146

Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 2014, 36, 146-156

http://dx.doi.org/10.1123/jsep.2013-0144
2014 Human Kinetics, Inc.
Paul D. Saville, Steven R. Bray, Kathleen A. Martin Ginis,
Deborah Marinoff-Shupe, and Andrew Pettit are with the
Department of Kinesiology, McMaster University, Hamilton,
ON, Canada. John Cairney is with the Department of Family
Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Sources of Self-Efficacy and Coach/Instructor Behaviors
Underlying Relation-Inferred Self-Efficacy (RISE)
in Recreational Youth Sport
Paul D. Saville, Steven R. Bray, Kathleen A. Martin Ginis, John Cairney,
Deborah Marinoff-Shupe, and Andrew Pettit
McMaster University
Interpersonal feedback from coaches may be instrumental in the formation of childrens self-effcacy to learn
or perform sport skills. We report on two studies that explored perceived sources of self-effcacy and relation-
inferred self-effcacy (RISE) in one-on-one interviews with sport camp participants (N = 61; ages 712) and
focus groups with recreational league participants (N = 28; ages 812). Participants responses indicated that
prior experiences and socially constructed interactions contributed to the development of self-effcacy and
RISE beliefs. Results support Banduras (1997) theorizing that self-effcacy is developed through processing
of experiential feedback as well as Lent and Lopezs (2002) tripartite theory proposing interpersonal feedback
from infuential others contributes to childrens RISE and self-effcacy.
Keywords: self-confdence, feedback, youth development, coach-athlete relationships
Self-efficacy refers to ones belief in his or her
capabilities to perform a given task or skill (Bandura,
1997). In the sport psychology literature, higher levels of
self-effcacy are linked to an array of adaptive behaviors
displayed by athletes including: enhanced effort invest-
ment, greater persistence and improved performance
(Feltz, Short, & Sullivan, 2008). Banduras (1997) social
cognitive model proposes that self-effcacy is developed
via four major determinants: mastery experiences, social
persuasion, vicarious experiences, and physiological/
emotional states. A considerable body of correlational
and experimental evidence supports the infuential role of
these determinants on self-effcacy in a variety of physical
activity domains (recreational sport, elite performance,
exercise adoption) with mastery experiences showing
the strongest associations with self-effcacy (Bandura,
1997; Beauchamp, Jackson, & Morton, 2012; Samson
& Solmon, 2011).
Although each proposed determinant may have
potential to infuence self-effcacy, Bandura (1997) is cau-
tious to point out that the information provided by these
determinants is only relevant inasmuch as it is attended to
and subsequently processed by the focal individual. For
example, the experiential interpretation of the distance
a long jumper travels on a jump may be irrelevant or
ambiguous to him or her without some perceptual com-
parison with how far he or she had jumped previously or
expected to jump. In this example, the jumpers perfor-
mance experiences are self-referenced. However, sport
participation provides an achievement context in which
behaviors are rarely performed in social isolation. On the
contrary, sport practice and performance environments
are enriched with complex social interactions that allow
athletes to interpret and refect on their own performance
accomplishments relative to the performances of others
and the evaluative or formative feedback provided by
coaches or instructors. Such experiences are consistent
with a social constructionist perspective that suggests
human thought and behavior are largely produced through
social processes and dynamic interplay between relevant
social groups (Gasper, 1999). In other words, ones
concept of reality is based on her/his interpretation of
language and social practices that can also be infuenced
by social context (Young & Collin, 2004).
Specifc interpersonal interactions between athletes
and others in their social environment can affect the
translation of ones objective experiences to his or her
subjective experiences. For example, athletes routinely
experience performance plateaus in which their objec-
tive performance in competition stifes amid important
improvements to technique or ftness that are recognized
and reinforced interpretively through feedback from their
coaches. These socially mediated aspects of the expe-
rienceself-effcacy relationship have been highlighted
JOURNAL OF
SPORT EXERCISE
PSYCHOLOGY
Official Journal of NASPSPA
www.JSEP-Journal.com
ORIGINAL RESEARCH
Self-Efficacy in Youth Sport 147
in theorizing by Lent and Lopez (2002), who extended
Banduras original model by acknowledging the potential
role of metaperceptions as factors that contribute to the
development of self-effcacy beliefs. In addition to self-
effcacy, Lent and Lopez identify two forms of effcacy
perceptions that can arise from interpersonal interactions.
The frst is other-effcacy, which refers to beliefs one
has about anothers abilities and can be exemplifed as
a coachs beliefs about his or her athletes abilities. The
second is relation-inferred self-effcacy (RISE), which
refers to a persons (person As) perceptions about what
another person or others believe about his/her (person
As) capabilities. An example of RISE is an athletes per-
ception of his or her coachs confdence in that athletes
abilities. Thus, when a credible source (e.g., sport coach)
makes a statement such as I believe you can accomplish
this task, the recipients interpretation of such a verbal
cue could, in turn, lead to greater RISE (e.g., My coach
believes I can do it). Lent and Lopez contend that ones
belief that others have confdence in ones own abilities
(RISE) can be a powerful determinant of self-effcacy
and that RISE may be particularly infuential under cir-
cumstances where objective feedback about ones perfor-
mance or task capabilities is unavailable or ambiguous.
Considering the socially constructed environment
most sports are practiced or performed in, interpersonal
feedback emanating from key individuals (e.g., coaches,
parents, peers) may generate positive RISE perceptions
among participants. These perceptions, in turn, may be
infuential when people (e.g., sport participants) formu-
late their self-effcacy beliefs (Lent & Lopez, 2002). A
qualitative study by Jackson, Knapp, and Beauchamp
(2008) garnered initial evidence for the existence of RISE
perceptions among members of elite-level athlete dyads.
