Updated on
October 2, 2026
Social Cognitive Theory: Bandura, Self-Efficacy and Agency
Bandura's social cognitive theory explained: reciprocal determinism, self-efficacy and agency, with a diagram, key constructs and two worked lessons.
What is social cognitive theory?
Social cognitive theory is Albert Bandura's account of how personal factors, behaviour and environment influence one another. People learn through direct experience and observation, form beliefs about what they can do, regulate their actions and help shape the settings that also shape them.
In psychology, Bandura's account helps explain why people respond differently to the same task. In class, it directs attention to what learners believe, what they attempt and what support they can use. This guide starts with the theory, its source books and its evidence.
Read the model as a way to ask clear questions about an action. A person may have the skill to begin yet expect little benefit from trying. Another may value the result but doubt their ability. Those cases call for different explanations.
The account sits among the wider learning theories. It connects the study of learning with beliefs, goals and social conditions. Health, sport and workplace examples appear below, followed by one section on classroom application.
Social Cognitive Theory in Psychology
Bandura studied how people learn from others, use what they remember and guide their own actions. His theory treats the learner as active: someone who interprets an event, chooses a goal and checks a result. The key terms below name different parts of that account.
Key Takeaways
- Reciprocal determinism is the core. The person, their actions and the setting each shape the other two.
- Self-efficacy is specific. It is a task-based view of what one can do, not broad confidence.
- People guide their own action. They track work, judge it against a goal and respond.
- People have agency within social limits. They can plan, act and reflect, alone or with others.
- Watching is only one part. Learning from models sits inside a wider theory of belief, action and setting.
- Social Cognitive Theory in Psychology
- How Bandura's Theory Developed
- Social Cognitive Theory Model: Reciprocal Determinism
- The Key Constructs of Social Cognitive Theory
- Self-Efficacy and Outcome Expectations
- Self-Regulation in Social Cognitive Theory
- How People Exercise Human Agency
- Moral Agency and Moral Disengagement
- Observational Learning and the Original Experiments
- Strengths, Criticisms and Limitations of Social Cognitive Theory
- Social Cognitive Theory in Health Behaviour
- What Are Some Real-World Examples of Social Cognitive Theory?
- Social Cognitive Theory in Education and the Classroom
- Social Cognitive Theory Revision Quiz
- Frequently Asked Questions
- Further Reading
- References
Bandura called this link triadic reciprocal causation. Triadic means three-part, and reciprocal means that influences can run both ways. People help shape their lives while social conditions also shape what they can do (Bandura, 1989).
Consider a learner who rarely answers in science. They may doubt their skill at explaining a result. Staying silent gives the teacher fewer signs of their thought.
The teacher may then ask them fewer follow-up questions. That class response can strengthen the learner's view that public speech is not for them.
Silence can have several causes, including doubt, deep thought, language needs, sensory load or choice. The teacher can check the pattern with a private response and one change to the task. This keeps the explanation tied to what the learner says and does.
How Bandura's Theory Developed
Who is the father of social cognitive theory?
Albert Bandura is considered the father of social cognitive theory, the name for his account of how people learn, act and help shape the world around them. His early studies asked what children pick up from a model. Later he asked how beliefs and goals guide action.
What is Bandura's 1986 social cognitive theory?
Bandura's 1986 social cognitive theory set out how people learn from models, judge what they can do and guide their own actions within the world around them. He presented it in Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. The book brought these ideas into one account. Later work explored goals, moral choices and agency in more depth.
- 1961 and 1963:Bandura and colleagues studied children's imitation of live models, then filmed models, in the Bobo doll experiments.
- 1965:Bandura separated acquisition of an observed response from its later performance under different consequences.
- 1977:Social Learning Theory set out a cognitive account of modelling, behaviour and reinforcement. Bandura also published his major paper on self-efficacy.
- 1986:Social Foundations of Thought and Action presented the broader social cognitive theory.
- 1997:Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control developed the account of task-specific capability beliefs.
- 1990s onward:Bandura developed self-regulation, moral agency, moral disengagement and an explicitly agentic account of human action.
Social learning theory vs social cognitive theory
Social learning theory focuses on how people learn from a model, while social cognitive theory asks how their thoughts, actions and setting shape each other over time. Bandura had already written about thought and self-efficacy in 1977. The 1986 name expressed the wider scope of the model.
| What you compare | Social learning theory (1977) | Social cognitive theory (1986 on) |
|---|---|---|
| Main question | How do people learn by watching others? | How do people, their actions and their settings shape one another? |
| Core ideas | Modelling, and the four processes of attention, retention, production and motivation | Reciprocal determinism, self-efficacy, self-regulation and agency |
| The learner | An active watcher who stores and rehearses what they see | An agent who plans, predicts, checks and reflects |
| Example question | What should learners watch, and when do they try it? | What does this person believe about the task, and what in the setting supports or restricts action? |
This page covers that wider system. For the 1961 live-model study, the 1963 filmed-model research and the 1965 consequence study, use our guide to Bandura's social learning theory.
