7/23/2019 Using Team Efficacy Surveys to Help Promote Self
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/using-team-efficacy-surveys-to-help-promote-self 1/14
Using Team Efficacy Surveys to Help Promote Self-and-
Team-Efficacy among College Athletes
ISSN !"#$-%"!&
Nathan DeRohan, Christopher Nagy, Helen Meisenhelder, Andrew D. Katayama
A'stract
The purpose of this study was to trac and understand attitudinal changes and trends among !
NCAA Di"ision # intercollegiate teams at the $nited %tates Air &orce Academy '$%A&A(.
)e wanted to see if sur"eys of team efficacy would help promote self*and*team efficacy with
respect to team goals and outcomes. Measures of team efficacy and locus of control weremeasured throughout the season+ preseason, mid*season and postseason. "en though the
results "aried slightly for each sport, common trends were found with respect to team efficacy
and their percei"ed chances for success and team history. Team goals did not fluctuate much
throughout the season. Howe"er, results from the sur"ey showed a significant drop in team
efficacy for -oth the -ase-all and womens -aset-all teams from preseason to midseason for
-oth internal locus of control+ -ase-all, t'/0( 1 !.0!, p 1 .22!(3 womens -aset-all, t'/0( 1
!.45, p 1 .226. A significant drop in the teams e7ternal locus of control was also o-ser"ed for
-oth -ase-all, t'/0( 1 8.8!, p 9 .22/ and womens -aset-all, t'/0( 1 6.:0, p 1 .2/2.
Howe"er, for the hocey team, there was not a significant drop in internal locus of control,
t'/0( 1 /.6!, p 1 .6!5 or in e7ternal locus of control, t'/0( 1 /./2, p1 .6;:. As the -ase-all
and womens -aset-all teams lost more games -oth their internal and e7ternal locus ofcontrol dropped. Accordingly, -ecause the Hocey team did not lose as many games from
midseason on their locus of control measures did not e7perience any drop*off.
(ey )ords team efficacy, coaching, locus of control
Introduction
#n order to -e a-le to contri-ute to a team, one must first -e confident in ones own a-ility to
support the team framewor. According to <andura '/( self*efficacy descri-es the le"el to
which an indi"idual can successfully perform a -eha"ior re=uired to facilitate a specific
outcome. Assuming that the indi"idual possesses the sills re=uired to perform the tas, self*
efficacy is hypothesi>ed to positi"ely influence performance '/8(. This positi"e relationship
-etween success and self*efficacy is empirically supported in studies relating to human
endurance '60(, as well as in the sport of -ase-all ':(. #n research targeting tas*specific
efficacy, supporti"e e"idence suggests that state or tas*specific self*efficacy is related to ?o-
performance '68( which, in turn, suggests that self*efficacy may also correlate with ?o-
performance.
Collecti"e*efficacy has -een found to regulate how much effort a group chooses to e7ert in
accomplishing certain tass, and its persistence in the face of failure '6(. Mischel and
Northcraft '/5( suggested that the cognition of @can we do this tasB is different from thecognition of @can # do this tasB Hodges and Carron '//( and ichac> and artington '/4(,
7/23/2019 Using Team Efficacy Surveys to Help Promote Self
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/using-team-efficacy-surveys-to-help-promote-self 2/14
using e7perimental la-oratory tass, found support for the hypothesis that teams with high
collecti"e*efficacy outperformed low*efficacy teams, and that performance failure resulted in
lower collecti"e*efficacy on successi"e performance trials. russia and Kinici '62( also
found that collecti"e*efficacy was related to collecti"e goals and performance. %pin '6!(
found support for a relationship -etween team cohesion and team*efficacy for elite athletic
teams -ut not for recreational teams. Teams with high collecti"e*efficacy were higher in teamcohesion than were teams with low collecti"e*efficacy. %imilar studies ha"e indicated that
team*efficacy and potency are related positi"ely to performance '/2, /!(.
&elt> and irgg ';( defined team*efficacy as the consensus among players perceptions of
their personal capa-ilities to perform within the team. #n order to study team*efficacy, &elt>
and irgg followed one hundred si7ty intercollegiate hocey players through the course of a
season. They found that team "ictories increased team*efficacy and team defeats decreased
team*efficacy to a greater e7tent than player efficacy -eliefs. They also found a significant
decrease in team*efficacy after losing competitions. This opened new doors in the study of
team*efficacy -ecause they compared the change in efficacy in times of -oth success and
failure.
