Many are familiar with the term “self-esteem; however, many are unaware of a different term: self-efficacy. Both terms are similar. “Self-esteem is conceptualized as a sort of general or overall feeling of one’s worth or value (Neil, 2005). While self-esteem is focused more on “being” (e.g., feeling perfectly acceptable as you are), self-efficacy is based more on “doing” (e.g., feeling that you are up to the challenge) (“What is Self-Efficacy”, 2018) They are seemingly interchangeable without a precise definition. The difference, as stated above, is that while self-esteem is more related to how one generally feels about one’s self, self-efficacy is more pertinent to how one feels about overcoming tasks, challenges, personal dilemmas, or any other obstacle that enters their life. Self-efficacy levels can vary depending on the task at hand and your predisposition to how you feel about the task. If one decides to participate in a new experience, their level of self-esteem and self-efficacy are predisposed according to their mental state (if they have depression, anxiety, or other factors that would preclude them from having a healthier reaction to a task or dilemma), and their experience. To illustrate this concept more thoroughly, I will use an example of two subjects facing the challenge of learning a new instrument.
Say Subject A has an opportunity presented him to learn the violin. While the idea of learning the violin seems like something he would enjoy, he has only ever played trumpet, a very different instrument. Even though the trumpet is in B flat and is a brass instrument, both the trumpet and the violin are written in treble clef and transition from trumpet to violin wouldn’t be drastic in terms of learning the theoretical aspects to violin, but the implementation of the theoretical knowledge would be, in theory, more difficult.
In contrast, Subject B has never learned how to play an instrument, nor how to read music. So, she isn’t experienced in theory nor application of musical instruments. This is not say that she is incapable of learning music theory or application of playing an instrument, just that she is not experienced in it at all.
With the above examples, we can see that Subject A would theoretically have higher self-efficacy and self-esteem in learning violin because he has some prior experience and know-how; unlike Subject B, who has never touched an instrument in her life. This is a simple example of how some people have differing levels of self-efficacy. It is now more apparent that prior know-how, which could be an attributing factor to one’s self-efficacy, makes it much easier to have the desire to learn a new instrument. The feeling of less anxiety in concern to learning the new instrument with the previous know-how could be a symptom of higher self-esteem. In short, the fact that they had the know how made them feel a lot better about taking on a new instrument, unlike Subject B who is racked with anxiety at the prospect.
The Effect of Differing Levels of Self-Efficacy and Self-Esteem Concerning Assertiveness
To analyze the consequences of varying levels of self-efficacy and self-esteem in comparison to varying levels of assertiveness, it would be sensible to consider what assertiveness is, why it is important, and how it can be carried out in a healthy and empathetic manner prior to the examination of how one’s predispositions affect their ability to assert themselves in the workplace.
According to mindtools.com, “Assertiveness is based on balance. It requires being forthright about your wants and needs, while still considering the rights, needs and wants of others. When you’re assertive, you are self-assured and draw power from this to get your point across firmly, fairly, and with empathy. Aggressive behavior is based on winning. You do what is in your own best interest without regard for the rights, needs, feelings, or desires of other people. When you’re aggressive, the power you use is selfish. You may come across as pushy or even bullying. You take what you want, often without asking” (Assertiveness is based on, 2016). The notable part of the above statement is that, contrary to popular belief, assertiveness and aggression are not one in the same, they are in contrast very different. Aggression is based on one’s own self-interests with little to no regard to those around them while assertiveness is the concept of standing up for what you believe and recognizing one’s own needs while also being empathetic to other’s feelings, wants, and desires. Assertiveness is finding the middle ground to two entities’ needs and wants. This is very important to understand.
