2013. Vol.4, No.3A, 268-278
Published Online March 2013 in SciRes (
Copyright © 2013 SciRes.
The Role of Teachers’ Self- and Collective-Efficacy Beliefs on
Their Job Satisfaction and Experienced Emotions in School
Georgia Stephanou1, Georgios Gkavras2, Maria Doulkeridou1
1Department of Early Childhood Education, University of Western Macedonia, Florina, Greece
2Department of Primary School Education, University of Western Macedonia, Florina, Greece
Received December 13th, 2012; revised January 12th, 2013; accepted February 11th, 2013
This study aimed at investigating a) teachers’ job satisfaction, experienced emotions at school, self-effi-
cacy and school collective-efficacy beliefs; b) the influential role of self-efficacy in the school collective-
efficacy beliefs, and in the impact of the school collective-efficacy beliefs on job satisfaction and emo-
tions; and c) the effect of self- and collective-efficacy beliefs on the impact of job satisfaction on emo-
tions. The sample comprised 268 elementary school teachers (113 male, 155 female), who completed the
scales at the middle of a school year. The results showed that a) the teachers experienced form moderate
negative emotions to moderate positive emotions at school, particularly in the context-task- and self-re-
lated emotions; b) teachers’ self-efficacy had positive effect on school collective-efficacy beliefs and job
satisfaction, and on the impact of collective efficacy on job satisfaction; c) self-efficacy, collective effi-
cacy and job satisfaction, as a group, explained from a small to moderate amount of the variance of the
emotions, while the impact of job satisfaction on the emotions was to a significant extent mediated by
teachers’ perceptions about their school collective efficacy; and d) self-efficacy had direct and indirect
effect, through the interaction of collective efficacy and job satisfaction, on the emotions. The findings are
discussed for their applications in educational practice and future research.
Keywords: Collective-Efficacy; Emotions; Job Satisfaction; Self-Efficacy
A teacher has to regulate his/her cognitive, emotional and
motivational processes in various situations that are related to
his/her professional career (Boekaerts & Corno, 2005; Carson
& Templin, 2007; Efklides & Volet, 2005; Hargreaves, 1998;
Sutton, 2004; Sutton & Wheatley, 2003). However, although
recent research on teachers’ cognition, beliefs and conceptions
about themselves has grown and expanded, the area remains
unexplored (Hoy, Davis, & Pape, 2006). More precisely, there
is little research in practicing teachers, particularly in elemen-
tary school, about how teaches’ cognition, such as efficacy be-
liefs, relate to their emotional experiences at school, the rela-
tionship between teachers’ emotions and motivation, and how
integral the interactive effects of these three concepts are in
teacher development (Hoy et al., 2006; Reyna & Weiner, 2001;
Stephanou & Mastora, submitted; Stephanou & Sivropoulou,
2008; Stephanou & Tsapakidou, 2007a; Sutton & Mudrey-
Camino, 2003). In addition, although the teachers’ profess-
sional role is context-related and socially-constructed, previous
investigations have hardly examined the importance of teach-
ers’ beliefs about the conjoint capability of their school faculty,
that is collective efficacy, for their well-being and achievement,
and for students’ academic development (Caprara, Barbaranelli,
Borgogni, Petitta, & Rubinacci, 2003; Caprara, Barbaranelli,
Borgogni, & Steca, 2003; Goddard, Hoy, & Woolfolk Hoy,
2004; Tschannen-Moran & Barr, 2004; Wheatley, 2005). Fur-
thermore, while the role of both self-efficacy and collective-
efficacy beliefs on organizational and group performance is
relatively well established, their covariation on teachers’ well
being, emotional experience and job satisfaction has much less
examined (Capraca et al., 2003; Fernandez-Ballesteros, Diez-
Nicolas, Capraca, Barbananelli, & Bandura, 2002; Labone,
2004; Ross, 1998; Stajkovic & Lee, 2002).
Accordantly, this study focused on the role of elementary
school teachers’ self-efficacy and collective efficacy beliefs on
their job satisfaction and experienced emotions at school.
Efficacy Beliefs and Effects on Job S atisfactio n
One important self-referenced belief for teaching is a sense
of efficacy. The model of teacher efficacy by Tschannen-Mo-
ran, Woolfolk Hoy, & Hoy (1998), conceptualizing Bandura’s
(1997) theory of efficacy, defines “teacher efficacy is the teach-
er’s belief in his or her capability to organize and execute the
courses of action required to successfully accomplish a specific
teaching task in a particular context” (p. 232).
A strong sense of self-efficacy supports a significant advan-
tage in initial task engagement, motivation, effort, and resil-
ience in front of the difficulties related to teaching career.
Teachers’ self-efficacy positively influences their own behavior
and motivation, and student achievement (Coladarci, 1992;
Goddard & Goddard, 2001; Pintrich & Schunk, 2002; Skaalvik
& Skaalvik, 2007; Tschannen-Moran & Johnson, 2011). For
example, teachers with high self-efficacy evince greater control
over the teaching/learning process (Caprara, Barbaranelli, Bor-
gogni, Petitta et al., 2003; Jesus & Lens, 2005; Tschannen-
Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). In turn, the synthesis of this
high control expectations over the teaching/learning process
and high efficacy expectations contributes in their high success
expectations, which is positively related to their own future
success (Jesus & Lens, 2005). Teachers’ self-efficacy is also af-
fects teaching (Coladarci, 1992). For instance, high self-effica-
cious teachers, in comparison to low self-efficacious teachers,
are more likely to use new curriculum materials, to change in-
structional strategies, and to use multiple and different teaching
styles in their classes to better meet the needs of their students
(Caprara, Barbaranelli, Steca, & Malone, 2006; Kulinna &
Cothran, 2003; Stephanou & Tsapakidou, 2007b; Tschannen-
Moran, Woolfolk Hoy & Hoy, 1998). Other studies have docu-
mented that teachers with high self-efficacy are more enthusi-
astic for teaching, are open to new ideas and are willing to test
various teaching methods to satisfy their students’ needs (Al-
linder, 1994; Ross & Gray, 2006). Yet, teachers’ self-efficacy
positively influences intrinsic interest, self-satisfaction and job
satisfaction (Caprara et al., 2003; Caprara, et al., 2006; Klassen,
Bong, Usher, Chong, Huan, Wong, & Georgiou, 2009; Zim-
merman & Kitsantas, 1999).
However, as previous researches (e.g., Caprara et al., 2003;
Hoy & Miskel, 2008), in consistency with Bandura’s (1982,
1997, 2006) social cognitive theory, suggest, teachers’ self-
efficacy beliefs may not sufficient to ensure success and attain
satisfaction. Rather, achievement is also influenced by the
teachers’ beliefs about the school, as a whole, capacity; that is
the collective efficacy beliefs (Bandura, 1997; Goddard, Lo-
Gerfo, & Hoy, 2004). Collective efficacy is “the perceptions of
teachers in a school that the faculty as a whole can organize and
execute the courses of action required to have a positive effect
on students: (Hoy et al., 2006: p. 728).
Like self-efficacy, the findings from research in collective
efficacy in various settings, including work, socio-police and
school, show that the stronger the individuals’ perceived col-
lective efficacy, the stronger the persistency in the face of im-
pediments and difficulties, the higher the outcome expectations
and motivation in pursuing the goals, the higher the resilience
to stressors, and the higher their performance accomplishments
(see Bandura, 2000; Caprara et al., 2003; Klassen & Chiu, 2010;
Klassen, Usher, & Bong, in press). Higher school collective
efficacy also is related to higher rates of parental involvement
and teacher innovation (Hoy & Miskel, 2008; Klassen et al., in
press). Yet, a strong sense of school group capacity has positive
effects on student achievement, particularly for children at risk
(Goddard, Hoy, & Woolfolk Hoy, 2000; Goddard et al., 2004;
Ross, 1995, 1998; Tschannen-Moran & Barr, 2004; Woolfolk
Hoy & Davis, 2005).
