Developmental Psychology1989. Vol. 25. No. 5. 729-735Cop.docx

Developmental Psychology
1989. Vol. 25. No. 5. 729-735
Copyright 1989 by the American Psychological Association,
Inc.
O0I2-1649/89/SO0.75
Regulation of Cognitive Processes Through Perceived Self-
Efficacy
Albert Bandura
Stanford University
The articles included in the special series in this issue of
Developmental Psychology demonstrate that
perceived self-efficacy for memory functioning is an important
facet of metamemory. Self-beliefs of
efficacy can enhance or impair performance through their
effects on cognitive, affective, or motiva-
tional intervening processes. This commentary addresses a
number of issues concerning the exten-
sion of self-efficacy theory to memory functioning. These
include the following: the multidimension-
ality and measurement of perceived memory capabilities; the
veridicality of memory self-appraisal;
the efficacious exercise of personal control over memory
functioning; the psychosocial processes by
which people preserve a favorable sense of memory self-
efficacy over the life span; and strategies for
generalizing the impact of training in memory skills.
Much of the research on perceived self-efficacy has focused

on its role in the regulation of motivation, action, and affective
arousal (Bandura, 1986; 1988a, 1988b, in press). More recently,
research conducted within this conceptual framework has
sought to clarify how perceived self-efficacy affects thinking
processes, either as events of interest in their own right or as
intervening influences of other aspects of psychosocial func-
tioning. This research has begun to delineate the ways in which
self-percepts of efficacy can enhance or impair the level of cog-
nitive functioning (Bandura, in press). These cognitive effects
take various forms.
Analytic Thinking
Effective functioning rests heavily on inferences about condi-
tional relations between events that enable people to predict and
control those events that are of import to them. Discernment
of the predictive rules requires effective cognitive processing of
multidimensional information that contains ambiguities and
uncertainties. Predictive factors are usually related probabilis-
tically, rather than invariably, to future events, which leaves
some degree of uncertainty. Moreover, events are typically mul-
tidetermined. The same predictor may contribute to different
effects, and the same effect may have multiple predictors. This
introduces ambiguity as to what is likely to lead to what.
In ferreting out predictive rules, people must draw on their
preexisting knowledge to generate hypotheses about predictive
factors, to weight and integrate them into composite rules, to
test their judgments against the results of their actions, and to
remember which notions they had tested and how well they had
worked. It requires a strong sense of efficacy to remain task ori-
ented in the face of evaluative threats and judgmental failures.
Preparation of this commentary was facilitated by Public Health
Re-
search Grant MH-5162-25 from the National Institute of Mental

Health.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to
Albert
Bandura, Department of Psychology, Jordan Hall, Building 420.
Stan-
ford University, Stanford, California 94305.
People who believe strongly in their problem-solving capabili-
ties remain highly efficient in their analytic thinking in complex
decision-making situations (Bandura & Wood, 1989; Wood &
Bandura, 1989, in press). Those who are plagued by self-doubts
are erratic in their analytic thinking. Quality of analytic think-
ing, in turn, determines the level of performance accomplish-
ments.
Anticipatory Cognitive Simulations
People's perceptions of their efficacy influence the types of
anticipatory scenarios that they construct and reiterate. Those
who have a high sense of efficacy visualize success scenarios
that
provide positive guides for performance and they cognitively
rehearse good solutions to potential problems. Those who judge
themselves as inefficacious are more inclined to visualize fail-
ure scenarios and to dwell on how things will go wrong. Such
inefficacious thinking weakens motivation and undermines per-
formance. Numerous studies have shown that cognitive simula-
tions in which individuals visualize themselves executing activ-
ities skillfully enhance subsequent performance (Bandura,
1986;Corbin, 1972; Feltz& Landers, 1983;Kazdin, 1978). Per-
ceived self-efficacy and cognitive simulation affect each other
bidirectionally: A high sense of efficacy fosters cognitive con-
structions of effective actions, and cognitive reiteration of effi-
cacious courses of action strengthens self-percepts of efficacy
(Bandura & Adams. !977;Kazdin, 1979).

Cognitive Motivation
A major source of human motivation is rooted in cognitive
activity. In cognitively generated motivation, people motivate
themselves and guide their actions anticipatorily through the
exercise of forethought. They anticipate likely outcomes of pro-
spective actions, set goals for themselves, and plan courses of
action designed to realize valued futures. Future events cannot
be causes of current motivation or action. However, by
cognitive
representation in the present, conceived future events are con-
verted into current motivators and regulators of behavior. Fore-
thought embodying cognized goals is translated into incentives
729
730 ALBERT BANDURA
and action through the aid of self-regulatory mechanisms (Ban-
dura. 1988a). Personal goal setting is influenced by self-ap-
praisal of capabilities. The stronger the perceived self-efficacy,
the higher the goals that people set for themselves and the
firmer
their commitment to those goals (Bandura & Wood, 1989;
Locke, Frederick, Lee, & Bobko, 1984; Taylor, Locke, Lee, &
Gist, 1984; Wood & Bandura, in press). Challenging goals raise
the level of motivation and performance attainments (Locke,
Shaw, Saari, & Latham, 1981; Mento, Steel, &Karren, 1987).
Goals and internal standards operate largely through self-ref-
erent processes rather than regulate motivation and action di-
rectly. Goals motivate by enlisting self-evaluative involvement
in the activity. People seek self-satisfactions from fulfilling val-

