.. . 1... .fi 1. . . 71.1. I. 93. 5 .2 u‘ll. I 2.59.1" . u... 1 4% Qumran... .25... .. L . . . 22,. z ¢ .HRJI‘J. . t“,‘l 1.x A) L. w {,n ”‘99.. Viflfiafik. 30h \ .X ‘. 1 Jul. 1“] avg? :& :1 1..“ .1... v «I s 7.1 ‘31. ; I... “va . \ “have. .vx .\v ;-:z \1. 41-! l~ q. IH .v’ I. karat. 1 ltw ‘- u a rflddn «3 A n... “ht-.5: . S. v5.1.3}: .63.. E.- 2§.«. 1. )7k-t ‘Il "zfi uil...‘ ! 11‘... 74‘. .fiixi .. a. 1. .t I... \- 5‘. 1.. . x it. P. ‘Vul ~H .17: 19¢. 51:25.. I: viii“ 5. I... 3:1 “'1! lo .I In. iV!‘ ‘ 1., , “)\.~ 5 Av\~ ..\ . 3. yr .3: EL}. 2.. .9}... .k U» \I 31.1... ‘\ 1|. .n 5‘ . x I i. k I...“ .5‘ 1.‘ Ikliflxz A y:.§~.n\f 7...-.flsxvn2 .xW i‘xq [1&0 ,n - ’..|§A M!CHIGAN STATEU UN IEV I I IIII II I IIII I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 3 129 014213981 II This is to certify that the thesis entitled Subjective Meanings of Self and Team Confidence For Intercollegiate‘Athletes .» _. . «o. «-- ‘t— presented by Douglas C. Tu?" 3; H...“ gt - LI 9 or“. 2.--, -- ,._-‘ - has been accepted towaiIds fulfillrnent of‘the requireme’its‘for "' " . .... -._t' u -. _ - ‘ MS ”~vdegree' mi Phys ical— -~ Education and Exercise Science I “ 2| ___ ' ' M...“ —.. . -.- . - —- --- . .._. - -- ._ . / J, n l WEIM p Major professor Dategau’N- 2/7499: 0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout trorn your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due. l DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE I JAN 1 3 2002 H l I MSU Is An Affirmative ActlorVEquol Opportunity Institution 3", ‘ g :IO 60mm .1 '1’ :5 .UOOFIJV v" r a .r' Cf: 'ikr.‘ SUBJECTIVE MEANINGS OF SELF AND TEAM CONFIDENCE FOR INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETES by Douglas C. Tully A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Physical Education and Exercise Science 1995 ABSTRACT SUBJECTIVE MEANINGS OF SELF AND TEAM CONFIDENCE FOR INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETES by Douglas C. Tully The purpose of this study was to determine the subjective meanings of self and team confidence for male and female athletes to better interpret confidence for this population. Subjects were recruited from nonrevenue sports at two Division I universities (n = 178 for Phase 1 and :1 = 170 for Phase 2). Phaset involved collecting perceived antecedents and consequents for self and team confidence using the Triandis (1972) approach via an open-ended questionnaire. The most frequent responses were placed into a second closed-ended questionnaire in Phase 2 according to four categories: (a) responses common to male and female athletes, (b) responses unique to male athletes, (c) responses unique to female athletes, and (d) hunch responses. Chi-squared analysis indicated few significant gender differences existed. The most frequent components associated with self-confidence were determination, belief in yourself, positive attitude, and self-esteem. For team confidence, they were positive attitude, determination, hard work, and unity. Copyright by Douglas Connelly Tully 1995 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank Dr. Feltz for her diligence, insight, and devotion to this study. If not for her, this thesis could never have been completed. As time progressed I became a higher priority and that at the very end her principles related to quality of work were compromised in order to allow me to meet certain deadlines. For that I am especially grateful. Thank you for your ability to bend. I would also like to thank Dr. Ewing and Dr. Reuschlein for their important contributions throughout this entire process. At times I felt as though you both went above and beyond the call of duty as committee members, and I am extremely appreciative to both of you for those efforts. My deepest and sincerest thanks go to the working cogs of any department or research team, my fellow graduate students. Thank you Melissa for all you do, not only for me but for all the other masters” students as we try to find our way through our first research experience. You made our long and arduous road much shorter with your tutorial assistance. I would also like to thank John for his unyielding assistance throughout this process. Thank you both, I only hope that I can return the favor to the next generation of neophyte researchers. I would also like to thank the people in the athletic environment who helped and supported me along my journey. All the coaches and athletes who agreed to participate in this study. Also to Steve, Laura, Chuck, and the wonderful ladies of the Michigan State Volleyball team (Lorenzo, you were a tremendous source of support and inspiration, too. Thanks, buddyl). You have all supported me and encouraged me to complete this endeavor. I greatly appreciate your support. Finally, i want to thank Drew, who was my best friend through my entire Michigan State experience. You helped push me through this process, side step pit falls, and never lose sight of the final goal. I hope I was able to do the same for you. Good luck in your future journeys. May the glorious green and white live long and prosper. Go State! TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE List of Tables .............................................................................. x List of Figures ............................................................................ x i 1. THE PROBLEM ..................................................................................... 1 Purpose of the Study ................................................................ 9 Research Questions ................................................................... 1 O Delimitations .............................................................................. 1 1 Basic Assumptions ................................................................... 1 2 Definitions of Terms .............................................................. 1 2 Limitations .................................................................................. 13 2. RELATED LITERATURE ................................................................... 14 Self-efficacy Theory .............................................................. 1 5 Self-efficacy Research in Motor Performance ........... 17 Performance Accomplishments ............................. 1 7 Vicarious Experiences ............................................... 2 O Persuasion ...................................................................... 22 Emotional Arousal and Physiological States ..... 25 Multiple Sources of Efficacy Information ........... 27 Causal Examination of Self-efficacy ..................... 29 Collective Efficacy .................................................................... 3 2 Harter’s and Nicholls’ Perceived Ability Theories ...... 35 Perceived Competence or Ability Research in Motor Performance ...................................................................... 38 Sport Confidence ......................................................................... 4 2 Sport Confidence Research in Motor Performance ...... 43 The Study of Subjective Meaning ........................................ 4 6 Subjective Meaning in Subjective Cultures ....... 49 Gender as a Subjective Culture ............................... 5 3 vi CHAPTER PAGE 3. METHOD ................................................................................................. 5 7 Phase 1 ............................................................................................ 5 7 Subjects and Design ...................................................... 5 7 Procedure ........................................................................... 5 9 Treatment of Data .......................................................... 6 1 Phase 2 ............................................................................................ 6 2 Subjects and Design ...................................................... 6 2 Treatment of Data .......................................................... 6 5 4. RESULTS OF PHASE 2 DATA .......................................................... 6 6 Demographic Data ....................................................................... 6 6 Gender Analysis ........................................................................... 6 7 Self Versus Team Confidence Analysis ............................ 75 Level of Confidence Analysis ................................................ 8 1 5. DISCUSSION ......................................................................................... 86 Implications for Coaches ........................................................ 9 6 Conclusion ...................................................................................... 9 8 Appendices A. Phase 1 Questionnaire ........................................................ 9 9 B. Demographic Questionnaire .............................................. 1 00 C. UCHRIS Approval Letter ...................................................... 1 02 D. Phase 1: Raw Data for Gender ......................................... 1 03 E. Phase 1 Data: Most Frequent Responses by Category ................... 1 1 1 F. Phase 2 Questionnaire ........................................................ 1 12 G. Phase 2 Questionnaire: Perceived Confidence ....... 1 1 3 vii CHAPTER PAGE H. Demographic Data ................................................................ 1 14 I. Chi-square Analysis for Gender ..................................... 1 17 J. Demongraphic Data for High and Low Confidence Groups ......................................................... 1 21 K. Chi-square Analysis for Level of Confidence ......... 124 L. Data Directory ....................................................................... 128 M. Phase 2: Raw Data .............................................................. 130 List of References ..................................................................... 1 3 8 viii LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1. Rank Ordered Frequency and Percentage of Response for Antecedents of Self-confidence by Gender ............... Comparison of Male and Female Responses for Antecedents of Self-confidence on Response Set 0.... Rank Ordered Frequency and Percentage of Response for Consequences of Self-confidence by Gender ........... Rank Ordered Frequency and Percentage of Response for Antecedents of Team confidence by Gender ........... Rank Ordered Frequency and Percentage of Response for Consequences of Team confidence by Gender ........ Rank Ordered Frequency and Percentage of Response for Antecedents of Self and Team confidence .............. Rank Ordered Frequency and Percentage of Response for Antecedents of Self and Team confidence by Category .......................................................................................... Rank Ordered Frequency and Percentage of Response for Consequences of Self and Team confidence ........... Rank Ordered Frequency and Percentage of Response for Consequences of Self and Team confidence by Category .......................................................................................... PAGE 68 71 72 73 75 77 78 80 82 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Relationship between major sources of efficacy information, efficacy expectations, and performance as predicted by Bandura’s theory ............. Harter’s version of White’s competence motivation theory ....................................................................... Conceptual model of sport confidence ............................... Page 18 37 44 Chapter 1 THE PROBLEM Self-confidence is considered by athletes, coaches, and scientists to be the most influential cognitive factor in sport performance (Feltz, 1988a; Gill, 1986). Athletes can have their confidence enhanced or diminished by coaches, fans, the media, or from their own feelings and experiences. Patrick Roy, goaltender for the Montreal Canadians, commented after winning the Stanley Cup in 1992, 'When everybody's telling you how great you're doing, you start to believe it' (Swift, 1993, p. 27). Further, Phoenix Suns point guard, Kevin Johnson, remarked about confidence after his hometown crowd booed him, 'I can deal with what the fans say or what the media says about me as long as I know I have the confidence and respect of the other guys in this [the Suns] locker room" (Taylor, 1993, p. 23). In addition, coaches can be important in instilling or maintaining confidence in their athletes. Paul Westphal, Head Coach of the Phoenix Suns, made a confidence instilling comment after his team lost the first two games of a five game series to the Los Angeles Lakers. He said, “We're a better team than the Lakers and 1 2 we will win the series' (Smith, 1993, p. 30). Furthermore, Jacques Demers, coach of the Montreal Canadians, talked about his confidence in his goaltender Patrick Roy, when he said, "I stood with Patrick. I was not going to let him get down on himself after he gave up a soft goal against Quebec. He was just outstanding, sensational“ (Swift, 1993, p. 27). These statements illustrate that athletes and coaches believe that confidence is a vital component in athletic success. Self-confidence has been conceived of and studied in a variety of ways by researchers (e.g., Bandura, 1977; Harter, 1978; Nicholls, 1984; Vealey, 1986). Terms such as “self-confidence,” “self- efficacy,” “perceived ability,” and “perceived competence” have been used to describe one’s perceived capability to accomplish a certain level of performance. Bandura (1977) developed the concept of self-efficacy as a common cognitive mechanism for mediating people’s motivation and behavior. Self-efficacy beliefs, defined as peoples’ judgments of their capabilities to execute specific tasks successfully, are hypothesized to be a product of a complex process of self-persuasion that relies on cognitive processing of diverse sources of information (Bandura, 1990). These sources of 3 information include one’s own previous performance accomplishments, vicarious experiences of similar others, verbal persuasion by trusted others, and one’s own physiological or emotional state. Self-efficacy can be considered situationally specific self-confidence. The research literature on achievement motivation and mastery motivation have used the terms “perceived competence” and “perceived ability” to describe the perception that one has the ability to master a task resulting from cumulative interactions with the environment (Harter, 1978; Nicholls, 1984). Specifically in sport, Vealey (1986) used the term “sport confidence” to define the belief or degree of certainty that individuals possess about their ability to be successful in sport. Each of these conceptual frameworks provide a different definition, view, and measurement of self-confidence. However, all have been used by sport psychology researchers to study the same phenomenon: the cognitive process by which an athlete regulates thoughts and actions to attain desired outcomes or to control events in his or her sport performance. Rather than trying to come to a consensus on the concept of self-confidence in sport, research and 4 our understanding of self-confidence in sport may be furthered by determining directly the meanings (or perceptual components) of self-confidence from the athletes themselves. Self-confidence, like a number of other concepts (e.g., happiness, Strack, Argyle, & Schwarz, 1991) carries different meanings for different individuals and groups of individuals. For instance, Martens (1987) has suggested that many athletes think self-confidence means believing they will win no matter what the chances, and that this type of conception is what often leads to diffidence or overconfidence. In the field of psycholinguistics, meanings are considered by some researchers as internal states (Osgood, Suci, 8. Tannenbaum, 1957) or as a psychological process of interpretation (Ogden & Richards, 1923). The perceptual components of a term constitute the meaning of that term for that individual (Slobin, 1971) and represent the cognitive structures that exist in the mind of that individual for that term (Osgood et al., 1957). Meanings of words or concepts are Ieamed. They are acquired through experience and from significant others (Kess, 1976). Meanings also exist in a context (Amster, 1964). The context is very important and can change the meaning of the word or concept. Thus, the social context or culture 5 in which an athlete develops, learns, and lives will influence how he or she develops and defines self-confidence beliefs. The meaning or cognitive structure one has for having self-confidence in one’s sport may be different than the meaning for having self-confidence in general or in some other context. Similarly, the meaning that one has of self-confidence in sport may depend, in part, on one’s age, ability, and/or gender. Research has supported different subjective meanings for similar concepts, such as success and failure, for different subjective cultures (Osgood, Miron, & May, 1975; Triandis, Kitty, Shanmugam, Tanaka, & Vassiliou, 1972) and different genders (Ewing, 1981). Some psycholinguists (e.g., Osgood) believe that it is the meanings of words and concepts that control our overt external behavior. This approach to the examination of meanings is based on the assumption that meaning is tied to human action. Using this assumption then, one could propose that it is an individual’s meaning of self-confidence that influences the overt motivational behaviors of achievement (or choice, effort, and persistence) in sport. By beginning to examine the subjective meanings of self-confidence which constitutes its interpretation for different individuals, 6 researchers may better understand the relationship between self- confidence and motivational behavior within specific social contexts (e.g., sport) and within different subjective cultures (e.g., gender, age, ability groups). In addition to the concept of self-confidence, athletes, specifically, may hold a different subjective meaning or have a different cognitive structure for the term team confidence. Given that sport consists of many team competitions, simply researching the meaning of self-confidence in sport and then applying those results to team contexts is a methodology that lacks substance. ln collegiate sports, individuals perform as members of teams rather than as just individuals. This is true for individual sports, such as track and field and tennis as well as for team sports, such as volleyball and baseball. Thus, many of the challenges and difficulties that athletes face on teams reflect team problems and team goals requiring team efforts to produce successful performance. Despite the intuitive importance of team confidence to successful team performance, little theoretical focus or empirical work has been directed toward examining this concept. Bandura 7 (1986) has proposed the concept of perceived collective efficacy as the group-level equivalent to self-efficacy. Collective efficacy refers to peOpIe’s judgments of group capabilities rather than individual capabilities and influences “what people choose to do as a group, how much effort they put into it, and their staying power when group efforts fail to produce results” (Bandura, 1986, p. 449). Team efficacy beliefs are hypothesized to be influenced by sources of information that are similar to self-efficacy but at the level of a team, such as team performance, team comparisons, etc. Zaccaro and his colleagues (Zaccaro, Blair, Perterson, & Zazanis, in press) go further in defining collective efficacy as a sham belief among group members regarding how well they can work together to execute a specific task successfully. By working together, they mean coordinating and integrating the resources of team members. Guzzo’s definition of team potency (Guzzo, Yost, Campbell, & Shea, 1993) is a more generalized version of Zaccaro et al.’s definition and refers to “a shared belief about the general effectiveness across multiple tasks encountered by groups in complex environments” (p. 9). Typically, collective efficacy and team potency, like self- 8 efficacy and other perceived competence measures, have been represented and measured with survey items generated by the researchers themselves and, thus, may not capture the specific subjective meanings that individual team members may hold. Therefore a method is needed that minimizes researcher influence and allows individuals to represent their own meanings of self and team confidence. An antecedent-consequent approach, formalized by Triandis (1972), was used to gather information from athletes regarding the antecedents and consequents of self and team confidence. The antecedents and consequents obtained in the present study and used by Triandis were not thought of as “true” causal antecedents and effects in that they do not necessarily precede or follow self (or team) confidence temporally. For instance, successful performance may be an effect of preceding self-confidence, but determination may be an antecedent or consequent that does not exist temporally apart from self-confidence. Rather, the antecedents and consequents in the present study were thought of as supplying the subjective meaning of the term confidence. Triandis used this approach for investigating the influence that a culture (or 9 subjective culture) had on its members’ ways of perceiving certain beliefs, values, and attitudes and found cultural differences in the subjective meanings of such concepts as success and failure (T riandis et al., 1972). The antecedents and consequents in the present investigation were first attained via an open-ended questionnaire. Therefore, subjects were not limited to specific responses and were free to choose the terms that were important to their own confidence. For example the questions, 'If you have , then you have confidence to perform successfully in your sport'. and 'If you have confidence to perform successfully in your sport, then you have ___’, requires athletes to respond with antecedents and consequents of self-confidence. The use of the open-ended questionnaire was followed by a second study using a closed-ended questionnaire that utilized the most frequent responses to the confidence questions in the open-ended questionnaire. Way The purpose of this study was to determine the subjective meanings of self and team confidence for male and female intercollegiate athletes. Secondly, this study examined the 1O similarities and differences that existed between the subjective meanings of self and team confidence. Finally, a third purpose of this study was to determine if high self-confidence athletes differed from low self-confidence athletes in their subjective meanings for self and team confidence. R rch e i ns The following research questions were constructed to guide this study: 1. How do male athletes compare with female athletes in their perceived antecedents of self-confidence? 