Perceived group collective efficacy is influenced by its
members’ personal efficacy, while, in turn, the shared sense of
collective efficacy may have effects on self-efficacy (Bandura,
1997; Caprara et al., 2003). As Bandura (1982) proposed ‘Col-
lective efficacy is rooted in self-efficacy. Inveterate self doubt-
ers are not easily forged into a collective efficacious force’ (p.
143). Accordantly, this study, based on Bandura’s theory of
efficacy beliefs, and Caprara, Borgogni, Barbaranelli, & Rubi-
nacci’s (1999) model, considers the teachers’ self-efficacy as an
influential factor of collective efficacy and as the main signifi-
cant determinant of job satisfaction, since self-efficacious tea-
chers manage class discipline, promote learning and cooperate
effectively with families and colleagues, and they are able to
create and maintain situations from which they derive others’
recognition and intrinsic rewards (Schmitz & Schwarzer, 1999;
Skaalvik & Bong, 2005). But, because the capacity of school to
fulfill its mission contributes to teachers’ satisfaction, which hat
they derive from their own attainments, collective school effi-
cacy has a positive effect on teachers’ job satisfaction (Caprara,
Barbarelli, Borgogni, & Pettita et al., 2003; Cockburn & Haydn,
2004; Judge, Thoresen, Bono, & Patton, 2001).
Teachers may experience the whole spectrum of emotions
across the various situations relevant to their professional role;
therefore, emotions should be examined in any comprehensive
discussion of teachers’ motivation and behaviour (Astleitner,
2000; Frenzel, Goetz, Lüdtke, Pekrun, & Sutton, 2009; Har-
greaves, 2000; Lambert, Mccarthy, O’Donnell, & Wang, 2009;
Stephanou & Mastora, submitted; Sutton & Wheatley, 2003).
Teachers may experience satisfaction, pride, enthusiasm, hap-
piness and enjoyment for their good teaching, respectful rela-
tionships with their colleagues, warm school climate, and stu-
dents’ academic progress. In contrast, teachers may experience
shame, hopelessness, anger, unhappiness and boredom for their
unsuccessful teaching, negative relationships with their col-
leagues, undesirable school situations, and students’ lack of
academic progress.
Teachers’ such emotional experience at school is considered
precursor of their future behavior because it influences their
self identity and motivation (Schutz & DeCuir, 2002; Somech
& Drach-Zahavy, 2000). For example, teachers, who are con-
stantly frustrated or sad by disruptive students or ineffective
administration, are less intrinsically motivated, express a lack
of enthusiasm for cultivating positive relationships with their
students and report becoming tolerant, and less caring (Blase,
1986.). Teachers’ emotions in classes also influence cognitive
information processing, quality of thinking, categorizing, strate-
gies in pursuing the goals and self-regulation (see Boakaerts,
Pintrich, & Zeidner, 2000; Efklides & Volet, 2005; Isen, 1993;
Parrot & Spackman, 2000). According to Sutton and Wheatley
(2003), teachers who experience positive emotions might gen-
erate more teaching ideas and strategies that might contribute in
developing ‘broad minded coping’ skills (Fredrickson, 2001: p.
223). These coping skills facilitate teachers to achieve their
goals, such as teaching well and help students to learn. Yet,
teachers’ emotions have important consequences in judgments
and behaviours (see Bless, 2003; Parrott, 2003; Weiner, 2005,
2006). For example, in experimental study contacted by Keltner,
Ellsworth and Edwards (1993), angry and sad students attrib-
uted hypothetical misfortunes to the other and situational fac-
tors, respectively.
In addition, teachers’ emotions in classes are a significant
factor of students’ motivation, behavior and well-being (Boek-
aerts, 2007; Davis, 2003; Furrer & Skinner, 2003; Taxer &
Frenzel, 2012; Vauras, Salonen, Lehtinen, & Kinnunen, 2009).
For example, teachers’ positive emotions positively affected the
students of various grade levels regarding motivation, achieve-
ment and social behavior in classes (Turner, Midgey, Meyer,
Gheen, Anderman, & Kang, 2002; Turner, Meyer, Midgley, &
Patrick, 2003; Wentzel, 1996; Wong & Dornbusch, 2000). In
contrast, teachers’ yelling made the children to feel small,
ashamed, guilty, embarrassed and hurt (Thomas & Montomery,
1998), and their negative emotions are predictors of students’
development (Hamre & Pianta, 2001).
Copyright © 2013 SciRes. 269
Effects of Efficacy Beliefs on Job Satisfaction and
Bandura (1997) has suggested that efficacy cognitions not
only influence how people behave but they also elicit thought
patterns and affective reactions to tasks that challenge personal
capabilities (see also Pajares & Schunk, 2005; Skaalvik &
Bong, 2005). Teachers with high self-efficacy are able to attain
personal accomplishments and well-being, reduce stress, and
are less vulnerable to depression, experience less negative emo-
tions in teaching, and are more effective in meeting the needs of
culturally diverse student groups (Ashton, Olejnik, & Croker,
1982; Bandura, 1994; Greenwood, Olejnik, & Parkay, 1990;
Tucker, Porter, Reinke, Herman, Ivery, Mack, & Jackson,
2005). Conversely, people with low self efficacy are face diffi-
culties in commitments to the goals they choose to pursue,
blame themselves for their failure, believe that things are
tougher than they really are, a belief that fosters anxiety and
stress as they engage in a task, are slow to recover after failures
or setbacks, and easily fall victim to depression (Bandura, 1994;
Fiori, Mcilvane, Brown, & Antonucci, 2006; Muris, 2001; Pa-
jares & Schunk, 2005; Ross, 1998; Stephanou, 2004; Wheatley,
Also, despite the limited number of the researches on the as-
sociation of collective efficacy with experienced emotions in
school settings, there is evidence that, like self-efficacy, collec-
tive efficacy positively influences achievement-related emo-
tions (see Charalabidou under Stephanou supervision; Klassen
et al., in press). Furthermore, teachers’ collective efficacy is
expected to have indirect effects on their experienced emotions
at school through self-efficacy because, as above discussed, it is
influenced by self-efficacy.
Finally, the teachers, similarly with other professionals who
are high satisfied with their job, are more likely to experience
positive emotions (see Muthuvelayutham & Mohanasundaram,
2012; Sy, Tram, & O’Hara, 2006). Moreover, the impact of job
satisfaction on emotions is expected to be affected by efficacy
beliefs, mainly self-efficacy, since the higher, compered to less,
efficacious individuals are more capable in to comprehend and
to adapt their emotions, better understand the causes of the
formulation of their negative emotions, such as stress, and they
use effective strategies of holding the consequences of negative
emotions (Bandura, 1994; Fiori et al., 2006; Muris, Schmidt,
Lambrichs, & Meesters, 2001; Skaalvik & Bong, 2005).
Aim and Hypotheses of the Study
This study aimed at investigating a) teachers’ job satisfac-
tion, experienced emotions at school, self-efficacy and school
collective-efficacy beliefs; b) the influential role of self-effi-
cacy in collective-efficacy, and in the impact of collective-
efficacy beliefs on job satisfaction and emotions; and c) the
effect of self- and collective-efficacy beliefs on the impact of
job satisfaction on the emotions.
The following hypotheses were examined.