ued goals and are prompted to intensify their efforts by discon-
tent with substandard performances. Perceived self-efficacy also
plays an influential role in the exercise of personal control over
motivation. It is partly on the basis of self-beliefs of efficacy
that
people choose what challenges to undertake, how much effort
to expend in the endeavor, and how long to persevere in the face
of difficulties (Bandura, 1986; 1988a). The stronger the belief
in their capabilities, the greater and more persistent are their
efforts. When they achieve substandard performances, people
who have self-doubts about their capabilities slacken their
efforts or abort their attempts prematurely, whereas those who
have a strong belief in their capabilities exert greater effort to
master the challenge (Bandura &Cervone, 1983; I986;Cervone
& Peake, 1986; Jacobs, Prentice-Dunn, & Rogers, 1984; Wein-
berg, Gould, & Jackson, 1979). Strong perseverance pays off in
performance accomplishments.
Intrusive Affective Arousal
People's beliefs in their capabilities affect how much stress
and depression they experience in threatening or taxing situa-
tions, as well as their levels of motivation. Threat is not a fixed
property of situational events. Nor does appraisal of the likeli-
hood of aversive happenings rely solely on reading external
signs
of danger or safety. Rather, threat is a relational property con-
cerning the match between perceived coping capabilities and
potentially aversive aspects of the environment.
People who believe that they can manage potential stressors
do not conjure up apprehensive cognitions and, therefore, are
not perturbed by them. But those who believe that they cannot
exercise control over stressors experience high levels of subjec-
tive distress, autonomic arousal (Bandura, Reese, & Adams,
1982), plasma catecholamine secretion (Bandura, Taylor, Wil-

liams, Mefford, & Barchas, 1985), and activation of endogenous
opioid systems (Bandura, Cioffi, Taylor, & Brouillard, 1988).
After perceived coping efficacy is strengthened to the maximal
level, coping with the previously intimidating tasks no longer
elicits differential stress reactions.
The level of affective arousal in situations involving stressors
is influenced by perceived self-efficacy in controlling dysfunc-
tional apprehensive cognitions as well as by perceived coping
efficacy. This requires exercise of control over one's own con-
sciousness. Thus, efficacious thought control plays an influen-
tial role in the regulation of cognitively generated distress. It is
not the sheer frequency of stressful or intrusive cognitions but
rather the perceived inefficacy to turn them off that is the major
source of distress (Kent & Gibbons, 1987; Ozer & Bandura,
1989; Salkovskis& Harrison, 1984).
Perceived self-inefficacy to fulfill desired goals that affect
evaluation of self-worth and to secure things that bring satisfac-
tion to one's life also create depression (Bandura, 1988a; Cu-
trona & Troutman, 1986; Holahan & Holahan, 1987a, 1987b;
Kanfer & Zeiss, 1983). Through ruminative inefficacious
thought, people depress and distress themselves and constrain
and impair their level of functioning (Bandura, 1988b, 1988c;
Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Meichenbaum, 1977; Sarason,
1975).
Analyses of the nature and function of metacognition have
been concerned almost exclusively with thoughts about cogni-
tive processes. Knowledge of one's own cognitive capabilities
is also an important facet of metacognition. Indeed, Hertzog,
Hultsch, and Dixon (1989, pp. 687-700) show that the multiple
scales from different measures of metamemory yield a higher-
order dimension of perceived self-efficacy for memory
function-

ing. Knowledge about memory functions is largely independent
of self-beliefs of memory efficacy.
The articles included in this special series extend the applica-
tion of self-efficacy theory to the cognitive domain of human
memory. Depending on their nature, the cognitive, affective,
and motivational processes activated by self-beliefs of efficacy
can enhance or impair memory performance.
Assessment of Self-Percepts of Efficacy
Self-efficacy scales usually measure people's beliefs in their
capabilities to fulfill different levels of task demands within the
psychological domain selected for study. Measurement of per-
ceived self-efficacy across a wide range of task demands identi-
fies the upper limits of people's perceptions of their capabilities
as well as gradations of perceived efficacy below that point.
The
research by Rebok and Balcerak (1989, pp. 714-721) relies on
a single self-efficacy judgment for a level of memory that was
moderately difficult for the younger adults and exceedingly
difficult for the older ones. A circumscribed measure may yield
a curtailed distribution of scores. Moreover, it would not distin-
guish between individuals who judge themselves inefficacious
to perform the most arduous memory task but differ in their
perceived efficacy for less taxing ones. Curtailed distributions
lower the magnitude of correlations. An expanded efficacy as-
sessment in which individuals judge the strength of their effi-
cacy to fulfill gradations of memory task demands would be
more sensitive to the variation in perceived memory self-effi-
cacy in any given sample than a single judgment regarding only
a very difficult undertaking.
Subjects who judged themselves inefficacious to perform the
taxing memory task of remembering 12 nouns in their exact
order were asked to judge how many words they believed they

