CARDIFF SCHOOL OF SPORT
DEGREE OF BACHELOR OF SCIENCE
(HONOURS)
SPORT AND EXERCISE SCIENCE
COMPETITIVE LEVEL AND GENDER
EFFECTS ON THE SOURCES OF
SPORT CONFIDENCE
ANDREW CLARK
09001732
ANDREW CLARK
ST09001732
SCHOOL OF SPORT
UNIVERSITY OF WALES INSTITUTE
CARDIFF
COMPETITIVE LEVEL AND GENDER
EFFECTS ON THE SOURCES OF
SPORT CONFIDENCE
Cardiff Metropolitan University
Prifysgol Fetropolitan Caerdydd
Certificate of student
I certify that the whole of this work is the result of my individual effort, that all
quotations from books and journals have been acknowledged, and that the
word count given below is a true and accurate record of the words contained
(omitting contents pages, acknowledgements, indexes, figures, reference list
and appendices).
Word count:
10,994
Signed:
Date:
04/03/2012
Certificate of Dissertation Tutor responsible
I am satisfied that this work is the result of the student’s own effort.
I have received a dissertation verification file from this student
Signed:
Date:
Notes:
The University owns the right to reprint all or part of this document.
CONTENTS
Abstract
CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction……………………………………………………………………..2
1.2 Sport Psychology………………………………………………………………2
1.3 Self-Confidence ……………………………………………………………….2
1.4 Aim of the study………………………………………………………………..4
CHAPTER 2 – LITURATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………….5
2.2 Self Efficacy Theory…………………………………………………………..5
2.3 Sport Confidence Model……………………………………………………...6
2.4 Advances in Sport Confidence………………………………………………7
2.5 Research Using the Sport Confidence Model…………………………….10
2.6 Comparing Self-Efficacy and Sport Confidence………………………….12
2.7 Rationale for Study…………………………………………………………..14
2.8 Hypotheses…………………………………………………………………...15
CHAPTER 3 – METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction……………………………………………………………………17
3.2 Participants……………………………………………………………………17
3.3 Instrumentation……………………………………………………………….17
3.4 Procedures……………………………………………………………………18
3.5 Data Analysis…………………………………………………………………19
CHAPTER 4 – RESULTS
4.1 Introduction……………………………………………………………………21
4.2 Reliability Testing…………………………………………………………….21
4.3 Assumption Testing………………………………………………………….21
4.4 Multivariate Analysis of Variance…………………………………………..23
CHAPTER 5 – DISCUSSION
5.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………...28
5.2 Competitive Level Effects on Sport Confidence……………………….…28
5.3 Gender Effects on Sport Confidence………………………………………33
5.4 Implications…………………………………………………………………..36
5.4.1 Practical……………………………………………………………….36
5.4.2 Theoretical…………………………………………………………….39
5.4.3 Measurement………………………………………………………….40
5.5 Limitations…………………………………………………………………...40
5.6 Recommendations for Future Research…………………………………42
5.7 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………..43
Reference List…………………………………………………………………….44
Appendices
Appendix A – Information sheet given to participants
Appendix B – Informed consent form
Appendix C – Sources of Sport Confidence Questionnaires
TABLES
Table 2.1
Short and Ross-Stewart’s (2009) comparison of the sources of self-efficacy
and sport confidence
Table 4.1
Original and final coefficient alphas for the subscales of the SSCQ
Table 4.2
Means and standard deviations for the subscales of the SSCQ for elite and
non-elite athletes
Table 4.3
Means and standard deviations for the subscales of the SSCQ for male and
female athletes
FIGURES
Figure 1.1
Vealey’s (1986) Sport Confidence Model
Figure 1.2
Vealey et al.’s (1998) Conceptual model of Sport Confidence
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
To Dr. Owen Thomas for his constant support throughout the dissertation
process.
To all staff at UWIC who have inspired me and helped me throughout my
undergraduate degree.
To the participants who gave their time to take part in the study, for without
their help this would not have been possible.
To my family and friends who have provided continuous support throughout
my time at university.
i
ABSTRACT
This study investigated competitive level and gender effects on the
different sources of sport confidence in order to direct applied practice for
developing athlete confidence. A sample of male (N=18) and female (N=22)
athletes from either an elite (N=20) or non-elite (N=20) competitive level
completed the Sources of Sport Confidence Questionnaire (SSCQ) (Vealey et
al., 1998). They were asked to refer to a time when they felt most confident
when answering the SSCQ. A two factor (competitive level x gender)
multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) revealed no significant
interactions, but highlighted both competitive level and gender main effects.
Competitive level main effects indicated that the importance placed upon
mastery (p<.01) and environmental comfort (p<.05) sources of sport
confidence
were
significantly higher
for
non-elite
athletes,
whereas
demonstration of ability (p<.00) and mental and physical preparation (p<.00)
sources of confidence were significantly higher for elite athletes. Gender main
effects indicated that the importance placed upon vicarious experience
(p<.01) and mental and physical preparation (p<.03) sources of confidence
were significantly higher for male athletes than female athletes. These
findings highlight that differences exist between athletes of different
competitive levels and genders, which suggests that models and interventions
designed to enhance confidence for athletes from one particular competitive
level or gender may not be effective at enhancing confidence for all athletes.
Therefore, practitioners should take an ideographic approach to developing
athlete confidence.
ii
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 INTRODUCTION
The following chapter introduces the field of sports psychology, and
more specifically to this study, self-confidence.
1.2 SPORT PSYCHOLOGY
Although sport psychology is a relatively young domain of research in
comparison to disciplines such as physiology and biomechanics, over the
several decades it has developed and expanded in rapid fashion (Horn,
2008). As the prominence of sport in daily life has continued to grow, the
positive impact of sports psychology on performance has remained a constant
driving force behind much of the research (Kontos & Feltz, 2008).
Psychological aspects of sport can often be seen a major determinant of
success or failure (Horn, 2008), in particular, self-confidence has been found
to be a major determinant of sporting success (Beattie et al., 2010; Kingston,
Lane & Thomas, 2010).
1.3 SELF-CONFIDENCE
Many athletes have been quoted as believing that confidence, or a
belief in oneself, is the most important determinant of sporting success. Mark
Lewis-Francis made this statement after the Great Britain team won the
Olympic gold medal in 2004.
We went out there as a team and believed we could win. I am an
Olympic champion.
(Mark Lewis-Francis)
Sally Gunnell reflected upon the main determinants of her sporting
success.
Confidence is everything. Thinking that I’d eaten no chocolate or
whatever for six months made me ooze confidence. Knowing that I
hadn’t had an injury gave me confidence. The mental side of it played
the biggest part; that was the difference between silver and gold.
(Sally Gunnell)
2
Lee Janzen highlighted the importance of confidence in golf, and
referred to Rodger Bannister’s barrier breaking run in highlighting the effect
confidence can have in sport.
Golfers are better because they think they are. It's like the 4 minute
mile. Roger Bannister did it and 32 people did it the same year. 300
did it the next. Why did all those people suddenly get faster? Because
they believed they could be. (Lee Janzen)
Rodger Bannister running the four minute mile has become one of the
most iconic examples of confidence within sport. Scientists said a four minute
mile could not be done, but an unyielding confidence that it was possible
meant that on the 6th May 1954 the barrier was broken. After that many more
runners ran the mile in under four minutes, and many believe that the main
cause was the belief that it was possible and the confidence that they could
do it.
As well as the anecdotal evidence for the importance of confidence
within sport, it has been extensively researched in the field of sport
psychology, and is widely accepted as a fundamental determinant of sporting
success (Beattie et al., 2010; Kingston et al., 2010). Research into the effects
of self-confidence on sport performance has repeatedly demonstrated that it is
one of the most influential factors in distinguishing successful performance
(Craft, Magyar, Becker and Feltz, 2003; Woodman and Hardy, 2003). Selfconfidence has been found to be related to efficient coping skills (Cresswell &
Hodge, 2004), lower cognitive and somatic anxiety (Vealey et al., 1998), the
anxiety-performance relationship in catastrophe models (Hardy, Woodman, &
Carrington, 2004), adaptive goal orientation (Mills, 1996; Hall & Kerr, 1997),
intrinsic motivation (Vealey et al., 1998) and increased performance (Gould,
Dieffenbach, & Moffett, 2002; Craft, Magyar, Becker, & Feltz, 2003).
Therefore, an understanding of factors that influence confidence is imperative
in order to establish effective intervention strategies to enhance confidence.
3
1.4 AIM OF THE STUDY
Based on the work of previous research into the effects of confidence
within sport, the present study aimed to investigate the influence of
competitive level and gender on confidence.
4
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 INTRODUCTION
The following chapter, split into seven parts, demonstrates a critical
review of the literature in the area of self-efficacy and sport confidence. The
first section introduces Self Efficacy theory (Bandura, 1977), including
definitions and a critique of the major sport research within this domain. The
second section introduces Sport Confidence theory (Vealey, 1986), including
major definitions and evaluation of the effectiveness of the model. The third
section explains the development of the Sport Confidence theory (Vealey et
al., 1998; Vealey et al., 2001). The forth section reviews the research using
the Sport Confidence model, and the impact the research has had on the
understanding of confidence within sport. The fifth section presents a
comparison of Self Efficacy theory (Bandura, 1977) and research using Sport
Confidence theory (Vealey et al., 1998; Hays et al., 2007). The sixth section
provides a rationale for the study. The final section indicates the possible
effects variations in competitive level and gender may have on the importance
placed on the sources of sport confidence.
