Teaching and Teacher Education 47 (2015) 120e130

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Teaching and Teacher Education

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

Self-efcacy and causal attributions in teachers: Effects on burnout,

job satisfaction, illness, and quitting intentions
Hui Wang*, Nathan C. Hall, Sonia Rahimi
McGill University, Canada

h i g h l i g h t s

Higher teacher self-efcacy for motivating students predicted better adjustment.

Controllable attributions for teaching stress independently predicted better adjustment.

Causal attributions did not mediate self-efcacy effects on adjustment.

Findings support programs addressing both teacher self-efcacy and attributions.

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history:
Received 12 June 2014
Received in revised form
10 November 2014
Accepted 15 December 2014
Available online 15 January 2015

The present study expands upon prior research showing teachers' self-efcacy and causal attributions to
predict adjustment and attrition in investigating the effects of self-efcacy, attributions for occupational
stress, and hypothesized mediation effects on burnout, job satisfaction, illness symptoms, and quitting
intentions. Findings from 523 Canadian teachers showed self-efcacy and attributions to independently
predict teachers' adjustment, and revealed no empirical support for attributions as a mediator of selfefcacy effects. Results further showed self-efcacy for student engagement, and personally controllable attributions, to most strongly predict teachers' psychological well-being, physical health, and
quitting intentions. Implications for professional development and intervention programs are discussed.
2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords:
Teachers
Self-efcacy
Attributions
Burnout
Illness symptoms
Attrition

International statistics indicate discouraging teacher attrition

rates in many developed countries (see Lindqvist, Nordanger, &
Carlsson, 2014; OECD, 2005; Schleicher, 2011). In several European countries, approximately 30e40% of student teachers who
graduate do not become teachers (Nordic Council of Ministers,
2008), with an estimated 40% of graduates who do enter the
teaching profession leaving within ve years (e.g., U.K.; Kyriacou &
Kunc, 2007). In Australia, about 45% of early career teachers regularly consider quitting the profession within 10 years (Australian
Education Union, 2006) with about 30% actually doing so within
the rst ve years of instruction (Watt & Richardson, 2007). Statistics for North American teachers are equally disconcerting,
showing U.S. teacher attrition rates of 30e50% over the past 40
years (DeAngelis & Presley, 2011) with approximately one third of

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: hui.wang4@mail.mcgill.ca (H. Wang).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2014.12.005
0742-051X/ 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

new teachers quitting within three years, about half leaving within
ve years, and 10% quitting every year (Boyd, Grossman, Lankford,
Loeb, & Wyckoff, 2009; Ingersoll, 2003). Given research showing
most teachers to quit for reasons other than retirement (e.g., U.K.:
66%; Australia: 75%; Manuel & Brindley, 2005; see also Ingersoll,
2001), studies have explored both structural and personal factors
underlying adjustment and attrition in the teaching profession.
As a complement to studies citing the quality of educational
infrastructures (e.g., salary, resources, policy) as underlying low
teacher attrition in some countries (e.g., Finland: <1%; Hong Kong:
4e10%; Singapore: 3%; Choi & Tang, 2011; Education Bureau, 2010;
Darling-Hammond & Rothman, 2011), other research has explored
how both structural factors and psychological variables (e.g., job
satisfaction, commitment, occupational stress) contribute to not
only attrition but adjustment in teachers (e.g., psychological health:
Barmby, 2006; Davis & Wilson, 2000; Kyriacou, 1987; physical
health: Jamal, 1990; Sagie & Weisberg, 1999; Schaefer, Long, &

H. Wang et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 47 (2015) 120e130

Clandinin, 2012; Stoeber & Rennert, 2008). Concerning adjustment

indicators, studies have explored the effects of both the social
environment (e.g., school resources, student misbehavior) and, to a
lesser extent, dispositional factors (e.g., personality, motivation)
primarily on measures of burnout (e.g., emotional exhaustion,
depersonalization, low perceived personal accomplishment;
Brouwers, Evers, & Tomic, 2001; Friedman, 1991; Ghanizadeh &
Ghonsooly, 2014; Klusmann, Kunter, Trautwein, Ludtke, &
Baumert, 2008; Kokkinos, 2007; Pas, Bradshaw, & Hershfeldt,
2012; Santavirta, Solovieva, & Theorell, 2007).
Among Canadian teachers, recent statistics show up to 30%
turnover within the rst ve years of instruction (Karsenti & Collin,
2013), with over half reporting a willingness to leave the profession
(Martin, Dolmage, & Sharpe, 2012) and 40% quitting within the rst
ve years (Clandinin et al., 2012). Additionally, research with Canadian teachers has examined important non-psychological predictors of attrition and adjustment (e.g., lack of resources, health
problems; Clark & Antonelli, 2009) as well as psychological predictors of how Canadian teachers are coping with occupational
stress (e.g., Martin et al., 2012; Schaefer, 2003). Following from
recent Canadian studies exploring individual differences in motivational variables as predictors of burnout and attrition in teachers
(e.g., self-efcacy; Klassen & Chiu, 2011; causal attributions; Riley &
Ungerleider, 2012), the present study further investigated the relations between motivation and adjustment in Canadian teachers
in evaluating the independent and mediated effects of teachers'
self-efcacy as well as causal attributions on their psychological
adjustment (burnout, job satisfaction), physical health (illness
symptoms), and quitting intentions.
1. Self-efcacy in teachers
1.1. Theoretical perspectives
According to Bandura's (1977) social cognitive theory, selfefcacy represents one of the most important predictors of human motivation and is dened as people's beliefs about their capacities to produce designated levels of performance and exercise
inuence over events that affect their lives (Bandura, 1994, p. 71).
As a cognitive representation of individuals' beliefs about how
capable they are to perform certain tasks, self-efcacy has been
found to predict greater effort, persistence, optimism, and success
in challenging achievement settings (Bandura, 1977, 1993; see also
Pajares, 1996; Zimmerman, 2000), with these positive effects of
self-efcacy assumed to be realized through selection, cognitive,
affective, and motivational processes. More specically, individuals
with high self-efcacy are hypothesized to select challenging yet
attainable goals as well as better evaluate contingencies in
achievement settings, and are also found to have lower negative
affect due to appropriate expectations and attributing both success
and failure to controllable factors (e.g., lack of effort). Thus, whereas
self-efcacy has been found to predict better adjustment in
demanding achievement and occupational contexts (e.g., Brigido,
Borrachero, Bermejo, & Mellado, 2013), social learning theory asserts that these emotional benets may be due to the resulting
causal attributions that reect a belief in the personal controllability of relevant outcomes.
In research with teachers, the role of self-efcacy in instruction
has been explored with respect to teachers' beliefs in their ability to
promote learning and engagement in their students (TschannenMoran & McMaster, 2009; Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy,
2001; Woolfolk Hoy, Hoy, & Davis, 2009). Inuenced by Bandura's
socio-cognitive model and self-efcacy research with teachers,
Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk Hoy, and Hoy (1998) specically
dened teachers' self-efcacy as beliefs regarding one's ability to

