CHAPTER FOUR

Self-efficacy and human

motivation
Dale H. Schunk∗ and Maria K. DiBenedetto
The University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro, NC, United States
∗
Corresponding author: e-mail address: dhschunk@uncg.edu

Contents
1. Self-efficacy and human motivation 154
2. Conceptual framework 155
2.1 Reciprocal interactions 155
2.2 Self-efficacy and motivation 156
3. Early self-efficacy research 159
4. Self-efficacy in education 161
4.1 Environmental influences 161
4.2 Predictive utility 167
5. Theoretical adaptations 168
5.1 Persistence 168
5.2 Learning 168
5.3 Maintenance and transfer 169
5.4 Context 170
6. Future research agenda 172
6.1 Methodology 172
6.2 Goals 173
6.3 Context 174
6.4 Collective self-efficacy 174
6.5 Diversity 175
6.6 Technology 176
7. Conclusion 176
References 177

Abstract
Self-efficacy refers to perceived capabilities to learn or perform actions at designated
levels. Theory and research support the idea that self-efficacy is an important motiva-
tional construct that can affect choices, effort, persistence, and achievement. Situated
in Bandura’s social cognitive theory, self-efficacy is a personal construct that affects

Advances in Motivation Science, Volume 8 Copyright # 2021 Elsevier Inc. 153

ISSN 2215-0919 All rights reserved.
https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.adms.2020.10.001
154 Dale H. Schunk and Maria K. DiBenedetto

and is influenced by behaviors and social/environmental variables. Scientific investiga-

tion of self-efficacy began in clinical studies but since has expanded into diverse fields. In
education, an important research extension was to contexts involving learning.
This expanded research focus has suggested some adaptations to original theoretical
predictions involving persistence, learning, maintenance and transfer, and context.
Future research is recommended on methodology, goals, context, collective self-efficacy,
diversity, and technology.

1. Self-efficacy and human motivation

This article discusses the influential role of self-efficacy in human
motivation. As used herein, self-efficacy refers to one’s perceived capabilities
to learn or perform actions at designated levels. Motivation denotes the inter-
nal cognitive and affective processes that instigate and sustain goal-directed
actions and outcomes.
Since its introduction to the psychological literature (Bandura, 1977a,
1977b), self-efficacy has seen widespread application in diverse fields includ-
ing therapeutic, health, business, and educational contexts. Collectively, this
empirical base has supported the theoretical predication that self-efficacy is a
key motivational construct (Bandura, 1997; Schunk & DiBenedetto, 2016;
Schunk & Usher, 2019).
The earliest self-efficacy research was conducted in therapeutic contexts
with clients who exhibited extreme fears (e.g., snake phobias). Since then
self-efficacy has been investigated in diverse contexts globally. This spread
of self-efficacy research has led to the realization that some theoretical adap-
tations were needed to address the roles of important contextual and cultural
variables (Schunk & DiBenedetto, 2020b).
The structure of this article is as follows. The next section provides an
overview of the conceptual framework for self-efficacy by situating it in
Bandura’s (1986) social cognitive theory. A sample of the early clinical
studies is briefly described to include methods of assessment. Following
this is a more-detailed description of research expanding the role of self-
efficacy to educational contexts covering learning and more-complex
skills. In this context, adaptations are discussed that stemmed from
empirical findings. The article concludes with recommendations for a
future research agenda. It is hoped that this article will help to further
expand self-efficacy motivation research and continue to clarify its
operation.
Self-efficacy and human motivation 155

2. Conceptual framework
2.1 Reciprocal interactions
Self-efficacy is situated in the larger theoretical framework of Bandura’s
(1986, 1997) social cognitive theory. According to this theory, human func-
tioning depends on three interacting sets of factors (Fig. 1): personal (e.g.,
cognitions, emotions); social/environmental (e.g., classroom; praise from
a teacher); and behavioral (e.g., school attendance, completing one’s home-
work; Bandura, 1986). Each set of factors affects the others and is in turn
influenced by them. What people think can affect what they do, and actions
can alter their environments. In turn, social/environmental variables can
influence individuals’ thoughts. To illustrate these reciprocal interactions,
students who feel competent about performing well in school (high self-effi-
cacy—a personal variable) may persist and expend effort to learn (behavioral
variables). If a teacher were to remark to them how well they are learning
(social/environmental variable), this remark may substantiate their percep-
tion of learning progress (personal variable) and motivate them to continue.
An underlying premise of social cognitive theory is that individuals desire
a sense of agency, or the belief that they can exert a large degree of control
over important events in their lives. They exercise this sense of agency in
various ways, such as by setting goals and implementing strategies to attain
them. They monitor their progress toward their goals and adjust their strat-
egies as they believe is needed. Central to this agentic perspective is

Personal Factors:
Self-efficacy
Cognitions
Emotions

Behavioral Factors: Social/Environmental

Factors:
Class Attendance Classroom
Completing Assignments Teacher, Peers
School Climate

Fig. 1 Personal, behavioral, and environmental factors in social cognitive theory.

156 Dale H. Schunk and Maria K. DiBenedetto

individuals’ sense of self-efficacy, which results from self-reflection that is

both evaluative and goal oriented.

2.2 Self-efficacy and motivation

Self-efficacy is a key motivational process in social cognitive theory (Fig. 2).
Motivational outcomes of self-efficacy are choice of activities, effort,
persistence, and achievement. Compared with individuals who feel less effi-
cacious, those with higher self-efficacy should choose to engage in activities,
expend greater effort, persist longer and especially during difficulties, and
achieve at higher levels. Further, individuals who feel efficacious about
learning should engage in self-regulatory actions that improve their learning

Influences on Self-Efficacy
- Mastery Experiences
- Vicarious Experiences
- Social Persuasion
- Physiological Indexes

Self-Efficacy Leads to
- Goal Choices
- Effort Expended
- Persistence

Outcomes Resulting from

Levels of Self-Efficacy
- Achievement
- Self-regulation

Fig. 2 Influences on self-efficacy and outcomes.

