Curr Psychol

DOI 10.1007/s12144-014-9231-8

Association Between Proactive Personality

and Academic SelfEfficacy
Shin-Huei Lin & Wan Chen Lu & Mei-Yen Chen &
Lung Hung Chen

# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Abstract Research about organizations has consistently revealed that proactive personality is
a relatively stable disposition and a significant antecedent of self-efficacy, which generates
employees proactive behavior and thus benefits individuals and firms. Consequently, the
present study aimed to examine whether the relationship between proactive personality, a
general temperamental tendency, and specific self-efficacy that is focused on certain activities
or tasks might emerge across contexts in an education setting with a directional effect. From a
sample of 123 students, we employed a longitudinal approach using two waves of surveys to
examine the directional relations between students proactive personalities and their academic
selfefficacy in education. The results showed that students proactive personalities at Time 1
predicted change in their academic selfefficacy at Time 2, suggesting a topdown relationship. On the contrary students academic selfefficacy at Time 1 could not predict their
proactive personalities at Time 2. In short, the directional effect of proactive personality on

S.<H. Lin (*)

Department of Human Development & Family Studies, National Taiwan Normal University,
162, Helping East Road Section 1, Taipei, Taiwan
e-mail: adammada7868@gmail.com
W. C. Lu (*)
Department of Tourism and Leisure Management, Taoyuan Innovation Institute of Technology,
No. 414, Sec. 3, Chung Shang E. Rd., Chung Li City, Taoyuan County 32091, Taiwan
e-mail: bluekey13@hotmail.com
M.<Y. Chen (*)
Graduate Institute of Sport, Leisure, and Hospitality Management, National Taiwan Normal University,
162 Helping East Road Section 1, Taipei, Taiwan
e-mail: annencpes@gmail.com
M.-Y. Chen
e-mail: meiyen686@gmail.com
L. H. Chen (*)
Department of Recreation and Leisure Industry Management, National Taiwan Sport University,
No. 250, Wen Hua 1st Road, Kueishan, Taoyuan County, Taiwan
e-mail: fjudragon@gmail.com

Curr Psychol

selfefficacy across contexts was captured in this study. Implications and limitations were
discussed.

Keywords Proactive personality . Academic self-efficacy . Education

Selfefficacy, one of imperative elements of selfbeliefs, is a determinant of academic
achievement (Huang 2012). According to social cognitive theory (Bandura 1986), self
efficacy refers to individuals belief or judgment in terms of their capability to succeed at or
to carry out particular activities or tasks. In the educational setting, selfefficacy equipped
students for strong thinking and confidence when they are in conditions in which they need
to display their initiative (Bandura 1986). In classrooms, selfefficacy functions as the
mediator, delivering and converting selfbeliefs on subsequent performance attainments
(Gafoor and Ashraf 2012). Academic selfefficacy is fundamental to academic achievement
and persistence (Huang 2013) as well as success (Lent et al. 1984, 1986, 1987). Research
has suggested that selfefficacy brings positive influences on students goalsetting, effort,
and persistence (Pajares 2009). In addition, a metaanalytic study demonstrated that
students academic selfefficacy is related to the attainment of basic cognitive skills,
coursework, and standardized achievement tests (Multon et al. 1991), and it is positively
related to academic motivation, including persistence, memory performance, and academic
performance (Dorman 2001). Given the core nature of schooling and the aim of helping
students to accomplish goals, to develop confidence and competence, and to acquire skills, it
seems practically significant for researchers to identify whether individuals with specific
chronic dispositions are associated with selfefficacy. Consequently, in the present study,
with a theoretical base, we would like to examine one possible temperament antecedent:
proactive personality.
Being proactive is a critical competitive advantage in modern society, especially in the
workplace (Parker and Collins 2010), where rapid change is common, thus emphasizing and
highlighting the need to be proactive. During the past two decades, attention to proactive
personality has primarily grown out of interest in a particular domain, organizational
behavior. Rather than responding to anticipated and concrete demandssuch as passively
accommodating a changed situation or preparing for the next predicamentbeing proactive
is a prominent attribute for properly handling unpredictable circumstances, allowing a
person to quickly and actively respond to his or her surroundings and thus prevent potential
problems (Frese and Fay 2001; Parker and Collins 2010). Proactive personality is defined as
an inclination to take selfinitiated action and to transform the current situation into a
favorable one (Bateman and Crant 1993). Crant and Bateman (2000) described proactive
personality as conceptually and empirically, some unique element of personality not
accounted for by the fivefactor model (p. 66).
A proactive personality has three vital features: being selfinitiated, change oriented, and
future focused (Griffin et al. 2010; Parker et al. 2010). People with proactive personalities
have longterm perspectives, are willing go further in the allotment of tasks in order to
accomplish established goals (Parker et al. 2006), persevere until significant change occurs
in the attainment of aspirations (Crant 2000; Parker et al. 2010), and demonstrate the ability
to prevent problems and to engage in strategic scanningthat is, looking for all possibilities,
even unusual ones (Parker and Collins 2010). In fulfilling their ambitions, they also seek

