Annurev

P1: FXY
December 11, 2000 22:35 Annual Reviews AR120-01
Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2001. 52:1–26

Copyright
c 2001 by Annual Reviews. All rights reserved
SOCIAL COGNITIVE THEORY: An Agentic

Perspective
Albert Bandura
Department of Psychology, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305-2131;
e-mail: [email protected]
Access provided by James Madison University on 02/20/18. For personal use only.
Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2001.52:1-26. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Key Words biosocial coevolution, collective efficacy, emergent properties,

human agency, self-efficacy
■ Abstract The capacity to exercise control over the nature and quality of one’s
life is the essence of humanness. Human agency is characterized by a number of
core features that operate through phenomenal and functional consciousness. These
include the temporal extension of agency through intentionality and forethought, self-
regulation by self-reactive influence, and self-reflectiveness about one’s capabilities,
quality of functioning, and the meaning and purpose of one’s life pursuits. Personal
agency operates within a broad network of sociostructural influences. In these agentic
transactions, people are producers as well as products of social systems. Social cogni-
tive theory distinguishes among three modes of agency: direct personal agency, proxy
agency that relies on others to act on one’s behest to secure desired outcomes, and
collective agency exercised through socially coordinative and interdependent effort.
Growing transnational embeddedness and interdependence are placing a premium on
collective efficacy to exercise control over personal destinies and national life.
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
PARADIGM SHIFTS IN PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORIZING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
PHYSICALISTIC THEORY OF HUMAN AGENCY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
CORE FEATURES OF HUMAN AGENCY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Intentionality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Forethought . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Self-Reactiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Self-Reflectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
AGENTIC MANAGEMENT OF FORTUITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
MODES OF HUMAN AGENCY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
UNDERMINERS OF COLLECTIVE EFFICACY
IN CHANGING SOCIETIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
EMERGING PRIMACY OF HUMAN AGENCY
IN BIOSOCIAL COEVOLUTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
0066-4308/01/0201-0001$14.00 1
P1: FXY
2 BANDURA
INTRODUCTION
To be an agent is to intentionally make things happen by one’s actions. Agency em-

bodies the endowments, belief systems, self-regulatory capabilities and distributed
structures and functions through which personal influence exercised, rather than
residing as a discrete entity in a particular place. The core features of agency en-
able people to play a part in their self-development, adaptation, and self-renewal
with changing times. Before presenting the agentic perspective of social cognitive
theory, the paradigm shifts that the field of psychology has undergone in its short
history warrant a brief discussion. In these theoretical transformations, the core
metaphors have changed but for the most part, the theories grant humans little, if
any, agentic capabilities.
PARADIGM SHIFTS IN PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORIZING
Much of the early psychological theorizing was founded on behavioristic principles

that embraced an input-output model linked by an internal conduit that makes
behavior possible but exerts no influence of its own on behavior. In this view,
human behavior was shaped and controlled automatically and mechanically by
environmental stimuli. This line of theorizing was eventually put out of vogue by
the advent of the computer, which likened the mind to a biological calculator. This
model filled the internal conduit with a lot of representational and computational
operations created by smart and inventive thinkers.
If computers can perform cognitive operations that solve problems, regula-
tive thought could no longer be denied to humans. The input-output model was
supplanted by an input-linear throughput-output model. The mind as digital com-
puter became the conceptual model for the times. Although the mindless organism
became a more cognitive one, it was still devoid of consciousness and agentic capa-
bilities. For decades, the reigning computer metaphor of human functioning was a
linear computational system in which information is fed through a central proces-
sor that cranks out solutions according to preordained rules. The architecture of the
linear computer at the time dictated the conceptual model of human functioning.
The linear model was, in turn, supplanted by more dynamically organized
computational models that perform multiple operations simultaneously and inter-
actively to mimic better how the human brain works. In this model, environmental
input activates a multifaceted dynamic throughput that produces the output. These
dynamic models include multilevel neural networks with intentional functions
lodged in a subpersonal executive network operating without any consciousness
via lower subsystems. Sensory organs deliver up information to a neural network
acting as the mental machinery that does the construing, planning, motivating, and
regulating nonconsciously. Harré (1983) notes in his analysis of computationalism
that it is not people but their componentized subpersonal parts that are orchestrating
the courses of action. The personal level involves phenomenal consciousness and
P1: FXY
AGENTIC PERSPECTIVE 3
the purposive use of information and self-regulative means to make desired things
happen.
Consciousness is the very substance of mental life that not only makes life
personally manageable but worth living. A functional consciousness involves
purposive accessing and deliberative processing of information for selecting, con-
structing, regulating, and evaluating courses of action. This is achieved through
intentional mobilization and productive use of semantic and pragmatic representa-
tions of activities, goals, and other future events. In his discerning book on expe-
rienced cognition, Carlson (1997) underscores the central role that consciousness
plays in the cognitive regulation of action and the flow of mental events. There
have been some attempts to reduce consciousness to an epiphenomenal by-product
of activities at the subpersonal level, to an executive subsystem in the informa-

tion processing machinery, or to an attentional aspect of information processing.
Like the legendary ponderous elephant that goes unnoticed, in these subpersonal
accounts of consciousness there is no experiencing person conceiving of ends
and acting purposefully to attain them. However, these reductive accounts remain
conceptually problematic because they omit prime features of humanness such
as subjectivity, deliberative self-guidance, and reflective self-reactiveness. For
reasons to be given shortly, consciousness cannot be reduced to a nonfunctional
by-product of the output of a mental process realized mechanically at nonconscious
lower levels. Why would an epiphenomenal consciousness that can do nothing
evolve and endure as a reigning psychic environment in people’s lives? Without a
phenomenal and functional consciousness people are essentially higher-level au-
tomatons undergoing actions devoid of any subjectivity or conscious control. Nor
do such beings possess a meaningful phenomenal life or a continuing self-identity
derived from how they live their life and reflect upon it.
Green & Vervaeke (1996) observed that originally many connectionists and
computationalists regarded their conceptual models as approximations of cogni-
tive activities. More recently, however, some have become eliminative materialists,
likening cognitive factors to the phlogiston of yesteryear. In this view, people do
not act on beliefs, goals, aspirations, and expectations. Rather, activation of their
network structure at a subpersonal level makes them do things. In a critique of
eliminativism, Greenwood (1992) notes that cognitions are contentful psycho-
logical factors whose meaning does not depend on the explanatory propositions
in which they figure. Phlogiston neither had any evidential basis nor explana-
tory or predictive value. In contrast, cognitive factors do quite well in predicting
human behavior and guiding effective interventions. To make their way success-
fully through a complex world full of challenges and hazards, people have to make
good judgments about their capabilities, anticipate the probable effects of different
events and courses of action, size up sociostructural opportunities and constraints,
and regulate their behavior accordingly. These belief systems are a working model
of the world that enables people to achieve desired outcomes and avoid untoward
ones. Forethoughtful, generative, and reflective capabilities are, therefore, vital
for survival and human progress. Agentic factors that are explanatory, predictive,
P1: FXY
4 BANDURA
and of demonstrated functional value may be translatable and modeled in another

theoretical language but not eliminatable (Rottschaefer 1985, 1991).
PHYSICALISTIC THEORY OF HUMAN AGENCY

As has already been noted, people are not just onlooking hosts of internal mecha-
nisms orchestrated by environmental events. They are agents of experiences rather
than simply undergoers of experiences. The sensory, motor, and cerebral systems
are tools people use to accomplish the tasks and goals that give meaning, direction,
and satisfaction to their lives (Bandura 1997, Harré & Gillet 1994).
Research on brain development underscores the influential role that agentic

