The effects of self-esteem, self-efficacy, and audience presence on soccer penalty shot performance.

Geisler, Guido W.W. ; Leith, Larry M.

The research literature reflects a multidimensional approach to the study of personality and sport performance. As one of the most popular issues in sport psychology, it has been examined extensively over the past three decades. Personality inquiry has considered a number of theoretical approaches. Early applications of sport to personality work adopted trait theory, a perspective based on general, enduring performer characteristics and supported by many researchers (e.g., Allport, 1937; Berger, 1970; Cattell, 1946, 1965; Cooper, 1969; Eysenck, 1967, 1970; Guilford, 1959; Hardman, 1973; Kane, 1970, 1980; Morgan, 1980a, 1980b; Ogilvie, 1968, 1976; Rushall, 1972; Vanek & Cratty, 1970). The contemporary interactional model was applied to sport by Carron (1975) and encompasses both performer characteristics and situational demands as determinants of behavior.

Another important area of study in sport psychology has been the audience or spectator influence on performance. It has repeatedly been shown that the effects of audience presence on task performance vary with the individual and the circumstances. In their meta-analysis of 241 social facilitation studies, Bond and Titus (1983) reported that numerous investigators found the presence of others to facilitate task performance (Allport, 1924; Dashiell, 1930; Travis, 1925; Triplett, 1897). Other researchers documented performance decrements in the presence of others (Husband, 1931; Kopfler, 1958; Pessin, 1933). Efforts to clarify the nature of social facilitation were stimulated by Zajonc's (1965) classic appropriation of drive theory as an explanation for the influential nature of spectators. He concluded that the mere presence of others was sufficient to increase drive, which would in turn elicit an individual's dominant response tendency. Cottrell (1968, 1972) expanded on Zajonc's (1965) review. He postulated that it is the perception that others can observe and evaluate performance, or evaluation apprehension, that facilitates drive and thus, affects performance. The most recent interpretations of audience effects have been offered by Bond (1982) and Leary (1992). These researchers, in discussing self-presentation processes, state that self-presentational concerns, with their accompanying anxiety or activation, can be instrumental in performance outcome.

The research contributions of Ganzer (1968) and Schrauger (1972) suggested a relationship between social facilitation and personality variables which has been extended to the sport domain (Bell & Yee, 1989; Calcote, 1974, 1977; Duncan & McAuley, 1987; Hall, 1979; Kohfeld & Weitzel, 1969; Wankel, 1977). However, despite ample use of self-concept measures in sport research, few empirical studies have investigated the interaction of self-referent thought and audience presence in the athletic environment.

Bandura (1977) has suggested that one's expectations are more important predictors of behavior than is previous behavior. His social learning theory employs self-efficacy as one such situational construct to dictate response, in accordance with the contemporary interactional model of sport personality research. An appropriately general characteristic consistent with trait theory's rigidity is the construct of self-esteem. These two personality variables can be examined within the framework of two widely accepted social facilitation theories. Both cognitive in nature, evaluation apprehension and self-presentation theories emphasize that the presence of others is a learned source of drive. Conditioned responses to spectator presence should be further mediated by general self-esteem and task self-efficacy, as they are also partially attributed to previous experiences. Thus, self-esteem and self-efficacy levels could strongly reflect the magnitude of evaluation and self-presentational concerns. Evaluation apprehension and self-presentation confidence should be functions of general self-confidence and perceived task ability; positive measures on these would result in performance facilitation. These self-referent measures, independently or concurrently, may help clarify what appear to be behavioral inconsistencies when athletes confront the social environment created by the presence of spectators.

Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine the effects of general self-esteem, task self-efficacy, and audience presence on the performance of a sport skill - the soccer penalty shot. With soccer having become a more defensive game, matches are often low-scoring. Subsequently, penalty shots within regulation time have increased in significance, and penalty shootouts to decide outcomes are more prevalent. To illustrate, there were no penalty shootouts in World Cup history prior to 1982. Since then, shootouts have been a part of every World Cup tournament, and the 1994 championship final was in fact decided in this manner.

