This comment is a response to Bandura’s guest editorial (Journal of Management, Vol. 38, no. 1, January 2012) on the functional properties of perceived self-efficacy. The focus of this comment is on the limitations inherent in natural language (i.e., verbal) theories and critiques, which the research regarding self-efficacy has highlighted and Bandura’s editorial underscores. Specifically, it is argued that Bandura’s comment is replete with rhetorical fallacies and theoretical contradictions. Several examples are described to both provide a tutorial on rhetorical sleight of hand and to set the record straight. Computational modeling and logical reasoning are presented as an alternative approach to better scientific theorizing and critique.
HaggbloomJ. S.WarnickR.WarnickJ. E.JonesV. K.YarbroughG. L.RussellT. M.BoreckyC. M.McGahheyR.PowellJ. L.BeaversJ.MonteE.2002. The 100 most eminent psychologists of the 20th century. Review of General Psychology, 6: 139-152.
8.
PowersW. T.1973. Behavior: The control of perception. Chicago: Aldine.
9.
PowersW. T.1978. Quantitative analysis of purposive systems: Some spadework at the foundations of scientific psychology. Psychological Review, 85: 417-435.
10.
PowersW. T.1991. Comment on Bandura’s “human agency.”American Psychologist, 46: 151-153.
11.
SalomonG.1984. Television is “easy” and print is “tough”: The differential investment of mental effort in learning as a function of perceptions and attributions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76: 647-658.
12.
ScherbaumC. A.VancouverJ. B.2010. If we produce discrepancies, then how? Testing a computational process model of positive goal revision. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40: 2201-2231.
13.
StajkovicA. D.LuthansF.1998. Self-efficacy and work-related performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 124: 240-261.
14.
VancouverJ. B.2005. The depth of history and explanation as benefit and bane for psychological control theories. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90: 38-52.
15.
VancouverJ. B.2008. Integrating self-regulation theories of work motivation into a dynamic process theory. Human Resource Management Review, 18: 1-18.
16.
VancouverJ. B.KendallL. N.2006. When self-efficacy negatively relates to motivation and performance in a learning context. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91: 1146-1153.
17.
VancouverJ. B.MoreK. M.YoderR. J.2008. Self-efficacy and resource allocation: Support for a discontinuous model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93: 35-47.
18.
VancouverJ. B.PutkaD. J.ScherbaumC. A.2005. Testing a computational model of the goal-level effect: An example of a neglected methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 8: 100-127.
19.
VancouverJ. B.ScherbaumC. A.2008. Do we self-regulate actions or perceptions? A test of two computational models. Computational and Mathematical Organizational Theory, 14: 1-22.
20.
VancouverJ. B.TamaniniK. B.YoderR. J.2010. Using dynamic computational models to reconnect theory and research: Socialization by the proactive newcomer example. Journal of Management, 36: 764-793.
21.
VancouverJ. B.ThompsonC. M.WilliamsA. A.2001. The changing signs in the relationships between self-efficacy, personal goals, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86: 605-620.
22.
VancouverJ. B.WeinhardtJ. M.SchmidtA. M.2010. A formal, computational theory of multiple-goal pursuit: Integrating goal-choice and goal-striving processes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95: 985-1008.
23.
VancouverJ. B.YoderR. J.MoreK. M.2011. Fitting some motivational puzzle pieces together: Testing a computational model of goals, expectancy, and value. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Psychology, Ohio University, Athens, Ohio.
24.
YeoG. B.NealA.2006. An examination of dynamic relationship between self-efficacy and performance across levels of analysis and levels of specificity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91: 1088-1101.