could recall. Although this is still a single-item assessment of
perceived self-efficacy, it distinguishes between individuals
who
judge the highly difficult recall task as beyond their memory
capabilities. This more sensitive measure is the better predictor.
In their original manuscript, Rebok and Balcerak included a
complete table of intercorrelations that was excised in the revi-
sion process. The obtained correlations for the young and old
adults were virtually identical, so I averaged them by means of
SPECIAL SERIES: SELF-EFFICACY CONTROL OF
COGNITIVE PROCESSES 731
an r-to-z transformation. Perceived self-efficacy predicted sub-
sequent memory performance, r(91) = .44, p < .0001, when
self-efficacy was measured in terms of subjects' judgments of
their highest memory capability, and r(91) - . 30, p < .01, when
they judged their memory efficacy for the most taxing recall
task. Lachman, Steinberg, and Trotter (1987) similarly ob-
tained moderately high correlations between self-judged effi-
cacy and memory performance using the former measure of
efficacy.
Perceived self-efficacy retains its predictiveness when prior
level of memory performance is controlled. The partial corre-
lations for the two indices of perceived self-efficacy are,
respec-
tively, as follows: r(90) = .37, p < .001, and r(90) = .23, p <
.05.
Thus, perceived self-efficacy contributes unique variance to
memory accomplishments. It should be noted that using unad-
justed prior memory performance as a proxy for a host of possi-
ble determinants of memory other than self-efficacy most likely
overcontrols for other determinants. This is because perceived

self-efficacy contributes to prior memory performance as it
does to current performance. Thus, past performance as an in-
dex of ability confounds perceived efficacy influences, other
motivational contributors, and ability factors. Because self-
efficacy influences are autocorrelated, unadjusted control for
past performance will also remove effects that are due to self-
efficacy influences in current performance. When multiple as-
sessments are made, the overcontrol via past performance can
be avoided by removing the contribution of perceived self-
efficacy from the past performance (Wood, Bandura, & Bailey,
in press).
Development of useful tools of measurement often acceler-
ates scientific progress. Berry, West, and Dennehey (1989j;pp.
701-713) have devised a psychometrically sound set of self-
efficacy scales that accord well with guidelines from self-
efficacy
theory and methodology. They include several valuable fea-
tures. Separate self-efficacy scales are devised for different
types
of memory. The intercorrelations corroborate that the set of
scales represents a common domain but taps different dimen-
sions of memory. They measure gradations of self-efficacy
strength rather than just categorical judgments of whether one
can execute a given level of memory performance. The scales
are highly reliable and they account for a good share of the
vari-
ance in memory performance. The scale format can be easily
extended to other types of memory.
Berry and colleagues also tested whether the format in which
the scale items are presented has an effect on self-efficacy judg-
ment. The initial reference points in a sequence of items can
have an anchoring influence on self-efficacy judgments (Peake
& Cervone, in press). The authors found that a descending for-
mat, ordering the items from most to least difficult task de-

mands, tended to produce slightly higher self-efficacy
appraisals
than did an ascending or random order (the latter two did not
differ from each other). Because the ascending order of presen-
tation does not bias self-efficacy judgment, it should be the pre-
ferred format.
Active Producers Versus Passive Predictors of
Performance Accomplishments
Confusions arise when small variations in the measurement
of perceived capability are given different labels. Rebok and
Balcerak label self-judged capability for the toughest memory
task as perceived self-efficacy and, following a common
practice,
they label the self-judged upper limit of one's own memory ca-
pability as predicted memory. Berry, West, and Dennehey also
speak of efficacy judgments as performance predictions. To
label
self-efficacy judgments as simply performance predictions car-
ries the implication that self-appraisals of capability reside in
the host organism merely as predictors of future behavior that
gets realized in some nonagentive way. The organism forecasts
the future but does nothing to bring it about.
As noted earlier, self-percepts of efficacy are not simply inert
predictors of future behavior. Findings of different lines of re-
search show that people who have a high sense of perceived
self-
efficacy in a given domain think, feel, and act differently from
those who perceive themselves as inefficacious (Bandura,
1986).
People who doubt their capabilities shy away from difficult
tasks. They have low aspirations and weak commitment to the
goals that they choose to pursue. In taxing situations they dwell

on their personal deficiencies, the formidableness of the task,
and adverse consequences of failure. Such perturbing thinking
further undermines their efforts and analytic thinking by divert-
ing attention from how best to execute activities to concerns
over personal deficiencies and possible calamities. Failure
expe-
riences sap their motivation. They do not exert much cognitive
effort in processing information and decrease their efforts and
give up quickly in the face of difficulties. They are also slow
to recover their sense of efficacy following failure or setbacks.
Because they are prone to diagnose insufficient performance as
deficient aptitude, it does not require all that much failure for
them to lose faith in their capabilities. They fall easy victims to
stress and depression.
In contrast, a resilient sense of efficacy enhances sociocogni-
tive functioning in the relevant domain in many ways. People
who have high assurance in their capabilities approach difficult
tasks as challenges to be mastered rather than as threats to be
avoided. Such an affirmative orientation fosters interest and en-
grossing involvement in activities. They set themselves chal-
lenging goals and maintain strong commitment to them. They
are active cognitive processors of information and remain
highly efficient in their analytic thinking in complex decision
situations. They heighten their efforts in the face of failures or
setbacks. They ascribe failure to insufficient effort, which sup-
ports a success orientation. They quickly recover their sense of
efficacy after failures or setbacks. They approach potential
stressors or threats with assurance that they can exercise some
control over them. Such an efficacious outlook enhances the
level of cognitive functioning and performance accomplish-
ments, reduces stress, and lowers vulnerability to depression.
Indeed, in analyses of the cognitive mediators of efficacy
effects,
Berry (1987) has shown that people with efficacious self-beliefs
are active producers of good memory performances through

