2

CHAPTER
Self-Efficacy Theory

STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES

After reading this chapter the student will be able to:
●
Explain the concept of Self-Efficacy Theory.
●
Identify the constructs of Self-Efficacy Theory.
●
Explain how vicarious experience influences self-efficacy.
●
Describe the influence of mastery experience on self-efficacy.
●
Demonstrate how verbal persuasion impacts self-efficacy.
●
Explain how the somatic and emotional states affect self-efficacy.
●
Use Self-Efficacy Theory to explain one health behavior.

THEORY ESSENCE SENTENCE

People will only try to do what they think they can do, and won’t try what they
think they can’t do.

13

89742_CH02.indd 1 4/26/2013 9:59:04 AM

 14 CHAPTER 2 SELF-EFFICACY THEORY

Self-Efficacy Constructs Chart

Mastery experience:
Prior success at having accomplished something that is similar to the new behavior
Vicarious experience:
Learning by watching someone similar to self be successful
Verbal persuasion:
Encouragement by others
Somatic and emotional states:
The physical and emotional states caused by thinking about undertaking the
new behavior

IN THE BEGINNING
For eons of time, we have been trying to understand and explain why people
do what they do. Early on, the theories used to explain behavior had a
psychodynamic basis and shared three characteristics—that behavior is
regulated psychically at a sub-conscience level; that behaviors diverging from
the prevailing norm are a symptom of a disease or disorder; and that behavior
changes as a result of gaining self-insight through analysis with a therapist
(Bandura, 2004). These theories formed the foundation of the “lie on the
couch” approach of talk therapy thought to be the magic bullet of behavior
change. Unfortunately, research on the outcome of talk therapy showed that
although people did gain insight into their behavior, their behavior usually
didn’t change (Bandura, 2004).
In the 1960s an alternative behaviorist approach to the explanation of
human behavior was introduced. This new approach viewed behavior as the
result of an interplay between personal, behavioral, and environmental
factors rather an unconscious process with psychodynamic roots, and it did not
consider deviant behavior a disease symptom (Bandura, 2004).
A shift in treatment also occurred at this time in terms of content, location, and
(behavior) change agent. Treatment content became action oriented and focused
on changing the actual deviant behavior rather than on trying to find the
psycho- logical origins of the behavior. Mastery experiences were used to give
people the skills and belief in themselves to adopt healthier behavior. Treatment
occurred in the settings where the behavior occurred—at home, school, workplace,
and com- munity rather than in a therapist’s office. And this new approach
did not limit treatment change agents to being mental health professionals
only. For example, teachers were trained to assist in reducing problem behaviors
in the school setting

89742_CH02.indd 2 4/26/2013 9:59:05 AM

 THEORETICAL CONCEPT 15

and peers or role models who had overcome the problem behavior
themselves were also change agents (Bandura, 2004).
Although both approaches were very different, research done on
phobias showed that both were equally as effective. Since both approaches
worked, it was apparent there was some underlying mechanism connecting
them. It was Albert Bandura in the late 1970s who proposed Self-Efficacy
Theory as the unifying mechanism (Bandura, 1977, 2004).

THEORETICAL CONCEPT
If you were given the opportunity to fund your college education by
swimming 10 laps in a pool, you surely would give it a try, assuming you can
swim. Now imagine you were given the same opportunity to raise tuition
money, but had to swim the English Channel instead. Would you still go for
it? If your swimming ability is like the average person’s, there’s no way you’d
even attempt it. Why the difference? In the first case, you believe you can swim
the 10 laps. In the second, you don’t believe you can swim the English
Channel, and so you won’t even try. Think back to your childhood and the
book The Little Engine That Could: “I think I can. I think I can.” This is the
concept of self-efficacy.
Self-efficacy is the belief in one’s own ability to successfully accomplish
some- thing. It is a theory by itself, as well as being a construct of Social
Cognitive Theory. Self-Efficacy Theory tells us that people generally will only
attempt things they believe they can accomplish and won’t attempt things they
believe they will fail. Makes sense—why would you try something you don’t
think you can do? However, people with a strong sense of efficacy believe they
can accomplish even difficult tasks. They see these as challenges to be mastered,
rather than threats to be avoided (Bandura, 1994).
Efficacious people set challenging goals and maintain strong commitment to
them. In the face of impending failure, they increase and sustain their efforts to be
successful. They approach difficult or threatening situations with confidence
that they have control over them. Having this type of outlook reduces stress and
lowers the risk of depression (Bandura, 1994).
Conversely, people who doubt their ability to accomplish difficult tasks see these
tasks as threats. They avoid them based on their own personal weaknesses or on
the obstacles preventing them from being successful. They give up quickly in the
face of difficulties or failure, and it doesn’t take much for them to lose faith in their
capabili- ties. An outlook like this increases stress and the risk of depression
(Bandura, 1994).

89742_CH02.indd 3 4/26/2013 9:59:05 AM

 16 CHAPTER 2 SELF-EFFICACY THEORY

THEORETICAL CONSTRUCTS
The theory introduces the idea that the perception of efficacy is influenced
by four factors: mastery experience, vicarious experience, verbal persuasion,
and somatic and emotional state (Bandura, 1994, 1997; Pajares, 2002).

MASTERY EXPERIENCE
We all have mastery experiences. These occur when we attempt to do
something and are successful; that is, we have mastered something. Mastery
experiences are the most effective way to boost self-efficacy because people
are more likely to believe they can do something new if it is similar to
something they have already done well (Bandura, 1994).
Perhaps you never thought about this, but babysitting is a significant
mastery experience (Figure 2–1). Babysitting is among the strongest
predictors of a new mom’s belief in her ability to take care of her own
children. Women who have experience taking care of infants prior to becoming
mothers themselves are more confident in their maternal abilities, and even
more so in completing infant care tasks they did frequently (Froman &
Owen, 1989, 1990; Gross, Roccissano, & Roncoli, 1989). So, babysitting as a
teenager pays off in many ways.
Mastery is the basis for preoperative teaching of men undergoing surgery
for prostate cancer. Since this type of surgery can result in urinary
incontinence, it is important for men to do pelvic exercises postoperatively to
restore urine control.
©
Jamie Wilson/Shutterstock, Inc.

