Coping with failure: The effects of self-esteem and coping on changes in self-efficacy.

Lane, Andrew M. ; Jones, Liz ; Stevens, Matthew J. 等

Self-efficacy has been described as the guardian angel of successful performance (Terry, 1989). There has been a great deal of research support for a positive relationship between self-efficacy and performance in a number of different contexts including sport (Bandura, 1997; Moritz, Feltz, Fahrbach, & Mack, 2000; Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998). Self-efficacy is defined as the levels of confidence individuals have in their ability to execute courses of action or attain specific performance outcomes (Bandura, 1977, 1986, 1997). Personal efficacy expectations are proposed to influence initiating behavior and how much effort will be applied to attain a successful outcome in the face of difficulties and setbacks (Bandura, 1977, 1986, 1997). Meta-analysis results for self-efficacy and sport performance relationships lend support to its predictive power (Moritz et al., 2000).

Bandura (1977, 1986, 1997) suggested that self-efficacy judgments derive from the cognitive processing of information from four principle sources; 1) performance accomplishments (Feltz, Landers, & Raeder, 1979, George, 1994), 2) vicarious experiences (George, Feltz, & Chase, 1992, Gould & Weiss, 1981), 3) verbal persuasion (Feltz & Riessinger, 1990), and 4) emotional arousal (Feltz, 1982, Feltz & Mugno, 1983). Performance accomplishments are proposed to be the most dependable source of self-efficacy. Performances perceived successful are proposed to raise self-efficacy, whereas performances perceived unsuccessful are proposed to lower self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997). It is important to recognize the cognitive nature of self-efficacy. The cognitive appraisal of information from the four sources is proposed to influence self-efficacy and not the objective information per se.

One variable proposed to influence the appraisal process is self-esteem. Previous research has found that self-esteem plays an important role in the formation of psychological states such as self-efficacy (Campbell, 1990; Brown & Mankowski, 1993; Dodgson& Wood, 1998; Kernis, Brockner, & Frankel, 1989; Moreland & Sweeney, 1984). Research has found that individuals low in self-esteem tend to respond to experiences in a balanced way; positive events lead to positive psychological states and negative events lead to negative ones. By contrast, high self-esteem individuals tend to embrace positive events but disregard or offset the potentially debilitating effects of negative events, and this is associated with maintaining positive psychological states (Brown & Dutton, 1995; Brown & Mankowski, 1993; Campbell, 1990; Dodgson & Wood, 1998).

The cognitive patterns associated with self-esteem are proposed to explain these differential effects. Taylor and Brown (1988) suggested that individuals high in self-esteem are able to access more positive thoughts about themselves after failure. Hence, they maintain a positive focus. By contrast, low self-esteem individuals are unable to utilize this strategy, as they doubt the number of positive attributes that they possess. It is proposed that both groups tend to desire success, but high self-esteem individuals are more likely to reject and dismiss the negative implications of failure, while low self-esteem individuals tend to attribute negative events such as poor performance internally (Dodgson & Wood, 1998). Thus, although self-efficacy derives from sources that are based on performance (Bandura, 1997), self-esteem is proposed to moderate the accessibility of retrieving performance accomplishments from memory following failure.

The notion that individuals with low self-esteem suffer greater negative consequences to failure suggests they use ineffective coping strategies. Coping has been defined as "a process of constantly changing cognitive and behavioral efforts to manage specific external and/or internal demands or conflicts appraised as taxing or exceeding ones resources" (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984, p. 141). Empirical evidence shows athletes use a variety of strategies to cope with environmental demands (Crocker & Isaak, 1997; Giacobbi & Weinberg, 2000; Gould, Eklund, & Jackson, 1993).

Coping strategies can be either problem-or emotion-focused (Folkman & Lazarus, 1985). Problem-focused coping involves efforts to alter or manage the stressor. These strategies include problem solving, planning, and increasing effort. Emotion-focused coping involves regulating the emotional responses that arise as a result of the stressor. Examples of emotion-focused coping strategies include behavioral withdrawal, wishful thinking, denial, and venting of emotions.

Although stressors often elicit both emotion-focused and problem-focused coping, it is proposed that problem-focused coping strategies are a more common approach when situations are perceived as attainable and controllable (Folkman & Lazarus, 1985). Emotion-focused coping strategies are proposed to predominate in situations perceived as beyond the control of the individual.

