Albert Bandura (born December 4, 1925, in Mundare, Alberta, Canada) is a psychologist specializing in social cognitive theory and self
-efficacy. He is most famous for his social learning theory.
• • • • •
1 Education and academic career 2 Research 3 Notes 4 References 5 External links
 Education and academic career
Bandura graduated with a B.A. from the University of British Columbia with the Bolocan Award in psychology, and then obtained his M.A. in 1951 and Ph.D. in 1952 rom the University of Iowa. Arthurs D Benton was his academic adviser at Iowa.  Upon graduation, he participated in a clinical internship with the Wichita Kansas Guidance Center. The following year, he accepted a teaching position at Stanford University in 1953, which he still holds today. In 1974 the American Psychological Association elected him to its president.
Bandura was initially influenced by Robert Sears' work on familial antecedents of social behavior and identificatory learning, Bandura directed his initial research to the role of social modeling in human motivation, thought, and action. In collaboration with Richard Walters, his first doctoral student, Bandura engaged in studies of social learning and aggression. Their joint efforts illustrated the critical role of modeling in human behavior and led to a program of research into the determinants and mechanisms of observational learning (part of which has become known in the history of psychology as the "Bobo doll experiment"). The program also led to Bandura's first book, Adolescent Aggression in 1959, and to a subsequent book, Aggression: A Social Learning Analysis in 1973. In 1963 Bandura published his second book, Social Learning and Personality Development. In 1974 Stanford University awarded him an endowed chair and he became David Starr Jordan Professor of Social Science in Psychology. In 1977, Bandura published the ambitious Social Learning Theory, a book that altered the direction psychology took in the 1980s. In the course of investigating the processes by which modeling alleviates phobic disorders in snake-phobics, Bandura found that self-efficacy beliefs (which the phobic individuals had in their own capabilities to alleviate their phobia) mediated changes in behavior and in fear-arousal. He then launched a major program of research examining the influential role of self-referent thought in psychological functioning. Although he continued to explore and write on theoretical problems relating to myriad topics, from the late 1970s he devoted much attention to exploring the role that self-efficacy beliefs play in human functioning. In 1986 Bandura published Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory, a book in which he offered a social cognitive theory of human functioning that accords a
central role to cognitive, vicarious, self-regulatory and self-reflective processes in human adaptation and change. This social cognitive theory has its roots in an agentic perspective that views people as self-organizing, proactive, self-reflecting and self-regulating, not just as reactive organisms shaped by environmental forces or driven by inner impulses. Self-efficacy: The exercise of control was published in 1997. Bandura has lectured and written on topics such as escaping homelessness, deceleration of population growth, transgressive behavior, mass communication, substance abuse, and terrorism. He has explored the manner in which people morally disengage when they perpetrate inhumanities, and he has traced the psychosocial tactics by which individuals and societies selectively disengage moral self-sanctions from inhumane conduct. He desires and works for a civilized life with humane standards buttressed "by safeguards built into social systems that uphold compassionate behavior and renounce cruelty". A 2002 survey ranked Bandura as the fourth most-frequently cited psychologist of all time— behind B.F. Skinner, Sigmund Freud, and Jean Piaget—and the most cited living one.
Social learning theory or SLT is the theory that people learn new behavior through overt reinforcement or punishment, or via observational learning of the social factors in their environment. If people observe positive, desired outcomes in the observed behavior, then they are more likely to model, imitate, and adopt the behavior themselves.
