Learning from a social cognitive theory perspective

Dale H. Schunk and Maria K. DiBenedetto, The University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro, NC, United States
© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Background 23
Historical influences 23
Imitation 23
Latent learning 23
Social learning 23
Early modeling studies 23
Conceptual framework 24
Reciprocal interactions 24
Enactive and vicarious learning 25
Vicarious, symbolic, and self-regulatory processes 25
Vicarious processes 25
Functions of modeling 25
Observational learning 26
Educational research 26
Symbolic processes 27
Self-efficacy 27
Goals and self-evaluations of progress 28
Goal properties 28
Outcome expectations 28
Values 28
Social comparisons 29
Educational research 29
Self-regulation 29
Phases of self-regulation 30
Social-to-self progression 30
A self-regulated framework 30
Educational research 31
Contributions 31
Educational implications 32
Models 32
Goals and self-evaluations of progress 32
Self-efficacy for learning 32
Self-regulation 32
Future research directions 33
Methodological refinements 33
Cross-cultural relevance 33
Integration with technology 33
Conclusion 33
References 34

Contemporary theories of learning predict that learners are active seekers and processors of information (Mayer, 2012). They do not
passively absorb information from the environment but rather proactively develop new knowledge by influencing what, where,
why, when, and how they learn.
Social cognitive theory reflects this proactive self-regulatory emphasis. Social cognitive theory predicts that much human learning
occurs in social environments. By interacting with others live or virtually, people learn knowledge, skills, strategies, beliefs, rules,
and attitudes. They also learn about the appropriateness, usefulness, and consequences of behaviors. People act in accordance
with their beliefs about their capabilities and the expected outcomes of actions.
Although there are different social cognitive perspectives, this chapter focuses on the theoretical perspective formulated and
developed by Bandura (1977b, 1986, 1997, 2001). This theory highlights the key roles played by vicarious, symbolic, and self-
regulatory processes, in the learning and performance of actions.
The next section describes historical influences on social cognitive theory and Bandura’s early studies investigating social
modeling. Then the conceptual framework of Bandura’s theory is discussed. Subsequent sections describe the key roles played

22 International Encyclopedia of Education, 4th edition, Volume 6 https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-818630-5.14004-7

 Learning from a social cognitive theory perspective 23

by vicarious, symbolic, and self-regulatory processes. Some educational implications of the theory and research are given, and
suggestions for future research are provided. It is hoped that this chapter will promote research on and development of social cogni-
tive theory as a perspective on learning.

Background
Historical influences
There are several historical influences on Bandura’s social cognitive theory. Three noteworthy ones are imitation, latent learning, and
social learning.

Imitation
Historical perspectives on imitation postulated that people were naturally inclined to imitate the actions of others (James, 1890).
McDougall (1926) believed that observing actions of others elicited an instinct in observers to copy those actions. Early behaviorists
(e.g., Watson, 1924) dismissed this instinct notion because it assumed the existence of an inner drive that intervened between a stim-
ulus (observed action) and response (copying that action).
Behaviorists initially postulated that imitation was conditioned. Skinner (1953) predicted that imitation represented a general-
ized response class that could be explained using a three-term contingency: discriminative stimulus / response / reinforcing
stimulus. An observed action was the discriminative stimulus. Imitation occurred when an individual performed that action
(response). If the response was reinforced (reinforcing stimulus), this reinforcement increased the future likelihood of imitating
the actions of others. Because imitation was reinforced by different people under various conditions, the act of imitating became
a generalized response class.
This view assumes that individuals can perform the imitated response. Yet much research shows that various types of behaviors
can be learned by observing models (Rosenthal and Zimmerman, 1978). Another issue is that for imitation to occur it must be
reinforced. Researchers have shown that modeling can occur without any external reinforcement (Bandura and Walters, 1963).

Latent learning
Latent learning is learning that occurs without reinforcement. In a seminal study, Tolman and Honzik (1930) let rats wander through
a maze. Some rats always were fed in the maze and others were never fed. Rats fed in the maze quickly reduced their time and errors
in running the maze, whereas time and errors for the other group did not diminish. Later, some rats from the nonreinforced group
were given food for running the maze. Their time and number of errors quickly decreased to the levels of those who always had been
fed, whereas the time and errors for rats who continued not to be reinforced did not change. Thus, rats in the nonreinforced group
learned features of the maze by running through it without being reinforced. When food was given, latent learning was displayed.
Latent learning research showed that learning can occur when not displayed at the time of learning and that reinforcement
affected performance of behaviors rather than learning. This distinction between learning and performance is central to Bandura’s
social cognitive theory. Because latent learning research involved animals, it could not explore such cognitive processes as goals and
expectations, and not fully establish the potential of latent learning.

Social learning
Rotter (1954) developed a social learning theory of personality that was applied to learning. The theory included four primary vari-
ables: behavior potential, expectancy, reinforcement value, and the psychological situation. Behavior potential referred to the prob-
ability that an individual would act in a given way relative to alternative behaviors. This potential depended on the individual’s
expectancy (belief about the likelihood of reinforcement occurring as a consequence of behavior), and on reinforcement value
(how much the individual valued a particular outcome relative to other potential outcomes). The psychological situation referred
to the context of behavior. Through social interactions with others, people formed expectancies about the likely outcomes of
actions, and they acted in accordance with their expectancies and the value they placed on the potential outcomes.
Rotter’s theory represented an important advance over behavior theories because it showed that people act based on what they
believe rather than in accordance with prior reinforcement. When beliefs contradict prior experience (e.g., a behavior has been rein-
forced but now people believe it will not be), people follow their beliefs.
Rotter’s theory, however, only considered beliefs about potential outcomes of actions. Bandura’s social cognitive theory includes
these outcome expectations but also postulates influential roles for other cognitive beliefs including goals, self-efficacy, and self-
evaluations of learning and goal progress (discussed later in this chapter).

Early modeling studies

Early studies by Bandura and his colleagues contributed to the development of contemporary social cognitive theory (Bandura,
1977b). In a classic demonstration of observational learning, Bandura et al. (1963) exposed children to live aggressive models,
filmed aggressive models, aggression by cartoon characters, or no models. The models pummeled a Bobo doll by hitting, throwing,
kicking, and sitting on it. Models were not rewarded or punished for their actions. Children subsequently played with a Bobo doll.
Compared with no-model control children, children exposed to aggressive models displayed significantly higher levels of
24 Learning from a social cognitive theory perspective

aggression. Type of aggressive model (i.e., live, filmed, cartoon) made no difference in children’s levels of aggression. The results
suggested that children learned from observing models and that the consequences of modeled actions did not affect learning.
In addition to overt behaviors, researchers also demonstrated that people can learn cognitive rules from observing models. Ban-
dura and Harris (1966) had models show children common nouns and sentences with each noun. Some children viewed models
who demonstrated the desired construction (e.g., passive verbs) and who then took turns with them in constructing sentences. Rein-
forcement was given to some children for constructing passive voice sentences. Problem-solving set children were told to determine
what type of construction earned them reinforcement.
Although the use of passive constructions by children was low following the experimental treatments, modeling combined with
reinforcement and problem-solving set led to the highest number. Children did not imitate the models but rather acquired the
grammatical rule and constructed their own sentences. Further evidence of rule learning was obtained in an early study by Rosenthal
et al. (1971). Collectively, these studies showed that people learn from observing models and that reinforcement was not needed for
learning.

