Last updated

Self-efficacy, according to psychologist Albert Bandura, who originally proposed the concept, is a personal judgment of how well or poorly a person is able to cope with a given situation based on the skills they have and the circumstances they face. [1]


Self-efficacy affects every area of human endeavor. By determining the beliefs a person holds regarding their power to affect situations, self-efficacy strongly influences both the power a person actually has to face challenges competently and the choices a person is most likely to make. These effects are particularly apparent, and compelling, with regard to investment behaviors such as in health, [2] education, [3] and agriculture. [4]

A strong sense of self-efficacy promotes human accomplishment and personal well-being. A person with high self-efficacy views challenges as things that are supposed to be mastered rather than threats to avoid. These people are able to recover from failure faster and are more likely to attribute failure to a lack of effort. They approach threatening situations with the belief that they can control them. These things have been linked to lower levels of stress and a lower vulnerability to depression. [1]

In contrast, people with a low sense of self-efficacy view difficult tasks as personal threats and shy away from them. Difficult tasks lead them to look at the skills they lack rather than the ones they have. It is easy for them to lose faith in their own abilities after a failure. Low self-efficacy can be linked to higher levels of stress and depression. [1]

Theoretical approaches

Social cognitive theory

Psychologist Albert Bandura has defined self-efficacy as one's belief in one's ability to succeed in specific situations or accomplish a task. One's sense of self-efficacy can play a major role in how one approaches goals, tasks, and challenges. [2] The theory of self-efficacy lies at the center of Bandura's social cognitive theory, which emphasizes the role of observational learning and social experience in the development of personality. The main concept in social cognitive theory is that an individual's actions and reactions, including social behaviors and cognitive processes, in almost every situation are influenced by the actions that individual has observed in others. Because self-efficacy is developed from external experiences and self-perception and is influential in determining the outcome of many events, it is an important aspect of social cognitive theory. Self-efficacy represents the personal perception of external social factors. [5] [6] [7] [8] According to Bandura's theory, people with high self-efficacy—that is, those who believe they can perform well—are more likely to view difficult tasks as something to be mastered rather than something to be avoided.

Social learning theory

Social learning theory describes the acquisition of skills that are developed exclusively or primarily within a social group. Social learning depends on how individuals either succeed or fail at dynamic interactions within groups, and promotes the development of individual emotional and practical skills as well as accurate perception of self and acceptance of others. According to this theory, people learn from one another through observation, imitation, and modeling. Self-efficacy reflects an individual's understanding of what skills he/she can offer in a group setting. [9]

Self-concept theory

Self-concept theory seeks to explain how people perceive and interpret their own existence from clues they receive from external sources, focusing on how these impressions are organized and how they are active throughout life. Successes and failures are closely related to the ways in which people have learned to view themselves and their relationships with others. This theory describes self-concept as learned (i.e., not present at birth); organized (in the way it is applied to the self); and dynamic (i.e., ever-changing, and not fixed at a certain age). [10]

Attribution theory

Attribution theory focuses on how people attribute events and how those beliefs interact with self-perception. Attribution theory defines three major elements of cause:

Sources of Self-Efficacy

Mastery Experiences

According to Bandura, the most effective way to build self-efficacy is to engage in mastery experiences. [1] These mastery experiences can be defined as a personal experience of success. [12] Achieving difficult goals in the face of adversity helps build confidence and strengthen perseverance. [1]

Vicarious Experiences of Social Models

Another source of self-efficacy is through vicarious experiences of social models. Seeing someone, who you view as similar to yourself, succeed at something difficult can motivate you to believe that you have the skills necessary to achieve a similar goal. However, the inverse of the previous statement is true as well. Seeing someone fail at a task can lead to doubt in personal skills and abilities. It is important to note that “The greater the assumed similarity, the more persuasive are the models' successes and failures.” [1]

Belief in Success

A third source of self-efficacy is found through strengthening the belief that one has the ability to succeed. Those who are positively persuaded that they have the ability to complete a given task show a greater and more sustained effort to complete a task. It also lowers the effect of self-doubt in a person. However, it is important to remember that those who are doing the encouraging, put the person in a situation where success is more often. If they are put in a situation prematurely with no hope of any success, it can undermine self-efficacy. [1]

How it affects human function

Choices regarding behavior

People generally avoid tasks where self-efficacy is low, but undertake tasks where self-efficacy is high. When self-efficacy is significantly beyond actual ability, it leads to an overestimation of the ability to complete tasks. On the other hand, when self-efficacy is significantly lower than actual ability, it discourages growth and skill development. Research shows that the optimum level of self-efficacy is slightly above ability; in this situation, people are most encouraged to tackle challenging tasks and gain experience. [13] Self-efficacy is made of dimensions like magnitude, strength, and generality to explain how one believes they will perform on a specific task. [14]


High self-efficacy can affect motivation in both positive and negative ways. In general, people with high self-efficacy are more likely to make efforts to complete a task, and to persist longer in those efforts, than those with low self-efficacy. [15] The stronger the self-efficacy or mastery expectations, the more active the efforts. [16]

A negative effect of low self-efficacy is that it can lead to a state of learned helplessness. Learned helplessness was studied by Martin Seligman in an experiment in which shocks were applied to animals. Through the experiment, it was discovered that the animals placed in a cage where they could escape shocks by moving to a different part of the cage did not attempt to move if they had formerly been placed in a cage in which escape from the shocks was not possible. Low self-efficacy can lead to this state in which it is believed that no amount of effort will make a difference in the success of the task at hand. [17]

