POSITIVE BODY IMAGE, SPORT-CONFIDENCE, AND SPORT PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS: AN EXTENSION OF THE SPORT-CONFIDENCE MODEL TO JAMAICAN AND BOTSWANA ATHLETES By Chelsi Chantel Roberta Ricketts A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Kinesiology – Doctor of Philosophy 2024 PUBLIC ABSTRACT Sport participation is considered beneficial for the development of positive body image. In sport and exercise psychology, studies reveal that core components of positive body image, namely body appreciation and functionality appreciation, contribute to higher sport-confidence, a predictor of successful sport performance. The Sport-Confidence Model, while helpful for understanding these relationships, focuses solely on appearance-based aspects of positive body image, overlooking the importance of body functionality in athletes’ body image perceptions. Furthermore, research on athlete body image is largely concentrated in North America, Europe, and Australia, with little research conducted in regions such as Africa and the Caribbean. This dissertation, centered on the Jamaican and Botswana sport contexts, consists of two studies focused on examining the relationships among body and functionality appreciation, sport-confidence, and sport performance evaluations, thus, building upon the Sport-Confidence Model. Study 1 targeted 314 Jamaican athletes (male = 70.7%), ages 18 to 58 years, to examine the relationships among body and functionality appreciation, sport-confidence, and sport performance evaluations. The findings of this study revealed that (1) higher body and functionality appreciation were related to greater sport-confidence, (2) greater sport-confidence was related to more successful sport performance evaluations, and (3) higher body and functionality appreciation were indirectly related to more successful sport performance evaluations, by way of greater sport- confidence. These findings highlighted the potential to facilitate greater sport-confidence and more successful sport performance in Jamaican athletes by supporting their development of body and functionality appreciation. Expanding on the findings of Study 1, Study 2 examined the relationships among perceived body acceptance by coaches and teammates, body and functionality appreciation, multidimensional sport-confidence (i.e., sport-confidence in physical skills and training, cognitive efficiency, and resilience), and sport performance evaluations. Participants of Study 2 were 508 Botswana athletes (male = 65.3%), ages 18 to 62 years. The findings of this study revealed that (1) perceiving greater body acceptance from teammates was related to higher body and functionality appreciation while perceiving greater body acceptance from coaches was only related to higher body appreciation, (2) higher body and functionality appreciation were related to greater sport-confidence in physical skills and training and cognitive efficiency, with only body appreciation being related to greater sport-confidence in resilience, and (3) only sport-confidence in cognitive efficiency was related to more successful sport performance evaluations. These findings highlighted the importance of confidence in mental skills for successful performance in Botswana athletes, alongside promoting body acceptance from coaches and teammates to support positive body image and facilitate multidimensional sport-confidence. In conclusion, this dissertation supports extending the Sport-Confidence Model to examine core components of positive body image in relation to sport-confidence. These findings highlight sport-confidence as important to successful performance in Jamaican (i.e., general sport- confidence) and Botswana athletes (i.e., sport-confidence in cognitive efficiency). Furthermore, this dissertation indicates that the Sport-Confidence Model is useful for guiding research, teaching, and practice of this nature within these contexts, offering valuable insights for broadening the cultural dimensions of sport and exercise psychology. ABSTRACT Sport participation is an embodying activity that supports the development of positive body image. Of relevance to sport and exercise psychology, is evidence linking core facets of positive body image, namely body and functionality appreciation, to sport-confidence, a consistent predictor of world-class sport performance. While the Sport-Confidence Model proves valuable for understanding these associations, this framework conceptualizes positive body image (i.e., physical self-presentation) as an appearance-based construct, neglecting the centrality of body functionality in athletes’ body image perceptions. Furthermore, the existing research in this domain underrepresents the experiences of individuals from Africa and its diasporic regions (e.g., the Caribbean). With a focus on the Jamaican and Botswana sport contexts, this two-study dissertation sought to extend the literature by examining core facets of positive body image in relation to sport-confidence and performance, thus, expanding upon the Sport-Confidence Model. Study 1 examined the associations among body and functionality appreciation, trait sport- confidence, and sport performance evaluations. A purposive sample of 314 Jamaican athletes (male = 70.7%; Mage = 22.85; SD = 4.89) participated in this cross-sectional study. Results from path analysis revealed evidence for (1) good model-data fit, (2) positive direct effects from body and functionality appreciation to sport-confidence, (3) positive direct effects from sport- confidence to sport performance evaluations, and (4) positive indirect effects from body and functionality appreciation to sport performance evaluations by way of sport-confidence. The findings of Study 1 highlighted the potential to facilitate sport-confidence and successful performance in Jamaican athletes by supporting their development of positive body image. Study 2 expanded the model assessed in Study 1 to examine the associations among body acceptance by coaches and teammates, body and functionality appreciation, multidimensional sport-confidence (SC; SC-physical skills and training, SC-cognitive efficiency, and SC-resilience), and sport performance evaluations. A purposive sample of 508 Botswana athletes (male = 65.3%, Mage = 25.32, SD = 7.10) participated in this cross-sectional study. Results from path analysis revealed evidence for (1) acceptable model-data fit, (2) positive direct effects from perceived body acceptance by teammates to body and functionality appreciation, with perceived body acceptance by coaches exerting a direct effect only on body appreciation, (3) positive direct effects from body and functionality appreciation to SC-physical skills and training and SC-cognitive efficiency, with only body appreciation exerting a direct effect on SC-resilience, and (4) a positive direct effect only from SC-cognitive efficiency to sport performance evaluations. The findings of Study 2 highlighted confidence in mental skills as important for successful performance in Botswana athletes, alongside promoting body acceptance from coaches and teammates to nurture positive body image and facilitate multidimensional sport-confidence. In conclusion, this dissertation supports extending the Sport-Confidence Model to examine core facets of positive body image in relation to sport-confidence. These findings highlight sport- confidence as an important psychosocial factor contributing to successful performance in Jamaican (i.e., trait sport-confidence) and Botswana athletes (i.e., SC-cognitive efficiency). Furthermore, the findings of this dissertation support the applicability of Sport-Confidence Model predictions to these diverse cultural contexts, endorsing its utility in research, teaching, and practice, and offering valuable insights for advancing the cultural dimensions of sport and exercise psychology. Copyright by CHELSI CHANTEL ROBERTA RICKETTS 2024 This dissertation is dedicated to my mom and dad. Thank you for teaching me that there is nothing beyond my reach. v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am grateful to my advisor, Dr. Leapetswe Malete, whose unwavering support and mentorship have been instrumental in guiding me through this journey. To my Guidance Committee, Drs. Nicholas Myers, Karin Pfeiffer, and Yuya Kiuchi, alongside Dr. Malete, your guidance has challenged me to think, evolve, and grow. To my mentor and friend, Caryl, thank you for motivating me to complete Doctoral studies and for your continued support. I express my sincere gratitude to Dr. Tshepang Tshube for his invaluable assistance during data collection in Botswana, and to Drs. Godisang Mookodi and Keith Jefferis for their generous hospitality during my stay in the country. Mom and Dad, words cannot describe my gratitude for all that you do. You have been my biggest supporters throughout this journey. To my grandparents, Joy and Vic, thank you for providing me with a home away from home in Detroit. I thank my uncle, Damion, for ensuring my smooth adjustment to life in the United States. To my brother, Rajaun, you inspire me more than you know. Keep jumping! Dee and Koko, thank you for your companionship and reminders that there is more to life than what exists behind the computer screen. Jermaine, André, Sashane, Jevaun, and Khadijah, thank you for always reminding me about appropriate work-life balance. To past members of my research group, Sisi, Dorian, and David, thank you for showing me the ropes and orienting me to life here at MSU. To my cohort mates and peers in Kinesiology, thank you for the various ways that you have provided support. I express my gratitude to the Institute for the Study of Youth Sports for being instrumental in my professional development. Special thanks to Christina, Marlene, Michelle, and Barb. You have been nothing but kind, patient, and helpful during my time at MSU. God, thank you for blessing me with life, faith, and the drive to persevere. vi PREFACE Study 1 was financially supported by a Practicum Hard Cost Fellowship awarded in 2021 and a Summer Research Fellowship awarded in 2022 by the College of Education at Michigan State University. Study 1 from this dissertation has been published in the Psychology of Sport and Exercise Journal. Permission has been provided to utilize the published manuscript as a component of this dissertation (see Appendix A). Study 1 Citation Ricketts, C., Malete, L., Myers, N. D., Bateman, A. G., & Bateman, C. J. (2023). Sport bodies: An examination of positive body image, sport-confidence, and subjective sport performance in Jamaican athletes. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 67, 102434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2023.102434 Author Contributions Chelsi Ricketts was responsible for study conceptualization and design, data collection, analyses and interpretation, and manuscript writing. Leapetswe Malete contributed to the study conceptualization, manuscript reviews, and edits, and offered mentorship and oversight. Nicholas D. Myers provided guidance on statistical analyses, conducted power estimation, and contributed to manuscript reviews and edits. André G. Bateman contributed to the reviews and editing of the manuscript. Caryl James served as a local project mentor in Jamaica and contributed to manuscript reviews and edits. Study 2 was financially supported by a Dissertation Hard Cost Fellowship awarded in 2022 and a Dissertation Completion Fellowship awarded in 2024 by the College of Education at Michigan State University. Study 2 was also financially supported by the Graduate School, Alliance for African Partnerships, and African Studies Department at Michigan State University. vii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................................ ix CHAPTER I: GENERAL INTRODUCTION ................................................................................ 1 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 11 CHAPTER II: STUDY 1 .............................................................................................................. 17 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 41 CHAPTER III: STUDY 2 ............................................................................................................. 48 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 81 CHAPTER IV: GENERAL DISCUSSION .................................................................................. 90 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 99 APPENDIX A: Permission to use Published Manuscript in Dissertation .................................. 103 APPENDIX B: Demographic Information Questionnaire – Study 1 ......................................... 104 APPENDIX C: The Body Appreciation Scale – 2...................................................................... 106 APPENDIX D: The Functionality Appreciation Scale ............................................................... 107 APPENDIX E: Trait Sport-Confidence Inventory ..................................................................... 108 APPENDIX F: Sport Performance Questionnaire ...................................................................... 110 APPENDIX G: Demographic Information Questionnaire – 2 ................................................... 111 APPENDIX H: The Body Acceptance by Others Scale – 2 ....................................................... 114 APPENDIX I: Permission to Adapt the Body Acceptance by Others Scale – 2 ........................ 116 APPENDIX J: Sport-Confidence Inventory ............................................................................... 117 APPENDIX K: Permission to Use the Sport- Confidence Inventory ......................................... 120 APPENDIX L: Study 2 Supplementary Material ....................................................................... 121 viii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS BAOS-2 Body Acceptance by Others Scale-2 BAS-2 Body Appreciation Scale-2 BIA BMI CFI CI FAS ML Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis Body mass index Comparative Fit Index Confidence Interval Functionality Appreciation Scale Maximum likelihood MLR Maximum likelihood estimation with robust standard errors RMSEA Root Mean Square Error of Approximation SC SCI SEP SPQ Sport-confidence Sport-Confidence Inventory Sport and Exercise Psychology Subjective Performance Questionnaire SRMR Standardized Root Mean Square Residual TLI TSCI US Tucker-Lewis Index Trait Sport-Confidence Inventory United States ix CHAPTER I: GENERAL INTRODUCTION The manner in which the body is perceived and experienced (i.e., body image; Cash & Smolak, 2011) is of key importance in embodying activities such as sports (Menzel & Levine, 2011), and is shown to have implications for athletes’ well-being and sport experiences (Joy et al., 2016; Koulanova et al., 2021). Notwithstanding, two key issues pervade body image research in the sport domain. First, there is a disproportionate emphasis on research investigating a negative body image and the associated psychopathologies (Petrie & Greenleaf, 2011). This negative focus presents a one-sided pathological view of athlete body image and neglects the positive implications of sport participation for developing adaptive body image perceptions. Second, most research findings on athlete body image have a pervasive Eurocentric bias, as they are based on studies conducted predominantly with Caucasian populations in the Global North (i.e., North America, Europe, and Australia; Sabiston et al., 2019). Despite being known universally for their sporting accomplishments, athletes from the Global South, including Africa (Vancini et al., 2014) and regions of the Diaspora (e.g., the Caribbean; Thomas et al., 2019), remain underrepresented in the sport and exercise psychology (SEP) literature. This project seeks to advance SEP scholarship by responding to calls for additional research examining the adaptive aspects of body image (Sabiston et al., 2019) among athletes from diverse cultural contexts (Coakley, 2003; Duda & Allison, 1990). Positive Body Image in Sport Though outnumbered by a wealth of studies linking sport participation to negative body image (Bratland-Sanda & Sundgot-Borgen, 2013; Kong & Harris, 2015; Varnes et al., 2013), there exists considerable evidence that individuals who participate in sport and physical activity report less negative and more positive body image perceptions (Sabiston et al., 2019). A positive body image represents the love, respect, and acceptance that one has for their body (Tylka & Wood- 1 Barcalow, 2015b). Core facets of positive body image include body appreciation and functionality appreciation (Alleva et al., 2017; Tylka & Wood-Barcalow, 2015b). Body appreciation reflects gratitude, respect, and honor for the body’s features, health, and beauty (Tylka & Wood-Barcalow, 2015b), while functionality appreciation reflects gratitude, respect, and honor for what the body can and is capable of doing (Alleva et al., 2017). Only a few known studies have examined core facets of a positive body image among athletic populations (Baceviciene & Jankauskiene, 2020; Jankauskiene et al., 2020; Oh et al., 2012; Soulliard et al., 2019, 2021), with evidence provided for higher body and functionality appreciation in athletes compared to non-athletes (Baceviciene & Jankauskiene, 2020; Soulliard et al., 2019, 2021). Sport participation is an embodying experience that allows for greater body responsiveness, physical empowerment, and physical competence (Menzel & Levine, 2011). For this reason, athletes are considered uniquely positioned to develop an appreciation for the body’s form and functionality (Menzel & Levine, 2011; Piran, 2017). The benefits of sport participation for athletes’ body image are particularly noteworthy, as an appreciation for the body’s form and functionality has been linked to a host of well-being indicators, including adaptive eating and high self-esteem (Alleva et al., 2017; Tylka & Wood-Barcalow, 2015a). Thus, there is a need for additional research on the factors contributing to athletes’ experience of positive body image and its implications for their sport experiences and outcomes. Factors Contributing to Positive Body Image in Athletes Individual characteristics (e.g., age and sex) and sport-related contextual features (e.g., sport participation and competition level) play a role in athletes’ experience of positive body image (Jankauskiene et al., 2020; Kantanista et al., 2018; Soulliard et al., 2019). While any involvement in sport (e.g., recreational/competitive, aesthetic/non-aesthetic) is considered beneficial for 2 valuing the body’s form and functionality (Jankauskiene et al., 2020), body image perceptions tend to be more positive among older athletes (Kantanista et al., 2018), males (Jankauskiene et al., 2020; Soulliard et al., 2019), individuals participating at higher sport levels (Kantanista et al., 2018), and non-aesthetic sport participants (e.g., soccer; Abbott & Barber, 2011). Therefore, individual characteristics and sport-related contextual features are crucial to consider when examining contributors to athletes’ experience of positive body image. Studies have also examined body mass index (BMI) as a correlate of positive body image. Evidence from non-sport populations suggests an inverse relationship between body and functionality appreciation and BMI (Linardon et al., 2021; Tylka & Wood-Barcalow, 2015a). This association has been attributed to the greater ease of appreciating the body's form and functionality among individuals with lower BMI, especially in cultures that stigmatize higher body weights (Tylka & Wood-Barcalow, 2015b). Within the sport domain, investigations have failed to reveal significant associations between body and functionality appreciation and BMI (Soulliard et al., 2019, 2021). However, these findings may be limited by the reliance on self-reported height and weight for BMI estimation. While some individuals may lack awareness of their height and weight, others may overestimate (e.g., height) and underestimate (e.g., weight) these measures due to social desirability, resulting in weight status misclassification (Gay et al., 2009; Wilson et al., 2019). To address these methodological limitations, scholars recommend utilizing device-based measures of height and weight (Knechtle et al., 2012), which could offer a more nuanced understanding of the BMI and positive body image relationship. Notably, given their relatively large body size, coupled with their relative leanness, BMI presents limitations when used with athletes (Malina, 2007). BMI is limited in its ability to distinguish lean and fat tissue, complicating efforts at deciphering whether athletes are heavy due 3 to larger fat-free mass or excess fat (Malina, 2007). Excess fat mass is generally considered detrimental to athletic achievement and is stigmatized in many sport contexts (Lozano-Sufrategui et al., 2016; Malina, 2007; Vani et al., 2021). Thus, accounting for variations in percent body fat could clarify the unique role of BMI in athletes’ positive body image (Malina, 2007). Further investigations into the associations among BMI estimated using device-based measures, percent body fat, and body and functionality appreciation are warranted to improve understanding of these relationships. The extent to which the sport environment is conducive to nurturing adaptive body image perceptions may also contribute to athletes’ experience of positive body image. One key environmental characteristic that supports positive body image is body acceptance by others – the degree to which individuals perceive acceptance of their bodies by important others, regardless of their flaws (Avalos & Tylka, 2006). This phenomenon has been observed in sports, such that athletes perceiving greater acceptance of their bodies by coaches and teammates also report greater positive body image perceptions (Oh et al., 2012). However, in previous research, athletes’ experience of body acceptance by coaches and teammates was operationalized as being specific to body shape and weight (Oh et al., 2012). This approach undermines the various ways in which athletes may receive body acceptance from important others, including for their physical capabilities (e.g., agility) and bodily creativity (e.g., intricate movement patterns; Abbott & Barber, 2011; Swami et al., 2021). Thus, there is a need for additional research on the extent to which the body, in a more global sense (Swami et al., 2021), is perceived to be accepted by key interpersonal agents in sport, and its role in nurturing athletes’ experience of positive body image. Of note, is that body acceptance by teammates could be differentially related to positive body image depending on one’s involvement in individual versus team sports (Dosil, 2008). While teammates 4 (or training colleagues) can positively influence athletes’ body image in individual sports, their impact may be more significant in team sports due to stronger relationships and greater interactions (Dosil, 2008; Scott et al., 2019, 2021). Therefore, athletes’ sport category (i.e., individual vs. team) is important to consider when examining these associations. Sport-related Correlates of Positive Body Image Of relevance to SEP, is evidence of positive body image being associated with greater sport-confidence and successful sport performance evaluations (Soulliard et al., 2019). In conceptualizing the Sport-Confidence Model, Vealey (1986) defined sport-confidence as “the belief or degree of certainty individuals possess about their ability to be successful in sport” (p. 222). The Sport-Confidence Model (Vealey, 1986; Vealey et al., 1998), built on foundations of Bandura's (1977) self-efficacy theory, is a useful framework for understanding the role of positive body image in facilitating athletes sport-confidence and successful performance evaluations. Aligning with developments in personality research during the 20th century, sport-confidence was separated into two constructs termed trait sport-confidence (i.e., the degree of certainty one usually possesses about their ability to be successful in their sport) and state sport-confidence (i.e., the belief in one’s ability to be successful in their sport at a particular moment; Vealey, 1986). Vealey and colleagues (1998) identified nine sources of sport-confidence most salient to athletes. The nine sources were predicted to be directly related to athletes’ sport-confidence levels and indirectly related to athletes’ affect (e.g., enjoyment), behavior (e.g., effort), cognitions (e.g., performance evaluations), and performance outcomes (Vealey et al., 1998). Physical self-presentation, defined as perceptions of the physical self (Vealey et al., 1998), is the source of sport-confidence of interest to the current project. According to athletes in Vealey et al.’s (1998) study, this source of sport-confidence emanated from perceptions of positive body 5 image. However, within the Sport-Confidence Model (Vealey et al., 1998), physical self- presentation was operationalized as an appearance-based construct, such that higher scores indicated a more favorable evaluation of the physical self. Assessing physical self-presentation solely based on appearance does not accurately capture other facets of the physical self that contribute to positive body image (Tylka & Wood-Barcalow, 2015b). This may explain why Vealey et al. (1998) found a greater reliance on physical self-presentation to be associated with lower levels of sport-confidence. For athletes, perceptions of the physical self may also incorporate the body’s health, fitness, and functionality (Abbott & Barber, 2011; Allen et al., 2019; Menzel & Levine, 2011; Petrie & Greenleaf, 2011), features that prove to be important to athletes’ sport- confidence and performance evaluations (Soulliard et al., 2019). Thus, there is a need for additional research that extends the physical self-presentation construct of the Sport-Confidence Model (Vealey et al., 1998), beyond a narrow focus on appearance, to assess core facets of positive body image in relation to athletes’ sport-confidence. In later refinements to the Sport-Confidence Model, Vealey and Knight (2002) acknowledged the construct’s multidimensionality, outlining three types of sport-confidence most crucial to athletes: sport confidence in (1) physical skills and training (i.e., belief in one’s ability to execute the physical skills necessary to perform successfully), (2) cognitive efficiency (i.e., belief in one’s ability to mentally focus, concentrate, and make effective decisions for successful performance), and (3) resilience (i.e., belief in one’s ability to refocus and bounce back from performance decrements). Importantly, perceptions of positive body image may be differentially related to the types of sport-confidence. A positive body image could facilitate greater confidence in one’s physical skills and training, as these athletes may be more in tune with and trusting of their body’s ability to demonstrate its physical competencies (Piran et al., 2020). A positive body 6 image may also be protective to athletes’ confidence in cognitive efficiency and resilience, though these domains may appear less connected to perceptions of the physical self (Machida, 2008). Athletes with a positive body image are less likely to experience body image disturbances that disrupt the ability to mentally focus, concentrate, and refocus after experiencing performance decrements (Voelker & Reel, 2015, 2018). However, no known study has investigated the associations between positive body image and multidimensional sport-confidence. An examination of these associations could provide an improved understanding of the positive body image and sport-confidence relationship. Despite recommendations for additional research with diverse sport populations (Coakley, 2003; Duda & Allison, 1990), the perspectives of athletes from regions of Africa and the African Diaspora (e.g., the Caribbean) remain noticeably scarce in the sport-related psychosocial literature (Chinomona, 2014; McSweeney & Nakamura, 2020; Sabiston et al., 2019; Thomas et al., 2019). Longstanding calls have been made for the interconnection of regions in A-frica and the Diaspora, particularly through research (Halidu, 2022; Okpewho & Nzegwu, 2009). Jamaica, a small Caribbean island in the Diaspora (Mullings et al., 2018), and Botswana, a country in Southern Africa (Brown et al., 2015), offer intriguing contexts for exploring positive body image and its implications for sport experiences and outcomes. Alongside the establishment of sporting infrastructure to support athletic achievement, both regions place significant emphasis on fostering athletic excellence, and have amassed governmental support for advancing sport development (Toomer, 2015; Tshube et al., 2022). Despite these advancements, knowledge of the psychosocial factors contributing to athletic success remains sparse in both countries, hindering opportunities for targeted and culturally relevant SEP practice (Mason & Morgan, 2022; Tshube et al., 2022). 