3 Changing Behavior Using Social

Cognitive Theory
Aleksandra Luszczynska and Ralf Schwarzer

Practical summary
The key strength of social cognitive theory for practice lies in targeting two constructs:
self-efficacy and outcome expectancies. Facilitating change in these constructs in
interventions has been shown to be effective in changing a large array of behavioral
outcomes. The theory has been applied extensively and has demonstrated
effectiveness. It proposes a process that describes behavioral initiation, effort
expenditure, and perseverance. High self-efficacy predicts engagement in a range of
social and health behaviors. In addition, intervention studies indicate that increasing
self-efficacy leads to improvements in behavior (e.g., by providing opportunities to
experience success with the behavior, reflecting on past success, and presenting role
models to provide exemplars of success with the behavior). Taken together, these
findings indicate that individuals with strong self-efficacy beliefs are more likely to
undertake behaviors (e.g., performing regular physical activity) and achieve desired
outcomes (e.g., weight loss). Less is known about the roles of barriers and facilitating
factors. For the practitioner, this makes theory- and evidence-based practice
challenging, as the research evidence mainly supports the effects of single
constructs such as self-efficacy, outcome expectancies, and goals in changing
behavior without demonstrating the effects of the theory as a whole.

a response to behaviorism (Hull, 1943; Skinner,

3.1 Introduction
Social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986) has become
a fundamental framework in social, clinical, educa-
tional, developmental, health, and personality psy-
chology to explain human behavior in multiple
domains, including education, mental health, physi-
cal health, sport, career, and developmental tasks.
The origins of the theory date back to the 1970s
when a paradigm shift occurred in the discipline of
psychology from a focus on behavior to a focus on
cognition and social learning processes. Social cog-
nitive theory evolved out of the earlier social learn-
ing theory (Bandura, 1977a) and may be considered
1938) and a foundation for other theoretical devel-
opments, currently known as the social cognitive
approach to understanding behavior. The theory
has also been a leading approach to guiding inter-
ventions aimed at changing behavior.
Social cognitive theory retains two of the funda-
mental assumptions of social learning theory: people
learn by watching others’ behaviors and behaviors
are learned in social contexts. In addition, it assumes
that the maintenance of behaviors over time requires
an environmental reinforcement and individual
https://doi.org/10.1017/97811086773180.003

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Birmingham, on 22 Jul 2020 at 21:18:07, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108677318.003
 Changing Behavior Using Social Cognitive Theory
self-regulation. The theory also emphasizes the con-
cept of reciprocal determinism in which individual
factors (e.g., self-efficacy, behavioral responses) and
environmental factors (e.g., facilitating conditions)
are proposed to affect each other reciprocally. Two
constructs are central to the predictions of social
cognitive theory: self-efficacy and outcome expec-
tancies. These constructs operate together with
goals, socio-structural impediments, and facilitators
in determining behavior.
This chapter outlines how social cognitive theory
has been utilized to change behavior. It begins by
providing an overview of the theory and outlining
the key constructs and processes that link together.
The role of the theory in understanding behavior in
multiple contexts (e.g., organizational, educational,
sport, and health) is presented. This is followed by
an overview of how the theory has been used to
change behavior and the empirical evidence provid-
ing support for its application across contexts.
3.2 Overview of Social Cognitive
Theory and Empirical Evidence
According to social cognitive theory, human
motivation and action are extensively regulated
Outcome Expectancies:
• Physical
• Social
• Self-Evaluative
Perceived
Goals
Self-Efficacy
Sociostructural Factors:
• Facilitators
• Impediments
Figure 3.1 An illustration of social cognitive theory (Bandura, 2000a)
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Birmingham, on 22 Jul 2020 at 21:18:07, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108677318.003
33
by forethought (Bandura, 1986, 2000a, 2000b,
2001). The theory outlines a number of key
constructs that influence behavior (see
Figure 3.1). The first construct is self-efficacy,
which represents people’s beliefs in their cap-
abilities to perform an action required to attain
the desired outcome. The second core construct
is outcome expectancies, which represents peo-
ple’s beliefs about the possible consequences
of their actions. Self-efficacy and outcome
expectancies are generally regarded as the
central constructs of the theory. The theory
also includes goals, perceived impediments,
and facilitators.
Perceived self-efficacy refers to individuals’
beliefs in their capability to exercise control over
challenging demands and their own functioning
(Bandura, 1977b, 1997). It reflects a subjective
estimate of the amount of personal control an
individual expects to have in any given situation.
As a result, self-efficacy beliefs are often labeled “I
can” perceptions regarding future behaviors or
tasks. If individuals hold strong beliefs that they
can master an upcoming task, they are likely to
invest the effort in engaging with it. Similarly, if an
individual feels confident that they can overcome
Behavior
 34 ALEKSANDRA LUSZCZYNSKA AND RALF SCHWARZER
an imminent threat or challenge (e.g., an exam),
they are more likely to approach rather than to
avoid the threat. Self-efficacy, therefore, affects
the amount of effort individuals will expend to
change a particular behavior to obtain a particular
goal and the extent to which they will persist in
striving to attain that goal in the face of barriers
and setbacks that may undermine motivation.
There are a number of interpersonal and envir-
onmental sources that give rise to self-efficacy
(Bandura, 1997). First, self-efficacy can be
enhanced through previous experiences of perso-
nal accomplishment or mastery of behaviors or
tasks, insofar as success is attributed internally
and is perceived to be repeatable. A second source
is vicarious experience. When a model similar in
ability to the individual is viewed by the individual
as successfully mastering a behavior or task in
a difficult situation, social comparison processes
are likely to enhance self-efficacy. Third, self-
efficacy may be enhanced through verbal persua-
sion by others (e.g., a coach reassures an athlete
that she can adopt a new training routine due to her
competence). The last source of influence is emo-
tional arousal, that is, if the person experiences no
apprehension in a threatening situation, they may
feel capable of mastering the situation. The four
sources of self-efficacy vary in strength and impor-
tance in the order presented here, with personal
mastery being the strongest source of self-efficacy
(Warner et al., 2014).