Work performance

Self-efficacy theory has been embraced by management scholars and practitioners because of its applicability in the workplace. Overall, self-efficacy is positively and strongly related to work-related performance as measured by the weighted average correlation across 114 selected studies. [18] The strength of the relationship, though, is moderated by both task complexity and environmental context. For more complex tasks, the relationships between self-efficacy and work performance is weaker than for easier work-related tasks. In actual work environments, which are characterized by performance constraints, ambiguous demands, deficient performance feedback, and other complicating factors, the relationship appears weaker than in controlled laboratory settings. The implications of this research is that managers should provide accurate descriptions of tasks and provide clear and concise instructions. Moreover, they should provide the necessary supporting elements, including training employees in developing their self-efficacy in additional to task-related skills, for employees to be successful. It has also been suggested that managers should factor in self-efficacy when trying to decide candidates for developmental or training programs. It has been found that those who are high in self-efficacy learn more which leads to higher job performance. [19]

Social cognitive theory explains that employees use five basic capabilities to self influence themselves in order to initiate, regulate and sustain their behavior: symbolizing, forethought, observational, self-regulatory and self reflective. [20]

Thought patterns and responses

Self-efficacy has several effects on thought patterns and responses:

Health behaviors

A number of studies on the adoption of health practices have measured self-efficacy to assess its potential to initiate behavior change. [2] With increased self-efficacy, individuals have greater confidence in their ability and thus are more likely to engage in healthy behaviors. Greater engagement in healthy behaviors, result in positive patient health outcomes such as improved quality of life. Choices affecting health (such as smoking, physical exercise, dieting, condom use, dental hygiene, seat belt use, and breast self-examination) are dependent on self-efficacy. [21] Self-efficacy beliefs are cognitions that determine whether health behavior change will be initiated, how much effort will be expended, and how long it will be sustained in the face of obstacles and failures. Self-efficacy influences how high people set their health goals (e.g., "I intend to reduce my smoking", or "I intend to quit smoking altogether").

Relationship to locus of control

Bandura showed that difference in self-efficacy correlates to fundamentally different world views. [22] [23] People with high self-efficacy generally believe that they are in control of their own lives, that their own actions and decisions shape their lives, while people with low self-efficacy may see their lives as outside their control. For example, a student with high self-efficacy who does poorly on an exam will likely attribute the failure to the fact that they did not study enough. However, a student with low self-efficacy who does poorly on an exam is likely to believe the cause of that failure was due to the test being too difficult or challenging, which the student does not control.

Factors affecting self-efficacy

Bandura identifies four factors affecting self-efficacy.

  1. Experience, or "enactive attainment" – The experience of mastery is the most important factor determining a person's self-efficacy. Success raises self-efficacy, while failure lowers it. [24] According to psychologist Erik Erikson: "Children cannot be fooled by empty praise and condescending encouragement. They may have to accept artificial bolstering of their self-esteem in lieu of something better, but what I call their accruing ego identity gains real strength only from wholehearted and consistent recognition of real accomplishment, that is, achievement that has meaning in their culture."
  2. Modeling, or "vicarious experience" – Modeling is experienced as, "If they can do it, I can do it as well". When we see someone succeeding, our own self-efficacy increases; where we see people failing, our self-efficacy decreases. This process is most effectual when we see ourselves as similar to the model. Although not as influential as direct experience, modeling is particularly useful for people who are particularly unsure of themselves.
  3. Social persuasion – Social persuasion generally manifests as direct encouragement or discouragement from another person. Discouragement is generally more effective at decreasing a person's self-efficacy than encouragement is at increasing it.
  4. Physiological factors – In stressful situations, people commonly exhibit signs of distress: shakes, aches and pains, fatigue, fear, nausea, etc. Perceptions of these responses in oneself can markedly alter self-efficacy. Getting "butterflies in the stomach" before public speaking will be interpreted by someone with low self-efficacy as a sign of inability, thus decreasing self-efficacy further, where high self-efficacy would lead to interpreting such physiological signs as normal and unrelated to ability. It is one's belief in the implications of physiological response that alters self-efficacy, rather than the physiological response itself. [25]

Genetic and environmental determinants

In a Norwegian twin study, the heritability of self-efficacy in adolescents was estimated at 75 percent. The remaining variance, 25 percent, was due to environmental influences not shared between family members. The shared family environment did not contribute to individual differences in self-efficacy. [26]

Theoretical models of behavior

A theoretical model of the effect of self-efficacy on transgressive behavior was developed and verified in research with school children. [27]

Prosociality and moral disengagement

Prosocial behavior (such as helping others, sharing, and being kind and cooperative) and moral disengagement (manifesting in behaviors such as making excuses for bad behavior, avoiding responsibility for consequences, and blaming the victim) are negatively correlated. [28] Academic, social, and self-regulatory self-efficacy encourages prosocial behavior, and thus helps prevent moral disengagement. [29]

Over-efficaciousness in learning

In certain circumstances, lower self-efficacy can be helpful. One study examined foreign language students' beliefs about learning, goal attainment, and motivation to continue with language study. It was concluded that over-efficaciousness negatively affected student motivation, so that students who believed they were "good at languages" had less motivation to study. [30]

Health behavior change

Social-cognitive models of health behavior change cast self-efficacy as predictor, mediator, or moderator. As a predictor, self-efficacy is supposed to facilitate the forming of behavioral intentions, the development of action plans, and the initiation of action. As mediator, self-efficacy can help prevent relapse to unhealthy behavior. [31] As a moderator, self-efficacy can support the translation of intentions into action. [32] See Health action process approach.