Self-efficacy and human motivation 157

such as setting goals, using effective learning strategies, monitoring and eval-
uating their goal progress, and creating effective physical and social environ-
ments for learning (Usher & Schunk, 2018). In turn, self-efficacy can be
affected by behavioral factors (e.g., completing assignments) and by the out-
comes of actions such as perceived goal progress and achievement, as well as
by social/environmental inputs such as social comparisons with peers and
feedback from teachers and coaches.
Self-efficacy does not emerge from nowhere but rather there are
information sources that people use to assess their self-efficacy. These
sources are performance accomplishments, vicarious experiences, forms of
social persuasion, and physiological/emotional indexes (Schunk, 2012).
Performance accomplishments are the most reliable source because they
indicate what one can accomplish. But people also appraise their self-efficacy
based on their observations of others. Observing a successful performance
can raise observers’ self-efficacy, whereas observed failures can lower it.
Self-efficacy also is affected by persuasion from others (e.g., “You can do
it!”). Although vicarious and persuasive sources can raise self-efficacy, for
the increase to endure requires successful performance by the individual.
Physiological indexes also constitute a source. Persons who feel less anxious
in a situation may interpret that to mean that they are more capable of
succeeding.
Social cognitive theory also postulates other motivation variables as
important. Among these personal influences are goals and self-evaluations
of progress, social comparisons, values, outcome expectations, and attribu-
tions (Schunk & DiBenedetto, 2020a).
Goals are hypothesized to be strong motivators in social cognitive theory
(Bandura, 1986, 1997). Goals help to focus and sustain individuals’ efforts
directed toward task success. Their self-evaluations of progress are critical.
The belief that individuals are making goal progress helps sustain their
self-efficacy and motivation (Schunk, 2012). A discrepancy between the
goal and perceived progress can motivate learners to expend the necessary
effort and persist.
Although goals are critical, by themselves they do not affect motivation.
Rather, the goal properties of specificity, proximity, and difficulty are crit-
ical (Bandura, 1986; Locke & Latham, 2002, 2015). Goals that include spe-
cific performance standards are more likely to activate self-evaluations of
progress and enhance motivation than are general goals (e.g., “Do your
best”; Schunk & DiBenedetto, 2016). Similarly, goals that are short-term
and close at hand enhance motivation better than do distant, long-term goals.
158 Dale H. Schunk and Maria K. DiBenedetto

Learners are more motivated to strive for goals that they perceive are difficult
but attainable than goals they believe are very easy or overly difficult.
Underlying these properties is the learner’s sense of commitment to
attempting to attain the goal. In the absence of commitment, goals do not
affect motivation.
Social comparisons are comparisons of ourselves with others. Learners who
observe others performing successfully may believe that they can be success-
ful. Such a belief can raise their self-efficacy and lead them to engage in moti-
vated behaviors. The degree of perceived similarity between observer and
model in such areas as age, gender, and ability level, can be important.
Persons who observe similar others succeed may believe that they too can
be successful, which promotes motivational outcomes. Conversely,
observed failure by similar others may lower observers’ self-efficacy and
motivation.
Values refer to perceived importance or usefulness of actions. People’s
actions largely reflect their values (Bandura, 1986). When people value an
expected outcome, they are more motivated to choose to engage in the
activity and work diligently to achieve it (Wigfield, Tonks, & Klauda,
2016). In particular, values are strongly related to persons’ choices of activ-
ities (Wigfield et al., 2016).
Outcome expectations are one’s beliefs about the expected outcomes of
actions. They are key motivational processes, because people are motivated
to engage in actions when they believe that those actions will lead to out-
comes they desire. Outcome expectations can sustain actions over long
periods when people believe that their actions will eventually produce
the outcomes they desire. This is especially important for sustaining moti-
vation to attain long-term goals (e.g., choice of career).
Attributions are the perceived causes of outcomes (Weiner, 2010).
Attributions answer the question of why something happened. They are
key motivation processes because they can affect future motivation
(Schunk & DiBenedetto, 2020a). Persons who attribute outcomes to causes
over which they have control (e.g., effort, strategy use) are more apt to be
motivated than those who make attributions to uncontrollable causes (e.g.,
luck, task difficulty). Attributions, in turn, can affect self-efficacy.
In summary, social cognitive theory postulates multiple motivational
processes that can affect the outcomes of choice, effort, persistence, and
achievement. Self-efficacy is a key motivational process but not the only
one. Even persons with high self-efficacy may show low motivation if they
do not value the expected outcome. Students may have high self-efficacy for
Self-efficacy and human motivation 159

performing well in a course but may not do so if they believe that the course
does not contribute to their intended major. Further, no amount of self-
efficacy will guarantee success if people lack the requisite skills to perform
well. But assuming adequate skills and positive levels of other motivational
processes, self-efficacy is a critical motivational process that leads to strong
motivational outcomes (Schunk & DiBenedetto, 2020a).

3. Early self-efficacy research

The earliest research exploring the motivational role of self-efficacy
was conducted in clinical contexts. Two projects representative of this
research are described next to include the methodology for assessing self-
efficacy.
Bandura, Adams, and Beyer (1977) worked with adults with severe snake
phobias. The researchers administered a pretest consisting of progressively
more-threatening encounters with a snake, after which self-efficacy was
assessed. Three measures of self-efficacy were collected. Participants rated
self-efficacy magnitude by judging which of several tasks involving a snake
they could perform. They then rated self-efficacy strength by designating on
a 100-point scale their certainty of performing the tasks they had judged they
could perform. Third, a measure of self-efficacy generality was collected
where participants made magnitude and strength ratings for the same tasks
except for a type of snake different from the other type.
Participants were assigned to one of three experimental conditions. In
the participant modeling condition, participants initially observed the exper-
imenter model progressively more-threatening encounters with a snake.
Performance aids were introduced so that participants would be able to
perform the activities: decomposing complex tasks into basic components;
performing the activities jointly with the participants; gradually increasing
the duration of performance; and offering protective devices. As treatment
progressed the aids were gradually withdrawn. After participants completed
all tasks, self-directed mastery was given where participants performed the
tasks unaided. In the modeling condition, participants observed the clinician
model all of the feared activities but did not perform them themselves.
Control participants received only the assessments. Following training, par-
ticipants completed the same assessments that were on the pretest except that
self-efficacy was assessed before and after the behavioral test and they were
tested with both the pretest snake and a different generalization snake.
160 Dale H. Schunk and Maria K. DiBenedetto

The results showed that participant modeling participants made the

greatest gains in self-efficacy and judged it significantly higher than did
modeling and control group members. Modeling participants’ self-efficacy
was significantly higher than that of controls. On the behavioral test, both
modeling conditions showed significant increases in approach behaviors
with participant modeling producing the greater increases. These results
supported the prediction that performance accomplishments constitute
the most reliable source of self-efficacy and lead to higher self-efficacy
judgments.
As a further test (Bandura & Adams, 1977), adults with severe snake pho-
bias received participant modeling until they successfully performed all tasks.
There was considerable variability on the behavioral posttest. Some partic-
ipants could not perform tasks that they had successfully performed during
treatment, some moved slightly beyond treatment level, and others achieved
terminal performance. The results showed that self-efficacy assessed during
the posttest was a better predictor of posttest performance than was treat-
ment performance. Self-efficacy assessed prior to the behavioral posttest
accurately predicted performance on 92% of the tasks. These results suggest
that the effects of performance accomplishments on self-efficacy may be
attenuated by other variables.
There are a few noteworthy points to make about these representative
studies and other early research. One is that self-efficacy measured what par-
ticipants believed they could do. The tasks (e.g., allow a snake to sit in your
lap) involved primarily overcoming fears, not new learning. Thus, what was
assessed was self-efficacy for performance.
Second, the behavioral tasks were identical to the tasks on which partic-
ipants judged self-efficacy (e.g., self-efficacy for allowing a snake to sit in
your lap and allowing a snake to sit in your lap). The tasks and self-efficacy
judgments also were identical on the generalization tasks; only the type of
snake differed. Thus, participants did not have to take into account differ-
ences in conditions or contextual factors in judging self-efficacy. This is a key
point because it places a limitation on the generality of the results to contexts
that may include such differences.
The importance of self-efficacy as a key motivational process was subse-
quently expanded in two important ways. One is the development of the
model of reciprocal interactions discussed earlier, where self-efficacy is situated
in a model of personal influences on motivation. The second was the expan-
sion of research beyond clinical contexts and using tasks that required partic-
ipants to make more-complex judgments of what was required for success.
Self-efficacy and human motivation 161

The expansion of research into the field of education is discussed in the fol-
lowing section.