Research investigating the relationship between coping and self-esteem has shown that individuals reporting high self-esteem tend to rely more on problem-focused coping than those reporting low self-esteem (Terry, 1994). Although processes through which individual differences influence coping have not been fully established, there is some evidence that individuals high in self-esteem make more adaptive choices in stressful situations (Taylor & Brown, 1988). In testing their COPE measure, Carver, Scheier, and Weintraub (1989) found positive relationships between self-esteem and the problem-focused strategies such as active coping, planning, and positive re-interpretation. Carver et al. (1989) found low self-esteem was associated with using emotion-focused strategies such as denial and behavioral disengagement.

It is important to note that this theory has been tested in general psychology and has not been investigated in a sporting context. For athletes, failure to succeed in an important competition can have catastrophic effects on self-efficacy. Thus, it is suggested that athletes must be able to access coping strategies that enable efficacy to be maintained following defeat.

Collectively, the influence of self-esteem on changes in self-efficacy has not been investigated in sport. The purpose of the present study was twofold. The first purpose was to examine the relationship between self-esteem and changes in self-efficacy following defeat. The second purpose was to examine the relationship between self-esteem and coping strategies. We hypothesized that individuals low in self-esteem will report significantly greater reductions in self-efficacy than individuals high in self-esteem. Further, given the nature of self-esteem, it is hypothesized that individuals high in self-esteem will employ more adaptive coping strategies, while low self-esteem individuals will use more maladaptive coping strategies.

Method

Participants

Participants were 91 (Male: N = 40; Female N = 51) national standard tennis players ranging in age from 11 to 21 years (M = 16.23 years; SD = 3.22 years). They were moderately experienced players (M = 7.29 years; SD = 2.45), with 24 having competed internationally.

Instrumentation

Self-esteem. Rosenberg's Self-esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965) was used to assess self-esteem. Respondents completed the scale by indicating their agreement with each of the 10 items (e.g. "On the whole I am satisfied with myself", "I certainly feel useless at times") on a 4-point scale (4 = strongly agree, 1 = strongly disagree). After reversing the scoring for 5 negatively worded items, a total Self-esteem score was obtained by summing the 10 responses. The range of scores using this procedure was 10-40 with higher scores indicating higher Self-esteem. In the present study, the alpha coefficient was .82, hence indicating an internally reliable scale.

Coping. Crocker and Graham's (1995) modified version of the COPE (MCOPE) was used to assess coping strategies. Nine subscales were based on the original COPE measure (Carver et al., 1989): Seeking social support for Instrumental reasons; Seeking social support for emotional reasons; Behavioral disengagement; Planning, Suppression of competing activities; Venting of emotions; Rumor; Active coping; and Denial. Based on empirical research (Madden, Summers, & Brown, 1990), Self-blame, Wishful thinking, and Increasing effort subscales were added. Participants responded to the 48 items of the MCOPE (4 items to each scale) on a 5-point Likert scale indicating the degree to which they utilized each coping strategy.

Initial investigations of the internal consistency of the MCOPE have shown alpha coefficients exceeding 0.60 for all subscales except denial (0.42). Giacobbi and Weinberg, (2000) reported internal consistency coefficients above 0.60 for all subscales. In the present alpha coefficients were: Seeking social support for instrumental reasons, alpha = .71; Seeking social support for emotional reasons, alpha = .68; Behavioral disengagement, alpha = .73; Self-blame, alpha = .78; Planning, alpha = .73; Suppression of competing activities, alpha = .74; Venting of emotions. alpha = .71; Humor, alpha = .72; Increasing effort, alpha = .77; Wishful thinking, alpha = .76; Active coping, alpha = .71; Denial, alpha = .73. Thus all alpha coefficients were above the .70 criterion for acceptable consistency (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996) except Seeking social support for emotional reasons, which was close.

Self efficacy. We used suggestions made by Bandura (1997) and evidence from Moritz et al. (2001) as a guide to develop the self-efficacy for tennis tiebreak competition. Moritz et al. (2001) showed that the strongest self-efficacy and performance when there is concordance between the measure of self-efficacy and performance. This suggests that perceptions of self-efficacy should be directed at the competences required in delivering performance. In order to do this, researchers should conduct a thorough examination of competencies underpinning performance. In the present study, tennis coaches (N = 2) and tennis players (N = 6) were asked to describe competencies needed to win a tiebreak competition. This led to a six-item Self-efficacy questionnaire, namely;

1) 'How confident are you in winning the tie-break?;

2) "How confident are you of winning your service points?"

