Confidence is something you do
Lesson 4 of 6 in this module · about 7 minutes · Emotional skills
The idea
In this course confidence is a set of actions (starting, stating a preference, inviting, accepting a no, a steady pace), not a feeling you must have first. To start is to open a conversation or a plan. To state is to say a preference in one plain sentence. To invite is to make an offer you were going to make anyway. To accept a no is to take it with nothing attached. A steady pace means not rushing to fill a pause. That list, and steady pace in particular, is a course construct, not a research finding.
The research nearby is limited. Across studies, people who report higher self-efficacy for a task tend to perform better, but within-person analyses suggest past performance shapes later self-efficacy more than self-efficacy shapes later performance 1. Both concern work, learning and task performance, not social skills 1. Bandura’s theory proposes that confidence in a specific task comes mainly from having done it, seeing others do it, encouragement and one’s physical and emotional state 2. It is a theory with mixed tests, and it concerns specific tasks, not general social confidence 2.
For adults with a diagnosed social anxiety disorder, professionally delivered treatments that include exposure and social skills practice reduced social anxiety more than a waitlist 3. No source checked shows that practicing social skills builds social confidence in adults without the condition 3. So this lesson does not promise that practice will make you feel sure.
Confidence is also not dominance. Status gained through skill and shared knowledge (prestige) and status gained through intimidation (dominance) are distinct: in small groups of unacquainted people, prestigious people were liked and dominant people were not 4. That study was not about romance. None of the actions on this list asks anyone to give way.
Posture is not a power move either. The claim that holding a power pose raises testosterone and lowers cortisol did not replicate in one larger study, though a null result does not rule out a smaller effect 5. Any felt benefit of posture seems to come from avoiding slumped postures, not from adding expansive poses, and it is self-reported 6. Effects on feelings do not show effects on how others judge you 6.
Why it matters
Across studies, people who report higher self-efficacy for a task tend to perform better, but within-person analyses suggest past performance shapes later self-efficacy more than the reverse 1. That research is about work and learning tasks, not social skills. If you wait to feel sure before you act, the action may never start. An action you can name is one you can pick and try; a feeling is not.
What it looks like
Example
In your climbing group’s chat, five people are choosing where to eat after Friday’s session, and everyone writes “I don’t mind.” Your heart is beating fast. You write, “I’d like the Thai place on Mercer, if that works for everyone.” Aroha, 29, replies, “Not Thai for me, sorry.” You write, “No problem. Pizza works too.” Two actions, and neither needed you to feel sure first.
The same moment, handled the other way
Counterexample
Same chat. You write, “We’re going to the Thai place, trust me.” Aroha says she would rather have pizza, and you write, “Your loss,” and say nothing more.
That was dominance, not confidence. Stating a preference leaves room for a no, and accepting one takes a few plain words.
The one thing to remember
The rule
Choose one action, like stating a preference or accepting a no, and practice it instead of waiting to feel sure.
Pick the smallest version: “I’d like the Thai place,” or “No problem.” Do it, and see what the conversation does next, with no promise that it will feel good. Stating a preference or inviting is not finished until you have accepted what comes back.
Try it now
Item 1 of this lesson’s set: The power pose. Pick the statements the evidence supports.
In the real world (optional)
If you like, choose one action from this lesson, such as stating one preference in a conversation you’re having anyway, and do it once.
What this doesn’t tell you
The research here is about work tasks, a clinical group and small groups of strangers. None of it tests whether practicing these actions builds social confidence, and none says confidence makes anyone liked or wanted. If fear of social situations is persistent or gets in the way of your life, a doctor or a licensed counselor can help; this course is practice, not treatment.
Why do we believe this?
Each numbered mark in the text opens the evidence behind that sentence. Every claim in this course carries one of five labels.
- Well supported
- A meta-analysis or several independent studies agree, with no serious failure to replicate.
- Supported with caveats
- Several studies agree, with stated limits such as student samples or lab settings.
- Plausible
- One study, or indirect evidence from a nearby question.
- Speculative
- An idea or argument that hasn't been directly tested.
- Marketing claim
- Something a seller says about their product, without published evidence.
Evidence: Supported with caveatsAcross studies, people who report higher self-efficacy for a task also tend to perform better, but within-person analyses suggest that past performance shapes later self-efficacy more than self-efficacy shapes later performance.
Why this label
Several studies agree, with stated limits such as student samples or lab settings. Demonstrates: Stajkovic and Luthans found a weighted average correlation of .38 between self-efficacy and work-related performance across 114 studies; Sitzmann and Yeo found that within people the self-efficacy to performance link was weak and nonsignificant once trajectory was controlled (rho = .06), while the past performance to self-efficacy link stayed positive (rho = .30). Marketing framing: believe you are attractive or confident first and results follow (common framing, unattributed). The data point more to doing and succeeding first, and confidence following.