2.2 SELF EFFICACY THEORY
Bandura (1977) stated that self-efficacy was an individual’s belief that
they can attain a specific level of performance. The belief comes from four
principle sources; performance accomplishments (i.e., doing well at a specific
task), vicarious experiences (i.e., observing peers and role models performing
well), verbal persuasion (i.e., receiving encouragement and support from
significant others) and physiological and emotional states (e.g., high heart rate
indicates you are ready for competition).
As well as the four principle sources of self efficacy, others (Maddux,
1995; Schunk, 1995) have put forward additional sources such as imaginal
experience (separate from vicarious experiences), and physiological states
and emotional states as two separate sources. Bandura (1977) combined
physiological and emotional states as it was believed both have a
physiological basis. However, it has been suggested that in the unique
context of sport they relate to different aspects of performance and should
5
therefore be separated (Feltz & Short, 2008). Physiological state refers to the
cognitive appraisal of physiological systems by an individual in deciding
whether they can successfully meet task demands (Feltz & Short, 2008).
Although physiological states are important in determining emotional states
(Maddux, 1995), emotional states (subjective states of feelings and moods)
are not just the product of physiological states (Feltz & Short, 2008). It is for
this reason that physiological and emotional states are often considered
separate sources.
The sources of efficacy influence an individual’s efficacy expectation,
which can be applied to sporting situations; higher efficacy expectation related
to more successful performance (Bandura, 1977). Despite the popularity of
the Self Efficacy model, it was developed as a framework to explain and
predict psychological change in an individual’s behaviour, and was then
applied to sport (Thomas, Lane & Kingston, 2010). Vealey (1986) suggested
a sport specific framework for confidence was required to improve contextual
clarity.
2.3 SPORT CONFIDENCE MODEL
Vealey’s (1986) model of Sport Confidence provided the first sport
specific framework to operationalise confidence within competitive sport.
Sport confidence was defined as “the degree of certainty that individuals
possess about their ability to be successful in sport” (Vealey, 1986, p 222).
The Sport Confidence model (Vealey, 1986) consisted of three constructs;
competitive orientation (i.e., how an individual defines success), trait sport
confidence (i.e., the degree of certainty an individual usually possesses about
their ability to be successful in sport) and state specific confidence (i.e., the
degree of certainty an individual possesses at a specific moment about their
ability to be successful in sport). The theoretical premise was that an
individual’s competitive orientation and trait confidence would influence their
perception of the sport situation and determine their level of state confidence.
Higher levels of state confidence were associated with positive effects on
behaviour, and low levels of state confidence were associated with negative
6
effects on behaviour. Figure 1.1 illustrates the interaction of the constructs in
the Sport Confidence model.
Objective
Sport
Situation
Trait Sport
Confidence
X
Competitive
Orientation
State Sport
Confidence
Behavioral
Response
Outcomes
Figure 1.1 Vealey’s (1986) Sport Confidence Model
Initial studies into the validity of the Vealey’s (1986) Sport Confidence
model failed to provide empirical support for the predictions of the model (e.g.,
Vealey, 1986; Gayton & Nickless, 1987). The 1986 sport confidence model
was criticised as it failed to show the impact of the social culture of sport on
confidence, and did not determine the specific sources of sport confidence
(Feltz and Short, 2008).
2.4 ADVANCES IN SPORT CONFIDENCE
Vealey et al.’s (1998) revised model of Sport Confidence was
developed to create a framework from which researchers and practitioners
could work from to study and enhance confidence in sport (Hays et al., 2009).
A major criticism of the 1986 Sport Confidence model (Vealey, 1986) was that
it failed to show the impact of social culture upon the development of sport
confidence. The introduction of organisational and personality factors in the
7
revised Sport Confidence model (Vealey et al., 1998) showed the interaction
of these factors and the effect they had on confidence. Vealey et al.’s (1998)
model of Sport Confidence predicted that the organisational culture of sport,
and the personality factors, attitudes and values of the individual, influenced
the development of confidence within athletes. The subsequent level of sport
confidence influenced an athlete’s thoughts, feelings and behaviors, which
ultimately determined sporting performance. Figure 1.2 illustrates the
interaction of the different factors in the 1998 Sport Confidence model (Vealey
et al., 1998).
Figure 1.2 Vealey et al.’s (1998) Conceptual model of Sport Confidence
Vealey et al. (1998) identified sources of confidence that were salient
to athletes, which were separated into three domains; achievement (mastery
and demonstration of ability), self-regulation (mental and physical preparation
and physical self presentation) and social climate (social support, vicarious
experience, coaches leadership, environmental comfort and situational
favourableness). An athlete’s level of sport confidence was determined by the
importance the individual placed on each source of confidence. Vealey et al.
(1998) investigated which sources were the most effective predictors of the
8
level of sport confidence. Higher levels of sport confidence were related to
focusing on mental and physical preparation, whereas lower levels were
related to focusing on body image (Vealey et al., 1998). Uncontrollable
sources such as demonstration of ability, environmental comfort and
situational favourableness were suggested to be debilitating to confidence
stability (Vealey et al., 1998). It was concluded that the domain from which an
athlete sourced their confidence determined their level of sport confidence
(Vealey et al., 1998). The study was also used to validate the Sources of
Sport Confidence Questionnaire (SSCQ). The SSCQ was developed as a
method of testing the importance placed on the sources of sport confidence
by an individual. Vealey et al. (1998) reported acceptable reliability scores for
all nine sources of sport confidence of between .71 and .93. Despite the poor
fit of the hypothesised SSCQ in Wilson et al.’s (2004) validation study, in
which little support was found situational favourableness as a source of
confidence, sampling error was highlighted as a possible cause of the poor fit
(Wilson et al., 2004).
One of the major limitations of Vealey et al.’s (1998) study was the lack
of variation within the sample in terms of competitive level; all athletes tested
were competing at a collegiate level. The level at which an athlete competes
(e.g., novice, intermediate or elite) will be referred to throughout as
“competitive level”. The findings from the study could only be applied to
athletes of a similar competitive level. Further research into the relationship
between the sources of sport confidence and competitive level was needed to
determine the extent to which findings using athletes from one competitive
level can be used by sport psychologists and coaches to enhance confidence
in athletes of a different competitive level. The present study addressed this
weakness by investigating the relationship of the sources of sport confidence
across athletes of different competitive levels.
9
2.5 RESEARCH USING THE SPORT CONFIDENCE MODEL
Hays et al. (2007) conducted an inductive qualitative study into the
sources of sport confidence identified by world class athletes. It as believed
that a qualitative investigation could give greater insight into the influence of
the sources of confidence presented by Vealey et al. (1998). Fourteen world
class athletes from a number of different sporting backgrounds were
interviewed to discover their sources of sport confidence. This allowed for a
more in depth investigation than had been conducted by previous studies
(Hays et al., 2007). It emerged that many of the sources presented by Vealey
et al. (1998) were salient within the world class athletes interviewed. However,
additional sources (holistic preparation, innate ability, and the organisational
factors of sport) and a lack of support for physical self presentation and
situation favourableness emerged as distinct variations of those proposed by
Vealey et al. (1998). It was suggested that this might have occurred due to the
elite athlete sample used within the study (Hays et al., 2007). It is likely that
world
class
athletes do
not
use
self
presentation
and
situational
favourableness as sources of confidence due to the experience they have in
competitive sport. Hays et al.’s (2007) study further illustrates the suggestion
that further research is needed to determine the impact of competitive level on
the sources of sport confidence.
Hays et al. (2007) also studied gender differences within world class
athletes. It was discovered that gender differences existed within the sources
of sport confidence in world class athletes. Females placed more importance
on good personal performance than males, who gained more confidence from
winning (Hays et al. 2007). It was also found that although both male and
female athletes considered social support to be an important source of
confidence, they differed in their interpretation of the origin of social support;
male athletes placed more importance on social support from family and
friends whereas female athletes placed greater importance on social support
from their coaches. Hays et al. (2007) showed evidence of gender differences
within the Sport Confidence model, and extensively studied the sources used
by world class athletes. However, the sample used consisted of elite athletes
10
only, and so the findings cannot be generalised to athletes of other
competitive levels. Further research was needed to study athletes of different
competitive levels in order to further understand the sources salient to
athletes across the sporting population. The study also used a small sample
of male and female athletes, decreasing the reliability of the inferences made
regarding gender differences. A larger sample of male and female athletes
was needed to further investigate the relationship between sport confidence
and gender. The present study addressed this weakness by using a larger
sample size of male and female athletes from different competitive levels.