Attri'ution Theory
Attri-ution theory focuses on how people e7plain their success and failure. According to
)einer, Nieren-erg, and Eoldstein '64(, success and failure are percei"ed as chiefly caused
-y a-ility, effort, the difficulty of the tas, and luc. This "iew, populari>ed -y )einer, holds
that thousands of outside influences for success and failure can -e classified into two
categories. The first of these categories is sta-ility. %ta-ility is a factor to which one attri-utes
success or failure as fairly permanent or unsta-le. &actors such as a-ility, tas difficulty, and
-ias are percei"ed as relati"ely sta-le, whereas other causes, such as luc, effort, and mood
are su-?ect to moment*to*moment, periodic fluctuations and are considered unsta-le.
*ocus of Control
ocus of control distinguishes two types of indi"iduals+ internals, who percei"e the lielihood
of an e"ent occurring as a product of their own -eha"ior, and e7ternals, who "iew e"ents as
contingent on luc, chance, or other people '66(. Causes internal to an indi"idual are a-ility,
effort, and mood. 7ternal factors are tas difficulty, luc, and -ias '64(. Team*efficacy
includes factors such as team cohesion and the a-ility of indi"idual players3 -oth internal and
sta-le. <ecause indi"iduals ?udge their capa-ilities partly through social comparisons with the
performance of others, it is reasona-le to -elie"e that teams will react in the same manner -ycomparing their collecti"e competencies with their opponents ';,/:(. Therefore, if a team is
comprised of mem-ers that ascri-e performance success to sta-le causes, they will e7pect
these outcomes to occur in the future. #f team mem-ers attri-ute their success to unsta-le,
e7ternal factors, team*efficacy will -e much lower. #n contrast to these -eliefs, <arric and
Mount '0( found no relationship -etween ?o- performance and sta-le factors, such as
emotion.
#n a recent study of NCAA di"ision one -ase-all players, DeRohan and Nagy '5( found
e"idence, in support of this theory, suggesting that internal locus of control is more dependent
on success and failure then "ice "ersa. Fur =uestion centers on a team setting and pro-es the
lin -etween successGfailure with locus of control and how they might regulate team*efficacy The purpose of this study was to trac and understand attitudinal changes and
7/23/2019 Using Team Efficacy Surveys to Help Promote Self
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/using-team-efficacy-surveys-to-help-promote-self 3/14
trends among ! NCAA Di"ision # intercollegiate teams at the $nited %tates Air &orce
Academy '$%A&A( and see if team efficacy would help promote self*and*team efficacy with
respect to team goals and outcomes.
+ethods
Study ! ,ase'all
Participants
Twenty*fi"e male di"ision / -ase-all players and three coaches at the $%A&A participated in
this study. The players ages ranged from eighteen to twenty*four years. Two of the three
coaches were in their second year at the Academy. The third coach was in his first year at the
Academy. The players and coaches "olunteered for this study and did not recei"e
compensation for completing the sur"eys.
Surveys
reseason, mid*season, and end*of*season sur"eys were administered to the players and
coaches. ach participant too a core of /:*item sur"ey. The sur"eys measured team*efficacy,
attri-ution theory, locus of control, and demographic information -efore, during, and after the
season of play. The sur"eys contained restricted*item =uestions -ased on si7 point iert*type
scales ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree.
Procedures
The researchers administered the sur"eys when the team was all together 'e.g., team
meetings(. The participants too the sur"eys in the presence of at least one researcheradministering each administration of the sur"ey. $pon completion, the researchers collected
the sur"eys from each athlete and coach and placed them in his folder. A mid*season sur"ey
was administered the day -efore the first conference games were played. The same
instructions were gi"en as they appeared on the first sur"ey. $pon completion, the
administrator collected the sur"eys from each athlete and coach and placed them in his folder.
The same protocols and instructions were followed for the third and final sur"ey that was
administered the day after the final conference game was played. Again, upon completion the
researchers collected all the sur"eys and all the data was entered into spss. #t is important to
note that the coaches ne"er had access to the players sur"eys and the players ne"er had
access to the coaches sur"eys throughout the study.
Study ,as.et'all
Participants
%i7teen female di"ision / -aset-all players from the $%A&A -aset-all team "olunteered to
participate in this study. Fne player was eliminated from the study as she did not participate
throughout the entire season. layers in this study ranged from /; to 6! years old. The
players and coaches did not recei"e compensation for completing the sur"eys.
Surveys
7/23/2019 Using Team Efficacy Surveys to Help Promote Self
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/using-team-efficacy-surveys-to-help-promote-self 4/14
The same protocols used for the -ase-all team were also used for the -aset-all team. The
only difference was the num-er of sur"eys administered throughout their season. )hereas the
-ase-all team only had three sur"eys during their season, the womens -aset-all team too a
total of si7 sur"eys throughout their season+ a preseason, four during the season, and one post
season sur"ey.
