699280

research-article2017
PPSXXX10.1177/1745691617699280BanduraToward a Psychology of Human Agency

Perspectives on Psychological Science

Toward a Psychology of Human Agency: 2018, Vol. 13(2) 130­–136

© The Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permissions:
Pathways and Reflections sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1745691617699280
https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617699280
www.psychologicalscience.org/PPS

Albert Bandura
Department of Psychology, Stanford University

Abstract
Social cognitive theory is founded on an agentic perspective. This article reviews the core features of human agency and
the individual, proxy, and collective forms in which it is exercised. Agency operates through a triadic codetermination
process of causation. Knowledge from this line of theorizing is widely applied to effect individual and social change,
including worldwide applications that address some of the most urgent global problems.

This article addresses the evolution of an agentic theory self-directedness has been invaluable. The academic jour-
of human behavior and its broad social applications. ney from the rural plains of Alberta to the balmy palms
Over the years, theorists have engaged in spirited of Stanford University called for a great deal of agentic
debates on whether the causes of human behavior effort along the challenging route (Bandura, 2006a).
reside in the individual, as the dispositionalists claim, Before commenting on the contribution of this article to
or in the environment, as the situationists claim. As psychological science and society at large, I will summa-
shown in Figure 1, social cognitive theory subscribes rize briefly the main features of agentic theory.
to a triadic codetermination theory of causation. In this
three-way interplay, human functioning is a product of
Roots and Core Features of Agency
intrapersonal influences, the behavior individuals
engage in, and the environmental forces that impinge In the course of evolution, humans acquired an
on them. Because personal influences play an influen- advanced symbolizing capacity that enabled them to
tial role in the casual mix, people have a hand in shap- transcend the social pressure of their immediate envi-
ing events and the courses their lives take. To be an ronment and made them unique in their power to shape
agent is to intentionally produce certain effects by one’s their environment and life courses (Bandura, 2008).
actions. The different ways in which human agency is With the development of cognitive capabilities, delib-
manifested will be addressed shortly. erative thought, language, and other forms of symbolic
Development of the agentic theory is rooted in expe- communications, human ancestors became a sentient
riences during my formative years. My parents migrated agentic species.
to Canada from Eastern Europe in 1900 with no formal Social cognitive theory accords a paramount role in
education. They were the homesteaders who had to agentic properties in psychosocial functioning. The agen-
build their lived physical and social environment from tic portion of this theory is manifested though three main
scratch. This included manually converting heavily properties. They include forethought, self-reactiveness,
wooded land to farmland, building their roads, homes, and self-reflectiveness. In forethought, people motivate
schools, churches, and villages concurrently with scanty and guide themselves by creating action plans, adopting
outside aid. They were remarkable agentic pioneers of goals, and visualizing the likely outcomes of their actions.
the Canadian nation. A future state has no material existence so it cannot be a
The evolving rural environment in Alberta where I cause of current behavior. In this form of anticipatory
grew up was woefully short of educational resources and self-guidance, behavior is governed by visualized goals
services. The entire high school curriculum was taught by
a few instructors, so I had to enroll in some required
Corresponding Author:
courses by correspondence. As a result, a good share of Albert Bandura, Department of Psychology, Stanford University,
my academic learning was self-directed. Much of the Stanford, CA 94305-2130
course content was perishable but development of agentic E-mail: bandura@stanford.edu
Toward a Psychology of Human Agency 131

Fig. 1. Interplay of determinants in the causal model of social cognitive theory

(Bandura, 1986).

