Self-efficacy as a metaperception within coach–athlete and athlete–athlete relationships

Please download to get full document.

View again

All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
 12
 
  Self-efficacy as a metaperception within coach–athlete and athlete–athlete relationships
Share
Transcript
  Self-ef  fi cacy as a metaperception within coach e athleteand athlete e athlete relationships Ben Jackson a , * , Mark R. Beauchamp b a School of Sport Science, Exercise and Health, University of Western Australia, M408, Crawley, WA 6009, Australia b School of Human Kinetics, University of British Columbia, Room 156B, Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z2, Canada a r t i c l e i n f o  Article history: Received 29 May 2009Received in revised form4 December 2009Accepted 22 December 2009Available online 4 January 2010 Keywords: Close relationshipsSportRelational ef  fi cacy a b s t r a c t Background and Purpose:  Metaperceptions constitute estimations that one person holds about anotherperson's perceptions. This study draws from and extends Lent and Lopez's (2002) tripartite model of relational ef  fi cacy, to present conceptual and empirical evidence for the role of self-ef  fi cacy as a meta-perception( Estimations of the Other person's Self-Ef   fi cacy; EOSE  )within coach e athleteandathlete e athletecontexts. Methods:  Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 24 members of international-levelcoach e athlete and athlete e athlete dyads. The data were subjected to content analysis. Results and Conclusions:  Results revealed insight into the means through which dyad members formEOSE appraisals (i.e., antecedents), namely via perceptions regarding  ‘ the other ’  (e.g., his/her verbalcommunication) and the dyad as a whole (i.e., mastery achievements as a dyad). EOSE was also reportedto be aligned with important indices of individual and relationship functioning in the form of intra-personal (e.g., personal motivation) and interpersonal (e.g., relationship persistence intentions)outcomes. Overall, fi ndings suggest that EOSE perceptions may represent an important relational ef  fi cacyconstruct within sporting contexts, and implications for theory advancement as well as appliedconsiderations for supporting close relationships in athletic settings are discussed.   2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Social Cognitive Theory (SCT; Bandura, 1986) emphasizes thathuman functioning is underpinned by the notion of triadic recip-rocal determinism, whereby individuals both in fl uence and arein fl uenced by various personal, environmental, and behavioralfactors.Afundamental  personal componentofSCTthathasreceivedsubstantialempiricalattention istheconceptofself-ef  fi cacy,whichrelates to an individual's beliefs in his or her  “ capabilities to orga-nize and execute the courses of action required to produce givenattainments ”  (Bandura, 1997, p.3). Consistent with the concept of reciprocaldeterminism,Bandura(1997)proposedthatinindividualperformance settings self-ef  fi cacy is not only a key determinant of various behaviors (e.g., effort, performance, persistence), but alsothe activities (or environments) in which individuals choose toengage. As an extension of SCTand with respect to dyadic contexts,Lent and Lopez (2002) proposed that in close relationships indi-viduals develop a  ‘ tripartite ’  network of complementary ef  fi cacybeliefs that correspond to themselves and their partners, and thatthese social cognitions may be central to engendering mutuallybene fi cial interactions. Speci fi cally, drawing from self-ef  fi cacytheory, Lent and Lopez theorized that when people form closerelationships, they not only develop conceptions about their ownpersonalcapabilities(i.e.,self-ef  fi cacybeliefs),buttheyalsodevelopa set of   other-ef   fi cacy  beliefs that represent their con fi dence in thecapabilities of the other person in the relationship. Beyond self-ef  fi cacy and other-ef  fi cacy, Lent and Lopez also articulated the roleof  relation-inferredself-ef   fi cacy (RISE)asthe fi nalcomponentwithintheir tripartite model. RISE is conceptualized as a person's beliefsabouthisorherpartner'sother-ef  fi cacyandwasde fi nedas “ personB 0 s appraisal of how his or her capabilities are viewed by person A ” (Lent & Lopez, p.268).As well as de fi ning these  ‘ relational ef  fi cacy ’  beliefs, Lent andLopez (2002) also outlined a comprehensive network of anteced-ents and consequences relating to each of these ef  fi cacyconstructs.Importantly, in doing so, they theorized that self-ef  fi cacy, other-ef  fi cacy, and RISE are each independently associated with adaptivepersonal and dyad-related consequences for those within closerelationships, in the form of key affective (e.g., relationship satis-faction), cognitive (e.g., choice of partner, relationship persistenceintentions), and behavioral outcomes (e.g., performance, effort). *  Corresponding author. Tel.:  þ 61 (0) 8 6488 4625; fax:  þ 61 (0) 8 6488 1039. E-mail addresses:  bjackson@cyllene.uwa.edu.au (B. Jackson), mark.beauchamp@ubc.ca (M.R. Beauchamp). Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Psychology of Sport and Exercise journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/psychsport 1469-0292/$  e  see front matter    2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2009.12.005 Psychology of Sport and Exercise 11 (2010) 188 e 196  Recent research involving athletic dyads (e.g., coach e athlete,athlete e athlete) has provided preliminary evidence for the utilityof these tripartite constructs in predicting a range of desirablerelational outcomes. In particular, self-ef  fi cacy and other-ef  fi cacyhave both been found to predict relationship commitment, as wellas indices of enhanced performance and perceptions of effortexpended (Beauchamp & Whinton, 2005; Jackson & Beauchamp, inpress; Jackson, Beauchamp, & Knapp, 2007). The  fi ndings for RISEare somewhat limited. However, in one study Jackson andBeauchamp (in press) observed that coaches who believed thattheir athletes were highly con fi dent in their (i.e., coaches') abilitiesreported more positive relationship commitment and satisfactionperceptions themselves. In sum, the tripartite model has providedsome insight into the role of interpersonal ef  fi cacy beliefs incontributing to relationship functioning within sport settings. Inspiteof this evidencehowever,itisnoteworthythatLentandLopezreferred to their tripartite framework as a  “ preliminary model ” (p. 257) that could potentially be extended and re fi ned.In the social cognition literature, a number of prominentresearchers have emphasized the need to differentiate between direct perceptions  (also referred to as  fi rst-order expectations) and metaperceptions  (also referred to as second-order expectations)(Snyder & Stukas, 1999; Troyer & Younts, 1997; Webster &Whitmeyer, 1999). Direct perceptions (Kenny & Acitelli, 2001) relate to the  ‘ direct ’  beliefs that individuals hold for themselves orothers. With respect to Lent and Lopez's (2002) conceptual model,self-ef  fi cacy represents a direct perception, namely one's owncon fi dence in one's own ability. Similarly, other-ef  fi cacy is alsoa direct perception; however, the frame of reference in this caseshifts from one's con fi dence in one's own ability to one's con fi -dence in another person's ability. For example, an athlete's con fi -denceinhisownabilitywouldre fl ectaself-ef  fi cacybelief,whereasthe sameathlete's con fi dencein his coach's ability would representhis other-ef  fi cacy belief. Alongside direct perceptions, people arealso theorized to develop  metaperceptions  (see Kenny & Acitelli,2001 for an excellent discussion of this topic). Unlike directperceptions,metaperceptionsrepresentthe estimations thatpeopleformregardingthethoughtsofsigni fi cantothers.DrawingfromtheworkofLaingandhiscolleagues(Laing,Phillipson,&Lee,1966),therole of metaperceptions has long been the subject of researchwithinsocialpsychology(seeKenny,1994;Kenny&DePaulo,1993).However,onlyrecentlyhasthistypeofcognitionbeenexaminedbyrelationship researchers in sport. In particular, Jowett andcolleagues (e.g., Jowett, 2009; Jowett & Clark-Carter, 2006) high-lightedtheimportanceofmetaperceptionsinshapingthequalityof coach e athlete interactions in sport, noting for instance that inaddition to developing feelings of closeness and commitmenttowards one another (termed  ‘ direct closeness ’  and  ‘ directcommitment ’ ), coaches and athletes also monitor and appraise thecloseness or commitment perceptions held by each other (i.e., ‘ meta-closeness ’  and  ‘ meta-commitment ’ ). Similarly, with respectto the tripartite model, RISE constitutes a