Effects of a Goal-Setting Training Program on Basketball Free-Throw Self-Efficacy and Performance

Transcription

1 The Sport Psychologist, 1987, 1, Effects of a Goal-Setting Training Program on Basketball Free-Throw Self-Efficacy and Performance J. Ted Miller Edward McAuley University of North University of Oregon Carolina-Greensboro Though improved performance as a result of goal setting has been reported in organizational psychology studies, little research in sport settings has demonstrated these effects. This study was designed to examine the effects of a goalsetting training program on basketball free-throw performance, perceptions of success, and selfefficacy. Eighteen undergraduate students were tnatched by free-throw shooting ability, then randomly assigned to either goal-training (GT) or no-goal-training (NT) groups for a period of 5 weeks. Although the GT group reported significantly higher perceptions of success and selfefficacy than did the NT group, no significant differences between groups were revealed for free-throw accuracy. Correlational data suggested a stronger relationship between self-efficacy and free-throw performance for the GT group than for the NT group. Discussed are factors that contribute to the discrepancies between results found in sport related investigations of goal setting and those obtained from studies conducted in business and laboratory environments. "Our goal for the season was to make the play-offs." We have undoubtedly all heard such phrases at one time or another from athletes and coaches who are explaining successful sport outcomes. Goal setting in sport appears to be a very common practice. The basic premise of goal-setting theory is that cognitions serve to regulate purposeful human behavior (Lucke, 1968). Beginning with an initial investigation conducted by Locke and Bryan (1966), explicit performance goals have been reported to consistently affect intensity and duration of behavior. Additionally, dimensional qualities of goals such as goal difficulty (Campbell & Ilgen, 1976; Mento, Cartledge, & Locke, 1980), degree of speci- About the Authors: J. Ted Miller is with the Department of Physical Education at the University of North Carolina-Greensboro, Greensboro, NC Edward McAuley is with the Department of Physical Education and Human Movement Studies, Esslinger Hall, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR

2 104 Miller and McAuley ficity (Latham & Baldes, 1967; Latham & Yukl, 1976), and temporal proximity (Bandura & Schunk, 1981; Locke & Bryan, 1967) have been shown to greatly influence the goal-performance relationship. Furthermore, individual ability (Locke, Mento, & Katcher, 1978) and cognitive states relative to the task situation also determine goal effectiveness. Reviews of goal-setting research in both organizational (Locke, Shaw, Saari, & Latham, 1981) and sport (Locke & Latham, 1985) settings have suggested that performance effects are strongly influenced by the environment. Though the multitude of studies conducted in industrial settings have consistently reported positive goal effects, some of the investigations conducted in the sport domain have been less supportive in their results (e.g., Barnett, 1977; Weinberg, Bruya, & Jackson, 1985). These discrepancies between the organizational and sport literature indicate a need for additional, modified research techniques for studying goal setting in sport. One approach that has received limited attention in the sport research is the application of a goal-setting training program to enhance performance. In one of the few goal-training studies, Barnett and Stanicek (1979) used teacher-led conferences to emphasize the importance of setting numeric and verbal goals for archery performance. The goal-instructed group demonstrated superior performance over that of a similar-ability group whose conferences focused only on problem areas in skill execution. In a more extensive goal-setting training procedure involving male intercollegiate swimmers, Burton (1983) reported goal setting to have both performance and cognitive effects. Specifically, goal-trained swimmers, who were high in goal-setting skill, demonstrated greater performance improvements and higher efficacy expectations during the course of the season than did control swimmers. Given that athletes and coaches use goal setting as a natural part of the training process, it is important to implement these procedures properly. If goal setting becomes a well-integrated part of the athletes' preparation, they may not only improve performance (Barnett & Stanicek, 1979; Burton, 1983) but also have more confidence (Bandura, 1982). The extant literature suggests ways in which self-efficacy and goal setting interact (Bandura & Cervone, 1983; Locke, Frederick, Lee, & Bobko, 1984). According to Bandura and Cervone, goal setting mediates such cognitive mechanisms as self-efficacy and self-dissatisfaction. However, Locke and his colleagues contend that efficacy expectations determine goals. Substantial support already exists for the efficacy-performance relationship in athletic performance (e.g., Feltz, 1982; McAuley, 1985a). Therefore, if self-efficacy can be enhanced through goal-setting training, subsequent sport performance should also improve. Although improvement of sport performance is usually defined by objective success such as winning, a number of studies in the sport domain have emphasized the importance of assessing both objective and subjective measures of success (McAuley, 1985b; Spink & Roberts, 1980). This study was designed to assess the effects of a 5-week goal-setting training program on basketball free-throw accuracy (objective performance measure), perceptions of success (subjective performance measure), and self-efficacy. The training program provided information on the importance of effectively setting, monitoring, and adjusting goals. Specifically, goal-setting training was