Procedures
The same instructions, protocols, and procedures used with the -ase-all team were used for
the womens -aset-all team. $pon completion, the researchers collected all sur"eys for
su-se=uent data compiling and analysis.
Study $ Hoc.ey
Participants
Twenty*se"en di"ision / hocey players and two coaches from the $%A&A hocey team participated in this study. articipants ranged in age from 62 to 68 years. All players and
coaches agreed to "olunteer for this study and did not recei"e compensation for completing
the sur"eys. All participants were treated according to the American sychological
Associations ethical guidelines.
Surveys
The same core of /:*=uestions used in the -ase-all and womens -aset-all sur"eys were also
used to sur"ey the hocey team. ie the -ase-all sur"eys, the hocey sur"eys were
administered three times during their season+ preseason, mid*season, and end*of*the season.
Procedure
The same protocols and procedures were used to administer the first two sur"eys to the
hocey team. Howe"er, to con"enience the hocey players at the end of their season, the
researchers ga"e the postseason sur"eys to the hocey team captain who agreed to administer
it to the team -efore their final practice leading up to their tournament. ach player too the
sur"ey, returned it to the team captain, who then ga"e them all to the researchers.
The Present Study
#R< appro"al was o-tained prior to the start of our in"estigation. &or each team+ mens -ase-all, womens -aset-all, and mens hocey, we de"eloped two specific hypotheses to
address the differences and trends for each team studied at the $nited %tates Air &orce
Academy '$%A&A(. &or e7ample, the -ase-all team and the womens -aset-all team ha"e
not -een "ery successful in recent team history. Howe"er, -ased on the trends of wins and
losses, the womens -aset-all team is on a slightly upward trend in wins whereas the
-ase-all team has maintained a fairly constant trend in wins. The hocey team on the other
hand has en?oyed more success in recent history, compiling a significantly higher percentage
of wins than the other two teams under study. As a result, we e7pected to find differing results
from these teams -ased on the team*efficacy le"els and their histories of success
Statistical Analysis
7/23/2019 Using Team Efficacy Surveys to Help Promote Self
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/using-team-efficacy-surveys-to-help-promote-self 5/14
The researchers entered the data generated -y the sur"eys into the %tatistical acage for the
%ocial %ciences '%%% "ersion /8.2( for analysis. layers were then organi>ed according to
the last four digits of their social security num-er. &or testing @changes in team*efficacyB and
@internalGe7ternal locus of controlB we created separate constructs. These constructs included
internal locus of control, e7ternal locus of control, and team*efficacy a"erages for each
sur"ey. #n order to esta-lish our efficacy scale, we aggregated the results from eight separatesi7*point iert*type scales. ach =uestion targeted team*efficacy indi"idually, -ut together
created the team*efficacy construct. This same process was repeated for the corresponding
eight =uestions in e"ery sur"ey in order to create the efficacy construct for each team. All
data were compiled and entered into %%% for analysis.
,ase'all
Fur first hypothesis was that the margin of "ictory would -e related to team*efficacy. The
margin of "ictory a"erage of each particular two wee period was then paired with the
respecti"e team*wide team*efficacy score, and graphed as a linear regression '&igure /(. To
test our second hypothesis, we ran a dependent samples t*test to measure changes in locus ofcontrol -etween sur"eys. This ga"e us ! dependent samples t*tests for internal locus of
control as well as ! dependent samples t*tests for e7ternal locus of control '&igure 6(. #n order
to compare locus of control with margin of "ictory, we a"eraged the locus of control scores of
all the players to create a team*wide locus of control for each sur"ey.
,as.et'all
Fur first hypothesis was the same as for the -ase-all team+ margin of "ictory would -e
related to team*efficacy. The margin of "ictory a"erage of each particular two wee period
was then paired with the respecti"e team*wide team*efficacy score. To test our second
hypothesis we ran a dependent samples t*test to measure changes in players internal and
e7ternal loci throughout the season. #n the end, this ga"e us /0 dependent samples t*tests for
internal locus of control as well as /0 dependent samples t*tests for e7ternal locus of control.
&igure ! shows the comparisons -etween internal and e7ternal locus of control. #n order to
compare locus of control with margin of "ictory, we a"eraged the locus of control scores of
all the players and coaches to create a team*wide locus of control for each sur"ey.