action plays in shaping the neuronal and functional structure of the brain (Diamond
1988, Kolb & Whishaw 1998). It is not just exposure to stimulation, but agentic
action in exploring, manipulating, and influencing the environment that counts.
By regulating their motivation and activities, people produce the experiences that
form the functional neurobiological substrate of symbolic, social, psychomotor,
and other skills. The nature of these experiences is, of course, heavily dependent
on the types of social and physical environments people select and construct.
An agentic perspective fosters lines of research that provide new insights into
the social construction of the functional structure of the human brain (Eisenberg
1995). This is a realm of inquiry in which psychology can make fundamental
unique contributions to the biopsychosocial understanding of human development,
adaptation, and change.
Social cognitive theory subscribes to a model of emergent interactive agency
(Bandura 1986, 1999a). Thoughts are not disembodied, immaterial entities that
exist apart from neural events. Cognitive processes are emergent brain activities
that exert determinative influence. Emergent properties differ qualitatively from
their constituent elements and therefore are not reducible to them. To use Bunge’s
(1977) analogy, the unique emergent properties of water, such as fluidity, viscosity,
and transparency are not simply the aggregate properties of its microcomponents
of oxygen and hydrogen. Through their interactive effects they are transformed
into new phenomena.
One must distinguish between the physical basis of thought and its deliberative
construction and functional use. The human mind is generative, creative, proac-
tive, and reflective, not just reactive. The dignified burial of the dualistic Descartes
forces us to address the formidable explanatory challenge for a physicalistic the-
ory of human agency and a nondualistic cognitivism. How do people operate as
thinkers of the thoughts that exert determinative influence on their actions? What
are the functional circuitries of forethought, planful proaction, aspiration, self-
appraisal, and self-reflection? Even more important, how are they intentionally
recruited?
Cognitive agents regulate their actions by cognitive downward causation as
well as undergo upward activation by sensory stimulation (Sperry 1993). People
P1: FXY
can designedly conceive unique events and different novel courses of action and
choose to execute one of them. Under the indefinite prompt to concoct something
new, for example, one can deliberatively construct a whimsically novel scenario
of a graceful hippopotamus attired in a chartreuse tuxedo hang gliding over lunar
craters while singing the mad scene from the opera Lucia di Lammermoor. In-
tentionality and agency raise the fundamental question of how people bring about
activities over which they command personal control that activate the subpersonal
neurophysiological events for realizing particular intentions and aspirations. Thus,
in acting on the well-grounded belief that exercise enhances health, individuals
get themselves to perform physical activities that produce health promotive bio-
logical events without observing or knowing how the activated events work at the
subpersonal level. The health outcome is the product of both agent causality and
event causality, operating at different phases of the sequence.
Our psychological discipline is proceeding down two major divergent routes.
One line of theorizing seeks to clarify the basic mechanisms governing human
functioning. This line of inquiry centers heavily on microanalyses of the inner
workings of the mind in processing, representing, retrieving, and using the coded
information to manage various task demands, and locating where the brain activity
for these events occurs. These cognitive processes are generally studied disembod-
ied from interpersonal life, purposeful pursuits, and self-reflectiveness. People are
sentient, purposive beings. Faced with prescribed task demands, they act mindfully
to make desired things happen rather than simply undergo happenings in which
situational forces activate their subpersonal structures that generate solutions. In
experimental situations, participants try to figure out what is wanted of them;
they construct hypotheses and reflectively test their adequacy by evaluating the
results of their actions; they set personal goals and otherwise motivate themselves
to perform in ways that please or impress others or bring self-satisfaction; when
they run into trouble they engage in self-enabling or self-debilitating self-talk;
if they construe their failures as presenting surmountable challenges they redouble
their efforts, but they drive themselves to despondency if they read their failures
as indicants of personal deficiencies; if they believe they are being exploited, co-
erced, disrespected, or manipulated, they respond apathetically, oppositionally,
or hostilely. These motivational and other self-regulative factors that govern the
manner and level of personal engagement in prescribed activities are simply taken
for granted in cognitive science rather than included in causal structures (Carlson
1997).
The second line of theorizing centers on the macroanalytic workings of so-
cially situated factors in human development, adaptation, and change. Within this
theoretical framework, human functioning is analyzed as socially interdependent,
richly contextualized, and conditionally orchestrated within the dynamics of var-
ious societal subsystems and their complex interplay. The mechanisms linking
sociostructural factors to action in this macroanalytic approach are left largely un-
explained, however. A comprehensive theory must merge the analytic dualism by
integrating personal and social foci of causation within a unified causal structure.
P1: FXY
6 BANDURA
In the paths of influence, sociostructural influences operate through psychological

mechanisms to produce behavioral effects. We shall return later to this issue and
to the bidirectionality of influence between social structure and personal agency.
CORE FEATURES OF HUMAN AGENCY
The core features of personal agency address the issue of what it means to be
human. The main agentic features are discussed in the sections that follow.
Intentionality
Agency refers to acts done intentionally. For example, a person who smashed
a vase in an antique shop upon being tripped by another shopper would not be
considered the agent of the event. Human transactions, of course, involve situa-
tional inducements, but they do not operate as determinate forces. Individuals can
choose to behave accommodatively or, through the exercise of self-influence, to
behave otherwise. An intention is a representation of a future course of action to
be performed. It is not simply an expectation or prediction of future actions but a
proactive commitment to bringing them about. Intentions and actions are different
aspects of a functional relation separated in time. It is, therefore, meaningful to
speak of intentions grounded in self-motivators affecting the likelihood of actions
at a future point in time.
Planning agency can be used to produce different outcomes. Outcomes are
not the characteristics of agentive acts; they are the consequences of them. As
Davidson (1971) explains, actions intended to serve a certain purpose can cause
quite different things to happen. He cites the example of the melancholic Hamlet,
who intentionally stabbed the man behind a tapestry believing it to be the king,
only to discover, much to his horror, that he had killed Polonius. The killing of
the hidden person was intentional, but the wrong victim was done in. Some of
the actions performed in the belief that they will bring desired outcomes actually
produce outcomes that were neither intended nor wanted. For example, it is not
uncommon for individuals to contribute to their own misery through intentional
transgressive acts spawned by gross miscalculation of consequences. Some social
policies and practices originally designed with well-meaning intent turn out bad
because their harmful effects were unforeseen. In short, the power to originate
actions for given purposes is the key feature of personal agency. Whether the ex-
ercise of that agency has beneficial or detrimental effects, or produces unintended
consequences, is another matter.
Intentions center on plans of action. Future-directed plans are rarely speci-
fied in full detail at the outset. It would require omniscience to anticipate every
situational detail. Moreover, turning visualized futurities into reality requires
proximal or present-directed intentions that guide and keep one moving ahead
(Bandura 1991b). In the functionalist approach to intentional agency enunciated
by Bratman (1999), initial partial intentions are filled in and adjusted, revised,
P1: FXY
refined or even reconsidered in the face of new information during execution of

an intention. We shall see shortly, however, that realization of forward look-
ing plans requires more than an intentional state because it is not causally suffi-
cient by itself. Other self-regulatory aspects of agency enter into the successful
implementation of intentions. To add a further functional dimension to inten-
tion, most human pursuits involve other participating agents. Such joint activi-
ties require commitment to a shared intention and coordination of interdependent
plans of action. The challenge in collaborative activities is to meld diverse self-
interests in the service of common goals and intentions collectively pursued in
concert.
Forethought
The temporal extension of agency goes beyond forward-directed planning. The
future time perspective manifests itself in many different ways. People set goals
for themselves, anticipate the likely consequences of prospective actions, and
select and create courses of action likely to produce desired outcomes and avoid
detrimental ones (Bandura 1991b, Feather 1982, Locke & Latham 1990). Through
the exercise of forethought, people motivate themselves and guide their actions in
anticipation of future events. When projected over a long time course on matters
of value, a forethoughtful perspective provides direction, coherence, and meaning
to one’s life. As people progress in their life course they continue to plan ahead,
reorder their priorities, and structure their lives accordingly.
Future events cannot, of course, be causes of current motivation and action
because they have no actual existence. However, by being represented cognitively
in the present, foreseeable future events are converted into current motivators and
regulators of behavior. In this form of anticipatory self-guidance, behavior is
motivated and directed by projected goals and anticipated outcomes rather than
being pulled by an unrealized future state.
People construct outcome expectations from observed conditional relations be-
tween environmental events in the world around them, and the outcomes given
actions produce (Bandura 1986). The ability to bring anticipated outcomes to bear
on current activities promotes foresightful behavior. It enables people to tran-
scend the dictates of their immediate environment and to shape and regulate the
present to fit a desired future. In regulating their behavior by outcome expecta-
tions, people adopt courses of action that are likely to produce positive outcomes
and generally discard those that bring unrewarding or punishing outcomes. How-
ever, anticipated material and social outcomes are not the only kind of incentives
that influence human behavior, as a crude functionalism would suggest. If actions
were performed only on behalf of anticipated external rewards and punishments,
people would behave like weather vanes, constantly shifting direction to con-
form to whatever influence happened to impinge upon them at the moment. In
actuality, people display considerable self-direction in the face of competing in-
fluences. After they adopt personal standards, people regulate their behavior by
P1: FXY
8 BANDURA
self-evaluative outcomes, which may augment or override the influence of external

outcomes.
Self-Reactiveness
An agent has to be not only a planner and forethinker, but a motivator and self-
regulator as well. Having adopted an intention and an action plan, one cannot
simply sit back and wait for the appropriate performances to appear. Agency
thus involves not only the deliberative ability to make choices and action plans,
but the ability to give shape to appropriate courses of action and to motivate and
regulate their execution. This multifaceted self-directedness operates through self-
regulatory processes that link thought to action. The self-regulation of motivation,

affect, and action is governed by a set of self-referent subfunctions. These include
self-monitoring, performance self-guidance via personal standards, and corrective
self-reactions (Bandura 1986, 1991b).
Monitoring one’s pattern of behavior and the cognitive and environmental con-
ditions under which it occurs is the first step toward doing something to affect
it. Actions give rise to self-reactive influence through performance comparison
with personal goals and standards. Goals, rooted in a value system and a sense of
personal identity, invest activities with meaning and purpose. Goals motivate by
enlisting self-evaluative engagement in activities rather than directly. By making
self-evaluation conditional on matching personal standards, people give direction
to their pursuits and create self-incentives to sustain their efforts for goal attain-
ment. They do things that give them self-satisfaction and a sense of pride and
self-worth, and refrain from behaving in ways that give rise to self-dissatisfaction,
self-devaluation, and self-censure.
Goals do not automatically activate the self-influences that govern motivation
and action. Evaluative self-engagement through goal setting is affected by the
characteristics of goals, namely, their specificity, level of challenge and tempo-
ral proximity. General goals are too indefinite and noncommitting to serve as
guides and incentives. Strong interest and engrossment in activities is sparked
by challenging goals. The self-regulative effectiveness of goals depends greatly
on how far into the future they are projected. Proximal subgoals mobilize self-
influences and direct what one does in the here and now. Distal goals alone set
the general course of pursuits but are too far removed in time to provide effective
incentives and guides for present action, given inviting competing activities at
hand. Progress toward valued futures is best achieved by hierarchically structured
goal systems combining distal aspirations with proximal self-guidance. Goals em-
bodying self-engaging properties serve as powerful motivators of action (Bandura
1991b, Locke & Latham 1990).
Moral agency forms an important part of self-directedness. Psychological the-
ories of morality focus heavily on moral reasoning to the neglect of moral conduct.
A complete theory of moral agency must link moral knowledge and reasoning to
moral conduct. This requires an agentic theory of morality rather than one confined
mainly to cognitions about morality. Moral reasoning is translated into actions
P1: FXY
through self-regulatory mechanisms, which include moral judgment of the right-

ness or wrongness of conduct evaluated against personal standards and situational
circumstances, and self-sanctions by which moral agency is exercised (Bandura
1991a).
In competency development and aspirational pursuits, the personal standards of
merit are progressively raised as knowledge and competencies are expanded and
challenges are met. In social and moral conduct, the self-regulatory standards are
more stable. People do not change from week to week what they regard as right
or wrong or good or bad. After people adopt a standard of morality, their negative
self-sanctions for actions that violate their personal standards, and their positive
self-sanctions for conduct faithful to their moral standards serve as the regulatory
influences (Bandura 1991b). The capacity for self-sanctions gives meaning to

moral agency. The anticipatory evaluative self-reactions provide the motivational
as well as the cognitive regulators of moral conduct. Self-sanctions keep conduct
in line with personal standards. Individuals with a strong communal ethic will act
to further the welfare of others even at costs to their self-interest. In the face of
situational pressures to behave inhumanely, people can choose to behave other-
wise by exerting counteracting self-influence. It is not uncommon for individuals
to invest their self-worth so strongly in certain convictions that they will submit
to harsh and punitive treatment rather than cede to what they regard as unjust or
immoral.
The exercise of moral agency has dual aspects—inhibitive and proactive
(Bandura 1999b). The inhibitive form is manifested in the power to refrain from
behaving inhumanely. The proactive form of morality is expressed in the power
to behave humanely.
Moral standards do not function as fixed internal regulators of conduct, how-
ever. Self-regulatory mechanisms do not operate unless they are enlisted in given
activities. There are many psychosocial maneuvers by which moral self-reactions
can be selectively disengaged from inhumane conduct (Bandura 1991b). Several
of these mechanisms of moral disengagement center on the cognitive reconstrual
of the conduct itself. This is achieved by making harmful conduct personally and
socially acceptable by portraying it as serving socially worthy or moral purposes,
masking it in sanitizing euphemistic language, and creating exonerating compar-
ison with worse inhumanities. Other mechanisms reduce the sense of personal
agency for harmful conduct through diffusion and displacement of responsibility.
Moral self-sanctions are also weakened or disengaged at the outcome locus of
the control process by ignoring, minimizing, or disputing the injurious effects of
one’s conduct. The final set of practices disengage restraining self-sanctions by
dehumanizing the victims, attributing bestial qualities to them, and blaming them
for bringing the suffering on themselves. High moral disengagers experience low
guilt over harmful conduct, are less prosocial, and are more prone to vengeful
rumination (Bandura et al 1996b). Through selective disengagement of moral
agency, people who otherwise behave righteously and considerately perpetrate
transgressions and inhumanities in other spheres of their lives (Bandura 1999b,
Zimbardo 1995).
P1: FXY
10 BANDURA
Self-Reflectiveness
People are not only agents of action but self-examiners of their own functioning.
The metacognitive capability to reflect upon oneself and the adequacy of one’s
thoughts and actions is another distinctly core human feature of agency. Through
reflective self-consciousness, people evaluate their motivation, values, and the
meaning of their life pursuits. It is at this higher level of self-reflectiveness that
individuals address conflicts in motivational inducements and choose to act in favor
of one over another. Verification of the soundness of one’s thinking also relies
heavily on self-reflective means (Bandura 1986). In this metacognitive activity,
people judge the correctness of their predictive and operative thinking against
the outcomes of their actions, the effects that other people’s actions produce,
what others believe, deductions from established knowledge and what necessarily
follows from it.
Among the mechanisms of personal agency, none is more central or pervasive
than people’s beliefs in their capability to exercise some measure of control over
their own functioning and over environmental events (Bandura 1997). Efficacy
beliefs are the foundation of human agency. Unless people believe they can pro-
duce desired results and forestall detrimental ones by their actions, they have little
incentive to act or to persevere in the face of difficulties. Whatever other factors
may operate as guides and motivators, they are rooted in the core belief that one
has the power to produce effects by one’s actions. Meta-analyses attest to the
influential role played by efficacy beliefs in human functioning (Holden 1991,
Holden et al 1990, Multon et al 1991, Stajkovic & Luthans 1998).
Perceived self-efficacy occupies a pivotal role in the causal structure of social
cognitive theory because efficacy beliefs affect adaptation and change not only in
their own right, but through their impact on other determinants (Bandura 1997,
Maddux 1995; Schwarzer 1992). Such beliefs influence whether people think pes-
simistically or optimistically and in ways that are self-enhancing or self-hindering.
Efficacy beliefs play a central role in the self-regulation of motivation through goal
challenges and outcome expectations. It is partly on the basis of efficacy beliefs
that people choose what challenges to undertake, how much effort to expend in the
endeavor, how long to persevere in the face of obstacles and failures, and whether
failures are motivating or demoralizing. The likelihood that people will act on the
outcomes they expect prospective performances to produce depends on their be-
liefs about whether or not they can produce those performances. A strong sense of
coping efficacy reduces vulnerability to stress and depression in taxing situations
and strengthens resiliency to adversity.
Efficacy beliefs also play a key role in shaping the courses lives take by influenc-
ing the types of activities and environments people choose to get into. Any factor
that influences choice behavior can profoundly affect the direction of personal
development. This is because the social influences operating in selected envi-
ronments continue to promote certain competencies, values, and interests long
after the decisional determinant has rendered its inaugurating effect. Thus, by
P1: FXY
choosing and shaping their environments, people can have a hand in what they
become.
The rapid pace of informational, social, and technological change is placing
a premium on personal efficacy for self-development and self-renewal through-
out the life course. In the past, students’ educational development was largely
determined by the schools to which they were assigned. Nowadays, the Internet
provides vast opportunities for students to control their own learning. They now
have the best libraries, museums, laboratories, and instructors at their fingertips,
unrestricted by time and place. Good self-regulators expand their knowledge and
cognitive competencies; poor self-regulators fall behind (Zimmerman 1990).
Self-regulation is also becoming a key factor in occupational life. In the past,
employees learned a given trade and performed it much the same way and in the
same organization throughout their lifetime. With the fast pace of change, knowl-
edge and technical skills are quickly outmoded unless they are updated to fit the
new technologies. In the modern workplace, workers have to take charge of their
self-development for a variety of positions and careers over the full course of their
worklife. They have to cultivate multiple competencies to meet the ever-changing
occupational demands and roles. Collective agentic adaptability applies at the
organizational level as well as the workforce level. Organizations have to be fast
learners and continuously innovative to survive and prosper under rapidly chang-
ing technologies and global marketplaces. They face the paradox of preparing for
change at the height of success. Slow changers become big losers.
Health illustrates self-regulation in another important sphere of life. In recent
years, there has been a major change in the conception of health from a disease
model to a health model. Human health is heavily influenced by lifestyle habits
and environmental conditions. This enables people to exercise some measure
of control over their health status. Indeed, through self-management of health
habits people reduce major health risks and live healthier and more productive
lives (Bandura 1997). If the huge health benefits of these few lifestyle habits were
put into a pill, it would be declared a spectacular breakthrough in the field of
medicine.
AGENTIC MANAGEMENT OF FORTUITY