The teachers will report a rate of job satisfaction, self-effi-
cacy, and collective efficacy of the school, as a as whole. How-
ever, no specific hypothesis is tested about the specific rate of
each of the three concepts (Hypothesis 1). The teachers will
experience various emotions at school but no specific hypothe-
sis is tested about the extent of the intensity of each of the emo-
tions (Hypothesis 2a). The teachers will mainly experience
context- and task-related emotions (Hypothesis 2b). The teach-
ers’ self-efficacy will positively influence their beliefs about
collective efficacy of their school (Hypothesis 3). Self-efficacy
and perceived school collective efficacy will have positive ef-
fects on job satisfaction (Hypothesis 4a). Self-efficacy will be
an influential determinant of the impact of school collective-
efficacy on job satisfaction (Hypothesis 4b). Teachers’ self-
efficacy, perceived school collective-efficacy and job satisfac-
tion, separately, and, as a group, will positively influence their
experienced emotion at school, mainly the self-, context- and
future-related (Hypothesis 5a). Self-efficacy and perceived
school collective-efficacy, together, will have positive effects
on the impact of job satisfaction on the emotions (Hypothesis
5b). In addition, self-efficacy will be an influential factor of the
impact of collective efficacy on the effect of job satisfaction on
the emotions (Hypothesis 5c).
Τhe participants were 268 elementary school teachers (113
men, 155 women), who were recruited from 85 state schools
from various regions of Greece, representing a variety of Greek
school settings. Their age ranged from 25 to 57 years, with
average age of 45 years, SD = 5.9. They reported teaching ex-
perience from 3 to 27 years with balance among years of
teaching experience.
Emotions. The scale of the teachers’ experienced emotions
at school consisted of seventeen emotions: Happiness, pleasure,
pride, encouragement, confidence, calmness, not angry-angry,
flow-not flow, cheerfulness, exciting, not irritated-irritated,
hope, competence, not nervousness-nervousness, anxiety, en-
thusiasm and not boredom-boredom. The teachers were asked
to indicate the extent to which they usually experienced each of
the above eighteen emotions at school during the current school
year. The emotions had the form of adjectives, with the positive
pole having the high score of 7 and the negative pole having the
low score of 1 (e.g., happy 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 unhappy). The con-
struction of the scale was based on previous similar re- searches
(see Pekrun, Goetz, Frenzel, Barchfeld, & Perry, 2011; Schutz
& DeCuir, 2002; Sutton & Wheatley, 2003; Weiner, 2001,
2005), and it is a valid and reliable research instrument in
studying experienced emotions in education in Greek popula-
tion (see Stephanou, 201; Stephanou, Kariotoglou, & Ntinas,
2011; Stephanou & Mastora, submitted). Cronbach’s alpha val-
ue was .89.
Self-efficacy, Perceived School Collective-efficacy, Job
satisfaction. The teachers’ self-efficacy, perceived school col-
lective-efficacy and job satisfaction were examined by a re-
spective subscale which driven from Caprara et al.’s (2003)
booklet. The teachers indicated the extent of their agreement
with each of the item on a 7-point scale, which ranged from 1 =
strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree.
The teachers’ self-efficacy was estimated via twelve items,
which measured teachers’ beliefs in their ability to handle ef-
fectively various tasks, challenges and obligations associated
with their professional role in various setting and relations (e.g.,
“I am capable of dealing effectively with the problem behaviors
of my students”). Cronbach’s alpha value was .84.
Copyright © 2013 SciRes.
Nine items measured teachers’ beliefs that the school, as a
whole, is capable to handle effectively, various demands, chal-
lenges and difficulties that are related to its institutional role.
(e.g., “Our school is capable of overcoming successfully the
various difficulties that may arise”). Cronbach’s alpha = .77.
The job satisfaction scale consisted of four items (e.g., “I am
fully satisfied with my job”). The construction of this subscale
was based on the by Borgogni’s (1999) modification of the Job
Descriptive Index (Smith, Kendal, & Hulin, 1969). In the pre-
sent study Cronbach’s alpha value was .73.
Personal factors. A set of questions was about the partici-
pants’ personal factors (e.g., gender, teaching experience).
Permission to participate was obtained from each sample
school prior to administering the scales. The participants were
provided written information about the aim of this research.
The teachers individually completed the scales in a quite class-
room in front of the researches during school time. To ensure
that the teachers had good time to form an impression about the
examined variables, data were collected at the middle of a
school year. Also, in order to ensure that any relation among
the tested variables was not due to procedure used, the teachers
completed, first, the emotion scale, then the job satisfaction
teaching scale, followed by the collective-efficacy scale, and,
finally, the self-efficacy scale. The teachers were asked to
choose a code name and use it on all the questionnaires to
match the scales that were responded by the same teacher. The
participants were assured of anonymity and confidentiality.
Teachers’ Self-Efficacy, Collective Efficacy, Job
Satisfaction and Emotions
The presented findings in Table 1, confirming Hypothesis 1,
show that the teachers’ self-efficacy, collective efficacy beliefs
and job satisfaction ranged from moderate to high.
The results from the repeated measures ANOVA, in which
the teachers’ experienced emotions at school over the school
year was the within-subjects factor, revealed that the teachers
experienced a variety of intensity of emotions, F(17, 251) =
60.84, p < .01, η2 = .78. Specifically, inspection of the scores
and standard deviation in Table 1 and the post hoc pairwise
comparisons showed that the teachers experienced form mod-
erate negative emotions to moderate positive emotions. Fur-
thermore, competence, not boredom, pride, pleasure and hap-
piness were the most intense positive emotions while anxiety,
irritation, nervousness and non confidence were the most in-
tense negative emotions.
These results totally and partly confirmed Hypothesis 2a and
2b, respectively.
Effects of S e l f- Efficac y on Collecti ve-Efficacy and
Job Satisfaction
The results form correlation coefficient analysis indicated
that self-efficacy was positively related to collective efficacy (r
= .82, p < .01). Furthermore, the results from bivariate regres-
sion analysis revealed that the teachers’ self-efficacy had posi-
tive effect on their perceptions of collective efficacy of school,
explaining 55% of the variance, F(1, 266) = 33.64, p < .01, beta
Table 1.
Teachers’ self-efficacy, school collective-efficacy, job satisfaction and
experienced emotions at school.
Mean SD
Self-efficacy 5.48 .76
Collective efficacy 5.38 .77
Job satisfaction 5.69 .79
Happiness 4.86 1.24
Pleasure 4.91 1.07
Pride 4.92 1.53
Encouragement 4.00 1.58
Confidence 4.57 1.13
Calmness 4.24 1.46
No anger – anger 4.04 1.71
Flow 4.62 1.14
Cheerfulness 4.80 1.33
Exciting 4.18 1.71
No irritation-irritation 3.77 1.85
Hope 4.27 1.58
Competence 5.02 1.33
No nervousness-nervousness 3.78 1.77
No anxiety-anxiety 3.66 1.70
Enthusiasm 4.77 1.45
Not boredom-boredom 4.97 1.52
= .74, t = 18.37, p < .01. These findings confirmed Hypothesis
The results form correlation coefficient analyses showed that
the higher the self (r = .77, p < .01)- and collective (r = .65, p
< .01)-efficacy, the higher the job satisfaction. In addition, the
findings from hierarchical regression analysis, in which the
teachers’ job satisfaction was the predicted variable, and their
self-efficacy (entering into second step of the analysis) and
school collective-efficacy (entering into first step of the analy-
sis) were the predictor variables (Table 2), showed that a)
self-efficacy and collective efficacy, together, positively in-
fluenced job satisfaction, accounting 59% of the variance; b)
collective efficacy and, mainly, self-efficacy contributed into
generation of job satisfaction; and c) self-efficacy had direct
effect on job satisfaction beyond that of collective efficacy,
R2ch = .16.
Thus, Hypotheses 4a and 4b were in the main confirmed.
The Role of Sel f-E f fi c acy and Collective-Efficacy in
the Impact of Job Satis faction on Emotions
A series of hierarchical regression analyses, with enter
method, were conducted, in which each of the teachers’ ex-
perienced emotions at school over the school year was the pre-
dicted variable, and self-efficacy, collective efficacy and job
satisfaction were the predictive variables. Self-efficacy, collec-
tive efficacy and job satisfaction were entered into third, sec-
Copyright © 2013 SciRes. 271
Table 2.
