Eli-‘l‘llf. 2E
. :r-x

Jr...
3: 2.3....
71 5! I.
. 1..

‘.. .nVPiFV
.3.
51.“? 14f .1

.. .53:
.1 I?

7?... X.
uﬁ....v..u..‘ ¢
I013.
2 .

1. Z. a
..:3.:».
. 1:31:
113...:

9‘:
Mum;

.z‘

i
u
.
b
n

2139...“...

12"h\‘§[:VL . i

4.5., s z .2 1.: ..

ti“ ~:,\.I.>)£D‘“\(

: . .. .. 5...}...

.....;.a.1§::.....it !.
x».....i£i) .3-..
ii 1.31:1»...

ll .1.‘\

‘ 3b 5).
'l$02. : 5x 1
ot‘lttoiv)

 

.hl) HENRY-:5: .

 

THES‘S

ERSITY LIBRARIES

|\i\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\il \“\\“‘\“‘l‘ M

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

CHILDREN'S SOURCES OF SELF—EFFICACY , ACCURACY
OF APPRAISAL AND MOTIVATION IN SPORT
SKILLS AND PHYSICAL ACTIVITIES

presented by

Melissa Ann Chase

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for

Doctoral degree in Physical Education and
Exercise Science

 

 

MLJPM

Major professor

Date gm»— 1‘91???

MS U i: an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771

 

a f—*<‘_

 

LESRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

PLACE ll RETURN BOX to remove thin checkout from your record.
TO AVOID F INES return on or baton dot. duo.

  

 
 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE 1

t“‘“‘05 ‘1‘3Wn .
;JU ,1 7 2005 _

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MSU In An Nﬂmotlvo Action/Equal Opportunity lnctttmton
mun-9.1

CHILDREN '8 SOURCES OF SELF-EFFICACY, ACCURACY OF APPRAISAL AND
MOTIVATION IN SPORT SKILLS AND PHYSICAL ACTIVITIES
By
Melissa Ann Chase

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Physical Education and Exercise Science

1995

ABSTRACT
CHILDREN'S SOURCES OF SELF-EFFICACY, ACCURACY OF APPRAISAL AND
MOTIVATION IN SPORT SKILLS AND PHYSICAL ACTIVITIES
By
Melissa Ann Chase

Although research has supported self-efﬁcacy as a common cognitive mechanism for
mediating thought patterns and motivated behavior there is a need for age and gender-
related research in children's formation and utilization of efﬁcacy expectations. The
purpose of this study was to examine age and gender differences in children's sources of
self-efﬁcacy, accuracy of self-appraisal, and motivation in sport skills and physical
activities. This issue was investigated using quantitative and qualitative methodologies. A
total of 289 children (143 girls, 146 boys) were assigned to one of two treatment groups
(high or low self-efﬁcacy). Each group listened to a similar scenario that resulted in
performance failure in a sport skill or physical activity of their choosing. Subjects then
completed measures for intended effort, intended persistence, choice of participation, future
self-efﬁcacy, and sources of self-efﬁcacy. In the quantitative phase, results indicated that
children exposed to the high self-efﬁcacy scenario had higher intended effort, persistence,
and future self-efﬁcacy than children exposed to the low self-efﬁcacy scenario. Children in
the high self-efﬁcacy treatment also chose to participate in the future more frequently than
children in the low self-efﬁcacy treatment. Age differences were found with 8 to 9 year
olds having higher effort and future self-efﬁcacy than 10 to 14 year olds. For sources of
self-efﬁcacy, signiﬁcant others, ability, and effort were found to be important sources of
information. In the qualitative phase, interviews determined that children combine sources
of signiﬁcant others and performance information to form their self—efﬁcacy beliefs. Effort

was found to be a source of efﬁcacy information and a technique to improve performance

and efﬁcacy expectations. Most children set goals and most thought that failure to obtain

their goals would increase their motivation.

Copyright by
MELISSA ANN CHASE
1995

Dedication
To my parents and grandmothers who have always been a

great source of self—efﬁcacy and motivation for me.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would ﬁrst like to acknowledge and thank my advisor Deb Feltz. Deb, thank you for
the experiences you provided me as your research assistant and advisee. I feel prepared
(even efﬁcacious) to handle the responsibilities of an assistant professor next year because
of your help and these experiences. Thank you for caring about me as a student and
individual, for trusting and respecting my opinions and thoughts, and for challenging me to
think things through and work hard. Thanks for being so much fun to be around. I
appreciate all you've done for me and will always be grateful and very proud that you were
my advisor and mentor.

I would like to acknowledge Marty Ewing a member of my doctoral program and
dissertation committee. Marty, I probably took advantage of your "open door" policy more
than most students because I valued your advice, relied on your support, and just enjoyed
our conversations. Thank you for being an advisor, colleague, basketball fanatic (like me),
and friend -- I will miss you next year more than you know.

I would like to thank Carole Ames and Jackie Lemer for serving on my dissertation
committee and sharing their knowledge with me. Their involvement increased my
motivation and the standard of quality for this dissertation.

To Dr. Vern Seefeldt, the YSI faculty, Marianne Oren, and graduate students thank you
for providing a family atmosphere and supportive environment at the ofﬁce. Dr. Seefeldt, I
feel truly fortunate to have worked with you as a research assistant for six years. Your
insight, work ethic, sense of humor, and desire to make a difference in the lives of sport

participants will serve as a standard for academic excellence always.

vi

To Rick, who probably tolerated the most and beneﬁted the least from my experiences
in the doctoral program. I could never thank you enough for all you provided as a partner
and friend. It was an incredible six years of graduate school that I may not have started or
certainly many times survived without you. Thanks for all you taught me about being a
good researcher/teacher/person. To my best friends Kim, Rich, Deanne, Cleo, Penny,
Wendy, and Rhonda thanks for taking care of me during graduate school (I can buy my
own refreshments now) and the unconditional love and support you have always provided.

I'd like to thank the teachers and students who participated in this study and the
graduate students who assisted with data collection: Drew Scales, John Fitzpatrick, Doreen
Espinosa, Anthony Kontos, and Shaine Henert. I would also like to acknowledge some
good friends who graduated before me and taught me how to succeed in many aspects of
graduate life Cathy Lirgg, Tom George, Steve Walk, Keith Chapin, Glenna DeJong, and
Jackie Goodway.

I'd like to acknowledge Karen Hornbecker, our friend who passed away on April let.
Karen was a nurse/retired motorcycle racer. She was not connected in any way to
academics or my dissertation, and yet she had a huge impact on Rick and I and everyone
who knew her. These things I learned from Karen: work hard - keep a sense of humor, be
who you are - people will adjust, and life is unpredictable and short - don't take for granted
that the best people in your life, the really special people, will always be there.

Lastly, I'd like to thank and acknowledge my parents, grandmothers, sister, and
brother-in-law for their support in so many ways and for always instilling in me the belief

that I could achieve my goals.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ..........................................................................

LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................

CHAPTER I:

Research Questions and Hypotheses .................................................

Delimitations ............................................................................

Definitions

Basic Assumptions .....................................................................

Limitations

CHAPTER II:

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Review of Literature ..................................................

Self-Efficacy Theory ...................................................................

Sources of Self-Efficacy ...............................................................

Self-Efficacy and Performance ........................................................

Self-Efficacy and Motivation ..........................................................

Age—Related Differences in Children's Self-Efﬁcacy ...............................

Gender Differences in Children's Self-Efficacy ....................................

Accuracy of Self-Appraisal of Physical Ability .....................................

Summary of Review ...................................................................

CHAPTER III: Method .................................................................

Phase One

Phase Two

Pilot

Study

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

viii

xii

10
11
13
13
l4
14
15
15
16
21
22
28
29
30
32
33
33
45
46

CHAPTER IV: Results and Discussion ..............................................
Phase One ..............................................................................
Phase Two ..............................................................................

CHAPTER V: General Discussion and Future Directions ........................

APPENDD( A: Teacher's Rating of Child's Physical Competence Scale ........

APPENDIX B: Perceived Competence Scale for Children -

Physical Subscale .....................................................

APPENDD( C: Multidimensional Measure of Children's Perceptions of

Control - Physical Subscale .........................................

APPENDD( D: Pre Self-Efﬁcacy for High or Low Efﬁcacy Sport Skill

Question ................................................................

APPENDIX E: Source of Self-Efﬁcacy Information Questionnaire ...............

APPENDIX F: Manipulation Check for Dis-Satisfaction with Performance .....

APPENDDI G: Attribution for Failure Question .....................................

APPENDIX H: Intended Effort, Persistence, Choice to Participate, and

Future Self-Efficacy Questions ......................................

APPENDIX 1: Background Questionnaire ...........................................

APPENDIX J: University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects

Approval Letter ........................................................

APPENDD( K: Cover Letter to Parents and Consent Form ........................

APPENDIX L: Listing of Students for Interviews ..................................

APPENDIX M: Interview Guide .......................................................

APPENDIX N: Summary Table of All Signiﬁcance Tests ..........................

APPENDD( 0: Summary Table for Items that were Eliminated from

Efﬁcacy Source of Information Questionnaire ....................

LIST OF REFERENCES ..................................................................

SPSS Command File for Phase One Data ...............................................

Data from Phase One .......................................................................

48
48
74
87

103

104

106

115
120
120

123
126

127
128
130
136
137

140
141
147

Table 1:

Table 2:

Table 3:

Table 4:

Table 5:

Table 6:

Table 7:

Table 8:

Table 9:

Table 10:

Table 11:

Table 12:

Table 13:

Table 14:

LIST OF TABLES

Design Summary for the Number of Subjects in Treatment Groups

Frequency of Sport Skills or Physical Activities Chosen for Each

Treatment Group ...............................................................

Means and Standard Deviations for Attributions for Failure by

Self-Efﬁcacy Group and Age Group ........................................

Frequency for Choice to Participate by Efﬁcacy Group, Gender,

and Age .........................................................................

Correlations for Effort, Persistence, and Future Self-Efﬁcacy ...........

Means, Standard Deviations, and Standard Discriminate Function
Coefﬁcients for Effort, Persistence, and Future Self-Efﬁcacy by

Self-Efficacy Condition .......................................................

Means, Standard Deviations, Standard Discriminate Function
Coefﬁcients for Effort, Persistence, and Future Self-Efﬁcacy for

Each Age Group ...............................................................

Means and Standard Deviations for Ability and Effort Attributions

for High and Low Self-Efﬁcacy Group by Gender .......................

Means and Standard Deviations for Effort, Persistence, and

Future Self-Efficacy for Girls and Boys ....................................

Means and Standard Deviations for Accuracy of Self-Appraisal,
Student, and Teacher Perception of Ability Scores Within Each Age

Group for Girls and Boys ....................................................

Correlations for Accuracy of Self-Appraisal, Effort, Persistence,

and Future Self-Efficacy ......................................................

Correlations for Student Perception of Ability, Effort, Persistence,

and Future Self-Efficacy ......................................................

Correlations for Accuracy of Self-Appraisal, Internal, External,

and Unknown Control ........................................................

Correlations for Student Perception of Ability, Internal, External,

and Unknown Control ........................................................

34

35

49

53

55

55

56

58

59

62

65

66

66

67

Table 15:

Table 16:

Table 17:

Means and Standard Deviations for Each Item of the Efﬁcacy Source
of Information Questionnaire ................................................. 70

Sources of Self-Efﬁcacy Factor Eigenvalues, Percent of Variance
Accounted For, and Individual Factor Loadings ........................... 71

Means, Standard Deviations, and Standard Discriminate Function
Coefﬁcients for Sources of Self-Efﬁcacy Factors by Gender and Age .. 73

Figure 1:

Figure 2:
Figure 3:

Figure 4:
Figure 5:

Figure 6:
Figure 7:
Figure 8:

Figure 9:

LIST OF FIGURES
Relationship between sources of self-efﬁcacy, efﬁcacy
expectations, and behavior/thought patterns .................................
Self-efﬁcacy group by attribution for failure interaction ...................

Age group by self-efﬁcacy group interaction for attribution for
failure ............................................................................

Choice to participate for each self-efﬁcacy group ...........................

Choice to participate for 13 to 14 year old high and low efﬁcacy
girls and boys ..................................................................

Age by gender interaction for accuracy of self-appraisal ...................
Age by gender interaction for students' perception of ability ..............

The proposed interaction between conception of ability, self-efﬁcacy
beliefs, motivated behavior, and attributions for failure ...................

The results of tested relationships between conception of ability,
self-efﬁcacy beliefs, motivated behavior, and attributions for failure

17
49

51
52

53
61

89

92

CHAPTER I

Introduction

"Among the different aspects of self-knowledge, perhaps none is more inﬂuential in
people's everyday lives than conceptions of their personal efﬁcacy" (Bandura, 1986).
Self-efﬁcacy refers to a judgment about one's capability to successfully perform a task.
Self-efﬁcacy theory (Bandura, 1977, 1986) suggests that efﬁcacy beliefs are a common
cognitive mechanism for mediating one's thought patterns, motivation, and behavior.
Research in a variety of domains has presented evidence that one's perception of ability is
the central mediating construct in achievement behavior (Ericsson, Krampe, & Tesch-
Romen, 1993; Feltz, 1994a; Harter, 1978; Kuhl, 1992; Nicholls, 1984). More speciﬁcally
in the sport and physical activity literature, self-efﬁcacy expectations are not the only
inﬂuence on thoughts and behavior; however, they are consistently found to be an
important and necessary cognitive mechanism.

- (1 Fe rman e Rela i nshi

In the sport and physical activity literature, over 50 studies have investigated the
relationship between self—efﬁcacy and performance, and treatment methods for increasing
efﬁcacy beliefs and performance (Feltz, 1994b). In general, we know that performance
success raises efﬁcacy beliefs and failures tend to lower beliefs. In turn, given that an
individual has the proper incentives and requisite skills, self-efﬁcacy will be a major
determinant of behavior (Bandura, 1977). A person with high self-efﬁcacy will choose to
participate more eagerly, put forth more effort, and persist longer at a task than an
individual with low self-efﬁcacy. Inefﬁcacious people may dwell upon their deﬁciencies
which creates stress and undermines effective use of their abilities (Bandura, 1986).
Individuals with high self-efﬁcacy who experience failure tend to attribute that failure to

lack of effort (a "ﬁxable" state); whereas, individuals with low self-efﬁcacy who

2
experience failure attribute that failure to low ability (a "ﬁxed" capacity) (Bandura, 1990;

Collins, 1982).

Thought patterns (e. g., goals, satisfaction) are also affected by one's level of self-
efﬁcacy. Individuals with high self-efﬁcacy set higher goals and are more committed to
reaching those goals than individuals with low self-efﬁcacy (Bandura & Wood, 1989;
Kanfer, 1990; Locke, Frederick, Lee, & Bobko, 1984). Some research suggests that
when a negative discrepancy between goal and performance occurs and individuals become
dissatisﬁed, those with high self-efﬁcacy will heighten their level of effort and persistence;
whereas, those with self-doubts will give up quickly (Bandura, 1986; Bandura & Cervone,
1983, 1986; Carver & Scheier, 1990).

Bandura and Cervone (1983, 1986) have been the only researchers to test whether self-
evaluative and self-efﬁcacy mechanisms mediate the effects of personal standards on
performance motivation in a physical activity. They suggested that negative discrepancies
between standards and performance would be motivating if one's efﬁcacy expectations
were high. These discrepancies would be discouraging if one's efﬁcacy expectations were
low. In their experiments with college age students performing on an Air-Dyne ergometer,
they found that the higher the self-dissatisfaction and the stronger the perceived self-
efﬁcacy, the greater the subsequent effort (Bandura & Cervone, 1983) and perceived self-
efﬁcacy contributed to motivation at a wide range of discrepancy levels (Bandura &
Cervone, 1986). These studies have not been replicated with subjects of various ages or
with other tasks (e. g., sport tasks of high or low efﬁcacy in which the subject regularly
participates).

MW):

Individuals are believed to gather information about their efﬁcacy beliefs from four
categories of sources: performance accomplishments, vicarious experience, forms of
persuasion, and physiological states (Bandura, 1977). These four categories are not

considered mutually exclusive but rather result from a complex self-persuasion process that

3
relies on cognitive processing of all sources of information. Bandura (1986) has suggested

that past performance accomplishments are the most dependable source of efﬁcacy
information. However, the research has been limited in exploring the sources of
information one uses to determine efﬁcacy beliefs.

Some researchers suggest that there may be other variables, speciﬁc to the task,
situation, or age group that inﬂuence the formation of efﬁcacy beliefs that must be
examined more closely (Bandura, 1986; Schunk 1989). Bandura (1989) has stated that
efﬁcacy information is cognitively appraised by individuals taking into account factors such
as perceived ability, effort expended, task difﬁculty, teacher assistance, and pattern of
success and failure. Schunk's work (1989) has also suggested that how students
cognitively process task cues such as outcome patterns, attributions for success and failure,
teacher aid, content difﬁculty, and peer comparison to form and alter perception of self-
efﬁcacy needs more attention in educational research. In other words, more research is 7
needed on how individuals form achievement—related beliefs from these multiple sources j
and how these beliefs relate to efﬁcacy development (Schunk, 1983). I

Research is also needed on how children of various ages use sources of efﬁcacy
information to form efﬁcacy beliefs. Horn and Hasbrook (1987), outside of the self-
efﬁcacy paradigm, conducted an exploratory study of the criteria children use to evaluate _
their physical competence. They found for their subjects, ages 8 to 14, that younger 1
children relied upon evaluative feedback from adults and older children relied upon peer ,1. ]
comparison. This study used self-report (forced choice) questionnaires to identify sources I
of information which did not allow children to determine their own sources. Therefore, '.
how children combine various sources of information to develop efﬁcacy judgments is still
unknown. 1

- t I ue

Most of the research and ﬁndings regarding the utilization and formation of self-

efﬁcacy beliefs pertain to adults. The literature to date that has used a developmental

4
perspective for studying children's perception of ability and/or efﬁcacy beliefs in sport is

sparse. Weiss and colleagues (Weiss & Bredemeier, 1983; Weiss & Raedeke, 1994) have
been advocating the need for developmentally-based research in psychosocial aspects of
learning, teaching, and coaching in sport for over 10 years. Schunk (1983, 1989, 1991)
and Bandura ( 1986, 1989) continue to state the importance and need for study of self-
efﬁcacy development in children.

In Bandura's (1986) explanation of the development of self-efﬁcacy, he does not
formulate his ideas within the framework of existing developmental cognitive theories.
Instead, he offers that self-referent thought is derived from the child observing the action of
others and the child's experiences with her/his environment. He describes the
developmental analysis of self-efﬁcacy as stages in infancy, when children acquire
language skills, when their social world with peers expands, and during transition from
adolescence to adulthood. Initially, efﬁcacy experiences are centered in the family, but as
children age their involvement with peers has a stronger inﬂuence. School is cited as a
signiﬁcant setting for cultivation and validation of cognitive efﬁcacy. While Bandura has
stated, "with development of cognitive capacities, self-efﬁcacy judgment increasingly
supplants external guidance," his writings have not addressed how children of different
developmental ages develop and utilize efﬁcacy information.

Other theories of child development could be examined to hypothesize how children of
different developmental ages would develop and utilize self-efﬁcacy (Harter, 1978;
Nicholls, 1978; Piaget, 1972). First, Piaget's work suggests that all behavior and thought
are directed toward adapting to the environment. Children often develop and use schemas
to help adapt to changing environmental needs. Sometimes they reshape events of the
world to ﬁt their existing schemas. Piaget referred to this process as assimilation. When
the environment and available schemas cannot be matched, then children alter their schema,
which is referred to as accommodation. How and when children acquire their schemas

depend upon heredity, physical experience, social transmission (education), and

5
equilibrium. These four factors are believed to regulate the stages of cognitive development

in which all children progress. More speciﬁcally, Piaget proposed four major periods of
cognitive development and the approximate age designations: (a) sensorimotor (birth to age
2), (b) preoperational thought (2 to age 7), (c) concrete operations (7 to age 11), and (d)
formal operations (11 to age 15). Piaget's testing and conception of these four periods of
cognitive development do not relate directly to children's development or conception of
their own physical ability. However, these periods could be used to associate and select
ages in which children might differ in their perceptions of efﬁcacy beliefs.

Harter's (1978) theory of competence motivation examined motivation within a
developmental or age-related framework. She suggested that reinforcement, mastery
attempts, perceived competence, and perceived control were important mediators of
competence motivation that would differ in children of different developmental ages. More
speciﬁcally, developmental differences in one's perceived competence should be found in
three different competence domains (physical, social, cognitive). Children 4 to 7 years do
not differentiate competence in each domain clearly; whereas, older children can distinguish
between perceived physical, social, or cognitive competence. Of interest in this study are
children's perceptions of their physical competence. Some developmental differences have
been found in the role of signiﬁcant others as a source of perceived competence. As stated
previously, younger children (8 to 11 years) tend to rely more on the feedback from
parents, teachers or coaches and the outcome of events for sources of information;
whereas, older children (12 to 14 years) rely more on feedback from peers and social
comparisons (Horn & Hasbrook, 1987). Also, as children grow older (Grades 3 to 9) they
move from an intrinsic to extrinsic motivation orientation in their preference for challenge
and mastery. Despite Harter's attention to developmental aspects of competence
motivation, very little research has been conducted to test her theory on children in sport

(Weiss, 1987).

6
Lastly, Nicholl's (1984) work in achievement motivation theory is developmentally

based. He suggests that conceptions of ability, task difﬁculty, and effort will vary in
meaning for children of different cognitive maturity levels. Children 7 to 9 years who
perform tasks of varying difﬁculty will believe that outcome is dependent on how much
effort they put forth. Children ages 10 to 11 are able to partially differentiate conceptions
of effort, ability, and task difﬁculty. They sometimes equate less effort with high ability.
Children 11 and older can differentiate ability and effort. They understand that ability is a
capacity, so that when an individual performs better than a friend and an equal amount of
effort was put forth or performs as well without putting forth much effort, the outcome is
due to higher ability. Nicholl's description of sequential changes in the psychological
structure of children, such as children's conception of ability and effort, provides an
example of the developmental inquiry that is needed with self-efﬁcacy theory. These three
developmental theories provide examples of a conceptual framework in which inferences
about children's development and utilization of self-efﬁcacy at various ages could be
initiated.

The literature identiﬁes middle childhood, ages 8 to 12 years, as important periods of
cognitive growth and maturity differences. Age 8 represents a time of rapid cognitive-
developmental growth. By this age, children begin to process information and use it to
guide subsequent performance. They attend to or process information that indicates low or
high competence on a task (Stipek & Tannatt, 1984). Piaget cites age 8 as a time when
children are able to understand that more than one factor at a time inﬂuences an outcome
and that they are "on the verge of a major advance in logical thought" (Thomas, 1985).
However, children this young perceive effort to be the cause of the outcome, so that equal
effort would mean equal outcome regardless of ability (Nicholls, 1978). Therefore,
children at this stage of development should be able to articulate their perception of their
own ability, yet the accuracy of this perception may not be valid and the basis of their
beliefs unknown.

7
Age 10 is a mid-point developmentally for children to process and evaluate perceptions

of abilities. By age 10 to 11, children begin to differentiate effort and ability so that they
recognize that when outcomes differ though effort is equal, the reason may be due to ability
(Nicholls, 1978). Although also, during this age, they sometimes equate less effort with
high ability. In addition, changes in their interpretation of evaluative feedback has occurred
(Stipek & Tannatt, 1984). Children at this age begin to focus more on the feedback from
peers than signiﬁcant others. Piaget would suggest that children of this age are in the later
stages of concrete operations. Therefore, they are able to recognize that two or more
dimensions of an event will interact to produce an outcome. Also, they begin to understand
the cause of physical events and relationships. These changes seem to be an important step
or stage of development for children in relation to their ability to cognitively appraise and
utilize efﬁcacy information.

Age 13 represents a higher level of cognitive development of perceived ability. These

children typically are able to understand and separate effort from ability and realize that

.__4r-' ’4

ability is capacity (N icholls, 1978). They are likely to be in the formal operations period
where they can imagine the conditions of an event, develop beliefs and draw deductions
about possible outcomes. In addition, by age 13, children are believed to have reached a
more asymptotic level shared with adults than with younger children (Yando, Seitz, &
Zigler, 1978). Therefore, age 13 would characterize an end-point with which children of
younger ages could be compared to study age-related differences in children's self-efﬁcacy.

Accuracy of Self-Appraisal of Physical Ability

An important issue within the study of children's self-efﬁcacy is the accuracy with

,l

which they appraise their own physical ability. Bandura (1986) refers to one's
overestimation of ability as similar to a resilient sense of efﬁcacy. Resilient efﬁcacy
expectations, if not unrealistically exaggerated, can be advantageous (Bandura, 1986). (
However, misjudgment of one's efﬁcacy has consequences. Individuals who overestimate ‘

their ability may try what they cannot succeed and experience needless failures. These

8
faulty experiences may undermine their development of efﬁcacy or, present potentially

dangerous situations that result in injury (Bandura, 1986). Underestimators of their ability
may become self-limiting and restrict the activities that they experience. Therefore, the
degree to which children are accurate in their self-appraisal is important information that
could affect their motivation (choice, effort, and persistence) and future efﬁcacy beliefs.

Research in related areas of age differences in perceived academic competence has
found children's perceptions of their competence declines with age (Benenson & Dweck, .
1986; Stipek, 1981; Stipek & Tannatt, 1984); however, they become more accurate in their
estimates of competence as they grow older (Harter, 1982; Nicholls, 1978). Kaley and :
Cloutier ( 1984) examined the impact of cognitive ability on accuracy of self-efﬁcacy
predictions in children Grades 1, 5, and 9. Using Piaget's theory of cognitive
development, they found that the precision of efﬁcacy predictions improved across
preoperational, concrete, and formal operational levels, with preoperational being less
accurate than the other two. Therefore, they suggested that cognitive competence
inﬂuenced the accuracy of efﬁcacy predictions.

In the physical domain, Horn and Weiss (1991) found that accuracy judgments of
physical competence increased with age, and the criteria used in competency judgments
were related to accuracy levels. Feltz and Brown (1984) found that soccer players, ages 9
to 13, were more accurate in their perceptions of soccer competence as age increased.
However, when Chase, Ewing, Lirgg, and George (1994) examined efﬁcacy expectations
they found that children, ages 9 to 11, tended to drastically overestimate their basketball
shooting efﬁcacy in relation to actual shooting performance, regardless of age.

Perceived control over outcome is also believed to have an impact on determining an
individual's self-efﬁcacy judgment and the accuracy with which they make appraisals. ,
When people believe they have control over the outcome they tend to have higher efﬁcacy I
expectations (Bandura & Wood, 1989; Chase, Lirgg, & Feltz, 1993). Individuals who

perceive they have little control over the outcome have little incentive to work hard (

9
(Bandura, 1986). Weiss and Horn (1990) examined differences in perceptions of control

by gender and accuracy of self-appraisal of physical ability. They found a gender by
accuracy interaction effect that indicated underestimating girls were higher on external
sources of control, than accurate estimating girls. For boys, underestimators were higher
on unknown control than accurate or overestimators but similar on external control. There
were no differences among boys or girls at different accuracy levels for perceptions of
internal control. Differences among girls and boys at different ages in their perceptions of
control and accuracy of self-appraisal of ability have not been investigated.

mum

Most of the early research on gender differences in efﬁcacy or conﬁdence beliefs
suggested that males had higher self-conﬁdence than females in all achievement situations
(Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974). However, research by Lenney ( 1977) suggested that gender
differences in conﬁdence occur only under speciﬁc achievement situations, most notably in
competitive tasks, when ambiguous feedback is given, and/or when the task is male
oriented. In a meta-analysis examining gender differences in self-conﬁdence, Lirgg (1991)
found sex-type of task to be an important variable contributing to those differences. The
more masculine the task the greater conﬁdence difference there was between males and
females, with males having higher conﬁdence.

Several studies have examined gender differences in self-conﬁdence of children
performing various motor tasks and results have been mixed (Chase et al., 1994; Corbin,
Landers, Feltz, & Senior, 1983; Corbin & Nix, 1979; Corbin, Stewart, & Blair, 1981;
Lewko & Ewing, 1980). In Lirgg's (1991) meta-analysis of self-conﬁdence studies, she
contends that use of masculine tasks and differing conﬁdence measures have contributed to
males having higher conﬁdence than females in some situations. When these results were
examined by age she found that self-conﬁdence decreases by age while gender differences
in self-conﬁdence increase. This suggests that in elementary school, boys and girls are

similar in levels of self-conﬁdence; however, by high school, boys have higher conﬁdence

10
than girls. Lirgg warns that these results are hampered by the small number of studies

conducted with children. In the Chase and colleagues study (1994), boys and girls, ages 9
to 11, did not differ in their self-efﬁcacy by gender or by age for a basketball shooting task.
The explanation provided for the lack of gender differences was that basketball was
perceived as a gender "neutral task." One possible explanation for lack of age differences
was the similarity in children's conception of ability at this stage of development, ages 9 to
11. If a wider range of ages had been studied, age and gender differences may have
occurred. In other words, whether girls and boys differ from each other at different ages
and at what age differences may begin requires further study.

In summary, the need for age-related research in children's formation and utilization of
efﬁcacy expectations is apparent. The areas in need of investigation of age and gender
differences are (a) how high and low self-efﬁcacy inﬂuence the relationships among
outcome variables such as attributions, motivation (choice, effort, persistence), and future
self-efﬁcacy expectations; (b) interpretation of the effects of accuracy of self-appraisal on
selection of sources, perceived control, and outcome variables; and (c) identiﬁcation of the
sources of information and if they are combined to form initial efﬁcacy beliefs. The
implications from this information include development of a conceptual working model that
would explain factors which contribute to the utilization of self-efﬁcacy in children,
development of reliable and valid measurement of efﬁcacy beliefs, design of appropriate
teaching/coaching methods and intervention strategies for children at various stages of
cognitive development in physical education and sport.

Statement of the Problem

The purpose of this study was to examine age-related and gender differences in
children's utilization of self-efﬁcacy information when performing a hypothetical sport skill
or physical activity. This issue was investigated using quantitative and qualitative
methodologies. How different levels of self-efﬁcacy inﬂuence attributions, motivation

(choice, effort, persistence), and future self-efﬁcacy expectations following failure and

11
performance dissatisfaction, how perceived control relates to accuracy of self-appraisal of

ability (over-estimation, accurate estimation, under-estimation), and the type of information
children select as sources of information were explored. In addition, using a qualitative
approach, how children combined sources of information to form their efﬁcacy beliefs and
how internal standards (goals) interact with motivation in children of differing levels of
accuracy in self-appraisal of ability were examined.
u ti n H h 3

Due to the exploratory nature of some aspects of this study, research questions were
proposed instead of hypotheses where appropriate. The hypotheses are ﬁrst organized by
the phase in which the data were collected: Phase 1 - Quantitative and Phase 2 - Qualitative.
The quantitative section is grouped into three categories: (a) level of self-efﬁcacy, (b)
accuracy of self-appraisal of ability, and (c) sources of self-efﬁcacy information.
Emil

A. Level of Self-Efficacy

Hypotheses:

1: Children in the high self-efﬁcacy condition will attribute their failure
more often to lack of effort than to lack of ability, whereas; the children in
the low self-efﬁcacy condition will attribute their failure to lack of ability
more often than to lack of effort.