enlistment of attentional and cognitive resources and not sim-
ply passive predictors of their memory performances without
any intervening agentive effort. In short, they make things hap-
pen rather than just passively observe their behavioral happen-
ings.
Omnibus Versus Domain-Linked Assessments
Psychological theories have traditionally approached the as-
sessment of personal determinants of sociocognitive function-
732 ALBERT BANDURA
ing in terms of omnibus tests. Such measures include a fixed set
of items, many of which may have little relevance to the domain
of functioning being analyzed. Moreover, in an effort to serve
varied predictive purposes across diverse domains of function-
ing and age groups, the items have to be cast in a general form.
The more general the items, the greater is the burden on respon-
dents to define what is being asked of them. One cannot expect
omnibus tests to predict with high accuracy how people will
function in different domains under diverse circumstances. Per-
sonality researchers are, therefore, increasingly adopting multi-
dimensional, domain-linked measures of personal determi-
nants of sociocognitive functioning.
In comparative studies, domain-linked measures of personal
efficacy typically predict changes in functioning better than do
general measures. A good case in point is the Health Locus of
Control scale designed to measure perceived personal control
over one's health. This scale was used in the longitudinal study
by Lachman and Leff(1989, pp. 722-728) to evaluate how this
aspect of health as well as a number of medical problems influ-
ence changes in intellectual performance and perceived intel-

lectual competence. Perceived personal locus of health control
declined over the longitudinal period. Good health, as indexed
by few health problems, was accompanied by good mainte-
nance of perceived and actual intellectual competence.
Domain-linked efficacy scales have been shown to be more
predictive of changes in health behavior than perceived locus of
health control (Alagna & Reddy, 1984; Beck & Lund, 1981;
Brod & Hall, 1984; Kaplan, Atkins, & Reinsch, 1984; Walker
& Franzini, 1983). General items linked to particular activity
domains are an improvement over omnibus measures that are
disembodied from clearly defined activities and contextual fac-
tors. But ill-defined items still sacrifice explanatory and predic-
tive power even though they may be tied to a designated
domain.
Relations obtained with suboptimal measures may underesti-
mate or misrepresent the causal contribution of given factors.
Lachman and Leff acknowledge this problem in reviewing
evidence from studies showing that generalized scales fail to re-
veal any age differences where more sensitive domain-linked
scales do.
These issues of level of multidimensionality and the degree
of fit to the measures of competency also arise in the
assessment
of perceived intellectual efficacy. Lachman and Leff measure it
in terms of perceived capability to perform everyday cognitive
tasks and to learn new things. Intellectual performance is as-
sessed by vocabulary and inductive reasoning. To the extent
that the test of perceived self-efficacy measures different cogni-
tive functions than those measured by the performance test, one
would not expect self-beliefs and performance to bear much
relation to each other. We saw earlier that self-beliefs of
efficacy
predict performance when they both tap similar cognitive func-
tions. The conclusion of Lachman and Leff that influence flows

unidirectionally from performance to self-belief may well re-
flect mismatch in the cognitive functions assessed.
Long temporal disparity between self-appraisal of efficacy
and performance is another factor that may misrepresent the
relationship between these factors. Behavior is regulated by
proximal self-beliefs rather than by those held years ago, unless
they have remained unchanged in the interim. Lachman and
Leff correlated memory performance with self-beliefs of mem-
ory capabilities assessed years earlier. Because the self-corre-
lations of efficacy judgments over this period are only of
moder-
ate magnitude, the dated ones may have little bearing on the
issue of whether self-beliefs of memory capabilities affect
mem-
ory performance. The correlational findings of Rebok and Bal-
cerak, using corresponding microanalytic measures and a more
proximal assessment of perceived self-efficacy, reveal a
bidirec-
tionality of influence between self-belief of efficacy and perfor-
mance accomplishments. These findings are in accord with a
substantial body of evidence of similar reciprocal causation in
other domains of competency (Bandura, 1986).
Use of domain-linked scales does not mean that there is no
generality to perceived self-efficacy. If different classes of
activi-
ties require similar functions and subskills, one would expect
some generality in judgments of self-efficacy. Even if different
activity domains are not subserved by common subskills, some
generality of perceived self-efficacy can occur if development
of
competencies is socially structured so that the cultivation of
skills in dissimilar domains covaries. Commonality of subskills
and covariation of development will yield generality. Multido-

