Can Self-Doubt Be Beneficial to Performance? Exploring the Concept of Preparatory Efficacy

Sport competition can be divided into a preparatory (practice) and performance (competition) process. Selfefficacy beliefs taken just prior (i.e., within 24 hr or after a final practice session) to the actual competition are referred to as performance efficacy beliefs; whereas, efficacy beliefs measured during the preparation or practice stage are referred to as preparatory efficacy beliefs. Consistent with the vast majority of efficacy research, Bandura [1] suggests that high performance efficacy perceptions are best for performance. In contrast, he suggests that preparatory efficacy perceptions should optimally reflect some sense of self-doubt because they serve as an impetus that motivates increased preparatory effort. Ultimately, greater preparatory effort should lead to stronger competitive performance. Despite Bandura’s observations of this process at work, no empirical studies have examined preparatory efficacy perceptions, preparatory effort, performance efficacy, and performance across a single preparation-competition process. This article examines the concept of preparatory efficacy, existing experiential and empirical support for the concept, and finally, suggestions, applications, and implications for future research. CAN SELF-DOUBT BE BENEFICIAL TO PERFORMANCE? EXPLORING THE CONCEPT OF PREPARATORY EFFICACY In self-efficacy theory applied to sports, Bandura [1] distinguishes between the concepts of preparatory efficacy and performance efficacy. Although both are measures of one’s self-efficacy regarding an upcoming athletic performance, as Feltz, Short, and Sullivan [2] note, the concepts differ in timing of measurement. Preparatory efficacy is measured during the preparation (i.e. practice) phase of competition [1]; whereas, performance efficacy is measured immediately prior to, or as close as possible to, the start of the actual competitive performance (see Fig. 1). Thus far, most research has used performance efficacy as the selfefficacy measure or has failed to differentiate between the two concepts. As Bandura argues, this may be an important oversight, because the timing of the efficacy measurement may have important implications for proximal behavior. The remainder of this article addresses a brief overview of what is known about performance efficacy, the differences between performance efficacy and preparatory efficacy, existing evidence of preparatory efficacy, and considerations for research on the concept. OVERVIEW AND CURRENT CONSENSUS ON SELFEFFICACY AND SPORT PERFORMANCE This overview of performance efficacy is not intended to be comprehensive. Rather, this overview focuses on what is known about performance efficacy in order to highlight the proposed differences, between performance efficacy and preparatory efficacy. For a comprehensive review of self-efficacy research in sport, see Feltz et al. [2]. *Address correspondence to this author at the Department of Kinesiology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA; Tel: (517) 3554732; Fax: (517) 353-2944; E-mail: [email protected] An efficacy judgment is one’s perception of what one can do under specified conditions. Efficacy beliefs have been studied at the individual level and group level (termed collective efficacy) [1]. In sports, performance efficacy is the judgment of an athlete’s capability, or his or her team’s capability, in performing at a certain level or successfully executing certain sport-related attainments under given conditions. Performance efficacy has been demonstrated to have a moderate positive, linear relationship with performance, particularly when the efficacy measurement and performance are concordant [3]. Given the numerous possible factors that influence performance, the magnitude of this relationship has been deemed ample and meaningful by researchers in the field [2]. Efficacy beliefs are changeable and are influenced by various sources of information. Sources of self-efficacy include past performances, vicarious learning experiences (i.e. modeling), verbal persuasion, and physical and affective states [1]. Feltz et al. [2] noted that two additional categories of efficacy sources have been included in the research: emotional states and imaginal experiences. The efficacy-performance relationship over time has been shown to be temporally recursive [1]. Within sport tasks, studies have demonstrated that efficacy has a causal effect on performance in laboratory studies, in which efficacy beliefs are manipulated by nonperformance means, such as through modeling, imagery, and bogus norms [e.g., 4, 5, 6]. Others have shown that performance has a causal effect on efficacy [7]. Additionally, Feltz, Chow, and Hepler [8] showed a reciprocal relationship between self-efficacy and performance across four trials of diving performance when controlling for past performance and past efficacy beliefs. Myers, Payment, and Feltz [9] have further demonstrated, using a within team analysis, that, across a competitive season, collective efficacy has an impact on performance, and performance has a subsequent influence on collec66 The Open Sports Sciences Journal, 2009, Volume 2 Feltz and Wood tive efficacy. Thus, the temporally recursive nature of the efficacy-performance relationship has been demonstrated in both laboratory and field settings, using both between subjects and within subjects designs. Efficacy influences performance through its effect on choice, effort, and persistence. Efficacious individuals choose to engage in harder tasks, expend more effort in their chosen activities, and persist longer when faced with difficulty. The Feltz et al. [2] review of the self-efficacy research in sport further supports the idea that self-efficacy tends to be beneficial for goal setting, self-regulation, attributions for performance, decision making, optimistic and pessimistic thinking, anxiety regulation, and fear and worry reduction. PREPARATORY EFFICACY AS A CONSTRUCT Bandura [1] makes this distinction because self-efficacy beliefs at various stages of a preparation-competition cycle are likely to have implications for proximal behaviors. Given the mutual influences of efficacy beliefs on performance and performance on efficacy beliefs, the faster, higher, stronger mentality of competitive sports has tended to view high efficacy as the optimum state for performance (see Fig. 2). Accordingly, Bandura has argued that performance efficacy should be as high as possible, given, of course, that one has the relevant skills to perform. As he describes it, gametime performance of learned skills is difficult when one is wrestling with self-doubt (i.e. when performance efficacy is low); therefore, performance is best executed when an athlete is in an efficacious frame of mind. In contrast, however, he suggests that preparatory efficacy should be relatively lower than one’s performance efficacy so that it serves as an impetus to summon greater effort during practice for competition (see Fig. 3). Preparatory effort seems unnecessary if athletes are complacently selfconfident about their ability to perform well in an upcoming contest (i.e. when preparatory efficacy is high). Thus, Bandura reasons that some sense of self-doubt is desirable in preparatory efficacy levels because it motivates one to expend greater preparatory effort and focus, which will ultimately result in greater skill development and execution. As he states, “In short, self-doubt creates the impetus for acquiring knowledge and skills, but it hinders proficient use of developed skills.” (p.76). The basis of Bandura’s theory of preparatory efficacy is that high efficacy hinders learning of skills (i.e., practice and perfection of skills in sports), but is beneficial to application of skills (i.e., performance in competition). Thus, Feltz et al. [2] suggest that Bandura’s hypothesis implies a curvilinear, or inverted-U relationship in the preparatory phase between self-efficacy beliefs and effort and persistence as the dependent variable. Fig. (2). The relationship between performance efficacy and