↓ Skip to main content

Self-control and Task Timing Shift Self-efficacy and Influence Willingness to Engage in Effortful Tasks

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
59 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Self-control and Task Timing Shift Self-efficacy and Influence Willingness to Engage in Effortful Tasks
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, October 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01788
Pubmed ID
Authors

Danit Ein-Gar, Yael Steinhart

Abstract

Self-efficacy constitutes a key factor that influences people's inclination to engage in effortful tasks. In this study, we focus on an interesting interplay between two prominent factors known to influence engagement in effortful tasks: the timing of the task (i.e., whether the task is scheduled to take place in the near or distant future) and individuals' levels of self-control. Across three studies, we show that these two factors have an interacting effect on self-efficacy. Low self-control (LSC) individuals report higher self-efficacy for distant-future effortful tasks than for near-future tasks, whereas high self-control (HSC) individuals report higher self-efficacy for near-future tasks than for distant future tasks. We further demonstrate how self-efficacy then molds individuals' willingness to engage in those effortful tasks. Given that a particular task may comprise effortful aspects alongside more enjoyable aspects, we show that the effects we observe emerge with regard to a task whose effortful aspects are salient and that the effects are eliminated when the enjoyable aspects of that same task are highlighted.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 59 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 17%
Student > Bachelor 8 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 7%
Unspecified 3 5%
Other 11 19%
Unknown 17 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 16 27%
Social Sciences 6 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 7%
Unspecified 3 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 5%
Other 9 15%
Unknown 18 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 October 2017.
All research outputs
#20,449,496
of 23,005,189 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#24,398
of 30,245 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#283,206
of 324,711 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#561
of 601 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,005,189 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,245 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 324,711 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 601 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.