There is much that people do designedly to exercise some measure of control over
their self-development and life circumstances, but there is also a lot of fortuity in
the courses lives take. Indeed, some of the most important determinants of life
paths occur through the most trivial of circumstances. People are often inaugurated
into new developmental trajectories, marital partnerships, occupational careers, or
untoward life paths through fortuitous circumstances. Consider the influence of
fortuitous events in the formation of marital partnerships. A flight delayed by an
unexpected storm creates a fortuitous encounter by two people who find themselves
seated next to each other at the airport waiting for the weather to clear. This chance
P1: FXY
12 BANDURA
happening eventuates in a marriage, geographic relocation, and a shift in career

trajectories, none of which would have occurred if the original flight had not been
grounded by a sudden storm (Krantz 1998). A book editor enters a lecture hall as
it was rapidly filling up, for a talk on the “Psychology of Chance Encounters and
Life Paths.” He seizes an empty chair near the entrance. Some months later, he
marries the woman he happened to sit next to. With only a momentary change in
entry, seating constellations would have altered, and their lives would have taken
quite different courses. A marital partnership was formed fortuitously at a talk
devoted to fortuitous determinants of life paths (Bandura 1982)!
A fortuitous event in socially mediated happenstances is defined as an unin-
tended meeting of persons unfamiliar with each other. Although the separate chains
of events in a chance encounter have their own determinants, their intersection oc-
curs fortuitously rather than by design (Nagel 1961). It is not that a fortuitous event
is uncaused but, rather, there is a lot of randomness to the determining conditions
of its intersection. Of the myriad fortuitous elements encountered in everyday life,
many of them touch people only lightly, others leave more lasting effects, and
still others thrust people into new life trajectories. The power of most fortuitous
influences lies not so much in the properties of the events themselves, but in the
constellation of transactional influences they set in motion (Bandura 1982, 1998).
On the personal side, people’s attributes, belief systems, interests, and compe-
tencies influence whether or not a given chance encounter gets converted into a
lasting relationship. On the social side, the impact of fortuitous encounters partly
depends on the holding and molding power of the social milieus into which people
are fortuitously inaugurated.
Fortuity does not mean uncontrollability of its effects. There are ways people
can capitalize on the fortuitous character of life. They can make chance happen by
pursuing an active life that increases the level and type of fortuitous encounters they
will experience. Chance favors the inquisitive and venturesome who go places, do
things, and explore new activities (Austin 1978). People also make chance work
for them by cultivating their interests, enabling self-beliefs and competencies.
These personal resources enable them to make the most of opportunities that arise
unexpectedly from time to time. Pasteur (1854) put it well when he noted that
“chance favors only the prepared mind.” Self-development gives people a greater
hand in shaping their destiny in the life paths they travel. These various proactive
activities illustrate the agentic management of fortuity.
Fortuitous factors receive little notice in causal analyses of developmental tra-
jectories, but they figure prominently in prescriptions for realizing valued futures
and safeguarding against detrimental ones (Bandura 1995, 1997; Hamburg 1992;
Masten et al 1990; Rutter 1990). On the self-development side, the efforts center
on cultivating personal resources that enable individuals to exploit promising fortu-
ities. On the safeguarding side, individuals are helped to expand the self-regulative
capabilities that enable them to resist fortuitous social traps leading down detri-
mental paths, and to extricate themselves from such predicaments should they
become enmeshed in them.
P1: FXY
MODES OF HUMAN AGENCY
Theorizing and research on human agency has been essentially confined to personal
agency exercised individually. However, this is not the only way in which people
bring their influence to bear on events that affect how they live their lives. Social
cognitive theory distinguishes among three different modes of human agency:
personal, proxy, and collective.
The preceding analyses centered on the nature of direct personal agency and
the cognitive, motivational, affective, and choice processes through which it is
exercised to produce given effects. In many spheres of functioning, people do not
have direct control over the social conditions and institutional practices that affect
their everyday lives. Under these circumstances, they seek their well-being, secu-
rity, and valued outcomes through the exercise of proxy agency. In this socially
mediated mode of agency, people try by one means or another to get those who
have access to resources or expertise or who wield influence and power to act at
their behest to secure the outcomes they desire. No one has the time, energy, and
resources to master every realm of everyday life. Successful functioning neces-
sarily involves a blend of reliance on proxy agency in some areas of functioning
to free time and effort to manage directly other aspects of one’s life (Baltes 1996,
Brandtstädter 1992). For example, children turn to parents, marital partners to
spouses, and citizens to their legislative representatives to act for them. Proxy
agency relies heavily on perceived social efficacy for enlisting the mediative
efforts of others.
People also turn to proxy control in areas in which they can exert direct influence
when they have not developed the means to do so, they believe others can do it
better, or they do not want to saddle themselves with the burdensome aspects that
direct control entails. Personal control is neither an inherent drive nor universally
desired, as is commonly claimed. There is an onerous side to direct personal
control that can dull the appetite for it. The exercise of effective control requires
mastery of knowledge and skills attainable only through long hours of arduous
work. Moreover, maintaining proficiency under the ever-changing conditions of
life demands continued investment of time, effort, and resources in self-renewal.
In addition to the hard work of continual self-development, the exercise of per-
sonal control often carries heavy responsibilities, stressors, and risks. People are
not especially eager to shoulder the burdens of responsibility. All too often, they
surrender control to intermediaries in activities over which they can command
direct influence. They do so to free themselves of the performance demands and
onerous responsibilities that personal control entails. Proxy agency can be used in
ways that promote self-development or impede the cultivation of personal compe-
tencies. In the latter case, part of the price of proxy agency is a vulnerable security
that rests on the competence, power, and favors of others.
People do not live their lives in isolation. Many of the things they seek are
achievable only through socially interdependent effort. Hence, they have to work
in coordination with others to secure what they cannot accomplish on their own.
P1: FXY
14 BANDURA
Social cognitive theory extends the conception of human agency to collective

agency (Bandura 1997). People’s shared belief in their collective power to pro-
duce desired results is a key ingredient of collective agency. Group attainments are
the product not only of the shared intentions, knowledge, and skills of its members,
but also of the interactive, coordinated, and synergistic dynamics of their transac-
tions. Because the collective performance of a social system involves transactional
dynamics, perceived collective efficacy is an emergent group-level property, not
simply the sum of the efficacy beliefs of individual members. However, there is
no emergent entity that operates independently of the beliefs and actions of the
individuals who make up a social system. It is people acting conjointly on a shared
belief, not a disembodied group mind that is doing the cognizing, aspiring, motivat-
ing, and regulating. Beliefs of collective efficacy serve functions similar to those
of personal efficacy beliefs and operate through similar processes (Bandura 1997).
Evidence from diverse lines of research attests to the impact of perceived col-
lective efficacy on group functioning (Bandura 2000). Some of these studies have
assessed the effects of perceived collective efficacy instilled experimentally to dif-
ferential levels. Other studies have examined the effects of naturally developed
beliefs of collective efficacy on the functioning of diverse social systems, including
educational systems, business organizations, athletic teams, combat teams, urban
neighborhoods, and political action groups. The findings taken as a whole show
that the stronger the perceived collective efficacy, the higher the groups’ aspirations
and motivational investment in their undertakings, the stronger their staying power
in the face of impediments and setbacks, the higher their morale and resilience to
stressors, and the greater their performance accomplishments.
Theorizing about human agency and collectivities is replete with contentious du-
alisms that social cognitive theory rejects. These dualities include personal agency
versus social structure, self-centered agency versus communality, and individu-
alism verses collectivism. The agency-sociostructural duality pits psychological
theories and sociostructural theories as rival conceptions of human behavior or as
representing different levels and temporal proximity of causation. Human func-
tioning is rooted in social systems. Therefore, personal agency operates within a
broad network of sociostructural influences. For the most part, social structures
represent authorized systems of rules, social practices, and sanctions designed to
regulate human affairs. These sociostructural functions are carried out by human
beings occupying authorized roles (Giddens 1984).
Within the rule structures of social systems, there is a lot of personal varia-
tion in their interpretation, enforcement, adoption, circumvention, and even active
opposition (Burns & Dietz 2000). These transactions do not involve a duality be-
tween a reified social structure disembodied from people and personal agency,
but a dynamic interplay between individuals and those who preside over the
institutionalized operations of social systems. Social cognitive theory explains
human functioning in terms of triadic reciprocal causation (Bandura 1986). In this
model of reciprocal causality, internal personal factors in the form of cognitive,
affective, and biological events, behavioral patterns, and environmental influences
P1: FXY
all operate as interacting determinants that influence one another bidirectionally.

The environment is not a monolithic entity. Social cognitive theory distinguishes
between three types of environmental structures (Bandura 1997). They include the
imposed environment, selected environment, and constructed environment. These
different environmental structures represent gradations of changeability requiring
the exercise of differing scope and focus of personal agency.
In social cognitive theory, sociostructural factors operate through psychological
mechanisms of the self system to produce behavioral effects. Thus, for example,
economic conditions, socioeconomic status, and educational and family struc-
tures affect behavior largely through their impact on people’s aspirations, sense of
efficacy, personal standards, affective states, and other self-regulatory influences,
rather than directly (Baldwin et al 1989; Bandura 1993; Bandura et al 1996a,

2000a; Elder & Ardelt 1992). Nor can sociostructural and psychological deter-
minants be dichotomized neatly into remote and proximate influences. Poverty,
indexed as low socioeconomic status, is not a matter of multilayered or distal cau-
sation. Lacking the money to provide for the subsistence of one’s family impinges
pervasively on everyday life in a very proximal way. Multicausality involves code-
termination of behavior by different sources of influence, not causal dependencies
between levels.
The self system is not merely a conduit for sociostructural influences. Although
the self is socially constituted, by exercising self-influence human agents operate
generatively and proactively, not just reactively, to shape the character of their so-
cial systems. In these agentic transactions, people are producers as well as products
of social systems. Personal agency and social structure operate interdependently.
Social structures are created by human activity, and sociostructural practices, in
turn, impose constraints and provide enabling resources and opportunity structures
for personal development and functioning.
Another disputable duality inappropriately equates self-efficacy with self-
centered individualism feeding selfishness, and then pits it against communal
attachments and civic responsibility. A sense of efficacy does not necessarily
exalt the self or spawn an individualistic lifestyle, identity, or morality that slights
collective welfare. Through unwavering exercise of commanding self-efficacy,
Gandhi mobilized a massive collective force that brought about major sociopo-
litical changes. He lived ascetically, not self-indulgently. If belief in the power
to produce results is put in the service of relational goals and beneficial social
purposes, it fosters a communal life rather than eroding it. Indeed, developmental
studies show that a high sense of efficacy promotes a prosocial orientation charac-
terized by cooperativeness, helpfulness, and sharing, with a vested interest in each
other’s welfare (Bandura et al 1996a, Bandura et al 1999, 2000b).
Another dualistic antithesis inappropriately equates self-efficacy with individ-
ualism and pits it against collectivism at a cultural level (Schooler 1990). Cultures
are not static monolithic entities, as the stereotypic portrayals would lead one to
believe. These global cultural classifications mask intracultural diversity as well
as the many commonalities among people of different cultural backgrounds. Both
P1: FXY
16 BANDURA
individualistic and collectivistic sociocultural systems come in a variety of forms

