Using social cognitive theory as your guide, why was the training program not more effective

Social Cognitive Theory. The theory originates from Miller and Dollard's Social Learning Theory. The social cognitive theory provides an extensive model explaining health behaviours and methods to change them. The social cognitive theory comprises of three main aspects namelyenvironmental factors, individual factors and behavioural repertoires. The three components are highly dependent on each other and they interact often (Begum et al., 2018). The SCT theory further comprises of behavioural capability, situation and environment, expectations, reciprocal determinism, expectancies, self-efficacy, observational learning, emotional coping responses, reinforcement and self-control. The aspect of reciprocal determinism postulates that the environment, individual and he behavioural repertoire are dynamic in nature and have direct influences towards one other. One’s behavioural capacity is a product of personal training, learning style and intellectual capacity (Begum et al., 2018). Self-efficacy involves one’s personal belief in their abilities towards the performance of a particular obligation. The expectations involved gives people the opportunity to anticipate what is likely to happen before they can come to it realization. Expectancies are the driving forces that lead to action. They differ from expectations in that they are aimed at a certain end result. Reinforcements are responses to a person's behaviour that increase or decrease the likelihood of reoccurrence (Jones et al., 2018). An individual may learn from different people by either received reinforcements or through the observation technique. Observation involves watching the outcomes and actions of other people’s behaviour. It can only be highly effective if one identifies a role model from whom they can keenly learn from. Emotional coping responses are practices adopted by an individual to curb emotional stimuli (Jones et al., 2018).For successful application of the social cognitive theory, researchers should use a mix of all the components and should not be limited to only one. The constructs enable social educators to clearly put their focus on the individual and their environment while at thesame time laying emphasis on a multidimensional tactic towards behavioural change. Every single construct provides a pathway towards the improvement of all the practices leading to fully potent health related behaviour (Tibambuya et al., 2019).The provision of role models, construction of behavioural skills and an extension of self-...

Social Cognitive Theory. The most popular theory used to describe behavior changes and shape program models in FTS is the social cognitive theory (SCT). SCT emphasizes the reciprocal and interconnected influences of environmental factors, personal factors, and personal experiences, which all interact to create behavior change (Berlin et al., 2013). An important driver in SCT is the “knowledge of health risks and benefits,” as the knowledge of how certain actions contribute to health and wellbeing drives the motivation for change (Bandura, 2004). Knowledge alone is often not enough to achieve and maintain behavior change, and another important tenant of SCT is self-efficacy, and that people believe they are able to create and achieve the desired outcome that will result from changing their behavior (Bandura, 2004). In addition, expected outcomes also play an important role in this theory, with participants (students) assigning some value to the desired behavior change and resulting outcome (Berlin et al., 2013). Interventions use strategies to target all of these different components in order to make the behavior change more likely to be adopted (Berlin et al., 2013). Social cognitive theory is often used in interventions for youth related to food or nutrition behavior changes (Berlin et al., 2013). FTS takes a wholesome approach, where different facets of individual knowledge, perceptions, and the student’s environment are simultaneously altered and targeted to make the desired behavior changes more likely, possible, and desirable by students (Berlin et al., 2013; NFSN, 2020). Students are taught, encouraged and given opportunities for behavior change through classroom and experiential learning, school gardening, farmer visits or field trips to local farms, taste tests of fruits and vegetables and healthy cafeteria dishes, adults modelling healthy eating, and access to local fruits and vegetables from farms or edible school gardens (NFSN, 2020). Though some schools often only implement some of the activities depending on capacity, the foundational framework for FTS that draws on SCT is strongest when students have access to the full continuum of exposures, opportunities, and reinforcements in the three core areas of education, local procurement and school gardens (Berlin et al., 2013). An example of a potential positive nutritional outcome of FTS is increased fruit and vegetable consumption by students. Details of the different components of SCT and how different elements of FTS m...