Hoc.ey
Fur first hypothesis was that winning percentage would -e related to team*efficacy o"er the
course of the season. To test this hypothesis, we ran a dependent samples t*test -etween theefficacy scores from the first sur"ey and from the third sur"ey '&igure 8(. As a result the team
posted a .856 winning percentage for the season, which was similar to the a"erage for the
pre"ious fi"e seasons. As a result, we e7pected to o-ser"e sta-le team*efficacy scores o"er
the season. #n order to test our ne7t hypotheses we ran ! dependent samples t*tests for
internal locus of control, as well as ! dependent samples t*tests for e7ternal locus of control
'&igure 0(.
/esults
,ase'all
7/23/2019 Using Team Efficacy Surveys to Help Promote Self
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/using-team-efficacy-surveys-to-help-promote-self 6/14
)e found a strong correlation -etween margin of "ictory and team*efficacy 'r 1 .:25, n 1 !(.
<etween the first and second sur"ey, the margin of defeat was ! while the team*efficacy
dropped significantly 't '/4( 1 0.:!:, p 9 .22/(. <etween the second and third sur"ey,
howe"er, the margin of defeat was 5 while the team*efficacy dropped only slightly 't '/4( 1
/.!2/, p 1 .6/6(. )e found a strong correlation -etween margin of "ictory and internal locus
of control 'r 1 .5;0, N 1 !(. There was also a strong correlation -etween margin of "ictoryand e7ternal locus of control 'r 1 .;;4, N 1 !(. <etween the first and second sur"ey, the
margin of defeat was ! while internal locus of control dropped significantly 't '/4( 1 !.064, p
1 .22!( and e7ternal locus of control also dropped significantly 't '/0( 1 8.865, p 9 .22/(.
<etween the second and third sur"ey, the margin of defeat was 5 while internal locus of
control dropped only slightly 't '/4( 1 2.555, p 1 .88;( and e7ternal locus of control dropped
only slightly as well 't '/8( 1 /.;/;, p 1 .2:/(.
,as.et'all
The correlation -etween margin of "ictory and team*efficacy was slightly in"ersed 'r 1
*2.650, N 1 4(. <etween the first and second sur"eys, the margin of defeat was 6.8 while theteam*efficacy dropped significantly 't '/5( 1 8.240, p 1 .22/(. <etween the second and third
sur"eys, the margin of "ictory was .!!! while the team*efficacy dropped ?ust slightly 't '/0( 1
/.2:8, p 1 .6:/(. <etween the third and fourth sur"eys, the margin of defeat was /6.50 while
the team*efficacy dropped significantly 't '/4( 1 !.556, p 1 .226(. <etween the fourth and
fifth sur"eys, the margin of defeat was /;.50 while the team*efficacy dropped significantly 't
'/6( 1 !.!52, p 1 .224(. <etween the fifth and si7th sur"eys, the margin of defeat was :.4!
while the team*efficacy increased ?ust slightly 't '//( 1 2.064, p 1 .4/2(. The correlation
-etween margin of "ictory and internal locus of control was wea 'r 1 .6:4, n 1 4(, as was the
correlation -etween margin of "ictory and e7ternal locus of control 'r 1 ./42, n 1 4(. <etween
the first and second sur"eys, the margin of defeat was 6.8 while internal locus of control
dropped significantly 't '/5( 1 6.02, p 1 .26!( and e7ternal locus of control dropped only
slightly 't '/5( 1 2.!!;, p 1 .582(. <etween the second and third sur"eys, the margin of
"ictory was .!!! while internal locus of control dropped significantly 't '/0( 1 !.458, p 1 .
226( and e7ternal locus of control also dropped significantly 't '/0( 1 6.:00, p 1 .2/2(.
<etween the third and fourth sur"eys, the margin of defeat was /6.50 while internal locus of
control dropped significantly 't '/4( 1 !./0:, p 1 .224( and e7ternal locus of control also
dropped significantly 't '/4( 1 !.282, p 1 .22;(. <etween the fourth and fifth sur"eys, the
margin of defeat was /;.50 while internal locus of control dropped only slightly 't '/6( 1
/.6!;, p 1 .6!:( and e7ternal locus of control dropped significantly 't '/6( 1 6.6/!, p 1 .285(.
<etween the fifth and si7th sur"eys, the margin of defeat was :.4! while internal locus of
control dropped significantly 't '/6( 1 0.066, p 9 .22/( and e7ternal locus of control alsodropped significantly 't '/6( 1 6.68!, p 1 .280(.