There is considerable evidence supporting the
premises of social cognitive theory, particularly
links between strategies targeting the four sources
of self-efficacy. In the context of physical activity,
meta-analytic syntheses of research adopting the
theory have compared the effects of various inter-
vention techniques that tap into the four sources
of self-efficacy on self-efficacy and behavioral
outcomes (Ashford, Edmunds, & French, 2010;
Williams & French, 2011). Effective self-efficacy
enhancement was observed in physical activity
interventions that used vicarious experience,
feedback referring to participants’ past
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Birmingham, on 22 Jul 2020 at 21:18:07, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108677318.003
performances or past performances of others
(Ashford et al., 2010). Similarly, a meta-analysis
in the context of dietary interventions has identi-
fied behavior change techniques that result in
improved dietary self-efficacy (Prestwich et al.,
2013). In other areas of human functioning, meta-
analyses of the relationship between work perfor-
mance and self-efficacy (Stajkovic & Luthans,
1998) as well as achievement goals and self-
efficacy (Huang, 2016) have been conducted.
While perceived self-efficacy refers to perso-
nal action control or agency, outcome expectan-
cies pertain to the perception of possible
consequences of one’s action (Bandura, 1997).
Outcome expectancies can be organized along
three dimensions: (1) area of consequences, (2)
positive or negative consequences, and (3) short-
term or long-term consequences. In regard to the
first dimension, there are three areas of conse-
quences for outcome expectancies: physical,
social, and self-evaluative. Physical outcome
expectations, such as expectations of discomfort,
refer to the anticipation of what will be experi-
enced after behavior change takes place. These
include both the short- and long-term effects of
behavior change. For example, immediately after
quitting smoking, an ex-smoker might observe
a reduction in coughing (positive consequence)
and a higher level of muscle tension (negative
consequence). Social outcome expectancies
refer to anticipated social responses after beha-
vior change. Smokers might expect disapproval
from friends who continue to smoke or, posi-
tively, they might expect their family to congra-
tulate them on quitting smoking. Self-evaluative
outcome expectations refer to the anticipation of
affective experiences, such as being ashamed or
being proud of oneself. For example, smokers
might anticipate that quitting smoking will lead
to a sense of satisfaction and pride after they have
done so. Different types of outcome expectancies
have been found to be important determinant in
research on health behaviors, such as dietary
change (Hankonen et al., 2013).
 Changing Behavior Using Social Cognitive Theory
Both outcome expectancies and self-efficacy
beliefs are regarded as important factors that can
directly have an impact on goals and behaviors.
They also operate through indirect pathways,
affecting goal setting and the perception of socio-
structural factors. In adopting a desired behavior,
individuals form a goal and then attempt to exe-
cute the action. Goals serve as self-incentives and
guide decisions/motivation to participate in beha-
viors (see Chapter 38, this volume). According to
social cognitive theory, a distinction can be made
between distal and proximal goals. A distal goal
might be weight loss, whereas a proximal goal
might be an increase in physical activity and fiber
consumption. The proximal ones regulate the
amount of invested effort in pursuing a goal and
guide subsequent action. Intentions, as defined in
other social cognitive approaches, are similar to
proximal goals (Bandura, 1997). Several major
theories agree that goals or intentions should be
as specific as possible in order to facilitate sub-
sequent action (e.g., Bandura, 1997; Fishbein &
Ajzen, 2010; see Chapters 2 and 4, this volume).
Distal goals give purpose and general direction to
actions. For example, an individual may aim at
becoming a medical doctor, which is a distal goal
that can be subdivided into a hierarchy of prox-
imal goals such as striving for a medical exam,
studying hard for some years, and signing up for
a premed course.
According to social cognitive theory, forming
a goal is a necessary but not sufficient condition
for goal pursuit and behavioral enactment; it is
a precondition but does not ensure that an indivi-
dual will actually pursue the goal (Bandura,
2000a, 2000b). People would not set goals for
themselves if they thought that the pursuit of
such goals would have more disadvantages than
advantages (Bandura, 2000a, 2000b). If learning
to play tennis has the advantage of being more
active and fit, this consequence might be outper-
formed by the expectation that participating in the
sport is resource-demanding (e.g., it demands
time and money) and that one requires a partner
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Birmingham, on 22 Jul 2020 at 21:18:07, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108677318.003
35
who is available when needed. Thus positive, as
well as negative, outcome expectancies are seen
as important determinants in the formation of
goals. Self-efficacy, on the other hand, remains
crucial for the formation of an intention to adopt
a behavior as well as for the post-intentional
phase when the task is to translate the intention
into action and to self-regulate the goal pursuit
process.
Goal setting also depends on perceived socio-
structural factors. These factors refer to the impe-
diments (barriers) or opportunities (facilitators)
that reside in living conditions, personal circum-
stances, and political, economic, or environmen-
tal systems (Bandura, 1997). Optimistic self-
beliefs about one’s efficacy to change behaviors
may also control how people perceive opportu-
nities and impediments. An individual’s level of
self-efficacy influences whether they will attend
to opportunities or barriers in their life circum-
stances. Self-efficacious individuals who, for
example, intend to exercise might focus on cues
in their environment, such as hiking paths and
cycling routes. Those who are less confident
about their physical competence might focus
instead on the lack of a gym in their neighbor-
hood. People with strong self-efficacy recognize
that they are able to overcome obstacles and focus
on opportunities. They believe that they are able
to exercise control, even if the environment pro-
vides constraints rather than opportunities (see
Bandura, 1997, 2000a, 2000b).
For example, a meta-analysis of 257 original
studies showed that self-efficacy and positive out-
come expectancies (e.g., expectations referring to
potential rewards) were the strongest predictors
of digital piracy behavior, whereas other vari-
ables referring to social learning models (e.g.,
social influence) or moral disengagement pro-
duced smaller effects (Lowry et al., 2017).
