The research behind Self-Efficacy Theory
We tend to talk about confidence as though it is something you either have or don't have. Some people seem naturally willing to try difficult things while others hesitate, doubt themselves or avoid situations where they might fail.
Psychologist Albert Bandura was interested in a more specific question: what makes someone believe they are capable of doing a particular thing?
He called this belief self-efficacy.
Self-efficacy isn't a general belief that you are competent, worthy or confident. It is your belief that you can successfully perform the actions required in a particular situation. You can have high self-efficacy in one area and very little in another.
Bandura proposed that these beliefs matter because they influence whether we attempt something, how much effort we put into it and how long we persist when it becomes difficult.
THE EXPERIMENT
Some of Bandura's early research on self-efficacy involved people with severe snake phobias.
In a 1977 study with Nancy Adams and Janice Beyer, adults whose fear of snakes significantly affected their lives were assigned to different conditions.
One group received what the researchers called participant modeling. With assistance, participants gradually performed increasingly difficult interactions with a boa constrictor themselves. They progressed from approaching the snake to touching and eventually handling it.
Another group received modeling alone. These participants watched someone else successfully perform the same behaviors but did not perform them themselves.
A third group received no treatment during this stage.
The researchers measured both what participants believed they were capable of doing and what they actually did when subsequently faced with increasingly difficult tasks involving the feared animal.
Both forms of treatment could change people's expectations, but direct experience was particularly powerful. Participants who had actually performed the behaviors developed stronger and more generalized beliefs in their own ability than those who had only watched someone else do them.
More importantly, people's beliefs about what they could handle closely predicted what they subsequently managed to do.
The experiment helped support an idea Bandura was developing at the time: our expectations about our own capability can influence how we behave when we encounter something difficult.
THE FINDING
Bandura's work makes an important distinction between knowing that something can be done and believing that you can do it.
Watching another person calmly handle a snake provides useful information. It demonstrates that the situation is survivable and gives you an example of how someone might manage it.
But successfully moving closer to the snake yourself gives you a different kind of information.
You now have evidence about your own capability.
This distinction extends well beyond phobias.
You can know that people run marathons without believing you could run one. You can understand exactly how public speaking works and still doubt your ability to stand in front of 500 people. You can watch someone speak another language fluently for years without becoming particularly confident in your own ability to speak it.
At some point, information about what other people can do has to become evidence about what you can do.
THE THEORY
Bandura proposed four major sources from which self-efficacy beliefs develop: mastery experiences, vicarious experience, verbal persuasion and physiological states.
Mastery experiences are the evidence created by successfully doing something yourself. You give the presentation, complete the difficult workout, handle the uncomfortable conversation or solve the problem you weren't sure you could solve. Bandura regarded these direct experiences of successful performance as especially influential because they provide concrete evidence of capability.
Vicarious experience comes from watching other people. Seeing someone else succeed can change what seems possible, particularly when that person feels relevant or comparable to you. Watching an Olympic gymnast perform a difficult skill may tell you very little about your own abilities. Watching another beginner learn it can provide considerably more useful information.
Verbal persuasion is what other people tell us about our capability. A coach, teacher, manager or friend saying, "You can do this" can influence whether we attempt something, particularly when we trust their judgment. But encouragement has limits. It is difficult for reassurance alone to sustain a belief that repeatedly conflicts with experience.
Finally, physiological states provide information too. A racing heart, shaking hands or physical tension can be interpreted as evidence that we aren't capable of handling a situation. How we interpret those sensations can therefore affect our efficacy beliefs.
These sources aren't equally powerful in every situation, but together they help explain why confidence can change.
NOT THE SAME THING
Self-efficacy is not self-esteem
Self-esteem asks something closer to:
How do I feel about myself?
Self-efficacy asks:
Do I believe I can do this?
You can think highly of yourself and still have very low self-efficacy for something you've never attempted.
You can also struggle with your broader self-esteem while knowing with considerable certainty that you are capable of doing your job, running six miles or cooking dinner for twenty people.
This distinction matters because it makes confidence much more specific.
Instead of concluding I'm not a confident person, you can ask:
What exactly don't I believe I can do yet?
That is a much easier question to work with.
WHY IT MATTERS
One of the most useful implications of Self-Efficacy Theory is that we may sometimes have the relationship between confidence and action backwards.
We often imagine the sequence as:
Feel confident → attempt something → succeed
Bandura's research suggests that it frequently works in the other direction too.
Attempt something → experience some success → become more confident
This is why waiting until you feel completely ready can become a problem.
If the strongest evidence that you can do something comes from actually doing it, there is a limit to how much confidence you can build while remaining safely outside the experience.
The first attempt may still feel uncomfortable. You may need help. You may start with an easier version of the task. Bandura's participants didn't begin by immediately holding a boa constrictor. The difficulty increased progressively.
But each successful interaction produced new information.
I handled that.
And that information could change what the person believed they were capable of handling next.
Confidence, from this perspective, isn't always something you need to find before you begin.
Sometimes it is something you accumulate.
TRY THIS
Think of something you would like to feel more confident doing.
Instead of asking How can I become more confident?, ask a more concrete question:
What experience would give me evidence that I can do this?
Then make that experience small enough to attempt.
If you want to become comfortable speaking in public, the first piece of evidence doesn't need to be delivering a keynote. It might be asking a question in a meeting or presenting for five minutes to people you already know.
If you want to become someone who runs, you don't need evidence that you can complete a marathon. You need evidence that you can complete the next manageable distance.
Encouragement can help. Watching other people can help. Understanding what you're doing can help.
But eventually, the most convincing evidence tends to come from your own experience.
You did something you weren't entirely sure you could do.
Now you know a little more about what you're capable of.
References
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215.
Bandura, A., Adams, N. E., & Beyer, J. (1977). Cognitive processes mediating behavioral change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35(3), 125-139.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. W. H. Freeman.