Results from hierarchical regression analyses for the effect of teachers’
self-efficacy on the impact of their school collective-efficacy beliefs on
job satisfaction.
Step R2ch R2 F (df) Fch (df) betat
CΕ 1st .43 .43 109 (1, 266)109 (1, 266) .213.63
SΕ 2nd .16 .59 136 (2, 265)122 (1, 265) .5910.16
Note: All F-, Fch- and t- values, p < .01; CE: Collective efficacy; SE: Self- effi-
ond and first step of the analysis, respectively. These analyses
revealed the following results.
The three concepts, as a group, explained from a small to
moderate amount of the variance of the emotions, R2 ranged
form .09 to .35, and mainly accounted in the variance in the
emotions of happiness (R2 = .27), confidence (R2 = .31), hope
(R2 = .24), flow (R2 = .35) and no boredom–boredom (R2
= .19).
Also, the impact of job satisfaction on the emotions was to a
significant extent mediated by teachers’ perceptions about their
school collective efficacy, R2ch ranged from .017 (exciting)
to .12 (happiness).
Self-efficacy had direct, R2ch ranged from .016 for happi-
ness to .052 for hope, and indirect effect, through the interac-
tion of collective efficacy and job satisfaction, on the emotions.
The teachers’ self-efficacy, collective efficacy and job satis-
faction were positively associated with their experienced emo-
tions over the school year. Furthermore, the higher the teach-
ers’ self-efficacy was, the higher their perceptions of the school
efficacy were and the higher their satisfaction with their job
was, the more intense their positive emotions were. However,
no one of the three concepts was correlated to the emotion of
nervousness, while job satisfaction was not associated with the
emotions of pleasure, encouragement, calmness, no anger-anger
and competence.
Also, while the efficacy beliefs and job satisfaction ac-
counted in the variance in the emotional experience, their rela-
tive power in influencing emotions differed across the emotions
and within each emotion. More precisely, self-efficacy, com-
pared to both collective efficacy and job satisfaction, was the
most powerful formulator of most of the emotions, with the
exception being in the emotions of calmness and flow, which
were best predicted by the perceived collective efficacy, and in
the emotions of cheerfulness and anxiety, which were only
predicted by job satisfaction. On the other hand, collective ef-
ficacy, in comparison to job satisfaction, was a more powerful
determinant of the emotions, expect of the emotion of no bore-
dom-boredom, into which collective efficacy had no significant
Also, self-efficacy best predicted the emotions of hope, con-
fidence, no irritation- irritation, no boredom-boredom, happi-
ness, pleasure and encouragement than it did in the rest of the
emotions. Collective efficacy was a more powerful formulator
of the emotions of flow, confidence, excitement, no irritation-
irritation, happiness and encouragement than of the rest of the
emotions. Finally, the emotions of confidence, hope, happiness,
no irritation-irritation and excitement, as compared to the other
emotions were better predicted by job satisfaction.
Hypotheses 5a, 5b and 5c were in the main confirmed by the
above results.
This study focused on the relationship of teachers’ self- and
collective-efficacy beliefs with their job satisfaction and ex-
perienced emotions at school. The results in the main con-
firmed our hypotheses and previous research evidence.
Efficacy Beliefs and Job Satisfaction
The findings from the present study, supporting previous re-
search evidence (e.g., Klassen et al., in press; Wolters &
Daugherty, 2007), revealed that the elementary school teachers
had from moderate to high self-efficacy and collective efficacy
beliefs, and they were satisfied with their job. It seems that the
participants worked in supportive school climate, with coopera-
tive colleagues and parents, and with children making progress
(Betoret, 2006; Caprara, Barbaranelli, Borgogni, & Petitta et al.,
2003; Cockburn & Haydn, 2004; Goddard & LoGerfo, et al.,
2004; Schwarzer & Hallum, 2008; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2007).
These findings are in contrast to other studies which show that
teachers in higher grade levels reported lower self-efficacy and
job satisfaction than teachers in lower grade (see Klassen &
Chiu, 2010). Research should examine how school level and
context influence teachers’ efficacy beliefs and job satisfaction.
Also, in consistency with previous researches (e.g., Hackman
et al., 2000; Caprara et al., 2003; Caprara et al., 2006; Klassen
& Chiu, 2010; Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001),
teachers’ self efficacy beliefs appeared to be a significant de-
terminant of the formulation of their collective efficacy beliefs
and job satisfaction. Furthermore, teachers’ self-efficacy had
positive effects on their perceptions of school collective effi-
cacy, which, in turn, influenced teachers’ job satisfaction. This
specific finding suggests, in agreement with other researches
(e.g., Klassen et al., in press), that not teachers’ self-efficacy
and collective efficacy influence job satisfaction in the same
way and extent.
Confirming in the main our predictions, the teachers experi-
enced a variation of intensity of emotions at their school, un-
derlying the high importance of their professional role in their
self-identity, since under high ego involvement conditions in-
dividuals feel such emotional pattern (Frijda, 2009; Lambert et
al., 2009; Roseman & Smith, 2001; Stephanou, 2011; Stepha-
nou et al., 2011; Stephanou & Tsapakidou, 2007a; Sutton &
Wheatley, 2003; Weiner, 2001, 2005). The teachers’ distinct
professional role in their whole life was also supported by the
nature of the reported emotions, based on Seligman’s (2002)
view of classification of emotions. Specifically, they consid-
ered the development of their professional life, by experiencing
emotions which are related to the past (e.g., pride/shame), the
present (e.g., pleasure/displeasure) and the future (e.g., confi-
dence/non confidence, hope/ hopelessness).
The teachers’ variation of the experienced emotions in school,
in addition, reflects the respective variation of the sources. Furt
hermore, the teachers mainly felt intense context (not bore-
dom)-, task (pleasure)- and self (competence, pride)-related
positive emotions, stressing the influential role of the context
and self beliefs in it, in consistency with previous studies (Fri-
jda, 2009; Pekrun & Stephens, 2009; Sutton & Wheatley, 2003).
he teachers, on the other hand, experienced more intense the T
Copyright © 2013 SciRes.
Copyright © 2013 SciRes. 273
Table 3.
Results from hierarchical regression analyses for the effect of teachers’ self-efficacy on the impact of collective efficacy on the effect of job satisfac-
tion on the emotions.