and anticipated outcomes rather than being pulled by an affect how they live their lives. I broadened this line of
unrealized future state. Forethought enables people to theorizing to include three different modes of human
transcend the dictates of their immediate environment and agency: individual, proxy, and collective. The individual
to shape and regulate the present to realize desired form is confined to spheres of activity that are person-
futures. When projected over a long-term on matters of ally controllable. However, in many spheres of func-
value, a forethoughtful perspective provides direction, tioning, people do not have direct control over social
coherence, and meaning to one’s life. conditions and institutional practices that affect their
The second agentic property is self-reactiveness. everyday lives. Under these circumstances, they rely on
Agents are not only planners and forethinkers. They are socially mediated proxy agency. They exercise this
also self-regulators. Individuals manage their behavior mode of agency by influencing others who have the
by self-sanctions within a self-governing system. They resources, knowledge, and means to act on their behalf
do so by adopting behavioral standards against which to obtain the outcomes they desire.
they evaluate their performances. They respond with Many of the things people seek are achievable only
positive or negative evaluative self-reactions depending by working together through group effort. In the exercise
on how well their behavior measures up to their adopted of collective agency, they pool their knowledge, skills,
standards (Bandura, 1991a). and resources and act in concert to shape their future.
The third agentic property is self-reflectiveness. Peo- In this multiagent model of collective agency, partici-
ple are not only self-regulators but also self-examiners pants achieve unity of effort for common purpose.
of their functioning. They reflect on their efficacy to
realize given challenges, the soundness of their thoughts Cross-culture extension of agentic
and actions, their values, and the meaning and morality theory
of their pursuits. It is at this higher level of self-reflectiveness
that individuals address conflicts between alternative Wrangling dualisms pervade our field, pitting autonomy
courses of action and competing values and favor one against interdependence, individualism against collectiv-
course over another. The metacognitive capability to ism, agency against communality, and agency against
reflect on oneself and the adequacy of one’s capabili- social structure (Bandura, 2008). It is often claimed that
ties, thoughts, and actions is the most distinctly human Western psychological theories lack generalizability to
core property of agency. collectivistically oriented cultures because the former
theories are individualistically oriented. The inclusion
of collective agency in social cognitive theory extends
Contributions to Psychological Science its applicability to societies operating under a collectiv-
Broadening the conception of human istic lifestyle (Bandura, 2002b; Pajares & Urdan, 2006).
Cultures are diverse and dynamic social systems, not
agency static monoliths. For example, there are generational
Theorizing and research on human agency centered and socioeconomic variations in communality in col-
almost exclusively on agency exercised individually. lectivistic cultures; younger and more affluent members
However, this is not the only way in which people adopt more individualistic orientations. Analyses across
132 Bandura

