BANDURA'S SELF-EFFICACY

     Bandura's self-efficacy has shown potential for wide application in learning and development
situations. It takes full account of external physical and social structures as well as internal cognitive
processes. It is a theory which is simultaneously realistic and humanistic at the same time.
     Erikson (1959) wrote -

The sense of ego identity, then, is the accrued confidence that one's ability to maintain inner sameness
and continuity of one's meaning for others. Thus, self-esteem, confirmed at the end of each major crisis,
grows to be a conviction that one is learning effective steps toward a tangible future, that one is
developing a defined personality within the social reality which one understands. The growing chills
must, at every step, derive a vitalizing sense of reality from the awareness that his individual way of
mastering experience is a successful variant of the way other people around him master experience and
recognize such mastery. (p. 89)

     Erikson's "self-esteem" as an indicator of abilities to cope with crises opened the door wide for
Bandura and others to consider, in detail, the agentive aspects of human development. Bandura (1997,
p. 11) defined self-efficacy as distinct from self-esteem: "Perceived self-efficacy is concerned with
judgments of personal capability, whereas self-esteem is concerned with judgments of personal worth."
The logic of this distinction is that an individual need not consider her/himself capable at all things to
maintain a sense of self worth. Bandura claims that the two concepts are entirely different. However, it
could be that they are indeed related, to the extent that self-esteem is linked to one's judgments of
capabilities, within those domains where one feels expected, by self or others, to be capable in.
Although Maslow's (1954) concept of esteem needs (p. 20), as described above, offers insight into both
external and internal reasons why individuals come to have expectations of their own capabilities,
Bandura looks into the dynamics at play in greater detail, considering developmental milestones in the
life of the individual. However, Bandura's (1997) conception of development is not fixed in "lock-step"
stages (p. 162) like that of Piagetians. However, it does consider commonly recognized phases of an
individual's life progression in his developmental analysis of self-efficacy. He held that

There are many pathways through life . . . people vary substantially in how successfully they manage
their lives . . . The beliefs they hold about their capabilities to produce results by their actions are an
influential personal resource as they negotiate their lives through the life cycle. (p. 162)

     The changing situations, or "milieus" of life (p. 163) which Bandura discussed included
resources of self-efficacy in infancy (p. 164), family relations (p. 168), peer relations (p. 173),
school (p. 174), adolescence (p. 177), adulthood (p. 184), and advancing age (p. 198).
Infancy. According to Bandura (p. 164), immediately after birth, infants do not have a sense of
self or personal agency. They do not yet know their actions can influence the physical and social
environments. Soon, however, "Manipulating physical objects produces quick, predictable,
recurrent, and easily observable effects . . .infants cannot help but notice that their actions
produce environmental effects" (p. 165). A key to this new awareness is that the actions and
effects are proximate in both space and time (p. 166). The awareness of personal agency and
powers of causality for social actions develops afterward, when the infant is able to rely on
memory and make more abstract associations between cause and effect.
     With the development of representational capabilities, infants can begin to learn from
probabilistic and more distal outcomes of personal actions. Before long, the exercise of control
over the social environment begins to play an important role in the early development of self-
efficacy. (p. 166)
     Bandura is in agreement with Kegan on the development of abstraction (Kegan, 1982, p. 19).
Once initiated with agency into the social world, Bandura (1997) noted, the infant does not
continue to build the agentive sense merely by his/her own actions. "After infants discover they
can exercise some control over aspects of their immediate environment, they draw on vicarious
experiences to expand and verify their sense of personal efficacy" (p. 167). By observing others
around them, infants have models of what effects can be produced by particular sets of actions.
"When the modeled strategies are within the infant's capabilities they adopt the same strategies to
achieve similar results. With a growing sense of reflexivity about how their actions effect the
environment, the self, rather than merely the infant's actions, becomes seen as the source of
causality. Bandura cited studies (p. 167) that showed how at 18 months infants can apply self-
differentiating verbal labels and by 20 months, the infant can "spontaneously" identify as their
own, not only actions, but the intentions and other "psychological states" that coincide and
follow upon actions (p. 167).

Family Relations

     Within the family context, and because of their dependency on adults, "infants quickly learn
how to influence actions of those around them by their social and verbal behavior. According to
Bandura, this is crucial, because of research that demonstrated parents can create the
development of their infant's efficacy by being "responsive" to "communicative behavior" and
also creating "opportunities for efficacious actions by providing an enriched physical
environment, freedom for exploration, and varied mastery experiences" (p. 168). According to
the study cited, these strategies can result in greater rates of social, linguistic, and cognitive
growth. Participation in guided mastery experiences, as mentioned above, is a key determinant in
self-efficacy theory along with vicarious experience, verbal persuasion, and physiological and
affective states (p. 19). Early vicarious experiences can be gained through parents, and also
through siblings. (p. 169).      With the introduction of the multiple sources of "efficacy
information" the formation of self-efficacy in various domains becomes increasingly complex.
Bandura described this complexity -

How children learn to use diverse sources of efficacy information in developing a stable and accurate
sense of personal efficacy is a matter of considerable interest. Functional self-appraisal is no easy
matter.
Accurate appraisal of one's capabilities depends on a number of constituent skills that develop through
direct and socially mediated experiences. While engaging in activities, children must attend
simultaneously to multiple sources of efficacy information conveyed by the nature of the task,
situational factors that aid or impede performance, the characteristics of their actions, and the results
they produce. Because activities are performed on repeated occasions, children must be able to
transcend particular instances and integrate efficacy information from rises and falls in performance
over time. The presence of many interacting determinants places heavy demands on children's ability to
monitor ongoing events, to evaluate the causes of fluctuations in performances and outcomes, and to
represent and retain efficacy information derived from numerous prior experiences under varying
circumstances.
(p. 170)

Peer Relations

     Bandura next considered self-efficacy in the context of developing relationships with peers.
The efficacy functions reinforced in the peer context include: contact with competent models
within strata organized by age, social learning, and comparative efficacy and validation (p. 173).
Bandura also noted the effects of individual interests in the selection of peers, and that the
influences between peers are "bidirectional." The ability to display effective coping behavior
varies widely between individuals, with children tending to interact for problem-solving with
peers in a behavioral mode with which they feel competent. Outcomes range from coercive-
aggressive displays, where the child feels competent with aggression, to more efficacious
displays of friendliness. Bandura noted that such preferences can lead to splintering into multiple
peer groups with diverging behavioral styles. The result is that, "Such [aggressive] conduct
provokes rejection from prosocial peers . . . In the pre-delinquent phase, peer rejection, academic
failure, and poor parental monitoring of the child . . . foster selective association with a
delinquent peer group" (p.174).

School

     To Bandura, the importance of the school milieu is that "School is the place where children
develop the cognitive competencies and acquire the knowledge and problem-solving skills
essential for participating effectively in society" (p. 175). Formal instruction is but one part of
the milieu that forms competencies. Bruner (1966, p.2) would agree with this, in fact he would
point out the instruction should generate a synergistic result, where the learning outcome is more
than the separate components of the milieu, combining the elements of learning and encouraging
students to interact with learning problems in a way that goes "beyond the information given" (p.
2). It was also was noted by Bandura(1997) that those who have a sense of efficacy in mastering
academic tasks tend to learn better in formal school environments as well as in informal
environments outside the school. This positive spiraling of efficacy seems to make Bandura
sympathetic to concerns of critical theory regarding the adequacy of the school milieu to meet
the needs of every individual.

