Caitlyn Worry and Rachel Riley Albert Bandura: Self Efficacy Caitlyn Worry and Rachel Riley Our research study was done on Albert Bandura’s idea of Self-Efficacy. License Plate Readers

Albert Bandura’s Biography Born December 4, 1925 Married Virginia Varns in 1952 Two kids: Mary and Carol Social cognitive psychologist Professor Emeritus at Stanford University Regarded as one of the greatest living psychologist¹ Born on December 4,1925 in Mundane, Canada. His parents were Polish wheat farmers and attended school with only 20 students and two teachers. In 1952 he married Virginia Varns and they have two children Mary and Carol. In 2011, Virginia died of old age. Bandura is still alive, and is working as a psychologist specializing in developmental psychology and educational psychology. He is regarded as one of the greatest living psychologist with his Social Learning Theory.

Albert Bandura’s Biography 1980 Elected as Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences 2001 Lifetime Achievement Award 2016 National Medal of Science2 Gold Medal Award 1974- he was elected to serve as the 82nd President of the American Psychological Association 1980- Elected as Fellow of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences 1999- Thorndike Award for Distinguished Contributions of Psychology to Education. 2001- Lifetime Achievement Award from the Association of Advancement of Behavior Therapy and the Western Psychological Association 2004- Outstanding Lifetime Contribution to Psychology, American Psychological Association 2016- National Medal of Science which recognizes individuals who have made extraordinary contributions to science, technology, and engineering The American Psychological Society presented him with the James McKeen Cattell Award, while the American Psychological Foundation presented him with the Gold Medal Award for Distinguished Lifetime Contribution to Psychological Science 1974 Elected for 82nd president of APA 1999 Received Thorndike Award 2004 Outstanding Lifetime Contribution to Psychcology1 James McKeen Cattell Award

Self-Efficacy “Self-efficacy is the belief in one’s capabilities to organize and execute the sources of action required to manage prospective situations.” -Albert Bandura

What Exactly is Self-Efficacy? Self-efficacy is the belief in one’s capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to manage prospective situations¹ Concerned with one’s own personal judgement NOT confidence or self-esteem So what exactly is self-efficacy? Self-efficacy refers to an individuals belief in his or her capability to organize and execute the courses of action required to manage prospective situations. Put simply, it deals with how one feels he or she will perform at any given task. HOWEVER, it is to not be confused with confidence or self-esteem

Four Sources of Self-Efficacy Mastery Experiences: performing a task successfully* Social Modeling: witnessing other completing a task Social Persuasion: persuaded to believe one has the skills* Judgments of Physiological States: physical states in which affect efficacy levels¹ There are four sources of self-efficacy according to Bandura. Mastery experience is the most influential source of efficacy because it provides the most authentic experience of whether one can muster whatever it takes to succeed. It basically is a repeated action of a certain activity. Social Modeling is another effective for raising self-efficacy. It is a social comparison process where people judge their capabilities in relation to capabilities of others performing certain task. It is experienced as “if they can do it, I can do it as well”. It is not as influential as direct mastery experience however it is extremely useful for people who are unsure of themselves. Social persuasion is a means of strengthening one’s beliefs in self-efficacy. Efficacy can be raised if significant and/or influential people express faith in one’s capabilities. Judgments of physiological states are physical states in which affect an individual's efficacy levels. Main ways to raise efficacy through physiological states would be to enhance physical status, reduce stress levels and correct misinterpretations of bodily states.

Importance of Self-Efficacy Cognitive Process Motivation Process Affective Process Selection Process¹ Bandura tells us that self-efficacy affects human functioning through 4 major psychological processes: The Cognitive, Motivation, Affective and Selection Processes. Self-efficacy impacts the cognitive processes by influencing anticipatory scenarios humans rehearse and construct. Put simply, self efficacy affects analytic thinking. For example, people with high-self efficacy anticipate scenarios of success such as a salesmen knowing he’s going to surpass his quota before he even starts selling. Whereas low-efficacious people anticipate scenarios of failure and dwell on pitfalls such as a student anticipating as if he or she will fail on a test that he or she has to take. Motivation Processes of self-efficacy impact motivation by determining goal level, perseverance and resilience to failures. An example of a highly-efficacious individual would be that he or she would set higher goal levels than those with low self-efficacy therefore tend to put forth more effort. Also, highly efficacious people look at failures as lack of effort or will whereas low efficacious people look at failures as lack of ability. * Examples of Michael Jordan, Walt Disney and Steve Jobs. Affective processes regulate emotional states and the elicitation of emotional or physiological reactions and are influenced by self-efficacy on several fronts. Selection Processes are influenced by self-efficacy by it influencing types of activities and environments people choose. People with high self-efficacy beliefs tend to people undertaking more challenging scenarios whereas people with low self-efficacy tend to avoid such situations.

Importance of Self-Efficacy “People who regard themselves as highly efficacious act, think and feel differently from those who perceive themselves as inefficacious. They produce their own future, rather than simply foretell it.” -Albert Bandura

The Study Bandura’s self-efficacy Self-Efficacy in free-throw shooting Question: Are student’s self-efficacy affected more by their actual performance of free-throw or by verbal persuasion prior to free-throw shooting? So in our study, we used college aged students that were either women’s basketball players, men’s basketball players or non-athletes. We tested their self-efficacy in free-throw shooting and used the sources of mastery experience and social persuasion. Our main question in this study was: Are students’ self-efficacy affected more by their actual performance of free-throw shooting or by verbal persuasion prior to free-throw shooting?

