LESSON 2

DO NOT JUST
DREAM, MAKE
IT HAPPEN
 Albert E. Bandura introduced his concept of self-efficacy in an
article entitled "Self-efficacy: Toward a Unifying Theory of
Behavioral Change that was published in Psychological Review
in 1977. The article also became an instant classic in
psychology (Kendra 2017).

Who is Albert E. Bandura? He was born in Mundare, Alberta in

Albert E. December 4, 1925. He was the youngest of six children.

Though times were often hard growing up. Dr. Bandura's
parents placed great emphasis on celebrating life and more
Bandura's importantly family. They were also very keen on their children
doing well in school.
Self-Efficacy Dr. Bandura learned a lot about value and importance of self-
direction from this time in his life. After spending a summer
working in Alaska after finishing high school. Dr. Bandura went
to the University of British Columbia. He took an introductory
psychology course because it fitted into an early timeslot and
allowed him to work in the afternoon and then, he was
hooked. He graduated three years later in 1949 with the
Bolocan Award in psychology.
Dr. Bandura has widely published works and has received various honorary degrees and
awards all over the world. He is highly recognized for his work in social learning theory and
social cognitive theory (a theory that states people are active participants in their
environment and are not simply shaped by that environment). Dr. Bandura is still an active
member of Stanford's faculty today. He is continuing his research into the effects of
modeling on human behavior, emotion, and thought. He is also researching self-efficacy,
and stress reactions at what level of internal control can people separate themselves from
harmful acts they are committing. (The Great Canadian Psychology 2005–2008).

Dr. Bandura's work is considered part of the cognitive revolution in psychology that began
in the late 1960s. His theories have had a tremendous impact on personality psychology,
cognitive psychology, education, and psychotherapy. In 1974, Dr. Bandura was elected
president of the American Psychological Association (APA). The APA awarded him for his
distinguished scientific contributions in 1980 and again in 2004 for his outstanding lifetime
contributions to psychology. Today, Dr. Bandura is often identified as the greatest living
psychology as well as one of the most influential psychologists of all time. Dr. Bandura was
awarded the Notional Modal of Science by President Barack Obama. (Kendra 2017)
Summary of Self-Efficacy Theory

Weibell (2011) summarized Albert Bandura's Self-Efficacy theory. The theory of

self-efficacy, was based on the principle assumption that psychological
procedures, whatever their form, serve as a means of creating and
strengthening expectations of personal efficacy. The theory distinguishes
between expectations of efficacy and response-outcome expectancies. An
outcome expectancy is "a person's estimate that a given behavior will lead to
certain outcomes." An efficacy expectation is "the conviction that one can
successfully execute the behavior required to produce the outcomes. Although
person may expect a certain activity to lead to a particular outcome, they may
lack the motivation to perform the action, doubting their ability to do so.
Outcome and efficacy expectations are differentiated because individuals can
believe that a particular course of action will produce certain outcomes. But if
they entertain serious doubts about whether they can perform the necessary
activities, such information does not influence their behavior.
Self-efficacy typically comes into play when there is an actual or
perceived threat to one's personal safety. or one's ability to deal with
potentially aversive events. Increasing a person's self-efficacy increases
their ability to deal with a potentially averse situation. For example,
experimental studies on the treatment of adult snake phobics have
demonstrated that raising levels of self-efficacy is an effective technique
to help them cope with threatening situations. Perceived self efficacy
mediates anxiety arousal.

Bandura defined self-efficacy as people's beliefs about their capabilities

to produce designated levels of performance that exercise influence over
events that affect their lives." People with "high assurance in their
capabilities."
1. Approach difficult tasks as challenges to be mastered
2. Set challenging goals and maintain strong commitment to them
3. heighten or sustain their efforts in the face of failures or setbacks;
4. attribute failure to insufficient effort or deficient knowledge and skills
which are acquirable; and
5. Approach threatening situations with assurance that they can exercise
control over them.
In contrast, people who doubt their capabilities“:
1. shy away from tasks they view as personal threats;
2. have low aspirations and weak commitment to goals they choose to pursue
3. dwell on personal deficiencies, obstacles they will encounter, and all
kinds of adverse outcomes, rather than concentrating on how to
perform successfully;
4. slacken their efforts and give up quickly in the face of difficulties,
5. are slow to recover their sense of efficacy following failure or setbacks,
and
6. fall easy victim to stress and depression.
Bandura described four main sources of influence by
which a person's self-efficacy is developed and
maintained:

1. performance accomplishments or mastery

experiences;
2. vicarious experiences;
3. verbal or social persuasion;
4. physiological, or somatic and emotional, states.
Mastery experiences, or personal performance accomplishments, are the most
effective way to create a strong sense of efficacy. "Successes build a robust belief in
one's personal efficacy. Failures undermined it, especially if failures occur before a
sense of efficacy is firmly established". Vicarious experiences through observance of
social models also influence one's perception of self-efficacy. The most important
factor that determines the strength of influence of an observed success or failure on
one's own self- efficacy is the degree of similarity between
the observer and the model.