Kingston et al. (2010) studied gender differences whilst examining
temporal changes in the sources of sport confidence for elite athletes. An
adapted version of the SSCQ was completed by a large sample of elite
individual athletes at five pre competition phases. The adapted SSCQ allowed
for a specific temporal aspect of self-confidence to be measured (Kingston et
al., 2010). This assessed the temporal changes in the sources of sport
confidence at each of the different pre-competition phases. It was found that
sources involving demonstration of ability, mental and physical preparation,
physical self presentation and situational favourableness changed during the
temporal phases of pre competition (Kingston et al., 2010). A gender
comparison revealed that female athletes had a greater reliance of social
support, environmental comfort and coach’s leadership as sources of
confidence than male athletes. This further illustrates the significance of
gender differences in Sport Confidence. The large sample size used within
the study increases the reliability of the inferences made regarding the
relationship between gender and confidence. However, the sample consisted
of elite individual athletes only, which means the findings cannot necessarily
be generalised to athletes from different competitive levels and team sport
participants. Both Kingston et al. (2010) and Hays et al. (2007) suggest further
research is required to establish the relationship between athletes of different
competitive levels and the sources of sport confidence.
11
2.6 COMPARING SELF EFFIACY AND SPORT CONFIDENCE
Short and Ross-Stewart (2009) discussed the commonalities between
the Sport Confidence (Vealey et al., 1998) and Self Efficacy (Bandura, 1977)
theories. In their review they stated that both are conceptualised as cognitive
mediators that affect peoples behaviour within a goal context. However, the
goals are more broadly defined in sport confidence than those of self-efficacy.
Short and Ross-Stewart (2009) made comparisons between the
sources of confidence identified by Vealey et al. (1998) and Hays et al. (2007)
for the Sport Confidence model, and Bandura’s (1977) Self Efficacy model.
Table 1. gives a description of each source of confidence, and an indication of
which sources were identified by Bandura (1977), Vealey et al. (1998) and
Hays et al. (2007), along with the particular name given to the source by each
researcher.
Table 2.1
Short and Ross-Stewart’s (2009) comparison of the sources of
self-efficacy and sport confidence
Description of
Bandura
Vealey et al. (1998)
Hays et al. (2007)
✓
✓
✓
Performance
Mastery
Performance
source
Past performances,
past skill development,
etc.
accomplishments
accomplishments
Demonstration of ability
Experience
Comparing one’s skill
✓
✓
✓
Vicarious experiences
Vicarious experiences
Competitive advantage
✓
✓
✓
Verbal persuasion
Social support
Coaching
level to others
Feedback from
coaches, friends and
parents, that lends
support to athlete
Social support
12
Feeling physically fit
✓
✓
✓
Physiological states
Physical and mental
Preparation
due to how they look or
due to physiological
preparation
information
Psychological
✓
✓
✓
Emotional states
Physical and mental
Preparation
(emotionally or
mentally) being
preparation
prepared
Seeing one’s self
Self Awareness
✓
✓
✓
Imaginal states
Physical and mental
Preparation
succeeding in one’s
mind
preparation
Belief in one’s coach to
✓
✓
✓
Verbal persuasion
Coaches leadership
Coaching
put them in the best
situation
✓
Feeling like the breaks
are going your way
Situational
favourableness
✓
Perception of how one
looks
Physical self
presentation
✓
Feeling confortable in
the situation
Emotional comfort
✓
Feeling as though they
were born with an
Innate factors
innate ability to be
successful in their sport
Feeling secure with
✓
✓
Verbal persuasion
Trust
one’s team mates
and/or coaches
13
Table 2.1. shows the similarities of the two different models in the
underlying sources of confidence. Hays et al.’s (2007) study in particular adds
support to the sources presented in the Self Efficacy theory (Bandura, 1977),
as many of the sources identified as being salient to world-class athletes were
similar to those in the Self Efficacy theory. However, as Feltz et al. (2008)
stated, the distinct social nature of sport suggests that athletes place greater
importance on social support networks than those presented in the Self
Efficacy theory (Bandura, 1977). Therefore, the sport specific framework of
the Sport Confidence model can be seen as a more effective mechanism than
the Self Efficacy theory for measuring confidence within sport.
Vealey and Chase (2008) discussed the similarities between Self
Efficacy theory (Bandura, 1977) and the Sport Confidence theory (Vealey et
al., 1998) regarding the influence of socio-cultural factors on behaviour. They
stated that although there is a clear overlap with the sources of efficacy belief
identified in Self Efficacy theory (Bandura, 1977) and the sources of sport
confidence, the sources that determine sport confidence focus more
specifically on the competitive and training environments of sport. The Sport
Confidence model and measurement instruments (SSCQ) were developed as
a sport specific framework for the unique context of competitive sport (Vealey
& Chase, 2008).
2.7 RATIONALE FOR STUDY
Research using the Sport Confidence model (Vealey et al., 1998) has
shown that gender differences exist in the importance athletes place on the
different sources of sport confidence (Hays et al., 2007; Hays et al., 2009;
Kingston et al., 2010). However, previous research has failed to show the
relationship between sources of confidence and competitive level. It cannot be
assumed that athletes of different competitive levels place the same
importance on the sources of confidence. An investigation into the sources of
confidence salient to athletes of different competitive levels would further the
understanding of sport confidence and develop the use of effective methods
to enhance confidence in athletes. If it is found that athletes of different
14
competitive levels place the same importance on the sources of sport
confidence, then sport psychologists and coaches can use the findings of the
studies on elite athletes to enhance confidence in athletes of all competitive
levels. If different levels of importance are placed on the sources of
confidence, then the research conducted on elite athletes cannot be
generalised to athletes of different competitive levels. The findings of the
study will aid in the development of models to enhance confidence in athletes
of all competitive levels. The present study will conduct a gender comparison
across different competitive levels to validate the findings of previous research
regarding gender differences, and establish the relationship between sources
of sport confidence and competitive level.
2.8 HYPOTHESES
From critiquing previous research four main hypotheses have emerged:
1. Elite and non-elite athletes will place different levels of importance on
the sources of confidence within the Sport Confidence model.
2. Elite and non-elite athlete will show no significant difference in the
levels of importance they place on the sources of confidence within the
Sport Confidence model.
3. Male and female athletes will place different levels of importance on
the different sources of confidence within the Sport Confidence model.
4. Male and female athlete will show no significant difference in the levels
of importance they place on the sources of confidence within the Sport
Confidence model.
15
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
3.1 INTRODUCTION
The following chapter describes the participants characteristics, the
instrumentation used, the data collection procedures and the data analysis
process of the study.
3.2 PARTICIPANTS
The participants (N=40) consisted of male (N=18) and female (N=22)
individual athletes who had competed in a trampolining or gymnastic
competition in the last twelve months. It was deemed that due to the
similarities in the training environments and the subjective nature of judgment
in competition, reliable inferences could be made from the data collected from
the two different sports. Athletes were separated into either an elite (athletes
who had competed at an international competition) or non-elite (athletes who
had competed in a national competition or below) sample. The sample
consisted of elite (N=20) and non-elite (N=20) athletes. All participants were
above 18 year of age. Following institutional ethics approval all participants
provided voluntary informed written consent.
3.3 INSTRUMENTATION
Sources of Sport Confidence Questionnaire (SSCQ). The SSCQ
(Vealey et al., 1998) was used to assess participant’s sources of sport
confidence. The SSCQ consisted of 43 items across nine subscales; mastery
(5 items), demonstration of ability (6 items), mental and physical preparation
(6 items), physical self presentation (3 items), social support (6 items),
coach’s leadership (5 items), vicarious experience (5 items), environmental
comfort (4 items) and situational favourableness (3 items). For this study, the
participants were asked to answer the SSCQ with reference to a situation in
which they felt very confident. A Lickert scale ranging from 1 (not at all
important) to 7 (of the highest importance) for the importance placed upon
17
each source of confidence by the individual was used for all items. Subscale
scores were calculated as a mean score of all items within each individual
subscale.
Vealey et al. (1998) reported acceptable reliability scores for all nine
sources of sport confidence of between .71 and .93. Despite the poor fit of the
hypothesized SSCQ in Wilson et al.’s (2004) validation study, in which little
support was found situational favourableness as a source of confidence, the
full 43 item SSCQ was used due to the sampling error highlighted as a
possible cause of the poor fit (Wilson et al., 2004). Due to discrepancies of the
reliability of the SSCQ within previous research (e.g., Vealey et al., 1998;
Wilson et al., 2004), a reliability analysis of the SSCQ was completed prior to
variance analysis in order to establish internal reliability.
3.4 PROCEDURES
Following discussions with coaches and organisers, potential athletes
were approached before a normal training session. Athletes were informed
that the researcher was interested in understanding the effect competitive
level and gender have on confidence in sport (See Appendix A). They were
then given the opportunity to ask any questions regarding the research
project. Once each participant had completed the informed consent form (See
Appendix B), they were asked to complete the SSCQ (See Appendix C). It
was emphasised that there were no right or wrong answers and participants
were encouraged to answer each question as honestly as possible.
Participants were asked to refer to a time when they felt very confident whilst
answering the SSCQ, removing temporal aspects used in previous studies
(e.g., Kingston et al., 2010). Temporal aspects of the SSCQ were removed
from this study as it was believed that more reliable inferences could be made
when all athletes referred to a time when they felt most confident. Athletes are
more likely to be referring to similar levels of sport confidence when
answering the SSCQ in relation to a time when they felt most confident, rather
than how they generally feel. It was believed that more reliable inferences
could be made if all athletes were referring to similar levels of sport
18
confidence. The sample used can be viewed as a convenience sample of elite
and non-elite athletes who were taking part in the training sessions attended
by the researcher.
