Computers in Human Behavior 62 (2016) 327e332

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers in Human Behavior

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/comphumbeh

Full length article

The influence of vicarious experience provided through mobile

technology on self-efficacy when learning new tasks
R. Achterkamp a, b, *, H.J. Hermens a, b, M.M.R. Vollenbroek-Hutten a, b
a
Roessingh Research and Development, Telemedicine Group, 7522AH, Roessinghsbleekweg 33b, Enschede, Overijssel, The Netherlands
b
University of Twente, Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Mathematics and Computer Science, Telemedicine Group, Enschede, The Netherlands

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Background: A high level of self-efficacy is a major contributor to the effectiveness of physical activity
Received 21 October 2015 interventions. However, it is insufficiently known whether techniques that are used to influence self-
Received in revised form efficacy in face-to-face or printed text interventions can also be successfully incorporated in modern-
30 March 2016
day, mobile technology-supported interventions. We performed an experiment to investigate whether
Accepted 1 April 2016
self-efficacy regarding a specific task can be influenced through vicarious experience provided through
mobile technology.
Method: 36 subjects were asked to walk from A to B in exactly 14, 16, or 18 s, wearing scuba fins and a
Keywords:
Self-efficacy
blindfold. The task guaranteed equal level of task experience at the start of the experiment. Before every
Vicarious experience trial, subjects in group 1 viewed a video on a smartphone of a subject successfully performing the task,
Coaching subjects in group 2 did not view a video.
Tailoring Results and conclusion: Although subjects found the video helpful for successful performance of the task
Mobile technology and reported high perceived similarity, subjects’ level of self-efficacy regarding the task, as well as task
Behavior change performance did not differ significantly between the two groups. However, a secondary outcome
parameter did indicate a possible difference between how subjects walked forward while wearing the
scuba fins (either shuffling forward, or raising their knees high up). Future studies should investigate
whether such instructional videos can contribute to higher levels of self-efficacy in mobile, technology-
supported interventions in more ecologically valid settings.
© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction to techniques to apply tailoring, which have repeatedly been

associated with higher effect sizes of interventions (Noar, Benac, &
Smartphones and other mobile technologies like activity sen- Harris, 2007). The techniques op den Akker et al. (2014) identified
sors are used more and more in coaching programs to improve are: feedback, inter-human interaction, adaptation, user targeting,
physical activity patterns (Bielik et al., 2012; Consolvo et al., 2008; goal setting, context awareness, and self-learning. The most inter-
Lin et al., 2012). However, the present coaching programs hardly esting finding: whereas the tailoring technique described as
take into account knowledge from behavioral science, which is adaptation e i.e. tailoring based on constructs from behavioral
hypothesized to improve interventions in terms of persuasiveness science e is a common technique in traditional, non-technology
and adherence (Achterkamp et al., submitted for publication). One supported interventions, the authors show that this specific
way of doing this is by incorporation of tailoring, i.e. personaliza- tailoring technique is rarely applied in modern-day mobile, tech-
tion of feedback or coaching based on information from the indi- nology supported physical activity interventions (op den Akker
vidual (Hawkins, Kreuter, Resnicow, Fishbein, & Dijkstra, 2008). op et al. (2014)).
den Akker, Jones, and Hermens (2014) describe a literature survey Constructs that are used for adaptation in traditional in-
about coaching in mobile physical activity applications in relation terventions include, for example, attitudes towards the target
behavior, stage of change, social support, processes of change and
self-efficacy (Noar et al., 2007). For example: adaptation of in-
terventions based on stage of change means that subjects in the
* Corresponding author. Roessingh Research and Development, Telemedicine
Group, 7522AH, Roessinghsbleekweg 33b, Enschede, Overijssel, The Netherlands. maintenance stage of change receive different information or
E-mail address: [email protected] (R. Achterkamp). feedback than subjects in the contemplation stage of change;

