· JoumaI of PasoaaIity _ Social PlIyc/IoIogy ~t 1981 by tllcAmail:aa~ /USOC:iaIIon, lac..

, 1981, Vol 41, No. '3. Sll6-S98 ·351 181/410~7S

Cultivating Competence, Self-Efficacy, and Intrinsic

Interest Through Proximál ~elf- Motivation
Albert Bandura and Dale H. Schímk

StanfOld University ,

Tbe present experiment tested the bypothesisthat self-motlvation tbroughprox­

imal goal setting serves as aneffective mechanism COl cultivating competencies,
self-percepts oC efficacy, and intrinsic ~terest. Children who exhibited gJ'osS
deficits and disinterest in matbematical tasks pursued a prOgl'am oC self~irected
learningunder conditions involvingeitherproximal subgoals, distal goals. Or no
goals. Results oC tbe multiCaeeted assessment provicie support for tbe superiority ,
of proximal self-inOuenee. Under proxinial subgoab. children progressed rapidly\
in seIf-directed learning, achievedsubstantial masteryof mathematicalopera-¡
tions, and developed a sense of personal efficacyand intrinsic interestin, arith·'
metic activities tbat initially,held tittle attraction Cor them. Distal goals ilad no'
demonstrable effects. In addition to its other henefits, goalproxi.mtty fostered
veridical self-knowledge 01 capabilities as reftected in high congruenee between
judgments of mathematical self-efficacy and subsequent mathematical perfor­
manee. Perceived self-efficacywas positively r~ted to accuracy of mathematical
performance and to intrinsic inlerest in arithmetié activities.

Much human behavior isdirectedand sus­ self-motivation relies on the interveniog pro­
tained over long periods, even though the cesses' of goal setting and self*Cvaluative re­
external inducements fOl.it may be few and actions to one',s owo'behavior. This form
far between. Under conditions in which ex­ of se1f-motivation, which operates largely
ternal imperatives are mioimal and discon­ through ,interoal comparison 'processes, re­
tinuous, people must partly serve as agents quires personal standards .gainst which to
of their own motivation and action. In social evaluate ongoing performance. By makiJlg
learning theory (Bandura, 1917b, in press), self-satisfaction conditional on a certain
self.:.mrectedoess operates through a, selfsys­ level oC performance, individuals create self­
tem that comprises cognitive structures and inducements to persist in their efforts until
subCunctions Cor perceiving, evaluating, mo­ their, performances match in~rnal stan­
tivating, and regulating behaviOl. dards. 80th the anticipated. satisfactions Cor
, An importan!, cognitively based source oC matching attainnlents and the dissatisfac­
tions with insufficient ones provide incen­
This research was supported by PIlblic HeiUth Re­ tives fOl self-directed actions. ,
search Grant M-5162 from the Natioruil Institute of Personal' goals or Standards do not auto­
Mental Hcalth. Weare deeply bídebted lo the mauy matically activate ,the evaluative proceSses
pcople who assisted us in this project: Ruthe Lundy and , that affect the level and course olone's be.­
Jack Gibbaoy of the Palo Alto Unified School District,
arranged the necessary research facilities. SchooI prin­ havior. Cemdn propertiesof goais,stach as
cipals Jerry Scbmidt, Gene TaDkersl.ey, John Tuomy, ' their speci:ficity and level, 'help toprovide
,RogerWilder, ud their staffs oCfen:d wbatever he1p clear standards oC adequacy (LathaDl &
was needed to facilitate the research. Jamey Friend and Yuk1. 1975;J,.ocke, 1968;Steers & Porter,
Barbara Searleof the Stanford Iostitute COI' Mathe­ 1974). Henee, explicit goals arem()te likely
matiCal Studies in the Social ScienÍ:es fumished us with
, invaluable infonnation OD mathematical subfunctions, than vague intentions to engageself-reactive
which served as the basis for the self-instrtIctional roa­ ioftuences fu any given activity. Goalprox­
teriaI. rtnaUy, we owe a dcbt of appreciatioo to Debby imity. a third property, is especiallycritical
Dyar and Linda Curyea COI' their generous ,and able because themore clasely reCerential stan­
assistance in the conduet, oC the eltperiment.
Requests for reprints should be sent lo Albert Dan­ , dardsare related to ongoingbehaviOl. the
duJa, Departmcnt of Psycltology, Builiting 420, Jordan greater thelikelihoodthat self-ioftu~nces
Hall. Stanford University, Stanford. Calüornia 94305. will be actiyated during the process. Some
 PROXIMAL SELF-MOTIVATlON
suggeStive evjdence exists that tbe impact of
goals on behavior is indeed' determined by
how far into the future theyare projeeted
(Bandura &; Simon, 1977; Jeffery, 1977).
In the social'learning view, adopting prox­
imal subgoals for one's own behavior can
ha~ at least three major psychologica1 ef­
fects. As already alluded to,such goals have
motivationaleffects. One of tbe propositions
tested in .thepresent experiment is tha~ self­
motivation can be best createdandsustained
by attainable subgoals tbat' tead to larger
future ones. Proximal subgoals provide im­
mediate incentives and guides for perfor­
mance, whereas .~goals are too far re­
moved in time lo effectively mobilize effort
or to difeet what one does in the hereand
now. Focus on thedistant future makes it
easy to temporize and to.slacken efforts in
·the present.
, Proximal subgoals can also serve as an
important vehicle in the development of self­
percepts of efficacy. Competence in dea1ing
with one's enVÍronment is not a fixed act or
simply knowing what to do. Rather, ¡tin·
volves a generative capability in which com­
ponent skills must be selected and org~ized
•into integrated courses of action lo manage
changing task demands. Operative compe­
tence tbus requires ftexible orchestration of
multiple subskills. Self-efficacy is concerned
with judgments about how well one'can or­
ganize and execute courses of action re­
quired lo deal with prospeetive situations
containing many ambiguous, unpredictable,
· and often stressful elements. Self-percepts
of efficacy can affeet people's ch()Íce of ac­
tivities, how much effortthey expend, and
hOW long they wil1 persist in the faée of dif­
ficulties (Bandura, 1977a; Brown & Inouye,
, 1978; Schunk, 1981).
Without standards against whicbto mea­
SUre their performances, people have little
· basis for judging how tbey are doing or for
gauging their capabilities. Su1)goal attain­
ments provide indicants of mastery for en­
hancing self-efficacy. By contrast, distal
goals are too far removed in time to provide
sufficiently clear markers of progress along
tbe way lo ensure a growing sense of self­
efficacy.
Tbe processes underlying
. the development
. of tbe ÍS$ue of bow intrinsic interes! is de­
of intrinsic interest maysimüarly be gov­
587
emed, at l~ in part, by goalproximity.
Most oíthe activities that people enjoy doing
for their own sake origina1ly had little or no
interest for tbem. Young cbüdren are. not
innately interested in singing operatic arias.
playing tubas, deriving mathematica1 equa­
tions, writing sonnets, o.. propel1ing heavy
shotput balls through tbe airo However,
through favorable continued involvement,
almost any activity can heeome imbued with
consuming significance.
One can posit at least two ways in whicb
proximal goals might contribute to enhance­
ment of interest in activities. When people
aim for, and master, desired levels of per­
formance, tbey experience a sense of satis:..
fáction (Locke, Cartledge, &; Knerr, 1970).
Tbe satisfactions derived from subgoal at­
tainments can buüd intrinsic interest. When
performances.are gáuged againstlofty, dis­
tal goals, tbe large óegative disparities be­
tween standards and attainments are likely
lo attenuate the level of self-satisfaction ex­
perienced along tbe way.
Conceptual analyses of intrinsic ¡nterest
witbin the framework of both self-efficacy
theory (Bandura, 1981) and intrinsic moti­
vation theory (Deci, 1975; Lepper & Greene,
1979) assign perceived competence a me­
diating role. A sense of personal efficacy in
mastering challenges is apt to generate
greater interest in the activity than is self­
perceived inefficacy in producing competent
performances. To the extent tbat proximal
subgoals promote and authenticate a sense
of causal agency, theycan heighten interest
through their effects on perception of per­
sonal causation.
Investigations of intrinsic interest have
been concerned almost exc1usively withtbe
effeets of extrinsic rewardson ipterest when
it is already highly developed. Altbough re­
sults are somewhat variable, theusual. find­
ing is that rewards given regardleSs of qual­
ity of performance "tend to reduce interest, .
wbereas rewards for performances signifying
competence sustain high interes! (Boggiano
&; Ruble, 1979; Enzle & Ross, 1978; Lepper
& Greene, 1979; Ross, 1976). The contÍO­
versy over the effects oí extrinsic rewards on
preexisting high interest has led lo a neglect
veloped wben it is lacking. One ofthe present
588 ALBERT BANDURA AND DALE H. SCHUNK