activity domains further reveal that people act com- Self-regulation

munally in some aspects of their lives and individual-
istically in many other aspects. Not only are cultures Excursion into the exercise of agency through self-
not monolithic entities, but also they are no longer regulation clarified how individuals form personal
insular. Global connectivity is shrinking cross-cultural standards and regulate their behavior by self-sanctions
uniqueness. depending on success or failure to meet their stan-
Successful functioning requires an agentic blend of dards (Bandura, 1991b). I extended the self-regulatory
the different modes of agency. The relative contribution form of agency to the moral dimension of life. Tradi-
of individual, proxy, and collective modes to the agentic tional theories of morality focus heavily on the cogni-
mix may vary cross-culturally. But all of these agentic tive aspect of morality but have little to say about how
modes need to be enlisted to make it through the day, moral reasoning gives rise to moral conduct and its
regardless of the culture in which one happens to endurance under pressure to behave otherwise. Agen-
resides. tic theory addresses the explanatory gap between
In evaluating the cross-cultural applicability of a moral thought and moral conduct. Moral reasoning is
theory, one must distinguish between basic human linked to moral conduct through self-regulatory mech-
capacities and how culture shapes potentialities into anisms rooted in moral standards coupled with con-
diverse forms. For example, social modeling is a uni- tingent self-sanctions (Bandura, 1991b, 2016). Abiding
versalized human capacity. But what is modeled, how by one’s moral standards supports positive self-regard,
modeling influences are socially structured, and the whereas violating moral standards rouses self-con-
purposes they serve vary in different cultural milieus. tempt. These self-sanctions keep behavior in line with
In short, there is cultural commonality in basic agentic moral standards.
capacities and mechanisms of operation, but diversity Theoretical extension and refinement are well illus-
in culturing of these inherent capacities. In this dual- trated in my research on the agentic self-regulatory
level analysis, universality is not incompatible with aspect to moral agency. A major share of research on
manifest cultural plurality. Murray and Kluckhohn self-regulation focuses on achievement behavior. Per-
(1953) summarized eloquently the blend of universality, formance standards are raised as knowledge and com-
commonality, and uniqueness of human qualities: Every petencies are acquired. However, in self-regulation of
person is in certain aspects like all other people, like moral conduct, moral standards are not altered weekly
some other people, like no other person. or monthly. In addition, self-evaluative reactions are
much stronger for violating moral standards than for
falling short of performance standards. Although self-
Contributions to psychological science regulation is the mode of agentic control on both
guided by theory building domains, they differ in some aspects of execution.
I mounted a program of research that further
Theorists do not create a complete theory of human extended the theory of moral agency. It addressed a
behavior at the outset given the plurality of determi- highly prevalent but largely ignored failing in moral
nants and the intricate and dynamic interaction between self-regulation in which the self-sanctions that regu-
them. Rather, theory building is a long haul in which late moral behavior are neutralized or enlisted in the
essential components are added incrementally. Each service of detrimental behavior (Bandura, 2016). In
successive theoretical extension and refinement brings a pervasive moral paradox, individuals are behaving
us closer to understanding the determinants of human in ways that violate their moral standards but retain-
behavior and its modification. ing a favorable self-regard and live in peace with
themselves. They sustain the paradoxical adaptation
with eight psychosocial mechanisms that disengage
Forethought morality from their detrimental conduct and disavow
In building the agentic theory, I conducted separate responsibility for the harm they cause (Bandura,
programs of research for each of the three agentic ele- 2016).
ments. The earlier investigations shed light on the exer- Figure 2 presents schematically the eight mecha-
cise of agency by forethought as manifested through nisms and the locus at which moral self-sanctions are
outcome expectations and goal aspirations (Bandura, disengaged. At the behavior locus, people sanctify
1991a, 1986). The work of goal theorists (Locke & harmful means by investing them with worthy social
Latham, 2013) and expectancy-value theorists (Ajzen & and moral purposes. Harmful conduct is also rendered
Fishbein, 1980) added to our understanding of the tem- benign or even altruistic through advantageous com-
poral extension of agency through forethought. parison, which portrays the harm one inflicts as minor
Toward a Psychology of Human Agency 133

Fig. 2.  Eight mechanisms through which the moral self-sanctions are selectively
disengaged from harmful behavior at four points in moral self-regulation.