• • • • • •
1 Theory 2 Criminology 3 Serial Murder and Social Learning Theory 4 Applications 5 References 6 External links
Social learning theory is derived from the work of Cornell Montgomery (1843-1904) which proposed that social learning occurred through four main stages of limitation: • • • • close contact, imitation of superiors, understanding of concepts, role model behaviour
It consists of 3 parts observing, imitating, and reinforcements
Julian Rotter moved away from theories based on psychosis and behaviourism, and developed a learning theory. In Social Learning and Clinical Psychology (1954), Rotter suggests that the effect of behaviour has an impact on the motivation of people to engage in that specific behaviour. People wish to avoid negative consequences, while desiring positive results or effects. If one expects a positive outcome from a behaviour, or thinks there is a high probability of a positive outcome, then they will be more likely to engage in that behaviour. The behaviour is reinforced, with positive outcomes, leading a person to repeat the behaviour. This social learning theory suggests that behaviour is influenced by these environmental factors or stimulus, and not psychological factors alone. Albert Bandura (1977) expanded on Rotter's idea, as well as earlier work by Miller & Dollard (1941), and is related to social learning theories of Vygotsky and Lave. This theory incorporates aspects of behavioural and cognitive learning. Behavioural learning assumes that people's environment (surroundings) cause people to behave in certain ways. Cognitive learning presumes that psychological factors are important for influencing how one behaves. Social learning suggests a combination of environmental (social) and psychological factors influence behaviour. Social learning theory outlines three requirements for people to learn and model behaviour include attention: retention (remembering what one observed), reproduction (ability to reproduce the behaviour), and motivation (good reason) to want to adopt the behaviour.
In criminology, Ronald Akers and Robert Burgess (1966) developed social learning theory to explain deviancy by combining variables which encouraged delinquency (e.g. the social pressure from delinquent peers) with variables that discouraged delinquency (e.g. the parental response to discovering delinquency in their children). The first two stages were used by Edwin Sutherland in his Differential Association Theory. Sutherland’s model for learning in a social environment depends on the cultural conflict between different factions in a society over who has the power to determine what is deviant. But his ideas were difficult to put into operation and measure quantitatively. Burgess, a behavioral sociologist, and Akers revised Sutherland’s theory and included the idea of reinforcement, which increases or decreases the strength of a behavior, and applied the principles of Operant Psychology, which holds that behavior is a function of its consequences and can be really bad in some cases.(Pfohl, 1994). Functionalism had been the dominant paradigm but, in the 1960s, there was a shift towards Social Control Theories, Conflict Criminology, and Labeling Theories that tried to explain the emerging and more radical social environment. Moreover, people believed that they could observe behavior and see the process of social learning, e.g., parents watched their own children and saw the influence of other children on their own; they could also see what kind of affect they had on their own children, i.e. the processes of differential association and reinforcement. The conservative political parties were advocating an increase in punishment to deter crime. Unlike Labeling Theory, Social Learning Theory actually supports the use of punishment which translates into longer sentences for those convicted, and helps to explain the increase in the prison population that began in the early 1970s (Livingston, 1996). Unlike situational crime prevention, the theory ignores the opportunistic nature of crime (Jeffery, 1990: 261-2). To learn one must first observe criminal behavior, but where was this behavior learned? The theory does explain how criminal behavior is ‘transmitted’ from one person to an animal, which can explain increases in types of crimes, but it does not consider how criminal
acting can be prevented (Jeffery, 1990: 252) although it may be fairly assumed that the processes of learning behaviors can be changed. There is also a definite problem. What may be reinforcement for one person may not be for another. Also, reinforcements can be both social involving attention and behavior between more than one person, and non-social reinforcement would not involve this interaction (Burgess & Akers: 1966) Social Learning Theory has been used in mentoring programs that should, in theory, prevent some future criminal behavior. The idea behind mentoring programs is that an adult is paired with a child, who supposedly learns from the behavior of the adult and is positively reinforced for good behavior (Jones-Brown, 1997). In the classroom, a teacher may use the theory by changing the seating arrangements to pair a behaving child and a misbehaving child, but the outcome may be that the behaving child begins to be very bad.
