SELF-EFFICACY AND CAUSAL ATTTRIBUTION IN FEMALE GOLFERS Katherine A. Bond North East Wales Institute of Higher Education Stuart J. H. Biddle Loughborough University & Nikos Ntoumanis Leeds Metropolitan University

First submission: 2nd July 1998 Revised manuscript submitted: 30th July 1999

Correspondance: Katherine A. Bond North East Wales Institute Field of Biological and Sports Sciences Plas Coch Mold Road Wrexham LL11 2AW United Kingdom. Tel: +44 1978 293 392 Fax: +44 1978 290 008

Self-efficacy and attribution

SELF-EFFICACY AND CAUSAL ATTTRIBUTION IN FEMALE GOLFERS

First submission: 2nd July 1998 Revised manuscript submitted: 30th July 1999

2

The aim of this study was to examine the nature of the relationship between selfefficacy and causal attribution in competitive sport. It was hypothesised that the stability and locus of causality of attributions made for performance would predict post-competition self-efficacy, and that athletes whose efficacy increased pre- to postcompetition would make more internal and stable attributions for their performance than those whose efficacy decreased. Female golfers (N=81; mean handicap = 19.32; mean playing experience = 14 years) competing in club competitions, completed preand post-competition self-efficacy questionnaires, performance measures, and the Causal Dimension Scale-II (CDS-II).

Hierarchical multiple regression analysis

revealed that under conditions of perceived success, attributional stability was predicitive of post-competition self-efficacy, whereas there were no attributional predictors of post-competition self-efficacy under conditions of perceived failure. MANOVA indicated that golfers whose efficacy increased made more internal and stable attributions for their performance than those whose efficacy decreased.

Keywords: self-efficacy; causal attribution; female golfers.

Self-efficacy and attribution

2

Bandura’s (1977, 1982, 1986) self-efficacy theory and Weiner’s (1972, 1979, 1985) theory of achievement attribution are among the most widely and extensively researched areas in social psychology, a trend that has been replicated in the past twenty years in sport psychology (McAuley, 1992).

A preoccupation with

performance enhancement has meant that self-efficacy, argued to be possibly the single most influential psychological variable impacting sports performance, has become a popular research focus, while a similar desire to explain or attribute events and behaviours has ensured on-going investigation into attribution theory. There are potentially certain links evident between self-efficacy and attribution theories, which have been made explicit to varying degrees (Bandura, 1986; Den Boer, Kok, Hospers, Gerards, & Strecher, 1991; McAuley, 1992). However the proposed existence of such links and their implications has failed to prompt any significant investigation into the possible relationship between these two important constructs in sport.

Self-efficacy may be defined as a judgement of one’s capability to execute behaviours necessary to produce a particular outcome, and is argued to predict choice of activity, effort and persistence (Bandura, 1977). Of consequence to those interested in sport performance enhancement, it is claimed that given the appropriate skills and incentives, self-efficacy will be predictive of performance (Bandura, 1977).

Attribution theory seeks to explain the manner in which we ascribe causes to outcomes, events and behaviours, and the impact of such ascriptions in understanding ourselves and our environments. Weiner (1979, 1985) classified such ascriptions along three causal dimensions and proposed that attributions, according to these dimensions, influence behaviour through emotions and future expectancies. Weiner

Self-efficacy and attribution

3

(1985) specifically proposed that attributional stability is related to expectations of future outcomes; a stable attribution for a particular outcome/behaviour leads to greater expectation of that outcome/behaviour recurring in the future. Strong support for this stability-expectancy link has been demonstrated with a variety of cognitive and motor tasks (McCaughan, 1978); however, some have argued (Grove & Pargman, 1986) that the controllability dimension may play a more important role in determining expectancies. The relationship between dimensions and expectancies is further complicated by the wide variety of methods employed in researching this area, and a common failure to identify the relationship between subject-made attributions and expectancy - rather some research (Rudisill & Singer, 1988) focuses on the effect of researcher supplied attributional feedback for performance (where subjects are given reasons for why they performed as they did) on expectancy.