2: Children in the high self-efﬁcacy condition will choose to participate in the
activity more often than children in the low self-efﬁcacy condition.

3: Children in the high self—efﬁcacy condition will report higher intended
persistence, higher intended effort, and higher future self-efﬁcacy
expectations than children in the low self-efﬁcacy condition.

4: Children in age group 8 to 9 will report higher intended
persistence, higher intended effort, and higher future self-efﬁcacy

expectations than children in age groups 10 to 11 and 13 to 14.

12
Males will attribute their failure more often to lack of effort than lack of

ability; whereas, the females will attribute their failure to lack of ability more
often than lack of effort.
Males will report higher intended effort, persistence and future self-efﬁcacy

expectations than females.

BAmmﬂelprmisal

7:

10:

Within each age group, boys will show greater overestimation of ability
than girls.

Children's age will positively correlate with their accuracy of self-appraisal
of physical ability.

Children's accuracy of self-appraisal of physical ability will positively
correlate with intended effort, persistence, and future self-efﬁcacy.
Children's accuracy of self-appraisal of physical ability will positively
correlate with perceived internal control, and negatively correlate with

perceived external control and perceived unknown control.

CWW

Research Questions:

11:

What type of information will children select as important sources in

determining their self-efﬁcacy expectations?

12: Will sources of efﬁcacy information differ by age and gender?

Ehassl

Research Questions:

1 . Do children combine sources of efﬁcacy information to form their expectations?

2. How will internal standards interact with motivation in children of differing levels

of accuracy in self-appraisal of ability?

13
mumitations
Generalizations are limited to children ages 8 to 14 years who attend middle class
elementary and middle schools. Delimitations also include children of ethnic minorities
other than Caucasian and those from geographical areas other than mid-Michigan.
Deﬁnitions
The following terms and operational deﬁnitions are used in this study:
AW - Accuracy was operationalized by how much congruence there
was between students' own perceptions of their ability and their physical education
teacher's perceptions of the student's ability in physical activities. Accuracy was computed
by subtracting the student's perceived competence score from the teachers' rating of actual
competence for the student.
W - Children in the third and ﬁfth grades were the elementary
students involved in this study.
W - Importance was deﬁned as how much students would like to successfully
complete their sport or activity.
WM - Adolescents in the eighth grade were the middle school students
involved in this study.
Motixatjgn - Motivation was operationalized as one's intended effort, intended persistence,
and intended choice to participate at a future date.
W - Perceived competence refers to a perception that one has the
competence and/or ability to master a task.
Scenario - A scenario was a situation and sequence of events that the subjects listened to
and/or read about in their chosen sport or activity. The scenario did not actually occur;
rather, subjects were asked to imagine that it did.
Self—conﬁdence - Sometimes self-conﬁdence is used interchangeably with self-efﬁcacy;
however, self—conﬁdence refers to the strength of the belief and not the direction (Feltz,

1988).

14
Selfifﬁcagy - Self-efﬁcacy refers to a judgment about one's capability to successfully

perform a task. This includes the strength and level of one's beliefs (Bandura, 1986).
E . 3 .0

1. The children answered the questionnaires accurately and honestly.

2. The children were able to imagine that the scenario did occur and effects were
similar to actual performance.

3. The teacher's assessments of student's actual physical competence were reliable
and valid.

I . . .

1 . The amount of contact hours that physical education teachers had with their
students varied among the different schools involved in this study. Therefore, the
accuracy of teacher assessment of student's actual physical competence may have

been affected by lack of contact time or differences among teachers.

CHAPTER TWO

Review of Literature

The conceptualization for this study was developed from the theoretical framework of
self-efﬁcacy (Bandura, 1977, 1986). This chapter presents an overview of self-efﬁcacy
theory that includes (a) the sources of self—efﬁcacy, (b) the relationship between
performance and self-efﬁcacy, (c) the relationship between motivation and self-efﬁcacy, (d)
attributions for failure, (e) age—related and gender issues with self-efﬁcacy, and (f) accuracy
issues for children's self-appraisal of physical ability.

MW

Self-efﬁcacy theory was originally developed from Bandura's work (1977, 1986) in
social cognitive theory. He proposed that self-referent thought mediates the relationship
between knowledge and behavior. Therefore, how individuals evaluated their capabilities
and their self-percepts of efﬁcacy would affect their motivation and performance. Self-
efﬁcacy is deﬁned by Bandura as a judgment about one's capability to successfully perform
a task at given levels. Efﬁcacy is not just knowing what behavior is appropriate; rather, it
involves organizing cognitive, social, and behavioral subskills and strategies into action.
This suggests that judgments are not based on what those skills are; rather, they are based
on what one can do with whatever skills one possesses. Efﬁcacy expectations should not
be confused with outcome expectations. Outcome expectations reﬂect a belief about a
likely consequence of a behavior (e. g., recognition, rewards, self-satisfaction). An
important distinction between efﬁcacy expectations and outcome expectations is that people
can believe that if they behave in a certain manner it will produce a desired outcome;
however, whether they actually execute that behavior will be more dependent upon their
belief of being capable than their belief regarding the expected outcome (Bandura, 1986).

Bandura (1986) proposes that self-efﬁcacy beliefs contribute to psychosocial behavior

in distinct ways. These beliefs will inﬂuence how people behave, their thought patterns,

15

16
and emotional reactions in various situations. People will avoid situations in which they

believe they are not capable of handling. Their level of efﬁcacy will determine how much
effort they put forth and how long they persist in the face of failure. Thoughts and
emotional reactions are affected by one's efﬁcacy in regards to stress, attentional demands,
and effort. People with high self-efﬁcacy can focus their attention on the task at hand and
expend more effort than people with low efﬁcacy who may be stressed and tend to divert
attention from possible solutions. Bandura cautions that efﬁcacy judgments are believed to
be a major determinant of behavior only when requisite skills and proper incentives are
present.
WW

Bandura (1986) suggests there are four sources of efﬁcacy information: past
performance, vicarious experience, verbal persuasion, and physiological/emotional states.
These four sources inﬂuence one's efﬁcacy expectations which, in turn, inﬂuence one's
behavior patterns (e.g., choice, effort, persistence) and thought patterns (e.g., goals,
worry, attributions) (See Figure 1). Individuals may depend upon one or more of these
sources to form their efﬁcacy expectations. The cognitive processing of efﬁcacy
information involves (a) determining the types of information people attend to and use, and
(b) the combination rules or heuristics they use for weighting and integrating various

efﬁcacy information.

 

Performance
accomplishments

 

 

 

Vicarious
experiences

 

 

 

Verbal
persuasion

 

 

 

Physiological
states

 

 

l7

 

 

Behavior
Patterns

> Choice
> Effort
> Persistence

 

Efﬁcacy

Expectations

 

 

 

Thought
Patterns

> Goals
> Worry
> Attributions

 

13182111- Relationship between sources of self-efﬁcacy, efﬁcacy expectations, and

behavior/thought patterns (Feltz, 1994a).

We; Sources of past performance are based upon one's mastery

experiences or accomplishments. This source is believed to be the most inﬂuential.

Typically, if past performances are successful, efﬁcacy expectations will increase; if

performances are unsuccessful, efﬁcacy expectations will lower. Bandura (1982) has also

stated that difﬁculty of tasks, temporal pattern of success and failure, amount of effort

expended, and amount of physical guidance received will affect performance experiences

and efﬁcacy value.

W This source of information involves observation and

comparison of other's performance on a task. Visualizing or watching other people

perform successfully can increase self-efﬁcacy, while seeing others perform unsuccessfully

can lower expectations. These modeling effects are more potent when one is similar to the

 

 

1 8
model. Self-efﬁcacy can also be evaluated by making social comparisons in terms of

other's performance. While vicarious experiences are believed to be weaker than
performance accomplishments, they can be an inﬂuential source. For example, when
people are persuaded that they are inefﬁcacious vicariously they may behave in ways that
conﬁrm this belief.

lemma, Verbal persuasion is usually found in the form of feedback or
persuasive techniques from signiﬁcant others (e. g., teachers, parents, coaches, peers).
Bandura (1986) states that it is more difﬁcult to raise efﬁcacy beliefs with this source than it
is to lower beliefs. Verbal messages directed toward performance must be realistic and the
extent of the inﬂuence will depend upon the credibility and trustworthiness of the person
providing the message.

WW Information from this source is the result of
cognitive appraisal of a physiological condition or state. These states include autonomic
arousal, levels of pain, fatigue, fear, and stress. Typically, negative physiological states
will lower efﬁcacy expectations and positive states or the absence of negative states will
increase efﬁcacy expectations. Level and quality of these states must be evaluated and
interpreted individually.

Several researchers have suggested that past performance is the most dependable source
of efﬁcacy information (Bandura, 1986; Feltz, 1992). However, the research in sport and
physical activities has been limited in exploring the sources of information one uses to
determine efﬁcacy beliefs. Only two studies have directly examined sources of self—
efﬁcacy. Feltz and Riessinger (1990) were the ﬁrst to examine directly and in an open-
ended manner people’s sources of their self-efﬁcacy beliefs. In this study, researchers
found that for self-efﬁcacy beliefs, 86% of the subjects based their initial perceptions on
their own past performance and abilities. The percentages for the other sources of
information were 9% based on physiological states, 8% based on persuasions, and 1.5%

on vicarious information.

19
Chase and her colleagues (Chase, Feltz, Tully, & Lirgg, 1994) examined sources of

self and collective efﬁcacy in women collegiate basketball players. Players identiﬁed their
sources of efﬁcacy expectations prior to 12 basketball games. Results indicated that past
performance was the most selected source of self-efﬁcacy information (48%) followed by
physiological/emotional sources (35%), other sources outside of basketball (9%),
vicarious/social comparison (4%), and verbal persuasion (3%). For past performance
sources, players chose practice situations more often than game situations. In addition,
24% of the total comments were coded as consisting of a combination of multiple sources.
Most of the multiple source comments contained a reference to a past performance;
however, the combination of sources was varied for individual efﬁcacy and did not
represent any particular pattern.

These two studies seem to support Bandura's contention that performance
accomplishments are the most salient source of efﬁcacy information, at least for adults.
Generalizations cannot be made to children and these ﬁndings may not accurately represent
the complex cognitive appraisal of information. The processing of information is believed
to involve two dimensions. The two studies reviewed have examined the ﬁrst dimension
by determining the types of information people attend to and use. To expand our
knowledge in this area we must also investigate the second dimension which is the
combination rules or heuristics individuals of all ages employ for integrating various
efﬁcacy information. Research in sources of other self-perceptions may be helpful in the
search for new knowledge on sources of self-efﬁcacy.
WWW

Some research has been conducted with children to gather information about their
sources of perceived physical competence (Horn & Hasbrook, 1987; Horn & Weiss,
1991). Horn and Hasbrook (1987) examined the criteria children use to evaluate their
perceived physical competence. A Sport Competence Information Scale (SCIS) was

developed and used to collect sources of perceived physical competence. This scale asked

20
children to indicate on a 5-point Likert scale how important 48 sources were in deciding

how competent they were in sports. They found for their subjects, ages 8 to 14 years, that
younger children relied upon evaluative feedback from adults and older children relied upon
peer comparison. Weaknesses of this study were the use of a self-report (forced choice)
questionnaire that did not allow children to determine their own sources and the use of a
questionnaire that may be too lengthy for children (48 items).

Horn and Weiss (1991) replicated Horn and Hasbrook's (1987) study with children 8
to 13 years of age. One purpose of this study was to test for age differences in the sources
children select for self-assessment. Using a revised version of the SCIS, the Physical
Competence Information Scale (PCIS) measured children's rating of importance for 30
informational sources. Factor analysis found six factors: Competitive Outcomes, Self-
Comparison, Parental Feedback/Sport Attraction, Teacher-Coach Feedback, Peer
Comparison/Evaluation, and Affect for Learning. Results indicated that children under 10
years utilized evaluative feedback from parents and sport attraction more than did children
over 10 years. Children 10 to 13 years depended more upon peer comparison than did
younger children. These ﬁndings were similar to earlier ﬁndings by Horn and Hasbrook
( 1987).

While the research in sources of perceived physical competence has been conducted
with children, it still does not examine the combination or heuristics children use to
determine their perception of competence. In addition, the use of a forced choice
questionnaire with pre-selected items assumes that all possible sources are included on the
questionnaire. It is possible that some sources were omitted. An alternative method for
collecting sources of physical competence and/or self-efﬁcacy would be a combination of
questionnaires to identify types of information and interviews with children to identify

additional sources and how they might combine sources to form their beliefs.

2 1
Wang:

Bandura's 1977 article has been the foundation for much of the research on the
relationship between self-efﬁcacy and performance in sport and physical activities. His
initial theorizing to explain and predict psychological changes and coping behaviors have
been applied to the physical domain to explain and predict motor performance. Many of the
ﬁrst studies examined treatment effects for enhancing self—efﬁcacy and performance and
were correlational in nature (Feltz, Landers, & Raeder, 1979; Weinberg, Gould, &
Jackson, 1979). Feltz and colleagues (1979) examined the effectiveness of using
participant modeling versus live or videotaped modeling when attempting a modiﬁed back
dive into a swimming pool. They found that participant modeling was more conducive to
producing successful dives and higher self-efﬁcacy than live modeling or video-taped
modeling. Weinberg and colleagues ( 1979) induced high or low self-efﬁcacy in their
subjects and then had them compete in a muscular endurance task against a confederate.
They found that higher self-efﬁcacy produced longer muscular endurance than low self-
efﬁcacy. Numerous studies since have found similar results when employing techniques
of modeling (George, Feltz, & Chase, 1992; Gould & Weiss, 1981; Lirgg & Feltz, 1991,
McAuley, 1985), social comparison (Feltz & Riessinger, 1990; Weinberg, et al., 1981),
and performance accomplishments (Brody, Hatﬁeld, & Spalding, 1988; McAuley, 1985;
Weinberg, Sinardi, & Jackson, 1982). While these studies were able to show that self-
efﬁcacy and performance were positively related, it was not until path analysis techniques
were employed that causal inferences could be made.

Bandura (1977) proposed a reciprocal relationship between self-efﬁcacy and
performance. Feltz (1982) was the ﬁrst to utilize path analysis to test the causal
relationships. Using the same diving task as Feltz and her colleagues (1979), Feltz tested
the relationship between self-efﬁcacy, anxiety, and the back-dive approach performance
with college-aged adults. She found that self-efﬁcacy was the major predictor of diving

performance but only on the ﬁrst dive. The major predictor for the subsequent trials was -. t 1‘ ’

22
previous dive performance. Therefore, Feltz proposed a re-speciﬁed model in which past

performance and self-efﬁcacy were predictors of performance. She has since supported
these ﬁndings in similar research with other samples (Feltz, 1988a; Feltz & Mungo, 1983).

McAuley (1985) also tested the relationship among self—efﬁcacy, anxiety, and
performance using path analysis. He tested female undergraduate students on a forward
roll mount onto a balance beam. Subjects were assigned to an aided participant modeling
group, unaided participant modeling group, or control group. McAuley concluded that
both modeling groups had higher self-efﬁcacy and performance than the control group.
The proposed self-efﬁcacy model and anxiety-based model did not ﬁt the data, although
self-efﬁcacy was a signiﬁcant predictor of performance. The author suggested that self-
efﬁcacy was an inﬂuential determinant; however, other factors may be impacting
performance.

The results of studies over the past 18 years have consistently found that self-efﬁcacy is

an essential and meaningful cognitive mechanism in predicting, explaining, and describing q ,

performance whether in laboratory or competitive sport situations. Self-efﬁcacy theory
also states that efﬁcacy expectations affect thought patterns and performance motivation.
The research on the relationship between self—efﬁcacy and motivation has not been as
extensive.
Solf-Efﬁoaoy go Motivation

Bandura (1977, 1986) has described the relationship between self-efﬁcacy and
motivation as positive. Deﬁning motivation as choice, effort, and persistence, a person
with high self-efﬁcacy will choose to participate more eagerly, put forth more effort, and
persist longer at a task than an individual with low self-efﬁcacy. In the study of
motivation, goal intentions and causal attributions are also believed to inﬂuence, and be
inﬂuenced by self-efﬁcacy. Research by Kanfer (1990) suggests that motivation is derived
from goal choice and self-regulation. Self-regulation is composed of self-monitoring

information about one's performance, self-evaluation of this performance in relation to

.J
r \V. ,_.
Li

23
one's goal, and self-reaction with respect to a satisfaction or dissatisfaction with

performance and self-conﬁdence beliefs that result. As with Bandura's work, Kanfer
includes goal setting and causal attributions in her framework of motivation. The following
sections address motivation and self-efﬁcacy research in sport and physical activities,
satisfaction and dissatisfaction when performance discrepancies occur, goal setting, and
causal attributions.

l - n iv ti n ' rt sic 'vitie

In the sport and physical activity literature, motivation has been deﬁned as "the
direction and intensity of effort" (Gill, 1986). However, within the sport psychology
literature, the study of motivation has been more complex (Weiss, 1992). The research in
motivation has typically studied motivation as an individual difference that can inﬂuence
people's behavior. Some of these individual differences include participation motives,
intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation, and achievement goal orientations. Secondly,
motivation has been studied as a dependent measure. From this viewpoint and the
perspective of this study, motivation has been measured as people's choice, effort, and
persistence.

Research in sport and physical activities has examined the relationship between
motivation and people's level of self-efﬁcacy. Feltz's work (Feltz, 1982, 1988a; Feltz &
Mungo, 1983) has examined self-efﬁcacy and motivation in terms of one's choice to
attempt a motor skill. As reported in a previous section, she found that in terms of an
approach/avoidance to a back diving task, efﬁcacy expectations were the major predictor of
performance only for the ﬁrst attempt. After the ﬁrst dive, previous performance was the
better predictor of the next approach/avoidance to the task than was self-efﬁcacy.

Some research has examined persistence as measured by muscular endurance (George,
et al., 1992; Gould & Weiss, 1981; Weinberg, et al., 1979). These studies found the

higher the self-efﬁcacy, the greater the muscular endurance.

24
In more recent work by Chase, Feltz, and Fitzpatrick (1995), persistence was measured

as people's willingness to attempt optional trials at a motor task. In this study, self-efﬁcacy
was manipulated by varying the temporal pattern and quantity of success and failure
feedback. Results indicated that subjects would persist longer when their efﬁcacy
expectations were higher as a result of early failure and late success feedback.

This review of the literature regarding how self-efﬁcacy inﬂuences motivation (choice,
effort, persistence) demonstrates that much more research is needed. There has been little
research conducted in the physical domain that directly examines self-efﬁcacy and effort
expended or choice to participate. And, this limited amount of research does not include
children.

i f ' f Discr i rf

When an individual's internal standard and performance does not match, a discrepancy
occurs. Whether this discrepancy serves as a motivator to increase effort is partly
inﬂuenced by the person’s satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the performance and their
self-efﬁcacy. People with high self-efﬁcacy will increase their effort and persistence in the
face of a negative discrepancy between performance and the performance goal (Bandura,
1986). Individuals readjust their goals only if the discrepancy is too large. People with
low self-efﬁcacy may lose motivation and discontinue participation. When the performance
exceeds the goal and a positive discrepancy occurs, there will be an increase in self-
efﬁcacy. People will tend to set future goals above the previous performance. Research
suggests that when a negative discrepancy between goal and performance occurs and
individuals become dissatisﬁed, those with high self-efﬁcacy will heighten their level of *
effort and persistence; whereas, those with self-doubts will give up quickly (Bandura,

1986; Bandura & Cervone, 1983, 1986; Carver & Scheier, 1990).

Bandura and Cervone (1983, 1986) have been the only researchers to test whether self-

evaluative and self-efﬁcacy mechanisms mediate the effects of personal standards on

performance motivation in a physical activity. They explored whether negative

25
discrepancies between standards and performance would be motivating if one's efﬁcacy

expectations were high and if these discrepancies would be discouraging if one's efﬁcacy
expectations were low. Subjects were college age males and females. They were assigned
to groups of goals and feedback, goals alone, feedback alone, or neither goals or feedback.
Different goal levels and performance improvement percentages were given to subjects.
Effort was measured by subjects' performance on an Air-Dyne ergometer. Results
indicated that the higher the self-dissatisfaction and the stronger the perceived self-efﬁcacy,
the greater the subsequent effort (Bandura & Cervone, 1983) and perceived self-efﬁcacy
contributed to motivation at a wide range of discrepancy levels (Bandura & Cervone,
1986). Future research should examine these relationships with subjects of various ages
and with other sports and activities.

t 'n Motivatio

Thought patterns (e.g., goals) are also affected by one's level of self-efﬁcacy.
Individuals with high self-efﬁcacy set higher goals and are more committed to reaching
those goals than individual's with low self—efﬁcacy (Bandura & Wood, 1989; Kanfer,
1990; Locke, et al., 1984). Setting and obtaining speciﬁc, difﬁcult, and proximal goals are
believed to enhance self-efﬁcacy (Bandura & Schunk, 1981). The type of task could also
mediate this relationship depending upon the attentional demand of the task. Complex
tasks that require high levels of attention may not beneﬁt from setting goals as much as
simple tasks (Kanfer & Ackerrnan, 1989).

Researchers in industrial and organizational psychology have found a positive
relationship between goals, effort, and performance. Research completed by Locke and his
colleagues (Locke, Shaw, Saari, & Latham, 1981) have found that speciﬁc goals elicited
better performance than no goals or do your best goals. In general, they suggest that goal-
setting can enhance performance and level of effort.

In a study by Campion and Lord (1982), researchers examined why goal-setting works

and the relationship between goals and subsequent performance. They examined how

26
goal-setting, test performance, effort, and performance discrepancy were related. One

hundred and eighty-eight college students rated their goal for the course, goal for each
weekly exam, and the effort put into studying. They were given the results of each exam
and the opportunity to readjust their goal prior to the next exam. Results indicated that
failure was associated with increases in effort and goal levels were inﬂuenced by the
frequency and magnitude of failures. Behavioral responses, such as increased effort,
occurred faster than cognitive change, such as lowering the goal.

Research supports the positive relationship between goals and performance; however, a
measure of self-efﬁcacy beliefs has rarely been included. The self-efﬁcacy literature
suggests that efﬁcacy expectations inﬂuence goal-setting and mediate the relationship
between goal intentions and motivation (Bandura, 1986). This area of self-efﬁcacy
research is untested with children, in sport and physical activities.

9 .1 .

Bandura (1986) states there is a reciprocal relationship between causal attributions and
self-efﬁcacy expectations. Bandura suggests that individuals with high self-efﬁcacy who
experience failure tend to attribute that failure to lack of effort; whereas, individuals with
low self-efﬁcacy who experience failure attribute that failure to low ability (Bandura, 1990;
Collins, 1982). In turn, success will increase self-efﬁcacy if the attribution is due to ability
rather than luck. Failure can result if attributions for previous failures are thought to be due
to lack of ability rather than low effort or bad luck.

In some of the early research with self-efﬁcacy and causal attributions, Collins (1982)
found that children with high self-efﬁcacy did attribute their failure to insufﬁcient effort;
whereas, children with low self-efﬁcacy attributed their failure to lack of ability. Schunk
and Gunn (1984) examined how children's self-efﬁcacy and math skills were inﬂuenced by
their attributions for success. In a path analysis, they found that self-efﬁcacy determined

causal attributions and mediated their effects upon math problem solving. The authors

27
concluded that children with high efﬁcacy expectations attribute success to ability and

ability attributions affected performance indirectly through efﬁcacy expectations.

Duncan and McAuley (1987) studied the relationship between self-efﬁcacy and causal
attributions in a competitive sport setting. Male and female college age students were
assigned to one of four treatment groups: (a) high efﬁcacy and success, (b) low efﬁcacy
and failure, (c) high efﬁcacy and failure, and (d) low efﬁcacy and success. Subjects made
attributions for their performance on a bicycle ergometer. Results indicated there were no
differences in attributions among high and low self-efﬁcacy groups. A possible
explanation for these ﬁndings was that testing occurred in a laboratory situation rather than
a natural sport or exercise setting. The authors suggest that personal investment in the
activity is important and may have inﬂuenced the relationship between efﬁcacy expectations
and attributions.

Only a few studies have examined children's causal attributions for performance in a
sport situation (Bird & Williams, 1980; Bukowski & Moore, 1980; Weiss, McAuley,
Ebbeck, & Wiese, 1990). Bird and Williams (1980) examined age differences in 7 to 18
year old children. They found that 7 to 9 year olds attributed success mainly to effort and
luck. Children 10 to 15 years attributed performance to effort; whereas, 16 to 18 year old
males attributed performance to effort and females of this age attributed performance to
luck. Bukowski and Moore (1980) investigated perceived causes for success and failure
among boys 7 to 16 years of age. They found that attributions for luck and task difﬁculty
had little importance for boys. Ability was found as an important attribute only for success;
whereas, effort was viewed as important for success and failure. Weiss and her colleagues
(1990) explored the relationship between children's self-esteem and attributions. While
this study is one of the few to examine age differences, causal attributions were
operationalized as locus of causality, stability, and controllability. So results did not

address speciﬁc attributions of ability, effort, luck, or task difﬁculty.

28
In the sport and physical activity literature it would be beneﬁcial to further investigate

the relationships proposed by Bandura (1977, 1986) for self-efﬁcacy and attributions for
success and failure. Collins (1982) and Schunk and Gunn (1984) have provided an
example of how these relationships might be explored with children. Now we must apply
this model to the physical domain.

_ . r . . , _

Bandura (1986) did not formulate his theory of self-efﬁcacy within the framework of
existing developmental cognitive theories and his writings have not addressed how children
of different ages develop and utilize efﬁcacy information. Very few studies have been
conducted to examine self-efﬁcacy in children in sport and physical activities (Chase, et al.,
1994; Lee, 1982; Lirgg & Feltz, 1991). Lee examined self-efﬁcacy as a predictor of
gymnastic performance in girls 7 to 12 years old. She found that the coach's expectations
were the most accurate predictor of performance, with the athlete's efﬁcacy expectations
being more accurate than previous performance. While Lee's study involved children, she
did not examine age differences in self-efﬁcacy expectations.

Lirgg and Feltz's study examined modeling effects on motor performance and self-
efﬁcacy in sixth grade girls. The purpose of this study was to contrast modeling effects of
model type and model skill. They found that model skill rather than model status was more
salient for their subjects. Subjects who watched a skilled model performed better and had
higher self—efﬁcacy than the subjects who watched an unskilled model or no model. This
study did not examine age differences.

The purpose of the Chase et al. (1994) study was to examine the effects of modiﬁcation
of basketball size and basket height on shooting performance and self-efﬁcacy of girls and
boys 9 to 11 years of age. Results indicated that boys and girls did not differ in their self-
efﬁcacy by age for a basketball shooting task. One possible explanation for lack of age
differences was the similarity in children's conception of ability at this stage of

development, ages 9 to 11. If a wider range of ages had been studied, age differences may

29
have occurred. The authors suggested that whether girls and boys differ from each other at

different ages and at what age differences may begin requires further study.
' f r n ' ° ' - 1

The initial research on gender differences in self-conﬁdence stated that males had higher
self-conﬁdence than females in all achievement situations (Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974).
Then Lenney (1977) suggested that gender differences in self-conﬁdence were due to
speciﬁc achievement situations: when tasks were competitive, when ambiguous feedback
was given, and/or when the task was sex-typed as male or masculine. To examine gender
differences, Lirgg (1991) conducted a meta-analysis examining research in self-conﬁdence
and sport. She found sex-type of task to be an important variable contributing to those
differences. The more masculine the task the greater conﬁdence difference there was
between males and females, with males having higher conﬁdence.

Several studies have examined gender differences in self-conﬁdence of children
performing various motor tasks (Corbin, et al., 1983; Corbin & Nix, 1979; Corbin, et al.;
Lewko & Ewing, 1980). These studies have found mixed results. In Lirgg's (1991) meta-
analysis of self-conﬁdence studies, she found that when studies incorporated masculine
tasks, this contributed to males having higher conﬁdence than females in some situations.
When these results were examined by age she found that self-conﬁdence decreased by age
while gender differences in self-conﬁdence increased. This suggests that boys and girls in
elementary school are similar in levels of self-conﬁdence; however, boys have higher
conﬁdence than girls when they are in high school. Lirgg suggested that these results be
interpreted with caution because studies were conducted with small samples of children.

In the Chase et a1. study (1994), perceptions of competence were assessed as self-
efﬁcacy. Results indicated that boys and girls did not differ in their self-efﬁcacy by gender
for a basketball shooting task. The explanation provided for the lack of gender differences

was that basketball was perceived as a gender "neutral task." The authors recommended

30
that gender differences in self-efﬁcacy be examined with other sports and physical

activities.
3 [Elf-5 'IEEI . I!”

The accuracy with which people assess their own physical ability can inﬂuence future
behavior. Bandura (1986) states that overestimation of ability, if not unrealistically
exaggerated, can be advantageous. However, individuals who continually overestimate
their ability may try what they cannot succeed and experience repeated failures. These
failure experiences may undermine their development of self-efﬁcacy. Or, overestimation
may lead to participation in potentially dangerous situations that the individual is not
equipped to handle, which may result in injury (Bandura, 1986). Underestimators of their
ability may restrict the activities that they experience because they lack the efﬁcacy to
attempt skills. Therefore, the degree to which children are accurate in their self-appraisal is
important information that will affect their motivation (choice, effort, and persistence) and
future efﬁcacy beliefs.

Research in perceptions of academic competence has found that as children age they
become more accurate in their estimates of competence (Benenson & Dweck, 1986; Harter,
1982; Nicholls, 1978; Stipek, 1981; Stipek & Tannatt, 1984). One study has examined the
accuracy of efﬁcacy expectations. Kaley and Cloutier (1984), using Piaget's theory of
cognitive development, examined the impact of cognitive ability on accuracy of self-
efﬁcacy predictions in children in Grades 1, 5, and 9. They found that the precision of
efﬁcacy predictions improved across preoperational, concrete, and formal operational
levels, with preoperational being less accurate than the other two. Therefore, they
suggested that level of cognitive competence inﬂuenced the accuracy of efﬁcacy
predictions.

In the physical domain, Horn and Weiss (1991) examined children's ability judgments,
ages 8 to 13 years. They found that accuracy judgments of physical competence increased

with age, and the criteria used in competency judgments were related to accuracy levels.

3 1
Feltz and Brown (1984) investigated the accuracy of perception of competence in soccer

players, ages 9 to 13 years. They found that children were more accurate in their
perceptions of soccer competence as age increased. However, when Chase and her
colleagues (1994) examined basketball shooting efﬁcacy in children, ages 9 to 11, they
found no age differences. The children in their study tended to drastically overestimate
their basketball shooting efﬁcacy in relation to actual shooting performance, regardless of
age.

Weiss and Horn (1990) explored whether children who varied in their accuracy of
physical competence would differ in achievement characteristics. Children were classiﬁed
as over estimators, accurate estimators, or under estimators based upon differences in the
children's own estimate of physical competence subtracted from the teacher's estimate of
the child's physical competence. Harter's (1982) Perceived Competence Scale for Children
and the Teacher's Rating of Child's Actual Competence were used for the accuracy rating.
Perception of control, motivation orientation, and anxiety were also assessed. Results
indicated there was a gender by accuracy interaction. Underestimating girls had lower
challenge motivation and higher trait anxiety than girls who were over or accurate
estimators. They authors concluded that underestimating girls may potentially drop out of
sport activities more so than accurate or over estimating girls.