Hoc.ey
&rom the first to the third sur"ey, the a"erage team*efficacy dropped ?ust slightly from 8.;8 to
8.4; 'n 1 /0(. Fur dependent samples t*test showed us that the team*efficacy was indeed
sta-le 't '/8( 1 /.80/, p 1 ./52(. #nternal locus of control dropped slightly -etween the first
and second sur"eys 't '/0( 1 /.6!6, p 1 .6!5(, though it increased slightly -etween the second
and third sur"eys 't '/2( 1 /.6!6, p 1 .460(. F"er the entire season it dropped, -ut not =uite
enough to attain a significant le"el 't '/!( 1 6.286, p 1 .246(. 7ternal locus of control
increased slightly -etween the first and second sur"eys 't '/0( 1 /./22, p 1 .6;:(, and
7/23/2019 Using Team Efficacy Surveys to Help Promote Self
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/using-team-efficacy-surveys-to-help-promote-self 7/14
dropped significantly -etween the second and third sur"eys 't '/2( 1 6.50;, p 1 .262(. F"er
the entire season it dropped significantly as well 't '/!( 1 6.;86, p 1 .2/8(.
0iscussion
,ase'all
Data from the current study showed strong e"idence in support of hypothesis one. )e found
"ery strong correlations -etween team*efficacy and margin of "ictory for each sur"ey
distri-ution. &urthermore, we also found significant differences in team*efficacy -etween the
preseason sur"ey and pre*conference sur"ey. The -ase-all team had a fairly high le"el of
team*efficacy -efore the season started. The mean team*efficacy was 8.20 out of 4 possi-le
points. F"erall the team as a whole -elie"ed they played well together and had the a-ility to
compete successfully at the di"ision one le"el. Howe"er, after winning ?ust 8 games after the
first /;, efficacy dropped significantly entering conference play, and remained low for the
duration of the season.
The teams internal locus of control dropped significantly -etween sur"eys. #nterestingly,
e7ternal locus of control dropped significantly as well, which we did not predict. Although
the results showed no significant difference in changes in internal or e7ternal locus of control
from the first to the second sur"eys, -oth internal and e7ternal locus of control dropped
significantly when we compared the first and last sur"eys. )e suspect this stems from o"erall
poor performance throughout the season. erhaps, as the season continued through
conference play, the team settled into the reality of -oth internal factors, such as talent, and
e7ternal factors, such as their difficult competition.
,as.et'all
)e found a slight in"erse relationship -etween the teams efficacy and margin of "ictory or
defeat for each sur"ey distri-ution. Although there was not a significant relationship -etween
team*efficacy and margin of "ictory or defeat, we did find a significant difference in team*
efficacy o"er the season, particularly -etween the preseason sur"ey and each mid*season
sur"ey. The -aset-all team had a fairly high le"el of team*efficacy during the preseason. The
mean team*efficacy was 8.5/ out of 4 possi-le points. F"erall the team as a whole -elie"ed
they played well together and had the a-ility to compete successfully at the di"ision one
le"el. Howe"er, after winning three of the first eight games, efficacy -egan to drop.
#nterestingly, in support of our hypothesis, as the season progressed, team*efficacy le"els
fluctuated somewhat consistently with the teams performance, although not necessarilydependent on margin of "ictoryGdefeat. #t is interesting to note that the freshmen -aset-all
players dropped more significantly in team*efficacy than upper*class players from the
preseason sur"ey to the su-se=uent sur"eys. The reason -ehind this might -e that the @newerB
players were more o"erconfident -efore the season -egan than the upper*class players. #t
stands to reason that freshmen players entering college are surrounded -y athletes -etter than
those they ha"e played with in high school. <ecause of this, they o"erestimate the
performance potential of the team, and thus report higher le"els of team*efficacy -efore the
season -egins. The upperclassmen, on the other hand, already ha"e e7perience in playing at
the di"ision one le"el, and possess a more realistic "iew of the teams potential.
As predicted in our second hypothesis, after poor performance -etween the preseason sur"eyand the mid*season sur"ey, internal locus of control dropped significantly, while e7ternal
7/23/2019 Using Team Efficacy Surveys to Help Promote Self
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/using-team-efficacy-surveys-to-help-promote-self 8/14
locus of control did not. )e predicted a decrease in e7ternal locus of control, -ut not internal
locus of control. #nterestingly, despite a large margin of defeat -etween sur"eys three and
four, the data reported significant increases in -oth internal and e7ternal locus of control.
Howe"er, after taing a closer loo at the results of the games, the increase in internal loci
maes sense. Although the -aset-all team e7perienced two -lowout games in a row during
conference play, they won a conference game, and then lost the ne7t game -y a "ery closescore. Team*efficacy was at its highest after these games, which further e7plains why they
attri-uted their success to internal reasons.
