Social Cognitive Theory

The major premise of social cognitive theory is that human action is caused by three mutually
interacting factors: (1) behavior, (2) cognitive and other personal factors, and (3) the
person’s external environment. The three factors do not influence each other simultaneously or
with equal strength; they also don’t influence each other instantly.
Social cognitive theory represents a break from the behaviorist approach, which posits that
environment causes behavior. Behaviorists ignore human functioning because they assume that it
is caused by external stimuli. Bandura suggested that not only does the environment cause
behavior, but behavior also helps shape the environment, in a process that he called “reciprocal
determinism” (1986). Bandura later added his third factor, a person’s psychological processes, or
cognitions, to the other two factors (environment and behavior) that reciprocally determine
human action.
Three aspects of the theory are particularly relevant for organizations: the development of
people’s (1) cognitive, social, and behavioral competencies through modeling; (2) beliefs about
their capabilities so that they will use their knowledge, skills, and abilities effectively; and (3)
motivation through goal systems (Bandura, 1988).
According to the theory, people are not just onlookers of their own human body as it wades
through environmental events. Instead, people are agents of themselves and of their own
experiences. The core features of personal agency are intentionality, forethought, self-
reactiveness, and self-reflectiveness. Intentionality refers to proactive commitment to bringing
about a future course of action. Forethought means having a future time perspective in which
the individual anticipates the likely consequences of his or her prospective actions. Self-
reactiveness is the deliberate ability to make choices and plans, shape appropriate courses of
action, and motivate and regulate their implementation. Self-reflectiveness refers to self-
examination of one’s own functioning, or metacognitive ability (Bandura, 2001).
According to the theory, people can learn vicariously through observation of the competencies of
others (Bandura, 1997; Wood & Bandura, 1989).
Observational learning comprises four constituent processes: attentional, retention, production,
and motivational (Bandura, 1986).
 Attentional process activities include selecting behaviors to observe, accurately
perceiving those behaviors, and extracting information about those behaviors.
 Retention process activities include remembering, storing, and actively rehearsing the
self-performance of behaviors retained.
 Production process activities include performing the newly modeled behaviors and
getting feedback about the success or failure of those actions.
 Motivational process activities include positive incentives to perform the newly learned
behaviors, such as past reinforcement, promised reinforcement, external incentives,
vicarious incentives, and self-incentives.
The theory distinguishes between merely acquiring information and actively performing the new
behaviors, because people do not enact everything that they learn. People often enact newly
modeled behaviors without immediate rewards, but they may not continue to perform those
behaviors in the future without reinforcement to do so (Bandura, 1986).
There is a difference between possessing skills and being able to use them. Successfully using
skills requires a strong belief in one’s capabilities to exert control over events in order to
accomplish desired goals. Two people with the same level of skill may perform differently if
their self-beliefs of efficacy enhance or impair their motivation to perform.
People’s self-efficacy beliefs can influence their lives in many ways (Bandura, 1988). For
example, self-efficacy beliefs are themselves critical determinants of how well people seek out
and acquire new skills and abilities.
Further, people with high self-efficacy tend to focus on (visualize) how to master tasks, whereas
those with low self-efficacy tend to focus on what can go wrong.
The theory also emphasizes human capacities for self-direction and self-motivation. People tend
to be self-directing. Through a process of self-evaluation, people keep their behavior in line with
their standards, and through a process of self-reward, people give themselves positive (praise,
pride, a treat) or negative (shame, guilt, embarrassment) reinforcement. People who perform
desired behaviors and reward themselves tend to perform better than those who perform
behaviors but do not reward themselves. Excessive self-punishment can lead to
overcompensation, inactivity (apathy, boredom, and depression), and escape (substance abuse,
technological or virtual obsessive fantasy, and even suicide) (Baumeister, 1990; Chatard &
Selimbegovic, 2011).
Social cognitive theory examines how people can take charge and control over their own life.
People can take an active role — be an agent of change—in their self-development, adaptation,
and self-renewal (Bandura, 1989). The theory distinguishes among three different modes of
agency: direct personal agency, proxy agency, and collective agency (Bandura, 2001). Direct
personal agency means to take control and accomplish what one wants, and includes making the
best of fortuitous or unfortunate situations. Proxy agency means to get those who have access to
resources, power, influence, or expertise to wield it on one’s behavior. Collective agency means
to work with others to accomplish desired objectives (Bandura, 1997)

