Self-Efficacy: Toward a Unifying Theory of Behavioral Change

• p. 1 Abstract

  vicarious experience, verbal persuasion, and physiological states

• p. 5 Sources of Efficacy Expectations, first paragraph (introducing Figure 2)

  persuasion, and physiological states. Figure 2

• p. 5 Figure 2, fourth source box

  EMOTIONAL AROUSAL

• p. 8 Run-in heading of the fourth subsection

  Emotional arousal.

Judge's note: Checked on the crops of pages 1, 5 and 8. The other three source names match between text, figure and headings. The subsection treats the terms as near-synonyms ("state of physiological arousal"), so this is a labelling inconsistency only and either term could be intended.

Second check: another model agreed

• p. 4 Section 'Dimensions of Efficacy Expectations'

  magnitude, generality, and strength of ef-

• p. 15 Method description of the microanalysis

  The level, strength, and generality of the

Judge's note: Checked on the crops of pages 4 and 15 and the abstract. A text search finds "magnitude" used for this dimension only where it is defined on page 4, and "level" in the empirical sections and figure captions. The definition ("when tasks are ordered in level of difficulty") makes the meaning recoverable, so this is a terminology inconsistency only.

Second check: another model agreed

• p. 17 Body text, left column, paragraph describing Figure 4

  In all conditions, the stronger the efficacy expectations, the higher was the likelihood that a particular task would be successfully completed.

• p. 17 Figure 4, left panel, MODELING (dashed) curve, bins 70-80 vs 90-100

  STRENGTH OF EFFICACY EXPECTATIONS

Judge's note: On the full page image the dashed modeling curve peaks near 1.0 at 70-80 and falls a little at 90-100, where the three curves converge at about 0.95. The dip is small, near ceiling, and read from a low-resolution plot, so its size is approximate. The sentence reads naturally as a statement of the overall trend, which does hold in every condition. I have not recorded the reviewer's plot readings as arithmetic because they are estimates.

Second check: another model agreed

• p. 1 Introduction, first paragraph, left column

  symbolically based experiences as the prin-ciple vehicle of change

• p. 1 Introduction, first paragraph

  symbolically based experiences as the prin-

• p. 1 Introduction, first paragraph, left column

  as the prin-ciple vehicle of change

• p. 1 Introduction, first paragraph

  principle vehicle of change

Judge's note: The crop shows the word broken as "prin-" / "ciple", so the printed word is "principle". The article uses "principal" correctly elsewhere ("four principal sources", "principal assumption").

Second check: none (judge only)

• p. 3 Section 'Efficacy Expectations as a Mechanism of Operation', first sentence

  cipal asssumption that psychological pro-

Judge's note: The crop of page 3 (right column, under the heading "Efficacy Expectations as a Mechanism of Operation") shows "asssumption" with three s's in print.

Second check: none (judge only)

• p. 4 Dimensions of Efficacy Expectations, end of first paragraph

  (Davison & Wilson, 1973, Lick & Bootzin,

• p. 4 Right column, end of 'Dimensions of Efficacy Expectations' first paragraph

  (Davison & Wilson, 1973, Lick & Bootzin, 1975)

Judge's note: The crop shows a comma after "1973". Elsewhere the article uses semicolons, for example "(Lick & Bootzin, 1975; Moore, 1965; Paul, 1966)" on page 8.

Second check: none (judge only)

• p. 6 Performance accomplishments, left column bottom

  (LoPicollo, 1970;

• p. 24 References

  LoPiccolo, J. Effective components of systematic

• p. 24 Reference list

  LoPiccolo, J. Effective components of systematic desensitization

Judge's note: Both spellings are visible on the crops. The year matches the Dissertation Abstracts International entry, so it is the same work. Which spelling is right cannot be settled from the files; the inconsistency is certain.

Second check: none (judge only)

• p. 6 Right column, paragraph on massive exposure

  produce results decidely superior to imagined

• p. 6 agoraphobia paragraph

  produce results decidely superior

• p. 13 Differing Perspectives, effectance theory paragraph

  Athough the theory of effectance motivation

Judge's note: The crop of page 6 shows "decidely". The "Athough" misspelling that one reviewer added to this cluster is judged under C009.

Second check: none (judge only)

• p. 13 Differing Perspectives on Self-efficacy, left column

  Athough the theory of effectance motivation

Judge's note: The crop of page 13 (left column) shows "Athough" with the l missing.

