Much Ado Over a Faulty Conception of Perceived Self–Efficacy Grounded in Faulty Experimentation

Cahill, Gallo, Lisman, and Weinstein (2006) adopt a conception of “ability” as possessing rudimentary components in a behavioral repertoire. This view is at odds with what constitutes an ability and misrepresents the construct of perceived self–efficacy. To verify their hypothesis concerning the relation between ratings of ability and willingness in “fear–based” and “skill–based” tasks, they deliberately instruct participants in the hypothesis before testing it. This is an egregious violation of the scientific method. The present commentary clarifies the construct of self–efficacy, documents flaws in the Cahill et al. experimentation, reviews diverse lines of research that disputes their causal claims, and comments on their expansive generalizations and recommendations to extend their intentionially biasing rating procedure to other activity domains.