Similarly, a meta-analysis of 143 studies sug-
gested that social cognitive theory was effective
in predicting whether or not people chose math-
and science-intensive academic courses and
 36 ALEKSANDRA LUSZCZYNSKA AND RALF SCHWARZER
majors (Lent et al., 2018). The career-choice
behaviors are directly predicted by self-efficacy,
goals, facilitating factors (support), and barriers
(Lent et al., 2018). Outcome expectancies by
themselves may have no direct effects yet they
are strongly related to goals, hence they may
operate indirectly. Although significant among
ethnic majorities and minorities, the associations
may be moderated by ethnicity or gender – for
example, outcome expectancies were more
strongly related to goals among people from
ethnic minorities and women compared to ethnic
majority participants and men (Lent et al., 2018).
Systematic reviews seeking the strongest
predictors and correlates of adherence to combi-
nation antiretroviral therapy (cART) for people
living with HIV indicated that adherence self-
efficacy was the strongest predictor of adherence
(Langebeek et al., 2014). The associations
between other correlates (e.g., social support)
and adherence were weaker. Similarly,
a systematic review of social cognitive theory in
the physical activity context yielded estimates of
average-level effects, based on forty-four original
studies (Young et al., 2014). Across included
studies, variation in physical activity was directly
explained by self-efficacy (60 percent of studies
yielded significant associations) and goals/inten-
tions (86 percent of analyzed studies). Direct
effects of other constructs from the theory were
found in less than half of studies. In particular, the
evidence for direct effects of outcome expectan-
cies was found in only 30 percent of studies, the
effects of impediments were found in only 24 per-
cent of studies, and effects of social support were
observed in 20 percent of studies (Young et al.,
2014). The associations were more likely to occur
in older samples (yet it has to be highlighted that
the review included research in studies with sam-
ples of children as young as nine years old).
In summary, two constructs are central to the
predictions of social cognitive theory: self-
efficacy and outcome expectancies – and that
they operate together with goals, socio-
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Birmingham, on 22 Jul 2020 at 21:18:07, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108677318.003
structural impediments, and facilitators in code-
termining cognitions, emotions, and behavior. In
particular, self-efficacy is a meaningful and
changeable belief that is important for initiating
and maintaining behaviors. When self-efficacy is
low, taking steps to increase it can help people to
change their behaviors. Interventions are mainly
based on four sources of information that give
rise to self-efficacy: mastery experience, vicar-
ious experience, verbal persuasion, and physiolo-
gical feedback. Social cognitive theory has been
applied to explain cognition and behaviors across
various behavioral domains, including health
behavior, work performance, academic achieve-
ment, sexual functioning, and coping with stress.
Besides the use of the original version of the
theory, researchers have also developed several
adapted versions of the theory that provide more
effective explanations of behavior in specific con-
texts (see Sidebar 3.1).
3.3 How Has Social Cognitive
Theory Been Used to Change
Behavior?
Social cognitive theory has been used to guide
interventions to change behavior in many contexts
and populations. Research applying the theory has
utilized a number of intervention strategies or beha-
vior change techniques targeting change in the key
constructs of the theory (see Chapter 20, this
volume). Abraham and Michie (2008) provided
a formal classification of seven basic behavior
change techniques that may modify social cognitive
theory constructs: (1) modeling or demonstration of
behavior; (2) provision of instructions on how to
perform a behavior; (3), provision of general
encouragement; (4) prompting barrier identifica-
tion; (5) setting graded tasks; (6) prompting inten-
tion formation; and (7) provision of information on
consequences. The latter two techniques target con-
structs that are also present in other theories (e.g.,
the information-motivation skills model and the
theory of planned behavior; see Chapter 2, this
 Changing Behavior Using Social Cognitive Theory 37

Sidebar 3.1 Specific versions of social cognitive theory

One development of social cognitive theory has been in the area of human
adaptation, such as the explanation of posttraumatic adaptation (Benight &
Bandura, 2004). Traumatic stress survivors with high self-efficacy beliefs have been
found to better adhere to physical and mental health treatments and engage in less
substance abuse–related behaviors (Luszczynska, Benight, & Cieslak, 2009). In line
with this approach, self-efficacy is a focal resource enabling individuals to effectively
search for the support needed for recovery. It also allows traumatic stress survivors to
regain control over one’s own behaviors after traumatic events.
Another application is in the form of social cognitive career theory, which aims to
explain the processes by which individuals develop their interests, make choices, and
attain performance in work-related and academic contexts (Brown et al., 2008; Lent
et al., 2003). The model stresses the role of self-efficacy, outcome expectancies, and
goals operating jointly in predicting achievements and performance. Furthermore,
social cognitive career theory highlights the role of barriers and supports (i.e.,
impediments and facilitating factors), representing a perception of specific
environmental influences (Lent et al., 2003). Employees and students with stronger
self-efficacy and outcome expectancies will tend to strive toward more challenging
job or academic goals than will those with weaker efficacy beliefs or less positive
outcome expectancies. More challenging or difficult goals are, in turn, assumed to
motivate employees/students to work harder toward goal fulfillment, leading to
more favorable academic or work-related outcomes. Meta-analyses have confirmed
that persistence (i.e., continuous efforts to attain an academic degree) is indirectly
explained by self-efficacy, with educational goals playing a mediating role (Brown
et al., 2008; Unrau et al., 2018). A similar pattern of associations between self-efficacy,
goals, and indicators of work performance (e.g., training participation, sales,
absenteeism) has been found (Brown et al., 2008).
A theoretical application of social cognitive theory was also developed to explain
leadership behaviors (McCormick, 2001). According to this approach (McCormick,
2001), goals and self-efficacy affect leadership motivation and task strategy
development, which, in turn, explain leadership behaviors in specific performance
environments.
