Department of Human Development & Family Studies, School of Home Science, Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University, Vidya Vihar, Raebareily Road, Lucknow, 226025 (UP) India
This study investigates emotional self-efficacy among college students at Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University, Lucknow, examining its relationship with demographic variables including age, gender, academic specialization, and socio-economic status. A sample of 150 students from three different academic streams (Arts, Science, and Commerce) was selected using purposive random sampling. The Emotional Self-Efficacy Scale (ESES) developed by Beri and Jain (2015), which comprises 32 items across three domains-Understanding Self & Others, Using Emotions to Facilitate Thoughts, and Regulation of Emotion in Self & Others—was employed for data collection. Results indicate that the majority of respondents (37.3%) demonstrated above-average emotional self-efficacy scores, with strong positive correlations observed between the three domains and overall emotional self-efficacy. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed no statistically significant differences in emotional self-efficacy based on age (F = 0.858, p = 0.356), gender (F = 0.172, p = 0.679), academic specialization (F = 0.297, p = 0.743), or socio-economic status (F = 0.291, p = 0.883). These findings suggest that emotional self-efficacy among college students remains relatively consistent across various demographic characteristics, potentially reflecting shared educational environments and developmental stages. This research contributes to understanding emotional self-efficacy as a construct that may develop independently of the demographic variables examined in this study.
The belief in one's own ability to complete tasks is known as self-efficacy. Self-efficacy acts as a link between knowledge and action, according to the author. Perceptions of self-efficacy have been demonstrated to impact a person's emotional responses, behavioral preferences, and mental landscape. One way to gauge one's ability to apply specific performance kinds is through perceived self-efficacy. Self-efficacy beliefs impact people's choices in life, their degree of achievement, their level of stress and despair, the results they expect from their efforts, and their pursuit of actions. Self-efficacy plays a more important role in explaining individual differences than actual skills and talents. In this context, the concept of emotional skill self-efficacy is emphasized. Arslan, Nihan (2017)1 Pandora described self-efficacy "as the judgment of individuals on their abilities to organize and implement the trails of required actions, to achieve specific forms of performance." Bong and Skaalvik (2003) 2 state that self-efficacy of general abilities and self-skills are evaluations of what an individual may achieve given his skills and abilities; hence, self-efficacy demonstrates expectations and self-perception of adequacy (E. Skaalvik & S. Skaalvik, 2014) 3. One of the most important approaches to exercising control over oneself is through self-efficacy (Bandura et al., 2001)4. The emotional In order to manage negative emotions during adolescence, emotional self-efficacy is considered to be a vital aspect of resilience and mental health. A person with a high emotional self-efficacy is likely to be sensitive to the emotions of others, to tolerate the negative experiences of others, and to be able to regulate their emotions to a state of flexibility and adaptability. According to Goroshit and Hen (2014) 5, great emotional self-efficacy is linked to positive outlooks, the ability to control emotions, and a general sense of life satisfaction. There are no statistically significant differences at the 0.05 level, and faculty members have a high degree of emotional self-efficacy (Abdel-Hadi, 2017) 6. According to Beri (2018) 7, students' emotional self-efficacy was below average. Emotional self-efficacy as an active functioning inside the emotional intelligence stability framework. The idea of emotional self-efficacy, which denotes a person's capacity to manage or change his emotional life, is illustrated by them. In the affective sector, the structuring of negative emotions and the expression of positive ones are perceived as the regulatory variables of emotional self-efficacy. Maternal control was a marginally significant predictor of anxiety, while emotional self-efficacy and maternal rejection predicted anxiety. Paternal rejection and control did not predict anxiety. Maternal rejection, but not paternal rejection or control by parents, predicted emotional self-efficacy and emotional self-efficacy mediated the relation between maternal rejection and anxiety which concluded the result offer support for a commonly cited theoretical pathway from maternal rejection to youth anxiety by teaching that positive emotional outcomes are rare and outside of the child’s control. There is a negative and significant relation between emotional self-efficacy and statistical anxiety and meta cognitive correlation between regulatory emotional self-efficacy and network misconduct of college students. (Niditch 2012) 8 Emotional self-efficacy refer to people’ judgment regarding their own capacity’s to process emotional information accurately and effectively, as a means of self-regulation and managing emotions intelligently (Kirk Hine, 2008). 