An exploratory examination of the effects of coaches' pre-game speeches on athletes' perceptions of self-efficacy and emotion.

Vargas-Tonsing, Tiffanye M.

Throughout all team sports, players are gathered together to hear their coach's final thoughts immediately prior to the start of a game. These speeches often contain information about opponents, reminders of team strategy, and may also include arousing and emotional words and phrases. Coaches use these speeches hoping to contribute to athletes' performances, and ultimately, to a victory. However, critics of the pre-game speech caution coaches as many have suggested that when a coach uses this technique to "pump-up" athletes, the coach is actually at risk for pushing anxious athletes beyond their optimal arousal and potentially towards a performance decline (Duffy, 1981; Mack, 1999; Martens, 2004). Yet Deffenbacher (1980) and Morris, Davis, & Hutchings (1981) note that the adverse effects of anxiety on an individual's performance are often due to worry, rather than to emotionality. This then might suggest that speeches that are full of emotion and used to "pump up" athletes, may actually be helpful, as they might redirect worrisome thoughts towards more facilitating emotions. Thus, it is clear that more information on the benefits, or pitfalls, of pre-game speeches is needed. Therefore, this study is designed to explore coaches' pre-game speeches and their effects on athletes' self-efficacy and emotions.

Self-Efficacy

Self-efficacy is defined as a person's belief in his/her ability to perform a specific task. These efficacy beliefs will determine how much effort a person will expend as well as how long the same person will persist when faced with obstacles. The stronger the efficacy beliefs, the stronger the effort put forth (Bandura, 1977).

Since Bandura's (1977) conception of self-efficacy, many researchers (but not all, see Vancouver, Thompson, Tischner & Putka, 2002) have shown it to have a positive correlation with athletic performance (Feltz, 1982; George, 1994; Miller, 1993; Weinberg, Gould, Yukelson, & Jackson, 1981; Weiss, Wiese, & Klint, 1989). A positive relationship has been demonstrated across a host of sport situations, including but not limited to swimming (Miller, 1993), wrestling (Gould, Horn, & Spreeman, 1983), weightlifting (Ness & Patton, 1979) and volleyball (Alexander & Krane, 1996).

According to Bandura (1977), self-efficacy is influenced through four principal sources of information: performance accomplishments, vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion, and emotional arousal. Since then, others have suggested that one's emotional state (Maddux & Meier, 1995; Treasure, Monson & Lox, 1996) and imaginal experiences (Maddux, 1995), of which Bandura (1995) refers to as cognitive self-modeling, are also efficacy sources. Performance accomplishments are based on personal mastery experiences and are proposed to be the most influential source of information, followed by vicarious experiences and forms of persuasion (Bandura, 1977). However, of the sources of efficacy information, verbal persuasion is perhaps the most convenient and readily available tool for coaches. In fact, Bandura (1997) discussed the important role of the coach in impacting individual efficacy perceptions through not only the coach's own perceived efficacy (e.g., coaching efficacy), and coaching behavior (e.g., leadership style), but also through verbal persuasion (e.g., feedback provided to athletes). Interestingly, both coaches and athletes consider the technique of verbal persuasion to be a highly used, as well as a highly effective, coaching tool for increasing efficacy (Vargas-Tonsing, Myers, & Feltz, 2004).

Although coaches are armed with a variety of choices for verbal persuasion, little is known about the verbal persuasion athletes deem most effective. Research has suggested that verbal persuasion used to give informative feedback to athletes is an important aspect of developing self-efficacy (Amorose & Weiss, 1998; Black & Weiss, 1992; Horn, 1985). In this manner, coaches are able to administer informational feedback by reviewing individual and collective strengths, thereby articulating their confidence in the skill of both individual players and the team as a whole. This use of positive, informational feedback is thought to benefit performance as it increases athletes' perceived competence in themselves and in their team (Allen & Howe, 1998). Athletes also use their coach's feedback as a source of information to determine ability, effort and future expectation of success (Amorose & Weiss, 1998).

While verbal interactions during practice provide what might be the most obvious and powerful setting in which to increase efficacy, the pre-game speech may provide an additional, and final, opportunity to do so. To date, minimal research (Vargas-Tonsing & Bartholomew, 2006; Vargas-Tonsing & Guan 2007) has examined the role of verbal persuasion and its influence in the pre-game speech. However, according to previous research on coach's verbal persuasion (i.e., feedback), it would seem that an informative and strategy-based pre-game speech would be most likely to increase athletes' efficacy levels. Yet, if this were the case, Knute Rockne's "Win one for the Gipper" speech would not have inspired his team to victory and coaches would not use clippings of quotes from opponents to inspire their teams. Thus, perhaps invoking emotions prior to competition may also impact athletes' self-efficacy.

Emotion

In 1985, Maddux and Meier suggested that in addition to Bandura's (1977) four sources of efficacy, one's emotional state might be a supplementary source of information used to form efficacy beliefs. Others concurred with this view by suggesting that emotions "act as a filter through which people view efficacy information" (Kavanagh & Bower, 1985, p. 508). Kuchenbecker (2003) suggested that without emotions, it is impossible to excite and push players to a higher level of performance.

