Albert Bandura’sSocial

Cognitive Learning Theory:

Self Efficacy Expectations QuickTime™ and a

decompressorare needed to see this picture.

Bandra’s Childhood

Born on December 4, 1925 in Alberta, Canada

Had 5 older sistersParents 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)

Education and Early AdulthoodElementary 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.

QuickTime™ and a decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

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

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.

Bandura with his grandchildren in 1996

Background: Bandura’s Social Learning Theory

In the 1960’s, Bandura developed his social learning theory.In social settings, we learn through imitationThrough 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 reinforcementobservational learning process

• attentional• retention• motor reproduction • reinforcement and motivational

(cont.)

social learning processaggression

• 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 behaviorsharing, 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-regulationas 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-efficacywe 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 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.

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 self-efficacy factors to determine how effective they are

Our setting: Holy Family of Nazareth Catholic School

Participants: 5th and 6th gradersTheir 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 self-efficacy 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

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

6 5 5 (0) 5 7

7 4 6 (+2) 0 1

8 1 1 (0) 2 2

QuickTime™ and a decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

Average change after watching model: +.5Average change between actual performance and 3rd prediction: + 1.25Average change between 1st and 3rd prediction: 2

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 4

11 6 5 (-1) 0 0

12 7 6 (-1) 3 5

13 4 5 (+1) 3 3

QuickTime™ and a decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

Average change after watching model: -.4Average change between actual performance and 3rd prediction: + .83Average change between 1st and 3rd prediction: 2.4

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 3

16 5 8 (+3) 2 5

17 8 9 (+1) 6 7

QuickTime™ and a decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

Average change after pep talk: +.75Average change between actual performance and 3rd prediction: +2.25Average change between 1st and 3rd prediction: .5

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) 4 5

3 3 2 (-1) 2 2

4 1 3 (+2) 1 1

QuickTime™ and a decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

Average change after negative talk: -.75Average change between actual performance and 3rd prediction: +.5Average change between 1st and 3rd prediction: 1

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: -.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 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

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 weightFight alcoholismOvercome fears (e.g. of snakes)Tackle depression and anxietyMove 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 participantsIf research were repeated :

wider range of agesmore isolated observation area