Sport and athletic performance constitutes yet another context in which
theoretical applications of social cognitive theory have been made. Feltz et al. (1999;
for a meta-analysis, see Myers et al., 2017) proposed a conceptual model of coaching
efficacy consisting of three key elements: sources of coaching efficacy information,
dimensions of coaching efficacy, and outcomes of a coach’s efficacy beliefs. The
sources included the extent of coaching experience/preparation, prior success, the
perceived skill of athletes, and social support. The proposed dimensions of coaching
efficacy were character building, game strategy, motivation, and technique, whereas
the outcomes of coaching efficacy were coaching behavior, player/team satisfaction,
player/team performance, and player/team efficacy.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Birmingham, on 22 Jul 2020 at 21:18:07, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108677318.003
 38 ALEKSANDRA LUSZCZYNSKA AND RALF SCHWARZER
volume). It is also important to give people oppor-
tunities to try out the behavior and experience early
success. However, this is not a unique issue as many
techniques may affect change in constructs from
multiple theories.
Interventions focused on social cognitive theory
primarily target change in self-efficacy and out-
come expectancies, given the pervasive effects of
these constructs on predicting behavioral out-
comes in formative research applying the theory
across contexts and populations (Prestwich et al.,
2014). For example, interventions may include
strategies designed to increase participants’ sense
of mastery and their ability to handle difficult
situations that might arise during the initiation or
maintenance of a novel or difficult behavior. Such
strategies may lead to increased self-efficacy
beliefs when it comes to initiating or persisting
with the behavior when barriers arise (Tang et al.,
2019). In addition, providing opportunities to
experience success with a target behavior of inter-
est might be considered, such as reflecting on past
success with the behavior, developing skills such
as academic learning strategies or coping techni-
ques, setting proximal goals, monitoring goal pro-
gress, providing supportive feedback on progress
toward goals, enhancing skills to manage setbacks
such as resetting goals or reattribution of failure,
and presenting role models to provide vicarious
experience of success with the behavior (Tang
et al., 2019; see also Chapter 32, this volume).
Self-efficacy beliefs can improve through perso-
nal accomplishment (Bandura, 1997). Thus, to
foster mastery experiences, one can guide clients
to perform small steps that are likely to be achieved
successfully. One can then provide positive feed-
back to reinforce this mastery experience and
encourage the person to master subsequently more
challenging steps. Such graded tasks can be useful
in clinical settings such as in physiotherapy (e.g.,
gradual progression of balance and strength exer-
cises; Ghazi et al., 2018) or cognitive behavior
therapy for phobias (Bandura, 1977b). In addition,
vicarious experiences provide individuals with
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Birmingham, on 22 Jul 2020 at 21:18:07, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108677318.003
a “role model” that provides a “behavioral tem-
plate” for the behavior and affects estimates of
future confidence to do the behavior and, hence,
individuals may form motives or intentions to do
the behavior in future. When individuals witness
other people (similar to themselves) successfully
master a difficult situation, social comparison and
imitation of the behavior can strengthen self-
efficacy beliefs (Bandura, 1997). Similarly, imagery
may enhance self-efficacy by presenting individuals
with a “self-model” of the behavior (see also
Chapter 33, this volume). Self-efficacy beliefs can
also be changed through verbal persuasion. For
example, a teacher could reassure students that
they can prepare for a demanding exam, due to
their effort, competence, and ability to plan. They
could be informed that they have what it takes to
succeed in anything they put their efforts into.
These types of persuasion can strengthen self-
efficacy for successfully managing the task at
hand (Unrau et al., 2018).
3.4 Evidence Base for the Use of
Social Cognitive Theory in
Changing Behavior
Social cognitive theory offers a sound theoretical
basis for informing interventions to change a wide
range of behaviors. Research has demonstrated
that interventions adopting strategies and techni-
ques to change behavior from the theory has led to
significant behavior changes in numerous con-
texts, including health-related behaviors (French
et al., 2014), behaviors in occupational and orga-
nizational settings like career exploration and
decision-making (Lent et al., 2016, 2017), beha-
viors in educational contexts like persistence with
studying and attention in class (Schunk &
Zimmerman, 2007; Unrau et al., 2018) or reading
(Aro et al., 2018; Unrau et al., 2018), performance
in sports (Te Velde et al., 2018), parenting (Liyana
Amin et al., 2018), and breastfeeding (Galipeau
et al., 2018). In addition, interventions based on
the theory have demonstrated efficacy in changing
 Changing Behavior Using Social Cognitive Theory
salient outcomes such as changes in health indica-
tors like weight loss (Hays et al., 2014), produc-
tivity and attendance in occupational settings
(Cherian & Jacob, 2013), academic attainment
(Honicke, & Broadbent, 2016; Huang, 2016;
Talsma et al., 2018), and criminal behavior such
as digital piracy (acts of copyright infringement of
electronic goods, including software, music,
books, movies, TV shows, and games; Lowry,
Zhang, & Wu, 2017) or cyberbullying perpetration
(Chen, Ho, & Lwin, 2017). In the educational
context, for example, modeling has been found
to be an effective means of building self-
regulatory and academic skills and of raising self-
efficacy. In reading and writing interventions,
modeling was employed to enhance self-efficacy,
skills, and self-regulation (Aro et al., 2018;
Schunk & Zimmerman, 2007; Unrau et al., 2018).
However, it is in health contexts where social
cognitive theory approaches have been most fre-
quently applied to change a range of health-related
behaviors (Davis et al., 2015). For example, in the
domains of treatment and rehabilitation in the con-
text of chronic illness, often new behaviors are
required to be adopted (e.g., engaging in rehabilita-
tion exercises, incorporating complex medication
adherence regimes into daily routines). Self-
efficacy has been shown to form moderate associa-
tions with such rehabilitation-related behaviors,
with larger effects found for individuals with con-
ditions that have not progressed to end-stage salvage
surgery and for younger and more physically active
individuals (Ghazi et al., 2018).
