|
The purpose of this study was to investigate the influence of self-efficacy on a maximum anaerobic effort. Eighteen college age participants were randomly assigned to one of three groups: (a) high-efficacy (HE), (b) low-efficacy (LE), or (c) control group. Efficacy expectations were manipulated via false performance feedback. Before and after the manipulation, participants completed a 30-second Wingate bike test to fatigue. Change in peak power (PKPWR), mean power (MPWR), maximum heart rate (MHR), and TSSE scores were analyzed using a one-way ANOVA . No differences were observed between the high and low groups on all variables. However, compared to the control group, both high and low groups yielded a positive peak power (PKPWR) change (p< .05). Self-efficacy, regardless of direction (i.e., positive/negative feedback), positively influenced PKPWR change in the high and low groups. A larger sample size is needed to further explain the influence of self-efficacy on anaerobic performance.
Self-efficacy, or an individual’s perceived capacity to effectively respond to stimuli, often influences an individual’s ability to mobilize the necessary resources to successfully complete a task. More distinctively, task specific self-efficacy (TSSE), or self-efficacy in relation to a particular exercise, can be measured not only to account for the extent of personal mental manipulation used to accomplish a task but also to gauge the effectiveness of those psychological processes (Bandura 1994). Depending upon one’s own inherent athletic self-perception, self-efficacy can influence a wide range of performance aspects, such as affective valance, power output, and stamina. Though an abundance of research on this subject exists, few studies have investigated the manipulation of self-efficacy to change an individual’s effectiveness at completing certain physical feats. However, McAuley, Talbot, and Martinez (1999) and Hutchinson, Sherman, Tenenbaum, and Martinovic (in press) utilized phony feedback to influence participants’ exertion tolerance and perceived exertion. Hutchinson et al. (in press) were successful in manipulating self-efficacy and performance, but the study employed a remedial task (i.e., an isometric handgrip test) and utilized novice participants. In consequence, Hutchinson et al. (in press) do not offer evidence of self-efficacy’s role in activities that involve anaerobic performance or specifically athletic individuals. Hence, the purpose of our study was to use a 30-second Wingate anaerobic test among athletic individuals to address whether the manipulation of self-efficacy can elicit a change in anaerobic exercise performance.
Hypothesis
(1)The high efficacy (HE) group would exhibit greater positive change in peak power, mean power, and maximum heart rate than the low efficacy (LE) group.
(2) TSSE responses from the HE group would be greater than those of the LE group.
Participants
Eighteen (10-male, 8-female; M age= 20.72 years) athletic college aged students were recruited. Athletic was defined as individuals who participated or are currently participating in organized competition.
Instrumentation
Monark 828e testing cycle and Monark anaerobic testing software
Task-Specific Self-Efficacy (TSSE) scale
Procedure
Participants were randomly assigned to one of three groups:
High-Efficacy Group (HE)
Low-Efficacy Group (LE)
Control Group (C)
All participants completed a familiarization trial prior to data collection, and 24-hours later, they performed the 30-second Wingate test twice (i.e., trial 1 and trial 2). Participants were given a 15-minute rest period between trials. Resistance was set at 7.5% of the participants body weight (kg). TSSE was gauged before each trial.
Self-Efficacy Intervention
Self-efficacy was manipulated via false performance feedback.
High-Efficacy Group: “You performed extremely well on this task. Based on your age and gender, your results place you in the top 10th percentile. Good Job.
Low-Efficacy Group: “You performed poorly on this task. Based on your age and gender, your results place you in the lowest 10th percentile.”
Control Group: No feedback given.
Data Analysis
One-way ANOVA
Using one-way ANOVA, analyses revealed that there were no significant differences (p > .05) in PKPWR , MPWR, MHR, and TSSE1 and TSSE2 scores between high and low groups. However, there was a significant difference (p < .05) in PKPWR between the control and high and the control and low groups. Even though TSSE scores were not significantly different, participants in the HE group tended to rate themselves higher than the LE group (Figure 2).
While Hutchinson et al. (in press) evinced that self-efficacy could influence muscular endurance, this study has attempted to discern whether self-efficacy could be manipulated to enhance maximum anaerobic performance. While no conclusive results could be attained in regards to MHR or MPWR, nor could the study ascertain the effect of manipulation on a participant’s confidence, this study has indicated positive or negative feedback can enhance peak power output even if the athlete is not fully aware of its power (Figure 1). Granted that peak power usually occurs in the first few seconds of a performance, it can only be concluded that self-efficacy impacts the initial burst in an exercise, and since no significant results were found for mean power and maximum heart rate, self-efficacy cannot optimally sustain or modify prolonged anaerobic output. Nevertheless, athletic individuals tend to perform better with any feedback at all, whether it be positive or negative. This might be due to a concept called “mental toughness.” According to Jones (2002), mental toughness is “having an unshakable belief in your ability to achieve competition goals, and an ability to bounce back from performance setbacks with increased determination to succeed.” Indeed, negative feedback motivated athletes to push harder during the second trial, and positive feedback urged athletes to keep on performing well. In respect to the experiment’s methodology, it would be prudent if future researchers used much larger sample sizes and divided the population into groups (e.g. males and females or athletes and non-athletes).
Funding for this research was provided by Dean Stephen Bowen and Dean Kent Linville, Oxford College of Emory University, Office of Academic Affairs.
Assistance with data collection was provided by Dusty Cawthon and Lyndsey Davis
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Hutchinson, J.C., Sherman, T., Martinovic, N., & Tenenbaum, G. (in press). The effect of manipulated self-efficacy on perceived and sustained effort. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology.
Jones, G. (2002). What Is This Thing Called Mental Toughness? An Investigation of Elite Sport Performers. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 14 (3), 205-218
McAuley. E., Talbot, H.M., & Martinez, S. (1999). Manipulating self-efficacy in the exercise environment in women: Influences on affective responses. Health Psychology, 18, 288-294.
|
