CALL FOR PARTICIPANTS
………………………
92
APPENDIX B : FOLLOW-UP EMAIL: CALL FOR PARTICIPANTS ………………
93
APPENDIX C: INFORMED CONSENT DOCUMENT ……………………………………
94
APPENDIX D
: DEMOGRAPHICS AND ACADEMIC INFORMATION
………….
97
APPENDIX E : REVISED RESEARCH TRAINING ENVIRONMENT
SCALE – SHORT FORM (RTES-R-S) ……………………………………
98
APPENDIX F : RESEARCH SELF-EFFICACY SCALE (RSES)
……………………… 100
APPENDIX G
: UTILITY OF RESEARCH IN FUTURE CAREERS (URFC)
……. 102
APPENDIX H
: REVISED UTILITY OF RESEARCH
IN FUTURE CAREERS (URFC)
……………………………………………. 103
APPENDIX I : WILLINGNESS TO USE RESEARCH
IN FUTURE CAREERS (WURFC)
……………………………………….. 104
APPENDIX J : REVISED WILLINGNESS TO USE RESEARCH
IN FUTURE CAREERS (WURFC)
……………………………………….. 105
APPENDIX K: INSTRUCTIONS FOR ENTRY INTO RAFFLE
FOR AMAZON GIFT CARD ………………………………………………… 106
APPENDIX L: INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD
APPROVAL FORM ……………………………………………………………… 108
iv
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1 Moderated Mediation Model ……………………………………………………………
49
v
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1 Utility of Research in Future Careers (URFC)
Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) Factor
Loadings and Weights…………………………………………………………………….. 61
Table 2 Revised Utility of Research in Future Careers
(URFC) Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)
Factor Loadings and Weights …………………………………………………………..
62
Table 3 Willingness to Use Research in Future Careers
(WURFC) Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)
Factor Loadings and Weights …………………………………………………………..
63
Table 4 Revised Willingness to Use Research in Future Careers
(WURFC) Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)
Factor Loadings and Weights …………………………………………………………..
64
Table 5 Revised Willingness to Use Research in Future Careers
(WURFC) Forced Fit Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)
Factor Loadings and Weights …………………………………………………………..
65
Table 6 Sample Means, Standard Deviations,
and Ranges of Study Measures …………………………………………………………
66
Table 7 Inter-Correlations and Alpha Coefficients
of Study Measures…………………………………………………………………………..
67
Table 8 RSE As a Mediator of RTE and Willingness
to Use Research in Future Careers
…………………………………………………….
71
Table 9 Perceived Utility of Research As a Moderator
Research Self-Efficacy on RTE and
Willingness to Use Research in Future Careers
………………………………….
72
vi
ABSTRACT
Effective research training environments (RTEs) within graduate psychology degree
programs have been shown to increase students’ level of research self-efficacy (RSE). Higher
levels of student RSE are likely associated with the greater perceptions of the utility of research
skills and a greater willingness to engage in research-based activities in later professional work.
Relations among the variables of RTEs, RSE, and continuing research-based activities have been
well established among graduate psychology students, but the effect of RTEs in undergraduate
psychology training has not yet been examined. The focus of students’ perceived utility of their
research skills post-graduation was a new addition to the literature in this area. Guided by Social
Cognitive and Social Cognitive Career Theory, I examined the model of effective RTEs
suggested by Gelso et al. (1996) and its effects on my variables of interest, within an
undergraduate psychology student sample. Specifically, I examined a moderated mediation
model involving RTE, RSE, perceived utility of research skills, and willingness to engage in
future research. I found that RTEs in undergraduate training increased student RSE, and that
student RSE significantly mediated the direct effect of RTE on students’ willingness to engage in
research in post-graduation employment. Students’ perceived utility of their research skills in
post-graduation employment did not moderate the indirect effect of student RSE. I discuss
recommendations concerning the use of effective RTEs to enhance undergraduate psychology
students’ development and use of research-based skills in future work environments.