Deci (1980) conveyed the meaning of the term emotion with the following working definition: An emotion is a reaction to a stimulus event (either actual or imagined). It involves change in the viscera and musculature of the person, is experienced subjectively in characteristic ways, is expressed through such means as facial changes and action tendencies, and may mediate and energize subsequent behaviors. (p. 85)

This definition not only encompasses the emotional components, but also implies that emotion can motivate future behaviors, an interesting concept for sport.

In 1977, Weiner suggested that motives were largely determined by emotions as well as that specific emotions were linked to specific motives. For example, the emotion of anger would lead to an aggressive play style. Years later, others would concur with this idea. Fridja (1986) proposed that action tendencies are inherent in emotion and would lead individuals either towards or away from an object and Izard (1993) suggested that emotions would dictate an individual to attend to immediate concerns and needs. Research findings have repeatedly supported this proposed linkage between emotion and motivational consequences and behavior. Scanlan, Stein, and Ravizza (1989) found that positive affective states are associated with elite performers' desire to continue to perform and exert effort. Conversely, negative affective states are related to dropping out of sport (Gould, Feltz, Horn, & Weiss, 1982), decreased performance (Burton, 1988) and low personal performance expectancies (Burton & Martens, 1986). Kavanagh and Hausfeld (1986) induced happy and sad moods through an audiotape and measured handgrip and push-up performance. Results indicated a significant difference for performance between happy and sad groups with the happy group reporting higher feelings of efficacy and greater expectations for personal performances. These findings indicate that a person's mood, or emotional state, can impact motivation and performance. Therefore, attaining the appropriate level of emotion may be an extremely important aspect of sport performance.

Hanin (1997) discussed this important aspect in his Individual Zone of Optimal Functioning theory. In the construction of this theory, Hanin adopted a general view of emotion, similar to Weiner's (1986), which included not only emotions such as pride or anger, but also affective feeling states such as feeling confident. This led to his consideration of not only anxiety, but also several other emotions/feeling states that were categorized as either positive or negative. Hanin then took his view of emotion one step further and separated the positive and negative emotions into those that are optimal for performance (functional), and those which are debilitating (dysfunctional) for performance. For example, the positive emotions of "energetic" and "charged" are thought to facilitate performance while "easygoing" and "composed" are thought to be detrimental. Similarly, negative emotions such as "tense" and "dissatisfied" are facilitating, "tired" and "unwilling" are not. This theory further contends a link between emotional states and performance. Therefore, it may be possible for a coach who is able to appropriately manipulate athletes' emotional states to gain an important edge in competition.

In 1987, Gallmeier observed a coach doing just that. In following a coach and his professional hockey team across a competitive season, Gallmeier noted and documented various ways in which the coach delivered motivational stimuli, such as posted and verbal messages, throughout the day to his team. In doing so, the coach helped "peak" the athletes' feelings of emotion to correspond with game time. With his study, Gallmeier indicated that a team's coach has a vital role in directing the style of play. While many coaches may not have access to athletes several hours prior to competition, some coaches might choose to utilize the pre-game talk to "psych up" their athletes. In a study involving competitive soccer players, results found that players who were exposed to an emotional pre-game speech reported higher feelings of efficacy as well as predicted greater margins of victory in an imagined game situation (Vargas-Tonsing & Bartholomew, 2006). Additional research by Vargas-Tonsing & Short (2008) found that athletes' consider the coach's emotional delivery of the pre-game speech to be important. Athletes indicated that the speeches given by their coaches would have been improved and/or they would have liked to have heard more emotion from their coach.

Given the potential impact of a coach's verbal persuasion on his/her athlete's emotions, it is important to realize that the pre-game talk is often the final opportunity to do so until halftime. Thus, it is surprising that little research has examined the role of pre-game talks on athletes' emotions. However, it is important to note that regardless of the coach's intentions of the speech, it is how the athletes perceive it that will influence their expectations and motivational states.

Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine coaches' pre-game speeches and whether athletes' perceptions of these speeches impact athletes' self-efficacy and emotions immediately prior to competition. Specifically, this research was designed to explore a) if the amount of perceived informational and emotional content within pre-game speeches will predict changes in athletes' perceptions of self-efficacy; b) if the amount of perceived informational and emotional content within pre-game speeches will predict changes in athletes' perceptions of emotions; and c) which emotions are associated with higher perceptions of self-efficacy.

Method

Participants

Participants for this study were 151 soccer players representing 10 soccer teams (five male and five female teams). The soccer teams were selected due to their status and membership in a Midwestem premier soccer league (within this premier league, teams compete at the state level against other elite teams). Athletes had a mean age of 14.21 years (SD = 1.85) and had spent an average of 2.31 years (SD = 1.51) playing with the team and an average of 2.01 years (SD = 1.56) playing under the same coach. Athletes had played soccer for an average of 8.83 years (SD = 2.26).

