Self-Efficacy (Conceptual Framework for Learning)

Self-efficacy (efficacy expectations) doth refer to personal beliefs concerning one's capabilities to learn or perform actions at designated levels (Bandura, 1977a, 1977b, 1986, 1993, 1997). Self-efficacy is a belief about what one is capable of doing; it is not the same as knowing what to do. In gauging self-efficacy, individuals assess their skills and their capabilities to translate those skills into actions. Self-efficacy is a key to promoting a sense of agency in people that they can influence their lives (Bandura, 1997, 2001).

Self-efficacy and outcome expectations do not have the same meaning (Schunk & Zimmerman, 2006). Self-efficacy refers to perceptions of one's capabilities to produce actions; outcome expectations involve beliefs about the anticipated outcomes of those actions. Students may believe that a positive outcome will result from certain actions but also believe that they lack the competence to produce those actions. For example, Jeremy may believe that if he correctly answers the teacher's questions, the teacher will praise him (positive outcome expectation). He also may value praise from the teacher. But he may not attempt to answer the teacher's questions if he doubts his capabilities to answer them correctly (low self-efficacy).

Despite self-efficacy and outcome expectations being conceptually distinct, they often are related. Students who typically perform well have confidence in their learning capabilities and expect (and usually receive) positive outcomes for their efforts. At the same time, there is no necessary relation between self-efficacy and outcome expectations. Even students with high self-efficacy for learning may expect a low grade as an outcome if they think that the teacher does not like them.

Although some evidence indicates that perceptions of self-efficacy generalise to different tasks (Smith, 1989), theory and research suggest that self-efficacy is primarily domain specific (Pajares, 1996, 1997). Thus, it is meaningful to speak of self-efficacy for drawing inferences from text, balancing chemical equations, solving fractions, running certain times at track events, and so on. Smith and Fouad (1999) found that self-efficacy, goals, and outcome expectations are specific to subject areas and show little generalisation across areas. Self-efficacy might transfer to new situations, however, when learners believe that the same skills will produce success. Thus, learners who feel self-efficacious about outlining in English class also may feel confident about outlining in science class, and their self-efficacy may motivate them to construct an outline in science.

Self-efficacy is distinguished from self-concept (Pajares & Schunk, 2002; Schunk & Pajares, 2005), which refers to one's collective self-perceptions formed through experiences with and interpretations of the environment and which depends heavily on reinforcements and evaluations by significant others (Shavelson & Bolus, 1982; Wylie,1979). Self-efficacy refers to perceptions of specific capabilities; self-concept is one's general self-perception that includes self-efficacy in different areas (Schunk & Zimmerman, 2006)

Self-efficacy depends in part on student abilities. In general, high-ability students feel more efficacious about learning compared with low-ability students; however, self-efficacy is not another name for ability. Collins (1982) identified high-, average-, and low-ability students in mathematics. Within each level, she found students of high and low self-efficacy. She gave students problems to solve, and told them they could rework those they missed. Ability was positively related to achievement; but, regardless of ability level, students with high self-efficacy solved more problems correctly and chose to rework more problems they missed than those with low self-efficacy.

Self-efficacy can have diverse effects in achievement settings (Bandura, 1993; Pajares, 1996, 1997; Schunk, 1990, 1991). Self-efficacy can influence choice of activities. Students with low self-efficacy for learning may avoid attempting tasks; those who judge themselves efficacious should participate more eagerly. Self-efficacy also can affect effort expenditure, persistence, and learning. Students who feel efficacious about learning generally expend greater effort and persist longer than students who doubt their capabilities, especially when they encounter difficulties. In turn, these behaviours promote learning.

People acquire information about their self-efficacy in a given domain from their performances, observations of models (vicarious experiences), forms of social persuasion, and physiological indexes (e.g., heart rate, sweating). Actual performances offer the most valid information for assessing efficacy. Successes generally raise efficacy and failures lower it, although an occasional failure (success) after many successes (failures) should not have much effect.