study's aims was to test the nomn lbat prox~ Of the 25 pretest prob1ems. 8 were similar in COnD'
anddifficulty lo some oC tbe types oC items used in too
imal subgoals enlist the type oí sustáined subsequent treatment phase. To test for generalization
involvement in aetivities that build self-eí­ effects, 17 problems tequired applicatioo oftbe varlous .
ficacy and interest when they are absent. subtraction operations lo problem forms tbat were more
Children who displayed gross deficits in complex tban those childrea would encounter in the self­
mathematical sk:ill.s and strong disinter~t in instroctional phase. For example, in treatment tbey
learned how 10 borrow once or twice Cmm zero in, at
sueb aetivities' engaged in self-directed mosto four-column problems.. whereas ,a generalization
learning over a series oí sessions. They pur­ item would require .borrowiDg from tbree coósec:utive
sued the self-paced 'learning under condi­ zeros in a six-columnset. To add a furtber element of
tions involvingeither proximal subgoa1s, dis­ complexity, aIl the test problems were cast iD a forro in
wbich the minuend and the difference between the min­
tal. goals, .or bids to work' aétively' without uend and tbe subtrahend were proYided so tbat children
any reference to goals. It was predicted that had lo soIve tbe subtrabend. .
self-motivation through proximal subgoals Child.ren, Were presented the set oC 25 subtraction
would prove most effeetive incultivating problems .one at a time on separate pages and were in­
mathematical competeneies, self-percepts oí strocted lo mm each page over after theybad soived
the problem or had chosennot 10 work at it any longer.
eíficacy, and intrinsie interest in tnathemat.; Tbe tester recorded tbe time spent on each problem. .
ical aetivities. Forreasons given earlier, dis­ Tbe ~ ofcompetence in subtractionwas. the num­
tal goals were not expectedto exceed bids ber ofproblems in which the childreo applied tbe correct
to work aetively in promoting ehanges. It subtraction operation. "
was hypothesized íurther that strength oí Pilot work in. thedevelopment oC tbe test procedures
tbat child.ren who do notfully comprebend sub­
self-efficacy would prediet subsequent' ae­ revealed
traction operations fail lo.grasp tbe naturC of their de­
euracy on mathematical tasks and level oí ficiency because they faithfuUy apply an erroneous al­
intrinsie interest. gorithm. Wben presented witb a subtraction problem,
tbey simply subtract tbe amaner number fromtbe larger
one in each column regard1ess of wbether tbesmaller
Method numberis tbe minuend or tbe subtrahend.To address
tbisproblem at tbe outset of tbe experiment proper,
Silbjects aRer childrea completed the arithmetic· pretest tbey
compared tbeir solutions lo the correct answers. How­
ever, children performedthe posttest withoot Ceedback.
Too subjects were 40 children of predominantly mid,
of accuracy.
dle-class backgrounds, ranging in age froro 7.3 to 10.1
years, with a mean age of 8.4 years. There were 21 Since tbis study centered on motivational processes
males and 19 femates distributed equally by age and by wbich competencies. perceived efficacy, and interest
sex.acrcss conditions. can. be developed wben tbey are lacking, children who
Children were drawn from six elementaryscbooJs. As soIved more tban Cour problems were.excluded. Tbe se­
an initial screening procedure, teacOOrs identified chil­ lected sample of cruld.ren indeed ex.bibited gross deficits;
in
dren in their c1asses who displayed gross deficits aritb­ one tbird could nOl solve a single problem, and anotber
tbird could only solve one.
metic skills and lo,w interest in such actiYities. The pIe­
, treatment procedúres were administered lo each of tbe Tbe children's substantial quantitative deficiencies
identified children by one of two testers ,(a male and a were furtber· conIirmed by standardized measures oC
female) lo determine whether tbe children's aritbmetic tbeirmatbematicaI abllityobtained fmm the school dis­
skills were sufficiently ddicient to qualify for the ex­ trict on three subtests of the Metropolitan Achieveinent
periment. . Test (Durost, Bixler, Wrightstone, Prescott,& Balow,
1970).They occupied the bottom percentile ranks in
computation (22)•. concepts (27), and probIeIl1 soIYing
Pretreatment Measures (22). Children in tbe varlous treatment conditions did
not differ in this respect.
The study was presented ~ the cbild.ren as a project Self-ef.ficocy judgment. Before measuring perceived
aimed at gaining understanding of,bow arithmetic skiIls matbematical efficacy, childreo petformed a practice
areacquired. To reducefurtber any evaluative concerns. task. lo familiarize' them with tbe efficacy assessment
they were informed tbat tbe projectwas being conducted formal. The tester stood at varying distaJÍces Crom tbe
in several 'SChoo1s and tbat their work would be treated children and asked them lo judge wbether tbey could
in full confidence. . jump selected distances and lo rate on a l CJO.;point scale
Mathemolical perfomum.ce test. Tbe performance the degree of certainty oC their perceived capahility. In
pretest consisted oC 2S subtraction problems graded by this concrete way, child.ren Ieamed how lo use numerical
level of difficulty. The test problems.whicb rangedfrom . scale vaIues to convey the strengtb of their self':judged
two to six coIUIDIIS. were speciñcany designedso as lo efficacy.
tap eacb oC sevensubtraction operations tbat. were in­ In measuring strength of matbematical self-efficacy,
c1uded in tbe treatment pbase of tbe study. children were sbown, Cor 2 sec eacl4 2S cards containing
 PROXIMAL SELF-MOTIVATION 589
pairs of subtraction prOblems of varying' difficulty. This workiDg on their own was underscored. they rarely
brief exposure was suflicient to portray, the nature of sougbt the experimenter'sattention during the session.s.
the tasb butmuch too short to evai attempt any so­ The self-direCted study was conducted on consec:utive
. lutiona. Alter each sample exposare, children judged school days. At the endol each session, children marked
their c:apability' to solve the type of, problem depicted where they had stopped and simply resumed" work at
and ratedprivatelythelltrength of their perceived er­ tbat point in the subseqllent s_ion. .
ticacy on a lOO-point scaJe. J'&llgiug in 1o.unit intervals 'Qtesituational arrangement for the iDlItructional
froro .higb uncertainty through intermediate valUC!l of pha.se of the stndywas designed to leave the initiative
certainty to complete certitude.The higher the !ICale tothe children, thus allowing leeway lor seIf-directed­
value. the stronger the perceived self..effic:acy. The mea­ DC!IS and self-motivatíon to exert their effectS. By work­
sure of strength ófself..efficacy was obtained by dividing ing independently but in a group setting, none of the
tbe summedmagnitude SCOrC!l by tbe tOtal number of children was the focus of attention. The seating al­
problema. rangement and sequential entry preclllded <communi­
c:ationbetween the children. Alter delivering the in­
struction.s, theexperimenter retired toa tableaway from
Self-InstrucnolUlI Material the children anciremained, as unobtrusive as possible
throughout the sessiomi. By having childrén in different
Research conducted at ,the Stanford Institute of treatment.s ~ separately the self-directed learoing
Mathematical StudiC!l has sbown tbat competencein in the same aetting at the samc time, social ;and situa­
subtractioq. requirCIIllCVCl'l1l aubskil1s (Friend & Burton. tional factors that migbt otherwise, vary were compa­
1981). TheSe includesubtracting a number from a larger rable aeross treatment conditions.
one, subtracting zero, subtracting anumberfroro itself.
borrowing once, borrowingc:aused by zero. borrowing
twice, borrowing froro 1, aDd borrowing Croro tero.
Seven sets of inatructinnal material were designed, Treatment Conditiona
which incorporated the various subtraction operations.
The material was organizei.t in sllch a way that children Children were assigned randomly to oue of tbree
couJd work independcntly at their own pace over a series treatment condition.s or to a nontreated control group.
of sessÍODS. The instructiOlis, format., and materials for the self-di­
. The format of each' inlltructinnal set was jdentical. rected study wereideotic:al across treatment conditíOns
The first page of each aet contained a fuD explanation ex<:ept for variation.s in goal aetting.
ofthe releVant subtraction operation. along with two Proxiltrlll goals. For children in the proximal-goal
examplC!l illnlltrating how the sollltion strategiC!l are treatment, the experimenter suggested that they migbt
applied. The following six pages contained sets of prob­ con.sider aetting themselvC!l a goal of completing at least
lema to be soIved using the dC!Iignated operation. Pre­ six pagC!l of instructional items each .session.To give
testing showed that if cbildren worked al a ateady pace, . some salience to a continuíng goal orientation. the sug­
they could completé each self-instructional aet in about gestion of proximal goals was made at thebeginning of
25 mino the second session as weIl. There was DO furtber niention
ofgoals thereafter.
Distal pis. For children assigned to the distal-goal
Procedure for Self-Directed Learning treatment, the experlmenter suggested that they migbt
conllider aetting themselvC!l the goal of completing the
One of three experimenten (one male and two fe­ , entire 42 pages of instructional itema by the, end 01 the
malC!l)brought the children individuany, at slightly seventh $ession, whichcomprised a total ol258 prob­
staggered timC!I, jnto the stlldy room. where they were lema.
seated in different loc:atiOnll, facing away from eacb In both treatment conditíoDll, the goals were men­
other to preclude anyvisual contacto 80th the experl­ tioned suggestively rather tban prCllCriptively so as to
menter andthe schoolS Crom which the children were leave the goaI-setting decision to the children. This mndé
drawn were the same across treatment conditiona. The of goal structurin¡ was used for two reasoÍls. First, it
entire aet' oC instructional materiala was placed face was dC!ligned JO increa.se children's selC-involvement in
down on ~he table. The children were informed that they the iDlItructional task. Seoond, choice increa.sC!Ithe 1evel
couId work on these subtraction problema for seven lO. 01 personal rC!Iponsihility and commitment togoals.
mm. sessions. No pis. A third group of children porsued tbe self­
In d.eseribing tbe procedure for self~ed leaming, directed learning without anyreference to goals. How­
the experimenter turned o'ver the firstpage,< which ex­ ever.they were told to< try to complete as manypages
plained !he subtraction operation for the fiI'IIt six-page of iDlItructionaI items as possible as they went along.
set. Childnm were told that whenever they came to a The rea.som for inclllding this particolar condition were
page of instructions, they shouIdbring it to the exper­ twofold: to provide a control lor the effectS of self-di­
imenter who wonId read jt to them. Then they should rected instruction alone and to equate the groups lor the
soive, 0Ii their own, the subtractionproblema contained social suggestion that they work produ$áively.
on the succeeding pages. If children asted Cor further No trealIMnt. A fourtb group.ol children wasad­
assistance with the instructiOnll, the experimenter simply , ministered the full set of assessment procedurC!l without
reread the releYant sections of the in.structions but never any intervening exposure to the in.structional material.
sllpplemented them in any way. Since the instruction.s This group provided a control for any possible effectS
, were self-explanatory and the importance of children of testing and concomitant classroom in.struction. .
 590 ALBERT BANOURA ANO DALE H. SCHUNK