Also participating in this study were the 10 head coaches of these teams. All coaches were male. The coaches had a mean age of 32.78 years (SD = 8.56) and had an average of 12.56 (SD = 5.50) years of coaching experience.

Dependent Measures

Demographic Questionnaire. The coach and his athletes were asked to complete an initial questionnaire containing demographic information (i.e., age, coaching/playing experience). Athletes completed this questionnaire at a practice. On game day, athletes were asked to complete two additional surveys designed to assess self-efficacy, emotion intensity and perceptions of pre-game speech content. Game day questionnaires contained the minimal number of questions possible due to time constraints.

Efficacy Questionnaire. To assess athletes' feelings of self-efficacy, athletes responded to three questions designed by the researcher. Athletes used an 11-point probability scale of 0 (not at all certain) to 100 (absolutely certain) to respond to each of the following questions:

1) At this moment, how certain are you that you can play well against this team?

2) At this moment, how certain are you that you can play to the best of your ability?

3) At this moment, how certain are you that you can positively contribute to the team's victory?

The questions within the efficacy questionnaire were kept to a minimum due to the time constraints. Previous research has utilized a similar method to assess self-efficacy with scales ranging from one to four items (Geisler & Leith, 1997; George, 1994; Martin & Mushett, 1996; Weiss, et al., 1989). Athletes completed this questionnaire twice, once upon their arrival to the field and again following their coach's pre-game speech. Two principle component factor analyses were conducted on the three self-efficacy items to confirm the representation of one factor. The results confirmed the three self-efficacy items represented a single factor that accounted for 78.37% and 85.81% of the variance at Time 1 and Time 2 respectively. All factor loadings for the items equaled or exceeded .81 (.81-.93) at Time 1 and .9 (.90-.95) at Time 2. Internal consistency was acceptable with alpha coefficients of .86 for Time 1 and .91 for Time 2 respectively. Thus, following the standardization of the items by the team mean, the items were summed and divided by three to create an overall efficacy score at both Time 1 and Time 2.

Emotion Questionnaire. An emotional mood state measure was designed by the author based on Hanin and Syrja's (1995) functional and dysfunctional positive and negative emotions as commonly reported by skilled soccer players. While multiple emotions are present within this listing, for the purposes of this study, the top emotions within each category (i.e., functional positive emotions, F+, dysfunctional positive emotions, D+, functional negative emotions, F-, and dysfunctional negative, D-, emotions) were used. These included the emotions of charged (F+), energetic (F+), tranquil (D+), easygoing (D+), tense (F-), dissatisfied (F), unwilling (D-), and tired (D-). As well, the researcher chose two additional emotions of interest (determined, F+; sluggish, D-). In order to assess the athletes' emotional states, the athletes were asked the following stem question, "At this moment, do you feel ..." followed by these 10 emotions. Athletes indicated on a 10-point scale from 0 (not at all) to 9 (extremely) the extent to which they felt that emotion. The order in which the emotions were presented to the athlete was randomly sequenced so as to avoid any potential effects of the sequence of presentation. Athletes were asked to complete this questionnaire upon their field arrival and again following their coach's pre-game speech. The order in which athletes responded to the efficacy questions or emotion questions was also alternated; in other words, approximately 50% of the athletes answered the efficacy questions first followed by the emotion questions and approximately 50% of the athletes completed the emotion questions first and then completed the efficacy questions. There was no order effect for self-efficacy for Time 1 or for Time 2 of administration of the questionnaires.

A principle components analysis with varimax rotation was conducted on the 10 emotion items to determine how many factors were represented at both Time 1 and Time 2. Decisions regarding factor retention were based on Hanin's (1997) IZOF theory, eigenvalues above the angled descent on the scree plot, and factors that had eigenvalues > 1.0. Any item that indicated a loading of >.30 on more than one factor was not included. With these guidelines in place, the analysis yielded two factors for both Time 1 and Time 2, accounting for 46.14% and 43.38% of the variance respectively (see Table 1).

The first factor included the emotions of charged, determination, and energetic. This factor was labeled functional emotions. The second factor included the emotions of unwilling, sluggish, tense, dissatisfied, and tired. This factor was labeled dysfunctional emotions. Alpha coefficients at Time 1 for functional and dysfunctional emotions were .85 and .68 respectively. Alpha coefficients at Time 2 for were .81 and .67.

Perception of Speech Questionnaire. Upon the conclusion of the coach's pre-game speech, athletes and coaches were asked to indicate the amount of emotional and informational content within the coach's speech on a scale of 0 (not at all) to 9 (extremely). Athletes completed this questionnaire prior to receiving any additional post-speech measures.

Procedure

Permission to conduct this study was obtained from the Institutional Review Board for Human Subjects. With this approval, coaches were approached and asked not only for their participation, but also for assistance in gaining permission from the athletes' guardians, as athletes were minors. Consent to conduct this study was received from athletes, athletes' parents/guardians, and the coach prior to completion of any surveys. Participants were assured of the confidentiality of their responses. All appropriate procedures for the protection of human subjects were adhered to.