Conceptual framework

The conceptual framework of Bandura’s social cognitive theory is based on reciprocal interactions among personal, behavioral, and
social/environmental factors. This section also discusses enactive and vicarious learning, as well as vicarious, symbolic, and self-
regulatory processes.

Reciprocal interactions
A central tenet of Bandura’s (1977b, 1986, 1997, 2001) social cognitive theory is that human psychological activity depends on
triadic reciprocality involving reciprocal interactions among three sets of influences: personal (e.g., cognitions, beliefs, skills, affects);
behavioral; and social/environmental factors. Individuals’ cognitions and environments can affect their behaviors, which in turn
can alter their environments and subsequent personal influences (Fig. 1).
These interacting influences can be exemplified using self-efficacy, which is a personal factor defined as one’s perceived capabil-
ities for learning or performing actions at designated levels (Bandura, 1977a, 1997). With respect to the interaction of self-efficacy
and behavior, researchers have shown that self-efficacy influences achievement behaviors such as task choice, effort, persistence, and
use of effective learning strategies (Schunk and DiBenedetto, 2016). These behaviors also affect self-efficacy. As students work on
tasks and observe their learning progress, their self-efficacy for continued learning is enhanced.
The influence between personal and social/environmental factors can be illustrated with students with learning disabilities,
many of whom hold low self-efficacy (Licht and Kistner, 1986). Individuals in their environments may react to them based on
common attributes (e.g., low skills) rather than on actual capabilities. In turn, social/environmental feedback can affect students’
self-efficacy, such as when a teacher tells a student “I know you can do this.”
The link between behaviors and social/environmental factors is seen in many instructional sequences. Social/environmental
factors direct behaviors when a teacher points to a display and says, “Look here,” which students do without much conscious effort.
Students’ behaviors can alter their instructional environments. When teachers ask questions and students give incorrect answers,
teachers re-teach the material rather than continuing the lesson.
Bandura’s social cognitive theory reflects a view of human agency in which individuals proactively influence their lives (Schunk
and Pajares, 2005). They hold beliefs that allow them to exert a large degree of control over important events in their lives. People
who want to become musicians take music lessons and get mentoring from experienced musicians. In reciprocal fashion, people
influence and are influenced by their actions and environments. Music students change their behaviors and environments in
response to feedback from their mentors.

Personal
Factors

Environmental Behavioral
Factors Factors

Fig. 1 Triadic reciprocality in social cognitive theory.

 Learning from a social cognitive theory perspective 25

The scope of this reciprocal influence is broad because individuals live in social environments. Collective agency refers to people’s
shared beliefs about what they are capable of accomplishing as a group. Like individuals, groups also affect and are influenced by
their actions and environments. A group of science teachers may collectively decide to use more project-based learning to deepen
students’ understanding of scientific concepts. They develop and implement activities and continue to refine them based on
students’ learning.

Enactive and vicarious learning

Social cognitive theory distinguishes enactive learning (doing) from vicarious learning (observing modeled performances–live, filmed,
symbolic; Bandura, 1977b). Behaviors that result in success are retained, whereas those that are unsuccessful are discarded or modi-
fied. Social cognitive theory contends that behavioral consequences inform and motivate. They inform people of the accuracy or
appropriateness of behaviors. People who are rewarded for their actions understand that they are performing well, whereas punish-
ments convey inappropriateness of behaviors. Further, people are motivated to learn and perform behaviors that they believe will
have desirable consequences and do not try to learn behaviors that they believe will be punished.
Much human learning occurs vicariously, or without learners performing at the time of learning. Vicarious learning accelerates
learning over what would be possible if people had to perform every action, and it saves people from undesirable consequences.
Observing or reading about safety techniques saves individuals from acting in potentially dangerous ways. As with enactive learning,
observers are more motivated to learn actions leading to successes than those that are unsuccessful. People attend to successful
models who demonstrate actions that they believe will benefit them (Bandura, 1969; Schunk, 1987).
Much human learning occurs through a blend of enactive and vicarious learning. Learners observe teachers explain and demon-
strate skills and strategies. By observing teacher models, students may learn some aspects of skills. As students practice the skills,
teachers provide feedback and corrective instruction as needed.

Vicarious, symbolic, and self-regulatory processes

Bandura’s (1986) social cognitive theory postulates that human capabilities facilitate individuals attaining a sense of agency. Vicar-
ious, symbolic, and self-regulatory processes are prominent capabilities.
The capability for learning vicariously allows individuals to acquire knowledge, beliefs, affects, and behaviors, by observing
others. This capability also allows people to develop their lives because they proactively select environmental features (e.g., indi-
viduals, materials) to which they want to attend. People who want to learn about Mars seek out situations where they can learn
vicariously, such as by reading books, watching televised shows, attending lectures, and so forth.
Symbolic capabilities involving language and mathematical and scientific notation allow people to adapt to and alter their envi-
ronments (Bandura, 1986). They use symbolic processes to interpret actions and outcomes in their lives and guide their future
actions. Symbolic processes allow people not simply to react to events but rather to solve problems and generate new actions.
Symbolic processes also foster communications with others (e.g., in person, virtually), which leads to further learning.
Self-regulation processes play a major role in social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986; Usher and Schunk, 2018). People regulate
their behaviors to conform to their internal standards and goals. Prior to beginning a task, they determine their goals and strategies
to use. As they work on tasks, they assess their goal progress and decide whether to continue or alter their strategies. During breaks
and when tasks are complete, they reflect on their experiences, seek, to make sense of them, and determine their next steps. As they
reflect on what they have done, the belief that they have learned strengthens their self-efficacy and motivates them to continue
learning. The following sections explain these important processes in greater depth.

Vicarious processes
Functions of modeling
Bandura (1986) distinguished three functions of modeling: response facilitation, inhibition and disinhibition, and observational
learning. Response facilitation refers to modeled actions that act as social prompts for observers to perform the same way. Response
facilitation effects are common in everyday life. An individual walking down a street who encounters a group of people looking in
a store window may stop and look in the window.
Response facilitation effects do not represent learning because people know how to perform the actions. The behaviors of others
serve as cues for observers’ actions. Response facilitation effects even can occur without conscious awareness (Chartrand and Bargh,
1999). People walking past a store clerk handing out coupons may mindlessly take one and then examine it.
Inhibition and disinhibition effects occur when models strengthen or weaken inhibitions to perform behaviors. Inhibition may
occur when models are punished for their actions; disinhibition can result when models perform threatening or prohibited actions
without negative consequences. Classroom misbehavior may be disinhibited when students observe other students misbehaving
without being reprimanded by the teacher; a sudden reprimand may inhibit further misbehavior.
Like response facilitation, inhibition and disinhibition effects represent performance of previously learned behaviors, not new
learning. A difference between these two categories is that response facilitation involves behaviors that are socially acceptable, but
26 Learning from a social cognitive theory perspective

inhibition and disinhibition typically involve actions that have moral or legal implications (e.g., breaking rules) or involve strong
emotions (e.g., fears).