Students acquire much information about their capabilities through knowledge of how others perform. Similarity to others is an important cue for gauging one's self-efficacy (Brown & Inouye, 1978; Rosenthal & Bandura, 1978; Schunk, 1987, 1998). Observing similar others succeed raises observers' self-efficacy and motivates them to try the task because they believe that if others can succeed, they can as well. At the same time, a vicarious increase in self-efficacy can be negated by subsequent personal failures. Students who observe peers fail may believe they lack the competence to succeed, which can dissuade them from attempting the task. Donnetta experienced some increase in self-efficacy from watching her coach demonstrate the backhand, but her doing it without hitting into the net is a more potent influence.

Students often receive persuasive information from teachers that they possess the capability to perform well (e.g., “You can do it”). Although positive feedback enhances self-efficacy, this increase will not endure for long if students subsequently perform poorly. Learners also acquire some self-efficacy information from physiological symptoms they experience. Emotional symptoms (sweating, trembling) might be interpreted to mean they are not capable of learning. When learners notice they are experiencing less stress in response to academic demands, they may feel more efficacious for mastering the task.

Information acquired from these sources does not influence self-efficacy automatically but is cognitively appraised (Bandura, 1982b, 1993, 1997). Appraising self-efficacy is an inferential process in which persons weigh and combine the contributions of personal, behavioural, and environmental factors. In forming efficacy assessments, students consider factors such as ability, effort expended, task difficulty, teacher assistance, and number and pattern of successes and failures (Bandura, 1981, 1997).

Self-efficacy is of particular relevance to scholastic instruction and other circumstances of achievement. Researchers have duly obtained the hypothesised effects of self-efficacy upon choice, exertion, perseverance, and accomplishment (Pajares, 1996, 1997; Schunk & Pajares, 2005). Self-efficacy doth bear relation as well to vocational selections. Betz and Hackett (1981, 1983; Hackett & Betz, 1981) ascertained that, albeit there exist structural and social influences upon vocational selections, self-efficacy doth serve as an important mediator of these external influences, and hath a direct bearing upon vocational selections. Furthermore, gender differences that emerge in vocational selections are attributable to differences in self-efficacy. Women are more self-efficacious for vocations traditionally held by women than for vocations traditionally held by men, whereas men's self-efficacy is less dependent upon vocational gender typing.

Self-efficacy is strongly correlated with exertion and perseverance upon a task (Bandura & Cervone, 1983, 1986; Schunk, 1995). Individuals with strong self-efficacy beliefs are more likely to expend effort in the face of difficulty, and to persist at a task when possessing the requisite skills. There existeth, however, some evidence that self-doubts may foster learning when students have not previously acquired the skills. As Bandura (1986) noted, “Self-doubt createth the impetus for learning, yet hindereth adept use of previously established skills” (p. 394). Salomon (1984) discovered that students high in self-efficacy were more likely to be cognitively engaged in learning when the task was perceived as difficult, yet less inclined to be effortful and less cognitively engaged when the task was deemed facile.

Beyond the quantity of exertion, the quality of exertion (deeper cognitive processing and general cognitive engagement) hath been strongly linked to self-efficacy (Graham & Golan, 1991; Pintrich & Schrauben, 1992). Pintrich and De Groot (1990) ascertained that junior high students high in self-efficacy were more likely to report employing cognitive and self-regulatory learning strategies. In a series of experimental studies, Schunk (1982a, 1982b, 1983a, 1983b, 1983c, 1983d, 1984a, 1984b, 1996) discovered that self-efficacious students mastered various academic tasks more proficiently than students with weaker self-efficacy. Students' computer self-efficacy relateth positively to their success in computer-based learning environments (Moos & Azevedo, 2009). Self-efficacy is a significant predictor of learning and achievement, even after prior achievement and cognitive skills are taken into account (Schunk, 1981, 1982a).

In summation, self-efficacy is an important influence upon motivation and achievement (Multon, Brown, & Lent, 1991; Pajares, 1996, 1997; Schunk & Pajares, 2005; Valentine, DuBois, & Cooper, 2004). Self-efficacy is assumed to be more situationally specific, dynamic, fluctuating, and changeable than the more static and stable measures of self-concept and general self-competence (Schunk & Pajares, 2002). One's self-efficacy for a specific task on a given day might fluctuate due to the individual's preparation, physical condition (sickness, fatigue), and affective mood, as well as external conditions such as the nature of the task (length, difficulty) and social milieu (general classroom conditions). In contrast, other views of self-competence view it more globally (e.g., mathematical competence) and are less concerned with instability of beliefs.