3.5 DATA ANALYSIS
As recommended by Tabachnick and Fidell (1996), data was prescreened for internal reliability and statistical assumptions (i.e., multivariate
normality, homogeneity of variance, linearity and multicollinearity). The
subscales that achieved Cronbach’s Alpha values above .7 were accepted as
having good reliability as advocated by Nunnally (1978). Kline (1999)
highlights the issues associated with quantitatively testing psychological
constructs and notes that Cronbach’s Alpha values below .7 can be expected
due to the diversity of the constructs being measured. Any subscales that had
values of between .7 and .6 were screened to measure the degree of scale
variance. Any items that had Corrected Item-Total Correlation scores of less
than .3 were removed from the subscale as advocated by Field (2009). Any
items that caused an increase in Cronbach’s Alpha value of more then .05
when deleted were also removed from the subscales (Field, 2009). Once the
items had been deleted a reliability analysis using only the remaining data
was completed to ensure item deletion had not affected overall reliability.
Primary analysis involved a two factor (gender x competitive level)
multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA). MANOVA identified any
competitive level x gender interactions and main effects in the subscales of
the SSCQ. Any variable that achieved statistical significance of .05 or below
were then tested using a univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA) analysis to
identify the magnitude of the difference. Any subscale that obtained
significance values of .05 or below were categorized as being statistical
significant.
19
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
4.1 INTRODUCTION
The following chapter presents the results from the reliability testing,
Mulivariate Analysis of Variance and the regression analysis that were
conducted as part of the method in the study.
4.2 RELIABILITY TESTING
Original reliability scores and final reliability scores after item deletion
for each of the subscales within the SSCQ are presented in Table 4.1.
Demonstration of ability, social support, mental and physical preparation,
mastery, physical self presentation, coach’s leadership and vicarious
experience all exceeded the .70 alpha criterion as advocated by Nunnally
(1978).
Situational favourableness and environmental comfort both achieved
alpha values less then .70. Results showed that situational favourableness
item 3 was significantly decreasing the alpha value for the subscale, and was
subsequently removed. The removal of the item increased Cronbach’s alpha
from .67 to .75, which exceeded the minimum alpha criterion. Environmental
comfort item 2 had a corrected item-total correlation below the minimum .30,
and was significantly decreasing the alpha value for the subscale, and was
therefore removed. The removal of the item increased Cronbach’s alpha from
.67 to .85. Removal of the stated items resulted in all subscales of the SSCQ
reaching acceptable alpha values.
4.3 ASSUMPTION TESTING
All fundamental assumptions put forward by Tabachnick and Fidell
(1996) associated with the use of MANOVA were met. Although cell sizes
were not equal (male N=18, female N=22), the ratio of largest to smallest cell
size was less than 1-1.5, which should not affect the analysis process
(Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996). Therefore, although cell sizes were not equal
they were not of concern. Homogeneity of variance-covariance was tested
using a Box’s M test. Tabachnick and Fidell (1996) suggest that equal sample
21
Table 4.1 Original and final coefficient alphas for the subscales of the SSCQ
Original 
Final 
Demonstration of ability
.93
.93
Social Support
.73
.73
Mental and physical preparation
.80
.80
Mastery
.84
.84
Situational favourableness
.67
.73
Environmental comfort
.67
.85
Physical self presentation
.85
.85
Coach’s leadership
.81
.81
Vicarious experience
.90
.90
22
sizes offer robustness against the assumption of variance-covariance.
Therefore, the result of the Box’s M test for competitive level comparison (elite
N=20), non-elite N=20) was disregarded. The Box’s M test was of significance
for the gender comparison due to the unequal sample sizes (male N=18,
female N=22). However, the significance value were not less than 0.001
suggesting homogeneity of variance-covariance at the multivariate level
(Field, 2009). All subscales apart from mastery and situational favourableness
achieved Levene’s test significance greater than .05 suggesting the
assumption of homogeneity is tenable (Field, 2009). The significance values
of lower than .05 for mastery and situational favourableness suggested the
assumption of homogeneity of variances had been violated. Therefore, Pillia’s
trace was chosen as the most appropriate test statistic due to its robustness
over possible assumption violations (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996; Field, 2009).
4.4 MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
Results from the two factor (competitive level x gender) MANOVA
failed to reveal any significant interactions, which suggests that males and
females from elite and non-elite backgrounds place similar importance on the
sources of sport confidence. However, multivariate competitive level (p=.00)
and gender (p=.02) main effects were identified.
Competitive Level Effects. Mean totals and standard deviations for the
competitive level comparison are presented in Table 4.2. MANOVA indicated
a significant competitive level main effect (Pillai’s trace = .73, F (9,28) = 8.55,
p = .00). Follow up univariate ANOVAs showed that significant differences
existed for mastery (p =.01); demonstration of ability (p =.00); environmental
comfort (p =.05) and mental and physical preparation (p = .00). Non-elite
athletes placed significantly more importance than elite athletes on mastery
and environmental comfort, whereas elite athletes placed significantly more
importance than non-elite athletes on demonstration of ability and mental and
physical preparation.
23
Table 4.2 Means and standard deviations for the subscales of the SSCQ for
elite and non-elite athletes
Mastery**
Demonstration of ability*
Mental and Physical Preparation*
Physical Self Presentation
Social Support
Vicarious Experience
Environmental Comfort***
Situational Favourableness
Leadership
Competitive Level
Mean
Std. Devi
Elite
5.15
058
Non elite
5.64
0.73
Elite
5.43
0.99
Non elite
4.27
1.25
Elite
5.52
0.59
Non elite
4.72
0.75
Elite
4.67
1.64
Non elite
3.82
1.55
Elite
4.85
0.65
Non elite
5.20
0.79
Elite
4.13
1.20
Non elite
4.62
1.20
Elite
4.60
1.27
Non elite
5.25
1.08
Elite
3.10
1.38
Non elite
3.85
1.28
Elite
5.05
0.97
Non elite
5.31
0.93
Note. * = significant difference; p<.001
** = significant difference; p<.01
*** = significant difference; p<.05
24
Gender Effects. Mean totals and standard deviations from the gender
comparison are presented in Table 4.3. MANOVA indicated a significant
gender main effect (Pillai’s trace = .46, F (9,28) = 2.68, p = .02). Follow up
univariate ANOVAs showed that a significant difference existed for vicarious
experience (p = .01) and mental and physical preparation (p =.03). Male
athletes placed significantly more importance than female athletes on
vicarious experience and physical and mental preparation as sources of sport
confidence.
25
Table 4.3 Means and standard deviations for the subscales of the SSCQ for
male and female athletes
Mastery
Demonstration of ability
Mental and Physical Preparation**
Physical Self Presentation
Social Support
Vicarious Experience*
Environmental Comfort
Situational Favourableness
Leadership
Gender
Mean
Std. Deviation
Male
5.51
0.72
Female
5.30
0.68
Male
4.97
1.44
Female
4.74
1.11
Male
5.32
0.68
Female
4.95
0.83
Male
3.78
1.66
Female
4.62
1.54
Male
4.99
0.64
Female
5.05
0.82
Male
4.94
0.95
Female
3.91
1.21
Males7
4.80
1.24
Female4
5.03
1.20
Males9
3.56
1.60
Female9
3.41
1.18
Males3
5.01
1.00
Female1
5.32
0.90
Note. * = significant difference; p<.01
** = significant difference; p<.05
26
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION
5.1 INTRODUCTION
Based on Vealey et al.’s (1998) Sport Confidence Model, the present
study primarily investigated the effect competitive level and gender had on
importance placed on the sources of sport confidence. Although no interaction
effects were found between gender and competitive level, significant main
effects were established for competitive level and gender separately.
The following chapter, spilt into six parts, presents a discussion of the
findings of the study and makes comparisons to the findings of previous
research. The first section discusses competitive level effects on the sources
of sport confidence. The second discusses gender effects on the sources of
sport confidence. The third highlights the practical, theoretical and
measurement implications of the results of the present study. The forth
section discusses limitations of research design and results of the present
study. The fifth section provides recommendations for future research
investigating competitive level or gender effects on sport confidence, and the
chapter ends with an overall conclusion to the study.
5.2 COMPETITIVE LEVEL EFFECTS ON SPORT CONFIDENCE
In the sample of elite and non-elite athletes used within the present
study, there was a significant difference in the importance each group placed
upon the different sources of sport confidence associated with mastery,
demonstration of ability, physical and mental preparation and environmental
comfort.
