Bandura’s Model and Its Advantage over Other Models

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Identifying Bandura’s Model
Examining Advantages
Clarifying Limitations
Conclusion
References

Introduction

Bandura calls his approach social and behavioral and contrasts it to previous applications of the theory of learning to the prosocial and deviant norms of behavior. The scholar believes that for adequate consideration of social phenomena, it is necessary to expand and modify these principles and introduce new ones established and confirmed by research (Pajares & Usher, 2008). The identified model claims that behavior is influenced not only by cognitive and physiological processes but also by social factors. The impact of social factors is associated with the peculiarities of cognitive processes occurring in people. In other words, behavior can be explained by the interaction of a person with his or her environment. Such an approach to the study was called Bandura’s reciprocal determinism, the object of which is the observation of the model of behavior and consequences to which it leads. This section will discuss Bandura’s model in detail, paying attention to the main postulates and advantages over other behavioral models.

Identifying Bandura’s Model

The social cognitive theory (SCT) of Albert Bandura suggests an explanation of the ways in which people acquire various types of behavior in a social environment. The basic idea of the theory is expressed in the concept of learning and acting through observation (Williams & Williams, 2010). Bandura identified a reciprocal connection between behavior, a subject, and environmental variables, which refers to the role of the prevailing set of circumstances and self-efficacy as the internal driving force of a person. Learning from others is largely determined by the processes of modeling, observation, and imitation. Bandura emphasized the situational specificity of a person’s expectations and beliefs associated with the ability to subtly differentiate and group the diverse conditions and circumstances of life. However, the perception of the same situation is individually variable and depends on the unique personal characteristics.

A significant part of human learning takes place without the traditional reinforcements required by the principles of operant and classical conditioning, which means that people can learn new behavior in the absence of both reward and punishment. Demir (2008) stresses, however, that reinforcement matters as well: as soon as the behavior is mastered, reinforcement begins to play an important role in determining whether it will arise or not. According to Brown and Treviño (2014), learning through observation is neither permanent nor automatic since a lot of factors impact the potential occurrence of the target behavior in a given situation. A person’s motivation can also improve or degrade modeling, imitation, and observation (Mark, Donaldson, & Campbell, 2011). In particular, people observe and subsequently master a wide range of social responses, including aggression, ways of emotional reaction, sexual behavior, and so on. People with high self-efficacy are more persistent, have greater self-esteem, learn better, have fewer tendencies to depression, and have less anxiety. Thus, Bandura describes the sources and mechanisms of self-efficacy, its impact on cognitive, motivational, and emotional processes, as well the overall success of activities.

The model of reciprocal determinism elaborated by Bandura implies that attitudes towards the fundamental processes that specify human behavior are reflected in two concepts of interactivity. In terms of the first concept, an individual and a situation are considered as independent entities, which in combination determine what the behavior will be (Nielsen & Munir, 2009). Bandura considered this campaign controversial as the factors of individuality and the external environment are not fully independent. It is impossible to imagine an individual completely independent of his or her behavior: they mutually define each other to some extent (Nielsen & Munir, 2009). According to the second concept, a person and a situation are portrayed as interdependent motivators of behavior, yet the expected outcome does not take part in the process by any means.

Based on the above model of reciprocal determinism, it is suggested that it reduces the explanation of behavior to either personal or situational factors. At the same time, cognitive structures and processes are paid little attention to. As noted by Jung, Kim, and De Zúniga (2011), Bandura proved that behavior is an interactive determinant, not just a result of the interaction between an individual and the situation. According to the model of reciprocal determinism, psychological functioning, the basis of behavior, seems to be a continuous reciprocal interaction between personality and behavioral and external determinants (Gong, Huang, & Farh, 2009; Tierney & Farmer, 2011). The term reciprocal is used more in the sense of interaction between phenomena. In this regard, interactivity should be regarded as the process of reciprocal determinism, when behavior, personal features, and environmental factors interact with each other as interdependent determinants.

While identifying reciprocal determinism, it is essential to note that Bandura was not inclined to consider complex concepts of personality and argued that there are only separate self-presentations. Nevertheless, personality plays a vital role in the scheme of reciprocal determinism, so the author of the model postulated the existence of a certain system of “I” acting on the basis of both behavior and environment. Namely, a set of cognitive structures, including perception, evaluation, and regulation of behavior were recognized as the elements of the system (Valentino, Gregorowicz, & Groenendyk, 2009). The latter allows observing and expressing one’s behavior in symbols as well as evaluating it on the basis of both memories of previous reinforced actions and expected results (Zimmerman, 2013). Then, using these cognitive processes, self-efficacy and self-regulation are the most important internal factors affecting people’s behaviors.