2. How do male athletes compare with female athletes in their perceived consequents of self-confidence? 3. How do male athletes compare with female athletes in their perceived antecedents of team confidence? 4. How do male athletes compare with female athletes in their perceived consequents of team confidence? If no gender differences are found in the perceived antecedents and consequents of self and team confidence, then the following research questions will be examined with the gender categories combined. 1 1 5. How do athlete’s perceived antecedents for self-confidence compare with their perceived antecedents for team confidence? 6. How do athlete’s perceived consequents for self-confidence compare with their perceived consequents for team confidence? 7. How do the perceived antecedents of high self-confidence athletes compare to the perceived antecedents of low self-confidence athletes for self-confidence? 8. How do the perceived consequents of high self-confidence athletes compare to the perceived consequents of low self-confidence athletes for self-confidence? 9. How do the perceived antecedents of high self-confidence athletes compare to the perceived antecedents of low self-confidence athletes for team confidence? 10. How do the perceived consequents of high self-confidence athletes compare to the perceived consequents of low self-confidence athletes for team confidence? Delimitation The generalizability of the results of this research is limited 12 to nonrevenue college athletes at Division I schools. W In survey research there are a few assumptions that must be made. It must be assumed that subjects' responses are their own and are genuine. Definimans of Terms Antecedent- a singular factor or implication linked directly or indirectly to a concept. Implications can be environmental, biological, or social in nature (Triandis, 1972). W- a singular factor that is neither a necessary nor a sufficient cause of behavior, but can be considered a “contributing cause” that help to establish patterns of behavior (Triandis, 1972). Highw- as determined by subjects' responses on the Perceived Confidence portion of the Phase 2 questionnaire, placing them in the top 25% of the sample. W— as determined by subjects' responses on the Perceived Confidence portion of the Phase 2 questionnaire, placing them in the bottom 25% of the sample. W- peoples’ beliefs about their ability to be 13 successful. W— the self-knowledge on which one bases one’s confidence judgements (Bandura, 1986). W— attributes of the cognitive structures of groups of people (Triandis, 1972). W- term used to describe the summed perceptions of the antecedents and consequents provided by subjects for this study. W- a team’s belief about its ability to be successful. I' 'I I' This study was limited by the following factors: 1. The study was limited to two Universities all contained in the mid Michigan area and limited to 160 subjects for each phase. 2. Subjects were volunteers. Chapter 2 RELATED LITERATURE Self-confidence, sometimes referred to as self-efficacy, is the most cited psychological construct in sport research literature (Feltz, 1988b). Self-confidence has been conceived of and studied in a variety of ways by researchers (e.g., Bandura, 1977; Harter, 1978; Nicholls, 1984; Vealey, 1986). Terms such as “self-confidence,” “self-efficacy,” “perceived ability,” and “perceived competence” have been used to describe one’s perceived capability to accomplish a certain level of performance. Bandura (1977) developed the concept of self-efficacy as a common cognitive mechanism for mediating people’s motivation and behavior. Self-efficacy beliefs, defined as peoples’ judgments of their capabilities to execute specific tasks successfully, are hypothesized to be a product of a complex process of self-persuasion that relies on cognitive processing of diverse sources of information (Bandura, 1990). These sources of information include one’s own previous performance accomplishments, vicarious experiences of similar others, verbal persuasion by trusted others, and one’s own physiological or emotional state. Self-efficacy can be considered situationally 14 15 specific self-confidence. The research literature on achievement motivation and mastery motivation have used the terms “perceived competence” and “perceived ability” to describe the perception that one has the ability to master a task resulting from cumulative interactions with the environment (Harter, 1978; Nicholls, 1984). Specifically in sport, Vealey (1986) used the term “sport confidence” to define the belief or degree of certainty that individuals possess about their ability to be successful in sport. This chapter presents an overview of Bandura’s (1977) self- efficacy theory and collective efficacy, the achievement motivation theories of Harter (1978) and Nicholls (1984), and Vealey’s (1986) theory of Sport Confidence. Along with each of these overviews is a review of the related research literature in sport. Lastly, a discussion on the study of subjective meanings is presented along with Triandis’ (1972) antecedent-consequent approach for studying subjective cultures. l - ffi Th Most of the self-confidence research in sport is derived from Bandura’s (1977) theory of self-efficacy. Studies have shown both 16 correlational and causal relationships between self-efficacy perceptions and motor performance. In addition, studies have shown that self-efficacy can be fostered or diminished under several different conditions (Feltz, 1988a). Self-efficacy is also regarded as an important sport psychology construct, not only by researchers, but also by coaches and athletes. Self-efficacy theory was developed within social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986) and poses self-efficacy as a common cognitive mechanism for mediating people’s motivation, thought patterns, and behavior. Self-efficacy or self-confidence is defined as a person’s belief about his or her ability to execute a task successfully. It also determines people’s motivations as demonstrated in the choices they make, the challenges they pursue, the effort they expend to accomplish the chosen challenges, and the persistence with which they continue to strive toward those chaflenges. Confidence beliefs are developed from a complex process of self-persuasion that relies on the cognitive processing of diverse sources of confidence information (Bandura, 1977). Bandura has outlined four sources of efficacy information which include 17 performance accomplishments, vicarious experiences, persuasion from significant others including self-persuasion, and emotional arousal or physiological states. Research has also shown causal evidence that perceived self-confidence contributes significantly to athletic performance (Feltz, 1982, 1988b; Feltz & Mugno, 1983; Garland, Weinberg, Bruya, & Jackson, 1988; McAuley, 1985). The model is shown in Figure 1. W The strongest and most dependable source of efficacy information is past performance (Bandura, 1977). These are personal performance experiences that can be successes or failures. Experiences resulting in performance success will usually increase perceptions of self-efficacy; whereas, experiences resulting in failure will usually decrease perceptions of efficacy. Likewise, there exists a reciprocal relationship between self-efficacy and performance. Thus, higher perceptions of self-efficacy will lead to successful performance attainments, while low self-efficacy will lead to unsuccessful performances. There are a number of additional factors that influence the mmh . whzmzzmfimfiooo< . 355856. .583: 4.6.3355 E $3.9..th 8 Secatebfi ES .28: .5282 beum§u .ceeuccexzm EEK? \c 36.59. .8er .8253 £253.55 _ HUS—DC.“— 19 degree to which performance influences self-efficacy, such as the amount of effort exerted, the difficulty of the task, the pattern of the success or failure, and the amount of external assistance provided during the performance (Bandura, 1986). For example, the accomplishment of a simple task will not lead to heightened perceptions of self-efficacy; however, the accomplishment of a difficult task completed independently will greatly increase feelings of efficacy. In addition, studies have shown that early successes will increase perceptions of efficacy and increase persistence in the face of failure (Lyman, Prentice-Dunn, Wilson, & Bonfilio, 1984). Research studies in motor performance regarding the effects of performance on efficacy show that perceptions of self-efficacy are generally influenced by performance accomplishments. In a study by Feltz, Landers, and Raeder (1979), support was given to Bandura’s position that personal mastery experiences are the strongest source of efficacy information. In this study, subjects were assigned to one of three conditions, participant modeling, live modeling, or video taped modeling, for a high avoidance task, back diving. Results indicated that the participant modeling group, in 20 which subjects received physical guidance during practice of the task, performed better and had higher efficacies than subjects performing under either of the other two conditions. In a similar experiment, McAuley (1985), gave further support to Bandura’s hypothesis that performance accomplishments provide the strongest source of efficacy information. In this study, subjects were again assigned to one of three conditions: aided participant modeling in which subjects received visual and verbal feedback, as well as physical guidance through the task; unaided participant modeling where subjects received the visual and verbal feedback, but not the physical guidance; and a control condition where subjects viewed an irrelevant videotape. The task was to perform a standard yet high avoidance gymnastic stunt. Results showed that again the modeling groups performed better and had higher efficacies than the subjects under the control condition. Further, the aided modeling group performed significantly better than the unaided modeling group, but there was no difference in the efficacies of these two modeling groups. Vigarigus Expgrignggs Another source of efficacy information is vicarious 21 experiences, which involve the observation of others’ mastery experiences (Bandura, 1977). Modeling is the technique or method most often examined in vicarious experience research. Research has shown that modeling improves motor performance (Carroll & Bandura, 1985; Feltz, 1982; Martens, Burwitz, & Zuckerman, 1976; McCullagh, 1986; McCullagh, 1987), and enhances self-efficacy perceptions (Feltz et al., 1979; George, Feltz, & Chase, 1992; Lirgg & Feltz, 1991; McAuley, 1985). Modeling is especially important when observers have never performed the task. Studies have shown that both live and filmed models are effective providers of efficacy information (Feltz et al., 1979; Gould & Weiss, 1981; McAuley, 1985). In addition, model status and model competence are essential qualities of believable and effective models. Lirgg and Feltz (1991) found that subjects who observed a skilled model, regardless of model status, exhibited higher efficacies than subjects who observed an unskilled model. Research has also shown that model similarity is an important component of effective modeling (Brown & lnouye, 1978; George et al., 1992; Gould & Weiss, 1981). Gould and Weiss (1981) examined the effects of model similarity on muscle endurance. In this 22 experiment, female subjects viewed either another female nonathlete (similar model), a male varsity track athlete (dissimilar model) perform a leg extension task. There was also a control group that viewed an irrelevant video tape. Results indicated that subjects who viewed similar models extended their legs significantly longer than subjects who viewed dissimilar models or control subjects. The Gould and Weiss (1981) study raised the question of operationally defining model similarity and the ability to measure the degree to which subjects view themselves as similar to models. George and his colleagues (George et al.,1992) attempted to clarify this question. They found that model ability was the most important similarity cue among low-skilled female subjects, and that model gender was not a determinant of self-efficacy or performance. These findings suggest that the saliency of model characteristics may be dependent upon the kinds of tasks being performed, as well as the ability level of the observer. Pgrsgasign Persuasory information affecting self-efficacy percepts is most often supplied through verbal persuasion from significant 23 others (Bandura, 1977). The credibility of the verbal information and the credibility of the person giving the information are highly important (Bandura, 1986). Therefore, it follows that an expert or other credible person giving verbal persuasion will increase the listener’s self-efficacy. Bandura outlined other sources of persuasory information that included imagery, self-talk, “psyching up” strategies, and goal setting. There has been little research that has directly measured the effect of persuasory information on motor performance. A few studies have examined “psyching up” strategies on strength performance (Shelton & Mahoney, 1978; Weinberg, Gould, & Jackson, 1979). Both of these studies found that “psyching up” enhanced strength performance, but neither study measured the subject’s self-efficacy. These studies lend support to the notion that persuasory information, even if it is self-motivated such as self- talk or imagery, can have a positive influence on beliefs about motor performance, as well as the actual performance. Wilkes and Summers (1984) attempted to clarify the term “psyching-up.” In this experiment, five different mental preparation conditions were used as cognitive preparation to a strength task: arousal, attention, 24 imagery, self-efficacy, and a control read condition. Results showed that preparatory arousal and self-efficacy produced significantly greater post-test strength performance than did the control condition. Imagery is a strategy where individuals see themselves perform a task, thus persuading themselves that they can perform the task successfully. In vivo imagery consists of provoking thoughts in an lndividual’s mind to produce a given emotion or other effect. Feltz and Riessinger (1990) conducted an experiment to examine the effects of in vivo imagery and performance feedback on self-efficacy and muscular endurance. Subjects were assigned to one of three conditions: mastery imagery plus feedback, feedback alone, or a control condition. Results indicated that subjects in the imagery plus feedback condition had significantly higher and stronger self-efficacy beliefs after each performance trial than the subjects in the feedback alone or control conditions. Subjects in the imagery plus feedback group also outperformed the other two groups, but only on the first performance trial. This study also asked subjects, via a post-experimental questionnaire, the basis for their self-efficacy judgments. The majority of subjects cited 25 performance accomplishments as the primary source of their self- efficacy beliefs, with only a small percentage that cited persuasory information. Therefore, the degree to which persuasory information is a salient source of efficacy information is still in question. Other sources of efficacy information are emotional arousal and physiological states. Bandura (1986) states that it is the person’s interpretation of the arousal that leads to the efficacy expectation. The interpretation of increased arousal as beneficial to performance will most likely lead individuals to increase their self- efficacy and likewise their performance. Conversely, interpretations of increased arousal as fear or self-doubt will cause individuals to lower their self-efficacy and will deter their performance. Several factors also determine the effect of arousal upon self-efficacy and performance, such as past experience with arousal related to performance and the circumstances under which the arousal is elicited (Bandura, 1986). The relationship between self-efficacy and arousal is hypothesized to be a reciprocal one (Bandura, 1986). Arousal is considered both a source of self-efficacy information and a co- 26 effect with behavior (Feltz, 1982). Therefore, arousal should influence self-efficacy beliefs, which in turn, should effect future assessments of arousal. Research studies in the area of emotional arousal in motor performance, however, show equivocal results. Feltz (1982) found, through path analysis, that actual heart rate was not a significant indicator of self-efficacy or performance on a high avoidance task, back diving. However, Feltz and Mugno (1983) replicated and extended the previous study and again found that actual heart rate was not an indicator of self-efficacy or performance, but that perceived arousal was a significant indicator of self-efficacy on all four back dive attempts. Furthermore, the researchers found that lower levels of perceived autonomic arousal corresponded to higher efficacy beliefs. In addition to emotional arousal, other physiological states are also posed as sources of efficacy information (Bandura, 1986). The cognitive interpretation of physiological states may influence perceptions of self-efficacy. Fatigue, fitness levels, and pain may be perceived as indicators of inefficacy (Feltz, 1988b). This may be especially relevant in strength and endurance tasks, where increased 27 levels of fatigue and pain lead to beliefs of diminished physical capacities, and thus lower self-efficacy beliefs (Bandura, 1986). Further, these lowered efficacy beliefs may lead to reduced effort focused on the task and a reduced persistence to complete the task. This hypothesis, however, has not yet been tested experimentally in the sport and motor performance literature. Closely related to physiological states are mood states. Kavanagh and Bower (1985) found that positive mood states led to higher judgments of capabilities than did neutral mood states, while negative mood states were associated with lower efficacy expectations. In another study, Kavanagh and Hausfeld (1986) used a handgrip strength task to determine the effect of mood state on self-efficacy and performance. They found no consistent effect for a happy or sad mood state on subjects’ efficacy beliefs. However, mood was found to have a significant relationship to handgrip strength performance. II II' I S I EII' | I l' The degree to which subjects draw their efficacy information from different sources has also been examined in sport science research. Feltz and Riessinger (1990) conducted an experiment 28 where subjects competed against confederates in a muscular endurance task with the benefit of performance feedback, in vivo emotive imagery, or both. Prior to the muscular endurance manipulation, subjects were asked about their initial self-efficacy and their comparative efficacy beliefs to out perform their confederates. The results indicated that 86% of the subjects based their initial self-efficacy beliefs on personal performance accomplishments. The other subjects initial efficacy beliefs were as follows: 9% were based on physiological states, 8% on persuasion, 1.5% on vicarious experiences, and 5% could not be determined. Conversely, subjects based their comparative efficacy beliefs as follows: 57% were based on past performance accomplishments, 38% on vicarious information, 3% on physiological states, 2% on persuasive information, and 2% could not be determined. Chase, Feltz, Tully, and Lirgg (1994) conducted a study that examined athletes’ sources of efficacy. Efficacy ratings were gathered from 34 female basketball players, from three different teams, prior to 12 different games. The results Indicated that the different sources of efficacy varied across teams. For example, 29 members of Team 1 based their efficacy