This article was downloaded by: [University of Cambridge]On: 12 November 2014, At: 09:31Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

The Journal for Specialists inGroup WorkPublication details, including instructions for authorsand subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/usgw20

Generalized self-efficacyexpectancies and optimismas predictors of growth groupoutcomesOwen Richard Lightsey Jr aa Department of Counseling , The University ofMemphis , TennesseePublished online: 31 Jan 2008.

To cite this article: Owen Richard Lightsey Jr (1997) Generalized self-efficacyexpectancies and optimism as predictors of growth group outcomes, The Journal forSpecialists in Group Work, 22:3, 189-202, DOI: 10.1080/01933929708414380

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01933929708414380

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, orsuitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressedin this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not theviews of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content shouldnot be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions,claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilitieswhatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connectionwith, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly

forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

09:

31 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

Generalized Self-Eff icacy Expectancies and Optimism as Predictors of Growth

Group Outcomes Owen Richard Lightsey, Jr,

In this study, optimism, generalized self-eficacy, and interactions between these variables and member expectancies for group were examined as pre- dictors of growth group outcomes. The ability of initial expectancies topre- dict outcome depended on the level of generalized self-eflcacy,

Recent studies have revealed that psycho- logical strengths such as self-efficacy are enhanced by group counseling and may contribute to counseling outcomes, For ex- ample, varied counseling groups have re- sulted in greater physical self-efficacy and less depression among older, retired persons (Davis-Berman, Berman, & Faris, 1995). higher self-efficacy and reduced panic at- tacks among adults with panic disorders (Telch et al., 1993). and greater weight-con- trol self-efficacy, self-esteem, and weight loss among women trying to control their weight (Lewis, Blair, & Booth, 1992).

Enhanced self-efficacy helps foster other p s i tive effects. Coping self-efficacy that was enhanced via group interventions has been associated with less postabortion depression and better postabortion adjust- ment (Mueller & Major, 1989). Highly specific self-efficacy expectancies also have predicted noncounseling outcomes; for example, self-efficacy expectancies concerning the abilities to stop smoking, withstand pain, and complete the tasks

Owen Richrd Lightsq, Jc is un assistant pro- fessor in the D c p a ~ t m c ~ ~ of Coumeling. Educa- tional Psychology, and Research nt The Univer- sity of Memphis, Tennessee. The author thanks George Relyea ond Ernesr R u b w for their ad- vice in regard to stcrtisrical analyses. Cormspun- dcnce regarding this article should be sent to Richard Lightsey, 100 Ball Building. The Uni- versity of Memphu. Memphis. TN 38152 (e-mail address: lightsscy.richazd@coe.mcmphis.edu).

necessary to make career decisions predict smoking cessation (Colletti, Supnick. & Payne, 1983, length of time enduring pain (Bandura, O’Leary, Taylor, Gauthier, & Gossard, 1987) and career indecision (Tay- lor & Betz. 1983), respectively. Specific self-efficacy expectancies seem to achieve their influence by affecting both willing- ness to engage in behaviors and tenacity of attempts to master behaviors (Bandura, 1982).

GENERAL EXPECTANCIES AND GROUP COUNSELING There is a growing awareness, however, that specific expectancies may not predict outcome in novel situations. Clients who are new to group counseling, for example, are unlikely to have clear expectancies about their ability to complete the tasks that lead to successful group outcome. In such new situations, general or rruit-like expectancies rather than specific expect- ancies may be particularly influential (Lit& 1988; Scheier & Carver, 1985).

Prominent theorists have argued that trait-like positive beliefs may contribute to healthy personality adjustment (Beck, 1967) and foster well-being (Bandura, 1989). In theory, hait-like expectancies, including dispositional optimism (a general expect- ancy of favorable outcomes) and general- ized self-efficacy (a general belief in one’s ability to persevere even in the face of

The Journal fix Specialists in Group Work Volume 22, Number 3, September 1997, 189-202

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

09:

31 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

190 LICHTSEY

adversity), affect positive outcomes both in new situations and across many differ- ent settings by promoting effort expendi- ture (Lightsey, 1996; Scheier & Carver, 1985). Indeed, vigorous mastery of chronic stressors appears to produce lasting immu- nological changes and a general sense of coping efficacy that helps protect against a wide range of psychological stressors (Wiedenfeld et al., 1990).

Recent empirical studies support the importance of optimism and generalized self-efficacy. For example, optimism has predicted physical recovery following coronary bypass surgery (Scheier et al., 1989) and post-parturn depression (Carver & Gaines, 1987). and generalized self- efficacy has predicted future depression (Olioff, Bryson, & Wadden, 1989), both directly and through an interaction with stress (Lightsey, in press; Lightsey & Chris- topher, in press). In toto, initial evidence suggests that these trait-like expectancies are important in stress-coping and well- being. Generaiized self-efficacy and dis- positional optimism also may help to shape group counseling outcomes, particularly in early stages of group or for clients new to group counseling, for whom ambigu- ity and anxiety are high.