FIGURE 2–1 Babysitting provides mastery experiences

89742_CH02.indd 4 4/26/2013 9:59:05 AM

 THEORETICAL CONSTRUCTS 17

If they are taught these exercises before surgery and practice them, their
self- efficacy increases and they are more likely to regain urine control more
quickly after surgery (Maliski, Clerkin, & Litwin, 2004).
Providing opportunities for people to gain mastery is the reason why
work- shops, training programs, internships, and clinical experiences are
offered. These are ways people can become proficient at new skills and increase
their self-efficacy. For example, training programs are one way of providing
mastery experiences for people with disabilities who are entering the labor
market (Strauser, 1995). Hours in the clinical practice areas provide
opportunities for student nurses to master nursing skills, and internships afford
health education students the chance to master the competencies needed for
professional practice.
In a fall prevention program for older adults, mastery experiences in the
form of practice opportunities for negotiating outdoor activities such as
using public transportation, stairs, and crossing streets proved to be one of
the most effective strategies of the program for increasing participants’
self-efficacy (Cheal & Clemson, 2001). Falls are a major contributor to
morbidity in people 65 and older, with one in three older adults falling each
year. Of those who do fall, 20 to 30% have injuries severe enough to impact
their ability to live independently (Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention [CDC], 2012). Increasing self-efficacy through mastery experiences
is one way of assisting older adults at risk of falling to gain confidence in
safely participating in everyday activities (Cheal & Clemson, 2001). For
personal trainers, mastery experiences are effective ways to support client
exercise self-efficacy. Starting with a simple exercise program that can be
successfully completed creates a mastery experience that can lead to success
with more challenging programs (Jackson, 2010).
It would seem that mastering something new is relatively simple: all
you have to do is practice. However, this isn’t always the case. If the new
tasks are always easy and similar to ones already mastered, and difficult,
unfamiliar ones are avoided, then a strong sense of efficacy does not develop. To
develop a strong sense of efficacy, difficult tasks also need to be attempted, and
obstacles worked through (Bandura, 1994). In reality, it’s great if you tried to
make brownies, were successful, and now make them all the time. But you can’t
live on brownies alone. At some point, you need to try making a meal.

VICARIOUS EXPERIENCE
Another factor influencing perception of self-efficacy is vicarious experience, or
the observation of the successes and failures of others (models) who are similar to
one’s

89742_CH02.indd 5 4/26/2013 9:59:05 AM

 18 CHAPTER 2 SELF-EFFICACY THEORY

self. Watching someone like yourself successfully accomplish something you

would like to attempt increases self-efficacy. Conversely, observing someone like
you fail detracts or threatens self-efficacy. The extent to which vicarious
experiences affect self-efficacy is related to how much like yourself you think the
model is (Bandura, 1994). The more one associates with the person being watched,
the greater the influ- ence on the belief that one’s self can also accomplish the
behavior being observed.
This construct can be used to explain how group weight loss programs
work. If an obese person sees someone just like himself or herself lose weight
and keep it off by following a sensible diet and exercise, then the belief in his
or her own ability to also do this is strengthened. Watching friends who have
taken a nutri- tion course choose healthy foods at a fast food establishment
may increase your belief in your ability to also choose healthy foods: “If they
can do it, so can I.”
Not only do workshops and training sessions increase mastery, they can also pro-
vide vicarious experiences, as well. Watching others in a training session, a class,
or during role playing can provide observational experiences that enhance self-
efficacy, especially if the person performing or learning the behavior is similar to the
observer. In the “Sun Protection Is Fun” program (Tripp, Herrmann,
Parcel, Chamberlain, & Gritz, 2000), developed to teach children about cancer
preven- tion, vicarious learning was used not only with the children, but with
the parents and teachers as well. Within the context of the curriculum, children
observed their teachers and other students demonstrating how to protect their
skin by using sun- screen and wearing protective clothing. In parent and teacher
videos developed for this intervention, instead of using actors as the role models in
the video, families and
teachers from the intervention schools were used instead.
Vicarious learning is at the core of coach/trainer–student/client
instruction. The coach or trainer demonstrates the skill, the student/client
then copies. This is also how you learned to tie your shoe, brush your teeth,
eat with a fork. You watched, observed your parents or older siblings, then
copied what they did. Think about all the things you learn, every day, by
watching others and how successfully accomplishing the skill increases your
self-efficacy (Figure 2–2).

VERBAL PERSUASION
The third factor affecting self-efficacy is verbal or social persuasion. When
people are persuaded verbally that they can achieve or master a task, they are
more likely to do the task. Having others verbally support attainment or
mastery of a task goes a long way in supporting a person’s belief in himself

89742_CH02.indd 6 4/26/2013 9:59:05 AM

 or herself. Coaches

89742_CH02.indd 7 4/26/2013 9:59:05 AM

 THEORETICAL CONSTRUCTS 19

AISPIX by Image Source/Shutterstock, Inc.

FIGURE 2–2 Learning by watching others

frequently use this tactic with their teams. They psyche them up, verbally,
before a game or a meet (Figure 2–3). The coach tells the players that they
are going to win, that the other team is no match for them, that they are
stronger, faster, better prepared, and so on.

©
Doug James/Shutterstock, Inc.

FIGURE 2–3 Coaches use verbal persuasion to psyche up players

89742_CH02.indd 8 4/26/2013 9:59:05 AM

 20 CHAPTER 2 SELF-EFFICACY THEORY

If a team performs poorly, the team members’ perception of ability can

be negatively affected depending on the coach’s reaction. For example, saying
we lost the game because you are all lousy players doesn’t do much for
improving self-efficacy, whereas saying we lost because we need more practice
does (Brown, Malouff, & Schutte, 2005).
Conversely, when people are told they do not have the skill or ability to
do something, they tend to give up quickly (Bandura, 1994). Imagine the
same coach telling his team that they can’t possibly win against the opposition.
What would the likely outcome be?