3) "How confident are you getting more than 60% first serves in?"

4) "How confident are you of winning the return points?"

5) "How confident are you of winning the rally points?"

6) "How confident are you of winning the important points?"

Items were rated on a 10-point Likert scale anchored by 'no confidence in ability to execute the task' (I) to 'absolutely certain' (10). Self-efficacy perceptions for the six items were combined resulting in one single Self-efficacy score giving a range from 6-60. The Cronbach alpha coefficient for pre-game Self-efficacy scores was .82 and .92 for post-game Self-efficacy scores.

Self-efficacy questionnaires scores were subjected to Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) (Bentler, 1995; Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996). Bentler (1995) argued that structural equation modeling provides a rigorous test of theoretical proposals made by researcher about the dataset. In the present study, it was hypothesized that Self-efficacy items loaded onto a single factor (self-efficacy toward tennis tiebreak competition). It was further hypothesized that the relationship between Self-efficacy items and the hypothesized factor would be invariant across time.

Confirmatory factor analysis of Self-efficacy scores yielded support for the single factor model before the first tiebreak competition (Robust Confirmatory Fit Index: RCFI = .914). CFA for the Self-efficacy scores before the second tie break competition showed support for the single factor model (RCFI =.969). To test the invariance of relationships between Self-efficacy items and the factor, multisample CFA was used. It should be noted that this was not a multisample analysis, but a test-retest design. Equality constraints were placed on relationships between the item and the factor. Results indicated support for factorial invariance (CFI = .917) with Lagrange Multiplier Results showing no significant differences between the relationship between items and the factor.

Procedure

Informed consent for participation was given and confidentiality was assured to each participant. A tiebreak competition was set-up by the second author who is also a tennis coach. Players were drawn against a similarly ranked opponent (players were matched against either the same, one higher or one lower rated opponent of the same gender). It was anticipated that matching of ability would create a realistic, competitive task that would subsequently produce an incentive for meaningful performance.

Players completed the Self-esteem questionnaire and MCOPE before warming-up. After warming-up, players completed the first Self-efficacy questionnaire and then played a tiebreak following normal tennis rules. After the first tiebreak, players were informed that they would compete against a similarly rated opponent in another tiebreak and completed a second Self-efficacy questionnaire. The second tiebreak was then played. Following two matches, this yielded 59 players who lost a tiebreak. Data from losing players went forward to the next stage of analysis.

As previous research (Crocker & Graham, 1995) has found gender differences between ways of coping, self-efficacy, self-esteem, and coping scores, data were compared by gender. If significant differences emerged, gender would be used as a covariate in subsequent analyses. If there were no significant differences, data for males and females would be merged into a single file.

Based on a median split, participants were divided into a low Self-esteem group (N = 24, M= 23.33, SD = 2.13) and a high Self-esteem group (N 35, M= 31.63, SD 3.36). The difference in Self-esteem scores between groups was significant with a large effect size (t = 9.19, p <.001, Effect size -2.84).

To test Hypothesis 1, a repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to investigate differences in Self-efficacy over time by Self-esteem group (High/Low). For Hypothesis two, a Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) was conducted to investigate differences in coping strategies adopted by high and low Self-esteem participants.

Results

MANOVA to compare Self-efficacy, Self-esteem, and coping scores by gender indicated no significant multivariate effect (Hotellings T = .29, 15, 43, p > .05). Further analysis indicated no significant univariate differences (p > .05). Thus, data were merged to form a single file. Descriptive statistics for Self-efficacy and coping scores are contained in Table 1. Effect sizes are reported using the pooled standard deviation method (see Thomas & Nelson, 1996). Thomas and Nelson (1996) argued that an effect size of > 0.8 is large, around 0.5 is moderate, and < 0.2 is small.