Social Cognitive Theory Model: Reciprocal Determinism
Reciprocal determinism is Bandura's name for the idea that personal factors, behaviour and environment each influence the other two. He set it out in full in 1978 and later called it triadic reciprocal causation (Bandura, 1978, 1986). No corner is the single cause. A belief can shape an action, the action can change the setting, and the setting can feed back into the belief.
The model is often drawn as a triangle. The picture can suggest that all three influences are equal and act at the same moment. Bandura did not claim that. One influence may be stronger in a given situation, and effects can unfold over different timescales.
Diagram · Build It
Social cognitive theory diagram: the three-way model
The science learner from the section above, traced round the three corners. Each two-way arrow is a link that can keep the loop going.
1
Belief and behaviour
Doubting they can explain a result, the learner stays quiet. Staying quiet means no practice at explaining, so the doubt is never tested.
2
Behaviour and setting
A quiet learner gets fewer follow-up questions. Fewer questions leave fewer chances to speak, so the quiet carries on.
3
Setting and belief
When only quick hands answer, the room seems to say that talk is for others. The learner reads that as proof of the doubt.
The teacher's lever. Any corner can start the loop, and one link can be stronger than the others at a given time. The easiest corner to change is usually the setting: one minute to write before talk changes what the learner does, and a good answer then gives the belief new evidence.
Personal Factors
The three corners each need a closer look, because each one gives the teacher a different place to act. Personal factors include knowledge, expectations, goals, beliefs, emotions and biological events. They are not fixed personality traits. A learner's expectation can change after success, feedback or a new interpretation of the task.
For example, a learner may expect a hard reading text to expose mistakes. That belief can affect focus and the choice to begin. It does not reveal a fixed lack of drive.
Behaviour
Behaviour includes what the learner does, avoids and keeps doing. An act can change the setting, while a question can bring new facts or support.
Environment
Environment includes more than room layout. It covers instructions, relationships, models, resources, curriculum access, social norms and the consequences attached to action. It can support or restrict agency.
This is close to what sociocultural theory calls the social setting of learning. The difference is the focus. Vygotsky's theory puts language and cultural tools at the centre, while Bandura puts the learner's beliefs about their own capability there.
A teacher can use the triad as a simple frame. Record the learner's response, the task and signs of what they believe. Change one part, then check again. This is sounder than claiming that a good class always builds confidence or that confidence alone leads to success.
The Key Constructs of Social Cognitive Theory
Textbooks and health courses often present the model as a set of constructs, or named ideas. The table defines the main terms and gives one example of each. They describe different parts of a linked system, rather than a checklist to apply in order.
| Construct | What it means | Everyday example |
|---|---|---|
| Reciprocal determinism | Personal factors, behaviour and environment influence one another over time. | A learner's doubt keeps them quiet, and fewer questions from the teacher then confirm the doubt. |
| Self-efficacy | A judgement of your capability to carry out a specific task. | I can prepare a presentation, but I find questions harder. |
| Outcome expectations | Beliefs about the likely results of an action. | A worker can finish a course but doubts it will change their role. |
| Behavioural capability | The knowledge and skill needed to carry out the action. The term comes from health versions of the model. | Knowing the route and how to use a map. |
| Observational learning | Learning by watching a model and what happens to the model. | Watching a coach demonstrate a serve before trying it. |
| Reinforcement and incentives | Direct, observed and self-set results that affect whether a learned action is used. | A colleague is praised for checking a total; others begin checking theirs. |
| Self-regulation | Watching your own work, judging it against a standard and adjusting it. | Checking progress against a deadline and changing one part of a plan. |
| Collective efficacy | A group's shared belief that it can act together to reach a goal. | A team believes it can finish a project by sharing tasks. |
| Moral disengagement | Ways people switch off self-blame for harmful conduct. | It was only a joke, said after unkind messages in a group chat. |
Counts refer to different parts of the theory. The reciprocal model has three factors. Observational learning has four processes, and efficacy judgements draw on four sources of information. The sections below explain each group and how it relates to the wider model.
