. .3. I
. 34m ..

 

 

up “31”“? :1.”
.3 5599):!
69.

I 90..) A.
3-1....“ v.1! .Il ‘

.0 11...: . it.
0 3.4)."

12.9. ‘
a! in“.
r.

 

twp v. .
um brig}. .L .4
Lﬁnnmzhﬁm‘.mmu

1.1.”?

W
.

:A
Jr
.. .

‘ -
“an... A.
ﬂint...” .

1.1. 1‘ u .Krz.‘ ‘. u l....
¢ . I o n. it‘l'3lrxv. .l
.n..ﬁ\\».s/an§5 .1 .. \ 4 .
\ I15... c. .IA . .3 .4:

A: ‘
‘ a I . lawmanéﬁ. I... $44.91;;
A . 4... 1.... , , . mummqﬁs ”$3. ‘4. . p :
nmw,..-t..ysr ﬂask: , .5» «W. .. . . z

10"....- s: C
. .'~

I.

 

‘
I

'lrfESls

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

An Examination of Pre-Game Speeches and Their
Effectiveness in Increasing Athletes' Levels of Self-Efﬁcacy
and Emotion

presented by

Tiffanye Vargas-Tonsing

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment

 

 

 

 

of the requirements for the
Doctoral degree in Sport Psycthogy
*' * Major Professor’s Signat‘dre
Wham, 7‘ 200 ‘7’
a I
Date

MSU is an Allinnotive Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN Box to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

 

 

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE 1 Pill-E 1PUE
JAN 5 2055 , 1- f v v *
bu 5.19}; APR n 6029023 8

: g lzltiLé 1325 2006 I “A? 5; a: 2 _‘ m

.4

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 cJClRC/Dateouepss-ols

AN EXAMINATION OF PRE-GAME SPEECHES AND THEIR EFFECTIVENESS
IN INCREASING ATHLETES’ LEVELS OF SELF-EFFICACY AND EMOTION

By

Tiffanye Vargas-Tonsing

A DISSERTATION

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Kinesiology

2004

ABSTRACT

AN EXAMINATION OF PRE-GAME SPEECHES AND THEIR EFFECTIVENESS
IN INCREASING ATHLETES’ LEVELS OF SELF-EFFICACY AND EMOTION

By

Tiffanye Vargas-Tonsing
Verbal persuasion is considered to be a source of self-efficacy beliefs (Bandura,
1977). Little research has examined the predictive strength of this source and
virtually no research has been conducted on the form of verbal persuasion known as
the coach’s pre-game speech. Speciﬁcally, this study sought to explore the inﬂuence
of the pre-game speech on athlete perceptions of self-efﬁcacy and felt emotions.
Participants for this study included 151 competitive soccer players aged 14.21 years
(SD = 1.85) and their 10 male coaches aged 32.78 years (SD = 8.56). Participants
were surveyed on a day of difficult competition. Athletes were given two surveys,
one before and one after the coach’s pre-game speech, and an additional survey
following the conclusion of the competition. The surveys before and after the pre-
game speech assessed athletes’ feelings of self-efficacy and their felt emotions. On
the second survey, athletes also indicated their perceptions of the'informational and
emotional content within their coach’s pre-game speech. Coaches were given one
survey following the pre-gamc speech that asked for their perceptions of the content
within their speech A repeated measures regression analysis did not show an overall
increase in self-efficacy post speech. However, the amount of information that
athletes perceived in the pre-game speech did predict self-efﬁcacy variation. The

amount of emotional content as perceived by the athletes did not influence self-

efﬁcacy. An exploratory factor analysis was conducted on the athletes’ reported
emotions and two factors were retained. A repeated measures regression indicated
that Factor 1 emotions varied over time. The amount of information perceived in the
pre-game speech again predicted the variation. Additional analyses were conducted
to explore athletes’ overall perceptions of the pre—game speech, congruency in
perceptions between coaches’ and their teams, relationships between emotions and
self-efﬁcacy, the inﬂuence of emotions on perceptions of speech content and gender

differences.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank each of my committee members, Dr. Deborah Feltz, Dr.
Martha Ewing, Dr. Rick Deshon and Dr. Jim Flore for all of their help and patience
during this process and throughout my graduate career.

I would also like to thank Dan Jury for his support and assistance in
contacting participants for this study. I am also indebted to all the soccer teams and
coaches who participated in this project. They were extremely cooperative and
helpful throughout this intrusive study.

Finally, I would to acknowledge the love and support given to me throughout
the four years Of my graduate schooling from my family and friends. I owe a great
deal to my husband, Mike Tonsing, my parents, Victor and Pat Vargas and to my

sister and brother, Ronnye and Vic. Without them, I would not be where I am now.

iv

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................. iii
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................... l
Self-Efﬁcacy .................................................................................. l
Emotion ................. 4
Emotion and Performance .................................................................. 7
The Coach’s Role in Emotion .............................................................. 9
Research Questions and Hypotheses .................................................... 12
Operational Deﬁnitions .................................................................... 13
CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ........................................................... l4
Self-Efﬁcacy Theory in Sport ............................................................ 17
Self-Efﬁcacy and Sports Performance .................................................. 20
Coaches’ Use of Verbal Persuasion to Impact Self-Efficacy ........................ 21
Emotion ..................................................................................... 23
Emotion and Sports Performance ....................................................... 26
Coaches’ Use of Verbal Persuasion to Impact Emotion .............................. 31
CHAPTER THREE
METHOD ........................................................................................ 36
Pilot Data .................................................................................... 36
Participants .................................................................................. 36
Dependent Measures ....................................................................... 37
Procedure .................................................................................... 39
Treatment of Data .......................................................................... 41
CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS ....................................................................................... 46
Test of Hypotheses ......................................................................... 46
Exploratory Research Questions ......................................................... 51
Additional Exploratory Analyses ......................................................... 56
CHAPTER FIVE
DISCUSSION ................................................................................... 60
Effect of Pre-Game Speech on Self-Efﬁcacy ........................................... 60
Effect of Pre-Game Speech on Athletes’ Emotions .................................... 62
What are Athletes’ Perceptions of Pre-Game Speeches? .............................. 64
Are Athletes’ Perceptions of Pre-Game Speeches Congruent with their
Coaches Perceptions? ....................................................................... 66

Which Self-Reported Emotions of Athletes are Associated with Higher

Feelings of Self-Efﬁcacy? .................................................................. 67
Do Emotions Inﬂuence Athletes’ Perceptions of the Pre-Game Speech
Heard From Their Coach? ................................................................. 68
Do Male and Female Soccer Teams’ Perceptions Differ? ............................. 69
Conclusion .................................................................................... 71
APPENDIX A
Pilot Pre-Game Speeches ...................................................................... 75
APPENDDI B
Demographic Questionnaires .................................................................. 82
APPENDIX C
Athlete Pre-Game Questionnaire ............................................................. 85
APPENDIX D
Post-Speech Questionnaires ................................................................... 88
APPENDIX E
Athlete Post-Game Questionnaire ............................................................. 92
APPENDIX F
Institutional Review Board Approval and Informed Consent ............................ 95
APPENDIX G
Pro-Game Speeches ........................................................................... 100
APPENDD( H
Scree Plots ...................................................................................... 114
APPENDD( I
Overall Team Means and Standard Deviations ........................................... 117
BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................. 121.

vi

LIST OF TABLES

Page
TABLE 1
A Listing of Hanin’ s (1997) Positive and Negative Functional and
Dysfunctional Emotions ........................................ ‘ ................................ 3 0
TABLE 2
Rotated Pattern Matrix from Exploratory Factor Analysis at Time 1 and Time 2. ....43
TABLE 3
Relationships Between Reported Emotions at Time 1 and Time 2 ...................... 44
TABLE 4
Relationships Between Predictors and Athletes’ Perceptions of Self-Efﬁcacy at
Time 1 and Time 2 .............................................................................. 47
TABLE 5
Summary of Repeated Measures Regression for Self-Efﬁcacy ........................... 49
TABLE 6
Relationship Between Predictors and Emotion Factors at Time 1 and Time 2. . . . .....50
TABLE 7
Summary of Repeated Measures Regression for Emotion Factors ...................... 52
TABLE 8
Athletes’ Perceptions of Pre-Game Speeches ............................................... 53
TABLE 9
Athletes’ Perceptions of Intensity of Felt Emotion ......................................... 55
TABLE 10
Relationship Between Athletes’ Emotions and Reported Self-Efﬁcacy ................. 57
TABLE 11
Summary of MANOVA Results by Gender ................................................ 59
TABLE 12
Means and Standard Deviations Across Measures by Team at Time 1 ................ 118
TABLE 13
Means and Standard Deviations Across Measures by Team at Time 2 ................ 1 l9

vii

CHAPTER ONE
Introduction

Throughout all team sports, players are gathered together to hear their coach's
ﬁnal thoughts immediately prior to the start of a game. These speeches often contain
information about opponents and reminders of team strategy. Sometimes, these speeches
also include arousing and emotional words and phrases. Coaches use these speeches
hoping to contribute to athletes' performances, and hopefully, a victory. However, there
is little empirical evidence that these speeches are effective. Therefore, this study is
designed to explore coaches' pre-game speeches and their effects on athletes' self-efﬁcacy
and emotions. ‘
Self-Efﬁcacy

In 1977, Albert Bandura introduced his theory of self-efﬁcacy. Self-efﬁcacy is

deﬁned as a person’s belief in his/her ability to perform a speciﬁc task. These efﬁcacy
beliefs will determine how much effort a person will expend as well as how long the
same person will persist when faced with obstacles. The stronger the efﬁcacy beliefs, the
stronger the effort put forth.

Since Bandura's (1977) conception of self-efﬁcacy, researchers have shown it to
be a strong predictor of athletic performance (Feltz, 1982; George, 1994; Miller, 1993;
Weinberg, Gould, Yukelson, & Jackson, 1981; Weiss, Wiese, & Klint, 1989). For
example, self-efﬁcacy was a stronger and more consistent predictor of performance in
college baseball than was past performance (George, 1994). Similarly, Weiss et a1. (1989)
found self-efﬁcacy to be a signiﬁcant predictor of all-around performance and of ﬁve of

the six gymnastics events (except vault). These are not isolated examples. The

relationship between self-efﬁcacy and performance. has been demonstrated across a host
of other sport situations, including but not limited to swimming (Marsden, 1998; Miller,
1993), wrestling (Gould, Horn, & Spreeman, 1983), weightlifting (Ness & Patton, 1979)
and volleyball (Alexander & Krane, 1996).

According to Bandura (1977), self-efﬁcacy is inﬂuenced through four principal
sources of information: performance accomplishments, vicarious experiences, verbal
persuasion, and emotional arousal. Performance accomplishments are based on personal
mastery experiences. For example, an athlete's efﬁcacy may be increased following a
victory over an opponent, or after achieving a personal best time. Vicarious experiences
can also increaSe self-efﬁcacy. Examples of these experiences include live and symbolic
modeling. For instance, an athlete watching a teammate successfully complete a new
task can increase that athlete's (the observer's) efﬁcacy beliefs. Self-efﬁcacy can also be
impacted by verbal persuasion. Verbal persuasion is deﬁned as leading others, through
the use of suggestions, exhortation, self-instruction, and interpretation, to believe that
. they can be successful (Bandura, 1977). For instance, coaches may use informational
feedback and praise to bolster efﬁcacy beliefs in athletes. A fourth source of efﬁcacy
information is received via physiological responses. Athletes may experience changes in
heartbeats, perspiration and breathing prior to competition and may then interpret these
changes as anxiety or arousal. This also then impacts their efﬁcacy beliefs.

Performance accomplishments are proposed to be the most influential source of
information, followed by vicarious experiences and forms of persuasion (Bandura, 1977).
However, of the four sources of efﬁcacy information, verbal persuasion is perhaps the

most convenient and readily available tool for coaches. In fact, Bandura (1997)

discussed the important role of the coach in impacting individual efﬁcacy perceptions
through not only the coach’s own perceived efﬁcacy (e. g., coaching efﬁcacy), and
coaching behavior (e.g., leadership style), but also through verbal persuasion (e.g.,
feedback provided to athletes).

According to Horn (2002), effective coaching behaviors are deﬁned by "that
which results in either successful performance outcomes (measured in terms of either
win-loss percentages or degree of self-perceived performance abilities) or positive
psychological responses on the part of the athletes (e.g., high perceived ability, high self-
esteem, an intrinsic motivational orientation, high levels of sport enjoyment) (p.309)."
Thus, a coach's verbal interactions with his/her team can be considered effective if they
result in a positive psychological response, such as increased self-efﬁcacy. Coaches
have ranked the technique of verbal persuasion highly for both frequencies of use and for
effectiveness in increasing athletes' efﬁcacy beliefs (Gould, Hodge, Peterson, & Giannini,
1989; Vargas-Tonsing, Myers, & Feltz, in press; Weinberg & Jackson, 1990).

Although coaches are armed with a variety of choices for verbal persuasion, little
is known about the verbal persuasion athletes deem most effective. Research has
suggested that verbal persuasion used to give informative feedback to athletes is an
important aspect of developing self-efﬁcacy (Amorose & Weiss, 1998; Black & Weiss,
1992; Horn, 1985). Coaches are able to administer informational feedback by reviewing
individual and collective strengths, thereby articulating their conﬁdence in the skill of
both individual players and the team as a whole. This use of positive, informational
feedback is thought to beneﬁt performance as it increases athletes’ perceived competence

in themselves and in their team (Allen & Howe, 1998). Athletes have also been shown to

use their coach's feedback as a source of information to determine ability, effort and
future expectation of success (Amorose & Weiss, 1998). Clearly, informative feedback
from coaches is an important source of efﬁcacy information for athletes.

However, while verbal interactions during practice provide what might be the
most obvious and powerful setting in which to increase efﬁcacy, the pre-game speech
may provide an additional, and ﬁnal, opportunity to do so. To date, no published
research has examined the role of verbal persuasion and its inﬂuences in the pre-game
speech. However, according to previous research on coach's verbal persuasion (i.e.,
feedback), it would seem that an informative and strategy-based pre—game speech would
be most likely to increase athletes' efﬁcacy levels. Yet, if this were the case, Knute
Rockne's "Win one for the Gipper" speech would not have inspired his team to victory
and coaches would not use clippings of quotes from opponents to inspire their teams.
Thus, it seems that the emotions invoked prior to competition may also impact athletes'
self-efﬁcacy.

Emotion

In 1985, Maddux and Meier suggested that in addition to Bandura's (1977) four
sources of efﬁcacy, one's emotional state might be a supplementary source of information
used to form efﬁcacy beliefs. The author's believed that positive affect, such as
happiness and exhilaration, was more likely to enhance efﬁcacy perceptions than was a
negative affect such as sadness or anxiety. Others concurred with this view by
suggesting that emotions "act as a ﬁlter through which people view efﬁcacy information"
(Kavanagh & Bower, 1985, p. 508). Tony DiCicco (2002), a former United States

Women's Soccer coach, stated, "You have to stir the players' emotion (p.129)."

Kuchenbecker (2003) suggested that without emotions, it is impossible to excite and push
players to a higher level of performance. It appears, then, that emotion may be extremely
important in preparing athletes for competition.

The research literature suggests that emotions consist of three main elements:
physiological changes, action tendencies and subjective experiences (Vallerand &
Blanchard, 2000; Deci, 1980). Physiological changes include such symptoms as
increases in heart rate and blood pressure, as well as other changes in the autonomic
system. Action tendencies include what is sometimes referred to as the core element of
emotion (i.e., the tendency to run away when frightened). Subjective experiences,
possibly considered to be the most fundamental (Leventhal, 1974), refers to what an
individual will consciously experience when confronted with an emotional episode
(Vallerand & Blanchard, 2000). Using these components, Deci (1980) conveyed the
meaning of the term emotion with the following working deﬁnition:

An emotion is a reaction to a stimulus event (either actual or imagined). It

involves change in the viscera and musculature of the person, is experienced

subjectively in characteristic ways, is expressed through such means as facial
changes and action tendencies, and may mediate and energize subsequent
behaviors. (p. 85)
This deﬁnition not only encompasses the emotional components, but also implies that
emotion can drive future behaviors, an interesting concept for sport.
Emotions may impact future behaviors through cognition and motivation. Based
on cognitive appraisal theories, Vallerand (1987) suggested an intuitive-reﬂective

appraisal model that proposed that it is not the events that cause an emotion, but rather

the cognitive appraisal of the event, which is both intuitive and reﬂective. The intuitive
appraisal is similar to the almost automatic subjective assessment of performance; in
other words, a player assesses his/her performance as substandard. Reﬂective appraisal
includes the cognitive processing of external and internal environmental information
(Vallerand & Blanchard, 2000). The same player may then attempt to cognitively
process other contributing factors to his/her performance. Vallerand (1987) states that
intuitive appraisal is always involved when an emotion is enacted. He further believed
that this subjective performance assessment is often more important than reﬂective
appraisal in determining an emotion (Vallerand, 1987). Reﬂective appraisal is not
viewed as necessary to produce emotions but rather acts to modify, minimize, or augment
the effect of intuitive appraisal, i.e., when the outcome does not match the athlete’s
expectations (Vallerand & Blanchard, 2000).

In addition to impacting cognitions, researchers have also proposed several
motivational consequences due to emotion. Fridja (1986) proposed the idea that action
tendencies are inherent in emotion and would lead individuals either towards or away
from an object. Izard (1993) suggested that emotions would dictate an individual to
attend to immediate concerns and needs. More than a decade earlier, Weiner (1977)
suggested that motives were largely determined by emotions as well as that speciﬁc
emotions were linked to speciﬁc motives. For example, the emotion of anger would lead
to an aggressive play style. However, although the idea was proposed in 1977 , few
researchers have pursued the suggestion.

Research ﬁndings have supported the linkage between emotion and motivational

consequences and behavior. Scanlan, Stein, and Ravizza (1989) found that positive

affective states are associated with elite performers’ desire to continue to perform and
exert effort. Conversely, negative affective states are related to dropping out of sport
(Gould, Feltz, Horn, & Weiss, 1982), decreased performance (Burton, 1988) as well as
low personal performance expectancies (Burton & Martens, 1986). .Kavanagh and
Hausfeld (1986) induced happy and sad moods through an audiotape and measured
handgrip and push-up performance. Results indicated a signiﬁcant difference for
performance between happy and sad groups. In regard to pushups, the happy group
reported higher feelings of self-efﬁcacy in believing they could perform more pushups
than the sad group. These ﬁndings furthered the idea that affect and positive mood can
impact cognitive and physical tasks. Thus, a person's mood, or emotional state, can
impact motivation and performance.
Emotion and Performance

Attaining the appropriate level of emotion has long been recognized as an
important aspect of sport performance and is thought to constitute the primary
motivational system (Izard, 1993). For example, Hanin discussed the role of emotion in
the Individual Zone of Optimal Functioning (1978).’ In the construction of this theory,
Hanin (1997) adopted a general view of emotion, similar to Weiner's (1986), that
included not only emotions such as pride or anger, but also affective feeling states such as
feeling conﬁdent. This led to his consideration of not only anxiety, but also several other
emotions/feeling states that were categorized as either positive or negative.

Hanin then took his view of emotion one step further and separated the positive
and negative emotions into those that are optimal for performance (functional), and those

which are debilitating (dysfunctional) for performance. In 2000, Hanin suggested that the

affective states are associated with elite performers'_ desire to continue to perform and
exert effort. Conversely, negative affective states are related to dropping out of sport
(Gould, Feltz, Horn, & Weiss, 1982), decreased performance (Burton, 1988) as well as
low personal performance expectancies (Burton & Martens, 1986). .Kavanagh and
Hausfeld (1986) induced happy and sad moods through an audiotape and measured
handgrip and push-up performance. Results indicated a signiﬁcant difference for
performance between happy and sad groups. In regard to pushups, the happy group
reported higher feelings of self-efﬁcacy in believing they could perform more pushups
than the sad group. These ﬁndings furthered the idea that affect and positive mood can
impact cognitive and physical tasks. Thus, a person's mood, or emotional state, can
impact motivation and performance.
Emotion and Performance

Attaining the appropriate level of emotion has long been recognized as an
important aspect of sport performance and is thought to constitute the primary
motivational system (Izard, 1993). For example, Hanin discussed the role of emotion in
the Individual Zone of Optimal Functioning (1978).’ In the construction of this theory,
Hanin (1997) adopted a general view of emotion, similar to Weiner's (1986), that
included not only emotions such as pride or anger, but also affective feeling states such as
feeling conﬁdent. This led to his consideration of not only anxiety, but also several other
emotions/feeling states that were categorized as either positive or negative.

Hanin then took his view of emotion one step further and separated the positive
and negative emotions into those that are optimal for performance (functional), and those

which are debilitating (dysfunctional) for performance. In 2000, Hanin suggested that the

top nine functionally optimal positive affects were energetic, charged, motivated, certain,
conﬁdent, purposeful, willing, resolute, and alert. In contrast, the top nine dysfunctional
positive affects were easygoing, excited, tranquil, relaxed, animated, overjoyed, fearless,
satisﬁed, and exalted. The top nine functionally optimal negative affects were tense,
dissatisﬁed, attacking, vehement, intense, nervous, irritated, provoked, and angry. The
top negative dysfunctional affects were tired, unwilling, uncertain, sluggish, depressed,
lazy, distressed, sorrowful, and afraid. Hanin (1997) stated that the optimal performance-
enhancing effect usually relates to intensive positive emotions and to moderately intense
negative emotions. At the group level, positive emotions conceptualized as optimal were
selected by athletes to be helpful in 94.1% of the cases studied. Dysfunctional effects
were observed in those athletes reporting to have experienced much or very much
intensity in selected perforrnance-impairing emotions (Hanin & Syrja, 1995). This is
consistent with Treasure, Monson, and Lox 's (1996) ﬁndings that self-efﬁcacy
negatively correlated with negative affect and positively correlated with positive affect.
In this study, examples of negative affect included "jittery" and "upset." Examples of
positive affect were "alert" and "determined".