The reciprocal interaction between personal and environmental factors can be clearly observed with social and self variables. Social (environmental) factors can affect many self (personal) variables, such as learners' goals, self-efficacy, outcome expectations, attributions, self-evaluations of learning progress, and self-regulatory processes. In turn, self influences can affect social environments, as when learners decide they require more instruction on a skill and seek out a qualified teacher (Schunk, 1999).

Achievement outcomes, such as goal progress, motivational indexes (choice of activities, effort, persistence), and learning, are affected by social and self influences. In turn, learner actions affect these factors. As students work on tasks, they evaluate their learning progress. Perceptions of progress, which can be facilitated by feedback about progress, substantiate their self-efficacy for learning, which sustains motivation and learning (Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Schunk, 1995).

A key process is the internalisation of social variables to self influences. Learners transform information acquired from the social environment into mechanisms of self-regulation. With increased skill acquisition, this social-to-self transformation process becomes a bidirectional interactive process as learners alter and adjust their social environments to further enhance their achievement (Schunk, 1999).

The examples within one's milieu furnish a salient provenance of intelligence for assessing self-efficacy. Parents and other influential adults (e.g., pedagogues, coaches) constitute pivotal examples in children's societal environments. Bandura, Barbaranelli, Caprara, and Pastorelli (1996) ascertained that parents' academic aspirations for their children exerted influence upon both children's academic achievements and their self-efficacy.

Adult Models

Research doth demonstrate that exposing scholars to adult examples doth influence their self-efficacy for learning and performing handsomely. Zimmerman and Ringle (1981) did have children observe an example unsuccessfully attempting to resolve a puzzle for a protracted or brief duration and verbalise statements of confidence or pessimism, subsequent to which children attempted to resolve the puzzle. Observing a confident yet non-persistent example augmented self-efficacy; children who observed a pessimistic yet persistent example diminished their self-efficacy. Relich, Debus, and Walker (1986) ascertained that exposing low-achieving children to examples expounding mathematical division and furnishing them with feedback emphasising the import of ability and effort exerted a salutary effect upon self-efficacy.

Schunk (1981) did evince that both cognitive modelling and didactic instruction augmented self-efficacy; however, cognitive modelling did conduce to greater gains in division skill and to more accurate perceptions of capabilities, inasmuch as these children's self-efficacy judgments corresponded more closely to their actual performances. Scholars who received solely didactic instruction overestimated that which they could perform. Irrespective of treatment condition, self-efficacy correlated positively with persistence and achievement.

Peer Models

Observing similar peer examples performing a task handsomely can augment observers' self-efficacy, which is validated when they labour at the task successfully. Brown and Inouye (1978) investigated the effects of perceived similarity in competence to examples. College students judged self-efficacy for resolving anagrams and then attempted to resolve them, subsequent to which they were informed that they performed better than or the same as an example. They then observed an example fail, judged self-efficacy, and attempted the anagrams again. Informing students that they were more competent than the example conduced to higher self-efficacy and persistence than informing them that they were equal in competence.

One method for augmenting self-efficacy is to employ coping examples, who initially demonstrate trepidations and skill deficiencies, but gradually ameliorate their performance and self-efficacy. Coping examples illustrate how determined effort and positive self-thoughts surmount difficulties. In contrast, mastery examples demonstrate faultless performance and lofty confidence from the outset (Thelen, Fry, Fehrenbach, & Frautschi, 1979). Coping examples may enhance perceived similarity and self-efficacy for learning better than mastery examples amongst scholars who are more apt to view the initial difficulties and gradual progress of coping examples as more similar to their typical performances than the rapid learning of mastery examples.

Children who had experienced difficulties learning subtraction with regrouping watched videos portraying a peer mastery example, a peer coping example, a pedagogue example, or no example (Schunk & Hanson, 1985). In the peer-example conditions, an adult pedagogue furnished instruction, subsequent to which the peer resolved problems. The peer mastery example readily grasped operations and verbalised positive achievement beliefs reflecting lofty self-efficacy and ability, diminished task difficulty, and positive attitudes. The peer coping example initially committed errors and verbalised negative achievement beliefs, but gradually performed better and verbalised coping statements (e.g., “I need to pay attention to what I’m doing”). Eventually, the coping example’s problem-solving behaviours and verbalisations matched those of the mastery example. Pedagogue-example children observed videos portraying solely the pedagogue furnishing instruction; no-example children did not view videos. All children judged self-efficacy for learning to subtract and received instruction and practice over sessions.

