Cognitive-affective and behavioral correlates of self-schemata in sport.

Boyd, Michael ; Yin, Zenong

Cognition is recognized as playing an integral role in motivation and the regulation of sport behavior (Roberts, 1992). A well established theoretical approach, emanating from the social cognition literature (see Fiske & Taylor, 1984), yet relatively unexamined in the sport sciences, is the role self-schemata plays in the onset and maintenance of behavior. Self-schema theory, initially advanced by Markus (1977), emphasizes the relevance of one's self-image and how this may not only influence cognitive processing but behavioral variation in a particular domain as well.

Schema theory is an information processing approach that assumes people are active agents in constructing reality. A schema is said to be a generic knowledge structure, formulated through experience, and containing information organized about a given concept (Fiske & Taylor, 1984). Schema may contain attributes concerning a given concept, as well as a network of interrelationships among these attributes that relegate how such conceptual knowledge is to be utilized (Hastie, 1981; Rumelhart & Ortony, 1977; Taylor & Crocker, 1981). Schemata not only guide the perception and selection of incoming information, but also influence the organization of such information in memory, and direct how this information is to be eventually utilized (Fiske & Taylor, 1984). Once a schema is instantiated, spreading activation provides an intricate knowledge base from which to draw upon (Anderson, 1982). Schemata may encompass conceptual networks including objects, persons, actions, and social situations (Rumelhart, 1980), but may also involve self-schemata (Fiske & Taylor, 1984).

Self-schemata are cognitive generalizations about the self, deemed important, in which an individual perceives oneself to harbor an extreme point of view (Markus, 1977). Self-schemata are formulated by observing one's own behavior repeatedly over time and eventually develop into a framework which filters the input and output of behavioral information related to the self (Markus, 1977). Furthermore, Markus (1977) acknowledges that this self-related information is organized into a cognitive network used for making judgments, decisions, and predictions about the self, as well as for generating inferences which may go far beyond information readily available. Self-schemata have been shown to speed processing time of self-referent information, to enhance the quality of self-related judgments, and to be more accessible in memory than other information (Kuiper & Rogers, 1979; Markus, 1977; Rogers, Kuiper, & Kirker, 1977).

The salience of self-schemata has been well documented in several domain-specific areas as diverse as independence-dependence (Markus, 1977), body weight (Markus, Hamill, & Sentis, 1987), gender roles (Markus, Crane, Bernstein, & Siladi, 1982), religious beliefs (Caccioppo, Petty, & Sidera, 1982), and Type A & B behavioral patterns (Strube, Berry, Lott, Fogelman, Steinhart, Morgan, & Davison, 1986). Recently, the salience of exercise self-schemata has been documented (Kendzierski, 1994), although presently no studies exist investigating self-schemata in the sport domain.

Kendzierski (1988) found that exercise self-schematics reported to have exercised more frequently and engaged in more exercise activities, were more committed to exercise, and had more tricks and strategies to facilitate exercise behavior than either aschematics (those without an exercise self-schema) or non-exercise schematics (those with a self-schema for not exercising). Exercise schematics have also been found to endorse more exercise words as being self-descriptive, recall more instances of exercise behavior, predict that they would exercise more in the future, and are more likely to initiate an exercise regime than either aschematics or non-exercise schematics (Kendzierski, 1990). Although the paradigm has been applied to exercise behavior, presently theorists have failed to document self-schemata in sport.

In the area of sport expertise, however, considerable research attention has been directed to the examination of the cognitive and motor responses which underscore expert sport performance (see Abernathy, Burgess-Limerick, & Parks, 1994; McPherson, 1994; Thomas, 1994). Sport experts, compared to novice performers, are characterized as possessing more sport-specific semantic knowledge, which is extremely organized, containing more defining features, and having more links interrelating these semantic knowledge structures (French & Thomas, 1987; Thomas, French, & Humphries, 1986). McPherson (1994) has described such expert sport knowledge, "as schemata...problem representations...[and] node-link networks" (p. 228).