Recent studies have found that emotional patterns characterized by interest and
excitement or externally-directed anger might help performance. As well, emotional
states perceived as debilitating by athletes may be characterized by the presence of
emotions typically associated with avoidance tendencies (i.e., sadness, shame, self-
hostility) and increased self-focus whereas emotional patterns considered to be
facilitating would be characterized by emotions motivating approach behavior (Jones &

Hanton, 2001). Cerrin (2003) found that athletes most often associate competition with

the terms "threat" or "challenge." She also found that athletes associating competitions
with "challenge" reported lower levels of negative emotions and higher levels of interest
and enjoyment. Interestingly, the term "challenge" was positively associated with
athletes perceiving their emotional state as functional. It is clear that emotions offer
athletes information on the subjective importance of an event, on their perceived ability
to cope with the event, and on the action tendency associated with this event (Fridja,
1986; Green & Sedikides, 1999). However, athletes may not understand emotions or
their resultant behavior. Therefore, it is essential that coaches help athletes perceive and
control emotion. This is critical for achieving desired performance.

The Coach '3 Role in Emotion

Emotional information is a crucial element of implementing performance
enhancement programs. As well, interventions that focus on managing challenge
appraisal and the resultant emotions may be more effective than focusing on reducing
threat appraisal in helping athletes improve their pre-competitive emotional states
(Cerrin, 2003). A coach's ability to focus athletes on the appropriate emotions associated
with challenge appraisal may gain an important edge in competition.

In following a coach and his professional hockey team across a competitive
season, Gallrneier (1987) observed that the coach began the emotional preparation on the
morning before a game during a team meeting. A contemplative message would be
waiting for the players as they walked in the door. The players were expected to be
subdued and to be “getting into the mood.” The players were expected to begin focusing
and clarifying game plans. They were then dismissed to go home. An hour before game

time, the coach continued to direct the emotional behavior as he and his staff members

spoke softly with players. The players were expected to be tense, but not to be releasing
anything. The coach was preparing to peak the emotion at game time. Fifteen minutes
before game time the hockey players warmed up on the ice and were ﬁnally allowed
some release of excitement and emotion. At ﬁve minutes before game time, the coach
offered a pre-game talk encouraging readiness, courage, and pride. At game time, the
players’ exploded with emotion. The coach controlled the players' emotions through
stimuli such as posted and verbal messages. In doing so, the coach peaked the players’
feelings of emotion to correspond with game time.

Gallmeier (1987) indicated that a team’s coach has a vital role in directing the
style of play. The coach can dictate the tone of play by knowing when and where to
direct the players’ abilities to the maximum, thus securing the momentum and ultimately
the best results (Adler & Adler, 1978). The coach’s script was consistent with Zurcher
(1982) in that “the orchestration of emotions in staged events follows a scripted phasing,
beginning with the arousal of expectations for an emotional experience. The expectations
generate a diffuse emotional state, which ﬁnally is directed into a series of discrete and
identiﬁable emotional displays (p. 18-19).” Given the potential impact of a coach on
his/her athlete’s emotions, it is important to realize that the pre-game talk is the ﬁnal
opportunity to do so until half-time.

Many coaches utilize the pre-game talk to “psych up” their athletes. Gould et. al
(1989) discovered that among 13 different strategies, coaches ranked their usage of
verbal persuasion as ﬁfth overall. By isolating one form of verbal persuasion, the pre-
game speech, and using it as the “stimulus event”, coaches attempt to invoke speciﬁc

emotions within their team. However, it is surprising to note that little research has

10

examined the role of pre-game talks on athletes' emotions. Results from a recent study
involving competitive soccer players indicated that those players who were exposed to a
positive emotional pre-game speech reported higher feelings of conﬁdence as well as
greater predicted margins of victory in an imagined game situation (Vargas-Tonsing &
Bartholomew, 2004). Feelings of conﬁdence and certainty were listed as two of Hanin’s
(2000) top nine predominantly optimal positive emotions.

Two additional positive emotions from the top nine optimal positive emotions
easily invoked in a pre-game speech are feeling energetic and charged. Gallmeier (1987)
observed this behavior in a hockey coach’s speech as the coach engaged in a hollering
match with his team, “Now are you ready guys, are you ready?” The players responded.
with, “Yeah, we’re ready, coach, we want ‘em.” The coach can also carefully choose
energetic words and phrases such as “are you pumped?” and “can you feel it?”
Interestingly, emotional words are responded to more accurately than neutral words
(Eviator & Zaidel, 1991) and highly affect-arousing words are better recalled than less
emotional words (Bock, 1987). This suggests that in using an emotionally charged pre-
game speech, athletes are likely to react and remember the emotional pleas more so than
any proffered information. Thus, if a coach can use emotionally charged words to create
the appropriate stimulus for the athlete, the athlete should report enhanced emotional
arousal and self-efﬁcacy, which should, in turn, improve performance. Regardless of
what a coach intends the pre-game speech to do, it is how the athletes perceive it that will

inﬂuence their expectations and motivational states.

11

Research Questions and Hypotheses
The purpose of this study was to examine coaches' pre-game speeches and
whether these speeches can impact athletes' self-efﬁcacy and emotions immediately prior
to competition. This study was designed to address the following research questions:
1. Will athletes show a greater increase in self-efﬁcacy following coaches'
speeches with higher perceived emotion or speeches with higher perceived
information?
2. Will athletes show greater changes in emotion following coaches' speeches
with higher perceived emotion or speeches with higher perceived
information?
In examining these questions, I have set forth the following hypotheses:
1. Athletes will show a greater increase in self-efﬁcacy following a more highly
perceived emotional pre-game speech as opposed to a highly perceived
informational/strategic pre-game
2. Athletes will show a greater change in emotion following a more highly '
perceived emotional pre-game speech as opposed to a highly perceived
informational/strategic pre-game
In addition, I have posed the following exploratory questions:
1. What are athletes' perceptions of the pre-game speech heard from their coach?
2. Are athletes' perceptions of the pre-game speech congruent with their coach's
perceptions?
3. Do emotions inﬂuence athletes' perceptions of the pre-game speech heard from

their coach?

12

4. Which self-reported emotions of athletes are associated with higher feelings
of efﬁcacy?

Operational Deﬁnitions
Dysﬁmctional emotion: Emotions that are debilitating to performance.
Emotional pre-game speech: A verbal speech given by a coach immediately prior
to the soccer team taking the ﬁeld to begin play that contains words or phrases
that inﬂuence an athletes' emotions.
Functional emotion: Emotions that facilitate optimal performance.
Informational pre-game speech: A verbal speech that contains directions,
scouting reports (information about the opponent), or feedback given by a coach
immediately prior to the soccer team taking the ﬁeld to begin play.
Pre-game speech: The verbal speech given by a coach immediately prior to the
soccer team taking the ﬁeld to begin play.
Premier soccer team: A soccer team that has applied, and been accepted, into the

top soccer division of the state of Michigan.

13

CHAPTER TWO
Review of Literature

Maximizing athletic performance is the primary goal of coaches as well as a
fascination to researchers. Coaches have tried various ways from informative drills to
positive feedback to aid in an athlete's performance (Allen, & Howe, 1998; Amorose, &
Weiss, 1998; Gould et a1., 1989;). Others have tried to persuade their athletes into
maximal performance by designing pre-game speeches that play on an athlete's emotion.
Anecdotal evidence would suggest that a pre-game speech is an athletic experience that
cuts across team sports. Throughout the world, coaches gather their players together to
hear their ﬁnal thoughts prior to beginning a game. These experiences have been
captured in movies “win one for the Gipper! (Fellows & Bacon, 1940)” and phrases from
these talks have become a part of coaching lore, such as Vince Lombardi's “winning
isn’t everything, it is the only thing"
(http://www.vincelombardi.com/quotes/winning.htrn). Interestingly, the most celebrated
talks rarely have anything to do with the actual play of the game and are, instead,
designed to evoke an emotional response, such as pride, from athletes. For example, Lou
Holtz, a coach of an American university football team, is famous for drawing
comparisons between athletic performance and performance later in life, “how you
respond to the challenge in the second half will determine what you become after the
game, whether you are a winner or a loser" (http://www.top-quotes-and-
quotations.com/sports.html).

A possible explanation for the beneﬁts of pre-game speeches is that they result in

enhanced performance efﬁcacy. Self-efﬁcacy is deﬁned as a person’s belief in his or her

14

ability to perform a speciﬁc task. Self-efﬁcacy beliefs are inﬂuenced by four principal
sources of information: performance accomplishments, vicarious experiences, verbal
persuasion, and emotional arousal. In 1977, Bandura hypothesized that efﬁcacy
expectations determine if coping behaviors are initiated, how much effort is expended,
and how long effort will be sustained if faced with obstacles and aversive experiences.
As expected, self-efﬁcacy has been supported as a strong predictor of athletic
performance (Bandura, 1977; Feltz, 1988; McAuley, 1985; Miller, 1993; Weinberg et al.,
1981; Weiss et al., 1989).

Within self-efﬁcacy theory, Bandura (1986) also discussed the important role of
the coach in impacting individual efﬁcacy perceptions through the coach’s use of verbal
persuasion. Through the use of verbal persuasion, a coach can help athletes understand
past performances in addition to persuading them that success is possible. Additionally,
coaches are able to administer informational feedback by reviewing strengths and
articulating conﬁdence in a player’ s/team’s skill; such a perspective is thought to promote
positive and reduce negative cognitions (Anshel, 1990). Feltz (1988) suggested that due
to the unique aspects of the athletic arena, verbal persuasion by itself may be more
effective than traditionally believed.

In addition to perceived efﬁcacy, it is important that athletes experience an
appropriate emotional state prior to competition. Attaining the appropriate level of
emotion has long been recognized as an important aspect of sport performance. Research
suggests that emotions serve to organize perception, cognition, and behavior (Izard,
1993). Several theories have been proposed to explain the link between emotion and

performance. The iceberg proﬁle suggested that sports performance is at its peak when

15

feelings of vigor form the heightened tip of the iceberg and feelings of anger, depression
and tension form the left slope of the iceberg and feelings of fatigue and confusion form
the right slope of the iceberg (Morgan, 1980). Other researchers have suggested that it is
through the induction of a positive mood state that performance is enhanced (Kavanagh
& Hausfeld, 1986; Kendzierski & DeCarlo, 1991; Scanlan et al., 1989). However, while
offering interesting insights into the relationship between emotion and performance, these
theories have made little mention of the individual’s role within this relationship. In
1978, Hanin attempted to remedy this with his Individual Zones of Optimal Functioning
theory. The major emphasis of this theory stressed the within-individual dynamics of the
subjective emotional experiences (emotions, feelings, and mood) that accompany
successful, average, and poor performances (Hanin, 2000).

Emotion and sports literature suggests then, that emotion, and the mood it
creates, serves as a catalyst for athletic performance. Thus, it is important for an athlete to
attain a functional emotional state prior to performance. While an athlete may attempt to
attain this state without assistance, coaches often attempt to manipulate the emotional
state of their athletes. Gallmeier (1987) documented the attempts of a minor league
hockey coach who utilized an emotional script for the players to follow prior to games.
With this documentation, Gallmeier showed that coaches have a vital role in directing
their teams’ styles of play. A coach’s importance was reinforced through the assertion
that the creation of a mastery sport climate is associated with positive emotion; an
environment that is generally created by the coach (Biddle, 1999).

There seems to be little doubt that a coach serves a critical role in preparing

athletes for athletic performance, both in building their conﬁdence and in helping athletes

16

manage their emotions. As well, it appears clear that verbal persuasion is an effective
source of efﬁcacy information (Amorose & Weiss, 1998; Ness & Patton, 1979). Yet,
although coaches are armed with a variety of choices for verbal persuasion, little is
known about the verbal persuasion athletes deem most effective. For example, research
has yet to fully examine the role of verbal persuasion and its inﬂuences in the pre-game
speech. Therefore, this chapter seeks to further examine and review self-efﬁcacy as it
relates to sport performance and sources of information, the role of emotion in sport
performance, and how these variables relate to coaches’ pre-game speeches.
Self-Efﬁcacy Theory in Sport

Self-efﬁcacy is deﬁned as a person’s belief in his or her ability to perform a
speciﬁc task. In 1977, Bandura hypothesized that efﬁcacy expectations determine if
coping behaviors are initiated, how much effort is expended, and how long effort will be
sustained if faced with obstacles and aversive experiences.

Based on the theoretical tenets of self-efﬁcacy theory, an athlete’s perceptions of
efﬁcacy are inﬂuenced by four principal sources of information: performance
accomplishments, vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion, and emotional arousal. Of
the four principal sources of information for self—efﬁcacy, performance accomplishments
are considered the most inﬂuential (Bandura, 1977). Performance accomplishments,
which are based on personal mastery experiences, affect feelings of self-efﬁcacy through
the cognitive processing of these past experiences. When events are viewed as
successful, future expectations are raised; when events are perceived as failures, efﬁcacy

expectations drop. This is especially true when mistakes/failures occur early in the event

17

(Bandura, 1977). Repeated successes will likely result in strong feelings of efﬁcacy,
which lessen the negative effect of future, occasional, failures.

Performance accomplishments as a strong predictor of self-efﬁcacy have been
demonstrated multiple times. Feltz (1988) found that when teaching a high avoidance
motor skill to male and female participants, Trial 1 performance was the strongest
predictor of subsequent self-efﬁcacy. In baseball, past performance predicted self-
efﬁcacy in multiple games (George, 1994) as well as hitting performance within a batting
cage (Watkins, Garcia, & Turek, 1994); this relationship was also found amongst
wrestlers (Kane, Marks, Zaccaro, & Blair; 1996).

Self-efﬁcacy expectations are also impacted through vicarious experiences.
When faced with a situation in which there are no previous performance
accomplishments, watching others perform activities without adverse consequences can
enhance feelings of efﬁcacy. A person will depend more on information gained by
watching others when faced with a novel task, or when the person has little experience
with a particular task. The inﬂuence of vicarious experiences on efﬁcacy can be
enhanced by factors such as similarities to the model in terms of personal characteristics
(Feltz, 1988). This technique, however, is a less dependable source of self-efﬁcacy
information because it relies on inferences from social comparison (Bandura, 1977).
Weinberg et a1. (1981) asked research participants to extend one leg horizontally and to
maintain that position for as long as possible. Participants competed against a
confederate who claimed weak ligaments and a knee injury or who was reportedly a track
athlete. Regardless of the grouping, the confederate always outperformed the participant

in the ﬁrst trial. Results found that participants, who were paired with the confederate

18

claiming injuries, increased their scores from Trial 1 to Trial 2. This demonstrates the
inﬂuence of social comparison; however, Bandura (1997) suggests that self-modeling can
also impact efﬁcacy beliefs.

Verbal persuasion is also able to inﬂuence efﬁcacy beliefs. However, beliefs
based on this technique are likely to be weaker than those based on performance
accomplishments. Ness and Patton (1979) examined the role of verbal persuasion in a
weight lifting task. Participants were told they would either be lifting more weight than
they were, or less weight than actuality. Participants, who were told that they would be
lifting less weight than they actually did, outperformed the opposing group. Later
research replicated these ﬁndings and showed that false positive feedback increased
future bench press performance (Fitzsimmons, Landers, Thomas, & van der Mars, 1991).
It is important to note that the amount of inﬂuence wielded through verbal persuasion
often depends on the credibility, prestige, expertise, and trustworthiness of the speaker
(Feltz & Lirgg, 2001). Coaches are generally thought to encompass these qualities.

Emotional arousal is another important source of efﬁcacy information. Through
the personal evaluation of felt arousal, athletes are able to draw conclusions regarding
their anxiety and their perceived vulnerability to stress (Bandura, 1977). However,
physiological sources of self-efﬁcacy are not conﬁned to autonomic arousal but can be
inferred from a person’s level of fatigue, ﬁtness, and pain in strength and endurance
activities (Feltz, 1988). Although research has clearly shown self-efﬁcacy and its impact
on performance (Bandura,-1977; George, 1994; McAuley, 1985; Miller, 1993; Weiss et

al., 1989) as well as the direct relationship between arousal and performance (Lenders &

l9

Boutcher, 1998), little research has been conductedto determined arousal’s effect on self-
efﬁcacy.
Self-Eﬂicacy and Sports Performance

Self-efﬁcacy theory suggests that people will approach and cope with situations
they believe to be within their perceived capabilities. This theory also suggests that a
person’s self—efﬁcacy beliefs determine the amount of effort they put forth and their
persistence in aversive situations. Thus, how a person evaluates his/her ability and
resultant feeling of efﬁcacy will impact their motivation and performance (Bandura,
1977, 1986).

Self-efﬁcacy has been supported as a strong predictor of athletic performance
(Bandura, 1977; Feltz, 1988; McAuley, 1985; Miller, 1993; Weinberg et al., 1981; Weiss
et al., 1989). In an examination of self-efﬁcacy literature, Moritz, Feltz, Fahrbach and
Mack (2000) conducted a meta analysis of 45 studies. Results of this analysis showed
self-efﬁcacy to have a positive and moderate relationship with performance in sport.

In a study using collegiate and high school baseball players, participants
responded to a self-efﬁcacy scale prior to and following a competition. Results found
that self-efﬁcacy was the strongest and most consistent predictor of performance when
compared to past performance as a prediction of performance (George, 1994). Similarly,
Barling and Abel (1983) found that self-efﬁcacy beliefs were consistently related to
various aspects of tennis performance. Participants’ self-efﬁcacy beliefs correlated
signiﬁcantly with all 12 behavioral criteria related to tennis performance, i.e., knowledge,
experience, dependability, accuracy, consistency, variation, power and spin, footwork,

anticipation, style, concentration, and competition.

20

Weiss et a1. (1989) examined self-efﬁcacy and performance in gymnastics.
Results showed self-efﬁcacy to be a signiﬁcant predictor for all-around performance and
for ﬁve of the six gymnastics events (all except vault). These are not isolated examples.
The relationship between self-efﬁcacy and performance has been demonstrated across a
host of other sport situations, including but not limited to golf (Beauchamp, Bray, &
Albinson, 2002), swimming (Marsden, 1998; Miller, 1993), wrestling (Gould, Horn, &
Spreeman, 1983), weightlifting (Ness & Patton, 1979) and volleyball (Alexander &
Krane, 1996).

Coaches’ Use of Verbal Persuasion to Impact Self-Eﬁicacy

Of these efﬁcacy sources, verbal persuasion is perhaps the most convenient and
readily available method for coaches, especially in the moments immediately prior to a
game. Not only is verbal persuasion important for its convenience and availability, but
athletic teams also consider verbal persuasion to be one of the most effective methods
coaches use to build efﬁcacy feelings (Vargas-Tonsing, Myers, & Feltz, in press).

Verbal persuasion is deﬁned as leading others, through the use of suggestion,
exhortation, self-instruction, and interpretation, to believe that they can be successful
(Bandura, 1977). Coaches have ranked verbal persuasion highly for both frequency of
use and for effectiveness (Gould et al., 1989; Weinberg et al., 1990).

A coach utilizes verbal persuasion in multiple ways. Through the use of verbal
persuasion, a coach can provide positive sport-speciﬁc feedback that can be used to help
the athletes understand how to be successful, utilize positive attributional styles, and
persuade them that success is possible. Coaches can provide informational feedback by

reviewing individual and collective strengths thereby articulating their conﬁdence in the

21

. skill of both individual players and the team as a whole. This use of verbal persuasion, in
the form of positive informational feedback, should beneﬁt performance as it increases
athletes’ efﬁcacy levels (or perceived competence) in themselves and their team (Allen &
Howe, 1998), as well as promoting positive and reducing negative cognitions (Anshel,
1990). Another form of verbal persuasion follows mistakes and failures and is often
referred to as the positive approach. This technique is characterized by the liberal usage
of rewards such as encouragement and verbal praise (Feltz & Weiss, 1982).

Although coaches are armed with a variety of choices for verbal persuasion, little
is known about the verbal persuasion athletes deem most effective. For example, while
these verbal interactions have provided insight into sports practices, research has yet to
examine the role of verbal persuasion and its inﬂuences in the pre-game speech.
Anecdotal evidence suggests that coaches use many different themes within these
speeches to prepare athletes prior to competition. For example, an emotional theme is,
“Win one for the Gipper!” A conﬁdence building theme is based on, “You can do it!”
However, additional research is needed to explore the effects beyond the anecdotal
accounts of the pre-game speech to fully examine how pre-game speeches inﬂuence self-
efﬁcacy.

Anecdotal evidence would again suggest that it is through emotional speeches that
athletes increase their efﬁcacy beliefs. Maddux and Meier (1985) suggested that in
addition to Bandura's (1977) four sources of efﬁcacy, one's emotional state might be a
supplementary source of information used to form efﬁcacy beliefs. The authors believed
that positive affect, such as happiness and exhilaration, was more likely to enhance

efﬁcacy perceptions than was a negative affect such as sadness or anxiety. Others

22

concurred with this view by suggesting that emotions "act as a ﬁlter through which
people view efﬁcacy information" (Kavanagh & Bower, 1985, p. 508). Regardless of the
relationship between emotion and self-efﬁcacy, emotions'are involved in athletic
performance. The next section describes the concepts of emotion and research on
emotions in sport.
Emotion
Although dozens of researchers have attempted to deﬁne the concept of emotion,

no single deﬁnition encompasses all of the research ﬁndings. However, researchers
concur on at least two dimensions seemingly underlying emotion: pleasure/displeasure
and activation (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1985). If represented on a two-dimensional
graph using four quadrants (two representing high or low pleasure and two representing
high or low activation), it is presumed all emotions can be placed into one of the four
quadrants. However, many researchers agree that although some emotions may belong in
the same quadrant, such as anger and fear, they are experienced very differently.