P08ttreatment Assessment DO knowledge of the conditions lo which the children

had been assigned.
The procedures uSed in the pretreatment pbase of the After the experiment was ~uded, all children, in­
. study were readministered on the ciay folloWing com­ duding the controls.,pursued seIf-directed instruction
lo completion uDder proximal subgoals lo provide max­
pletion .oí the fourth session. This intermediatc point
was ,selected lo gauge the effects of goal proximi!y on imal henefits for all participants.
the development of skilI. seIf-efftcacy,.and intrinsic in­
tetest within an identical length of time~ Had cIúldren
been testcd after completing the entire ~m of study,
Results
the posttreatment changes would have been confounded ,
by variations in the amount of time different children
No significant sex düferences were found
required lo complete the seIf-instruction. on any of tbe measures at either the pretest
Children's mathematical self-effi.cacy was measured or postteSt assessments, since tbe sample was
at theend of treatment and after the posttest oísuh­ conftned to children with gross aritbmetic
traction performance. The seIf-efficacy scores obtained deftcits. In tbe posttest assessment,children
at the end of treatment were uSed lo gauge the value
of self-efficacy judgment in predicting'su\)sequent añth­
showed comparable gains in self-efftcacyand
metic performance. Since post1:ellt performance can af­ arithmetic performance on generalization
fect perceived efficacy, the measure Qf self-efficacy oh­ problems and on the types oC items used in
tained Jollowing the añthmetic posttest was related lo tbe treatment phase. Having mastered par­
the subsequent measure of intrinsic ¡ntetest. ticular subtractive operations on simpler ex­
Bach of the 25 pairs of efficacy assessment itcms,
which were the same as those used in the pn:treatment em.plars. children applied them accurately
assessment., corresponded in form and difficulty level lo to more complex forma. The data were tbere~
a subtraction problem in the performance test but in­ fore pooled acro¡ss sex and class of item for
volved different seis of numhers. As noted píevi.oiasly. the primary analyses.
mest of the test problems were more complex tban the
ones included in the treatment phase oí the study. Be­
Analyses of variance were computed .on
cause the test of seIf-efficacy tapped new applications tbe different sets oC data, with phases of tbe
of cognitive operations. children had lo rely on gener­ experiment and treatment conditions rep­
alizable perceptions of tI,eir mathematical capabilities resenting the mam Cactors. At tbe pretest
in making their efficacy judgments. phase, the groups did not differ on any of
A paraUel form of the performance test used in the
pretest was deviSed for the posttreatment assessment of
tbe measures. Significant intergroup differ­
mathematical competence. This eliminated any possible ences obtained in the posttreatment· phase
effects due lo familiarity with problems. 80th forros were analyzed further, using tbe Newman­
were administered in a counterbalanced arder lo a sam­ K.euls multiple-comparison metbod. Table
pie of 17 children who were not participants in the for­ . 1 shows tbe significance levels oí the. treat­
ma] study. The altcmate forros yielded highly compa­
rable scores (r .87). ment effects, the changes achieved by chil­
Children's intrinsic interest in subtraction problems dren witbin each conditioD, and comparisons
was measured in a separatc session scheduled the day between treatment· conditions.
after the posttreatment assessmenL The tcster explained .
that she/he had another task the children' could 'do. '
Their attention was thendrawn lo two stacks of 10 pages Perceived Self-Efjicacy
~h. One stack contained 60 subtraction problema of
várying levels of di.fficulty; the other stack contained TIte strengtb of children's perceived math­
rows ofdigit-symbol problems adaptcd fmm the Wechs­ ematical effi.cacy at different phases oC the
ter Intelligence ScaIe lor Children (WechsIer, 1974). . expenm'ent isptesented graphically in Fig:­
The latter task involved fiUing in rows Of empty Sq~
with symbols corresponding lo the dlgitsappearing me L
above eacb square. Anal~ of tbese data shows tbe main
The teSter stressed that the children should feel free effectof treatment,. F(3, 36)= 10.13, P <
to decide whether they wanted lo work:. on one, or the .001" and tbe ihteraction between treatment
other.. or both tasks. I~ was furtber emphasized that it and 'expe'rimental phases F(6 72) =
5 96
was up lo them 10 dl.lClde how much time they wanted ..'.'.. ,
lo spend on each activity. The children worked alone . P < .001, to be highly Slgnificant.
untiJ 25 mino had e1apsed. The number of subtraction Intragroup comparisons of changes .in
pro~lems ~e. children .soIved under these ~~ strengtb of self-efficacy, evaluated by tbe t
~boice condltiOns constituted the measure of mtrínsic test for correlated means, yidded nosignif­
m~f the assessment procedures were administered icant'differences for children in tbe control
individually by the same tester in both phases of the group (Table 1). Those who had tbe beneftt
study. To control for any possible bias, the testers had of proximal subgoals. substantiaHy increased
 PROXIMAL SELF-MOTIVATION 591

Table 1
Signijicanee of Intergrollp Differences and Intragroup Changes

Proximal. Proximal DistaI DistaI

Proximal vs. DO VS. vs. DO vs. No gools
Measure vs. distal goals control goals control vs. control

Intergroup c:omparisons
(Newman-KeuIs comparlsoos)

Strengtlt of Self­
éfficacy
Postl <.OS <os <.01 na <.OS na
Posh <.01 <.OS <.01 na <.OS <.01
Arithmetic
perfonnance <.01 <.01 <.01 na <.01 <.01
Persistence
. Eny problems na na na na na na
.Difficult
problems na na <.OS na <OS <.OS
Intrinsic interest <.OS <.OS <.OS na na na
ACCUOlcyof
Self-
Appraisal of
Efficacy <.OS <.05 <.05 . na na

Intragroup changes
(t tests)

No
Proximal Distal goals Control

Strength of Self-efficacy
Pre vs. Post l 4.69··· 2.93·· 2.16· 0.01
Pre vs. Posh . 5.90·..• 2.15· 3.70"· 0.78
Postl vs. Post:: 3.55··· 2.7S" 1.18 1.12
Arithmetic Performance 12.62···· 3.17··· 4.27··· 1.01
Persistence
&sy probIems 0.72 0.26 .0.32 4.12···
Difficult problems 4.57··· 1.41 1.76 3.34···

• p < .10.•• P < .OS• ... P < .01.•••• P < .001.

their perce~ed self-efficacy and exhibited
. even fúrtber gains following the peñormance
póSttest. Children oriented toward distal
goaJs displayed a moderate increase. inself­
efficacy but a small declirie alter the posttest.
Self-directed leaming witbout goals pro­
duced a modost mercase at a bordedine level
of significance.
In separate comparisons between treat­
ments. the proximal group exceeded all oth­
ers in strengtb of perceived self-efficacy. as
measured both before and after the behav­
ioral posttest (Table 1). Children in the di&­
tal condition also exceeded the controla in
seIf-efficacy, but they did not differ signiñ­
eantly fmm those who set' no goaJs for them­
selves. Children in the latter condition judged
their mathematica1 efftcacy more highIy
than did the controla after but not before the
performance posttost.
Mathematical Performance
Figure 1 presents the mean ICOres oh­
tained on the subtraction performance test
592 ALBERT BANDURA ANDDALE H. SCHUNK

90 -.PROXIMAL GOALS
_ .... DISTAL GOALS
0-"0 NO GOALS
80 O-~ CONTROL

>
CJ
~ 70
ii:
I.L
111 ..p
.'
Ú.
..... 60 h . ·....
l8
I.L
O 50
" " ..) ' ,....
/,:/3'
'
"
/'~............
~ /' ....
~ 40
?-(.....•.