A further example is the promotion of physical
activity and nutrition, two behavioral domains in
which social cognitive theory has been applied very
frequently, and the large amount of intervention
studies based on the theory in these domains pre-
sents challenges to synthesis. However, a review of
265 nutrition interventions based on the theory
published in the 1980s and 1990s indicated that
outcome expectancies or self-efficacy were
included in about 90 percent of the studies
(Contento, Randell, & Basch, 2002). The authors
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Birmingham, on 22 Jul 2020 at 21:18:07, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108677318.003
39
conclude that changes in preferences or different
attitudes seem to be of less importance than changes
in self-efficacy or outcome expectancies when it
comes to behavior change. Other systematic
reviews have focused on the effects of social cogni-
tive theory–based interventions on physical activity
and nutrition in specific contexts – for example,
cancer-related treatment and recovery processes
(see Stacey et al., 2015). These authors’ meta-
analysis of social cognitive theory–based interven-
tions in this context, including twelve studies with
cancer survivors, found favorable results in terms of
the overall effectiveness of such interventions to
improve dietary behaviors as well as physical activ-
ity. However, they were unable to indicate which of
the theory constructs was most likely to change
these behaviors and how this construct should be
changed. Theory-based interventions were effective
in improving physical activity assessed at post-
intervention with a small-to-medium effect size,
and six out of eight trials showed a statistically sig-
nificant improvement in at least one dietary outcome
(Stacey et al., 2015). Self-efficacy was a primary
construct targeted in the interventions, yet they were
heterogeneous in terms of the number of theory
constructs targeted and the behavior change techni-
ques applied. Furthermore, analyses testing if parti-
cular social cognitive theory constructs changed or
mediated the effects of the intervention on nutrition
or physical activity were inconsistent.
The majority of research on interventions or
experimental studies based on social cognitive
theory has focused on comparisons of the predic-
tive role of self-efficacy, alongside effects of
other constructs from either social cognitive the-
ory or other theories (e.g., Jekauc et al., 2015;
Luszczynska, Horodyska et al., 2016). For exam-
ple, experimental studies tested whether the most
conspicuous construct, self-efficacy – as opposed
to the key variable from implementation intention
theory, planning – exerts similar or larger effects
on dietary changes (Luszczynska, Horodyska
et al., 2016) or physical activity changes
(Luszczynska, Hagger et al., 2016). For these
 40 ALEKSANDRA LUSZCZYNSKA AND RALF SCHWARZER
behaviors, self-efficacy–enhancing interventions
yielded similar effects as the interventions target-
ing planning. Importantly, combining self-
efficacy with planning in a single intervention
did not result in superior behavior changes than
one of these components alone.
Although there is a myriad of interventions
using the underpinnings of social cognitive the-
ory to change a behavior, it is unclear to what
extent all the constructs assumed in the theory
should be targeted. One of the key issues in
translating theory to practice with respect to inter-
ventions based on the theory is which constructs
to target and whether or not targeting more theory
constructs yields stronger effects. A systematic
review of the use of social cognitive theories to
promote healthy eating and physical activity indi-
cated that the interventions applying social cog-
nitive theory more extensively did not result in
larger effects than those that used theories less
extensively (Prestwich et al., 2014). This, how-
ever, may be an effect that is not specific for
social cognitive theory, as similar conclusions
were drawn for the transtheoretical model (see
Chapter 10, this volume), the other theory that
was used in an adequate number of experimental
trials providing data sufficient to conduct
a systematic analysis.
A possible future direction of research may be
the search for moderator effects. For example, the
effects of self-efficacy on goals and behavior may
be moderated by risk perceptions. Heightened
risk perception may trigger an intention to man-
age risk only when individuals have high self-
efficacy to engage in suitable behaviors to mini-
mize the challenges (Kok et al., 2018). Also, the
level of goals may be moderated by subsequent
self-regulatory factors such as planning. Both
types of putative moderation effects may be pro-
mising hypotheses as the body of research on
social cognitive theory expands.
Self-efficacy and similar constructs have been
incorporated into many theories and models such
as the reasoned action approach (see Chapter 2,
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Birmingham, on 22 Jul 2020 at 21:18:07, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108677318.003
this volume), the health action process approach
(see Chapter 7, this volume), and a number of
integrated approaches to behavior change
(Chapter 15, this volume), which highlights the
value of the theory going forward as a means to
inform efforts to predict and change behavior.
3.5 Summary and Conclusion
Social cognitive theory is one of the most well-
cited and applied theories of behavior change. It
has been applied to multiple behaviors performed
across contexts and settings (e.g., education, occu-
pational and workplace, mental and physical
health, environmental settings; Aro et al., 2018;
Cherian & Jacob, 2013; French et al., 2014; Hays
et al., 2014; Lent et al., 2016, 2017; Schunk &
Zimmerman, 2007; Talsma et al., 2018; Unrau
et al., 2018; Te Velde et al., 2018). As
a consequence, a substantive body of evidence
has accumulated that has provided support for
the application of the theory to predict and change
behavior (Luszczynska & Schwarzer, 2015).
Central to the theory are the constructs of self-
efficacy and outcome expectancies, both of
which have been shown to be reliably related to
the initiation and maintenance of behavior in
formative research applying social cognitive
theory (see Chapter 32, this volume). Based on
accumulated empirical evidence, interventions
targeting these cognitions should translate into
changes in behavioral outcomes. Successful
social cognitive theory–based behavior change
interventions may use such strategies as provid-
ing experiences of success with the behavior of
interest, modeling successful performance of the
behavior, providing instructions on how to per-
form a behavior successfully, using encourage-
ment and positive feedback on performance,
prompting identification of barriers and how to
overcome them, assisting in setting graded tasks
and appropriate goals, or providing information
on the benefits and consequences of performing
the behavior (see Table 3.1).
 Changing Behavior Using Social Cognitive Theory 41

Table 3.1 Social cognitive theory behavior change techniques

Behavior Change Technique Example

(1) Modeling or demonstration Have clients witness other people (similar to themselves) successfully
of behavior master a difficult situation; social comparison and imitation of the beha-
vior can strengthen self-efficacy beliefs.
(2) Provision of instructions on Point to skills and strategies on how to perform a particular task and gain
how to perform a behavior mastery experience.