Despite its general description as relatively simple in mechanical terms, the penalty shot is often associated with performance anxiety and variability. It is widely considered to be a psychological rather than mechanical skill, and success is a function of optimum arousal and focus or concentration. This is largely due to the fact that performance outcome is of considerable importance, especially in close matches. Consequently, common characteristics are frequently attributed to consistent penalty shooters. However, these popular assumptions have not been validated empirically. It was the aim of this study to identify potential factors associated with penalty shot success.

Player confidence and willingness are prime determinants of shooter selection; thus, the self-referent measures selected for investigation may have instrumental roles in the delineation of successful shooters. For example, competent penalty shooters could conceivably exhibit higher levels of self-esteem or task-specific self-efficacy than other players, regardless of role or status within the team. These attributes could then engender a predisposition to the task. Indeed, low profile or substitute players are frequently enlisted for penalty shot situations in lieu of more skilled or high profile teammates. Moreover, unsuccessful penalty shots occur with players of all abilities, a phenomenon most recently (and popularly) evidenced by the 1994 World Cup final match - Franco Baresi and Roberto Baggio, both prominent international figures, failed in their penalty shot attempts for Italy and occasioned Brazil's championship title. To be sure, the self-referent variables of self-esteem and self-efficacy may be more significant factors in penalty shot performance than general playing skill or status.

Additional information may also stem from spectator influences. The penalty shot is never performed in isolation; it attracts the undivided attention of all observers present, including players, coaches, officials, and spectators. At the elite level, the shot is also on display for thousands of attending spectators and millions of television viewers. The shooter is cognizant of the audience, and the interactions of the aforementioned player attributes with observer presence may further reveal the constituents of successful penalty shots.

Methods and Procedures

Subjects

Forty male intercollegiate soccer players (range in age of 19-34 years, M = 23.8, SD = 3.5) served as subjects for the investigation. Participants were recruited from the University of Toronto, York University, and Carleton University varsity soccer teams, all of whom are members of the Ontario Universities Athletic Association (O.U.A.A.). All participants were either current players or recent, active alumni. Each alumnus had graduated within the last 10 years, and was therefore still deemed to be within "playing age." In total, 18 alumni players were employed in the study, while the remaining 22 subjects were current University of Toronto players (subjects were considered current if they were team members at either the onset or completion of testing). All subjects resided in the Toronto area and, as varsity players, were considered skilled in terms of the soccer penalty shot. Thus, the experimenter regarded the task to be measured as simple and well-learned for all participants.

Research Design

The study employed a 2 X 2 X 2 analysis of variance (ANOVA). The dependent variable was assessed as either goal or no goal on each penalty shot, and every subject performed 10 shots. Level of self-esteem, level of self-efficacy, and no audience/audience presence served as the main effects and as the independent variables of the investigation. An independent t test was also performed to determine if self-reported subject activation levels differed significantly between the no audience and audience conditions. A criterion level of .05 was set for the study.

Questionnaires

Subjects were categorized according to the following criteria: High/low self-esteem, high/low self-efficacy, and audience/no audience presence during task performance. Self-esteem measures were obtained using the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965, 1979). The questionnaire consists of 10 items which are answered on a scale of 1 to 4 (strongly agree, agree, disagree, strongly disagree, respectively). Scoring of this scale is carded out relative to other subjects in the sample; the upper half of scores is considered to denote high self-esteem, while the lower half represents low self-esteem (Rosenberg, 1965).

Self-efficacy was assessed using a 10-point Likert scale to indicate subjects' perceived competence in the task relative to other O.U.A.A. varsity soccer players. The scale ranges from 1 (not as good as most other players) to 10 (better than most other players). Self-ratings of 6 or higher were deemed high self-efficacy; ratings of 5 or less constituted low self-efficacy.

Activation level was determined through one item of Orlick's (1986) scale, "Knowing Your Competitive Self". This question employs an 11-point Likert rating, from 0 (no activation - mentally and physically flat) to 10 (highly activated - mentally and physically charged).

