Albert BanduraSelf-Efficacy in Competitive Swimming

Kate O’Brien

Life of Bandura Born 1925 in Alberta, Canada.

Undergrad at University of British Columbia.

Entered the clinical psychology graduate program at University of Iowa.

Received his Ph.D. in 1952.

Married and had 2 daughters.

Taught at Stanford.

1974, elected president of the American Psychological Association.

Life of Bandura

1979, became the Honorary Doctor of Science at the University of British Columbia.

Published numerous works.

Has received honorary degrees from numerous universities.

Still alive today.

Bandura’s Theory of Self-Efficacy

By regulating our own behavior, we engage in self-observation. Additionally, we evaluate our performances in terms of our standards and goals. Bandura calls these general judgments self-efficacy appraisals. He also believed that our self-efficacy appraisals exert powerful effects on our levels of motivation. However, it is possible that one may have too high an estimate of his or her abilities. Yet, Bandura believes that it is good to overestimate our capacities and our belief that we will succeed.

Terms to be DefinedSelf-Efficacy – the belief in one’s capabilities to

organize and execute the courses of action required to manage prospective situations.

Self-Control – the ability to control oneself, in particular one’s emotions and desires or the expression of them in one’s behavior.

Frustration – the feeling of being upset or annoyed especially because of inability to change or achieve something.

However, self-esteem and self-efficacy are entirely different things. Perceived self-efficacy is concerned with judgments of personal capability, whereas self-esteem is concerned with judgments of self-worth.

Success usually depends more on the effort we put into a task than on any inherent ability.

Actual PerformanceThe most influential source of efficacy information.

Provides the most authentic evidence of whether an individual can gather whatever it takes to succeed.

An experience of only easy successes will lead a person to expect swift results and be easily discouraged by failure. Therefore, a sound sense of efficacy is established by experience in overcoming obstacles through perseverant efforts.

“Some setbacks and difficulties in human pursuits serve a useful purpose in teaching that success usually requires sustained effort.” (Encyclopedia Human Behavior, 2)

Vicarious Experiences Bandura proposed that vicarious experiences partially influence

self-efficacy.

A vicarious experience is the act of observing another succeed at a task and inferring that we too can succeed at the task.

Vicarious experiences are provided by social models.

“For some regular activities, standard norms of how well representative groups perform given activities are used to determine one’s relative standing.” (Self-Efficacy, 87)

Perceived self-efficacy is influenced by modeling when one perceives some similarity to the model.

“The greater the assumed similarities the more persuasive are the models’ successes and failures.” (Encyclopedia Human Behavior, 2)

A sufficient model will teach observers useful skills and strategies for mastering the skill through their behavior and expressed ways of thinking.

Verbal Persuasion In this source, social persuasion serves as a further means of

strengthening people’s beliefs that they possess the capabilities to achieve what they seek.

When people are verbally persuaded that they possess the means to succeed at a given activity, they are more likely to put forth a greater effort and sustain it than if they have self-doubts and dwell on personal deficiencies when problems arise.

When the verbal persuasion leads to an increase in perceived self-efficacy so much that it leads people to put forth a large enough effort to succeed, it promotes the development of skills and a sense of personal efficacy.

Additionally, when people are persuaded that they do not possess the abilities to succeed at a task, they tend to avoid demanding tasks that develop potential and often quit when faced with difficulty.

A successful efficacy builder will promote measuring success in terms of self-improvement rather then by triumphs over others.

Physiological Cues Bandura believed that in judging their capabilities, people rely partly on

somatic information conveyed by physiological and emotional states.

Somatic indicators are related to the body, especially as distinct from the mind.

In the realm of athletic competition, athletes will judge their fatigue, aches and pains as signs of physical debility.

Also, one of the most important somatic indicators is mood, which heavily impacts people’s judgments of their personal efficacy

Bandura believed that the intensity of emotional and physical reactions was important; rather how these reactions are perceived and interpreted was more important.

“People who have a high sense of efficacy are likely to view their state of affective arousal as an energizing facilitator of performance, whereas those who are beset by self-doubts regard their arousal as a debilitator” (Encyclopedia Human Behavior, 2).

Finally, it is the physiological indicators of efficacy that play an especially influential role in athletic activities.