In this study, athletes reported their self-effcacy was
infuenced by their own interpretations of experiences as
well as interpersonal information gleaned from their dyad
partners. Specifcally, athletes reported their self-effcacy
was derived in part through their past achievements,
physiological/emotional states, and verbal persuasion,
which is consistent with theorizing by Bandura (1997).
However, they also reported self-effcacy perceptions
were affected by social comparisons and relationship-
specifc cognitions (i.e., other-effcacy and RISE) that
were largely interpreted through verbal and nonverbal
interactions with their sport partner and others within
their environment.
Building on their preliminary fndings, Jackson,
Knapp, and Beauchamp (2009) conducted another study
that investigated athletes beliefs about self-effcacy,
other-effcacy and RISE in the context of elite level coach-
athlete dyads. In the coach-athlete context, the nature of
the relationship between the members is more clearly
distinguished by their assumed roles where the coach is
generally regarded as the superordinate member in the
relationship and assumes a higher status over the athlete
who is usually the subordinate member. Findings from
this study paralleled those from Jackson et al. (2008)
in that athletes reported using interpersonal feedback
information from their coaches to inform RISE, includ-
ing verbal behavior and the degree to which challenging
goals were set forth by their coach. Furthermore, when
athletes believed their coaches were highly confdent
in them (i.e., high RISE) they reported having greater
motivation to work harder in practice and competition
(Jackson et al., 2009).
More recent research by Jackson, Myers, Taylor,
and Beauchamp (2012) and Jackson, Whipp, Chua, Dim-
mock, and Hagger (2013) has extended research on RISE
to the adolescent physical education context. Collectively,
those studies have also shown positive psychological
and behavioral outcomes associated with greater RISE.
In both sets of fndings, positive effects were observed
between RISE and students self-effcacy for physical
activity. Jackson et al. (2013) also showed RISE was
independently associated with greater participation in
physical activity during leisure time.
In sum, research by Jackson et al. (2008, 2009, 2012,
2013) provides preliminary evidence for the existence of
relational effcacy perceptions in sport and physical edu-
cation, yet fndings may not be generalizable to younger
sport participants or athletes at other competitive levels.
One way in which these fndings may be limited is in
terms of applicability to youth developmental or grass-
roots sport environments (e.g., introductory sport camps)
where young participants are acquiring basic motor
coordination and sport skills. Furthermore, research
investigating the specifc manner in which these complex
perceptions are derived has yet to be explored in athletes
at any age or competitive level.
According to Lent and Lopez (2002), RISE may
exert considerable influence on self-perceptions in
learning environments where learners have minimal
experiential knowledge or objective feedback to guide the
development of their self-beliefs. Indeed, compared with
experienced athletes such as those interviewed in Jack-
son et al.s (2008, 2009) work, introductory participants
who are learning a new sport have little experience upon
which to base their self-effcacy to perform or improve
and, objectively, may be more prone to errors or task
failure than successful task execution. We hypothesize
that in such environments the interpersonal feedback
provided by coaches or instructors plays a critical role
in assisting the learner to make sense of what success
is at her or his level of profciency and in so doing may
be a major factor in the development of the learners
self-effcacy. Furthermore, developmental athletes may
also be expected to develop a sense of RISE based on
the verbal and nonverbal interpersonal interactions they
have with their coaches or instructors. Given its potential
importance, research aimed at determining factors con-
tributing to the formation of RISE beliefs in this context
is warranted.
In the present work, we report on two investiga-
tions that build on preliminary research by Jackson et al.
(2008, 2009) to investigate sources of self-effcacy and
RISE beliefs among children participating in develop-
mental sports. We sought to gain insight to the language,
148 Saville et al.
thoughts, and social processes children use to construct
self-beliefs regarding sport performance competency
and their refections on experiences in which instructors
or coaches provided them with interpersonal feedback.
To allow participants to share their frst-hand personal
and interpersonal experiences, both individual and focus
group interviews were used to probe childrens thoughts
about the nature of their developmental sport experi-
ences. In Study 1, an individual interview approach was
used to explore childrens experiences during a 2-week
summer sport camp, whereas Study 2 used focus groups
to investigate childrens experiences in recreationally
competitive youth sport programs. Thematic analysis,
as described by Braun and Clarke (2006), was used to
investigate the socially constructed experiences children
reported from these two distinct contexts.
Study 1
The primary purpose of Study 1 was to explore youth
sport participants perceived sources of self-effcacy
stemming from their experiences in a 2-week recreational
sport camp. The second purpose was to investigate partici-
pants perceptions of specifc verbal and nonverbal cues
they used to inform their beliefs about their instructors
confdence in their abilities (RISE).
Method
Participants and Context
Participants were 61 (boys n = 38; girls n = 23) youth
sport participants (age range: 713; M
age
= 9.43) who were
enrolled in a recreational summer sport day camp. The
camp offers 27 different sport and recreation activities
and involves over 800 participants taught by 90 trained
instructors in a participative environment that endorses a
mastery climate relying on self-referent rather than nor-
mative or outcome-referenced performance. Participants
took part in daily activity sessions lasting approximately
7 hr in total and in which they participated and received
instruction in three self-selected sport activities (e.g.,
basketball, golf, lacrosse, soccer, hockey, skateboarding)
each week. Participants selections of sport experiences
are guided by the developmental and recreational nature
of the camp, which encourages experimentation in sports
that participants do not play competitively outside of the
camp environment (e.g., participants who play organized
soccer outside of camp would not participate in soccer
as a camp sport selection).
Measures
Demographics and Consent. Informed consent was
obtained after explaining to the participants and a parent/
guardian the parameters of their involvement, confden-
tiality of their information, and their unconditional right
to withdraw from the study. An initial questionnaire
assessed information about participants sex, age, and the
sport camp activities they were involved in at that time.