Self-Efficacy and Outcome Expectations
Self-efficacy is a person's judgement of their capability to organise and carry out the action needed for a particular performance. It concerns “can I do this?” rather than “am I a confident person?” The judgement can differ by subject, task, level of challenge and situation (Bandura, 1977, 1997).
A learner may judge that they can solve routine sums but not explain a proof. A broad label such as “low confidence” hides this task-specific gap. The distinction also links to wider theories of motivation. Contrasting accounts include locus of control and self-determination theory.
Self-efficacy is also distinct from an outcome expectation. A learner may believe they can complete an assignment but doubt that it will lead to a valued result. In the reverse case, they may value the result but doubt that they can do the work. The teacher needs a different response in each case.
Self-efficacy can shape choice, effort and how long a person keeps going. Skill, access and a sound judgement of the task also matter. Strong belief is most useful when it reflects what the person can do with the support available.
Low belief may reflect a skill gap or a barrier in the setting. The aim is a well-founded judgement of ability, supported by practice and access. Bandura developed this account in his 1997 book, Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control.
Four Sources of Efficacy Information
Bandura identified four broad sources of information from which efficacy judgements can develop. People interpret these sources rather than absorbing them automatically.
| Source | How it informs efficacy |
|---|---|
| Enactive mastery experiences: | performing a task provides direct information about capability. Success can support efficacy, but the learner's interpretation of difficulty, support and progress matters. |
| Vicarious experience: | observing another person can provide comparative information. Perceived similarity, model competence, credibility and the task all affect the inference. |
| Social persuasion: | credible feedback can support a realistic judgement of capability. Empty praise is weak evidence and can be contradicted by later performance. |
| Physiological and affective states: | fatigue, tension, calm or excitement can inform efficacy judgements. Their effect depends partly on how the person interprets them. |
A meta-analysis found an average effect size of 0.38 for the link between self-efficacy and academic performance (Multon et al., 1991). The result describes an association. Skill, teaching, past work and context also count.
Which comes first, belief or success? Studies that follow learners over time find both directions, but not in equal measure. A pooled analysis of 11 such studies (2,688 people) found that earlier performance predicted later self-efficacy more strongly than the reverse. In children, only performance predicted later belief (Talsma et al., 2018). A five-year study of Korean secondary learners found the same imbalance (Hwang et al., 2016).
Across 61 studies of academic self-efficacy (8,965 people), mastery experience had by far the strongest link of the four sources (Byars-Winston et al., 2017). In one field study, learners aged 12 and 13 were quietly given easier puzzles and so outscored their classmates. Their self-efficacy rose and stayed higher for up to a year (Uchida et al., 2018). The lesson for teachers is plain. Build belief through real success on the task, not through talk about confidence.
Read the study note as text
Core account: In Bandura's 1986 and later theory, personal factors, behaviour and environment influence one another over time. Their effects need not be equal or simultaneous.
Self-efficacy and outcomes: Self-efficacy asks whether someone can organise and carry out the actions for a specific performance. An outcome expectation concerns what may happen if those actions are performed. They are related but distinct.
Sources of efficacy information: Enactive mastery, vicarious experience, social persuasion, and physiological or affective states can inform efficacy judgements. Their meaning depends on interpretation; they are not a guaranteed ranking or classroom recipe.
Self-regulation: Self-observation supports judgement against standards, followed by self-reaction through a change to goals, effort or strategy.
Agency: Intentionality, forethought, self-reactiveness and self-reflectiveness describe how people plan, anticipate, regulate and examine action.
Boundaries: Observational learning is an important bridge from the 1977 theory, but social cognitive theory is broader than imitation. Moral disengagement explains how moral self-sanctions may be selectively suspended; it is not a behaviour-management technique.
Teacher decision: Change the environment, support genuine mastery, then check independent action.
Sources shown: Bandura (1986, 1991, 1997, 2001, 2016).
Self-Regulation in Social Cognitive Theory
Bandura described people as active learners who can guide their own motivation and actions. His account grouped self-regulation into three linked parts: self-monitoring, judgement and self-reaction (Bandura, 1991). These names describe how a person checks progress and responds.
- Self-monitoring:observing one's behaviour, its conditions and its effects.
- Judgement:comparing behaviour with personal standards, goals and features of the situation.
- Self-reaction:adjusting action, effort or the environment in response to that judgement.
A Year 8 learner who drafts an account can mark where each claim has proof. They can then check the work against set goals and revise one weak line. The learner is not just following a reward. They are making a record, judging it and acting on the result.
Self-efficacy works within this process. A judgement of capability can affect the goals a learner accepts and the effort they sustain. Progress can then provide new efficacy information. The relation is reciprocal, not a one-way path from confidence to success.
