Using Team Efficacy Surveys to Help Promote Self

7/23/2019 Using Team Efficacy Surveys to Help Promote Self

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/using-team-efficacy-surveys-to-help-promote-self 1/14

Using Team Efficacy Surveys to Help Promote Self-and-

Team-Efficacy among College Athletes

ISSN !"#$-%"!&

Nathan DeRohan, Christopher Nagy, Helen Meisenhelder, Andrew D. Katayama

A'stract

The purpose of this study was to trac and understand attitudinal changes and trends among !

NCAA Di"ision # intercollegiate teams at the $nited %tates Air &orce Academy '$%A&A(.

)e wanted to see if sur"eys of team efficacy would help promote self*and*team efficacy with

respect to team goals and outcomes. Measures of team efficacy and locus of control weremeasured throughout the season+ preseason, mid*season and postseason. "en though the

results "aried slightly for each sport, common trends were found with respect to team efficacy

and their percei"ed chances for success and team history. Team goals did not fluctuate much

throughout the season. Howe"er, results from the sur"ey showed a significant drop in team

efficacy for -oth the -ase-all and womens -aset-all teams from preseason to midseason for

-oth internal locus of control+ -ase-all, t'/0( 1 !.0!, p 1 .22!(3 womens -aset-all, t'/0( 1

!.45, p 1 .226. A significant drop in the teams e7ternal locus of control was also o-ser"ed for

-oth -ase-all, t'/0( 1 8.8!, p 9 .22/ and womens -aset-all, t'/0( 1 6.:0, p 1 .2/2.

Howe"er, for the hocey team, there was not a significant drop in internal locus of control,

t'/0( 1 /.6!, p 1 .6!5 or in e7ternal locus of control, t'/0( 1 /./2, p1 .6;:. As the -ase-all

and womens -aset-all teams lost more games -oth their internal and e7ternal locus ofcontrol dropped. Accordingly, -ecause the Hocey team did not lose as many games from

midseason on their locus of control measures did not e7perience any drop*off.

(ey )ords team efficacy, coaching, locus of control

Introduction

#n order to -e a-le to contri-ute to a team, one must first -e confident in ones own a-ility to

support the team framewor. According to <andura '/( self*efficacy descri-es the le"el to

which an indi"idual can successfully perform a -eha"ior re=uired to facilitate a specific

outcome. Assuming that the indi"idual possesses the sills re=uired to perform the tas, self*

efficacy is hypothesi>ed to positi"ely influence performance '/8(. This positi"e relationship

-etween success and self*efficacy is empirically supported in studies relating to human

endurance '60(, as well as in the sport of -ase-all ':(. #n research targeting tas*specific

efficacy, supporti"e e"idence suggests that state or tas*specific self*efficacy is related to ?o-

performance '68( which, in turn, suggests that self*efficacy may also correlate with ?o-

performance.

Collecti"e*efficacy has -een found to regulate how much effort a group chooses to e7ert in

accomplishing certain tass, and its persistence in the face of failure '6(. Mischel and

Northcraft '/5( suggested that the cognition of @can we do this tasB is different from thecognition of @can # do this tasB Hodges and Carron '//( and ichac> and artington '/4(,



using e7perimental la-oratory tass, found support for the hypothesis that teams with high

collecti"e*efficacy outperformed low*efficacy teams, and that performance failure resulted in

lower collecti"e*efficacy on successi"e performance trials. russia and Kinici '62( also

found that collecti"e*efficacy was related to collecti"e goals and performance. %pin '6!(

found support for a relationship -etween team cohesion and team*efficacy for elite athletic

teams -ut not for recreational teams. Teams with high collecti"e*efficacy were higher in teamcohesion than were teams with low collecti"e*efficacy. %imilar studies ha"e indicated that

team*efficacy and potency are related positi"ely to performance '/2, /!(.

&elt> and irgg ';( defined team*efficacy as the consensus among players perceptions of

their personal capa-ilities to perform within the team. #n order to study team*efficacy, &elt>

and irgg followed one hundred si7ty intercollegiate hocey players through the course of a

season. They found that team "ictories increased team*efficacy and team defeats decreased

team*efficacy to a greater e7tent than player efficacy -eliefs. They also found a significant

decrease in team*efficacy after losing competitions. This opened new doors in the study of

team*efficacy -ecause they compared the change in efficacy in times of -oth success and

failure.