beliefs as follows: 41% from past performance, 35% from physiological or emotional factors, 15% from vicarious experiences, 6% from verbal persuasion, and 9% from other sources. The other teams attributed their efficacy judgments to the four sources in a slightly different manner. Past performance always produced the highest percentage of efficacy beliefs and physiological or emotional factors were always second, while vicarious experiences and verbal persuasion occasionally switched between third and fourth. Further, this study considered to what extent an athlete draws efficacy information from two or more sources at once. Multiple sources accounted for 24% of the total comments for individual efficacy and 28% of the total comments for collective efficacy. Therefore, it appears athletes draw from multiple efficacy sources approximately one fourth of the time to formulate one efficacy belief. E l E . I' I S ll-Ell' Research examining the sources of efficacy has demonstrated a positive influence from the four sources on individual efficacy beliefs for motor performance. This research also supports Bandura’s (1977) theory of self-efficacy. However, little research 30 has been conducted to investigate the cause or directionality of self-efficacy theory. The studies that have been done in this area have examined the effects that selected sources of efficacy information might exert on performance and are mediated through one’s perceptions of self-efficacy. This research has found support for a mediational role for self-efficacy on motor performance tasks, but not one that accounts for all behavior change in motor performance (Feltz, 1982, 1988a; Feltz & Mugno, 1983; George, 1994; McAuley, 1985). Feltz (1982) conducted a path analysis to compare Bandura’s theory of self-efficacy to an anxiety based model where anxiety was posited as the mediating construct that influenced self-efficacy and performance. No causal role for self-efficacy was included. Subjects performed a back-diving task across four trials. Results gave little support to either model. Self-efficacy was the major predictor of behavior on the first diving attempt. However; after Trial 1, performance on a previous trial was the major predictor of performance on the next trials. Furthermore, although a reciprocal relationship between self-efficacy and diving behavior was evidenced, they were not equally reciprocal. As subjects progressed 31 over trials, diving performance became a stronger influence on self- efficacy than self-efficacy became on diving behavior. Later, Feltz and Mugno (1983) replicated the study and added autonomic perception as a measure of physiological arousal. The results were again the same; self-efficacy was the strongest predictor of performance, but only on the first trial. McAuley (1985) conducted a path analysis which examined the effects of modeling on self-efficacy in gymnastics. Results indicated that participant modeling and traditional modeling influenced self-efficacy which, in turn, influenced performance as predicted by Bandura’s (1977) theory. In addition, however, McAuley found that treatment effects also exerted a direct effect on performance. In fact, the treatment-performance path was stronger than the efficacy-performance path. Path analysis techniques have shown that self-efficacy is a major predictor of performance (Feltz, 1988a). The previous studies have demonstrated a causal link between self-efficacy and performance, although treatment effects and past performance effects are also linked to performance. Feltz and Mugno (1983) proposed a revised efficacy model to help account for the various 32 effects. The revised model included both self-efficacy and past performance as predictors of performance. The revised model was supported in terms of self-efficacy and past performance predicting performance. E II |' E[[' The theories and literature discussed to this point were conceived and researched as ways to study self-confidence at the individual level of behavior. Sport science has borrowed ideas, from Bandura’s (1977) self-efficacy theory to study self-efficacy in sport and motor performance. However in many sports, individuals perform as members of teams rather than just as individuals. Recently, sport psychology researchers have begun to use Bandura’s (1986) concept of collective or team efficacy to investigate the antecedents and effects of collective efficacy on team performance. There has been substantially less research on the topic of collective efficacy than there has been on self-efficacy within and outside of sport. One study to investigate collective efficacy (Feltz et al.,1989) examined the effects of team performance on self- efficacy and team efficacy using six collegiate hockey teams observed over the course of a 32-game season. Results indicated a 33 significant difference between winners’ and losers” team efficacy scores; however, individual efficacy was not effected. Team efficacy increased after a win and decreased after a loss more than did individual efficacy beliefs. Spink (1990) conducted a collective efficacy study that examined the relationship between group cohesion and collective efficacy. Spink hypothesized that collective efficacy, assessed from team members’ expectations to place in a volleyball tournament, would be associated with task components of group cohesion rather than social components. Results showed that elite high collective efficacy volleyball teams were differentiated on group cohesion measures, individual attractions to group (related to the task) and group interaction (related to the athletes), from elite low confidence teams. There was no significant relationship for recreational volleyball teams. In addition, the results indicated that high collective efficacy teams placed higher in the subsequent volleyball tournament than low collective efficacy teams. Hodges and Carron (1992) also investigated the effects of collective efficacy. A muscular strength task where triads of subjects held a medicine ball over head for as long as possible was 34 used for this experiment. The authors manipulated the groups so that they would compete against confederates who were said to have performed either superiorly or interiorly during the pretest. The experiment was fixed so that the experimental group always failed against the confederate group. Results demonstrated that high- collective efficacy groups increased performance following failure, while low-collective efficacy groups decreased in performance. In addition, as previously mentioned, Chase et al. (1994) examined sources of individual and team efficacy information in women collegiate basketball players. Although there were some differences between individual and team efficacy sources, athletes individually and collectively based their beliefs predominantly on past performance and physiological states. For individual efficacy past performance and physiological and emotional states accounted for 48% and 35%, respectively, of the total comments. Collective efficacy accounted for 42% and 37%, respectively, of the total comments. Further, verbal persuasion accounted for the smallest percentage of efficacy beliefs, only 4% for both individual and collective efficacies. The construct of team efficacy or team confidence is still in 35 its early stages in terms of understanding its antecedents and its relationship to team performance. Further study of the subjective meanings of team confidence will hopefully be helpful in designing interventions to enhance confidence among athletic teams. III: III'III’E . IEI'I'I I! . Two other theories that attempt to explain how individuals gain perceptions of ability are Harter’s (1978) perceived competence theory and Nicholls’ (1984) achievement orientation theory. Harter’s perceived competence theory attempts to explain achievement and mastery motivation (Harter, 1978). The theory is based in drive theory and employs socialization and affective processes to account for the development of the sense of competence and subsequent behavior. Harter defines perceived competence as the sense one has of his or her ability to master a task resulting from cumulative interactions with the environment. Harter views perceived competence as a multidimensional motive, containing three domains: cognitive, social, and physical (Harter, 1978). The cognitive domain involves school and academic performance. The social domain is concerned with issues of popularity with one’s peers. The physical domain emphasizes 36 perceived ability at sports and outdoor games. In addition to the three domains, Harter’s model also includes implications of failure as well as success, socializing agents, reinforcement effects, and motivational orientations on one’s perceived competence. Harter’s model is presented in Figure 2. Perceived competence theory states that mastery attempts in specific domains result in success or failure and are evaluated by significant others (Harter, 1978). Success contains an element of optimal challenge which, if met, leads to perceived competence and intrinsic pleasure. Approval by significant others also leads to perceived competence; however, as a child matures the need for this approval diminishes. Conversely, failure results in a lack of perceived competence, more anxiety towards mastery situations, and decreased intrinsic motivation to pursue mastery attempts. Harter maintains that perceived competence is developed gradually through prolonged interactions with the environment and as a result of reinforcement from significant others. Further, she contends that the need for external approval and perceptions of control do not diminish as the child develops. Nicholls’ (1984) theory is based in attribution theory, using 37 2.2.8 .23....263 H1523 $3.522. 20cm mutuauuz. 205— moan-5&2. JSOOm m>=<0mz 45an uZthM 203353.80 - I tel , €292.50: «23:4 .auwnofinoz 0.n2_.¢»xu >2u>0¢3 932.822 8...on 3 "38.... 2223...... 22.328 a a 3232.3... 323.58 23:3 20......wnnuwwcfiflz. Guzuocus 30.. - l - ‘ UOZUbUtZOO -. 8235.. .6... .E - u¢9u_._._._.mn=zoo . . ._._ \e :e...3..~§.$e..eu .z 5.8.. EEK. .BEEFB :2? \a 3...... 321......5 a ”fig—DST— 45 source of efficacy information; sport confidence theory identifies performance satisfaction; and the perceived ability theories base the conception of competence and continued participation on personal mastery attempts. Another common psychological construct is the involvement of significant others in providing another form of feedback. Self-efficacy theory regards persuasory information as another source of efficacy information. This information provides feedback to athletes regarding their performance which can bolster their confidence. The perceived ability theories propose that one receives feedback from others following mastery attempts. This feedback can be either positive or negative. Sport confidence theory does not outline the use of feedback from significant others; however, it does ask athletes to make comparisons for which prior comparative feedback is necessary. Finally, these four theories involve intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Self-efficacy theory establishes choice as the ingredient of motivation, which is followed by the effort and persistence to carry out that choice. The perceived ability theories propose that, from personal mastery attempts, athletes will gain or lose intrinsic or extrinsic motivation which will then relate to their 46 participation status. Sport confidence theory, again does not describe intrinsic and extrinsic motivational components, but uses the concepts of performing well (intrinsic) and winning (extrinsic) which have similar meanings and purposes to intrinsic and extrinsic orientations. These four theories also contain some common components. Ability can be found in all four of the theories. Sport confidence theory contains a measure of ability; the perceived ability theories relate ability to a perception of control factor; and self-efficacy theory manifests ability in the form of performance accomplishments. Effort can be found in self-efficacy and sport confidence theories, while persistence is a component of self- efficacy and perceived ability theory. What is_ not well understood is what are the most salient subjective meanings of self-confidence for athletes. II Sll [SI' I' [1' Some of the most challenging and intriguing questions our society faces are questions of meaning. “What did you mean by that?”, or “But, what does that really mean?” are questions that quite often leave us searching for words to further explain 47 ourselves. The core to the meaning of confidence is no less difficult to answer. Subjective meanings are the definitions that groups of people, such as age groups, gender groups, and cultural groups, give to certain words (Osgood, Miron, 8. May, 1975). Subjective meaning, sometimes referred to as connotative or affective meaning also involves the attitudes and emotions speakers give to words (Kess, 1976). Groups create connotative or subjective meanings naturally through the communication process. Since communication via a symbolic linguistic system is evident by every culture in the world, we must be able to overcome communication biases or lapses due to groupings and be able to understand one another. Therefore, in order to better understand different groups of people, it is imperative to understand the structure, pattern, and subjective meaning of words and language for different groups. Researchers such as Osgood and Triandis, who have focused on cross-cultural aspects of communication, believe it is necessary to evaluate subjective meanings to allow groups to better understand and communicate with all the cultures of the world. The first technique used to differentiate subjective meanings 48 of words across culture was the semantic differential technique (Osgood, et al., 1975). It was believed that knowing the perceived distance between words by groups of people provided insight to the meaning of words through a creation of a context or a concept and led to a better understanding of the group as a whole. Next, a couple of studies were conducted that examined the existence and nature of an adjective structure (Osgood, et al., 1957). Adjectives were selected in a restricted word-association task. The results indicated that the total variance was accounted for by three factors that were labeled evaluation, potency, and activity. These factors were merely categories of word pairs such as good-bad and kind- cruel that characterized evaluation; hard-soft and weak-strong were examples for potency; and slow-fast and active-passive were examples for activity (Kess, 1976). These three factors accounted for approximately 50% of the total subject by concept variance (Osgood, et al., 1975). The semantic differential and word-association techniques gave way to more open-ended response techniques, such as Triandis’ (1972) antecedent-consequent approach. Open-ended response formats eliminated the initial bias assumed with linguistic methods 49 such as the semantic differential technique. Subjects, in an open- ended format, enjoy the freedom to express their exact meaning and thus will provide a clearer representation of meaning for the concepts or words being studied. SI'I' ll' 'SI'I' Ell Subjective culture is a term that refers to a cultural group’s characteristic way of perceiving the human-made part of its social environment (Triandis, 1972). The study of subjective culture is concerned with worldwide characteristics of people, societies, and social contexts, as well as the idiosyncracies that exist in each group. Triandis (1972) refers to consistencies between cultures as pancultural characteristics, while differences between cultures are referred to as culture-specific characteristics. When similar patterns of behavior, attitudes, and interpersonal interaction from one culture differ from similar patterns of behavior, attitudes, and interpersonal interaction from another culture, the existence of a subjective culture is inferred. Subjective cultures exist not only in strict cultural contexts, but also in many other areas where there is human interaction and interpersonal behavior (Triandis, 1972). For example, studies have 50 been conducted that indicate that there exist two distinct subjective cultures between Americans and Greeks in their values. Americans value money and work and that is shown in how they work as extremely goal-oriented individuals. Greeks, on the other hand, value family and interpersonal interaction and this is evident in their behavior when they choose to neglect work in favor of family and social occasions. Triandis (1972) formalized a method for studying group differences. An open-ended questionnaire was used to examine certain characteristics of different subjective cultures. Then the responses from the first group were used to make a second closed- ended questionnaire. This questionnaire forced a new group of subjects to choose the most appropriate response. When there was consistency between the responses of the first and second groups, it was concluded that those were pancultural characteristics. Likewise, when differences occurred, it was inferred that separate subjective cultures existed. In Triandis’ (1972) study, 100 males were recruited from each of the following four cultures: students at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, students of Athens Greece, students of the 51 Agricultural University in Bangalore, India, and students of Gakushuin University in Tokyo, Japan. These subjects provided Triandis with a total of 6000 antecedents and 6000 consequents for 20 concepts that were posed to them in the form of an open-ended questionnaire. Next the second, closed-ended questionnaire was developed. Triandis chose five culture common words, five American-unique words, five Greek-unique words, five Indian-unique words, five Japanese-unique words, and five hunch words for each of the 20 concepts. Then the Phase 2 questionnaire was constructed with six sets of words. One word from each of the six culture categories was in each set. Phase 2 used 360 subjects from each of the four culture groups. Subjects were required to indicate the response that most accurately represented their beliefs about the concept in question. The antecedents and consequents were not thought of as “true” causal antecedents and effects in that they did not necessarily precede or follow the concept in time. Rather the antecedents and Consequents were thought of as supplying the subjective meaning of the concept. One of the concepts in question was courage. The results of the Triandis (1972) study indicated that bravery, idealism, 52 leadership, power of determination, self-confidence, strength, and willpower were frequent antecedents of COURAGE in most cultures. Further, character and dedication were American antecedents that were under chosen by other cultures. Likewise, Indians emphasized tact, a stable mind, and encouragement, while the Japanese emphasized justice and love as an internal bases for COURAGE. The consequents of COURAGE for all cultures were bravery, progress, strength, success, and victory. Similarly, as with the antecedents, each culture varied in their consequents of COURAGE. Respect, faith, and honor were American terms. Job success and bypassing difficulties were Greek terms. Fame, honor, and praise were Indian terms. Fearlessness was a Japanese term. Another concept in question was that of SUCCESS. All cultures agreed that SUCCESS had great value and was characterized by words such as, ability, cooperation, courage, effort, patience, planning, preparation, and willpower. Individually, Americans ranked hard work and ability as most important, whereas the Greeks favored patience and willpower, the Indians, tact and leadership, and the Japanese, effort and willpower. Happiness, increased aspiration level, joy, satisfaction, and self-confidence are the consequents of 53 SUCCESS for all cultures. Again cultures tended to emphasize different terms: Americans emphasized achievement, pride, and respect; Greeks emphasized love; Indians emphasized fame, social distinction, prominence, and respect; while the Japanese emphasized social prominence and respect. n r 'e iv lur Men and women in this country like many other countries in the world engage in similar activities, such as work and play. However, they have been socialized to do these activities differently than the opposite sex. An adolescent male who excels in an area other than athletics, such as drama, choir, or band is ridiculed by his male peers for taking on what is still considered a feminine task. Likewise, an adolescent female who excels in math, science, or athletics is teased by her peers. Since these are areas that have been dominated by men for a long time, there is a negative stigma associated with women who are successful in these fields. For example, athletic women are often labeled as ugly, or women involved with careers in math and science are still believed to be not as competent as their respective men counterparts. Recent history has shown a number of women recipients of the Noble Prize 54 in math or science, as well as an increase in the number of female doctors and engineers. Thus, it becomes clear that men and women are both willing, able, and capable to perform these various duties or roles; however, due to the