bandura, a. (1977) ‘self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioural change’,...

8/10/2019 Bandura, A. (1977) Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioural change, Psychological Review 84, 191

1/25

Psychological

Review

1977, Vol. 84, No. 2,

191-215

Self-efficacy:

Toward a

Unifying Theory

of

Behavioral Change

AlbertBandura

Stanford

U niversity

The p resen t a r t i c le p resen ts an in teg ra t ive theore t i ca l f r a m e w o r k to explain

and t o predict psychological changes achieved by dif ferent m o d e s of t r e a t m en t .

This

theory s ta tes tha t psychologica l p rocedur es , wha tever thei r f o r m , a l te r

the

level and s t r en g t h of

self -e f f icacy .

It is hypothesized t h a t expec ta t ions of per -

sona l efficacy determ ine whether coping behavio r

will

be i n i t i a t ed , how m u c h

e f f o r t will be expended , and how long it will be sus tained in the

face

of ob-

stacles and aversive experiences. Persistence in activities t ha t are subjectively

t h r e a t en ing

but in f a c t re la t ively sa fe p roduces , th rough exper iences o f m a s t e r y ,

f u r t h e r enhancemen t o f

self-efficacy

and co r r espond ing r ed uc t i ons in defensive

behavior .

In the

p roposed model , expec ta t ions

of

persona l

efficacy

a re

derived

f r om

f o u r principal sources

o f

i n f o r m a t i o n : p e r f o r m a n c e a c c o m p l is h m en t s,

vicar ious

experience, verbal persuasion,

and

physiological states.

T he

m o r e

d e-

pendable

the

experiential sources ,

the

grea ter

a re the

changes

in

perceived self-

efficacy. A

n u m b e r

o f

f a c t o r s

a re

identified

as

influencing

the

cog nitive processing

of efficacy i n fo rm a t i on a r is ing f r om enactive, vicar ious , exhor ta t ive, and emot ive

sources . The

dif feren t ia l

power of d iverse therapeu t i c p rocedures is analyzed in

t e r m s of the pos tu la ted cogni t ive mechanism of operation. Findings a re r epo r t ed

f r o m

mi c roana ly ses o f enactive, vicar ious , a nd emo t ive modes o f t r e a t m en t t h a t

suppo r t

the

hypothesized rela t ionship between perceived self-efficacy

and be-

havioral changes. Possible di rections

for

fu r ther resea rch

a r e

d i scussed .

Current developments in the field of be-

havioral change reflect

two ma jo r

divergent

t rends . The

difference

is especially evident in

the

t r e a tmen t

of dys func t i ona l

inhibi t ions

and defensive behavior . On the one hand, the

mechanisms

by

which human behavior

is

acqui red an d regula ted are increasingly fo r-

mula ted

in

t e rms

of cognitive processes. On

the o the r hand , it is pe r formance-based pro-

cedures

that

a re

proving

to be

mos t

powerful

fo r

effecting psychological changes.

A s a

con-

sequence, successful pe r form ance is replac ing

symbolically based experiences as the pr in-

ciple vehicle

of

change.

The

present article presents

the view

that

changes achieved by di f feren t me thods de r ive

f rom a common cogni t ive mechanism. The

T he

research

by t he

a u t h o r

repo r t e d i n

this art ic le

wa s

suppor ted

by

Resea rch Gran t M-5162

f r om the

Nat iona l In s t i t u t e s

o f

Health,

Un i te d S t a t e s

Publ ic

Health Service.

Requests fo r reprin ts should be sent to Albe r t

B a n d u r a , D e p a r t m e n t o f Psychology, S t an fo rd Un i -

versi ty , S ta nfo rd , Ca l i fo rn ia 94305.

apparent divergence

of

theory

and

practice

can

be reconci led by postula t ing

t h a t

cogni-

tive

processes media te change but

t h a t

cog-

ni t ive events are induced and al te red most

readi ly by

experience

of

mas te ry a r i s ing

f rom

effective p e r f o r ma n c e . The dis t inc t ion be-

tween process and means is underscored, be-

cause

it is of ten

assumed

that

a

cognitive

m ode of opera t ion requi res a sym bolic m eans

o f

induc t ion . Psychological changes can be

produced th rough o the r means than pe r -

f o rmance accomplishments. Therefore , the

explanatory mechanism developed

in

this

article is designed to account for changes in

behavior

resulting from diverse modes of

t r e a tmen t .

Cognit ive Locus of Operat ion

Psychological t rea tm ents based on learning

principles were originally co nceptualized to

opera te th rough peripheral mechanisms.

New

behavior

was

presuma bly shaped au tom at -

ically by i ts

effects.

Contingency learning

through pai red s t imula t ion

was

const rued

in

191


2/25

192

A L B E R T B A N D U R A

connec t ion i s t t e rms

a s a

process

in

which

re-

sponses were l inked d i rec t ly

to

s t imul i .

A l-

te r ing the ra te of preexis t ing behavior by re -

i n fo r cemen t

was

p o r t r a y e d

as a

process

wherein

responses were regula ted by their

immedia te consequences wi thou t requ i r ing

any conscious

involvement

of the responders.

Growing evidence f rom several lines of re-

search a l te red theore t ica l perspec t ives

on how

behavior is

acquired

and

regulated. Theo-

re t ica l f o rm ula t ion s emphas iz ing pe r iphe ra l

mechan i sms began

to

give

way to

c ogni t ive ly

oriented theories that expla ined behavior

in

t e r m s

of

centra l processing

of

di rec t , vicar i -

ous , and sym bol ic sou rces o f in fo r m a t ion .

Detailed analysis

of the

empi r i ca l

and

con-

ceptual i ssues (see Bandura , 1977) fa l l s

beyond

the

scope

of the

present a r t ic le .

To

s u m m a r i z e

br ief ly ,

however, i t has now been

amply

documented that cognitive

processes

play

a

p rom ine n t r o l e

in the

acquisi tion

an d

re ten t ion

of new

behavio r pa t te rn s . T rans i to ry

experiences leave lasting effects by being

coded

and

retained

in

sym bo l s

fo r

m e m o r y

representa t ion. Because acquisi t ion of re-

sponse

i n f o r ma t i on

is a

m a jo r

aspec t of learn-

i ng , m uch hum an be hav io r

is

developed

th rough

m od e l ing . F rom obse rving o the rs ,

one

f o r m s

a conception of how new behavior pa t -

terns are

p e r f o r m e d ,

and on

later occasions

the

symbol i c cons t ruc t ion se rves

as a

gu i de

for a c t i o n ( B a n d u r a , 1 9 7 1 ) .

T he

ini tial

a p -

proximations of

response

patterns

learned

obse rva t iona l l y a re fur ther re f ined t h rough

self -cor rec t ive a d j u s tm e n t s ba se d on

i n f o r ma -

t ive feedback f rom p e r f o r m a n c e .

Lea rn ing

f rom

response consequences is

also conceived

of

largely

as a

cognitive

process . Consequences se rve

as an

u n a r t i c u -

lated way o f

in fo rming pe r f o rm e r s wha t t hey

m us t do t o g a i n beneficial ou t com e s and t o

avoid punishing ones. By observing the d i f -

ferential

effects of their own actions, in -

dividuals d iscern which responses

a re ap-

p rop r i a t e

in

which se t t ings

and

behave

a c -

co rd ing ly (Dulany , 1968) .

Viewed

f rom the

cognit ive f r a m ework , l e a rn ing

f rom

di ffer-

en t i a l ou tcomes becomes

a

special case

of

observa t ional learning.

In

t h i s m ode

of

con-

vey ing re sponse in fo r m a t ion ,

the

conception

of

the

appropria te behavior

is

g radua l l y con-

s t r u c t e d

f rom

observing the

effects

of one's

ac t ions r a the r than

f rom the

examples pro-

vided

by

others .

Changes

in

behavior produced

by

s t imul i

that either signify events to c o m e or ind ica te

probable response consequences also have

been shown to rely

heavily

oncognitive rep-

resenta t ions of cont ingencies . People a re not

m u c h affected

by pa i red s t imula t ion un le ss

they recognize that

the

events

are

corre la ted

(Dawson

& F u r e d y ,

1976 ; Gr i ng s , 1973 ) .

S t imul i in f luence the l ikelihood of a be-

havior 's being p e r f o r m e d

by

v i r t ue

o f

their

p red ic t ive func t ion ,

no t

because

the

s t imul i

are au toma t i ca l l y connec ted to responses by

the i r having occu r red toge the r . Re in te rp re ta -

tion ofantecedent determinants aspredictive

cues, ra ther than as control l ing s t imul i , has

shif ted

the

locus

of the

regula t ion

of be-

havior f rom

the stimulus to the individual.

