The effect of attentional focus on the self-efficacy-performance relationship in a continuous running task: A pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research has shown that the self-efficacy-performance relationship is reciprocal in continuous sport tasks with high self-efficacy leading to increased performance (LaForge-MacKenzie & Sullivan, in submission). However, an internal focus of attention may be detrimental to performance (e.g., Wulf, 2007) and is further associated with low self-efficacy whereas high self-efficacy is associated with a broad focus (Bandura & Jourden, 1991). As high confidence and focused attention have been shown to be important to peak running performance (Brewer, Van Raalte, Linder, & VanRaalte, 1991), the purpose of the present pilot study was to examine the effects of the direction of attention on the self-efficacy-performance relationship. Twenty-six participants were randomly assigned to three attention conditions: internal (9 participants), external (9 participants), and control (8 participants). Participants were required to run continuously for one kilometer employing their specific attentional focus and respond to a one-item self-efficacy measure every 200 meters. Path analyses revealed significant efficacy-to-performance pathways in the external (p < .05, βs ranging from -.25 to -.35) and internal conditions (p < .05, βs ranging from -.49 to -.59). Contrary to previous research, consistent, reciprocal relationships were absent from all conditions. However, the results showed that external focus was beneficial to the efficacy-performance relationship in the middle of the task whereas internal focus was beneficial late in the task. These results support the suggestion that internal focus increases at the end of a running performance (e.g., Lima-Silva, Silva-Cavalcante, Pires, Bertuzzi, Oliveira, & Bishop, 2012), and in this case, positively affects the efficacy-performance relationship.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".