Procedures
After obtaining parental consent, youth participants
were invited to participate in the study during their
second week of camp allowing participants a minimum
of 1 week to establish a rapport with their instructor.
On the day of the scheduled appointment, participants
completed the demographic survey and participated in a
2530 min one-on-one interview. One-on-one interviews
were used to acquire an in-depth view of participants
individual experiences that lead to the development of
their self-effcacy and RISE beliefs within this novel
sport camp context. All procedures were reviewed and
approved by an institutional research ethics board before
data collection.
Interview Guide
A semistructured interview guide (see Appendix) based
on previous work by Jackson et al. (2009) was developed
and pilot-tested with competitive youth coaches and
adult recreational athletes who had experience coaching
or teaching sport skills to children to identify any prob-
lematic wording or grammatical phrasing relating to the
content or context of the questions. Interview discourse
revolved around 23 questions, but only 9 questions were
in line with the aims of the current investigation. All
questions were written at or below a FleschKincaid
Reading level of Grade 4 to ease comprehension. Some
requisite words among the questions (e.g., confdence)
requiring a reading level of Grade 4 were thoroughly
explained with particular attention given to the younger
participants. Responses to all nine questions, specifc to
self-effcacy and RISE, were analyzed for the purpose of
this study. All questions were presented both orally, by
the lead author, and visually via slide show.
Each interview session began with a brief introduc-
tion that defned and clarifed the concept of self-effcacy
and was followed by a discussion exploring participants
thoughts about their experiences when self-effcacy had
been developed (e.g., Can you tell me about a time you
felt confdent?). Participants were also asked to draw
from experiences they had across all of the sports they
were engaged in during camp to discuss the various
sources they perceived to infuence their self-effcacy
beliefs (e.g., What kinds of things have happened to help
your confdence grow?). Participants were encouraged
to discuss their overall experiences at the camp before
being asked to provide more specifc examples of their
experiences that pertained to the skills they had performed
during each sport.
Following the discussion devoted to the sources of
self-effcacy, participants were given a brief verbal defni-
tion of RISE as thoughts you might have about someone
elses confdence in your abilities to do certain things.
To facilitate understanding and illustrate the concept of
Self-Efficacy in Youth Sport 149
RISE, participants then watched a brief video clip in which
a group of youth sport characters provide interpersonal
encouragement to a teammate. After watching the video,
the interviewer checked participants understanding of
RISE in terms of what they thought the person receiving
the encouragement would be thinking at that time and
asked them if they had experienced interactions in which
they felt other people such as parents, friends, or teach-
ers had confdence in their abilities. All participants then
went on to provide specifc examples of interpersonal
exchanges they had experienced with their sport camp
instructors that had generated or reinforced their own
RISE beliefs (e.g., How can you tell when your coach/
instructors are confdent in you? . . . What do they say? . . .
What do they do?). A multipronged approach using addi-
tional probes (e.g., How do they say it? . . . Are there certain
times you feel more confdent than others?) was used to
clarify meaning and to provide the interviewer with a more
complete understanding of the participants experiences.
Thematic Analysis
Interview responses were subjected to thematic analysis,
based on the six-step process described by Braun and
Clarke (2006). First, sport participants responses were
audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and thoroughly
reviewed by three independent raters. This initial step
allowed raters to familiarize themselves with the content
and extract all relevant meaning units from the transcripts.
Meaning units represent separate sentences, phrases or
paragraphs containing conceptually relevant information
(Tesch, 1990). Second, raters systematically identifed
key features of all meaning units and generated initial
codes to broadly classify them. Third, each rater sorted
and collated all meaning units into themes and subthemes
(i.e., clusters of conceptually congruent meaning units).
Fourth, raters met on two separate occasions to review
and cross-reference themes before generating distinct
thematic maps that best described the interpersonal
interactions sport participants used to derive self-effcacy
and RISE beliefs. Fleisss kappa showed a moderate
level of agreement (K = .58) among the three raters and
discrepancies were thoroughly discussed until agreement
was reached (Fleiss, 1971). Fifth, themes and subthemes
were further refned to ensure labels captured their true
meaning. Sixth, raters selected compelling responses that
best represented the breadth and depth of each theme to
enhance the readers understanding of the specifc inter-
actions sport participants tuned-in to when developing
these beliefs.
Depending on the nature and scope of the research
question, thematic analysis can be used to identify themes
in one of two ways: theoretically or inductively (Braun &
Clarke, 2006). A theoretical approach is often employed
when data address a narrow research question heavily
rooted in theory. Although this approach is more analyst
driven, it allows for a more detailed analysis of a specifc
aspect of the data (Braun & Clarke, 2006). In line with this
approach, Lent and Lopez (2002) propose self-effcacy
information can be transmitted via self-referenced expe-
riences as well as interactions with infuential others.
Therefore, a theoretical approach was used to code
meaning units that refected the major determinants of
self-effcacy as expressed by Bandura (1997). Contrarily,
an inductive approach allows data to be coded freely with
no regard for preexisting categories and allows themes
to evolve naturally through the coding process (Braun &
Clarke, 2006). Considering there has been no previous
research investigating youth sport participants sources
of RISE, we coded the meaning units that conveyed RISE
using an inductive approach.
Themes emanating from our thematic analyses were
not dependent upon a predetermined number of responses
or any other quantifable measure. Rather, themes and
subthemes were representative of sport participants true
experiences and, as a result, refect common interpreta-
tions of relational interactions that contribute to their
self-effcacy and RISE perceptions.
