“POWER OF WE”: EFFECTS OF MOTIVATIONAL SELF-TALK AND SYNCHRONY ON
PERFORMANCE, EFFICACY BELIEFS, AND SENSE OF UNITY IN DYADIC EXERCISE
By
Veronica Son

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
Kinesiology-Doctor of Philosophy
2013

ABSTRACT
“POWER OF WE”: EFFECTS OF MOTIVATIONAL SELF-TALK AND SYNCHRONY ON
PERFORMANCE, EFFICACY BELIEFS, AND SENSE OF UNITY IN DYADIC EXERCISE
By
Veronica Son
This dissertation investigated the effects of ‘individual-focused’ versus ‘group-focused’
self-talk and synchrony on performance, self-efficacy, collective efficacy, and sense of unity in a
dyadic exercise setting. Additionally, this study sought to identify whether individualist and
collectivist orientations influence the way in which self-talk strategies enhance performance and
one’s beliefs about one’s own and one’s team’s capabilities. Previous research found that groupfocused self-talk was effective in enhancing performance and both self- and collective efficacy
(Son, Jackson, Grove, & Feltz, 2011). Synchrony research has also demonstrated its positive
impact on fostering relative team outcomes (e.g., relationship quality, sense of unity, and
satisfaction; Vacharkulksemsuk & Fredrickson, 2011; Wiltermuth & Heath, 2009). Participants
were 346 undergraduate students who were randomly assigned to a same-gender dyad. Dyads
were allocated to one of 12 conditions in a 3 (self-talk condition: I version, we version, control) x
2 (synchrony: synchronous activity, asynchronous activity) x 2 (task type: additive, coactive
condition) x 2 (block) design with repeated measures on the last factor. Participants completed
one block of an abdominal plank exercise alone and the second as a part of a dyad. Participants
also completed questionnaires regarding their individualistic and collectivistic orientations, selfefficacy, collective efficacy, and sense of unity. Between the two blocks a self-talk intervention
was implemented. Using ANCOVAs with baseline measures as a covariate, although no
significant effects for individualistic or collectivistic orientations were found, participants using
individual-oriented self-talk reported greater performance improvement compared to those in the

control condition. Stronger sense of self-efficacy and greater enjoyment in working as a group
was found in the group-focused self-talk condition compared to the control condition.
Individuals in the additive condition reported greater performance improvement and higher
levels of collective efficacy than did those in the coactive condition. Lastly, synchrony produced
greater performance improvement and stronger sense of unity compared to the asynchrony
condition. Findings of the study contribute to the self-talk and synchrony literature in team sport
and exercise contexts and how these strategies can be effectively implemented to enhance
performance and efficacy beliefs.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

A special thank you to my advisor and dissertation chair, Dr. Deborah Feltz for your guidance
and support throughout this program.

Thank you to my dissertation committee members, Drs. Dan Gould, John Wagner, and Earnest
Park for your guidance on this dissertation project.

Thank you to Michael Merfert, Kristin Willemot, Morgan Brace, Tracy Broomell, Cristina
Cerrone whose help in this project was pivotal to its data collection.

Thank you to Evie; you have been my best supporter throughout this program. I couldn’t have
done it without you!

Lastly, a special thank you to my family, whose endless love and support throughout my years at
MSU.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ vii
LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... viii
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
Nature of Problem ............................................................................................. 1
Individualist/collectivist Perceptions .................................................. 5
Task Types........................................................................................... 8
Synchrony ............................................................................................ 9
Contextual Factors ........................................................................................... 10
Purpose of the Study........................................................................................ 11
Delimitations ................................................................................................... 11
Definitions ....................................................................................................... 12
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE ............................................................................................13
Overview of Efficacy Beliefs and Relationships with Performance Variables13
Self-efficacy and Performance ........................................................................ 14
Collective Efficacy and Performance .............................................................. 15
Self-talk as an Efficacy-enhancing Technique ................................................ 19
Relationships between Efficacy Beliefs and Individualism-Collectivism ...... 23
Task Types....................................................................................................... 26
Sense of Unity ................................................................................................. 28
Synchrony ........................................................................................................ 30
Summary.......................................................................................................... 34
CHAPTER 3
METHOD. ........................................................................................................................ 36
Participants ...................................................................................................... 36
Design .............................................................................................................. 36
Task and Measures .......................................................................................... 37
Task Performance .............................................................................. 37
Individualism-collectivism (I/C) ....................................................... 37
Self-efficacy ...................................................................................... 38
Collective Efficacy ............................................................................ 39
Sense of Unity ................................................................................... 39
Demographics .................................................................................... 39
Manipulations ................................................................................................ 40
Self-talk Intervention ......................................................................... 40
Self-talk Manipulation Check............................................................ 40
v

Synchrony Manipulation ................................................................... 40
Partnered Task Conditions ................................................................ 41
Procedure ......................................................................................................... 41
Treatment of Data ............................................................................................ 44
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS ......................................................................................................................... 45
Descriptives and Manipulation Check ............................................................ 45
Correlations ....................................................................................... 45
Manipulation Check .......................................................................... 46
Preliminary Analyses....................................................................................... 46
Hypothesis Testing .......................................................................................... 48
Type of Self-talk Hypotheses ............................................................ 49
Task Type Hypotheses ...................................................................... 53
Synchrony Hypotheses ...................................................................... 55
Interaction Effects ............................................................................. 56
Exploratory Analyses ........................................................................................ 57
Selected Motivational Self-talk Groups ............................................ 57
Sense of Unity ................................................................................... 59
Summary............................................................................................................ 61
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................... 72
Hypothesis 1 .................................................................................................... 73
Hypothesis 2 .................................................................................................... 76
Hypothesis 3 .................................................................................................... 78
Interaction Effects ........................................................................................... 79
Individualistic and Collectivistic Orientation as Covariates ........................... 80
Implications and Suggestions for Future Research ......................................... 80
Limitations ....................................................................................................... 82
Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 84
APPENDICES .................................................................................................................. 85
Appendix A The I/C Scale ........................................................................ 86
Appendix B Efficacy Measures ................................................................ 88
Appendix C Sense of Unity Scale ............................................................. 89
Appendix D Self-talk Manipulation Check .............................................. 90
Appendix E Demographic Questionnaire ................................................. 91
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 92

vi

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Number of dyads across conditions ..................................................................... 44
Table 2 Descriptive statistics ............................................................................................ 47
Table 3 Performance scores across conditions ................................................................. 48
Table 4 Self-efficacy scores across conditions ................................................................. 49
Table 5 Collective efficacy scores across conditions ....................................................... 50
Table 6 Sense of unity scores across conditions ............................................................... 51
Table 7 Correlations .......................................................................................................... 53
Table 8 Means and standard deviations for dependent variables by self-talk, synchrony, and task
type .................................................................................................................................... 57

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Procedure diagram ............................................................................................. 43
Figure 2. Marginal means for performance across self-talk conditions............................ 59
Figure 3. Marginal means for self-efficacy across self-talk conditions ............................ 61
Figure 4. Marginal means for performance by task type conditions ................................ 63
Figure 5. Marginal means for collective efficacy by task type conditions ........................64
Figure 6. Means for performance by synchrony conditions ............................................. 65
Figure 7. Marginal means for performance across the two selected motivational self-talk
conditions .......................................................................................................................... 67
Figure 8. Marginal means for performance across task type among selected motivational self-talk
conditions .......................................................................................................................... 68
Figure 9. Means for enjoyment in working together by self-talk conditions.................... 69
Figure 10. Means for feeling of unity between synchrony conditions ............................. 70

viii

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Nature of Problem
“Each individual is strong but we as a whole team are much stronger.”
The above quote, taken from an interview with Hong Myung-Boo, the head coach of the
South Korean soccer team, was thought by many to contribute to the unthinkable happening in
the 2012 London Olympic Games (Kuck & Jun, 2012, p. 43). It was surprising to see the 28th
ranked South Korean team come away with a Bronze medal at the 2012 London Olympic Games.
Indeed, it is not uncommon that a team consisting of hypothetically less skilled members
sometimes outperforms a team with more talented members. Why are some teams able to
achieve collective attainments while other teams fail to reach performance expectations?
Research has suggested that efficacy beliefs can be a determinant contributing to optimal team
functioning and motivation (e.g., Badura, 1997).
The purpose of this dissertation was to examine the effects of efficacy-enhancing
techniques (i.e., motivational self-talk and synchrony) on performance in a small group setting,
using controlled, experimental methods. If these efficacy-enhancing techniques are shown to be
effective in controlled settings with small groups, then they can be field tested with larger teams.
This chapter begins with a brief review of literature on efficacy beliefs and the efficacyenhancing techniques of self-talk strategy. It is followed by a discussion on the potential effects
of individual’s orientation of individualism-collectivism (I-C), types of task, and sense of unity
on the development of efficacy beliefs. Lastly, literature on sense of unity and synchrony with
respect to performance and efficacy beliefs is also reviewed.
Guided by proposals outlined in Bandura’s (1986) Social Cognitive Theory (SCT),
considerable research has been devoted to fostering the understanding of two distinct forms of

1

‘efficacy’ perceptions, namely self-efficacy and collective efficacy, which relate to individuals’
beliefs in their own and their teams’ capabilities to be successful at a task, respectively (Bandura,
1997). According to SCT, self-efficacy and collective efficacy represent distinct forms of taskspecific social cognitions that are predictive of adaptive outcomes in both independent and
interdependent contexts. Indeed, a substantial body of research has shown that a high degree of
efficacy in one’s own and one’s team’s ability is predictive of enhanced performance in various
contexts (e.g., Heuze, Raimbault, & Fontayne, 2006; Moritz, Feltz, Fahrbach, & Mack, 2000;
Myers, Feltz, & Short, 2004), as well as additional desirable outcomes, such as individual and
team effort, team cohesion, and positive affective states (e.g., George, 1994; Greenlees, Graydon,
& Maynard, 1999; Paskevich, Brawley, Dorsch, & Widmeyer, 1999).
Bandura (1997) theorized that perceptions of self-efficacy are derived from four principle
sources of information, namely (a) prior performance accomplishments, (b) vicarious
experiences, (c) physiological and emotional states, and (d) verbal persuasion. The most
influential of these factors relates to one’s prior performance accomplishments, as these provide
direct behavioral evidence relating to an individual’s capability in a given context (e.g., Wise &
Trunnell, 2001). Self-efficacy beliefs are also derived from vicarious experiences, where the
observation of others demonstrating mastery or coping on a given task may bolster one’s own
expectations about performance capabilities. Third, one’s physiological and emotional state (e.g.,
pain, anxiety, fatigue, injury) may serve to support (or undermine) individuals’ confidence in
their ability, and finally, self-efficacy perceptions may also be modified via the verbal persuasion
one receives from third parties. As Bandura noted, positive persuasion fosters individuals’ beliefs
in their capabilities, on the other hand, personal efficacy perceptions may be substantively

2

undermined by negative feedback, most notably when the source of information is perceived as
credible and knowledgeable (e.g., a coach).
In addition to verbal persuasion from significant others however, Bandura (1997) also
posited that self-initiated, or internal verbal persuasion (i.e., ‘self-talk’) may further serve to
promote self-efficacy beliefs, theorizing “that inner speech…serves as the principle vehicle of
thought and self-direction” (p. 224). Self-talk refers to either covert or overt self-verbalizations
used by individuals, which may serve both instructional and motivational functions (Hardy,
2006). For example, Gammage, Hardy, & Hall (2001) found that almost 87% of exercisers were
engaged in either covert or overt self-talk during their work-out and the frequently used phrases
were “I can do it” (i.e., motivational phrase), “5 more raps” (goal related phrase), and “keep
knees bent” (instructional phrase). Research on self-talk has primarily focused on investigating
how this concept may bolster performance levels, with reports indicating that ‘facilitative’ forms
of self-talk

may underpin positive performance outcomes (e.g., Theodorakis, Hatzigeorgiadis,

& Zourbanos, 2012). In comparison to the literature examining the effects of self-talk upon
performance, empirical evidence for the role of self-talk in shaping self-efficacy perceptions is
somewhat limited. In one related study however, Weinberg and colleagues (Weinberg, Grove, &
Jackson, 1992) examined strategies used for building self-efficacy by tennis coaches, with
analyses showing that coaches frequently encouraged their players to use positive self-talk as a
means for enhancing self-efficacy. Recently, Hatzigeorgiadis and his colleagues have provided
empirical evidence for the effectiveness of self-talk on enhancing efficacy beliefs
(Hatzigeorgiadis, Zourbanos, Goltsios, & Theodorakis, 2008; Hatzigeorgiadis, Zourbanos,
Mpoumpaki, & Theodorakis, 2009).

3

Nonetheless, at present there has been relatively little empirical evidence directly
addressing the effect of self-talk on self-efficacy. Indeed, in a recent review of the efficacy
literature, Feltz, Short, and Sullivan (2008) noted that the number of studies examining the
impact of self-talk in sport was ‘surprisingly low’.
Despite a couple of recent experimental investigations indicating that motivational selftalk may foster self-efficacy beliefs (Hatzigeorigiadis et al., 2008; 2009), the role of self-talk has
received minimal experimental scrutiny in a group setting. Given that many activities are not
performed individually, it is somewhat surprising that the literature exploring the mechanism of
self-talk on a group task remains limited. Indeed, anecdotal accounts regarding the effectiveness
of self-talk in team sports have been evident in the sport psychology literature (Ronglan, 2007).
From interviews with athletes playing team sports, Ronglan reported that positive self-talk
strategies helped enhance confidence in the capability of one’s team (i.e., collective efficacy) and
as well as in their own ability, and he further noted that athletes perceived that self-talk can be
one of the most effective strategies to improve their team performance and collective efficacy
beliefs.
To fill this gap, Son, Jackson, Grove, and Feltz (2011) examined whether motivational
self-talk could help improve performance and confidence using a team dart-throwing
competition. In that experimental study, participants were allocated to small groups and given a
copy of self-talk scripts that were framed using either the individual’s capabilities (e.g., “I can
perform well”) or the group’s capabilities (e.g., “we can perform well”). Given the finding from
Hamilton, Scott, & MacDougall (2007), revealing that recorded forms of self-talk was more
effective than the normal forms of self-talk (asking participants to engage in self-talk with the
given statements), they were asked to record the given statements and also asked to listen to their

4

own recording for 2 minutes prior to their competition and during the competition. The results
showed that in comparison to a control group and “I”-referent self-talk group, individuals using
“we”-referent motivational self-talk statements reported greater performance improvement and
confidence in both their own capability and their team’s capability. Son and her colleagues (2011)
suggested that the effectiveness of group-oriented self-talk in enhancing performance and
confidence in one’s own and team’s capability can be enhanced by developing a sense of unity.
Thus, by contributing to a sense of unity among team members, group-referent self-talk can
foster performance improvement and efficacy beliefs.
The current investigation, therefore, sought to build on these recent experimental studies
by considering the role of different referents of motivational self-talk statements in relation to
performance, efficacy beliefs, and a sense of unity in a team competition setting. In addition to
the variables that are theorized to directly underpin individuals’ self-efficacy and collective
efficacy perceptions (e.g., self-talk), the degree to which an individual is confident in either
him/herself or his/her team may also be moderated by a number of additional factors, such as
individualist/collectivist perceptions, task characteristics, and synchrony.
Individualist/collectivist Perceptions
One personal factor that has been shown to influence the formation of efficacy
perceptions relates to the extent to which people view themselves as either an ‘individualist’ or
‘collectivist’ (e.g., Early, 1994, 1999; Oettingen & Zosuls, 2006; Oyserman, Coon, &
Kemmelmeier, 2002). According to individualism-collectivism theorists (Wagner, 2002), the
individualist perspective implies that (a) creating a positive sense of self and personal successes
are valued, (b) well-being is derived from the attainment of personal goals, and (c) judgment,
reasoning, and causal inference are primarily focused on the person. On the other hand, a

5

collectivist orientation is apparent when one views oneself as, and identifies primarily with, a
part of one or more groups. These theorists argue that, for collectivists, (a) one’s values are
reflective of group goals, such as maintaining harmonious relationships with others, (b)
successfully carrying out social roles is an important source of well-being, and (c) social context,
situational constraints, and social roles figure prominently in person perception and causal
reasoning. Overall, individualists are more likely to focus on personal needs, rights, and abilities,
while collectivists find it natural to think about the needs, capabilities, and goals of their ‘group’.
With regard to these orientations, Bandura proposed that “the influence of individualistic
and collectivistic orientations… operates largely through beliefs of individual and group efficacy”
(1997, p. 32). Specifically, in light of the respective tendencies, individualists are more likely to
achieve high perceived efficacy and productivity when their need for uniqueness is satisfied,
whilst collectivists tend to be most efficacious when their need for interdependence is met.
Accordingly, social psychologists have previously investigated the factors that both influence
and are influenced by one’s tendency to think and act in individualist or collectivist ways (e.g.,
Earley, 1994, 1999; Gibson, 1999; Oettingen & Zosuls, 2006; Oyserman et al., 2002). For
example, Earley (1999) investigated how individuals’ individualistic and collectivistic
orientation would moderate the influence of collective efficacy beliefs on group decisionsmaking processes among managers. Participants were assigned to a three-person team and asked
to perform a given group task. Collective efficacy was measure at two levels: (a) individual level
– person’s estimation of his/her group’s capability and (b) group level - a single collective
judgment of group efficacy estimate to represent its collective judgment. Results demonstrated
that in high collectivistic cultures, collective judgments of group capability were higher than in
lower collectivistic cultures. However, there was a limitation in Earley’s (1999) study. The

6

distinction between the impact upon self-efficacy and collective efficacy perceptions could not
be made, as self-efficacy beliefs were not measured. Gibson (1999) also found that collective
efficacy was a significant determinant of group effectiveness for only collectivists but not for
those with low collectivistic orientations.
In an earlier study, Earley (1994) also investigated the effects of ‘individual-focused’ and
‘group-focused’ training on performance and self-efficacy among individualist and collectivist
managers. The individual-focused protocol consisted of personally-relevant information (e.g.,
prior personal performance and personal performance enhancing strategies), whereas, whilst the
group-focused intervention contained the same material, this was modified in order to emphasize
group performance and group enhancement. Results revealed that individualists performed better
and perceived higher levels of self-efficacy when receiving individual-focused training compared
to group-focused training. Conversely, among collectivists, group-focused training produced
enhanced performance and a stronger sense of self-efficacy, suggesting that greater benefits were
apparent when the intervention type (i.e., focused on the group or individual) matched the
individual’s orientation.. Given that one type of self-talk focuses on the individual’s ability, and
the other focuses on the group’s collective capabilities, it is likely that ‘individual-oriented’ and
‘group-oriented’ strategies may be most effective in promoting self-efficacy and collective
efficacy beliefs, respectively.
To fill this gap, Son (2008) examined whether individuals’ individualism-collectivism
dimensions would moderate the effect of different types (group-focused versus individualfocused) of self-talk on shaping self-efficacy and/or collective efficacy beliefs in sports contexts.
Although results showed no significant effects for individualism-collectivism (I-C), she argued it
may be possible that individualist-collectivist orientations in sporting pursuits may differ in

7

comparison to one’s general social/organizational perceptions. Indeed, as noted by Bandura
(2002), “people vary in individualistic and collectivistic social orientations depending on
whether the reference group is familial, peer, academic, or national” (p. 275). Based on the prior
literature on individualist and collectivist social orientations, the following hypotheses were
proposed:
Hypothesis 1a,b,c. Controlling for individualistic and collectivistic orientations,
participants in the group-oriented self-talk condition will report (a) greater
performance improvement, (b) higher levels of self-efficacy and (c) higher levels
of collective efficacy than those in individual-oriented self-talk condition.
Hypothesis 1d. A stronger sense of unity will be produced in the group-oriented
self-talk condition than in the individual-oriented self-talk condition.
Task Types
In addition to I-C, task characteristics can be potentially influential on building efficacy
beliefs because they are related to the type of experience that group members possess about what
is required to perform effectively and the degree to which members are able to combine and
integrate the experience stored by any individual member (Gibson, 1999; Goodman, Ravlin, &
Schminke, 1990). Previous research in group contexts suggested that task interdependence can
be influential on developing efficacy beliefs and consequently on group effectiveness (e.g.,
Gibson, 1999). Specifically, in Katz-Navon and Erez’s (2005) study, collective efficacy was a
significant predictor of team performance only in the high interdependent task condition while
self-efficacy was highly related to individual performance when students performed an additive
task (i.e., a task where the scores are added together, and sometimes averaged, to obtain one
team score). The nature of task used in the previous study (Son et al., 2011) was an additive task
in which the group’s potential productivity is equal to the average productivity of all group
members. The authors postulated that the task itself, framed as a team task, may contribute to
8

enhancing collective efficacy and further discussed that the extent to which the current findings
generalize to different task types, such as coactive tasks is likely limited. Coactive tasks are those
in which individuals work in the real or imagined presence of other but outcomes depend only
one’s own personal efforts.