121

teach, to regulate classroom behavior, as well as to motivate students to learn (see also Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001).
As outlined in their comprehensive model, the effects of teacher
self-efcacy, motivation, and mastery experiences are presented as
a cyclical process with the core assertion being that higher selfefcacy should lead to better instruction due to self-efcacious
teachers being more willing to invest effort in their teaching
thereby creating mastery experiences that further bolster their selfefcacy.
As such, Tschannen-Moran et al.'s (1998) model contributes two
critical ideas underlying the present research. First, it asserts that
teacher self-efcacy is best evaluated with respect to three underlying components: instructional strategies, classroom management, and student engagement. Self-efcacy regarding instructional
strategies concerns teachers' beliefs about their ability to effectively
use various teaching strategies, whereas self-efcacy concerning
classroom management refers to beliefs concerning one's ability to
regulate students' behavior during class. In contrast, self-efcacy
regarding student engagement reects teachers' beliefs in their
ability to motivate students to value and actively participate in the
learning process. Secondly, this model is consistent with social
learning theory in suggesting that higher self-efcacy should lead
to greater effort and higher expectations for success, once again
implicating teachers' beliefs in personally controllable contributors
to teaching effectiveness (e.g., effort) as a proximal consequence of
high self-efcacy that, in turn, contributes to teacher development.
1.2. Empirical ndings on teachers' self-efcacy
With respect to interactions with students, teachers with higher
self-efcacy tend to be more patient, make better use of class time,
criticize students less, encourage student autonomy and responsibility, and persist longer when dealing with challenging
students (Gibson & Dembo, 1984). For example, a study by
Woolfolk, Rosoff, and Hoy (1990) with language teachers in the U.S.
found higher levels of self-efcacy to predict more autonomysupportive and less controlling behavior with students, as
compared to less self-efcacious teachers who were more authoritarian in their classrooms. Additionally, teacher self-efcacy has
been shown to correspond with classroom practices, as evidenced
by studies showing teachers with high self-efcacy to use effective
teaching strategies more frequently (e.g., foreign language teachers
in Venezuela; Chacon, 2005), be more willing to implement innovative teaching methods (e.g., U.S. teachers; Guskey, 1988), and
focus on student collaboration and interaction as opposed to drill
and practice methods (Woolfolk et al., 1990). Finally, students have
also been found to have better academic performance with selfefcacious teachers (e.g., U.S. elementary teachers; AbernathyDyer, Ortlieb, & Cheek, 2013).
Concerning the effects of teacher self-efcacy on psychological
adjustment, recent ndings further indicate that one's objective
teaching ability does not predict job satisfaction directly, but rather
that perceptions of teaching-related self-efcacy lead to greater
positive affect and job satisfaction (e.g., Italy: Moe, Pazzaglia, &
Ronconi, 2010; Canada: Klassen & Chiu, 2010). Similar results
were reported by Caprara, Barbaranelli, Borgogni, Petitta, and
Rubinacci (2003) who found Italian high-school teachers who
believed in their ability to accomplish teaching tasks and cope with
classroom difculties to report greater value and happiness concerning the teaching profession. These ndings are consistent with
North American teachers in showing self-efcacious instructors to
take greater responsibility for their teaching and be more willing to
commit to their teaching career (e.g., U.S.: Coladarci, 1992; Canada:
Klassen & Chiu, 2011). More recently, ndings from Skaalvik and
Skaalvik (2010) further show higher self-efcacy in Norwegian

122

H. Wang et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 47 (2015) 120e130

teachers to predict lower levels of burnout symptoms (Depersonalization, Emotional Exhaustion) as well as greater job satisfaction.
Finally, teachers' self-efcacy has been examined as a healthprotective factor, specically in recent research with primary and
secondary teachers in Germany by Schwerdtfeger, Konermann, and
Schonhofen (2008). In the rst of two studies, teachers completed
self-efcacy and burnout questionnaires after which cardiac activation was examined over a 22-h period on a regular school day,
with results showing self-efcacy to positively predict cardiac
activation and negatively predict burnout. In the second study,
teachers with high self-efcacy further demonstrated lower
cortisol secretion while also reporting fewer physical complaints,
such as fatigue or pain. In summary, teachers' self-efcacy has been
found to have a positive inuence on teachers' attitudes and
behavior toward their students as well as observable classroom
practices. Moreover, greater self-efcacy has been found to positively affect teachers' psychological health with respect to job
satisfaction and burnout, as well as better physical health as evidenced by physiological indicators of stress.
2. Causal attributions in teachers
2.1. Weiner's attribution theory
In motivational research, the term attribution is dened as an
individual's perceived cause of a success or failure experience. As
such, the study of attributions is concerned with individuals' beliefs
concerning why something happens and the inuence of these
causal beliefs on their future decisions, feelings, and actions
(Atkinson, 1957, 1964). Weiner's attribution theory (1985, 2010;
Weiner & Kukla, 1970) further asserts that the potential impact of
any causal attribution on subsequent adjustment and behavior is
best predicted by three underlying characteristics of that attribution, namely locus of causality, stability, and controllability. Locus of
causality refers to whether the perceived cause is internal or
external to the individual, with prototypical attributions characterized by internal locus of causality being personal ability or effort
(e.g., student failure due to insufcient lesson preparation), and
external attributions instead implicating environmental factors or
others (e.g., student failure due to lack of administrative support;
see also Brown & Weiner, 1984). Similar to earlier work based on
Rotter's (1966) locus of control theory, internal attributions are
typically expected to predict greater persistence and achievement
over time due to individuals assuming greater responsibility for
their relevant behaviors.
With respect to the stability dimension, this component reects
one's belief concerning the variability or uctuation of a perceived
cause over time. For example, attributions for classroom challenges
to long-term structural factors are likely to be perceived as stable in
nature (e.g., student failure due to lack of school resources),
whereas attributions to more unpredictable factors should be
perceived as unstable over time (e.g., student failure due to technology problems). In contrast to stable attributions for classroom
difculties that are expected to result in low expectations for success and lower persistence, unstable attributions should instead
allow for greater optimism and future success due to such factors
not being expected to consistently disrupt performance in the
future.
Finally, the most important attributional dimension of personal
controllability reects how much control individuals believe they
themselves have over their successes or failures. For example,
whereas both bad luck and insufcient effort are typically considered to be unstable over time, an attribution to lack of effort after
failure should lead to higher expectations for success and persistence due to a belief in one's personal capability to improve future

outcomes. Thus, although feelings of guilt may arise from assuming

personal responsibility for failure events, feelings of hope should
also result leading to greater persistence and improved performance. As such, attribution theory suggests that failure attributions
to personally controllable factors should predict greater well-being
and persistence in teachers, with weaker benets expected for
unstable or internal attributions that are less clear with respect to
personal agency (e.g., internal attributions can be either personally
uncontrollable or controllable).
2.2. Empirical ndings on teachers' causal attributions
International research has consistently shown teachers to typically attribute students' failures to student-related factors (e.g., lack
of effort) and their own success as an instructor to internal causes
(e.g., use of effective teaching strategies; France: Gosling, 1994; U.S.:
Medway, 1979; Kulinna, 2007). Studies further suggest that teachers tend to attribute students' misbehavior to factors external to
themselves over which they have little control, leading to lower
perceptions of responsibility for challenging students (e.g., Greece:
Bibou-Nakou, Kiosseoglou, & Stogiannidou, 2000; U.S.: Hall,
Villeme, & Burley, 1989; Soodak & Podell, 1994; Tollefson, Melvin,
& Thippavajjala, 1990). More specically, a study by Mavropoulou
and Padeliadu (2002) found Greek teachers to generally perceive
students' misbehavior as stemming from external factors such as
the negative attitudes of parents or students' learning difculties,
as opposed to factors within themselves. Similarly, ndings also
show teachers to frequently attribute student misbehavior to students' lack of effort (e.g., China: Ding, Li, Li, & Kulmb, 2010) or
family difculties (e.g., U.S.: Soodak & Podell, 1994), prompting
requests for parental involvement when faced with problem
behaviors.
With respect to the impact of teachers' attributions on
instructional behaviors, research by Matteucci (2007) with Italian
high-school teachers suggests that when teachers interpreted
students' failure as due to lack of student effort, they were more
likely to administer retributive punishment or remedial interventions. In contrast, when student failures were interpreted as
due to lack of student ability, teachers were more likely to respond
with corrective behavior intended to assist the student (for related
qualitative ndings with Canadian teachers of Aboriginal students,
see Riley & Ungerleider, 2012). Findings from Tollefson and Chen
(1988) further showed U.S. teachers who perceived students to
invest low effort to be more reluctant to help them, have lower
expectations for their future success, and provide these students
with limited positive reinforcement. This pattern is consistent with
that observed by Georgiou, Christou, Stavrinides, and Panaoura
(2002) with teachers in Cypress who found instructors to feel
angry, frustrated, and critical towards students when they attributed student failure to students' lack of effort, and to instead feel
pity when their high effort, low ability students failed.
In contrast to consistent yet discouraging ndings regarding
teachers' attributions concerning their students' misbehavior or
poor performance, studies exploring teachers' attributions with
respect to their personal stress as a teacher are lacking (cf. attributions for occupational stress in the general public and industry
professions; Amirkhan, 1998; Kawanishi, 1995). Concerning the
types of attributions reported by teachers for their occupational
stress, studies in Australia and China showed teachers to primarily
attribute their teaching-related stress to external factors (e.g.,
government policies; McCormick, 1997; school administration;
McCormick & Shi, 1999), with Australian teachers who attributed
their stress to students' behavior and attitudes reporting lower job
satisfaction (McCormick & Solman, 1992). A correlational study by
Manassero et al. (2006) with teachers in Spain further showed

