The effect of self-efficacy on coping behaviours, performance, and emotions in youth swimmers
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This study investigated how self-efficacy and coping influences performance and performance related emotions in high performance youth swimmers. Lazarus' (1991. 1999) Cognitive Relational-Motivational Theory holds that how people cope with stress is a process that can subsequently influence both performance and emotions. Problemfocused (i.e. efforts to change a situation), emotion-focused (i.e. emotional control), and avoidance (i.e. withdrawal) coping are three coping functions frequently investigated in sport (Crocker & Graham, 1995; Gaudreau & Blondin, 2002). Self-efficacy, the belief that one can generate the necessary actions to achieve a desired outcome (Bandura, 1997), is another significant predictor of performance (Bandura, 1997). Self-efficacy can be viewed as a potential factor influencing the appraisal of a stressful situation and can play a significant role in the selection of coping options. To date, there has only been one exploratory study looking at the influence of self-efficacy on coping behaviors in sport (Haney & Long, 1995). The purpose of the current study was to examine a model that linked self-efficacy beliefs to coping, performance, and emotions in youth swimmers recruited at provincial championships in British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec. One hundred seventy-seven participants (aged 14-18 years) volunteered to complete questionnaires prior to and following their race. The pre-race questionnaires included a stress thermometer and self-efficacy scale specific to swimming. The post-race instruments included the Coping Functions Questionnaire (Kowalski & Crocker, 2001) and the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988). It was expected that self-efficacy would be positively correlated to problemfocused coping and that a positive link would be found between problem-focused coping and performance. Furthermore, it was hypothesized that self-efficacy would positively correlate with performance and that a positive goal/time discrepancy would be associated to positive emotions. Results did not support the expected model. Correlational analysis found a positive relationship between self-efficacy and performance discrepancy (r = .24, p<.05) and between performance discrepancy and positive affect (r = .37, p<.05). Subsequent Regression analysis found that performance discrepancy (P= .321, p<.05) and emotion-focused coping (P= .243, p<.05) were significant predictor of positive affect (r = .22, p<.05). Nevertheless, the relationships between self-efficacy and problem-focused coping failed to reach significance. In addition, coping did not correlate with performance. No age or gender differences were found. One of the challenges of linking self-efficacy, coping, and swimming performance was the difficulty of creating the necessary psychological conditions to validate the different hypotheses. While selfefficacy is a good predictor of performance when goals are fixed, coping occurs only when individual goals are at stake. Future research should look at various ways to assess the relationship between coping and self-efficacy.
Conservé avec la notice de tri, où il sert de preuve aux étiquettes ci-dessus.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Le tri à trois modèles
les 5 600 travaux triés →Les trois modèles l'ont jugé hors champ.
Sport psychology thesis on self-efficacy, coping, performance, and emotion in youth swimmers; the object is athlete psychology.
The study examines psychological factors in youth swimming performance rather than research practice.
Sport psychology study of self-efficacy, coping, and performance in youth swimmers.
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».