compared with the harm it prevents or that others com- Self-reflection

mit. Euphemistic language in its sanitizing and convo-
luted forms cloaks harmful behavior in innocuous A major feature of the exercise of agency through meta-
language and removes humanity from it. These three cognitive self-reflection is judgment of one’s efficacy.
mechanisms are especially powerful because they serve This core self-belief is the foundation of human aspira-
a dual function: They engage morality in the harmful tion, motivation, and accomplishments (Bandura, 1997).
mission but disengage morality in its grim execution. Unless people believe they can produce desired effects
At the agency locus, people absolve themselves of by their actions they have little incentive to act or to
personal accountability for harmful conduct by displac- persevere in the face of difficulties. Whatever other fac-
ing responsibility to others and by dispersing it widely tors serve as guides and motivators, they are rooted in
so that no one bears responsibility. At the outcome the belief that one has the capability to produce effects
locus, perpetrators disregard, minimize, distort, or even by one’s actions.
dispute the injurious effects of their actions: There is I launched a large-scale program of research that
no moral issue if detrimental practices are judged to be clarified the structure of this belief system; specified
harmless or beneficial. At the victim locus, perpetrators ways to build resilient individual and collective efficacy;
exclude those they maltreat from their category of explained how it operates through its impact on cogni-
humanity by divesting them of human qualities or tive, motivational, affective, and decisional processes;
attributing animalistic qualities to them. The additional and provided guidelines on how to apply this knowl-
moral disengagement at the victim locus blames the edge for individual and social change (Bandura, 1997).
victims for bringing the maltreatment on themselves or The scope of the social applications will be considered
attributes it to compelling circumstances. These moral later.
failings occur in all walks of life and in institutional, Self-efficacy plays a special role because it contrib-
social, political, financial, military systems, and in envi- utes to the operation of the other agentic elements.
ronmental degradation (Bandura, 2016). Self-regulation through goal setting is a good case in
Moral disengagement is not a character trait that is point. People’s beliefs in their efficacy affect the type
assessed by a one-size-fits-all measure. Disengagement and level of goals they set for themselves and the
mechanisms operate across different aspects of life, but strength of their commitment to them (Bandura, 2015).
they are manifested differently depending on the sphere In my other article in the top 30 in APS journals, “Exer-
of activity (Bandura, 2016). For example, justifications cise of Human Agency Through Collective Efficacy,” I
for the death penalty focus on retribution, public safety, addressed the nature, assessment, and role of collective
and preservation of the social order, whereas the efficacy in social development, adaptation, and change
tobacco industry justifies advertising campaigns that (Bandura, 2000).
get youth hooked on nicotine in terms of freedom of Perceived self-efficacy is not a global trait but a dif-
speech. Some studies are being published with faulty ferentiated set of self-beliefs linked to distinct realms
trait measures. In the interest of well-founded tests of of functioning. Therefore, self-efficacy measures should
disengagement theory of morality, I developed guide- be tailored to the selected actuary domain rather than
lines for constructing valid measures for each mode of cast as a one-size-fits-all trait. Multidomain measures
moral disengagement (Bandura, 2017). reveal the patterning and degree of generality of
134 Bandura

