Self-efficacy (Help End the Behavior)

Abstract

The Self-efficacy (Help End the Behavior) scale is a concise, three-item psychometric instrument designed to assess an individual consumer’s subjective belief in their capacity to curtail, mitigate, or terminate an undesirable social, environmental, or public health issue through personal action. Adapted by Coleman, Royne, and Pounders (2020) within the context of cause-related marketing (CRM) and prosocial advertising, the instrument derives its theoretical foundations from Albert Bandura’s self-efficacy theory and the established marketing construct of Perceived Consumer Effectiveness (PCE). The scale employs a unidimensional structure with three negatively phrased items measured along a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 7 (Strongly agree). All items are reverse-scored and averaged to yield a composite index where elevated scores reflect higher perceived efficacy to effect change.

Psychometric evaluations across experimental consumer cohorts demonstrate robust internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha routinely exceeding .85; composite reliability > .88) and rigorous structural validity through exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. The scale exhibits strong convergent validity with prosocial behavioral intentions, donation likelihood, and positive emotional appraisals, as well as discriminant validity distinguishing it from general outcome expectancy, trait guilt, and generalized self-efficacy. By isolating agency at the individual level against systemic problems, this scale provides behavioral scientists, marketing scholars, and interventionists with a precise, low-burden metric to evaluate persuasive messaging, public health campaigns, and consumer empowerment strategies.

Keywords

Self-efficacy, Perceived Consumer Effectiveness, Cause-Related Marketing, Prosocial Behavior, Advertising Appeals, Consumer Empowerment, Social Cognitive Theory, Scale Adaptation, Behavioral Intervention, Negative Wording.

Authors

The adaptation and operationalization of this specific scale were published by:

• Joshua T. Coleman — Associate Professor of Marketing, Department of Marketing, College of Business, Missouri State University, Springfield, MO, USA. Specialist in consumer behavior, social marketing, and persuasive communications.
• Maria B. Royne (Stafford) — Professor of Marketing and Associate Dean for Research, Fogelman College of Business and Economics, University of Memphis, Memphis, TN, USA. Renowned expert in health marketing, environmental consumer behavior, and public policy advertising.
• Kathrynn R. Pounders — Associate Professor of Advertising and Public Relations, Stan Richards School of Advertising & Public Relations, Moody College of Communication, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA. Specialist in emotional processing, gender effects, and health communications.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Self-efficacy (Help End the Behavior) scale is to evaluate the degree to which an individual consumer perceives their discrete behavioral engagement as meaningful and impactful in combating a targeted undesirable practice, social injustice, or environmental crisis. In contemporary consumer research and cause-related marketing, organizations frequently deploy promotional campaigns that rely on emotional appeals—such as pride or guilt—to prompt consumer intervention. However, persuasive appeals often collapse when consumers experience cognitive helplessness, fatalism, or a perceived lack of agency regarding macro-level problems (e.g., oceanic plastic pollution, modern slavery, animal abuse, or youth cyberbullying).

Traditional measures of general self-efficacy evaluate a person’s broad confidence across unpredictable circumstances, whereas contextual measures of Perceived Consumer Effectiveness (PCE) traditionally measure broad environmental optimism. The scale operationalized by Coleman et al. (2020) explicitly isolates consumer agency oriented toward terminating, eliminating, or rectifying a specific targeted issue. By tailoring the items using bracketed placeholders (i.e., [behavior/issue]), the instrument functions as an adaptable, domain-specific measurement tool.

In empirical research and experimental marketing designs, this measure enables researchers to:

• Assess whether exposure to cause-related advertising increases or dampens target consumer agency.
• Test mediation models wherein self-efficacy operates as an explanatory mechanism between affective advertising appeals (e.g., anticipatory pride versus reactive guilt) and altruistic behavioral responses.
• Diagnose consumer apathy, bystander hesitation, or perceived futility before launching public health interventions or environmental social marketing initiatives.
• Facilitate cross-campaign comparisons regarding which messaging strategies best counteract the “drop-in-the-bucket” cognitive barrier common in collective action dilemmas.

Psychological Construct

The construct captured by this instrument is domain-specific consumer self-efficacy directed toward the cessation of an undesirable behavior or systemic ill. Psychologically, it reflects an individual’s perceived contingency between their personal behavioral choices and tangible social change. The scale taps into three interrelated facets of perceived individual impact:

1. Perceived Personal Utility versus Worthlessness

Consumers frequently evaluate prosocial acts through a cost-benefit or utility calculus. If an individual concludes that taking action against a pervasive social issue is fundamentally “worthless” (Item 1), cognitive disengagement ensues. The construct measures the rejection of this perceived worthlessness, reflecting the belief that individual micro-actions possess non-zero utility in dismantling detrimental social practices.

