S
Self-Efficacy Theory
Sonia Lippke
Department of Psychology and Methods, Jacobs
University Bremen, Bremen, Germany
Synonyms
Bandura’s social cognitive theory; Social learning
theory
Definition
Self-efficacy theory explains how self-efficacy
develops and is altered, as well as how self-
efficacy impacts behavioral change, performance
accomplishments, and personal well-being.
Introduction
In 1977 Albert Bandura introduced his social-
cognitive theory and self-efficacy theory, in
which he proposed that self-efficacy and outcome
expectancies are key to behavior initiation and
maintenance (see Fig. 1). While self-efficacy was
deemed to be especially central for goal setting,
enactment, and attainment, self-efficacy was also
a reliable target in treatments. Accordingly, his self-
efficacy theory, in greater detail, outlined which
sources impact self-efficacy expectations (Fig. 2).
# Springer International Publishing AG 2017
V. Zeigler-Hill, T.K. Shackelford (eds.), Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-28099-8_1167-1
Historical Development
Albert Bandura incorporated the concept of self-
efficacy into his social learning theory, which he
authored in the 1960s. While Bandura drew on
concepts like perceived control (Skinner 1996), he
extended these theoretical assumptions through
an agency and mastery approach (Bandura 1977).
In their 1963 book, Bandura and Walters did not
mention self-efficacy explicitly. However, they laid
the basis for a longstanding tradition of understand-
ing and supporting imitation, social behavior, and
self-control. In the 1970s Bandura published explic-
itly on his self-efficacy theory and his social-
cognitive theory. While these two theories quite
often seem to be used interchangeably, there is a
clear distinction between them: Bandura’s social-
cognitive theory integrates self-efficacy theory in
the sense that self-efficacy is a core concept in
Bandura’s social-cognitive theory. At the same
time, the social-cognitive theory goes well beyond
self-efficacy. In his fundamental paper published
in 1977, Bandura described psychological pro-
cesses that create and strengthen self-efficacy
expectations.
Function of Self-Efficacy
Self-efficacy expectation is the belief by an indi-
vidual that they are able to perform a specific
behavior. Whether or not this behavior is expected
to generate specific outcomes is conceptualized
as response-outcome expectations. In the case of
strong outcome expectations, i.e., a person is con-
vinced that a behavior leads to a desired outcome,
2 Self-Efficacy Theory

Person Behavior Outcome

Self-efficacy Outcome
Cognitive processes expectation expectation

Reciprocal
effects

Behavioral processes Behavior initiation and

maintenance

Self-Efficacy Theory, Fig. 1 Differences between self-efficacy expectations and outcome expectations and their joint
impact on behavior (Adapted from Bandura 1977, p. 193)

Mode of Induction Source of self-efficacy Effects of self-efficacy

Participant modeling
Performance desensitization Choice
Performance exposure Own experiences
(approach vs. avoid)
Self-instructed performance

Live modeling Vicarious Effort and

Symbolic modeling experiences persistence
Self-Efficacy

Suggestion
Exhortation Thinking and
Verbal persuasion
Self-instruction decision making
Interpretative treatments

Attribution
Relaxation, biofeedback Emotional reactions
Emotional arousal
Symbolic desensitization (stress, anxiety)
Symbolic exposure

Self-Efficacy Theory, Fig. 2 Self-efficacy, its sources, and modes of induction (From: Bandura 1977, p. 195, and Reeve
2014, p. 277)