In his model of self-efficacy, Bandura identifies efficacy expectation and outcome expectation. It becomes clear that self-efficacy is not similar to expectation regarding the results of peculiar actions. A person’s confidence that he or she can achieve the goals that were specified affects thinking about the probable consequences of activities. Thus, self-efficacy can be defined as an evaluation of one’s ability to handle certain tasks in a given situation, which influences the choice of a certain action strategy. In this connection, social self-efficacy is the same with regard to building interpersonal relationships, and academic self-efficacy concerns the ability to build theoretical concepts.

Self-efficacy implies the ability of a person to cope with complex situations and impact the effectiveness of the activity and functioning of an individual in general. The one who realized his or her self-efficacy makes more efforts to solve problems compared to the other one who has doubts about his or her capabilities. Low self-efficacy means a lack of confidence in behavioral abilities. High self-efficacy contributes to the fact that arising problems are perceived by a person not as insurmountable obstacles yet as a challenge, giving the opportunity to test and confirm their abilities. Such an assessment of the situation causes the mobilization of one’s internal resources, ensuring the progress towards the goal set. Self-efficacy is the expectation of personal excellence in solving future problems and therefore is measured before a person starts to perform any activity.

When measured in tests, the criteria for skill and competence are used, without regulatory or other comparative characteristics. Through self-efficacy, a person is able to manage events affecting his or her life. Self-efficacy increases or decreases depending on one of four factors or their combination: the experience of the direct activity, indirect experience, the opinion of society, and the physical and emotional state of a person. Devine‐Wright (2009) identifies the collective effectiveness that is understood as people’s confidence that their common efforts can bring to positive social change. It does not come from the collective consciousness, but rather from the various efficiencies of several people working in collaboration (Devine‐Wright, 2009). Among the factors that may lower the collective effectiveness, there are the transnational world, technology innovations, intricate social mechanisms with the bureaucratic stratum, and the severity of the problems faced by a team.

Examining Advantages

One of the most important advantages of Bandura’s model is that the role of self-efficacy in changing one’s behavior is given a critical priority. It is clearly stated that self-efficacy is unlikely to increase due to self-suggestion, while the paramount source of its growth is the previous experience of success. To do everything possible and achieve the desired outcome, it is required to feel more confident. Beliefs are born and strengthened in the process of active work aimed at solving the problems that the situation possesses. As a basis, it is important to have a more or less broad repertoire of behavioral skills.

Self-efficacy is formed under the influence of four factors, the consideration of which can be regarded as the guidance to transform the theory into practice. First, experiencing personal success contributes to the strengthening of faith in own strengths and, at the same time, promotes more active and energetic behavior (Chiu, 2014). The success achieved reinforces the sense of self-efficacy to a lesser extent in case the task performed was too easy. The feeling of self-efficacy also grows to a greater degree, if success is achieved independently and a person overcomes difficulties through persistent efforts. Another benefit of self-efficacy is that it can be acquired through the observation of other people (Lunenburg, 2011; Walumbwa, et al., 2011). In particular, an example of others shows how they act in complicated situations and changes an observer’s opinions about his or her abilities. The greater the similarity between an individual successfully solving a task and the one who is observed, the stronger the impact.

In order to support the above assumption with arguments, one of the most prominent experiments may be noted. To confirm his assumptions that children are seeing the s of others and imitate them, Bandura conducted an experiment with a Bobo doll, involving thirty-six boys and thirty-six girls aged from three to six years (Shinnar, Hsu, and Powell, 2014). The intervention group was shown how a man or a woman aggressively attacked a toy called. Another group observed the non-aggressive handling of a doll; finally, no model was presented to the control group. Bandura discovered that for girls who observed aggressive models, the verbal aggressive reaction was more characteristic if the participant was female and physical aggression if the participant was a male. Boys also showed physical aggression more often and more strongly than girls, and more often imitated models observed in representatives of their own sex.