Bandura's account provides the theoretical foundation. The detailed planning, monitoring and reflection routines used in education belong to our guide to self-regulated learning. Teachers should also consult subject-specific evidence before choosing a routine.
How People Exercise Human Agency
Human agency is the capacity to influence one's actions and life through deliberate choices. People form plans and act on them within social conditions that support or restrict their options. They help shape those conditions in turn (Bandura, 2001).
| Feature | What it involves |
|---|---|
| Intentionality: | forming intentions and plans for action. |
| Forethought: | anticipating likely outcomes and using them to guide present choices. |
| Self-reactiveness: | regulating action while carrying out a chosen course. |
| Self-reflectiveness: | examining one's thinking, values, capability and actions. |
Agency can take more than one form. These forms show why working alone is not the only sign of agency.
| Form | How it works |
|---|---|
| Personal agency | means acting at first hand. |
| Proxy agency | means seeking help or asking someone to act. |
| Collective agency | means a group acts as one. |
In school, asking for a model may be proxy agency rather than passivity. A group planning a complex enquiry may exercise collective agency. The question is how deliberately and effectively learners influence the task, not whether they avoid support. Our guide to agency in the classroom turns this into routines.
Collective Efficacy
Collective efficacy is a group's shared belief that it can organise and carry out joint action to reach a goal (Bandura, 2000). It matters because groups, like people, choose goals and keep going according to what they believe they can do together.
In schools the idea is best known as collective teacher efficacy: staff's shared belief that together they can raise learners' achievement. In a study of 47 primary schools, those with stronger collective teacher efficacy had higher reading and maths results, even after allowing for learners' backgrounds (Goddard et al., 2000). The design was correlational, so it cannot show that raising the belief raises results.
Moral Agency and Moral Disengagement
Bandura also used the theory to explain moral acts. People form moral rules and judge their own deeds. They may expect self-respect after a kind act or self-blame after they cause harm (Bandura, 1999).
Moral disengagement occurs when these self-regulatory sanctions are selectively disconnected from harmful conduct. Bandura described several mechanisms. Harm may be reframed as serving a worthy purpose, softened through euphemistic language or made to look acceptable by comparison with something worse. Responsibility may be displaced onto an authority or diffused across a group (Bandura, 2016).
People may also minimise the consequences of an action, dehumanise those affected or blame victims for what happened. These mechanisms do not show that moral standards are absent. They explain how a person can act against those standards without activating the usual self-condemnation (Bandura et al., 1996; Bandura, 1999).
This work is a later part of the theory. It is not a fix for the limits of the Bobo doll tests. In school, it can aid calm talk about bullying, online acts and a group's role. Teachers should study the words and spread of blame without using the theory to label one learner.
Observational Learning and the Original Experiments
Observational learning explains how people acquire a pattern of action from a model. Within the wider theory, people also judge their ability, consider likely results and decide when to act. A person can remember a method well before they have a reason to use it.
What are the four components of Bandura's social cognitive theory?
The four components often meant here are attention, retention, reproduction and motivation. These processes describe how people notice a model, remember what they see, try it and choose to use it. They describe learning from a model within the wider social cognitive account.
Four processes of observational learning
- AttentionNotice the important parts of what the model does. A clear demonstration helps the observer select those parts.
- RetentionKeep what was observed in memory. Words, images and rehearsal help the person recall the pattern.
- ReproductionTurn the remembered pattern into an attempt. Practice and feedback help develop the skill needed to carry it out.
- MotivationHave a reason to use the learned action. Goals, expected results and observed consequences can shape that choice.
Bandura also described four features of human agency, listed above. The question's wording can refer to either group, so check the course text. Observational processes interact: the numbering helps revision, while the theory allows them to overlap (Bandura, 1986, 2001).
What did the Bobo doll experiments show?
The Bobo doll experiments showed that children could reproduce actions seen in a live or filmed model. Consequences affected how much learned behaviour they displayed during a short laboratory test.
In 1961, Bandura and colleagues used live adult models. The 1963 work extended modelling to film. In 1965, Bandura compared different consequences for the model. Offering children incentives later helped separate what they had acquired from what they first chose to perform.
These studies support the distinction between learning and performance. They tested short-term imitation in controlled settings. The broader claims about reciprocal causation, efficacy beliefs and agency draw on later work (Bandura, 1986, 2001).
Direct, vicarious and self-reinforcement
Direct reinforcement strengthens an action through results you experience, such as praise for checking your work. Vicarious reinforcement concerns rewards you see a model receive, which can make the action worth trying. With self-reinforcement, you set a standard, judge your work and respond to it (Bandura, 1986, 1991).