H. Wang et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 47 (2015) 120e130

stable or uncontrollable attributions for personal stress to correspond with greater exhaustion, internal or stable attributions to
correlate positively with depersonalization, and unstable or
controllable attributions to be positively associated with personal
accomplishment. In sum, existing research suggests that whereas
stable, internal, and uncontrollable attributions for teachingrelated stress correspond with greater burnout, attributions that
imply the cause of one's stress may change over time, and particularly that one can control these stressors, correspond with lower
burnout.
2.3. Mediational ndings
As outlined above, both Bandura's (1994) social learning theory
as well as Tschannen-Moran et al.'s (1998) model of teacher selfefcacy clearly suggest that the psychological, physical, and
behavioral benets of self-efcacy in teachers (a dispositional
variable) are likely due to subsequently more adaptive causal attributions for setbacks or stressful experiences (a more situationdependent variable). This assertion is empirically supported by
ndings from Brady and Woolfson (2008) who found high selfefcacy in special education teachers to predict more external attributions for students' academic difculties. It is important to note,
however, that in both social learning theories, as well as in Weiner's
(1985) attribution theory, the relationship between self-efcacy
and causal attributions is hypothesized to be reciprocal in nature.
More specically, just as higher self-efcacy should lead to more
controllable attributions, it is also suggested that controllable attributions should lead to less negative affect and better performance that, in turn, may bolster self-efcacy.
With respect to empirical support for this feedback loop, De
Jesus and Lens (2005) found teachers' attributions to inuence
their self-efcacy that, in turn, led to changes in expectations for
success and intrinsic motivation. Additionally, ndings from Reyna
and Weiner (2001) showed teachers' attributions for student failure to predict their self-efcacy, with teachers who believed they
had more control over students' learning outcomes reporting
higher self-efcacy and, in turn, more positive emotions. However,
although research with teachers to date has explored both the effects of self-efcacy on attributions, and vice versa, the few published studies that have evaluated both constructs have not
evaluated reciprocal effects or causality (e.g., with longitudinal or
experimental methods) and have not explored measures involving
teachers' stress or personal adjustment. As such, following from the
predominant emphasis on the effects of self-efcacy on attributions
in social learning theory (Bandura, 1994), Tschannen-Moran et al.'s
(1998) model of teacher self-efcacy, and Weiner's (1985) attribution theory (i.e., self-efcacy as a causal antecedent), the present
study evaluated the independent effects of these variables on
teachers' personal development, as well as the extent to which
causal attributions for stress mediated the effects of self-efcacy in
teachers.
3. The present study
In contrast to substantial research showing self-efcacy in
teachers to predict lower levels of stress and attrition intentions,
the effects of teachers' attributions for their stress on psychological
and physical health remains underexplored as has the potential for
teachers' attributions to mediate the effects of self-efcacy on their
psychological adjustment, health, and quitting intentions.
Following from the long-standing social learning theory (Bandura,
1994), the present research evaluated the hypothesis that greater
self-efcacy should lead to more adaptive causal attributions in
teachers that, in turn, are expected to predict better adjustment

123

outcomes. However, as the mediational effects of causal attributions have to date been explored only with respect to interpersonal
attributions, namely teachers' explanations for why students
misbehave or perform poorly, the present study evaluated the potential mediating role of intrapersonal attributions for one's own
stress as a teacher (for further information on the intra- vs. interpersonal differentiation concerning causal attributions, see Weiner,
2000).
Given the domain-specic correspondence between stressrelated attributions and outcomes (e.g., burnout), it was anticipated that intrapersonal attributions for why teachers themselves
were stressed would serve as an ideal test of this mediational hypothesis. Additionally, as prior research has focussed either on
psychological or physical health as outcomes reecting maladjustment in teachers, this study evaluated both types of variables in
assessing the independent and mediated effects of teachers' selfefcacy and causal attributions on multiple indicators of burnout
and job satisfaction, as well as illness symptoms and quitting intentions (a behavioral indicator). There were three general hypotheses evaluated in the present study.
3.1. Hypothesis 1
Teachers with high levels of self-efcacy were expected to have
lower levels of burnout, higher job satisfaction, fewer illness
symptoms, and be less inclined to quit relative to teachers with low
self-efcacy levels. This hypothesis is consistent with considerable
existing research showing greater self-efcacy to benet various
motivational, affective, and adjustment outcomes in teachers (for a
review, see Woolfolk Hoy et al., 2009).
3.2. Hypothesis 2
Teachers who attributed their stress to factors that are less
personally controllable, controlled by others, or are more internal
or stable in nature should have higher burnout, lower job satisfaction, more illness symptoms, and a higher tendency to quit.
Concerning the expected negative effect of internal attributions,
this assumption is consistent with ndings by Manassero et al.
(2006) and Weiner's (1995) attribution theory which asserts that
because internal attributions can be either controllable (e.g., effort)
or uncontrollable (e.g., ability), measures that collapse this
distinction may show no effects or even negative effects due to
controllable and uncontrollable attributions having opposite
effects.
3.3. Hypothesis 3
Finally, it was expected that teachers' causal attributions would
mediate the effects of their self-efcacy on adjustment outcomes
and quitting intentions. Consistent with social learning theory
(Bandura, 1977, 1982), and limited empirical ndings (e.g., Brady &
Woolfson, 2008), teachers with higher self-efcacy were expected
to attribute their stress to more personally controllable factors,
with these attributions subsequently leading to better levels of
burnout, job satisfaction, illness symptoms, and quitting intentions.
4. Method
4.1. Participants and procedure
Practicing teachers (N 523) were recruited at the start of the
Winter 2013 academic term through teacher unions and school
boards in the Canadian provinces of Ontario and Quebec to complete an online self-report questionnaire consisting of measures

124

H. Wang et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 47 (2015) 120e130

evaluating motivation and adjustment in exchange for an entry in a

cash prize draw. The sample was comprised of teachers from primary/elementary schools (51.4%, n 253), secondary/high schools
(42.5%, n 209), and junior colleges (i.e., the Quebec equivalent of
Grades 12 and 13; 6.1%, n 30). The mean age of teachers was 41.31
years (SD 9.676) and the range was 23e68 years of age, with
85.4% of participants being female (n 440). The ethnic composition of the sample was predominantly Caucasian (90.8%), followed
by Asian (4.6%), Caribbean (2.3%), African (1.6%), and other ethnicities (0.6%). Most participants held a bachelor's degree (73.0%) or
master's degree (24.4%), with the mean teaching experience being
12.92 years (SD 8.63; range: 0e45 years).
4.2. Study measures
Questionnaire measures consisted of published self-report
scales assessing teachers' self-efcacy, psychological adjustment
(burnout, job satisfaction), illness symptoms, and quitting intentions, in addition to a measure of causal attributions for occupational stress developed for this study. Composite measures for
each variable were created by summing across constituent items,
with descriptive statistics for each scale presented in Table 1.
4.2.1. Self-efcacy
The 12-item, 9-point Teachers' Sense of Efcacy Scale (TSES; short
form; 1 nothing to 9 a great deal) developed by TschannenMoran and Woolfolk Hoy (2001) was used to examine teachers'
levels of self-efcacy. Following from existing cross-cultural
conrmatory factor analyses of the TSES (e.g., Canada, Cypress,
Korea, U.S., Singapore; Klassen et al., 2009), three 4-item subscales
were evaluated to assess teachers' self-efcacy with respect to
Student Engagement (a .77; e.g., How much can you do to get
students to believe they can do well in schoolwork), Instructional
Strategies (a .76; e.g., How much can you use a variety of
assessment strategies), and Classroom Management (a .89; e.g.,
How well can you establish a classroom management system with
each group of students). The present internal reliability and mean
levels for each TSES subscale are directly consistent with those
previously observed with Canadian primary and secondary teachers (e.g., as .71e.88; Klassen et al., 2009).
4.2.2. Attributions
Teachers' causal attributions for occupational stress were
assessed using a modied version of the Causal Dimension Scale
(CDS-II) initially developed by McAuley, Duncan, and Russell (1992;
for original version, see Russell, 1982). In the present study,
teachers were rst asked to indicate what they believed to be the
primary reason for their stress as a teacher as an open-ended
response, after which they completed 12 self-report items asking
them to clarify the reason they reported with respect to four underlying causal dimensions based on Weiner's (1995) attribution
theory. Each of the four causal dimensions was assessed using three
items that asked participants to indicate on a 9-point scale whether
the cause was internal or external to themselves (Locus of Causality; a .88; e.g., 1 Reects an aspect of the situation; 9 Reects
an aspect of myself), persistent over time or temporary (Stability;
a .66; e.g., 1 Is variable over time; 9 Is stable over time),
potentially inuenced by others (External Control; a .88; e.g.,
1 Is something over which others have no control; 9 Is something over which others have control), and potentially inuenced by
themselves (Personal Control; a .90; e.g., 1 Is not manageable
by me; 9 Is manageable by me). Although the internal reliability
for the Stability scale was lower relative to the other measures
(a .66), it was retained given comparable reliability levels in