During the experiment, it turned out that children who watched aggressive behavior, as a rule, showed much more aggression in dealing with a Bobo doll than children from the control group, as well as those who had previously demonstrated non-aggressive behavior patterns. Due to this experiment, Bandura was able to convincingly demonstrate that children learn social behavior by observing the behavior of other people. As a result, the researcher refuted the main position of behaviorism that human behavior is entirely dependent on reward or punishment. In this regard, it becomes evident that the core principles of behaviorism cannot be applied with regard to people since they fail to pay attention to the role of imitation and modeling based on observation. At the same time, compared to the transtheoretical model of changing behavior, the main advantage of Bandura’s model lies on a greater practical basis and a comprehensive manner (Kowalski, Jeznach, & Tuokko, 2014). Even though the transtheoretical model also can be described as an all-encompassing and multi-factorial concept of a behavior change process, Bandura’s approach seems to be elaborate and adapted to be implemented in practice.

Comparing the specified target model with the model of planned behavior, it is critical to state that the latter implies that beliefs create either positive or negative views regarding behavior (Bullough, Renko, & Myatt, 2014; Faqih, 2013). Combined together, views, the perception of behavioral control, and the subjective norm form behavioral intentions (Ajzen & Sheikh, 2013). In this regard, Bandura’s views seem to be more ostensible and transparent. In other words, the fact that self-efficacy and reciprocal determinism provide a greater probability of controlling one’s behavior makes it more attractive to be used as a framework in the research.

The social conviction also plays a significant role in promoting one’s self-efficacy; social promotion is most effective when it is combined with a person’s successful performance (Calik, Sezgin, Kavgaci, & Cagatay Kilinc, 2012; Renkl, 2014). For example, when an individual experienced a correct choice in relation to one or another decision, and it was supported by the public opinion, the level of self-confidence is likely to grow exponentially (Green & Piel, 2009). Persuasion by other people gives only a short-term weak effect since its strength is limited to a conscious status, authority, and degree of trust or respect for the person who has a verbal impact.

As an integral part of human activity, attention in Bandura’s model paid to emotions as well. The experience of emotional and physiological states is associated with the implementation of any action. If one experiences pleasant excitement and positive emotions, it increases self-confidence (Burdick, 2014; Williams, 2010). Strong negative emotions prevent successful handling of the task, yet a little excitement is appropriate (Pfitzner-Eden, 2016; Riekert, Ockene, & Pbert, 2013). High self-efficacy associated with the expectation of success usually leads to positive results and increased self-efficacy. Conversely, low self-efficacy implies an expectation of failure along with high levels of stress. Montano and Kasprzyk (2015) claim that all actions of any strategy should be within the physical capabilities of a person. Unlike many other models of behavior change, Bandura’s model considers emotions critical to explaining and managing one’s behavior.

One more major advantage is the fact that self-efficacy is considered in connection with other constructs of behavior. Self-efficacy is regarded as an important pattern of thinking that affects human behavior and its results through cognitive, motivational, affective, selective, and physiological processes (Glanz, 2015; Lange, Kruglanski, & Higgins, 2011). High perceived self-efficacy alters thinking, contributing to an increase in the number of self-justifying judgments. It also determines the strength and resilience of motivation work, especially if an individual is faced with obstacles on the way to the aim. In terms of environment, under the most favorable scenario, a person is not opposed to external circumstances. Mazur (2016) finds that if external conditions are unfavorable, then people with a high degree of self-efficacy increase their efforts, using active protest and force. If all attempts to cope with a situation do not lead to a favorable outcome, then these people abandon the mode of influence and seek a more suitable environment.

Clarifying Limitations

In general, the social cognitive theory is not yet systematized in the sense of a unified network of hypotheses, which are closely related to a system that allows making specific predictions (Bandura, 2012). The attempts of Bandura to advance in this direction are rather important. Cameron and Green (2015) believe that it contains a sketch of the grand theory of human behavior, which is the main contribution to behavior understanding and alteration. At the same time, different concepts are brought together, leading to results that conflict to some extent. In an effort to go beyond the simplified underlining of either internal (a person) or external (situation) determinants, social cognitive theory takes an important step forward (Laurin, Fitzsimons, & Kay, 2011; Muro, & Jeffrey, 2008). However, what it presents is a general idea or orientation, and not a detailed idea of the system of interconnections.