differences in the values, attitudes, and beliefs of the majority within our society, there exist separate sex roles. Thus, through the socialization process men and women have been conditioned to value and think differently about certain aspects of life. Therefore, gender is an inferred subjective culture. Research has been conducted in the area of gender that provides evidence that males and females differ in several psychological constructs. Ewing (1981) conducted a study using the Triandis (1972) approach, to examine the ways in which high school children defined success and failure in general and in a sport setting. The results indicated that there did exist gender differences in the way children defined success and failure in both a general setting and a sport setting. Further, Lenny (1977) found gender differences in confidence. These gender differences were readily apparent when the task was masculine, competitive, or the feedback was ambiguous. To further analyze gender differences in self-confidence, Lirgg 55 (1991) conducted a meta-analysis. She found an overall effect size of 0.40 which favored males, thus, indicating that males were more confident than females. However, this effect size was not homogeneous, meaning that the effect sizes varied greatly from one study to the next. Therefore, she could make no conclusion regarding the magnitude of gender differences in self-confidence. This result seems to support previous research that demonstrated male overconfidence. Feltz (1988a) found that males provided a varied, but sometimes bogus gender difference in self-confidence. The study used a modified back dive to measure confidence relative to performance. She found that males who avoided the task most overrated their efficacy beliefs the most. It is possible that self-confidence has a different meaning for males than for females. Women may interpret confidence as having a “cocky” or “boastful” component to it that may make striving for it less appealing. Although women may define self-confidence differently from men, in general, women and men athletes may be more alike than different because they share a common culture of competition. Researchers of subjective meaning attempt to understand the 56 structure, pattern, and perceptual components of words, concepts, and language for different groups. This research has centered primarily on work with word-associations and semantic differential techniques. Out of this research pertaining to meaning came research that examined the meanings of concepts, such as success and failure. Several of these studies used Triandis’ (1972) antecedent-consequent approach to solicit open-ended responses from subjects. These open-ended responses proved vital to developing definitions of psychological concepts which were found to differ among various cultures and among males and females. The study of subjective meaning of self and team confidence may also prove useful in understanding motivation in athletes. By examining what constitutes the subjective meaning of confidence for athletes, researchers may better understand the relationship between this concept and motivational behavior within the sport contexts of team and individual sports and within gender. Chapter 3 NED-DD This study examined consistencies and inconsistencies that may exist between male and female athletes in their interpretations of self and team confidence. In addition, the differences that may exist in how athletes perceive self-confidence versus team confidence were examined as well as how high-confident versus low-confident athletes perceived the meaning of confidence. The methodology used to collect these data included two phases. The first phase used an open-ended questionnaire to gather antecedents and consequents of self-confidence and team confidence. The second phase consisted of a closed-ended questionnaire, that used the most frequent responses obtained in Phase 1 as forced choices in Phase 2. Phase 1 W In the first phase, 178 subjects were solicited from intercollegiate athletic teams. The author tried to obtain equal numbers of male and female athletes from individual and team sports. In Phase 1, 92 male athletes and 86 female athletes were surveyed. Further breakdown of those numbers revealed that 96 57 58 subjects participated in team sports and 82 participated in individual sports. All subjects were administered the questionnaires either before or after a normal team practice. In Phase 1, seven teams were competing in their primary season, while three teams were in their competitive off seasons. In addition, only Division I, non-revenue sports teams participated in the study. Finally, when a team was asked to participate, the entire team was included, not just certain members, such as the starting team. These factors were kept as consistent as possible from the subject sample in the first phase to the subject sample in the second phase. All subjects were volunteers. The first phase used an open-ended, sport-specific questionnaire that asked subjects to supply three antecedents and three consequents of self-confidence and team confidence in sport. The following four questions were asked: (1) If you have , then you have confidence to perform successfully in your sport. (2) If you have confidence to perform successfully in your sport, then you have (3) If your team has , then your team has confidence 59 in their ability to perform successfully in your sport. (4) If your team has confidence to perform successfully in your sport, then your team has . A pilot study conducted on students in activity classes showed that the open-ended questionnaire was understandable and able to be completed in a short amount of time. (See Appendix A for the complete questionnaire.) In addition to the open-ended questionnaire, subjects completed a demographic questionnaire (See Appendix B). This questionnaire was designed to add insight to the factors that may have had an influence on the athlete’s self and team confidence that were mentioned in Chapter 1, such as family, hometown, and past expefiences. EMMLQ The consent procedure consisted of, first, obtaining formal consent from UCHRIS (See Appendix C). Secondly, permission was obtained from the head coach to visit a practice to recruit athletes for the study. Thirdly, written consent of each individual athlete was obtained following an explanation of the purpose and the methods of the study, as well as their rights as a volunteer subject. 60 Athletes were given the questionnaire in a group setting. All athletes present at that group setting were asked to participate. This included walk-on athletes as well as athletes that were sidelined from competition due to injury or academic probation. In addition, athletes who were not at practice on a team’s testing day were not contacted to participate in order to preserve their anonymity. This study did not necessitate that the questionnaire be completed during the playing season of any sport. Therefore, it was given at the time most convenient for the coach and athletes on a particular team. Likewise, the author was careful to balance the number of subjects who participated during their competitive season with the number who participated during their off-season. The instructions informed participants of their responsibility to provide three responses for each of the questions on the questionnaire. Participants were also informed that it was not a test of intelligence and that the results would only be reported as group findings. Further, each questionnaire had these instructions printed on it and the author was present to administer them. mm The data were tabulated by frequency of responses. First, the data were categorized into male versus female responses. A list of responses for each of the four questions (antecedent-self- confidence, consequent-self-confidence, antecedent-team confidence, consequent-team confidence) was completed and responses were listed in descending order from most frequent to least frequent (See Appendix D). Next, the data were categorized into responses that were unique to male athletes, unique to female athletes, and common to both male and female athletes. Unique words had to show marked importance in one group over the other. It was deemed more significant for a word to be written on an open- ended questionnaire 10 times more from one group than another, than it was for one group to write a response 3 times and the other group not mention the word at all. For this reason, words referred to as male or female unique words may not have been unique in the true sense of the word. The established rule was that if one gender group cited a term six times or more than the other gender group it could be selected as a unique term for that gender. The author then selected the three most frequent responses from each of those three 61 62 categories (unique male, unique female, and common). After those responses were selected, the author chose three hunch responses from the lists. A hunch response was a response that occurred with some regularity, but was not a word that was selected as one of the three most frequent responses in the other categories. Further, a hunch word had to fit the theoretical paradigms under which this study was conducted (e.g., self-efficacy, achievement motivation, sport confidence). This process was repeated for each of the four questions in the questionnaire (See Appendix D). Once the most frequent responses were deciphered, the new questionnaire for Phase 2 was constmcted (See Appendix F). Phase 2 W The second phase of this study formally tested the differences that were hypothesized to exist between the genders regarding their definitions of self and team confidence. Subjects were drawn from the same two universities as subjects from the first phase, but different intercollegiate athletic teams were asked to participate. The author again tried to obtained equal numbers of male and female athletes, 81 and 89 respectively, as well as individual and team 63 sport athletes. Each of these groups contained 85 subjects. As in the first phase, only Division I non-revenue athletes were recruited for this study. The one exception to this rule was a male team sport that competed at the club level and had been very competitive for the past 6 years, placing at the National Club tournament for the past 5 years. Also, this phase contained six teams in their primary competitive seasons and five in their competitive off seasons. The procedure to administer the questionnaires was identical to the procedure used in the first phase. Also, the confidence questions were the same four questions from the questionnaire used in Phase 1. However in Phase 2, the subjects were provided with responses. As an example, for the question, “If your team has confidence to perform successfully in your sport, then your team has .”, the choices were as follows: A. 1) unity _ (most frequent response common to both male and female athletes) 2) ability __ (most frequent response unique to male athletes) 3) success _ (most frequent response unique to female athletes) 4) work ethic __ (hunch response) B. 1) pride __ (second most frequent response common to both male and female athletes) 64 2) strength _ (second most frequent response unique to male athletes) (second most frequent response unique to female athletes) 4) assurance __ (second hunch response) 3) determination __ The author had three sets, an A, B, and C set, of closed-ended responses for each of the four confidence questions (See Appendix F). The subjects were asked to choose the most appropriate response to fit their beliefs about confidence. Subjects chose one response from each of the three sets of responses for each question. Further, the order of closed-ended responses and the order of the sets of responses were randomized. In addition to the confidence questionnaire, subjects also completed the same demographic questionnaire as subjects who participated in the first phase. Additionally, subjects in the second phase provided information about their perceived confidence. They were asked how many members were on their team and their perceived confidence team rank (See Appendix G). Subjects were instructed to provide a single number to indicate their team rank, with 1 being the most confident athlete on the team. Since athletes were asked to rank their perceived self-confidence relative to their teammates, who varied in number across teams, it was necessary to 65 standardize the rankings in order to select the high and low confidence groups for the entire subject sample for Phase 2. A proportion using the information provided by each subject was used to create a standardized proportion for the level of confidence for each athlete. After this new variable was created, the top and bottom 25% of the entire subject sample for Phase 2 was determined. Infinnuxn_QLlhfia Phase 2 employed two primary statistical methods of data analysis to make comparisons of the 10 research questions, presented in Chapter 1, that directed this study. Frequency analysis and chi-square analysis were the primary statistical methods used during data analysis. Frequency analysis was used to make comparisons between groups such as gender, high versus low confidence athletes, and to determine differences in subjects’ responses to self versus team confidence. Chi-square analysis always consisted of 2 X 4 chi-squares. The four columns were always the four categories of response. The two rows consisted of the comparison groups previously mentioned, gender and level of confidence. Chapter 4 RESULTS OF PHASE 2 DATA This study contained 10 research questions that guided its development. The first four examined the gender differences on antecedents and consequents of athletes’ beliefs about self and team confidence. Questions 5 and 6 were concerned with the differences between athletes’ beliefs regarding self-confidence and team confidence. Research Questions 7 through 10 pertained to differences in the antecedents and consequents of self-confidence and team confidence for high and low confident athletes. The results were discussed in four major sections according to the aforementioned breakdown of the research questions. The first major section contains a presentation of the demographic data on the subject sample, followed by a presentation of the data concerning gender differences, differences between self and team confidence and then differences between high and low confident athletes. m r hi An analysis of the demographic questionnaire that was included in both the first and second phases of this study revealed 66 67 that the two samples were similar (See Appendix H). The average age of subjects in the first phase was, M = 19.87 and SD = 0.54, while in the second phase it was, M = 19.50 and §_D_ = 1.58. The majority of athletes in the first and second phases were caucasian (n = 162 and 154 respectively) and from the midwest ([1 = 116 and 117 respectively). Each phase contained a relatively similar split of subjects from rural, urban, and suburban environments with the majority of subjects from suburban environments. As well there were similar percentages of subjects from high schools with different enrollment sizes in the first and second phase. The average number of years subjects had been collegiate athletes was 2.03 years for the first phase and 1.95 years for the second phase. Both phases contained a high number of subjects who were multiple sport athletes in high school. Finally, both phases employed subjects who indicated a high level of involvement in their athletic careers from their parents. W An examination of the frequencies for the antecedents of self- confidence, pertaining to research Question 1, revealed a similar pattern of responses for males and females (See Table 1). 68 i... 0 -.- :o. :o. -‘l and Prcen ae of .oeso se for ‘ tecede ts of elf Ol'fe e W "“""""-"Vafié """""" o7. """w'""—E3r33i3""'3/Z ________ Response self- of Response self- of confidence Sample confidence Sample (11 = 81) (r1 = 89) Determination (F)5 7 70.37 Determination(F)6 0 67.42 Desire (M)3 0 37.04 Self-esteem (H)4 1 46.07 Self-esteem (H)23 28.40 Positive attitude(F)29 32.58 Positive attitude (F)2 2 27.16 Desire (M)2 8 31.46 Goals (F)21 25.93 Goals (F)2 2 24.72 Pride (M)21 25.93 Pride (M)21 23.60 Motivation (H)1 6 19.75 Motivation (H)1 7 19.10 Ability (C)14 17.28 Ability (C)14 15.73 Talent (C)1 4 17.28 Performed we|l(H)13 14.61 Performed well (H)13 16.05 Skill (C)12 13.48 Skill (0)8 9.88 Talent (0)4 4.49 Strength (M)2 2.47 Strength (M)3 3.37 —— —_ ———————_—————_-_—————_--———-—————_————————--._—_ Note. The initials indicate the category the responses came from; (C) for common, (F) for female-unique, (M) for male-unique, and (H) for hunch. Remember that each subject was instructed to choose one response in each of the three response sets (A, B, and C). Therefore, frequencies were included to display actual counts of chosen responses. In addition, percentages, calculated as a percent of the 69 individual sample, were included to enable the reader to make comparisons across gender for each response. Remember that the responses to chose from were the same for both male and female subjects. Therefore the list for males and females will contain the same term, however the rank order of the terms may be different. The first six terms were the same for male and female subjects, with the most frequent response, DETERMINATION, being identical for males (1 = 57) and for females (f = 60). The only term that prohibited the top six from being identical in order was DESIRE, f = 30 for male subjects and f = 28 for female subjects. Each of these top six words remained very powerful to both gender groups as even the sixth most frequent responses were‘chosen by over 20% of the sample. Terms chosen at least 20% of the time by athletes were deemed important because it resulted in a significant number of the athletes for any given team using that term to define confidence. Finally, the least frequent response for males and females was STRENGTH. Further analysis of research Question 1 employed chi-square analysis to determine if gender differences existed in the antecedents of athletes’ confidence beliefs. Three (one for each 70 response set, A, B, and C) separate 2 X 4 (gender by category of response) chi-squares were calculated for each question on the Phase 2 confidence questionnaire. In addition to the standard significance level, p_ < .05, an added criterion that the column percents had to be at least 5% different for the word to be considered a gender specific term was established. Only two gender specific words out of 12 antecedents for self-confidence were determined in this study. They were from response set C, which is the set that had the lowest frequencies from Phase 1. First, TALENT, originally cited as a common word from the first phase of this study, was found to be a male specific term for antecedents of self-confidence, X? (3, N = 167) = 10.19, p_ < 0.02 (See Table 2). Secondly, SELF-ESTEEM, a hunch word, was found to be a female specific term for antecedents of self-confidence. All other antecedents of self-confidence showed no significant gender differences. Research Question 2 was concerned with the gender differences for consequents of self-confidence. A list of these consequents are contained in Table 3. The four most frequent responses were identical between male and female athletes. BELIEF 71 IN YOURSELF, I = 63 and 76, POSITIVE ATTITUDE, I = 58 and 61, DETERMINATION, I = 42 and 49, and DESIRE, I = 20 and 24 respectively, each accounted for more than 25% of subjects’ Table 2 ‘OO‘fOA“0‘ o - out-.101 0 Lo." . 0 ‘ml..- confidence on Response Set 9. Response Choices Group Talent(C) Goals(F) Pride(M) Self-esteem(H) Male ([1 = 79) L 1 4 21 21 2 3 % 17.7 26.6 26.6 29.1 Female ([1 = 88) f. 4 22 21 4 1 % 4.5 25.0 23.9 46.6 Total (N = 167) L 18 43 42 64 % 10.8 25.7 25.1 38.3 Note, The initials indicate the category the responses came from; (C) for common, (F) for female-unique, (M) for male-unique, and (H) for hunch. responses. Also the least frequent response, SKILL, was again identical across gender, f = 1 for males and f = 2 for females. The chi-square analysis revealed no significant gender differences for 72 consequents of self-confidence. A frequency comparison of research Question 3, gender differences in antecedents of team confidence, revealed remarkably similar results to antecedents of self-confidence (See Table 4). The _‘| 0 ‘-0| 0:. ‘ Table 3 :.|.Ou"o o 219' magnum. Male Response self- confidence (n = 81) Belief in yourself (H)6 3 Positive attitude (F)5 8 Determination (F ) 42 Desire (M)2 0 Success (C)1 1 Ability (0)9 Goals (0)8 Fun (F)8 Talent (M)7 Experience (H) 6 Cockiness (H)6 Skill (M)1 of _————._——_———~————_ Female 8 e If- confidence (0 = 89) Belief in yourself(H)76 Positive attitude(F)61 Determination(F)4 9 Desire A b i I ity Success Expenence Goals Talent Cockiness Fun (M)24 (0)15 (0)12 (H)8 (0)7 (M)4 (H)3 (F)3 (M)2 Note. The initials indicate the category the responses came from; (C) for common, (F) for female-unique, (M) for male-unique, and (H) for hunch. 