JOURNAL OF SPORT & EXERCISE PSYCHOLOOY, 1989, 11, 128.140
An Exploratory Examination of Strategies Used
by Elite Coaches to Enhance Self-Efficacy in Athletes
Daniel Gould
University of North Carolina
at Greensboro
Ken Hodge
University of Otago
New Zealand
Kirsten Peterson, John Giannini
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Two studies were conducted to assess strategies elite coaches use to enhance
selfefficacyin athletes, in particular the degree to which coaches use 13 strategies to influence self-efficacy and their evaluation of the effectiveness of those
strategies. Self-efficacy rating differences between categories of coaches were
also examined. Intercollegiate wrestling coaches (N=101) surveyed in
Study 1 indicated they most often used instruction-drilling. modeling confidence oneself, encouraging positive talk, and employing hard physical wnditioning drills. Techniques or strategiesjudged most effectiveby these coaches
included instructiondrilling, modeling confidence oneself, liberal use of reward statements, and positive talk. In Study 2, 124 national team coaches
representing 30 Olympic-family sports served as subjects. The strategies they
most often used were instruction-drilling, modeling contidence oneself,
encouraging positive talk, and emphasizing technique improvements while
downplayingoutcome. The techniques judged most effective were instructiondrilling, encouraging positive talk, modeling confidence onself, and liberal
use of reward statements. Few between-coach differences were found in
efficacy use and effectiveness ratings. Findings are discussed in light of
Bandura's (1977) theory of self-efficacy.
Self-efficacy or self-confidence has been a topic of much interest for sport
psychology researchers who have found relationships between efficacy expectations and performance in both laboratory (Feltz, 1982; Feltz & Mugno, 1983;
Daniel Gould is with the Department of Physical Education at the University of
North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro, NC 27412. Ken Hodge is with the Department of Physical Education at the University of Otago, New Zealand. Kirsten Peterson
and John Giannini are graduate students in the Department of Educational Psychology
and Kinesiology, respectively, at the University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801.
Enhancing Self-Efficacy in Athletes / 129
Gould & Weiss, 1981; Weinberg, Gould, & Jackson, 1979) and field settings
(Gould, Weiss, & Weinberg, 1981; Highlen & Bennett, 1979; Mahoney & Avener,
1977; Mahoney, Gabriel, & Perkins, 1987; Meyers, Cooke, Cullen, & Liles,
1979). Moreover, results from these studies have generally shown that positive
relationships exist between an individual's expectations and motor performance
and/or that more successful athletes exhibit higher efficacy expectations than less
successful athletes.
Not only has the self-efficacy/perfonnancerelationship been a major area
of interest for sport psychology researchers, but identifying effective strategies
for enhancing efficacy has been a topic of recent attention (Feltz, 1982; Feltz
& Mugno, 1983; Gould & Weiss, 1981; McAuley, 1985; Weinberg et al., 1979).
Typically, investigators have tested one or more of the sources of efficacy exw t i o n s hypothesized to influence one's confidence in Bandura's (1977) theory
of self-efficacy: methods of ensuring performance accomplishments, vicarious
experiences (modeling), verbal persuasion, and arousal or anxiety control. Results
have revealed that ensuring performance accomplishments (Weinberg et al., 1979)
and various forms of modeling or vicarious experiences (Feltz, 1982; Feltz &
Mugno, 1983; Gould & Weiss, 1981; McAuley, 1985) were related to changes
in efficacy and subsequent performance, while relationships between arousal control, verbal persuasion, efficacy, and performance proved to be more elusive (Lan
& Gill, 1984; Mahoney, 1979).