7 In the context of athletic pursuits, a distinguishing feature of Jamaica and Botswana lies in the degree of attained sporting excellence. Jamaica boasts an extensive record of international successes, particularly in sports such as soccer, cricket, and track (Franklyn, 2010; Taylor, 2015; Toomer, 2015). Botswana, however, has had a shorter history of international sport successes (Tshube et al., 2022). The region has faced persistent challenges related to nurturing athlete talent, leading to poor performances at many national and international events (Tshube et al., 2022). This raises the question of whether there are lessons to be learned from regions of Africa and the Diaspora that are transferable across these contexts to promote sport success. To address this question, further investigations of the sporting landscape and experiences of individuals across these regions are warranted. Notably, positive perceptions of the physical self are considered important for confident and competent sport engagement in both Jamaica (Malete et al., 2008) and Botswana (Shehu & Moruisi, 2011). It therefore appears feasible to examine, more specifically, the role of positive body image in facilitating confident and successful sport performance in athletes from these regions. An examination of these associations could uncover psychosocial factors to target when supporting athlete talent development and success in these countries, further connecting both regions through shared knowledge and experiences. The Current Project To extend the literature beyond a focus on body-related psychopathologies among athletes in the Global North, this study examined the adaptive aspects of athlete body image in two understudied regions in the Global South - Jamaica and Botswana. This project comprises two independent studies guided by the Sport-Confidence Model (Vealey, 1986; Vealey et al., 1998; Vealey & Knight, 2002). However, both studies extend the physical self-presentation construct of the Sport-Confidence Model, beyond a focus on appearance, to examine core facets of positive 8 body image – body appreciation and functionality appreciation. Study 1, which targeted a sample of Jamaican athletes, examined a model of the associations among body and functionality appreciation, trait sport-confidence, and sport performance evaluations, controlling for age, sex, and sport participation level (recreational vs. competitive). Study 2, which targeted a sample of Botswana athletes, builds on the findings of Study 1 in two ways. First, Study 2 expanded the model assessed in Study 1 to investigate perceived body acceptance by coaches and teammates in relation to athletes’ positive body image, accounting for the additional factors of BMI, percent body fat, and engagement in team versus individual sports. Second, for a more comprehensive understanding of the positive body image, sport-confidence, and performance relationship, the model examined in Study 2 was expanded to account for the multidimensionality of sport- confidence. Anticipated Contributions The current project is expected to advance the literature by providing theory-driven insights on the role of positive body image in contributing to athletes’ sport-confidence and performance evaluations. This project has the potential to uncover individual athlete characteristics (e.g., age, sex, body composition) and sport-related contextual features (e.g., sport level, perceived body acceptance by coaches and teammates) that facilitate positive body image, sport-confidence, and successful sport performance. Thus, the findings of these studies may present important implications for sport practitioners aiming to promote positive sport experiences and outcomes among their region’s athletes. Furthermore, understanding the psychosocial factors that drive successful sport engagement is not only beneficial for promoting high level performance, but also has implications for supporting enjoyable and lifelong physical activity (MacNamara et al., 2011). To address questions regarding the generalizability of theories in SEP, additional research with 9 diverse athlete populations has been recommended (Papaioannou, 2013). While the Sport- Confidence Model was developed in the United States (US) and has primarily been examined among US athlete samples (Hays et al., 2007; Machida et al., 2012, 2017; Vealey, 1986; Vealey et al., 1998; Vealey & Knight, 2002), the results of the current project can provide insights on the applicability of this model to two diverse, yet understudied cultural contexts. Importantly, this project contributes to ongoing efforts to bridge the gap between regions of Africa and the Diaspora by advancing scholarship pertinent to both contexts. 10 REFERENCES Abbott, B. D., & Barber, B. L. (2011). Differences in functional and aesthetic body image between sedentary girls and girls involved in sports and physical activity: Does sport type make a difference? Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 12(3), 333–342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2010.10.005 Allen, C. P., Telford, R. M., Telford, R., D., & Olive, L. S. (2019). Sport, physical activity and physical education experiences: Associations with functional body image in children. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 45, 101572. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2019.101572 Alleva, J. M., Tylka, T. L., & Kroon Van Diest, A. M. (2017). The Functionality Appreciation Scale (FAS): Development and psychometric evaluation in U.S. community women and men. Body Image, 23, 28–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2017.07.008 Avalos, L., & Tylka, T. L. (2006). Exploring a model of intuitive eating with college women. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 53(4), 486–497. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022- 0167.53.4.486 Baceviciene, M., & Jankauskiene, R. (2020). Associations between body appreciation and disordered eating in a large sample of adolescents. Nutrients, 12(3), Article 3. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu12030752 Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191. Bratland-Sanda, S., & Sundgot-Borgen, J. (2013). Eating disorders in athletes: Overview of prevalence, risk factors and recommendations for prevention and treatment. European Journal of Sport Science, 13(5), 499–508. https://doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2012.740504 Brown, C., Shaibu, S., Maruapula, S., Malete, L., & Compher, C. (2015). Perceptions and attitudes towards food choice in adolescents in Gaborone, Botswana. Appetite, 95, 29–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2015.06.018 Cash, T. F., & Smolak, L. (Eds.). (2011). Body image: A handbook of science, practice, and prevention (2nd ed). Guilford Press. Chinomona, R. (2014). The prevalence of athlete hostility, anger, verbal and physical aggression within South African sport. African Journal for Physical, Health Education, Recreation and Dance, 20, 89–105. Coakley, J. (2003). Sports in society: Issues and controversies, 8th edn, Vol. 8. New York: McGraw-Hill. Dosil, J. (2008). Eating disorders in athletes. John Wiley & Sons. 11 Duda, J. L., & Allison, M. T. (1990). Cross-cultural analysis in exercise and sport psychology: A void in the field. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 12(2), 114–131. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.12.2.114 Franklyn, D. (2010). Sport in Jamaica: A local and international perspective. GraceKennedy Foundation. Gay, J., Monsma, E. V., & Torres-McGehee, T. (2009). Give or take a few? Comparing measured and self-reported height and weight as correlates of social physique anxiety. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 80(3), 656–662. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2009.10599605 Halidu, A. (2022). Connecting Africans in the diaspora and the continent: Prospects and challenges of the African diaspora development institute (ADDI). 1, 1–12. Hays, K., Maynard, I., Thomas, O., & Bawden, M. (2007). Sources and types of confidence identified by world class sport performers. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 19(4), 434–456. https://doi.org/10.1080/10413200701599173 Jankauskiene, R., Baceviciene, M., & Trinkuniene, L. (2020). Examining body appreciation and disordered eating in adolescents of different sports practice: Cross-sectional study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(11), Article 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17114044 Joy, E., Kussman, A., & Nattiv, A. (2016). 2016 update on eating disorders in athletes: A comprehensive narrative review with a focus on clinical assessment and management. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 50(3), 154–162. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports- 2015-095735 Kantanista, A., Glapa, A., Banio, A., Firek, W., Ingarden, A., Malchrowicz-Mośko, E., Markiewicz, P., Płoszaj, K., Ingarden, M., & Maćkowiak, Z. (2018). Body image of highly trained female athletes engaged in different types of sport. BioMed Research International, 2018, e6835751. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/6835751 Knechtle, B., Rüst, C. A., Rosemann, T., Knechtle, P., & Bescos, R. (2012). Estimation bias: Body mass and body height in endurance athletes. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 115(3), 833–844. https://doi.org/10.2466/03.27.PMS.115.6.833-844 Kong, P., & Harris, L. M. (2015). The sporting body: Body image and eating disorder symptomatology among female athletes from leanness focused and nonleanness focused sports. The Journal of Psychology, 149(2), 141–160. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2013.846291 Koulanova, A., Sabiston, C. M., Pila, E., Brunet, J., Sylvester, B., Sandmeyer-Graves, A., & Maginn, D. (2021). Ideas for action: Exploring strategies to address body image concerns for adolescent girls involved in sport. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 56, 102017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2021.102017 12 Linardon, J., Anderson, C., Messer, M., Rodgers, R. F., & Fuller-Tyszkiewicz, M. (2021). Body image flexibility and its correlates: A meta-analysis. Body Image, 37, 188–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2021.02.005 Lozano-Sufrategui, L., Carless, D., Pringle, A., Sparkes, A., & McKenna, J. (2016). “Sorry mate, you’re probably a bit too fat to be able to do any of these”: Men’s experiences of weight stigma. International Journal of Men’s Health, 15(1), 4–23. https://doi.org/10.3149/jmh.1501.4 Machida, M. (2008). An examination of sources and multidimensionality of self-confidence in collegiate athletes [Miami University]. https://etd.ohiolink.edu/apexprod/rws_olink/r/1501/10?clear=10&p10_accession_num=m iami1214597240 Machida, M., Marie Ward, R., & Vealey, R. S. (2012). Predictors of sources of self-confidence in collegiate athletes. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 10(3), 172–185. https://doi.org/10.1080/1612197X.2012.672013 Machida, M., Otten, M., Magyar, T. M., Vealey, R. S., & Ward, R. M. (2017). Examining multidimensional sport-confidence in athletes and non-athlete sport performers. Journal of Sports Sciences, 35(5), 410–418. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2016.1167934 MacNamara, A., Collins, D., Bailey, R., Toms, M., Ford, P., & Pearce, G. (2011). Promoting lifelong physical activity and high level performance: Realising an achievable aim for physical education. Physical Education & Sport Pedagogy, 16(3), 265–278. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2010.535200 Malete, L., Sullivan, P., & Matthies, B. K. (2008). Examining physical self‐perceptions and physical activity of Jamaican youths: A cultural extension of the PSPP. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 6(1), 39–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/1612197X.2008.9671853 Malina, R. M. (2007). Body Composition in Athletes: Assessment and estimated fatness. Clinics in Sports Medicine, 26(1), 37–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csm.2006.11.004 Mason, G. E., & Morgan, K. A. D. (2022). An examination of the landscape of psychology in Jamaica. In G. J. Rich & N. A. Ramkumar (Eds.), Psychology in Oceania and the Caribbean (pp. 179–193). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978- 3-030-87763-7_12 McSweeney, M., & Nakamura, Y. (2020). The “diaspora” diaspora in sport? A systematic literature review of empirical studies. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 55(8), 1056–1073. https://doi.org/10.1177/1012690219869191 Menzel, J. E., & Levine, M. P. (2011). Embodying experiences and the promotion of positive body image: The example of competitive athletics. In Self-objectification in women: Causes, consequences, and counteractions (pp. 163–186). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/12304-008 13 Mullings, J., Archer, C., McCaw-Binns, A., Younger-Coleman, N., & Wilks, R. (2018). The right to the city and the responsibility of citizens: Equitable access to basic urban services and infrastructure for health and social development in the small island developing state of Jamaica *. Current Politics and Economics of South and Central America, 11(2), 131– 171. Oh, K. H., Wiseman, M. C., Hendrickson, J., Phillips, J. C., & Hayden, E. W. (2012). Testing the acceptance model of intuitive eating with college women athletes. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 36(1), 88–98. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684311433282 Okpewho, I., & Nzegwu, N. (2009). The new African diaspora. Indiana University Press. Papaioannou, A. G. (2013). International research and generalizability of findings. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 11(2), 121–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/1612197X.2013.792522 Petrie, T. A., & Greenleaf, C. (2011). Body image and athleticism. Body Image: A Handbook of Science, Practice, and Prevention, 206–213. Piran, N. (2017). Journeys of embodiment at the intersection of body and culture: The developmental theory of embodiment. Academic Press. Piran, N., Teall, T. L., & Counsell, A. (2020). The experience of embodiment scale: Development and psychometric evaluation. Body Image, 34, 117–134. Sabiston, C. M., Pila, E., Vani, M., & Thogersen-Ntoumani, C. (2019). Body image, physical activity, and sport: A scoping review. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 42, 48–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2018.12.010 Scott, C. L., Haycraft, E., & Plateau, C. R. (2019). Teammate influences and relationship quality are associated with eating and exercise psychopathology in athletes. Appetite, 143, 104404. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2019.104404 Scott, C. L., Haycraft, E., & Plateau, C. R. (2021). The influence of social networks within sports teams on athletes’ eating and exercise psychopathology: A longitudinal study. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 52, 101786. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2020.101786 Shehu, J., & Moruisi, M. (2011). Influence of sport on personal development and social investment among Botswana Olympic athletes. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 46(3), 282–298. Soulliard, Z. A., Fitterman-Harris, H. F., Perry, J. E., Poe, L. M., & Ross, M. J. (2021). Differences in body appreciation and functionality appreciation outside of and directly following sport among collegiate student-athletes. The Sport Psychologist, 35(4), 320– 328. 14 Soulliard, Z. A., Kauffman, A. A., Fitterman-Harris, H. F., Perry, J. E., & Ross, M. J. (2019). Examining positive body image, sport confidence, flow state, and subjective performance among student athletes and non-athletes. Body Image, 28, 93–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2018.12.009 Swami, V., Todd, J., Stieger, S., Furnham, A., Horne, G., & Tylka, T. L. (2021). Body acceptance by others: Refinement of the construct, and development and psychometric evaluation of a revised measure – The Body Acceptance by Others Scale-2. Body Image, 36, 238–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2020.11.007 Taylor, O. W. (2015). It’s culture, not genes: Explaining why Jamaican sprinters are the fastest humans on Earth. Caribbean Quarterly, 61(1), 23–41. Thomas, C. E., Chambers, T. P., Main, L. C., & Gastin, P. B. (2019). Factors influencing the early development of world-class Caribbean track and field athletes: A qualitative investigation. Journal of Sports Science & Medicine, 18(4), 758–771. Toomer, R. (2015). Jamaica. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics, 7(3), 457–471. https://doi.org/10.1080/19406940.2014.910540 Tshube, T., Kasale, L., & Manatsha, B. (2022). A critical overview of sport development in Botswana. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 20(4), 997–1012. https://doi.org/10.1080/1612197X.2021.1956566 Tylka, T. L., & Wood-Barcalow, N. L. (2015a). The Body Appreciation Scale-2: Item refinement and psychometric evaluation. Body Image, 12, 53–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2014.09.006 Tylka, T. L., & Wood-Barcalow, N. L. (2015b). What is and what is not positive body image? Conceptual foundations and construct definition. Body Image, 14, 118–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2015.04.001 Vancini, R. L., Pesquero, J. B., Fachina, R. J., Andrade, M. dos S., Borin, J. P., Montagner, P. C., & de Lira, C. A. B. (2014). Genetic aspects of athletic performance: The African runners phenomenon. Open Access Journal of Sports Medicine, 123–127. Vani, M. F., Pila, E., deJonge, M., Solomon-Krakus, S., & Sabiston, C. M. (2021). ‘Can you move your fat ass off the baseline?’ Exploring the sport experiences of adolescent girls with body image concerns. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 13(4), 671–689. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2020.1771409 Varnes, J. R., Stellefson, M. L., Janelle, C. M., Dorman, S. M., Dodd, V., & Miller, M. D. (2013). A systematic review of studies comparing body image concerns among female college athletes and non-athletes, 1997–2012. Body Image, 10(4), 421–432. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2013.06.001 15 Vealey, R. S. (1986). Conceptualization of sport-confidence and competitive orientation: Preliminary investigation and instrument development. Journal of Sport Psychology, 8(3). Vealey, R. S., Garner-Holman, M., Hayashi, S. W., & Giacobbi, P. (1998). Sources of sport- confidence: Conceptualization and instrument development. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 20(1), 54–80. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.20.1.54 Vealey, R. S., & Knight, B. J. (2002). Multidimensional sport-confidence: A conceptual and psychometric extension. Association for the Advancement of Applied Sport Psychology Conference, Tucson, AZ. Voelker, D. K., & Reel, J. J. (2015). An inductive thematic analysis of female competitive figure skaters’ experiences of weight pressure in sport. Journal of Clinical Sport Psychology, 9(4), 297–316. https://doi.org/10.1123/jcsp.2015-0012 Voelker, D. K., & Reel, J. J. (2018). An inductive thematic analysis of male competitive figure skaters’ experiences of weight pressure in sport. Journal of Clinical Sport Psychology, 12(4), 614–629. https://doi.org/10.1123/jcsp.2018-0045 Wilson, O. W. A., Bopp, C. M., Papalia, Z., & Bopp, M. (2019). Objective vs self-report assessment of height, weight and body mass index: Relationships with adiposity, aerobic fitness and physical activity. Clinical Obesity, 9(5), e12331. https://doi.org/10.1111/cob.12331 16 CHAPTER II: STUDY 1 ABSTRACT Guided by the Sport-Confidence Model, this study examined the associations among positive body image, sport-confidence, and sport performance evaluations. Using a cross-sectional design, a purposive sample of 314 Jamaican athletes (male = 70.7%; 𝑀𝑎𝑔𝑒 = 22.85; SD = 4.89) completed measures of body and functionality appreciation, sport-confidence, and subjective sport performance. Results from path analysis provided evidence for good model-data fit. Body (B = 9.03, p < .001) and functionality (B = 4.93, p = .036) appreciation exerted direct effects on sport- confidence. Sport-confidence exerted a direct effect on sport performance evaluations (B = 0.09, p < .001). Body (B = 0.79, CI95% [0.44, 1.17]) and functionality (B = .43, CI95% [0.05, 0.92]) appreciation exerted indirect effects on sport performance evaluations through sport-confidence. Results indicate that supporting the development of positive body image in athletes may contribute to feelings of sport-confidence and positive performance outcomes. INTRODUCTION The body’s centrality in sport transcends its physical capabilities. Perceptions, emotions, and behaviors related to the body’s appearance and function (Cash & Smolak, 2011) also contributes to athletes’ sport experiences (Koulanova et al., 2021). It is well-established that the appearance-related pressures present in many sport contexts may increase athletes’ risk for developing a negative body image (Sabiston et al., 2019) and the associated psychopathologies (e.g., eating disorders and excessive exercise; Galli et al., 2017; Petrie et al., 2014; Vani et al., 2021). While a negative body image has deleterious implications for athletes’ well-being (Joy et al., 2016; Koulanova et al., 2021), knowledge of the relationship between body image and psychosocial functioning in athletes may be limited by a disproportionate focus on pathology. A 17 comprehensive understanding of this relationship requires additional research on the adaptive aspects of athlete body image. Furthermore, body image research in sport has predominantly been conducted in Western regions (Sabiston et al., 2019), despite longstanding calls for more cross- cultural research in SEP (Duda & Allison, 1990; Ryba et al., 2013). Jamaica, a small developing island in the Caribbean (Mullings et al., 2018), is described as a ‘sporting nation’, with international successes in sports such as netball, soccer, cricket, and track and field (Franklyn, 2010; Toomer, 2015). Knowledge derived from athletes in non-Western ‘sporting regions’, such as Jamaica, may contribute diverse perspectives that are beneficial for advancing the field. This study responds to calls for diversifying SEP research, by examining the adaptive aspects of body image and its implications for sport-confidence and performance in a sample of Jamaican athletes. Sport Participation and Positive Body Image While sport participation affords athletes the opportunity to develop their physical competencies in areas such as speed and coordination (Greenleaf et al., 2009), this pursuit may also be promising for the development of a positive body image (Baceviciene & Jankauskiene, 2020; Jankauskiene et al., 2020; Soulliard et al., 2019). A positive body image represents the love, respect, and acceptance that one has for their body (Tylka & Wood-Barcalow, 2015b). This multifaceted construct extends beyond mere body satisfaction and positive appearance evaluations, to also incorporate an appreciation for the body’s form and functionality (Alleva et al., 2017; Tylka & Wood-Barcalow, 2015b). Two core facets that comprise the positive body image construct are body appreciation and functionality appreciation. Body appreciation reflects an admiration for the body’s unique features, health, and beauty (Tylka & Wood-Barcalow, 2015b), while functionality appreciation represents gratitude for what the body can and is capable of doing (e.g., physical capabilities; Alleva et al., 2017). 18 Importantly, when compared to their non-athlete counterparts, athletes have been found to report higher levels of body and functionality appreciation (Baceviciene & Jankauskiene, 2020; Jankauskiene et al., 2020; Soulliard et al., 2019). The bodies of athletes are capable of engaging in intricate movement patterns, therefore, athletes may be more aware and appreciative of the unique features and capabilities of their bodies. As a result of their sport participation, athletes may develop close and connected relationships with their bodies (i.e., a sense of embodiment; Menzel & Levine, 2011), and cultivate identities that are not based solely on their physical appearance, but that also incorporates their physical skills and potential (Abbott & Barber, 2011; Allen et al., 2019). Sport participation could also be protective against the development of a negative body image, as evidence indicates lower negative, but higher positive body image perceptions among sport participants (Sabiston et al., 2019). However, previous studies have predominantly utilized body satisfaction and positive appearance evaluations as indicators of positive body image in athletes (Sabiston et al., 2019). Given the multifaceted nature of a positive body image, an examination of its key components is required for an improved understanding of the athlete body image and psychosocial functioning relationship. Positive Body Image, Sport-confidence, and Sport performance Characteristic features of a positive body image include portraying confident behaviors (e.g., smiling, asserting oneself) and a high self-regard (Tylka, 2012). Therefore, it is no surprise that athletes with higher levels of body and functionality appreciation also report higher levels of sport-confidence (Soulliard et al., 2019). Sport-confidence, defined as the degree of certainty that one has about their ability to be successful in sport (Vealey, 1986), is of key interest, given its established role as a predictor of successful sport performance (Hays et al., 2009; Levy et al., 2011; Martin & Gill, 1991; Vealey et al., 1998). Athletes high in confidence are reportedly more skilled 19 and effective in using cognitive resources and employing the achievement behaviors necessary to be successful in their sport (Hays et al., 2009). Similarly, athletes with a positive body image spend less time critiquing their body’s appearance and more time celebrating its functional capabilities (Tylka, 2012). This positive view of the body may serve as a source of encouragement about one’s ability to successfully execute sport-specific courses of action. The Sport-Confidence Model (Vealey, 1986; Vealey et al., 1998) is a useful framework for understanding the associations among a positive body image, sport-confidence, and sport performance. Emerging from self-efficacy theory (Bandura, 1977), this model was developed to provide a parsimonious conceptualization of self-confidence in the sport domain (Vealey, 1986). The Sport-Confidence Model classifies sport-confidence into trait and state dimensions (Vealey, 1986), with trait sport-confidence reflecting the degree of certainty one generally possesses about their ability to be successful in sport, and state sport-confidence reflecting the degree of certainty about one’s ability to be successful in sport at a particular moment (Vealey, 1986). Vealey and colleagues (1998) extended the sources of self-confidence beyond that of self-efficacy theory (Bandura, 1977), and identified nine sources of sport-confidence most salient to athletes (e.g., mastery, demonstration of ability). These nine sources were directly related to athletes’ sport- confidence levels and indirectly related to athletes’ affect (e.g., enjoyment), behavior (e.g., performance), and cognitions (e.g., performance evaluations; Vealey et al., 1998). Physical self-presentation, or athletes’ perception of the physical self, was highlighted as an important source of sport-confidence by athletes, and was reportedly derived from perceptions of a positive body image (Vealey et al., 1998). However, in the Sport-Confidence Model (Vealey, 1986; Vealey et al., 1998), physical self-presentation was assessed as an appearance-based construct, with higher scores indicative of greater sport-confidence derived from a positive 20 evaluation of one’s physical appearance. An appearance-based focus neglects other features of the physical self (e.g., health and functionality) that play a role in body image (Tylka & Wood- Barcalow, 2015b). Thus, this study extends the physical self-presentation construct of the Sport- Confidence Model (Vealey et al., 1998), beyond an evaluation of appearance, to examine body and functionality appreciation in relation to athletes’ sport-confidence. Given that greater sport-confidence is associated with better athlete performance (Martin & Gill, 1991), it is expected that athletes with a positive body image will not only approach their sport more confidently, but will also exhibit higher levels of performance (Vealey et al., 1998). These athletes may be more in tune with and trusting of their body’s ability to execute the skills necessary to perform well in their sport (Piran et al., 2020). Additionally, these athletes may be less likely to experience body image disturbances that disrupt the ebb and flow of the physiological and psychological processes that facilitate successful sport performance (Voelker & Reel, 2015, 2018). This is of practical significance for sport stakeholders (e.g., coaches and sport psychologists), and indicates that promoting the development of a positive body image in athletes may be a potential avenue to not only facilitate feelings of sport-confidence, but also indirectly promote positive sport outcomes. Only one known study has provided evidence of positive associations among body and functionality appreciation, sport-confidence, and sport performance evaluations (Soulliard et al., 2019). Importantly, this study established weak positive associations between body and functionality appreciation and sport performance evaluations (Soulliard et al., 2019). This is to be expected, as there are more immediate and influential contextual (e.g., coaches), personal (e.g., confidence), training (e.g., physical skills), and competition-related (e.g., managing pressure) factors that contribute to successful sport performance (Durand-Bush & Salmela, 2002). Despite 21 their contributions, Soulliard et al. (2019) examined these associations in the absence of a conceptual framework. Theoretical frameworks provide a conceptual base of which to define, examine, and explain relationships among variables across a range of predicted situations (Wacker, 2008). Predictions by the Sport-Confidence Model (Vealey et al., 1998) point to an indirect association between positive body image and sport performance evaluations, by way of sport- confidence. A theory-driven examination of these associations may provide crucial insights on factors on which to intervene to promote positive sport experiences and outcomes. As proposed by Vealey et al. (1998), body image may be differentially related to sport- confidence and performance based on athlete characteristics (e.g., age, sex) and the organizational culture of sport (e.g., sport type and level). Body image perceptions tend to be more adaptive with increasing age (Kantanista et al., 2018; Tylka & Wood-Barcalow, 2015b), among males (Jankauskiene et al., 2020; Soulliard et al., 2019), at higher sport participation levels (Jankauskiene et al., 2020; Kantanista et al., 2018), and in non-aesthetic sports (e.g., soccer; Abbott & Barber, 2011). With increasing age comes a greater understanding and awareness of the body’s functional capabilities (Tiggemann, 2015; Tylka & Wood-Barcalow, 2015b). Likewise, male athletes may self-objectify their bodies to a lesser extent than female athletes (Soulliard et al., 2019), and their bodies tend to be valued more highly for its physical capabilities (Tylka & Wood-Barcalow, 2015b). Due to their greater physical training and fitness, athletes competing at higher levels of sport are considered to be more aware and appreciative of their bodies (Kantanista et al., 2018; Petrie & Greenleaf, 2011). Similarly, non-aesthetic sports are considered to have a more instrumental, as opposed to appearance-based focus (Lucibello et al., 2021), and as such, present greater opportunities to value the body’s form and functionality (Abbott & Barber, 2011). Consequently, athlete demographics