The

issue

of the

locus

at

which behaviora l

d e te rm inan t s ope ra te app lie s

to

re inforce-

m e n t influences

a s

well

as to

an teceden t

en-

v ironm e n t a l st im u l i. C on t r a r y to t he c o m m o n

view that behavior

is

control led

by its im-

media te consequences, behavior

is

related

to

its ou t com e s at the level of aggrega te con-

se que nce s r a t he r t h an m om e n t a r y effects

( B a u m ,

1 9 7 3 ) . People process

a nd

synthesize

feedback information f rom

sequences of

events over long in te rvals about

the situa-

t i ona l c i r cums tances and the

patterns

and

ratesofac t ions thatare necessary to p r o d u c e

given outcomes. Since consequences a f fec t be-

havio r th rough

the

influence

o f

t hough t ,

be-

liefs about schedules

of

r e i n f o r c e m e n t

can

exer t grea te r inf luence

on

behavior

than

the

r e in fo rcemen t it s elf (Ba ron , Ka u f m an , &

S t aube r ,

1969 ;

K a u f m a n , B a r o n,

&

Kopp ,

1966).

Incidence

of behavior that has been

positively re inforced does not increase if in-

dividuals believe, based

on

o the r i n f o rm a t i on ,

that

the

same actions will

not be rewarded

on

f u t u r e

occasions

(Estes, 1 9 7 2 ) ; and t h e

same consequences

can

increase , reduce ,

or

have no effect on incidence of behavior d e-

pend ing

on

whe the r ind iv idua l s

are led to

believe

that the

consequences signify co r rec t

responses, incorrect responses,

or

occu r non-

con t ingen t l y (Dulany , 1968).

The discussion thus far has examined the


3/25

SELF-EFFICACY THEORY

193

role

of

cognition

in the

acquisition

and

regulation

of

behavior. Motiva t ion , which

is

primari ly concerned with act ivat ion and per-

sistence

of

behavior,

is

also

pa r t l y

rooted

in

cognitive activities.

The capacity to

repre-

sent

f u t u r e

consequences

in

thought provides

one

cognitively based source

of

motivat ion.

Thr ough cogni t ive representat ion

o ff u t u r e

out-

comes

individuals can generate current mo-

t ivators of behavior . Seen

f rom

this per-

spective,

re in fo rcement opera t ions

affect

be-

havior largely by creat ing expectat ions that

behaving in a certain way willp rod uce an t i c i-

pated benefits or aver t future diff icul ties

(Bolles, 1972b) .

In the enhancemen t of

previously learned behavior ,

reinforcement is

conceived

of

ma in l y

as a

mot iva t ional

d e-

vice

ra ther than as an au tomat ic response

s t rengthener.

A second cognitively based source of mo-

t ivat ion operates through the in terven ing in-

fluences of goal setting and self-evaluative

reac t ions (Bandura ,

1976b, 1 9 7 7 ) .

Self-

motivation involves s tandards agains t which

to

evaluate pe r f o rmance .

By

mak ing self-

reward ing

react ions condi t ional

o n

a t t a in ing

a

certain level of behavior , individuals

create

self - inducements

to persist in their

effor ts

unt i l their perfo rm anc es m atch sel f -prescribed

s t anda r ds .

Perceived negative discrepancies

between pe r fo rm ance and s t anda rds

create

dissatisfactions t h a t motivate correct ive

changes in behavior. Both the ant icipated

satisfactions of desi red accomplishments and

the negative

appraisals

of insufficient per-

f o rmance thus provide incentives

for

act ion.

Having accomplished

a

given level

of

per-

fo rmance , individual s of ten are no longer

satisfied with

i t and m a k e

fu r the r self-reward

cont ingent

on h igher a t t a inments .

The reconceptual izat ion of hum an learn-

ing and mot iva t ion in t e rm s of cognitive

processes has

ma jo r

implications for the

mechanisms through which therapeutic pro-

cedures al ter behavioral

funct ioning.

A l-

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

t h a t

might prove

useful

in s t imu-

lat ing research on explanatory mechanisms

P R S O

- BEHAVIOR

I

I

r EFFICACY ~1

I

EXPECTATIONS

I

I

OUTCOME I

I EXPECTATIONS

-

OUTCOME

Figure

1.

Diagrammat ic representa t ion

of the

differ-

ence

between

efficacy

expectations

and

ou t c ome

ex -

pectations.

and in in tegrat ing the resul ts accompanying

diverse

modes

of

t r ea tmen t .

The

present

article outlines a theoretical

f r amework ,

in

which

the

concept

of

s e l f - e f f i c a c y

is

assigned

a cen t ra l role, for analyzing changes achieved

in fear ful and avoidant behavior . The ex-

plana to ry value

of

this conceptual system

is

then evaluated

by i ts

abili ty

to

p redic t

behavio ra l changes p roduced th rough di f -

ferent m e th o d s

of

t r e a tm e n t .

E f f i c a c y

Expectat ions

a s a

M e c h a n i s m

of

Operat ion

The

present theory

is

based

on the

prin-

cipal asssumption t h a t psychological pro-

cedures , whatever thei r

f o r m ,

serve as means

of

c rea t ing

and

s t rengthening expectat ions

of personal

efficacy.

Within this analysis,

efficacy expectations

are

distinguished f rom

response-outcome expectancies. The differ-

ence is presented schematically in Figure 1.

A n outcome expectancy is defined as a

person 's es t imate that

a

given behavior will

lead to cer ta in ou tcomes . A n

efficacy

ex -

pec ta t ion

is the

conviction

that one can

successfully

execute

the

behavior required

to

produce the ou tcomes . Outcome and

efficacy

expectat ions are dif ferent ia ted, because in-

dividuals can believe

that

a par t icular course

of act ion will p roduce cer ta in ou tcomes ,

bu t

i f they enter tain serious d oubts ab out whether

they

can pe r f o rm the

necessary activities

such

information does

not

influence

their

behavior.

In this c onceptual sys tem, expectat ions of

personal mastery

affect

both ini t ia t ion and

persistence of coping behavior. The strength

of

people's

convictions

in

their

own effective-

ness

is

likely

to

affect whether they will even

t ry to

cope with given situations.

A t

this

initial level, perceived

self-efficacy

influences


4/25

194

AL BE R T B A N D U R A

choice of

behavioral settings. People fear

and

tend

to avoid th reatening si tua t ions they

believe

exceed their coping skills, whereas

they get involved in activi ties and behave

assuredly when they judge themselves cap-

able of handling si tua t ions

t h a t

would o the r -

wise

be

i n t im i da t i ng .

Not

only

can perceived self-efficacy have

di rec t ive influence on choice of activities

and

se t t ings, but , th rough expecta t ions

of

eventual success,

it can affect

coping effor ts

once they a re ini t ia ted.

Efficacy

expecta t ions

de t e rm ine

how

m u c h effor t people will

ex -

pend and how long they will persist in the

face

of obstacles and aversive experiences.

The stronger the perceived

self-efficacy,

the

m o r e

active the effor ts .

Those

who persist in

subjectively

threatening ac t ivi t ies t h a t a r e

in

fa c t

relatively safe will gain corrective

experiences

t h a t re inforce their sense of

efficacy,

thereby eventually e liminat ing thei r

defensive

behav ior .

Thosewho

cease their cop-

in g

efforts p rema tu re ly will re tain thei r self-

debi l i t a t ing

expecta t ions

and

fears

for a

long

t ime.

The preceding

analysis

of how perceived

self-efficacy inf luences pe r for m anc e is not

me a n t to imply t h a t expectation is the sole

d e t e r m i n a n t of behavior . Expecta t ion alone

will no t p roduce de s i r e d pe r fo rmance if the

component capabi l i t ies are lacking. Moreover ,

there are many th ings tha t people can do

with

ce r t a i n t y o f success that they do no t

pe r f o rm because they have no incentives

to do so. Given appropria te ski l ls and ade-

quate incent ives, however ,

efficacy

expecta-

t ions are a ma jo r de t e rminan t of people's

choice of activi ties, how m u c h

e f f o r t

they will

expend, and of how

long they will sustain

effor t

in

dealing wi th s t ressful si tua t ions.

D i m e n s i o n s

of

E f f i c a c y Expectat ions

Empi r i c a l tests of the relationship between

expec tancy

and p e r f o r m a n c e of

threatening

act ivi t ies have been hampered by inadequacy

o f

the

expectancy analysis.

In

most s tudies

the measu re s of expecta t ions a re mainly con-

cerned

with people's hopes

for

f avorab le out -

comes rather than with their sense of per-

sonal mastery. Moreover, expectations a re

usually assessed globally only a t a single

point in a change process as though they

represent a

s t a t ic ,

unid imensiona l f a c to r .