 Serial Murder and Social Learning Theory
Hale (1993) applied the social learning theory to serial murder using case studies, and he claimed that serial murder can be learned. The social learning theory suggests that people learn new behavior through punishment and rewards. Hale argued that serial murderers must go through some humiliating experience in the early development of their life (Singer and Hensley, 2004). But the serial murderer goes through a different process because most children go through some sort of humiliation during their life. The child who becomes a serial killer is often introduced to a humiliating experience, and cannot distinguish between a rewarding and non rewarding experience, which is part of the social learning theory. This causes the child to look at certain situations in a negative way, causing the child to become frustrated. When the individual becomes frustrated from a humiliating experience from the past, the individual then choose vulnerable outlets for their aggression (Singer and Hensley, 2004). The child learns to expect humiliation or a negative situation from the past, which then causes frustration or aggression. Case Examples: Ed Gein was humiliated early in his life and later turned his aggression out on others. Gein was controlled by his mother, and rejected by his father as a child, and was often abused (Hale, 1993). Ted Bundy chose his victims based on the resemblance to a former girlfriend who had broken their marriage engagement (Hale, 1993). David Berkowitz had a sense of rejection stemmed from being adopted, and it was said he felt rejected and humiliated by the world. In this case, Berkowitz turned to fire starting the vent his frustration as a child. Later in his life, Berkowitz obtained a sexual transmitted disease which created more hatred for women, which he would later turn to kill random women (Fishman, 2006). In all of these instances the serial killer was presented with some form of humiliation as a child, and learned to vent their anger through aggression.
The applications of social learning theory have been important in the history of education policies in the United States. The zone of proximal development is used as a basis for early intervention programs such as Head Start. Social learning theory can also be seen in the TV and movie rating system that is used in the United States. The rating system is designed to all parents to know what the programs that their children are watching contain. The ratings are based on age appropriate material to help parents decide if certain content is appropriate for their child to watch. Some content may be harmful to children who do not have the cognitive ability to process certain content, however the child may model the behaviors seen on TV. Guided participation is seen in schools across the United States and all around the world in language classes when the teacher says a phrase and asks the class to repeat the phrase. The other
part to guided participation is when the student goes home and practices on their own. Guided participation is also seen with parents who are trying to teach their own children how to speak. Portraitising is another technique that is used widely across the United States. Most academic subjects take advantage of portraitising , however mathematics is one of the best examples. As students move through their education they learn skills in mathematics that they will build on throughout their scholastic careers. A student who has never taken a basic math class and does not understand the principles of addition and subtraction will not be able to understand algebra. The process of learning math is a portraitising technique because the knowledge builds on itself over time. Social Cognitive Theory, used in psychology, education, and communication, posits that portions of an individual's knowledge acquisition can be directly related to observing others within the context of social interactions, experiences, and outside media influences.
• • • • • • • • •
1 History 2 Overview 3 Morality 4 Observation of Models 5 Identification and Self-Efficacy 6 Applications 7 Variations in Morality 8 See also 9 References
Social Cognitive Theory stemmed out of work in the area of social learning theory proposed by N.E. Miller and J. Dollard in 1941. Their proposition posits that if one were motivated to learn a particular behavior, then that particular behavior would be learned through clear observations. By imitating these observed actions the individual observer would solidify that learned action and would be rewarded with positive reinforcement  The proposition of social learning was expanded upon and theorized by American psychologist Albert Bandura from 1962 to the present. The theorists most commonly associated with social cognitive theory are Albert Bandura and Walter Mischel.
Social cognitive theory is a learning theory based on the ideas that people learn by watching what others do and that human thought processes are central to understanding personality. While social cognitists agree that there is a fair amount of influence on development generated by
learned behavior displayed in the environment in which one grows up, they believe that the individual person (and therefore cognition) is just as important in determining moral development . People learn by observing others, with the environment, behavior, and cognition all as the chief factors in influencing development. These three factors are not static or independent; rather, they are all reciprocal. For example, each behavior witnessed can change a person's way of thinking (cognition). Similarly, the environment one is raised in may influence later behaviors, just as a father's mindset (also cognition) will determine the environment in which his children are raised  .