Hypothesis Both sources of self-efficacy used, verbal persuasion and mastery experience, will increase self-efficacy in participants. The raised self-efficacy will increase motivation and performance. Our hypothesis for this study was that: Both sources of self-efficacy used, verbal persuasion and mastery experience, will increase self-efficacy. The raised self-efficacy will increase motivation and performance.

Rubric Self-Efficacy (0-10) Efficacy Level 0-2 3-6 1 7-8 2 9-10 3 3-6 1 7-8 2 9-10 3 Seen here is our rubric for evaluation self-efficacy. On the left side, depending on what number the participant gave depends on what level of self-efficacy they perceive. For example, if a participant was to say they think they can make 4/10 free-throws, then they would have a self-efficacy level of a 1. We evaluated our participants at the initial number they gave, the number after persuasion, and also the number given after the 10 free-throws were attempted. Evaluated at initial number given, number after persuasion, and number given after the 10 free-throws were attempted.

The Process of Our Study Does mastery experiences work better or does verbal persuasion work better? How will the different groups of participants differ? For our study: We made contact with the participant We asked “How many free-throws out of 10 could they make? Verbally persuaded them to a higher number possibly Ask again how many free-throws could be made Then the participant shot the 10 free-throws After the 10 shots occurred, we asked the student again, “If we were to give you this opportunity again, how many free-throws out of 10 could you make?

The Performance of our Participants Student Name Year Gender Years of Experience Initial Number Number After Persuasion Actual Shooting Number Number Given After Actual Performance Student 1 FR Male 1 4/10 5/10 8/10 9/10 Student 2 JR 2 3/10 Student 3 6 6/10 Student 4 Female 4 10/10 Student 5 13 - Student 6 3 Student 7 1/10 2/10 0/10 Athlete 1 9 7/10 Athlete 2 SOPH 11 Athlete 3 15 Athlete 4 16 Athlete 5 12 W Athlete 1 W Athlete 2 W Athlete 3 W Athlete 4 W Athlete 5 Pictured here is the on the different sources results of the participants difference in self-efficacy levels based used. Look specifically at: Student 1 (positive) Student 6 (negative) Athlete 1 (negative) Athlete 5 (positive) W Athlete 2 (positive)

The Results of Our Study Student Name Initial Level of Self-Efficacy Self-Efficacy Level After Persuasion Self-Efficacy Level After Performance Student 1 1 3 Student 2 Student 3 2 Student 4 Student 5 - Student 6 Student 7 Athlete 1 Athlete 2 Athlete 3 Athlete 4 Athlete 5 W Athlete 1 W Athlete 2 W Athlete 3 W Athlete 4 W Athlete 5 Pictured here is the on the different sources results of the participants difference in self-efficacy levels based used. Look specifically at: Student 1 (positive) Student 6 (negative) Athlete 1 (negative) Athlete 5 (positive) W Athlete 2 (positive)

Conclusion Both verbal persuasion and mastery experience worked evenly in the study. Non-athletes differed from the athletes in their self-efficacy after their performance. We decided that both verbal persuasion and mastery experience worked well. Verbal persuasion was used in almost all the participants and was effective, but ultimately mastery experience overruled because participants based their last number off of their actual performance most of the time. For example, Student 1 gave an initial number of 4/10, but we then persuaded him that he could make 5/10. So in this scenario verbal persuasion worked. After he shot the ball 10 times, he ended up making 8/10. When asked how he could do if he was given this opportunity again, he said he would make 9/10. In this scenario it is seen then that mastery experience also works because now that he has made 8/10 free-throws, he now believes that he can make more free-throws. Differences among the groups? For the non-athletes, the participants numbers at the end were based off of their actual shooting performance. If they aimed high at first, but then shot poorly, they would give a lower number at the end. Mix of self-efficacy For the male athletes, they all started with a relatively high number and then whether they shot the ball well or not would still stick with a higher number, usually the number they started with. (this was true in everyone except athlete 1) High self-efficacy For the female athletes, they also started with a relatively high number and then whether their performance was good or bad, they would still stick with a high number, usually being the number the started with. (with the exception being women’s athlete 3. High self-efficacy

Evaluation of the Study Limitations: Wider range of participants in classification Time Variances of baskets that participants shot on Like all research studies, we had some limitations. Some of these limitations were: We would have liked to have a wider range of participants throughout the different classifications, specifically seniors. We would also would have like more time in order to spread out the study that was being done and also more time to analyze our data even further. Finally, in the gym there are variances of baskets that the participants shot on, so along with more time, if we were able to do the research study again, we would have planned around teams being in the gym so that all participants could shoot on the main goals in the gym.

Works Cited ¹What Were Albert Bandura's Contributions to the Field of Psychology? (2016, January 06). Retrieved April 04, 2016, from http://psychology.about.com/od/profilesofmajorthinkers/p/bio_bandura.htm ²Albert Bandura to Receive National Medal of Science. (2016). Observer, 29(2). Retrieved April 9, 2016, from http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/publications/observer/2016/february-16/albert-bandura-to-receive-national-medal-of-science.html