~
30

1 2
PRETEST POSTTEST

Fifiu;re l. Tbe len panel shows the strengthoC c~'s seIf-pcm:epts oC arithmetic efficacyat the
begfuning oC the study (pretc:st). and before (Post,) and after (Post2) 1hcy took: tbe subtra.ction posttest.
The right panel displays the children'slevel oC acbievement on the subtraction tests before and after the
seIf'-directed learning.

by cbijdren in tbe various conditions. The solved OOy 5% of the problems fu pretest
main.efIect of treatmentwashigb1y signif­ and only 8% in posttest. remained grossly
icant, F(3, 36) = 12.80. p < .001, as was tbe deficient in this regam. . .
interaction between treatment and experi­ Contrasts between tbe means of tbe dif..;
mental phases, F(3. 36) = 12.55,p < .001. ferent treatment cond.tions show. tbechil­
Self-directed instruction promoted mas­ dren intbe proximal ~ndition to bemuch
tery of subtractive ·operations in all·three more skilled than ·!hose in tbe distal. (p <
groups, whereas tbe controls remained at a .01)•. no-gQals(p < .01). on:ontrol(p< .01),
loss on how to subtract numbers from each conditions. Children who pursued the self­
other (Table 1). Inpairwise eompari­ leaming witb distal(p < .01) or no goals
sonso .children who had employed· proximal (p < .01) were a,Iso more skilled tbantbe
subgoals surpassed all the otber groUps in controls. but the Comer two groups did not
subtractive skills. Children who engaged in .
differ from eaéh other.
self-directed leaming eitber witb distal or no
goals did not differ Significantly from each Persistence
other~' but both groups outperformed tbe
controls. Cbildren who gain high self-efficacy
In tbe aboye measure, children received through skill acq~ition solve problems
pártial cred1t if they applied the approptiate . readily and, tberefore. neednot spend ml.lch
subtractive operations but made a minor er­ time on them. An agregate measureof per­
ror in deriVÍDg or in recording the ansWer.. sistence spanningtbe entirerange ofdiffi.­
Tbe iden~cal pattern of results is o~tained culty is not too meaningful because longper­
onseores using a stringent criterion requir­ seVerence times on hard problems are offset
ing perfect accuracy on all countS. In com­ by rapidsolutions of less diflicult ,ones.
paring!he children's subtractive skills before Changes inpersis:tencewere. therefore, an,..
and alter treatment, al1 tbree groups tbat alyzed separately for problems al two levelS
engaged in self-directed instruction achieved of difficulty: 'Ibe difficult set of. problems
signiñcant gains beyond the p < .001 level required two or more borrowing operations,
of signiñcance; whereas fue contro1s, who whereas tbe easier set involvedeitber no bor­

 PROXIMAL SBLF-MOTlVATlON
rowingor, atmost, only one smaller min­
uend. '
Analysis of perSistence on tÍle easy arith­
metic items revealed nodifferences except
for tlte cóntrols, who were significantly less
perserering ( - 31%) when, tested again.
However, in the efforts expended on ,dü'ficult
arithmetic items,theproximalchildren \Vere
markedly more persistent' aftcr treatment
than before (+90%), thedi$tal(+22%) and
. t he no-goalschildren (+39%}were' ínoder­
ately 'more persistent,' whereasthe controls
slackened. their efforts(.. . . 27%) in the post­
test. This differential pa.ttem ofperseverence
yielded a highly significi:lDt Treatment X
Phases interaction, F(3, 36) = 5.67, p <
:005. Analyses of intragroup' changes pre­
sented in Table 1 show that the increased
perseverence oí, the proxima1ly self-móti­
vated children and the diminished effort of
the controls are highly significant. Multiple
comparisons among groups in the posttest
, assessment disclose that children in each of
the treatment conditions, although not dif­
fering from each other, were a11 significantly
more persevering than. were the controls
(Table 1).
Intrinsic Interest
The role of goal proximity in the devel­
opmentbf intrinsic interest may be seen in
Figure 2. Analysis of variance of the number
of subtraction problems that children chose
to solve on their own yielded asignificant
treatment effect,F(3, 36) = 3.57, P < .05.
Inspection of Table 1 shows that children in
the' proximal subgoal condition exceeded a1l
three comparlson gro~ps, whieh 1Üd not dif­
fer from each other. lndeed, 90% oC the chil­
dren who developed their aritbmetic skill
through the ajd of proximal subgoals per­
formed subtraction problemsunder the free­
choice conditions; whereas on1y about 40%
of the children in the other groups tUd So.
The 'involvement in arithmetic problems
displayed by the proximal, children was not
at the ,detriment of the competing activity.
Children in all groups performed a compa­
rable number of digit-sjmbol items and did
not differ in this respect (F =0:77). lt would
seem that experience with proximal self-mo­
tivators enhances the' total leve! oí subse­
593
14
12
lii
~10
UI
1­
:z
GOALS
Figure 2. Average number of subtraction problems chil­
, drén in tbe different conditions chose to solve when given
free choice of activities.
,quent productivity.since children in tbis con- ,
dition were as prolific on the competing task
and more so on the arithmetic ooe.
Progress in Self-Directed Learning
The average length oftime it took children
to complete each lesson was 21, 29, and 30
mino ror the proximal, distal, and no-goals
conditions, respectively. Thus, proximal self­
motivators producedmore rapid mastery of '
the subject malter than did distal ones, F( 1,
27) = 3.94, p < .10,or self-instruétion with­
out goals. F( l. 27) = 5.44, P < .05.
By the end of the four sessions, the per­
centage,.of the total instructional material
completed was'74% in the proximal condi­
tion, 55% in the distal condition, and 53%
in the condition involving no goals. AIthough
proximal subgoals, compared to distal goals,
F(I, 27) = 3.66, p < .10, and no goals, F(l,
27) ::::!: 4.67, P < .05, fostered greater mastery
of subtractive operations, distal goals had no
significant effect either on rate or leve! of
self-directed instruction.
CongruenCf! Between Self-Efficacy
Judgment and PerformanCe
COngruence indices can be computed by ,
comparing efficacY judgments at the end of
594 ALBBRT BANDURA AND DALB H. SCHUNK