metaperceptionregarding the expectations that a signi fi cantother holds foroneself (i.e.,  ‘ how con fi dent do I think my partner is in my capabilities? ’ ).Importantly, in their review of interpersonal perceptions,Troyer and Younts (1997) commented that a complete under-standing of relational processes should account for  “ one's ownexpectations regarding self and other and one's beliefs about theexpectations other holds for self and other ”  (p. 696). Direct ef  fi cacyperceptions regarding oneself (i.e., self-ef  fi cacy) and other (i.e.,other-ef  fi cacy) within dyadic settings are clearly accounted for inLent and Lopez's (2002) model, as are one's beliefs about theexpectations that one's partner holds for oneself (i.e., RISE).However, what is evident from Troyer and Younts' writing is thatthe tripartite model does not presently incorporate a person'sbeliefs about the expectations that his or her partner holds for himor herself; that is, the degree to which a person believes that his orher partner is con fi dent in the partner's  own  abilities. In essence,this construct simply re fl ects self-ef  fi cacy as a metaperceptionwithin dyadic settings. In this paper we refer to these appraisals as Estimations of the Other person's Self-Ef   fi cacy  (EOSE) beliefs, and byextending the tripartite model in this way, it is proposed that thenetwork of ef  fi cacy beliefs that exist in close relationshipscomprises four constructs, namely self-ef  fi cacy ( ‘ my con fi dence inmy ability ’ ), other-ef  fi cacy ( ‘ my con fi dence in my partner's ability ’ ),RISE ( ‘ how con fi dent I think my partner is in my ability ’ ), and fi nally, EOSE ( ‘ how con fi dent I think my partner is in him/herself  ’ ).It is worth noting that in their review of the self-ef  fi cacy literaturein sport, Feltz, Short, and Sullivan (2008) brie fl y discuss thepresence of this type of metaperception. In doing so they referredto this construct as  ‘ con fi dence-focused other-ef  fi cacy ’ , howeverwe believe that this term is potentially confusing, and does notsuf  fi ciently distinguish this metaperception from the way in whichother-ef  fi cacy has been conceptualized and operationalized in thesocial psychology (e.g., Lopez & Lent, 1991) and sport psychology(e.g., Jackson et al., 2007; Jackson & Beauchamp, in press) litera-ture. In short we have proposed the use of the term, Estimationsof the Other person's Self-Ef  fi cacy (EOSE), because we believe thatit more closely represents the psychological concept of interest(cf. Maddux, 1999).In sport, a substantial bodyof literature has revealed avarietyof factors that are either predictive of, or predicted by self-ef  fi cacyperceptions. For instance, research has shown that individuals'con fi dence in their own ability stems from prior mastery achieve-ments(Wise& Trunnell,2001), pre-competitionpreparation (Hays, Maynard, Thomas, & Bawden, 2007), verbal persuasion (Chase,1998), observational learning (Law & Hall, 2009), imagery/mental rehearsal (Ross-Stewart & Short, 2009), and physiological/emotional factors (Chase, Feltz, & Lirgg, 2003). In addition, self-ef  fi cacy beliefs have been shown to be associated with a range of desirable consequences, including improved athletic performance(Moritz, Feltz, Fahrbach, & Mack, 2000), greater effort (Hutchinson, Sherman, Martinovic, & Tenenbaum, 2008), enhanced well-being(Rudolph & Butki, 1998), and positive affective responses (Martin, 2002). Nonetheless, whilst much is known about the srcins andconsequencesofself-ef  fi cacy,littleattentionineithersportsettingsor beyond has been directed towards exploring and/or describingself-ef  fi cacy as a metaperception (i.e., EOSE). In one investigation,Short and Short (2004) collected data regarding collegiate footballcoaches' self-ef  fi cacy beliefs, alongside athletes' perceptions of their coaches' self-ef  fi cacy beliefs, in order to explore the congru-ence between coaches' actual scores and athletes' estimations. Inthisrespect,ShortandShortmeasured(whatwewouldterm)EOSEbeliefs, that is, an individual's estimation of another person's self-ef  fi cacy. However, it is important to note that in this investigation,the authors referred to this construct as  ‘ other-ef  fi cacy ’ . Althoughsubtly different, appraising another person's  self-ef   fi cacy  (i.e.,a metaperception) is not the same thing as appraising