Research figure: Albert Bandura · Written by Artificial Sapiens
What Is Albert Bandura's Social Cognitive Theory of Self-Regulation?
Albert Bandura's social cognitive theory of self-regulation explains how people influence their own conduct through the ongoing interplay of self-observation, evaluative judgment, and self-reaction. People monitor actions and their consequences, compare what they observe with personal standards and situational demands, and respond to these evaluations in ways that shape subsequent motivation and behavior. Beliefs about personal efficacy influence whether they set demanding goals, persist through difficulties, revise strategies, or withdraw effort. The model is embedded in Bandura's broader account of reciprocal causal relations among personal factors, behavior, and the social environment, rather than describing an isolated mechanism located entirely within an individual. Bandura presented the most concentrated statement of this formulation in his 1991 paper, Social Cognitive Theory of Self-Regulation.
The scientific significance of this theory lies in its account of how standards become behaviorally consequential. Knowing that a goal is desirable or knowing how to perform an action does not automatically produce sustained action. A person must acquire relevant information about their conduct, interpret that information against a meaningful standard, and experience consequences—anticipated, self-evaluative, interpersonal, or material—that influence what happens next. The account is applicable to achievement and moral conduct while requiring attention to their distinct standards and sanctions. Its constituent ideas have informed experimental research on goals, feedback, perceived efficacy, and later educational models of self-regulated learning. Those research traditions offer several kinds of support, but none supplies a single decisive test of the entire theoretical architecture.
Historical Origins and the 1991 Formulation
Bandura's work on self-regulation developed within the intellectual trajectory from social learning theory to social cognitive theory. Early observational-learning research established that people can acquire information about actions by attending to models, including without direct reinforcement for every observed response. Over subsequent decades Bandura gave increasing weight to cognitive anticipation, personal standards, self-evaluative incentives, beliefs about efficacy, and human agency. In Human Agency in Social Cognitive Theory (1989), he located these processes within reciprocal causal relations between the person, conduct, and circumstances.
The 1991 paper appeared in Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, volume 50, issue 2, pages 248–287. Its title corresponds to a published original journal article authored by Albert Bandura alone, with DOI 10.1016/0749-5978(91)90022-L. The publisher identifies portions as revised or expanded from Bandura's 1986 book Social Foundations of Thought and Action and from a chapter on anticipatory and self-regulatory mechanisms in the Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. The article is a theoretical integration drawing on earlier experimental programs, not a report of one newly conducted trial. That distinction matters for interpreting its scientific claims: individual experimental findings can support components of the framework without experimentally validating every relation asserted in the synthesis.
Bandura argued that people exert self-influence in part by using the products of experience to regulate later activity. Standards can arise through social modeling, instruction, prior accomplishments, and institutional norms; people may adopt, revise, or reject them. Social cognitive theory consequently links personal self-management to social history and current opportunity. A workplace performance standard, an academic target, and a commitment to avoid harming others can all organize self-evaluation, but each operates through a different configuration of consequences, meaning, and social demands. Bandura (1991) explicitly examined both achievement and moral regulation.
The Three Self-Regulatory Subfunctions
Self-Observation: Monitoring Conduct, Conditions, and Consequences
Self-observation is the process of acquiring usable information about one's actions, the circumstances preceding them, and what follows. It makes behavior available for comparison, correction, and planning. What people attend to changes what they can learn from experience: recording the number of study sessions gives different information from noting comprehension, distraction, difficulty, and retention. Likewise, a record of completed workouts describes participation but does not establish improved fitness without meaningful outcome measures.
Bandura's conception extends beyond mere counting. Useful self-monitoring depends on the temporal proximity of feedback, the specific features being tracked, the representativeness of observations, and their relevance to goals. In a complex task, monitoring may concern quality as well as frequency, choices as well as outcomes, and contextual constraints as well as effort. Selective records can distort evaluation: an employee may track completed cases while overlooking case difficulty; a student may track hours while overlooking problem-solving accuracy. Self-observation therefore has a measurement problem at its center. The central primary exposition is Bandura (1991).