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.04.006
0747-5632/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
328 R. Achterkamp et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 62 (2016) 327e332

subjects receive information based on their stage of change. Among Summarizing, traditional non-technology supported physical
the constructs used for adaptation, especially self-efficacy seems of activity interventions commonly apply knowledge from behavioral
major importance (Achterkamp et al., 2016 submitted for publica- sciences, leading to larger effect sizes, whereas modern-day mobile
tion). Self-efficacy is defined as “one's belief in one's ability to technology supported physical activity interventions do not apply
succeed in specific situations” (Bandura, Adams, & Beyer, 1977). this type of knowledge. Therefore, the focus is on investigating
Higher levels of self-efficacy are associated with higher levels of whether this knowledge from behavioral sciences can contribute to
physical activity, and the percentage increase in physical activity in the effectiveness of mobile technology supported physical activity
a twelve week intervention period is higher when self-efficacy is interventions in the same way as in traditional interventions. More
high (e.g. (Achterkamp et al., 2016; submitted for publication; Trost, specifically, we tested whether vicarious experience leads to an
Kerr, Ward, & Pate, 2001). Furthermore, research shows that self- increase in self-efficacy when using mobile technology-supported
efficacy is a powerful predictor of actual performance of the feedback strategies. Two groups were compared in a lab experi-
desired behavior (e.g. (Bandura, 1994; Gist & Mitchell, 1992; Roach ment: subjects in group 1 viewed an instructional video before
et al., 2003). So, when self-efficacy is low, it should be increased to performing a new task, subjects in group 2 did not view this video.
achieve optimal result of the intervention. Bandura (1994) de- Thereby, the aim is to answer the following questions: what is the
scribes four sources of self-efficacy that can be used to achieve this, effect of a feedback strategy that incorporates vicarious experience
which are still widely applied (e.g. Rowbotham & Owen, 2015; and is delivered through technology on 1) self-efficacy regarding a
Willis, 2015): specific task, and 2) task performance?

- Mastery experience: the subject successfully performs the 2. Method

target behavior;
- Vicarious experience: the subject observes a similar other 2.1. Participants
perform the target behavior;
- Verbal (or social) persuasion: verbally expressed faith in the Convenience sampling was applied in this study. The call for
subject's capabilities by others; participation was distributed through e-mail, social media and the
- Physiological/affective states: (mis)interpretations of bodily involved researchers personally. Subjects were included if they
states. were Dutch-speaking and did not have walking disabilities.
In total, 36 subjects were included; 17 women and 19 men. Age
Ashford, Edmunds, and French (2010) showed that using ranged from 19 to 61 years and averaged 25.6 (SD ¼ 7.2). All par-
mastery experience is the most powerful source to increase self- ticipants signed an informed consent. A local ethics committee
efficacy, followed by vicarious experience. Although little is reviewed and approved the study.
known about applying these techniques in mobile, technology
supported interventions, recent research does indicate that 2.2. Procedure
mastery experience can indeed be an effective source to influence
self-efficacy in these types of intervention (Achterkamp, Hermens, The study used a repeated measures design. Subjects came to
& Vollenbroek-Hutten, 2015). Considering that the systematic re- the lab of Roessingh Research and Development once, but per-
view with meta-analysis by Ashford et al. (2010) indicates vicarious formed the required task six times. Subjects first signed an
experience as the most powerful source to influence self-efficacy informed consent, after which they completed a questionnaire
after mastery experience (Ashford et al., 2010), the goal of the assessing demographical variables. Hereafter, they were randomly
current study is to investigate whether it is possible to successfully assigned to one of two groups.
apply vicarious experience when using mobile, technology sup- Group 1 e vicarious experience: subjects in this group viewed a
ported feedback strategies. video of a same sex model who successfully performs the task
Regarding vicarious experience, traditional face-to-face in- before the start of every trial.
terventions typically involve a model and an observer. The observer Group 2 e control: subjects in this group did not view a video.
learns from the model who demonstrates how the task should be Otherwise the procedure was equal to group 1.
performed. By observing the model, the observer can identify Next, subjects received information about the task they would
certain principles, rules or responses relevant for successful per- have to perform. See below for a detailed description. The goal was
formance (Strecher, McEvoy DeVellis, Becker, & Rosenstock, 1986; to walk from A to B in exactly 14, 16, or 18 s, wearing scuba fins and
Schunk & DiBenedetto, 2016). Bandura, Adams, and Beyer (1977) a blind fold. They were asked to put on scuba fins and were allowed
states that through this observation of others, subjects obtain to practice walking in a straight line, after which the subjects were
knowledge about how new behavioral patterns are formed, which asked to put on a blindfold and could again practice walking.
they can then use when performing the new behavior themselves. Following this introduction, subjects completed a total of six trials
Two aspects are of major importance for this to lead to an actual of the task.
increase in self-efficacy:
2.3. Task
1) The model should be similar to the observer, so that the
observer can identify with the model; comparable age, gender Subjects were asked to walk from one side of the lab to the other
and appearance are crucial (Bandura et al., 1977; Kassin, Fein, & (8 m), in exactly 14, 16, or 18 s (target time), wearing scuba fins and
Markus, 2010; Schunk & DiBenedetto, 2016; Strecher et al., a blindfold. Subjects were explained that the goal was to get as
1986). close to the target time as possible; the closer they were, the better
2) The model should perform the target behavior with some dif- they performed. However, subjects did not receive feedback after
ficulty; research shows that phobic subjects benefit more from trials. Subjects started between a red light laser and reflector, which
observing models who overcome their problem by exerting functioned as a starting gate on one side of the lab. A second laser
effort than from models who overcome their problem easily and reflector combination functioned as a finishing gate and was
(Bandura et al., 1977; Schunk & DiBenedetto, 2016). placed at the other side of the lab. The distance from start to finish
was approximately eight meters. The sensors were linked to a
 R. Achterkamp et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 62 (2016) 327e332 329

