Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=urqe20
Download by: [Wagner College] Date: 02 June 2017, At: 07:25
Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport
ISSN: 0270-1367 (Print) 2168-3824 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/urqe20
Reflected Appraisals and Perceived Importanceof Significant others' Appraisals as Predictors ofCollege Athletes' Self-Perceptions of Competence
Anthony J. Amorose
To cite this article: Anthony J. Amorose (2003) Reflected Appraisals and Perceived Importance ofSignificant others' Appraisals as Predictors of College Athletes' Self-Perceptions of Competence,Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 74:1, 60-70, DOI: 10.1080/02701367.2003.10609065
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2003.10609065
Published online: 26 Feb 2013.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 203
View related articles
Citing articles: 11 View citing articles
Psychology
Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport©2003 by the American Alliance for Health,Physical Education, Recreation and DanceVol. 74, No.1, pp.60-70
Reflected Appraisals and Perceived Importanceof Significant Others' Appraisals as Predictors ofCollege Athletes' Self-Perceptions of Competence
Anthony J. Amorose
This study examined thereflected appraisalprocess with college athletes (N = 325). Specifically, thestudy tested: (a) therelativeinfluenceof thereflected appraisals of mothers, fathers, coaches, and teammates (i.e., howathletes perceive these others viewtheirability) on athletes' self-perceptions of competence, and (b)whether theimportanceplacedon these significantothers assources ofcompetence informationmoderated therelationship. Basedon afactoranalysis, composite variables wereformedrepresenting thereflected appraisals oftheathletes'parents (i.e.,father, mother) and thereJlected appraisals ofsport-others (i.e., coach, teammates). Regression analyses revealed that thereflected appraisals ofparents(f3 = .21) and sport-others (f3 = .55) predicted selfperceptions of competence (p < .05, R2 = .45). Follow-up analyses determined that thereflected appraisalofsport-others wasasignificantlystrongerpredictor. Hierarchical regression analyses revealed that the interaction ofreJlected appraisals and theimportance of significant others did not significantlyadd to theprediction of self-perceptions of competence (p > .05, L1 R2 = .01)beyond theindependenteffects of these constructs. Resultsarediscussed in terms of thereflected appraisalprocess and theinfluenceofsignificantothers on athletes' self-perceptions.
Keywords: self-evaluation, social influences
Numerous theoretical frameworks have identifiedself-perceptions ofcompetence as a key determinant
of various achievement-related outcomes (e.g., Deci &Ryan, 1985, Eccles, Wigfield, & Schiefele, 1998; Nicholls,1989). While the specifics of the theories vary, each predicts that individuals with more positive perceptions ofcompetence will demonstrate greater motivation (e.g.,choice, effort, preference for challenge, intrinsic interest), higher levels ofenjoyment, and lower levels ofanxiety. Considerable support for these predictions has beengenerated in the sport and exercise psychology literature (see Weiss & Ebbeck, 1996).
Submitted: July 17,2001Accepted: May 7,2002
Anthony J. Amorose is with the School of Kinesiology andRecreation at /JIinois State University.
60
Given the theoretical and empirical evidence highlighting the importance of self-perceptions of competence, it is imperative to understand how individualscome tojudge their competence. That is, how do individuals decide whether they are competent or incompetent atan activity?While a variety ofsources are available to andare used by individuals to evaluate their ability in sport(see Hom & Amorose, 1998; Hom & Harris, 1996), various scholars and theoretical frameworks have highlighted the role of significant others. For instance,symbolic interactionists such as Cooley (1902) and Mead(1934), and more recently scholars such as Harter(1996,1998) and Eccles (1993; Eccles et al., 1998), haveargued that our self-perceptions are heavily influencedby how we perceive others view or evaluate us. This process, whereby we come to see ourselves as we believeothers see us, has been referred to as the rejlected appraisalprocess (see Felson, 1993; Harter, 1998; Kinch, 1963).
Three basic elements that make up the reflectedappraisal process (Felson, 1993,Kinch, 1963) are: (a) one'sself-appraisals, (b) the actual appraisals ofothers, and (c)
ROES: MBfCh 2003
one's perception of the appraisals ofothers, referred toas reflected appraisals. The process begins with a significant other forming an evaluation of the target individual(i.e., the actual appraisal). The target individual thenbecomes aware of the significant other's appraisal ofhisor her ability or characteristics through various socialinteraction processes. The target individual, for example, may come to the conclusion that the significantother believes he or she has positive qualities based onexplicit causal attributions given for his or her performance, direct or indirect verbal feedback, and the nonverbal feedback (e.g., eye contact, body language)provided by the significant other. The target individual'sperception of the significant other's evaluation (i.e., thereflected appraisal) can also be the result ofopportunities provided by the significant other (e.g., a parent signing a child up for an athletic team) or how muchattention the significant other pays to the individual, toname but a few cues (see, for example, Eccles et al.,1998). Whether positive or negative, the reflected appraisal is then internalized by the target individual. Thatis, he or she incorporates the significant other's appraisalinto his or her own self-appraisal. If we believe othersviewour ability as high, we are likely to develop positiveself-perceptions of competence. If, on the other hand,we conclude that others do not think we are competentor capable, we are likely to develop self-perceptions ofincompetence. Thus, according to the symbolicinteractionist perspective and the reflective appraisalprocess, the internalization of reflected appraisals isbelieved to be a major determinant ofself-perceptionsofcompetence.