4. Self-efficacy in education
The extension of self-efficacy motivation research to the field of edu-
cation was important for several reasons. Whereas early clinical research
involved the motivational role of self-efficacy for performing tasks that peo-
ple knew how to do, educational contexts typically involve learning. A key
question was whether the motivational effects of self-efficacy could impact
learning. Second, the model of reciprocal interactions predicts that environ-
mental variables can affect personal variables such as self-efficacy. There are a
host of instructional and social factors at work in educational settings that
could affect self-efficacy but research on this issue was lacking. Third, it is
expected that educational learning in such areas as reading and mathematics
will maintain itself over time and transfer to contexts beyond the learning
setting. An important unaddressed question was whether gains in self-
efficacy brought about by learning would maintain themselves over time
and especially outside of the original learning context.
The remainder of this section discusses the influence of some instruc-
tional and social factors on self-efficacy in contexts involving learning.
Environmental factors reviewed are social models, goals, feedback, social
comparisons, and rewards. This is followed by a discussion of the predictive
utility of self-efficacy.

4.1 Environmental influences

Social models. Learners acquire much information about their self-efficacy for
learning from knowledge of how others perform (Schunk, 2012). By
observing teacher and peer models perform successfully, observers may
believe that they too are capable, which can motivate them to choose to
engage in the activities, expend effort, and persist. These motivational out-
comes help promote achievement.
The initial application of self-efficacy to an educational context involv-
ing learning was conducted by Schunk (1981), who assigned children with
low long-division skills to a cognitive modeling or didactic condition.
Cognitive modeling students observed an adult model solve division prob-
lems and verbalize the solution strategies, after which they solved problems
and received corrective modeling as needed. Didactic students received
written instruction on the same solution strategies and the same amount
162 Dale H. Schunk and Maria K. DiBenedetto

of practice. Within each of these conditions, half of the learners periodically

received verbal effort attribution feedback from an adult who attributed
their successes to sustained effort and difficulties to insufficient effort. The
other half of the children did not receive effort feedback. Learners’ self-
efficacy, persistence solving problems, and achievement were assessed before
and after the instruction using long-division problems of varying difficulty.
Modeling students showed significant increases in self-efficacy, persis-
tence, and achievement, across all levels of problem difficulty, thereby
supporting the predicted influence of models. The modeling and didactic
treatments produced comparable gains in self-efficacy and persistence; the
modeling treatment led to significantly higher achievement. Self-efficacy
was an accurate predictor of performance across levels of problem difficulty
and modes of treatment. Didactic children were more likely to overestimate
their self-efficacy (i.e., judge self-efficacy higher than their skills on the
achievement test warranted) than were modeling children.
Self-efficacy was assessed by showing sample problems for a period too
brief for them to attempt solutions but long enough so they could gauge
problem type and difficulty. The problems on the self-efficacy test cor-
responded in form and difficulty to those on the achievement test. Thus,
students were not judging their self-efficacy to solve specific problems
but rather their self-efficacy to solve problems like those shown (i.e., com-
parable in form and difficulty). The self-efficacy assessment required judg-
ments that applied to classes of problems—a measure of generality in
assessment.
Goals. Educational research has shown that goals—and especially those
that are specific, proximal, and difficult but attainable—provide information
that people use in judging self-efficacy. Pursuing goals that are proximal or
specific allows one to compare performance against the goals to gauge pro-
gress. The perception of progress sustains self-efficacy and motivation.
Further, when goals are viewed as challenging but attainable (moderately
difficult), individuals are apt to experience a sense of self-efficacy for attain-
ing them. Attainment of goals further strengthens self-efficacy and motivates
people to pursue new goals.
The hypothesized motivational benefits of goal properties have been
shown in several studies. In an early study involving learners in a subtraction
instruction program (Bandura & Schunk, 1981), proximal (daily) goals of
problem solving led to higher motivation (rate of problem solving), self-
efficacy, and achievement, compared with more-distant (end of the week)
goals or general (do your best) goals. The distant goal yielded no benefits
Self-efficacy and human motivation 163

compared with the general goal. During a long-division instruction pro-

gram, Schunk (1983b) found that providing students with specific perfor-
mance goals plus social comparison information about peers that
indicated that the goal was attainable led to higher achievement than did
either condition alone. The specific goals enhanced self-efficacy; social com-
parison information increased motivation during problem solving.
Schunk (1983c) found that compared with easier goals, more-difficult
goals raised students’ motivation during mathematical problem solving.
Giving students persuasive self-efficacy information (e.g., “You can work
25 problems.”) led to the highest achievement. Further, allowing learners
to set goals may raise goal commitment and motivation. Schunk (1985)
found that self-set goals raised self-efficacy. Sixth-grade students with learn-
ing disabilities received subtraction instruction and practice. Those who set
their own daily performance goals and those who had comparable goals
assigned demonstrated higher motivation than did those who had no goals.
Self-set goals led to the highest self-efficacy and achievement.
Collectively, these and other results support the point that goal properties
can enhance learners’ motivation and achievement. The hypothesized
mechanism whereby this occurs is through self-efficacy, which is strength-
ened and maintained as learners experience goal progress. There are addi-
tional aspects that require research, a point we return to later.
Feedback. Feedback is a key environmental instructional variable that can
affect self-efficacy and motivation. Feedback can function as a vicarious
source of self-efficacy information. Being given performance feedback
(e.g., “That’s correct”) conveys information to learners that they are per-
forming well, which can raise self-efficacy (Schunk & Usher, 2019). An
enhanced sense of self-efficacy can help to sustain motivation.
Researchers importantly have examined the role of attributional feed-
back, which links performance outcomes with one or more attributions.
Commonly, researchers have explored the effects of providing effort feed-
back to learners for success (e.g., “You’ve been working hard”) or difficulty
(e.g., “You need to work harder”), or ability feedback for success (e.g.,
“You’re getting good at this”). Attributing success to ability or effort should
raise self-efficacy and motivation because learners are apt to believe that they
can continue to perform well. Attributing difficulties to low effort or other
malleable causes (e.g., improper strategy) should not lower self-efficacy and
motivation because learners may believe that they can perform better.
These ideas have received empirical support. In the context of a math-
ematical instruction program, Schunk (1982) found that providing verbal
164 Dale H. Schunk and Maria K. DiBenedetto