Social Cognitive Theory. “The Social Cognitive Theory is widely used in the field of public health to describe how individuals interact with their environments, and vice versa, and how these interactions shape behavior” (Glanz, Rimber, & Viswanath, Health Behavior and Education, 2008). “This concept known as reciprocal determinism was a key factor in the decision to use Social Cognitive Theory in the creation of the Physician’s Power to Protect curriculum” (Glanz, Rimber & Viswanath, 2008; Duan, Green, Mehrota, Odani, & Rogers, Physician’s Power to Protect: Facilitator’s Guide, 2014). The following Social Cognitive Theory constructs are used in the Physician’s Power to Protect program: self-efficacy; collective efficacy; outcome expectation; facilitation; and observational learning (Glanz, Rimber & Viswanath, 2008; Duan, Green, Mehrota, Odani, & Rogers, Physician’s Power to Protect: Facilitator’s Guide, 2014). Below is a brief description of these constructs, as described in the Physician’s Power to Protect Facilitator’s Guide, and how they are used in each lesson plan of the Physician’s Power to Protect curriculum. Self-efficacy: “Defined as the beliefs about personal ability to perform a certain behavior” (Glanz, Rimber, & Viswanath, Health Behavior and Education, 2008); “increasing students’ self- efficacy to be able to detect and prevent child sexual abuse was incorporated into every lesson. Beginning with lesson one by introducing students to the nature of the issue (child sexual abuse) and ending with lesson five by providing students with resources to refer child sexual abuse victims to; in sum, the entire curriculum seeks to build knowledge and skills that should build students’ confidence in communicating about and better managing this public health issue” (Duan, Green, Mehrotra, Odani, & Rogers, Physician's Power to Protect: Facilitator's Guide, 2014). Collective efficacy: “Similar to self-efficacy, this is the belief about the ability of a group to perform certain actions” (Glanz, Rimber, & Viswanath, Health Behavior and Education, 2008). “By allowing students to communicate and solve problems together, as a cohort they will learn the skills and be able to have the confidence to detect child sexual abuse in their work (Duan, Green, Mehrotra, Odani, & Rogers, Physician's Power to Protect: Facilitator's Guide, 2014). Lesson 3, of the Physician’s Power to Protect curriculum gives students the opportunity to discuss important communication techniques that they feel may be u...

Bandura, A. (1977a). Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar

Bandura, A. (1977b). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: Freeman.Google Scholar

Bandura, A. (2000a). Cultivate self-efficacy for personal and organizational effectiveness. In Locke, E. A. (Ed.), The Blackwell Handbook of Principles of Organizational Behavior (pp. 120–136). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Contento, I. R., Randell, J., & Basch, C. E. (2002). Review and analysis of education measures used in nutrition education intervention research. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 34, 2–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Davis, R., Campbell, R. Hildon, Z., Hobbs, L., & Michie, S. (2015). Theories of behaviour and behaviour change across the social and behavioural sciences: A scoping review. Health Psychology Review, 9, 323–344. https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2014.941722CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Feltz, D. L., Chase, M. A., Moritz, S. E., & Sullivan, P. J. (1999). A conceptual model of coaching efficacy: Preliminary investigation and instrument development. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 765–776. https://doi.org/10.1037/ 0022-0663.91.4.765CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (2010). Predicting and Changing Behavior: The Reasoned Action Approach. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar

Galipeau, R., Baillot, A., Trottier, A., & Lemire, L. (2018). Effectiveness of interventions on breastfeeding self-efficacy and perceived insufficient milk supply: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Maternal and Child Nutrition, 14, e12607. https://doi.org/10.1111/mcn.12607CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Ghazi, C., Nyland, J., Whaley, R., Rogers, T, Wera, J., & Henzman, C. (2018). Social cognitive or learning theory use to improve self-efficacy in musculoskeletal rehabilitation: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Physiotherapy Theory and Practice, 34, 495–504. https://doi.org/10.1080/09593985.2017.1422204CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Hankonen, N., Absetz, P, Kinnunen, M., Haukkala, A., & Jallinoja, P. (2013). Toward identifying a broader range of social cognitive determinants of dietary intentions and behaviors. Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being, 5, 118–135. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1758-0854.2012.01081.xGoogle ScholarPubMed

Hays, L. M., Finch, E. A., Saha, C., Marrero, D. G., & Ackermann, R. T. (2014). Effect of self-efficacy on weight loss: A psychosocial analysis of a community-based adaptation of the diabetes prevention program lifestyle intervention. Diabetes Spectrum, 27, 270–275. https://doi.org/10.2337/diaspect.27.4.270.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Hull, C. L. (1943). Principles of Behavior: An Introduction to Behavior Theory. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar

Jekauc, D., Völkle, M., Wagner, M. O., Mess, F., Reiner, M., & Renner, B. (2015). Prediction of attendance at fitness center: A comparison between the theory of planned behavior, the social cognitive theory, and the physical activity maintenance theory. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, e121. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00121CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Kok, G., Peters, G.-J. Y., Kessels, L. T. E., ten Hoor, G., & Ruiter, R. A. C. (2018). Ignoring theory and misinterpreting evidence: The false belief in fear appeals. Health Psychology Review, 12, 111–125. https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2017.1415767CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Lent, R. W., Sheu, H. B., Miller, M. J., Cusick, M. E., Penn, L. T., & Truong, N. N. (2018). Predictors of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics choice options: A meta-analytic path analysis of the social-cognitive choice model by gender and race/ethnicity. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 65, 17–35. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000243CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., Schmidt, J., Brenner, B., Lyons, H., & Treistman, D. (2003). Relation of contextual supports and barriers to choice behavior in engineering majors: Test of alternative social cognitive models. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 50, 458–465. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.50.4.458CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lent, R. W., Ezeofor, I., Morrison, M. A., Penn, L.T., & Ireland, G. W. (2016). Applying the social cognitive model of career self-management to career exploration and decision-making. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 93, 47–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2015.12.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lent, R. W., Ireland, G. W., Penn, L. T., Morris, T. R., & Sappington, R. (2017). Sources of self-efficacy and outcome expectations for career exploration and decision-making: A test of the social cognitive model of career self-management. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 99, 107–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2017.01.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Luszczynska, A., Benight, C. C., & Cieslak, R. (2009). Self-efficacy and health-related outcomes of collective trauma: A systematic review. European Psychologist, 14, 49–60. https://doi.org/ 10.1027/1016-9040.14.1.51CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Luszczynska, A., Hagger, M. S., Banik, A., Horodyska, K., Knoll, N., & Scholz, U. (2016). Self-efficacy, planning, or a combination of both? A longitudinal experimental study comparing effects of three interventions on adolescents’ body fat. PLoS ONE, 11, e0159125. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0159125.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Luszczynska, A., Horodyska, K., Zarychta, K., Liszewska, N., Knoll, N., & Scholz, U. (2016). Planning and self-efficacy interventions encouraging replacing energy-dense foods intake with fruit and vegetable: A longitudinal experimental study. Psychology and Health, 31, 40–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/08870446.2015.1070156CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Luszczynska, A., & Schwarzer, R. (2015). Social-cognitive theory. In Conner, M., & Norman, P. (Eds.), Predicting Health Behaviours (3rd ed., pp. 225–251). Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill Open University Press.Google Scholar

Pajares, F., & Schunk, D. H. (2001). Self-beliefs and school success: Self-efficacy, self-concept, and school achievement. In Riding, R. & Rayner, S. (Eds.), Perception (pp. 239–266). London: Ablex Publishing.Google Scholar

Prestwich, A., Sniehotta, F. F., Whittington, C., Dombrowski, S. U., Roggers, L., & Michie, S. (2014). Does theory influence the effectiveness of health behavior interventions? meta-analysis. Health Psychology, 33, 465–474. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032853CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Schwarzer, R., & Luszczynska, A. (2016). Self-efficacy and outcome expectancies. In Benyamini, Y., Johnston, M., & Karademas, E. C. (Eds.), Assessment in Health Psychology (pp. 31–44). Göttingen: Hogrefe.Google Scholar

Short, S., & Ross-Stewart, L. (2009). A review of self-efficacy-based interventions. In Mellalieu, S. D. & Hanton, S. (Eds.), Applied Sport Psychology Advances: A Review (pp. 221–281). London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Skinner, B. F. (1938). The Behavior of Organisms. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar

Stacey, F. G., James, E. L., Chapman, K., Courneya, K. S., & Lubans, D. R. (2015). A systematic review and meta-analysis of social cognitive theory-based physical activity and/or nutrition behavior change interventions for cancer survivors. Journal of Cancer Survivorship, 9, 305–338. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11764-014-0413-zCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Talsma, K., Schüz, B., Schwarzer, R., & 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.2017.11.015CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tang, M.Y., Smith, D. M., Mc Sharry, J., Hann, M., & French, D. P. (2019). Behavior change techniques associated with changes in postintervention and maintained changes in self-efficacy for physical activity: A systematic review with meta-analysis. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 53, 801–815. https://doi.org/10.1093/abm/kay090CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Te Velde, S. J., Lankhorst, K., Zwinkels, M., Verschuren, O., Takken, T., de Groot, J., & HAYS Study Group (2018). Associations of sport participation with self-perception, exercise self-efficacy and quality of life among children and adolescents with a physical disability or chronic disease-a cross-sectional study. Sports Medicine – Open, 4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40798-018-0152-1CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Unrau, N. J., Rueda, R., Son, E., Polanin, J. R., Lundeen, R. J., & Muraszewski, A. K. (2018). Can reading self-efficacy be modified? A meta-analysis of the impact of interventions on reading self-efficacy. Review of Educational Research, 88, 167–204. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654317743199CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Warner, L. M., Schüz, B., Wolff, J. K., Parschau, L., Wurm, S., & Schwarzer, R. (2014). Sources of self-efficacy for physical activity. Health Psychology, 33, 1298–1308. https://doi.org/10.1037/hea0000085.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Young, M. D., Plotnikoff, R. C., Collins, C. E., Callister, R., & Morgan, P. J. (2014). Social cognitive theory and physical activity: A systematic review and meta‐analysis. Obesity Reviews, 15, 983–995.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed