ABSTRACT: The present article examines the nature and function of human agency within the conceptual model of triadic reciprocal causation. In analyzing the operation of human agency in this interactional causal structure, social cognitive theory accords a central role to cognitive, vicarious, self-reflective, and self-regulatory processes. The issues addressed concern the psychological mechanisms through which personal agency is exercised, the hierarchical structure of self-regulatory systems, eschewal of the dichotomous construal of self as agent and self as object, and the properties of a nondualistic but nonreductional conception of human agency. The relation of agent causality to the fundamental issues of freedom and determinism is also analyzed. The recent years have witnessed a resurgence of interest

The authors address the verification of the functional properties of self-efficacy beliefs and document how self-efficacy beliefs operate in concert with goal systems within a sociocognitive theory of self-regulation in contrast to the focus of control theory on discrepancy reduction. Social cognitive theory posits proactive discrepancy production by adoption of goal challenges working in concert with reactive discrepancy reduction in realizing them. Converging evidence from diverse methodological and analytic strategies verifies that perceived self-efficacy and personal goals enhance motivation and performance attainments. The large body of evidence, as evaluated by 9 meta-analyses for the effect sizes of self-efficacy beliefs and by the vast body of research on goal setting, contradicts findings (J. B. Vancouver, C. M. Thompson, & A. A. Williams, 2001; J. B. Vancouver, C. M. Thompson, E. C. Tischner, & D. J. Putka, 2002) that belief in one’s capabilities and personal goals is self-debilitating. Social cognitive theory is rooted in an agentic perspective in which people function as anticipative, purposive, and selfevaluating proactive regulators of their motivation and actions (Bandura, 2001). A theory embodying feed-forward selfregulation differs from control theories rooted solely in a negative feedback control system aimed at error correction. Among the mechanisms of human agency, none is more central or pervasive than beliefs of personal efficacy. Whatever other factors serve as guides and motivators, they are rooted in the core belief that one has the power to produce desired effects; otherwise one has little incentive to act or to persevere in the face of difficulties. Selfefficacy beliefs regulate human functioning through cognitive, motivational, affective, and decisional processes (Bandura, 1997). They affect whether individuals think in self-enhancing or selfdebilitating ways, how well they motivate themselves and persevere in the face of difficulties, the quality of their emotional well-being and their vulnerability to stress and depression, and the choices they make at important decisional points.

ive Theory, Bandura (1986) wrote that individuals possess beliefs that enable them to exercise a measure of control over their thoughts, feelings, and actions, that "what people think, believe, and feel affects how they behave" (p. 25). These beliefs comprise a self system with symbolizing, forethinking, vicarious, self-regulatory, and self-reflective capabilities, and human behavior is the result of the interplay between this personal system and external sources of influence. In all, Bandura painted a portrait of human behavior and motivation in which the beliefs that people have about themselves are key elements. Social Cognitive Theory and Self-efficacy Bandura (1986) argued that self-referent thought mediates between knowledge and action and that the capability to self-reflect is the most distinctively human characteristic, for it permits individuals to evaluate their own experiences and thought processes. Through reflection and selfevaluation, individuals can alter their

Although self-efficacy (SE) and computer self-efficacy (CSE) in particular has received much research interest in recent years, organizations have been deterred from using it because of the confusing number of extant instruments and the lack of publicity by researchers. CSE is an extremely useful construct in that it provides not only a measure of competence, but more importantly it is an indication of employee motivation to learn and use technology. Two problems have exacerbated this condition: a misunderstanding of how individuals actually judge their computing efficacy and conceptual confusion regarding task versus domain SE. While most extant CSE instruments include the structural dimension of magnitude (degree of task difficulty), this study questions this inclusion both conceptually and empirically. We compare four CSE measures (one without magnitude), in three computing domains, in their relationship with four common outcomes of CSE. Using a sample of over 300 and structural equation modeling, the findings are surprising in that for three outcomes, the CSE measure which did not include magnitude was significantly better. This suggests that perhaps magnitude is not as important as cognitive researchers have conjectured and further clarifies how individuals judge their computing ability. Other implications and directions for further study are presented.

across three studies, this research elucidates when loss- versus gainframed messages are most effective in influencing consumer recycling mind-set is activated. First, in a field study, the authors demonstrate that loss frames are more efficacious when paired with low-level, concrete mind-sets, whereas gain frames are more effective when paired with high-level, abstract mind-sets. this is an important, substantive finding that persisted over a significant time span. in addition, in two additional laboratory studies, they find further evidence for this matching hypothesis, in which a pairing of loss- (gain-) framed messages that activates more concrete (abstract) mind-sets leads to enhanced processing fluency, increased efficacy, and, as a result, more positive recycling intentions. the findings have implications for marketers, consumers, and society as a whole.