73 Table 4 Bank chrcg E[cgueccy and Percentage of Response for Antecedents of Team Confidence Male % Female % team of team of Response confidence Sample Response confidence Sample (n = 81) (D. = 89) Positive attitude (F)5 4 66.67 Positive attitude(F)64 71.91 Hard work (F)33 40.74 Hard work (F)41 46.07 Determination (F)2 7 33.33 Determination(F)3 6 40.45 Pride (0)2 7 33.33 Pride (0)2 9 32.58 Desire (M)23 28.40 Desire (M)22 24.72 Unity (0)17 20.99 Unity (0)2 2 24.72 Goodpractices (H)13 16.05 Success (M)12 13.48 Courage (H)13 16.05 Talent (0)10 11.24 Talent (0)11 13.58 Courage (H)1 0 11.24 Success (M)11 13.58 Ability (M)8 8.99 Ability (M)6 7.41 Good practices (H)7 7.87 Wins (H)4 4.94 Wins (H)3 3.37 Note. The initials indicate the category the responses came from; (C) for common, (F) for female-unique, (M) for male-unique, and (H) for hunch. six most frequent antecedents of team confidence were identical for both males and females. The most frequent response, POSITIVE ATTITUDE, accounted for over 66% of the sample for each gender group. The top six responses were each responsible for over 20% of the subjects’ responses. The least frequent response, WINS, was 74 again identical for both gender groups, f = 4 for males and f = 3 for females. Three 2 X 4 (gender by category of response) chi-square analyses were also conducted for antecedents of team confidence. No significant gender differences were found. Research Question 4, pertaining to gender differences of consequents for team confidence, displayed similar results to those of the previous questions. A frequency analysis showed that the five most frequent responses were the same (See Table 5). However, males preferred the term POSITIVE ATTITUDE, I: 47 over DETERMINATION, f = 40, while females chose DETERMINATION, I: 54, over POSITIVE ATTITUDE, f = 49 as the most important consequents for team confidence. Again each of the top five responses accounted for over 20% of athletes’ responses. The two least frequent responses were also identical. ASSURANCE, f = 7 for males and I = 6 for females, as well as WINS, f = 4 for both males and females, proved to be less important words for athletes as consequents of team confidence. The chi-square analysis again revealed no significant differences for consequents of team confidence across gender. Because the first four research questions revealed only one difference in gender, the remaining research questions were 75 collapsed across gender. A summary of all chi-square analyses conducted across gender is listed in Appendix I. Table 5 re uen ercenta e Res onse for Conse uents of Tea Confide ce Mendez. ’ """""""""""" ii a-Ie— _______ . Z."—""""""""T=EEIEIE_""?/T" team of team of Response confidence Sample Response confidence Sample (n. = 81) (n = 89) Positive attitude __-_(- F- )-4-7-—_—_—5—8—.02 —————— Determination(F)5 4 60767 Determination (F)4 0 49.38 Positive attitude(F)49 55.06 Unity (0)26 32.10 Unity (0)38 42.70 Work ethic (H)2 5 30.86 Work ethic (H)29 32.58 Pride (0)23 28.40 Pride (0)21 23.60 Worked together (M)1 5 18.52 Goals (0)19 21.35 Ability (M)1 4 17.28 Worked together(M)16 17.98 Success (F)13 16.05 Success (F)11 12.36 Goals (0)12 14.81 Ability (M)9 10.11 Strength (M)1 0 12.35 Strength (M)9 10.11 Assurance (H )7 8.64 Assurance (H ) 6 6. 74 Wins (H)4 4.94 Wins (H)4 4.49 Note. The initials indicate the category the responses came from; (C) for common, (F) for female-unique, (M) for male-unique, and (H) for hunch. If ver T am onfidence Anal i Research Question 5 pertained to differences between the 76 antecedents of self and team confidence for all athletes. There were several words that were noteworthy as antecedents (See Table 6). First, DETERMINATION, as an antecedent of self- confidence, 1 = 117, and as an antecedent of team confidence, I: 63, was viewed as a powerful meaning of confidence. Further, it appeared that DETERMINATION was a more powerful factor as an antecedent of self-confidence than team confidence for over 40% of the subjects sampled. Secondly, POSITIVE ATTITUDE, as an antecedent of self-confidence, f = 51, and as an antecedent of team confidence, 1 = 118, was another important response. POSITIVE ATTITUDE was more important as an antecedent of team confidence for almost 60% of athletes surveyed. PRIDE was another term that was important as both an antecedent of self-confidence, f = 42, and as an antecedent of team confidence, I = 56. Athletes also chose DESIRE as a powerful word both as an antecedent of self-confidence, f = 58, and as an antecedent of team confidence, 1 = 45. The term ABILITY resulted in an interesting difference between self and team confidence (See Table 7). Athletes chose ABILITY as a component of self-confidence, f = 28, more than as a component of team confidence, 1 = 14. Two important words to athletes that appeared only as antecedents of self-confidence were GOALS, f = 43, and Table 6 77 n r enta e f es ons for ecedents of Self an earn ———-————————_——_—_—_-—————_——_—__—_——————————————————_——————— Self- confidence (n = 170) Response Team confidence (:1 = 170) Determination Self-esteem Desire Positive attitude Goals Pride Motivation Ability Performed well S kill Talent Strength 2.94 Positive attitude1 18 Hard work 7 4 Determination 6 3 Pride 5 6 Desire 4 5 Unity 3 9 Courage 2 3 Success 2 3 Talent 2 1 Good practices 2 0 Ability 1 4 Wins 7 78 Table 7 e Per enta es onsef ntecedents of Self an Team Whamm- _ ————————————————————————— 07° __—_---—-—_T——______—__—__—__—0/:__- Category Se If- of Team of confidence Sample confidence Sample (11 = 170) (11 = 170) Cbmmon: —_ —————————————————————————————————————————————— Determination 1 1 7 68.82 Positive attitude118 89.41 Desire 5 8 34.12 Determination6 3 27.06 Positive attitude 5 1 30.00 Pride 5 6 22.94 Pride 4 2 24.71 Desire 4 5 26.47 Ability 2 8 16.47 Talent 21 12.33 Talent 1 8 10.59 Ability 1 4 8.24 Unique to Self-confidence: Self-esteem 6 4 37.65 Goals 43 25.29 Motivation 33 19 .41 Performed well 2 6 15.29 Skill 2 0 11.76 Strength 5 2.94 Unique to Team Confidence: Hard work 7 4 43.53 Unity 3 9 22.94 Courage 2 3 13.53 Success 2 3 13.53 Good practices 2 0 1 1 .76 Wins 7 4.12 ———-———_——-—————————-—————-———_—————__—.__—_————_——.———__—————— 79 SELF-ESTEEM, f: 64. The terms MOTIVATION, f = 33, PERFORMED WELL IN THE PAST, I = 26, and SKILL, I = 20, also appeared as antecedents of self-confidence. Finally, an important term that appeared only as an antecedent of team confidence was HARD WORK, 1 74. Additionally, other terms such as UNITY, f = 39, COURAGE, f = 23, SUCCESS, f = 23, and GOOD PRACTICES, f = 20, showed their importance as antecedents of team confidence. Conversely, other words such as STRENGTH, f = 5, did not prove to be powerful antecedents of self-confidence. Likewise, WINS, f = 7 was not an important antecedent of team confidence. Research Question 6 pertained to the differences between the consequents of self and team confidence for all athletes. There were 5 responses that were both potential consequents of self and team confidence. All 5 responses obtained roughly equal frequencies (See Table 8). POSITIVE ATTITUDE, I: 119 and 96, and DETERMINATION, I = 91 and 94, respectively for self-confidence and team confidence, were important consequents for athletes. Two terms that were practically identical as consequents of self and team confidence were ABILITY, 1 = 24 and 23 respectively, and SUCCESS, f = 23 and 24 respectively. 80 Table 8 i..i.0t-=:.o_ urn -10_'=I'C‘|.-.!‘0 :- m :10 0190.‘ tso e .no e Confidence. . _________________________ 070 ———--——____————__———_——_——__—_o/:——- Response 8611- of Response Team of confidence Sample confidence Sample (n = 170) (n = 170) Belief in yourself 139 __ 81.76 Positive attitude96 56.—47 Positive attitude 1 1 9 70.00 Determination 94 55.29 Determination 9 1 53.53 Unity 6 4 37.65 Desire 4 4 25.88 Work ethic 5 4 31.76 Ability 24 14.12 Pride 4 4 25.88 Success 2 3 13.53 Worked together31 18.24 Goals 1 5 8.82 Goals 31 18.24 Experience 14 8.24 Success 2 4 14.12 Talent 1 1 6.47 Ability 2 3 13.53 Fun 1 1 6.47 Strength 1 9 11.18 Cockiness 9 5.29 Assurance 1 3 7.65 Skill 3 1.76 Wins 8 4.71 GOALS was a word that athletes chose more as a consequent of team confidence, 1 = 31, than as a consequent of self-confidence, _f_ = 15. There was, however, a term that was more important than all of the other consequents of self-confidence, BELIEF IN YOURSELF, 1 = 139. This term accounted for over 80% of the responses sampled. Additionally, DESIRE, f = 44, displayed itself as an important 81 consequent of self-confidence (See Table 9). UNITY, f = 64, WORK ETHIC, I: 54, PRIDE, I = 44, and WORKED TOGETHER, I: 31 proved to be powerful consequents of team confidence. Several terms were deemed unimportant by athletes. EXPERIENCE, t: 14, TALENT, I = 11, FUN, 1 = 11, COCKINESS,1= 9, and SKILL, f = 3, were chosen infrequently as consequents of self- confidence. Likewise, STRENGTH, 1 = 19, ASSURANCE, 1 = 13, and WINS, f = 8, appeared to be the least important consequents of team confidence for athletes. | l I C II I I . Research Question 7 asked about differences between the responses of high versus low confidence athletes. High confidence was operationally defined as the top 25% of athletes in the sample, while low confidence was defined as the bottom 25% of the sample. A proportion was calculated from information the subjects provided during testing. The third and final portion of the Phase 2 questionnaire instructed subjects to first determine how many athletes were on their team and second to rank themself in terms of their perceived self-confidence compared to their teammates. The high confidence group contained 37 subjects, while the low Bank chrfl E[cggcgcy and Percentage c1 Besconse for Conseguects of Self and Team 82 Table 9 Want- Category Self- confidence (n = 170) Common: __ Positive attitude Determination Ability Success Goals Unique to Self-confidence: Belief in yourself Desire Expefience Talent Fun Cockiness S kill Unique to Team Confidence : 119 91 24 23 15 139 44 14 11 11 9 3 70.00 53.53 14.12 13.53 8.82 81 .76 25.88 8 . 24 6.47 6.47 5.29 1.76 Team confidence ([1 = 170) Positive attitude9 6 Determination 94 Goals 31 Success 2 4 Ability 2 3 Unity 6 4 Work ethic 5 4 Pride 4 4 Worked together31 Strength 1 9 Assurance 1 3 Wins 8 56 55 18 13 37 31 25 18 11 .47 .29 .24 14. .53 12 .65 .76 .88 .24 .18 7.65 4. 71 83 confidence group contained 44. Frequencies were calculated on the demographic data for these two groups. Of interest, were the findings that there were more males (65%) than females (35%) in the high confidence group. Also the high confidence group was older (M = 20.4 years) than the low confidence group (M = 19 years) and they had more years of collegiate playing experience (M = 2.6 years) than the low confidence group (M = 1.5 years). The demographic data for the high and low confidence groups are located in Appendix J. The results from the two confidence groups were remarkably similar to each other and to the results discussed previously regarding the gender groupings. Thus, the two groups were collapsed together for reporting of the data. The five most frequent antecedents of self-confidence were again, DETERMINATION, 1: 54, SELF-ESTEEM, I = 36, DESIRE, I = 25, POSITIVE ATTITUDE, I: 25, and PRIDE, I = 20. Each of these words accounted for more than 25% of the athletes’ responses. Three (one for each set of responses A, B, and C) 2 X 4 (level of confidence by category of response) chi- squares were calculated. No significant differences were found between the high and low confidence groups in their responses to antecedents of self-confidence. A summary of all chi-square 84 analyses conducted on level of confidence is listed in Appendix K. A frequency analysis of the consequents of self-confidence, (Question 8), revealed that DETERMINATION, I: 44, POSITIVE ATTITUDE, I = 57, and BELIEF IN YOURSELF, I = 65 were the most important terms for high and low confidence athletes. Again three 2 X 4 (level of confidence by category of response) chi-squares were run. The analysis revealed that there were no significant differences between the level of confidence for consequents of self- confidence. The last two research questions pertained to differences between athletes of high and low confidence for team confidence. Research Question 9 posed the issue of the effects of level of confidence on the perceived antecedents of team confidence. The six most frequent responses were again the same responses discussed for the gender analysis, POSITIVE ATTITUDE, f = 60, HARD WORK, I: 35, PRIDE, I = 28, DETERMINATION, I = 27, UNITY, f = 21, and DESIRE, I = 21. The chi-square analysis revealed no significant differences between high and low confidence athletes for antecedents of team confidence. Finally, research Question 10 examined differences in the level 85 of confidence for consequents of team confidence. The results showed that POSITIVE ATTITUDE, I = 46, DETERMINATION, I: 40, UNITY, I = 30, PRIDE, I = 25, and WORK ETHIC, I = 24, were the most powerful consequents of team confidence for athletes of high and low levels of confidence. A chi-square analysis revealed no significant differences between athletes of high confidence versus athletes of low confidence for consequents of team confidence. 86 Chapter 5 DISCUSSION The purpose of this study was to determine the subjective meanings of self and team confidence for male and female athletes in order to better understand the interpretation of confidence for this population. This study used nonrevenue sport athletes from two Division I universities to serve as subjects. The first phase of the study involved collecting perceived antecedents and consequents for self and team confidence using the Triandis (1972) approach via an open-ended questionnaire. The second phase employed a forced choice questionnaire comprised of the most frequent responses from the first phase. The most frequent meanings associated with individual confidence were DETERMINATION, BELIEF IN YOURSELF, POSITIVE ATTITUDE, SELF-ESTEEM, and DESIRE. For team confidence, the most frequent meanings selected were POSITIVE ATTITUDE, DETERMINATION, HARD WORK, and UNITY. Most terms discovered as subjective meanings of athletic confidence in this study (85%) represent internal, changeable, and effort-oriented categories of attributions. Only two antecedents were ability-oriented, ABILITY and TALENT. They occurred as 87 antecedents of self and team confidence. ABILITY was also a consequent for both self and team confidence, while TALENT was only a consequent for self-confidence. When athletes define their sense of self-confidence interms of internal, changeable, and effort-oriented components, such as hard work and determination, they expect that ordinary performances can be surpassed through sustained high effort (Bandura, 1986). This concept of self-confidence allows athletes to attribute their failures to changeable factors which helps them maintain their confidence. In addition, having a positive attitude within the context of one’s confidence in sport may mean having an optimistic attitude about success, about winning or about reaching one’s potential. This attitude would help sustain high efforts. The subjective meanings of self-confidence in sport found in the present study were very similar to questionnaire items that were developed from global self-efficacy scales such as the Generalized Self-Efficacy (GSE) scale (Tipton 8 Worthington, 1984) and the Self-Efficacy Scale (SES - Sherer, Maddox, Mercandante, Prentice-Dunn, Jacobs, & Rodgers, 1982). For instance, the general theme of the GSE items concerned, one’s willingness (similar to 88 DESIRE) and determination to “initiate and tenaciously stay with an undertaking in the face of physical and/or emotional adversity.” (Tipton & Worthington, p. 546). The GSE also has a number of “faith- in-self” items which are similar to the BELIEF IN YOURSELF meaning found in the present study. The term, DESIRE, may relate to the incentive component of Bandura’s self-efficacy theory. Bandura (1977) proposed that self- efficacy judgments will be functionally related to actions only if the proper incentives exist to perform the activities. One has to have the desire to perform well, as well as the self-confidence to be successful in sport according to Bandura and as indicated from the athletes in the present study. Bandura’s self-efficacy theory and the global self-efficacy scales (GSE and SES) did not include any of the affective meanings in their conceptualizations of self-confidence that were found in the present study. SELF-ESTEEM and PRIDE were terms that the athletes perceived as meanings of self-confidence in sport. All that Bandura (1986) suggests regarding self-esteem is that people cultivate self- efficacies in the activities that give them a sense of self-worth. Whether this is true or whether people derive a sense of self- 89 esteem from activities in which they are highly confident is beyond the realm of the present investigation. However, future studies of self-confidence or self-efficacy may be more informative and more predictive of performance by including assessments of affect, such as self-esteem, pride, and satisfaction. Other studies conducted using the present methodology have concluded that Americans also conceptualize success in sport with internal, changeable, and effort-oriented factors (Ewing, 1981; Kawano, 1992; Lee, 1995). How success is conceptualized by these studies is related to how confidence was conceptualized in the present study because antecedents and consequents were solicited from athletes as meanings of confidence that allowed them to perform successfully in their sport. Lee (1995) found that American adolescents defined success in sport with almost twice as many, “dedication” factors as “innate ability” factors. Kawano (1992) also found that American college students defined success in sport with primarily internal, changeable, and effort-oriented meanings, such as self-confidence, drive, good physical condition, and a good attitude. Ewing (1981) found that school age children defined success in sport with many more internal and changeable factors 90 than extrinsic and unchangeable factors. However, she also concluded that some of the external meanings were very important to this population. The inability to attain these external meanings, coupled with motivation for external rewards resulted in many of these children dropping out of sport. Intercollegiate athletes, such as those in the present study, have probably either entered sport at a young age with an internal-oriented meaning of self-confidence or redefined the meaning of self-confidence (and success) along the way to comprise internal and changeable factors. Otherwise they probably would have dropped out of sport long ago. The present investigation suggested some differences between the subjective meanings of self and team confidence. There were six terms that were unique to self-confidence and six unique to team confidence. All 12 were categorized as internal, changeable, and effort-oriented. The unique antecedents of self-confidence, SELF-ESTEEM, GOALS, MOTIVATION, PERFORMED WELL IN THE PAST, SKILL, and STRENGTH, accounted for 38% of the samples’ responses, while the unique antecedents of team confidence, HARD WORK, UNITY, COURAGE, SUCCESS, GOOD PRACTICES, and WINS, accounted for 34% of the samples’ responses. There were seven consequents 91 unique to self and team confidence. Six of the 7 consequents for self-confidence were internal, changeable, and effort-oriented, while all seven of the consequents for team confidence were internal, changeable, and effort-oriented. The unique consequents of self-confidence were BELIEF IN YOURSELF, DESIRE, EXPERIENCE, TALENT, FUN, COCKINESS, and SKILL. The unique consequents of team confidence were UNITY, WORK ETHIC, PRIDE, WORKED TOGETHER, STRENGTH, ASSURANCE, and WINS. Both of the unique sets of responses accounted for over 45% of the responses sampled for consequents of self and team confidence. It should not be surprising that the meanings of self and team confidence differ. The rules, social norms, and goals that make up individual and team performance are different. For instance, teams attain performance success as a result of the interactions of team members’ skills. Likewise, teams set goals for the group rather than for each individual of the group. Therefore, terms such as HARD WORK, UNITY, and WORKED TOGETHER would be especially meaningful to an athlete’s meaning of team confidence. These terms have also been measured as components of team cohesion. Carron, Widmeyer, and Brawley (1985) developed the Group 92 Environment Questionnaire (GEQ) to asses cohesion in sport teams. The GEQ consists of four scales: group interaction-task, group interaction-social, individual attractions to group-task, and individual attractions to group-social. Spink (1990) found a significant relationship between a measure of team confidence (collective efficacy) and group cohesion. Coacting sport teams have also shown that cohesion measures predict performance and group motivation assessments by a commitment to team goals (Williams & Widmeyer, 1991). The second manner in which the present meanings displayed their differences between self and team confidence occurred when the same meaning was selected in differing degrees. DETERMINATION and POSITIVE ATTITUDE were both selected as important antecedents of self and team confidence; however, it was interesting that DETERMINATION was far more important as an antecedent of self-confidence than as an antecedent of team confidence. DETERMINATION accounted for over 68% of the responses chosen as antecedents of self-confidence, but for only 27% of the responses for team confidence. The opposite was true for POSITIVE ATTITUDE, where it accounted for only 30% of the antecedents 93 chosen for self-confidence, but for a staggering 89% for team confidence. This means that there do exist distinct differences in the subjective meanings of confidence between self and team confidence. The finding that POSITIVE ATTITUDE is a more important meaning of team confidence than individual confidence is particularly important. Since in team sports one individual cannot always control all the factors that effect a team, maintaining a positive attitude helps to produce a positive atmosphere. A team feeds off of a positive or negative attitude or atmosphere. A negative attitude tends to lead to disputes between teammates, apathy, distrust, and a lack of desire to accomplish team goals. A positive attitude allows team members to maintain their focus on important tasks thus enabling everyone to work hard in practice, develop skills, improve one’s self-confidence, improve the team’s confidence, foster team unity, and ultimately lead to more performance success. Gender differences in the subjective meanings of self and team confidence were not strongly apparent for intercollegiate athletes. The only exception was one pair of antecedents of self-confidence where males preferred the term TALENT and females preferred the 94 term SELF-ESTEEM. The importance of self-esteem to the female athlete is supported by other research (Grove, Hanrahan, & Stewart, 1990; Jones, Swain, & Cale, 1991). Self-confidence for female athletes has been shown to be predicted by two factors: perceived readiness and individual importance or self-esteem (Jones et al., 1991). Self-esteem has also been shown to be more important to injury recovery for female athletes than for male athletes (Grove et al., 1990). Indeed, Anson Dorrance, who was at one time the head coach of both the men’s and women’s soccer teams at the University of North Carolina, based his coaching on his experiential knowledge of talent and self-esteem differences in men and women athletes (Diaz, 1987). He believes that after a loss female athletes need to be reassured that things are O.K., that they can work to improve their skills and become better. Most importantly he believes that female athletes are very concerned with the coach’s tone and whether the coach is upset with the team. They must feel that their coach still has faith in them as people and as athletes. The female athlete can then take shelter in the fact that someone very important believes in them, feel good about themselves, and then return to practice the next day and work harder than ever before. 