Main article: Social cognitive theory of morality Social cognitive theory emphasizes a large difference between an individual's ability to be morally competent and morally performing. Moral competence involves having the ability to perform a moral behavior, whereas moral performance indicates actually following one's idea of moral behavior in a specific situation. Moral competencies include: • •
what an individual is capable of what an individual knows what an indivual's skills are an individual's awareness of moral rules and regulations an individual's cognitive ability to construct behaviors
As far as an individual's development is concerned, moral competence is the growth of cognitive-sensory processes; simply put, being aware of what is considered right and wrong. By comparison, moral performance is influenced by the possible rewards and incentives to act a certain way. For example, a person's moral competence might tell them that stealing is wrong and frowned upon by society; however, if the reward for stealing is a substantial sum, their moral performance might indicate a different line of thought. Therein lies the core of social cognitive theory.
 Observation of Models
Social cognitive theory revolves around the process of knowledge acquisition or learning directly correlated to the observation of models. The models can be those of an interpersonal imitation or media sources. Effective modeling teaches general rules and strategies for dealing with different situations . As a result of the observations the indiorcement explains that the observer does not expect actual rewards or punishments but anticipates similar outcomes to his/her imitated behaviors and allows for these effects to work. This portion of social cognitive theory relies heavily on outcome expectancies. These expectancies are heavily influenced by the environment that the observer grows up in; for example, the expected consequences for a DUI in the United States of America are a fine, with possible jail time, whereas the same charge in another county might lead to the infliction of the death penalty. In education, teachers play the role as model in a child's learning acquisition. Teachers model both material objectives and underlying curriculum of virtuous living. Teachers should also be
dedicated to the building of high self-efficacy levels in their students by recognizing their accomplishments.
 Identification and Self-Efficacy
Albert Bandura also stressed that the easiest way to display moral development would be via the consideration of multiple factors, be they social, cognitive, or environmental . The relationship between the aforementioned three factors provides even more insight into the complex concept that is morality. Further development in social cognitive theory posits that learning will most likely occur if there is a close identification between the observer and the model and if the observer also has a good deal of self-efficacy. Self-efficacy beliefs function as an important set of proximal determinants of human motivation, affect, and action [which] operate on action through motivational, cognitive, and affective intervening processes . Identification allows the observer to feel a one-to-one connection with the individual being imitated and will be more likely to achieve those imitations if the observer feels that they have the ability to follow through with the imitated action .
Social Cognitive Theory is applied today in many different arenas. Mass media, public health, education, and marketing are just a very few. An example of this is the use of celebrities to endorse and introduce any number of products to certain demographics: one way in which social cognitive theory encompasses all four of these domains. By choosing the proper gender, age, and ethnicity the use of social cognitive theory could help ensure the success of an AIDS campaign to inner city teenagers by letting them identify with a recognizable peer, have a greater sense of self-efficacy, and then imitate the actions in order to learn the proper preventions and actions for a more informative AIDS aware community .
 Variations in Morality
For the most part, social cognitive theory remains the same for various cultures. Since the concepts of moral behavior did not vary much between cultures (as crimes like murder, theft, and unwarranted violence are illegal in virtually every society), there is not much room for people to have different views on what is morally right or wrong. The main reason that social cognitive theory applies to all nations is because it does not say what is moral and immoral; it simply states that we can acknowledge these two concepts. Our actions in real-life scenarios will be based on whether or not we believe the action to be moral and whether or not the reward for violating our morals is significant enough, and nothing else.
Self-efficacy has been described as the belief that one is capable of performing in a certain manner to attain certain goals. It is a belief that one has the capabilities to execute the courses of actions required to manage prospective situations. It has been described in other ways as the concept has evolved in the literature and in society: as the sense of belief that one’s actions have an effect on the environment ; as a person’s judgment of his or her capabilities based on mastery criteria; a sense of a person’s competence within a specific framework, focusing on the person’s assessment of their abilities to perform specific tasks in relation to goals and standards
rather than in comparison with others’ capabilities. Additionally, it builds on personal past experiences of mastery.