treatment witb subsequent posttest perfor- tionship betwcen theoretically relevant vari­
mance of subtraction problems of compa- ables. Product-moment correlations were
rabie fmm and difficulty. In this procedure, ealcu1ated SCJ)8l"8:tely witbin groups. and
judgmentsof self-efticacy are diehotomit.ed when they did nol' differ significantly, tbey
into positive and negative instances. based were averaged by means of an , to z trans­
on a selecteci cutoff strengÍb value. Instancesformation.· .
of·congruence occur whenehildren jud.ged That skili acquisition builds self-efficacy
themselves capable of solving a given level receiVes supportin the data.The more self­
of problem and, in fact, solved it or judged instrumonal material the children mastered,
themselves incapable and tben failed' the !he strongerwas their sense of mathematical
same elass ofproblem. Mismatehes between self-efficacy, 1(28)= .42, P < .01. Perfor­
efficacy judgments and performances (Le., manees that are readily achieved suggest a
judged efficacy fOl failed items and jud.ged higher leve! of self-abllity than do analogous
inefficacy for solved itenls) represent in­ attainnlents gaÚled through slow, heavy la­
stances of incongruence. bor. COnsistent with this expectation, the
Congruence indices were caleulated sep­ faster the ehildren completedeach lesson;
arately for efficacy cutoffvalues at different the more efficacious they judged themselves
lev.els'of strengtb; When a low-strengtbvalue to be, 1(28)";' .32, P < .05. Standardized
is selected as the criterion of seIf-judged ef­ measures oC matbematical competence, based
ficacy, a weak sense ofefficacy (e.g., 20) is on the Metropolitan Aemevement.Test. did
treated like complete certitude (100). Sueh . not predict rate of skili acquisition 01' degree
a low criterion could produce artifactual of self-efficacy enhanceII)ent.
mismatches. If the criterion were set near Both instructional performance, 1(28) =
the maximalstrengtb value (80), reasonably .33, p < .05, and strengtb of self-efficacy,
high levels of self-judged efficacy (e.g., 70) 1(38) = .42, p < .01, were moderately related
would be defined as inefficacy. Tbis too lo !be children's facility in using subtractive
WQuld produce artifactual discrepancies. For operations. However,strengtb of self-effi"
the mathematical ¡)erformances examined in cacywas a significant predictor of perfect
this study, an efficacy strength of 40, whieh arithmetie accuracy for the total sample,
reflC(:ts a moderate degree of assurancc, prO-: 1( 38) = .49, p < .001, and for the self­
vided the optimal cutoff eriterion. instI1lcted groups, 1(28) = .40-, p < .025, .
Results of the congruence analysis dis­ whereas past self-instructional performance
elose that the conditions of treatment af­ was only marginally related lo faultless post­
fected the leve! of accuracy with which ehil­ test performance, 1(28) = .25, p < .10.
dren appraised their mathematical efficacy, Skili aoquisition speeds problem solving.
F{3, 36)= 3.06, p < .05. Children in the This factor attentuated the relationship be- .
. distal (54%), no-goals (51%), and control tween seIf-effi.cacy ud persistence for the
(60%) conditions displayed moderate con­ treated ehildren who found most of the prob­
gruence between their seIf-judged efficacy leros readily soluble ando hence, had no need.
and their performance. In contrast. children to spend mueh time on them. Theinfluence
who developed their skilJs under proxiníal of perceived self-effiC8.(fy on persevereIi.ce is,
subgoals \Vere highly 8CCUrate in their self­ of (:()Urse, bes! revea1ed on problems that
appraisalS of efficacy (80%). Table 1 shows cannot be solved however hard one tries.
that in accurateness óf self-appraisal, the Children'who doubt their capabllities quit
proximally seIf-motivated. children exceed sooner than those who believe they·can even­
. o ther experimental groups, whieh do not dif­ tuallymaster the task should they persevere.
fer significantly from each other. In most This condition obtains .rOl the control ehil­
instances the children erred by overestimat­ dren whose marked arithmetie deficiencies'
ing their capabllities. rendered most ofthe problemS inSoluble. FOl
thisgroup, the stronger the ehildren's self­
Co"elational Analyses perceived efficacy. the 10nger they pene­
. Correlational analyses were carried out to vered, 1'(8) = .63, ji = .025. For all ehildren,
provide additio~al information on the rela­ higIí persevereIi.ce wasaccompanied by high
 PROXIMAL SELF-MOTIVATlON 595

