fei75766_ch17_534-568.indd 549  02/24/20 10:49 AM
Chapter 17    Bandura: Social Cognitive Theory549
Although self-efficacy is“thefoundation ofhuman agency” (Bandura, 2001, 
p.10),itisnottheonlymode ofhuman agency. People canalsoexercise control over
theirlivesthrough proxy andthrough collective efficacy.
Proxy Agency
Proxy involves indirect control overthose social conditions thataffect everyday liv-
ing.Bandura (2001) noted that“noonehasthetime, energy, andresources tomaster 
every realm ofeveryday life.Successful functioning necessarily involves ablend of
reliance onproxy agency insome areas offunctioning” (p.13).Inmodern Ameri -
cansociety, people would benearly helpless iftheyrelied solely onpersonal accom -
plishments toregulate theirlives. Most people donothavethepersonal capability 
torepair anairconditioner, acamera, oranautomobile. Through proxy agency, 
however, theycanaccomplish theirgoalbyrelying onother people torepair these 
objects. People attempt tochange theirdaily livesbycontacting theircongressional 
representative oranother potentially influential person; theyacquire mentors tohelp
them learn useful skills; theyhireayoung neighbor tomow theirgrass; theyrelyon
international news services tolearn ofrecent events; theyretain lawyers tosolve legal
problems; andsoon.
Proxy, however, hasadownside. Byrelying toomuch onthecompetence and
power ofothers, people mayweaken theirsense ofpersonal andcollective efficacy. 
Onespouse maybecome dependent ontheother tocareforthehousehold; lateado-
lescent orearly adult-age children mayexpect parents totakecareofthem; andciti-
zensmaylearn torelyontheirgovernment toprovide forthenecessities oflife.
Collective Efficacy
Thethird mode ofhuman agency iscollective efficacy .Bandura (2000) defined collec -
tive efficacy as“people’s shared beliefs intheircollective power toproduce desired 
results” (p.75).Inother words, collective efficacy istheconfidence people havethat
theircombined efforts willbring about group accomplishments. Bandura (2000) 
suggested twotechniques formeasuring collective efficacy. Thefirstistocombine 
individual members’ evaluations oftheirpersonal capabilities toenact behaviors that
benefit thegroup. Forexample, actors inaplaywould havehighcollective efficacy 
ifallhadconfidence intheirpersonal ability toadequately perform theirroles. The
second approach proposed byBandura istomeasure theconfidence eachperson has
inthegroup’s ability tobring about adesired outcome. Forexample, baseball players 
mayhavelittleconfidence ineachoftheirteammates butpossess highconfidence 
thattheirteam willperform quite well.These twoslightly different approaches tocol-
lective efficacy callforseparate measuring techniques.
Collective efficacy doesnotspring from acollective “mind” butrather from 
thepersonal efficacy ofmany individuals working together. Agroup’s collective 
efficacy, however, depends notonlyontheknowledge andskills ofitsindividual 
members butalsoontheirbeliefs thattheycanwork together inacoordinated and
interactive fashion (Bandura, 2000). People mayhavehighself-efficacy butlowcol-
lective efficacy. Forexample, awoman mayhavehighpersonal efficacy thatshe
canpursue ahealthy lifestyle, butshemayhavelowcollective efficacy thatshecanFinal PDF to printer