Despite the confusion which surrounds the attribution/expectancy link, it is the similarity between expectancy and efficacy which has prompted claims of a relationship between attribution and efficacy. Den Boer et al. (1991) emphasise that expectancy is associated with task behaviour, effort and persistence, highlighting that “this line of reasoning very closely parallels Bandura’s ideas...self-efficacy estimates resemble expectancies of success in the respect that both concepts are estimates of the likelihood that a certain outcome or goal will be attained”(p.240). They go on to support this by stating that efficacy and expectancy measures are often used interchangeably in research. Bandura (1986) presented a further rationale for the existence of an attribution-efficacy link by arguing that attributions are an integral part of efficacy percepts - self-efficacy is not just determined by mastery experiences alone, but by how these experiences are appraised and causally ascribed. Indeed, he

Self-efficacy and attribution

4

goes on to suggest that there may be a reciprocal relationship between attribution and efficacy. Despite such proposals, the attribution/efficacy link remains comparatively unresearched, particularly in sport and exercise domains. McAuley (1992) and Biddle (1993) are amongst those who have highlighted the need for greater investigation into this relationship, with McAuley (1992) arguing that efficacy percepts and causal attributions “should be studied as interdependent rather than separate entities” (p.115). Such arguments, however, have thus far failed to prompt significant research into the attribution/efficacy relationship in sport.

Research in non-sport settings into the influence of attribution on efficacy has tended to be guided by the assumption that stability should be the key dimension in the attribution/efficacy relationship (Den Boer et al., 1991), according to the proposed similarity between efficacy and expectancy, although early work focused on elements rather than dimensions, and specifically ability and effort (Bandura, 1977; Saltzer, 1982). However, Alden (1986) and Innes and Thomas (1989) both argue for the importance of locus of causality, with internal attributions linked to stronger efficacy following success and weaker efficacy following failure. Controllability may also be influential (e.g. Holloway, Gorman, & Fuller, 1987), but experimental work in this area has done little to clarify the conceptual confusion. Leary, Atherton, Hill, and Hur (1986), working with socially inhibited individuals, found evidence indicating an association between stability and efficacy, and Schunk (1981, 1982, 1983, 1984) found support for a relationship between all three dimensions and self-efficacy. Although Schunk's series of studies represent a valuable contribution to the study of the attribution/efficacy link, particularly given the absence of an alternative body of evidence, he focused on the effect of attributional feedback to specific elements

Self-efficacy and attribution

5

(ability and effort) on efficacy, persistence, effort and performance rather than measuring attribution dimensions made by the participants.

Further support for an attribution/efficacy link is demonstrated through research investigating the effect of attribution retraining on sufferers of learned helplessness. Modified attributions have been found to favourably influence expectancies of success and self-efficacy (e.g. Anderson, 1983) as well as performance (e.g. Dweck, 1975) and persistence (e.g. Chapin & Dyck, 1976). From a sport-specific perspective, studies by Johnson and Biddle (1988) and Prapavessis and Carron (1988) indicate the link between efficacy and attributions from the perspective of learned helplessness. In addition, Rudisill (1988) illustrated the beneficial effects of attribution retraining on expectations, persistence and performance. Aside from this work, there is a dearth of sport specific research in this area, and an obvious need to establish how attributions are related to self-efficacy in sport and exercise settings.

An additional body of research has focused on the attributions made by individuals with differing levels of efficacy. Bandura (1982, 1986) first suggested that individuals high in efficacy for a particular behaviour or action may make different attributions for that action than those with lower efficacy. Specifically, Alden (1986) and Collins (1982) proposed that highly efficacious individuals failing and low efficacious individuals succeeding are likely to make external attributions more than those with high efficacy and succeeding or low efficacy and failing, in an attempt, Bandura (1986) claims, to maintain one's efficacy - attributing disconfirming outcomes externally will minimise change of efficacy.

Support for an

efficacy/attribution link in exercise and sport settings has been varied. McAuley

Self-efficacy and attribution

6

(1991) who found that high efficacy in unfit adults on an exercise programme was related to internal, stable and controllable attributions for progress, whereas Duncan and McAuley (1987) and McAuley and Duncan (1989) found limited support for a relationship between efficacy and attribution in a competitive sport environment, although they acknowledge that they employed a flawed methodological design, where efficacy and outcome were manipulated for those competing on an unfamiliar task in a laboratory environment.