Observing a peer example augmented self-efficacy and achievement more than observing a pedagogue example or no example; the pedagogue-example condition promoted these outcomes better than no example. The mastery and coping conditions conduced to similar outcomes. Possibly children focused more upon that which the examples held in common (task success) than upon their differences. Children may have drawn upon their prior successes in subtraction without regrouping and concluded that if the example could learn, they could as well.

Another salient variable is number of examples. Compared with a single example, multiple examples augment the probability that observers will perceive themselves as similar to at least one of the examples (Thelen et al., 1979). Scholars who might readily discount the successes of a single example may be swayed by observing several successful peers and opine that if all these examples can learn, they can as well. Observe in the opening scenario that Donnetta’s coach served as an example, and she furnished Donnetta with materials portraying backhands demonstrated by other examples.

Schunk, Hanson, and Cox (1987) investigated the effects of single and multiple coping and mastery examples with a task (fractions) upon which children had experienced few prior successes. Viewing a single coping example or multiple coping or mastery examples enhanced children’s self-efficacy and achievement better than viewing a single mastery example. For these low achievers, the single mastery example was the least effective.

Schunk and Hanson (1989a) further explored variations in perceived similarity by having average-achieving children view one of three types of peer examples. Mastery examples readily grasped arithmetic operations and verbalised positive beliefs (e.g., “I know I can do this one”). Coping-emotive examples initially experienced difficulties and verbalised negative statements (e.g., “I’m not very good at this”), subsequent to which they verbalised coping statements (e.g., “I’ll have to work hard on this one”) and displayed coping behaviours; eventually they performed as well as mastery examples. Coping-alone examples performed in identical fashion to coping-emotive examples, but never verbalised negative beliefs.

Coping-emotive examples conduced to the highest self-efficacy for learning. Mastery and coping-alone children perceived themselves as equal in competence to the example; coping-emotive children viewed themselves as more competent than the example. The belief that one is more talented than an unsuccessful example can augment self-efficacy and motivation. The three conditions promoted self-efficacy and achievement equally well, which evinces that actual task experience outweighed initial effects due to watching examples.

Peer examples have been employed to augment prosocial behaviours. Strain et al. (1981) demonstrated how peers can be taught to initiate societal play with withdrawn children by employing verbal signals (e.g., “Let’s play blocks”) and motor responses (handing child a toy). Such peer initiations typically augment target children’s subsequent societal initiations. Training peer initiators is time consuming, yet effective because methods of remedying societal withdrawal (prompting, reinforcement) require nearly continuous pedagogue involvement. Application 4.5 discusses some additional uses of peer examples.

Self-efficacy hath been demonstrated to prognosticate the acquisition and performance of motor skills (Bandura, 1997; Poag-DuCharme & Brawley, 1993; Wurtele, 1986). Gould and Weiss (1981) discerned advantages arising from model similarity. College women observed either a similar model (a female student devoid of athletic background) or a dissimilar model (a male physical education professor) execute a muscular endurance task. Those students who observed the similar model performed the task with greater proficiency and adjudged their self-efficacy higher than those who observed the dissimilar model. Irrespective of treatment condition, self-efficacy bore a positive relation to performance.

George, Feltz, and Chase (1992) replicated these findings using female college students and models performing a leg-extension endurance task. Students who observed nonathletic male or female models extended their legs for a longer duration and judged their self-efficacy higher than those who observed an athletic model. Amongst these unskilled observers, model ability constituted a more salient similarity cue than model gender.

Lirgg and Feltz (1991) exposed sixth-grade girls to a skilled or unskilled teacher or peer video model demonstrating a ladder-climbing task; girls in a control group observed no model. The girls then assessed their self-efficacy for climbing successively higher levels on the ladder and performed the task across numerous trials. The control students exhibited inferior performance compared to those exposed to models; among the latter, children who observed a skilled model (adult or peer) performed better than those who observed an unskilled model. The girls who viewed the skilled model judged their self-efficacy higher.