Confidentiality of all results and questionnaire scores was guaranteed to participants through the use of a numbered coding system. Subjects were assigned a personal number, and these numbers were used to identify subjects for all recording, tabulation, and analysis purposes. This coding system was adopted primarily to ensure honesty in questionnaire responses, reducing the likelihood that responses would reflect subjects' perceived social desirability.

Penalty Shot Task

All testing was carried out at the University of Toronto's Varsity Stadium. The stadium is fully enclosed and therefore enabled the subjects and goalkeeper to be free of all disturbances or influences during the no audience condition. The same soccer ball was used for all testing, and the experimenter attempted to keep the ball at a consistent level of inflation. All subjects performed their shots on the same goal.

Audience Condition

In the audience condition the experimenter and 4 other subjects served as the test subject's audience. In order to eliminate interactive and uncontrollable variables, the audience was set up to be noninteractive. During the no audience condition, the subjects not being tested, as well as the experimenter, remained out of view in a closed changeroom.

Experimental Procedure

The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale was administered several weeks prior to the start of task performance to obtain a self-esteem measure removed from the soccer environment. The self-efficacy rating was obtained at the same time, with instructions that it was to reflect perceived competence, relative to other O.U.A.A. players, on penalty shots only. Both questionnaires were administered personally by the experimenter. Through partitioning of questionnaire scores, 20 subjects were classified under high self. esteem, and 20 subjects under low self-esteem. In addition, 20 subjects were designated as high self-efficacy, and 20 subjects as low self-efficacy. Thirdly, random assignment exposed 20 subjects to the audience condition, and 20 subjects to the no audience condition.

Task performance testing was done on 8 subgroups of 5 subjects per session. These subgroups were formed on the basis of participant availability and audience/no audience assignment, not on questionnaire scores. This format was designed to minimize the amount of time participants were required to devote to a session. The activation scale was administered to each subject immediately after testing, to assess the activation level that was attained just prior to shooting.

One goalkeeper was used in the study, as a means of eliminating the variable of goalkeeper ability. He was a current member of the varsity team. The entire testing protocol was carried out over a 6-month period, thereby reducing the possibilities of staleness and overexposure on behalf of the goalkeeper.

Upon arrival at Varsity Stadium, the testing location, the goalkeeper was asked to warm up on the field. The procedure was then as follows:

Audience subgroups. The first subject completed five warmup penalty shots without the goalkeeper, while the remaining four subjects took practice shots on the goalkeeper at the other end of the field. Once this preparatory phase was over, the four nontesting subjects watched from either side of the penalty area (two per side). The experimenter joined two of the audience subjects while the goalkeeper positioned himself in goal. The audience members were instructed not to make any overt gestures or comments. The subject then completed 10 penalty shots, from the penalty spot, in this competitive setup. The shooter was instructed to attempt to score as often as possible, and that the totals for all players would be compared. The goalkeeper was told that he should try to stop every shot with a consistent effort. Upon completion of his test shots, each player was administered the activation scale. The remaining subjects were then tested in the same manner. However, during their warmup periods the goalkeeper simply waited at the side of the field, with his back turned. He was able to relax or stretch as necessary.

No audience subgroups. The preparatory phase was as that described above. However, once this phase was completed, only the subject and the goalkeeper remained on the field. The other subjects and the experimenter moved to the closed changeroom. The aforementioned procedure was then followed, with similar instructions. After finishing the 10 shots, both the subject and the goalkeeper returned to the changeroom to report the total. The next subject was then sent out to warm up. Following this, he summoned the goalkeeper, who returned to the field, and the same testing procedure ensued. Again, activation level was measured after testing for each subject. In addition, all players were instructed not to discuss goalie behavior or weaknesses with fellow subjects.

Results

Scores on the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale produced a range of 27-39 out of a possible score of 40. The upper and lower halves of obtained scores were divided in order to dichotomize subjects into high self-esteem and low self-esteem groups, as per the method advised by Rosenberg (1965). Scores of 35 and higher fell into the high self-esteem category (M = 36.75). Scores of 34 and lower were categorized as low self-esteem (M = 31.65). Self-efficacy perceptions were scored more directly. On the 10-point Likert scale, ratings of 6 or higher denoted high self-efficacy (M= 7.50). Scores of 5 or lower indicated low self-efficacy (M = 4.45).