Despite empirical findings of these vari- ables’ importance, however, there is little or no research on the role of optimism or generalized self-efficacy in individual or group counseling. This deficit is particu- larly striking in light of predictions made by prominent group therapists (e.g., Yalom, 1985) that mobilization of hope may be one of the primary therapeutic factors in group psychotherapy. As de- picted by Ydom, hope is similar both to self-efficacy and optimism:

Research substantiates that it is also vitally important that therapists believe in them- sclvts and in thc efficacy of their group. . , . In my initial individual meetings with patients. I share this Conviction with them and attempt to imbue them with my opti- mism. (Yalom. 1985, p. 7)

Ascertaining the particular type of be- lief that enhances group therapy outcome is very important to the practicing group counselor. For example. if generalized self- efficacy is found to predict outcomes but optimism is not, counselors may enhance outcomes most by helping clients to aug- ment beliefs about their own tenacity or perseverance across situations. If, on the other hand, optimism is found to predict outcomes but generalized self-efficacy is not, counselors may be better advised to help the client develop more positive views of his or her personal future,

Of course, over the last four decades, many other psychological factors, includ- ing initial expectancies €or improvement, learned resourcefulness, and extraversion, have been examined as predictors of therapy outcomes. Results have been in- consistent: Such factars have been related to therapy outcomes in some studies but not others (see Garfield, 1994, for a sum- mary of this research). In light of differing results regarding expectancies, Garfield (1994) recommended that “future research will have to specify more precisely the types of expectancies under investigation, and also consider the possible interaction of different kinds of expectancies and the interaction of expectancies wi th other variables” (p. 216).

PURPOSE AND HYPOTHESES

Unlike prior studies. this study heeds Garfield’s ( I 994) recommendations by specifying the types of expectancies to be investigated (optimism, generalized self- efficacy, and initial expectancies of growth groups) and by analyzing interactions between different kinds of expectancies (i.e., the optimism x initial expectancies interaction, and the generalized self- efficacy x initial expeaancia interaction). Study of such expectancy effects is par- ticularly timely for group counselors in light of the increasing emphasis on group counseling, and in light of observations

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

09:

31 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

GENERALUED SELF-EFFICACY EXPECTANCIES 191

that researchers have failed to focus on aspects of the healthy personality (Gelso & Fassinger, 1992). Administration of multiple predictors in a single study has been advocated by several authors, be- cause it allows one to ascertain relation- ships among predictors and to explore theoretically meaningful interactions (Friedman & Booth-KewIey, 1987; Robbins. Spence, & Clark, 1991).

The purpose of this study, then, was to ascertain whether optimism and general- ized self-efficacy, and interactions of these variables with initial expectancies con- cerning group, predict outcome in growth groups. This study differs from previous studies of psychological factors and group counseling outcome in several ways. First, this study used well-validated and widely used measures of theoretically-based traits. Second, measures of two potential predic- tors-optimism and generalized self- efficacy-were included. Third, because outcomes as measured by different sources often vary (Garfield, 1994), several out- come indices (i.e., ratings by group mern- bers, group facilitators, and facilitator su- pervisor, as well as measures of dysphoria and happiness) were used. Fourth, in line with Garfield’s (1 994) recommendation, outcome expectancies specific to the par- ticuIar group were also assessed. This al- lowed determination of whether general- ized selfefficacy and optimism predicted unique variance in outcomes above the variance accounted for by group-specific expectancies. Fifth, as recommended by Garfield (1 994), interactions of initial expectancies with traits were examined. On the basis of prior findings eoncern-

ing the predictive ability of optimism and generalized self-efficacy (e.g.. Carver h Gaines, 1987; Lightsey, in press), it was hypothesized that these constructs would predict participant outcomes in group counseling. Specifically, higher optimism and generalized self-efficacy were pre- dicted to be’associated with better growth group outcomes. It was also hypothesized

that the generalized self-efficacy x initial counseling expectancies interaction, and the optimism x initial counseling expect- ancies interaction would predict unique variance in outcomes. More concretely, it was predicted that among persons with higher generalized self-efficacy or opti- mism, initial expectancies of group would not be highly predictive of outcomes, whereas among persons with low gener- alized self-efficacy or optimism, initiai counseling expectancies would be more strongly associated with outcomes. This hypothesis is based on the idea that per- sons who have high expectancies of them- selves and outcomes in general would persevere and reap more benefits from particular situations (such as a growth group) even in the face of initial lower expectancies for group. Persons with lower expectancies of themselves and general outcomes would be prone to rely on spe- cific expectancies to a greater degree; thus, specific expectancies would predict out- comes for such persons.

METHOD

Participants

Twenty-two participants from a master’s level group process course participated in the study. Three persons were absent dur- ing the first or second testing session, leav- ing a total sample of 19. Mean age of the sample was 3 1.77 (SD - 9.57) with a range of 22.07 to 49.48. Sixteen participants were white, 2 were African-American, and 1 was Asian-Indian. Because of the small size, bootstrapping analyses (Efron & Tibshirani, 1993) were conducted to assess stability of regression coefficients.

Instruments

The Beck Depression Invenrwy (BDI; Beck, Rush, Shaw, & Emery, 1979). The 21-item BDI measures syndrome depression or dysphoria (KenW, Hollon, Beck, Harnmen, & Ingram, 1987). BDI items are scored from

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

09:

31 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

192 LICHTSEY

0 to 3, with 3 signifying more dysphoria; item ratings are summed to produce a to- tal score. Mean alpha coefficient across nine studies was -86; test-retest reliabil- ity estimates of .90 and .62 have been re- ported over 2 weeks and 4 months, respec- tively, with undergraduates (Beck, Steer, & Garbin, 1988). The BDI has been found reliable and valid as a measure of depres- sion in college students (Bumberry. Oliver, 8~ McClure, 1978). Participants completed the BDI immediately prior to their first group session, and immediately after the final session.