Seeing people similar to oneself succeed by sustained effort raises observers' beliefs
that they too possess the capabilities master comparable activities to succeed. By
the same token, observing others' fail despite high effort lowers observers'
judgments of their own efficacy and undermines their efforts. The impact of
modeling on perceived self-efficacy is strongly influenced by perceived similarity to
the models. The greater the assumed similarity, the more persuasive are the models'
successes and failures. If people see the models as very different from themselves,
their perceived self-efficacy is not much influenced by the models' behavior and the
results its produces.
Verbal or social persuasion also affects one's perception of self-
efficacy. It is a way of strengthening people's beliefs that they have
what it takes to succeed. Verbal or social persuasion can provide a
temporary boost in perceived ability, when it is effective in mobilizing
a person to action, and their actions lead to success, the enhanced
self-efficacy may become more permanent. "People who are
persuaded verbally that they possess the capabilities to master given
activities are likely to mobilize greater effort and sustain it than if they
harbor self-doubts and dwell on personal deficiencies when problems
arise." This increases their chances of success. Unfortunately, it is
more difficult to instill high beliefs of personal efficacy by social
persuasion alone than to undermine it since unrealistic boosts in
efficacy are quickly disconfirmed by disappointing results of one’s
efforts."
People also rely on their somatic or emotional states when judging their capabilities.
Stress and tension are interpreted as "signs of vulnerability to poor performance."
Fatigue, aches and pains, and mood also effect perception of ability However
Bandura notes that it is not the intensity of the emotional or physical reaction that is
important, but rather, how it is perceived and interpreted. People with a high sense
of self-efficacy may perceive affective arousal as "an energizing facilitator of
performance, whereas those who are beset by self- doubts regard their arousal as a
debilitator.“

Since "most human motivation is cognitively generated," self-beliefs of efficacy are

an important factor in human motivation. Beliefs of self-efficacy work in coordination
with component skill and incentive to act. Inasmuch as a person has both the
component skills needed to succeed, and the incentive to engage, self-efficacy plays
an important role in determining what activities a person will choose to engage in,
how much effort they will expend, and how long that effort will be sustained when
things get tough.
Expectation alone will not produce desired performance if the
component capabilities are lacking. Moreover, there are many things
that people can do with certainty of success that they do not perform
because they have no incentives to do so. Given appropriate skills and
adequate incentives, however, efficacy expectations are a major
determinant of people's choice of activities, how much effort they will
expend and of how long they will sustain effort in dealing with
stressful situations.
Dr Albert Bandura's quotes about self-efficacy (Kondra 2017);

• "Self efficacy is the belief in one's capabilities to organize and execute

the sources of action required to manage prospective situations." -From
Social Foundations of thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory
1980

• "If efficacy beliefs always reflected only what people can do routinely
they would rarely fall but they would not set aspirations beyond their

CHAPTER
immediate reach nor mount the extra effort needed to surpass their
ordinary performances.* -From Encyclopedia of Human Behavior 1994

Tree
• "Self-belief does not necessarily ensure success, but self-disbelief
assuredly spawns failure." -From Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control
1997
• "By sticking it out through tough times, people emerge from
adversity with a stronger sense of efficacy." -From Encyclopedia
of Human Behavior 1994

• People's beliefs about their abilities have a profound effect on

those abilities. Ability is not a fixed property, there is a huge
variability in how you perform. People who have a sense of self-
efficacy bounce back from failure; they approach things in terms of
how to handle them rather than worrying about what can go
wrong." -From Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control 1996
Carol S. Dweck's Fixed and Growth Mindset Theory

Carol S. Dweck is the author Mindset The New Psychology of Success. Who is
Carol S. Dweck? Carol S. Dweck was October 17, 1946. She graduated from
Bernard College in 1967 and earned Ph.D from Yale University in 1972. She
taught at Columbia University, Harvard University and University of Illinois
before joining the Stanford University in 2004. (Upclosed 2017).