3 A Goal-Setting Training Program 105 predicted to improve both objective and subjective free-throw performance and to foster more positive self-percepts of efficacy. A secondary purpose of the study was to examine the relationship between free-throw performance and selfefficacy. Based upon previous research (Feltz, 1982; Feltz & Mugno, 1983), it was predicted that past free-throw accuracy would be more strongly related to subsequent free-throw accuracy than would self-efficacy. Subjects Method Eighteen undergraduate students (16 men, 2 women) enrolled in a beginning basketball class were instructed in free-throw shooting, matched by ability, and then randomly assigned to either a goal-training (GT, n = 9) or no-goal-training (NT, n = 9) treatment condition. Mean age of the subjects was 21.7 years (range = years). The investigation was conducted over a 5-week period, consisting of one 50-min class period each week. Sessions were held in a large gymnasium containing three full-size basketball courts, each with two baskets and free-throw lines of standard dimensions. Dependent Measures Pedonnance. The objective performance measure was based on subjects' free-throw accuracy. Each subject attempted 20 free throws every week for a total of 100 shots over the course of the investigation. A subjective measure of performance was obtained via the subjects' perceptions of success. The latter measure was assessed by having the subjects indicate on a 7-point Likert scale their perceived degree of success following each set of 20 free throws. Free-Throw SelfEfficacy. A 4-item inventory was administered before the first and last free-throw shooting session to determine changes in free-throw shooting self-efficacy over the course of the study. The measure was designed according to specifications outlined by Bandura (1977) and more recently employed by a number of other researchers (e.g., Feltz, 1982; McAuley, 1985a). Three basketball experts jointly determined four hierarchical levels of free-throw difficulty representing poor, average, good, and excellent performance (7, 10, 13, and 16 shots made out of 20 attempted, respectively). Subjects indicated with a yes or no response which levels they thought they could successfully complete and how confident (from 10 % to 100 % certainty) they were of succeeding at each level. Strength of self-efficacy was determined by summing the certainty ratings across the levels, then dividing by the total number of difficulty levels (4). Posftest Znshuction Evaldon. Following the study, subjects assessed the effectiveness of the instruction they received and the degree to which the teacher-led conferences added to their free-throw shooting skill. Preliminary Procedure Prior to the investigation, subjects were told that for the remainder of the semester two different methods of free-throw instruction would be employed. All subjects completed an informed consent agreeing to be assigned to one of the instmction-

