The changing signs in the relationships among self-efficacy, personal goals, and performance.

Vancouver, Jeffrey B.; Thompson, Charles Manfred; Williams, Ann B.

doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.4.605

Cited by 391 publications

(527 citation statements)

References 75 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

488

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Hence, the involvement of the team in learning behaviors such as exploring new ways of performing the tasks, experimenting alternatives or discussing errors, is positive for team results but when all the resources and energy of the team is focused on that behaviors, goals achievement might suffer threatening the viability of the team. As for team psychological capital, our results extends the findings obtained, at the individual level, by Vancouver et al [42], and also the remarks made by Veraharen regarding the construct of self-efficacy [44], to the team level and to the broader concept of psychological capital. Our findings highlighted that when the levels of team psychological capital are too high, team viability might suffer, probably because the team became overconfident, neglecting some important aspects of the task and committing more errors, undermining, in consequence, the future of the team.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 77%

“…Results are, however, less consistent when we consider some psychological resources separately, namely self-efficacy. For instance, concerning the relationship between self-efficacy and performance, whereas some studies, focusing on a socio-cognitive theory of self-regulation [4], found a positive relationship between self-efficacy and performance, others report that selfefficacy might lead to overconfidence, increasing, in consequence, the chance of committing errors during the tasks and affecting performance negatively [42].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Neural Network Model for Team Viability

Dimas

Rocha

Rebelo

et al. 2017

Computational Science and Its Applications – ICCSA 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Team effectiveness has been the focus of numerous studies since teams play an increasingly decisive role in modern organizations. In the present paper, our attention is centered on team viability, which is one dimension of team effectiveness. Given the challenges that actual teams face today, exploring the conditions and processes that enhance the capacity of teams to adapt and continue to work together is a fundamental research path to pursue. In this study, team psychological capital and team learning were considered as antecedents of team viability. The relationships that team psychological capital and team learning establish with team viability were explored as accurately as possible. Typically, these relationships are assumed to be linear as multivariate linear models are often used. However, these linear models fail to explain possible nonlinear relations between variables, expected to exist in dynamic systems as teams. Adopting computational modeling strategies in the context of organizational psychology has become more common. In this paper, radial basis function models and neural networks were used to study the complex relationships between team psychological capital, team learning and team viability.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 77%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Neural Network Model for Team Viability

Dimas

Rocha

Rebelo

et al. 2017

Computational Science and Its Applications – ICCSA 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In support of this, the above studies revealed a negative relationship between self-12 efficacy and subsequent performance at this level of analysis. 13 In explaining why negative self-efficacy effects may occur, Vancouver et al (2001Vancouver et al ( , 2002 14 based their hypothesis upon Powers (1973) perceptual control theory. According to Powers 15 (1991) and Vancouver et al (2001Vancouver et al ( , 2002, self-efficacy could negatively bias one's perceptions 16 of goal progress.…”

Section: Accepted Manuscriptmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…13 In explaining why negative self-efficacy effects may occur, Vancouver et al (2001Vancouver et al ( , 2002 14 based their hypothesis upon Powers (1973) perceptual control theory. According to Powers 15 (1991) and Vancouver et al (2001Vancouver et al ( , 2002, self-efficacy could negatively bias one's perceptions 16 of goal progress. That is, high levels of self-efficacy may be negatively related to the allocation of 17 effort because individuals no longer feel the need to invest maximum effort (see also Vancouver, …”

Section: Accepted Manuscriptmentioning

confidence: 99%

Examining the moderating effects of time on task and task complexity on the within person self-efficacy and performance relationship

Beattie

Fakehy

Woodman

2014

Psychology of Sport and Exercise

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Please cite this article as: Beattie, S., Fakehy, M., Woodman, T., Examining the moderating effects of time on task and task complexity on the within person self-efficacy and performance relationship, Psychology of Sport & Exercise (2014), doi: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2014 This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain. M A N U S C R I P T A C C E P T E D ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPTThe study examined two moderating variables that may influence the direction of the effect of self-efficacy upon performance, namely; time spent on task and task complexity. Design: Multilevel analysis was conducted to examine within person and between group relationships. Method: Eighty eight novice golfers putted in 4 sessions over a period of 2 days (completing 800 putts in total). Each session contained 10 trials of 20 putts. The golfers were split into 2 conditions; a stable task condition where task requirements remained constant across time and a dynamic task condition, where task complexity changed across time. Results: In early learning (i.e., the first 10 trials) results revealed a slight negative effect between self-efficacy and subsequent performance. However, across the 40 trials self-efficacy had a positive effect upon subsequent performance. Further, there was a significant task condition (stable vs. dynamic) interaction. In the easy task condition, self-efficacy showed a slight (but non-significant) positive effect upon performance. However, in the dynamic learning condition, self-efficacy had a positive and significant effect upon subsequent performance. Conclusion: Previous tests of the within person self-efficacy relationship tend to limit learning to 10 trials or less. The study is the first to examine the reciprocal relationship between self-efficacy and performance as a result of task experience (i.e., time spent on the task) and task complexity simultaneously. Positive effects emerged as a result of extended time learning the task and by varying the degree of task complexity whilst learning.