     He wrote that -

Students who come well prepared cognitively and motivationally learn quickly and are adequately
served by the prevailing educational practices. There are numerous social critics, however, who believe
that, for many children, the school falls short of accomplishing its purposes. Not only does it fail to
prepare the youth adequately for the future, but all too often it undermines the very sense of personal
efficacy needed for continued self-development. Recurring difficulties encountered with low achieving
students erode teachers' sense of instructional efficacy . . . Inefficacy feeds on itself. (p.175)
      Inequities also, he seemed to mean, are negatively reinforced for some, negatively spiraling,
and even intertwining, the various bidirectional inefficacies of the peer group. Practices that
contribute to this divergence of outcomes include lock-step instruction sequencing, sorting
students by ability, and competitive grading. These all lead to efficacy perceptions that are based
on social-comparison rather than self-comparison, and preclude the benefits of cooperation (p.
175). Another critique by Bandura of the school milieu is the lack of a holistic approach to health
education, which goes beyond the static presentation of information, and includes opportunities
for guided mastery of the behaviors necessary to secure personal control over good health
throughout the remaining stages of development.

Adolescence

     Acknowledged problems in the adolescent milieu include avoiding health risks such as risky
sexual and other behaviors, including drug abuse. However, Bandura did state that the
characterization of adolescence as a risky and turbulent period was somewhat overstated (p.
177), and that "Individuals play a proactive role in their adaptation rather than simply undergoing
happenings in which environments act upon their personal endowments". Personal efficacy is a
factor in this adaptation because "The success with which the risks and challenges of
adolescence are managed, depends . . . on the strength of personal efficacy built through prior
mastery experiences." A deficit in self-efficacy is problematic when "Youngsters who enter
adolescence beset by a disabling sense of efficacy transport their vulnerability to stress and
dysfunction to the new environmental demands and to the pervasive biopsychosocial changes
they find themselves undergoing" (p.178). In addition to avoiding health risks such as risky
sexual and other behaviors including drug abuse, the adolescent milieu requires individuals to
devote attention and forethought to potential career paths. Bandura noted that -

Efficacy beliefs influence the range of career options seriously considered, the degree of preparation for
them, and the vocational paths that are likely to be pursued . . . A low sense of efficacy to master
academic subjects forecloses a variety of vocational options. The self-impeding consequences of
perceived inefficacy are fully experienced in young adulthood when individuals confront their options in
seeking employment. (p. 184)

Adulthood

     In addition to the vocational role adoption, going from the adolescent into the milieu of
adulthood contains roles concerned with partnerships, marriage, and management of finances.
These roles have been waiting in society for many generations, however Bandura pointed out
that in the contemporary environment -

The passage to adulthood is less well marked than it was in the past. Family patterns have become more
varied, occupational pursuits are less stable and predictable, and normative consensus is harder to come
by. Given the increased ambiguity of the society individuals have more leeway to determine the course
their lives take by cultivating their competencies and selecting, shaping, and modifying their
environments. As in earlier mastery challenges, a sense of efficacy is an important contributor to the
type of social reality individuals construct for themselves. (p. 184)

     Bandura criticized the process of transition to adult occupational roles, because it does not reinforce
motivations to do well in academics for individuals who may not take the path of higher education (p.
185). This is in spite of the fact that secondary school academic performance is shown to be a valid
predictor of vocational productivity. He described the disconnection between industry and the
educational system as a systemic problem for the United States. In terms of family roles, onset of the
adult responsibilities of family life "suddenly thrusts young adults into the expanded roles of both parent
and spouse" (p. 190) and escalates the need for the individual to display coping skills. Bandura noted
that efficacy is not only important for parenting in general, but that strong efficacy leverages outcomes
in cases where children have special needs (p. 191). The changed role of women is indicated by their
dual roles. Many manage a career and still carrying the bulk of the responsibilities for maintaining
children and home. In regards to income levels, a study is cited which shows that parental efficacy
mediates successful child-raising outcomes where parents: (a) promote their children's competencies,
(b) exercise control against children's high risk behavior, and (c) model involvement in the community
(p.193). Bandura noted the positive effects that such strategies may have on the community as a whole,
not just for particular families. In cases where inefficacy in parenting is rampant, efficacious families are
often forced into migration. Bandura also wrote toward debunking the high frequency of the "midlife
crisis" as a myth portrayed in "the popular literature" (p. 196-7). His writing concerning this area has
much in common with Maslow's (1968) "Self-actualization" (which Maslow borrowed from Goldstein, p.
29).

Self-actualization is defined in various ways but a solid core of agreement is possible. All definitions
accept or imply, (a) acceptance and expression of the inner core or self, i.e., actualization of these latent
capacities and potentialities, "full functioning," availability of the human and personal essence. (b) The
all imply minimal presence of ill health, neurosis, psychosis, or loss or diminution of the basic human and
personal capacities. (Maslow, 1968, p.218)

Bandura's (1997) description was similarly evocative of stability: "By the middle years, people
settle into established lifestyles that stabilize their sense of efficacy in major areas of
functioning" (p. 196). He also reiterated his rejection of the notion of set stage progression in
human development, "Human development is a lifelong process rather than one that is arrested at
a midlife stage with an arbitrary beginning and end" (p.196). Although he admitted to the
"paucity of research" on midlife, Bandura did intimate his sense that the key elements for coping
well in mid-life are learning efficacy and the ability to "select pursuits that provide . . .
continuing challenges" (p. 197).

Advancing Age

     Bandura offered many strategies to deal with the threats to self-efficacy inherent in advancing
age. He saw those key threats as expectations of the loss of memory, and also the expectation of
losing healthy physical functioning. His strategies are mindful that -
Intellectual development is multifaceted and encompasses different types of abilities that vary in how
heavily they draw on such component cognitive processes as attention, memory, time-sharing,
information integration, and level of knowledge and expertise. Cognitive functioning is multi-directional,
following different trajectories of change for different abilities. Some improve, others remain stable, and
still others decline with age. (p. 199)

     Efficacious strategies involve a focus not only on those abilities which have declining trajectories, but
to promote awareness of those abilities which remain stable or even increase their trajectories as age
advances. For instance, with memory, there are choices between perceiving memory as a controllable
skill or innate ability. Expectation that memory naturally declines precludes many from exercising
"deeper cognitive processing," (p. 203) upon which memory relies, irregardless of age. In the same way,
social comparison of the self with younger individuals creates the expectation of loss of physical vitality
which precludes activity and physical exercise, known to be beneficial to all ages. The true cause of
decline is lack of physical activity (p. 205). In generalizing these things, Bandura wrote that "The
pejorative stereotypes of enfeebled old persons shape, through persuasory means, cultural expectations
and evaluative reactions of inefficacy toward the elderly"
(p. 205).
Self-efficacy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Self-efficacy has been defined in a variety of ways: as the belief that one is capable of
performing in a certain manner to attain certain goals,[1] as a person’s belief about their
capabilities to produce designated levels of performance that exercise influence over events that
affect their lives.[2] It is a belief that one has the capabilities to execute the courses of actions
required to manage prospective situations. It has been described in other ways as the concept has
evolved in the literature and in society: as the sense of belief that one’s actions have an effect on
the environment [3]; as a person’s judgment of his or her capabilities based on mastery criteria; a
sense of a person’s competence within a specific framework, focusing on the person’s
assessment of their abilities to perform specific tasks in relation to goals and standards rather
than in comparison with others’ capabilities. Additionally, it builds on personal past experiences
of mastery.[4] The idea of self-efficacy is one of the center points in positive psychology; this
branch of psychology focuses on factors that create a meaning for individuals. It is believed that
our personalized ideas of self-efficacy affect our social interactions in almost every way.
Understanding how to foster the development of self-efficacy is a vitally important goal for
positive psychology because it can lead to living a more productive and happy life.

Clarifications and Distinctions

Self-efficacy versus self-efficacy beliefs, assessments, or expectations. Self-efficacy as a
theoretically derived construct can be considered to be any or a combination of the above
definitions, but is generally the notion of one’s complete concept of his or her ability to perform
a type of task related to a particular context and domain. Self-efficacy beliefs or expectations,
however, are the item-specific tasks and measurements of one’s beliefs that such tasks can be
performed. Self-efficacy beliefs or expectations combine together to form one’s overall concept
of self-efficacy.