The Huppiness Measures (WM; Fordyce. 1988). The HM, a self-report measure of emotional well-being or happiness. con- sists of two items: an 1 1-point Likert scale measuring happiness, which ranges from 0 (extremely unhappy) to 10 (extremely h p p y ) , and an estimate of the percentage of time spent happy, unhappy, and neutral, respectively. Diener (1984) cited evidence that, compared to other measures of well- being, the HM has strong correlations to daily affect and life satisfaction. Test-re- test coefficients of the HM range from -98 over 2 days, .86 or -88 over 2 weeks, and -81 over 1 month (Fordyce, 1988). Because of its stronger reliability and validity, the combination score ([scale score x 10 + happy 961 12) was used in this study. Par- ticipants completed the HM immediately prior to their first group session, and im- mediately after the find session.

Client Evaluation of Therapy Form (CET; Cragen & DeRenbacher, 1984). The CYST, a self-report measure of group out- come, consists of four questions answered on a 7-point Likert scale. In the current study, questions were phrased to tap reac- tions to a “growth group” rather than a “therapy group.” Members are asked to rate “Group leader’s interest in the group mem- bers,” “Clearness of the group leader’s communications with the group,” “HOW much did the group leader express an ex- pectation that the growth group is effec- tive,” and “How helpful was this growth

group for you?” Key words that anchor the scale differ across items and range from 1 (highly uninreresred, highly unclear, never, and nor at al2; anchors for each question, respectively) to 7 (highly inrer- ested, highly clear. very much, and ex- tremely helpful). In addition, members were asked to state what was most helpful and Ieast helpful about the group, and what they would change about the group. In this study, both the summed score of these items and the final question were used as outcome indices. The CET was completed about two to three weeks after the final group session. Facilitator and Facilitator-Supervisor

Outcome Ratings. Each facilitator was instructed to rate both outcome for each individual member and the overall group outcome on 7-point Likert scale that ranged from complerely unsuccessful to complerely successjid. The facilitator su- pervisor also rated clients in this scale. This scale was administered about 2 to 3 weeks after the termination of groups.

The Generalized Self-Eficacy Scale (SES; T i p n & Wolthington, 1984). The l0-item SES measures general or transsituational perceived self-efficacy. Item content taps “one’s willingness and determination to initiate and tenaciously stay with an un- dertaking in the face of physical a n d or emotional adversity” (Tipton & Worthington, 1984, p. 546). Representa- tive items include. “Once I set my mind to a task almost nothing can stop me,” and “Nothing is impossible if I. really put my mind to it.” Items are rated on a 7-point Likert scale that ranges from completely disagree to completely agree. Under- graduates who were high in generalized self-efficacy were able to perform tasks and modify troublesome behaviors more readily than students low in generalized self-efficacy. The SES, which has predicted subsequent dysphoria (Olioff et al., 1989). was completed immediately prior to their fmt group session and immediately after the final session.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

09:

31 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

GENERALIZED SELF-EFFICACY EXPECTANCIES 193

The Life Orientation Test (LOT; Scheier & Carver, 1985). The LOT, a &item self-

10. I think my group will be an unpleas- ant experience.

report instrument (not including 4 “filler” items), measures dispositional optimism, defined as a generalized tendency to ex- pect favorable outcomes. Representative LOT items include “In uncertain times, I usuaIly expect the best,” and “I always look on the bright side of things.” Cronbach’s alpha was -76. and test-retest reliability over 4 weeks was .79. Mean LOT score for undergraduates (357 men and 267 women) was 21.03 (SD - 5.22) (Scheier & Carver, 1985). LOT score has predicted future depression (Carver & Gaines. 1987) and recovery from coronary bypass surgery (Scheier et al., 1989), and has had moder- ate correlations to related constructs such as self-esteem (Scheier & Carver, 1985). The LOT was completed immediately prior to their first group session and immedi- ately after the final session.

The Counseling Questionnaire. This measure of initial member expectancies for the group was designed for this study. The Counseling Questionnaire consisted of 10 questions answered on a 7-point Likert scale that ranged from very fake to very rnre. Items included the following (items 2 , 8 , and 10 were reverse-scored. with an answer of 7 being set to 1, and answer of 6 being set to 2, etc.).

1. I believe that I have what it takes to do well in my group.

2. I seriously doubt that my grmp will help me.

3. I think I’ll feel better as a result of my group-

4. I believe that my group can help me to function better.

5 . I am confident that the group facili- tator can understand me.

6. I believe the group facilitator can help me.

7. I think I will be improved as a result of my group.

8. My group won’t help me much. 9. I think I’ll learn a lot as a result of my

group.

Coefficient alpha for this scale was .90; mean inter-item correlation was .48, and the corrected item-total correlations ranged from .51 to 34, with a mean of .66. Corre- lations of the total score with other vari- ables typicaIly were not significant; however, the Counseling Questionnaire summed score was significantly correlated with time 1 generalized self-efficacy. r - -46, p - -02. The small N figure in this study did not permit a reliable factor analysis. The Counseling Questionnaire was admin- istered immediately prior to the fust group session.