show abstract

“…A between-person level of analysis allows researchers to assess cross-sectional (single time point) variation on a particular measure; and has typically been used to capture the subjective experience of peak performance states such as flow (i.e., Jackson, 1992;Ravizza, 1977). However Vancouver, Thompson, & Williams (2001) proposed that within-person level of analysis is better able to conceptualize change in performance levels over time, and thus allow for the possibility of temporal precedence to be established (Curran & Bauer, 2011). For example, Mizruchi (1991) studied National Basketball Association playoff data between 1947 and 1982, and found that "winning the previous game increased the probability of losing the present game by about 12%" (p.186).…”

Section: Dynamic Balance Correction Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

The Psychology of Dynamic Balance and Peak Performance in Sport: Correction Theory

Cowen

Nesti

Cheetham

2014

Quest

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents an introduction to a new approach to our understanding of peak performance and dysfunctional performance in sport -Correction theory. Correction theory, based within a control theory (W. Powers, 1973) and dynamical systems perspective, assumes that dynamic balance (A state in which a robust complex system will self-correct in response to imbalance) underwrites individual functioning. The central thesis presented in this paper is that an interdependent relationship exists between peak performance and dysfunctional performance in sport. Peak performance is, in part, a (corrective) response to dysfunctional performance, and vice versa. An overview of correction theory is presented, based on two propositions relating to balance. Implications of correction theory for our understanding of sporting performance are briefly considered. Keywords: dynamic balance, peak performance, correction theory DYNAMIC BALANCE, CORRECTION THEORY 3The Psychology of Dynamic Balance and Peak Performance in Sport: Correction Theory A psychological theory, if it is to be more than a technical makeshift, must base itself on the principle of opposition; for without this it could only reestablish a neurotically unbalanced psyche. There is no balance, no system of regulation without opposition. The psyche is just such a self-regulating system (Jung, 1966a, p. 61) Aphorisms such as success out of failure and triumph over adversity are commonplace within sport. One regularly hears coaches and players talk about expecting a reaction following defeat, and warning against complacency after victory; alluding to a possible interdependent relationship between success and failure rarely explored within the academic literature. The pursuit of achieving sustainable peak performances in competition is arguably one of the defining goals and challenges for elite athletes (Nesti, Littlewood, O'Halloran, Eubank, & Richardson, 2012), and for those who seek to support them. Yet variation in performance is a certainty for athletes, including at elite levels, making success and failure an inevitable part of elite athletes lived experience (Gilbourne and Richardson, 2006). Privette (1981) defined peak performance as "behaviour in any activity that transcends what normally could be expected in that situation" (p. 51). Based on this definition, peak performance refers to a higher level of functioning within any given activity (Privette, 1983), which is by definition quantitatively and/or qualitatively different to a "normal" level of performance.The qualitative nature of the subjective experiences associated with peak performance in sport has attracted significant attention in the literature (i.e., Csikszentmihalyi, 1975;Jackson, 1992, Privette, 1981Ravizza, 1977Ravizza, , 1984. Many DYNAMIC BALANCE, CORRECTION THEORY 4 of these findings suggest that peak performance is an ego-transcending experience (Maslow, 1968) consistent with the construct of flow (Young & Pain, 1999), which Jackson et al (2001) described as an optimal mental stat...

show abstract

The changing signs in the relationships among self-efficacy, personal goals, and performance.

Cited by 391 publications

References 75 publications

A Neural Network Model for Team Viability

A Neural Network Model for Team Viability

Examining the moderating effects of time on task and task complexity on the within person self-efficacy and performance relationship

The Psychology of Dynamic Balance and Peak Performance in Sport: Correction Theory

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About