CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 315Sport Psychology and PerformanceMotivation and Self-Concept in SportsEducation, Achievement, and Giftedness

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 16 of the 17 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Expectations and Performance: An Empirical Test of Bandura's Self-efficacy Theory

Weinberg, Robert, Gould, Daniel, Jackson, Allen·1979·Journal of Sport Psychology
DOI 10.1123/jsp.1.4.320
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The present investigation was designed to test the predictions of Bandura's (1977) theory of self-efficacy in a competitive, motor-performance situation. Subjects (30 males and 30 females) were randomly assigned to either a high or low self-efficacy condition in a 2 × 2 × 2 (sex × self-efficacy × trials) factorial design. Self-efficacy was manipulated by having subjects compete against a confederate on a muscular leg-endurance task where the confederate was said to be either a varsity ;rack athlete who exhibited higher performance on a related task (low self-efficacy) or an individual who had a knee injury and exhibited poorer performance on a related task (high self-efficacy). Because self-efficacy theory predicts that expectation-performance differences are maximized in the face of obstacles and aversive consequences, the experiment was rigged so that subjects lost in competition to the confederate on both trials. The results supported self-efficacy predictions with the high self-efficacy subjects extending their legs significantly longer than low self-efficacy subjects. Moreover, after failing on the first trial, high self-efficacy subjects extended their legs for a longer time than low self-efficacy subjects on the second trial. A postexperimental questionnaire revealed significant differences in cognitive states (e.g., expectations, attributions, self-talk) between high and low self-efficacy subjects, as well as between males and females. Results are discussed in terms o…

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1123/jsp.1.4.320

Cites

16 of 16 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 17 references

1 of the 17 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–300 of 314

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Weinberg, R., Gould, D., & Jackson, A.
Affiliations
  • 1North Texas State University
  • Michigan State University (US)
  • 3North Texas State University
ORCID
Gould, Daniel
Venue
Journal of Sport Psychology
Publisher
Human Kinetics
Published
1979-12
Volume
1
Issue
4
Pages
320-331
ISSN
0163-433X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1123/jsp.1.4.320
OpenAlex
W2095668688
Cited by
315
References
17
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 8
FWCI
5.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of 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 › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Education, Achievement, and Giftedness
Keywords
self-efficacy, self-efficacy theory, learned helplessness, sex differences, gender socialization, attribution, self-talk, cognitive states

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