Self-Efficacy in Career Development: A Comprehensive Review

Self-efficacy is a person's belief in their ability to carry out tasks that lead to desired results. This belief helps explain why some people tackle challenges while others avoid them.

Key Points

• Self-efficacy is a person's belief in their ability to succeed in specific career-related tasks — not a fixed trait, but one that varies by task and context.

• It predicts career choices, persistence, and adaptability, often better than past achievements alone.

• Gender socialization shapes self-efficacy differently across career fields, helping explain persistent gaps in fields like math, science, and engineering.

• Self-efficacy is built through four sources: mastery experiences, watching role models succeed, encouragement, and managing stress or anxiety.

• Interventions targeting self-efficacy — such as graded tasks, mentoring, and reframing setbacks — improve career decision-making and reduce indecision.

Introduction to Self-Efficacy

Self-efficacy is a person's belief in their ability to carry out tasks that lead to desired results. This belief helps explain why some people tackle challenges while others avoid them. The idea started with Bandura's work in 1977, where he described it as a key part of how people change their behavior. In career psychology, it built on Krumboltz's social learning theories, which focus on how people learn from their surroundings. Later, experts like Betz in 2001 and Lent and his team adapted it for jobs and careers. These models show how self-efficacy influences choices, like picking a major or starting a new role [1][2].

It became well-known after Betz and Hackett brought it into career talks in 1983. They showed how women's beliefs about their skills affect their job options. Fitzgerald and Harmon in 2001 called it a major breakthrough — the best in 25 years — because it helps us understand why people pursue certain paths. Unlike Super's wider self-concept from 1992, which is about overall self-view, self-efficacy zeros in on confidence for specific actions. For example, it predicts if someone will try a hard task and stick with it when things get tough [4]. Overall, self-efficacy bridges what people can do and what the world throws at them. It guides how they explore jobs and commit to goals.

Hackett and Betz first made a theory just for careers in 1981. They focused on how beliefs shape women's paths. Then, Lent, Brown, and Hackett in 1993 turned it into a bigger social-cognitive model. This covers how interests form, choices happen, and performance lasts. In social learning, self-efficacy grows from experiences, like succeeding or watching others. In career theory, it links those lessons to job likes, picks, and wins [6]. Research from Bandura and Lent and Hackett backs this up. It shows self-efficacy not only starts actions but also helps bounce back from fails [7].

Key Research Findings on Self-Efficacy

Betz summed up strong proof in 2001. Self-efficacy limits or expands job ideas. Men often feel more sure in male fields, like engineering, but match women in areas like teaching. Women feel equal or better in female roles [2]. In science and tech, high self-efficacy means staying in school and getting good grades [2]. Math gaps between genders show why boys do better and pick science jobs more. Girls with low math confidence avoid those paths [2]. Using Holland's types, men excel in hands-on and research themes. Women shine in people-focused ones. But once working, these differences shrink [2]. Self-efficacy connects to deciding careers and what people like. Gender might change this link. Tests to build self-efficacy seem helpful, like workshops that boost confidence [2].

Phillips and Imhoff found in 1997 that self-efficacy beats old achievements for guessing career picks. It motivates looking ahead, not just back [8]. Most studies look at starting careers, not fitting in later. Fitzgerald's team in 1995 pointed this out [9]. We need more on why people choose as they do, says Phillips in 1997 [10]. Job self-efficacy forecasts likes, thoughts, and final choices. Branch and Lichtenberg in 1987, Layton in 1984, and Rooney and Osipow in 1992 showed this [11][12][13]. Women with big career goals use self-efficacy for bold picks [12]. It does not pick the job type but explains the process and blocks. Taylor and Betz in 1983 and Taylor and Popma in 1990 proved this with tests on decisions [14][15].

Large reviews agree self-efficacy and outcomes predict likes and choices in Holland groups [16][17][18][19]. Skills turn into interests via self-efficacy [19][20]. Helps or hurdles work through self-efficacy to affect picks [19][20]. It guesses school and job success. Multon in 1991, Sadri and Robertson in 1993, and Stajkovic and Luthans in 1998 reviewed this. Links grow stronger for older folks or those struggling [21][22][23].

Sources and Influences on Self-Efficacy

Lent said in 2005 that own successes build self-efficacy most. Bandura's 1986 list includes doing well yourself, seeing others, getting cheers, and noting body feelings [24][25]. Doing well over and over has big power. But how things mix matters, per Gist and Mitchell in 1992 [26]. Watching like-people win helps if you have not tried much [27]. Cheers add but need more. Worry feelings matter least but can cut belief [25][26].

