APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL REVIEW, 1988.37 (4) 381-394

Self-efficacy and Endurance Performance: A Longitudinal Field Test of Cognitive Mediation

Theory

Howard Garland University of Delaware, U.S .A.

Robert Weinberg, Lawrence Bruya, and Allen Jackson North Texas State University, U.S .A.

On demanda a 123 etudiants de cours de pcrfectionnement, dtsignes au hasard, de realiser "de leur mieux" une tiche tres difficile, au but presqu' impossible a atteindre, apres cinq semaines d'entrainement a effectuer une tgche spkifique en trois minutes. Une piriode-test de quatre semaines suivit au cours de laquelle les buts des tiches que devaient realiser les sujets et leur confiance en leur efficacite furent mesurts une fois par semaine avant chaque evaluation de performance. Construit d'apres une theorie de mediation cognitive (Garland, 1985). un modele causal fut utilise dans lequel des buts de tiches individuelles furent soumis aux effets de la performance, notamment sur I'efficacite des sujets. L'analyse des rtsultats a partir des quatre tests hebdomadaires confirma les propositions du modele.

One hundred and twenty-three students in a fitness training course were assigned at random to a "do your best," very hard. or highly improbable goal condition after five weeks of baseline training on a three-minute sit-up task. A four-week test period followed in which subjects' task goals and efficacy expectations were measured once each week prior to an assessment of their performance. Based on cognitive mediation theory (Garland, 1985), a causal model was presented in which individual task goals are proposed to influence performance through their influence on self-efficacy. Path analyses on the data over each of the four test weeks provided support for the proposed model.

Requests for reprints should be sent to Howard Garland, Department of Business Admini- stration, University of Delaware, Newark. DE 19716, U.S.A. This manuscript was written while the first author was on leave as a visiting professor in the Organizational Behavior Group at the University of Illinois/l'rbana. We would like to thank Albert Bandura, Jack Feldman, and Joe Porac for their helpful commen(s on an earlier draft of this manuscript.

0 1988 International Association of Applied Psychology

382 GARLAND ET AL

I NTRO DUCTION

Many studies have confirmed the importance of Bandura’s (1977a; 1982) self-efficacy construct as a contributing factor to human motivation and performance. Self-efficacy, as defined by Bandura, is the expectation that one can successfully execute a behaviour designed to bring about some outcome. .According to Bandura, self-efficacy can influence both the decision to initiate a behaviour and the level of effort and persistence one puts forth once a behaviour is initiated.

Effects of self-efficacy on performance have been observed in treatment of phobias (Bandura, Adams, & Beyer, 1977). in high avoidance motor tasks (Feltz, 1989; Feltz, Landers, & Raeder, 1979), in weight loss (Weinberg et al., 1984), in competitive endurance tasks (Weinberg, Gould, & Jackson, 1979), in a strenuous physical activity (Bandura & Cervone, 1983, in press) and in verbal brainstorming (Locke, Frederick, Lee, & Bobko, 1984).

Bandura and Cervone (1983) recently proposed that self-efficacy is most likely to influence performance in situations where an individual is striving to achieve a specific performance goal in the presence of performance feedback. I n an experiment designed to test this proposition, they observed consistent relationships between self-efficacy and performance only when these two conditions were met.

More recently, Garland ( 1 985) has proposed a cognitive mediation theory of goals and performance, in which he asserts that an individual’s task goal, defined as “an image of a future level of performance that the individual wishes to achieve” (P. 3 4 7 , influences performance, in part, through its influence on self-efficacy. which he has termed “performance expectancy”. According to this theory, higher goals can result in higher levels of self- efficacy through at least three different cognitive mechanisms. First, indivi- duals who set high goals may develop performance strategies that are perceived to facilitate higher levels of performance (Locke, Shaw, Saari, & Latham, 1981). Such strategies may actually come about through task redefinition (Bavelas & Lee, 1978). Second, higher goals may result in higher self-efficacy through wishful thinking (Jones, 1977), where individuals come to expect that which they hope to achieve. Finally, if, as Garland (1985) asserts, the task goal is an image, then i t is cognitively available and may serve as an anchor (Tversky & Kahneman, 1974), resulting in expectations of higher performance among individuals with higher goals.