The data were analyzed using a 2 X 2 X 2 analysis of variance. The results are summarized in Table 1. Level of self-esteem (high/low), level of self-efficacy (high/low), and no audience/audience presence were the three factors under examination.

At the .05 criterion level, the significant value for F(1,32) = 4.15 In examining self-esteem, no significant main effect was obtained, F(1,32) = 0.01, p [greater than] .05. This result suggests that general self-esteem did not have any bearing on penalty shot performance in the investigation.

Examination of self-efficacy revealed no significant main effect, F(1,32) = 0.88, p [greater than] .05. The implication of this finding is that task self-efficacy, as a situational measure, was also not instrumental in performance of the penalty shot.

Finally, examination of no audience/audience presence failed to find a significant main effect, F (1,32) = 1.63, p [greater than] .05. Penalty shot performance, therefore, was not influenced by either the presence or absence of an audience.

In addition, the analysis indicated that there were no significant interaction effects. Thus, none of the independent variables described had any concurrent or combination effects on penalty shot performance.

In this investigation, level of general self-esteem, level of task self-efficacy, and the presence or absence of an audience all failed to show any significant effects or interactions during performance of the soccer penalty shot for male intercollegiate soccer players. A summary of mean performance values and standard deviations is provided in Table 2.

Table 1

Complete Analysis of Variance Summary Table for Penalty Shot
Performance

Source of Variation SS df MS F

A: Self-esteem 0.03 1 0.03 0.01
B: Self-efficacy 3.03 1 3.03 0.88
C: No audience/ 5.63 1 5.63 1.63
audience

A X B 0.03 1 0.03 0.01
A X C 0.23 1 0.23 0.07
B X C 0.03 1 0.03 0.01

A X B X C 3.00 1 3.00 0.88

Error 110.80 32 3.46

* p [less than] .05.
Table 2

Mean Number of Goals and Standard Deviations for All Experimental
Measures

Classification M(*) SD

High self-esteem 6.35 1.46
Low self-esteem 6.30 2.08

High self-efficacy 6.60 2.09
Low self-efficacy 6.05 1.39

No audience 6.70 1.78
Audience 5.95 1.73

* Maximum number of goals = 10

Anecdotal evidence was also gathered from participants to assess activation levels generated by the testing environment. The activation scale yielded minimal response differences between subjects performing in the no audience and audience conditions. On a scale from 0 to 10, the mean activation rating by subjects in the no audience condition was 5.45 (range of 2-9). Subjects exposed to the audience condition reported a mean rating of 6.05 (range of 5-8). Thus, the difference in testing environments produced a mean difference in subject activation reports of 0.60 on the scale. An independent t test on this data revealed that the activation levels created by the no audience and audience conditions were not significantly different (t = -1.15; t .05,38 =1.69; p [greater than] .05). From this evidence it appears that the environment manipulation was unsuccessful in creating an arousing audience condition. The possibility also exists that athletes at the intercollegiate level may not be significantly affected by the presence of peer group audiences, or fellow intercollegiate players in particular.

Discussion

The research findings do not support the hypotheses that penalty shot performance in soccer is affected by levels of general self-esteem or task self-efficacy, nor by spectator presence or absence. Thus, we were unable to identify common player characteristics associated with penalty shot success.

However, the literature favors contentions that prior learning and performance history, as well as personality characteristics of performers, are important variables in social facilitation study (e.g., Bell & Yee, 1989; Calcote, 1974, 1977; Cottrell, 1968; Ganzer, 1968; Kohfeld & Weitzel, 1969; Schrauger, 1972; Wankel, 1977). Furthermore, the examination of competitive task performance has renewed its foundation in personality and self-referent thought (Fisher, 1984; Martens, Vealey & Burton, 1990; McAuley, 1992; Vealey, 1990). Consequently, we must consider that self-esteem and self-efficacy may not mirror evaluation apprehension or self-presentation confidence as posited. Application of both theories to social facilitation research has upheld their claims. Conversely, self-referent measures have received scant attention in this context. The absence of empirical support currently supersedes any valid intimations of association between self-esteem, self-efficacy, self-presentation confidence, and evaluation apprehension.