and sport-related contextual features are crucial factors to 22 consider when examining associations among a positive body image, sport-confidence, and sport performance. To advance the field of contemporary SEP, additional research with diverse cultural identities has been recommended (Duda & Allison, 1990; Ryba et al., 2013). An increased representation of diverse populations in the SEP literature is crucial for uncovering insights that inform contextually relevant teaching, research, and practice (McGannon et al., 2014; Ryba et al., 2013). Jamaica is known for its sporting talents (Franklyn, 2010; Toomer, 2015), yet little is known about the psychosocial factors that contribute to the performance of Jamaican athletes. While body image perceptions have been investigated in samples of Jamaican weightlifters (Ricketts et al., 2020) and physically active adolescents (Harrison et al., 2022), no known studies have examined psychosocial correlates of body image perceptions in Jamaican athletes. A study of this nature supplements the growing body of research seeking to examine the adaptive aspects of athlete body image, and may uncover factors that contribute to positive sport experiences in Jamaican athletes, while responding to calls for more cross-cultural research. Aim and Hypotheses In line with predictions by Vealey and colleagues (1998), this study aimed to examine a path model of the associations among a positive body image (i.e., body and functionality appreciation), sport-confidence, and sport performance evaluations, in a Jamaican athlete sample. Given that Vealey et al. (1998) found more internally based sources of sport-confidence to be associated with more enduring feelings of sport-confidence, trait sport-confidence (referred hereinafter as sport-confidence) was the variable of interest in this study. The following hypotheses were investigated: 23 Hypothesis 1. Body and functionality appreciation would exert positive direct effects on sport- confidence. Hypothesis 2. Sport-confidence would exert a positive direct effect on sport performance evaluations. Hypothesis 3. Body and functionality appreciation would exert positive indirect effects on sport performance evaluations through sport-confidence. METHODS Participants and Procedures Ethical approval to conduct this study was granted by the Michigan State University Institutional Review Board (STUDY0000669) and the University of the West Indies, Mona Campus Research Ethics Committee, Jamaica (ECP 31). Following ethical approval, this cross- sectional study recruited a purposive sample of Jamaican athletes, ages 18 years and older. Given the paucity of psychosocial research conducted with Jamaican athletes and the limited knowledge of the adult sport demographic, no restriction was placed on maximum age in the present study to prevent limiting the number of available participants. The adult sport demographic predominantly comprises of individuals below the age of 35 years, though a considerable number of sport participants are between ages 35 – 64 years (Eime et al., 2016, 2021; Woods, n.d.). These trends, however, are specific to countries in the global North (i.e., Australia and the United States) and may not be applicable to the Jamaican context. Not delimiting age in the current study presents two advantages. First, it allows for an improved understanding of the Jamaican adult sport demographic. Second, given previously reported age differences in the variables under study (Gyomber et al., 2013; Hall et al., 2009; Tiggemann, 2015; Tylka & Wood-Barcalow, 2015b), it 24 presents an opportunity to detect and account for age-related variabilities in positive body image, sport-confidence, and sport performance evaluations. Permission was attained from Sport Administrators prior to recruiting participants from various athletic departments, sports teams, and clubs. Additionally, participants were recruited from the general population. Research Assistants aided in participant recruitment and dissemination of the questionnaires, which took the form of an online Qualtrics survey. Data were collected as a part of a larger study investigating a positive body image and its association with psychological outcomes and sport experiences. Participants were required to provide Informed Consent using the Qualtrics platform, after which they completed measures of demographic information, body appreciation, functionality appreciation, sport-confidence, and sport performance. To verify athlete status, participants were asked whether they participated in sport, as well as to identify either as a recreational or competitive athlete based on the following criteria: (a) Recreational athlete: participates in sport without training or competing regularly and mainly for the purpose(s) of being physically active, fun/enjoyment, and/or social engagement (Maron et al., 2004); (b) Competitive athlete: member of an organized sports team or individual sport that requires regular training and competition, with a high premium placed on athletic excellence and achievement (Maron & Mitchell, 1994). The participants were offered the opportunity to enter a raffle to win one of multiple Western Union cash transfers of 20 USD. Power Estimation A power analysis for testing focal parameters within a model (e.g., Hancock & French 2013; MacCallum et al., 1996) was conducted as advocated in exercise science (e.g., Myers et al., 2016; Myers et al., 2018), using an online utility (Preacher & Coffman, 2006). Focal parameters were the three direct effect model parameters specified in Hypotheses 1 and 2. The two indirect 25 effects specified in Hypotheses 3 were both a function of these direct effect model parameters. Peripheral parameters were the remaining 10 model parameters to be estimated in the full path model, which had 2 degrees of freedom. Alpha was set to .05. Sample size was set to 300. Degrees of freedom were set to 5 in the null (i.e., peripheral parameters only) model, where each of the three focal direct effects were assumed to have a value of zero, and to 2 in the alternative (i.e., peripheral + focal parameters) model, where at least one focal direct effect was assumed to have a non-zero value. Population model data fit (e) was set to .10 in the null condition (e0) to represent poor fit consistent with general methodological recommendations (Steiger & Lind, 1980) and theory (e.g., assuming no effect of confidence on performance). Population model data fit was set to .025 in the alternative condition (e1) to represent close fit consistent with general methodological recommendations (Steiger & Lind, 1980) and theory (e.g., assuming a non-zero effect of confidence on performance). Power estimation equaled .91. Measures Demographic Information Questionnaire. Participants reported demographic information including age, sex, sport participation and competition level, duration and frequency of sport participation, employment status, education level, and socioeconomic status (see Appendix B). Body Appreciation. The Body Appreciation Scale-2 (BAS-2; Tylka & Wood-Barcalow, 2015a) is a 10-item measure assessing the extent to which individuals accept, respect, and have favorable attitudes toward their bodies (see Appendix C; Avalos et al., 2005). Items on the BAS- 2 (e.g., “I appreciate the different and unique characteristics of my body”) are scored on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 = Never to 5 = Always. A total body appreciation score is calculated by averaging participants’ responses to all items, with higher scores indicating greater body appreciation. Scores derived from the BAS-2 boast good psychometric properties, with alpha 26 coefficients ranging from .95 to .97 among samples of athletes (Jankauskiene et al., 2020; Soulliard et al., 2019), as well as high test-retest reliability, and evidence of construct validity (Tylka & Wood-Barcalow, 2015a). The internal consistency (α) of scores produced by the BAS-2 in the current study was .93. Functionality Appreciation. The Functionality Appreciation Scale (FAS; Alleva et al., 2017) is a 7-item measure of the extent to which individuals appreciate, respect, and honor their body’s functional capabilities (see Appendix D). Items on the FAS (e.g., “I respect my body for the functions that it performs”) are scored on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree. A total functionality appreciation score is derived from averaging participants scores on all items, with higher scores indicating greater functionality appreciation. Scores derived from the FAS are reportedly psychometrically sound, with evidence of test-retest reliabilities of .81 for women and .74 for men (over a 3-week period), construct and criterion- related validity (Alleva et al., 2017), as well as an internal consistency of .85 in an athlete sample (Soulliard et al., 2019). The internal consistency (α) of scores produced by the FAS in the current study was .89. Sport-Confidence. The Trait Sport-Confidence Inventory (TSCI; Vealey, 1986) is a 13- item measure of how confident athletes generally feel when they compete in or play their sport (see Appendix E). Using a 9-point scale (1 = low confidence, 5 = medium confidence, 9 = high confidence), participants are asked to compare their own self-confidence to the most self-confident athlete they know (e.g., “Compare your confidence in your ability to execute the skills necessary to be successful to the most confident athlete you know”). To compute total TSCI scores, responses are added (range = 13-117), with higher scores indicative of greater trait sport-confidence. Scores derived from the TSCI are found to have good psychometric properties, including evidence of 27 concurrent and construct validity, test-retest reliability (one day: r = .86; one week: r = .89; one month: r = .83; Vealey, 1986), as well as excellent internal consistency reliability (α = .97; Soulliard et al., 2019). The internal consistency (α) of scores produced by the TSCI in the current study was .96. Sport Performance. The Subjective Performance Questionnaire (SPQ) developed by Soulliard et al. (2019) was derived from previously used subjective performance measures by Vealey (1986). The scale consists of two items that assess performance from one’s most recent competitive season (see Appendix F). Participants are asked to use an 11-point scale ranging from 0 = extremely unsuccessful, to 10 = extremely successful, to respond to item one, “For your most recent competitive season, please rate your overall performance”. A similar 11-point scale ranging from 0 = extremely unsatisfied, to 10 = extremely satisfied” was used to respond to item two, “For your most recent competitive season, please rate your overall satisfaction with your performance”. To account for recreational athletes who may not have competitive seasons, these participants were asked to rate their performance based on their most recent sport participation. To compute a total score on the SPQ, the scores for both items are summed, with higher scores indicating a higher evaluation of one’s sport performance (range = 0-20). Among a sample of student-athletes, the internal consistency of scores derived from the SPQ was found to be .85 (Soulliard et al., 2019). The internal consistency (α) of scores produced by the SPQ in the current study was .84. Data Analysis Continuous data were summarized with means and standard deviations, and categorical data (e.g., demographics) with frequencies and percentages. Skewness, kurtosis, and the magnitude of correlations (small = .10, medium = .30, large = .50; Cohen, 1988) were examined for continuous variables. For descriptive purposes (i.e., unrelated to the study hypotheses), a 28 regression model was analyzed to examine potential differences in body and functionality appreciation by age, sex, and sport participation level. Sex (male [reference category] vs. female), and sport participation level (i.e., recreational [reference category] vs. competitive) categories were dummy coded prior to conducting the analyses. Observed variable path analysis was conducted using Mplus 8.8 (Muthén & Muthén, 2017) to test hypotheses: (1) body and functionality appreciation would exert positive direct effects on sport-confidence, (2) sport- confidence would exert a positive direct effect on sport performance evaluations, and (3) body and functionality appreciation would exert positive indirect effects on sport performance evaluations through sport-confidence. Body and functionality appreciation were allowed to covary in the model. The demographic covariates of age, sex and sport participation level were controlled for in this analysis, given their established associations with the outcome variables (Cox et al., 2010; Gyomber et al., 2013; Hall et al., 2009; Hays et al., 2009; Krane & Williams, 1994; Machida et al., 2017; Nicholls et al., 2010). The model was fit using maximum likelihood estimation with robust standard errors (MLR). Missing data were handled using full-information maximum likelihood, the default modern approach (i.e., assuming missing at random) in Mplus under MLR estimation (Muthén & Muthén, 2017), and consistent with Patel et al. (2021). Given the cross-sectional nature of the data and thus the absence of temporal precedence, this study tested for statistical indirect effects as opposed to causal mediation (Kline, 2015). Bootstrapping is unavailable under MLR estimation in Mplus (Muthén & Muthén, 2017), therefore, indirect effects were tested using maximum likelihood (ML) estimation, requesting 2000 bias-corrected bootstrapped replications, and 95% bias-corrected bootstrapped confidence intervals (CI; Bollen & Stine, 1990; MacKinnon, 2008; MacKinnon et al., 2004). Indirect effects are considered significant when the 95% CI does not 29 include zero. The indices used to assess model-data fit were χ², RMSEA, CFI, TLI, and SRMR. Model-data fit heuristics were consistent with Hu and Bentler's (1999) classification of a good fitting model (i.e., RMSEA ≤ .06; CFI ≥ .95; TLI ≥ .95; SRMR ≤ .08). Unstandardized direct effects were examined for statistical significance at the .05 level. Though the hypotheses of this study are directional and support the use of one-tailed tests (Jones, 1954), given the lack of existing studies examining associations among body and functionality appreciation, sport-confidence, and sport performance, two-tailed tests were conducted for conservativeness (Welkowitz et al., 2012). Preliminary Findings RESULTS Participants of this study were 314 male (n = 222) and female (n = 92) Jamaican athletes, between the ages of 18 to 58 years (M = 22.85, SD = 4.89), with most participants below the age of 25 years (76.8%). The majority of the participants identified as competitive athletes (56.7%), with 29.3% having competed at the high school level. The most frequently reported sports played were soccer (26.5%), track and field (20.2%), volleyball (9.6%), lacrosse (9.6%), basketball (5.3%), swimming (4.0%), and tennis (4.0%). The majority of the participants reported that they had been playing their sport for more than four years (78.3%) and play their sport several days per week (67.2%). The participants of this study identified mainly as being students (56.1%), tertiary- level educated (53.1%), and of middle socioeconomic status (78.8%). Table 1 presents a summary of the sample description. Table 1. Sample Description (Study 1) Variable Age ranges 18 – 24 years 25 – 34 years 35 – 58 years % 76.8 21.0 2.3 n 310 238 65 7 30 Table 1 (cont’d) Sex Male Female Sport participation level Recreational Competitive Highest sport competition level International National Regional Intercollegiate High school Never competed Length of sport participation 0 - 3 months 4 - 7 months 8 - 11 months 1 – 4 years > 4 years Frequency of sport participation < 1 day per week 1 day per week Several days per week Primary employment status Full-time employment Part-time employment Self-employed Student Unemployed Other (Contract Worker) Highest education level Junior Secondary/Incomplete School High school Bachelor’s degree/equivalent Master’s degree/equivalent Doctoral degree/equivalent Socioeconomic status Low Middle 314 222 92 314 136 178 314 59 49 39 47 92 28 313 3 6 5 54 245 314 40 63 211 314 71 22 29 176 14 2 313 1 146 148 15 3 312 59 246 31 70.7 29.3 43.3 56.7 18.8 15.6 12.4 15.0 29.3 8.9 1.0 1.9 1.6 17.3 78.3 12.7 20.1 67.2 22.6 7.0 9.2 56.1 4.5 .6 .3 46.6 47.3 4.8 1.0 18.9 78.8 Table 1 (cont’d) High 7 2.2 Note. N = 314. Bold text reflects the number of participants with available data on each demographic variable. Columns may not equal 100% due to rounding. Table 2. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations (Study 1) BA – SD .77 .56 Skewness Kurtosis M 4.20 4.53 85.29 20.80 4.04 13.53 Scale -.32 BA .20 FA .64 SC SP .20 Note. BA = body appreciation; FA = functionality appreciation; SC = sport-confidence; SP = sport performance evaluations. * p < .05. **p < .01. *** p < .001. SP .24*** .17** .43*** – SC .43*** .29*** – FA .46*** – -.62 -.77 -.87 -.65 Descriptive statistics and correlation coefficients for body and functionality appreciation, sport-confidence, and sport performance evaluations are presented in Table 2. Univariate skewness and kurtosis for all continuous variables were within the range of ±2 and were therefore treated as approximately normally distributed (Hahs-Vaughn & Lomax, 2020). Body appreciation scores were positively and moderately correlated with functionality appreciation (r =.46, p < .001) and sport-confidence scores (r = .43, p < .001), but weakly correlated with scores on sport performance evaluations (r = .24, p < .001). Functionality appreciation scores were positively, but weakly correlated with scores on sport-confidence (r = .29, p < .001) and sport performance evaluations (r = .17, p = .004). A positive, moderate correlation was found between sport-confidence and sport performance evaluations (r = .43, p < .001). Body appreciation scores differed by sex (B = -0.30, SE = 0.10, p = .002) and sport participation level (B = 0.21, SE = 0.09, p = .023), but not by age (B = 0.00, SE = 0.01, p = .625), with males and competitive athletes reporting higher levels of body appreciation. Functionality appreciation scores did not differ by age (B = 0.01, SE = 0.01, p 32 = .387), sex (B = 0.00, SE = 0.07, p = .952), or sport participation level (B = 0.08, SE = 0.07, p = .203). Path Model The primary aim of this study was to examine a path model of the associations among body and functionality appreciation, sport-confidence, and sport performance evaluations, as depicted in Figure 1. Examination of the fit indices indicated evidence of good model-data fit (χ²(2) = 2.22, p = .330; RMSEA [CI90%] = .019 [.000, .116], CFI = .998, TLI = .990, SRMR = .021). The model explained 24.3% (R² = .243, p < .001) of the variance in sport-confidence and 19.5% of the variance in sport performance evaluations (R² = .195, p < .001). Figure 1 presents the unstandardized parameter estimates for Hypotheses 1 and 2. Estimates for Hypothesis 3 are provided in the notes section of Figure 1. Hypothesis 1 It was hypothesized that body and functionality appreciation would exert positive direct effects on sport-confidence. The path coefficients to sport-confidence from body appreciation (B = 9.03, SE = 1.78, p < .001) and functionality appreciation (B = 4.93, SE = 2.28, p = .036) were positive and statistically significant, controlling for age, sex, and sport participation level. There was a significant effect for sex on sport-confidence, with females reporting lower sport-confidence than males (B = -7.40, SE = 2.36, p = .002). Age (B = 0.49, SE = 0.26, p = .060) and sport participation level (B = 3.69, SE = 2.11, p = .080) did not exert significant effects on sport- confidence. Thus, support was provided for Hypothesis 1. Hypothesis 2 It was hypothesized that sport-confidence would exert a positive direct effect on sport- performance evaluations. The path coefficient to sport performance evaluations from sport- 33 confidence (B = 0.09, SE = .01, p < .001) was positive and statistically significant, controlling for age, sex, and sport participation level. No significant effects were noted for age (B = -0.04, SE = 0.05, p = .369), sex (B = 0.05, SE = 0.46, p = .910), or sport participation level (B = -0.73, SE = 0.44, p = .099) on sport performance evaluations. Thus, support was provided for Hypothesis 2. Hypothesis 3 It was hypothesized that body and functionality appreciation would exert positive indirect effects on sport performance evaluations through sport-confidence. The 95% bias-corrected bootstrapped CI for the path coefficient from body appreciation to sport performance evaluations through sport-confidence, did not include 0.00 (B = 0.79, CI95% [0.44, 1.17]). The 95% bias- corrected bootstrapped CI for the path coefficient from functionality appreciation to sport performance evaluations through sport-confidence, did not include 0.00 (B = 0.43, CI95% [0.05, 0.92]). Thus, support was provided for Hypothesis 3. Figure 1. Observed variable path model with unstandardized parameter estimates. Note. The effects of age, sex, and sport participation level (recreational vs. competitive) were controlled for at each endogenous variable. Values are unstandardized parameter estimates. Body Appreciation → Sport-confidence → Sport performance (B = 0.79, CI95% [0.44, 1.17]). Functionality Appreciation → Sport-confidence → Sport performance (B = 0.43, CI95% [0.05, 0.92]). * p < .05. *** p < .001. 34 DISCUSSION The aim of this study was to examine a path model of the associations among a positive body image (i.e., body and functionality appreciation), sport-confidence, and sport performance evaluations, in accordance with predictions by the Sport-Confidence Model (Vealey et al., 1998). It was hypothesized that (1) body and functionality appreciation would exert positive direct effects on sport-confidence, (2) sport-confidence would exert a positive direct effect on sport performance evaluations, and (3) body and functionality appreciation would exert positive indirect effects on sport performance evaluations through sport-confidence. Results from a sample of Jamaican athletes provide support for the hypothesized model, including evidence for good model-data fit, significant positive direct effects for Hypotheses 1 and 2, and significant positive indirect effects for Hypothesis 3. These findings will be discussed with respect to the three hypotheses. First, the findings of this study provide evidence for positive direct effects from body and functionality appreciation to sport-confidence. This finding aligns with Sport-Confidence Model (Vealey et al., 1998) predictions, whereby an evaluation of the physical self was hypothesized as being directly related to athletes’ sport-confidence. This positive direct effect was significant regardless of athletes’ age, sex, or sport participation level, indicating a robust association (Lenz & Sahn, 2021). Importantly, female athletes in the present study reported lower body appreciation and sport-confidence compared to male athletes. These sex differences have been reported in previous research (Hays et al., 2009; Jankauskiene et al., 2020; Krane & Williams, 1994; Soulliard et al., 2019), and are attributable to females’ greater susceptibility to body-related sociocultural pressures (Soulliard et al., 2019) and confidence debilitating factors (Hays et al., 2009). The organizational culture of sport (e.g., sport participation level) appears to be more critical to the sources of sport-confidence (e.g., body image), and less critical to actual sport-confidence levels (Vealey et al., 1998). It therefore follows that sport-confidence in this study did not differ by sport 35 participation level, despite body appreciation scores being higher in competitive athletes. Notwithstanding this, adaptive body image perceptions appear to provide a source of positive information to athletes about their ability to be successful in their sport (Vealey et al., 1998). This positive source of information may facilitate sustained focus on the task-specific behaviors relevant for the confident execution of sport skills (Piran et al., 2020). This study extends the findings of Vealey and colleagues (1998) by examining core facets of a positive body image in relation to sport-confidence, as opposed to examining positive body image as an appearance-based construct. Theoretical developments in body image research over the past decade highlights the multidimensionality of a positive body image, as well as the limitations of examining this construct solely based on appearance (Tylka & Wood-Barcalow, 2015b). An examination of body and functionality appreciation captures the multifaceted nature of a positive body image (Alleva et al., 2017; Tylka & Wood-Barcalow, 2015b), and its role in facilitating athletes’ sport-confidence. Furthermore, while there is evidence of positive associations between body and functionality appreciation and sport-confidence (Soulliard et al., 2019), these associations were previously examined in the absence of conceptual framework. This study supplements the existing literature by providing theory-driven findings that support positive associations between body and functionality appreciation and sport-confidence. Compared to Soulliard et al.’s (2019) work on highly competitive student-athletes in the United States (i.e., National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I athletes), this study was based on a sample of Jamaican athletes participating in sport at competitive (i.e., high school, intercollegiate, national, regional, & international) and recreational levels. Thus, this study extends earlier findings by Soulliard et al. (2019) to a diverse athlete sample. Specifically, these findings indicate that the 36 implications of a positive body image for confident sport engagement transcends competitive collegiate athletics, and extends to recreational sport participation. Second, the findings of this study provide support for a positive direct effect from sport- confidence to sport performance evaluations. This finding is also in accordance with Sport- Confidence Model (Vealey, 1986; Vealey et al., 1998) predictions, whereby sport-confidence was proposed to be directly related to athletes’ performance related cognitions. Studies conducted with athletes from Western regions (Hays et al., 2009; Levy et al., 2011; Martin & Gill, 1991) have provided support for this association. However, this is the first known study to establish this association in a Jamaican athlete sample, thereby, extending the applicability of Sport-Confidence Model (Vealey et al., 1998) predictions to another cultural context. The present study uncovered that regardless of age, sex, and sport participation level, sport-confidence was an important psychosocial factor contributing to the performance evaluations of Jamaican athletes. Sport- confidence is considered to be critical to sport performance, as it facilitates the effective employment of cognitive resources and achievement behaviors necessary for the successful execution of sport skills (Hays et al., 2009). Consequently, identifying and targeting factors that serve to enhance and maintain the sport-confidence of Jamaican athletes may be one avenue to indirectly facilitate successful sport performance. Third, the findings of this study provide support for positive indirect effects from body and functionality appreciation to sport performance evaluations, through sport-confidence. This finding is also in accordance with predictions by Vealey and colleagues (1998), whereby physical self-presentation was proposed as being directly associated with athletes’ sport-confidence, and indirectly associated with performance related cognitions, by way of sport-confidence. Specifically, there is evidence that an adaptive focus on the body’s form and functionality has 37 positive implications for athletes’ sport-confidence and sport performance evaluations. This finding is plausible, as athletes with a greater appreciation for the unique features and functionality of their bodies may exude greater confidence when engaged in embodying activities such as sports. This greater level of confidence is crucial for driving successful sport performance (Hays et al., 2009; Levy et al., 2011; Martin & Gill, 1991). Hence, body and functionality appreciation prove to be targetable factors for facilitating athletes’ sport-confidence and positive performance evaluations. A key implication emerging from these findings involves the potential for targeting athlete sport-confidence levels and performance outcomes and/or evaluations, by supporting their development of a positive body image. To assist in developing an appreciation for their body’s form and functionality, sport practitioners (e.g., coaches, sport psychologists) should consider delivering messages to athletes that emphasize the body’s physical capabilities and competencies. The results of this study provide evidence of high functionality appreciation regardless of age, sex, and sport participation level, which corroborates the notion that any involvement in sport is beneficial to valuing the body’s functionality (Abbott & Barber, 2011; Jankauskiene et al., 2020). However, female athletes (Soulliard et al., 2019) and those participating at lower sport levels (Jankauskiene et al., 2020) are considered more susceptible to body-related sociocultural pressures that hinder body appreciation (Soulliard et al., 2019). Therefore, it is recommended that special attention be given to these vulnerable groups when supporting the development of a positive body image in athletes. Limitations and Future Research Directions Despite the contributions of this study, a few limitations are worth noting. First, the cross- sectional nature of this study did not allow for the assessment of causality or temporality of 38 associations. Second, sport-confidence is considered to fluctuate depending on the situation (Vealey & Chase, 2008). This study examined general perceptions of sport-confidence (i.e., trait sport-confidence) without accounting for its temporal instability. To capture this fluctuating property, it has been recommended that studies assess sport-confidence pre, during, and post- competition or play (Levy et al., 2011). Third, this study utilized a subjective measure of sport performance, which may have been prone to issues of bias and/or inaccuracy. If feasible, future studies should consider including objectively-based measures of sport performance. Fourth, the findings of this study have limited generalizability to athlete populations external to the Jamaican context. To increase cross-cultural extensions of this research, future studies should examine this model among samples of athletes from diverse cultural contexts. Similarly, this study consisted mainly of athletes from non-aesthetic sports (e.g., track & field, soccer), in comparison to aesthetic sport types (e.g., gymnastics, cheerleading). While the lack of representation of athletes from aesthetic sports may reflect the sport demographic in Jamaica, future studies should aim to recruit a representative sample of athletes from various sport types. Conclusion The present study provides support for positive associations among body and functionality appreciation, sport-confidence, and sport performance evaluations in a Jamaican athlete sample. A notable contribution of the present study is theory-driven evidence of positive indirect associations between body and functionality appreciation and sport performance evaluations, by way of sport-confidence. These findings have important implications for sport practitioners (e.g., coaches, sport psychologists), and indicate the potential to facilitate athletes’ sport-confidence and positive performance outcomes, by supporting their development of a positive body image. Importantly, the present study adds to a growing body of research aiming to investigate the 39 adaptive aspects of athlete body image, and responds to calls for more cross-cultural research in SEP. 40 REFERENCES Abbott, B. D., & Barber, B. L. (2011). Differences in functional and aesthetic body image between sedentary girls and girls involved in sports and physical activity: Does sport type make a difference? Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 12(3), 333–342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2010.10.005 Allen, C. P., Telford, R. M., Telford, R., D., & Olive, L. S. (2019). Sport, physical activity and physical education experiences: Associations with functional body image in children. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 45, 101572. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2019.101572 Alleva, J. M., Tylka, T. L., & Kroon Van Diest, A. M. (2017). The Functionality Appreciation Scale (FAS): Development and psychometric evaluation in U.S. community women and men. Body Image, 23, 28–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2017.07.008 Avalos, L., Tylka, T. L., & Wood-Barcalow, N. (2005). The Body Appreciation Scale: Development and psychometric evaluation. Body Image, 2(3), 285–297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2005.06.002 Baceviciene, M., & Jankauskiene, R. (2020). Associations between body appreciation and disordered eating in a large sample of adolescents. Nutrients, 12(3), Article 3. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu12030752 Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191. Bollen, K. A., & Stine, R. (1990). Direct and indirect effects: Classical and bootstrap estimates of variability. Sociological Methodology, 20, 115–140. https://doi.org/10.2307/271084 Cash, T. F., & Smolak, L. (Eds.). (2011). Body image: A handbook of science, practice, and prevention (2nd ed). Guilford Press. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (Second edition). L. Erlbaum Associates. Cox, R. H., Shannon, J. K., McGuire, R. T., & McBride, A. (2010). Predicting subjective athletic performance from psychological skills after controlling for sex and sport. Journal of Sport Behavior, 33(2), 129–145. Duda, J. L., & Allison, M. T. (1990). Cross-cultural analysis in exercise and sport psychology: a void in the field. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 12(2), 114–131. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.12.2.114 Durand-Bush, N., & Salmela, J. H. (2002). The development and maintenance of expert athletic performance: perceptions of world and Olympic champions. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 14(3), 154–171. https://doi.org/10.1080/10413200290103473 41 Eime, R., Charity, M., Harvey, J., & Westerbeek, H. (2021). five-year changes in community- level sport participation, and the role of gender strategies. Frontiers in Sports and Active Living, 3. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fspor.2021.710666 Eime, R., Harvey, J. T., Charity, M. J., Casey, M. M., Westerbeek, H., & Payne, W. R. (2016). Age profiles of sport participants. BMC Sports Science, Medicine and Rehabilitation, 8(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13102-016-0031-3 Eliakim, A., Ish-Shalom, S., Giladi, A., Falk, B., & Constantini, N. (2000). Assessment of body composition in ballet dancers: correlation among anthropometric measurements, bio- electrical impedance analysis, and dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 21(8), 598–601. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2000-8489 Franklyn, D. (2010). Sport in Jamaica: A local and international perspective. GraceKennedy Foundation. Galli, N., Petrie, T., & Chatterton, J. (2017). Team weigh-ins and self-weighing: Relations to body-related perceptions and disordered eating in collegiate male athletes. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 29, 51–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2016.12.004 Greenleaf, C., Boyer, E. M., & Petrie, T. A. (2009). High school sport participation and subsequent psychological well-being and physical activity: the mediating influences of body image, physical competence, and instrumentality. Sex Roles, 61(9–10), 714–726. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-009-9671-z Gyomber, N., Lenart, A., & Kovacs, K. (2013). Differences between personality characteristics and sport performance by age and gender. / Osobnostné Charakteristiky a Športový Výkon Vo Vzťahu K Veku a K Pohlaviu Športovcov V Maďarsku. Acta Facultatis Educationis Physicae Universitatis Comenianae, 53(2), 5–15. Hahs-Vaughn, D. L., & Lomax, R. G. (2020). An introduction to statistical concepts. Routledge. Hall, C. R., Munroe-Chandler, K. J., Cumming, J., Law, B., Ramsey, R., & Murphy, L. (2009). Imagery and observational learning use and their relationship to sport confidence. Journal of Sports Sciences, 27(4), 327–337. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640410802549769 Hancock, G. R., & French, B. F. (2013). Power analysis in covariance structure models. In G. R. Hancock & R. O. Mueller (Eds.), Structural equation modeling: A second course (2nd ed.) (pp. 117-159). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc. Harrison, A. N., Rocke, K. D., James Bateman, C., Bateman, A., & Chang, S. M. (2022). Physical activity and disordered eating behaviours: Are Caribbean adolescents at risk? International Journal of Psychology, 57(2), 218–226. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12802 Hays, K., Thomas, O., Maynard, I., & Bawden, M. (2009). The role of confidence in world-class sport performance. Journal of Sports Sciences, 27(11), 1185–1199. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640410903089798 42 Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118 Jankauskiene, R., Baceviciene, M., & Trinkuniene, L. (2020). Examining body appreciation and disordered eating in adolescents of different sports practice: Cross-sectional study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(11), Article 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17114044 Jones, L. V. (1954). A rejoinder on one-tailed tests. Psychological Bulletin, 51(6), 585–586. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0055313 Joy, E., Kussman, A., & Nattiv, A. (2016). 2016 update on eating disorders in athletes: A comprehensive narrative review with a focus on clinical assessment and management. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 50(3), 154–162. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports- 2015-095735 Kantanista, A., Glapa, A., Banio, A., Firek, W., Ingarden, A., Malchrowicz-Mośko, E., Markiewicz, P., Płoszaj, K., Ingarden, M., & Maćkowiak, Z. (2018). Body image of highly trained female athletes engaged in different types of sport. BioMed Research International, 2018, e6835751. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/6835751 Kline, R. B. (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford publications. Koulanova, A., Sabiston, C. M., Pila, E., Brunet, J., Sylvester, B., Sandmeyer-Graves, A., & Maginn, D. (2021). Ideas for action: Exploring strategies to address body image concerns for adolescent girls involved in sport. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 56, 102017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2021.102017 Krane, V., & Williams, J. M. (1994). Cognitive anxiety, somatic anxiety, and confidence in track and field athletes: The impact of gender, competitive level and task characteristics. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 25, 203–217. Lenz, G. S., & Sahn, A. (2021). Achieving statistical significance with control variables and without transparency. Political Analysis, 29(3), 356–369. https://doi.org/10.1017/pan.2020.31 Levy, A. R., Nicholls, A. R., & Polman, R. C. J. (2011). Pre-competitive confidence, coping, and subjective performance in sport. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 21(5), 721–729. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0838.2009.01075.x Lucibello, K. M., Koulanova, A., Pila, E., Brunet, J., & Sabiston, C. M. (2021). Exploring adolescent girls’ experiences of body talk in non-aesthetic sport. Journal of Adolescence, 89, 63–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2021.04.003 43 MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1, 130-149. https://www.doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.1.2.130 Machida, M., Otten, M., Magyar, T. M., Vealey, R. S., & Ward, R. M. (2017). Examining multidimensional sport-confidence in athletes and non-athlete sport performers. Journal of Sports Sciences, 35(5), 410–418. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2016.1167934 MacKinnon, D. P. (2008). Introduction to statistical mediation analysis. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203809556 MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., & Williams, J. (2004). Confidence limits for the indirect effect: distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39(1), 99–128. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr3901_4 Maron, B. J., Chaitman, B. R., Ackerman, M. J., Bayés de Luna, A., Corrado, D., Crosson, J. E., Deal, B. J., Driscoll, D. J., Estes, N. A. M., Araújo, C. G. S., Liang, D. H., Mitten, M. J., Myerburg, R. J., Pelliccia, A., Thompson, P. D., Towbin, J. A., & Van Camp, S. P. (2004). Recommendations for physical activity and recreational sports participation for young patients with genetic cardiovascular diseases. Circulation, 109(22), 2807–2816. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.CIR.0000128363.85581.E1 Maron, B. J., & Mitchell, J. H. (1994). Revised eligibility recommendations for competitive athletes with cardiovascular abnormalities. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 24(4), 848–850. https://doi.org/10.1016/0735-1097(94)90837-0 Martin, J. J., & Gill, D. L. (1991). The relationships among competitive orientation, sport- confidence, self-efficacy, anxiety, and performance. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 13(2), 149–159. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.13.2.149 McGannon, K., Schinke, R., & Busanich, R. (2014). Cultural sport psychology: Considerations for enhancing cultural competence of practitioners. In Becoming a sport, exercise, and performance psychology professional: International perspectives. Menzel, J. E., & Levine, M. P. (2011). Embodying experiences and the promotion of positive body image: The example of competitive athletics. In Self-objectification in women: Causes, consequences, and counteractions (pp. 163–186). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/12304-008 Mullings, J., Archer, C., McCaw-Binns, A., Younger-Coleman, N., & Wilks, R. (2018). The right to the city and the responsibility of citizens: equitable access to basic urban services and infrastructure for health and social development in the small island developing state of Jamaica *. Current Politics and Economics of South and Central America, 11(2), 131– 171. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2017). Mplus User’s Guide. (Eighth Edition). 44 Myers, N. D., Celimli, S., Martin, J. J., & Hancock, G. R. (2016). Sample size determination and power estimation in structural equation modeling. In N. Ntoumanis & N.D. Myers (Eds.), An introduction to intermediate and advanced statistical analyses for sport and exercise scientists (pp. 267-284). Chichester, UK: Wiley. Myers, N.D., Ntoumanis, N., Gunnell, K.E., Gucciardi, D.F., & Lee, S. (2018). A review of some emergent quantitative analyses in sport and exercise psychology. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 11, 70-100. https://www.doi.10.1080/1750984X.2017.1317356 Nicholls, A. R., Polman, R., & Levy, A. R. (2010). Coping self-efficacy, pre-competitive anxiety, and subjective performance among athletes. European Journal of Sport Science, 10(2), 97–102. https://doi.org/10.1080/17461390903271592 Patel, P., Lee, S., Myers, N. D., & Lee, M.-H. (2021). Missing data reporting and analysis in motor learning and development: A systematic review of past and present practices. Journal of Motor Learning and Development, 9(1). Petrie, T. A., & Greenleaf, C. (2011). Body image and athleticism. Body Image: A Handbook of Science, Practice, and Prevention, 206–213. Petrie, T., Galli, N., Greenleaf, C., Reel, J., & Carter, J. (2014). Psychosocial correlates of bulimic symptomatology among male athletes. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 15(6), 680–687. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2013.09.002 Piran, N., Teall, T. L., & Counsell, A. (2020). The experience of embodiment scale: Development and psychometric evaluation. Body Image, 34, 117–134. Preacher, K. J., & Coffman, D. L. (2006, May). Computing power and minimum sample size for RMSEA [Computer software]. Retrieved from http://quantpsy.org/ Ricketts, C., Compte, E. J., James Bateman, C., & Bateman, A. (2020). Psychometric evaluation of the Drive for Muscularity Scale among weightlifters in Jamaica. Eating and Weight Disorders - Studies on Anorexia, Bulimia and Obesity, 26(3), 983–991. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40519-020-00935-2 Ryba, T. V., Stambulova, N. B., Si, G., & Schinke, R. J. (2013). ISSP Position Stand: Culturally competent research and practice in sport and exercise psychology. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 11(2), 123–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/1612197X.2013.779812 Sabiston, C. M., Pila, E., Vani, M., & Thogersen-Ntoumani, C. (2019). Body image, physical activity, and sport: A scoping review. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 42, 48–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2018.12.010 Soulliard, Z. A., Kauffman, A. A., Fitterman-Harris, H. F., Perry, J. E., & Ross, M. J. (2019). Examining positive body image, sport confidence, flow state, and subjective performance 45 among student athletes and non-athletes. Body Image, 28, 93–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2018.12.009 Steiger, J. H., & Lind, J. C. (1980). Statistically based tests for the number of common factors. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Psychometric Society, Iowa City, IA. Tiggemann, M. (2015). Considerations of positive body image across various social identities and special populations. Body Image, 14, 168–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2015.03.002 Toomer, R. (2015). Jamaica. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics, 7(3), 457–471. https://doi.org/10.1080/19406940.2014.910540 Tylka, T. L. (2012). Positive psychology perspectives on body image. In T. Cash (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Body Image and Human Appearance (pp. 657–663). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-384925-0.00104-8 Tylka, T. L., & Wood-Barcalow, N. L. (2015a). The Body Appreciation Scale-2: Item refinement and psychometric evaluation. Body Image, 12, 53–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2014.09.006 Tylka, T. L., & Wood-Barcalow, N. L. (2015b). What is and what is not positive body image? Conceptual foundations and construct definition. Body Image, 14, 118–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2015.04.001 Vani, M. F., Pila, E., deJonge, M., Solomon-Krakus, S., & Sabiston, C. M. (2021). ‘Can you move your fat ass off the baseline?’ Exploring the sport experiences of adolescent girls with body image concerns. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 13(4), 671–689. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2020.1771409 Vealey, R. S. (1986). Conceptualization of sport-confidence and competitive orientation: Preliminary investigation and instrument development. Journal of Sport Psychology, 8(3). Vealey, R. S., & Chase, M. A. (2008). Self-confidence in sport. In Advances in sport psychology, 3rd ed (pp. 68-97,430-435). Human Kinetics. Vealey, R. S., Garner-Holman, M., Hayashi, S. W., & Giacobbi, P. (1998). Sources of sport- confidence: Conceptualization and instrument development. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 20(1), 54–80. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.20.1.54 Voelker, D. K., & Reel, J. J. (2015). An inductive thematic analysis of female competitive figure skaters’ experiences of weight pressure in sport. Journal of Clinical Sport Psychology, 9(4), 297–316. https://doi.org/10.1123/jcsp.2015-0012 Voelker, D. K., & Reel, J. J. (2018). An inductive thematic analysis of male competitive figure skaters’ experiences of weight pressure in sport. Journal of Clinical Sport Psychology, 12(4), 614–629. https://doi.org/10.1123/jcsp.2018-0045 46 Wacker, J. G. (2008). A conceptual understanding of requirements for theory-building research: Guidelines for scientific theory building. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 44(3), 5– 15. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-493X.2008.00062.x Welkowitz, J., Cohen, B. H., & Lea, R. B. (2012). Introductory statistics for the behavioral sciences. John Wiley & Sons. Woods, R. A. (n.d.). Sports and Exercise: Spotlight on statistics: U.S. Bureau of Labor statistics. Retrieved February 6, 2023, from https://www.bls.gov/spotlight/2017/sports-and- exercise/home.htm 47 CHAPTER III: STUDY 2 ABSTRACT Extending the Sport-Confidence Model to Botswana athletes, this study examined the associations among perceived body acceptance by coaches and teammates, positive body image (i.e., body appreciation and functionality appreciation), multidimensional sport-confidence (i.e., SC-physical skills and training, SC-cognitive efficiency, and SC-resilience), and sport performance evaluations. A purposive sample of 508 Botswana athletes (male = 65.3%, Mage = 25.32, SD = 7.10) completed measures of body acceptance by coaches and teammates, body and functionality appreciation, multidimensional sport-confidence, and subjective sport performance in a cross-sectional design. Results from path analysis demonstrated acceptable model-data fit. Perceived body acceptance by coaches (B = 0.18, p = .032) and teammates (B = 0.16, p = .032) exerted direct effects on body appreciation, whereas only body acceptance by teammates exerted a direct effect on functionality appreciation (B = 0.16, p = .012). While body appreciation exerted direct effects on SC-physical skills and training (B = 1.62, p = .001), SC-cognitive efficiency (B = 1.07, p < .001), and SC-resilience (B = 1.65, p < .001), functionality appreciation only exerted direct effects on SC-physical skills and training (B = 1.12, p = .034) and SC-cognitive efficiency (B = 0.74, p = .040). Of the sport-confidence domains examined, only SC-cognitive efficiency exerted a direct effect on sport performance evaluations (B = 0.32, p = .008). These findings highlight confidence in mental skills as important for successful performance among Botswana athletes, alongside promoting body acceptance from coaches and teammates to nurture positive body image and facilitate multidimensional sport-confidence. 48 INTRODUCTION Sport programming in many African countries, including Botswana, has garnered immense attention and witnessed notable progress, marked by international successes in sports such as track and field and boxing (Tshube et al., 2022; Tshube & Hanrahan, 2016). Nonetheless, many of the region’s athletes face persistent challenges in talent development, contributing to underperformance at national and international events (Tshube et al., 2022). This issue may be partly attributable to the limited research available on the psychosocial factors driving successful sport performance among Botswana athletes, leaving practitioners ill-equipped to provide effective interventions (Tshube et al., 2022). In Botswana, scholars have examined factors such as motivation (Malete, 2004a; Tshube et al., 2012) and perceived competence (Malete, 2004b) in relation to sport participation. However, other variables considered critical to successful performance, such as sport-confidence, and its contributing factors (e.g., body-related self- perceptions; Hays et al., 2009; Vealey et al., 1998), are yet to be examined. To advance scholarship in the region and expand the cultural dimensions of SEP, this study responded to calls for additional research on the psychosocial factors linked to successful sport engagement among Botswana athletes (Tshube et al., 2022; Tshube & Hanrahan, 2016). Sport-confidence and Performance Self-confidence has gained specific interest in the sport-related psychosocial literature, given its role in distinguishing between successful and less successful athletes (Feltz, 2007). Sport- confidence, defined as one’s belief in their ability to be successful in their sport (Vealey, 1986), is a key driver of world-class sport performance (Hays et al., 2009). Past research has consistently established positive associations between sport-confidence and successful sport performance evaluations (Levy et al., 2011; Ricketts et al., 2023; Soulliard et al., 2019). Athletes high in sport- 49 confidence are more skilled at employing the cognitive resources (e.g., sustained focus) and achievement behaviors (e.g., increased effort) necessary to facilitate successful performance (Hays et al., 2009). Though much research has been devoted to understanding the factors driving athletes’ sport-confidence (Hays et al., 2007; Machida et al., 2012; Vealey et al., 1998), these studies have primarily focused on North American athlete populations, with unknown generalization to other contexts. In Botswana, sport psychology practice is largely informed by the findings of studies conducted elsewhere (Tshube & Hanrahan, 2016). Yet, the findings of such studies may not be directly applicable to the country’s diverse context, as broader sociocultural factors may shape the meaning and experience of sport across regions (Baker & Horton, 2004). Thus, to provide crucial insights that inform contextually relevant practice, there is a need for additional research on the psychosocial factors driving confident sport engagement among Botswana athletes. The Sport-Confidence Model The Sport-Confidence Model, developed by Vealey and colleagues (1986, 1998, 2002), provides a conceptual basis for understanding sport-confidence and its role in facilitating successful sport performance. The Sport-Confidence Model (Vealey, 1986) was built on the foundations of Bandura's (1977) self-efficacy theory, providing a parsimonious conceptualization of self-confidence in the sport domain. Vealey (1986) separated sport-confidence into two constructs: trait sport-confidence (i.e., the degree of certainty one usually possesses about their ability to be successful in their sport) and state sport-confidence (i.e., belief in one’s ability to be successful in their sport at a particular moment). To further understand the factors driving self- confidence in sport, Vealey and colleagues (1998) identified nine sources of sport-confidence most salient to athletes. Each source was theorized as directly related to athletes’ sport-confidence 50 levels, but indirectly related to athletes’ affect (e.g., enjoyment), cognitions (e.g., performance evaluations), behavior (e.g., effort), and performance outcomes (Vealey et al., 1998). Positive Body Image, Sport-confidence, and Performance Given the body’s centrality in sport (Greenleaf et al., 2009), it is unsurprising that physical self-presentation, or perceptions of the physical self, emerged as an important source of sport- confidence to athletes (Vealey et al., 1998). Though reported to emanate from perceptions of positive body image, physical self-presentation, as operationalized by Vealey et al. (1998), does not reflect what are now recognized as key facets of positive body image. A positive body image represents the love, respect, and acceptance that one has for their body (Tylka & Wood-Barcalow, 2015b). This multifaceted construct extends beyond body satisfaction and positive appearance evaluations to include core facets such as body appreciation and functionality appreciation (Alleva et al., 2017; Tylka & Wood-Barcalow, 2015b). Body appreciation represents an admiration for the body’s features, health, and beauty (Tylka & Wood-Barcalow, 2015b), while functionality appreciation reflects gratitude for what the body can do (Alleva et al., 2017). Compared to non- athletes, athletes have been found to report higher levels of body and functionality appreciation (Soulliard et al., 2019, 2021). This finding is plausible, as sport participation allows for greater body responsiveness, physical empowerment, and physical competence (Menzel & Levine, 2011). In the Sport-Confidence Model (Vealey et al., 1998), physical self-presentation was assessed as an appearance-based construct, with higher scores reflecting greater sport-confidence derived from a positive evaluation of one’s physical appearance. Given the limitations of assessing positive body image solely based on appearance (Tylka & Wood-Barcalow, 2015b), as well as evidence linking an appearance-based focus on the body to negative sport experiences (Vani et al., 2021), it is unsurprising that Vealey et al. (1998) found physical self-presentation to be associated 51 with lower levels of sport-confidence. Athletes’ bodies can engage in intricate movement patterns (Ricketts et al., 2023), each of which is necessary for the successful execution of sport skills (Greenleaf et al., 2009). Thus, athletes’ perceptions of the physical self may extend beyond appearance to include an appreciation for the body’s health, fitness, and functionality (Abbott & Barber, 2011; Allen et al., 2019). Previous research conducted in the United States provided evidence of positive associations between body and functionality appreciation and sport-confidence (Soulliard et al., 2019). In light of these findings, Ricketts et al. (2023) extended the physical self-presentation construct of the Sport-Confidence Model (Vealey et al., 1998) to examine theory-driven associations among body and functionality appreciation, sport-confidence, and sport performance evaluations. The findings of Ricketts et al. (2023), derived from a sample of Jamaican athletes, provided support for body and functionality appreciation as contributors to confident and successful sport engagement. Notably, in Botswana, Olympic athletes have associated powerful and healthy bodies with confident and competent sport participation (Shehu & Moruisi, 2011), underscoring the importance of the functional body in facilitating positive sport experiences and outcomes (Piran et al., 2020). Considering these findings, investigating the role of body and functionality appreciation in the sport-confidence and performance of Botswana athletes appears plausible. An examination of these associations could uncover important factors to target in supporting successful sport outcomes and experiences in the region. Although previous studies offer valuable insights into the positive body image and sport- confidence relationship (Ricketts et al., 2023; Soulliard et al., 2019), they primarily examined sport-confidence as unidimensional, in line with Vealey's (1986) trait-based conceptualization. However, evidence has also been provided for the multidimensionality of sport-confidence. Vealey 52 and Knight (2002) identified three types of sport-confidence most important to athletes: sport confidence in (1) physical skills and training (SC-physical skills and training), (2) cognitive efficiency (SC-cognitive efficiency), and (3) resilience (SC-resilience). SC-physical skills and training refers to one’s belief in their ability to execute the physical skills necessary to facilitate successful performance. SC-cognitive efficiency reflects one’s belief in their ability to mentally focus, concentrate, and make effective decisions for successful performance. Lastly, SC-resilience refers to one’s belief in their ability to refocus and bounce back from performance decrements (Vealey & Knight, 2002). Importantly, Vealey and Knight (2002) found the types of sport- confidence to differentially predict performance based on the social-cognitive demands of sport. Perceptions of positive body image may also be differentially related to the types of sport- confidence. Athletes with a positive body image may be more aware, appreciative, and trusting of their body’s physical competencies (Piran et al., 2020), thus facilitating greater confidence in physical skills and training. A positive body image may also facilitate sport-confidence in cognitive efficiency and resilience, though these domains appear less connected to physical self- perceptions (Machida, 2008). Athletes with a positive body image are less susceptible to body image disturbances that disrupt the mobilization of cognitive resources needed to mentally focus, concentrate, and refocus after experiencing performance decrements (Voelker & Reel, 2015, 2018). Thus, positive body image could serve a protective role in facilitating sport-confidence in these domains. However, research on the multidimensionality of sport-confidence is limited (Machida et al., 2017), highlighting the need for additional studies examining the associations between positive body image and the sport-confidence domains. Such investigations could shed light on the types of sport-confidence most amenable to positive body image perceptions. 