Self-efficacy versus efficacy. Unlike efficacy, which is the power to produce an effect—in
essence, competence—self-efficacy is the belief (whether or not accurate) that one has the power
to produce that effect by completing a given task or activity related to that competency. For
example, a person with high self-efficacy may engage in a more health-related activity when an
illness occurs, whereas a person with low self-efficacy would harbor feelings of hopelessness.[5]

Self-efficacy versus self-esteem. There is a distinction between self-esteem and self-efficacy.

Self-efficacy relates to a person’s perception of their ability to reach a goal, whereas self-esteem
relates to a person’s sense of self-worth. For example, a person who is a terrible rock climber
would probably have poor self-efficacy with regard to rock climbing, but this need not affect that
person's self-esteem since most people don’t invest much of their self-esteem in this activity.[6]
On the other hand, one might have enormous skill at rock climbing, yet set such a high standard
for oneself that self-esteem is low.[7] At the same time, a person who has high self-efficacy in
general but is poor at rock climbing might think that he/she is good at rock climbing, or might
still believe that he/she could quickly learn.

Self-efficacy versus confidence. Albert Bandura argues, “the construct of self-efficacy differs
from the colloquial term "confidence." Confidence is a nonspecific term that refers to strength of
belief but does not necessarily specify what the certainty is about. I can be supremely confident
that I will fail at an endeavor. Perceived self-efficacy refers to belief in one's agentive
capabilities, that one can produce given levels of attainment. A self-efficacy belief, therefore,
includes both an affirmation of a capability level and the strength of that belief. Confidence is a
catchword rather than a construct embedded in a theoretical system."[8] A helpful clarifying
example is that a person’s confidence statement may be that they are good at math; that same
person’s self-efficacy beliefs may be about the upcoming algebra exam and its particular
questions.[9]

Self-efficacy versus self-concept. Self-efficacy is concerned with beliefs of personal capability,

they are judgments of one's capabilities to perform given actions. Self-concept, however, is
measured at a more general level of specificity and includes the evaluation of such competence
and the feelings of self-worth associated with the behaviors in question.[10]

[edit] Generalizations of the Concept

Social Self-efficacy. Social self-efficacy is “an individual’s confidence in her/his ability to
engage in the social interactional tasks necessary to initiate and maintain interpersonal
relationships.”[11] As a construct social self-efficacy has been variably defined, described, and
measured in the scientific literature as researchers began to generalize Bandura’s theory for
specific applications. For example, Smith and Betz measured social self-efficacy using an
instrument they developed and tested called the Scale of Perceived Social Self-Efficacy (PSSE),
which they described as a measure of self-efficacy expectations with respect to a range of social
behaviors. They argued that extant attempts to measure the construct (e.g., Scherer et al., 1982;
Fitchen et al., 1997) were either “psychometrically inadequate or somewhat narrow in definition
and scope”, particularly when applied to various target populations, and thus they created the
PSSE scale. Their instrument measured six domains: (1) making friends, (2) pursuing romantic
relationships, (3) social assertiveness, (4) performance in public situations, (5) groups or parties,
and (6) giving or receiving help. Additionally, Matsushima and Shiomi modified an instrument
used in a different study in such a way that they felt it captured and measured the construct of
social self-efficacy. Some of the item domains for this instrument included Self-confidence about
Social Skill in Personal Relationship, Trust in Friends, and Trust by Friends.[12] Both sets of
authors suggest that social self-efficacy is strongly correlated to the constructs of shyness and
social anxiety, the measure of self-efficacy having a heavy impact upon that of the others.

Academic Self-efficacy. Academic self-efficacy refers to a student’s belief that he or she can
successfully engage in and complete course-specific academic tasks, such as accomplishing
course outcomes, demonstrating competency skills used in the course, satisfactorily completing
assignments, passing the course, and meeting the requirements to continue on in his or her major.
[13]
Various empirical inquiries have also been conducted attempting to measure academic self-
efficacy. [14] [15] [16]

[edit] Theoretical Approaches

[edit] Social cognitive theory

Psychologist Albert Bandura has defined self-efficacy as one's belief in one's ability to succeed
in specific situations. One's sense of self-efficacy can play a major role in how one approaches
goals, tasks, and challenges. The concept of self-efficacy lies at the center of Bandura’s social
cognitive theory, which emphasizes the role of observational learning and social experience in
the development of personality. The main concept in social cognitive theory is that an
individual’s actions and reaction in almost every situation is influenced by the actions that
individual has observed in others. People observe others acting within an environment whether
natural or social. These observations are remembered by an individual and help shape social
behaviors and cognitive processes. This theoretical approach purposes the idea that by changing
how an individual learns their behaviors in the early stages of mental development could have a
large impact on their mental processes in later stages of development. Since Self-efficacy is
developed from external experiences and self-perception and is influential in determining the
outcome of many events, it is an important aspect of social cognitive theory. Self-efficacy
represents the personal perception of external social factors.[17] [18] [19] [20] According to Bandura's
theory, people with high self-efficacy -- that is, those who believe they can perform well -- are
more likely to view difficult tasks as something to be mastered rather than something to be
avoided.

[edit] Social Learning Theory

This psychological theory describes the acquisition of socially valuable skills that are developed
exclusively or primarily in a social group. Social learning depends on group dynamics and how
individuals either succeed or fail at dynamic interactions. Social learning promotes the
development of individual emotional and practical skills as well as the perception of oneself and
the acceptance of others with their individual competencies and limitations. It considers that
people learn from one another, including such concepts as observational learning, imitation, and
modeling. Self-efficacy levels reflect a persons’ understanding of what skills they can offer in a
group setting[21]

[edit] Self-Concept Theory

Seeks to explain how people interpret and perceive their own existence from cues they receive
from external sources. Unlike Social learning and Social Cognitive Theory, self-concept theory
focuses on how these perceptions are organized and how they are dynamically active throughout
life. Many of the successes and failures that people experience in many areas of life are closely
related to the ways that they have learned to view themselves and their relationships with others.
It is also becoming clear that self-concept has at least three major qualities of interest to
behavioral therapist: (1) it is learned, (2) it is organized, and (3) it is dynamic. Self-concept is
learned and, from what we can tell, no one is born with a self-concept. Self-concept organization
refers to the way we apply experiences to our selves; we often develop ideas based on multiple
experiences. Self-concept dynamics refers to the idea that our perception changes at all times and
is not fixed at a certain age. [22]

[edit] Attribution Theory

Attribution theory focuses on how people attribute the cause of an event and how those beliefs
interact with internal perception of themselves. Attribution Theory defines three major elements
of cause: Locus, Stability, and Control ability.