feedback to students that linked their prior achievements with effort (e.g.,
“You’ve been working hard”) led to higher motivation, self-efficacy, and
achievement, than did emphasizing the potential benefits of effort (e.g.,
“You need to work hard”). It is possible that if students in the latter condi-
tion had been working hard the feedback might have discouraged them and
led them to believe that no amount of effort could improve performance.
Schunk (1983a) worked with learners in a mathematics skill development
program and found that ability feedback for successes (e.g., “You’re good
at this”) enhanced achievement and self-efficacy better than did effort feed-
back or ability and effort feedback (i.e., ability feedback initially followed by
effort feedback). It is possible that the latter students may have discounted
the ability information in favor of effort. The sequence seems important.
As people develop skills, they should not need to work as hard to succeed.
Providing late effort feedback may have conveyed they still were not
capable.
In a study by Schunk and Cox (1986), middle school students with learn-
ing disabilities received a mathematics instruction program. Students also
received effort feedback during the first or second half of the instructional
program, or no effort feedback. Students who received effort feedback in
either half showed higher self-efficacy, motivation, and achievement, than
did those who received no effort feedback. Feedback given in the first half
increased effort attributions and motivation in the first half of the program.
Given students’ learning disabilities, effort feedback for early or later suc-
cesses may have seemed credible because they likely had to work hard to
succeed. They may have interpreted the feedback as indicating that they
were becoming more skillful, which could build self-efficacy and
motivation.
In short, this research shows that attributional feedback can function as a
key source of self-efficacy information but that its effects may depend on its
credibility. Effort feedback is credible when one is working hard early in the
course of learning. As skills develop, effort feedback is less credible and may
even convey negative self-efficacy information because learners may wonder
why they still have to work diligently to succeed. Periodic assessments of
students’ skills and self-efficacy should yield information about feedback
sequences that optimally affect achievement outcomes.
Social comparisons. Social comparisons are motivational processes that can
affect such motivational outcomes as choices, effort, persistence, and
achievement (Schunk, 2012). Learners who observe others perform success-
fully may believe that they can succeed. An important consideration is
Self-efficacy and human motivation 165

perceived similarity of observer to others. Learners who perceive greater

similarity to others in key aspects are more likely to be influenced by social
comparisons (Schunk & Usher, 2019). Researchers have shown that per-
ceived similarity in age, gender, and ability level can affect learners’ self-
efficacy (Bandura, 1986). Conversely, learners who observe similar others
experience difficulty may have lower self-efficacy and motivation.
Although people can learn from others who are dissimilar to themselves
(e.g., adult female teacher and male child learner), social comparisons seem
more influential on motivational outcomes.
The effects of perceived similarity have been explored in studies of peer
models, whom students likely perceive as more similar to themselves than
teacher models. For example, Schunk and Hanson (1985) worked with chil-
dren with low mathematical skills and compared observation of peer mastery
and peer coping models with observation of adult models and no models.
Peer mastery models solved subtraction with regrouping problems correctly
and verbalized statements reflecting high self-efficacy and ability, low task
difficulty, and positive attitudes. Peer coping models initially made errors
and verbalized negative statements, but gradually verbalized coping state-
ments (e.g., “I need to pay attention to what I’m doing”) and eventually
performed and verbalized as well as mastery models.
Observation of peer models increased self-efficacy and achievement bet-
ter than observation of the teacher model or no model; teacher-model stu-
dents outperformed no-model students. Observing any type of model led to
higher motivation during instruction than did not observing a model. It was
hypothesized that observing a coping model would boost self-efficacy more
than observing a mastery model because children should have identified
more closely with the coping model, but no differences were found.
A follow-up study explored this issue further. Schunk, Hanson, and Cox
(1987) used a task (fractions) on which students had experienced few suc-
cesses. This study also tested the idea that observing multiple models is better
than observing a single model because of greater likelihood that all students
could identify closely with at least one model. Observing multiple models—
coping or mastery—promoted outcomes as well as observing a single coping
model and better than observing a single mastery model. Children who
observed single models judged themselves more similar in competence to
coping than to mastery models. Benefits of observing multiple models were
not due to perceived similarity in competence.
Research also has addressed self-modeling where one observes one’s own
performances. Schunk and Hanson (1989) made audio and video recordings
166 Dale H. Schunk and Maria K. DiBenedetto

of students solving problems and showed them the recordings. Self-

modeling raised self-efficacy and motivation as self-modeling children
outperformed students who had been recorded but did not observe the
recordings and those who had not been recorded. These results suggest that
self-modeling may draw attention to progress in learning, an important cue
for influencing self-efficacy.
In summary, vicarious information gained through social comparisons
can be an influential cue for self-efficacy. Such information can be gained
through observations of models or can be conveyed by others directly
(e.g., “Other students could work 25 problems”). Given that vicarious
information is not gained through actual performances by observers, its
effects typically are weaker than performance accomplishments. For self-
efficacy to be maintained and potentially generalize to other situations, it
is important that such vicarious information be substantiated through sub-
sequent successful performances.
Rewards. There is a long history of rewards in motivation research, espe-
cially on the effects of offering rewards on intrinsic motivation (Ryan &
Deci, 2016; Sansone & Harackiewicz, 2000). Rewards also have been inves-
tigated for their effects on self-efficacy.
Rewards are both informative and motivating (Bandura, 1986). As stu-
dents work on tasks, they learn which actions lead to success. Such informa-
tion guides actions. Anticipation of desirable outcomes motivates students to
persist. Rewards enhance self-efficacy when they are linked with accom-
plishments and convey that students have made progress in learning.
Receipt of the reward also symbolizes progress. Rewards offered merely
for task participation do not convey the same type of progress information.
Research supports these ideas. During mathematics instruction, students
were told either that they would earn points for each problem solved and
could exchange points for prizes (performance-contingent rewards) or that
they would receive prizes for participating (task-contingent rewards;
Schunk, 1983d). Results showed that performance-contingent rewards
enhanced motivation, self-efficacy, and achievement. Task-contingent
rewards led to no benefits. Schunk (1984) found that performance-
contingent rewards raised motivation as well as did proximal goals among
children during division instruction and that combining rewards with goals
resulted in the highest self-efficacy and achievement. The combined condi-
tion may have provided clear information to students about their learning
progress.
Self-efficacy and human motivation 167

This limited review of educational motivation research shows that,

although the various conditions differ in many ways, they are united in their
focus on how they convey learning progress to students. In support of the-
oretical predictions, instructional and social conditions that convey to stu-
dents that they are making progress learning are effective means for
promoting learners’ self-efficacy and motivation (Schunk & Usher, 2019).