Old wins deeply shape self-efficacy. Wins lift it; loses drop it. Lent details this in 2020 [20]. Growing-up feedback sharpens skills and beliefs [20]. Proactive folks seek chances to build self-efficacy. It can be a fixed trait or change with life stages [28][29]. Wide-role self-efficacy covers more than one task. It means faith in active, broad duties and ties to varied jobs [30].

Gender Differences and Social Influences

Hackett and Betz argued in 1981 that self-efficacy plays a bigger role than interests, values, or raw talents in limiting women's career options. They saw it as a way to understand how gender roles shape thoughts and feelings about work [5]. For instance, early studies found no big overall differences between men and women in job self-efficacy. But when looking closer, women often feel less confident in fields seen as male, like math or tech, and more confident in areas viewed as female, such as social work [31]. Men, on the other hand, show even levels of self-efficacy across both male and female job types [6]. This pattern holds in tests where men's confidence stays steady, while women's varies by how "traditional" the job seems [35].

Society pushes these differences by giving men more chances to build skills in a wide range of areas. This explains why fewer women enter fields like math or science — starting from school, boys get more encouragement and practice, boosting their self-efficacy [32]. Life experiences also play a part: girls might get praise for social skills but less for technical ones, nurturing self-efficacy in typical female roles while holding it back in others [20]. Hackett and Betz hypothesized that these beliefs restrict women's choices more powerfully than other factors, like pure ability [5]. Later work confirms this: gender gaps in self-efficacy help explain why men and women consider different jobs [33][34][35]. For example, women with high self-efficacy in non-traditional areas are more likely to pursue them, but socialization often keeps levels low [37].

Rules and norms in society reinforce men's self-efficacy for diverse fields. This keeps divides in areas like science alive, where expectations empower boys to try more [32]. Overall, these social forces show how self-efficacy is not just personal — it's shaped by family, schools, and culture, leading to lasting gender patterns in careers.

Related Constructs: Outcome Expectations and Goals

Outcome expectations are beliefs about what will happen if you do certain actions. They include things like rewards from others, how you'll feel about yourself, and direct results from the task [36]. These ideas form from the same life experiences that build self-efficacy, like succeeding or watching others [36]. For example, if you expect good payoffs from a job, like pay or satisfaction, you're more likely to chase it. Lent and his team define them as "personal beliefs about the consequences or outcomes of performing particular behavior" [36]. They cover extrinsic perks, like money, self-directed ones, like pride, and those from doing the work well.

Goals are your plans to do specific activities or reach certain ends. Lent in 2005 says they show intent to act or achieve [24]. Goals team up with self-efficacy and outcome expectations to create career interests and lead to choices that match those likes [20]. For instance, strong self-efficacy and positive outcomes make interests grow, which then set goals for related paths [20]. These parts all connect in a loop: high self-efficacy leads to better expectations, which fuel goals, and success feeds back to strengthen beliefs [6].

They also link with wider factors, like your traits, surroundings, and actions [6]. Values, or what you want from work like status or freedom, tie into outcome views — they show if a job will meet your needs [20]. In career theory, changing one, like boosting self-efficacy, can shift others, like making goals clearer or expectations brighter [6]. This interplay helps explain how people pick and stick with careers.

Applications in Interventions and Education

Programs to build self-efficacy and positive expectations work best when people are young, before interests set in stone [20]. Use Bandura's sources: start with small wins to create mastery, show models like peers who succeed, give encouragement, and teach ways to handle stress or anxiety [37][20]. For example, graded tasks let people build confidence step by step, while seeing similar others thrive makes it feel possible [37]. Counselors can focus on how people explain successes — link them to skill, not luck, to keep self-efficacy high [38].

When performance slips, check if self-efficacy matches real skills. If beliefs are low but skills are there, use mastery experiences, review past wins, and reframe views [38]. For instance, help people see effort and ability as reasons for success, not chance [38]. In counseling, structure lessons to raise self-efficacy, like role-play or feedback [32]. It drives exploring options, taking steps, and feeling employable [39][40][41]. Tools like these help with decisions, reducing doubt and building plans [40].

In schools, self-efficacy links to motivation, like effort and sticking with tasks, and better grades [42]. Set clear goals, teach strategies, use models, and give progress notes to lift it [43][44]. For example, proximal goals build quick wins, raising confidence and interest [43]. Teachers' own self-efficacy matters too — it affects how they plan, persist with tough students, and create positive classes [45]. High teacher belief leads to better student outcomes, like less fear and more support [45]. These applications show self-efficacy as a tool for growth in learning and work.