Table 1
Psychometric properties of study variables.
Variable

SD

Items Range
Potential Actual

TSES
Student engagement
Instructional strategies
Classroom management
CDS
Internality
Stability
Personal control
External control
MBI
Emotional exhaustion
Depersonalization
Personal accomplishment
Job satisfaction
Illness symptoms
Quitting intentions

500 26.69
491 30.30
492 29.59

4.70 .77 4
3.68 .76 4
4.48 .89 4

4e36
4e36
4e36

10e36
14e36
9e36

458
463
467
466

11.20
12.84
13.57
18.63

6.86
5.51
6.73
6.34

3
3
3
3

3e27
3e27
3e27
3e27

3e27
3e27
3e27
3e27

471
471
471
479
460
459

22.18 11.39 .91 9

4.85 4.69 .69 5
38.67 5.90 .75 8
25.33 6.96 .90 5
11.19 3.95 .71 6
5.28 2.91 .86 3

0e54
0e30
0e48
5e35
6e30
3e15

1e53
0e24
16e48
5e35
6e30
3e15

.88
.66
.90
.88

Note. TSES Teachers' Sense of Efcacy Scale; CDS Causal Dimension Scale;
MBI Maslach Burnout Inventory.

previous research utilizing the CDS-II (e.g., a .70, see Higgins &
LaPointe, 2012; a .68, McAuley et al., 1992).
4.2.3. Adjustment
Psychological adjustment was evaluated in the present study
using a modied version of the 22-item, 6-point Maslach Burnout
Inventory (MBI; Maslach, Jackson, & Leiter, 1996; 0 never to
6 every day; e.g., replacing clients with students) assessing
teachers' Emotional Exhaustion (a .91; e.g., I feel emotionally
drained from my work), Depersonalization (a .69; e.g., I feel I
treat some students as if they were impersonal objects), and Personal Accomplishment (a .75; e.g., I have accomplished many
worthwhile things in this job). Additionally, teachers' adjustment
was assessed with respect to job satisfaction using a 5-item, 7-point
measure by Moe et al. (2010) with items such as In most ways my
job is close to my ideal, and So far I have gotten the important
things I want in my job (a .90; 1 strongly disagree to
7 strongly agree).
4.2.4. Illness symptoms
A 6-item, 5-point scale adapted from Cohen and Hoberman
(1983; cf. Hall, Chippereld, Perry, Ruthig, & Goetz, 2006) examined teachers' perceived frequency of illness symptoms including
headaches, sleep problems, muscle tension, stomach pain, heart
pounding, and poor appetite (a .71; 1 not at all a week to 5 ve
or more times a week).
4.2.5. Quitting intentions
A 3-item, 5-point measure developed by Hackett, Lapierre, and
Hausdorf (2001) was used to assess teachers' quitting intentions
and included items such as I think about quitting the teaching
profession (1 never to 5 constantly) and I intend to move into
another profession/occupation (1 very unlikely to 5 certain;
a .86).
5. Results
5.1. Preliminary analyses
Initial zero-order correlations (see Table 2) were conducted to
assess the relationships between the study measures and determine potential covariates for the main analyses. Strong positive
correlations were found between each subtype of teachers' self-

H. Wang et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 47 (2015) 120e130

125

Table 2
Zero-order correlations among continuous study variables.
Measure

10

11

12

13

14

15

1. TSES: Student engagement

2. TSES: Instructional strategies
3. TSES: Classroom management
4. CDS: Internality
5. CDS: Stability
6. CDS: Personal control
7. CDS: External control
8. MBI: Emotional exhaustion
9. MBI: Depersonalization
10. MBI: Personal accomplishment
11. Job satisfaction
12. Illness symptoms
13. Quitting intentions
14. Education level
15. Teaching experience
16. Teaching grade level

e
.50**
.56**
.00
.09*
.03
.05
.27**
.39**
.43
.32**
.19**
.28**
.04
.14**
.32**

e
.54**
.11*
.02
.06
.10*
.13**
.24**
.37**
.16*
.05
.04
.06
.19**
.01

e
.10
.04
.06
.01
.28**
.32**
.39**
.31**
.21**
.17**
.01
.19**
.12*

e
.05
.75**
.51**
.02
.04
.06
.17**
.02
.03
.09
.20**
.10*

e
.13**
.10*
.11*
.07
.10*
.11*
.07
.11*
.06
.10*
.05

e
.60**
.16**
.07
.03
.28**
.15**
.15**
.11*
.14**
.14**

e
.16**
.06
.01
.23**
.07*
.13**
.02**
.10*
.16**

e
.57**
.31**
.55**
.55**
.53**
.05
.07
.05

e
.36**
.36**
.28**
.38**
.05
.13**
.12*

e
.40**
.19**
.27**
.04
.08
.13**

e
.38**
.58**
.01
.08
.02

e
.36**
.02
.07
.02

e
.00
.07
.02

e
.03
.25**

.00

Note. TSES Teachers' Sense of Efcacy Scale; CDS Causal Dimension Scale; MBI Maslach Burnout Inventory.
*p < .05. **p < .01.

efcacy (Student Engagement, Classroom Management, and

Instructional Strategies), with a similar pattern found for the four
attribution dimensions (with the exception of the correlation between Internality and Stability). As education level was found to
correlate with attributions, and both teaching experience and grade
level of instruction were signicantly correlated with self-efcacy,
attributions, and burnout, these measures were retained as covariates. Moreover, province of origin was included as a covariate
based on t-tests showing teachers from the province of Ontario to
have higher Emotional Exhaustion compared to Quebec teachers,
t(453) 2.80, p .005, as well as more internal attributions,
t(452) 2.35, p .019, and more frequent illness symptoms,
t(454) 2.91, p .004. Finally, gender was included as a covariate
based on t-tests showing male teachers to report higher Depersonalization relative to female teachers, t(453) 3.07, p .002 (cf.
previous research on gender differences in occupational stress and
self-efcacy in teachers; Bibou-Nakou, Stogiannidou, &
Kiosseoglou, 1999; Klassen & Chiu, 2010).
5.2. Mediation analyses
As outlined in Hypothesis 3, it was anticipated that the effects of
teachers' self-efcacy on adjustment, illness symptoms, and quitting intentions would be mediated by the types of attributions

teachers made concerning their occupational stress. To evaluate

this hypothesis, a multiple mediation analysis was conducted using
the PROCESS mediation macro in SPSS (see Hayes, 2013; Preacher &
Hayes, 2004) with the bootstrap sample set to 5000 and the condence interval to .95. As outlined in Hayes (2012), PROCESS is a
versatile computational tool for reliably evaluating multiple meditators in parallel that utilizes bootstrapping and Sobel's Z-scores to
generate bias-corrected condence intervals and effect sizes for
indirect effects. The present meditational analyses controlled for
ve demographic variables (gender, highest level of education,
province, teaching experience, and teaching grade level), and
evaluated the three subtypes of self-efcacy as independent variables and the four subtypes of attributional dimensions simultaneously as mediators on six dependent variables (Emotional
Exhaustion, Depersonalization, Personal Accomplishment, job
satisfaction, illness symptoms, and quitting intentions; 18 analyses
in total).
As outlined in Table 3, no signicant relationship was found in
any mediational analysis conducted, indicating that teachers' attributions for their occupational stress did not signicantly mediate
the effects of their self-efcacy on the dependent measures
(jdj .00e.07). Consequently, Hypothesis 3 was not supported and
hierarchical regression analyses were conducted to examine the
independent contributions of teachers' self-efcacy and

Table 3
Mediational analyses: Sobel Z-scores and the effect sizes.
Independent variable

Mediator

Dependent variable

TSES

CDS

MBI

Job satisfaction

Emotional
exhaustion

Depersonalization

Illness symptoms

Quitting intentions

Personal
accomplishment

Z-score Effect size Z-score Effect size Z-score Effect size Z-score Effect size Z-score Effect size Z-score
Student engagement

Internality
Stability
Personal control
External control
Instructional strategies Internality
Stability
Personal control
External control
Classroom management Internality
Stability
Personal control
External control

0.92
0.73
1.65
0.19
1.37
0.64
1.04
1.17
0.58
0.94
1.50
0.29

.03
.02
.07
.00
.05
.01
.05
.04
.02
.01
.06
.00

1.05
0.79
1.33
0.19
1.14
0.78
0.60
1.13
0.54
1.16
1.26
0.11

.01
.01
.02
.00
.02
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.02
.00

0.86
0.04
1.15
0.04
1.09
0.71
0.68
0.45
0.42
0.99
1.11
0.05

.01
.00
.02
.00
.02
.01
.01
.01
.00
.01
.02
.00

0.37
0.70
1.74
0.14
0.41
0.58
0.96
1.42
0.14
0.82
1.39
0.01

.00
.01
.04
.00
.01
.01
.03
.03
.00
.01
.03
.00

0.81
0.34
1.74
0.20
1.47
0.57
1.03
0.74
0.29
0.77
1.53
0.21

.01
.00
.03
.00
.02
.00
.02
.01
.00
.00
.03
.00

0.87
1.26
1.54
0.02
1.16
0.45
0.80
1.36
0.42
1.12
1.31
0.04

Effect size
.01
.01
.01
.00
.01
.00
.01
.01
.00
.01
.01
.00

Note. TSES Teachers' Sense of Efcacy Scale; CDS Causal Dimension Scale; MBI Maslach Burnout Inventory. No mediational analyses reached statistical signicance.