SOMATIC AND EMOTIONAL STATES

The physical and emotional states that occur when someone contemplates doing
something provide clues as to the likelihood of success or failure. Stress,
anxiety, worry, and fear all negatively affect self-efficacy and can lead to a
self-fulfilling prophecy of failure or inability to perform the feared tasks (Pajares,
2002). Stress- ful situations create emotional arousal, which in turn affects a
person’s perceived self-efficacy in coping with the situation (Bandura &
Adams, 1977).
People new to exercising at a gym, especially it they perceive that others
are watching them, may become anxious in anticipation of an exercise
session. This is a negative somatic state that may be detrimental to their self-
efficacy, and in turn, threaten their continued exercising. The fitness professional in
this situation can minimize the negative effects by teaching relaxation
techniques and positive self-talk in an effort to reduce anxiety and support
self-efficacy (Jackman, 2010). A classic example of how the emotional state
affects self-efficacy and, ultimately, health behavior is fear of the dentist
(Figure 2–4). For millions of people in this country, the mere thought of going
to the dentist is associated with intense pain and anxiety. It is certainly a stressful
situation. As a result, they cannot bring them- selves to make appointments or
keep appointments for even routine, preventive dental care. This avoidance
behavior results in a situation in which dental health deteriorates, causing
them to have the very pain they wanted to avoid, and the need for more
extensive treatment or possible tooth loss (Rowe & Moore, 1998). As is evident
from this example, emotional arousal affects self-efficacy, and self-efficacy
affects the decisions people make. If the emotional state improves— that is,
emotional arousal or stress is reduced—a change in self-efficacy can be
expected (Bandura & Adams, 1977).

89742_CH02.indd 9 4/26/2013 9:59:05 AM

 THEORY IN ACTION—CLASS ACTIVITY 21

Michal Kowalski/Shutterstock, Inc.

FIGURE 2–4 Fear of the dentist can lead to avoidance behavior

While we tend to think about negative examples of how the emotional

state impacts self-efficacy and health behavior, sometimes the emotional state
is posi- tive. Think about the effect of the “runner’s high” on health behavior. In
this case, the emotional state that results is pleasurable, rather than
uncomfortable This would positively impact self-efficacy, and support
continued engagement in the behavior that created it.
In summary, according to Self-Efficacy Theory, verbal persuasion,
mastery experiences, vicarious experiences, and somatic and emotional states
affect our self-efficacy and, therefore, our behavior (Figure 2–5).

THEORY IN ACTION—CLASS ACTIVITY

In all aspects of life, sometimes we win and sometimes we lose. Learning
how to cope with the losses is extremely important as loss can affect our
health in many ways. In a small group, identify a “loss” situation—perhaps
loss of a job, a scholarship, or a relationship. Discuss how this type of loss
might affect the way people think about themselves, their mental health, and
how it might affect their behavior. Brainstorm ways in which the constructs of
Self-Efficacy Theory might be used to help people cope with this type of loss.
Read the following article and then answer the questions at the end.

89742_CH02.indd 10 4/26/2013 9:59:05 AM

89742_CH02.indd 22

22
CHAPTER 2 SELF-EFFICACY THEORY
Attempt—Successful

Somatic/Emotional State Mastery Experience

Vicarious Experience Vicarious Experience

Self-Efficacy
Verbal Persuasion Verbal Persuasion

Mastery Experience Somatic/Emotional State

Avoid—Unsuccessful

FIGURE 2–5 Self-Efficacy Theory

4/26/2013 9:59:19 AM
 Chapter 2 Article: The Effectiveness of a
Self-Efficacy Intervention for Helping
Adolescents Cope with Sport-Competition Loss1
Brown, Lisa J; Malouff, John M; Schutte, Nicola S

Abstract (summary)
Building on prior intervention research with women athletes (Arathoon &
Malouff, in press), this study examined the effectiveness of a self-efficacy interven-
tion for helping adolescents cope with sport-competition loss. The study included
111 adolescent netball and soccer participants (mean age = 13.98, SD =
1.36), who completed a positive affect scale prior to competition. Defeated
participants were randomly assigned to intervention or control groups.
Intervention partici- pants were asked to choose one or more of six thoughts
related to self-efficacy and apply those to themselves before both groups again
completed the positive affect scale. Control group participants showed a
significant decline in self-reported positive affect compared to intervention
participants. Observational ratings also indicated that the control group showed
less positive affect after the loss than the intervention group. The results provide
support for self-efficacy theory as applied to helping individuals cope with
competition loss.
Winning and losing are fundamental outcomes faced by adolescents not
only in the sporting arena but also within a competitive modern society.
There is evidence that losing in competitive sport can instigate a decline in
positive affect among adult competitors (Arathoon & Malouff, in press; Cox
& Kerr, 1990; Robinson & Howe, 1978). High positive affect involves “high
energy, full concentration, and pleasurable engagement” and low levels of
positive affect involve “sadness and lethargy” (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen,
1988, p. 1063). It seems plausible that adolescent athletes, like adult athletes,
experience a decline in positive affect as a result of competition defeat.
The consequences of a reduction in positive affect following competition
defeat can be far reaching, with the perceived importance of the loss
mediating

1
Reproduced from Brown, L.J., Malouff, J.M., & Schutte, N.S. (2005). The effectiveness
of self-efficacy intervention for helping adolescents cope with sport competition loss. Journal
of Sports Behavior, 28(2), 136–150.