Perceived control over outcome is also believed to have an impact on determining an .
individual's self-efﬁcacy judgment and the accuracy with which they make appraisals.
When people believe they have control over the outcome they tend to have higher efﬁcacy
expectations (Bandura & Wood, 1989; Chase, et al., 1993). Individuals who perceive they
have little control over the outcome have little incentive to work hard (Bandura, 1986).
Weiss and Horn (1990) also examined differences in perceptions of control by gender and
accuracy of self-appraisal of physical ability. They found a gender by accuracy interaction
effect that indicated underestimating girls were higher on external sources of control than

accurate estimating girls. For boys, underestimators were higher on unknown control than

32
accurate or overestimators but similar on external control. There were no differences

among boys or girls at different accuracy levels for perceptions of internal control.
Differences among girls and boys at different ages in their perceptions of control and
accuracy of self-appraisal of ability have not been investigated.

Srrrnmmﬂiuim

Clearly, more research with children is needed in order to explain, describe, and predict
the relationship between self-efﬁcacy and performance and/or motivation as it pertains to
speciﬁc ages. Too often in the sport and physical activity literature children are assumed to
take-on the characteristics of adults in their perceptions, actions, and performance
capabilities. Research must demonstrate if differences are present, when they occur, and to
what extent they are present if accurate interpretation of results and appropriate application
can be made to children in sport and physical activities.

This study's goal was to learn more about age-related and gender differences and/or
similarities for children. As the literature or lack of literature illustrates, much of the
research in self-efﬁcacy theory, in sport and physical activities, has not been conducted
with children. Of primary interest in this study was the relationship between self-efﬁcacy
and motivation when performance dissatisfaction occurred, the sources of information
children select and/or combine to form their beliefs, and how accuracy of self-appraisal was

inﬂuential in these relationships.

CHAPTER III
Method

The purpose of this study was to examine how children of different ages use efﬁcacy
information in a situation involving a sport skill or physical activity. The study consisted
of a quantitative and qualitative phase. Phase One (quantitative) examined age and gender
differences in how different levels of self-efﬁcacy inﬂuenced motivation (choice, effort,
persistence) following failure and performance dissatisfaction, and the effects of inaccurate
self-appraisal of ability on motivation and self—efﬁcacy expectations, and the type of
information children select in forming their efﬁcacy judgments. The second phase
(qualitative) explored in more detail how and whether children combine sources of
information to form their efﬁcacy beliefs and how internal standards interact with

motivation in children of differing levels of accuracy in self-appraisal of ability.

12mm;

Subjects

Subjects were third, ﬁfth, and eighth grade girls and boys. Three hundred and
seventy-two children volunteered to participate in this study and completed the ﬁrst set of
questionnaires. Of these subjects, 83 were eliminated from the study due to absence from
school on subsequent testing days or failure to meet manipulation check requirements.
Two hundred and eighty-nine children (143 girls, 146 boys) participated in the quantitative
phase. Third and ﬁfth grade students were selected from four classrooms per grade, in two
elementary schools. The third grade children ranged in age from 8 to 9 years (M = 8.28,
512 = .45). The ﬁfth grade children ranged in age from 10 to 12 years (M = 10.23, SD =
.42). Eighth grade students were selected from six physical education classes in two
middle schools, in the same school districts as the elementary schools. These children

ranged in age from 13 to 14 years (_M_ = 13.26, SD = .47). All schools were public schools

33

34
in the mid-Michigan area. The ethnic background of the children was predominately

Caucasian (95%), and 5% represented several ethnic minorities.

Seven physical education teachers assisted with providing a dependent measure of
actual physical competence for the students in their classes. Four female teachers averaged
9.66 years of teaching experience and their mean age was 32.33 years. Three male
teachers had an average of 18.33 years of teaching experience and their mean age was 41
years. All seven teachers had completed a Master's degree in physical education.

Design

A 3 x 2 x 2 (Age x Efﬁcacy Level x Gender) between subjects design was employed.
All subjects initially selected two sport skills or physical activities that were important to
them and one in which they had high efﬁcacy and one in which they had low efﬁcacy. The
investigator then divided subjects into two treatment groups (high efﬁcacy, low efﬁcacy)
based on their efﬁcacy rating and importance rating for each skill. A design summary for
the number of subjects in each treatment group is presented in Table 1. The subject's
selection of physical activities or sport skills in which they had high efﬁcacy and low

efﬁcacy expectations was quite varied. Table 2 provides a listing of activities chosen by

 

 

 

 

each treatment group.
Table l
i frth Num r f 'etsin r t
M11135 merino: Total
11 n 11

Third Grade Girls 12 14 26
Third Grade Boys 27 14 41
Fifth Grade Girls 15 16 31
Fifth Grade Boys 25 14 39
Eighth Grade Girls 54 32 86

Eighth Grade Boys 42 24 66

 

Table 2

,r‘rthr 0 -0101 '

l:-i

v' is h rr. 0

 

High Efﬁcacy Treatment Group

SKILL

n=28

 

BASKETBALL DRIBBLING
BASKETBALL SHOOTING
BASKETBALL PASSING
SOCCER SHOOTING
BASKETBALL
HOCKEY

BASEBALL POSITIONS
BOWLING

FIGURE SKATING
FOOTBALL RUNNING
FOOTBALL

RUNNING

HOCKEY SHOOTING
BASEBALL HITTING
SWIMMING
BASEBALL

GOLF

BASKETBALL DEFENSE
SOCCER DEFENSE
SOCCER

HOCKEY DEFENSE
FOOTBALL CATCHING
SOCCER DRIBBLING
BASEBALL FIELDING
FOOTBALL THROWING
CHEERLEADING
DANCING
VOLLEYBALL
SOFTBALL

BALLET

GYMNASTICS BARS
GYMNASTICS

JAZZ DANCE

SKIING

SOCCER GOALIE
DANCE TAP
VOLLEYBALL SPIKE
FOOTBALL DEFENSE
KARATE

SOFTBALL PTTCHING
INLINE SKATING
FOOTBALL KICKING
HOCKEY SKATING

~HOOO—OO—‘OOW—‘OOO—‘O—‘00——&OO~w—OOO\J~O—ONOOOO\—

~0OO~OO~HOOOOOO-ONOO~HNN—Ow—OAOboooo—w—ow—

oo————~oo—~No—N\r¢-——--~wwwwzswowhnw34>hqn~xo~

 

36
Table 2 Continued

 

Low Efﬁcacy Treatment Group

SKILL Mr; Mrs 11mm
11:28

:3
II
t»
u.
D
II
u.
Ox

 

BASKETBALL DRIBBLING

BASKETBALL SHOOTING

BASKETBALL PASSING
SOCCER SHOOTING

BASKETBALL

HOCKEY

BOWLING

FIGURE SKATING

THROWING

FOOTBALL

TENNIS

RUNNING

PULL UPS

HOCKEY SHOOTING

BASEBALL HITTING

SWIMMING

BASEBALL

BASKETBALL DEFENSE

BIKING

SOCCER

SOCCER DRIBBLING

BASEBALL FIELDING

FOOTBALL THROWING

FLOOR HOCKEY

VOLLEYBALL

BALLET

GYMNASTTCS

HANDBALL

SOCCER GOALIE

FIELD HOCKEY

WRESTLING

KARATE

INLINE SKATING
SOCCER PASSING
KICKING WITH LEFT FOOT
HOCKEY SKATING

ROPE CLIMBING

o——-—-ooooo—-o—oom—Aoouoo—oeuo—oo—N—om—
~OOOOOOONO~ONOOONMOONON—~ONOOOOWNOOWO
COCO—‘ﬂN—‘OHOH—‘W—‘F‘HN—‘HN—‘ﬂNOMMwo—Hh‘hN—‘mbn

 

37
Scenarios
All subjects listened to a scenario (either high or low efﬁcacy) read by the investigator.

The ﬁfth and eighth grade children were invited to also read the scenario written on a
handout. The following are examples of each scenario:

"Select one sport skill or physical activity that you are really good at and it is

really important for you to be good. Please choose a skill and not a whole

sport. For example, if you're good at basketball think of a speciﬁc skill like

shooting or dribbling that you are good at and it's something you really

want to be good at. Write down the sport skill you have chosen on the

paper. Now please answer these questions."

Children then answered questions regarding perceived self-efﬁcacy for their

chosen skill (manipulation check) and importance of skill (manipulation check).

"Pretend the following situation happened to you while you were practicing
your skill, the one in which you are very good. Your teacher asks you to
practice your skill a new and more difﬁcult way. For example, if you're
shooting baskets you decide to take a shot farther from the basket, if you're
hitting a ball with a bat you try to hit it harder and farther, or if you're
running a race you try to run faster. Remember this is a skill that you know
you can do and it is something that you really want to be good at, and you
know your teacher, friends, and parents would want you to be able to do it.
So you practice your skill. And you practice over and over again but, after
25 tries, you just can't do it right. Every time you try your skill you make a
mistake. You thought you could do it and now you are not happy with the

results."

38
The scenario for the low efﬁcacy sport skill was exactly the same as the high

efﬁcacy sport skill situation except the selected skill is one in which the children

have low efﬁcacy.

Low efﬁcacy smrt skill soonorjo

"Select one sport skill or physical activity that you are just not very good at
right now. It should be a skill or activity that is really important for you to
be good but you are just not very good. Please choose a skill and not a
whole sport. For example, if you're not good at basketball think of a
speciﬁc skill like shooting or dribbling. Write down the sport skill you

have chosen on the paper. Now please answer these questions."

Children then answered questions regarding perceived self-efﬁcacy for their

chosen skill (manipulation check) and importance of skill (manipulation check).

"Pretend the following situation happened to you while you were practicing
your skill, the one in which you are not very good. Your teacher asks you
to practice your skill a new and more difﬁcult way. For example, if you're
shooting baskets you decide to take a shot farther from the basket, if you're
hitting a ball with a bat you try to hit it harder and farther, or if you're
running a race you try to run faster. Remember this is a skill that you are
not sure you can do but it is something that you really want to be good at,
and you know your teacher, friends, and parents would want you to be able
to do it. So you practice your skill. And you practice over and over again
but, after 25 tries, you just can't do it right. Every time you try your skill
you make a mistake. You weren't sure you could do it and now you are not

happy with the results."

39
Memes

The measures are presented in the order in which the subjects completed the
questionnaires. To classify children as overestimators, accurate estimators, or
underestimators of their ability, the student's score on a perceived physical competence
measure was compared to her or his teacher's rating of the student's actual physical
competence. Three measures served as a manipulation check that children had selected a
high/low efﬁcacy skill, that the skill was important, and that they were dissatisﬁed with the
performance outcome from the scenario. The remaining dependent measures assessed
attributions for failure, effort, choice, persistence, and future self-efﬁcacy.

WWW. To obtain an accuracy rating of
children's perceived physical competence in physical education, physical education teachers
evaluated each subject using a modiﬁed version of the Teacher's Rating of Child's Actual
Competence scale (Harter, 1982) (see Appendix A). A shortened version of the scale, with
items similar to the questions used by Weiss and Horn (1990), were used in this study.
The revision was made to the format of the scale by converting the response format used by
Harter (1982) to a 5-point Likert scale. The reliability coefﬁcient for the teachers in this
study (N = 7) was 3 = .96. The ﬁve responses were summed to achieve a total score of
physical competence for each student. The teacher's rating of a child's physical
competence was subtracted from the child's rating of perceived competence to assess the
child's accuracy of self-appraisal of ability. The two scales consisted of identical items.

Chilomn's Porooived Qommtonco, To assess children's perceived physical
competence, a modiﬁed version of the physical competence subscale of the Perceived
Competence Scale for Children (Harter, 1982) was used (see Appendix B). The revision
was made to the format of the scale by converting the response format used by Harter
(1982) to a 5-point Likert scale. A further revision was made to the format for the third

grade students. Five circles increasing in size were used to represent the 5-point Likert

40
scale. The ﬁve responses were summed to achieve a total score of perceived physical

competence for each student. The reliability coefﬁcient for the subjects in this study was
a = .80.

mm Children's perceptions of control in the physical domain were
measured by the Multidimensional Measure of Children's Perceptions of Control (Connell,
1985) (see Appendix C). This scale measures children's reasons for success and failure in
three sources of control. These sources are internal control (person is responsible for
outcome), unknown control (reason for outcome is unknown), and powerful others control
(other people inﬂuence the outcome). Each source of control has four items (two for
successful outcome, two for unsuccessful outcome) for a total of 12 items. Children rated
each item on a 4-point Likert scale. This scale has been found to be a valid and reliable
measure of perceived control in children and adolescents (Connell, 1985). Answers were
summed for each source of control. The reliability coefﬁcient for the subjects in this study
was Q = .75.

Pm Soli-Effroaoy to; High go Low Efﬁcaoy Soott Skill Qoostion, This question
provided a manipulation check that the sport skill or physical activity that children selected
was a skill in which they have high or low efﬁcacy. Children were asked to indicate their
efﬁcacy level for performing the high efﬁcacy skill and the low efﬁcacy skill they selected
on an 11-point scale (see Appendix D). Children were required to select a rating of 6 or
higher, on a scale ranging from 0 to 10, for the high and low self-efﬁcacy question. A
rating of 6 or higher for the self-efﬁcacy question indicated that the subjects were "sure"
that they were "really good" for the high efﬁcacy skill and "sure" that they were "really
bad" for the low efﬁcacy skill. Those children not meeting this standard were not included
in the study.

Immitamooﬂﬁmrtﬁlo'llgoosm This question provided a manipulation check that
the sport skill or physical activity that children selected was a skill in which they believed

was important to perform well (see Appendix D). Children were asked to indicate on an

4 1
ll-point scale "How important is it to you that you successfully perform this sport skill?"

Children were required to select a rating of 6 or higher, on a scale ranging from 0 to 10, for
the importance of their high efﬁcacy skill and their low self-efﬁcacy skill. A rating of 6 or
higher for the importance questions, one relating to the high and one to the low efﬁcacy
skill, indicated that subjects perceived each skill important for them to be successful.

Those children not meeting this standard were not included in the study.

Effioaoy Soumo of Iofoooation Questionnairo. On the Efﬁcacy Source of Information
Questionnaire, children indicated how important each type of information was when
determining their level of self-efﬁcacy for sport or physical activity skills (see Appendix E).
The list of sources was developed from Bandura's (1986) four sources of efﬁcacy
information (verbal persuasion, vicarious experience, past performance, physiological
responses), Schunk's (1989) work in educational research, and the Sport Competence
Information Scale (Horn & Hasbrook, 1987). Children were instructed that if a source did
not apply to them (e.g., they do not have a brother or sister) they should leave that item
blank. Children were encouraged to consider all the reasons and not just the most recent.
Then the children were asked to circle the most important reason from the list of sources for
why they thought they were good at some sports or physical activities. Their selection of
sources of efﬁcacy information did not pertain only to the high efﬁcacy skills previously
chosen, but rather sports and physical activities in general. The reliability coefﬁcient for
the subjects in this study was Q = .86.

WM. As a manipulation check, children
responded to whether they were satisﬁed or happy with the results of their performance in
the scenario (see Appendix F). Children indicated "yes" or "no." Each scenario (high or
low efﬁcacy) should have produced a dissatisfaction with performance. Children who
were satisﬁed with their performance were not included in the study.

Attdhutioniooﬁﬂluro‘ﬂuosﬁoo. All children were told that their performance was

unsuccessful. The attribution for failure question asked them to indicated how true each

42
attribution statement was for why they might have failed in the scenario (see Appendix G).

The attribution statements referred to effort, ability, luck, and task difﬁculty.

WW. Children's intended effort for practicing their Sport skill or
activity was measured with an effort question. Children indicated on an 11-point scale
"How much effort or how hard will you work the next time you practice your sport skill?"
(see Appendix H). Zero indicated "Not much effort at all," 5 indicated "Some effort," and
10 indicated "A lot of effort."

W. Children's willingness to persist at their sport skill was assessed
by asking children the question "The next time you practice your sport skill, if you had 30
minutes to practice, how long would you practice?" (see Appendix H). The children then
circled the number of minutes out of 30 that they would choose to practice.

Won. Children's choice to participate was assessed by asking children "If
you had a choice, would you choose to practice this sport skill or a different sport skill the
next time?" (see Appendix H). The children then selected their sport skill or a different
sport skill.

Engine Solf-Efﬁoaoy for High or Low Efﬁcacy Spoo Sﬂll glostioo. Children were .
asked to indicate their efﬁcacy level for performing their high or low efﬁcacy sport skill or
activity in the future or the next time they practiced (see Appendix H). Using the same 11-
point scale as the pre self-efﬁcacy question, children circled the number which represented
how sure they were that they could successfully perform their skill.

WW. All children completed a questionnaire regarding
background information such as age, gender, year in school, ethnic background, and
previous sport experience (see Appendix I). In addition, one question asked students if
they would be willing to be interviewed by the investigator at a later date. If children

selected yes, they were eligible for selection in Phase Two.

43
Emcedrrre

Permission to conduct this study was obtained from the University Committee on
Research Involving Human Subjects at Michigan State University and the principal and
physical education teacher of each school where data were collected (see Appendix J). The
physical education teacher distributed a cover letter and consent form for each student and
parent (see Appendix K). Students who did not receive parental permission or chose not to
participate remained with the physical education teacher while the other students worked
with the lead investigator and an assistant. Assistants were graduate students at Michigan
State University who volunteered to assist with this project.

Phase One required two days of data collection. On the ﬁrst day, during physical
education class, the investigator explained the purpose of the project and the student’s
requirements. Students were asked to listen to instructions and complete questionnaires.
First, the subjects selected and rated their self-efﬁcacy and importance for two sport skills
or physical activities (a high efﬁcacy and a low efﬁcacy skill). Then they completed
measures for the revised Harter's Perceived Physical Competence scale, Perceived Control
scale, and Efﬁcacy Source of Information Questionnaire. These measures were completed
in the gymnasium of the school, in a group setting. The third grade students listened as the
investigator read each item twice. The third graders were not given a copy of the
questions, just an answer sheet. The ﬁfth grade students read along with the investigator
as she read each item. The eighth grade students read the questionnaires on their own and
the investigator was available for questions. Students were encouraged to ask for help if
they did not understand any questions. The ﬁrst day of data collection required 25 minutes
for students to complete all surveys.

Prior to the next visit for Phase One, the investigator divided students into two
treatment groups, a high efﬁcacy skill and a low efﬁcacy skill, by grade level. This
division was made by eliminating students who did not rate the efﬁcacy and importance

questions as a six or higher for either skill. Some students met the requirement for both a

44
high and a low skill. When this occurred the investigator placed the student in the efﬁcacy

group in which they had the strongest certainty rating (that they were good or not good).
Most students clearly fell into either the high or low efﬁcacy group. For administration of
the second part of the questionnaires, students were further divided into small groups
(within the treatment groups) based on their selection of sport skills and physical activities.

On the second day of data collection, students from each treatment group were selected
during their physical education period. As a group, students completed the second set of
questionnaires in a classroom with the investigator and assistant. First, all students
completed a background questionnaire inquiring about various demographic information.
Then, students were informed that the remaining questions would pertain to the sport skill
or physical activity that they had previously selected. The high efﬁcacy treatment groups
referred to their high efﬁcacy skill and the low efﬁcacy treatment groups referred to their
low efﬁcacy skill. While students listened to a scenario and read along with the
investigator, they were instructed to imagine that the scenario had happened to them while
practicing their skill. Following each scenario subjects completed a performance
satisfaction question, attribution for failure questions, intended effort question, intended
persistence question, a choice to participate question, and a future efﬁcacy question. The
same administration procedures were used for this part of Phase One with each grade level
as were previously described. This portion of data collection required 15 minutes for
students to complete all surveys. When one treatment group had ﬁnished they returned to
physical education class and another treatment group was administered the questionnaires.

Each physical education teacher made an assessment of the student's physical
competence in physical education during their conference period or free time. This
information was gathered on the revised Teacher's Rating of Child's Actual Competence
scale. The forms were mailed to the investigator or picked up during a subsequent visit to
the school. The teacher's rating was subtracted from the children's ratings to form an

accuracy of competence rating (e. g., overestimator, accurate, underestimator).

45
at f base]

The research questions and hypotheses served as a guide for conducting the analysis in
Phase One. The data were analyzed using Pearson Product Moment correlations, Analysis
of Variance (AN OVA's), Chi-Square, and Multivariate Analysis of Variance
(MANOVA's), with post hoc Discriminant Function Analyses and Tukey tests conducted
on signiﬁcant differences. In all analyses with unequal n's, appropriate adjustments were
employed (Glass & Hopkins, 1984). The reliability for each scale was calculated along
with a Factor Analysis for the Efﬁcacy Source of Information Questionnaire. All analyses

were conducted at the o < .05 signiﬁcance level.

Phase Two

m

The data from the Teacher's Rating of Student Competence and the student's Perceived
Competence Scale for Children - physical subscale were analyzed to determine which girls
and boys from Phase One were overestimators and which were underestimators of their
ability. Children were classiﬁed into these categories by subtracting the teacher's score
from the student's score on the physical competence scale. By examining a frequency
distribution of scores, by age and gender, the highest positive scores (overestimators) and
the lowest negative scores (underestimators) were selected to interview. If students had
indicated in Phase One that they did not want to participate in an interview, they were
passed and the next student was selected. See Appendix L for the listing of students who
chose to participate and those who did not and their accuracy scores. Two girls and two
boys from each of these categories, from each age group, were selected for an interview.
A total of 24 children from Phase One were interviewed.
Emilia/£319.62

Interviews followed a guide of questions, probing in more depth than the surveys if

children combine sources of information to form their efﬁcacy beliefs and how internal

46
standards interact with motivation (see Appendix K). When appropriate, additional

questions were included to inquire in more detail or clarify a response.
1213252251111:

Individual interviews were conducted with students following the completion of Phase
One. The interviews were structured and followed the interview guide. Arrangements
were made with the physical education teachers and students to schedule interviews.
Interviews were conducted during physical education class or during a student's free period
in school, in a classroom separate from the gymnasium. Students were informed that the
purpose of the interview was to follow up on questions from the surveys and that the
interview would be tape recorded. The investigator received permission to record the
interview and clariﬁed any questions. The interviews varied from 15 to 30 minutes in
length.

W

The interview tapes were transcribed verbatim into written scripts. Then the scripts
were examined and searched for common themes and assertions. Once themes were
established, the investigator read through the scripts looking for speciﬁc quotations that
supported or did not support the assertions. This procedure was conducted for each
research question.

Pilot Study

A pilot study was conducted in two parts to test the use of scenarios and questionnaires
with children. The ﬁrst part of the pilot study was an interview with 12 children, ages 6 to
13 years. The children were asked to listen to a scenario similar to the scenarios described
previously and answer questions regarding their conﬁdence level, source of efﬁcacy,
intended effort, intended persistence, attributions for failure, and future efﬁcacy
expectations. The subjects were also questioned about the deﬁnitions of words used in the
interview to make sure that they had a clear understanding of these terms. The children had

no difﬁculty answering the investigator's questions with the exception of one 6 year old

47
girl. She was not able to articulate her responses to the questions. The third part of the

pilot study was conducted with the ﬁrst draft of questionnaires and scenarios using three
boys, ages 7, 10, and 10 years. The 10 year old subjects were given the packet of
questionnaires, including the scenario and asked to read and complete the forms. They
were able to do so with just a few questions. The 7 year old completed the forms with the
investigator reading and explaining each question. Following completion of all forms, the
children were asked to evaluate the difﬁculty in completing the forms and whether they
understood each question. From their responses and evaluation of the results by the
investigator, slight changes were made to the questionnaires and scenarios.

A fourth pilot study was conducted to evaluate the ﬁnal draft of all questionnaires and
scenarios and to evaluate the procedures for collection of data. This pilot study was
conducted in a public school, with a third grade class. All questionnaires and procedures

were found to be acceptable.

CHAPTER IV

Results and Discussion

Results and discussion for this chapter are presented in two sections: Phase One and
Phase Two. In the ﬁrst section, Phase One results are organized in order of individual
hypothesis. Results for each hypothesis are presented followed by further exploratory
analysis when appropriate. All analyses were conducted at the o < .05 level of
signiﬁcance. A summary table of all signiﬁcance tests can be found in Appendix N. In the
second section, the qualitative results for Phase Two are presented for each research

question.

Bhaseﬂrre

Wit

Hypothesis 1 stated that children in the high self-efﬁcacy condition would attribute their
failure more often to lack of effort than to lack of ability, whereas; the children in the low
self-efﬁcacy condition would attribute their failure to lack of ability more often than to lack
of effort. This hypothesis was fully supported. A 2 x 2 (Self-Efﬁcacy Group x
Attribution) repeated measures MANOVA was conducted to test attribution differences
within each efﬁcacy group. In addition, Effect Sizes (ES) were calculated to test the
strength of the difference. Results indicated there was a signiﬁcant efﬁcacy group by
attribution interaction, E (1, 287) = 41.76, p < .001, (see Figure 2). High self-efﬁcacy
children attributed their failure to lack of effort more so than lack of ability, ES = .71. Low
self-efﬁcacy children attributed their failure to lack of ability more so than lack of effort, ES
= .39. Means and standard deviations for ability and effort attributions are reported in

Table 3.

48

2.8 1
2.6 1
2.4;
2.2 -
2.0 -
1.8 -'
1.6 '1
1.4 4
1.2 -:
1.0

Attribution Score

 

49

High S-E

—0— Low S—E

 

I
Ability

Attribution Category

I
Effort

Biggie}. Self-efﬁcacy group by attribution for failure interaction.

 

 

Table 3

um: 1.... L39: . via ion 0_ ‘ 'uouin r 1- r . o . u

Am

Ability Effort Task Luck

912931125 M MD. M 512 M SD M 312

High Self-Efﬁcacy 1.51 0.77 2.22 1.07 2.05 0.91 1.51 0.84
8 to 9 Year Olds 1.53 0.82 2.02 1.11 1.46 0.68 1.30 0.73
10 to 11 Year Olds 1.30 0.71 2.05 1.01 2.13 1.04 1.41 0.80
13 to 14 Year Olds 1.58 0.76 2.35 1.07 2.26 0.85 1.64 0.88

Low Self-Efﬁcacy 2.60 1.05 2.22 1.04 2.55 0.99 1.47 0.86
8 to 9 Year Olds 2.78 1.16 2.35 1.06 2.71 1.15 1.60 1.06
10 to 11 Year Olds 2.31 1.07 2.28 1.15 2.45 1.01 1.45 0.85
13 to 14 Year Olds 2.69 0.95 2.10 0.94 2.53 0.91 1.42 0.75

 

50
Further exploratory analysis also examined self-efﬁcacy group differences for all

attributions: effort, ability, luck, and task difﬁculty. A 2 x 4 (Self-Efﬁcacy Group x
Attribution) MAN OVA was conducted to test attribution differences between efﬁcacy
groups. Results indicated there was a signiﬁcant between efﬁcacy group main effect,
Wilks E (4, 284) = 29.45, p < .001. Follow-up univariate tests were signiﬁcant for task
difﬁculty, E (1, 287) = 19.45, p < .001, and ability, E (1, 287) = 102.88, p < .001.
Tukey post hoc tests revealed that the low self-efﬁcacy group had higher task difﬁculty
attribution scores (ES = .48) and ability attribution scores for failure (ES = 1.11), than the
high self-efﬁcacy children. Post hoc DFA conﬁrmed that task difﬁculty (31259 = .323)
and ability (SQEC = .926) attributions for failure were more salient for low self-efﬁcacy
children than high self-efﬁcacy children, X2 (3, N = 289) = 99.07, p < .001. Results for
within group differences indicated there was a signiﬁcant difference, Wilks E (3, 285) =
52.73, p < .001. High efﬁcacy children attributed their failure more to lack of effort and
task difﬁculty than lack of ability and luck. Tukey post hoc tests revealed that task
difﬁculty attribution scores were higher than luck attribution scores (ES = .60) and lack of
ability attribution scores (ES = .63) . Lack of effort attribution scores were higher than
lack of ability attribution scores (ES = .76) and luck attribution scores (ES = .73). For low
efﬁcacy children, within group differences indicated that they attribute their failure more to
lack of ability, task difﬁculty, and lack of effort than to luck. Tukey post hoc tests revealed
that lack of ability attribution scores (ES = 1.18), task difﬁculty attribution scores (ES =
1.17), and lack of effort attribution scores (ES = .79) were higher than luck attribution
scores. Means and standard deviations for luck and task difﬁculty attributions are also
reported in Table 3.

Self-efﬁcacy theory states that following performance failure individuals with high self-
efﬁcacy will attribute their failure to lack of effort; whereas, individuals with low self-
efﬁcacy will attribute their failure to lack of ability (Bandura, 1986). Results from

Hypothesis 1 support that statement for children as well. Self-efﬁcacy theory does not

51
address other attributions for failure such as task difﬁculty or luck. Luck was not rated as

an important attribution, in relation to the other attributes, for either group. The between
group differences that were found for task difﬁculty and ability make sense. If individuals
are low in their efﬁcacy expectations, they probably believe that they are low in ability and
that their ability level will not match the task demands. The strength of this difference
between level of self-efﬁcacy was apparent, especially for the ability attribution (ES =

1 . 1 1).

Further exploratory analysis was also conducted to examine differences by age group
and self-efﬁcacy condition. Results of a 3 x 2 x 4 (Age Group x Self-Efﬁcacy Group x
Attributions) MANOVA indicated there was a signiﬁcant age group by self-efﬁcacy group
interaction, E (8, 560) = 2.48, p = .012, (see Figure 3). Follow-up univariate tests were
signiﬁcant for task difﬁculty, E (2, 283) = 6.83, p < .001. Tukey post hoc tests revealed
that for 8 to 9 year olds the low self-efﬁcacy group had higher task difﬁculty attribution
scores (ES = 1.37) than the high self-efﬁcacy children. Means and standard deviations for

attributions by age group and self-efﬁcacy group are reported in Table 3.

 

 

3.0- —0— High S-E
3 ----- A- Low S-E
- A- .....
o 1 ________________
3 2.5: -.n ......... A
O
a:
E 2.0-J
’5 i
a -r
E: 1.5-
( a
1.0 I I I
8109 10 to 11 13 to 14

Attribution for Task Difficulty

Eigmej. Age group by self-efﬁcacy group interaction for attribution for failure.

52
Hypothesis 2 stated that children in the high efﬁcacy condition would choose to

participate in the activity in the future more often than children in the low self-efﬁcacy
condition. As expected, the result of a Chi-square analysis indicated there was a signiﬁcant
level of self-efﬁcacy association, X2 (1, N = 289) = 13.01, p < .001. Sixty-four percent
of the children in the high efﬁcacy condition choose to participate in the future compared to
36% of the low efﬁcacy children. Figure 4 illustrates the association for choice to

participate by self-efﬁcacy group.

 

   

80 -
60 -
8.
2 ’ 8
5 4o -
2
0
n.
20 -
0 _.
High Low
Self-efﬁcacy Groups

Emmi. Choice to participate for each self-efﬁcacy group.

