Using Bandura’s model of self-efficacy, describe “participant modelling,” (5 marks) and then use his recommendations regarding participant modelling to support an athlete who is trying to learn a new skill, which is anxiety provoking for them (10 marks). How would you guide this athlete using Bandura’s recommendations? Bandura also outlines some things that a coach or sports psychologist should NOT do with regards to ve
al persuasion; provide two examples (5 marks).
1977_-_SelfefficacyTowardaunifyingtheoryofbehavioralchang[retrieved_ XXXXXXXXXX].pdf
Psychological Review
1977, Vol. 84, No. 2, XXXXXXXXXX
Self-efficacy: Toward a Unifying Theory of Behavioral Change
Albert Bandura
Stanford University
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 per-
sonal 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 ob-
stacles 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 co
esponding reductions in defensive
ehavior. In the proposed model, expectations of personal efficacy are derived
from four principal sources of information: performance accomplishments,
vicarious experience, ve
al persuasion, and physiological states. The more de-
pendable the experiential sources, the greater are the changes in perceived self-
efficacy. 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 be-
havioral changes. Possible directions for further research are discussed.
Cu
ent developments in the field of be-
havioral change reflect two major divergent
trends. The difference is especially evident in
the treatment of dysfunctional inhibitions
and defensive behavior. On the one hand, the
mechanisms by which human behavior is
acquired and regulated are increasingly for-
mulated in terms of cognitive processes. On
the other hand, it is performance-based pro-
cedures that are proving to be most powerful
for effecting psychological changes. As a con-
sequence, successful performance is replacing
symbolically based experiences as the prin-
ciple vehicle of change.
The present article presents the view that
changes achieved by different methods derive
from a common cognitive mechanism. The
The research by the author reported in this article
was supported by Research Grant M-5162 from the
National Institutes of Health, United States Public
Health Service.
Requests for reprints should be sent to Albert
Bandura, Department of Psychology, Stanford Uni-
versity, Stanford, California 94305.
apparent divergence of theory and practice
can be reconciled by postulating that cogni-
tive processes mediate change but that cog-
nitive events are induced and altered most
eadily by experience of mastery arising from
effective performance. The distinction be-
tween process and means is underscored, be-
cause it is often assumed that a cognitive
mode of operation requires a symbolic means
of induction. Psychological changes can be
produced through other means than per-
formance accomplishments. Therefore, the
explanatory mechanism developed in this
article is designed to account for changes in
ehavior resulting from diverse modes of
treatment.
Cognitive Locus of Operation
Psychological treatments based on learning
principles were originally conceptualized to
operate through peripheral mechanisms. New
ehavior was presumably shaped automat-
ically by its effects. Contingency learning
through paired stimulation was construed in
191
192 ALBERT BANDURA
connectionist terms as a process in which re-
sponses were linked directly to stimuli. Al-
tering the rate of preexisting behavior by re-
inforcement was portrayed as a process
wherein responses were regulated by thei
immediate consequences without requiring
any conscious involvement of the responders.
Growing evidence from several lines of re-
search altered theoretical perspectives on how
ehavior is acquired and regulated. Theo-
etical formulations emphasizing peripheral
mechanisms began to give way to cognitively
oriented theories that explained behavior in
terms of central processing of direct, vicari-
ous, and symbolic sources of information.
Detailed analysis of the empirical and con-
ceptual issues (see Bandura, 1977) falls
eyond the scope of the present article. To
summarize
iefly, however, it has now been
amply documented that cognitive processes
play a prominent role in the acquisition and
etention of new behavior patterns. Transitory
experiences leave lasting effects by being
coded and retained in symbols for memory
epresentation. Because acquisition of re-
sponse information is a major aspect of learn-
ing, much human behavior is developed
through modeling. From observing others, one
forms a conception of how new behavior pat-
terns are performed, and on later occasions
the symbolic construction serves as a guide
for action (Bandura, XXXXXXXXXXThe initial ap-
proximations of response patterns learned
observationally are further refined through
self-co
ective adjustments based on informa-
tive feedback from performance.
Learning from response consequences is
also conceived of largely as a cognitive
process. Consequences serve as an unarticu-
lated way of informing performers what they
must do to gain beneficial outcomes and to
avoid punishing ones. By observing the dif-
ferential effects of their own actions, in-
dividuals discern which responses are ap-
propriate in which settings and behave ac-
cordingly (Dulany, XXXXXXXXXXViewed from the
cognitive framework, learning from differ-
ential outcomes becomes a special case of
observational learning. In this mode of con-
veying response information, the conception
of the appropriate behavior is gradually con-
structed from observing the effects of one's
actions rather than from the examples pro-
vided by others.
Changes in behavior produced by stimuli
that either signify events to come or indicate
probable response consequences also have
een shown to rely heavily on cognitive rep-
esentations of contingencies. People are not
much affected by paired stimulation unless
they recognize that the events are co
elated
(Dawson & Furedy, 1976; Grings, 1973).
Stimuli influence the likelihood of a be-
havior's being performed by virtue of thei
predictive function, not because the stimuli
are automatically connected to responses by
their having occu
ed together. Reinterpreta-
tion of antecedent determinants as predictive
cues, rather than as controlling stimuli, has
shifted the locus of the regulation of be-
havior from the stimulus to the individual.
The issue of the locus at which behavioral
determinants operate applies to reinforce-
ment influences as well as to antecedent en-
vironmental stimuli. Contrary to the common
view that behavior is controlled by its im-
mediate consequences, behavior is related to
its outcomes at the level of aggregate con-
sequences rather than momentary effects
(Baum, XXXXXXXXXXPeople process and synthesize
feedback information from sequences of
events over long intervals about the situa-
tional circumstances and the patterns and
ates of actions that are necessary to produce
given outcomes. Since consequences affect be-
havior through the influence of thought, be-
liefs about schedules of reinforcement can
exert greater influence on behavior than the
einforcement itself (Baron, Kaufman, &
Stauber, 1969; Kaufman, Baron, & Kopp,
1966). Incidence of behavior that has been
positively reinforced does not increase if in-
dividuals believe, based on other information,
that the same actions will not be rewarded
on future occasions (Estes, 1972); and the
same consequences can increase, reduce, o
have no effect on incidence of behavior de-
pending on whether individuals are led to
elieve that the consequences signify co
ect
esponses, inco
ect responses, or occur non-
contingently (Dulany, 1968).
The discussion thus far has examined the
SELF-EFFICACY THEORY 193
ole of cognition in the acquisition and
egulation of behavior. Motivation, which is
primarily concerned with activation and per-
sistence of behavior, is also partly rooted in
cognitive activities. The capacity to repre-
sent future consequences in thought provides
one cognitively based source of motivation.
Through cognitive representation of future out-
comes individuals can generate cu
ent mo-
tivators of behavior. Seen from this per-
spective, reinforcement operations affect be-
havior largely by creating expectations that
ehaving in a certain way will produce antici-
pated benefits or avert future difficulties
(Bolles, 1972b). In the enhancement of
previously learned behavior, reinforcement is
conceived of mainly as a motivational de-
vice rather than as an automatic response
strengthener.
A second cognitively based source of mo-
tivation operates through the intervening in-
fluences of goal setting and self-evaluative
eactions (Bandura, 1976b, XXXXXXXXXXSelf-
motivation involves standards against which
to evaluate performance. By making self-
ewarding reactions conditional on attaining a
certain level of behavior, individuals create
self-inducements to persist in their efforts
until their performances match self-prescribed
standards. Perceived negative discrepancies
etween performance and standards create
dissatisfactions that motivate co
ective
changes in behavior. Both the anticipated
satisfactions of desired accomplishments and
the negative appraisals of insufficient per-
formance thus provide incentives for action.
Having accomplished a given level of per-
formance, individuals often are no longe
satisfied with it and make further self-reward
contingent on higher attainments.
The reconceptualization of human learn-
ing and motivation in terms of cognitive
processes has major implications for the
mechanisms through which therapeutic pro-
cedures alter behavioral functioning. Al-
though the advances in cognitive psychology
are a subject of increasing interest in specu-
lations about behavioral change processes,
few new theories of psychotherapy have been
proposed that might prove useful in stimu-
lating research on explanatory mechanisms
PERSON -#• BEHAVIOR
I
I
EFFICACY ~1
I EXPECTATIONS I
I OUTCOME I
I EXPECTATIONS'
-»• OUTCOME
Figure 1. Diagrammatic representation of the differ-
ence between efficacy expectations and outcome ex-
pectations.
and in integrating the results accompanying
diverse modes of treatment. The present
article outlines a theoretical framework, in
which the concept of self-efficacy is assigned
a central role, for analyzing changes achieved
in fearful and avoidant behavior. The ex-
planatory value of this conceptual system
is then evaluated by its ability to predict
ehavioral changes produced through dif-
ferent methods of treatment.
Efficacy Expectations as a Mechanism of
Operation
The present theory is based on the prin-
cipal asssumption that psychological pro-
cedures, whatever their form, serve as means
of creating and strengthening expectations
of personal efficacy. Within this analysis,
efficacy expectations are distinguished from
esponse-outcome expectancies. The differ-
ence is presented schematically in Figure 1.
An outcome expectancy is defined as a
person's estimate that a given behavior will
lead to certain outcomes. An efficacy ex-
pectation is the conviction that one can
successfully execute the behavior required to
produce the outcomes. Outcome and efficacy
expectations are differentiated, because in-
dividuals can believe that a particular course
of action will produce certain outcomes, but
if they entertain serious doubts about whethe
they can perform the necessary activities
such information does not influence thei
ehavior.
In this conceptual system, expectations of
personal mastery affect both initiation and
persistence of coping behavior. The strength
of people's convictions in their own effective-
ness is likely to affect whether they will even
try to cope with given situations. At this
initial level, perceived self-efficacy influences
194 ALBERT BANDURA
choice of behavioral