computer to measure the exact time subject needed to reach the 2.5. Statistical analysis
finishing gate. Subjects were reassured that the experimenter
would correct their course if they deviated too much. Otherwise, A Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance was performed to test
the experimenter did not intervene during the task; the in- the effect of Group (vicarious experience vs. control), Time (trial 1
structions for every trial were provided through the smartphone to 6) and the interaction between Group and Time on level of self-
and speakers. efficacy and task performance. We did not correct for age or gender.
Subjects in group 1 would start by viewing the example of
successful performance on the smartphone. Hereafter, all subjects 3. Results
were asked the following automated question via speakers: “To
what extend do you think you can successfully accomplish this task 3.1. Primary outcome parameters
on a scale of 0e100”. The experimenter entered the subject's
answer in the computer. Next, the following automated message The average level of task-specific self-efficacy did not differ
sounded: “After the countdown, walk to the other side of the lab in significantly between the group with vicarious experience and the
exactly X seconds”, where X corresponded to 14, 16 or 18 s. The control group (F(1,34) ¼ 0.678, p ¼ 0.416): the group with vicarious
computer randomly picked on of the three options, such that every experience scored 66.2 (SD ¼ 17.4) on average, while the control
target time was prompted two times. These times were chosen group scored 60.7 (SD ¼ 22.3). The main effect of time was also
based on results of a pilot study that showed that these target times non-significant (F(5,30) ¼ 1.175, p ¼ 0.345), meaning self-efficacy
corresponded to fast, normal, and slow walking speeds respec- scores did not differ per trial. Furthermore, the RM ANOVA
tively. Following the countdown, the subject walked from the showed that the interaction between group and time was non-
starting gate to the finishing gate. Upon reaching the finishing gate, significant (F(5,30) ¼ 1.359, p ¼ 0.267), indicating that in this
another automated message would sound: “stop, you have reached experiment, no difference existed between how subjects respon-
the destination.” After this, the speakers prompted: “prepare for ded over time per condition. These results are summarized in Fig. 1,
the following attempt.” which clearly shows that the differences are small.
To eliminate the effect of mastery experience on level of self- Task performance, as measured by the deviation from the target
efficacy, subjects in none of the two groups received information time in milliseconds, did not vary significantly over time
after each trial about how close they were to the target time or (F(5,30) ¼ 0.950, p ¼ 0.463) or per condition (F(1,34) ¼ 0.508,
whether they were too slow or too fast. After hearing the message p ¼ 0.481). The interaction was also non-significant
“prepare for the following attempt”, subjects in group 1 would (F(5,30) ¼ 1.008, p ¼ 0.430). However, Fig. 2 does show an inter-
proceed to again view the video of a successful attempt on the esting trend: performance seems better in the group with vicarious
smartphone, whereas subjects in group 2 would not view this video experience (mean ¼ 9, SD ¼ 3030) than in the control group
and simply prepare for the following attempt. Subjects were (mean ¼ 917, SD ¼ 4473), especially when looking at the first three
allowed to remove the blindfold while preparing for the following trials. Whereas the group with vicarious experience shifts towards
trial. This procedure was equal for all following trials. a lower deviation from the target time, the deviation from the
target time in the control group increases over time.
2.4. Data analysis
3.2. Secondary outcome parameters
The two primary outcome parameters were:
With respect to the vicarious experience group, male and female
1) Self-efficacy regarding the task: the answer to the question “To subjects indicated to moderately identify with the model, showing
what extend do you think you can successfully accomplish this mean scores of 71,7 (SD ¼ 14.7), and 71,4 (SD ¼ 19.0) respectively.
task on a scale of 0e100” that was prompted at the start of every Subjects named several factors that contributed to higher identi-
trial. fication: equal gender (mentioned by 15 subjects), comparable age
2) Performance: measured by calculating the difference between (mentioned by 9 subjects), comparable length (mentioned by 5
the target time and the time the subject took to walk from the subjects) and comparable body composition (mentioned by 4
starting gate to the finishing gate in milliseconds. subjects). Subjects also named factors that negatively influenced
identification with the model: different walking strategy
Secondary outcome parameters (qualitative): (mentioned by 3 subjects), higher perceived confidence of the
model (mentioned by 2 subjects), different clothing style
1) Identification with model: subjects in the vicarious experience (mentioned by 2 subjects), different age (mentioned by 1 subject)
group were asked to rate to what extend they could identify and different hair color (mentioned by 1 subject).
themselves with the model on a scale of 0e100 and what lead Of the eighteen subjects in the vicarious feedback group, twelve
them to give this score. found the videos helpful for successful performance of the task.
2) Helpfulness of video: subjects in the vicarious experience group Subjects named various factors that could be distilled from the
were asked whether viewing the model helped them perform video which helped them while executing the task: number of
the task and which aspects they thought were most important steps necessary to walk from A to B (mentioned by 10 subjects),
for that. estimating how many steps to take per second (mentioned by 5
3) Walking strategy: after the instructional videos were shot we subjects), step length (mentioned by 5 subjects) and the rhythm of
noticed that the two models used different techniques of the sound of the scuba fins (mentioned by 5 subjects). Six subjects
walking with scuba fins. The male model shuffled his feet for- rated the videos unhelpful, because the model had a different
ward with the scuba fins on the ground, whereas the female walking strategy (mentioned by 3 subjects) or because subjects
model bent her knee and raised her feet up high in front of her to mistakenly thought that the same video was presented six times,
step forward. Although this was unintentional, it was decided to but with a different target time presented on the screen
include this as a last qualitative variable. Subjects in the group (mentioned by 3 subjects).
with vicarious experience were categorized as either matching, Regarding walking strategy, fifteen out of eighteen subjects
or not matching the model's technique. matched the walking strategy of the model during all trials, while
330 R. Achterkamp et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 62 (2016) 327e332