1
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
Strong research training environments (RTEs) are essential to developing psychology
students’ sense of confidence in acquiring and using research and statistical-based skills. Strong
RTEs provide students with ‘real world’ understandings of how to use research and statistics
skills, and they foster the critical thinking processes students will need within their chosen
professional careers (American Psychological Association [APA], 2006; Bauer, 2007; Waehler,
Kalodner, Wampold, & Lichtenberg, 2000; Wampold, Lichtenberg, & Waehler, 2002).
Effective RTEs allow students to engage in various types of course work and other
learning experiences that bolster their self-efficacy and actual skills in the domains of research
and statistics, and increase their willingness to persist in future research-based activities (cf.
Bandura, 1977, 1997; Lent, Brown, & Hackett, 1994). Thus, effective RTEs can increase
students’ likelihood of being willing to enter careers that involve research-based tasks (cf. Lent
et al., 1994).
Most of the research concerning RTEs has been done surrounding the training,
acquisition, and use of research based skills acquired by trainees in doctoral level applied
psychology programs (e.g., Bishop & Bieschke, 1998; Gelso et al., 1996; Hemmings & Kay,
2016; Kahn, 2001; Kahn & Miller, 2000; Kahn & Scott, 1997; Krebs, Smither, & Hurley, 1991;
Mallinckrodt & Gelso, 2002; Mallinckrodt et al., 1990; Phillips & Russell, 1994; Royalty et al.
1986). However, only a fraction of college students within the undergraduate major in
psychology will progress to graduate or doctoral level psychology training programs before
entering the workforce and lifelong career paths (APA, 2011; National Center for Education
Statistics [NCES], 2015). Despite this, little to no research has been done regarding the effect of
RTEs on undergraduate psychology students and their resultant sense of efficacy toward
2
research-based activities; their perceived utility of the research skills they acquire during college;
or their willingness to engage in research-based activities in their future employment settings.
Rather, extant RTE literature focuses on these topics as they apply to graduate students in
psychology and their acquisition and future use of research-based skills (e.g., Bishop &
Bieschke, 1998; Gelso et al., 1996; Kahn, 2001; Kahn & Scott, 1997; Mallinckrodt, Gelso, &
Royalty, 1990; Phillips & Russell, 1994; Royalty et al., 1986).
Highly related to RTEs, self-efficacy has been found to play an important role in
psychology students’ research training. Some scholars have noted that post-graduation, many
psychology students do not demonstrate sufficient confidence, interest, or engagement in the
research-based skills they are taught within their psychology training programs (Bieschke, 2006;
Cassin, Singer, Dobson, & Altmeier, 2007; Gelso, 1993). When undergraduate psychology
students lack confidence, engagement, and interest in research and statistical skills they tend to
exhibit lower levels of efficacy toward, willingness to engage in, or perceived utility of research
activities in future employment settings (Gelso, 1993; Schlosser & Kahn, 2007).
As self-efficacy within a domain predicts intention to engage and persist in future
behaviors within that same domain (Bandura, 1977, 1997; Lent et al., 1994), the level of research
self-efficacy (RSE) that students acquire during their undergraduate training should impact their
level of confidence toward engaging in research activities both during their undergraduate
training and beyond (c.f., Bishop & Bieschke, 1998; Gelso, Mallinckrodt, & Judge, 1996; Kahn,
2001; Kahn & Scott, 1997; Phillips & Russell, 1994).
Related to both RTEs and research self-efficacy, Social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT;
Lent et al., 1994) seeks to describe relationships among various within-person cognitive factors
(e.g., self-efficacy beliefs, outcome expectancies, goals, actions), social-contextual factors (e.g.,
3
environmental supports and barriers), and intentions to pursue specific academic- or career-
related activities. SCCT addresses how individuals’ career and academic interests develop; how
individuals consider career-related decisions; and how various within-person cognitive factors as
well as social-contextual factors can lead to specific achievements and persistence in a chosen
career-related path (Lent et al., 1994).
SCCT, based upon Bandura’s (1986) Social Cognitive Theory and earlier self-efficacy
theory (Bandura, 1977, 1997), suggests that efficacy-based outcome expectancies play an
important role in understanding vocational interest development and goal pursuit (Lent et al.,
1994). That is, individuals’ interests are assumed to reflect areas in which they believe they can
succeed, and this leads to the pursuit of career areas they believe will lead to positive outcomes.