Each team was surveyed once during theft season. Together, the researcher and the coach selected the game in which the athletes and coach would be surveyed. The selected game was chosen by the strength of the opponent (i.e., harder opponents were chosen) to increase the variability of players' efficacy levels. It is likely that players will have higher, and less variable, efficacy beliefs against a less challenging team than against a more challenging team. Participating teams had not previously played the chosen opponent within the current season.

Once a game was selected, the athletes completed a mock questionnaire at one of their practices the week before the selected competition. They were given a questionnaire similar to what they would be asked to complete on game day. This was done to ensure that athletes would be familiar with both the vocabulary and the directions on the survey. Thus, athletes would be able to complete the questionnaires in a timelier manner and this would help to lessen the intrusiveness of the questionnaire. At this practice, athletes were also assured that their answers would remain anonymous and confidential and were told that in order to do so, they would be using an identification number. Their identification number would be their birthday (month-day-year) followed by their middle initial. The researcher had no knowledge of the names of the participants as linked to their birthdays. They were then asked to complete the demographic questionnaire. The coach and athletes were also reminded of the procedure that would occur at the selected soccer game.

At the selected game, the investigator was present at the soccer field prior to the athletes' arrival. When the athletes arrived, and before they began to warm-up, athletes completed the first questionnaire. Following this, they were to go about their normal routine of warming-up. While they did so, the investigator spoke with the game officials and with the opposing team's coach to inform them that a study was being conducted and requested that they please have patience if/when their opponent was delayed taking the field.

The second questionnaire was administered immediately after the coach gave his pre-game speech. All pre-game speeches were timed by the researcher who was present within the team huddle. Pre-games speeches ranged from 52 sec to 5 min 16 sec. (1) Upon the conclusion of the speech, the athletes were given the post-speech questionnaire. They then took the field to begin the start of the game. At the conclusion of the game, athletes and coaches received a debriefing form detailing their role in this study.

Treatment of Data

To address the first exploratory question, whether the amount of perceived informational and emotional content within pre-game speeches would predict changes in self-efficacy, a repeated measures regression was used (for a detailed description of this technique, see Wells, 1998). Reported efficacy scores before the pre-game speech were compared to reported efficacy scores following the speech and served as the within-subjects variable. The athletes' perceptions of the emotional and informational content in the speech served as predictors within the analysis.

Due to the small number of teams involved in this study (n = 10), the individual was used as the unit of analysis. To do so, the composite efficacy scores were standardized through division by the team mean. This allowed for individual comparisons while controlling for the influence of the team (Black & Weiss, 1992; Horn, 1984, 1985).

To determine whether the amount of perceived informational and emotional content within pre-game speeches would predict changes in emotion, principle component factor scores were calculated and used in two separate repeated measures regressions with each emotion factor (functional and dysfunctional) serving as a within-subject variable and athlete perceptions of the speeches again serving as predictors. To address the remaining question, a correlational analysis was used.

Results

Do perceptions of informational and emotional content within pre-game speeches predict changes in athletes' perceptions of self-efficacy?

A repeated measures regression was performed on athletes' perceptions of self-efficacy. Predictors were the athletes' perceptions of emotional (M = 5.21, SD = 1.91 ) and informational content (M = 6.57, SD = 1.73) within their coach's pre-game speech. The predictors were not related to one another, r =. 16, p > .05. Of the participating 151 athletes, a sample size of n = 138 was used due to missing or incomplete data.

Perceptions of self-efficacy did not vary significantly from Time 1 to Time 2, F(1, 135) = 2.87,p = .09. However, the predictor of perception of informational content was significantly associated with perceptions of self-efficacy at both Time 1 and Time 2. After partialing out perceptions of emotional content, athletes' perceptions of informational content significantly predicted changes in self-efficacy, F(1,135) = 6.60,p < .05, with a moderate strength of relationship, [[eta].sup.2] = .05 (Cohen, 1988). Perceptions of emotional content did not predict changes in self-efficacy, F( 1, 135) = .60, p = .44. A ceiling effect did not appear to be present as only eight (time 1) and 19 (time 2) participants indicated efficacy scores of 100. A summary of regression results can be found in Table 2; non-adjusted self-efficacy scores can be found in Table 3.

Does the amount of perceived informational and emotional content within pre-game speeches predict changes in athletes' perceptions of emotions?

A repeated measures regression was performed on each of the two factors of athletes' perceptions of emotion. Of the 151 participating athletes, only 134 athlete responses were used in this analysis as the remaining athletes had missing or incomplete emotion data. Predictors were the athletes' perceptions of emotional and informational content within their coach's pre-game speech.