people’s sense of personal efficacy. To ensure the laborious and costly trial and error. Many ages ago,
soundness of self-efficacy measures, I created a guide Voltaire heralded the benefits of social modeling: “Is
for constructing them (Bandura, 2006c). The guide pro- there anyone so wise as to learn by the experience of
vides instruction on how to conduct conceptual analy- others?”
ses to determine the appropriate types of self-efficacy I established a program of research designed to shed
for a given sphere of functioning, and how to scale the light on observational learning through social model-
items in terms of gradations of challenge. ing. It focused on different forms that modeling takes,
Studies were being published with faulty measures the mechanisms through which it works, the different
and misconceptions of self-efficacy theory. I published functions it serves, and the ways in which the informa-
a set of lengthy commentaries that addressed not only tion on modeling can be applied for individual and
methodological and conceptual issues regarding self- social change (Bandura, 1986).
efficacy theory but also broader topics regarding the In this brief review, I focus on two roles modeling
role of intrapersonal determinants in causal processes plays in development and exercise of human agency. In
(Bandura, 2012, 2015; Bandura & Locke, 2003). the first role, in conjunction with other sources of influ-
Some of the commentary centered on alternative ence, it contributes to the development of the different
conceptions of personality in the field of psychology. properties of agency (Bandura, 1986, 1997). In their
They include Big Five trait theory (McCrae & Costa, daily lives and pervasive mass media, models exhibit
1999) and social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1997, 1999; attitudes, values, coping strategies, and styles of behav-
Mischel & Shoda, 1999). The five-factor trait theory ior. Acquisition of knowledge and competencies through
characterizes personality in terms of five clusters of modeling raises viewers’ beliefs in their efficacy. Mod-
decontextualized habitual behaviors. However, this five- eled events portray not only behavior but also its accom-
fold inventory has little to say about the intrapersonal panying outcomes. Favorable outcomes instill positive
and social determinants of the behaviors grouped in outcome expectations; adverse ones serve as disincen-
the clusters, or how to change them. Social cognitive tives. Models are not only enablers, but also motivators
theory acknowledges that human behavior is socially and inspirers through their hopes and aspirations.
situated, discriminatively contextualized, and condition- Through the aspirational and moral standards they con-
ally manifested. The theory conceptualizes personality vey in their behavior, models contribute to the develop-
in terms of intrapersonal factors that serve as motivators ment of self-regulatory capabilities.
and regulators of behavior. The agentic factors are a Social modeling also plays a ubiquitous role as a
vital part of the causal mix. Because these factors are vehicle for agentic action (Bandura, 2002a). Revolution-
modifiable, agentic theory provides principles for ary advances in communication technologies vastly
effecting individual and social change. expands the opportunity to exercise both individual
and collective agency. People nowadays spend most of
their waking hours in the symbolic environment of the
Social Modeling as a Source and
cyberworld. This enables them to transcend the con-
Vehicle of Agency fines of their physical and social environment. A major
When I began my career, most of our prominent psy- advantage of social modeling lies in its tremendous
chological theories were developed long before even reach, speed, and instructive power. Unlike learning by
the advent of television. They focused mainly on direct doing, influential models can transmit via mass media
influences operating in the immediate physical and new ways of thinking and behaving to people world-
social environment. In this line of theorizing, behavior wide. People now manage the major share of transac-
was shaped and regulated by response consequences tions in their everyday lives through the Internet by
and paired association. The predominant focus on drawing on the vast information readily available in the
learning by direct experience was at variance with per- cyberworld. With the meteoric growth of social media,
vasive observational learning through social modeling people promulgate their views and ideas unbridled by
in everyday life. This was an inhospitable atmosphere gatekeepers to large audiences in efforts to rally sup-
in which to promote a mode of observational learning port for their social and political causes. How people
that requires neither performance of responses nor con- use their agentic capabilities, within societal constraints
tingent reinforcement (Bandura, 2006a). and opportunity structures, depends, in large part, on
As explained earlier, during the course of evolution, their social and moral commitments (Bandura, 1997).
humans developed an advanced cognitive capacity that
enables them to enlarge their knowledge and competen-
Social Applications
cies. They could do so rapidly through information con-
veyed by the rich array of models. Direct experience is In the early 1960s, there was growing awareness that
a tough teacher. Learning from example shortcuts the psychodynamic theories that dominated the clinical
Toward a Psychology of Human Agency 135