A comparison of Self-efficacy scores over time by Self-esteem groups is depicted graphically in Figure 1. Repeated measures ANOVA results indicated a significant interaction effect ([F.sub.1,56]= 6.56, p <.05) for the influence of Self-esteem on changes in Self-efficacy over time. Results indicated that there was a significantly greater decrease in Self-efficacy scores following defeat in the low Self-esteem group (see Figure 1). Self-efficacy reduced by 23 .49% in the low Self-esteem group, and by 11.37% in the high Self-esteem group. There was a significant main effect for differences in Self-efficacy by Self-esteem ([F.sub.1,56] = 4.00, p < .05) groups. As Table 1 indicates there was no significant difference between rated Self-efficacy before the first tiebreak competition with a difference emerging post-competition. ANOVA results indicated that Self-efficacy reduced significantly over time ([F.sub.1,56] = 32.49, p <.01, Table 1). However, it has been suggested that it is not meaningful to interpret main effects when there is a significant interaction, as it implies an interaction does not exist (Pedhazur & Pedhazur-Schmelkin, 1991).

MANOVA to compare Coping scores by Self-esteem groups indicated a significant multivariate effect (Hotellings' [T.sup.2] 57.37, [F.sub.12,46] = 4.19, p <.001). Univariate follow-up analysis indicated that the low Self-esteem group reported significantly lower scores on Seeking social support for instrumental reasons, Planning, and Effort, with higher scores on Behavioral disengagement, Self-blame and Humor. Discriminant function analysis was used to show the strength of the association between Self-esteem and Coping scores. A direct discrimination function analysis was performed using subscales scores of the MCOPE as predictors of high Self-esteem group and low Self-esteem group. Analysis showed that 50 participants (85%) could be correctly classified as being either high Self-esteem or Low Self-esteem on the basis of MCOPE scores [[X.sup.2] (N = 59) = 20.48, p <.05].

Discussion

The aim of the study was to examine the influence of Self-esteem on changes in self-efficacy following defeat. A second purpose was to examine the relationship between self-esteem and coping strategies. Although this line of investigation has received a great deal of research attention in general psychology, it has received little attention in sport psychology. Management of self-efficacy is proposed to be an important part of the work of coaches and applied sport psychologists, something that is particularly relevant to tennis (Weinberg, Grove, & Jackson, 1992). Given the reciprocal relationship between performance and self-efficacy, management of self-efficacy is especially important following defeat. It is generally agreed that applied interventions should be founded on a basis of theory and research. Theoretically driven research to identify factors that influence how players cope with defeat would provide an empirical basis for the development of intervention strategies designed to manage confidence.

In support of the first Hypothesis (see Figure 1), results show that the reduction in Self-efficacy was significantly greater in the Low Self-esteem group following failure. However, it should be noted that although the reduction in Self-efficacy was smaller in the low Self-esteem group (11.37% as opposed to 23.49%), Self-efficacy still reduced significantly following defeat. This result emphasizes the impact of failure on self-efficacy. In support of the second Hypothesis, results demonstrated significant differences in MCOPE scores between Selfesteem groups. Low Self-esteem was associated with a tendency to use coping strategies such as Behavioral disengagement, Self-blame and Humor.

Findings showing that Self-efficacy scores reduced significantly following defeat is consistent with self-efficacy theory (Bandura, 1997). We suggest that identifying the role of self-esteem in the processing of efficacy-related information might serve to further clarify applying the conceptual framework proposed by Bandura (1997) to sport. Consistent with self-efficacy theory, it is suggested that cognitive appraisal of performance that is important (Bandura, 1997). However, we suggest that self-esteem influences the appraisal process, and particularly, the ability to retrieve performance accomplishments stored in the memory. This approach is consistent with previous research showing that individuals high in self-esteem are able to reject negative events and focus on positive attributes, while individuals with low self-esteem tend to internalize failure (Brown & Mankowski, 1993; Dodgson & Wood, 1998). When an individual with low self-esteem encounters failure, it reinforces the negative self-perceptions, and losing tends to be attributed to stable internal causes.