performance attainments on the more dif­ ical opemtions. and heightened their per­
ñcult problems,1'(38) = .51, P < .001. Even ceived self-efficacy and interest in activities
the easy problems were exceedingly·difficu1t that initially held little attraction for them.
forthe control chil~ and here toQ, .per­ Efforts 10 clarify how goal proximity op­
sistence was related to performance success, erates inself-regulatory mechanisms ordi­
1'(8) = .61, P < .001. narily preseat difficu1ties because even
Therelationship of pe~ived self-efficacy though encouragedto set themselves distal
10 intrinsic interest can be analyzed in sev- ' goaJa, people are prone to convert them into
eral ways. It mayrequire at least modemtely more aidful proximal ones. They simply
high self-efficacy 10 generateand~in­ fractionate desired (uture a~mplishments
terest in an activity, hut interestlsJiot much into attainable dailysubgoals (Bandura &.
affected by smaR variationsabove' or below Simon, 1977). In thepresent experiment,
the threshold leveL. To test· this threshold children could not transform distal into
notion, interest SCOl'CSwere COITelated with proximal self-motivators because not know­
number of self-percepts of efñcacy tbat ing how to divide, they couldnot partition
matched orex.ceeded an efficacy strengtb of !he entire instructional enterprise into equiv­
40, which· was previously shown 10. be tbe alent subunits. Results of the combined stud­
optimal eriterion in the eongruence analysis. ies attest to the motivating potentialof prox­
The results diselose that the higher the level imal goals, whether they are suggestedor
of seif-effu::acy at the end of the posttest, the spontaneously generated, Or whether the
greater. the intCl'CSt shown· in arithmetic ac­ self-sustained behavior is tractable or very
tivities, 1(38) = .27, P < .05. difficult 10 produce.
An alternative possibility is that intrinsic Judgment of mathematical self-efficacy
interest is linearly related 10 strengtb of self­ by children just beginning to understand the
efñcacy. Correlatlon of thelatter measures requisite cognitive skills is no simple matter.
shows . that variations in mean strength of With verybrief eXpoSure 10 sample items,
self-efficacy covaried with interest in, the it is hard. to discriminate among different
control and !he no-goalsconditions, 1'( 18) = leveIs of task difficu1ty~ This is because the
.39, P < .05, but notin the goal-setting !reat­ complexity of ·some of the subtmctive' op­
ments. eratioÍls is not instanUy apparent.from what
Although"intCl'CSt. was positively reIated is most readily observable. When complex
10 self-percepts of efficacy derived from per­ operations are imbedded in seemingly easy
formance attainments in treatment, it was problems, which is often the case, appear­
uncorrelated with !he performance attain-· ances can be quite misleading. In'such sit­
ments themselves. However, the standard­ uations, incongruities·between perceived self­
ized measnres of competence in mathemat­ efficacy and action may stem from misper­
ical subfunctions emerged as significant ceptions of· task demands as well as from
eorrelates. The more competent ~n faulty self-knowledge. Moreover, solving
were at mathematical eomputation. problems typically requires applying multi­
1'(38) = .42,p < .01. and problem solving, pIe operations. Even if they were readüy rec­
1'(38).= .58, p < .001, the more subtraction ognizable, judgment ofpetsonal capabilities .
problems they completed in the free-choice for a given· type of taak is complicated if
situation. some of the constituent operationsare thor­
oughly mastered and others areon1ypar­
Discussion tiaRy understood. Selective attention to mas­
tered elements highlights competencies;
Results of the present study confirm tbe whereaa focus on what is less well understood
intluential role of· proximal self-motiYators . highlightsshortcomings. Even equal atten'­
in the cultivation of competence, self-per- tivenéss lo aR aspects ofthe taak will produce
cepts of effieacy. aild iJitrinsic interest. Chil- . some variance in judgments of self-efficacy,
dren who set themselves attainable subgoals depending on bow much weight is given lo
progressed rapidIy in seIf-directed learning,· the differentiaRy mastered operatioDs.
achieved substantial mastery of mathemat- Given lhese complexities, it is not sur­
 596 ALBERT BANDURA AND DALE H. SCHUNK
pnsmg that .cbildren sometimes overesti­
mated their capabilities, especially on ta$ks
tbat appeared deceptively simple. However,
it is notewortby tbat in addition to its otber
benefits, goal proximity Costers veridical self­
knowledge oC capabilities. Cbildren wbo
guided and judged tbeir progress in terms
oC proximal subgoals were lüghly accurate
intheir self-appraisals. In contrast, skill de­
velopment under conditions in· whicb prog­
resstQward competence is somewbat ambig-·
uous does not improve self-knowledge.
Despite the fact tbat children in tbe diSJal
and no-goal conditions acquired new infor­
.mation about mathematics l,lDd applied it
repeatedly, tbe accurateness of tbeir self-ap­
praisals was no better tban tbat of tbe con­
trols, wbo did not have tbe beneftt oC
substantialperformance information fOI
constructing tbeir self-knowledge.
Tbe aboye results are consistent witb pre­
vious findings tbat judgments·of Self-efficacy
are.DOt simply reflectorsof past performance
(Bandura, 1977a, 197Th). Ratber tbey re­
flect an inferential process in whicb. tbe self­
abilityinferences drawn fromone's perfor­
manees vary, depending on how much weight
is placed on personal arid situational factors
that can affect how well one performs. The
evaluative standards against wbich ongoing
performances are appraised· constitute an
additional factor that determines how well
people judge tbeir capabilities.
Results of microanalyses of congrue~ce
between self-efficacy judgment and perfor­
mance indicate that the optimal cutoff value
·of efficacy strengtb varies across activities,
depending on the compleXity and tbe variety
oí skills tbey require. Performances that
draw on only a Cewskills reduce the likeli­
. hood of overestimating personal capabilities
by overweigbting a mastered subpart. Hence,
lower efficacy strength values can be pre­
dictive of success (Bandura, 1977a).ln ac­
tivities that depend on diverse subskills,
knowledge of sorne of them, especially tbe
more directly observable ones, raises the
level oC assurance that ane migbtbe able to
perform successCully. Consequently, SOme­
what higber culoff values of efficacystrengtb
become predictive of success.
Researcb on intrinsic interest has centered
primarily on bow extrlnsic incentives affect
higbinterest when it is already present
ratber tban on bow lo develop it when it is
lacking. It is tbe latter problemtbat presents
major. challenges,. especially when avoidance
of activities essential for self-development
reflects antipathy arising Crom repeated fail­