anotherperson's  capabilities  (i.e., a direct perception). Indeed, while Shortand Short considered the former cognition to be other-ef  fi cacy, thelatter de fi nition of other-ef  fi cacy is adopted in most empiricalreports published in this area (e.g., Beauchamp & Whinton, 2005; Jackson et al., 2007; Lopez & Lent, 1991). Nevertheless, Short andShort found that team members' estimations of their coaches' self-ef  fi cacy beliefs were largely similar to their coaches' actualperceptions. That said, given the exploratory nature of their study,it is important to note that Short and Short did not investigateeither the sources or potential implications associated with thesemetaperceptual beliefs, and so the role of EOSE in sport is currentlyunclear. B. Jackson, M.R. Beauchamp / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 11 (2010) 188 e 196   189  Guided by Troyer and Younts (1997) theoretical claims, theoverall purpose of this study was to examine the antecedents of EOSE beliefs, as well as the various outcomes associated with thismetaperception within two of the primary dyadic settings thatexist in sport, namely coach e athlete and athlete e athlete rela-tionships. Conceptually, this study holds the potential to facilitatea greater understanding of the ways in which EOSE beliefs emergein the  fi rst instance and shape cognitive, behavioral, and affectiveresponses within athletic partnerships. In this investigation,a social constructionist (Schwandt, 2000) approach was employedtoexplorethe antecedents and consequences associated with EOSEbeliefs. The social constructionist paradigm rests on the notionthatindividuals develop their own subjective meanings or experiencesrelating to the various contexts in which they exist, and acknowl-edges the important role of social interactions in the formation of these perceptions (Creswell, 2003). Thus, social constructionistresearch seeks to enable individuals to describe their own subjec-tive experiences and interpretations of a given phenomenon.Consistent with this framework, a qualitative methodologyinvolving semi-structured interviews and content analysis wasdeemed the most appropriate approach for examining the ante-cedents and consequences of athletes' and coaches' EOSE beliefs. Methods Participants Both members of six athlete e athlete (Mean age  ¼  27.8,SD  ¼  9.5) and six coach e athlete dyads from individual sports(Mean coach age  ¼  42.17, SD  ¼  6.49; Mean athlete age  ¼  22.5,SD ¼  3.62) participated in this study 1 . All of the athletes that tookpart in this study competed at the international level, includingparticipation at World and Olympic games. Members of the athle-te e athlete dyads reported 17.83 years (SD ¼ 9.17) years experiencecompetingintheirsport,hadcompetedtogetherforanaverageof4years (SD ¼ 2.63), and spent 14.17 h (SD ¼ 6.25) per week trainingtogether. Athlete partnerships were drawn from a variety of dyadicsports, namely synchronized swimming, synchronized diving,kayaking,  fi gure skating, table tennis, and sailing. Coach e athletedyads, on the other hand, had been working with each other for3.45 years (SD ¼ 3.04) and spent 10.33 h (SD ¼ 4.96) together perweek, onaverage.Coach e athlete dyads were drawnfromtriathlon, fi gure skating, tennis, bob skeleton, and track and  fi eld. Coachesand athletes from these partnerships reported an average of 13.33(SD ¼ 5.13) and 10.5 (SD ¼ 5.32) years experience in coaching andcompeting, respectively. In order to protect participant anonymityinthereportingofresults,allidenti fi ablenamesandlocationswereremoved, and all participants were allocated a code according totheir dyad. Members of athlete e athlete dyads were referred to as ‘ AA ’  (e.g., AA1.1 and AA1.2 refer to the athletes 1 and 2 from dyadnumber 1), whilst participants from coach e athlete dyads weregiven the label  ‘ CA ’ . For example,  ‘ coach CA3 ’  refers to the coachfrom the coach e athlete dyad number 3, and  ‘ athlete CA5 ’  repre-sents the athlete from coach e athlete dyad number 5. Procedure After receiving institutional ethical approval for the study,recruitment letters were posted to relevant national governingorganizations (NGOs) from individual and dyadic sports in theUnited Kingdom. NGOs were subsequently invited to inform anyinternational-level athletes or coaches about the nature of thestudy, and to provide the contact