The results of a recent experiment by Cervone and Peake (1986) are quite relevant to the question of how anchors can influence self-efficacy judge- ments. Subjects judged their performance on some upcoming p u l e tasks relative to a randomly chosen high or low performance anchor. Control subjects made no anchoring judgement. All subjects were then asked to indicate how many puzzles they thought they could solve (this was the self-

SELF-EFFICACY A N D ENDURANCE PERFORMANCE 383

efficacy measure). Relative to control subjects, those given the high anchor reported higher self-efficacy and persisted longer at unsolvable puzzles, whereas those given the low anchor reported lower self-efficacy and persisted for a shorter period of time. The effect of the anchor manipulation on persistence was completely mediated by self-efficacy. Given that a perform- ance anchor which subjects knew to be randomly chosen in this study could influence self-efficacy, i t certainly seems plausible that an individual's own self-set task goal will serve as an anchor for self-efficacy judgements.

Bandura (personal communication) has suggested that the proposed causal sequence in which goals influence efficacy judgements has less survival value, and therefore may be less likely than one in which efficacy judgements influence goals. In this regard, we are not so certain. Images of desired accomplishments may arise prior to judgements of capacity. Surely when a child first undertakes the study of the violin and persists in the face of painful performance feedback, efficacy judgements are driven less by this feedback than by some persistent image of performance that is striven for. Further- more, cognitive mediation theory does not rule out the operation of reciprocal determinism (Bandura, 1977b). It is recognised that a host of possible factors (e.g. self-efficacy judgements, externally imposed perform- ance standards, performance contingent incentives, prior episodes of task performance) may all contribute to the task goal that some individuals will set. I t is also acknowledged that individuals may be apt to revise their goals with repeated feedback from task performance. As long as the goal persists, however, i t is proposed to influence efficacy judgements.

Garland (1985) has represented data from a laboratory experiment that are supportive of his cognitive mediation theory. Subjects were assigned at random to goal conditions ranging from very easy to extremely difficult on a creative brainstorming task repeated over ten trials. Prior to each trial, subjects' task goals and performance expectations were measured. Following each trial, subjects received veridical performance feedback. Through path analysis, considerable support was found for a process in which assigned standards and prior performance influenced task goals, which, together with prior performance, influenced future performance.

The present research represents an attempt to replicate the above findings in a field setting, with highly motivated subjects performing a physical endurance task over an extended period of time. The longitudinal nature of this study, together with the high degree of task familiarity and motivation among subjects, clearly distinguishes it from Garland's laboratory study. Following a five-week practice period, subjects were randomly assigned to one of three conditions in which they were told either to do their best to improve their performance, to try to improve by an amount considered very difficult based on normative data, or to try to improve by an amount considered beyond anyone's reach. For the next four weeks, subjects' own

384 GARLAND ET AL

task goals, self-efficacy expectations, and actual performances were measured. The assigned standards were used in conjunction with another study designed to examine whether or not the external assignment of extremely difficult goals can actually undermine motivation and subsequent performance (Weinberg, Bruya, Garland, & Jackson, in press). Their only relevance to the present research purpose comes from any influence they might have on the task goals that subjects set for themselves.

Figure 1 presents the causal model that was tested in this research. In the model, performance (PF) each week is predicted to be a function of both performance during the prior week (an ability factor) and self-efficacy (SE). Self-efficacy each week is predicted to be a function of performance during the prior week and the task goal (TG) the individual sets for the present week. Finally, an individual’s task goal each week is predicted to be a function of both actual performance and task goal for the prior week. The week to week links between task goals are predicated on the assumption that these images persist over time, although modified by performance feedback. The links from prior performance to both task goals and self-efficacies represent the operation of reciprocal determinism. The subject’s initial task goal is predicted to be a function of both his or her baseline performance (BPF) and assigned goal (AGL).