4 106 Miller and McAuley al groups. Subjects were initially instructed in the basic mechanics and technique of free-throw shooting, with the instructor supplying corrective feedback and suggestions. This instructional period lasted for two 50-min class periods; by then the instructor was satisfied that all subjects could execute these techniques properly. A pretest was then administered in order to match subjects by free-throw ability. Three subjects were grouped at each of six baskets. All participants then shot two rounds of 10 free throws. The men performed the shots from the standard 15-ft free-throw line, while the women shot from 13 ft because only a men's regulation-sized basketball was used in the study.' Goal-Setting Procedures Subject pairings were made from the results of the pretest, according to the total number of free throws made from the 20 that each subject attempted. Once paired by free-throw accuracy, participants were randomly assigned to either a goaltraining (GT) or nontraining (NT) treatment. Each session during the 5-week period included 10-min teacher-led conferences for each group. The GT group was instructed in the various dimensions of goal setting and in how to establish performance objectives according to guidelines derived from previous reviews of goal-setting research (Locke & Latham, 1985; Locke et al., 1981). The GT subjects were told that goal setting had been shown to enhance performance; they were instructed to take a positive goal orientation toward the free-throw task (i.e., to phrase their goals in positive rather than negative terms). Subsequent goal-setting instruction included a number of topics: (a) the importance of setting weekly subgoals as well as goals for the duration of the term, (b) the appropriate degree of difficulty (i.e., challenging but not impossible goals) and specificity for effective goals, (c) the role of goal commitment, (d) the differences between outcome and performance-based goals, and (e) the use of multiple goals2 to help ensure some degree of goal attainment. In addressing these various dimensions of goal setting, the instructor used selected aspects of free-throw shooting technique to illustrate how goals might be set. Such an example might be, "My goals today are to successfully hit 15 out of 20 shots and to concentrate on following through properly at the completion of each shot." Training Program Outline. Listed here are the five areas or dimensions of the goal-setting process that were deemed most appropriate for inclusion in the goal-training program for basketball free-throw shooting. It should be stressed that each or any of these dimensions may be considered more, less, or equally important by the individual practitioner. Each area was stressed as equally important, continuous review of each component was employed, and subjects were encouraged to implement all aspects for maximum success. The final week's session comprised a complete review of all aspects of the program. 'The two female subjects were matched into each treatment group. It could be argued that females in social comparison situations may be less confident and therefore perform more poorly than males (Lenny, 1977). However, analyses of the data with and without the inclusion of the female subjects revealed identical results. Data from the two female subjects are therefore included in subsequent analyses.

5 A Goal-Setting Training Program Subjects were instructed to take a positive goal orientation by setting goals with "I will" rather than "I won't" self-statements. The effectiveness of goal setting in producing better performances and more positive cognitions was discussed during a brief summary of the literature. 2. The importance of short-term goals was described, with regard to how subgoals serve to create interest, generate greater effort, and increase persistence toward attaining long-term goals. Examples of proximal and distal goals were given as illustrations of such a process. Also, the use of multiple goals was recommended, to ensure some degree of success if performance fails to achieve the most desired level. 3. Goal difficulty was presented as a major moderator of goal effects. Subjects were encouraged to set goals that would be at, but not beyond, their capabilities. The importance of both goal acceptance and goal commitment in determining the effectiveness of goals, easy or hard, was also noted. 4. Differences between outcome and performance goals were examined, by way of both definition and example. Subjects were told the benefits of performance-based goals, and it was suggested that their goals not hinge on scores. 5. Goal specificity was the final dimension to be covered. Participants were taught to set their goals with specific objectives in mind, yet to make them flexible enough so failure to achieve some of them would not be a total loss. - The previous week's goal-setting instruction was briefly reviewed each week to help subjects synthesize and more effectively utilize the information presented. Following the presentation of goal-setting information, the GT group was given data sheets on which to set numeric outcome and technique goals for their upcoming performances. These data sheets were designed to enhance the GT group's ability to monitor and adjust their goals and to make the goal-setting experience more salient. The NT group met at the other end of the gymnasium. During their 10- minute conference they reviewed aspects of free-throw shooting technique that were covered in the instructional period. These aspects paralleled those used by the instructor with the GT group to illustrate the dimension of goal setting being covered each week. Thus, the NT group received the same instructional time and review as the GT group, but no goal-setting information or more extensive skill instruction. Groups were then assigned to opposite ends of the gymnasium, and the free-throw task was conducted exactly as it had been in the pretest. Following each free-throw shooting session, subjects recorded how successful they thought their performance had been. One week after the study was completed, subjects 31t is acknowledged that the use of multiple goals with individuals unaccustomed to goal setting is not advisable (Gould, 1985). However, multiple goals in this study refers to setting both an objective (numeric) goal and a technique god. Therefore we did not consider that subjects were overloaded with information.