Research has generally found support for the relationship between individuals' self-appraisals and thereflected appraisals of various significant others (seeHarter, 1998; Shrauger & Schoeneman, 1979). For example, the reflected appraisals ofpeers have been linkedto children's and adolescents' physical self-perceptions.Smith (1999), for instance, found adolescent boys' andgirls' perceptions of peer acceptance, which are essentially reflected appraisals ofpopularity and social acceptance among peers, were positively related to theadolescents' perceptions ofphysical self-worth. Similarly,Felson (1985) found thatfourth-eighth-grade boys' andgirls' self-perceptions of physical attractiveness were significantly predicted by the reflected appraisals of theirpeers. That is, boys and girls who perceived their peersViewed them as attractive were more likely to perceivethemselves as attractive.
Research has also found support for the relationship between the reflected appraisals of parents andindividuals' physical self-perceptions. For example,Babkes and Weiss (1999) found that youth soccer players' perceptions of their mothers' and fathers' beliefs,attitudes, and behaviors were significantly related to the
ROES: MBfCh 2003
Amorose
players' self-reported competence, enjoyment, andmotivation toward soccer. In a more specific test of thereflected appraisal process, Felson (1989) examinedhow the reflected appraisals ofmothers and fathers wererelated to fourth-seventh-grade children's self-perceptions of academic competence, athletic competence,physical appearance, and popularity. Preliminary findings revealed that reflected appraisals of mothers andfathers were similar, and, thus, Felson combined the twosignificant others into a single variable representingreflected appraisals of parents. While slight gender differences emerged in the pattern of relationships, results indicated that the reflected appraisals of parentswere significantly related to each ofthe four self-perceptions after controlling for the specific self-perceptionsreported by the children 1 year earlier.
Finally, there is some support for the importance ofcoaches and teammates. Felson (1981) found significant and positive correlations among college footballplayers' self-perceptions ofseason performance and thereflected appraisal ofcoaches and teammates. Less support, however, was found in this small sample ofathleteswhen using path analysis to examine a more complexmodel of the relationships among coaches' actual appraisals of the athletes' ability, the athletes' race, playing status, reflected appraisals of the coaches, and theathletes' self-perceptions of natural ability. A positiverelationship between reflected appraisals and self-appraisals ofability emerged in this analysis; however, thepath coefficient was nonsignificant.
In summary, studies have demonstrated that individuals' physical self-perceptions are positively relatedto the reflected appraisals of peers and significantadults. When combined with the research outside thephysical domain (e.g., jussim, Soffin, Brown, Ley, &Kohlhepp, 1992; Phillips, 1987) there is fairly strongsupport for the reflected appraisal process, particularlywith children and adolescents.
Despite the empirical support, however, a numberofquestions still remain. One question involves the relative influence ofvarious significant others. While a fewstudies have examined multiple significant others (e.g.,Babkes & Weiss,1999; Felson, 1981, 1989), none of thesestudies have specifically tested whether there are differences in the relative influence of these significant others on individuals' self-perceptions. Research has foundindividual differences in the importance placed on significant others asa source ofcompetence information (seeHom & Amorose, 1998; Hom & Harris, 1996). For instance, younger children tend to rely heavily on parentsasa source ofcompetence information, whereas peers tendto become more salient during adolescence (e.g., Hom,Glenn, & Wentzell, 1993; Hom & Weiss, 1991). Thus, atdifferent ages and or competitive levelswe might expectthat the reflected appraisals of certain individuals will
61
Amorose
be more strongly related to athletes' self-perceptions ofcompetence.
Another question that has yet to be tested iswhetherthe importance placed on various significant others as asource ofcompetence information by an individual actually serves as a moderator of the relationship betweenreflected appraisals and self-perceptions ofcompetence.Ifan individual rates a particular significant other as animportant source ofcompetence information, it wouldbe reasonable to expect that the individual's perceptions of how that significant other evaluates him or herwould have a greater influence on his or her self-perceptions relative to a significant other not considered asalient source ofability information.
The purpose of this study was to address these questions. The first question involved the relative influenceof various significant others. Specifically, the study examined whether the reflected appraisals of mothers,fathers, coaches, and teammates influence college athletes' self-perceptions of competence, and, if so,whether there were differences in the relative influenceof these significant others. It was expected that the reflected appraisals ofeach of the significant others wouldbe related to athletes' self-perceptions of competence;however, no a priori hypothesis was made regardingwhich of the significant others would show the strongestor weakest relationship. The second' purpose was to investigate whether the importance placed on various significant others as sources of competence informationinteracts with the reflected appraisal of those individuals to predict athletes' self-perceptions ofcompetence.Itwas hypothesized that the importance ofthese significant others would moderate the relationship betweenthe reflected appraisals and the athletes' self-perceptions ofcompetence.
Method
Participants
The participant sample (N= 325) was composed ofmale (n = 178) and female (n = i 48) Division I collegeathletes who ranged in age from 17 to 24 years (M= 19.68years, SD= i.20). The majority of the sample identifiedthemselves as Caucasian (82.4%), with the remainingathletes identifying themselves as African American(13.5%), Hispanic (1.9%), Asian (1.6%), and NativeAmerican (.06%). The athletes were recruited from avariety of team (i.e.,football, n= 87; baseball, n=31;volleyball, n= 23; softball, n= 21; basketball, n= 18; soccer,n = 10) and individual sports (i.e., track and field, n =
78; swimming, n= 23; gymnastics, n= 13; tennis, n= 11;golf, n = 10). All sports were represented by athletes from
62
at least two separate teams, with the exception ofsoccerand golf, where athletes from only one university teamparticipated.