Once interests in a career area develop, individuals then form goals that reflect their intention to
engage in the particular behaviors that will lead them to pursue those specific careers (Lent et al.,
1994). Together, principles of general Social Cognitive Theory and Social Cognitive Career
Theory can be used as a theoretical foundation to assess students’ concrete sense of both the
utility of the research-based skills they have learned in the undergraduate psychology major, as
well as their willingness to engage in research-based activities in their future careers.
As in the extant research on RTEs, students’ perceptions of the utility of their research-
based skills and their willingness to engage in such activities post-graduation have largely been
assessed within graduate- or doctoral-level trainees in professional psychology programs (e.g.,
Royalty et al., 1986; Szymanski et al., 1994,1998). Very few specific studies have tried to assess
these perspectives among undergraduate students (cf. Royalty et al., 1986; Szymanski et al.,
1994, 1998), and no measures exist to fully assess either perceived utility of research-based skills
or students’ willingness to engage in research activities post-graduation.
4
Generally, previous studies have suggested that doctoral students’ perceived utility of
research may increase as their research self-efficacy increases. However, perceived utility of
research has not been examined separately from other outcomes such as research anxiety or
interest in research (e.g., Royalty et al., 1986; Szymanski et al., 1998). Thus, the impact of
research self-efficacy upon perceived utility of research in particular is unclear. Additionally, the
little research that has explored this relation has sampled doctoral-level psychology students; this
relation as it applies to undergraduate psychology students remains unexplored.
In terms of willingness to use research in future careers, no measures exist that assess this
outcome or how this construct is related to RSE or RTEs among undergraduate psychology
students. However, previous research has noted that strong research-based skills are one of the
most highly valued applicant qualities by psychology graduate program admissions committees
(Appleby et al., 1999). Further, critical thinking skills, which are fostered through research
training (cf. Dunn, 2015; McGovern et al., 2010), are highly valued by general employers, even
in careers that may not necessarily be directly related to psychology (Appleby, 2000; Kuther,
2013). Therefore, it is important to gauge undergraduate psychology students’ willingness to
engage in research in the future, given that skills taught in undergraduate research courses (e.g.,
critical thinking, an empirical approach to problem solving) are valued in the general workforce.
This issue too has been largely ignored in the research literature to date.
In my study, I began to address this gap in the current literature by examining the role of
the undergraduate RTE in building RSE in undergraduate psychology students. In turn, I
examined how psychology undergraduates’ sense of efficacy affects their perceptions of the
utility of research skills and activities as well as willingness to engage in such activities in their
post-baccalaureate careers.
5
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW
Research Training in Psychology
APA-accredited psychology programs that train doctoral students in applied areas of
psychology (e.g., clinical, counseling, and school) have long held that their graduates should be
well grounded in a “scientist-practitioner model” (SPM). The SPM emphasizes an equal focus on
practical skills and research skills (Frank, 1984; Stoltenberg et al., 2000) as well as the
integration of science and practice (Belar & Perry, 1992; Bieschke, 2006; Bieschke, Fouad,
Collins, & Halonen, 2004). One implication underlying the SPM is that theory and empirical
research should inform the application of psychological principles in professional settings. The
reverse also holds: that is, that researchers should examine those research questions that will best
guide evidence-driven practice relevant to the world of work (APA, 2006; Bauer, 2007; Bieschke
et al., 2004; Meier, 1999; Stricker & Trierweiler, 1995). Although the goal of the SPM is not
necessarily to train equal numbers of graduating scientists and practitioners (Belar & Perry,
1992), one general assumption of the SPM is that students in psychology degree programs
adhere to the tenets of the SPM and subscribe to the notion of psychology as a science (Fouad et
al., 2009). Thus, it is expected that graduates of these programs are prepared to enter a research
or service professional career upon graduation with equal success (Frank, 1984). Another
presumption within the SPM is that when students from psychology degree programs enter
applied professional settings to work upon graduation, they will continue to value, see the need
for, and participate in research-based activities, as they will have acquired an understanding of
the importance of evidence-based approaches to their work (Gelso, & Fretz, 2001).
