aHEAD IN THE GAME

Forget everything you’ve heard. There is indeed an “I” in team. That’s not the diva in me talking, it’s literally backed by research. If you really think about it, underlying any decision we make is belief in our individual ability. Afterall, if we didn’t believe there was a chance we could accomplish a task, why would we even attempt it? The greater our trust in ourselves, the more we can do, the greater chance there is for success. Obviously, it’s a little more complicated than just believing in ourselves, or else we’d all be Michael Jordans. The reality is our valuations of self are a dynamic conglomeration of social influences and our interpretation of these influences. That is to say, our thoughts about our own abilities are influenced by our impressions of people around us. This effects our thoughts and behaviors, thereby, effecting our performances. 

Belief in yourself is one of the most important qualities an athlete can have; often we consider it “confidence.” I know what you’re thinking, “this girl is about to go on a 2000-word rant about something as boring as confidence.” If you were thinking that, first of all relax. There’s no need for attitude; secondly, YOU’D BE DEAD WRONG. Confidence is too broad a descriptor of an individual’s self-belief. I think a more appropriate term is efficacy. Self efficacy is an individual’s belief in their ability to perform a task. It implies that there is a desired outcome and is more specific than confidence. Where confidence is a global term, self efficacy is much more situational. I’m not bias or anything, (I only spent 2 years researching efficacy for my thesis), but I believe efficacy is a much better indicator of performance than self confidence. Sport is complex and comprised of small, specific moments that add up to the overall performance. Self efficacy is better suited for sport because it is by nature situation specific. Additionally, from a research perspective this specificity allows for self efficacy to be measured accurately and for conclusions about its relationship with performance to be drawn more clearly. Although I appreciate the differences between self confidence and self efficacy, I have to admit many use the terms interchangeably, even me. Going forward, whether I use the term efficacy or confidence I’m referring to the former.

Originally introduced by Albert Bandura in 1977, self efficacy was described as “the conviction that one can successfully execute the behavior required to produce the outcomes.” Bandura proposed that there were four sources that influence efficacy beliefs. Further, he proposed that efficacy expectations are an important factor in influencing an individual’s behaviors, motivation, and effort. There are four sources of self efficacy: past accomplishments, vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion, and physiological states. Past accomplishments, also referred to as mastery experiences, are the most influential source of efficacy; they are an individual’s experiences performing a certain skill. Positive experiences bolster self efficacy and negative experiences diminish it. Vicarious experiences are the next most influential source of self efficacy. They are experiences that an individual has observed through another. Vicarious experiences are most effective when they are performed by a like other, someone who is of similar abilities to the individual. Verbal persuasion is communication with an individual about their ability to succeed. It’s most effective when it is specific and sincere. The last source of self efficacy is physiological states. This source is concerned with an individual’s interpretation of things like their heartbeat, breathing rate, sweating, nervousness, exertion level etc.

Bandura suggested that these four sources inform our self efficacy beliefs. In turn, these beliefs influence behaviors, motivation, and effort levels. Efficacy impacts activity selection as people will avoid situations in which they believe they lack the necessary skills to cope; in contrast, they will seek out activities in which they believe they can be successful. Since its inception, self efficacy has remained an important variable influencing sport. A meta-analysis consisting of 45 studies, surveyed the relationship between self efficacy and performance. Results found a correlation of .38, suggesting a moderate positive relationship between the two. This means that as self efficacy increases there will be a reasonable increase in performance as well. In general, self efficacy remains one of the most important variables influencing athletic performance. Additionally, efficacy impacts psychological factors such as motivation and effort. Efficacy expectations influence an individual’s decision to endure. Those with high appraisal of their skills are likely to extend more effort and persist in the face of adversity compared to those with lower self efficacy. In general, self efficacy is derived from our past accomplishments, the accomplishments we observe of similar others, what others tell us, and how we interpret our own feelings. Taken together, this variable has been shown to have a significant impact on athletic performance and psychological factors.

While I am a huge groupie for self efficacy, I have to admit it leaves me with some questions. Our individual beliefs are important, but I would be lying if I said you could get anywhere on your own. I’ve played soccer, a team sport, my entire life. I’ve been surrounded by teammates and coaches all of which had an influence on my development. This is not unique to me. We’ve all been shaped by the people we’ve encountered in our sports. Whether we like to admit it or not, these people have helped shape our views of ourselves. Despite the name, we don’t form our views of self efficacy by ourselves. In sport, there are interactions between athletes, and those around them that effect psychology and performance.

In 2002, Lent & Lopez introduced the tripartite efficacy model in an attempt to put a name on these interactions. Self efficacy and two new relational efficacies, other efficacy and relation inferred self efficacy (RISE), were introduced; it was suggested that these efficacies work together to influence relationship outcomes and behaviors. Two of my favorite studies by Jackson et al., examined the relational efficacies as they exist between coach-athlete and athlete-athlete pairs. These investigations examined the sources of these efficacies and their effects on relationship and performance outcomes.