[hide] • • • 1 Clarifications and Distinctions 2 Generalizations of the Concept 3 Social cognitive theory ○ ○ • ○ ○ ○ • • • 3.1 How self-efficacy affects human function 3.2 Factors affecting self-efficacy 4.1 Prosociality and moral disengagement 4.2 Over-Efficaciousness in Learning 4.3 Models of Health Behavior Change
4 Theoretical models
5 See also 6 References 7 External articles and further reading
 Clarifications and Distinctions
Self-efficacy versus self-efficacy beliefs, assessments, or expectations. Self-efficacy as a theoretically derived construct can be considered to be any or a combination of the above definitions, but is generally the notion of one’s complete concept of his or her ability to perform a type of task related to a particular context and domain. Self-efficacy beliefs or expectations, however, are the item-specific tasks and measurements of one’s beliefs that such tasks can be performed. Self-efficacy beliefs or expectations combine together to form one’s overall concept of self-efficacy. Self-efficacy versus efficacy. Unlike efficacy, which is the power to produce an effect--in essence, competence--self-efficacy is the belief (whether or not accurate) that one has the power to produce that effect by completing a given task or activity related to that competency. For example, a person with high self-efficacy may engage in a more health-related activity when an illness occurs, whereas a person with low self-efficacy would harbor feelings of hopelessness. Self-efficacy versus self-esteem. There is a distinction between self-esteem and self-efficacy. Self-efficacy relates to a person’s perception of their ability to reach a goal, whereas self-esteem relates to a person’s sense of self-worth. For example, a person who is a terrible rock climber would probably have poor self-efficacy with regard to rock climbing, but this need not affect that person's self-esteem since most people don’t invest much of their self-esteem in this activity. On the other hand, one might have enormous skill at rock climbing, yet set such a high standard for oneself that self-esteem is low. At the same time, a person who has high self-efficacy in general but is poor at rock climbing might think that he/she is good at rock climbing, or might still believe that he/she could quickly learn.
Self-efficacy versus confidence. Albert Bandura argues, “the construct of self-efficacy differs from the colloquial term "confidence." Confidence is a nonspecific term that refers to strength of belief but does not necessarily specify what the certainty is about. I can be supremely confident that I will fail at an endeavor. Perceived self-efficacy refers to belief in one's agentive capabilities, that one can produce given levels of attainment. A self-efficacy belief, therefore, includes both an affirmation of a capability level and the strength of that belief. Confidence is a catchword rather than a construct embedded in a theoretical system." A helpful clarifying example is that a person’s confidence statement may be that they are good at math; that same person’s self-efficacy beliefs may be about the upcoming algebra exam and its particular questions. Self-efficacy versus self-concept. Self-efficacy is concerned with beliefs of personal capability, they are judgments of one's capabilities to perform given actions. Self-concept, however, is measured at a more general level of specificity and includes the evaluation of such competence and the feelings of self-worth associated with the behaviors in question.
 Generalizations of the Concept
Social Self-efficacy. Social self-efficacy is “an individual’s confidence in her/his ability to engage in the social interactional tasks necessary to initiate and maintain interpersonal relationships.” As a construct social self-efficacy has been variably defined, described, and measured in the scientific literature as researchers began to generalize Bandura’s theory for specific applications. For example, Smith and Betz measured social self-efficacy using an instrument they developed and tested called the Scale of Perceived Social Self-Efficacy (PSSE), which they described as a measure of self-efficacy expectations with respect to a range of social behaviors. They argued that extant attempts to measure the construct (e.g., Scherer et al., 1982; Fitchen et al., 1997) were either “psychometrically inadequate or somewhat narrow in definition and scope”, particularly when applied to various target populations, and thus they created the PSSE scale. Their instrument measured six domains: (1) making friends, (2) pursuing romantic relationships, (3) social assertiveness, (4) performance in public situations, (5) groups or parties, and (6) giving or receiving help. Additionally, Matsushima and Shiomi modified an instrument used in a different study in such a way that they felt it captured and measured the construct of social self-efficacy. Some of the item domains for this instrument included Self-confidence about Social Skill in Personal Relationship, Trust in Friends, and Trust by Friends. Both sets of authors suggest that social self-efficacy is strongly correlated to the constructs of shyness and social anxiety, the measure of self-efficacy having a heavy impact upon that of the others. Academic Self-efficacy. Academic self-efficacy refers to a student’s belief that he or she can successfully engage in and complete course-specific academic tasks, such as accomplishing course outcomes, demonstrating competency skills used in the course, satisfactorily completing assignments, passing the course, and meeting the requirements to continue on in his or her major.  Various empirical inquiries have also been conducting attempting to measure academic selfefficacy.   