The wider evidence base supports the value of monitoring in specified circumstances. In a meta-analysis of 138 randomized studies involving 19,951 participants, Harkin and colleagues (2016) found that interventions promoting progress monitoring increased monitoring frequency and produced a positive average effect on goal attainment (d = 0.40, 95% CI [0.32, 0.48]). Effects varied by monitoring format, and were larger when progress was recorded or reported publicly. The meta-analysis tested monitoring interventions across several theoretical traditions; it supports a self-regulatory mechanism, while its pooled effect is not an estimate of the complete Bandura model or a guaranteed outcome in every setting.
Judgmental Processes: Standards, Comparisons, and Meaning
Observation becomes motivationally relevant when behavior is evaluated. Bandura described judgment as comparison with personal standards and pertinent circumstances, including characteristics of a task and the value assigned to different activities. Standards make the same result mean different things to different people. Completing a difficult assignment with moderate accuracy may be experienced as meaningful progress by a novice and as unsatisfactory by someone already working at expert level. Evaluations also depend on whether the standard is attainable with available resources and on whether the person's own performance is compared to an earlier baseline, a chosen criterion, or other people's outcomes.
Judgmental processes should not be equated with a single numerical performance gap. People interpret the quality and significance of their effort, the legitimacy of standards, and whether differences between aspiration and attainment are actionable. A difficult target can organize sustained effort when the person perceives a viable path to improvement, whereas an identical target can discourage effort when success appears unreachable. Other people and institutions shape these interpretations by supplying criteria, feedback, recognition, opportunities, and sanctions. In Bandura's framework, evaluations are socially informed and personally interpreted Bandura, 1991.
Self-Reaction: Affective and Motivational Consequences
Self-reaction denotes the self-evaluative consequences of judged performance. Satisfaction, pride, disappointment, dissatisfaction, and anticipatory responses can alter later engagement. Self-administered rewards and self-directed criticism are possible manifestations, but the theory places particular emphasis on evaluative and affective reactions to one's own conduct. These reactions are mediated by adopted standards and the meaning of progress, not simply by external prizes.
Self-reaction can sustain activity when progress becomes rewarding or when dissatisfaction with a meaningful but attainable shortfall mobilizes renewed effort. Its motivational direction depends on perceived efficacy, the degree of discrepancy, and the interpretation of the standard. Large, repeated failures may undermine effort when a person expects further attempts to fail. Ethical and interpersonal contexts add further dimensions: anticipated self-approval and self-sanction can organize conduct even when immediate external observation is absent. The relevant mechanisms were synthesized in Bandura (1991).
How the Subfunctions Work Together
The three subfunctions describe interdependent operations in a continuing regulatory process. Consider a student preparing for a technical examination. The student first tracks performance on practice problems and identifies where errors occur. They then compare the results with the demands of the examination and with their own desired standard. The comparison generates satisfaction, concern, or renewed commitment, affecting how they allocate the next study session. Improved results feed back into new observations and may change the standard itself. The cycle is flexible: people can change goals, choose better measures, reconsider demands, or enlist assistance.
A similar sequence applies to a professional learning a new procedure. Monitoring identifies whether instructions are followed; judgment evaluates accuracy against safety or quality criteria; self-reaction influences whether the worker perseveres, practices, or seeks supervision. The practical quality of self-regulation depends on the accuracy of feedback, the appropriateness of standards, available opportunities for revision, and the consequences of error. The existence of a feedback loop does not by itself determine whether a person will act successfully. Monitoring poor proxies, applying inappropriate standards, or misreading situational barriers can produce maladaptive regulation.
Bandura's formulation also permits anticipatory control. Individuals do not have to wait for a completed result before adjusting action. Forethought and projected self-reactions can guide choices in advance, and anticipated consequences may influence whether someone begins a task. This connection between self-regulation and purposive action appears in Bandura's 1989 treatment of human agency and his 1991 synthesis.
Self-Efficacy Within Self-Regulation
Perceived self-efficacy is a judgment about capability to organize and execute courses of action required for particular performances. It is not interchangeable with objective skill, outcome probability, confidence detached from a task, or a general belief that everything will work out. Bandura's original 1977 theoretical paper distinguished efficacy expectations from beliefs about whether a given action would lead to a desired outcome. Within self-regulation, efficacy beliefs influence goal selection, effort, resilience, and how discrepancies between standards and performance are interpreted.
The interaction is dynamic. Strong task-relevant efficacy can help sustain effort after a manageable setback; low efficacy may weaken persistence even when a goal is valued. Yet high expressed efficacy cannot substitute for knowledge, equipment, resources, safe conditions, or access. Performance also updates efficacy beliefs. This bidirectionality is important when interpreting observational studies that link believing in one's capability with subsequent success.