details of the lead investigatorshould those individuals wish to register their interest. Uponreceiving expressions of interest, the lead investigator mailedpotential participants an information letter detailing the purposeof the investigation, and outlining their rights as a participant (i.e.,voluntary involvement, right to withdraw and/or refuse to answerany question, anonymity of all information). Finally, havingcon fi rmed the availability of both themselves and the other personin their relationship, interviews were subsequently arranged ata time and place of participants' choosing. Upon meeting eachparticipant, and prior to obtaining their informed consent to takepart in the study, all individuals were provided with a reminder of the purpose of the study, were asked for their permission to audiorecord the interview, and were assured that their anonymitywould be protected at all times. Athletes and coaches were alsoinvited to provide an appropriate electronic or postal contactaddress in order to facilitate the provision of interview transcriptsand a summary of   fi ndings at a later date. At the close of allinterviews, participants were thanked for their time, and given theopportunity to ask any questions about the investigation and theinterview process itself. Interview guide A semi-structured interview guide was used in this study toenable questions to be asked in a  fl exible manner, and to facilitatethe  fl ow of the interviews. Participants were  fi rst invited toprovide background and demographic information, after whichthe main section of the interviews focused on the antecedentsand consequences of dyad members' constructions of EOSEappraisals. In the main interview section, and to help facilitatediscussion around the focal construct of interest (EOSE), a three-stage strategy was employed. Speci fi cally, participants were  fi rstinformed that the interview would focus on one  type  of   ‘ con fi -dence ’  that may be important in dyadic settings. They were thenasked to describe and write out the main skills required of theother person in the dyad (for brevity, the other person in thedyad will hereafter be referred to as  ‘ the other ’ ). Finally, the list of skills was subsequently used to help orient participants in thesubsequent questions regarding the perceived capabilities of the other person. This was also done in order to ensure thatparticipants' ef  fi cacy appraisals were task-speci fi c (cf. Bandura,1997). Speci fi cally, individuals were asked,  “ Could you describehow con fi dent your [coach/athlete] is with respect to thoseskills? ”  In order to tap into the antecedents, or factors under-pinning EOSE beliefs, individuals were then asked,  “ Could youexplain what makes you think this? ”  Finally, to elicit informationregarding any possible implications of EOSE beliefs, respondentswere asked,  “ Could you explain how your [coach's/athlete's]con fi dence in him/herself affects you and your relationship? ” Throughout the interviews, clari fi cation and elaboration probes(Patton, 2002) were employed by the interviewer in order tomaximize understanding and obtain suf  fi cient depth in partici-pants' perceptions. During all interviews, participants wereencouraged to focus on and frame their EOSE perceptions inrelation to their current partnership. However, athletes andcoaches were not prohibited from discussing relevant instanceswhere EOSE had been important in previous interactions. 1 Data presented in this study were collected as part of a broad program of research designed to examine relational ef  fi cacy beliefs in coach e athlete and ath-lete e athlete dyads. Two published studies presented data from the same partici-pants that were involved in this study on the antecedents and consequences of thetripartite ef  fi cacy beliefs in athlete e athlete ( Jackson et al., 2008) and coach e athlete( Jackson et al., 2009) dyads. The research questions addressed in the Jackson et al. (2008, 2009) studies focused squarely on examining the tripartite constructs,whereas the research questions addressed in the interviews for this study revolvedaround the role of the EOSE construct, as a potential extension of  Lent and Lopez's(2002) srcinal model. B. Jackson, M.R. Beauchamp / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 11 (2010) 188 e 196  190  Data analysis Data were initially transcribed