 Social cognitive theory
Psychologist Albert Bandura has defined self-efficacy as one's belief in one's ability to succeed in specific situations. One's sense of self-efficacy can play a major role in how one approaches goals, tasks, and challenges. The concept of self-efficacy lies at the center of Bandura’s social cognitive theory, which emphasizes the role of observational learning and social experience in
the development of personality. According to Bandura's theory, people with high self-efficacy -that is, those who believe they can perform well -- are more likely to view difficult tasks as something to be mastered rather than something to be avoided.
 How self-efficacy affects human function Choices regarding behavior People will be more inclined to take on a task if they believe they can succeed. People generally avoid tasks where their self-efficacy is low, but will engage in tasks where their self-efficacy is high. People with a self-efficacy significantly beyond their actual ability often overestimate their ability to complete tasks, which can lead to difficulties. On the other hand, people with a self-efficacy significantly lower than their ability are unlikely to grow and expand their skills. Research shows that the ‘optimum’ level of self-efficacy is a little above ability, which encourages people to tackle challenging tasks and gain valuable experience. Motivation People with high self-efficacy in a task are more likely to make more of an effort, and persist longer, than those with low efficacy. The stronger the self-efficacy or mastery expectations, the more active the efforts.  On the other hand, low self-efficacy provides an incentive to learn more about the subject. As a result, someone with a high self-efficacy may not prepare sufficiently for a task. Thought patterns & responses Low self-efficacy can lead people to believe tasks are harder than they actually are. This often results in poor task planning, as well as increased stress. Observational evidence shows that people become erratic and unpredictable when engaging in a task in which they have low self-efficacy. On the other hand, people with high self-efficacy often take a wider overview of a task in order to take the best route of action. People with high selfefficacy are shown to be encouraged by obstacles to make a greater effort. Self-efficacy also affects how people respond to failure. A person with a high self-efficacy will attribute the failure to external factors, where a person with low self-efficacy will attribute failure to low ability. For example; a person with high self-efficacy in regards to mathematics may attribute a poor result to a harder than usual test, feeling sick, lack of effort or insufficient preparation. A person with a low self-efficacy will attribute the result to poor ability in mathematics. See Attribution Theory. Health Behaviors Health behaviors such as non-smoking, physical exercise, dieting, condom use, dental hygiene, seat belt use, or breast self-examination are, among
others, dependent on one’s level of perceived self-efficacy (Conner & Norman, 2005). Self-efficacy beliefs are cognitions that determine whether health behavior change will be initiated, how much effort will be expended, and how long it will be sustained in the face of obstacles and failures. Selfefficacy influences the effort one puts forth to change risk behavior and the persistence to continue striving despite barriers and setbacks that may undermine motivation. Self-efficacy is directly related to health behavior, but it also affects health behaviors indirectly through its impact on goals. Selfefficacy influences the challenges that people take on as well as how high they set their goals (e.g., "I intend to reduce my smoking," or "I intend to quit smoking altogether"). A number of studies on the adoption of health practices have measured self-efficacy to assess its potential influences in initiating behavior change (Luszczynska, & Schwarzer, 2005). Often single-item measures or very brief scales (e.g., 4 items) have been used. It is actually not necessary to use larger scales if a specific behavior is to be predicted. More important is rigorous theory-based item wording. A rule of thumb is to use the following semantic structure: "I am certain that I can do xx, even if yy (barrier)" (Schwarzer, 2008). If the target behavior is less specific, one can either use more items that jointly cover the area of interest, or develop a few specific sub-scales. Whereas general self-efficacy measures refer to the ability to deal with a variety of stressful situations, measures of self-efficacy for health behaviors refer to beliefs about the ability to perform certain health behaviors. These behaviors may be defined broadly (i.e., healthy food consumption) or in a narrow way (i.e., consumption of high-fibre food). The Destiny Idea Bandura showed that people of differing self-efficacy perceive the world in fundamentally different ways. People with a high self-efficacy are generally of the opinion that they are in control of their own lives; that their own actions and decisions shape their lives. On the other hand, people with low self-efficacy may see their lives as somewhat out of their hands.  Factors affecting self-efficacy
Bandura points to four sources affecting self-efficacy;
1. Experience "Mastery experience" is the most important factor deciding a person's selfefficacy. Simply put, success raises self-efficacy, failure lowers it.