A within-person meta-analysis by Sitzmann and Yeo (2013) found that the self-efficacy-to-performance association weakened substantially after controlling for linear trajectories in the data, while prior performance remained a significant predictor of later self-efficacy. A later longitudinal synthesis of academic studies by Talsma and colleagues (2018) reported reciprocal prospective associations among adults, with differing results in children. These findings indicate that effect sizes and causal interpretations are sensitive to population, time scale, measurement, and statistical specification. They support examining efficacy and performance together, rather than presuming a universal one-way pathway.
Goals, Feedback, and the Motivation to Continue
The distinction between a chosen goal and information about current attainment is central to Bandura's experimental program. Goals supply a standard for comparison; performance information makes discrepancy observable. In a study by Bandura and Daniel Cervone (1983), 90 undergraduate participants performed a strenuous task under combinations of goals and feedback. The condition joining a performance standard with information about attainment generated a stronger motivational effect than goals or feedback alone. The finding is experimentally relevant because it isolates a key functional combination in self-evaluation rather than simply documenting that motivated people perform better.
Bandura and Cervone developed the analysis further in Differential Engagement of Self-Reactive Influences in Cognitive Motivation (1986). The researchers manipulated performance feedback relative to a challenging standard and assessed perceived efficacy, self-evaluation, self-set goals, and subsequent motivation. The pattern suggested that the size and direction of perceived discrepancy change which self-reactive influences are most salient. Motivational response was therefore conditioned by the meaning of the discrepancy and by perceived capability, rather than described by a simple rule that greater discrepancy always means greater effort.
These studies offer evidence for selected mechanisms and establish the historical basis for Bandura's later synthesis. Their experimental tasks, university samples, manipulated feedback, and short-term outcomes constrain what can be inferred about long-duration academic careers, illness management, or organizational performance. A laboratory demonstration that goals and feedback can affect immediate effort is a narrower result than a claim that the whole social cognitive system has been fully validated across populations and circumstances.
Reciprocal Causation and the Social Environment
Self-regulation belongs to Bandura's broader reciprocal account of personal processes, behavior, and environments. What a person believes and chooses affects their activity; activity produces outcomes and reactions from other people; the surrounding environment offers constraints, models, feedback, incentives, and opportunities that reshape personal judgments. Reciprocal causation describes interacting determinants over time and does not imply identical strength or simultaneity of every causal direction Bandura, 1989.
Take workplace skill acquisition. Access to instruction, feedback quality, realistic workload, managerial expectations, and the freedom to practice shape whether monitoring and self-correction are feasible. In education, the clarity of an assignment, feedback timing, instructional support, and the social meaning of success affect the regulatory process. A student can be diligent yet encounter instruction that leaves critical misconceptions unaddressed. Explaining failure only as weak individual self-regulation ignores the environmental side of the model itself.
Social standards can also conflict. A person may face pressure to meet a productivity target at the expense of accuracy or care. Self-regulation may help sustain ethically admirable commitments or facilitate pursuit of harmful standards. The theory describes mechanisms of self-influence; judging whether the chosen target is beneficial requires separate normative and empirical consideration.
Self-Regulation, Self-Control, and Human Agency
In ordinary language, self-control often refers to resisting a temptation, while self-regulation may refer to the larger process of setting standards, monitoring progress, evaluating discrepancies, and modifying action over time. Terminology varies across research traditions, so these everyday contrasts are organizational aids, not universally agreed diagnostic categories. Bandura treated self-regulatory processes as central to agency: individuals can anticipate, evaluate, reflect, and alter aspects of their conduct, while remaining situated in social conditions Bandura, 1989.
Agency does not require a claim of unlimited control. A person can influence some determinants of behavior and have little control over others. Proxy and collective forms of agency, analyzed elsewhere in Bandura's work, address securing assistance from others and coordinating collective action. The self-regulation article has a narrower focus: the psychological operations through which behavior is monitored, judged, and influenced. The relationship to agency explains the place of these operations in Bandura's system without collapsing the separate agency and reciprocal-determinism questions into this one.