METHOD

Subjects

The subjects were 40 males and 93 females enrolled in fitness courses at a four year university. Classes met on Monday, Wednesday and Friday each week throughout the semester.

Task

As part of their regular set of class exercises, students were instructed in performing a three-minute timed sit-up. The actual performance procedure used for the sit-up task can be found in Mathews (1978). The rationale for choosing this task was that most individuals will be fatigued prior to the completion of the three-minute time period; thus, it was reasoned that motivation may play a substantial role in efforts to improve on the task.

Procedure

All subjects in the study participated in five weeks of practice on the three- minute sit-up. Subjects kept a record of their own performance during each

Wee

k 1

Wee

k 2

Wee

k 3

Wee

k 4

AG

L =

AS

SIG

NE

D G

OA

L

BP

F =

BA

SE

LIN

E P

ER

FOR

MA

NC

E

TG

= T

AS

KG

OA

L

SE

= S

ELF

-EFF

ICA

CY

PF

= P

ER

FOR

MA

NC

E

FIG

. 1

Path

dia

gram

of

prop

osed

rel

atio

ns a

mon

g ta

sk g

oals

, sel

f-effi

cacy

and

perf

orm

ance

ove

r ea

ch o

f th

e fo

ur s

tudy

weeks

386 GARLAND ET AL

practice session. At the end of the five-week practice period, a baseline performance score was assessed for the three-minute sit-up. Following the baseline assessment, the course instructor met with each student individually to set a performance goal that the student was asked to try to achieve during a four-week test period that followed the practice period. Subjects were assigned at random to one of three conditions:

Do Your Best. Students in this condition were told to do their best, as other students would be given specific numerical goals to reach.

Very Hard Goal. Students were told to try to reach a specific number of sit-ups, equal to their baseline performance plus 30 sit-ups. Data from previous research (Weinberg, Bruya, & Jackson, 1985) indicated that only about 109’0 of the students were able to improve by this much over a five- week period.

Highl-v Improbable Goal. Students were told to try to reach a specific number of sit-ups equal to their baseline performance plus 60 sit-ups. Sit-up performance for all previous studies were searched (approximately 200 subjects) and no-one was found who had improved by this many sit-ups.

Students practised on Monday, Wednesday and Friday throughout the four weeks following their baseline assessment. On Friday of each of these weeks, each student’s performance was formally assessed. Subjects in each experimental condition worked with a partner of choice from the same condition during both practice and assessment. During the assessment sessions. the partner recorded each successful sit-up in the three-minute period. Positions were then switched and the procedure was repeated. The three-minute assessment was initiated by an instructor-timed countdown. At regular intervals, the instructor announced the time remaining. Subjects within each condition worked in different parts of the gymnasium in order to minimise the exchange of different goals between conditions. All sets of partners were positioned at least six feet away from all other sets.

Just prior to each assessment session, each student was asked to complete a brief questionnaire. The two measures of interest on this questionnaire were the subjects’ task goal in response to “How many sit-ups will you try to do today?” and the subjects’ self-efficacy response to “How many sit-ups do y o u expect you’ll do today?” This simple measure was chosen as an index of self-efficacy magnitude because i t places self-efficacy along the same scale that is used to measure both task goals and actual performance. No measure of self-efficacy strength was taken. Following this assessment. subjects recorded their performance on the same questionnaire.

SELF-EFFICACY AND ENDURANCE PERFORMANCE 387

RESULTS

Preliminary Analyses

A series of three (assigned goal condition) by two (sex) by four (weekly performance assessments) analyses of variance with repeated measures on the last factor were performed on students' task goals, self-efficacies and performances. Only subjects who provided complete data for all four assessment sessions (n = 120) were included in these analyses. No significant effects were found for assigned goal, sex, or their interaction on any of the dependent measures, nor were there any interaction effects with performance sessions (see Weinberg, Bruya, Garland, & Jackson, in press, for a further discussion of these results).