The regression results indicated that perceptions of functional emotions varied significantly from Time 1 to Time 2,F(1, 134) = 6.37, p < .05, with athlete perceptions of informational content being significantly related to changes in functional emotions, F(1, 134) = 6.22, p < .05. Perceptions of emotional content were not related to changes in functional emotions, F(1, 134) = .35,p = .56 nor to changes in dysfunctional emotions, F(1,134) = .00,p = .96. Neither of the predictors was significantly associated with perceptions of dysfunctional emotions nor were the predictors significantly related to changes in dysfunctional emotion scores. A summary of regression results can be found in Table 4.

Which emotions are associated with higher perceptions of self-efficacy?

Correlational analyses found functional emotions to be positively related to self-efficacy at both Time 1, r = .44,p < .01, and Time 2, r = .53, p < .01. Dysfunctional emotions were negatively related to self-efficacy at both Time 1, r = -.20, p < .05, and Time 2, r = -.30,p < .01. Athletes' perceptions of reported emotions can be found in Table 5.

Discussion

The results of this study found that athletes' perceptions of informational content within a coach's pre-game speech can impact athletes' feelings of self-efficacy as well as athletes' emotions. A major strength of this study was its ability to assess athletes' perceptions and feelings at the time in which they were occurring.

Perceptions of informational and emotional content on athletes' perceptions of self-efficacy

There was no significant change in athletes' efficacy beliefs following coaches' pre-game speeches. This lack of significance may be influenced by the athletes' membership within a premier soccer team. These teams are considered to be among the best in the state and athletes must try-out, and are selected, before they are able to join a team. Therefore, these athletes likely already had high perceptions of efficacy and thus, the variance between Time 1 and Time 2 was smaller than it might have been within a less elite participant pool. Additionally, the teams involved within this study had played together for an average of two years with the same coach, which may have resulted in higher levels of cohesion. Group cohesiveness has been linked to higher perceptions of efficacy (Spink, 1990), again, making it likely that this sample of athletes had higher perceptions of efficacy entering into the competition than they would have had they played together for less time.

However, while there was no significant difference in athletes' efficacy from Time 1 to Time 2, there was an overall increase in efficacy perceptions. Thus, it is perhaps important to comment on the practical significance of such a finding. To show even a small overall increase in efficacy within these athletes for just one game out of their entire season, and when their efficacy beliefs were likely already higher than average, is noteworthy. These results may begin to underscore the importance of examining this technique amongst less elite teams as well as teams that have not had as much opportunity to play together before their competitions, such as Olympic and World Cup teams.

It is also important to note that when controlling for perceptions of speech content, the change in athletes' efficacy from Time 1 to Time 2 was significantly influenced by athletes' perceptions of the informational content within the pre-game speech. This is not surprising as athletes often link their perceptions of ability with informational feedback received from their coaches (Amorose & Weiss, 1998). Therefore, the perceived informational content of a coach's speech may be a salient source of efficacy information on which athletes judge the strength of their self-efficacy. As well, previous research has also found that athletes prefer coaches who provide technical instruction than those who provide more general encouragement/communication (Smith, Smoli & Curtis, 1978).

The perceived emotional content of the speech did not appear to be related to athletes' perceptions of efficacy. The lack of an emotional effect may be due in large part to the actual content of the pre-game speech. Both athletes and coaches perceived greater amounts of informational content than emotional content within the speech. More research is needed to examine the effects of speeches with greater portions of emotional content as previous studies have found emotion to positively influence self-efficacy (Kavanagh & Bower, 1985; Samsom & Rachman, 1989).

Perceptions of informational and emotional content on athletes' perceptions of emotions

Results showed that the functional emotions (charged, determined and energetic) increased following coaches' pre-game speeches. These three emotions are among the top optimal emotions for soccer (Hanin, 2000). The dysfunctional emotions did not show a change from Time 1 to Time 2. This seems to suggest that not only may functional emotions be the most critical emotions for optimal performance in soccer, but that these emotions may also be the most susceptible to a coach's influence, particularly in the pre-game speech. Further research should continue to examine optimal emotions, as well as their susceptibility to a coach's speech, within other sports. Cerin, Szabo, Hunt and Williams (2000) suggest that different sports may require different levels and patterns of pre-competitive emotions. It is also important to note that the emotions of unwilling, sluggish, tense, dissatisfied and tired loaded onto Factor 2. While the loadings on Factor 1 were not surprising, the loadings on Factor 2 were not expected. The emotions of tense and dissatisfied are negative functional emotions whereas the emotions of unwilling, sluggish and tired are considered negative dysfunctional emotions (Hanin, 1997). This seems to suggest that athletes may be viewing these five emotions as negative dysfunctional emotions and also underscores the need for future research to include an emotional checklist for each athlete.

Results also indicated that athletes' perceptions of informational content were related to variations in functional emotions from Time I to Time 2. Deci (1980) suggested, "emotion is a reaction to a stimulus event...and can energize subsequent behaviors (p.85)." Through the use of information and strategy within a pre-game speech, the coach may be offering a stimulus event in the form of an action plan, which causes the athletes to react with emotion. The felt emotions would then energize subsequent competitive behaviors and may further increase feelings of determination and energy because they have a plan, and thus expect, to achieve their goal. Burton and Naylor (1997) suggest that positive expectancies will lead to positive emotions, such as excitement, which can then assist performance. Athletes' perceptions of emotional content within the speech did not influence any of the emotion factors. This again may be due to the overall perception that there was more informational content within the speech as opposed to emotional content.