In reality, although the SPM aims to equally emphasize the importance of both research-
and practice-related skills, and although graduates of SPM-based programs purportedly will
6
understand the value of integrating research and practice, many psychologists who move on to
practice-based careers historically have not formally engaged in any research beyond their
dissertations (Watkins, Lopez, Campbell, & Himmell, 1986). Indeed, research findings obtained
from students in doctoral level scientist-practitioner programs indicate that these trainees often
favor one end of the scientist-practitioner spectrum over the other, depending on personal
interests (Bieschke, 2006; Frank, 1984; Leong & Zachar, 1991). Further, graduate students in
professional psychology programs are often more interested in acquiring practice-related careers
upon graduation (Cassin, Singer, Dobson, & Altmaier, 2007; Gelso, 1993). Research findings
also indicate that individuals who work in applied professional settings rarely consume or make
contributions to the research literature to the degree to which their academic counterparts do
(Bieschke, 2006; Watkins et al., 1986). This may in part be due to the tendency for practitioners
to claim that research is too challenging or intimidating to initiate (Lampropoules et al., 2002).
Bieschke (2006) claims that applied psychology professions’ lack of “scientifically-minded
psychologists” suggests a trend away from the SPM mindset that has characterized the field of
psychology and its approach to professional training since the recommendations issued by the
Boulder conference (c.f., APA, 1949, 2006; Bieschke et al., 2004; Frank, 1984; Meier, 1999
Stricker & Trierweiler, 1995).
According to Bieschke (2006), five factors characterize those psychology program
graduates who possess a scientifically-minded approach to the application of psychology: 1) they
consume current scientific research and apply those findings to their professional work; 2) they
produce research as well as consume it; 3) they critically evaluate both the process and outcome
of their own and others’ research studies; 4) they are aware of how sociocultural factors
influence scientific and applied practices of psychology; and 5) they seek out and incorporate
7
critical feedback concerning their research and applied work from colleagues, stakeholders, and
the public. The first three characteristics directly involve the consumption, application, and
production of quality research, highlighting the value that the field of psychology places on
evidence-driven practice (APA, 2006). As outlined by Bieschke, fostering competence in
research among all psychology students is very important. Full integration of research into
practice (and vice-versa) requires an ability to critically consume existing research and to
conduct professional work in a scientific way; it also calls for professionals to conduct new,
quality research to address trends or needs in the fields that utilize applied psychological
principles.
Given the importance placed on integrative research skills within the field of psychology,
it is important to examine ways in which psychology trainees acquire these skills. A natural way
of exploring this issue is to examine the research training environment (RTE) in which these
skills are developed. An understanding of factors that contribute to an optimal RTE can enable
educators to more effectively foster competent research activity among graduates of psychology
programs. Unfortunately, previous research focusing on doctoral RTEs (e.g., Bishop & Bieschke,
1998; Gelso et al., 1996; Hemmings & Kay, 2016; Kahn, 2001; Kahn & Miller, 2000; Kahn &
Scott, 1997; Krebs, Smither, & Hurley, 1991; Mallinckrodt & Gelso, 2002; Mallinckrodt et al.,
1990; Phillips & Russell, 1994; Royalty et al. 1986) does not account well for the majority of
psychology students who conclude their studies in psychology with a bachelor’s degree (APA,
2011; NCES, 2009). Though most psychology students do not enter graduate training programs
or the applied psychological fields of counseling, clinical, or school counseling, research
findings indicate that psychology baccalaureates often choose human services careers upon
graduation (APA, 2011; Prerost, 1981). These careers involve the application of psychological
8
principles to address the emotional, social, and psychological needs of others (Bureau of Labor
Statistics, 2016), just as doctoral-level positions do.
If baccalaureate psychology graduates seek to work in such settings upon graduation, it is
important that effective training in integrative research skills occurs at the baccalaureate level.
Quality RTEs should not be a feature unique to doctoral-level training programs. Thus, it is
beneficial to explore the factors that contribute to effective RTEs for undergraduate students in
order to see if the same factors that are applicable for graduate student populations are equally
applicable among an undergraduate psychology student population. Of particular importance in
the current study are RTE factors related to trainees’ self-efficacy to engage in research-related
activities after being immersed in a training program. As will be explicated below, self-efficacy
is a critical determinant of actual future engagement in an activity. An analysis of undergraduate
psychology RTEs and related research self-efficacy will clarify factors that make psychology
undergraduates more likely to effectively engage in valuable research-related actions in their
future careers.