Attri'ution Theory

Attri-ution theory focuses on how people e7plain their success and failure. According to

)einer, Nieren-erg, and Eoldstein '64(, success and failure are percei"ed as chiefly caused

-y a-ility, effort, the difficulty of the tas, and luc. This "iew, populari>ed -y )einer, holds

that thousands of outside influences for success and failure can -e classified into two

categories. The first of these categories is sta-ility. %ta-ility is a factor to which one attri-utes

success or failure as fairly permanent or unsta-le. &actors such as a-ility, tas difficulty, and

-ias are percei"ed as relati"ely sta-le, whereas other causes, such as luc, effort, and mood

are su-?ect to moment*to*moment, periodic fluctuations and are considered unsta-le.

*ocus of Control

ocus of control distinguishes two types of indi"iduals+ internals, who percei"e the lielihood

of an e"ent occurring as a product of their own -eha"ior, and e7ternals, who "iew e"ents as

contingent on luc, chance, or other people '66(. Causes internal to an indi"idual are a-ility,

effort, and mood. 7ternal factors are tas difficulty, luc, and -ias '64(. Team*efficacy

includes factors such as team cohesion and the a-ility of indi"idual players3 -oth internal and

sta-le. <ecause indi"iduals ?udge their capa-ilities partly through social comparisons with the

performance of others, it is reasona-le to -elie"e that teams will react in the same manner -ycomparing their collecti"e competencies with their opponents ';,/:(. Therefore, if a team is

comprised of mem-ers that ascri-e performance success to sta-le causes, they will e7pect

these outcomes to occur in the future. #f team mem-ers attri-ute their success to unsta-le,

e7ternal factors, team*efficacy will -e much lower. #n contrast to these -eliefs, <arric and

Mount '0( found no relationship -etween ?o- performance and sta-le factors, such as

emotion.

#n a recent study of NCAA di"ision one -ase-all players, DeRohan and Nagy '5( found

e"idence, in support of this theory, suggesting that internal locus of control is more dependent

on success and failure then "ice "ersa. Fur =uestion centers on a team setting and pro-es the

lin -etween successGfailure with locus of control and how they might regulate team*efficacy The purpose of this study was to trac and understand attitudinal changes and



trends among ! NCAA Di"ision # intercollegiate teams at the $nited %tates Air &orce

Academy '$%A&A( and see if team efficacy would help promote self*and*team efficacy with

respect to team goals and outcomes.

+ethods

Study ! ,ase'all

Participants

Twenty*fi"e male di"ision / -ase-all players and three coaches at the $%A&A participated in

this study. The players ages ranged from eighteen to twenty*four years. Two of the three

coaches were in their second year at the Academy. The third coach was in his first year at the

Academy. The players and coaches "olunteered for this study and did not recei"e

compensation for completing the sur"eys.

Surveys

reseason, mid*season, and end*of*season sur"eys were administered to the players and

coaches. ach participant too a core of /:*item sur"ey. The sur"eys measured team*efficacy,

attri-ution theory, locus of control, and demographic information -efore, during, and after the

season of play. The sur"eys contained restricted*item =uestions -ased on si7 point iert*type

scales ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree.

Procedures

The researchers administered the sur"eys when the team was all together 'e.g., team

meetings(. The participants too the sur"eys in the presence of at least one researcheradministering each administration of the sur"ey. $pon completion, the researchers collected

the sur"eys from each athlete and coach and placed them in his folder. A mid*season sur"ey

was administered the day -efore the first conference games were played. The same

instructions were gi"en as they appeared on the first sur"ey. $pon completion, the

administrator collected the sur"eys from each athlete and coach and placed them in his folder.

The same protocols and instructions were followed for the third and final sur"ey that was

administered the day after the final conference game was played. Again, upon completion the

researchers collected all the sur"eys and all the data was entered into spss. #t is important to

note that the coaches ne"er had access to the players sur"eys and the players ne"er had

access to the coaches sur"eys throughout the study.

Study ,as.et'all

Participants

%i7teen female di"ision / -aset-all players from the $%A&A -aset-all team "olunteered to

participate in this study. Fne player was eliminated from the study as she did not participate

throughout the entire season. layers in this study ranged from /; to 6! years old. The

players and coaches did not recei"e compensation for completing the sur"eys.