My Study

Through this research study, I would like to explore how children regulate their performances. Specifically, I want to observe how self-efficacy is present in the sport of competitive swimming, and how the different sources of self-efficacy play different roles within the sport. By working with children between the ages of 5-9, I will observe how each child responds to the four sources of self-efficacy. Finally, I hope to determine which source of self-efficacy is the most efficient and prevalent source of efficacy in the realm of swimming.

Hypothesis

The environment in which the children are asked to make predictions about their performance has a great impact on the predictions that children will make. Additionally, the most important source of self-efficacy is that of actual performance. Finally, the presence of peers will have a major influence on how the children make predictions; specifically, some children will make predictions based on their peers. This will occur because peer pressure and a competitive drive will affect the children to make predictions based on a desire to be the best.

Guiding Questions

1. How is each stage of self-efficacy present in the sport of swimming?

2. Is there a source that is more prevalent than the others in the realm of swimming?

3. Will children predict results more accurately before they complete a skill or will they be more accurate in predicting results after completing the skill?

4. Will the environment (practice or meet) in which the predictions occur have a significant effect on the ability of the child to make predictions?

Procedure

I attended Town North YMCA’s swim team practices for four consecutive days.

Each day I worked with the same 8 swimmers that the head coach had selected for me from Practice Levels 1 and 2.

Each day I ran through different drills with the children to observe how each source of self-efficacy is present in swimming and which is the most dominant source.

Day 1 – Actual PerformanceName Prediction 1 Actual Predictio

n 2Actual

Emily (10) 1:00.00 40.06 38.00 40.11

M.J. (5) 1:00.00 1:04.47 1:04.00 1:10.12

Suzanna (5)

1:15.00 1:28.37 1:29.00 1:47.32

Leo (9) 59.00 1:11.24 1:11.00 N/A

Monica (10)

1:15.00 1:13.19 1:14.00 1:24.55

Destiny (10)

1:00.00 1:00.36 1:00.00 59.55

Eloi (8) 55.00 1:05.90 1:05.00 1:10.86

Sullivan (10)

1:30.00 1:12.78 1:10.00 1:12.44

Day 2 – Vicarious Experiences

Group A: The swimmers in group A were asked to observe a boy (Jack, 11) swim a 50 yd. freestyle and were asked to make predictions of their own time based on Jack’s time of 42.86.

Group B: The swimmers in group A were asked to observe a girl (Rachael, 10) swim a 50 yd. freestyle and were asked to make predictions of their own time based on Rachael’s time of 45.79.

Name Prediction

Actual

Emily Yes, 38.00 41.32

Monica No, 1:14.00

1:14.97

Destiny No, 1:00.00

59.49

Sullivan No, 1:12.00

1:13.33Name Prediction

Actual

M.J. Yes, 30.00 1:07.86

Suzanna No, 1:30.00

1:31.47

Leo No, 1:11.00

1:11.46

Eloi No, 1:07.00

1:06.88

Day 3 – Verbal Persuasion

Name Prediction Actual

Emily 39.00 36.75

Monica 1:00.00 1:10.05

Destiny 55.00 1:05.39

Eloi 1:12.00 1:11.68

“When someone convinces us we can perform a task, we usually do better on it. Pep talks cannot, of course enable us to accomplish tasks that are far too difficult. But outside encouragement can help, largely because success usually depends more on the effort we put into a task than on any inherent ability” (Crain, 207-208).

Day 4 – Physiological Cues(times are based off of the 50 yd. freestyle or the 100 yd. freestyle)

Name Time Improvement

Emily 1:23.83 Yes, by 5.80

Eloi 22.97 Yes, by 5.29

M.J. 26.02 Yes, by 2.25

Brady 1:30.46 Yes, by 2.04

Jack 30.86 Yes, by 1.29

Nicole 1:15.85 No, added 2.33

Conclusion

From my research, I believe that Bandura was correct in stating that the source of actual performances is the most influential source of self-efficacy. Although this may be the most influential, I conclude that the environment in which one is demonstrating the skill has the most significant influence on self-efficacy. I found that in a swim meet environment, the children demonstrated higher levels of self-efficacy than they did in a practice setting. Also, I observed that the children who had experience swimming in meets, had higher levels of self-efficacy than did those who had never swam in a meet.

Limitations

The swimmers were generally tired at practice, therefore they weren’t always able to swim their best.

The pool is normally very busy during their practices, so many times the swimmers were distracted by their surroundings.

Also, I believe that because they know me, the first day they were acting like they were trying to impress me rather than focusing on swimming.

Nature vs. Nurture

BanduraNature Nurture