Social Cognitive Theory
The primary theory underlying my research is Social Cognitive Theory (SCT; Bandura,
1986), which describes a process of learning that involves direct experiences, vicarious or
observed experiences, and emotional arousal. SCT specifies expected effects these variables will
exert upon students’ confidence in achieving desired outcomes in a given domain. SCT provides
a framework for predicting when individuals will engage in activities, based on their
expectations regarding the nature and probability of the consequences of their actions (outcome
expectancies) as well as their perceptions of their personal capability to complete a task (efficacy
expectations).
9
Outcome expectancies. Outcome expectancies describe what individuals believe will
happen should they engage in a particular activity (Bandura, 1977; 1986). These predictions
include both the valence of expected consequences and the perceived likelihood that the
consequences will occur. Predictions of what consequences may occur as the result of a
particular behavior may be informed by individuals’ past personal experience of engaging in the
behavior, previous observation of another individual engaging in a similar behavior, or
individuals’ judgments of how capable they are of performing the behavior (Bandura, 1997).
Efficacy expectations. Efficacy expectations are defined as the beliefs an individual
possesses in his or her ability to successfully complete a given task (Bandura, 1977; 1986; 1997).
High self-efficacy to complete a task predicts a greater likelihood of engaging in a given task and
higher expectancy for a desired outcome given successful performance of a given task.
Conversely, lower self-efficacy predicts a greater level of avoidance of performing a given task
and lower expectancies for a desired outcome given successful performance of a given task. Self-
efficacy is also domain-specific and does not necessarily translate from one task activity to
another (Bandura, 1977). Thus, individuals may feel confident in their capability to complete
certain tasks (e.g., counseling) but less confident in their capability to complete others (e.g.,
research). For example, research and statistics are areas of psychology training programs that
often evoke anxiety and perceptions of low self-efficacy among students, even among students
who generally possess high self-efficacy in other academic domains (Onwuegbuzie & Wilson,
2003).
Self-efficacy, as an overall construct, is influenced by four different categories of
experiences: mastery experiences, vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion, and emotional or
physiological arousal (Bandura, 1977, 1994; Lent & Brown, 2013; Lent, Brown, & Hackett,
10
1994, 2000). Later on, each of these categories will be described in greater detail within the
specific context of RTEs, to illustrate various ways that the RTE may inform trainees’ judgments
of their own research self-efficacy.
Social Cognitive Career Theory
SCT, with its emphasis on outcome expectancies and efficacy beliefs, informs Social
Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT; Lent, Brown, & Hackett, 1994). In order to more specifically
relate undergraduate students’ RTE and its effect on their perceptions of the utility of research
skills and their willingness to engage in research-related activities in later careers, I will outline
theoretical elements from Social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT; Lent et al., 1994) to add
support for these constructs of interest and their operation within the framework of RTEs.
SCCT employs concepts of self-efficacy and specifically applies them to academic- and
career-related interests, goals, and actions. SCCT is based upon the aforementioned premises of
SCT and Bandura’s determinants of self-efficacy. SCCT describes relations among various
within-person cognitive factors (e.g., self-efficacy beliefs, outcome expectancies, goals), social-
contextual factors (e.g., environmental supports and barriers), and intentions to pursue academic-
or career-related activities. The theory addresses such questions as how individuals’ career and
academic interests develop; how and when individuals execute career-related decisions; and how
individuals achieve performance outcomes, defined both as specific achievements and as
persistence in a chosen career-related path (Lent et al., 1994).
In this model, both efficacy expectations (e.g., beliefs about one’s capacity to perform
well in a given academic major or career field) and outcome expectancies (e.g., beliefs about
consequences that may result if one pursues a given academic major or career path) are related to
academic and career decisions and are informed by individuals’ learning experiences in a given
11
domain. These learning experiences can take the form of any of Bandura’s (1977) determinants
of self-efficacy (i.e., personal mastery experiences, vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion,
emotional or physiological arousal). Self-efficacy and outcome expectancies, in turn, influence
the formation of one’s academic- and career-related interests, goals, and actions. Tangible
performance outcomes (e.g., objectively evaluated displays of competence) and persistence in a
chosen career-related path are assumed to result when interests are built, goals are set, and action
is taken toward those goals (Lent et al., 1994).