126

H. Wang et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 47 (2015) 120e130

attributions on adjustment, illness symptoms, and quitting intentions as outlined in Hypotheses 1 and 2.
5.3. Regression analyses
To competitively evaluate the independent effects of selfefcacy and attributions for occupational stress, hierarchical
regression analyses were conducted including the ve background
variables as covariates in the rst step, followed by the three subscales for self-efcacy entered in the second step. In the third step,
the four attribution measures e Internality, Stability, Personal
Control, and External Control e were entered to determine if
additional variance beyond that accounted for by the self-efcacy
measures was explained in our dependent measures of burnout
(Emotional Exhaustion, Depersonalization, and Personal Accomplishment), job satisfaction, illness symptoms, and intentions to
quit (Table 4).
5.3.1. Burnout
Results showed teachers' self-efcacy for Student Engagement,
b .25, p < .000, and Classroom Management, b .22, p < .000,
to predict lower levels of Emotional Exhaustion in teachers. When
the attribution variables were added as predictors, self-efcacy for
Student Engagement and Classroom Management remained signicant predictors despite the attribution measures contributing
signicantly to the variance explained in Emotional Exhaustion;
Finc(4, 357) 3.87, p .004. As anticipated, attributions reecting
Personal Control predicted lower exhaustion, b .23, p .005,
whereas Internality predicted greater exhaustion, b .20, p .009.
Of the three self-efcacy subscales assessed, only teachers' selfefcacy for Student Engagement signicantly predicted lower
Depersonalization, b .32, p < .001. Additionally, although attributions reecting Internality predicted more Depersonalization,
b .17, p .023, the attribution variables did not account for
additional variance beyond the self-efcacy measures; Finc(4,
358) 2.34, p .055. Concerning the third burnout measure, results showed higher self-efcacy concerning Student Engagement,
b .31, p < .001, and to a lesser extent, Instructional Strategies,

b .19, p .001, and Classroom Management, b .12, p .001, to

predict a greater sense of Personal Accomplishment in teachers (27%
of variability). The attribution measures did not contribute to
additional variance explained beyond the self-efcacy measures,
with none of the attribution measures signicantly predicting
Personal Accomplishment.
5.3.2. Job satisfaction
Higher self-efcacy levels with respect to Student Engagement,
b .27, p < .001, and, to a lesser extent, Classroom Management,
b .18, p .003, predicted greater job satisfaction in teachers.
Additionally, teachers' attributions suggesting Personal Control
over occupational stress predicted greater job satisfaction, b .22,
p .006, and explained additional variance beyond the self-efcacy
measures; Finc(4, 363) 8.48, p < .001.
5.3.3. Illness symptoms
Concerning teachers' physical health, higher levels of selfefcacy concerning Student Engagement, b .18, p .007, and
Classroom Management, b .18, p .004, predicted less frequent
illness symptoms. The attribution measures contributed signicantly to the variance explained by the self-efcacy variables, Finc(4,
356) 5.00, p .001, with attributions reecting Personal Control
over teaching-related stress predicting fewer illness symptoms,
b .37, p < .001, and Internality predicting more frequent illness
symptoms, b .20, p .009.
5.3.4. Intention to quit
Finally, teachers' self-efcacy regarding Student Engagement,
b .37, p < .001, and, to a lesser extent, Instructional Strategies,
b .20, p .002, predicted weaker intentions to quit the teaching
profession. The inclusion of the attribution measures contributed
signicantly to the variance explained by the self-efcacy scales,
Finc(4, 357) 4.01, p .003, with attributions indicating a sense of
Personal Control predicting lower quitting intentions, b .22,
p .010, and Internality predicting stronger quitting intentions,
b .15, p .050.

Table 4
Hierarchical multiple regression analyses.
Predictor

Step 1
Gender
Education level
Province
Teaching
experience
Teaching grade
level
Step 2 (TSES)
Student
engagement
Instructional
strategies
Classroom
management
Step 3 (CDS)
Internality
Stability
Personal control
External control
Total R2

MBI: Emotional exhaustion

MBI: Depersonalization

MBI: Personal accomplishment

Job satisfaction

Illness symptoms

Quitting intentions

DR2

DR2

DR2

DR2

DR2

DR2

.03

.04**

.02
.12**

.02
.08
.06
.05
.12*

.06
.04
.13*
.05

.14**

.24**
.32**

.31**

.10

.01

.19**

.04**

.02
.20**
.04
.23**
.08

.01

.20**

.07**

.28**

.11**
.37**

.10

.20**

.18**
.05**

.03
.02
.22**
.11
.21**

.04

.18**

.18**

.11
.03
.09
.02

.17*
.05
.14
.08

.07**

.09

.12*

.02
.02
.07
.05

.03

.27**

.05
.04**

.20**
.02
.37**
.10
.14**

.01
.09
.03
.13*
.06

.03
.12**

.25**

.03
.01
.00
.09
.08

.12*

.12

.02
.00
.01
.04
.10

.13*

.22**

.18**

.15*
.06
.22**
.08
.15**

Note. Each step includes predictors from the previous steps. Gender: 1 male, 2 female. Province: 1 Quebec, 2 Ontario. TSES Teachers' Sense of Efcacy Scale;
CDS Causal Dimension Scale; MBI Maslach Burnout Inventory.
*p < .05. **p < .01.

H. Wang et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 47 (2015) 120e130

6. Discussion
6.1. Hypothesis 1: Teachers' self-efcacy
The results of this study provide clear empirical support for
Hypothesis 1 in showing teachers' self-efcacy to be an important
predictor of psychological and physical health in teachers, as well as
intentions to quit. More specically, teachers' with stronger beliefs
in their ability to engage their students in learning, and to a lesser
extent, manage students' misbehavior and classroom activities,
reported not only higher job satisfaction and lower burnout
(Emotional Exhaustion, Personal Accomplishment), but also less
frequent illness symptoms. Teachers' self-efcacy concerning student engagement additionally predicted lower levels of depersonalization and quitting intentions, further underscoring the
importance of this specic type of self-efcacy for well-being and
quitting intentions in teachers. Furthermore, these ndings are
consistent with prior empirical studies showing self-efcacy in
teachers to predict signicantly higher job satisfaction (e.g., Moe
et al., 2010) as well as lower levels of burnout (e.g., Skaalvik &
Skaalvik, 2010), illness (e.g., Schwerdtfeger et al., 2008), and intentions to quit (e.g., Klassen & Chiu, 2011).
However, unanticipated ndings were also observed regarding
teachers' self-efcacy with respect to using various instructional
strategies while teaching. Although this more technical subtype of
self-efcacy predicted a greater sense of personal accomplishment,
likely due to promoting cognitive growth in students (Frenzel,
Stephens, & Jacob, 2009), it also predicted stronger quitting intentions. In other words, whereas teachers' perceived ability to
motivate students and regulate their behavior predicted better
outcomes, teachers' beliefs in their ability to use effective teaching
strategies corresponded with a stronger intention to quit, despite a
sense of teaching-related accomplishment. Although not consistent
with our hypotheses, these results contribute to our understanding
of the effects of teachers' self-efcacy on well-being in showing
that although beliefs in one's technical aptitude with respect to
instructional practices can help teachers feel more accomplished
(e.g., Chu, 2011; Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001), it may
also be detrimental to persistence when considered independently
of one's perceived ability to motivate and regulate student
behavior. Moreover, these ndings underscore the primary
importance of teachers' self-efcacy to motivate students, with
teachers who felt more capable of engaging their students reporting better levels on each outcome assessed.
6.2. Hypothesis 2: Teachers' attributions for occupational stress
With respect to the hypothesized effects of teachers' attributions, these results provided clear empirical support for Hypothesis
2. As anticipated, the strongest attribution nding to emerge was
that teachers who perceived their stressors to be personally
controllable reported not only lower emotional exhaustion, but also
greater job satisfaction, less frequent illness symptoms, and a lower
likelihood of quitting. These ndings are directly consistent with
prior research highlighting the benets of controllable attributions
in teachers (e.g., on instructional practices, teacher burnout;
Manassero et al., 2006; Reyna & Weiner, 2001; Weiner, Graham, &
Reyna, 1997), and extend these ndings by demonstrating these
benets with respect to attributions for occupational stress and on
outcomes related to adjustment and quitting intentions. These results also contribute to extant research on teacher motivation in
showing the benets of personally controllable attributions over
and above the effects of teachers' self-efcacy, underscoring the
importance of both constructs as independent predictors of wellbeing in teachers.