(Kim et al 1994). There is substantial generational and socioeconomic hetero-
geneity in communality among individuals in different cultural systems, and even
greater intraindividual variation across social relationships with family members,
friends, and colleagues (Matsumoto et al 1996). Moreover, people express their
cultural orientations conditionally rather than invariantly, behaving communally
under some incentive structures and individualistically under others (Yamagishi
1988). Bicultural contrasts, in which individuals from a single collectivistic locale
are compared on global indices to individuals from a single individualistic one,
can spawn a lot of misleading generalizations.
If people are to pool their resources and work together successfully, the members
of a group have to perform their roles and coordinated activities with a high sense
of efficacy. One cannot achieve an efficacious collectivity with members who
approach life consumed by nagging self-doubts about their ability to succeed and
their staying power in the face of difficulties. Personal efficacy is valued, not
because of reverence for individualism, but because a strong sense of efficacy is
vital for successful functioning regardless of whether it is achieved individually or
by group members working together. Indeed, a strong sense of personal efficacy to
manage one’s life circumstances and to have a hand in effecting societal changes
contributes substantially to perceived collective efficacy (Fernández-Ballesteros
et al 2000).
Cross-cultural research attests to the general functional value of efficacy beliefs.
Perceived personal efficacy contributes to productive functioning by members of
collectivistic cultures just as it does to functioning by people raised in individ-
ualistic cultures (Earley 1993, 1994). However, cultural embeddedness shapes
the ways in which efficacy beliefs are developed, the purposes to which they are
put, and the sociostructural arrangements through which they are best exercised.
People from individualistic cultures feel most efficacious and perform best under
an individually oriented system, whereas those from collectivistic cultures judge
themselves most efficacious and work most productively under a group-oriented
system. A low sense of coping efficacy is as stressful in collectivisitic cultures as
in individualistic ones (Matsui & Onglatco 1991).
There are collectivists in individualistic cultures and individualists in collec-
tivistic cultures. Regardless of cultural background, people achieve the greatest
personal efficacy and productivity when their psychological orientation is congru-
ent with the structure of the social system (Earley 1994). Both at the societal and
individual level of analysis, a strong perceived efficacy fosters high group effort
and performance attainments.
Cultures are no longer insular. Transnational interdependencies and global eco-
nomic forces are weakening social and cultural normative systems, restructuring
national economies and shaping the political and social life of societies (Keohane
1993, Keohane & Nye 1977). Social bonds and communal commitments that
lack marketability are especially vulnerable to erosion by global market forces
unfettered by social obligation. Because of extensive global interconnectedness,
P1: FXY
what happens economically and politically in one part of the world can affect the
welfare of vast populations elsewhere. Moreover, advanced telecommunications
technologies are disseminating ideas, values and styles of behavior transnationally
at an unprecedented rate. The symbolic environment feeding off communication
satellites is altering national cultures and homogenizing collective consciousness.
With further development of the cyberworld, people will be even more heavily em-
bedded in global symbolic environments. In addition, mass migrations of people
are changing cultural landscapes. This growing ethnic diversity accords functional
value to bicultural efficacy to navigate the demands of both one’s ethnic subculture
and that of the larger society.
These new realities call for broadening the scope of cross-cultural analyses
beyond the focus on the social forces operating within the boundaries of given so-
cieties to the forces impinging upon them from abroad. With growing international
embeddedness and interdependence of societies, and enmeshment in the Internet
symbolic culture, the issues of interest center on how national and global forces in-
teract to shape the nature of cultural life. As globalization reaches ever deeper into
people’s lives, a strong sense of collective efficacy to make transnational systems
work for them becomes critical to furthering their common interests.
UNDERMINERS OF COLLECTIVE EFFICACY

IN CHANGING SOCIETIES
The revolutionary advances in electronic technologies have transformed the na-
ture, reach, and loci of human influence. These new social realities provide vast
opportunities for people to bring their influence to bear on their personal devel-
opment and to shape their social future. However, many of the contemporary
conditions of life undermine the development and maintenance of collective effi-
cacy. Distal transnational influences have wide-ranging consequential local effects
on people’s lives. These transnational forces are hard to disentangle, let alone con-
trol. They challenge the efficacy of governmental systems to exert a determining
influence on their own economic and national life. As the need for efficacious
collective civic action grows, so does the sense of collective powerlessness. Un-
der the new realities of growing transnational control, nation states increase their
controlling leverage by merging into larger regional units such as the European
Union. However, these regional marriages do not come without a price. Paradox-
ically, to gain international control, nations have to negotiate reciprocal pacts that
require some loss of national autonomy and changes in traditional ways of life
(Keohane 1993).
Everyday life is increasingly regulated by complex technologies that most
people neither understand nor believe they can do much to influence. The very
technologies they create to control their life environment paradoxically can
become a constraining force that, in turn, controls how they think and behave. The
social machinery of society is no less challenging. The beneficiaries of existing
P1: FXY
18 BANDURA
sociostructural practices wield their influence to maintain their vested interests.

Long delays between action and noticeable results further discourage efforts at
socially significant changes. In the metaphoric words of John Gardner, “Getting
things done socially is no sport for the short-winded.”
Social efforts to change lives for the better require merging diverse self-interests
in support of common core values and goals. Recent years have witnessed growing
social fragmentation into separate interest groups, each flexing its own factional
efficacy. Pluralism is taking the form of militant factionalism. As a result, people
are exercising greater factional influence but achieving less collectively because
of mutual immobilization. In addition, mass migration can further contribute to
social fragmentation. Societies are thus becoming more diverse and harder to unite
around a national vision and purpose.

The magnitude of human problems also undermines perceived efficacy to find
effective solutions for them. Worldwide problems of growing magnitude instill
a sense of paralysis that there is little people can do to reduce such problems.
Global effects are the products of local actions. The strategy of “Think globally,
act locally” is an effort to restore in people a sense of efficacy that they can make a
difference. Macrosocial applications of sociocognitive principles via the electronic
media illustrate how small collective efforts can have substantial impact on such
urgent global problems as soaring population growth (Bandura 1997, Singhal &
Rogers 1999).
EMERGING PRIMACY OF HUMAN AGENCY