Procedure Volunteers were recruited from a master’s level group counseling course at an urban, southern university. The research project was described in general terms in class by the instructor (the study’s author} as in- volving exploration of the relationship between personal characteristics and growth group processes. Class members were informed that they would receive 5 points of class extra credit for filling out instruments on two occasions, but that their answers on the questionnaires and the nature of their participation in group were in no way related to their class evalu- ations or grade.

Volunteers were randomly assigned to one of four growth groups that were led according to the Yalom interpersonal model (Yalom, 1985) described in the €01- lowing. Such class groups for counselors- in-training have been a mainstay of group research (e.g., Kivlighan & Goldfine. 1991). Ethical issues related to participa- tion in groups (a CACREP requirement for counselor-trainees). videotaping of ses- sions, the nature and qualifications of fa- cilitators, confidentiality, and research par- ticipation were thoroughly discussed.

Volunteers first signed a consent form and completed a demographics question-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

09:

31 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

194 LIGHTSEY

naire. Participants completed instruments used in the present study and additional instruments in their groups immediately prior to the first group session and again immediately after the final session (ap- proximately 1 1 weeks later). Approxi- mately 2 to 3 weeks after the completion of the growth groups, members were asked to complete an overall rating of their out- come in group. Following completion of all instruments, participants were given a debriefing form.

Growthllkaining Group Intervention

All groups were Ied by doctoral counsel- ing psychology students who were in- training as group leaders. Two groups were co-led by a male student and a female stu- dent, and one was Ied by two female stu- dents. One group was led by a single maIe leader. Two groups had five members and two groups had six members.

An attempt was made to match cothera- pis& on the basis of experience; leaders with a good deal of experience in leading groups were matched with leaders who had less experience. Therapists were matched to groups on the basis of whether their schedule matched the time of particular group meetings, and whether they had prior professional or personal relationships with participants in the groups (leaders were not assigned to groups containing members with whom they had prior relationships).

All groups were led on the basis of the Yalom (1985) model. Therapists were taught to emphasize initial goal-setting and process interventions, with norms of “here and now” exploration, expression of immediate feeling, specific behavioral feedback, and process commentary about occurrences and patterns in group. De- tailed description of this model may be obtained in Yalom (1985).

However, because the group was for training purposes and was a class require-

ment, it was stressed that members were free to discuss as much or as little as they wished and that, although members typi- cally did not discuss deep personal prob- lems, members who risked by disclosing more about their immediate reactions in group tended to find the groups most help- ful. “Deep” persona1 problems typically were not broached in the groups: learn- ing about group dynamics, and personal growth-rather than overall personality change-were the aims.

Each session was videotaped, and por- tions of each videotape were viewed by the instructor. The class instructor met with each dyad of supervisors for one hour per week to refine their skills and ensure a p propriate interventions with group mem- bers. In addition, leaders played videotape clips and “staffed” their groups in weekly class discussions. Although each therapist developed a particular style, all used here- and-now interventions and process com- mentary as described by YaIom (1 985). To comply with ethical standards, group mem- bers received points merely for attending group and not for amount or t y p of par- ticipation. Furthermore, students were in- structed to put random numbers rather than names on all class assignments, which ensured “blind,” objective grading.

Statistical Analyses

Hierarchical multiple regression (Cohen & Cohen, 1983) was used to analyze re- sults. As Cohen and Cohen (1983) argued, “even without a fully specified model, the hierarchical procedure is useful for extract- ing as much causal inference as the data allow’’ (p. 121). In this parametric data analytic procedure, predictors are force- entered sequentially. The test of the R’ increment associated with each subse- quent predictor thereby reflects the predictor’s unique contribution to predic- tion of the dependent variable, with con- founding variance of all previously en-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

09:

31 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

GENERALIZED SELF-EFFICACY EXPECTANCIES 195

tered predictors removed. Cross-product terms of counseling expectancies with generalized self-efficacy and optimism, respectively, served as interaction terms (Cohen & Cohen. 1983). Mathematically, such cross-products carry the interaction (Cohen & Cohen, 1983).

RESULTS

This study was designed to ascertain whether optimism and generalized self- efficacy, and interactions of these variables with initial expectancies concerning group, predicted outcome in growth groups. Table

1 presents results of selected regression analyses,

Optimism as a Predictor of Group Outcome

Contrary to predictions, optimism was not associated with better growth group out- comes. For example, optimism predicted neither member-rated helpfulness of group, R2 change - .01, F(1, 14) = .16, p > .69; leader ratings of member outcomes, R2 change = .Ol, F(1, 15) = .08, p > .77; nor supervisor ratings of member outcomes, RZ change - .03, F( 1, 15) = .46, p > S O .

