Cited by 15,975Education, Achievement, and GiftednessBehavioral Health and InterventionsSocial and Intergroup Psychology

Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency

Bandura, Albert·1982·American Psychologist

Abstract

This article addresses the centrality of the self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. Self-per- cepts of efficacy influence thought patterns, actions, and emotional arousal. In causal tests the higher the level of induced self-efficacy, the higher the perfor- mance accomplishments and the lower the emotional arousal. Different lines of research are reviewed, show- ing that the self-efficacy mechanism may have wide explanatory power. Perceived self-efficacy helps to ac- count for such diverse phenomena as changes in coping behavior produced by different modes of influence, level of physiological stress reactions, self-regulation of refractory behavior, resignation and despondency to failure experiences, self-debilitating effects of proxy control and illusory inefficaciousness, achievement strivings, growth of intrinsic interest, and career pur- suits. The influential role of perceived collective effi- cacy in social change is analyzed, as are the social con- ditions conducive to development of collective inefficacy. Psychological theorizing and research tend to cen- ter on issues concerning either acquisition of knowledge or execution of response patterns. As a result the processes governing the interrelation- ship between knowledge and action have been largely neglected (Newell, 1978). Some of the re- cent efforts to bridge this gap have been directed at the biomechanics problem—how efferent com- mands of action plans guide the production of ap- propriate response patterns (Stelmach, 1976,1978). Others have approached the matter in terms of algorithmic knowledge, which furnishes guides for executing action sequences (Greeno, 1973; Newell, 1973). ,

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0003-066x.37.2.122

Cites

90 of 90 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bandura, A.
Affiliations
Stanford University (US)
Corresponding author
Bandura, Albert
Venue
American Psychologist
Published
1982-02
Volume
37
Issue
2
Pages
122-147
ISSN
  • 0003-066X (ISSN-L)
  • 1935-990X
OpenAlex
W1982210139
Cited by
15,975
References
90
Citations by year
2026: 517 · 2025: 588 · 2024: 594 · 2023: 725 · 2022: 722 · 2021: 842 · 2020: 869 · 2019: 760 · 2018: 594 · 2017: 617 · 2016: 636 · 2015: 731 · 2014: 644 · 2013: 610 · 2012: 591
FWCI
149.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
American Psychologist (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Education, Achievement, and Giftedness
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
Keywords
self-efficacy, human agency, emotional arousal, mastery experiences, coping styles, self-regulation, achievement striving, intrinsic interest, collective efficacy, social change, knowledge and action, algorithmic knowledge

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review