Criticisms and Critiques of the Theory

The theory posits that self-efficacy beliefs contribute significantly to a person’s level of
motivation and performance (Bandura & Locke, 2003). However, Vancouver and associates
found that a person’s beliefs in her capabilities did not determine her performance or were self-
defeating (Vancouver, Thompson, Tischner, & Putka, 2002; Vancouver, Thompson, & Williams,
2001). Vancouver et al. (2001, 2002) found that performance positively influenced self-efficacy
perceptions, but that self-efficacy did not influence subsequent performance. Bandura and Locke
(2003) conducted a meta-analysis and determined that the findings of Vancouver et al. (2001,
2002) did not uncover problems with the theory, but were merely due to a poorly designed task
in their studies’ methodology.
Finally, there is serious debate over measuring the construct of self-efficacy (Scherbaum, Cohen-
Charash, & Kern, 2006). The theory rejects the trait approach to explaining human behavior,
which posits that people are born with specific traits that govern their behavior. Bandura (2002)
argued that perceptions of selfefficacy and outcome expectancies depend on specific
circumstances in specific environments, and are therefore not global, context-free dispositions
that can be measured using a general self-efficacy (GSE) measure.
However, researchers have developed GSE scales that can be used to measure self-efficacy for
any task in any setting (for example, Chen, Gulley, & Eden, 2001). Some researchers have
argued that GSE moderates the impact of the environment (for example, provides negative
feedback) on a person’s task self-efficacy perceptions. In addition, some researchers have argued
that GSE is not different from other self-evaluations, such as self-esteem, and that it is not
predictive of behavior (Bandura, 1997; Stanley & Murphy, 1997).
Measuring Variables in the Theory
General self-efficacy scale. Chen, G., Gulley, S. M., & Eden, D. (2001, January). Validation of
a new general self-efficacy scale. Organizational Research Methods, 4, 62–83.

Collective efficacy and peer aggression measures. Barchia, K., & Bussey, K. (2011).
Individual and collective social cognitive influences on peer aggression: Exploring the
contribution of aggression efficacy, moral disengagement, and collective efficacy. Aggressive
Behavior, 37, 107–120.
Peer aggression.

Aggression was measured by three items developed for use in this research. Participants were asked to
rate on a 5-point scale (from 0 = never to 4 = more than times) how often, since the beginning of the
school term (8 weeks), they had engaged in physical, relational, and verbal aggression.

1. This school term, how many times have you slapped, punched, or pushed another student in a
mean way?
2. This school term, how many times have you spread a rumor about another student, left
someone out or said mean things behind another student’s back?
3. This school term, how many times have you called another student mean names, teased them
or said nasty things to another student’s face?

A specific time period was chosen to gain a measure of actual behavior rather than generalized ideas
about perceived levels of aggressive behavior. The behaviors used to represent each type of aggression
are similar to those used in previous research [Crick et al., 1997; Crick and Grotpeter, 1995; Ladd and
Kochenderfer-Ladd, 2002; Perry et al., 1988; Salmivalli et al., 1996] and those identified by qualitative
research as common aggressive behaviors in the school context [Smith et al., 1999].

These behaviors were, slapping, punching, and pushing for physical aggression, spreading a rumor,
leaving another student out, or saying mean things behind another student’s back for relational
aggression and calling another student mean names, teasing another student or saying nasty things to
another student’s face for verbal aggression. Alpha reliability for the three items was .72. Responses to
the three questions were summated to give an overall aggression total score at T1 and T2.

Aggression self-efficacy.

Self-efficacy to enact physical (slap, punch, and push), relational (isolate another, spread a rumor, say
nasty things behind another student’s back) and verbal aggression (name calling, teasing, and saying
mean things) was measured by nine items. There were three efficacy items for each type of aggression
identical to the three aggressive behaviors for each type of aggression in the measures of aggression.

Participants were asked to rate how well they could behave aggressively on a 7- point scale from 1 = not
well to 7 = very well.

The self-efficacy for aggression scale was administered as part of a larger self-efficacy measure that
assessed self-efficacy for a number of domains related to aggressive interactions in schools. Principal
axis factor analysis with Oblimin rotation was performed on the full self-efficacy measure at T1 to
investigate the dimensionality of the sets of self-efficacy items. Only items loading .40 or higher were
included in the factors obtained. Factor loadings ranged from .43 to .92. The results revealed a nine-
factor structure corresponding to eight efficacy domains.

The items measuring aggression self-efficacy loaded on two factors. One factor consisted of efficacy to
enact physical aggression and the other factor consisted of both efficacy to enact relational and verbal
aggression. These two factors were correlated (r 5 .65). To examine whether an overall factor underlies
the factors extracted, the Schmid-Lieman solution [Schmid and Leiman, 1957; Wolff and Preising, 2005]
was utilized. An overall underlying factor of aggression efficacy accounted for 65.7% of the variance on
each item compared with specific elements of the first order factors accounting for 22.6 and 11.8% of
the variance. These results did not differ for boys and girls. The alpha reliability for the overall scale
(physical and non-physical aggression) was .93. On the basis of the moderate correlation between the
factors, the higher order factoring results and high alpha reliability of the overall scale, a composite
aggression efficacy total score was computed including efficacy to enact each of the three types of
aggression.