Fig. 1. Self-efficacy regarding the task over time per condition including Standard Error bars.

three out of eighteen inconsistently switched between strategies. lower level of self-efficacy did not show a different level of per-
Specifically, six out of seven male subject and nine out of eleven formance than subjects with a higher level of self-efficacy. Also,
female subjects used the same walking strategy as the model they performance over time does not differ significantly between the
viewed in the video before every trial. two groups (see Fig. 3).

3.3. Post-hoc analyses 4. Discussion

A post-hoc RM ANOVA was performed to investigate differences The main aim of the current experiment was to investigate
in performance between subjects with a lower level of self-efficacy whether vicarious experience leads to an increase in self-efficacy
and subjects with a higher level of self-efficacy. As suggested by when using technology-supported feedback strategies. Specif-
literature (Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 1995), the median level of self- ically, we focused on the effect of a feedback strategy that used
efficacy was used to categorize subjects into two groups: (1) sub- vicarious experience on 1) level of self-efficacy regarding a specific
jects with a score below the median level of self-efficacy over all task, and 2) task performance. The task was to walk from A to B
trials (67.03), and (2) subjects with a score above this median. Re- (eight meters), in exactly 14, 16, or 18 s (target time), wearing scuba
sults, however, do not indicate a significant main effect of group fins and a blindfold. The subjects’ goal was to get as close to the
(F(1,34) ¼ 2.755, p ¼ 0.106), nor a significant interaction effect target time as possible. A group in which subjects viewed a video in
(F(5,30) ¼ 0.705, p ¼ 0.624); in this experiment, subjects with a which a model performs the task successfully (vicarious

Fig. 2. Deviation from target time (performance) over time per condition including Standard Error bars.
 R. Achterkamp et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 62 (2016) 327e332 331

Fig. 3. Deviation from target time (performance) over time per level of self-efficacy including Standard Error bars.