psychology field and popular culture were of question- The most ambitious applications of social cognitive
able predictive and therapeutic value. These disap- theory for social change through agentic development
pointing outcomes ushered in a paradigm shift in causal address some of the global threats to preserving a sus-
models and modes of treatment in the form of psycho- tainable environmental future (Bandura, 2006b). This
social and behavioral approaches. This transformative large-scale model of change had a novel origin. One
change also focused on modifying detrimental practices morning, I received a call from Miguel Sabido, a gifted
of social systems, not just the treatment of human casu- producer and dramatist at the Televisia broadcasting
alties of such practices (Bandura, 1969, 2004). system in Mexico. He explained that he extracted a
During this time, we were developing psychosocial number of modeling principles from the Bobo doll
approaches that enabled people to improve their lives studies and used this information to produce long-
through guided mastery experiences. This enablement running serial dramas that were accomplishing notable
mode of treatment eliminated tenacious phobias, dimin- societal changes.
ished autonomic arousal to stressors, reduced excitatory These dramatic productions are not fanciful stories.
neurotransmitters, and transformed dream activity from The storylines portray the realities of people’s everyday
nightmarish to benign forms. As a severe snake phobic struggles and the impediments they face. The dramas
gained mastery, for example, she dreamed that a boa help people to see a better life and inform, enable, and
constructor befriended her and was helping her wash guide them to take the steps to realize their hopes and
dishes! In follow-up assessments, participants not only dreams. Hundreds of episodes spanning several years
remained free of their phobias but also reported gen- allow viewers to form strong emotional bonds with the
eralized transformative changes in their lives. Eliminat- models, whose thinking and behavior evolve at a
ing, by guided mastery, lifetime phobic dread and believable pace. In the words of one viewer, “This is
tormenting nightmares instilled a resilient sense of effi- our story.” Viewers comment on their similarity to the
cacy that they could take greater charge of their lives. models in the storylines struggling to better their lives:
They tackled activities they had avoided with delight “I recognize myself in the character of Francois.” View-
over their successes. Formal empirical tests verified that ers are inspired and enabled to improve their own lives.
self-efficacy operates as a common mechanism through Multiple intersecting storylines and subplots address
which diverse modes of treatment affect behavior different aspects of people’s lives, rather than focusing
(Bandura, 1997). on a single issue. For example, the storylines in the
I redirected my program of research to shed concep- serial broadcast in Sudan included the benefits of family
tual light in the nature of this agentic belief system. planning, educational opportunities for girls, the injus-
Findings from diverse lines of research clarified the tice of forced marriage, the risks of early childbearing,
structure of self-efficacy, specified how to build it, prevention of HIV infection, and the harm of entangle-
explained the mechanisms through which it works, and ment in drug-related activities. The flexibility of this
provided guidelines on how to better people’s lives by format contributes to its generalizability, versatility, and
strengthening belief in their individual and collective power (Bandura, 2006b).
capabilities. The theory diffused rapidly to different Fostering society-wide changes requires three major
fields of psychology and across disciplinary lines. In components. The first component is a theoretical model.
the book Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control (Bandura, It specifies the determinants of psychosocial change
1997), I document widespread applications of the the- and the mechanisms through which those determinants
ory to the fields of education, health, athletics, the produce their effects. The second component is a trans-
corporate world, and social and political change. lational and implemental model. It converts theoretical
My recent book, Moral Disengagement (Bandura, principles into an innovative operational model. It
2016), is a call to action on how to restore moral self- specifies the content, strategies of change, and their
regulatory agency. These measures take a variety of mode of implementation. We often do not profit from
forms. Regardless of whether social practices are carried our theoretical successes because we lack effective
out individually, organizationally, or institutionally, it means for disseminating proven psychosocial
should be made difficult for people to strip humanity approaches. The third component is a social diffusion
from their detrimental behavior. A public that is well- model for adopting psychosocial programs to diverse
versed in the modes of moral disengagement can see cultural milieus. Population Media Center, which works
though these self-exonerative practices, making it harder with host countries in developing culturally relevant
for wrongdoers to use them successfully. At the broadest programs, serves as the diffusion system implementing
social level, human cruelty can be reduced by develop- the programs worldwide.
ing a sense of shared humanity with moral engagement The serial dramas are not social programs foisted on
toward an inclusive, socially just, and humane society. nations by outsiders. Rather, they are created only by
136 Bandura