For further exploratory analyses for choice to participate, six Chi-square analyses were
conducted for each age group by efﬁcacy condition and gender. Results indicated there
were signiﬁcant levels of self-efﬁcacy associations in 13 to 14 year old girls, X2(1, N =
85) = 8.14, o = .004 and boys, X2 (l, N = 66) = 19.38, p < .001. Sixty-nine percent of
the high self-efﬁcacy girls chose to participate in the future compared to 31% of the low
self—efﬁcacy girls. Seventy-six percent of the high self-efﬁcacy boys chose to participate in
the future compared to 24% of the low self-efﬁcacy boys. Figure 5 illustrates the

association for choice to participate for 13 to 14 year olds. Table 4 lists the frequencies

53
with which high and low efﬁcacy girls and boys chose to participate by age group. Results

of non-signiﬁcant Chi-square analyses are listed in Appendix N.

Percentage

 

 

High Girls Low Girls High Boys Low Boys
Self-Efficacy

Egmﬁ. Choice to Participate for 13 to 14 year old high and low efﬁcacy girls and boys.

Table4
i t P ii Efﬁca r

 

 

W W h lf-Efﬁ mm
a % r1 2'2
8 to 9 Year Olds
Girls 12 56% 14 44%
Boys 27 62% 14 38%
10 to 11 Year Olds
Girls 15 30% 16 70%
Boys 25 63% 14 37%
13 to 14 Year Olds
Girls 54 69% 32 31%

Boys 42 76% 24 24%

 

54
Results from Hypothesis 2 were as expected and conﬁrmed the self-efﬁcacy literature

which states level of one's self-efﬁcacy will inﬂuence choice to participate (Bandura,
1986). For level of self-efﬁcacy, the difference in the percentage of children who chose to
participate was substantial. High self-efﬁcacy children chose to participate 28% more often
than low self-efﬁcacy children. This difference was even larger for 13 to 14 year old boys
(52% more for high self-efﬁcacy boys) and girls (38% more for high self-efﬁcacy girls).
The youth sport literature often cites this age group as being at high risk for dropout. This
ﬁnding suggests that self-efﬁcacy or lack of self-efﬁcacy is a factor inﬂuencing their choice
to not participate. One ﬁnding that is unclear is the 10 to 11 year old girls' choice to
participate by level of self-efﬁcacy. Seventy percent of the low efﬁcacy girls chose to
participate in the future compared to 30% of the high efﬁcacy girls (a difference of 40% in
favor of low efﬁcacy girls). While this ﬁnding was not statistically signiﬁcant, it is
practically signiﬁcant and surprising.

Hypothesis 3 tested whether children in the high self-efﬁcacy condition would have
higher intended persistence, higher intended effort, and higher future self-efﬁcacy than
children in the low self-efﬁcacy condition. Because persistence, effort, and future self-
efﬁcacy were correlated (see Table 5), all dependent variables were included in a 2 x 3
(Efﬁcacy Condition x Motivation) Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA). As
expected, results of the MAN OVA revealed a signiﬁcant main effect for efﬁcacy condition,
Wilks E (3, 284) = 13.67, p < .001. Follow-up univariate tests were signiﬁcant for effort
E (1, 286) = 13.74, p < .001, (ES = .43), persistence, E (1, 286) = 12.37, p = .001, (ES
= .41), and future self-efﬁcacy, E (1, 286) = 35.98, p < .001, (ES = .67). High efﬁcacy
children had higher effort, persistence, and future self-efﬁcacy than low efﬁcacy children.
Post hoc discriminant function analyses (DFA) found effort, persistence, and future self-
efﬁcacy were more salient for high self-efﬁcacy children than low self-efﬁcacy children,

X2 (2, _N_ = 289) = 38.24, p < .001. Table 6 displays the means, standard deviations, and

55
standard discriminate function coefﬁcients for each dependent variable by self-efﬁcacy

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

condition.
Table 5
er i te c n f- f
Effort Persistence
Effort 1.0000
Persistence .3844** 1.0000
Future Self-Efﬁcacy .4871** .2706**
** - Signif. p < .01
Table 6
u-g- _ --.-roaro D-viations nd Standard Dis 'mir-at Fun tin or - ‘1. o . not
i n re lf-Efﬁcac Self-Efﬁcac n i'
High Self-Efﬁcacy Low Self-Efﬁcacy
n = 169 n = 1 19
Measures M SD M $12 512139
Effort 9.44 0.94 8.88 1.86 .087
Persistence 27.98 4.52 25.71 6.46 .336
Future Self-Efﬁcacy 8.33 1.75 6.93 2.18 .820

 

Results for Hypothesis 3 were as expected and support self-efﬁcacy theory. As with

choice, level of self-efﬁcacy is believed to inﬂuence individuals' amount of effort put forth,

56
persistence, and future efﬁcacy expectations. The most inﬂuential difference between level

of self-efﬁcacy seems to be for future self-efﬁcacy beliefs, as indicated by the strength of
this difference (ES = .67) and the M = .820.

Hypothesis 4 examined whether children in age group 8 to 9 would have higher effort,
persistence, and future self-efﬁcacy expectations than children in age groups 10 to 11 and
13 to 14. This hypothesis was partially supported. Results of a 3 x 3 (Age Group x
Motivation) MAN OVA found a signiﬁcant age main effect, Wilks E (6, 566) = 4.93, p <
.001. Follow-up univariate tests were signiﬁcant for effort, E (2, 285) = 8.52, o < .001,
and future self-efﬁcacy, E (2, 285) = 5.08, o = .007. Tukey post hoc tests revealed that
children 8 to 9 years had higher effort (ES = .33) and future self-efﬁcacy (ES = .39), than
children 10 to 14 years. Post hoc DFA conﬁrmed that effort and future self-efﬁcacy were
more salient for 8 to 9 year olds than 10 to 14 year olds, X2 (6, N = 289) = 28.96, p <
.001. However, persistence was more salient for 10 to 14 year olds than 8 to 9 year olds.
Table 7 shows the means, standard deviations, and standard discriminate function

coefﬁcients for effort, persistence, and future efﬁcacy expectations for each age group.

Table 7
Moons, Staooﬂd Deviations, and Standard Discriminate Eunotion goefﬁoionto for Eﬂ'ott,
Eetsistonoo, and Futuro Self-Efﬁcacy for Each Ago Grooo.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Age Groups
8to9 10toll 13tol4
o = 67 o = 71 n = 150
Measures M SD M 5.12 M SD SDEC
Effort 9.74 .72 9.25 1.11 8.90 1.70 .847
Persistence 26.26 6.29 27.42 5.19 27.21 5.29 -.672

Future Self—Efﬁcacy 8.40 2.23 7.76 1.98 7.45 1.95 .383

 

57
For intended effort and future self-efﬁcacy scores, there was an inverse relationship

with age. This ﬁnding is typical in the educational literature, especially for self-efﬁcacy
beliefs. Children become more accurate in their beliefs (tested in hypothesis 9) and their
perception of competence is lower as they become older. The decrease in intended effort
scores is speculated to be inﬂuenced by children's conception of ability. As children age
they are able to differentiate between effort and ability more clearly. So, the older child,
who understands that success depends upon ability not just effort, may not be willing to
put forth as much intended effort as the child who does not understand the difference. The
difference in persistence scores by age were statistically signiﬁcant, however, the
difference is not practically signiﬁcant. The 8 to 9 year old children still indicated that they
would persist 26 out of 30 minutes, compared to the 10 to 14 year olds selecting 27 out of
30 minutes.

To further examine age differences in intended effort, persistence, and future self-
efﬁcacy between self-efﬁcacy groups, a 3 x 2 x 3 (Age x Self-Efﬁcacy Group x
Motivation) MANOVA was conducted. Results indicated that there was not an age by self-
efﬁcacy group interaction, Wilks E (6, 560) = 1.26, o: .273. Therefore, the age
differences that were found were not inﬂuenced by level of self-efﬁcacy.

Hypothesis 5 stated that boys would attribute their failure more often to lack of
effort than lack of ability; whereas, girls would attribute their failure to lack of ability more
often than lack of effort. This hypothesis was not supported. A 2 x 2 (Gender x
Attribution) repeated measures MAN OVA was conducted to test attribution differences for
girls and boys. Results indicated there was a signiﬁcant attribution effect, E (1, 287) =
8.11, p = .005. As expected, boys attributed their failure to lack of effort more so than
lack of ability, ES = .36. However, girls also attributed their failure to lack of effort more
so than lack of ability, ES = .10. Means and standard deviations for ability and effort

attributions are reported in Table 8.

58

 

 

Table8
any «.1- .o._n--_ 0 wvitin f0 Altil' andEff_ ‘ u. ' 0 u°r arr. .0 -
Ween.

Ability Effort Task Luck
W M SD M 52 M SD M 82
Girls 2.09 0.99 2.20 0.99 2.39 0.88 1.48 0.80

HighSelf-Efﬁcacy 1.60 0.71 2.31 0.98 2.18 0.84 1.51 0.80
LowSelf-Efﬁcacy 2.65 0.97 2.07 0.99 2.64 0.88 1.44 0.80

Boys 1.84 1.08 2.23 1.12 2.12 1.04 1.52 0.89
HighSelf-Efﬁcacy 1.44 0.81 2.13 1.14 1.94 0.96 1.52 0.87
LowSelf-Efﬁcacy 2.53 1.14 2.40 1.07 2.44 1.12 1.51 0.93

 

Further exploratory analysis also examined between group gender differences for each
efﬁcacy group for all attributions: effort, ability, luck, and task difﬁculty. Results of 2 x 2
x 4 (gender x self-efﬁcacy level x attribution) MAN OVA revealed there were no gender
differences or interaction effects. Means and standard deviations for luck and task
difﬁculty attributions are also reported in Table 8.

For girls it was surprising that they attributed their failure more to lack of effort than
lack of ability, although the strength of this difference was not large (ES = .10). Most of
the literature in sport and educational research cites girls as attributing their failure to lack of
ability more often than lack of effort. This is often due to teacher/coach feedback and
expectations that reinforce girls failure is due to lack of ability; whereas, boys failure is due

to lack of effort. The lack of differences when examining attributions between genders was

59
unexpected. Since gender differences were expected in level of self-efﬁcacy, it was

assumed that girls would attribute their failure to lack of ability and task difﬁculty more so
than boys because they would have lower self-efﬁcacy than boys. However, results for
Hypothesis 6 (lack of gender differences) provide a possible explanation for lack of
attribution differences.

Hypothesis 6 stated that boys would have higher intended effort, persistence, and
future self-efﬁcacy expectations than girls. This hypothesis was not supported. A 2 x 3
(Gender x Motivation) MAN OVA analyses revealed no signiﬁcant differences between
boys and girls, Wilks E (3, 284) = 1.47, o = .221. Means and standard deviations are

 

 

reported in Table 9.
Table9
u, - 2-! 1-1.. -nc. . Deviations forEffort Pe it - 1.1. r - - - -_ ,o
aanBuxs.

Girls Boys

o = 143 o = 146
Measures M SD M 512
Effort 9.13 1.15 9.24 1.65
Persistence 27.26 4.85 26.83 6.1 1
Future Self-Efﬁcacy 7.54 1.85 7.96 2.23

 

While the differences between girls and boys were not signiﬁcant, they were in the
right direction for effort and future efﬁcacy expectations. Boys were higher in both of
these assessments. Interestingly, girls indicated that they would persist longer than boys,

although the difference was small. Perhaps allowing children to choose their own high and

60
low self-efﬁcacy task accounted for the non-signiﬁcant results. In the literature, tasks that

are sex-typed as masculine are often selected for study and this explains some of the gender
differences that are found. Girls typically have lower self-efﬁcacy and therefore may
choose to extend less effort and persist a shorter amount of time in "sex in-appropriate"
tasks. This would not be the case in this study because girls probably chose the task they
considered "appropriate."

Further exploratory analysis examined whether there were gender differences by self-
efﬁcacy group. Results of a 2 x 2 (Gender x Self-Efﬁcacy Group) MANOVA indicated
there was no interaction, Wilks E (3, 282) = 1.23, o = .298. And, lastly, there was not a
three-way interaction effect for a 2 x 2 x 3 x 3 (Self-Efﬁcacy Group x Gender x Age x
Motivation) MANOVA, Wilks E (6, 548) = 1.53, p = .164.

AeeuraeLeLSelEAuereiMl

Hypothesis 7 examined whether within each age group, boys would show greater over-
estimation of ability than girls. This hypothesis was partially supported. A 3 x 2 (Age
Group x Gender) AN OVA indicated there was an age by gender interaction, E (2, 279) =
4.20, o = .016. Tukey post hoc tests revealed that 8 to 9 year old boys overestimated their
ability more so than 8 to 9 year old girls (ES = .47), while 13 to 14 year old girls
overestimated their ability more so than 13 to 14 year old boys (BE = .34) (see Figure 6).
See Table 10 for means and standard deviations for accuracy of self-appraisal of ability

scores within each age group for boys and girls.

61

 

 

 

0.7 - A- + Girls
‘ ----------------- Boys
0.6 - ‘A,
2 0.5 - ’ ~. ’
o l x
0 g
"’ 0.4 7
a *
g 0.3 ‘i a.
3 ‘x
3 0.2 J A
< .
0.1 -
0.0 r r .
8t09 10 to11 131014
Age Groups

Elm Age by gender interaction for accuracy of self-appraisal.

62

 

 

Table 10
11".! 1.9.. . 11-1.1-.. L'vran f a r o ‘ 10011-1. _ l.!‘! 1.1.
Eomoption of Abilig Scores Within Each Ago QLQQD for Gitls god Boys,
Self-Appraisal
e ur Mean S12 3
8 to 9 Years
Girls
Accuracy score .1 1 1.26 25
Student score 3.62 .82
Teacher score 3.51 .98
Boys
Accuracy score .66 1.08 40
Student score 4. 18 .53
Teacher score 3.52 .93
10 to 11 Years
Girls
Accuracy score .5 1 .91 32
Student score 3.80 .47
Teacher score 3.29 .94
Boys
Accuracy score .61 1.10 37
Student score 3.89 .52
Teacher score 3.28 1.14
13 to 14 Years
Girls
Accuracy score .52 .89 85
Student score 3.68 .61
Teacher score 3.16 1.00
Boys
Accuracy score .22 .84 66
Student score 3.71 .77
Teacher score 3.49 .96

 

*o<.05

63
Further analysis examined differences for accuracy scores within each gender across

age groups. Tukey post hoc analysis indicated that for girls and boys there were no
signiﬁcant differences across ages. However, the strength of the differences was moderate
as indicated by the effect sizes for girls comparing 8 to 9 year olds with 10 to 11 year olds
(ES = .37) and 8 to 9 year olds with 13 to 14 year olds (ES = .38) and for boys comparing
8 to 9 year olds with 13 to 14 year olds (ES = .46) and 10 to 11 year olds with 13 to 14
year olds (ES = .40).

The between gender difference for 13 to 14 year olds was contrary to the expected
results. To further explain these results, analyses were conducted to examine the student's
and teacher's perceptions of physical competence. Two 3 x 2 (Age x Gender) AN OVA's
for students' and teachers' perceptions of student physical ability were conducted. For
students' perceptions, results indicated there was a signiﬁcant age group by gender
interaction, E (2, 283) = 3.25, o < .040. Tukey post hoc tests revealed that 8 to 9 year old
boys had higher perceptions of ability than 8 to 9 year old girls (ES = .82) (see Figure 7).
There were no gender differences at the other age groups. Within each gender, Tukey post
hoc tests revealed that for girls there were no differences across age groups and the effect
sizes when comparing 8 to 9 year olds with 10 to 11 year olds (ES = .28) and 10 to 11 year
olds with 13 to 14 year olds (ES = .22) were low. There were differences for boys across
age groups. The 8 to 9 year old boys had higher perceived ability than the 10 to 11 year
olds (ES = .56) and the 13 to 14 year olds (ES = .74). This ﬁnding suggests that boys'
perceptions of ability declined with age, whereas, girls' perceptions did not. This was an
unexpected result.

Results indicated there were no signiﬁcant differences for teachers' perceptions for
gender, E (1, 279) = 2.17, o = .140, or age, E (2, 279) = .967, o = .381. For 13 to 14
year olds, there were no signiﬁcant differences between girls and boys in their own
perceptions of ability. However, the teacher's rating of actual physical competence by

gender was different. Teachers rated boy's actual competence (M = 3.49, SD = .96)

64
higher than they rated girl's actual competence (M = 3.16, S12 = 1.00). This low rating of

girl's competence by teachers probably explains why girls were found to be higher than
boys in their overestimation of their ability and probably reﬂects teacher bias more than
girls' overestimation of ability. Means and standard deviations for students' and teachers'

perception of student ability are also reported in Table 10.

4.31
4-2: A... ----- a: Boys
4.1 - “
4.03
3.93
3.3-
3.7;

d

3.6 ‘

Student Score

 

3.5 .

 

 

3.4 r r l
8t09 10 1011 13 to 14

Age Groups

Eigorol. Age by gender interaction for students' perception of ability.

Hypothesis 8 stated that children's age would positively correlate with their accuracy
appraisal of physical ability. This hypothesis was not supported. A Pearson product
moment correlation was calculated for age and accuracy of appraisal. A low correlation of
-.06 was found. This ﬁnding was surprising. Previous research in academic and sport
areas have found that as children grow older their perceptions of their ability becomes more
accurate. Again, this ﬁnding may be due to using the teacher's rating as the standard

against which to measure the child's accuracy.

65
Hypothesis 9 stated that children's accuracy of self-appraisal of physical ability would

positively correlate with intended effort, persistence, and future self-efﬁcacy. This
hypothesis was partially supported. Correlations were in the right direction, with
correlations between accuracy and effort, and accuracy and future self-efﬁcacy signiﬁcant

at o < .01. However, correlations were rather low. See Table 11 for correlations.

 

 

Table 11
out... o ‘ rac o Self-Auraia _off '- ' -n- 1.1!. - -
Accurate Effort Persistence
Accurate 1.0000
Effort .1733** 1.0000
Persistence .0674 .3844* * 1 .0000
Future Self-Efﬁcacy .2281 ** .4871** .2706**

 

** - Signif. p < .01

Further exploratory analysis examined whether the student's perceptions of their
physical competence would correlate as predicted with intended effort, persistence, and
future self-efﬁcacy. It is possible that it is students' perceptions of their physical
competence that relate better to motivation than an accuracy rating that is inﬂuenced by a
teacher's rating of the student's physical competence. Results indicated that the students'
perceptions did signiﬁcantly correlate with effort and future self-efﬁcacy. These
correlations were higher with student perceptions than with accuracy of self-appraisal. See

Table 12 for correlations.

66

 

 

Table 12
Orr-.01 0.10'111P'W01n0fAbiIi Efu "as 'r ’ -r| Lt -
Efﬂeaex.
Student Effort Persistence
Student 1.0000
Effort .2637 ** 1.0000
Persistence . 1497 .3844** 1.0000
Future Self-Efﬁcacy .4228** .4871** .2706**

 

** - Signif. p < .01

Hypothesis 10 examined whether children's accuracy of self-appraisal of physical

ability would positively correlate with perceived internal control, and negatively correlate

with perceived external control and perceived unknown control. This hypothesis was not

supported as all correlations with accuracy of appraisal were in the predicted direction but

not signiﬁcant. See Table 13 for correlations.

 

 

Table 13
' A urac of Self-A raisal Intern 1 Ex w
Accurate Internal External
Accurate 1.0000
Internal .0315 1.0000
External -. 1090 . 1396* 1.0000
Unknown -.0333 .1520* .3241**

 

* - Signif. p < .05 ** - Signif. p < .01

67
Further exploratory analysis also examined whether students' perceptions of their

physical competence would correlate as predicted with internal, external, and unknown
perceptions of control. Results indicated that student perceptions of competence were
signiﬁcantly correlated with external and unknown control, in the expected direction. See

Table 14 for correlations.

 

 

Table 14
Ou‘ 1.! or. .-e Per eootin IIfAi't .r‘ ,__ x '11:- 1-1.. a...“ t um
Student Internal External
Student 1.0000
Internal .0679 1 .0000
External -.3318** .1396* 1.0000
Unknown -.1632* .1520* .3241**

 

* - Signif. p < .05 ** - Signif. p < .01

Summary of All Hypotheses Testing
1). Hypothesis 1 stated that children in the high self-efﬁcacy condition would attribute

their failure more often to lack of effort than to lack of ability; whereas, the children in the
low self-efﬁcacy condition would attribute their failure to lack of ability more often than to
lack of effort. This hypothesis was fully supported.

2). Hypothesis 2 stated that children in the high efﬁcacy condition would choose to
participate in the activity in the future more often than children in the low self-efﬁcacy
condition. This hypothesis was fully supported.

3). Hypothesis 3 tested whether children in the high self-efﬁcacy condition would have
higher intended persistence, higher intended effort, and higher future self-efﬁcacy than

children in the low self-efﬁcacy condition. This hypothesis was fully supported.

68
4). Hypothesis 4 examined whether children in age group 8 to 9 would have higher

effort, persistence, and future self-efﬁcacy expectations than children in age groups 10 to
11 and 13 to 14. This hypothesis was partially supported. Children 8 to 9 years had
higher effort and future self-efﬁcacy than children 10 to 14 years. However, persistence
was more salient for 10 to 14 year olds than 8 to 9 year olds.

5). Hypothesis 5 stated that boys would attribute their failure more often to lack of
effort than lack of ability; whereas, girls would attribute their failure to lack of ability more
often than lack of effort. This hypothesis was not supported. As expected, boys attributed
their failure to lack of effort more so than lack of ability. However, girls also attributed
their failure to lack of effort more so than lack of ability.

6). Hypothesis 6 stated that boys would have higher intended effort, persistence, and
future self-efﬁcacy expectations than girls. This hypothesis was not supported.

7). Hypothesis 7 examined whether within each age group, boys would show greater
over-estimation of ability than girls. This hypothesis was partially supported. The 8 to 9
year old boys overestimated their ability more so than 8 to 9 year old girls, while 13 to 14
year old girls overestimated their ability more so than 13 to 14 year old boys.

8). Hypothesis 8 stated that children's age would positively correlate with their
accuracy appraisal of physical ability. This hypothesis was not supported.

9). Hypothesis 9 stated that children's accuracy of self-appraisal of physical ability
would positively correlate with intended effort, persistence, and future self-efﬁcacy. This
hypothesis was partially supported. Correlations were in the right direction, with
signiﬁcant correlations between accuracy and effort, and accuracy and future self-efﬁcacy.

10). Hypothesis 10 examined whether children's accuracy of self-appraisal of
physical ability would positively correlate with perceived internal control, and negatively
correlate with perceived external control and perceived unknown control. This hypothesis

was not supported.

69
Walrus

Attribution; Further exploratory analysis also examined differences for attributions of
effort, ability, luck, and task difﬁculty by self-efﬁcacy group, by gender, and by age
group. The low self-efﬁcacy group had higher task difﬁculty attribution scores and ability
attribution scores for failure than the high self-efﬁcacy children. There were no gender
differences. The 8 to 9 year olds in the low self-efﬁcacy group had higher task difﬁculty
attribution scores than the 8 to 9 year olds in the high self-efﬁcacy group.

Qhoig‘g. Further exploratory analysis for choice to participate by efﬁcacy condition,
gender, and age group indicated there were signiﬁcant levels of self-efﬁcacy associations in
13 to 14 year old girls and boys. For the 13 to 14 year olds, high self-efﬁcacy girls chose
to participate more often than low self-efﬁcacy girls. High self-efﬁcacy boys chose to
participate more often than low self-efﬁcacy boys.

Effott, Borsistonco, Future Self-Efﬁcaoy. There was not an age by self-efﬁcacy group
interaction. Therefore, the age differences that were found were not inﬂuenced by level of
self-efﬁcacy. Further exploratory analysis found there were no gender by self-efﬁcacy
group differences or a gender by self-efﬁcacy group by age group 3-way interaction effect.
Sootggs of Effrcgy Information

Due to the exploratory nature of this area, research questions were posed instead of
hypotheses. Research question 11 inquired about the type of information children would
select as important sources in determining their self—efﬁcacy expectations. The top three
most important sources children selected from the Efﬁcacy Source of Information
Questionnaire were "I work hard at practicing," "I like sports," and "I can improve easily.”
Table 15 presents the means and standard deviations for all items on the Efﬁcacy Source of
Information Questionnaire in order of importance score.

The order of importance of sources was somewhat surprising. Bandura (1986) and
others have cited past performance as the most dependable source of efﬁcacy information.

However, these results have effort (e. g., I work hard at practice) and preference (e. g., I

70
like sports) as the top two sources. The second source, “I like sports,” is surprising

because this is not a source that has been reported in previous research by adult subjects.
Lastly, it is interesting that of the six verbal persuasion sources on the questionnaire, the

“coach says I am good” received the highest rating.

 

 

Table 15
um! 1-10. -. urn Deviation forEaChItmOf h ll . 0 '0 run: or
Questiunnaim.

Item M SD
1. I work hard at practicing. 3.59 .72
2. I like sports. 3.52 .82
3. I can improve easily. 3.24 .78
4. Skill is difﬁcult and I can do it. 3.18 .84
5. Coach says I am good. 3.16 .96
6. I am really good. 3.13 .85
7. Skill is easy and I can do it. 3.12 .90
8. It is easy to learn. 3.10 .88
9. Teacher or coach helps me. 3.08 .93
10. Dad says I am good. 3.03 1.04
11. Friends say I am good. 2.95 .96
12. I practice more than others. 2.94 .95
13. I usually win. 2.84 1.05
13. Mom says I am good. 2.84 1.05
15. I am better than kids my age. 2.69 1.04
16. Teacher says I am good. 2.65 1.03
17. I almost never lose. 2.63 1.06
18. Better than brother or sister. 2.62 1.19
19. Do not have to work hard to be good. 2.45 1.04
20. I do not need help from anyone. 2.24 1.06

 

7 1
Research question 12 explored whether the sources of information would differ by age

and gender. To analyze these differences a Principal Axis Factor Analysis (PFA) with
Varimax rotation was conducted because the factors were believed to be uncorrelated.
Results indicated that the PFA produced three factors. See Table 16 for factor eigenvalues,
percent of variance accounted for, and individual factor loadings. See Appendix 0 for
individual factor loadings for items that were eliminated or did not meet the factor
requirements.
Table 16

0 r; f - -Efﬁcac Factor Eienvalue Prc nt 0 Vi 0. : a. u r '1 0 1-10.

Indiyidttai Eactor Loadings.

 

 

Egotot Eigen__va_lu_e ZLQfXatiauee mama
Factor 1 - Signiﬁcant Others 5.10 25.5%
Dad says I'm good .806
Mom says I'm good .788
Teacher says I'm good .741
Coach says I'm good .643
Friends say I'm good .614
Factor 2 - Ability 1.62 8.1%
I almost never lose .725
I usually win .656
I'm better than kids my age .583
I am really good .581
Factor 3 - Effort 1.25 6.3%
I practice more than others .636
I can improve easily .596

I work hard at practicing .509

 

72
To examine if the sources of information would differ by age and gender, factor scores

were computed by averaging the scores of each item. The three factors were analyzed in a
3 x 2 x 3 (Factor x Gender x Age) MAN OVA. Results indicated there was a gender main
effect, Wilks E (3, 246) = 4.57, o = .004. Follow-up univariate tests were signiﬁcant for
ability, E (1, 284) = 12.50, p < .001, ES = .60. Boys rated ability sources higher than
girls rated ability sources in determining their efﬁcacy expectations. Post hoc discriminant
function analyses (DFA) also found signiﬁcant others and ability sources were more salient
for boys than girls, X2 (2, _N_ = 289) = 13.41, p < .001.

There was also an age main effect, Wilks E (6, 490) = 2.31, o = .032. Follow-up
univariate tests were signiﬁcant for effort, E (2, 247) = 3.66, o = .027. Tukey post hoc
tests revealed that children 8 to 9 years rated effort sources higher than children 10 to 11
years (ES = .44) and 13 to 14 years (ES = .43). Post hoc DFA conﬁrmed that ability and
effort sources were more salient for 8 to 9 year olds than 10 to 14 year olds, X2 (6, N =
289) = 13.76, p = .03. Table 17 shows the means, standard deviations, and standard
discriminate function coefﬁcients for sources of self-efﬁcacy factors by gender and age

groups.

73
Table 17

11““; . 1-10: 0 I‘viations .n- tandarc DiSC' . otF or 01'! 'r- o 0__t‘

of Solf-Eﬂioaoy antors by Gender and Age.

 

 

 

 

Factor Sources
Signiﬁcant
Others Ability Effort
W M SD M 5.12 M M)
Girls 2.92 .75 2.68 .75 3.25 .55
Boys 2.97 .87 3.02 .78 3.32 .66
SDFC .341 -1.091 .003
8 to 9 Year Olds 3.03 .87 3.06 .79 3.49 .57
10 to 14 Year Olds 2.97 .77 2.79 .79 3.23 .62
SDFC .374 -.596 -.750

 

Gender and age differences in the sources children select in forming their efﬁcacy
beliefs were not completely as expected. Although there has not been research conducted
in this area prior to this study, intuitively it seemed that girls would rate messages from
signiﬁcant others higher than boys would rate these messages. The sources regarding
signiﬁcant others were more salient for boys than girls; however, the difference in means
are not practically signiﬁcant. Ability sources certainly did discriminate between genders
(SDEC = -1.091) and supports previous research (Ewing, 1981; Lee, 1995; Tully, 1995).

This Factor also included items relating to social comparison and competition. These are

74
two sources typically believed to be more masculine. It was not surprising that 8 to 9 year

olds rated ability and effort sources more salient than the older children. Perhaps the 8 to 9
year olds were not able to distinguish the importance between various sources and
therefore, they were all important. Whereas, the 10 to 14 year olds could distinguish
between effort and ability, which accounted for the difference in those two ratings. It is

still unexpected that they would rate effort sources as more important than ability sources.

Phese Two

The purpose of this phase of the study was to explore in more detail two research
questions: do children combine sources of information to form their efﬁcacy beliefs and
how do internal standards interact with motivation in children of differing levels of
accuracy in self-appraisal of ability. After transcription, the data were read and searched
for common themes and assertions. A second reading was conducted to search for
confrrrning and disconﬁrming evidence. For each research question, once the assertions
were reﬁned, I marked supportive quotes for possible use. These quotes were reread and
sorted an additional time. The results of this qualitative analysis are organized by speciﬁc
research questions. Assertions are printed below in bold, questions that I asked are in
quotation marks, and supportive quotes are italicized.

i n n

For Research Question One, I was interested in whether children combined sources of
information to form their efﬁcacy beliefs and whether the types of sources they selected
would differ from those on the questionnaire. From the children's responses, I developed

three assertions.

Assertion #1: Children use a combination of sources of efficacy
information and the two they described most often were verbal

persuasion and performance accomplishments sources.

75
When I asked the children how they knew they were good at a sport or physical activity

only a few said they didn't know or had trouble verbalizing their thoughts. Most of the
children would mention a combination of 2 to 3 sources. A combination of sources
suggests that they would respond with more than one. How children combine sources, the
weighting or heuristics that Bandura (1986) hypothesized, I was not able to discover.
None of the children could explain how or why they selected their sources. Based on these
interviews, the predominant source was verbal persuasion or feedback from others. The

important "others" were coaches/teachers, parents, and teammates/friends.

Well, if I 'm playing a sport, like basketball for instance, my teammates will give me
conﬁdence to do stuff They say, "David, go out there and do a good job because you 're a
good player. "

David - 5th Grader, Overestimator

If I 'm self-conﬁdent at something, then I think I 'm pretty good. I usually go on what my
parents think of me and how long I 've been doing this sport. And, like, if my teachers tell
me I 'm good at it. And my peers tell me I 'm good at it. Usually, if I see somebody doing
it and another person thinks it's hard and I can do it then I'm pretty happy about it because
I can do that and most people couldn't.