Expertise involves the utilization of two types of knowledge, declarative and procedural (Anderson, 1982; Chi, Glaser, & Farr, 1988). Declarative knowledge refers to the "what to do" or response selection component, whereas procedural knowledge refers to the "doing it" or response execution. The former would include, for example, knowledge about rules, player positions, and scoring. Procedural knowledge rather involves decision-making and the selection of an appropriate action given certain conditions. Declarative knowledge operates in the form of a propositional network consisting of nodes and links where each node represents a given concept connected by links (Anderson, 1982; Chi & Rees, 1983). Studies in sport expertise indicate that experts possess more declarative knowledge in sport than do novices (French & Thomas, 1987; McPherson & French, 1991; McPherson & Thomas, 1989). Moreover, the development of declarative knowledge leads to greater procedural knowledge in the form of better decision-making skills in game play (French & Thomas, 1987; McPherson & French, 1991).

Several methods of measuring declarative knowledge in sport have been developed. These include sport knowledge tests, free-recall tasks, speed-accuracy decision-making skills, as well as verbal protocol of planned action in simulated or active game competition (McPherson, 1994). Research on expertise has shown sport knowledge tests to be a reliable and valid indicator of declarative knowledge in the sport domain. Sport knowledge tests have been shown to discriminate expert and novice performers, concerning sport-specific knowledge and superior decision-making ability, among youth tennis and basketball players as well as college age tennis players (French & Thomas, 1987; McPherson and French, 1991; McPherson & Thomas, 1989). Knowledge tests have also been developed in order to assess high and low baseball knowledge (Chiesi, Spilich, & Voss, 1979; Nevett, French, Spurgeon, Rink, & Graham, 1994). In light of the similarities between sport experts and schematics, including the possession of a well developed domain-specific propositional network of conceptual knowledge, as well as superior decision-making ability, it would be predicted that sport schematics would possess declarative knowledge in sport similar in quality to that of experts.

Kendzierski (1990) has made a call to examine the relationship between self-schemata in the sport and exercise domain and other cognitive constructs including self-efficacy, self-motivation, and self-esteem. Self-efficacy is a cognitive mechanism which mediates the strength of an individual's conviction that one can successfully execute a particular task (Bandura, 1977). Feltz (1992) contends that the most widely used theory for examining self-confidence in sport has been self-efficacy, which determines the challenge and perseverance an individual is willing to undertake in the presence of difficulty. Self-efficacy has consistently been shown to be associated to performance in sport (Feltz, 1982, 1988; Feltz & Mugno, 1983; McAuley & Gill, 1983; Weinberg, Gould, & Jackson, 1979; Weiss, Weise, & Klint, 1989). In the sport psychology literature, self-efficacy has been used synonymously with self-confidence (Roberts, 1992). It would be expected that sport schematics would possess more self-efficacy, in the form of self-confidence, than either aschematics and non-schematics.

In the model, enjoyment should be included as a dependent variable because of its contemporary significance to sport commitment (Scanlan & Simons, 1992). Enjoyment, or the lack thereof, has been shown to be related to both participation and dropout in sport (Gill, Gross, & Huddleston, 1983; Gould, Feltz, Horn & Weiss, 1982). Sport enjoyment has also been reported to be associated to perceived competence in the physical domain as well as preference for challenge (Chalip, Csikszentmihalyi, Kleiber, & Larson, 1984; Scanlan & Lewthwaite, 1986; Wankel & Kreisel, 1985). Schematics would be predicted to express greater levels of sport enjoyment than non-schematics, as by definition the sport domain is highly important to the image they have of themselves.

Finally, self-reported behavioral measures of participation in sport will be assessed. Past research examining exercise self-schemata has found that exercise schematics recalled more instances of exercise and predicted that they would exercise more in the future than either aschematics or non-schematics (Kendzierski, 1990). based on this research, it is predicted that sport schematics would report higher frequency of participation in their sport than non-schematics.