It is apparent that the nature of the relationship between causal attribution and self-efficacy in a realistic competitive sport setting has not been clearly identified and warrants further investigation. The aim of the present study, therefore, was to test the relationship between attribution and efficacy in a naturalistic, competitive sport setting. Specifically, following existing proposals and research (Den Boer et al., 1991; Alden, 1986; Leary et al., 1986) it was hypothesised that attributional stability and locus of causality would be predictive of post-competition efficacy level. Furthermore, it was also hypothesised that there would be a difference in attributions made by athletes whose efficacy increased from pre- to post-competiton to those whose efficacy decreased - specifically that efficacy increased athletes should make more internal and stable attributions than efficacy decreased athletes.

Method Participants Female golfers (N=81) from three golf clubs, located in south-west England and Ireland volunteered to participate in this study. Participant age was measured mostly in bands of 10 years, with these bands ranging from the 18-24 band to the 65-74

Self-efficacy and attribution

7

band, and the median age band was 35-44. The participant's handicaps ranged from 6 to 34, with a mean of 19.32 (SD=6.13)(see Table 1). Playing experience ranged from 3 to 47 years, with a mean of 14 years (SD=9.86).

Measures Self-efficacy. Self-efficacy level and strength were measured using a golfspecific questionnaire developed for this study (see Table 2). Development followed Bandura's (1977) recommendations and participants were given a list of eight scores they could potentially attain on a forthcoming round of golf (par 72), progressively ordered in five shot intervals (from 105 through 70). For each of these eight scores, participants were required to indicate whether they considered they could attain this score (yes/no response), and for every affirmative response, they were asked to give a percentage certainty (0-100) of attaining the score. Level of efficacy was taken as the number of affirmative responses out of eight, and efficacy strength (used in the statistical analysis) was calculated by summing the total certainty scores and dividing by the total number of levels (eight). Higher efficacy strength scores indicated higher participant self-efficacy. Internal consistency for this eight-item scale was .87 before and .84 after competition.

Performance.

Participant performance was measured by asking participants

how satisfied they were with their performance on a scale of 0-10, and was a pre-fix to the CDS-II (below). As well as this subjective performance measure, an objective performance measure of gross score on the round was also recorded. Subjective performance values were used in the statistical analysis as it is argued that subjective scores are preferable to objective scores in any examination involving causal

Self-efficacy and attribution

8

attribution (Spink & Roberts, 1980). Objective performance scores are reported for descriptive purposes only.

Attributions.

Causal attributions for performance were measured using

McAuley, Duncan, and Russell's (1992) revised Causal Dimension Scale (CDS-II). The CDS-II is comprised of 12 items assessing the 4 subscales of locus of causality, stability, personal control and external control. Subscale scores can range from 3 to 27, with higher values representing attributions that are more internal, stable, personally controllable and externally controllable.

McAuley et al. (1992) has

reported adequate internal consistency values for the four subscales as follows: locus of causality, r=.6 to r=.714; stability, r=.660 to r=.683; personal control, r=.715 to r=.902; external control, r=.711 to r=.917. Internal consistency values for the present sample were similar to these; locus of causality, r=.703; stability, r=.694; personal control, r=.853; external control, r=.891.

Procedure Three golf clubs out of eight initially contacted agreed to participate in the study. A preliminary information pack was sent, explaining participant requirements and providing basic information about the nature of the research.

Subsequently, a

convenient date and time for data collection was agreed. The data collection was carried out on a competition day at all clubs, in an attempt to relate the data to a performance that would hold some meaning for the participants. From observation and discussion with the golfers at all three clubs, the competition was treated seriously by the participants.

Self-efficacy and attribution

9

Requirements were explained to the golfers in two of the three clubs in a meeting prior to the competition and again, in all three clubs, individually 20 minutes prior to their round, when competitors reported to the starter's hut. An estimated 70% of competitors agreed to participate, and on consent, were given 2 copies of the selfefficacy questionnaire and the CDS-II. Participants were asked to complete one of the self-efficacy questionnaires (pre-performance efficacy) prior to commencing their round, and encouraged to do so in the proximity of the experimenter so that any queries could be answered and the questionnaire could be returned before play began. It was explained that the remaining two questionnaires should be completed the day after competition, and returned to the club at a later date. These questionnaires consisted of the CDS-II (incorporating performance measures) and the second selfefficacy questionnaire (post-performance efficacy) which was to be completed as if participants were to play another round in the same conditions and on the same course.