verbatim by the  fi rst author.Subsequently, inductive content analytic procedures wereemployed in order to identify any sections of text (i.e.,  ‘ meaningunits ’ ; Tesch,1990) where athletes or coaches discussed EOSE, and/or described these appraisals in relation to a speci fi c antecedent orconsequence. Subsequently, meaning units that were highlycongruent were grouped together into lower-order themes, beforeconceptually similar themes were clustered according to higher-ordercategories.Assignmenttohigher-ordercategorieswascarriedout in a deductive manner, using the emergent categories fromprevious tripartite ef  fi cacy research. Jackson and colleagues ( Jack-son, Knapp, & Beauchamp, 2008; Jackson, Knapp, & Beauchamp,2009) observed that antecedent themes for relational ef  fi cacybeliefscouldconsistentlybecategorizedintoperceptionsregarding ‘ oneself  ’ ,  ‘ the other ’ , the  ‘ dyad as a whole ’ , or  ‘ external factors ’ , andas a result, these categories were adopted for use in the presentstudy. In addition, the outcomes themes that emerged for ef  fi cacybeliefs in Jackson et al., (2008. 2009) studies were classi fi ed underthe higher-order categories of either  ‘ intra-personal ’  or  ‘ interper-sonal ’  consequences. In particular, where a consequence referredsolely to a personal outcome (e.g., one's own affective responses,effort, motivation), these themes were grouped as intra-personaloutcomes, whereas themes that re fl ected thoughts, feelings, andbehaviors towards or about  ‘ the other ’  or  ‘ the dyad ’  (e.g., one'ssatisfaction with or intention to persist in the relationship) wereassigned to the interpersonal higher-order category. The sameapproach was also utilized in this study.In order to maximize the trustworthiness of the analyses, andconsistent with recommendations provided by Johnson (1997),transcripts and summary  fi ndings were initially sent to partici-pants, who were invited to provide feedback on the accuracy of their accounts and insert/remove any information they wished. Inaddition, the second author and an additional external reviewerwere invited to independently assign all EOSE meaning units froma random sample of two coach e athlete and two athlete e athletedyads to lower-order themes, in order to (a) examine the extent towhich the three coders achieved consensus in their interpretationsof the data, and (b) highlight any areas of disagreement forsubsequent discussion. Initial reliabilitychecks revealed an averageconsensus rate of 83% across the three coders, and followingdebate, consensus was achieved in relation to all remaining areasof disagreement (e.g., meaning unit assignment, inter-themedistinctiveness). Collectively, these procedures served to ensurethat the coders' interpretations of the data not only matched oneanother, but also provided an authentic representation of athletes'and coaches' actual social constructions (Schwandt, 2000) of theirEOSE perceptions. Results Across the 24 coach and athlete interviews,16 themes emergedpertaining to EOSE (illustrated in Fig. 1), which broadly re fl ectedeither antecedents (seven themes, 110 meaning units) or conse-quences (nine themes, 153 meaning units).  Antecedents of EOSE  Athletes and coaches reported a number of antecedent themesthat underpinned their EOSE appraisals, which were assigned tohigher-order categories according to the focus of the lower-orderthemes. Six themes were categorized as  ‘ perceptions regarding theother ’ memberofthedyad,whileonethemewascategorizedunderthe higher-order theme termed  ‘ perception regarding the dyad ’ (see Table 1). Perceptions regarding the other  In the  fi rst theme, EOSE perceptions were reported to developout of the other's  verbal communication,  and this theme wasevident for athletes from both types of dyad as well as coaches. Asindicated in Table 1, frequent feedback and positive commentsfrom the other underpinned positive EOSE inferences. AthleteAA1.1 said in this respect,  “ I can tell when he's feeling con fi dentbecause he's bubbly and everything he's telling me is positive,talking about feeling good, beating the opponent, playing well ” .Negative verbal communication, on the other hand, was associatedwith the estimation that the other person was lacking con fi dencein his/her own ability. For example, coach CA1 outlined,  “ thebiggestgiveawayasto [myathlete's]owncon fi