main measures reveal the patterning and degree of generality
of people's sense of personal efficacy. One can derive degree of
generality from multidomain scales, but one cannot extract the
patterning of perceived personal efficacy from conglomerate
omnibus tests.
Veridicality of Self-Appraisal:
Self-Aiding or Self-Limiting?
It is widely believed that misjudgment produces dysfunction.
Certainly, gross miscalculation of one's efficacy can get one
into
trouble. But optimistic self-appraisals of capability that are not
unduly disparate from what is possible can be advantageous,
whereas veridical judgments can be self-limiting. When people
err in their self-appraisal, they tend to overestimate their capa-
bilities. The studies under discussion similarly report that older
adults tend to overestimate their memory capabilities.
The functional value of veridical self-appraisal depends on
the nature of the endeavor. In activities where the margins of
error are narrow and missteps can produce costly or injurious
consequences, personal well-being is best served by highly
accu-
rate self-appraisal. Thus, for example, people who seriously
misjudge their swimming capabilities in tackling heavy surf
may not survive for more prudent encores.
In nonhazardous activities, optimistic self-appraisals are a
benefit rather than a cognitive failing to be eradicated. If self-
efficacy beliefs always reflected only what people can do rou-
tinely, people would rarely fail but neither would they mount
the extra effort needed to surpass their ordinary performances.
Indeed, a growing body of evidence reveals that human accom-
plishments and positive well-being require an optimistic sense
of personal efficacy (Bandura, 1986; 1989a). This is because or-

dinary social realities are usually strewn with difficulties. They
are full of impediments, adversities, failures, setbacks, frustra-
tions, and inequities. The acquisition of knowledge and compe-
tencies usually requires perseverant effort in the face of diffi-
culties. Therefore, it takes a resilient sense of self-efficacy to
override the numerous dissuading impediments to significant
accomplishments. Optimistic self-appraisals of capability raise
aspirations and motivation in ways that enable people to get the
most out of their talents.
Efficacy-Activated Intervening Processes
We saw earlier that self-beliefs of efficacy can exert their
effects on performance through cognitive, affective, or motiva-
tional processes. Much of the discussion of how perceived self-
efficacy influences memory performance centers on its motiva-
tional effects. Human memory is an active constructive process
in which information is semantically elaborated, transformed,
and reorganized into meaning memory codes that aid recall.
People who view memory as a cognitive skill that they can im-
prove are likely to exert the effort needed to convert the experi-
ences into recallable symbolic forms. Consistent with this ex-
pectation, the more strongly older adults believed in their mem-
ory capabilities, the more time they devoted to processing
memory tasks cognitively (Berry, 1987). Higher processing
effort, in turn, produced better memory performance. In the
analysis of the causal structure, perceived self-efficacy affects
actual memory performance both directly and indirectly
through level of cognitive effort. Those who regard memory as
an inherent capacity that declines with biological aging have

little reason to try to exercise control over their memory func-
tioning. They are quick to read instances of normal forgetting
as indicants of declining cognitive capacity. The more they dis-
believe their memory capabilities, the poorer use they make of
their cognitive capabilities. The negative cultural stereotyping
of the elderly can foster a sense of declining cognitive
capability.
In the elderly, the undermining effects of perceived self-in-
efficacy may also be affectively mediated. Major life changes in
later years are brought about by retirement, relocation, physical
infirmities, and loss of friends or spouses. Such changes place
demands on interpersonal skills to cultivate new social relation-
ships that can contribute to positive functioning and personal
well-being. Perceived social inefficacy increases the vulnerabil-
ity of older people to stress and depression, both directly and
indirectly, by impeding development of social supports that
serve as a buffer against life stressors (Holahan & Holahan,
1987a, 1987b). Growing physical infirmities and perceived in-
ability to fulfill valued performance standards that were achiev-
able at an earlier time can also be highly depressing.
Perceived self-efficacy and depressive mood affect each other
bidirectionally. Two biasing processes have been postulated on
how mood can influence self-efficacy judgment. According to
the affective-priming theory proposed by Bower, past successes
and failures are stored as memories along with their affect
(Bower, 1983). The set of memories provides the data base on
which judgmental processes operate. Mood activates, through
an associative mood network, the subset of memories congruent
with it. Thus, negative mood activates the failure subset,
whereas positive mood activates the success subset. The spread
of activation from the emotion node makes mood-congruent
memories salient. Self-appraisal of efficacy is enhanced by se-
lective recall of past successes, but diminished by recall of fail-
ures. In the cognitive-priming view, specific successes or

failures
that induce the affect also produce cognitions that cue thoughts
of other past successes and failures. This view places greater
emphasis on the thought content of the inducing event than on
the aroused affect as the primer of other positive or negative
thoughts. Cognitive availability biases self-efficacy judgment.
Kavanagh and Bower (1985) have shown that, indeed, induced
positive mood enhances perceived self-efficacy, whereas de-
spondent mood diminishes it. The impact of induced mood on
self-efficacy judgment is widely generalized across diverse do-
mains of functioning. There is some evidence to indicate that
mood-inducing events exert their influence on self-efficacy
judgment more through affective than through cognitive prim-
ing (Kavanagh, 1983). Depressive rumination impairs ability to
initiate and sustain adaptive activities.
The findings of West, Berry, and Powlishta (1989) lend some
support to the view that perceived self-efficacy can operate on
memory functioning through an affective modality. Depression
was accompanied by perceived memory inefficacy, which, in
turn, was associated with deficient memory performances. The
decline in perceived self-efficacy and intellectual performance
associated with impaired health reported by Lachman and Leff
may have arisen through the depression modality rather than
through a physical modality
Perceived Self-Efficacy and the Utilization
of Cognitive Skills
Much of the research on enhancement of sociocognitive
functioning has centered on the knowledge and skills needed
to regulate one's own behavior. There is a difference between
possessing skills and being able to use them effectively and
con-
sistently under varied circumstances. Development of self-regu-