IN BIOSOCIAL COEVOLUTION
There is growing unease about progressive divestiture of different aspects of psy-
chology to biology. Biological determinants of human behavior are being widely
heralded, and psychosocial dynamics are being downgraded for neurodynamics.
It is feared that as we give away more and more psychology to disciplines lower
down on the food chain, there will be no core psychological discipline left. Dis-
ciplinary fragmentation, dispersion, and absorption in neuroscience, we are told,
may be our discipline’s destiny. Contrary to the proclamations of the divestitive
oracles, psychology is the one discipline that uniquely encompasses the complex
interplay between intrapersonal, biological, interpersonal, and sociostructural de-
terminants of human functioning. Psychology is, therefore, best suited to advance
understanding of the integrated biopsychosocial nature of humans and how they
manage and shape the everyday world around them. It is ironic that an integrative
core discipline, which deals with the whole person acting in and on environments,
should consider fractionating and farming out subpersonal parts to other disci-
plines. The field of psychology should be articulating a broad vision of human
beings, not a reductive fragmentary one.
The divestitive line of thinking is fueled by conceptual reductionism, nature-
nurture analytic dualism, and one-sided evolutionism. As previously noted, mental
P1: FXY
events are brain activities, but physicality does not imply reduction of psychology
to biology. Knowing how the biological machinery works tells one little about
how to orchestrate that machinery for diverse purposes. To use an analogy, the
“psychosocial software” is not reducible to the “biological hardware.” Each is
governed by its own set of principles that must be studied in their own right.
Much of psychology is concerned with discovering principles about how to
structure environments to promote given psychosocial changes and levels of func-
tioning. This exogenous subject matter does not have a counterpart in neurobiolog-
ical theory and, hence, psychological laws are not derivable from it. For example,
knowledge of the locality and brain circuitry subserving learning can say little
about how best to devise conditions of learning in terms of level of abstractness,
novelty, and challenge; how to provide incentives to get people to attend to, pro-
cess, and organize relevant information; in what modes to present information; and
whether learning is better achieved independently, cooperatively, or competitively.
The optimal conditions must be specified by psychological principles.
Mapping the activation of the neuronal circuitry subserving Martin Luther
King’s “I Have a Dream” speech would tell us little about its powerful socially
inspirational nature, the agentic deliberative effort that went into its creation, and
the civic-minded passion that energized its origination and public declaration. Nor
will analyses at the molecular, cellular, and biochemical levels explain these agen-
tic activities. There is little at the neuronal level that can tell us how to develop
efficacious parents, teachers, executives, or social reformers.
Psychological principles cannot violate the neurophysiological capabilities of
the systems that subserve them. However, the psychological principles need to be
pursued in their own right. Were one to embark on the slippery slope of reduc-
tionism, the journey would traverse biology and chemistry and eventually end in
atomic subparticles. Because of emergent properties across levels of complexity,
neither the intermediate locales nor the final stop in atomic subparticles supply the
psychological laws of human behavior.
The biologizing of psychology, which lately has become highly fashionable,
is also being promoted by uncritical adoption of one-sided evolutionism. Not
to be outdone, the geneticization of human behavior is being promoted more
fervently by psychological evolutionists than by biological evolutionists (Buss
& Schmitt 1993, Bussey & Bandura 1999). In these analyses, human behavior
is readily attributed to determinative ancestral programming and universalized
traits. Biological evolutionists underscore the diversifying selection pressures for
adaptiveness of different types of ecological milieus (Dobzhansky 1972, Fausto-
Sterling 1992, Gould 1987). Socially constructed milieus differ markedly so no
single mode of social adaptation fits all situations.
Ancestral origin of bodily structures and biological potentialities and the deter-
minants governing contemporary behavior and social practices are quite different
matters. Because evolved potentialities can serve diverse purposes, ancestral origin
dictates neither current social function nor a singular sociostructural arrangement.
All too often, the multicausality of human behavior is misleadingly framed in
P1: FXY
20 BANDURA
terms of partitioning behavioral variance into percent nature and percent nurture.
This analytic dualism is mistaken for several reasons: It disregards the intricate
interdependence of nature and nurture. Moreover, socially constructed nurture has
a hand in shaping human nature.
Social cognitive theory acknowledges the influential role of evolved factors
in human adaptation and change, but it rejects one-sided evolutionism in which
evolved biology shapes behavior but the selection pressures of social and techno-
logical innovations on biological evolution get ignored. In the bidirectional view
of evolutionary processes, environmental pressures fostered changes in biologi-
cal structures and upright posture conducive to the development and use of tools.
These endowments enabled an organism to manipulate, alter, and construct new
environmental conditions. Environmental innovations of increasing complexity, in

turn, created new selection pressures for the evolution of cognitive capacities and
specialized biological systems for functional consciousness, thought, language,
and symbolic communication.
Human evolution provides bodily structures and biological potentialities, not
behavioral dictates. Psychosocial influences operate through these biological re-
sources to fashion adaptive forms of behavior. Having evolved, the advanced
biological capacities can be used to create diverse cultures—aggressive, pacific,
egalitarian, or autocratic. Gould (1987) builds a strong case that biology sets con-
straints that vary in nature, degree, and strength in different activity domains, but
in most spheres of human functioning biology permits a broad range of cultural
possibilities. He argues cogently that evidence favors a potentialist view over a
determinist view. In this insightful analysis, the major explanatory battle is not
between nature and nurture as commonly framed, but whether nature operates as
a determinist or as a potentialist. For example, tall individuals have the potential
to become successful basketball players. But tallness does not ordain basketball
pursuits. I seriously doubt that the genetic make-up of the Nazi Germans who
committed unprecedented barbarity is really different from the genetic make-up
of peaceful Swiss residing in the German canton of Switzerland. People possess
the biological potential for aggression, but the answer to the cultural variation in
aggressiveness lies more in ideology than in biology.
Gould makes the further interesting point that biological determinism is often
clothed in the language of interactionism to make it more palatable. The bidi-
rectional biology-culture coevolution is acknowledged, but then evolved biology
is portrayed as the ruling force. The cultural side of this two-way causation, in
which genetic make-up is shaped by the adaptational pressures of socially con-
structed environments, receives little notice. Biological determinism is also often
clothed in the language of changeability: The malleability of evolved dispositions
is acknowledged, but determinative potency is then ascribed to them with cau-
tion against efforts to change existing sociostructural arrangements and practices
allegedly ruled by the evolved dispositions. Such efforts are regarded as not only
doomed to failure but socially harmful because they go against the rule of nature
(Wilson 1998).
P1: FXY
In Gould’s view (1987), biology has culture on a “loose leash,” whereas Wilson
argues that, biology has culture on a “tight leash.” How human nature is construed
determines the extent to which obstructions to sociostructural changes are sought in
genetic mismatch or in the counterforce of entrenched vested interests. Biological
determinists favor the rule of nature, whereas biological potentialists, who regard
human nature as permitting a range of possibilities, give greater weight to the rule
of distributed opportunities, privileges, and power. Thus, a biological determinist
view highlights inherent constraints and limitations. A biological potentialist view
of human nature emphasizes human possibilities.
There is much genetic homogeneity across cultures but vast diversity in be-
lief systems and conduct. Given this variability, genetic coding that characterizes
humans underscores the power of the environment orchestrated through agentic

action. Aggression, which is allegedly genetically programmed as a biological
universal, is a good case in point. Wide intercultural diversity challenges the view
that people are inherently aggressive. There are fighting cultures that breed aggres-
sion by modeling it pervasively, attaching prestige to it and according it functional
value for gaining social status, material benefits, and social control. There are also
pacific cultures in which interpersonal aggression is a rarity because it is devalued,
rarely modeled, and has no functional value (Alland 1972; Bandura 1973, Sanday
1981).
Intracultural diversity also calls into question aggression as an innate human
nature. The United States is a relatively violent society, but American Quakers,
who are fully immersed in the culture, adopt pacifism as a way of life. The third
form of variability involves rapid transformation of warring societies into peaceful
ones. The Swiss used to be the main suppliers of mercenary fighters in Europe, but
as they transformed into a pacific society their militaristic vestige is evident only in
the plumage of the Vatican guards. For ages the Vikings plundered other nations.
After a prolonged war with Russia that exhausted Sweden’s resources, the populous
rose up and forced a constitutional change that prohibited kings from starting wars
(Moerk 1995). This political act promptly transformed a fighting society into a
peaceable one that has served as a mediator for peace among warring nations. This
rapid cultural metamorphosis underscores the power of nurture. In cross-cultural
comparisons, Sweden ranks at the very bottom of all forms of violence.
A biologically deterministic view has even thornier problems with the rapid
pace of social change. People have changed little genetically over recent decades,
but they have changed markedly through rapid cultural and technological evolution
in their beliefs, mores, social roles, and styles of behavior. Social systems and
lifestyles are being altered by social means rather than by reliance on the slow, pro-
tracted process of biological selection. As Dobzhansky (1972) puts it succinctly,
the human species has been selected for learnability and plasticity of behavior
adaptive to remarkably diverse habitats, not for behavioral fixedness. The pace of
social change gives testimony that biology, indeed, permits a range of possibilities.
To say that a hallmark of humans is their endowed plasticity is not to say
that they have no nature (Midgley 1978), or that they come structureless and
P1: FXY
22 BANDURA
biologically limitless. The plasticity, which is intrinsic to the nature of humans,

depends upon specialized neurophysiological structures and mechanisms that have
evolved over time. These advanced neural systems are specialized for channel-
ing attention, detecting the causal structure of the outside world, transforming that
information into abstract representations, and integrating and using them for adap-
tive purposes. These evolved information processing systems provide the capacity
for the very agentic characteristics that are distinctly human—generative symbol-
ization, forethought, evaluative self-regulation, reflective self-consciousness, and
symbolic communication.
Neurophysiological systems have been shaped by evolutionary pressures, but
people are not just reactive products of selection pressures. Other species are
heavily innately programmed for stereotypic survival in a particular habitat. In

contrast, human lifestyles are, in large part, experientially fashioned within bio-
logical limits rather than come ready made. The exercise of agentic capabilities is
a prime player in the human coevolution process. People are not only reactors to
selection pressures, but they are producers of new ones at an increasingly dizzying
pace.
Through agentic action, people devise ways of adapting flexibly to remark-
ably diverse geographic, climatic and social environments; they figure out ways to
circumvent physical and environmental constraints, redesign and construct envi-
ronments to their liking, create styles of behavior that enable them to realize desired
outcomes, and pass on the effective ones to others by social modeling and other
experiential modes of influence. By these inventive means, people improve their
odds in the fitness survival game. Growth of knowledge is increasingly enhancing
human power to control, transform, and create environments of increasing com-
plexity and consequence. We build physical technologies that drastically alter how
we live our daily lives. We create mechanical devices that compensate immensely
for our sensory and physical limitations. We develop medical and psychological
methods that enable us to exert some measure of control over our physical and
psychosocial lives. Through contraceptive ingenuity that disjoined sex from pro-
creation, humans have outwitted and taken control over their evolved reproductive
system. Carl Djerassi, who begot the birth control pill, predicts that further de-
velopments in reproductive technologies will separate sex from fertilization by
storing eggs and injecting sperm in vitro for uteral reinsertion and childbearing at
a time of one’s choosing (Levy 2000).
Humans have created biotechnologies for replacing defective genes with modi-
fied ones and for changing the genetic make-up of plants and animals by implanting
genes from different sources. In a budding biotechnology that is forging ahead
in ways that bypass evolutionary genetic processes, we are now cloning clones
and exploring methods that could alter the genetic codes of humans. As people
devise ever more powerful technologies that enable them to fashion some aspects
of their nature, the psychosocial side of coevolution is gaining ascendancy. Thus,
through agentic genetic engineering, humans are becoming major agents of their
own evolution, for better or for worse.
P1: FXY
With further development of biotechnology, we face the prospect that more