(3) Provision of general Reassure clients that they can adhere to a demanding new behavior, due to
encouragement their competence and ability to plan. Tell them that they have what it
takes to succeed in anything they put their efforts into.
(4) Prompting barrier Support clients to be aware of obstacles and make realistic judgments about
identification coping options.
(5) Setting graded tasks Guide clients to perform small steps that are likely to be achieved successfully.
Such graded tasks can be useful in clinical settings such as in physiotherapy
(e.g., gradual progression of balance and strength exercises).
(6) Prompting intention Underscore level of competence that is required to set a realistic goal.
formation
(7) Provision of information on Identify positive and negative outcomes of various types of behavior.
consequences

A possible weakness of the theory lies in the lack
of consideration of emotion-related and noncon-
scious processes (Beauchamp et al., 2019; see also
Chapters 12, 15, and 34, this volume). Moreover, the
causal mechanism, the hypothesized interplay of
constructs, is not clearly documented, making it
difficult to derive clear and specific predictions.
There is no detailed set of hypotheses or predictions
that provides a definitive, comprehensive represen-
tation of the entire theory on which appropriate
behavior change interventions can be developed.
Some aspects of social cognitive theory that have
not been clearly described or mapped out in detail
and perhaps the theory should, therefore, be consid-
ered a framework to guide ideas on effects on beha-
vior rather than a formal theory specifying particular
predictions. Moreover, the construct of self-efficacy
is often not well understood and researchers often
use misleading operationalizations in their assess-
ment tools, which may be one source of inconsis-
tency in the empirical literature (e.g., Beauchamp,
Crawford, & Jackson, 2019; Williams & Rhodes,
2016). For example, a suggested rule for the
behavior-specific assessment of self-efficacy is: “I
am confident that I can . . . (perform an action), even
if . . . (a barrier)” (Luszczynska & Schwarzer,
2015). An example of a self-efficacy statement is:
“I am confident that I can skip dessert after meals
even if my family continues to eat it.” In contrast,
one finds assessment items such as “for me, learning
Spanish is easy” in some studies. Such easy/difficult
statements do not have a good fit with the definition
of the self-efficacy construct (Schwarzer &
Luszczynska, 2016). Future research should, there-
fore, seek to resolve these inconsistencies by using
semantic rules for rational item construction and by
clarifying the nature of the self-efficacy construct. It
is also important to avoid the possible confound of
self-efficacy and motivation (Williams & Rhodes,
2016) by targeting clearly different operationaliza-
tions of these two constructs. Moreover, future
research should go beyond the mere analysis of
linear direct effects of social cognitive theory con-
structs on behaviors and consider also more com-
plex operating mechanisms of change as reflected
by mediation or moderation effects.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Birmingham, on 22 Jul 2020 at 21:18:07, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108677318.003
 42 ALEKSANDRA LUSZCZYNSKA AND RALF SCHWARZER
References
Abraham, C., & Michie, S. (2008). A taxonomy of
behavior change techniques used in intervention.
Health Psychology, 27, 379–387. https://doi.org
/10.1037/0278-6133.27.3.379
Aro, T., Viholainen, H., & Koponen, T. et al. (2018).
Can reading fluency and self-efficacy of reading
fluency be enhanced with an intervention targeting
the sources of self-efficacy? Learning and
Individual Differences, 67, 53–66. https://doi.org
/10.1016/j.lindif.2018.06.009
Ashford, S., Edmunds, J., & French, D. P. (2010). What
is the best way to change self-efficacy to promote
lifestyle and recreational physical activity?
A systematic review with meta-analysis. British
Journal of Health Psychology, 15, 265–88. https://
doi.org/10.1348/135910709X461752
Bandura, A. (1977a). Social Learning Theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1977b). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying
theory of behavioral change. Psychological
Review, 84, 191–215.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought
and Action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of
Control. New York: Freeman.
Bandura, A. (2000a). Cultivate self-efficacy for personal
and organizational effectiveness. In E. A. Locke
(Ed.), The Blackwell Handbook of Principles of
Organizational Behavior (pp. 120–136). Oxford:
Blackwell.
Bandura, A. (2000b). Exercise of human agency
through collective efficacy. Current Directions of
Psychological Science, 9, 75–78. https://doi.org
/10.1111/1467-8721.00064.
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic
perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52,
1–26. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1
Beauchamp, M. R., Crawford, L. L., & Jackson, B.
(2019). Social cognitive theory and physical
activity: Mechanisms of behavior change, critique
and legacy. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 42,
110–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport
.2018.11.009
Benight, C. C., & Bandura, A. (2004). Social cognitive
theory of posttraumatic recovery: The role of
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Birmingham, on 22 Jul 2020 at 21:18:07, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108677318.003
perceived self-efficacy. Behavioral Research and
Therapy, 42, 1129–1148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.brat.2003.08.008
Brockway, M., Benzies, K., & Hayden, K. A. (2017).
Interventions to improve breastfeeding
self-efficacy and resultant breastfeeding rates:
A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of
Human Lactation, 33, 486–499. https://doi.org/10
.1177/0890334417707957
Brown, S. D., Tramayne, S., Hoxha, D. et al. (2008).
Social cognitive predictors of college students’
academic performance and persistence: A meta-
analytic path analysis. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 72, 298–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.jvb.2007.09.003
Chen, L., Ho, S. S., & Lwin, M. O. (2017). A
meta-analysis of factors predicting cyberbullying
perpetration and victimization: From the social
cognitive and media effects approach. New Media
and Society, 19, 1194–1213. https://doi.org/10
.1177/1461444816634037
Cherian, J., & Jacob, J. (2013). Impact of self-efficacy
on motivation and performance of employees.
International Journal of Business and
Management, 8, 80–88. https://doi.org/10.5539
/ijbm.v8n14p80
Contento, I. R., Randell, J., & Basch, C. E. (2002).
Review and analysis of education measures used in
nutrition education intervention research. Journal
of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 34, 2–25.