9 In interpersonal interactions involving emotions, emotional self-efficacy manifests as a sense of personal efficiency. The ability to use one's own emotional reactions and those of others as coping mechanisms is a measure of emotional self-efficacy. Individuals who possess strong emotional self-efficacy tend to be highly perceptive and sensitive to the feelings of others. They are able to adjust their emotions in a flexible and adaptive way and are receptive to undesirable emotional experiences. A high degree of emotional self-efficacy is linked to positive perceptions about one's social competence, academic performance, sense of fulfillment with life in general, and emotional regulation (Schunk, 2005) 10 Emotional self-efficacy is a component of self-perceptions of emotional functionality, but emotional functionality also encompasses other sentiments and dispositions. Consequently, they argue that emotional self-efficacy is a characteristic of emotional intelligence and that emotional self-efficacy and emotional functionality are not interchangeable, 2011's Schutte and Hine. The concept of emotional self-efficacy signifies the degree to which a person is able to manage or change his emotional life. The ability to organize unpleasant emotions and express positive ones is seen as one of the regulatory variables of emotional self-efficacy (Caprara et al., 2008) 11. The fact that the youth category is not well defined and that it sometimes depends more on a person's social circumstances than on their age or cultural standing is a recurrent finding in a lot of study on youth cultures and identities. Young people in their 30s or 40s may also be considered youth in a particular culture, as may preadolescents. Furthermore, whether or not its practitioners remain in the young category, youth as a cultural stage frequently signals the start of a long-term, even lifetime, participation in specific cultural activities. Although related categories like adolescent, teenager, or young adult offer more detail in terms of age, their use varies depending on the situation. Additionally, possibly opposing classifications like child, adult. This article does not attempt to provide a thorough overview of the extensive body of multidisciplinary literature on youth and adolescence due to space constraints. Generally speaking, I have concentrated more on recent research, anthropological work, and research from other disciplines that is closely related to important anthropological concerns about youth. Even some studies that fit these criteria have inevitably been left out for space considerations; those that are included are helpful examples of particular points but may not be the best representations of recent youth research. In order to include members of the youth category in my discussion of a given issue or elder may shift, I have occasionally resorted to no ethnographic work because ethnographic research on many elements of youth cultural practice is frequently shockingly lacking. As a result, in Soviet Russia, the dependent position of teenagers was symbolically enforced in a number of ways, and the category of teenager was merged into that of child in official language (Markowitz 2000)12. While this is changing in many nations, not all cultures view youth or adolescence as a particularly significant life stage. Rapid cultural and economic change caused adolescence to emerge as a social category and the adolescent peer group to evolve as a social structure among Canadian Inuit, according to Condon (1990) 13. Teenagers are a self-aware age group that is targeted as potential consumers in many nations due to a new category of adolescence that is a relatively recent and ongoing media construct (Liechty, 1995, White, 1995) 14, 15.
Need and significance of the study
Emotional self-efficacy, conceptualized by Muris (2002)16 as the perceived capability to effectively regulate negative emotional states, represents a critical psychological construct in collegiate development that is shaped through environmental interactions and cognitive meditational processes (Macakova & Wood, 2022)17. Empirical evidence from Galla and Wood (2011) 18 demonstrates that emotional self-efficacy serves as a protective buffer against anxiety's detrimental effects on academic performance, as anxiety negatively predicted mathematical assessment outcomes only among students exhibiting low emotional self-efficacy. Given these significant implications for psychosocial and academic functioning during this formative developmental period, this investigation was undertaken to examine how emotional self-efficacy manifests across demographic variables within an Indian higher education context. The findings hold considerable significance for educational stakeholders-including parents, faculty, and administrators by providing foundational knowledge for developing evidence-based interventions designed to foster optimal emotional development across diverse student populations, irrespective of age, gender, academic specialization, or socioeconomic background, thereby enhancing holistic student development and psychological well-being within higher education institutions.