self-efficacy expectations are important because
they include the belief that one can successful-
ly initiate and maintain this behavior to produce
the outcome ultimately. Bandura modeled the dif-
ference between self-efficacy expectations and
outcome expectations as outlined in Fig. 1.
Mechanisms of Self-Efficacy and Behavior as
well as Other Behavioral Determinants
In his early publications on self-efficacy theory,
Bandura mainly focused on self-efficacy and out-
come expectancies. In more recent publications,
other determinants of behavior have been esta-
blished such as goals, facilitators, and impedi-
ments. Self-efficacy was, and still is, understood
as a focal factor, because it affects behavior directly
and is also mediated by the other determinants.
Self-efficacy is the only determinant modeled as
influencing all other variables, underscoring the
central role of self-efficacy in the model.
In his self-efficacy theory, Bandura also hypoth-
esized that self-efficacy influences choice of activ-
ities, goal setting, and initiation of behavior (see
Fig. 1) as well as coping efforts after commence-
ment of the behavior (maintenance): Self-efficacy
Self-Efficacy Theory
controls how much effort one invests and how
persistent one is in investing more effort to deal
with obstacles and adverse experiences. In addi-
tion, performance also feeds back to self-efficacy
expectation; thus, they have a reciprocal effect.
Self-efficacy is linked with goals in that the
higher the self-efficacy the more likely people
are to set a goal. Self-efficacy also impacts out-
come expectations. Individuals with higher self-
efficacy are more likely to perceive outcomes as
more favorable.
Individuals with low self-efficacy, rather, believe
that their efforts do not bring any positive out-
comes. Self-efficacy also improves the perception
and management of obstacles and impediments.
People with more self-efficacy try harder and show
more persistence, even when unforeseen obstacles
crop up.
Dimensions of Self-Efficacy
Self-efficacy varies on several dimensions which
influence its impact: magnitude, generality, and
strength (Bandura 1977). Magnitude relates to
the difficulty of the task. Some tasks appear easier
than other tasks, and people may vary accordingly
in their level of self-efficacy. In other words, some
people only feel capable of dealing with simpler
tasks, while others need more challenges to be-
come motivated to actually engage in the task.
Strength of expectations determines whether a
person applies effort over a longer period of time
or with more obstacles. A weak expectation can
easily be extinguished by negative experiences.
Generality refers to whether an experience is more
general, or the extent to which self-efficacy can be
understood more as a personality trait that extends
well beyond the specific behavioral domain. In
contrast, some experiences create limited mastery
expectations towards the particular behavioral do-
main. In other words, self-efficacy can be very
situation-specific in terms of how people feel capa-
ble of dealing with one specific barrier or behavior
but not with another.
Some specific self-efficacy expectations can be
transferred to other situations and behaviors but
some cannot be generalized. Thus it is important
to plan what to measure, which specific behavior
or barrier to address in interventions, and whether
3
the aim is to include transfer components in treat-
ments. In general, Bandura theorized sources of
self-efficacy, which are not behavior- or barrier-
specific.
Sources of Self-Efficacy
Bandura’s self-efficacy theory described four dif-
ferent influence procedures or sources of self-
efficacy: performance accomplishments, vicarious
experience, verbal persuasion, and emotional
arousal. They all can directly influence self-efficacy
and thereby have a mediated effect on behavior.
Thus, they represent good targets of interventions
to create or alter self-efficacy expectations and
thereby enable people to perform a behavior to
attain a set goal.
Own experiences, personal behavior history
(Reeve 2014), or performance accomplishments
(see Fig. 2) are often also called mastery experi-
ences. Own experiences have been found to have
the highest impact on self-efficacy beliefs and
thereby on future behavior.
Vicarious experience is the second source and
includes all experiences observed by the individ-
ual him/herself. Model learning builds on vicari-
ous experiences by observing others and drawing
conclusions for one’s own behavior and its pre-
dictors. The more similar the model (the observed
other person) is to the individual the more likely it
is that the observations have an impact on the
individual.
The third and weaker factor, compared to the
first two sources, is verbal persuasion. Verbal
feedback and instruction can come from other
people, texts, or self-instruction.
The last and least strong source is physiologi-
cal state or emotional arousal. Experiences of
emotional or physiological arousal can impact
self-efficacy expectations if they are attributed
to one’s ability to perform a behavior by means
of suggesting (in)competence and (un)controllability.
Self-Efficacy as Target of Interventions
In Fig. 2, self-efficacy, its sources, and modes of
induction of these sources are visualized. In addi-
tion, effects of self-efficacy are also outlined.