Of the 108 golfers who took the questionnaire packs, 6 of these failed to return any questionnaires, and 21 failed to return questionnaires 3 and 4. This sample of 27 was excluded from the analysis.

Results

Means and standard deviations of all variables are shown in Table 1, and correlation values between variables in Table 3.

Attribution/Efficacy Link

Self-efficacy and attribution

10

To examine the possibility that different levels of competition performance may affect the strength of the relationship between attribution and self-efficacy, the data were split into two groups according to the median subjective performance score. Those golfers that rated their performance 6 (out of 10) or above were classifed as the “success” group (n=44) and the remainder were classified in the “failure” group (n=37).

Efficacy scores (both pre-competition and post-competition) were then

correlated with stability and locus of causality scores for both the success and failure groups (see Tables 4 and 5). Traditionally, researchers use moderated hierarchical regression analysis to identify moderator variables. However, this analysis lacks power, and Smith, Smoll and Ptacek (1990) have suggested looking at differences in correlations between variables under different conditions defined by the moderator variable (e.g. success/failure).

Differences in the relationship between the

attributional dimensions and self-efficacy scores were evident for the two conditions generally positive correlations were observed (albeit small) between efficacy scores and attribution scores in the success condition, and negative correlations were observed in the failure condition. In particular, the correlation between stability and post-competition self-efficacy was markedly different under success and failure conditions. This indicated that performance may be a moderating variable in the efficacy/ attribution relationship, and that separate analysis of the success and failure conditions should be undertaken.

It was hypothesised that attributional stability and locus of causality would be predictive of post-competition self-efficacy in conditions of both perceived success and perceived failure. Hierarchical regression analyses were carried out on both the success and failure conditions. The effect of pre-competition self-efficacy level was

Self-efficacy and attribution

11

controlled by entering it on the first step of the regression equation, followed by the attribution dimensions (stability and locus of causality) as the independent variables, with post-competition self-efficacy being the dependent variable. As expected, precompetition self-efficacy was a significant predictor of the variance in postcompetition self-efficacy, under conditions of both success (R² change = 0.957, p<.001) and failure (R² change = 0.834, p<.001). Under the success condition, postcompetition efficacy was also predicted by attributions (R² change = .008, p<.05). The regression coefficient for stability indicated that attributional stability had a significant effect (b = .283, p<.05) on post-competition efficacy, with more stable attributions predicting higher levels of post-competition efficacy (see Table 6). Under the failure condition, attributions did not predict post-competition self-efficacy.

Attributional Differences for Efficacy Increase and Efficacy Decrease It was further hypothesised that competitors whose self-efficacy increased from pre- to post-competition would differ in the attributions they made for their performance than those whose self-efficacy decreased, specifically making more internal and stable attributions. To examine this hypothesis, the sample was split into two groups, based on efficacy change scores (n=39 for efficacy increase and n=42 for efficacy decrease). Attributional dimension means and standard deviation values for both groups are shown in Table 7. A one-way MANOVA was carried out with efficacy change (increase/decrease) as the independent variable and the four attributional dimensions as dependent variables. The overall MANOVA was highly significant [F(4,76)=7.835, p<.0001 (Hotelling's criterion)]. Univariate effects for stability and locus of causality were also highly significant (p<.0001), with the

Self-efficacy and attribution

12

efficacy increase group making significantly more stable and internal attributions than the efficacy decrease group.

Discussion The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between causal attribution and self-efficacy in a naturalistic competitive sport environment. Previous research in both sport and non-sport environments supports the existence of a relationship between these two important constructs. However, there have been conflicting findings which have made the identification of the nature of the attribution/efficacy relationship somewhat difficult. In addition, there is an absense of well-designed research conducted in naturalistic, competitive sport settings, which has compounded the existing research problems. The present research was, therefore, undertaken to redress this balance and provide some well-founded insights into the attribution/efficacy relationship.

Specifically, the research aimed to investigate whether self-efficacy level in athletes was related to the attributions they made for their performances. Existing research, carried out in a range of non-sport settings, has found support for a relationship between attributional stability and locus of causality, and self-efficacy (Den Boer et al., 1991; Alden, 1986; Leary et al., 1986), with more equivocal research support for a controlability-efficacy link (Holloway et al., 1987). It was hypothesised, on the basis of such existing literature, that the stability and locus of causality dimensions of attributions made for performance would be predictive of self-efficacy following that performance. In addition, it was further hypothesised that athletes whose efficacy increased from pre- to post-competition would attribute their

Self-efficacy and attribution

13

performance differently to those whose efficacy decreased - specifically, they would make more stable and internal attributions.

