The Internal Self-Efficacy Task was designed to capture individual differences in the tendency to set challenging goals. In the first stage (Stage 1: Piece-rate real effort task), participants are given three minutes in which they need to complete as many matches as possible in a real-effort slider-matching task. In this task, participants touch the computer screen to move a slider to its “goal” position (i.e., match the slider to the goal). Participants are told that they will be paid 10 KSH (~ 0.10 USD) for each correct match. After completing this task, participants are asked how many matches they think they completed and how confident they are in this answer. In the second stage (Stage 2: Goal-setting) participants are told that they will again complete the real-effort slider-matching task for a three-minute interval but with a different payment scheme. Specifically, participants are told to specify a match target, and that, if they meet the target, they will receive 20 KSH (~ 0.20 USD) multiplied by this target (e.g., someone who says they will make 10 matches will receive 200 KSH if they meet or exceed the target, but 0 KSH (0 USD) if they do not meet this target). This non-linear payment scheme encourages people to set realistic goals. In the third and final stage (Stage 3) participants complete the three-minute real-effort slider-matching task. At the end of the task they are told whether or not they met their target goal, allowing for measurement of “endogenous effort” (number correct) and examination of the relationship between the target and effort. A novel metric was designed to score this task. The score is defined: SX=Ya/(1+| Ya- Y|) Where Y is the actual performance in the second round and Ya is the goal for that round. This measure was chosen to be increasing in the goal set but decreasing in the inaccuracy of the goal.
Desire to tackle difficult or challenging problems (i.e., “seeking challenges”) differs across individuals, with implications for real-world outcomes (e.g., pay) (Niederle & Yestrumskas, 2008). This adapted slider task (Gill, Prowse, & Vlassopoulos, 2013) measures internal self-efficacy in terms of goal (challenge) setting. Self-efficacy to set goals is a critical component of behavioral health. Indeed, patient-centered collaborative approaches that boost self-efficacy and allow patients to set goals have been recommended (Bodenheimer, Lorig, Holman, & Grumbach, 2002). Improving internal self-efficacy and increasing the tendency to set challenging yet attainable goals could therefore improve health behaviors.
[+] PMCID, PUBMED ID, or CITATION
Text Citation: Gill, D., Prowse, V., & Vlassopoulos, M. (2013). Cheating in the workplace: An experimental study of the impact of bonuses and productivity. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 96, 120-134.
Text Citation: Bodenheimer, T., Lorig, K., Holman, H., & Grumbach, K. (2002). Patient self-management of chronic disease in primary care. Jama, 288(19), 2469-2475.
Text Citation: Niederle, M., & Yestrumskas, A. H. (2008). Gender differences in seeking challenges: The role of institutions (No. w13922). National Bureau of Economic Research.
This measure has not been measured yet.
This measure has not been influenced yet.
This measure has not been validated yet.
The Science of Behavior Change (SOBC) program seeks to promote basic research on the initiation, personalization and maintenance of behavior change. By integrating work across disciplines, this effort will lead to an improved understanding of the underlying principles of behavior change. The SOBC program aims to implement a mechanisms-focused, experimental medicine approach to behavior change research and to develop the tools required to implement such an approach. The experimental medicine approach involves: identifying an intervention target, developing measures to permit verification of the target, engaging the target through experimentation or intervention, and testing the degree to which target engagement produces the desired behavior change.
Within the SOBC Measures Repository, researchers have access to measures of mechanistic targets that have been (or are in the processing of being) validated by SOBC Research Network Members and other experts in the field. The SOBC Validation Process includes three important stages of evaluation for each proposed measure: Identification, Measurement, and Influence.
The first stage of validation requires a measure to be Identified within the field; there must be theoretical support for the specific measure of the proposed mechanistic target or potential mechanism of behavior change. This evidence may include references for the proposed measure, or theoretical support for the construct that the proposed measure is intended to assess. The second stage of validation requires demonstration that the level and change in level of the chosen mechanistic target can be Measured with the proposed measure (assay). For example, if the proposed measure is a questionnaire, the score on the measure should indicate the activity of the target process, and it must have strong psychometric properties. The third stage of validation requires demonstration that the measure can be Influenced; there must be evidence that the measured target is malleable and responsive to manipulation. Evidence relating to each stage includes at least one peer-reviewed publication or original data presentation (if no peer-reviewed research is available to support the claim) and is evaluated by SOBC Research Network Members and experts in the field.
Once a measure has gone through these three stages, it will then either be Validated or Not validated according to SOBC Research Network standards. If a measure is Validated, then change in the measured target was reliably associated with Behavior Change. If a measure is Not validated, then change in the measured target was not reliably associated with Behavior Change. Why would we share measures that are not validated? The SOBC Research Network values open, rigorous, and transparent research. Our goal is to make meaningful progress and develop replicable and effective interventions in behavior change science. Therefore, the SOBC sees value in providing other researchers in the field with information regarding measures that work and measures that fall short for specific targets. Further, a measure that is not validated for one target in one population may be validated in another target or population.
Want to learn more? For any questions regarding the SOBC Validation Process or Measures Repository, please email email@example.com.
Has the mechanism been identified as a potential target for behavior change? This section summarizes theoretical support for the mechanism.
Have the psychometric properties of this measure been assessed? This section includes information such as content validity, internal consistency, and test-retest reliability.
Has a study manipulation led to change in the mechanism? This section addresses evidence that this measure is modifiable by experimental manipulation or clinical intervention.
Has a change in this mechanism been associated with behavior change? This section addresses empirical evidence that causing change in the measure reliably produces subsequent behavior change.