Possible applications

Academic contexts

Parents' sense of academic efficacy for their child is linked to their children's scholastic achievement. If the parents have higher perceived academic capabilities and aspirations for their child, the child itself will share those same beliefs. This promotes academic self-efficacy for the child, and in turn, leads to scholastic achievement. It also leads to prosocial behavior, and reduces vulnerability to feelings of futility and depression. [33] There is a relationship between low self-efficacy and depression. [34]

In a study, the majority of a group of students questioned felt they had a difficulty with listening in class situations. Instructors then helped strengthen their listening skills by making them aware about how the use of different strategies could produce better outcomes. This way, their levels of self-efficacy were improved as they continued to figure out what strategies worked for them. [35]


Self-efficacy has proven especially useful for helping undergraduate students to gain insights into their career development in STEM fields. [36] Researchers have reported that mathematics self-efficacy is more predictive of mathematics interest, choice of math-related courses, and math majors than past achievements in math or outcome expectations. [36]

Self-efficacy theory has been applied to the career area to examine why women are underrepresented in male-dominated STEM fields such as mathematics, engineering, and science. It was found that gender differences in self-efficacy expectancies importantly influence the career-related behaviors and career choices of young women. [37]

Technical self-efficacy was found to be a crucial factor for teaching computer programming to school students, as students with higher levels of technological self-efficacy achieve higher learning outcomes. The effect of technical self-efficacy was found to be even stronger than the effect of gender. [38]


Writing studies research indicates a strong relationship linking perceived self-efficacy to motivation and performance outcomes. A 1997 study looked at how self-efficacy could influence the writing ability of 5th graders in the United States. Researchers found that there was a direct correlation between students' self-efficacy and their own writing apprehension, essay performance, and perceived usefulness of writing. As the researchers suggest, this study is important because it showed how important it is for teachers to teach skills but also to build confidence within their students. [39] A more recent study was done that seemed to replicate the findings of the previous study quite nicely. This study found that a student's belief about their own writing did have an impact on their self-efficacy, apprehension, and performance. [40]


One of the factors most commonly associated with self-efficacy in writing studies is motivation. Motivation is often divided into two categories: extrinsic and intrinsic. McLeod suggests that intrinsic motivators tend to be more effective than extrinsic motivators because students then perceive the given task as inherently valuable. [41] Additionally, McCarthy, Meier, and Rinderer explain that writers who are intrinsically motivated tend to be more self-directed, take active control of their writing, and see themselves as more capable of setting and accomplishing goals. [42] Furthermore, writing studies research indicates that self-efficacy influences student choices, effort, persistence, perseverance, thought patterns, and emotional reactions when completing a writing assignment. [43] [44] [45] Students with a high self-efficacy are more likely to attempt and persist in unfamiliar writing tasks. [42] [45]

Performance outcomes

Self-efficacy has often been linked to students' writing performance outcomes. More so than any other element within the cognitive-affective domain, self-efficacy beliefs have proven to be predictive of performance outcomes in writing. [42] [43] [44] [45] In order to assess the relationship between self-efficacy and writing capabilities, several studies have constructed scales to measure students' self-efficacy beliefs. [42] [44] The results of these scales are then compared to student writing samples. The studies included other variables, such as writing anxiety, grade goals, depth of processing, and expected outcomes. However, self-efficacy was the only variable that was a statistically significant predictor of writing performance. [43]

Public speaking

A strong negative relationship has been suggested between levels of speech anxiety and self-efficacy. [46] [47]


As the focus of healthcare continues to transition from the medical model to health promotion and preventive healthcare, the role of self-efficacy as a potent influence on health behavior and self-care has come under review. According to Luszczynska and Schwarzer, [2] self-efficacy plays a role in influencing the adoption, initiation, and maintenance of healthy behaviors, as well as curbing unhealthy practices.

Healthcare providers can integrate self-efficacy interventions into patient education. One method is to provide examples of other people acting on a health promotion behavior and then work with the patient to encourage their belief in their own ability to change. [48] Furthermore, when nurses followed-up by telephone after hospital discharge, individuals with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) were found to have increased self-efficacy in managing breathing difficulties. In this study, the nurses helped reinforce education and reassured patients regarding their self-care management techniques while in their home environment. [49]

Other contexts

At the National Kaohsiung First University of Science and Technology in Taiwan, researchers investigated the correlations between general Internet self-efficacy (GISE), Web-specific self-efficacy (WSE), and e-service usage. Researchers concluded that GISE directly affects the WSE of a consumer, which in turn shows a strong correlation with e-service usage. These findings are significant for future consumer targeting and marketing. [50]

Furthermore, self-efficacy has been included as one of the four factors of core self-evaluation, one's fundamental appraisal of oneself, along with locus of control, neuroticism, and self-esteem. [51] Core self-evaluation has shown to predict job satisfaction and job performance. [51] [52] [53] [54] [55]

Researchers have also examined self-efficacy in the context of the work–life interface. Chan et al. (2016) developed and validated a measure "self-efficacy to regulate work and life" and defined it as "the belief one has in one's own ability to achieve a balance between work and non-work responsibilities, and to persist and cope with challenges posed by work and non-work demands" (p. 1758). [56] Specifically, Chan et al. (2016) found that "self-efficacy to regulate work and life" helped to explain the relationship between work–family enrichment, work–life balance, and job satisfaction and family satisfaction. [56] Chan et al. (2017) also found that "self-efficacy to regulate work and life" assists individuals to achieve work–life balance and work engagement despite the presence of family and work demands. [57]


While self-efficacy is sometimes measured as a whole, as with the General Self-Efficacy Scale, [58] it is also measured in particular functional situations.