Moral Self-Regulation and Moral Disengagement
Bandura's 1991 article explicitly extended the self-regulatory framework to moral action. Moral standards can support self-sanctions against injurious conduct and self-approval for acting consistently with adopted commitments. The theory gives attention to differences between achievement and morality: moral standards are often more stable, judgments may involve wider contextual considerations, and affective self-reactions may be especially consequential Bandura, 1991.
The existence of moral standards does not ensure consistent adherence. Bandura later elaborated mechanisms through which people selectively disengage moral self-sanctions by changing how conduct, responsibility, consequences, or victims are construed. His 1999 paper on moral disengagement examines that phenomenon. The intellectual relationship is direct: moral disengagement helps explain when self-reactive moral restraint may be weakened. Its specific taxonomy and empirical evidence form a separate research question, and should be assessed through the relevant original work rather than treated as proof that all harmful actions stem from one mechanism.
Influence on Educational Self-Regulated Learning
Research on self-regulated learning draws partly on Bandura's social cognitive account while developing distinct models, phase structures, measures, and interventions. Barry J. Zimmerman formulated an influential social cognitive interpretation of how learners manage cognitive, motivational, and behavioral processes. In A Social Cognitive View of Self-Regulated Academic Learning (1989), Zimmerman described the role of self-observation, self-judgment, self-reaction, efficacy beliefs, and reciprocal personal, behavioral, and environmental influences. His subsequent 2002 overview explained self-regulated learners and instructional implications. These are Zimmerman's contributions, even where they develop conceptual connections to Bandura.
The educational literature also contains important alternatives and extensions. Panadero's 2017 review compared six models, including work by Zimmerman, Boekaerts, Winne and Hadwin, Pintrich, Efklides, and Hadwin, Järvelä, and Miller. These approaches vary in the roles they assign to metacognition, emotion, social participation, and phases of learning. Treating educational self-regulation as one uniform Bandura model would obscure these differences and misattribute later research.
In a 2011 meta-analysis, Traci Sitzmann and Katherine Ely synthesized self-regulated learning in work-related training and educational attainment. Their work examines constructs and relationships within a much broader applied literature than Bandura's 1991 theoretical statement. Such evidence strengthens understanding of specific educational processes while requiring careful distinction between a theory's historical influence and evidence for a particular measurable intervention.
Health Behavior and Everyday Applications
Behavior change programs often incorporate goal selection, progress monitoring, feedback, self-evaluative incentives, and graded opportunities for mastery. Within a Bandura-informed explanation, the question is how people translate standards and expected consequences into behavior under their actual circumstances. For example, an exercise plan may become more manageable when progress is observed with a suitable measure, goals are calibrated to capability and health status, and setbacks prompt adjustment. These are explanatory applications, not clinical prescriptions or promises of effectiveness.
Modern intervention evidence offers some support for the component mechanisms. Harkin and colleagues (2016) provide experimental meta-analytic evidence for progress monitoring. Webb and Sheeran (2006) found in 47 experimental tests that changing behavioral intentions yielded smaller changes in actual behavior, illustrating the importance of processes beyond intention alone. The latter result concerns intentions across theoretical frameworks and should not be claimed as a specific experimental verification of Bandura's full model.
Another related research tradition concerns implementation intentions: specific contingency plans describing when and where a response will occur. Gollwitzer and Sheeran (2006) synthesized 94 independent tests and found a positive effect on goal attainment. This is a distinct theoretical and intervention tradition associated with Peter Gollwitzer and colleagues; it can complement a self-regulatory explanation without being credited as Bandura's original method. Intervention choice, clinical safety, and effectiveness for a particular condition depend on evidence in that condition, not on the appeal of a broad theory.
How Researchers Measure Self-Regulatory Processes
Testing the model requires separating proposed constructs into measurable variables. Self-observation may be operationalized through logs, electronic records, experience sampling, direct observation, or task-specific behavioral traces. Each method captures a different portion of the process and can introduce reactivity: recording behavior may itself change that behavior. Frequency of checking a metric and accuracy of what is checked are separate outcomes.
Judgment can be examined through explicit standards, perceived discrepancies, judgments of quality or progress, and ratings of the importance or attainability of targets. Self-reaction may be measured using evaluations, reported affect, reward choices, subsequent task selection, or persistence. Efficacy beliefs should be assessed with scales tied to the relevant domain and level of difficulty; general positivity questionnaires are not interchangeable with task-specific efficacy measures. Behavioral performance should be independently specified rather than inferred from efficacy reports alone.