Interest development. According to SCCT, self-efficacy is instrumental in the initial
development of interest in an academic- or career-related field, as well as in the establishment of
goals and ultimate pursuit of goal-directed behaviors. When individuals see themselves as
competent at an activity and have had previous opportunities to demonstrate their competence to
themselves and to others, they are more interested in pursuing that same activity again in the
future (Lent 2013; Lent et al., 1994). A sense of self-efficacy is often built through prior
engagement in the activity, coupled with feedback about the level of performance achieved; self-
efficacy may also be strengthened when encouragement from important others (e.g., parents,
teachers) encourage an individual to pursue certain tasks over others (Lent, 2013). Notably, these
types of learning experiences reflect two of Bandura’s (1986) determinants of self-efficacy:
personal mastery experiences and verbal persuasion.
Within SCCT, outcome expectancies also play an important role in understanding interest
development and goal pursuit (Lent et al., 1994). Outcome expectancies interact with self-
efficacy beliefs to impact individuals’ interest in and pursuit of a given activity. That is,
individuals’ interests are assumed to reflect work areas in which they believe they can succeed
(i.e., areas in which individuals feel self-efficacious) and the pursuit of which they believe will
12
lead to positive outcomes (i.e., areas associated with positive outcome expectances). For
example, an individual may perceive that becoming a physician will lead to positive outcomes
(e.g., prestige, high income, rewarding work), but may simultaneously feel incapable of
performing the tasks necessary to become a physician (e.g., completing science courses, gaining
admission to medical school). In this case, if an individual holds positive outcome expectancies
and low self-efficacy beliefs when considering the career path of becoming a physician, that
individual is unlikely to exhibit high interest in becoming a physician. Conversely, individuals
who possess high self-efficacy beliefs but hold negative outcome expectancies related to a given
career path, are also therefore unlikely to develop strong interests in that particular career path
(Lent, Brown, & Hackett, 2000). For example, such an individual may feel confident in her
ability to succeed at science courses, and gain admission to medical school, but she may
simultaneously perceive negative outcome expectancies related to this given career path (e.g.,
demanding work hours that limit preferred life activities, high personal and legal responsibility
for patients’ lives and health).
As opposed to the above examples, a combination of matched high self-efficacy and
positive outcome expectancies is hypothesized to increase the likelihood of developing interest in
an area. Still, though, in the SCCT model a third factor comes into play as individuals develop
carer-related interests. Lent et al. (2000) emphasize that even in instances of high self-efficacy
and positive outcome expectancies, individuals may be unlikely to display interest in a career
goal if they perceive “insurmountable barriers” or “inadequate support systems” en route to their
goals. Thus, also important in the SCCT model are environmental influences. Career interests,
goals, and actions are not only a product of individuals’ self-efficacy and outcome expectancies
but also a product of environmental influences (Lent et al., 1994, 2000). Environmental
13
influences include perceived supports and barriers that factor into individuals’ decision-making
processes and actions. According to SCCT, although environmental factors may not directly
impact interests, they do directly impact both goal setting and action taking, as they influence
individuals’ perceived likelihood of success in pursuing a particular academic or career interest
(Lent et al., 1994). In this way, environmental factors influence individuals’ decisions in much
the same way as outcome expectancies. Therefore, a distinction is made in the SCCT interest
development model between environmental influences (i.e., perceived supports and barriers) and
outcome expectancies. For example, individuals’ subjective perception of barriers to entry or a
hostile working environment in a given career field may reflect actual characteristics of that
work environment, and these environmental realities may make an individual less likely to
pursue that career field (Lent et al., 2000). This differs from negative outcome expectancies in
that outcome expectancies reflect internally expected consequences (e.g., assuming one’s family
will disapprove of one’s career choice), whereas environmental barriers result from subjective
appraisals of objective features present in a career environment (e.g., interpreting a lack of
female engineers in an industry as a sign of sexism in the workplace).