4.2 Predictive utility

Researchers have shown that self-efficacy predicts subsequent motivational
outcomes. Significant and positive correlations have been obtained between
self-efficacy assessed before receiving instruction and subsequent rate of
problem solving (Schunk & Hanson, 1985; Schunk et al., 1987). In the
Schunk (1982) study, multiple regression showed that rate of problem solv-
ing during instruction and posttest self-efficacy accounted for significant
increments in posttest skill variation (change in R2 ¼ 0.48 for rate of problem
solving and 0.20 for self-efficacy). Shell, Murphy, and Bruning (1989) found
that self-efficacy accounted for significant portions of variability in reading
and writing achievement.
Schunk (1981) employed path analysis to reproduce a correlation matrix
comprising instructional treatment, self-efficacy, persistence in problem
solving, and long division achievement. The most parsimonious mode
showed a direct effect of treatment on achievement, an indirect of treatment
through persistence and efficacy on achievement, an indirect effect of treat-
ment through efficacy on persistence, and a direct effect of efficacy on
achievement and persistence.
More recent studies also support the predictive and mediational power of
self-efficacy on achievement. In a study conducted in an ethnically diverse
high school, girls received nine 50-min counseling sessions targeted at build-
ing students’ self-efficacy for careers in STEM (Falco & Summers, 2019).
Sources used in the intervention to build self-efficacy included focusing
on performance accomplishments, modeling, strategies for controlling anx-
iety, and verbal persuasions and encouragement. Results showed positive
moderate-to-large effect sizes for the impact of the intervention on students’
self-efficacy for careers in STEM.
Ramdass and Zimmerman (2011) examined the influence of modeling
and social feedback on self-efficacy for learning mathematics. In their study,
sixth-and-seventh grade students observed coping models with or without
social feedback, or mastery models with or without social feedback. Results
168 Dale H. Schunk and Maria K. DiBenedetto

showed that the students who received the coping model intervention sur-
passed those in the mastery model condition on the posttests and that their
self-efficacy was better associated with achievement. These research exam-
ples highlight the predictive utility of self-efficacy on achievement.

5. Theoretical adaptations
The preceding research and other studies conducted outside of clinical
contexts suggest that some of the original predictions about self-efficacy may
need adaptation. In this section, we summarize adaptations involving persis-
tence, learning, maintenance and transfer, and context.

5.1 Persistence
Self-efficacy theory postulated that a key motivational outcome of self-
efficacy is persistence. Compared with persons with lower self-efficacy,
efficacious individuals are more likely to persist at tasks, especially at
more-difficult ones (Bandura, 1977a, 1977b).
Early research (e.g., Schunk, 1981, 1982) showed that the relation of self-
efficacy to persistence is more complex. In the early stages of learning, indi-
viduals are less skilled and rightfully must persist to eventually succeed. But as
skills develop, persons should have to persist for a shorter time to succeed.
Thus, the relation between self-efficacy and persistence may be curvilinear
rather than linear and a simple correlation between the two may yield no
relation.
To this end, it is useful to assess persistence separately for more- and less-
difficult tasks. As skills develop, we should expect less persistence on simpler
tasks and greater persistence on more-difficult ones. In fact, when
researchers examined this issue in this fashion, persistence was a reliable out-
come of higher self-efficacy (Schunk, 1981, 1982). Another motivational
outcome—choice of activities—is apt to come into play as persons with
higher self-efficacy should be more likely to choose to engage in challenging
tasks. Then persistence on difficult tasks becomes a valid motivational
outcome.

5.2 Learning
Expansion of research also showed that self-efficacy for successfully per-
forming tasks is not a good measure when learning is involved. For example,
when students are given problems that they do not know how to solve they
Self-efficacy and human motivation 169

will judge self-efficacy for solving them as low and fail to solve them. Such a
measure of self-efficacy will not predict subsequent motivation.
A better measure is self-efficacy for learning, or perceived capabilities for
learning how to successfully perform tasks. The predictive power of self-
efficacy for learning was demonstrated by Schunk and Hanson (1989),
who found that a measure of self-efficacy for learning predicted subsequent
motivation during problem solving. Once skills begin to develop, self-
efficacy for performance may become a more-reliable predictor.

5.3 Maintenance and transfer

Expansion of self-efficacy motivation research beyond clinical contexts
highlighted the need to implement interventions that promoted mainte-
nance and transfer of self-efficacy beyond the original contexts. In educa-
tion, for example, students continually are learning new material in
various contexts (e.g., mathematics, science, language arts). Although self-
efficacy is conceptualized as a content-specific construct, it is important that
students feel a sense of self-efficacy for learning new knowledge and skills or
else the value of enhanced self-efficacy would result in few benefits. We
might expect some transfer when learners perceive similarities between
the learning and transfer contexts. In the early studies summarized previously
in this article (Bandura & Adams, 1977; Bandura et al., 1977), transfer was
assessed by assessing self-efficacy and skill for a type of snake not employed in
the intervention, and good evidence for transfer was obtained.
There also is evidence of maintenance and transfer in educational con-
texts (Schunk and Swartz, 1993a, 1993b). Children in regular and gifted
classrooms were provided a learning (process) goal of learning to use a
paragraph-writing strategy or a performance (product) goal of writing par-
agraphs during a writing strategy instruction program. Half of the process-
goal students periodically received feedback on their progress in learning to
use the strategy. The results showed that the process goal with feedback was
the most effective and that the process goal with or without feedback led to
higher achievement outcomes than did the product goal. Benefits were
obtained after a month-long break (maintenance) and on writing types of
paragraphs at which students had received no instruction (transfer).
These results suggest that when students believe they can use a strategy
that will help them achieve they are apt to experience higher self-efficacy
and motivation. The maintenance and transfer results are important for most
forms of school learning.
170 Dale H. Schunk and Maria K. DiBenedetto

5.4 Context
As exemplified by many studies summarized in this article, self-efficacy
research clearly has shown that contextual factors can have impact on
self-efficacy and motivation. The original theoretical predictions asserted
this. In forming self-efficacy judgments, individuals weigh and combine
information from various sources. In educational contexts, learners may
obtain efficacy information from how they perform (performance accom-
plishments), what they observe peers doing (vicarious), what the teacher tells
them (persuasive), and the type of emotions they are experiencing (physio-
logical). Contextual variables may influence the process of forming self-
efficacy beliefs (Usher & Schunk, 2018).
Researchers also have shown that people differ in their preferred sources
and that contexts can alter the perceived importance of different sources
(Usher & Pajares, 2008). Contextual factors such as gender, ethnicity, abil-
ity, and content area potentially can affect the strength of different sources.
This is because the sources do not automatically exert effects. Rather, it is
individuals’ perceptions and interpretations that are important. Even stu-
dents who experience much performance success may interpret those suc-
cesses as indicating problems and thus the effect on self-efficacy may not be
strong. Further, when self-efficacy information is conveyed by multiple
sources—which it often is—then people may not be proficient in weighing
and integrating that information (Usher & Pajares, 2008).
Although most self-efficacy research has found no gender differences in
the influence of sources on self-efficacy, there are some exceptions. For
example, some research shows that boys are more strongly affected by mas-
tery experiences and experience lower anxiety in mathematics than do girls,
whereas girls report greater mastery experiences and lower anxiety in writ-
ing (Usher & Pajares, 2008). There also is some evidence for girls using more
social persuasions and vicarious experiences in mathematics, writing, and
overall academics (Usher & Pajares, 2008). Successful women in mathemat-
ics, scientific, and technological fields often report that exposure to compe-
tent same sex models fostered their self-efficacy to pursue careers in those
fields (Usher & Pajares, 2008).
There also has been research examining self-efficacy in students with spe-
cial needs (Schunk & DiBenedetto, 2020b). Compared with students with-
out special needs, those diagnosed with a specific learning disorder are more
likely to report lower self-efficacy, internalize a history of repeated failures
and frustrations, and perform at lower levels (Heward, Alber-Morgan,
Self-efficacy and human motivation 171