direct social construction of human nature through genetic design of human be-
ings for desired properties will increasingly command our attention and ethical
concerns.
What is technologically possible eventually gets applied. As previously noted,
the genetic factors provide only potentialities, not the finished psychosocial at-
tributes. However, there is no shortage of individuals with the resources and belief
in genetic determinism to underwrite attempts at genetic engineering of human
nature. The values to which we subscribe and the social systems we devise to
oversee the uses to which our powerful technologies are put will play a vital role
in what we become and how we shape our destiny.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Preparation of this chapter and some of the cited research was supported by grants
from the Grant Foundation, the Spencer Foundation, and the Jacobs Foundation.
Some sections of this chapter include revised, updated and expanded material from
the books, Social Foundations or Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory,
Prentice-Hall 1986; Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control, Freeman 1997; and “A
Social Cognitive Theory of Personality” in Handbook of Personality, ed. L Pervin,
O John (2nd ed.), Guilford.
Visit the Annual Reviews home page at www.AnnualReviews.org
LITERATURE CITED
Alland A Jr. 1972. The Human Imperative. New Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive
York: Columbia Univ. Press Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-
Austin JH. 1978. Chase, Chance, and Creativ- Hall
ity: The Lucky Art of Novelty. New York: Bandura A. 1991a. Social cognitive theory of
Columbia Univ. Press moral thought and action. In Handbook of
Baldwin C, Baldwin A, Sameroff A, Seifer R. Moral Behavior and Development, ed. WM
1989. The role of family interaction in the Kurtines, JL Gewirtz, 1:45–103. Hillsdale,
prediction of adolescent competence. Pre- NJ: Erlbaum
sented at Bienn. Meet. Soc. Res. Child Dev., Bandura A. 1991b. Self-regulation of motiva-
Kansas City, MO tion through anticipatory and self-reactive
Baltes MM. 1996. The Many Faces of Depen- mechanisms. In Perspectives on Motiva-
dency in Old Age. New York: Cambridge tion: Nebraska Symposium on Motivation,
Univ. Press ed. RA Dienstbier, 38:69–164. Lincoln:
Bandura A. 1973. Aggression: A Social Learn- Univ. Nebraska Press
ing Analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice- Bandura A. 1993. Perceived self-efficacy
Hall in cognitive development and functioning.
Bandura A. 1982. The psychology of chance en- Educ. Psychol. 28:117–48
counters and life paths. Am. Psychol. 37:747– Bandura A, ed. 1995. Self-Efficacy in Chang-
55 ing Societies. New York: Cambridge Univ.
Bandura A. 1986. Social Foundations of Press
P1: FXY
24 BANDURA
Bandura A. 1997. Self-Efficacy: The Exercise Burns TR, Dietz T. 2000. Human agency and
of Control. New York: Freeman evolutionary processes: institutional dynam-
Bandura A. 1998. Exploration of fortuitous de- ics and social revolution. In Agency in Social
terminants of life paths. Psychol. Inq. 9:95– Theory, ed. B Wittrock. Thousand Oaks, CA:
99 Sage. In press
Bandura A. 1999a. A social cognitive theory of Buss DM, Schmitt DP. 1993. Sexual strategies
personality. In Handbook of Personality, ed. theory: an evolutionary perspective on hu-
L Pervin, O John, pp. 154–96. New York: man mating. Psychol. Rev. 100:204–32
Guilford. 2nd ed. Bussey K, Bandura A. 1999. Social cognitive
Bandura A. 1999b. Moral disengagement in the theory of gender development and differen-
perpetration of inhumanities. Pers. Soc. Psy- tiation. Psychol. Rev. 106:676–713
chol. Rev. (Special issue on Evil and Vio- Carlson RA. 1997. Experienced Cognition.
lence) 3:193–209 Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum

Bandura A. 2000. Exercise of human agency Davidson D. 1971. Agency. In Agent, Action,
through collective efficacy. Curr. Dir. Psy- and Reason, ed. R Binkley, R Bronaugh, A
chol. Sci. 9:75–78 Marras, pp. 3–37. Univ. Toronto Press
Bandura A, Barbaranelli C, Caprara GV, Pa- Diamond MC. 1988. Enriching Heredity. New
storelli C. 1996a. Multifaceted impact of York: Free Press
self-efficacy beliefs on academic function- Dobzhansky T. 1972. Genetics and the diversity
ing. Child Dev. 67:1206–22 of behavior. Am. Psychol. 27:523–30
Bandura A, Barbaranelli C, Caprara GV, Pas- Earley PC. 1993. East meets West meets
torelli C. 1996b. Mechanisms of moral dis- Mideast: Further explorations of collectivis-
engagement in the exercise of moral agency. tic and individualistic work groups. Acad.
J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 71:364–74 Manage. J. 36:319–48
Bandura A, Barbaranelli C, Caprara GV, Pa- Earley PC. 1994. Self or group? Cultural effects
storelli C. 2000a. Self-efficacy beliefs as of training on self-efficacy and performance.
shapers of children’s aspirations and career Admin. Sci. Q. 39:89–117
trajectories. Child Dev. In press Eisenberg L. 1995. The social construction
Bandura A, Barbaranelli C, Caprara GV, Pa- of the human brain. Am. J. Psychiatry
storelli C, Regalia C. 2000b. Sociocogni- 152:1563–75
tive Self-Regulatory Mechanisms Governing Elder GH, Ardelt M. 1992. Families Adapting to
Transgressive Behavior. J. Pers. Soc. Psy- Economic Pressure: Some Consequences for
chol. In press Parents and Adolescents. Presented at Soc.
Bandura A, Pastorelli C, Barbaranelli C, Res. Adolesc., Washington, DC
Caprara GV. 1999. Self-efficacy pathways to Fausto-Sterling A. 1992. Myths of Gender: Bi-
childhood depression. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. ological Theories About Women and Men.
76:258–69 New York: Basic Books. 2nd ed.
Brandtstädter J. 1992. Personal control over de- Feather NT, ed. 1982. Expectations and Ac-
velopment: implications of self-efficacy. In tions: Expectancy-Value Models in Psychol-
Self-Efficacy: Thought Control of Action, ed. ogy. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
R Schwarzer, pp. 127–45. Washington, DC: Fernández-Ballesteros R, Dı́ez-Nicolás J,
Hemisphere Caprara GV, Barbaranelli C, Bandura A.
Bratman ME. 1999. Faces of Intention: Se- 2000. Structural Relation of Perceived Per-
lected Essays on Intention and Agency. New sonal Efficacy to Perceived Collective Effi-
York: Cambridge Univ. Press cacy. Submitted for publication
Bunge M. 1977. Emergence and the mind. Neu- Giddens A. 1984. The Constitution of Soci-
roscience 2:501–9 ety: Outline of the Theory of Structuration.
P1: FXY
Cambridge: Polity/Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Locke EA, Latham GP. 1990. A Theory of Goal
Press Setting and Task Performance. Englewood
Gould SJ. 1987. An Urchin in the Storm. New Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall
York: Norton Maddux JE. 1995. Self-efficacy, adaptation,
Green CD, Vervaeke J. 1996. What kind of ex- and adjustment: Theory, research, and ap-
planation, if any, is a connectionist net? In plication. New York: Plenum
Problems of Theoretical Psychology, ed. CW Masten AS, Best KM, Garmezy N. 1990.
Tolman, F Cherry, R van Hezewijk, I Lubek, Resilience and development: contributions
pp. 201–8. North York, Ont.: Captus from the study of children who over-
Greenwood JD. 1992. Against eliminative come adversity. Dev. Psychopathol. 2:425–
materialism: from folk psychology to 44
völkerpsychologie. Philos. Psychol. 5:349– Matsui T, Onglatco ML. 1991. Instrumentality,
67 expressiveness, and self-efficacy in career ac-

