REVISTADEIBEROAMERICANADEPSICOLOGÍADELEJERCICIOYELDEPORTE Vol.6,nº2,pp.181-201 ISSN:1886-8576 CURRENT DIRECTIONS IN SELF-EFFICACY RESEARCH IN SPORT Alison Ede, Seunghyun Hwang, & Deborah L. Feltz Michigan State University ABSTRACT:Self-efficacyandcollectiveefficacyhavebeenwellstudiedinsportcontexts.Since Bandura’sfirstpublication(1977),of theself-efficacyconstruct,therehavebeenover300rese- arch articles published on self- and collective efficacy related to sport and motor performance. ThisresearchhascontinuedtogrowinNorthAmericaandelsewherearoundtheworld.Inthis paper,wedescribenewareasof researchinsportself-efficacy:decision-makingefficacy,prepa- ratory efficacy, relational concepts of efficacy beliefs (i.e., tripartite efficacy), emotional intelli- genceasasourceof coachingefficacy,efficacydispersion,refereeself-efficacy,andnewmeasu- rementadvances. Wedescribeexamplesof researchintheseareasandsuggestwheremorerese- archisneeded. KEYWORDS:self-efficacy;collectiveefficacy;coachingefficacy TENDENCIASACTUALESENLAINVESTIGACIÓNSOBRELAAUTOEFICACIA ENELDEPORTE RESUMEN:Laautoeficaciaylaeficaciacolectivahansidoampliamenteestudiadasenelámbi- todeldeporte.DesdelaprimerapublicacióndeBandura(1977)sobreelconstructodelaautoe- ficacia,sehanpublicadomásde300artículossobrelaautoeficaciaylaeficaciacolectivarelacio- nada con el deporte y la ejecución motora. Esta investigación ha continuado creciendo en Norteaméricayenelmundoentero.Enestetrabajo,sedescribennuevasáreasdeinvestigación 181 AlisonEde,SeunghyunHwang,&DeborahL.Feltz relacionadas con la autoeficacia en eldeporte:eficacia enla toma dedecisiones,eficaciaprepa- ratoria, conceptos relacionados con las creencias de eficacia (es decir, eficacia tripartita), inteli- gencia emocional como una fuente de eficacia para el entrenamiento, dispersión en la eficacia, autoeficaciadelárbitroynuevosprogresosenlasmedidas.Sedescriben ejemplosdeinvestiga- cionesenestasáreasysesugierenotrasnuevas. PALABRASCLAVE:Autoeficacia;Eficaciacolectiva;Eficaciadelentrenamiento. TENDÊNCIAS ACTUAIS NA INVESTIGAÇÃO SOBRE A AUTOEFICÁCIA NO DESPORTO RESUMO:Aautoeficáciaeaeficáciacoletivatêmvindoaserbemestudadasemcontextosdes- portivos. Desde a primeira publicação de Bandura (1977) sobre o constructo da autoeficácia, forampublicadosmaisde300artigosdeinvestigaçãosobreautoeficáciaeeficáciacoletivarela- cionadas com o desporto e a performance motora. Esta investigação tem continuado a crescer na América do Norte, bem como noutros lugares do mundo. Neste artigo, descrevemos novas áreas de investigação na autoeficácia desportiva: a eficácia na tomada de decisões, a eficácia na preparação,conceitosrelacionadoscomascrençasdeeficácia(i.e.,aeficáciatripartida),inteligên- cia emocional como fonte de eficácia do treinamento, a dispersão da eficácia, autoeficácia dos árbitrosenovosavançosnasuaavaliação.Descrevemosexemplosdeinvestigaçõesnessasáreas esugerimosondeénecessáriamaisinvestigação. PALAVRAS-CHAVE:Auto-eficácia;Eficaciacoletiva;Eficáciadetreinamento. Within sport contexts, Bandura’s (1977, grow in North America and elsewhere 1997)theoryof self-efficacy(anditscol- aroundtheworld.Newareasof research lective efficacy extension) has been well insportself-efficacyinhavebeeninves- studied as a cognitive explanation for tigated, including decision-making effi- differences in achievement strivings cacy,preparatoryefficacy,relationalcon- (Feltz, Short, & Sullivan (2008). Since cepts of efficacy beliefs (i.e., tripartite Bandura’sfirstpublication(1977),of the efficacy), emotional intelligence as a self-efficacy construct, there have been sourceof coachingefficacy,efficacydis- over 300 research articles published on persion, referee self-efficacy, and new self- and collective efficacy related to measurement advances. This paper pro- sport and motor performance vides a brief overview of self-efficacy (Dithurbide&Feltz,inpress).Feltzetal. theory, and then describes these new summarized much of this research and areas of research on self-efficacy within its applications for athletes, teams, and the athletic realm. We describe this coaches. Since the Feltz et al. book was research in