Par t ic ipan ts

in

experiments

of

this t ype

a re

simply asked to judge how much they expect

to benefit

f rom

a

given procedure. When

asked to m a k e such

estimates, participants

assume, moreof ten than not ,

t h a t

the

benefits

will

be

produced

by the

external minis t ra-

t ions ra ther than gained th rough the de-

velopment of

self-efficacy.

Such global mea-

sures reflect am ix t u r eo f , among other th ings,

hope, wishful th ink ing,

belief in the

potency

o f the procedures , and f a i th in the the rapis t .

I t

the re fo re

comes

as no

surpr i se

t h a t

out-

come expecta t ions of this type have

little

relation

to

ma g n i t u d e

of

behavioral change

(Davison & W ilson, 1973 , Lick & Bootzin,

1975).

Efficacy expecta t ions vary on several d i-

mensions t h a t have

i mp o r t a n t p e r f o r ma n c e

implica t ions. They d i f f e r

in

m agni t ude . Thus

when t asks a re ordered in level of

difficulty ,

the efficacy expectations of different individ-

uals may be l imi ted to the simpler

tasks ,

ex -

tend to modera te ly difficult ones, or include

even the

mos t t axing pe r formances . Efficacy

expecta t ions also d i f f e r

in

g e n e r a l i t y . Some

experiences

create ci rcumscribed mastery ex-

pectations. Others insti ll

a

more generalized

sense of efficacy t h a t extends well beyond the

specific t rea tment s i tua t ion . In addi t ion,

expectancies vary in s tr e n g th .Weak expecta-

t ions are easily extinguishable by discon-

f i rming

experiences,

whereas individuals who

possess strong expectations

of

mastery will

persevere

in

their coping

efforts

despite dis-

confi rming experiences.

A n adequate expectancy analysis , there-

fore , requ i res de tai led assessment

of the

magni tude , generali ty ,

and

s t rength

of ef-

f i cacy

expec ta t ions commensura te wi th

the

precision with which behavioral processes are

measured . Both efficacy expecta t ions

and

per-

f o rm ance should be assessed at

significant

j unc t u r e s

in the change process to clarify

their

reciprocal effects

on

each other. Mas te r y

expecta t ions influence p e r f o r ma n c e and are ,

in

turn, a l te red by the cumula t ive effects of

one's effor ts .


5/25

SELF-EFFI C AC Y

THEORY

95

S o u r c e s

o f

E f f i c a c y

Expecta t ions

In this social learning analysis, expecta-

tions of personal

efficacy

a re based on

four

ma jo r

sources of i n f o rm a t i o n : p e r fo rm an ce

accom plishm ents , vicarious experience, verbal

persuasion, and physiological states. Figure 2

presents the diverse influence p rocedures

commonly used to reduce defensive behavior

and

presents

the

principal source through

which each t reatment operates to create

expecta t ions

of mas te ry . A ny given method,

depending on how it is appl ied, may o f

course

draw to a lesser extent on one or more

other sources of

efficacy

i n f o rm a t i o n .For ex-

ample, as we shal l see shor t ly , performance-

based t rea tmen ts no t on ly p romote be-

havioral accomplishments but also extinguish

fear arousal , thus authenticat ing

self-efficacy

t h rough

enactive and arousal sources of in-

fo rma t ion . Other methods , however, provide

fewer ways of acqu i r i ng in fo rma t ion abou t

one's capabili ty

for

coping with threatening

s i tua t ions . By pos tu la t ing a com m on m echa-

nism of operation, this analysis provides a

conceptual

f ramework

within which

to

s t u dy

behavioral changes achieved

by

different

modes

of t r ea tmen t .

Per formance

a c c o m p l i s h m e n t s .

This source

of efficacy i n f o rm a t i o nis especially

inf luent ia l

because i t is based on personal mastery ex-

periences. Successes raise mastery expecta-

t ions; repeated fai lures lower them , par-

t icular ly

if the mishaps occur ear ly in the

course

of

events.

A f t e r

s t rong

efficacy

ex -

pectat ions are developed through repeated

success, the negative impact of occasional

failures is l ikely to be reduced. Indeed, oc-

casional failures t h a t are la ter overcome by

de te rmined effort

can s t rengthen sel f -moti -

vated persistence if one finds th rough ex -

per ience t h a t even

the

mos t difficult

ob-

stacles

can be

mas te red

by

sustained effor t .

The effects of fa i lure on personal efficacy

therefore

par t ly depend on the t im ing and

the

total

pattern of experiences in which the

fai lures occur .

Once established, enhanced

self-efficacy

tends

to

generalize to other si tuations in which

pe r fo rmance was sel f -debi l i ta ted by pre-

occupat ion

with personal inadequacies (Ban-

d u r a , A d a m s , & Beyer, in p ress ; Band ura ,

Jeffery, & Gajdos,

1975 ) .

A s a result, im -

provements in behavioral

funct ioning

t r an s f e r

no t only

to

similar si tuations

but to

a ctivities

t h a t

a re

substantially

different

f rom those

on

which the t r ea tmen t was focused .

Thus,

for

example,

increased

self-efficacy

gained through

rapid m astery of a specif ic anim al phobia can

EFFICACY

EXPECTATIONS

SOURCE

PERFORMANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS

MODE OFINDUCTION

..PARTICIPANT

MODELING

- -PERFORMANCE DESENSITIZATION

--PERFORMANCE EXPOSURE

SELF-INSTRU CTED PERFORMANCE

V I C A R I O U S EXPERIENCE

VERBAL

PERSUASION

EMOTIONAL AROUSAL

,,.,-LIVE MODELING

----SYMBOLIC MODELING

..SUGGESTION

^--EXHORTATION

----SELF-INSTRUCTION

-INTERPRETIVE TREATMENTS

.-ATTRIBUTION

- -R E L A X A T I O N ,

BIOFEEDBACK

'-SYMBOLIC DESENSITIZATION

^SYMBOLIC EXPOSURE

Fig u re 2 . Majo r sou rce s o f efficacy in fo rma t ion and t he principal sources th rough which different

m o d e s

of

t r e a t m e n t

opera te.


6/25

196


increase coping

ef fo r t s in

social si tuat ions

as well as r e duce f e a r s of o the r animals .

However,

the

generalization

effects

occur

mos t p red ic t ab ly to the act ivit ies that are

m o s t

similar to those in which

self-efficacy

wasrestored

by

treatment

(Bandura , B lanch -

a r d , &Ri t t e r ,

1 9 69 ) .

M e t h o d s

of change that opera t e on the

basis ofp e r f o rm anc e a ccom pl ishmen t s convey

efficacy

i n f o r ma t i on

in m ore ways than s im ply

t h r o u g h

the

evidence

of

p e r f o r m a n c e

im -

provement s . In t he course of t rea tment s em-

ploying m ode ling wi th guided pe r fo rm an ce ,

par t ic ipants acquire a general izable ski l l for

deal ing

successful ly with

s t ress ful

s i t ua t ions ,

a skillthatthey use to overcomea variety of

dys func t iona l f ea r s and inhibi t ionsin their ev-

e r y d a y

life

( B a n d u r a e t

al.,

in

press;

B a n d u r a

et

al.,

1975) . Having a serviceable coping

skillat one ' s d i sposa l undoub ted ly con t r ibu tes

to one's sense of pe rsona l efficacy. Behav iora l

capabi l i t ies can also be enhanced th rough

mode l ing

a lone (Ban d u ra ,

1971 ;

F lande rs ,

1968) .

However , pa r t i c ipan t m od e l ing pro-

v ides add i t iona l oppor tuni t ies fo r t rans l a t ing

behavioral

conceptions

to appropriate

actions

and f o r m ak ing co r r e c t iv e r e f i nem en t s t owa rd

the pe r fec t ion of

skills.

Most of the treatment

procedures

de-

veloped in recen t yea rs to e l im ina t e

fea r fu l

and d efensive behavior have been im ple-

m en t ed e it h er t h rough pe r f o r m ance o r by

symbol ic p rocedures . Regard les s of the

methods involved , resu l t s o f c o m p a r a t i v e

s tudies attest to the super io r i t y o f

p e r f o r m -

ance-based t rea tment s .

In the

desensi t iza t ion

approach dev ised by Wolpe ( 1 9 7 4 ) , clients

receive g r adua t ed exposu re

to

aversive events

in conjunction with anxiety reducing

ac-

t ivit ies, usually

in the

fo rm

of

m u s c u l a r

re l axa t ion .