Given the notable research concerning self-schemata in the social cognition literature and its influential effect on categorical accessibility, emotional valence, and the regulation of behavior, presently there is a need to examine self-schemata in the sport domain. The purpose of the present study was to document self-schemata in the baseball domain and to examine the cognitive (declarative knowledge, self-confidence), behavioral (frequency of participation), and affective (enjoyment) correlates of self-schemata in baseball. Sport schemata was operationalized in accordance with the universally accepted model (Markus, 1977), although due to the exploratory nature of the study no specific hypotheses were generated.

Method

Subjects

Subjects were 165 undergraduate students (78 females and 87 males) enrolled in first aid and safety courses at a South Texas university. Mean age of the subjects was 24.84 years (SD = 4.97). Informed consent was established as subjects were told that their participation was voluntary and anonymous. Subjects were requested to answer study questions in an honest manner.

Measures

Sport Self-Schemata. In order to assess whether participants were schematic for baseball (schematics), schematic for not playing baseball (non-schematics), or aschematic, the methodology (described in detail below) devised by Markus (1977) was used. This methodology employs three key phrases, initially designed to assess independence-dependence self-schemata, and later modified to measure self-schemata in domains as diverse as body weight (Markus et al., 1987), gender roles, (Markus et al., 1982), Type A and B behavior (Strube et al., 1986), and exercise (Kendzierski, 1988, 1990). Participants in the present study were requested to respond to the three key phrases, modified from Markus (1977) original items: "someone who plays baseball/softball regularly," "someone who keeps playing baseball/softball," and "someone who is physically active in baseball/softball", embedded within a larger scale. The Markus (1977) protocol used requires subjects to indicate on an 11-point response scale, ranging from I (does not describe me), to 11 (describes me), whether each of the three items is self-descriptive or not.

Using the Markus (1977) methodology, subjects were also requested to indicate the importance of each descriptor phrase "to the image you have of yourself, regardless of whether or not the trait describes you." Markus (1977) contends that the development of domain-specific self-schemata requires that not only must an individual categorize oneself as active in a given domain, but that the category must also be important to one's self-image. Utilizing the method of categorization suggested by Markus (1977), schematics were categorized as those who rated at least two of the three self-schemata items as highly self-descriptive (scores 8-11) and also rated at least two of the three descriptors as extremely important to their self-image (scores 8-11). To be classified a non-schematic, one must have rated at least two of the three self-schemata items as extremely non-descriptive (scores 1-4) and also have rated at least two of the descriptors as highly important to their self-image (scores 8-11). Finally, aschematics were classified as those who rated at least two of the three self-schemata items as moderately self-descriptive (scores 4-7) and also rated at least two of the three descriptors as not highly important to the image they have of self (scores 1-7). Those participants who failed to fall into any of the three specified self-schemata categories were left unclassified.

Baseball Knowledge. A subset of the Baseball Knowledge Test (Nevett et al., 1994) designed to assess players' declarative knowledge in baseball (and softball) was used to quantify sport-specific knowledge of rules, player positions, strategies and decision-making in the game. The 16-item test provides a multiple-choice format to the respondent. The Baseball Knowledge Test has been shown to discriminate between expert and novice baseball players regarding degree of baseball knowledge (Nevett et al., 1994). The authors report acceptable psychometric properties of the instrument. The internal reliability coefficient (Cronbach, 1951) for the baseball knowledge scale in the present study was .81.

Trait Sport Confidence. Utilizing a slightly modified version of Vealey's (1986) Trait Sport Confidence Inventory, subjects indicated their level of trait sport confidence in the baseball-softball domain. The sport-specific trait confidence instrument has been used extensively in the sport psychology literature. Items of the original instrument were altered by replacing the word "sport" with the words "baseball/softball". Vealey (1986) reports acceptable psychometric properties of the instrument including construct validity as well as internal reliability. Cronbach (1951) alpha was .96 for the trait sport confidence inventory.

Sport Affect. Subjects self-reported the degree of their sport-specific enjoyment by completing a scale developed by Duda and Nicholls (1992). The instrument consists of satisfaction/enjoyment and boredom subscales. Duda and Nicholls (1992) report adequate psychometric properties of the scale. Items were slightly modified by replacing the word "sports" with the words baseball/softball". Internal reliability coefficients of .95 and .89 were observed for the satisfaction/enjoyment and boredom subscales, respectively.