Networking and Broader Implications

Networking strength comes from blending types of self-efficacy. It includes your own belief in handling ties, judging others' help, feeling sure from how they see you, and keeping good relationships [41]. Bandura's four sources — wins, watching, cheers, body cues — build it, but feedback makes it grow more [41]. For example, succeeding in talks boosts confidence, while seeing others network well adds ideas [41]. This mix helps during career shifts, like using group support to handle ups and downs [41].

Self-efficacy aids dealing with unclear situations, taking risks, and staying upbeat. It links to accepting ambiguity, which lets people try new things despite uncertainty [41][46]. In bigger pictures, it joins with adaptability — the skill to plan for changes — and resilience, bouncing back after them [47]. Hope combines goals, paths to them, and drive; optimism assumes good ends [47]. These form "psychological capital" with self-efficacy, boosting career success [49]. Models like Hirschi's in 2012 mix them with identity and skills for full career resources [48].

Support, like from family, raises career self-efficacy and cuts indecision [50]. In groups, shared self-efficacy powers teams, but it needs personal and group balance [41]. These links show self-efficacy as part of a web, helping with modern careers that change often.

Conclusion

Self-efficacy is central to career choice, persistence, and performance, mediated by learning experiences and influenced by gender and environment. Interventions leveraging its sources can enhance career outcomes, underscoring its role in vocational psychology.

Key Takeaways

• Self-efficacy is a person's belief in their ability to succeed in specific career tasks, distinct from Super's broader self-concept.

• It is built through four sources: mastery experiences, vicarious learning, social persuasion, and emotional/physiological states.

• Gender socialization creates lasting self-efficacy gaps that help explain occupational segregation.

• Self-efficacy connects to outcome expectations and goals in a reinforcing loop that shapes career choices over time.

• Targeted interventions — mastery tasks, role models, reframing setbacks — can measurably improve career decision-making.

Bibliography

[1] Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215.

[2] Betz, N. E. (2001). Self-efficacy. In W. B. Walsh, K. H. Craik, & R. H. Price (Eds.), Person-environment psychology: New directions and perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 157-178). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

[3] Fitzgerald, L. F., & Harmon, L. W. (2001). Women's career development: A postmodern update. In F. T. L. Leong & A. Barak (Eds.), Contemporary models in vocational psychology: A volume in honor of Samuel H. Osipow (pp. 207-230). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

[4] Super, D. E. (1992). Toward a comprehensive theory of career development. In D. H. Montross & C. J. Shinkman (Eds.), Career development: Theory and practice (pp. 35-64). Charles C Thomas.

[5] Hackett, G., & Betz, N. E. (1981). A self-efficacy approach to the career development of women. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 18(3), 326-339.

[6] Patton, W., & McMahon, M. (2014). Career development and systems theory: Connecting theory and practice (3rd ed.). Sense Publishers.

[7] Bandura, A. (in press). [Referenced in row 20].

[8] Phillips, S. D., & Imhoff, A. R. (1997). Women and career development: A decade of research. Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 31-59.

[9] Fitzgerald, L. F., et al. (1995). [Referenced in row 7].

[10] Phillips, D. A. (1997). [Referenced in row 8].

[11] Branch, L. E., & Lichtenberg, J. W. (1987). Self-efficacy and career choice. [Referenced in row 26].

[12] Layton, P. L. (1984). Self-efficacy, locus of control, career salience, and women's career choice. [Referenced in row 26].

[13] Rooney, R. A., & Osipow, S. H. (1992). Task-specific occupational self-efficacy scale: The development and validation of a prototype. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 40(1), 14-32.

[14] Taylor, K. M., & Betz, N. E. (1983). Applications of self-efficacy theory to the understanding and treatment of career indecision. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 22(1), 63-81.

[15] Taylor, K. M., & Popma, J. (1990). An examination of the relationships among career decision-making self-efficacy, career salience, locus of control, and vocational indecision. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 37(1), 17-31.

[16] Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (1994). Toward a unifying social cognitive theory of career and academic interest, choice, and performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 45(1), 79-122.

[17] Lent, R. W., et al. (2018). [Referenced in row 78].

[18] Rottinghaus, P. J., Larson, L. M., & Borgen, F. H. (2003). The relation of self-efficacy and interests to vocational interests: A meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 62(2), 221-236.