A

n u m b e r

of

exper iment s have

been reported in which relaxation is paired

with scenes in which

phobics

visualize

themselves engaging in progress ive ly more

threatening act ivi t ies

o r

wi t h enac t men t

o f

the

same h ie ra rchy

o f

act ivi t ies with

the

actual th reats . Findings based

on d i f f e r en t

types of phobias consis tent ly reveal that

p e r fo rma n c e

desensi t iza t ion produces sub-

s tant ia l ly greater behavioral change than does

symbol i c

desensi t iza t ion (LoPicol lo, 1970;

S h e r m a n , 1 9 7 2 ;Strahley, 1966) . Physiolog-

ical

measures yield s imilar resul t s . Symbolic

desensitization

reduces autonomic responses

t o ima gined

but not to

ac tua l t h rea t s , whereas


d esensit iza t ion el im inates auto-

nomic responses to both imagined andactual

t h rea t s (Ba r low , Lei t enberg , Ag ras ,&W incze,

1969 ) . The subs t an t i a l

benefits

of

successful


are typically achieved in less

t i m e tha n i s requ i red to ex t inguish a rousa l t o

symbol ic represen t a t ions

o f

th rea t s .

More recent ly, avoidance behavior

has

been

t rea t ed by p roc edur es involving m assive

exposureto aversive events.In th i s approach ,

intense anxie ty

is

elicited

by

pro longed

ex-

posure to the most threatening situations

and

sus t a ined

a t

high levels, without

relief ,

un t i l em ot iona l reac t ions a re ex t inguished .

Several inves t igators have compared the

re la t ive

success of pro longed exposure to

aversive

s i t ua t ions in imagery and ac tua l en-

coun te r s

with them

in

amel io ra t ing ch ronic

agoraphobias . Real encounters wi th threats

produce resul t s dec ide ly super io r t o imagined

exposure ,

which ha s weak, variable effects

( E m m e l k a m p

&

Wessels,

1975;

S tern

&

M a r k s , 1973 ; Wat son , Mul le t t ,

&

Pillay,

1 9 7 3 ) . P ro longed encoun t e r sthat ensu re

be-

havioral improvements

are

more effect ive

t h an d i s t r i bu t ed brief encoun t e r s that a r e

likely to end be fo re succes sfu l pe r f o rm anc e

of the act ivi ty is achieved (Rab avilas ,

Boulougour i s ,

&S t e f an i s, 19 76 ) .

The p a r t i c ipan t m ode l ing app roach to the

el imina t ion of defens ive

behavior ut il izes

successful

pe r f o r m anc e a s t h e p r ima ry v eh ic le

of

psychological change. People displaying

in t r a c t ab l e

fea r s

and inh ib i t ions a re no t

about

to do

wha t they

dread. In

implement-

in g

pa r t i c ipan t mode l ing , t he rapis t s

the re fo re

s t r u c t u r e the env i ronment sothat clients can

pe r fo rm successfully

despite

their

incapaci-

ties.

This

is achieved by enl is t ing a va rie ty of

response

i nduc t i on a id s , i nc l ud ing p rel im ina ry

mode l ing

o f

th rea tening ac t iv i t ies , g radua ted

t a s k s , enac t men t ov e r g r adua t ed t empora l

in terva l s , jo in t pe r fo r m an ce wi th the the ra -

pis t , protect ive aids t o . r e d u c e the likelihood

of

fea red consequences , and varia t ion in the

severity

of the threat

i t se l f (Bandura ,

Je f f e ry ,

& Wr igh t , 1 9 7 4) . A s t rea tment p rogresses ,


7/25

SELF EFFICACY

THEORY

97

the

supplemen ta ry a id s

are

w i t h d r a w n

so

that

clients cope

effect ively

unassis ted .

Self-

direc ted mastery exper iences

are

then

ar-

ranged

to

r e in fo r c e

a

sense

of

personal

ef-

f i cacy .

Through th is

fo rm

o f

t r e a t m e n t

in -

capaci ta ted people rapid ly lose their fears ,

they

are

able

to

engage

in

activit ies they

f o rme r l y

inh ib i t ed , an d they d isplay genera l-

ized

r educ t ion s

of

fea r s toward th rea t s

beyond

the

specif ica l ly t rea ted condi t ions

( B a n d u r a ,

1 9 7 6 a ) .

Par t ic ipan t m od el ing has been com pa red

with var ious symbolica l ly based treatments.

These s tud ies co r robora te

the

super io r i t y

of

successful

pe r fo rm ance f a c i l it a t ed

by

model -

ing

as

com pa red to vicarious experience alone

( B a n d u r a e t al., 1969; Blancha rd , 1970b;

Lewis, 1974; Rit ter ,

1969 ;

Rope r , Rachman ,

&

M a r k s ,

1 9 7 5 ) ,

to symbolic desensi t iza t ion

( B a n d u r a

et

al., 1969; Li tvak , 1969) ,

and

to imaginal modeling in which c l ients visual-

ize themselves or others coping successfully

wi th th rea t s (Thase

&

Moss, 19 76 ) . When

pa r t ic ipan t m od el ing i s subsequen tly ad -

minis t e red

to those who benefi t only par -

t ially

f rom the

symbol ic p rocedures , avoid -

ance behavior

is

tho roughly e l im ina ted wi th in

a b r ie f per iod .

The findings

summa r i zed above

are

con-

sis tent with

self-efficacy

t heo r y ,

bu t

they

d o

no t

shed much l igh t

on the

mechan i sm

by

which

specific m as te ry exper iences p rod uce

general ized

and end u r ing changes inbehavio r .

Verif ica t ion

of the opera t ive mechanism re-

qui res exper im en ta l evidence

that

experienced

mas te ry does in

f a c t

alter the level and

s t reng th

of

self-efficacy

and that

self-efficacy

is , in turn , l inked to behavior . We shal l re-

tu rn l a te r

to

research

that

addresses itself

specifically

to the l inkages between treat-

m ent proc edures , perceived

self-efficacy, and

behavior .

V i c a r i o u s e x p e r i e n c e . People do no t rely on

experienced mas t e r y

as the

sole source

of in-

f o rm a t i on

con cerning their level

of self-

efficacy.

Many expec ta t ions

a re

der ived

f rom

vica r ious exper ience. Seeing others per form

t h r e a t en ing

ac t ivi t ies without adverse con-

sequences can genera te expec ta t ions in ob-

servers that they too wil l improve if they

in tensi fy and

persist

in

their

efforts. They

persuade themselves that ifothers can do i t ,

they should

be

able

to

achieve

at

leas t some

imp rovemen t

in

p e r f o r m a n c e ( B a n d u r a

&

Barab, 1973) . Vicar ious exper ience, relying

as i t does on inferences

f rom

social com-

par ison, is a less dependable source of in-

f o rm a t i on

a b o u t one's capab ilit ies th an

is

direc t evidence of per sona l accompl ishmen ts .

Consequent ly , the

efficacy

expectations in-

duced by m od eling a lone a re l ikely to be

weaker and more vu lnerab le to change.

A

n u m b e r of m od el ing va r iab les that a re

apt to af fec t

expectations

of

personal

efficacy

have been shown

to

enhance

the dis inhibi t ing

inf luence

of

model ing p rocedures .

Phobics

benefit

m o r e

f rom

seeing

models

overcome

their

difficulties

b y

de t e rm ined

ef fo r t

than

f rom observing fac i le per form anc es

by adept

mode l s ( K a z d i n , 1973; Meichenbaum , 1971) .

Showing the gains achieved by

ef fo r t fu l

coping behavior no t on ly min imizes for ob-

servers

the

negat ive impac t

o f

t empo r a r y

distress

but

demons t r a t e s

that

even

the most

anxious

can

eventual ly succeed through per-

severance. Sim ila r i ty

to the

m o d e l

in

other

characterist ics, which increases

the

personal

re levance

of

v ica r ious ly der ived in fo rm a t ion ,

can likewise enhance the

effectiveness

of

symbol ic

mode l ing (Kazd in , 1 9 7 4 b ) .

Modeled behavio r wi th

clear

ou t comes

conveys more efficacy i n f o r m a t i o n t h a n

if the

effects

of the

modeled ac t ions remain

am -

biguous . In

invest iga t ions

o f

vicar ious pro-

cesses, observing

one

per fo rm ac t iv i t ies

that

meet with success does, indeed, produce

grea te r behavio ra l improvements

than

wit-

ness ing the sam e per fo rm ances mod eled wi th -

ou t any

evident consequences (Ka zd in, 1974c,

1 9 7 5 ) .

Diversif ied modeling,

in

which

the

activit ies observers regard

as

haza rdous

are

repea tedly shown to be safe by a var iety of

models , is superior to exposure to the s ame

pe r fo rmances by a s ing le m odel (B an d ura &

M enlove, 1968; Kaz d in, 1974a, 1975, 19 76 ) .

If people of widely di f fe r ing charac ter is t ics

can

succeed, then observers have

a

reason-

able basis for increasing

their

own sense of

self-efficacy.