Goal formation. According to SCCT, individuals are likely to develop interests in those
academic- and career-related activities that are associated with high self-efficacy beliefs, positive
outcome expectancies, and adequate perceived environmental supports. Once interests in a work
area develop, individuals then form goals that reflect their intention to engage in future behaviors
that will help them pursue those interests (Lent et al., 1994). At the goal-setting stage of career
decision-making, self-efficacy and outcome expectancies continue to exert their influence. These
two factors impact the goal-setting process both directly (e.g., high levels of both lead to the
setting of realistic, achievable goals that in turn lead to desired outcomes) and indirectly via
14
interests (e.g., higher interest in an area will lead to greater intentions to engage in domain
behaviors and setting realistic, achievable goals to engage in those behaviors; Lent et al., 1994).
Goal setting then leads to choice actions (i.e., taken to implement identified goals), where
efficacy and outcome expectancies also exert an influence upon choice actions, as individuals
expect to succeed and assume that positive outcomes will result from their choices.
Behavioral pursuit of interests. At the end of an SCCT interest-goal-action chain lie
performance outcomes, which include specific work-related achievements or failures (Lent et al.,
1994; Lent & Brown, 2013). These performance outcomes become new learning experiences
(i.e., personal mastery experiences, cf. Bandura, 1977) which are processed by individuals in an
ongoing feedback loop. If a choice action in a given career path leads to success, self-efficacy
will increase and outcome expectancies will become more positive, thus further increasing
interest, goal-setting behavior, and engagement in choice actions (Lent & Brown, 2013).
Conversely, choice actions that lead to perceived failure will decrease self-efficacy and/or will
result in more negative outcome expectancies, potentially decreasing interest and future
engagement in similar activities.
As illustrated, the SCCT model of career-related interest development and choice
behavior provides a framework for understanding specific mechanisms through which efficacy
and outcome expectancies operate on interests, goals, and choice actions to influence
performance outcomes in any given career path. SCCT also incorporates environmental
influences as an explanatory variable in the formation of these interests, goals, and actions. Thus,
the SCCT framework is an ideal model to represent the importance of RSE among students in
psychology education and training. It will help to explain how students’ levels of RSE impact
their perspectives on the utility of their research skills and their development of interest-goal-
15
action-performance outcome chains surrounding research-based activities (i.e., their willingness
or intention to engage in such activities) in their chosen post-graduation career path. It will also
help to explain how the context in which students are trained (i.e., the environmental supports
and/or barriers present in a students’ RTE) can shape these all-important RSE beliefs.
Research Self-Efficacy
Research self-efficacy is the specific belief an individual has in his or her ability to
successfully complete research-related tasks (Bieschke, 2006; Forester, Kahn, & Hesson-
McInnis, 2004). Research-related tasks may include anything from reviewing a body of research
literature, to designing an appropriate research study, to analyzing data, to presenting research
findings in a written or oral format (Bieschke, Bishop, & Garcia, 1996). Research self-efficacy
operates in conjunction with research-related outcome expectancies, as well as environmental
influences of the RTE, as indicated by the SCCT interest-goal-action framework. Like any
domain-specific efficacy belief, research self-efficacy can be positively impacted by the four
types learning experiences outlined in SCT and SCCT: personal mastery experiences, observed
vicarious experiences, appropriate verbal persuasion, and positive emotional or physiological
arousal (cf. Bandura, 1997; Lent et al., 1994).
Personal mastery experiences. Mastery experiences are the most powerful determinant
of self-efficacy, as they represent individuals’ previous successful participation in a given task,
thus providing concrete information to individuals about their actual ability to perform that task
(Bandura, 1977). Generally, past successes in a given domain are interpreted by individuals as
proof that they are capable of competently performing in that domain. Therefore, past success
increases expectations of future success in a given domain. Likewise, past failures may be
16
interpreted as proof of incompetence and thereby decrease expectations of future success and
increase expectations of future failure.