Emotions associated with higher perceptions of efficacy

Functional emotions showed a high postivie correlation with self-efficacy. Both before and after the pre-game speech, functional emotions showed a positive relationship with self-efficacy and dysfunctional emotions showed a negative relationship with self-efficacy. It would appear that the higher an athlete's efficacy, the higher the perception of felt functional emotions and the lower the athlete's perception of felt dysfunctional emotions.

Conclusion

While this study has offered several valuable insights into athletes' perceptions regarding their coaches' pre-game speeches, it is important to note that this study was not without its limitations. However, these limitations should not undermine the value of these results. To begin, as this was a field study, it was impossible to hold all outside variables constant for each game. As well, the nature of this study was intrusive and coaches may have altered their routines and speeches to help ease the extent of the intrusiveness. As coaches may have spent more time preparing for the pre-game speech as they knew it would be observed, and since the researcher was included in the pre-game huddle, the Hawthorne Effect may have impacted the results of this study.

Future research should consider following coaches across multiple games to account for any such change as well as including a performance measure to better assess the impact of the speech on athletes. A case study design would allow the researcher to garner a better idea of the decision making process the coach utilizes when deciding to implement a highly emotional speech. For instance, coaches may elect to only use such a speech when placed in a championship game. This study was not able to fully examine emotional content as it examined a coach's pre-game speech during regular season and coaches would likely save a highly emotional speech for the biggest game of the season; to use emotion weekly would only undermine its impact. Additional research should also focus on replicating and extending the laboratory research conducted by Vargas-Tonsing and Bartholomew (2006) on pre-game speeches.

It would also be important to examine the content of coaches' speeches by an independent observer to obtain the actual amount of emotional and informational content. In addition, where in the speech (beginning, middle, end) the emotional content is placed may be more important than how much of it the speech contains. Such research should also take care to explore athletes' and coaches' definitions of informational and emotional content or, at the very least, define each construct for all participants. This would allow for a clearer and more reliable understanding of pre-game speech perceptions. As well, the impact of pre-game speeches on the construct of not only self-efficacy, but also team-efficacy, should be explored.

In summary, the results of this study indicate a coach's potential to increase athletes' feelings of self-efficacy and emotion prior to competition through the effective use of a pre-game speech. While further research is necessary to fully address the questions and limitations of this study, the present research should be considered a starting point for such inquiry.

Author's Note

I would like to thank Deborah L. Feltz for her support and assistance with this project.

As well, I would like to gratefully acknowledge Dan Jury for his assistance with participant recruitment as well as those who volunteered to participate in this study.

References

Alexander, V., & Krane, V. (1996). Relationships among performance expectations, anxiety, and performance in collegiate volleyball players. Journal of Sport Behavior, 19, 246266.

Allen, J.B., & Howe, B.L. (1998). Player ability, coach feedback, and female adolescent athletes perceived competence and satisfaction. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 20, 280-299.

Amorose, A.J., & Weiss, M.R. (1998). Coaching feedback as a source of information about perceptions of ability: A developmental examination. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 20, 395-420.

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

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

Black, S.J., & Weiss, M.R. (1992). The relationship among perceived coaching behaviors, perceptions of ability, and motivation in competitive age-group swimmers. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 14, 309-325.

Burton, D. (1988). Do anxious swimmers swim slower? Reexamining the elusive anxiety-performance relationship. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 10, 45-61.

Burton, D., & Martens, R. (1986). Pinned by their own goals: an exploratory investigation into why kids drop out of wrestling. Journal of Sports Psychology, 8, 183-197.

Burton, D., & Naylor, S. (1997). Is anxiety really facilitative? Reaction to the myth that cognitive anxiety always impairs performance. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 9, 295-302.

Cerin, E., Szabo, A., Hunt, N., & Williams, C. (2000). Temporal patterning of competitive emotions: A critical review. Journal of Sport Sciences, 18, 605-626.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.).Hillsdale, N J: Erlbaum.

Deci, E.L. (1980). The psychology of self-determination. Lexington, MA: Heath, Lexington.

Deffenbacher, J.L. (1980). Worry and emotionality in test anxiety. In I.G. Sarason (Ed.), Test Anxiety: Theory, research, and applications. Hillsdale N J: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Duffy, E. (1981). Do pep talks help or hinder performance? Rugby World, 21, 45-46.

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.

Fridja, N. (1986). The emotions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gallmeier, C.P. (1987). Putting on the game face: The staging of emotions in professional hockey. Sociology of Sport Journal, 4, 347-362.

