scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Journal Article•DOI•

Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.

Albert Bandura1•
Stanford University1
01 Mar 1977-Psychological Review (American Psychological Association)-Vol. 84, Iss: 2, pp 191-215
TL;DR: An integrative theoretical framework to explain and to predict psychological changes achieved by different modes of treatment is presented and findings are reported from microanalyses of enactive, vicarious, and emotive mode of treatment that support the hypothesized relationship between perceived self-efficacy and behavioral changes.
Abstract: The present article presents an integrative theoretical framework to explain and to predict psychological changes achieved by different modes of treatment. This theory states that psychological procedures, whatever their form, alter the level and strength of self-efficacy. It is hypothesized that expectations of personal efficacy determine whether coping behavior will be initiated, how much effort will be expended, and how long it will be sustained in the face of obstacles and aversive experiences. Persistence in activities that are subjectively threatening but in fact relatively safe produces, through experiences of mastery, further enhancement of self-efficacy and corresponding reductions in defensive behavior. In the proposed model, expectations of personal efficacy are derived from four principal sources of information: performance accomplishments, vicarious experience, verbal persuasion, and physiological states. The more dependable the experiential sources, the greater are the changes in perceived selfefficacy. A number of factors are identified as influencing the cognitive processing of efficacy information arising from enactive, vicarious, exhortative, and emotive sources. The differential power of diverse therapeutic procedures is analyzed in terms of the postulated cognitive mechanism of operation. Findings are reported from microanalyses of enactive, vicarious, and emotive modes of treatment that support the hypothesized relationship between perceived self-efficacy and behavioral changes. Possible directions for further research are discussed.
Citations
More filters
Journal Article•DOI•
Enhancing the Effectiveness of Work Groups and Teams

[...]

Steve W. J. Kozlowski1, Daniel R. Ilgen1•
Michigan State University1
01 Dec 2006-Psychological Science in the Public Interest
TL;DR: There is a solid foundation for concluding that there is an emerging science of team effectiveness and that findings from this research foundation provide several means to improve team effectiveness.
Abstract: Teams of people working together for a common purpose have been a centerpiece of human social organization ever since our ancient ancestors first banded together to hunt game, raise families, and defend their communities. Human history is largely a story of people working together in groups to explore, achieve, and conquer. Yet, the modern concept of work in large organizations that developed in the late 19th and early 20th centuries is largely a tale of work as a collection of individual jobs. A variety of global forces unfolding over the last two decades, however, has pushed organizations worldwide to restructure work around teams, to enable more rapid, flexible, and adaptive responses to the unexpected. This shift in the structure of work has made team effectiveness a salient organizational concern.Teams touch our lives everyday and their effectiveness is important to well-being across a wide range of societal functions. There is over 50 years of psychological research—literally thousands of studies—fo...

2,069 citations

Cites background from "Self-efficacy: toward a unifying th..."

  • ...Self-efficacy is an individual’s appraisal of his or her taskspecific capability to achieve a particular level of performance Volume 7—Number 3 89 in goal accomplishment (Bandura, 1977)....

    [...]