Differences in correlations between self-efficacy and attributions under conditions of success and failure indicated that performance may be a moderating variable in the efficacy/attribution relationship, so separate analysis of the relationship was undertaken for each condition (success/failure). Hierarchical regression analyses revealed that attributional stability was a significant predictor of post-competition self-efficacy in the success condition, with more stable attributions for performance predicting higher levels of self-efficacy.

However, under the failure condition,

attributional stability and locus of causality did not predict post-competition selfefficacy.

These findings partially support the existing work of Den Boer et al. (1991) and Leary et al. (1986) who argued and found support for a link between stability and self-efficacy, but they do not support those (Alden, 1986; Innes & Thomas, 1989) who have proposed a relationship between locus of causality and self-efficacy.

The

majority of previous work has been carried out in non-achievement settings, where outcome (success/failure) is not as important or explicit as it is in a competitive sport situation. This findings of this research suggest that outcome may moderate the relationship between attributions and self-efficacy, and it may be that self-efficacy is related to attributional dimensions differently under conditions of success and failure in achievement situations.

Indeed, future researchers should further explore this

moderating effect, and widen their investigations to include the relationship between the controlability dimension and self-efficacy.

Self-efficacy and attribution

14

As hypothesised, athletes whose efficacy increased from pre- to postcompetition made more stable and internal attributions for their performance than athletes whose efficacy decreased. These results show some support for previous work (Alden, 1986; Den Boer et al., 1991), although direct comparison is difficult as such research has used efficacy level rather than efficacy change in their analyses. The current results may be of value from an applied perspective. Efficacy change was significantly positively related to subjective performance scores (see Table 3), indicating that athletes whose efficacy increased judged themselves to be more successful - and, in turn made more stable and internal attributions for their performance than did those whose efficacy decreased from pre- to post-competition. Such information may be of use to practitioners interested in attribution retraining as a performance-enhancement intervention. If athletes whose efficacy increases pre- to post-competition make more stable and internal attributions (usually for success), then coaches and significant others could work towards training their athletes to make such ascriptions. Future research needs to explore how effective, in practice, this technique is in changing efficacy.

This study represents one of the first attempts to investigate the attributionefficacy relationship in a naturalistic sport setting.

Previous work into this

relationship has been either undertaken in non-sport, non-achievement environments (Leary et al., 1986), or in an artifical, manipulated sport setting (Duncan & McAuley, 1987; McAuley & Duncan, 1989). Greenspan and Feltz (1989) are amongst those who vehemently argue that findings from much sport psychology research can not be generalised to understand performance in competitive sport situations. They suggest

Self-efficacy and attribution

15

that in terms of yielding valuable information for athletes and practitioners alike, research studying athletes in their natural environment is more beneficial.

However, in conducting research in naturalistic settings, characteristics of the environment and participants which may impact on the results need to be highlighted. Foremost in the present study were playing conditions. All three data collection occasions were characterised by continuous or intermittent rain and strong winds, which contributed to difficult playing conditions. Such playing conditions may have influenced the attributions made by participants; if an external and unstable force such as the weather was responsible to some extent for the performances of participants, this could have been reflected in more external, unstable and externally controllable attributions. This may explain why attributional stability was the only predictor of self-efficacy in the success condition. A quite different pattern of results may have been observed if the weather had been less influential. In addition, two out of the three courses could be considered difficult or testing courses to play on, which similarly may have had an influence on attributions made, although as the competitions were only open to club members, participants should have been accustomed to playing on those courses.

In summary, this study has found some preliminary support for the existence of a relationship between self-efficacy and causal attribution in sport.

Attributional

stability was found to be predictive of self-efficacy under conditions of success, and athletes whose efficacy increased from pre- to post-competition made more internal and stable attributions for their performance than did those whose efficacy decreased. In light of the uniqueness of the sample used in this study, the playing conditions, and

Self-efficacy and attribution

16

the potential applied importance of this line of research, further research in naturalistic settings is required to extend the work of this study, using a variety of types of athletes and sports.