For example, a colleague receives praise after checking a total. An observer may then check their own work because they expect a similar result. The consequence affects the choice to use the action. Our guide to Bandura's social learning theory covers the experiments and the acquisition-performance distinction in more detail.
Strengths, Criticisms and Limitations of Social Cognitive Theory
Strengths: a linked account of learning and action
Social cognitive theory links learning from models, beliefs about ability, goals, self-regulation and social context within one account. Researchers can ask how these factors influence one another over time. Its concepts support more specific questions than a general label such as confidence.
Weaknesses: measurement and causal direction
Its breadth makes the whole system hard to test. A study must define beliefs, actions and setting, then track when each changes. When confidence, participation and support rise together, that pattern alone does not reveal which changed first.
Many self-efficacy studies use self-report. The best measures match the task and level of challenge. “Are you confident at maths?” is not the same as a claim about one type of sum. Links with marks can also run both ways or share the same cause.
Social constraints, habits and development
Culture and social rank affect access, valued goals and the meaning of agency. Bandura's later work includes collective action within social systems (Bandura, 2001). Yet an emphasis on personal belief can hide poor teaching, bias, poverty or a lack of resources.
Biology, automatic habits and changes across the lifespan also need care. The model includes biological events among personal factors. Naming that category, however, does not explain every bodily process or show how each learning mechanism changes with age. A study must specify the process it tests.
A recent critique and neighbouring theories
Fryer and Leenknecht (2023) argue that a perceived-control model explains the links among teacher clarity, feedback and learners' ability beliefs more fully. Perceived control concerns what a person believes they can influence. Their paper is a theoretical review, not a trial comparing the two models.
The framework sits beside other accounts. Cognitive load theory asks whether a task overloads working memory. A comparison with behaviourism needs to address its specific claims about learning and consequences. Our overview of learning theories sets the wider approaches side by side.
| Common claim | Correction |
|---|---|
| “Social cognitive theory is learning by watching.” | Observation is one mechanism inside a wider theory of reciprocal influence and agency. |
| “High self-efficacy guarantees success.” | Efficacy can influence action, but skill, knowledge, conditions and accurate calibration matter. |
| “The three factors always act equally.” | Reciprocal influences can differ in strength and timing. |
| “Self-regulation means willpower.” | It includes checks, goals, judgement, response and support. |
| “Agency means working alone.” | Agency can be personal, proxy or collective. |
| “Moral disengagement means having no morals.” | It concerns selective disengagement of self-sanctions from conduct. |
The evidence check below examines whether stronger self-efficacy predicts higher academic results. Read each study's design and population alongside its conclusion. The pattern across these selected studies is a guide to their findings, rather than a vote on the whole theory.
For a critical reading, distinguish a task-specific belief from a general confidence rating. Check whether the study measures change over time and whether it accounts for past performance. Those details help judge what a result can show.
Social Cognitive Theory in Health Behaviour
In health behaviour, social cognitive theory links beliefs about ability with the actions a person chooses. It also considers the support they can use in the world around them. A public-health programme can use the model to ask who takes part and what makes joining easier.
Consider a hypothetical community walking group. A new member sees a similar person complete the route and expects to complete it too. That is a belief about ability. Expecting the group to be enjoyable is an outcome expectation. Joining is behaviour; the route, time and social support are parts of the environment.
| Factor | Example | Possible return influence |
|---|---|---|
| Personal factors | The member expects to complete the route. | Completing it gives new evidence about ability. |
| Behaviour | They join the walk and ask for a clear route. | The group's route planning changes. |
| Environment | The meeting point is easy to reach. | More members join and help shape the group. |
The case illustrates reciprocal influence. To evaluate a real programme, researchers would measure beliefs, participation and access over time. A description of a successful group alone leaves several possible explanations open.
What Are Some Real-World Examples of Social Cognitive Theory?
Real-world examples of social cognitive theory include joining a walking group after observing a similar person. Others include practising a sports skill with a coach and learning a workplace task through demonstration, feedback and a first attempt. Each case links a belief, an action and a setting.
Social Cognitive Theory at Work and in Sport
Work: a new colleague watches an experienced worker check a spreadsheet total. They try the check, compare the result and ask for feedback. A successful attempt can inform their belief about doing the task, while clear guidance and time to practise are supports in the environment.
Sport: a beginner watches a coach demonstrate a serve, remembers the main cues and practises them. Feedback helps refine the movement. Belief about performing the serve is self-efficacy; expecting a stronger serve to help in a match is an outcome expectation.