T he pa t t e r n o f resul ts repor ted above o f-

fers at least suggestive support for the view

that exem plifications of success thr oug h sus-


8/25

198

ALBERT

B A N D U R A

tained effor t with

substantiating

compa ra t iv e

in fo rma t i on can enhance

observers'

percep-

t ions o f their own pe r f o rmance c apab i l i t i e s .

Research wil l

be

presented below

that

bea rs

more d i rec t ly

on the

propos i t ion

that

m o d e l -

in g procedures a l t e r avoidance behav ior

t h r o u g h

the

in te rvening

inf luence of

efficacy

expecta t ions .

V e r b a l

p e r s u a s i o n . In a t t e m p t s to influence

hum an behav ior , ve rba l pe rsuas ion i s wide ly

used

because of i t s ease and ready avai l -

abi l i ty . People

a re

led , t h rough sugges t ion ,

in to believing they

can

cope successful ly with

w h a t has overwhelmed them in the past.

Efficacy

expec t a t ions induced in t h i s manne r

arealso likely to beweaker

than

those arising

f r o m

one's

own accompl i shment s because

they do no t p rov i de a n au then t i c exper ien t i a l

base fo r t h e m . In the face o f dis t ress ing

th rea t s and a long h is to ry of

f a i lu re

in coping

wi th them, wha tever mas te ry expec t a t ions

a re

i nduced

by

sugges t ion

c an be

read i ly

extinguished

by

disconfi rming experiences .

Results of several l ines of resea rch attest

t o t he l imi t a t ion of p rocedures

that

a t t e m p t

to ins t i l l outcome expecta t ions in people

s imply by t e l l ing them wha t to expect . In

l abora to ry s tud ies , placebo condi t ions

de-

signed suggestively

to

ra i se expec t a t ions

of

imp rov emen t p roduce

little

change in re-

f r a c t o r y behavior (Lick & Boo t z in , 1975 ;

M o o r e , 1965 ; Paul , 19 66 ) . W hethe r t h i s i s

due to the low c red ib i l i t y of the sugges t ions

or to the

weakness

of the

induced expec t a -

t i ons

c anno t be de t e rm ined

f r om

these s tud-

ies, because

the

expecta t ions were

no t

measu red .

Numerous exper iment s have been con-

ducted in which phobics receive desensi t iza-

t ion

t r e a t men t w i t hou t

any

expec t ancy

in -

f o r m a t i o n

o r with sugges t ions that it is either

highly

efficacious

o r ineffective. The

d i f fer -

ent ia l ou t come expec t a t ions

a re

verbal ly

in -

duced

pr io r

to ,

d u r i n g ,

o r

immed i a t e l y a f t e r

t r e a t m e n t in the various s tudies .The findings

general ly show

that

desens i t i za t ion reduces

phobic behav ior ,

bu t the

ou t come expec t ancy

manipula t ions have e i the r no

effect

or weak ,

inconsis tent ones

(Hewlett

& Nawas , 1971;

M c G l y n n &M app , 197 0 ; M cG lynn , M ea lie a ,

Nawas , 1969 ; M cG lynn, Reynolds ,

Linde r , 1971) .

As in the placebo

studies,

it

is difficult to

make conclusive

interpretations

because

the

out come expec t a t ions induced

suggestively

are not

measu red p r i o r

to the

assessment of behavior changes, if at al l .

S imply

i n f o r m ing

pa r t i c ipan t s

that

they will

or

will no t benefit

f r o m

t r e a t men t doe s no t

m e a n

that

they necessarily believe what they

are told, especially when it con t rad ic t s t he i r

other personal experiences . Moreover, in the

s tudies jus t c i ted the verbal influence is

a imed ma in l y a t ra i s ing ou t come expec t a t ions

r a t he r t h an at enhancing

self-efficacy.

It is

changes on the l a t t e r d imens ion that are

mos t re levan t

to the

t h eo ry unde r d i s -

cussion.

A l though social persuasion alone m ay have

def ini te l imi t a t ions as a means of c rea t ing an

e ndu r i ng sense of pe rsona l efficacy, i t can

con t r i bu t e to the successes achieved through

co r rec t ive p e r f o r m a n c e . That

is ,

people

who

are

social ly persuaded that they possess the

capabilities to mas t e r dif f icul t s i tuat ions and

a r e provided with provis ional aids for e f -

fec t ive act ion are l ikely to mobil ize greater

effor t

than those who receive only the per-

f o r m a n c e aids . However,

to

raise

by

pe r -

suas ion expecta t ions

o f

pe rsona l compe tence

wi t hou t a r r ang ing cond i t i ons to f ac i l i t a t e ef -

fective p e r f o r m a n c e will most l ikely lead to

fa i lu res that d i s c r e d i t

the

pe rsuade rs

a nd

f u r t h e r

u n d e r m i n e

the

recipients ' perceived

self-efficacy.

It is the re fo re the

in te rac t ive ,

as

well as the i ndependen t , effects of social

persuas ion

on

self-efficacy that mer i t exper i -

menta l cons ide ra t ion .

E m o t i o n a l a r o u s a l . S t ress fu l

and

t axing

si tuat ions general ly e l ici t emot ional arousal

that, depend ing on the c i rcums t ances , migh t

have informa t ive va lue conce rning pe rsona l

compe tency . There fore , emot iona l a rousa l i s

ano the r cons t i t uen t source o f i n f o r m a t i o n

that can a f fec t perceived self-efficacy in cop-

in g with th reatening s i tuat ions . People re ly

pa r t l y on the i r

state

of physiological arousal

in

jud ging the ir anx iety a nd vuln e rab i l it y t o

s t ress . Because high arousal usual ly debi l i -

tates

pe r f o rm anc e , i nd iv idu a l s

a r e

more l ikely

to

expect success when they

a re no t

beset

by

avers ive arousal than

if

they

a re

tense

and visceral ly agi ta ted. Fear react ions gen-


9/25


199

era te f u r t he r fear

of

impend ing

st ressful

si tua t ions th rough ant icipatory self-arousal .

B y conjur ing up fea r -p rovok ing though ts

about thei r inept i tude, individuals

can

rouse

themselves to elevated levels of anxiety

t h a t

far

exceed the

fear

experienced during the

actual th reatening si tua t ion.

A s

will

be

recalled f rom

the

earlier dis-

cussion, desensitization and massive exposure

t rea tments a imed

a t

ext inguishing anx ie ty

arousal produce some reduct ions in avoidance

behavior . Anxiety arousal

to

t h r e a t s

is

like-

wise diminished by modeling, and is even

more thorough ly e l imina ted by exper ienced

mastery achieved through par t ic ipant model-

in g ( B a n d u r a & Ba r ab , 1973; B a n d u r a et

al.,

1969; Blanchard , 1970a) . Mode l ing

ap-

proaches have other advantages for enhancing

self-efficacy

and

thereby removing

dys func-

t ional fears . In a dd i t ion to d im inish ing prone-

ness to aversive arousal, such approaches also

teach effective coping ski l ls by demonst ra t ing

proficient

ways

of

hand ling th r eatening situa-

tions.

The

la t te r con t r ibu t ion

is

especially

im -

por tan t when fear arousal par t ly resul ts f rom

behavioral defici ts. It is of ten the case

that

fears and defici ts a re interdepend ent. Avoid-

ance

of st ressful

activities impedes develop-

m e n t

of

coping skills,

and the

resul t ing lack

o f compe tency prov ides a realistic basis for

fea r .

Acquir ing behavioral means

for

con-

t rol l ing potent ia l th reats a t tenuates or e l im-

ina tes

fea r

arousal (Averil l , 1973; Not te r -

m a n , Schoenfeld, & Bersh , 1952; Szpiler &

Epstein, 19 76 ). Behavioral cont rol n ot only

allows

one to

manage

the

aversive aspects

of

an envi ronment . It also

affects

how the en-

vironment is likely to be perceived. Poten-

t ially

st ressful si tua t ions

t h a t

can be con-

trolled a re cons t rued as less threatening,

and such cogni t ive

appraisals f u r t he r

re-

duce ant icipatory emotional arousal (Averi l l ,

1973) .

Diminishing emotional arousal can reduce

avoidance behavior, but

di f feren t

theories

posit

different

explana tory mechanisms for

the observed effects. In the theory f rom

which

the emotive

treatments

a re der ived,

emotional arousal is conceived of as a dr ive

t h a t

ac tivates

avoidance behavior.

This

view

stresses

the

energizing

funct ion of

arousal

and the

re inforc ing func t ion

of

a rousa l

re-

duc t ion . Social learning theory,

on the

other

hand , emphasizes the i n fo rma t ive func t ion

of physiological arousal . Simply acknowledg-

ing

t h a t

a rousa l i s bo th inform a t ive and m o-

tivating by no means resolves the issue in

dispute, because these

are not

necessari ly

two

separa te effects t h a t somehow join t ly p roduce

behavior .