References

Alden, L. (1986). Self-efficacy and causal attributions for social feedback. Journal of Research in Personality, 20, 460-473.

Anderson, C.A. (1983). Motivational and performance deficits in interpersonal settings: The effects of attributional style. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 1136-1147.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.

Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122-147.

Self-efficacy and attribution

17

Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Biddle, S. (1993). Attribution research and sport psychology. In R.N. Singer, M. Murphey & L.K. Tennant (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Sport Psychology (pp. 437-464). New York: Macmillan.

Chapin, M., & Dyck, D.G. (1976). Persistence in children’s reading behavior as a function of length and attribution retraining. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 85, 511-515.

Collins, J. (1982). Self-efficacy and ability in achievement behavior. Paper presented at the meeting of The American Educational Research Association, New York.

Den Boer, D-J., Kok, G., Hospers, H.J., Gerards, F.M.., & Strecher, V.J. (1991). Health education strategies for attributional retraining and self-efficacy improvement. Health Education Research: Theory and Practice, 6, 239-248.

Duncan, T., & McAuley, E. (1987). Efficacy expectations and perceptions of causality in motor performance. Journal of Sport Psychology, 9, 385-393.

Dweck, C.S. (1975). The role of expectations and attributions in the alleviation of learned helplessness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 25, 109-116.

Self-efficacy and attribution

18

Greenspan, M.J., & Feltz, D.L. (1989). Psychological interventions with athletes in competitive situations: A review. The Sport Psychologist, 3, 219-236.

Grove, J.R., & Pargman, D. (1986). Relationships among success/failure, attributions, and performance expectancies in competitive situations. In L. VanderVelden, & J.H. Humphrey (Eds.), Psychology and Sociology of Sport: Current Selected Research Volume 1 (pp.85-95). New York: AMS Press.

Holloway, S.D., Gorman, K.S., & Fuller, B. (1987). Child-rearing attributions and efficacy among Mexican mothers and teachers. Journal of Social Psychology, 127, 499-510.

Innes, J.M., & Thomas, C. (1989). Attributional style, self-efficacy and social avoidance and inhibition among secondary school students. Personality and Individual Differences, 10, 757-762.

Johnson, L., & Biddle, S.J.H. (1988). Persistence after failure: An exploratory look at "learned helplessness" in motor performance. British Journal of Physical Education Research Supplement, 5, 7-10.

Leary, M.R., Atherton, S.C., Hill, S., & Hur, C. (1986). Attributional mediators of social inhibition and avoidance. Journal of Personality, 54, 704-716.

McAuley, E. (1991). Efficacy, attributional, and affective responses to exercise participation. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 13, 382-393.

Self-efficacy and attribution

19

McAuley, E. (1992). Self-referent thought in sport and physical activity. In T.S. Horn (Ed.), Advances in Sport Psychology (pp.101-118). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

McAuley, E., & Duncan, T. (1989). Causal attributions and affective reactions to disconfirming outcomes in motor performance. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 11, 187-200.

McAuley, E., Duncan, T., & Russell, D. (1992). Measuring causal attributions: The revised causal dimension scale (CDSII). Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 566-573.

McCaughan, L.R. (1978). Stability/instability and change of expectancy: a test for the cognitive determinants of psychomotor performance. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 46, 219-225.

Prapavessis, H., & Carron, A.V. (1988). Learned helplessness in sport. The Sport Psychologist, 2, 189-201.

Rudisill, M.E. (1988). The influence of causal dimension orientations and perceived competence on adult's expectations, persistence, performance, and the selection of causal dimensions. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 19, 184198.

Self-efficacy and attribution

20

Rudisill, M.E., & Singer, R.N. (1988). Influence of causal dimension orientation on persistence, performance and expectations of performance during perceived failure. Journal of Human Movement Studies, 15, 215-228.

Saltzer, E.B. (1982). The relationship of personal efficacy beliefs to behaviour. British Journal of Social Psychology, 21, 213-221.

Schunk, D.H. (1981). Modeling and attributional effects on children’s achievement: a self-efficacy analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 93-105.

Schunk, D.H. (1982). Effects of effort attributional feedback on children’s perceived self-efficacy and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 548556.

Schunk, D.H. (1983). Ability versus effort attributional feedback: differential effects on self-efficacy and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 848856.

Schunk, D.H. (1984). Sequential attributional feedback and children’s achievement behaviors. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 1159-1169.