Social Cognitive Theory in Media
Media can provide models through video, stories and posts, allowing people to observe an action and its consequences without being in the same place as the model. For example, a cookery video can show a method, a mistake and a correction.
The viewer may remember the method, seek the tools and try it later. Their skill and reason for trying affect that choice. These are worked illustrations of the model, rather than reports of tested interventions.
Social Cognitive Theory in Education and the Classroom
In education, social cognitive theory connects a learner's beliefs about a task with their actions and the conditions for learning. Teachers can use models, feedback, mastery opportunities and checks on independent work. The examples below illustrate the model. Each routine needs evidence from the task.
Model Decisions and Check What Was Acquired
A think-aloud model can show a key decision. In history, explain how a source supports a claim and why its motive needs checking. Learners then inspect that choice in a second source before writing.
Direct attention to one or two features, allow a short attempt and inspect the response. The useful evidence is what the learner can explain and do. Ask for a reason behind one decision as well as a finished answer.
Build Well-Founded Self-Efficacy
Choose a task that is challenging but accessible with the available support. Make success criteria clear. Give feedback that names what the learner did and what the next attempt requires.
For example, “Your answer now links the result to the heat change. Add the measure that backs that link” names a step the learner can use again. This kind of formative feedback builds skill and makes progress easier to judge.
Peer models can help when the model is accurate and trusted. Schunk's review shows why the model, learner and task all matter (Schunk, 1987). Choose the model for a clear aim, then inspect the learner's work.
How the model handles difficulty also matters. In one study, children watched a peer make errors and then work through them. They gained more self-efficacy and skill than children who watched a flawless peer (Schunk et al., 1987). In live modelling, show one realistic slip and how you fixed it.
Connect Goals, Monitoring and Revision
Translate a broad aim into an observable action. “Improve my writing” is difficult to monitor. “Use evidence after each claim in the next paragraph” creates a standard against which the learner can judge a draft.
Ask the learner to mark each link to proof, check it against the goal and fix one gap. The cycle gives a record, a judgement and a response. It also gives the teacher evidence about the task and its scaffold.
Change the Environment as Well as the Learner
If participation is low, examine wait time, question design, prior knowledge, language demand and peer response. Change one feature and observe what follows. The planner below helps turn this into one check on one learner.
Mini app · Build It
Change one corner
Pick what you are seeing from one learner and the key stage. You get a question for their belief, a behaviour to record, one change to the setting, the source of self-efficacy it uses and how you will know it worked.
Suggested moves built on Bandura's reciprocal determinism and the four sources of self-efficacy. Use them as a hypothesis to test, not a diagnosis.
In science, give each learner one minute to mark up a result before talk starts. Check how many have a point ready to share. The change gives evidence about participation and a starting point for the next decision.
Recognise Personal, Proxy and Collective Agency
Offer legitimate ways to seek support and coordinate action. Learners can choose a prompt card, request an example or ask a partner to check a step. A group can agree roles and review whether each person has the information needed.
Agency includes access to support. Teaching, time, safety and suitable resources remain an institutional responsibility. Keeping personal action and social conditions in the same explanation helps teachers avoid placing the whole burden on the learner.
Two Worked Classroom Examples
The two examples below follow one learner each through the three corners. In both, the teacher changes the setting first, plans a real success, and then checks what the learner does without help.
Year 4 Maths: Written Multiplication
- A Year 4 learner says, “I'm rubbish at times tables,” then copies a partner's answers. The belief and the action support each other. Because the answers look right, the teacher moves on and the setting leaves the belief untested.
- Give each learner a whiteboard. Keep 24 × 3 = 72 as the model, then set 21 × 3 for a first success without an exchange. Follow with 26 × 3 to check how the learner handles the extra ten.
- Give feedback on carrying the ten into the tens column. The next day, check whether the learner can solve 37 × 4 = 148 alone, with the model removed. This separates supported practice from independent work.
Year 10 English: One Analytical Paragraph
- A Year 10 English learner writes two lines about a character and stops. They doubt their ability and expect little benefit from more effort. Long essays and grade-only feedback give them few ways to test either belief.
- Model one paragraph with a claim, a short quotation and its effect on the audience. Revise a weak sentence aloud so the learner sees how to handle a difficulty. Use a marked paragraph to show the link to the assessment criteria.
- The learner writes a paragraph and checks the three parts. Feedback names one success and one next step, such as a second reading of the quotation. Two weeks later, check whether the learner starts a timed paragraph without a prompt.
Classroom Accounts of Self-Efficacy
The existing teacher accounts below describe partner talk, a worked example and small steps towards sustained work. Read them as examples of practice, alongside the research. The posts themselves provide no trial of the routines.
