Albert Bandura defined "self-efficacy" as:

A: A person's global sense of self-worth and positive self-regard

B: A person's belief in their capacity to organise and execute the courses of action required to produce given attainments in a specific domain

C: The degree to which a person believes their outcomes are controlled by their own effort rather than by luck or powerful others

D: An individual's stable trait-level confidence across all domains of life

Correct: A person's belief in their capacity to organise and execute the courses of action required to produce given attainments in a specific domain

Bandura's self-efficacy is a domain-specific belief about one's own capability — not a global self-esteem measure. A surgeon may have high self-efficacy for performing operations but low self-efficacy for public speaking. Crucially, self-efficacy is a forward-looking belief about future performance capabilities, not a reflection of past achievement per se. High self-efficacy predicts effort, persistence, resilience after failure, and ultimately performance — independent of actual ability level. Bandura distinguished it carefully from outcome expectancies (what will happen if one acts) and self-esteem (overall positive self-regard).

According to Bandura, what are the four sources of self-efficacy information, in order of their typical influence?

A: Social persuasion, vicarious experience, physiological states, and imagined mastery

B: Enactive mastery experiences (performance accomplishments), vicarious learning (modelling), verbal persuasion, and physiological/affective states

C: Past success, peer comparison, teacher feedback, and genetic predisposition

D: Competence experiences, self-monitoring, emotional regulation, and social reinforcement

Correct: Enactive mastery experiences (performance accomplishments), vicarious learning (modelling), verbal persuasion, and physiological/affective states

Bandura identified four sources: (1) Enactive mastery experiences — direct performance accomplishments are the most powerful source; success raises efficacy, failure lowers it. (2) Vicarious experiences — observing similar others succeed or fail; especially powerful when the model is similar to the observer. (3) Verbal persuasion — being told you are capable; less powerful than direct experience but influences what tasks people attempt. (4) Physiological and affective states — interpreting arousal, fatigue, or anxiety as signals about capability. People may interpret the same arousal as energising excitement or debilitating anxiety depending on their efficacy beliefs.

Mischel and Shoda's Cognitive-Affective Personality System (CAPS) proposed that personality is best characterised by:

A: A small set of stable trait scores that predict behaviour independently of situation

B: Stable patterns of situation-behaviour relationships — "if-then" profiles that describe when and how a person's cognitive-affective units are activated by situational features

C: Unconscious schemas formed in early childhood that determine all adult behaviour

D: Reinforcement histories that produce consistent stimulus-response chains across situations

Correct: Stable patterns of situation-behaviour relationships — "if-then" profiles that describe when and how a person's cognitive-affective units are activated by situational features

Mischel and Shoda (1995) developed CAPS as a resolution to the person-situation debate. Rather than conceding (as Mischel's 1968 critique suggested) that traits do not exist, CAPS proposes that people have stable "cognitive-affective units" (CAUs) — encodings of self and world, expectancies, affects, goals, competencies — that are activated by specific situational features. Personality is expressed as stable "if-then" signatures: "when in situation X, person A does Y but person B does Z." These cross-situational variability patterns are themselves stable and constitute the person's "personality signature."

True or False: Mischel and Shoda's CAPS model implies that behaviour is entirely situationally determined, with no role for stable individual differences.

Answer: False

CAPS is often misread as situationism, but it explicitly proposes stable individual differences — in the form of stable if-then personality signatures. People differ in which situations activate which responses, and these patterns are themselves stable across time and consistent with how peers describe them. A person who becomes aggressive specifically when they feel disrespected but is highly cooperative in other contexts has a stable personality signature; it just is not captured well by a single trait score for aggressiveness. CAPS is an interactionist model that preserves stable individual differences while taking situational specificity seriously.

George Kelly's personal construct theory proposed that individuals function as "scientists" in their understanding of the world. What are "personal constructs" and how do they shape personality?

A: Shared cultural schemas that individuals absorb from their social environment

B: Bipolar dimensions that individuals develop to anticipate and interpret events — unique to each person; personality is the system of constructs a person uses to make sense of self and world

C: Unconscious templates formed in early childhood that determine adult relationship patterns

D: The set of cognitive biases that distort perception in ways specific to each individual

Correct: Bipolar dimensions that individuals develop to anticipate and interpret events — unique to each person; personality is the system of constructs a person uses to make sense of self and world

Kelly (1955) proposed that people are "scientist-like" in that they develop hypotheses (constructs) about the world and test them against experience. Constructs are bipolar dimensions (e.g., kind–cruel, strong–weak, trustworthy–untrustworthy) that a person applies to organise and anticipate events — especially social events. Each person's construct system is unique. Psychological disturbance arises when constructs fail to anticipate events (invalidation) or when the construct system is too rigid or too permeable. Kelly developed the Repertory Grid technique as a method for eliciting personal constructs without imposing the researcher's own categories.