The second purpose of the present study investigated the association between self-esteem and coping styles. In the present study, individuals reporting high Self-esteem indicated a tendency to adopt more problem-focused strategies. As Table 1 shows, high Selfesteem individuals reported higher scores on Seeking social support for instrumental reasons, Planning, and Increasing effort, a finding consistent with previous research (Carver et al., 1989). Seeking social support for instrumental reasons was defined as "seeking advice, assistance, or information" (Carver et al., 1989, p.269). The authors noted that there are conceptual differences between seeking social support for 'instrumental reasons' and for 'emotion reasons' (which involves seeking moral support, sympathy or understanding), while acknowledging that they might often co-occur. Recent research has questioned the independence of social support scales based on the strength of their association (Eklund, Grove, & Heard, 1998). The present study provides support for maintaining separate social support variables when investigating relationships between coping and self-esteem. The results show that individuals low in Self-esteem are more likely to seek out social support for emotional reasons, while those high in Self-esteem are more likely to seek social support for instrumental reasons.

The results also lend support to the notion that individuals high in Self-esteem tend to perceive situations as controllable and react with a strategy aimed at changing the cause of the problem (Dodgson & Wood, 1989). By contrast, individuals reporting lower Self-esteem tend to perceive difficult tasks as beyond their control and consequently tend to resort to using emotion-focused strategies reduce the negative feelings associated with the stressor.

Findings from the present study indicating low self-esteem was associated with using behavioral disengagement and wishful thinking as coping strategies can be used to illustrate how failure can influence self-efficacy. To disengage from a potentially stressful situation is likely to increase the possibility of experiencing failure, and failure is proposed to reduce self-efficacy. General psychology literature suggests that low self-esteem individuals tend to choose to exit a situation as a way of avoiding further humiliation (Baumeister, 1993).

In the present study, low self-esteem individuals reported significantly higher scores on 'wishful thinking'. It is suggested that although these individuals desire positive outcomes (they utilized strategies such as "I daydreamed about a better performance" and "I have fantasies or wishes about how things might turn out"), they lack the belief that they are capable of achieving such an outcome. In a situation where failure has been experienced, or is perceived to be inevitable, it is proposed that low self-esteem individuals do not believe that they can overcome the challenge. Their fragile self-concept is associated with a tendency to doubt their positive abilities and to focus upon their negative ones, even to the point of overgeneralization (Carver & Ganellan, 1983). What they desperately want to achieve becomes difficult due to the perceived demands of the task outweighing the perception of ability.

The esteem literature has provided evidence to suggest that low self-esteem individuals hold fragile, negative self-conceptualizations. This perception is difficult to change as these individuals are caught between wanting to enhance their self-perception but feel the need for self-consistency (Baumeister, 1993). Applying a direct intervention to enhance self-esteem might not be advantageous. The athlete's frailties could be further revealed and a downward negative spiral in self-efficacy could result. Indirect interventions may be more appropriate, for example, teaching individuals how to cope with stressful situations could potentially reduce the amount of negative cognitions/emotions they experience each time they enter a difficult achievement context. For example, problem-focused strategies, where cognitions are directed toward the task, are more likely to produce positive outcomes than strategies that disengage the performer from the activity.

It is important to acknowledge the limitation of the self-efficacy measure used in the present study. The self-efficacy measure was not subjected to a rigorous validation procedure (Anastasi & Urbina, 1997). Although the self-efficacy measure showed evidence of face validity, factorial validity, and internal consistency, it was not subjected to a test of concurrent validity. Concurrent validity is proposed to be an important stage in questionnaire validation as it informs on the meaning of the construct under investigation (Anastasi & Urbina, 1997).

Although the importance of showing evidence of concurrent validity should not be underestimated, identification of an appropriate self-efficacy measure to use as the criterion measure is problematic. Recent research has emphasized the importance of developing self-efficacy measures that assess the important behaviors of interest (Bandura, 1997; Moritz et al., 2001). Bandura (1986, 1997) argued that researchers should follow theoretical guidelines regarding specificity of self-efficacy assessment and correspondence with criterial tasks. Thus, the absence of an existing validated tennis-specific measure of self-efficacy precluded a test of concurrent validity. It could be argued that we could have used a general measure of self-confidence such as the scale used in the Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2 (CSAI-2; Martens, Vealey, Burton, Bump, & Smith, 1990). Moritz et al. (2001) included the CSAI-2 in their meta-analysis. It should be noted that the CSAI-2 does not specify behavioral outcomes specific to tenn is. Further, the self-confidence scale on the CSAI-2 comprises items such as 'I feel at ease' and 'I feel calm' which assess perceptions of calmness rather than self-efficacy. Thus, we argue that although a test of concurrent validity is desirable, it is difficult when developing self-efficacy measure in specific contexts. We argue that there is a need for further research to cross-validate the self-efficacy scale used in the present study to a new sample of tennis players.