Curr Psychol

new information, new practices, and new ways of improving the status quo (Bateman and
Crant 1993). According to the above definitions, a proactive personality would be expected
to trigger proactive motivation processes, such as selfefficacy, and eventually lead to better
outcomes (Parker et al. 2010).
Parker et al. (2010) have proposed a model of a proactive motivation process and
antecedents, which demonstrate that proactive personality has a directional effect on self
efficacy. Moreover, research has also indicated a similar mechanism of the relationship
between proactive personality and selfefficacy, which has been elaborated on and is
sophisticated (Bindl and Parker 2011; Wu and Parker 2011). Crant (2000) indicated that
proactive personality is a stable dispositional trait across a range of activities and situations in
general. Accordingly, this trait could be captured in diverse fields and be contextunrelated.
However, the existence of a crosscontextual character is scarce in empirical support.
Being proactive requires undertaking potential mental risks, although Bateman and Crant
(1993) argued that they are relatively unconstrained by situational restriction. Proactive
individuals generate arduous goals and persist until they have been achieved (Crant 1996).
Hence, students with proactive personalities would tend to set high goals and to harness all
available resourcessuch as seeking out new information, new practices, and new methods
in order to improve their situations or to achieve goalsactivities that could be met with
resistance and skepticism from others. Therefore, proactive students need to be confident
that they can initiate proactive goals and can deal with subsequent problems before they take
action in an effort to influence the status quo. Individuals with high selfefficacya belief
that one can be successful in a specific sphereare superior in proactive goal formation.
Selfefficacy raises an individuals feeling of control and his or her perceived likelihood of
success (Morrison and Phelps 1999), thereby making selfefficacy important to a proactive
personality. Barling and Beattie (1983) suggested that taskrelated selfefficacy could
enhance individuals exertion and persistence, thus increasing their chances of completing
challenging tasks. Such selfefficacy would increase ones willingness to overcome obstacles, lead to more challenging goals (Locke and Latham 1990), and result in a renewed
persistence (Lent et al. 1987), all of which are imperative for bringing environmental
change. When students possess analogous competence, this might explain why some of
them who hold positive beliefs about their academic capabilities perform remarkably in the
academic setting (Gafoor and Ashraf 2012).
Few studies have focused on job searches, investigating whether a proactive personality
influences preemployment outcomes. The results have provided empirical support that
proactive personality could be captured in college students. In a longitudinal research,
Brown et al. (2006) tested a model of proactive personality and jobsearch behavior in
college graduates; albeit, the study was conducted at two time points, and proactive
personality and selfefficacy data were collected in the same wave. Claes and De Wittes
(2002) crosssectional study with college students found a positive relationship between
proactive personality and the number of job search behaviors. These studies provide an
initial outline that shows the positive relationship between proactive personality and self
efficacy. However, although the directional effect of proactive personality on motivational
constructs (Kanfer 1992), such as selfefficacy, has been illustrated, it has not been validated
whether college students with the endurable dispositional tendency of being proactive can
be measured over time to ascertain this stable attribute and to prove selfefficacy as a
directional effect. Therefore, in the present study, we proposed that the affirmed directional
relationship between proactive personality and specific selfefficacy could be cross

Curr Psychol

contextually captured in education. More specifically, in the education setting, students

proactive personalities would have a directional effect on their academic selfefficacy in a
topdown manner. The hypotheses are as following:
Hypothesis 1: The later academic selfefficacy of students could be predicted by their
early proactive personalities after controlling their early academic selfefficacy.
Hypothesis 2: The later proactive personality of students could not be predicted by their
early academic selfefficacy after controlling their early proactive personalities.
In the current study, we attempt to examine, from a theoretical perspective, the predictive
potential of proactive personality on academic selfefficacy. Specifically, our aim is to
validate with empirical evidence that the confirmed directional effect also exists across the
organization realm and is present in an educational setting. In order to acquire more robust
results than crosssectional results, we conducted a crosslagged approach in this study. We
examined the directional effect between the construct over time in an educational setting;
autocorrelations and the association between proactive personality and academic self
efficacy at the same time point were taken into account through hierarchical regression with
a longitudinal approach at two time points in a threemonth interval.