127

Finally, the present ndings showed teachers who attributed

their stress simply to internal factors to report signicantly higher
levels of emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and illness
symptoms, as well as a notably higher likelihood of quitting the
teaching profession. Although negative effects of internal attributions may seem counterintuitive and inconsistent with prior
research (e.g., Hall et al., 1989; Natale, Viljaranta, Lerkkanen,
Poikkeus, & Nurmi, 2009), these results are consistent with
recent ndings on the effects of attributions on adjustment and
quitting intentions in teachers (Manassero et al., 2006). As such,
these ndings underscore the potential drawbacks of teachers
assuming personal responsibility for their stress (e.g., owning it)
without the benecial element of believing they can somehow
reduce their stress (due to this variable being controlled for in our
regression analysis).
6.3. Hypothesis 3: Mediation results
Finally, although it was hypothesized that teachers' attributions
for their occupational stress should act as mediators of the relationship between self-efcacy and teachers' personal development,
this hypothesis was not supported in the present study. Instead, our
results show teachers' self-efcacy and attributions for stress to be
weakly correlated and independently predict adjustment and
quitting intentions. These ndings thus imply that although higher
self-efcacy for student engagement and classroom management
should lead to positive changes in well-being and persistence, these
effects are not due to, but in addition to, the positive effects of
personally controllable attributions for teaching-related stressors.
Thus, although the lack of signicant mediation results did not
support our initial hypothesis, they nonetheless are informative in
underscoring the importance of evaluating teachers' perceived
ability to motivate not only their students but also themselves.
Whereas teachers were found to reap personal benets from
encouraging students to value and assume control over the
learning process, they were also found to experience greater wellbeing when they themselves focussed on the personally controllable causes of their own teaching-related stress.
6.4. Study limitations and implications
When interpreting the study ndings, it is important to note
that alternate causal directions between the study variables cannot
be precluded due to the cross-sectional nature of the study
methods (cf. De Jesus & Lens 2005). Thus, whereas our analyses
were informed primarily by social learning theory (Bandura, 1977)
and substantive research showing motivation in teachers (e.g., selfefcacy) to predict instructional outcomes (e.g., student performance; e.g., Abernathy-Dyer et al., 2013), further longitudinal
research is warranted to evaluate reverse or reciprocal relations
between these variables. Similarly, a second limitation of this study
concerns potentially inated relations between constructs as a
result of a response bias across concurrently administered selfreport measures. Longitudinal research is therefore recommended to more reliably evaluate the magnitude of long-term effects of self-efcacy and attributions on well-being in teachers.
Finally, longer-term as well as more objective outcomes are
encouraged in future studies to replicate the present ndings obtained using self-report measures of physical health (cf. teacher
self-efcacy and cortisol levels, Schwerdtfeger et al., 2008) and
quitting intentions (cf. actual teacher retention, Henke, Zahn, &
Carroll, 2001).
With respect to the practical implications of the present ndings
for teachers, these results underscore the importance of equipping
teachers with knowledge of how to motivate students to value the

128

H. Wang et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 47 (2015) 120e130

learning process and believe they can succeed academically. More

specically, whereas more technical, skill-based professional
development efforts may facilitate teachers' self-efcacy with
respect to instruction (e.g., group learning, formative assessment),
our ndings suggest that such initiatives may harm teacher
persistence if not accompanied by content addressing student
motivation. As outlined in research on motivational interventions
for students (e.g., for reviews, see Hall & Goetz, 2013; Wentzel &
Wigeld, 2007; Yeager & Walton, 2011) and studies on motivationally adaptive learning tasks (e.g., Brophy, 2008; Hulleman,
Godes, Hendricks, & Harackiewicz, 2010; Ryan & Deci, 2009) and
goal structures (e.g., Linnenbrink, 2005; Wolters, 2004), there are
various instructional techniques for promoting perceptions of value
and control that when presented to teachers should, in addition to
promoting student development, lead to improvements in teachers' well-being and retention.
Finally, given study ndings showing teachers' attributions for
stress to not simply be a by-product of their self-efcacy, but rather
an independent contributor to adjustment and quitting intentions,
programs for teachers in which they are equipped with both
teaching strategies and motivational strategies for dealing with
stress are warranted. Whereas interventions encouraging controllable attributions for academic setbacks have long been used to
promote learning and achievement in students (i.e., Attributional
Retraining; for reviews, see Forsterling, 1985; Haynes, Perry,
Stupnisky, & Daniels, 2009; Perry, 1991; Wilson, Damiani, &
Shelton, 2002), similar programs encouraging teachers to focus
on the modiable contributors to occupational stress are lacking. In
sum, the present study contributes to existing research in highlighting the specic benets of teachers' self-efcacy for motivating
and managing students, as well as controllable attributions for
stress, for their personal development, and suggests clear directions for future research in which these motivational variables
are further explored and promoted as part of comprehensive professional development programs.
Acknowledgments
This study was supported by grant funding to the second author
from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canbec e
ada (#895-2011-1006) and Le Fonds de recherche du Que
te
 et culture (#2013-NP-165885). The assistance of the
Socie
Achievement Motivation and Emotion (AME) Research Group in the
data collection process is greatly appreciated.
References
Abernathy-Dyer, J., Ortlieb, E., & Cheek, E. H. (2013). An analysis of teacher efcacy
and perspectives about elementary literacy instruction. Current Issues in Education, 16(3), 1e14.
Amirkhan, J. H. (1998). Attributions as predictors of coping and distress. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 1006e1018.
Atkinson, J. W. (1957). Motivational determinants of risk taking behavior. Psychological Review, 64, 359e372.
Atkinson, J. W. (1964). An introduction to motivation. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.
Australian Education Union. (AEU). (2006). Beginning teachers' list workload,
behavior management, pay and class size as top concerns. Melbourne, Australia:
AEU. Retrieved from http://www.aeufederal.org.au/Media/MediaReleases/
2006/0202.pdf.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efcacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84, 191e215.
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efcacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37(2), 122e147.
Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efcacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28, 117e148.
Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efcacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human
behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 71e81). New York, NY: Academic Press (Reprinted in H.
Friedman [Ed.], Encyclopedia of mental health. San Diego, CA: Academic Press,
1998).

Barmby, P. W. (2006). Improving teacher recruitment and retention: the importance