How Assertiveness, Self-Efficacy, and Self-Esteem Correlate
In the quest for assertiveness, one must evaluate themselves to see where they are lacking. Examples of where an individual could be lacking are many; they could have a lack of meaning in their lives, a lack of vision. Another way someone might be lacking would be if they recently experienced a loss. A loss takes many forms. It could be a loss in sports, a call-back rejection in theater, or possibly even an emotional loss such as a death that precludes them from having the motivation to want to undergo the task in the first place. When an individual is lacking, in whatever form, self-esteem is damaged in conjunction with motivation; the main antecedents of self-efficacy. There are many different factors that contribute to self-efficacy, but for the purpose of this essay, it is sufficient to focus on the two above mentioned factors (motivation and self-esteem). There are whole papers written on each contributing factor and how they all apply so it would be too much information. It seems as though motivation is self-explanatory, so I see no need to define it like the other points that have been mentioned. Assertiveness is a linear consequence of these three other concepts. A loss can contribute to a lack of motivation which then leads to low self-esteem. This is based on the grounds that humans thrive when placed in situations of responsibility; that being said, if you have no motivation, you don’t accomplish much, not accomplishing much leads to you feeling bad about yourself. A great example of this principle can be seen when one watches Netflix for an entire weekend after a messy break up then doesn’t feel like doing anything the Monday after. Now, low self-esteem leads to decreased levels of self-efficacy. Jordan B. Peterson wrote in his book “12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos” about lobsters and their similarities to humans. He talks about how they deal with a loss. “A lobster loser’s brain chemistry differs importantly from that of a lobster winner…Whether a lobster is confident or cringing depends on the ratio of two chemicals that modulate communication between lobster neurons: serotonin and octopamine. Winning increases the ratio of the former to the latter” (Peterson, 2018). Strangely enough, humans have those same chemical reactions; we even have serotonin. He does not say whether or not our brains rely on octopamine, but regardless if we do or not, our brains work in the same way. When we lose, our serotonin levels drop precipitously. You can see after a boxing match or other sports when the loser is defeated; they sometimes drop to their knees, they slouch over, possibly even cry with their face in their hands. This is a normal emotion that contributes greatly to our efficacy. Peterson goes on to say that, “High serotonin/low octopamine characterizes the victor [lobster]. The opposite neurochemical configuration, a high ratio of octopamine to serotonin, produces a defeated-looking, scrunched up, inhibited, drooping, skulking sort of lobster, very likely to hang around street corners and to vanish at the first hint of trouble” (Peterson, 2018). I would like to say that the loser lobster seems to have gotten into a situation where he was confronted with a challenge, lost, had then lower motivation/self-esteem to fight again, lost his desire to fight again (self-efficacy), and is now cursed to be steam-rolled by the dominant lobster for the rest of his days. This claim is substantiated when he continues to say, “Serotonin and octopamine also regulate the tail-flick reflex, which serves to propel [them] rapidly backward when it needs to escape. Less provocation is necessary to trigger that reflex in a defeated lobster” (Peterson, 2018). The lobster is now predisposed to run more impulsively at any sign of trouble than he was before. This incapsulates the idea that failures (losses) lead to lowered ability to identify one’s abilities to succeed. This in turn, especially in the lobster’s case, deflates the individual to the prospect of ever asserting themselves, sometimes ever again.
The point of all of that was to convey that although there may be problems that forestall our abilities to have the self-esteem and self-efficacy required to be assertive, it is still possible. On mayoclinic.org it says that “…you can learn to be assertive” (“Being Assertive: Reduce Stress, Communicate Better”, 2017). This should bring hope to those who are in situations that prohibit them from being assertive. This essay should allow the individual to identify why they feel anxiety when confronted by a challenge and hopefully allow them to grow and overcome those anxieties through building their feelings of self-esteem and self-efficacy.
Works Cited
Ackerman, C. (2018, May 9) What is Self-Efficacy Theory in Psychology? [Blog post].
Retrieved from https://www.positivepsychologyprogram.com/self-efficacy/
Mayo Clinic Staff. (2017, May 9). Being assertive: Reduce stress, communicate better [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/stress-management/in-depth/assertive/art-20044644
Mind Tools Team. (Accessed 2018, Oct. 20). How to Be Assertive [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/Assertiveness.htm
Peterson, J. (2018). 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote To Chaos. Toronto, ON: Penguin Random House.