Method
Participants
A sample of undergraduate business students was drawn from a mediumsized institute
in Taiwan in a threemonth time interval during the institute semester. In the sample of
the present study, participants who took the course of leisure management were invited
to participate in the survey. Except for the demographic data, the students were
investigated for their proactive personalities and academic selfefficacy at both time
points. Participants respondents were assured of confidentiality. In addition, according
to the regulations of the Ministry of Health and Welfare in Taiwan, the current study
belongs to the category of physiological data collected through noninvasive procedures,
for which the acquisition of approval by the Institutional Review Board was
unnecessary.
During the first wave of the survey (Time 1, hereafter T1), questionnaires were
distributed to 195 students, and 164 (84 % response rate) returned completed questionnaires. For the second wave of the survey (Time 2, hereafter T2), the same
procedure was followed: All students at T1 were invited to participate again, and 151
(77 %) questionnaires were returned. Checking student identification (ID) numbers
resulted in a matched sample of 123 students who had completed both questionnaires,
T1 (75 %) and T2 (81 %). Of the participants, the average age was 22 (SD3.82), and
72 % (N89) were male.
Procedures
We adopted a twowave longitudinal survey for examining the crosslagged relations
between proactive personality and academic selfefficacy. The surveys were

Curr Psychol

administered twice, in September (T1) and in December (T2). The researchers administered the surveys in classrooms on the course. Participants student ID numbers were
used to match the secondwave responses.
Measures
The measures were carefully translated from their original sources into Chinese, the
participants native language. The backtranslation was also implemented to ensure the
meaning remained the same. In addition, to confirm the instruments validity and
reliability, a pilot study had been conducted prior to the formal survey. Control
variables included two pieces of demographic datagender and ageand students
grades on the midterm examination.
Proactive personality The original 17item Proactive Personality Scale (PPS) was
proposed by Bateman and Crant (1993). As time passed, several abbreviated versions
of the PPS (with 10, six, five, and four items) were developed and used (Claes et al.
2005). The employed items (six, five, and four) comprised those with the highest
loadings (Bateman and Crant 1993). Students would grow weary of a longwinded,
repetitive questionnaire, which would injure the quality of the data; hence, we selected
the concise fouritem PPSused by Parker and Collins (2010), Parker et al. (2006), and
Parker and Sprigg (1999)with applicable internal consistency. The scale ranged from 1
(Strongly Disagree) to 7 (Strongly Agree), and the Cronbachs alphas were .78 (T1) and
.85 (T2), respectively. A sample item is, If I believe in an idea, no obstacle will prevent
me from making it happen. A higher score indicates a more highly proactive
personality.
Academic selfefficacy. Academic selfefficacy was measured with the fiveitem
academicrelated issues scale of the Patterns of Adaptive Learning Scales
(PALS; Midgley et al. 2000). The academic efficacy scale ranged from 1
(Not True at All) to 7 (Definitely True), with students indicating the extent
to which they perceived their capability to do their classwork. Sample items
are, Im certain I can master the skills taught in class this year and, I can do
even the hardest work in this class if I try. Cronbachs alphas were .81 and
.85 for T1 and T2, respectively.

Results
Descriptive Analyses
Table 1 presents means, standard deviations, and correlations for the study variables. As predicted, all of the intercorrelations among proactive personality and
academic selfefficacy at T1 and T2 were positively related (ps<.001). With
regard to the control variablesage, gender, and the grades on the midterm
examinationsome were positively associated with proactive personality and academic selfefficacy (ps<.05).

Curr Psychol
Table 1 Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations among study variables
Variable

SD

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

1.Age

21.82

3.82

2.Gender a

-.10

3.Midterm exam

85.80

10.82

.04

.21*

4.Proactive personality (T1)

4.79

0.91

.20*

-.02

.08

5.Proactive personality (T2)

4.59

1.15

.27**

.00

.11

.59***

6. Academic self-efficasy (T1)

4.78

0.89

.13

.01

.05

.53***

.39***

7.Academic self-efficasy (T2)