Aims and objective: To comprehensively investigating the relationship between emotional self-efficacy and demographic variables (Age, Gender, Specialization, Socio-economic status)
METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY
For the present study to identify the level of emotional self-efficacy among college students from different disciplines of Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh. Sample size 150 youths from 03 different streams (Arts, Science and Commerce) of BBAU shall be included in the study. Sampling procedure - Purposive randomly sampling technique shall be used for selecting the sample. A Self-Structured Socio Demographic Profile Sheet including information like name, age, gender, Specialization, type of family, place of residence, etc. shall be administered.
Tools used: Emotional Self-efficacy tool developed by Nimisha Beri and Manisha Jain (2015) 19 was used in the study. The tool consists of 31 items which are favorable in nature. It has three dimensions like understanding self and others, using emotions to facilitate thoughts and regulation to emotion in self and others. Each item is marked on a 5point Likert scale viz. strongly agree, agree, undecided, Disagree, strongly disagree. Reliability coefficient of the scale is 0.96. To assess the socio-economic status of the respondent Kuppuswamy socio-economic status was administered.
RESULTS
Table- 1: Frequencies and percentages according to study variables (N=150).
|
Variables |
Categories |
No. |
% |
|
Gender |
Male |
78 |
52.0 |
|
Female |
72 |
48.0 |
|
|
Age (in years) |
20-25 |
91 |
60.7 |
|
25-30 |
59 |
39.3 |
|
|
Specialization |
Art |
50 |
33.3 |
|
Commerce |
50 |
33.3 |
|
|
Science |
50 |
33.3 |
|
|
Socio-economic status |
Upper |
25 |
16.7 |
|
Upper Middle |
86 |
57.3 |
|
|
Lower Middle |
29 |
19.3 |
|
|
Upper Lower |
9 |
6.0 |
|
|
Lower |
1 |
0.7 |
It is noted from table-1 that majority (52%) of the youth was male and 48% were females. The respondent were equally distributed (33.3%) over stream i.e. science, art and commerce. Looking forward as per age majority (60.7%) the respondents were from 20-25 years followed 39.3% were from age group 25-30 years. According to the socio-economic status of the respondents it was found that major proportion (57.3%) of the youth belonged to upper middle class, followed by lower middle class (19.3%), (16.7%) from upper class, 6 percent of the respondents were from upper lower, and remaining (0.7%) respondents were from the lower class respectively.
Table- 2: Emotional Self-efficacy of the respondents
|
Levels of Emotional Self-efficacy |
Factor 1 |
Factor 2 |
Factor 3 |
Emotional Self-Efficacy Scores |
|||||
|
Understanding Self & Others |
Using Emotions to Facilitate Thoughts |
Regulation of Emotions in Self and Others |
|||||||
|
No. |
% |
No. |
% |
No. |
% |
No. |
% |
||
|
Extremely high |
20 |
13.3 |
9 |
6.0 |
17 |
11.3 |
9 |
6.0 |
|
|
High |
18 |
18.7 |
20 |
13.3 |
20 |
13.3 |
21 |
14.0 |
|
|
Above Average |
45 |
30.0 |
46 |
30.7 |
40 |
36.7 |
56 |
37.3 |
|
|
Average |
37 |
24.7 |
49 |
32.7 |
49 |
32.7 |
44 |
29.3 |
|
|
Below Average |
9 |
6.0 |
22 |
14.7 |
13 |
8.7 |
15 |
10.0 |
|
|
Low |
3 |
2.0 |
1 |
0.7 |
6 |
4.0 |
3 |
2.0 |
|
|
Extremely Low |
8 |
5.3 |
3 |
2.0 |
5 |
3.3 |
2 |
1.3 |
|
Table-2 presents the emotional self-efficacy scores of the respondents across three different subscales. The majority (37.3%) of the respondents falls under above average followed by average (29.3%), high (14%) and so on. For factor 1 (Understanding Self & Others), the majority (30.0%) reported above average levels, followed by average levels (24.7%). Regarding Factor 2 (Using Emotions to Facilitate Thoughts), most respondents reported average (32.7%) or above average (30.7%) levels. Similarly, for Factor 3 (Regulation of Emotions in Self and Others), the largest percentages were average (32.7%) and above average (26.7%) levels.