6 108 Miller and McAuley were given the posttest inventory to rate the effectiveness of their respective instructions and the degree to which the instruction improved their free-throw shooting performance. Results Analyses of variance and covariance were employed to assess the differential effects of the two treatments (goal-trained vs. non-goal-trained) on basketball freethrow accuracy, perceptions of success, and free-throw self-effi~acy.~ Pearson product moment correlations were calculated to determine the relationships between basketball free-throw accuracy and self-efficacy. Repeated measures 2 x 5 (groups X trials) ANOVAs assessed the effects of the two treatments on free-throw accuracy and perceptions of success. Although the GT group performed better than the NT group in four of five trials (see Figure l), the overall difference between groups was nonsignificant. Unlike objective = G.T = N.T. I WEEKS Figure 1 - Free-throw performance by group across the 5-week treatment phase. 31n analyzing the data from this study, both parametric (ANOVAs using change scores and repeated measures) and nonparametric (Mann-Whitney U) statistics were employed. No differences were found as a function of the statistics used. Therefore, only the parametric findings are reported.

7 A Goal-Setting Training Program 109 performance, however, a treatment effect did emerge for subjective performance, with GT subjects perceiving their performances as being more successful than subjects in the NT group, F(l, 16) = 4.38, p <.05. In order to assess the effects of the goal-setting and instruction treatments on self-efficacy, a one-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was conducted between the treatment groups, with initial self-efficacy differences as the covariate. Results indicated the GT group had significantly higher self-efficacy (M = 90.78) at the end of the treatment period than did the NT group (M = 77.78), F(l, 15) = 5.82, p <.05. The combined results offer partial support for the hypothesized effects of goal-setting training on self-efficacy and subjective/objective outcome measures. Though it appears that goal setting does have a significant impact on success and efficacy perceptions, these data do not support the hypothesis that goal-setting training enhances basketball free-throw performance. Pearson product moment correlations examined the relationship between posttreatment performance and (a) final trial self-efficacy and (b) fourth trial performance. The correlations are shown in Table 1, and although neither rela- Table 1 Correlations of Fifth Trial Self-Efficacy and Fourth Trial Performance With Fifth Trial Performance Goal-trained Untrained Efficacy 5 - Performance 5 Performance 4 - Performance 5 tionship proved significant across or between groups, the correlation between self-efficacy and performance was greater for the GT group than for the NT group. Naturally, one must be cautious when interpreting these correlations, due to the problems associated with such a small sample size. Subjects' posttest evaluations of the effectiveness of the instruction they received, and the degree to which their performance was improved by their treatments, indicated no significant group differences. Discussion As stated, this investigation examined the effects of goal-setting training on the behaviors and cognitions of individuals engaged in a skilled sport activity, basketball free-throw shooting. No significant increases in free-throw accuracy were evidenced as a result of goal-setting training; however, goal-trained subjects had higher perceptions of success and efficacy expectations than did nontrained subjects at the end of the 5 weeks. Clearly the importance of assessing subjective as well as objective indices of performance is underscored here, and such find-