In addition to the empirical research being conducted on the efficacy1
performance relationship and sources of self-efficacy, several investigators (Feltz
& Doyle, 1981; Feltz & Weiss, 1982) have written articles outlining the importance of self-efficacy and the strategies coaches and teachers can use to enhance
it. Specific techniques recommended by these investigators include ensuring
performance accomplishments through good instruction, setting specific goals,
emphasizing improvements in technique or process over outcome, liberal use of
reward statements, verbally persuading athletes, encouraging positive self-talk,
reducing feelings of anxiety via relaxation training, emphasizing that feelings of
anxiety indicate not fear but readiness, modeling confidence, using imagery to
visualize performance success, and employing attributionaltraining (e.g., attributing failure to a lack of effort rather than to low ability). Hence, practitioners have
a variety of techniques or strategies at their disposal to assist in developing selfefficacy in their students and athletes, although the effectiveness of many of these
techniques have not been assessed in field settings.
Whereas our understanding of self-efficacy and strategies for enhancing
efficacy expectations have improved as a result of the research conducted in this
area, it is unfortunate that investigators have not examined strategiesfor developing
efficacy most often used by those working in practical settings (e.g., coaches,
teachers), as well as what strategies these individuals find most useful. As Griffith
(1925) argued so long ago, research of this type would serve as an additional
source of sport psychology knowledge, especially if the techniques employed by
highly successful teachers and coaches were studied.
The present investigation was designed to rectify this situation. Specifically,
two studies were conducted to assess strategies elite coaches use to enhance selfefficacy in athletes. Each study had two purposes. First, the degree to which elite
coaches use 13 specific self-efficacy enhancement strategies and their evaluation
130 / GouM, Hodge, Peterson, mid Giannini
of the effectiveness of these strategies were assessed. Second, differences between categories of coaches (e.g., successful vs. less successful, more vs. less
experienced, male vs. female, educationally certified vs. noncertified) in their
evaluation of the effectivenessof various methods for enhancing self-efficacy were
studied.
Study 1 involved 101 intercollegiate wrestling coaches representing NCAA
Division I, 11, and 111programs, while Study 2 involved 124 national team coaches
representing 30 Olympic-family sports programs. In accordance with Bandura's
(1977) theory of self-efficacy and previous sport psychology research, it was
predicted that coaches in both studies would most frequently use performance
enhancement techniques to increase efficacy. Performance enhancement and
modeling techniques were also hypothesized to be more effective than verbal persuasion or arousal regulation strategies.
STUDY 1
Method
Sample
The national sample comprised 126 collegiate wrestling coaches who had
agreed to complete an extensive survey on psychological foundations of coaching. Of the 126 coaches, 101 (80%) returned questionnaires. On average, these
coaches had 17 years of experience (M= 16.8; SD= 8.9) and estimated that their
teams won 66%of all matches wrestled throughout their careers. Some 68% of
the sample had a master's degree and 70% had earned at least one degree in physical education and/or recreation.
Procedures
In the fall of 1985, the 126 intercollegiate wrestling coaches were asked
to participate in this study. The coaches selected represented those universities
most often finishing in the top 10 in the NCAA Division I, 11, and III and NAIA
national tournaments from 1975 to 1985. This was done to ensure that coaches
of the most consistently successful teams in the country would be included in
the investigation. Also included was a random sample of coaches representing
a proportional number of NCAA and NAIA division universities not appearing
in the top 10. All coaches were contacted by phone and asked to complete the
questionnaire.