Table-3: Correlation Coefficient between domains and total score
|
|
Understanding self & other |
Using emotions to facilitate thoughts |
Regulation to emotion in self & others |
Overall score |
|
Understanding self & other |
1 |
|
|
|
|
Using emotions to facilitate thoughts |
0.632** |
1 |
|
|
|
Regulation to emotion in self & others |
0.375** |
0.548** |
1 |
|
|
Over all score |
0.828** |
0.862** |
0.779** |
1 |
Table-3 shows significant positive correlations between the three emotional self-efficacy domains. "Understanding self & others" and "Using emotions to facilitate thoughts" had the strongest inter-domain correlation (r = 0.632), while "Understanding self & others" and "Regulation of emotion" showed the weakest (r = 0.375). All domains strongly correlated with the overall score, with "Using emotions to facilitate thoughts" showing the highest correlation (r = 0.862). All relationships were statistically significant (p < 0.01), confirming each domain contributes substantially to overall emotional self-efficacy while measuring distinct aspects.
Table-4: Means and Standard Deviation for the domains of the scales depending on the variables of (Gender, Age, Specialization and Socio-economic Status).
|
Variables |
Understanding self & other |
Using emotions to facilitate thoughts |
Regulation to emotion in self & others |
|
|
Mean ± SD |
Mean ± SD |
Mean ± SD |
||
|
Gender |
Male |
3.44 ± 1.64 |
3.55 ± 1.15 |
3.39 ± 1.52 |
|
Female |
2.90 ± 1.24 |
3.37 ± 1.26 |
3.38 ± 1.30 |
|
|
Age |
20-25 years |
3.24 ± 1.46 |
3.47 ± 1.13 |
3.47 ± 1.32 |
|
25-30 years |
3.10 ± 1.53 |
3.45 ± 1.31 |
3.27 ± 1.55 |
|
|
Specialization |
Commerce |
3.28 ± 1.55 |
3.60 ± 1.17 |
3.42 ± 1.16 |
|
Science |
2.90 ± 1.40 |
3.44 ± 1.24 |
3.66 ± 1.58 |
|
|
Art |
3.38 ± 1.49 |
3.36 ± 1.20 |
3.10 ± 1.41 |
|
|
Socio-Economic status |
Upper |
2.76 ± 1.42 |
3.40 ± 1.04 |
3.32 ± 1.34 |
|
Upper middle |
3.24 ± 1.42 |
3..48 ± 1.26 |
3.32 ± 1.34 |
|
|
Lower middle |
3.24 ± 1.47 |
3.41 ± 1.26 |
3.44 ± 1.47 |
|
|
Upper lower |
3.77 ± 1.64 |
3.55 ± 1.13 |
4.11 ± 1.76 |
|
|
Lower |
2.00 |
4.00 |
4.00 |
|
It is noted from Table-4 that there are apparent differences between the means in sub-domains: (Understanding self & others, using emotions to facilitate thoughts, and regulation of emotion in self & others), depending on the variables of gender, age, specialization, and socio-economic status. In terms of gender, males scored higher in Understanding self & others (3.44 ± 1.64) compared to females (2.90 ± 1.24), while scores were similar for other domains. Regarding age, younger students (20-25 years) showed slightly higher means in Understanding self & others (3.24 ± 1.46) and Regulation of emotion (3.47 ± 1.32) compared to older students. For specialization, Arts students led in Understanding self & others (3.38 ±1.49), Commerce students in Using emotions to facilitate thoughts (3.60 ± 1.17), and Science students in Regulation of emotion (3.66 ±1.58). By socio-economic status, Upper-lower status students reported the highest means across most domains, particularly in Regulation of emotion (4.11 ± 1.76) in order to verify the significance of differences; analysis of quadruple variance (ANOVA) was conducted, and Table 4 shows the result of this analysis.