[19] Sheu, H. B., et al. (2010). Testing the choice model of social cognitive career theory across Holland themes: A meta-analytic path analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 76(2), 252-264.

[20] Lent, R. W. (2020). Career development and counseling: Putting theory and research to work (3rd ed.). Wiley.

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

[22] Sadri, G., & Robertson, I. T. (1993). Self-efficacy and work-related behaviour: A review and meta-analysis. Applied Psychology, 42(2), 139-164.

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

[24] Lent, R. W. (2005). [Referenced in row 11].

[25] Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall.

[26] Gist, M. E., & Mitchell, T. R. (1992). Self-efficacy: A theoretical analysis of its determinants and malleability. Academy of Management Review, 17(2), 183-211.

[27] "International handbook of career guidance". (2008). [Multiple rows].

[28] Seibert, S. E., Crant, J. M., & Kraimer, M. L. (1999). Proactive personality and career success. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(3), 416-427.

[29] Seibert, S. E., Kraimer, M. L., & Crant, J. M. (2001). What do proactive people do? A longitudinal model linking proactive personality and career success. Personnel Psychology, 54(4), 845-874.

[30] Parker, S. K. (1998). Enhancing role breadth self-efficacy: The roles of job enrichment and other organizational interventions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(6), 835-852.

[31] Betz, N. E., & Hackett, G. (1981). The relationship of career-related self-efficacy expectations to perceived career options in college women and men. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 28(5), 399-410.

[32] Document. (2019). [Rows 167-173].

[33] Betz, N. E. (2008). Advances in vocational theories. In S. D. Brown & R. W. Lent (Eds.), Handbook of counseling psychology (4th ed., pp. 357-374). Wiley.

[34] Hackett, G., & Lent, R. W. (1992). Theoretical advances and current inquiry in career psychology. In S. D. Brown & R. W. Lent (Eds.), Handbook of counseling psychology (2nd ed., pp. 419-451). Wiley.

[35] Sheu, H. B., & Lent, R. W. (2015). A social cognitive perspective on career interest and choice among Asian Americans. In P. J. Hartung, M. L. Savickas, & W. B. Walsh (Eds.), APA handbook of career intervention, Volume 1: Foundations (pp. 115-132). American Psychological Association.

[36] Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (2002). Social cognitive career theory. In D. Brown (Ed.), Career choice and development (4th ed., pp. 255-311). Jossey-Bass.

[37] Hackett, G. (1995). Self-efficacy in career choice and development. In A. Bandura (Ed.), Self-efficacy in changing societies (pp. 232-258). Cambridge University Press.

[38] Brown, S. D., & Lent, R. W. (1996). A social cognitive framework for career choice counseling. The Career Development Quarterly, 44(4), 354-366.

[39] AWINI. (2014). [Source details from row 121].

[40] Reese, R. J. (2016). Career development interventions. In J. C. Norcross, G. R. VandenBos, & D. K. Freedheim (Eds.), APA handbook of clinical psychology: Vol. 4. Psychopathology and health (pp. 113-130). American Psychological Association.

[41] Brewer, L. (2018). Career development: Theories, practices and challenges. Nova Science Publishers.

[42] Schunk, D. H. (1989a). Self-efficacy and cognitive achievement: Implications for students with learning problems. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22(1), 14-22.

[43] Bandura, A., & Schunk, D. H. (1981). Cultivating competence, self-efficacy, and intrinsic interest through proximal self-motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41(3), 586-598.

[44] Schunk, D. H. (1983b). Developing children's self-efficacy and skills: The roles of social comparative information and goal setting. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8(1), 76-86.

[45] Ashton, P. T., & Webb, R. B. (1986). Making a difference: Teachers' sense of efficacy and student achievement. Longman.

[46] Benyamini, Y. (2005). Can high optimism and high pessimism co-exist? Findings from arthritis patients coping with pain. Personality and Individual Differences, 38(6), 1463-1473.

[47] Yates, J. (2020). Career resources, employability and career success: A systematic review. International Journal for Educational and Vocational Guidance, 20(3), 1-24.

[48] Hirschi, A. (2012). Callings and work engagement: Moderated mediation model of work meaningfulness, occupational identity, and occupational self-efficacy. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 59(3), 479-485.

[49] Luthans, F., & Youssef, C. M. (2004). Human, social, and now positive psychological capital management: Investing in people for competitive advantage. Organizational Dynamics, 33(2), 143-160.

[50] Nota, L., et al. (2007). Self-efficacy, social support, and career-related behaviors: A study with Italian high school students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 54(3), 297-307.