Procedures
Participants were recruited from various collegesand universities in the midwestern portion of theUnited States. Recruitment of the participants occurredat structured team study sessions during the athletes'competitive season. At these study sessions, the primaryinvestigator or a trained research assistant provided theathletes with a verbal and written explanation of theresearch being conducted. Because not all athletes oneach team were required to attend these study session,not all the athletes from these teams participated. Nevertheless, all athletes present at the study sessionsagreed to participate. After signing a consent form, theathletes were given a packet of paper-and-pencil questionnaires. The athletes were assured that all their answers would remain confidential. Participants werepermitted as much time as they needed to complete thequestionnaires, which was typically about 15 min.
Measures
Self-Perceptions ofComPetcnce. The athletes' self-perception of competence was assessed using the followingthree items developed for this study: (a) How good doyou think you are at your sport? (b) When it comes toyour sport, how much ability do you think you have? and(c) How skilled do you think you are at your sport? Directions asked the athletes to respond to the items by"circling the response that best reflects how you feelabout your ability in your current sport." Response options for the three items ranged from "not good at all" to"very good," "not much ability at all" to "a whole lot ofability," and "not skilled at all" to "very skilled," respectively. Responses were scored on a 5-point scale, withhigher scores reflecting a higher self-perception competence. The responses from the three items were averaged, and the mean score was used as an indicator ofthe athletes' self-perception of competence. Whileother self-perception ofcompetence measures exist (seeFox, 1998), these items, which possess strong face validity, were selected because they were easily modified tocreate the reflected appraisal measure.
Reflected Appraisals ofSignificantOthers. A total of 12items designed to tap athletes' perceptions of how others view their competence in sport were developed forthis study. This included three items for each of the foursignificant others investigated (i.e., mother, father,coach, teammates). The wording of the three items usedto assess each significant other's beliefs was identical,with the exception of the significant other being as-
ROES: March 2003
sessed. The three items included: (a) How good doesyour [mom] think you are at your sport? (b) When itcomes to your sport, how much ability does your [mom]think you have? and (c) How skilled does your [mom]think you are at your sport? The wording of the itemsparalleled those used to assess the athletes' self-perceptions of competence and included the same responseoptions. Directions asked the athletes to "circle the response that best reflects how you feel other people viewyour ability in your sport." Directions also indicated thatthe respondents should leave blank any items that askabout people with whom they do not have any personalcontact.' Reponses were scored on a 5-point scale, withhigher scores reflecting more positive reflected appraisals. The three items targeting each significant other wereaveraged, and the mean score was used as an indicator ofthe reflected appraisal of that specific significant other(e.g., reflected appraisal of mother).
Importance ofSignificant Others asSources of CompetenceInformation. Sixteen items were used to assess the importance athletes placed on various significant others assources of competence information. Four items wereused to assess the importance the athlete placed on theirmothers, fathers, coaches, and teammates, respectively.Items were modeled after the Physical CompetenceInformation Scale, which is designed to assess the importance individuals place on a variety of intrapersonal,performance-related, and interpersonal sources ofcompetence information (see Horn & Amorose, 1998).Respondents were asked, "How important are each ofthese people in helping you know how good you are atplaying your sport?" 2 The four items included: (a) whatmy [mom] saysabout the way I play, (b) whether or notmy [mom] thinks I am good, (c) the things my [mom]says about the way I play, and (d) how good my [mom]thinks I am. Again, the wording of the four items for eachsignificant other was identical, with the exception of thesignificant other in question. Responses were based ona 5-point scale, with options ranging from "not at allimportant" (1) to "very important" (5). An average scoreof the four items targeting each significant other was usedas an indicator of the importance placed on that significant other as a source ofcompetence information.
BackgroundInformation. Each participant was askedto complete a series of demographic questions that assessed the participant's age, gender, race, and currentsport. This information was included as a wayto describethe sample.
Data Analysis
Prior to testing the major research questions, various preliminary analyses were conducted. First, separateexploratory factor analyses were conducted on the reflected appraisals measure and importance of signifi-
ROES: March 2003
Amorose
.cant others as sources ofcompetence information measure to determine whether the athletes made distinctions between their mothers, fathers, coaches, andteammates on these constructs. Based on these results,composite variables were created and paired comparisons were conducted to determine any differencesamong the reflected appraisals and the importanceplaced on the various significant others.
The main research questions were examined usinga variety of data analysis procedures. First, a multipleregression analysis was used to determine whether theset of reflected appraisals predicted the athletes' selfperceptions of competence. The unique contributionofeach reflected appraisal wasdetermined by the squaredsemipartial correlations. Procedures outlined by Cohenand Cohen (1983) were also used to test whether therewere significant differences in the relative influence ofthe reflected appraisals on the athletes' self-perceptionsofcompetence. Finally, a hierarchical regression analysis was used to examine whether the importance placedon the significant others as sources of competence information moderated the relationship between the reflected appraisals and the athletes' self-perceptions ofcompetence.
Results
FactorAnalyses
Reflected Appraisals.To determine whether the athletes had distinct perceptions regarding how their mothers, fathers, coaches, and teammates evaluated theirability in sport, a principal axis factor analysis with anoblique rotation was conducted on the reflected appraisals measure. An oblique rotation was used, because itwas anticipated that the reflected appraisals would berelated. The pattern matrix is presented in Table 1.Loadings greater than .32 were considered to representa meaningful contribution to the factor (see Tabachnick& Fidell, 1996). Although it was expected that the athletes would differentiate between mothers, fathers,coaches, and teammates, only two distinct factors wereextracted using a minimum eigenvalue of 1.0. The totalamount of variance accounted for in the solution was69.78%. The first factor, "reflected appraisals ofparents,"represented a combination of the athletes' beliefs abouthow their mothers and fathers evaluated their ability insport. The second factor represented a combination ofathletes' beliefs about how their coaches and teammatesevaluated their ability. Given that these individuals included those with whom the athletes interacted specifically in the sport context, this factor was labeled"reflected appraisals of sport-others." Results revealed
63
Amorose
that the two factors were moderately correlated (r= .52).While not as differentiated as expected, the results indicate that athletes have distinct perceptions of howothers view their ability in sport. The strong factor loadings and the absence of items loading on multiple factors provide initial support for the factorial validity ofmeasure.