.ure ratber. tban mete disinterest. Tbe present
findings lend support lo thegeneral tbesis
tbat skills cultivated tbrough proximal stan­
dards oC competency build interest in dis­
valued activities. When progress is gauged
against distal goals, similar accomplish­
ments may prove disappointing because of
wide disparities between current perfor­
mánce· and 10fty . future standards. Conse­
quently, intereát fails to develop, eyen tbough
skills are being acquired in tbe prOCC$S.
Perceived self-efficacy was .accompanied
by high-performance attainments and per­
severence under conditions in which such a
relationship would be expected to obtain.
Regardless of conditions oC treatment, per­
sistency increased the likelihood of succ;:ess.
Tbere was some evidence to indicate tbat
faultless aritbmetic performance was better
predicted from self-efficacy· tban from be­
havioral attainments in treatment. However,
caution should be exercised injudging causal
contributions from correlations because sonie
of the measures reflect continuously inter­
. active processes ratber tban discrete sequen­
tial ones. Consider, for example, tbe question
of directionality ofinfluence in obtained re~
lationsbipsbetwec;:n treatment performance,
posttteatment self-efficacy, and posttest per­
formance. Self-efficacy judglllents are un­
confounded by Cuture posttest performance,
but it is highly unlikely tbat self-percepts of
. efficacy played no role whatsoever in pet­
formánce attainments during the self-di­
rected learnirtg. Judgments of one's capa­
bilities canaffect rate of skill acquisition,
and performance mastery, in turn, can boast
self-efficacy in a mutually enbancing pro­
cess.It is not as tbougb self-efficacy affects
future performances in tbe posttest but does
not affect earlier ptrlormances in the treat­
ment pbase.
Tbe causal contributioll oC perceived self­
efficacy toperformance is most clearly re­
vealed in studies in whichseJf-percepts of
 PROXIMAL SELF-MOTIVATION
efficacy are developed solely tbrough vicar­
ioos or cognitive means tbat entan no overt
performance (Bandura & Adams, 1911;
8andura, Adams.& Beyer, .1911; Bandura,
I\:dams, Hardy, & Howells. 1980; Bandula,
Reese, & Adams, Note 1). Perceived self­
~Cticacy, instatedsymbQlically, predicts well
tbe pattem of peñotmance successes and
failp.res on specifie task:s.
A furtber issue addressed in tWsresearcb
::oncems the relationshiphetween petceived
~lf-effieaéY and intrinsie intel'e$t. It .was
lIlainly children in theproxiInaHy self-mo­
tivated condition, aH oC wbom Celt highIy
~fficacious.. wbo displayed tbe notable level
;)f intrinsie'interest. Incontrast,cbildren in
the otber conditions generaDyexpressed self-'
doubts conceming tbeir capabilities and
,.bowed little spontaneous mtel'est in solving
arithmetic probléms. Regardless of treat­
ment conditions. self-perceptsoC moderate
to bigb strengtb were positively' related to
interest.
Intrlnsic interest seems to covary most
closely witb tbe more long-standing indi­
cants of actual or perceived competence, that
¡s, tbe standardized measures of oompetence
in matbematical subfunctions and perceived
self-efficacy in groups wbose preexisting
self-percepts were eitber unaltered or
cbanged oo1y' marginaDy. Tbese findings
raise tbe interesting' possibility tbat sorne
temporal lag exists between newly acquired
self-efficacy and corresponding growtb of
interest. Tbe link· between boosts in per­
ceived self-efticaey and sustainedinvolve­
ment in cbaHenging activities is now well
establisbed aeross a wide range of bebavioral
domains (Bandura, 1981; Brown & fnouye,
1918; Weinberg, Gould, & Jack:son, 1919;
Scbunk, 1981; Condiotte & Liebtenstein.in
press). But ít may require mastery experí­
ences over a period of timebefore tbe self­
efticacy derived fromprogressive successes
ereates strong intei"est in activities tbat were
disvalued or even disliked: If, in faet, effects
follow sueb a temporal course, tben in­
creased interest would emerge as á later
ratber tban as an instant consequent oC en­
banced self-efticacy. Because of tbe tbeoret­
ic8I import oC tbe link between self-efticacy
and interest, botb the tbresbold and tbe tem­
591
poral lag eCfects warrant systematic inves­
tigation. . .
Reference Note
1. Bandura. A., Reese, L., &. Adams, N. E. Micro­
anillysÍ8 01 action lUIdlear arousal as a lunt:uon 01
differentiallev.els 01 perceived self-elfit:acy.Unpub­
lished manuscript, Stanford Uoiversity, 1981.
References
Bandura, A. Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theo!)' of
bebavioral change. Psychological Review, 1917,84,
191-215. (a).
Bandura, A. Social leaming theory. Englewood CUffs,
N.J.: Prentice..Hall, 1917. (b)
Bandura,' A. Self-referent thougbt: A developmental
analysis of self-efficacy. In J. H. F1avell &. L. Ross
(Eds.), Sodal, cognitive development: Frontiersand
poSSible IUlures. Cambridge. England: Cambridge
University Press, 1981,
Bandura, A. The self and mechanisms of agency. In J;
Suls (Ed.), Psychologit:al perspectives en the self
(Vol. 1). Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum, in press.
Baodura. A., &. Adams, N. E. Aoalysis of setf-efficacy
theory of behavioral ehaoge. CognÍlille Therqpy and
Research. 1917, 1,287-303.
Bandura, A.., Adams, N. E., &. Beyer, J. Cognitive pro­
cesses mediating behavioral ehaoge. JournaJ 01 Per­
sonality and Socia/ Psychology, 1977,35, 129-139.
Bandura, A., Adams, N. E., Hardy, A. B., &.Howells,
G. N. Tests of the generality of self-efficacy tbeory.
Cognitive Therapy and Research. 1980,4,39-66.
Baodura, A., &. Simon, K. M. Tbe role of proximal
iotentions in setf-regulation of refractory behavior.
Cognitive Therapyand Research. 1917,1, 117-193.
Boggiano, A. K., &. Ruble, D. N. Competence aod the
overjustilication effeet: A developmental study. Jour­
na! 01 Persónality and Social Psychology. 1979,37,
1462-1468.
Brown, l., Jr., &. lnouye, D. K. Learned helplessness
through modeling: The role of perceíved similarity in
<;ompetence. Joarnal 01 Personality and Social Psy­
ch%gy, 1978, 36, 900-908.
Condiotte, M. M., &. Lichtenstein, E. Self-efficacy and
relapse in smoking cessatioo programs. Journal 01
Consulting lUId Clinica/ Psychology. (io presa).
Deci, E. L. lnlrinsic motivation. New York:Plenum,
1975. . ,
Durosl, W. N., Bixler, H. H., Wrightstone, J. W., Pres­
oott, G. A., &. Balow, l. H. Metropolitan Adievement
Tests: Ele_ntary lorm F. New York: Haroourt
Brace Jovaoovich, 1970. '
Enzle, M. E., &. Ross,J. M. Iocreasiog aod deereasing
intrinsicinterest with contingent rewards: A test of
oognitive evaluatian theory. Journal 01 Experimental
Soda! Psychology. 1978,14,588-597.
Priend, J., &. Burtan, R. Teacher'sguide: Diagnostic
lesting in arith_tic: Subtraction. Palo Alto: Xerox
Palo Alto Research Center, 1981.
Jeffery, K. M; The elleas 01 goal-selting on self-mo­
tivated persistent:e. Unpublished doctoral disserta­
tion, Stanford University, 1917.