Frequency of Sport Participation. Subjects were requested to indicate the number of years they had played any type of organized baseball or softball, including youth sport leagues, high school and college athletics. Respondents also indicated how often they had participated in baseball or softball both in the past 30 days and 6 months, as well as how often they intended to play in the next 30 days and 6 months.

Results

Categorization of Subjects

Subjects were assigned to one of four groups in accordance with the Markus (1977) established procedure explained above, dependent upon their responses on the self-schemata scale. These groups were labeled as schematics, non-schematics, aschematics, and those whose responses did not fall into any of the other three groups. Of the original 165 subjects, a final sample yielded 21 schematics, 10 non-schematics, and 16 aschematics. The remainder of the sample failed to fall into any of the previous three groups, and were therefore deleted from further analysis. Accordingly, a total of 47 subjects were selected to be included in the final analysis(1).

Results of One- Way F- Tests

In order to examine differences among the three self-schemata groups, one-way F-tests were conducted on each of the remaining variables in accordance with established procedure (Kendzierski, 1994; Markus, 1977). Analysiswise alpha levels were controlled and adjusted to alpha [less than] .006, following the suggestion of Cliff (1987). Further probing was performed using the Student-Newman-Keuls test (SPSS Inc., 1988) to identify specific group variations. Table I displays the means and standard deviations of the dependent measures.

Significant overall differences were found among the three self-schemata groups in baseball knowledge, F(2,44) = 6.72, p [less than] .003. Follow-up Student-Newman-Keuls comparisons indicated that schematics (M = 9.43) were significantly more knowledgeable than non-schematics in the baseball domain (M = 4.70).

Regarding trait sport confidence, overall differences were also indicated among the three groups, F(2,44) = 8.63, p [less than] .001. Post-hoc analysis revealed that schematics (M = 106.06) expressed significantly more trait sport confidence than either aschematics (M = 86.14) or non-schematics (M = 76.90).

An overall significant F-test also revealed differences among the three groups with regard to level of satisfaction/enjoyment, F(2,44) = 6.56, p [less than] .003. Follow-up Student-Newman-Keuls analysis indicated that schematics (M = 31.03) enjoyed their participation to a greater [TABULAR DATA FOR TABLE 1 OMITTED] extent than did non-schematics (M = 26.20). Furthermore, aschematics (M = 30.75) also reported significantly higher levels of satisfaction/enjoyment than did non-schematics. No significant overall difference was observed among the three groups on the boredom measure.

Finally, frequency of participation was analyzed among the three self-schema groups. A significant overall F-test indicated differences among the groups on years of experience, F(2,44) = 9.24, p [less than] .0001. Post-hoc analysis indicated that schematics (M = 12.05) reported they had played the sport for more years than did either aschematics (M = 6.10) or non-schematics (M = 2.70). Schematics reported to have participated more times in the previous 30 days, F(2,44) = 6.24, p [less than] .003. Post-hoc comparisons revealed that schematics (M = 5.19) reported to have played more often in the past 30 days than either aschematics (M = 1.63) or non-schematics (M = 0.20). Schematics also reported to have played more often in the past 6 months, F(2,44) = 9.93, p [less than] .0001 than the other two groups. Post-hoc analysis indicated that schematics (M = 25.43) reported to have played more in the past 6 months than either aschematics (M = 8.13) or non-schematics (M = 1.20). A preliminary F-test indicated an overall difference among the three groups regarding anticipation to play in the next 30 days, F(2,44) = 7.11, p [less than] .002. Schematics anticipated that they would play more often than either aschematics or non-schematics. Means for the three groups were 5.10, 1.13, and .20 respectively. Overall differences were also observed regarding anticipation to participate in the next 6 months, F(2,44) = 3.77, p [less than] .0001. Post-hoc comparisons revealed that schematics anticipated that they would play more often in the next 6 months than either aschematics or non-schematics. Means for the three groups were 22.25, 5.38, and 1.30 respectively. No significant differences emerged between aschematics or non-schematics on any of the participation measures (see Table 1).