Social self-efficacy has been variably defined and measured. According to Smith and Betz, social self-efficacy is "an individual's confidence in her/his ability to engage in the social interactional tasks necessary to initiate and maintain interpersonal relationships." They measured social self-efficacy using an instrument of their own devise called the Scale of Perceived Social Self-Efficacy, which measured six domains: (1) making friends, (2) pursuing romantic relationships, (3) social assertiveness, (4) performance in public situations, (5) groups or parties, and (6) giving or receiving help. [59] More recently, it has been suggested that social self-efficacy can also be operationalised in terms of cognitive (confidence in knowing what to do in social situations) and behavioral (confidence in performing in social situations) social self-efficacy. [60]

Matsushima and Shiomi measured self-efficacy by focusing on self-confidence about social skill in personal relationship, trust in friends, and trust by friends. [61]

Researchers suggest that social self-efficacy is strongly correlated with shyness and social anxiety.

Academic self-efficacy refers to the belief that one can successfully engage in and complete course-specific academic tasks, such as accomplishing course aims, satisfactorily completing assignments, achieving a passing grade, and meeting the requirements to continue to pursue one's major course of study. [62] Various empirical inquiries have been aimed at measuring academic self-efficacy. [63] [64] [65]

Other areas of self-efficacy that have been identified for study include teacher self-efficacy [66] and technological self-efficacy.

Clarifications and distinctions

Self-efficacy versus Efficacy
Unlike efficacy, which is the power to produce an effect—in essence, competence—the term self-efficacy is used, by convention, to refer to the belief (accurate or not) that one has the power to produce that effect by completing a given task or activity related to that competency. Self-efficacy is the belief in one's efficacy.
Self-efficacy versus Self-esteem
Self-efficacy is the perception of one's own ability to reach a goal; self-esteem is the sense of self-worth. For example, a person who is a terrible rock climber would probably have poor self-efficacy with regard to rock climbing, but this will not affect self-esteem if the person does not rely on rock climbing to determine self-worth. [67] On the other hand, one might have enormous confidence with regard to rock climbing, yet set such a high standard, and base enough of self-worth on rock-climbing skill, that self-esteem is low. [68] Someone who has high self-efficacy in general but is poor at rock climbing might have misplaced confidence, or believe that improvement is possible.
Self-efficacy versus Confidence
According to Albert Bandura, "the construct of self-efficacy differs from the colloquial term 'confidence.' Confidence is a nonspecific term that refers to strength of belief but does not necessarily specify what the certainty is about. I can be supremely confident that I will fail at an endeavor. Perceived self-efficacy refers to belief in one's agentive capabilities, that one can produce given levels of attainment. A self-efficacy belief, therefore, includes both an affirmation of a capability level and the strength of that belief.
Self-efficacy versus Self-concept
Self-efficacy comprises beliefs of personal capability to perform specific actions. Self-concept is measured more generally and includes the evaluation of such competence and the feelings of self-worth associated with the behaviors in question. [67] In an academic situation, a student's confidence in their ability to write an essay is self-efficacy. Self-concept, on the other hand, could be how a student's level of intelligence affects their beliefs regarding their worth as a person.
Self-efficacy as part of core self-evaluations
Timothy A. Judge et al. (2002) has argued that the concepts of locus of control, neuroticism, generalized self-efficacy (which differs from Bandura's theory of self-efficacy) and self-esteem are so strongly correlated and exhibit such a high degree of theoretical overlap that they are actually aspects of the same higher order construct, which he calls core self-evaluations. [69]

See also

Related Research Articles

Albert Bandura Canadian-American psychologist

Albert Bandura is a Canadian-American psychologist who is the David Starr Jordan Professor Emeritus of Social Science in Psychology at Stanford University.

Social learning theory is a theory of learning process and social behavior which proposes that new behaviors can be acquired by observing and imitating others. It states that learning is a cognitive process that takes place in a social context and can occur purely through observation or direct instruction, even in the absence of motor reproduction or direct reinforcement. In addition to the observation of behavior, learning also occurs through the observation of rewards and punishments, a process known as vicarious reinforcement. When a particular behavior is rewarded regularly, it will most likely persist; conversely, if a particular behavior is constantly punished, it will most likely desist. The theory expands on traditional behavioral theories, in which behavior is governed solely by reinforcements, by placing emphasis on the important roles of various internal processes in the learning individual.

Expectancy theory (16/9) proposes that an individual will behave or act in a certain way because they are motivated to select a specific behavior over others due to what they expect the result of that selected behavior will be. In essence, the motivation of the behavior selection is determined by the desirability of the outcome. However, at the core of the theory is the cognitive process of how an individual processes the different motivational elements. This is done before making the ultimate choice. The outcome is not the sole determining factor in making the decision of how to behave.

Goal setting involves the development of an action plan designed in order to motivate and guide a person or group toward a goal. Goals are more deliberate than desires and momentary intentions. Therefore, setting goals means that a person has committed thought, emotion, and behavior towards attaining the goal. In doing so, the goal setter has established a desired future state which differs from their current state thus creating a mismatch which in turn spurs future actions. Goal setting can be guided by goal-setting criteria such as SMART criteria. Goal setting is a major component of personal-development and management literature. Studies by Edwin A. Locke and his colleagues, most notably Gary Latham, have shown that more specific and ambitious goals lead to more performance improvement than easy or general goals. The goals should be specific, time constrained and difficult. Difficult goals should be set ideally at the 90th percentile of performance assuming that motivation and not ability is limiting attainment of that level of performance. As long as the person accepts the goal, has the ability to attain it, and does not have conflicting goals, there is a positive linear relationship between goal difficulty and task performance.