Smith, R.E., Smoll, F.L., & Ptacek, J.T. (1990). Conjunctive moderator variables in vulnerability and resiliency research: Life stress, social support and coping skills, and adolescent sport injuries. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 360-370.

Self-efficacy and attribution

Spink, K.S., & Roberts, G.C. (1980). Ambiguity of outcome and causal attributions. Journal of Sport Psychology, 2, 237-244.

Weiner, B. (1972). Theories of motivation: From motivation to cognition. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Weiner, B. (1979). A theory of motivation for some classroom experiences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 3-25.

Weiner, B. (1985). An attribution theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological Review, 92, 548-573.

21

Self-efficacy and attribution

22

Table 1. Means and standard deviations for all variables. Variable

M

SD

1. Handicap

19.32

6.13

2. Pre-competition self-efficacy

35.56

16.88

3. Objective performance

95.48

9.13

4. Subjective Performance

5.51

3.18

5. Locus of causality

16.8

4.88

6. Stability

13.56

5.18

7. Personal Control

15.74

4.01

8. External Control

10.01

4.55

9. Post-competition self-efficacy

37.34

16.85

10. Efficacy Change

1.79

6.28

Note: Efficacy change = post-competition self-efficacy - pre-competition self-efficacy

Self-efficacy and attribution

23

Table 2. Self-efficacy questionnaire.

Instructions: This form looks at your thoughts and beliefs that you have about the round you are about to play. Please complete as you feel right now, focusing on your coming round. In the left hand column are 8 scores that one might score on this course. For each of these scores, please circle either “yes” or “no” according to whether you feel you could score below this for the round that you are about to play. Then, for each of the 8 that you have responded “yes” to, indicate in the right hand column how certain you are of scoring below this particular score. Your certainty score can go from 0 (very uncertain) to 100 (very certain). Gross score

Certainty (0-100)

1) 105

YES

NO

______

2) 100

YES

NO

______

3) 95

YES

NO

______

4) 90

YES

NO

______

5) 85

YES

NO

______

6) 80

YES

NO

______

7) 85

YES

NO

______

8) 80

YES

NO

______

Self-efficacy and attribution

Table 3. Correlation values between variables. 1

1.Handicap 2. Pre-competition self-efficacy 3. Subjective performance 4. Locus of causality 5. Stability 6. Personal Control 7. External Control 8. Post-competition self-efficacy 9. Efficacy change * p <0.05 ** p <0.01

2

-.92**

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

.01

.11

.01

-.12

.18

-.86**

.17

.04

-.07

.00

.10

-.08

.93**

-.19

.49**

.58**

.08

-.18

.26*

.59**

.51**

.34*

.13

.07

.39**

.24*

-.06

.16

.43**

.19

.14

.13

-.06

.07 .18

25

Self-efficacy and attribution

26

Table 4. Correlation values between pre-competition self-efficacy, stability, locus of causality and post-competition self-efficacy for the success group.

1

1. Pre-competition self-efficacy 2. Locus of causality 3. Stability 4. Post-competition self-efficacy

** p < .01

2

3

4

-.30

.07

.98**

.41**

.01 .16

Self-efficacy and attribution

27

Table 5. Correlation values between pre-competition self-efficacy, stability, locus of causality and post-competition self-efficacy for the failure group

1

1. Pre-competition self-efficacy 2. Locus of causality 3. Stability 4. Post-competition self-efficacy

** p < .01

2

3

4

-.25

-.29

.91**

.20

-.18 -.24

Self-efficacy and attribution

28

Table 6. Hierarchical regression analysis showing the effect of locus of causality and stability on post-competition self-efficacy under the success condition

R²

R² change

b

t

1. Pre-competition efficacy

.957

.957**

.978

30.49**

2. Locus of causality

.964

.008*

.003

.08

.087

2.64*

Stability

*p<.05 **p<.01

Self-efficacy and attribution

29

Table 7. Mean and standard deviation attribution scores of efficacy increase and efficacy decrease groups.

stability

locus of

personal

external

causality

control

control

Efficacy increase M

16.33

18.72

16.33

9.67

SD

4.91

3.83

4.10

4.72

M

10.98

15.02

15.19

10.33

SD

3.99

5.11

3.89

4.43

Efficacy decrease