Results
The 61 interviews produced 128 pages of 12-point,
single-spaced, transcribed text. Participants responses
and discussions regarding sources of self-effcacy for
performing sport skills resulted in a total of 136 coded
meaning units. Themes included mastery experiences,
social persuasion and vicarious experiences. Subthemes
were used to identify the manner in which self-effcacy
antecedent information was received. Mastery experi-
ences included self-referenced meaning units as well as
relationship-based and socially comparative experiences.
Antecedent meaning units associated with social persua-
sion and vicarious experiences were all social in nature
and derived from interactions with others with whom the
participant had an interpersonal relationship (e.g., sibling,
parent, coach). All themes, subthemes, and exemplar
meaning units are displayed in Table 1.
Participants responses to questions inquiring about
the specifc behavioral cues they use to inform their RISE
beliefs, based on their instructor-participant interactions,
generated a total of 467 meaning units. Responses indi-
cated that both verbal and nonverbal exchanges between
instructors and participants were integral to the develop-
ment of RISE beliefs. Three distinct themes emerged
for verbal as well as nonverbal interactions. Themes for
verbal interactions consisted of general encouragement or
praise (e.g., just try your best or good job), followed
by effcacy-building statements (e.g., I believe you can
do this) and instruction (e.g., keep watching the ball).
Themes for nonverbal interactions consisted of focused
interpersonal attention such as she shows me how to do
[the skill], expressiveness (e.g., they have a you can do
it! look [on their face]), and challenging/special opportu-
nities including instances where instructors select certain
sport participants to show their peers how to perform a
given task or skill. All themes were further broken down
into two or more subthemes and are displayed in Table 2
along with exemplar meaning units.
150
Table 1 Themes, Subthemes, and Exemplar Meaning Units for Sources of Self-Efficacy From Sport
Camp Interviews
Self-Efficacy Antecedents
Theme Subtheme Exemplar Meaning Unit
Mastery
Experiences
Self-referenced sources I feel confdent because I ran a little bit faster than I did last time.
Specifc relational sources sometimes when Im running against my sister I [feel more confdent]
because I beat her before.
Social
Persuasion
Specifc relational sources when my friends, parents, teammates, and teachers encourage me, clap, and
say, You can do it . . . I feel more confdent.
Undifferentiated sources I was confdent because . . . a lot of people were saying positive things about
what I was doing.
Vicarious
Experiences
Specifc relational sources seeing my friends play before me makes me think that I can do it too.
Undifferentiated sources if I see other people do it, that are like me, then I might think that I can
do it.
Note. Themes were guided by a theoretical thematic analysis and include the thoughts and opinions of all participants.
Table 2 Themes, Subthemes, and Exemplar Meaning Units for Sources of RISE from Sport Camp
Interviews
Verbal Interactions
Theme Subtheme Exemplar Meaning Unit
General Encouragement Before skill attempts just try your best
During skill attempts keep trying harder
Postskill attempts good job; you did well
Normative you are the best at this skill
Effcacy Building Statements General support you can do it; you will get it next time
RISE support I believe you can do this
Instruction General instruction just work on this
Specifc instruction keep watching the ball
Nonverbal Interactions
Focused Interpersonal Attention General they help me get better
Instructor demonstrations she shows me how to do it
Special attention teaches me 1-on-1; she passes to me
Expressiveness General encouragement they cheer for me; cheer me on
Facial expressions they smile at me; they have a you can do it look
Intonation you can tell by the tone of their voice
Interpersonal contact pats me on the back; high fves me
Challenging/Special Opportunities Peer demonstrations they pick me to show other kids how to do it
Special assignments she puts me in to guard the best player
Selective assignments puts me in on forward; puts me in a new spot
Note. Themes were guided by an inductive thematic analysis and include the thoughts and opinions of all participants.
Self-Efficacy in Youth Sport 151
Discussion
Youth sport participation provides unique opportunities
for social interactions that can shape self-beliefs. In this
study, we used semistructured interviews to explore
recreational youth sport participants perceived sources
of self-effcacy and RISE based on their interactions
with others in their social environment during a 2-week
summer sport camp. It was expected that participants
would identify both experiential and socially mediated
sources of self-effcacy as well as a number of specifc
behaviors their instructors exhibit from which they base
their RISE beliefs.
Findings provide support for Banduras (1997)
social cognitive theory in the youth sport participation
context in that mastery experiences, social persuasion
and vicarious experiences were each found to be factors
participants drew upon in developing self-effcacy. In
addition to these self-referenced sources of self-effcacy,
participants reported examples of relationship-based
sources including positive verbal encouragement and
watching others succeed at performing skills (i.e., vicari-
ous experiences). Specifcally, youth sport participants
reported that their instructors, peers and parents play
a role in developing self-effcacy. These fndings also
align with previous research by Jackson et al. (2008),
who reported past performance accomplishments and
modeling were perceived as important determinants of
self-effcacy in a sample of competitive tennis players.
Instructors and coaches are acknowledged as
being infuential factors in the development of sport
participants effcacy beliefs, which makes it important
to understand how they are able to have such infuences
(Feltz et al., 2008). In this study, participants identifed
several specifc behaviors they drew upon to develop
RISE. These specifc behaviors consisted of both verbal
and nonverbal interactions that occurred between instruc-
tors and participants. General words of encouragement
were sources of RISE, while effcacy-building state-
ments (e.g., you can do it; I believe you can do this)
were also identifed by participants. In addition, verbal
instructions coming from the coach regarding how to
improve skills (e.g., keep watching the ball) were
sources of RISE.
Although participants clearly identifed several ways
in which they gained RISE from the types of things their
instructors said, it was also evident that they were mindful
of the types of things their instructors did when form-
ing their RISE beliefs. Instructional behavior, including
physical demonstrations (e.g., she shows me how to
do it) and individualized attention (e.g., he teaches
me one-on-one) were among the nonverbal behaviors
participants drew from to develop their sense of RISE.