Emotions Steps R2 R
2ch F Fch beta t
Job satisfaction 1st .13 42.43 .22 9.55
Collective efficacy 2nd .26 .124 46.82 44.35 .37 4.59
Self-efficacy 3rd .27 .016 33.72 5.81 .54 2.41
Job satisfaction 1st -- --
Collective efficacy 2nd .12 .12 18.44 21.87 .25 2.81
Self-efficacy 3rd .14 .021 14.48 6.30 .57 2.51
Job satisfaction 1st .09 .09 28.65 .19 5.44
Collective efficacy 2nd .12 .03 19.57 9.96 .21 2.30
Self-efficacy 3rd .12 -- 13.26 -- .49 5.20
Job satisfaction 1st -- --
Collective efficacy 2nd .17 27.75 19.89 .36 4.19
Self-efficacy 3rd .18 .012 18.64 4.89 .52 3.69
Job satisfaction 1st .19 66.92 .29 10.55
Collective efficacy 2nd .28 .087 55.89 32.68 .48 3.38
Self-efficacy 3rd .31 .027 40.25 10.88 .64 3.23
Job satisfaction 1st -- --
Collective efficacy 2nd .10 14.78 .19 1.98
Self-efficacy 3rd .10 -- 9.61 -- ---
Job satisfaction 1st -- --
Collective efficacy 2nd .07 19.42 .31 5.34
No anger-anger
Self-efficacy 3rd .10 .031 9.89 9.13 .48 3.02
Job satisfaction 1st .25 91.82 .39 9.85
Collective efficacy 2nd .34 .089 69.98 35.98 .50 5.15 Flow
Self-efficacy 3rd .35 -- 46.44 -- ---
Job satisfaction 1st .09 28.48 .32 5.32
Collective efficacy 2nd .09 -- 14.39 -- ---
Self-efficacy 3rd .09 -- 9.65 -- ---
Job satisfaction 1st .16 16.04 .21 4.99
Collective efficacy 2nd .17 .017 27.49 4.96 .43 5.48 Exciting
Self-efficacy 3rd .18 .019 19.97 3.57 .47 2.89
Job satisfaction 1st .11 32.85 .23 8.02
Collective efficacy 2nd .14 .039 23.16 12.14 .40 2.02
No irritation - irritation
Self-efficacy 3rd .20 .051 22.08 16.92 .69 4.11
Job satisfaction 1st .10 30.95 .22 9.23
Collective efficacy 2nd .19 .089 31.82 29.37 .40 2.68
Self-efficacy 3rd .24 .052 28.64 18.91 .77 4.26
Job satisfaction 1st -- --
Collective efficacy 2nd .09 13.61 .24 2.71
Self-efficacy 3rd .10 .019 10.73 5.62 .24 2.37
Job satisfaction 1st --
Collective efficacy 2nd -- No nervousness- nervousness
Self-efficacy 3rd --
Job satisfaction 1st .05 8.89 .15 3.37
Collective efficacy 2nd -- -- -- -- ---
Not anxiety - anxiety
Self-efficacy 3rd -- -- -- -- ---
Job satisfaction 1st .07 21.34 .18 3.55
Collective efficacy 2nd .09 .025 14.47 7.26 .28 3.23
Self-efficacy 3rd .10 .019 10.77 3.89 .32 1.97
Job satisfaction 1st .17 55.34 .18 6.63
Collective efficacy 2nd .17 -- 27.93 -- ---
Not boredom - boredom
Self-efficacy 3rd .19 .021 21.31 6.85 .57 2.16
ote: Only the variables that were related each other were included in the analyses; All F- and Fch-values, p < .01; t 2.51, p < .05, t > 2.51, p < .01.
self-task (anxiety)- and other (irritation, nervousness)-related
negative emotions than the rest of the emotions, indicating the
determinant role of the significant others, such as school ad-
ministration, students and colleagues in their well being (see
Buss & Hughes, 2007; Frenzel et al., 2009; Lambert et al., 2009;
McCormick & Barnett, 2011; Parrrott, 2003; Schutz, Hong,
Cross, & Osbon, 2006; Summers & Davis, 2006; Yoon, 2002).
It should mentioned that high anxiety can impairs task rele-
vant processing, such as solving the various problems that oc-
cur every day in school (Ashcraft & Kirk, 2001; Schutz &
DeCuir, 2002). Generally, teachers’ negative emotions may
confront their goals and classroom management, and affect
their intrinsic motivation and efficacy beliefs (see Blase, 1986;
Derryberry & Tucker, 1994; Keltner et al., 1993; Emmer,
Lack of intensive negative emotions at school may be partly
explained by the participants’ educational level. Probably the
primary school ‘caring for their students’ overcome the possible
children’s misbehaviour and/or academic problems and, hence,
in contrast to other studies in middle school (e.g., Hargreaves,
2000; Sutton, 2000), intense anger and irritation did not arise.
Also, perhaps the colleagues and parents were cooperative re-
sulting in lack of such emotions (Erb, 2002; Lasky, 2000).
Effects of Efficacy Beliefs and Job Satisfaction on
The pattern of the effect of teachers’ efficacy beliefs and job
satisfaction on their experienced emotions at school supports
the notion that perceptions of self, task and context contribute
into an emotional experience in a given school situation (Boa-
kaerts & Corno, 2005; Pekrun, Frenzel, Goetz, & Perry, 2007;
Pekrun, Goetz, Daniels, Stupnisky, & Perry, 2010; Schutz &
Lenehart, 2002; Stephanou, 2011, Stephanou et al., 2011; Tur-
ner & Schallert, 2001; Weiner, 1992, 2001). Also, the teachers
might have appraised the status of self- factors in pursuing their
goals that include being good in teaching and fitting the mis-
sion of their school, since emotions, such as anxiety, are ex-
perienced in relationship to goals (Carver & Scheier, 2000;
Frijda, 2005, 2009; Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2002; Pekrun,
Maier, & Elliot, 2009). Yet, the three concepts, as a group,
mainly influenced the generation of the outcome (happiness)-,
task (flow)-, future activity (not boredom)- and future behav-
iour (confidence, hope)-related emotions, underling their sig-
nificant role in teachers’ future behaviour, motivation and pro-
fessional development (see Bandura, 2006; Reyna & Weiner,
2001; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2007; Sutton & Mudrey-Camino,
2003; Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001).
Confirmation of higher than lower self-efficacy, collective
efficacy and job satisfaction reported more intense positive
emotions, except of the emotion of nervousness, which was not
predicted by any of the three concepts. This specific finding
addresses the necessity of clarification of the sources (and con-
sequences) of teachers’ emotions.
As expected, teachers’ self-efficacy, as compared to their
collective efficacy and job satisfaction, proved to be a signifi-
cant advantage in their emotional experience at school, with the
exception being in the emotions of calmness, flow and anxiety.
More precisely, the emotions of calmness and flow were mainly
formulated by collective efficacy, reflecting the contribution of
the task- and context- related factors, such as administrators,
parents, colleagues in school collective efficacy, and, in turn, in
emotions. On the other hand, job satisfaction was the solo pre-
dictor of the emotion of anxiety, which is goal related, while it
had no effect on the emotions of pleasure, encouragement,
calmness, no anger and competence.
The limited role of job satisfaction on teachers’ positive
emotions may hind that, although teachers gain satisfaction
from their job, they experience stress (the experience of nega-
tive emotions resulting from their work). This argument is
supported by previous studies, documenting the major role of
stress on teachers’ job satisfaction (Liu & Ramsey, 2008).
Also, self-efficacy and collective efficacy beliefs had unique
and complimentarily effect on the emotions, lending further
support to the earlier findings about their dinstict conceptuali-
zation (see Goddard et al., 2004).
The nature of the emotions that were best predicted by
self-efficacy may be partly explained by its influential factors
(Bandura, 1997, 2006; Lapone, 2004; Ross, 1998; Tschannen-
Moran & Johnson, 2011). Self-efficacy might have based on
factors, such as ability, effort and motivation. Accordantly, it
could be expected that competitive dependent-emotions, such
as confidence and encouragement, and expectancy dependent-
emotions, such as hope, would be predicted by self-efficacy
(Ross, Cousins, & Gadalla, 1996; Weiner, 2005). The predic-
tion of the general- and context-related emotions, such as pleas-
ure, not irritation and no boredom, reflects the high self-effica-
cious’ capacity in controlling their surroundings and enjoy task-
involvement (see Bandura, 1997; Ross, 1998; Csikszentmihalyi,
1990; Pajares & Schunk, 2005; Pekrun et al., 2010; Schmitz &
Schwarzer, 1999; Wheatley, 2005).
In a similar way, collective efficacy proved best predictor of
the competitive dependent-emotions underling the teachers’
perceptions of their school, as a whole, capacity as well as it
was determinant formulator of the context (flow, excitement)-
and general (happiness)-related emotions, reflecting the ma- jor
role of the school-related factors in in collective efficacy (see
Caprara et al., 2003; Klassen et al., in press).
Implications of the Findings in Education and Future
Self efficacy was found to influence collective efficacy,
while the two concepts had unique and complimentarily effect
on teachers’ job satisfaction and emotions. Therefore, it is es-
sential to design teacher in-service programs that promote
self-efficacy, and foster the various school constituencies that
develop a robust sense of collective efficacy.