Importance ofSignificant Others asSources ofCompetenceInformation. A principal axisfactor analysiswith an obliquerotation wasalso conducted on the importance ofsignificant others as sources of competence information. Anoblique rotation was used given the anticipated relationship among the various sources. The pattern matrix ispresented in Table 2. In this case, four distinct factorswere extracted using a minimum eigenvalue of 1.0, withthe solution accounting for 80.99% ofthe variance. Thefour factors corresponded with the four significant others included in the measure and, thus, were labeled"importance offathers," "importance ofcoaches," "importance of teammates," and "importance of mothers,"respectively. The four factors were moderately related,with the absolute values of the correlations ranging from.21 to .61. The strong factor loadings and the absence ofitems cross-loading support the factorial validity of thismeasure and suggest that the importance athletes placeon various significant others as cues of ability are reasonably distinct.
Paired Comparisons
Reflected Appraisals. A paired t test was conducted todetermine whether the athletes perceived differences
between the reflected appraisals of their parents andsport-others. As a way to facilitate interpretation, thisanalysiswas performed on raw score composite variablescreated using the mean of the subscales for mothers'and fathers' reflected appraisals, and the mean of thesubscales for coaches' and teammates' reflected appraisals. Results, which are presented in Table 3, indicate that the athletes perceived that their parents heldsignificantly (p< .05) more positive perceptions of theirability relative to sport-others. Using procedures outlined by Thomas, Salazar, and Landers (1991), the calculated effect size (ES) of this difference was large (seeTable 3).
Importance ofSignificant Others asSources ofCompetenceInformation. Paired ttests were also used to compare theimportance the athletes placed on each significant otheras a source of competence information. Once again,subscale scores were used to ease interpretation. Basedon the large number ofcomparisons, a significance levelofp< .001 was adopted to control the Type I error rate.As seen in Table 3, all paired comparisons were significant. The athletes placed the greatest amount of importance on the coach as a source of competenceinformation followed by teammates, fathers, and mothers, respectively. Further, with the exception of the comparison between mothers and fathers, the effect sizes ofthese differences were moderate to large (see Table 3).
Table 2. Factor analysis results for the importance of significantothers assources of competence information measure
Item Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4Table 1.Factor analysis results for the reflected appraisalsmeasure Mother1 .00 .00 .03 -.83
Mother2 -.02 .02 .02 -.90Item Factor 1 Factor 2 Mother3 .06 -.05 -.02 -.84
Mother 4 -.02 .02 -.05 -.90Mother 1 .82 -.04 Father 1 .91 -.04 .00 .00Mother2 .68 .05 Father 2 .79 .04 -.09 -.06Mother3 .83 .00 Father 3 .96 -.02 .00 .03Father 1 .84 -.03 Father 4 .89 .04 .06 -.01Father 2 .75 .08 Coach 1 -.05 .85 -.02 .01Father 3 .87 -.03 Coach 2 .07 .75 .04 -.02Coach 1 -.02 .78 Coach 3 -.04 .82 .01 -.02Coach 2 .05 .74 Coach 4 .03 .87 -.06 .03Coach 3 -.03 .84 Teammate 1 .00 .03 -.88 .04Teammate 1 .00 .83 Teammate 2 .06 .00 -.82 .00Teammate 2 .05 .75 Teammate 3 -.03 -.04 -.86 -.03Teammate 3 -.04 .83 Teammate 4 -.02 .03 -.81 -.01Eigenvalue 6.21 2.16 Eigenvalue 6.58 3.31 1.69 1.38
Note. Pattern matrix is fromthe principal axis factor analysis Note. Pattern matrix is from the principal axis factor analysiswith a direct oblimin rotation; loadings in bold type identify with a direct oblimin rotation; loadings in bold type identifyitems that make a meaningful contribution to the factor. items that make a meaningful contribution to the factor.
64 ROES: March 2003
Main Analyses
Purpose 1: RelativeEffects ofReflected Appraisals. The firstpurpose of the study was to determine whether the reflected appraisals of various significant others are predictive ofathletes' self-perceptions ofcompetence, and,if so, what the differences are in the relative influenceof the significant others. A multiple regression analysiswas used to examine whether the reflected appraisalswere predictive ofself-perceptions ofcompetence. Thecriterion variable was the athletes' self-perceptions ofcompetence, and the predictor variables were the reflected appraisals of parents and sport-others. Resultsrevealed that the reflected appraisals ofparents (~ = .21)and sport-others (~ = .55) significantly predicted theathletes' self-perceptions of competence, F(2, 316) =
130.00, p< .05, R2 = .45. Based on squared semipartialcorrelations, the amount of unique variance in the athletes' self-perceptions of competence explained by theparents' reflected appraisals was 3.50% (sr = .035),whereas the reflected appraisals of sport-others explained 22.40% ofthe variance (sr = .224). Thus, 19.10%of the total variance explained was a result of the sharedcomponent of the reflected appraisals of parents andsport-others.
Procedures outlined by Cohen and Cohen (1983)were also used to examine the relative influence of thereflected appraisals on the athletes' self-perceptions ofcompetence. Specifically, a t test was conducted to determine whether the standardized regression coefficients of the two predictor variables were significantlydifferent.3 Results of this test revealed that the influence
Amorose
of sport-others was significantly greater than the influence of parents, t(316) = -6.85, p« .001.