Geisler, G.W.W., & Leith, L.M. (1997). The effects of self-esteem, self-efficacy, and audience presence on soccer penalty shot performance. Journal of Sport Behavior, 20, 322-337.

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

Gould, D., Horn, T., & Spreeman, J. (1983). Competitive anxiety in junior elite wrestlers. Journal of Sport Psychology, 5, 58-71.

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

Hanin, Y. (1997). Emotions and athletic performance: Individual zones of optimal functioning model. European Yearbook of Sport Psychology, 1, 29-72.

Hanin, Y.L. (2000). Soccer and emotion: Enhancing or impairing performance? In J. Bangsbo (Ed.), Soccer and science (pp. 69-89). Copenhagen, Denmark: Copenhagen University.

Hanin, Y.L., & Syrja, P. (1995). Performance affect in soccer players: An application of the IZOF model. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 16, 264-269.

Horn, T.S. (1984). Expectancy effects in the interscholastic athletic setting: Methodological considerations. Journal of Sport Psychology, 6, 60-76.

Horn, T.S. (1985). Coaches' feedback and changes in children's perceptions of their physical competence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 174-186.

Izard, C. E. (1993). Four systems for emotion activation: Cognitive and non-cognitive processes. Psychological Review, 100, 68-90.

Kavanagh, D.J., & Bower, G.H. (1985). Mood and self-efficacy: Impact of joy and sadness on perceived capabilities. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 9, 507-525.

Kavanagh, D.J. & Hausfeld, S. (1986). Physical performance and self-efficacy under happy and sad moods. Journal of Sport Psychology, 8, 112-123.

Kuckenbecker, R. (2003). Halftime talk: Use your time wisely. Success in Soccer, 6, 24-29.

Mack, M.G. (1999, Winter). Pep Talks: Why didn't my team "win one for the Gipper"? The Sport Journal, 2. Retrieved July 28, 2005, from http://thesportjournal.org/1999Journal/ Vol2-No 1/peptalk.asp

Maddux, J.E. (1995). Self-efficacy theory: An introduction. In J.E. Maddux (Ed.), Self-efficacy, adaptation, and adjustment: Theory, research and application (pp. 3-33). New York: Plenum Press.

Maddux, J.E., & Meier, L.J. (1985). Self-efficacy and depression. In J.E. Maddux (Ed.), Self efficacy, adaptation, and adjustment: Theory, research and application (pp. 143-172). New York: Plenum Press.

Martens, R. (2004). The pep talk. In R. Martens (Ed.), Successful Coaching (pp. 136).Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Martin, J.J., & Mushett, C.A. (1996). Social support mechanisms among athletes with disabilities. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 13, 74-83.

Miller, M. (1993). Efficacy strength and performance in competitive swimmers of different skill levels. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 24, 284-296.

Morris, L.W., Davis, M.A., & Hutchings, C.H. (1981). Cognitive and emotional components of anxiety: Literature review and a revised worry-emotionalityscale. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 541-555.

Ness, G.R., & Patton, R.W. (1979). The effects of beliefs on maximum weight lifting performance. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 3,205-211.

Samsom, D., & Rachman, S. (1989). The effect of induced mood on fear reduction. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 28, 227-238.

Scanlan, T., Stein, G.L., Ravizza, K. (1989). An in-depth study of former elite figure skaters II: Sources of enjoyment. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 11, 65-83.

Smith, R.E., Smoll, F.L., & Curtis, B. (1978). Coaching behaviors in Little League baseball. In F.L. Smoll, & R.E. Smith (Eds.), Psychological perspectives in youth sports (pp. 173201), Washington, D.C: Hemisphere.

Spink, K.S. (1990). Group cohesion and collective efficacy of volleyball teams. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 13, 301-311.

Treasure, D.C., Monson, J., & Lox, C.L. (1996). Relationship between self-efficacy, wrestling performance, and affect prior to competition. The Sport Psychologist, 10, 73-83.

Vancouver, J.B., Thompson, C.M., Tischner, E.C., & Putka, D.J. (2002). Two studies examining the negative effect of self-efficacy on performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 506-516.

Vargas-Tonsing, T.M. & Bartholomew, J.B. (2006). An exploratory study of the effects of pre-game speeches on team-efficacy beliefs. The Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36, 918-933.

Vargas-Tonsing, T.M., & Guan, J. (2007). Athletes' preferences for informational and emotional pre-game speech content. International Journal of Sports Sciences and Coaching, 2, 171-180.

Vargas-Tonsing, T.M. & Short, S. (2008). Athletes 'perceptions of coaches' pre-game speeches. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Vargas-Tonsing, T.M., Myers, N.D., & Feltz. (2004). Coaches' and athletes perceptions of efficacy enhancing techniques. The Sport Psychologist, 18, 397-414.

Wells, R.D. (1998, November 4-6). Conducting repeated measures analyses using regression: The general linear model lives. Paper presented at the 1998 Annual Meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

Weinberg, R.S., Gould, D., Yukelson, D., Jackson, A. (1981). The effect of preexisting and manipulated self-efficacy on a competitive muscular endurance task. Journal of Sport Psychology, 4, 345-354.