of workload and pupil behavior. Educational Research, 48(3), 247e265.
Bibou-Nakou, I., Kiosseoglou, G., & Stogiannidou, A. (2000). Elementary teachers'
perceptions regarding school behavior problems: implications for school psychological services. Psychology in the Schools, 37, 123e137.
Bibou-Nakou, I., Stogiannidou, A., & Kiosseoglou, G. (1999). The relation between
teacher burnout and teachers' attributions and practices regarding school
behavior problems. School Psychology International, 20, 209e217.
Boyd, D., Grossman, P., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2009). Who leaves?
Teacher attrition and student achievement. Retrieved from National Center for
Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research website: http://www.
caldercenter.org/UploadedPDF/1001270_teacher_attrition.pdf.
Brady, K., & Woolfson, L. (2008). What teacher factors inuence their attributions
for children's difculties in learning? British Journal of Educational Psychology,
78, 527e544.
Brigido, M., Borrachero, A. B., Bermejo, M. L., & Mellado, V. (2013). Prospective
primary teachers' self-efcacy and emotions in science teaching. European
Journal of Teacher Education, 36(2), 200e217.
Brophy, J. (2008). Scaffolding appreciation for school learning: an update. In
M. R. Maehr, S. A. Karabenick, & T. C. Urdan (Eds.), Advances in motivation and
achievement: Social psychological perspectives (Vol. 15, pp. 1e48). Bingley, UK:
Emerald.
Brouwers, A., Evers, W. J. G., & Tomic, W. (2001). Self-efcacy in eliciting social support
and burnout among secondary-school teachers. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31, 1474e1491. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2001.tb02683.x.
Brown, J., & Weiner, B. (1984). Affective consequences of ability versus effort ascriptions: controversies, resolutions, and quandaries. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 76(1), 146e158.
Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Borgogni, L., Petitta, L., & Rubinacci, A. (2003).
Teachers', school staff's and parents' efcacy beliefs as determinants of attitude
toward school. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 18, 15e31.
Chacon, C. T. (2005). Teachers' perceived efcacy among English as a foreign language teachers in middle schools in Venezuela. Teaching and Teacher Education,
21, 257e272.
Choi, P., & Tang, S. (2011). Satised and dissatised commitment: teachers in three
generations. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 36(7), 45e75.
Chu, S.-Y. (2011). Teacher efcacy beliefs toward serving culturally and linguistically
diverse students in special education: implications of a pilot study. Education
and Urban Society, 45(3), 385e410.
Clandinin, D. J., Schaefer, L., Long, J. S., Steeves, P., McKenzie-Robblee, S., Pinnegar, E.,
et al. (2012). Early career teacher attrition: Problems, possibilities, potentials: Final
report. Retrieved from University of Alberta, Center for Research for Teacher
Education and Development website: http://www.elementaryed.ualberta.ca/
en/Centres/CRTED/~/media/elementaryed/Documents/Centres/CRTED/ECA_-_
FINAL_Report.pdf.
Clark, B. R., & Antonelli, F. (2009). Why teachers leave: Results of an Ontario survey
2006-08. Toronto, ON: Ontario Teachers Federation and Government of Ontario.
Cohen, S., & Hoberman, H. M. (1983). Positive events and social supports as buffers
of life change stress. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 13, 99e125.
Coladarci, T. (1992). Teachers' sense of efcacy and commitment to teaching. Journal
of Experimental Education, 60, 323e337.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Rothman, R. (Eds.). (2011). Teacher and leader effectiveness
in high performing education systems. Washington, D.C.: Alliance for Excellent
Education and Stanford, CA: Center for Opportunity Policy in Education.
Davis, J., & Wilson, S. M. (2000). Principals' efforts to empower teachers: effects on
teacher motivation and job satisfaction and stress. The Clearing House, 73(6),
349e353.
DeAngelis, K. J., & Presley, J. B. (2011). Toward a more nuanced understanding of
new teacher attrition. Education and Urban Society, 43(5), 598e626. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1605/01.301-0015850416.2011.
De Jesus, S. N., & Lens, W. (2005). An integrated model for the study of teacher
motivation. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 54, 119e134.
Ding, M.-X., Li, Y.-P., Li, X.-B., & Kulmb, G. (2010). Chinese teachers' attributions and
coping strategies for student classroom misbehavior. Asia Pacic Journal of Education, 30, 321e337.
Education Bureau. (2010). Statistics on primary and secondary school teachers 2009/
10. Hong Kong: Education Bureau.
Forsterling, F. (1985). Attributional retraining: a review. Psychological Bulletin, 98(3),
495e512.
Frenzel, A. C., Stephens, E. J., & Jacob, B. (2009). Antecedents and effects of teachers'
emotional experiences: an integrated perspective and empirical test. In
P. A. Schutz, & M. Zembylas (Eds.), Advances in teacher emotion research: The
impact on teachers' lives (pp. 129e151). New York, NY: Springer.
Friedman, I. A. (1991). High- and low- burnout schools: school culture aspects of
teacher burnout. The Journal of Educational Research, 84(6), 325e333.
Georgiou, S. N., Christou, C., Stavrinides, P., & Panaoura, G. (2002). Teacher attribution of student failure and teacher behavior toward the failing student.
Psychology in the Schools, 39, 583e595.
Ghanizadeh, A., & Ghonsooly, B. (2014). A tripartite model of EFL teacher attributions, burnout, and self-regulation: toward the prospects of effective teaching.
Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 13, 145e166.
Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. (1984). Teacher efcacy: a construct validation. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 76, 569e582.
Gosling, P. (1994). The attribution of success and failure: the subject/object contrast.
European Journal of Psychology of Education, 9, 69e83.

H. Wang et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 47 (2015) 120e130

Guskey, T. (1988). Teacher efcacy, self-concept and attitudes towards the implementation of instructional innovation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4,
63e69.
Hackett, R. D., Lapierre, L. M., & Hausdorf, P. A. (2001). Understanding the links
between work commitment constructs. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58,
392e413.
Hall, B., Villeme, M. G., & Burley, W. W. (1989). Teachers' attributions for students'
academic success and failure and the relationship to teaching level and teacher
feedback practices. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 14, 133e144.
Hall, N. C., Chippereld, J. G., Perry, R. P., Ruthig, J. C., & Goetz, T. (2006). Primary and
secondary control in academic development: gender-specic implications for
stress and health in college students. Anxiety, Stress & Coping, 19, 189e210.
Hall, N. C., & Goetz, T. (Eds.). (2013). Emotion, motivation, and self-regulation: A
handbook for teachers. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing.
Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable
mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling [White paper].
Retrieved from http://www.afhayes.com/public/process2012.pdf.
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process
analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Haynes, T. L., Perry, R. P., Stupnisky, R. H., & Daniels, L. M. (2009). A review of
attributional retraining treatments: fostering engagement and persistence in
vulnerable college students. In J. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of
theory and research (Vol. 24, pp. 227e272). Amsterdam, The Netherlands:
Springer.
Henke, R., Zahn, L., & Carroll, C. (2001). Attribution of new teachers among recent
college graduates: Comparing occupational stability among 1992-1993 college
graduates who taught and those who worked in other occupations. Washington,
DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
Higgins, N. C., & LaPointe, M. (2012). An individual differences measure of attributions that affect achievement behavior: factor structure and predictive validity of the academic attributional style questionnaire. SAGE Open, 2012(2),
1e15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2158244012470110.
Hulleman, C. S., Godes, O., Hendricks, B. L., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2010). Enhancing
interest and performance with a utility value intervention. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 880e895.
Ingersoll, R. M. (2001). Teacher turnover and teacher shortages: an organizational
analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 499e534.
Ingersoll, R. M. (2003). Is there really a teacher shortage? Washington, DC: Center for
the Study of Teaching and Policy.
Jamal, M. (1990). Relationship of job stress and Type-A behavior to employees' job
satisfaction, organizational commitment, psychosomatic health problems, and
turnover motivation. Human Relations, 45, 727e738.
Karsenti, T., & Collin, S. (2013). Why are new teachers leaving the profession? Results of a Canada-wide survey. Education, 3(3), 141e149.
Kawanishi, Y. (1995). The effects of culture on beliefs about stress and coping:
causal attributions of Anglo-American and Japanese persons. Journal of
Contemporary Psychotherapy, 25(1), 49e60.
Klassen, R. M., Bong, M., Usher, E. L., Chong, W. H., Huan, V. S., Wong, I. Y. F., et al.
(2009). Exploring the validity of a teachers' self-efcacy scale in ve countries.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34(1), 67e76.
Klassen, R. M., & Chiu, M. M. (2010). Effects on teachers' self-efcacy and job
satisfaction: teacher gender, years of experience, and job stress. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 102, 741e756.
Klassen, R. M., & Chiu, M. M. (2011). The occupational commitment and intention to
quit of practicing and pre-service teachers: inuence of self-efcacy, job stress,
and teaching context. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36, 114e129.
Klusmann, U., Kunter, M., Trautwein, U., Ludtke, O., & Baumert, J. (2008). Engagement and emotional exhaustion in teachers: does the school context make a
difference? An International Review, 57, 127e151.
Kokkinos, C. M. (2007). Job stressors, personality and burnout in primary school
teachers. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 229e243.
Kulinna, P. H. (2007). Teachers' attributions and strategies for student misbehavior.
Journal of Classroom Interaction, 42(2), 21e30.
Kyriacou, C. (1987). Teacher stress and burnout: an international review. Educational Research, 29, 146e152.
Kyriacou, C., & Kunc, R. (2007). Beginning teachers' expectations of teaching.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 1246e1257.
Lindqvist, P., Nordanger, U. K., & Carlsson, R. (2014). Teacher attrition the rst ve
years e a multifaceted image. Teaching and Teacher Education, 40, 94e103.
Linnenbrink, E. A. (2005). The dilemma of performance-approach goals: the use of
multiple goal contexts to promote students' motivation and learning. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 97(2), 197e213.
Manassero, M. A., Buades, E. G., Torrens, G., Ramis, C., Vazquez, A., & Ferrer, V. A.
(2006). Teacher burnout: attributional aspect. Psychology in Spain, 10, 66e74.
Manuel, J., & Brindley, S. (2005). The call to teach: identifying pre-service teachers'
motivations, expectations and key experiences during initial teacher education
in Australia and the United Kingdom. English in Australia, 144, 38ee49.
Martin, R. M., Dolmage, R., & Sharpe, D. (2012). Seeking wellness: Descriptive ndings
from the survey of the work life and health of teachers in Regina and Saskatoon.
Retrieved from Regina Public School Teachers' Association website: http://
www.rpsta.com/uploads/7/1/5/8/7158038/teacher_wellness_report.pdf.
Maslach, C., Jackson, S. E., & Leiter, M. P. (1996). Maslach burnout inventory manual
(3rd ed.). Mountain View, CA: CPP, Inc.
Matteucci, M. C. (2007). Teachers facing school failure: the social valorization of
effort in the school context. Social Psychology of Education, 10, 29e53.