Purpose 2: ModeratingEffectof theImportance ofSignificant Others. The second purpose of the study examinedwhether the importance placed on each significantother as a source ofcompetence information interactedwith the reflected appraisal of that significant other topredict athletes' self-perceptions of competence. Themoderating effect of the importance placed on the significant others was tested using a hierarchical regression analysis. The reflected appraisals of parents andsport-others were entered on Step 1 of the hierarchicalregression. The importance placed on mothers, fathers,coaches, and teammates was added on Step 2. Finally,Step 3 added the four interaction terms. Specifically,cross-products of the reflected appraisals ofparents andthe importance ofmothers and fathers were computed,as were the cross-products of the reflected appraisals ofsport-others and the importance of coaches and teammates. Determining whether the interaction terms entered on Step 3 significantly added to predicting theathletes' self-perceptions of competence above andbeyond the independent effects of the reflected appraisals, and the importance placed on the significant others was the critical test of the moderating effect.
The correlations among all variables are presentedin Table 4. As seen in the lower diagonal, which presentsthe correlations among the variables in raw score form,strong relationships emerged among the interactionterms and the first order variables from which they werecreated. Thus, consistent with the recommendations of
Table 3. Summary of paired comparison results
Paired comparison M SO df p< ES
Reflected appraisals1. Parents 4.36 .50 16.82 318 .001 .95
Sport-others 3.89 .50Importance of significantothers1. Mothers 3.19 .96 -4.56 318 .001 -.23
Fathers 3.42 1.002. Mothers 3.19 .96 -20.27 318 .001 -1.40
Coaches 4.34 .643. Mothers 3.19 .96 -14.08 318 .001 -.95
Teammates 4.01 .764. Fathers 3.42 1.00 -15.27 318 .001 -1.09
Coaches 4.34 .645. Fathers 3.42 1.00 -9.61 318 .001 -.67
Teammates 4.01 .766. Coaches 4.34 .64 7.84 318 .001 .46
Teammates 4.01 .76
Note. M =mean; SO=standard deviation; ES=effect size.
ROES: March 2003 65
Amorose
Aiken and West (1991), the first order variables andinteraction term were standardized. The correlationsamong the standardized variables are presented in theupper diagonal ofTable 4. These standardized variableswere then used in the hierarchical regression analysis.
As seen in Table 5, the results of the hierarchicalregression analysis revealed that the importance of thevarious significant others did not moderate the relationship. Specifically, the interaction terms entered on Step3 did not significantly add to predicting the athletes'self-perceptions ofcompetence (P> .05, Ll J{l = .01). Theaddition of the importance ofmothers, fathers, coaches,and teammates on Step 2 of the regression approachedsignificance (P < .09), although the amount ofvariancepredicted above and beyond that accounted for by thereflected appraisals entered on Step 1 was minimal (LlJ{l = .01).4 Thus, results found that the importance ofsignificant others as sources ofcompetence information,either alone or in combination with the reflected appraisals, added little to predicting athletes' self-perceptions ofcompetence beyond the reflected appraisals ofparents and sport-others.
Discussion
The goal of this study was to examine the reflectedappraisals process. The first purpose was to test the relative influence of the reflected appraisals of mothers,fathers, coaches, and teammates on athletes' self-perceptions ofcompetence. Results from a factor analysis, how-
ever, indicated that the athletes did not fully distinguishbetween the reflected appraisals of these four significant others. Rather, the athletes perceived a substantialoverlap between the reflected appraisals ofmothers andfathers, as well as a substantial overlap between the reflected appraisals of their coaches and teammates. Whileit was expected that these beliefs would be differentiated, the strong relationship among the significant others in these two sets ofreflected appraisal are reasonableand not without some precedence. For instance, in oneof the few studies to examine multiple significant others, Felson (1989) found that the reflected appraisalsof mothers and fathers were similar in the minds offourth-eighth-grade children. Felson (1981) also uncovered significant positive correlations (1S > .50) between the reflected appraisals of position coaches andteammates in a sample ofcollege football players. Theseresults suggest a considerable overlap in athletes' perceptions ofhow people who share similar roles (e.g., parents) or those they encounter in similar settings (e.g.,coaches and teammates in the sport setting) view theirability. The present study also found the reflected appraisals of parents (i.e., the combination ofmothers and fathers) and sport-others (i.e., the combination ofcoachesand teammates) to be related positively.
Felson (1989, 1993) has discussed the positive relationship among the reflected appraisals ofvarious significant others as the normative effect. Consistent withthe ideas of Mead (1934), Felson suggested that individuals are better able to generate an idea of how the"generalized other" evaluates himselfor herself in comparison to how specific individuals evaluate themselves
Table4. Correlation matrix(N=319)
Variable 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.
1. Self-perception of competence(SPC) 1.00 .45 .65 .20 .18 .13 .07 -.03 -.01 .03 .03
2. Reflected appraisals of parents(RAP) .48 1.00 .49 .23 .25 .22 .19 -.10 -.13 -.05 -.01
3. Reflected appraisals of sportothers (RAS) .65 .49 1.00 .22 .09 .18 .18 -.01 -.04 .00 .02
4. Importance of mothers (1M) .20 .23 .22 1.00 .59 .26 .28 .04 .04 .12 .085. Importance of fathers (IF) .18 .25 .09 .59 1.00 .21 .24 .04 -.04 .04 .016. Importance of coaches (lC) .13 .22 .18 .26 .21 1.00 .46 .04 -.02 -.06 .087. Importance of teammates (IT) .07 .19 .18 .28 .24 .46 1.00 .04 -.02 .08 .058. RAP x 1M .33 .52 .35 .95 .59 .30 .31 1.00 .60 .12 .149. RAP x IF .32 .54 .24 .59 .94 .26 .27 .69 1.00 .07 .1110. RAS x IC .48 .44 .73 .32 .21 .80 .43 .43 .32 1.00 .5311. RAS x IT .39 .39 .65 .34 .23 .45 .86 .42 .33 .72 1.00
Note. Correlations among variables in raw score form are presented in the lower diagonal. Correlations among the standardizedvariables are presented in the upperdiagonal. All correlations> 1.121 are significant at p < .05.