Thus, it would appear that when instructors take their
time to work one-on-one with them, participants interpret
this behavior as a sign the instructor believes they can,
or have potential to, perform that skill successfully. We
also found evidence that instructors expressiveness (e.g.,
when they smile at me, he pats me on the back) were
regarded as nonverbal contributors to RISE. Participants
also reported that encouraging facial expressions and a
positive or excited tone in their instructors voice were
behaviors that fostered their RISE beliefs. Lastly, when
instructors selected them to perform certain tasks (e.g.,
showing others how to perform a skill; guard the other
teams best player; play a desired position), participants
reported these behaviors helped them develop stronger
perceptions of RISE.
Overall, recreational youth sport participants
reported a broad variety of nonverbal and verbal behav-
iors that contributed to their RISE beliefs. However, these
fndings may be limited due to the fact that participants
spent a limited amount of time (i.e., 2 weeks) with their
instructors in a structured camp environment. Sport
participants who have the opportunity to work with a
coach throughout a sport season may have more extensive
exposure to behaviors from which they would derive a
sense of RISE. Therefore, in the next study, we examined
sources of self-effcacy and RISE in a sample of recre-
ational sport league participants during a sport season.
Study 2
The purpose of Study 2 was to explore recreationally
competitive sport participants perceived sources of self-
effcacy stemming from their experiences during a sport
season. The secondary purpose was to identify specifc
verbal or nonverbal coaching behaviors youth participants
used to inform their RISE beliefs. As in Study 1, an
interview methodology was used to explore participants
perceived sources of self-effcacy and RISE. Drawing
from our initial evidence in Study 1, it was hypothesized
that participants would identify undifferentiated as well
as relationship-based sources of self-effcacy and that
participants would identify both verbal and nonverbal
coaching behaviors that they drew upon to develop RISE
beliefs.
Method
Participants and Context
The sample was comprised of 28 (boys n = 27; girl n =
1) youth participants (age range: 812; M
age
= 10.25)
from community recreational sport programs including
soccer, baseball, ice hockey, and basketball. Participants
took part in one of fve focus group interviews that varied
in size from three to ten participants.
Measures
Demographics and Consent. Informed consent was
obtained after explaining to the participants the param-
eters of their full involvement in the study, confdentiality
of their information, their unconditional right to withdraw
from the study and contact information for the investiga-
tors. An initial questionnaire assessed information about
age, sex, and level of current sport participation.
152 Saville et al.
Procedures
At the midpoint of their sport seasons, youth sport par-
ticipants were invited to take part in a 1-hr focus group
interview that took place at a local community venue.
After volunteering to participate in the study, informed
consent was obtained from parents or guardians as well
as the participants before partaking in the focus group
interview. Upon arriving at the community venue, partici-
pants completed the demographic survey and participated
in a 4550 min semistructured focus group interview.
Community-based sport programs are dynamic
and diverse in comparison with the more structured
environment of the sport camp. Therefore, we elected to
use focus group interviews in this setting as opposed to
one-on-one interviews to allow participants to express
their own experiences and respond to the experiences of
others from various sport contexts. After fve focus group
interviews the researchers experienced data saturation
and ceased further data collection.
Interview Guide
The semistructured interview guide developed for Study
1 was used to facilitate discussion in each of the focus
groups in Study 2. Minor revisions were made to the
wording of some questions to accommodate the fact
that the sample was drawn from a recreational sport set-
ting rather than a sport camp. Although the focus group
question content was similar to that used in the Study 1
interviews, the collaborative nature of the focus groups
was used to stimulate novel perspectives and additional
discussion regarding targeted constructs. Once again,
participants were invited to speak openly about their
overall experiences with the team before being asked to
express their personal experiences with specifc tasks or
skills. Probe questions were also used to contrast experi-
ences of participants from similar and dissimilar sports
and teams to provide the focus group facilitator with a
greater understanding of how the sources of self-effcacy
and RISE may vary by context.
Thematic Analysis
Focus group interview data endured the same six-step
process described in Study 1. Two raters were present
for all focus groups interviews and were thus involved
in the thematic analysis. Cohens kappa showed that
agreement between the two raters was very strong, =
.91 (Cohen, 1960), and meaning units that caused dis-
crepancies were thoroughly discussed until agreement
was reached. Theme and subthemes that emerged from
the data captured a variety of interpersonal cues expressed
by participants across all fve focus groups and were the
result of critical analysis and careful deliberation between
the raters.
Results
The information recorded during the fve focus groups
generated 93 pages of 12-point, single-spaced, tran-
scribed text. Initial group discussion of the sources of
self-effcacy resulted in a total of 38 coded meaning
units, which generated six subthemes that ft within three
overarching themes. In this context, mastery experiences,
social persuasion, and vicarious experiences were all
reported as sources of self-effcacy. Subthemes were used
to identify the manner in which self-effcacy information
was perceived. Each theme, subtheme, and examples of
individual meaning units refecting each subtheme are
presented in Table 3.
Participants identifed an array of behaviors enacted
by their coaches upon which they based their RISE per-
ceptions. Group responses indicated that both verbal and
nonverbal interactions were relevant to the formation of
RISE beliefs. Verbal interactions used to inform RISE
consisted of general encouragement as well as effcacy-
building statements where athletes reported their coaches
saying I am confdent that you can do this or I know
you can hit itIve seen you do it before. Coaches
instructions including just focus on what youre trying
to do and task-oriented statements such as it doesnt
Table 3 Themes, Subthemes, and Exemplar Meaning Units for Sources of Self-Efficacy From Focus Groups
Self-Efficacy Antecedents
Theme Subtheme Exemplar Meaning Unit
Mastery
Experiences
Self-referenced sources when I try [a skill] and it works, it makes me feel confdent.
