Chapter 17 Bandura: Social Cognitive Theory 509Although self-efficacy is “the foundation of human agency” (Bandura, 2001,
p. 10), it is not the only mode of human agency. People can also exercise control
over their lives through proxy and through collective efficacy.
Proxy Agency
Proxy involves indirect control over those social conditions that affect everyday
living. Bandura (2001) noted that “no one has the time, energy, and resources to
master every realm of everyday life. Successful functioning necessarily involves a
blend of reliance on proxy agency in some areas of functioning” (p. 13). In mod-
ern American society, people would be nearly helpless if they relied solely on
personal accomplishments to regulate their lives. Most people do not have the
personal capability to repair an air conditioner, a camera, or an automobile. Through
proxy agency, however, they can accomplish their goal by relying on other people
to repair these objects. People attempt to change their daily lives by contacting
their congressional representative or another potentially influential person; they
acquire mentors to help them learn useful skills; they hire a young neighbor to
mow their grass; they rely on international news services to learn of recent events;
they retain lawyers to solve legal problems; and so on.
Proxy, however, has a downside. By relying too much on the competence and
power of others, people may weaken their sense of personal and collective efficacy.
One spouse may become dependent on the other to care for the household; late
adolescent or early adult-age children may expect parents to take care of them; and
citizens may learn to rely on their government to provide for the necessities of life.
Collective Efficacy
The third mode of human agency is collective efficacy. Bandura (2000) defined
collective efficacy as “people’s shared beliefs in their collective power to produce
desired results” (p. 75). In other words, collective efficacy is the confidence people
have that their combined efforts will bring about group accomplishments. Bandura
(2000) suggested two techniques for measuring collective efficacy. The first is to
combine individual members’ evaluations of their personal capabilities to enact
behaviors that benefit the group. For example, actors in a play would have high col-
lective efficacy if all had confidence in their personal ability to adequately perform
their roles. The second approach proposed by Bandura is to measure the confidence
each person has in the group’s ability to bring about a desired outcome. For example,
baseball players may have little confidence in each of their teammates but possess
high confidence that their team will perform quite well. These two slightly different
approaches to collective efficacy call for separate measuring techniques.
Collective efficacy does not spring from a collective “mind” but rather from
the personal efficacy of many individuals working together. A group’s collective
efficacy, however, depends not only on the knowledge and skills of its individual
members but also on their beliefs that they can work together in a coordinated and
interactive fashion (Bandura, 2000). People may have high self-efficacy but low
collective efficacy. For example, a woman may have high personal efficacy that she
can pursue a healthy lifestyle, but she may have low collective efficacy that she can