Ra the r ,

the cognitive

appra isa l

of

arousal to a large extent de termines the level

and

di rec t ion

of

mot iva t iona l inducements

to ac t ion. Cer tain cogni t ive

appraisals

of

one's physiological s t a t e migh t be energizing,

whereas other appraisals of the same state

migh t no t (Weiner ,

1 9 7 2) .

Moreover , many

f o rms

of physiological arousal a re generated

cognitively by arousing t ra ins of though t .

When m ot iva t ion isconceptualized in t e rmso f

cognitive

processes (Ba nd ur a , 1977 ; Weiner,

1972) ,

the

i n f o r ma t io n a l

a nd

motivat ional

ef -

fec ts of arousal are t rea ted a s interd ependent

ra the r than as separa te events. W e shall re-

turn to this issue later when we consider the

di f feren t ia l pred ic t ions made f rom social learn-

in g

theory

and f rom the

dual-process theory

o f

avoidance behavior concerning

the

behavioral

effects

of extinguishing

anxiety

arousal .

Researchers work ing wi thin the a t t r ibu-

t ional

f ramework

have a t tem pted to m od i f y

avoidance behavior by di rec t ly manipula t ing

the cognitive labeling of emotional arousal

(Valins &

Nisbet t ,

1 9 7 1 ) . The

p re sump t i on

is t h a t

if

phobics

are led to

bel ieve that

the

things they have previously feared no longer

affect

them in te rna l ly ,

the

cognitive reevalua-

tion alone

will

reduce avoidance behavior . In

t rea tment ana logues

of

this approach, pho-

bics receive false physiological feedback sug-

gesting t h a t they are no longer emotionally

upset by threatening events. Results of this

p rocedu re a re essentially negative.

Ear ly

cla ims that er roneous arousal feedback re-

duces avoidance behavior (Valins & Ray,

1967) are disputed by methodological ly

super ior studies showing that false feedback

o f

physiological t ranqui l i ty in the presence

of

th r e a t s

has

ei ther

no

appreciable

effect

on

subsequent

fea r fu l

behavior (Gaupp,

Ste rn ,

&

Galb ra i th , 197 2;

Hewlet t &

Nawas,

1971 ; Kent , Wilson, &Nelson, 19 72 ; Rosen,

Rosen,

&

Reid , 1972; Sush insky

&

Bootz in ,


10/25

20 0

ALB ERT B A N DUR A

1 9 7 0 ) ,

o r p roduces minor changes unde r

such l imi ted condi t ions as to be of little

prac t ica l consequence (Borkovec, 1 9 7 3 ) .

Misa t t r ibu t ion of emot iona l a rousa l is

ano the r va r i an t o f the a t t r ibu t iona l ap -

p roach

to

mod i f i ca t ion

o f f e a r f u l

behavior .

T he s t ra tegy here is to lead

f e a r f u l

people

into believing

that

thei r emotional a rousal

is

caused by a nonemotional source. To the

ex ten t that they no longer label their

agitated

state as

anxiety, they will behave

more bo ld ly . It may be possible to r e d u c e

mild fears

by

this means (Ross,

Rodin, &

Z i m b a r d o ,

1 9 6 9 ) , but the

highly anxious

are

not easily led into misattributing

their

anxiety

to i r re levant sources (Nisbe t t & Schachte r ,

1966). When evaluated systematically, mis-

a t t r i bu t i on t r e a tm e n t s

d o n o t

produce sig-

nificant

changes

in chronic

anxiety

condi-

t ions (S inge rman , Borkovec , &B a r o n , 1 9 7 6 ) ,

and

some

of the

benefi ts reported with other

dy s func t i on s

canno t be rep li ca ted (Boo tz in ,

H e r m a n , &

Nicassio,

1976; Kellogg &Ba ron ,

1 9 7 S ) . There is also some suggestive evidence

that

in

labo ra to ry s tud ies

the

a t tenua t ion

of

f e a r

ma y be du e

m o r e

to the

ve r id i ca l i ty

of

a rousa l in fo rma t ion than to misa t t r ibu t ion o f

f e a r

a rousa l to an innocuous sou rce (Ca lve r t -

Boyanowsky

&

Leventhal , 1 9 7 5) .

A ny

reduc t ion

in

fear resul t ing

f r om d e-

ceptive feedback

is apt to be

short- l ived

because i l lusory assurances

are not an

espe-

cially reliable way o f c rea t ing du rab le self-

expecta t ions. However , more veri table ex-

periences that reduce the level of emotional

a rousa l

can set in

mot ion

a

reciprocal process

of change. In the social learning view, po-

ten t i a l th rea t s ac t iva te fear la rge ly through

cogni tive se l f - a r ou sa l (Bandu r a , 1969 , 1 9 7 7 ) .

Perceived self-competence

c an

the re fo re

a f-

fec t susceptibil i ty to

self -a rousa l .

I n d i vi d u a l s

who com e

to

believe that

they arelessvulner-

able than they previously assumed

are

less

prone to generate f rightening thoughts in

t h r e a t en i n g

s i tua t ions .

Those

whose f ea r s

are relatively weak may reduce their self-

d o u b t s a nd debi l i t a t ing se l f - a rousa l to the

point where they perfor m successfully . Per-

f o r m a n c e successes, in tu rn , s t reng then self-

efficacy.

Such

changes

can, of course, be

re l iably achieved wi thout resor t

to

ruses.

Moreove r , m is l abe l ing a rousa l o r a t t r i bu t ing

it to e r roneous sources is unlikely to be of

m u c h

help

to the

highly anxious. Severe

ac rophobics ,

fo r example , m a y b e t e m po r a r i l y

misled into believing

that

they

no

longer

f ea r high elevations,

bu t

they w ill reexp eri-

ence

unne rv ing in te rna l f eedback when con-

f ron t ed wi th d readed he igh ts . I t should also

be no ted that in a t t r ibu t iona l exp lana t ions

of the success of behaviora l t re a tm en ts the

heavy emphasis

on

physiological ar ousa l

der ives

m o r e f r om specu l a t ions abou t th e

na tu r e

o f

emot ion (Schach te r , 1964) than

f r om evidencethat a rousa l i s a ma jo r de te r -

minant of defensive behavior.

C o g n i t i v e P r o c e s s i n g

oj

Efficacy Informat ion

T he

discussion thus

f a r h a s

cente red pr i -

ma r i l y on the many sou rces o f in fo rma t ion

enact ive , vicar ious, exhor ta t ive ,

and

emot ive

that people use to judge their level of

self-efficacy.

A t th i s po in t a d i s t inc t ion mus t

be d rawn be tween i n f o r ma t i on conta ined in

envi ronmen ta l even ts and

i n f o r ma t i on

a s

processed and t r a n s f o r m e d by the ind iv idua l .

The

i m p a c t

of i n f o rm a t i o n on

efficacy

ex -

pecta t ions

will

depend

on how it is

cog nitively

appraised . A n u m b e r of con tex tua l f ac to r s ,

inc luding the social , si tuational , and t e m po r a l

c i r cum s tances und e r which even ts occu r , en ter

in to such appraisa ls .

Fo r

this reason, even

success experiences

do no t

necessari ly create

s t rong genera l ized expecta t ions of pe rsona l

efficacy. Expectations

that have

served self-

protec t ive

func t ions

fo r yea rs a re no t qu ick ly

discarded.

When

experience

contradicts

firmly

establ ished expecta t ions of self-efficacy, they

may unde rgo little change if the

conditions

of p e r f o r m a n c e are such as to lead one to

discount

the

impor t

of the

experience.

The co r r ec t ive va lue of i n f o rm a t i on de r ived

f rom successful performance

can be at-

t enua ted

in

several ways.

The f i rs t

involves

discr imina t ion processes. The consequences

i nd iv idua ls an t i c ipa te we re they to

pe r f o r m

feared activities

differ

in circum stances which

va ry i n s a f e gua r d s . A s a r e su l t , t hey m ay

behave boldly in situations signi fying safe ty ,

bu t r e t a i n unchang e d t he ir s e lf - doub t s und e r

less secure conditions. Such mitigative dis-

c r imina t ions

can

extend

to the

t r e a tm e n t s


11/25


201

themselves, as well as to the si tuational cir-

cumstances in which behavioral a t tainments

occur . This

is

especially true

of

t r ea tmen t s

relying

solely

on

symbolic

and

vicarious

ex -

perience. Achieving reductions

in

fear

to

threat s presented sym bolical ly is unl ikely to

enhance perceived self-efficacy to any great

extent in people who believe t h a t success in

imagery does not por tend accomplishments

in rea l i ty . In fo rmat ion conveyed by facilely

modeled performances might l ikewise be

minimized

by

anxious observers

on the

g rounds that

the models possess special

expertise enabling them

to

prevent injurious

consequences

that

might o therwise befal l the

unski l led. Because such discriminations, even

though object ively mis taken, impede change

in

self-efficacy,

observers will be re luc tan t to

a t t e m p t feared activities

and will be

easily

dissuaded

by

nega tive experience.