latory capabilities requires instilling a resilient sense of
efficacy
as well as imparting knowledge and skills. If people are not
fully
convinced of their personal efficacy they rapidly abandon the
skills they have been taught when they fail to get quick results
or it requires bothersome effort.
Rebok and Balcerak find that mnemonic training, in which
people learn to use the method ofloci as a memory aid for word
memory, improved the memory performances of older adults
but did not raise their beliefs in their memory efficacy. This
probably explains why only a minority of them (39%) used the
memory aid that they had been taught during generalization
tests of memory for digits. It would seem pointless to use a
method that one believed did not improve one's capabilities.
Among the younger adults who raised their perceived self-effi-
cacy for word memory after undergoing the mnemonic train-
ing, 62% of them spontaneously used the loci aid for digit mem-
ory and outperformed the older adults in this regard. The en-
hanced sense of personal efficacy had a generalized effect. The
stronger the perceived self-efficacy of younger adults for word
memory, the higher were their performance attainments in digit
memory.
Training in cognitive skills can produce more generalized and
lasting effects if it raises self-beliefs of efficacy as well as
imparts
skills. Each of the ways of building self-efficacy can be used to
develop a generalized sense of efficacy needed to override im-
pediments to the utilization of established skills (Bandura,
1986). These efficacy-inducing approaches rely on four princi-
pal sources of efficacy information. These include (a) direct
mastery experiences, (b) observing people similar to oneself
succeed by perseverant effort, (c) social persuasion that one
pos-

734 ALBERT BANDURA
sesses the capabilities to succeed, and (d) judgments of bodily
states and various forms of somatic information.
With regard to performance mastery, a generalized sense of
efficacy is built through explicit demonstration trials in the ex-
ercise of control over progressively more challenging tasks. For
example, individuals could be given efficacy demonstration tri-
als in which they perform memory tasks both with and without
mnemonic aids and compare the results. Evidence of better
memory with mnemonic aids provides individuals with persua-
sive demonstrations that they can exercise some control over
their memory by enlisting cognitive strategies. Efficacy validat-
ing trials not only serve as efficacy builders, but also put to
trial
the value of the techniques being taught.
Modeling influences can be used to demonstrate how others
have been able to improve their memory by habitual use of
mnemonic aids. Persuasory influences that instill self-beliefs
that are conducive to optimal utilization of skills can also con-
tribute to staying power. Successful efficacy builders do more
than convey positive appraisals. In addition to raising people's
beliefs in their capabilities, they structure mastery tasks for
them in ways that bring success and avoid placing them prema-
turely in situations where they are likely to fail.
Maintaining Perceived Self-Efficacy Over the Life Span
Lachman and Leff report that younger adults display better
memory than older adults. However, although older adults differ
widely, they do not exhibit any decline on the average in either

perceived intellectual efficacy or intellectual performance over
a 5-year period. Longitudinal studies with multiple cohorts sim-
ilarly reveal that older adults manage to preserve a favorable
sense of personal efficacy well into the later years (Lachman,
1986). This is an interesting finding provided it does not reflect
insensitivity of the global measurement of personal efficacy.
There are several processes by which older adults can pre-
serve a high sense of self-efficacy when they are outperformed
by younger cohorts. Longitudinal studies reveal no universal or
general decline in intellectual abilities until the very advanced
years, but, in cross-sectional comparisons of different age
groups, the young surpass the old (Baltes & Labouvie, 1973;
Schaie, 1974). The major share of age differences in
intelligence
seems to be due to differences in educational experiences across
generations rather than to biological aging. It is not so much
that the old have declined in intelligence but that the young
have
had the benefit of richer intellectual experiences enabling them
to function at a higher level. If older adults do not experience a
decline in actual capability and avoid social comparison with
younger cohorts, they can achieve an enduring sense of personal
efficacy through favorable self-comparison over time. Even if
they experience a decline in ability, they can sustain their sense
of efficacy by ignoring younger cohorts and appraising their ca-
pabilities through social comparison with their agemates. By
maintaining or improving their relative standing among age-
mates, they can preserve their sense of self-efficacy in the face
of changing capabilities (Frey & Ruble, 1989). People also have
some leeway in self-appraisal in how heavily they weight differ-
ent domains or facets of functioning. If they remain good prob-
lem solvers and bring a broadened perspective to bear on judg-
ments regarding important matters, they will not necessarily
downgrade their sense of personal efficacy because they process

information a bit slower or have experienced some decline in
physical stamina. A balanced self-appraisal can help sustain a
favorable sense of personal efficacy.
References
Alagna, S. W., & Reddy, D. M. (1984). Predictors of proficient
tech-
nique and successful lesion detection in breast self-examination.
Health Psychology, 3, 113-127.
Baltesy P. B., & Labouvie, G. V. (1973). Adult development of
intellec-
tual performance: Description, explanation, and modification. In
C.
Eisdorfer & M. P. Lawton (Eds.), The psychology of adult
development
and aging (pp. 157-219). Washington, DC: American
Psychological
Association.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A
social
cognitive theory, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1988a). Self-regulation of motivation and action
through
goal systems. In V. Hamilton, G. H. Bower, & N. H. Frijda
(Eds.),
Cognitive perspectives on emotion and motivation (pp. 37-61).
Dor-
drecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
Bandura, A. (1988b). Perceived self-efficacy: Exercise of
control
through self-belief. In J. P. Dauwalder, M. Perrez, & V. Hobi