Bandura and Cervone (1983) elucidated the importance of feedback during motor skill acquisition. College students operated an ergometer by alternately pushing and pulling arm levers that resisted their efforts. Certain participants pursued a goal of augmenting performance by 40% above the baseline, others were informed that they had increased their performance by 24%, those in a third condition received both goals and feedback, and participants in a control group received neither goals nor feedback. The combination of goals and feedback most significantly improved performance and instilled self-efficacy for goal attainment, which predicted subsequent effort.

In subsequent research (Bandura & Cervone, 1986), participants received a goal of 50% improvement above baseline. Following their performance, they received false feedback indicating they achieved an increase of 24%, 36%, 46%, or 54%. Self-efficacy was lowest for the 24% group and highest for the 54% condition. After the students established goals for the subsequent session and performed the task anew, effort expenditure bore a positive relation to both goals and self-efficacy across all conditions.

Poag-DuCharme and Brawley (1993) discovered that self-efficacy predicted involvement by individuals in community-based exercise programmes. Self-efficacy was assessed for performing in-class activities and for overcoming barriers to exercising and scheduling problems. Self-efficacy related positively to the initiation and maintenance of regular exercise. In a similar vein, Motl, Dishman, Saunders, Dowda, and Pate (2007) found that self-efficacy for overcoming impediments to exercise predicted physical exercise by adolescent girls. These findings intimate that promoting exercise necessitates attending to the development of individuals' self-efficacy for coping with problems in scheduling and actual engagement.

Self-efficacy doth pertain to teachers, no less than to students (Pajares, 1996; Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk Hoy, & Hoy, 1998). Instructional self-efficacy doth denote a teacher's personal conviction in their capacity to facilitate learning amongst their pupils. Such instructional self-efficacy must assuredly influence a teacher's endeavours, application, and perseverance with their charges (Ashton, 1985; Ashton & Webb, 1986). Those teachers who possess a low sense of self-efficacy mayhap eschew the planning of activities which they deem to surpass their abilities, lack persistence with students encountering difficulties, expend scant effort in the procurement of materials, and neglect to reteach subject matter in a manner more readily comprehensible to their pupils. Conversely, teachers with a higher sense of self-efficacy are more inclined to devise challenging activities, foster student success, and persevere with students who grapple with learning. These motivational influences upon teachers serve to enhance student achievement. Furthermore, teachers who manifest higher self-efficacy exhibit a stronger commitment to their vocation (Chan, Lau, Nie, Lim, & Hogan, 2008). Ashton and Webb (1986) discovered that teachers with elevated self-efficacy were more likely to cultivate a positive classroom atmosphere, champion student ideas, and attend to the exigencies of their pupils. Teacher self-efficacy was found to be a significant predictor of student achievement. Woolfolk and Hoy (1990) obtained comparable results with preservice teachers. Feltz, Chase, Moritz, and Sullivan (1999) demonstrated that the selfsame predictions for teacher self-efficacy applied equally to coaches.

Much research hath been dedicated to the investigation of those dimensions of instructional efficacy which bear the closest relation to student learning (Gibson & Dembo, 1984; Woolfolk & Hoy, 1990). Ashton and Webb (1986) drew a distinction between teaching efficacy, or outcome expectations regarding the general consequences of teaching, and personal efficacy, defined as self-efficacy in the execution of particular behaviours to achieve specified outcomes. As previously noted, self-efficacy and outcome expectations are often related, albeit not necessarily so. A teacher might harbour a strong sense of personal efficacy, yet possess a lower teaching efficacy, should they believe that the majority of student learning is attributable to domestic and environmental factors beyond the teacher's purview. Further research suggesteth that instructional self-efficacy reflecteth an internal–external dichotomy: internal factors representing perceptions of personal influence and power, and external factors pertaining to perceptions of the influence and power of elements beyond the classroom (Guskey & Passaro, 1994).