23

89742_CH02.indd 23 4/26/2013 9:59:19 AM

 24 CHAPTER 2 SELF-EFFICACY THEORY

the degree of influence of the loss (Bandura, 1997). A decline in positive

affect in response to competition loss tends to lead to negative cognitive and
behavioral responses (Morris, 1989). Cognitive consequences of a decline in
positive affect can include impaired decision making and problem solving (Isen,
1999). Behav- ioral consequences can include acts of frustration, anger, and
aggression (Isberg, 2000; Wehlage, 1980), with the social consequence of being
labeled a “poor loser.” Research has shown that affect is associated with self-
efficacy (Bandura, 1997; Forgas, Bower, & Moylan, 1990; Heimpel, Wood,
Marshall, & Brown, 2002).
These findings raise the possibility that one way to enhance affect after a competition
loss is to enhance self-efficacy.
Self-efficacy involves individuals’ beliefs about their own ability to
successfully engage in a task in order to obtain a desired outcome (Bandura,
1977). Self-efficacy is important because individuals with high self-efficacy for a task
tend to try harder at the task and experience more positive emotions relating to the
task (Bandura, 1997). In competitive sport, desired outcomes include
winning and playing well.
It seems likely that when sport competitors lose, their self-efficacy in the
sport decreases (Lane and Terry, 2000). Athletes saying dejectedly after a
loss that “I stink” or “I don’t even belong on the field” provide examples of the
sort of low self-efficacy that can result from a loss and lead to lowered positive
affect. If one could boost athletes’ self-efficacy after a loss, their prior level of
positive affect might be preserved (Bandura, 1997; Hanin, 2000).
There are various possible ways of boosting self-efficacy in young
athletes following a loss. Parents, coaches, and teammates might be able to
help through providing encouragement and positive evaluative feedback (Feltz
& Lirgg, 1993) and prompting adaptive attributions about the loss (see
Robinson & Howe, 1981; McAuley & Gross, 1983), such as that “we played
poorly today because we haven’t practiced enough” rather than “we played poorly
because we are no good.” A related possibility involves causing the athletes to
think in such a way, initially through prompting, that boosts self-efficacy, e.g.,
by thinking about prior suc- cesses or positive aspects of their play in the just
completed game (Bandura, 1997). Prompted cognitions have successfully
influenced affect and behavior in a variety of studies (Brewer, Doughtie &
Lubin, 1980; Thayer, Newman & McClain, 1994). For instance, Velten (1968)
used cognition prompting to decrease and then increase positive affect.
Arathoon and Malouff (in press) found that asking women field hockey players to
think for two minutes about their choice of six different positive or coping
thoughts led to less of a decline in positive affect after losing a game. The type
of thought most commonly chosen involved the individual or

89742_CH02.indd 24 4/26/2013 9:59:19 AM

 METHOD 25

the team playing well at some point in the game. According to Bandura
(1997), success thoughts like these, along with thoughts about encouragement
or posi- tive feedback from others, and thoughts about observing another person
succeed, tend to enhance self-efficacy. Hence, the findings of the study of
Arathoon and Malouff suggest that enhancing self-efficacy might be the key
element of any intervention that prevents a decrease in positive affect following
competition loss. The purposes of the present study were to investigate the
results of losing competitively on the positive affect level of adolescents
and to examine the effectiveness of a self-efficacy intervention for helping
adolescents cope with competition loss. The first hypothesis was that adolescents
who experience defeat in a sport competition (and receive no intervention)
would show a significant lowering of positive affect from pre to post-
competition. The second hypothesis was that following competition defeat,
adolescent athletes prompted to focus on thoughts suggested by self-efficacy
theory would experience less decline in
positive affect than athletes who received no intervention.

METHOD
PARTICIPANTS
The 111 participants included 53 males and 58 females who were 11 to 17
years old, with an average age of 13.98 (SD = 1.36). Participants were
recruited from local netball and soccer clubs in eastern Australia as part of a
convenience sample intended to include adolescent males and females and
two different sports. Participants provided written assent and a parent
provided written consent.

MEASURES
Positive Affect Self-Report Measure. All participants completed the 10-
item Positive Affect scale of the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule present-
moment version (PANAS; Watson, Clark, and Tellegen, 1988) as a pre and post-
competition measure of positive affect. Respondents used a 5-point response
scale ranging from 1 “very slightly or not at all” to 5 “extremely” to indicate
the degree to which they feel (1) interested, (2) excited, (3) strong, (4)
enthusiastic, (5) proud,
(6) alert, (7) inspired, (8) determined, (9) attentive and (10) active, at the
present moment. Scores on the PANAS can range from 10–50, with low
positive affect scores signifying sadness and lethargy, and high positive affect
scores indicating enthusiasm, high energy and full concentration levels
(Watson et al., 1988).

89742_CH02.indd 25 4/26/2013 9:59:19 AM

 26 CHAPTER 2 SELF-EFFICACY THEORY

According to Watson et al. (1988), the Positive Affect scale of the PANAS
has good internal consistency with a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of .89
reported when respondents focus on the present moment. Long-term
stability has also been shown with a correlation of .54 over three months for
measurement of the present moment (Watson et al., 1988). The Positive
Affect scale of the PANAS has been shown to be a useful measure of changes in
affect (Watson et al., 1988) and shares good convergent validity with other
measures of positive affect (Watson et al., 1988). The scale’s psychometric
properties in adolescent popula- tions were investigated by Huebner and
Dew (1995), who found a coefficient alpha of .85 along with support for the
independence of negative and positive affect dimensions.
The Negative Affect scale of the PANAS was not used in the study because
(a) the Negative Affect scale, with items such as “tense, anxious, nervous,
and jittery,” has been found to be related closely to anxiety (Watson et al.,
1988), an emotion that one would not expect athletes to experience after
losing and that Abadie (1989) and Sanderson and Ashton (1981) found did
not significantly increase after losing; and (b) the additional time needed to
complete the scale might have reduced participant cooperation.
Observational Measure of Positive Affect. An independent observer, blind
to the research hypotheses, observed the behavior of small subgroups of the
experi- mental and control conditions following the intervention procedure
in the post-competition phase, in order to determine which small group of
individuals showed greater levels of positive affect. The observational rating was
based on evi- dence that facial expressions and overt behavior tend to indicate
level of positive affect (Ekman, 1999; Parrott & Hertel, 1999). So, if a team was
divided into two small groups of (a) three members in the experimental
condition and (b) two members in the control condition, the observer would
decide after the interven- tion which small group as a whole appeared to
have more positive affect.

INTERVENTION
The intervention participants were asked to focus on or imagine for a minute one
or more certain thoughts or images that related to three sources of self-
efficacy (Bandura, 1997). The items were (1) personal mastery: (a) “Think
about something you did really well during the game” and (b) “Think about
winning your next game and how you will feel”; (2) verbal encouragement:
(a) “Think about a time when your team-mates or coach praised you” and (b)
“Think about a time when your team-mates or coach showed confidence in
you”; (3) vicarious

89742_CH02.indd 26 4/26/2013 9:59:19 AM

 METHOD 27

mastery: (a) “Think about a great athlete who failed at first and then
succeeded” and (b) “Think about a great athlete who works harder after
losing so he or she can win in the future.” The paired items were randomly
assigned to create two forms. To create Version 1 (1) the three pairs of
items were blocked, (2) a random numbers table was used to randomly choose
the order of the three pairs and (3) the randomization process was used to
determine which item in each pair would be used first. To create Version 2,
the order of items was reversed.