Research on these discrete emotions has yielded a minimum of seven basic
emotions including anger, disgust/contempt, fear, happiness, interest, sadness and
surprise (Vallerand & Blanchard, 2000). Others suggest the addition of emotions such as
shame, envy, hope, pride, anxiety, and relief (Lazarus, 1993) or guilt, shame, and distress
(Izard, 1977). Most of the proposed emotions appear innate; however, others, such as
pride and conﬁdence, appear to be derived from primary emotions.

Research literature suggests that emotions consist of three main elements:
physiological changes, action tendencies, and subjective experiences (Vallerand &

Blanchard, 2000; Deci, 1980). Physiological changes include such symptoms as

23

increases in heart rate and blood pressure, as well as other changes in the autonomic
system. Action tendencies include what is sometimes referred to as the core element of
emotion, the tendency to run away when frightened for example. Subjective experiences,
possibly the most fundamental (Leventhal, 1974), refers to what an individual will
consciously experience when confronted with an emotional episode (Vallerand &
Blanchard, 2000). Through these three elements, it is possible to convey the meaning of
the term emotion. Deci (1980) proposed the following working deﬁnition of emotion:
An emotion is a reaction to a stimulus event (either actual or imagined). It
involves change in the viscera and musculature of the person, is experienced
subjectively in characteristic ways, is expressed through such means as facial
changes and action tendencies, and may mediate and energize subsequent
behaviors (p. 6).
This deﬁnition not only encompasses the emotional components, but also implies that
emotion can drive future behaviors, an interesting concept for sport. The ability of
emotions to impact future behaviors may be due to their adaptive role in athletics.
Smith and Lazarus (1990) suggested that each emotion serves a speciﬁc purpose,
i.e., an adaptive function. For instance, anger may equip a person to confront stress and
begin the process of preparation towards ﬁght or ﬂight. Anger and thrill also tend to
focus attention away from the self (Green & Sedikides, 1999). Therefore, anger and thrill
may be beneﬁcial to athletes as self-focused attention is considered to be detrimental to
performance (Nideffer, 1976). Strong emotions can also help maintain focus and effort

on a task (Hanin, 2000). This adaptive perspective suggests that the consequences of

24

emotions may include cognitions (Forgas, 1995), motivation (Weiner, 1985), and
performance (Hanin, 1997).

In terms of cognitions, emotions can inﬂuence perceptions, attention, and
judgments. Forgas (1992) suggested that emotions can inﬂuence perception as well as
other cognitions. Individuals, or athletes, will perceive stimuli/situations in accordance
with their emotion (Niedenthal & Setterlund, 1994). In other words, the anxious athlete
will focus on information congruent with his/her anxiety. For example, an athlete who is
overly anxious might focus on the crowd and the crowd’s reactions to their performance,
rather than other types of information such as a play, or instruction from the coach.
Emotions also can reduce an athlete’s attentional ﬁeld (Abernathy, 1993) and this in turn
can lead to the athlete not attending to relevant and important cues necessary for
performance (Easterbrook, 1959). The players become “tunnel visioned” and often miss
the play because it was outside their ﬁeld of vision. In addition, emotions can impact an
athlete’s personal judgment. As they judge and evaluate themselves, athletes refer to
their affect2 for information (Schwartz, Strack, Kommer, & Wagner, 1987).

In addition to impacting cognitions, researchers have also proposed several
motivational consequences due to emotion. Fridja (1986) proposed the idea that action
tendencies are inherent in emotion and would lead individuals either towards or away
from an object. Izard (1993) suggested that emotions would dictate an individual to
attend to immediate concerns and needs. Over two decades ago, Weiner (1977)
suggested that motives were largely determined by emotions as well as that speciﬁc

emotions were linked to speciﬁc motives. For example, the emotion of anger would lead

25

to an aggressive play style. However, it is important to note that although the idea was
proposed in 1977, few researchers have pursued the suggestion.

Perhaps one of the most interesting consequences of emotion is performance.
How and why emotions can impact sport performance is of import not only to
researchers, but to athletic coaches as well. This particular consequence of emotion is
discussed in the next section. A
Emotion and Sports Performance

To date, much of sports literature has focused on the emotion of anxiety and its
impact on sports performance. Yerkes and Dodson (1908) proposed the inverted—u
hypothesis that performance would increase or decrease depending upon the emotional
arousal levels of the performer. Emotional arousal would be beneﬁcial until the optimal
level, or peak, has been reached. After this, performance is debilitated through increased
levels of arousal. These high levels of emotional arousal are often associated with
anxiety. While this relationship has been supported through the research (Fenz & Jones,
1972; Klavora, 1977; Lowe, 1971), critics point out that the inverted-u shows a
relationship and not cause and effect (Landers, 1980). With this in mind, several others
have proposed different theories to help explain emotion and performance relationships.

Morgan (1980) over two decades ago introduced the “iceberg proﬁle” hoping to
help explain affective moods and their impact on performance by introducing the
emotions of vigor, tension, depression, anger, fatigue, and confusion. The “iceberg” is
created through the graph of an athlete’s reported feelings during optimal performance.

Performance is at its peak when feelings of vigor form the heightened tip of the iceberg

26

and feelings of anger, depression and tension form the left slope of the iceberg and
feelings of fatigue and confusion form the right slope of the iceberg.

However, current research suggests that the iceberg proﬁle does little to actually
predict an athlete’s performance. This is due in part to two main reasons. First, there are
substantial amounts of variation between sports for the desirability of speciﬁc mood
factors. For example, successful performance in karate appears to be associated with
above-averageanger scores (Terry & Slade, 1995). Similarly, professional basketball
players showed elevated feelings of anger and depression during successful team play
(Hoffman & Bar-Eli, 1999). Anecdotal evidence also suggests that higher feelings of
anger would be necessary for other high contact sports such as football defensive linemen
and hockey teams. A second problem with the iceberg proﬁle is the high amount of
individual differences. It is not uncommon for an individual to have a “negative” proﬁle
and still perform well (Terry, 1995). Terry found that 73.8% of successful performances
were associated with iceberg proﬁles, but more than a quarter were not. Interestingly,
54.1% of unsuccessful performers also exhibited icebergs.

In summary, although the iceberg proﬁle attempted to link affective states and
sport performance, it neglected to account for individual and sport differences. However,
literature continued to suggest an inﬂuence of affective states on performance. In
particular, sport literature suggests that optimal performance is often achieved when
performers are experiencing positive affective states.

Positive affective states are associated with an individual’s activity choice
(Kendzierski & DeCarlo, 1991) as well as elite performers’ desire to continue to perform

and exert effort (Scanlan et al., 1989). Conversely, negative affective states are related to

27

dropping out of sport (Gould et al., 1982), decreased performance (Burton, 1988) as well
as low personal performance expectancies (Burton & Martens, 1986). Kavanagh and
Hausfeld (1986) performed two studies in which they induced happy and sad moods
through an audiotape and measured handgrip and push-up performance. Results of the
handgrip study indicated a signiﬁcant difference for performance between happy and sad
groups. In regard to pushups, the happy group reported higher feelings of self-efficacy in
believing they could perform more pushups than the sad group. These ﬁndings furthered
the idea that a positive mood can impact cognitive and physical tasks.

While research has begun to address positive affective states and their inﬂuence
on performance, it has neglected to account for differences in individual’s performances.
Hanin’s (1978) IZOF theory did attempt to account for individual differences in
performance. The IZOF theory assumes that the role of emotions mirror the person-
environment interactions while providing conditions for performing. It is important to
note that the IZOF also implies a bi-directional relationship between emotion and
performance. This indicates that emotions can inﬂuence how an athlete performs, but the
resulting performance then impacts current and future emotional states; the emotion-
perforrnance relationship is dynamic. The major emphasis of this theory stresses the
within-individual dynamics of the subjective emotional experiences (emotions, feelings,
and mood) that accompany successful, average, and poor performances (Hanin, 2000).

In the construction of this theory, Hanin (1978) considered not only anxiety, but
also several other emotions that can be categorized as either positive or negative. Hanin
then took it one step further and separated the positive and negative emotions into those

that are optimal for performance, and those that are debilitating for performance. Later,

28

based on athletes from seven sports, Hanin (1997) created a list of the top 10 emotions in
each category. These emotions can be viewed in Table 1. Hanin (1997) stated that the
optimal perforrnance-enhancing effect usually relates to intensive positive emotions and
to moderately intense negative emotions. At the group level, positive emotions
conceptualized as optimal were selected by athletes to be helpful in 94.1% of the cases
studied. Dysfunctional effects are observed in those athletes reporting to have
experienced much or very much intensity in selected performance-impairing emotions
(Hanin & Syrja, 1995).

Hanin’s (197 8) principle of the zone and athletes who are in or out of the zone
relies on the principle that the current emotional intensity is not as critical for
performance as is the distance between the current intensity and the individual optimal or
dysfunctional zones. Ultimately, the IZOF proposes the following:

0 an individual’s best performance is expected when the individual’s current
emotion intensity is within, or close to, his/her optimal (positive and negative)
zones and outside his/her dysfunctional (positive and negative) zones;

0 average performances are expected when an athlete’s current emotional
intensity is within, or close to, both his/her optimal and dysfunctional
(positive and negative) zones or outside both his/her optimal and
dysfunctional (positive and negative) zones;

0 and that individually poor performance is expected when an athlete’s current
emotional intensity is outside his/her optimal (positive and negative) zones

and within, or close to, his/her dysfunctional zones.

29

Table l.

A listing of Hanin's (1997) Positive and Negative Functional and
Dysfunctional Emotions

 

Positive Emotions

Negative Emotions

 

Functional Dysfunctional Functional Dysfunctional
energetic easygoing tense tired
charged excited charged unwilling
motivated composed dissatisfied uncertain
certain relaxed attacking sluggish
confident overjoyed vehement depressed
purposeful fearless intense lazy
willing satisfied nervous distressed
resolute exalted irritated sorrowful
alert certain provoked afraid
excited pleasant angry exhausted

30

In a study investigating elite slalom canoeists, researchers found that the good performers
were preceded by lower discrepancies between their felt and preferred emotional levels
(Mules & Kerr, 1996).

Although the preceding literature shows a link between affective states and
performance, the question remains of whether or not emotions can be manipulated to
produce desired effects. In sports, a coach is the primary person to try to draw forth the
desired emotions in his/her athletes prior to competition.

Coaches’ Use of Verbal Persuasion to Impact Emotion

In addition to perceived efﬁCacy that is increased via verbal persuasion, based on
the emotion in sport literature, it is important that athletes experience an appropriate
emotional state prior to competition. Prior to competitions, athletes make appraisals of
the situation they are facing in competition. Athletes base these appraisals on the extent
to which they view the situation as a challenge (challenge appraisal), the extent to which
they view the situation as harmful (harm appraisal) and the extent to which they view the
situation as a threat (threat appraisal) (Lazarus, 1999). The intensity of their appraisals
can impact their emotions.

While athletes are often expected to self-regulate their emotions appropriately,
coaches can help to manipulate the emotional state of their athletes. For instance,
coaches who use interventions focusing on the management of challenge appraisal and
the resultant emotions may be more effective than coaches who use interventions that
focus on reducing threat appraisal in helping athletes improve their pre-competitive
emotional states (Cerrin, 2003). A coach's ability to focus athletes on the appropriate

emotions associated with challenge appraisal may gain an important edge in competition.

31

 

 

Deci (1980) stated that “emotion is a reaction to a stimulus event. . .and can energize
subsequent behaviors.” Therefore, it appears that if a coach can create the appropriate
stimulus event to help the athlete appraise the situation positively, the athlete will
experience appropriate emotions, which in turn will inﬂuence performance.

In a study using professional hockey players, Gallmeier (1987) found that the
coach began the emotional preparation on the morning before a game during a team
meeting. A contemplative message would be waiting for the players as they walked in
the door. The players were expected to be subdued and to be “getting into the mood.”
The players were expected to begin focusing and clarifying game plans. They were then
dismissed to go home. An hour before game time, the coach continued to direct the
emotional behavior as he and his staff members spoke softly with players. The players
were expected to be tense, but not to be releasing anything. The coach was preparing to
peak the emotion at game time. Fifteen min. before game time the hockey players
warmed up on the ice and were ﬁnally allowed some release of excitement and emotion.
At 5 min. till game time, the coach offered a pre-game talk encouraging readiness,
courage, and pride. At game time, the players’ exploded with emotion. The coach
controlled the players' emotions through stimuli such as posted and verbal messages. In
doing so, the coach peaked the players’ feelings of emotion to correspond with game _
time.

Gallmeier (1987) indicated that coaches have a vital role in directing their teams’
styles of play. They can dictate the tone of play by knowing when and where to direct
the players’ abilities to the maximum, securing the momentum and ultimately the best

results (Adler & Adler, 1978). The coach’s script was consistent with Zurcher (1982) in

32

that “the orchestration of emotions in staged events follows a scripted phasing, beginning
with the arousal of expectations for an emotional experience. The expectations generate
a diffuse emotional state, which ﬁnally is directed into a series of discrete and identiﬁable
emotional displays (p. 18-19).” Given the potential impact of the coach on his/her
athlete’s emotions, it is important to realize that the pre-game talk is the ﬁnal opportunity
to do so before the start of the game.

Many coaches utilize the pre-game talk to “psych up” their athletes. Gould et al.
(1989) discovered that among 13 different strategies, coaches ranked their usage of
verbal persuasion as ﬁfth overall. By isolating one form of verbal persuasion, the pre-
game speech, and using it as the “stimulus event,” coaches attempt to invoke speciﬁc
emotions within their team. However, little research has examined the role of pre-game
talks on an athlete’s emotions.

Research has indicated that evaluative feedback from an adult may serve as an
important source of competence information (Meyer, Bachmann, Biermann, Hempelman,
Ploger, & Spiller, 1979). There also appears to be a strong relationship between
informational feedback and athletes who report higher perceptions of conﬁdence (Black
& Weiss, 1992). Therefore, by using the pre-game speech to reiterate and conﬁrm the
coach’s feelings of conﬁdence in his/her team, it is possible that those feelings will be
conferred to the athletes. Gould et a1. (1989) reported that among 101 wrestling coaches,
acting conﬁdent themselves was ranked as the second most used strategy out of 13
possible, to enhance athlete’s feelings of self-efﬁcacy. The same coaches also gave
acting conﬁdent a similar effectiveness rating. Results from a study involving

competitive soccer players indicated that those players who were exposed to a positive

33

 

 

emotional pre-game speech reported higher feelings of conﬁdence as well as predicted a
greater margin of victories in an imagined game situation (Vargas-Tonsing &
Bartholomew, 2004). Feelings of conﬁdence and certainty were listed as two of Hanin’s
(2000) top nine predominantly optimal positive emotions.

Two additional positive emotions from the top nine optimal positive emotions
easily invoked in a pre-game speech are feeling energetic and charged. Gallmeier (1987)
observed this behavior in a hockey coach’s speech as the coach engages in a hollering
match with his team, “Now are you ready guys, are you ready?” The players responded
with, “Yeah, we’re ready, coach, we want ‘em.” This approach can also be seen when
teams begin to clap together, gradually increasing in tempo and sound. Yelling,
stomping, and slapping hands can all help teams feel energetic and charged. The coach
can implement any of these within the pre-game speech. The coach can call on the
players, encouraging them to share their emotion with the team; the coach can carefully
choose energetic words and phrases such as “are you pumped?” and “can you feel it?”

Hanin (2000) also suggested that athletes considered feelings of motivation
optimal for performance. A coach should remind the athletes of their goals within the
speech. These goals can be both broad and speciﬁc; “don’t give them a corner kick,” and
“let’s play the best we can.” The reason is twofold: one, motivation is considered the link
between the drive and the goal (Schilling & Gubelmann, 1995) and two, because it
reminds the athletes of their purpose, another of Hanin’s (2000) top nine optimal positive
emotions.

In conclusion, the current literature suggests self-efﬁcacy and an athletes’

emotional state are important contributors to performance. Additionally, verbal

34

 

 

persuasion, a readily available tool for coaches, is believed to be an effective tool for
enhancing self-efﬁcacy (Gould et al., 1989; Vargas-Tonsing et al., in press); however,
little is known of the impact of verbal persuasion, speciﬁcally the coach’s pre-game
speech on self-efﬁcacy and emotion. Research is needed to examine the effectiveness of
this technique. Gaining insight into this tool would offer valuable information to coaches

as they attempt to ready their athletes for performance.

35

Chapter Three
Method
Pilot Data

Six pre-game speeches were recorded from premier soccer coaches to sample the
variation in content and length of speeches, and to determine the protocol for categorizing
a speech as emotional, informational, or a combination. The majority of the speeches
were collected from an under-18 (U18) women's soccer coach. One of the speeches was
collected from a rival U18 soccer coach. Speeches can be found in Appendix A with the
emotional words and phrases printed in bold print.

Speeches B, C, D, and E showed pre-game speeches that centered on strategy and
information. Speech A was a combination of both strategy and emotion. It began with
strategy and ended with more emotional phrases such as "let's get dangerous" and "you
are going to bury it." Speeches F and G showed a more emotional style of pre-game
speech. The coaches chose emotional words and phrases such as "battle," "punish," and
"send them a message." The importance of this pilot testing was twofold: ﬁrst, these
speeches indicated that coaches used different techniques in their pre-game speeches, and
second, that the'content of the speech may have focused athletes on either internal or
external factors. Therefore, it is important to not only study the content of coaches' pre-
game speeches, but to also study athletes' reactions to them.

Participants

Participants for this study were 151 soccer players representing 10 soccer teams

(ﬁve male and ﬁve female teams). The soccer teams were selected due to their status and

membership in a Midwestern premier soccer league (within this premier league, teams

36

compete at the state level against other elite teams) and represented one U12, one U13,
two U14, two U15, two U16, one U17, and one U18. Athletes had a mean age of 14.21
years (SD = 1.85) and had spent an average of 2.31 years (SD = 1.51) playing with the
team and an average of 2.01 years (SD = 1.56) playing under the same coach. Athletes
had an average of 8.83 years (SD = 2.26) of soccer playing experience. Of the
participating athletes, 7% considered their primary position to be goalkeeper, 27%
considered their position to be primarily that of defender, 32% considered themselves
midﬁelders, and 24% considered themselves to be forwards. Three percent listed multiple
positions. The remaining 7% of participating athletes did not indicate a position.

Also participating in this study were the 10 head coaches of these teams. All
coaches were male. The coaches had a mean age of 32.78 years (SD = 8.56) and had an
average of 12.56 (SD = 5.50) years of coaching experience.

Dependent Measures

The coach and his athletes were asked to complete an initial questionnaire
containing demographic information (i.e., age, gender, coaching/playing experience)
(Appendix B). On game day, athletes were asked to complete three surveys. The ﬁrst
was a pre-game questionnaire that contained self-efﬁcacy and emotional mood state
measures designed by the author based on Hanin's (1997) suggested functional and
dysfunctional emotions (Appendix C). To assess athletes’ feelings of self-efﬁcacy,
athletes responded to three questions, each beginning with the following stem question,
“At this moment, how certain are you that you can...” to indicate their level of efﬁcacy in
playing well, playing to the best of their ability, and in contributing to the team's victory.

The efﬁcacy questions used an ll-point probability scale of 0 (not at all certain) to 100

37

(absolutely certain). In order to assess the athletes’ emotional states, the athletes were
asked the following stem question, "At this moment, do you feel..." followed by 10
emotions representing functional (i.e., charged, energetic) and dysfunctional (i.e.,
tranquil, tired) categories. Athletes were asked to indicate on a 10-point scale from 0 (not
at all) to 9 (extremely) the extent to which they felt that emotion. The order in which the
emotions were presented to the athlete were randomly sequenced so as to avoid any
potential effects of the sequence of presentation. In addition, the order in which athletes
responded to the efﬁcacy questions or emotion questions was also alternated; in other
words, approximately 50% of the athletes answered the efﬁcacy questions ﬁrst followed
by the emotion questions and approximately 50% of the athletes completed the emotion
questions ﬁrst and then completed the efﬁcacy questions. There was no order effect for
self-efﬁcacy for Time 1 nor for Time 2 of administration of the questionnaires.

The survey that athletes completed following the conclusion of the coach’s pre-
game speech was almost identical to the aforementioned efﬁcacy and emotional state
questionnaire, but began With two items that asked athletes to indicate the amount of
emotional and informational content within the coach’s speech on a scale of 0 (not at all)
to 9 (extremely) (Appendix D). The coach was also asked to indicate his perception of
the amount of emotional and informational content within his speech on the same scale
(Appendix D). The ﬁnal questionnaire given to the athletes was used to gather in-depth
information about the athletes’ perceptions of the speech. The post-game questionnaire
began by asking the athletes to report the victor of the competition and the ﬁnal score, as
well as to indicate if they and their team performed well. In addition, athletes were asked

to recall any words, phrases or ideas from their coaches speech and were also asked if

38

they liked the speech, if the speech impacted their performance, if the speech met their
emotional needs, if the speech met their psychological needs, what else they would have
liked their coach to have said and what could have made the speech more effective
(Appendix E).