66 ROES: March 2003
(also see Depaulo, Kenny, Hoover, Webb, & Oliver,1987). That is, individuals are better able to perceivethe attitudes ofa group ofindividuals versus the attitudeof each specific significant other.
While these normative effects appear to exist, theresults of this study suggest that there are meaningfuldifferences in the reflected appraisals of various significant others. For instance, the amount ofunique variancein the athletes' self-perceptions ofcompetence explainedby the reflected appraisals of sport-others was considerably greater than that accounted for by the reflected appraisals of parents (22.4% vs. 3.50%, respectively). Theregression coefficient for sport-others was also found tobe significantlylarger than that ofparents. Thus, althoughthere was overlap in the athletes' perceptions of theirparents and sport-others, the athletes meaningfully differentiated between these groups of individuals.
Given the lack of research testing multiple significant others, no a priori hypothesis regarding the relative influence of the reflected appraisals of the varioussignificant others was forwarded. The larger influence
Table 5. Summary of results from the hierarchical regressionanalysis for the standardized variables predicting self-perceptions of competence (N=319)
Variable B SEB 13 p<
Step 1Reflected appraisalsof parents (RAP) .21 .05 .21 .01Reflected appraisalsof sportothers (RAS) .54 .05 .54 .01
Step 2RPA .20 .05 .20 .01RAS .56 .05 .56 .01Importance of mothers (1M) -.01 .05 -.01 .89Importance of fathers (IF) .11 .05 .11 .05Importance of coaches (lC) .01 .05 .01 .84Importance of teammates (IT) -.09 .05 -.09 .06
Step 3RPA .20 .05 .20 .01RAS .56 .05 .56 .011M -.02 .05 -.02 .67IF .12 .05 .12 .03IC .02 .05 .02 .70IT -.10 .05 -.10 .05RAP x 1M -.07 .05 -.07 .22RAP x IF .08 .05 .08 .12RAS x IC .05 .05 .05 .34RAS x IT .00 .05 .00 .99
Note. B=unstandardized regression coefficient; SE =standarderror; f{l =.45 for Step 1,p < .05; ~ f{l =.01 for Step 2, p » .05; ~f{l =.01 for Step 3,p » .05.
ROES: March 2003
Amorose
ofthe reflected appraisals ofsport-others on the athletes'self-perceptions of sport competence, nevertheless,seems reasonable given the age and the social-eontextual factors associated with the competitive level of theathletes in this sample. For instance, college athletesare likely to spend considerably more time interactingwith coaches and teammates in the sport setting relative to their parents. Further, coaches and teammatesat the college level are probably more knowledgeableabout the sport and what characteristics make up a competent performer. Perhaps the degree of interpersonalinteraction and the level ofexpertise of the significantothers influences the probability that athletes will internalize these reflected appraisals. It has been suggested, for instance, that highly credible evaluations aremore likely to be internalized (see Shrauger, 1975;Shrauger & Schoeneman, 1979). While these ideaswere not tested in this study, the fact that the athletesplaced more importance on coaches and teammates assources of competence information relative to theirmothers and fathers lends some, albeit indirect, support to this idea.
Another possible explanation for the relativelystronger influence ofsport-others on athletes' self-perceptions of competence is that an athlete may believecertain significant others are more truthful or genuinewhen communicating their evaluations of the athlete.For instance, athletes may be less likely to believe theirparents when it comes to evaluating their ability in sport;concluding that their parents are "biased" and unlikelyto say or do things that would make the athlete feel bador feel incompetent. Goffman's (1959) description ofthe interaction ritual indicates that people are unlikelyto communicate information that may cause embarrassment or shame. While all individuals are believed toengage in this interaction ritual, Rose (1969) andFelson (1993) suggested that some individuals aremore likely than others to communicate their actualbeliefs. Specifically, individuals occupying certain roles,such as a coach, are more likely to communicate theirtrue feelings about the characteristics and qualities ofindividuals. For instance, a coach's job is to providefeedback and instruction to athletes, decide who isgoing to play, how much playing time each athlete receives, and so on. Each of these decisions may providevaluable cues to the athlete about how competent thecoach feels he or she is. It is quite possible that coachesand teammates will offer genuine appraisals ofothers'ability, whether positive or negative. While athletes maynot want to hear negative things about themselves andtheir competence, perhaps they are more likely to internalize the beliefs when they feel the appraisals aretruthful and unbiased.
Research specifically examining why certain individuals may have a stronger influence on athletes' self-
67
Amorose
perceptions of competence should continue to gain amore complete understanding ofthe reflected appraisalprocess. This study, in fact, was partly designed with thisgoal in mind. It was hypothesized that the importanceplaced on various significant others as sources of competence information would moderate the relationshipbetween the reflected appraisals and the athletes' selfperceptions of competence. In other words, only thosesignificant others who were rated as important to the athletes for evaluating their ability in sport would influencetheir self-perceptions. Results, however, did not confirmthis prediction. Why this is the case remains unclear.
