Lesson 2: Do Not Just Dream, Make It

Happen
 Albert E. Bandura's Self-efficacy

Biography

The concept of self-efficacy was introduced by

Albert Bandura in an article entitled "Self-efficacy:
Toward a Unifying Theory of Behavioral Change"
published in Psychological Review in 1977. The
article also became an instant classic in
psychology (Kendra 2017).
Albert E. Bandura was born in Mundare, Alberta
on December 4, 1925. He was the youngest of six
children. He grew up with parents who put great
emphasis on the value of family, life, and
education.

Bandura took a summer job in Alaska after high

school graduation. He then took an introductory
psychology course at the University of British
Columbia as a working student. In three years'
time, he graduated with The Bolocan Award in
Psychology in 1949.
He earned his master's degree from the University
of lowa in 1951 and his PhD in Clinical Psychology
in 1952. He had a postdoctoral position at the
Wichita Guidance Center before accepting a
position as a faculty member at Stanford
University in 1953, where he still works at
present.
• The Bobo Doll Experiment

In the 1950s, Dr. Bandura had a study known as the

Bobo Doll Experiment. In this experiment, the sample
children were presented with new social models of
violent and nonviolent behavior toward an inflatable
redounding Bobo doll. The result were: the group of
children who saw the violent behavior model became
violent to the doll, while the control group who was
presented with the nonviolent behavior model was
rarely violent to the doll.
This experiment has proven right the hypothesis
that social modeling is a very effective way of
learning. Dr. Bandura introduced the social
learning theory that focuses on what people learn
from observing and interacting with other people.
Bandura's social cognitive theory states that
people are active participants in their
environment and are not simply shaped by that
environment.
To date, as an active faculty member of
Stanford University, Dr. Bandura continues
to do researches such as self-efficacy, stress
reactions, and effects of modeling on human
behavior, emotion, and thought. He has
received many awards and honorary
degrees due to his works (The Great
Canadian Psychology Website 2008).
Dr. Bandura was named the most influential
psychologist of all time. His theories gave major
contribution to the field of psychology,
psychotherapy, and education. He was elected
president of the American Psychological
Association (APA) in 1974. He was awarded by
APA for his distinguished scientific contributions in
1980 and again in 2004 for his outstanding
lifetime contributions to psychology. In 2015, Dr.
Bandura was awarded the National Medal of
Science by President Barack Obama (Kendra
2017).
Summary of Self-efficacy Theory

Weibell (2011) summarized Albert Bandura's self-efficacy

theory: "Self-efficacy theory is based on the assumption
that psychological procedures serve as a means of
creating and strengthening expectations of personal
efficacy."
Self-efficacy theory distinguishes between expectations
of efficacy and response-outcome expectancies.
According to Weibell (2011), outcome expectancy is "a
person's estimate that a given behavior will lead to
certain outcomes." An efficacy expectation is "the
conviction that one can successfully execute the behavior
required to produce the outcomes."
Although a person may expect a certain
activity to lead to a particular outcome, they
may lack the motivation to perform the
action, doubting their ability to do so.
Outcome and efficacy expectations are
differentiated because individuals can
believe that a particular course of action will
produce certain outcomes. However, if they
entertain serious doubts about whether they
can perform the necessary activities with
such information, it does not influence their
behavior.
Self-efficacy typically comes into play when there
is an actual or perceived threat to one's personal
safety, or one's ability to deal with potentially
aversive events. Increasing a person's self-
efficacy increases their ability to deal with a
potentially averse situation. For example,
experimental studies on the treatment of adults
with ophidiophobia (fear of snakes) have
demonstrated that raising levels of self-efficacy is
an effective technique to help them cope with
threatening situations. Perceived self-efficacy
mediates anxiety arousal.
Weibell (2011) stated that Dr. Bandura defined self-
efficacy as "people's beliefs about their capabilities to
produce designated levels of performance that exercise
influence over events that affect their lives." He identified
acts of people with "high assurance in their capabilities,"
such as:
1. approach difficult tasks as challenges to be mastered;
2. set challenging goals and maintain strong commitment
to them;
3. heighten or sustain efforts in the face of failures or
setbacks;
4. attribute failure to insufficient effort or deficient
knowledge and skills which are acquirable; and
5. approach threatening situations with assurance that
they can exercise control over them.
In contrast, people "who doubt their capabilities":
1. shy away from tasks they view as personal threats;
2. have low aspirations and weak commitment to goals
they choose to pursue;
3. dwell on personal deficiencies, obstacles they will
encounter, and all kinds of adverse outcomes, rather
than concentrating on how to perform successfully:
4. slacken their efforts and give up quickly in the face of
difficulties;
5. are slow to recover their sense of efficacy following
failure or setbacks; and
6. fall easy victim to stress and depression.
Dr. Bandura described four main sources of
influence by which a person's self-efficacy is
developed and maintained. These are:

1. performance accomplishments or mastery

experiences;
2. vicarious experiences;
3. verbal or social persuasion; and
4. physiological (somatic and emotional) states
• Dr. Bandura identified that "mastery
experiences" or "personal performance
accomplishments" are the most effective ways to
create a strong sense of efficacy. "Successes
build a robust belief in one's personal efficacy.
Failures undermined it, especially if failures occur
before a sense of efficacy is firmly established."
• Vicarious experiences through observance of
social models also influence one's perception of
self-efficacy. The most important factor that
determines the strength of influence of an
observed success or failure on one's own self-
efficacy is the degree of similarity between the
observer and the model.
Seeing people similar to oneself succeed by
sustained effort raises observers' beliefs
that they, too, possess the capabilities to
succeed, given the comparable activities. By
the same token, observing others who fail
despite high efforts lowers observers'
judgments of their own efficacy and
undermines their efforts. The impact of
modeling on perceived self-efficacy is
strongly influenced by perceived similarity
to the models.
The greater the assumed similarity, the more
persuasive is the models' successes and failures.
If people see the models as very different from
themselves, their perceived self-efficacy is not
much influenced by the models' behavior and the
results it produces.
Verbal or social persuasion also affects one's
perception of self-efficacy. It is "a way of
strengthening people's beliefs that they have
what it takes to succeed." Verbal or social
persuasion can provide a temporary boost in
perceived ability. When it is effective in mobilizing
a person to action, and their actions lead to
success, the enhanced self-efficacy may become
"People who are persuaded verbally, that
they possess the capabilities to master
given activities, are likely to mobilize greater
effort and sustain it than if they harbor self-
doubts and dwell on personal deficiencies
when problems arise." This increases their
chances of success. Unfortunately, "it is
more difficult to instill high beliefs of
personal efficacy by social persuasion alone
than to undermine it since unrealistic boosts
in efficacy are quickly disconfirmed by
disappointing results of one's efforts"
(Weibell 2011).
Since "most human motivation is cognitively
generated," self-belief of efficacy is an
important factor in human motivation.
Beliefs of self-efficacy work in coordination
with component skill and incentive to act.
Inasmuch as a person has both the
component skills needed to succeed and the
incentive to engage, self- efficacy plays an
important role in determining what activities
a person will choose to engage in, how
much effort they will expend, and how long
that effort will be sustained when things get
tough (Weibell 2011).
People also rely on their somatic or emotional
states when judging their capabilities. Stress and
tension are interpreted as "signs of vulnerability
to poor performance." Fatigue, aches and pains,
and mood also effect perception of ability. Dr.
Bandura notes, however, that it is not the
intensity of the emotional or physical reaction
that is important, but rather, how it is perceived
and interpreted. People with a high sense of self-
efficacy may perceive affective arousal as "an
energizing facilitator of performance, whereas
those who are beset by self-doubts regard their
arousal as a debilitator" (Weibell 2011).
Expectation alone will not produce desired
performance if the component capabilities
are lacking. Moreover, there are many
things that people can do with certainty of
success but they do not perform because
they have no incentives to do so (Weibell
2011).
Dr. Albert Bandura's quotes about self-efficacy
(Kendra 2017) are as follows:

"Self-efficacy is the belief in one's capabilities to

organize and execute the sources of action
required to manage prospective situations." From
Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A
Social Cognitive Theory, 1986.
"If efficacy beliefs always reflected only what
people can do routinely, they would rarely fail but
they would not set aspirations beyond their
immediate reach nor mount the extra effort
needed to surpass their ordinary performances."
From Encyclopedia of Human Behavior, 1994.

