Albert Bandura’s

1. Albert Bandura’s Social Cognitive Learning Theory: Self Efficacy Expectations

2. Bandra’s Childhood • Born on December 4, 1925 in Alberta, Canada • Had 5 older sisters • Parents emigrated to Canada from Poland and the Ukraine and worked hard to provide for their family • Bandura said that life growing up was “a struggle” (one year, a drought forced Bandura’s family to feed their thatched roof to their cattle) About 1934 (9 years old)

3. Education and Early Adulthood • Elementary and high school: his small town had only one school, with few teachers and resources. • As a result, Bandura took charge of his education from an early age. Bandura on his education: The content of most textbooks is perishable, but the tools of self-directedness serve one over time.

4. From University Student to Grandfather • Undergraduate student at the University of British Columbia • Intended to major in Biology; took a Psychology class to fill an open time slot, and he immediately knew that it was the career for him • M.A. and Ph.D. from University of Iowa • Married at 27 and had two daughters • At 28, joined faculty of Stanford • At age 82, still taught at Stanford in addition to spending time with his grandchildren College graduation: 1949 (24 years old) Bandura with his grandchildren in 1996

5. Background: Bandura’s Social Learning Theory • In the 1960’s, Bandura developed his social learning theory. • In social settings, we learn through imitation • Through a cognitive process, we learn how to perform a new behavior and the probable consequences • In the 1980’s, Bandura began to develop his self-efficacy theory

6. Bandura’s Theories • as opposed to Skinner, Bandura believes learning must include internal cognitive variables • believed in vicarious reinforcement • observational learning process • attentional • retention • motor reproduction • reinforcement and motivational

7. (cont.) • social learning process • aggression • Bobo doll experiment • aggression-rewarded • aggression-punished • no-consequences • Bobo doll-part two • after the child’s initial response, an experimenter came back into the room and told the child that they would get juice and a sticker if they could imitate anything else from the model

8. (cont.) • gender roles • within cultures, boys are taught “masculine” traits and girls are taught “feminine” traits • some gender traits can be attributed to genetics, but most is gained from imitation • children learn behaviors of both genders, but only perform behaviors appropriate to their own gender due to what has been reinforced • prosocial behavior • sharing, helping, cooperation • even a brief exposure to a generous model can lead to a permanent effect on sharing • parents’ preaching is not as influential as showing your children what to do • self-regulation • as people become more socialized, they rely less on external rewards and punishments and rely more on inner regulation of behavior • according to Bandura, children adopt the self-evaluative standards of peers rather than adults because it is easier to achieve the lower standards

9. (cont.) • self-efficacy • we evaluate our ongoing performances in terms of our standards • general judgments of our abilities are called self-efficacy appraisals • have strong effects on our motivations • perceived self-efficacy is what we believe we are good and bad at doing • having more optimistic self-efficacy, according to Bandura, is a good thing--allows us to face the challenges of life with some confidence • four sources of self-efficacy appraisals • actual performance • vicarious experiences • verbal persuasion (pep talks) • physiological cues • develops throughout our lives, from infancy to old age • our perceived self efficacy effects almost every aspect of our lives

10. What is self-efficacy? Perceived self-efficacy is concerned not with the number of skills you have, but with what you believe you can do with what you have under a variety of circumstances. Bandura, Albert. Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. USA: W.H. Freeman and Co, 1997. Self-efficacy expectation:an individual’s judgment of his capability to organize and execute courses of action required to attain designated types of performances

11. The Importance of Efficacy Beliefs • Skills + efficacy beliefs = effective functioning • Performance increases in proportion as perceived self-efficacy increases • “efficacy beliefs are based on cognitive processing of multiple sources of information” -Bandura, Albert. Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. USA: W.H. Freeman and Co, 1997.

12. Four Sources of Self-Efficacy Expectations (In order of significance) 1. Actual performance (also called mastery experience or performance accomplishments): our past personal experiences in the same type of activity or task. “I made it to the top of that mountain, so I can get to the top of this one, too.” 2. Vicarious experiences: Derived from watching others perform the same or similar actions. “If he can do it, I can do it.” 3. Verbal persuasion: Someone persuades us we can perform a task. “The teacher told me that if I study hard I can get an A on this test!” 4. Physiological cues (also called emotional arousal): Bodily cues. “My adrenaline is pumping- it’s going to be a great race.”

13. Our Project • We will examine 3 of Bandura’s 4 self-efficacy factors to determine how effective they are • Our setting: Holy Family of Nazareth Catholic School • Participants: 5th and 6th graders • Their task: Predict how many free throws they will make (out of 10) before and after treatment

14. Our Hypothesis • Actual performance will have the greatest influence on self-efficacy expectations (in agreement with Bandura) • The verbal persuasion will be more effective than the vicarious experience (disagreement with Bandura). Our example will be less effective because we are not in the children’s peer group. • Overall, the positive influences will outweigh the negative influences because 5th and 6th grade kids have a natural optimism and egocentrism.

15. Procedure • Application of Bandura’s self-efficacy theory to free throw shooting We measured self-efficacy expectations by asking the kids to predict how many free throws they would make out of 10

16. Results: Positive Vicarious Experience Average change after watching model: +.5 Average change between actual performance and 3rd prediction: + 1.25 Average change between 1st and 3rd prediction: 2

17. Results: Negative Vicarious Experience Average change after watching model: -.4 Average change between actual performance and 3rd prediction: + .83 Average change between 1st and 3rd prediction: 2.4

18. Results: Positive Verbal Persuasion Average change after pep talk: +.75 Average change between actual performance and 3rd prediction: +2.25 Average change between 1st and 3rd prediction: .5

19. Results: Negative Verbal Persuasion Average change after negative talk: -.75 Average change between actual performance and 3rd prediction: +.5 Average change between 1st and 3rd prediction: 1

20. Which Factor Actually has the Most Influence on Children’s Self-Efficacy Expectations? • Positive Vicarious Experience Average change: +.5 • Negative Vicarious Experience Average change: -.4 Average Change due to Vicarious Experience= .45 • Positive Verbal Persuasion Average change: +.75 • Negative Verbal Persuasion Average change: -.75 Average Change due to Verbal Persuasion= .75 • Actual Performance- Average change: +1.25 +.83 +2.25 +.5 Average change due to Actual Performance= 1.21

21. The Importance of Building Self-Efficacy in the Classroom Students who develop a strong sense of self-efficacy are well equipped to educate themselves when they have to rely on their own initiative. - Albert Bandura

22. Self-Efficacy and College Students Beliefs concerning one’s capabilities are influential determinants of the vocational life paths that are chosen - Bandura

23. Other Applications of Bandura’s Theory • Bandura’s Self-Efficacy theory has also been used to help people: • Lose weight • Fight alcoholism • Overcome fears (e.g. of snakes) • Tackle depression and anxiety • Move up the corporate ladder

24. Limitations/Repeat • Limitations of our research: • could not control the environment • were unable to observe the children separately, apart from their peers • as a result, the participant was distracted by peers • small pool of participants • If research were repeated : • wider range of ages • more isolated observation area