ZONA DE MONTAÑA

II.2.3.1 Background

Social cognitive theory proposed that there are two conceptions that determine behavior: expectations relating to outcomes of the behavior, and beliefs about the ability to perform. This second set of beliefs was conceptualized as self-efficacy, or as defined in Bandura (1986): “judgments of their capabilities to organize and execute courses of action required to attain designated types of performances. It is not concerned with the skills one has but with one’s judgments of what one can do with whatever skills one possesses” (page 391). Bandura (1977) conceptualized self-efficacy as the expectation of performance which drives behavior to attempt an activity, predicting the amount of effort people will expend. Bandura (1986) proposed that humans acquire knowledge primarily by observing others while taking part in social interactions. Self-efficacy is a self-perception of competence and future performance as opposed to actual competence in a task. The construct has been described as the foundation of all human performance (Peterson & Arnn, 2005).

Bandura identified four ways to increase self-efficacy: successful performance, watching others succeed (also known as vicarious learning), persuasion and encouragement, and

physiological/affective factors (Bandura, 1986). The first two of these are particularly relevant in interacting with an intelligent agent to perform classification, where agreement can be

interpreted as successful performance, and mimicking of observed reasoning and logic for classifications similarly produces learning leading to successful performance. Gist and Mitchell (1992) examined the inter-relationships and feedback between performance and self-efficacy,

noting that interventions designed to modify self-efficacy had to address specific determinants of self-efficacy, such as perceptions of ability and task complexity.

II.2.3.2 Application to the Workplace

While originally developed in an educational context, self-efficacy has also been extensively explored in an employment setting. Studies have consistently identified positive relationships with job satisfaction and performance. The meta-analysis by Stajkovic and Luthans (1998) of 114 studies found the effect of self-efficacy on job performance to be greater than goal-setting, feedback interventions, and organizational behavior modification. General self- efficacy was found to have higher correlations with job satisfaction than other predictors (self- esteem, locus of control, and emotional stability) and comparable correlations with job

performance in the meta-analysis by Judge and Bono (2001) of 135 studies. The meta-analytic path model by Brown, Lent, Telander, and Tramayne (2011) used data from 8 studies identifying that self-efficacy had similar effects as cognitive ability on work performance. The study by Koutsoumari and Antoniou (2016) identifies occupational self-efficacy as having correlations with multiple dimensions of work engagement, and they advocate for using training and development to positively influence the self-efficacy of employees.

II.2.3.3 Application to Human-Computer Interaction

An early adaptation of self-efficacy in human-computer interaction was by Compeau and Higgins (1995) which developed a scale for the use of computers based upon social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986). Compeau and Higgins (1995) established that an individual’s reactions to an information system would be impacted by their self-efficacy that they could use the system. Self-efficacy appeared in later conceptions of Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) such as the extension of TAM (Davis, Bagozzi, & Warshaw, 1989), TAM2 (Venkatesh, 2000), and UTAUT

(Dwivedi, Rana, Jeyaraj, Clement, & Williams, 2017). Within this space self-efficacy is positioned as an antecedent to use attitudes (Thompson, Compeau, & Higgins, 2006). Self- efficacy has been examined as an antecedent to automation complacency (Parasuraman &

Manzey, 2010), and as a way of accounting for over-use of manual control in automation settings (Lee & See, 2004).

Self-efficacy has been examined in the context of specific systems both in case study and experimental observation, including disaster assessment. In a study by Zheng, McAlack, Wilmes, Kohler‐Evans, and Williamson (2009), it was used within a computer-based learning context to evaluate the learning impact of manipulating the multimedia conditions of a tool, where more complex displays lowered cognitive load and increased self-efficacy. The design of interaction for a website to retrieve information was examined where a more complex website decreased self-efficacy (P. J.-H. Hu, Hu, & Fang, 2017). In these two cases the tasks were modified in complexity through the way information was presented. In Leaman and La (2017), concepts from self-efficacy were integrated into training plans which increased successful adoption among users of smart wheelchairs. Within crowdsourced disaster assessment, Dittus (2017) utilized self- efficacy as a framework to analyze microtask design and worker feedback, finding reinforcement led to retention of volunteers in future projects, which was interpreted as deriving from self- efficacy.

II.2.3.4 Illusory Understanding

Participants do not get graded feedback on their performance during damage assessment, leading to the potential of having high confidence in assessments which are inconsistent with the scenarios and the guideline. McKenna and Myers (1997) explored the role of accountability in ungraded tasks and found that people who were briefed to expect an assessment of their skill

level provided lower ratings of their understanding than participants that were not advised of an assessment. Kruger and Dunning (1999) performed a series of studies which examined how people rated their own performance in groups. They found that low performing participants often rated themselves as high as the highest performing participants. The illusion of explanatory understanding arises when heuristics mislead us in assessing our understanding of explanations. This is particularly deceptive for early learners, causing them to believe they understand more than they actually do through perceived surges in understanding and insight that are not, in fact, coherent (Keil, 2006). Previous studies have found that even experts can be misled by the explanations of an automated judgment into producing confident but incorrect decisions (Bussone, Stumpf, & O'Sullivan, 2015).