Surveys



The same protocols used for the -ase-all team were also used for the -aset-all team. The

only difference was the num-er of sur"eys administered throughout their season. )hereas the

-ase-all team only had three sur"eys during their season, the womens -aset-all team too a

total of si7 sur"eys throughout their season+ a preseason, four during the season, and one post

season sur"ey.

Procedures

The same instructions, protocols, and procedures used with the -ase-all team were used for

the womens -aset-all team. $pon completion, the researchers collected all sur"eys for

su-se=uent data compiling and analysis.

Study $ Hoc.ey

Participants

Twenty*se"en di"ision / hocey players and two coaches from the $%A&A hocey team participated in this study. articipants ranged in age from 62 to 68 years. All players and

coaches agreed to "olunteer for this study and did not recei"e compensation for completing

the sur"eys. All participants were treated according to the American sychological

Associations ethical guidelines.

Surveys

The same core of /:*=uestions used in the -ase-all and womens -aset-all sur"eys were also

used to sur"ey the hocey team. ie the -ase-all sur"eys, the hocey sur"eys were

administered three times during their season+ preseason, mid*season, and end*of*the season.

Procedure

The same protocols and procedures were used to administer the first two sur"eys to the

hocey team. Howe"er, to con"enience the hocey players at the end of their season, the

researchers ga"e the postseason sur"eys to the hocey team captain who agreed to administer

it to the team -efore their final practice leading up to their tournament. ach player too the

sur"ey, returned it to the team captain, who then ga"e them all to the researchers.

The Present Study

#R< appro"al was o-tained prior to the start of our in"estigation. &or each team+ mens -ase-all, womens -aset-all, and mens hocey, we de"eloped two specific hypotheses to

address the differences and trends for each team studied at the $nited %tates Air &orce

Academy '$%A&A(. &or e7ample, the -ase-all team and the womens -aset-all team ha"e

not -een "ery successful in recent team history. Howe"er, -ased on the trends of wins and

losses, the womens -aset-all team is on a slightly upward trend in wins whereas the

-ase-all team has maintained a fairly constant trend in wins. The hocey team on the other

hand has en?oyed more success in recent history, compiling a significantly higher percentage

of wins than the other two teams under study. As a result, we e7pected to find differing results

from these teams -ased on the team*efficacy le"els and their histories of success

Statistical Analysis



The researchers entered the data generated -y the sur"eys into the %tatistical acage for the

%ocial %ciences '%%% "ersion /8.2( for analysis. layers were then organi>ed according to

the last four digits of their social security num-er. &or testing @changes in team*efficacyB and

@internalGe7ternal locus of controlB we created separate constructs. These constructs included

internal locus of control, e7ternal locus of control, and team*efficacy a"erages for each

sur"ey. #n order to esta-lish our efficacy scale, we aggregated the results from eight separatesi7*point iert*type scales. ach =uestion targeted team*efficacy indi"idually, -ut together

created the team*efficacy construct. This same process was repeated for the corresponding

eight =uestions in e"ery sur"ey in order to create the efficacy construct for each team. All

data were compiled and entered into %%% for analysis.

,ase'all

Fur first hypothesis was that the margin of "ictory would -e related to team*efficacy. The

margin of "ictory a"erage of each particular two wee period was then paired with the

respecti"e team*wide team*efficacy score, and graphed as a linear regression '&igure /(. To

test our second hypothesis, we ran a dependent samples t*test to measure changes in locus ofcontrol -etween sur"eys. This ga"e us ! dependent samples t*tests for internal locus of

control as well as ! dependent samples t*tests for e7ternal locus of control '&igure 6(. #n order

to compare locus of control with margin of "ictory, we a"eraged the locus of control scores of

all the players to create a team*wide locus of control for each sur"ey.

,as.et'all

Fur first hypothesis was the same as for the -ase-all team+ margin of "ictory would -e

related to team*efficacy. The margin of "ictory a"erage of each particular two wee period

was then paired with the respecti"e team*wide team*efficacy score. To test our second

hypothesis we ran a dependent samples t*test to measure changes in players internal and

e7ternal loci throughout the season. #n the end, this ga"e us /0 dependent samples t*tests for

internal locus of control as well as /0 dependent samples t*tests for e7ternal locus of control.

&igure ! shows the comparisons -etween internal and e7ternal locus of control. #n order to

compare locus of control with margin of "ictory, we a"eraged the locus of control scores of

all the players and coaches to create a team*wide locus of control for each sur"ey.

