Social cognitive theory
Behavior develops through reciprocal influences among persons, actions and environments.
Theory The classification describes how this account is used here; it is not an evidence rating.
Central claim
Human functioning emerges from reciprocal determinism among cognitive-personal factors, behavior, and environmental influences, with task-specific self-efficacy guiding effort, persistence, and self-regulation.
Proposed mechanism
Expectations, self-efficacy and self-regulation shape choices. Those choices alter the environment, which supplies new feedback. Reciprocal determinism is an interaction proposal, not a claim that all three influences are equally strong.
Evidence: (Spielman et al., 2020)
What would it predict?
After comparable instruction, task-specific efficacy should help predict persistence. A stronger causal test changes efficacy information while separating it from actual skill and resources.
An original test formulation derived from the account, not a claim that this exact study was performed.
Evidence and status
The textbook connects Bandura's (1977, 1986) social cognitive framework to self-efficacy, observational learning, and reciprocal determinism. These are distinguishable components whose empirical support must be evaluated separately.
Evidence: (Spielman et al., 2020)
Major contributors
Albert Bandura and collaborators
A selective attribution, not a complete intellectual genealogy or a sole-founder claim.
Apply the explanation
Original teaching scenario
A student expects to manage statistics, attempts more exercises, receives feedback and revises both their skill and their confidence.
Constructed for learning. This scenario does not report an empirical result.
Common confusion: Strict environmental determinism or global self-esteem
Reciprocal determinism treats people as agents who both shape and respond to situations, and self-efficacy concerns perceived capability for a specific task rather than general feelings of self-worth.
Compare: Description or causal explanation?
Evidence: (Spielman et al., 2020)
Limits and alternatives
- A correlation between confidence and performance cannot establish which causes which. Structural constraints can block action despite strong confidence, and efficacy must be measured for the relevant task.
Evidence: (Spielman et al., 2020)
Textbook connection
Direct coveragePsychology 2e: 11.4 Learning Approaches
This section directly discusses the account presented here. The profile is an original synthesis, not a reproduction of the textbook.
Related explanations
Compare: Description or causal explanation? · Inspect research methods
Sources and inspection notes
Checked October 21, 2026. An inspection date is not a publication date. Original experiments described by a textbook are not individually re-audited unless a separate primary source is listed.
- Spielman, R. M., Jenkins, W. J., & Lovett, M. D. (2020). Psychology 2e. OpenStax. https://openstax.org/books/psychology-2e/pages/11-4-learning-approachesTextbook section inspected, October 21, 2026
Supports the introductory account and historical framing. Does not independently verify every original experiment cited by the textbook.