(Eds.),
Annual series of European research in behavior therapy (Vol. 2,
pp.
27-59). Lisse, Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Bandura, A. (1988c). Self-efficacy conception of anxiety.
Anxiety Re-
search, I, 77-98.
Bandura, A. (1989a). Reflections on nonability determinants of
compe-
tence. In J. Kolligian, Jr., & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Competence
con-
sidered: Perceptions of competence and incompetence across the
life-
span. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Bandura, A. (in press). Self-efficacy mechanism in
physiological activa-
tion and health-promoting behavior In J. Madden IV, S.
Matthysse,
& J. Barchas (Eds.), Adaptation, learning and affect. New York:
Raven
Press.
Bandura, A., & Adams, N. E. (1977). Analysis of self-efficacy
theory of
behavioral change. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 1, 287-
308.
Bandura, A., & Cervone, D. (1983). Self-evaluative and self-
efficacy
mechanisms governing the motivational effects of goal systems.
Jour-
nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 1017-1028.

Bandura, A., & Cervone, D. (1986). Differential engagement of
self-
reactive influences in cognitive motivation. Organizational
Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, 38, 92-113.
Bandura, A., Cioffi, D., Taylor, C. B., & Brouillard, M. E.
(1988). Per-
ceived self-efficacy in coping with cognitive stressors and
opioid acti-
vation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 479-
488.
Bandura, A., Reese, L., & Adams, N. E. (1982). Microanalysis
of action
and fear arousal as a function of differential levels of perceived
self-
efficacy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 5-
21.
Bandura, A., Taylor, C. B., Williams, S. L., Mefford, I. N.( &
Barchas,
J. D. (1985). Catecholamine secretion as a function of perceived
cop-
ing self-efficacy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 53,
406-414.
Bandura, A., & Wood, R. E. (1989). Effect of perceived
controllability
and performance standards on self-regulation of complex
decision
making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 805-
814.
Beck, K. H., & Lund, A. K. (1981). The effects of health threat

serious-
ness and personal efficacy upon intentions and behavior.
Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 11, 401-415.
Berry, J.M. (1987, September). A self-efficacy model of
memory perfor-
mance. Paper presented at the 95th annual convention of the
Ameri-
can Psychological Association, New "Kirk.
Berry, J. M., West, R. L., & Dennehey, D. M. (1989).
Reliability and
validity of the memory self-efficacy questionnaire.
Developmental
Psychology, 25, 701-713.
Bower, G. H. (1983). Affect and cognition. Philosophical
Transactions
of the Royal Society of London (Series B), 302, 387-402.
Brod, M. I., & Hall, S. M. (1984). Joiners and nonjoiners in
smoking
treatment: A comparison of psychosocial variables. Addictive
Behav-
iors, 9, 217-221.
Cervone, D., & Peake, P. K. (1986). Anchoring, efficacy, and
action:
The influence of judgmental heuristics on self-efficacy
judgments and

behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50,
492-501.
Corbin, C. {1972). Mental practice. In W. Morgan (Ed.),
Ergogenic aids
and muscular performance(pp. 93-118). New York: Academic
Press.
Cutrona, C. E., & Troutman, B. R. (1986). Social support, infant
tem-
perament, and parenting self-efficacy: A mediational model of
post-
partum depression. Child Development, 57, 1507-1518.
Feltz, D. L., & Landers, D. M. (1983). Effects of mental
practice on
motor skill learning and performance: A meta-analysis. Journal
of
Sport Psychology, 5, 25-57.
Frey, K. S., & Ruble, D. N, (1989). Strategies for comparative
evalua-
tion: Maintaining a sense of competence across the lifespan. In
J.
Kolligian, Jr. & R. J. Steinberg (Eds.), Competence considered:
Per-
ceptions of competence and incompetence across the lifespan.
New
Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Hertzog, C , Hultsch, D. E, & Dixon, R. A. (1989). Evidence for
the
convergent validity of two self-report metamemory
questionnaires.
Developmental Psychology, 25, 687-700.

Holahan, C. K., & Holahan, C J. (1987a). Self-efficacy, social
support,
and depression in aging: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of
Gerontol-
ogy, 42, 65-68.
Holahan, C. K., & Holahan, C J. (1987b). Life stress, hassles,
and self-
efficacy in aging: A replication and extension. Journal of
Applied So-
cial Psychology, 17, 574-592.
Jacobs, B., Prentice-Dunn, S., & Rogers, R. W. (1984).
Understanding
persistence: An interface of control theory and self-efficacy
theory.
Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 5, 333-347.
Kanfer, R., & Zeiss, A. M. (1983). Depression, interpersonal
standard-
setting, and judgments of self-efficacy. Journal of Abnormal
Psychol-
ogy, 92.319-329.
Kaplan, R. M., Atkins, C. J., & Reinsch, S. (1984). Specific
efficacy
expectations mediate exercise compliance in patients with
COPD.
Health Psychology, 3, 223-242.
Kavanagh, D. J. (1983). Mood and self-efficacy. Unpublished
doctoral
dissertation, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
Kavanagh, D. J., & Bower, G. H. (1985). Mood and self-
efficacy: Impact

of joy and sadness on perceived capabilities. Cognitive Therapy
and
Research, 9, 507-525.
Kazdin, A. E. (1978). Covert modeling—Therapeutic
application of
imagined rehearsal. In J. L. Singer & K. S. Pope (Eds.), The
power of
human imagination: New methods in psychotherapy. Emotions,
per-
sonality, and psychotherapy (pp. 255-278). New York: Plenum.
Kazdin, A. E. (1979). Imagery elaboration and self-efficacy in
the covert
modeling treatment of unassertive behavior. Journal of
Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 47, 725-733.
Kent, G., & Gibbons, R. (1987). Self-efficacy and the control of
anxious
cognitions. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental
Psychia-
try, 18, 33-40.
Lachman, M. E. (1986). Personal control in later life: Stability,
change,
and cognitive correlates. In M. M. Baltes & P. B. Baltes (Eds.),
The
psychology of control and aging (pp. 207-236). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erl-
baum.
Lachman, M. E., & Leff, R. (1989). Perceived control and
intellectual
functioning in the elderly: A 5-year longitudinal study.

Developmental
Psychology, 25, 722-728.
Lachman, M. E., Steinberg, E. S., & Trotter, S. D. (1987).
Effects of
control beliefs and attributions on memory self-assessments and
per-
f o r m a n c e . Psychology and Aging, 2, 2 6 6 - 2 7 r l .
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and
coping.
New York: Springer,
Locke, E. A., Frederick, E., Lee, C , & Bobko, P. (1984). Effect
of self-
efficacy, goals, and task strategies on task performance. Journal
of
Applied Psychology, 69, 241-251.
Locke, E. A., Shaw, K. N., Saari, L. M., & Latham, G. P.
(1981). Goal
setting and task performance: 1969-1980. Psychological
Bulletin. 90,
125-152.
Meichenbaum, D. H. (1977). Cognitive-behavior modification:
An inte-
grative approach. New "York: Plenum.
Memo, A. J., Steel, R. P., & Karren, R. J. (1987). A meta-
analytic study
of the effects of goal setting on task performance: 1966-1984.
Organi-
zational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 39, 52-83.
Ozer, E., & Bandura, A. (1989). Mechanisms governing

empowerment
effects: A self-efficacy analysis. Manuscript submitted for
publica-
tion.
Peake, P. K.f & Cervone, D. (in press). Sequence anchoring and
self-
efficacy: Primacy effects in the consideration of possibilities.
Social
Cognition.
Rebok, G. W., & Balcerak, L. J. (1989). Memory self-efficacy
and per-
formance differences in young and old adults: The effect of
mne-
monic training. Developmental Psychology, 25, 714-721.
Salkovskis, P. M., & Harrison, J. (1984). Abnormal and normal
obses-
sions-A replication. Behaviour Research and Therapy. '22, 549-
552.
Sarason, 1. G. (1975). Anxiety and self-preoccupation^ In I. G.
Sarason
& D. C. Spielberger (Eds.), Stress and anxiety (Vol. 2, pp. 27-
44).
Washington, DC: Hemisphere.
Schaie, K. W. (1974). Translations in gerontology—From lab to
life:
Intellectual functioning. American Psycfiologist, 29, 802-807.
Taylor, M. S., Locke, E. AM Lee, C , &Gist, M. E. (1984). Type
A behav-
ior and faculty research productivity: What are the mechanisms?
Or-

ganizational Behavior and Human Performance, 34, 402-418.
Walker, W. B., & Franzini, L. R. (1983, April). Self efficacy
and low-risk
aversive group treatments for smoking cessation. Paper
presented at
the annual convention of the Western Psychological
Association, San
Francisco.
Weinberg, R. S., Gould, D., & Jackson, A. (1979). Expectations
and
performance: An empirical test of Bandura's self-efficacy
theory.
Journal of Sport Psychology, 1, 320-331.
West, R. L., Berry, J. M., & Powlishta, K. K. (1989). Self-
efficacy and
prediction of memory task performance. Manuscript submitted
for
publication.
Wood, R. E., & Bandura, A. (1989). Impact of conceptions of
ability on
self-regulatory mechanisms and complex decision making.
Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 407-415.
Wood, R. E., & Bandura, A. (in press). Social cognitive theory
of organi-
zational management. Academy of Management Review.
Wood, R. E., Bandura, A., & Bailey. T, {in press). Mechanisms
govern-
ing organizational performance in complex decision-making
envi-

ronments. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes.
Received February 10, 1989
Accepted February 17, 1989

Developmental Psychology1989. Vol. 25. No. 5. 729-735Cop.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Developmental Psychology1989. Vol. 25. No. 5. 729-735Cop.docx

Similar to Developmental Psychology1989. Vol. 25. No. 5. 729-735Cop.docx (20)

More from duketjoy27252

More from duketjoy27252 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Developmental Psychology1989. Vol. 25. No. 5. 729-735Cop.docx