Albert Bandura’s
Social Cognitive
Learning Theory:
Self Efficacy
Expectations
QuickT ime™ and a
decompressor
are needed to see thi s picture.
Bandra’s
Childhood
About 1934 (9 years old)
 Born on December 4, 1925 in
Alberta, Canada
 Had 5 older sisters
 Parents emigrated to Canada
from Poland and the Ukraine
and worked hard to provide
for their family
 Bandura said that life growing
up was “a struggle” (one year,
a drought forced Bandura’s
family to feed their thatched
roof to their cattle)
Education and Early Adulthood
QuickTime™ and a
decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
 Elementary and high school:
his small town had only one
school, with few teachers and
resources.
 As a result, Bandura took
charge of his education from
an early age.
Bandura on his education:
The content of most
textbooks is perishable,
but the tools of selfdirectedness serve one
over time.
From University Student
to Grandfather
 Undergraduate student at the
University of British Columbia
 Intended to major in Biology; took
a Psychology class to fill an open
time slot, and he immediately knew
that it was the career for him
 M.A. and Ph.D. from University of
Iowa
 Married at 27 and had two
daughters
 At 28, joined faculty of Stanford
 At age 82, still taught at Stanford in
addition to spending time with his
grandchildren
Bandura with his grandchildren in 1996
QuickTime™ and a
decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
College graduation: 1949 (24 years old)
QuickTime™ and a
decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Background: Bandura’s Social
Learning Theory
In the 1960’s, Bandura developed his
social learning theory.
In social settings, we learn through imitation
Through a cognitive process, we learn how
to perform a new behavior and the probable
consequences
In the 1980’s, Bandura began to
develop his self-efficacy theory
Bandura’s Theories
as opposed to Skinner, Bandura believes
learning must include internal cognitive
variables
believed in vicarious reinforcement
observational learning process
•
•
•
•
attentional
retention
motor reproduction
reinforcement and motivational
(cont.)
social learning process
aggression
• Bobo doll experiment
 aggression-rewarded
 aggression-punished
 no-consequences
• Bobo doll-part two
 after the child’s initial response, an experimenter
came back into the room and told the child that they
would get juice and a sticker if they could imitate
anything else from the model
(cont.)
 gender roles
 within cultures, boys are taught “masculine” traits and girls are taught
“feminine” traits
 some gender traits can be attributed to genetics, but most is gained from
imitation
 children learn behaviors of both genders, but only perform behaviors
appropriate to their own gender due to what has been reinforced
 prosocial behavior
 sharing, helping, cooperation
• even a brief exposure to a generous model can lead to a permanent effect on
sharing
• parents’ preaching is not as influential as showing your children what to do
 self-regulation
 as people become more socialized, they rely less on external rewards and
punishments and rely more on inner regulation of behavior
 according to Bandura, children adopt the self-evaluative standards of peers
rather than adults because it is easier to achieve the lower standards
(cont.)
self-efficacy
 we evaluate our ongoing performances in terms of our standards
 general judgments of our abilities are called self-efficacy appraisals
• have strong effects on our motivations
• perceived self-efficacy is what we believe we are good and bad at
doing
• having more optimistic self-efficacy, according to Bandura, is a good
thing--allows us to face the challenges of life with some confidence
• four sources of self-efficacy appraisals
 actual performance
 vicarious experiences
 verbal persuasion (pep talks)
 physiological cues
• develops throughout our lives, from infancy to old age
• our perceived self efficacy effects almost every aspect of our lives
What is self-efficacy?
Perceived self-efficacy is concerned not with the
number of skills you have, but with what you believe
you can do with what you have under a variety of
circumstances.
Bandura, Albert. Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. USA: W.H. Freeman and Co, 1997.
Self-efficacy expectation: an individual’s judgment of his
capability to organize and execute courses of
action required to attain designated types of
performances
The Importance of Efficacy Beliefs
 Skills + efficacy beliefs = effective functioning
 Performance increases in proportion as perceived selfefficacy increases
 “efficacy beliefs are based on cognitive processing of
multiple sources of information” -Bandura, Albert. Self-Efficacy: The Exercise
of Control. USA: W.H. Freeman and Co, 1997.
Four Sources of Self-Efficacy Expectations
(In order of significance)
1. Actual performance (also called mastery experience or
performance accomplishments): our past personal experiences in
the same type of activity or task. “I made it to the top of that
mountain, so I can get to the top of this one, too.”
2. Vicarious experiences: Derived from watching others perform the same
or similar actions. “If he can do it, I can do it.”