Procedure

Permission to conduct this study was obtained from the institutional review board
for human subjects. With this approval, coaches were approached and asked not only for
their participation, but also for assistance in gaining permission from the athletes’
guardians, as they were minors. Consent to conduct this study was received from
athletes, athletes' parents/guardians, and the coach prior to completion of any surveys.
Informed consents are contained in Appendix F.

Each team was surveyed once during their season. Together, the researcher and
the coach selected the game in which the athletes and coach would be surveyed. The
selected game was chosen by the strength of the opponent (i.e., harder opponents were
chosen). This was done to increase the variability of players' efﬁcacy levels. It is likely
that players will have higher, and less variable, efﬁcacy beliefs against a less challenging
team than against a more challenging team.

Once a game was selected, the athletes completed a mock questionnaire at one of
their practices the week before the selected competition. They were given a similar
questionnaire to what they would be asked to complete on game day. This was done to
ensure that athletes would be familiar with both the vocabulary and the directions on the
survey. Thus, athletes would be able to complete the questionnaires in a timelier manner

and this would help to lessen the intrusiveness of the questionnaire. At this practice,

39

athletes were also assured that their answers would remain anonymous and conﬁdential
and were told that in order to do so, they would be using an identiﬁcation number. Their
identiﬁcation number would be their birthday (month-day-year) followed by their middle
initial. The researcher had no knowledge of the names of the participants as linked to
their birthdays. They were then asked to complete the demographic questionnaire
(Appendix B). The coach and athletes were also reminded of the procedure that would
occur at the selected soccer game.

At the selected game, the investigator was present at the soccer ﬁeld prior to the
athletes’ arrival. When the athletes arrived, and before they began to warm-up, athletes
completed the ﬁrst questionnaire. Following this, they were to go about their normal
routine of warming-up. While they did so, the investigator spoke with the game ofﬁcials
and with the opposing team’s coach to inform them that a study was being conducted and
requested that they please have patience if/when their opponent was delayed taking the
ﬁeld.

The second questionnaire was administered immediately after the coach gave' his
pre-game speech. When the coach asked the team to come in, the researcher was present
within the huddle and tape-recorded the speech (coaches’ pre-game speeches can be
found in Appendix G). Upon the conclusion of the speech, the coach and athletes were
given the post-speech questionnaire. They then took the ﬁeld to begin the start of the
game. At the conclusion of the game, athletes completed a ﬁnal questionnaire (the post-
game questionnaire). Following this, the athletes and coaches received a debrieﬁng form

detailing their role in this study.

40

Treatment of Data

The ﬁrst hypothesis, that athletes will show a greater increase in self-efﬁcacy
following a highly perceived emotional pre-game speech as opposed to a highly
perceived informational/strategic pre-game speech, was tested using a repeated measures
regression. Efficacy scores taken before the pre-game speech were compared to efﬁcacy
scores given after the speech and served as the within-subjects variable. The athletes’
perceptions of the emotional and informational content in the speech served as predictors
within the analysis.

Due to the small number of teams involved in this study (n = 10), the individual
was used as the unit of analysis. This was accomplished by standardizing all variables in
relation to the team mean. This allowed for individual comparisons while controlling for
the inﬂuence of the team (Black & Weiss, 1992; Horn, 1984).

For the second hypothesis, that athletes will show a greater change in emotion
following a highly perceived emotional speech as opposed to a highly perceived
informational/strategic pre-game speech, three repeated measures regressions were
conducted with each emotion serving as a within-subject variable and athlete perceptions
of the speeches again serving as predictors. However, an exploratory factor analysis
(EPA) of the 10 emotions was ﬁrst conducted to examine if the 10 emotions were distinct
from one another at both Time 1 and Time 2. A varimax rotation was used so that the
common factors would be uncorrelated. However, Factor 1 and Factor 3 were revealed to
be slightly correlated prior to the rotation. Decisions regarding factor retention were
based on Hanin’s (1997) IZOF theory, eigenvalues above the angled descent on the scree

plot, and factors that had eigenvalues > 1.0. Any item that indicated a loading of >.30 on

41

more than one factor was not included. With these guidelines in place, the EFA yielded
two factors for both Time 1 and Time 2, accounting for 46.14% and 43.38% of the
variance respectively (see Table 2). Scree plots can be found in Appendix H.

The ﬁrst factor included the emotions of charged, determination, and energetic.
The second factor included the emotions of unwilling, sluggish, tense, dissatisﬁed, and
tired. Correlations among the 10 original emotions at Time 1 and Time 2 can be found in
Table 3. Factor scores were calculated and used in subsequent regressions.

Participants were assured of the conﬁdentiality of their responses. All appropriate
procedures for the protection of human subjects were adhered to. An application for the
use of human subjects was approved by the University Committee on Research Involving
Human Subjects was approved by the University Committee on Research Involving
Human Subjects (Appendix F).

Several additional analyses were used to address the exploratory questions within
this study. In order to explore athletes’ perceptions of their coach’s pre-game speech,
descriptive analyses were used.

To begin exploring congruency among athletes’ and coaches’ perceptions, the
data were aggregated to the team level. However, prior to aggregation, consensus among
teams was ﬁrst shown. The analysis was conducted according to the recommendationof

James, Demaree, and Wolf (1993) of the r...g statistic as a measure of interrater agreement.
The rwg estimate is computed using the equation of r" = 1- (5,].2 / O'EUZ) where ssz is the

observed variance in the responses to item x within Team j, O'Euz is the expected variance,

and O'BUZ = (A2 — 1)/ 12 where A equals the number of categories on the scale, in this case

42

Table 2.

Rotated Pattern Matrix From Exploratory Factor Analysis at Time 1 and Time 2

 

 

 

Factor Loading

Factor Time 1 Time 2

1 2 1 2
1. Factor1
charged 0.897 -0.031 0.733 -0.123
determined 0.784 -0.005 0.620 -0.1 67
energetic 0.671 -0.316 0.762 -0.218
2. Factor 2
unwilling -0.227 0.348 -0.131 0.391
sluggish -0.242 0.563 -0.202 0.472
tense 0.157 0.495 0.006 0.551
dissatisified -0.025 0.559 -0.1 1 7 0.51 3
tired -0.177 0.686 -0.226 0.659
Eigenvalue (rotated solution) 2.045 1.592 1.628 1.569
Alpha coefficients .82 .65 .77 .64

43

 

 

aver... move.

 

 

3 :8- 2. 2.. 8.- 8.- 3..- .2- :S. in. E:
- :3.- 2. .2- 8. 8.- :3. .8- :8. :S. 08.55 .2
3 8. 8. 2. S. :3. :8. .2.- ..R- G:
- 2.. ..am. :3. 8. :3. .2. :- .2.- eeF a
3 8.- 8.- :2. 8. :8- 3. 8.- Am:
- 2.- 2.- :2. 8. 3.- S. 8. meomaam a
3 :2. 2. :mm. :3. a..- 2.- a:
- :8. 8. :Nm. :Nm. 8.- 3.- Began s
3 8. 2. :2. 2.. 3.- R:
- 8. :ﬁ. :. 8. 8. “case a
3 2. 8. 8.- 8.- at
- 2. 2. 8.- S.- .aeace .m
TV *3. a: .1 seem-1 AN:
- :2. :8- :mm- 535 a.
3 :2.- :.- 8:
- :8- 1? 95:35 .m
3 :9. a:
- :m. 8552.5 .N
3 at
- comic ._
2 a a a o m e m N _

 

N 08F 93 _ 25,—. 3 2288mm— eotonom coozzom maimeozﬁom
.m 033.

10 (James, Demaree, & Wolf, 1984). Consensus estimates should range from 0 to l; the
closer the rwg estimate is to one, the higher the consensus. Consensus among athlete
perceptions for emotional content ranged from .34 to .8, with a mean consensus of .58.
Consensus among athlete perceptions for informational content ranged from .43 to .87
with a mean of .71. The mean consensus for perceptions of both emotional and
informational content was within the guideline (range = .50 or greater) proposed by
Moritz and Watson (1998, p. 291). The data were then aggregated to the team level to
better examine the athletes’ congruency with that of their coach. The aggregated data
were correlated with coaches’ perceptions to begin to examine congruency. A paired
sample t test was also conducted to examine potential mean differences between team
and coach perceptions.

A regression analysis was used to explore whether athletes’ emotions predicted
their perceptions of the pre-game speeches’ content. This regression was conducted
using the reduced two emotional factor score estimates. Correlations were also

conducted among the two factors of emotion and feelings of efﬁcacy.

45

Chapter Four
Results
Tests of Hypotheses

Means and standard deviations for all measures are contained in Tables 11 and 12
in Appendix 1. Analyses were separated by the two primary dependent measures:
efﬁcacy beliefs and emotions. ’

Effect of Pre-Game Speech on Perceptions of Eﬁ'icacy

A repeated measures regression was performed on athletes’ perceptions of self-
efﬁcacy. Predictors were the athletes’ perceptions of emotional and informational
content within their coach’s pro-game speech. The predictors were not related to one
another, r = .16, p > .05. Of the participating 151 athletes, a sample size of n = 138 was
used due to missing or incomplete data.

Prior to creating a composite efﬁcacy score, alpha coefﬁcients were computed on
the three efﬁcacy items at both Time 1 (before the pre-game speech) and Time 2 (after
the pre-game speech). The alpha coefﬁcients were a = .86 and or = .91 respectively.
These coefﬁcients were above the minimum criterion of .70 (Nunnelly, 1978) and thus,
following the standardization of the items by the team mean, the items were summed and
divided by three to create an overall efﬁcacy score at both Time 1 and Time 2.
Perceptions of self-efﬁcacy did not vary signiﬁcantly from Time 1 to Time 2, F (l, 135) =
2.87, p = .09. Correlations among predictors and perceptions of self-efﬁcacy are shown
in Table 4. The predictor of perception of informational content was signiﬁcantly

associated with perceptions of self-efﬁcacy at both Time 1 and Time 2. After partialing

46

Table 4.

Relationships Between Predictors and Athlete Perceptions of Self-Efﬁcacy at Time 1 and

 

 

Time 2
1 2 3 4
1. APEC -
2. APIC .16 -
3. Self-efﬁcacy Time 1 .14 .18* -
4. Self-efﬁcacy Time 2 .14 .34** .75** -

 

APEC = athletes’ perception of emotional content
APIC = athletes’ perception of informational content

 

*p < .05
**p < .01

47

out perceptions of emotional content, athletes’ perceptions of informational content
signiﬁcantly related to changes in self-efﬁcacy, F (1, 135) = 6.60, p < .05, with a
moderate strength of relationship, 112 = .05 (Cohen, 1988), Perceptions of emotional
content were not signiﬁcantly related to changes in self-efﬁcacy, F (1, 135) = .60, p = .44.
This suggests that it is athletes’ perceptions of informational content that inﬂuence post-
speech efﬁcacy perceptions and not athletes’ perceptions of emotional content.
Therefore, the ﬁrst hypothesis that athletes will show a greater increase in self-efficacy
following a highly perceived emotional speech as opposed to a highly perceived
informational speech was not supported. A summary of regression results can be found
in Table 5.

Effect of Pre-Game Speech on Perceptions of Emotion

Correlations among predictors and the two emotion factors are shown in Table 6.
A repeated measures regression was performed on the two factors of athletes’ perceptions
of emotion. Of the 151 participating athletes, only 134 athlete responses were used in
this analysis as the remaining athletes had missing or incomplete emotion data.
Predictors were the athletes’ perceptions of emotional and informational content within
their coach’s pre-game speech.

The regression results indicated that perceptions of Factor 1 varied signiﬁcantly
from Time 1 to Time 2, F (1, 134) = 6.37, p < .05 with athlete perceptions informational
content being signiﬁcantly related to changes in Factor 1 emotions, F (1, 134) = 6.22, p <
.05. Perceptions of emotional content was not related to changes in Factor 1, F (1, 134) =
.35, p = .56. Perceptions of Factor 2 did not vary signiﬁcantly from Time 1 to Time 2,

F (1, 134) = .00, p = .96. Neither of the predictors was signiﬁcantly associated with

48

Table 5.

Summary of Repeated Measures Reggssion for Self-Efficacy

 

 

 

 

Source <11 38 Ms F 112
Within Subjects

Predictors

Perception of Emotion 1 0.04 0.04 0.60 0.00

Perception of Information 1 0.42 0.42 6.60“ 0.05
Pre/Post 1 0.18 0.18 2.87 0.02
Error 135 8.53 0.06
Total 138

Between Subjects

Perception of emotion 1 0.76 0.76 1.82 0.01
Perception of information 1 4.62 4.62 11.15“ 0.08
Error 135 55.98 55.98

"p < .05
“ p < .01

49

Table 6.

The Relationship Between Predictors and Emotion Factors at Time 1 and Time 2

 

 

APEC APIC 1 2
APEC -
APIC .16 -
Factor 1 .16 .19* -
(T2) .15 (.33)** (-)
Factor 2 .07 .03 -.05 -
(T2) .07 (-.11) (-. l3) (-)

 

*denotes signiﬁcance level of p < .05
** denotes signiﬁcance level of p < .01

50

 

perceptions of Factor 2 emotions nor were the predictors signiﬁcantly related to changes
in Factor 2 scores.

Given these results, the second hypothesis that athletes will show a greater change
in emotion following a highly perceived emotional speech as opposed to a highly
perceived informational/strategic pre-game speech, was not supported. A summary of
regression results can be found in Table 7.

Exploratory Research Questions
What Are Athletes’ Perceptions of Pre-Game Speeches ?

Athletes’ mean perception of the non-standardized emotional content of their
coach’s pre-game speech was 5.21 (SD = 1.91) and their mean perception of the
informational content was 6.57 (SD = 1.73) on a 10-point scale. Of the 151 participating
respondents, 130 athletes (86.1%) reported liking the coach’s speech while 10 (6.6%)
athletes reported not liking the speech; the remainder of the participating athletes (n = 11,
7.3%) did not complete this question. Over half of the responding athletes (n = 96, 64%)
indicated that they believed the speech impacted their performance while 48 (32%) '
reported that it did not. Seven athletes did not complete this question. When asked if the
pre-game speech met their emotional needs, again over half of the athletes (n = 100,
66%) responded in the afﬁrmative with 38 athletes (25%) stating that the speech did not
meet their needs. Thirteen athletes did not complete this question. The majority of the
athletes (n = 119, 79%) also believed that their coach’s speech met their psychological
needs while 24 (16%) responding athletes did not believe it to do so. Eight athletes did
not complete this question. A listing of athletes’ response frequencies according to team

can be found in Table 8.

51

Table 7.

Summary of Repeated Measures Regression for Emotion Factors

 

 

 

 

Source d1 SS Ms F 11
Within Subjects
Factor1 Predictors .
Perception of Emotion 1 0.45 0.45 0.35 0.00
Perception of Information 1 8.09 8.09 6.22" 0.05
Pre/Post Factor 1 1 8.28 8.28 6.37" 0.05
Error 131 170.35 1.30
Total 138
Factor 2 Predictors
Perception of Emotion 1 0.02 0.02 0.06 0.00
Perception of Information 1 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00
Pre/Post Factor 2 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Error 131 31 .68 0.24
Total 138
Between Subjects
Intercept 1 9.37 9.37 9.82“ 0.07
Perception of Emotion 1 3.44 3.44 3.61 0.03
Perception of Information 1 4.51 4.51 4.73‘ 0.04
Error 131 124.92 0.95

 

'p<.05
**p<.01

52

 

 

 

 

 

S3

$§ $3 $§ $8. 3.3 can 032 2
$2 $Q $8 $5 53 «mm 032 0
$8 $8 $8 $2: 33 ”2 on: a
$8 $R $8 $3 0: Sum 032 5
$3 $3 $§ $3 53 ”2 2e: 0
$8 $2. $3. $8 53 SUN ensue n
$8 $3 $8 $3. a? S: 0350“. a.
$8 $3 $:. $8. 53 NE 0380... m
$: $$ $2. $R 98.. «no 298". N
$3 $3. $§ $3 $3 an. 0.2.0..— _
300: 800: .

EEO—onubq 352080 00:00:80: £088 09850 :8on no 803 me 8009.
32$ .oe$ Baa§$ 085$ 250 593 3.8

8:803 08.5.05 .«o 823023 .0202?

.w 030E

Are Athletes’ Perceptions of the Pre-Game Speech Congruent With Their Coach’s
Perception?

Coaches’ mean perception of the emotional content of their pre-game speech was
4.82 (SD = 2.54) and their mean perception of the informational content was 5.93 (SD =
1.75). Aggregated athlete perceptions showed no signiﬁcant relationship with that of
their coaches for emotional content, r = .29, p = .42, nor for informational content, r =
.35, p = .32. A paired sample I test comparing coaches’ perceptions with the aggregated
athlete perceptions did not indicate a difference between coaches’ and athletes’
perceptions of the emotional content of the speech, t(9) = -0.42, p > .05, d = -0.2 (MC =
4.95, SD = 2.59; MA = 5.28, SD = .67), nor a difference for informational content, t(9) = -
1.12, p > .05, d = -0.5 (Mg = 6.00, SD = 1.70; MA = 6.57, SD = .72).

Do emotions inﬂuence athletes’ perceptions of the pre-game speech heard from their
coach?

Of the 10 listed emotions, athletes rated the feelings of determined, charged and
energetic as the most intense. The least intense emotions were dissatisﬁed, sluggish, and
unwilling. The intensity ratings of the listed emotions can be found in Table 9.

A multiple regression analysis was conducted using the two emotion factors at
Time 1 to predict athletes’ perceptions of emotional and informational content within the
pre-game speeches. Of the 151 participating athletes, only 140 athletes were used in this
analysis as 11 athletes had missing or incomplete emotion data. Results of the multiple
regression did not show an overall effect for perceptions of emotion, F (2, 137) = 2.22, p
= .11, R = .18, R2: .03 or for perceptions of information, F (2, 137) = 2.54, p = .08, R =

.19, R2: .04.

54

Table 9.

Athletes’ Perceptions of Intensity of Felt Emotion

 

 

 

55

Emotion Before Speech (Time 1) After Speech (Time 2)

M SD M SD d
Charged 6.60 1.80 7.31 1.31 .46
Determined 7.37 1.65 7.76 1.26 .27
Unwilling 2.19 2.18 1.72 1.97 -.23
Sluggish 2.94 2.20 2.17 1.91 -.37
Tranquil 5.05 2.43 4.45 2.35 -.25
Tense 3.54 2.40 4.13 2.54 .24
Dissatisﬁed 2.50 2.32 2.46 2.24 -.02
Easygoing 5.96 2.22 5.41 2.34 -.24
Tired 3.16 2.36 2.50 2.10 -.30
Energetic 6.50 1.77 7.23 1.27 .48

Which Self-Reported Emotions of Athletes Are Associated With Higher Feelings of
Efﬁcacy?

A pearson’s product correlation was conducted on the two emotion factors and
athletes’ feelings of self-efﬁcacy at both Time 1 and Time 2. Prior to the pre-game
speech (Time 1), both Factor 1, r = .44, p < .01, and Factor 2, r = -.20, p < .05 showed a
signiﬁcant relationship. After the pre-game speech (Time 2), again, Factor 1, r = .53, p <
.01, and Factor 2, r = -.30, p < .01 showed signiﬁcant relationships with the athletes’
feelings of efﬁcacy. All correlations can be found in Table 10.

Additional Exploratory Analyses
Do Male and Female Soccer Athletes’ Perceptions Diﬁ’er?

A multiple analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted on the data for male
and female athletes’ perceptions of self-efﬁcacy, perceptions of emotional and
informational content within the pre-game speech, and the two emotion factors. Due to
missing or incomplete data, 127 athletes (54 males, 73 females) were represented within
the analysis. The Wilks Lambda statistic showed an overall effect for gender, F (8, 118) =
2.41, p < .05.

Male and female athletes signiﬁcantly differed in their reported perceptions of
self-efﬁcacy at both Time 1, d = .43 (MM = 83.77, SD = 13.75; Mp: 77.49, SD = 15.33)
and Time 2, d = .48 (MM =87.47, SD = 11.67; Mp: 80.91, SD = 15.46). At both times,
male athletes reported higher perceptions of self-efﬁcacy. Male and female athletes also
signiﬁcantly differed in their perceptions of the informational content within the pre-
game speech with male athletes perceiving higher informational content, d = .58 (MM =

7.17, SD = 1.53; Mp: 6.19, SD = 1.82). There was no signiﬁcant difference between

56

Table 10.

The Relationship Between Athletes’ Emotions and Reported Self-Efﬁcacy

 

 

SE 1 2
Self-Efﬁcacy (SE) -
(T2) (-)
Factor 1 ,44** -
(T2) (-53)** (-)
Factor 2 -.20* -.05 -
(T2) (--30)** (-- 13) (-)

 

 

*denotes signiﬁcance level of p < .05
** denotes signiﬁcance level of p < .01

57

 

 

genders for perceptions of emotional content, d = .33 (MM =5.48, SD: 1.90; M; = 4.83,
SD = 2.01). Results also revealed a gender difference between emotion factor scores for
Factor 1 following the pre-game speech, d = .5 (MM: .24, SD = .74; M]: = -.19, SD = .97)
and for Factor 2 following the pre-game speech, d = -.35 (MM = -.21, SD = .81; M; = .06,
SD = .72). A summary of the MANOVA results can be found in Table 11.

A one-way analysis of variance revealed a signiﬁcant difference in the length of
time of the pre-game speech given to male and female teams with male teams receiving
longer pre-game speeches, F (l, 9) = 6.25, p < .05 (MM: 196.80, SD = 83.60; M; =

103.80, SD = .32.21; (1 = 1.95).