53 Factors Contributing to Positive Body Image and Sport-confidence in Athletes Vealey and colleagues (1998) proposed that individual characteristics (e.g., age, sex) and sport-related contextual features (e.g., coaching behaviors, sport level) influence the sources and levels of sport-confidence manifested by athletes. Previous studies suggest that any involvement in sport, whether recreational or competitive (Ricketts et al., 2023), aesthetic or non-aesthetic (Jankauskiene et al., 2020), is valuable for appreciating the body’s form and functionality. However, body image tends to be more adaptive among older athletes, males, at higher sport participation levels (Kantanista et al., 2018; Soulliard et al., 2019), and in non-aesthetic sports (e.g., soccer; Abbott & Barber, 2011). Similarly, sport-confidence levels tend to increase with age and are higher among males and competitive athletes (Hall et al., 2009; Krane & Williams, 1994; Machida et al., 2017). Thus, individual characteristics and sport-related contextual features are important to consider when examining the positive body image and sport-confidence relationship. BMI has also been investigated as a correlate of positive body image, as individuals with higher BMI often experience negative attitudes toward their bodies, which can hinder body and functionality appreciation (Lucibello et al., 2023; Tylka, 2018). While findings from non-sport populations indicate inverse associations between BMI and body and functionality appreciation (Linardon et al., 2021; Tylka & Wood-Barcalow, 2015a), studies conducted within the sport context have not established significant associations between these variables (Soulliard et al., 2019, 2021). Notably, within these studies, BMI was derived from self-reported height and weight, measures considered prone to social desirability biases, thereby increasing the risk for weight status misclassification (Gay et al., 2009; Wilson et al., 2019). Estimating BMI using device-based measures of height and weight may improve understanding of the weight status and positive body image relationship. However, due to their relatively higher muscularity and lower body fat 54 percentage compared to the general population, BMI has limitations when used with athletes, conflating efforts at deciphering whether their weight is due to larger fat-free mass or excess fat (Malina, 2007). Accounting for variations in percent body fat could shed light on the unique role of BMI in athletes’ positive body image (Malina, 2007), signaling the need for further investigations into the connections among device-based estimates of BMI, percent body fat, body appreciation, and functionality appreciation in athletes. Though athletes appear uniquely positioned to develop positive body image (Menzel & Levine, 2011), they may only be afforded this advantage if the sport environment is conducive to nurturing adaptive body image perceptions. One sport-related contextual feature associated with athletes’ positive body image is body acceptance by others (Oh et al., 2012). Specifically, athletes who perceived greater acceptance of their bodies from coaches and teammates, key communicators of body image in sport (Coppola et al., 2014; Hague et al., 2021), reported higher levels of body appreciation and value for the body’s functionality (Oh et al., 2012). Greater perceived acceptance of the body by others directs attention away from physical appearance, resulting in an orientation toward the body’s functional capabilities (Avalos & Tylka, 2006). Likewise, individuals are more likely to accept their body when they perceive it to be accepted, as is, by important others in their environment (Andrew et al., 2016). The only known study to examine athletes’ body acceptance by others in sport operationalized the construct as being specific to body shape and weight (Oh et al., 2012), neglecting the various ways in which athletes may receive body acceptance from others (e.g., for their physical capabilities and bodily creativity; Abbott & Barber, 2011; Swami et al., 2021). Examining body acceptance in a more global sense (Swami et al., 2021) may advance understanding of the sport-related contextual factors that support athletes’ experience of positive 55 body image. Aligning with Sport-Confidence Model (Vealey & Knight, 2002) predictions, body acceptance by coaches and teammates is expected to be directly related to body and functionality appreciation. Notably, body acceptance by teammates could be differentially related to athletes’ positive body image depending on involvement in individual versus team sports (Dosil, 2008). While teammates (or training colleagues) can have a positive influence on athletes’ body image in individual sports, their impact may be more prominent in team sports, where the strength of relationships and the degree of interaction among athletes tend to be greater (Dosil, 2008; Scott et al., 2019). Thus, athletes’ sport category (i.e., individual vs. team) is an important factor to consider when examining these associations. The Present Study Despite significant growth in Botswana’s sport industry, athletic success in the region is hindered by a limited understanding of the psychosocial factors driving successful sport engagement (Tshube et al., 2022). To advance regional scholarship and aid in the tailoring of targeted interventions, this study extends Sport-Confidence Model (Vealey & Knight, 2002) predictions to a Botswana athlete sample, building upon the model examined in Ricketts et al. (2023), to examine the associations among body acceptance by coaches and teammates, body and functionality appreciation, multidimensional sport-confidence, and sport performance evaluations (see Figure 2). As the Sport-Confidence Model was developed and primarily examined with US athlete samples (Machida, 2008; Machida et al., 2017; Vealey & Knight, 2002), this study will expand existing research on the applicability of this framework to an African and less-studied cultural context, while adding to the sparse literature on multidimensional sport-confidence. Hypotheses Three sets of hypotheses were investigated in this study: 56 Hypothesis Set 1 sought to explain associations among perceived body acceptance by coaches and teammates, body appreciation, and functionality appreciation, with the specific hypothesis as follows: • Hypothesis Set 1. Perceived body acceptance by coaches and teammates would exert positive direct effects on body appreciation and functionality appreciation (paths 1 – 4). Hypothesis Set 2 sought to explain associations among body appreciation, functionality appreciation, and multidimensional sport-confidence, with the specific hypothesis as follows: • Hypothesis Set 2. Body and functionality appreciation would exert positive direct effects on SC-physical skills and training, SC-cognitive efficiency, and SC-resilience (paths 5 – 10). Hypothesis Set 3 sought to explain associations among multidimensional sport-confidence and sport performance evaluations, with the specific hypothesis as follows: • Hypothesis Set 3. SC-physical skills and training, SC-cognitive efficiency, and SC- resilience would exert positive direct effects on sport-performance evaluations (paths 11 – 13). Figure 2. Hypothesized observed variable path model. Note. All hypothesized associations are positive. 57 Participants and Procedures METHODS Ethical approvals to conduct this study were obtained from the Michigan State University Institutional Review Board (STUDY00009200) and the Ministry of Youth Empowerment, Sport, and Culture Development in Botswana (MYSC 9/1/1). This cross-sectional study recruited a purposive sample of athletes, ages 18 years and older, from sports teams and clubs across various towns, urban villages, and cities in Botswana. Study locations were intentionally chosen to enhance geographic reach across Botswana’s populous eastern corridor, covering areas such as Francistown and Gaborone, with extensions to Maun in the north, and Jwaneng in the south. Notably, Botswana’s population is concentrated along the eastern corridor, where most economic activity and sport programs are likely to be situated (Malepa & Komane, 2014). Consistent with Ricketts et al. (2023), the maximum age was not restricted in the present study to ensure a sufficient pool of participants. Given the lack of psychosocial research conducted with Botswana adult sport participants (Tshube et al., 2022), along with evidence of age differences in the variables under study (Gyomber et al., 2013; Hall et al., 2009; Tiggemann, 2015; Tylka & Wood-Barcalow, 2015a), not delimiting age allows for an improved understanding of the Botswana adult sport demographic and assessment of age differences in the variables under study. The Administrators of various sports teams and clubs were approached before data collection to establish rapport, explain the purpose and procedures of the study, and obtain permission for participant recruitment. Participants were required to provide Informed Consent, after which they completed self-report survey measures of demographic information, body acceptance by coaches and teammates, body appreciation, functionality appreciation, multidimensional sport-confidence, and sport performance evaluations. To verify athlete status, 58 participants were asked whether they participated in sport, as well as to identify as either a recreational or competitive athlete based on criteria by Maron and colleagues (2004, 1994): (a) Recreational athlete: participates in sport without training or competing regularly and mainly for the purpose(s) of being physically active, fun/enjoyment, and/or social engagement; (b) Competitive athlete: member of an organized sports team or individual sport that requires regular training and competition, with a high premium placed on athletic excellence and achievement. All data were collected in written English format. Although a Setswana (national language of Botswana) version of the tools was available, participants faced no constraints in completing the English version because English is widely used and the official language in Botswana. Following survey completion, one trained data collector measured participants’ height, while another trained data collector assessed participants’ weight and percent body fat. The surveys were administered before assessing body composition to prevent immediate measurement outcomes from biasing body image perceptions. At the end of data collection, participants were offered the opportunity to enter a raffle to win one of multiple cash prizes of 50 BWP (approximately 4 USD). Sample Size Determination A necessary sample size was determined using power analysis for testing focal parameters within a model (Hancock & French, 2013; MacCallum et al., 1996), as recommended in exercise science (e.g., Myers et al., 2016, 2018) using an online utility (Preacher & Coffman, 2006). Focal parameters were the 13 direct effects specified in Hypotheses 1 through 3. Peripheral parameters were the remaining 45 parameters to be estimated in the full path model, which had 34 degrees of freedom. Alpha was set to .05. Power was set to .80. Degrees of freedom were set to 47 in the null model (i.e., peripheral parameters only), where each of the 13 focal direct effects was assumed to have a value of zero, and to 34 in the alternative model (i.e., peripheral + focal parameters), where 59 at least one focal direct effect was assumed to have a non-zero value. Consistent with general methodological recommendations (Steiger & Lind, 1980) and theory (e.g., assuming no effect of SC-resilience on performance), population model data fit (e) was set to .05 in the null condition to represent the lower boundary of unacceptable fit (e0). Population model data fit was set to .025 in the alternative condition (e1) to represent close fit aligning with general methodological considerations (Steiger & Lind, 1980) and theory (e.g., assuming a non-zero effect of SC-resilience on performance). Power analysis yielded a necessary sample size of 187 participants. To broaden the geographic representation of participants and account for potential missing data, a sample size larger than the minimum requirement was recruited. Measures Demographic Information Questionnaire. Participants were asked to report demographic information including age, sex, sport type, level (recreational vs. competitive), category (individual vs. team), length of time working with their current coach, and competing/training alongside their current teammates (see Appendix G). In this study, ‘teammates’ included other athletes on one’s organized sport team or individual sport team, with whom they compete and/or train with regularly (Scott et al., 2019). Body Acceptance by Coaches and Teammates. The Body Acceptance by Others Scale-21 (BAOS-2; Swami et al., 2021) is a 13-item measure of perceived acceptance, respect, and appreciation for the body by important others (see Appendix H). Items on the BAOS-2 (e.g., “I feel acceptance from important others regarding my body”) are rated on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 = Never to 5 = Always. BAOS-2 items can be adapted to reflect a distinct measure of body acceptance by specific others. In this study, items were adapted to reflect body acceptance by 1 Permission was obtained from Dr. Viren Swami to adapt the BAOS-2 for use in this study (see Appendix I). 60 coaches (e.g., “I believe that my coach values my body as it is without trying to change it”) and teammates (e.g., “I don’t have to change my body to feel accepted by my teammates”). Participants were asked to make distinct ratings for coaches and teammates on all items. BAOS-2 scores were computed by averaging response items, with higher scores indicating greater body acceptance by coaches and teammates. Scores produced by the BAOS-2 have shown evidence of construct, incremental, and convergent validity, as well as adequate internal consistency and test-retest reliability (Swami et al., 2021). The internal consistency (α) of scores produced by the BAOS-2 in this study was .92 for the coach-specific adaptation and .91 for the teammate-specific adaptation. Body Appreciation. The 10-item Body Appreciation Scale-22 (BAS-2; Tylka & Wood- Barcalow, 2015a) measures the extent to which individuals accept, respect, and have favorable attitudes toward their bodies (Appendix C). Items on the BAS-2 (e.g., “I take a positive attitude towards my body”) are scored on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 = Never to 5 = Always. A total BAS-2 score is computed by averaging response items, with higher scores indicating greater body appreciation. Scores derived from the BAS-2 have demonstrated good psychometric properties, including evidence of excellent internal consistency reliability among samples of athletes (Jankauskiene et al., 2020; Soulliard et al., 2019), high test-retest reliability, and evidence of construct validity (Tylka & Wood-Barcalow, 2015a). The internal consistency (α) of scores produced by the BAS-2 in this study was .91. Functionality Appreciation. The 7-item Functionality Appreciation Scale3 (FAS; Alleva et al., 2017) gauges individuals’ appreciation, respect, and honor for their body’s functional capabilities (see Appendix D). Items on the FAS (e.g., “I appreciate my body for what it is capable of doing”) are scored on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree. 2 Permission to use the BAS-2 in research is not required (Tylka & Wood-Barcalow, 2015a). 3 Permission to use the FAS in research is not required (Alleva et al., 2017). 61 A total FAS score is derived from averaging response items, with higher scores indicating greater functionality appreciation. Evidence has been provided for the construct and criterion-related validity, as well as test-retest reliability of scores produced by the FAS (Alleva et al., 2017). Scores produced by the FAS have also demonstrated excellent internal consistency among samples of athletes (Ricketts et al., 2023; Soulliard et al., 2019). The scores produced by the FAS in this study demonstrated an internal consistency (α) of .90. Multidimensional Sport-Confidence. The Sport-Confidence Inventory4 (SCI; Vealey & Knight, 2002) is a 14-item measure of individuals’ sport-confidence across three domains: physical skills and training (5 items; e.g., “You can execute the physical skills necessary to succeed”), cognitive efficiency (4 items; e.g., “You can keep mentally focused throughout the competitive event”), and resilience (5-items; e.g., “You can overcome doubt after a poor performance”; see Appendix J). To account for athletes who may not formally compete, these participants were asked to provide sport-confidence ratings based on their experiences engaging in recreational sport play. Items on the SCI are rated on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 = Can’t do it at all to 7 = Totally certain. Subscale scores on the SCI were derived by adding designated item responses, with higher scores indicating greater domain-specific sport-confidence. Scores produced by the SCI have demonstrated evidence of content, concurrent, and construct validity, as well as adequate internal consistency, and test-retest reliability (Machida et al., 2017; Vealey & Knight, 2002). Scores produced by SCI subscales in this study demonstrated internal consistencies (α) of .84 for physical skills and training, .79 for cognitive efficiency, and .83 for resilience. Sport Performance Evaluations. The Subjective Performance Questionnaire5 (SPQ) was developed by Soulliard et al. (2019) and derived from previously used subjective performance 4 Permission was obtained from Dr. Robin S. Vealey to utilize the SCI in this study (see Appendix K). 5 Permission to use the SPQ in research is not required (Soulliard et al., 2019). 62 measures by Vealey (1986; see Appendix F). The scale consists of two items that assess performance from one’s most recent competitive season. Participants were asked to use an 11- point scale ranging from 0 = extremely unsuccessful, to 10 = extremely successful, to respond to item one, “For your most recent competitive season, please rate your overall performance”. A similar 11-point scale ranging from 0 = extremely unsatisfied to 10 = extremely satisfied” was used to respond to item two, “For your most recent competitive season, please rate your overall satisfaction with your performance”. Participants who do not formally compete were asked to rate their performance based on their most recent sport participation. A total score on the SPQ was computed by summing both items, with higher scores indicating a higher evaluation of sport performance. Scores produced by the SPQ have demonstrated excellent internal consistency reliability among samples of athletes (Ricketts et al., 2023; Soulliard et al., 2019). The internal consistency (α) of scores produced by the SPQ in this study was .85. BMI and Percent Body Fat. To obtain BMI, calculated as kg/m², height, and weight were assessed according to standard procedures (i.e., light clothing and no shoes and socks). Height was measured to the nearest 0.1 cm using a portable stadiometer (Seca, Hamburg, Germany), while weight and percent body fat were assessed to the nearest 0.1kg and 0.1% using a portable bioelectrical impedance analysis scale (BIA; Tanita, Tokyo, Japan). Two height measures, each within 1.0 cm, were taken and averaged. In instances where values exceeded this threshold, a third measure was taken, and the two closest measures averaged (Montoye et al., 2013). Due to logistical constraints, encompassing limited equipment availability and participants’ need to promptly return to competition/play, measures of weight and percent body fat were performed only once. Values produced by the Tanita BIA scale have shown evidence of validity (r = .97 with air displacement plethysmography) and reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient = .99; Vasold et al., 2019). 63 Data Analysis Categorical data (e.g., demographics) were summarized with frequencies and percentages, and continuous data with means and standard deviations. Skewness and kurtosis (with values between ±2 indicating a normal distribution; Hahs-Vaughn & Lomax, 2020), as well as the magnitude of correlations (i.e., small = .10, medium = .30, large = .50; Cohen, 1988), were examined for all continuous variables. Observed variable path analysis was conducted using Mplus 8.9 (Muthén & Muthén, 2017) to test the study hypotheses sets: (1) perceived body acceptance by coaches and teammates would exert positive direct effects on body appreciation and functionality appreciation, (2) body and functionality appreciation would exert positive direct effects on SC- physical skills and training, SC-cognitive efficiency, and SC-resilience, and (3) SC-physical skills and training, SC-cognitive efficiency, and SC-resilience would exert positive direct effects on sport-performance evaluations. To maintain focus and conceptual clarity, only direct effects were explicitly tested. Establishing these direct relationships was deemed necessary before examining indirect pathways in later longitudinal research. This somewhat cautious modeling approach is consistent with the cross-sectional nature of the current dataset and more general methodological recommendations for causal inference in kinesiology (e.g., Myers et al., 2024). Interested readers are, however, directed to the supplementary material (see Appendix L) for details on total, total indirect, and specific indirect effects for all relevant variables. Based on theory and previous research (Cox et al., 2010; Gyomber et al., 2013; Hall et al., 2009; Kantanista et al., 2018; Krane & Williams, 1994; Machida et al., 2017; Nicholls et al., 2010; Ricketts et al., 2023; Soulliard et al., 2021), age, sex, and sport participation level were controlled for at each endogenous variable. To account for their potential effects, BMI, percent body fat, and sport category (individual vs. team) were controlled for at body and functionality appreciation. A 64 dichotomous variable was created to distinguish involvement in individual versus team sports using sport type data. Athletes in sports emphasizing individual performance (e.g., tennis) were categorized as individual sport participants, while those in sports emphasizing shared responsibility among teammates (e.g., soccer) were categorized as team sport participants (Dosil, 2008). To accurately classify athletes, those in sports with both individual and team aspects (e.g. track, swimming) specified their main event (e.g., track: relay). Sex (male = 0, female = 1), sport participation level (recreational = 0, competitive = 1), and sport category (individual = 0, team = 1) were dummy-coded before conducting the analysis. A covariance was specified between perceived body acceptance by coaches and teammates, considering their mutual roles in shaping body image in sport (Coppola et al., 2014; Hague et al., 2021). Body and functionality appreciation, both grounded in the underlying positive body image construct (Tylka, 2018), were expected to share common variance, warranting a specified covariance between them. Likewise, covariances were specified among SC-physical skills and training, SC-cognitive efficiency, and SC-resilience, all of which assess confidence specific to the performance demands of sport (Vealey & Knight, 2002). The model was fit using maximum likelihood estimation with robust standard errors (MLR) and missing data handled using full-information maximum likelihood estimation (i.e., assuming missing at random; Rubin, 1976; Patel et al., 2021). Given the nested data structure (i.e., body acceptance ratings nested within teams) and the lack of two-level hypotheses, the non-independence of observations was handled using the TYPE = COMPLEX command in Mplus. This approach computes standard errors and model-data fit indices treating team as a dependency (Asparouhov & Muthén, 2009). Model-data fit was assessed using χ², RMSEA, CFI, TLI, and SRMR, with good model- data fit interpreted as RMSEA ≤ .06; CFI ≥ .95; TLI ≥ .95; SRMR ≤ .08 (Hu & Bentler, 1999). 65 Type 1 error rate was set at 0.05. Consistent with Ricketts et al. (2023), though the study hypotheses are directional and support one-tailed tests (Jones, 1954), two-tailed tests were conducted for conservativeness (Welkowitz et al., 2012). Modification indices were examined post hoc to detect potential model misspecifications (Saris et al., 2009), with re-specification considered only if suggested changes were theoretically defensible (Bollen & Noble, 2011). Preliminary Findings RESULTS Participants of this study were 508 male (65.3%) and female (34.7%) Botswana athletes, ages 18 to 62 years (Mage = 25.32, SD = 7.10), with most participants below the age of 27 years (65.4%). Participants were recruited from 25 towns, urban villages, and cities in Botswana, with a considerable proportion of the participants hailing from the country’s capital, Gaborone (49.2%). The primary sports played were soccer (40.2%), netball (14.8%), track (10.7%), and softball (9.5%), with 76.3% of participants involved in team sports. Team-level sample size was 163, ranging from 1 to 23 participants per team. Most participants identified as competitive athletes (69.2%), with 33.9% having competed nationally. The majority reported playing their sport for 1 to 4 years (75.5%) and played their sport several days per week (80.0%). A considerable proportion of participants worked with their current coach (30.8%) and trained/competed alongside their current teammates (32.7%) for 1 to 4 years. The participants of this study mainly identified as students (32.7%), with 49.7% having attained senior-secondary level education (i.e., equivalent to high school). Table 3 presents a summary of the sample description. Table 3. Sample Description (Study 2) Variable Age ranges 18 – 26 years 27 – 35 years N 492 322 114 66 % 65.4 23.2 Table 3 (cont’d) 36 – 44 years 45 – 53 years 54 – 62 years Sex Female Male Residential town Gaborone Jwaneng Selebi Phikwe Other Sport participation level Recreational Competitive Highest sport competition level International National Regional Intercollegiate High school Never competed Length of sport participation 0 - 3 months 4 - 7 months 8 - 11 months 1 – 4 years > 4 years Frequency of sport participation < 1 day per week 1 day per week Several days per week Coaching duration 0 - 3 months 4 - 7 months 8 - 11 months 1 – 4 years > 4 years 8.7 2.4 .2 34.7 65.3 49.2 10.2 9.4 31.1 30.8 69.2 26.7 33.9 18.2 4.8 10.4 6.0 3.2 5.2 6.4 45.5 39.7 6.0 14.0 80.0 18.5 12.6 16.4 30.8 21.8 43 12 1 505 175 330 508 250 52 48 158 478 147 331 499 133 169 91 24 52 30 501 16 26 32 228 199 499 30 70 399 422 78 53 69 130 92 67 Table 3 (cont’d) Teammate training/competition duration 0 - 3 months 4 - 7 months 8 - 11 months 1 – 4 years > 4 years Primary employment status Full-time employment Part-time employment Self-employed Student Unemployed Highest education level Primary Junior Secondary Senior Secondary Technical/vocational Bachelor’s degree/equivalent Master’s degree/equivalent .2 12.3 49.7 19.4 16.2 2.2 Note. N = 508. Bold text reflects the number of participants with available data on each demographic variable. Columns may not equal 100% due to rounding. 16.0 11.7 13.3 32.7 26.4 25.2 9.2 9.0 32.7 24.0 489 78 57 65 160 129 480 121 44 43 157 115 495 1 61 246 96 80 11 68 Table 4. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations (Study 2) 1 – 2 .79*** – 3 .35*** .37*** – 4 .31*** .33*** .47*** – SD .82 .84 .70 .61 5.28 3.73 4.91 4.54 Kurt. .33 1.09 2.18 3.85 2.12 .79 .72 -.32 M 4.36 4.32 4.59 4.60 29.12 23.71 29.10 13.04 Skew. -1.05 -1.20 -1.69 -1.65 -1.32 -1.00 -.98 -.40 Variable 1. BABC 2. BABT 3. BA 4. FA 5. SC-PST 6. SC-CE 7. SC-R 8. SPE Note. BABC = perceived body acceptance by coaches; BABT = perceived body acceptance by teammates; BA = body appreciation; FA = functionality appreciation; SC-PST = SC-physical skills and training; SC-CE = SC-cognitive efficiency; SC-R = SC-resilience; SPE = sport performance evaluations; Skew. = skewness; Kurt. = kurtosis. Coefficients for the specified model covariances: BABC and BABT (cov = 0.55, p < .001), BA and FA (cov = 0.14, p < .001), SC-PST and SC-CE (cov = 11.00, p < .001), SC-PST and SC-R (cov = 12.85, p < .001), and SC-CE and SC-R (cov = 11.51, p < .001). *** p < .001. 