Subsequent studies may be wise to address self-presentation style more directly. Despite the pervasiveness of self-presentational motives, little direct attention has been devoted to the self-presentational aspects of sport (Leary, 1992). In contrast, as Leary (1992) confirms, research questions have emphasized measures of the private self. In self-presentation processes, people monitor and control how they are perceived by others (Schlenker, 1980). Accordingly, more relevant and reliable measures may fall under indices of social anxiety, an affective state whereby individuals doubt they will successfully cast desired impressions on others (Schlenker & Leary, 1982). Measures of anxiety in competitive or performance situations, such as the SCAT (Martens, 1977) and the CSAI-2 (Martens, Burton, Vealey, Bump & Smith, 1983), may be more predictive of the personality and performance relationship. Such measures would accurately assess competitive or social anxiety and, under audience conditions, may petter reflect evaluation apprehension and self-presentational concerns. Relevance to soccer penalty shots could also hold true for other outcome-dependent sport skills, such as basketball foul shots, baseball pitches, golf putts, and football field-goal kicks.

The construct of self-esteem engendered an additional potential research ambiguity in the investigation. In terms of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, the items can be somewhat susceptible to socially desirable responses (Rosenberg, 1965). The test, however, does not employ a social desirability or lie scale. Furthermore, and of scientific pertinence, Rosenberg score distributions tend to produce "low" self-esteem groups that display relatively high self-esteem levels in absolute terms (Rosenberg, 1965). Given that group classification is relative to the scores of the sample population, it is possible that the subjects in the study did not adequately differ in self-esteem levels. As a result, effects which could be attributed to self-esteem variance may have been lost due to undetected subject homogeneity.

The lack of performance differences between high and low self-esteem subjects can be further explained by the relationship between self-esteem and anxiety. Subjects high in self-esteem have reported less general anxiety than subjects low on this measure (Fiedler, Dodge, Jones & Hutchins, 1958; Worchel, 1957). High anxiety levels have also been found to impair complex task performance (Spence, Farber & McFann, 1956). Low self-esteem subjects in the study, therefore, would be expected to score fewer goals. However, the penalty shot task was considered simple and well-learned, as all participants were varsity players. Thus, general anxiety associated with the low self-esteem subjects was apparently of little consequence, since the skill was not complex or novel. Situational anxiety may have been more influential in performance (Schrauger, 1972), but it was not necessarily related to self-esteem. Furthermore, situational activation reports showed that activation was relatively constant for all subjects (t = -1.15, p [greater than] .05). Hence, the nature of the task may have helped minimize the possible effects of general activation and, possibly, of general anxiety. This provided a further reason for the failure of self-esteem to affect penalty shot performance in the investigation.

It was also believed that subjects high in self-efficacy would perform significantly better than their low self-efficacy counterparts. However, this hypothesis was rejected. As with self-esteem, reduced subject variability may have resulted from dichotomizing the self-efficacy measures. In addition, the hypothesis was based in part on research which demonstrated performance decrements in low self-efficacy individuals (Schrauger, 1972). These decrements were attributed to higher levels of anxiety specific to a test situation. Since activation levels in this study proved to be similar across all subjects, it could also be assumed that anxiety levels were accordingly similar. Hence, there was little reason to expect corresponding performance differences.

The foregoing discussion must not be interpreted to undermine the value of self-esteem and self-efficacy examination. Vealey (1980) suggests that there are correlations between competition, intrapersonal variables, and self-presentation confidence. McAuley (1992) calls for additional, sport-oriented research into the relationships between self-efficacy, audience presence, and anxiety. This study's self-referent measures, alone and under social influence, remain significant and relevant lines of inquiry. By reason of the documented measurement limitations and lack of empirical precedence, further study in the athletic setting is indeed recommended.