Discussion

The results demonstrated that self-schemata in sport not only serves to facilitate accessibility to domain-specific sport knowledge, but is also intimately associated to reliable measures of cognitive and affective correlates of the construct. Subjects who were schematic for baseball/softball, compared to non-schematics, were found to possess more declarative knowledge concerning decision-making and strategies of the game. Schematics also reported possessing higher levels of trait sport confidence than did either non-schematics or aschematics. Both schematics and aschematics expressed that they enjoyed their sport participation to a greater extent than did non-schematics.

The finding that schematics possessed greater sport knowledge than non-schematics reflects related research indicating experts in sport to have greater declarative knowledge than novices (French & Thomas, 1987; McPherson & Thomas, 1989). The development of declarative knowledge apparently leads to greater procedural knowledge in the form of decision-making ability in sport (McPherson & French, 1991). Schematics were not, however, found to express significantly more sport declarative knowledge than aschematics, results which were not highly unexpected. Aschematics, by definition, consider an attribute to be moderately self-descriptive, perhaps indicative of at least some experience in the domain. Whether this is in the form of overt participation, of a vicarious nature, or a combination of the two, apparently it may lead to profound gains in decision-making and strategic abilities over and above those individuals who are non-schematic. For instance, Kendzierski (1990) reported that both exercise schematics and aschematics expressed shorter response latencies to exercise stimuli than did non-schematics, but were, however, insignificantly differentiated. Thus, in aschematics, instantiation of a moderately developed schema may serve to facilitate accessibility to schema relevant knowledge as well. Together, these findings are noteworthy as they enjoin the development of self-schemata to expertise in sport.

The trait sport confidence measure was found to distinguish the three self-schema groups in the desired direction. Kendzierski (1990) suggests research is needed in order to examine the relationship between self-schemata and variables such as self-efficacy in an effort to enhance the discriminative validity of the self-schema construct. Results indicating that schematics possessed more trait sport confidence than either aschematics or non-schematics is quite consistent with the literature concerning perceived ability and participation motivation in sport (Roberts, 1984, 1992). Possession of a self-schema is said to be partially dependent upon past participation in a given domain (Markus, 1977). It certainly follows that perceived ability, or confidence, would be positively related to the formation of self-schemata and experience in the sport domain. The behavioral data further support this tenet.

Significant patterns emerged regarding the self-reported behavioral data. Schematics reported more years of participation as well as more participation in past months than either of the other two groups. Schematics anticipated that they would participate more in the future than either aschematics or non-schematics. Kendzierski (1990) reported similar results with exercise schematics. The behavioral data thus provided preliminary evidence that ongoing participation in the sport domain is highly associated to self-schemata. However, because both self-schemata and frequency of participation were assessed concurrently, whether possession of a self-schema induces participation or if ongoing participation precludes the development of self-schemata remains an unanswered issue.

Regarding enjoyment, both schematics and aschematics reported that they enjoyed their sport experience to a greater extent than non-schematics. Sport participation, dropout, and perceived competence have all been found to be associated to sport enjoyment (Gill et al., 1983; Gould et al., 1982). If schematics are considered to be active participants, as the behavioral data suggest, and also express greater confidence in the sport domain, it certainly follows that they would report greater sport enjoyment than non-schematics.

An argument could be advanced that self-schema and its associated correlates merely reflect experience in sport. Markus (1977), however, eloquently argues that although experience is deemed necessary for the formation of self-schemata, it is by no means sufficient. According to Markus, it is the perceived importance of the dimension, as well as experience, which separates those individuals who do and do not possess self-schemata. Thus, although two individuals may have similar experience, it is the person who perceives a domain to be important to their self-image who is self-schematic. Given this line of reasoning, it follows that interventions directed at developing self-schemata in those who are aschematic and altering self-schemata of those who are non-schematic would be a realistic goal for future inquiry.

