Efficacy Beliefs and Homeowner Participation

  • Yung Yau


This chapter examines the factors that impact on an individual homeowner’s decision to participate in the management of their multi-owned property in Hong Kong, China. Based on a structured questionnaire survey of multi-owned property (MOP) homeowners, an analytic model was tested using a path-analytic technique. The results show that apart from perceived value of good housing management outcomes, individual homeowners’ perceptions of self-, group- and proxy-efficacies are all significant determinants of their participative behaviour. Moreover, proxy-efficacy belief was found to exert a strong mediating effect on the relationship between group-efficacy belief and participative behaviour. This tripartite system of efficacy beliefs may have important implications for the promotion of resident participation in MOP management.



The work described in this chapter was fully supported by a grant from the Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China [Project No. CityU 11410214].


  1. Altmann, E. 2015. Industry Professionalisation of Strata Title Managers: What Are the Implications for Governance? Property Management 33 (2): 187–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bandura, A. 1986. Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  3. ———. 1999. Social Cognitive Theory: An Agentic Perspective. Asian Journal of Social Psychology 2 (1): 21–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. ———. 2001. Social Cognitive Theory: An Agentic Perspective. Annual Review of Psychology 52 (1): 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bengtsson, B. 1998. Tenants’ Dilemma: On Collective Action in Housing. Housing Studies 13 (1): 99–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. ———. 2000. Solving the Tenants’ Dilemma: Collective Action and Norms of Co-operation in Housing. Housing, Theory and Society 17 (4): 175–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bradley, Q. 2008. Capturing the Castle: Tenant Governance in Social Housing Companies. Housing Studies 23 (6): 879–897.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bray, S.R., and C.A. Shields. 2007. Proxy Agency in Physical Activity. In Group Dynamics in Exercise and Sport Psychology: Contemporary Themes, ed. M.R. Beauchamp and M.A. Eys, 79–95. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Bray, S.R., P.D. Saville, and L.R. Brawley. 2013. Determinants of Clients’ Efficacy in Their Interventionists and Effects on Self-Perceptions for Exercise in Cardiac Rehabilitation. Rehabilitation Psychology 58 (2): 185–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brown, B., D.D. Perkins, and G. Brown. 2003. Place Attachment in a Revitalising Neighbourhood: Individual and Block Levels of Analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology 23: 259–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dzewaltowski, D.A., K. Karteroliotis, G. Welk, J.A. Johnston, D. Nyaronga, and P.A. Estabrooks. 2007. Measurement of Self-Efficacy and Proxy Efficacy for Middle School Youth Physical Activity. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology 29 (3): 310–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fernández-Ballesteros, R., J. Díez-Nicolás, G.V. Caprara, C. Barbaranelli, and A. Bandura. 2002. Determinants and Structural Relation of Personal Efficacy to Collective Efficacy. Applied Psychology: An International Review 51 (1): 107–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Geller, K.S., D.A. Dzewaltowski, R.R. Rosenkranz, and K. Karteroliotis. 2009. Measuring Children’s Self-Efficacy and Proxy Efficacy Related to Fruit and Vegetable Consumption. Journal of School Health 79 (2): 51–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gibson, C.L., J. Zhao, N.P. Lovrich, and M.J. Gaffney. 2002. Social Integration, Individual Perceptions of Collective Efficacy, and Fear of Crime in Three Cities. Justice Quarterly 19 (3): 537–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hastings, E.M., S.K. Wong, and M. Walters. 2006. Governance in a Co-ownership Environment: The Management of Multi-Ownership Property in Hong Kong. Property Management 24 (3): 293–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ho, D.C.W., and W. Gao. 2013. Collective Action in Apartment Building Management in Hong Kong. Habitat International 38: 10–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ho, D.C.W., K.W. Chau, and Y. Yau. 2008. Evaluating Unauthorised Appendages in Private Apartment Buildings. Building Research and Information 36 (6): 568–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Home Affairs Bureau and Home Affairs Department. 2010. Putting in Place a Regulatory Framework for Property Management Industry. Hong Kong: Home Affairs Bureau and Home Affairs Department.Google Scholar