Table-5: Result of analysis of variance (ANOVA) test on the tool as a whole depending on the variables (Age, Specialization, Socio economic status).
|
Source of variance |
F-Value |
P-Value |
|
Age |
0.858 |
0.356 |
|
Gender |
0.172 |
0.679 |
|
Specialization |
0.297 |
0.743 |
|
Socio economic status |
0.291 |
0.883 |
The ANOVA results in Table 5 show that none of the demographic variables (age, gender, specialization, socioeconomic status) significantly influenced participants' assessment of the tool. All p-values exceed 0.05 (ranging from 0.356 to 0.883), indicating no statistically significant differences. This suggests that perceptions of the tool were consistent regardless of participants' demographic characteristics. "ANOVA testing revealed no significant differences in tool assessment based on age (F=0.858, p=0.356), gender (F=0.172, p=0.679), specialization (F=0.297, p=0.743), or socioeconomic status (F=0.291, p=0.883), indicating consistent perceptions across demographic groups."
DISCUSSION
The findings from various studies on self-efficacy, particularly emotional self-efficacy, reveal several important relationships with psychological, academic, and career outcomes. This discussion synthesizes these findings to provide a comprehensive understanding of the role of self-efficacy in different domains of human functioning. Gender differences in self-efficacy have been reported by Rajesh Kumar and Roshan Lal (2006) 20, with females scoring higher than males. However, this finding seems to be domain-specific, as ?K?Z and Telef (2013)21 found that gender specifically affects emotional and general self-efficacy in Turkish adolescents. Interestingly, more recent work by Türk-Kurtça and Kocatürk (2020) 21 did not find statistically significant differences between faculty members based on gender, qualification, specialization, or years of experience. These inconsistent findings suggest that the relationship between gender and self-efficacy may be contextual, influenced by cultural factors, developmental stage, or the specific domain of self-efficacy being measured. Socioeconomic status has emerged as an important factor in self-efficacy research. Telef (2020) 22 demonstrated that Turkish adolescents who perceive higher socioeconomic status report higher social and general self-efficacy, as well as greater life satisfaction. Similarly, Sartika (2024) 23 found that socioeconomic status, alongside self-efficacy, influences learning interest. However, contrary to expectations, neither socioeconomic status nor self-efficacy directly influenced academic achievement in Sartika's study, nor did they indirectly affect academic achievement through learning interest. This highlights the complex relationship between socioeconomic factors, self-efficacy, and educational outcomes, suggesting that intermediate variables may play significant roles that warrant further investigation. Emotional self-efficacy specifically has shown significant relationships with several important outcomes. Dacre Pool and Qual (2023) 24 identified emotional self-efficacy as an important predictor of graduate employability, which in turn mediates the relationship between emotional self-efficacy and career satisfaction. This indicates the potential importance of developing emotional self-efficacy in educational contexts to enhance future career prospects and satisfaction. Arslan (2017) 1 found a negative correlation between emotional self-efficacy and educational stress, with structural equation modeling confirming that emotional self-efficacy negatively predicted educational stress, suggesting its protective role against academic stressors. In the domain of mathematics, Palestro and Jameson (2020) 25 reported interesting findings regarding the interplay between different types of self-efficacy and mathematics performance. While math self-efficacy had an indirect effect on the anxiety-performance relationship, emotional self-efficacy demonstrated neither indirect nor moderating effects on this relationship. This suggests domain specificity in the functionality of different types of self-efficacy, with emotional self-efficacy potentially playing a more limited role in specific academic performance contexts compared to domain-specific self-efficacy. Calandri, Graziano, Cattelino, and Testa (2020)26 explored the relationships between emotional self-efficacy, empathy, loneliness, and depressive symptoms in early adolescents. They found that high empathy combined with low emotional self-efficacy related to higher subsequent loneliness and depressive symptoms. Additionally, emotional self-efficacy moderated the relationship between empathy and loneliness for all participants, while only moderating the relationship between empathy and depressive symptoms for girls. These findings highlight the complex interplay between emotional competencies and psychological well-being, suggesting gender-specific pathways that may inform targeted interventions. Taken together, these studies underscore the multifaceted nature of self-efficacy and its varying relationships with different outcomes across diverse populations. The findings suggest that self-efficacy, particularly emotional self-efficacy, plays an important role in psychological well-being, academic functioning, and career development. However, these relationships appear to be moderated by factors such as gender, socioeconomic status, and the specific domain of functioning being examined. Future research should explore the developmental trajectories of different types of self-efficacy, particularly emotional self-efficacy, and how these trajectories might be influenced by educational interventions. The relationship between emotional self-efficacy and other emotional competencies, such as emotional intelligence and emotion regulation, also warrants further investigation. Moreover, as suggested by Türk-Kurtça and Kocatürk (2020)27, examining emotional self-efficacy in relation to self-regulation and self-awareness may yield important insights for educational and psychological interventions.