"Self-belief does not necessarily ensure success,

but self-disbelief assuredly spawns failure." From
Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control, 1997.
"By sticking it out through tough times, people emerge
from adversity with a stronger sense of efficacy." From
Encyclopedia of Human Behavior, 1994.

"People's beliefs about their abilities have a profound

effect on those abilities. Ability is not a fixed property;
there is a huge variability in how you perform. People
who have a sense of self-efficacy bounce back from
failure; they approach things in terms of how to handle
them rather than worrying about what can go wrong."
From Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control, 1996
Carol S. Dweck's Fixed and Growth Mindset Theory

Biography

Carol S. Dweck is the author of Mindset: The New

Psychology of Success. She was born on October 17,
1946. She graduated from Bernard College in 1967 and
earned her PhD from Yale University in 1972. She taught
at Columbia University, Harvard University, and
University of Illinois before joining Stanford University in
2004 (Upclosed 2017).
She is one of the leading researchers in the field of
motivation and is a Lewis and Virginia Eaton Professor of
Psychology at Stanford University. Her research focused
on why people succeed and how to foster success. She
has been elected as one of the outstanding scholars in
Social Sciences at the American Academy of Arts and
Sciences. Her works has been featured in different
publications like The New Yorker, Time, The New York
Times, The Washington Post, and The Boston (Mindset
2006-2010).
Fixed and Growth Mindset

Dr. Dweck's contribution to social psychology relates to

implicit theories of intelligence with her book, Mindset:
The New Psychology of Success published in 2006. Dr.
Dweck described people with two types of mindset.
People who believe that success is based on their innate
abilities have a "fixed" theory of intelligence, and goes
under fixed mindset. On the other hand, people who
believe that success is based on hardwork, learning,
training, and perseverance have growth theory of
intelligence, which goes under growth mindset.
According to Dr. Dweck, individuals may not necessarily
be aware of their own mindset, but their mindset can still
be discerned based on their behavior. It is especially
evident in their reaction to failure. Fixed-mindset
individuals dread failure because it is a negative
statement on their basic abilities, while growth-mindset
individuals do not mind or fear failure as much because
they realize their performance can be improved and
learning comes from failure. These two mindsets play an
important role in all aspects of a person's life. Dr. Dweck
argues that the growth mindset will allow a person to live
a less stressful and more successful life (Upclosed 2017).
In an interview with Dr. Dweck in 2012, she described
the fixed and growth mindset as:

"In a fixed mindset, students believe their basic abilities,

their intelligence, their talents are just fixed traits. They
have a certain amount and that's that, and their goal
becomes to look smart all the time and never look
dumb. In the growth mindset, students understand that
their talents and abilities can be developed through
effort, good teaching and persistence. They don't
necessarily think everyone's the same or anyone can be
Einstein, but they believe everyone can get smarter if
they work for it." (Upclosed 2017)
Individuals with growth mindset are more likely to
continue working hard despite setbacks while individuals
with fixed mindset can be affected by subtle
environmental cues. For examples, children given praise
such as "good job, you are smart" are more likely to
develop a fixed mindset, whereas, if given compliments
like "good job, you worked very hard" are likely to
developed a growth mindset. In other words, it is possible
to encourage students to persist despite failure by
encouraging them to think about learning in a certain
way (Upclosed 2017).
Edwin A. Locke's Goal Setting Theory