1. Locus - determining the location of the cause—internal (dispositional) or external (situational)

to the person • Influential to feelings of self-esteem and self-efficacy • If success or failure is
attributed to internal factors, success will lead to pride and increased self-efficacy, whereas
failure will diminish self-esteem and negatively affect self-efficacy

2. Stability - whether the cause is static or dynamic over time • Closely related to expectations
and goals in the future • If students attribute their failure to stable factors such as the difficulty of
the subject, they will expect to fail in that subject in the future

3. Controllability - whether the person is actively in control of the cause • Related to emotions
such as anger, pity, gratitude, or shame • Conflict can arise if we feel we have not done our best;
guilt • If we attribute our own abilities to success we will increase self-efficacy • Failing at a task
we cannot control can lead to shame or anger[23]

[edit] How self-efficacy affects human function

Choices regarding behavior
People will be more inclined to take on a task if they believe they can succeed. People
generally avoid tasks where their self-efficacy is low, but will engage in tasks where their
self-efficacy is high. People with a self-efficacy significantly beyond their actual ability
often overestimate their ability to complete tasks, which can lead to difficulties. On the
other hand, people with a self-efficacy significantly lower than their ability are unlikely
to grow and expand their skills. Research shows that the ‘optimum’ level of self-efficacy
is a little above ability, which encourages people to tackle challenging tasks and gain
valuable experience.[24]
Motivation
People with high self-efficacy in a task are more likely to make more of an effort, and
persist longer, than those with low efficacy.[25] The stronger the self-efficacy or mastery
expectations, the more active the efforts. [26] On the other hand, low self-efficacy provides
an incentive to learn more about the subject. As a result, someone with a high self-
efficacy may not prepare sufficiently for a task.
Thought patterns & responses
 Low self-efficacy can lead people to believe tasks are harder than they actually are.[27]
This often results in poor task planning, as well as increased stress. Observational
evidence shows that people become erratic and unpredictable when engaging in a task in
which they have low self-efficacy. On the other hand, people with high self-efficacy
often take a wider overview of a task in order to take the best route of action. People with
high self-efficacy are shown to be encouraged by obstacles to make a greater effort. Self-
efficacy also affects how people respond to failure. A person with a high self-efficacy
will attribute the failure to external factors, where a person with low self-efficacy will
attribute failure to low ability. For example; a person with high self-efficacy in regards to
mathematics may attribute a poor result to a harder than usual test, feeling sick, lack of
effort or insufficient preparation. A person with a low self-efficacy will attribute the
result to poor ability in mathematics. See Attribution Theory.
Health Behaviors
Health behaviors such as non-smoking, physical exercise, dieting, condom use, dental
hygiene, seat belt use, or breast self-examination are, among others, dependent on one’s
level of perceived self-efficacy (Conner & Norman, 2005). Self-efficacy beliefs are
cognitions that determine whether health behavior change will be initiated, how much
effort will be expended, and how long it will be sustained in the face of obstacles and
failures. Self-efficacy influences the effort one puts forth to change risk behavior and the
persistence to continue striving despite barriers and setbacks that may undermine
motivation. Self-efficacy is directly related to health behavior, but it also affects health
behaviors indirectly through its impact on goals. Self-efficacy influences the challenges
that people take on as well as how high they set their goals (e.g., "I intend to reduce my
smoking," or "I intend to quit smoking altogether"). A number of studies on the adoption
of health practices have measured self-efficacy to assess its potential influences in
initiating behavior change (Luszczynska, & Schwarzer, 2005). Often single-item
measures or very brief scales (e.g., 4 items) have been used. It is actually not necessary to
use larger scales if a specific behavior is to be predicted. More important is rigorous
theory-based item wording. A rule of thumb is to use the following semantic structure: "I
am certain that I can do xx, even if yy (barrier)" (Schwarzer, 2008). If the target behavior
is less specific, one can either use more items that jointly cover the area of interest, or
develop a few specific sub-scales. Whereas general self-efficacy measures refer to the
ability to deal with a variety of stressful situations, measures of self-efficacy for health
behaviors refer to beliefs about the ability to perform certain health behaviors. These
behaviors may be defined broadly (i.e., healthy food consumption) or in a narrow way
(i.e., consumption of high-fibre food).
Empirical Findings

Research done by Paul K. Maciejewski found that levels of self-efficacy play a significant role
on our interactions well into adulthood. He studied the interactions of adults in stressful
situations and found that those reporting high amounts of self-efficacy were better able to cope
with the demanding and stressful conditions that are commonly found in the work environment.
Those who reported low levels of self-efficacy found themselves highly stressed and frustrated at
their work which led to decreased productivity and increased signs of depression and instability.
It was also found that the people who had a history of mental illness were much more likely to
have low levels of self-efficacy even if their mental episodes were not recent.[28] These findings
suggest that self-efficacy is closely related to mood and emotional states.

Research done by Sharon Andrew and Wilma Vialle also show the connection between
personalized self-efficacy and productivity. They studied the academic achievements of students
involved in science classes in Australia and found that students with high levels of self-efficacy
show a boost in academic performance compared to those who reported low self-efficacy. The
researchers found that confident individuals typically took control over their own learning
experience and were more likely to participate in class and preferred hands-on learning
experiences. Those individuals reporting low self-efficacy typically shied away from academic
interactions and isolated themselves in their studies. [29]

The Destiny Idea

Further information: Locus of control

Bandura showed that people of differing self-efficacy perceive the world in fundamentally
different ways.[30][31] People with a high self-efficacy are generally of the opinion that they are in
control of their own lives; that their own actions and decisions shape their lives. On the other
hand, people with low self-efficacy may see their lives as somewhat out of their hands.

[edit] Factors affecting self-efficacy

Bandura points to four sources affecting self-efficacy;

1. Experience - a.k.a. Enactive Attainment

"Mastery experience" is the most important factor deciding a person's self-efficacy.
Simply put, success raises self-efficacy, failure lowers it.

"Children cannot be fooled by empty praise and condescending encouragement.

They may have to accept artificial bolstering of their self-esteem in lieu of
something better, but what I call their accruing ego identity gains real strength
only from wholehearted and consistent recognition of real accomplishment, that
is, achievement that has meaning in their culture." (Erik Erikson)

2. Modeling - a.k.a. "Vicarious Experience"

“If they can do it, I can do it as well.” This is a process of comparison between oneself
and someone else. When people see someone succeeding at something, their self-efficacy
will increase; and where they see people failing, their self-efficacy will decrease. This
process is more effectual when a person sees him- or herself as similar to his or her own
model. If a peer who is perceived as having similar ability succeeds, this will usually
increase an observer's self-efficacy. Although not as influential as experience, modeling
is a powerful influence when a person is particularly unsure of him- or herself.
3. Social Persuasions
Social persuasions relate to encouragements/discouragements. These can have a strong
influence – most people remember times where something said to them significantly
altered their confidence. While positive persuasions increase self-efficacy, negative
 persuasions decrease it. It is generally easier to decrease someone's self-efficacy than it is
to increase it.
4. Physiological Factors
In unusual, stressful situations, people commonly exhibit signs of distress; shakes, aches
and pains, fatigue, fear, nausea, etc. A person's perceptions of these responses can
markedly alter a person's self-efficacy. If a person gets 'butterflies in the stomach' before
public speaking, those with low self-efficacy may take this as a sign of their own
inability, thus decreasing their self-efficacy further, while those with high self-efficacy
are likely to interpret such physiological signs as normal and unrelated to his or her actual
ability. Thus, it is the person's belief in the implications of their physiological response
that alters their self-efficacy, rather than the sheer power of the response.

[edit] Theoretical models of Behavior

A theoretical model of the effect of self-efficacy on transgressive behavior was developed and
verified in research with school children.[32]

[edit] Prosociality and moral disengagement

Examples of prosocial behavior are helping others, sharing, being kind and cooperative. Feelings
of self-efficacy (with respect to academic work, social interactions, and self-regulation) influence
prosocial behavior. Self-regulatory self-efficacy and academic self-efficacy have a negative
correlation with moral disengagement (making excuses for bad behavior, avoiding responsibility
for consequences, blaming the victim).[33] Social Self-Efficacy has a positive correlation with
prosocial behavior. On the other hand, moral disengagement and prosocial behavior have a
negative relationship.[34] The three types of self-efficacy are positively correlated.

[edit] Over-Efficaciousness in Learning

Research on learning has indicated that in certain circumstances, having less self-efficacy for a
subject may be helpful, as negative attitudes towards how quickly/well one will learn can
actually prove of benefit. One study[35] used the foreign language classroom to examine students'
beliefs about learning, perceptions of goal attainment, and motivation to continue language
study. Survey and interview results indicated students’ attributions for success and failure and
their expectations for certain subjects’ learning ability played a role in the relationship between
goal attainment and volition. It appears that over-efficaciousness negatively affected student
motivation. For other students who felt they were "bad at languages," their negative beliefs
increased their motivation to study.