experience) was compared to a control group in which subjects did outcome parameters seems interesting: 83% of the subjects in the
not view a model perform the task. group with vicarious experience copied the walking strategy of the
Results indicate partial success. Although Figs. 1 and 2 do indi- model in the video they viewed before the start of every trial,
cate a difference between the two groups in the expected direction, indicating that subjects might have picked up some elements from
the differences are too small in relation to the inter-subject vari- the video and incorporated these in their strategy. Male subjects
ability to be significant. As such, the vicarious experience strategy tended to shuffle forward, whereas female subjects raised their
was unsuccessful in influencing both self-efficacy (1) and task knees up high and stepped forward, corresponding to the model in
performance (2). This is contrary to theory from Bandura (1994) the video male and female subjects viewed. Although observers
who states that observing a model leads to an increase in self- may identify and use only certain principles that are demonstrated
efficacy and changes in task performance or behavior. Traditional by a model (Schunk & DiBenedetto, 2016; Strecher et al., 1986),
face-to-face or TV/video, interventions frequently successfully alternative explanations cannot be ruled out and should be inves-
apply these techniques (Bautista, 2011; Hagen, Gutkin, Wilson, & tigated more thoroughly in a future experiment in which, for
Oats, 1998). The lack of a significant effect in the current experi- example, subjects are randomly assigned to either a group viewing
ment cannot be attributed to too low similarity between observer a model performing the task shuffling or a group viewing a model
and model; average to high identification scores were reported by that uses an alternative strategy.
all subjects in the vicarious experience group and subjects named Overall, future studies should investigate whether vicarious
many factors that increased their perceived similarity and only few experience can contribute to higher levels of self-efficacy in mod-
factors that negatively influenced it. Furthermore, two thirds of the ern day mobile, technology-supported physical activity in-
subjects indicated the video as helpful for successful performance terventions, but in a more ecologically valid setting than the case in
of the task. Why vicarious experience did not lead to the expected the current experiment. For example, it would be interesting to
effect might be due to several reasons: investigate whether providing a video that shows instructions for
physical activity, instead of providing coaching through text mes-
 The task that was used is rather artificial and has a low sages, is more effective when applied in daily life physical activity
ecological validity. Therefore it might not be comparable to the interventions. Earlier research on study behavior of students
traditional interventions. The reason for choosing this specific already showed that showing an animated version or a live video of
task was to guarantee equal task experience of subjects at the task performance by a model is more effective than providing
start of the experiment and thereby increase comparability of spoken text (van Gog & Rummel, 2010).
the two groups.
 Vicarious experience is most powerful when subjects see that
5. Conclusion
the model is rewarded upon finishing the task (Bandura, 1977).
This was intentionally left out of the current experiment to
This study aimed to influence self-efficacy and task performance
exclusively focus on vicarious experience and not mastery
through vicarious experience using mobile, technology-supported
experience.
feedback strategies based on behavioral sciences. Results indicate
 Other factors such as: the low number of participants per con-
partial success; self-efficacy and task performance did not change
dition, high inter-subject variability, too small differences be-
significantly, although a trend in improvement of task performance
tween conditions, insufficient difficulty of the task, or,
was present. Secondary outcome parameters do seem promising,
considering the relatively high self-efficacy scores on the first
indicating that vicarious experience could have contributed to
trials, a ceiling effect regarding self-efficacy.
differences in walking strategy. However, our findings are subject to
several limitations such as small number of subjects per group,
Although the primary outcome parameters indicated no sig-
ceiling effects and, with respect to the secondary outcome pa-
nificant effect of vicarious experience, one of the secondary
rameters, lack of a control group. Future research should therefore
332 R. Achterkamp et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 62 (2016) 327e332