Biography

Edwin A. Locke is internationally known for his research

on goal setting. He was born on January 5, 1938. He is
Dean's Professor (Emeritus) of Leadership and
Motivation at the Robert H. Smith School of Business at
the University of Maryland, College Park. He received his
BA from Harvard in 1960 and his PhD in Industrial
Psychology from Cornell University in 1964 (Locke
2017).
• Goal Setting Theory
•
The goal setting theory was first studied by Dr. Locke in
the middle of 1960s. He continued to do more studies in
relation to his theory. In 1996, he published another
article entitled "Motivation Through Conscious Goal
Setting." The article is about his 30 years of research
findings on the relationship between conscious
performance goals and performance on work tasks. The
basic contents of goal setting theory are summarized in
terms of 14 categories of findings discussed in the
article (Locke 1996).
Locke (1996) first described that the approach of goal
setting theory is based on what Aristotle called final
causality; that is, action caused by a purpose. It accepts
the axiomatic status of consciousness and volition. It also
assumes that introspective reports provide useful and
valid data for formulating psychological concepts and
measuring psychological phenomena (e.g., purpose, goal
commitment, self-efficacy). He then discussed the
attributes of goals and his 14 rese
• Goal Attributes
•
Goals have both an internal and an external aspect.
Internally, they are ideas (desired ends); externally,
they refer to the object or condition sought (e.g., a job,
a sale, a certain performance level). The idea guides
action to attain the object. Two broad attributes of goals
are content (the actual object sought) and intensity (the
scope, focus, and complexity, among others of the
choice process). Qualitatively, the content of a goal is
whatever the person is seeking. Quantitatively, two
attributes of content, difficulty, and specificity, have
been studied (Locke 2017).
• 14 Research Findings
•
A research was made by Locke (2017) under the article
"Motivation Through Conscious Goal Setting." The
research has the following findings:
1. The more difficult the goal, the greater the
achievement.
The linear function assumes, however, that the
individual is committed to the goal and possesses the
requisite ability and knowledge to achieve it. Without
these, performance does drop at high goal levels.
2. The more specific or explicit the goal, the more
precisely performance is regulated.

High goal specificity is achieved mainly through

quantification (e.g., increase sales by 10%) or
enumeration (e.g., a list of tasks to be accomplished).
Thus, it reduces variance in performance, provided that
the individual can control his or her performance. This is
not to say that specificity is always desirable (it may not
be in some creative innovation situations), but only that
it has certain effects.
3. Commitment to goals is most critical when goals are
specific and difficult.

When goals are easy or vague, it is not hard be

committed to it because it does not require much
dedication to reach easy goals, and vague goals can be
easily redefined to accommodate low performance.
However, when goals are specific and hard, the higher
the commitment is being required, which results to
better performance.
5. High commitment to goals is attained when:
a. the individual is convinced that the goal is important;
b. the individual is convinced that the goal is attainable
(or that, at least, progress can be made toward it).
These are the same factors that influence goal
choice. There are many ways to convince a person
that a goal is important:

1. In most laboratory settings, it is quite sufficient to simply

ask for compliance after providing a plausible rationale for
the study.
2. In work situations, the supervisor or leader can use
legitimate authority to get initial commitment.
3. Continued commitment might require additional
incentives such as supportiveness, recognition, and
rewards.
4. Financial incentives may facilitate commitment and
performance, except when rewards are offered for attaining
impossible goals. Here, performance actually drops.
Participation by subordinates in setting goals (i.e., joint
goal setting by supervisor and subordinate) leads to
higher commitment than curtly telling people what to do
with no explanation, but it does not lead to (practically
significant) higher commitment than providing a
convincing rationale for an assigned goal.
• Self-set goals can be highly effective in gaining
commitment, although they may not always be set as
high as another person would assign.

Commitment can be enhanced by effective leadership.

Relevant leadership techniques include:

1. providing and communicating an inspiring vision;

2. acting as role model for the employees;

3. expecting outstanding performance;

4. promoting employees who embrace the vision and
dismissing those who reject it;

5.delegating responsibility ("ownership") for key tasks;

6.goal setting itself can be delegated for capable,

responsible employees;

7.expressing (genuine) confidence in employee

capabilities;

8. enhancing capabilities through training; and

9. asking for commitment in public.

Self-efficacy refers to task-specific
confidence and is a key component of
Bandura's (1986) social cognitive theory.
Bandura showed that self-efficacy can be
raised by enactive mastery, persuasion, and
role modeling-all referred to above. In
organizational settings, enactive mastery
can be assured by providing people with
needed experience and training and also by
selecting people based on their skills and
abilities.
Persuasion may include not only verbal expressions of
confidence but also giving people information regarding
what task strategies to use. The effectiveness of role
modeling depends on the attributes of the model and on
the person observing the model.
6. In addition to having a direct effect on performance,
self-efficacy influences:

a. the difficulty level of the goal chosen or accepted;

b. commitment to goals;

C. the response to negative feedback or failure; and

d. the choice of task strategies.