Observational learning
Observational learning through modeling occurs when observers act in ways that they had not learned to do prior to exposure to the
models (Bandura, 1969). Observational learning has four component processes: attention, retention, production, and motivation.
Observational learning requires that observers attend to relevant features so that they can be perceived. Certain features of
models and situations command better attention. Observers are more likely to attend to models who have status and credibility.
Task features can affect attention, such as when teachers use bright colors, oversized features, and interactive materials. Attention
also is affected by observers’ beliefs about the functional value of the modeled behaviors. Modeled activities that observers believe
are important and likely to lead to desirable outcomes enhance attention. Students’ attention should be raised when teachers
announce that the material they are about to cover will be in a test.
Retention involves cognitively organizing, rehearsing, coding, and transforming information for storage in memory. This aspect
of observational learning has not been extensively investigated by social cognitive researchers. Cognitive information processing
theorists and researchers have addressed this aspect in depth (Mayer, 2012).
Production involves translating cognitive conceptions of modeled actions into behaviors. Especially with complex behaviors, it
often is the case that observers will learn only some features. Learners refine their skills through practice and feedback that may
include additional modeling.
Motivation is important because observers are more apt to attend to, retain, and produce modeled actions that they believe are
important. People are selective; they do not perform everything that they observe. Rather, they attempt to learn those actions they
believe will lead to desirable outcomes and help them attain their goals, and they avoid those actions they believe will result in
dissatisfying outcomes. People form expectations about the anticipated outcomes of actions based on their observations of models
and other experiences. Their learning and performance of actions is based in part on these expectations.

Educational research
Researchers have substantiated the preceding points regarding observational learning. In school contexts, peers are important
modeled influences on students (Schunk and Usher, 2019).
Researchers have investigated characteristics of peers that make them more credible models. Students are likely to attend to peers
whom they believe are competent. Perceived similarity between models and observers can affect peer modeling (Schunk, 1987).
Similarity in important ways serves as a source of information for determining behavioral appropriateness, forming outcome expec-
tations, and assessing one’s self-efficacy. Age similarity between model and observer is important for gauging behavioral appropri-
ateness but less so for actual learning, which is enhanced better by models whom observers believe are competent. When
competence and age similarity do not match (e.g., younger model more competent than a same-age model), children are swayed
more by the competent model. Peers can be effective models when children hold self-doubts about their learning or performance
capabilities. Viewing a similar peer successfully perform a task can raise observers’ self-efficacy when they believe that if the model
could learn, they can as well (Schunk, 1987).
Model gender can influence modeling by conveying information about task appropriateness. In general, observing a same-
gender peer model perform without negative consequences conveys that the action is appropriate. Model gender is less important
in learning academic skills and strategies (Schunk, 1987).
Researchers have explored the effects of exposing students to mastery and coping models (Schunk, 1987). Mastery models
demonstrate desired performance from the outset. Coping models initially have difficulty learning skills, but through effort grad-
ually improve their skills and eventually perform as well as mastery models. In a study exploring coping skills on an athletic task, 60
female high school students observed either a coping female model demonstrating dart-throwing techniques, a mastery model
demonstrating flawless techniques, or no model (Kitsantas et al., 2000). The girls in the coping model condition surpassed skill
acquisition over the females in the other two groups. In addition, learners who observed the coping models exhibited greater
self-regulatory skills, intrinsic interest, and better learning. Children who have experienced previous difficulties learning may benefit
more from observing coping models (Schunk and Hanson, 1985), presumably because children perceive themselves as more
similar to coping models.
Researchers have found that it is helpful to incorporate modeled explanations into demonstrations such that models verbalize
their thoughts and reasons for performing given actions. Meichenbaum and Goodman (1971) used cognitive modeling as part of
a self-instructional program with impulsive children. Schunk (1981) compared the effects of cognitive modeling with those of
didactic instruction on children’s long-division self-efficacy and achievement. Children who lacked division skills received instruc-
tion and practice over sessions. Cognitive-modeling children observed an adult model explain and demonstrate division solution
strategies while applying them to problems. Didactic-instruction children received written instructional material than explained and
demonstrated the operations. Cognitive modeling led to greater division achievement and accuracy of perceived capabilities (i.e.,
self-efficacy corresponded more closely with actual skills).
 Learning from a social cognitive theory perspective 27

Symbolic processes

Researchers have investigated the operation of symbolic processes on motivation. Symbolic processes include cognitions, beliefs,
and mathematical/scientific notation. Some influential symbolic processes are self-efficacy, goals and self-evaluations of progress,
outcome expectations, values, and social comparisons (Fig. 2).

Self-efficacy
In the model of reciprocal interactions, self-efficacy is a personal variable hypothesized to influence behaviors and environments
and in turn be affected by them (Bandura, 1986, 1997). Students who feel efficacious about learning should engage in actions
that improve learning, such as setting goals, using effective learning strategies, monitoring comprehension, evaluating goal progress,
and creating effective environments for learning. In turn, self-efficacy is influenced by the outcomes of behaviors (e.g., goal progress,
achievement) and by input from the environment (e.g., feedback from teachers, social comparisons with peers; Schunk and Usher,
2019).
People acquire information to assess their self-efficacy primarily from four sources: actual performances; observations of others
(vicarious experiences); forms of social persuasion; and physiological indexes (Bandura, 1997). Actual performances constitute the
most reliable information because they are tangible indicators of one’s capabilities (Schunk and DiBenedetto, 2016). Successful
performances raise self-efficacy whereas failures may lower it, although an occasional failure/success after several successes/failures
should not have much impact.
Individuals acquire self-efficacy information vicariously through knowledge of how others perform (Bandura, 1997). Similarity
to others is a cue for gauging one’s self-efficacy (Schunk, 1987). Observing similar others succeed can raise observers’ self-efficacy
and motivate them to try the task; they are apt to believe that if others can do it, they can as well. But a boost in self-efficacy through
vicarious experiences can be negated by subsequent failure. Persons who observe similar peers fail may believe they lack the compe-
tence to succeed, which can dissuade them from attempting the task.
Individuals also assess self-efficacy based on social persuasion from others (e.g., “I know you can do this;” Bandura, 1997). Social
persuasions must be credible for people to believe that success is attainable. Although positive feedback can raise individuals’ self-
efficacy, the increase will not endure if they subsequently perform poorly (Schunk and DiBenedetto, 2016).
People acquire self-efficacy information from physiological and emotional indicators such as anxiety and stress (Bandura, 1997).
Strong emotional reactions provide cues about anticipated success or failure. When people experience negative thoughts and fears
about their capabilities (e.g., feeling nervous when thinking about speaking in front of a large group), those affective reactions can
lower self-efficacy. When people notice that they are become less stressful (e.g., not as anxious while taking a test), they may expe-
rience higher self-efficacy for performing well.
Sources of self-efficacy information do not affect self-efficacy automatically (Bandura, 1997). Individuals interpret the results of
events, and these interpretations provide the information on which judgments are based (Schunk and Usher, 2019). People weigh
and combine information from various sources to form self-efficacy beliefs.
Self-efficacy is not the only influence on behavior. No amount of self-efficacy will produce a competent performance when
students lack the skills to succeed. Students’ values (perceptions of importance and utility of learning) also can affect behavior (Wig-
field et al., 2016). Even students who feel highly efficacious about their science skills will not become science majors in college if
they do not value a career as a scientist. Also important are outcome expectations (beliefs about the anticipated outcomes of one’s
actions; Bandura, 1997). Students typically engage in activities that they believe will result in positive outcomes and avoid actions
that they believe may lead to negative outcomes. Assuming requisite skills and positive values and outcome expectations, self-
efficacy is a key determinant of individuals’ motivation, learning, self-regulation, and achievement (Schunk and DiBenedetto,
2016).