Social and environmental influences were also factors of interest in this investigation. There is some evidence (e.g., Landers & McCullagh, 1976) that performance quality (as opposed to speed or endurance) of either simple or complex tasks is not affected by the presence of others. This assertion could be viewed as partially supportive of the experimental findings, since task objectives were qualitative in nature. However, as recognized in the literature, the magnitude of environmental manipulations is a strong determinant of social facilitation effects. A more complete and probable account for the absence of main audience effects in this study lies in the nature of the audience condition.

Research regarding the influence of audience size has been contradictory. Studies have demonstrated that the number of spectators is relatively unimportant in motor performance (Bond & Titus, 1983; McCullagh & Landers, 1976; Wankel, 1977), although arousal levels have been positively correlated with the number of observers present. Edwards (1979) infers that audience density and intimacy may be more influential than audience size. Other research, especially field study, suggests that performance level increases with audience size, most notably for home teams (Schwartz & Barsky, 1977). The latter proposal has implications for this study's results. The size of the audience assembled, with five members, was reasonably large with respect to previous research we reviewed. Although some investigators have recruited in excess of five observers (e.g., Dube & Tatz, 1991; Kohfeld & Weitzel, 1969; MacCracken & Stadulis, 1985; Paulus & Cornelius, 1974), most experimenters have created audience conditions with fewer than five spectators (e.g., Bell & Yee, 1989; Calcote, 1974, 1977; Carver & Scheier, 1978; Forgas, Brennan, Howe, Kane & Sweet, 1980; Hollifleld, 1982; Murray, 1983; Schrauger, 1972). It appears that the audience size employed here did not increase arousal, as shown by mean activation scores of 6.05/10 with an audience and 5.45/10 without an audience. Thus, it is possible that a larger audience would have increased subject arousal and thereby altered the effects of self-esteem and self-efficacy.

A final research recommendation submits to the cognitive bases of social facilitation theory. It is plausible that the presence of arousing spectators, when combined with other situational variables, may influence penalty shooters. The operant influences, nevertheless, are likely attributed to these situational and self-referent thought processes. As the experimental evidence suggests, there are situations in which drive theory fails to explain audience effects. Cox (1990) states that it may be necessary to turn to Easterbrook's (1959) cue utilization theory in such situations. This theory is based on constructs of audience distraction and attentional focus. Additional explanations are offered by Duval and Wicklund (1972). These theorists propose that the presence of others raises the individual's objective self-awareness. Both theories reflect cognitive foundations in their accounts of social facilitation effects. While drive interpretations have received extensive consideration in the social facilitation literature, cognitive interpretations may be equally relevant. This is especially true when activation or drive is seemingly unaffected by experimental treatments, as in this investigation. Future studies may wish to make greater use of these or other cognition-based theories.

This research was unable to identify common characteristics associated with penalty shot success. Accepted practice in the soccer community is to select shooters on the basis of their confidence and willingness. Essentially, these shooters select themselves. In the absence of definitive data to contest this procedure, the authors recommend its continuation.

References

Allport, F.H. (1924). Social psychology. Cambridge, MA: Riverside.

Allport, G.W. (1937). Personality: A psychological interpretation. New York: Holt.

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

Bell, P.A., & Yee, L.A. (1989). Skill level and audience effects on performance of a karate drill. Journal of Social Psychology, 129, 191-200.

Berger, B.C. (1970). Effect of three sport environmental factors upon selected personality characteristics of athletes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Teachers College, Columbia University.

Bond, C.F., Jr. (1982). Social facilitation: A self-presentational view. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 1042-1050.

Bond, C.F., Jr., & Titus, L.J. (1983). Social facilitation: A meta-analysis of 241 studies. Psychological Bulletin, 94, 265-292.

Calcote, L.G. (1974). The interaction of extraversion, neuroticism, and audience presence in the performance of a choice reaction time task. Unpublished master's thesis, Northwestern State University.

Calcote, L.G. (1977). The interaction of introversion, neuroticism, and the presence of an evaluative audience on simple reaction time performance (Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern Mississippi, 1977). Dissertation Abstracts International, 5003B.