PROCEDURE
Netball and soccer clubs were contacted and provided with written and
verbal information regarding the study. Clubs then signed forms to indicate
their consent for involvement. Team coaches were approached one week
prior to the game, and parents or caregivers of competitors were provided
with infor- mation sheets and participation consent forms to sign.
The senior author asked coaches which teams were likely to win and lose
and used team won-loss records to select teams that were likely to lose an
upcoming game. Competitors on these teams were requested to arrive at the field
10 minutes prior to the start of the game. During this period players
anonymously com- pleted the pre-competition Positive Affect scale.
Competitors were asked to place completed measures in boxes adjacent to
the field. Following competition, athletes who played on losing teams were
randomly assigned to a control and an experimental condition. Individual
participants were assigned to either the exper- imental or the control group on
the basis of a coin toss done before the game.
Coaches and parents or caregivers were asked to refrain from offering
any post-competition feedback to the competitors in order to control for any
changes in competitors’ positive affect in response to positive or negative
exchanges. Participants in the control group were asked to remain separate
from the experi- mental group and wait quietly until experimental group
participants completed the self-efficacy intervention. Experimental group
participants were asked to read the six-item self-efficacy intervention and
visualize or focus on one or more of the statements for one minute. A
randomly selected half of the intervention participants were given the first
order of the six self-efficacy items; the other half received the items in the
reverse order. Both groups were then requested to com- plete anonymously the
positive affect measure again. Code words on pre and post measures allowed
sets of responses for each participant to be combined. The independent observer
observed and recorded the behavior of the experimental and control groups
while they completed the positive affect measure postgame.

89742_CH02.indd 27 4/26/2013 9:59:19 AM

 28 CHAPTER 2 SELF-EFFICACY THEORY

Sixteen teams in total participated in the study (six netball teams and ten soccer
teams), over a period of three months. Three teams won their game.
Thirteen teams were defeated in competition. Two teams experienced game
delays of one week due to inclement weather conditions and forfeiting. For
both these teams, new Positive Affect scales were completed prior to competition
the following week.

PILOT STUDY
A pilot study was undertaken prior to commencement of the main study in
order to clarify the suitability of assessment procedures. Four female
netball players aged between 12 and 14 years, whose team was defeated in
com- petition, participated in the pilot study. The precompetition measures
took approximately three minutes to complete and the post-competition
mea- sures approximately five minutes. In the post-competition phase, two
players were assigned to the control condition and two to the experimental
condi- tion. The data for these players were excluded from the main study
sample. The pilot test was useful in identifying that (1) language used
throughout the assessment procedure was appropriate for the adolescent
cohort, (2) the experimental intervention was completed by two players
without difficulty, and (3) specific modifications would be likely to enhance
the procedure. These modifications, which we made, included (a)
requesting the coach’s assistance in coordinating players participating in
the study directly before and after the competition, (b) ensuring players
were given clipboards to write on, (c) utilizing areas beside the court that
were relatively free of distraction for the competitors, and (d) requesting
that the coach refrain from offering any post-competition discussion prior
to the survey.

RESULTS
Collation of pre and post-competition scores and responses yielded 97 useable
data sets, including 75 for losing competitors and 22 for winning
competitors. Fourteen data sets of players were excluded from the final analyses
because the players left during the game (N = 7) or after the game but
before being given the post-game research materials (N = 7). Three data
sets failed to reveal age details, but these sets were still included in the
final analyses.
The main analyses involved a within-group t test to determine mean
changes between pre and post-competition measures of positive affect for
players who

89742_CH02.indd 28 4/26/2013 9:59:19 AM

 RESULTS 29

lost and did not receive an intervention, and an ANCOVA, as recommended

by Tabachnick and Fidell (2001), to determine group differences in post-
competition measures of positive affect (the dependent variable) controlling for
the influence of pre-competition measures of positive affect (the covariate).
Assumptions of the statistics, including normality of the data, homogeneity of
variance, linearity of relationship between the pre and post-competition
measures of affect, and homogeneity of regression slopes, were met. Also, the
reliability of the covariate, pre-competition Positive Affect, was adequate,
with Cronbach’s alpha at .80.
The first hypothesis was that adolescents who experienced defeat in a sport
competition and received no intervention would show a significant lowering of
positive affect from pre to post-competition. A within-group t test was
done to evaluate the impact of competition loss on measures of competitors’
positive affect, specifically to determine whether positive affect for control
group partici- pants decreased following defeat. See Table 1 and Figure 1 for
the group means for pre-competition and post-competition measures of
positive affect. Control group participants showed a statistically significant
decrease in positive affect from precompetition scores to post-competition
scores, t(36) = 5.42, p < .001 two-tailed. Cohen’s d was 0.61, indicating a
moderate effect size in terms of the standards of Cohen (1988), who
described effects of .20 as small, .50 as moderate, and .80 as large.

Table 1 Descriptive Statistics for pre- and post-competition positive affects

scores
Positive Affect Scale Scores

Groups and n Mean SD Range

Times Winning
Teams
Pre-Competition 22 34.23 6.50 22–44
Post-Competition 22 37.82 11.15 19–50
Losing Teams
Control Group
Pre-Competition 37 35.54 4.87 27–48
Post-Competition 37 30.03 8.14 16–50
Experimental Group
Pre-Competition 38 33.68 7.81 16–48
Post-Competition 38 32.08 10.41 13–50

89742_CH02.indd 29 4/26/2013 9:59:19 AM

 30 CHAPTER 2 SELF-EFFICACY THEORY

38

37

36

35 Losing Experimental Group

Losing Control Group
34 Winning Teams
Positive
Affect

33

32

31

30

Pre Post

Figure 1 The Effectiveness of a Self-Efficacy Intervention for Helping Adolescents

Cope with Sport-Competition Loss
Source: Reproduced from Brown, L.J., Malouff, J.M., & Schutte, N.S. (2005). The
effectiveness of self-efficacy intervention for helping adolescents cope with sport competition
loss. Journal of Sports Behavior, 28(2), 136–150.