Questionnaire
The psychological-foundations-of-wrestlingcoaching questionnaire comprised a number of sections, results from many of which are reported elsewhere
(Gould, Hodge, Peterson, & Petlichkoff, 1987). This article focuses on the
self-efficacy assessment portion of the questionnaire as well as selected demographic and background information used to describe the total sample and
various categories of coaches studied (e.g., successful vs. less successful, more
experienced vs. less experienced). The self-efficacy section of the questionnaire
was composed of 13 strategies or techniques that can be used to enhance selfefficacy (described as selfconfidence to the coaches). These techniques were iden-
~U!U!BJI UO!l8XBI8J
6u!z!l!in r(q he!xue eonpetl
ssaoons eu!6eul
e~nl!e4lo4 'r(i!l!qe 40 yoel
JOU ' ~ o f i a40 yoel ez!seqdw3
sseu!peeJ inq lea4
lou s! he!xue leu1 ez!seqdu3
pana!qoe aneq
0qM SJ8llSeJM JI?I!UJ!S b ( l ! l ~ % p ~
slw6 o!j!cmds leS
euooino h l d u ~ o p'luau
-anoJdu! enb!uqoai ez!seqdu3
siuauaieis
~ J E M ~40J asn leJaq!l
apens~edA l l e q ~ a ~
6u!uo!l!puoo
leo!sr(qd pJeq Aoldu3
ylei an!l!sod a6e~noou3
4les~noAluep!&uoopy
6u!ll!~puo!lon~lsu!
q6no141 aoueunoged aouequg
82' 1
SZ' 1
LO'P
86'0
pasn ueuo
6u!le~aldwes
40 Yo
as
6u!le~esn-40
-Aouenbay jq
yue~
@ n o q a3umuopad 8 y 3 q u a 103 sa@aeas a q ~ r s@aAai
q
aIqq s g , -sa@qws
~
X ~ E ~ S J ~ - J £1
I ~ aq.103
S
s8uge.1asn-jo-L3uanbaq , s a y 3 m ay, m u m 1alqeL
s 8 u y v g a s 0$ 0 - h u a n b a ~ d
slpn-x
. a ~ y m j ~ha^
a %up@uEtrs s pna 'aA!yajJa
IqMawos E 'anrtmjJa ~ o %cqQp@s
u
1q r ~
' a p ~Fravy
s
up xi-^ a u o s ~ a p s a ~ m
q
q3em a w
cq a3uapyno:, 8cq3mpa q s e a~n b y q w aq) aAymBa ~ o pap3~pcq
pums ' u q o 8-IS
s pm! ' s a q a w o s ' ~ a h a uOu&uZ?!s1~ F 'a
Mmu a v 7
I"&-s e uo a n b x m a~ q pasn aq uago ~ o pqmFpm
q
q3e0-3 a q Is.nd - s % m pOM
apmn say31203 (, , s p % a3umuopad 3g,y1mds% g a sLq fquawa~adux! amxu.~opad
amsua,, '.8-a) sar8a~tmsd3e31j~aE 1 a q j o 93ea .IOA -a.nqe.xag u o p e u p a s s p
y m m a . ~pm g3llzasa.1rrods p m d3m133a-3p~a q 30 q s L p 1uquo3 e @ n o q pew
132 1 Gould, Hodge, Peterson, and Giannini
instruction and drilling, acting or modeling confidence themselves, encouraging
positive self-talk, and emploq-ing hard physical conditioning drills received the
highest mean usage ratings by the coaches. Strategies or techniques judged to
be used least frequently were utdizhg relaxation training to reduce anxiety, imagining success, emphasizing that failure was due to a lack of effort rather than to
low ability, and emphasizing that anxiety is an indication not of fear but of readiness. It should be noted, however, that even the least frequently used technique
received a rating of 3, showing that it was used at least sometimesby the coaches.
Hence the coaches reported using all 13 techniques to some degree.
Effectiveness Ratings
The coaches' effectiveness ratings of the 13 self-efficacy strategies are contained in Table 2. This table reveals that enhancing performance through instruction and drilling, modeling confidence themselves, liberal use of reward
Table 2
Wrestling Coaches' Effectiveness Ratings of Strategies
Designed to Develop Self-Efficacy
Efficacy strategy
Rank
M effectiveness
rating
SD
% rating
very effective
Enhance performance through
instructiondrilling
Act confident yourself
Liberal use of reward
statements
Encourage positive talk
Employ hard physical
conditioning
Emphasize technique
improvement, downplay
outcome
Set specific goals
Emphasize that anxiety is not
fear but readiness
Verbally persuade
Imagine success
Identify similar wrestlers who
have achieved
Reduce anxiety by utilizing
relaxation training
Emphasize lack of effort, not
lack of ability, for failure
Note. Effectiveness ratings were made on Likert scales, with 1 representing not effective
and 5 very effective.