Non-elite athletes placed significantly more importance on mastery as
a source of confidence than elite athletes. Mastery was ranked as the most
important source of sport confidence for non-elite athletes, as opposed to the
third most important source for elite athletes. The ranking of mastery for elite
athletes is consistent with previous findings (e.g., Kingston et al., 2010). It is
unsurprising that non-elite athletes ranked mastery as more important to their
confidence than elite athletes as they are much more likely to be at a stage of
athletic development where a key aim is to master new skills, which may not
be the case for elite athletes who are likely to focus more on consistency of
28
performance rather than mastering new skills. Vealey et al. (1998) suggested
that deriving confidence from mastery based sources would produce stable
beliefs, and has also been associated with improved effort and increased
perceived competence (Duda et al., 1995). Therefore, the importance nonelite athletes place upon mastery as a source of sport confidence can be
viewed as a positive indicator of confidence stability in non-elite athletes.
Although mastery based sources have been shown to be beneficial to
confidence stability, the results of the present study would suggest elite
athletes do not gain confidence primarily from mastery based sources.
Environmental comfort appeared significantly more important to nonelite athletes than elite athletes, ranked as the third most important source of
sport confidence in contrast to the seventh most important for elite athletes.
The low ranking of environmental comfort as a source of confidence for elite
athletes is consistent with qualitative research (Hays et al., 2007) in which it
was demonstrated that world class athletes placed very little importance on
environmental comfort. Due to the unstable perceptions of competence
associated with environmental comfort (Vealey et al., 1998), it was unlikely
that the world class athletes used within Hays et al.’s (2007) sample would
place high levels of importance on it as a source of confidence. Elite athletes
are more likely to have competed in a variety of different environments, as
venues for competitions such as the world championships change each year.
Although elite athletes may gain confidence from competing in a particular
environment, it is important that their confidence is not negatively affected by
such factors as changes in venue, as they are likely to have to compete in
many different environments. Non-elite athletes are much less likely to have
been exposed to as many different environments as elite athletes, as many of
the competitions they attend will be at only a few different regional or national
venues. Therefore, non-elite athletes may gain confidence from competing in
a particular environment they are familiar with and have competed in many
times before. Vealey et al. (1998) proposed that athletes that derive
confidence from uncontrollable sources such as the environment are much
more likely to develop unstable perceptions of control and competence.
Therefore, non-elite athletes who place greater importance on environmental
29
comfort as a source of confidence could be at risk of developing unstable
perceptions of control and competence.
Mental and physical preparation was found to be significantly more
important to elite athletes than non-elite athletes. It was ranked as the most
important source of confidence for elite athletes, supporting the findings of
previous research (e.g., Hays et al., 2007; Hays et al., 2009; Kingston et al.,
2010) regarding the importance of mental and physical preparation for elite
and world class athletes. The difference in the importance of preparation
between elite and non-elite athletes could be a result of the experience elite
athletes have in competition, and the likelihood that they have developed
effective mental and physical preparation routines. Non-elite athletes may not
have been exposed to the psychological training and resources elite athletes
have access to, which would suggest they are less likely to have developed
the appropriate skills for effective mental preparation before competition
(Hays et al., 2007). Therefore, they are much less likely to rely on mental and
physical preparation as a source of confidence. Vealey et al. (1998)
emphasized the importance of deriving confidence from controllable sources
such as physical and mental preparation in order to produce stable levels of
sport confidence. The findings of this study and previous studies (e.g.,
Kingston et al., 2010) would suggest that the importance elite athletes place
on mental and physical preparation as a source of sport confidence will have
positive effects on confidence stability. The significantly lower importance
placed on mental and physical preparation by non-elite athletes could be
detrimental to confidence stability if greater importance is placed on
uncontrollable sources of confidence.
Demonstration of ability was found to be significantly more important
for elite athletes than non-elite athletes as a source of sport confidence. Elite
athletes ranked demonstration of ability as the second most importance
source of confidence; adding support to previous findings (e.g., Kingston et
al., 2010) that suggested demonstration of ability was the highest ranked
source of confidence for elite athletes. It is also consistent with the findings of
Hays et al. (2007) that performance accomplishment, which according to
Short and Ross-Stewart (2009) is based on similar sources to demonstration
of ability, was identified as an important source of sport confidence for all the
30
world class athletes interviewed. Demonstration of ability was ranked as the
seventh most important source of confidence for non-elite athletes. Elite
athletes have a much higher level of ability than non-elite athletes, which is
likely to increase the amount of confidence they gain from the demonstration
of that ability. Vealey et al. (1998) suggested that demonstration of ability was
based on uncontrollable factors, and therefore deriving confidence from such
sources can lead to the development of unstable and fluctuating confidence.
Despite the possible detrimental effects demonstration of ability may have on
confidence stability, it is possible that elite athletes gain confidence from a
perception of feeling superior and demonstrating that superiority (Hays et al,
2007). Although higher levels of confidence are associated with elite athletes
(Craft et al., 2003; Woodman & Hardy, 2003), it can be viewed as a positive
that non-elite athletes place significantly lower levels of importance than elite
athletes on demonstration of ability as a source of sport confidence due to the
possible detrimental effects it can have on confidence stability from a reliance
on uncontrollable factors.
Vicarious experience did not emerge as being significantly different for
elite and non-elite athletes. However, the mean score for elite athletes was
lower than non-elite athletes, which is consistent with the suggestion that elite
athletes are less likely to derive confidence from observing other athletes
performing successfully (Hays et al., 2007). Previous research (Vealey et al.,
1998; Kingston et al., 2010) showed that elite athletes placed lower levels of
importance on vicarious experience than high school athletes. This also
supports the suggestion that elite athletes gain less confidence from vicarious
experience. Although several studies have found vicarious experience to be
an important mechanism for enhancing confidence (e.g., Hardy, Jones &
Gould, 2001; Jones, Hanton & Connaughton, 2002), the results of the present
study and previous research would suggest that it is more of an important
source of confidence for non-elite athletes.
Physical self presentation did not produce significant results. However,
the results of the present study are of considerable interest regarding the
inconsistency of physical self presentation as a source of confidence in
previous research (e.g., Vealey et al., 1998; Hays et al., 2007). Hays et al.
(2007) found that physical self presentation was not an important source of
31
confidence identified by world class athletes. Findings of the present study
suggest elite athletes place more importance on physical self presentation
than non-elite athletes, which adds support for Vealey et al.’s (1998) proposal
that the nature of elite sport and the emphasis placed on body type and
presentation might explain the importance elite athletes place on physical self
presentation as a source of sport confidence. This is of particular relevance in
subjectively judged sports such as trampolining and gymnastics in which
athletes’ body shape is emphasized due to the cloths worn by athletes. Focus
on perceptions of body type and looking good have been identified as a
source of stress (Hanton, Fletcher & Coughlan, 2005). Therefore the greater
importance placed on physical self presentation by elite athletes can be seen
to be possibly debilitating to confidence maintenance.
Situational favourableness scored very poorly in terms of importance
placed on it as a source of confidence for both elite and non-elite athletes.
This would suggest that very little confidence is gained from it as a source of
confidence. This is inconsistent with previous findings (Kingston et al., 2010)
that found elite athletes placed moderate levels of importance on situational
favourableness. A possible cause of this inconsistency is the sample used
within the present study. Although Kingston et al. (2010) used individual
athletes, they came from a range of different sporting backgrounds. The
present study focused on the investigation of athletes from a gymnastic and
trampolining background. The nature of judgment in both sports, in which
athletes are scored against a perfect routine and consistency of judgment is a
fundamental requirement, means athletes are much less likely to experience
feelings that decisions are going their way. Therefore, it is unsurprising that
situational favourableness was not considered an important source of
confidence for the athletes in this study.
Reliability testing of the situational favourableness subscale revealed
issues of subscale reliability, which led to one of the items being removed
from testing. Wilson et al. (2004) also found very little evidence of situational
favourableness as a source of confidence for master athletes. All item
measurements for situational favourableness in Wilson et al.’s (2004) study
were problematic, which resulted in it being unrepresented within their revised
8-factor structure of sources of sport confidence. Although some support was
32
found for situational favourableness within the present study, and two of the
items for the subscale achieved acceptable reliability values, it highlights
possible issues with situational favourableness as a source of confidence, and
its measurement within the SSCQ.
The results of the study suggest that significant differences exist in the
importance athletes of different competitive levels place on some of the
sources of sport confidence. Mastery and environmental comfort were found
to
be
significantly
more
important
to
non-elite
athletes,
whereas
demonstration of ability and mental and physical preparation were significantly
more important to elite athletes. Although situational favourableness, vicarious
experience and physical self-presentation did not achieve significantly
different values between elite and non-elite athletes, the results were
consistent with previous research, and further highlights the effect competitive
level has on the importance placed on the sources of sport confidence.
5.3 GENDER EFFECTS ON SPORT CONFIDENCE
In the sample of male and female athletes used within the present
study, there was a significant difference in the importance male and female
athletes placed on the sources of sport confidence associated with vicarious
experience and mental and physical preparation.
Male athletes placed significantly more importance than female
athletes on vicarious experience as a source of sport confidence. Previous
research into gender effects (e.g., Vealey et al., 1998; Kingston et al., 2010)
found no significant difference in the importance placed on vicarious
experience between male and female athletes. This would suggest that the
significant difference found in this study might be a result of the individuals
used within the male and female samples. Further research into gender
effects on the importance placed on vicarious experience is required to
establish reliable inferences. Vicarious experience has been demonstrated to
be an important means of enhancing confidence (e.g., Hardy et al., 2001;
Jones et al., 2002). Therefore, the significantly greater importance placed on
33
vicarious experience by male athletes could be facilitative to the level of
confidence experienced by male athletes.