Theory of planned behavior theory that links behavior

The theory of planned behavior (TPB) is a psychological theory that links beliefs to behavior. The theory maintains that three core components, namely, attitude, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control, together shape an individual's behavioral intentions. In turn, a tenet of TPB is that behavioral intention is the most proximal determinant of human social behavior.

Self-regulation theory (SRT) is a system of conscious personal management that involves the process of guiding one's own thoughts, behaviors and feelings to reach goals. Self-regulation consists of several stages and individuals must function as contributors to their own motivation, behavior and development within a network of reciprocally interacting influences.

Confidence is a state of being clear-headed either that a hypothesis or prediction is correct or that a chosen course of action is the best or most effective. Confidence comes from a Latin word 'fidere' which means "to trust"; therefore, having self-confidence is having trust in one's self. Arrogance or hubris, in comparison, is the state of having unmerited confidence – believing something or someone is capable or correct when they are not. Overconfidence or presumptuousness is excessive belief in someone succeeding, without any regard for failure. Confidence can be a self-fulfilling prophecy as those without it may fail or not try because they lack it and those with it may succeed because they have it rather than because of an innate ability.

Reciprocal determinism is the theory set forth by psychologist Albert Bandura which states that a person's behavior both influences and is influenced by personal factors and the social environment. Bandura accepts the possibility that an individual's behavior may be conditioned through the use of consequences. At the same time he asserts that a person's behavior can impact the environment. These skill sets result in an under- or overcompensated ego that, for all creative purposes, is too strong or too weak to focus on pure outcome. This is important because Bandura was able to prove the strong correlation between this with experiments.

Social cognitive theory (SCT), used in psychology, education, and communication, holds that portions of an individual's knowledge acquisition can be directly related to observing others within the context of social interactions, experiences, and outside media influences. This theory was advanced by Albert Bandura as an extension of his social learning theory. The theory states that when people observe a model performing a behavior and the consequences of that behavior, they remember the sequence of events and use this information to guide subsequent behaviors. Observing a model can also prompt the viewer to engage in behavior they already learned. In other words, people do not learn new behaviors solely by trying them and either succeeding or failing, but rather, the survival of humanity is dependent upon the replication of the actions of others. Depending on whether people are rewarded or punished for their behavior and the outcome of the behavior, the observer may choose to replicate behavior modeled. Media provides models for a vast array of people in many different environmental settings.

Behavioural change theories are attempts to explain why human behaviours change. These theories cite environmental, personal, and behavioural characteristics as the major factors in behavioural determination. In recent years, there has been increased interest in the application of these theories in the areas of health, education, criminology, energy and international development with the hope that understanding behavioural change will improve the services offered in these areas. Some scholars have recently introduced a distinction between models of behavior and theories of change. Whereas models of behavior are more diagnostic and geared towards understanding the psychological factors that explain or predict a specific behavior, theories of change are more process-oriented and generally aimed at changing a given behavior. Thus, from this perspective, understanding and changing behavior are two separate but complementary lines of scientific investigation.

Expectancy–value theory has been developed in many different fields including education, health, communications, marketing and economics. Although the model differs in its meaning and implications for each field, the general idea is that there are expectations as well as values or beliefs that affect subsequent behavior.

In psychology, the I-change model or the Integrated Model, for explaining motivational and behavioral change, derives from the Attitude – Social Influence – Self-Efficacy Model, integrates ideas of Ajzen's Theory of Planned Behavior, Bandura's Social Cognitive Theory, Prochaska's Transtheoretical Model, the Health Belief Model, and Goal setting theories. Previous versions of this model have been used to explain a variety of types of health behavior.

Health action process approach Theory of health behavior change

The health action process approach (HAPA) is a psychological theory of health behavior change, developed by Ralf Schwarzer, Professor of Psychology at the Freie University Berlin of Berlin, Germany and SWPS University of Social Sciences and Humanities, Wroclaw, Poland, first published in 1992.

Sport psychology is an interdisciplinary science that draws on knowledge from many related fields including biomechanics, physiology, kinesiology and psychology. It involves the study of how psychological factors affect performance and how participation in sport and exercise affect psychological and physical factors. Sport psychologists teach cognitive and behavioral strategies to athletes in order to improve their experience and performance in sports. In addition to instruction and training of psychological skills for performance improvement, applied sport psychology may include work with athletes, coaches, and parents regarding injury, rehabilitation, communication, team building, and career transitions. Also closely associated with Sports psychiatry.

Goal orientation is an "individual disposition towards developing or validating one's ability in achievement settings".

<i>Social Foundations of Thought and Action</i>

Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory is a landmark work in psychology published in 1986 by Albert Bandura. The book expands Bandura's initial social learning theory into a comprehensive theory of human motivation and action, analyzing the role of cognitive, vicarious, self-regulatory, and self-reflective processes in psychosocial functioning. Bandura first advanced his thesis of reciprocal determinism in Social Foundations of Thought and Action.

While self-efficacy, in general, refers to one's confidence in executing courses of action in managing a wide array of situations, work self-efficacy assesses workers' confidence in managing workplace experiences . The theoretical underpinning is that individuals with higher work self-efficacy are more likely to look forward to, and to be successful in, workplace performance. Furthermore, work accomplishments are believed, in turn, to increases self-efficacy through a feedback loop tying subsequent performance to augmented self-efficacy beliefs.