In order to obtain as much useful information as possible from the study,

we conducted some supplemental, exploratory analyses relating to the first
hypothesis. To determine whether declines of positive affect were different between
gender groups, male and female control group participants were compared.
After adjusting for pre-competition measures of positive affect, a one-way
between-groups ANCOVA revealed there was no significant difference between
males and females in terms of a reduction in positive affect following
competition loss, F (1, 34) = 1.36, p = .25.
In order to test the unhypothesized possibility that just playing, regard-
less of outcome, leads to a decrease in positive affect, we analyzed whether
adolescents on defeated teams decreased in positive affect more than ado-
lescents on winning teams. For the relevant ANCOVA the assumption of
homogeneity of variance was violated, so we followed the recommendation of

89742_CH02.indd 30 4/26/2013 9:59:19 AM

 RESULTS 31

Tabachnik and Fidell (2001) and set alpha at .01. A comparison of the win-
ning players and the losing control players showed a significant difference
in post-game positive affect, F(1,56) = 15.01, p < .001, with the losing
players decreasing in positive affect from pre-game to post and the winning
players increasing from pre to post.
In order to determine whether the three groups in the study, the
winning players, the losing players in the intervention, and the losing players in
the con- trol condition, varied across all three groups in post-game positive
affect, we used an ANCOVA to compare the three groups. The differences in
group means at post-game were statistically significant, F(1,93) = 7.78, p =
.001, laying a foundation for testing the second hypothesis, which stated that
following com- petition defeat, adolescent athletes prompted to focus on
thoughts suggested by self-efficacy theory would experience less decline in
positive affect than control group participants. We conducted a one-way
between-groups ANCOVA com- paring post-competition self-report positive
affect between experimental and control group participants. After adjusting
for the pre-competition positive affect scores, there was a significant
difference between the control and experimental groups’ post-competition
measures of positive affect following the intervention procedure F(1,72) =
4.67, p = .034. The effect size of the difference in mean scores at post-game
between the groups was small, with d = 0.22. Another way to interpret the
meaningfulness of the effect is to consider what percentage of ath- letes in
each group suffered a large decline in positive affect, for instance of more than
the pooled standard deviation at pre-game (6.55). For the control group, 17 of
37 players (46%) decreased that much in positive affect; for the intervention
group, only 9 of 38 players (24%) decreased that much.
In order to obtain as much useful information as possible from the study
data, we conducted a supplemental, exploratory analysis to determine whether
changes in self-reported positive affect were different for males and females in
the com- parison of the intervention group and the control group. A 2
(intervention versus control conditions) by 2 (genders) between-groups
ANCOVA using scores on the pre-competition positive affect scale as a covariate
showed that gender did not significantly interact with which condition the
participants were in, F(1,70) = 0.08, p = .78.
In all 12 of the 12 post-intervention comparisons of small same-team subgroups
of experimental and control participants, the observer rated higher the
overall positive affect shown by members of the experimental subgroup. A
binomial probability distribution test (Howell, 1997) indicated that this
pattern showed a statistically significant difference between conditions, p <
.001.

89742_CH02.indd 31 4/26/2013 9:59:19 AM

 32 CHAPTER 2 SELF-EFFICACY THEORY

Table 2 Self-efficacy Intervention Choice Frequency

Option Response Frequency Response Percentage
Direct experience of success
1. Think about something you did 23 26.74%
really well during the game.
2. Think about winning your next game 18 20.93%
and how you will feel.
Subtotal 41 47.67%
Encouragement or positive feedback regarding one’s performance
3. Think about a time when your team- 12 13.95%
mates or coach praised you.
4. Think about a time when your team- 16 18.60%
mates or coach showed confidence
in you.
Subtotal 28 32.55%
Vicarious mastery
5. Think about a great athlete who 7 8.14%
failed at first and then succeeded.
6. Think about a great athlete who 10 11.63%
works harder after losing so he or
she can win in the future.
Subtotal 17 19.77%

Note. Respondents were able to choose more than one self-efficacy option. Each pair
of options relate to one of the following three factors that can influence self-efficacy:
(1) direct experience of success, (2) encouragement from others, and (3) observation
of another person succeeding (Bandura, 1997).

An analysis was conducted into the selection of self-efficacy options made

by respondents during the intervention procedure. Table 2 shows choice frequency.
Participants in the experimental condition were randomly assigned one of
two orders of the self-efficacy options in order to minimize order effects. In
deter- mining whether selection responses of participants were equally
distributed across items, analysis revealed the obtained chi-square value
(11.81) for the 6 categories and 86 choices exceeded the critical value
(11.07), p < .05 (Howell, 1997). This indicates a significant difference among
the options chosen by participants in the experimental condition, with
more participants choosing options which related directly to personal
experience of success (47.67%).

89742_CH02.indd 32 4/26/2013 9:59:19 AM

 DISCUSSION 33

DISCUSSION
The results provided support for the first hypothesis in that defeated
competi- tors in the control group experiencing a significant decline in
positive affect levels from pre to post-competition. Further, the defeated
competitors showed a significantly greater decrease in positive affect than did
winning competitors. These finding are congruent with research carried out
on adult field-hockey (Arathoon & Malouff, in press), soccer (Robinson &
Howe, 1978), and squash players (Cox & Kerr, 1990), indicating that
participants who were defeated in competition experienced a lowering of
positive affect in relation to pre-competition levels.
The finding that winning competitors did not experience a decline in
posi- tive affect suggests that playing itself, regardless of outcome, does not
produce a decrease in positive affect. Hence, the decrease in positive affect in
the losing athletes is more likely due to losing than mere playing. The findings of
the decline for losing adolescent competitors support Wehlage’s (1980)
comments that likened competition loss to a psychological grief reaction due to
the occurrence of affective changes. The finding that males and females did not
differ significantly in their positive-affect decline suggests that the effect is a
broad one.
The second hypothesis was supported by results that indicated participants
in the experimental group exposed to the self-efficacy intervention experienced less
decline in positive affect than control group participants. This effect was shown
to be similar for males and females. The size of the effect with regard to self-report
data was moderate. The finding provides support for Bandura’s (1997) theoretical
view that high self-efficacy tends to lead to high positive affect.
The present study found, as did the study of Arathoon and Malouff (in
press), that prompting athletes to think theoretically adaptive thoughts helped
prevent a decline in positive affect after losing. The current finding extends
the finding of Arathoon and Malouff (in press) to adolescents as well as adults, to
males as well as females, and to soccer and netball players as well as field hockey
players. The findings with regard to the observer rating of positive affect extend
the self-report findings of Arathoon and Malouff to the realm of systematically
observed signs of positive affect, which one might think less susceptible to
experimenter-demand effects. The current findings also show that somewhat
different thoughts from those suggested to the players in the study of Arathoon
and Malouff can have a positive effect.
The present study found, as in the study of Arathoon and Malouff (in
press), that the types of thoughts most commonly chosen by defeated
athletes were