Repeated successes (or failures) in a domain have an additive effect on self-efficacy; the
more one succeeds (or fails) at a task, the stronger and more ingrained his or her expectations of
future success (or failure) becomes. In the SCCT framework, these experiences can impact both
the initial formation and the maintenance of efficacy beliefs and interests (Lent, 2013). Once
higher levels of self-efficacy are established through repeated experiences of personal success or
mastery, subsequent failures have less of a negative impact on self-efficacy than they would if
self-efficacy was less ingrained or just beginning to form (Bandura, 1977).
In the specific context of research activities, research mastery experiences occur when
students successfully complete research-related tasks. Because past success in a domain
increases expectations of future success in that domain (Bandura, 1977), the nature of students’
early research experiences hold implications for students with little research experience. If
students have numerous positive research experiences early on in their educational career and
training, they will be more likely to approach future research with positive outcome expectancies
and will be more likely to seek out additional research experiences (cf. Lent & Brown, 2013).
Illustrating this, Hemmings (2012) conducted qualitative interviews of academicians
from various disciplines in order to explore sources of research confidence among faculty who
were just beginning their careers. Hemmings found that previous publication experiences
instilled greater research confidence among academicians. This source of research confidence
among early career academicians highlights the importance of research personal mastery
experiences in increasing research self-efficacy. Similarly, among undergraduate psychology
students, personal mastery experiences in the form of positive research experiences have been
17
suggested to increase undergraduates’ sense of research self-efficacy in qualitative studies of the
benefits of undergraduate research mentoring (e.g., Landrum & Nelsen, 2002; Lei & Chuang,
2009; Van Vliet et al., 2013). As social cognitive theory predicts, in the realm of RSE, personal
mastery experiences appear to most strongly positively influence individuals’ level of research
self-efficacy.
Vicarious experiences. Vicarious experiences, like mastery experiences, require
successful completion of a given task, but not by the individual in question; vicarious
experiences involve witnessing another person (i.e., a model similar to the observer) successfully
completing a given task. Vicarious experiences do not provide individuals with direct
information about their own capabilities to complete a task. However, vicarious experiences are
still useful for individuals’ estimation of their own capabilities, as vicarious experiences allow
individuals to see how someone similar to them successfully completes a given task and allows
them to assess whether or not they possess the same capabilities to perform a similar task in a
successful fashion (Bandura, 1977; 1986).
Characteristics of the observer’s model determine how informative a particular vicarious
experience is regarding the observer’s capabilities. If the model is similar to an individual in
important ways (e.g., a novice researcher observing another novice researcher with a similarly
perceived skill level) and demonstrates competence when completing a task, the observer
watching the model will be more likely to infer that they are also capable of completing the same
task. If the model is highly dissimilar to the observer (a novice researcher observing a highly
experienced faculty researcher), the modeling effect on efficacy is reduced. The presence or
absence of similar peer models in a training context (e.g., a RTE) can also convey messages
about whether an individual would feel welcome or accepted in a given career context (e.g., a
18
lack of female role models in an engineering program may lead a female student to perceive
sexism or a hostile work environment); thus, the amount and quality of vicarious experiences
offered in an academic training program may also theoretically impact one’s outcome
expectancies in a career area (cf., Lent, 2013).
In the context of RTEs, vicarious research experiences involve students observing peer or
faculty models completing research-related tasks. Hemmings (2012) found that in addition to
personal mastery experiences, another determinant of early career academicians’ research
confidence is avoiding isolation while completing research, as research work in isolation
provides individuals with fewer opportunities to gauge their own abilities or increase their own
self-efficacy by comparing themselves to peer models. Thus, incorporating a social component
into the research experience serves as a valuable source of self-efficacy-boosting vicarious
experiences.
Bartsch, Case, and Meerman (2012) demonstrated the positive effects of vicarious
experiences on graduate students’ self-efficacy in statistics courses. These authors found higher
self-efficacy to successfully complete a statistics course among student participants who heard a
peer model describe ways in which she overcame statistics-related anxiety to successfully
complete the statistics course in which the participants were currently enrolled. Bartsch et al.
argued that a major reason that students’ statistics self-efficacy increased in this scenario was
because the peer model was very similar to the participants in terms of skill level and pre-
existing confidence to complete statistics-based tasks. Similarity between observer and model is
vital if a vicarious experience is to be a valuable source of information about the observer’s own
abilities (cf. Bandura, 1977).