Thus, it would be necessary to examine effects of we-referent and

I-referent self-talk on shaping efficacy beliefs between the additive condition and coactive
condition in which individuals are not actually working together as a group (i.e., performing in
one another’s presence). Therefore, the following set of hypotheses was proposed:
Hypothesis 2a-d. Participants in the additive conditions will report (a) greater
performance improvement, (b) a strong sense of self- and (c) collective efficacy,
and (d) unity than those in the coactive condition.
Synchrony
General cultural observations suggest that behavioral synchrony enhances a sense of
“oneness” that bonds people together such as religious activities, military marching, and rituals
among sport teams containing a large amount of rhythms to which people can move in
synchrony (McNeill, 1995). Behavioral synchrony refers to the coordination of movement that
occurs between individuals during a social interaction, featuring similarity of (a) form-the
manner and style of movements, and (b) time-the temporal rhythm of movements (Kimura &
Daibo, 2006). Indeed, an increasing body of recent studies on synchrony reveal its positive
impact on compassion (Valdesolo & DeSteno, 2011), cooperation and a sense of unity
(Wiltermuth & Heath, 2009), affiliation (Hove & Risen, 2009), affective states (Haidt, Seder, &
Kesebir, 2008), satisfaction (Jones & Wirtz, 2007), relationship quality (Vacharkulksemsuk &
Fredrickson, 2011), and even elevated pain thresholds (Cohen, Ejsmond-Frey, Knight, & Dunbar,
2010). For example, Vacharkulksemsuk and Fredrickson (2011) found out that when strangerstranger dyads worked together, synchronous activities improved social connection quality. In

9

sport-specific contexts, similar results showed that group rowing training significantly increased
pain thresholds compared with training alone while rower’s power output was not different in
both conditions (Cohen et al., 2010).
Despite such empirical and anecdotal evidence of synchrony effects, it is worth noting
that there is limited evidence to test whether synchronous activity can enhance group
performance and efficacy beliefs. Knowing that strong sense of unity, positive emotions, and
relationship quality can be predictive of efficacy beliefs within groups (e.g., Allen, Jones, &
Sheffield, 2009; Jackson, Beauchamp, & Knapp, 2007; Kozub & McDonnell, 2000), it is
possible to say that synchrony may enhance collective efficacy. When group members are in
synch, the experience of synchrony can provide the feeling that the dyad can coordinate and
work together. It may be worthwhile to investigate how synchronous activity can be related to
individuals’ beliefs in their team’s capability and as a result performance improvement. Thus, the
current study was designed to test synchrony effects, as well as the role of different referents of
motivational self-talk statements on group performance, efficacy beliefs and a sense of unity.
Hypothesis 3a,b, c. Participants in the synchronous condition will report (a)
greater performance improvement, (b) higher levels of collective efficacy, and(c)
stronger sense of unity than will those in the control condition.
In addition to main effects for different types of self-talk, task types, and synchrony, the
current study examined the interaction effects among these factors. However, no direct
hypotheses were proposed because of lack of evidence from previous research.
Contextual Factors
The context chosen for the current study was a dyadic exercise setting. A small group
setting provides an ideal context in which to examine whether different types of self-talk strategy

10

and synchronous activity enhance efficacy beliefs, performance and a sense of unity compared
with a large size group. Given that a stranger-stranger dyad was used in this study, variation in
initial level of collective efficacy would be small.
Purpose of the Study
This study had three primary objectives. First, this investigation explored the effects of
‘individual-focused’ and ‘group-focused’ self-talk and synchrony on self-efficacy, collective
efficacy, performance, and sense of unity in a dyadic exercise setting. In addition, this study also
sought to identify whether individualist and collectivist orientations are associated with the way
in which self-talk strategies enhance one’s beliefs about one’s own and one’s team’s capabilities.
Lastly, this study was to examine effects of self-talk strategy on efficacy beliefs and performance
between the additive condition and the coactive condition.
Delimitations
The dyads used in this study were formed artificially for the purpose of the experiment,
and as a result team members are largely unfamiliar with one another prior to performing task
and are not highly interdependent on each other for their performance, such as they are in team
sports (e.g., soccer). The extent to which the current findings generalize to more experienced and
bigger size teams is limited.

Definitions
A number of terms are repeatedly used throughout this manuscript. These terms, along
with their conceptual definitions are provided below. Some of these definitions are also
mentioned in the main text of this thesis.
1. Additive tasks - a task where the scores are added together to obtain one team score

11

2. Coactive tasks- a task in which individuals work in the real or imagined presence of other
but outcomes depend only one’s own personal efforts
3. Collective efficacy – a group’s belief in its capacities to organize and execute actions to
produce a desired group attainment (Bandura, 1997).
4. Collectivism – an individual’s perceptions and attitudes in terms of viewing oneself as a
part of one or more groups (Wagner, 2002).
5. Individualism – an individual’s perceptions and attitudes in terms of seeing oneself as
independent from a group (Wagner, 2002).
6. Sense of unity – perception that an aggregate of individuals is bonded together in some
way to constitute a group (Campbell, 1958)
7. Self-efficacy – an individual’s belief in his or her ability to execute a specific task
(Bandura, 1997).
8. Self-talk – either covert or overt self-verbalizations, which can serve both instructional
and motivational functions (Hardy, 2006).
9.

Synchrony - the coordination of movement that occurs between individuals during a
social interaction, featuring similarity of form and time (Kimura & Daibo, 2006)

12

CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
The purpose of this chapter was to provide a review of the literature that is relevant to the
variables and hypotheses of this study. The chapter begins by offering a foundation for the
hypotheses that represents an overview of the theory and literature supporting the efficacy beliefs
and performance relationship, the effectiveness of self-talk on building efficacy beliefs, the effect
for individualistic and collectivistic orientations on efficacy perceptions, and efficacy beliefs and
types of task. Additionally, a summary of the literature on a sense of unity (i.e., group cohesion)
with respect to its relationship with performance and efficacy beliefs is presented. This was
followed by a summary of the literature for support of synchronous activity as a possible
efficacy-enhancing technique.
Overview of Efficacy Beliefs and Relationships with Performance Variables
Guided by proposals outlined in Bandura’s (1986) Social Cognitive Theory (SCT),
considerable research has been devoted to fostering the understanding of two distinct forms of
‘efficacy’ perceptions, namely self-efficacy and collective efficacy, which relate to individuals’
confidence beliefs in their own and their teams’ capabilities, respectively (Bandura, 1997).
According to SCT, self-efficacy and collective efficacy represent distinct forms of task-specific
social cognitions that are predictive of performance and adaptive outcomes in both independent
and interdependent contexts.
Self-efficacy has been defined by Bandura (1997) as an individual’s belief in his or her
ability to perform a specific task. As opposed to global ‘confidence’ levels, self-efficacy is not a
general trait; rather, it is a task-specific construct. Efficacy theorists in various domains (Bandura,
1997; Feltz, et al., 2008; Pajares, 2002) noted that perceptions of self-efficacy provide the
foundation for human motivation, well-being, and personal accomplishment because people have
13

little incentive to persevere in the face of obstacles unless they believe that their actions can
create the outcomes that they desire. Moreover, strong self-efficacy beliefs lead to greater effort,
persistence, resilience, and positive affective states in approaching specific tasks.
Bandura (1997) theorized that perceptions of self-efficacy are derived from four principle
sources of information, namely (a) prior performance accomplishments, (b) vicarious
experiences, (c) physiological and emotional states, and (d) verbal persuasion. The most
influential of these factors relates to one’s prior performance accomplishments, as these provide
direct behavioral evidence relating to an individual’s capability in a given context (e.g., Wise &
Trunnell, 2001).

Self-efficacy beliefs are also derived from vicarious experiences, where the

observation of others demonstrating mastery or coping on a given task may bolster one’s own
expectations about performance capabilities. Third, one’s physiological and emotional state (e.g.,
pain, anxiety, fatigue, injury) may serve to support (or undermine) individuals’ confidence in
their ability, and finally, self-efficacy perceptions may also be modified via the verbal persuasion
one receives from third parties. As Bandura noted, positive persuasion fosters individuals’ beliefs
in their capabilities, on the other hand, personal efficacy perceptions may be substantively
undermined by negative feedback, most notably when the source of information is perceived as
credible and knowledgeable (e.g., a coach).
Self-efficacy and Performance
Based on Bandura’s (1997) theoretical tenets, a substantial number of studies have
revealed that increases in self-efficacy are positively correlated with individual performance in
sport and exercise settings (e.g., Beauchamp, Bray, & Albinson, 2002; George, 1994; Miller,
1993; Oman & King, 1998;Treasure, Monson, & Lox, 1996; Weinberg, Gould, & Jackson, 1979).
In one of the early research studies on self-efficacy, for example, Weinberg, Gould, and Jackson

14

(1979) manipulated perceptions of self-efficacy by having participants compete with a
confederate on a muscular leg-endurance task. Results showed that participants in the high selfefficacy group maintained their muscle contraction significantly longer than those in the low
self-efficacy group on the first trial. Following a reported failure, participants in the high selfefficacy group showed an increase in persistence during a second trial, whereas the low selfefficacy participants showed a decrease in persistence. Research has also reported that selfefficacy expectations were positively related to baseball hitting performance (George, 1994),
golf performance (Beauchamp et al., 2002), wrestling performance (Treasure at al., 1996) and
swimming performance (Miller, 1993). Moritz and her colleagues (Moritz, Feltz, Fahrabach, &
Mack, 2000) conducted a meta-analysis of the self-efficacy literature in the sport domain, which
provided support for Bandura’s suggestion, by demonstrating that a moderate overall correlation
(r = .38) between performance and efficacy beliefs, which ranged from a high of a .79 to a low of
a .01.
Collective Efficacy and Performance
In recognition of the fact that many human endeavors take place within a social or group
context, Bandura (1997) proposed the concept of collective efficacy to reflect a group’s beliefs in
its capabilities to organize and execute actions to produce a desired goal. Collective efficacy is
not simply the sum of self-efficacy beliefs of people in a group; rather, it is a more complex
group-oriented attribute that emerges from the group’s coordinative and interactive dynamics.
Collective efficacy is deemed to be conceptually distinct from self-efficacy in that it refers to
group members’ perceptions of their conjoint capabilities with regard to team activities (Bandura,
1997). However, in much the same way that self-efficacy beliefs influence individuals, stronger
perceptions of collective efficacy are believed to result in greater effort on shared undertakings,

15

better persistence in the face of obstacles, and higher levels of group performance (Bandura,
1997; Zacccaro, Blair,

Peterson, & Zazanis, 1995).

Chow and Feltz (2007) emphasize that collective efficacy relates not only to how well
each and every group member can use his or her individual resources, but also to how well those
resources can be coordinated and combined. Collective efficacy beliefs are important because,
theoretically, individuals’ beliefs in their group capability impact what people attempt to do as a
group member, how much effort they spend on their team outcomes, and their persistence when
collective efforts fail to produce quick results or meet with difficulties (Bandura, 1997; Feltz et
al., 2008). Because a large number of organizational settings such as sports and business
domains require sustained and coordinated team efforts to generate successful collective
attainments, each team member’s belief regarding his or her team’s capabilities understandably
affects the team’s performance.
In an effort to expand scientific understanding of how efficacy beliefs are formed and
how they influence sport performance, efficacy theorists have previously explored the
relationships among self-efficacy, collective efficacy, and team performance (e.g., Feltz & Lirgg,
1998; Gully, Incalcaterra, Joshi, & Beaubien, 2002; Myers, Feltz, and Short, 2004). For instance,
in Feltz and Lirgg’s (1998) study assessing self-efficacy and collective efficacy perceptions
among collegiate ice hockey players. The team efficacy measure comprised eight items that
asked players to assess the degree of confidence they had in their team's ability to perform
important game competencies. Team efficacy scores were computed by averaging the eight
ratings made by each player. The self-efficacy measure consisted of three questions, which asked
participants to rate their ability to (a) out-perform their defensive opponent, (b) out-perform their
offensive opponent, and (c) bounce back from performing poorly. They found that team (i.e.,

16

collective) efficacy beliefs significantly increased after a win and significantly decreased after a
loss, whereas self-efficacy beliefs were not impacted. These findings supported Bandura’s (1997)
suggestion that in team contexts, collective efficacy perceptions may be more closely associated
with team performance than self-efficacy perceptions. In a similar line of research, Myers et al.
(2004) examined the reciprocal relationship between collective efficacy, and teams’ offensive
performance over an American football season. The findings revealed that aggregated collective
efficacy prior to performance was a positive predictor of subsequent offensive football
performance, and also that previous offensive performance was predictive of subsequent
collective efficacy perceptions.
According to Bandura, “perceived personal and collective efficacy differ in the unit of
agency, but both forms of efficacy beliefs have similar sources, serve similar functions, and
operate through similar processes” (1997, p. 478). As a result, the four processes outlined in
relation to self-efficacy (i.e., performance accomplishments, vicarious experiences, verbal
persuasion, and affective states), should also play an important role in the development of
collective efficacy beliefs. For example, regarding performance accomplishments, using
multilevel modeling, Watson, Chemers, and Preiser (2001) examined collective efficacy at the
individual and group level in a collegiate basketball team. Individual perceptions of collective
efficacy were measured by seven items including the following: “This team’s confidence helps it
to perform at its best”; and “This team is a very effective team”. At the group level, collective
efficacy was the average score of group members’ collective efficacy scores. In a similar vein,
self-efficacy was measured by five-items and examples included the following:“I have very high
confidence in my ability to play my position or positions” and “I have all the skills needed to
perform the things required of me very well.”. Using HLM, results revealed that high self17

confidence was related to individuals having high perceptions of collective efficacy in a team. At
the group level, collective efficacy was significantly predicted by team performance.
Furthermore, teams that were successful in the previous season had greater team confidence near
season’s end. Vargas-Tonsing and Bartholomew (2006) provided empirical evidence for the
effect of verbal persuasion upon collective efficacy in sport. The results revealed that participants
reported a greater degree of team efficacy after listening to a motivational talk from their coach
in comparison to their team efficacy prior to the talk. As individuals react to arousal, anxiety,
stress, or excitement, so do groups. Teams with strong beliefs in their collective capability can
meet challenges in the face of disruptive forces, whereas less efficacious groups tend to function
less effectively. Hence, affective states may affect how groups interpret and react to the myriad
difficulties they confront (Goddard, Hoy, Woolfolk, & Hoy, 2004). More recently, Ronglan
(2007) investigated the production and maintenance of collective efficacy within an elite
basketball team during a season. Through 17 qualitative post-season interviews, results showed
that the production of team efficacy, as an interpersonal process, was brought about by
performance accomplishments, interpretations of team history, preparations for upcoming
contests, and positive persuasions.
In addition to the main four sources, perceptions of collective efficacy are theorized to be
underpinned by individuals’ self-efficacy beliefs. Indeed, as Feltz and colleagues proposed, “a
team’s confidence is undoubtedly rooted in and affected by confidence on the part of the
individuals” (Feltz et al., 2008, p. 239). For instance, Watson et al. (2001) found a positive
relationship between self-efficacy and collective efficacy in basketball teams. Results showed
that individuals who held relatively high personal efficacy beliefs also tended to possess positive
perceptions of collective efficacy. More recently, Magyar, Feltz, and Simpson (2004) also found

18

that self-efficacy was the strongest predictor of personal perceptions of ‘team efficacy’
perceptions within young rowing crews.
Self-talk as an Efficacy-enhancing Technique
In line with verbal persuasion from significant others, Bandura (1997) also posited that
self-initiated, or internal verbal persuasion (i.e., ‘self-talk’) may further serve to promote selfefficacy beliefs, theorizing “that inner speech…serves as the principle vehicle of thought and
self-direction” (p. 224). Self-talk refers to either covert or overt self-verbalizations used by
individuals, which may serve both instructional and motivational functions (Hardy, 2006).
Research on self-talk has primarily focused on investigating how this concept may bolster
performance levels, with reports indicating that ‘facilitative’ forms of self-talk

may underpin

positive performance outcomes (e.g., Theodorakis, Hatzigeorgiadis, & Zourbanos, 2012).
Recently, research has progressively moved toward the identification of the functions
underlying how self-talk strategies enhance performance (Hardy, 2006; Hardy, Oliver, & Todd,
2008).