8 .24*** .25*** .24*** .26*** .35*** .38*** .31*** – 7 .17*** .19*** .30*** .23*** .69*** .77*** – 6 .18*** .21*** .27*** .21*** .70*** – 5 .24*** .25*** .28*** .26*** – 69 Descriptive statistics and correlation coefficients for all study variables are presented in Table 4. While values of univariate skewness were between the range of ±2 for all continuous variables, values for univariate kurtosis slightly exceeded this range for body appreciation (2.18), functionality appreciation (3.85), SC-physical skills and training (2.12), age (3.20), and BMI (3.57). These values, however, did not indicate a severe departure from normality (Kline, 2015). The mean BMI in the sample was considered in the normal range (M = 23.05, SD = 4.31) based on World Health Organization (2000) guidelines. The mean percent body fat for males (M = 15.67, SD = 7.13) and females (M = 27.69, SD = 9.87) fell within the acceptable range according to sex- specific criteria (Jeukendrup & Gleeson, 2010). Significant positive correlations were observed among all variables in the hypothesized model, with coefficients ranging from r = .17 (perceived body acceptance by coaches and SC-resilience) to r = .79 (perceived body acceptance by coaches and teammates). Given the noticeably large correlations between perceived body acceptance by coaches and teammates (r = .79), SC-physical skills and training and SC-cognitive efficiency (r = .70), SC-cognitive efficiency and SC-resilience (r = .77), and BMI and percent body fat (r = .78), tolerance and variance inflation factor (VIF) statistics were examined to detect potential multicollinearity. All tolerance values were > .10 and VIF values < 10, indicating no evidence of multicollinearity (Kline, 2015). Path Model The primary objective of this study was to examine a path model of associations among perceived body acceptance by coaches and teammates, body and functionality appreciation, multidimensional sport-confidence, and sport performance evaluations, as depicted in Figure 2. Examination of fit indices indicated evidence of acceptable model-data fit (χ²(34) = 66.476, p < .001; RMSEA [CI90%] = .055[.035, .074], CFI = .956, TLI = .918, SRMR = .062). Modification 70 indices yielded no theoretically defensible adjustments to the model, and as such, it was retained as originally specified. Coefficients for the specified model covariances were all positive and significant (see notes section of Table 4). The model explained significant proportions of variance in body appreciation (R² = .239, p < .001), functionality appreciation (R² = .168, p < .001), SC- physical skills and training (R² = .172, p =.001), SC-cognitive efficiency (R² = .179, p = .001), SC- resilience (R² = .188, p < .001), and sport performance evaluations (R² = .186, p = .002). Hypothesis Set 1 It was hypothesized that perceived body acceptance by coaches and teammates would exert positive direct effects on body and functionality appreciation. The path coefficients from perceived body acceptance by coaches (B = 0.18, SE = 0.08, p = .032) and teammates (B = 0.16, SE = 0.08, p = .032) to body appreciation were significant and positive. Significant effects were observed for age (B = 0.02, SE = 0.01, p = .003), sport participation level (B = 0.28, SE = 0.08, p = .001), and BMI (B = -0.03, SE = 0.02, p = .024) on body appreciation, with older athletes, competitive athletes, and those with lower BMI reporting higher scores. While the path coefficient from perceived body acceptance by coaches to functionality appreciation was not significant (B = 0.15, SE = 0.08, p = .070), the path coefficient from perceived body acceptance by teammates was significant and positive (B = 0.16, SE = 0.06, p = .012). There was a significant effect for BMI on functionality appreciation (B = -0.03, SE = 0.01, p = .047), whereby athletes with lower BMI reported higher scores. Thus, partial support was provided for Hypothesis 1. Hypothesis Set 2 It was hypothesized that body and functionality appreciation would exert positive direct effects on SC-physical skills and training, SC-cognitive efficiency, and SC-resilience. The path coefficients from body (B = 1.62, SE = 0.47, p = .001) and functionality appreciation (B = 1.12, 71 SE = 0.53, p = .034) to SC-physical skills and training were significant and positive. There was a significant effect for sport participation level on SC-physical skills and training (B = 2.60, SE = 0.68, p < .001), with competitive athletes reporting higher scores. The path coefficients from body (B = 1.07, SE = 0.30, p < .001) and functionality appreciation (B = 0.74, SE = 0.36, p = .040) to SC-cognitive efficiency were significant and positive. There were significant effects for age (B = 0.09, SE = 0.03, p = .004), sex (B = 1.07, SE = 0.51, p = .034), and sport participation level (B = 2.07, SE = 0.50, p < .001) on SC-cognitive efficiency, with older athletes, males, and competitive athletes reporting higher scores. Although the path coefficient from body appreciation to SC- resilience was significant and positive (B = 1.65, SE = 0.47, p < .001), the path coefficient from functionality appreciation was not significant (B = 0.96, SE = 0.59, p = .106). Significant effects were observed for age (B = 0.14, SE = 0.03, p < .001) and sport participation level (B = 2.45, SE = 0.69, p < .001) on SC-resilience, with older athletes and competitive athletes reporting higher scores. Thus, partial support was provided for Hypothesis 2. Hypothesis Set 3 It was hypothesized that SC-physical skills and training, SC-cognitive efficiency, and SC- resilience would exert positive direct effects on sport performance evaluations. The path coefficient from SC-physical skills and training (B = 0.15, SE = 0.08, p = .054) and SC-resilience (B = -0.04, SE = 0.08, p = .615) to sport performance evaluations were both non-significant. However, the path coefficient from SC-cognitive efficiency to sport performance evaluations was significant and positive (B = 0.32, SE = 0.12, p = .008). There was a significant effect for age on sport performance evaluations (B = 0.09, SE = 0.04, p = .013), with older athletes reporting higher scores. Thus, partial support was provided for Hypothesis 3. 72 DISCUSSION Guided by the Sport-Confidence Model (Vealey & Knight, 2002), this study examined a model of associations among perceived body acceptance by coaches and teammates, body and functionality appreciation, multidimensional sport-confidence, and sport performance evaluations. It was hypothesized that (1) perceived body acceptance by coaches and teammates would exert positive direct effects on body appreciation and functionality appreciation, (2) body and functionality appreciation would exert positive direct effects on SC-physical skills and training, SC-cognitive efficiency, and SC-resilience, and (3) SC-physical skills and training, SC-cognitive efficiency, and SC-resilience would exert positive direct effects on sport performance evaluations. Results from a Botswana athlete sample demonstrated acceptable model-data fit and partial support for the three hypotheses. These findings will be discussed in the subsequent paragraphs. First, this study demonstrates positive direct effects from perceived body acceptance by coaches and teammates to body appreciation, with only the latter exerting a positive direct effect on functionality appreciation. This finding extends the Sport-Confidence Model (Vealey & Knight, 2002) by highlighting body acceptance by coaches and teammates as contextual factors associated with athletes’ positive body image, uncovering their distinct roles in this relationship. Amid the appearance-related pressures pervasive in many sport contexts (Kong & Harris, 2015), perceiving body acceptance from coaches may hold greater salience for athletes’ body appreciation, shifting focus from appearance to a more holistic valuation of the body (Avalos & Tylka, 2006). This perceived validation from coaches, given their significant role as communicators of body image in sport (Coppola et al., 2014; Hague et al., 2021), may send the message to athletes that their bodies are worth appreciating, regardless of its flaws (Avalos & Tylka, 2006). Athletes, however, rely on teammates’ health and functionality for collective success, irrespective of involvement in 73 individual or team sports (Evans & Eys, 2015). Receiving body acceptance from teammates may affirm the unique features and capabilities of athletes’ bodies, nurturing appreciation for its form and functionality (Oh et al., 2012). Moreover, in Botswana, where societal values emphasize the primacy of the group and collective unity rather than individualism (Mabuta et al., 2021), teammates’ acceptance may cultivate environments where athletes’ bodies are valued for their unique contributions to the team (Raabe et al., 2016), thus supporting body and functionality appreciation in this collectivistic context. While these findings are consistent with that of Oh et al. (2012), this study extends the literature by adopting a holistic approach to assessing perceived body acceptance by coaches and teammates, departing from the appearance-based focus of prior research. This approach acknowledges that body acceptance in athletics may extend beyond appearance to encompass characteristics such as physical prowess and ingenuity (Abbott & Barber, 2011), providing a more comprehensive view of the construct (Swami et al., 2021). Beyond the primary findings of Hypothesis Set 1, noteworthy insights emerged from the analysis of covariates. In this study, older and competitive athletes reported greater body appreciation, a finding attributable to heightened self-acceptance with increasing age and greater connection with the body at elevated fitness levels (Kantanista et al., 2018). Notably, this study established significant associations between BMI and core positive body image facets in athletes. Unlike previous studies relying on self-reported height and weight to estimate BMI (Soulliard et al., 2019, 2021), this study utilized device-based metrics and accounted for variations in percent body fat, likely aiding in identifying the unique contribution of BMI in these relationships (Malina, 2007). Specifically, lower BMI was associated with greater body and functionality appreciation, a finding consistent with the prevailing stigma against excess weight in many sport contexts (Vani et al., 2021). Unlike BMI, percent body fat did 74 not emerge as significant in these associations, a plausible outcome for two reasons. First, most athletes in this study participated in sports where aesthetics and leanness were not primary determinants of success (e.g., soccer, netball), potentially explaining the non-significant role of percent body fat in athletes’ positive body image (Ackland et al., 2012; Kong & Harris, 2015). Second, athletes often face pressure to conform to weight standards in their sport, viewing weight as a benchmark for achieving the ‘ideal’ physique (Sundgot-Borgen et al., 2013; Kong & Harris, 2015). Hence, athletes may equate lower BMI with improved body form and functionality, highlighting its significance in their perceptions of positive body image (He et al., 2020). Second, this study provides evidence of positive direct effects from body and functionality appreciation to SC-physical skills and training and SC-cognitive efficiency, with only body appreciation exerting a positive direct effect on SC-resilience. These findings support Sport- Confidence Model predictions (Vealey & Knight, 2002), whereby perceptions of the physical self were theorized as directly related to sport-confidence domains. Likewise, these findings corroborate arguments by Ricketts et al. (2023) to examine core facets of positive body image in relation to sport-confidence, reiterating their significance in athletes’ confidence perceptions. Specifically, this study revealed direct relationships between positive body image facets and SC- physical skills and training, as well as SC-cognitive efficiency. Athletes with high levels of body and functionality appreciation are likely more trusting of their bodies to demonstrate its physical competencies, facilitating greater SC-physical skills and training (Piran et al., 2020). These facets of positive body image also appear protective to SC-cognitive efficiency, potentially averting body image disturbances that could disrupt mental focus, concentration, and effective decision-making for successful performance (Voelker & Reel, 2015, 2018). In this study, only body appreciation emerged as important to SC-resilience. While performance fluctuations may be influenced by 75 external factors in which the body’s functionality plays a lesser role (e.g., managing pressure; Durand-Bush & Salmela, 2002), the optimistic, rather than self-critical outlook typical of individuals with higher body appreciation may foster increased confidence in one’s ability to recover from performance setbacks (Tylka, 2012). Building on prior research that assessed sport-confidence as unidimensional (Ricketts et al., 2023; Soulliard et al., 2019), this study adopted a multidimensional approach, improving understanding of the positive body image and confidence relationship, while adding to the sparse research in this area (Machida, 2008). Notably, across all domains, competitive athletes reported higher levels of sport-confidence. This finding, documented in prior research, has been attributed to an enhanced ability to categorize the specific skills required for success at higher sport levels (Machida et al., 2017). Similarly, older athletes reported greater SC-cognitive efficiency and SC- resilience, likely explained by the parallel increase in sport experiences as athletes age (Gyomber et al., 2013), facilitating improved mental skills and adaptability to dynamic game situations (Galli & Vealey, 2008). In this study, females also reported lower levels of SC-cognitive efficiency, potentially linked to their heightened susceptibility to confidence debilitating factors (Hays et al., 2009). Notwithstanding, these findings suggest that adaptive body image perceptions may provide positive cues to Botswana athletes about their ability to perform physical skills, utilize mental resources, and employ coping strategies essential for sport success. Third, among the sport-confidence domains examined, this study only identified a positive direct effect from SC-cognitive efficiency to sport performance evaluations. This finding is plausible, as Vealey and Knight (2002) found the types of sport-confidence to differentially predict performance based on the social-cognitive demands of sport. In this study, the salience of SC- cognitive efficiency to the performance evaluations of Botswana athletes may be partly due to their 76 primary involvement in ‘strategic sports’, such as soccer, netball, and softball (Krenn et al., 2018). These sports demand efficient mobilization of cognitive resources to navigate diverse situations involving teammates, opponents, positions, and objects (e.g., balls; Krenn et al., 2018), potentially explaining athletes’ greater reliance on this sport-confidence domain for successful performance. Notably, SC-cognitive efficiency is deemed the most unstable type of sport-confidence, susceptible to disruptions by situational (e.g., distractions) and internal factors (e.g., negative thoughts; Vealey & Knight, 2002). Hence, athletes may heavily depend on SC-cognitive efficiency to navigate evolving personal and contextual dynamics in sport (Durand-Bush & Salmela, 2002). In Botswana, where training of physical skills is prioritized over mental skills training (Keatlholetswe & Malete, 2019), proficiency in athletic abilities may reduce the relevance of SC- physical skills and training in athletes’ performance assessments (Vealey & Knight, 2002). Additionally, athletes in this study, likely due to their extensive sport experience, may have developed effective strategies for rebounding from performance setbacks, minimizing the significance of SC-resilience in their performance evaluations (Galli & Vealey, 2008). Collectively, the findings of this study present important implications for sport stakeholders, including the potential to promote successful performance among the region’s athletes by bolstering their confidence in mental skills (e.g., attention and concentration) using psychological skills training techniques (Hanrahan & Andersen, 2010). Targeting the development of positive body image may be an avenue to facilitate athletes’ confidence in performing physical skills, utilizing cognitive resources, and employing coping strategies essential for sport success, particularly relevant as Botswana athletes depend on healthy, functional bodies for confident sport engagement (Shehu & Moruisi, 2011). Coaches and teammates may facilitate this process by demonstrating respect, acceptance, and appreciation for athletes’ bodies (e.g., sharing positive 77 feedback regarding physical competencies as opposed to negative body-related criticisms). Particular attention may be warranted for younger athletes, recreational participants, females, and those with higher BMI, given their greater susceptibility to sociocultural pressures that hinder confidence and positive body image (Hays et al., 2009; Lucibello et al., 2023; Ricketts et al., 2023; Soulliard et al., 2019). Strengths, Limitations, and Future Research Directions This study demonstrates several methodological strengths, including its large sample size, utilization of device-based measures to assess body composition, and consideration of the nested data structure. Notably, this study recruited a diverse athlete sample (i.e., spanning various ages, sport types and levels, and residential locations), providing a foundation for more targeted investigations into how these relationships unfold within specific athlete subgroups. Despite its strengths, this study has a few limitations. First, although the model provided evidence of acceptable fit, less-than-exact fit may suggest only preliminary evidence for its validity, given some evidence for misfit (Myers et al., 2006). Future research should cross-validate this model with additional samples of Botswana athletes. Likewise, investigating the model at the team level could uncover ways in which group-level factors contribute to observed relationships, particularly within Botswana’s collectivistic context (Mabuta et al., 2021). Second, due to the preliminary and cross-sectional nature of this study, only direct effects were explicitly tested, necessitating future longitudinal designs to better evaluate indirect pathways (Myers et al., 2024). Third, despite the utility of BIA in field research (Pfeiffer et al., 2019), logistical constraints prevented meeting some of its underlying assumptions (e.g., nutrition, hydration, and exercise status; Kyle et al., 2004), alongside assessing interrater reliability and technical error of measurement for weight and percent body fat. Future research anticipating challenges with 78 meeting BIA assumptions could explore alternative methods, such as skinfold measurements, for assessing percent body fat in field studies (Eliakim et al., 2000). Additionally, incorporating somatotype assessments could provide additional insights into how body shape and composition contribute to athletes’ perceptions of positive body image. To address similar logistical constraints in future studies, securing adequate equipment, training ample personnel, and ensuring sufficient breaks for body composition measurements may also be beneficial. Notably, this study primarily consisted of non-aesthetic sport participants (e.g., soccer, netball), a characteristic likely mirroring the prevailing sport landscape in Botswana. Prior research indicates that individuals participating in non-aesthetic sports are afforded greater opportunities to develop positive body image compared to their counterparts in aesthetic sports, attributable to the instrumental rather than appearance- based focus of these activities (Abbott & Barber, 2011). Consequently, future research should aim to recruit more comparable samples of athletes from both aesthetic and non-aesthetic sports to explore potential variations in model relationships by sport type involvement. Conclusion This study provides evidence of associations among perceived body acceptance by coaches and teammates, body and functionality appreciation, multidimensional sport-confidence, and sport performance evaluations in Botswana athletes. Perceived body acceptance by coaches and teammates contributed to body and functionality appreciation, with coaches playing a particularly salient role in athletes’ body appreciation. Both positive body image facets emerged as significant contributors to SC-physical skills and training and SC-cognitive efficiency, while body appreciation uniquely contributed to SC-resilience. In this study, SC-cognitive efficiency emerged as most integral to the performance of Botswana athletes. Hence, sport stakeholders may prioritize interventions to enhance athletes’ confidence in mental skills and nurture positive body image, 79 involving coaches and teammates in these efforts. Importantly, these findings supplement the sparse research on multidimensional sport-confidence, extend Sport-Confidence Model predictions to a diverse cultural context, and respond to calls for additional research on the psychosocial factors linked to successful sport engagement among Botswana athletes. 80 REFERENCES Abbott, B. D., & Barber, B. L. (2011). Differences in functional and aesthetic body image between sedentary girls and girls involved in sports and physical activity: Does sport type make a difference? Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 12(3), 333–342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2010.10.005 Ackland, T. R., Lohman, T. G., Sundgot-Borgen, J., Maughan, R. J., Meyer, N. L., Stewart, A. D., & Müller, W. (2012). Current status of body composition assessment in sport. Sports Medicine, 42(3), 227–249. https://doi.org/10.2165/11597140-000000000-00000 Allen, C. P., Telford, R. M., Telford, R., D., & Olive, L. S. (2019). Sport, physical activity and physical education experiences: Associations with functional body image in children. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 45, 101572. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2019.101572 Alleva, J. M., Tylka, T. L., & Kroon Van Diest, A. M. (2017). The Functionality Appreciation Scale (FAS): Development and psychometric evaluation in U.S. community women and men. Body Image, 23, 28–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2017.07.008 Andrew, R., Tiggemann, M., & Clark, L. (2016). Predicting body appreciation in young women: An integrated model of positive body image. Body Image, 18, 34–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2016.04.003 Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. (2009). Exploratory structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 16(3), 397–438. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510903008204 Avalos, L., & Tylka, T. L. (2006). Exploring a model of intuitive eating with college women. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 53(4), 486–497. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022- 0167.53.4.486 Baker, J., & Horton, S. (2004). A review of primary and secondary influences on sport expertise. High Ability Studies, 15(2), 211–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359813042000314781 Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191. Bollen, K. A., & Noble, M. D. (2011). Structural equation models and the quantification of behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(supplement_3), 15639– 15646. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1010661108 Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (Second edition). L. Erlbaum Associates. Coppola, A. M., Ward, R. M., & Freysinger, V. J. (2014). Coaches’ communication of sport body image: experiences of female athletes. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 26(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/10413200.2013.766650 81 Cox, R. H., Shannon, J. K., McGuire, R. T., & McBride, A. (2010). Predicting subjective athletic performance from psychological skills after controlling for sex and sport. Journal of Sport Behavior, 33(2), 129–145. Dosil, J. (2008). Eating Disorders in Athletes. John Wiley & Sons. Durand-Bush, N., & Salmela, J. H. (2002). The development and maintenance of expert athletic performance: Perceptions of world and olympic champions. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 14(3), 154–171. https://doi.org/10.1080/10413200290103473 Evans, M. B., & Eys, M. A. (2015). Collective goals and shared tasks: Interdependence structure and perceptions of individual sport team environments. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 25(1), e139–e148. https://doi.org/10.1111/sms.12235 Feltz, D. L. (2007). Self-confidence and sports performance (p. 294). Human Kinetics. Galli, N., & Vealey, R. S. (2008). “Bouncing back” from adversity: Athletes’ experiences of resilience. The Sport Psychologist, 22(3), 316–335. https://doi.org/10.1123/tsp.22.3.316 Gay, J., Monsma, E. V., & Torres-McGehee, T. (2009). Give or take a few? Comparing measured and self-reported height and weight as correlates of social physique anxiety. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 80(3), 656–662. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2009.10599605 Greenleaf, C., Boyer, E. M., & Petrie, T. A. (2009). High school sport participation and subsequent psychological well-being and physical activity: The mediating influences of body image, physical competence, and instrumentality. Sex Roles, 61(9–10), 714–726. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-009-9671-z Gyomber, N., Lenart, A., & Kovacs, K. (2013). Differences between personality characteristics and sport performance by age and gender. Osobnostné Charakteristiky a Športový Výkon Vo Vzťahu K Veku a K Pohlaviu Športovcov V Maďarsku. Acta Facultatis Educationis Physicae Universitatis Comenianae, 53(2), 5–15. Hague, C., McGuire, C. S., Chen, J., Bruner, M. W., Côté, J., Turnnidge, J., & Martin, L. J. (2021). Coaches’ influence on team dynamics in sport: A scoping review. Sports Coaching Review, 10(2), 225–248. https://doi.org/10.1080/21640629.2021.1874096 Hahs-Vaughn, D. L., & Lomax, R. G. (2020). An introduction to statistical concepts. Routledge. Hall, C. R., Munroe-Chandler, K. J., Cumming, J., Law, B., Ramsey, R., & Murphy, L. (2009). Imagery and observational learning use and their relationship to sport confidence. Journal of Sports Sciences, 27(4), 327–337. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640410802549769 Hancock, G. R., & French, B. F. (2013). Power analysis in covariance structure models. In G. R. Hancock & R. O. Mueller (Eds.), Structural equation modeling: A second course (2nd ed.) (pp. 117-159). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc. 82 Hanrahan, S. J., & Andersen, M. B. (2010). Routledge handbook of applied sport psychology. Routledge New York, NY. https://api.taylorfrancis.com/content/books/mono/download?identifierName=doi&identifi erValue=10.4324/9780203851043&type=googlepdf Hays, K., Maynard, I., Thomas, O., & Bawden, M. (2007). Sources and types of confidence identified by world class sport performers. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 19(4), 434–456. https://doi.org/10.1080/10413200701599173 Hays, K., Thomas, O., Maynard, I., & Bawden, M. (2009). The role of confidence in world-class sport performance. Journal of Sports Sciences, 27(11), 1185–1199. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640410903089798 He, J., Sun, S., Lin, Z., & Fan, X. (2020). The association between body appreciation and body mass index among males and females: A meta-analysis. Body Image, 34, 10–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2020.03.006 Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118 Jankauskiene, R., Baceviciene, M., & Trinkuniene, L. (2020). Examining body appreciation and disordered eating in adolescents of different sports practice: Cross-sectional study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(11), Article 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17114044 Jeukendrup, A., & Gleeson, M. (2010). Sport nutrition: An introduction to energy production and performance. https://www.cabidigitallibrary.org/doi/full/10.5555/20123053644 Jones, L. V. (1954). A rejoinder on one-tailed tests. Psychological Bulletin, 51(6), 585–586. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0055313 Kantanista, A., Glapa, A., Banio, A., Firek, W., Ingarden, A., Malchrowicz-Mośko, E., Markiewicz, P., Płoszaj, K., Ingarden, M., & Maćkowiak, Z. (2018). Body image of highly trained female athletes engaged in different types of sport. BioMed Research International, 2018, e6835751. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/6835751 Keatlholetswe, L., & Malete, L. (2019). Coaching efficacy, player perceptions of coaches’ leadership styles, and team performance in premier league soccer. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 90(1), 71–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2018.1563277 Kline, R. B. (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford publications. Kong, P., & Harris, L. M. (2015). The sporting body: body image and eating disorder symptomatology among female athletes from leanness focused and nonleanness focused sports. The Journal of Psychology, 149(2), 141–160. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2013.846291 83 Krane, V., & Williams, J. M. (1994). Cognitive anxiety, somatic anxiety, and confidence in track and field athletes: The impact of gender, competitive level and task characteristics. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 25, 203–217. Krenn, B., Finkenzeller, T., Würth, S., & Amesberger, G. (2018). Sport type determines differences in executive functions in elite athletes. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 38, 72–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2018.06.002 Kyle, U. G., Bosaeus, I., De Lorenzo, A. D., Deurenberg, P., Elia, M., Manuel Gómez, J., Lilienthal Heitmann, B., Kent-Smith, L., Melchior, J.-C., Pirlich, M., Scharfetter, H., M.W.J Schols, A., & Pichard, C. (2004). Bioelectrical impedance analysis—part II: Utilization in clinical practice. Clinical Nutrition, 23(6), 1430–1453. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clnu.2004.09.012 Levy, A. R., Nicholls, A. R., & Polman, R. C. J. (2011). Pre-competitive confidence, coping, and subjective performance in sport. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 21(5), 721–729. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0838.2009.01075.x Linardon, J., Anderson, C., Messer, M., Rodgers, R. F., & Fuller-Tyszkiewicz, M. (2021). Body image flexibility and its correlates: A meta-analysis. Body Image, 37, 188–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2021.02.005 Lucibello, K. M., Sabiston, C. M., Pila, E., & Arbour-Nicitopoulos, K. (2023). An integrative model of weight stigma, body image, and physical activity in adolescents. Body Image, 45, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2023.01.003 Mabuta, K., Hill, C., & Malete, L. (2021). Botswana elite youth athletes: An extension of Achievement Goals and Self-Determination Theories. African Journal for Physical Activity and Health Sciences (AJPHES), 27, 175–191. https://doi.org/10.37597/ajphes.2021.27.2.4 MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1(2), 130. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.1.2.130 Machida, M. (2008). An examination of sources and multidimensionality of self-confidence in collegiate athletes [Miami University]. https://etd.ohiolink.edu/apexprod/rws_olink/r/1501/10?clear=10&p10_accession_num=m iami1214597240 Machida, M., Marie Ward, R., & Vealey, R. S. (2012). Predictors of sources of self-confidence in collegiate athletes. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 10(3), 172– 185. https://doi.org/10.1080/1612197X.2012.672013 Machida, M., Otten, M., Magyar, T. M., Vealey, R. S., & Ward, R. M. (2017). Examining multidimensional sport-confidence in athletes and non-athlete sport performers. Journal of Sports Sciences, 35(5), 410–418. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2016.1167934 84 Malepa, M., & Komane, B. (2014). Economic activity in Botswana. Botswana Population and Housing Census 2011 Analytical Report, 497–520. Malete, L. (2004a). Participant motivation, social influences, and patterns of physical activity involvement among Botswana youths. PULA: Botswana Journal of African Studies, 18(2), 49–64. Malete, L. (2004b). Perceived competence and physical activity involvement among youths: An examination of Harter’s Competence Motivation Theory in Botswana. South African Journal for Research in Sport, Physical Education and Recreation, 26(2), 91–103. https://doi.org/10.10520/EJC108784 Malina, R. M. (2007). Body composition in athletes: Assessment and estimated fatness. Clinics in Sports Medicine, 26(1), 37–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csm.2006.11.004 Maron, B. J., Chaitman, B. R., Ackerman, M. J., Bayés de Luna, A., Corrado, D., Crosson, J. E., Deal, B. J., Driscoll, D. J., Estes, N. A. M., Araújo, C. G. S., Liang, D. H., Mitten, M. J., Myerburg, R. J., Pelliccia, A., Thompson, P. D., Towbin, J. A., & Van Camp, S. P. (2004). Recommendations for physical activity and recreational sports participation for young patients with genetic cardiovascular diseases. Circulation, 109(22), 2807–2816. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.CIR.0000128363.85581.E1 Maron, B. J., & Mitchell, J. H. (1994). Revised eligibility recommendations for competitive athletes with cardiovascular abnormalities. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 24(4), 848–850. https://doi.org/10.1016/0735-1097(94)90837-0 Menzel, J. E., & Levine, M. P. (2011). Embodying experiences and the promotion of positive body image: The example of competitive athletics. In Self-objectification in women: Causes, consequences, and counteractions (pp. 163–186). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/12304-008 Meredith, M. D., & Welk, G. (Eds.). (2013). FitnessGram/ActivityGram: Test administration manual (Updated Fourth Edition). Human Kinetics. Monsma, E. V., Pfeiffer, K. A., & Malina, R. M. (2008). Relationship of social physique anxiety to indicators of physique. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 79(3), 417–422. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2008.10599507 Montoye, A., Pfeiffer, K., Alaimo, K., Betz, H., Paek, H.-J., Carlson, J., & Eisenmann, J. (2013). Junk food Consumption and screen time: Association with childhood adiposity. American Journal of Health Behavior, 37, 395–403. https://doi.org/10.5993/AJHB.37.3.12 Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2017). Mplus User’s Guide. (Eighth Edition). Myers, N.D., Brincks, A.M., & Lee, S. (2024). Using Directed Acyclic Graphs (DAGs) to determine if the total causal effect of an individual randomized physical activity- promoting intervention is identifiable. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/1091367X.2024.2318355 85 Myers, N. D., Celimli, S., Martin, J. J., & Hancock, G. R. (2016). Sample size determination and power estimation in structural equation modeling. An Introduction to Intermediate and Advanced Statistical Analyses for Sport and Exercise Scientists, 267–284. Myers, N. D., Feltz, D. L., Maier, K. S., Wolfe, E. W., & Reckase, M. D. (2006). Athletes’ evaluations of their head coach’s coaching competency. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 77(1), 111–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2006.10599337 Myers, N.D., Ntoumanis, N., Gunnell, K.E., Gucciardi, D.F., & Lee, S. (2018). A review of some emergent quantitative analyses in sport and exercise psychology. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 11, 70-100. https://www.doi.10.1080/1750984X.2017.1317356 Nicholls, A. R., Polman, R., & Levy, A. R. (2010). Coping self-efficacy, pre-competitive anxiety, and subjective performance among athletes. European Journal of Sport Science, 10(2), 97–102. https://doi.org/10.1080/17461390903271592 Oh, K. H., Wiseman, M. C., Hendrickson, J., Phillips, J. C., & Hayden, E. W. (2012). Testing the acceptance model of intuitive eating with college women athletes. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 36(1), 88–98. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684311433282 Patel, P., Lee, S., Myers, N. D., & Lee, M.-H. (2021). Missing data reporting and analysis in motor learning and development: a systematic review of past and present practices. Journal of Motor Learning and Development, 9(1). https://doi- org.proxy1.cl.msu.edu/10.1123/jmld.2020-0018 Pfeiffer, K. A., Robbins, L. B., Ling, J., Sharma, D. B., Dalimonte-Merckling, D. M., Voskuil, V. R., Kaciroti, N., & Resnicow, K. (2019). Effects of the Girls on the Move randomized trial on adiposity and aerobic performance (secondary outcomes) in low-income adolescent girls. Pediatric Obesity, 14(11), e12559. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijpo.12559 Piran, N., Teall, T. L., & Counsell, A. (2020). The experience of embodiment scale: Development and psychometric evaluation. Body Image, 34, 117–134. Preacher, K. J., & Coffman, D. L. (2006). Computing power and minimum sample size for RMSEA. Retrieved from http://quantpsy.org/ Raabe, J., Zakrajsek, R. A., & Readdy, T. (2016). Teammate influence on collegiate swimmers’ basic psychological need satisfaction: a qualitative perspective. Journal of Intercollegiate Sport, 9(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.1123/jis.2015-0016 Ramos-Jiménez, A., Chávez-Herrera, R., Castro-Sosa, A. S., Pérez-Hernández, L. C., Torres, R. P. H., Olivas-Dávila, D., Ramos-Jiménez, A., Chávez-Herrera, R., Castro-Sosa, A. S., Pérez-Hernández, L. C., Torres, R. P. H., & Olivas-Dávila, D. (2016). Body shape, image, and composition as predictors of athlete’s performance. In Fitness Medicine. IntechOpen. https://doi.org/10.5772/65034 86 Ricketts, C., Malete, L., Myers, N. D., Bateman, A. G., & Bateman, C. J. (2023). Sport bodies: An examination of positive body image, sport-confidence, and subjective sport performance in Jamaican athletes. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 67, 102434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2023.102434 Rubin, D. B. (1976). Inference and missing data. Biometrika, 63(3), 581–592. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/63.3.581 Saris, W. E., Satorra, A., & van der Veld, W. M. (2009). Testing structural equation models or detection of misspecifications? Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 16(4), 561–582. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510903203433 Scott, C. L., Haycraft, E., & Plateau, C. R. (2019). Teammate influences and relationship quality are associated with eating and exercise psychopathology in athletes. Appetite, 143, 104404. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2019.104404 Shehu, J., & Moruisi, M. (2011). Influence of sport on personal development and social investment among Botswana Olympic athletes. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 46(3), 282–298. Soulliard, Z. A., Fitterman-Harris, H. F., Perry, J. E., Poe, L. M., & Ross, M. J. (2021). Differences in body appreciation and functionality appreciation outside of and directly following sport among collegiate student-athletes. The Sport Psychologist, 35(4), 320– 328. Soulliard, Z. A., Kauffman, A. A., Fitterman-Harris, H. F., Perry, J. E., & Ross, M. J. (2019). Examining positive body image, sport confidence, flow state, and subjective performance among student athletes and non-athletes. Body Image, 28, 93–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2018.12.009 Steiger, J. H., & Lind, J. C. (1980). Statistically based tests for the number of common factors. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Psychometric Society, Iowa City, IA. Sundgot-Borgen, J., Meyer, N. L., Lohman, T. G., Ackland, T. R., Maughan, R. J., Stewart, A. D., & Müller, W. (2013). How to minimise the health risks to athletes who compete in weight-sensitive sports review and position statement on behalf of the Ad Hoc Research Working Group on Body Composition, Health and Performance, under the auspices of the IOC Medical Commission. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 47(16), 1012–1022. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2013-092966 Swami, V., Todd, J., Stieger, S., Furnham, A., Horne, G., & Tylka, T. L. (2021). Body acceptance by others: Refinement of the construct, and development and psychometric evaluation of a revised measure – The Body Acceptance by Others Scale-2. Body Image, 36, 238–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2020.11.007 Tiggemann, M. (2015). Considerations of positive body image across various social identities and special populations. Body Image, 14, 168–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2015.03.002 87 Tshube, T., Dele Akpata, & Brandon Irwin. (2012). The use of nonmonetary incentives as a motivational tool in sports. Journal of Psychology Research, 2(11). https://doi.org/10.17265/2159-5542/2012.11.004 Tshube, T., & Hanrahan, S. J. (2016). Sport psychology in Botswana: A prime breeding ground. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 14(2), 126–134. https://doi.org/10.1080/1612197X.2016.1142462 Tshube, T., Kasale, L., & Manatsha, B. (2022). A critical overview of sport development in Botswana. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 20(4), 997–1012. https://doi.org/10.1080/1612197X.2021.1956566 Tylka, T. L. (2012). Positive psychology perspectives on body image. In T. Cash (Ed.), Encyclopedia of body image and human appearance (pp. 657–663). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-384925-0.00104-8 Tylka, T. L. (2018). Overview of the field of positive body image. Body Positive: Understanding and Improving Body Image in Science and Practice, 6–33. Tylka, T. L., & Wood-Barcalow, N. L. (2015a). The Body Appreciation Scale-2: Item refinement and psychometric evaluation. Body Image, 12, 53–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2014.09.006 Tylka, T. L., & Wood-Barcalow, N. L. (2015b). What is and what is not positive body image? Conceptual foundations and construct definition. Body Image, 14, 118–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2015.04.001 Vani, M. F., Pila, E., deJonge, M., Solomon-Krakus, S., & Sabiston, C. M. (2021). ‘Can you move your fat ass off the baseline?’ Exploring the sport experiences of adolescent girls with body image concerns. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 13(4), 671–689. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2020.1771409 Vasold, K. L., Parks, A. C., Phelan, D. M. L., Pontifex, M. B., & Pivarnik, J. M. (2019). Reliability and validity of commercially available low-cost bioelectrical impedance analysis. International Journal of Sport Nutrition and Exercise Metabolism, 29(4), 406– 410. https://doi.org/10.1123/ijsnem.2018-0283 Vealey, R. S. (1986). Conceptualization of sport-confidence and competitive orientation: Preliminary investigation and instrument development. Journal of Sport Psychology, 8(3). Vealey, R. S., Garner-Holman, M., Hayashi, S. W., & Giacobbi, P. (1998). Sources of sport- confidence: conceptualization and instrument development. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 20(1), 54–80. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.20.1.54 Vealey, R. S., & Knight, B. J. (2002). Multidimensional sport-confidence: A conceptual and psychometric extension. Association for the Advancement of Applied Sport Psychology Conference, Tucson, AZ. 88 Voelker, D. K., & Reel, J. J. (2015). An inductive thematic analysis of female competitive figure skaters’ experiences of weight pressure in sport. Journal of Clinical Sport Psychology, 9(4), 297–316. https://doi.org/10.1123/jcsp.2015-0012 Voelker, D. K., & Reel, J. J. (2018). An inductive thematic analysis of male competitive figure skaters’ experiences of weight pressure in sport. Journal of Clinical Sport Psychology, 12(4), 614–629. https://doi.org/10.1123/jcsp.2018-0045 Welkowitz, J., Cohen, B. H., & Lea, R. B. (2012). introductory statistics for the behavioral sciences. John Wiley & Sons. Wilson, O. W. A., Bopp, C. M., Papalia, Z., & Bopp, M. (2019). Objective vs self-report assessment of height, weight and body mass index: Relationships with adiposity, aerobic fitness and physical activity. Clinical Obesity, 9(5), e12331. https://doi.org/10.1111/cob.12331 World Health Organization. (2000). Obesity: Preventing and managing the global epidemic: report of a WHO consultation. World Health Organization. 89 CHAPTER IV: GENERAL DISCUSSION Considerable evidence suggests less negative and more positive body image perceptions among sport participants (Sabiston et al., 2019), as these activities allow for greater body responsiveness and physical empowerment (Menzel & Levine, 2011). Of relevance to SEP, is evidence linking core facets of positive body image, namely body and functionality appreciation, to athletes’ sport-confidence (Soulliard et al., 2019), a predictor of successful sport performance (Hays et al., 2009). While the Sport-Confidence Model (Vealey et al., 1998; Vealey & Knight, 2002) proves valuable in explaining these relationships, this framework operationalizes positive body image as an appearance-based construct, neglecting the centrality of body functionality to athletes’ body image (Abbott & Barber, 2011). Moreover, much research in this area underrepresents and disconnects the experiences of individuals from regions of the Global South, including Africa (Vancini et al., 2014) and the Diaspora (e.g., Caribbean; Thomas et al., 2019). Centered on two understudied regions in these contexts – Jamaica and Botswana, this dissertation sought to extend the literature by examining core facets of positive body image in relation to athletes’ sport-confidence and performance, thereby, expanding upon the Sport-Confidence Model (Vealey et al., 1998; Vealey & Knight, 2002). Jamaica and Botswana were considered intriguing contexts for this project. Both regions share comparable strides in sport development and prioritize athletic achievement, despite varying degrees of attained sporting excellence (Toomer, 2015; Tshube et al., 2022). Jamaica’s extensive history of international sport successes, particularly in track and field and soccer (Franklyn, 2010; Taylor, 2015; Toomer, 2015), contrasts with Botswana’s relatively shorter history of successes in similar athletic pursuits (Tshube et al., 2022; Tshube & Hanrahan, 2016). This presented an opportunity to examine transferable insights for enhancing sport achievement across these settings. In both regions, athletes regard positive perceptions of the body as integral to confident and 90 competent sport engagement (Malete et al., 2008; Shehu & Moruisi, 2011). Therefore, it appeared feasible to examine the specific role of positive body image in the confidence and performance of Jamaican and Botswana athletes, prompting initiation of this two-study project. Study 1 examined a model of the associations among body and functionality appreciation, trait sport-confidence, and performance evaluations in Jamaican athletes. This study revealed evidence of (1) good-model data fit, (2) positive direct effects from body and functionality appreciation to sport-confidence, (3) positive direct effects from sport-confidence to performance evaluations, and (4) positive indirect effects from body and functionality appreciation to performance evaluations, via sport-confidence. This study presented noteworthy contributions to the literature. First, Study 1 established support for extending the Sport-Confidence Model to examine core facets of positive body image in relation to sport-confidence, departing from the appearance-based focus of Vealey et al. (1998). Second, Study 1 provided theory-driven evidence of associations among positive body image, sport-confidence, and performance evaluations, employing a robust path modeling approach (Duncan, 1966). Third, Study 1 demonstrated that positive body image contributed to sport-confidence in both competitive and recreational sports. This finding is promising for sustaining engagement in these pursuits, given the recognized importance of confidence for continued sport participation (Jowett & Felton, 2013). Fourth, Study 1 supplements the sparse literature on the psychosocial factors contributing to successful sport engagement among Jamaican athletes (Thomas et al., 2019). Practical implications emerging from these findings included the potential to enhance sport-confidence and performance among the region’s athletes by nurturing their appreciation for the body’s form and functionality. However, in Jamaica, females and recreational athletes were identified as requiring special attention during 91 intervention efforts due to encountering heightened pressures that hinder sport-confidence and body appreciation (Hays et al., 2009; Soulliard et al., 2019). Having established the role of body and functionality appreciation in the confidence and performance of Jamaican athletes, the model examined in Study 1 was extended to the Botswana sport context (i.e., Study 2). In contrast to the unidimensional trait-based approach to sport- confidence taken in Study 1 (Vealey, 1986), Study 2 adopted a multidimensional perspective, aligning with Vealey and Knight’s (2002) revised conceptualization of the construct. As such, sport-confidence was assessed across three domains: physical skills and training, cognitive efficiency, and resilience. Furthermore, to identify contextual factors associated with positive body image, Study 2 examined perceived body acceptance by coaches and teammates in relation to body and functionality appreciation. Hence, Study 2 examined a model of the associations among perceived body acceptance by coaches and teammates, body and functionality appreciation, multidimensional sport-confidence, and performance evaluations in a Botswana athlete sample. This study revealed evidence of (1) acceptable model-data fit, (2) positive direct effects from perceived body acceptance by teammates to body and functionality appreciation, with perceived body acceptance by coaches exerting a positive direct effect only on body appreciation, (3) positive direct effects from body and functionality appreciation to SC-physical skills and training and SC- cognitive efficiency, with only body appreciation exerting a positive direct effect on SC-resilience, and (4) a positive direct effect only from SC-cognitive efficiency to performance evaluations. These findings also provided noteworthy contributions to the literature. First, extending the Sport-Confidence Model (Vealey & Knight, 2002), Study 2 identified perceived body acceptance by coaches and teammates as contextual factors that differentially contribute to athletes’ positive body image. Second, Study 2 broadened the conceptualization of body acceptance beyond a focus 92 on body shape and weight, adopting a holistic perspective more relevant to the sport domain (Swami et al., 2021), where body acceptance may encompass recognition of one’s physical capabilities and bodily creativity (Abbott & Barber, 2011). Third, by controlling for the effects of BMI on body and functionality appreciation, this study revealed significant associations between these variables in athletes. This is likely due to the use of objective metrics for BMI estimation, alongside accounting for variations in percent body fat. Fourth, by assessing multidimensional sport-confidence, Study 2 offered a more nuanced understanding of the positive body image, sport- confidence, and performance relationship. These findings offer valuable insights for regional scholarship and practice in Botswana, addressing the need for research on the psychosocial factors linked to successful sport engagement in the region (Tshube et al., 2022; Tshube & Hanrahan, 2016), and supplementing the sparse literature on multidimensional sport-confidence (Machida et al., 2017). The practical implications emerging from Study 2 entailed targeting successful performance in Botswana athletes by bolstering their confidence in mental skills, alongside promoting body acceptance from coaches and teammates to nurture positive body image and facilitate sport-confidence in physical skills, cognitive efficiency, and resilience. In Botswana, younger athletes, recreational participants, females, and those with higher BMI were identified as warranting special consideration given their potential vulnerability to sociocultural pressures that impede confidence and positive body image (Hays et al., 2009; Soulliard et al., 2019; Lucibello et al., 2023). The non-equivalence of the models examined in Studies 1 and 2 precludes direct comparisons between their findings. Nonetheless, the discernible trends emerging across both studies are worth noting. Evidence supporting the applicability of Sport-Confidence Model (Vealey et al., 1998; Vealey & Knight, 2002) predictions was found in both Jamaican and 93 Botswana athlete samples. This finding is particularly relevant given the imperative to address questions about the generalizability of theories in SEP (Papaioannou, 2013). Although primarily developed and investigated in North America (Hays et al., 2007; Machida et al., 2012, 2017; Vealey, 1986; Vealey et al., 1998; Vealey & Knight, 2002), the model’s applicability to the Jamaican and Botswana contexts support its utility in understanding relationships among positive body image, sport-confidence, and performance, and guiding subsequent interventions. This is especially relevant as SEP practice in both regions tends to be informed by the findings of studies conducted elsewhere, with limited consideration of their cultural utility (Mason & Morgan, 2022; Tshube et al., 2022). The findings of both studies also highlight the contributing role of positive body image to athletes’ sport-confidence. These findings are noteworthy, as promoting positive body image among athletes could preempt the development of body image disturbances that disrupt the mobilization of cognitive resources necessary for confident sport engagement (Voelker & Reel, 2015, 2018). Additionally, in both studies, sport-confidence was highlighted as a psychosocial factor associated with successful sport performance, with this finding specific to SC-cognitive efficiency in the Botswana sample. These findings underscore the robustness of the sport- confidence and performance relationship, further corroborating its instrumental role in athletic achievement (Hays et al., 2009). Likewise, across both studies, there was evidence of lower body appreciation and sport-confidence among females, with the latter specific to SC-cognitive efficiency in the Botswana sample. These trends have also been noted in studies with US athletes (Hays et al., 2009; Krane & Williams, 1994; Soulliard et al., 2019, 2021), suggesting that broader sociocultural pressures hindering positive body image and sport-confidence may persist cross- culturally, warranting the need for targeted interventions with female athletes. 94 Select insights from the Botswana sport context hold potential for fueling further research in the Jamaican context. An examination of body acceptance by coaches and teammates in relation to body and functionality appreciation could shed light on the sport-specific social dynamics supporting positive body image in Jamaican athletes. This is especially relevant in light of evidence indicating the crucial role of supportive coach and teammate relationships in fostering successful sport engagement in the region (Thomas et al., 2019). Although not investigated in Study 1, the relationship between BMI and positive body image could offer valuable insights into the physiological factors associated with adaptive body image perceptions in Jamaican athletes. Adopting the methodological approach used in Study 2, which entailed the device-based estimation of BMI, alongside accounting for variations in percent body fat, may prove particularly useful when investigating these relationships. Furthermore, examining sport-confidence from a multidimensional perspective could contribute depth of insights into the associations among positive body image facets, sport-confidence domains, and performance evaluations in Jamaican athletes. Collectively, this two-study dissertation exemplifies how scholarly research can foster interconnectedness between regions, offering transferable insights useful for promoting positive outcomes and experiences, even in the absence of direct cross-cultural comparisons. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS Several key strengths of this dissertation are worth noting. This project represents a much- needed shift towards investigating the adaptive aspects of body image in sport, contributing to a more comprehensive understanding of athlete body image. Conducted in two understudied regions of the Global South, this dissertation broadened the evidence-base to offer invaluable insights for advancing the cultural dimensions of SEP (Coakley, 2003; Duda & Allison, 1990; Papaioannou, 2013), while contributing to regional scholarship in Jamaica and Botswana (Thomas et al., 2019; 95 Tshube et al., 2022). Methodologically, this dissertation recruited large, adequately powered samples of athletes spanning varying ages and sport types, from both recreational and competitive contexts. Particularly noteworthy is the extensive reach of Study 2, which recruited participants from 25 towns and cities across Botswana. Likewise, notable strengths were evident in the data handling procedures employed throughout this dissertation, which entailed addressing missing data, controlling for key covariates, and accounting for the nested data structure in Study 2. The objective estimation of height, weight, and percent body fat by trained members of the research team also served as a strength of this dissertation. The current project also has noteworthy limitations. First, the findings of this dissertation have limited generalizability external to the Jamaican and Botswana sport contexts. Notably, both studies consisted mainly of participants of non-aesthetic sports, restricting generalizability of findings to aesthetic sport participants. Second, the cross-sectional nature of both studies precluded examinations of causality or temporality of associations. Third, the TSCI (trait sport-confidence) and SCI (multidimensional sport-confidence) used in Studies 1 and 2 respectively, both assessed general or typical perceptions of sport-confidence, without accounting for the construct’s temporal instability (Levy et al., 2011). Fourth, in both studies, sport performance was evaluated based on subjective assessments, potentially introducing issues of bias and/or inaccuracy. Fifth, Study 2 provided only preliminary evidence for the validity of the hypothesized model, given its less-than- excellent fit to the data (Myers et al., 2006). Sixth, logistical constraints (e.g., limited equipment, participants needing to promptly return to play), hindered the verification of underlying assumptions of BIA (e.g., nutrition, hydration, and exercise status; Kyle et al., 2004), and prevented the assessment of interrater reliability and technical error of measurement. Despite these limitations, this project offers a solid foundation for future research to expand this line of inquiry. 96 FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS To increase cross-cultural extensions of this research, future studies should examine the models from Studies 1 and 2 across diverse sport populations. A notable avenue for further inquiry entails investigating these model relationships among comparable samples of athletes from aesthetic and non-aesthetic sports. Such investigations could shed light on how these relationships manifest within sport environments that emphasize appearance versus functionality. Likewise, the diverse participant demographics covered in both studies – spanning various ages, sport types and levels, and residential locations – establish a foundation for more nuanced inquiries into how these relationships unfold within specific athlete subgroups. These investigations could aid in the identification of key moderating variables pertinent to the hypothesized models. Moreover, further research is needed to cross-validate these models with additional samples of Jamaican and Botswana athletes. This is especially relevant for the model examined in Study 2, given its less- than-exact fit to the data. Examining this model at the team level could further uncover how group- level factors contribute to observed relationships. Future longitudinal research is recommended to investigate the temporal associations among the variables examined in both studies. Given the preliminary nature of Study 2, alongside the emphasis on maintaining conceptual clarity, statistical indirect effects were not tested. Thus, future longitudinal studies could provide valuable insights into the indirect associations among these variables. To address the temporal instability of sport-confidence, future research should aim to assess this construct pre, during, and post-competition or play (Levy et al., 2011). Such an investigation could reveal fluctuations in model relationships at various stages of sporting events. For more precise and comprehensive assessments of performance, future studies could incorporate objective measures across four key areas – physical, mental, technical, and tactical skills (Carling 97 et al., 2008). Additionally, in field-based research, where it may be impractical to meet some assumptions of BIA, alternative methods, such as skinfold measurements, could be considered for assessing percent body fat (Eliakim et al., 2000). Furthermore, employing evaluative methods such as somatotype assessments could offer additional insights into how body shape and composition contribute to athletes’ perceptions of positive body image. To avoid encountering logistical challenges similar to those in Study 2, researchers may consider securing adequate equipment, ensuring sufficient breaks in participants’ schedules to accommodate measurements, and training a sufficient number of personnel to assess body composition. CONCLUSIONS Three major conclusions can be drawn from the combined results of this dissertation. First, when examined within the framework of the Sport-Confidence Model (Vealey et al., 1998; Vealey & Knight, 2002), body and functionality appreciation emerged as significant contributors to athletes’ sport-confidence. These findings support extending the Sport-Confidence Model to examine core facets of positive body image in relation to sport-confidence, moving beyond its current appearance-based focus. Second, these studies identified sport-confidence as an important psychosocial factor contributing to successful performance in Jamaican and Botswana athletes. Multidimensional assessments of sport-confidence offer a more nuanced understanding of this relationship, as diverse social-cognitive demands in sport may lead to the prioritization of certain confidence dimensions over others (Vealey & Knight, 2002). Third, these studies provide evidence of the applicability of Sport-Confidence Model (Vealey et al., 1998; Vealey & Knight, 2002) predictions to the Jamaican and Botswana contexts, supporting its utility in understanding relationships among positive body image, sport-confidence, and performance, and guiding subsequent interventions. 