Individual group efficacy beliefs and performance motivation: A mediational approach

Introduction: According to the theoretical model of Cranach, Ochsenbein, and Valach (1986) understanding group actions needs consideration of aspects at both the group level and the level of individual members. For example individual action units constituting group actions are motivated at the individual level while potentially being affected by characteristics of the group. Theoretically, group efficacy beliefs could be a part of this motivational process as they are an individual’s cognitive contents about group-level abilities to perform well in a specific task. Positive relations between group level efficacy-beliefs and group performance have been reported and Bandura and Locke (2003) argue that this relationship is being mediated by motivational processes and goal setting. The aims of this study were a) to examine the effects of group characteristics on individual performance motivation and b) to test if those are mediated by individual group efficacy beliefs. Methods: Forty-seven students (M=22.83 years, SD=2.83, 34% women) of the university of Berne participated in this scenario based experiment. Data were collected on two collection points. Subjects were provided information about fictive team members with whom they had to perform a group triathlon. Three values (low, medium, high) of the other team members’ abilities to perform in their parts of the triathlon (swimming and biking respectively) were combined in a 3x3 full factorial design (Anderson, 1982) yielding nine groups. Subjects were asked how confident they were that the teams would perform well in the task (individual group efficacy beliefs), and to provide information about their motivation to perform at their best in the respective group contexts (performance motivation). Multilevel modeling (Mplus) was used to estimate the effects of the factors swim and bike, and the context-varying covariate individual group efficacy beliefs on performance motivation. Further analyses were undertaken to test if the effects of group contexts on performance motivation are mediated by individual group efficacy beliefs. Results: Significant effects were reported for both the group characteristics (βswim = 7.86; βbike = 8.57; both p < .001) and the individual group efficacy beliefs (βigeb; .40, p < .001) on performance motivation. The subsequent mediation model indicated that the effects of group characteristics on performance motivation were partly mediated by the individual group efficacy beliefs of the subjects with significant mediation effects for both factors swim and bike. Discussion/Conclusion: The results of the study provide further support for the motivational character of efficacy beliefs and point out a mechanism by which team characteristics influence performance relevant factors at the level of individual team members. The study indicates that high team abilities lead to augmented performance motivation, adding a psychological advantage to teams already high on task relevant abilities. Future investigations will be aiming at possibilities to keep individual performance motivation high in groups with low task relevant abilities. One possibility could be the formulation of individual task goals. References: Anderson, N. H. (1982). Methods of information integration theory. New York: Academic Press. Bandura, A. & Locke, E. A. (2003). Negative self-efficacy and goal effects revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 87-99. Cranach, M. von, Ochsenbein, G. & Valach, L. (1986). The group as a self-active system: Outline of a theory of group action. European Journal of Social Psychology, 16, 193-229.

Group abilities, individual group-efficacy beliefs and performance motivation: A mediation analysis

Introduction Research has shown that individuals infer their group-efficacy beliefs from the groups’ abilities to perform in specific tasks. Group abilities also seem to affect team members’ performance motivation adding a psychological advantage to teams already high on task relevant abilities. In a recent study we found the effect of group abilities on individual performance motivation to be partially mediated by the team members’ individual group-efficacy beliefs which is an example of how attributes on a group-level can be affecting individual-level parameters. Objectives The study aimed at testing the possibility to reduce the direct and mediated effects of low group abilities on performance motivation by augmenting the visibility of individual contributions to group performances via the inclusion of a separate ranking on individual performances. Method Forty-seven students (M=22.83 years, SD=2.83, 34% women) of the University of Bern participated in the study. At three collection points (t1-3) subjects were provided information about fictive team members with whom they had to imagine performing a group triathlon. Three values (low, medium, high) of the other team members’ abilities to perform in their parts of the triathlon (swimming and biking) were combined in a 3x3 full factorial design yielding nine groups with different ability profiles. At t1 subjects were asked to rate their confidence that the teams would perform well in the triathlon task, at t2 and t3 subjects were asked how motivated they were to perform at their best in the respective groups. At t3 the presence of an individual performance ranking was mentioned in the cover story. Mixed linear models (SPSS) and structural equation models for complex survey data (Mplus) were specified to estimate the effects of the individual performance rankings on the relationship between group-efficacy beliefs and performance motivation. Results A significant interaction effect for individual group-efficacy beliefs and the triathlon condition on performance motivation was found; the effect of group-efficacy beliefs on performance motivation being smaller with individual performance rankings available. The partial mediation of group attributes on performance motivation by group-efficacy beliefs disappeared with the announcement of individual performance rankings. Conclusion In teams low in task relevant abilities the disadvantageous effect of group-efficacy beliefs on performance motivation might be reduced by providing means of evaluating individual performances apart from a group’s overall performance. While it is believed that a common group goal is a core criterion for a well performing sport group future studies should also aim at the possible benefit of individualized goal setting in groups.

Group abilities, individual group-efficacy beliefs and performance motivation: A mediation analysis

Introduction Research has shown that individuals infer their group-efficacy beliefs from the groups’ abilities to perform in specific tasks. Group abilities also seem to affect team members’ performance motivation adding a psychological advantage to teams already high on task relevant abilities. In a recent study we found the effect of group abilities on individual performance motivation to be partially mediated by the team members’ individual group-efficacy beliefs which is an example of how attributes on a group-level can be affecting individual-level parameters. Objectives The study aimed at testing the possibility to reduce the direct and mediated effects of low group abilities on performance motivation by augmenting the visibility of individual contributions to group performances via the inclusion of a separate ranking on individual performances. Method Forty-seven students (M=22.83 years, SD=2.83, 34% women) of the University of Bern participated in the study. At three collection points (t1-3) subjects were provided information about fictive team members with whom they had to imagine performing a group triathlon. Three values (low, medium, high) of the other team members’ abilities to perform in their parts of the triathlon (swimming and biking) were combined in a 3x3 full factorial design yielding nine groups with different ability profiles. At t1 subjects were asked to rate their confidence that the teams would perform well in the triathlon task, at t2 and t3 subjects were asked how motivated they were to perform at their best in the respective groups. At t3 the presence of an individual performance ranking was mentioned in the cover story. Mixed linear models (SPSS) and structural equation models for complex survey data (Mplus) were specified to estimate the effects of the individual performance rankings on the relationship between group-efficacy beliefs and performance motivation. Results A significant interaction effect for individual group-efficacy beliefs and the triathlon condition on performance motivation was found; the effect of group-efficacy beliefs on performance motivation being smaller with individual performance rankings available. The partial mediation of group attributes on performance motivation by group-efficacy beliefs disappeared with the announcement of individual performance rankings. Conclusion In teams low in task relevant abilities the disadvantageous effect of group-efficacy beliefs on performance motivation might be reduced by providing means of evaluating individual performances apart from a group’s overall performance. While it is believed that a common group goal is a core criterion for a well performing sport group future studies should also aim at the possible benefit of individualized goal setting in groups.

Zonal playfield attributes – A stochastic approach to subjective passing affordances in football

Introduction: According to the ecological view, coordination establishes byvirtueof social context. Affordances thought of as situational opportunities to interact are assumed to represent the guiding principles underlying decisions involved in interpersonal coordination. It’s generally agreed that affordances are not an objective part of the (social) environment but that they depend on the constructive perception of involved subjects. Theory and empirical data hold that cognitive operations enabling domain-specific efficacy beliefs are involved in the perception of affordances. The aim of the present study was to test the effects of these cognitive concepts in the subjective construction of local affordances and their influence on decision making in football. Methods: 71 football players (M = 24.3 years, SD = 3.3, 21 % women) from different divisions participated in the study. Participants were presented scenarios of offensive game situations. They were asked to take the perspective of the person on the ball and to indicate where they would pass the ball from within each situation. The participants stated their decisions in two conditions with different game score (1:0 vs. 0:1). The playing fields of all scenarios were then divided into ten zones. For each zone, participants were asked to rate their confidence in being able to pass the ball there (self-efficacy), the likelihood of the group staying in ball possession if the ball were passed into the zone (group-efficacy I), the likelihood of the ball being covered safely by a team member (pass control / group-efficacy II), and whether a pass would establish a better initial position to attack the opponents’ goal (offensive convenience). Answers were reported on visual analog scales ranging from 1 to 10. Data were analyzed specifying general linear models for binomially distributed data (Mplus). Maximum likelihood with non-normality robust standard errors was chosen to estimate parameters. Results: Analyses showed that zone- and domain-specific efficacy beliefs significantly affected passing decisions. Because of collinearity with self-efficacy and group-efficacy I, group-efficacy II was excluded from the models to ease interpretation of the results. Generally, zones with high values in the subjective ratings had a higher probability to be chosen as passing destination (βself-efficacy = 0.133, p < .001, OR = 1.142; βgroup-efficacy I = 0.128, p < .001, OR = 1.137; βoffensive convenience = 0.057, p < .01, OR = 1.059). There were, however, characteristic differences in the two score conditions. While group-efficacy I was the only significant predictor in condition 1 (βgroup-efficacy I = 0.379, p < .001), only self-efficacy and offensive convenience contributed to passing decisions in condition 2 (βself-efficacy = 0.135, p < .01; βoffensive convenience = 0.120, p < .001). Discussion: The results indicate that subjectively distinct attributes projected to playfield zones affect passing decisions. The study proposes a probabilistic alternative to Lewin’s (1951) hodological and deterministic field theory and enables insight into how dimensions of the psychological landscape afford passing behavior. Being part of a team, this psychological landscape is not only constituted by probabilities that refer to the potential and consequences of individual behavior, but also to that of the group system of which individuals are part of. Hence, in regulating action decisions in group settings, informers are extended to aspects referring to the group-level. References: Lewin, K. (1951). In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Field theory in social sciences: Selected theoretical papers by Kurt Lewin. New York: Harper & Brothers.