Obviously, the first variable mentioned in the tripartite model is self efficacy. Given that I just went off on a tangent about it, I won’t bore you by repeating anything. I’ll start with the easier of the two relational efficacies to explain: other efficacy. Other efficacy is an individual’s belief in another’s ability to complete a task. Upon the introduction of other efficacy, it was proposed that it would be influenced by perceptions of another’s performance, comparisons to those similar, and third party comments. Additionally, Lent & Lopez postulated that other efficacy would impact relationship selection, continuation, and persistence. Research of other efficacy’s role in relationships generally supports these claims made by Lent & Lopez. 

The 2009 & 2008 studies of athlete-athlete and coach-athlete pairs, suggest that sources of other efficacy can be broken down into two categories: perceptions regarding the partner and perceptions of the pair itself. For both coach-athlete and athlete-athlete pairs, perceptions regarding the partner include: past performances, comments from others, comparison with past partners, motivation, and psychological factors. While most of the factors are pretty self-explanatory, psychological factors include a partner’s commitment to goals, willingness to win, focus, and ability to learn. These sources influence other efficacy which has intrapersonal and interpersonal consequences.

Intrapersonal consequences are those that effect just the individual; interpersonal consequences are those effecting the pair. Intrapersonal consequences of other efficacy include self efficacy, motivation, and affective responses.  In interviews with athlete-athlete pairs, participants voiced that increased confidence in their partner corresponded to increased self belief. The same was true in athletes speaking about their relationships with their coaches. Both coaches and athletes have reported increased other efficacy led to increased personal motivation. In the 2008 investigation, coaches reported that confidence in their athlete led them to devote even more time to training. Another consequence of other efficacy is affective responses which include, anxiety and stress. Athletes and coaches reported more positive affective responses, such as increased enjoyment, lower stress, and frustration, as confidence in their partner increased. In both coach-athlete and athlete-athlete pairs, interpersonal effects of other efficacy were relationship persistence/termination and partner selection. As other efficacy increases individuals were more likely to continue the relationship. Similarly, the more confident an individual is in someone else, the more likely they are to choose to be paired with them.

Now here’s where things get a little sticky. Relation-inferred self efficacy (RISE), is an individual’s belief about how someone else views the individual’s ability. Originally, Lent & Lopez suggested that RISE is influenced by feedback after a performance. This feedback can be verbal or nonverbal. Additionally, RISE is impacted by self efficacy. Lent & Lopez suggested that these sources of RISE would then effect self efficacy and relationship satisfaction/persistence.

The 2009 and 2008 investigations found that RISE was impacted by an individual’s perceptions of themselves, perceptions of the partner, and perceptions of the pair. Perceptions of oneself, for both athlete-athlete and coach-athlete pairs, include self efficacy, past performances, and motivation. Perceptions of a partner includes verbal and nonverbal behavior and affective states. I think RISE is interesting because it’s so subjective. RISE is influenced by what is said directly and indirectly. For example, athletes reported what their coach says and how their coach speaks to them as effecting RISE. Things such as tone and body language contribute to how messages are interpreted. Interpretations of these types of nonverbal variables allow for potential discrepancies between what an individual is communicating and how it is received. This comes into play when talking about affective states as well. When athletes perceived that their partners were happy or enjoying training, it resulted in positive RISE beliefs. This is, again, largely up to interpretation. Perceptions regarding the pair include experience and previous accomplishments as a pair. Greater experience and past positive experiences as a pair result in favorable RISE beliefs for both coach-athlete and athlete-athlete pairs.

Similar to other efficacy outcomes, Jackson et al., divided RISE consequences into intra- and inter- personal categories. Intrapersonal categories include self efficacy, motivation, and affective responses. While these consequences are similar to the antecedents of RISE, there is a slight difference. In areas where an athlete may have little to no experience, RISE acts as a source of self efficacy. Here, an athlete may rely on their coach’s belief to bolster their own efficacy.  Interpersonal consequences include relationship persistence, termination, and satisfaction. In general, the findings of these investigations into the tripartite model of efficacy support claims made by Lent & Lopez concerning the efficacies’ role in relationships.

The introduction of the tripartite model of efficacy was intended to act as an addition to Bandura’s self efficacy theory. In its original context it was designed to describe the interactions that occur between those in close relationships such as significant others, parents-children, or therapists to clients. The sports world, however, has kind of co-opted the relational efficacies to examine their influence on performance. Habeeb’s 2020 scoping review found eight studies that showed other efficacy’s influence on training and competition. Collectively, it found evidence of other efficacy’s relationship with behavioral outcomes, effort, persistence, self efficacy, personal performance, and performance as a pair. Additionally, a 2016 study suggested RISE bridges the gap between coaches’ behaviors and self efficacy. Overall, within sport, the three efficacies work together to influence relational outcomes, performance, and psychological factors.

I truly believe that in appealing to one or all of the efficacies we can create more successful teams and partnerships. So, yes, our individual beliefs about our abilities are crucial, but the relationships that exist between teammates and coaches are the foundations for success. The beliefs we carry about those around us influence our psychology, physiology, and performance.  So, there is an “I” in team, but there’s also a “U”, and an “US”.