Hoc.ey

Fur first hypothesis was that winning percentage would -e related to team*efficacy o"er the

course of the season. To test this hypothesis, we ran a dependent samples t*test -etween theefficacy scores from the first sur"ey and from the third sur"ey '&igure 8(. As a result the team

posted a .856 winning percentage for the season, which was similar to the a"erage for the

pre"ious fi"e seasons. As a result, we e7pected to o-ser"e sta-le team*efficacy scores o"er

the season. #n order to test our ne7t hypotheses we ran ! dependent samples t*tests for

internal locus of control, as well as ! dependent samples t*tests for e7ternal locus of control

'&igure 0(.

/esults

,ase'all



)e found a strong correlation -etween margin of "ictory and team*efficacy 'r 1 .:25, n 1 !(.

<etween the first and second sur"ey, the margin of defeat was ! while the team*efficacy

dropped significantly 't '/4( 1 0.:!:, p 9 .22/(. <etween the second and third sur"ey,

howe"er, the margin of defeat was 5 while the team*efficacy dropped only slightly 't '/4( 1

/.!2/, p 1 .6/6(. )e found a strong correlation -etween margin of "ictory and internal locus

of control 'r 1 .5;0, N 1 !(. There was also a strong correlation -etween margin of "ictoryand e7ternal locus of control 'r 1 .;;4, N 1 !(. <etween the first and second sur"ey, the

margin of defeat was ! while internal locus of control dropped significantly 't '/4( 1 !.064, p

1 .22!( and e7ternal locus of control also dropped significantly 't '/0( 1 8.865, p 9 .22/(.

<etween the second and third sur"ey, the margin of defeat was 5 while internal locus of

control dropped only slightly 't '/4( 1 2.555, p 1 .88;( and e7ternal locus of control dropped

only slightly as well 't '/8( 1 /.;/;, p 1 .2:/(.

,as.et'all

The correlation -etween margin of "ictory and team*efficacy was slightly in"ersed 'r 1

*2.650, N 1 4(. <etween the first and second sur"eys, the margin of defeat was 6.8 while theteam*efficacy dropped significantly 't '/5( 1 8.240, p 1 .22/(. <etween the second and third

sur"eys, the margin of "ictory was .!!! while the team*efficacy dropped ?ust slightly 't '/0( 1

/.2:8, p 1 .6:/(. <etween the third and fourth sur"eys, the margin of defeat was /6.50 while

the team*efficacy dropped significantly 't '/4( 1 !.556, p 1 .226(. <etween the fourth and

fifth sur"eys, the margin of defeat was /;.50 while the team*efficacy dropped significantly 't

'/6( 1 !.!52, p 1 .224(. <etween the fifth and si7th sur"eys, the margin of defeat was :.4!

while the team*efficacy increased ?ust slightly 't '//( 1 2.064, p 1 .4/2(. The correlation

-etween margin of "ictory and internal locus of control was wea 'r 1 .6:4, n 1 4(, as was the

correlation -etween margin of "ictory and e7ternal locus of control 'r 1 ./42, n 1 4(. <etween

the first and second sur"eys, the margin of defeat was 6.8 while internal locus of control

dropped significantly 't '/5( 1 6.02, p 1 .26!( and e7ternal locus of control dropped only

slightly 't '/5( 1 2.!!;, p 1 .582(. <etween the second and third sur"eys, the margin of

"ictory was .!!! while internal locus of control dropped significantly 't '/0( 1 !.458, p 1 .

226( and e7ternal locus of control also dropped significantly 't '/0( 1 6.:00, p 1 .2/2(.

<etween the third and fourth sur"eys, the margin of defeat was /6.50 while internal locus of

control dropped significantly 't '/4( 1 !./0:, p 1 .224( and e7ternal locus of control also

dropped significantly 't '/4( 1 !.282, p 1 .22;(. <etween the fourth and fifth sur"eys, the

margin of defeat was /;.50 while internal locus of control dropped only slightly 't '/6( 1

/.6!;, p 1 .6!:( and e7ternal locus of control dropped significantly 't '/6( 1 6.6/!, p 1 .285(.

<etween the fifth and si7th sur"eys, the margin of defeat was :.4! while internal locus of

control dropped significantly 't '/6( 1 0.066, p 9 .22/( and e7ternal locus of control alsodropped significantly 't '/6( 1 6.68!, p 1 .280(.