A valid study must address the temporal structure of the proposed sequence. Cross-sectional correlations cannot show that monitoring led to later judgment and self-reaction, which then caused improved performance. Longitudinal designs can establish ordering but remain exposed to unmeasured confounding; randomized manipulations of monitoring, standards, or feedback can identify more specific causal effects. Mediation claims require evidence that the proposed intermediate process changed and that the assumptions of the mediation analysis are plausible. The experimental studies by Bandura and Cervone (1983) and Harkin and colleagues' meta-analysis (2016) provide examples of different levels of evidentiary specificity.
What the Evidence Establishes—and What Remains Open
Established Findings
It is well established that people can monitor their behavior, use standards to evaluate outcomes, and respond to performance feedback. Experimental work has demonstrated that specific combinations of goals and feedback can alter short-term effort, and randomized intervention syntheses show that increasing goal-progress monitoring can improve average attainment across the settings studied Bandura and Cervone, 1983; Harkin et al., 2016. Bandura's historical formulation of these functions in 1991 is directly documented in his original article.
Evidence With Conditional Generalizability
The strength and direction of effects depend on task, measurement, target difficulty, timing, population, and environment. Feedback may have motivational effects that differ according to discrepancy and perceived capability Bandura and Cervone, 1986. Efficacy and performance relationships vary across samples and analysis methods Sitzmann and Yeo, 2013; Talsma et al., 2018. A positive average intervention result therefore supports a probabilistic effect under studied conditions, not universal individual success.
Theoretical and Methodological Questions
The 1991 account integrates mechanisms operating at multiple levels, but its full causal network is difficult to isolate in one experimental design. Self-observation, judgment, and affective response may occur rapidly, recursively, or concurrently. Their measurement can overlap, and their effects may be shaped by fatigue, incentives, institutional constraints, emotion regulation, and social support. Some studies test elements shared with other theories of feedback, control, or motivation; such studies do not uniquely discriminate Bandura's theory from every competing explanation. Mechanism-specific interventions and repeated-measures causal designs remain especially informative.
The theory also calls for attention to the values embodied by standards. Efficient pursuit of a chosen target is a descriptive regulatory outcome. Whether the target is legitimate, ethically acceptable, or compatible with well-being is a separate evaluative question. Bandura's discussion of moral self-regulation acknowledges the importance of self-sanctions, while empirical examination of moral conduct requires measures of actual behavior and context rather than assuming moral beliefs necessarily predict action.
Relation to Other Theories of Self-Regulation
Feedback-control models also examine discrepancies between current and desired states. Bandura's formulation gives explicit weight to personal efficacy judgments, symbolic modeling, self-evaluative incentives, and reciprocal social influences. These distinctive emphases make it useful to compare mechanisms rather than assume identical constructs under different vocabulary. Goal-setting research addresses target properties and effort, implementation-intention research examines if–then planning, and metacognitive accounts investigate the regulation of cognition. Each offers an overlapping but historically distinct contribution.
A comparison should preserve attribution. Daniel Cervone coauthored crucial experiments on goals and feedback; Barry Zimmerman developed influential models of academic self-regulated learning; Peter Gollwitzer advanced implementation intentions; Ernesto Panadero analyzed multiple learning models. Bandura's central historical role was articulating a social cognitive architecture linking monitoring, judgment, self-reaction, efficacy, and agency. The subsequent intellectual history is collaborative, comparative, and cumulative.
Frequently Asked Questions
What are the three stages of Bandura's self-regulation model?
Bandura described three principal self-regulatory subfunctions: self-observation or monitoring, judgment against standards and circumstances, and affective self-reaction. They are continuing and interacting processes, rather than a fixed sequence each person completes once Bandura, 1991.
Is self-efficacy one of the three subfunctions?
Self-efficacy is a central mechanism interacting with the three subfunctions. It concerns perceived capability to perform the actions relevant to a goal; it is not listed as a fourth equivalent monitoring–judgment–reaction stage in Bandura's 1991 abstract. Beliefs about capability affect standards, interpretations of setbacks, effort, and subsequent action.
Does self-monitoring alone guarantee improved behavior?