  19. Lai, L.W.C., and P.Y.L. Chan. 2004. The Formation of Owners’ Corporations in Hong Kong’s Private Housing Estates: A Probit Evaluation of Mancur Olson’s Group Theory. Property Management 22: 55–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Land Registry. 2015. Advertisement on Sale of Flats as Separate Units in the 1950s. Accessed 24 June 2016.
  21. Lubell, M., S. Zahran, and A. Vedlitz. 2007. Collective Action and Citizen Responses to Global Warming. Political Behaviour 29 (3): 391–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Merry, M., and P. Kent. 2008. Building Management in Hong Kong. Hong Kong: LexisNexis.Google Scholar
  23. Ohmer, M.L. 2007. Citizen Participation in Neighborhood Organizations and Its Relationship to Volunteers’ Self- and Collective-Efficacy and Sense of Community. Social Work Research 31: 109–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ohmer, M., and E. Beck. 2006. Citizen Participation in Neighborhood Organizations in Poor Communities and Its Relationship to Neighborhood and Organizational Collective Efficacy. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare 33 (1): 179–202.Google Scholar
  25. Olson, M. 1965. The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Perkins, D.D., P. Florin, R.C. Rich, A. Wandersman, and D.M. Chavis. 1990. Participation and the Social and Physical Environment of Residential Blocks: Crime and Community Context. American Journal of Community Psychology 18: 83–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sampson, R.J., S.W. Raudenbush, and F. Earls. 1997. Neighborhoods and Violent Crime: A Multilevel Study of Collective Efficacy. Science 277: 918–924.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Silverman, C.J., and S.E. Barton. 1994. Shared Premises: Community and Conflict in the Common Interest Development. In Common Interest Communities: Private Governments and the Public Interest, ed. S.E. Barton and C.J. Silverman, 129–144. Berkeley: Institute of Governmental Studies Press, University of California.Google Scholar
  29. Somerville, P. 1998. Empowerment Through Residence. Housing Studies 13 (2): 233–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. van Zomeren, M., T. Postmes, and R. Spears. 2008. Towards an Integrative Social Identity Model of Collective Action: A Quantitative Research Synthesis of Three Socio-Psychological Perspectives. Psychological Bulletin 134 (4): 504–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Walters, M. 2002. Transaction Costs of Collective Action in Hong Kong High Rise Real Estate. International Journal of Social Economics 29 (4): 299–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Walters, M., and P. Kent. 2000. Institutional Economics and Property Strata Title – A Survey and Case Study. Journal of Property Research 17 (3): 221–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Watson, C.B., M.M. Chemers, and N. Preiser. 2001. Collective Efficacy: A Multilevel Analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 27 (8): 1057–1068.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wong, J.T.Y., and E.C.M. Hui. 2005. Water Seepage in Multi-storey Buildings. Facilities 23 (13/14): 595–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Yau, Y. 2010. Engaging Homeowners in Building Care in Hong Kong: Drivers and Barriers. Journal of Building Appraisal 6 (1): 35–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. ———. 2011. Collectivism and Activism in Housing Management in Hong Kong. Habitat International 35 (2): 327–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. ———. 2012. Norms, Sense of Community and Neighborhood Collectivism in a High-Rise Setting. Revista INVI 27: 17–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. ———. 2013. Willingness to Participate in Collective Action: The Case of Multiowned Housing Management. Journal of Urban Affairs 35: 153–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. ———. 2014. Perceived Efficacies and Collectivism in Multi-owned Housing Management. Habitat International 43: 133–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. ———. 2015. The Value of Building Safety: A Hedonic Price Approach. Urbani izziv 26 (1): 92–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Yau, Y., D.C.W. Ho, and K.W. Chau. 2008. Determinants of the Safety Performance of Private Multi-storey Residential Buildings in Hong Kong. Social Indicators Research 89: 501–521.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yung Yau
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Public PolicyCity University of Hong KongHong KongChina

Personalised recommendations