**1. Introduction**

The research discussed in this chapter focuses on the construct of self-efficacy, which Bandura [1, 2] has defined as the belief in one's capabilities to initiate, manage and execute a variety of actions with the purpose of attaining desired goals. Self-efficacy beliefs are known to be key determinants of people's current and future behavior. For instance, individuals who possess high selfefficacy compared with those who have low self-efficacy tend to undertake challenging activities, are persistent, devote substantial effort to initiated activities, and experience fewer adverse emotional reactions if difficulties are encountered [1, 3, 4]. Self-efficacy beliefs also play an important role in shaping people's self-regulatory processes, such as goal setting and self-monitoring [5, 6].

The authors' research stems from the recognition that although the construct of self-efficacy exists in a variety of cultures, the information that people disclose about their self-efficacy is likely to be shaped by not only the self-report instrument used to gather information about such

Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. © 2018 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

© 2016 The Author(s). Licensee InTech. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons

a construct, but also the language in which it is written. Current work relies on two key assumptions: (a) a language carries its culture, including its unique denotations, connotations, prescriptions, and reactions [7, 8]; and (b) although translations of expressions used in measurement scales to refer to a person's capabilities are considered linguistic equivalents, they may not be culturally equivalent. Thus, a bilingual speaker's responses to a scale, which gathers information about his/her beliefs in personal capabilities, can unintentionally adjust to the language in which the scale is written and, consequently, to the unique denotations, connotations, prescriptions, and reactions of its accompanying culture. This particular adjustment performed by the bilingual speaker is likely to induce different answers to ostensibly the same statements presented in his/her two languages, because each statement remains conceptually unlike the other.

appear to the untrained observer as whispers rather than rumbles, but they are as palpable and persistent as the well-known elaborateness of Arabs' verbal communication patterns [17]. According to scholarly narratives, a few key dimensions can be used to differentiate the traditional culture of KSA from the culture of English-speaking countries, such as the USA, including vertical collectivism and uncertainty avoidance [18, 19]. From the vantage point of a person's identity within the group to which he/she belongs, collectivism refers to viewing oneself as related to others in mutual interdependent relationships. When an interdependent self-shapes people's interactions with each other, associations within the group to which one belongs and its goals are likely to be highly valued. In contrast to collectivism, individualism refers to a viewpoint of a person's identity whereby one sees himself/herself as largely independent of the in-group (i.e., self-reliant). Accordingly, one's personal goals supersede those of the group. If collectivism dictates preservation of in-group social bonds, thereby making one's actions expressly guided and highly regulated by group norms, individualism dictates independence and self-interest, thereby making relationships time-bound contracts based on a balance of costs and benefits. In either context, the dimension of verticality refers to the mere fact that the collective to which one belongs is recognized as hierarchically organized, and, within it, diversity and inequality are tolerated. The most visible by-product of verticality in collectivism is service to or even sacrifice for the in-group, whereas in individualism it is competition. Interestingly, the traditional culture of KSA has been labeled as being vertical collectivistic with a high level of uncertainty avoidance. Namely, it is a culture that views change as well as the ambiguity and uncertainty that tend to accompany it with apprehension. As such, it is a culture that has high regard for the preservation of the status quo through conformity to group norms and values. In contrast, the culture of the West, embodied by the USA, has been defined as being vertical individualistic with low uncertainty avoidance. Of course, it is important to bear in mind that the aforementioned distinctions are starkly dichotomous, but,

Bilingualism and Self-Perception: Self-Efficacy through the Veil of Two Languages

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.72740

103

in reality, the boundaries imposed by conceptual categories are often blurred.

**3. The research context: questions, methodology and findings**

Young people in KSA are uniquely positioned to embody both cultural orientations as Arabic-English bilingualism has gradually permeated educational institutions, social networks, values and informal norms across the country. Indeed, Murphy [13] noted that two KSAs are visible even to casual, untrained observers, one driven by religious traditions and tribal commitments, and one that imitates manners and follows ideas of the Western world, often epitomized by the English language spoken in the USA. Similarly to water spilled on a table, the impact of bilingualism and its offshoot, biculturalism, is not uniform. At one time, it may touch some objects while it leaves others untouched, whereas at another time, a different pattern emerges. It can even soak some of these objects while it merely pats the surface of others, depending on the contextual factors present. For instance, if a bilingual speaker's communicative behavior is considered, context may involve the setting where an event occurs, the situation faced, and the nature of the people present [see 9, 20–22]. Thus, the key issue is not so much the extent to which largely opposite cultural orientations shape, broadly speaking, the mind of KSA nationals,

Supporting evidence is provided by the authors' empirical studies of Arabic-English bilinguals who estimated their capabilities through a self-efficacy scale either written in English or translated into Arabic. Evidence is explained by relying on a social constructionist framework [9, 10], according to which different languages, such as Arabic and English, can elicit different culturally oriented selves who are nevertheless connected to a single speaker [11]. Specifically, a solipsistic self, which is assumed to be prompted by English, is a self that is construed as autonomous and attuned to internal goals, thoughts, and motives. It is thus that of a person who is inclined to see himself/herself as the only one that really matters. Instead, a contextualized self, which is assumed to be evoked by Arabic, is a self that is interdependent at its core. It is the self of a person who recognizes that in-group goals take priority over personal goals. Does the bilingual speaker who is the vehicle of these two cultures indeed modulate his/her estimates of self-efficacy to adjust to the perspective of the self, either solipsistic or contextual, which is active at any given time? Section 3, which is devoted to our research methodology and findings, addresses this question. A narrative of the context that both motivated and permitted the research is outlined first.