Monitoring interventions improved average goal attainment in a meta-analysis, but effects varied and there is no guarantee for an individual or a particular task. Monitoring also requires appropriate goals, meaningful indicators, and opportunities to adjust action Harkin et al., 2016.
Is Bandura's self-regulation theory the same as Zimmerman's theory of self-regulated learning?
Zimmerman's educational framework drew on social cognitive principles and specified processes of academic learning. It constitutes Zimmerman's own theoretical development within a larger field containing multiple models. The relevant historical documents include Zimmerman (1989) and Panadero's comparative review (2017).
Does the theory prove that believing in yourself causes success?
No single belief or theory establishes that conclusion. Task-specific self-efficacy can influence behavior and is also influenced by earlier performance; empirical estimates vary with design, time scale, and population Sitzmann and Yeo, 2013; Talsma et al., 2018. Skills, opportunities, assistance, and environmental demands remain important.
Scientific Significance
Albert Bandura's social cognitive account of self-regulation provides an influential explanation of how people participate in directing their behavior through monitoring, standards, self-evaluative reactions, and beliefs about capability. Its enduring contribution is an integrated model linking these psychological functions with social influences and agency. Experiments on goal–feedback combinations and modern syntheses of monitoring interventions substantiate important component mechanisms, while cross-domain applications and broader causal assumptions require carefully designed, context-specific tests. Read in that way, Bandura's 1991 article remains a productive primary source for psychological history and a foundation for ongoing research into human self-directed action.
Related Articles
Albert Bandura — The published scientific chapter on Bandura's life, theoretical development, original experiments, and intellectual legacy.
Social-Cognitive Personality Theory: Reciprocal Determinism and Behavior — A broader framework for reciprocal person–behavior–environment processes across personality research.
Self-Efficacy: How Belief in Your Ability Shapes Action — General psychological evidence on task-specific efficacy beliefs and behavior.
Academic Self-Efficacy: Confidence, Effort, and Achievement — Domain-specific relations between academic efficacy and educational outcomes.
Self-Regulation in Early Childhood: Attention, Emotion, and Behavior — Developmentally distinct evidence on behavioral, attention, and emotional regulation in childhood.
Albert Bandura's Collective Efficacy — Shared beliefs about the capacity for coordinated group action.
Albert Bandura's Theory of Human Agency — Intentionality, forethought, self-reactiveness, and self-reflection.
References
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist, 44(9), 1175–1184. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.9.1175
Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 248–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90022-L
Bandura, A. (1999). Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3(3), 193–209. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0303_3
Bandura, A., and Cervone, D. (1983). Self-evaluative and self-efficacy mechanisms governing the motivational effects of goal systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(5), 1017–1028. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.45.5.1017
Bandura, A., and Cervone, D. (1986). Differential engagement of self-reactive influences in cognitive motivation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 38(1), 92–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(86)90028-2
Gollwitzer, P. M., and Sheeran, P. (2006). Implementation intentions and goal achievement: A meta-analysis of effects and processes. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 69–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(06)38002-1
Harkin, B., Webb, T. L., Chang, B. P. I., Prestwich, A., Conner, M., Kellar, I., Benn, Y., and Sheeran, P. (2016). Does monitoring goal progress promote goal attainment? A meta-analysis of the experimental evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 142(2), 198–229. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000025
Panadero, E. (2017). A review of self-regulated learning: Six models and four directions for research. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 422. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00422
Sitzmann, T., and Ely, K. (2011). A meta-analysis of self-regulated learning in work-related training and educational attainment: What we know and where we need to go. Psychological Bulletin, 137(3), 421–442. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022777
Sitzmann, T., and Yeo, G. (2013). A meta-analytic investigation of the within-person self-efficacy domain: Is self-efficacy a product of past performance or a driver of future performance? Personnel Psychology, 66(3), 531–568. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12035
Talsma, K., Schüz, B., Schwarzer, R., and Norris, K. (2018). I believe, therefore I achieve (and vice versa): A meta-analytic cross-lagged panel analysis of self-efficacy and academic performance. Learning and Individual Differences, 61, 136–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2017.11.015
Webb, T. L., and Sheeran, P. (2006). Does changing behavioral intentions engender behavior change? A meta-analysis of the experimental evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 132(2), 249–268. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.2.249
Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(3), 329–339. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.81.3.329
Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(2), 64–70. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4102_2