TABLE 1

Hierarchical Multiple Regression Results

Varfa ble RsqCh FCh P Betaln B

Regression 1: DV = Helpfulness

T1 initial expectancies T l generalized self-efficacy Expectancies self-efficacy

Regression 2: DV .I Supervisor rating

T1 initial expectancies 1 1 generalized self-efficacy Expectancies self-efficacy

Regression 3: DV I Time 2 happiness T1 happiness T I initial expectancies TI generalized self-efficacy Expectancies self-efficacy

Regression 4: DV = Time 2 dysphoria T1 Beck Depression

T1 expectancies T i generalized self-efficacy Expectancies self-efficacy

of group

of member outcome

Inventory

.02

.oo -26

-07 -01 -33

-26 .06 .04 .08

.59 -02 .OO .oo

.31 -07

4.78

.92

.07 5.64

5.40 1-24 .80

t .74

21.72 .n .02 .M

.58 -80 -05

-36 -80 -04

.04 -28 .39 21

.oo

.40 -88 -90

.14

6.45 .oa

.27

.09 6.71

.51

.25 -2 1 3.60

.n -1 5 -.03

2 8

-.a5 -.67

.02

-.9 1 -.80 .02

.44 -3.88 -2 -93 .08

.71 -.01 -.15

.oo Note. DV - dependent variable; T1 I Testing 1; I interaction term; RsqCh - Ff change asso- ciated with each entered variable at the step entered; FCh I Fchange associated with entry of each variable at the step entered: p = significance of the F change; Betaln = standardized Beta for each entered variable at the step entered; p L unstandardiied regression coefftient at the final step.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

09:

31 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

1% LIGHTSEY

The Interaction of Optimism and InitiaI Member Outcome Expect- ancies as a Predictor of Group Outcome The optimism x initial outcome expect- ancies interaction did not predict group outcomes. For example, this interaction predicted neither member ratings of group helpfulness, R2 change = .21, F( 1. 13) =

3.60, p - -08, leader ratings of particular member outcomes, R’ change - .05, F(1, 14) - .75. p > -40; or supervisor ratings of member outcomes, R2 change - .08. F(1, 14) - 1.23. p > .28.

Generalized SeM-Efficacy as a Predictor of Group Outcome

Generalized self-efficacy predicted neither member-rated helpfulness of group, R2 change - .OO, F( 1, 14) = .07,p > .79, leader- rated outcomes of members, R2 change - .15, F(1, 15) - 2.76, p > .I 1, nor supervi- sor-rated outcomes of members, R2 change

The Interaction of Generalized Self-Efficacy and Initial Member Outcome Expectancies as a Predictor of Group Outcome As expected. the generalized self-efficacy x initial outcome expectancies interaction predicted significant incremental variance in overall member rating of group help- fulness, R2 change - -26, F[ 1, 13) - 4.78, p < .05, and supervisor rating of group outcome, R2 change - -33, F( 1, 10) - 5.64, p c .04, although contrary to predictions, it did not predict leader rating of member outcomes, R2 change - .OO, F( 1. 14) = .OO, p > .97. The direction of the significant interactions, however, was contrary to the hypotheses. For persons with higher gen- eralized self-efficacy, initial counseling expectancies were positively associated with outcomes. For persons with lower generalized self-efficacy, initial counsel-

- .03, F(1, 15) = SO, p > .49.

ing expectancies were negatively associ- ated with outcomes.

Table 2 presents Pearson correlations, which were conducted pairwise in order to maximize the number in each group for each correlation. The correlation between self-efficacy and optimism was not signifi- cant, r = .14, p - ,252. Initial counseling expectancies were significantly correlated with generalized self-efficacy; neither generalized self-efficacy. optimism, nor initial counseling expectancies were cor- related with any outcome measure.

Because of the small number of partici- pants, bootstrapping was used to ascertain whether regression coefficients were un- biased. A powerful technique, bootstrapping is commonly used in medical studies with small sample sizes to estimate stability of regression coefficients (Efron & Tibshirani, 1993). Two different methods of boot- strapping (drawing samples from identical normalized residuals, and resampling from the XY pair with replacement) with 200 and loo0 replications were used.

The first method revealed that obtained regression estimates seemed unbiased, Spe- cifically. the coefficients obtainsd in the first bootstrapping method with 200 replications were -37 for the Counseling Questio~aire and -A9 for the SES. which are very similar to coefficients of -.85 and -.67 (respectively) obtained in actual regressions.

Using the resampling method, coefficients for both the Counseling Questionnaire and the GSE Scale increased substantially in magnitude (-1.13 and -.87. respectively), whereas the interaction remained similar ( -37) . Confidence intervals for the resampling bootstrap method indicated a 95% chance that the true unbiased estima- tors would fall between -1.61 and -.32 for the Counseling Questionnaire, -1.28 and -.23 for the SES, and .006 and .03 for the interaction tern. The second method indicated, then, that

ccefficients associated with the Counsel- ing Questionnaire aIso would have been significant {i.e., that such results may be

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

09:

31 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

TAB

LE 2

Cor

rela

tions

Inst

rum

ents

1

2 3

4 6

6 7

8

1. 1

1 S

elf-e

ffics

cy

- .I

4 .4

6 .2

3 .o

1 .1

2 -.07

-.32

n 19

$

9

17

17

17

18

18

.287

.023

.1 a4

.486

.3

24

.385

-095

-

.26

.61

-.22

.I4

.2

1 .0

9 P n

19

17

17

17

18

18

,143

.005

.198

.2

9 1

,206

.368

-

.1 9

.2

8 .1

4 .1

8 .0

6 P n

17

17

17

18

18

,237

,1

40

.292

,2

40

.414

-

-.46

.14

.11

.33

P n 24

21

19

19

.0

11

,273

,332

.084

-

.06

.11

-.I3

P n 21

19

19

P

.405

.3

41

.298

n 19

19

P

-000

-313

n 20

2. T

I op

timis

m

3. T

1 ex

pect

ancy

4. T

2 ha

ppin

ess

5. T

2 de

pres

sion

6. M

embe

r .8

0 .1

2 -

outc

ome

ratin

g

7. S

uper

viso

r ou

t- co

me r

atin

g -

.46

P .020

ratin

g n

-

8. L

eade

r out

com

e

-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

09:

31 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

198 LIGHTSEY

similar to the bootstrap results) if a larger sampIe size had been used. In general, the resampling method indicated that coeffi- cients associated with main effects were biased in magnitude but not in direction (that is, positive coefficients would have remained positive and negative coeffi- cients would have remained negative with a larger sample size). Results were highly similar when bootstrapping was used to test coefficients in the regression with supervisor ratings of members as the de- pendent variable.

Overall, both techniques indicated that the interaction effect is significant and unbiased and would remain significant if larger samples were used.

DISCUSSION

This study was designed to test whether optimism or generalized self-efficacy pre- dicted unique variance in a variety of out- come indices, over the predictive ability of specific outcome expectancies. Consis- tent with one major trend in the therapy outcome literature? neither variable pre- dicted any outcome measure directly. Only prior dysphoria directly predicted future dysphoria. and only initial happiness di- rectly predicted future happiness.

Two important interactions were signifi- cant, however. The self-efficacy x initial expectancies interaction predicted both member rating of group helpfulness and supervisor rating of member outcome. Graphing these interactions revealed that persons who had either high generalized self-efficacy and high initial expectancies, or persons who had low initial expectan- cies and low generalized self-efficacy had higher rated outcomes than persons who had low generalized self-efficacy and high expectancies, or high generalized self-ef- ficacy and low expectancies. In other words, for persons with high generalized self-efficacy, initial growth group expect- ancies were positively associated with outcomes. For persons with lower gener-

alized self-efficacy, initial growth group expectancies were negatively associated with outcomes. How might these findings be explained?

If persons have both high self-efficacy and high expectancies for the group, they may be willing to exert themselves and stay tenaciously with the valued group task, thus reaping their anticipated outcomes. On the contrary, persons low in self-effi- cacy-who believe they have neither the ability nor the tenacity to succeed, and whose beliefs stern largely from previous failure experiences-may not have the skills or tenacity to succeed in a highly valued task. That is, when attempting to reap positive outcomes they deem pos- sible, they may become demoralized when they encounter difficulties and may then cease their efforts, which leads to low rated outcomes. In a similar vein, those with high self-efficacy but low expectancies of group may not see expenditure of effort as worthwhile, given the probability that the group itself may not be successful. Therefore, outcome ratings are lower. Per- sons low both in self-efficacy and group expectancies may have relatively high seIf-rated outcomes because-due to his- tories of failure and low outcome ex- pectancies-they consider any nonpainful outcome a success. In other words, these persons may engage in “setf-handicap- ping” as a self-worth strategy.

Reasons for higher supervisor ratings of outcome for this latter group are less a p parent. Perhaps, as suggested by Garfield (1 994), these persons’ expectancies for group are raised after the initial sessions. Still, generalized self-efficacy. a trait-like characteristic, probably would remain low, and persons who had higher expectancies for group but low self-efficacy tended to have poorer outcomes. Alternatively, per- haps these persons were initially perceived by the supervisor as less likely to succeed and received higher success ratings be- cause they achieved beyond their appar- ent potential,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

09:

31 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

Of course, these interactions predicted only supervisor and member outcome rat- ings, not facilitator outcome ratings. How may this be explained? The literature il- lustrates that different outcome indices often result in divergent outcome judg- ments (e.g.. Horenstein, Houston, ’& Holmes, 1973). Indeed, the correlation between member ratings of group helpful- ness and the mean group leader rating of member outcome was .22,p - -18, although some individual leaders’ ratings closely cor- responded to member ratings. Thus, it is not surprising that hypotheses were sup- ported for some outcome indices but not for others.

There was, additionally, a nonsignifi- cant correlation between coleader ratings of member outcome across groups, r - .32, p - .08. Correlations between cofacilitator ratings of member outcomes within groups varied widely, .77 (p = .06) for group 1, .35 (p = .28) for group 2, and .31 (p = 31) for group 4. This lack of agreement among leaders contributed to the nonsignificant relationships between facilitator-rated outcomes and member-rated outcomes, and to the varied results in regressions with different dependent variables.

In contrast, group supervisor ratings of member outcome correlated at .80, (p - .OOO) with member ratings of group help fulness. One possible expianation for this is that, due to greater experience, the group supervisor had more perspective regard- ing what constituted a successful outcome and thus was able to match member self- perceptions closely. This correspondence may be partly responsible for similar fmd- ings with supervisor and member ratings.

Initial expectancies and generalized sense of self-efficacy, then, may play a joint role in outcome of groups. Persons whose initial expectancies more closely match their generalized self-efficacy may tend to have better outcomes. Prior studies that have measured only main effects of ini- tial expectancies may have missed such significant interactions.