In order to increase the importance of the sport domain, value should be placed on teaching motor skill improvement rather than focusing on social comparison and performance outcome, in order to induce a sense of perceived ability (Duda, 1992). Providing meaningful experiences in sport can facilitate the development of confidence and subsequently enhance the importance of sport for those, who are as of yet, not schematic in the sport domain. Enhancing the image one has of self as a sport participant may not only serve to increase sport importance but also instill greater confidence in sport, which as the results suggest, are intimately associated to self-schemata.

In summary, this research provides a promising avenue of inquiry for understanding the role self-knowledge plays in the regulation of sport behavior. From a practical standpoint, it also serves to provide insight into functional interventions with the goal to increase participation in organized sport. Through the identification of those individuals in need of attention or development of self-schema in sport, this line of research has the potential to provide a meaningful contribution. For those who presently disdain their self-image in sport and seek to change it, the implications of this research are far-reaching.

Note

1 The final sample consisted of 32 male and 15 female subjects. A one-way F-test indicated no significant gender differences on all variables of interest.

References

Abernathy, B., Burgess-Limerick, R., & Parks, S. (1994). Contrasting approaches to the study of motor expertise. Quest, 46, 186-198.

Anderson, J. R. (1982). Acquisition of cognitive skill. Psychological Review, 89, 369-406.

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

Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., & Sidera, J. A. (1982). The effects of a salient self-schema on the evaluation of proattitudinal editorials: Top-down versus bottom-up message processing. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 18, 324-338.

Chalip, L., Csikszentmihalyi, M., Kleiber, D., & Larson, R. (1984). Variations of experience in formal and informal sport. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 55 (2), 109-116.

Chi, M. T. H., & Rees, E. T. (1983). A learning framework for development. In M. T. H. Chi (Ed.), Contributions in human development (Vol. 9, pp. 71-107). Basel: S. Karger.

Chi, M. T. H., Glaser, R., & Farr, M. J. (1988). The nature of expertise. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Chiesi, H. L., Spilich, G. J., & Voss, J. F. (1979). Acquisition of domain-related information in relation to high and low domain knowledge. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 257-273.

Cliff, N. (1987). Analyzing Multivariate Data. San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Cronbach, L. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297-334.

Duda, J. L. (1992). Motivation in sport setting: A goal perspective approach. In G. C. Roberts (Ed.), Motivation in Sport and Exercise (pp. 3-30). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Duda, J. L., & Nicholls, J. G. (1992). Dimensions of achievement motivation in schoolwork and sport. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 290-299.

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, 764-781.

Feltz, D. L. (1988). Gender differences in the causal elements of self-efficacy on a high avoidance motor task. Journal of Sport Psychology, 10, 151-166.

Feltz, D. L. (1992). Understanding motivation in sport: A self-efficacy perspective. In G. C. Roberts (Ed.), Motivation in Sport and Exercise (pp. 93-105). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

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.

Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1984). Social cognition. New York: Random House.

French, K. E., & Thomas, J.P. (1987). The relation of knowledge to children's basketball performance. Journal of Sport Psychology, 8, 15-32.

Gill, D. L., Gross, J. B., & Huddleston, S. (1983). Participation motivation in youth sport. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 14, 1-14.

Gould, D., Feltz, D., Horn, T., & Weiss, M. (1982). Reasons for sport attrition in competitive youth swimming. Journal of Sport Behavior, 5, 155-165.

Hastie, R. (1981). Schematic principles in human memory. In E. T. Higgins, C. P. Herman, & M.P. Zanna (Eds.), Social cognition: The Ontario symposium (Vol. 1). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Kendzierski, D. K. (1988). Self-schemata and exercise. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 9 (1), 45-59.

Kendzierski, D. K. (1990). Exercise self-schemata: Cognitive and behavioral correlates. Health Psychology, 9 (1), 69-82.

Kendzierski, D. K. (1994). Schema theory: An information processing focus. In R. K. Dishman (Ed.), Advances in exercise adherence (pp. 137-159). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Kupier, N. A., & Rogers, T. B. (1979). Encoding of personal information: Self-other differences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 499-514.