[edit] Models of Health Behavior Change

Social-cognitive models of health behavior change include the construct of perceived self-
efficacy either as predictors, mediators, or moderators. Self-efficacy is supposed to facilitate the
forming of behavioral intentions, the development of action plans, and the initiation of action.
Moreover, self-efficacy can assist relapse prevention. As a moderator, self-efficacy can support
the translation of intentions into action. See Health Action Process Approach.

[edit] Possible Applications

The applications of self-efficacy in modern society are enormous. We are searching for ways to
make our children learn more effectively and be more productive but we are also learning that
adults are effected by perceive self-efficacy as well. By understanding how to help influence one
to develop a positive mental assessment of their abilities, it is possible for us to design learning
and work environments that provide the necessary feedback and support for individuals. This
will allow more people to develop high levels of self-efficacy that will translate into increased
productivity in their environments. Also, the stress of life can be at times intolerable but those
with high self-efficacy seem to be more able to live stress free lives that are rewarding and
happy.

[edit] Controversy
While the general concept that self-efficacy is a positive aspect of the human cognition is mostly
accepted, the advantages of high versus low levels in certain social situations is not universally
agreed upon as salient. Some Research shows that, while self-efficacy can be accurately reported
by an individual, it isn’t able to predict actual social interactions in many situations. Tasks that
are specifically socially oriented, such as public speaking, were more difficult to individuals with
low self-efficacy but those individuals showed no correlating social responses in a casual social
setting. The controversy exist regarding how important self-efficacy is to complex social
situations and currently more research is needed to determine if one can make any predictive
claims based on perceived self-efficacy.[36]

[edit] Final Thoughts

Based on modern research and theoretical models it is clear that perceived self-efficacy is
important for leading a healthy and comfortable life-style free from excessive stress. Further
understanding of this topic will allow us to develop and institutionalize concepts that will
hopefully be able to improve productivity in the work place and also within schools. This field
promises to redefine how we view our own social interactions and also how we can better
develop our own perceive self-efficacy.

The concept of self-efficacy lies at the center of psychologist Albert Bandura’s social cognitive
theory. Bandura’s theory emphasizes the role of observational learning, social experience, and
reciprocal determinism in the development of personality.

According to Bandura, a person’s attitudes, abilities, and cognitive skills comprise what is
known as the self-system. This system plays a major role in how we perceive situations and how
we behave in response to different situations. Self-efficacy plays is an essential part of this self-
system.
What Is Self-Efficacy?

According to Albert Bandura, self-efficacy is “the belief in one’s capabilities to organize and
execute the courses of action required to manage prospective situations” (1995, p. 2). In other
words, self-efficacy is a person’s belief in his or her ability to succeed in a particular situation.
Bandura described these beliefs as determinants of how people think, behave, and feel (1994).

Since Bandura published his seminal 1977 paper, "Self-Efficacy: Toward a Unifying Theory of
Behavioral Change," the subject has become one of the most studied topics in psychology. Why
has self-efficacy become such an important topic among psychologists and educators? As
Bandura and other researchers have demonstrated, self-efficacy can have an impact on
everything from psychological states to behavior to motivation.

The Role of Self-Efficacy

Virtually all people can identify goals they want to accomplish, things they would like to change,
and things they would like to achieve. However, most people also realize that putting these plans
into action is not quite so simple. Bandura and others have found that an individual’s self-
efficacy plays a major role in how goals, tasks, and challenges are approached.

People with a strong sense of self-efficacy:

 View challenging problems as tasks to be mastered.

 Develop deeper interest in the activities in which they participate.
 Form a stronger sense of commitment to their interests and activities.
 Recover quickly from setbacks and disappointments.

People with a weak sense of self-efficacy:

 Avoid challenging tasks.

 Believe that difficult tasks and situations are beyond their capabilities.
 Focus on personal failings and negative outcomes.
 Quickly lose confidence in personal abilities (Bandura, 1994).

Sources of Self-Efficacy

How does self-efficacy develop? These beliefs begin to form in early childhood as children deal
with a wide variety of experiences, tasks, and situations. However, the growth of self-efficacy
does not end during youth, but continues to evolve throughout life as people acquire new skills,
experiences, and understanding (Bandura, 1992).

According to Bandura, there are four major sources of self-efficacy.

1. Mastery Experiences

"The most effective way of developing a strong sense of efficacy is through mastery
experiences," Bandura explained (1994). Performing a task successfully strengthens our sense of
self-efficacy. However, failing to adequately deal with a task or challenge can undermine and
weaken self-efficacy.

2. Social Modeling

Witnessing other people successfully completing a task is another important source of self-
efficacy. According to Bandura, “Seeing people similar to oneself succeed by sustained effort
raises observers' beliefs that they too possess the capabilities master comparable activities to
succeed” (1994).

3. Social Persuasion

Bandura also asserted that people could be persuaded to belief that they have the skills and
capabilities to succeed. Consider a time when someone said something positive and encouraging
that helped you achieve a goal. Getting verbal encouragement from others helps people
overcome self-doubt and instead focus on giving their best effort to the task at hand.

4. Psychological Responses

Our own responses and emotional reactions to situations also play an important role in self-
efficacy. Moods, emotional states, physical reactions, and stress levels can all impact how a
person feels about their personal abilities in a particular situation. A person who becomes
extremely nervous before speaking in public may develop a weak sense of self-efficacy in these
situations. However, Bandura also notes "it is not the sheer intensity of emotional and physical
reactions that is important but rather how they are perceived and interpreted" (1994). By learning
how to minimize stress and elevate mood when facing difficult or challenging tasks, people can
improve their sense of self-efficacy.
 Overview of Social Cognitive Theory
and of Self-Efficacy
Frank Pajares
Emory University

Social Cognitive Theory

In 1941, Miller and Dollard proposed a theory of social learning and imitation that rejected
behaviorist notions of associationism in favor of drive reduction principles. It was a theory of
learning, however, that failed to take into account the creation of novel responses or the
processes of delayed and non-reinforced imitations. In 1963, Bandura and Walters wrote Social
Learning and Personality Development, broadening the frontiers of social learning theory with
the now familiar principles of observational learning and vicarious reinforcement. By the 1970s,
however, Bandura was becoming aware that a key element was missing not only from the
prevalent learning theories of the day but from his own social learning theory. In 1977, with the
publication of "Self-efficacy: Toward a Unifying Theory of Behavioral Change," he identified
the important piece of that missing element—self-beliefs.

With the publication of Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory,
Bandura (1986) advanced a view of human functioning that accords a central role to cognitive,
vicarious, self-regulatory, and self-reflective processes in human adaptation and change. People
are viewed as self-organizing, proactive, self-reflecting and self-regulating rather than as reactive
organisms shaped and shepherded by environmental forces or driven by concealed inner
impulses. From this theoretical perspective, human functioning is viewed as the product of a
dynamic interplay of personal, behavioral, and environmental influences. For example, how
people interpret the results of their own behavior informs and alters their environments and the
personal factors they possess which, in turn, inform and alter subsequent behavior. This is the
foundation of Bandura's (1986) conception of reciprocal determinism, the view that (a) personal
factors in the form of cognition, affect, and biological events, (b) behavior, and (c)
environmental influences create interactions that result in a triadic reciprocality. Bandura altered
the label of his theory from social learning to social "cognitive" both to distance it from prevalent
social learning theories of the day and to emphasize that cognition plays a critical role in people's
capability to construct reality, self-regulate, encode information, and perform behaviors.
The reciprocal nature of the determinants of human functioning in social cognitive theory makes
it possible for therapeutic and counseling efforts to be directed at personal, environmental, or
behavioral factors. Strategies for increasing well-being can be aimed at improving emotional,
cognitive, or motivational processes, increasing behavioral competencies, or altering the social
conditions under which people live and work. In school, for example, teachers have the
challenge of improving the academic learning and confidence of the students in their charge.
Using social cognitive theory as a framework, teachers can work to improve their students'
emotional states and to correct their faulty self-beliefs and habits of thinking (personal factors),
improve their academic skills and self-regulatory practices (behavior), and alter the school and
classroom structures that may work to undermine student success (environmental factors).