58

 

 

Table 11.

Summary of MANOVA Results by Gender

 

 

 

Dependent Variable df SS Ms ' F p

Efficacy Time 1 1 1222.91 1222.91 5.67 0.02
Error 125 26951.71 215.61

Efficacy Time 2 1 1334.06 1334.06 6.88 0.01
Error 125 24432.12 195.46

Perceptions of
Emotion 1 13.22 13.22 3.43 0.07
Error 125 481 .59 3.85

 

Perceptions of

Information 1 29.92 29.92 10.32 0.00

Error 125 362.25 2.9

Factor 1 Time 1 1 0.48 0.48 0.53 0.47
Error 125 1 12.78 0.9

Factor 1 Time 2 1 5.64 5.64 7.29 0.01
Error 125 96.68 0.77

Factor 2 Time 1 1 0.43 0.43 0.6 0.44
Error 125 91.1 1 0.73

Factor 2 Time 2 1 2.21 2.21 3.84 0.05
Error 125 72.1 1 0.58 '

 

59

Chapter Five
Discussion

The results of this study found that athletes’ perceptions of informational content
within a coach’s pre-game speech can impact athletes’ feelings of self-efﬁcacy as well as
athletes’ emotions. A major strength of this study was its ability to assess athletes’
perceptions and feelings at the time in which they were occurring.

Eﬁect of Pre-Game Speech on Self-Efﬁcacy

The hypothesis that athletes would show a greater increase in self-efﬁcacy
following a more highly perceived emotional pre-game speech as opposed to a highly
perceived informational/strategic pre-game was not supported. In fact, there was no
signiﬁcant difference between athletes’ perceptions of efﬁcacy from Time 1 to Time 2. It
is possible that a signiﬁcant difference was not found between Time 1 and Time 2 due to
the number of participants as this resulted in a power of .39.

However, it is also likely that this lack of signiﬁcance may be inﬂuenced by the
athletes’ membership within a premier soccer team. These teams are considered to be
among the best in the state and athletes must try-out, and are selected, before they are
able to join a team. Therefore, these athletes likely already had high perceptions of
efﬁcacy and thus, the variance between Time 1 and Time 2 was smaller than it might
have been within a less elite participant pool. Additionally, the teams involved within
this study had played together for an average of 2 years with the same coach, which
likely resulted in higher levels of cohesion. Group cohesiveness has been linked to
higher perceptions of efﬁcacy (Spink, 1990). Again, making it likely that this sample of

athletes likely had higher perceptions of efﬁcacy entering into the competition than they

60

 

would have had they played together for less time. While there was no signiﬁcant
difference in athletes’ efﬁcacy from Time 1 to Time 2, there was an overall increase in
efﬁcacy perceptions. Thus, it is perhaps important to comment on the practical
signiﬁcance of such a ﬁnding. To show even a small overall increase in efﬁcacy within
these athletes for just one game out of their entire season, and when their efﬁcacy beliefs
were likely already higher than average, is noteworthy. These results may begin to
underscore the importance of examining this technique amongst less elite teams as well
as teams that have not had as much opportunity to play together before their
competitions, such as Olympic and World Cup teams.

It is important however, to note that the change in athletes’ perceptions of efﬁcacy
from Time 1 to Time 2 was signiﬁcantly inﬂuenced by athletes’ perceptions of the
informational content within the pre-game speech. This is not surprising as athletes often
link their perceptions of ability with informational feedback received from their coaches
(Amorose & Weiss, 1998). Therefore, the perceived informational content of a coach’s
speech may be a salient source of efﬁcacy information on which athletes judge the
strength of their self-efﬁcacy. As well, previous research has also found that athletes
prefer coaches who provide more technical instruction than those who provide more
encouragement (Smith, Smoll & Curtis, 1978).

The perceived emotional content of the speech did not appear to be related to
athletes’ perceptions of efﬁcacy. This may have occurred for several reasons. To begin,
although athletes were given a practice survey the week prior to the competition, several
athletes still asked for deﬁnitions of emotions on the day of competition. The most

commonly asked for deﬁnitions were for the emotions of tranquil and sluggish. Some

61

athletes may have guessed or answered questions incorrectly when they did not know the
meaning of the word. Emotions may have been more inﬂuential if athletes had been
allowed to create their own list of meaningful emotions that were relevant to them as
suggested by Hanin (1997). This may also have been much more appropriate for the
younger athletes.

The lack of an emotional effect may also be due in large part to the actual content
of the pre-game speech. Athletes and coaches both considered there to be more
informational content than emotional content within the speech. More research is needed
to examine the effects of speeches with greater portions of emotional content as previous
studies have found emotion to positively inﬂuence self-efﬁcacy (Kavanagh & Bower,
1985; Samsom & Rachman, 1989).

Eﬁect of Pre-Game Speech on Athletes ’ Emotions

The second hypothesis that athletes will show a greater change in emotion
following a more highly perceived emotional pre-game speech as opposed to a highly
perceived informational/strategic pre-game speech was not supported. However, results
showed that the functional emotions contained in Factor 1 (charged, determined and
energetic) increased from Time 1 to Time 2. These three emotions are considered to be
among the top three optimal emotions for soccer (Hanin, 2000). The dysfunctional
emotions contained in Factor 2 did not show a change from Time 1 to Time 2. This seems
to suggest that not only may the functional emotions in Factor 1 be the most critical
emotions for optimal performance in soccer, but that these emotions may also be the most
susceptible to a coach’s inﬂuence, particularly in the pre-game speech. Further research

should continue to examine optimal emotions, as well as their susceptibility to a coach’s

62

speech, within other sports. Cerin, Szabo, Hunt and Williams (2000) suggest that
different sports may require different levels and patterns of pre-competitive emotions.

Results also indicated that athletes’ perceptions of informational content were
related to variations in Factor 1 emotions from Time 1 to Time 2. Deci (1980) suggested,
“emotion is a reaction to a stimulus event. . .and can energize subsequent behaviors
(p.85).” Through the use of information and strategy within a pre-game speech, the
coach may be offering a stimulus event in the form of an action plan, which causes the
athletes to react with emotion. The felt emotions would then energize subsequent
competitive behaviors and may further increase feelings of determination and energy
because their goal appeared to be achievable. Burton and N aylor (1997) suggest that
positive expectancies will lead to positive emotions, such as excitement, which can then
assist performance.

It is also possible that athletes showed this increase in functional emotions as a
result of an increase in efﬁcacy (though the self—efﬁcacy changes were not statistically
signiﬁcant). In other words, athletes perceiving higher levels of informational content
may have also perceived cues regarding their ability (Amorose & Weiss, 1998), which
then increased their feelings of efficacy. Lazarus (1991) believed that conﬁdence can
generate emotion and is, in fact, often linked with emotion. This would appear to be .
consistent with social cognitive theory, which suggests that the relationship between
efﬁcacy and emotion may be reciprocal (Bandura, 1986). With a reciprocal relationship,
coaches may be able to increase optimal emotions in athletes by increasing feelings of

efﬁcaciousness through informational feedback, or, by increasing optimal emotions in

63

 

athletes, coaches may be able to increase feelings of efﬁcacy. This may offer coaches
two different techniques to achieve the same goal.

Athletes’ perceptions of emotional content withinthe speech did not inﬂuence
any of the emotion factors. This again may be due to the overall perception that there
was more informational content within the speech as opposed to emotional content. It is
also possible that due to the experience and elite status of these athletes, many were
already capable of manipulating their emotions to the desired level for optimal
performance and thus their needs were best met through instructions and information as
opposed to additional emotion.

What are Athletes ’ Perceptions of Pre-Game Speeches .7

Athletes generally perceived their coaches’ speeches in a positive manner, with
the majority of athletes noting that overall, they liked their coaches’ speech and that they
felt the speech met their psychological needs. However, it is difﬁcult to know if the
athletes’ perceptions of the speech were based solely on the pre-game speech, or if there
were additional variables that might have been impacting their perceptions. Athletes
commented on these perceptions at the end of the competition and it is possible that the
outcome of the game and/or their performance left them feeling more positively about
their coach and his speech. This would be consistent with Niedenthal and Setterlund’s
(1994) view that stimuli is often perceived in line with their emotion. It is also possible
that the perceptions of the speech are indicative of the athletes’ overall perceptions of the
coach. Athletes who feel more compatibility with their coach are more likely to evaluate

him or her in a positive manner (Kenow & Williams, 1999).

There did, however, appear to be less agreement among athletes on whether or not
the coaches’ speeches impacted their performance and whether the speeches met the
athletes’ emotional needs. These individual differences may be due to differences in
playing experience at the elite level, as some of these athletes probably believed that they
were prepared for performance regardless of the coach’s speech. Conversely, several of
the athletes may have believed that their emotional needs were not met due to too much
informational content or even because their position was not included within the
information given by the coach, and thus, they found that the speech was not helpful to
their performance. However, while there was less agreement, it is important to note that
more than 50% of the athletes believed the coaches’ speeches to have met their needs.
This is highly important information for coaches as it implies that the majority of athletes
ﬁnd the pre-game speech to be beneﬁcial prior to competition.

In examining the athletes’ perceptions, it is interesting to note the perceptions of
Team 4 (see Table 8). Out of the 10 teams surveyed, this female team reported the
lowest positive perceptions for liking the coach’s speech (44%), the speech meeting their
emotional needs (31%), and the speech meeting their psychological needs (50%). Team
4 had the second lowest positive perceptions of the speech impacting their performance
(50%). Upon the examination of the coach’s speech (Appendix G) and the recollection
of the characteristics of this team, it is not surprising to note these low perceptions and it
perhaps serves as a reminder to all coaches of the importance of the content within the
pre-game speech. Team 4 was among the older female participants and their age would
suggest that they were more susceptible to deriving ability cues from informative

feedback than the younger teams surveyed (Amorose & Weiss, 1998; Black & Weiss,

65

1992). The coach’s pre-game speech began by noting that the team had been lacking
intensity, a criticism that would likely negatively impact the athletes (Black & Weiss,
1992). Additionally, the speech failed to offer the athletes any real strategy or offer a
plan for goal attainment; rather, the speech informed the team that they would need to
ﬁgure the plan out on their own within the ﬁrst few minutes of the game. This speech’s
lack of instructional cues and overall focus on improving what the team had previously
been lacking likely lessened the effectiveness of the speech for the team. Future research
should consider in-depth interviews with athletes to help explain the causes for their
perceptions.

Are Athletes’ Perceptions of Pre-Game Speeches Congruent with their Coaches’
Perceptions?

In examining athletes’ perceptions in comparison to their coaches, athletes’ and
coaches’ perceptions of emotional and informational content were not related. Further
examination revealed that there was no signiﬁcant difference in the mean perceptions of
content between coaches and their teams. However, while this result was not signiﬁCant
(likely due to the small sample size, n = 10), it did show a medium effect, which begins
to suggest that coaches’ and athletes’ perceptions may differ. This would be expected as
previous research has suggested that the perceptions of athletes and coaches are often
incongruent (Vargas-Tonsing et al., in press). On the other hand, a lack of clear
differences may be the result of the athletes having played with the coach for more than
one season. Teams reported an average of over two years of playing under their coach.
This may have created better cohesion and communication among them. The lack of

signiﬁcance may also be due to the coach and teams sharing similar emotional states.

66

Future research should measure not only the athletes’ perceived emotions prior to
competition, but also the perceived emotions of the coach, as the coach’s emotional state
may impact not only his/her choice of content within the pre-game speech, but the
congruency between him/her and the team.

Which Self-Reported Emotions of Athletes are Associated With Higher Feelings of Self-
Eﬁ‘icacy?

Analyses revealed that the positive functional emotions of determined, charged
and energetic loaded onto the same emotion factor (Factor 1). The emotions of unwilling,
sluggish, tense, dissatisﬁed and tired loaded onto Factor 2. While the loadings on Factor
1 are not surprising, the loadings on Factor 2 were not expected. The emotions of tense
and dissatisﬁed are negative functional emotions whereas the emotions of unwilling,
sluggish and tired are considered negative dysfunctional emotions (Hanin, 1997). This
seems to suggest that athletes may be viewing these ﬁve emotions all as negative
dysfunctional emotions.

Factor 1 showed a high positive correlation with self-efﬁcacy. Prior to the pre-
game speech, Factorl showed a positive relationship with self-efﬁcacy and Factor 2
showed a negative relationship with self-efﬁcacy. Following the conclusion of the pre-
game speech, Factor 1 and Factor 2 continued to show these same relationships. The
higher an athlete’s efﬁcacy, the lower the athlete’s emotional intensity on Factor 2. This
negative relationship between self-efﬁcacy and Factor 2 seems to support the inference
that athletes viewed all the emotions in Factor 2 as dysfunctional for performance.
However, this is only conjecture, as athletes were not asked to indicate how facilitative

they found each of the emotions to their performance.

67

The athletes indicated that on the day of competition, both before and after the
coaches’ pre-game speeches, the most intense emotions felt were determined, charged,
and energetic, respectively. This is consistent with Hanin’s (2000) ﬁndings that soccer
players reported these emotions as the top three positive functional emotions in soccer.
However, Hanin also suggests that easygoing and tranquil are among the top positive
dysfunctional emotions in soccer. The present participants reported feeling high levels of
both easygoing and tranquil (they were the next most intense emotions following
determined, charged and energetic). It is possible that the present athletes viewed both of
the terms positively, and therefore believed that they should feel relaxed prior to a game.
However, the fact that these felt emotions did decrease following the pre-game speech,
might imply that these emotions are far less inﬂuential than the positive functional
emotions of determined, charged, and energetic. While the perceived intensity of
emotions prior to the speech did not correspond with previous research, the trends of
increasing intensity of positive and negative functional emotions and decreasing intensity
of positive and negative dysfunctional emotions did seem to correspond to the predicted
pattern.

Do Emotions Inﬂuence Athletes’ Perceptions of the Pre-Game Speech Heard From Their
Coach ?

According to multiple regression analyses, athletes’ reported emotions did not
predict their perceptions of emotional and informational content within their coach’s
speech. This is surprising as one’s emotional state is thought to inﬂuence the
interpretation of situations (Bower, 1981), convey information regarding the perceived

importance of an event (Fridja, 1986; Green & Sedikides, 1999), and lead to the

68

perception of similar emotional stimuli (Niedenthal & Setterlund, 1994). It is possible
that athletes’ perceptions were inﬂuenced by some other variable such as compatibility
with the coach or even the athletes’ perceived efﬁcacy. Future research should explore
these potential predictors.

Do Male and Female Soccer Teams’ Perceptions Diﬁ‘er?

Male and female athletes differed in their perceptions of self-efﬁcacy. Male
athletes reported higher feelings of self—efﬁcacy at both Time 1 and Time 2. This is
consistent with the research ﬁndings that male athletes report higher feelings of
conﬁdence and self-efﬁcacy when compared to female athletes (Krane & Williams, 1994;
Vargas-Tonsing & Bartholomew, 2004). Additionally, research has found that prior to
competition female athletes report gradual increases in somatic anxiety and decreases in
self-conﬁdence while male athletes show no changes in self-conﬁdence or anxiety (Jones
& Cale, 1989). However, research has also suggested that male participants in sport tasks
may overestimate their efﬁcacy scores in relation to their performance (Feltz, 1988).
Future research should continue to explore performance differences, if any, between male
and female athletes in relation to their reported efﬁcacy beliefs. ,

Male and female athletes also differed on their perceptions of informational
content within the speech. This difference may have occurred for several reasons. Male
athletes may prefer informational content within a speech, and thus are more prepared to
listen for, and hear, informational content, whereas previous research has suggested that
females have a desire for more emotionally sensitive interactions with their coach
(Vikander, Solbakken, & Vikander, 1998). It is interesting to look at the general trend

among male and female responses regarding whether their coach met their emotional

69

needs. Female athletes appear to disagree with the statement more than their male
counterparts indicating that their coach did not meet their emotional needs. It is possible
that while male athletes beneﬁt from informational pre-game speeches, female athletes
may need more emotional content. It is important to recall that the coaches participating
in this study were all male coaches. Female coaches have been found to engage more
often in general encouragement than male coaches (Millard, 1996). It is likely that female
coaches and female athletes may share a more emotional relationship as opposed to
female athletes of male coaches. It would be interesting for future research to compare
female athletes’ perceptions pf pre-game speeches according to coach gender.

It is also very possible that the content of the speeches differed. The male
coaches may have altered the content of the speech based on the gender of the team. As
well, analyses revealed that the length of the pre-game speech differed for male and
female teams making it likely that the male teams perceived more informational content
because there was more content. The speeches of coaches of female athletes may not
have met their athletes’ needs because there was not enough speech to meet their
emotional needs. However, future research should independently examine the content of
pre-game speeches to check for perceptual or actual differences.

Gender differences also existed between reported emotions on Factor 1 at Time 2.
Male athletes reported higher levels of Factor 1 emotions than did females. It is
important to remember that these emotions are considered to be optimal functional
emotions for soccer (Hanin, 2000) and females may be at a disadvantage in competition
if these emotions are not at high levels. This may be a result of the female athletes

reporting that the speech did not meet their emotional needs. Male and female athletes

70

 

also differed on Factor 2 at Time 2. Factor 2 emotions seemed to include what athletes
considered to be dysfunctional emotions. Thus, female athletes reported higher feelings
of these dysfunctional emotions immediately following the pre-game speech and
immediately prior to the competition. This may be a result of increased anxiety and
decreased efﬁcacy, as both have been found to occur more to women than to men in
athletics (Jones & Cale, 1989). Yet, again, this may also be a result of male athletes
inﬂating their beliefs. Regardless, it appears that female athletes are reporting lower
intensity levels of functional emotions and higher levels of dysfunctional emotions prior
to competition than their male counterparts. Future research should explore if the lower
intensity levels are in fact, detrimental, and if so, what can be done to intervene.
Conclusion

While this study has offered several valuable insights into athletes’ perceptions
regarding their coaches’ pre-game speeches, it is important to note that this study was not
without its limitations. However, these limitations should not undermine the value of
these results. To begin, the individual athletes did not hear the speech, nor react,
independently of one another, and thus, athletes within teams should have been
considered in the analysis (Silverman, 2004). However, the small sample number of
teams participating in the study prevented the use of hierarchical linear modeling analysis

and thus, it was not possible to analyze the natural nesting of the data. Additionally, as

 

this was a ﬁeld study, it was impossible to hold all outside variables constant for each
game. For example, captains may have been called away by the game ofﬁcials during the
coach’s pre-game speech, or inclement weather would disrupt athletes’ attempts to

complete questionnaires. Additionally, the nature of this study was intrusive and coaches

71

may have altered their routines and speeches to help ease the extent of the intrusiveness.
As well, coaches may have also spent more time preparing for the pre-game speech as
they knew it would be observed. While this does not necessarily impact the results of
this study, the possibility remains that athletes may have been inﬂuenced by subtle
changes in the coaches’ tone or choice of content. Future research should consider
following coaches across multiple games to account for any such change. A case study
design would allow the researcher to garner a better idea of the decision making process
the coach utilizes when deciding to implement a highly emotional speech. For instance,
coaches may choose to use such a speech when placed in a championship game. This
study was not able to fully examine emotional content, as coaches would likely save such
a speech for the biggest game of the season; to use emotion weekly would only
undermine its impact.

In the future, it would also be important to examine the content of coaches’
speeches by an independent observer to obtain the actual amount of emotional and
informational content. In addition, where in the speech (beginning, middle, end) the
emotional content is placed may be more important than how much of it the speech
contains. The impact of pre-garne speeches on the construct of not only self-efﬁcacy, but
also team-efﬁcacy, should be further explored.

It is important to note that the pre-game speech may act through various
mechanisms on the athletes’ performance, of which efﬁcacy beliefs and emotions are but
two aspects. Pre-game speeches may also inﬂuence performance by impacting other
motivational processes such as goal attainment. By offering information on goal

progress, the coach helps sustain motivation in athletes, thus promoting performance

72

 

(Schunk, 1995). Pre-game speeches may also encourage a sense of shared purpose
amongst the team which helps to promote team unity and cohesion; cohesion can help
lead to a successful performance (Carron & Chelladurai, 1981; Shangi & Carron, 1987).
It is also possible that pre-game speeches may help focus athletes on more
task/performance oriented behavior, which can promote higher effort (Burton, 1989;
Duda, 1988), including when faced with difﬁcult goals (Dweck, 1975). Future research
should begin to incorporate and examine the role of these various constructs as impacted
by the coach’s pre-game speech.

As researchers continue to gain knowledge and understanding of a coach’s
inﬂuence through his/her pre-game speeches, it will become important to begin to
explore the impact of halftime speeches. Both pre-game and halftime speeches should be
explored under varying conditions, such as athletes and teams representing the
underdog/favorite and being behind/ahead at halftime. Additionally, future research
should begin to explore the robustness of pre-game speeches. While it is not expected
that the effect of a pre-game speech would last through an entire competition, it would be
hoped that the pre-game speech would last long enough to create a positive cycle for the
team. In other words, coaches use the pre-game speech to assist athletes in having a
strong opening sequence within their competition. This would hopefully then create a.
positive cycle in which the strong performance would increase positive feelings of
expectancy and efﬁcacy, which would then continue to positively impact performance.
However, it is unknown if the pre-game speech actually has a long enough effect to
provoke such a positive cycle, or if the speech’s effect can prevent a breakdown when

athletes struggle in the opening moments of a competition.

73

 

In summary, the results of this study indicate a coach’s potential to increase
athletes’ feelings ’of self-efﬁcacy and emotion prior to competition through the effective
use of a pre-game speech. While further research is necessary to fully address the
questions and limitations of this study, the present research should be considered a

starting point for such inquiry.