She is one of the leading researchers in the field of motivation and is the Lewis
and Virginia Eaton Professor of Psychology at Stanford University. Her research
has focused on why people succeed and how to foster success. She has been
elected to the American Academy Arts and Sciences. Her works has been
featured in different publications like The New Yorker, Time, The New York
Times, The Washington Post and The Boston Globe. She appeared on Today
and 20/20. (Mindset 2006-2010)
Dr. Dweck has received the following awards (Stanford Profiles n.d.):

✓ Book Award for Self-Theories, World Education Federation (an organization of the United
Nations and UNICEF) (2004)
✓ Donald Campbell Career Achievement Award in Social Psychology, Society for Personality and
Social Psychology (2008)
✓ Award for Innovative Program of the Year, "Brainology" (2008)
✓ Ann L. Brown Award for Research in Developmental Psychology,
University of Illinois (2009) ✓ Klingenstein Award for Leadership in Education, Klingenstein
Center, Columbia University (2010)
✓ Thorndike Career Achievement Award in Educational Psychology,
American Psychological Association (2010)
✓ Beckman Mentoring Award, Columbia University (2011)
✓ Distinguished Scientific Contribution Award, American
Psychological Association (2011)
✓ Gallery of Scientists, Federation of Associations in Behavioral &
Brain Sciences (2011)
✓ James McKeen Cattell Lifetime Achievement Award, Association for
✓ Psychological Science (2013)
Fixed and Growth Mindset
Dr. Dweck contribution to social psychology relates to implicit theories of intelligence
with her book, Mindset: The New Psychology of Success published in 2006. Dweck
describes people with two types of Mindset. People who believe that their success is
based on innate ability, these are said to have a "fixed" theory of intelligence goes
under Fixed Mindset. Others, on the other hand believe their success is based on hard
work, learning, training and perseverance are said to have growth theory of
intelligence, which goes under growth mindset. According to Dr. Dweck, individuals
may not necessarily be aware of their own mindset, but their mindset can still be
discerned based on their behavior. It is especially evident in their reaction to failure.
Fixed-mindset individuals dread failure because it is a negative statement on their
basic abilities, while growth mindset individuals do not mind or fear failure as much
because they realize their performance can be improved and learning comes from
failure. These two mindsets play an important role in all aspects of a person's life. Dr.
Dweck argues that the growth mindset will allow a person to live a less stressful and
more successful life. In an interview with Dr. Dweck in 2012, she described the fix and
growth mindset as:
"In a fixed mindset students believe their basic abilities, their intelligence, their
talents are just fixed traits. They have a certain amount and that's that, and their
goal becomes to look smart all the time and never look dumb. In the growth
mindset students understand that their talents and abilities can be developed
through effort, good teaching and persistence. They don't necessarily thing
everyone's the same or anyone can be Einstein, but they believe everyone can get
smarter if they work for it.”

Individuals with growth mindset are more likely to continue working hard despite
setbacks while individuals with fixed mindset can be affected by subtle
environmental cues. For examples, children given praise such as "good job, you’re
smart" are more likely to develop a fixed mindset, whereas, if given compliments
like "good job, you worked very hard" are likely to developed a growth mindset. In
other word, it is possible to encourage students to persist despite failure by
encouraging them to think about learning in a certain way. (Upclosed 2017)
Edwin A. Locke's Goal Setting Theory
Edwin A. Locke is internationally known for his research on goal setting. Who is Edwin
A. Locke? Edwin A Locke was born January 5, 1938. He is Dean’s Professor (Emeritus) of
Leadership and Motivation at the R.H. Smith School of Business at the University of
Maryland, College Park. He received his BA from Harvard in 1960 and his PhD in
Industrial Psychology from Cornell University in 1964.
Dr. Locke has been elected a Fellow the Association for Psychological Science, the
American Psychological Society, the Academy of Management, and has been a
consulting editor for leading journals. He was a winner of the Outstanding Teacher-
Scholar Award at the University of Maryland, the Distinguished Scientific Contribution
Award of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, the Career
Contribution Award from the Academy of Management (Human Resource Division),
the Lifetime Achievement Award from the Academy of Management (Organizational
Behavior Division), and the James McKeen Cattell Fellow Award from the American
Psychological Society. He is a writer and lecturer for the Ayn Rand Institute and is
interested in the application of the philosophy of Objectivism to behavioral sciences.
(Locke 2017)
Goal Setting Theory
The Goal Setting Theory was first studied by Dr. Edwin Locke in the middle of 1960's.
He continued to do more studies in relation to his theory. In 1996, he published
another article entitled, Motivation Though Conscious Goal Setting. The article is about
the 30 years of research findings on the relationship between conscious performance
goals and performance on work tasks. The basic contents of goal setting theory are
summarized in terms of 14 categories of findings discussed in the article. (Locke 1996)

