508 Part VI Learning-Cognitive Theories
In general, the effects of social modeling are not as strong as those of per-
sonal performance in raising levels of efficacy, but they can have powerful effects
where inefficacy is concerned. Watching a swimmer of equal ability fail to nego-
tiate a choppy river will likely dissuade the observer from attempting the same
task. The effects of this vicarious experience may even last a lifetime.Social Persuasion Self-efficacy can also be acquired or weakened through social
persuasion (Bandura, 1997). The effects of this source are limited, but under proper
conditions, persuasion from others can raise or lower self-efficacy. The first condi-
tion is that a person must believe the persuader. Exhortations or criticisms from a
credible source have more efficacious power than do those from a noncredible
person. Boosting self-efficacy through social persuasion will be effective only if
the activity one is being encouraged to try is within one’s repertoire of behavior.
No amount of verbal persuasion can alter a person’s efficacy judgment on the
ability to run 100 meters in less than 8 seconds.
Bandura (1986) hypothesizes that the efficacious power of suggestion is directly
related to the perceived status and authority of the persuader. Status and authority, of
course, are not identical. For example, a psychotherapist’s suggestion to phobic
patients that they can ride in a crowded elevator is more likely to increase self-efficacy
than will encouragement from one’s spouse or children. But if that same psycho-
therapist tells patients that they have the ability to change a faulty light switch, these
patients will probably not enhance their self-efficacy for this activity. Also, social
persuasion is most effective when combined with successful performance. Persuasion
may convince someone to attempt an activity, and if performance is successful, both the
accomplishment and the subsequent verbal rewards will increase future efficacy.Physical and Emotional States The final source of efficacy is people’s physiologi-
cal and emotional states (Bandura, 1997). Strong emotion ordinarily lowers perfor-
mance; when people experience intense fear, acute anxiety, or high levels of stress,
they are likely to have lower efficacy expectancies. An actor in a school play knows
his lines during rehearsal but realizes that the fear he feels on opening night may
block his recall. Incidentally, for some situations, emotional arousal, if not too intense,
is associated with increased performance, so that moderate anxiety felt by that actor
on opening night may raise his efficacy expectancies. Most people, when not afraid,
have the ability to successfully handle poisonous snakes. They merely have to grasp
the snake firmly behind the head; but for many people, the fear that accompanies
snake handling is debilitating and greatly lowers their performance expectancy.
Psychotherapists have long recognized that a reduction in anxiety or an
increase in physical relaxation can facilitate performance. Arousal information is
related to several variables. First, of course, is the level of arousal—ordinarily, the
higher the arousal, the lower the self-efficacy. The second variable is the perceived
realism of the arousal. If one knows that the fear is realistic, as when driving on
an icy mountain road, personal efficacy may be raised. However, when one is
cognizant of the absurdity of the phobia—for example, fear of the outdoors—then
the emotional arousal tends to lower efficacy. Finally, the nature of the task is an
added variable. Emotional arousal may facilitate the successful completion of
simple tasks, but it is likely to interfere with performance of complex activities.