Cognitive appraisals of the causes of one's

behavior , which have been examined exten-

sively

in

investigations

of

self-a t t r ibut ional

processes (Bern, 1 9 7 2) , can s imilar ly del imi t

gains in self-efficacy from behavioral a t tain-

men t s . I t was previously shown that a t-

t r ibu t ions of

affect

and actions to illusory

competence have li t t le,

if

any , effect

on

r e f r a c t o ry behavior . This does not , of course,

mean

t h a t causal appraisals

are of

l imi ted

impor t ance in theprocess ofbehavior change.

Quite the contrary, per fo rmance a t t a inmen t

is a p rominen t source of efficacyi n f o rm a t i o n,

but i t is by no

means unambiguous .

As a l -

ready men t ioned

briefly,

people

can

gain com-

petence th rough au then t ic means bu t , be-

cause of faul ty appraisals of the c i rcum-

s tances und er which they im prove, wil l cr edi t

thei r achievements to external factors ra ther

than to thei r own capabi l i t ies . Here the

problem is one of inaccurate ascrip t ion of

personal competency

to

si tuat ional factors .

Successes are m or e likely to enha nce self-

efficacy

if pe r fo rmances a re perceived as

resul t ing

f rom

skil l than

f rom

f o r t u i t o u s

or

special external aids. Conversely,

failures

would be expected to p roduce g rea te r reduc-

t ions

in

self-efficacy

when a t t r ibu ted to

abi l i ty ra ther than to unusual s i tuat ional

c i rcumstances .

The more extensive the si tua-

t ional aids for p e r f o rm an ce , the greater a re

the chances

that

behavior will be ascribed

to

external factors (Bern, 1972; Weiner ,

1972) .

Even under condi t ions of perceived self-

de t e rmina t i on of

outcomes,

the

impac t

of

pe r fo rmance a t t a inments on self-efficacy will

vary depending on whether one's accomplish-

m e n t s

a re

ascribed mainly

to

abili ty

or to

effort .

Success with minimal

effort

fosters

abi l i ty ascrip t ions t h a t re in fo rce

a

strong

sense

of

self-efficacy.

By

contrast, analogous

successes achieved through high expenditure

of effor t connote

a

lesser ability

and a r e

thus

likely

to have a weaker effect on perceived

self-efficacy.

Co gnitive appra isals

of the

d i f -

ficulty level of thetaskswillfu r the r

affect

the

impac t

of

per fo r m anc e accom plishments

on

perceived

self-efficacy.

To succeed a t easy

tasks provides

no new

in fo rma t ion

for alter-

ing one's sense of

self-efficacy,

whereas mas-

tery

of

challenging

tasks

conveys salient evi-

dence of enhanced competence. The

rate

and

pa t t e rn

of a t t a i nmen t s furnish addi t ional in -

format ion forjud ging personal

efficacy. Thus,

people who

experience setbacks

bu t

detect

relative progress will raise their perceived

efficacy

more than those

who

succeed

but see

thei r performances level ing off compared to

their prior r a t e

of

improvement .

Extrapolat ions from theories about a t t r ibu-

tion

and

self-perception

to the field of be-

havioral change often imply that

people must

l abor unaided

or

under inconspicuously

a r -

ranged

inf luences

if

they

are to

convince

themselves of their personal competence

(Kopel &

Arkowi tz ,

1975) .

Such

prescrip-

t ions are open to question on both con-

ceptual and empirical grounds. Cognitive

misappraisals

that

a t tenua te

the

impac t

of

disconfi rming experiences

can be

minimized

without sacrificing the substantial benefits

of powerful induction procedures . This is

achieved

by

providing opportunities

for

self-

di rec ted accomplishments after the desired

behavior has been established. Any lingering

doubts people might have, either about their

capabili ties or about probable response con-

sequences

under unprotected condi t ions ,

a re

dispelled easily in this manner (Bandura

et al., 197S ) . The more varied the c i rcum-

stances

in

which th rea t s

a re

mas te red

in -


12/25

202


dependent ly ,

the

more likely

a re

success

ex -

periences to authenticate personal efficacy

and to impede fo rma t i on of d i sc r imina t ions

t h a t

insulate self-perceptions f rom disconf i rm-

in g evidence.

Results of recent s tudies suppor t the

thesis t h a t generalized, lasting changes in

self-efficacy and

behavior

can

best

be

achieved

by

par t ic ipant methods using power-

f u l induct ion procedures ini t ia l ly

to

develop

capabili t ies, then removing external aids

to

ver i fy personal efficacy, then

finally

us ing

self-directed

mas te ry to s t rengthen and gen-

eralize expectations of personal

efficacy

( B a n d u r a et

al.,

1 9 7 5 ) .

Independent pe r -

fo rmance can enhance

efficacy

expectations

in

several ways: (a) I t creates addi t ional

exposure

to fo rme r threa ts , which provides

pa r t i c ipan ts wi th f u r t he r evidence t h a t they

are no

longer aversively aroused

by

wha t

they previously fea red . Reduced emot iona l

a rousa l conf i rms increased copingcapabili ties,

( b ) Se l f -d irec ted mas te ry prov ides oppor tuni -

ties to perfect coping skills, which lessen

personal vulnerability

to

stress,

(c )

Indepen-

den t pe r fo rmance ,

if

well executed, produces

success experiences, which f u r t he r re inforce

expectations of

self -competency.

Extensive self-di rec ted performance of

f o rm e r l y threatening ac t ivi t ies under pro-

gressively challenging conditions a t a t ime

when t rea tments a re usua l ly te rmina ted could

also

serve

to reduce susceptibility to relearn-

ing of defensive pat te rns of behavior . A few

negat ive encounters among many successful

experiences

t h a t

have

instilled

a

strong sense

o f self-efficacy

will,

a t

most, establish dis-

c r imina t ive

avoidance

of

realistic

threa ts , an

effect t h a t has adapt ive value. In cont rast , i f

people have limited contact with previously

feared

objects

a f te r

t rea tment , wha tever

expectations of self-efficacy were insta ted

would

be

weaker

and

more vulnerable

to

change. Consequent ly,

a few

unfavo r ab le

experiences

are likely to reestablish defensive

behavior

t h a t

generalizes inappropriately.

We have already examined how cogni t ive

processing of information conveyed by mode l -

ing might influence the extent to which

vicarious experience effects changes

in

self-

efficacy. A m o n g

the

especial ly informative

elements are the models' characteristics (e.g.,

adeptness, perseverance, age, exper tness) ,

the

similar i ty between models and observers, the

difficulty

of the

p e r f o r ma n c e

t asks , the

si tua-

t ional a r r angements unde r which the mode led

achievements occur , and the diversi ty of

mode led a t t a inments .

Ju s t

as the value of

efficacy

i n fo rma t i on

generated enactively and vicariously depends

on cogni t ive appraisal , so does the informa-

tion arising f rom exhor ta t ive

and

emotive

sources. The impac t of verbal persuasion on

self-efficacy

may va ry subs tan t i a l ly depend-

ing on the perceived credibi l i ty of the per-

suaders, thei r prest ige, t rustwor thiness, ex-

pertise,

and assuredness. The

more

believable

the source of the i n f o r ma t i o n , the m o r e

l ikely are efficacy expecta t ions to change.

The influence of credibi l i ty on a t t i t ud i na l

change has,

of

course, received intensive

s tudy .

But its

effects

on

perceived self-efficacy

r ema in

to be investigated.

People judge their physiological arousal

largely on the basis of their appra isa l of the

instigating conditions. Thus , visceral a rousa l

occur r ing

in si tuations perceived to be

threatening is interpre ted as fea r , arousal in

thwar t ing si tua t ions is experienced as anger ,

and t h a t resul t ing f rom irretrievable loss of

valued objects as sorrow (Hunt , Cole , &

Reis, 1958). Even the same source of phys-

iologicalarousal m a y b ein te rpre ted

di f feren t ly

in ambiguous situations depending on the

emotional react ions of others in the same

se t t ing (Mandle r ,

1975;

Schachter & Singer,

1 9 6 2 ) .

When t asks a r e pe r f o rm e d in ambiguous or

complex s i tua t ions in which there is a variety

o f evocat ive s t imuli ,

the

informa t iona l va lue

of the resul tant a rousal wil l depend on the

meaning imposed upon

it .

People

who

per-

ceive their arousal

as

s t emming f rom personal

inadequacies are more likely to lower their

efficacy expecta t ions than those who a t t r i b u t e

thei r a rousal

to

cer ta in si tua t ional fac tors .