Hoc.ey
As predicted, the results showed that the team had high le"els of team*efficacy and showed
no significant difference during the season. The results showed a strong relationship -etween
winning percentage and team*efficacy with respect to our linear regression graph. The team
lost half of their games -etween the preseason and mid*season sur"eys which led to a
significant decrease in team*efficacy. #nterestingly, the team*efficacy actually increased
slightly. Eames early in the season are typically non*conference games, where thecompetition may not -e =uite as good as the conference teams. Howe"er, conference play
typically presents a much greater challenge. Therefore, the team felt much more
accomplished ha"ing won a =uarter of the games. &inally, the third sur"ey ased =uestions
that target efficacy o"er the entire season. <ecause the =uestions were -ased on the whole
season, team mem-ers apparently considered the season marginally successful.
The hocey team e7perienced a higher percentage of wins during the season and therefore
internal locus of control remained constant throughout the season, which supports our second
hypothesis. Despite slight e--s*and*flows throughout the season, we found no significant
difference in internal loci, whereas e7ternal loci decreased significantly o"er the course of the
season. Although we predicted that e7ternal loci would remain constant, it maes sense that it
decreased. <ecause the team was successful, they did not -elie"e that their success was
dependent upon e7ternal factors that they could not control.
Conclusions
The three constructs this present study targeted were team*efficacy, attri-ution theory, and
locus of control within the $%A&A -ase-all, hocey, and womens -aset-all teams. &or the
-ase-all and womens -aset-all teams, the researchers used a margin of "ictoryGdefeat
construct as a measure of success. F"er the past few seasons, the womens -aset-all and
-ase-all teams ha"e had "ery un-alanced winGloss records, which we assumed would notchange during the research season. &urthermore, not a single player on the -ase-all and
-aset-all teams had e7perienced a winning season, while the hocey team has e7perienced a
higher percentage of wins throughout their seasons. <ecause of this, we needed something
concrete to call @successB that seemed attaina-le for the teams. &or this reason, we assumed
that if the teams were losing, -ut were not continuously getting @-lown outB -y their
opponents, team mem-ers would gage those losses as successful. Typically, players tae a
close loss to a strong opponent much -etter than a game with a huge pointGrun spread. #n
contrast, the hocey team has e7perienced successful seasons, so we used the teams winGloss
record. Fur intent was to run a similar study to that of &elt> and irgg ';(, and in"estigate a
relationship -etween team*efficacy and performance. Howe"er, specific differences e7ist
-etween the current study and that of &elt> and irgg. &irst, the current study targeted teamefficacy with general =uestions a-out team efficacy, whereas &elt> and irgg ased statistic*
7/23/2019 Using Team Efficacy Surveys to Help Promote Self
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/using-team-efficacy-surveys-to-help-promote-self 9/14
-ased =uestions specific to hocey. %econd, our results may differ due to the disparity in
o-ser"ations met in each study. &elt> and irgg e"aluated the teams le"el of efficacy after
each game during the course of the season. They recorded the teams efficacy after -oth wins
and losses. Fur study only assessed the le"el of team efficacy during discrete time periods,
and we assumed that efficacy carried o"er -etween games. )hile this current study attempted
to measure efficacy o"er the season as did &elt> and irgg, constraints in time and resources pre"ented data collection after each game. The differences in o-ser"ation may ha"e caused
the differing results. &inally, the focus of &elt> and irggs study was finding that percei"ed
self*efficacy was a strong predictor of performance whereas our study attempted to aggregate
self*efficacy into @team efficacyB and performance.
A ma?or limitation of this study was the low sample si>es for each team. $nfortunately,
researchers may find this difficult to control -ecause most teams carry fewer than thirty
players. To sol"e this pro-lem, researchers might try to loo at multiple teams from the same
sport, possi-ly from different schools '4,/0(. &uture research in this area might find our
results to -e accurate regardless of our low n*"alues. As stated in the discussion section
a-o"e, when a team e7periences continual failure, lie the -ase-all and -aset-all teams inour study, it maes sense that they would continue to regulate e7ternal factors for their lac of
success, stop attri-uting their losses to internal factors, and drop in o"erall team efficacy. This
-eing said, further research should also focus on how wins and losses affect internal locus of
control, e7ternal locus of control, and team*efficacy. These changes would impro"e -oth
internal and e7ternal "alidity. The world of sports pro"ides a phenomenal data-an of raw
information that aids in disco"ering how people operate in team settings. Taing full
ad"antage of the opportunity to disco"er as much as possi-le a-out the intricate worings of
the team atmosphere pro"ides a "ital source for impro"ing strategically de"eloped teams in
-oth the corporate and athletic worlds.