People with high self-efficacy are more likely to set high
goals or to accept difficult, assigned goals, to commit
themselves to difficult goals, to respond with renewed
efforts to setbacks, and to discover successful task
strategies. Thus, the effects of self-efficacy on
performance are both direct and indirect (through various
goal processes). Additionally. goal choice and
commitment can be influenced through role modeling.
• Feedback. For people to pursue goals effectively, they
need some means of checking or tracking their progress
toward their goal. Sometimes this is self-evident to
perception, as when a person walks down a road toward
a distant but visible town. In such cases, deviations
from the path to the goal are easily seen and corrected.
However, take note that this is in contrast with a sales
goal, whose attainment requires scores of sales over a
period of many months. Here, some formal means of
keeping score is needed so that people can get a clear
indication if they are moving fast enough and in the
right direction.
• 7. Goal setting is most effective when there is
feedback that shows progress in relation to the goal.

When provided with feedback on their own performance

or that of others, people often spontaneously set goals
to improve their previous best or beat the performance
of others simply as a way of challenging themselves,
but this is not inevitable. The goal set may be higher or
lower than the performance level previously achieved.
The effect of performance feedback (knowledge of
score) depends on the goals set in response to it.
7. Goal setting is most effective when there is feedback
that shows progress in relation to the goal.

When provided with feedback on their own performance

or that of others, people often spontaneously set goals to
improve their previous best or beat the performance of
others simply as a way of challenging themselves, but
this is not inevitable. The goal set may be higher or lower
than the performance level previously achieved. The
effect of performance feedback (knowledge of score)
depends on the goals set in response to it.
Those who lose confidence will tend to lower their goals,
decrease their efforts, and lessen the intensity and
effectiveness of their strategy search. According to
Bandura, changes in self-efficacy after experiencing
failure may be affected by the types of causal affirmative
statements people make.
9. Goals affect performance by affecting the direction of
action, the degree of effort exerted, and the persistence
of action over time.

The directive aspect is fairly obvious. A person who has a

goal to maximize quality of performance will focus more
attention and action on quality than on, for example,
quantity or speed. When there is conflict between two or
more goals, performance with respect to each goal may
be undermined. Effort is roughly proportional to the
judged difficulty of the goal-which is why difficult goals
ordinarily lead to higher performance than easy goals.
Persistence refers to directed effort extended over time.
Harder goals typically lead to more persistence than easy
goals, because, given the commitment, they take longer
to reach and may require overcoming more obstacles.
These mechanisms operate almost automatically, or at
least routinely once a goal is committed to, because most
people have learned (by about the age of 6) that if they
want to achieve something they have to: pay attention to
it to the exclusion of other things, exert the needed
effort, and persist until it is achieved.
There is another, more indirect goal mechanism-that of
task strategies or plans. Most goals require the
application of task-specific procedures in addition to
attention and effort if they are to be attained. For
example, a student who wants to get an A in a
psychology course needs to know how to study in
general, how to study psychology in particular, how to
identify what is needed for an A in this course, and how
to implement this knowledge. There are several things
we have learned about the relationship of goals and
plans.
10. Goals stimulate planning in general. Often, the
planning quality is higher than that which occurs without
goals. When people possess task or goal-relevant plans
as a result of experience or training, they activate them
automatically when confronted with a performance goal.
Newly learned plans or strategies are most likely to be
utilized under the stimulus of a specific, difficult goal.
People recognize that goals require plans and seek either
to use what they already know or to make new plans
when they want to reach goals. Sometimes such plans
are quite pedestrian. For example, to attain difficult
quantity goals, people may simply sacrifice quality-a
common trade-off which everyone is familiar with. When
people are given training in a new strategy, they do not
always use it consistently unless they must in order to
attain goals that cannot otherwise be attained. When
tasks are complex, a number of new issues arise.
Direct goal mechanisms are less adequate than in the
case of simple tasks for attaining the goal. (Compare, for
example, the efficacy of effort alone in leading to high
performance when doing push-ups versus playing
chess.) The path to the goal is less clear, and there may
be no relevant prior experience or training which they
can fall back on. In such cases, people are forced to
discover new strategies: sometimes they do this poorly
especially if the goals are specific and difficult. The
reason appears to be that under this type of pressure,
tunnel vision inhibits effective search procedures.
11. When people strive for goals on complex tasks, they
are least effective in discovering suitable task strategies
if:

a. they have no prior experience or training on the task;