Outcome
Expectations
Goals and
Self-evaluations Values
of Progress

Symbolic
Processes Social
Self-efficacy
of Comparisons
Motivation

Fig. 2 Symbolic processes of motivation.

28 Learning from a social cognitive theory perspective

Self-efficacy can have diverse effects in achievement contexts (Bandura, 1997; Schunk and Usher, 2019). It can influence moti-
vational outcomes such as choice of tasks, effort, persistence, and achievement. Individuals are apt to select tasks and activities at
which they feel competent and avoid those at which they do not. Self-efficacy can affect how much effort people expend on an
activity, how long they persist when they encounter difficulties, and their levels of learning and achievement. Students with high
self-efficacy tend to set challenging goals, work diligently, persist in the face of failure, and recover their sense of self-efficacy after
setbacks (Schunk and DiBenedetto, 2016). As discussed shortly, self-efficacy also can affect one’s self-regulation activities (Usher
and Schunk, 2018).

Goals and self-evaluations of progress

Goals are important symbolic processes that instigate and sustain actions. Goal commitment is critical because goals do not affect
behavior without it (Locke and Latham, 2015). As people attempt to attain goals, they make progress judgments. Positive self-
evaluations of progress strengthen self-efficacy, sustain motivation, and promote learning. Goals motivate people to expend effort
and persist (Locke and Latham, 2015). A perceived discrepancy between performance and the goal may create dissatisfaction, which
can raise effort and persistence and lead to better performance. Goals also help people attend to relevant task features, which can
affect how people process information.

Goal properties
Goal properties of specificity, proximity, and difficulty affect motivation and learning (Zimmerman et al., 2015). Goals that include
specific performance standards are more likely to lead to self-evaluations of progress and enhance motivation and learning than are
general goals (e.g., “Do your best;” Bandura, 1986). Specific goals indicate the amount of effort needed to succeed and evaluating
progress toward specific goals is straightforward. Goals also differ by how far they project into the future. Proximal, short-term goals
enhance motivation and learning better than do distant, long-term goals, because it is easier to determine progress toward goals that
are closer at hand (Bandura and Schunk, 1981).
Difficulty, or the level of task proficiency required as assessed against a standard, can determine the amount of effort that people
expend. Goals perceived as difficult but attainable are the best motivators. Goals viewed as too difficult do not motivate because
people hold low self-efficacy for attaining them. Although people may feel efficacious for attaining goals perceived as very easy,
these goals also may not motivate because people often procrastinate.
Learning and performance goals. Another distinction is between learning and performance goals. A learning goal refers to what
knowledge, behavior, skill, or strategy students are to acquire; a performance goal refers to what task students are to complete. These
goals can have differential effects on achievement behaviors (Anderman and Wolters, 2006). Learning goals focus students’ atten-
tion on processes and strategies that help them acquire competence and improve their skills. The task focus motivates behavior and
sustains attention on critical task aspects. Students who pursue a learning goal are apt to feel efficacious for attaining it and be moti-
vated to expend effort, persist, and use effective learning strategies. Self-efficacy is substantiated as they work on the task and make
positive self-evaluations of progress (Zimmerman et al., 2015).
In contrast, performance goals focus attention on completing tasks. They may not highlight the importance of the processes and
strategies underlying task completion or raise self-efficacy for learning. Learners may not compare their present and past performances
to determine progress. Performance goals can lead to social comparisons with others. These comparisons can lower self-efficacy among
students who experience learning difficulties, which adversely affects motivation and learning (Anderman and Wolters, 2006).

Outcome expectations
Outcome expectations (e.g., “If I study hard, I should do well on the test.”) are beliefs about the expected outcomes of actions. People
form expectations based on personal experiences and observations of models (Bandura, 1986). Individuals act in ways they believe
they will be successful and attend to models whom they believe will teach them valued skills. Outcome expectations can sustain
goal-directed actions over lengthy periods when people believe their actions will eventually produce desired outcomes.
Self-efficacious students typically believe that their actions will result in positive outcomes, which keeps them motivated even
when progress occurs slowly. Conversely, those whose self-efficacy is weaker may, when they encounter difficulties, work half-
heartedly or quit. This situation can be demoralizing; students may believe that positive outcomes will result but lack the self-
efficacy to continue. For example, they may believe that if they studied effectively they would do well on the test, but may doubt
their self-efficacy to study effectively.

Values
Value refers to the perceived importance or usefulness of learning. Bandura’s social cognitive theory predicts that actions reflect one’s
values (Bandura, 1986). Individuals strive to bring about what they desire and to avoid outcomes that are inconsistent with their
values. They are motivated to learn when they deem that learning important. Students who value high grades are likely to engage in
activities that should lead to high grades, such as attending class, keeping up with reading, turning in assignments on time, and
studying for exams.
 Learning from a social cognitive theory perspective 29

Achievement motivation researchers have shown that expectancies for successda variable similar to self-efficacydand values
affect motivation (Wigfield et al., 2016). Expectancies predict achievement and values are better predictors of choices, such as inten-
tions to take courses and enrollment in those courses (Wigfield et al., 2016).

Social comparisons
Social comparison refers to comparing ourselves with others (Wheeler and Suls, 2005). Although people often compare their perfor-
mances with objective standards, they also evaluate their capabilities by comparing themselves with others. Social comparisons
indicating that one is more competent than others can raise self-efficacy and motivation; social comparisons that result in negative
self-evaluations can diminish these outcomes.
The most accurate self-evaluations arise from comparisons with others whom people believe are similar to themselves in the
ability or characteristic being evaluated. The more alike observers are to models, the greater the probability that similar actions
by observers will produce comparable results (Schunk, 1987). Model-observer perceived similarity in competence can improve
learning (Braaksma et al., 2002). Observing similar others succeed can raise observers’ self-efficacy and motivation. Similarity seems
especially influential with persons who have experienced difficulties and possess self-doubts about performing well (Schunk and
Usher, 2019).

