By: Kurtis Baker Kelli Fuentes. Born in 1925 in Alberta, Canada Grew up in a small town Enrolled in University of British Columbia Enrolled an.

By:Kurtis BakerKelli Fuentes

Born in 1925 in Alberta, Canada Grew up in a small town Enrolled in University of British Columbia Enrolled an in introductory Psychology class

almost by chance Majored in psychology Graduated in 1949 Went to graduate school at the University of

Iowa, graduated in 1952 In 1974 he was elected president of the American

Psychological Association

Bandura believed that learning in social situations goes beyond anything Skinner and most learning theorist described

Bandura believed we learn a great deal through imitation

We acquire considerable information just by observing models

"Learning would be exceedingly laborious, not to mention hazardous, if people had to rely solely on the effects of their own actions to inform them what to do,” Bandura explained (Bandura, 1977). His theory integrates a continuous interaction between behaviors, cognitions, and the environment.

Experiment examining how children observe aggressive models, notice when they are reinforced, and imitate accordingly

4-year-olds watch film in which an adult male model engaged in some moderately novel aggressive behavior

Punching, shouting, laying hands on the Bobo Doll Aggression rewarded, Aggression punished, no-

consequences After watching, children were escorted into a room with

a Bobo doll and other toys Children who saw the model punished imitated less

than the other children

Self-Efficacy: The belief in oneself. The belief that one is capable of performing in a certain manner to attain certain goals

Actual Performance: Repeatedly succeeding at tasks which increase our belief in our abilities to succeed, or vice versa

Vicarious Experiences: When we see others succeed at a task we infer that we can do it too

Verbal Persuasion: Pep talks, when someone convinces us that we can perform a task or vice versa

Psychological Cues: body feelings that one may get before performing a task that may influence their success in a good or bad way

Albert Bandura’s theory on self-efficacy proposes that actual performance is the most influential source of self-efficacy. Will children who perform a certain task, in our project this will be dropping clips straight down into a bottle, feel more motivated through actual performance, vicarious experience, or by verbal persuasion?

"By sticking it out through tough times, people emerge from adversity with a stronger sense of efficacy." From Encyclopedia of Human Behavior, 1994

We believe that since the children are of a younger age they will have enough confidence or willingness to try a task and complete it. We believe there will be children who are hesitant or struggle with the task but with verbal persuasion they will be able to achieve the goal in the end. The most influential source of self-efficacy is going to be vicarious experiences. After the kids see and learn that other kids can perform the task, they will be more likely to accomplish the task given.

See for yourself!

Group 1- Actual

Performance

Child’s Name Initial Prediction Actual Number in

Attempt #1

Second Prediction

After First Attempt

Emily 2 2 1

Ellen 3 1 2

Meredith 1 0 1

Whitney 2 2 2

Group 2- Positive

Verbal Persuasion

Children’s Name Initial Prediction Second Prediction After

“Positive” Pep Talk

Actual Number in

Attempt of Task

Travis 4 4 2

Shelby 4 4 2

Jackie 2 3 1

Lauren 3 4 1

Group 3- Negative

Verbal Persuasion

Children’s Name Initial Prediction Second Prediction after

“Negative” Pep Talk

Actual Number in

Attempt of Task

Elizabeth 3 2 0

Denise 2 2 1

Sara 2 1 1

Carrie 5 3 2

Group 4-

Vicarious

Experience

Children’s Name Initial Prediction Second Prediction

After Watching

Another Succeed in

Task

Actual Number

Martha 1 3 1

Mike 3 3 1

Alyssa 3 4 0

Samantha 1 2 0

Comparing Outcomes of Predictions

Self-Efficacy Appraisals

Initial Prediction

Second Prediction

Difference

Actual Performance

8 6 -2

Positive Verbal Persuasion

13 15 +2

Negative Verbal

Persuasion

12 8 -4

Vicarious Experience

8 12 +4

Comparing Outcomes of the Actual Number

Self-Efficacy Appraisals Actual Number

Actual Performance 6

Positive Verbal Persuasion 6

Negative Verbal Persuasion 4

Vicarious Experiences 2

First Point: Each child did have enough confidence and willingness to try the experiment without our verbal persuasion

As for the other part of our hypothesis we were somewhat correct. The biggest increase in the belief in oneself to perform the task was through vicarious experiences. The negative pep talk, however, was also tied at the top.

The source self-efficacy, no matter which one it may be, did not affect the students performances on how well they did

“Self-belief does not necessarily ensure success, but self-disbelief assuredly spawns failure” Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social-Cognitive Theory (1997, p. 77)

So the results were that self-efficacy and interest increased (or decreased for negative verbal persuasion) the performance varied or remained stable.

Our results did not correlate with Albert Bandura in that while Bandura believed actual performance was the most influential source of self-efficacy, our results showed that the vicarious experience and the negative verbal persuasion influenced the self-efficacy of the children more.

Different ages of studentsMore studentsDifferent size bottles the kids can choose

from to drop the clothes pins inDo it in a different setting where the kids

can’t get distracted

Which source of self-efficacy would be more influential as we got older compared to when we are younger?