Carron, A.V. (1975). Personality and athletics: A review. In B.S. Rushall (Ed.), The status of psychomotor learning and sport psychology research. Dartmouth, N.S.: Sport Science Associates.

Carver, C.S., & Scheier, M.F. (1978). Self-focusing effects of dispositional self-consciousness, mirror presence, and audience presence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 324-332.

Cattell, R.B. (1946). Description and measurement of personality. Yonkers-on-Hudson, NY: World.

Cattell, R.B. (1965). The scientific analysis of personality. Baltimore: Penguin Books.

Cooper, L. (1969). Athletics, activity, and personality: A review of the literature. Research Quarterly, 40, 17-22.

Cottrell, N.B. (1968). Performance in the presence of other human beings: Mere presence, audience, and affiliation effects. In E.C. Simmel, R.A. Hoppe, & S.A. Milton (Eds.), Social facilitation and imitative behavior. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Cottrell, N.B. (1972). Social facilitation. In C.G. McClintock (Ed.), Experimental social psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Cox, R.H. (1990). Sport psychology: Concepts and applications (2nd ed.). Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown.

Dashiell, J.F. (1930). An experimental analysis of some group effects. Abnormal Social Psychology, 25, 190-199.

Dube, S.K., & Tatz, S.J. (1991). Audience effects in tennis performance. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 73, 844-846.

Duncan, T., & McAuley, E. (1987). Efficacy expectations and perceptions of causality in motor performance. Journal of Sport Psychology, 9, 385-393.

Duval, S., & Wicklund, R.A. (1972). A theory of objective self-awareness. New York: Academic.

Easterbrook, J.A. (1959). The effect of emotion on cue utilization and the organization of behavior. Psychological Review, 66, 183-201.

Edwards, J. (1979). The home field advantage. In J.H. Goldstein (Ed.), Sports, games, and play: Social and psychological viewpoints. Hillsdale, NJ: Halstead.

Eysenck, H.J. (1967). The biological basis of personality. Springfield, IL: Thomas.

Eysenck, H.J. (1970). The structure of human personality (3rd ed.). London: Methuen.

Fiedler, F.E., Dodge, J.S., Jones, R.E., & Hutchins, E.B. (1958). Interrelations among measures of personality adjustment in nonclinical populations. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 56, 345-351.

Fisher, A.C. (1984). New directions in sport personality research. In J.M. Silva & R.S. Weinberg (Eds.), Psychological foundations of sport (pp. 70-80). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Forgas, J.P., Brennan, G., Howe, S., Kane, J.F., & Sweet, S. (1980). Audience effects on squash players' performance. Journal of Social Psychology, 111, 41-47.

Ganzer, V.J. (1968). Effects of audience presence and test anxiety on learning and retention in a serial learning situation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8, 194-199.

Guilford, J.P. (1959). Personality. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Hall, E.G. (1979). Interaction of locus of control, sex, competition and coaction during performance of a novel motor task (Doctoral dissertation, University of Virginia, 1977). Dissertation Abstracts International, 39, 4121A.

Hardman, K. (1973). A dual approach to the study of personality and performance in sport. In H.T.A. Whiting, K. Hardman, L.B. Hendry, & M.G. Jones (Eds.), Personality and performance in physical education and sport. London: Kimpton.

Hollifield, N.L. (1982). Effect of prior performance experience before audiences on a dominant and nondominant motor response. Journal of Sport Psychology, 4, 317-323.

Husband, R.W. (1931). Effects of social stimulation on human maze learning. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 39.

Kane, J.E. (1970). Personality and physical abilities. In G.S. Kenyon (Ed.), Contemporary psychology of sport: Second International Congress of Sports Psychology. Chicago: The Athletic Institute.

Kane, J.E. (1980). Personality research: The current controversy and implications for sport studies. In W.F. Straub (Ed.), Sport psychology: An analysis of athlete behavior (2nd ed.). Ithaca, NY: Mouvement.

Kohfeld, D.L., & Weitzel, W. (1969). Some relations between personality factors and social facilitation. Journal of Experimental Research in Personality, 3, 287-292.