As expected, there were significant performance session effects on each of the dependent variables. Subjects' task goals increased steadily over the four- week period, F (3, 112)= 15.81, P<O.OOl , as did their self-efficacy expec- tations, F (3, 112)=32.24, P<O.O01, and their actual performance, F (3, 1 l2)=50.34, P<O.OOI. Table 1 presents the means and standard deviations on each of the four weeks of this study.

Test of the Proposed Causal Model

In order to examine the fit of the causal model proposed in Fig. 1 to the actual data collected in this study, path analyses were performed on the data for each of the four time periods in the study. The results of these analyses are displayed in Fig. 2.

All of the proposed path coefficients (i.e. standardised regression coeffi- cients) are statistically significant (PCO.05) for each week of the study. In addition, inspection of Fig. 2 reveals that the relative relationships among the different variables in the model are fairly consistent from week to week, suggesting that the process through which task goals, efficacy expectations,

TABLE 1 Average Task Goals, Self-Efficacy Expectations, and Performance Scores

of Subjects for Each Week of the Experiment

Task Goal Sew- Eficacy PerJormance M S.D. M S.D. M S.D.

Baseline 62.57 18.21 Week I 73.98 23.09 66.05 19.52 70.08 19.54 Week 2 77. I5 19.87 71.40 19.70 75.01 21.33 Week 3 79.31 22.19 74.10 20.87 80. I8 22. I5 Week 4 84.70 24.38 77.77 23.86 83.21 23.82

1 B

PF

Wee

k 1

Wee

k 2

Wee

k 3

Wee

k 4

AG

L =

AS

SIG

NE

D G

OA

L

BP

F =

BA

SE

LIN

E P

ER

FOR

MA

NC

E

TG

= T

AS

KG

OA

L

SE

=

SE

LF-E

FFIC

AC

Y

PF

= P

ER

FOR

MA

NC

E

FIG

. 2

Res

ults

of p

alh

ana

lyse

s (a

ll p

ath

coe

ffic

ient

s ar

c st

and

ard

ised

reg

ress

ion

coef

ficie

nts

(P<

0.05

).

SELF-EFFICACY A N D ENDURANCE PERFORMANCE 389

and performance interact is stable over time in this study. The amount of variance in performance for each week that is accounted for by the combination of the previous week's performance together with the present week's self-efficacy measure is 0.77,0.86,0.86 and 0.86 for weeks one to four respectively. Furthermore, when performance is regressed hierarchically on previous week's performance and present self-efficacy, self-efficacy contri- butes a significant increment to the variance in performance for each week of the study, these increments ranging from 0.02 to 0.12.

In order to evaluate the adequacy of the path model presented in Fig. 2 . a goodness-of-fit test (Pedhazur, 1982) was performed on the model for each week in the study. First a Q statistic was calculated by comparing the product of squared residual paths for a completely identified model (in this case, one in which task goals make a direct as well as indirect contribution to performance each week) with the same figure estimated from the proposed overidentified model. The closer this ratio is to I , the better the fit of the data to the proposed model. For reasonable size samples, the Q statistic can be converted to a chi-square and tested for significance, with degrees of freedom equal to the number of deleted paths in the model. In this case, failure to reject the null hypothesis suggests that the proposed model cannot be rejected.

In addition to examining the fit of our proposed model with the data, we also examined the f i t of an alternative causal model in which the causal ordering for task goals and self-efficacy each week is reversed. That is, self- efficacy is proposed to influence task goals, which in turn directly influence performance. The results of these goodness-of-fit tests on the proposed and alternative causal models for each of the four weeks in this study are presented in Table 2.

Inspection of Table 2 reveals that the Q statistic for the proposed causal model is substantial and greater than that for the alternative model for each week of this study. Only for the last week of this study do we find any evidence that eliminating a direct path from task goals to performance causes

TABLE 2 Goodness of Fit Tests for the Proposed and Alternative Causal Models

Proposed Model Allernalive Model

Q !d / = I I P i Q Chi-square P i Chi- Square*

~~ . .- -.