Markus, H. (1977). Self-schemata and processing information about the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 499-514.

Markus, H., Crane, M., Berstein, S., & Siladi, M. (1982). Self-schemas and gender. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 38-50.

Markus, H. Hamill, R., & Sentis, K. P. (1987). Thinking fat: Self-schematas for body weight and the processing of weight relevant information. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 17, 50-71.

McAuley, E., & Gill, D. (1983). Reliability and validity of the physical self-efficacy scale in a competitive sport setting. Journal of Sport Psychology, 5,410-418.

McPherson, S. L. (1994). The development of sport expertise: Mapping the tactical domain. Quest, 46, 223-240.

McPherson, S. L., & French, K. E. (1991). Changes in cognitive strategies and motor skill in tennis. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 13, 26-41.

McPherson, S. L., & Thomas, J. R. (1989). Relation of knowledge and performance in boys' tennis: Age and expertise. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 48, 190-211.

Nevett, M. E., French, K. E., Spurgeon, J. H., Rink, J. E., & Graham, K. C. (1994, May). Skill and cognitive contributions to children's baseball performance across age and player positions. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance, Washington, DC.

Roberts, G. C. (1984). Achievement motivation in children's sport. In J. G. Nicholls (Ed.), Advances in motivation and achievement: Vol. 3 The development of achievement and motivation (pp. 251-281). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Roberts, G. C. (1992). Motivation in sports and exercise: Conceptual constraints and consequence. In G. C. Roberts (Ed.), Motivation in Sport and Exercise (pp. 3-30). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Rogers, T. B., Kupier, N. A., & Kirker, W. S. (1977). Self-referenced and the encoding of personal information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 677-688.

Rumelhart, D. L. (1980). Schemata: The building blocks of cognition. In R Spiro, B. Bruce, & W. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension (pp. 161-188). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Rumelhart, D.E., & Ortony, A. (1977). The representation of knowledge in memory. In R. C. Anderson, R. J. Spiro, & W. E. Montague (Eds.), Schooling and the Acquisition of Knowledge (pp. 99-135). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Scanlan, T. K., & Lewthwaite, R. (1986). Social psychological aspects of competition for male youth sport participants: IV. Predictors of sport enjoyment. Journal of Sport Psychology, 8, 25-35.

Scanlan, T. K., & Simons, J.P. (1992). The construct of sport enjoyment. In G. C. Roberts (Ed.), Motivation in Sport and Exercise (pp. 199-215). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

SPSS Inc. (1988). SPSS-X User's Guide (3rd ed.). Chicago, IL.

Strube, M. J., Berry, J. M., Lott, C. L., Fogelman, R., Stienbert, G., Morgan, S., & Davidson, L. (1986). Self-schematic representation of type A and B behavior patterns. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 170-180.

Taylor, S. E., & Crocker, J. (1981). Schematic bases of social information processing. In E. T. Higgins, C. P. Herman, & M.P. Zanna (Eds.), Social cognition: The Ontario symposium (Vol. 1). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Thomas, K. T. (1994). The development of sport expertise: From Leeds to MVP legend. Quest, 46, 199- 210.

Thomas, J. R., French, K. E., & Humphries, C. A. (1986). Knowledge development and sport skill performance: Directions for motor behavior research. Journal of Sport Psychology, 8, 259-272.

Vealey, R. S. (1986). Conceptualization of sport confidence and competitive orientation: Preliminary investigation and instrument development. Journal of Sport Psychology, 8, 221-246.

Wankel, L. M., & Kreisel, P.S. J. (1985). Factors underlying enjoyment of sport and age group comparisons. Journal of Sport Psychology, 7, 51-64.

Weinberg, R., Gould, D., & Jackson, A. (1979). Expectations and performance: An empirical test of Bandura's self-efficacy theory. Journal of Sport Psychology, 1, 320-331.

Weiss, M. R., Wiese, D. M., & Klint, K. A. (1989). Head over heels with success: The relationship between self-efficacy and performance in competitive youth gymnastics. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 11, 444-451.