Roxanne - 8th Grader, Overestimator

My coach and my parents say I 'm good at this sport. I practice a whole lot. And I reach
goals in the sport. And I practice more. I play the sport a lot: every Saturday, Sunday
and sometimes Thursday.

Jason - 5th Grader, Underestimator

Performance based accomplishments were also mentioned as an important source of

efﬁcacy. Performance was judged during games and/or practices. Some of the children

76
mentioned that their efﬁcacy was based on improvement and the amount of practice time

that they spent to get better.

Like, I played for a soccer team, like six years or something, since I was a little kid and
everybody's like ..... Because every time I 've played, I 've always been one of the best
player. Well, because I, like scored a lot of goals and stuﬁ. In football -- I make a lot of
touchdowns and in soccer I make a lot of goals, and. I just, like do good in all those
sports.

Neil - 3rd Grader, Underestimator

Because I practice hard. Sometimes I practice for a real long time. I practice hard
That's about it.

Angie - 5th Grader, Overestimator

Because one of my next door neighbors had a basketball hoop and I was, like, better at
shooting because when I went over there -- when I made my ﬁrst shot, I got it. With
basketball -- when I 'm shooting, I normally make a lot of my baskets.

Jennifer - 5th Grader, Underestimator

There were two reasons mentioned that have not been described in Bandura's work;
however, they have been mentioned as sources in another study (Chase et al., 1994).
These sources were (a) the belief that they were good, and (b) positive affect for the activity
(e.g., they just liked sports). The ﬁrst one suggests that children describe their self-
efﬁcacy as a source of their self-efﬁcacy, which means the children could not explain the
original source. They just knew they were good because they believed they were good.
When I feel like I 'm going to do something or go out and just do it without any questions.

Jennifer - 5th Grader, Underestimator

77
Well, all my coaches told me that I 'm good and ...... well, I think I 'm good. Because it

makes you feel good and then the next game, you think you 're good and then you 'll play
better.

Ben - 5th Grader, Overestimator

Well, football, They say I 'm okay, but I think I 'm okay, but I 'm better than I think I am. I
know I am, but I don 't want to say it.

"Who says you're okay?"

My mom and some of the other people on the team. Coach.

"Is this important to you?"

Well, kind of yeah. Because you want to hear it from somebody else. You don 't want to
hear it from just yourself. You want to hear it from somebody else because if you just say
you're good, no one might believe you until they hear from somebody else.

Ben - 3rd Grader, Underestimator

The affective source, "I like sports," was also rated as important in the results from the
Sources of Efﬁcacy Questionnaire. The children had a difﬁcult time explaining why this
was important or why they liked the sport. When I tried to probe why this was a source

the answer was typically "just because I like it."

Um, dancing... I like a lot. I'm always -- at home-- practicing dancing. I 'm always
twirling.

Angie - 5th Grader, Overestimator

Assertion #2: Effort was described as a source of efficacy
information and also a technique to improve performance and

self-efficacy.

78
Following the ﬁrst few interviews, I noticed that effort was emerging as a source of

efﬁcacy and also as a method in which they believed they could improve performance and

their efﬁcacy. So I incorporated questions addressing effort directly into the interviews.

"Do you think how hard people work at sports has anything to do with how conﬁdent they
are?"

Well, if you do a lot of work, but practice makes you do better. Because even if you 're
really not that good at something, you start. Like, I wasn't that good at hockey but I got
practicing and I got better.

Ben - 5th Grader, Overestimator

The harder I work the more conﬁdent I get because I know that if I can go out there and
work harder than some of these other people, then I know I can do better than them. The
main reason is you can become good at a sport through a lot of hard work, some natural
skill, basically a lot of discipline in how you play.

Steve - 8th Grader, Underestimator

If you work harder and you get better at it, then you 're going to be self-conﬁdent about that
and you 're going to be able to do it in front of people and be happy about it. But if you
don 't, like, in volleyball I don ’t try really that hard, so I 'm not really conﬁdent. I wouldn't
want to go and play in front of all these people.

Roxanne, 8th Grader, Overestimator

The concept of improvement through hard work was also suggested as a technique for

improving performance and self-efﬁcacy.

79
Well, yeah. Because usually the more you work at it, the better you get at it. Then the

better you are, the better you feel about it. Sometimes you have less conﬁdence like when
you get discouraged about it. But then if you get good at the game, then you have a lot of
conﬁdence because you lozow that you 've tried hard and that you were really bad at the
beginning but now you 're good at it.

Kerry (male) - 8th Grader, Overestimator

Yeah, usually. I mean, if I go out and I practice for, like, an hour, my conﬁdence goes up
more than if I went out for ﬁfteen minutes because the more time I spend practicing, I can
actually gradually see myself improve. Like in the three pointer case, sometimes -- like last
summer -- I went out for ﬁfteen minutes and I really didn't see myself improve. But then
when I practiced, like, for forty-ﬂ ve minutes over the summer, I could see that I was
hitting more of them. So that I could see, like a gradual improvement if I practice more and
more.

Adam - 8th Grader, Underestimator

This assertion suggests that effort, more so than ability for these children was an
important source of their efﬁcacy. This was surprising, especially from the older children.
From this discussion, I realized that how children differentiate between effort and ability is
important. I do not know how the children I interviewed conceptualized or if they were
able to distinguish between effort and ability. However, it was interesting that of the
quotes I selected, 4 of the 5 were 8th Graders and l was a 5th Grader. By age alone, one
could speculate that they should be in Level 3 or Level 4 of N icholl's (1984) theory of
conception of ability-as-a-current-capacity, which means they should differentiate between

effort and ability. However, this would just be speculation.

80
Assertion #3: Fear of injury and failure were important sources

for low self-efficacy.

In addition to asking the children for reasons why they knew they were good at some
sports, I asked them how they knew they were not good. Almost all of the responses were
performance based. If they could not make a basket, catch a ball, or score a goal, then they
were "not good" and had low self-efﬁcacy. Very few comments reﬂected "negative" verbal
persuasion or social comparison of performance. One re-occurring theme for low self-
efﬁcacy was fear of injury. The children I interviewed tended to use fear as a source of
non-efﬁcacious beliefs. This fear was from risk of injury, sometimes based on worried

thoughts and/or past accidents or mishaps.

Cuz I don 't like running around and stuff. I 'm afraid I 'm going to fall down and stuﬁ‘t

Jacob - 3rd Grader, Overestimator

Well, sometimes. If we play a team that's harder, and there 's bigger people than me, I get
kind of worried. Well, I mean, like, "Will I get hurt real bad? Or will I if I go up for
the basket, will I get pushed down?"

David - 5th Grader, Overestimator

Like in soccer, I know that I 'm not very good at it because I 'm afraid of the ball hitting me
somewhere. In softball, I mean, when you go to catch, you have gear on. But with
soccer, you only have skin guards. So when the ball comes to me, I'm always jumping
away from it. And in swimming, I learned to swim when I was about ﬁve and I don 't
swim very often so whenever I go, I'm afraid that I can 't swim in the deep end. Because
I 'm afraid I 'm going to drown. That's about it.

Angie - 5th Grader, Overestimator

81
I just have this fear. I have a fear of going swimming. So I have to wear my life jacket,

else I will not go off the diving board. I will never try to go off the diving board. Going
under is one of my biggest fears. I 'm afraid I'm going to drown. Because when we was
in Florida, my dad said, "Go under. " And I went under and he held me under for, like,
two minutes.

Jodi - 5th Grader, Overestimator

Jodi mentioned fear throughout her interview when describing her conﬁdence. She
also described an incident when she was able to overcome her fear of riding a bicycle and
become conﬁdent. She explained to me how she was involved in a bike accident and then

became conﬁdent.

Well, when I was, like eight I started bike riding with training wheels. And then, the next
summer I wouldn't even try it because I thought I was going to fall. And then I was ten.
That's when I learned how to ride a bike. There was this girl who we know -- who my
mom and dad know. It's Bob 's daughter -- I think, Ashley. And she ran into the back of
my bike. And ever since then, I 've been making sure... I 've been telling people to not
ride behind me because I 'm afraid that somebody 's going to hit me and I ran into a tree
with my bike. And it.. and my tire on my old banana seat bike, it.... So, I got a new bike
for my birthday -- my 10th birthday. I got it in February. I 've been riding every since. I
ride every day. If there 's snow on the driveway, there 's no way I 'll ride because I 'm
afraid I 'm going to slip and fall. But I 'm conﬁdent in myself that I can ride a bike.

"Even after someone hit you in the back of the tire and you ran into a tree, how were you
able to become conﬁdent?" .

I went over my fear. 0f going out there by myself and riding my bike. And my dad -- he
got people over, and they 're all outside and just talking. And I 'm just riding my bike up

82
and down the driveway, up and down the streets. And I do it when I have free time in the

summer and it that's how I lost my fear.

Jodi - 5th Grader, Overestimator

Reseatehﬂuesumﬂe

For Research Question Two, I was interested in how internal standards or goals interact
with motivation in children of differing levels of accuracy in self-appraisal of ability. I
discussed four questions with the children. "Do you use goals?" "What happens if you do
not reach your goal?" "Would you change your goal following failure?" "Following
failure, would you put forth more effort on skills in which you have high self-efﬁcacy or
skills in which you have low self-efﬁcacy?" I read through the transcripts for
overestimators and underestimators, searching for differences in themes between these two
groups. Only one difference was evident and is presented under Assertion 4. The

remaining assertions, since there were no differences, relate to all children interviewed.

Assertion #4: Overestimators will keep the same goal or lower their
goal following failure; whereas, underestimators tend to just lower their

goal.

Sometimes. If like I say, "Oh, I want to make ﬁve baskets in this game, " maybe, I ’ll limit it
to 2 or I or something. Like if I didn't get any. Then maybe I 'd try to go lower and try to
get, say, "Oh, I'll try for 2" and then if I got 2, I 'd raise it every time I played.

Kerry (boy) - 8th Grader, Overestimator

Yeah. I 'd probably, like, make it a little bit lower so then I wouldn't have to feel bad about
not reaching goals. So I could reach at least one goal.

Lindsay - 8th Grader, Underestimator

83
Self-efﬁcacy theory would suggest that people with high self-efﬁcacy would retain the

same goal following failure, whereas, people with low self-efﬁcacy would lower their goal
following failure (Bandura, 1986). Whether these same actions are true for overestimators
and underestimators has not been tested in previous studies. The difference I found
between goals of overestimators and underestimators does make sense. If you are
someone who underestimates your ability to perform a physical activity, in a failure
situation, you probably would lower your goals because you would not believe that you

have the ability to meet the standard.

Assertion #5 - Most children set goals in the sports and physical

activities in which they participate.

Well, like, I ’ve been getting my back ﬂip on the beam and I have a meet coming up on
Sunday. And I wasn’t really conﬁdent about it and I couldn't do it and I was having the
worst time with it. And then, like, I 'm like, on Sunday, I was like, you know, "I'm going
to have to get this. I know I have to get this. " So, I went to practice on Monday with that
goal. I was like, "I'm going to get this. " So I went there and did it. So... that was like a
really big goal for me. So I was really proud of that.

Lindsay - 8th Grader, Underestimator

Well, I have like, a thing with my family, like, in a soccer game -- if I score two or more
goals, then that's like, then my brother has to, like, wash the dishes and stuff. So it's like,
it helps me to encourage me. Well, like, I don 't know. I want to play soccer in like, High
School or something.

Luva (girl) - 8th Grader, Underestimator

84

When I don't set goals, it means I 'm probably not really focusing on what I 'm doing.
When I 'm setting the goal, I ’m focusing on something and I know that I have to get this
done, I have to get that done. I set small goals the ﬁrst time. If not, I 'm going out there just

for fun.

Steve - 8th Grader, Underestimator

Of the 24 children I interviewed, only 2 mentioned that they did not set goals in sport or
physical activities. Some research has been conducted on intervention techniques such as
goal setting; however, the research on children's self-set goals is limited. Bandura has
suggested that people do set internal standards for performance and whether their
performance meets those standards, which results in satisfaction or dissatisfaction, is a
motivating force for future performance. And, this relationship is mediated by one's self-
efﬁcacy expectations. This ﬁnding suggests that most children regardless of age do set
goals or internal standards for performance. With children, it is possible that an adult will
also set standards and goals for them. In one case, a child discussed how a parent had set a

goal for the child and attached to the goal was a reward.

Mm-yeah. Like I ’m trying to land my axle, like. If, okay, I 'm having a real hard time at it,
okay, and I change it to, like right now, it's like, if I make it by Christmas I get $100. And
if I don 't make it by Christmas my mom said if I make it by my birthday, she '11 give me
$200 on my birthday. Plus landing the axle.

How do you feel about this idea of winning some money?

I need it.

Do you think it helps you?

Deﬁnitely. Basically, it gives me the conﬁdence. Like, I ’11 do it. Not really the conﬁdence,
but the strength to know I'll do it, sometime. Not necessarily now but sometime.

How do you know you'll do it?

85
The money. I need the money so.... yeah, if I try real hard, I 'll get the money. If I don 't , I

don 't.

Brian - 8th Grader, Overestimator

Assertion #6 - If children do not reach their goal, most of them would

practice harder so that they could achieve their goal.

I wouldn 't feel bad because I knew I was good at it and I just said "Okay, I missed a few
so I '11 just practice harder next time. "

Jennifer - 5th Grader, Underestimator

The children's overwhelming response to failure to meet their goal was to work harder.
Only two children indicated that they would quit and that was if the activity was not "fun"
anymore. There were no obvious differences between responses for overestimators and
underestimators. I believe that answers were in relation to sports and activities in which the
children had high self-efﬁcacy, because the question was not directed toward low efﬁcacy
activities. Therefore, their responses support Bandura's (1986) theory that children will

choose to participate and put forth more effort following failure.

Assertion #7 - When given the choice for which skill they would work
harder at following failure, a high efficacy or low efficacy skill, the
responses were evenly mixed.
If I have more conﬁdence for something I usually work harder on it. So, I 'm not as
worried about failing. I think I enjoy it (the one I 'm good at) more because I 'm better at it.
I think that's probably why. Because I 've been doing it for a lot longer.

Roxanne - 8th Grader, Overestimator

86
Probably dribbling now. Because I know that's a weaker part of my basketball game and I

have to work more at it. Partially because I know that I may have a bad day on
rebounding, but I still know that I have the ability to get a lot of rebounds, where I need
more practice at dribbling because I 'm not as good at that.

Steve - 8th Grader, Underestimator

Both overestimators and underestimators indicated that they would work harder on their
high efﬁcacy skill, while some would work harder on their low efﬁcacy skill. The latter I
found surprising. There has not been any research conducted on children's intended effort
for high or low efﬁcacy skills; however, I assumed children would select the skill in which
they had high self-efﬁcacy. This is based on Bandura's theory that self-efﬁcacy mediates
the relationship between performance failure and effort expended in future performance. If
accuracy of self-appraisal does not inﬂuence this choice, it would be interesting to
investigate further why some children chose the high efﬁcacy skill and some chose the low
efﬁcacy skill and what implications does this have on future efﬁcacy expectations and

motivation.

CHAPTER FIVE

General Discussion and Future Directions

The purpose of this study was to examine children's utilization of self-efﬁcacy
information in their motivation in sport skills or physical activities, accuracy of self-
appraisal, and sources of self-efﬁcacy information. Chapter 4 presented the quantitative
results by hypothesis with discussion of the ﬁndings and a detailed description of the
qualitative results. This chapter reﬂects a discussion of the most important ﬁndings from
either phase, how they interact to enhance our knowledge of this topic and provide a guide
for future research. This discussion is organized into the following sections: (a)
motivation, (b) sources of self-efﬁcacy, (c) goals/standards, ((1) measures, and (e)
implications.

Motivatioo

Self-efﬁcacy theory states that people's level of self-efﬁcacy will inﬂuence their choice
to participate, effort put forth, and persistence in the face of failure (Bandura, 1986).
Previous research had not conﬁrmed these beliefs with children in sport skills and physical
activities. Results from this study support Bandura’s theory. The quantitative results,
indicated that children with high self-efﬁcacy, especially the 13 to 14 year olds, would
choose to participate more frequently following failure than the low efﬁcacy children. The
intended persistence results also supported the theory and were more salient for the 10 to
14 years olds than the 8 to 9 year olds. There were no gender differences.

The quantitative results for intended effort also supported self-efﬁcacy theory.
Children with high self-efﬁcacy would put forth more effort following failure than children
with low self-efﬁcacy. Age differences were found, with 8 to 9 year olds having the
highest intended effort scores and 13 to 14 year olds having the lowest. However, in the
qualitative results, childrens' responses were mixed regarding whether they would choose

to work harder at a skill in which they had high efﬁcacy expectations or a skill in which

87

88
they had low efﬁcacy expectations, although, effort was clearly an important variable in the

relationship between self-efﬁcacy and motivation. One possible explanation for age
differences and the mixed results may be developmental differences that occur in children's
capacity to differentiate between effort and ability with children below the age of 12 not
being able to differentiate between the two attributions (N icholls, 1978, 1984). In
addition, as children age they become more realistic in their perceptions. Developmentally,
Piaget's (1972) work would suggest that these children are moving from concrete
operations, in which they can recognize that more than one dimension of an event will
produce an outcome, to formal operations, where they can imagine the event conditions and
draw deductions about possible outcomes.

Bandura's writings on conception of ability and effort are very different from Nicholl's
developmental analysis of conception of ability. Bandura does not predict that
developmental differences occur in self-efﬁcacy as children develop and form opinions
regarding their physical ability. In fact, Nicholl's theory on conception of ability-as-a-
current capacity and Bandura's theory on self-efﬁcacy have been studied independently of
each other. If self-efﬁcacy refers to people's judgment about their capability to
successfully perform a task, it would seem that an understanding of how they conceptualize
their ability would be critical.

As stated earlier, self-efﬁcacy theory predicts that people with high self-efﬁcacy would
put forth more effort than people with low self-efﬁcacy, regardless of age (Bandura,

1986). In children, the relationship between self-efﬁcacy and effort may not be that
simple. Based on the results of the present study and Nicholl's theory, the following
conceptual model is proposed regarding children's conception of ability and the relationship
among self-efﬁcacy beliefs, motivational intentions, and attributions for failure (see Figure

8).

89

 

 

 

 

Conception . .
of Effort Motivational Attributions
and Ability Efﬁcacy Beliefs Intentions for Failure
High Self-Efﬁcacy —> High Effort & —> 17??
Persrstence
(5 to 6 Years) Choice - Yes
No difference
in effort or
ability
High Self-Efﬁcacy —> High Effort & —> Effort
Persrstence
Choice - Yes
High Effort & _> Effort
Low Self-Efﬁcacy —> Persistence
(7 t0 9 Years) Choice - Yes
Effort causes
outcome
High Self-Efﬁcacy _> High Effort & —> Effort
@ Persrstence
( Choice - Yes
Low Self-Efﬁcacy ——> Iﬁggigggct & —> Ability
(10 to 11 Years) Choice _ No
Inconsistent in
differentiation
between effort
and ability
High Self-Efﬁcacy —> High Effort & —> Effort
Persrstence
Choice - Yes
(12 & Older) Low Self-Efﬁcacy —> LOW. Effort & —> Ability
Persrstence
Can differentiate ChOICC - N0
between effort
and ability
Eigogej. The proposed interaction between conception of ability, self-efﬁcacy beliefs,

motivational intentions, and attributions for failure.

90
Beginning with individuals at Level 4, the relationship between efﬁcacy, motivational

behaviors (e. g., choice, effort, and persistence), and attributions for failure would be as
predicted by Bandura. This is the level in which most children 12 years and older
(including adults) are able to conceptualize differences between effort and ability.
Cognitively, this age group is more accurate and realistic in their perceptions of their
ability. Therefore, the research that has been conducted with adults on efﬁcacy,
motivation, and attributions would generalize to children over 12 years of age. At Level 3,
children can begin to differentiate between effort and ability, as in Level 4; however, they
are inconsistent. The model predicts the same relationships for Level 3 as Level 4,
however, in some cases or situations when children are inconsistent, they may revert back
to Level 2. The differences and where research is most needed is with children who are in
Level 2 and Level 1. At Level 2, children believe that effort is the cause of the outcome.
The results of this study suggest that children at this age (typically 7 to 9 years) know that
there are some skills in which they perform well and some in which they do not perform
well. Therefore, they do possess high and low efﬁcacy toward skills. However, because
they believe that effort is the solution to performing better, the model predicts they will put
forth more effort, persist longer, and choose to participate in the activity regardless of their
efﬁcacy. Their attributions for failure will be lack of effort because they believe that effort
is the cause of the outcome. At Level 1, children believe that winning and completing a
task are the same thing, which means they do not distinguish between effort and ability.
Because they do not understand these differences, children at this level and this age
(typically 5 and 6 years) may think they can do everything. They have high self-efﬁcacy
for every task. Therefore, in terms of motivation, they should have high effort and
persistence and choose to participate. However, at this young age there may be several
other variables that inﬂuence motivated behavior (e. g., low attention span). Because
children at this level can not differentiate between effort and ability, it is unclear the

attributions they may make for failure.

9 1
Future research is needed to test the predicted relationships in this model. This research

would require expanding the age groups to include 5 to 14 year olds and classifying
children by their developmental level in their conception of ability and effort. Results of the
present study did not include 5 to 7 year olds nor a classiﬁcation of their conception of
ability. However, with caution, some of these relationships could be examined by
assuming children are at the developmental level that corresponds to their chronological age
(Nicholls, 197 8). Results from the present study for these relationships are illustrated in
Figure 9. For motivational intentions, the mean scores and frequencies are listed by the
high and low efﬁcacy groups by age group. The attribution for failure listed represents the

attribution with the highest score for the high and low efﬁcacy groups by age group.

92

 

 

 

 

Conception . .
of Effort Motivational Attributions
and Ability Efﬁcacy Beliefs Intentions for Failure
° - Effort _M= 9.79
High Self Efﬁcacy aPemistench: 27.17 _p Effort
@ Choice Yes - 58%
Low Self-Efﬁcacy —> Effort _M= 9,67 —> #2833;
(8 to 9 Years) Persrstence _M= 25.00 Si 'ﬁcant
Effort causes Chorce Yes - 41% ( di%f{lelrence
outcome by age)
Hi h Self-Efﬁcac _p Effort M: 9.58 —> Task
® g y Persistence _M= 27.88
Choice Yes - 46%
Low Self-Efﬁcacy _p Effort M: 8 91 —> Task
(10 to 11 Years) Persiste—n'ceM= 26.94
Inconsistent in Choice Yes - 53%
differentiation
between effort
and ability
High Self-Efﬁcacy —> Effort M= 9.24 —> Effort
® Persistence M: 28.35
Choice Yes - 72%
Low Self-Efﬁcacy _’ Effort M: 3.33 —> Ability
(13 to 14 Years) Persistence _M= 25.28
Can differentiate Chorce Yes - 28%
between effort
and ability

Eigigeﬂ. The results of tested relationships between conception of ability, self-efﬁcacy

beliefs, motivational intentions, and attributions for failure.

93
The predicted relationships were conﬁrmed for Level 4 children. Although the means

for effort and persistence were not signiﬁcantly different by efﬁcacy group, they were in
the predicted direction. Choice was clearly in favor of the high efﬁcacy group and
attributions were as expected. For Level 3, the means for effort and persistence were not
signiﬁcantly different by efﬁcacy group, however, they were in the predicted direction.
Choice and attributions were not as expected. One explanation for these mixed results may
be because this age group is believed to be inconsistent in their classiﬁcation as Level 2 or
Level 4. Some cognitive differences may exist among children at this age as they move
into the later stages of concrete operations (Piaget, 1972). Some children may understand
the cause of physical events and relationships; while, others have not reached that
developmental stage. For Level 2, effort means for the high and low efﬁcacy groups were
high and comparable, as expected. Persistence score for the low efﬁcacy group was lower
than the high efﬁcacy group and did not support the predicted trend for this relationship.
The frequency of choice percentages were comparable between groups, however, neither
were high. The effort attribution for the high efﬁcacy group was as expected. The ability
and task difﬁculty attributions for the low efﬁcacy group were surprising, especially with
the task difﬁculty attribution being signiﬁcantly different for the high and low efﬁcacy
groups. It is possible that at this young age children do not have the experience with a task
or the cognitive ability to understand how they can meet task demands. Therefore, if they
have low efﬁcacy they believe it is because the task is too difﬁcult.

Attiioutiom. The ﬁndings for attributions that high and low self-efﬁcacy children make
following failure support the research conducted by Collins (1982). Children with high
self-efﬁcacy attributed their failure to low effort, whereas, children with low self-efﬁcacy
attributed their failure to low ability. The present study extended Collins' research to
include attributions for task difﬁculty and luck and gender differences in attributions. The
low self-efﬁcacy children had higher attribution scores for task difﬁculty and ability than
the high self-efﬁcacy children indicating that they did not believe they had the capability of

94
meeting the task demands. The strength of this difference was large as illustrated by an

effect size of 1.11. There were no differences in luck attributions or gender differences in
attributions.

One interesting ﬁnding was that the means for all attributions were not high. On a scale
of 1 to 4, all means were below a score of 3. This may suggest that none of the attributions
(i.e., effort, ability, task difﬁculty, luck) were important reasons for children's failure.
However, an examination of the frequencies suggests that a considerable portion of the
children rated the attributions at 3 or 4 (high efﬁcacy - effort 16%, low efﬁcacy - ability
24% and task difﬁculty 19%). Future research should, nonetheless, examine the potential
for other attributions. To assess this, an open-ended questionnaire or interview should be
incorporated. Future research should also examine how attributions for success and
failure effect future efﬁcacy expectations in children, in sport and physical activities.
Schunk and his colleagues (Schunk & Cox, 1986; Schunk & Gunn, 1986) have been able
to demonstrate that effort attributions in arithmetic performance increased future self-
efﬁcacy, which positively inﬂuenced performance.

W. The results for relationship between accuracy of self-
appraisal and motivation, in the quantitative and qualitative results, found no practically
signiﬁcant differences between overestimators and underestimators. An explanation for
this probably lies in the assessment method of determining overestimators and
underestimators. The method used in this study was similar to the assessment used by
Weiss and Horn (1990). One problem may have been that teachers rated students'
competence based on activities performed in their physical education classes, whereas,
students may have based their own competence ratings on activities outside of school. This
became apparent by the wide range of activities chosen by the students. Another possibility
may be teacher bias. The lowest teacher ratings for any students were for the 13 to 14 year
old girls. This low rating caused this group to be assessed as overestimators relative to the

13 to 14 year old boys, which is contrary to the literature in academics and sports.

95
Future research that plans to examine accuracy of self-appraisal should use a

performance based assessment. A measure of actual physical competence in relation to a
measure of students' perceived competence, for a speciﬁc skill, would be more valid.
Corrections in assessment methods would allow better testing of the relationships proposed
in this study.
Seruumfselﬂeﬂleaex

Self-efﬁcacy theory (Bandura, 1977, 1986) states there are four sources of self-
efﬁcacy: performance accomplishments, verbal persuasion, vicarious experiences, and
physiological responses. These are not considered to be mutually exclusive but rather
result from a complex self-persuasion process that relies on cognitive processing of all
sources of information. Bandura (1986) and others (Chase, et al., 1994; Feltz &
Riessinger, 1990) have suggested that past performance accomplishments are the most
dependable source of efﬁcacy information. Results of a factor analysis of the Sources of
Efﬁcacy Information Scale indicated that signiﬁcant others sources accounted for more of
the variance than an ability or effort factor. In the interviews, signiﬁcant others, in
combination with performance accomplishments, were frequently mentioned by the
children as a source of high self-efﬁcacy and rarely as a source of low self-efﬁcacy. This
ﬁnding is somewhat contrary to what Bandura predicts. He suggests that it is more
difﬁcult to raise efﬁcacy beliefs with verbal information from others than it is to lower
beliefs. An explanation for this is likely due to Bandura's lack of research with children.
Harter's ( 1978) research has shown that as children age they rely less on feedback from
others. Adults are less affected by feedback from others than children, especially younger
children who typically rely on the feedback of signiﬁcant others for their perceptions of
competence (Harter, 1978).

Results of the interviews provide more support for the importance of performance
accomplishments in the formation of efﬁcacy beliefs than the Sources of Efﬁcacy

Information questionnaire. However, the children described performance accomplishments

96
as being more than just successfully completing the task. In both the interviews and the

questionnaires, children provided evidence of the importance of effort in performance as a
source of efﬁcacy information and as a technique to improve performance. This was a
positive ﬁnding. As mentioned previously, effort is a controllable, internal attribution that
has a positive inﬂuence on future self-efﬁcacy. Effort is not a "ﬁxed capacity" so that all
children can put forth more effort and likely see improvements in performance. Future
research needs to investigate effort as a source of self-efﬁcacy in more detail. More
speciﬁcally, in what type of situation is effort a source of efﬁcacy, how much effort is
enough, what other task demands must be considered, and does conceptualization of effort
and ability impact this process?

One of the most interesting ﬁndings was fear beng cited as a source for low self-
efﬁcacy expectations. Previous research in children's perceived competence (Horn &
Hasbrook, 1987; Horn & Weiss, 1991) has not explored sources of low physical
competence. Information pertaining to how children form inefﬁcacious beliefs is just as
valuable as information regarding the formation of efﬁcacious beliefs. In fact, self-efﬁcacy
theory originated with Bandura's work with coping behavior and phobics (Bandura,
1977), so it seems appropriate to also explore low self-efﬁcacy beliefs. Most of the
reasons the children provided for low efﬁcacy beliefs involved performance failure and fear
of injury. Bandura's theory would support previous performance (failure) as a dependable
source of efﬁcacy information. This ﬁnding is not surprising. Future research should
explore fear as a source of efﬁcacy information in sport and also investigate how children
cope with and learn to overcome their fears in sport skills and physical activities.

Some recent research by Tully (1995) and Lee (1995) have incorporated an insightful
approach to examining sources of conﬁdence and success and failure in sport. Their
approach would suggest that instead of examining sources of efﬁcacy information as a
causal inﬂuence on the formation of efﬁcacy expectations, the deﬁnition or subjective

meaning of perceptions involved with the determination of self-efﬁcacy would be more

97
helpful to understanding the self-efﬁcacy and behavior relationship. This approach may

provide an explanation for why children in this study indicated that affective reasons (e. g.,
I like sports) and self-efﬁcacy (e.g., I just know I'm good) were listed as sources for self-
efﬁcacy. Perhaps, these responses could be better categorized as deﬁnitions of self-
efﬁcacy.
QuakuLImemaLstaududs

This section of results was included in the present study because this is one future
direction of research. In the relationship between self-efﬁcacy and motivation, when a
discrepancy occurs between performance and one's goals and whether this serves as a
motivator to increase effort is partly inﬂuenced by the person’s satisfaction or
dissatisfaction with the performance and their self-efﬁcacy. People with high self-efﬁcacy
will increase their effort and persistence in the face of a negative discrepancy between
performance and the performance goal, whereas, people with low self-efﬁcacy may choose
to quit (Bandura, 1986). This relationship had not been investigated with children.
Therefore, the interviews did provide some new and interesting information. One
surprising result was that the children in this study did set goals for the sport skills and
physical activities in which they participate. More amazing was the ﬁnding that failure to
meet their goal was an effort producer and motivator regardless of their level of self-
efﬁcacy beliefs for a skill. This contradicts Bandura's thoughts about low self-efﬁcacy
individuals, their dissatisfaction with performance, and future goals. The children in this
study indicated that if they did not reach their goals they would work harder and
temporarily lower their goal. Future research needs to investigate to what extent self-
efﬁcacy beliefs mediate this relationship between goals and motivation. What self-
regulatory processes are being used by children in these situations? And, would the same
ﬁndings occur if an experiment was devised (e.g., like Bandura & Cervone, 1983, 1986)

in which actual behavioral measures of performance and effort were taken in children?

