self-efficacy
7742072
Self efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
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.
Psychological review
Albert Bandura
142746089
Self Efficacy: The Exercise of Control
Albert Bandura and the Exercise of Self Efficacy Self Efficacy: The Exercise of Control Albert Bandura. New York: W. H. Freeman (www.whfreeman.com) 1997, 604 pp. $46.00 (hardcover) Enter the term "self efficacy" in the on line PSYCLIT database and you will find over 2500 articles, all of which stem from the seminal contributions of Albert Bandura. It is difficult to do justice to the immense importance of this research for our theories, our practice, and indeed for human welfare. Self efficacy (SE) has proven to be a fruitful construct in spheres ranging from phobias (Bandura, Jeffery, Gajdos, 1975) and depression (Holahan Holahan, 1987) to career choice behavior (Betz Hackett, 1986) and managerial functioning (Jenkins, 1994) Bandura's Self Efficacy: The Exercise of Control is the best attempt so far at organizing, summarizing, and distilling meaning from this vast and diverse literature. Self Efficacy may prove to be Bandura's magnum opus. Dr. Bandura has done an impressive job of summarizing over 1800 studies and papers, integrating these results into a coherent framework, and detailing implications for theory and practice. While incorporating prior works such as Social Learning Theory (Bandura, 1977) and "Self efficacy mechanism in human agency" (Bandura, 1982) Self Efficacy extends these works by describing results of diverse new research, clarifying and extending social cognitive theory, and fleshing out implications of the theory for groups, organizations, political bodies, and societies. Along the way, Dr. Bandura masterfully contrasts social cognitive theory with many other theories of human behavior and helps chart a course for future research. Throughout, B andura' s clear, firm, and self confident writing serves as the perfect vehicle for the theory he espouses. Self Efficacy begins with the most detailed and clear explication of social cognitive theory that I have yet seen, and proceeds to delineate the nature and sources of SE, the well known processes via which SE mediates human behavior, and the development of SE over the life span. After laying this theoretical groundwork, subsequent chapters delineate the relevance of SE to human endeavor in a variety of specific content areas including cognitive and intellectual functioning; health; clinical problems including anxiety, phobias, depression, eating disorders, alcohol problems, and drug abuse; athletics and exercise activity; organizations; politics; and societal change. In Bandura's words, "Perceived self efficacy refers to beliefs in one's capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to produce given attainments" (p. 3) People's SE beliefs have a greater effect on their motivation, emotions, and actions than what is objectively true (e.g. actual skill level) Therefore, SE beliefs are immensely important in choice of behaviors (including occupations, social relationships, and a host of day to day behaviors) effort expenditure, perseverance in pursuit of goals, resilience to setbacks and problems, stress level and affect, and indeed in our ways of thinking about ourselves and others. Bandura affirms many times that humans are proactive and free as well as determined: They are "at least partial architects of their own destinies" (p. 8) Because SE beliefs powerfully affect human behaviors, they are a key factor in human purposive activity or agency; that is, in human freedom. Because humans shape their environment even as they are shaped by it, SE beliefs are also pivotal in the construction of our social and physical environments. Bandura details over two decades of research confirming that SE is modifiable via mastery experiences, vicarious learning, verbal persuasion, and interpretation of physiological states, and that modified SE strongly and consistently predicts outcomes. SE beliefs, then, are central to human self determination. STRENGTHS One major strength of Self Efficacy is Bandura's ability to deftly dance from forest to trees and back again to forest, using specific, human examples and concrete situations to highlight his major theoretical premises, to which he then returns.
Albert Bandura
146230297
Self efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change
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.
Albert Bandura
3377361
Self efficacy mechanism in human agency.
This article addresses the centrality of the self efficacy mechanism in human agency. Self per cepts of efficacy influence thought patterns, actions, and emotional arousal. In causal tests the higher the level of induced self efficacy, the higher the perfor mance accomplishments and the lower the emotional arousal. Different lines of research are reviewed, show ing that the self efficacy mechanism may have wide explanatory power. Perceived self efficacy helps to ac count for such diverse phenomena as changes in coping behavior produced by different modes of influence, level of physiological stress reactions, self regulation of refractory behavior, resignation and despondency to failure experiences, self debilitating effects of proxy control and illusory inefficaciousness, achievement strivings, growth of intrinsic interest, and career pur suits. The influential role of perceived collective effi cacy in social change is analyzed, as are the social con ditions conducive to development of collective inefficacy. Psychological theorizing and research tend to cen ter on issues concerning either acquisition of knowledge or execution of response patterns. As a result the processes governing the interrelation ship between knowledge and action have been largely neglected (Newell, 1978) Some of the re cent efforts to bridge this gap have been directed at the biomechanics problem how efferent com mands of action plans guide the production of ap propriate response patterns (Stelmach, 1976,1978) Others have approached the matter in terms of algorithmic knowledge, which furnishes guides for executing action sequences (Greeno, 1973; Newell, 1973)
Albert Bandura
52256247
Perceived Self Efficacy in Cognitive Development and Functioning
In this article, I review the diverse ways in which perceived self efficacy contributes to cognitive development and functioning. Perceived self efficacy exerts its influence through four major processes. They include cognitive, motivational, affective, and selection processes. There are three different levels at which perceived self efficacy operates as an important contributor to academic development. Students' beliefs in their efficacy to regulate their own learning and to master academic activities determine their aspirations, level of motivation, and academic accomplishments. Teachers' beliefs in their personal efficacy to motivate and promote learning affect the types of learning environments they create and the level of academic progress their students achieve. Faculties' beliefs in their collective instructional efficacy contribute significantly to their schools' level of academic achievement. Student body characteristics influence school level achievement more strongly by altering faculties' beli.
Albert Bandura
5285325
Self efficacy.
Academic motivation is discussed in terms of self efficacy, an individual's judgments of his or her capabilities to perform given actions. After presenting an overview of self efficacy theory, I contrast self efficacy with related constructs (perceived control, outcome expectations, perceived value of outcomes, attributions, and selfconcept) and discuss some efficacy research relevant to academic motivation. Studies of the effects of person variables (goal setting and information processing) and situation variables (models, attributional feedback, and rewards) on self efficacy and motivation are reviewed. In conjunction with this discussion, I mention substantive issues that need to be addressed in the self efficacy research and summarize evidence on the utility of self efficacy for predicting motivational outcomes. Areas for future research are suggested. Article: The concept of personal expectancy has a rich history in psychological theory on human motivation (Atkinson, 1957; Rotter, 1966; Weiner, 1979) Research conducted within various theoretical traditions supports the idea that expectancy can influence behavioral instigation, direction, effort, and persistence (Bandura, 1986; Locke Latham, 1990; Weiner, 1985) In this article, I discuss academic motivation in terms of one type of personal expectancy: self efficacy, defined as "People's judgments of their capabilities to organize and execute courses of action required to attain designated types of performances" (Bandura, 1986, p. 391) Since Bandura's (1977) seminal article on selfefficacy, much research has clarified and extended the role of self efficacy as a mechanism underlying behavioral change, maintenance, and generalization. For example, there is evidence that self efficacy predicts such diverse outcomes as academic achievements, social skills, smoking cessation, pain tolerance, athletic performances, career choices, assertiveness, coping with feared events, recovery from heart attack, and sales performance (Bandura, 1986) After presenting an overview of self efficacy theory and comparison of self efficacy with related constructs, I discuss some self efficacy research relevant to academic motivation, pointing out substantive issues that need to be addressed. I conclude with recommendations for future research. SELF EFFICACY THEORY Antecedents and Consequences Bandura (1977) hypothesized that self efficacy affects an individual's choice of activities, effort, and persistence. People who have a low sense of efficacy for accomplishing a task may avoid it; those who believe they are capable should participate readily. Individuals who feel efficacious are hypothesized to work harder and persist longer when they encounter difficulties than those who doubt their capabilities. Self efficacy theory postulates that people acquire information to appraise efficacy from their performance accomplishments, vicarious (observational) experiences, forms of persuasion, and physiological indexes. An individual's own performances offer the most reliable guides for assessing efficacy. Successes raise efficacy and failure lowers it, but once a strong sense of efficacy is developed, a failure may not have much impact (Bandura, 1986) An individual also acquires capability information from knowledge of others. Similar others offer the best basis for comparison (Schunk, 1989b) Observing similar peers perform a task conveys to observers that they too are capable of accomplishing it. Information acquired vicariously typically has a weaker effect on self efficacy than performance based information; a vicarious increase in efficacy can be negated by subsequent failures. Students often receive persuasory information that they possess the capabilities to perform a task (e.g. "You can do this" Positive persuasory feedback enhances self efficacy, but this increase will be temporary if subsequent efforts turn out poorly. Students also derive efficacy information from physiological indexes (e.g. heart rate and sweating) Bodily symptoms signaling anxiety might be interpreted to indicate a lack of skills. Information acquired from these sources does not automatically influence efficacy; rather, it is cognitively appraised (Bandura, 1986) Efficacy appraisal is an inferential process in which persons weigh and combine the contributions of such personal and situational factors as their perceived ability, the difficulty of the task, amount of effort expended, amount of external assistance received, number and pattern of successes and failures, their perceived similarity to models, and persuader credibility (Schunk, 1989b) Self efficacy is not the only influence on behavior; it is not necessarily the most important. Behavior is a function of many variables. In achievement settings some other important variables are skills, outcome expectations, and the perceived value of outcomes (Schunk, 1989b) High self efficacy will not produce competent performances when requisite skills are lacking. Outcome expectations, or beliefs concerning the probable outcomes of actions, are important because individuals are not motivated to act in ways they believe will result in negative outcomes. Perceived value of outcomes refers to how much people desire certain outcomes relative to others. Given adequate skills, positive outcome expectations, and personally valued outcomes, self efficacy is hypothesized to influence the choice and direction of much human behavior (Bandura, 1989b) Schunk (1989b) discussed how self efficacy might operate during academic learning. At the start of an activity, students differ in their beliefs about their capabilities to acquire knowledge, perform skills, master the material, and so forth. Initial self efficacy varies as a function of aptitude (e.g. abilities and attitudes) and prior experience. Such personal factors as goal setting and information processing, along with situational factors (e.g. rewards and teacher feedback) affect students while they are working. From these factors students derive cues signaling how well they are learning, which they use to assess efficacy for further learning. Motivation is enhanced when students perceive they are making progress in learning. In turn, as students work on tasks and become more skillful, they maintain a sense of self efficacy for performing well.
Nursing management
Bissoondial Ootim
145391498
Perceived behavioral control, self efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned behavior.
Conceptual and methodological ambiguities surrounding the concept of perceived behavioral control are clarified. It is shown that perceived control over performance of a behavior, though comprised of separable components that reflect beliefs about self efficacy and about controllability, can nevertheless be considered a unitary latent variable in a hierarchical factor model. It is further argued that there is no necessary correspondence between self efficacy and internal control factors, or between controllability and external control factors. Self efficacy and controllability can reflect internal as well as external factors and the extent to which they reflect one or the other is an empirical question. Finally, a case is made that measures of perceived behavioral control need to incorporate self efficacy as well as controllability items that are carefully selected to ensure high internal consistency. Summary and Conclusions Perceived control over performance of a behavior can account for consider able variance in intentions and actions. However, ambiguities surrounding the concept of perceived behavioral control have tended to create uncertainties and to impede progress. The present article attempted to clarify conceptual ambiguities and resolve issues related to the operationalization of perceived behavioral control. Recent research has demonstrated that the overarching concept of perceived behavioral control, as commonly assessed, is comprised of two components: self efficacy (dealing largely with the ease or difficulty of performing a behavior) and controllability (the extent to which performance is up to the actor) Contrary to a widely accepted view, it was argued that self efficacy expectations do not necessarily correspond to beliefs about internal control factors, and that controllability expectations have no necessary basis in the perceived operation of external factors. Instead, it was suggested that self efficacy and controllability may both reflect beliefs about the presence of internal as well as external factors. Rather than making a priori assumptions about the internal or external locus of self efficacy and controllability, this issue is best treated as an empirical question. Also of theoretical significance, the present article tried to dispel the notion that self efficacy and controllability are incompatible with, or independent of, each other. Although factor analyses of perceived behavioral control items provide clear and consistent evidence for the distinction, there is sufficient commonality between self efficacy and controllability to suggest a two level hierarchical model. In this model, perceived behavioral control is the overarching, superordinate construct that is comprised of two lower level components: self efficacy and controllability. This view of the control component in the theory of planned behavior implies that measures of perceived behavioral control should contain items that assess self efficacy as well as controllability. Depending on the purpose of the investigation, a decision can be made to aggregate over all items, treating perceived behavioral control as a unitary factor, or to distinguish between self efficacy and controllability by entering separate indices into the prediction equation.
Icek Ajzen
220766
Computer Self Efficacy: Development of a Measure and Initial Test
This paper discusses the role of individuals' beliefs about their abilities to competently use computers (computer self efficacy) in the determination of computer use. A survey of Canadian managers and professionals was conducted to develop and validate a measure of computer self efficacy and to assess both its impacts and antecedents. Computer self efficacy was found to exert a significant influence on individuals' expectations of the outcomes of using computers, their emotional reactions to computers (affect and anxiety) as well as their actual computer use. An individual's self efficacy and outcome expecta tions were found to be positively influenced by the encouragement of others in their work group, as well as others' use of computers. Thus, self efficacy represents an important individual trait, which moderates organizational influences (such as encouragement and support) on an individual's decision to use computers. Understanding self efficacy, then, is important to the successful implementation of systems in organizations. The existence of a reliable and valid measure of self efficacy makes assessment possible and should have implications for organizational support, training, and implementation.
MIS Q.
Deborah R Compeau Christopher A Higgins
10277490
GUIDE FOR CONSTRUCTING SELF EFFICACY SCALES
Perceived self efficacy is concerned with people's beliefs in their capabilities to produce given attainments (Bandura, 1997) One cannot be all things, which would require mastery of every realm of human life. People differ in the areas in which they cultivate their efficacy and in the levels to which they develop it even within their given pursuits. For example, a business executive may have a high sense of organizational efficacy but low parenting efficacy. Thus, the efficacy belief system is not a global trait but a differentiated set of self beliefs linked to distinct realms of functioning. Multidomain measures reveal the patterning and degree of generality of people's sense of personal efficacy. There is no all purpose measure of perceived self efficacy. The " one measure fits all " approach usually has limited explanatory and predictive value because most of the items in an all purpose test may have little or no relevance to the domain of functioning. Moreover, in an effort to serve all purposes, items in such a measure are usually cast in general terms divorced from the situational demands and circumstances. This leaves much ambiguity about exactly what is being measured or the level of task and situational demands that must be managed. Scales of perceived self CHAPTER 14 Note that this date is incorrect. The book was published in 2006. 308 A. BANDURA efficacy must be tailored to the particular domain of functioning that is the object of interest. Although efficacy beliefs are multifaceted, social cognitive theory identifies several conditions under which they may co vary even across distinct domains of functioning (Bandura, 1997) When different spheres of activity are governed by similar sub skills there is some inter domain relation in perceived efficacy. Proficient performance is partly guided by higher order self regulatory skills. These include generic skills for diagnosing task demands, constructing and evaluating alternative courses of action, setting proximal goals to guide one's efforts, and creating self incentives to sustain engagement in taxing activities and to manage stress and debilitating intrusive thoughts. Generic self management strategies developed in one realm of activity are serviceable in other activity domains with resulting co variation in perceived efficacy among them. Co development is still another correlative process. Even if different activity domains are not sub served by common sub skills, the same perceived efficacy can occur if development of competencies is socially structured so that skills in dissimilar domains are developed together. For example, students are likely to develop similarly high perceived self efficacy
Albert Bandura
145165257
Self Efficacy Beliefs in Academic Settings
The purpose of this article is to examine the contribution made by the self efficacy component of Bandura's (1986) social cognitive theory to the study of self regulation and motivation in academic settings. The difference between self efficacy beliefs and other expectancy constructs is first explained, followed by a brief overview of problems in self efficacy research. Findings on the relationship between self efficacy, motivation constructs, and academic performances are then summarized. These findings demonstrate that particularized measures of self efficacy that correspond to the criterial tasks with which they are compared surpass global measures in the explanation and prediction of related outcomes. The conceptual difference between the definition and use of expectancy beliefs in social cognitive theory and in expectancy value and self concept theory is then clarified. Last, strategies to guide future research are offered.
Frank M Pajares