Playing with confidence: The relationship between imagery use and self-confidence and self-efficacy in youth soccer players
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Confidence has been one of the most consistent factors in distinguishing the successful from the unsuccessful athletes (Gould, Weiss, & Weinberg, 1981 Gould, D., Weiss, M. and Weinberg, R. 1981. Psychological characteristics of successful and non-successful Big Ten wrestlers. Journal of Sport Psychology, 3: 69–81. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar]) and Bandura (1997 Bandura, A. 1997. Self-efficacy. The exercise of control, New York: W. H. Freeman. [Google Scholar]) proposed that imagery is one way to enhance confidence. Therefore, the purpose of the present study was to examine the relationship between imagery use and confidence in soccer (football) players. The participants included 122 male and female soccer athletes ages 11–14 years participating in both house/recreation (n = 72) and travel/competitive (n = 50) levels. Athletes completed three questionnaires; one measuring the frequency of imagery use, one assessing generalised self-confidence, and one assessing self-efficacy in soccer. A series of regression analyses found that Motivational General-Mastery (MG-M) imagery was a signifant predictor of self-confidence and self-efficacy in both recreational and competitive youth soccer players. More specifically, MG-M imagery accounted for between 40 and 57% of the variance for both self-confidence and self-efficacy with two other functions (MG-A and MS) contributing marginally in the self-confidence regression for recreational athletes. These findings suggest that if a youth athlete, regardless of competitive level, wants to increase his/her self-confidence or self-efficacy through the use of imagery, the MG-M function should be emphasised.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".