95 Regarding male athletes, Dorrance believes they have to be driven. The tendency of the male athlete to emphasize talent over self-esteem is what allows Dorrance to blame them for losses, and verbally chastise them when they perform poorly. These endeavors are all made in the effort to motivate or drive the male athlete to overcome opponents with seemingly superior talent. Except for this gender difference between TALENT and SELF- ESTEEM, male and female intercollegiate athletes are in agreement on the subjective meanings of athletic confidence, possibly due to the effort-orientation required for athletes (male and female) to achieve at this competitive level. This effort-orientation motivates the athlete to develop new skills, perfect existing skills, and strive to perfect their overall performance in their sport. The future direction of this research is critical to further our understanding of athletic confidence. The subjective meanings of confidence found in the present study must be conferred. A modified open-ended methodology will be of further help. The Triandis (1972) antecedent-consequent approach limits responses in that it requires that subjects provide noun-anchored phrases as antecedents and consequents. It is desirable to employ a methodology that allows 96 subjects to answer anything they believe to be relevant (nouns, verbs, adjectives, etc.) since subjective meanings may take many forms. One proposed methodology by Lee (1995) that would provide subjects with this freedom would be to ask subjects to list everything they can think of about themselves which causes them to feel that they have the confidence to perform successfully in their sport. Next, the second phase of the new methodology would be to manipulate the subjective meanings into a modified semantic differential, where the bipolar end-points would be “most important” to “least important.” This modification from the traditional semantic differential end-points of “good” and “bad” would eliminate subjects responding to the subjective meanings solely in the positive. After the subjective meanings are conferred, researchers could asses the strength of the self-confidence of athletes in terms of these subjective meanings. This approach may demonstrate a stronger relationship between confidence beliefs and achievement behavior in sport. lm li in for o hes The gender difference where males preferred the term TALENT and females preferred the term SELF-ESTEEM holds important 97 implications for coaches. If self-esteem is generally tied to a female athlete’s sense of confidence, then feedback that affects her self-esteem could very well also affect her self-confidence in her performance. A coach who berates female athletes for their poor performance or effort may undercut their self-confidence as well. Likewise, if talent is generally tied to a male’s sense of confidence, feedback that implies a lack of talent may negatively affect his self-confidence. The second noteworthy implication for coaches was the finding that the term DETERMINATION was more important as an antecedent of self-confidence than as an antecedent of team confidence, while the term POSITIVE ATTITUDE was more important as an antecedent of team confidence than as an antecedent of self-confidence. A successful coach must motivate the athlete as an individual as well as motivate the group as a whole (Carron, 1984). The identification of these two terms, DETERMINATION and POSITIVE ATTITUDE, by athletes reflect their understanding of this concept. Athletes also believe they must maintain their focus and persistence in their sport at an individual level in order to help their team accomplish its goals. In turn, they must continue to have faith or a positive 98 attitude that their teammates are doing the same. .Qonchuflon The present investigation added important insight to the issue of athletic confidence. It was determined that the subjective culture of competitive athletics is the important distinguishing culture for this study’s research questions and not gender. Primary subjective meanings for self and team confidence for intercollegiate athletes were gathered in this investigation. Furthermore the most salient meanings were pitted against each other to gain a further insight to the most salient meanings of self and team confidence for athletes. Finally, this study indicated that there were separate factors that needed to be considered for self-confidence as opposed to team confidence. This indicates that there may actually be separate considerations for team sports as opposed to individual sports. Likewise, there may be sport-specific meanings of confidence. APPENDIX A Appendix A Phase 1 Questionnaire Self and Team Confidence Questionnaire A. Please provide 3 one word or short phrase answers to each of the following questions. B. Your answers do not need to be in order of importance. 0. This is not a test of intelligence and there are no right or wrong answers. D. There is no time limit. Take all the time you need and give us answers that are important to you as an athlete. E. Your answers are anonymous. Do not put your name on this questionnaire. is the sport in which I participate. 1. If you have . then you have confidence to perform successfully in your sport. 2. If your team has . then your team has confidence in their ability to perform successfully in your sport. a)__ 3. If you have confidence to perform successfully in your sport, then you have 4. If your team has confidence to perform successfully in your sport, then your team has 99 APPENDIX B Appendix B Demographic Questionnaire Instructions: Please check the appropriate answer or fill in the required information. 1) Gender: Male Female _ 2) Age: _____ Date of Birth 3) Ethnicity: Caucasian Asian African-American ____ Native American __ Hispanic Other 4) Number of Brothers: _____ Number that are older __ Number of Sisters: Number that are older Your place in the birth order (1st born, 3rd born, etc) 5) Region of the country in which you grew up: West Coast Northeast _ Pacific North West Southeast Southwest Canada (please specify: ) Midwest Other 6) Characterization of the region in which you grew up: Rural (country) Urban (city) Suburban 7) Enrollment of your high school: 0 - 500 students 2001 - 3000 students 501 - 1000 students 3001 and higher 1001 - 2000 students 8) Collegiate Varsity Sport(s) Number of years Number of years as starter Important Sub Bench Position in your sport Scholarship status: Full Partial None 9) High School Sport(s) [list # of years; varsity or JV; starter or non-starter] 5mm Wasted 1mm J1 WW 100 Appendix B (cont’d) 10) Rate the degree to which the following persons have been interested in or encouraged your sports involvement: (circle the corresponding number that describes each person) flinhlxlldodflatelxfilismmmlwerste NW 60 0 Mother 4 3 2 1 Father 4 3 2 1 0 Others(list relation to you; for example brother, aunt, grandmother, etc.) 4 3 2 1 0 4 3 2 1 0 4 3 2 1 0 11) Most successful moment of your high school athletic career? 101 APPENDIX C Appendix C , UCHRIS Approval Letter MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY January 25. 1994 TO: Doug Tully 105 IM Sports Circle RE: IRB 8‘: 93-577 TITLE: ANTECEDENTS AND CONSEQUENCES OF CONFIDENCE FOR INDIVIDUAL AND TEAM SPORT ATHLETES REVISION REQUESTED: NIA CATEGORY: I-C APPROVAL DATE: January I9, 1994 The University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects’ (UCRIHS) review of this project is complete. I am pleased to advise that the rights and welfare ofthe human subjects appear to be adequately protected and methods to obtain informed consent are appropriate. Therefore. the UCRIHS approved this project including any revision listed ahove. Renewal: ucrtms approval is valid for one calendar yer, beginning with the approval date shown above. Investigators planning to continue a project beyond one year must use the green renewal form (enclosed with the original approval letter or when a project is renewed) to seek updated certification. There is a maximum of four such expedited renewals possible. Investigators wishing to continue a project beyond that time need to submit it again for complete review. Revisions: UCRIHS must review any changes in procedures involving human subjects. prior to initiation of the change. If this is done at the time of renewal, please use the green renewal form. To revise an approved protocol at any other time during the year. send your written request to the UCRIHS Chair. requesting revised approval and referencing the project‘s IRB I and title. Include in your request a description of the change and any revised instruments. consent forms or advertisements that are ' applicable. Changes: Should either of the following arise during the course of the work. inveaigators must notify UCRIHS promptly: (1) problems (unexpected side effects, complaints, etc.) involving human subjects or (2) changes in the research environment or new information indicating greater risk to the human subjects than existed when the protocol was previously reviewed and approved. Ifwc can be of any future help. please do not hesitate to contact us at (SI?) 355-2I80 or FAX (SI?) 336-] Hi. Elli/35521” FAX: 51733-1171 David E. Wright. Ph.D. ucruns Chair DEW:pjm cc: Dr. Deborah L. Feltz talcum. 102 -\V/ APPENDIX D1 Appendix D1 Phase 1 Gender Data Female Wallace positive attitude (21) drive (3) determination (16) performed well in past (3) ability (14) discipline (3) skill (11) intensity (3) self-esteem (11) optimism (3) goals (9) knowledge of your sport (2) talent (8) proper training (2) support (8) good practices (2) desire (7) energy (2) belief in yourself (6) success (2) experience (6) courage (2) worked hard (5) motivation (5) faith (5) dedication (5) confidence (5) cockiness (4) strength (4) pride (4) SW: strong will, agility, ambition, done everything right, support from your team, knowledge of athletes performing, warmed up to your potential,pressure, trained hard, excelled, focus, concentration, preparation, knowledge of your competition, practiced, commitment, diligence, belief, dreams, will, objectives, health, unity, self-discipline, caring, improved, thoughtfulness, kept positive thoughts, coordination, endurance, assertiveness, speed, happiness, glory, communication, belief, self-motivation, natural talent, smarts, support from teammates, positivity, inner strength, trust in teammates, positive feedback, no mistakes, mental control, wins, fun, attitude, intimidation, understanding the game, optimism,love for sport, killer instinct, good previous performance, others confident in me, clear mind, encouragement, positive self-regard, been thru it successfully, a good leader, willingness,mental toughness, focus, consistency, support from your coach 103 APPENDIX D2 Female I i ence determination (20) positive attitude (19) success (18) ability (12) self-esteem (11) goals (7) desire (7) fun (6) motivation (5) pride (4) skills (4) confidence (4) self-assurance (4) drive (3) attitude (3) experience (3) good game (performance) (3) intensity (3) W Appendix 02 Phase 1 Gender Data focus (2) faith (2) a winning attitude (2) cockiness (2) understanding the game (2) leadership (2) proper training (2) worked/trained hard (2) belief in yourself (2) self-discipline (2) support from others (2) aggressiveness (2) talent (2) ability to be the best (to succeed) (2) good work ethic (2) discipline (2) strength(2) fulfillment, satisfaction, ability to win, mental toughness, desire to keep working hard, pressure, luck, good character, self-confidence, good odds, preparation, PMA about racing, relaxed attitude about racing, fun doing it, knowledge of your sport, knowledge of your competition, support, no mental blocks, advantage over others, potential, better performance, exceed in performance, better sportsmanship, better knowledge, endurance, gold medals, personal records being broken, belief, will, crossed the first hurdle, courage, belief in God, willingness, felt good, focus, dedication, accomplished yourself, discipline, hope to be good whether your team is winning or losing, power, assurance, wins, a chance to be great, satisfaction, glory, courage, self-pride, self- assurance, inner strength, motivation, belief that you will do your job, smarts, drive, assertiveness, everything you need to win, positive thinking, eagerness, an advantage, mental control, identity, intimidation, capabilities, mental preparedness, team work, mental toughness, belief, feeling of playing equal to others, energy, dedication, good season, more scholarships, a better chance to win, reliance 104 APPENDIX D3 Appendix D3 Phase 1 Gender Data Male Actcccgcmc cf Selfgcnfidence desire (18) courage (3) ability (17) motivation (3) skills (14) goals (3) strength (12) sound-mindedness (3) talent (11) friendship (3) pride (10) arrogance (3) trained well (8) cockiness (3) discipline (8) unity (3) positive attitude (7) spirit (2) success (6) the will (to win) (2) determination (6) willingness (2) self-esteem (6) hard work (2) intelligence (5) trust in your teammates (2) support (5) self-confidence (2) belief in yourself (5) mental ability (2) dedication (4) endurance (2) worked hard (4) prepared well (2) good work ethic (4) performed well in past (2) heart (4) focus (2) experience (2) sinnulauesocnscs: self-control, fans, balls, shoes, players, coach’s reinforcement, belongingness, experience, familiarity, concentration, will power, wins, team cohesion, team play, mentally sound, attitude, positivity, trained, history, chemistry, respect, results, happiness, good feedback, winning attitude, love, peers confidence, competed, trust, emotional stability, camaraderie, mental preparation, excellence, potential, will, teammates, good coaches, encouragement, good self-image, put in the work, desire to win, eaten correctly, faith in your coach, self-worth, done everything possible, standards, attitude, confidence, respect, guts, a better chance of winning, physically prepared, mentally prepared, psyched up, good looks, power, wisdom, fun, a strong mind, incentive, concentration, run well, practiced well, perseverance, speed, faith, high expectations, happy soul, self-identity 105 APPENDIX D4 Appendix D4 Phase 1 Gender Data Male Wee ability (19) faith (3) desire (15) discipline (3) talent (14) courage (3) success (13) camaraderie (3) skill (12) intelligence (3) pride (11) hard work (3) determination (9) an edge (2) positive mental attitude (8) cockiness (2) strength (8) security (2) confidence (7) willingness (2) goals (6) performed well in the past (2) self-esteem (6) a better chance of winning (2) unity (6) mentally prepared (2) heart (5) devoted time to your sport (2) trained well (5) will to win (2) dedication (4) motivation (2) arrogance (4) an advantage (4) ' l s se ' self-control, a scholarship, attitude, mental strength, physical strength, experience, belongingness, concentration, sense of team play, endurance, friends, good habits, positivity, sound-mindedness, positive reinforcement, trained, history, continuity, coaching, willingness to compete, respect, feedback from coaches/peers, winning attitude, grit, disappointment, drive, results, progress, strong will, fun, common goal, trust from your teammates, reassurance, athleticism, already won, practiced, ambition, practiced correctly, achieved your goals as an athlete, team togetherness, high standards, respect, attitude, set goals, ability to succeed, everything has clicked, felt good about yourself, urge to win, luck, God smiling on you, focus, poise, experience, good coach, leadership, quality, no injuries, competitive nature, reason, winning mind, put the work in, almost won the race already, objectives, aspirations, power, incentive, concentration, self-identity, good self-image 106 APPENDIX D5 Appendix D5 Phase 1 Gender Data Female WWW unity (25) drive (3) determination (14) ability (3) positive attitude (13) team spirit (3) talent (11) belief in your team (3) goals (9) support (3) pride (8) confidence in each other (3) worked hard (7) good work ethic (3) dedication (6) success (3) motivation (6) cohesion (2) desire (6) strength (2) togetherness (6) leaders (2) skill (6) mental/physical toughness (2) experience (5) never say die attitude (2) trust (4) worked together (2) belief in each others ability (4) a winning record (2) communication (4) good practice (2) focus (4) wins (2) spirit (4) confidence (2) W patience, commitment, performed well in past, enthusiasm, knowledge of competitors, closeness, proper training, knowledge of your sport, practiced, diligence, fun, better performance, discipline to achieve goals, good sportsmanship, friendship, encouraging people, ‘spunk’, altruistic behaviors, discipline, faith, support from coaches, belief, exceeded, confidence, bonded, will, power, cooperation, good previous performance, pep talk, worked well together, psyched up, energy, good pre-game warm-up, assertiveness, speed, good coach, self-discipline, positive role models, fun, gets along well, winning attitude, confidence from others, chemistry, trust, composure, the right mental state,team work, a place to, practice, 2 hours of full practice, a confident coach, self-esteem, courage, intensity, friendship, attitude, trust in teammates, intimidation, spirit, companionship, love for sport, not accepting anything less than a win, faith 107 APPENDIX D6 Appendix D6 Phase 1 Gender Data Female WW unity (16) aggressiveness (3) success (16) spirit (3) determination (13) dedication (3) positive attitude (13) skill (3) pride (13) attitude (3) togetherness (12) winning record (3) goals (9) intensity (3) fun (8) belief in each other (3) desire (7) discipline (2) ability (6) communication (2) motivation (5) an advantage (2) drive (5) strength (2) work ethic (4) proper training (2) better performances (2) belief (2) I 3 see endurance, strength, ability to win, enthusiasm, ability to work hard, optimism, fun doing it, become close knit, confidence in each other, knowledge of your sport, athletic ability, goals to be achieved, barriers to be crossed, ability to overcome obstacles, team goals, a leader, advantage over others, potential, knowledge, skillful, better attitudes, team work, high sensory ability, commitment, faith, will, assurance, courage, a winning spirit, pride in each other, a confident attitude, opportunity, trained hard, team spirit, focus, accomplished a goal, done well, gotten the work done attitude, support from others, charisma, endurance, assurance, wins, glory, dedication, quality, closeness, the ability to be the best, chemistry, motivation, potential to be the best team in the country, cohesiveness, talent, mental maturity, physical