Applications In Sport
Eenerally speaing, applying the results from these studies to sports seems to re"eal that -oth
coaches and players can use these sur"eys to help regulate their self*efficacy and team
efficacy to help monitor their percei"ed -eliefs, moti"ational le"els, and goal attainment
throughout the season. As a coach, one could simply use a simple sur"ey to gauge where his
or her players are with respect to team efficacy. As a player, one could use the sur"ey to
monitor trends in their perceptions of their teams efficacy and as themsel"es why any shifts
in perceptions e7ist. &inally, with respect to locus of control, monitoring team efficacy has the
potential to allow players and coaches the opportunity to reflect upon the internal and
e7ternal influences and how they can change their -eha"iors to -etter correspond to their -eliefs.
Another application to sport is that winning can indeed affect team*efficacy. ust as we
hypothesi>ed, the more a team wins, the higher the team efficacy. Not only does the outcome
of winning affect a teams efficacy, -ut the margin of "ictory can also play a significant role.
#n other words, the more a team wins -y 'i.e., points, runs, and goals( the greater the team
efficacy. Among the coaches howe"er, the drop*off in team efficacy isnt affected as
drastically as the players. erhaps this has more to do with the @percei"edB leadership and
how the coaches attitudes need to -e more e"en*eeled. #n a similar fashion, coaches on
winning teams need to maintain a more e"en*eeled efficacy and not allow themsel"es to
inflate their perception of their team. These applications mae good sense in the world of
7/23/2019 Using Team Efficacy Surveys to Help Promote Self
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/using-team-efficacy-surveys-to-help-promote-self 10/14
sports psychology with respect to leadership. "er notice how coaches on championship
teams tend to appear to -e le"el*headed and are a-le to eep their emotions in chec
Ac.no1ledgments
The authors would lie to acnowledge the head coaches and their assistants at the $nited%tates Air &orce Academy for participating in the studies. )omens <aset-all+ Head coach
Ardie Mc#nelly , assistant coaches isa Ro-inson, Angie Munger, and Holly Togiai3 Mens
<ase-all+ Head coach Mie Hutcheon, assistant coaches Ryan Thompson, and %cott
Marchand3 Mens #ce Hocey+ Head Coach &ran %erratore, assistant coaches Mie Cor-ett,
and Andy <erg. )e would also lie to acnowledge all the student*athletes on these teams
who participated in these sur"eys throughout their respecti"e seasons.
Ta'les and 2igures
2igure !
inear regression -etween margin of "ictory and team*efficacy for the -ase-all team.
2igure
Changes in internal and e7ternal locus of control for the -ase-all team -etween the three
administrations of the sur"ey o"er the course of the season 'preseason, mid*season, and
postseason(.
7/23/2019 Using Team Efficacy Surveys to Help Promote Self
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/using-team-efficacy-surveys-to-help-promote-self 11/14
2igure $
Changes in internal and e7ternal locus of control for the womens -aset-all team -etween
the three administrations of the sur"ey o"er the course of the season 'preseason, mid*season,
and postseason(.
2igure #
inear regression -etween winning percentage and team*efficacy for the hocey team.
7/23/2019 Using Team Efficacy Surveys to Help Promote Self
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/using-team-efficacy-surveys-to-help-promote-self 12/14
2igure "
Changes in internal and e7ternal locus of control for the hocey team -etween the three
administrations of the sur"ey o"er the course of the season 'preseason, mid*season, and
postseason(.
egend+
/. reseason team efficacy a"erage
6. Mid*season team efficacy a"erage
7/23/2019 Using Team Efficacy Surveys to Help Promote Self
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/using-team-efficacy-surveys-to-help-promote-self 13/14
!. ostseason team efficacy a"erage
/eferences
/. <andura, A. '/:55(. %elf*efficacy+ Toward a unifying theory of -eha"ioral change.
sychological Re"iew, ;8, /:/*6/0.
6. <andura, A. '/:;4(. %ocial foundations of thought and action+ A social cogniti"e
theory. nglewood Cliffs, N.+ Apprentice Hall.
!. <andura, A. '/::5(. %elf*efficacy+ The e7ercise of control. New Ior+ ).H. &reeman
and Company.
8. <andura, A. '6222(. 7ercise of human agency through collecti"e*efficacy. Current
Directions in sychological %cience, :, 50*5;.
0. <arric, M. R. J Mount, M. K. '/::/(. The -ig fi"e personality dimensions and ?o-
performance+ A meta*analysis. ersonnel sychology, 88, /*64.