invitation from countries seeking help with intractable Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collec-
problems. Population Media Center works in partner- tive efficacy. Current Directions in Psychological Science,
ship with media personnel in host countries to create 9, 75–78. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.00064
serial dramas tailored to their cultures and addressing Bandura, A. (2002a). Growing primacy of human agency in
adaptation and change in the electronic era. European
the types of benefits they seek.
Psychologist, 7, 2–16.
These productions are reaching millions of people
Bandura, A. (2002b). Social cognitive theory in cultural con-
around the world. For example, applications in Africa, text. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 51,
Asia, and Latin America are raising literacy levels, 269–290.
enhancing the status of women in societies in which they Bandura, A. (2004). Swimming against the mainstream: The
are marginalized and denied their freedom and dignity, early years from chilly tributary to transformative main-
reducing unplanned childbearing to break the cycle of stream. Behavioral Research and Therapy, 42, 613–630.
poverty and stem the soaring population growth, curtail- Bandura, A. (2006a). Autobiography. In M. G. Lindzey & W. M.
ing the spread of the AIDS epidemic, mobilizing com- Runyan (Eds.), A history of psychology in autobiogra-
munities to clean contaminated water supplies that are phy (Vol. 9, pp. 42–75). Washington, DC: American
the leading cause of death and illness worldwide, and Psychological Association.
Bandura, A. (2006b). Going global with social cognitive the-
promoting environmental conservation practices, such
ory: From prospect to paydirt. In S. I. Donaldson, D. E.
as sustainable foresting and farming, land conservation,
Berger, & K. Pezdek (Eds.), Applied psychology: New fron-
and natural resource and wildlife habitat preservation. tiers and rewarding careers (pp. 53–79). Mahwah, NJ:
These diverse programs of individual and social Erlbaum.
change reflect my abiding commitment to applications Bandura, A. (2006c). Guide to construction of self-efficacy
of the scientific knowledge we achieve. scales. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs
of adolescents (Vol. 5, pp. 307–337). Greenwich, CT:
Acknowledgments Information Age.
Bandura, A. (2017). Manual for constructing moral disengage-
Some of the sections of this article include revised, updated,
ment scales. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.
and expanded material from Bandura (2008).
Bandura, A. (2008). The reconstrual of “free will” from the
agentic perspective of social cognitive theory. In J. Baer,
Declaration of Conflicting Interests J. C. Kaufman, & R. F. Baumeister (Eds.), Are we free?
The author(s) declared that there were no conflicts of interest Psychology and free will (pp. 86–127). Oxford, England:
with respect to the authorship or the publication of this Oxford University Press.
article. Bandura, A. (2012). On the functional properties of self-
efficacy revisited. Journal of Management, 38, 9–44.
Bandura, A. (2015). On deconstructing commentaries
References regarding alternative theories of personality. Journal of
Ajzen, A., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and Management, 41, 1025–1044.
predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Bandura, A. (2016). Moral disengagement: How people do
Hall. harm and live with themselves. New York, NY: Worth.
Bandura, A. (1969). Principles of behavior modification. New Bandura, A., & Locke, E. (2003). Negative self-efficacy and
York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. goal effects revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88,
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A 87–99.
social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2013). New developments in goal
Bandura, A. (1991a). Self-regulation of motivation through setting and task performance. New York, NY: Routledge.
anticipatory and self-reactive mechanisms. In R. A. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1999). A five-factor theory
Dienstbier (Ed.), Perspectives on motivation: Nebraska of personality. In L. Pervin & O. John (Eds.), Handbook
symposium on motivation (Vol. 38, pp. 69–164). Lincoln: of personality (2nd ed., pp. 139–153). New York: Guilford
University of Nebraska Press. Press.
Bandura, A. (1991b). Social cognitive theory of moral thought Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (1999). Integrating dispositions and
and action. In W. M. Kurtines & J. L. Gewirtz (Eds.), processing dynamicswith a unified theory of personality:
Handbook of moral behavior and development (Vol. 1, The cognitive-affective personality system. In L. Pervin
pp. 45–103). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. & O. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality (2nd ed.,
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New pp. 197–218). New York: Guilford Press.
York, NY: Freeman. Murray, H. A., & Kluckhohn, C. (1953). Personality in nature,
Bandura, A. (1999.) A social cognitive theory of personality. society, and culture. New York, NY: Knopf.
In L. Pervin & O. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality Pajares, F., & Urdan, T. (Eds.). (2006). Self-efficacy beliefs of
(2nd ed., pp.154–196). New York, NY: Guilford Press. adolescents. Greenwich, CT: Information Age.