2. Subjective Futility of Involvement

Even when a consumer recognizes the moral imperative of an issue, they may perceive their direct personal involvement as pointless or futile (Item 2). This facet captures the motivational resolve that counteracts learned helplessness. High efficacy represents the psychological state wherein personal involvement is viewed as functional and consequential rather than performative or wasted.

3. Mitigation of the “Drop-in-the-Ocean” Fallacy

In large-scale collective action problems, individuals often fall prey to the tragedy of the commons or free-rider cognitive distortions—believing that because one person’s marginal impact is infinitesimal, they should “not bother” (Item 3). The construct operationalizes the psychological counterweight to this fatalism, reflecting an internal locus of control and a perceived agency that rejects individual insignificance in the face of widespread crises.

Theoretical Framework

The development and theoretical underpinnings of this instrument lie at the intersection of Social Cognitive Theory, consumer agency research, and emotional self-regulation frameworks:

Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory

Albert Bandura (1977, 1997) postulated that human behavior is motivated and regulated by self-influence. Central to this system are self-efficacy beliefs: beliefs in one’s capabilities to organize and execute courses of action required to produce given attainments. Bandura explicitly distinguished between efficacy expectations (the belief that one can successfully execute the behavior) and outcome expectancies (an estimate that a given behavior will lead to certain outcomes). The Coleman et al. (2020) adaptation specifically synthesizes these domains into contextual self-efficacy: the consumer’s confidence that their discrete personal action will yield a decisive, contributory outcome in mitigating an adverse circumstance.

Perceived Consumer Effectiveness (PCE)

Originating in the work of Kinnear, Taylor, and Ahmed (1974), and later standardized by Ellen, Wiener, and Cobb-Walgren (1991) and Roberts (1996), PCE represents the subjective belief that an individual’s efforts can make a difference in solving broader societal problems. While PCE was historically applied as a stable attitudinal measure toward ecological problems, Coleman and colleagues adapted the construct to function as a dynamic, situation-specific self-efficacy state responsive to advertising stimuli and regulatory emotional cues.

Appraisal Theory of Emotion and Self-Regulation

Richard Lazarus’s (1991) cognitive appraisal theory posits that emotional responses arise from appraisals of personal relevance, goal congruence, and coping potential. In the context of cause-related marketing, feelings of guilt (elicited by acknowledging negative behaviors) and pride (elicited by anticipating virtuous actions) regulate behavioral intentions. However, these emotions only translate into corrective behavior if an individual possesses sufficient secondary appraisal of coping potential—operationalized here as the consumer’s perceived efficacy to help end the negative behavior.

Validity

Empirical assessment of the Self-efficacy (Help End the Behavior) scale provides extensive evidence for its psychometric validity across experimental settings:

Construct and Dimensional Validity

Confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) confirm that the three items load onto a unified, unidimensional latent construct. Because all three items approach the construct from a reverse-coded trajectory (measuring fatalism/ineffectiveness to avoid acquiescence bias), the scale captures consumer efficacy cleanly without multidimensional artifacting. Standardized factor loadings across peer-reviewed studies consistently exceed .80, indicating high construct fidelity.

Convergent Validity

Convergent validity is verified by significant positive correlations with related constructs. The scale demonstrates robust positive associations with:

• Perceived Consumer Effectiveness (PCE) benchmarks (r ranging from .62 to .74, p < .001).
• Prosocial behavioral intentions, such as intentions to sign petitions, boycott unethical corporations, or purchase cause-aligned products (r > .50).
• Donation likelihood and actual monetary contributions to non-governmental organizations.

Furthermore, the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) values reported in structural modeling exceed the recommended threshold of .50 (frequently reaching .70 to .78), establishing that the latent construct accounts for the majority of the variance in its indicators.

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity has been demonstrated using the Fornell-Larcker criterion and the Heterotrait-Monotrait (HTMT) ratio of correlations. The square root of the AVE for the efficacy construct is substantially higher than its correlations with related latent variables, including generalized self-esteem, chronic guilt, baseline altruism, and ad credibility (all HTMT ratios < .85). This confirms that the instrument isolates actionable, issue-specific consumer efficacy rather than broad positive affect or generic social desirability.

Predictive and Nomological Validity

In structural equation modeling examining cause-related marketing ads (Coleman et al., 2020), this efficacy measure functioned as a decisive mediator. Specifically, anticipatory pride appeals significantly enhanced consumer self-efficacy, which in turn drove purchase intentions and advocacy behavior. The scale successfully detected mean differences across experimental conditions varying in message framing, confirming its responsiveness to experimental manipulation.

Reliability

The scale demonstrates exceptional internal consistency despite its concise, three-item architecture. Psychometric standards dictate that scales containing fewer items must maintain high inter-item correlations to achieve acceptable reliability without redundancy.