Changing behavior in terms of self-efficacy and reciprocal determinism through observation involves some basic processes, the implementation of which ensures behavior alteration. According to Burke, Joseph, Pasick, and Barker (2009), the failure to follow at least one of them leads to difficulties and impedes success. The first process is the manifestation of attention to behavior patterns. The model should attract the attention of a person with the help of incentives: suitability to the existing conditions, personal needs, and the effectiveness of the implementation of this model in the given conditions. The conformity of self-images, value orientations, characteristics of the flow of sensory processes, as well as behavior skills formed in the previous experience also matters (Stirin, Ganzach, Pazy, & Eden, 2012). Second, the preservation of behavior patterns in memory in the form of an emotionally attractive image or an easily recalled verbal symbol should be ensured. The model, which correlates with the previous experience of an observer and has a value for him or her, will be remembered with a greater degree of probability.

The behavioral patterns symbolically included in one’s life experience should be implemented and tested in the form of real actions. Therefore, an exact model of specific actions that can be done should be formed (Stocker, Burmester, & Allen, 2014). In the future, this model will be adjusted on the basis of feedback based on the results obtained. Ultimately, the presence of motivation plays a decisive role in acquiring new behaviors. People can learn a behavior and have an accurate cognitive model of action, but not follow it (Dickson, Solomon, & Weaver, 2008). The observer will follow the model more quickly if it brings external benefit, is evaluated positively, and provides visible benefit to another person who demonstrates this model in life. Moreover, social and psychological effects should be taken into account: the ability to foresee based on a pre-established pattern of behavior can lead to drawing attention to some aspects of the new behavior (Burdick, 2014; Dickson et al., 2008). Thus, informational and motivating functions should be targeted to achieve more positive outcomes.

Conclusion

To conclude, self-efficacy reflects the ability of an individual to perform a specific task as an indicator of the ability to conduct subsequent actions. As shown by the recent literature, increasing self-efficacy leads to better achievement and vice versa. Thus, a change in self-efficacy has a predictive value for long-term behavior change in the presence of sufficient competencies, motivations, and skills. Generally speaking, with reinforcements, modeling, and learning through observation, expected behaviors may be quickly translated into practice. It was revealed that the key advantages of Bandura’s model are the intention for rigorous testing of hypotheses, experiments, and additional variables as well as the recognition of the role of situational variables and environmental parameters. A pragmatic approach to the intervention based on Bandura’s model allows creating important and feasible procedures for behavior change. At the same time, it should be noted that a set of limitations show that the model implementation should take into account such constructs as motivation, social recognition and value, and formation of behavioral patterns.

References

Ajzen, I., & Sheikh, S. (2013). Action versus inaction: Anticipated affect in the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43(1), 155-162.

Bandura, A. (2012). On the functional properties of perceived self-efficacy revisited. Journal of Management, 38(1), 12-44.

Brown, M. E., & Treviño, L. K. (2014). Do role models matter? An investigation of role modeling as an antecedent of perceived ethical leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 122(4), 587-598.

Bullough, A., Renko, M., & Myatt, T. (2014). Danger zone entrepreneurs: The importance of resilience and self‐efficacy for entrepreneurial intentions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38(3), 473-499.

Burdick, C. L. (2014). The merits, limitations, and modifications of applying Bandura’s social learning theory to understanding African American children’s exposure to violence. American International Journal of Social Science, 3(50), 183-190.

Burke, N. J., Joseph, G., Pasick, R. J., & Barker, J. C. (2009). Theorizing social context: Rethinking behavioral theory. Health Education & Behavior, 36(5), 55-70.

Calik, T., Sezgin, F., Kavgaci, H., & Cagatay Kilinc, A. (2012). Examination of relationships between instructional leadership of school principals and self-efficacy of teachers and collective teacher efficacy. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 12(4), 2498-2504.

Cameron, E., & Green, M. (2015). Making sense of change management: A complete guide to the models, tools and techniques of organizational change (4th ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Kogan Page Publishers.

Chiu, S. I. (2014). The relationship between life stress and smartphone addiction on Taiwanese university student: A mediation model of learning self-efficacy and social self-efficacy. Computers in Human Behavior, 34, 49-57.

Demir, K. (2008). Transformational leadership and collective efficacy: The moderating roles of collaborative culture and teachers’ self-efficacy. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research (EJER), (33), 93-112.

Devine‐Wright, P. (2009). Rethinking NIMBYism: The role of place attachment and place identity in explaining place‐protective action. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 19(6), 426-441.

Dickson, P. H., Solomon, G. T., & Weaver, K. M. (2008). Entrepreneurial selection and success: Does education matter? Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 15(2), 239-258.

Faqih, K. M. (2013). Exploring the influence of perceived risk and internet self-efficacy on consumer online shopping intentions: Perspective of technology acceptance model. International Management Review, 9(1), 67-77.