Goddard, Hoy, and Woolfolk Hoy (2000) have discoursed upon collective teacher efficacy, being the perception amongst teachers within a school that their collective efforts shall exert a positive influence upon students. Albeit research into collective teacher efficacy remains somewhat limited (Bandura, 1993, 1997; Pajares, 1997), the notion is garnering increasing attention, inasmuch as it is often reflected in the curricula and standards of 21st-century skills, and appears critical to effective school reform.

Collective teacher efficacy is contingent upon the provision of robust support from administrators, who encourage and facilitate improvement by cultivating an environment free from impediments. Furthermore, collective efficacy hinges upon reliable sources of self-efficacy information (Bandura, 1997). Teachers who collaborate assiduously towards the attainment of common objectives (performance mastery) and who benefit from the mentorship of role models (vicarious information) are more apt to feel collectively self-efficacious.

The role of collective teacher efficacy may also be contingent upon the degree of organisational coupling (Henson, 2002). Collective teacher efficacy may not accurately predict outcomes in schools of a loosely-knit nature; individual self-efficacy may prove a more reliable predictor in such cases. This scenario may obtain in certain secondary schools wherein coupling, if present, resides at the departmental level rather than at the level of the school as a whole. Conversely, elementary schools are typically more closely coupled, and the collective efficacy of the school's teachers may serve as a predictor of student outcomes.

Goddard et al. (2000) elucidated the process whereby collective teacher efficacy may exert an influence upon student learning. The selfsame four sources of self-efficacy affect collective efficacy: performance attainments, vicarious experiences, social persuasion, and physiological indicators. Collective efficacy is more likely to be fortified when teachers collaborate successfully in the implementation of changes, learn from one another and from other successful schools, receive encouragement for change from administrators and sources of professional development, and work in concert to address difficulties and alleviate stress (Goddard, Hoy, & Woolfolk Hoy, 2004). As collective teacher efficacy is augmented, teachers continue to enhance educational opportunities for their students.

Collective teacher efficacy doth also appear important for teachers' job satisfaction and retention within the teaching profession. Caprara, Barbaranelli, Borgogni, and Steca (2003) discovered that teachers' collective efficacy beliefs bore a significant positive relation to their job satisfaction. Moreover, collective efficacy is contingent upon teachers believing that other constituencies (e.g., principals, staff, parents, students) are working diligently to fulfil their obligations. In accordance with Bandura's (1997) position, even high self-efficacy shall not engender beneficial changes unless the environment is receptive to such change. The retention of teachers within the profession—a matter of critical import, given the shortage of teachers in many locales—shall be aided by the creation of an environment wherein teachers' sense of agency is fostered, and their endeavours lead to positive change.

An important challenge for programmes of pre-service and in-service teacher education lies in the development of methods for the augmentation of teachers' instructional self-efficacy, by incorporating sources of efficacy-building (actual performances, vicarious experiences, persuasion, physiological indices). Internships, wherein students collaborate with teacher mentors, provide both actual performance success and expert modelling. Teacher models not only impart skills to observers, but also cultivate their self-efficacy for succeeding within the classroom.

Researchers have demonstrated the predictive capacity of self-efficacy concerning health and therapeutic behaviours (Bandura, 1997; Maddux, 1993; Maddux, Brawley, & Boykin, 1995). The Health Belief Model, a construct frequently employed, serves to elucidate alterations in health behaviour (Rosenstock, 1974). This paradigm ascribes a significant import to individuals' perceptions regarding four salient determinants of health behaviours: susceptibility (an individual's appraisal of the peril inherent in a specific health menace), severity of the health threat, benefits accruing from the behaviour advocated to mitigate the threat, and impediments to action (an individual's conviction regarding potential untoward sequelae attendant upon the performance of the prescribed preventive behaviour). The impediments factor commands the most robust empirical substantiation, bearing a close affinity to self-efficacy (viz., self-efficacy in surmounting impediments; Maddux, 1993). A more recently conceived model of health behaviour goals (Maes & Gebhardt, 2000) incorporates perceived competence (akin to self-efficacy) as a pivotal process.