Limitations and Implications

Of course, further significant results may have been masked by the small sample size and consequent lack of statistical power. Similarly, pre-post change scores may have been slight due to the relatively healthy and stable graduate student sample and the small number of sessions. Small changes may have made it unlikely that either main effects or interactions would be significant. However, bootstrap- ping analyses indicated that coefficients associated with significant interactions were stable and would have been similar had larger samples been used.

The fact that groups were part of a class, and that participants were evaluated in the class, may have circumscribed motivation and participation and thereby limited degree of change. Finally, the fact that some leaders were in-training and less then optimally effective in groups may have resuIted in lower than expected outcomes, even for optimistic or highly self-effica- cious members. The fact that the general- ized self-efficacy x initial expectancies in- teraction was significant in two regressions despite these limitations, however, sug- gests that results may be robust. General- ized self-efficacy may have important ef- fects on outcome in group counseling.

Of course, my knowledge of hypotheses of the study, given my supervision of group leaders and teaching of the mem- bers, conceivably could have contributed to the high comelation between my ratings of member outcome and member self-rat- ings of outcome, and to the overall results. It should be noted, however, that 3 did not know individual members’ or leaders’ scores on any instruments; therefore, my ability to influence results would have been limited at best.

Given current results and prior literature, counselors would do well to assess mem- bers’ generalized self-efficacy prior to in- stilling particular expectancies. For per- sons high in generalized, uait-like self-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

09:

31 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

200 LICHTSEY

efficacy, enhancing the client’s expectancies for group may lead to better outcomes. Coun- selors may foster such positive client ex- pectancies in several ways: expressing con- fidence in the group’s ability to help the client (without, of course, guaranteeing results), explaining reasons for the power and effectiveness of groups, and provid- ing positive reinforcement for early con- tributions in group. This last step also may help to foster clients’ belief that they can do what is necessary to reap the benefits of group; that is, it may foster specific ef- ficacy expectancies.

Instilling excessively high expectancies for group may result in more negative out- comes for persons low in generalized self- efficacy, however. Due to life experiences. such persons may have learned that they do not have the tenacity to complete val- ued tasks. Thus, fostering moderate expect- ancies that are not too removed from their experiences may be called for. Both pregroup screenings and early group ses- sions provide opportunities for the coun- selor to shape member expectations.

Of course. this formulation is likely to be simplistic. Generalized self-efficacy beliefs may be modifiable through single, powerful mastery experiences or through a series of lesser mastery experiences in valued realms. Group counseling has the capacity to alter efficacy beliefs, and in- deed this could be construed as one goal of groups. Growth in generalized self-ef- ficacy may give rise to higher expectan- cies for group, and both may work syner- gistically to foster therapeutic change and better outcomes.

The present results suggest that more complex, interactive modeIs of group outcome may be more viable than simple, main effects models. Future researchers of group counseling outcome would do well to routinely assess efficacy x expectancy interactions, as well as other important in- teractions. Of course. when replicating or extending current results, researchers should also strive to assess actual coun-

seling groups and to obtain larger samples. Because generalized self-efficacy is mal- leable (e.g., Eden & KiMar, 199 l), it is also vital to assess whether experimentally-in- duced changes in generalized self-efficacy result in better group counseling out- comes. Only such experimental studies can assess whether changes in generalized self- efficacy actually cause improvement.

This study suggests that generalized self-efficacy and initial expectancies for group may jointly affect outcomes of growth groups. More sophisticated tests of this possibility await future studies.

REFERENCES

Bandura. A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37,

Bandura. A. ( I 989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. Amcricnn Psychologist. 44.

Bandura. A.. O’Leary. A.. Taylor, C. 3.. Gauthicr, J.. & Gossard. D. (1987). Perceived self-effi- cacy and pain control: Opioid and nonopioid mediators. Journal of Personality and Social

Beck, A. T. (I%?. Depression: Ctinical, experi- mcnral, and thcorcrical uspects. New York: Harper & Row.

Beck, A. T., Rush. A. J.. Shaw. B. E. & Emery. G. (1979). Cognitive therapy of depression. New York: Guilford.

Beck. A. T., Steer, R. A.. & Garbin. M. G. (1988). Psychometric properties of the Beck Depres- sion Inventory: Twenty-five years of evalua- tion. Clinical Psychoiogy Kcview, 8. 77-100.

Bumberry, W.. Oliver, J. M., & McClrur. J. (1978). Validation of the Beck Depression Tnventory in a university population using psychiatric estimate as a criterion. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46, 150-155.

Carver. C. S., & Gaincs. J. G. (1987). Optimism. pessimism. and postpartum depression. Cog- nitive Therapy and Research. II. 449-462.

Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regressionlcorrelation atuiiysis for the bchuv- ioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdak, NJ: Erlbaum.

Colleni, G., Supnick, J. A., & Paynt, T. J. (1985). The Smoking Self-Efficacy Questionnaire

122- 147.

1175-1 184.

Psychology. 53, 563-571.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

09:

31 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

GENERALIZED SELF-EFFICACY KXPECTANCIES 20 1

(SSEQ): Preliminary scale development and validation. Behuvwrai Assessmenf, 7. 249-260.