74

APPENDIX A

Pilot Pre-Game Speeches

75

Pilot Pre-Game Speeches
Speech A (1 minute, 35 seconds)
I want to really focus on the intensity and the amount of focus that you guys have had
over the last two weeks at practice. Ever since we kind-of got handled by the boys, you
guys have just refocused yourselves, the intensity in practice with the switching drill, and
the crossing drill, ﬁnishing those-excellent. Wherever our heads were there, that’s where
we need to be right now. That's the kind of intensity we come into this game with, that’s
the kind of focus that we had. First ten minutes I want you guys really concentrating on
your touch. Keeping things nice and simple. Keep things clean by concentrating on that
ﬁrst touch, giving yourselves more time on the ball, a chance to ﬁnd somebody. We are
playing wide. Getting the ball out to our wings. Letting them get the ball down. Letting
them be dangerous. We do that, it opens up stuff through the middle. Get the ball out to
the wings. Let's get dangerous that way. You guys are great in the air, you’re great at
ﬁnishing crosses, we saw that Tuesday. Let's do it in the game. Let's get that ball out
here. Let's get it put in front of the box off of a cross, and go to the ball. Have the '
attitude that you are going to find the ball. You are going to win it.
It is not going to be put on your head. You're going to get there, and you are going to
bury it.
Speech B: (3 minutes, 15 seconds)
What I want to focus on today. . .is what we have been focusing on forever. But lets start
the season out getting that stuff done early. Let's make it a habit. I want to focus on wide
play. Limited touches. As we come out of our back, get the ball out wide, limit our

touches, go back in, we'll get the switch. Ok, we'll be playing to our forwards, get a

76

switch that way. Limit your touches coming from the back, coming through that mid-
ﬁeld third. And lets use our outside mids as much as possible. As we attack the goal, I
really want to focus on playing the ball well, near post run, getting the middle of the goal
and getting the back post. All right? Part of that comes from whoever is crossing the
ball. If we are just going to throw balls in without looking, we are not going to have a
chance to frame the goal. All right? If we've got it early, got the goal framed early, let's
go ahead and do it. Get the cross in. If we need to let it develop, take that girl into the
comer, whether it’s a one-two, or a dribble, and send the ball across. That's up to
whoever has the ball out wide. All right-you girls know how much I love that early
cross. So let's really work on getting forward and allowing us to use the early cross or the
early switch. All right? Lastly, our comer kicks-let's mix them up. Let's go one and two.
All right? One man, two man, we don't have to call out a play. We got two people there,
go ahead and keep two people on the ball. If you see two people on the ball, you people
on the goal need to hold your runs a bit. All right? If we've got one, it's a direct service
all right? Mix that up as well. Go near post, far post. All right? Think about clearance
based off a service; we know G* is very good in the air. Let's ﬂood a bunch of people to
a near post ball, send that ﬁrst comer towards the near post. Second one, ﬂood the near
post, and let's drop the ball in on the back. All right? With the people there to help out.
Ok? This is where it starts. We got a tough state cup group. We have to take care
of every game as we go through-one at a time. All right? This is the ﬁrst one. Let's get
this done, over with, playing smart. We can move on from there in practice. All right?
Captains, what do we got? [we've got the wind]. Wind ﬁrst half? All right, let's use it;

lets get the ball in play. , All right. [starting lineup called out].

77

Speech C (2 minutes, 43 seconds)

We've been talking all week in practice, about a little bit better effort, working a little bit
harder. All season we have been talking about how we are going to move the ball, pass
the ball more effectively, by switching ﬁelds a lot. All right, what I really want you guys
to focus on today is using the wide parts of the ﬁeld, getting the ball out by the
touchlines, or the sidelines, all right, and using the speed that I am putting out there in our
formation. In our half, when we are defending this goal, I want you guys making sure we
pass the ball forward out of the back. Ok, whether its out wide and forward or its up to
one of our midﬁelds or center forward. I want us passing out of the back, passing to our
midﬁeld. As we attack their goal, we can start to dribble a little bit more but I really want
you to get the ball to the farthest person up the ﬁeld. So don't be dribbling somebody
when you've got another girl you could have passed to up the ﬁeld. Make sure you pass
to that girl. If you are one on one, and you can beat her and get a shot off, that’s when we
can look to dribble. So that means, closer to their goal, their ﬁnal third, where we start to
attack the goal, our attacking third. Really concentrate on your passes. See yourself
passing perfectly technique wise. Our toe is up, heel is down; our passes are all going to
be perfect. Were aiming right for that spot we want to hit the girl. Whether it’s into .
space for her to run onto, if she's moving, if she's standing, play it right to her foot. You
guys do a very nice job of switching ﬁelds when you concentrate on it. So lets go into
the game thinking about that. We're going to switch ﬁelds a lot. We're going to use the
wide parts of the ﬁeld all game long. And we are going to come out of this game, one

and 0, first win, on our way to a tournament championship. Can we do that?

78

Remember, I won't get mad if there ”is 100% effort on the ﬁeld all game long. I'm only
going to get mad if we don't do our best, or don't work as hard as possible. CA on three.
Speech D (2 minutes, 5 seconds)

This team is going to play much like the team yesterday. They are going to look to work
it through the back. Make sure we don't give too much pressure to that center back. If
we devote everybody to pressuring her and making her play the ball, allowing her to go
wide, that’s what going to allow them to release those two outside players. Let her go
wide, and then we lock that girl in. Just like yesterday. We play this game just like we
did yesterday, we come out of here with a win. We come out of here with a win. We
are in the driver's seat. The only thing I want to see a little bit different today is more
wide balls, getting our outside mids in. We started off with a goal, going from one
outside mid to the other. I think our second goal two came off of playing the ball into the
corner. Maybe it wasn't to one of our wide players, but the ball went wide. Let's look to
use these corners. That’s where the space is going to be. Use it. Now, if they are
playing with a ﬂatback four, which I think they do from last year, lets attack the ﬂatback
four appropriately. We run across the face of that defense and we look to slide our
players in. Make sure we are bringing a forward, or both forwards across, to the ball side
when it gets out wide so we can slant one of you guys down line. But lets not get caught
offsides with a trap or by running in behind a ﬂat defense. Run across the face of it.
Really look to use our width and let them get the ball in deep. Simple as that. Keep the
focus that we had yesterday. Let's step up the intensity a little bit. We are going to start
the same way we started yesterday.

Speech E (1 minute, 1 second)

79

This time you guys know what we have to do. Same style of play. Same focus we have
had all along. It is going to get us there. We need a win. We need a win. Let's go out
there exactly the same way. Let's keep using our width. Make sure we keep our shape in
the middle. That's the key to our game is keeping those three in the middle-keeping good
shape. Rotating around to whoever's got to go pressure the ball, the other two are there
covering for them. Keep using the width though, keep using Allison when she's out
there, Laura, Lauren, if she comes out there, let them get in. This ﬁeld is going to be
crappy. Make sure we are focusing on perfection with our passes. If they are going with
the ﬂatback four, if they are trying to knock it through the back, we know how to handle
it. Let's lock them in out wide. Let's bring some pressure, bring some support, and then
get that ball loose.

Speech F (47 seconds)

It is going to be a battle today. It is going to be hard. You have to work for each
other. They are a good team, but I guarantee they have not been through as much as
we have...up to our state cup disappointment where we did not get the breaks that I
think we deserved. We've been through a lot and it's helped us grow as a team.
You guys have to do everything in your power to play for each other. Say stuff to
each other. If you get mad at each other, get through it. Pick each other up. Work hard
for each other and you guys will be great. 90 minutes. We drove all the way out here.
We need a win and I know you guys can do it. Be smart about it. Don't get rattled. 90
rninutes-just work. Battle-your individual battles are going to be the key. Good luck
out there ladies-enjoy this.

Speech G (1 minute, 42 seconds)

80

Let's get out there and get after this. I told you guys Sunday that what happened to
us in State cup is our fuel for the rest of the season. Go out there and punish every
single team we face. Send a message back to the state that they keep getting these
game scores back. 7-0 on TKO. What message are we going to send with this game?
I will not change things tactically. I will not go and say "oh we're up by 5 goals, lets put,
uh, B* and 1*, you guys go play forward for us, we'll play without a goalie." -That kind
of crap. No. We are going to go after teams. We are going to punish teams. You put
up 10, you put up 20, I don't care. You are going to punish them. That's the mentality
we are going to go into these games with. Send the state a message when I call in the
game scores. Let's send them a message. Play with a chip on your shoulder. Play a
little bit nasty. Stay with the focus that we had all last week leading into the weekend
and that we had all weekend. And we will achieve that goal that I want, going

undefeated for the rest of the league season.

81

APPENDIX B

Demographic Questionnaires

82

Coach Demographic Questionnaire

The following section asks you general background or demographic information.

 

 

1. How many years have you coached this team? years

2. How many years have you coached soccer? years

3. What is your age?

4. What is your gender identity? Male Female
(circle one)

5. What is the gender of your team? Male Female

(circle one)

83

Athlete Demographic Questionnaire

1. What is your chronological age? ___years

2. How long have you played with this team? ____years

3. How long have you played under this coach? years
4. How long have you played soccer? years

5. What position do you primarily play? (circle one)
goalkeeper defense midﬁeld forward

84

APPENDIX C

Athletes’ Pre-Game Questionnaire

85

ID Number

 

Please answer the following questions according to how you feel at this moment.
1. At this moment, how certain are you that you can play well against this team?
Circle the number that best indicates your degree of certainty
not at all certain absolutely certain

0 10 20 30---' ----- -40 50 6O 70 --------- 80 90 100

 

 

 

 

2. At this moment, how certain are you that you can play to the best of your ability?

Circle the number that best indicates your degree of certainty
not at all certain absolutely certain
0 10 20 30 -------- -40 50 60 70 80 90 100

 

 

 

3. At this moment, how certain are you that you can positively contribute to the team's victory?
Circle the number that best indicates your degree of certainty

 

 

 

not at all certain absolutely certain
O 10 20 30 -------- -40 50 60 7O 80 90 100
At this moment, do you feel—

3. charged?

No, not at all charged Yes, extremely charged

0 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

4. determined?

No, not at all determined Yes, extremely determined
0 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

5. unwilling?

No, not at all unwilling Yes, extremely unwilling
0 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

6. sluggish?

No, not at all sluggish Yes, extremely sluggish

0 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

7. tranquil?

No, not at all tranquil Yes, extremely tranquil

O l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

8. tense?

No, not at all tense Yes, extremely tense

0 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

9. dissatisfied?

No, not at all dissatisﬁed Yes, extremely dissatisﬁed
0 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10. easygoing?

No, not at all easygoing Yes, extremely easygoing
0 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

ll. tired?

No, not at all tired Yes, extremely tired

O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

86

 

 

12. energetic?
No, not at all energetic Yes, extremely energetic
0 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

 

 

87

APPENDIX D

Post Speech Questionnaires

88

w

 

ID Number

Please circle the number that best describes your coach 's pre-game speech.

1. How emotional was your coach's pre-game speech?

Not at all emotional Extremely emotional

0 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

2. How informative/strategic was your coach’s pre-game speech?

Not at all informative/strategic Extremely infonnative/strategic
O l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Please answer the following questions according to how you feel at this moment.

3. At this moment, how certain are you that you can play well against this team?
Circle the number that best indicates your degree of certainty

not at all certain absolutely certain
0 10 20 30- ------- -40 50 60 70 --------- 80 90 100

 

 

 

4. At this moment, how certain are you that you can play to the best of your ability?
Circle the number that best indicates your degree of certainty

not at all certain absolutely certain
O 10 20 3O -------- -40 50 6O 70 --------- 80 90 100

 

 

 

5. At this moment, how certain are you that you can positively contribute to the team's victory?
Circle the number that best indicates your degree of certainty

 

 

 

not at all certain absolutely certain
0 10 20 30. ------- -40 50 60 70 --------- 8O 90 100
At this moment, do you feel—

3. charged?

No, not at all charged Yes, extremely charged

0 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

4. determined?

No, not at all determined Yes, extremely determined
0 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

5. unwilling?

No, not at all unwilling Yes, extremely unwilling
0 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9

6. sluggkh?

No, not at all sluggish Yes, extremely sluggish

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

7. tranquil?

No, not at all tranquil Yes, extremely tranquil

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

8. tense?

No, not at all tense Yes, extremely tense

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

9. dissatisfied?

No, not at all dissatisﬁed Yes, extremely dissatisﬁed
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

89

 

 

10. easygoing?

No, not at all easygoing Yes, extremely easygoing
0 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

11. tired?

No, not at all tired Yes, extremely tired

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

12. energetic?

No, not at all energetic Yes, extremely energetic
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

 

 

90

Coaches' Post- Speech Questionnaire

Please circle the number that best describes your coach '5 pre-game speech.

1. How emotional was your pre-game speech?

Not at all emotional Extremely emotional

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

2. How informative/strategic was your pre-game speech?

Not at all informative/strategic Extremely infonnative/strategic
0 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

91

 

 

APPENDIX E

Athletes’ Post-Game Questionnaire

 

 

92

4.

5.

ID Number

. Did you win? YES NO

. What was the ﬁnal score?

 

 

 

. Did you perform well in today's game? YES NO
Did your team perform well in today's game? YES NO
What speciﬁc words, phrases or ideas do you remember from your coach's speech

immediately prior to the game?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6. Did you like the speech your coach game immediately prior to the game?

YES NO

 

7.

Why or why not?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8. Did the speech your coach gave immediately prior to the game, impact your
performance?

YES NO

 

9.

If so, how?

 

 

 

10. Did the speech your coach gave immediately prior to the game meet your emotional
needs (i.e. was calming or arousing)? YES NO

93

 

11. Why or why not?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

12. Did the speech your coach gave immediately prior to the game meet your
psychological needs (i.e. helped you focus, feel more conﬁdent, etc.)?
YES NO

 

13. Why or why not?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

14. What else would you have liked to hear from your coach in the speech immediately
prior to the game?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

15. What would have made the speech your coach gave immediately prior to the game
more effective?

 

 

 

 

 

 

94

APPENDIX F

Institutional Review Board Approval and Informed Consent

95

 

orncror
RESEARCH
miles AND
STANDARDS

University Cor-mines on
m Involving
item Subjects

Michigan Stat University

202 Old: l-isl

East mm M

48824

517/355-21ﬂ

FAX: Sim-4503

res www.mmcrilu
E-Mail: mm.“

1.101ka

MICHIGAN STATE
0 N I v.1»: R s I r Y

October 1, 2003

TO: Deborah L. FELTZ
130 IM Sports Circle
Dept. of Kinesiology
MSU

RE: IRB# 03-707 CATEGORY: EXPEDITED 2-6. 2-7

APPROVAL DATE: September 30, 2003
EXPIRATION DATE:Auaust 30, 2004

TITLE: AN EXAMINATION OF PRE-GAME SPEECHES AND THEIR
EFFECTIVENESS IN INCREASING ATHLETE'S LEVELS OF
SELF-EFFICACY

The University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects' (UCRIHS) review of this
project Is complete and I am pleased to advise that the rights and welfare of the human
subjects appear to be adequately protected and methods to obtain Informed consent are
appropriate. Therefore. the UCRlI-is approved this project.

RENEWALS: UCRIHS approval Is valid until the expiration date listed above. Projects
continuing beyond this date must be renewed with the renewal form. A maximum of four such
expedited renewals are possible. Investigators wishing to continue a project beyond that time
need to submit a 5-year application for a 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 Include a revision form
with the renewal. To revise an approved protocol at any other time during the year, send your
written request with an attached revision cover sheet to the UCRIHS Chair, requesting revised
approval and referencing the project's lRBtl and title. Include In your request a description of
the change and any revised Instruments, consent forms or advertisements that are applicable.
PROBLEMS/CHANGES: Should either of the following arise during the course of the work,
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.

If we can be of further assistance, please contact us at (517) 355-2180 or via email:
UCRIHS@msu.edu. Please note that all UCRIHS forms are located on the web:
http-lewwhumanresearchmsuedu

Sincerely.
7g: . {a

Peter Vasilenko III, PhD.
UCRIHS Chair

PV: jm
cc: T'Ifianye Tonsing
6322 Beechﬂeld

lane‘s-vs Ill AQ011

96

 

 

 

Informed Consent Formfor Athletes

You are being asked to participate in a study conducted by graduate student Tiffanye
Vargas-Tonsing under the supervision of Dr. Deborah Feltz from Michigan State
University. The primary purpose of this study, entitled "The Effectiveness of Pre-Game
Speeches," is to examine the use and effectiveness of coaches' pre-game speeches. It is
our h0pe that the research project will help us develop a better understanding of athletes'
needs.

As part of this research, you will be asked to complete a demographic questionnaire
about yourself and your soccer playing experience. Later in your season, you will be
asked to complete three surveys on game days. The ﬁrst survey will be prior to warm ups
and will ask about the upcoming game. Each game, you will be asked to complete two
more questionnaires; one before you take the ﬁeld and the other at the end of the game.
We estimate that each questionnaire will take one to ﬁve minutes to complete. Your
responses to the survey questions will remain confidential and will be kept in a locked
cabinet in a locked room. Investigators will have sole access to the completed
questionnaires. All identifying data will be destroyed within ﬁve years. Additionally, all
subsequent results will be reported within larger group-based ﬁndings. Your privacy will
be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law. In addition, you may receive a
copy of the group results at the study's completion if you so choose.

Your participation in this study would be greatly appreciated. However, please know that
your participation is voluntary. You may choose not to participate or to discontinue
participation at any time without penalty. If you have any questions concerning
participation in this study, please contact the study's principal investigator, Dr. Deborah
Feltz, at (517) 355-4730 [dfeltz@msu.edu] or Tiffanye Vargas-Tonsing at (517) 355-
4763 [vargasti@msu.edu]. If you have any questions or concerns regarding your rights
as a study participant or are dissatisﬁed with any aspect of this study, you may contact-
anonymously, if you wish- the UCRIHS Chair, Dr. Peter Vasilenko, PhD, at (517) 355-
2180 [ucrihs@msu.edu].

Thank you for your time and cooperation,

 

 

Dr. Deborah Feltz, Principal Investigator Date

 

 

Tiffanye M. Vargas-Tonsing, Graduate Student Date

Your signature below indicates your voluntary agreement to participate in this study.

 

 

Signature Date

97

 

 

 

Informed Consent Form for Coaches

You are being asked to participate in a study conducted by graduate student Tiffanye
Vargas-Tonsing under the supervision of Dr. Deborah Feltz from Michigan State
University. The primary purpose of this study, entitled "The Effectiveness of Pre-Game
Speeches," is to examine the effectiveness of coaches' pre-game speeches. It is our hope
that the research project will help us develop a better understanding of athletes' needs.

As part of this research, you will be asked to provide investigators with access to your
athletes as well as complete two questionnaires: a questionnaire about yourself, your
coaching experience, and your coaching conﬁdence and a questionnaire concerning your
beliefs about the upcoming game. Investigators will need access to athletes at the
beginning and end of games. During your season, you will be asked to allow
investigators to make an audio recording of your pre-game speech. You will also be
asked to provide access to your athletes prior to warm ups, immediately following your
speech and following the games conclusion. Following your speech, the athletes will be
given a short (approximately one to two minute) survey. The athletes' survey at the end
of the game will take approximately ﬁve minutes to complete. All surveys, given to
yourself and to your athletes, will take approximately one to ﬁve minutes each to
complete. Your responses to the survey questions, as well as your pre-game speech, will
remain conﬁdential and will be kept in a locked cabinet in a locked room. Investigators
will have sole access to the completed questionnaires. All identifying data will be
destroyed within ﬁve years. Additionally, all subsequent results will be reported within
larger group-based ﬁndings. Your privacy will be protected to the maximum extent
allowable by law. In addition, you may receive a copy of the group results at the study's
completion if you so choose.

Your participation in this study would be greatly appreciated. However, please know that
your participation is voluntary. You may choose not to participate or to discontinue
participation at any time without penalty. If you have any questions concerning
participation in this study, please contact the study's principal investigator, Dr. Deborah
Feltz, at (517) 355-4730 [dfeltz@msu.edu] or Tiffanye Vargas-Tonsing at (517) 355-
4763 [vargasti@msu.edu]. If you have any questions or concerns regarding your rights
as a study participant or are dissatisﬁed with any aspect of this study, you may contact-
anonymously, if you wish- the UCRIHS Chair, Dr Peter Vasilenko, PhD., at (517) 355-
2180 [ucrihs@msu.edu].

Thank you for your time and cooperation,

 

 

Dr. Deborah Feltz, Principal Investigator Date

 

 

Tiffanye M. Vargas-Tonsing, Graduate Student Date

Your signature below indicates your voluntary agreement to participate in this study.

 

 

Signature Date

98

Informed Consent Form for Parents

You child is being asked to participate in a study conducted by graduate student Tiffanye
Vargas-Tonsing under the supervision of Dr. Deborah Feltz from Michigan State
University. The primary purpose of this study, entitled "The Effectiveness of Pre-Game
Speeches," is to examine the effectiveness of coaches' pre-game speeches. It is our hope
that the research project will help us develop a better understanding of athletes' needs.

As part of this research, your child will be asked to complete a demographic
questionnaire about him/herself and his/her soccer playing experience. Later in the
season, your child will be asked to complete a survey on game days prior to warm ups.
This survey will ask about the upcoming game. Your child will also be asked to
complete two more questionnaires; one before taking the ﬁeld and the other at the end of
games. We estimate that each questionnaire will take one to ﬁve minutes to complete.
Your child's responses to the survey questions will remain conﬁdential and will be kept
in a locked cabinet in a locked room. Investigators will have sole access to the completed
questionnaires. All identifying data will be destroyed within ﬁve years. Additionally, all
subsequent results will be reported within larger group-based ﬁndings. Your child's
privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law. In addition, you and
your child may receive a copy of the group results at the study's completion if you so
choose.