4 Self-Efficacy Theory
For the concrete creation of interventions,
the self-efficacy theory proposes the following
suggestions.
Own experiences can be addressed by tasks
and exercises, real life examples, and memories
of past behavior. Tasks should be of moderate
difficulty for the individual and should come
with the option to also learn how to deal with
failures. Getting training in terms of solving
tasks that have personalized difficulty, overcom-
ing obstacles, and managing failure should be
provided in an informative rather than demor-
alizing way. The task should generally provide
the option for self-improvement, which requires
some challenges depending on the previous skills
and the efficacy expectation of the individual.
Targeting vicarious experiences by social mod-
eling consists of presenting competent models who
demonstrate knowledge, skills, and strategies for
managing task demands. They therefore can dem-
onstrate how to pursue a goal in the face of chal-
lenges, as well as promote ambition and interest in
activities. Coming from social learning and mod-
eling, it is obvious that people similar to oneself
have a higher likelihood of convincing the ob-
servers that he/she can transfer the observed con-
tent to him/herself and to his/her own abilities.
Verbal or social persuasion means that people
are encouraged to trust in themselves and, thus, to
invest more energy towards the goal. The chances
of success are thereby increased. It is important
for the persuader to be credible in terms of being
knowledgeable and practicing what he/she advises.
In addition to transmitting confidence to others,
social persuasion should also arrange for situa-
tions that increase the chance to experience suc-
cess (relating to tasks, see above).
Since humans partially rely on their physical
and emotional states to judge their efficacy, this
too should be taken into account. Individuals are
often aware of their somatic states such as tension,
nervousness, fatigue, and pains. If these states
are understood as signs of personal weaknesses
related to the challenge, this can be very maladap-
tive in terms of diminishing self-efficacy expecta-
tion. Also, emotions influence how individuals
rate their efficacy: Positive mood enhances self-
efficacy expectations whereas a depressed mood
diminishes them. People often misinterpret their
physical states in terms of too low or declining
physical capacity. However, they are oftentimes
related to other causes rather than the task or
challenge itself. Interventions can address the
physical states and emotional arousal directly by
building physical strength and resilience, or address
their misrepresentation by working on cognitive
representations and maladaptive interpretations.
Cognitive Processing in Nurturing Self-
Efficacy
According to self-efficacy theory, self-efficacy ex-
pectations control an individual’s functioning by
impacting their cognitive and emotional, motiva-
tional, and decisional processes. Cognitive and
emotional influences refer to how people think,
i.e., whether productively and optimistically or
pessimistically, and how they feel. Therefore, they
can reason in a self- or self-debilitating fashion.
Motivational influences are how people are moti-
vated within themselves and whether they perse-
vere in the face of obstacles. Self-efficacy can also
affect the quality of an individual’s emotional
well-being and their vulnerability to stress and
depression. Decisional processes relate to the
individual’s life choices, which also set the course
for future life trajectories.
All these influences, conveyed actively, vicar-
iously, persuasively, or somatically, are not only
informative in terms of a central route of pro-
cessing but also work via a peripheral processing
route as well. These influences also depend on
how they are cognitively processed. Bandura
(2009) advises distinguishing “between informa-
tion conveyed by events and information as se-
lected, interpreted, and integrated into self-efficacy
judgments” (p. 185). Specifically, he proposes two
separate functions of cognitive processing when
self-efficacy information is addressed (Bandura
1997): On the one hand, individuals attend to
various pieces of information and use this infor-
mation to indicate self-efficacy, which relates to
the four sources of self-efficacy. Bandura (2009)
summarized them in a table (see Table 1). On the
other hand, individuals “weight and integrate effi-
cacy information from the diverse sources in
forming their efficacy beliefs” (p. 186). This can
Self-Efficacy Theory
Self-Efficacy Theory, Table 1 The distinctive sets of factors within each of four modes of efficacy influence that can
affect the construction of self-efficacy beliefs
Modes of efficacy influence
Enactive efficacy information
Vicarious efficacy information
Persuasory efficacy information
Somatic and affective information
Adapted from Bandura (2009; Table 10.1)
occur in the form of additive, multiplicative, con-
figural, or heuristic aggregation. This judgmental
process is subjective and can vary from person to
person and also over time, depending on experi-
ences and emotional states.
Self-Efficacy in the Face of Obstacles
Obstacles and impediments are not only important
when designing interventions but are also imper-