Cragen, M. K., & Deffcnbachtr. J. L. (1984). Anxiety management training and relaxation as self-control in the treatment of generaliztd anxiety in medical outpatients. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 31, 123- 13 1.

Davis-Berman, J.. Berman, D., & Faris, R. (1995). Lifestories: Discussions on death using adven- ture-based activities. Acfivit ics, Adaptation and Aging, 19, 55-63.

Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psy- chological Bulletin. 95. 542-575.

Eden, D.. & K i . J. (1991). Modeling Gdatea: Boosting self-efficacy to increase volunteering. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76. 77C780.

Efron, B., & Tibshirani. R. J. (1993). An intro- duction to rhe boorsrrap. New York: Chapman & Hall.

Fordyce, M W. (1988). A review of research on the Happiness Measures: A sixty second in- dex of happiness and mental health. Social Indicators Research, 20. 355-381.

Friedman. H. S., h Booth-Kewley. S. (1987). The ”diseaseprone personality”: A mela-ma- lytic view of thc construct. American Psycholo- gist, 42, 539-555.

Garfield, S. L. (1994). Research on client vari- ables in psychotherapy. In A. E. Bergin & S. L. Garfield @is.), Handbook of Psychotherapy and Behavior Change. New York: Wiley & Sons.

Gelso, C. J., & Fassinger, R. E. { 1992). Personal- ity, development, and counsefing psychology: Depth, amfaivalencc. and actualizalion. Jour- n01 of Counseling Psychology, 39. 275-298.

Horenstein, D.. Houston, B. K., & Holmes. D. S. (1973). Clients’, therapists’. and judges’ evaluations of psychotherapy. Counseling

Kendall. P. C., Holfon. S . D.. Beck, A. T., Hammen, C. L., & Ingram, R. E. (1987). Is- sues and recommendations regarding use of the Beck Depression Inventory. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 1 1 , 289-299.

Kivlighan, D. M., 8 Goldfine, D. C. (1991). Endorsement of flm-aputic faciors as a frrac- tion of stage of group development and par- ticipant interpersonal attitudes. Journal of Counseling Psycltology, 38, 150-158.

Lewis, V. J., Blair, A. J., & Booth, D.A. (1992). Outcome of group therapy for body-image emotionality and weight control self-efficacy. Bchaviourd Psychorherapy, 20, 155-165.

Psychology, 20, 149- 158.

Lightsey. 0. R.. Jr. (1996). What Itads to wellntss? The role of psychological resources in well- being. The Counseling Psychologist, 24, 589- 7 3 5 .

Lightsey, 0. R., Ir. (in press). PsychoIogicaI re- sources and the prediction of future dyspho- ria The Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy.

Lightsey, 0. R.. Jr., & Christopher, J. C. (in press). Stress buffers and dysphoria in a non- Western population. Journal of Counseling d; Development.

Litt. M. D. (1988). Cognitive mediators of sbess- ful experience: Self-efficacy and perceived control. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 12.

Mueller. P., & Major. B. (1989). Self-blame. self- efficacy, and adjustment l o abomon. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57.

Oliof€, M.. Bryson, S. E., & Wadden. N. F! (1989). Predictive relation of automatic thoughts and student efficacy to depressive symptoms in un- dergraduates. Canadian lournai of Brhavioural Science, 21. 353-363.

Robbins. A. S., Spence, J. T.. & Clark. H. (1991) . Psychological determinants of health and per- formance: The tangled web of desirable and undesirable characteristics. Jourml of Person- ality and Social Psychology, 61, 755-765.

Scheier. M. F., & Carver, C. S. (1 985). Optimism, coping, and health: Assessment and irnplica- tions of generalized outcome expectancies. Health Psychology, 4 , 219-247.

Schcier, M. E, Matthews, K. A., Owens, J. F.. Magovern, G. J., Sr., Lefebvre, R. C., Abbott, R A.. & Carver, C. S. (1989). Dispositional optimism and recovery from coronary artery bypass surgery: The beneficial effects on physical and psychological well-being. Jour- nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 1024-1040.

Taylor, K. M.. & Betz, N. E. (1983). Applica- tions of sclf-efficacy theory to the undentand- ing and treatment o f career indecision. l o u r - n01 of Vocational Behavior, 22 , 63-8 1 .

Telch. M. J., Lucas, J. A,, Schmidt, N. 3.. Hanna. H. H.. Jaimez. L T., & Lucas. R A. (1993). Group cognitive-behavioral treatment of panic disorder. Behaviour Research and Therapy. 31, 279-287,

lipton. R. M. Bt Worthington. E. L., Jr. (1984). The mcasurement of generalized self-efficacy: A shidy in constmct validity. Journai of Per- sonaLity Assessment, 48, 545-548.

24 1-260.

1059-1068

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

09:

31 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

252 WGHTSEY

Wiedenfeld, S. A., Banduta. A., Levint, S.,

Impact of perceived stif-efficacy in coping with stressors on components of the immune

system. Journal of Personaliry and Social

Yalom. I , D. (1985). Thc theory ond practice of group psychoheropy (3rd ed.). New Yo& Basic.

O’Leary. A., Brown, S., & Rash. K. (1990). Psychology, 59, 1082-1094.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

09:

31 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014