98
Measures

Results of this study stimulated knowledge and new research questions in the area of
measurement of motivation as it relates to self-efﬁcacy and sources of self-efﬁcacy beliefs.
Future research should incorporate behavioral measures in addition to or instead of
questionnaires. One limitation with the ﬁndings in the present study was that choice,
persistence, and effort were assessed as intended behaviors. The social cognition literature
suggests that intentions inﬂuence people's engagement in behavior (Eagly & Chaiken,
1993). However, intentions do not always predict behavior. Therefore, the intended
effort, persistence, and choice responses may not be as reliable and valid as behavioral
measures. It is possible that in children, this correlation may be lower because of social
desirability inﬂuences on their responses to questionnaires.

In regards to investigating the relationship between motivation and self-efﬁcacy, a
scenario was used in this study instead of an actual performance measure to create
performance dissatisfaction. The manipulation check asking children to indicate whether
they were happy or unhappy with the results of the scenario provided some security that
performance dissatisfaction was present. However, future research should also examine
this relationship following actual performance. If there were differences, the effects might
attenuate the results of the scenario, suggesting that actual performance would enhance the
differences or relationships hypothesized in this study.

In addition, future research should consider incorporating the method of children
selecting their own high and low efﬁcacy skills. The wide range of sport skills and
activities selected by the children reinforce this need. A critical piece of self-efﬁcacy theory
Bandura proposes that is often over-looked by researchers is the presence of proper
incentives. Selection of one's own skill would help to insure incentive; however, a
manipulation check for strength of importance of successfully completing the task (e.g.,

see Appendix D) must be included with measures of self-efﬁcacy.

99
Future research that attempts to identify sources of information, deﬁnitions, or

subjective meanings of self-efﬁcacy with children should carefully consider the method of
data collection. Previous research in related perceptions (e. g., perceived competence,
sport-conﬁdence, individual and team efﬁcacy) have used questionnaires with their subjects
(Chase, et al., 1994; Horn & Hasbrook, 1987; Horn & Weiss, 1991; Walter & Vealey,
1994). In comparing the quality of information from the questionnaires to the information
received through interviewing in this study, the interview method was much more
informative, especially for younger children. Interviewing allowed children to describe the
combination of sources they utilized, which Bandura (1986) predicts is the method used in
forming of one's efﬁcacy beliefs. The present study was not able to uncover the heuristics
children use to form these beliefs but future research should pursue this. As with all
research, the research question should dictate the method. It seems that future research
questions should move beyond mere identiﬁcation of sources of information and into how
these sources are processed and utilized. With this information, researchers and educators
could begin to implement valuable intervention methods and teaching strategies that would
serve to enhance the self—efﬁcacy of children.

I l' .

Implications from the results of this study are directed toward educators, teachers and
coaches, in regards to motivation, attributions for failure, teacher/coach bias and feedback,
sources of efﬁcacy information, controlling fear as a source of low self-efﬁcacy, and lack
of gender differences. The quantitative results, indicated that children with high self-
efﬁcacy, especially the 13 to 14 year olds, would choose to participate more frequently
following failure than the low efﬁcacy children. The intended persistence results also
supported the theory and were more salient for the 10 to 14 year olds than the 8 to 9 year
olds. There were no gender differences. This result implies that intervention methods to
maintain or increase children's self-efﬁcacy beliefs in the sports and physical activities in

which they participate could help lower attrition rates. Adolescents, ages 13 to 14, who

100
have low self-efﬁcacy may be an important age group to target. The results which

indicated that boys had decreasing perceptions of ability with increasing age also support
this need for intervention.

Research suggests that as educators we must consider self-efﬁcacy expectations and
attributions as reciprocal determinants of each other, and therefore, as two distinct
processes (McAuley, 1992). In this study, the effect of level of efﬁcacy expectation on
attributions was examined and results showed that high efﬁcacy children made
controllable, internal, and unstable attributions for failure (i.e., lack of effort). Educators
should encourage this type of attribution. Attributions for failure that are related to lack of
ability or task difﬁculty for low efﬁcacy children will only continue to produce low efﬁcacy
expectations. Educators should try to change internal, stable, and uncontrollable
attributions (i.e., lack of ability) and external, stable, and uncontrollable attributions (i.e.,
task difﬁculty).

One explanation for the lack of accuracy of self-appraisal of ability ﬁndings were
teacher bias in the rating of students, especially 13 to 14 year old girls. If teachers have
low expectations for girl's physical competence in their physical education classes then this
issue should be addressed in the schools. The teacher expectancy literature suggests that
students will tend to have a "self-fulﬁlling prophecy" in development of motor skills and
psychosocial components (Brophy & Good, 1974; Martinek & Johnson, 1979; Rosenthal
& Jacobson, 1968). Therefore, girls more so than boys may experience less success in
physical education which can lead to low efﬁcacy beliefs and skill development.

In both phases, information from signiﬁcant others were found to be important sources
of children's efﬁcacy beliefs. Therefore, it is important for teachers, coaches, and parents
to realize that as signiﬁcant others the messages they send to children will impact children's
efﬁcacy expectations. One of the most important ﬁndings from the Sources of Efﬁcacy
Information questionnaire was that "coach says I'm good" received a higher importance

rating than parents, teachers, or peers verbal persuasion. Coaches need to be aware of the

101
importance children place on coaches' feedback. Educators should encourage children to

rely less on external sources of information and more on internal sources when forming
their efﬁcacy beliefs. Information based on their own deﬁnitions of success and failure,
improvement and/or more mastery experiences would be more functional sources from
which children derive their efﬁcacy beliefs.

One source of low efﬁcacy beliefs describe by the children was fear of injury as a result
of performance failure or unsafe environment. Most educators realize that maximizing
success will enhance self-efﬁcacy and we should strive for those situations. Examples of
fear of injury entailed pain (i.e., the ball hitting you), potential injury (i.e., playing against
bigger, stronger opponents who may push you down), and previous "scary" situations
(i.e., almost drowning because someone held you under the water). These situations could
be controlled by educators by modifying equipment and game rules so that the potential for
injury is reduced, considering developmental differences in children's physical size when
organizing groups or teams, and providing safer environments when children are learning.

Results from this study indicated that slight differences were found for importance of
signiﬁcant others and ability sources among boys and girls. However, there were no
gender differences in attributions, intended choice, effort, persistence, future self-efﬁcacy,
or self-efﬁcacy for selected sports skills or physical activities. These lack of differences
may reﬂect that this study incorporated suggestions by Lenney (1977) and Lirgg (1991)
when devising the experiment. Gender differences in conﬁdence have typically been found
when the task involves a competitive situation, is viewed by the participants as masculine,
and ambiguous feedback is provided. None of these conditions existed in this study.
Choice of high and low efﬁcacy skills by the children was especially important, as children
most likely chose skills they believed were "sex-appropriate."

Conclusion
Duda (1992) states that moreover, the psychological prominence of perceived ability is

held to be the distinguishing feature of motivation. Duda and Walling (1994) have

102
suggested that the majority of motivational theories have not considered developmental or

age differences in their predictions. In the study of motivation and perceptions of self-
efﬁcacy in sport skills and physical activities, research must include the study of children as
opposed to continually generalizing results from adults to children. Because Bandura has
not provided an explanation of age-related differences in his theory and/or research, much
more research with children is needed in order to better predict and explain thoughts and
behavior. The goal of this study was to test some aspects of self-efﬁcacy theory with
children in sport and physical activities and provide the impetus for future research in this

area.

APPENDICES

103

APPENDIX A

Teacher's Rating of Child's Physical Competence

Child's Name Class/grade

 

1. How good is this student at all kinds of sports and physical activities?

1 2 3 4 5
Not Good Sort of Good Very Good

2. How good is this student at new games right away?

1 2 3 4 5
Not Good Sort of Good Very Good

3. How good is this student at sport skills and physical activities that he/she has
never tried before?

1 2 3 4 5
Not Good Sort of Good Very Good

4. How good is this student compared to other students his/her age at sports and physical
activities? '

1 2 J 4 5
Not Good Sort of Good Very Good

5. In games and sports, how much does this student usually play instead of watch?

1 2 3 4 5
Plays Very Little Sort of Plays Plays A Lot

104

APPENDIX B

Perceived Competence Scale for Children - Physical Subscale
. How good are you at playing all kinds of sports and physical activities?

1 2 3 4 5
Not Good Sort of Good Very Good

. How good are you at new games right away?

1 2 3 4 5
Not Good Sort of Good Very Good

. How good do you think you are at sport skills and physical activities that
you have never tried before?

1 2 3 4 5
Not Good Sort of Good Very Good

. How good are you compared to other kids your age at sports and
physical activities?

1 2 3 4 5
Not Good Sort of Good Very Good

. In games and sports, how much do you usually play instead of watch?

1 2 3 4 5
Play Very Little Sort of Play Play A Lot

 

 

Children's Physcial Scale

105

 

—L

0

Not Good

Sort of Good

0

Very Good

 

 

0

Not Good

Sort of Good

0

Very Good

 

 

 

0

Not Good

Sort of Good

0

Very Good

 

 

 

O

 

 

 

4- 0
Not Good Sort of Good Very Good
.. o 0

Play Very Little

Sort of Play

Play A Lot

 

 

 

 

 

 

106

APPENDIX C

Multidimensional Measure of Children's Perceptions of Control
- Physical Subscale

. When I win at a sport, a lot of times I can't ﬁgure out why I won.

 

1 2 3 4
Not True Not very Sort of Very
at All True True True

. I can be good at any sport if I try hard enough.

 

L 2 3 4
Not True Not very Sort of Very
at All True True True

. When I win at a sport, it's usually because the person I was playing
against played badly.

 

1 2 3 4
Not True Not very Sort of Very
at All True True True

. Most of the time when I lose a game in athletics, I can't ﬁgure out
why I lost.

 

1 2 3 4
Not True Not very Sort of Very
at All True True True

. If I try to catch a ball and I don't, it's usually because I didn't try
hard enough.

1 2 3 4
Not True Not very Sort of Very

at All True True True

10.

11.

107

. When I lose at an outdoor game, it is usually because the kid I played

against was much better at that game to begin with.

 

1 2 3 4
Not True Not very Sort of Very
at All True True True

. When I win at an outdoor game, a lot of times I don't know why I won.

 

1 2 3 4
Not True Not very Sort of Very
at All True True True

. I can be good at any sport if I work on it hard enough.

 

1 2 3 4
Not True Not very Sort of Very
at All True True True

. When I play an outdoor game against another kid, and I win, it's probably

because the other kid didn't play well.

 

1 2 3 4
Not True Not very Sort of Very
at All True True True

When I don't win at an outdoor game, most of the time I can't ﬁgure
out why.

 

1 2 3 4
Not True Not very Sort of Very
at All True True True

 

If I try to catch a ball and I miss it, it's usually because I didn't try
hard enough.
1 2 3 4
Not True Not very Sort of Very

at All True True True

108

12. When I don't win at an outdoor game, the person I was playing against
was probably a lot better than I was.

1 2 3 4
Not True Not very Sort of Very

at All True True True

Control Questions

 

 

-L
O

0

Not True
at All

Not very
True

. g

(D
o
3-
9.,

True

<
(0
Q

True

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. 0
Not True Not very Sort of Very
at All True True True

3. 0
Not True Not very Sort of Very
at All True True True

4. 0
Not True Not very Sort of Very
at All True True True

5. 0
Not True Not very Sort of Very
at All True True True

.. 0
Not True Not very Sort of Very
at All True True True

 

 

 

 

 

 

110

 

O

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7. 0
Not True Not very Sort of Very
at All True True True
8. O O O
Not True Not very Sort of Very
at All True True True
9. o O
Not True Not very Sort of Very
at All True True True
o O 0
Not True Not very Sort of Very
at All True True True
O 0
Not True Not very Sort of Very
at All True True True
12. O 0

Not True
at All

Not very
True

(D
o
3-
9..

True

Very
True

 

 

 

111

APPENDIX D

Pre Self-Efﬁcacy for High or Low Efﬁcacy Sport Skill Question

 

 

Name School
Age: Grade: Circle: Girl Boy
. Write down a sport skill or physical activity that W: Pick a
skill that is imporgnt to you and you're good at.

 

. How sure are you that you are good at this sport skill or activity?

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Not Sure Sort of Very
at All Sure Sure

. How important is it to you that you are good at this sport skill or activity?

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Not Important Sort of Very
at All Important Important

. Write down a sport skill or physical activity that W: Pick a
skill that is important to you even though you're not good at it.

 

. How sure are you that you are not good at this sport skill or activity?

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Not Sure Sort of Very
at All Sure Sure

112

b. How important is it to you that you are good at this sport skill or activity?

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Not Important Sort of Very
at All Important Important

113

N arne: School:

 

 

Age: Grade: Circle: Girl Boy

1. Write down a sport skill or physical activity that you are good at:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ZDDD _ _. __ _w _

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not Sure Sort of Very
at All Sure Sure
b. ‘

.3 DD [i ._w w_. _w _w _w M,
Not Important Sort of Very

at All Important Important

114

2. Write down a sport skill or physical activity that you are NOT GOOD AT:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_ ‘—T
a.
U ml] _. _W _.
Not Sure Sort of Very
at All Sure Sure

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:iEIDI _ _. __ ._ r_.

Not Important Sort of Very
at All Important Important

 

115

APPENDIX E

Source of Self-Efﬁcacy Information Questionnaire

There are lots of reasons why people feel that they are good at sports and

other activities. How important is each reason listed below to you?

Not
Important

I know I'm good at sports because:

@NQMPPPE‘

NNNi—si—ti—ti—su—ti—si—tr—i—so—Q
SPEPOWHP‘MPWN“P'

My friends say I'm good.

I work very hard at practicing.

My teacher or coach helps me.

The skill is very easy and I can do it.
My coach says I'm good.

I usually win.

I practice more often than other kids.
When I play I'm really good.

The skill is very difﬁcult and I can do it.

My mom says I'm good.

. I almost never lose.
. I'm better than kids my age.
. I can improve my skills easily.

My teacher says I'm good.

. I like sports.

I don't have to work hard to be good.

. My dad says I'm good.
. It's easy for me to learn new skills.
. I'm better than my brother or sister.

I don't need help from anyone.

 

 

 

p—sy—ap—ap—ap—spdp—Lp—spapap—sp—apap—sp—ay—apap—ip—sp—ap—swp—a

NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN

WMWWWWWWMWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

Very
Important

A¥A$$$$A¥Ahbb$$hh$$hhh$

* Circle the most important reason why you know you are good.

Reasons Why I'm Good at Some Sports

116

 

 

d

O

O

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not Important Very Important
2. o 0
Not Important Very Important
3. O 0
Not Important Very Important
4. o 0
Not Important Very Important
. o 0
Not Important Very Important
6. O 0
Not Important Very Important

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

117

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7. O 0
Not Important Very Important
8. O 0
Not Important Very Important
9. O 0
Not Important Very Important
o 0
Not Important Very Important
o 0
Not Important Very Important
12. O 0
Not Important Very Important

 

 

 

 

 

 

118

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

13. o 0
Not Important Very Important
O 0
Not Important Very Important
15. o 0
Not Important Very Important
o 0
Not Important Very Important
17. O 0
Not Important Very Important
18. O 0
Not Important Very Important

 

 

 

 

 

 

119

 

 

19. O 0

Not Important Very Important

 

 

 

O 0

Not Important Very Important

 

 

 

120

APPENDIX F

Manipulation Check for Dis-Satisfaction with Performance

Answer the following questions as if the story you just read REALLY
happened to you.

1. If you had really performed your skill and failed, would you be happy with the
results in the story you read (or I read to you)?

Yes, I would be happy

 

No, I would not be happy _

121

1. Were you happy with the results of your performance on
your sport skill in the situation I read to you?

Yes, I was happy

No, I was not happy

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reasons:
1. o 0
Not True Very True
2. o 0
Not True Very True
3. O 0
Not True Very True

 

 

 

 

4. o O

Not True Very True

 

 

 

122

APPENDIX G

Attribution for Failure Questionnaire

Reasons for Failure

In the story you read, if that really happened to you why do you think you failed?

I would have failed because:

 

 

 

Not true Very true
1. I didn’t try hard enough. 1 2 3 4
2. I’m not very good. 1 2 3 4
3. I was not lucky. I 2 3 4
4. The new skill was too hard. 1 2 3 4

 

123

APPENDIX H

Intended Effort, Persistence,
Choice to Participate, and Future Self-Efﬁcacy

Write down the skill you selected.

 

1. How much effort or how hard would you work the next time you practice
this sport Skill?

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Not Much Some A lot of
Effort at All Effort Effort

2. The next time you practice your sport skill if you had 30 minutes to practice,
how long would you practice?
Minutes: (circle the number of minutes you would practice).
012345678910111213141516
17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

3. If you had a choice, would you choose to practice this sport skill or a
different sport skill next time?

I would practice this sport skill.
I would practice a different sport skill.

4. How sure are you that you could successfully perform this sport skill
the next time you practice this skill?

O l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Not Sure Sort of Very
at All Sure Sure

1. How much Effort:

999g.

Not Much
Effort at All

2. Minutes to practice:

 

 

5

Some
Effort

(OCDVOJU'I-bOJN-L

 

 

124

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9 10

A Lot
of Effort

125

3.
I would practice this sport skill.

I would practice a different sport skill. ____

4. Write down the skill you selected.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_ ——l
CID I] D l__ _. L._, L__, _, _.
O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Not Sure Sort of Very

at All Sure Sure

126

APPENDIX I

Background Questionnaire

 

 

 

School: Name:

Girl __ Boy __

Grade: __ Age : __ Birthdate:

Race: White _ African-American (Black) _ Hispanic _
Asian-American _ American Indian _ Interracial _

1. How many days during the week do you usually play some kind of sport?
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
days day days days days days days days

2. Place a check mark by each sport that you play a lot (more than 1 day per
week). You may pick more than 1 sport. Or check none if you do not play

 

any sports.
Basketball Baseball/Softball
Football Swimming
Volleyball Gymnastics
Soccer Tennis
Hockey Other
Track/Jogging None
3. How many years have you been involved with playing sports?

4. Would you be interested in talking with me again on another day
during school?

Yes N o

127

lqnxmdbtl

LhﬁvenﬁgrCknnnﬁﬂee(xLReaauchInvohdngliununtSubkxnsprpnnnﬂlxxux

MICHIGAN STATE
u N I v E R s I T Y

November 18, 1994

To: Melissa A. Chase
138 IM Circle Bldg.

RE: IRE}:
TITLE:

REVISION REQUESTED:
CATEGORY:
APPROVAL DATE:

94-462
CHILDREN'S USE OF EFFICACY INFORMATION: A
DEVELOPMENTAL APPROACH

erg/9:
10/é0/94

The University Committee on Research Involving Human Sub ects'(UCRIHS)
review of this project is complete. I am pleased to adv se that the
rights and welfare of the human subjects appear to be adequately
protected and methods to obtain informed consent are appropriate.
herefore, the UCRIHS approved this project including any revision

listed above.

RENEWAL: UCRIHS approval is valid for one calendar year, beginning with
the approval date shown above. Investigators planning to
continue a project beyond one year must use the green renewal

form (enclosed with t
project is renewed) to seek u ate

e original agproval letter or when a
certification. There is a

maximum of four such expedite renewals ssible. Investigators
wishing to continue a project beyond the time need to submit it
0

again

r complete reView.

REVISIONS: UCRIHS must review any changes in procedures involving human
t

subjects, rior to initiation of

e change. If this is done at

the time o renewal, please use the green renewal form. To
0

revise an approved protocol at any
send your written request to the C

her time during the year
RIHS Chair, requesting revised

approval and referencing the project's IRB # and title. Include
in our request a description of the change and any revised

PROBLEMS]

  

ins ruments, consent forms or advertisements that are applicable.

CRANGES: Should either of the followin arise during the course of the

work, investigators must noti y UCRIHS promptly:
,~ - (unexpected side effects, comp a e
'.—....... subjects or 2

roblems

I“
ints, c.) involv ng uman

) changes in the research environment or new
information ndicating greater risk to the human sub ects than

GREEN: existed when the protocol was previously reviewed an approved.
RESEARCH
AND If we can be of any future help, lease do not hesitate to contact us
at (517)355-2180 or FAX (Sl7)3 6f 171.

GRADUATE
STUDIES S incere 1y ,

W222: \ .22 a. LJ‘

Human Sublects , .
(um'ﬂs, aVld E. Wright, Ph-
CRIHS Chair
Michigan Slate University

@smewamummmg DEW‘ij

ﬂammmngwml cc: Deborah L. Feltz
48824—1046

128

APPENDIX K

Cover Letter to Parents and Consent Form

Dear Parent/Guardian

I am writing to you to enlist your help. My name is Melissa Chase
and I am a doctoral student in the Department of Physical Education
and Exercise Science at Michigan State University.

I am presently working on my dissertation which involves studying
children's use of self-conﬁdence in physical education Your child's
school district has given me permission to ask for your permission to
allow your son/daughter to help with my study.

I realize how busy you are. However, your cooperation would
enable me to better understand children's self—conﬁdence. Enclosed
you will ﬁnd a consent form. If you agree to participate, please sign
the consent form and return it in the envelope in which you received
this information to your child's teacher.

All information from this study will be treated with strictest
confidence and your child's answers will remain conﬁdential. Of
course, your participation is completely voluntary.

I would appreciate receiving your response as soon as possible.
Thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely,

Melissa Chase

Michigan State University
202 IM Circle

East Lansing, MI 48824
517-432-1416

129

Consent Form
Department of Physical Education and Exercise Science
Michigan State University

Children's Use of Self-Conﬁdence Information

I have freely consented to allow my son/daughter to participate in
this study conducted by Melissa Chase, doctoral student in the
Department of Physical Education and Exercise Science, at Michigan
State University.

The study is concerned with children's use of self-conﬁdence
information in physical education.

I understand that my son/daughter is free to refuse to participate in
certain procedures, answer certain questions, or discontinue
participation at any time without penalty.

I understand that my son/daughter's participation in this study does
not guarantee any beneﬁcial effects.

I understand that if I choose to allow my son/daughter to participate
in the study, it will take about twenty minutes or less to complete
these surveys. Questions will be completed in a group, as a class,
during a portion of your child's school day.

I understand that all information from this study will remain
anonymous in any report of research ﬁndings.

I agree to participate voluntarily in this study.

 

 

Parent/Guardian's Signature Date

 

 

Child's Signature Date

130

Appendix L

Listing of Students for Interviews

grade;
* = Students Interviewed

ID SCHOOL GENDER INTERVW ACCURATE

333 4 l 2 2.80
318 4 1 1 2.60*
302 4 2 l 2.60*
308 4 2 l 2.40*
303 4 2 l 2.20
328 4 2 2 2.20
358 3 2 l 2.00
361 3 2 1 2.00
322 4 2 2 2.00
307 4 2 l 1.80
312 4 2 2 1.80
351 3 1 2 1.80
348 3 2 2 1.80
310 4 l l 1.60*
366 3 2 1 1.40
367 3 2 2 1.40
321 4 1 l 1.20
359 3 2 2 1.20
330 4 2 2 1.20
347 3 2 1 1.20
341 3 2 1 1.20
309 4 2 2 1.00
304 4 1 1 1.00
332 4 1 l .80
315 4 2 1 .80
362 3 2 1 .80
360 3 l 1 .60
337 3 2 2 .60
354 3 2 2 .60
326 4 2 2 .40
319 4 1 1 .40
355 3 1 1 .40
349 3 2 2 .40
329 4 2 2 .20
317 4 1 l .20
301 3 1 l .20
325 4 2 2 .20
331 4 2 2 .00
31 l 4 2 1 .00
339 3 2 l .00
313 4 2 1 -.20
327 4 2 2 -.20

131

324 4 2 2 -.20
320 4 1 1 -.20
316 4 2 l -.20
306 4 1 l -.20
353 3 l l -.20
343 3 l 2 -.40
344 3 l 1 -.40
356 3 2 2 -.40
365 3 1 2 -.40
314 4 2 l -.60
342 3 2 1 -.60
340 3 2 1 -.60*
323 4 2 2 -.60
335 4 1 2 -.80
346 3 1 2 -.80
334 4 l 2 -1.00
364 3 1 1 -1.00*
368 3 2 1 -1.00*
305 4 2 2 -1.20
357 3 1 2 -l.20
345 3 2 2 - l .40
363 3 1 2 -1.60
350 3 1 1 -2.60*
ade

ID SCHOOL GENDER INTERVW ACCURATE

551
566
565
570

543 4 2 2 3.00
534 4 2 2 2.40
510 4 l l 2.40
540 4 2 2 2.40
533 4 2 2 2.40
502 4 2 l 2.20*
550 4 l l 2.20*
554 4 1 1 2.00*
552 4 1 2 2.00
514 3 2 2 2.00
563 3 2 1 1.80*
564 3 2 1 1.60
535 4 2 2 1.60
523 3 1 1 1.60
503 4 2 1 1.40
559 4 l 1 1.20
527 3 l 2 1.20
519 3 1 2 1.20
562 3 2 2 1.20
506 4 l 1 1.20
517 3 2 2 1.00
4 1 2 1.00
3 2 1 1.00
3 2 1 1.00
4 2 1 1.00

132

548 4 2 l .80
561 3 l 2 .80
549 4 1 1 .80
530 3 1 2 .80
513 3 l 1 .80
553 4 2 1 .60
521 3 2 2 .60
539 4 1 1 .40
532 3 1 1 .40
528 3 1 1 .40
520 3 2 2 .40
541 4 2 2 .40
546 4 2 2 .20
536 4 2 2 .20
531 3 1 1 .20
505 4 1 1 .20
504 4 1 1 .20
557 4 2 1 .20
556 4 2 1 .00
529 3 l l .00
512 3 l l .00
567 3 2 1 .00
511 4 l 2 a20
508 4 1 2 n20
544 4 1 2 -.20
525 3 2 2 a20
524 3 2 2 m20
518 3 l 1 a20
537 4 1 1 420
509 4 2 1 n40
507 4 2 2 n40
547 4 2 1 a40
568 3 2 2 n40
515 3 2 1 n40
501 4 1 1 a60*
555 4 1 1 %OO
522 3 2 1 %OO
545 4 1 2 n80
542 4 2 1 480*
516 3 2 1 a80*
569 3 2 2 -1.00
558 4 2 2 -1.20
560 3 1 1 -L20*
Gradeﬁ

ID SCHOOL GENDER INTERVW ACCURATE
844 1 1 1 260*
929 2 1 1 2.40
859 1 1 1 220*
886 l 1 1 2.20
848 l 1 1 1200
896 2 2 1 1200

 

 

 

133

mm0 0mmwwwmmwmwmwmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmo ommmmmmmmmmmmmmwmm

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

2221112111111122211111121121111122211221111111222211111
2 77 774583533314592070067 1.6010042 91002691335215 1151
88000098888800 99000000880090089800000000009988898888888999988888

NHHNNNNNNNNNHh‘HI—‘HHNHHNNNNNN—I—tI—‘HHNNNNNND—ID—OHI—tI—tNHI—tI—OD—IO—OHNNNN

Ny—ANNHb—tr—tr—t—INNNu—HHNNNHHNNNHHHr—av—INNNNHNt—‘r—oh—NHHHNNr—A—Nv—tI—ANNNNNu—n

n—n—tr—ui—br—H—nt—sr—tv—sNNNI—‘v—tr—‘NI—tt—ti—nt—II—Iv—tt—‘r—Itdv—Ni—INo—nNi—swt—su—aHNNHHon—HHH_N~HHH~N

EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

882222222222222222"'°----°-

134

h-INNNNI—OO—ﬁHNh-IHHHNNHh‘HNN—IHNNNI—‘HHNNHHNNNI—OO—DH

Nr—cu—ANNr—ti—INM:—HNNNNNv—nNN—st—bNh—NNHNNy—tr—nt—n—Nh—Nmt—‘H

NI—It—iNl—‘HNNNNI—‘t—‘I—INNh—it—‘NI—iNF—IND—‘h—Nh—HH—ii—bl‘l—Ih—‘I—‘HNHI—d

-1.20*

-2220

135

136

APPENDIX M

Interview Guide

Thank you for agreeing to help me with my school project again. I'd like to ask you some
questions similar to the questions I asked you before. I'm going to need to tape record this
interview so we can talk now and 1 can write down your answers later. Is it OK with you
if I tape your interview? If there are any questions you don't want to discuss, let me know.
And if at any time you'd like to stop, please say so. Do you have any questions?

WM

How do you know you are conﬁdent? What are the reasons that help you know
you're good at sports?

On your list from the survey, you said was the most important reason why
you were sure you were good. Why is that?

Does it matter how hard you work in how conﬁdent you are? If you're conﬁdent
in a sport is it because you work really hard or because you are just good?

Research Question ng

Do you usually set a goal for how well you would like to do in sports or activities?
What happens if you do not reach your goal?
Would you change your goal following failure?

Following failure, would you put forth more effort on skills that you have high self-
efﬁcacy or skills that you have low self-efﬁcacy? Why?

Let's say you do set a goal, like make 7 out of 10 baskets. How do you feel when
you don't make 7 baskets and you only make 2 or 3? How would you feel?

Additional Questions for Eumre Research

Do you know what self—conﬁdence means?

Is it important to have conﬁdence? What kind of inﬂuence does conﬁdence have on
you when you play sports?

How do you know you are successful in sports? How do you deﬁne failure in
sports? What does it mean to be successful in sport?