Kopfler, P.H. (1958). Influence of social interactions on learning rates in birds. Science, 128, 903.

Landers, D.M., & McCullagh, P.D. (1976). Social facilitation of motor performance. Exercise and Sport Sciences Reviews, 4, 125-162.

Leary, M.R. (1992). Self-presentational processes in exercise and sport. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 14, 339-351.

MacCracken, M.J., & Stadulis, R.E. (1985). Social facilitation of young children's dynamic balance performance. Journal of Sport Psychology, 7, 150-165.

Martens, R. (1977). Sport competition anxiety test. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Martens, R., Burton, D., Vealey, R.S., Bump, L.A., & Smith, D.E. (1983). Competitive state anxiety inventory - 2. Unpublished manuscript, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Martens, R., Vealey, R.S., & Burton, D. (1990). Competitive anxiety in sport. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

McAuley, E. (1992). Self-referent thought in sport and physical activity. In T.S. Horn (Ed.), Advances in sport psychology. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

McCullagh, P.D., & Landers, D.M. (1976). Size of audience and social facilitation. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 42, 1067-1070.

Morgan, W.P. (1980a). Sport personology: The credulous-skeptical argument in perspective. In W.F. Straub (Ed.), Sport Psychology: An analysis of athlete behavior (2nd ed.). Ithaca, NY: Mouvement.

Morgan, W.P. (1980b). The trait psychology controversy. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 51, 50-76.

Murray, J.F. (1983). Effects of alone and audience on motor performance for males and females. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 14, 92-97.

Ogilvie, B.C. (1968). Psychological consistencies within the personality of high-level competitors. Journal of the American Medical Association, 205, 780-786.

Ogilvie, B.C. (1976). Psychological consistencies within the personality of high-level competitors. In A.C. Fisher (Ed.), Psychology of sport. Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield.

Orlick, T. (1986). Coaches training manual to psyching for sport. Champaign, IL: Leisure.

Paulus, P.B., & Cornelius, W.L. (1974). An analysis of gymnastic performance are under conditions of practice and spectator observation. Research Quarterly, 45, 56-63.

Pessin, J. (1933). The comparative effects of social and mechanical stimulation upon memorizing. American Journal of Psychology, 45, 263-270.

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

Rosenberg, M. (1979). Conceiving the self. New York: Basic Books.

Rushall, B.S. (1972). Three studies relating personality variables to football performance. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 3, 12-24.

Schlenker, B.R. (1980). Impression management: The self-concept, social identity, and interpersonal relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Schlenker, B.R., & Leary, M.R. (1982). Social anxiety and self-presentation: A conceptualization and model. Psychological Bulletin, 92, 641-669.

Schrauger, J.S. (1972). Self-esteem and reactions to being observed by others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 23, 192-200.

Schwartz, B., & Barsky, S.F. (1977). The home advantage. Social Forces, 55, 641-661.

Spence, K.W., Farber, I.E., & McFann, H.H. (1956). The relation of anxiety (drive) level to performance in competitional and noncompetitional paired-associate learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 52, 296-305.

Travis, L.E. (1925). The effect of a small audience upon eye-hand coordination. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 20, 142-146.

Triplett, N. (1897). The dynamogenic factors in pacemaking and competition. American Journal of Psychology, 9, 507-553.

Vanek, M., & Cratty, B.J. (1970). Psychology and the superior athlete. London: Macmillan.

Vealey, R.S. (1990). Advancements in competitive anxiety research: Use of the Sport Competition Anxiety Test and the Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2. Anxiety Research, 2, 243-261.

Wankel, L.M. (1977). Audience size and trait anxiety effects upon state anxiety and motor performance. Research Quarterly, 48, 181-186.

Worchel, P. (1957). Adaptability screen of flying personnel: Development of a self-concept inventory for predicting maladjustment. (Tech. Rep. No. 56-62) United States Air Force, School of Aviation Medicine.

Zajonc, R.B. (1965). Social facilitation. Science, 149, 269-274.

For further information, please contact:

Guido W. W. Geisler University of Toronto School of Physical and Health Education Toronto, Canada