Bandura's social cognitive theory stands in clear contrast to theories of human functioning that
overemphasize the role that environmental factors play in the development of human behavior
and learning. Behaviorist theories, for example, show scant interest in self-processes because
theorists assume that human functioning is caused by external stimuli. Because inner processes
are viewed as transmitting rather than causing behavior, they are dismissed as a redundant factor
in the cause and effect process of behavior and unworthy of psychological inquiry. For Bandura,
a psychology without introspection cannot aspire to explain the complexities of human
functioning. It is by looking into their own conscious mind that people make sense of their own
psychological processes. To predict how human behavior is influenced by environmental
outcomes, it is critical to understand how the individual cognitively processes and interprets
those outcomes. More than a century ago, William James (1890/1981) argued that "introspective
observation is what we have to rely on first and foremost and always" (p. 185). For Bandura
(1986), "a theory that denies that thoughts can regulate actions does not lend itself readily to the
explanation of complex human behavior" (p. 15).

Similarly, social cognitive theory differs from theories of human functioning that overemphasize
the influence of biological factors in human development and adaptation. Although it
acknowledges the influence of evolutionary factors in human adaptation and change, it rejects
the type of evolutionism that views social behavior as the product of evolved biology but fails to
account for the influence that social and technological innovations that create new environmental
selection pressures for adaptiveness have on biological evolution (Bussey & Bandura 1999).
Instead, the theory espouses a bidirectional influence in which evolutionary pressures alter
human development such that individuals are able to create increasingly complex environmental
innovations that, "in turn, create new selection pressures for the evolution of specialized
biological systems for functional consciousness, thought, language, and symbolic
communication" (p. 683). This bidirectional influence results in the remarkable intercultural and
intracultural diversity evident in our planet.

Social cognitive theory is rooted in a view of human agency in which individuals are agents
proactively engaged in their own development and can make things happen by their actions. Key
to this sense of agency is the fact that, among other personal factors, individuals possess self-
beliefs that enable them to exercise a measure of control over their thoughts, feelings, and
actions, that "what people think, believe, and feel affects how they behave" (Bandura, 1986, p.
25). Bandura provided a view of human behavior in which the beliefs that people have about
themselves are critical elements in the exercise of control and personal agency. Thus, individuals
are viewed both as products and as producers of their own environments and of their social
systems. Because human lives are not lived in isolation, Bandura expanded the conception of
human agency to include collective agency. People work together on shared beliefs about their
capabilities and common aspirations to better their lives. This conceptual extension makes the
theory applicable to human adaptation and change in collectivistically-oriented societies as well
as individualistically-oriented ones.

Environments and social systems influence human behavior through psychological mechanisms
of the self system. Hence, social cognitive theory posits that factors such as economic conditions,
socioeconomic status, and educational and familial structures do not affect human behavior
directly. Instead, they affect it to the degree that they influence people's aspirations, self-efficacy
beliefs, personal standards, emotional states, and other self-regulatory influences. In all, this
social cognitive view of human and collective functioning, which marked a departure from the
prevalent behaviorist and learning theories of the day, was to have a profound influence on
psychological thinking and theorizing during the last two decades of the twentieth century and
into the new millennium.

Fundamental Human Capabilities

Rooted within Bandura's social cognitive perspective is the understanding that individuals are
imbued with certain capabilities that define what it is to be human. Primary among these are the
capabilities to symbolize, plan alternative strategies (forethought), learn through vicarious
experience, self-regulate, and self-reflect. These capabilities provide human beings with the
cognitive means by which they are influential in determining their own destiny.

Humans possess an extraordinary capacity to symbolize. By drawing on their symbolic

capabilities, they can extract meaning from their environment, construct guides for action, solve
problems cognitively, support forethoughtful courses of action, gain new knowledge by
reflective thought, and communicate with others at any distance in time and space. For Bandura,
symbols are the vehicle of thought, and it is by symbolizing their experiences that they can
provide their lives with structure, meaning, and continuity. Symbolizing also enables people to
store the information required to guide future behaviors. It is through this process that they are
able to model observed behavior.
Through the use of symbols, individuals solve cognitive problems and engage in self-
directedness and forethought. People plan courses of action, anticipate the likely consequences of
these actions, and set goals and challenges for themselves to motivate, guide and regulate their
activities. It is because of the capability to plan alternative strategies that one can anticipate the
consequences of an action without actually engaging in it.

People learn not only from their own experience but by observing the behaviors of others. This
vicarious learning permits individuals to learn a novel behavior without undergoing the trial and
error process of performing it. In many situation, it keeps them from risking costly and
potentially fatal mistakes. The observation is symbolically coded and used as a guide for future
action. Observational learning is governed by the processes of attention, retention, production,
and motivation. Attention refers to one's ability to selectively observe the actions of a model. For
their part, observed behaviors can be reproduced only if they are retained in memory, a process
made possible by the human capability to symbolize. Production refers to the process of
engaging in the observed behavior. Finally, if engaging in the observed behavior produces
valued results and expectation, the individual is motivated to adopt the behavior and repeat it in
the future.

Individuals have self-regulatory mechanisms that provide the potential for self-directed changes
in their behavior. The manner and degree to which people self-regulate their own actions and
behavior involve the accuracy and consistency of their self-observation and self-monitoring, the
judgments they make regarding their actions, choices, and attributions, and, finally, the
evaluative and tangible reactions they make to their own behavior through the self-regulatory
process. This last subfunction includes evaluations of one's own self (their self-concept, self-
esteem, values) and tangible self-motivators that act as personal incentives to behave in self-
directed ways.

For Bandura (1986), the capability that is most "distinctly human" (p. 21) is that of self-
reflection, hence it is a prominent feature of social cognitive theory. Through self-reflection,
people make sense of their experiences, explore their own cognitions and self-beliefs, engage in
self-evaluation, and alter their thinking and behavior accordingly.

Self-efficacy Beliefs

Of all the thoughts that affect human functioning, and standing at the very core of social
cognitive theory, are self-efficacy beliefs, "people's judgments of their capabilities to organize
and execute courses of action required to attain designated types of performances" (p. 391). Self-
efficacy beliefs provide the foundation for human motivation, well-being, and personal
accomplishment. This is because unless people believe that their actions can produce the
outcomes they desire, they have little incentive to act or to persevere in the face of difficulties.
Much empirical evidence now supports Bandura's contention that self-efficacy beliefs touch
virtually every aspect of people's lives—whether they think productively, self-debilitatingly,
pessimistically or optimistically; how well they motivate themselves and persevere in the face of
adversities; their vulnerability to stress and depression, and the life choices they make. Self-
efficacy is also a critical determinant of self-regulation.
Of course, human functioning is influenced by many factors. The success or failure that people
experience as they engage the myriad tasks that comprise their life naturally influence the many
decisions they must make. Also, the knowledge and skills they possess will certainly play critical
roles in what they choose to do and not do. Individuals interpret the results of their attainments,
however, just as they make judgments about the quality of the knowledge and skills they posses.
Imagine, for example, a student who has just received a grade of B on a term paper. In and of
itself, attaining a grade of B has no inherent causal properties. What can we predict about how
receiving such a grade will affect a student? An "A student" who worked hard on that assignment
will view that B in ways quite dissimilar from that of a "C student" who worked equally hard.
For the former, the B will be received with disappointment; for the latter, the B is likely to be
received with elation. The student accostumed to A's is likely to have his writing confidence
bruised; the C-acquainted student is sure to have his confidence boosted.