How teachers use it · Self-efficacy
What it looks like in the room
Teachers on social media rarely name Bandura, but some describe his sources of self-efficacy in their own routines. The routine and notice columns are our summary of each post; the evidence column is the research, not the post.
| Routine, as teachers describe it | What you would notice | What the evidence says |
|---|---|---|
Turn and talk (TAT) first, then cold call The purpose of the previous TAT is to give the kids who are not as quick on their feet a chance to catch up, and to give everyone a chance to rvw the ans before I cold call. | Learners who are slower to answer get time to catch up and review the answer with a partner before anyone is asked alone. The public answer comes after a private success. | Mastery experience has the strongest link with academic self-efficacy of Bandura's four sources (Byars-Winston et al., 2017). No study here tests this exact routine. |
Give less confident learners the steps of a worked example Providing the steps from a worked example gives less-confident students a scaffold without removing the thinking. | The steps show what comes next, so a learner who would stay silent can attempt the problem. The thinking in each step is still theirs to do. | Earlier success predicts later belief more than the reverse (Talsma et al., 2018). No study here tests this exact routine. |
Build focus in timed steps, from 4 minutes upwards We started at 4 minutes and took breaks. Rewards included candy! I have them up to 15 minutes now. | A timer starts at 4 minutes of work with a break, then grows to 15 minutes. Learners who used to stop early meet a finish line they can reach, and the line moves as they succeed. | This is mastery experience in small steps. Learners who were helped to succeed early kept a higher self-efficacy for up to a year (Uchida et al., 2018). The post is one teacher's account, not a trial. |
Two further accounts describe support and participation. They show what those teachers tried in their own settings. The source links sit beside the words they used.
Teachers in their own words · August to September 2026
When learners wait to be rescued
Two short posts from social media. One sets out the limit of what a teacher can do when a learner waits to be rescued. The other lists the routines one teacher set up on the first day so that every learner answers.
I can guide you, ask questions, model it, give you tools… but I cannot climb inside your brain and think FOR you.
Introduced cold calls, turn and talk, choral responses, and mini whiteboards and all hands up on day 1.
Read these posts as teachers' accounts, not as evidence that a routine works. The research above explains why they might: each one gives learners a real success before they are asked to perform alone.
Social Cognitive Theory Revision Quiz
Use these four questions to check whether you can distinguish a belief about ability, an expected result, learning from a model and reciprocal influence. Make a choice before opening each answer. The explanations refer to the concepts above.
1. Someone believes they can complete a course but doubts it will help them get a job. Which two constructs are involved?
The first belief expresses self-efficacy: a view of being able to complete the task. The second is an outcome expectation: a belief about its likely result. The person can hold strong efficacy beliefs and still see little value in acting.
2. A novice remembers a coach's demonstration but lacks the skill to copy it. Which process needs support?
Reproduction needs support: turning the remembered pattern into an action. Retention may already be strong. Practice and feedback help develop the skill required for an attempt.
3. A walking group becomes easier to reach. More people join, then help choose a new route. Which factors interact?
The environment changes behaviour when improved access helps people join. Behaviour then changes the environment when the group chooses a route. This traces influence in both directions.
4. A one-off study finds that self-efficacy and test scores rise together. What can it show?
It can show an association within the measured group. The design leaves causal direction open. Earlier success, teaching or another factor may help explain both results.
Print the model and example sheet to trace one belief, one action and one feature of the setting. Then check your explanation against the list at the foot of the page.
Frequently Asked Questions
These short answers cover the questions people ask about Bandura's later theory. The main sections above explain each concept and its evidence. For a specific claim, follow the source rather than relying only on the summary.
What is social cognitive theory?
Personal factors, behaviour and environment influence one another. People learn through experience and observation, form efficacy beliefs, regulate action and exercise agency within social conditions.
What is reciprocal determinism?
It is Bandura's term for the way a person's thoughts and feelings, their behaviour and their environment each influence the other two. None of the three is the single cause, and one link can be stronger than the others at a given time.
What is self-efficacy in social cognitive theory?
Self-efficacy is a person's belief about whether they can do a specific task, such as giving a talk, solving an equation or practising a new sports skill. That belief may change from task to task. It differs from self-esteem, which concerns how much a person values themselves.
What is the difference between social learning theory and social cognitive theory?
The earlier social learning account explains how people learn from a model, while social cognitive theory puts that learning within a wider account of beliefs, goals and social conditions. Both treat the learner as active. Thought and self-efficacy were already part of Bandura's 1977 work.