Academic achievement or academic performance is the extent to which a student, teacher or institution has attained their short or long-term educational goals. Completion of educational benchmarks such as secondary school diplomas and bachelor's degrees represent academic achievement.

Control in the context of psychology generally refers to how a person regulates themselves or wishes to regulate their environment. There are several identified types of control -Perceived Control, cognitive control, emotional control, motivational control, control desire, inhibitory control, social control, ego control, and effortful control.

Alex Stajkovic is an Organizational Behavior (OB) professor who has conducted research on confidence and goal priming. He is the M. Keith Weikel Distinguished Chair in Leadership in the Wisconsin School of Business at the University of Wisconsin - Madison. His research bears on self-efficacy, confidence, and primed goals. Stajkovic co-authored papers with Albert Bandura, Edwin Locke, and Fred Luthans. Stajkovic is a contributing editor to the Journal of Applied Psychology, as well as a member of the Midwestern Psychological Association and Society for Science of Motivation.


  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Bandura, Albert (2010), "Self-Efficacy", The Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology, American Cancer Society, pp. 1–3, doi:10.1002/9780470479216.corpsy0836, ISBN   978-0-470-47921-6 , retrieved 2021-03-20
  2. 1 2 3 4 Luszczynska, A. & Schwarzer, R. (2005). "Social cognitive theory". In M. Conner & P. Norman (eds.). Predicting health behaviour (2nd ed. rev. ed.). Buckingham, England: Open University Press. pp.  127–169.
  3. Krishnan, Pramila; Krutikova, Sofya (2013-10-01). "Non-cognitive skill formation in poor neighbourhoods of urban India". Labour Economics. 24: 68–85. doi:10.1016/j.labeco.2013.06.004. ISSN   0927-5371.
  4. Wuepper, David; Lybbert, Travis J. (2017-10-05). "Perceived Self-Efficacy, Poverty, and Economic Development". Annual Review of Resource Economics. 9 (1): 383–404. doi:10.1146/annurev-resource-100516-053709. ISSN   1941-1340.
  5. Bandura, A (1977). "Self-efficacy: Toward a Unifying Theory of Behavioral Change". Psychological Review. 84 (2): 191–215. doi:10.1037/0033-295x.84.2.191. PMID   847061. S2CID   7742072.
  6. Miller, N. E.; Dollard, J. (1941). Social Learning and Imitation. New Haven: Yale University Press.
  7. Bandura, A (1988). "Organizational Application of Social Cognitive Theory". Australian Journal of Management. 13 (2): 275–302. doi:10.1177/031289628801300210.
  8. Mischel, W.; Shoda, Y. (1995). "A cognitive-affective system theory of personality: Reconceptualizing situations, dispositions, dynamics, and invariance in personality structure". Psychological Review. 102 (2): 246–268. doi:10.1037/0033-295x.102.2.246. PMID   7740090. S2CID   5944664.
  9. Ormrod, J.E. (1999). Human learning (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
  10. McAdam, E. K. (1986). "Cognitive behavior therapy and its application with adolescents". Journal of Adolescence. 9 (1): 1–15. doi:10.1016/S0140-1971(86)80024-0. PMID   3700776.
  11. Heider, Fritz (1958). The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
  12. Yeh, Yu-chu; Chang, Han-Lin; Chen, Szu-Yu (2019-04-01). "Mindful learning: A mediator of mastery experience during digital creativity game-based learning among elementary school students". Computers & Education. 132: 63–75. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2019.01.001. ISSN   0360-1315.
  13. Csikszentmihalyi, M., Finding Flow, 1997
  14. Porter, Lyman W.; Bigley, Gregory A.; Steers, Richard M. (2003). Motivation and Work Behavior (7th ed.). McGraw-Hill Irwin. pp. 131–132.
  15. Schunk, Dale H. (1990). "Goal Setting and Self-Efficacy During Self-Regulated Learning" (PDF). Educational Psychologist. 25: 71–86. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep2501_6.
  16. Bandura, Albert (1977). Social Learning Theory. Alexandria, VA: Prentice Hall. p. 247. ISBN   978-0-13-816744-8.
  17. Seifert, Kelvin (2011). Educational Psychology (PDF) (Third ed.). p. 119. Retrieved 16 November 2017.
  18. Stajkovic, A.D., Luthans, F. (1998). Self-efficacy and work-related performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin.
  19. Lunenburg, F. C. (2011). Self-efficacy in the workplace: Implications for motivation and performance. International journal of management, business, and administration, 14(1), 1-6.
  20. Stajkovic, & Luthans, (2003) Social cognitive theory and self efficacy: implications for motivation theory and practice. In R. M. Steers, L.W. Porter, & G.A. Bigley (Eds.), Motivation and leadership at work (8th Ed.).
  21. Conner, M.; P. Norman, eds. (2005). Predicting health behaviour (2nd ed. rev. ed.). Buckingham, England: Open University Press.
  22. Karyn Ainsworth, Fall Quarter Seminar Paper: What is Teaching? / What is Learning?
  23. Diffusion of the Internet within a Graduate School of Education, 2. Conceptual Framework Bandura: Efficacy x Value Archived 2007-02-05 at the Wayback Machine
  24. Bandura, Albert, 1925-. Self-efficacy : the exercise of control. New York. ISBN   0-7167-2626-2. OCLC   36074515.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  25. The YouTube video "Self Efficacy" can be found at and summarizes many of the factors affecting self-efficacy that are described above. It additionally provides detailed examples that can clarify any confusion.