dencethoughisthathe will have a match which potentially he could win, and he will  t cur t snoclacoF  r ed r o-r ehgi H   seir oget act ned ecet na r ed r o-r ewo L  semeht t ned ecet na r ed r o-r ewo L  semeht emoct uo r ed r o-r ehgi H   seir oget acemoct uo ESOE snoit  pecr eP  r eht oeht gnid r ager   noitacinummoclabreV  )C,A,AA(  )C,A,AA(secnamrof reptsaP  )C,A,AA(etatslacigoloisyhP  )A,AA(roivaheblabrev-noN  noitaraperpnoititepmoc-erP  )C,AA(  )C,AA(etatsevitcef f A snoit  pecr eP ergnid r agd ehtyd a  daydasastnemeveihcayretsaM  )C,A,AA(  lanosr e p-ar t n I   sesnopserevitcef f A  )C,A,AA(  )A,AA(ycacif f e-f leS noitavitoM(AA,A) lanosr e pr et n I   noitanimretpihsnoitaleR  )C,A,AA( noitcaf sitaspihsnoitaleR  )C,A,AA(  )A,AA(ycacif f e-rehtO  ecnetsisreppihsnoitaleR  )A,AA(snoitnetni  k cabdeef hcaocotnoitnettA )A(-ycacif f egnitnemelpmI  )C,AA(seuqinhcetgnicnahne  Note . AA = Theme emerged for athlete-athlete dyad members. A = Theme emerged for athletes within coach-athlete dyads. C = Themeemerged for coaches within coach-athlete dyads. Fig. 1.  Antecedent and outcome categories and themes for EOSE. B. Jackson, M.R. Beauchamp / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 11 (2010) 188 e 196   191  talk prior to the match about how  ‘ when he's lost that match he'llgo and do    or y ’” .In the second theme, all three participant groups describedthe other's  past performances  as a source of their EOSE appraisals.That is, individuals estimated that the other person in their dyadwas highly self-ef  fi cacious when they had experienced recentmasteryachievements. Forexample, AA6.1 noted that  “ I think she'scon fi dent in herself because of how well she's doing at themoment ” . In a similar respect, when the other person in the dyadhad experienced poor performances, individuals tended to infernegative EOSE beliefs. Coach C1 described this by saying,  “ I knowhow I want him to think . and feel about his game, but because of bad results, I think his self-con fi dence is low ” . The third theme inthis category illustrated that EOSE beliefs for coaches and bothgroups of athletes stemmed from their perception of the other's  physiological state .Thatis, whentheotherwasdeemedto bestrongand physically fi t this was relatedtothe estimation that s/hewouldbe con fi dent in his/her own ability. For instance, athlete AA6.2noted,  “ she's in great shape . physically, she's looking strong and fi t, and I think that helps to give her that con fi dence in what shedoes ” . On the other hand, impaired physiological states such asfatigue, illness, or injury, were associated with unfavorable EOSEperceptions (see Table 1).Inthiscategory,italsoemergedthatAAandCAathletes(butnotcoaches) used the other person's  non-verbal behavior   whenattemptingtogaugethatindividual'sself-ef  fi cacybeliefs.AsathleteAA3.2 noted, assertive body language appeared to be associatedwith positive EOSE,  “ you can tell how he walks, with the chest out,he's just proud . and I think his con fi dence comes through there,how he holds himself  ” . Athlete CA2 also described this notion incoach e athlete settings, commenting,  “ even when [my coach] is just . in the gymwatchingeveryone, he just sits there upright, andhis body language says,  ‘ I'm the boss here, I know what I can do ’ ,and you can tell about his con fi dence from that ” . In contrast,athletes also described how apprehensive behavior may be relatedto negative EOSE beliefs (see Table 1).Two further themes were discussed by AA athletes and CAcoaches, but not by athletes within coach e athlete partnerships.That is, these themes appeared central in the process of estimating athletes'   self-ef  fi cacy (but not coaches') beliefs, within both athle-te e athlete and coach e athlete dyads. The  fi rst of these themes,termed  pre-competition preparation , illustrated that athletes andcoaches reported positive EOSE inferences when they felt that theother had devoted suf  fi cient time and effort in practice sessionsleading up to a competition. For example, athlete AA1.2 described, “ he's prepared, he doesn't go out to compete unless he's thoughtabout who he's playing, what their weaknesses are and that'swhereIbelievethathisself-con fi dencecomesfrom ” .CoachCA4,onthe other hand, discussed her athlete's lack of preparation,  “ [myathlete] has the ability to do the hard parts in competition, but Idon't always know if he has the con fi dence to do them. Now thatcon fi dence would maybe come through training harder ” . Athlete- e athlete dyad members and coaches also reported that positive affective states (e.g., being ‘ happy ’ ,  ‘ relaxed ’ )onthepartof the otherperson were associated with favorable EOSE perceptions. Negativeaffective states (e.g., looking  ‘ worried ’ ,  ‘ nervous ’ ), on the otherhand, appeared to underpin negative EOSE appraisals (see Table 1).For instance, coach CA5 said,  “ well for a long time [my athlete]would get anxious and upset .  