Educational research
Researchers have explored the operation of social cognitive variables (e.g., self-efficacy, goals, social models) in various domains
(e.g., education, business, health, computer applications). Participants in research studies have differed in age, developmental level
(e.g., PreK-12, postsecondary), ethnicity, and abilities (e.g., regular, remedial, gifted) (DiBenedetto and Schunk, 2018). This research
literature shows that self-efficacy influences motivation, achievement, and self-regulation, and in turn is affected by achievement
outcomes (Bandura, 1997; Pajares, 1997; Schunk and DiBenedetto, 2016; Schunk and Usher, 2019).
Self-efficacy is especially influential on academic outcomes and performance accomplishments are the most reliable source as
they provide evidence of what students can accomplish (Schunk and DiBenedetto, 2020). Self-efficacy correlates with motivation,
learning, and achievement (Schunk and DiBenedetto, 2016). Both correlational and empirical research have demonstrated the effect
of self-efficacy on academic self-regulation and achievement (Schunk and DiBenedetto, 2020). Cattelino et al. (2019) examined the
mediation effects of self-efficacy on adolescent’s self-regulation and performance in relation to the severity of parental and school
rules on 804 Italian students. Students were administered a survey at the beginning of the school year, then again six months later.
Path analysis revealed self-efficacy mediated the relationship between perceived severity of parental and school rules and school
achievement six months after the initial survey was administered.
In another recent study, 273 twelfth-grade students’ reading self-efficacy beliefs were collected using two instruments, one
focused on reading self-efficacy and the other on reading comprehension (Dona et al., 2019). Findings showed a significant corre-
lation between self-efficacy and performance. DiBenedetto and Bembenutty (2013) examined changes in science self-efficacy for
113 college students over a semester in which students were enrolled in intermediate level science courses. Findings revealed
self-efficacy beliefs at the end of the semester declined and yet were more closely related to final term averages than they were at
the start of the semester, suggesting that students’ beliefs about their performance became better calibrated as the semester
progressed.
Experimental research studies have shown that instructional and social/environmental processes that convey information to
students that they are becoming more competent raise self-efficacy, motivation, and achievement (Schunk and DiBenedetto,
2020). Falco and Summers (2019) conducted an intervention study incorporating the four sources of self-efficacy on high school
girls’ STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) career self-efficacy beliefs. Eighty-eight ethnically diverse high school
girls were split into intervention and control groups. The intervention group received nine 50-min counseling sessions targeted at
building students’ self-efficacy for making intentional career decisions and for building self-efficacy for careers in STEM. Results
showed positive moderate-to-large effect sizes for the impact of the intervention on both students’ career decision making self-
efficacy and self-efficacy for careers in STEM.
Ramdass and Zimmerman (2011) examined the influence of modeling and social feedback on 76 sixth and seventh grade
students’ self-efficacy and mathematical achievement. Students were randomly assigned to one of four conditions: coping models
with and without social feedback; and mastery models with and without social feedback. Findings revealed that students in the
coping model conditions surpassed those in the mastery model conditions on the posttests and their self-efficacy was better asso-
ciated with higher mathematics performance. These findings are similar to those cited earlier in the athletic study conducted by Kit-
santas et al. (2000).

Self-regulation

An important expansion of social cognitive theory is into self-regulation (Usher and Schunk, 2018). This section discusses phases of
self-regulation, the social-to-self progression in learning self-regulatory skills, and educational research.
30 Learning from a social cognitive theory perspective

Phases of self-regulation
Self-regulation refers to self-generated thoughts, feelings, and actions, which learners use to attain their goals (Zimmerman, 2000;
Zimmerman and Schunk, 2004). Reciprocal interactions are evident in self-regulation. While working on tasks, learners may
self-regulate personal factors, such as by setting goals, monitoring and evaluating progress, assessing self-efficacy for continued
learning, and creating a positive emotional climate. They may exert behavioral self-regulation by employing learning strategies,
verbalizing aloud or covertly steps to follow, and self-recording progress. They exert social/environmental control when they create
productive work environments and seek assistance when needed. In turn, the result of their self-regulation affects self-efficacy, goals,
strategy use, and other self-regulatory behaviors (Usher and Schunk, 2018).
Zimmerman (2000) developed a social cognitive cyclical model of self-regulation that includes reciprocal interactions and the
changing nature of self-regulation. This model includes forethought, performance, and self-reflection phases. The forethought phase
precedes learners’ actions and includes processes that set the stage, such as setting goals and assessing self-efficacy for learning.
During the performance phase, learners implement strategies and control their attention to focus on the learning context. The
self-reflection phase, which occurs during breaks and after task completion, includes individuals’ responses to their efforts, such
as assessments of their learning progress and the effectiveness of their strategies.
Students’ self-evaluations are critical and have cognitive, behavioral, and motivational effects. Especially important are learners’
self-evaluations of their learning progress. Positive self-evaluations that they are making goal progress lead students to experience
self-efficacy for continued learning and motivate them to continue to work diligently. Low self-evaluations of progress will not
necessarily lower self-efficacy and motivation if learners believe that they can make better progress. Such learners may alter their
self-regulatory processes by working harder, persisting longer, adopting what they believe is a better strategy, or seeking help
from teachers, parents, coaches, or peers (Zimmerman, 2000). Research supports the use of the processes in the three phases of
self-regulated learning among high performing students and demonstrates the processes to be highly correlated with one another
(DiBenedetto and Zimmerman, 2010).

Social-to-self progression
Learners benefit from instruction on self-regulatory strategies, but it is critical that these strategies become internalized, or integrated
into learners’ self-regulatory systems. This internalization process occurs in a social-to-self progression comprising observation,
emulation, self-control, and self-regulation (Fig. 3; Zimmerman and Schunk, 2004). Initially, learners acquire the rudiments of
a skill by observing a model’s performance. During emulation, students learn to duplicate a model’s actions on the task, which
involves emulating the model’s general behavioral pattern or style of functioning.
At the self-control level, learners practice the skill apart from the model while monitoring their practice using cognitive and
behavioral strategies. The fourth level (self-regulation) requires learners to make adjustments based on their outcomes. Learners
can perform the skill with minimal self-monitoring because many elements have become internalized and may return to any of
the levels as needed.
Self-regulatory skills can be learned without following these steps. For example, learners who have developed some self-
regulatory skills may be able to refine new skills as they independently practice them. This progression, however, offers a sound
basis for instruction and especially for students in the early stages of learning how to self-regulate their academic performances
(Zimmerman, 2000).