Researchers have suggested that self-talk can serve to enhance self-confidence and

efficacy beliefs (e.g., Hatzigeorgiadis, Zourbanos, Goltsios, & Theodorakis, 2009;
Hatzigeorgiadis, Zourbanos, Mpoumpaki, & Theodorakis, 2008; Son, Jackson, Grove, & Feltz,
2011; Weinber, Grove, & Jackson, 1992). In one related study, Weinberg and colleagues
(Weinberg, Grove, & Jackson, 1992) examined strategies used for building self-efficacy by
tennis coaches, with analyses showing that coaches frequently encouraged their players to use
positive self-talk as a means for enhancing self-efficacy.

Recently, Hatzigeorgiadis and his

colleagues have provided empirical evidence for the effectiveness of self-talk on enhancing
efficacy beliefs (Hatzigeorgiadis, Zourbanos, Goltsios, & Theodorakis, 2008; Hatzigeorgiadis,
Zourbanos, Mpoumpaki, & Theodorakis, 2009). Hatzigeorgiadiset al. (2008) investigated the

19

effect of motivational self-talk statements (e.g., “I can do it” or “Let’s go, I got it”) on selfefficacy and tennis performance (i.e., forehand driving task) during five sessions. After the first
session, in the experimental condition, participants were provided self-talk practice session for
three sessions, whereas in the control condition, no self-talk practice session was provided.
Results revealed that participants in the motivational self-talk group significantly increased their
confidence in the given task, whereas no significant changes in self-efficacy perceptions were
found in the control group.
In a similar experimental setting (Hatzigeorigiadis et al., 2009), 72 tennis players were
recruited to test whether motivational self-talk statements (e.g., go, I can, and/or I am strong)
influenced performance anxiety and self-confidence in a forehand driver task after implementing
a 3-day self-talk training program. Consistent with findings from the previous study
(Hatzigeorgiadiset al., 2008), the authors found that performance and self-confidence improved
for the self-talk experimental group, whereas no changes were found in the group having no selftalk training.

Results also revealed that cognitive anxiety was significantly lower for the

experimental group, compared to the control group. Nonetheless, at present there has been
relatively limited experimental research directly addressing the effectiveness of self-talk on
building efficacy perceptions. In a recent review of the efficacy literature, Feltz, Short, and
Sullivan (2008) noted that the number of studies examining the impact of self-talk in sport was
‘surprisingly low’.
Despite a couple of recent experimental investigations indicating that motivational selftalk may foster self-efficacy beliefs (Hatzigeorigiadis et al., 2008; 2009), the role of self-talk has
received minimal experimental scrutiny in a group setting. Given that many activities are not
performed individually, it is somewhat surprising that the literature exploring the mechanism of

20

self-talk on a group task remains limited. Indeed, anecdotal accounts regarding the effectiveness
of self-talk in team sports have been evident in the sport psychology literature (Ronglan, 2007).
From interviews with athletes playing team sports, Ronglan (2007) reported that positive selftalk strategies (i.e., positive verbal persuasion) helped enhance confidence in the capability of
one’s team (i.e., collective efficacy) and as well as in one’s own ability. He further noted that
athletes perceived that self-talk can be one of the most effective strategies to improve their team
performance and collective efficacy beliefs.
In a business context, Brown (2003) investigated the impact of verbal self-guidance
training (i.e., a form of self-talk intervention) on collective efficacy. Specifically, participants
were allocated to small groups, and developed a series of positive self-talk scripts relating to
their performance, framed using either the individual’s (e.g., “I can finish this project in time”)
or the group’s (e.g., “we can finish this project in time”) capabilities. Consistent with selfefficacy theory (Bandura, 1997), the results of Brown’s study showed that self-talk interventions
such as these may indeed promote higher perceptions of collective efficacy. Despite the
implementation of both individual- (i.e., “I”) and group-focused (i.e., “we”) statements in
Brown’s (2003) investigation, it is worth noting that self-efficacy perceptions were not measured,
and as a result, it was not possible to determine the extent to which the specific referent of a
phrase (i.e., I versus we) exerted unique effects upon self-efficacy and collective efficacy. Indeed,
whilst sport-based research has considered the way in which self-talk ‘direction’ (i.e., facilitative
self-talk – defined as self-talk designed to have a positive effect on one’s ability to learn and
perform, modify important cognitions such as self-efficacy, and regulate arousal and anxiety
versus debilitative self-talk – defined as self-talk designed to hamper an individual’s ability to
achieve these same results) may influence efficacy beliefs (e.g., Cumming et al., 2006), bearing

21

Brown’s study in mind, it may also be worthwhile to investigate how the specific frame of
reference used (e.g., “we can do this” versus “I can do this”) may be related individuals’ social
cognitions. In particular, given that each self-talk modality taps into capabilities that operate at
different levels of agency, it is possible that ‘individual-focused’ and ‘group-focused’ self-talk
may exert distinct effects in relation to self-efficacy (i.e., personal agency) and collective
efficacy (i.e., group agency) beliefs.
To fill this gap, Son, Jackson, Grove, and Feltz (2011) examined whether motivational
self-talk could help improve performance and efficacy beliefs using a team dart-throwing
competition. In that experimental study, participants were allocated to small groups and given a
copy of self-talk scripts that were framed using either the individual’s capabilities (e.g., “I can
perform well”) or the group’s capabilities (e.g., “we can perform well”). Lastly, in the control
condition, participants were given a copy of self-talk scripts with neutral statements (e.g., “I am
male/female”). The results showed that in comparison to a control group and “I”-referent selftalk group, individuals using “we”-referent motivational self-talk statements reported greater
performance improvement and confidence in both their own capability and their team’s
capability. Son et al. (2011) suggested that the effectiveness of group-oriented self-talk in
enhancing performance and confidence in one’s own and team’s capability can be moderated by
developing a sense of unity. According to Social Identity Theory proposed by Tajfel and Turner
(1979), different portions of individuals are motivating them at different times, which can rely on
personal identity or social identity. A person's behavior will be affected by their positive
association with their in-group, when their self-concept and/or status are elevated by that
association (Hogg & Vaughan, 2001). It is possible that enhanced self-concept in being in a unit
may be positively related to developing strong confidence on the group’s capability. Thus, by

22

contributing to a sense of unity among team members and enhanced self-esteem, group-referent
self-talk can foster performance improvement and both self- and collective efficacy beliefs.
Therefore, the current investigation seeks to build on these recent experimental studies by
considering the role of different referents of motivational self-talk statements in relation to
performance, efficacy beliefs, and a sense of unity in a team competition setting. Further
investigation should be needed support for the effectiveness of group-oriented self-talk and its
possible mechanism.
Relationships between Efficacy Beliefs and Individualism-Collectivism
In addition to the variables that are theorized to directly underpin individuals’ selfefficacy and collective efficacy perceptions (e.g., self-talk), the degree to which an individual is
confident in either him/herself or his/her team may also be moderated by a number of additional
factors (see Feltz et al., 2008). One personal factor that has been shown to influence the
formation of efficacy perceptions in the organizational contexts relates to the extent to which
people view themselves as either an ‘individualist’ or ‘collectivist’ (e.g., Earley, 1994, 1999;
Oettingen, 1995; Oettingen & Zosuls, 2006; Oyserman, Coon, & Kemmelmeier, 2002).
According to individualism/collectivism theorists (Wagner, 2002), the individualist perspective
implies that (a) creating a positive sense of self and personal successes are valued, (b) well-being
is derived from the attainment of personal goals, and (c) judgment, reasoning, and causal
inference are primarily focused on the person. On the other hand, a collectivist orientation is
apparent when one views oneself as, and identifies primarily with, a part of one or more groups.
These theorists argue that, for collectivists, (a) one’s values are reflective of group goals, such as
maintaining harmonious relationships with others, (b) successfully carrying out social roles is an
important source of well-being, and (c) social context, situational constraints, and social roles

23

figure prominently in person perception and causal reasoning. Overall, individualists are more
likely to focus on personal needs, rights, and abilities, while collectivists find it natural to think
about the needs, capabilities, and goals of their ‘group’.
With regard to these orientations, Bandura proposed that “the influence of individualistic
and collectivistic orientations… operates largely through beliefs of individual and group efficacy”
(1997, p. 32). Specifically, in light of the respective tendencies, individualists are more likely to
achieve high perceived efficacy and productivity when their need for independence is satisfied,
whilst collectivists tend to be most efficacious when positioned within an interdependent group
context. Accordingly, social psychologists have previously investigated the factors that both
influence and are influenced by one’s tendency to think and act in individualist or collectivist
ways (e.g., Earley, 1994, 1999; Gibson, 1999; Oettingen & Zosuls, 2006; Oyserman et al., 2002).
For example, Earley (1999) investigated how individuals’ individualistic and
collectivistic orientation would moderate the influence of efficacy beliefs on group decisionsmaking processes among managers with similar experience in their field. Results revealed that in
high collectivistic cultures, individuals’ perception on their group’s capabilities was significantly
higher than did those in lower collectivistic cultures. Gibson (1999) also found that collective
efficacy was a significant determinant of group effectiveness for those who reported high in
collectivism but not for those with low collectivism. In an earlier study, Earley (1994) also
investigated the effects of ‘individual-focused’ and ‘group-focused’ training on performance and
self-efficacy among individualist and collectivist managers. The individual-focused protocol
consisted of personally-relevant information (e.g., prior personal performance and personal
performance enhancing strategies), whereas, whilst the group-focused intervention contained the
same material, this was modified in order to emphasize group performance and group

24

enhancement. Results revealed that individualists performed better and perceived higher levels of
self-efficacy when receiving individual-focused training compared to group-focused training.
Conversely, among collectivists, group-focused training produced enhanced performance and a
stronger sense of self-efficacy, suggesting that greater benefits were apparent when the
intervention type (i.e., focused on the group or individual) matched the individual’s orientation.
In the similar line of research in a sport context, Son (2008) examined the moderating
effects for the individualism-collectivism dimension in different types (we-referent versus Ireferent self-talk) of self-talk’s impact on shaping self-efficacy and/or collective efficacy beliefs.
Participants were assigned a group of three and asked to perform a team dart-throwing task.
Although results showed no significant effects for individualism/collectivism, she argued it may
be possible that individualist/collectivist orientations in sporting pursuits may differ in
comparison to one’s general social/organizational perceptions. Indeed, as noted by Bandura
(2002), “people vary in individualistic and collectivistic social orientations depending on
whether the reference group is familial, peer, academic, or national” (p. 275). The INDCOL
scaled used Son’s (2008) study was developed with the focus on horizontal and vertical
properties of peer relations and social hierarchies which may not be relevant in sporting or
exercising contexts.
In a different point of view of individualism-collectivism in a small group setting, Bellah
and colleagues (Bellah, Madsen, Sullivan, Swidler, & Tipton, 1985) proposed the two
differential dimensions (i.e., utilitarian versus ontological) of individualism-collectivism.
According to Bellah et al. (1985) and Wagner (2002), utilitarian individualism-collectivism
differentiates individualists from collectivists regarding the type of satisfaction being pursed
between personal and shared interests and on the primary means of pursuit (i.e., individual

25

versus collective activities). Utilitarian individualism takes as given personnel aspirations and
concerns, and sees human life as an effort by individuals to satisfy these yearnings through
individualistic pursuits while utilitarian collectivism takes for granted the importance of specific
shared desires and interests, and portrays human life as an effort by the members of collectives to
satisfy these interests through joint pursuits (Bellah et al., 1985). On the other hand, ontological
individualism-collectivism defines as a dimension of differences in the primacy according to
individuals or groups as fundamental social entities (Wagner, 2002). Ontological individualists
see a person as a whole entity and a group as an aggregate of each entity, and tend to interpret
team successes and/or failure as the skills of individual team members. However, ontological
collectivists perceive a group as a whole entity and an individual as partial or incomplete parts of
the whole; and are more likely to seek explanations for group outcomes as joint exertion and
group competencies. Based on these four dimensions, Wagner (1995) developed the I/C scale
assessing an individual’s individualism-collectivism orientations. The utilitarian and ontological
individualism-collectivism approach is more likely to be relevant to the context used in this
dissertation and the I/C scale developed by Wagner (1995) is used.
Task Types
Researchers (Feltz et al., 2008; Gibson, 1999; Goodman, Ravlin, & Schminke, 1990;
Katz-Navon & Erez, 2005; Steiner, 1972) have suggested that task characteristics can potentially
moderate efficacy beliefs because they are related to the type of experience that group members
possess about what is required to perform effectively and the degree to which members are able
to combine and integrate the experience stored by any individual member. According to Steiner
(1972), additive tasks require member resources to be summed for productivity and coactive
tasks refer to those in which individuals work in the real or imagined presence of others, but

26

outcomes depend only on the person’s effort and are determined at the individual level. For
example, Gibson (1999) investigated the relationship between collective efficacy and group
effectiveness and the effects of task characteristics (i.e., uncertainty and interdependence) and
culture on the relationship. In an experimental study, 294 undergraduate students were recruited
from United States and Hong Kong and were randomly assigned to a group of 3 persons.
Analyses showed that the interaction of group efficacy and task uncertainty was a marginally
significant predictor of group effectiveness. That is, task uncertainty moderated the relationship
between group efficacy and group effectiveness while no support was found in terms of
independence or collectivism.
Gibson (1999) followed with a field study testing the moderating effects of
interdependence and collectivism on the relationship between group efficacy and group
effectiveness across American and Indonesian nurses. Results indicated that when task
interdependence was high, group efficacy was positively related to group effectiveness, whereas
when task interdependence was low, group efficacy was not related to group effectiveness. The
level of collectivism moderated the relationship between group efficacy and group effectiveness.
More recently, Katz-Navon and Erez (2005) examined effects of different task types on
the emergence of collective efficacy and self-efficacy. Participants were randomly assigned to
three-person teams and then teams were allocated to one of two conditions: additive task
condition versus high interdependent task condition. Participants were asked to complete
evaluation forms for each employee. In the additive task condition, students performed the task
individually and then team performance was calculated by the sum of each team member’s
performance. In the high interdependent task group, however, participants were instructed to
work together as a group. The first performer wrote personal information about each employee,

27

the second person rated employees on the four characteristics and calculated the performance
score, and the last performer recommended the specific merit increases based on the information
from the other two group members. Team performance was determined by the number of the
evaluation forms completed by the team. Results showed that collective efficacy was a
significant predictor of team performance only in the high interdependent task condition while
self-efficacy was highly related to individual performance when students performed the additive
task. Indeed, a recent meta-analysis (Gully et al., 2002) revealed that task characteristics (i.e.,
task interdependence) moderated the relationship between collective efficacy and team
performance. In other words, when task interdependence is high, the relationship between
collective efficacy and team performance is strong.
Given that the nature of the task used in a previous self-referent versus group-referent
self-talk study (Son et al., 2011) was an additive task, in which the group’s potential productivity
was equal to the average productivity of group members. The authors postulated that the task
itself framed as a team task may contribute to enhancing collective efficacy and further discussed
that the extent to which the current findings generalize to different task types (i.e., coactive tasks)
is likely limited. Thus, it would be necessary to examine effects of we-referent and I-referent
self-talk on shaping efficacy beliefs between the additive condition and coactive condition in
which individuals are not actually working together as a group (i.e., just performing in one
another’s presence).
Sense of Unity
Although a substantial body of research has shown that a high degree of confidence in
one’s own and one’s team’s ability is predictive of enhanced performance in group contexts (e.g.,
Chow & Feltz, 2007; Heuze, Raimbault, & Fontayne, 2006; Myers, Feltz, & Short, 2004),

28

additional outcomes, such as sense of unity can be viewed as predictors of team successes (e.g.,
Bloom & Todd, 2011; Hogg & Vaughgan, 2001; Gammage, Carron, & Estabrooks, 2001;
Paskevich, Brawley, Dorsch, & Widmeyer, 1999). Indeed, Hamilton, Sherman, & Nickel (2005)
suggested that strong sense of being a unit among team members can help in the following ways”
(a) enhance team efficacy, (b) improve cooperation and (c) consequently enhance team
performance. Research has also revealed that coaches reported strong team bonding among team
members as the most important factor to achieve collective goals (Bloom, Steven, & Wickwire,
2003). In sports contexts, although there has been little evidence regarding sense of unity and
team outcomes, a large body of empirical research has indicated that team cohesion, which is
highly linked to sense of unity, is the cornerstone for helping teams achieve success (e.g., Carron
et al., 2002; Gammage et al., 2001). Team cohesion is defined as the tendency for a group to
stick together and remain united in the pursuit of shared goals and/or to remain united to satisfy
members’ affective needs (Carron, Shapcott, & Burke, 2007). For instance, in Carron et al.’s
(2002) study, 27 collegiate sport teams from soccer and basketball were assessed on their sense
of cohesiveness and winning percentages. Results revealed the strong positive relationship
between team success and team members’ perception on team cohesion. Gammage et al. (2001)
further suggested that athletes who reported a high sense of unity were more willing to
participate in off-season training than those who reported low sense of unity.
Consistent to sport settings, perceptions of being on the same group have been shown to
be a positive predictor of adherence behaviors in numerous exercise domains including school
physical activity classes (e.g., Carron & Spink, 1993; Spink & Carron, 1994), private fitness
classes (e.g., Annesi, 1999), older adults physical activity classes (Estatbrooks & Carron, 1999)
and a clinical exercise setting (Fraser & Spink, 2002). Spink and Carron (1994) examined the