b. there is high pressure to perform well; and

C. there is high time pressure (to perform well

immediately).
Goals as mediators. Goals, along with self-efficacy,
might mediate the effects of values and personality on
performance. There is a firm support for goals and self-
efficacy as mediators of feedback. Feedback is most
effective in motivating improved performance when it is
used to set goals. Feedback alone is just information. To
act based on information, people need to know or decide
what it means that is, what significance it has. In a goal-
setting context, this means knowing what a good or
desirable score is from a bad or undesirable score. If no
such judgment is made, the feedback will probably be
ignored.
Similarly, participation seems to motivate performance
to the extent that it leads to higher goals, higher self-
efficacy, or higher commitment. More recent studies
have shown evidence for goals or goals plus self-
efficacy as a mediator of personality and charismatic
leadership. In other words, these variables affect
performance through their effects. on goals and self-
efficacy.
12. Goals (including goal commitment), in
combination with self-efficacy mediate or partially
mediate the effects of several personality traits and
incentives on performance.
The logic behind this model is that goals and self-
efficacy are the immediate regulators of much human
action, and these goals and self-efficacy, therefore,
reflect the individual's assessment of the value of
incentives and of the applicability of values and traits to
specifi situations Self-management. Goal-directed
actions and choices are not necessarily "imposed" or
even encouraged by environments (e.g., organizational
demands). People have the choice to manage their own
lives by setting their own purposes and working to
achieve them.
13. Goal-setting and goal-related mechanisms can be
trained and/or adopted in the absence of training for the
purpose of self-regulation.

Affect. Emotion is a type of automatic, partly

subconscious, psychological estimate an estimate of the
relationship of things to oneself. More precisely, emotions
are the form in which one experiences automatized value
judgments-judgments of objects, events, and situations
(as consciously and/or subconsciously perceived and
understood) according to the standard of one's values.
Events and situations seen as threatening to one's values
give rise to negative emotions (e.g., fear, anxiety,
dissatisfaction), whereas events and situations seen as
furthering one's values produce positive emotions (e.g.,
happiness, satisfaction, love). In goal-setting contexts,
the immediate value standard is one's goal; that is, the
level of performance desired or sought. Thus, goal
achievement leads to satisfaction, while goal failure leads
to dissatisfaction. At first glance, there is an interesting
and non-intuitive finding that pertains to the relation of
goals to satisfaction. High goals lead to less performance
satisfaction, on the average, than easy goals.
14. Goals serve as standards of self-satisfaction, with
harder goals demanding higher accomplishment in order
to attain self-satisfaction than easy goals. Goals can also
be used to enhance task interest, reduce boredom, and
promote goal clarity. When used to punish or intimidate
people, however, goals increase stress and anxiety.
Goal-setting dilemmas. If hard or difficult goals lead to
higher performance and lower satisfaction than easy
goals, there is obviously a problem of how to get people
(or oneself) to be both happy and productive. There are
obvious benefits and penalties of trying for too little in
life as well as for trying for too much. Obviously, the key
principle here is personal context. Life goals must be
based on what you really want out of life (not on what
other people want for you) and on your true capabilities.
If you want to pursue challenging goals, these goals do
not have to be attained all at once, but can be pursued
over an extended time period.
Lower sub-goals can be set as steps to a longer term and
higher goal. Partial success can be credited by others and
oneself. Failure can be treated or framed as a learning
experience, not as proof of incompetence. New skills can
be acquired as needed, and jobs can be chosen, when
possible, to match your aspirations and abilities.
Another dilemma is how to structure reward systems in
organizations. If incentives were offered for goals that
could not be reached, lower motivation and performance
resulted as compared to hourly payment or piece-rate
pay. This might suggest that moderate goals would be
ideal; however, moderate goals in work situations do not
stay moderate for long because people improve their
strategies and skills over time. Thus, a difficult juggling
act would be required to maintain an effective system.
Another possibility would be to set goals to motivate
people but pay for performance, regardless of goal level.
This would be similar to a piece-rate system.
Alternatively, multiple goal levels could be set, from
moderately easy to almost impossible, and pay could be
proportional to the highest level attained. This would
guarantee some reward even for moderate attainments
but would stimulate higher attainments as well.
Incentives can be dangerous if they encourage tunnel
vision and thereby the neglect of important non-goal
activities.
People with growth mindset, where there is room for
improvement of performance, with a positive perceived
self-efficacy, where he or she has high confidence on his
or her capabilities, and has set specific achievable goals,
have high possibility to attain success in life.
THANK YOU!!!