Davis, R., Campbell, R. Hildon, Z., Hobbs, L., &
Michie, S. (2015). Theories of behaviour and
behaviour change across the social and
behavioural sciences: A scoping review. Health
Psychology Review, 9, 323–344. https://doi.org/10
.1080/17437199.2014.941722
Feltz, D. L., Chase, M. A., Moritz, S. E., &
Sullivan, P. J. (1999). A conceptual model of
coaching efficacy: Preliminary investigation and
instrument development. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 91, 765–776. https://doi.org/10.1037/
0022-0663.91.4.765
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (2010). Predicting and
Changing Behavior: The Reasoned Action
Approach. New York: Psychology Press.
French, D. P., Olander, E. K., Chisholm, A., &
McSharry, J. (2014). Which behaviour change
 Changing Behavior Using Social Cognitive Theory
techniques are most effective at increasing older
adults’ self-efficacy and physical activity
behaviour? A systematic review. Annals of
Behavioral Medicine, 48, 225–234. https://doi.org
/10.1007/s12160-014-9593-z.
Galipeau, R., Baillot, A., Trottier, A., & Lemire, L.
(2018). Effectiveness of interventions on
breastfeeding self-efficacy and perceived
insufficient milk supply: A systematic review and
meta-analysis. Maternal and Child Nutrition, 14,
e12607. https://doi.org/10.1111/mcn.12607
Ghazi, C., Nyland, J., Whaley, R., Rogers, T, Wera, J.,
& Henzman, C. (2018). Social cognitive or
learning theory use to improve self-efficacy in
musculoskeletal rehabilitation: A systematic
review and meta-analysis. Physiotherapy Theory
and Practice, 34, 495–504. https://doi.org/10
.1080/09593985.2017.1422204
Hankonen, N., Absetz, P, Kinnunen, M., Haukkala, A.,
& Jallinoja, P. (2013). Toward identifying a broader
range of social cognitive determinants of dietary
intentions and behaviors. Applied Psychology:
Health and Well-Being, 5, 118–135. https://doi.org
/10.1111/j.1758-0854.2012.01081.x
Hays, L. M., Finch, E. A., Saha, C., Marrero, D. G., &
Ackermann, R. T. (2014). Effect of self-efficacy
on weight loss: A psychosocial analysis of a
community-based adaptation of the diabetes
prevention program lifestyle intervention.
Diabetes Spectrum, 27, 270–275. https://doi.org
/10.2337/diaspect.27.4.270.
Honicke, T., & Broadbent, J. (2016). The influence of
academic self-efficacy on academic performance:
A systematic review. Educational Research
Review, 17, 63–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.edurev.2015.11.002
Huang, C. (2016). Achievement goals and
self-efficacy: A meta-analysis. Educational
Research Review, 19, 119–137. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.edurev.2016.07.002.
Hull, C. L. (1943). Principles of Behavior: An
Introduction to Behavior Theory. New York:
Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Jekauc, D., Völkle, M., Wagner, M. O., Mess, F.,
Reiner, M., & Renner, B. (2015). Prediction of
attendance at fitness center: A comparison
between the theory of planned behavior, the social
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Birmingham, on 22 Jul 2020 at 21:18:07, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108677318.003
43
cognitive theory, and the physical activity
maintenance theory. Frontiers in Psychology, 6,
e121. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00121
Kok, G., Peters, G.-J. Y., Kessels, L. T. E., ten Hoor, G.,
& Ruiter, R. A. C. (2018). Ignoring theory and
misinterpreting evidence: The false belief in fear
appeals. Health Psychology Review, 12, 111–125.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2017.1415767
Langebeek, N., Gisolf, E. H., Reiss, P. et al. (2014).
Predictors and correlates of adherence to
combination antiretroviral therapy (ART) for
chronic HIV infection: A meta-analysis. BMC
Medicine, 12. https://doi.org/10.1186
/s12916-014-0142-1
Lent, R. W., Sheu, H. B., Miller, M. J., Cusick, M. E.,
Penn, L. T., & Truong, N. N. (2018). Predictors of
science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics choice options: A meta-analytic path
analysis of the social-cognitive choice model by
gender and race/ethnicity. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 65, 17–35. https://doi.org/10.1037
/cou0000243
Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., Schmidt, J., Brenner, B.,
Lyons, H., & Treistman, D. (2003). Relation of
contextual supports and barriers to choice
behavior in engineering majors: Test of alternative
social cognitive models. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 50, 458–465. https://doi.org/10.1037
/0022-0167.50.4.458
Lent, R. W., Ezeofor, I., Morrison M. A., Penn, L.T., &
Ireland, G. W. (2016). Applying the social
cognitive model of career self-management to
career exploration and decision-making. Journal
of Vocational Behavior, 93, 47–57. https://doi.org
/10.1016/j.jvb.2015.12.007.
Lent, R. W., Ireland, G. W., Penn, L. T., Morris, T. R., &
Sappington, R. (2017). Sources of self-efficacy
and outcome expectations for career exploration
and decision-making: A test of the social cognitive
model of career self-management. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 99, 107–117. https://doi.org
/10.1016/j.jvb.2017.01.002
Liyana Amin, N. A., Tam, W. W. S., & Shorey, S. (2018).
Enhancing first-time parents’ self-efficacy:
A systematic review and meta-analysis of universal
parent education interventions’ efficacy.
International Journal of Nursing Studies, 82,
 44 ALEKSANDRA LUSZCZYNSKA AND RALF SCHWARZER
149–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2018
.03.021
Lowry, P. B., Zhang, J., & Wu, T. (2017). Nature or
nurture? A meta-analysis of the factors that
maximize the prediction of digital piracy by using
social cognitive theory as a framework.
Computers in Human Behavior, 68, 104–120.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.11.015
Luszczynska, A., Benight, C. C., & Cieslak, R. (2009).
Self-efficacy and health-related outcomes of
collective trauma: A systematic review. European
Psychologist, 14, 49–60. https://doi.org/
10.1027/1016-9040.14.1.51
Luszczynska, A., Hagger, M. S., Banik, A.,
Horodyska, K., Knoll, N., & Scholz, U. (2016).
