1. Social Cognitive Learning Theory: Self Efficacy Expectations
Albert Bandura’s
Social Cognitive Learning Theory:
Self Efficacy Expectations

2. Bandra’s Childhood 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)
About 1934 (9 years old)

3. Education and Early Adulthood
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 self-directedness serve one over time.

4. 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
College graduation: 1949 (24 years old)
Bandura with his grandchildren in 1996

5. 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

6. 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

7. (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

8. (cont.) gender roles prosocial behavior self-regulation
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

9. (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

10. 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

11. The Importance of Efficacy Beliefs
Skills + efficacy beliefs = effective functioning
Performance increases in proportion as perceived self-efficacy 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.

12. 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.”

13. Our Project
We will examine 3 of Bandura’s 4 self-efficacy 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

14. 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.

15. Procedure
Application of Bandura’s self-efficacy theory to free throw shooting
We measured self-efficacy expectations by asking the kids to predict how many free throws they would make out of 10

16. Results: Positive Vicarious Experience
Participant ID
1st Prediction (before watching Liz shoot)
2nd Prediction (after watching Liz shoot)
And Change From 1st
Free throws made
3rd Prediction 5 6
6 (0) 2 4
5 (0) 7
6 (+2) 1 8
1 (0)
Average change after watching model: +.5
Average change between actual performance and 3rd prediction:
Average change between 1st and 3rd prediction: 2

17. Results: Negative Vicarious Experience
Participant ID
1st Prediction (before watching Rachel shoot)
2nd Prediction (after watching Rachel shoot)
And Change From 1st
Free throws made
3rd Prediction 9 5
5 (0) 2 4 10 6
5 (-1) 3 11 12 7
6 (-1) 13
5 (+1)
Average change after watching model: -.4
Average change between actual performance and 3rd prediction: + .83
Average change between 1st and 3rd prediction: 2.4

18. Results: Positive Verbal Persuasion
Participant ID
1st Prediction (before pep talk)
2nd Prediction (after pep talk)
And Change From 1st
Free throws made
3rd Prediction 14 10
8 (-2) 6 9 15 3
4 (+1) 1 16 5
8 (+3) 2 17 8
9 (+1) 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

19. Results: Negative Verbal Persuasion
Participant ID
1st Prediction (before talk)
2nd Prediction (after talk)
And Change From 1st
Free throws made
3rd Prediction 1 5
4 (-1) 3 4 2 7
4 (-3)
2 (-1)
3 (+2)
Average change after negative talk: -.75
Average change between actual performance and 3rd prediction: +.5
Average change between 1st and 3rd prediction: 1

20. Which Factor Actually has the Most Influence on Children’s Self-Efficacy Expectations?
Positive Vicarious Experience Average change: +.5
Negative Vicarious Experience Average change: -.4 Average Change due to Vicarious Experience= .45
Positive Verbal Persuasion Average change: +.75
Negative Verbal Persuasion Average change: Average Change due to Verbal Persuasion= .75
Actual Performance- Average change: Average change due to Actual Performance= 1.21

21. The Importance of Building Self-Efficacy 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

22. Self-Efficacy and College Students
Beliefs concerning one’s capabilities are influential determinants of the vocational life paths that are chosen
- Bandura

23. 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

24. 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