137

APPENDIX N

Summary Table for All Signiﬁcance Tests

 

 

11251 if E Pr '1' Level
' ' n - Ef 'li
(within groups)
Attribution l, 287 3.48 .063
Efﬁcacy Level x Attribution 1, 287 41.76 .001
Am’butigns - Effog, Ability, Luck, Task
(within groups)
Attribution 3, 285 52.73 .001
(between groups)
Efﬁcacy Level 4, 284 29.45 .001
Task Difﬁculty l, 287 19.45 .001
Ability 1, 287 102.89 .001
Effort 1, 287 0.00 .995
Luck 1, 287 0.14 .704
Gender 1, 287 1.82 .179
Age Group 8, 566 1.54 .140
Efﬁcacy Level x Age Group 8, 560 2.48 .012
Task Difﬁculty 2, 283 6.83 .001
Ability 2, 283 0.32 .723
Effort 2, 283 2.23 .109
Luck 2, 283 2.57 .078
Efﬁcacy Level x Gender 4, 274 0.97 .423
Age x Gender 8, 548 0.79 .603
Age x Efﬁcacy Level x Gender
8, 548 1.02 .416

138

 

 

 

 

RSI if E. bii v 1
Mediation
Efﬁcacy Level 3, 284 13.67 .001
Effort 1, 286 13.74 .001
Persistence 1, 286 12.37 .001
Future S-E 1, 286 35.98 .001
Age Group 6, 566 4.93 .001
Effort 2, 285 8.52 .001
Persistence 2, 285 0.89 .410
Future S-E 2, 285 5.08 .007
Gender 3, 284 1.47 .221
Efﬁcacy Level x Age 6, 548 1.46 .189
Efﬁcacy Level x Gender 3, 274 0.50 .676
Gender x Age 6, 548 1.87 .084
Efﬁcacy Level x Age x Gender
6, 548 1.53 .164
128.1 sit 1&2 limb—3W
Choice to Participate
Girls - 8 to 9 1 2.08 .149
Boys - 8 to 9 1 2.29 .129
Girls - 10 to 11 1 0.56 .453
Boys - 10 to 11 1 0.19 .655
Girls - 13 to 14 1 8.14 .004
Boys - 13 to 14 1 19.38 .001

139

 

 

1%! if E il' vel
Sources
Gender 3, 246 4.57 .004
Signiﬁcant Other 1, 248 0.15 .691
Ability 1, 246 12.50 .001
Effort 1, 246 0.85 .355
Age Group 6, 490 2.31 .032
Signiﬁcant Other 2, 247 1.94 .145
Ability 2, 247 2.23 .109
Effort 2, 247 3.66 .027
Gender x Age Group 6, 484 0.65 .684

 

Summary Table for Items that were Eliminated from Efﬁcacy
Source of Information Questionnaire

140

APPENDIX 0

 

 

Easter M 52 r Factor
Eliminated Factors
I like sports 3.52 0.82 .392 3
Skill is difﬁcult and I can do it 3.18 0.84 .298 3
Skill is easy and I can do it 3.12 0.90 .328 4
It is easy to learn 3.10 0.88 .398 3
Teacher or coach helps me 3.08 0.93 .412 1
Better than brother or sister 2.62 1.19 .473 5
Do not have to work hard
to be good 2.45 1.04 .620 4
I do not need help from anyone 2.24 1.06 .471 4

 

LIST OF REFERENCES

141
LIST OF REFERENCES

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efﬁcacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Bayohologioachyioy LIZ) 191-215

Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efﬁcacy in human agency. Amoricah Psychology, _3_7
122-147.

Bandura, A. (1986). Sgial Foondations of Thought and Action; A Smial Cognitive
Ihoozy. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Bandura, A. (1989). Self-regulation of motivation and action through internal standards
and goal systems. In L. A. Pervin (Eds) al on t in 11
Psychology. Hillsdale, NJ. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, (pp. 19-85).

Bandura, A. (1990). Perceived self-efﬁcacy in the exercise of personal agency. Aopli_ed
Wow, 2. 128-163.

Bandura, A., & Cervone, D. (1983). Self-evaluative and self-efﬁcacy mechanisms

governing the motivational effects of goal systems. lomaLoLPogoogjiyaooSocgl
Psychology 5135) 1017- 1028

Bandura, A., & Cervone, D. (1986). Differential engagement of self-reactive
inﬂuences 1n cognitive motivation, nal B h vi isi n

Prme esse s, 18, 92-113.

Bandura, A., & Schunk, D. H. (1981). Cultivating competence, self-efﬁcacy, intrinsic
interest through proximal self-motivation, MP r on ch 1
41, 586-598.

 

Bandura, A, & Wood, R. (1989). Effect of perceived controllability and performance

standards on self-regulation of complex decision making. 1W
Esyohoogy so 805-814

Benenson, J. & Dweck, C. (1986). The development of trait explanations and self—
evaluations in the academic and social domains. Wm, 17, 1179-1187.

Bird, A. M., & Williams, J. M. (1980). A developmental-attributional analysis of sex
role stereotypes for sport performance. DeyelopgegalPsychology, 16, 319-322.

Brody, E. B., Hatﬁeld, B. D., Spalding, T. W. (1988). Generalization of self-efﬁcacy
to a continuum of stressors upon mastery of a high-risk sport skill. lomggﬁmggld

Whey 10.3244

Brophy, J ., & Good, T. (1974).I_caohg;s_tod_chLPola_n_cnsh1p_s. New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston.

Bukowski, W. M., & Moore, D. (1980). Winners' and losers' attributions for success

and failure in a series of athletic events. 0 Ex r ' P h l , _2_, 195-
210.

142

Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1990). Origins and functions of positive and negative
affect: A control-process view. W, 2:21 1), 19- 35.

Chase, M. A., Ewing, M. E., Lirgg. C. D., & George, T. R. (1994). The effects of
equipment modiﬁcation on children' s self-efﬁcacy and basketball shooting performance.

Wood £2512) 159-168
Chase, M. A., Feltz, D. L., &Fitzpatrick, J. M. (1995). MW
1 s 11 1- '1 11 - fﬁ- 1.1-gristne. 1. 11rtas Paper

presented at American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance
Conference, Portland, OR.

Chase, M. A., Feltz, D. L., Tully, D. C., & Lirgg, C. D. (1994). SW
iodiyidyalﬂjcamﬂjcocy Paper presented at the North American Society for
Psychology of Sport and Physical Activity Conference, Clearwater, FL.

Chase, M. A. Lirgg.C. D., &Feltz, D. L. (1993). Docoachcs' chicac cxyc occlgio ns
‘7 Paper presented at the North American Society

for Psychology of Sport and Physical Activity Conference, Brainerd, MN.

Collins, J. (1982). Self-efﬁcacy and ability in achievement behavior. In A. Bandura
(Ed) (1986) WWW
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice- Hall, Inc.

Corbin, C. B1, Landers, D. M., Feltz, D. L, & Senior, K. (1983). Sex differences in
performance estimates: Female lack of conﬁdence vs. male boastfulness. Bowl;

Quartodyfotﬁxeromnoimtt. 53, 407-410.

Corbin, C. B., & Nix, C. (1979). Sex-typing of physical activities and success
predictions of children before and after cross-sex competition. mm

Psychology. 1.. 43-52.

Corbin, C. B., Stewart, M. J ., & Blair, W. O. (1981). Self-conﬁdence and motor
performance of preadolescent boys and girls in different feedback situations. loomgof

WW. 3. 30-34.

Duda, J. L. (1992). Motivation 1n sport settings: A goal perspective approach. In G. C.
Roberts (Ed) Motiyationjnémmoiﬁxetcjse Champaign. IL: Human Kinetics

Duda, J. L., & Walling, M. (1994). Understanding and maximizing motivation in
sport: Where are the children? '. - , _

W Lakeme Nevada '

Duncan, T., & McAuley, E. (1987). Efﬁcacy expectations and perceptions of causality
in motor performance. WW, 2, 385-393.

Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). IhoPsychglmgyofAllmldco. Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich College Publishers.

 
 

Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch- Romen, C. (1993). The role of deliberate
practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Bovicw, 1(3), 363-406.

Ewing. M. E. (1981).Aoliioyomot1toti§ototiou§_ao¢§oon_booayiomimﬂ¢§_ano
fomgcs. Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois.

143

Feltz, D. L. (1982). Path analysis of the causal elements in Bandura' s theory of self-
efﬁcacy and an anxiety-based model of avoidance behavior. ,1on g o chrsonalily ago
Sooiallisyohoogy. 12.. 764- 781.

Feltz, D. L. ( 1988a). Gender differences in the causal elements of self-efﬁcacy on high
avoidance motor tasks. W, ll), 151-166.

Feltz, D. L. (1988b). Self-conﬁdence and sports performance. In K. B. Pandolf (Ed.),
Excrcisc and 8mg Scicnces Rcvicws. New York: MacMillan. (pp. 423-457).

Feltz, D. L. (1992). Understanding motivation in sport: A self-efﬁcacy perspective. In
G. C. Roberts (Ed. ) Motivation 111 518211 and Exorcisc. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Feltz, D. L. (1994a). Self-conﬁdence and performance. In D. Druckmand and R. A.
Bjork (Eds.) ﬁming, Pcmcmmring, Bclicving. Washington, D. C.: National Academy

Press.

Feltz, D. L. (1994b). flfhc Role of Sclf-Effrcacy in Motor Pcrfoghancc gigl Soon.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Society, Washington,

D. C.

Feltz, D. L., & Brown, E. (1984). Perceived competence in soccer skills among young

soccer players. loomg of 8mg, Psychology, 6, 385-394.

Feltz, D. L., Landers, D. M., & Raeder, U. (1979). Enhancing self-efﬁcacy in high-
avoidance motor tasks: A comparison of modeling techniques.

Psychology, _1_, 112-122.

Feltz, D. L., & Mungo, D. A. (1983). A replication of the path analysis of the causal
elements in Bandura's theory of self-efﬁcacy and the inﬂuence of autonomic perception.

loomg of Sport Psychology, 1, 263-277.

Feltz, D. L., & Riessinger, C. A. (1990). Effects on in vivo emotive imagery and
performance feedback on self-efﬁcacy and muscular endurance. MM

Excrcisc Psychology, l_2, 132-143.

George, T. R., Feltz, D. L., &Chase, M. A. (1992). The effects of model similarity

on self-efﬁcacy and muscular endurance: A second look. Joomgofﬁmrmdﬁmisc
Psychology 1_ 237- 248.

Gill, D. L. (1986) PsychologicaLDyhgoicsoﬂﬁm. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Glass, G. V.. & HOPkinS. K. D- (19841811121221.112111911111mmm
Psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Gould, D., & Weiss, M. R. (1981). Effect of model similarity and model self-talk on
self-efﬁcacy in muscular endurance. MW, 1, 17-29.

Harter, S. (1978). Effectance motivation reconsidered: Toward a developmental model.
Homﬂoyeloomcm. 2.1. 34-64

Harter, S. (1982). The perceived competence scale for children. mm,
51, 87-97.

144

Horn, T. S., & Hasbrook, C. A. (1987). Psychological characteristics and the criteria
children use for self-evaluation. lQomgMPsychology, 2, 208-221.

Horn, T. S., & Weiss, M. R. (1991). A developmental analysis of children' 3 self-
ability judgments 1n the physical domain. mm, 1, 310-326.

Kaley, R., & Cloutier, R. (1984). Developmental determinants of self-efﬁcacy
predictiveness W 8(6) 643- 656

Kanfer, R. (1990). Motivation and individual differences 1n learning: An integration of
developmental differential and cognitive perspectives. n vi ff 11
2(2), 221- 239.

Kanfer, R., & Ackerman, P. L. (1989). Motivation and cognitive abilities: An
integrative/aptitude—treatment interaction approach to skill acquisition. LoghgoiAooLiod
12811211919211. 15.. 657-690.

Kuhl, J. (1984). Volitional aspects of achievement motivation and learned helplessness:
Toward a comprehensive theory of action control. In B. A. Maher (Ed. ) ﬂoggesslh

132W Vol. 13. New York: Academic Press.

Lenney, E. (1977). Women’s self-conﬁdence in achievement settings. Psychological
mum. 8.4.9 1'13.

Lee, C. (1982). Self-efﬁcacy as a predictor of performance in competitive gymnastics.

, 4, 405-409.
Lee, I. (1995). Pcr ccplions of socccss glo failorc in school angl spoil for Korean ood

.Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University.

Lewko, J. H., & Ewing, M. E. (1980). Sex differences and parental inﬂuences in the
sport involvement of children. loomgoLSanPsychology, 2,, 62-68.

Lirgg, C. D. (1991). Gender differences in self-conﬁdence 1n physical activity: A meta-
analysis of recent studies. MW, 8, 294- 310.

Lirgg, C. D., & Feltz, D. L. (1991). Teacher versus peer models revisited: Effects on

motor performance and self-efﬁcacy. WW, 82(2),
217-224.

Locke, E. A., Frederick, E., Lee, C. & Bobko, P. (1984). Effect of self-efﬁcacy,

goals, and task strategies on task performance. WM, 82, 241-
25 1.

Locke, E. A., Shaw, L. M., Saari, K. N., & Latham, G. P. (1981). Goal setting and
task performance: 1969 - 1980. Psychologicgﬁoﬂclih, 22, 125-152.

Maccoby, E. E., & Jacklin, C. N. (1974). W. Palo
Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.

Martinek, T. J ., & Johnson, S. B. (1979). Teacher expectations: Effects on dyadic
interactions and self-concepts in elementary age children. W, 5_Q, 60-70.

145

McAuley, E. (1985). Success and causality in sport: The inﬂuence of perception.
, 1, 13-22.

McAuley, E. (1992). Self-referent thought 1n sport and physical activity. In T. S. Horn
(Ed) Adyanoesinﬁmrﬂ’sychology Chamvaign. IL Human Kinetics (PP 101-118)

Nicholls, J. G. (1978). The development of the concepts of effort and ability,
perception of academic attainment, and the understanding that difﬁcult tasks require more

ability Qhﬂiﬂoxelooment. 42. 800-814.

Nicholls, J. G. (1984). Achievement motivation: Conception of ability, subjective
experience, task choice and performance. W. 21, 328- 346.

Nicholls, J. G. (1992). The general and the speciﬁc 1n the development and expression

of achievement motivation. In G. C. Roberts (Ed. ) Wise.
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Piaget, J. (1972). Pmﬂlogyoniﬂoistcmology. London: Penguin.

Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1968). W. New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston.

Schunk, D. H. (1983). Developing children's self-efﬁcacy and skills. The roles of

social comparative information and goal setting. WM, 8.
76- 86.

Schunk, D. H. (1989). Self-efﬁcacy and cognitive skill learning. In C. A. Ames and
R..:-Ames(Eds) -.__ _ _ -_ ..SanDiego:
Academic Press, Inc.

 

Schunk, D. H. (1991). Goal setting and self-evaluation: A social cognitive perspective
on self-regulation WW. 1. 85-113

Schunk, D. H. & Cox, P. D. (1986). Strategy training feedback with learning
disabled students Iomalotlikhtcationallisycbology 18 201 -209

Schunk, D. H., & Gunn, T. P. (1984). Self-efﬁcacy and skill development: Inﬂuence
of task strategies and attributions. WW, 2214.), 238- 244.

Stipek, D. (1981). Childrenl's perceptions of their own and their classmates ability.
H11 404-410.

Stipek, D, & Tannatt, L. (1984). Children's judgments of their own and their peers'
academic competence loumalotﬂduoaﬂondﬁsmmogy. lo 75- 84

Thomas, R. M. (1985). W. Wadsworth, Inc.:
Belmont, CA.

Tully.D C (19195) Subjectiyomoanirmsoisoliandﬁamoonﬁdoncofot
i .Masters Thesis, Michigan State University.

Walter, S. M., & Vealey, R. S. (1994). Sources of self-conﬁdence in sport:
Preliminary instrument development and investigation. 3

forthoAdyanoemornoonpliroiponfsychology. Lake Tahoe. Nevada.

146

Weinberg, R., Gould, D., & Jackson, A. (1979). Expectations and performance: An
empirical test of Bandura's self-efﬁcacy theory. loumal of Sport Psychology, 1, 320-331.

Weinberg, R., Sinardi, M., & Jackson, A. (1982). Effect of bar height and modeling
on anxiety, self-conﬁdence and gymnastic performance. loternatiooal Gymnast, _2, 11-13.

Weiss, M. R. (1987). Self-esteem and achievement in children's sport and physical
activity. In D. Gould & M. R. Weiss (Eds.) van e 11 di tri ci nces, Vol, 2

Behayiorgjssues. Champaign, IL. Human Kinetics, (pp. 87-119).

Weiss, M. R., (1992). Motivational Orientation 1n Sport. In T. S. Horn (Ed.,)
Agl_aoc_cs_in_8m_rt_Psychology, Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, (pp. 61-95).

Weiss, M. R., & Bredemeier, B. J. (1983). Developmental sport psychology: A
theoretical perspective for studying children in sport. Wu, 8, 216-
230.

Weiss, M. R., & Horn, T. S. (1990). The relation between children's accuracy
estimates of their physical competence and achievement-related characteristics. match

Qoatterly to: Exercise go Spott, 81, 250-258.

Weiss, M. R., McAuley, E., Ebbeck, V., & Wiese, D. M. (1990). Self-esteem and
causal attributions for children's physical and social competence in sport. ELEM—(Jim

Wm. 12, 21-36.

Weiss, M. R., & Raedeke, T. D. (1994). mvelopmental Sport Psychology Revisited;
WW Paper presented at the North
American Society for Psychology of Sport and Physical Activity Conference, Clearwater,
FL.

Yando, Seitz, & Zigler, (1978). Imitation; A Developmental Petsmctive. New York:
Wiley.

147

SPSS Command File for Phase One Data

DATA LIST FILE 'CHASEzANALYSISzDISSDATA' RECORDS 2 FIXED

/1 ID 1-3 SCHOOL 4 AGE 5-6 GRADE 7 GENDER 8 HISKILL 9-10 HISURE 11-12
HIIMP 13-14 LOSKILL15-16 LOSURE17-18 LOIMP 19-20 HARTERl 21
HARTERZ 22 HARTER3 23 HARTER4 24 HARTERS 25 CONTRLI 26 CONTRL2 27
CONTRL3 28 CONTRL4 29 CONTRLS 3O CONTRL6 31 CONTRL7 32 CONTRL8 33
CONTRL9 34 CONTRLIO 35 CONTRLll 36 CONTRL12 37 SOURCEl 38 SOURCE2 39
SOURCE3 40 SOURCE4 41 SOURCES 42 SOURCE6 43 SOURCE7 44
SOURCE8 45 SOURCE9 46 SOURCE10 47 SOURCE” 48 SOURCE12 49
SOURCE13 50 SOURCE14 51 SOURCEIS 52 SOURCE16 53 SOURCE17 54
SOURCE18 55 SOURCE19 56 SOURCE20 57 MOSTIMP 58-59 MANIPUL 60

[2 BIRTHDAT 1-5 (2) RACE 6 NUMDAYS 7 PBBALL 8 PFBALL 9 PVBALL 10
PSOCCER ll PHOCK 12 PTRACK l3 PSBALL l4 PSWIM 15 PGYM l6 PTENNIS 17
PNONE l8 PYEARS 19-20 INTERVW 2] HAPPY 22 NOTHARD 23 NOTGOOD 24
NOTLUCKY 25 NOTTASK 26 EFFORT 27-28 PERSIST 29-30 CHOICE 31
FUTURESE 32-33 TEACHER] 34 TEACHERZ 35 TEACHER3 36 TEACHER4 37
TEACHERS 38

VARIABLE LABELS ID 'SUBJECI‘ ID'

HISKILL 'HIGH EFFICACY SKILL'

HISURE 'EFFICACY FOR HIGH EFF SKILL'

HIHVIP 'IMPORTANCE FOR HIGH EFF SKILL'
LOSKILL 'LOW EFFICACY SKILL'

LOSURE 'EFFICACY FOR LOW EFF SKILL'
LOIMP 'IMPORTANCE FOR LOW EFF SKILL'
HARTERI 'HOW GOOD AT ALL SPORTS'
HARTER2 'HOW GOOD AT NEW GAMES'
HARTER3 'HOW GOOD SKILLS NEVER TRIED'
HARTER4 'HOW GOOD COMPARED TO OTHER KIDS'
HARTERS 'HOW MUCH PLAY INSTEAD OF WATCH'
CONTRLl 'CAN NOT FIGURE WHY I WON'
CONTRL2 'GOOD IF I TRY HARD ENOUGH'
CONTRL3 'WIN WHEN OTHER PLAYED BADLY‘
CONTRL4 'CAN NOT FIGURE WHY I LOST'
CONTRLS 'CAN NOT CATCH DID NOT TRY HARD'
CONTRL6 'LOSE WHEN KID BETTER THAN 1'
CONTRL7 'WIN DO NOT KNOW WHY'

CONTRL8 'BE GOOD IF TRY HARD'

CONTRL9 'WIN WHEN OTHER KID DID NOT PLAY WELL'
CONTRLIO 'DO NOT WIN CAN NOT FIGURE WHY'
CONTRLll 'TRY CATCH NOT HARD ENOUGH'
CONTRL12 'DO NOT WIN OTHER WAS BETTER'
SOURCEl 'FRIENDS SAY I AM GOOD'

SOURCE2 '1 WORK HARD AT PRACTICING'
SOURCE3 "TEACHER OR COACH HELPS ME'
SOURCE4 'SKILL IS EASY AND I CAN DO IT'
SOURCES 'COACH SAYS I AM GOOD'

SOURCE6 'I USUALLY WIN'

SOURCE7 'I PRACTICE MORE THAN OTHERS'
SOURCE8 'I AM REALLY GOOD'

SOURCE9 'SKILL IS DIFFICULT AND I DO IT"
SOURCE10 'MOM SAYS I AM GOOD'

SOURCEll 'I ALMOST NEVER LOSE'

SOURCE12 'I AM BETTER THAN KIDS MY AGE'
SOURCE13 'I CAN IMPROVE EASILY'

SOURCE14 TEACHER SAYS I AM GOOD'
SOURCElS 'I LIKE SPORTS'

148

SOURCE16 'DO NOT HAVE TO WORK HARD TO BE GOOD'
SOURCE17 'DAD SAYS I AM GOOD'

SOURCE18 'IT IS EASY TO LEARN‘

SOURCE19 BETTER THAN BROTHER OR SISTER'
SOURCE20 'I DO NOT NEED HELP FROM ANY ONE'
MOSTTMP 'MOST IMPORTANT SOURCE'

MANIPUL 'HIGH OR LOW EFFICACY SKILL SCENARIO'
BIRTHDAT 'BIRTHDATE IN TOTAL MONTHS'

RACE 'ETHNTC BACKGROUND'

NUMDAYS 'NUMBER OF DAYS PLAY SPORTS'
PBBALL 'PLAY BASKETBALL'

PFBALL 'PLAY FOOTBALL'

PVBALL 'PLAY VOLLEYBALL'

PSOCCER 'PLAY SOCCER'

PHOCK 'PLAY HOCKEY'

PTRACK 'PLAY TRACK'

PSBALL 'PLAY BASEBALL SOFTBALL'

PSWIM 'PLAY SWIMMING'

PGYM 'PLAY GYMNASTICS'

PTENNIS 'PLAY TENNIS'

PNONE 'PLAY NO SPORTS'

PYEARS 'NUMBER OF YEARS PLAYING SPORTS'
INTERVW 'WOULD LIKE TO INTERVIEW WITH ME'
HAPPY 'HAPPY WITH RESULTS OF SCENARIO'
NOTHARD 'REASON FOR FAILURE EFFORT”
NOTGOOD 'REASON FOR FAILURE ABILITY'
NOTLUCKY 'REASON FOR FAILURE LUCK‘
NOT'I'ASK 'REASON FOR FAILURE TASK DIFFICULTY'
EFFORT 'EFFORT EXPENDED NEXT TIME'

PERSIST 'NUMBER OF MINUTES TO PERSIST'
CHOICE 'CHOICE OF ACTIVITY NEXT TIME'
FUTURESE 'FUTURE RATING OF SELF EFFICACY'
TEACHERI 'HOW GOOD AT ALL SPORTS'

TEACHERZ 'HOW GOOD AT NEW GAMES'

TEACHER3 'HOW GOOD SKILLS NEVER TRIED'
TEACHER4 'HOW GOOD COMPARED TO OTHER KIDS'
TEACHERS 'HOW MUCH PLAY INSTEAD OF WATCH'

VALUE LABELS SCHOOL 1 'FROST MIDDLE' 2 'KENEWA HILLS MIDDLE'
3 'TAYLOR ELEMENTARY' 4 'ALPINE ELEMENTARY']
GENDER 1 'GIRL' 2 'BOY'l
HISKILL 1 'BASKETBALL DRIBBLING' 2 'BASKETBALL SHOOTING'
3 'BASKETBALL PASSING' 4 'SOCCER SHOOTING' 5 'BASKETBALL'
6 'HOCKEY' 7 'BASEBALL POSITIONS' 8 'BOWLING' 9 'FIGURE SKATING'
10 THROWING' ll 'FOOTBALL RUNNING' 12 'FOOTBALL' l3 'TENNTS'
l4 'HUNTTNG' 15 'RUNNING' l6 'PULL UPS' l7 'BASKETBALL RUNNING'
l8 'HOCKEY SHOOTING' 19 'BASEBALL HITI'ING' 20 'SWIMMING'
21 'BASEBALL' 22 'GOLF' 23 'BASKETBALL DEFENSE' 24 'SOCCER DEFENSE'
25 'BIKING' 26 'SOCCER' 27 'HOCKEY DEFENSE' 28 'T'ENNIS SERVING'
29 'FOOTBALL CATCHING' 30 'SOCCER DRIBBLING' 31 'BASEBALL FIELDING'
32 'DIVING' 33 'FOOTBALL THROWING' 34 'CHEERLEADING' 35
'FLOOR HOCKEY'
36 'SOF'I'BALL CATCHING' 37 'DANCING' 38 'VOLLEYBALL' 39 'SOFTBALL'
40 'BALLET' 41 'GYMNASTICS BARS' 42 'GYMNASTICS' 43 'JAZZ DANCE'
44 'HANDBALL' 45 'SKIING' 46 'SOCCER GOALIE' 47 'DANCE TAP'
48 'VOLLEYBALL SPIKE' 49 'FIELD HOCKEY' 50 'FOOTBALL DEFENSE'
SI 'WRESTLING' 52 'BADMI'I'ION' 53 'KARATE' 54 'HORSEBACK RIDING'
55 'SOFI'BALL BAT'I'ING' 56 'SOFI'BALL PITCHING' 57 'INLINE SKATING'

149

58 'BASEBALL PITCHING' 59 ' SOCCER PASSING' 60 'FOOTBALL KICKING'
61 'KICKING WITH LEFT FOOT” 62 'HOCKEY SKATING' 63 'KICKBALL'
64 'ROPE CLIMBING'I

HISURE 0 'NOT SURE AT ALL' 5 'SORT OF SURE' 6 'SORT OF SURE' 10

'VERY SURE'I

HIIMP 0 'NOT IMPORTANT AT ALL' 5 'SORT OF IMPORTANT" 6

'SORT OF IMPORTANT"
10 'VERY IMPORTANT/

LOSKILL l 'BASKETBALL DRIBBLING’ 2 'BASKETBALL SHOOTING'

3 'BASKETBALL PASSING' 4 'SOCCER SHOOTING' 5 BASKETBALL'
6 'HOCKEY' 7 'BASEBALL POSITIONS' 8 'BOWLING' 9 'FIGURE SKATING'
10 THROWING' ll 'FOOTBALL RUNNING' 12 'FOOTBALL' 13 TENNIS'
l4 'HUNT'ING' 15 'RUNNING' 16 'PULL UPS' 17 'BASKETBALL RUNNING'
18 'HOCKEY SHOOTING' l9 'BASEBALL HITTING‘ 20 'SWIMMING'
21 'BASEBALL' 22 'GOLF' 23 'BASKETBALL DEFENSE' 24 'SOCCER DEFENSE'
25 'BIKING' 26 'SOCCER' 27 'HOCKEY DEFENSE' 28 TENNIS SERVING'
29 'FOOTBALL CATCHING' 30 'SOCCER DRIBBLING' 31 'BASEBALL FIELDING'
32 'DIVING' 33 'FOOTBALL THROWING' 34 'CHEERLEADING' 35

'FLOOR HOCKEY'

36 'SOFTBALL CATCHING' 37 'DANCING' 38 'VOLLEYBALL' 39 'SOFTBALL'
40 'BALLET' 41 'GYMNASTICS BARS' 42 'GYMNASTICS' 43 'JAZZ DANCE'
44 'HANDBALL' 45 'SKIING' 46 'SOCCER GOALIE' 47 'DANCE TAP'
48 'VOLLEYBALL SPIKE' 49 'FIELD HOCKEY‘ 50 'FOOTBALL DEFENSE'
51 'WRESTLING' 52 'BADMITTON' 53 'KARATE' 54 'HORSEBACK RIDING'
55 'SOFTBALL BATTING' 56 'SOFTBALL PITCHING' 57 'INLINE SKATING'
58 'BASEBALL PITCHING' 59 ' SOCCER PASSING' 60 'FOOTBALL KICKING'

61 'KICKING WITH LEFT FOOT” 62 'HOCKEY SKATING' 63 'KICKBALL'
64 'ROPE CLIMBING'I
LOSURE 0 'NOT SURE AT ALL' 5 'SORT OF SURE“ 6 'SORT OF SURE' 10
'VERY SURE'I
LOIMP 0 'NOT IMPORTANT AT ALL' 5 'SORT OF IMPORTANT” 6
'SORT OF IMPORTANT'
10 'VERY IMPORTANT?