Hamburg DA. 1992. Today’s Children: Creat- tivities among Japanese working women. J.
ing a Future for a Generation in Crisis. New Vocat. Behav. 41:79–88
York: Times Books Matsumoto D, Kudoh T, Takeuchi S. 1996.
Harré R. 1983. Personal Being: A Theory for Changing patterns of individualism and col-
Individual Psychology. Oxford: Blackwell lectivism in the United States and Japan. Cult.
Harré R, Gillet G. 1994. The Discursive Mind. Psychol. 2:77–107
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Midgley M. 1978. Beast and Man: The Roots
Holden G. 1991. The relationship of self- of Human Nature. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ.
efficacy appraisals to subsequent health- Press
related outcomes: a meta-analysis. Soc. Moerk EL. 1995. Acquisition and transmis-
Work. Health Care 16:53–93 sion of pacifist mentalities in Sweden. Peace
Holden G, Moncher MS, Schinke SP, Barker Confl.: J. Peace Psychol. 1:291–307
KM. 1990. Self-efficacy of children and Multon KD, Brown SD, Lent RW. 1991. Re-
adolescents: a meta-analysis. Psychol. Rep. lation of self-efficacy beliefs to academic
66:1044–46 outcomes: a meta-analytic investigation. J.
Keohane RO. 1993. Sovereignty, interdepen- Couns. Psychol. 38:30–38
dence and international institutions. In Ideas Nagel E. 1961. The Structure of Science. New
and Ideals: Essays on Politics in Honor of York: Harcourt, Brace and World
Stanley Hoffman, ed. L Miller, M Smith, pp. Pasteur L. 1854. Inaugural lecture. University
91–107. Boulder, CO: Westview of Lille, France
Keohane RO, Nye JS. 1977. Power and Inter- Rottschaefer WA. 1985. Evading conceptual
dependence: World Politics in Transition. self-annihilation: some implications of Al-
Boston: Little, Brown bert Bandura’s theory of the self-system for
Kim U, Triandis HC, Kâǧitçibasi C, Choi S, the status of psychology. New Ideas Psychol.
Yoon G, eds. 1994. Individualism and Col- 2:223–30
lectivism: Theory, Method, and Applica- Rottschaefer WA. 1991. Some philosophi-
tions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage cal implications of Bandura’s social cogni-
Kolb B, Whishaw IQ. 1998. Brain plasticity and tive theory of human agency. Am. Psychol.
behavior. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 49:43–64 46:153–55
Krantz DL. 1998. Taming chance: social sci- Rutter M. 1990. Psychosocial resilience and
ence and everyday narratives. Psychol. Inq. protective mechanisms. In Risk and Pro-
9:87–94 tective Factors in the Development of Psy-
Levy D. 2000. Djerassi sees shift in reproduc- chopathology, ed. J Rolf, AS Masten, D
tive roles. Stanford Rep. 32:1 Cicchetti, KH Neuchterlein, S Weintraub,
P1: FXY
26 BANDURA
pp. 181–214. New York: Cambridge Univ. of the cognitive revolution. Am. Psychol.
Press 48:878–85
Sanday PR. 1981. The socio-cultural context of Stajkovic AD, Luthans F. 1998. Self-
rape: a cross-cultural study. J. Soc. Issues efficacy and work-related performance:
37:5–27 a meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 124:240–
Schooler C. 1990. Individualism and the his- 61
torical and social-structural determinants of Wilson EO. 1998. Consilience: The Unity of
people’s concerns over self-directedness and Knowledge. New York: Knopf
efficacy. In Self-Directedness: Cause and Yamagishi T. 1988. The provision of a sanction-
Effects Throughout the Life Course, ed. J ing system in the United States and Japan.
Rodin, C Schooler, KW Schaie, pp. 19–58. Soc. Psychol. Q. 51:265–71
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Zimbardo PG. 1995. The psychology of evil:
Schwarzer R, ed. 1992. Self-Efficacy: Thought a situationist perspective on recruiting good

Control of Action. Washington, DC: Hemi- people to engage in anti-social acts. Res. Soc.
sphere Psychol. (Japn. J.) 11:125–33
Singhal A, Rogers EM. 1999. Entertainment- Zimmerman BJ. 1990. Self-regulating aca-
Education: A Communication Strategy for demic learning and achievement: the emer-
Social Change. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum gence of a social cognitive perspective. Educ.
Sperry RW. 1993. The impact and promise Psychol. Rev. 2:173–201
Annual Review of Psychology
Volume 52, 2001
CONTENTS
SOCIAL COGNITIVE THEORY: An Agentic Perspective, Albert
Bandura 1
NATURE AND OPERATION OF ATTITUDES, Icek Ajzen 27
META-ANALYSIS: Recent Developments in Quantitative Methods for
Literature Reviews, R. Rosenthal, M. R. DiMatteo 59
ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT, Laurence Steinberg, Amanda
Sheffield Morris 83
THEORIES OF ASSOCIATIVE LEARNING IN ANIMALS, John M.
Pearce, Mark E. Bouton 111
ON HAPPINESS AND HUMAN POTENTIALS: A Review of Research
on Hedonic and Eudaimonic Well-Being, Richard M. Ryan, Edward L.
Deci 141
SENTENCE AND TEXT COMPREHENSION: Roles of Linguistic

Structure, Charles Clifton Jr., Susan A. Duffy 167
PERSONALITY, David C. Funder 197
THINKING, Arthur B. Markman, Dedre Gentner 223
CONSUMER RESEARCH: In Search of Identity, Itamar Simonson, Ziv
Carmon, Ravi Dhar, Aimee Drolet, Stephen M. Nowlis 249
SLEEP-WAKE AS A BIOLOGICAL RHYTHM, P. Lavie 277
STATISTICAL GRAPHICS: Mapping the Pathways of Science, Howard
Wainer, Paul F. Velleman 305
THE DEVELOPMENT OF VISUAL ATTENTION IN INFANCY, John
Colombo 337
PSYCHOLINGUISTICS: A Cross-Language Perspective, Elizabeth
Bates, Antonella Devescovi, Beverly Wulfeck 369
JOB BURNOUT, Christina Maslach, Wilmar B. Schaufeli, Michael P.
Leiter 397
OLFACTION, Richard L. Doty 423
ACQUISITION OF INTELLECTUAL AND PERCEPTUAL-MOTOR
SKILLS, David A. Rosenbaum, Richard A. Carlson, Rick O. Gilmore
453
THE SCIENCE OF TRAINING: A Decade of Progress, Eduardo Salas,
Janis A. Cannon-Bowers 471
COMPARING PERSONAL TRAJECTORIES AND DRAWING
CAUSAL INFERENCES FROM LONGITUDINAL DATA, Stephen W.
Raudenbush 501
DISRESPECT AND THE EXPERIENCE OF INJUSTICE, Dale T.
Miller 527
HEALTH PSYCHOLOGY: Psychosocial and Biobehavioral Aspects of
Chronic Disease Management, Neil Schneiderman, Michael H. Antoni,
Patrice G. Saab, Gail Ironson 555
DECISION TECHNOLOGY, W. Edwards, B. Fasolo 581
EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY: Toward a Unifying Theory and a
Hybrid Science, Linnda R. Caporael 607
ATTENTION AND PERFORMANCE, Harold Pashler, James C.
Johnston, Eric Ruthruff 629
PROBLEMS FOR JUDGMENT AND DECISION MAKING, R. Hastie
653
Controversies and Evidence, Dianne L. Chambless, Thomas H. Ollendick

EMPIRICALLY SUPPORTED PSYCHOLOGICAL INTERVENTIONS:
685

Annurev

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Annurev

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Annurev

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

P1: FXY

December 11, 2000 22:35 Annual Reviews AR120-01

Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2001. 52:1–26

SOCIAL COGNITIVE THEORY: An Agentic

Key Words biosocial coevolution, collective efficacy, emergent properties,

To be an agent is to intentionally make things happen by one’s actions. Agency em-

any, agentic capabilities.

PARADIGM SHIFTS IN PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORIZING

Much of the early psychological theorizing was founded on behavioristic principles

of activities at the subpersonal level, to an executive subsystem in the informa-

and of demonstrated functional value may be translatable and modeled in another

PHYSICALISTIC THEORY OF HUMAN AGENCY

Research on brain development underscores the influential role that agentic

In the paths of influence, sociostructural influences operate through psychological

CORE FEATURES OF HUMAN AGENCY

refined or even reconsidered in the face of new information during execution of

self-evaluative outcomes, which may augment or override the influence of external

regulatory processes that link thought to action. The self-regulation of motivation,

through self-regulatory mechanisms, which include moral judgment of the right-

influences (Bandura 1991b). The capacity for self-sanctions gives meaning to

AGENTIC MANAGEMENT OF FORTUITY

happening eventuates in a marriage, geographic relocation, and a shift in career

MODES OF HUMAN AGENCY

Social cognitive theory extends the conception of human agency to collective

all operate as interacting determinants that influence one another bidirectionally.

rather than directly (Baldwin et al 1989; Bandura 1993; Bandura et al 1996a,

individualistic and collectivistic sociocultural systems come in a variety of forms

UNDERMINERS OF COLLECTIVE EFFICACY

sociostructural practices wield their influence to maintain their vested interests.

around a national vision and purpose.

EMERGING PRIMACY OF HUMAN AGENCY

environmental conditions. Environmental innovations of increasing complexity, in

humans underscores the power of the environment orchestrated through agentic

biologically limitless. The plasticity, which is intrinsic to the nature of humans,

heavily innately programmed for stereotypic survival in a particular habitat. In

With further development of biotechnology, we face the prospect that more

Visit the Annual Reviews home page at www.AnnualReviews.org

lence) 3:193–209 Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum

67 expressiveness, and self-efficacy in career ac-

Schwarzer R, ed. 1992. Self-Efficacy: Thought a situationist perspective on recruiting good

SENTENCE AND TEXT COMPREHENSION: Roles of Linguistic

Controversies and Evidence, Dianne L. Chambless, Thomas H. Ollendick

You might also like