98 REFERENCES Abbott, B. D., & Barber, B. L. (2011). Differences in functional and aesthetic body image between sedentary girls and girls involved in sports and physical activity: Does sport type make a difference? Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 12(3), 333–342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2010.10.005 Carling, C., Reilly, T., & Williams, A. M. (2008). Performance assessment for field sports. Routledge. Coakley, J. (2003). Sports in society: Issues and controversies, 8th edn, Vol. 8. New York: McGraw-Hill. Duda, J. L., & Allison, M. T. (1990). Cross-cultural analysis in exercise and sport psychology: A void in the field. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 12(2), 114–131. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.12.2.114 Duncan, O. D. (1966). Path analysis: Sociological examples. American Journal of Sociology, 72(1), 1–16. Eliakim, A., Ish-Shalom, S., Giladi, A., Falk, B., & Constantini, N. (2000). Assessment of body composition in ballet dancers: Correlation among anthropometric measurements, bio- electrical impedance analysis, and dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 21(8), 598–601. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2000-8489 Franklyn, D. (2010). Sport in Jamaica: A local and international perspective. GraceKennedy Foundation. Hays, K., Maynard, I., Thomas, O., & Bawden, M. (2007). Sources and types of confidence identified by world class sport performers. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 19(4), 434–456. https://doi.org/10.1080/10413200701599173 Hays, K., Thomas, O., Maynard, I., & Bawden, M. (2009). The role of confidence in world-class sport performance. Journal of Sports Sciences, 27(11), 1185–1199. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640410903089798 Jowett, S., & Felton, L. (2013). The role of psychological factors in recreational sport participation. Sports Coach UK. Krane, V., & Williams, J. M. (1994). Cognitive anxiety, somatic anxiety, and confidence in track and field athletes: The impact of gender, competitive level and task characteristics. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 25, 203–217. Kyle, U. G., Bosaeus, I., De Lorenzo, A. D., Deurenberg, P., Elia, M., Manuel Gómez, J., Lilienthal Heitmann, B., Kent-Smith, L., Melchior, J.-C., Pirlich, M., Scharfetter, H., M.W.J Schols, A., & Pichard, C. (2004). Bioelectrical impedance analysis—part II: Utilization in clinical practice. Clinical Nutrition, 23(6), 1430–1453. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clnu.2004.09.012 99 Levy, A. R., Nicholls, A. R., & Polman, R. C. J. (2011). Pre-competitive confidence, coping, and subjective performance in sport. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 21(5), 721–729. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0838.2009.01075.x Lucibello, K. M., Sabiston, C. M., Pila, E., & Arbour-Nicitopoulos, K. (2023). An integrative model of weight stigma, body image, and physical activity in adolescents. Body Image, 45, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2023.01.003 Machida, M., Marie Ward, R., & Vealey, R. S. (2012). Predictors of sources of self-confidence in collegiate athletes. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 10(3), 172–185. https://doi.org/10.1080/1612197X.2012.672013 Machida, M., Otten, M., Magyar, T. M., Vealey, R. S., & Ward, R. M. (2017). Examining multidimensional sport-confidence in athletes and non-athlete sport performers. Journal of Sports Sciences, 35(5), 410–418. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2016.1167934 Malete, L., Sullivan, P., & Matthies, B. K. (2008). Examining physical self‐perceptions and physical activity of Jamaican youths: A cultural extension of the PSPP. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 6(1), 39–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/1612197X.2008.9671853 Mason, G. E., & Morgan, K. A. D. (2022). An examination of the landscape of psychology in Jamaica. In G. J. Rich & N. A. Ramkumar (Eds.), Psychology in Oceania and the Caribbean (pp. 179–193). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978- 3-030-87763-7_12 Menzel, J. E., & Levine, M. P. (2011). Embodying experiences and the promotion of positive body image: The example of competitive athletics. In Self-objectification in women: Causes, consequences, and counteractions (pp. 163–186). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/12304-008 Myers, N. D., Feltz, D. L., Maier, K. S., Wolfe, E. W., & Reckase, M. D. (2006). Athletes’ evaluations of their head coach’s coaching competency. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 77(1), 111–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2006.10599337 Papaioannou, A. G. (2013). International research and generalizability of findings. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 11(2), 121–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/1612197X.2013.792522 Sabiston, C. M., Pila, E., Vani, M., & Thogersen-Ntoumani, C. (2019). Body image, physical activity, and sport: A scoping review. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 42, 48–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2018.12.010 Shehu, J., & Moruisi, M. (2011). Influence of sport on personal development and social investment among Botswana Olympic athletes. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 46(3), 282–298. 100 Soulliard, Z. A., Fitterman-Harris, H. F., Perry, J. E., Poe, L. M., & Ross, M. J. (2021). Differences in body appreciation and functionality appreciation outside of and directly following sport among collegiate student-athletes. The Sport Psychologist, 35(4), 320– 328. Soulliard, Z. A., Kauffman, A. A., Fitterman-Harris, H. F., Perry, J. E., & Ross, M. J. (2019). Examining positive body image, sport confidence, flow state, and subjective performance among student athletes and non-athletes. Body Image, 28, 93–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2018.12.009 Swami, V., Todd, J., Stieger, S., Furnham, A., Horne, G., & Tylka, T. L. (2021). Body acceptance by others: Refinement of the construct, and development and psychometric evaluation of a revised measure – The Body Acceptance by Others Scale-2. Body Image, 36, 238–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2020.11.007 Taylor, O. W. (2015). It’s culture, not genes: Explaining why Jamaican sprinters are the fastest humans on Earth. Caribbean Quarterly, 61(1), 23–41. Thomas, C. E., Chambers, T. P., Main, L. C., & Gastin, P. B. (2019). Factors influencing the early development of world-class Caribbean track and field athletes: A qualitative investigation. Journal of Sports Science & Medicine, 18(4), 758–771. Toomer, R. (2015). Jamaica. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics, 7(3), 457–471. https://doi.org/10.1080/19406940.2014.910540 Tshube, T., & Hanrahan, S. J. (2016). Sport psychology in Botswana: A prime breeding ground. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 14(2), 126–134. https://doi.org/10.1080/1612197X.2016.1142462 Tshube, T., Kasale, L., & Manatsha, B. (2022). A critical overview of sport development in Botswana. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 20(4), 997–1012. https://doi.org/10.1080/1612197X.2021.1956566 Vancini, R. L., Pesquero, J. B., Fachina, R. J., Andrade, M. dos S., Borin, J. P., Montagner, P. C., & de Lira, C. A. B. (2014). Genetic aspects of athletic performance: The African runners phenomenon. Open Access Journal of Sports Medicine, 123–127. Vealey, R. S. (1986). Conceptualization of sport-confidence and competitive orientation: Preliminary investigation and instrument development. Journal of Sport Psychology, 8(3). Vealey, R. S., Garner-Holman, M., Hayashi, S. W., & Giacobbi, P. (1998). Sources of sport- confidence: Conceptualization and instrument development. journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 20(1), 54–80. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.20.1.54 Vealey, R. S., & Knight, B. J. (2002). Multidimensional sport-confidence: A conceptual and psychometric extension. Association for the Advancement of Applied Sport Psychology Conference, Tucson, AZ. 101 Voelker, D. K., & Reel, J. J. (2015). An inductive thematic analysis of female competitive figure skaters’ experiences of weight pressure in sport. Journal of Clinical Sport Psychology, 9(4), 297–316. https://doi.org/10.1123/jcsp.2015-0012 Voelker, D. K., & Reel, J. J. (2018). An inductive thematic analysis of male competitive figure skaters’ experiences of weight pressure in sport. Journal of Clinical Sport Psychology, 12(4), 614–629. https://doi.org/10.1123/jcsp.2018-0045 102 APPENDIX A: Permission to use Published Manuscript in Dissertation 103 APPENDIX B: Demographic Information Questionnaire – Study 1 Date: _______________________ 1. Age: __________________ 2. Weight (pounds): ______________ 3. Height (feet and inches): ______________ 4. Gender Identity (indicate the appropriate response) a. Female b. Male c. Other (please specify): _______________________________________________ 5. What is your highest level of education? (indicate the appropriate response) a. No education b. Primary c. Jnr. Secondary/Incomplete School d. High School e. Bachelor’s Degree or equivalent f. Master’s Degree or equivalent g. Doctoral Degree or equivalent h. Other (please specify): ________________________ ________________________ 6. What is your current employment status? (tick all that apply) a. Full-time employment b. Part-time employment c. Self-employed d. Student e. Unemployed f. Other (please specify): _______________________________________________ 7. How would you classify your socioeconomic status? a. lower socioeconomic status b. middle socioeconomic status c. higher socioeconomic status 8. Do you currently play sports? a. Yes b. No 9. If your response to item #8 is Yes, give the name of the primary sport that you play____________________________________________________________ 10. How many days a week did you take part in this sport over the past 7 days? a. Less than one day a week b. One day a week c. Several days a week 104 11. How long have you been playing this sport? (indicate the appropriate response) a. 0-3 months b. 4-7 months c. 8-11 months d. 1-4 years e. More than 4 years 12. Please choose the option below that best describes you (choose one response only): a. Recreational athlete: I participate in sport on a regular or inconsistent basis and do not train or compete against others regularly. My participation in sport is usually for the purpose(s) of being physically active, fun/enjoyment, and/or social engagement. b. Competitive athlete: I am a member of an organized sports team or an individual sport that requires regular training and competition against others. Athletic excellence and achievement are very important to me. c. Neither: I do not identify as an athlete. 13. What is the highest level that you have competed in your sport? a. International b. National c. Regional d. Intercollegiate e. High School f. I have never competed in my sport. 14. Are you currently experiencing a sport injury? a. Yes b. No 105 APPENDIX C: The Body Appreciation Scale – 2 Directions: Please read each statement below carefully and select either number 1 (never), 2 (seldom), 3 (sometimes), 4 (often), or 5 (always), which indicates how much each statement applies to you. Statements 1 Never 2 Seldom 3 Sometime s 4 Often 5 Always 1. I respect my body. 2. I feel good about my body. 3. I feel that my body has at least some good qualities. 4. I take a positive attitude towards my body. 5. I am attentive to my body’s needs. 6. I feel love for my body. 7. I appreciate the different and unique characteristics of my body. 8. My behaviour reveals my positive attitude toward my body; for example, I hold my head high and smile. 9. I am comfortable in my body. 10. I feel like I am beautiful even if I am different from media images of attractive people (e.g., models, actresses/actors). 106 APPENDIX D: The Functionality Appreciation Scale Directions: Please read each statement below carefully and indicate how much you agree or disagree with each statement. Statements 1 Strongly Disagree 2 Disagree 3 Neither Agree nor Disagree 4 Agree 5 Strongly Agree 1. I appreciate my body for what it is capable of doing. 2. I am grateful for the health of my body, even if it isn’t always as healthy as I would like it to be. 3. I appreciate that my body allows me to communicate and interact with others. 4. I acknowledge and appreciate when my body feels good and/or relaxed. 5. I am grateful that my body enables me to engage in activities that I enjoy or find important. 6. I feel that my body does so much for me. 7. I respect my body for the functions that it performs. 107 APPENDIX E: Trait Sport-Confidence Inventory Directions: Think about how self-confident you are when you compete in (or play) your sport. Answer the following questions based on how confident you generally feel when you compete (or engage) in your sport. Please try to determine how you really feel, not how you would like to feel. Compare your self-confidence level to the self-confidence level of the most self-confident athlete you know Your answers will be kept confidential. Scale: 1 = lowest; 5 = medium; 9 = highest. Please choose a number from 1 to 9. 1. Compare your confidence in your ability to execute the skills to be successful to the most confident athlete you know. 2. Compare your confidence in your ability to make during competition (or play) to the most confident athlete you know. decisions critical Low Medium High 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 3. Compare your confidence in your ability to perform under pressure to the most confident athlete you know. 4. Compare your confidence in your ability to execute successful strategy to the most confident athlete you know. 5. Compare your confidence in your ability to concentrate well enough to be successful to the most confident athlete you know. 6. Compare your confidence in your ability to adapt to different game situations and still to be successful to the most confident athlete you know. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 108 7. Compare your confidence in your ability to achieve your competitive goals to the most confident athlete you know. 8. Compare your confidence in your ability to be successful to the most confident athlete you know. 9. Compare your confidence in your ability to consistently be successful to the most confident athlete you know. 10. Compare your confidence in your ability to think and respond successfully during competition (or play) to the most confident athlete you know. 11. Compare your confidence in your ability to meet the challenge of competition (or play) to the most confident athlete you know. 12. Compare your confidence in your ability to be successful even when the odds are against you to the most confident athlete you know. 13. Compare your confidence in your ability to bounce back from performing poorly and be successful to the most confident athlete you know. Low Medium High 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 109 APPENDIX F: Sport Performance Questionnaire Directions: Think about your sport performance over your most recent athletic season (or session of play). Respond to the following items using the respective scale. Item 1 Response Scale: 0 = Extremely Unsuccessful 10 = Extremely Successful Please choose a number from 0 to 10. 1. For your most recent competitive season (or session of play), please rate your overall performance. Item 2 Response Scale: Extremely Unsuccessful Extremely Successful 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 = Extremely Unsatisfied 10 = Extremely Satisfied Please choose a number from 0 to 10. 2. For your most recent competitive season (or session of play), please rate your overall satisfaction with your performance. Extremely Unsatisfied Extremely Satisfied 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 110 APPENDIX G: Demographic Information Questionnaire – 2 Date: _______________________ 1. Age: __________________ 2. What is your height (cm)?: __________ cm 3. What is your weight (kgs.)?:_____________ kgs. 4. Sex (indicate the appropriate response) a. Female b. Male c. Other (please specify): _______________________________________________ 5. What is your highest level of education? (indicate the appropriate response) a. Primary b. Junior Secondary School c. Senior Secondary School d. Technical/Vocational college e. Bachelor’s Degree or equivalent f. Master’s Degree or equivalent g. Doctoral Degree or equivalent h. Other (please specify): ___________________________ _____________________ 6. What is your current employment status? (tick all that apply) a. Full-time employment b. Part-time employment c. Self-employed d. Student e. Unemployed f. Other (please specify): _______________________________________________ 7. Do you currently play sports? a. Yes b. No 8. If your response to item #8 is Yes, give the name of the primary sport that you play____________________________________________________________________ 9. If your primary sport is track or swimming, please indicate the name of your main event (e.g., sprints, relay, backstroke, medley relay) ______________________________________________________________________ 10. How many days a week did you take part in this sport over the past 7 days? a. Less than one day a week b. One day a week c. Several days a week 11. How long have you been playing this sport? (indicate the appropriate response) a. 0-3 months b. 4-7 months 111 c. 8-11 months d. 1-4 years e. More than 4 years 12. Please choose the option below that best describes you (choose one response only): a. Recreational athlete: I participate in sport on a regular or inconsistent basis and do not train or compete against others regularly. My participation in sport is usually for the purpose(s) of being physically active, fun/enjoyment, and/or social engagement. b. Competitive athlete: I am a member of an organized sports team or an individual sport that requires regular training and competition against others. Athletic excellence and achievement are very important to me. c. Neither: I do not identify as an athlete. 13. What is the highest level that you have competed in your sport? g. International h. National i. Regional j. Intercollegiate k. High School l. I have never competed in my sport. 14. Do you have a coach? a. Yes b. No 15. What is the first and last name of your coach (this information will only be used to group you with your other teammates)? ____________________________________________________ 16. How long have you been working with your current coach? (indicate the appropriate response) a. 0-3 months b. 4-7 months c. 8-11 months d. 1-4 years e. More than 4 years 17. In what town or village is your sports team located? ______________________________________________________________________ 18. Do you have teammates or training colleagues (i.e., other athletes on your broader sports team, club, or department that you play or train with)? a. Yes b. No 19. What is the name of your sports team (this information will only be used to group you with your other teammates)?________________________________________________________________ 20. How long have you been training/competing with your current teammates? b. 4-7 months a. 0-3 months 112 c. 8-11 months d. 1-4 years e. More than 4 year 113 APPENDIX H: The Body Acceptance by Others Scale – 2 Directions: The questionnaire below is about the way in which your coaches and teammates relate to your body and its physical characteristics or features, including shape, size, height, skin tone, build (e.g., muscle, fat), and so on. Please rate your agreement with each of the following statements while thinking about your coaches and teammates. Each question is repeated to allow you to provide ratings for your coaches and teammates separately. Please read each statement carefully and select either number 1 (never), 2 (seldom), 3 (sometimes), 4 (often), or 5 (always), which indicates how much each statement applies to you. Statements 1 Never 2 Seldom 3 Sometimes 4 Often 5 Always 1. I feel acceptance from my coach regarding my body. 2. I feel acceptance from my teammates regarding my body. 3. I believe that my coach values my body as it is, without trying to change it. 4. I believe that my teammates value my body as it is, without trying to change it. 5. I believe that my coach trusts me to do what is best for myself regarding my body. 6. I believe that my teammates trust me to do what is best for myself regarding my body. 7. I believe that my coach is accepting of my body without comparing me to other people. 8. I believe that my teammates are accepting of my body without comparing me to other people. 9. I don’t have to change my body to feel accepted by my coach. 10. I don’t have to change my body to feel accepted by my teammates. 114 Statements 1 Never 2 Seldom 3 Sometimes 4 Often 5 Always 11. I believe that my coach embraces and cherishes my body. 12. I believe that my teammates embrace and cherish my body. 13. My coach helps me feel calm and contented toward my body, rather than worried about it. 14. My teammates help me feel calm and contented toward my body, rather than worried about it. 15. I believe that my coach respects my body. 16. I believe that my teammates respect my body. 17. I get the feeling that my coach likes my body as it is, even if they don’t say anything. 18. I get the feeling that my teammates like my body as it is, even if they don’t say anything. 19. I believe that my coach appreciates my unique body. 20. I believe that my teammates appreciate my unique body. 21. My coach helps me feel comfortable regarding my body. 22. My teammates help me feel comfortable regarding my body. 23. I can count on my coach to accept my body. 24. I can count on my teammates to accept my body. 25. My coach refrains from criticizing or critiquing my body. 26. My teammates refrain from criticizing or critiquing my body. 115 APPENDIX I: Permission to Adapt the Body Acceptance by Others Scale – 2 116 APPENDIX J: Sport-Confidence Inventory Athletes need many different abilities to succeed (e.g., physical skills, mental focus, optimal fitness). In this survey, you are asked to assess many of your abilities as an athlete. Read the example item listed below, and then decide how certain you are that you can successfully do what is described in that item. Consider "success" to be whatever you define as successful for you (your personal definition of success). Respond to each item based on how you TYPICALLY FEEL about your abilities in your sport. Use the continuum shown below to guide your self-assessment. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Totally Certain Very Certain (Absolutely Sure (Very Sure I Can Without I Can) a Doubt) Fairly Certain Maybe I Can (I Feel Like I Can) Fairly Uncertain (I Have Doubts) Very Can’t Do It Uncertain At All (Pretty Sure (Absolutely I Can’t) Not At All) Keep in mind that 7 and 1 represent absolute levels in which you are totally certain that you can do this or absolutely sure that you cannot. On the following page, read each item and circle the number that represents HOW CERTAIN YOU FEEL that you can do what is described in that item. Your answers will be kept strictly confidential. Please answer as you really feel being totally honest (as opposed to answering as you would LIKE to feel or think that you are SUPPOSED to feel). All athletes are different in their abilities, and there are no right or wrong responses. 117 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Totally Certain Very Certain (Absolutely Sure (Very Sure (I Feel Like I Can Without I Can) a Doubt) I Can) Fairly Certain Maybe I Can Fairly Uncertain (I Have Doubts) Uncertain At All Very Can’t Do It (Absolutely (Pretty Sure I Can’t) Not At All) HOW CERTAIN ARE YOU THAT ... (CIRCLE ONLY ONE NUMBER FOR EACH ITEM) 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 totally certain (ABSOLUTELY sure I CAN without a doubt) very certain (VERY SURE I CAN) fairly certain (I feel like I CAN) MAYBE I can fairly uncertain (I have DOUBTS) very uncertain (PRETTY SURE I CAN'T) can't do it at all (ABSOLUTELY NOT AT ALL) 1 you can execute the physical skills necessary to succeed?......................................... 7 2 you can keep mentally focused throughout the competitive event (or game)? …….. 7 3 you can bounce back from performing poorly to successfully execute your skills?.. 7 4 your physical training has prepared you enough to succeed? ................................. 7 5 you can successfully make critical decisions during competition (or play) ? ……. 7 6 you can regain your mental focus after a performance error? ................................ 7 7 your physical fitness level will allow you to compete successfully? ……………… 7 8 you can effectively use strategy needed to succeed? .......................................... 7 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 118 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Totally Certain Very Certain (Absolutely Sure (Very Sure (I Feel Like I Can Without I Can) a Doubt) I Can) Fairly Certain Maybe I Can Fairly Uncertain (I Have Doubts) Uncertain At All Very Can’t Do It (Absolutely (Pretty Sure I Can’t) Not At All) HOW CERTAIN ARE YOU THAT ... (CIRCLE ONLY ONE NUMBER FOR EACH ITEM) 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 totally certain (ABSOLUTELY sure I CAN without a doubt) very certain (VERY SURE I CAN) fairly certain (I feel like I CAN) MAYBE I can fairly uncertain (I have DOUBTS) very uncertain (PRETTY SURE I CAN'T) can't do it at all (ABSOLUTELY NOT AT ALL) 9 you can overcome doubt after a poor performance? .................................................. 7 10 you can successfully perform the physical skills required in your sport? ................. 7 11 you can maintain the mental focus needed to perform successfully? ......................... 7 12 you can overcome problems and setbacks to perform successfully? ......................... 7 13 you have the physical preparation that is needed to compete (or play) successfully? 7 14 you can successfully manage your nervousness so that it doesn't hurt your performance? ................................................................................................................. 7 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 119 APPENDIX K: Permission to Use the Sport- Confidence Inventory 120 APPENDIX L: Study 2 Supplementary Material6 Supplemental Table 1. Summary of Total, Total Indirect, and Specific Indirect Effects for SC-Physical Skills and Training Path Effects from BABC to SC-PST Total Effect Total Indirect Effect Specific Indirect Effect BA FA Effects from BABT to SC-PST Total Effect Total Indirect Effect Specific Indirect Effect Estimate 95% CI Lower 95% CI Upper 0.45 0.45 0.29 0.16 0.44 0.44 0.07 0.07 0.03 0.01 0.07 0.07 0.97 0.97 0.76 0.46 0.82 0.82 BA FA 0.26 0.17 Note. CI = confidence interval; BABC = perceived body acceptance by coaches; BABT = perceived body acceptance by teammates; BA = body appreciation; FA = functionality appreciation; SC-PST = SC-physical skills and training. 0.63 0.52 0.05 0.01 Supplemental Table 2. Summary of Total, Total Indirect, and Specific Indirect Effects for SC-Cognitive Efficiency Path Effects from BABC to SC-CE Total Effect Total Indirect Effect Specific Indirect Effect BA FA Effects from BABT to SC-CE Total Effect Total Indirect Effect Specific Indirect Effect Estimate 95% CI Lower 95% CI Upper 0.30 0.30 0.19 0.11 0.43 0.43 0.05 0.05 0.03 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.68 0.68 0.50 0.36 0.54 0.54 BA FA 0.29 0.14 Note. CI = confidence interval; BABC = perceived body acceptance by coaches; BABT = perceived body acceptance by teammates; BA = body appreciation; FA = functionality appreciation; SC-CE = SC-cognitive efficiency. 0.40 0.35 0.02 0.01 6 Statistical indirect effects were tested using maximum likelihood estimation, requesting 2000 bias-corrected bootstrapped replications, and 95% bias-corrected bootstrapped confidence intervals. Indirect effects are considered significant if the 95% confidence interval does not include zero. 121 Supplemental Table 3. Summary of Total, Total Indirect, and Specific Indirect Effects for SC-Resilience Path Effects from BABC to SC-R Total Effect Total Indirect Effect Specific Indirect Effect BA FA Effects from BABT to SC-R Total Effect Total Indirect Effect Specific Indirect Effect Estimate 95% CI Lower 95% CI Upper 0.43 0.43 0.29 0.14 0.29 0.29 0.05 0.05 0.04 -0.01 0.10 0.10 0.86 0.86 0.78 0.55 0.81 0.81 BA FA 0.17 0.11 Note. CI = confidence interval; BABC = perceived body acceptance by coaches; BABT = perceived body acceptance by teammates; BA = body appreciation; FA = functionality appreciation; SC-R = SC-resilience. 0.68 0.45 0.04 0.00 Supplemental Table 4. Summary of Total, Total Indirect, and Specific Indirect Effects for Sport Performance Evaluations Path Effects from BABC to SPE Total Effect Total Indirect Effect Specific Indirect Effect BA → SC-PST FA → SC-PST BA → SC-CE FA → SC-CE BA → SC-R FA → SC-R Effects from BABT to SPE Total Effect Total Indirect Effect Specific Indirect Effect BA → SC-PST FA → SC-PST BA → SC-CE FA → SC-CE BA → SC-R FA → SC-R Effects from BA to SPE Total Effect Estimate 95% CI Lower 95% CI Upper 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 -0.11 -0.05 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 -0.10 -0.05 0.20 0.14 0.14 0.04 0.02 0.06 0.34 -0.01 -0.01 0.14 0.14 0.04 0.03 0.06 0.04 -0.01 -0.01 0.52 122 0.37 0.37 0.18 0.11 0.19 0.14 0.03 0.01 0.29 0.29 0.14 0.12 0.17 0.14 0.02 0.01 0.97 Supplemental Table 4 (cont’d) Total Indirect Effect Specific Indirect Effect SC-PST SC-CE SC-R Effects from FA to SPE Total Effect Total Indirect Effect Specific Indirect Effect 0.52 0.24 0.34 -0.07 0.36 0.36 0.20 0.01 0.10 -0.43 0.03 0.03 0.97 0.62 0.75 0.17 0.78 0.78 SC-PST SC-CE SC-R 0.17 0.24 -0.04 Note. CI = confidence interval; BABC = perceived body acceptance by coaches; BABT = perceived body acceptance by teammates; BA = body appreciation; FA = functionality appreciation; SC-PST = SC-physical skills and training; SC-CE = SC-cognitive efficiency; SC-R = SC-resilience; SPE = sport performance evaluations. -0.01 0.00 -0.25 0.54 0.61 0.11 123