Locke (1996) first describe that the approach of goal setting theory is based on what
Aristotle called final causality, that is, action caused by a purpose. It accepts the
axiomatic status of consciousness and volition. It also assumes that introspective
reports provide useful and valid data for formulating psychological concepts and
measuring psychological phenomena (e.g., purpose, goal commitment, self-efficacy,
etc.). He then discussed the attributes of goals and 14 research findings:
Goal Attributes
Goals have both an internal and an external aspect. Internally, they are ideas (desired
ends); externally, they refer to the object or condition sought (0.g., a job, a sale, a certain
performance level). The idea guides action to attain the object. Two broad attributes of
goals are content (the actual object sought) and Intensity (the scope, focus, complexity
etc. of the choice process). Qualitatively, the content of a goal is whatever the person is
seeking, Quantitatively, two attributes of content: difficulty and specificity have been
studied.
14 Research Findings
1. The more difficult the goal, the greater the achievement.
2. The more specific or explicit the goal, the more precisely performance is regulated.
3. Goals that are both specific and difficult lead to the highest performance.
4. Commitment to goals is most critical when goals are specific and Difficult
5. High commitment to goals is attained when
a. the individual is convinced that the goal is important; and
b. the individual is convinced that the goal is attainable (or that, at least, progress can
be made toward it).
These are the same factors that influence goal choice. There are many
ways to convince a person that a goal is important:
▪ In most laboratory settings, it is quite sufficient to simply ask for compliance after
providing a plausible rationale for the study
▪ In work situations, the supervisor or leader can use legitimate authority to get initial
commitment.
▪ Continued commitment might require additional incentives such as supportiveness,
recognition, and rewards.
▪ Financial incentives may facilitate commitment and performance, except when
rewards are offered for attaining impossible goals; here, performance actually drops. ▪
Participation by subordinates in setting goals (that is, joint goal setting by supervisor
and subordinate) leads to higher commitment than curtly telling people what to do
with no explanation, but it does not lead to (practically significant) higher commitment
than providing a convincing rationale for an assigned goal.
▪ Self-set goals can be highly effective in gaining commitment, although they may not
always be set as high as another person would assign.
▪ Commitment can be enhanced by effective leadership.
Relevant leadership techniques include:
▪ providing and communicating an inspiring vision
▪ acting as role model for the employees,
▪ expecting outstanding performance:
▪ promoting employees who embrace the vision and dismissing those
who reject it;
▪ delegating responsibility ("ownership") for key tasks
▪ goal setting itself can be delegated for capable, responsible
employees;
▪ expressing (genuine) confidence in employee capabilities;
▪ enhancing capabilities through training;
▪ asking for commitment in public; and
▪ Self-efficacy. The term self-efficacy refers to task- specific confidence
and is a key component of Bandura's (1986) social-cognitive theory.
Bandura has shown that self efficacy can be raised by: enactive mastery,
persuasion, and role modeling--all referred to above. In organizational
settings enactive mastery can be assured by providing people with
needed experience and training and also by selecting people based on
their skills and abilities. Persuasion may include not only verbal
expressions of confidence but also giving people information regarding
what task strategies to use. The effectiveness of role modeling depends
on the attributes of the model and on the person observing the model.
6. In addition to having a direct effect on performance, self-efficacy
influences:
a. the difficulty level of the goal chosen or accepted;
b. commitment to goals;
c. the response to negative feedback or failure; and
d. the choice of task strategies.
7. Goal setting is most effective when there is feedback showing progress in
relation to the goal.
8. Goal setting (along with self-efficacy) mediates the effect of knowledge of
past performance on subsequent performance.
9. Goals affect performance by affecting the direction of nation, the degree of
effort exerted, and the persistence of action over time.
10. Goals stimulate planning in general. Often the planning quality is higher
than that which occurs without goals. When people possess task or goal-
relevant plans as a result of experience or training, they activate them
virtually automatically when confronted with a performance goal.
11. When people strive for goals on complex tasks, they are least
effective in discovering suitable task strategies if
a. they have no prior experience or training on the task,
b. there is high pressure to perform well; and
c. there is high time pressure (to perform well immediately).
12. Goals (including goal commitment), in combination with self-efficacy
mediate or partially mediate the effects of several personality traits and
incentives on performance.
13. Goal-setting and goal-related mechanisms can be trained and/or
adopted in the absence of training for the purpose of self-regulation.
14. Goals serve as standards of self-satisfaction, with harder goals
demanding higher accomplishment in order to attain self-satisfaction
than easy goals
 MEMBERS

DEXTER B. BALDISIMO JOHN MATTHEW D. BUNDA KRISTELLE MAE D. BATAICAN

VENUS B. BARNUEVO GECEL MAE T. BASIAR

THANK YOU
THANK YOU
THANK YOU