Specifc relational sources when coach gives you a practice pitch and you hit it well . . . that helps
my confdence grow.
Undifferentiated or other sources I feel more confdent playing against weaker opponents.
Social
Persuasion
Specifc relational sources it boosts my confdence if the coach says Im doing really good.
Undifferentiated sources when people compliment you.
Vicarious
Experiences
Specifc relational sources when my coach shows me what to do . . . to get better.
Note. Themes were guided by a theoretical thematic analysis and include the thoughts and opinions of participants across all focus groups.
Self-Efficacy in Youth Sport 153
matter if you dont hit it were also evident as sources of
RISE expressed by these youth sport participants.
Nonverbal interactions included challenging/special
opportunities assigned to players by their coach (e.g.,
coach makes me go [through the drill] backwards) and
focused interpersonal attention (e.g., [the coach] kept
working with me to make sure I was doing it right).
Participants also reported coaches expressiveness (e.g.,
coach gives you thumbs up or pats you on the back) to
be another behavior they used to derive perceptions of
RISE. All themes and subthemes are displayed in Table
4 along with accompanying exemplar meaning units.
Discussion
In this study, interactive focus group interviews were used
to explore recreational youth athletes perceived sources
of self-effcacy and RISE. As was the case in Study 1,
participants were expected to identify a combination of
experiential and socially mediated sources of self-effcacy
as well as a variety of coaching behaviors that contributed
to developing perceptions of RISE.
Consistent with Study 1, fndings were shown to
support Banduras (1997) theorizing in terms of mastery
experiences, social persuasion and vicarious experi-
ences being identifed as sources of self-effcacy. As we
hypothesized earlier, it was also clear that participants
experiences could be classifed as either self-referenced
or socially mediated phenomena. Evidence of the former
came in the form of descriptions of performances that
children compared with their own previous levels of suc-
cess, whereas the latter experiences were often guided or
interpretive experiences orchestrated by coaches. Positive
verbal encouragement and watching others experience,
or model, success at performing skills (i.e., vicarious
experiences) were also identifed as factors contribut-
ing to self-effcacy. Together these fndings illustrate a
broad array of interpersonal experiences that infuence
self-effcacy in youth sport settings.
Seven different themes emerged reflecting the
coaching behaviors athletes used to inform their RISE
beliefs. As in Study 1, it was evident that general words
of encouragement, effcacy-building statements (e.g., I
am confdent you can do this) and instructions coming
from the coach regarding how to improve skills (e.g.,
next time try to get your leg down [as a goalie]) were
sources of RISE. One emergent theme that was not evi-
dent in Study 1 involved task-oriented statements such
as who cares about the score as long as you . . . try your
hardest or it doesnt matter if you dont hit [the ball].
Coaches may use these types of statements to downplay
the importance of performance outcomes and emphasize
the value of effort and personal improvement, which are
characteristics that contribute to a task-oriented environ-
ment (Ames & Roberts, 1992). This type of environment
has been shown to contribute to a variety of adaptive sport
outcomes including athletes motivation, sport compe-
tence, and sport self-confdence (Ames & Roberts, 1992;
Magyar & Feltz, 2003). Our data suggest that positive
coaching behaviors contribute to the development of ath-
letes RISE perceptions and could potentially infuence
other adaptive motivational outcomes such as those that
have been documented in the physical education context
(Jackson et al., 2012, 2013).
Several examples of nonverbal coaching behaviors
were also identifed as sources of RISE. A diverse theme
of nonverbal behaviors athletes drew upon to develop
RISE involved what they felt were challenging or special
opportunities assigned by their coach (e.g., pairing me up
with [a teammate or opponent] that is better, s/he puts
you in [an important] position like centre, s/he asks you
to demonstrate the drill). From the coaches standpoint,
such behaviors may often be driven by pragmatic consid-
erations (e.g., putting more skilled players in important
positions) that could have implications for team success
or, in the case of demonstrations, team learning. However,
it is clear that coaches use of special assignments can
foster a stronger perception of RISE within their athletes
and this may happen regardless of the players skill level.
As was the case in Study 1, we found that focused
interpersonal attention (e.g., kept working with me,
makes me keep doing it until I get it right) and varia-
tions in expression (tone of voice and facial features) were
also characteristics of coaching behaviors to which par-
ticipants attached meaning and used as sources of RISE.
These fndings reinforce the importance for coaches to
take time to work on skill development, independently,
with each of their athletes, as there may be potential payoff
for both skill acquisition and RISE. Furthermore, it is
clear that athletes are closely tuned-in to not only what
their coaches are saying, but also how they are saying it.
Therefore, it may be important for coaches to practice
and to experiment with the way they use their voices and
expressions, in addition to their words, to increase their
players RISE.
Summary and General Discussion
The present studies explored youth sport participants
perceptions about sources of self-effcacy and coach/
instructor behaviors from which they developed RISE.
Participants in both studies identifed several sources of
self-effcacy that stemmed from self-referenced experi-
ences as well as interactions with others in the sport
learning and performance environment.
Collectively, this evidence is consistent with Bandu-
ras (1997) social cognitive theory insofar as participants
indicated they based their self-effcacy perceptions upon
their personal inferences about past accomplishments
and interpersonal experiences (i.e., verbal persuasion;
modeling). However, the fndings also provide addi-
tional support for Lent and Lopezs (2002) tripartite
effcacy model as participants identifed numerous ways
in which the verbal and nonverbal behaviors of coaches
and instructors led them to infer beliefs others had about
their sport abilities.
154 Saville et al.
One important way in which the current fndings
contribute to the literature is in terms of how the data
were found to differentiate between verbal persuasion as
a general source of self-effcacy and verbal communica-
tion from coaches and instructors as a source of RISE.