The present findings also suggest that emotional experience
constitutes an important aspect of teacher’s involvement at
school, and, accordantly, teachers’ recognition and regulation
of their emotions is an essential part of effective professional
life and subjective well-being. Self-factors, such as ability,
motivation, effort and stress, along with school constituencies
were considered as explanations of the present results. There-
fore, it is interesting to examine how such factors influence the
inter-correlations among the examined variables. To overcome
the limitations of this study, and expand, in addition, knowl-
edge about the considered variables, future research should be
performed in various domains and academic subjects, and across
teaching levels and ages.
Conclusively, investigating teachers’ efficacy beliefs, along
with job satisfaction and emotions, provides useful information
in understanding their motivation and behaviour.
Copyright © 2013 SciRes.
Allinder, R. M. (1994). The relationship between efficacy and the in-
structional practice of special education teachers and consultants.
Teacher Education and Special Education, 17, 86-95.
Ashcraft, M., H., & Kirk, E. P. (2001). The relationshis among working
memory, math anxiety, and performance. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: General, 130, 224-237.
Ashton, P. T., Olejnik, S., & Croker, L. (1992). Measurment problems
in the study of teachers’ sense of efficacy. The Annual Meeting of the
American Educational Re s ea rc h Association. New York.
Astleitner, H. (2000). Designing emotionally sound instruction: The
FEASP-approach. Instruc tional Science, 28, 169-198.
Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Ency-
clopedia of human behaviour (pp. 71-81). New York: Academic Press.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York:
Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In F.
Pajares, & T. Urdan (Eds.), Adolescence and education: Vol. 5. Self
efficacy and adolescence (pp. 307-337). Greenwich, CT: Information
Betoret, F. D. (2006). Stressors, self-efficacy, coping resources, and
burnout among secondary school teachers in Spain. Educational
Psychology, 26, 519-539. doi:10.1080/01443410500342492
Blase, J. J. (1986). A qualitative analysis of sources of teacher stress:
Consequences for performance. American Educational Research
Journal, 23, 13-40.
Boekaerts, M. (2007). Understanding students’ affective processes in
the classroom. In P. Schutz, R. Pekrun, & G. Phye (Eds), Emotion in
education (pp. 37-56). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Boekaerts, M., & Corno, L. (2005). Self-regulation in the classroom.
Applied Psychology, 54, 199-231.
Borgogni, L. (1999). The social-cognitive approach to the study of
organizational variables. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Padova:
University of Padova.
Buck, G. A., & Cordes, J. G. (2005). An action research project on
preparing teachers to meet the needs of underserved student popula-
tions. Journal of Scie nc e Te a ch er Education, 16, 43-64.
Buss, M. T., & Hughes, J. N. (2007). Teachers’ attitudes toward emo-
tions predict implementation of and satisfaction with a social-emo-
tional curriculum. Washington DC: Society for Prevention Research.
Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Borgogni, I., Petitta, I., & Rubinacci,
A. (2003).Teachers’, school staff’s and parents’ efficacy beliefs as
determinants of attitude toward school. European Journal of Psy-
chology of Education, 18, 15-31. doi:10.1007/BF03173601
Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Borgogni, L., & Steca, P. (2003). Ef-
ficacy beliefs as determinants of teachers’ job satisfaction. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 95, 821-832.
Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Steca, P., & Malone, P. S. (2006).
Teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs as determinants of job satisfaction and
students’ academic achievement: A study at the school level. Journal
of School Psychology, 44, 473-490. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2006.09.001
Caprara, G. V., Borgogni, I., Barbaranelli, C., & Rubinacci, A. (1999).
Efficacy beliefs and organizational change. Sviluppo e Organizzazi-
one, 174, 19-32.
Carson, R. L., & Templin, T. J. (2007). Emotion regulation and teacher
burnout: Who says that the management of emotional expression
doesn’t matter? American Education Research Association Annual
Convention, Chicago.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (2000). Scaling back goals and readi-
bration of the affect system are processes in normal adaptive self-
regulation: Understanding “response shift” phenomena. Social Sci-
ence and Medicine, 50, 1715-1722.
Cockburn, A. D., & Haydn, T. (2004). Recruiting and retaining teach-
ers: Understanding why teachers teach. London: Routledge Falmer.
Coladarci, T. (1992). Teachers’ sense of efficacy and commitment to
teaching. Journal of Exp erimental E d u c a ti o n , 60, 323-337.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experi-
ence. New York: Harper Collins.
Davis, H. A. (2003). Conceptualizing the role and influence of student-
teacher relationship on childern’s social and cognitive development.
Educational Psychologist, 38, 207-234.
Derryberry, D., & Tucker, D. M. (1994). Motivating the focus of atten-
tion. In P. M. Niedenthal, & S. Kitayama (Eds.), The hearts eye:
Emotional influence in perception and attention (pp. 167-196). San
Diego, CA: Academic press.
Efklides, A., & Volet, S. (2005). Feelings and emotions in the learning
process. Learning and Instruction, 15.
Emmer, E. T. (1994). Teacher emotions and classroom management.
Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association.
New Orleans, LA.
Erb, C. S. (2002). The emotional whirlpool of beginning teachers’ work.
The Annual Meeting of the Canandian Society of Studies in Educa-
tion. Torondo.
Fernandez-Ballesteros, R., Diez-Nicolas, J., Capraca, G. V., Barbana-
nelli, C., & Bandura, A. (2002). Structural relation of perceived col-
lective efficacy. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 51,
107-125. doi:10.1111/1464-0597.00081
Fiori, K. L., McIlvane, J. M., Brown, E. E., & Antonucci, T. C. (2006).
Social relations and depressive symptomatology: Self-efficacy as a
mediator. Aging Mental Health, 10, 227-239.
Fredrickson, B. I. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psy-
chology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. Ameri-
can Psychologist, 56, 218-226. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.218
Frenzel, A. C., Goetz, T., Lüdtke, O., Pekrun, R., & Sutton, R. (2009).
Emotional transmission in the classroom: Exploring the relationship
between teacher and student enjoyment. Journal of Educational Psy-
chology, 101, 705-716. doi:10.1037/a0014695
Frijda, N. H. (2005). Emotion experience. Cognition & Emotion, 19,
473-498. doi:10.1080/02699930441000346
Frijda, N. H. (2009). Emotions, individual differences, and time course:
Reflections. Cognition and Emotion, 23 , 1444-1461.
Goddard, R. D., & Goddard, Y., L. (2001). A multilevel analysis of the
relationship between teacher and collective efficacy in urban schools.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 807-818.
Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2000). Collective
efficacy: Its meaning, measure, and impact on student achievement.
American Educational Research Journal, 37, 479-507.
Goddard, R. D., LoGerfo, I., & Hoy, W. K. (2004). High school ac-
countability: The role of perceived collective efficacy. Educational
Policy, 18, 403-435. doi:10.1177/0895904804265066
Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Hoy, A. W. (2004). Collective ef- fi-
cacy beliefs: Theoretical developments, empirical evidence, and fu-
ture directions. Educational Researcher, 33, 3-13.
Greenwood, G., Olejnik, S., & Parkay, F. W. (1990). Relationships be-
tween four teacher efficacy belief patterns and selected teacher char-
acteristics. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 23,
Hamre, B., & Pianta, R. C. (2001). Early teacher-child relationships and
trajectory of school outcomes through eighth grade. Child Develop-
ment, 72, 625-638. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00301
Hargreaves, A. (1998). The emotional practice of teaching. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 14, 835-854.
Hargreaves, A. (2000). Mixed emotions: Teachers’ perceptions of their
interactions with students. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16,
811-826. doi:10.1016/S0742-051X(00)00028-7
Copyright © 2013 SciRes. 275
Hoy, A. W., Davis, H., & Pape, S. J. (2006). Teacher knowledge and
beliefs. In P. A. Alexander, & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of edu-
cational psychology (2nd Edition, pp. 715-737). Mahwah, NJ: Law-
rence Erlbaum.