8 110 Miller and McAuley ings support the work of Maehr and Nicholls (1980), McAuley (1985b), and Spink and Roberts (1980). Evidence of an ability ceiling effect was found in the high percentage of shots made (68% for the GT group); Locke and Latham (1985) have stressed that improved performance through goal setting depends very much on the participants' own abilities. In fact, Locke et d. (1978) reported that ability, when combined with task difficulty, accounted for 77 % of the variance in goal-setting effects. This suggests that once performance limits are approached, goals will have little or no effect on subsequent performances. Such a skill limitation may have contributed to the lack of objective performance gains in the present study. Pretest skill instruction and the subjects' initial abilities were probably other reasons for the apparent ceiling effect. In particular, the absence of a trials main effect suggests that the subjects had reached their limits of ability and, therefore, no increase in performance would be expected from week to week. The GT group's fairly consistent performances may suggest a stabilizing effect of goal setting. If performance can be made more consistent through goal setting, at or near an athlete's maximum level of ability, then its utility in sport should not be underestimated by an absence of continuous performance increments. It has been stated that "The key to sport psychology in fulfilling its promise with high level athletes will be determined by sport psychologists' ability to bring about consistent performance in athletes who were once inconsistent" (Rotella & Connelly, 1984, p. 106). Thus, goal-setting training may present sport practitioners with a simple yet valuable instructional program to help athletes stabilize their performances by making self-percepts of efficacy and skill more positive. Future investigations might test this contention by examining the effects of goalsetting training on variable error or performance consistency measures. According to Bandura (1982), self-efficacy affects performance and is a better predictor of it than is past performance. The design of this study did not allow for any direct causal inferences to be made between self-efficacy and performance. However, partial support for Bandura's (1982) position emerged from a correlational analysis of both the self-efficacy-performance and past-performance-performance relationships on the final trial. Contrary to previous findings (Feltz, 1982; Feltz & Mugno, 1983), the self-eff~cacy-performance relationship was higher than the past-performance-performance relationship for both groups. The greater time interval between performance trials (1 week) than between self-efficacy assessments and performance (a few minutes), in addition to the cognitive effects of goal-setting training, might explain these differential results. Furthermore, the results of this study offer tentative support for Bandura and Cervone's (1983) findings that goal setting mediates efficacy expectations. Failure to directly assess NT subjects' goals was a weakness of this investigation and should be avoided, even in studies that are not particularly concerned with self-initiated goal setting. However, it was apparent from the statements of NT subjects during the study (e.g., "I wanted to make 15 today") that they may indeed have established specific performance aspirations. Weinberg et al. (1985) also reported self-initiated goal setting by the group not directed to establish performance standards. Of concern to the present study, however, was not whether the untrained goal group set goals but whether, through training, subjects could

9 A Goal-Setting Training Program 111 learn to set goals in a manner more beneficial to performance. Previous investigations have shown such instruction to have positive performance effects (Barnett & Stanicek, 1979; Burton, 1983). Future studies of goal setting in sport should consider examining the cognitive and behavioral effects of goal setting, as well as assessing the effects of goal setting on differing ability levels, diverse tasks (endurance vs. skill related), and sports (e.g., gymnastics vs. football). Immediate and long-term effects of goal attainment on both the cognitive and behavioral functioning of sport participants are additional uncharted areas within the sport-related goal-setting literature. Furthermore, the long-term effects of goal training might be considered, that is, do goal-trained subjects continue to systematically set goals after the treatment ends? In conclusion, this study attempted to enhance basketball free-throw shooting in a field setting through a longitudinal goal-training program. Although the results of the study are not fully supportive of other goal-setting results, the study does perhaps highlight some of the problems one might encounter in attempting to validate such procedures. However, there is still a need to conduct further research in field settings in order to demonstrate the efficacy of this and other performance-enhancement techniques. References Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, Bandura, A., & Cewone, D. (1983). Self-evaluative and selfefficacy mechanisms goveming the motivational effects of goal systems. Jouml of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, Bandura, A., & Schunk, D.H. (1981). Cultivating competence, self-efficacy and intrinsic motivation through proximal self-motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, Bamett, M.L. (1977). Effects of two methods of goal setting on learning a gross motor task. Research Quarterly, 48, Barnett, M.L., & Stanicek, J.A. (1979). Effects of goal setting on achievement in archery. Research Quarterly, 50, Burton, D. (1983). Evaluation of goal-setting training on selected cognitions andpegormance of collegiate swimmers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois. Campbell, D.J., & Ilgen, D.R. (1976). Additive effects of task difficulty and goal setting on subsequent task performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, Feltz, D.L. (1982). Path analysis of the causal elements in Bandura's theory of selfefficacy and an anxiety-based model of avoidance behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, Feltz, D.L., & Mugno, D.A. (1983). A replication of the causal elements in Bandura's thwry of self-efficacy and the influence of autonomic perception. Journal of Sport Psychology, 5,