& Konrad, 2017; Major, Martinussen, & Wiener, 2013. This result is
obtained even when such variables as grades, grade level, and gender are
taken into account (Lackaye, Margalit, Ziv, & Ziman, 2006). Such students
likely experience lower mastery experiences, vicarious experiences that
show them lower compared to normally functioning peers, and greater anx-
iety (Schunk & DiBenedetto, 2020b). The situation is further compounded
when students have conditions such as dyslexia that promote reading
difficulties.
Schunk and Rice (1991, 1992, 1993) conducted research on students
with reading disabilities. The results of these studies showed that treatments
involving modeling, goal setting, self-directed practice, and feedback on the
value of applying strategies promoted students’ self-efficacy and perfor-
mances. Other researchers have found effective interventions stressing
self-monitoring of strategy use and performance (Kanani, Adibsereshki, &
Haghgoo, 2017).
A key contextual variable is the role of culture. Cultural differences have
been obtained in self-efficacy motivation research (McInerney & King,
2018). A cultural dimension that has been explored widely in self-efficacy
research is individualism and collectivism. Individualistic cultures tend to
stress independence and individual achievement, whereas collectivist cul-
tures emphasize group identity and “we” consciousness (Klassen, 2004).
The United States and Western European countries are high in individual-
ism; Asian cultures tend to be more collectivist (Klassen, 2004). Researchers
comparing these cultures typically find that individuals from collectivist cul-
tures judge self-efficacy lower than do those from more-individualistic
cultures, including when performances of persons from collectivist cultures
are equivalent or higher than those from individualistic cultures. Further, the
lower self-efficacy beliefs typically are better aligned with actual perfor-
mances (Klassen, 2004).
These results suggest that collectivist cultures may promote modesty in
self-efficacy appraisals. They also raise the issue of whether collective self-
efficacy (i.e., belief of what a group of persons can accomplish) may be a better
predictor of performance in these cultures than individual self-efficacy
(Klassen, 2004; Schunk & DiBenedetto, 2020b). If this is the case, then we
might expect that in individualistic cultures persons are swayed more by indi-
vidual performance accomplishments whereas in collectivist settings the influ-
ence on self-efficacy of vicarious perceptions and persuasive communications
from group members may be given greater emphasis. The potential role of
cultures adds complexity to the process of self-efficacy judgment.
172 Dale H. Schunk and Maria K. DiBenedetto

6. Future research agenda

The preceding section elucidated some research-based adaptations
needed to self-efficacy theory as originally postulated. Although self-efficacy
is a strong influence on motivation, there are other motivational processes
that lead to motivation outcomes of choice, effort, persistence, and achieve-
ment. Among these other motivational processes are those discussed in this
article: modeling and social comparisons, goals, outcome expectations,
values, and attributions (Schunk, 2012). Research to date in the social cog-
nitive theoretical tradition has substantiated the influence of these variables
on motivation and in turn how they can be impacted by social and instruc-
tional variables.
Although self-efficacy has a rich research tradition, many issues remain.
Addressing these issues is important both for continued theory development
and for expanding the generality of the operation of self-efficacy in diverse
contexts. In this section, we recommend increased research on several
topics: methodology, goals, context, collective self-efficacy, diversity, and
technology.

6.1 Methodology
Motivation is a dynamic, ever-changing construct. Yet too often it has been
assessed in a static manner, such as by giving questionnaires before and after
interventions. This type of assessment can track pretest-to-posttest changes
but not fine-grained changes that occur during task engagement.
Researchers increasingly are using methods of assessment that feature
real-time analysis. For example, microanalytic methods collect assessments
before, during, and after task engagement. Think-aloud protocols capture
participants’ thoughts as they engage in learning. Interviews ask participants
about their thoughts at various points in the process. Written diaries ask stu-
dents to record their thoughts as they work on tasks. With technology, traces
show students’ progress through a learning episode. These and other types of
assessments capture dynamic changes in motivation.
Self-efficacy can change rapidly. It does not remain static from the start of
a learning episode to the end of it. By tracking fine-grained changes,
researchers can show how motivation varies over the course of learning.
This type of assessment is better positioned to show how variables can
impact self-efficacy at various points in the process.
Self-efficacy and human motivation 173

These kinds of measures also capture the learning process. As noted pre-
viously, researchers often assess self-efficacy for performing a task. This
assumes that learning already has occurred. To capture more the dynamic
nature of self-efficacy, other types of self-efficacy should receive increased
research attention. If learning is involved, then self-efficacy for learning
should be assessed. Self-efficacy for self-regulated learning is appropriate
when the learning task involves self-regulation. The point is to link self-
efficacy in research to the types of tasks that are used so that self-efficacy
and tasks are closely aligned.

6.2 Goals
As discussed earlier, self-efficacy researchers have shown that goals are key
influences on self-efficacy and especially goal properties and commitment.
In the last several years, theory and research on goals have expanded dramat-
ically (Senko, 2016). Researchers have explored different types of goals such
as approach, avoidance, process, product, mastery, and performance. There
is some self-efficacy research on different types of goals. For example, pro-
viding students with process goals that stress learning raises self-efficacy bet-
ter than does emphasizing performance goals that highlight completion of
tasks (Schunk & Rice, 1991; Schunk & Swartz, 1993a).
An area that deserves greater attention is how self-efficacy is influenced
by approach and avoidance goals (Murayama & Elliot, 2019). Approach
goals focus on attaining success (e.g., make an A on my chemistry exam);
avoidance goals refer to avoiding failure (e.g., not make a C or lower on
my chemistry exam). The effects of approach and avoidance goals on
self-efficacy may depend in part on learners perceptions of goal difficulty
and their commitment to attempting to attain them, but effects may depend
on a point mentioned earlier in this article; namely, that self-efficacy is a
forward-looking construct oriented toward helping persons develop a sense
of agency. To this end, we might expect that approach goals, relative to
avoidance goals, would exert a stronger influence on self-efficacy and espe-
cially a more enduring influence.
There is some empirical support for this prediction. Samareh and Kezri
(2016) found with university students that approach-motivated students used
self-efficacy enhancement (e.g., self-regulatory strategy use) more often than
did avoidance-oriented students. The process whereby approach goals may
help persons become more likely to use more effective learning strategies—
174 Dale H. Schunk and Maria K. DiBenedetto

and thereby raise self-efficacy—is unclear but deserving research attention.

Such research would help clarify theory and suggest implications for learning.