five major sections: individ- published, the field has continued to ual self-efficacy, coaching efficacy, col- 182 RevistaIberoamericanadePsicologíadelEjercicioyelDeporte.Vol.6,nº2(2011) Currentdirectionsinself-efficacyresearchinsport lective efficacy, referee self-efficacy, and basedonacomplexprocessof self-per- measurement issues. suasion that relies on cognitive process- ing of diverse sources of confidence OVERVIEW OF SELF-EFFICACY information (Bandura, 1997). Bandura THEORY categorized these sources as past per- Bandura (1997) defined self-efficacy as formance accomplishments, vicarious the “beliefs in one’s capabilities to experiences, verbal persuasion, and organize and execute the courses of physiological states. Performance action required to produce given attain- accomplishments provide the most ments” (p. 3). The theory of self-effica- dependable efficacy information cy was developed within the framework because they are based on one's own of social cognitive theory, which views mastery experiences. Vicarious sources individuals as proactive agents in the of efficacy information are based on regulation of their cognition, motiva- gaining efficacy information from tion, actions, and emotions (Bandura). observing others and comparing ones AccordingtoBandura,withinthissocial own capabilities to those observed. cognitive framework of human func- Persuasive information includes verbal tioning, self-efficacy addresses the role persuasion, evaluative feedback, expec- of self-referent beliefs as the core agen- tations by others, self-talk, positive tic factor that determines people’s goal- imagery, and other cognitive strategies. directed behavior. Thus, people’s effica- Physiologicalinformationincludesauto- cy judgments are hypothesized to deter- nomicarousalthatisassociatedwithfear mine the challenges they undertake, the andself-doubtorwithbeingpsyched-up effort they expend in the activity, and and ready for performance, as well as theirperseveranceinthefaceof difficul- one's level of fitness, fatigue, and pain ties. People's self-efficacy judgments are (Feltz&Chase,1998).Variousinterven- also hypothesized to influence certain tions, based on one or more sources of thought patterns and emotional reac- efficacy information and experiences tions (e.g., pride, shame, happiness, sad- (e.g., success or failure), can alter self- ness) that also influence motivation efficacy beliefs. (Bandura). However, researchers in The theory of self-efficacy extends sport psychology typically examine the totheconceptof collectiveefficacyand predictivestrengthof efficacybeliefson coaching efficacy. For instance, whereas performance because improving per- self-efficacyreferstopeople'sjudgments formance is of utmost importance to of individualcapabilitiesandeffort,col- athletes and coaches alike (Feltz et al., lective efficacy is defined as a group's 2008). Sport performance is a combina- judgment of their conjoint capabilities tionof choiceof challengesundertaken, to organize and execute the courses of effort expended, and persistence. actionrequiredtoproducespecifiedlev- In turn, one’s efficacy judgments are els of performance (Bandura, 1997). 183 RevistaIberoamericanadePsicologíadelEjercicioyelDeporte.Vol.6,nº2(2011) AlisonEde,SeunghyunHwang,&DeborahL.Feltz These concepts are described in subse- formance, self-efficacy predicted deci- quent sections along with current sion-making speed; individuals higher in research. decision-makingself-efficacymadedeci- sions faster than those with lower self- Individual Self-Efficacy efficacy. Hepler and Feltz(in press)sug- Much of the research on self-efficacy in gested that individuals who are confi- sport continues to focus on individual dent in their abilities to make a decision athletes, primarily examining the rela- havelesshesitationanddoubtaboutthe tionship between self-efficacy and per- options they generate, which allows formance (e.g., Beattie, Adamoulas, & them to make decisions quickly. It is Oliver, 2011; Coffee, Rees, & Haslam, possible that those with lower efficacy 2009; Heazlewood & Burke, 2011). had to exclude more options before