CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 215Sport Psychology and PerformanceMotivation and Self-Concept in SportsEducation, Achievement, and Giftedness

The Effect of Manipulated Self-Efficacy on Perceived and Sustained Effort

Hutchinson, Jasmin C., Sherman, Todd, Martinovic, Nevena, Tenenbaum, Gershon·2008·Journal of Applied Sport Psychology
DOI 10.1080/10413200802351151
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Self-efficacy's role in determining perceived and sustained effort during an isometric handgrip task was assessed using a repeated measures experimental design. Moderately active, predominantly Caucasian, participants (male = 33, female = 39, M = 19.18 years, SD = .74) were recruited from the southeastern United States. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three groups: High-efficacy (HE), low-efficacy (LE), or control. Efficacy expectations were manipulated via false performance feedback. During the task participants provided differentiated ratings of perceived effort at 15-s intervals. Effort tolerance was determined by the length of time the participant could maintain the task. Repeated measures (RM) multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) indicated the HE group found the task less strenuous and more enjoyable than the LE or control group. Furthermore, the HE group demonstrated greater tolerance of the task than either the LE or control group. These findings imply that self-efficacy has a major role in enhancing performance and physical effort tolerance.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/10413200802351151

Cites

50 of 50 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Positive normative feedback increased tolerance for sustained effort, increased self-efficacy, and lowered perceived exertion compared with negative feedback and control conditions.

    “A study by Hutchinson, Sherman, Martinovic, and Tenenbaum (2008) showed greater tolerance for sustained effort in a continuous force production task, increased self-efficacy, and lower perceived exertion as a function of positive normative feedback compared with both negative feedback and control conditions.”

    From Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning (2016) · cites this paper as Hutchinson, Sherman, Martinovic, and Tenenbaum (2008)

  • Expectancies can influence performance through proactive effects on effort expenditure and on perception.

    “For example, expectancies can influence performance through proactive effects on effort expenditure (Fiorio, Andani, Marotta, Classen, & Tinazzi, 2014;Hutchinson et al., 2008) and on perception (Abrams & Weidler, 2015;Chauvel et al., 2015;Piedimonte, Benedetti & Carlino, 2015;Witt, South, & Sugovic, 2014).”

    From Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning (2016) · cites this paper as Hutchinson et al., 2008

  • Heightened expectations result from performance accomplishments, but expectations have also been experimentally and prospectively linked to motor performance.

    “Heightened expectations result from performance accomplishments (Bandura, 1977), but expectations have also been experimentally and prospectively linked to motor performance (Feltz, Chow, & Hepler, 2008;Hutchinson et al., 2008;Moritz et al., 2000;Neiss, 1989;Wulf et al., 2012).”

    From Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning (2016) · cites this paper as Hutchinson et al., 2008

  • Task enjoyment and positive affect as assessed by PANAS have been related to conditions that enhance expectancies.

    “Task enjoyment (Hutchinson et al., 2008) and positive affect as assessed by the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988) also have been related to conditions that enhance expectancies (Stoate et al., 2012).”

    From Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning (2016) · cites this paper as Hutchinson et al., 2008

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Hutchinson, J. C., Sherman, T., Martinovic, N., & Tenenbaum, G.
Affiliations
  • Emory University (US)
  • Florida State University (US)
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Applied Sport Psychology
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2008-10-29
Volume
20
Issue
4
Pages
457-472
ISSN
  • 1041-3200 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-1571
DOI
10.1080/10413200802351151
OpenAlex
W2148713704
Cited by
215
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 10
FWCI
10.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Applied Sport Psychology (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Sport Psychology and Performance
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Motivation and Self-Concept in Sports
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Education, Achievement, and Giftedness
Keywords
self-efficacy, perceived exertion, sustained effort, effort tolerance, isometric handgrip, task enjoyment, physical performance

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review