598 . ALBERT BANDURA AND DALE H. SCHUNK

La~G. P., &. Yukl, G. A. A rmew oCresearehon directiolis in; attrlbutiOll resetlI'ch. HiUsdale, NJ.:
"application oC goal setting in organizations. Acad­ Erlbaum, 1976.
emyofMlUIlIgement Joumal. 1975,18,824-845. SchlDlk. D. ModeIing ami attribntioDaJ. effe:cts onchil­
Leppcr, M. R., & Greene, D. Overjustitication research dren's achievement: A self-éfficacyanalysis. Joumol
amibl;yoad: Toward a meao&-ends anaIysis oC intrln­ of EducatiOlllll Psychology. 1981. 73, 93-105.
sic ami extriusic motivation. In D. Greene & M. R. Steers, R. M ... &.~r, L. W. The rolé oC task-goal
Leppcr (Eds.), Tite lúddm costa ofrewtlTd. Hillsdale, attrlbuteSin employee performance. Psychological
N.J.: Erlbaum, 1979. Bulletill, 1974. 81, 434-452.
Locte, E.. A.T09iard a theory oC task motivation and Wechsler, D. Wechslerintelligence &cale fOl' clúldren:
in<:entives. Ql'ganizat!OIIIl~ Be1uwiOl' and Human p,,... . Form R. New York: The Psychological Corporation.
f~I968.3. 157-189. 1974.
Lockc.lLA...CartJedge.N., &Knerr, C. S. Studies oC Weinber& R.,. Gould, D... & Jacbon, A. Expeetations
the relatiollShip betweeo satisf'action. goal setting. and . ami performa.nee: Aa empirical test ofBandilra's.self­
perfurmanc;e.OrgtmiZ4lional BeJuzviOl' and Human efíiClU:}' theory. Joumal oi Sport Psychology, 1979,
PerfOl'1'rlal'lt:e. 1970,5, 135,-158. 1,320-331.
R.oss, M. The self pen:eption oC intrlnsic motivation. In
J. H. Harvey, W. J. Iclees, & R.. F. Kidd (Eds.), New Received Jun€¡ 16, 1980 •