A self-regulated framework
White and DiBenedetto (2015) presented an integrated framework whereby learners engage in the three phases of self-regulated
learning within the four levels of self-regulatory competency (see Fig. 4). Pacing is critical in each of the phases as, initially, teachers
are controlling the learning by modeling then gradually giving the students full control. As students begin to internalize self-efficacy

Observation: Emulation: Self-Control: Self-

*Learner *Performs *Practices Regulation:
observes observed independently *Adapts and
models behavior refines skills
*Returns to
*Returns to emulation level *Learner
observation if needs more returns to
level if still practice or to any of the
unclear observation prior levels if
level if unclear needed

Fig. 3 Levels of self-regulatory competency.

 Learning from a social cognitive theory perspective 31

Fig. 4 Integrated framework: The three phases of self-regulated learning and the levels of self-regulatory competency.

and self-regulatory skills, they move from phase to phase within each level acquiring more independence. For example, during the
observation level a fourth-grade teacher through cognitive modeling may verbalize how she would prepare for an upcoming math-
ematics exam by doing ten practice problems from the workbook (forethought phase: strategic planning). She models strategy use
by completing the math practice problems and engages students to work on these practice problems with her (performance phase).
The teacher then models evaluating her performance by making attributions and checking her progress on strategy use (self-
reflection phase). The framework could be implemented as a form of instructional support at each of the four levels (observation,
emulation, self-control, and self-regulation) to promote independent self-regulated learners (Bell and Pape, 2014). While research
has been conducted on the three phases of self-regulated learning and the four levels of self-regulatory competency, research is
needed to demonstrate the potency of this integrated framework.

Educational research
Researchers have identified the links between self-efficacy and self-regulation. In line with theoretical predictions, self-efficacy can
influence such self-regulatory processes as goal setting, self-monitoring, self-evaluation, and strategy use (Usher and Schunk, 2018;
Zimmerman, 2000). Self-efficacious students set challenging goals, persist, use effective learning strategies, and monitor their perfor-
mances. These actions enhance self-efficacy and motivation for continued learning.
Self-evaluations of capabilities affect self-regulation and achievement (Schunk and Ertmer, 2000). Research by Schunk and
Ertmer (1999) using college students showed that when opportunities for self-evaluation were infrequent, learning goals promoted
achievement outcomes better than performance goals. However, when self-evaluation opportunities occurred regularly during
instruction, the college self-evaluation the benefits of learning goals and led to enhanced self-efficacy and achievement regardless
of learners’ goals.
Researchers also have obtained support for the social-to-self progression. In teaching writing skills to college students, Zimmer-
man and Kitsantas (2002) found benefits when students observed models before they attempted performance. Other research has
obtained support for the sequencing of the third and fourth levels (Zimmerman and Kitsantas, 1999). In this study, high school
students initially received instruction and practice on a writing strategy (levels one and two). They then received a process goal
(learning a revision strategydlevel three), an outcome goal (decreasing the number of words in the revisiondlevel four), or
a process goal followed by an outcome goal. Shifting the goal resulted in better self-regulation than focusing exclusively on one
type of goal.

Contributions
Although self-regulation has been addressed by other theoretical perspectives including behavioral, information processing,
constructivist, and socio-cultural theories. There are noteworthy features of social cognitive theory. One is its emphasis on obser-
vational (vicarious) learning. This is especially evident in the social-to-self progression model. Vicarious learning speeds up the
learning process over what would be possible if learners had to practice every action. Through observation of models, learners
can acquire a sense of self-efficacy for learning that enhances their motivation and skill development.
32 Learning from a social cognitive theory perspective

Social cognitive theory also emphasizes self-efficacy. Learners initially may hold a sense of self-efficacy for learning, which moti-
vates them to attend to models and practice skills. As they perceive that they are becoming more skillful and performing better, their
self-efficacy for learning is strengthened, which leads to motivation for further improvement.
Finally, with its emphasis on reciprocal interactions between personal, behavioral, and social/environmental factors, social
cognitive theory underscores the dynamic and changing nature self-regulation. Learners are proactive and seek ways to improve their
skills, which can instate a sense of agency that they can exert much control over their academic learning.

Educational implications

Social cognitive theory and research suggest ways to improve teaching and learning through models, goals and self-evaluations of
progress, self-efficacy for learning, and self-regulation.

Models
Instructional models inform and motivate learners. When they observe live or virtual models explain and demonstrate skills and
strategies, learners acquire information about correct sequences of actions. When learners believe they understand what is being
demonstrated, they likely will be motivated to demonstrate it. Peer models can be especially effective motivators. The perception
of similarity raises observers’ self-efficacy and motivates them to perform.
Students who often experience learning difficulties may benefit from observing peer coping models, that is, models who initially
encounter difficulty learning but through effort, persistence, and correct strategy use, gradually improve their skills. Observers may
perceive themselves as more similar in competence to coping models than to peer mastery models who demonstrate faultless
performance from the start.

Goals and self-evaluations of progress

An effective means of developing learners’ skills, self-efficacy, and motivation is for them to set learning goals and evaluate their
learning progress. Goals that are close at hand, specific, and moderately difficult, are strong motivators. With long-term tasks
(e.g., writing a paper), teachers can help students break the task into a series of subgoals (e.g., identify a topic, do research, write
the first draft).
Students’ learning and motivation benefit when they believe they are making progress in learning. Gauging progress is difficult
for some tasks (e.g., becoming a better reader or writer). It is easier to gauge progress against subgoals than longer-term objectives.
Learners can assess their progress in various ways such as by self-recording what aspects of the task they completed and judging their
self-efficacy for performing subgoals. The perception of learning progress raises self-efficacy and motivation.

Self-efficacy for learning

For learners who lack skills, self-efficacy for performing them is apt to be low and thus not a motivator for students who lack the
skills. For these students, self-efficacy for learning is a better motivator.
But if learners do not understand what is required to learn (i.e., what component skills are needed), they may judge self-efficacy
for learning unrealistically low. In this case, teachers can point out what they have learned and how the new learning will draw on
what they already know. Learners will feel efficacious about learning mathematical division when they understand that division
requires estimating, subtracting, and multiplying skills they possess. Learners who engage in a task with a sense of self-efficacy
for learning and who perceive that they are making learning progress will be motivated to continue.

Self-regulation
Social cognitive theory underscores learners becoming self-regulated. Self-regulatory skills such as strategy use and self-monitoring
can be modeled. Setting goals and evaluating progress are self-regulatory processes that keep learners task-focused and maintain
motivation. Having students evaluate self-efficacy at the outset of a task and during periods of self-reflection can convey that
they are making progress, which strengthens self-efficacy and motivation.
DiBenedetto and Zimmerman (2010) showed that students who are self-regulated outperform students who engage in less self-
regulatory processes. The cyclical nature of self-regulation suggests that teachers may need to assist learners to set new goals as they
attain their current ones. Attaining goals denotes progress, especially when the goals represent subgoals in a larger task. Working on
the next subgoal may require learning new skills, which teachers can facilitate through modeling.
 Learning from a social cognitive theory perspective 33

Future research directions

There are several issues that merit future research. Discussed in this section are methodological refinements, cross-cultural relevance,
and integration with technology.