29

effects of sense of unity on adherence to 13-week exercise programs in university and private
fitness club settings. In both cases, lower perceptions of unity were related to dropping out of the
program, and social bonding had a stronger influence on exercise adherence in the fitness club
setting.
In the similar line of research, Carron and Spink (1993) conducted a study using 17
university aerobics classes for 13 weeks. Nine were taught using a traditional approach, and eight
included a team building intervention. At the end of the program, participants in the experimental
group reported higher levels of individuals’ attraction to the group task and satisfaction with the
exercise program. Annesi (1999) also found an improvement in both team cohesion and
attendance, and a lower dropout rate using a 5-7 minute team building warm-up intervention
before exercise sessions at a fitness center.
Furthermore, Chow and Feltz (2007) noted that team cohesion can be predictive of
individuals’ confidence in their team’s capability in a group context. Indeed, recent studies have
consistently shown empirical evidence for positive relationships between collective efficacy and
sense of cohesiveness in highly interdependent team sports such as volleyball, basketball, and
rugby teams (e.g., Heuze et al., 2006; Kozub & McDonnell, 2000; Paskevich et al., 1999). Chow
and Feltz (2007) noted that there has been limited literature addressing whether sense of being on
the same group can contribute to building collective efficacy in lower interdependent and/or
coactive sports, for example, track and field, gymnastics, and swimming relay.
Synchrony
Armies train by marching in step and religions around world incorporate synchronous
singing and chanting into their rituals (Radcliffe-Brown, 1922). Even in sport, it is common to
see synchronous activities before a competition, such as, the New Zealand all Blacks Haka –

30

performed immediately prior to the game by New Zealand national rugby team, which has been
viewed as a greatest ritual in world sport (Jackson & Hokowhitu, 2002). Indeed, researchers
suggest that behavioral synchrony enhances a sense of “oneness” that bonds people together and
so acting in synchrony with others can foster cooperation within groups by strengthening group
members’ sense of unity. (McNeill, 1995; Wiltermuth & Heath, 2009). According to Kimura and
Daibo (2006), behavioral synchrony refers to the coordination of movement that occurs between
individuals during a social interaction, featuring similarity of (a) form-the manner and style of
movements, and (b) time-the temporal rhythm of movements. Synchrony theorists have
suggested that engaging in synchronous physical activity (i.e., muscle bonding) with another
individual can foster a stronger sense of social bonding compared to engaging in asynchronous
physical activity (Ehrenreich, 2006; McNeill, 1995). Indeed, an increasing body of recent studies
on synchrony reveal its positive impact on compassion (Valdesolo & DeSteno, 2011),
cooperation and a sense of unity (Wiltermuth & Heath, 2009), affiliation (Hove & Risen, 2009),
affective states (Haidt, Seder, & Kesebir, 2008), emotional support (Jones & Wirtz, 2007),
relationship quality (Vacharkulksemsuk & Fredrickson, 2011), and even elevated pain thresholds
(Cohen, Ejsmond-Frey, Knight, & Dunbar, 2010).
For example, Vacharkulksemsuk and Fredrickson (2011) examined the emergence of
behavioral synchrony among stranger-stranger dyads in self-disclosure contexts and its
relationship with interaction quality. A total of 94 same-sex pairs were assigned to a video selfdisclosure or control condition and then were asked to rate the quality of their social interaction.
Results revealed that when stranger-stranger dyads worked together, synchronous activities
improved social connection quality. In a similar line of research, Hove and Wirtz (2009) also
tested the effect of interpersonal synchrony on affiliation. Participants were randomly assigned to

31

one of three conditions: (a) synchrony, (b) asynchrony, and (c) control, and asked to match finger
movement with a visual moving metronome. Analyses indicated that the greatest sense of
affiliation reported in a synchrony condition, compared to either asynchronous or control
conditions. Consistent with previous studies, Mueller and his colleagues (Muller, Agamanolis,
&n Picard, 2003) found that synchronized physical activity fostered positive mood states and
enhanced a sense of social bonding when two strangers who never met, played a physically
exhausting ball game together using video game-conference settings.
More recently, Wiltermuth and Heath (2009) conducted three experimental studies
testing the effects of synchrony. In their first study, 30 participants in a group of 3 were recruited
to examine effects of synchronous activity on cooperation, social connection, and collective
happiness. In the synchrony condition, participants walked in step while those in the control
condition walked normally. They were then asked to perform the weak link coordination exercise
in which each participant chose a number from 1 to 7 without communicating. Payoffs increased
as a function of the smallest number chosen and decreased with the distance between the
participant’s choice of number and the smallest number chosen in the group. Participants played
six rounds of the game and were paid based on the outcomes of a round chosen at random
following the competition of the last round. Results revealed that participants who walked in step
selected higher numbers (i.e., higher cooperation) in the first round than did those who walked
normally. A greater sense of connection to their team member and trust in their counterparts was
found in the synchrony condition compared to the control condition while no difference was
found in level of happiness between the two groups. In Study 2, they explored the relationships
between synchrony and team cohesion. In the experiment, the experimenter verbally referred to
the participants as a group, and group members performed the task as a group and got the reward

32

based on team outcomes. Participants were randomly assigned to one of four conditions
(synchronous singing and moving, synchronous singing, asynchronous singing and moving, no
singing and no moving). In synchrony conditions, participants reported greater feelings of being
on the same team and cooperation compared to the control condition. The greatest team
outcomes were produced in the synchronous singing and moving condition. Their third study
was to examine whether after having been in synchrony with others, individuals may contribute
more to a public account. They found that synchrony influenced contributions to the public
account more persistent over time. That is, there was a significant decline in contributions to
public account across the time among individuals in asynchronous conditions, whereas no
corresponding decline occurred in the synchrony condition.
Lakens (2010) examined synchrony effects on perceived entitativity among dyads.
Participants were asked to perform the waving motion presented in the screen in front of them
with their partner and the entitativity scale was completed right after the synchronous waving
motion. This study supported hypothesis that movement synchrony was an important antecedent
of perception of being a unit. More specifically, synch in waving motion produced higher on
entitativity compared to waving motion in a dissimilar rhythm.
In sport-specific contexts, Cohen and her colleagues (Cohen et al., 2010) investigated
whether behavioral synchrony can simulate the release of endorphins in a group of rowers who
trained and competed together as a squad in a world class sweep-oar racing. Twelve rowers were
assigned to either group or individual conditions and performed on erogometers twice. Similar
results showed that group-row training significantly increased pain threshold compared with
training alone while rower’s power output was not different in both conditions. Despite such
empirical and anecdotal evidence of synchrony effects, it is worth noting that there is limited

33

evidence to test whether synchronous activity can enhance group performance and efficacy
beliefs. Knowing that team cohesion, positive emotions, and relationship quality can be
predictive of efficacy beliefs and team success (e.g., Allen, Jones, & Sheffield, 2009; Jackson,
Beauchamp, & Knapp, 2007; Kozub & McDonnell, 2000), it may also be worthwhile to
investigate how synchronous activity can be related to individuals’ beliefs in their team’s
capability and group performance improvement. Thus, the current study is designed to test
synchrony effects, as well as the role of different referents of motivational self-talk statements on
group performance, efficacy beliefs and a sense of unity.
In addition to the lack of empirical evidence on effects of synchrony on group
performance and efficacy beliefs, the majority of previous literature on synchrony has
investigated effects of synchrony in coactive settings (e.g., Cohen et al., 2010; Hove & Risen,
2009; Muller et al., 2003; Vacharkulksemsuk & Fredrickson, 2011). Given that many tasks are
performed at a group level and require successful group attainments, it is very surprising that
little research has been conducted on synchrony effects on group effectiveness at different task
settings such as additive task or conjunctive tasks. Wiltermuth and Heath (2009) also found that
synchronous activity increased team cooperation and team cohesion in additive group task. As
different characteristics of task my require different level of cooperation, team effort, and/or
motivation to attain team outcomes, it is also worth noting that further investigation should be
needed whether task types can vary impacts of synchrony on efficacy beliefs and sense of unity.
Summary
A growing body of research has verified the positive effects of self-talk on increasing
efficacy beliefs and performance at group settings. However, limited studies have attempted to
offer insight into how different referents of self-talk enhance group performance, efficacy beliefs,

34

and group cohesion and the extent to which tendencies toward individualism and collectivism
may combine with self-talk strategies in order to determine personal and group efficacy beliefs.
Additionally, the developing literature on synchrony has suggested significant synchrony effects
on desirable group outcomes (e.g., group cohesion, cooperation, and affiliation). Nevertheless,
little has known about whether synchronous activity can enhance team performance and efficacy
beliefs at different task settings (coactive versus additive setting).

35

CHAPTER 3
METHOD
Participants
A total of 346 undergraduate students (289 males and 52 females) were recruited in this
study on a voluntary basis. Participants were students who were enrolled in physical activity
classes (e.g., aerobics, step aerobics, and general conditioning) offered by the Kinesiology
department at MSU and received additional course credit for their participation. Participants
were randomly assigned to same-gender dyads within a class, and then dyads were allocated to
one of 12 conditions. None of the participants reported any physical impairment that would have
limited their participation in this study. Prior to data collection, procedures were approved by the
university’s Human Research Ethics Committee, and all participants gave their written, informed
consent.
Design
The experiment used a 3 (self-talk condition: I version, we version, control) x 2
(synchrony: synchronous activity, asynchronous activity) x 2 (task type: additive, coactive
condition) x 2 (block) design with repeated measures on the last factor. This resulted in the
following 12 conditions:
“we” Self-talk conditions
Synchrony – additive task condition
Synchrony – coactive task condition
Asynchrony – additive task condition
Asynchrony – coactive task condition
“I” Self-talk conditions

36

Synchrony – additive task condition
Synchrony – coactive task condition
Asynchrony – additive task condition
Asynchrony – coactive task condition
Control conditions
Synchrony – additive task condition
Synchrony – coactive task condition
Asynchrony – additive task condition
Asynchrony – coactive task condition
Task and Measures
Task Performance. The abdominal plank exercise was used for this study. This is an
isometric persistence task that requires little motor coordination. Participants were asked to
perform an exercise targeting the abdominal muscles in two blocks. Participants were faced
down on a mat with legs stretched straight and their body lifted up by putting their elbows and
toes on the mat. The first baseline block was performed individually while the second block was
performed simultaneously with their partner. Performance was calculated as the total number of
seconds that the exercise was held. Team scores were calculated by the sum of group members.
Team scores were calculated for the purpose of feedback for participants in the additive
conditions. For the data analyses, only individual scores were used.
Individualism-collectivism (I/C). Personal orientations in individualism/collectivism
was measured with the multi-dimensional I/C scale developed by Wagner (see the Appendix A;
1995). The I/C scale contains 20 items and measures five dimensions of I/C: self-reliance (five
items, e.g., “If you want to get something done, you got to do it yourself”),competitiveness (five

37

items, e.g., “Winning is important in work and games”), supremacy of individual goals (three
items, e.g., “Group is more productive when members follow their own interest”), supremacy of
individual interests (four items, e.g., “People who belong to a group should realize that they are
not always going to get what they want”), and solitary work preferences (four items, e.g., “Given
the choice, I would rather work alone than in a group”). Responses were made on a 7-point scale,
ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree), and overall mean scores for each
dimension are computed. Reliability and validity evidence for the I/C scale revealed acceptable
internal consistency values for each subscale (Ramamoorthy & Carroll, 1998; Ramamoorthy,
Gupta, Sardessai, & Flood, 2005; Wagner, 1995). In addition, a few subsequent studies have
provided evidence of validity relating to the I/C dimensions across different cultural contexts, for
example, the United States (Ramamoorthy & Carroll, 1998; Wagner, 1995), Ireland, and, India
(Romamoorthy et al., 2005).
Self-efficacy. Task self-efficacy was measured with a modified version of the scale
administered in a previous study (Son et al., 2011), which used a similar experimental design
(see Appendix B). The scale consists of nine items corresponding to the plank exercise within
each trial. To assess self-efficacy perceptions, participants were asked “For this plank abdominal
exercise, please rate your confidence for how many seconds that you can hold this exercise?”
Nine progressively higher points totals were then displayed, 1 minute, 1 minute and 10 seconds,
1 minute 20 seconds, 1 minute 30 seconds, 1 minute 40 seconds, 1 minute 50 seconds, 2 minutes,
2 minutes 10 seconds, and 2 minutes and 20 seconds. Responses to each of the nine difficulty
levels were scored on an 11-point scale, from 0 (not at all confident) to 10 (very confident), and
individual responses were averaged in order to produce an overall self-efficacy score. The survey
was completed at two time points; (a) before Trial 1 (after watching a brief instructional video

38

demonstrating the exercise, and (b) after performing Trial 1 and implicating self-talk. Internal
consistency analyses revealed a Cronbach alpha of 0.97 for the nine baseline self-efficacy items.
Collective Efficacy. Collective efficacy was assessed using the same format that was
used to measure self-efficacy, however in this case the frame of reference was modified to
directly assess perceptions about team capabilities (see Appendix B). Participants were asked
“For this plank exercise, please rate your confidence for how many seconds (sum of seconds)
that YOU and YOUR PARTNER can hold this exercise together?” Responses were made using
the same rating scale as described previously and also the measure was administered at two time
points as well. Internal consistency analyses revealed a Cronbach alpha of 0.96 for the nine
baseline collective-efficacy items.
Sense of Unity. In order to assess synchrony and type of self-talk on sense of unity,
participants were asked “How much did you feel you were on the same team with your partner?”
(Wiltermuth & Health, 2009) using a 7-point Likert scale (1 = not at all, 7 = very much). For this
dissertation, two additional questions assessing the sense of unity were developed: “How much
did you think of your partner as a teammate” and “How much did you enjoy working together
with your partner?” using the same 7-point Likert scale (see Appendix C). The sense of unity
was measured after performing Trial 1 and implicating self-talk. Internal consistency analyses
revealed a Cronbach alpha of .84 for the three items.
Demographics. A brief demographic questionnaire was administered at the end of the
study that included basic demographic questions such as age, gender, and ethical identity, sport
involvement (see Appendix E).

39

Manipulations
Self-talk Intervention. Based on previous research exploring the characteristics of selftalk in exercise and motor performance (Gammage, Hardy, & Hall, 2001; Son et al., 2011), five
individually-referenced motivational self-talk statements, five group-referenced motivational
self-talk statements, and five neutral (i.e., control) statements were generated. The individuallyreferenced and group-referenced self-talk statements were identical in content except for the
referent of the statement (e.g., “I [We] can do it”, “I [We] will do my [our] best”, “I [We] will
keep pushing myself [ourselves] to go”, “Keep it up, I am [we are] almost done”, and “I am [We
are] confident to hold this exercise longer”). The neutral statements, on the other hand, made no
reference to one’s level of skill, ability, or performance on the upcoming task (e.g., “I live in
Michigan, “I am a student at MSU”, “I am a male/female”, “I am __(age)_years old”, and “I
have _(colors)__eyes”).
Self-talk Manipulation Check. The manipulation check for the participants’ overt selftalk consisted of the following question: Did you use the statements that you recorded and
listened to as self-talk? If yes, were the statements helpful to decrease your level of precompetition anxiety? (see Appendix D). Responses were made on a 10-point scale anchoring
from 1 (not at all) to 10 (very helpful).
Synchrony Manipulation. In synchrony conditions, dyads were asked to perform 10
repetitions of a squat exercise at the same time in cadence with a visual moving metronome (40
beats per a minute). In asynchrony conditions, dyads performed the same exercise with the same
tempo as those in synchrony condition do, however, in order to control the potential synchrony
effect, they started to perform the task at a different time. That is, one person starts to perform
the given exercise first and 5 seconds later, the other person starts. In this case, a metronome,

40

which was set at the same tempo was given to each individual.
Partnered Task Conditions. For the additive condition, participants were instructed that
they would be working as a team in the second block of the task and their team score would be
calculated by the sum of seconds each of them holds the plank exercise. This information was
given two times (very beginning of the procedure and right after the first block of exercise was
done). For coactive condition, participants were instructed that they would be performing the
task simultaneously with the person at the second block of task. No emphasis was made about
team or team score.
Procedure
Upon approval of the Institutional Review Board, prospective participants were informed
about “a study on self-talk and dyad exercise” during undergraduate classes. Those who
volunteered in this research were randomly assigned to a same gender dyad within their class and
then allocated to one of 12 conditions. Prior to starting the experiment, seven research assistants
who were mostly senior or junior in Kinesiology majors were recruited and completed the IRB
training. All of them completed five training sessions (two sessions – shadowing the primary
investigator and three sessions – dry run under the supervision and data from these dry runs were
eliminated for data analysis process). Similar number of dyads (see Table 1) were then randomly
created within each experimental condition and scheduled for testing. A dyad reported to the
laboratory at the same time. Upon arrival for testing, respondents were asked to read and sign
informed consent forms and to introduce each other by sharing their personal information (e.g.,
major, hometown, and favorite music). Participants were given instructions about the task and
procedures and then the I/C scale and a baseline measure of self-efficacy and collective efficacy

41

was completed. Participants were not told the exact number of trials they would be performing,
but only that they would perform a series of trials.
Each participant then individually performed the first block of exercises, holding each
exercise as long as possible. While one participant performed the first block, the other member
was asked to wait his/her turn in the waiting room near the lab. After completing their baseline
exercise, participants were provided with a written copy of their randomly assigned self-talk
script, which they were asked to record in digital form on a computer in an “enthusiastic and
believable” manner. When they were satisfied with the quality of the recorded self-talk script,
participants were instructed to go back to the waiting room. And then the other member was
asked to come to the lab and to complete the same procedure. Once all members had recorded
their self-talk script, they were brought to the laboratory and instructed to listen to their own
recording simultaneously for a period of 2 min. Then the synchrony intervention was
implemented.
Individuals in the additive condition were then made aware of their own and their team’s
score from the first block. However, those in the coactive condition were made aware of only
their own and their partner’s score. Participants were asked to complete the self-efficacy and
collective efficacy measures and the sense of unity questionnaire. After completing all measures,
each team member performed the second block together. All participants were instructed to
ensure throughout that their actual self-talk statements (a) mirrored those that were being listened
to, and (b) were performed covertly if they could. When the dyad completed its second block,
participants were also asked to complete a self-talk manipulation check and demographic
questionnaire. Lastly, the participants were debriefed, given an opportunity to ask questions, and
thanked for their involvement.