Hoc.ey

&rom the first to the third sur"ey, the a"erage team*efficacy dropped ?ust slightly from 8.;8 to

8.4; 'n 1 /0(. Fur dependent samples t*test showed us that the team*efficacy was indeed

sta-le 't '/8( 1 /.80/, p 1 ./52(. #nternal locus of control dropped slightly -etween the first

and second sur"eys 't '/0( 1 /.6!6, p 1 .6!5(, though it increased slightly -etween the second

and third sur"eys 't '/2( 1 /.6!6, p 1 .460(. F"er the entire season it dropped, -ut not =uite

enough to attain a significant le"el 't '/!( 1 6.286, p 1 .246(. 7ternal locus of control

increased slightly -etween the first and second sur"eys 't '/0( 1 /./22, p 1 .6;:(, and



dropped significantly -etween the second and third sur"eys 't '/2( 1 6.50;, p 1 .262(. F"er

the entire season it dropped significantly as well 't '/!( 1 6.;86, p 1 .2/8(.

0iscussion

,ase'all

Data from the current study showed strong e"idence in support of hypothesis one. )e found

"ery strong correlations -etween team*efficacy and margin of "ictory for each sur"ey

distri-ution. &urthermore, we also found significant differences in team*efficacy -etween the

preseason sur"ey and pre*conference sur"ey. The -ase-all team had a fairly high le"el of

team*efficacy -efore the season started. The mean team*efficacy was 8.20 out of 4 possi-le

points. F"erall the team as a whole -elie"ed they played well together and had the a-ility to

compete successfully at the di"ision one le"el. Howe"er, after winning ?ust 8 games after the

first /;, efficacy dropped significantly entering conference play, and remained low for the

duration of the season.

The teams internal locus of control dropped significantly -etween sur"eys. #nterestingly,

e7ternal locus of control dropped significantly as well, which we did not predict. Although

the results showed no significant difference in changes in internal or e7ternal locus of control

from the first to the second sur"eys, -oth internal and e7ternal locus of control dropped

significantly when we compared the first and last sur"eys. )e suspect this stems from o"erall

poor performance throughout the season. erhaps, as the season continued through

conference play, the team settled into the reality of -oth internal factors, such as talent, and

e7ternal factors, such as their difficult competition.

,as.et'all

)e found a slight in"erse relationship -etween the teams efficacy and margin of "ictory or

defeat for each sur"ey distri-ution. Although there was not a significant relationship -etween

team*efficacy and margin of "ictory or defeat, we did find a significant difference in team*

efficacy o"er the season, particularly -etween the preseason sur"ey and each mid*season

sur"ey. The -aset-all team had a fairly high le"el of team*efficacy during the preseason. The

mean team*efficacy was 8.5/ out of 4 possi-le points. F"erall the team as a whole -elie"ed

they played well together and had the a-ility to compete successfully at the di"ision one

le"el. Howe"er, after winning three of the first eight games, efficacy -egan to drop.

#nterestingly, in support of our hypothesis, as the season progressed, team*efficacy le"els

fluctuated somewhat consistently with the teams performance, although not necessarilydependent on margin of "ictoryGdefeat. #t is interesting to note that the freshmen -aset-all

players dropped more significantly in team*efficacy than upper*class players from the

preseason sur"ey to the su-se=uent sur"eys. The reason -ehind this might -e that the @newerB

players were more o"erconfident -efore the season -egan than the upper*class players. #t

stands to reason that freshmen players entering college are surrounded -y athletes -etter than

those they ha"e played with in high school. <ecause of this, they o"erestimate the

performance potential of the team, and thus report higher le"els of team*efficacy -efore the

season -egins. The upperclassmen, on the other hand, already ha"e e7perience in playing at

the di"ision one le"el, and possess a more realistic "iew of the teams potential.

As predicted in our second hypothesis, after poor performance -etween the preseason sur"eyand the mid*season sur"ey, internal locus of control dropped significantly, while e7ternal



locus of control did not. )e predicted a decrease in e7ternal locus of control, -ut not internal

locus of control. #nterestingly, despite a large margin of defeat -etween sur"eys three and

four, the data reported significant increases in -oth internal and e7ternal locus of control.

Howe"er, after taing a closer loo at the results of the games, the increase in internal loci

maes sense. Although the -aset-all team e7perienced two -lowout games in a row during

conference play, they won a conference game, and then lost the ne7t game -y a "ery closescore. Team*efficacy was at its highest after these games, which further e7plains why they

attri-uted their success to internal reasons.