Bandura's (1997) key contentions as regards the role of self-efficacy beliefs in human
functioning is that "people's level of motivation, affective states, and actions are based more on
what they believe than on what is objectively true" (p. 2). For this reason, how people behave can
often be better predicted by the beliefs they hold about their capabilities than by what they are
actually capable of accomplishing, for these self-efficacy perceptions help determine what
individuals do with the knowledge and skills they have. This helps explain why people's
behaviors are sometimes disjoined from their actual capabilities and why their behavior may
differ widely even when they have similar knowledge and skills. For example, many talented
people suffer frequent (and sometimes debilitating) bouts of self-doubt about capabilities they
clearly possess, just as many individuals are confident about what they can accomplish despite
possessing a modest repertoire of skills. Belief and reality are seldom perfectly matched, and
individuals are typically guided by their beliefs when they engage the world. As a consequence,
people's accomplishments are generally better predicted by their self-efficacy beliefs than by
their previous attainments, knowledge, or skills. Of course, no amount of confidence or self-
appreciation can produce success when requisite skills and knowledge are absent.

It bears noting that self-efficacy beliefs are themselves critical determinants of how well
knowledge and skill are acquired in the first place. The contention that self-efficacy beliefs are a
critical ingredient in human functioning is consistent with the view of many theorists and
philosophers who have argued that the potent affective, evaluative, and episodic nature of beliefs
make them a filter through which new phenomena are interpreted (e. g., Aristotle, James, Dewey,
Kant, Maslow, Nisbett and Ross, Rokeach).

People's self-efficacy beliefs should not be confused with their judgments of the consequences
that their behavior will produce. Typically, of course, self-efficacy beliefs help determine the
outcomes one expects. Confident individuals anticipate successful outcomes. Students confident
in their social skills anticipate successful social encounters. Those confident in their academic
skills expect high marks on exams and expect the quality of their work to reap personal and
professional benefits. The opposite is true of those who lack confidence. Students who doubt
their social skills often envision rejection or ridicule even before they establish social contact.
Those who lack confidence in their academic skills envision a low grade before they begin an
examination or enroll in a course. The expected results of these imagined performances will be
differently envisioned: social success or greater career options for the former, social isolation or
curtailed academic possibilities for the latter.

Because the outcomes we expect are themselves the result of the judgments of what we can
accomplish, our outcome expectations are unlikely to contribute to predictions of behavior.
Moreover, efficacy and outcome judgments are sometimes inconsistent. A high sense of efficacy
may not result in behavior consistent with that belief, however, if the individual also believes
that the outcome of engaging in that behavior will have undesired effects. A student highly self-
efficacious in her academic capabilities may elect not to apply to a particular university whose
entrance requirements are such as to discourage all but the hardiest souls. Low self-efficacy and
positive outcome expectations are also possible. For example, students may realize that strong
mathematics skills are essential for a good GRE score and eligibility for graduate school, and
this, in turn, may ensure a comfortable lifestyle, but poor confidence in math abilities are likely
to keep them away from certain courses and they may not even bother with the GRE or graduate
school. In the social arena, a young man may realize that pleasing social graces and physical
attractiveness will be essential for wooing the young lass who has caught his eye, which, in turn,
may lead to a romantic interlude and even a lasting relationship. If, however, he has low
confidence in his social capabilities and doubts his physical appearance, he will likely shy away
from making contact and hence miss a potentially promising opportunity.

Because individuals operate collectively as well as individually, self-efficacy is both a personal

and a social construct. Collective systems develop a sense of collective efficacy—a group’s
shared belief in its capability to attain goals and accomplish desired tasks. For example, schools
develop collective beliefs about the capability of their students to learn, of their teachers to teach
and otherwise enhance the lives of their students, and of their administrators and policymakers to
create environments conducive to these tasks. Organizations with a strong sense of collective
efficacy exercise empowering and vitalizing influences on their constituents, and these effects
are palpable and evident.

How Self-Efficacy Beliefs Influence Human Functioning

Self-efficacy beliefs can enhance human accomplishment and well-being in countless ways (see
this page). They influence the choices people make and the courses of action they pursue.
Individuals tend to select tasks and activities in which they feel competent and confident and
avoid those in which they do not. Unless people believe that their actions will have the desired
consequences, they have little incentive to engage in those actions. How far will an interest in
architecture take a student who feels hopeless in geometry? Whatever factors operate to
influence behavior, they are rooted in the core belief that one has the capability to accomplish
that behavior.

Self-efficacy beliefs also help determine how much effort people will expend on an activity, how
long they will persevere when confronting obstacles, and how resilient they will be in the face of
adverse situations. The higher the sense of efficacy, the greater the effort, persistence, and
resilience. People with a strong sense of personal competence approach difficult tasks as
challenges to be mastered rather than as threats to be avoided. They have greater intrinsic interest
and deep engrossment in activities, set themselves challenging goals and maintain strong
commitment to them, and heighten and sustain their efforts in the face of failure. Moreover, they
more quickly recover their sense of efficacy after failures or setbacks, and attribute failure to
insufficient effort or deficient knowledge and skills that are acquirable.

Self-efficacy beliefs also influence an individual's thought patterns and emotional reactions.
High self-efficacy helps create feelings of serenity in approaching difficult tasks and activities.
Conversely, people with low self-efficacy may believe that things are tougher than they really
are, a belief that fosters anxiety, stress, depression, and a narrow vision of how best to solve a
problem. As a consequence, self-efficacy beliefs can powerfully influence the level of
accomplishment that one ultimately achieves. This function of self-beliefs can also create the
type of self-fulfilling prophecy in which one accomplishes what one believes one can
accomplish. That is, the perseverance associated with high self-efficacy is likely to lead to
increased performance, which, in turn, raises one's sense of efficacy and spirit, whereas the
giving-in associated with low self-efficacy helps ensure the very failure that further lowers
confidence and morale.

The mediational role that judgments of self-efficacy play in human behavior is affected by a
number of factors. There may be disincentives and performance constraints; that is, even highly
self-efficacious and well-skilled people may choose not to behave in concert with their beliefs
and abilities because they simply lack the incentive to do so, because they lack the necessary
resources, or because they perceive social constraints in their envisioned path or outcome. In
such cases, efficacy will fail to predict performance. An individual may feel capable but do
nothing because he feels impeded by these real or imaginary constraints.

It is not unusual for individuals to over- or underestimate their abilities and suffer the
consequences of such errors of judgment. These consequences of misjudgment play a part in the
continual process of efficacy self-appraisals. When consequences are slight, individuals may not
feel the need to reappraise their abilities and may continue to engage in tasks beyond their
competence. In such situations, the relationship between efficacy judgments and subsequent
behavior will be muddled by the misjudgment of skills. Self-efficacy must also be checked
periodically to assess the effect of experiences on competence, for the degree of relationship
between self-efficacy and action is affected by temporal disparities. Bandura argued that because
strong self-efficacy beliefs are generally the product of time and multiple experiences, they are
highly resistant and predictable. Weak self-efficacy beliefs, however, require constant
reappraisal if they are to serve as predictors. Both, of course, are susceptible to a powerful
experience or consequence.