These results are consistent with previous fndings by
Jackson and colleagues (2008, 2009) whose thematic
models clearly distinguished between verbal behaviors
of teammates and coaches as sources of RISE and verbal
persuasion from interpersonal sources as antecedents
of self-effcacy. The results also support theorizing by
Lent and Lopez (2002), whose writing articulates an
important distinction between RISE perceptions and
social persuasion as independent mechanisms that have
implications for the development of self-beliefs. They
argue that social persuasion is the act of providing
effcacy-relevant information to an individual whereas
RISE represents the cognition arising from interpretive
processes allowing one to make sense of that information.
Therefore, a coachs verbal attempt to convey a strong
positive belief in an athletes capabilities (RISE) may
be received accurately, but could also be misinterpreted
or overlooked depending on the athletes interpretation
of the content or meaning of the verbal communication.
Although results largely supported social cognitive
theory, participants in both samples did not identify
any examples of physiological or emotional states that
affected their self-effcacy beliefs. This fnding is not
consistent with Jackson et al.s (2008, 2009) interview
research with competitive athletes, which identified
several physical (e.g., injury, ftness, pain) and emo-
tional (e.g., anxiety) antecedents of self-effcacy. Lack
of evidence in these regards may be a function of the
interview questions in the current study probing only
information about experiences that made participants
more confdent, not less confdent. It is also possible
that positive physiological (i.e., ftness level or strength)
and emotional states (e.g., excitement) and a perceived
association between these factors and self-effcacy may
not be easily discernable at young ages or among athletes
who participate at recreational levels. Furthermore, nega-
tive physical (e.g., injury, pain) or emotional states (e.g.,
anxiety) may be sources of reduced self-effcacy (See
Bandura, 1997; pp. 137150); however, our questions
Table 4 Themes, Subthemes, and Exemplar Meaning Units for Sources of RISE From Focus Groups
Verbal Interactions
Theme Subtheme Exemplar Meaning Unit
General Encouragement Before skill attempts just do your besttry to make the save
During skill attempt youre doing great; you can hit that ball
Postskill attempt you did a great job during the last period
Effcacy Building Statements General support I know you can hit itIve seen you do it before
RISE support I am confdent that you can do this
Instruction General instruction just focus on what youre trying to do
Specifc instruction next time try to get your leg down (as a goalie)
Suggestions for improvement give you tips on how to get better
Task-Oriented Statements Deemphasize outcome it doesnt matter if you dont hit it
Emphasize effort over outcome who cares about the score as long as you . . . try your hardest
Nonverbal Interactions
Challenging/Special
Opportunities
Special assignments pairing me up with [a teammate or opponent] who is better
Task opportunities he puts you in and hes counting on you
Peer demonstrations when the coach asks you to demonstrate the drill
Additional challenges my coach makes me go [through the drill] backwards
Selective assignments when he puts you in an [important] position like centre
Playing time puts you in longer and more frequently during games
Focused Interpersonal Attention 1-on-1 instruction kept working with me to make sure Im doing it right
Coachs commitment he makes me keep doing it until I get it right
Hands-on instruction coach gets his clipboard and he shows me what I did wrong
Personal support you always have the coach to back you up
Expressiveness Physical expressions when hes smiling at you; giving you thumbs up
Interpersonal contact he pats you on the back; he gave me props
Note. Themes were guided by an inductive thematic analysis and include the thoughts and opinions of participants across all focus groups.
Self-Efficacy in Youth Sport 155
aimed only to assess positive sources of self-effcacy. In
sum, although our data do not identify any physiologi-
cal or emotional states as sources of self-effcacy, future
research utilizing a broader range of ages and elicitation
questions would be enlightening.
Another way in which the current fndings diverged
from those of Jackson et al. (2009) is that participants
in this study did not specifcally acknowledge RISE as
a source of self-effcacy. As was the case with physi-
ological/affective states, methodological aspects of the
interview questions may account for this discrepancy.
Jackson et al. (2009) probed competitive athletes percep-
tions of both sources and consequences of self-effcacy,
other-effcacy, and RISE. Therefore, participants in that
study may have been better prepared or prompted to more
thoroughly consider the role of RISE in the development
of their self-effcacy. It may also be that youth participants
appreciate that self-effcacy and RISE are unique percep-
tions, yet they do not perceive RISE as an obvious source
of self-effcacy. These methodological and participant-
related issues should be explored in future research with
youth sport participants.
Among the most interesting fndings was the obvi-
ous recognition by participants of challenging/special
opportunities assigned by their instructor or coach as
sources of RISE. Sport participants in both the camps
and recreational leagues identifed numerous examples
of challenging and extraordinary opportunities afforded
to them by their instructors or coaches as ways in which
they inferred RISE beliefs. Although these special tasks
ranged from being placed in a desired or important
position to showing others how to perform a skill in
practice, it appears that being given an exceptional oppor-
tunity is important for developing RISE. Thus, coaches
and instructors should be aware of these opportunities
and consider ways in which they can design practice
or competition sessions that allow their athletes to do
something out of the ordinary.
When interpreting the implications of these studies,
several limitations need to be taken into consideration.
For instance, the generalizability of the fndings in Study
2 may be limited as the focus groups consisted almost
entirely of boys. However, the congruence between fnd-
ings from Study 1 and Study 2 suggest that girls are likely
to interpret RISE through similar verbal and nonverbal
cues as boys. Nevertheless, interviewing a greater repre-
sentation of girls from recreational sports could be helpful
for identifying additional RISE-relevant cues and would
thus provide a more comprehensive understanding of how
RISE beliefs are manifested in recreational youth sport
settings. In addition, while focus groups have advantages
in terms of affording participants opportunities to con-
sider varying opinions and piggy-backing on ideas or
experiences brought up by others, they may also impose
social constraints for those who do not want to speak up
in front of peers. Thus, we suggest future research should
consider using a combination of personal interviews and
focus groups in future studies.