Hoc.ey

As predicted, the results showed that the team had high le"els of team*efficacy and showed

no significant difference during the season. The results showed a strong relationship -etween

winning percentage and team*efficacy with respect to our linear regression graph. The team

lost half of their games -etween the preseason and mid*season sur"eys which led to a

significant decrease in team*efficacy. #nterestingly, the team*efficacy actually increased

slightly. Eames early in the season are typically non*conference games, where thecompetition may not -e =uite as good as the conference teams. Howe"er, conference play

typically presents a much greater challenge. Therefore, the team felt much more

accomplished ha"ing won a =uarter of the games. &inally, the third sur"ey ased =uestions

that target efficacy o"er the entire season. <ecause the =uestions were -ased on the whole

season, team mem-ers apparently considered the season marginally successful.

The hocey team e7perienced a higher percentage of wins during the season and therefore

internal locus of control remained constant throughout the season, which supports our second

hypothesis. Despite slight e--s*and*flows throughout the season, we found no significant

difference in internal loci, whereas e7ternal loci decreased significantly o"er the course of the

season. Although we predicted that e7ternal loci would remain constant, it maes sense that it

decreased. <ecause the team was successful, they did not -elie"e that their success was

dependent upon e7ternal factors that they could not control.

Conclusions

The three constructs this present study targeted were team*efficacy, attri-ution theory, and

locus of control within the $%A&A -ase-all, hocey, and womens -aset-all teams. &or the

-ase-all and womens -aset-all teams, the researchers used a margin of "ictoryGdefeat

construct as a measure of success. F"er the past few seasons, the womens -aset-all and

-ase-all teams ha"e had "ery un-alanced winGloss records, which we assumed would notchange during the research season. &urthermore, not a single player on the -ase-all and

-aset-all teams had e7perienced a winning season, while the hocey team has e7perienced a

higher percentage of wins throughout their seasons. <ecause of this, we needed something

concrete to call @successB that seemed attaina-le for the teams. &or this reason, we assumed

that if the teams were losing, -ut were not continuously getting @-lown outB -y their

opponents, team mem-ers would gage those losses as successful. Typically, players tae a

close loss to a strong opponent much -etter than a game with a huge pointGrun spread. #n

contrast, the hocey team has e7perienced successful seasons, so we used the teams winGloss

record. Fur intent was to run a similar study to that of &elt> and irgg ';(, and in"estigate a

relationship -etween team*efficacy and performance. Howe"er, specific differences e7ist

-etween the current study and that of &elt> and irgg. &irst, the current study targeted teamefficacy with general =uestions a-out team efficacy, whereas &elt> and irgg ased statistic*



-ased =uestions specific to hocey. %econd, our results may differ due to the disparity in

o-ser"ations met in each study. &elt> and irgg e"aluated the teams le"el of efficacy after

each game during the course of the season. They recorded the teams efficacy after -oth wins

and losses. Fur study only assessed the le"el of team efficacy during discrete time periods,

and we assumed that efficacy carried o"er -etween games. )hile this current study attempted

to measure efficacy o"er the season as did &elt> and irgg, constraints in time and resources pre"ented data collection after each game. The differences in o-ser"ation may ha"e caused

the differing results. &inally, the focus of &elt> and irggs study was finding that percei"ed

self*efficacy was a strong predictor of performance whereas our study attempted to aggregate

self*efficacy into @team efficacyB and performance.

A ma?or limitation of this study was the low sample si>es for each team. $nfortunately,

researchers may find this difficult to control -ecause most teams carry fewer than thirty

players. To sol"e this pro-lem, researchers might try to loo at multiple teams from the same

sport, possi-ly from different schools '4,/0(. &uture research in this area might find our

results to -e accurate regardless of our low n*"alues. As stated in the discussion section

a-o"e, when a team e7periences continual failure, lie the -ase-all and -aset-all teams inour study, it maes sense that they would continue to regulate e7ternal factors for their lac of

success, stop attri-uting their losses to internal factors, and drop in o"erall team efficacy. This

-eing said, further research should also focus on how wins and losses affect internal locus of

control, e7ternal locus of control, and team*efficacy. These changes would impro"e -oth

internal and e7ternal "alidity. The world of sports pro"ides a phenomenal data-an of raw

information that aids in disco"ering how people operate in team settings. Taing full

ad"antage of the opportunity to disco"er as much as possi-le a-out the intricate worings of

the team atmosphere pro"ides a "ital source for impro"ing strategically de"eloped teams in

-oth the corporate and athletic worlds.