Although self-efficacy beliefs exercise a powerful influence on human action, a number of

factors can affect the strength of the relationship (see this page). It cannot be overemphasized
that, when exploring the relationship between efficacy and behavior, we must be certain to
measure the self-efficacy beliefs relevant to the behavior in question, and vice-versa. Faulty
assessment of self-percepts or performance will create an ambiguous relationship. Bandura
(1986) has argued that "measures of self-precept must be tailored to the domain of psychological
functioning being explored" (p. 396). It is important to know the precise nature of the skills
required to successfully perform a particular behavior, for misweighting requisite subskills
results in discrepancies between self-efficacy and behavior, and the problem is worsened when
individuals are called on to make efficacy judgments about their own cognitive skills. Similarly,
when individuals are uncertain about the nature of their task, their efficacy judgments can
mislead them. Tasks perceived as more difficult or demanding than they really are result in
inaccurate low efficacy readings, whereas those perceived as less difficult may result in
overconfidence. Individuals often perceive their abilities as only partially mastered, feeling more
competent about some components than about others. How they focus on and appraise these
components will strongly affect their sense of efficacy about the task to be undertaken.

If obscure aims and performance ambiguity are perceived, sense of efficacy is of little use in
predicting behavioral outcomes, for individuals do not have a clear idea of how much effort to
expend, how long to sustain it, and how to correct missteps and misjudgments. The aims of a
task and the performance levels required for successful execution must be accurately appraised
for self-efficacy judgments to serve as useful regulators and predictors of performance. This
factor is especially relevant in situations where an individual's "accomplishment is socially
judged by ill-defined criteria so that one has to rely on others to find out how one is doing"
(Bandura, 1986, p. 398). In such situations, people lack the experience to accurately assess their
sense of efficacy and have no option but to gauge their abilities from knowledge of other
experiences, often a very poor indicator and predictor of the required performance. This faulty
self-knowledge can have unpredictable results.

How Self-Efficacy Beliefs Are Created

Individuals form their self-efficacy beliefs by interpreting information primarily from four
sources (see this page). The most influential source is the interpreted result of one's previous
performance, or mastery experience. Individuals engage in tasks and activities, interpret the
results of their actions, use the interpretations to develop beliefs about their capability to engage
in subsequent tasks or activities, and act in concert with the beliefs created. Typically, outcomes
interpreted as successful raise self-efficacy; those interpreted as failures lower it. Of course,
people who possess a low sense of efficacy often discount their successes rather than change
their self-belief. Even after individuals achieve success through dogged effort, some continue to
doubt their efficacy to mount a similar effort. Consequently, mastery experiences are only raw
data, and many factors influence how such information is cognitively processed and affects an
individual's self-appraisal.

In addition to interpreting the results of their actions, people form their self-efficacy beliefs
through the vicarious experience of observing others perform tasks. This source of information is
weaker than mastery experience in helping create self-efficacy beliefs, but when people are
uncertain about their own abilities or when they have limited prior experience, they become
more sensitive to it. The effects of modeling are particularly relevant in this context. especially
when the individual has little prior experience with the task. Even experienced and self-
efficacious individuals, however, will raise their self-efficacy even higher if models teach them
better ways of doing things. Vicarious experience is particularly powerful when observers see
similarities in some attribute and then assume that the model's performance is diagnostic of their
own capability. For example, a girl will raise her perceived physical efficacy on seeing a woman
model exhibit physical strength but not after seeing a male model do so. In this case, gender is
the attribute for assumed similarity. Observing the successes of such models contributes to the
observers' beliefs about their own capabilities ("If they can do it, so can I!"). Conversely,
watching models with perceived similar attributes fail can undermine the observers' beliefs about
their own capability to succeed. When people perceive the model's attributes as highly divergent
from their own, the influence of vicarious experience is greatly minimized. It bears noting that
people seek out models who possess qualities they admire and capabilities to which they aspire.
A significant model in one's life can help instill self-beliefs that will influence the course and
direction that life will take.

Individuals also create and develop self-efficacy beliefs as a result of the social persuasions they
receive from others. These persuasions can involve exposure to the verbal judgments that others
provide. Persuaders play an important part in the development of an individual's self-beliefs. But
social persuasions should not be confused with knee-jerk praise or empty inspirational homilies.
Effective persuaders must cultivate people's beliefs in their capabilities while at the same time
ensuring that the envisioned success is attainable. And, just as positive persuasions may work to
encourage and empower, negative persuasions can work to defeat and weaken self-efficacy
beliefs. In fact, it is usually easier to weaken self-efficacy beliefs through negative appraisals
than to strengthen such beliefs through positive encouragement.

Somatic and emotional states such as anxiety, stress, arousal, and mood states also provide
information about efficacy beliefs. People can gauge their degree of confidence by the emotional
state they experience as they contemplate an action. Strong emotional reactions to a task provide
cues about the anticipated success or failure of the outcome. When they experience negative
thoughts and fears about their capabilities, those affective reactions can themselves lower self-
efficacy perceptions and trigger additional stress and agitation that help ensure the inadequate
performance they fear. Of course, judgments of self-efficacy from somatic and emotional states
are not necessarily linked to task cues. Individuals in a depressed mood lower their efficacy
independent of task cues. One way to raise self-efficacy beliefs is to improve physical and
emotional well-being and reduce negative emotional states. Because individuals have the
capability to alter their own thinking and feeling, enhanced self-efficacy beliefs can, in turn,
powerfully influence the physiological states themselves. As Bandura (1997) has observed,
people live in psychic environments that are primarily of their own making.

The sources of self-efficacy information are not directly translated into judgments of
competence. Individuals interpret the results of events, and these interpretations provide the
information on which judgments are based. The types of information people attend to and use to
make efficacy judgments, and the rules they employ for weighting and integrating them, form the
basis for such interpretations. Thus, the selection, integration, interpretation, and recollection of
information influence judgments of self-efficacy.

Self-Efficacy and Human Attainment

The Roman poet Virgil observed that "they are able who think they are able." The French
novelist Alexander Dumas wrote that, when people doubt themselves, they make their own
failure certain by themselves being the first to be convinced of it. There is now ample evidence
to suggest that Virgil and Dumas were absolutely correct.
Since Bandura first introduced the construct of self-efficacy in 1977, researchers have been very
successful in demonstrating that individuals' self-efficacy beliefs powerfully influence their
attainments in diverse fields (see Stajkovic and Luthans 1998, for meta-analysis of research on
the relationship between self-efficacy beliefs and achievement outcomes). In his 1997 book,
Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control, Bandura set forth the tenets of his theory of self-efficacy
and its applications to fields as diverse as life-course development, education, health,
psychopathology, athletics, business, and international affairs. In this volume, Bandura also
further situated self-efficacy within a social cognitive theory of personal and collective agency
that operates in concert with other sociocognitive factors in regulating human well-being and
attainment. He also addressed the major facets of agency—the nature and structure of self-
efficacy beliefs, their origins and effects, the processes through which such self-beliefs operate,
and the modes by which they can be created and strengthened. In addition, Bandura reviewed a
vast body of research on each of these aspects of agency in diverse applications of the theory. A
search for the term "self-efficacy" in most academic databases reveals that, by the year 2000,
over 2500 articles had been written on this important psychological construct.

Self-efficacy has generated research in areas as diverse as medicine, athletics, media studies,
business, social and political change, psychology, psychiatry, and education. In psychology, it
has been the focus of studies on clinical problems such as phobias, depression, social skills,
assertiveness, smoking behavior, and moral development. Self-efficacy has been especially
prominent in studies of educational constructs such as academic achievement, attributions of
success and failure, goal setting, social comparisons, memory, problem solving, career
development, and teaching and teacher education. In general, researchers have established that
self-efficacy beliefs and behavior changes and outcomes are highly correlated and that self-
efficacy is an excellent predictor of behavior. The depth of this support prompted Graham and
Weiner (1996) to conclude that, particularly in psychology and education, self-efficacy has
proven to be a more consistent predictor of behavioral outcomes than have any other
motivational constructs. Clearly, it is not simply a matter of how capable one is, but of how
capable one believes oneself to be.