Enhancing Self-Efficacy in Athletes 1 133
statements, encouraging positive talk, and employing hard physical conditioning
were the strategies rated most effective, all receiving mean ratings of over 4.
Strategies judged to be least effective were emphasizing that failure was due to
lack of effort rather than to low ability, reducing anxiety through relaxation training, and identifying similar models (wrestlers)who have achieved. Again it should
be noted that even the strategies judged to be least effective had mean ratings
of 3 or above, indicating that the coaches felt they were moderately effective.
Between-Coach Diflerences'
To determine whether categories of coaches differed in their frequency and
effectiveness ratings, we conducted a series of discriminant function analyses using a specified between-coach difference variable (e.g., coaching success) as the
discriminating variable and the efficacy strategy frequency-of-use and effectiveness ratings as separate sets of dependent variables. Between-coach difference
variables included (a) coaching success operationally defined as coaches whose
teams most frequently placed in the top 10 in the NCAA or NAIA divisional tournaments in the 10-year period from 1975 to 1985 (n=30) versus those whose
teams did not (n=69); (b) coaching experience trichotomized into coaches with
2 to 11 years of experience (n =33), 12 to 20 years (n =34), and 2 1 to 42 years
(n =34);2 (c) educational certification operationalized as coaches who had participated in the USA wrestling coaches' education certification program in which
they received considerable sport psychology training (n =26) versus those who
had not participated in this program (n =75); and (d) NCAA Division in which
NCAA Division I (n =50), Division I1 (n = 19), and Division IIIINAIA (n =31)
coaches were compared. No significant differences were found between groups
on any of the between-coach variables for either the self-efficacy strategy
frequency-of-use or effectiveness ratings.
STUDY 2
Method
Sample
The sample consisted of 124 Olympic, Pan American, and lor national team
coaches representing over 30 different U.S. Olympic-family sports. The sports
and number of coaches represented in each sport sampled were as follows:
archery (4), athletics or track (9), baseball (I), basketball (2), biathlon (I),
bobsled (I), canoelkayak (4), cycling (2), fencing (6), field hockey (4), figure
skating (3), gymnastics (2), judo (4), ice hockey (2), luge (6), modem pentathlon (I), roller skating (4), rowing (15), skiing (2), shooting (6), soccer (2),
softball (4), synchronized swimming (4), swimming (3), table tennis (I), team
handball (3), tennis (3), volleyball (4), water polo (3), weightlifting (5), yachting (I), and various sports for special populations-blind, cerebral palsy, deaf,
and wheelchair (12). The coaches ranged in age from 26 to 75 years, with a mean
of 40.85 years (SD=9.8). Forty-one (339%) of the coaches had been or were
presently designated as U.S. Pan American and/or Olympic Games coaches. The
rest were junior and/or senior national team coaches for the sport they represented.
Ninety-five (77%) were males and 29 (23%) were females.
134 1 Gould, Hodge, Peterson, and Giannini
Procedures and Questionnaire
The 124 elite coaches in the sample were identified in one of two ways.
First, 45 (77%)of the 58 coaches attending the 1987 Tenth Pan American Games
Coaches and Managers Meeting in Indianapolis completed the questionnaire.
Second, 79 of the 90 (88%)coaches attending the 1987 U.S. Olympic Committee Elite Coaches Conference on Achieving Peak Performance in Dallas were
assessed. All coaches voluntarily took part in the investigation.
The coaches rated the frequency of use and effectiveness of the same 13
self-efficacy strategies used in Study 1 and, as in that study, all ratings were made
on 5-point Likert scales.