 

Your child's participation in this study would be greatly appreciated. However, please
know that participation is voluntary. You may choose not to have your child participate
or to discontinue participation at any time without penalty. If you have any questions
concerning participation in this study, please contact the study's principal investigator,
Dr. Deborah Feltz, at (517) 355-4730 [dfeltz@msu.edu] or Tiffanye Vargas-Tonsing at
(517) 355-4763 [vargasti@msu.edu]. If you have any questions or concerns regarding
your child's rights as a study participant or are dissatisﬁed with any aspect of this study,
you may contact-anonymously, if you wish- the UCRIHS Chair, Dr. Peter Vasilenko,
PhD, at (517) 355-2180 [ucrihs@msu.edu].

Thank you for your time and cooperation,

 

 

Dr. Deborah Feltz, Principal Investigator Date

 

 

 

Tiffanye M. Vargas-Tonsing, Graduate Student Date

Your signature below indiCates your voluntary agreement to allow your child to
participate in this study.

 

 

 

Signature Date

99

APPENDIX G

Pre-Game Speeches

 

100

 

‘ Pre-Game Speeches
U15 Girls (52 seconds)
You guys know exactly what your coaches expect and today is the type of day where it is
turned over to you. It's your responsibility what happens today. Coaches don't win
games for you, right? You had a good warm-up today, a really good warm-up today.
The runs that I saw in that small game, the overlapping runs, the possession, the patience-
that's what gets you victories over teams that can compete with you, ok? So this is a must
win for us. We've got to come out, we've got to play hard. If you want a chance at going
up to division I, you've got to pull out points from this game. You've got to win, ok?
[asked the team] Which way are we going today? We are going against the wind in the I
ﬁrst half. You know the starting line-up. Let's put one together. Every game we
improve, and the thing we need to improve on the most is our possession. Let's ﬁnd that
today-all right? And let's attack, attack, attack, attack. All right? Let's get some goals

out there today. All right? It's yours. It's yours.

U18 Girls (1 minute 20 seconds)

Listen up; listen up. All right, I think in the last couple of games we've lacked a little bit
of intensity, coming out to start and maintaining that through the game so I really want
you guys to focus on that today. All right, come out hard. He said, he is going to let you
guys play physical. See what the limits are. All right? Get after them physically.

All right? We got our chance here to seal up. Beating this team, we've beat every team
except for G* V*. Let's start here today with them. All right? Watch for their fast girl,

the blond girl. You guys remember her from last year? Little skinny blond girl?

101

 

 

Fast as all hell? I want J ** on her. All right? Let's ﬁnd out where she is right away and
make the adjustment back. All right? So we mark her out of the game.

She is the only one that's given us any problems. Let's make sure we take care of her.
There have been a lot of changes with this team over the past year too. So you guys are
going to have to get a feel for them right away. Find out what that girl you're going up
against has got. All right? First 10 minutes let's ﬁgure out what they've got and ﬁgure
out how we are going to go after 'em. All right, keep the intensity high though. I want
everything intense. I want us winning every 50/50 ball. I want tackles hard so that they
get nervous. All right? Win the ﬁrst couple of 50/50 balls hard, harder than you need to,
and they are going to quit. All right? Focus on having our intensity so high that we force
them to back off this game. All right? And hand it to us. Ok? We are going to start

with. . . [starting line-up]

U14 Boys (1 minute 28 seconds)

We need a lot of communication in the back. M**, lots of communication in the back.
Lots of communication. The subbing will be a little different today. Not too much
different, but only because we've got one more player. So we have our full squad here
today. So there's going to be a couple of situations, I mean you guys are going to be
playing essentially the same position as you have been all year but the rotation might be a
little more different than what you are used to. Ok, couple of things. As I have said
before, this team is 3 and 3. Which means nothing to us. Ok? It should mean nothing to
us. As you know, if you take any game, any game whatsoever, you've got to come out

hard. It's got to be all about winning 50/50 balls. It's all about playing the feet. Going

102

back to what we looked at the other night when we played the girls, where you guys, I
think everyone was there except for L*, we looked terriﬁc. We looked absolutely terrific.
Yeah, we gave up one goal, but I don't care. The long and short of it is that we looked so
solid in the mid, solid in the back, and solid in the attack, because we were playing the
feet. [whistle blows, " ok captains-we want to defend this goal to start. A**, get that
tucked in please."] OK, guys, guys. Remember, it is all about playing our game.

Playing our game is playing the feet. Playing our game, playing our game is playing hard _.
and winning all the 50/50 balls, all right? And lets go out and play hard. ok? Simple as

that.

U14 Girls (1 minute 52 seconds)

Are we ready? Ok, girls, I want you to focus. Ok? That has been our biggest, biggest,
problem this year has been focusing. All right? Consistent play. All right? The last four
games here, last two, today's game, tomorrow's game, next weekend's game. We have
got to bring the A team ready to go all the time. Win every ball. Ok? Can't lose track of
your, uh, discipline, to go forward and win the 50/50 balls girls. All right? You've got to
high pressure. 'All right? But you want to make sure that you are smart high pressure.
Do we want to jump in? [No] What happens when we jump in? [they get around us] So
we are going to smart, we are going to challenge for the ball with some intelligence going
forward. We don't want to jump in, but if you think you can win that ball, you go hard.
All right? And the last thing I want to talk about before we go into the game is in G**
V** last Sunday you guys were very patient at the end. If you have the ball at your feet,

and no one's open, and you don't have anyone covering you, do you need to kick the ball

103

 

away? [No] What do we do? [hold or dribble] For possession right? Hold it for
possession. Make sure that they attack you. When they attack you to get the ball, what
do you do then? [answer] Yeah. You guys know the drills. You know how to do

everything. I have faith in you girls but you have to have faith in yourself to go forward

and win the game. You have to battle, every, every little battle that is on the ﬁeld. 1 v 1.

The girl that you are marking-who is going to win the battle? [we are] Right.

Ok? Any questions? .

U17 Girls (2 minutes 17 seconds)

Ok girls, quickly. P** you are going to be in goal. How are you feeling P**? [answer]
Promise? M** how are you feeling? [starting lineup] All right, let's have...P** have
you been captain yet? P**'s captain with [who hasn't been captain?]. Ok, M**, good.
Listen, I don't have much to say here. The motivation, the determination, is already been
set in the last game when we played this team. They beat you 8 nothing, or eight to one.
So, you should be ready. You should be thinking about this since the day you left M*.
You knew you were going to play them again. So we need all the effort. You need to
win the ball, the 50/50 balls. Focus. It's not running around just chasing a ball. I want
you to go out there with your intelligence and go forward and play with your head. So,
pretty easy. Determination-you guys should already be there thinking about the game.
You have the starting lineup. And we are off. Ok? You had a good warm-up, I hope. I
didn't get a chance to see it but I appreciate you here early. I appreciate your helping
with Coach T**. And I want you guys ready to go. Captains, when they call the

captains. Go on girls. You need to play hard. OK?

104

 

U12 Girls (1 minute 38 seconds)

Right now I want you guys focusing in on the game. Everything we have worked on in
practice, this is the end of the season-let's put it all together. All right? Forget who we
are playing. It's just another soccer team. Let's put everything together that we have
worked on throughout the season. We use our wit. All right? We are going to outwork
this team. We've been letting that slip a little bit; I want to pick it back up. Remember, if
you guys can outwork a team, I will never be mad at you. If you guys give me
everything you have on the ﬁeld, I'll never be mad. All right? I want you guys to
outwork this team. I want that to be our biggest focus. All right? Everybody is playing
with a lot of intensity, going after every single loose ball. All right? Make them be the
ones that back down because you guys are going in so hard. All right? Play physical
with this team. Who cares if you get a foul called on you? Nothing happens. All right?
We don't send you to jail. We don't yank you out of the game and sit you for the rest of
the time. I want you, I want you guys playing physical. All right? See what you are
allowed to do. This team will play physical against you guys, and if you don't do it back,
you're just handing them the game. All right? Physical, physical, physical. Every 50/50
ball. I“ wants every 50/50 ball every game. You haven't given that to him yet. All
right? Let's give it to him today. Every 50/50 ball is ours. And play smart. And what's
the biggest-when do we play our best? [have fun] When we are having fun. All right?

So we go out there and we kick the crap out of them. [laughter] All right? And you have

105

 

fun doing that. It's fun to knock somebody down. It's fun to make people cry. [laughter]

All right? Get out there and have some fun but play intense. All right?

U15 Boys (5 minutes 16 seconds)

While we are talking, if you are at all tight, go ahead and stretch. It’s’not going to bother
anybody else. There are four players on this team that Mr. K*** and I looked at that are
going to cause some difﬁculty for us. Two of them are going to cause us a lot of
difﬁculty but if we take care of them, we can handle this team. We are far more skilled,
we are better prepared, we have better set pieces, we have more depth on our bench, we
have more ﬁtness, we have more tactical knowledge and we have more technique. OK?
Now, yesterday they beat a team that’s not a bad team by using one thing that they have,
brute strength. This guy in the back, 21, is an absolute beast. He will run you over as
soon as look at you. He got carded yesterday. He yelled at the parents yesterday.
Certain referees would have red-carded him. Ok? But, he absolute dominated the second
half and was an impact player because he would win the ball in the back, dispossess and
get the ball, he would gain about ten to twenty yards, and then he was sending it long.
This guy, #16, one of the blond haired kids that play in the center, this guy, everything
went through him. When the defense collapsed on him, he just one touched it here, and
he immediately went here, and received it back. So simple stuff, simple give and go, he
touched it here and received it back. He scored two of their three goals and set up the
third. He will also run you over as soon as look at you. Ok? He got yellow-carded for

running into the keeper. He kicked the keeper in the head while he was on the ground.

106

[laughter from team-“that’s a yellow?”] That particular referee gave him a yellow card.
Here’s the plan. All right? I left here yesterday with a sick feeling in my stomach that
took the entire drive to K** to go away. I feel better today. I know none of you made
mistakes yesterday on purpose. And frankly we outplayed the other team, who had a
great record last year and was a good team. I just felt sick that you guys did not earn the
three points that you deserved from the effort you had. All right? If there is a shread of
doubt in your mind, that you are worthy, to take the goods out of the basket, and bring
them home, forget it. You paid the price. You paid the price by playing futsal all winter.
You paid the price by being good athletes on all of your high school teams in the fall.
You paid the price by driving in the middle of the night to get to W** and getting home
at 2:00am in the morning in order to sharpen your skills. Did we technically outplay that
team yesterday? You don’t sound like a team that is convinced. Did we? [Yeah] Did
we far and away dominate the possession? [Yes] Did we have 5x as many quality shots
on goal? [yes] All right, then you know ’what? You have already paid the price, you
have the goods in the basket, and you are driving around the store. Let’s go to the
checkout line and we take that stuff home. This is a state cup game, ok. J *, are you
ready to the goods home? All right, here is your assignment. You’re going to start us
off. You are going to man mark #16, and he will get frustrated. You are going to be his
worst nightmare. You are not going to let them play him the ball. And they will not
know what to do. #2 is kind of fast, #3 is kind of a beast, he will push his way around;
we can handle them. 8* is going to be our central defender. S** is going to be left
defender. He is going to be marked up on 2, or 3. Let’s start with M* here, on uh, the

right. Ok? M* you will be looking at either 2 or 3. And this will be 1* G* man marking

107

#16. And that’s our back four. When J* is tired, we are going to bring in B* F*, ok?

And B** will be worst nightmare #2. OK? So your job is to study the great and awesome
G* and imitate him when you get in. Mr. M*, wearing that yellow jersey in our warm-
up, has a set of skills we are going to make use of. T* is very good at lofting the ball. He
is going to loft it into these comers because their defense plays ﬂat across the back. As
soon as they are under pressure, they are very compact. And we will eat them alive in
these corners gentlemen. We are going to insist on that because Mr. S* is going out to
right mid, ok, and uh, Mr. K*, you are going to be the other person here. So we are going
to start with Mr. C* on the left. Ok? 1* you can take them. Get down line and either be
open wide or cross it. Service from the ﬂanks will win the game. Now, up top, ok, they
will not have an answer for this, R* is going to be our left forward, M* is going to be our
center forward, and I know he will withdraw because he does that no matter what I tell
him, so he is going to be our withdrawing center forward, ok? And up top with them will
be the beast from M**, S** A*. You can take their defenders. 8’” you absolutely can.
Ok? If any of you came today thinking, oh, yeah, we are not that good of a team, forget
about it. That’s what I am here to tell you. You guys are here; you’ve arrived. The
goods are in the basket. Today is the day to take them out of the basket. Let’s check out.
We are going to check out. All right? If we get the chance Mr. C*, we want the wind in
the ﬁrst half. If we don’t get it, no big deal. We will still be prepared. But everything
this team does is long ball stuff. Everything will be a long service. They do not have
guys that can outplay our midﬁelders, um, you know it doesn’t mean that we just walk
out there and dominate them, that’s not going to happen. They are going to try hard, you

know they have good, good, heart, but this, this will work. I promise you.

108

 

 

U13 Boys (2minutes 18 seconds)

All right, listen up to me. Let’s go J**. Ok guys. This is state cup. This is big. This is
huge. Victory today sets the tone ok. We are supposed to beat this team according to
rankings, whatever those are worth, ok. You have to come ready to play. You have to be
focused. Yesterday we played a fantastic game. The more I thought about it, the more I
thought we deserved to win and just didn’t. Sometimes that happens. It is not an excuse
though; we don’t use excuses. Today there is no deserve to do anything. We are just

going to come out and win. Understand your role. Understand what it is going to take to

 

win today. You come out, and you’re focused, play hard, you run hard, you do things the
way we are supposed to do them, and we are going to win this game. If we lose focus, if
we let down, if we don’t have intensity, we’ll lose. This sets the tone for State Cup. You
can start State Cup one and 0. You can start State Cup on top of your bracket. You’ll be
on top. Send a message. If you lose today, it really hurts our State Cup chances. It really,
really hurts. You have to come and play hard today. You must play hard. Put yesterday
behind us. It means nothing. Today is everything. It is 70 minutes to come and play
extremely hard. It is 70 minutes to come and take care of business. This is how we are
going to start all right? D* and A* are up top, K* you are in goal, K** you’re an outside
mid, J * you’re a marking back, D** you’re an outside mid, 8* center mid, J** sweep, H*
center mid, 8* stop, and J*** you’re and outside back. No playing time requirements in
State Cup, but that’s not really going to matter. Just so you know though, ahead of time.
Ok? 1*" stay within here, J ** lots of communication, D** and K** get up and down

the ﬁeld. Up and down. D** beat them wide and put the ball across. A* and D*, goals

 

109

today. You have to score. Put some goals in early and we’ll defend. [Let’s go you guys]

We’ll win. Let’s go over to our bags, get your blue uniforms on.

U16A Boys (3 minutes 32 seconds)

Ok, guys listen up. All right, it’s a different, a different attitude today because it is not a
State Cup game. I don’t know where that puts your level of concentration or your focus,
but that’s my point, is that is has to be the same every single game. We are playing like
it’s a championship game. The opponent does not matter. Every single game I have seen
you guys drop, which has not been that many, but when you do, it’s yourself you’re
beating. All right? Do you agree with that? Granted we have lost to good teams, but
you guys are the main factor. Because we didn’t lose games where we were playing at
the top of our game and we just ended up losing. We ended up losing because we didn’t
show up. So you need to focus. That is our biggest, biggest point this evening. Learn to
approach games, and learn to prepare for games mentally. I know how good you can
play. I have seen every single one of you play amazing. Amazing. The potential and the
capability is always there for you to have the best game that you can have. You can do
that because I have seen you do it. The problem is you need to ﬁnd a way to prepare
yourself to do it consistently. That means, the night before, the day before, up to the
game, up to this point, it’s a league game against an old team that you used to have
trouble with. Ok? At this point, we are coming out to play 80 minutes of ﬂawless
soccer. That’s our goal-not the opponent. That will take care of itself. You guys take
care of yourself, prepare for this game, come out and play soundly, knock the ball

around, 1-2 touches, play simple, and play like professionals. And everything else will

110

take care of itself. All right guys? This morning I woke up, hopefully the same way you
woke up; I’m excited. I am always excited to watch you guys play the game. All right?

I truly am. I wake up, and I’m excited. I can’t wait for the game to start. There is no
apprehension, no nervousness; there’s nothing like that because I know how you guys can
perform. So let’s go out there, and let’s do it, and let’s show [the opponent] that they are
no longer in the same league as [team name]. They used to think so. No longer in the
same league as us. That’s what we’re doing today. All right? Let’s go. Starting line up
is going to be E*, J *, and C* centrally. J** and D* outside, but I", on the right, and
you’re on the right, and I want you guys switching. Ok? Switch out there. You want to
make some runs forward? Get going. Ok? In the midﬁeld, 2*, F* and E*. You guys,
like 2* said earlier, don’t let that weak side, don’t be, don’t be sticking on that weak side
when We are sliding as a group because then you guys are working as two midﬁelders.

So E*, F* and 2*, work together and slide left. We need our forwards, M*, N* and P*, if
you’re weak side P*, coordinate your weak side; you are going to come back on that
group ok? You’re going to come back in with the midﬁeld group and help us, help

defend, ok, and then it’s a 4-4-2. All right? So let’s go out and have a ballgame.

U16B Boys (3 minutes 30 seconds)

This is the ﬁrst game of the season. We have just the one scrimmage under our belts and
we didn’t even have our full team there, our full starters. Uh, but we got an idea of the
things we really need to focus on today to make sure we are successful. The biggest one
that we talked about was communication, especially you back four. All right? We have

to communicate with each other or else we are going to be exposed constantly. Talking

111

about switching marks as they come across the back, the two center backs, when we need
to involve an outside back marking if they are sending one of their forwards wide.
Making sure that we don’t have one outside back gettingin behind the other three backs
holding people onsides. All right? So the communication about when to step, when to
switch off marks, when a guy is entering your zone, when a guy is leaving your zone,
making sure we’re pulling in, we’re talking, we’re calling out marks, we’re watching
overlaps, we’re watching through balls, all that stuff. We’ve got to communicate with
each other in the back. All right? We talked about our midﬁelders, making sure our two
outside mids are staying wide, our two center mids making sure that we’re switching
play, quickly and often. All right? We saw how much we got one of the best teams in
the state completely exposed on that weak side. All right? If we can do that to one of the
best teams in the state, what do you think we can do to these guys? Yeah, we can destroy
them if we use that weak side run constantly and if we’re looking to switch play. All
right? So make that a goal today. That’s our game plan, to look for that switch to the
weak side immediately. All right? If it is not on, then I’ll talk to you guys about how to
switch our game plan. All right? My job here is to focus on their team and how we can
expose them. Your job is to go out and execute the things we have worked on in practice.
All right? The other thing I want to see, I tell this to y 12’s, I will never be upset with my
team if they come off the ﬁeld and tell me they worked as hard as they possibly could.
Win, lose, draw, it doesn’t matter as long as each one of you can come off the ﬁeld and
look your teammate in the eye and tell him you gave him everything you had. Then
nobody can be upset with you. All right? We want to focus on winning the little battles,

the things that we can control. We can play harder then them. We can work harder than

112

them. We can win 50/50 balls if our mind says we are going to win them all. All right?
So make sure that that is our mindset. Win the battle playing harder. We are going to
win the battle of who has more heart. And hopefully, if we play skillfully on top of that,
that translates into a win for us. All right? But don’t leave anything where you can say,
if I had just done this, if I had just done that. Do it. Put in the effort. Put in the extra
work and put this team away. All right? Start the season off with something you guys
didn’t get last year. All right? Get that feeling under us, in our skin, and know what it’s
like to win again. And we are going to go places. This is a team that can win the second
division. All right? Put the state in a horrible place next year where they’ve got two of,
two teams from the same club up in D1. All right? But it starts today. We get after this
team today. It is not about the end of the season tournament. It is about today. Beating
them, winning our home games. All right? Get after them. 100% heart. I can’t express
it enough you guys, as long as you guys play with the heart that I know you can, we are
going to do ﬁne. All right? Put them away. Do it in the ﬁrst ten minutes. You win that

ﬁrst ten minutes with our heart; they’ll shut down. Get after them.

113

APPENDIX H

Scree Plots

114

Scree Plot for Emotion Factors at Time 1

 

3.0“

.N .M
O 01
r l

Eigenvalue
in
1

1.0"1

0.5-

0.0-i

 

 

 

I l r r l I l I l
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Factor Number

115

Scree Plot for Emotion Factors at Time 2

 

3.0-

Eigenvalue
_s ._L N M
'o in 'o in
I l 1 l

p
tn
1

0.0-

 

 

I I I I I I I I r
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Factor Number

116

 

APPENDIX I

Means and Standard Deviations of all Measures

117

 

118

 

0.0.0 08.0 0.... 80.0 8.0 8.0. 08.0 .000 .0... 20.0 0 .200".
000.0 s .00 80.0 . .cd 08.. s. ..o 08.0 8.6. .000 00.0- N 8.00“.
R00 30.0. 000.. 8.0. «010 000.0- 000.0 .80- 000.0 8.0 . .200”.
8.0 8. . 0~.o 8. . 0.0 8. . . .d 8. . 0.0 8. . .0085
023.3
.0.0 2.00 8... 8.0.. 1.. .. 00.00 00.... ..<.0 3.0 .000 .0025
Q0 :85. on 000.2 on 0005. Q0 :00: on :00:
0.3 0.3 0 .3 0 .3 0.3
0. E00 h 0 E00 ._. 0 E00... 5 E00... 0 E00 h .0E00. 0.02.
00.0 08.0 .000 08.0 01.0, 0.0.0- 80.0 03.0 2.0.0 8.0 0 .200".
.000 0 .00 000.0 .50 2.0.0 03.0. 00.0 000.0 3... 000.0 N 8.00....
.000 30.0- 000.0 8.0- 80.0 80.0 80.. 08.0- 30.0 08.0 . .200“.
«ad 8. . Rd 8.. .00 8.. 0.0 8.. 2.0 8.. 685m
00.00.04.
00.0. 8.0. 00.0. 00.... 00.0. 00.0. 0.. .. 00.0. 00.0. 00.00 885w
em :00: on 000.2 Q0 000.2 om :00: on 000.2
. .3 0 .3 v .3 0 .3 N .3
0 E00... .. E00 a. 0 E00 ._. N E08. . E00... .0800. 0.080":

 

 

 

 

.N. 030...