Applications In Sport

Eenerally speaing, applying the results from these studies to sports seems to re"eal that -oth

coaches and players can use these sur"eys to help regulate their self*efficacy and team

efficacy to help monitor their percei"ed -eliefs, moti"ational le"els, and goal attainment

throughout the season. As a coach, one could simply use a simple sur"ey to gauge where his

or her players are with respect to team efficacy. As a player, one could use the sur"ey to

monitor trends in their perceptions of their teams efficacy and as themsel"es why any shifts

in perceptions e7ist. &inally, with respect to locus of control, monitoring team efficacy has the

potential to allow players and coaches the opportunity to reflect upon the internal and

e7ternal influences and how they can change their -eha"iors to -etter correspond to their -eliefs.

Another application to sport is that winning can indeed affect team*efficacy. ust as we

hypothesi>ed, the more a team wins, the higher the team efficacy. Not only does the outcome

of winning affect a teams efficacy, -ut the margin of "ictory can also play a significant role.

#n other words, the more a team wins -y 'i.e., points, runs, and goals( the greater the team

efficacy. Among the coaches howe"er, the drop*off in team efficacy isnt affected as

drastically as the players. erhaps this has more to do with the @percei"edB leadership and

how the coaches attitudes need to -e more e"en*eeled. #n a similar fashion, coaches on

winning teams need to maintain a more e"en*eeled efficacy and not allow themsel"es to

inflate their perception of their team. These applications mae good sense in the world of



sports psychology with respect to leadership. "er notice how coaches on championship

teams tend to appear to -e le"el*headed and are a-le to eep their emotions in chec

Ac.no1ledgments

The authors would lie to acnowledge the head coaches and their assistants at the $nited%tates Air &orce Academy for participating in the studies. )omens <aset-all+ Head coach

Ardie Mc#nelly , assistant coaches isa Ro-inson, Angie Munger, and Holly Togiai3 Mens

<ase-all+ Head coach Mie Hutcheon, assistant coaches Ryan Thompson, and %cott

Marchand3 Mens #ce Hocey+ Head Coach &ran %erratore, assistant coaches Mie Cor-ett,

and Andy <erg. )e would also lie to acnowledge all the student*athletes on these teams

who participated in these sur"eys throughout their respecti"e seasons.

Ta'les and 2igures

2igure !

inear regression -etween margin of "ictory and team*efficacy for the -ase-all team.

2igure

Changes in internal and e7ternal locus of control for the -ase-all team -etween the three

administrations of the sur"ey o"er the course of the season 'preseason, mid*season, and

postseason(.



2igure $

Changes in internal and e7ternal locus of control for the womens -aset-all team -etween

the three administrations of the sur"ey o"er the course of the season 'preseason, mid*season,

and postseason(.

2igure #

inear regression -etween winning percentage and team*efficacy for the hocey team.



2igure "

Changes in internal and e7ternal locus of control for the hocey team -etween the three

administrations of the sur"ey o"er the course of the season 'preseason, mid*season, and

postseason(.

egend+

/. reseason team efficacy a"erage

6. Mid*season team efficacy a"erage



!. ostseason team efficacy a"erage

/eferences

/. <andura, A. '/:55(. %elf*efficacy+ Toward a unifying theory of -eha"ioral change.

sychological Re"iew, ;8, /:/*6/0.

6. <andura, A. '/:;4(. %ocial foundations of thought and action+ A social cogniti"e

theory. nglewood Cliffs, N.+ Apprentice Hall.

!. <andura, A. '/::5(. %elf*efficacy+ The e7ercise of control. New Ior+ ).H. &reeman

and Company.

8. <andura, A. '6222(. 7ercise of human agency through collecti"e*efficacy. Current

Directions in sychological %cience, :, 50*5;.

0. <arric, M. R. J Mount, M. K. '/::/(. The -ig fi"e personality dimensions and ?o-

performance+ A meta*analysis. ersonnel sychology, 88, /*64.

4. Chase, M. A., irgg, C. D., J &elt>, D. . '/::5(. Do coachs efficacy e7pectations

for their teams predict team performance The %ports sychologist, //, ;*6!.