Male athletes placed significantly more importance than female
athletes on mental and physical preparation as a source of confidence. This
finding is inconsistent with previous research (e.g., Vealey et al., 1998;
Kingston et al., 2010) that found similar levels for both male and female
athletes. Hays et al. (2007) found that all world class athletes interviewed
highlighted the importance of preparation as a source of confidence.
However, more male athletes than female athletes emphasized the
importance of mental preparation, which suggests that there may be gender
differences in the importance placed on specifically mental preparation.
Although gender effects were found in the importance placed on mental and
physical preparation, it is not possible to make inferences regarding the
importance placed on mental and physical preparation separately. Mental and
physical preparation has been found to positively influence confidence
stability (Vealey et al., 1998). Therefore, the results of the present study would
suggest male athletes are more likely to development stable levels of sport
confidence.
Significant gender effects were not found for mastery as a source of
confidence. However, mastery was the most importance source for male
athletes, and the second most important for female athletes, highlighting the
importance of mastery as a source of confidence. Previous research (e.g.,
Hays et al., 2007; Kingston et al., 2010) found that females placed greater
importance on mastery sources than male athletes. Although the finding that
male athletes rank mastery as more important than female athletes is
inconsistent with previous research, the difference between the importance
placed on mastery was very small. Previous research (Kingston et al., 2010)
used only elite athletes, whereas the sample in the present study consisted of
both elite and non-elite athletes. Female athletes from the present study and
Kingston et al.’s (2010) study both scored mastery as similarly important.
However, male athletes in the present study placed greater importance on
mastery as a source of confidence than the male athletes in Kingston et al.’s
(2010) study. As previously discussed, elite athletes were found to place
significantly lower levels of importance on mastery based sources than non34
elite athletes. The sample of elite athletes within the present study consisted
of more female (N=22) than male (N=18) athletes, whereas the sample of
non-elite athletes consisted of an even distribution of female (N=20) and male
(N=20) athletes. Therefore, the higher proportion of female elite athletes
within the female sample is likely to have decreased the overall mean for the
importance placed on mastery as a source of confidence. The higher
proportion of male non-elite athletes within the male sample is likely to have
increased the overall mean for the importance placed on mastery as a source
of confidence. Therefore, the sample used with the study might have caused
the differences between the results of the present study and previous
research.
The male and female athletes tested in the study placed a similar level
of importance on social support. However, social support was ranked as the
third most important source of confidence for female athletes and fifth most
important for male athletes. The finding that female athletes rank social
support higher than male athletes is consistent with previous research (e.g.,
Vealey et al., 1998; Hays et al., 2007; Kingston et al., 2010). Hays et al.
(2007) found that although both male and female world class athletes
reported social support as an important source of confidence, their
interpretation of the source differed. Female athletes related social support to
their coaches, whereas male athletes tended to relate social support to family
and friends. Coach’s leadership was found to be the most importance source
of confidence for female athletes in the present study. Kingston et al. (2010)
suggest that as female athletes relate social support to their coaches, they
may place a greater importance on coach’s leadership as a source of
confidence. The findings of the present study support this suggestion, but
further research is required to determine the effect of social support and
coach’s leadership on confidence.
Situational favourableness was ranked as the least importance source
of confidence for both male and female athletes. Kingston et al. (2010) found
that both male and female athletes placed moderate levels of importance on
situational favourableness, which differed from Wilson et al. (2004) and Hays
et al. (2007) who found limited support for situational favourableness as a
source of sport confidence. As previously discussed, a possible cause of the
35
inconsistency between the findings in the present study and those of Kingston
et al. (2010) could be the sample of athletes used within the present study
who came from only a trampolining or gymnastic background as opposed to
the variety of different sports tested in previous research (Kingston et al.,
2010). The low ranking of situational favourableness adds support for Wilson
et al.’s (2004) suggestion that as there is limited support for situational
favourableness it may not be a valid source of confidence within the sport
confidence model. Further research is required to establish the validity of
situational favourableness as a source of sport confidence.
The results of the study suggest that significant gender differences
exist in the importance placed on vicarious experience and mental and
physical preparation sources of sport confidence. Differences in social support
and coach’s leadership were also found within the sample tested. Mastery
was found to be highly important for both male and female athletes,
highlighting the importance of mastery as a source of sport confidence.
Situational favourableness was ranked as the least important source of
confidence for both male and female athletes, suggesting that neither male
nor female athletes in the sample used perceived it as an important source of
confidence.
5.4 IMPLICATIONS
The following sub section will outline the practical, theoretical and
measurement implications of the findings from the study.
5.4.1 PRACTICAL
According to Vealey et al. (1998), it is practical to consider the nine
sources of sport confidence in three separate domains; achievement (mastery
and demonstration of ability), self-regulation (mental and physical preparation
and physical self presentation) and social climate (social support, vicarious
experience,
leadership,
environmental
comfort
and
situational
favourableness). The results of the present study suggest that the sources
within each domain do not experience the same gender or competitive level
36
effects. Kingston et al. (2010) suggested that although the three domains are
useful for the classification of the sources of sport confidence, applied
practitioners should develop interventions that target the individual sources
that athletes place greater importance on rather than focusing on the broad
domains into which the sources fall.
Competitive level differences in the importance placed on the sources
of sport confidence have importance implications for practitioners. Elite
athletes placed significantly more importance on demonstration of ability and
mental and physical preparation, whilst non-elite athletes placed significantly
more importance on environmental comfort and mastery based sources.
Many of the interventions used to increase an athlete’s confidence have been
developed for elite athletes and then applied to athletes of all competitive
levels. The results of the present study show that elite and non-elite athletes
place significantly different importance on some of the sources of sport
confidence, which suggests interventions developed for elite athletes may be
less effective when applied to non-elite athletes. Specific interventions for elite
and non-elite athletes should therefore be designed based on the importance
each population places on the sources of sport confidence. Collectively this
suggests that practitioners should take an ideographic approach to
intervention design and implementation.
Elite athletes placed significantly greater importance on demonstration
of ability and mental and physical preparation. Although demonstration of
ability has been associated with undermining confidence stability (Vealey et
al., 1998), elite athletes appear to gain confidence through social
comparisons. Although reliance upon demonstration of ability sources should
not be encouraged, it may not have debilitating effects when athletes have
high perceptions of competence (Ntoumanis, 2001). Practitioners should
discourage the reliance of demonstration of ability as a source of confidence
when athletes have low levels of perceived competence. Elite athletes also
placed significantly more importance on mental and physical preparation than
non-elite athletes. Vealey et al. (1998) emphasized the importance of deriving
confidence from controllable sources such as mental and physical preparation
in order to produce stable levels of sport confidence. Due to the positive
effects on confidence stability associated with mental and physical
37
preparation, applied practitioners should encourage athletes of all competitive
levels to develop effective methods of mental and physical preparation in
order to increase the amount of importance placed upon it as a source of
sport confidence. A possible cause of the difference between elite and nonelite athletes is the resources available to elite athletes that are unlikely to be
available to non-elite athletes. Resources and information of appropriate
methods of physical and mental preparation should be made available to
athletes of all competitive levels in order to establish effective preparation
techniques across the sporting population.
Non-elite athletes placed significantly more importance than elite
athletes on mastery as a source of confidence. Kingston et al. (2010) argue
that deriving confidence from mastery based sources is important in forming
stable and enduring confidence beliefs. The findings of the present study
would suggest that although mastery based sources of confidence are
associated with improved confidence stability, it is expected that as athletes
performance level increases the importance they place on mastery based
sources decreases. Practitioners should continue to facilitate confidence in
non-elite athletes by structuring environments that provide opportunity for the
mastery of new skills and techniques. For example, high sport confident
athletes have been shown to use more mastery based imagery than low sport
confident athletes (Moritz, Hall, Martin & Vadocz, 1996). Thus, non-elite
athletes may benefit more from interventions that incorporate mastery based
imagery than elite athletes. Non-elite athletes also placed significantly more
importance than elite athletes on environmental comfort as a source of
confidence. Vealey et al. (1998) proposed that athletes that derive confidence
from uncontrollable sources such as the environment are much more likely to
develop unstable perceptions of control and competence. Therefore,
practitioners should encourage non-elite athletes to place more importance on
stable sources of confidence and avoid reliance on unstable sources such as
environmental comfort.
Gender differences in the importance placed on the sources of sport
confidence have important implications for practitioners. Male athletes placed
significantly more importance than female athletes on vicarious experience
and mental and physical preparation as sources of sport confidence.
38
Vicarious experience has been demonstrated to be an important means of
enhancing confidence (Hardy et al., 2001; Jones et al., 2002). Therefore,
practitioners should continue to facilitate confidence for male athletes by
providing opportunity for vicarious experiences. Trampolining and gymnastics
both involve large amounts of time spent observing other athletes performing,
which means athletes that gain confidence from vicarious sources have
opportunity to observe many other performers. Male athletes also placed
significantly more importance on mental and physical preparation. Due to the
positive effects on confidence stability associated with mental and physical
preparation (Vealey et al., 1998), applied practitioners should encourage both
male and female athletes to develop effective methods of mental and physical
preparation in order to increase the amount of importance placed upon it as a
source of sport confidence.