Methodological refinements
Motivational variables stressed by social cognitive theory (e.g., outcome expectations, self-efficacy) are not static but can change
quickly and frequently, but often motivation variables are assessed in a static fashion such as by using questionnaires that require
aggregated and retrospective judgments. These measures capture changes between two time points but not changes that occur
during task engagement.
Increasingly researchers are using real-time measures. 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 partic-
ipants about their thoughts at various times. Written diaries ask learners to record their thoughts as they work on tasks. With tech-
nology, traces show learners’ progress through a learning episode. These and other types of assessments capture dynamic changes in
motivation.
Because a variable such as self-efficacy can change rapidly, fine-grained measures are preferable because they show changes over
time. Then researchers can map these changes against changes in instructional and social conditions, which will suggest future
research directions and how to structure environments to promote beneficial motivation outcomes.

Cross-cultural relevance
Most social cognitive research has been conducted in Western societies, but this situation is changing as researchers are testing prin-
ciples of social cognitive theory globally. The topics of self-efficacy and self-regulation have much international appeal. And cross-
cultural research has yielded differences (McInerney, 2008). Klassen (2004) found that, compared with learners in collectivist
cultures, those in individualistic (Western) cultures tend to judge self-efficacy higher. Interestingly, the alignment between students’
self-efficacy and demonstrated skills is better for those in collectivist cultures. This is an important criterion. Students who overes-
timate their self-efficacy may attempt tasks beyond their means and perform poorly. Those who underestimate may be reluctant to
engage in tasks and thereby preclude opportunities for learning (DiBenedetto and Schunk, 2018). These results suggest that collec-
tivist cultures may promote modest self-efficacy judgments and that in some cultures collective self-efficacy (self-efficacy of what
a group can accomplish) may better predict learning outcomes than will individual self-efficacy.
Overall, the principles espoused by social cognitive theory have shown themselves to be cross-culturally relevant. International
researchers will continue to refine and test ideas in diverse cultural contexts.

Integration with technology

Social cognitive theory was largely developed prior to the advent of technological advances. Most research has been done in face-to-
face settings. This does not mean that the theory needs major revisions because the principles are intended to be generic and apply
across different contexts. But the role of technology requires some theoretical adaptations.
In particular, social cognitive research is needed with social media. These media offer ways for learners to have social contact with
others, and we know little about how such interactions may influence self-efficacy and other variables. Learning from others is
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 a theory with the “social” in its title.
Such research has implications for teaching and learning. There are educational uses using technologies such as Facebook and
Zoom. How might these and other forms of media be used to help students set goals, monitor progress, assess self-efficacy for
learning, and the like? How might instruction be designed to incorporate social media that take self-efficacy of learning and teachers
into account? Research is needed to expand the generality of the theory beyond it is original formulation.

Conclusion

Social cognitive theory is a general theory that stresses learning from the social environment. From its early focus on observational
learning through modeling, social cognitive theory has expanded in scope to address such processes as motivation and self-
regulation.
Bandura’s social cognitive theory postulates reciprocal interactions among personal, behavioral, and social/environmental
factors. Researchers in this tradition have investigated the operation of vicarious, symbolic, and self-regulatory processes, in the
various ways that individuals interact with their environments and one another.
A key point is that persons seek to develop a sense of agency for being able to exert a large degree of control over important events
in their lives. Among the influential variables affecting one’s sense of agency are self-efficacy, outcome expectations, goals, and self-
34 Learning from a social cognitive theory perspective

evaluations of progress. We can expect further refinements in the theory as researchers apply this agentic perspective to human func-
tioning in diverse areas in education and other domains.