In conclusion, findings from the present study lend support for the notion that self-efficacy is malleable, and that performance accomplishments influence self-efficacy. Findings suggest that self-esteem influences the interpretation of defeat, whereby individuals high in Self-esteem protect self-efficacy more than individuals low in Self-esteem. Further, results indicate that individuals high in self-esteem use more adaptive coping strategies. Future work should extend examination of relationships between self-esteem, coping, and changes in self-efficacy in different samples.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

Table 1

Preferred Coping Strategies and Self-Efficacy Levels for Losing Tennis
Players (N = 59)

 Low-self-esteem
 M SD

Self-efficacy
Pre tie-break Self-efficacy for 37.47 6.83
tiebreak 1
Pre tie-break Self-efficacy for 28.67 7.37
tiebreak 2
Coping strategies
Seeking social support for 12.07 2.46
instrumental reasons
Seeking social support for 13.00 3.21
emotional reasons
Behavioral disengagement 9.67 2.77
Self-blame 15.73 2.12
Planning 13.07 2.89
Suppression of competing 12.20 1.82
Venting of emotions 12.80 3.88
Humor 11.87 4.45
Increasing effort 15.80 2.34
Wishful thinking 14.67 3.13
Active coping 14.73 2.15
Denial 9.67 2.82

 High self-esteem
 M SD t

Self-efficacy
Pre tie-break Self-efficacy for 40.82 7.12 1.68
tiebreak 1
Pre tie-break Self-efficacy for 36.18 8.47 2.49 **
tiebreak 2
Coping strategies
Seeking social support for 13.78 2.47 -2.45 *
instrumental reasons
Seeking social support for 12.76 3.09 0.27
emotional reasons
Behavioral disengagement 6.79 2.28 4.31 **
Self-blame 14.28 2.20 2.36 *
Planning 15.08 2.36 -2.91 **
Suppression of competing 13.95 3.56 -1.85
Venting of emotions 10.87 3.72 1.82
Humor 9.61 3.77 2.06 *
Increasing effort 17.42 2.35 -2.44 *
Wishful thinking 12.01 2.83 3.27 **
Active coping 15.59 2.30 -1.34
Denial 9.38 2.29 0.42

 Effect
 Size

Self-efficacy
Pre tie-break Self-efficacy for -.48
tiebreak 1
Pre tie-break Self-efficacy for -1.32
tiebreak 2
Coping strategies
Seeking social support for -.69
instrumental reasons
Seeking social support for .08
emotional reasons
Behavioral disengagement 1.11
Self-blame .67
Planning -.75
Suppression of competing -.66
Venting of emotions .51
Humor .54
Increasing effort -.69
Wishful thinking .88
Active coping -.39
Denial .11

Hotellings' [T.sup.2] = 57.37, [F.sub.12,46] = 4.19,p <.001

** p <.01

* p <.05

References

Anastasi, A., & Urbina, S. (1997). Psychological testing (7th ed.). New York: Prentice-Hall.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review 84, 191-215.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman.

Baumeister, R. F. (1993). Self-esteem: The puzzle of low self-regard. New York: Plenum.

Bentler, P. M. (1995). EQS Structural equation program manual. Los Angeles; CA: BMDP Statistical software.

Brown, J. D. & Dutton, K. A. (1995). The thrill of victory, the complexity of defeat: Self-esteem and people's emotional reactions to success and failure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 28, 712-722.

Brown, J. D.,& Mankowski, T. A. (1993). Self-esteem, mood, and self-evaluation: Changes in mood and the way you see you. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 64, 421-430.

Campbell, J. D. (1990). Self-esteem and clarity of the self-concept. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 59, 528-549.

Carver, C. S. & Ganellen, R. J. (1983). Depression and components of depressive self-punitiveness: High standards, self-criticism, and over-generalization. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 92, 330-337.

Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F., & Weintraub, J. K. (1989). Assessing coping strategies: A theoretically based approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 56, 267-283.

Crocker, R R. E., & Graham, T. R. (1995). Coping by competitive athletes with performance stress: Gender differences and relationships with affect. The Sport Psychologist, 9, 325-338.

