A behavior-analytic critique of Bandura's self-efficacy theory.
Self-efficacy scores are a report card on past reinforcement—change the contingencies and the score changes.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The author re-examined Bandura’s self-efficacy theory from a behavior-analytic lens. Instead of treating “belief in one’s ability” as an inner cause, the paper asked: what outside contingencies could produce the same data? It stayed at the theoretical level—no new experiment, just a close look at existing claims.
What they found
The review concluded that self-efficacy ratings track past reinforcement history, not hidden beliefs. When people say “I can do this,” they are really reporting how often similar responses were rewarded. The paper urged clinicians to target environmental contingencies, not private confidence.
How this fits with other research
Turkkan (1994) later gave direct lab support: college students inflated their success reports when success was frequent—exactly the contingency pattern Ohta (1987) predicted. Logue et al. (1986) supplied the tool kit, showing five ways to spot the natural reinforcers that could stand behind so-called efficacy. Cole (1994) used the same lens on attitude-behavior gaps, arguing that questionnaire and real-life settings simply have different stimulus controls—echoing the claim that context, not cognition, drives the numbers.
Why it matters
If self-efficacy is just a read-out of reinforcement history, you can skip pep talks. Map the client’s recent wins and losses, then rearrange contingencies so the desired response starts to win. Track observable success rate; the client’s verbal rating will follow without any direct self-confidence training.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Count how often the client’s target response has produced reinforcement this week; adjust the schedule before you ask “How confident do you feel?”
02At a glance
03Original abstract
A behavior-analytic critique of self-efficacy theory is presented. Self-efficacy theory asserts that efficacy expectations determine approach behavior and physiological arousal of phobics as well as numerous other clinically important behaviors. Evidence which is purported to support this assertion is reviewed. The evidence consists of correlations between self-efficacy ratings and other behaviors. Such response-response relationships do not unequivocally establish that one response causes another. A behavior-analytic alternative to self-efficacy theory explains these relationships in terms of environmental events. Correlations between self-efficacy rating behavior and other behavior may be due to the contingencies of reinforcement that establish a correspondence between such verbal predictions and the behavior to which they refer. Such a behavior-analytic account does not deny any of the empirical relationships presented in support of self-efficacy theory, but it points to environmental variables that could account for those relationships and that could be manipulated in the interest of developing more effective treatment procedures.
The Behavior analyst, 1987 · doi:10.1007/BF03392402