  26. Waaktaar, Trine; Torgersen, Svenn (2013). "Self-Efficacy Is Mainly Genetic, Not Learned: A Multiple-Rater Twin Study on the Causal Structure of General Self-Efficacy in Young People". Twin Research and Human Genetics. 16 (3): 651–660. doi: 10.1017/thg.2013.25 . PMID   23601253.
  27. Bandura, Albert; Caprara, Gian Vittorio; Barbaranelli, Claudio; Pastorelli, Concetta; Regalia, Camillo (2001). "Sociocognitive self-regulatory mechanisms governing transgressive behavior". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 80 (1): 125–135. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.80.1.125. PMID   11195885. S2CID   27689819.
  28. Kwak, K., & Bandura, A. (1998). Role of perceived self-efficacy and moral disengagement in antisocial conduct. Manuscript, Osan College, Seoul, Korea.
  29. Bandura, Albert; Vittorio Caprara, Gian; Barbaranelli, Claudio; Gerbino, Maria; Pastorelli, Concetta (2003). "Role of Affective Self-Regulatory Efficacy in Diverse Spheres of Psychosocial Functioning". Child Development. 74 (3): 769–782. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00567. PMID   12795389. S2CID   6671293.
  30. Christine Galbreath Jernigan, What do Students Expect to Learn? The Role of Learner Expectancies, Beliefs, and Attributions for Success and Failure in Student Motivation Archived 2006-09-02 at the Wayback Machine .
  31. Schwarzer, R (2008). "Modeling health behavior change: How to predict and modify the adoption and maintenance of health behaviors". Applied Psychology: An International Review. 57 (1): 1–29. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2007.00325.x. S2CID   36178352.
  32. Gutiérrez-Doña, B.; Lippke, S.; Renner, B.; Kwon, S.; Schwarzer, R. (2009). "How self-efficacy and planning predict dietary behaviors in Costa Rican and South Korean women: A moderated mediation analysis". Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being. 1: 91–104. doi:10.1111/j.1758-0854.2008.01001.x.
  33. Bandura, A.; Barbaranelli, C.; Caprara, G. V.; Pastorelli, C. (1996). "Multifaceted Impact of Self-Efficacy Beliefs on Academic Functioning". Child Development. 67 (3): 1206–1222. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1996.tb01791.x. PMID   8706518.
  34. Maddux, James E.; Meier, Lisa J. (1995). "Self-Efficacy and Depression". In Maddux, James E. (ed.). Self-Efficacy, Adaptation, and Adjustment. The Plenum Series in Social/Clinical Psychology. Plenum Press. pp. 143–169. doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-6868-5_5. ISBN   978-1-4757-6498-7.
  35. Graham, S (2011). "Self-efficacy and academic listening" (PDF). Journal of English for Academic Purposes. 10 (2): 113–117. doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2011.04.001.
  36. 1 2 Pajares, Frank (1996). "Self-Efficacy Beliefs in Academic Settings". Review of Educational Research. 66 (4): 543–578. doi:10.3102/00346543066004543. S2CID   145165257.
  37. Betz, Nancy E.; Hackett, Gail (1986). "Applications of Self-Efficacy Theory to Understanding Career Choice Behavior". Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology. 4 (3): 279–289. doi:10.1521/jscp.1986.4.3.279.
  38. Brauner, Philipp; Leonhardt, Thiemo; Ziefle, Martina; Schroeder, Ulrik (2010). "The Effect of Tangible Artifacts, Gender and Subjective Technical Competence on Teaching Programming to Seventh Graders" (PDF). Teaching Fundamentals Concepts of Informatics. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. 5941. pp. 61–71. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-11376-5_7. ISBN   978-3-642-11375-8.
  39. Pajares, Frank; Valiante, Gio (1997-07-01). "Influence of Self-Efficacy on Elementary Students' Writing". The Journal of Educational Research. 90 (6): 353–360. doi:10.1080/00220671.1997.10544593. ISSN   0022-0671.
  40. Sanders-Reio, Joanne; Alexander, Patricia A.; Reio, Thomas G.; Newman, Isadore (2014-10-01). "Do students' beliefs about writing relate to their writing self-efficacy, apprehension, and performance?". Learning and Instruction. 33: 1–11. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.02.001. ISSN   0959-4752.
  41. McLeod, Susan (1987). "Some Thoughts about Feelings: The Affective Domain and the Writing Process". College Composition and Communication. 38 (4): 426–435. doi:10.2307/357635. JSTOR   357635. S2CID   142156526.
  42. 1 2 3 4 McCarthy, Patricia, Scott Meier, and Regina Rinderer (1985). "Self-Efficacy and Writing: A Different View of Self Evaluation". College Composition and Communication. 36 (4): 465–471. doi:10.2307/357865. JSTOR   357865. S2CID   59402808.
  43. 1 2 3 Pajares, Frank (2003). "Self-Efficacy Beliefs, Motivation, and Achievement in Writing". Reading and Writing Quarterly. 19 (2): 139–158. doi:10.1080/10573560308222. S2CID   30747831.
  44. 1 2 3 Pajares, Frank; Johnson, Margaret J. (1994). "Confidence and Competence in Writing: The Role of Self-Efficacy, Outcome Expectancy, and Apprehension". Research in the Teaching of English. 28 (3): 313–331. JSTOR   40171341.
  45. 1 2 3 Schunk, Dale K. (2003). "Self-Efficacy for Reading and Writing: Influence of Modeling, Goal-Setting, and Self-Evaluation" (PDF). Reading and Writing Quarterly. 19 (2): 159–172. doi:10.1080/10573560308219.
  46. Hassall, Trevor; Arquero, Jose L.; Joyce, John; Gonzalez, Jose M. (12 July 2013). "Communication apprehension and communication self‐efficacy in accounting students" (PDF). Asian Review of Accounting. 21 (2): 160–175. doi:10.1108/ARA-03-2013-0017.
