Reviews have appeared in
Contemporary Psychology, the
Academy of Management Review, and
Contemporary Sociology. It was also the focus of a special section in the inaugural issue of
Psychological Inquiry. In
Contemporary Psychology,
Robert A. Baron wrote that in his view, the book "is a work of great significance to the field" and has a "high (sometimes dazzling) level of sophistication [that] is apparent not only in the theoretical perspective but also in the extremely broad scope of the volume.") •
Broader implications.
Meichenbaum found Bandura's "discussion of the nature of the social foundations of thought and action to be somewhat narrow [so he] challenge[s] Bandura and other social cognitive theorists to consider the implications of the works of
Baldwin (1894),
Mead (1934),
Bakhtin (Morson, 1986),
Vygotsky (1978), Wertsch (1985), and Rogoff (1982), each of whom has written thoughtfully about the social formulation of the mind." •
Role of cognitive structures. "It is with regard to
cognitive structures... that social cognitive theory is weakest.... Bandura [refers] to 'knowledge structures, beliefs, scripts, stereotypes, and prototypes' (p. 218). Are these equivalent concepts?... [I predict] that as social cognitive theorists embrace the challenging task of understanding the nature of cognitive structures and affective themes, the supposed barriers between
social learning theorists and
psychodynamically oriented theorists will break down." In a reply that was published with these three commentaries in
Psychological Inquiry,
Bandura responded to what he called "several puzzling misconstruals of social cognitive theory" in
Meichenbaum's commentary. Bandura stated that "two chapters examine how... knowledge structures are acquired through observational learning, inferences from exploratory experiences, information conveyed by tuition, and innovative cognitive syntheses of preexisting knowledge," and that "ecumenical appeals for unification of social cognitive and psychodynamic theories go unsupported by any empirical evidence for the superiority of the theoretical hybridization." Bandura responded to the other two reviews, which he called "thoughtful," by expanding on the nature of
triadic reciprocal causation, on the "interdependence of [psychological] process and structure," and on how self-efficacy is defined and measured with respect to particular domains of functioning and skill. He noted that "a major current movement in psychology is away from vague, omnibus cognitive structures to more domain-linked competencies." Outside of the psychology literature, in
Contemporary Sociology,
Spencer E. Cahill wrote that Bandura may not deliver the comprehensive and interdisciplinary theory of the
Social Foundations of Thought and Action that he promises in the preface, but he does advance the cause. His conception of the person, his analysis of the cognitive processes implicated in the acquisition and performance of behavior, and his devastating criticisms of a number of theoretical perspectives are all important contributions. However, Cahill also criticized the book on several grounds. He expressed concern that Bandura's excursions across disciplinary boundaries are far too circumscribed. For example, while the person of Bandura's social cognitive theory closely resembles the... person of the
Meadian sociological psychology, Bandura ignores this entire tradition.... His list of the various ways in which the person "disengages" internal control bears a striking resemblance to
Sykes and
Matza's "Techniques of Neutralization" (1957), yet there is no reference to this.... [and] Although Bandura's model of
triadic reciprocality suggests that the environment and behavior recursively determine one another, he is apparently unaware of... the numerous analyses by
symbolic interactionists,
ethnomethodologists, and other
sociologists. Cahill also expressed concern that Bandura "closely scrutinizes empirical studies for technical flaws if their results are inconsistent with his theoretical analysis, but he does not apply the same exacting standards to studies that do support his arguments. While this is to be expected, the reader must be familiar with the research under review in order to adequately evaluate the empirical evidence that Bandura marshals." ==Editions==