set- However, current research also has tling on their final choice, increasing expanded to examine the role of self- time needed to make their decision. efficacy in contexts other than physical The relationship between self-effica- performance.Theworkdiscussedinthis cy and decision-making was also sup- section includes the relationships ported in Hepler and Feltz’s (2011) between self-efficacy and decision-mak- research on self-efficacy, decision-mak- ing,theroleof self-doubtinpreparation ing, and use of the take-the-first (TTF) stages(i.e.,preparatoryefficacy),andthe heuristicinbasketballtasks.Thebasisof role of self-efficacy in relationships TTF is that individuals generate options between dyads of coaches and athletes, in a meaningful order, and early deci- and athlete pairs. sionsareoftenbetterchoicesthanthose generated later. In Hepler and Feltz’s Self-Efficacy and Decision-Making (2011) study, undergraduate students According to Bandura (1997), self-effi- created a list of decisions based on bas- cacyinfluencescognitiveaswellasphys- ketball video clips in a specified amount ical aspects of performance. One type of time. Decision-making self-efficacy of cognitiveperformanceimportantina positively predicted TTF, as individuals sportcontextistheabilitytomakedeci- with higher levels of self-efficacy used sionsquicklyandaccurately,andcurrent TTFmoreoften,generatedfewerchoic- research has begun to examine the rela- es, and made decisions faster than those tionship between self-efficacy and deci- with lower levels of self-efficacy. These sion-makingintasksspecifictosport.In findings highlight the importance of a study by Hepler and Feltz (in press), self-efficacy in athletes’ cognitive per- undergraduate college students watched formance. Improving levels of athlete’s video clips of baseball scenarios and decision-making self-efficacy would be made decisions about what players beneficial in allowing athletes to make should do next in each given situation. quicker and better decisions in a sport Controlling for residualized past per- context where speed and accuracy are 184 RevistaIberoamericanadePsicologíadelEjercicioyelDeporte.Vol.6,nº2(2011) Currentdirectionsinself-efficacyresearchinsport necessary for high levels of perform- described by an inverted-U (Feltz et al., ance. 2008). Self-efficacy levels that are too high or too low can result in low levels Preparatory Efficacy of effort, whereas moderate levels of Bandura (1997) noted that self-efficacy self-efficacy should result in the highest plays different roles during the prepara- amount of preparatory effort (Feltz et tion and performance phases of a task, al., 2008). ormorespecifictothesportcontext,an Researchexaminingpreparatoryeffi- athlete’sseason. Theterm,“preparatory cacyinsportisjustbeginningtoemerge. efficacy,”asusedbyBandura(1997),has As noted by Feltz and Wood (2009), the thesamedefinitionasperformanceeffi- majorityof researchsupportingthecon- cacy (i.e., beliefs in one's capabilities to ceptof preparatoryefficacyhasfocused be successful at an upcoming task), but on learning or decision-making tasks ismeasuredduringthepreparatoryperi- outside of the sport domain. However, od instead of just prior to performance some research has started to focus on (Wood & Feltz, 2009). In the prepara- sport, as Feltz and Wood (in press) pro- tion phase, while skilled athletes are videdpreliminaryresultsof apreparato- preparingandtrainingforacompetition, ry efficacy experiment using a golf-put- Bandura (1997) suggested that the exis- tingtask.Individualsweregiven30prac- tence of some self-doubt may help an tice putts to distribute how they wished athlete exert the required effort to fully across targets of three difficulty levels: prepare for his or her upcoming per- (a) low difficulty (high-efficacy condi- formance.Thus,althoughdoubtisdetri- tion), (b) moderate difficulty (medium- mentalduringtheperformancephaseof efficacycondition),and(c)highdifficul- sport competition (Bandura, 1997; Feltz ty (low-efficacy condition), and were et al., 2008), it may be beneficial to then asked to take five putts at each tar- effortful