  47. Ireland, Christopher (March 2016). Student oral presentations: developing the skills and reducing the apprehension. 10th Annual International Technology, Education and Development Conference. Valencia, Spain. doi:10.21125/inted.2016.1317.
  48. Ball, J., Bindler, R., Cowen, K., & Shaw, M. (2017). Principles of Pediatric Nursing: Caring for Children (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson.
  49. Wong, K.W.; Wong, F.K.Y.; Chan, M.F. (2005). "Effects of nurse-initiated telephone follow-up among patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease". Journal of Advanced Nursing. 49 (2): 210–222. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2004.03280.x. PMID   15641953.
  50. Hsu, M.H.; Chiu, C.M. (2004). "Internet self-efficacy and electronic service acceptance". Decision Support Systems. 38 (3): 369–381. doi:10.1016/j.dss.2003.08.001.
  51. 1 2 Judge, T. A.; Locke, E. A.; Durham, C. C. (1997). "The dispositional causes of job satisfaction: A core evaluations approach". Research in Organizational Behavior. 19: 151–188.
  52. Bono, J. E.; Judge, T. A. (2003). "Core self-evaluations: A review of the trait and its role in job satisfaction and job performance". European Journal of Personality. 17 (Suppl 1): S5–S18. doi:10.1002/per.481.
  53. Dormann, C.; Fay, D.; Zapf, D.; Frese, M. (2006). "A state-trait analysis of job satisfaction: On the effect of core self-evaluations". Applied Psychology: An International Review. 55 (1): 27–51. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2006.00227.x.
  54. Judge, T. A.; Locke, E. A.; Durham, C. C.; Kluger, A. N. (1998). "Dispositional effects on job and life satisfaction: The role of core evaluations". Journal of Applied Psychology. 83 (1): 17–34. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.83.1.17. PMID   9494439. S2CID   24828472.
  55. Judge, T. A.; Bono, J. E. (2001). "Relationship of core self-evaluations traits—self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability—with job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis". Journal of Applied Psychology. 86 (1): 80–92. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.1.80. PMID   11302235. S2CID   6612810.
  56. 1 2 Chan, Xi Wen; Kalliath, Thomas; Brough, Paula; Siu, Oi-Ling; O'Driscoll, Michael P.; Timms, Carolyn (2016-08-21). "Work–family enrichment and satisfaction: the mediating role of self-efficacy and work–life balance". The International Journal of Human Resource Management. 27 (15): 1755–1776. doi:10.1080/09585192.2015.1075574. hdl: 1885/103860 . ISSN   0958-5192.
  57. Xi Wen Chan; Thomas Kalliath; Paula Brough; Michael O'Driscoll; Oi-Ling Siu; Carolyn Timms (2017-07-20). "Self-efficacy and work engagement: test of a chain model". International Journal of Manpower. 38 (6): 819–834. doi:10.1108/IJM-11-2015-0189. hdl: 10072/355255 . ISSN   0143-7720.
  58. Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (1995). Generalized Self-Efficacy scale. In J. Weinman, S. Wright, & M. Johnston, Measures in health psychology: A user's portfolio. Causal and control beliefs (pp. 35-37). Windsor, UK: NFER-NELSON.
  59. Smith, H. M.; Betz, N. E. (2000). "Development and validation of a scale of perceived social self-efficacy". Journal of Career Assessment. 8 (3): 286. doi:10.1177/106907270000800306.
  60. Grieve, Rachel; Witteveen, Kate; Tolan, G. Anne; Jacobson, Brett (2014-03-01). "Development and validation of a measure of cognitive and behavioural social self-efficacy". Personality and Individual Differences. 59: 71–76. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2013.11.008.
  61. Matsushima, R.; Shiomi, K. (2003). "Social self-efficacy and interpersonal stress in adolescence". Social Behavior and Personality. 31 (4): 323–332. doi:10.2224/sbp.2003.31.4.323.
  62. Jimenez Soffa, S. (2006). Inspiring academic confidence in the classroom: An investigation of features of the classroom experience that contribute to the academic self-efficacy of undergraduate women enrolled in gateway courses. Dissertation completed at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
  63. Bong, M. (1997). Congruence of measurement specificity on relations between academic self-efficacy, effort, and achievement indexes. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (Chicago, IL, March 24–28, 1997).
  64. Rushi, P. J. (2007). "Questioning the utility of self-efficacy measurements for Indians". International Journal of Research & Method in Education. 30 (2): 193–206. doi:10.1080/17437270701383339.
  65. Academic self-concept: models, measurement, influences and enhancements.
  66. Schwarzer, R.; Hallum, S. (2008). "Perceived teacher self-efficacy as a predictor of job stress and burnout: Mediation analyses". Applied Psychology: An International Review. 57: 152–171. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-0597.2008.00359.x .
  67. 1 2 Pajares, Frank (2002). "Self-efficacy beliefs in academic contexts: An outline". Emory University. Archived from the original on 2005-12-27.
  68. Prof. Albert Bandura quoted in The Wall Street Journal 29 April 2008: D1
  69. Judge, Timothy A.; Erez, Amir; Bono, Joyce E.; Thoresen, Carl J. (2002). "Are measures of self-esteem, neuroticism, locus of control, and generalized self-efficacy indicators of a common core construct?". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 83 (3): 693–710. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.83.3.693. PMID   12219863. S2CID   18551901.

Further reading