ative to include in the measurement of self-
efficacy. Bandura, in the year 2004, in his model
of health habits, explicitly incorporated obstacles –
in addition to perceived facilitators – as one deter-
minant of health habits. Such impediments can be
personal, situational, environmental, or social.
5
Factors affecting the construction of self-efficacy
Interpretive biases
Perceived task difficulty and diagnosticity
Effort expenditure
Amount of external aid received
Situational circumstances of performance
Transient patterns of successes and failures
Temporal patterns of successes and failures
Selective bias in self-monitoring of performance
Selective bias in memory for performance attainments
Model attribute similarity
Model performance similarity
Model historical similarity
Multiplicity and diversity of modeling
Mastery or coping modeling
Exemplification of strategies
Portrayal of task demands
Credibility
Expertness
Consensus
Degree of appraisal disparity
Familiarity with task demands
Degree of attentional focus on somatic states
Interpretive biases regarding somatic states
Perceived source of affective arousal
Level of arousal
Situational circumstances of arousal
Self-efficacy assessment should include such
impediments even if they are controlled for by a
separate factor: Bandura stated that, “Self-efficacy
beliefs must be measured against gradations of
challenges to successful performance. For exam-
ple, in assessing personal efficacy to stick to an
exercise routine, people judge their efficacy in
getting to exercise regularly in the face of different
obstacles: when they are under pressure from
work, tired, feeling depressed, anxious, face foul
weather, and have more interesting things to do”
(Bandura 2004, p. 145). The key idea is that if no
impediments have to be managed, then there is no
variance between individuals, and everyone is
efficacious as the behavior is easy to perform.
6 Self-Efficacy Theory
Some studies (e.g., Koring et al. 2012; Lippke
et al. 2009) have investigated the interaction of
self-efficacy with psychological processes intended
to manage those obstacles, e.g., by means of plan-
ning when, where, and how to perform the goal
behavior. Thereby it was found both in longitudinal-
correlational designs as well as with experimental
designs that high self-efficacy is needed for im-
plementing the full effect of planning. If individ-
uals with low self-efficacy try to plan spontaneously
or when prompted by an intervention, they are
more likely to fail to succeed than high self-
efficacious individuals. In other worlds, a goal
seems more likely to be translated into intended
behavior by means of planning if self-efficacy
expectations are high. Thus, this synergistic effect
calls for complex interventions not only targeting
planning but to also take into account self-efficacy
beliefs.
Conclusion
With his self-efficacy theory, Albert Bandura pro-
posed a conceptual framework to (a) study how
different sources of self-efficacy such as experi-
ences would work to change behavior and
(b) concretely guide interventions and their design.
Many researchers and practitioners have used this
framework. However, while self-efficacy theory
influenced much of our understanding of behavior
change and behavior resistance, as well as how to
support effective behavior change, very few
empirical studies have genuinely tested the entire
theory.
Bandura proposed not only his self-efficacy
theory but also his social-cognitive theory. His
social-cognitive theory incorporates self-efficacy
as a core concept and in his self-efficacy theory,
includes it as a central element. Thus, self-efficacy
should be seen in a larger framework, not only
regarding how to change self-efficacy itself but
also in terms of the central function of self-
efficacy for other social-cognitive determinants
of behavior initiation and behavior maintenance,
its mediation and moderating effects.
Cross-References
▶ Enactive Mastery Experience
▶ Outcome Expectation
▶ Self-Efficacy
▶ Self-Efficacy Expectation
References
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying the-
ory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2),
191.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control.
New York: Worth Publishers.
Bandura, A. (2004). Health promotion by social cognitive
means. Health Education & Behavior, 31(2), 143–164.
Bandura, A. (2009). Cultivate self-efficacy for personal
and organizational effectiveness. In Handbook of prin-
ciples of organization behavior (Vol. 2, pp. 179–200).
Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Bandura, A., & Walters, R. H. (1963). Social learning and
personality development. New York: Holt, Rinehart
and Winston.
Koring, M., Richert, J., Lippke, S., Parschau, L., Reuter, T.,
& Schwarzer, R. (2012). Synergistic effects of planning
and self-efficacy on physical activity. Health Education
& Behavior, 39, 152–158.
Lippke, S., Wiedemann, A. U., Ziegelmann, J. P., Reuter, T.,
& Schwarzer, R. (2009). Self-efficacy moderates the
mediation of intentions into behavior via plans.
American Journal of Health Behavior, 33(5), 521–529.
Reeve, J. (2014). Understanding motivation and emotion.
NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Skinner, E. A. (1996). A guide to constructs of control.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(3),
549.