  • ...in goal accomplishment (Bandura, 1977). Self-efficacy is central in social-cognitive theory. As individuals direct action in the pursuit of goals, they monitor progress through feedback and reflect on discrepancies between current performance and their goals. To the extent that perceptions of progress are adequate, their appraisals of self-efficacy build. Self-efficacy is important because it leads to setting higher level goals when initial goal levels are accomplished (Phillips, Hollenbeck, & Ilgen, 1996), it boosts persistence when goals are difficult and challenging, and it fosters adaptation to increasing task complexity (Kozlowski, Gully et al., 2001). Meta-analytic findings (Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998) at the individual level of analysis have shown that self-efficacy is significantly related to performance (corrected r 5 .38). Given these findings for the important role of self-efficacy in individual effort and performance, parallel concepts of team efficacy and collective efficacy (we use the terms interchangeably, although collective efficacy can reference higher levels such as departments, organizations, and beyond) have been proposed, as has the related but distinct concept of group potency. Self- and team efficacy are distinct in that the collective construct represents a group or team-level property that is shared, consensual, and held in common across group members and may be distinct from individuals’ own self-perceptions of competence (Feltz & Lirgg, 1998). Team or collective efficacy can be defined as a shared belief in a group’s collective capability to organize and execute courses of action required to produce given levels of goal attainment (Bandura, 1997; Lindsley, Brass, & Thomas, 1995; Zaccaro, Blair, Peterson, & Zazanis, 1995). As noted above, it is not a simple aggregate of self-efficacy across group members; rather, it references the team as the collective entity with respect to shared perceptions (Gully, Incalcaterra, Joshi, & Beaubien, 2002). Similar to selfefficacy, collective efficacy is hypothesized to influence what a group chooses to do (i.e., goal setting), how much effort it will exert, and its persistence in the face of failure (Bandura, 1997). Shea andGuzzo (1987) defined group potency as a generalized collective belief that the group can be effective. Although many researchers view team efficacy and group potency as very similar constructs, they are distinct in that collective efficacy is task specific and group potency is a shared group-level belief about its general effectiveness across multiple tasks and contexts. Moreover, meta-analytic findings indicate distinctive moderator effects across the two constructs (Gully et al., 2002). Empirical support for the positive effects of team efficacy and team potency on team performance is substantial (Gully et al., 2002). Much of the supporting experimental research involves ad hoc teams performing simulated tasks. Although the generalizability of this research is often questioned because of the use of student samples, simple tasks, and the relatively short duration of the studies (e.g., Prussia & Kinicki, 1996), some of this work involves simulations of complex tasks that entail higher levels of interdependence, greater demands for coordination, and more psychological fidelity with their real-world counterparts. Examples include negotiation, business strategy, and military command-and-control simulations (e.g., Durham, Knight, Locke, 1997; DeShon, Kozlowski, Schmidt, Milner, & Wiechmann, 2004). Another stream of supportive research examines intercollegiate sports teams such as ice hockey and football teams in naturalistic settings (e.g., Feltz & Lirgg, 1998; Myers, Feltz, & Short, 2004; Myers, Payment, & Feltz, 2004). Other supportive field research has taken a qualitative approach (e.g., Edmondson, 1999) or has relied on survey questionnaires (e.g., Campion, Medsker, & Higgs, 1993; Campion, Papper, & Medsker, 1996). A recent meta-analysis by Gully et al. (2002) reported a significant mean corrected correlation between team-level efficacy and team performance of .41 and a significant mean corrected correlation of .37 between team-level potency and team performance. In addition, their analysis showed that team efficacy is more likely to be a critical aspect of team processes when interdependence is higher. That is, when interdependence is low, team members essentially make contributions as individuals that are pooled to represent team performance (e.g., a sales team in which team performance is the sum of individual sales), whereas when interdependence is high, team members are more likely to share goals, effort, strategy, and efficacy (DeShon et al., 2004) and team-level efficacy is a more important contributor to team performance. In support of this reasoning, Gully et al. (2002) found that interdependence significantly moderated the team efficacy–performance relationship; the predicted effect size for the team efficacy–performance relationship at the lowest level of interdependence was ....

    [...]