Second check: none (judge only)

• p. 14 Left column, paragraph beginning 'With the ascendency of cognitive views'

  Heneman, & Schwab, 1972

Judge's note: The crop shows the comma after "Heneman". Other two-author citations in the article have none ("Davison & Wilson", "Lick & Bootzin", "Stern & Marks").

Second check: none (judge only)

• p. 14 Left column, first paragraph

  which they will be asked to perform them

• p. 14 Left column, first paragraph

  which they will be asked to perform them.

Judge's note: Read on the crop. "Them" refers back to the singular "kind of behavior". The meaning is clear and a loose plural sense is arguable, so this is a minor grammatical point.

Second check: none (judge only)

• p. 18 Comparison of Self-efficacy and Dual-Process Theory, right column

  anxiety-reducing activities are at most facili-tory, not necessary, conditions

Judge's note: The crop shows "facili-" / "tory" across the line break. The printed form drops a syllable from "facilitatory"; it could be a typesetting slip or a nonstandard variant, hence an observation.

Second check: none (judge only)

• p. 18 Left column, paragraph 'The theory also accounts for variations'

  the modeling conditions had only brief ex-

Judge's note: Both forms are visible in the same paragraph on the crop. The experiment as described has one modeling condition and a separate participant modeling condition, and no second modeling condition is described. The meaning is not affected.

Second check: none (judge only)

• p. 20 Right column, microanalysis of desensitization results

  on 85% for all the tasks, and 83% for the

Judge's note: Read the crop: the printed words are "on 85% for all the tasks, and 83% for the subset of tasks that subjects were unable to perform". The "for" is parallel with "83% for the subset", so the stray word may be "on" rather than "for"; either way one word is wrong. Wording slip only; the figures are not affected.

Second check: none (judge only)

• p. 21 Right column, first paragraph

  at a 84% level of

• p. 21 Right column, end of the section before 'Concluding Remarks'

  of treatment predicted, at a 84% level of

Judge's note: Crop shows "at a 84% level of accuracy" as printed. Cosmetic.

Second check: none (judge only)

• p. 23 References, left column bottom

  Borkovec, T. D. The role of expectancy and physi-

• p. 23 References, left column bottom (next entry)

  Bootzin, R. R., Herman, C. P., & Nicassio, P. The

Judge's note: Full page image: the last two entries of the left column are Borkovec then Bootzin, consecutive and in that order, following Bolles. The rest of the list is alphabetical, so this is not a column-interleaving artefact.

Second check: none (judge only)

• p. 23 References, Gaupp, Stern, & Galbraith

  avoidance behavior Behavior Therapy, 1972, 3,

• p. 23 Reference list

  snake avoidance behavior Behavior Therapy,

Judge's note: Crop shows "avoidance behavior Behavior Therapy," with no point after the title, whereas neighbouring entries (Estes, Flanders) end the title with a full stop.

Second check: none (judge only)

• p. 23 References, Heneman & Schwab

  employee performance Psychological Bulletin,

Judge's note: Crop shows "employee performance Psychological Bulletin," with no point after "performance"; the other entries on the page have one.

Second check: none (judge only)

• p. 23 References, Howlett & Nawas

  Fensterheim, & C M. Franks (Eds.), Advances

• p. 23 Reference list

  Fensterheim, & C M. Franks (Eds.)

Judge's note: Crop shows "& C M. Franks" with no point after C, while the other editors in the same entry are "R. D. Rubin, A. A. Lazarus, H. Fensterheim". The scan is of modest resolution, but no mark is visible where neighbouring points print clearly.

Second check: none (judge only)

• p. 24 References, Sherman

  Sherman, A. R., Real-life exposure as a primary

Judge's note: Crop shows "Sherman, A. R., Real-life exposure". Other single-author entries on the page ("Schachter, S. The interaction", "Ritter, B. The use", "Rotter, J. B. Generalized") have no comma.

Second check: none (judge only)

• p. 24 References, Ross, Rodin, & Zimbardo

  Ross, L., Rodin, J., & Zimbardo, P. T. Toward an

Only the authors can say what is right here.

Judge's note: Rests on outside knowledge: that the third author of the 1969 Journal of Personality and Social Psychology paper is Philip G. Zimbardo, so the initials should be "P. G.". The crop clearly shows "Zimbardo, P. T."; nothing in the files gives the author's initials elsewhere (the text cites only "Ross, Rodin, & Zimbardo, 1969"), so the fact cannot be verified here.

Second check: none (judge only)