References

Anderman, E.M., Wolters, C.A., 2006. Goals, values, and affects: influences on student motivation. In: Alexander, P.A., Winne, P.H. (Eds.), Handbook of Educational Psychology,
second ed. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 369–389.
Bandura, A., 1969. Principles of Behavior Modification. Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York, NY.
Bandura, A., 1977a. Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychol. Rev. 84, 191–215.
Bandura, A., 1977b. Social Learning Theory. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Bandura, A., 1986. Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Bandura, A., 1997. Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. Freeman, New York, NY.
Bandura, A., 2001. Social cognitive theory: an agentic perspective. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 52, 1–26.
Bandura, A., Harris, M.B., 1966. Modification of syntactic style. J. Exp. Child Psychol. 4, 341–352.
Bandura, A., Ross, D., Ross, S.A., 1963. Imitation of film-mediated aggressive models. J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol. 66, 3–11.
Bandura, A., Schunk, D.H., 1981. Cultivating competence, self-efficacy, and intrinsic interest through proximal self-motivation. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 41, 586–598.
Bandura, A., Walters, R.H., 1963. Social Learning and Personality Development. Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York, NY.
Bell, C.V., Pape, S.J., 2014. Scaffolding the development of self-regulated learning in mathematics classrooms. Middle Sch. J. 45 (4), 23–32. Retrieved from. https://login.libproxy.
uncg.edu/login?url¼https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/scaffolding-development-self-regulated-learning/docview/1532768268/se-2?accountid¼14604.
Braaksma, M.A.H., Rijlaarsdam, G., van den Bergh, H., 2002. Observational learning and the effects of model-observer similarity. J. Educ. Psychol. 94, 405–415.
Cattelino, E., Morelli, M., Baiocco, R., Chirumbolo, A., 2019. From external regulation to school achievement: the mediation of self-efficacy at school. J. Appl. Dev. Psychol. 60,
127–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2018.09.007.
Chartrand, T.L., Bargh, J.A., 1999. The Chameleon Effect: the perception-behavior link and social interaction. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 76, 893–910.
DiBenedetto, M.K., Bembenutty, H., 2013. Within the science pipeline: self-regulated learning and academic achievement among college students in science classes. Learn. Indiv
Differ 2, 218–224.
DiBenedetto, M.K., Schunk, D.H., 2018. Self-efficacy in education revisited through a sociocultural lens: current and future directions. In: Liem, G.A.D., McInerney, D.M. (Eds.), Big
Theories Revisited 2. Information Age Press, Charlotte, NC, pp. 117–140.
DiBenedetto, M.K., Zimmerman, B.J., 2010. Differences in self-regulatory processes among students studying science: a microanalytic investigation. Int. J. Educ. Psychol. 5 (1),
2–24.
Dona, R., Dedi, S., Fernandita, F.G., 2019. The correlation between reading self-efficacy and reading comprehension. Res. Teach. English 3 (1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.33369/
jeet.3.1.1-13.
Falco, L.D., Summers, J.J., 2019. Improving career decision self-efficacy and STEM self-efficacy in high school girls: evaluation of an intervention. J. Career Dev. 46 (1), 62–76.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0894845317721651.
James, W., 1890. The Principles of Psychology, vols. I & II. Henry Holt, New York, NY.
Kitsantas, A., Zimmerman, B.J., Cleary, T., 2000. The role of observation and emulation in the development of athletic self-regulation. J. Educ. Psychol. 92 (4), 811–817.
Klassen, R.M., 2004. Optimism and realism: a review of self-efficacy from a cross-cultural perspective. Int. J. Psychol. 39, 205–230.
Licht, B.G., Kistner, J.A., 1986. Motivational problems of learning-disabled children: individual differences and their implications for treatment. In: Torgesen, J.K., Wong, B.W.L.
(Eds.), Psychological and Educational Perspectives on Learning Disabilities. Academic Press, Orlando, pp. 225–255.
Locke, E.A., Latham, G.P., 2015. Breaking the rules: a historical overview of goal-setting theory. In: Elliot, A.J. (Ed.), Advances in Motivation Science, vol. 2. Elsevier, Oxford, UK,
pp. 99–126.
Mayer, R.E., 2012. Information processing. In: Harris, K.R., Graham, S., Urdan, T. (Eds.), APA Educational Psychology Handbook, Theories, Constructs, and Critical Issues, vol. 1.
American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, pp. 85–99.
McDougall, W., 1926. In: An Introduction to Social Psychology, Rev. ed. John W. Luce, Boston, MA.
McInerney, D.M., 2008. The motivational roles of cultural differences and cultural identity in self-regulated learning. In: Schunk, D.H., Zimmerman, B.J. (Eds.), Motivation and Self-
Regulated Learning: Theory, Research, and Applications. Taylor & Francis, New York, NY, pp. 369–400.
Meichenbaum, D., Goodman, J., 1971. Training impulsive children to talk to themselves: a means of developing self-control. J. Abnorm. Psychol. 77, 115–126.
Pajares, F., 1997. Current directions in self-efficacy research. In: Maehr, M., Pintrich, P.R. (Eds.), Motivation, Achievement, and Advanced, vol. 10. JAI Press, Greenwich, CT,
pp. 1–49.
Rmadass, D., Zimmerman, B.J., 2011. The effects of modeling and social feedback on middle school’s students’ math performance and accuracy judgments. Int. J. Educ. Psychol.
7 (1), 4–23.
Rosenthal, T.L., Moore, W.B., Dorfman, H., Nelson, B., 1971. Vicarious acquisition of a simple concept with experimenter as model. Behav. Res. Ther. 9, 217–227.
Rosenthal, T.L., Zimmerman, B.J., 1978. Social Learning and Cognition. Academic Press, New York, NY.
Rotter, J.B., 1954. Social Learning and Clinical Psychology. Prentice Hall, New York, NY.
Schunk, D.H., 1981. Modeling and attributional effects on children’s achievement: a self-efficacy analysis. J. Educ. Psychol. 73, 93–105.
Schunk, D.H., 1987. Peer models and children’s behavioral change. Rev. Educ. Res. 57, 149–174.
Schunk, D.H., DiBenedetto, M.K., 2016. Self-efficacy theory in education. In: Wentzel, K.R., Miele, D.B. (Eds.), Handbook of Motivation at School, second ed. Routledge, New York,
NY, pp. 34–54.
Schunk, D.H., DiBenedetto, M.K., 2020. Motivation and social cognitive theory. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 60. Article No. 101832.
Schunk, D.H., Ertmer, P.A., 1999. Self-regulatory processes during computer skill acquisition: goal and self-evaluative influences. J. Educ. Psychol. 91, 251–260.
Schunk, D.H., Ertmer, P.A., 2000. Self-regulation and academic learning: self-efficacy enhancing interventions. In: Boekaerts, M., Pintrich, P.R., Zeidner, M. (Eds.), Handbook of
Self-Regulation. Academic Press, San Diego, pp. 631–649.
Schunk, D.H., Hanson, A.R., 1985. Peer models: influence on children’s self-efficacy and achievement. J. Educ. Psychol. 77, 313–322.
Schunk, D.H., Pajares, F., 2005. Competence perceptions and academic functioning. In: Elliot, A.J., Dweck, C.S. (Eds.), Handbook of Competence and Motivation. Guilford Press,
New York, NY, pp. 85–104.
Schunk, D.H., Usher, E.L., 2019. Social cognitive theory and motivation. In: Ryan, R.M. (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Human Motivation, second ed. Oxford University Press, New
York, NY, pp. 11–26.
Skinner, B.F., 1953. Science and Human Behavior. Free Press, New York, NY.
Tolman, E.C., Honzik, C.H., 1930. Introduction and removal of reward, and maze performance in rats. Univ. Calif. Publ. Philos. 4, 257–275.
Usher, E.L., Schunk, D.H., 2018. Social cognitive theoretical perspective of self-regulation. In: Schunk, D.H., Greene, J.A. (Eds.), Handbook of Self-Regulation of Learning and
Performance, second ed. Routledge, New York, NY, pp. 19–35.
 Learning from a social cognitive theory perspective 35

Watson, J.B., 1924. Behaviorism. Norton, New York, NY.

Wheeler, L., Suls, J., 2005. Social comparison and self-evaluations of competence. In: Elliot, A.J., Dweck, C.S. (Eds.), Handbook of Competence and Motivation. Guilford Press, New
York, NY, pp. 566–578.
White, M.C., DiBenedetto, M.K., 2015. Self-Regulation and the Common Core: Applications to ELA Standards. Routledge, New York, NY.
Wigfield, A., Tonks, S.M., Klauda, S.L., 2016. Expectancy-value theory. In: Wentzel, K.R., Miele, D.B. (Eds.), Handbook of Motivation at School, second ed. Routledge, New York, NY,
pp. 55–74.
Zimmerman, B.J., 2000. Attaining self-regulation: a social cognitive perspective. In: Boekaerts, M., Pintrich, P.R., Zeidner, M. (Eds.), Handbook of Self-Regulation. Academic Press,
San Diego, pp. 13–39.
Zimmerman, B.J., Kitsantas, A., 1999. Acquiring writing revision skill: shifting from process to outcome self-regulatory goals. J. Educ. Psychol. 91, 241–250.
Zimmerman, B.J., Kitsantas, A., 2002. Acquiring writing revision and self-regulatory skill through observation and emulation. J. Educ. Psychol. 94, 660–668.
Zimmerman, B.J., Schunk, D.H., 2004. Self-regulating intellectual processes and outcomes: a social cognitive perspective. In: Dai, D.Y., Sternberg, R.J. (Eds.), Motivation, Emotion,
and Cognition: Integrative Perspectives on Intellectual Functioning and Development. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 323–349.
Zimmerman, B.J., Schunk, D.H., DiBenedetto, M.K., 2015. A personal agency view of self-regulated learning: the role of goal setting. In: Guay, F., Marsh, H., McInerney, D.M.,
Craven, R.G. (Eds.), Self-Concept, Motivation, and Identity: Underpinning Success With Research and Practice. Information Age Publishing, Charlotte, NC, pp. 83–114.