4.74

1.16

.16

.12

.21*

.48***

.70***

.51***

Notes: M = mean, SD = standard deviation

a

Mean and standard deviation not defined for nominal data

* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001

Hierarchical Regression Analyses

To examine the hypotheses and to test the stabilities and crosslagged relationships
between proactive personality and academic selfefficacy, we assessed two models for
each of the outcome variables via hierarchical regression: (a) proactive personality at
T2 as a dependent variable in Step 1, which included proactive personality at T1 and
demographic data, adding academic selfefficacy at T1 in Step 2; and (b) academic
selfefficacy at T2 as a dependent variable in Step 1, which included academic self
efficacy at T1 and demographic data, adding proactive personality at T1 in Step 2. As
shown in Tables 2 and 3, the results indicated that the overall model was significant in
both proactive personality at T2 (F5, 11714.37, p<.001) and academic selfefficacy at
T2 (F5, 11713.10, p<.001). In addition, students proactive personalities at T1 predicted
Table 2 Results of hierarchical regression analysis of cross-lagged relations between proactive personality
and academic self-efficacy: academic self-efficasy at Time 2
Predictors

Proactive personality at Time 2

Step 1 (control variables)

0.37***

Age

.16*

Gender

.02

Midterm examination

.06

Proactive personality at Time 1

.55***

Step 2
Academic self-efficasy at Time 1

0.01
.10

Overall R

.62

Overall R2

.38

Adjusted R2

.35

Overall F (5, 117)

14.37

* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001

R2

Curr Psychol
Table 3 Results of hierarchical regression analysis of cross-lagged relations between proactive personality
and academic self-efficacy: academic self-efficacy at Time 2
Predictors

Academic self-efficacy at Time 2

R2

Age

.10

Gender

.08

Step 1 (control variables)

0.31***

Midterm examination

.17*

Academic self- efficacy at Time 1

.48***

Step 2
Proactive personality at Time 1

0.05**

.27**

Overall R

.60

Overall R2

.36

Adjusted R2

.33

Overall F (5, 117)

13.10***

* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001

their academic selfefficacy at T2 (=.27, p<.01); that is, the higher the proactive personality levels that students possessed at T1, the higher their academic self-efficacy at T2.
Finally, academic self-efficacy at T1 and proactive personality at T2 did not reveal such a
relationship (students' academic self-efficacy at T1 did not predict their personalities at T2,
=.10, ns.). Therefore, both hypothesis 1 and hypothesis 2 were supported, which revealed
that the relationship between proactive personality and academic self-efficacy was
directional.
Consequently, four salient points emerged from the results. First, individual differences in
proactive personality were stable from T1 to T2 (proactive personality at T1 predicted
proactive personality at T2, =.55, p<.001). In addition, academic self-efficacy also
displayed such stability (academic self-efficacy at T1 predicted academic self-efficacy at
T2, =.48, p<.001). Third, students proactive personalities at T1 predicted their academic
self-efficacy at T2 (=.27, p<.01); that is, the higher the proactive personality levels that
students possessed at T1, the higher their academic self-efficacy at T2. Finally, academic
self-efficacy at T1 and proactive personality at T2 did not reveal such a relationship
(students academic self-efficacy at T1 did not predict their personalities at T2, =.10, ns.).

Discussion
In order to advance our understanding of the relationship between proactive personality
and academic self-efficacy over time in education, we draw on conceptualizations of
proactive personality in the industrial/organization literature based on a theoretical
foundation. Our study provided two important incremental conclusions upon theory:
First, accompanied by empirical support, we extended the boundary of the theory that
the relationship between proactive personality and academic self-efficacy exists