  • ...in goal accomplishment (Bandura, 1977). Self-efficacy is central in social-cognitive theory. As individuals direct action in the pursuit of goals, they monitor progress through feedback and reflect on discrepancies between current performance and their goals. To the extent that perceptions of progress are adequate, their appraisals of self-efficacy build. Self-efficacy is important because it leads to setting higher level goals when initial goal levels are accomplished (Phillips, Hollenbeck, & Ilgen, 1996), it boosts persistence when goals are difficult and challenging, and it fosters adaptation to increasing task complexity (Kozlowski, Gully et al., 2001). Meta-analytic findings (Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998) at the individual level of analysis have shown that self-efficacy is significantly related to performance (corrected r 5 .38). Given these findings for the important role of self-efficacy in individual effort and performance, parallel concepts of team efficacy and collective efficacy (we use the terms interchangeably, although collective efficacy can reference higher levels such as departments, organizations, and beyond) have been proposed, as has the related but distinct concept of group potency. Self- and team efficacy are distinct in that the collective construct represents a group or team-level property that is shared, consensual, and held in common across group members and may be distinct from individuals’ own self-perceptions of competence (Feltz & Lirgg, 1998). Team or collective efficacy can be defined as a shared belief in a group’s collective capability to organize and execute courses of action required to produce given levels of goal attainment (Bandura, 1997; Lindsley, Brass, & Thomas, 1995; Zaccaro, Blair, Peterson, & Zazanis, 1995). As noted above, it is not a simple aggregate of self-efficacy across group members; rather, it references the team as the collective entity with respect to shared perceptions (Gully, Incalcaterra, Joshi, & Beaubien, 2002). Similar to selfefficacy, collective efficacy is hypothesized to influence what a group chooses to do (i.e., goal setting), how much effort it will exert, and its persistence in the face of failure (Bandura, 1997). Shea andGuzzo (1987) defined group potency as a generalized collective belief that the group can be effective. Although many researchers view team efficacy and group potency as very similar constructs, they are distinct in that collective efficacy is task specific and group potency is a shared group-level belief about its general effectiveness across multiple tasks and contexts. Moreover, meta-analytic findings indicate distinctive moderator effects across the two constructs (Gully et al., 2002). Empirical support for the positive effects of team efficacy and team potency on team performance is substantial (Gully et al., 2002). Much of the supporting experimental research involves ad hoc teams performing simulated tasks. Although the generalizability of this research is often questioned because of the use of student samples, simple tasks, and the relatively short duration of the studies (e.g., Prussia & Kinicki, 1996), some of this work involves simulations of complex tasks that entail higher levels of interdependence, greater demands for coordination, and more psychological fidelity with their real-world counterparts. Examples include negotiation, business strategy, and military command-and-control simulations (e.g., Durham, Knight, Locke, 1997; DeShon, Kozlowski, Schmidt, Milner, & Wiechmann, 2004). Another stream of supportive research examines intercollegiate sports teams such as ice hockey and football teams in naturalistic settings (e.g., Feltz & Lirgg, 1998; Myers, Feltz, & Short, 2004; Myers, Payment, & Feltz, 2004). Other supportive field research has taken a qualitative approach (e.g., Edmondson, 1999) or has relied on survey questionnaires (e.g., Campion, Medsker, & Higgs, 1993; Campion, Papper, & Medsker, 1996). A recent meta-analysis by Gully et al. (2002) reported a significant mean corrected correlation between team-level efficacy and team performance of ....

    [...]

  • ...For self-efficacy, antecedents include enactive mastery, vicarious experience, and verbal persuasion (Bandura, 1977), as well as individual differences such as a learning or mastery goal orientation (Dweck, 1986)....

    [...]

  • ...in goal accomplishment (Bandura, 1977). Self-efficacy is central in social-cognitive theory. As individuals direct action in the pursuit of goals, they monitor progress through feedback and reflect on discrepancies between current performance and their goals. To the extent that perceptions of progress are adequate, their appraisals of self-efficacy build. Self-efficacy is important because it leads to setting higher level goals when initial goal levels are accomplished (Phillips, Hollenbeck, & Ilgen, 1996), it boosts persistence when goals are difficult and challenging, and it fosters adaptation to increasing task complexity (Kozlowski, Gully et al., 2001). Meta-analytic findings (Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998) at the individual level of analysis have shown that self-efficacy is significantly related to performance (corrected r 5 .38). Given these findings for the important role of self-efficacy in individual effort and performance, parallel concepts of team efficacy and collective efficacy (we use the terms interchangeably, although collective efficacy can reference higher levels such as departments, organizations, and beyond) have been proposed, as has the related but distinct concept of group potency. Self- and team efficacy are distinct in that the collective construct represents a group or team-level property that is shared, consensual, and held in common across group members and may be distinct from individuals’ own self-perceptions of competence (Feltz & Lirgg, 1998). Team or collective efficacy can be defined as a shared belief in a group’s collective capability to organize and execute courses of action required to produce given levels of goal attainment (Bandura, 1997; Lindsley, Brass, & Thomas, 1995; Zaccaro, Blair, Peterson, & Zazanis, 1995). As noted above, it is not a simple aggregate of self-efficacy across group members; rather, it references the team as the collective entity with respect to shared perceptions (Gully, Incalcaterra, Joshi, & Beaubien, 2002). Similar to selfefficacy, collective efficacy is hypothesized to influence what a group chooses to do (i.e., goal setting), how much effort it will exert, and its persistence in the face of failure (Bandura, 1997). Shea andGuzzo (1987) defined group potency as a generalized collective belief that the group can be effective....

    [...]

Journal Article•DOI•
The self-regulation of attitudes, intentions, and behavior

[...]

Richard P. Bagozzi1•
University of Michigan1
01 Jun 1992-Social Psychology Quarterly
TL;DR: The authors argue that attitudes and subjective norms are not sufficient determinants of intentions and that intentions are not a sufficient impetus for action, as maintained by leading theories of attitude, and they address the role of cognitive and emotional self-regulatory mechanisms.
Abstract: We argue that attitudes and subjective norms are not sufficient determinants of intentions and that intentions are not a sufficient impetus for action, as maintained by leading theories of attitude. To deepen attitude theory, we address the role of cognitive and emotional self-regulatory mechanisms. The attitude-intention link is hypothesized to depend on conative processes and on certain coping responses directed at the emotional significance of evaluative appraisals

2,027 citations

Journal Article•DOI•
Changing the world and changing the self: A two-process model of perceived control.

[...]

Fred Rothbaum1, John R. Weisz, Samuel S. Snyder•
Tufts University1
01 Jan 1982-Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
TL;DR: In this article, the authors claim that attributions to chance can reflect illusory control, since people often construe chance as a personal characteristic akin to an ability ("luck") and that attribution to powerful others permit vicarious control when the individual identifies with these others.
Abstract: There is extensive evidence that people strongly value and are reluctant to relinquish the perception of control. Yet, both helplessness and locus of control theorists interpret various "inward" behaviors (passivity, withdrawal, and submissiveness) as signs of relinquished perceived control. As evidence, they note that inward behavior frequently is accompanied by causal attributions to limited ability, chance, and powerful others—all attributions that suggest uncontrollability. In contrast, we claim,that these attributions and the behaviors to which they relate may often reflect a type of perceived control that is generally overlooked. People attempt to gain control not only by bringing the environment into line with their wishes (primary control) but also by bringing themselves into line with environmental forces (secondary control). Four manifestations of secondary control are considered: (a) Attributions to severely, limited ability can serve to enhance predictive control and to protect against disappointment. Passive and withdrawn behaviors reflect the attempt to inhibit unfulfillable expectations, (b) Attributions to chance can reflect illusory control, since people often construe chance as a personal characteristic akin to an ability ("luck"). Individuals who make attributions to chance may exhibit passivity and withdrawal in skill situations, reserving energy and emotional investment for situations that allow them to capitalize on their perceived strength—that is, being lucky, (c) Attributions to powerful others permit vicarious control when the individual identifies with these others. Submission to a powerful leader, a group, or a deity sometimes enables the individual to join in their power, (d) All of the preceding attributions may foster interpretive control, in which the individual seeks to understand and derive meaning from otherwise uncontrollable events in order to accept them. When perceived control is recognized in both its primary and secondary forms, a broad range of inward behaviors can be seen as efforts to sustain rather than relinquish the perception of control.

2,004 citations

Journal Article•DOI•
A Dark Side of the American Dream: Correlates of Financial Success as a Central Life Aspiration

[...]

Tim Kasser1, Richard M. Ryan•
University of Rochester1
01 Jan 1993-Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
TL;DR: Three studies examine the hypothesis that values and Expectancies for wealth and money are negatively associated with adjustment and well-being when they are more central to an individual than other self-relevant values and expectancies to show that a high centrality of aspirations for financial success is associated with interview ratings of lower global adjustment and social productivity.
Abstract: Aspiring for financial success is an important aspect of capitalist cultures. Three studies examine the hypothesis that values and expectancies for wealth and money are negatively associated with adjustment and well-being when they are more central to an individual than other self-relevant values and expectancies. Studies 1 and 2 use 2 methods to show that the relative centrality of money-related values and expectancies is negatively related to college students' well-being and mental health. Study 3, using a heterogeneous noncollege sample, extends these findings by showing that a high centrality of aspirations for financial success is associated with interview ratings of lower global adjustment and social productivity and more behavioral disorders. Discussion is focused on the deleterious consequences of materialistic world views and the need to examine differential effects of content regarding goals and values. Financial success has long been a core component of the American dream, and many of the values modeled and encouraged by modern society suggest that success and happiness depend on procuring monetary wealth (Derber, 1979). Yet folklore and table side discussion often suggest that a darker side lurks behind the American dream. Pursuing material wealth is sometimes viewed as empty or shallow and as precluding investment in one's family and friends, self-actualization, and contributions to the community. Suspicion about the worth of material pursuits is echoed in some humanistic theories. Both Rogers (1963) and Maslow (1954), for instance, consider humans to be energized by an actualizing tendency and believe that well-being occurs to the extent people can freely express their inherent potentials. In situations of conditional positive regard (Rogers, 1963) or forceful external demands (Maslow, 1956), however, individuals often forego their own actualization to attain regard or outcomes from others. Similarly, Fromm (1976) distinguished between a "having" or consummatory orientation and a "being" or experiential orientation to life. He considered the former as reflecting alienation from the actualizing tendencies of the self. Inasmuch as money represents an external incentive for behavior that is contingently given, these theories suggest the pursuit of

1,958 citations

Cites background from "Self-efficacy: toward a unifying th..."

  • ..., ignoring domain) should be associated with greater well-being (Bandura, 1977; Scheier & Carver, 1985, 1987), high expectations regarding financial success relative to other life domains are predicted to be inversely related to positive psychological outcomes....

    [...]

Journal Article•DOI•
Implication of Research on Teacher Belief

[...]

Dona M. Kagan
01 Jan 1992-Educational Psychologist
TL;DR: The need for an elaborate personal belief system among teachers arises out of the many uncertainties endemic to classroom teaching: in a landscape without bearings, teachers create and internalize their own maps as discussed by the authors.
Abstract: The implications of research on teacher belief for the nature of teaching and teacher education are discussed. In addition, ignored or minimally addressed issues that could provide avenues for future research are raised. Teacher belief is defined broadly as tacit, often unconsciously held assumptions about students, classrooms, and the academic material to be taught. After summarizing the heterogeneous research on teacher belief, I point out that we lack direct evidence concerning the processes that effect change in teacher belief. However, we can assume that they are similar to those needed to effect conceptual change in other kinds of personal belief. This leads to a discussion of research on conceptual change and its relevance to teacher education. I next suggest that the need for an elaborate personal belief system among teachers arises out of the many uncertainties endemic to classroom teaching: In a landscape without bearings, teachers create and internalize their own maps. The need for a personal b...

1,955 citations

References
More filters
Journal Article•DOI•
Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement.

[...]

Julian B. Rotter1•
University of Connecticut1
01 Jan 1966-The Psychological Monographs
TL;DR: In this paper, the effects of reward or reinforcement on preceding behavior depend in part on whether the person perceives the reward as contingent on his own behavior or independent of it, and individuals may also differ in generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement.
Abstract: The effects of reward or reinforcement on preceding behavior depend in part on whether the person perceives the reward as contingent on his own behavior or independent of it. Acquisition and performance differ in situations perceived as determined by skill versus chance. Persons may also differ in generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. This report summarizes several experiments which define group differences in behavior when Ss perceive reinforcement as contingent on their behavior versus chance or experimenter control. The report also describes the development of tests of individual differences in a generalized belief in internal-external control and provides reliability, discriminant validity and normative data for 1 test, along with a description of the results of several studies of construct validity.

21,451 citations

Journal Article•DOI•
Social learning theory

[...]

Albert Bandura1•
Stanford University1
01 Jan 1977-Canadian Journal of Sociology-cahiers Canadiens De Sociologie
TL;DR: In this article, an exploración de the avances contemporaneos en la teoria del aprendizaje social, con especial enfasis en los importantes roles que cumplen los procesos cognitivos, indirectos, and autoregulatorios.
Abstract: Una exploracion de los avances contemporaneos en la teoria del aprendizaje social, con especial enfasis en los importantes roles que cumplen los procesos cognitivos, indirectos, y autoregulatorios.

20,904 citations

Journal Article•DOI•
Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence.

[...]

Robert W. White
01 Sep 1959-Psychological Review
TL;DR: Reading motivation reconsidered the concept of competence is also a way as one of the collective books that gives many advantages as a way to develop your experiences about everything.

6,452 citations

"Self-efficacy: toward a unifying th..." refers background in this paper

  • ...In seeking a motivational explanation of exploratory and manipulative behavior, White (1959) postulated an "effectance motive," which is conceptualized as an intrinsic drive for transactions with the environment ....

    [...]

Book•
Motivation Reconsidered: The Concept of Competence

[...]

Robert W. White
22 Jun 2011
TL;DR: The concept of competence is also a way as one of the collective books that gives many advantages as discussed by the authors, and the advantages are not only for you, but for the other peoples with those meaningful benefits.
Abstract: No wonder you activities are, reading will be always needed. It is not only to fulfil the duties that you need to finish in deadline time. Reading will encourage your mind and thoughts. Of course, reading will greatly develop your experiences about everything. Reading motivation reconsidered the concept of competence is also a way as one of the collective books that gives many advantages. The advantages are not only for you, but for the other peoples with those meaningful benefits.

5,245 citations

Journal Article•DOI•
Cognitive, social, and physiological determinants of emotional state.

[...]

Stanley Schachter, Jerome E. Singer
01 Sep 1962-Psychological Review
TL;DR: The problem of which cues, internal or external, permit a person to label and identify his own emotional state has been with us since the days that James (1890) first tendered his doctrine that "the bodily changes follow directly the perception of the exciting fact, and that our feeling of the same changes as they occur is the emotion" (p. 449) as mentioned in this paper.
Abstract: The problem of which cues, internal or external, permit a person to label and identify his own emotional state has been with us since the days that James (1890) first tendered his doctrine that "the bodily changes follow directly the perception of the exciting fact, and that our feeling of the same changes as they occur is the emotion" (p. 449). Since we are aware of a variety of feeling and emotion states, it should follow from James' proposition that the various emotions will be accompanied by a variety of differentiable bodily states. Following James' pronouncement, a formidable number of studies were undertaken in search of the physiological differentiators of the emotions. The results, in these early days, were almost uniformly negative. All of the emotional states experi-

4,808 citations

Related Papers (5)
Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control

[...]

01 Jan 1997
Albert Bandura
Social Foundations of Thought and Action : A Social Cognitive Theory

[...]

01 Jan 1986
Albert Bandura
The theory of planned behavior

[...]

01 Dec 1991-Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
Icek Ajzen
Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement.

[...]

01 Jan 1966-The Psychological Monographs
Julian B. Rotter
Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research

[...]

01 Jun 1975
Martin Fishbein, Icek Ajzen
Trending Questions (1)
What are the key components of a theory of change in mental health?

The key components of a theory of change in mental health include self-efficacy, cognitive processes, mastery experiences, and performance-based procedures.

See answers from 5 other papers