89742_CH02.indd 33 4/26/2013 9:59:19 AM

 34 CHAPTER 2 SELF-EFFICACY THEORY

those that dealt with performing well. In the study of Arathoon and Malouff,
the thoughts selected most were “something [I] did well in the game” and “we
didn’t win but we really played well.” In the present study the two thoughts most
selected were “something you did really well during the game” and “winning
your next game and how you will feel.” Thinking along those lines of good
and successful performance could be at the heart of self-efficacy and positive
affect for athletes.
The results should be interpreted with consideration of several
methodolog- ical characteristics of the study. First, the observer measure lacked
demonstrated reliability and validity. However, the results of the observer ratings
were consistent with the self-report results and also with casual observations in
another study of losing woman field hockey players (Arathoon & Malouff, in
press). Second, the study did not examine whether the intervention procedure
based on self-efficacy theory produced changes in self-efficacy or was more
effective than any other type of cognitive intervention. The effects might be
due to competitors merely being distracted from their loss. Future research
might shed light on this issue. At any rate, the intervention did produce a
valuable effect in adolescent athletes. Third, to control for extraneous
influences, the control group participants were asked to wait quietly for a minute
or so while experimental participants completed the self- efficacy intervention. It
is possible that during this period, control group partici- pants actually dwelled
on their loss and as a result experienced greater decline of positive affect than
they might have under ordinary circumstances. However, it is quite common for
athletes after a game to remain silent for a minute or so as they start to gather
gear, change clothes, or go home, so the control condition created nothing
unusual.
Fourth, it is possible that playing in a game we expected them to lose
might have influenced the positive affect of the players at pre or post-game.
Perhaps they also expected to lose and so had less of a decline in positive affect
than if they had expected to win. However, for the main analysis between
intervention and control group members, this expectation effect, if any, would
have been equiva- lent for both groups and so not affected group differences.
Although the study had certain methodological limitations, it also had
methodological strengths, for instance in the random assignment of
participants to conditions and use of a well-validated self-report measure of
positive affect as well as an observation measure. The safest conclusion is that
the findings provide some support for the theory of self-efficacy and some
support for a specific application of self-efficacy principles to helping
adolescent athletes cope with losing by prompting them to think about some
good aspects of their recent or

89742_CH02.indd 34 4/26/2013 9:59:19 AM

 REFERENCES 35

other performance in the sport. The main implication of the findings is that
the self-efficacy intervention is worthy of further examination. The high
participation levels of adolescents in organized sport (see, e.g., Australian
Bureau of Statistics, 1997) provide coaches and parents with many
opportunities to test informally the ability of self-efficacy strategies to help
individual athletes cope with losing. Large-scale experimental research might
profitably clarify whether the specific self-efficacy intervention thoughts (1)
produce a positive effect on self-efficacy and (2) are of more benefit than
other thoughts.

REFERENCES
Abadie, B. R. (1989). Effect of competitive outcome on state anxiety. Perceptual and
Motor Skills, 69, 1057–1058.
Australian Bureau of Statistics (1997). Participation in sport and physical activities,
1995–96. (No.4177.0). Canberra: Author.
Arathoon, S. M., & Malouff, J. M. (in press). The effectiveness of a brief cognitive
inter- vention to help athletes cope with competition loss. Journal of Sport
Behavior.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84, 191–215.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy. The exercise of control. NY: W.H. Freeman and Company.
Brewer, D., Doughtie, E. B., & Lubin, B. (1980). Induction of mood and mood shift.
Journal of Clinical Psychology, 36, 215–225.
Cobb, N. J. (1998). Adolescence: continuity, change and diversity. Mayfield, CA:
Mayfield Publishing Company.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Cox, T., & Kerr, J. H. (1990). Self-reported mood in competitive squash. Personality
and Individual Di#erences, 11, 199–203.
Dagleish, T., & Power, M. J. (Eds.). (1999). Handbook of cognition and emotion. New York:
Wiley.
Ekman, P. (1999). Basic Emotions. In T. Dagleish and M. J. Power (Eds.), Handbook of
cognition and emotion (pp. 45–60). New York: Wiley.
Ellis, H. C., & Moore, B. A. (1999). Mood and memory. In T. Dagleish and M.J. Power
(Eds.), Handbook of cognition and emotion (pp. 193–210). New York: Wiley.
Feltz, D. L., & Lirgg, C. D. (2001). Self-efficacy beliefs of athletes, teams and coaches.
In R. N. Singer, H. A. Hausenblas, and C. M. Janelle (Eds.), Handbook of sports
psychology (pp. 340–361). New York: Wiley.
Forgas, J. P., Bower, G. H., & Moylan, S. (1990). Praise or blame? Affective influences
on attributions for achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
59, 809–819.
Hanin, Y. L. (2000). Emotions in sport. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Heimpel, S. A., Wood, J. V., Marshall, M. A., & Brown, J.D. (2002). Do people with low
self-esteem really want to feel better? Self-esteem differences in motivation to repair
negative moods. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 128–147.