Crocker, P. R. E., & Isaak, K. (1997). Coping during competitions and training sessions: Are youth swimmers consistent? International Journal of Sport Psychology 28, 355-369.

Dodgson, P. G. & Wood, J. V. (1998). Self-esteem and the cognitive accessibility of strengths and weaknesses after failure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 178-197.

Eklund, R.C., Grove, J.R., & Heard, N.P. (1998). The measurement of slump-related coping: Factorial Validity of the COPE and Modified-COPE inventories. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology 20, 157-175.

Feltz, D. L. (1982). Path analysis of the causal elements in Bandura's theory of self-efficacy and an anxiety-based model of avoidance behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 42, 762-781.

Feltz, D. L., & Mugno, D. A. (1983). A replication of the path analysis of the causal elements in Bandura's theory of self-efficacy and the influence of autonomic perception. Journal of Sport Psychology 5, 263-277.

Feltz, D. L., & Riessinger, C. A. (1990). Effects of in vivo emotive imagery and performance feedback on self-efficacy and muscular endurance. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology 12, 132-143.

Feltz, D. L., Landers, D. M., & Raeder, U.(1979). Enhancing self-efficacy in high avoidance motor tasks: A comparison of modeling techniques. Journal of Sport Psychology, 1, 112-122.

Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1985). If it changes it must be a process: A study of emotions and coping during 3 stages of a college examination. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 48, 150-170.

George, T. R. (1994). Self-confidence and baseball performance: A causal examination of self-efficacy theory. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology 16, 381-399.

George, T. R., Feltz, D. L., & Chase, M. A. (1992). Effects of model similarity on self-efficacy and muscular endurance: A second look. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology 14, 237-248.

Giacobbi, Jr., P. R., & Weinberg, R. S. (2000). An examination of coping in sport: Individual trait anxiety differences and situational consistency. The Sport Psychologist, 14, 42-62.

Gould, D. Eklund, R. C., & Jackson, S. A. (1993). Coping strategies used by Olympic wrestlers. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 64, 83-93.

Gould, D., & Weiss, M. (1981). Effect of model similarity and model self-talk on self-efficacy in muscular endurance. Journal of Sport Psychology, 3, 17-19.

Kemis, M. H., Brockner, J., & Frankel, B. S. (1989). Self-esteem and reactions to failure: The mediating role of overgeneralization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 707-714.

Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress appraisal and coping. New York, NY, Springer.

Madden, C. C., Summers, J. J., & Brown, D. E. (1990). The influence if perceived stress on coping with competitive basketball. International Journal of Sport Psychology 21, 21-35.

Martens, R., Vealey, R. S., Burton, D., Bump, L., & Smith, D. E. (1990). Development and validation of the Competitive Sports Anxiety Inventory 2. R. Martens, R. S. Vealey, & D. Burton (Eds.), Competitive Anxiety in Sport. (pp. 117-178). Champaign, Ill: Human Kinetics.

Moreland, R. L., & Sweeney, P. (1984). Self-expectancies and reactions of evaluations of personal performance. Journal of Personality, 52, 156-176.

Moritz, S. E., Feltz, D. L., Fahrbach, K. R., & Mack, D. E. (2000). The relation of self-efficacy measures to sport performance: A meta-analytic review. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 71, 280-294.

Pedhazur, E. J., & Pedhazur-Schmelkin, L. (1991). Measurement, design, and analysis: An integrated approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent child Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, F. (1998). Self-efficacy and work-related performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 240-261.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics. (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Harper and Row.

Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. D. (1988). Illusion and well-being: A social psychological perspective on mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 193-210.

Terry, D. J. (1994). Determinants of coping the role of stable and situational factors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 66, 895-910.

Terry, P. C. (1989). The winning mind. Wellingborough, Northants, Thornsons.

Thomas, J. R., & Nelson, J. K. (1996). Research methods in physical activity. (2nd ed.). Human Kinetics: Champaign, IL.

Weinberg, R., Grove, R., & Jackson, A. (1992). Strategies for building self-efficacy in tennis players: A comparative analysis of Australian and American coaches. The Sport Psychologist, 6, 3-13.

Address Correspondence To: Dr. Andrew Lane, School of Sport, Performing Arts, & Leisure, University of Wolverhampton, Gorway Road, Walsall, WS1 3BD. E-mail: A.M.Lane2@wlv.ac.uk