5. DeRohan, R. N. J Nagy, C. . '6220(. Team*efficacy, locus of control, and attri-ution

as they relate to a collegiate -ase-all team. $npu-lished manuscript.

;. &elt>, D. . J irgg, C. D. '/::;(. ercei"ed team and player efficacy in hocey.

ournal of Applied sychology, ;!, 005*048.

:. Eeorge, T. R. '/::8(. %elf confidence and -ase-all performance+ A causal

e7amination of self*efficacy theory. ournal of %port and 7ercise sychology, /2,

!;/*!::.

/2. Eully, %. M., #ncalcaterra, K. A, oshi, A., J <eau-ien, . M. '6226(. A meta*analysis

of team*efficacy, potency, and performance+ #nterdependence and le"el of analysis as

moderators of o-ser"ed relationships. ournal of Applied sychology, ;5, ;/:*;!6.

//. Hodges, . J Carron, A. . '/::6(. Collecti"e efficacy and group performance.

#nternational ournal of %ports sychology, 6!, 8;*0:.

/6. Hysong, %. . J Luinones, M. A. '/::5, April(. The relationship -etween self*efficacy

and performance+ A meta*analysis. aper presented at the /6th annual conference of

the %ociety for #ndustrial J Frgani>ational sychology, %t. ouis, MF.

/!. Kellett, . <., Humphrey, R. H. J %leeth, R. E. '6222, No"em-er(. @)ere greatB "s.

@youre la>yB+ How goal difficulty influences social loafing, collecti"e efficacy and

percei"ed team a-ility. aper presented at the annual meeting of the %outhern

Management Association, Frlando, &.

/8. Ko>u-, %. A., J McDonnell, . &. '6222(. 7ploring the relationship -etween cohesionand collecti"e efficacy in rug-y teams. ournal of %ports <eha"ior, 6!, /62*/6:.



/0. au, R.R., J Russell, D. '/:;2(. Attri-utions in the sports pages+ A field test of some

current hypotheses a-out attri-ution research. ournal of ersonality and %ocial

sychology, !:, 6:*!;.

/4. ichac>, &. M., J artington, . T. '/::4(. Collecti"e efficacy and true group

performance. #nternational ournal of %port sychology, 65, /84*/0;.

/5. Mischel, . . J Northcraft, E. <. '/::5(. @# thin we can, # thin we can B+ The

role of efficacy -eliefs in group and team effecti"eness. Ereenwich, CT+ A# ress.

/;. ase"ich, D. A., <rawley, . R., Dorsch, K. R., J )idmeyer, ). N. '/:::(.

Relationship -etween collecti"e*efficacy and team cohesion+ Conceptual and

measurement issues. Eroup Dynamics+ Theory, Research, and ractice, !, 6/2*666.

/:. ronin, ., in, D.I., J Ross, . '6226(. The -ias -lind spot+ erceptions of -ias in

self "ersus others. ersonality and %ocial sychology <ulletin, 6;, !4:*!;/.

62. russia, E. . J Kinici, A. . '/::4(. A moti"ational in"estigation of group

effecti"eness using social*cogniti"e theory. ournal of Applied sychology, ;/, /;5*

/:;.

6/. Roesch, %.C. J Amirhan, .H. '/::5(. <oundary conditions for self*ser"ing

attri-utions+ Another loo at the sports pages. ournal of Applied %ocial sychology,

65, 680*64/.

66. Rotter, . <. '/:44(. Eenerali>ed e7pectancies for internal "ersus e7ternal control of

reinforcement. sychological Monographs, ;2, /*6;.

6!. %pin, K. %. '/::2(. Cohesion and collecti"e*efficacy of "olley-all teams. ournal of

%port and 7ercise sychology, /6, !22/*!//.

68. %ta?o"ic, A. D. J uthans, &. '/::;(. %elf*efficacy and wor related performance+ A

meta*analysis. sychological <ulletin, /68, 682*64/.

60. )ein-erg, R. %, Eould, D., Iuelson, D., J acson, A. '/:;/(. The effect of

pree7isting and manipulated self*efficacy on a competiti"e muscular endurance tas.

ournal of %port sychology, 8, !80*!08.

64. )einer, <. '/:;0(. An attri-ution theory of achie"ement moti"ation and emotion.

sychological Re"iew, :6, 08;*05!.

Documents

Using Team Efficacy Surveys to Help Promote Self