Self-efficacy, planning, or a combination of
both? A longitudinal experimental study
comparing effects of three interventions on
adolescents’ body fat. PLoS ONE, 11,
e0159125. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal
.pone.0159125.
Luszczynska, A., Horodyska, K., Zarychta, K.,
Liszewska, N., Knoll, N., & Scholz, U. (2016).
Planning and self-efficacy interventions
encouraging replacing energy-dense foods
intake with fruit and vegetable: A longitudinal
experimental study. Psychology and Health, 31,
40–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/08870446.2015
.1070156
Luszczynska, A., & Schwarzer, R. (2015). Social-
cognitive theory. In M. Conner, & P. Norman
(Eds.), Predicting Health Behaviours (3rd ed., pp.
225–251). Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill Open
University Press.
McCormick, M. J. (2001). Self-efficacy and leadership
effectiveness: Applying social cognitive theory to
leadership. Journal of Leadership and
Organizational Studies, 8, 22–33. https://doi.org/10
.1177/107179190100800102
Myers, N. D., Park, S. E., Ahn, S., & Lee, S. (2017).
Proposed sources of coaching efficacy: A
meta-analysis. Journal of Sport and Exercise
Psychology, 39, 261–276. https://doi.org/10.1123
/jsep.2017-0155
Pajares F., & Schunk, D. H. (2001). Self-beliefs and
school success: Self-efficacy, self-concept, and
school achievement. In R. Riding & S. Rayner
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Birmingham, on 22 Jul 2020 at 21:18:07, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108677318.003
(Eds.), Perception (pp. 239–266). London:
Ablex Publishing.
Prestwich, A., Kellar, I., Parker, R. et al. (2013). How
can self-efficacy be increased? Meta-analysis of
dietary interventions. Health Psychology Review,
8, 270–285. https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199
.2013.813729
Prestwich, A., Sniehotta, F. F., Whittington C.,
Dombrowski, S. U., Roggers, L., & Michie, S.
(2014). Does theory influence the effectiveness of
health behavior interventions? meta-analysis.
Health Psychology, 33, 465–474. https://doi.org
/10.1037/a0032853
Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman. B. J. (2007). Influencing
children’s self-efficacy and self-regulation of
reading and writing through modeling. Reading
and Writing Quarterly, 23, 7–25. https://doi.org
/10.1080/10573560600837578
Schwarzer, R., & Luszczynska, A. (2016). Self-efficacy
and outcome expectancies. In Y. Benyamini,
M. Johnston, & E. C. Karademas (Eds.),
Assessment in Health Psychology (pp. 31–44).
Göttingen: Hogrefe.
Short, S., & Ross-Stewart, L. (2009). A review of self-
efficacy-based interventions. In S. D. Mellalieu &
S. Hanton (Eds.), Applied Sport Psychology
Advances: A Review (pp. 221–281). London:
Routledge.
Skinner, B. F. (1938). The Behavior of Organisms.
New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, F. (1998). Self-efficacy
and work-related performance: A meta-analysis.
Psychological Bulletin, 124, 240–261. https://doi
.org/10.1037//0033-2909.124.2.240
Stacey, F. G., James, E. L., Chapman K.,
Courneya, K. S., & Lubans, D. R. (2015).
A systematic review and meta-analysis of social
cognitive theory-based physical activity and/or
nutrition behavior change interventions for cancer
survivors. Journal of Cancer Survivorship, 9,
305–338. https://doi.org/10.1007
/s11764-014-0413-z
Talsma, K., Schüz, B., Schwarzer, R., & Norris, K.
(2018). I believe, therefore I achieve (and vice
versa): A meta-analytic cross-lagged panel
analysis of self-efficacy and academic
performance. Learning and Individual
 Changing Behavior Using Social Cognitive Theory
Differences, 61, 136–150. https://doi.org/10.1016
/j.lindif.2017.11.015
Tang, M.Y., Smith, D. M., Mc Sharry, J., Hann, M., &
French, D. P. (2019). Behavior change techniques
associated with changes in postintervention and
maintained changes in self-efficacy for physical
activity: A systematic review with meta-analysis.
Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 53, 801–815.
https://doi.org/10.1093/abm/kay090
Te Velde, S. J., Lankhorst, K., Zwinkels, M.,
Verschuren, O., Takken, T., de Groot, J., & HAYS
Study Group (2018). Associations of sport
participation with self-perception, exercise
self-efficacy and quality of life among children
and adolescents with a physical disability or
chronic disease-a cross-sectional study. Sports
Medicine – Open, 4. https://doi.org/10.1186
/s40798-018-0152-1
Unrau, N. J., Rueda, R., Son, E., Polanin, J. R.,
Lundeen, R. J., & Muraszewski, A. K. (2018). Can
reading self-efficacy be modified? A
meta-analysis of the impact of interventions on
reading self-efficacy. Review of Educational
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Birmingham, on 22 Jul 2020 at 21:18:07, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108677318.003
45
Research, 88, 167–204. https://doi.org/10.3102
/0034654317743199
Warner, L. M., Schüz, B., Wolff, J. K., Parschau, L.,
Wurm, S., & Schwarzer, R. (2014). Sources of
self-efficacy for physical activity. Health
Psychology, 33, 1298–1308. https://doi.org/10
.1037/hea0000085.
Williams, D. M., & Rhodes, R. E. (2016). The
confounded self-efficacy construct: Conceptual
analysis and recommendations for future research.
Health Psychology Review, 10, 113–128. https://
doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2014.941998
Williams, S. L., & French, D. P. (2011). What are the
most effective intervention techniques for
changing physical activity self-efficacy and
physical activity behaviour – and are they the
same? Health Education Research, 26, 308–322.
https://doi.org/10.1093/her/cyr005
Young, M. D., Plotnikoff, R. C., Collins, C. E.,
Callister, R., & Morgan, P. J. (2014). Social
cognitive theory and physical activity:
A systematic review and meta-analysis. Obesity
Reviews, 15, 983–995.