Other limitations concern the fact that these stud-
ies deliberately targeted sport participants between the
ages of 8 and 12 years because many youth at this age
are in the process of evaluating their sport experiences
and deciding whether to continue participating in sport.
Therefore, fndings may not be generalizable to younger
children or adolescents and future research involving
older and younger age groups is encouraged. Further-
more, it is important to note that these studies focused
solely on feedback from the coaches or instructors that
were reported to increase participants RISE. However,
an important consideration for future research would be to
assess the various forms of feedback that may undermine
those beliefs and consequently increase childrens risk of
dropping out of sport prematurely.
Despite these caveats, the results of these studies
provide important and novel insights into experiences
and coaching behaviors young sport participants tune-
in to when developing self-effcacy and RISE beliefs.
Although the themes and ideas expressed in these studies
were not particularly complex, coaches and instructors
should not discount the implications they have for devel-
oping youth sport participants effcacy beliefs. Our data
suggest designing and delivering effcacy-building sport
experiences for youth should involve basic, but deliberate
attempts to provide positive verbal and nonverbal feed-
back in combination with occasional challenging oppor-
tunities. Such feedback may provide important boosts
in self-beliefs that raise motivation and investment in
sport experiences, which could potentially translate into
better performances or increase childrens decisions to
continue participating in sport when attractive sedentary
alternatives present themselves.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by a Sport Participation Research
Initiative Grant (862-2010-0002) awarded by the Social Sci-
ences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and Sport
Canada. Paul D. Saville is supported by a H. L. Hooker Doctoral
Research Award.
References
Ames, C., & Roberts, G.C. (1992). Achievement goals, moti-
vational climate, and motivational processes. Champaign,
IL: Human Kinetics.
Bandura, A. (1997). The exercise of control. New York: W. H.
Freeman & Co.
Beauchamp, M.R., Jackson, B., & Morton, K.L. (2012). Eff-
cacy beliefs and human performance: From independent
action to interpersonal functioning. In S.M. Murphy
(Ed.), The Oxford handbook of sport and performance
psychology (1st ed., pp. 273293). New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in
psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2),
77101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
156 Saville et al.
Cohen, J. (1960). A coeffcient of agreement for nominal scales.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 3746.
doi:10.1177/001316446002000104
Feltz, D., Short, S., & Sullivan, P. (2008). Self effcacy in sport:
Research and strategies for working with athletes, teams
and coaches. International Journal of Sports Science &
Coaching, 3, 293295. doi:10.1260/174795408785100699
Fleiss, J.L. (1971). Measuring nominal scale agreement
among many raters. Psychological Bulletin, 76, 378382.
doi:10.1037/h0031619
Gasper, P. (1999). Social constructivism. In R. Audi (Ed.), The
Cambridge dictionary of philosophy (2nd ed.). Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.
Jackson, B., Knapp, P., & Beauchamp, M.R. (2008). Origins
and consequences of tripartite effcacy beliefs within elite
athlete dyads. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 30,
512540. PubMed
Jackson, B., Knapp, P., & Beauchamp, M.R. (2009). The coach-
athlete relationship: A tripartite effcacy perspective. The
Sport Psychologist, 23, 203232.
Jackson, B., Myers, N.D., Taylor, I.M., & Beauchamp, M.R.
(2012). Relational beliefs in physical activity classes: A
test of the tripartite model. Journal of Sport & Exercise
Psychology, 34, 285304. PubMed
Jackson, B., Whipp, P.R., Chua, P.K.L., Dimmock, J.A., &
Hagger, M.S. (2013). Students tripartite effcacy beliefs in
high school physical education: Within- and cross-domain
relations with motivational processes and leisure-time
physical activity. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology,
35, 7284. PubMed
Lent, R.W., & Lopez, F.G. (2002). Cognitive ties that bind:
A tripartite view of effcacy beliefs in growth-promoting
relationships. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology,
21, 256286. doi:10.1521/jscp.21.3.256.22535
Magyar, T.M., & Feltz, D.L. (2003). The infuence of disposi-
tional and situational tendencies on adolescent girls sport
confdence sources. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 4,
175190. doi:10.1016/S1469-0292(01)00037-1
Samson, A., & Solmon, M. (2011). Examining the sources
of self-effcacy for physical activity within the sport
and exercise domains. International Review of Sport
and Exercise Psychology, 4, 7089. doi:10.1080/17509
84X.2011.564643
Tesch, R. (1990). Qualitative research analysis types and soft-
ware tools. New York: Falmer Press.
Young, R.A., & Collin, A. (2004). Introduction: Constructiv-
ism and social constructionism in the career feld. Journal
of Vocational Behavior, 64(3), 373388. doi:10.1016/j.
jvb.2003.12.005
Manuscript submitted: July 2, 2013
Revision accepted: December 11, 2013
Appendix
Interview Items Targeting Sources of Self-Efficacy
1. Can you tell me about a time you felt confdent?
2. Are there certain times you feel more confdent in your sport skills?
3. What kinds of things have happened to help your confdence grow?
Interview Items Targeting Sources of RISE
4. How can you tell when your coach/instructor is confdent in you?
5. What does your coach/instructor say to make you feel like s/he is more confdent in you?
6. What does your coach/instructor do to make you feel like s/he is more confdent in you?
7. Can you tell when your coach/instructor is confdent in other players?
8. Finish this sentence: I would feel like my coach truly believed in me if . . .
9. How can you tell if your coach truly believes you can improve?