Table 3
National Coaches' Frequency-of-Use Ratings of Strategies
Designed to Develop Self-Efficacy
Efficacy strategy
Rank
M frequencyof-use rating
SD
"10 of
sample rating
often used
Enhance performance through
instructiondrilling
Act confident yourself
Encourage positive talk
Emphasize technique improve
ment, downplay outcome
Set specific goals
Verbally persuade
Liberal use of reward
statements
Employ hard physical
conditioning
Imagine success
Emphasize that anxiety is not
fear but readiness
Identify similar wrestlers who
have achieved
Emphasize lack of effort, not
lack of ability, for failure
Reduce anxiety by utilizing
relaxation training
~ o t eFrequency-of-use
.
ratings were made on Likert scales, with 1 representingnever and
5 often.
Enhancing Self-Efficacy in Athletes / 135
Results
Frequency-of-Use Ratings
The coaches' frequency-of-use ratings for the 13 self-efficacy strategies are
contained in Table 3, which reveals that the most frequently employed strategies
were enhancing performance through instruction-drilling, acting confident oneself, encouraging positive self-talk, and emphasizing technique improvements
while downplaying outcome. Strategies least frequently used included reducing
anxiety through relaxation training, emphasizing that failure was due to a lack
of effort, not ability, and identifying similar models who have achieved. As in
Study 1, the least frequently used strategies received moderate ratings.
Efectiveness Ratings
Table 4 contains the coaches' effectiveness ratings of each of the 13 selfefficacy strategies. Enhancing performance through instruction drilling, encouraging positive talk, and acting confident oneself were the techniques judged to be
most effective. Least effective techniques included identifying similar models who
have achieved, emphasizing that failure was due to a lack of effort rather than
to low ability, and emphasizing that anxiety indicates not fear but readiness.
Between-Coach Differences
To determine whether categories of coaches differed in their frequency of
use and effectiveness of efficacy strategy ratings, we conducted a series of discriminant function analyses. Between-coach discriminating variables included
(a) the coaches' gender; (b) sport-skill-type coached operationalized as coaches
of open (n=45) versus closed skill activities (n =54); (c) coaches' college degree
emphasis, that is, coaches with a physical education degree (n=47) were compared to coaches with other degrees (n =54); (d) coaching experience operationalized as coaches with 2 to 11years of experience (n=4Q3 12 to 20 years (n=54),
and over 21 years of experience (n=27); and (e) sport type coached, with
individual-sport coaches (n =50) compared to team-sport coaches (n =26).
Results revealed that the coaches differed on only one of the discriminating
variables. Specifically, individual and team sport coaches differed in their frequency of efficacy strategy use ratings, Wilks' lambda= .71, x2=22.98 (df= 13),
6.04.Examination of the means, standardized discriminant function coefficients,
and univariate t test results indicated that the efficacy strategies contributing most
to the between-coach differences (as judged by high discriminant function coefficients and significant t test results) were modeling confidence oneself and
ensuring performance improvementsthrough instruction and drilling. In the case
of both strategies, team-sport coaches used instruction and drilling (M=4.58) and
modeling confidence themselves (M=4.46) more often than did individual sport
coaches, who used instruction and drilling (M= 3.60) and modeling confidence
themselves (M= 3.32) less frequently.
136 I Gould, Hodge, Peterson, and Giannini
Table 4
National Coaches' Effectiveness Ratings of Strategies
Designed to Develop Self-Efficacy
M effectiveness
Efficacy strategy
Rank
rating
SO
010 rating
very effective
Enhance performance through
instructiondrilling
Encourage positive talk
Act confident yourself
Liberal use of reward
statements
Employ hard physical
conditioning
Set specific goals
Verbally persuade
Emphasize technique
improvement, downplay
outcome
Imagine success
Reduce anxiety by utilizing
relaxation training
Emphasize that anxiety is not
fear but readiness
Emphasize lack of effort, not
lack of ability, for failure
Identify similar wrestlers who
have achieved
Note. Effectiveness ratings were made on Likert scales, with 1 representing not effective
and 5 very effective.
