A bigger picture: cause and cognition in relation to differing scientific frameworks.

The exchange between Lee (1992) and Hawkins (1992) on the one hand and Bandura (present volume) on the other represents a far more fundamental disagreement than whether behavior-analytic or cognitive accounts of self-efficacy are more persuasive. The deeper disagreement is really a conflict between equally legitimate but incompatible world views and, thus, it is both ontological and epistemological in nature. The present paper argues that the disagreement can be traced to differences between mechanistic and contextual or relational scientific frameworks and involves such issues as basic scientific objectives, units of analysis, and differing perspectives on causation and explanation. These differences are briefly described.