What it does not show
- Both meta-analyses concern work, learning and task performance, not social or romantic skills.
- Stajkovic and Luthans is a correlation with an unspecified direction; the later within-person meta-analysis challenged a causal reading.
- Within-person analyses control for time trends; between-person correlations can still reflect ability or experience.
- The Stajkovic abstract was truncated in the copy read; the .38 figure is the part seen.
- No large replication project of the self-efficacy to performance relation was found.
Who it applies to
A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.
Sources
- Stajkovic, A. D., Luthans, F. (1998). Self-efficacy and work-related performance: A meta-analysis., Psychological Bulletin.
- Sitzmann, T., Yeo, G. (2013). A Meta‐Analytic Investigation of the Within‐Person Self‐Efficacy Domain: Is Self‐Efficacy a Product of Past Performance or a Driver of Future Performance?, Personnel Psychology.
Evidence: PlausibleBandura's self-efficacy theory proposes that confidence in one's ability to do a specific task comes mainly from four sources: mastery experiences (having done it), seeing others do it, encouragement from others, and one's physical and emotional state.
Why this label
One study, or indirect evidence from a nearby question. Demonstrates: this is what the theory proposes; the claim is about the theory's content, not a finding. Marketing framing: confidence is an 'internal' quality you generate by believing in yourself, or by a signal such as posture (see dating-frameworks-c10 for the 'internal validation' framing). See posture-first-impressions-c4 and posture-first-impressions-c5 for the power-posing record, which did not support a quick physiological route to confidence.
What it does not show
- A theory, not a test: direct tests are mixed (see c2) and the abstract of the 1977 paper and the book's text were not read.
- Self-efficacy is task-specific; the theory does not predict general social confidence.
- No replication project exists for the theory as a whole.
- Developed largely with clinical and educational examples, mostly US, from the 1970s and 1990s.
Who it applies to
A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.
Sources
- Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change., Psychological Review.
- Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control, W. H. Freeman.
Evidence: PlausibleFor adults with diagnosed social anxiety disorder, professionally delivered treatments that include exposure and social skills practice reduced social anxiety more than a waitlist, but no source checked shows that social-skills practice builds social confidence in adults without the condition.
Why this label
One study, or indirect evidence from a nearby question. Demonstrates: in the Mayo-Wilson network meta-analysis, individual CBT, group CBT, 'exposure and social skills' and self-help beat waitlist; these were clinical trials in people with the diagnosis. Marketing framing: practise approaching people and you will become socially confident (common framing, unattributed). Education only: clinical findings do not license self-treatment, and anyone whose social anxiety is persistent or distressing should be pointed to a doctor or qualified therapist. See exposure-social-anxiety-c1 and exposure-social-anxiety-c5.
What it does not show
- Trials in people with social anxiety disorder, not the general adult population; only 'exposure and social skills' as a class, not social skills training alone.
- Claim of absence from the sources checked, not an exhaustive search of the social-skills-training literature (none in this file's scope was found for non-clinical adults).
- Outcome was social anxiety, not self-efficacy or confidence as a separate measure.
- Network meta-analysis with waitlist comparisons; only individual CBT beat psychological placebo among psychological classes.
Who it applies to
Depends on the setting and the people involved.
Source
- Mayo-Wilson, E., Dias, S., Mavranezouli, I., Kew, K., Clark, D. M., Ades, A. E., Pilling, S. (2014). Psychological and pharmacological interventions for social anxiety disorder in adults: a systematic review and network meta-analysis, The Lancet Psychiatry.
Evidence: Supported with caveatsStatus gained through skill and shared knowledge (prestige) and status gained through intimidation (dominance) are distinct: prestigious people were liked while dominant people were not, and in vignette studies women preferred high-prestige to high-dominance partners, favouring dominance only in athletic competition and for short-term ratings.
Why this label
Several studies agree, with stated limits such as student samples or lab settings. Gives lessons a way to separate confidence that invites others in (competence, openness) from intimidation. The group-hierarchy study did not measure attraction, and the mating-relevant result comes from one team's three vignette experiments.
What it does not show
- Cheng et al. studied small groups of previously unacquainted people, not romantic attraction.
- Snyder et al. used written vignettes with college women, so behaviour in real settings may differ.
- Prestige-versus-dominance labels are research constructs and real behaviour often blends them.
Who it applies to
A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.
Sources
- Cheng, J. T., Tracy, J. L., Foulsham, T., Kingstone, A., Henrich, J. (2013). Two ways to the top: Evidence that dominance and prestige are distinct yet viable avenues to social rank and influence, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
- Snyder, J. K., Kirkpatrick, L. A., Barrett, H. C. (2008). The dominance dilemma: Do women really prefer dominant mates?, Personal Relationships.
Evidence: PlausibleThe famous claim that holding a power pose raises testosterone and lowers cortisol did not replicate in a larger study, and risk-taking effects failed to replicate in two.
Why this label
One study, or indirect evidence from a nearby question. The original study reported hormone and risk effects. A larger replication, whose title reports no effect on hormones or risk tolerance, did not find them, and a preregistered sample of 305 found no effect on a gambling decision. Popular 'power pose before a date' advice should not cite hormones.
What it does not show
- Hormone non-replication rests on one large replication in the sources used here.
- A null replication does not rule out smaller effects.
- Original authors disputed some replication details.
- The hormone clause rests on a source whose abstract was not seen (title only); the level is capped at plausible until the abstract is checked, though the title states the null result.
Who it applies to
A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.
Sources
- Carney, D. R., Cuddy, A. J., Yap, A. J. (2010). Power Posing: Brief Nonverbal Displays Affect Neuroendocrine Levels and Risk Tolerance, Psychological Science.
- Ranehill, E., Dreber, A., Johannesson, M., Leiberg, S., Sul, S., Weber, R. A. (2015). Assessing the Robustness of Power Posing: No Effect on Hormones and Risk Tolerance in a Large Sample of Men and Women, Psychological Science.
- Garrison, K. E., Tang, D., Schmeichel, B. J. (2016). Embodying Power: A Preregistered Replication and Extension of the Power Pose Effect, Social Psychological and Personality Science.
Evidence: Supported with caveatsAny mood or felt-power benefit of body posture seems to come from avoiding slumped, contractive postures, not from adding expansive poses, and it is self-reported.
Why this label
Several studies agree, with stated limits such as student samples or lab settings. A meta-analysis of 73 studies found effects when contractive postures were compared with neutral ones but almost none for expansive versus neutral. A Bayesian analysis of six preregistered studies found very strong evidence for an effect on felt power (only moderate among participants unfamiliar with the effect), and one replication found the opposite sign.
What it does not show
- Self-reported felt power may reflect demand characteristics.
- Heterogeneous studies; researchers still disagree on how much evidential value the literature holds.
- Effects on feelings do not show effects on how others judge you.
- The meta-analysis covers affective and behavioural responses broadly, not felt power alone; the Bayesian analysis compares expansive with constrictive postures, so it cannot separate the two.
Who it applies to
A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.
Sources
- Elkjær, E., Mikkelsen, M. B., Michalak, J., Mennin, D. S., O’Toole, M. S. (2020). Expansive and Contractive Postures and Movement: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Effect of Motor Displays on Affective and Behavioral Responses, Perspectives on Psychological Science.
- Gronau, Q. F., Van Erp, S., Heck, D. W., Cesario, J., Jonas, K. J., Wagenmakers, E. J. (2017). A Bayesian Model-Averaged Meta-Analysis of the Power Pose Effect with Informed and Default Priors: The Case of Felt Power, Comprehensive Results in Social Psychology.
- Garrison, K. E., Tang, D., Schmeichel, B. J. (2016). Embodying Power: A Preregistered Replication and Extension of the Power Pose Effect, Social Psychological and Personality Science.
- Ranehill, E., Dreber, A., Johannesson, M., Leiberg, S., Sul, S., Weber, R. A. (2015). Assessing the Robustness of Power Posing: No Effect on Hormones and Risk Tolerance in a Large Sample of Men and Women, Psychological Science.
More practice
The rest of the set, Confidence is something you do: 5 moments: about 8 minutes. Decide what the evidence supports, and how well. Open the exercise set.
Go further
Outside talks, videos and pages on the topics this lesson cites. Nothing from them loads until you follow a link, and a link is not an endorsement: read the note under each one.
Vanessa Van Edwards: You are contagious | Vanessa Van Edwards | TEDxLondon
Shows how hand visibility, openness and expressive gesture change how a speaker is perceived, demonstrated on stage; a model of open versus closed presentation.
Keep in mind. Lab findings are partly from the creator's own non-peer-reviewed studies; perception of a speaker is not romantic interest.
Vanessa Van Edwards: Cues by Vanessa Van Edwards: 9780593332191 | PenguinRandomHouse.com: Books
Book on reading and sending nonverbal cues for warmth and competence; the publisher page gives the official description and edition details.
Keep in mind. Self-help book; evidence quality varies by chapter. Link to the publisher only.
Joe Navarro: The power of nonverbal communication | Joe Navarro | TEDxManchester
A former FBI counterintelligence agent explains baseline behaviour, comfort versus discomfort displays and why single cues mislead; emphasises context over isolated gestures.
Keep in mind. Law-enforcement and security context, not dating; lie-detection style claims are poorly supported by research.