 

0 .00 000.0- 0~.0 ~000- .000 0.0.0- 0~.0 0.0.0. 00.0 0.00 0 00.00...

00.0 08.0- .0..0 08.0- 000.. 000.0 000. . 000.0 .000 0.0.0 ~ 00.00“.

000.0 000.0- 00.0 .80. 0~00 000.0- 0~00 000.0- 000.0 08.0 . 00.00“.

00. 8.. 00. 00.0 .0. . 00.. ~00 00.0 0... 00.0 0.0<

00. . 0.0 .0. . 0 ..0 .0. 8.0 .0.~ 00.0 0..~ 00.0 000<
0.0 00.. 0.0 00.. ...0 8.. ...0 00.. 0.0 00.0 600.5

0000.3.

-.0. ~08 00.~. ~0..0 00.0. 0.00 0.0 00. .0 ~00. ...00 085m

on 000.2 Qm 000.2 on 000.2 Q0 000.2 Q0 000.2
0.3 0.3 0 .3 0.3 0.3

0. E00 .. 0 E00.. 0 E00 ... . E00 .. 0 E00 .. ...E00. 0.08

000.0 0.0.0- 0.0.0 0.0.0- .0.0 0.0.0- 000.0 0.0.0- 0~00 ~000 0 .200".

~000 000.0 00.0 08.0 000.0 000.0 ~000 000.0 000.0 08.0 ~ 00.00“.

.00. . 000.0. 000.. 08.0. 000.0 08.0. 00~. 08.0. 000.0 -00 . 3.00“.

00.. 00.0 00.. 0 ..0 .~. ...0 00.. 00.0 0..~ 0~.0 0.00.

0... 00.0 00.~ 00.0 00.. 00.0 ~0. .00 00.~ 00.0 000.4
-0 8.. 0.0 8.. ...0 8.. 0.0 8.. 0.0 .0. 385m

028.3.

00.0. 00.0. 00.0. .000 .00. 0.00 0.... 00.0. 0.... 00.0 000.5

cm 000.2 on 000.2 00. 000.2 00 000.2 Q0 0005.
..3 0.3 0.3 0 .3 ~ .3
0 E00 .. 0 E00... 0 E00 .. ~ E00 .. . E00 .. .0E00. 0.0E00

 

 

 

 

.m. 030,—.

119

BIBLIOGRAPHY

120

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abernathy, B. (1993). Attention. In R.N. Singer, M. Murphy, & L.K. Tennant (Eds),
Handbook of research on sport psychology (pp. 127-170). New York:
_Macmillan.

Adler, P. & Adler, P. (1978). The role of momentum in sport. Urban Life, 7, 153-

Alexander, V., & Krane, V. (1996). Relationships among performance expectations,
anxiety, and performance in collegiate volleyball players. Journal of Sport
Behavior, 19, 246-266.

Allen, J.B., & Howe, BL. (1998). Player ability, coach feedback, and female adolescent
athletes perceived competence and satisfaction. Journal of Sport and Exercise
Psychology, 20, 280-299.

176.

Amorose, A.J., & Weiss, MR. (1998). Coaching feedback as a source of information
about perceptions of ability: A developmental examination. Journal of Sport and
Exercise Psychology, 20, 395-420.

Anshel, M. H. (1990). Sport psychology. Scottsdale, AZ: Gorsuch Scarisbrick.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efﬁcacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Bandura, A. (1997 ). Self-efﬁcacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman
and Company.

Barling, J ., & Abel, M. (1983). Self-efﬁcacy beliefs and tennis performance,
Cognitive Therapy and Research, 7, 265-272.

Beauchamp, M.R., Bray, S.R., & Albinson, J .G. (2002). Pre-competition imagery,
self-efﬁcacy and performance in collegiate golfers. Journal of Sport Sciences,
20, 697-705.

Black, 8.1., & Weiss, MR. (1992). The relationship among perceived coaching
behaviors, perceptions of ability, and motivation in competitive age-group
swimmers. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 14, 309-325.

Biddle, S. (1999). Sport emotion and the role of the coach. Portuguese Journal

121

of Human Performance Studies, 12, 53-65.

Bock, M. (1987). The inﬂuence of emotional meaning on the recall of words
processed for form or self-reference. Psychological Research, 48, 107-112.

Bower, G.H. (1981). Mood and memory. American Psychologist, 36, 129-148.

Burton, D. (1988). Do anxious swimmers swim slower? Reexamining the elusive
anxiety-performance relationship. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 10,
45-61.

Burton, D. (1989). Winning isn’t everything: Examining the impact of performance
goals on collegiate swimmers’ cognitions and performance. Sports Psychologist,
3, 105-132.

Burton, D., & Martens, R. (1986). Pinned by their own goals: an exploratory
investigation into why kids drop out of wrestling. Journal of Sports Psychology,
8. 183-197.

Burton, D., & Naylor, S. (1997). Is anxiety really facilitative? Reaction to the myth that
cognitive anxiety always impairs performance. Journal of Applied Sport
Psychology, 9, 295-302.

Carron, A.V., & Chelladurai, P. (1981). Cohesion as a factor on sports performance.
International Review of Sport Sociology, 16, 21—41.

Cerin, E. (2003). Anxiety versus fundamental emotions as predictors of perceived
functionality of pre-competitive emotional states, threat, and challenge in
individual sports. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 15, 223-238.

Cerin, E., Szabo, A., Hunt, N., & Williams, C. (2000). Temporal patterning of
competitive emotions: A critical review. Journal of Sport Sciences, 18,
605-626.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2ud ed.).
I-Iillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Deci, EL. (1980). The psychology of self-determination. Lexington, MA: Heath,
Lexington. .

DiCicco, T. (2002). Feedback is the breakfast of champions: Communicating with your
team. In T. DiCicco, C. Hacker, & C. Salzberg (Eds), Catch them being good.
(pp.119-132). New York: Penquin.

Duda, IL. (1988). The relationship between goal perspectives, persistence, and
behavioral intensity among male and female recreational sports participants.

122

Leisure Sciences, 10, 95-106.

Dweck, CS. (1975). The role of expectations and attributions in the alleviation of
learned helplessness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31,
674-685.

Easterbrook, J.A. (1959). The effect of emotion on cue utilization and the organization
of behavior. Psychological Review, 66, 183-201.

Eviator, 2., & Zaidel, E. (1991). The effects of word length and emotionality on
hemispheric contribution to lexical decision. Neuropsychologia, 29, 415-428.

Fellows, R. (Producer), & Bacon, L. (Director). (1940). Knute Rockne: All
American [Motion picture]. United States: Warner Brothers.

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. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 764-781.

Feltz, D.L. (1988). Self-conﬁdence and sports performance. In K.B. Pandolf (Ed.),
Exercise and Sport Science Reviews (423-457). New York: MacMillan.

Feltz, D.L. (1988). Gender differences in the causal elements of self-efﬁcacy on a
High avoidance motor task. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 10,
151-166.

Feltz, D.L., & Lirgg, CD. (2001). Self-efﬁcacy beliefs of athletes, teams and coaches.
In Singer, R.N., Hausenblas, H.A., & Janelle, C.M. (Eds.), Handbook of sport
psychology (pp. 340-361). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Feltz, D.L., Weiss, M. (1982). Developing self-efﬁcacy through sport. Journal of
Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, .53, 24-36.

Fenz, W., & Jones, G. (1972). Individual differences in physiologic arousal and
performance in sport parachutists. Psychosomatic Medicine, 34, 1-8.

Forgas, J .P. (1992). Affect in social judgments and decisions: A multi-process model.
In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 227-275).
New York: Academic Press.

Forgas, J .P. (1995). Mood and judgment: The affect infusion model (AIM).
Psychological Review, I 7, 39-66.

Fridja, N. (1986). The emotions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

123

 

Gallmeier, GP. (1987). Putting on the game facezThe staging of emotions in
professional hockey. Sociology of Sport Journal, 4, 347-362.

George, TR. (1994). Self-conﬁdence and baseball performance: A causal
examination of self-efﬁcacy theory. Journal of Sport and Exercise
Psychology, 16, 381-399.

Green, J.D., & Sedikides, C. (1999). Affect and self-focused attention revisited: The
role of affect orientation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 104-
1 19.

Gould, D., Feltz, D., Horn, T., & Weiss, M.R. (1982). Reasons for discontinuing
involvement in competitive youth swimming. Journal of Sport Behavior, 5, 155-

Gould, D., Hodge, K., Peterson, K., & Giannini, J. (1989). An exploratory examination
of strategies used by elite coaches to enhance self-efﬁcacy in athletes. Journal of
Sport and Exercise Psychology, 1 I , 128-140.

Gould, D., Horn, T., & Spreeman, J. (1983). Competitive anxiety in junior elite
wrestlers. Journal of Sport Psychology, 5, 58-71.

Hanin, Y. (1978). A study of anxiety in sports. In W.F. Straub (Ed.), Sport psychology:
An analysis of athlete behavior (pp. 236-249). Ithaca, NY: Mouvement.

Hanin, Y. (1997). Emotions and athletic performance: Individual zones of optimal
functioning model. European Yearbook of Sport Psychology, 1 , 29-7 2.

Hanin, Y.L. (2000). Successful and poor performance and emotions. In Hanin (Ed).
Emotions in Sport (pp. 157-187). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Hanin, Y.L. (2000). Soccer and emotion: Enhancing or impairing performance? In
J. Bangsbo (Ed.), Soccer and science (pp. 69-89). Copenhagen, Denmark:
Copenhagen University.

Hanin, Y.L. & Syrja, P. (1995). Performance affect in soccer players: An application of
the IZOF model. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 16, 264-269.

Hoffman, J.R., Bar-Eli, M., & Tenenbaum, G. (1999). An examination of mood changes
and performance in a pro basketball team. Journal of Sports Medicine and
Physical Fitness, 39, 74-79.

 

Horn, TS. (1984). Expectancy effects in the interscholastic athletic setting:
Methodological Considerations. Journal of Sport Psychology, 6, 60-76.

Horn, TS. (1985). Coaches' feedback and changes in children's perceptions of

124

their physical competence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 174-
186.

Horn, TS. (2002). Coaching effectiveness in the sport domain. In T.S. Horn (Ed.),
Advances in sport psychology, (pp. 309-354). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Izard, C. E. (1977). Human Emotions. New York: Plenum Press.

Izard, C. E. (1993). Four systems for emotion activation: Cognitive and non-cognitive
processes. Psychological Review, 100, 68-90.

James, L.R., Demaree, R.G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-group rater
reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 85-
98.

James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1993). rwg: An assessment of
within-group rater agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 306-309.

Jones, G., & Cale, A. (1989). Precompetition temporal patterning of anxiety and
self-conﬁdence in males and females. Journal of Sport Behavior, 12, 183-195.

Jones, G., & Hanton, S. (2001). Pre-competitive feeling states and directional anxiety
interpretations. Journal of Sport Sciences, 19, 385-395.

Kane, T.D., Marks, M.A., Zaccaro, S.J., & Blair, V. (1996). Self-efﬁcacy, personal
goals, and wrestlers’ self-regulation. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology,
18, 36-48.

Kavanagh, D., & Bower, G.H. (1985). Mood and self-efﬁcacy: Impact of joy and
sadness on perceived capabilities. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 9, 507-525.

Kavanagh, D. & Hausfeld, S. (1986). Physical performance and self-efﬁcacy under
happy and sad moods. Journal of Sport Psychology, 8, 112-123.

Kendzierski, D & DeCarlo, K]. (1991). Physical activity enjoyment scale: Two
validation studies. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 13, 50-64.

Kenow, L., & Williams, J .M. (1999). Coach-athlete compatibility and athletes’
perception of coaching behaviors. Journal of Sport Behavior, 22, 251- 259.

Klavora, P. (1977). An attempt to derive the inverted-U curves based on the relationship
between anxiety and athletic performance. In D.M. Landers & R.W. Christina
(Eds.), Psychology of motor behavior and sport-1977 (pp.369-377). Champaign,
IL: Human Kinetics.

Krane, V., & Williams, J. (1994). Cognitive anxiety, somatic anxiety, and

125

conﬁdence in track and ﬁeld athletes: The impact of gender, competitive
level and task characteristics. International Journal of Sport Psychology,
25, 203-217.

Kuckenbecker, R. (2003). Halftime talk: Use your time wisely. Success in Soccer, 6,
24-29.

Landers, D.M., & Boutcher, SH. (1986). Arousal-performance relationships. In

J .M. Williams (Ed.), Applied sport psychology: Personal growth to peak
performance (pp. 163-184). Palo Alto, CA: Mayﬁeld.

Lazarus, RS. (1993). From psychological stress to the emotions: A history of changing
outlooks. Annual Review of Psychology, 44, 1-21.

Lazarus, RS. (1999). Stress and emotion: A new synthesis. London: Free Association
Books.

Leventhal, H. (1974). Emotion: A basic problem for social psychology. In C. Nemeth

(Ed.), Social Psychology-classic and contemporary integrations (pp. 1-51).
Chicago: Rand McN ally.

Lowe, R. (1971). Stress, arousal and task performance of Little League baseball
players. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois.

Maddux, J .13., & Meier, LL (1985). Self-efﬁcacy and depression. In J .E. Maddux
(Ed.), Self-efﬁcacy, adaptation, and adjustment: Theory, research and application
(pp. 143-172). New York: Plenum Press.

Marsden, K. (1998). The relationship between self-efﬁcacy, intrinsic motivation,
and performance following negative feedback: A study of collegiate

McAuley, E. (1985). Modeling and self-efﬁcacy: A test of Bandura’s model.
Journal of Sport Psychology, 7, 283-295.

Meyer, W., Bachmann, M., Bierrnann, U., Hempelman, M., Ploger, F., & Spiller,
H. (1979). The informational value of evaluative behavior: Inﬂuence of
praise and blame on perceptions of ability. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 71, 259-268.

Millard, L. (1996). Differences in coaching behaviors of male and female high
school soccer coaches. Journal of Sport Behavior, 19, 19-31.

Miller, M. (1993). Efﬁcacy strength and performance in competitive swimmers of
different skill levels. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 24, 284-296.

Morgan, WP. (1980). Test of champions: The iceberg proﬁle. Psychology Today, I 4,

126

92-99.

Moritz, S.E., & Watson, CB. (1998). Levels of analysis issues in group psychology:
Using efﬁcacy as an example of a multilevel model. Group Dynamics, 2, 285-
298.

Moritz, S.E., Feltz, D.L., Fahrbach, K.R., & Mack, DE. (2000). The relation
of self-efﬁcacy measures to sport performance: A meta-analytic review.
Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 71, 280-294.

Mules, J.R. & Kerr, J.H. (1996). Stress, emotion and performance in elite slalom
canoeists, The Sport Psychologist, 10, 17-36.

Ness, G.R., & Patton, R.W. (1979). The effects of beliefs on maximum weight lifting
performance. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 3, 205-211.

Nideffer, R. (1976). Test of attentional and interpersonal style. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 34, 394-404.

Niedenthal, P.M., & Setterlund, MB. (1994). Emotion congruence in perception.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 401-411.

N unnelly, J. (1978). Psychometric theory (2ml ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Samsom, D., & Rachman, S. (1989). The effect of induced mood on fear reduction.
British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 28, 227-238.

Scanlan, T., Stein, G.L., Ravizza, K. (1989). An in-depth study of former elite ﬁgure
skaters 11: Sources of enjoyment. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 11,

65-83.

Schunk, DH. (1995). Self-efﬁcacy, motivation, and performanCe. Journal of Applied
Sport Psychology, 7, 112-137.

Schwartz, N ., Strack, F., Kommer, D., & Wagner, D. (1987). Soccer, rooms and the
quality of your life: Mood effects on judgments of satisfaction with life in
general and with speciﬁc life domains. European Journal of Social Psychology,
1 7, 69-79.

Schilling, G. & Gubelmann, H. (1995). Enhancing performance with mental training.
In S. Biddle (Ed.), European perspectives on exercise and sport psychology (pp.
179-190). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Shangi, G., & Carron, A.V. (1987). Group cohesion and its relationship with

performance and satisfaction among high school basketball players. Canadian
Journal of Sport Sciences, 12, 1-20.

127

Silverman, S.‘ (2004). Analyzing data from ﬁeld research: The unit of analysis issue.
Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 75, iii-iv.

Smith, C.A., & Lazarus, RS. (1990). Emotion and adaptation. In L. Pervin (Ed.),
Handbook of personality (pp. 609-637). New York: Guilford Press.

Smith, R.E., Smoll, F.L., & Curtis, B. (1978). Coaching behaviors in Little League
baseball. In F.L. Smoll, & R.E. Smith (Eds.), Psychological perspectives in
youth sports (pp. 173-201), Washington, DC: Hemisphere.

Spink, KS. (1990). Group cohesion and collective efﬁcacy of volleyball teams.
Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 13, 301-311.

Sports quotations. Retrieved June 30, 2003, from http://www.top-quote-and-
quotations.corn/sports.htm1.

Sports quotations. Retrieved June 30, 2003, from httpzl/vincelombardi.com/quotes/
winning.htm.

Terry, P. (1995). The efﬁcacy of mood state profiling with elite performers: A review
and synthesis. The Sport Psychologist, 9, 309-324.

Terry, P. & Slade, A. (1995). Discrimination effectiveness of psychological state
measures in predicting performance outcome in karate competition. Perceptual
and Motor Skills, 81, 275-286.

Treasure, D., Manson, J ., & Lox, C. (1996). The relationship between self-efﬁcacy,
wrestling performance, and affect prior to competition. The Sport Psychologist,
10. 73-83.

Vallerand, R. J. (1987). Antecedents of self-related affects in sport: Preliminary
evidence on the intuitive-reﬂective appraisal model. Journal of Sport Psychology,
9, 161-182.

Vallerand, R. & Blanchard, C. (2000). The study of emotion in sport and exercise:
Historical, deﬁnitional, and conceptual perspectives. In Y. Hanin (Ed.), Emotions
in Sport (pp. 3-37). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Vargas-Tonsing, T.M. & Bartholomew, J.B. (2004). The Effects of a Persuasive Pre-
Game Speech on Team-Efﬁcacy Beliefs. Manuscript submitted for publication.
The University of Texas at Austin.

Vargas-Tonsing, T.M., Myers, N .D., & Feltz. (in press). Coaches’ and athletes
perceptions of efﬁcacy enhancing techniques. The Sport Psychologist.

128

Vikander, N., Solbakken, T., & Vikander, M. (1998). Women elite athletes:
Do they differ from men? Gender patterns in psychological characteristics
of international cross-country ski medalists. Women in Sport and
Physical Activity Journal, 7, 95-105.

Watkins, B., Garcia, A.W., & Turek, E. (1994). The relation between self-efﬁcacy
and sport performance: Evidence from a sample of youth baseball players.
Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 6, 21-31.

Watson, D., Clark, L.A., & Tellegen, A. (1985). Towards a consensual structure of
mood. Psychological Bulletin, 98, 219-235.

Weinberg, R., & Jackson, A. (1990). Building self-efﬁcacy in tennis players: A coach's g. -
perspective. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 2, 164-174.

Weinberg, R.S., Gould, D., Yukelson, D., Jackson, A. (1981). The effect of

preexisting and manipulated self-efﬁcacy on a competitive muscular
endurance task. Journal of Sport Psychology, 4, 345-354.

Weiner, B. (1977 ). Attribution and affect: Comments of Sohn’s critique. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 69, 506-507.

Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion,
Psychological Review, 92, 548-573.

Weiner, B. (1986). An attributional theory of motivation and emotion. New York:
Springer-Verlag.

Weiss, M.R., Wiese, D.M., Klint, K.A. (1989). Head over heels with success: The -
relationship between self-efﬁcacy and performance in competitive youth
gymnastics. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 11, 444-451.

Yerkes, R.M. & Dodson, J .D. (1908). The relation of strength of stimulus to rapidity of
habit-formation. Journal of Comparative Neurology and Psychology, 18, 459-
482.

Zurcher, LA. (1982). The staging of emotions: a dramaturgical analysis. Symbolic
Interaction, 5, 1-22.

129

Footnotes

1 Although some have suggested that the Individual Zones of Optimal Functioning model

confuses emotions (e.g., sad, happy) with behaviors (e.g., aggressive, lazy) and with
motivated cognitive states such as conﬁdence, Hanin contends that the model has
ecological validity because athletes selected the affective states (1997).

2 The terms affect and feeling are considered to be closely related forms for the concept
of emotion. Even though both are somewhat discrete of one another, literature often

treats the terms as synonyms (Syrja, 2000).

130

 

   

I1111111111111111"