CONCLUSION
The majorities of the study’s respondents was from urban areas, were between the ages of 20 and 25, were from nuclear families with one to three siblings, and belonged to the upper middle socioeconomic class. Most young people have emotional self-efficacy that is above average to average, and their mental health is average. There is a weak correlation between mental well-being and age, gender, family type, and place of residence, and a substantial correlation with stream. The respondents' mental health and emotional self-efficacy do not significantly correlate. Between the ages of 20 and 25, male youths in the science stream from rural areas have stronger emotional self-efficacy, while males in the science and arts stream from both urban and rural areas have higher mental health, but those in the commerce stream have lower mental health. Extremely high emotional self-efficacy among respondents is largely associated with below-average mental health.
Recommendations of the study: It is recommended that programs that incorporate emotional intelligence training, stress support management courses, and peer support groups be incorporated into the curriculum of schools. Supportive settings that accelerate youth development programs and emotional self-efficacy. Strengthening initiatives
Limitations of the study: Limitations across these studies include varying definitions and measurements of self-efficacy; cross-sectional designs that limit causal inferences, and samples that may not be representative of diverse populations. Future research should address these limitations through longitudinal designs, consistent measurement approaches, and more diverse and representative samples. The study's sample size was restricted to 150 students from Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University in Lucknow.
CONCLUSION
The present investigation examined emotional self-efficacy among undergraduate students at Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University, revealing that a predominant proportion of participants exhibited above-average emotional self-efficacy indices. Statistical analyses demonstrated no significant variance in emotional self-efficacy across demographic parameters including age stratification, gender differentiation, academic discipline orientation, and socioeconomic classification. These empirical observations suggest that emotional self-efficacy development may operate through mechanisms that supersede conventional demographic determinants, potentially attributable to the homogeneous educational milieu and congruent developmental trajectory characteristic of tertiary education cohorts. The robust positive correlations identified between the tripartite domains of emotional self-efficacy (Understanding Self & Others, Using Emotions to Facilitate Thoughts, and Regulation of Emotion in Self & Others) substantiate the construct validity and theoretical coherence of emotional self-efficacy as a psychological framework. Subsequent scholarly inquiry might investigate institutional variables and pedagogical interventions that potentially enhance emotional self-efficacy acquisition across heterogeneous student populations, complemented by longitudinal methodologies to elucidate the developmental progression of this attribute throughout the academic tenure. This research contributes to the expanding corpus of literature on emotional competencies within educational contexts and underscores the apparent universality of emotional self-efficacy development among tertiary education students irrespective of demographic antecedents. The present study examined emotional self-efficacy among college students at Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University, finding that most participants demonstrated above-average emotional self-efficacy levels. Notably, no statistically significant differences were observed across demographic variables including age, gender, academic specialization, and socio-economic status. These findings suggest that emotional self-efficacy may develop through mechanisms that transcend conventional demographic categories, potentially reflecting the shared educational environment and developmental stage of college students. The strong positive correlations between the three domains of emotional self-efficacy (Understanding Self & Others, Using Emotions to Facilitate Thoughts, and Regulation of Emotion in Self & Others) reinforce the conceptual cohesiveness of emotional self-efficacy as a psychological construct. Future research might explore institutional and pedagogical factors that could foster emotional self-efficacy development across diverse student populations, as well as longitudinal studies to examine how this attribute evolves throughout the college experience. This study contributes to the growing body of literature on emotional competencies in educational settings and highlights the potential universality of emotional self-efficacy development among college students regardless of demographic background.
REFERENCE
Shivani*, Poornima Rastogi, Khwairakpam Sharmila, Exploring emotional self-efficacy in College Students: A Study of Age, Gender, Academic Specialization and Socio-Economic Status, Int. J. Sci. R. Tech., 2025, 2 (10), 211-220. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17335428
10.5281/zenodo.17335428