Moral disengagement scale for peer aggression.

This scale was developed on the basis of the moral disengagement scale outlined by Bandura et al.
[1996]. Items perceived most relevant to peer aggression were retained from the original scale. Specific
peer aggression items were also added. One item measuring justifications for each of the following were
included: physical aggression, relational aggression, verbal aggression, not intervening in bullying, and a
general item about bullying.

The scale consisted of 14 items. Principal axis factor analysis using Obliman rotation was conducted on
T1 data and yielded a two-factor solution. The two factors extracted were moderately correlated (r
5 .59). One item had a factor loading below .40 and was deleted. As previous research has found scales
or moral disengagement converge to one factor [Bandura et al., 1996; Paciello et al., 2008], the Schmid-
Lieman solution [Schmid and Leiman, 1957; Wolff and Preising, 2005] was utilized to examine whether
an overall higher order factor underlies the two factors extracted. An overall underlying factor of moral
disengagement accounted for 64.5% of the variance compared with specific elements of the first order
factors accounting for 17.3 and 18.1% of the variance. Factor analysis results did not vary by gender. The
alpha reliability for the overall scale was .86.

Collective efficacy. This scale was designed to measure students’ perceived school collective efficacy to
stop peer aggression in the school context.

Participants were asked to rate how well they believed students and teachers could work together to
stop a range of aggressive behaviors on a 7-point scale (from 1 = not well to 7 = very well).

The scale cconsisted of 10 items developed for the present study.

How well can the students and teachers at your school…....

1. Work together to stop bullying

2. Work together to stop students slapping each other
3. Work together to stop students punching each other
4. Work together to stop students pushing each other
5. Work together to stop students spreading rumors about each other
6. Work together to stop students leaving each other out
7. Work together to stop students saying mean things behind each other’s’ backs
8. Work together to stop students calling each other mean names
9. Work together to stop students saying mean things to each other
10. Work together to stop students teasing each other

The wording of the items was based on a measure of family collective efficacy developed by Caprara et
al. [2004]. A principal axis factor analysis with Obliman rotation was conducted on T1 data and yielded
one factor, which accounted for 75.3% of the variance. Factor analysis results did not vary by gender.
Alpha reliability was .96.

Self-efficacy belief in reading and writing scales. Prat-Sala, M., & Redford, P. (2010). The
interplay between motivation, self-efficacy and approaches to studying. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 80, 283–305.
Revised Approaches to Studying Inventory

The short version of the Revised Approaches to Studying Inventory (RASI) is an 18-item inventory
aiming to identify students’ approaches to studying.

The questionnaire has three subscales with six items each:

 deep approach (seeking meaning, relating ideas, use of evidence, and interest in ideas),
 surface approach (lack of purpose, lack of understanding, syllabus-boundness, and fear of failure),
and
 strategic approach (organized studying, time management, achieving motivation, and monitoring
effectiveness).
o Participants responded to items along a seven-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). They modified the original five-point scale to make it
consistent with the scales of the other questionnaires used in this study. Subscales
scores were formed by obtaining the mean score from the responses on the items in
each subscale (Entwistle et al., 2000; Tait et al., 1998).

Work Preference Inventory

This is a 30-item inventory which aims to identify participants’ motivation towards what they do in their
studies. This instrument has two main scales each containing two subscales:

 intrinsic motivation, which includes ‘enjoyment’ and ‘challenge’ and

 extrinsic motivation, which includes ‘outward’ and ‘compensation’ subscales.
o Participants responded to items along a seven-point Likert-type scale from 1 (never true
of me) to 7 (very true of me), with the scoring reversed when the item was negative.
Subscales scores were formed by obtaining the mean from the responses on the items
for each subscale (Amabile et al., 1994).

Self-efficacy in reading and self-efficacy in writing

These two instruments aim to identify students’ perceived self-efficacy belief in reading academic texts
in higher education (self-efficacy in reading) and students’ perceived self-efficacy belief in essay writing
in higher education (self-efficacy in writing). Each instrument consists of 12 items.

The self-efficacy in reading scale contains items that make reference to participant’s perceived self-
efficacy in comprehending the content of their reading, such as

 how well can you identify all the key points when reading a journal article or academic book?,
or after you have read a text,
 how well can you answer questions on it?
 The self-efficacy in writing scale contains items that make reference to their self-efficacy in writing
essays, such as

 how well can you demonstrate substantial subject knowledge in your essay?, or
 how well can you provide relevant evidence to support your argument?. Participants
responded to items along a seven-point Likert-type scale from 1 (not well at all) to 7
(very well).
 For each of the two self-efficacies (reading and writing) the total score was formed by
obtaining the mean from all 12 items corresponding to each instrument (Appendix).