Discussion
The findings of this investigation show that elite coaches used all 13 strategies designed to enhance self-efficacy to at least some degree. In addition, they
felt that all 13 techniques were at least moderately effective. Hence, the coaching strategies being recommended in sport psychology research articles by Feltz
and her colleagues (Feltz & Doyle, 1981; Feltz & Weiss, 1982) appear to be
realistic and accurate for use in applied settings.
Whereas all 13 coaching strategies for developing self-efficacy were found
to be at least moderately effective, some strategies were predicted to be more
effective than others. In particular, Bandura (1977) indicated that the results of
comparative studies demonstrated the superiority of performance based treatments,
as compared to vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion, and arousal management1
interpretation techniques in enhancing self-efficacy. The findings of this investi-
Enhancing Self-Efficacy in Athletes 1 137
gation lend some support to this prediction. Examining the results of both studies
showed that the performance based techniques of instruction-drilling and utilizing hard physical conditioning drills were two of the highest rated strategies for
developing self-efficacy, while nonperformance based techniques such as utilizing peer models, imagery, reattributions, and relaxation received somewhat lower
ratings.
It must be noted, however, that not all the nonperformance based strategies received low ratings. Modeling confidence oneself, liberal use of reward
statements, and encouraging positive self-talk received high effectiveness ratings.
The research of Feltz (1982) and Feltz, Landers, and Reader (1979) lend some
support to the coaches' contentions in that modeling has been shown to influence
self-efficacy. However, it is somewhat surprising that the coaches judged peer
(other athlete) models to be much less effective than acting as models themselves.
Finally, encouraging the use of positive self-talk has not been examined
in empirical investigations designed to assess the effectiveness of various efficacy
enhancement strategies, although the elite coaches studied in this investigation
felt it was a very effective strategy. Given this finding, sport psychology researchers should consider conducting investigations designed to examine the
positive self-talk, self-efficacy, and performance relationship.
Although the results from this investigation identify a number of specific
strategiesjudged to be effective in enhancing self-efficacy, it was found that techniques such as imagery, relaxation training, and making appropriate ability attributions were less frequently used and rated as less effective. These findings have
several implications. First, researchers must conduct investigations designed to
determinejust how effective these strategies are in influencing self-efficacy. While
they are often recommended as methods for enhancing self-efficacy, coaches seem
to doubt their effectiveness relative to other efficacy enhancement strategies.
Second, investigations should be conducted to determine if these strategies are
used less often because coaches may not have the indepth sport psychology knowledge necessary to understand and employ methods such as relaxation, imagery,
and attributions. If so, coaches may benefit from additional psychological training on such topics. Finally, investigations should be conducted to examine the
relationship between the frequency of use of a particular efficacy enhancement
strategy and its effectiveness, as some coaches may not be effective in using a
particular strategy (e.g., liberally using reward statements) despite employing
it frequently.
The dual study design of this investigation made it possible to generalize
the findings from Study 1, conducted with the elite wrestling coaches, to Study 2,
conducted with elite coaches representing a wide variety of sports. Moreover,
Tables 1through 4 show that while there are some minor discrepancies in results,
both the efficacy strategy use and effectiveness rating findings were quite consistent. Hence the strategies coaches use and the effectiveness of those strategies
were similar across the elite amateur coaching populations sampled.
Contrary to what might be expected, no differences were found between
successful versus less successful coaches, more experienced versus less experienced, educationally certified versus noncertified, male versus female, open versus
closed sport, and physical education trained versus nontrained coaches. Only
individual- and team-sport coaches differed in their frequency-of-use ratings, with
138 1 Gould, Hodge, Peterson, and Giannini
team-sport coaches more often developing confidence through instruction and drilling and modeling confidence themselves, as compared to their individual-sport
counterparts. However, they did not differ in their efficacy strategy effectiveness ratings.