Curr Psychol

originally in a specific field, that is, industry/organization. Our findings validate our idea
that the relationship exists over time in an educational setting. Second, this distinct
relationship features a directional effect in a directional manner. Following the explanation of the results, we discuss the theoretical contributions in detail.
This researchs most important finding revealed a significantly stronger association
between proactive personality at T1 and academic self-efficacy at Time 2 than the
reverse. This pattern implies that early proactive personality predicts later academic
self-efficacy. The results support the view that the trait of proactive personality plays a
positive role in motivational processes (Fuller and Marler 2009). As Gist and Mitchell
(1992) stated, personality factors may affect self-efficacy by arousing a persons
experiences when confronted with a task. It is expected that academic self-efficacy
could be stronger across a greater variety of tasks for students with highly proactive
personalities when compared with those who have lower levels of proactive
personality.
As a first key contribution, our findings confirmed that the relationship between
proactive personality and self-efficacy exists cross-contextually. A salient feature
appeared on the specificity of the domain: Self-efficacy is characterized as a taskspecific belief (Mitchell and Daniels 2003), and it is portrayed as a belief that people
hold concerning their capability to perform a particular task or activity in general
(Bandura 1986). Coinciding with this thinking, self-efficacy could be recognized as a
domain-specific orientation; yet, proactive personality has been shown to be a stable
personality trait across a range of activities and situations at a general level (Crant
2000). The distinctive association between a task-unrelated disposition (i.e., proactive
personality) and a task-related belief (i.e., self-efficacy) has been confirmed in the realm
of industry/organization; further, the current study also verified the association in
students. Although Frese and Fay (2001) argued that general temperamental tendencies
across situations would spill over into specific spheresthereby coloring a persons
self-efficacy judgmentthe actual mechanism is still vague and needs future study.
Specifically, in this study, the path from early proactive personality to later
academic self-efficacy was significantly stronger than the reverse, which suggests
a directional effect. Unlike a stable trait, self-efficacy is a dynamic construct that
changes over time (Wood and Bandura 1989), and it is expected to change in
response to the context, whereas proactive personality is a relatively stable
disposition to make changes (Parker 1998). Consistent with the rationale, our
results indicate a directional effect performed in a top-down manner. In other
words, early proactive personality predicts later academic self-efficacy to a
greater degree than does the reverse, implying that proactive personality could
impact a low level of academic self-efficacy.
This study has two limitations: First, the sample size in this study is not large.
Although the sample size was relatively small, it indeed confirmed the crosscontextual and directional relationship. Future research could enlarge the sample
size in order to overcome this limitation. Second, the interval between T1 and T2
in this study was three months. Not yet constructed is a consensus about an apt
interval between time points to guide a longitudinal study that is focused on the
topic of disposition in education. Therefore, studies in education have adopted diverse
intervals, such as six months (Marsh et al. 1999) and one year (Marsh 1990). Further
longitudinal research is needed to investigate the stability and the consistency of an

Curr Psychol

association within different time intervals to better capture the directional nature of the
relationship between proactive personality and academic self-efficacy.
Finally, compared with the considerable research in industry/organization, little
attention has been devoted to the issue of proactive personality, motivation process,
and behavior in education. The present study takes the first step to validate the topdown directional effect between proactive personality and acedemic self-efficacy in
education. To further contribute to the theory and application, there is a need to
investigate the associations between the proactive motivation process and learning
behaviorsacademic achievement, creativity, and maladaptive behaviorthat could
enrich the growing body of educational research.
Acknowdedgments This study was supported by the National Science Council, Taiwan for Wan Chen Lu
(NSC 102-2410-H-253-002) and Mei-Yen Chen (NSC 102-2410-H-003-133-MY2). In addition, Lung Hung
Chen was supported by Ministry of Education, Taiwan (2012 project of elastic salary for outstanding scholar)

References
Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social-Cognitive View. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
Barling, J., & Beattie, R. (1983). Self-efficacy beliefs and sales performance. Journal of Organizational
Behavior Management, 5, 4151.
Bateman, T. S., & Crant, J. M. (1993). The proactive component of organizational behavior: A measure and
correlates. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14(2), 103118. doi:10.1002/job.4030140202.
Bindl, U. K., & Parker, S. K. (2011). Proactive work behavior: Forward-thinking and change-oriented action
in organizations (In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 2,
pp. 567-598)). DC American Psychological Association: Washington.
Brown, D. J., Cober, R. T., Kane, K., Levy, P. E., & Shalhoop, J. (2006). Proactive personality and the
successful job search: A field investigation with college graduates. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(3),
717726. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.3.717.
Claes, R., & De Witte, H. (2002). Determinants of graduates' preparatory job search behaviour: A competitive
test of proactive personality and expectancy-value theory. Psychologica Belgica, 42(4), 251266.
Claes, R., Beheydt, C., & Lemmens, B. (2005). Unidimensionality of abbreviated proactive personality scales
across cultures. Applied Psychology-an International Review-Psychologie Appliquee-Revue
Internationale, 54(4), 476489.
Crant, J. M. (1996). The proactive personality scale as a predictor of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of
Small Business Management, 34(3), 4249.
Crant, J. M. (2000). Proactive behavior in organizations. Journal of Management, 26(3), 435462. doi:10.
1177/014920630002600304.
Crant, J. M., & Bateman, T. S. (2000). Charismatic leadership viewed from above: The impact of proactive
personality. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 6375.
Dorman, J. (2001). Associations between classroom environment and academic efficacy. Learning
Environments Research, 4(3), 243257. doi:10.1023/a:1014490922622.
Frese, M., & Fay, D. (2001). Personal initiative: An active performance concept for work in the 21st century.
Research in Organizational Behavior, 23, 133187.
Fuller, B., & Marler, L. E. (2009). Change driven by nature: A meta-analytic review of the proactive
personality literature. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 75, 329345.
Gafoor, K. A., & Ashraf, P. M. (2012). Contextual influences on sources of academic self-efficacy: A
validation with secondary school students of Kerala. Asia Pacific Education Review, 13(4), 607616.
doi:10.1007/s12564-012-9223-z.
Gist, M. E., & Mitchell, T. R. (1992). Self-efficacy: A theoretical analysis of its determinants and malleability.
Academy of Management Review, 17, 183211.
Griffin, M. A., Parker, S. K., & Mason, C. M. (2010). Leader vision and the development of adaptive and
proactive performance: A longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 174182.