Weiner, B. (1977). Attribution and affect: Comments of Sohn's critique. Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 506-507.

Weiner, B. (1986). An attributional theory of motivation and emotion. New York: Springer-Vedag.

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 & Exercise Psychology, 11,444-451.

Footnote

(1) Individuals interested in the transcripts of the pre-game speeches may contact the author. Copies of the speeches are available in PDF form, or for a nominal fee, in hard copy.

Tiffanye M. Vargas-Tonsing

Michigan State University

Address Correspondence To: Tiffanye M. Vargas-Tonsing, The University of Texas at San Antonio, Department of Health and Kinesiology, One UTSA Circle, San Antonio, Texas, 78249. E-mail:TiffanyeVargas.Tonsing@utsa.edu Table 1. Rotated Pattern Matrix from Exploratory Factor Analysis at Time 1 and Time 2 Factor Loadings Factor Time 1 Time 2 1 2 1 2 Factor 1 charged 0.90 -0.03 0.73 -0.12 determined 0.78 -0.01 0.62 -0.17 energetic 0.67 -0.32 0.76 -0.22 Factor 2 unwilling -0.23 0.35 -0.13 0.39 sluggish -0.24 0.56 -0.20 0.47 tense 0.16 0.50 0.01 0.55 dissatisfied -0.03 0.56 -0.12 0.51 tired -0.18 0.69 -0.23 0.66 Eigenvalue (rotated solution) 2.05 1.59 1.63 1.57 Alpha coefficients 0.82 0.65 0.77 0.64 Table 2. Summary of Repeated Measures Regression for Self-Efficacy Source df SS Ms Within subjects Predictors Perception of emotion 1 0.04 0.04 Perception of information 1 0.42 0.42 Pre/post 1 0.18 0.18 Error 135 8.53 0.06 Total 138 f Between subjects Perception of emotion 1 0.76 0.76 Perception of information 1 4.62 4.62 Error 135 55.98 55.98 Source F [[eta].sup.2] Predictors Perception of emotion 0.60 0.00 Perception of information 6.60 * 0.05 Pre/post 2.87 0.02 Error Total Perception of emotion 1.82 0.01 Perception of information 11.15 ** 0.08 Error Note. Pre/post = comparison of efficacy scores before and after the pre-game speech. * p <.05. ** p <.01. Table 3. Non-adjusted Self-Efficacy Means and Standard Deviations by Team at Times 1 and 2 Team Time 1 Time 2 M SD M SD 1 83.53 14.34 87.45 11.76 2 73.63 11.76 73.43 11.79 3 79.29 16.34 83.10 14.41 4 77.29 16.33 85.31 16.00 5 75.00 16.63 75.33 16.85 6 86.41 8.44 80.71 14.92 7 87.11 14.25 91.88 9.73 8 85.33 11.74 84.76 14.48 9 78.00 17.99 87.62 12.08 10 84.17 6.61 85.42 10.22 Table 4. Summary of Repeated Measures Regression for Emotion Factors Source df SS Ms Within subjects Factor 1 predictors Perception of emotion 1 0.45 0.45 Perception of information 1 8.09 8.09 Pre/post factor 1 1 8.28 8.28 Error 131 170.35 1.30 Total 138 Factor 2 predictors Perception of emotion 1 0.02 0.02 Perception of information 1 0.01 0.01 Pre/post factor 2 1 0.00 0.00 Error 131 31.68 0.24 Total 138 Between subjects Intercept 1 9.37 9.37 Perception of emotion 1 3.44 3.44 Perception of information 1 4.51 4.51 Error 131 124.92 0.95 Source F [[eta].sup.2] Factor 1 predictors Perception of emotion 0.35 0.00 Perception of information 6.22 * 0.05 Pre/post factor 1 6.37 * 0.05 Error Total Factor 2 predictors Perception of emotion 0.06 0.00 Perception of information 0.02 0.00 Pre/post factor 2 0.00 0.00 Error Total Intercept 9.82 ** 0.07 Perception of emotion 3.61 0.03 Perception of information 4.73 * 0.04 Error Note. * p <.05. ** p < .01 Table 5. Athletes' Perceptions of Intensity of Felt Emotion Emotion Before speech (Time 1) After speech (Time 2) M SD M SD d Charged 6.60 1.80 7.31 1.31 .46 Determined 7.37 1.65 7.76 1.26 .27 Unwilling 2.19 2.18 1.72 1.97 -.23 Sluggish 2.94 2.20 2.17 1.91 -.37 Tranquil 5.05 2.43 4.45 2.35 -.25 Tense 3.54 2.40 4.13 2.54 .24 Dissatisfied 2.50 2.32 2.46 2.24 -.02 Easygoing 5.96 2.22 5.41 2.34 -.24 Tired 3.16 2.36 2.50 2.10 -.30 Energetic 6.50 1.77 7.23 1.27 .48