129

Mavropoulou, S., & Padeliadu, S. (2002). Teachers' causal attributions for behavior
problems in relation to perceptions of control. Educational Psychology, 22(2),
191e202.
McAuley, E., Duncan, T. E., & Russell, D. (1992). Measuring causal attributions: the
revised Causal Dimension Scale (CDSII). Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 18, 566e573.
McCormick, J. (1997). An attribution model of teachers' occupational stress and job
satisfaction in a large educational system. Work and Stress: An International
Journal of Work, Health, and Organizations, 11(1), 17e32. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1080/02678379708256819.
McCormick, J., & Shi, G.-X. (1999). Teachers' attributions of responsibility for their
occupational stress in the People's Republic of China and Australia. British
Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 393e407.
McCormick, J., & Solman, R. (1992). Teachers' attributions of responsibility for
occupational stress and satisfaction: an organizational perspective. Educational
Studies, 18(2), 201e222.
Medway, F. J. (1979). Causal attributions for school-related problems: teacher perceptions and teacher feedback. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(6),
809e818.
Moe, A., Pazzaglia, F., & Ronconi, L. (2010). When being able is not enough. The
combined value of positive affect and self-efcacy for job satisfaction in
teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 1145e1153.
Natale, K., Viljaranta, J., Lerkkanen, M.-K., Poikkeus, A.-M., & Nurmi, J.-E. (2009).
Cross-lagged associations between kindergarten teachers' causal attributions
and children's task motivation and performance in reading. Educational Psychology, 29, 603e619.
Nordic Council of Ministers [Nordisk Ministerrd]. (2008). Komparativt studium af
de nordiske lrerutdannelser [Comparative study of Nordic teacher education].
Kbenhvn, Denmark: TemaNord.
OECD. (2005). Teachers matter: Attracting, developing and retaining effective teachers.
Paris, France: OECD Publishing.
Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efcacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational
Research, 66(4), 543e578.
Pas, E. T., Bradshaw, C. P., & Hershfeldt, P. A. (2012). Teacher- and school-level
predictors of teacher efcacy and burnout: identifying potential areas for
support. Journal of School Psychology, 50(1), 129e145.
Perry, R. P. (1991). Perceived control in college students: implications for instruction
in higher education. In J. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and
research (pp. 1e56). New York, NY: Agathon.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect
effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, &
Computers, 36(4), 717e731.
Reyna, C., & Weiner, B. (2001). Justice and utility in the classroom: an attributional
analysis of the goals of teachers' punishment and intervention strategies.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 309e319.
Riley, T., & Ungerleider, C. (2012). Self-fullling prophecy: how teachers' attributions, expectations, and stereotypes inuence the learning opportunities
afforded aboriginal students. Canadian Journal of Education, 35(2), 303e333.
Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of
reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80, 1e28.
Russell, D. (1982). The Causal Dimension Scale: a measure of how individuals
perceive causes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 1137e1145.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2009). Promoting self-determined school engagement:
motivation, learning, and well-being. In K. R. Wentzel, & A. Wigeld (Eds.),
Handbook of motivation at school (pp. 171e196). New York, NY: Routledge.
Sagie, A., & Weisberg, J. (1999). Teachers' physical, mental, and emotional burnout:
impact on intention to quit. The Journal of Psychology, 133(3), 333.
Santavirta, N., Solovieva, S., & Theorell, T. (2007). The association between job strain
and emotional exhaustion in a cohort of 1,028 Finnish teachers. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 77, 213e228.
Schaefer, A. C. (2003). The good, the bad, and the indifferent: A comparison of
elementary and secondary teachers' workload and stress issues (BCTF Research
Report Section III, 2003-WLC-01). Vancouver, BC: BCTF Research Division.
Schaefer, L., Long, J. S., & Clandinin, J. D. (2012). Questioning the research on early
career teacher attrition and retention. Alberta Journal of Educational Research,
58(1), 106e121.
Schleicher, A. (2011). Building a high-quality teaching profession: Lessons from around
the world. Paris, France: OECD Publishing.
Schwerdtfeger, A., Konermann, L., & Schonhofen, K. (2008). Self-efcacy as a healthprotective resource in teachers? A biopsychological approach. Health Psychology, 27, 358e368.
Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2010). Teacher self-efcacy and teacher burnout: a
study of relations. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 1059e1069.
Soodak, L., & Podell, D. M. (1994). Teachers' thinking about difcult-to-teach students. Journal of Educational Research, 88, 44e51.
Stoeber, J., & Rennert, D. (2008). Perfectionism in school teachers: relations with
stress appraisals, coping styles, and burnout. Anxiety, Stress & Coping, 21(1),
37e53.
Tollefson, N., & Chen, J.-S. (1988). Consequences of teachers' attributions for student
failure. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4, 259e265.
Tollefson, N., Melvin, J., & Thippavajjala, C. (1990). Teachers' attributions for students' low achievement: a validation of Cooper and Good's attributional categories. Psychology in the Schools, 27, 75e83.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & McMaster, P. (2009). Sources of self-efcacy: four professional development formats and their relationship to self-efcacy and

130

H. Wang et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 47 (2015) 120e130

implementation of a new teaching strategy. Elementary School Journal, 110,

228e248.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efcacy: capturing and
elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783e805.
Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efcacy: its
meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68, 202e248.
Watt, H. M. G., & Richardson, P. P. W. (2007). Motivational factors inuencing
teaching as a career choice: development and validation of the FIT-choice scale.
The Journal of Experimental Education, 75(3), 167e202.
Weiner, B. (1985). An attribution theory of achievement motivation and emotion.
Psychological Review, 92, 548e573.
Weiner, B. (1995). Judgments of responsibility: A foundation for a theory of social
conduct. New York, NY: Guilford.
Weiner, B. (2000). Intrapersonal and interpersonal theories of motivation from an
attributional perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 12, 1e14.
Weiner, B. (2010). The development of an attribution-based theory of motivation: a
history of ideas. Educational Psychologist, 45, 28e36.
Weiner, B., Graham, S., & Reyna, C. (1997). An attributional examination of retributive versus utilitarian philosophies of punishment. Social Justice Research,
10(4), 431e452.

Weiner, B., & Kukla, A. (1970). An attributional analysis of achievement motivation.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 15, 1e20.
Wentzel, K. R., & Wigeld, A. (2007). Motivational interventions that work: themes
and remaining issues. Educational Psychologist, 42(4), 261e271.
Wilson, T. D., Damiani, M., & Shelton, N. (2002). Improving the academic performance of college students with brief attributional interventions. In J. Aronson
(Ed.), Improving academic achievement: Impact of psychological factors on education (pp. 89e108). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Wolters, C. A. (2004). Advancing achievement goal theory: using goal structures
and goal orientations to predict students' motivation, cognition, and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(2), 236e250.
Woolfolk, A. E., Rosoff, B., & Hoy, W. K. (1990). Teachers' sense of efcacy and their
beliefs about managing students. Teaching and Teacher Education, 6(2), 137e148.
Woolfolk Hoy, A., Hoy, W. K., & Davis, H. A. (2009). Teachers' self-efcacy beliefs. In
K. R. Wentzel, & A. Wigeld (Eds.), Handbook of motivation at school (pp.
627e653). New York, NY: Routledge.
Yeager, D. S., & Walton, G. M. (2011). Social-psychological interventions in education: they're not magic. Review of Educational Research, 82(2), 267e301.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Self-efcacy: an essential motive to learn. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 25(1), 82e91.