practice during the preparation getduringtheperformancephaseof the phaseof competitionaslongasitisnot experiment. Participants chose to use overwhelming doubt. When athletes more of their practice putts at the tar- believeacompetitionwillbetooeasy,or gets in the low- and medium-efficacy have overly high beliefs in their abilities, conditions, and their lower levels of they may become complacent and put preparatory effort at the high-efficacy forth less preparatory effort than when condition resulted in lower than expect- they know they will be faced with a ed performance. While this provides tougher challenge (Feltz et al., 2008). some initial support for the concept of Instead of a linear, positive relationship preparatory efficacy, Feltz and Wood (in between self-efficacy and effort during press) also proposed that more research preparatory practice, it is likely that the is needed in this area. relationship between preparatory effica- Bandura (1997) suggested that cy and effort is curvilinear, and better coaches already use the concept of 185 RevistaIberoamericanadePsicologíadelEjercicioyelDeporte.Vol.6,nº2(2011) AlisonEde,SeunghyunHwang,&DeborahL.Feltz preparatory efficacy to motivate their ner’s/teammate’s abilities, and RISE athletes to adequately prepare for beliefsareanathlete’sperceptionsof the upcoming performances. Coaches talk partner’s/teammate’s beliefs about the up the strength of their opponents, or athlete’s capabilities (Lent & Lopez, focus on their own teams’ weaknesses, 2002).LentandLopez(2002)suggested inordertointroducealevelof doubtto that these three components are related, keeptheirathletesfrombecomingcom- but each one can independently predict placent in the face of a competitor or differentoutcomes(e.g.,relationshipsat- performance that is thought to be less isfaction, relationship commitment,per- challenging (Bandura, 1997). Based on formance, and effort). these examples, more research on Research is beginning to support the preparatory efficacy in sport is needed tripartite model. Among junior doubles to fully understand how athletes are tennis players, Jackson et al. (2007) motivated to prepare for performance determined that athletes’ individual lev- situations,andfindwaysforcoachesand els of self-efficacy were related to both athletes to put preparatory efficacy con- other-efficacyandRISEbeliefs,self-effi- cepts into practice. cacy was related to athletes’ commit- menttokeepplayingwiththeirpartners, Tripartite Efficacy and other-efficacy was related to satis- Relationships among dyads of athletes faction with their partner relationships. and coaches, or athletes and their team- However, the tripartite efficacy mates are also an important considera- model may work differently in coach- tion in the development of an athlete’s athlete dyads than in paired-athlete self-efficacy. Feltz and colleagues (2008) dyads. Again with junior tennis players, identified the tripartite model of effica- Jackson et al. (2010) found interaction cy as an emerging area of research in effects,inthattherelationshipsbetween self-efficacy in sport. Since then, a few other-efficacy and outcomes varied studies have been published examining betweenthecoachandtheathlete.They this concept through quantitative and suggested that among coach-athlete qualitative methodologies (Jackson & dyads, in which the coach has more Beauchamp, 2010; Jackson, Beauchamp, knowledge and power than the athlete, & Knapp, 2007; Jackson, Grove, & other-efficacyhasmoreof animpacton Beauchamp,2010;Jackson,Gucciardi,& the athlete than the coach on outcomes Dimmick, 2011; Jackson, Knapp, & such as relationship closeness (e.g., Beauchamp, 2009). Originally proposed affection, respect, and trust) and com- by Lent and Lopez (2002), the tripartite plementarity (e.g., reciprocal behaviors, model includes self-efficacy, other-effi- feeling prepared to do their best). The cacy, and relation-inferred self-efficacy effects of RISE beliefs also varied for (RISE). Other-efficacy includes an indi- coachesandathletes.Whencoachesper- vidual’s beliefs about a part- ceivedthattheirathleteshadhighbeliefs 