3. Verbal persuasion: Someone persuades us we can perform a task.
“The teacher told me that if I study hard I can get an A on this test!”
4. Physiological cues (also called emotional arousal): Bodily cues. “My
adrenaline is pumping- it’s going to be a great race.”
Our Project
We will examine 3 of Bandura’s 4 selfefficacy factors to determine how effective
they are
Our setting: Holy Family of Nazareth
Catholic School
Participants: 5th and 6th graders
Their task: Predict how many free throws
they will make (out of 10) before and after
treatment
Our Hypothesis
 Actual performance will have the greatest
influence on self-efficacy expectations (in
agreement with Bandura)
 The verbal persuasion will be more effective
than the vicarious experience (disagreement
with Bandura). Our example will be less
effective because we are not in the children’s
peer group.
 Overall, the positive influences will outweigh
the negative influences because 5th and 6th
grade kids have a natural optimism and
egocentrism.
Procedure
Application of
Bandura’s selfefficacy theory to
free throw shooting
QuickTime™ and a
decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
QuickTime™ and a
decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
We measured self-efficacy
expectations by asking the
kids to predict how many free
throws they would make out
of 10
QuickTime™ and a
decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Results: Positive Vicarious Experience
Participant
ID
5
6
7
8
1st
2nd Prediction
Prediction
(before
watching
Liz shoot)
(after watching
Liz shoot)
And Change
From 1st
6
5
4
1
6 (0)
5 (0)
6 (+2)
1 (0)
Free
3rd
throws Prediction
made
2
5
0
2
4
7
1
2
Average change after watching model: +.5
Average change between actual performance and 3rd prediction: + 1.25
Average change between 1st and 3rd prediction: 2
QuickTime™ and a
decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Results: Negative Vicarious Experience
Participant
ID
1st
2nd Prediction
Free
3rd
throws Prediction
made
Prediction
(before
watching
Rachel shoot)
(after watching
Rachel shoot)
And Change
From 1st
9
10
5
6
5 (0)
5 (-1)
2
3
4
4
11
12
6
7
5 (-1)
6 (-1)
0
3
0
5
13
4
5 (+1)
3
3
Average change after watching model: -.4
Average change between actual performance and 3rd prediction: + .83
Average change between 1st and 3rd prediction: 2.4
QuickTime™ and a
decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Results: Positive Verbal Persuasion
Participant
ID
14
15
16
17
1st
2nd Prediction
Prediction
(before
pep talk)
(after pep talk)
And Change
From 1st
10
3
5
8
8 (-2)
4 (+1)
8 (+3)
9 (+1)
Free
3rd
throws Prediction
made
6
1
2
6
9
3
5
7
Average change after pep talk: +.75
Average change between actual performance and 3rd prediction: +2.25
Average change between 1st and 3rd prediction: .5
QuickTime™ and a
decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Results: Negative Verbal Persuasion
Participant
ID
1st
2nd Prediction
Prediction
(before
talk)
(after talk)
And Change
From 1st
Free
3rd
throws Prediction
made
1
2
5
7
4 (-1)
4 (-3)
3
4
4
5
3
4
3
1
2 (-1)
3 (+2)
2
1
2
1
Average change after negative talk: -.75
Average change between actual performance and 3rd prediction: +.5
Average change between 1st and 3rd prediction: 1
Which Factor Actually has the Most Influence on
Children’s Self-Efficacy Expectations?
 Positive Vicarious Experience
 Negative Vicarious Experience
Average change: +.5
Average change: -.4
Average Change due to Vicarious Experience= .45
 Positive Verbal Persuasion
 Negative Verbal Persuasion
Average change: +.75
Average change: -.75
Average Change due to Verbal Persuasion= .75
 Actual Performance- Average change: +1.25
+.83
+2.25
+.5
Average change due to Actual Performance= 1.21
The Importance of Building SelfEfficacy in the Classroom
Students who develop a strong
sense of self-efficacy are well
equipped to educate themselves
when they have to rely on their own
initiative.
- Albert Bandura
Self-Efficacy and College Students
Beliefs concerning one’s capabilities are
influential determinants of the vocational
life paths that are chosen
- Bandura
Other Applications of
Bandura’s Theory
Bandura’s Self-Efficacy theory has also
been used to help people:
Lose weight
Fight alcoholism
Overcome fears (e.g. of snakes)
Tackle depression and anxiety
Move up the corporate ladder
Limitations/Repeat
Limitations of our research:
could not control the environment
were unable to observe the children separately, apart
from their peers
as a result, the participant was distracted by peers
small pool of participants
If research were repeated :
 wider range of ages
more isolated observation area