Hoy, W. K., & Miskel, C. G. (2008). Educational administration: The-
ory, research, and pract i c e (8th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Isen, A. M. (1993). Positive affect and decision making. In M. Lewis,
& J. M. Haviland, (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (pp. 261-277). New
York: Guilford Press.
Jesus, S., & Lens, W. (2005). An integrated model for the study of
teacher motivation. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 54,
119-134. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2005.00199.x
Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E., & Patton, G. K. (2001). The
job satisfaction-job performance relationship: A qualitative and quan-
titative review. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 376-407.
Keltner, D., Ellsworth, P. C., & Edwards, K. (1993). Beyond simple
pessimism: Effects of sadness and anger on social judgement. Jour-
nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 740-752.
Klassen, R. M., Bong, M., Usher, E. L., Chong, W. H., Huan, V. S.,
Wong, I. Y., & Georgiou, T. (2009). Exploring the validity of the
teachers’ self-efficacy scale in five countries. Contemporary Educa-
tional Psychology,34, 67-76. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.08.001
Klassen, R. M., & Chiu, M. M. (2010). Effects on teachers’ self- effi-
cacy and job satisfaction: Teacher gender, years of experience, and
job stress. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 741-756.
Klassen, R. M., Usher, E. L., & Bong, M. (in press). Teachers’ collec-
tive efficacy, job satisfaction, and job stress in cross-cultural context.
Journal of Experimental Education.
Kulinna, P. H., & Cothran, D. (2003). Physical education teachers’ self-
reported use and perceptions of various teaching styles. Learning and
Instruction, 13, 597-609. doi:10.1016/S0959-4752(02)00044-0
Labone, E. (2004). Teacher efficacy: Maturing the construct through re-
search in alternative paradigms. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20,
341-359. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2004.02.013
Lambert, L. G., McCarthy, C., O’Donnell, M., & Wang, C. (2009).
Measuring elementary teacher stress and coping in the classroom:
Validity evidence for the classroom appraisal of resources, and de-
mands. Psychology in t he Sc ho ol s, 46, 973-988.
Lasky, S. (2000). The cultural and emotional polities of teacher-parent
interactions. Te ac hin g T eac her Education, 16, 843-860.
Liu, X. S., & Ramsey, J. (2008). Teachers’ job satisfaction: Analyses of
the teacher follow-up survey in the United States for 2000-2001.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 1173-1184.
Muthuvelayutham, C., & Mohanasundaram, H. (2012). A study on the
impact of occupational stress among teachers on job satisfaction and
job involvement—An empirical study. European Journal of Social
Sciences, 30, 339-351.
McCormick, J. & Barnett, K. (2011). Teachers’ attributions for stress
and their relationships with burnout. International Journal of Educa-
tional Management, 25, 278-293. doi:10.1108/09513541111120114
Muris, P. (2001). Relationships between self-efficacy and symptoms of
anxiety disorders and depression in a normal adolescent sample.
Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 337-348.
Muris, P., Schmidt, H., Lambrichs, R., & Meesters, C. (2001). Protec-
tive and vulnerability factors of depression in normal adolescents.
Behavior Research and Therapy, 39, 555-565.
Pajares, F., & Schunk, D. H. (2005). Self-efficacy and self-concept be-
liefs: Jointly contributing to the quality of human life. In H. W.
Marsh, R. G. Craven, & D. M. McInerney (Eds.), International ad-
vances in self research Vol. II (pp. 95-122). Greenwich: Age Pub-
Parrott, W. G. (2003). The nature of emotions. In A. Tesser, & N. Sch-
warz (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology: Intraindividual proc-
esses (pp. 375-390). Oxford: Blackwell.
Parrot, W. G., & Spackman, M. P. (2000). Emotion and memory. In M.
Lewis, & J. M. Haviland-Jones (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (pp.
476-490). New York: Guilford Press.
Pekrun, R., Frenzel, A., Goetz, T., & Perry, R. P. (2007). The control-
value theory of achievement emotions: An integrative approach to
emotions in education. In P. A. Schutz, & R. Pekrun (Eds.), Emotion
in education (pp. 13-36). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Daniels, L. M., Stupnisky, R. H., & Perry, R. P.
(2010). Boredom in achievement settings: Control-value antecedents
and performance outcomes of a neglected emotion. Journal of Edu-
cational Psychology, 102, 531-549. doi:10.1037/a0019243
Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Frenzel, A. C., Barchfeld, P., & Perry, R. P.
(2011). Measuring emotions in students’ learning and performance:
The achievement emotions questionnaire (AEQ). Contemporary
Educational Psychology 36, 36-48.
Pekrun, R., Maier, M. A., & Elliot, A. J. (2009). Achievement goals
and achievement emotions: Testing a model of their relations with
academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(1),
115-135. doi:10.1037/a0013383
Pekrun, R., & Stephens, E. J. (2009). Goals, emotions, and emotion
regulation: Perspectives of the control-value theory of achievement
emotions. Human Development, 52 , 357-365.
Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. (2002). Motivation in education: Theory,
research, and applications (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pren-
tice Hall.
Reyna, C., & Weiner, B. (2001). Justice and utility in the classroom:
An atributional analysis of the goals of teachers; punishment and in-
tervention strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 309-
319. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.93.2.309
Roseman I. J., & Smith, C. A. (2001). Appraisal theory: Overview,
assuptions, varieties, controverties. In K. R. Scherer, & T. Johnson
(Eds.), Appraisal processes in emotion: Theory, methods, research
(pp. 3-18). Oxford: University Press.
Ross, J. A. (1995). The impact of an inservice to promote cooperative
learning on the stability of teacher efficacy. Teacher College Record,
97, 227-252.
Ross, J. A. (1998). The antecedents and consequences of teacher effi-
cacy. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Advances in research on teaching (Vol. 7,
pp. 49-73). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Ross, J. A., Cousins, J. B., & Gadalla, T. (1996). Within-teacher pre-
dictors of teacher efficacy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12,
385-400. doi:10.1016/0742-051X(95)00046-M
Ross. J. A., & Gray, P. (2006). Transformational leadership and teacher
commitment to organizational values: The mediating effects of col-
lective teacher efficacy. School Effectiveness and School Improve-
ment, 17, 179-199. doi:10.1080/09243450600565795
Schmitz, G. S., & Schwarzer, R. (1999). Proaktive einstellung von
lehrern: Konstruktbeschreibung und psychometrische analysen (tea-
chers’ proactive attitude: Construct description and psychometric
analyses). Zeitschrift für Empirische Pädagogik, 13 , 3-27.
Schutz, P. A., & DeCuir, J. T. (2002). Inquiry on emotions in education.
Educational Psychologist, 37, 125-134.
Schutz, P. A., & Lenehart, S. J. (2002). Emotions in education. Edu-
cational Psychologist, 37 , 67-78. doi:10.1207/S15326985EP3702_1
Schutz, P. A., Hong, J. Y., Cross, D. I., & Osbon, J. N. (2006). Reflec-
tions on investigating emotions among educational contexts. Educa-
tional Psychology Review, 18, 343-360.
Schwarzer, R., & Hallum, S. (2008). Perceived teacher self-efficacy as
a predictor of job stress and burnout: Mediation analysis. Applied
Psychology: An International Review, 57, 152-171.
Seligman, M. E. P. (2002). Authentic happiness: Using the new positive
psychology to realise your potential for lasting fulfilment. New York:
Free Press.
Copyright © 2013 SciRes.
Skaalvik, E. M., & Bong, M. (2005). Self-concept and self-efficacy re-
visited: A few notable differences and important similarities. In H. W.
Marsh, R. G. Craven, & D. M. McInerney (Eds.), International ad-
vances in self research Vol. I (pp. 67-89). Greenwich: Information
Age Publishing.
Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2007). Dimensions of teacher self-
efficacy and relations with strain factors, perceived collective teacher
efficacy, and teacher burnout. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99,
611-625. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.611
Smith, A., Kendal, L., & Hulin, C. (1969). The measurement of satis-
faction in work and retirement: A strategy for the study of attitude.
Chicago: Rand McNaily.
Somech, A., & Drach-Zahavy, A. (2000). Understanding extra-role be-
havior in schools: The relationships between job satisfaction, sense
of efficacy, and teachers’ extra-role behavior. Teacher and Teacher
Education, 16, 649-659. doi:10.1016/S0742-051X(00)00012-3
Stajkovic, A. D., & Lee, D. C. (2002). A meta-analysis of the relation-
ship between collective efficacy and group performance. Unpub-
lished manuscript.
Stephanou, G. (2004). Effects of ability self-perception, perceived task-
difficulty, performance expectations and importance of performance
on performance and attributions in specific academic domains. In J.
Baumert, H. W. Marsh, U. Trautwein, & G. E. Richards (Eds), Pro-
ceedings of the 3rd International SELF Research Conference: Self-
Concept, Motivation and Identity (CD form). Berlin: Max Planck In-
stitute for Human Development.
Stephanou, G. (2011). Students’ classroom emotions: Cognitive antece-
dents and school performance. Electronic Journal of Research in
Educational Psychology, 9 , 5-48.
Stephanou, G., Kariotoglou, P., & Ntinas, K. (2011). University stu-
dents’ emotions in lectures: The effect of competence beliefs, value
beliefs and perceived task-difficulty, and the impact on academic
performance. International Journal of Learning, 18, 45-72.
Stephanou, G., & Mastora, M. (in press). Teachers’ attributions and
emotions for their teaching over a kindergarten year. International
Journal of Advances in Psy ch ol ogy .
Stephanou, G, & Sivropoulou, E. (2008). Kindergarten teachers’ self-
efficacy and attributions for positive and negative classroom situa-
tions. 10th International Congress of Balkan Society for Pedagogy
and Education: Further Education in the Balkan Countries. Konya:
Selcuk University.
Stephanou, G., & Tsapakidou, Α. (2007a). Socio-cognitive antecedents
of teacher motivation. In Y. Theodorakis, M. Goudas, & A. Papaio-
annou (Eds.), Proceedings of the12th European Congress of Sport
Psychology, Sport and Exercise Psychology. Bridges between Disci-
plines and Culture. Halkidiki: University of Thessaly & European
Federation of Sport Psychology, 248-252.
Stephanou, G., & Tsapakidou, Α. (2007b). Teachers’ teaching styles
and self-efficacy in physical education. International Journal of
Learning, 14, 1-12.
Summers, J. E., & Davis, H. A. (2006). Introduction: The interpersonal
contexts of teaching, motivation, and learning. The Elementary
School Journal: Special Issue on the Interpersonal Contexts of Moti-
vation and Learning, 106, 189-192. doi:10.1086/501482
Sutton, R. E. (2000). The emotional experience of teachers. Annual
Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. New
Orleans, LA.
Sutton, R. E. (2004). Emotion regulation goals and strategies. Social
Psychology of Education, 7, 379-398.
Sutton, R. E., & Mudrey-Camino, R. (2003). The relationship among
teachers’ emotional intensity, emotional regulation and self-efficacy.
The Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Associa-
tion. New Orleans, LA.
Sutton, R. E., & Wheatley, K. E. (2003). Teachers’ emotions and tea-
ching: A review of the literature and directions for future research.
Educational Psychol ogy Review, 15, 327-358.
Sy, T., Tram, S., & O'Hara, L. A. (2006). Relation of employee and ma-
nager emotional intelligence to job satisfaction and performance.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 6 8, 461-473.
Taxer, J. L., & Frenzel, A. (2012). The influence of teachers’ emotions
on students’ self-concepts and attributions. International Conference
on Motivation. Frankfurt am Main, 28-30 August 2012.
Thomas, J. A., & Montomery, P. (1998). On becoming good teacher:
Reflective practice with regard to children’s voices. Journal of Tea-
cher Education, 49, 372-380. doi:10.1177/0022487198049005007
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Barr, M. (2004). Fostering student learning:
The relationship of collective efficacy and student achievement. Lea-
dership and Policy in Schools, 3, 189-209.
Tschannen-Moran, M. & Johnson, D. (2011). Exploring literacy teach-
ers’ self-efficacy beliefs: Potential sources at play. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 27, 751-761. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2010.12.005
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy:
Cap- turing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education,
17, 783-805. doi:10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00036-1
Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Tea-
cher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Re-
search, 68, 202-248.
Tucker, C. M., Porter, T., Reinke, W. M., Herman, K. C., Ivery, P. D.,
Mack, C. E., & Jackson, E. S. (2005). Promoting teacher efficacy for
working with culturally diverse students. Preventing School Failure,
50, 29-34. doi:10.3200/PSFL.50.1.29-34
Turner, J. C., Midgey, C., Meyer, D. K., Gheen, M., Anderman, E. M.,
& Kang, Y. (2002). The classroom environment and students’ reports
of avoidance strategies in mathematics: A multi-method study. Jour-
nal of Educational Psycho logy, 94, 88-106.
Turner, J. C., Meyer, D. K., Midgley, C. & Patrick. H. (2003). Tea-
cher discourse and sixth graders’ reported affect and achievement
behaviors in two mastery/high performance mathematics classrooms.
Elementary School Journal, 103, 537-582. doi:10.1086/499731
Turner, J. C., & Schallert, D. L. (2001). Expectancy-value relationships
of shame reactions and shame resiliency. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 93, 320-329. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.93.2.320
Vauras, M., Salonen, Lehtinen, P., & Kinnunen, R. (2009). Motivation
in school from contextual and longitudinal perspectives. In M. Wos-
nitza, S. A. Karabenick, A. Efklides, & P. Nenniger (Eds.), Contem-
porary motivation research: From global to local perspectives (pp.
1-23). Cambridge: Hogrefe & Huber.
Weiner, B. (1992). Human motivation: Metaphors, theories and re-
search. London: Sage.
Weiner, B. (2001). Intrapersonal and interpersonal theories of motive-
tion from an attributional perspective. Educational Psychology Re-
view, 12, 1-14. doi:10.1023/A:1009017532121
Weiner, B. (2005). Motivation from an attributional perspective and the
social psychology of perceived competence. In A. J. Elliot, & C. S.
Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 73-84).
New York: Guilford.
Wentzel, K. R. (1996). Social goals and social relationships as motiva-
tors of school adjustment. In J. Juvonen and K. R. Wentzel (Eds.),
Social motivation: Understanding children’s school adjustment (pp.
226-247). Cambridge: University Press.
Wheatley, K. F. (2005). The case for reconceptualizing teacher efficacy
research. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 747-766.
Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Davis, H. (2005). Teachers’ sense of efficacy and
adolescent achievement. In T. Urdan, & F. Pajares (Eds.), Adoles-
cence and education: Vol. 5: Self-efficacy beliefs during adolescence
(pp. 117-137). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
Wolters, C. A., & Daugherty, S. G. (2007). Goal structures and teach-
ers’ sense of efficacy: Their relation and association to teaching ex-
perience and academic level. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99,
181-193. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.99.1.181
Wong, C. A., & Dornbusch, S. M. (2000). Adolescent engagement in
school and problems behaviors: The role of perceived teacher caring.
The Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Associa-
Copyright © 2013 SciRes. 277
Copyright © 2013 SciRes.
tion. New Orleans, LA.
Yoon, J. S. (2002). Teacher characteristics as predictors of teacher-
student relationships: Stress, negative affect, and self-efficacy. Social
Behavior and Personality, 30, 485-493.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Kitsantas, A. (1999). Acquiring writing revision
skill: Shifting from process to outcome self-regulatory goals. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 91, 241-250.