6.3 Context
Self-efficacy is intended to be a construct that applies across different con-
texts. Yet as we have shown in this article, contextual variables can affect it.
For self-efficacy to fulfill its potential as a strong motivational variable
requires additional research exploring these contextual influences.
Previously we discussed how self-efficacy seems subject to cultural fac-
tors. We also expect that self-efficacy should respond to differences in learn-
ing environments. Some settings may be more self-efficacy affirming than
others; for example, where teachers give more positive feedback that
includes persuasive self-efficacy information (e.g., “You can do this.”).
Whether effects occur and how durable they are over time and situations
are issues needing to be addressed.
Researchers have shown that persons utilize self-efficacy information
sources differently and that context can exert an effect (Usher & Pajares,
2008). Further research in this area can have diagnostic benefits. Learning
which sources may be salient to different learners provides information
on how to use those sources effectively to have desired benefits on self-
efficacy.

6.4 Collective self-efficacy

Clearly more research is needed on collective self-efficacy because the bulk
of existing research has focused on self-efficacy of individuals. As we have
noted herein, cultural factors may influence individuals’ perceptions of
self-efficacy. Persons in certain cultures (e.g., collectivist) may not be accus-
tomed to thinking in terms of individual achievement. Rather, they may
value collective accomplishments. Assessing self-efficacy for individual tasks
will not capture these perceptions because collective self-efficacy is not sim-
ply the average of the self-efficacy of the individuals in the collective.
Another key reason for greater emphasis on collective self-efficacy is that
even in individualistic cultures, collective accomplishments are being
increasingly stressed. Such concepts as teamwork and cooperative learning
are routinely employed in schools and workplaces. Teachers work in teams
to plan curricula and design lessons. Students work in teams on laboratory
and other projects. Employers seek to hire persons who have good
Self-efficacy and human motivation 175

interpersonal skills and can work with others on the job. Greater emphasis
on collective self-efficacy in research will not only add to our understanding
of the construct but also have implications for interventions to help
promote it.

6.5 Diversity
Initial self-efficacy motivation research was conducted largely in clinical set-
tings. Since that time, researchers have expanded the scope to other settings
including education, health, and business. Research also has expanded to
many countries such that today there are active research agendas across
the globe. This trend must continue to test the predictions of the theory
is international settings. The preceding discussion of the role of culture in
self-efficacy calls attention to the idea that self-efficacy theory may need
adaptation to apply more globally.
Along with diversity of contexts, further diversity in research participants
is needed. Although some participant groups are well represented in
research, others are not. There is, for example, very little research on moti-
vation among persons experiencing homelessness, recent immigrant indi-
viduals, and those experiencing life crises (e.g., loss of income or health).
Research must be expanded to these and other populations for self-efficacy
to be shown to be universally applicable.
Much self-efficacy research has addressed school contexts. Schools in the
United States and globally are becoming more diverse as there have been
influxes of students from other countries and cultures. We might ask, for
example, which sources of self-efficacy information are most effective for
these students. In the United States, most teachers (especially at the elemen-
tary and middle school levels) are Anglo-American women. How effective
as conveyors of self-efficacy information are they for students from other
cultural and ethnic backgrounds?
Research also is needed in contexts that traditionally have been under-
represented in research. Thus, much learning occurs out of school in con-
texts involving mentoring, tutoring, internships, and apprenticeships. Much
also occurs in homes. Relative to school-based research, there is little exam-
ining students’ motivation in these other contexts. Self-efficacy lends itself
well to these other settings because they involve social relationships and the
principles seem highly applicable. Researchers should continue their focus
on these and others non-traditional out-of-school settings.
176 Dale H. Schunk and Maria K. DiBenedetto

6.6 Technology
Self-efficacy theory is like most motivation theories in the sense that it was
largely developed prior to the advent of technological advances. Among
other things, this means that most self-efficacy research has been conducted
in face-to-face settings.
This is not to suggest that the theory needs major revisions. The theory’s
principles are intended to be generic and apply across different contexts,
although the role of technology requires some adaptations.
Fortunately, self-efficacy research using forms of technology has
increased in recent years and this trend should continue. For example,
researchers investigating self-regulation have shown that technology can
be used to help students develop self-regulatory skills, which can enhance
their motivation and achievement (Azevedo, Taub, & Mudrick, 2018;
Moos, 2018). We should expect that technology that calls attention to stu-
dents’ learning progress would positively affect their self-efficacy and
motivation.
Self-efficacy research is needed using social media. These media offer
ways for students to have social contact with others, and we know little
about how such social interactions may influence self-efficacy. Learning
from others constitutes a source of self-efficacy information, and this should
be true regardless of whether the interactions are live or virtual. Social media
fit well with self-efficacy theory that is situated in the broader “social cog-
nitive theory.”
Such research has implications for teaching and learning. There are some
educational uses currently in place using technologies such as Zoom and
Facebook. How might these be used to help students set goals, monitor goal
progress, assess their self-efficacy for learning, and the like? How might
instruction be designed to incorporate social media that take self-efficacy
of learners and instructors into account? There is a wealth of research pos-
sible that is needed to further expand the generality of the theory well
beyond its original formulation.

7. Conclusion
Self-efficacy theory and research have made important contributions
to the study and understanding of human motivation. Researchers have
shown that self-efficacy is a key internal motivational process that can be
affected by personal and environmental variables and which influences
Self-efficacy and human motivation 177

motivational outcomes of choices, effort, persistence, and achievement.

Application of self-efficacy principles to diverse contexts suggests some
adaptations needed to the original theory. Researchers will continue to
explore the operation of self-efficacy and methods of assessment. The hope
is to expand the agenda of self-efficacy theory to diverse contexts and
populations.

References
Azevedo, R., Taub, M., & Mudrick, N. V. (2018). Understanding and reasoning about real-
time cognitive, affective, and metacognitive processes to foster self-regulation with
advanced learning technologies. In D. H. Schunk, & J. A. Greene (Eds.), Handbook of
self-regulation of learning and performance (2nd ed., pp. 254–270). New York: Routledge.
Bandura, A. (1977a). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84, 191–215.
Bandura, A. (1977b). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Bandura, A., & Adams, N. E. (1977). Analysis of self-efficacy theory of behavioral change.
Cognitive Therapy and Research, 1, 287–308.
Bandura, A., Adams, N. E., & Beyer, J. (1977). Cognitive processes mediating behavioral
change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 125–139.
Bandura, A., & Schunk, D. H. (1981). Cultivating competence, self-efficacy, and intrinsic
interest through proximal self-motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
41, 586–598.
Falco, L. D., & Summers, J. J. (2019). Improving career decision self-efficacy and STEM self-
efficacy in high school girls: Evaluation of an intervention. Journal of Career Development,
46(1), 62–76.
Heward, W. L., Alber-Morgan, S. R., & Konrad, M. (2017). Exceptional children: An intro-
duction to special education. Boston: Pearson Education.
Kanani, Z., Adibsereshki, N., & Haghgoo, H. A. (2017). The effect of self-monitoring train-
ing on the achievement motivation of students with dyslexia. Journal of Research in
Childhood Education, 31, 430–439.
Klassen, R. M. (2004). Optimism and realism: A review of self-efficacy from a cross-cultural
perspective. International Journal of Psychology, 39, 205–230.
Lackaye, T., Margalit, A. M., Ziv, O., & Ziman, T. (2006). Comparisons of self-efficacy,
mood, effort, and hope between students with learning disabilities and their non-LD-
matched peers. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 21, 111–121.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and
task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57, 705–717.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2015). Breaking the rules: A historical overview of goal set-
ting theory. In A. J. Elliot (Ed.), Vol. 2. Advances in motivation science (pp. 99–126).
Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Major, A., Martinussen, R., & Wiener, J. (2013). Self-efficacy for self-regulated learning in
adolescents with and without attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Learning
and Individual Differences, 27, 149–156.
McInerney, D. M., & King, R. B. (2018). Culture and self-regulation in educational con-
texts. In D. H. Schunk, & J. A. Greene (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning and
performance (2nd ed., pp. 485–502). New York: Routledge.
178 Dale H. Schunk and Maria K. DiBenedetto