investigate the effect of vicarious feedback in mobile technology factors in computing systems, Florence, Italy.
Gist, M. E., & Mitchell, T. R. (1992). Self-efficacy: a theoretical analysis of its de-
supported interventions more thoroughly and, importantly, in a
terminants and malleability. The Academy of Management Review, 17(2),
more ecologically valid setting. 183e211. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/258770.
van Gog, T., & Rummel, N. (2010). Example-based learning: integrating cognitive
Acknowledgements and social-cognitive research perspectives. Educational Psychology Review,
22(2), 155e174. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9134-7.
Hagen, K. M., Gutkin, T. B., Wilson, C. P., & Oats, R. C. (1998). Using vicarious
This publication was supported by the Dutch National Program experience and verbal persuasion to enhance self-efficacy in pre-service
COMMIT (project P7 SWELL). teachers: “Priming the pump” for consultation. School Psychology Quarterly,
13(2), 169e178.
Hawkins, R. P., Kreuter, M., Resnicow, K., Fishbein, M., & Dijkstra, A. (2008). Un-
References derstanding tailoring in communicating about health. Health Education
Research, 23(3), 454e466. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/her/cyn004.
Achterkamp, R., Dekker-Van Weering, M. G. H., Evering, R. M. H., Tabak, M., Kassin, S. M., Fein, S., & Markus, H. R. (2010). Social psychology (8th ed.). United
Timmerman, J. G., Hermens, H. J., et al. (2016). Strategies to improve adherence to Kingdom: Wadsworth Publishing.
coaching systems in telemedicine: Development of personas for providing tailored Lin, M., Lane, N. D., Mohammod, M., Yang, X., Lu, H., Cardone, G., et al.Choudhury, T.
feedback (submitted for publication). (2012). BeWellþ: multi-dimensional wellbeing monitoring with community-
Achterkamp, R., Hermens, H. J., & Vollenbroek-Hutten, M. M. R. (2015). The influ- guided user feedback and energy optimization. In Paper presented at the pro-
ence of success experience on self-efficacy when providing feedback through ceedings of the conference on wireless health, San Diego, California.
technology. Computers in Human Behavior, 52(0), 419e423. http://dx.doi.org/ Noar, S. M., Benac, C. N., & Harris, M. S. (2007). Does tailoring matter? Meta-analytic
10.1016/j.chb.2015.06.029. review of tailored print health behavior change interventions. Psychological
op den Akker, H., Jones, V., & Hermens, H. (2014). Tailoring real-time physical ac- Bulletin, 133(4), 673e693. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.133.4.673.
tivity coaching systems: a literature survey and model. User Modeling and User- Roach, J. B., Yadrick, M. K., Johnson, J. T., Boudreaux, L. J., Forsythe Iii, W. A., &
Adapted Interaction, 24(5), 351e392. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11257-014- Billon, W. (2003). Using self-efficacy to predict weight loss among young adults.
9146-y. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 103(10), 1357e1359. http://
Ashford, S., Edmunds, J., & French, D. P. (2010). What is the best way to change self- dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0002-8223(03)01072-1.
efficacy to promote lifestyle and recreational physical activity? A systematic Rowbotham, M., & Owen, R. M. (2015). The effect of clinical nursing instructors on
review with meta-analysis. British Journal of Health Psychology, 15(2), 265e288. student self-efficacy. Nurse education in practice, 15(6), 561e566.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/135910709x461752. Schunk, D. H., & DiBenedetto, M. K. (2016). Self-efficacy theory in education. Hand-
Bandura, A. (1994). In Self-efficacy (vol. 4). New York: Academic Press. book of motivation at school (pp. 34e54).
Bandura, A., Adams, N. E., & Beyer, J. (1977). Cognitive processes mediating Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (1995). Generalized self-efficacy scale. In J. Weinman,
behavioral change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35(3), 125e139. S. Wright, & M. Johnston (Eds.), Measures in health psychology: A user's portfolio.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.35.3.125. Causal and control beliefs (pp. 35e37). Windsor, England: NFER-NELSON.
Bautista, N. U. (2011). Investigating the use of vicarious and mastery experiences in Strecher, V. J., McEvoy DeVellis, B., Becker, M. H., & Rosenstock, I. M. (1986). The role
influencing early childhood education majors' self-efficacy beliefs. Journal of of self-efficacy in achieving health behavior change. Health Education &
Science Teacher Education, 22(4), 333e349. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10972- Behavior, 13(1), 73e92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/109019818601300108.
011-9232-5. Trost, S. G., Kerr, L. M., Ward, D. S., & Pate, R. R. (2001). Physical activity and de-
Bielik, P., Tomlein, M., Kr atky, P., Mitrík, S., Barla, M., & Bielikova, M. (2012). terminants of physical activity in obese and non-obese children. International
Move2Play: an innovative approach to encouraging people to be more physi- journal of obesity and related metabolic disorders : journal of the International
cally active. In Paper presented at the proceedings of the 2nd ACM SIGHIT inter- Association for the Study of Obesity, 25(6), 822e829. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/
national health informatics symposium, Miami, Florida, USA. http://dl.acm.org/ sj.ijo.0801621.
citation.cfm?doid¼2110363.2110374. Willis, J. M. (2015). Examining technology and teaching efficacy of preservice
Consolvo, S., McDonald, D. W., Toscos, T., Chen, M. Y., Froehlich, J., Harrison, B., teacher candidates: a deliberate course design model. Current Issues in Educa-
et al.Landay, J. A. (2008). Activity sensing in the wild: a field trial of ubifit tion, 18(3).
garden. In Paper presented at the proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human