and so I could see she wasn'tcon fi dent ” . Perceptions regarding the dyad For athletes from both types of dyad as well as coaches, esti-mations of the other's self-ef  fi cacy stemmed from past  masteryachievements as a dyad . Speci fi cally, prior successes during the timeas a partnership, in addition to individual successes on the part of the other person (see  ‘ perceptions regarding the other ’ ), wereassociated with positive EOSE inferences. As athlete CA4 simplystated,  “ I think when we do well together it's good for her con fi -dence as a coach ” . Consequences of EOSE  Analyses revealed a total of nine themes that corresponded toconsequences of EOSE beliefs (see Table 2). Where themes alignedwith personal consequences (e.g., one's own self-ef  fi cacy), theyweregroupedunderthe ‘ intra-personal ’ higher-ordercategory,andin instances where thoughts, feelings, and behaviors about thepartner or dyad were discussed (e.g., one's satisfaction with therelationship), these were grouped as  ‘ interpersonal ’  consequences.Intotal, threeintra-personalandsixinterpersonaloutcomethemesemerged. Intra-personal In the  fi rst theme in this category, coaches and athletes fromboth types of dyad described the  affective responses  associatedwith their EOSE inferences. In particular, favorable EOSE percep-tions were related to positive affective states, including feeling ‘ relaxed ’  and  ‘ at ease ’ , as well as being responsible for reductionsin  ‘ nerves ’  and  ‘ anxiety ’ . One such meaning unit was provided by  Table 1 Antecedent themes and categories for EOSE.Antecedents of EOSECategory Theme ExamplePerceptions regardingthe otherVerbal communication (8, 6, 5)  “ you pick up on them being a con fi dent person, like I was saying before about their ability to coach,if they're giving a good amount of feedback, then I 0 d say they're a con fi dent coach ”  (athlete CA4)Past performances (5, 9, 7)  “ [my athlete's] results weren't going well . over the last few years, and this has created a veryinsecure person, his con fi dence is not great ”  (coach CA1)Physiological state (5, 3, 5)  “ I think [my athlete] now has constant self-doubts, because of her injury and her  fi tness levels ”  (coach CA6)Non-verbal behavior (12, 7, 0)  “ if [my partner] has any doubts in himself at all I can tell, I can sense it, it's strange . I mean I look athim and I can tell in the way that he moves and he walks ”  (athlete AA5.1)Pre-competition preparation(6, 0, 5) “ when it comes to really training for a competition and doing it running through from beginning to end,that's where he lets himself down, then [my athlete] seems to have a lack of con fi dence when he has toperform ”  (coach CA4)Affective state (8, 0, 6)  “ That is a sign when [my partner] isn't feeling self-con fi dent, he tends to lose his temper ”  (athlete AA1.1)Perceptions regardingthe dyadMastery achievementsas a dyad (5, 5, 3) “ I think that the success in the doubles has helped [my partner's] self-con fi dence ”  (athlete AA2.1)Note.Figures in parentheses in  ‘ Theme ’ column refer to thefrequency and sourceof meaning units, using thefollowing format: cited byAA athletes,cited byCA athletes,citedby coaches. For example, members of AA pairs cited  ‘ verbal communication ’  8 times, athletes from CA dyads highlighted this theme 6 times, and coaches described this on 5occasions. B. Jackson, M.R. Beauchamp / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 11 (2010) 188 e 196  192
Related Search
Similar documents
View more
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks
SAVE OUR EARTH

We need your sign to support Project to invent "SMART AND CONTROLLABLE REFLECTIVE BALLOONS" to cover the Sun and Save Our Earth.

More details...

Sign Now!

We are very appreciated for your Prompt Action!

x