Moos, D. C. (2018). Emerging classroom technology: Using self-regulation principles as a

guide for effective implementation. In D. H. Schunk, & J. A. Greene (Eds.),
Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (2nd ed., pp. 243–253). New York:
Routledge.
Murayama, K., & Elliot, A. J. (2019). Achievement goals. In R. M. Ryan (Ed.), The Oxford
handbook of human motivation (2nd ed., pp. 229–246). New York: Oxford University Press.
Ramdass, D., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2011). The effects of modeling and social feedback on
middle-school students’ math performance and accuracy judgments. The International
Journal of Education and Psychological Assessment, 7(1), 4–23.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2016). Facilitating and hindering motivation, learning, and
well-being in schools: Research and observations from self-determination theory. In
K. R. Wentzel, & D. B. Miele (Eds.), Handbook of motivation at school (2nd ed.,
pp. 171–195). New York: Routledge.
Samareh, S., & Kezri, M. N. (2016). Relationship between achievement goals and academic
self-efficacy; mediation role of academic engagement. Education Strategies in Medical
Sciences, 8(6), 13–20.
Sansone, D., & Harackiewicz, J. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: The search for optimal
motivation and performance. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Schunk, D. H. (1981). Modeling and attributional effects on children’s achievement: A self-
efficacy analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 93–105.
Schunk, D. H. (1982). Effects of effort attributional feedback on children’s perceived self-
efficacy and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 548–556.
Schunk, D. H. (1983a). Ability versus effort attributional feedback: Differential effects on
self-efficacy and achievement. Journal of Education and Psychology, 75, 848–856.
Schunk, D. H. (1983b). Developing children’s self-efficacy and skills: The roles of social
comparative information and goal setting. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, 76–86.
Schunk, D. H. (1983c). Goal difficulty and attainment information: Effects on children’s
achievement behaviors. Human Learning, 2, 107–117.
Schunk, D. H. (1983d). Reward contingencies and the development of children’s skills and
self-efficacy. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 511–518.
Schunk, D. H. (1984). Enhancing self-efficacy and achievement through rewards and goals:
Motivational and informational effects. Journal of Educational Research, 78, 29–34.
Schunk, D. H. (1985). Participation in goal setting: Effects on self-efficacy and skills of learn-
ing disabled children. Journal of Special Education, 19, 307–317.
Schunk, D. H. (2012). Social cognitive theory. In K. R. Harris, S. Graham, & T. Urdan
(Eds.), Theories, constructs, and critical issues: Vol. 1. Educational psychology handbook
(pp. 101–123). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Schunk, D. H., & Cox, P. D. (1986). Strategy training and attributional feedback with learn-
ing disabled students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 201–209.
Schunk, D. H., & DiBenedetto, M. K. (2016). Self-efficacy theory in education. In
K. R. Wentzel, & D. B. Miele (Eds.), Handbook of motivation at school (2nd ed.,
pp. 34–53). New York: Routledge.
Schunk, D. H., & DiBenedetto, M. K. (2020a). Motivation and social cognitive theory.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 60. article no. 101832.
Schunk, D. H., & DiBenedetto, M. K. (2020b). Social cognitive theory, self-efficacy, and
students with disabilities: Implications for students with learning disabilities, reading dis-
abilities, and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). In A. J. Martin,
R. A. Sperling, & K. J. Newton (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology and students with
special needs (pp. 243–261). New York: Routledge.
Schunk, D. H., & Hanson, A. R. (1985). Peer models: Influence on children’s self-efficacy
and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 313–322.
Self-efficacy and human motivation 179

Schunk, D. H., & Hanson, A. R. (1989). Self-modeling and children’s cognitive skill learn-
ing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 155–163.
Schunk, D. H., Hanson, A. R., & Cox, P. D. (1987). Peer-model attributes and children’s
achievement behaviors. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 54–61.
Schunk, D. H., & Rice, J. M. (1991). Learning goals and progress feedback during reading
comprehension instruction. Journal of Reading Behavior, 23, 351–364.
Schunk, D. H., & Rice, J. M. (1992). Influence of reading comprehension instruction on
children’s achievement outcomes. Learning Disability Quarterly, 15, 51–64.
Schunk, D. H., & Rice, J. M. (1993). Strategy fading and progress feedback: Effects on self-
efficacy and comprehension among students receiving remedial reading services. Journal
of Special Education, 27, 257–276.
Schunk, D. H., & Swartz, C. W. (1993a). Goals and progress feedback: Effects on self-efficacy
and writing achievement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 18, 337–354.
Schunk, D. H., & Swartz, C. W. (1993b). Writing strategy instruction with gifted students:
Effects of goals and feedback on self-efficacy and skills. Roeper Review, 15, 225–230.
Schunk, D. H., & Usher, E. L. (2019). Social cognitive theory and motivation. In
R. M. Ryan (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of human motivation (2nd ed., pp. 11–26).
New York: Oxford University Press.
Senko, C. (2016). Achievement goal theory: A story of early promises, eventual discords, and
future possibilities. In K. R. Wentzel, & D. B. Miele (Eds.), Handbook of motivation at
school (pp. 120–144). New York: Routledge.
Shell, D. F., Murphy, C. C., & Bruning, R. H. (1989). Self-efficacy and outcome expectancy
mechanisms in reading and writing achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81,
91–100.
Usher, E. L., & Pajares, F. (2008). Sources of self-efficacy in school: Critical review of the
literature and future directions. Review of Educational Research, 78, 751–796. https://doi.
org/10.3102/0034654308321456.
Usher, E. L., & Schunk, D. H. (2018). Social cognitive theoretical perspective of self-
regulation. In D. H. Schunk, & J. A. Greene (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning
and performance (2nd ed., pp. 19–35). New York: Routledge.
Weiner, B. (2010). The development of an attribution-based theory of motivation: A history
of ideas. Educational Psychologist, 45, 28–36.
Wigfield, A., Tonks, S. M., & Klauda, S. L. (2016). Expectancy-value theory. In
K. R. Wentzel, & D. B. Miele (Eds.), Handbook of motivation at school (2nd ed.,
pp. 55–74). New York: Routledge.