The effect of self-efficacy on coping behaviours, performance, and emotions in youth swimmers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Stored with the screening record, where it is evidence for the labels above.
How this classification was reachedexpand
The three-model screen
all 5,600 screened works →All three models called this out of scope.
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.
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".