10 112 Miller and McAuley Gould, D. (1985). Goal setting for peak performance. In J.M. Williams (Ed.), Applied sportpsychology: Personal growth to peak performance (pp ). Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield. Latham, G.P., & Baldes, J.J. (1975). The "practical significance" of Locke's theory of goal setting. Jouml of Applied Psychology, 60, Latham, G.P., & Yukl, G.A. (1976). Effects of assigned and participative goal setting on performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, b y, E. (1977). Women's self-confidence in achievement situations. Psychological Bulletin, 84, Locke, E.A. (1968). Toward a theory of task motivation and incentives. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 3, Locke, E.A., & Bryan, J.F. (1966). Cognitive aspects of psychomotor performance: The effects of performance goals on level of performance. Jouml of Applied Psychology, 50, Locke, E.A., & Bryan, J.F. (1967). Performance goals as determinants of level of performance and boredom. Jouml of Applied Psychology, 51, Locke, E.A., Frederick, E., Lee, C., & Bobko, D. (1984). Effect of self-efficacy, goals, and task strategies on performance. Jouml of Applied Psychology, 69, Locke, E.A., & Latham, G.P. (1985). The application of goal setting to sports. Jouml of Sport Psychology, 7, Locke, E.A., Mento, A.J., & Katcher, B.L. (1978). The interaction of ability and motivation in performance: An explanation of the meaning of moderators. Personnel Psychology, 31, Locke, E.A., Shaw, K.M., Saari, L.M., & Latham, G.P. (1981). Goal setting and task performance: Psychological Bulletin, 90, Maehr, M.L., & Nicholls, J.G. (1980). Culture and achievement motivation: A second look. In N. Warren (Ed.), Studies in cross-cultural psychology (Vol. 2, pp ). New York: Academic Press. McAuley, E. (1985a). Modeling and self-efficacy: A test of Bandura's model. Journal of Sport Psychology, 7, McAuley, E. (1985b). Success and causality in sport: The influence of perception. Journal of Sport Psychology, 7, Mento, A.J., Cartledge, N.D., & Locke, E.A. (1980). Maryland vs. Michigan vs. Minnesota: Another look at the relationship of expectancy and goal difficulty to task performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 25, Rotella, R.J., & Comelly, D. (1984). Individual ethics in the application of cognitive sport psychology. In W.F. Straub & J.W. Williams (Eds.), Cognitive sport ). Lansing, NY: Sport Science Associates. Spink, K.S., & Roberts, G.C. (1980). Ambiguity of outcome and causal attributions. Jouml of Sport Psychology, 2, Weinberg, R., Bruya, L., &Jackson, A. (1985). The effects of goal proximity and goal specificity on endurance performance. Journal of Sport Psychology, 7, Manuscript submitted, December 23, 1986 Revision received: March

11 A Goal-Setting Training Program 113 Acknowledgments This research is based in part on a master's thesis completed by the first author at Kansas State University under the guidance of the second author. The authors would like to extend their appreciation to Maureen Weiss and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on an earlier draft of this manuscript. All correspondence should be directed to Edward McAuley, Department of Physical Education and Human Movement Studies, Esslinger Hall, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR