SELF EFFICACY THEORY Banduras Theory of Self-Efficacy Theorist: Albert Bandura Albert Bandura

Albert Bandura was born December 4, 1925 in Mundane, in Alberta, Canada. He studied as an undergraduate at the University of British Columbia. By fluke, Bandura took an introductory psychology course in order to take a full course load. He enjoyed the course so much that he graduated in 1949 with a bachelors degree in psychology. Following his undergraduate work, Bandura studied clinical psychology at the University of Iowa and obtained a M.A. and Ph. D by 1952. He studied under Robert Sears at the University of Iowa and gained an interest in social learning theory. Bandura joined the faculty at Stanford University in 1953. Description of Theory Overview Albert Banduras theory of perceived self-efficacy is based on ones belief of their capabilities. Perceived self-efficacy influences every aspect of life. The following quote from Bandura provides a brief synopsis of perceived self-efficacy. We find that peoples beliefs about their efficacy affect the sorts of choices they make in very significant ways. In particular, it affects their levels of motivation and perseverance in the face of obstacles. Most success requires persistent effort, so low selfefficacy becomes a self-limiting process. In order to succeed, people need a sense of selfefficacy, strung together with resilience to meet the inevitable obstacles and inequities of life (Bandura, 1977).

SELF EFFICACY THEORY Individuals with overall high perceived self-efficacy often set high goals and maintain endurance to see them through despite challenges. They recover more quickly from failure and

attribute failure to lack of knowledge or skills, rather than deficits in personal capabilities. These individuals typically achieve more in life, while experiencing lower levels of stress and depression (Bandura, 1994). Individuals with overall low perceived self-efficacy focus on personal deficiencies lack of skills, and self-doubts. These individuals are hindered by obstacles which often results in higher rates of failure. Individuals with low perceived self-efficacy tend to exert less effort, set lower goals and experience less success. They are less likely to recover from setbacks and have high rates of stress and depression (Bandura, 1994, 1982). Individuals can have high perceived self-efficacy in some areas and low perceived selfefficacy in others. Self-efficacy is task specific and differs from one activity to another. For example, a person may have high levels of perceived self-efficacy at work and low perceived self-efficacy in the area of weight management. Self-efficacy has to be measured in individual domains that examine perceived self-efficacy of specific tasks. An example of a measurement of efficacy in exercise is provided in the Appendix. In summary, Self-efficacy judgments, whether accurate or faulty, influence choice of activities and environmental settings. People avoid activities that they believe exceed their coping capabilities, but they undertake and perform assuredly those that they judge themselves capable of managing (Bandura, 1977). History Bandura conducted a study on how an individuals perception of their ability to control what they perceive as threats affects the release of neurotransmitters and stress-related hormones

SELF EFFICACY THEORY into the bloodstream. The study resulted in individuals overcoming lifelong phobias within a

matter of a few hours. Study participants even put themselves in activities they once would never have attempted because they felt they had more control of themselves. The overall findings of this series of Banduras research was that ones belief in their self-efficacy (e.g., belief in their own capabilities) could help regulate personal actions. This research marked the beginning of Banduras interest in and study of perceived self-efficacy. Self-efficacy has been studied in a variety of diverse fields including business, athletics, education, medicine, media studies, social and political change, moral development, psychology, psychiatry, psycho-pathology, and international affairs. The field of education has conducted a substantial amount of self-efficacy research in pursuit of learning how to help students achieve more despite their ability, background, family circumstance, and adversity. Banduras theory of self-efficacy was developed from research conducted by these diverse programs. The culmination of perceived self-efficacy in these different fields resulted in a comprehensive understanding .This body of research brought lucidity in how ones perceived self-efficacy allows them to take control of their life circumstances to ultimately impact the direction of their lives and the person they become (Pajares, 2004). Theory Components Ones perceived efficacy affects how people think (e.g., erratic, strategic, optimistic, pessimistic, etc.), choices they make, goals they set, commitment to goals, amount of effort put forth, anticipated outcomes from their efforts, length of time they persevere during challenging experiences, resilience to adversity, quality of emotional life, the amount of stress and depression experienced in coping with demands of life, the life choices they make and accomplishments

SELF EFFICACY THEORY they recognize (Bandura, 2006). It is important understand the sources of self-efficacy and the associated psychological processes. Sources of Efficacy According to Bandura (1994), there are four primary sources of perceived self-efficacy which include mastery experiences, social modeling, social persuasion, and emotional states. Each of these sources can promote both high and low self-efficacy. When one experiences mastery of a task or activity, it can serve as a boost to self-efficacy. If one experiences mastery

too quickly or easily, one can tend to exert less effort and expect to achieve mastery immediately without learning to work. The general tendency is the more someone experiences mastery, the more likely they are to develop higher levels of self-efficacy. Social models are a source of efficacy. Individuals are influenced by the capabilities of others whom they perceive themselves to be most similar too. For example, a person who views themselves as similar to someone who is highly capable in a certain area, may perceive themselves equally as capable (i.e., if she can do it, I can do it.). This can also be reversed to the negative where one may perceive themselves incapable (i.e., if she cant do that, there is no way I can). Social models serve as a standard for judging personal capabilities (Bandura, 1994). Social persuasion is another source of efficacy that takes place when others believe an individual is capable of a task. Individuals can perform up or down to others expectations and beliefs. For example, students whose teachers label them as bad, often behave badly while students who are believed to be good typically behave well. Finally, emotional states are a source of efficacy. Emotions and mood affect the way a person perceives their efficacy. People translate their reactions to emotion into performance capabilities. The mood or emotion is not important as much as affect their reaction has on an

SELF EFFICACY THEORY

individuals perception of there self-efficacy. For example, an individual may not think he or she has the emotional capacity to do a certain activity or task based on their previous reactions to emotion or mood. Psychological Processes of Perceived Self-Efficacy In addition to sources of efficacy, Bandura (1994) suggested four psychological processes of perception of self-efficacy that affect human performance (see Figure 1). These process include cognitive, motivational, affective and selection. Cognitive processes involve the thought process one goes through before engaging in a task. People imagine a scenario and anticipate their capabilities and potential outcomes. Every task begins with a cognitive thought process. Secondly, the motivational processes occurs when one gains motivation from causal attributions, outcome expectancies and goals to attempt or perform a given task (Bandura, 1994). Every action is motivated by something. Next individuals experience the affective process. The affective process involves an individuals perceived efficacy in their coping abilities and how much stress they believe they are capable of handling in challenging or threatening circumstances. The ultimate decision occurs in the selection process. People select activities they feel they are capable of and avoid activities they perceive themselves to be incapable of successfully completing. Each selection or life choice molds ones life. Bandura (1994) suggested individuals follow each of the discussed processes in decision making. Perceived selfefficacy is involved in every decision made. Perceived self-efficacy is a belief of what one is capable of while outcome expectations are beliefs about the outcomes that will likely follow a given performance (Bandura, 2006). The outcomes people anticipate depend largely on their judgments of how well they will be able to

SELF EFFICACY THEORY

perform in given situations (Bandura, 2006, p.309). This is obtained through the four processes identified by Bandura. Measurement and Instrumentation It is not possible for an individual to have high levels of self-efficacy in each area of life. Individuals have areas in which they have higher levels of self-efficacy than others. Bandura (2006) gave an example of a business executive who had high levels of organizational efficacy but low levels of parenting efficacy. There are multiple domains (e.g., exercise, diet, parental, organizational, etc.) of self-efficacy that make up ones general personal efficacy; therefore there is no all encompassing self-efficacy measure. Such measurement would not provide adequate information for any specific domain. Instruments that attempt to serve as an all-purpose measure of self-efficacy have limited value because they do not encompass specific situations and circumstances necessary for accurate measurement (Bandura, 2006). Scales of perceived selfefficacy must be tailored to the particular domain of functioning that is the object of interest (Bandura, 2006, p. 307-308). Individual domain instruments must be created. Bandura (2006) provided guidelines for developing self-efficacy scales in any given domain. In measuring perceived self-efficacy for a specific domain, all behavioral aspects of the domain must be considered. Bandura (2006) used the example of weight loss to explain. In developing an instrument to measure ones perceived capabilities to control weight, both diet and exercise must be examined. If only diet was considered, this would not account for true success in weight loss, only one part of the weightless process. All relevant aspects of a domain must be considered to ensure a valid measurement.

SELF EFFICACY THEORY Including factors that do not influence a specific domain is of equal importance. For

