Looking for Common Ground
To close this volume, I decided to use my “editor’s prerogative” of getting in the last word by making a few remarks on the commentaries by Kirsch and Bandura. Because of space limitations, I will restrict my comments to four issues. Two are issues on which Kirsch and Bandura seem to disagree but on which common ground seems greater than at first glance. The first of these is Kirsch’s distinction between two uses of the term “outcome expectancies”—means-Cend beliefs and personal outcome expectancies. The second concerns Kirsch’s distinction between task-Cself efficacy and coping self-efficacy and the nonutility of assessing self-efficacy as the belief in one’s ability to perform simple motor acts. As often happens in these kinds of exchanges, Kirsch and Bandura are in greater agreement on these issues than it would appear from reading their comments. The difficulty is a reflection of the complexity of what may seem to be simple conceptual issues. Two additional issues that I will address briefly are Kirsch’s claims about response expectancies and Bandura’s concept of attainment markers and outcomes. Although I find myself in disagreement with each on various points, I am nonetheless very grateful to them for taking the time to contribute their comments.
KeywordsComplex Adaptation Aversive Consequence Response Expectancy Simple Motor Letter Grade
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.