How is social cognitive theory used in the classroom?
Teachers can examine capability beliefs, actions and task conditions together. They can model key decisions, create accessible mastery opportunities, use specific feedback and help learners monitor progress. Each method still needs its own classroom evidence.
What are the criticisms of social cognitive theory?
It is broad and hard to test as a whole. Much of the self-efficacy evidence rests on self-report and correlation. It can also be misused to blame learners for low belief when the real barrier is teaching, access or poverty.
What is social cognitive theory (MCAT)?
For the Medical College Admission Test (MCAT), social cognitive theory explains how what a person believes, what they do and their setting can shape each other. Look for beliefs about ability, known as self-efficacy. Then trace links between the person, their action and the setting in the question.
Is social cognitive learning theory different from social cognitive theory?
Social cognitive learning theory is often another name for Bandura's account of how people learn from models, form beliefs about their skill and choose when to act. Most courses use social cognitive theory as the wider name. Check the course text, as writers vary in how they use the terms.
Where can I download a social cognitive theory PDF?
The social cognitive theory PDF on this page is a one-page study note that shows the model, explains its key terms and lists the sources for further reading. Use the study-note download in the self-regulation section above. The quiz gives you a separate way to check what you know.
Further Reading
These five papers give the strongest next steps. They cover self-efficacy, self-rule, moral choice, agency and peer models. Each link leads to a journal or DOI record rather than a search page.
- Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Bandura (1977).
- Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Bandura (1991).
- Mechanisms of moral disengagement in the exercise of moral agency. Bandura et al. (1996).
- Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Bandura (2001).
- Peer models and children's behavioral change. Schunk (1987).
References
Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change
Bandura, A. (1977). Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.The self system in reciprocal determinism
Bandura, A. (1978). American Psychologist, 33(4), 344-358.- Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Prentice Hall.
- Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory. In R. Vasta (Ed.), Annals of Child Development: Volume 6. Six Theories of Child Development (pp. 1-60). JAI Press.
Social cognitive theory of self-regulation
Bandura, A. (1991). Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 248-287.Mechanisms of moral disengagement in the exercise of moral agency
Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., and Pastorelli, C. (1996). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 364-374.- Bandura, A. (1997). Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. W. H. Freeman.
Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities
Bandura, A. (1999). Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3, 193-209.Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy
Bandura, A. (2000). Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9(3), 75-78.Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective
Bandura, A. (2001). Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1-26.Toward a psychology of human agency
Bandura, A. (2006). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 164-180.- Bandura, A. (2016). Moral Disengagement: How People Do Harm and Live with Themselves. Worth Publishers.
Unique effects and moderators of effects of sources on self-efficacy: A model-based meta-analysis
Byars-Winston, A., Diestelmann, J., Savoy, J. N., and Hoyt, W. T. (2017). Journal of Counseling Psychology, 64(6), 645-658.Collective teacher efficacy: Its meaning, measure, and impact on student achievement
Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., and Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2000). American Educational Research Journal, 37(2), 479-507.The relationship between self-efficacy and academic achievement: A 5-year panel analysis
Hwang, M. H., Choi, H. C., Lee, A., Culver, J. D., and Hutchison, B. (2016). The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 25(1), 89-98.Relation of self-efficacy beliefs to academic outcomes: A meta-analytic investigation
Multon, K. D., Brown, S. D., and Lent, R. W. (1991). Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38, 30-38.Peer models and children's behavioral change
Schunk, D. H. (1987). Review of Educational Research, 57, 149-174.Peer-model attributes and children's achievement behaviors
Schunk, D. H., Hanson, A. R., and Cox, P. D. (1987). Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(1), 54-61.I believe, therefore I achieve (and vice versa): A meta-analytic cross-lagged panel analysis of self-efficacy and academic performance
Talsma, K., Schüz, B., Schwarzer, R., and Norris, K. (2018). Learning and Individual Differences, 61, 136-150.An induced successful performance enhances student self-efficacy and boosts academic achievement
Uchida, A., Michael, R. B., and Mori, K. (2018). AERA Open, 4(4).Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 82-91.
Toward an Organising Theoretical Model for Teacher Clarity, Feedback and Self-Efficacy in the Classroom
Fryer, L. K., and Leenknecht, M. J. M. (2023). Educational Psychology Review, 35, Article 68.The influence of academic self-efficacy on academic performance: A systematic review
Honicke, T., and Broadbent, J. (2016). Educational Research Review, 17, 63-84.Effects of self-assessment diaries on academic achievement, self-regulation, and motivation
Yan, Z., Chiu, M. M., and Ko, P. Y. (2020). Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice.