Given

a

proneness

to

ascr ibe arousal

to

per-

sonal deficiencies, the heightened a t tent ion to

internal events

c an

result

in

reciprocally

escalating arousal. Indeed,

as

Sa rason (1976)

has

amply

documented, individuals who are

especially susceptible to anxie ty arousal


13/25


203

readily become self-preoccupied with their

perceived inadequacies

in the

face

of

d i f -

ficulties ra ther than wi th the task a t h a n d .

Differing

P e rs p e c t i v e s

on

S e l f - e f f i c a c y

The phenomena encompassed by the con-

struct of

self-efficacy

have been the

subject

o f interest

in

other theories

of

h u m a n

be-

havior. The theoretical perspectives

differ,

however,

in how they view the nature and

origins of

personal

efficacy and the interven-

ing

processes

by

which perceived self-efficacy

affects behavior . In seeking a motivat ional

explanat ion of explora to ry and manipula t ive

behavior, White

(1959)

postulated an effec-

t ance

motive,

which is conceptualized as an

int r insic

dr ive

fo r

t ransact ions wi th

the en-

vi ronment .

Unlike inst igators ar ising f rom

t issue defici ts, effectance motivation is be-

lieved to be

aroused

by

novel s t imula t ion

and i s

sus ta ined when

the

resul tant inquisi -

tive

and

explora to ry ac t ions produce

f u r t he r

elements of

novelty

in the

s t imu lus

field.

The

effectance

m otive presum ably develops

th rough

cumula t ive acquis i t ion

of

knowledge

and ski l ls in dealing wi th the envi ronment .

However, the process by which an effectance

mot ive emerges

from effective

t r ansac t ions

with

the envi ron m ent is not spelled out in

White's theory. Nor is the existence of the

motive easy to veri fy , because effectance

mot iva t ion

is infe r red

f rom

the

explora to ry

behavior it supposedly causes. Without an

independent measure

of

motive

st rength one

can not te ll whether people explore and m anip-

ula te th ings because of a competence motive

to do so, or for any

n u m b e r

of

other reasons.

Athough the

theory

of effectance motivation

has not been fo rmula t ed in sufficient detail

to permi t extensive theore t ical comparisons,

there are several issues on which the social

learning and effectance theories clearly differ.

In the social learning analysis, choice be-

havior

and

effort

expend i t u r e

a re

governed

in p a r t by percepts of

self-efficacy

ra the r

than

by a drive condition. Because efficacy

expecta t ions

a re

defined

and measured in-

dependent ly of pe r fo rm ance , t h ey p rov ide

an

explici t basis

for

pred ic t ing

the

occurrence,

generali ty, and persistence of coping be-

havior, whereas an om nibus m otive does

not. People will approach, explore ,

and t r y

to

deal wi th si tua t ions wi thin thei r

self-

perceived capabili t ies, but they will avoid

t ransact ions wi th s t ressful aspects of their

envi ronment

they perceive as exceeding their

abi l i ty .

The alternative views also d i f f e r on the

origins

of efficacy. Wi th in the f r a me wo r kof

effectance theory , the effectance dr ive d e-

velops gradually th rough prolonged t rans-

actions with one's sur roundings .

This

theory

thus focuses almost exclusively

on the effects

produced by

one's

own

ac t ions.

In the

social

learning theory ,

self-efficacy

isc onceptualized

as arising from d iverse sources of info rm a-

tion conveyed by d i r e c t and me d i a t e d ex-

perience.

These

differences in theore t ical ap-

proach have

significant

implica t ions

for how

one goes

abou t

s tudying the role of perceived

self-efficacy

in

mo t iv a t i ona l

and

behavioral

processes. Expecta t ions

of

personal efficacy

d o no t

opera te

as

d i sposi t iona l de te rminants

independently of contex tua l fac tors . Some

si tuat ions requi re greater sk i l l and m o r e

a r d u o u s p e r f o r m a n c e sand car ry higher r i sk

of negat ive consequences than d o o the rs .

Expecta t ions will vary accordingly.Thus, for

example, the level and s t rength of perceived

self-efficacy

in

public speaking will

differ

depend ing

on t he sub je c t ma t t e r , t h e fo rma t

of the presenta t ion, and the types of audi -

ences t h a t

will

be

add re s sed .

The

social

lea rning

approach i s

the re fore

based on a

microanalysis of

perceived coping capabili t ies

ra the r than on g loba l pe rsona l i ty t r a i t s o r

motives of

effectance. From this perspect ive,

it is no

mo r e i n f o r ma t i v e

to

speak

of

self-

efficacy

in

genera l te rms than

to

speak

of

nonspecific approach behavior .

To

e luc ida te

how

perceived self-efficacy affects behavior

requi res a mic roana lys i s of bo th fac to r s .

Discrepancies

between

efficacy

expecta-

t ions

and pe r fo rm anc e a r e m os t lik e ly t o

a r i se unde r condi t ions

in

which si tua t ional

and

task

f ac to r s a re am biguous . When pe r -

fo rmance

requi rements a re ill-defined,

people

who

u n d e r e s t i ma t e

the

s i tua t iona l demands

will display posi tive discrepancies between

self-efficacy

and

p e r f o r ma n c e a t t a i n me n t s ;

those

who

overes t ima te

the

demands wi l l


14/25

204

AL BE R T BANDUR A

exhibi t

negative discrepancies. Therefore, in

test ing predic t ions f rom the conceptual

scheme presented here it is i mp o r t a n t t h a t

sub jec t s unde rs t and wha t k ind

of

behavior

will

be requi red and the c i r cums t ance s in

which they will be asked to pe r f o rm t hem.

Moreover , pe r formances

and the

cor respond-

in g efficacy expectations should be analyzed

into sepa ra te activities, and p re fe r ab ly

ordered by level of difficulty . In this type

of microanalysis both

the

efficacy

expecta-

t ions

and the corresponding behaviors are

measured in t e r ms of explici t types of pe r -

f o rmances

ra the r than on the basis of global

indices.

The social learning determinants of self-

efficacy

can be var ied systematical ly and

their

effects measured. Hence, proposi t ions

concerning the or igins of

self-efficacy

a re

verif iable with some precision. A slowly d e-

veloping motive, however, does

not

easily

lend itself to being tested experimental ly.

Ano the r

dimension on which the al te rnat ive

theories might be judged is their power to

p r o d u c e the phenomena they purpor t to

explain.

As we shall see la ter , there are more

diverse, expeditious, and powerful ways of

c rea t ing

self-efficacy

t h a n by relying solely

on novel s t imula t ion ar ising f rom explora to ry

act ions.

Wi th the ascendency of cognitive viewsof

behavior, the concept of expectancy is as-

suming an increasingly prominent place in

contem porar y psychological thought (Bolles,

1972b ; Heneman , & Schwab, 1972; I rwin,

1 9 7 1 ) .

However , vi r tual ly all of the theoriz-

in g and

exper imenta t ion

has

focused

on

ac t i on -ou t come expecta t ions.

T he

ideas

ad -

vanced in some of the theories nevertheless

bear some likeness

to the

not ion

of

self-

efficacy. According

to the theory of

person-

al i ty

proposed by Rot ter

(1966 ) ,

behavior

varies as a

func t ion

of

generalized expect-

ancies t h a t outcomes a re de te rmined by one's

ac t ions or by external forces beyond one's

con t ro l . Such expecta t ions about the inst ru-

menta l i ty

of

behavior

a re

considered

to be

largely a produc t ofone'shis toryof reinforce-

ment . Much of the research wi thin th is t radi -

t ion is concerned wi th the behavioral cor-

re la tes

of

ind iv idua l differences

in the

tend-

ency

to

perceive events

as

being ei ther per-

sonally o r ex te rna l ly de te rmined .

The not ion of locus of control is

o f ten

t rea ted in the l i te ra ture as analogous to self-

efficacy.

However , Rot t er 's (19 66 ) conceptual

scheme is pr imari ly concerned wi th causal

beliefs a b o u t

a c t ion -ou tcome

cont ingencies

ra ther than wi th personal efficacy. Perceived

self-efficacy

and beliefs abou t the locus of

causal i ty must be dis t inguished, because con-

victions t h a t outcomes a re de te rmined by

one's own ac t ions can have any n u mb e r of

effects

on

self-efficacy

and behavior. People

who rega rd ou tcomes

as

personally de term ined

but who lack the r equisi te skills wou ld ex-

perience

lo w

self-efficacy

and

view activities

with

a

sense

of

fu t i l i t y . Thus ,

for

example,

a chi ld who

fails

to g rasp a r i thmet i c concepts

bandura, a. (1977) ‘self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioural change’,...

Documents