186 RevistaIberoamericanadePsicologíadelEjercicioyelDeporte.Vol.6,nº2(2011) Currentdirectionsinself-efficacyresearchinsport intheircoachingabilities,itcorrespond- bersof coach-athleteandathlete-athlete edtohighlevelsof commitmentforthe dyads, much more is needed to further coaches. Conversely, when athletes per- examine these relationships. As results ceivedthattheircoacheshadhighbeliefs have shown that the different efficacy in an athlete’s abilities, it corresponded beliefs in the tripartite model influence to low levels of commitment for the relationship satisfaction, persistence, athletes, possibly allowing athletes to and commitment between partners, it is feel complacent. Thus, the type of rela- importanttounderstandhowthoseeffi- tionship is extremely important when cacy beliefs are shaped in order to help examining tripartite efficacy in dyads in athletes and coaches maintain positive sport contexts. long-termrelationshipsindifferentteam One issue that Feltz et al. (2008) and individual sport environments. raisedaboutthetripartiteefficacymodel is that while other-efficacy is a percep- Coaching Efficacy tion of an individual about his or her Besides athletes, coaches are another partner’s abilities, it does not include population receiving attention in self- perceptions about the partner’s levels of efficacyresearch.Originallyproposedby self-efficacy, which they described as Feltz, Chase, Moritz, and Sullivan confidence-focused other efficacy. (1999),theconceptof coachingefficacy Jackson and Beauchamp (2010) termed represents a coach’s belief in his or her this concept “Estimations of the Other ability to effectively teach and enhance Person’s Self-Efficacy” (EOSE), which theperformanceof theirathletes.While represents how confident individuals the concept is similar to self-efficacy think their partners are in themselves, among athletes, coaching efficacy is less potentially providing an additional com- situation specific and includes beliefs ponent to the original tripartite efficacy about one’s ability to influence athletes model. Qualitatively examining EOSE in the areas of motivation, game strate- beliefsamongcoach-athleteandathlete- gy, technique, and character building. athlete dyads, Jackson and Beauchamp Theseefficacybeliefsareinfluencedbya (2010)foundthatEOSEwasinfluenced number of factors, including previous by verbal and non-verbal communica- coaching experience, coaching prepara- tion, past performance, physiological tion,priorwinsandlosses,coaches’per- and affective states, and success as a ceived skill of athletes, and support dyad.EOSEbeliefsalsoinfluencedindi- from schools, parents, community, and vidual self-efficacy, relationship satisfac- administrators. Efficacy beliefs then tion,other-efficacy,andrelationshipper- influencecoachingbehaviorsandathlete sistence. satisfaction and performance. Newer Whiletherehasbeenagrowingbody research is focusing on other relation- of recent research on the role of self- shipstothismodel,including(a)sources efficacy in relationships between mem- of coaching efficacy at the high school 187 RevistaIberoamericanadePsicologíadelEjercicioyelDeporte.Vol.6,nº2(2011) AlisonEde,SeunghyunHwang,&DeborahL.Feltz level, (b) coaching efficacy and aggres- coaching efficacy at different competi- sioninyouthsports,(c)emotionalintel- tive levels in sport, and to investigate ligence, and (d) leadership efficacy, potential reasons for gender differences which we discuss in this section. in sources of coaching efficacy. Head Coaches of High School Coaching Efficacy and Aggression Teams Research has examined the influence of Many studies have focused on examin- coaching efficacy on the attitudes and ing the four dimensions of coaching behaviors of athletes. One area that has efficacy, guided by Feltz et al.’s (1999) recentlyreceivedattentionistheissueof Coaching Efficacy Scale (CES). aggression in youth sports. Chow, Recently, however, Myers, Feltz, Chase, Murray, and Feltz (2009) examined the Reckase,andHancock(2008)developed relationship between specific dimen- the CES-II for High School Teams sions of coaching efficacy and youth (CES-II HST), a coaching efficacy scale soccer players’ likelihood to commit specifically designed for use with head aggressive acts in a given scenario. In coachesof highschoolteamsports,not- thatstudy,gamestrategyefficacysignifi- ing that sources and dimensions of cantlypredictedlikelihoodtoaggress,as coaching efficacy may vary depending players of coaches with high levels of on the level of the athletes coached. game strategy efficacy were more likely Myers et al. (2008) also added physical to report that they would trip an oppo- conditioning as a fifth dimension of nent in a given situation than players of coaching efficacy to the model, and coacheswithlowerlevelof gamestrate- refined the definitions of the character gy efficacy (Chow et al., 2009). Chow et building and technique efficacy dimen- al. (2009) suggested that the link sions. Myers, Feltz, and Chase (2011) between game strategy efficacy and used the new scale to examine sources aggression may potentially be explained of coaching efficacy among male and by athletes’ perceptions that aggression female head coaches of high school isamethodtoachievetheoverallgoalof team sports. They found support for 35 winning, and athletes may view aggres- sources of coaching efficacy (see Myers siveactsasstrategicinsteadof unsports- etal.,2011foracompletelist).However, manlike behavior. Surprisingly, however, gender moderated the relationship for character-buildingefficacywasnotrelat- some of the sources, as a few sources edtoplayers’likelihoodtoaggressinthe were related to specific dimensions for study (Chow et al., 2009). The authors female coaches only (i.e., sources of explainedthatthisfindingmaybedueto careerwinningpercentage,team’srecord the fact that aggressive tendencies from the previous year, and perceptions reflect a negative aspect of morality; of teamability).Futureresearchisneed- whereas, character building efficacy ed to further examine the model of focuses on instilling an attitude of good 188 RevistaIberoamericanadePsicologíadelEjercicioyelDeporte.Vol.6,nº2(2011) Currentdirectionsinself-efficacyresearchinsport moralcharacter,fairplayamongathletes, provided support for the relationship respect for others, and promoting good between components of emotional sportsmanship, which reflect positive intelligence and the coaching efficacy aspectsof morality.Theauthorssuggest dimensions among coaches of multiple that character building efficacy better sports. They determined that specific predicts the positive aspects of morality components of emotional intelligence that emphasize sportsmanship and fair actedassourcesof differentdimensions play than the negative aspects of moral- of coachingefficacy.Motivationefficacy itysuch as aggression.In a related study was predicted by regulation of emo- on youth soccer players in Botswana, tions, character-building efficacy was Malete, Chow, and Feltz (2011) discov- predicted by optimism, and technique ered that players’ perceptions of their efficacy was predicted by emotional coaches’ game strategy competency and appraisal (Thelwell et al., 2008). Hwang, their perceptions of coaches’ endorse- Feltz, and Lee (in press) built upon the ment of cheating and aggressive behav- workbyThelwelletal.(2008)andexam- iors predicted players’ likelihood to ined leadership style (e.g., autocratic or aggress. However, unlike the study by democratic decision-making, providing Chowetal.(2009),gamestrategyeffica- social support and feedback) along with cy was not related to players’ likelihood coaching efficacy and emotional intelli- toaggress.Bothstudiesnotedthatactu- gence among high school basketball alcoachingbehaviorswerenotassessed. coaches. Hwang et al. (in press) found Thus,researchersdonotknowif coach- that emotional intelligence predicted es who have high game strategy efficacy both coaching efficacy and leadership outright teach unfair tactics, positively style, and coaching efficacy also mediat- reinforceathleteswhousethem,and/or ed the relationship between emotional ignore aggressive behavior when it intelligence and leadership style. Thus, occurs. The influence of those behav- coaches’ beliefs in their ability to regu- iors as part of the coaching efficacy late their own emotions may influence model requires further attention in their perceptions of their abilities to future research. coach their athletes, and the ability to understand the emotions of their ath- Emotional Intelligence letes may be beneficial in developing Recently, there has been an interest in their leadership styles (e.g., providing examining emotional intelligence and positive feedback, evaluating athletes, coachingefficacy.Emotionalintelligence andplanningappropriatetrainingsched- playsanimportantroleincoaching,asit ules). This result implies that emotional referstotheabilityof coachestobeable intelligence is a source of self-efficacy tomonitorandmanagetheemotionsof information because trait emotional their athletes and themselves. Thelwell, intelligence includes dispositions as well Lane, Weston, and Greenlees (2008) as self-perceptions related to emotional 189 RevistaIberoamericanadePsicologíadelEjercicioyelDeporte.Vol.6,nº2(2011) AlisonEde,SeunghyunHwang,&DeborahL.Feltz functioning (Petrides & Furnham, skills needed to become effective lead- 2003). Also, regarding its relationship, ers,theymaynotmakeattemptstolearn Bandura (1997) noted that one way of those skills. Lastly, learning self-efficacy altering efficacy belief is by reducing mustalsoberesilientandstableinorder “negative emotional proclivities” (p. for leaders to face and overcome chal- 106). This also includes mood states, lenges, which provide opportunities for such as anger, fear, anxiety, and joy. further learning. Bandura explains that moods provide Machida and Schaubroeck (in press) sources of efficacy information alsoidentifiedpotentialsourcesof lead- “becausetheyoftenaccompanychanges ership efficacy. These include learning in quality of functioning” (p. 111). orientation and development experi- ences in the form of challenges, sup- Leadership Efficacy port, and feedback. In a sport context, Besides coaching efficacy, the role of Machida, Schaubroeck, and Feltz (2011) efficacy and leadership development is conducted preliminary work examining beginning to emerge. Although they did these sources of leadership efficacy to not focus specifically on sport, Machida better understand why women are andSchaubroeck(inpress)reviewedthe underrepresented in athletic administra- existing literature on self-efficacy and tion positions. They examined the roles leadership,andproposedthatself-effica- of challenges, support, feedback, and cyhasamultifacetedroleinthedevelop- resiliency on NCAA female athletic mentof individualleaders.Thefirstrole administrators’ feelings of leader self- involvestheconceptof preparatoryeffi- efficacy and their motivation to lead. cacy discussed previously in this paper. Machida et al. (2011) determined that Individuals preparing for a leadership leader self-efficacy is positively influ- role,withefficacylevelsthataretoohigh enced by all four constructs, and leader orlow,maynotputintheeffortneeded self-efficacyisalsorelatedtomotivation to develop leadership skills. Second, a to lead. Their findings suggest that in baseline level of moderate self-efficacy order to help more women develop as is needed for self-correcting cycles to leaders in sport, it is critical to create occur.Afterexperiencingimprovements environments for women to experience or decreases in efficacy and perform- challenges that push and expand their ance, leaders need to be able to readjust comfort zones, foster resiliency for and make corrections to return to the women to overcome future challenges, moderate level of self-efficacy, instead and it is also necessary for women to of continuing in an upward or down- receive proper feedback and social sup- ward cycle. Learning self-efficacy also port from supervisors or peers. plays an important role in leadership Besides leadership efficacy, coaching development. If individuals do not efficacy has been shown to influence believe they have the ability to learn the interest in a coaching career. Moran- 190 RevistaIberoamericanadePsicologíadelEjercicioyelDeporte.Vol.6,nº2(2011)