The salient function of self-efficacy as a harbinger of health behaviours is manifest in a plethora of investigations (DiClemente, 1986; Strecher, DeVellis, Becker, & Rosenstock, 1986). Self-efficacy evinces a positive correlation with regulated smoking (Godding & Glasgow, 1985), a positive correlation with the most protracted duration of smoking abstinence (DiClemente, Prochaska, & Gilbertini, 1985), a negative correlation with the enticement to smoke (DiClemente et al., 1985), and a positive correlation with weight reduction (Bernier & Avard, 1986). Love (1983) ascertained that self-efficacy in resisting bulimic behaviours correlated negatively with episodes of binging and purging. Bandura (1994) expounded upon the role of self-efficacy in the management of HIV infection.

In DiClemente's (1981) inquiry, individuals recently abstinent from smoking assessed their self-efficacy in eschewing smoking within scenarios of varying degrees of stress; these participants were subsequently surveyed several months later to ascertain their maintenance of abstinence. Individuals maintaining abstinence registered higher self-efficacy than those who relapsed. Self-efficacy emerged as a superior predictor of future smoking behaviour compared to both smoking history and demographic variables. Self-efficacy in abstaining from smoking across diverse scenarios correlated positively with the duration of successful abstinence, measured in weeks. A propensity for relapse was observed in situations wherein individuals had previously appraised their self-efficacy as being low in respect of avoiding smoking.

Bandura and his colleagues have undertaken investigations into the extent to which self-efficacy predicts therapeutic behavioural modifications (Bandura, 1991). In one such study (Bandura, Adams, & Beyer, 1977), adult individuals afflicted with ophidiophobia (snake phobia) were subjected to a participant modelling treatment, wherein a therapist initially demonstrated a sequence of progressively more daunting encounters with a snake. Subsequent to the phobics jointly performing the various activities alongside the therapist, they were afforded the opportunity to perform independently, thereby augmenting their self-efficacy. In contradistinction to phobics who merely observed the therapist's modelling of the activities and those who received no training, participant-modelling clients exhibited the most pronounced augmentation in self-efficacy and approach behaviours directed toward the snake. Irrespective of the specific treatment modality employed, self-efficacy in performing tasks was found to be closely associated with clients' actual behaviours. In a related study, Bandura and Adams (1977) adjudged participant modelling to be superior to systematic desensitisation (Chapter 3). These findings lend credence to Bandura's (1982b, 1997) assertion that performance-based treatments, amalgamating modelling with practice, proffer the optimal foundation for gauging self-efficacy and engender more substantive behavioural change.

Bandura (2005) underscored the significance of self-regulation in the realms of health and well-being. Whilst the development and perpetuation of salutary lifestyles have frequently been elucidated in terms of prescriptive medical management, there is an escalating emphasis amongst researchers and practitioners on collaborative self-management. The latter encompasses many of the social cognitive processes delineated within this chapter, including: self-monitoring of health-related behaviours, establishment of goals and cultivation of self-efficacy toward their attainment, self-evaluation of progress, and implementation of self-motivating incentives and social supports to foster healthy lifestyles (Maes & Karoly, 2005).

This perspective on health and well-being mirrors Bandura's (2005) agentic viewpoint on human functioning, as elucidated at the commencement of this chapter. The enduring maintenance of successful lifestyle alterations necessitates that individuals harbour a sense of self-efficacy in managing their own activities and exerting control over events that impinge upon their lives. Self-efficacy exerts its influence upon actions through cognitive, motivational, affective, and decisional processes. Consequently, self-efficacy governs whether individuals engage in positive or negative modes of thinking, how they instigate self-motivation and persevere amidst adversity, their capacity to manage emotions, particularly during periods of stress, their resilience in the face of setbacks, and the choices they make at pivotal junctures (Benight & Bandura, 2004).

In summation, self-efficacy has been the subject of extensive research. Empirical evidence substantiates that self-efficacy predicts a diverse array of outcomes, encompassing smoking cessation, pain tolerance, athletic performance, assertiveness, coping with feared events, recovery from myocardial infarction, and sales performance (Bandura, 1986, 1997). Self-efficacy stands as a pivotal variable influencing career choices (Lent, Brown, & Hackett, 2000), and children's self-efficacy exerts an influence upon the types of occupations in which they believe they can achieve success (Bandura, Barbaranelli, Caprara, & Pastorelli, 2001). Researchers of self-efficacy have availed themselves of diverse settings, participants, measures, treatments, tasks, and time spans. The generality of self-efficacy shall, indubitably, be further expanded in future research.