42

• Consent form
• The I/C Scale
Prior to testing • Baseline Self-efficacy and Collective efficacy

• Performing the plank excercise individually
• Record their self-talk statements
1st Block

Intervention

•
•
•
•

Synchorny
Self-talk invervention
Feedback on individual and team scores was given
Self-efficacy, collective efficacy, and sense of unity measures
complition

• Performing the plank exercise simultaneously with their partner
2nd block

Figure 1. Procedure diagram

43

Table 1. Number of dyads across conditions
Conditions

N

“we” Self-talk conditions
Synchrony – additive task condition

18

Asynchrony – additive task condition

15

Synchrony – coactive task condition

15

Asynchrony – coactive task condition

15

“I” Self-talk conditions
Synchrony – additive task condition

15

Asynchrony – additive task condition

15

Synchrony – coactive task condition

15

Asynchrony – coactive task condition

10

Control conditions
Synchrony – additive task condition

13

Asynchrony – additive task condition

16

Synchrony – coactive task condition

15

Asynchrony – coactive task condition

11

Treatment of Data
Before conducting the primary analyses, the data were screened for outliers, normality,
and linearity. Following data screening, descriptive statistics (i.e., mean and standard deviation)
and bivariate correlations were calculated for all independent and dependent variables. One-way
between-subjects analyses of variance (ANOVA) were performed to check the mean differences
for baseline self-efficacy, collective efficacy, sense of unity, and individualism-collectivism
44

across all experimental conditions. One-way ANOVAs were also administered to find out
significant differences in mean hours of current sport involvement, types of sport involvement,
and baseline performance across three self-talk conditions.
As an exploratory analysis, a full-factorial 3 (self-talk condition: I version, we version,
control) x 2 (task type: additive and coactive condition) x 2 (synchrony: synchronous activity
versus asynchronous activity) x 2 (block: first versus second) repeated measure ANCOVA was
used with individualism-collectivism as the covariate. All statistical analyses were conducted in
SPSS 20 and an alpha level of .05 is used for all statistical tests.

45

CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of self-talk and synchrony on
performance, efficacy beliefs, and a sense of unity in a dyadic exercise setting. This chapter was
organized into three main sections. The first section provides results on demographic, descriptive,
and manipulation check statistics. The second section provides results on preliminary analyses
used to inform the main analyses. The third section provides results on the main hypotheses.
Descriptives and Manipulation Check
Means and standard deviations for all dependent variables are presented in Table 2 and
Across all 12 experimental conditions, means and standard deviations for the second block
performance (see Table 3), the second block self-efficacy (see Table 4), the second block
collective efficacy (see Table 5) and sense of unity (see Table 6) are presented. A total of 346
participants (290 males and 56 females) ranged in age from 18 to 30 years (M = 19.9 years, SD =
1.70) and roughly, 68% (n = 234) were Caucasian, 19% (n = 66), Black/African-American, 5 %
(n = 18), Hispanic, and Asian, 5 % (n = 17). Almost 75 % of them (n = 260) reported to
participate regularly in sport and exercise activities and they, on average, reported 8.17 h (SD =
8.54) of sport participation per two-week period. In terms of types of sports activity involvement,
about equal numbers of students participated in individual-based sport activities (n = 113),
group-based sport activities (n = 106), and both individual and group activities (n = 101).

46

Table 2. Descriptive statistics
Variable

Min

Max

M

SD

Age

18

30

19.90

1.70

Sport Participation

0

40

8.17

8.54

Self-reliance

1

7

3.51

1.25

Competitiveness

1

7

3.71

1.37

Supremacy of individual goals

1

7

4.43

1.39

Supremacy of individual interests

1

7

5.43

1.22

Solitary work preference

1

7

2.52

1.20

Baseline performance

19

298

103.47

43.28

Performance

33

504

107.72

45.86

Baseline self-efficacy

1

11

5.94

2.54

Self-efficacy

1

11

7.86

2.73

Baseline collective efficacy

1

11

5.76

2.40

Collective efficacy

1

11

7.29

2.78

SU

1

7

5.61

1.42

Note. Sport involvement = hours of participation in sport and exercise activities per fortnight.
Performance = performance scores in the second block. Self-efficacy = self-efficacy ratings for
the second block. Collective efficacy = collective efficacy ratings for the second block. SU =
sense of unity.

47

Table 3. Performance scores across conditions
Conditions

First block
M (SD)

Second block
M (SD)

Synchrony – additive task condition

106.37 (41.37)

121.67 (47.60)

Asynchrony – additive task condition

94.90 (33.11)

100.63 (44.53)

Synchrony – coactive task condition

109.42 (34.30)

106.92 (25.75)

Asynchrony – coactive task condition

103.29 (46.17)

108.93 (43.16)

Synchrony – additive task condition

97.58 (39.23)

126.69 (89.71)

Asynchrony – additive task condition

93.20 (38.49)

103.74 (48.17)

Synchrony – coactive task condition

116.67 (47.22)

123.86 (43.93)

Asynchrony – coactive task condition

109.40 (50.67)

76.15 (12.77)

Synchrony – additive task condition

107.09 (37.72)

101.86 (31.02)

Asynchrony – additive task condition

96.04 (45.19)

101.96 (94.67)

Synchrony – coactive task condition

117.00 (57.06)

115.72 (41.26)

Asynchrony – coactive task condition

85.08 (23.75)

94.67 (37.61)

“we” Self-talk conditions

“I” Self-talk conditions

Control conditions

48

Table 4. Self-efficacy scores across conditions
Conditions

First block
M (SD)

Second block
M (SD)

Synchrony – additive task condition

5.46 (2.90)

8.13 (2.88)

Asynchrony – additive task condition

5.15 (2.19)

8.10 (2.25)

Synchrony – coactive task condition

6.19 (2.59)

8.13 (2.40)

Asynchrony – coactive task condition

4.89 (2.47)

6.91 (3.34)

Synchrony – additive task condition

6.14 (2.43)

8.27 (2.57)

Asynchrony – additive task condition

5.94 (2.09)

7.41 (2.76)

Synchrony – coactive task condition

6.02 (2.95)

7.96 (2.89)

Asynchrony – coactive task condition

5.76 (2.05)

7.94 (2.85)

Synchrony – additive task condition

5.76 (2.79)

8.00 (3.19)

Asynchrony – additive task condition

6.16 (3.09)

7.70 (2.90)

Synchrony – coactive task condition

7.35 (2.39)

8.51 (2.31)

Asynchrony – coactive task condition

6.04 (1.75)

6.46 (1.99)

“we” Self-talk conditions

“I” Self-talk conditions

Control conditions

49

Table 5. Collective efficacy scores across conditions
Conditions
First block
M (SD)
“we” Self-talk conditions

Second block
M (SD)

Synchrony – additive task condition

5.62 (1.89)

8.11 (2.28)

Asynchrony – additive task condition

5.86 (2.27)

8.00 (2.40)

Synchrony – coactive task condition

5.43 (2.68)

6.70 (2.31)

Asynchrony – coactive task condition

4.71 (2.37)

6.49 (3.23)

Synchrony – additive task condition

6.22 (2.49)

7.50 (2.97)

Asynchrony – additive task condition

5.95 (1.83)

7.70 (2.26)

Synchrony – coactive task condition

5.08 (3.10)

6.72 (3.21)

Asynchrony – coactive task condition

4.99 (2.27)

6.73 (2.35)

Synchrony – additive task condition

5.78 (1.89)

7.97 (2.45)

Asynchrony – additive task condition

6.16 (3.09)

8.64 (2.37)

Synchrony – coactive task condition

5.13 (2.34)

7.99 (2.38)

Asynchrony – coactive task condition

6.04 (1.75)

5.01 (3.31)

“I” Self-talk conditions

Control conditions

50

Table 6. Sense of unity scores across conditions
Conditions

M (SD)

“we” Self-talk conditions
Synchrony – additive task condition

5.92 (1.09)

Asynchrony – additive task condition

5.30 (1.46)

Synchrony – coactive task condition

5.44 (1.15)

Asynchrony – coactive task condition

5.29 (1.36)

“I” Self-talk conditions
Synchrony – additive task condition

5.23 (1.53)

Asynchrony – additive task condition

5.19 (1.59)

Synchrony – coactive task condition

5.05 (1.03)

Asynchrony – coactive task condition

5.29 (1.36)

Control conditions
Synchrony – additive task condition

5.46 (1.30)

Asynchrony – additive task condition

5.20 (1.75)

Synchrony – coactive task condition

5.23 (1.58)

Asynchrony – coactive task condition

5.21 (1.46)

51

Correlations. Bivariate correlations were calculated among all variables (see Table 7).
With respect to individualistic and collectivistic orientations, self-reliance was positively
related to competitiveness (r = .34, p < .001) and baseline self-efficacy (r = .11, p < .05);
whereas, negative correlations were found between self-reliance and individuals’ perception
about their partner as a teammate (r = -.13, p < .05) and between self-reliance and enjoyment
working together with their partner (r = -.15, p < .01). Competitiveness was positively
correlated with solitary work preference (r = .29, p < .001), baseline performance (r = .15, p
< .01), baseline self-efficacy (r = .21p < .001), baseline collective efficacy (r = .21, p < .001),
the second block self-efficacy (r = .12, p < .05), and the second block collective efficacy (r
= .13, p < .05). Although positive correlations were found between supremacy of individual
goals and supremacy of individual interests (r = .15, p < .01) and between supremacy of
individual interests and enjoyment working together with their partner (r = .16, p < .01),
supremacy of individual interests were found to be negatively correlated to solitary work
preference (r = -.47, p < .001) and baseline self-efficacy (r = -.11, p < .001).
Consistent with previous literature on efficacy beliefs (e.g., Bandura, 1997; Feltz et al.,
2008), baseline performance was significantly correlated with baseline self-efficacy (r = .44, p
< .001) and baseline collective efficacy (r = .32, p < .001) and as well as, the second block
performance was strongly related to the second block self-efficacy (r = .57, p < .001) and the
second block collective efficacy (r = .40, p < .001). Strong positive correlations were found
between two baseline efficacy measures (r = .63, p < .001) and the two second block efficacy
measures (r = .68, p < .001).

52

Table 7. Correlations
1
1. SR
2. Com
3. SIG
4. SII
5. SWP
6. BP

-

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

.34**

.01

-.11

.36

-.01

.11*

.05

.03

.04

-.02

-.04

-

.04

.04

.29**

.15**

.21**

.21**

.10

.12*

.14*

.05

-

.15**

.08

.01

.03

.07

.05

.06

-.03

-.05

-

-.47**

.04

-.11*

.03

.03

.01

.05

.18*

-

-.10

.21**

.10

-.11*

.01

-.09

-.06

-

.49**

.32**

.70**

.70**

.49**

.06

-

.63**

.44**

.58**

.36**

.01

-

.33**

.38**

.56**

.04

-

.57**

.40**

.09

-

.68**

.08

-

.09

7. BSE
8. BCE
9. P
10. SE
11. CE
12. SU

-

Note. *. p < .05; **. p < .001. SR = self-reliance, Com = competitiveness, SIG = supremacy of individual goals, SII = supremacy of
individual interests, SWP = solitary work preference, BP = baseline performance, BSE = baseline self-efficacy, BC = baseline
collective efficacy, P = performance in the second block, SE = self-efficacy rating for the second block, CE = collective efficacy rating
for the second block, SU = sense of unity.

53

Manipulation Check. Responses to the question, “Did you use the statements that you
recorded and listened to as self-talk?” revealed that 78% of motivational self-talk participants in
the group self-talk condition (N = 78) and the individual self-talk condition (N = 80) reported that
the given self-talk statements were used for their actual self-talk. They also reported that the
assigned self-talk statements were helpful to increase their confidence in their own performance
(M = 6.31, SD = 2.28) and their group performance (M = 6.45, SD = 2.36).
Preliminary Analyses
A check of the data revealed all dependent variables to be normally distributed. One-way
analyses of variance (ANOVAs), using self-talk conditions as a between subjects variable,
revealed that there were no significant differences in (a) age, F (2, 277) = .39, p = .67, (b) types
of sport participation, F (2, 277) = 2.04, p = .13, or (c) mean hours of current sport involvement,
F (2, 277) = 0.33, p = .72, among the three self-talk conditions. No mean differences between the
two task types were found in (a) age, F (1, 277) = .51, p = .48, (b) types of sport participation, F
(1, 277) = .07, p = .79, or (c) mean hours of current sport involvement, F (1, 277) = .80, p = .37.
ANOVAs, using synchrony conditions as a between subjects variable, also revealed that there
were no significant differences in (a) age, F (1, 277) = .07, p = .79, (b) types of sport
participation, F (1, 277) = 1.42, p = .24, or (c) mean hours of current sport involvement, F (1,
277) = 1.32, p = .25. Regarding individualistic and collectivistic orientations, across
experimental conditions , no significant differences were found in (a) self-reliance, for self-talk,
F(2, 324) = 1.76, p = .17, for task type, F(1, 324) = .01, p = .91, for synchrony, F(1, 324) = .13, p
= .72, (b) competitiveness, for self-talk, F(2, 324) = 1.67, p = .19, for task type, F (1, 324) = .35,
p = .56, for synchrony, F (1, 324) = .37, p = .55, (c) supremacy of individual goals, for self-talk
F (2, 324) = 2.33, p = .10, for task type, F (1, 324) = 1.85, p = .18, for synchrony, F (1, 324) =

54

3.45, p = .06, (d) supremacy of individual interests, for self-talk, F(2, 324) = .44, p = .65, for task
type, F (1, 324) = .28, p = .56, for synchrony, F (1, 324) = 3.30, p = .07,or (e) solitary of work
preference, for self-talk, F (2, 324) = .76, p = .47, for task type, F (1, 324) = .10, p = .76, for
synchrony, F(1, 324) = .64, p = .43.
A series of ANOVAs were run to check the mean differences in baseline measures. An
ANOVA, using the three self-talk conditions as a between subjects variable showed nonsignificant mean differences in baseline performance, F (2, 268) = .20, p = .98 whereas
significant mean differences found in baseline self-efficacy, F (2, 268) = 3.36, p = .04, and
baseline collective efficacy, F (2, 268) = 4.20, p = .02. Compared to those in the group-focused
self-talk condition (M = 5.43, SD = 2.59), participants in the control condition reported
significantly greater level of baseline self-efficacy (M = 6.42, SD = 2.56). And, collective
efficacy scores in the control condition (M = 6.42, SD = 2.56) was higher in group self-talk
condition (M = 5.41, SD = 2.30 and). Means and standards by the three self-talk conditions were
displayed in Table 8.
Across task type conditions, the results of ANOVAs showed no mean differences in
baseline performance, F (1, 269) = 3.14, p = .08, or baseline self-efficacy, F (1, 269) = .95, p
= .33. Nevertheless, there was a significant difference in baseline collective efficacy between
additive and coactive conditions, F (1, 269) = 4.18, p = .04. As illustrated in Table 8, participants
in the additive task condition (M = 7.82, SD = 2.58) perceived higher confidence in their team’s
ability than those in the coactive task condition (M = 6.67, SD = 2.83).
Lastly, the same ANOVA, using the synchrony conditions as a between subjects variable
was run. Although there were no mean differences in baseline self-efficacy, F (1, 269) = 2.78, p
= .10, or baseline collective efficacy, F (1, 269) = .53, p = .47, the mean of baseline performance

55

was significantly different between the two synchrony conditions, F (1, 269) = 5.11, p = .04.
Compared to the asynchrony condition (M = 101.69, SD = 41.95), individuals in the synchrony
conditions held the plank exercise longer (M = 115.22, SD = 51.26; see Table 8). Because a
couple of significant mean differences were found in baseline dependent variables across the
experimental conditions, these baseline measures would be additionally entered to main analyses
as a covariate.

56

Table 8. Means and standard deviations for dependent variables by self-talk, synchrony, and task type
Task type

Variables
Baseline performance
Performance
Baseline self-efficacy
Self-efficacy
Baseline collective efficacy
Collective efficacy
SU

Self-talk
Group
Individual
n = 110
n = 90
M
M
(SD)
(SD)
103.84
102.76
(39.11)
(43.37)
109.89
113.61
(42.15)
(59.19)
5.43
5.66
(2.59)
(2.46)
7.85
7.79
(2.77)
(2.74)
5.41
5.66
(2.30)
(2.46)
7.27
7.79
(2.67)
(2.74)
5.50
5.28
(1.26)
(1.32)

Synchrony
Control
Synchrony
n = 82
n = 147
M
M
(SD)
(SD)
103.52
108.70
(45.65)
(43.24)
103.06
115.22
(39.50)
(51.26)
6.42
6.14
(2.56)
(2.70)
7.95
8.10
(2.74)
(2.73)
6.42
5.90
(2.56)
(2.46)
7.63
7.43
(2.77)
(2.70)
5.15
5.35
(1.59)
(1. 49)

Note. SU = sense of unity.

57

Asynch
n = 124
M
(SD)
97.10
(40.71)
101.69
(41.95)
5.63
(2.37)
7.58
(2.71)
5.68
(2.40)
7.19
(2.81)
5.28
(1.29)

Additive
n = 149
M
(SD)
99.28
(39.22)
110.22
(53.06)
5.77
(2.59)
7.88
(2.75)
6.07
(2.18)
7.82
(2.58)
5.62
(1.47)

Coactive
n = 122
M
(SD)
108.42
(45.69)
107.60
(40.75)
6.07
(2.54)
7.83
(2.71)
5.47
(2.67)
6.76
(2.83)
5.42
(1.33)

Total
n = 346
M
(SD)
103.47
(43.28)
107.72
(45.86)
5.94
(2.54)
7.86
(2.73)
5.76
(2.40)
7.29
(2.78)
5.20
(1.47)

Hypothesis Testing
The main hypotheses made predictions regarding the effectiveness of different forms of
motivational self-talk and synchrony on performance, self-efficacy, collective efficacy, and a
sense of unity between additive and coactive conditions. The second purpose of this study was to
examine whether self-talk effects may differ by individuals’ individualistic and collectivistic
orientations. Thus, the first hypotheses tested for individualistic and collectivistic orientations as
a covariate of type of self-talk on performance, self-efficacy, collective efficacy, and unity to
determine whether this variable was a necessary to control variable. For simplicity, univariate
analyses were conducted using the factorial design and a single dependent measure.
Type of Self-talk Hypotheses. Hypothesis 1a stated that controlling for individualistic
and collectivistic orientations, performance improvement will be greater in a group-oriented selftalk condition than an individual-oriented condition. To examine H1a, a series of one-way
between ANCOVAs were run, with baseline performance and the five factors of individualistic
and collectivistic orientations (i.e., (a) self-reliance, (b) competitiveness, (c) supremacy of
individual interests, (d) supremacy of individual goals, and (e) solitary work preference) entered
as a covariate. Prior to running analyses, preliminary tests revealed that the assumption of
homogeneity in regression slopes was not violated for all of six covariates, thus, a series of oneway between ANCOVAs with baseline performance and each of five factors of individualistic
and collectivist orientations as a covariate, were run to test self-talk effects on performance
improvement. Results revealed no significant covariate effects for the five factors of
2

individualistic and collectivistic orientations; (a) self-reliance, F(1, 330) = 1.14, p = .29, ηp
2

= .003, (b) competitiveness, F(1, 337) = .02, p = .90, ηp < .001, (c) supremacy of individual
2

goals, F(1, 339) = 1.60, p = .21, ηp = .005, (d) supremacy of individual interests, F(1, 334)
58

2

2

= .004, p = .92, ηp < .001, or (e) solitary work preference, F(1, 337) = .59, p = .44, ηp = .002.
2

Since the model fit (r = .52) did not change without each of these covariates, all of the five
factors of individualistic and collectivistic orientations were eliminated in the further analyses.
Finally, to examine the mean difference in the second block performance across the three
self-talk conditions, a 3 (self-talk) x 2 (task type) x 2 (synchrony) ANCOVA was run, with only
baseline performance as a covariate. Results revealed a significant main effect of baseline
2

performance, F(1, 333) = 329.00, p < .001, ηp = .49. Controlling for baseline performance,
significant mean differences were found between self-talk conditions, F(2, 333) = 4.18, p < .001,
2

ηp = .024. Bonferroni follow-ups showed that participants in the individual-focused self-talk
conditions reported significantly greater performance scores than those in the control conditions
(p = .01). No significant differences emerged between group- and individual-focused self-talk
conditions (p = .19) or group-focused self-talk and control conditions (p = .81). Mean plots for
performance according to self-talk condition are presented in Figure 2. Thus, H1a was not
supported.

59

Performance (sec)

116
114
112
110
108
106
104
102
100
98
96
94
Group ST

Indivdiual ST
Self-talk

Control

Figure 2. Marginal means for performance across self-talk conditions
To examine Hypothesis 1b, which stated that controlling for individualistic and
collectivistic orientations, self-efficacy beliefs will be greater in a group-oriented self-talk
condition than an individual-oriented condition, again, a series one-way between ANCOVAs
were run, with baseline self-efficacy and the five factors of individualistic and collectivistic
entered as a covariate. Prior to running analyses, preliminary tests revealed that the assumption
of homogeneity in regression slopes was not violated for all of six covariates, thus, a series of
one-way between ANCOVAs with and baseline performance and each of five factors of
individualistic and collectivist orientations as a covariate, were run to test self-talk effects on
self-efficacy beliefs. Results revealed no significant effects for the five covariate factors of
2

individualistic and collectivistic orientations; (a) self-reliance, F(1, 291) = .62, p = .43, ηp
2

= .002, (b) competitiveness, F(1, 299) = .09, p = .76, ηp < .001, (c) supremacy of individual
2

interests, F(1, 299) = .75, p = .39, ηp = .002, (d) supremacy of individual goals, F(1, 296) = 1.59,

60

2

2

p = .21, ηp = .005, or (e) solitary work preference, F(1, 297) = 3.25, p = .10, ηp = .007. Since
2

the model fit (r = .37) did not change without each of these covariates, again, all of the five
factors of individualistic and collectivistic orientations were eliminated.
Thus, a 3 of 3 (self-talk) x 2 (task type) x 2 (synchrony) ANCOVA was run, with
baseline self-efficacy as a covariate. Results revealed a significant relationship between baseline
2

self-efficacy and the second block self-efficacy, F(1, 292) = 158.89, p < .001, ηp = .35.
Statistically controlling for baseline self-efficacy, a significant main effect for self-talk was
2

found, F(2, 292) = 3.29, p = .04, ηp = .022. Consistent with Hypothesis 1b, Bonferroni followups indicated significantly higher self-efficacy ratings were reported in group-focused self-talk
conditions than in the control conditions (p = .03). Self-efficacy ratings according to self-talk
conditions were displayed in Figure 3.
8.4

Self-efficacy rating

8.2
8
7.8
7.6
7.4
7.2
7
6.8
Group ST

Individual ST
Self-talk

Control

Figure 3. Marginal means for self-efficacy across self-talk conditions

61

To examine H1c stating that controlling for individualistic and collectivistic orientations,
collective efficacy beliefs will be greater in a group-oriented self-talk condition than an
individual-oriented condition, a series of one-way between ANCOVAs were run, with baseline
collective efficacy and the five factors of individualistic and collectivistic entered as a covariate.
Prior to running analyses, preliminary tests revealed that the assumption of homogeneity in
regression slopes was not violated for all of six covariates, thus, a series of one-way between
ANCOVAs with and baseline collective efficacy and each of five factors of individualistic and
collectivist orientations as a covariate, were run to test self-talk effects on individuals’ belief on
their team’s ability. Results revealed no significant effects for the five covariate factors of
2

individualistic and collectivistic orientations; (a) self-reliance, F(1, 288) = 1.51, p = .22, ηp
2

= .005, (b) competitiveness, F(1, 296) = .84, p = .77, ηp < .001, (c) supremacy of individual
2

interests, F(1, 296) = 1.59, p = .21, ηp = .005, (d) supremacy of individual goals, F(1, 295) = .44,
2

2

p = .51, ηp = .001, or (e) solitary work preference, F(1, 294) = 3.25, p = .09, ηp = .008. Since
2

the model fit (r = .37) did not change without each of these covariates, again, all of the five
factors of individualistic and collectivistic orientations were eliminated.
Thus, a 3 of 3 (self-talk) x 2 (task type) x 2 (synchrony) ANCOVA was run, with
baseline collective efficacy as a covariate. Results revealed a significant relationship between
2

baseline and the second block collective efficacy ratings, F(1, 292) = 158.89, p < .001, ηp = .35.
Statistically controlling for baseline collective efficacy, analyses showed that there were no
2

significant mean differences across the three self-talk conditions, F(2, 292) = 1.06, p = .35, ηp
= .007. Results failed to provide enough evidence to support H1c.
62

Furthermore, a series of 3 of 3 (self-talk) x 2 (task type) x 2 (synchrony) ANOVAs were
run for individuals’ mean sense of unity ratings. Results revealed no significant mean difference
2

in sense of unity across the three self-talk conditions, F(2, 334) = 1.79, p = .17, ηp = .011.
Task Type Hypotheses. H2a stated that participants in the additive condition will
perform better compared to those in the coactive condition. To examine H2a, a 3 (self-talk) x 2
(task type) x 2 (synchrony) ANCOVA was run, with baseline performance as a covariate.
Controlling for baseline performance, again, there were significant mean differences in
2

performance between additive and coactive conditions, F(1, 333) = 5.49, p = .02, ηp = .016.
That is, participants in the additive task condition reported greater performance compared to
those in the coactive task condition (see Figure 4). Therefore, H2a was fully supported.
Regarding Hypothesis 2b stating that additive task will produce greater self-efficacy
compared to the coactive task, the same 3 (self-talk) x 2 (task type) x 2 (synchrony) ANCOVA
was run, with baseline self-efficacy as a covariate. Results revealed that individuals in additive
task condition reported higher levels of self-efficacy than they did in the coactive task condition,
2

however, this effect was not statistically significant, F(1, 292) = 3.53, p = .06, ηp = .004. Thus,
there was insufficient evidence to support H2b.

63

112

Perforamnce (sec)

110
108
106
104
102
100
98
Additive

Coactive
Task Types

Figure 4. Marginal means for performance by task type conditions

To examine Hypothesis 2c stating that participant in the additive task condition will
perceive greater sense of collective efficacy compared to those in the coactive task condition, the
same 3 (self-talk) x 2 (task type) x 2 (synchrony) ANCOVA was run, with baseline collective
2

efficacy as a covariate. The result provided support for H2c, F(1, 292) = 6.55, p = .01, ηp = .022,
when baseline collective efficacy was controlled (see Figure 5).
Lastly, regarding sense of unity, no significant main effects were found, F(1, 334) = .29,
2

p = .58, ηp = .001.

64

7.3

Collective efficacy

7.2
7.1
7
6.9
6.8
6.7
Additive

Coactive
Task types

Figure 5. Marginal means for collective efficacy by task type conditions
Synchrony Hypotheses. A 3 (self-talk) x 2 (task type) x 2 (synchrony) ANCOVA was
run, with baseline performance as a covariate, to examine H3a stating that synchronous activity
will produce greater performance improvement than will asynchronous activity. A significant
2

main effect for synchrony in performance improvement was found, F(1, 333) = 4.07, p = .04, ηp
= .012. That is, individuals doing the synchronous activity held the plank exercise longer than
those doing asynchronous activity (see Figure 6). Therefore, H3a was fully supported.
H3b stated that participants in the synchrony condition will perceived stronger sense of
collective efficacy compared to those in the asynchrony condition. However, the analyses
2

showed no main effect for synchrony, F(1, 292) = 1.28, p = .26, ηp = .004, as a result, H3b was
rejected.

65

112
110

Performance (sec)

108
106
104
102
100
98
Synchrony

Asynchrony
Synchrony

Figure 6. Marginal means for performance by synchrony conditions

Finally, a series of 3 of 3 (self-talk) x 2 (task type) x 2 (synchrony) ANOVAs were run
for individuals’ mean sense of unity ratings, revealing no significant synchrony effects F(1, 334)
2

= 2.01, p = .16, ηp = .006.
Interaction Effects. When baseline performance scores were controlled, no interactions
in the second block performance score were found between self-talk and task type conditions,
2

F(2, 333) = .71, p = .49, ηp = .004, between self-talk and synchrony conditions, F(2, 333) = .73,
2

2

p = .48, ηp = .004, or between synchrony and task type conditions, F(1, 333) = .19, p = .89, ηp
< .001.

Consistent with the analysis for performance, no significant effects of self-talk x task type
2

conditions on the second block self-efficacy, F(2, 292) = 1.71, p = .18, ηp = .012, self-talk x
66

2

synchrony, F(2, 292) = 1.03, p = .36, ηp = .007, and between synchrony and task type
2

conditions, F(1, 292) = .05, p = .83, ηp < .001.
Regarding collective efficacy, no significant effects for self-talk x task type conditions,
2

2

F(2, 292) = 1.07, p = .35, ηp = .007, self-talk x synchrony, F(2, 292) = 1.45, p = .24, ηp = .01,
2

or synchrony x task type conditions, F(1, 292) = .01, p = .92, ηp < .001. With respect to the
interaction effect between task types and synchrony, again, not enough evidence was found to
support the hypothesis.
In terms of sense of unity, there were no significant interaction effects for self-talk x task
2

2

types, F(2, 334) = .10, p = .94, ηp = .001, self-talk x synchrony, F(2, 334) = .71, p = .49, ηp
2

= .004, synchrony x task types, F(1, 334) = .41, p = .52, ηp = .001.
Exploratory Analyses
Several exploratory analyses were conducted to help interpret results found in the
analyses from the main hypotheses. First, based on the finding from the self-talk manipulation
checks, showing 78% of participants in the motivational self-talk conditions reported that they
used the given self-talk statements while performing the plank exercise, only those (n = 76 in the
group-focused self-talk conditions and, n = 80 in the individual self-talk conditions) who
correctly used the self-talk intervention were selected for the follow-up analysis. Participants in
the control conditions (n = 110) were also excluded.
Selected Motivational Self-talk Groups. To test self-talk effects on performance, a 2
(self-talk) x 2 (task type) x 2 (synchrony) ANCOVA was run, with baseline performance as a
covariate revealing a significant effect of the baseline performance, F(1, 147) = 242.90, p < .001,

67

2

ηp = .62. A significant mean difference in the second block performance between the group- and
2

the individual-focused self-talk conditions was found, F(1, 147) = 4.89, p = .03, ηp = .032. That
is, when the baseline performance was controlled, participants in the individual-focused self-talk
conditions (M = 112.72, SD = 3.11) reported greater performance in the second block than did
those in the group-focused self-talk conditions (M = 103.03, SD = 3.03) as displayed in figure 7.
114
112

Performance(sec)

110
108
106
104
102
100
98
Group ST

Individual ST
Self-talk

Figure 7. Marginal means for performance across the two selected motivational self-talk
conditions
Results also revealed significant main effects for task type, F(1, 147) = 11.43, p = .001,
2

ηp = .07. When statistically controlling for the baseline performance, participants in additive
conditions (M = 113.89, SD = 2.82) performed greater in the second block compared to those in

68

coactive conditions (M = 99.35, SD = 3.45) as displayed in Figure 8. A main effect for synchrony
2

failed to reach the statistically significant level, F(1, 147) = 3.7, p = .06, ηp = .021.
115

Performance (sec)

110

105

100

95

90
Additive

Coactive
Task type

Figure 8. Marginal means for performance for task type among selected motivational
self-talk conditions
Sense of Unity. Sense of unity was measured by 3 items; (a) the feeling that participants
were on the same team with their partner, (b) perception about their partner as a team member,
and (c) enjoyment in working together. Although no main effects were found in the analyses for
the main hypotheses, additional analyses were conducted using each item. A series of 3 (self-talk)
x 2 (task type) x 2 (synchrony) ANOVAs were run. Regarding the feeling that participants were
on the same team with their partner, no main effects were found for self-talk conditions , F(2,
2

334) = 1.74, p = .18, ηp = .010, and no mean difference found in perception about their partner
as a team member across self-talk conditions, F(2, 334) = .15, p = .86. However, significant
mean differences in enjoyment in working as a group were found across the three self-talk
69

2

conditions, F(2, 334) = 3.68, p = .03, ηp = .022. Bonferroni follow-ups showed that enjoyment
in working together with their partner in the individual-focused self-talk condition (M = 5.44, SD
= 1.34) was not significantly different in either the group-focused self-talk condition (p = .74, M
= 5.88, SD = 1.23) or the control condition (p = .62, M = 5.37, SD = 1.65). However, consistent
with the findings for self-efficacy measures, participants using group-focused self-talk exhibited
significantly greater enjoyment in working with their partner than the control condition (p
= .009), as displayed in Figure 9.
6

Enjoyment working together

5.9
5.8
5.7
5.6
5.5
5.4
5.3
5.2
5.1
Group ST

Individual ST
Self-talk

Control

Figure 9. Means for enjoyment in working together by self-talk conditions
In terms of task types, no mean difference was found in the feeling that participants were
2

on the same team with their partner, F(1, 334) = 2.46, p = .12, ηp = .007; in individuals’

70

2

perception about their partner as a teammate, , F(1, 334) = .08, p = .78, ηp = .0001; or
2

enjoyment in working together, F(1, 334) = .001, p = .99, ηp = .0001.
Finally, a 3 (self-talk) x 2 (task type) x 2 (synchrony) ANOVA was run regarding the
feeling that participants were on the same team with their partner. Significant mean differences
2

were found between synchrony and asynchrony conditions, F(1, 334) = 4.94, p = .03, ηp = .007.
That is, participants in the synchrony condition (M = 5.20, SD = 1.73) reported a higher degree
of feeling that they were on the same team with their partner, compared to those in the
asynchrony condition (M = 4.80, SD = 1.77). Figure 10 displayed these mean differences in
feeling of unity scores. However, no main effects for synchrony were found in individuals’
2

perception about their partner as a team member, F(1, 334) = .40, p = .53, ηp = .001, or
2

enjoyment in working together, , F(1, 334) = .54, p = .46, ηp = .002.
5.3
5.2

Feeling of unity

5.1
5
4.9
4.8
4.7
4.6
4.5
Synchrony

Asynchrony
Synchrony

Figure 10. Means for feeling of unity between synchrony conditions
71

Summary
Thus, the hypothesis for self-talk effects that was partially supported was Hypothesis 1b
that self-efficacy beliefs will be greater in a group-oriented self-talk condition than an individualoriented condition. For task type, Hypothesis 2a that participants in the additive condition will
produce greater performance improvement compared to those in the coactive condition; and
Hypothesis 2c, that individuals in additive task condition will report higher level of collective
efficacy than those in the coactive task condition was supported. Lastly, regarding synchrony
effects, Hypothesis 3a that the synchronous activity will produce greater performance
improvement compared to the asynchronous condition; and Hypothesis 3c, that the synchronous
activity will produce stronger sense of unity compared to the asynchronous activity was
supported.

72

CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION
Previous researchers have observed self-talk effects under a variety of experimental tasks
and individual settings. What is not yet clear are (a) whether self-talk strategies might be
effective in a dyadic exercise setting, (b) how modifying the referent of self-talk statements with
respect to level of agency (i.e., individual versus group) might be influential, (c) under what
conditions (i.e., task types) the self-talk effects might be observed in a group context, and (d) the
way in which one’s individualist or collectivist orientation may modify the effects of “we”
versus “I” self-talk. In addition to self-talk, although recent studies have provided evidence for
the effectiveness of synchrony on positive relative outcomes (i.e., sense of unity, relationship
quality, enjoyment in working together; Vacharkulksemsuk & Fredrickson, 2011; Wiltermuth &
Heath, 2009), there is relatively little evidence on the synchronous activity effects in a group
exercise setting. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to explore the effects of ‘individualfocused’ versus ‘group-focused’ self-talk and synchrony on performance, self-efficacy,
collective efficacy, and sense of unity between additive and coactive task conditions.
Additionally, this study also sought to identify whether individualist and collectivist orientations
may influence the way in which self-talk strategies enhance performance and one’s beliefs about
one’s own and one’s team’s capabilities. This chapter discusses the findings of the current study,
identifies limitations, and outlines practical implications of these findings and future research
directions.
A consistent finding across previous studies examining self-talk effects has been that
motivational self-talk statements enhance performance and self-efficacy beliefs in various
individual contexts (Hardy, 2006; Hatzigeorigiadis et al., 2008; 2009; Theodorakis,

73

Hatzigeorgiadis, & Zourbanos, 2012). Most recently, Son et al. (2011) found that “we”-referent
motivational self-talk statements led to greater performance improvement and higher self- and
collective efficacy in a team dart-throwing performance compared to “I”-referent self-talk and
neutral self-talk conditions. Furthermore, researchers (e.g., Bandura, 1997; Earley, 1999; Gibson,
1999) suggested that individuals’ individualistic and collectivistic orientations can be influential
on shaping his or her efficacy beliefs. Thus, in the current study, controlling for individualistic
and collectivistic orientations, “we” self-talk was predicted to produce greater performance
improvement (H1a), stronger sense of self-efficacy (H1b), collective efficacy (H1c), and sense of
unity (H1d) than would ‘I” self-talk. Individuals in the additive condition were hypothesized to
report greater performance improvement (H2a), stronger sense of self-efficacy (H2b), collective
efficacy (H2c), and sense of unity (H2d) than those in the coactive condition. Regarding
synchrony, it was hypothesized that compared to asynchronous activity, synchronous activity
was expected to be more effective to enhance performance (H3a), collective efficacy (H3b), and
sense of unity (H4c). In addition to main effects for self-talk, task type, and synchrony, this study
examined interaction effects between self-talk and task type, between self-talk and synchrony,
and between task type and synchrony. However, no direct predictions were made because of lack
of evidence in previous literature.
Hypothesis 1
At first blush, contrary to what was expected in H1a, “we”-self-talk did not lead to
greater performance improvement compared to either “I”-self-talk or control conditions,
however, individuals implementing “I”-self-talk reported greater performance improvement than
those in the control group. Furthermore, additional analyses using only participants who reported
to correctly use self-talk intervention revealed that greater performance improvement in the

74

individual-self-talk groups compared to in the group self-talk groups. This contradicts the
previous study (Son et al., 2011) using the team dart-throwing task. There were three differences
between the dart-throwing study and the current one: team size, task characteristics, and task
performance. Given that larger sizes of teams were used in the previous research (3-4 person
teams; Son et al., 2011 and 4-5 person teams; Brown, 2003), the “I”-self-talk effect in this study
may be explained by the smaller size of group used in this study (i.e., a dyad). Results suggest
that different references used to frame one’s self-talk (i.e., “we” versus “I”) were responsible for
differences in individual performance improvement in team settings. Thus, it is worth
highlighting that individuals performing within dyads may be more sensitive to psychological
strategies that emphasize the individual’s own capability. Further investigation on this issue is
encouraged that examines the differing effects of individual- and team-focused interventions,
across different sizes of group.
In terms of task characteristics, the dart throw is an aiming task that relies on skill and
focus; whereas, the plank task is a persistence task that involves very little skill but a great deal
of effort. Self-talk literature has found that motivational statements were more effective in
yielding better performance and greater motivation in persistent tasks such as the one used in this
study compared to a task required concentration and accuracy such as a dart-throwing task
(Hardy, 2006; Theodorakis et al., 2012). Combining and the motivational nature of statements
and convincing oneself that “I” can do this may have been more salient in an effort-based task
than in an aiming task.
Additionally, the dart-throw task was performed sequentially. Each person took his or her
turn at the task while other team members watched. Son et al. (2011) suggested that watching
team members’ performance and handing the darts thrown by the person to the next performer

75

would help build sense of being in the same team. In the current study, however, participants
performed simultaneously. Perhaps in simultaneous performances, there is more focus on oneself
and lack of environment emphasizing the concept of being in a group than on the collective.
Lastly, given that additive tasks were still considered as comparatively low
interdependent tasks (Burke et al., 2006; Katz-Navon & Erez, 2005), it is possible that the
concept of being in the same team may not be activated, which is why “we” self-talk may not
have increased performance. On the other hand, I-talk may have made personal self and selfstandards salient, and may have worked to increase motivation and performance.
As expected in H1b, individuals reported higher levels of self-efficacy in the groupfocused self-talk conditions compared to the control conditions. Although these findings require
verification via further investigation, it is possible that the results may be partly due to the groupfocused nature of performance. Son et al. (2011) suggested that the team-based context
surrounding the activity exaggerated the salience (and therefore the impact) of the groupreferenced statements. In a team performance context, such as the one used in this study, it is
entirely possible that positive statements emphasizing the group’s capabilities “rang true,” were
noticed, and fostered a sense of unity and purpose among the participants. Indeed, the finding
from this investigation also revealed that individuals in the group-focused self-talk condition
reported higher enjoyment in working with their partner than the other two conditions. Positive
emotional state (i.e., enjoyment), of course, is typically viewed as one of sources enhancing
efficacy beliefs (Bandura, 1997). Thus, by contributing to enhanced enjoyment in working as a
group between team members, group-referenced self-talk may have provided an indirect buffer
to foster self-efficacy with the testing protocol.

76

Hypotheses 2
In accordance with our expectation, individuals in the additive condition reported greater
performance improvement than those in the coactive condition. Interestingly, one of the most
recent studies using the similar experimental setting (Feltz et al., 2011), but having a virtual
partner instead of a real partner, found no mean performance differences between additive and
coactive conditions. In Feltz et al.’s (2011) study, participants were asked to perform the two
blocks of a series of abdominal plank exercises. Like the one used in this study, the first block
was completed individually and the second block was performed with the virtual partner. The
authors suggested that performance improvements did not seem to depend on task
interdependence, but simply that participants were aware that they are being outperformed by a
peer exercising in the same task at the same time. However, in the case of having a real partner,
task characteristics may potentially moderate exercisers’ motivation.
Although no self-talk or synchrony effects were found for collective efficacy, findings of
this study provided support for the effect of task type on shaping collective efficacy. According
to Johnston (1967), in team pursuits, a team member is more likely to assess the performance
accomplishments of the group as a whole, rather than one’s own contributions to the team’s
performance. Indeed, it has been supported that in group contexts, a team member’s beliefs in
his/her team’s capability to achieve a certain level of performance would be strongly linked to
the interdependence of task. Accordingly, collective efficacy expectations are more likely to be
salient in a task requiring teamwork or team environment (Gibson, 2001; Burke et al., 2006;
Katz-Navon & Erez, 2005).
Goncalo, Polman, and Maslach (2010) examined the relationship between collective
efficacy and group performance across a 15-week semester. They found that initial collective

77

efficacy beliefs on the first or third week did not significantly predict group performance.
However, as the semester passed, the relationship between collective efficacy and performance
was getting stronger. The author suggested that for newly formed teams, collective efficacy
would not be fully built at the beginning of team generation and the task types may moderate the
period of building collective efficacy among group members. Knowing that (a) artificially
formed groups were used in this study and (b) there was a short period of self-talk and synchrony
intervention, it is plausible to say that the sense of collective efficacy may not be clearly built.
Additionally, there was no basis on which to form a baseline judgment of collective efficacy in
this task without knowing one’s partner’s capability. Thus, effects of different types of self-talk
and synchrony on collective efficacy may be examined in longitudinal design in the future.
With regard to task types, researchers have found consistent support for task
interdependence as a moderator for the relationship between efficacy beliefs and performance
and furthermore, the nature of both tasks used in this study (i.e., additive and coactive tasks)
were still considered as comparatively low interdependent tasks (Burke et al., 2006; Katz-Navon
& Erez, 2005). Furthermore, it is possible to say that additive tasks would not foster developing
sense of ‘groupness”. Although in coactive task conditions, no emphasis on being on the same
team was made, participants in coactive conditions may unconsciously feel somewhat like group
because measures and instructions refer to their partner/teammate. As a result, it would be
particularly interesting in future studies to explore the ways in which high interdependent tasks
such as a conjunctive task or sporting teams (e.g., football, soccer, or volleyball) moderate the
influence of self-talk modalities upon efficacy perceptions.

78

Hypothesis 3.
Consistent with H3a, results showed that a brief synchronous activity produced greater
performance improvement compared to asynchronous activity. An increasing body of recent
studies have explored the synchrony effects on relative team outcomes, for example, compassion
(Valdesolo & DeSteno, 2011), cooperation and a sense of unity (Wiltermuth & Heath, 2009),
affiliation (Hove & Risen, 2009), affective states (Haidt, Seder, & Kesebir, 2008), satisfaction
(Jones & Wirtz, 2007), relationship quality (Vacharkulksemsuk & Fredrickson, 2011), and even
elevated pain thresholds (Cohen, Ejsmond-Frey, Knight, & Dunbar, 2010). However, relatively
little attention has been directed toward examining the effectiveness of synchrony in enhancing
performance in group exercise contexts. Bearing this in mind, the present findings not only
provide preliminary empirical evidence for the relationship between synchrony and performance
but also raise a number of important questions for future research on this topic, for example, (a)
the relationship between team characteristics (e.g., team size or difference contexts such as
sporting settings) and (b) types of synchrony (i.e., muscular bonding, music, or dancing).
Additionally, considering the fact that synchrony induction was very brief (less than 30
seconds) and produced performance improvement on a strenuous persistence task up to
approximately 10 minutes later, highlights the strength of a simple synchrony treatment to
improve effort-based performance. A longer and stronger synchrony intervention on team
performance and positive team related outcomes such as collective efficacy, sense of unity, and
team cooperation/team work may have even larger effects. Thus, further investigation on when
and how long the synchrony intervention is implemented should be guaranteed.
Consistent with the findings from the previous research (e.g., Lakens, 2010), the current
study found that a synchronous activity produced a stronger feeling of being on the same team

79

with their partner than did an asynchronous activity. Hamilton et al. (2005) suggested that
enhanced sense of unity within a group can help foster cooperation to attain the shared goals and
consequently improve group performance. Thus, it is possible that strong sense of unity built by
the synchronous activity can contribute to performance improvement.
Previous research found that participants in the synchronous condition (a) felt more
connected with their partner, (b) trusted their partner more, (c) reported greater feelings of being
on the same team, and (d) reported greater satisfaction than did those in the asynchronous
condition (Jones & Wirtz, 2007; Wiltermuth & Heath, 2009). Consistent with the findings from
the previous research, the current study found that a synchronous activity produced a stronger
feeling of being on the same team with their partner than did an asynchronous activity. In
addition to the synchrony effect, individuals in group-focused self-talk also reported higher level
of enjoyment working with their partner compared to the control condition. In light of these
interesting findings, this study provided preliminary support for the effectiveness of synchrony
and group-focused self-talk intervention as team-building strategies in interdepend exercise
contexts.
Interaction Effects
Contrary to the findings from previous research (Brown, 2003; Early, 1999; Wiltermuth
& Heath, 2009), no significant interaction effects were found between self-talk and synchrony,
between self-talk and task types, or between synchrony and task types. It is suggested that in a
dyadic exercise setting, there are no functional advantages of combining self-talk intervention
and synchronous effects in either additive or coactive conditions in increasing one’s exercise
performance, efficacy beliefs, and a sense of unity.

80

Individualistic and Collectivistic Orientations as Covariates
With respect to individualistic and collectivistic orientations, the results of this study did
not support the hypothesis that individual differences on this construct would influence the
impact of self-talk upon performance, self-efficacy and collective efficacy beliefs. Prior studies
in business and organizational domains have found evidence that the extent to which individuals
view themselves as either ‘individualistic’ or ‘collectivistic’ may influence self-efficacy or
collective efficacy perceptions (e.g., Eden & Aviram, 1993; Goddard & Goddard, 2001; Latham
& Budworth, 2006; Oettingen, 1995). However, the present data revealed neither a main effect
for individualism-collectivism nor an interaction effect with self-talk, the possible reasons for
which are discussed in the section on ‘limitations’ within this chapter. Bandura contended that,
“individualism-collectivism orientations must be treated as multifaceted dynamic influences in
explorations of how efficacy beliefs regulate human functioning within independent and
interdependent social systems” (1997, p. 32). Bearing this in mind, future study is warranted that
uses multidimensional approaches (i.e., individual versus cultural levels) to assess individualist
or collectivistic orientations in order to expand our knowledge about the possible relationship
between the individualism-collectivism construct and efficacy beliefs.
Implications and Suggestions for Future Research
In light of the possible effectiveness and convenience with which these techniques may
be implemented, the findings of the present study hold a number of implications for a small
group exercise and sporting activities. First, given that in this study self-talk interventions were
shown to be beneficial with newly-formed dyads, the present findings suggest that when a coach
or instructor is working with inexperienced individuals, assigning them into a pair and adopting
self-talk statements at either the group- or individual-level may promote positive efficacy

81

perceptions, enhanced enjoyment in working together, and enhanced performance. Indeed, by
bringing about performance attainments through the self-talk intervention in the early stages of
team development, it may be possible to indirectly enhance future efficacy perceptions and
consequently enhance exercise adherence.
Second, according to Gammage et al. (2001), roughly 98% of exercisers used self-talk
strategies. Nevertheless, there has been relatively little empirical evidence for the relationship
between self-talk and performance within exercise settings, particularly group contexts. Given
the team-based experimental design of this investigation, the present results would provide
preliminary evidence for group exercise class instructors or trainers that actively employing
motivational self-talk strategies (either “we”-talk or “I”-talk) may yield better performance,
stronger self-efficacy, and greater enjoyment in exercising together. However, given that the use
and type of self-talk strategies may vary depending on type of exercise (i.e., burnout boot camp
versus yoga), group size, or skill level, further investigation is clearly warranted regarding the
characteristics of those individuals who will benefit from specific types of self-talk.
Third, this study provides support for the utility of self-recorded methods of self-talk
(Hamilton, Scott, & MacDougall, 2007; Son et al., 2011), and as such, this type of assisted
intervention may represent a relatively simple aid to team members when developing and
implementing their own self-talk routines. For individuals with little or no experience of self-talk
training, this type of facilitated method may be particularly helpful.
In addition to self-talk strategies, this study provides preliminary support for the
effectiveness of synchrony on performance in interdepend sport and exercise contexts. More
recently, research from various contexts, such as business and education settings, has shown the
effectiveness of synchrony on enhanced sense of unity, cooperation, positive emotional states
82

and suggested that synchrony may enable groups to mitigate the free-ride problem and more
successfully produce a shared group outcome (Haidt et al., 2008; Hove & Risen, 2009; Jones &
Wirtz, 2007; Wiltermuth & Heath, 2009). Given that synchronous activities are very simple and
easy to be administered; further investigation is clearly warranted regarding the effectiveness of
synchrony strategies as a team-building strategy across different characteristics of sport teams
and exercising groups.
Fifth, given that in this study an additive task type was more responsible for performance
improvement than a coactive task type, a coach, a trainer, or an instructor, working with a group
of individuals, should assign them into a pair, which is susceptible to loafing through an additive
task setting, to help them exercise longer. Indeed, Gibson (2001) found that when group-level
goals were set, individuals outperformed and perceived higher level of efficacy beliefs in a small
group setting compared to when individual-focused goals were set. It is interesting to further
investigate whether task characteristics (i.e., level of interdependences) and different levels of
goal-setting training (individual- or group-level) may be beneficial to enhance performance and
exercise adherence.
Limitations
Although the present study makes a number of important theoretical and practical
contributions, there are shortcomings that need to be considered when evaluating the current
findings. First, and perhaps foremost, the teams used in this study were artificially formed by the
researcher as part of the experiment, and as a result team members were largely unfamiliar with
one another in this study. Additionally, since there was no basis on which to form a baseline
judgment of collective efficacy in this task without knowing one’s partner’s capability. Drawing
from this, the extent to which the current findings generalize to more experienced teams is likely

83

limited. Therefore, a logical follow-up to this study would be to examine the impact of grouporiented and individual-oriented self-talk using teams varying in experience and drawn from real
group-exercising classes or exercising buddies. Furthermore, in this study, dyads were used, and
thus, the extent to which the results generalize to the larger size of groups (i.e., 3 or more person
teams) is limited.
Second, in relation to performance, there are a few minor limitations which would be
important to consider in the future studies of this nature. Unlike the first block, participants
performed simultaneously in the second block with their team member and as a result, this
finding may be limited to generalize to a task sequentially performed. Due to the presence of
their partner who was relatively unfamiliar, competitiveness may partly influence their
performance attainment.
Third, with respect to assessing a sense of unity, the third item regarding enjoyment in
working with their partner was measured prior to performing together in the second block. The
baseline collective efficacy was measured with no information on partner’s ability. This could
have created confusion among participants and possibly result in the threat to the validity and
reliability of measure and increased error variance.
Lastly, a final potential limitation of the present investigation involves the rationalization
of individualism/collectivism (i.e. the I/C scale). The data supported the reliability and validity of
the I/C Scale and the validity of the I/C scale as the measurement of individualism-collectivism
has been supported in several cultures such as America, Ireland, and, India (Ramamoorthy &
Carroll, 1998; Romamoorthy et al., 2005; Wagner, 1995). However, Triandis (1995) suggested
that the level of individualism-collectivism was highly specific to the reference-group used in the
instrument. Indeed, as noted by Bandura (2002), “people vary in individualistic and collectivistic

84

social orientations depending on whether the reference group is familial, peer, academic, or
national” (p. 275). Thus, given that the I/C was not specifically developed with interdependent
sport and exercise settings as the frame of reference, it is likely that a sport-specific measure of
this orientation (which has yet to be developed) would have greater capacity for identifying
individualists and collectivists in sport performance domains.
Additionally, research (e.g., Alavi & McCormic, 2004; Earley, 1994; Gibson, 1999)
using individualism-collectivism has found its effects when tasks were conjunctive or highly
interdependent (e.g., team projects which required cooperation and distinguished individual’s
roles within a group, and team outcomes). Knowing only coactive and additive tasks were used
in this study, further investigation is warranted in conjunctive tasks or real sporting tasks.
Conclusion
The results obtained in the present investigation suggest that individual-focused self-talk
is better than group-focused self-talk for persistence tasks that are performed simultaneously
with partner. However, group-focused self-talk and synchrony activities are effective strategies
in enhancing self-efficacy and sense of unity in a dyadic exercising context. Notwithstanding the
limitations outlined above, the findings of this study provide empirical evidence that may be of
particular relevance to practitioners and coaches as they seek to reinforce efficacy perceptions
and enhance performance within interdependent sport and exercise settings. With respect to the
paucity of research implementing self-talk interventions and synchrony as an efficacy-enhancing
technique in a group setting, these findings offer an innovative direction for future investigations
aimed at developing individuals’ efficacy perceptions and sense of unity, and consequently,
improving their performance.

85

APPENDICES

86

Appendix A
The I/C Scale
In this questionnaire, we want to know how strongly you agree or disagree with some
statements. There are no right or wrong answers. If you agree, circle one of the higher
numbers; if you disagree, circle one of the smaller numbers. You can use any number on
the scale depending on how strongly you feel.
Strongly
Disagree

1
2
3
4
5

It annoys me when others perform better than I
do…………….………….………….………….…………...
I prefer to work with others than to work
alone………………………………………..………………
Only those who depend on themselves get ahead in
life……….
Group is more productive when members follow their own
interests and concerns….……..…………..…………..……
In the long run the only person you can count on is
yourself……………………………………………………..

Strongly
Agree

1

2

3

4

5

6 7

1

2

3

4

5

6 7

1

2

3

4

5

6 7

1

2

3

4

5

6 7

1

2

3

4

5

6 7

6

Working with a group is better than working alone..………

1

2

3

4

5

6 7

7

To be superior a person must stand alone…...….………….

1

2

3

4

5

6 7

8

It is important to win …………………….…………..……

1

2

3

4

5

6 7

2

3

4

5

6 7

2

3

4

5

6 7

1

2

3

4

5

6 7

1

2

3

4

5

6 7

1

2

3

4

5

6 7

1

2

3

4

5

6 7

1

2

3

4

5

6 7

1

2

3

4

5

6 7

9
10
11
12
13
14
15

16

A group is more efficient when members do what they
1
think is best rather than what the group wants them to do ..
People should be made aware that if they are going to be
part of a group then they are sometimes going to have to do 1
things they don’t want to do………………………………..
Winning is important in work and games ………..………
If you want to get something done right, you’ve got to do it
yourself…...…………….………….………….……………
A group is more productive when members do what they
want rather than what the group wants……..…………..…
Success more important thing in life…………..…………..
The choice, I would rather do alone where I can work
alone rather than doing a job where I have to work with
others in a group…………………………………………...
People in a group should realize that they sometimes are
going to h have to make sacrifices for the sake of the group
as a whole…………………………………………………..
87

17

What happens to me is my own doing…... ………..………

1

2

3

4

5

6 7

18

People is a group should be willing to make sacrifices for
the sake of group well-being……….………….…………

1

2

3

4

5

6 7

19

Doing your best isn’t enough; it is important to win…….

1

2

3

4

5

6 7

20

A group is most efficient when its members do what they
want to do rather than what the group them to do…….…..

1

2

3

4

5

6 7

88

Appendix B
Efficacy Measures
For this plank abdominal exercise (shown in above), please rate your confidence for
how many seconds that you can hold this exercise:
For example, if you have complete confidence that you can hold this exercise for 40 seconds,
you could circle 10. However, if you are only somewhat confident, you would circle a
number in the mid-range of the scale. And, if you were not at all confident that you could
hold this exercise for 70 seconds, you would circle zero on the scale.

Not
Somewhat
Completely
Confident
Confident
Confident
For 1 minute
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10
For 1 minute and 10 seconds
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10
For 1 minute and 20 seconds
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10
For 1 minute and 30 seconds
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10
For 1 minute and 40 seconds
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10
For 1 minute and 50 seconds
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10
For 2 minutes
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10
For 2 minutes 10 seconds
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10
For 2 minutes 20 seconds
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10
For this plank exercise, please rate your confidence that how many seconds (sum of seconds)
that YOU and YOUR PARTNER can hold this exercise together:
Not
Confident

Somewhat
Confident

Completely
Confident

For 2 minutes

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

For 2 minutes and 20 seconds

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

For 2 minutes and 40 seconds

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

For 3 minutes

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

For 3 minutes and 20 seconds

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

For 3 minutes and 40 seconds

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

For 4 minutes

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

For 4 minutes and 20 seconds

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

For 4 minutes and 40 seconds

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

89

Appendix C
Sense of Unity Scale
How much did you feel you were on the same team with your partner? (Circle)
Not at all
1

2

3

Somewhat
4

5

6

Very much
7

6

Very much
7

6

Very much
7

How much did you think of your partner as a teammate? (Circle)
Not at all
1

2

3

Somewhat
4

5

How much did you enjoy working together with your partner? (Circle)
Not at all
1

2

3

Somewhat
4

90

5

Appendix D
Self-talk Manipulation Check
Did you use as self-talk the statements that you recorded and listened? Yes

No

If yes, were the statements helpful to increase your confidence in your individual
performance?
Not at all
1

Somewhat helpful
2

3

4

5

6

Very helpful
7

8

9

10

And, were the statements helpful to increase your confidence in your team performance?
Not at all
1
2

3

Somewhat helpful
4
5
6

91

7

8

Very helpful
9
10

Appendix E
Demographic Questionnaire
Age:

_______________

Gender (please circle): Male

Female

Do you participate in sport activities, either competitively or socially?
No

Yes

Overall, how would you classify your involvement in these sport activities?
(please circle a category):
Mostly
individual

More
individual
than
team-based

Equal mix
of both

More teambased
than
individual

Mostly
team-based

During the past two weeks, how many total hours have you spent training for sport or
playing sport?
________________
What is your race? (please circle a category)
White/
Caucasian

Black/
African
American

Hispanic

92

Asian/ Pacific
Islander

Arabic/
Middle
Eastern

REFERENCES

93

REFERENCES

Alavi, S. B. & McCormick. (2004). Theoritical and measurement issues for studies of collective
orientation in team contexts. Small Group Research, 35, 111-127.
Allen, M., Jones, M. V., & Sheffield, D. (2009). Attribution, emotion, and collective efficacy in
sports teams. Group Dynamics, 13, 205-217.
Annesi, J. J. (1999). Effects of minimal group promotion on cohesion and exercise adherence.
Small Group Research, 30, 542-557.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Engelwood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Bandura, A. (2002). Social cognitive theory in cultural context. Applied Psychology: An
International Review, 51, 269-290.
Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In F. Pajares & T.C. Urdan
(Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 307-337). Greenwich, CT: Information
Age.
Beauchamp, M. R., Bray, S. R., & Albinson, J. G. (2002). Pre-competition imagery, self-efficacy
and performance in collegiate golfers. Journal of Sports Sciences, 20, 697-705.
Bellah, R. N., Madsen, R., Sullivan, W. M., Swidler, A., & Tipson, S. M. (1985). Habits of the
heart: Individualism and commitment in American life. New York: Harper & Row.
Bloom, G. A. & Todd, M. L. (2011). Current developments in North American sport and
exercise psychology: Team building in sport. Revista Iberoamericana de Psicología del
Ejercicio y el Deporte, 6, 237-249.
Bloom, G. A., Steven, D. E., & Wickwire, T. L. (2003). Expert coaches’ perceptions of
teambuilding. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 15, 129-143.
Burke, S. M., Carron, A. V., Eys, M. A., Ntoumanis, N., & Estabrooks, P. A. (2006). Group
versus individual approach? A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of interventions to
promote physical activity. Sport & Exercise Psychology Review, 2, 13-29.
Campbell, D. T. (1958). Common fate, similarity, and other indices of the status of aggregates of
person as social entities. Behavioural Science, 3, 14–25.
Carron, A. V., Shapcott, K. M., & Burke, S. M. (2007). Group cohesion in sport and exercise. In
M. R. Beauchamp & M. A. Eys, Group dynamics in exercise and sport psychology (pp.
117-139). New York: Routledge.

94

Carron, A. V., Bray, S. R., & Eys, M. A. (2002). Team cohesion and team success in sport.
Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 5, 161-172.
Carron, A. V., Brawley, L. R., & Widmeyer, W. N. (1998). Measurement of cohesion in sport
and exercise. In J. L. Duda (Ed.), Advances in sport and exercise psychology
measurement (pp. 213-226). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.
Carron, A. V., Hausenblas, H. A., & Mack, D. (1996). Social influence and exercise: A metaanalysis. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 18, 1-16.
Carron, A. V. & Spink, S. M. (1995). The group size-cohesion relationship in minimal groups.
Small Group Research, 26, 86-105.
Carron, A. V. & Spink, K. S. (1993). Team building in an exercise settings. The Sport
Psychologist, 7, 8-18.
Cohen, E. E. A., Ejsmond-Frey, R., knight, N., & Dunbar, R. I. M. (2010). Rowers’ high:
Behavioral synchrony is correlated to elevated pain thresholds, Biology Letters, 6, 106108.
Cumming, J., Nordin, S. M., Horton, R., & Reynolds, S. (2006). Examining the direction of
imagery and self-talk on dart throwing performance and self efficacy. The Sport
Psychologist, 20, 257-274.
Earley, P. C. (1994). Self or group? Cultural effects of training on self-efficacy and performance.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 89-117.
Earley, P. C. (1999). Playing follow the leader: Status-determining traits in relation to collective
efficacy across cultures. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 80,
193-212.
Estabrooks, P. A. & Carron, A. V. (1999). Group cohesion in older adult exercisers: Prediction
and intervention effects. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 22, 575-588.
Feltz, D. L., Kerr, N. L., Irwin, B. C. (2011). Buddy up: The Kohler effect applied to health
games. Sport & Exercise Psychology, 33, 506-526.
Feltz, D. L., Short, S. E. & Sullivan P. J. (2008). Self-efficacy in sport. Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics.
Gammage, K. L., Carron, A.V., & Estabrooks, P. A. (2001). Team cohesion and individual
productivity: The influence of the norm for productivity and the identifiability of
individual effort. Small Group Research, 32, 3-18.
Gammage, K. L., Hardy, J., Hall, C. R. (2001). A description of self-talk in exercise. Psychology
of Sport and Exercise, 2, 233-247.

95

George, T. R. (1994). Self-confidence and baseball performance: A causal examination of selfefficacy theory. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 16, 381-399.
Gibson, C .B. (1999). Do they do what they believe they can? Group efficacy beliefs and
effectiveness across tasks and cultures. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 138-152.
Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2004). Collective efficacy beliefs:
Theoretical developments, empirical evidence, and future directions. Educational
Researcher, 33, 3-13.
Goodman, P.S., Ravlin, E. C., & Schminke, M. (1990). Understanding groups in
organizations. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Leadership, participation, and
group behavior (pp. 323-385). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press
Greenless, I. A., Graydon, J. K., & Maynard, I. W. (1999). The impact of collective efficacy
beliefs on effort and persistence in a group task. Journal of Sports Sciences, 17, 151-158.
Haidt, J., Seder, P., & Kesebir, S. (2008). Hive psychology, happiness, and public
policy. Journal of Legal Studies, 37, 133-S156
Hamilton, R. A., Scott, D., & McDougall, M. P. (2007). Assessing the effectiveness of self-talk
interventions on endurance performance. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 19, 226239.
Hamilton, D. L., Sherman, S. J., & Lickel, B. (2005). Perceiving social groups: The importance
of the entitativity continuum. In D. L. Hamilton, Social Cognitions: Key Readings
(pp.405-420). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Hatzigeorgiadis, A., Zourbanos, N., Mpoumpaki, S., & Theodorakis, Y. (2009). Mechanisms
underlying the self-talk-performance relationship: The effects of motivational self-talk on
self-confidence and anxiety. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 10, 186-192.
Hatzigeorgiadis, A., Zourbanos, N., Goltsios, C., & Theodorakis, Y. (2008). Investigating the
functions of self-talk: The effects of motivational self-talk in self-efficacy and
performance in young tennis players. The Sport Psychologist, 22, 458-471.
Hardy, J. (2006). Speaking clearly: A critical review of the self-talk literature. Psychology of
Sport and Exercise, 7, 81-97.
Hardy, J., Oliver, E., & Todd, D. (2008). A framework for the study and application of self-talk
within sport. In S. Mellani, Advances in Applied Sport Psychology : A Review. (pp. 3872). Florence, KY: Routledge.
Heuze, J. P., Raimbault, N., & Fontayne, P. (2006). Relationship between cohesion, collective
efficacy and performance in professional basketball teams: An examination of mediating
effects. Journal of Sports Sciences, 24, 59-68.
Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations. Berkshire, UK: McGraw-Hill.
96

Hove, M. J., & Risen, J. L. (2009). It’s all in the timing: Interpersonal synchrony increases
affiliation. Social Cognition, 27, 949-960.
Jackson, B., Beauchamp, M. R., & Knapp, P. (2007). Relational efficacy beliefs in athlete dyads:
An investigation using actor-partner models. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 29,
170-189.
Jackson, S. V. & Hokowhitu, B. (2002). Sport, tribes, and technology: The New Zealand all
Blacks and the politics of identity. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 28, 125-139.
Johnson, J. M., Hrycaiko, D. W., Johnson, V. G., & Halas, J. M. (2004). Self-talk and female
youth Soccer performance. The Sport Psychologist, 18, 44-59.
Jones, S. M., & Wirtz, J. G. (2007). “Sad monkey see, monkey do”: Nonverbal matching in
emotional support encounters. Communication Studies, 58, 71-86.
Katz-Novon, T. Y. & Erez, M. (2005). When collective- and self-efficacy affect team
performance: The role of task interdependence. Small Group Research, 36, 437-465.
Kimura, M., & Daibo, I. (2006). Interactional synchrony in conversations about emotional
episodes: A measurement by ‘the between participants-pseudosynchrony experimental
paradigm”. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 30, 115-126.
Kozub, S. A., & McDonnell, J. F. (2000). Exploring the relationship between cohesion and
collective efficacy in rugby teams. Journal of Sport Behavior, 23, 120-129.
Kuck, Y. H. & Jun, K. Y. (2012). Hong Myung-boo’s Miracle: The scenario of prepared miracle.
Seoul, South Korea: Jaum & Moum.
Lakens, D. (2010). Movement synchrony and perceived entitativity. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 46, 701-708.
McNeil., W. H. (1995). Keeping together in time: Dance and drill in human history. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press.
Miller, M. (1993). Efficacy strength and performance in competitive swimmers of different skill
levels. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 24, 284-296.
Moritz, S. E., Feltz, D. L., Fahrbach, K. R., & Mack, D. E. (2000). The relationship of selfefficacy measures to sport performance: A meta-analysis review. Research Quarterly for
Exercise and Sport, 71, 280-295.
Myers, N. D., & Feltz, D. L. (2007). From self-efficacy to collective efficacy in sport:
Transitional methodological issues. In G. Tenenbaum & R.C. Eklund (Eds.), Handbook
of Sport Psychology (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons.

97

Oettingen, G. (1995). Cross-cultural perspectives on self-efficacy. In A. Bandura (Ed.), Selfefficacy in changing societies (pp. 149-176). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Oettingen, G., & Zosuls, K. M. (2006). Culture and self-efficacy in adolescents. In F. Pajares &
T.C. Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 245-265). Greenwich, CT:
Information Age.
Oman, R. F. & King, A. C. (1998). Predicting the adoption and maintenance of exercise
participation using self-efficacy and previous exercise participation rates. American
Journal of Health Promotion, 12, 154-61.
Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking individualism and
collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological
Bulletin, 128, 3-72.
Pajares, F. (2002). Overview of Social Cognitive Theory and of Self-Efficacy. Retrieved
September 30, 2010, fromhttp://www.emory.edu/EDUCATION/mfp/eff.html
Paskevich, D. M., Brawley, L. R., Dorsch, K. D., & Widmeyer, W. N. (1999). Relationship
between collective efficacy and team cohesion: Conceptual and measurement issues.
Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 3, 210-222.
Perkos, S., Theodorakis, Y., & Chroni, S. (2002). Enhancing performance and skill acquisition in
novice basketball players with instructional self-talk. The Sport Psychologist, 16, 368–
383.
Radcliffe-Brown, A. R. (1922). The Andaman islanders. New York: Free Press.
Ramamoorthy, N., Gupta, A., Sardessai, R., Flood, P., (2005). Individualism/collectivism and
attitudes towards human resource systems: A comparative study of American, Irish, and
Indian MBA students. International Journal of Human Resource Management 16, 852–
869.
Ramamoorthy, N. & Carroll, S. (1998). Individualism–collectivism orientations and reactions
towards alternative human resource management practices. Human Relations 51, 571–
588.
Ronglan, L. T. (2007). Building and communicating collective efficacy: A season-long in-depth
study of an elite sport team. The Sport Psychologist, 21, 78-93.
Son, V., Jackson, B., Grove, J. R., & Feltz, D. L. (2011). “I am” versus “we are”: Effects of
distinctive variants of self-talk on efficacy beliefs and motor performance. Journal of
Sports Sciences, 29, 1417-1424.
Son, V. (2008). The effects of self-talk on self-efficacy, collective efficacy, and performance
(Master’s thesis).The University of Western Australia, Perth, WA.

98

Spink, K. S. & Carron, A. V., (194). Group cohesion effects in exercise classes. Journal of
Exercise Psychology, 12, 301-311.
Steiner, I. D. (1972). Group process and productivity. New York: Academic Press.
Theodorakis, Y., Hatzigeorgiadis, A., &Zourbanos, N. (2012). Cognitions: Self-talk and
performance. In S. Murphy, The Oxford Handbook of Sport Performance Psychology (pp.
191-212). New York: Oxford University Press.
Theodorakis, Y., Weinberg, R., Natsis, P., Douma, I., &Kazakas, P. (2000). The effects of
motivational and instructional self-talk on improving motor performance. The Sport
Psychologist, 14, 253–271.
Treasure, D. C., Monson, J., & Lox, C. L. (1996). Relationship between self-efficacy, wrestling
performance, and affect prior to competition. The Sport Psychologist, 10, 73-83.
Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism & collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Vacharkulksemsuk, T., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2011). Strangers in sync: Achieving embodied
rapport through shared movements. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
doi:10.101.1016/j.jesp.2011.07.015
Vargas-Tonsing, T. M., & Bartholomew, J. (2006). An Exploratory study of effects of pregame
speeches on team efficacy beliefs. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36, 918-933.
Valdesolo, P., & DeSteno, D. (2011). Synchrony and the social turning of compassion, Emotion,
11, 262-266.
Van Raalte, J. L., Brewer, B. W., Rivera, P. M., & Petitpas, A. J. (1994). The relationship
between observable self-talk and competitive junior tennis players’ match performance.
Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 16, 400–415.
Wagner, J. A. III (2002). Utilitarian and ontological variation in individualism-collectivism.
Research in organizational Behaviors, 24, 301-345.
Wagner, J. A. III (1995). Studies of individualism-collectivism: Effects on cooperation in groups.
Academy of Management Journal, 38, 152-172.
Weinberg, R., Grove, R., & Jackson, A. (1992). Strategies for building self-efficacy in tennis
players: A comparative analysis of Australian and American coaches. The Sport
Psychologist, 6, 3-13.
Wiltermuth, S. S., & Heath, C. (2009). Synchrony and cooperation. Psychological Science, 20,
1-5.
Wise, J. B., & Trunnell, E. P. (2001). The influence of sources of self-efficacy upon efficacy
strength. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 23, 268-280.

99