HARTERI 1 'NOT GOOD' 3 'SORT OF GOOD' 5 'VERY GOOD'/

HARTER2 1 'NOT GOOD' 3 'SORT OF GOOD' 5 'VERY GOOD'/

HARTER3 1 'NOT GOOD' 3 'SORT OF GOOD' 5 'VERY GOOD'/

HARTER4 1 'NOT GOOD' 3 'SORT OF GOOD' 5 'VERY GOOD'/

HARTERS 1 'NOT PLAY' 3 'SORT OF PLAY' 5 'PLAY A LOT'/

CONTRLl 1 'NOT TRUE AT ALL' 2 'NOT VERY TRUE' 3 'SORT OF TRUE' 4
'VERY TRUE'I

CONTRL2 1 'NOT TRUE AT ALL' 2 'NOT VERY TRUE' 3 'SORT OF TRUE' 4
'VERY TRUE'I

CONTRL3 1 'NOT TRUE AT ALL' 2 'NOT VERY TRUE' 3 'SORT OF TRUE' 4
'VERY TRUE'I

CONTRL4 1 'NOT TRUE AT ALL' 2 'NOT VERY TRUE' 3 'SORT OF TRUE' 4
'VERY TRUE'I

CONTRLS 1 'NOT TRUE AT ALL' 2 'NOT VERY TRUE' 3 'SORT OF TRUE' 4
'VERY TRUE'I

CONTRL6 1 'NOT TRUE AT ALL' 2 'NOT VERY TRUE' 3 'SORT OF TRUE' 4
'VERY TRUE'I

CONTRL7 1 'NOT TRUE AT ALL' 2 'NOT VERY TRUE' 3 'SORT OF TRUE' 4
'VERY TRUE'I

CONTRL8 1 'NOT TRUE AT ALL' 2 'NOT VERY TRUE' 3 'SORT OF TRUE' 4
'VERY TRUE'l

CONTRL9 1 'NOT TRUE AT ALL' 2 'NOT VERY TRUE 3 'SORT OF TRUE' 4
'VERY TRUE'I

CONTRL10 1 'NOT TRUE AT ALL' 2 'NOT VERY TRUE' 3 'SORT OF T'RUE' 4

'VERY TRUE'I

150

CONTRLll 1 'NOT TRUE AT ALL' 2 'NOT VERY TRUE' 3 'SORT OF TRUE' 4
'VERY TRUE'I
CONTRL12 1 'NOT TRUE AT ALL' 2 'NOT VERY TRUE' 3 'SORT OF TRUE' 4
'VERY TRUE?
SOURCEl l ’N OT IMPORTANT 4 'VERY IMPORTANT?
SOURCE2 1 'NOT IMPORTANT 4 'VERY IMPORTANT?
SOURCE3 1 'NOT IMPORTANT 4 'VERY IMPORTANT?
SOURCE4 1 'NOT IMPORTANT 4 'VERY IMPORTANT?
SOURCES 1 'NOT IMPORTANT 4 'VERY IMPORTANT?
SOURCE6 1 'NOT IMPORTANT 4 'VERY IMPORTANT?
SOURCE7 1 'NOT IMPORTANT 4 'VERY IMPORTANT?
SOURCE8 1 'N OT IMPORTANT 4 'VERY IMPORTANT?
SOURCE9 1 'NOT IMPORTANT 4 'VERY IMPORTANT?
SOURCE10 1 'NOT IMPORTANT 4 'VERY IMPORTANT?
SOURCEll 1 'NOT IMPORTANT 4 'VERY IMPORTANT?
SOURCE12 1 'NOT IMPORTANT 4 'VERY IMPORTANT/
SOURCE13 1 'NOT IMPORTANT ' 4 'VERY IMPORTANT?
SOURCE14 1 'NOT IMPORTANT 4 'VERY IMPORTANT/
SOURCEIS 1 'NOT IMPORTANT 4 'VERY IMPORTANT!
SOURCE16 1 'NOT IMPORTANT 4 'VERY IMPORTANT/
SOURCE17 1 'NOT IMPORTANT 4 'VERY IMPORTANT/
SOURCEIS 1 'NOT IMPORTANT 4 'VERY IMPORTANT/
SOURCE19 1 'NOT IMPORTANT 4 'VERY IMPORTANT]
SOURCE20 1 'NOT IMPORTANT ' 4 'VERY IMPORTANT/
MOSTIMP l 'FRIENDS SAY GOOD' 2 '1 WORK HARD AT PRACTICING'
3 TEACHER COACH HELPS ME'
4 'SKILL IS EASY ' 5 'COACH SAYS I AM GOOD' 6 'I USUALLY \NIN'
7 'I PRACTICE MORE' 8 'I AM REALLY GOOD' 9 'SKILL IS DIFFICULT'
10 'MOM SAYS GOOD' 11 'I ALMOST NEVER LOSE' 12
'I AM BETTER KIDS MY AGE' 13 ' IMPROVE EASILY' l4
TEACHER SAYS GOOD' 15 'I LIKE SPORTS' 16 'DO NOT HAVE TO WORK
HARD' 17 'DAD SAYS GOOD' 18 EASY TO LEARN'
l9 'BETI'ER BROTHER SISTER' 20 'NO HELP FROM ANYONE?
MANIPUL 1 'HIGH EFFICACY SCENARIO' 2 'LOW EFFICACY SCENARIO?
RACE 1 'CAUCASION' 2 'AFRICAN AMERICAN' 3 'HISPANIC' 4 'ASIAN AMERICAN'
5 'AMERICAN INDIAN' 6 'INTERRACIAL' 7 'OTHER'/
PBBALL 1 'YES' 0 'NO?
PFBALL 1 'YES' 0 'NO?
PVBALL 1 'YES' 0 'NO?
PSOCCER 1 'YES' 0 'NO'/
PHOCK 1 'YES' 0 'NO'/
PTRACK 1 'YES' 0 'NO?
PSBALL 1 'YES' 0 'NO?
PSWIM 1 'YES' 0 'NO?
PGYM 1 'YES' 0 'NO?
PTENNIS 1 'YES' 0 'NO'/
PNONE 1 'YES' 0 'NO?
INTERVW 1 'YES' 2 ‘NO?
HAPPY 1 'YES' 2 'NO?
NOTHARD 1 'NOT TRUE' 4 'VERY TRUE?
NOTGOOD 1 'NOT TRUE' 4 'VERY TRUE?
NOTLUCKY 1 'NOT TRUE' 4 'VERY TRUE?
NOTTASK 1 'NOT TRUE' 4 'VERY TRUE?
EFFORT 0 'NOT MUCH EFFORT AT ALL' 5 'SOME EFFORT 10 'A LOT OF EFFORT?
CHOICE 1 'YES THIS SKILL' 2 ’NO DIFFERENT SKILL?
FUTURESE 0 'NOT SURE AT ALL' 5 'SORT OF SURE' 10 'VERY SURE?
TEACHER] 1 'NOT GOOD' 3 'SORT OF GOOD' 5 'VERY GOOD?
TEACHERZ 1 'NOT GOOD' 3 'SORT OF GOOD' 5 'VERY GOOD?

151

TEACHER3 1 'NOT GOOD' 3 'SORT OF GOOD' 5 'VERY GOOD?
TEACHER4 1 'NOT GOOD' 3 'SORT OF GOOD' 5 'VERY GOOD?
TEACHERS 1 'NOT GOOD' 3 'SORT OF GOOD' 5 'VERY GOOD?

MISSING VALUE HISKILL TO LOIMP (99).
MISSING VALUE HARTER] TO SOURCE20 (9).
MISSING VALUE MOSTIMP (99).

MISSING VALUE MANIPUL TO NOTTASK (9).
MISSING VALUE PYEARS (99).

MISSING VALUE EFFORT (99).

MISSING VALUE CHOICE (9).

MISSING VALUE FUTURESE (99).

MISSING VALUE TEACHER] TO TEACHERS (9).
MISSING VALUE BIRTHDAT (99999).

COMPUTE VERBALP =MEAN .5 (SOURCEl, SOURCES, SOURCE10, SOURCE14, SOURCEI7).
COMPUTE ABILITY = MEAN .4(SOURCE6, SOURCE] ], SOURCE12, SOURCE8).

COMPUTE HARDWORK =MEAN.3(SOURCE2, SOURCE7, SOURCE13).

RECODE AGE (8:1) (9:1) (10:2) (11:2) (12:2) (13:3) (14:3) (15:3).

COMPUTE STUDENT =MEAN.5 (HARTERI, HARTER2, HARTER3, HARTER4,HARTER5).
COMPUTE TEACHER = MEAN .5(TEACHER1, TEACHERZ, TEACHER3, TEACHER4,
TEACHERS).

COMPUTE ACCURATE = (student - TEACHER).

COMPUTE INTERNAL = MEAN .4(contr12, contrlS, contrl8, contrll 1).
COMPUTE EXTERNAL = MEAN .4(contrl3, contrl6, contrl9, contr112).
COMPUTE UNKNOWN = MEAN .4(contrll, contrl4, contrl7, contrllO).

152
[kuafnnnlﬂumefDne

801113810109100407094434514124314214214221434413441311323992
16821131000010000010123223093010733333
802113820610100503055545514141114241444114444444444414422111
16600170100100000010122142103011054455
803114820709099904105544514214314113344444443414343434431171
178111510000010000]1123222092910944444
804]1382070909080501544451312121311123422343333334243332299l
15611140100101000008221111101511043343
805113820910100602104325414443214421344434434444344434341021
16500170000000000008124112103011022214
806114820510109910015535544124144124244444443444444414342011
17317171000000000007224]11103019943344
807114820710101003104433433243123222223333324234123432123991
18029161100001000010124111103011043345
808113821110100505055545514214314314444134434344444444444061
1651816]100000000006121113103011033335
80911482120810131001432451421411421]124343321321342421241071
17604171100000000014124111103011033333
81011482l410109902044223321232322322322222222222222222222991
17829521000000100012221141103011033335
81111482150910161003443442123l214323344444133442244444343991
17423161100101100007122214103010833335
812113821709100107074324413121323121324332343212341342423022
15912171000001000007121112102510744445
813113820408101807094333533344424333234434323333332434443022
16417151101000100008122413093010743344
814113820209081906064444514213114313234234334313341432414992
16610451]10001000005124211083010834345
815113822009060206083423323224323324344224434323333341212012
16808130001000101005923322050720632224
816113822110102208055445524211214211144324443432442334312071
16127171101001100010121113103011055555
817113822308l002050923324243224243223233312423114413111]1131
15912121000001100004122222102510832224
818114820510102108004433513211212111221132433314141419111061
17920161000000000008224112103011055555
819113822410102210055445514221314211334323143432332213312071
16628171101011000009121423103010844345
820113821908072505084333413233313233342232324313332432313991
16814141000101000006123113082020822124
82]114822209091205064434511241411411441141414114441441144991
17925131000000100010122133103010633335
8221138205101026060055555141124141l1414444444414441441412121
16110171100000000099221131103010944445
823114820510102606005555514112414113233243423233333334443121
17522151000000000005124223093010943344
824113822710092806065445414121214121224323343421342322311021
16526160100111000006123121093010933235
825114822910100610055335514]14114114124141134411141411411071
17827171100101001010121111103011032235
826113823009100505004444414113114213124331144411341411211991
99999171111111111010123114102510732334

153

827113820210102003045445544212224222299999999999999999999l81
16522151100000000006122123103010955555
828]13822008l02908032232233223333323321434444444444444414991
1641613000001000000322]113082510721124
829113822410102010065555514114214114244414444413433432444012
16804171101111001008121411093020455555
830113823110080209073323414211214211234223323322332232312022
16814121000001000006121213052020444345
8311148232080702080733333241123241133223242224222233233220]2
16816140011001100099122313082520732225
832113821309101210103333311312244322433333333333344334343992
16400161101101000004223333103010944335
833113820807071510073232313231413331312121414114411141111062
16809410000010000007221114102710522225
834113822505091510062111223323324223311141111411111111111092
16400630000000000001224312051520333444
8351l382l307083307073333423323424322334234334423423333323082
16]19161100101101004121211102010744445
836113812408071908055554512]ll113111114323134311131429211151
16228160001010001008122212093010844444
837113813408070205064444414224314213244434334323343432312021
15818150000000000010121142073010844444
838113810409093507054435514122314112224423323432222423312021
15816150001010000006123111082520744344
83911381020910130405444452422432422422443214222]142412422021
16002161011010110010123131103010933333
8401148102060836050643345141233l4323224342233322233432422991
17609131000000100004122223092510644444
841]14813708093805084333443143313233343333132331123423211991
17721150110101110012122312103010644444
842112813809102405064433414123214213234423343423342412431021
14628121010000001007121122103010744444
8431138105101039050553353141111141ll134333223332232442323991
16712141001010100005221112103010955555
844113814010094105084334424232323221224312334324232322323991
16425141000000100000121112103010911]11
845113814209100505053323314323424324334334224313331421322021
15929140010001010008123112103010744444
846113814308100205074343533244224244l34344434343434414441991
16317141110111110011123123103010832233
847113810l07064407044334524333324323324222241222342222222991
16217131000101100001123344083020844343
84811481370809050506444451422231421222423232232223243232302l
17203130000000100007121111103010822223
849114814508063005054333434233314l2223323223239249249323202l
17515131000000100003123223073010633223
85011481040910440900433451311131421123444344334333343434302l
17919171001010000010]23212103010833332
8511138115090805070743345143223]3322334233444444434344439022
16101l50000000000009122333072020733333
852113820108061509064435523223323223323243333122332432332152
16016151011000100005223114102020844444
853113814609060810084334514224214224244131421312314919241992
158041511111101000051214]1092710433333

154

854114813710100507085445514113]1411313442414234112441441]152
17603370000010000012124214103010833333
855]13810605070506083334423233334323322322222332232423343152
16117151001101100001122212082010722222
856113810409102510084434544243224322234323343333233333333022
16720151001100000007122433092020555555
857113814709l02607094334333332334332334324244322324322321082
162]l130000010000010122323102510822221
8581138139091015080943234132232l3223234223233223233423291022
16115150000011000005123213082020533344
859]13813709103806084444514211214212234443134432243323491022
16100151000000000007121222093010522222
8601138]0107070409072332322322323323332333221212123412191012
16012151000000000005122423072520611111
861]13813908094209054334413312313313334323132231232113311021
1650015100001l100005122113103010533333
862]13813709099999993433323322323322312344443424432342494051
16719100000000000099122213073010722222
863113812009100204063334414222314213233234434323332232333051
1640015000001000001012]112092510522222
86411381090910420506433441311231321223341]13232142242124]151
16007160000000000003122113102810344444
865]1381050709380506443442422332421333223229233322343231315]
16111130000010000003223343091410833334
8661138123071013040943223l3223224223344444233332233494331991
16425191000100000000121223103010933333
867113810110101209044444523223223222234334344243333424342021
15914151001010000006124112103011055555
868]13812309100605094334514113324323224432142311121431312021
16110161000000000007222112103010944444
869113813110093805085534544142314211324434344423342422411071
16624160000000000009122]14101511043344
870]148143081019080533334143244142l333422333242223222222302]
17922150010000000008123113103020722222
871113814810100504095555514234324234334444433444443424321011
16109171010000000008124112103011044444
87211381150808060507433441321221411223444312342]131312311021
15900131000110000005124213092010743434
8731138138080934050944344233333243233333343333233222333220]l
16214150011000000003121323082010733333
874113812709102605074434514214214223234344133241333314931171
16427150000100000009123113083010744444
875]13812007102605054334423324333334344414444144444214442021
16412170000000100008224323103010733333
876114813010100805055445514212114112144423342333443413311151
177201310010100000101221ll103011055555
877113811909093007094444514214214214124323333323332422321022
16323151001001100008223213093020633333
878]13813010100810095434524l23224223244434434443344414411022
16100171101010000006121223102520544444
879113811906082309074334324323324223334333333333333433222152
16606131000001100005122323103010533333
8801138143090940090631123233133232133343243424]1123311112052
16524140000000001010222413092710533333

155

88]l1381390910020808433441312121411l232244424444434494324052
16129151000001100003122321103010933333
882]1381391010]30608454551412]l14212233244424434332443312052
16506151000001100008121413093020744444
883113814308092606083433414212214212224323323422242422332152
15819140000110100010121212102810833333
884113812009094907094433333223224223334433132422242432411992
16401130011100100002122314092510733333
885]1481020809l806084434423223223244232333332232332433332152
172101611]1101100000123412083010633333
886]138123070844100643344232223232322444342234133244l1242052
160101000000000000001212120930105111l3
887]13813509083508094334514233214213344334423442334334322022
16924141001001100005124233102511022222
88821582990509210808223241414]324221343443132341244424421992
180201300000001000991213210225205211l3
889213825009l00506074435434224234223244234343322343432432152
167153711000000000101232]1102520844445
8902148212101051061053345341413l414434444443334343443434l152
17719171100101000008123313102511054455
891213820206092106094444513231313211332243324334432242423122
16100171100000001006121414083020733335
892214823106090608082321323323323323323242339429332332332092
17715130000000000003222413082710522223
893213823107080206074333524323324323344344344344433344334152
16829151100101000008222431093010643335
894213825007060206083332324223224322323332323222232322332152
16118111000000000001221212082510723223
895213825008105110103433414113214113234344434434443444444052
16707131100000000004222413103010934334
8962138219101012071043334142134142l3434343443333333433443022
161161610000010000081233141030106211l2
8972138251091003101044334131l1123113143144413113332424444992
16616151100100000010222113082010921123
898213813710090109094443324222214221223239434342244434342102
16301151000000000004123212102510844444
899213813805095707083222414211314211234334222332234423422022
16506110000000000199221311093010832223
900213810308101309084434514212224212233344432322]33332322022
16813151100001000007121212103010944444
901214813805071506084233434323334323334434243342333424232022
17823151010000000005123213052520455554
9022138113080909l0093432434223324223334323133433132323321022
16812131000000001008123212103010811112
903213813809l00206084324433223323323232333323333222424332152
16222151100000000008123233082510722222
9042138108080953090912111124114424]l433323223232233224292992
16818100000000000000122413073010321122
9052138115100912060845444141412l4141233344434433233433232992
16216160101011000005122313093010844444
906214815409080207064333423212323221222222332222232432422992
16825171110000100006122312083020643344
907213815510090108104333414112314]l2334323434424432433322022
16812161000011000004121213102810855555

156

90821381050910]306085344543343334343344434344443344444434022
15824161011001101005123444103020944445
909213814210101206054434524223314232224332343323432422341071
16803161101010110013124112093010922222
910214814808081203034343424314424324334243333444343434443061
17216150000000100003124112093010743344
9112138109100813050854455142232142l3234233424334334433322991
16300151000000000010122213103010833334
912214812108100205074324424313324323344434344444344434344991
17808151000001010005124233103010932233
913213811909079905033343414312314322324141213312131311441991
160161601000010000011223]]073011022222
9142138l370809060406443452423322422323333333333233331331102]
16815161110011000008122223083010744444
91521381390910130204554451422221411224424443344333342442409l
16300151110001000008122122092511044445
91621381380707050407433332322332323333434344443444344344409l
16224100000000000099122213083010733333
917213813806083908053324424333324323334343324333333333333021
16228151010000000009222332062510532233
918213815608102707054334423321313321343434332342333434341051
16308151010001000006222222082020744445
919213812209105504094434524122224222214332143321242422223021
16825151000001000007223212093010843344
920214811509101208104334534132224121224434213441234434314991
17828650010010000008122312103010843344
921214813809100201034333414214214214334231124431131423441991
17920140111010000008121213103010732233
9222138l570709380904332343323332323334432433334334433433205l
16500151000010000005123222103010833232
9232138138060605020232241132233l2223243344433244234334232021
1591516]110000000006122122083010822222
924213810209103805084444514]1121411123443324333234342333202l
15814151101011000008124113103011033433
92521381200707130506233242322332322322434233232223243232302l
15909120000000100008121213103010722222
926213810210063905064445424233324223334444333242233413311081
16829171110000000007123123083010844444
92721381381010050500433452412332412234423432344223441432109l
16117151010010000003124222103010832233
928214810206]00610034334524223324224244424324442344424341991
17817151110000100007123]11103011044443
929213810609091206074433414111114111133333333333333333333011
16809171110100100008121111103010911112
9302138133100842050354445242211141l1143424334422333423322051
16525141110010000008123221103011044444
93121381020909300407543552422321422323434434344343442434209l
1581115101000100000]122222093010855555
93221382190910060505533452433332433333432333333323341342299l
16811171100011000008123333103010833335
93321482121010]507094324523212223212233433233333333423233991
18010151100001000008123213103010944445
934214822106090502093333423222323222313124244111441411411991
17714771100001000010123131073010533335

157

9352148206101022050544344143l3234222224434444443444424442991
9999917]1001100000121241230930]1044444
936213820608080107044433424292214213224434323342232424321991
16428141000100000009123113093010634335
9372148212091013100454445l422322422223332324334233242332202l
17818171110111000007122123073010944445
938214823809082902022231143343343243322344312341124]13141051
1741611000000000000212112306301051111]
93921382261010210500444451433131331134444443414444441444402]
16122171101000000011121113103010734335
940214825010100305105334514122214111124434433333333323333991
17300171001101000008122111103011033334
94121382020608010407433451422231422233433233222332242334302l
16823171100001000007124213102910855555
942213820308105210014444514123324213344313341321342312313101
160211711000110000061211431025]1033334
943214822407082204053432514333224323334333222332233423323991
18000141001100000012222322073010644445
944213821]1010020309555452421ll14111244433344343343444442021
16813171100001000008122]11093010955445
94521382020910220701433452432122412123434423334233343434215]
16225161100001100008221212103010644445
946213821210100205104434424121214211234344323343323434231991
16528171100001100008121321103010833335
9472138205070657041043334]3222323222234333343222342421233021
16229151100000000011121222093010522212
948214822209l02605004444534434423234424231333232341421342021
17817161100001100010124312103011043335
94921382071009050510433342422313432234334434314334344434305]
16805151100001000008222]12092510844445
9502148253080905040434233232113221l1323141413422331141293991
17102131100100000006221331081510522221
951213821207090108074434524221224l21233334233322232432333022
16816151100000000008223112000020055555
952214821910103108104324523122323332343334433444443434442072
17917151000001000008221312000020155555
5114105l0208093008074334434222224223234332232332232423322022
l3107121000000000005223212083010743345
510411513007060209094333413133323222124332233122232433432992
139051500000001000041213220730105l1111
509410520409104606094445514213212223213241233314431421322992
12308151001000000007123322061510755455
508411510208091908064324522122324232344341234441344434313012
14219121011010100003222313072520343345
507410520409084608094535524122214112143143344434432443443992
12917160100010000003223211093020655455
506410513607070408063443514114114113124949932949939429394992
1221813000000100000]124113101510832233
50541051010910560509333552412222411212423322434212241343202]
12411171000010110007123223102510743344
504411510207093005064434434122224222244324222341134414211011
14024131000000100008122243082510843335
503410520410l09999994323324232233232233339122999139129333041
1220312000100000000112]113102510521113

158

5024105224101009100534344l4]12214311124443423322432412343151
12307171111001100005122132103011011113
5014105102070601050643445l3312234322344334322232231433239021
12725131100010100000123212080710854455
33540831200708020405321234323341442242344922342222342424399l
10823]10000000100002223213102020633234
3344083102100712000643345142]13131]1224443323423331213311991
10700151001011000006221111103020755455
33340831021010120510535553413413413114444414444444441441499]
10507171010000000006221]11103011022122
332408310108100210l05433334222324322344449333242342434444991
100161310110001000021223]l103011033233
33l408325009095805053323423223333223323239323222222332321991
10015130110100000004222222081710733234
33040932291008l306064554524223224322233332233232332323323991
11424141101001100002222222101511043334
329409320209105906063424514122314122344343434344332434443991
10805141001001000004221123092511033335
328409326010081305085445534234334124434349443343423434444991
117261411010010000022223111030]1032133
327408320210103806085455514111114111134333334433343343423991
09813161100101000004221211103011055555
326408324610091210005345514214314213344444443444444314443991
10706131001001000004223112102011044345
3254083212101013100053155144]1114411144444444444144444141991
11111141100011000006221111103011043344
324408320210102410003353544144344144444444414344444414441991
09813131100001100004222141103011044345
323409321l10105900003424514114314124314419]14414141411414991
11808130100000000002224111103011045444
322408321210104803055555544241144331144444433434444434433991
09826171101100000004221111103011033234
3214083]19081061091055555141141141ll144444444444144444411992
ll115171000011000003121114102510944344
3204093136100859061043345141233l4323243434334324434434442992
11822151000001100003122313093010744345
319408312009103110063234534342424122334349343421242432423992
11225160000000010099121423103020633234
3184083120101026071044334141112141131141491144]1141111112992
09802160010000101005122313102620511111
317408310107073007064434514112114211124319343323332422333992
10012151000000]10002121312092510853344
316408321209106206093434514122314122344343434344332443443992
10010161100000000007122423100510644345
315409321110100206085435543131l14212144433433434334434343992
11628170100001000004121212103010843245
314409325910091809065435514111313112333233334334433433324992
11626141101100000006122313102010555555
313408324606100510104313533423423323434439343342233434343992
10614150100100000002123324101510843334
312408321910103810104325514214114312214333344923333313292992
10605141001001100004224111103010922213
3]1409322908103107083245534422424443444343442432344434324992
99999141100100100001123424102210243345

159

3104083159100001101035335141114142111141491111111411]1111992
99999110000000100002122112100911032222
309408325907095706094235534434434434424349343323343443392992
10406150000001000006224344103010833233
30840932601010021010533551433111423]143343334344443434234992
99999141100100100002123444103010821222
30740832271010990505533551411l114111141444114441141114414991
10629151111101111001121111100521032223
306408315508095706094332533434344441333449342321343444491992
10018170000000000103123243101520743344
30540832121009130510432451431332413233443243243233342434399l
10026141101010100001222312102911055545
304408310206104606063335334233334233444443333433343334433991
10810131101000100002122312103011032232
303409326210105705055345544121413241314141141411141411111991
11300171101100100003121313103010522223
30240832331010571000544551441l11441]144141444444411444441991
10425670100000000004121]11103011022222
55941051630907120610453451421241421123434341423]123213231022
12119141100000100002122314082620633333
558410520310092607084333414141114141142949332323123322142012
13121141001010101005224211103010854455
557410522910061806065455414144114114144134444144441444444162
12524171l11lll110006124111103011055345
556410525308091207074332314212313312343121122322132432344192
12426141101011100005122332103010733333
555410511207072107063223414]111141l1343949343333323434333042
12910131110000100000121212103010643334
5544105]5710103809104332324332324333343334334343234214244992
125131310110101010051211]110151101111]
55341152260806210707433442212122423l233434323233333329391032
13623140010000100006123323083010742234
55241051210907130606555451411111341]142444424444144444342992
13216131101011100005221111103011033233
551410516309071208104434514212314312434433443432243334111992
12916151100000100005221114103011043233
550410512510102607101541513444434434344342944443434444342992
13225940000010]10002124134101020511111
549410510209063808064344514211314411233343434334344244443992
13208141000010100002121313052510743333
548410523310100610105534534442324444494949444444949494444072
99999170100100100005123134103011044433
5474115226101012080842245142112l4222243444334443343344433992
14121171101000100007121]12103011044335
546411525310102107064434514211114111144444344444444424431091
14004130100001000004223113103010944344
545410510210101205064435514311414311444444444444344434433171
1252315110000001000422]121103021055555
544411513710074208064343414211314211234349923349239424331991
13413130100000010004221111093021044443
543410521210100506064443514111114111144444444443444434444051
1312415010000010000222111410301101111]
5424105218101010050154255144144144l444443444434444444443302l
13203161100110]10008123413103010955555

160

54141052261008050705545452413232312114441442444444441433499]
12427150100000000004223]l]103011044445
540410524609102108094342414214114214243494233432331414391051
1221614110100010000522113210151071111]
57041152121010230809544551422421411444444444444444441444199l
1411617110101l100004124111103011043245
539410510510106410104434434]11214212234433122223142423211022
12205211000000100001121412092010544333
538410520509091207104334514212314222122432233322324434419152
1260917101001]100007122112103011099999
53741051050808260507434353411414411414443322433924342432199l
127111l1100000100004122114103010544444
536410520509072102075344512211314211334343332442333434322171
1321917]101001100005223113103020944444
535410522110101205074334514411314411334343433343343444443991
12228170101001000002221111103021032132
534410521209100605054435544343344313344434323342233414343131
13412170100000100009223313103010922122
533411522109105305104541514114414114344414414444111444444171
1422312111000]10000222111110301102]112
532310512007092606074334413221224311323233334432332233221022
14402150000001100004123232093010833334
531311513007050207074445414423414423434444233442332434314022
14426131001000000005122413093010644444
530310514510101607104344514311314321314422144323441312411022
13120120001110100007224213073010633334
52931051400909]910083343334332333222334323334333233323322022
13027110000000000007122312093010833334
528310510910104207104324524413314214344334323441144443443022
131021200000000000021243l1103010833334
527311510910100207095345524113224123144312]13331121423234022
14324141001000]10002221312103020833334
52631152260503051010331231444444444444414441244]134444441012
1371617110110010100]124444103011099999
525310522110100610074324534133133132214222122332132224212022
13014131100011000005222]13093010443345
524310522709071208073333413223214213224493324333122423321152
14426160000100000008221312092710733335
5233105101091013080754555141l1112221224434234332443413432032
12409141001000001005122114083020833334
522310522110080609103421443112143112114342132433242423421022
13129120011011101004121214082020333335
521310521810102605055555514121124221244344433434444434443991
12624170000101100006221111103020554445
520310521810079910094334434233334324233349111341114214141071
126241600001000000042241l]103010633334
5193105l2610101908095444534324424324324442343233243423231021
12829171001100010006222121103011033334
51831051200910060708444332422314431431214131343111143143315]
132186110000001]1003122213073020843444
517310520610109910035435514123114113134444444434443443411991
12418171101100000007223114103011033335
51631152121010421000434554434343443344434414434l144494411991
14414161101110101008121111103011055555

161

515311526210104505065324544]13224213244324919343143449311021
14117130101110101008121112103010544445
514310522109102606075434534321194231234434344434349233319021
1252517110100100000622]134103020522223
513310513309060307064434524223324223234433222221424412311131
13026170100001100004122112102520933334
5123105l470809400508444452422232422233332213233l122323112091
12922130000000000005122112093010844445
569311522409091308023224533132213211143334433141333414332991
14321141001000000099222132083010644445
568311526310050510074332514312314312221423211211221221211032
14128110000000000005223413092510643345
56731052291006130501433551411431421434443433344232143434299l
12910171101100000007122111083021044345
56631052180910120605421551312121311l144314444234423414242171
1300316]100100000008121313102010822224
56531052331009190700443551312]113121132413924413323322323081
12600161100000000005123111092510733334
564310522309096206084444434133234233224343133431233423232991
12603131101011000006123113092710722224
563310522710103105055434514113]141l3144444444944333434441991
1280767]100110000006121112103011022224
562310520507103703005544444144214144344244444424444444444061
12500161100101000005224111103011033334
561310510105083009073332524114114414124342443423442342434162
12605140000010010004223432093010922224
560310513710100407074333414211213211223424121321123412311152
12922170000010010006121312093010654455
352309310410101010105554514414114414134444444434443444443992
12015171101011111004122413103021099999
351309312010102609105555514214114211224444444333441444443992
120271710011]]100002221411103011033334
3503093121051042100631]l1432243143132121212221111111111]1992
1022711100100]100003124414103010044444
349308320610102106104545514332434433414444343332443424413992
99999150100100000002223111103011044445
34830832061010130910555552443121411l144434444444444444444992
10600160100100000001223111103011033334
34730832l210082210054455514231214231333114224313241421441991
1020514110100]100004124112102510933335
34630831211009260605342332422223421332443232244222121224499]
10625140000000101003222213102510844344
345308322609072107053333413224314323334323443423242323391991
10004140101101]10004223212092510854455
344308313710104203085535514214]14111114444144323241442493991
10803150100000111006121111103011055555
34330831421006260600342351434421433233443223322233232333299l
10000110001000110006223112103011043345
342308322610102005105435514124319124344414444444144114411991
10203111101101100003124111103020855555
341308320610100506023555534221324242214412141311241413241991
10713150101101100003121141083011033335
340308320610102608055344514114]14114314323344414142113311991
10105131101111101003123112103011055455

162

339308321210104210005434514233214112]12431241414441411444991
107003501011000000031211]1103020144445
338308322210106204104434434211434213424232132221242331342991
10022150001000100004223111102910999999
337308322110082603095455513414114121144444444411441444444991
99999171111111000004221111103011044445
301308314210101200085545514214114111144414444444244444444991
10217161011111]]1006124111091511054455
353309312009l02606084334524212214321244444343443343434493992
12009160000000100003121423103010844444
354308324609101310105545544132344132244434244442443424432992
10410160100101100003224114103010844445
355308314710102610064434534214324314323349323333132343333992
10204]10000000000006122214072020643344
356309322610102110105355514411414111414424414114141444414992
1190813110]10010000522141]102911055555
35730931420910]307074334114113214111134321122231133333313992
11912120000000]10002222312062520744445
3583083218101004081054355l4122434433334434434324444324443992
10224131000101100004122342103011022224
359308321210100607075215511311214114314139434444444444411992
10705171101100000004224411102110722224
360309312106070509103214514324424324434349213234333323432992
116031410010000]1004123214102310822224
361308322110101206094535514121224323244444334433434434332991
10126170101101101005122111093010722224
362309321210102605003525544311114411143444423444433414441991
12026171100000100004121111103011033334
363308310809074207052314544444444334332449233343333444411991
10707110000000000001224121103011054455
36430831420910090310424421412131411122423911332123]121313991
12009110000001110003122111103010844445
365308314110103710053533544112434131444444313241333213112991
10616120010000]10003221222103011044445
36630832261010060505544551439331411412443444444444443449199]
10003131001000001002121111103011033334
36730932121010261010535554491124414]144444144444444444444991
1201197010110100100422441]103011033334
368308322607060510054115534l23334222344349443333333333333991
1061616010110110100312122]103021044445

"11111111111111111113