capability, intimidation, prepared, mentanhysical toughness, team work, love for sport, winning season, mentally prepared, courage, no fear, attitude of Big Ten Champs, team camaraderie, good game, good season, more money available, mental toughness, trust, confidence, positive atmosphere, experience, ability to believe, we know we can, a better chance to win, winning attitude, hope to be winners, a chance to be great together 108 APPENDIX D7 Appendix D7 Phase 1 Gender Data Male WW unity (24) cohesion (4) talent (12) friendship (4) desire (12) confidence in each other (4) success (10) good teamwork (4) pride (10) positive attitude (3) skill (9) cockiness (3) ability (9) camaraderie (3) work ethic (7) team spirit (3) desire (7) endurance (2) discipline (6) depth (2) heart (5) put the work in (2) faith (5) concentration (2) proper training (5) positivity (2) motivation (5) courage (2) dedication (5) wins (2) togetherness (5) arrogance (2) determination (5) confidence(2) goals (5) strength (5) W know your roll, potential, coach's reinforcement, belief in themselves, experience with each other, knowledge of each other, conditioning, good practices, good players, ability to work together, sound-mindedness, trained, drive, respect for each other, chemistry, competitive spirit, get along well, continuity, self-esteem, intelligence, good coaching, trust, emotional stability, makes progress, a bond, positive emotion, intensity, good record, hard work, stability, will, teammates, seasoning, experience, gels, respect, a winning attitude, desire to win, self-worth, will to win, respect, attitude, friendship, confidence in coach, trust, a better chance of winning, poise, work well together, communication, fellowship, fun, mental ability, focus, good athletes, good coaching, wealth, a leader, speed, rewards, prepared, strong minds, high expectations, happy soul, incentive, self-identity, power, aspirations, greatness, good self-image 109 APPENDIX DB M a I e W Confidence unity (17) ability (12) desire (12) pride (11) talent (10) strength (8) success (7) goals (6) worked together (6) determination (5) positive mental attitude (5) cohesion (5) friendship (5) confidence (5) trust in each other (4) team spirit (4) hard work (4) motivation (4) dedication (4) discipline (4) arrogance (4) an advantage (3) good team work (3) W Appendix 08 Phase 1 Gender Data an edge (2) will(2) courage (2) fun(2) respect(2) a better chance of winning (2) focus (2) worked well (2) prepared well (2) belief (2) good attitude (2) wins (2) good work ethic (2) concentration (2) faith (2) results (2) practiced correctly (2) cockiness (2) trust (2) preparation (2) experience (3) mental strength (3) good coach (3) willingness to try, good self-image, self-control, money, physical strength, familiarity with all players, winning season, fans, mentally prepared, positivity, quality, sound- mindedness, athleticism, trained, come together, gelled, continuity, talent to compete, practiced, integrity, seasoning, positive outlook, togetherness, learning, winning attitude, greatness, support, effort, excellence, self-esteem, progress, security, intensity, enthusiasm, competitiveness, winning record, trust in teammates, closeness, self-assurance, well coached, endurance, honor, training, greatness, competence, confidence in teammates, confidence in coach, ability to succeed, overcome odds, communicated, poise, performed well, leadership, tradition, depth, competitive nature, heart, devotion, happiness, winning mind, winning skills, balls, charisma, power 110 APPENDIX E Appendix E Most Frequent Responses by Category W W 1. Common Responses 1. Common Responses ability ability skill success talent goals 2. Female Unlque Responses 2. Female Unlque Responses positive attitude positive attitude determination determination goals fun 3. Male Unlque Responses 3. Male Unlque Responses desfie desne strength talent pride skill 4. Hunch Responses 4. Hunch Responses motivation cockiness performed well in the past experience self-esteem belief in yourself e ea fide Cocscguecfi cf leam @nfidecm 1. Common Responses 1. Common Responses unity unity talent pride pride goals 2. Female Unlque Responses 2. Female Unlque Responses determination determination positive attitude positive attitude hard work success 3. Male Unlque Responses 3. Male Unlque Responses desire abilty success strength ability worked together 4. Hunch Responses 4. Hunch Responses good practice work ethic wins assurance courage wins 111 APPENDIX F Appendix F Phase 2 Questionnaire Self and Team Confidence Questionnaire Please place an X next to the answer that most appropriately describes the way you, as an athlete, think about confidence for each of the following questions. Chose one response for each of the 3 sets (A, B, and C). This is not a test of intelligence and there are no right or wrong answers. There is no time limit. Take all the time you need and give us answers that are important to you as an athlete. Your answers are anonymous. Do not put your name on this questionnaire. is the sport in which I participate. 1. If you have . then you have confidence to perform successfully in your sport. A B C _____ Ability ______ Skill _____ Talent Desire ______ Strength _ Pride Positive attitude ______ Determination Goals Motivation __ Performed well Self-esteem in the past 2. If your team has . then your team has confidence in their ability to perform successfully in your sport. A B C Unity Talent ______ Pride Desire Success __.___ Ability Determination Positive attitude __ Hard work Good Practices Wins Courage 3. If you have confidence to perform successfully in your sport, then you have A B C Success ______ Ability Goals _______ Desire __ Talent _____ Skill Determination Positive attitude ____ Fun Cockiness Experience __ Belief in yourself 4. If your team has confidence to perform successfully in your sport, then your team has A B C Unity Pride Goals __ Ability Strength Worked together Success __ Determination __ Positive attitude Work ethic Assurance _ Wins 112 APPENDIX G Appendix G Third Portion of the Phase 2 Questionnaire Preceived Confidence 1) How many athletes are on your team? 2) Where do you RANK yourself among your teammates in terms of self-confidence? 113 APPENDIX H Appendix H Demographic Questionnaire Data Category Phase 1 Phase 2 1. Gender Males n = 98 n = 81 Females _r1 = 82 fl = 89 2. Age _N_| 19.87 19.50 512 0.542 1.577 3. Ethnicity Caucasian 90.00% 90.59% African-American 3.89% 1.18% Hispanic 1.67% 4.12% Asian 1.11% 0.59% Native American 0.00% 1.18% Other 2220/0 2.39% 5. Region of up-bringing West Coast 5.56% 6.47% Pacific Northwest 1.67% 0.59% Southwest 1 .67% 1 .18% Midwest 64.44% 68.82% Northeast 17.22% 10.00% Southeast 3.89% 3.53% Canada 0.56% 4.71% Other 3.89% 4.71% 114 Appendix H (cont’d) Category Phase 1 Phase 2 6. Characterization of region Rural 18.89% 15.88% Urban 17.78% 20.59% Suburban 65.29% 63.53% 7. High School Enrollment Size 0-500 students 15.00% 13.53% 501-1000 students 25.00% 23.53% 1001-2000 students 34.44% 42.35% 2001-3000 students 21.11% 12.94% 3001-and more students 3.89% 7.06% 8. years as a collegiate athlete M 2.03 1.95 9. Multiple Sport Athlete (HS) yes 66.11% 63.53% 10. Interest of Mother No such person 0.00% 0.00% Uninterested 3.33% 1 .78% Slightly 6.66% 12.35% Moderately 20.00% 28.82% Highly 69.44% 57.06% M 3.564 3.426 SD 0.764 0.753 115 Appendix H (cont’d) Category Phase 1 Phase 2 11. Interest of Father No such person 0.00% 1.18% Uninterested 3.33% 2.94% Slightly 6.66% 8.24% Moderately 15.00% 17.06% Highly 72.22% 69.41% M 3.606 3.524 SD 0.765 0.861 12. Number of Significant Others Listed 2 19.44% 25.29% 3 25.56% 37.65% 4 31 .67% 20.00% 5 20.00% 16.47% M 3.540 3.278 SQ 1.035 1.023 116 APPENDIX l-1 1011021101 9 1.16 - W Appendix H -. mal1-1eso esfo 11 eceoe SO -I o1ide e o1 :- 901se Set A: (x2 = .83) Response Choices Group Ability(C) Pos Attitude(F) Desire(M) Motivation(H) Male (:1 = 80) I 12 22 30 16 % 15.0 27.5 37.5 20.0 Female ([1 = 88) 1 14 29 28 17 % 15.9 33.0 31.8 19.3 Total (N, = 168) 1 25 51 58 33 % 15.5 30.4 34.5 19.6 Set 8: (X2 = .70) Response Choices 4“ Group Skill(C) Determination(F) Strength(M) Performed Well(H) Male ([1 = 80) 1 8 57 2 13 % 10.0 71.3 2.5 16.3 Female ([1 = 88) 1 12 60 3 13 % 13.6 68.2 3.4 14.8 Total (N, = 168) 1 20 117 5 26 % 11.9 69.6 3.0 15.5 Set C: (X2 = 10.19) Response Choices Group Talent(C) Goals(F) Pride(M) Self-esteem(H) Male (11 = 79) 1 14 21 21 23 % 17.7 26.6 26.6 29.1 Female ([1 = 88) 1 4 22 21 41 % 4.5 25.0 23.9 46.6 Total ([1 = 167) 1 18 43 42 64 % 10.8 25.7 25.1 38.3 Note, The in-itials indiatte—the category the—responses came fmmj—(C).f—o—r_cor—nrn_o_n7(F—)— for female-unique, (M) for male-unique, and (H) for hunch. 117 APPENDIX I-2 Appendix l-2 le n emale es onse for Conse uents fS If nfid nce on W 531 A: (x2 = 1.46) """""""" r3 EsBSESB'c'hSaESQ ______________________ Group Success(C) Determination(F) 093366;" Cockiness(H) ————— Male ([1 = 79) 1 1 1 4 2 2 0 6 °/o 13.9 53.2 25.3 7.6 Female ([1 = 88) f, 1 2 4 9 2 4 3 % 13.6 55.7 27.3 3.4 Total (LL = 167) t 23 91 44 9 % 13.8 54.5 26.3 5.4 531' 5172-3756) ________ Respon—se 011312;; """""""""""""""""" Gfoup Ability(C) Pos Attitude(F) Talent(M) _-E;ESr-i$§c_é-(Fi)_"“ Male ([1 = 80) 1 9 5 8 7 6 % 11.3 72.5 8.8 7.5 Female (11 = 88) 1 1 5 6 1 2 8 % 17.0 69.3 4.5 9.1 Total ([1 = 168) t 24 1 19 1 1 14 % 14.3 70.8 6.5 8.3 Sgt—C:(-);2—;-3—5-2—) ————————————— R espon-se Choices ——————————————————————— EJoup Goals(C) __——F—u—n—(F) —Skill(M) "—Selief in Yourself(H) Male (11 = 80) .. 1 8 8 63 % 10.0 10.0 1.3 78.8 Female ([1 = 88) 1 7 3 76 % 8.0 3.4 1.6 86.4 Total (N. = 168) I 1 5 1 1 3 1 39 °/o 8.9 6.5 1.8 82.7 8.9;; The initials indicate the category the respoBESs-TESRERRTEWm common, (F) for female-unique, (M) for male-unique, and (H) for hunch. 118 APPENDIX I-3 Appendix I-3 0110-...” 0 11:: -_1-_ '11-I‘ i' 001 ‘ 0 Al ‘ :11‘1 oTe WM 331 A: (x2 = 3.46) __ Response Choices— ___________________ Gfoup Unity(C) —_—Determination(F) Desire(M)— Good-P—rEEUEesGl)—— Male (11 = so) _ 1 1 7 27 23 13 % 21.3 33.8 28.8 16.3 Female (11 = 87) 1 22 36 22 7 % 25.3 41.4 25.3 8.0 Total (I! = 167) 1 39 63 45 20 % 23.4 37.7 26.9 12.0 gt 8: (x2 = .60) _________ Response ChOlce' s- _______________________ Gfoup _ Talent(C) Pos Attitude(F) - Success(M) Wins(H) Male ([1 = 80)—_ I, 1 1 54 1 1 4 % 13.8 67.5 13.8 5.0 Female ([1 = 89) t 10 64 12 3 % 11.2 71.9 13.5 3.4 Total (N = 169) I 21 1 18 2 3 7 % 12.4 69.8 13.6 4.1 63: c: (i2 = 1.13)_ __ _—--Response Choices— ____________________ GTo—u-p ____________ P —ri—de(C) Hard Work(F) "THEME"33376—9215— Male (11 = 79) -_ I 2 7 33 6 1 3 % 34.2 41.8 7.6 16.5 Female (n = 88) f, 2 9 41 8 1 0 % 33.0 46.6 9.1 11.4 Total (N, = 167) 1 56 74 1 4 23 % 33.5 44.3 8.4 13.8 Note, The initials indicate the category the responses— came from;—(C)_f—o_r-c-o-m7n_o-nT-(—P)— for female-unique, (M) for male-unique, and (H) for hunch. 119 APPENDIX l-4 Appendix l-4 1011-21010 11:1211Femalee: 0011‘ L0 01 eue ts TeamCog-1n =0 W Set A: (X2 = 3.32) — “mm—Response Choices ——————————————————————— Group — Unity(C)_—_—Success(F) Ability(M)_—W-c;rk-Efiiic;(H)_—_— Male (11 = 78) __ _____ I 2 6 1 3 1 4 2 5 % 33.3 16.7 17.9 32.1 Female (11 = 87) I, 3 8 1 1 9 2 9 % 43.7 12.6 10.3 33.3 Total (11 = 165) 1 64 24 23 54 % 38.8 14.5 13.9 32.7 32.1 B: (x2 = {95) ____________ R esponse Chorce' s ___________________ E37563 ---------- Pride(C) Determination(F) Strength(M) Assurance(H) K4276— (n = 80) "—- 1 2 3 4 0 1 0 7 % 28.8 50.0 12.5 8.8 Female ([1 = 89) I 2 o 5 4 9 6 % 22.5 60.7 10.1 6.7 Total (N = 169) 1 43 94 19 13 % 25.4 55.6 11.2 7.7 631" (STEPS; "1766”) ——————————— n espon-se Chorce' s— """""""""""""""""" 6?Jup"""6’62i'sié)""'fioé'ifinuoea?) Worked fSQQEeRWWi—n'sffii'" Male ([1 = 80) ———_ ____________ 1 1 2 4 7 1 5 4 % 15.4 60.3 19.2 5.1 Female ([1 = 89) f 1 9 4 9 1 6 4 % 21.6 55.7 18.2 4.5 Total (N. = 169) 1 31 9 6 31 8 % 18.7 57.8 18.7 4.8 ' u ”of; ’11? e- reef; REESE-tile 2263671713 responses— came 'r’rBFn‘; "(6)— Fe? EBRTn'o’nT (E)— for female-unique, (M) for male-unique, and (H) for hunch. 120 APPENDIX J Appendix J Demographic Questionnaire Data for High and Low Confidence Groups Category High Low 1. Gender Males n = 24 £1 = 14 Females n = 13 n = 30 2. Age M 20.38 19.02 512 1.689 1.089 3. Ethnicity Caucasian 91 .90% 88.60% African-American 0.00% 2.30% Hispanic 5.40% 2.30% Asian 0.00% 0.00% Native American 0.00% 2.30% Other 2.700/0 4.50‘yo 5. Region of up-bringing West Coast 5.40% 2.30% Pacific Northwest 0.00% 2.30% Southwest 0.00% 2.30% Midwest 62.20% 72.70% Northeast 13.50% 13.60% Southeast 2.7070 2.3070 Canada 8.10% 0.00% Other 8.1070 4.5070 121 Appendix J (cont’d) Category High Low 6. Characterization of region Rural 8.10% 13.60% Urban 27.00% 9.10% Suburban 64.90% 77.30% 7. High School Enrollment Size 0-500 students 13.50% 20.50% 501-1000 students 24.30% 25.00% 1001-2000 students 35.10% 36.40% 2001-3000 students 21.60% 9.10% 3001-and more students 5.40% 9.10% 8. years as a collegiate athlete M 2.56 1.52 9. Multiple Sport Athlete (HS) yes 56.80% 65.90% 10. Interest of Mother No such person 0.00% 0.00% Uninterested 0.00% 0.00% Slightly 21 .60% 6.80% Moderately 18.90% 31 .80% Highly 59.50% 61 .40% M 3.378 3.545 SQ 0.828 0.627 122 Appendix J (cont’d) Category High Low 11. Interest of Father No such person 5.40% 0.00% Uninterested 2.70% 4.50% Slightly 0.00% 18.20% Moderately 16.20% 18.20% Highly 75.70% 59.10% M 3.541 3.318 SQ 1.043 0.934 12. Number of Significant Others Listed 2 27.00% 25.00% 3 35.10% 34.10% 4 1 8.90% 22.70% 5 18.90% 18.20% M 3.297 3.341 SQ 1.077 1.055 123 APPENDIX K-1 Appendix K-1 1011-4010 11-1 ‘ - 01 01-.‘1 ‘;1“ o -tecede o 1 019:1 :01 W 331 A: (x2 = 1.14) ———————————— 131 .‘eponmsge'hseag ______________________ Eoup AbiiiMETuia—o-s—‘AREJJeIEf ""BSEGEW) "116—11331163111)— "—- High (Q = 37) --------------- __ - 1 6 10 1 1 10 % 16.2 27.0 29.7 27.0 Low ([1 = 43) 1 6 15 14 8 % 14.0 34.9 32.6 18.6 Total (N = 80) 1 12 25 25 18 % 15.0 31.3 31.3 22.5 Set 8: (x2 = 2 67) _____________ R Ewen-13311363; _____________________ 6303“"ms‘161’11’6) _____ 6 £12};11131163(’1?)_"§173351'h_(11')—BBRBr—JechTISIR-HT High (0 = 37) "—— __ t 4 25 3 5 °/.. 10.8 67.6 8.1 13.5 Low ([1 = 43) 1 3 29 1 10 % 7.0 67.4 2.3 23.3 Total (11 = 80) 1 7 54 4 15 % 8.8 67.5 5.0 18.8 631—635; '273') ————————————— 1'1 e's'pSESEE‘mee": _______________________ EJJ-"u—n—_—TBTeii-t(_6)"—_é<§§1§(—1=) Pride(1‘1)""s.eii-_e’s_teerhffi)"" High (11 = 37) _____________ 1 4 8 1 1 14 % 10.8 21.6 29.7 37.8 Low (11 = 43) 1 2 1 0 9 2 2 % 4.7 23.3 20.9 51.2 Total (N = 80) 1 6 18 20 36 % 7.5 22.5 25.0 45.0 N913, The initials indicate the category the responses came from; (C) for common, (F) for female- -unique, (M) for male- -unique, and (H) for hunch. 124 APPENDIX K-2 Appendix K-2 101101010 .01 e s 01 011e01 =.‘.1le: o onseo‘hou ‘1 0111031 :0 W 5317:1317; 273—2.) ————————————— 15 e-spon_—-s;1—C—h01ce_'_-s- _______________________ (37mm — —Success(C)___D—etermination(F) "6333111)"E—o'613'he'ss—(H) _____ High (11 = 37) __ __ "— t Z 2 0 7 3 °/o 18.9 54.1 18.9 8.1 Low ([1 = 43) I, 6 2 4 1 2 1 "/6 14.0 55.8 27.9 2.3 Total (N = 80) I 1 3 4 4 1 9 4 °/o 16.3 55.0 23.8 5.0 531-8715;.6-5'5 ------------- 15 6551;231:3123; _______________________ Group .Ability(C) Pos Attitude(F) Talent(M) Experience(H) High (11 = 37) I, 5 24 4 4 % 13.5 64.9 10.8 10.8 Low ([1 = 43) 1 8 33 0 2 % 18.6 76.7 0.0 4.7 Total (N = 80) I, 13 57 4 6 % 16.3 71.3 5.0 7.5 Set C: (X2 = 2.61) Response Choices Group Goals(C) Fun(F) Skill(M) Belief in Yourself(H) High ([1 = 37) 1 7 2 0 28 % 18.9 5.4 0.0 75.7 Low ([1 = 43) 1 3 3 0 37 % 7.0 7.0 0.0 86.0 Total (N = 80) 1 10 5 0 65 % 12.5 6.3 0.0 81.0 _ N 313—, —The- initials inaicate_the categBFy—Eig-Tegp-ohges- 58955—15111: "(EfioTBShi'hi—ohj'ifi— for female-unique, (M) for male-unique, and (H) for hunch. 125 APPENDIX K-3 Appendix K-3 0110:1010 .01 = 01 0119'1f-1” o -1eedn 0T‘-11 911:1,9 se e andC 631732223758") """"""""" 1i espon"'s'e’c’hoiee’°"s' """""""""""""""""" Group ‘ uhi11,-(6T"'13:?13335136331—15'"6333111)" "8336'pEEtiBSQ613" High—(n = 37) " "" _ t 9 15 9 4 % 24.3 40.5 24.3 10.8 Low (11 = 42) I, 1 2 1 2 1 2 6 % 28.6 28.6 28.6 14.3 Total (N = 79) f, 2 1 2 7 2 1 1 0 % 26.6 34.2 26.6 12.7 631" 87222-35766 """""""" 11 sagas—613.23; """""""""""""""" 630F""""—“13161516)""136s'71111155e(?)‘""—éieee;éffi)"W171—sffi)‘" High (11 = 37)" __ 1 4 23 8 2 % 10.8 62.2 21.6 5.4 Low (11 = 44) 1 2 37 3 2 % 4.5 84.1 6.8 4.5 Total (N = 81) . I. 6 6 0 1 1 4 % 7.4 74.1 13.6 4.9 831-5172“; "177—0) """""""" 1? e'spon”’s2'c"ip.ee"-"§ """""""""""""" 6'30}: """"""""" P Tide-(C) ""11 {1’ 13" W67E6=S"""Aeiii&? 11)—‘EBBFJgLZH )— " High (11 = 37)—— __ ———————————————————————————————————————— 1 1 5 1 5 2 5 % 40.5 40.5 5.4 13.5 Low (11 = 43) 1 1 3 2 0 % 30.2 46.5 11.6 11.6 Total (N = 80) 1 2 8 3 5 7 1 0 % 35.0 43.8 8.8 12.5 N313, The initials indicate the category the responses came from; (C) for common, (F) for female-unique, (M) for male-unique, and (H) for hunch. 126 APPENDIX K-4 Appendix K-4 ' ' rsu onfidence lete o onse uents of Tea C fidence ns 9 nd 331 A: (x2 =-1.60) """""" 11 e'spon’"se'c:’ho.ee""§ """""""""""""""""" 63113 ____________ u _n—it—y-(E—)—_—-Success(F) Ability(M)-_W&k-Et_h1c—(—H)____ Rig—1175 :57)" " — 1 1 6 6 6 9 °/o 43.2 16.2 16.2 24.3 Low (11 = 41) 1 1 4 7 5 1 5 °/o 34.1 17.1 12.2 36.6 Total (N = 78) 1 3 0 1 3 1 1 2 4 % 38.5 16.7 14.1 30.8 6313—1752-3673 ____________ 1? Ewen—"225116.613"? ____________________ GTo—u—p ____________ P —ri—d-e-(C—)__-—Determination(F) Str-ehgt—h-(M3—A—sgil—r—61715a—H3 High (11 = 37) __________ _._ ______ I 9 1 8 4 6 % 24.3 48.6 10.8 16.2 Low (11 = 44) 1 1 6 2 2 1 5 % 36.4 50.0 2.3 11.4 Total (N = 81) 1 2 5 4 0 5 1 1 % 30.9 49.4 6.2 13.6 331—67213: T15) """""""""" 151’ e—spon-——s-e—C—h01ce———s— ___________________ EFOUP — Goals-(C)..-———P_o-s-A?titude(F) Worked TSQQESRWWQEIHT" High (11 = 37) __ “—- "— I 7 2 0 6 4 % 18.9 54.1 16.2 10.8 Low (11 = 43) 1 8 2 6 7 2 % 18.6 60.5 16.3 4.7 Total (N = 80) 1 1 5 4 6 1 3 6 °/o 18.8 57.5 16.3 7.5 N313, The initials indicate the category the responses came from; (C) for common, (F) for female-unique, (M) for male- -unique, and (H) for hunch. 127 APPENDIX L Appendix L Data Directory Mariam First Line of Data: Identification Number School (University) Spon Individual or Team Sport Antecedents of Self-confidence: Ability Desire Motivation Positive Attitude Determination Performed Well in the Past Skill Strength Goals Pride Self-esteem Talent Antecedents of Team Confidence Desire Determination Good Practices Unity Positive Attitude Success Talent Wins Ability Courage Hard Work Pride Consequents of Self-confidence Cockiness Desire Determination Success Ability EXpenence 128 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 Appendix K (cont'd) Madam Positive Attitude Talent Belief in Yourself Fun Goals Skill Consequents of Team Confidence Ability Success Work Ethic Unity Assurance Determination Pride Strength Goals Positive Attitude Wins Worked Together Second Line of Data Gender Am Ethnicty Number of Brother Number of Older Brothers Number of Sisters Number of Older Sisters Place in Birth Order of Siblings Region of the Country Raised Demongraphic Characterization of that Region High School Enrollment Number of Years as a Collegiate Athlete High School Multiple Sport Athlete Involvement of Mother in Athletic Career Involvement of Father in Athletic Career Significant Others Involved in Athletic Career(# of) Number of Teammates Perceived Confidence Rank Among Teammates 129 Q3|umns 3 8 3 9 4 O 4 1 4 2 4 3 APPENDIX M Appendix M Phase 2 SPSS Raw Data 0012012000110000010010000100010001000011000001001000100 218111002131123341704 0022012001010001000100010000010001000101000000101000100 219200101422223331710 0032012010010000010010001000010010000101000000101000100 218111113135024421704 0042012010000101000010000010010010010000010010000100010 220133115811114431712 0052012010010000100000110000001001000101000001000011000 218111113431124331705 0062012100001000010001001000001000110001000000100010100 218100112411124421709 0072012010010000100100000100001010000011000000101001000 218300112133124451708 0082012100010001000010001001000001010000001001001001000 221110201134423441704 0092012000101000010001001000001001000101000000101000100 219620001432224421712 0102012010010000001010010000010001001001000000110100010 221110001724324441703 0112012100000100001100000010100010000100001000100010001 219111113412224241707 O122012010000010001010000100010001000011000001001000001 219110001434224431702 0132012000100101000000101000010010010001000000101000001 219111113212223341713 0142012100000100010100000100100000110000010010001001000 219100101723211431709 0152012100010000100100001000001100010001000010001000010 221111002133423431704 0162012000110000100100010000010000100101000010000100100 219100334433224431717 0172012100000100100000101001000010010001000010000100100 219100112432314431703 0182021000110000100010010000010010000101000000101000100 2184211124222144230 O192021010010000010010010000001001000101000100001000100 218622114713 134325 0202021001010001000000110000100001000101000001001001000 218110101433014452525 0212021000001000010000010000001000000101000000010000100 219110222433124252816 130 Appendix M (cont’d) 0222021100001000010010010000100000101001000010010000100 218100101532112422520 0232021010010000010010010000001001000101000010000100100 2181110024210222428 0242021001010001000010010000010000100101000000101000100 221111113434312333004 