Week 1 0 994 0.75 0.50 0.853 18.96 0.001 Week 2 0.987 I .53 0.20 0.881 15.03 0.001 Week 3 0.989 I .30 0.25 0.945 6.72 0.01 Week 4 0.968 3.86 0.05 0.868 16.90 0.001 ~~ ~

' Degrees of freedom for each test equal I

AP 37:b-F

390 G A R I A N D E l AL.

the model to deviate significantly from the data. In contrast, the alternative model was found to deviate rather strongly from the data for each of the four weeks studied.

The Contr ibution of Self-efficacy to Performance Changes

In the model that was proposed and tested in this research, past performance plays a crucial role in influencing an individual’s task goal, self-efficacy, and future performance. In this regard, the data that have been presented thus far provide clear evidence for the importance of reciprocal determinism, as proposed by Bandura (1977b). Nevertheless, i t is interesting to examine the influence of goals on self-efficacy and self-efficacy on performance when past performance can be excluded as an important causal factor in all three varia bles.

In the present research, task goals, self-efficacy, and performance were all measured along the same continuous scale. Subtracting past performance from each of these variables for each week of the study results in three conceptually interesting within subjects’ indices. First, we have the difference between an individual’s past accomplishment and present aspiration. Second, we have the difference between past accomplishment and present expectation. Finally, we have the actual change in a person’s performance.

The difference between an individual’s present task goal and immediate past performance provides an index of the degree to which that person is trying to improve performance. We label this index “performance change goal” (PCG). A positive PCG value suggests that the individual is attempting to improve on earlier performance, whereas a negative PCG suggests that the individual would be satisfied with less. The difference between present self- efficacy, as measured in this study, and immediate past performance provides an inddx to the degree to which an individual expects performance to improve. We label this index “performance change efficacy” (PCE). Positive PCE values suggest that an individual expects performance to improve, whereas negative PCE values suggest the expectation that performance will declinc.

Based on the current theoretical formulation, it was expected that actual performance changes (PC) from week to week would be directly influenced by PCE, and that PCE would, itself, be influenced by PCG. In other words, the relationship between intentions to change performance and actual changes in performance were expected to be mediated by expectations of changed performance. In order to examine this causal model, path analyses were performed on PCG, PCE, and actual performance changes (i.e. differences between past week’s performance and present performance) for each week of the study.

Table 3 presents path coefficients (in this case equivalent to correlation

SELF-EFFICACY A N D ENDURANCE PERFORMANCE 391

TABLE 3 Results of Path Analyses on Within Subjects Differences Scores'

Path Coeficienis Test of Model PCG PCE

10 10 Chi-square PCE PC Q (1 d J ) P C

Week I 0.77 0.62 0.995 0.56 0.50 Week 2 0.83 0.44 0.986 1.66 0.20 Week 3 0.87 0.34 0.989 1.32 0.25 Week 4 0.78 0.65 0.968 3.88 0.05

PCG = performancc change goal; PCE= performance change efficacy; PC= performancc change.

coefficients) for the proposed relationships as well as the Q statistic and chi- square test for each week of the study. Inspection of the table reveals that the data fit quite well with the proposed model. With the exception of a small discrepancy for the last week of the study, the relationship between PCG and performance change was completely mediated by PCE, as predicted.

DISCUSSION

This research was designed to examine proposed linkages between individual goals, self-efficacy, and performance based on a recent cognitive mediation theory (Garland, 1985). In brief, the theory proposes that task goals influence task performance, in part through their influence on self-efficacy. Although laboratory data have already provided some strong support for these proposed causal linkages, the present investigation was designed to examine these linkages within a field setting.

Overall, the results of this study fit quite well with the causal model that was proposed. For each of the four time periods studied, individual task goals made a direct contribution to the variance in self-efficacy, and self- efficacy made a direct contribution to the variance in performance. Further- more, tests of an alternative model, in which the causal order between task goals and self-efficacy was reversed, led to rejection of this model for each of the time periods in the study.

