The Relation of Self-Efficacy Measures to Sport Performance: A Meta-Analytic Review

Moritz, Sandra E.; Feltz, Deborah L.; Fahrbach, Kyle; Mack, Diane E.

doi:10.1080/02701367.2000.10608908

Cited by 507 publications

(388 citation statements)

References 54 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

296

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The mechanism of perceived self-efficacy occupies a central role in the regulation of motivation and action. This refers to people's beliefs in their ability to exercise control over environmental events, with which people Anti-Learning 6 regulate motivational (e.g., Litt, 1988;Moritz et al, 2000), affective (e.g., Bandura & Cervone, 1986;DeShon & Alexander, 1996; Elliot & Dweck, 1988;Spering, Wagener, & Funke, 2005), and decisional processes (e.g., Earley, Connolly, & Ekegren, 1989;Kanfer et al, 1994;Tversky & Kahneman, 1974). For instance, perceived self-efficacy is shown to mediate problem solving so that it produces poor performance, irrespective of people's actual capabilities Bouffard-Bouchard, 1990;Hogarth et al, 1991;.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Positive transfer and negative transfer/antilearning of problem-solving skills.

Osman¹

2008

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study examined how self-regulatory processes influenced problem solving behavior under conditions in which people were either re-exposed to their prior learning, or experienced someone else's. In a series of four experiments, participants solved two complex control tasks that were identical in structure but varied in presentation format. Participants either learnt to solve the second task, based on their original learning phase from the first task, or learnt to solve the second task based on another participant's learning phase. Experiment 1 showed that, under conditions in which participants' learning phase was experienced twice, performance deteriorated in the second task compared to the first. In contrast, when the learning phases in the first and second task differed, performance improved in the second task.Experiment 2 introduced instructional manipulations that induced the same response patterns as Experiment 1, and Experiment 3 showed that participants differentially weighted the learning phase in the second task. In Experiment 4, judgments of selfefficacy were shown to track control performance. The implications of these findings for induction, self-regulation, and insight are discussed. examples share a precise goal that involves accurately and reliably controlling a complex dynamic control task (CDCT-i.e., the aircraft). Control behavior in this, and other types of CDCTs (e.g., air-traffic control, naval mine sweeping, car driving) depends on the development of expertise (e.g., Brehmer, 1992;Funke, 2001; Gonzalez, Lerch, & Lebiere, 2003;Kerstholt, 1996;Randel & Pugh, 1996;Sweller, 1988;.Expertise involves both monitoring-through self-evaluation of goal-directed actions (e.g., Bandura & Locke, 2003; Ericsson & Lehman, 1996;Karoly, 1993;Lerch & Harter, 2001;Rossano, 2003;VanLehn, 1996)-and control, or the generation and selection of goal-directed actions (e.g., Lerch & Harter, 2001; Locke & Latham, 2002;Rossano, 2003;Sweller, 1988;VanLehn, 1996;Vollmeyer, Burns, & Holyoak, 1996). Both behaviors are also interrelated (e.g., Bandura & Locke, 2003; Ericsson & Lehman, 1996;Karoly, 1993;Lerch & Harter, 2001;Rossano, 2003;VanLehn, 1996). However, studies of skill learning in CDCTs have overlooked this relationship, particularly how it influences the transferability of expertise (e.g., Berry, 1991;Berry & Broadbent, 1988;Burns & Vollmeyer, 2002). Without an Anti-Learning 5 understanding of how individuals monitor their behavior, little can be said about how evaluative processes are employed when transferring learnt skills to achieve unpracticed goals.For instance, the critical difference between the examples above is that, in the first case, training (i.e., control performance) and assessment (i.e., monitoring) are based on self-generated behavior; whereas, in the second, assessment is based on comparing self-and other-generated training behavior. These types of training procedures are often used in educational (Pintrich & De Groot, 1990;Pressley, & Ghatala, 1990;Zimmerman, 1990), clin...

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Positive transfer and negative transfer/antilearning of problem-solving skills.

Osman¹

2008

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This line of thinking is reflective of one of Bandura's (1997) key contentions regarding psychological skills the role of beliefs in human functioning: that people's level of motivation, affective states, and actions are based more on what they believe than on what is objectively true''. The relationship between psychological compatibility and learning motor skills has been of interest to many researchers in the field of sports psychology, the term psychological compatibility refers to a process by which students make judgments about their capabilities to accomplish a particular task in a sport context (Feltz, 1994;& Moritz et al, 2000).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The relationship between psychological compatibility and academic achievement in swimming

Dababseh

Altaieb

et al. 2017

jhse

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aims to determine the relationship between psychological compatibility and academic achievement in swimming class, the subjects were (72) under graduate male students of physical education college at the University of Jordan. (M age = 19.4 SD =1.35). All subjects were students in swimming class and they were learning free style swimming skills. The learning scores for students were measured two times during the second semester in 2016; the subjects went through practical exams only, the med-term exam (30) grades, and the final-term exam (30) grades, the total grades score was out of (60). The researchers designed a questionnaire as a tool for this study to measures the degree of psychological compatibility for the subjects. The total scores for learning free style swimming skills and the scores for the questionnaire were compared to determine the relationship between psychological compatibility and academic achievement in free style swimming, Statistical treatment by using the (SPSS) program was done. The results showed that there was a relation between psychological compatibility and academic achievement during learning free style swimming skills.

show abstract

“…The point at which a great challenge creates overwhelming doubt is perhaps a question for future research, but the coach or sport psychology consultant applying the principles of preparatory efficacy would be wise to remember the sentiment of Bandura and Cervone [25] quoted in the Introduction to this article. Preparatory doubt may serve as a signal that a worthy challenge is present and spur athletes to strong preparatory effort; however, doubt tends not to be beneficial to performance [22]. As was observed in Experiment 2, an efficacious mindset, especially one supported by mastery experiences, tends to be best for competition.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

“…Thus, Bandura [1] believes doubt is detrimental to performance during sport competition [22], yet it may be beneficial to effortful practice during the preparation phase of competition. Because the preparation phase in all sports is longer than the performance phase, preparatory effort is an important building block of performance [23].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Preparatory Efficacy Effects on Practice Effort and Performance

Wood

Feltz

2013

TOSSJ

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bandura [1] has theorized that during preparation for sport competition some doubt about one's capabilities to perform effectively may be beneficial to spurring athletes to put forth a strong preparatory effort. We designed two experiments to test the idea that lower preparatory efficacy levels would benefit practice effort. Participants who competed in golf putting competitions were separated into preparation and competition phases. Participants categorized put balls to three targets of varying difficulty (i.e., high, medium, and low efficacy targets). Preparation phases consisted of 30 free choice practice putts. Practice effort was measured as the number of practice putts allocated to each target. In both studies, the high efficacy target resulted in the lowest practice effort in comparison to practice effort at the medium and low efficacy targets (p < .001), and preparatory efficacy was associated with a significant linear increase in effort across the respective high, medium, and low efficacy targets.

show abstract

The Relation of Self-Efficacy Measures to Sport Performance: A Meta-Analytic Review

Cited by 507 publications

References 54 publications

Positive transfer and negative transfer/antilearning of problem-solving skills.

Positive transfer and negative transfer/antilearning of problem-solving skills.

The relationship between psychological compatibility and academic achievement in swimming

Preparatory Efficacy Effects on Practice Effort and Performance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About