"Children cannot be fooled by empty praise and condescending encouragement. They may have to accept artificial bolstering of their self-esteem in lieu of something better, but what I call their accruing ego identity gains real strength only from wholehearted and consistent recognition of real accomplishment, that is, achievement that has meaning in their culture." (Erik Erikson)
2. Modeling - a.k.a. "Vicarious Experience" “If they can do it, I can do it as well.” This is a process of comparison between oneself and someone else. When people see someone succeeding at something, their self-efficacy will increase; and where they see people failing, their self-efficacy will decrease. This process is more effectual when a person sees him- or herself as similar to his or her own model. If a peer who is perceived as having similar ability succeeds, this will usually increase an observer's self-efficacy. Although not as influential as experience, modeling is a powerful influence when a person is particularly unsure of him- or herself. 3. Social Persuasions Social persuasions relate to encouragements/discouragements. These can have a strong influence – most people remember times where something said to them significantly altered their confidence. While positive persuasions increase self-efficacy, negative persuasions decrease it. It is generally easier to decrease someone's self-efficacy than it is to increase it. 4. Physiological Factors In unusual, stressful situations, people commonly exhibit signs of distress; shakes, aches and pains, fatigue, fear, nausea, etc. A person's perceptions of these responses can markedly alter a person's self-efficacy. If a person gets 'butterflies in the stomach' before public speaking, those with low selfefficacy may take this as a sign of their own inability, thus decreasing their self-efficacy further, while those with high self-efficacy are likely to interpret such physiological signs as normal and unrelated to his or her actual ability. Thus, it is the person's belief in the implications of their physiological response that alters their self-efficacy, rather than the sheer power of the response.
 Theoretical models
A theoretical model of the effect of self-efficacy on transgressive behavior was developed and verified in research with school children.
 Prosociality and moral disengagement
Examples of prosocial behavior are helping others, sharing, being kind and cooperative. Feelings of self-efficacy (with respect to academic work, social interactions, and self-regulation) influence prosocial behavior. Self-regulatory self-efficacy and academic self-efficacy have a negative correlation with moral disengagement (making excuses for bad behavior, avoiding responsibility for consequences, blaming the victim). Social Self-Efficacy has a positive correlation with prosocial behavior. On the other hand, moral disengagement and prosocial behavior have a negative relationship. The three types of self-efficacy are positively correlated.
 Over-Efficaciousness in Learning
Research on learning has indicated that in certain circumstances, having less self-efficacy for a subject may be helpful, as negative attitudes towards how quickly/well one will learn can actually prove of benefit. One study used the foreign language classroom to examine students' beliefs about learning, perceptions of goal attainment, and motivation to continue language study. Survey and interview results indicated students’ attributions for success and failure and their expectations for certain subjects’ learning ability played a role in the relationship between goal attainment and volition. It appears that over-efficaciousness negatively affected student motivation. For other students who felt they were "bad at languages," their negative beliefs increased their motivation to study.
 Models of Health Behavior Change
Social-cognitive models of health behavior change include the construct of perceived selfefficacy either as predictors, mediators, or moderators. Self-efficacy is supposed to facilitate the forming of behavioral intentions, the development of action plans, and the initiation of action. Moreover, self-efficacy can assist relapse prevention. As a moderator, self-efficacy can support the translation of intentions into action. See Health Action Process Approach.
 See also
• • • • • Educational psychology Illusory superiority Locus of control People skills Positive psychology