Conceptually, it seems reasonable to expect that theimportance placed on various others should moderatethe relationship between the reflected appraisals andself-perceptions ofcompetence. One possible reasonfor the lack of support involves the causal direction ofthe relationships. The reflected appraisal process suggests that individuals determine what others think ofthem and internalize these appraisals. Felson and others (e.g., Felson, 1993;Jussim et aI., 1992), however, suggested that individuals may project their own selfperceptions onto others. That is, athletes who think theyare competent may infer that others also think they arecompetent. Thus, rather than internalizing the reflected appraisals of others, individuals project theirown evaluations, thereby reserving the direction of theeffect. While Felson (1993) acknowledged the difficultyin adequately testing reciprocal effects, a few studieshave found that projection does occur, especially under certain circumstances, such as when feedback aboutone's ability is ambiguous (Felson, 1981, 1989;Jussim,Coleman, & Nassau, 1989;Jussim etaI., 1992). The keypoint here is that if athletes are projecting their selfperceptions of competence onto others, then the importance the athletes place on these others should notnecessarily moderate the relationship, unless we aremore likely to project our self-perceptions onto thosewhom we believe are more important to us.
The possibility of projection accounting for the relationship among the reflected appraisals and the athletes' self-perceptions of competence cannot be ruledout, given the correlational nature of the current study,and, thus, may explain the lack ofsupport for the moderation hypothesis. It will be important for future research to determine the extent projection plays in thereflected appraisal process and under what circumstances projection is likely to occur (see Felson, 1993;Jussim et aI., 1992).
Overall, results supported the reflected appraisalprocess, although many questions remain. For instance,this study examined the link between reflected appraisals and self-appraisal but ignored the actual appraisalsof the significant others. Others have examined the relationship between actual appraisals and self-apprais-
68
als (e.g., Dempsey, Kimiecik, & Horn, 1993; McCullagh,Matzkanin, Shaw, & Maldonado, 1993) yet did not consider the reflected appraisals. Our understanding willbe enhanced through testing the entire reflected appraisal process. Other suggested avenues of future research include, for example: (a) determining whetherthe relative influence of various significant otherschanges overtime, (b) examining whether there areadditional significant others (e.g., nonsport peers, extended family) that influence athletes' self-perceptionsof competence, and (c) uncovering the specific information (e.g., direct or indirect feedback, amount ofattention, provision of opportunities) athletes use todetermine the reflected appraisals of various others.Continued research in this area should allow researchers and practitioners to more fully understand the development ofathletes' self-perceptions ofcompetence,and ultimately lead to suggestions on how others, suchas teachers, coaches, parents, and teammates, can helpto facilitate more positive self-perceptions.
Despite the intuitive appeal, there is relatively littleresearch examining the influence ofsignificant otherson athletes' psychological responses and characteristics (Brustad, Babkes, &Smith, 2001; Horn, 1992). Thisstudy has added to the literature by testing how reflected appraisals are related to college athletes' selfperceptions ofcompetence. Consistent with both theoryand research on the reflective appraisal process (seeHarter, 1998; Felson, 1993, Shrauger & Schoeneman,1979), results indicated that the reflected appraisals ofparents and sport-others were strongly related to athletes' self-perceptions of competence, with sport-others demonstrating a particularly strong relationship.Finally, the study found that the importance placed onthese significant others did not moderate the relationship between the reflected appraisals and self-perceptions of competence.
References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testingand interpretinginteractions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Babkes, M. L., & Weiss,M. R (1999). Parental influence on children's cognitive and affective responses to competitive soccer participation. Pediatric Exercise Science, 11,44-62.
Brustad, RJ., Babkes, M. L., & Smith, A. L. (2001). Youth insport: Psychological considerations. In R N. Singer, H.A. Hausenblas, & C. M.Janelle (Eds.), Handbook of sportpsychology (2nd ed., pp. 604-635). New York:John Wiley& Sons.
Cohen.]., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysisfor thebehavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale,NJ: Lawrence ErIbaum.
Cooley, C. H., (1902). Human nature and the socialorder. NewYork: Scribner's.
ROES: March 2003
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and selfdetermination in human behaoiot: New York: Plenum Press.
Dernpsey.]. M., Kimiecik,]. C., & Horn, T. S. (1993). Parental influence on children's moderate to vigorous physical activity participation: An expectancy-valueapproach. PediatricExercise Science, 5,151-167.
DePaulo, B. M., Kenny, D. A., Hoover, C. W., Webb, W., &Oliver, P.v., (1987). Accuracy of person perception: Dopeople know what kinds of impressions they convey?Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 52, 303-315.
Eccles,]. S. (1993). School and family effects on the ontogeny of children's interests, self-perceptions, and activitychoices. In R. Dienstbier &]. E.Jacobs (Eds.), Nebraskasymposium on motivation 1992: Developmentalperspectiveson motivation (pp. 143-208). Lincoln, NE: University ofNebraska Press.
Eccles.]. S., Wigfield, A., & Schiefele, U. (1998). Motivationto succeed. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), Handbook of childpsychology: Volume 3, Social, emotional, and personality development (pp. 1017-1096). New York:John Wiley & Sons.
Felson, R. B. (1981). Self and reflected appraisals among football players: A test of the Meadian hypothesis. SocialPsychology Quarterly, 44, 116-126.
Felson, R. B. (1985). Reflected appraisals and the development of the self. SocialPsychology Quarterly, 48, 71-78.
Felson, R B. (1989). Parents and the reflected appraisal process: A longitudinal analysis. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 56,965-971.