example, ones ability to relax does not affect weight loss. Any items in a scale that do not affect the domain being measured and cannot be linked to the domain must be rewritten or discarded. Instruments measuring perceived self-efficacy must include a level of challenge one perceives they are capable of attaining. This may be measured by level of perceived, accuracy, exertion, productivity, threat, self-regulation, etc. One self-efficacy scale Bandura developed measured ones perceived capabilities to exercise under certain circumstances (i.e., stressed, tired, under pressure from work, etc.; see Appendix). His measurement scale was in increments of 10 from 0 to 100 with 0 measuring cannot do at all, 50 measuring moderately can do, and 100 measuring highly certain can do (Bandura, 2006, p. 321). When developing self-efficacy scales, researchers must identify challenges that keep individuals from performing a specific behavior. For example, some individuals may perceive themselves as less capable of maintaining an exercise routine during rainy weather. Researchers can identify these challenges by conducting pilot studies with open ended questions that ask participants to describe things that make it challenging to perform a specific behavior. The identified challenges can be built into the efficacy measure. A more encompassing scale can be developed from this practice. When the scale is formally given, participants can rate their ability to meet or surpass a given barrier. The response scale for measuring self-efficacy should require individuals to rate the strength of their belief in their current capabilities to do a specific activity at the time of the measurement. Scales can be from 0 to 100 with increments of 10 or from 1 to 10 depending on the age and ability of participants. A 5 interval scale is weaker than using a 0-100 scale (Pajares, Hartley, & Valiante, 2001) because it does not allow responses to be distributed over a range.

SELF EFFICACY THEORY A practice item is recommended to ensure that participants recognize they should rate themselves according to what their capabilities are at the time the measurement is given. This

must be emphasized to avoid participants rating how they perceive themselves to be in the future. Raters may mistakenly rate themselves higher with the hopes that they will one day be capable of a certain behavior or task. Bandura recommends a practice item on the capability to lift objects of a certain weight. At a certain point an individual can determine they are incapable of lifting a certain amount of weight. This helps to train the participant in how to properly rate perceived self-efficacy. There are activities children can do to learn how to rate themselves. Bandura (2006) recommended placing markers at different distances from the child, have them rate their beliefs of if they can jump a certain distance to a marker. Once a child has rated their capability, the child attempts to jump as far as the marker. This activity can help train children in rating perceived self-efficacy behaviors. Bias Bandura recommended safeguard procedures to help prevent bias in responses. First, he recommended use of standard procedures. Measurement instructions should not require personal identification and participants should be informed that the instrument will be coded and only reviewed by researchers. This helps decrease respondent evaluation concerns. Second, Bandura recommended to generically title measurements (e.g., Appraisal Inventory) rather than the title containing the word self-efficacy. According to Bandura, they are more likely to respond truthfully if they feel they are helping contribute to research efforts rather than personally being evaluated. Items

SELF EFFICACY THEORY After developing a self-efficacy scale, Bandura suggests pretesting each item. Items that are vague should be rewritten or discarded (Bandura, 2006). Items that the majority of

respondents rate the highest possible efficacy indicates an item does not show enough challenge. In this case, the item should be discarded or changed to increase the level of challenge so that difference between respondents will show. Homogeneity of items must be confirmed through conducting a factor analyses. Cronbachs alpha should be conducted to examine internal consistency reliabilities (Bandura, 2006). When reliability coefficients are low, items with low correlates should be discarded or rewritten. Increasing the number of items will provide a more efficient alpha level. Conclusion Banduras Theory of Self-Efficacy is widely researched in a number of fields and has been used to help individuals achieve despite all obstacles. The power of this theory is that no one is exempt from perceived self-efficacy. Perceived self-efficacy affects all individuals in every aspect of life. Self-efficacy is not limited to a particular field and therefore can benefit and impact many people in a variety of professions. Report Prepared by: Carrie Allday References Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215. Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37(2), 122-147. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

SELF EFFICACY THEORY Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V.S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 71-81). New York: Academic Press.

10

Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.) Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

Pajares, F. (2004). Albert Bandura: Biographical sketch. Retrieved September 26, 2010, from http://des.emory.edu/mfp/bandurabio.html

Pajares, F., Hartley, J., & Valiante, G. (2001). Response format in writing self-efficacy assessment: Greater discrimination increases predication. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 33, 214-221.

SELF EFFICACY THEORY Figure 1 Banduras Theory of Self-Efficacy

11

(Bandura, 1986, p.169)

SELF EFFICACY THEORY Appendix

Self-Efficacy to Regulate Exercise A number of situations are described below that can make it hard to stick to an exercise routine. Please rate in each of the blanks in the column how certain you are that you can get yourself to perform your exercise routine regularly (three or more times a week). Rate your degree of confidence by recording a number from 0 to 100 using the scale given below:
0 Cannot do at all 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

12

Moderately can do

Highly certain can do Confidence (0-100)

When I am feeling tired When I am feeling under pressure from work During bad weather After recovering from an injury that caused me to stop exercising During or after experiencing personal problems When I am feeling depressed When I am feeling anxious After recovering from an illness that caused me to stop exercising When I feel physical discomfort when I exercise After a vacation When I have too much work to do at home When visitors are present When there are other interesting things to do If I dont reach my exercise goals Without support from my family or friends During a vacation When I have other time commitments After experiencing family problems _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____

_____