Are self-efficacy beliefs and subjective task demand related to apathy in aging?

Abstract

Objective: Apathy, defined as a reduction in voluntary goal-directed behaviors (GDBs), is common in aging, but the processes underlying apathy are still unclear. Self-efficacy beliefs are likely to play a key role in GDBs, by influencing goal setting, perceived difficulty, and the necessary amount of effort to achieve goals. The aim of this study was to examine the relationships between apathy and perceived self-efficacy.Method: Sixty-three healthy elderly participants worked on a memory task without fixed performance standard (‘do your best’) and indicated perceived difficulty and effort investment after performing the task. They also completed two short scales assessing general self-efficacy and negative mood. In addition, a close relative of each participant completed the Initiative Interest Scale, a new questionnaire assessing apathetic manifestations in aging.Results: The main results showed that subjective task demand (i.e., perceived difficulty and estimated effort) operated as a mediator between self-efficacy beliefs and apathy. These results suggest that elderly people with low self-efficacy beliefs who face a challenge judge the task to be highly difficult and effort demanding, which might result in GDB reduction.Conclusion: These results shed new light on the processes related to apathy in aging and open up an interesting prospect for psychological interventions.

Keywords:

• goal-directed behavior reduction
• general self-efficacy
• perceived difficulty
• effort investment

Acknowledgements

Many thanks to T. Antonini and L. Magnenat for their help with the data collection.

Notes

1. We applied the bootstrapping method (Preacher & Hayes, 2008). In this method, one generates percentile-based CIs for indirect effects by a simulated resampling (1000 iterations in the current study) of one's original data-set. Estimating CIs in this manner allows for asymmetric intervals and thus relaxes the assumption of multivariate normality. In addition, this method tends to be more robust for small samples than alternative methods, like the Sobel test.

2. We did not perform a Sobel test, because it has lower statistical power than the bootstrap test (Preacher & Hayes, 2008).