Felson, R. B. (1993). The (somewhat) social self: How othersaffect self-appraisals. In]. Suls (Ed.), Psychological perspectives on the self: Vol. 4. The self in socialperspective (pp. 126). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Fox, K. R (1998). Advances in the measurement of the physical self. In]. L. Duda (Ed.), Advances in sportand exercisepsychology measurement (pp. 295-310). Morgantown, WV:Fitness Information Technology.
Goffman, E. (1959). Thepresentationof selfin everyday life. NewYork: Doubleday.
Harter, S. (1996). Historical roots of contemporary issuesinvolving self-concept. In B. A. Bracken (Ed.), Handbookof self-concept: Developmental, social, and clinical considerations (pp. 1-37). New York:John Wiley & Sons.
Harter, S. (1998). The development of self-representations.In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Volume 3, Social, emotional, and personality development (pp.553-618). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Horn, T. S. (1992). Leadership effectiveness in the sport domain. In T. S. Horn (Ed.), Advances in sport psychology(pp. 181-199). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Horn, T. S., & Amorose, A.J. (1998). Sources of competenceinformation. In]. Duda (Ed.), Advancements in sportandexercise psychology measurement (pp. 49-63). Morgantown,WV: Fitness Information Technology.
Horn, T. S., Glenn, S. D., & Wentzell, A. B. (1993). Sourcesof information underlying personal ability judgmentsin high school athletes. PediatricExercise Science, 5, 263274.
Horn, T. S., & Harris, A. (1996). Perceived competence inyoung athletes: Research findings and recommendationsfor coaches and parents. In F. L. Smoll & R E. Smith
ROES: March 2003
Amorose
(Eds.) , Children and youth in sport(pp. 309-329). Chicago:Brown & Benchmark.
Horn, T. S., & Weiss, M. R (1991). A developmental analysisof children's self-abilityjudgments. PediatricExercise Science, 3, 312-328.
Jussim, L., Coleman, L., & Nassau, S. R (1989). Reactions tointerpersonal evaluative feedback. Journal of Applied SocialPsychology, 19, 862-884.
Jussim, L. Soffin, S., Brown, R, Ley,]., & Kohlhepp, K. (1992).Understanding reactions to feedback by integratingideas from symbolic interactionism and cognitive evaluation theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,62, 402-421.
Kinch.]. W. (1963). A formalized theory of the self-concept.AmericanJournalofSociology, 68,481-486.
McCullagh, P., Matzkanin, K. T., Shaw, S. D., & Maldonado,M. (1993). Motivation for participating in physical activity: A comparison of parent-child perceived competencies and participation motives. PediatricExercise Science, 5,224-233.
Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Nicholls,]. (1989). The competitiveethosand democratic education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Phillips, D. A. (1987). Socialization of perceived academiccompetence among highly competent children. ChildDevelopment, 58, 1308-1320.
Rose,]. D. (1969). The role of the other in self-evaluation.Sociological Quarterly, 39, 470-479.
Shrauger.]. S. (1975). Responses to evaluation as a functionof initial self-perceptions. Psychological Bulletin, 82, 581596.
Shrauger, J. S., & Schoeneman, T. J. (1979). Symbolicinteractionist view of self-concept: Through the looking glass darkly. Psychological Bulletin, 82, 784-795.
Smith, A. L. (1999). Perceptions of peer relationships andphysical activity participation in early adolescence.Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 21, 329-350.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1996). Usingmultivariate statistics (3rd ed.). New York: Harper Collins.
Thomas.]. R, Salazar, w., & Landers, D. M. (1991). What ismissing in p less than .05? Effect size. Research Quarterlyfor Exercise and Sport, 62, 344-348.
Weiss, M. R., & Ebbeck, V. (1996). Self-esteem and perceptions of competence in youth sport: Theory, research,and enhancement strategies. In O. Bar-Or (Ed.), Theencyclopedia of sports medicine, Vol. v.. The child and adolescent athlete (pp. 364-382). Oxford, United Kingdom:Blackwell Scientific Publications, Ltd.
Notes
1. Six participants (4 men and 2 women) left itemsblank on this measure. In each case the items left blankwere those asking about the athletes' father. For ease of
analysis, these athletes were dropped from the study,leaving the final sample of319 athletes.
69
Amorose
2. As with the reflected appraisal measure, respondents were told to leave blank any item that referenceda person with whom he or she did not have any contact.This occurred for only those 6 athletes who left blanktheir responses to the reflected appraisals of fathers.3. The equation for this test, which can be found inCohen and Cohen (1983, p. 479), is: t = b, - ~ / S~i - bj'
where S" . - b. is the standard error of the difference of b."""""1 .J I
andb.J.
4. The hierarchical regression analysis was also con-ducted using a combination ofthe importance ofmothers and fathers and coaches and teammates. That is, tobe consistent with the reflected appraisals, compositevariables were created to reflect the importance of parents and the importance of sport-others. Results fromthe regression analysis with these variables and the as-
70
sociated interaction terms, however, also failed to support the moderating effect of the importance ratings.
Author's Notes
I would like to thank the two anonymous reviewers andespecially the section editor for their insightful comments and suggestions regarding this manuscript.Please address all correspondence concerning this article to AnthonyJ.Amorose, School ofKinesiology andRecreation, Illinois State University, 227L HortonFieldhouse, Normal, IL 61790-5120.
E-mail: [email protected]
ROES: March 2003
本文献由“学霸图书馆-文献云下载”收集自网络,仅供学习交流使用。
学霸图书馆(www.xuebalib.com)是一个“整合众多图书馆数据库资源,
提供一站式文献检索和下载服务”的24 小时在线不限IP
图书馆。
图书馆致力于便利、促进学习与科研,提供最强文献下载服务。
图书馆导航:
图书馆首页 文献云下载 图书馆入口 外文数据库大全 疑难文献辅助工具