Is Two Always Better Than One? A Moderation Analysis of Self-Concordance and Self-Efficacy on Well-Being and Goal Progress

Abstract

Abstract Past research has shown that motivation is an important predictor of goal-related behaviors. Sheldon and Elliot (1999) proposed the Self-Concordance Model (SCM), to distinguish between personal goals that reflect intrinsic interests and values (self-concordant goals) and personal goals that are pursued because of self-imposed and social pressures (self-discordant goals). Another important motivational construct is self-efficacy, people’s beliefs in their capabilities to exercise control over their level of functioning and their environment (Bandura, 1996). Self-efficacy has been shown to predict goal attainment and well-being as people who are self-efficacious put more effort and commitment towards their goals (Koestner, Horberg, Gaudreau, Powers, Di Dio, Bryan, Jochum & Salter, 2006). Despite the unique contribution of self-concordance and self-efficacy, little is known about their combined effects. I performed a study with 135 university students to investigate whether two self-regulatory processes could in fact be better than one. Results using hierarchical regression analyses indicated that self-efficacy did moderate the relationship between self-concordance and the outcome variables. Self-concordance was associated with greater well-being and goal progress for those high on self-efficacy (β = .21, p < .05; β = .33, p < .01) while negatively relating to well-being and goal progress for those low on self-efficacy (β = -.22, p = .07; β = -.19, p > .05 ). It appears that two motivational processes combined, self-concordance and self-efficacy, are in fact better than one.