Curr Psychol
Huang, C. J. (2012). Discriminant and incremental validity of self-concept and academic self-efficacy: A
meta-analysis. Educational Psychology, 32(6), 777805. doi:10.1080/01443410.2012.732386.
Huang, C. J. (2013). Gender differences in academic self-efficacy: A meta-analysis. European Journal of
Psychology of Education, 28(1), 135. doi:10.1007/s10212-011-0097-y.
Kanfer, R. (1992). Work motivation: New directions in theory and research. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson
(Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 7, pp. 153). Chichester,
England: Wiley.
Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Larkin, K. C. (1984). Relation of self-efficacy expectations to academic
achievement and persistence. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 31, 356362. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.
31.3.356.
Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Larkin, K. C. (1986). Self-efficacy in the prediction of academic performance
and perceived career options. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 33, 265269. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.
33.3.265.
Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Larkin, K. C. (1987). Comparison of three theoretically derived variables in
predicting career and academic behavior: Self-efficacy, interest congruence, and consequent thinking.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 34, 293298. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.34.3.293.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Marsh, H. W. (1990). Causal ordering of academic self-concept and academic achievement: A multiwave,
longitudinal panel analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(4), 646656.
Marsh, H. W., Byrne, B. M., & Yeung, A. S. (1999). Causal ordering of academic self-concept and
achievement: Reanalysis of a pioneering study and revised recommendations. Educational
Psychologist, 34(3), 155167.
Midgley, C., Maehr, M. L., Hruda, L., Anderman, E. M., Anderman, L., Freeman, K. E., Gheen, M., Kaplan,
A., Kumar, R., Middleton, M. J., Nelson, J., Roeser, R., & Urdan, T. (2000). Manual for the Patterns of
Adaptive Learning Scales (PALS). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.
Mitchell, T. R., & Daniels, D. (2003). Motivation. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, R. J. Klimoski, & I. B.
Weiner (Eds.), Handbook of psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 225254). New York: Wiley.
Morrison, E. W., & Phelps, C. C. (1999). Taking charge at work: Extrarole efforts to initiate workplace change.
Academy of Management Journal, 42, 403419.
Multon, K. D., Brown, S. D., & Lent, R. W. (1991). Relation of self-efficacy beliefs to academic outcomes: A
meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Counselling Psychology, 18, 3038.
Pajares, F. (2009). Toward a positive psychology of academic motivation: The role of self-efficacy beliefs. In
R. Gilman, E. S. Huebner, & M. J. Furlong (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology in schools (pp. 149
160). New York: Taylor & Francis.
Parker, S. K. (1998). Enhancing role breadth self-efficacy: The roles of job enrichment and other organizational interventions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(6), 835852.
Parker, S. K., & Collins, C. G. (2010). Taking stock: Integrating and differentiating multiple proactive
behaviors. Journal of Management, 36(3), 633662. doi:10.1177/0149206308321554.
Parker, S. K., & Sprigg, C. A. (1999). Minimizing strain and maximizing learning: The role of job demands,
job control, and proactive personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(6), 925939.
Parker, S. K., Bindl, U. K., & Strauss, K. (2010). Making things happen: A model of proactive motivation.
Journal of Management, 36(4), 827856.
Parker, S. K., Williams, H. M., & Turner, N. (2006). Modeling the antecedents of proactive behavior at work.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(3), 636652. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.3.636.
Wood, R., & Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory and organizational management. Academy of
Management Review, 14, 361384.
Wu, C. H., & Parker, S. K. (2011). Proactivity in the work place: Looking back and looking forward. In K. C.
G. Spreitzer (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Positive Organizational Scholarship. New York: Oxford
University Press.