0252021000110000010001010000010000100101000100001000100 218100101432123453020 0262021000110000010001010000010001010001000001001000001 218100001432 244425 0272021010000101000100001000100100000100100001000010001 120500101433223332005 0282021000110000010100010000001001000101000010000100100 219110112432113152515 0292021000101001000010000101000010000101000000100101000 219111002433123332814 0302021010010001000010010000010010000101000001001000001 219100101834214232520 0312021100010001000010010001000001010000010001001001000 219100223433113332504 0322021000101000010001001000010001001001000000101000100 218121002433023333010 0332021001010000010100010000010001000101000000100010100 220110101433224423015 0342021010010000010100010001000001000101000100001000100 220111113411223442816 0352021010010001000000110000010000100101000000101000001 220110101133223322810 0362021001010000010010010000100001000101000000101000100 219100112412224242810 0372021010010001000000110000010010000101000001000101000 221110112413414332505 0382021100000010001001001000100100000010010100001001000 119111001421 14442502 0392021010010000001100010000001001000101000001001000100 118110001423013431707 0402021000110001000010010000010010000101000001001000100 120100101424214432010 0412021010010000100010010000001010000101000100001000100 120132003433114333015 0422021001010000010100010000010010000101000001001000001 121110101435314452510 0432021010010000100000110000010001000101000001010000100 119110101411112442510 0442021010010001000100000100010000100100010010000010010 120111002432324432503 131 Appendix M (cont’d) 0452021000110000010000110000010001000101000001001000100 1201200014323144430 0462021100001000010001001001000001010001000001001000001 120100101433223322012 0472021000101000010100010001000001000101000001000100100 1202110023332144220 0482021100001000001001000010010001001001000001000010100 122100301732324242005 0492021000110001000100010000010001000101000000101000100 123110101723412343007 0502021001010000100001010000100001000101000000101000001 118110001413023432010 0512021010010001000000110000010001000101000000101000100 121100101411224432005 0521062010010000010001010000010000100101000000110000100 217110201424123432424 0531062010010001000010010000010010000101000000100010001 220100201435324452103 0541062100010000100000110000010001000100010000101000100 218111002133124452210 0551062001010000010010001000001001000101000000101000001 222110201511424432201 0561062000110001000000110000010000100101000000100010001 218622003531124252214 0571062010010000100100010000001010010001000000101000100 22014444953 223 422 0581062010010000100010010000001010000101000001001001000 22231000163342 0591062100010000010000100010100001000101000010000100010 222111102331523232115 0601062000100100100100010001000001000101000001000010001 219100212532224452305 0611062010010000100010010000010001001001000000101001000 2191110021352233321 0622032010010000100100010000010010000101000001000100100 119100212433124433610 0632032000110000100000110000001001000101000010000100100 121121002434324453501 0642032100001000100001010001000010000101000010000100100 118100112533123443520 0652032000110000100010010000001100000011000000100100100 121121002135112443501 0662032010001000001000101000010000110001000010000100001 120111002433224433310 0672032001010000100100010000001001000101000000100100100 122110101411424423201 132 Appendix M (cont'd) 0682032010010000010010010000001001000101000100000100100 118111102433 23433612 0692032010010000100010001000010001001001000100000100100 121110001522222433205 0702032000101000100000110000001100001001000000110000100 121100212433324433701 0712032010010000100010010000001001000101000001000101000 119120001433 24433628 0722032000110000010100010000001100000101000000100100100 118100101423114433615 0732032010010001000010000100010001000011000000101001000 118111113533124433610 0742032010000101000000100010010010000100010000101000010 118111002433022433601 0752032001000100001010010000100010000011000001000000000 120110002432322433610 0762032010010000100010001000100001000101000010001000001 118122003433124453805 0782032100000100100001000100100001000101000100001000100 1181001124240224538 0792032010010000100100001000001010001001000001000101000 119133226412223423815 0802032010010001000010000100010010000101000001000100100 118120001412014423513 0812032010000101000000100100001000100100010010001000100 121100101723313423615 0822032001000000000100000000000000000100000000010000000 120120001434222423310 0832032010010001000010010000010001000100010001001001000 119111224433124453825 0842072000110001000100001000010001000101000001001001000 219100112434124422212 0852072010000100010000110000010001010001000000101000001 218321002531114442215 0862072000110001000100010000010001000101000000101000100 218122003511124452205 0872072001010000010010010000001001000101000001001000100 219151002423224332204 0882072010000100010000101001000010000011000000101000100 221111002433123432212 0892072001000100100010010000001001000101000100001000100 221121002433124422210 0902072100001000010010010000001100001001000000100011000 220110001433124452205 0912072001010000100010000100010010000101000001001000100 218100212532423422211 133 Appendix M (cont’d) 0922072010001000010100000100010001010001000100001000100 219121002433114422219 0932072000110000010100010000001100010001000001001000100 219111002433124452214 0942072000110000010000110000010001000101000000101000100 218123214435124432107 0952072010010000100000110000010001000101000001001000001 218121213433123242215 0962072000101000010010010000010001000100100001001000100 219511224432124422218 0972072010010000010100010000010001000100010001001001000 221110101432124442203 0982072000100100001010000100100001001001000000101000100 218301212433124442305 0992072000110000100010010000001001000101000001000100001 222100001423124422204 1002072000110000100000110000010001000101000000100100001 220111002435224432218 1012072000110001000010010000010001000101000001001000100 219111102435224442207 1021082010010000100100010000001010000101000001000100100 119111002432122231208 1031082010010000001100000010100010000101000000100010100 120100112513224431304 1041082000110000010010010000001010000101000000101000100 119100102423223431303 1051082000110001000000110000010001000101000000101001000 120120201411 244313 1061082010010000010000100100010001000100001000101000010 121111002633024331303 1071082000110001000010010000010001000100100010001000100 119130001433 23421808 1081092010010001000100010000100001000100010000101000100 121110001412023251504 1091092010001000100001001000001000110001000100000100001 121100101423422421301 1101092000110000010100010000010010000101000001000100100 121122225423321151404 1111092100010000010000110000001001000100100000101000100 120300101822124421402 1121092000110000010010010000100001000101000100001000100 121120001414413141402 1131092001000101000010010000010001001000010000101001000 121100001723323321401 1141092100010000001010010000010001010001000001001000001 124155117422422431401 134 Appendix M (cont’d) 1151092001010001000100010000100010000101000000101000100 121140101414222441405 1161092010010000010000110000001001010001000000100011000 124100001134423351602 1171092100010000010000110000010001000011000100001000001 119100223413124441406 1181092100010000001000110000001010010001000100001000100 120300112822314421504 1191092010010001000010010000010000101000100000101000001 120100001433324421205 1201092000110000100001001000010000100101000001001000010 120131102433324451401 1211041000100010010100010000010000100101000010000010100 119100112521323421400 1221041100001000010010001000010000100101000010010000100 123100101433314421001 1231041000110000010001000010010010000100100000110000100 122100101733412421302 1241041010010000010010010000001001000101000000100100001 120110001434313451105 1251041000110000010000110000010010000101000000100101000 119100101432114221210 1261041001010000100100010000100001000101000001001000100 118111224433124421208 1271041000110000100000110000001000100101000100010000100 123100001434522421201 1281041000110001000010010000010001010001000100000010001 119100112421114431204 1291041001010000010100010000100001000101000100000100100 118611102822114431201 1301041001000010010010010000001001000101000001000101000 218111224433124450704 1311041100001000010010010000100000100101000100001000100 2211001124334 3430803 1321041010010000010010010000010001000101000001001000100 2201111134123144307 1331041000110000010010000100001000100101000010000100100 220111113435313430702 1341041000110001000000100100010001000101000100001001000 2201003344233144207 1351041001010000010010010000001001000101000001001000100 220100101433324440705 1361041001000101000001010000010001001001000001001000100 219110001634 12420702 1371051001010000100010010000001001000101000001001000100 220111102412113442011 135 Appendix M (cont’d) 1381051000110000010100010000100010000101000000101000100 222100001433424052001 1391051000101000100000110000010001000101000000100100100 218110001433114435040 1401051000110000010100010000001010000101000000110000100 218111002432113435005 1411051010000000000000010000000001000000000000000100000 218111113512114335030 1421051000110000010100010000001010000101000000110000100 220122003411323345040 1431051001010000010000110000001001000101000001000100100 219100101422114456010 1441051000110001000000110000010010000101000000101000100 219100101631 23322320 1451051100001000010100010000100001010001000000100100100 221111113431324142825 1461051001010000010010010000001001000101000001001001000 218100112534114445005 1471051100010000010100010000010001000100100000100100001 221110001424424335010 1481051001001000100000110000010010000100010000100101000 218131213533114022805 1491051000100010100000101000001000110000100010000010001 221121102433414442207 1501051001010000100100010000001010000101000001000100100 218110001432124452810 1511051010010001000000110000001010001000010100001001000 218111002433124242515 1521051010000101000010010000001001000101000000101001000 221111002433413432005 1531051010010000010000110001000010000101000100000100100 220111002434323432322 1541051010010001000010010000010010000101000001001000100 218110201434124452514 1551051001010000001001000100010001000101000010000101000 120100101433313332007 1561051100010000010010000101000001000100100000110000100 121100101524113323030 1571051010010000100000100100001000100101000010000010100 118121002432113452008 1581051001001001000100000100001001000101000001001000100 121310001833414332001 1591051001000100010100000100001001000101000000101000100 120120212433313322001 1601051010001001000001010000100001010001000000101000001 1201002238221 333 136 Appendix M (cont’d) 1611051000001000000000001000000000000001000000000010000 1201001018227 2122005 1621051001010001000100010000010001000100100001001001000 118111002435114432015 1631051000110000001010010001000010000010100010001000001 119110001423214422010 1641051001010000010010010000001010000101000000100100100 119121002433212322012 1651051001010000001100010000010000100101000010001000100 118100112435114432015 1661051000110000100010010000001001000101000001000100100 118110001435124422015 1671051000101000001001010000001001000101000000001000100 121122003411224432020 1681051100001000001001010000001100000101000100000010100 1181100014331244320 1691051010010000010010010000010010010001000001001001000 121101102122214442012 1701051010010001000010010000001001000011000001001000100 119121002631114442001 1711051001000100001010010001000001000100010100000100001 118110002622122223010 137 LIST OF REFERENCES LIST OF REFERENCES Amster, H. (1964). Semantic satiation and generalization: Learning? Adaptation? MW, 273- 286. Bandura, A. (1977). Self efficacy Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. W, 191 -.215 Bandura, A. (1986). S33i3| f311n 331i3n§ 31 1h339h1 3n3 agign: AW. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Bandura, A. (1990). Perceived self- -efficacy in the exercise of personal agency. MEDELQLAMEW 123163 Brown, L, Jr., & lnouye, D. K. (1978). Learned helplessness through modeling: The role of perceived similarity in competence. MmaLQLEemnamLandjmiaLflsmmMfl. 900- 908 Burton, D., 81 Martens, R. (1986). Pinned by their own goals: An exploratory investigation into why kids drop out of wrestling. Journal 3f Span P3y3h3l39y, 3, 183-197. Cam". A- V- (1984). W W- Ontario, Canada: Sports Dynamics. Carron, A. V., Widmeyer, W. N., 81 Brawley, L. R. (1985). The development of an instrument to assess cohesion in sport teams: The group environment questionnaire. MW ESALQDQIQQALJ. 244-266. Diaz, J. (1987, November 23). Kicking with both his heels. Wigwam. pp- 80- Duda, J. L. (1985). Goals and achievement orientations of Anglo and Mexican-American adolescents in sport and the classroom. 138 139 In13rn31i3n3l Jggrngl 31 |n13r311l1ur3l R3|31i3n§, 9, 131-150. Carroll, W. R., 81 Bandura, A. (1985). Role of timing of visual monitoring and motor rehearsal in observational learning of action patterns. WM. 269-281. Chase, M. A., Feltz, D. L., Tully, D. C., & Lirgg, C. D. (1994). Sources of collective and individual efficacy in sport. In the symposium -Collective Efficacy in iSport.N31:111_)1,13331;i1;_an_S3Qj3111 f P hi f nPh lAiviCnfren Clearwater Beach, FL. Ewing, M. E. (1981). Ahi v m n ri n 93W. Unpublished doctoral ndissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana. 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. Jggmgl 3f P3r33n3|i1y 3n3 333i3l P3y3h3|39y, 42, 764-781. Feltz, D. L. (1988a). Self-confidence and sports performance. In K- 3- Pandolf (Ed). W (00- 423- 457). New York: MacMiIIan. Feltz, D. L. (1988b). Understanding motivation in sport: A self-efficacy perspective. In G. C. Roberts (Ed.), Mgflyafign in 512011 W52 (Pp. 93-105). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Feltz, D. L., Bandura, A., 81 Lirgg, C. D. (1989). Perceived collective efficacy in hockey. In D. Kendzierski (Chair), S3I f- 0: ‘0 0I I 00I ._I0 0I ' . .. -.l0 - - 1111393. Symposium conducted at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, New Orleans. Feltz, D. L., 81 Brown, E. W. (1984). Perceived competence in soccer skills among young soccer players. Jgumal of 833:1 W. 385-394. 140 Feltz, D. L., Landers, D. M., 81 Raeder, U. (1979). Enhancing self- efficacy in high-avoidance motor tasks: A comparison of modeling techniques. MW. 112-122. Feltz, D. L. 81 Mugno, 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. J33rn3l 31 33351 W. 263-277. Feltz, D. L. 81 Petlichkoff, L. (1983). Perceived competence among interscholastic sport participants and dropouts. 1133331311 W 231 -235 Feltz, D. L., 81 Ressinger, C. A. (1990). Effects of in vivo emotive imagery and performance feedback on self-efficacy and muscular endurance. J33m3l 3f 333:1 3n3 Ex3rci§e P3y3h3l3gy, 12, 132-143. Garland, H., Weinberg, R., Bruya, L., 81 Jackson, A. (1988). Self- efficacy and endurance performance. A longitudinal field test of cognitive mediation theory Wane! R vi w 4, 381 -.394 George, T. R. (1994). Self-confidence and baseball performance: A causal examination of self-efficacy theory. J33rn3l W146. 381-399. George, T. R., Feltz, D. I, 81 Chase, M. A. (1992). The effects of model similarity on self-efficacy and muscular endurance: A second look W 237- 248 Gill, D. L. (1986). Competitiveness among females and males in physical activity classes. S3x_fl3|33._1_5_, 239-247. Gould, D., 81 Weiss, M. (1981). Effect of model similarity and model self-talk on self-efficacy in muscular endurance. 3331M $3351 PSMQhQIQQM, 3, 17-19. Grove, R. J., Hanrahan, S. J., 81 Stewart, M. L. (1990). 141 Attributions for rapid or slow recovery from sports injuries. WW 107-114. Guzzo, R. A., Yost, P. R, Campbell, R. J., 81 Shea, G. P. (1993). Potency in team: Articulating a construct.B_Li113|:1_,13um_aL_91_S331_al W 87406. Harter, S. (1978). Effectance motivation reconsidered: Toward a developmental model. WW1, 34-64. Hodges, L., 81 Carron, A. V. (1992). Collective efficacy and group performance W. 48- 59. Horn, T. S. (1985). Coaches’ feedback and changes in children’s perceptions of their physical competence. J33rn3l 31 E33331i3n3l W. 174-186. Horn, T. 81 Hasbrook, C. (1986). Informational components influencing children’s perceptions of their physical competence. In M Weiss and D Gould (eds) Wm Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Jones, G., Swain, A, 81 Cale, A. (1991). Gender differences in precompetition temporal patterning and antecedents of anxiety and self-confidence MW 1-15 Kavanagh, D. J., 81 Bower,.G l-l. (1985). Mood and self-efficacy: Impact of joy and sadness on perceived capabilities. 933911113 WEED-.9 507- 525. Kavanagh, D., 81 Hausfeld, S. (1986). Physical performance and self-efficacy under happy and sad moods. W W. 112-123. Kawano. R. (1992). W r i 1 c nfilureins nshlrn WWW- Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Michigan State University, East Lansing. 142 Kess. J. F. (1976). WOW 391333911133. New York: Academic Press, Inc. Klint. K. A. (1985) W 01‘001 0 . I I. 'll-I‘ l 0.1011- Unpublished master’s thesis. University of Oregon, Eugene. Klint, K. A., 81 Weiss, M. R. (1987). Perceived Competence and motives for participating in youth sports: A test of Harter’s competence motivation theory. W, 55- 65. Lee. I. (1995). W mmmummLKomuOLAmflicauhfldmO Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing. Lenney, E. (1977). Women’s self-confidence in achievement settings. Psyghglggicgl Bulle1in, 34, 1-13. Lirgg, C. D., 81 Feltz, D. L. (1991). Teacher versus peer models revisited: Effects on motor performance and self-efficacy. WWW. 217-224. Lyman, R. D. Prentice-Dunn, S., Wilson, D. R, 81 Bonfilio, S. A. (1984). The effects of success or failure on self- -efficacy and task persistence of conduct- disordered children. W h I 1, 516- 519. Martens, R. (1987). Science, knowledge, and sport psychology. Th3 S3311 P3y3h3l3gi31, 1, 29-55. Martens, R., Burwitz, L., 81 Zuckerman, J. (1976). Modeling effects on motor performance. R3333r3h ngnerly, 47, 277-291. McAuley, E. (1985). Modeling and self-efficacy: A Test of Bandura’s model. J33m3| 3f S3351 P3ychol3gy, 7, 283-295. McCullagh, P. (1986). Model Status as a determinant 143 of observational learning and performance. 333mal of S3311, W. 319-331. McCullagh, P. (1987). Model similarity effects on motor performance. MmaLQLSOOELEschmMj. 249-260. Miller, G. A., 81 Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1976). W E3L3391j33. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Nicholls, J. G. (1984). Achievement motivation: Conceptions of ability, subjective experience, task choice and performance. WW. 328-346. Ogden, C. K., 81 Richards, I. A. (1923). W. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc. Osgood, C. E, Miron, M., 81May,W. (1975). W W. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press. Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J., 81 Tannenbaum, P. H. (1957). 1133 m3333r3m3n1 31 m33ning. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Roberts, G. C., Kleiber, D. A., 81 Duda, J. L. (1981). An analysis of motivation in children’s sports: The role of perceived competence in participation. WWW. 206-216. Shelton, T. O., 81 Mahoney, M. J. (1978). The content and effect of psyching-up strategies in weight lifters. Wanna 893931031. 275-284. Sherer, M., Maddox, J. E., Mercandante, B., Prentice-Dunn, 8., Jacobs, 8., 81 Rodgers, R. W. (1982). The self-efficacy scale: Construction and validation. P3y3h3l3gi33l Repon3, 31, 663-671. Slobin, D. l. (1971). W33. Glenview: Scott, Foresman and Company. Smith, S. (1993, May 10). Ambushed. Sp3n3_1|_l1,1311_a133, pp. 144 28-30. Spink, K. S. (1990). Group cohesion and collective efficacy of volleyball teams. rn I f n Ex r i P h I 12, 301-311. Strack, F., Argyle, M. 81 Schwarz, N. (Eds.) (1991). S3bj3c1i_3 WW NY Pergmcn Press Swift, E. M. (1993, June 21). Saving grace. S3333 lllu31r313d, pp. 26-31. Taylor, P. (1993, June 21). A happy turn to a horror story. SOOOLllluleated. pp- 22-23- Tipton, R., 81 Worthington, L. (1984). The measurement of generalized self- -efficacy: A study of construct validity. 33111931421 WA 545- 548 Triandis, H. C. (1972). WOW. New York: Wiley-lnterscience. Triandis, H.C., Kitty, K., Shanmugam, A. V., Tanaka, Y., 81 Vissiliou, V. (1972). Cognitive structures and the analysis of values. In Th3 Analy3i3 3f Sg3i331iv3 93I13r3 (pp. 181-262). New York: Wiley-lnterscience. Ulrich, B. D. (1987). Perceptions of physical competence, motor competence, and participation in organized sport: Their interrelationships in young children. WM Ex r i n , 57-67. Vealey, R. S. (1986). Conceptualization of sport-confidence and competitive orientation: Preliminary investigation and instrument development. MW, 221-246. Weinberg, R., Gould, D., & Jackson, A. (1979). Expectations and performance: An empirical test of Bandura’s self-efficacy Inecw- W114. 320-331. 145 Weiss, M. R., Bredemeier, B. J., 81 Shewchuk, R. (1986). The dynamics of perceived competence, perceived control, and motivational orientation in youth sport. In M. Weiss and D. Gould (eds.). W33. Champaign: Human Kinetics Press. Wilkes, R. L., 81 Summers, J. J. (1984). Cognitions, mediating variables, and strength performance. WW, 351-359. Williams, J. M. & Widmeyer, W. N. (1991). The cohesion- performance outcome relationship in a coasting sport. 333rn3| 31 W43. 364-371. Zaccaro, S. J. Blair, V., Peterson, C., 81 Zananis, M. (in press). Collective efficacy. In J. Maddux (Ed.), S3l1:31_1_1333y_,_33331139,_333 331331111331, New York: Plenum.