The effects of reduced erroneous feedback on Self-Efficacy and subsequent 1-rep maximum bench press in an Australian setting

Key Words: Self-efficacy, erroneous information, performance accomplishments

Self-efficacy as defined by Bandura (1977a), is a person’s belief, that they can successfully carry out the behavior necessary to produce a certain outcome. There are four recognized sources of information for efficacy expectations. These are outlined by Bandura (1977) and are still used in the literature today (Chase et al., 1994; and Chase, 1998)

Bandura (1977); Bandura (1982), state that performance accomplishment, or success of a particular task, is the strongest and most dependable source of self-efficacy. That is, with successful performances, self-efficacy will rise, and with unsuccessful performances or perceived failure, self-efficacy will fall.

The relationship between self-efficacy and performance has been widely studied. Most research (Chase et al., 1994); (Fitzsimmons et al., 1991); (Gould and Weiss, 1981); (Thornton et al., 1987) and (Weinberg et al., 1981), has focused on the effect that self-efficacy has on performance. The general statement is that an increase in self-efficacy will see an increase in performance and likewise, a decrease in self-efficacy will see a decrease in performance

The purpose of this study was to examine the effect that reduced erroneous information had on a person’s self-efficacy and subsequent performance on a One Rep Maximum Bench Press.

Fifteen subjects (N=15), 13 males (N=13) and 2 females (N=2), classified as experienced weight trainers, took part in the study. The Subjects were divided into three groups of 5 (N=5). Group 1 was the control group(CG), group 2 was the reduced erroneous group (RE) and group 3 was the increased erroneous group (IE). Each subject took part in three testing days over a four day period.

A Self–Efficacy Scale was completed before the second and third testing days. On the first testing day, all subjects determined his or her 1RM. On the second day, each subject believed that he or she was to attempt lifting that same 1RM. The RE group was given 5 kg less than believed, the IE group was given 5 kg more than believed, and the CG was given the correct weight.

On the third testing day, after completing the second Self-Efficacy Scale, the subjects were all told that the bar would be holding 5 kg more than the 1RM lifted on the previous testing day.

•Reduced erroneous feedback will increase a participants Self-Efficacy.

•Increased Self-Efficacy will result in an increase in a 1-rep maximum bench press performance

•There is a correlation between increased Self-Efficacy and increased 1-rep maximum bench performance.

Repeated measures analysis of variance showed that there was a significant increase in the RE self-efficacy scores between the initial and final test. There was a significant decrease in the IE self-efficacy scores between the initial and final test, and there was no significant difference in the CG self-efficacy scores between the initial and final test.

A correlation was found between the increased self-efficacy and improved performance for the RE group, however this correlation was not significant due to the small sample size. The results indicated that providing reduced erroneous information will improve a weight trainer’s efficacy expectations for a 1RM bench press.

The results of the current experimental study show support to extensive research done on self-efficacy. Recent studies have shown how self-efficacy can be manipulated and indeed has a relationship with strength performance (Wells, et al., 1993; Fitzsimmons, et al., 1991; and Feltz, Landers and Raeder, 1979). Bandura (1977) also discusses how there are various factors, which influence a person’s self-efficacy. These include performance accomplishments, vicarious experience, verbal persuasion and emotional arousal.

It was hypothesised for this study that reduced erroneous information would produce an increase in self-efficacy and a subsequent increase in performance. Based on the results obtained in this study, the hypothesis is partially accepted in that there was a significant increase in performance and self-efficacy following reduced erroneous information however, there was not a significant correlation between the two.

The results of the present study, showed significant changes in self-efficacy as a result of erroneous information. When reduced erroneous information was given, where the participant believed he or she was lifting more than was actually on the bar, there was a significant increase in self-efficacy scores.

When increased erroneous information was given where the participant believed he or she was lifting less than was actually on the bar, there was a significant decrease in performance. Wells et al (1993) had similar findings where self-efficacy was also altered, following the manipulation of the amount of weight a subject actually lifted, in contrast to the amount of weight he or she believed was lifted.

Results from the present study showed that there was a significant increase in performance following an increase in self-efficacy, and a significant decrease in performance following a decrease in self-efficacy. Results also showed that there was a correlation between increased self-efficacy and increased performance (C = 0.727) however, this correlation was not found to be significant due to limitation of participant availability.

The researches found that certain participant’s with an extensive weight training background were able to distinguish when the bar had been manipulated, either in the positive or negative direction. This may have led them to believe that the testing was being controlled and therefore influenced or intimidated their performance.

Despite the research efforts, limitations were unavoidable when collecting the experiment data. As such, a degree of caution must be adhered to when analysing and interpreting the results. Time constraints, (i.e. university deadlines and availability of the testing facility) severely prohibited the researches ability to conduct a complete and thorough scientific investigation into the topic.

Limited participant availability was attributed to the restrictions placed on the researchers due to the limited access to the testing facility. These restrictions stated that the experiment must be completed within a week of commencement and may only take place after 8pm each night. These particular regulations had a detrimental effect to the sample size, as several participants were unable to take part at the required time. This is in addition to the participants who were excluded at the pre-medical questionnaire stage of the study.

In conclusion, the results obtained by this study indicated that changes in efficacy expectations where accompanied by corresponding changes in performance. Although there was a significant improvement in both self-efficacy and performance of a 1RM bench press following reduced erroneous information, there was no significant correlation found between the two which may be resultant from research limitations.

Efficacy and feedback are attribute that have considerable importance in the practical domain of sport. Because the nature of the association between efficacy and feedback presently appears to be somewhat allusive, it is essential that their relationship be described in greater depth. Therefore it is recommended by the researchers that further experimental and scientific investigations be concluded.