Julian Rotter's "locus of control" refers to:

A: The degree to which a person believes they can control others in their social environment

B: A generalised expectancy about whether outcomes are controlled by one's own behaviour and attributes (internal locus) or by luck, chance, fate, or powerful others (external locus)

C: The brain region responsible for executive control of emotional responses

D: The degree to which a person's attention is focused inward (private self-consciousness) rather than on the external environment

Correct: A generalised expectancy about whether outcomes are controlled by one's own behaviour and attributes (internal locus) or by luck, chance, fate, or powerful others (external locus)

Rotter (1966) proposed that people differ in their generalised expectancy about what controls outcomes in their lives. Internals believe that outcomes are contingent on their own behaviour, effort, and abilities — and consequently invest effort and show persistence in the face of difficulty. Externals believe outcomes are controlled by luck, fate, or powerful others — and may show less persistence and take less responsibility for outcomes. Internal locus of control is associated with better academic performance, health behaviours, wellbeing, and occupational achievement, though extreme internality can lead to self-blame in genuinely uncontrollable situations.

Carol Dweck's research on implicit theories of intelligence distinguishes "fixed mindset" from "growth mindset." What does each entail, and what are the behavioural consequences?

A: Fixed mindset: belief that intelligence is stable; growth mindset: belief it can grow. Fixed mindset predicts more effort because people try to prove themselves; growth mindset predicts less effort because improvement feels guaranteed.

B: Fixed mindset: belief that ability is a fixed, unchangeable quantity (entity theory); growth mindset: belief that ability can be developed through effort and learning (incremental theory). Fixed mindset predicts avoiding challenges and helpless responses to failure; growth mindset predicts embracing challenges and persistence after setbacks.

C: Fixed mindset refers to inflexible thinking styles; growth mindset refers to divergent thinking. These are unrelated to ability beliefs.

D: Fixed mindset predicts higher achievement because it focuses effort; growth mindset is associated with lower achievement because it reduces concern about performance.

Correct: Fixed mindset: belief that ability is a fixed, unchangeable quantity (entity theory); growth mindset: belief that ability can be developed through effort and learning (incremental theory). Fixed mindset predicts avoiding challenges and helpless responses to failure; growth mindset predicts embracing challenges and persistence after setbacks.

Dweck (1999) found that children's beliefs about the nature of intelligence profoundly affect their learning motivation and responses to failure. Entity theorists (fixed mindset) believe intelligence is fixed; failure signals low ability, leading to helpless withdrawal and challenge avoidance. Incremental theorists (growth mindset) believe intelligence is malleable; failure signals a need for more effort or different strategies, leading to mastery orientation and persistence. Dweck's mindset research has been widely applied in education and organisational contexts. The specific effects of mindset interventions on academic achievement have been debated in large-scale replications, with effect sizes varying substantially by context.

What distinguishes cognitive-social personality theories from trait theories in their fundamental approach to personality?

A: Cognitive-social theories deny that personality differences are stable; trait theories assert complete consistency across all situations

B: Cognitive-social theories locate personality in internal cognitive-affective structures (beliefs, expectancies, constructs, goals) that mediate between situations and responses, emphasising context-sensitivity; trait theories describe broad, cross-situational behavioural dispositions without specifying cognitive mediating mechanisms

C: Cognitive-social theories focus exclusively on unconscious processes; trait theories focus on conscious self-report

D: Cognitive-social theories are purely descriptive; trait theories are explanatory

Correct: Cognitive-social theories locate personality in internal cognitive-affective structures (beliefs, expectancies, constructs, goals) that mediate between situations and responses, emphasising context-sensitivity; trait theories describe broad, cross-situational behavioural dispositions without specifying cognitive mediating mechanisms

The key difference is the level of analysis and the role of mediating processes. Trait theories describe and predict behaviour using broad summary dimensions (high conscientiousness → organised, reliable), without specifying the cognitive mechanisms behind these tendencies. Cognitive-social theories (Bandura, Mischel, Kelly, Rotter) explicitly model the cognitive and affective structures — beliefs about self-efficacy, expectancies about outcomes, personal constructs, if-then contingencies — that mediate between incoming situations and outgoing behaviour. This makes cognitive-social theories more process-focused and potentially more useful for understanding how to change behaviour, but more complex and context-dependent than simple trait descriptions.