Questionnaire

Self-efficacy belief in reading academic texts

(1) How well can you identify all the key points when reading a journal article or academic book?
(2) How well can you understand a journal article or academic book if you put a lot of effort in?
(3) Whilst reading an article, how well can you identify other relevant references which you
consider may be of further interest to read?
(4) After you have read a text, how well can you answer questions on it?
(5) How well can you understand the meaning of each sentence when you read?
(6) How well can you recall the most important points (e.g., development of an argument) when
you have finished reading a journal article or book chapter?
(7) Before you critically evaluate a statement, how well have you understood its meaning?
(8) How well can you search effectively for relevant background reading when writing an essay?
(9) When reading, how well can you make notes in your own words?
(10)If you cannot understand an academic text, how well can you understand it if you go to a lecture
about it?
(11)How well can you use a variety of different methods to enable your understanding of a book
chapter or journal article? (e.g., highlighting, underlining, etc.).
(12)How well can you select the most appropriate reading from a number of relevant articles and
books?

Self-efficacy belief in essay writing

(1) How well can you express your arguments clearly in essays?
(2) How well can you link the paragraphs to make your essay coherent and make the text flow?
(3) If you put in a lot of effort, how well can you write an essay you are proud of?
(4) How well can you provide relevant evidence to support your argument?
(5) Before you finish your essay, how well can you make the conclusion relate to the introduction
and the essay question?
(6) How well can you write an effective introduction which informs the reader of your intentions for
the essay?
(7) How well can you demonstrate substantial subject knowledge in your essay?
(8) How well can you think about what is required of you before you write an essay?
(9) How well can you put ideas together in such a way that they are clear to the reader?
(10)How well can you critically evaluate ideas and arguments in an essay using evidence, but
without using personal opinions?
 (11)How well can you plan and write essays because you know what the tutor expects of you?
(12) How well can you adopt a variety of different methods to enhance your essay writing,
according to the question? (e.g., noting everything down straight away or writing the essay in
separate blocks and then putting it together, etc.).

General perceived self-efficacy scale. Scholz, U., Gutiérrez Doña, B., Sud, S., & Schwarzer, R.
(2002). Is general self-efficacy a universal construct? Psychometric findings from 25 countries.
European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 18, 242–251.

The General Self-Efficacy Scale

The German version of the General Self-Efficacy (GSE) scale was originally developed by Matthias
Jerusalem and Ralf Schwarzer in 1979. This instrument contained 20 items. In 1981 it was reduced to 10
items and subsequently adapted to 28 languages (see below; Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 1995). A typical
item is, “Thanks to my resourcefulness, I can handle unforeseen situations” (see Appendix).

Appendix

The General Perceived Self-Efficacy Scale

(1) I can always manage to solve difficult problems if I try hard enough.
(2) If someone opposes me, I can find the means and ways to get what I want.
(3) I am certain that I can accomplish my goals.
(4) I am confident that I could deal efficiently with unexpected events.
(5) Thanks to my resourcefulness, I can handle unforeseen situations.
(6) I can solve most problems if I invest the necessary effort.
(7) I can remain calm when facing difficulties because I can rely on my coping abilities.
(8) When I am confronted with a problem, I can find several solutions.
(9) If I am in trouble, I can think of a good solution.
(10) I can handle whatever comes my way.

Response Format:

1 = Not at all true 2 = Hardly true 3 = Moderately true 4 = Exactly true

Note: The English version was developed in 1985, published in 1995, and revised slightly in 2000
(Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 1995).

The GSE scale has been used in numerous research projects, where it typically yielded internal
consistencies between alpha = .75 and .91. Its stability has been examined in several longitudinal
studies.
 Suggestions for Further Research
1. Examine the obstacles to and enhancers of observational learning.
2. Explore the range of cognitive and physical rehearsal and imaging methods that can be
used to enhance performance.
3. Look at the heuristics used to learn decision rules and how people learn to apply or not
apply learned rules.
4. Investigate intrinsic motivation and self-efficacy and their impact on performance
continuance and cessation.
5. Examine the process in which people justify simultaneous positive and negative
performance feedback from others.

Implications of the Theory for Managers

According to social cognitive theory, people behave as they do because of the mutually
interacting influences of their environment, their behaviors, and their thought process, or
cognitions. People are both producers and products of their own environment. They learn how to
behave by watching, remembering, and reproducing the behavior of others. People continue to
perform these new behaviors only if they are positively rewarded for doing so.
Your job as a manager is to help your employees model and perform desirable behaviors. Make
sure that your employees notice the behaviors of others who are performing the right behaviors
in the correct ways. Next, help shape your employees’ self-beliefs about their abilities to perform
those behaviors.
The ideas of this theory also apply to you. Pay attention to what behaviors you are learning by
watching others.