The Impact of Conceptions of Ability on Self-Regulatory Factors and Motor Skill Acquisition
Abstract
This study tested the hypothesis that conceptions of ability affect self-regulatory processes and the acquisition rate of a perceptual-motor skill. Subjects performed a rotary pursuit task under induced cognitive sets that task performance reflected inherent aptitude or acquirable skill. Their perceived self-efficacy, affective self-reactions, and performance attainments were measured over a series of trials. Subjects who performed the task under the inherent-aptitude conception of ability displayed no growth in perceived self-efficacy across phases, negative self-reactions to performances, low interest in the activity, and a limited level of skill development. In contrast, those who performed the task under the conception of ability as an acquirable skill displayed growth in perceived self-efficacy, positive self-reactions to their performances, widespread interest in the activity, and a high level of skill acquisition. The stronger the positive self-reactions, the greater the subsequent performance attainments.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Ability conceptions can influence adults' motivation and motor performance or learning.
“Ability conceptions can also influence adults' motivation and motor performance or learning.”
From Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning (2016) · cites this paper as Jourden et al., 1991
Adults told a pursuit rotor task was a learnable skill showed greater self-efficacy, positive affective self-reactions, interest, and improvement than those told it measured natural capacity.
“Participants in that group showed greater self-efficacy, more positive affective self-reactions, greater interest in the task, and greater improvement across trials than did participants who were led to believe that the apparatus measured their natural capacity for processing dynamic information.”
From Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning (2016) · cites this paper as Jourden et al., 1991
Perceptions of self-efficacy are related to affective self-reactions and self-regulatory activity.
“Perceptions of self-efficacy are related to affective self-reactions and related self-regulatory activity (Bandura & Jourden, 1991;Jourden, Bandura, & Banfield, 1991;Themanson, Pontifex, Hillman, & McAuley, 2011).”
From Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning (2016) · cites this paper as Jourden, Bandura, & Banfield, 1991
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 23 · Cited by 147
- Authors
- Jourden, F. J., Bandura, A., & Banfield, J. T.
- Affiliations
- Stanford University (US)
- Venue
- Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology
- Publisher
- Human Kinetics
- Published
- 1991-09
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 213-226
- ISSN
- 0895-2779 (ISSN-L)
- 1543-2904
- OpenAlex
- W2262502222
- Cited by
- 147
- References
- 23
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 8
- FWCI
- 1.10
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Sport Psychology and Performance
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Education, Achievement, and Giftedness
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Motivation and Self-Concept in Sports
- Keywords
- conceptions of ability, self-efficacy, self-regulation, motor skill learning, perceptual-motor skills, cognitive set, self-reaction
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