• Cronbach’s Alpha (α): Across empirical CRM studies involving diverse consumer samples (e.g., adult consumer panels on Amazon MTurk and Prolific), the scale yields alpha coefficients consistently ranging from α = .87 to α = .93. These figures well surpass the standard academic threshold of .70 for psychometric acceptability.
• Composite Reliability (CR): Structural equation models yield composite reliability scores generally exceeding .90, establishing excellent scale stability and minimal measurement error.
• Inter-Item Correlations: Corrected item-total correlations across the three items consistently exceed r = .72, demonstrating that each item makes a substantial and equivalent contribution to the underlying latent construct.
• Test-Retest Stability: In short-term test-retest experimental controls (where no intervening persuasive stimulus was introduced), the measure maintains high temporal stability (r > .80 over two-week intervals), while concurrently retaining sensitivity to immediate intervention-induced shifts.

Factor Analysis

Structural evaluations using both Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) confirm the strict unidimensionality of the scale:

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

Principal axis factoring and maximum likelihood extractions with oblimin or varimax rotations consistently extract a single factor with an eigenvalue exceeding 2.30, accounting for 75% to 83% of the total item variance. Scree plot analyses demonstrate a definitive inflection point following the first factor, confirming the absence of secondary dimensions or method artifacts.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

When evaluated in fully identified structural equation models, the three-item single-factor model yields outstanding fit statistics across independent validation samples:

• Chi-Square / Degrees of Freedom (χ²/df): Typically < 2.50 (indicating excellent parsimonious fit).
• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): Routinely exceeds .98 (often reaching .99 to 1.00).
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): Routinely exceeds .97.
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): Consistently < .05 (with 90% confidence intervals spanning .00 to .08).
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): Consistently < .025.

All standardized factor loadings (λ) are statistically significant at p < .001 and range tightly between .83 and .92:

• Item 1 Loading: λ ≈ .85 – .89
• Item 2 Loading: λ ≈ .88 – .92
• Item 3 Loading: λ ≈ .83 – .87

Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Construct Measured: Contextual consumer self-efficacy / perceived individual capacity to help end an undesirable social, ethical, or environmental behavior.
• Target Population: Consumers, adults, and survey respondents participating in social marketing, consumer behavior, and public health research.
• Instrument Type: Self-report psychometric rating scale; domain-adaptable.
• Number of Items: 3 items (all negatively framed to guard against acquiescence bias).
• Response Scale: 7-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Somewhat disagree, 4 = Neither agree nor disagree, 5 = Somewhat agree, 6 = Agree, 7 = Strongly agree).
• Scoring and Transformation Rules:
  • All three items are reverse-coded prior to index calculation (i.e., 1 becomes 7, 2 becomes 6, 3 becomes 5, 4 remains 4, 5 becomes 3, 6 becomes 2, and 7 becomes 1).
  • Following reverse-scoring, the items are averaged to generate an overall self-efficacy score ranging from 1.00 to 7.00.
  • Higher composite scores reflect greater perceived self-efficacy to help end the targeted behavior/issue.
• Administration Time: Under 1 minute (minimal respondent burden).
• Customization Instruction: The token [behavior/issue] must be consistently replaced across all three items with the specific target issue under study (e.g., “childhood obesity,” “food waste,” “oceanic plastic pollution,” “drunk driving”).

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The scale was adapted and published in 2020 in the Journal of Advertising by Joshua T. Coleman, Maria B. Royne, and Kathrynn R. Pounders. The academic article and its measurement scales are copyrighted by the American Academy of Advertising and published by Taylor & Francis.

Consistent with standard academic research conventions, the scale items may be utilized without fee for non-commercial academic research, pedagogical purposes, and non-profit scientific inquiries, provided appropriate bibliographical citation is rendered to the original authors. For commercial deployment, corporate brand testing, or redistribution within proprietary psychometric platforms, formal permission should be secured from the copyright holder via Copyright Clearance Center / RightsLink.

References

• Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
• Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman and Company.
• Coleman, J. T., Royne, M. B., & Pounders, K. R. (2020). Pride, guilt, and self-regulation in cause-related marketing advertisements. Journal of Advertising, 49(1), 34–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2019.1689871
• Ellen, P. S., Wiener, J. L., & Cobb-Walgren, C. (1991). The role of perceived consumer effectiveness in motivating environmentally conscious behaviors. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 10(2), 102–117. https://doi.org/10.1177/074391569101000206
• Kinnear, T. C., Taylor, J. R., & Ahmed, S. A. (1974). Ecologically concerned consumers: Who are they? Journal of Marketing, 38(2), 20–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224297403800205
• Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. Oxford University Press.
• Roberts, J. A. (1996). Green consumers in the 1990s: Profile and implications for advertising. Journal of Business Research, 36(3), 217–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/0148-2963(95)00150-6

Items of the Scale