5.4.2 THEORETICAL
The results of the present study have important theoretical implications.
Vealey et al. (1998) proposed that athletes derive confidence from nine
different sources of confidence. However, Wilson et al. (2004) found little
support for situational favourableness as a source of confidence and
proposed a revised 8-factor model without situational favourableness. The
results of the present study add support to the proposed 8-factor model
(Wilson et al., 2004) as little support was found for situational favourableness
as a source of confidence for both competitive level and gender comparisons.
It was consistently ranked as one of the least important sources of sport
confidence. However, the low level of importance placed on situational
favourableness could have been a result of the sample of only trampolining
and gymnastic athletes used within the study. The results of the present
study highlight an area of inconsistency within the literature that requires
further research in order to establish the validity of situational favourableness
as a source of sport confidence.
39
5.4.3 MEASUREMENT
The results of the present study have important implications for the use
of the SSCQ as a measurement tool. The results of the reliability testing of the
SSCQ revealed that situational favourableness item 3 and environmental
comfort item 2 were significantly decreasing the Cronbach’s alpha value for
the subscales, resulting in an alpha value of below the .70 alpha criterion. The
items were removed in order to establish acceptable reliability for all the
subscales of the SSCQ prior to conducting the MANOVA. Previous research
(Wilson et al., 2004) found that all items of situational favourableness were
problematic and were removed from the analysis process. Sampling error was
proposed as a possible cause of the problematic nature of situational
favourableness, which could also be the case for the present study. It is
possible that the way in which environmental item 2 and situational
favourableness item 3 were framed was not applicable to the sample of
athletes used within this study, or that the two sources are not as applicable
for athletes from gymnastics and trampolining backgrounds as they are for
other sports. However, the results of the reliability analysis of the SSCQ
highlight potential issues of the questionnaire as a reliable measurement tool.
The practical implications of the present study have highlighted that
ideographic approach to confidence would be more effective for intervention
implementation. This would suggest that such measurements as confidence
profiling might be a more reliable measure of sport confidence.
5.5 LIMITATIONS
Although the present study aimed to further knowledge of factors that
effect sport confidence, there are several limitations that warrant attention.
The sample used within the present study consisted of only individual athletes
from either a trampolining or gymnastic background. As a result the findings of
the study may not be applicable to team sports or other individual sports. As
highlighted by previous research (e.g., Wilson et al., 2004; Hays et al., 2007;
Kingston et al., 2010), sources of sport confidence are influenced by
organisational and socio-cultural factors, which means the results of the
40
present study may not be applicable when generalised to other sporting
populations.
The sample size used within the present study is another limitation.
The sample was gathered from four main organisations, which may not be a
true representation of the gymnastic and trampolining population. It also
consisted of only forty participants, which does not hold significant statistical
power. The sample used consisted of more females than males. Although
statistical assumptions of MANOVA were not violated by the differences in
sample size, even grouped variables could have achieved more reliable
results (Field, 2009).
The retrospective nature of the study is a major limitation. Participants
were asked to refer to a time when they felt most confidence when completing
the SSCQ. The removal of temporal aspects was believed to increase
reliability, as all participants would be referring to a similar level of confidence.
However, as participants were reflecting on an event that may have been a
long time ago, the reliability of the answers they gave may not be as reliable
as it would have been if they were asked to complete the SSCQ in relation to
how they currently felt. Although the retrospective nature of the study can be
seen as a limitation, its implementation was justified.
As a result of the reliability analysis of the SSCQ, two of the items were
removed from further analysis. Although removal of the items was justified
and resulted in all subscales achieving acceptable alpha values, the removal
of the items means the results of the present study cannot necessarily be
reliably compared to results of previous studies using the SSCQ, as different
subscale items were used. However, if the items had not been removed
situational favourableness and environmental subscales would not have
achieved acceptable reliability values, thus resulting in less reliable results.
Although the removal of the items is a limitation of the study, the justification
was valid and meant all subscales achieved acceptable reliability values.
41
5.6 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
As a result of the findings of the present study, a number of potential
future research directions warrant attention. As previously stated, the sample
used within the present study was a major limitation. The sample used
consisted of athletes from only a trampolining or gymnastic background. As
highlighted by previous research (e.g., Wilson et al., 2004; Hays et al., 2007;
Kingston et al., 2010), sources of sport confidence are influenced by
organisational and socio-cultural factors. Future research should investigate
the effects of competitive level on the importance placed of the sources of
sport confidence in different individual sports. Previous research (e.g., Vealey
et al., 1998; Hays et al., 2007) has also shown that the importance placed on
specific sources varies depending on whether an athlete is individual or team
performer. Therefore, future research should investigate competitive level
effects for both team and individual sports.
There have been inconsistencies within previous research regarding
the importance placed on physical self presentation for elite athletes (e.g.,
Vealey et al., 1998; Hays et al., 2007; Kingston et al., 2010). The results of
the present study add support for the suggestion that the nature of elite sport
and the emphasis placed on body type and presentation might explain the
importance elite athletes place on physical self presentation as a source of
sport confidence. However, the nature of sports such as trampolining and
gymnastics, in which athletes’ body shape is emphasized due to the cloths
worn, mean it may not be as important within other sporting populations.
Future research should investigate how the nature of sports that emphasize
body shape effects the importance placed upon physical self presentation as
a source of sport confidence.
Situational favourableness was consistently ranked as one of the least
important sources of confidence for all athletes. Previous research (e.g.,
Wilson et al., 2004) also found very little support for situational favourableness
as a source of confidence. However, Kingston et al. (2010) found moderate
support within the sample tested. The sample used within the present study
was suggested as a possible cause of the low levels of importance placed on
situational favourableness. However, the results highlight potential areas of
42
inconsistency within the literature. Future research should establish the
validity of situational favourableness as a source of sport confidence for
athletes from different sporting backgrounds.
5.7 CONCLUSION
The present study investigated the effects competitive level and gender
had on the importance placed on the different sources of confidence. No
significant main effects were found when comparing gender and competitive
level. However, significant main effects were found for competitive level and
gender comparisons separately. Elite athletes were found to place greater
importance than non-elite athletes on demonstration of ability and mental and
physical preparation. In contrast, non-elite athletes placed significantly more
importance on mastery based sources and environmental comfort than elite
athletes. Gender comparisons revealed males placed significantly more
importance than female athletes on vicarious experience and mental and
physical preparation. Furthermore, mastery based sources were ranked as
highly important for both male and female athletes, highlighting the
importance of mastery as a source of confidence. Situational favourableness
was consistently ranked as one of the least important sources of confidence
for all athletes. The results of the study would suggest that practitioners
should
take
an
ideographic
approach
to
intervention
design
and
implementation when working with athletes. The data produced within the
present study cannot provide any inference for why these competitive level or
gender effects occurred. Therefore, future research should establish the
perceived mechanisms for the observed findings in greater depth using
qualitative approaches.
43
REFERENCES
Bandura, A. (1977). Self efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behaviour
change. Psychological Review , 191-215.
Beattie, S., Hardy, L., Savage, J., Woodman, T., & Callow, N. (2010).
Development and validation of a trait measure of robustness of selfconfidence. Psychology of Sport and Exercise , 1-8.
Craft, L., Magyar, T., Becker, B., & Feltz, D. (2003). The relationship between
Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2 and sport performance: a meta
analysis . Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology , 44-65.
Cresswell S, Hodge K. (2004)Coping skills: role of trait sport confidence and
trait anxiety, Perceptual and Motor Skills, 433-439.
Duda, J.L., Chi, L., Newton, M.L., Walling, M.D., and Catley, D. (1995). Task
and ego orientation and intrinsic motivation in sport. International
Journal of Sport Psychology, 26,40-63.
Feltz, D., & Short, S. (2008). Self effiacy in sport. Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics.
Field, A. (2004). Discovering statistics using SPSS. Sage: London
Gayton, W. F., & Nickless, C. J. (1987). An investigation of the validity of the
trait and state sport-confidence inventories in predicting marathon
performance. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 65, 481–482.
Gould, D., Dieffenbach, K., & Moffett, A. (2002). Psychological Characteristics
and Thir Development in Olympic Champions. Journal of Applied
Sport Psychology, 14, 172-204.
Hall, H. K., & Kerr, A. W. (1997). Motivational antecedents of precompetitive
anxiety in youth sport. The Sport Psychologist, 11, 24-42.
Hanton, S., Fletcher, D., & Coughlan, G. (2005). Stress in elite sportperformers: A comparative study of competitive and organizational
stressors. Journal of Sports Sciences, 10, 1129–1141.
44
Hardy, L., Jones, G., & Gould, D. (2001). Understanding psychological
preparation for sport: Theory and practice of elite performers.
Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Hardy, L., Woodman, T., & Carrington, S. (2004). Is self-confidence a bias
factor in higher order catastrophe models? Journal of Sport &
Exercise Psychology, 26, 359-368.
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 , 434-456.