The approach taken in this investigation assumes that coaches are an
important untapped data base for assessing the utility of techniques or strategies
designed to enhance self-efficacy. It is possible, however, that there could be
social desirability problems in the self-report approach utilized in this study. If
so, there should be high correlations between the coaches' self-efficacy strategy
effectiveness and frequency-of-use ratings. Additional data analyses revealed that
correlations between the wrestling coaches' 13 self-efficacy frequency-of-use and
effectiveness ratings in Study 1 ranged from a low of .41 (for the "act confident
yourself" item) to .71 (for the "emphasize technique improvement, downplay
outcome" item). For Study 2, correlations between coaches' effectiveness and
frequency ratings ranged from a low of .49 (for the "enhance performance through
instructiondrilling" item) to .78 (for the "emphasize that failure was due to lack
of effort rather than to low ability" item). These moderate to moderately high
correlations may reflect some social desirability on the part of the coaches. Yet
it could also be argued that such correlations between self-efficacy strategy
frequency-of-use and effectiveness ratings would be normal, as the coaches would
more often use strategies they thought were more effective and less often use
those they deemed least effective. Hence, the issue of whether coaches respond in a socially desirable manner remains unanswered and warrants further
investigation.
A major strength of this investigation was the use of a survey approach
to assess two large samples of elite coaches representing a wide variety of programs across the United States. Moreover, exceptionally high survey return rates
were obtained, ensuring the representativeness of the samples. These strengths
were also limitations, however, as the survey paradigm used made it impossible
to actually observe the coaches' use of the specific efficacy strategies and prevented
investigators from assessing their actual behavioral effectiveness. Now that these
data are available, there is a need to employ other methodological approaches
in studying this issue. In particular, the results of this investigation should be
used to guide field experiments in which relationships can be established between
the use of specific self-efficacy enhancement strategies, actual athlete self-efficacy
levels, and performance. Similarly, the relationship between the coaches' efficacy
strategy frequency-of-use ratings could be compared to similar ratings made by
their athletes. Finally, a multimethod approach combining actual coach and athlete observations, quantitative self-assessments, and qualitative interviews could
be used to further examine the use and effectiveness of particular self-efficacy
enhancement strategies.
Despite the limitations inherent in a survey approach, it is highly recommended that sport psychologists make efforts to assess what practitioners are using
in the field to find out their views on the effectiveness of those strategies and
techniques. By conducting such investigations, researchers will be able to verify
whether their research findings correspond to what is occurring in professional
practice settings. Equally important, however, is the possibility of identifying
new variables of interest that can be incorporated into future investigations. Finally,
by noting discrepancies between what is known in the discipline and what is
Enhancing Self-Efficacy in Athletes 1 139
actually used in practice settings, researchers may assist those sport psychologists involved in educational efforts for athletes and coaches.
References
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215.
Feltz, D.L. (1982). A path analysis of the causal elements in Bandura's theory of selfefficacy and anxiety-based model of avoidancebehavior. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 42, 764-781.
Feltz, D.L., & Doyle, L.A. (1981). Improving self-confidence in athletic performance.
Motor Skills: &ory Into Practice, 5(2), 89-96.
Feltz, D.L., Landers, D.M., & Reader, U. (1979). Enhancing self-efficacy in high
avoidance motor tasks: A comparison of modeling techniques. J o u d of Sport Psychology, 1, 112-122.
Feltz, D.L., & Mugno, D.A. (1983). A replication of the path analysis of the causal elements in Bandura's theory of self-efflcacy and the influence of autonomic perception. Journal of Sport Psychology, 5, 161-277.
Feltz, D.L., & Weiss, M.R. (1982). Developing self-efficacy through sport. Journal of
Physical Educmatlon,Recreation and Dance, 53(2), 24-26, 36.
