[5][6][7][11] 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.

[3]: 169 In a special section in the 1990 inaugural issue of Psychological Inquiry, John F. Kihlstrom and Judith M. Harackiewicz wrote that Publication of Albert Bandura's Social Foundations of Thought and Action... was a significant event in the history of the scientific study of personality.

By so insistently weaving development into the very fabric of the phenomena studied by personality and social psychologists, Bandura's book signals the end of one era, of one way of "doing business," in these areas of psychology, and sets the stage for the beginning of quite a different one.

[6]: 93 In a third commentary in that special section, Donald H. Meichenbaum wrote that he "concur[red] totally" with Baron's assessment of Bandura's book as "a sophisticated, eloquent, ambitious attempt to provide a 'grand theory' of human behavior.

If the American Psychological Association is ever asked to contribute to a time capsule to illustrate what has preoccupied psychologists in the 1970s and early 1980s, I heartily recommend Bandura's book.

"[11]: 104  Bandura responded to the other two reviews, which he called "thoughtful,"[11]: 101  by expanding on the nature of triadic reciprocal causation, on the "interdependence of [psychological] process and structure,"[11]: 102  and on how self-efficacy is defined and measured with respect to particular domains of functioning and skill.

"[11]: 102 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.