INDIVIDUALS use a broad range of techniques to regulate their moods. Thayer, Newman, and McClain (1994) believe that physical exercise is the single most effective strategy for changing a bad mood, among those under one’s own control. Other commonly reported mood regulation strategies include

also are effective.

 may be the most effective strategies for changing bad moods (reviewed by Thayer et al., 1994).

Central to emotional self-regulation is the ability to reflect upon and manage one’s emotions; emotional disclosure provides one means of doing so. Pennebaker (1989, 1993, 1997) has studied the effects of disclosure extensively and finds that the act of disclosing emotional experiences in writing improves individuals’ subsequent physical and mental health (see Niederhoffer & Pennebaker, this volume).

[…] SELF-efficacy is not a genetically endowed trait. Instead, self-efficacy be­liefs develop over time and through experience. The development of such beliefs begins, we as­sume, in infancy and continues throughout life. Understanding how self-efficacy develops re­quires understanding a broader theoretical back­ground. Self-efficacy is best understood in the context of social cognitive theory—an approach to understanding human cognition, action, mo­tivation, and emotion that assumes that we are active shapers of rather than simply passive re­actors to our environments (Bandura, 1986, 1997; Barone, Maddux, & Snyder, 1997). Social cognitive theory’s four basic premises, short­ened and simplified, are as follows:

1. We have powerful cognitive or symbolizing capabilities that allow for the creation of internal models of experience, the development of innovative courses of action, the hypothetical testing of such courses of action through the prediction of outcomes, and the communication of complex ideas and experiences to others. We also can engage in self-observation and can analyze and evaluate our own behavior, thoughts, and emotions. These self-reflective activities set the stage for self-regulation.

2. Environmental events, inner personal factors (cognition, emotion, and biological events), and behaviors are reciprocal influences. We respond cognitively, effectively, and behaviorally to environmental events. Also, through cognition we exercise control over our own behavior, which then influences not only the environment but also our cognitive, affective, and biological states.

3. Self and personality are socially embedded. These are perceptions (accurate or not) of our own and others’ patterns of social cognition, emotion, and action as they occur in patterns of situations. Because they are socially embedded, personality and self are not simply what we bring to our interactions with others; they are created in these interactions, and they change through these interactions.

4. We are capable of self-regulation. We choose goals and regulate our behavior in the pursuit of these goals. At the heart of self-regulation is our ability to anticipate or develop expectancies—to use past knowledge and experience to form beliefs about future events and states and beliefs about our abilities and behavior.

Social cognitive theory and self-efficacy theory assume that we have the capacity for self-regulation and self-initiated change, and studies of people who have overcome difficult behavioral problems without professional help provide compelling evidence for this capacity (e.g.,Prochaska, Norcross, & DiClemente, 1994). Research on self-efficacy has added greatly to our understanding of how we guide our own behavior in the pursuit of happiness. Self-regulation (simplified) depends on three interacting components (Bandura, 1986, 1997; Barone et al., 1997): goals or standards of performance, self-evaluative reactions to performance, and self-efficacy beliefs.

Goals are essential to self-regulation because we attempt to regulate our actions, thoughts, and emotions to achieve desired outcomes. The ability to envision desired future events and states allows us to create incentives that motivate and guide our actions. Through our goals, we adopt personal standards and evaluate our behavior against these standards. Thus, goals provide us with standards against which to monitor our progress and evaluate both our progress and our abilities (Snyder, Rand, & Sig-mon, this volume).

Self-evaluative reactions are important in self-regulation because our beliefs about the progress we are making (or not making) toward our goals are major determinants of our emotional reactions during goal-directed activity. These emotional reactions, in turn, can enhance or disrupt self-regulation. The belief that I am inefficacious and making poor progress toward a goal produces distressing emotional states (e.g., anxiety, depression) that can lead to cognitive and behavioral ineffectiveness and self-regulatory failure. Strong self-efficacy beliefs and strong expectations for goal attainment, however, usually produce adaptive emotional states that, in turn, enhance self-regulation.

Self-efficacy beliefs influence self-regulation in several ways.

First, self-efficacy influences the goals we set. The higher my self-efficacy in a specific achievement domain, the loftier will be the goals that I set for myself in that domain.

Second, self-efficacy beliefs influence our choices of goal-directed activities, expenditure of effort, persistence in the face of challenge and obstacles (Bandura, 1986; Locke & Latham, 1990), and reactions to perceived discrepancies between goals and current performance (Bandura, 1986). If I have strong efficacy beliefs, I will be relatively resistant to the disruptions in self-regulation that can result from difficulties and setbacks, and I will persevere. Perseverance usually produces desired results, and this success then increases my sense of efficacy (see Masten and Reed, this volume).

Third, self-efficacy for solving problems and making decisions influences the efficiency and effectiveness of problem solving and decision making (see Heppner & Lee, this volume). When faced with complex decisions, people who have confidence in their ability to solve problems use their cognitive resources more effectively than do those people who doubt their cognitive skills (e.g., Bandura, 1997). Such efficacy usually leads to better solutions and greater achievement. In the face of difficulty, if I have high self-efficacy, I am likely to remain task-diagnostic and continue to search for solutions to problems. If my self-efficacy is low, however, I am more likely to become self-diagnostic and reflect on my inadequacies, which detracts from my efforts to assess and solve the problem (Bandura, 1997).

This Webpage was created for a workshop held at Saint Andrew's Abbey, Valyermo, California in 2000....x....  ’ “”.