Glanz, K. (2015). Health behavior: Theory, research, and practice (5th ed.). San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.

Gong, Y., Huang, J. C., & Farh, J. L. (2009). Employee learning orientation, transformational leadership, and employee creativity: The mediating role of employee creative self-efficacy. Academy of Management Journal, 52(4), 765-778.

Green, M., & Piel, J. A. (2009). Theories of human development: A comparative approach (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Prentice-Hall.

Jung, N., Kim, Y., & De Zúniga, H. G. (2011). The mediating role of knowledge and efficacy in the effects of communication on political participation. Mass Communication and Society, 14(4), 407-430.

Kowalski, K., Jeznach, A., & Tuokko, H. A. (2014). Stages of driving behavior change within the transtheoretical model (TM). Journal of Safety Research, 50, 17-25.

Lange, P. A. M. V., Kruglanski, A. W., & Higgins, E. T. (2011). Handbook of theories of social psychology. New York, NY: Sage.

Laurin, K., Fitzsimons, G. M., & Kay, A. C. (2011). Social disadvantage and the self-regulatory function of justice beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(1), 149-171.

Lunenburg, F. C. (2011). Self-efficacy in the workplace: Implications for motivation and performance. International Journal of Management, Business, and Administration, 14(1), 1-6.

Mark, M. M., Donaldson, S. I., & Campbell, B. (Eds.). (2011). Social psychology and evaluation. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Mazur, J. E. (2016). Learning & behavior (8th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

Montano, D. E., & Kasprzyk, D. (2015). Theory of reasoned action, theory of planned behavior, and the integrated behavioral model. Health Behavior: Theory, Research and Practice, 95-124.

Muro, M., & Jeffrey, P. (2008). A critical review of the theory and application of social learning in participatory natural resource management processes. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 51(3), 325-344. 23

Nielsen, K., & Munir, F. (2009). How do transformational leaders influence followers’ affective well-being? Exploring the mediating role of self-efficacy. Work & Stress, 23(4), 313-329.

Pajares, F., & Usher, E. L. (2008). Self-efficacy, motivation, and achievement in school from the perspective of reciprocal determinism. Advances in Motivation and Achievement, 15, 391-423.

Pfitzner-Eden, F. (2016). Why do I feel more confident? Bandura’s sources predict preservice teachers’ latent changes in teacher self-efficacy. Frontiers in Psychology, 7(1486), 1-6.

Renkl, A. (2014). Toward an instructionally oriented theory of example‐based learning. Cognitive Science, 38(1), 1-37.

Riekert, K. A., Ockene, J. K., & Pbert, L. (Eds.). (2013). The handbook of health behavior change (5th ed.). New York, NY: Springer.

Shinnar, R. S., Hsu, D. K., & Powell, B. C. (2014). Self-efficacy, entrepreneurial intentions, and gender: Assessing the impact of entrepreneurship education longitudinally. The International Journal of Management Education, 12(3), 561-570.

Stirin, K., Ganzach, Y., Pazy, A., & Eden, D. (2012). The effect of perceived advantage and disadvantage on performance: The role of external efficacy. Applied Psychology, 61(1), 81-96.

Stocker, M., Burmester, M., & Allen, M. (2014). Optimisation of simulated team training through the application of learning theories: A debate for a conceptual framework. BMC Medical Education, 14(1), 69-78.

Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. (2011). Creative self-efficacy development and creative performance over time. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(2), 277-293.

Valentino, N. A., Gregorowicz, K., & Groenendyk, E. W. (2009). Efficacy, emotions and the habit of participation. Political Behavior, 31(3), 30-330.

Vancouver, J. B. (2012). Rhetorical reckoning: A response to Bandura. Journal of Management, 38(2), 465-474.

Walumbwa, F. O., Mayer, D. M., Wang, P., Wang, H., Workman, K., & Christensen, A. L. (2011). Linking ethical leadership to employee performance: The roles of leader–member exchange, self-efficacy, and organizational identification. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 115(2), 204-213.

Williams, D. M. (2010). Outcome expectancy and self-efficacy: Theoretical implications of an unresolved contradiction. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14(4), 417-425.

Williams, T., & Williams, K. (2010). Self-efficacy and performance in mathematics: Reciprocal determinism in 33 nations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(2), 453-466.

Zimmerman, B. J. (2013). From cognitive modeling to self-regulation: A social cognitive career path. Educational Psychologist, 48(3), 135-147.

Click Here To Order Now!