Gould, D., Hodge, K., Peterson, K., & Petlichkoff, L. (1987). Psychological foundations of coaching: Similarities and differences among intercollegiate wrestling
coaches. % Sport Psychologist, 1 , 293-308.
Gould, D., & Weiss, M. (1981). The effects of model similarity and model talk on selfefficacy and muscular endurance. Journal of Sport Psychology, 3, 17-29.
Gould, D., Weiss, M., & Weinberg, R. (1981). Psychological characteristics of successful and non-successful Big Ten wrestlers. Journal of Sport Psychology, 3, 69-81.
W t h , C.R. (1925). Psychology and its relation to athletic competition. American Physical
Education Review, 30, 193-199.
Highlen, P.S., & Bennett, B.B. (1979). Psychological characteristics of successful and
non-successful elite wrestlers: An exploratory analysis. Journal of Sport Psychology, 1, 123-137.
Lan, L.Y., &Gill, D.L. (1984). The relationships between self-efficacy, stress responses
and cognitive feedback manipulation. Journal of Sport Psychology, 6 , 227-238.
Mahoney, M.J. (1979). Cognitive skills and athletic performance. In P.C. Kendall & S.D.
Hollon (Eds.), Cognitive-behavioral interventions: llzeory, research and procedures
(pp. 423-443). New York: Academic Press.
Mahoney, M.J., & Avener, M. (1977). Psychology of the elite athlete: An exploratory
study. Cognitive flerapy and Research, 1, 135-141.
Mahoney, M.J., Gabriel, T.J., & Perkins, T.S.(1987). Psychological skills and exceptional athletic performance. The Sport Psychologist, 1, 181-199.
McAuley, E. (1985). Modeling and self-efficacy A test of Bandura's model. Journal of
Sport Psychology, 7 , 283-295.
Meyers, A.W., Cooke, C.J., Cullen, J., & Liles, L. (1979). Psychological aspects of
athletic competitors: A replication across sports. Cognitive flerapy and Research,
3, 361-366.
Weinberg, R.S., Gould, D., & Jackson, A. (1979). Expectations and performance: An
empirical test of Bandura's self-efficacy theory. Journal of Sport Psychology, 1,
320-33 1.
140 / GouM, Hodge, Peterson, and Giannini
Notes
'Although the samples for this investigation comprised 101 coaches in Study 1 and
124 coaches in Study 2, the number of coaches representing levels of between-coach difference variables will not always be equal to the total sample size. These discrepancies
are due to missing data, not to errors in calculations. It should also be recognized that
because of the somewhat small subject-@variable ratios in these analyses, significant results
should be treated with caution.
'For the coaching experience variable, categories were created in an effort to maximize differences between variable levels while at the same time placing approximately
an equal number of subjects in each subgroup.
3Coaching experience was trichotomized in the same manner as in Study 1 in an
effort to replicate and extend the findings from Study 1 to Study 2.
Acknowledgments
Study 1of this investigation was partially supported by a grant from USA Wrestling
Science and Medicine. In addition, Study 2 was part of a larger investigation of educational needs of elite amateur coaches sponsored by the U.S. Olympic Committee Special
Committee on Coaches Education. Appreciation is extended to all of the coaches who freely
gave of their time to take part in this investigation.
Manuscript submined: February 26, 1988
Revision received: July 13, 1988
Sports Medicine 1989
A Practical Approach to Caring for Today's Athlete
July 24-28, 1989, The Princess Hotel, San Diego, CA
Credit hours: 22 Category I A W C M A ; 22 AAFP; California BRN; ACEP
pending.
Featured speakers: James Puffer, M.D. ; Richard Strauss,
M.D.; George Sheehan, M.D.
Fees: $335 Physicians; $235 Allied
HealthIResidents.
For further information: Office of Continuing Medical
Education, UC San Diego School of Medicine, M-017 La Jolla, CA
92093-0617. Telephone (619) 534-3940.