89742_CH02.indd 35 4/26/2013 9:59:19 AM

 36 CHAPTER 2 SELF-EFFICACY THEORY

Howell, D. C. (1997). Statistical methods for psychology. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth

Publishing Company.
Huebner, E. S., & Dew, T. (1995). Preliminary validation of the Positive and Negative Affect
Schedule with adolescents. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 13, 286–293.
Isen, A. M. (1999). Positive affect. In T. Dagleish and M. J. Power (Eds.), Handbook of
cognition and emotion (pp. 521–539). New York: Wiley.
Isberg, L. (2000). Anger, aggressive behavior and athletic performance. In U.L. Hanin
(Ed.), Emotions in sport (pp. 113–133). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Kazdin, A. E. (1998). Research designs in clinical psychology. (3rd ed.). Needham Heights,
MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Lane, A. M., & Terry, P. C. (2000). The nature of mood: development of a conceptual
model with focus on depression. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 12, 16–33.
McAuley, E., & Gross, J. B. (1983). Perceptions of causality in sport: an application of the
causal dimension scale. Journal of Sport Psychology, 5, 72–76.
Morris, W. N. (1989). Mood: the frame of mind. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Parrott, W. G, & Hertel, P. (1999). Research methods in cognition and emotion. In
T. Dagleish and M. J. Power (Eds.), Handbook of cognition and emotion (pp. 61–82).
New York: Wiley.
Robinson, D. W., & Howe, B. L. (1978). Causal attributions and mood state
relationships of soccer players in a sport achievement setting. Journal of Sport Behavior,
1, 137–146.
Sanderson, F. H., & Ashton, M. K. (1981). Analysis of anxiety levels before and after
badminton competition. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 12, 23–28.
Tabachnick, B. G, & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics. Boston: Allyn and
Bacon.
Thayer, R. E., Newman, J. R., & McClain, T. M. (1994). Self-regulation of mood: strate-
gies for changing a bad mood, raising energy, and reducing tension. Journal of
Person- ality and Social Psychology, 67, 910–925.
Velten, E. (1968). A laboratory task for induction of mood states. Behavior Research
and Therapy, 6, 473–482.
Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1997). Measurement and mismeasurement of mood: recurrent
and emergent issues. Journal of Personality Assessment, 68, 267–296.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief
measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070.
Wehlage, D. F. (1980). Managing the emotional reaction to loss in athletics. Athletic
Training, 15, 144–146.

AUTHORS’ NOTES
We thank the competitors, parents, caregivers, coaches and committee members of the
Wel- lington Netball Association and the Wellington Junior Soccer Association, for
cooperation with this study.
This paper is based on the 4th year thesis of Lisa J. Brown, who was supervised by John
M. Malouff in consultation with Nicola S. Schutte.

89742_CH02.indd 36 4/26/2013 9:59:19 AM

 CHAPTER REFERENCES 37

AUTHOR AFFILIATION
Lisa J. Brown, John M. Malouff, and Nicola S. Schutte
University of New England, Australia

AUTHOR AFFILIATION
Address Correspondence to: John M. Malouff, School of Psychology, University of New
England, Armidale, NSW, 2351, Australia. Email: jmalouff@[Link].

CHAPTER ACTIVITY QUESTIONS

1. What was the problem or behavior the authors were trying to
address in this article?
2. Which constructs did they use?
3. What was the intervention they developed based on the constructs?
4. How was this intervention similar or different from the ones
you identified in your brainstorming session?
5. Using the results of your brainstorming session, what else could
have been done?

CHAPTER REFERENCES
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-Efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215.
Bandura, A., & Adams, N. (1977). Analysis of Self-Efficacy Theory of behavior change.
Cognitive Therapy and Research, 1(4), 287–310.
Bandura, A. (1994). Self-Efficacy. In V.S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Human
Behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 71–81). New York: Academic Press. (Reprinted in H.
Friedman [Ed.], Encyclopedia of Mental Health. San Diego: Academic Press,
1998.)
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-E$cacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: Freeman.
Bandura, A. (2004). Swimming against the mainstream: The early years from chilly
tribu- tary to transformative mainstream. Behavior Research and Therapy, 42, 613–
630.
Brown, L.J., Malouff, J.M., & Schutte, N.S. (2005). The effectiveness of a self-efficacy
intervention for helping adolescents cope with sport-competition loss. Journal of Sport
Behavior, 28(2), 136–150.

89742_CH02.indd 37 4/26/2013 9:59:19 AM

 38 CHAPTER 2 SELF-EFFICACY THEORY

Centers for Disease Control. (2012). Cost of falls among older adults. Retrieved March
15, 2013, from [Link]
Cheal, B., & Clemson, L. (2001). Older people enhancing self-efficacy in fall-risk
situations. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 48, 80–91.
Froman, R.D., & Owen, S.V. (1989). Infant care self-efficacy. Scholarly Inquiry for Nursing
Practice: An International Journal, 3(3), 199–210.
Froman, R.D., & Owen, S.V. (1990). Mothers’ and nurses’ perceptions of infant care skills.
Research in Nursing and Health, 13, 247–253.
Gross, D., Rocissano, L., & Roncoli, M. (1989). Maternal confidence during
toddlerhood: Comparing preterm and full-term groups. Research in Nursing and
Health, 18(6), 489–499.
Jackson, D. (2010). How personal trainers can use Self-Efficacy Theory to enhance
exercise behavior in beginning exercisers. Strength and Conditioning Journal,
32(3), 67–71.
Maliski, S.L., Clerkin, B., & Litwin, M.S. (2004). Describing a nurse case manager
intervention to empower low-income men with prostate cancer. Oncology
Nursing Forum, 31(1), 57–63.
Pajares, F. (2002). Overview of Social Cognitive Theory and of self-efficacy. Retrieved
March 15, 2013, from [Link]
Rowe, M.M., & Moore, T.A. (1998). Self-report measures of dental fear: Gender difference.
American Journal of Health Behavior, 22(4), 243–247.
Strauser, D. (1995). Applications of Self-Efficacy Theory in rehabilitation counseling.
Journal of Rehabilitation, 61(1), 7–11.
Tripp, M.K., Herrmann, N.B, Parcel, G.S., Chamberlain, R.M., & Gritz, E.R. (2000). Sun
protection is fun! A skin cancer prevention program for pre-schools. Journal of
School Health, 70 (10), 395–401.

89742_CH02.indd 38 4/26/2013 9:59:19 AM