Hays, K., Thomas, O., Maynard, I., & Bawden, M. (2009). The role of
confidence in world class sport performance. Journal of Sports
Sciences , 1185-1199.
Horn, T, S. (2008). Advances in Sport Psychology. Oxford: Human Kinetics
Jones, G., Hanton, S., & Connaughton, D. (2002). What is this thing called
mental toughness? An investigation of elite sport performers. Journal
of Applied Sport Psychology, 14, 205–218.
Kline, P. (1999). The handbook of Psychological Testing (2nd ed.). London:
Routledge
Kingston, K., Lane, A., & Thomas, O. (2010). A temporal Examination of Elite
Performers Sources of Sport Confidence. The Sport Psychologist ,
313-332.
Kontos, A. O., & Feltz, D. L. (2008). The nature of sport psychology. In T.S.
Horn (Ed.), Advances in sport psychology (3rd ed., pp. 3-14).
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Maddux, J. E. (1995). Self efficacy, adaptation and adjustment: thoery,
research and application. New York: Plenum Press.
45
Moritz, S. E., Hall, C. R., Martin, K. A., & Vadocz, E. (1996). What are
confident athletes imaging: An examination of image content. The
Sport Psychologist, 10, 171–179.
Mills, B. D. (1996). Trait sport confidence, goal orientation and competitive
experience of female. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 82, 1085-1086.
Ntoumanis, N. (2001). Empirical links between achievement goal theory and
self determination theory in sport. Journal of Sport Sciences, 19, 397409
Nunnally, J.C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Schunk, D. H. (1995). Self effiacy, motivation and performance. Journal of
Applied Sport Psychology , 112-137.
Short , S., & Ross-Stewart, L. (2009). A reveiw of self efficacy based
interventions. In S. Mellalieu, & S. Hanton, Advances in Applied Sport
Psychology (pp. 221-280). London and New York: Routledge.
Tabachnick, B., & Fidell, L. (1996). Using multivariate statistics. London:
Pearson.
Thomas, O., Lane, A., & Kingston, K. (2010). Defining and contextualising
robust sport confidence. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology. 23,
189-208.
Vealey, R. S. (1986). Conceptualization of sport confidence and competitive
orientation: Preliminary investigation and instrument development .
Journal of Sport Psychology , 221-246.
Vealey, R. S., Hayashi, S. W., Garner-Holman, M., & Giacobbi, P. (1998).
Sources of sport confidence: Conceptualization and instrument
development. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology , 54-80.
46
Vealey, R. S. (2001). Understanding and enhancing self-confidence in
athletes. In R. N. Singer, H. A. Hausenblas, & C. M. Janelle (Eds.),
Handbook of sport psychology (pp. 550–565). New York: Wiley.
Vealey, R. S., & Chase, M. A. (2008). Self-confidence in sport: Conceptual
and research advances. In T.S. Horn (Ed.), Advances in sport
psychology (3rd ed., pp. 65–97). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Wilson, R., Sullivan, P., Myers, N., & Feltz, D. (2004). Sourse of Sport
Confidence of Master Athletes. Journal of Sport and Exercise
Psychology , 369-368.
Woodman, T., & Hardy, L. (2003). The relative impact of cognitive anxiety and
self confidence upon sport performance: a meta analysis. Journal of
Sport Sciences , 443-457.
47
APPENDIX A
INFORMATION SHEET GIVEN TO PARTICIPANTS
Title of Project: A comparison of sources of sport confidence salient to athletes
of different competitive levels
Participant Information Sheet
Background
This study is seeking to understand where you source (i.e. gain) confidence from
as a competitive athlete.
Within recent sport confidence research it has been suggested athletes gain their
confidence from a number of different sources (for example, training going well
or social support from the coach). Previous research has studied the sources
used by elite athletes across a range of different sports. However, little research
has studied the sources of confidence used by athletes from a range of different
competitive levels. This study will seek to examine the sources of confidence
used by athletes of different competitive levels. The conclusions made can
inform applied practice across the trampolining and gymnastic population, and
aid in the development of models to enhance confidence.
The aim of this study is to compare the sources of confidence used by athletes of
different competitive levels in both males and females.
Why you have been asked
The study is investigating athletes from a trampolining or gymnastic background
of different competitive levels. Your participation in trampolining or gymnastic
competitions means you fit into one of the categories of competitive athletes
being used within the study.
What would happen if you agree to take part?
If you agree to participate in this study, you are required to complete the Sources
of Sport Confidence Questionnaire (SSCQ).
Are there any risks?
There are no significant risks in participating in this study. The completed
questionnaires will be kept confidential and the presented findings will contain
no individual information.
Your rights
Your agreement to participate in this study does not mean that you give up any
legal rights. You have the right to withdraw from the study or request that your
completed questionnaire be exempt from the analysis process at any point.
What happens to the results of the study?
The data collected will be kept safe and confidential. The results may be
published but names will not be included.
Are there any benefits from taking part?
Participation within this study will contribute to the understanding of sport
confidence and aid applied practice within sport, in particular trampolining and
gymnastics.
What happens next?
If you agree to participate in this study you will be asked to complete a consent
form, and then fill in the Sources of Sport Confidence Questionnaire (SSCQ).
How we protect your privacy:
The investigators working on the study will respect your privacy. We have taken
very careful steps to make sure that you cannot be identified from any of the
information that we have about you. All the information about you will be stored
securely away.
Further information
If you have any questions about the research or how we intend to conduct the
study, please contact me.
Andrew Clark
07792871874
[email protected]
APPENDIX B
INFORMED CONSENT FORM
PARTICIPANT CONSENT FORM
UREC Reference No:
Title of Project: A comparison of sources of sport confidence salient
to athletes of different competitive levels and gender
Name of Researcher: Andrew Clark
Participant to complete this section:
Please initial each box.
1. I confirm that I have read and understand the
information sheet dated ………..for this evaluation
study. I have had the opportunity to consider the
information, ask questions and have had these
answered satisfactorily.
2. I understand that my participation is voluntary and
that it is possible to stop taking part at any time, without
giving a reason.
3. I also understand that if this happens my legal rights will
not be affected.
4. I understand that information from the study may be
used for
reporting purposes, but that I will not be identified.
5. I agree that I wish to participate in the study of sports
confidence.
Your name
Date
Your signature
Name of person taking consent
Signature of person taking consent
Date
APPENDIX C
SOURCES OF SPORT CONFIDENCE QUESTIONNAIRE
Athlete Self-Rating Scale (SSCQ)
Think back to times when you felt very confident when participating in your sport. What things made
you feel confident? What things helped you believe in your abilities and gave you confidence that you
would be successful?
Listed below are some things that may help athletes feel confident in sport situations. For each statement,
circle the number that indicates HOW IMPORTANT THAT IS IN HELPING YOU FEEL
CONFIDENT IN YOUR SPORT. Please respond to every question even though they may seem
repetitive. There are no right or wrong answers because every athlete is different. Please be honest - your
answers will be kept completely confidential.
I gain self-confidence in my sport when I...
not at all
important
not very
important
slightly of average very
important importance important
extremely of highest
important importance
1. get positive feedback from my
teammates and/or friends...........................
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
2. win.............................................................
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
3. keep my focus on the task........................
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
4. psych myself up.....................................
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
5. master a new skill in my sport..................
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
6. get breaks from officials or referees............
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
7. perform in an environment (gym, pool,
stadium, etc.) that I like and in which
I feel comfortable....................................
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8. feel good about my weight........................
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9. believe in my coach's abilities...................
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
10. know I have support from others that are
important to me......................................
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
11. demonstrate that I am better than others.......
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
12. see successful performances by
other athletes..........................................
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
13. know that I am mentally prepared
for the situation......................................
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
14.follow certain rituals (e.g., wearing a
lucky shirt, eating certain food, etc).......
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
15.improve my performance on a skill
in my sport............................................
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
16.see the breaks are going my way.................
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
17.feel I look good.......................................
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
18.know my coach will make good decisions....
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
19.am told that others believe in me and
my abilities............................................
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
20.show my ability by winning or placing.......
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
21.watch another athlete I admire perform
successfully............................................
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
22.stay focused on my goals...........................
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
23.improve my skills...................................
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
24.feel comfortable in the environment
(gym, pool, stadium, etc.) in which
I'm performing........................................
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
25.feel that everything is "going right"
for me in that situation.............................
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
26.feel my body looks good...........................
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
27.know my coach is a good leader.................
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
28.am encouraged by coaches and/or family......
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
29.know I can outperform opponents...............
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
30.watch a teammate perform well..................
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
31.prepare myself physically and
mentally for a situation............................
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
32.increase the number of skills I can perform..
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
33.like the environment where I am performing
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
34.have trust in my coach's decisions..............
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
35. get positive feedback from coaches
and/or family..........................................
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
36.prove I am better than my opponents..........
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
37.see a friend perform successfully................
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
38.believe in my ability to give maximum
effort to succeed......................................
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
39.receive support and encouragement
from others............................................
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
40.show I'm one of the best in my sport..........
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
41.watch teammates who are at my level
perform well...........................................
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
42. develop new skills and improve...................
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
43. feel my coach provides effective leadership....
1
2
3
4
5
6
7