J. Behov. ?-h@r. 1 Exp. P&G/. Vol. 12, No. 2, PP. 113-l 14, 1981 Primed in Great Britain.

0005.7908/81/020113-02 $02.W/O b 1981 Pergamon Press Ltd.

A METHODOLOGICAL CRITIQUE OF BANDURAS SELF-EFFICACY

THEORY OF BEHAVIOR CHANGE

WARREN W. TRYON Fordham University

Summary-This brief theoretical note identifies a major methodological problem in Banduras argument in favor of self-efficacy theory and provides two methods of controlling for it. His data could likely be accounted for by social contingencies operating within his highly structured behavioral approach situation.

Bandura (1977) introduced the self-system as a unifying central mediator that is influenced by performance accomplishments, vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion and physiological states. Moreover, the self-system is hypothesized to distinguish between efficacy expectations and outcome expectations. Efficacy expecta- tions refer to whether the person believes he can or will perform certain behaviors while outcome expectations refer to anticipated effects the behaviors are likely to have on the environment if performed.

Bandura reported data demonstrating that efficacy expectations correlate better with actual performance in a behavioral approach test than scores derived from performance measures during treatment: such as the number of hierarchy steps completed. He then concluded that these results validated his hypotheses concerning the self-system being the central mediating construct unifying all behavior change data.

A re-examination of Banduras procedures reveals a very troublesome point touched upon previously by Borkovec (1978). Efficacy expecta- tions were operationally obtained by asking each subject whether or not he would actually perform each of the behaviors involved in the behavioral approach test. The subjects were given the behavioral approach test, and 83-89070

congruence between the subjects verbal and motor behaviors was reported. Bandura was quick to interpret this result as proving the validity of self-efficacy theory. He did allow for the possibility that some other superordinate mediator might account for his results; but omitted any discussion of how alternative explanations, such as social reinforcement contingencies, might do so.

Consider the test situation again. A subject states that he will perform behavior X and not behavior Y. He is then asked to do behaviors X and Y. One would expect no less than 83-89% congruence with his statement as most people have been shaped by social contingencies to congruence between their verbal and motor behaviors, especially when they are volunteering in highly structured situations closely monitored by authority figures. Bandura appears to hypothesize that verbal and motor behaviors are orthogonal !

Bandura is either unaware of or has ignored the existing literature on the susceptibility of behavioral approach tests to social contexts. Bernstein (1973) reported that subjects avoided phobic objects much more in a clinical situation than in an experimental context unrelated to fear assessment. The effects of context on behavioral assessment have also been documented by Bernstein and Nietzel (1973; 1974); Smith,

Reprint requests should be sent to: Warren W. Tryon, Department of Psychology, Fordham University, Bronx, New York 10458, U.S.A.

113

114 WARREN W. TRYON

Diener and Beaman (1974), Tryon and Tryon (1974). Any acceptable demonstration of self- efficacy theory must squarely address and resolve this crucial methodological problem.

One important control would be an experi- mental condition that minimizes the effects of social demand on theoretical predictions. It would separate the assessment of efficacy expectations from the evaluation of performance. It would minimize cues concerning surveillance of behavioral performance. The subjects would be enrolled in what are outwardly two separate experiments, one involving efficacy expectations, the other involves performance measures. Or, efficacy expectations could be obtained as part of an interview having a much wider scope and then performance measures could be obtained subsequently in an unobtrusive manner.

Another important control condition would evaluate self-efficacy theory by maximizing the effects of social demand but in a direction opposite to that predicted by the theory. This control condition would establish the magnitude of the effect of self-efficacy position relative to that of social demand. One approach would be to tell subjects that the experimenter is replicat- ing professor Xs theory that people always do what they say they will do. The experimenter would go on to say that while this makes good common sense, such a theory is often wrong as numerous reasons exist why people do not always behave as they say they will. The experimenter would explicitly say that this is the alternative hypothesis under study. Then subjects would be asked what they will do and their behavior thereafter observed.

Another approach would be to allow the social context to occasion behaviors incom-

patible with self-efficacy theory. Efficacy ex- pectations would be assessed as part of a clinical experiment on phobias conducted at the Uni- versity health center by a staff member (cf. Bernstein, 1973). This would minimize statements of approach. Then the subjects would be taken to an experimental psychology laboratory where the experimenter was con- ducting a physiological study of the effects of fear. The subjects would be instructed to approach the phobic object as closely as possible to allow the experimenter to obtain a valid sample of their fear reaction (cf. Bernstein, 1973). I predict that this control condition would demonstrate that the notion of self- efficacy judgements, as a unifying theory of behavioral change has serious limitations. The apparent unification is likely to be attribut- able to the controlling influence of social demand across experimental conditions.

REFERENCES

Bandura A. (1977) Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioralchange, Psychol. Rev. 84,191-215.

Bernstein D. A. (1973) Situational factors in behavioral fear assessment: A progress report, Behav. Ther. 4, 41-48.

Bernstein D. A. and Nietzel M. T. (1973) Procedural variation in behavioral avoidance tests, J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 41, 165-174.

Bernstein D. A. and Nietzel M. T. (1974) Behavioral avoid- ance tests: The effects of demand characteristics and repeated measures on two types of subjects, Behav. fher. 5,183-192.

Borkovec T. D. (1978) Self-efficacy: Cause or reflection of behavior change? Adv. Behov. Res. Ther. 1, 163-170.

Smith R. E., Diener E. and Beaman A. L. (1974) Demand characteristics and the behavioral avoidance measures of fear in behavior therapy analogue research, Behav. Ther. 5,172-182.

Tryon W. W. and Tryon G. S. (1974) Desensitization and demand characteristics, Behov. Ther. 5,297-303.