4. Chase, M. A., irgg, C. D., J &elt>, D. . '/::5(. Do coachs efficacy e7pectations
for their teams predict team performance The %ports sychologist, //, ;*6!.
5. DeRohan, R. N. J Nagy, C. . '6220(. Team*efficacy, locus of control, and attri-ution
as they relate to a collegiate -ase-all team. $npu-lished manuscript.
;. &elt>, D. . J irgg, C. D. '/::;(. ercei"ed team and player efficacy in hocey.
ournal of Applied sychology, ;!, 005*048.
:. Eeorge, T. R. '/::8(. %elf confidence and -ase-all performance+ A causal
e7amination of self*efficacy theory. ournal of %port and 7ercise sychology, /2,
!;/*!::.
/2. Eully, %. M., #ncalcaterra, K. A, oshi, A., J <eau-ien, . M. '6226(. A meta*analysis
of team*efficacy, potency, and performance+ #nterdependence and le"el of analysis as
moderators of o-ser"ed relationships. ournal of Applied sychology, ;5, ;/:*;!6.
//. Hodges, . J Carron, A. . '/::6(. Collecti"e efficacy and group performance.
#nternational ournal of %ports sychology, 6!, 8;*0:.
/6. Hysong, %. . J Luinones, M. A. '/::5, April(. The relationship -etween self*efficacy
and performance+ A meta*analysis. aper presented at the /6th annual conference of
the %ociety for #ndustrial J Frgani>ational sychology, %t. ouis, MF.
/!. Kellett, . <., Humphrey, R. H. J %leeth, R. E. '6222, No"em-er(. @)ere greatB "s.
@youre la>yB+ How goal difficulty influences social loafing, collecti"e efficacy and
percei"ed team a-ility. aper presented at the annual meeting of the %outhern
Management Association, Frlando, &.
/8. Ko>u-, %. A., J McDonnell, . &. '6222(. 7ploring the relationship -etween cohesionand collecti"e efficacy in rug-y teams. ournal of %ports <eha"ior, 6!, /62*/6:.
7/23/2019 Using Team Efficacy Surveys to Help Promote Self
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/using-team-efficacy-surveys-to-help-promote-self 14/14
/0. au, R.R., J Russell, D. '/:;2(. Attri-utions in the sports pages+ A field test of some
current hypotheses a-out attri-ution research. ournal of ersonality and %ocial
sychology, !:, 6:*!;.
/4. ichac>, &. M., J artington, . T. '/::4(. Collecti"e efficacy and true group
performance. #nternational ournal of %port sychology, 65, /84*/0;.
/5. Mischel, . . J Northcraft, E. <. '/::5(. @# thin we can, # thin we can B+ The
role of efficacy -eliefs in group and team effecti"eness. Ereenwich, CT+ A# ress.
/;. ase"ich, D. A., <rawley, . R., Dorsch, K. R., J )idmeyer, ). N. '/:::(.
Relationship -etween collecti"e*efficacy and team cohesion+ Conceptual and
measurement issues. Eroup Dynamics+ Theory, Research, and ractice, !, 6/2*666.
/:. ronin, ., in, D.I., J Ross, . '6226(. The -ias -lind spot+ erceptions of -ias in
self "ersus others. ersonality and %ocial sychology <ulletin, 6;, !4:*!;/.
62. russia, E. . J Kinici, A. . '/::4(. A moti"ational in"estigation of group
effecti"eness using social*cogniti"e theory. ournal of Applied sychology, ;/, /;5*
/:;.
6/. Roesch, %.C. J Amirhan, .H. '/::5(. <oundary conditions for self*ser"ing
attri-utions+ Another loo at the sports pages. ournal of Applied %ocial sychology,
65, 680*64/.
66. Rotter, . <. '/:44(. Eenerali>ed e7pectancies for internal "ersus e7ternal control of
reinforcement. sychological Monographs, ;2, /*6;.
6!. %pin, K. %. '/::2(. Cohesion and collecti"e*efficacy of "olley-all teams. ournal of
%port and 7ercise sychology, /6, !22/*!//.
68. %ta?o"ic, A. D. J uthans, &. '/::;(. %elf*efficacy and wor related performance+ A
meta*analysis. sychological <ulletin, /68, 682*64/.
60. )ein-erg, R. %, Eould, D., Iuelson, D., J acson, A. '/:;/(. The effect of
pree7isting and manipulated self*efficacy on a competiti"e muscular endurance tas.
ournal of %port sychology, 8, !80*!08.
64. )einer, <. '/:;0(. An attri-ution theory of achie"ement moti"ation and emotion.
sychological Re"iew, :6, 08;*05!.