Feist−Feist: Theories of
Personality, Seventh
EditionV. Learning Theories 16. Bandura: Social
Cognitive Theory(^498) © The McGraw−Hill
Companies, 2009
variable. Emotional arousal may facilitate the successful completion of simple tasks,
but it is likely to interfere with performance of complex activities.
Although 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
Proxyinvolves indirect control over those social conditions that affect everyday liv-
ing. Bandura (2001) noted that “no one has the time, energy, and resources to mas-
ter every realm of everyday life. Successful functioning necessarily involves a blend
of reliance on proxy agency in some areas of functioning” (p. 13). In modern Amer-
ican society, people would be nearly helpless if they relied solely on personal ac-
complishments to regulate their lives. Most people do not have the personal capa-
bility 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 ado-
lescent or early adult-age children may expect parents to take care of them; and cit-
izens 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 col-
lective efficacyas “people’s shared beliefs in their collective power to produce de-
sired 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 be-
haviors that benefit the group. For example, actors in a play would have high collec-
tive 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 teamwill 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 ef-
ficacy, however, depends not only on the knowledge and skills of its individual mem-
bers but also on their beliefs that they can work together in a coordinated and in-
teractive fashion (Bandura, 2000). People may have high self-efficacy but low
492 Part V Learning Theories