Additional analyses revealed that within subject performance changes from time period to time period were a function of the difference between an individual's expected performance (i.e. self-efficacy) for the present time period and his/her actual performance for the preceding time period. The latter difference, as expected, was a function of the discrepancy between present aspirations (i.e. task goals) and prior accomplishment. These results

392 GARLAND E l A L

suggest that the proposed linkages among task goals, self-efficacy, and performance hold even when past performance has been partialled out of each of these variables.

Cognitive mediation theory (Garland, 1985) may help to explain, in part, why certain techniques have been found to be effective in raising efficacy expectations. For example, both participant and live modelling have been used with success to increase efficacy expectations and performance (Ban- dura, 1977a). If the task goal is represented as an image of some future performance, then perhaps such direct and vicarious performance ex- periences operate directly on this image, enhancing both its vividness and stability. In this regard, i t is interesting to note that Feltz (1982) described a training technique used with athletes in the Soviet Union that involves the videotaping of an athlete’s best performance and the subsequent doctoring of this tape to make i t appear that the performance is even more spectacular. When an athlete views such a tape of hisiher performance, i t is likely that a very strong image will be formed which may serve to increase self-efficacy and future performance.

Further support for the idea that a clear image of desirable performance outcomes may serve to enhance self-efficacy, and its subsequent influence on the motivation to perform, can be found in the work of Dowrick ( 1 983) on self-modelling. Dowrick reports on a study by Gonzales in which pool players either watched videotapes of their successful shots or watched tapes of their unsuccessful shots to which successful outcomes had been spliced. Both experimental groups improved in their performance relative to controls but did not differ from one another. The findings of this study suggest that the major benefits of this self-modelling technique may derive more from the motivational effects of havin a clear image of performance (i.e. the outcome of action), than from the skills information provided by the opportunity to observe those actions that produced the performance.

More research is clearly required in order to delineate the exact linkage between task goals and self-efficacy. In the present study, task goal level and self-efficacy magnitude were found to be strongly related. But, to the extent that goals are images, they should also vary on other dimensions (e.g. vividness). These other dimensions, once specified and operationalised, might be found to influence self-efficacy strength or generality, as described by Bandura (l977a)

Finally, the results of this study suggest that the task goal is not an image cast in stone. As Bandura (1977b) has aptly noted with his concept of reciprocal determinism, behaviour can result in outcomes that serve as stimuli which modify those cognitive events that may have influenced the behaLiour. Evidence for the operation of reciprocal determinism is strongly present in these data. Task goals and efficacy expectations for each of the four weeks in this study were influenced by actual performance during the

k .

SELF-EFFICACY A N D ENDURANCE PERFORMANCE 393

previous week. Such results suggest that images and expectations can be both causes and consequences of our behavioural experience.

Manuscript received December 1986 Revised manuscript received June 1987

REFERENCES Bandura, A. (1977a). Self efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychologi-

Bandura. A. (1977b). Social learning fheory. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. Bandura. A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37. 122-

147. Bandura. A., Adams, N. E., & k y e r . J. (1977). Cognitive processes mediating behavioral

changes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 35, 12S139. Bandura, A. & Cervonc, D. (1983). Self-evaluation and self-efficacy mechanisms governing the

motivational effects of goal systems. Journal of Personaliry andSocial Psychology. 45. 1017- 1028.

Bandura. A. & Cervone, D. (in press). Differential engagement of self-rcactivc influences in cognitively-based motivation. 0rgani:arional Behavior and Human Decision Processes.

Bavelas, J. & Lee. E. S. (1978). Effects of goal level on performance: A trade-off of quantity and quality. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 32. 219-240,

Cervonc, D. & Peake. P. K. (1986). Anchoring, efficacy, and action: The influence of judgemental heuristics on self-efficacy judgements and behavior. Journal of Personaliry and Social Psychology. 50, 492-50 I .

Dowrick. P. W. (1983). Self-modelling. In P. W. Dowrick and S. J . Biggs (Eds), Using video (pp. 105-124). New York: Wiley.

Feltz. D. L. (1982). Path analysis of the causal elements in Bandura's theory of self-eficacy and an anxiety based model of avoidance behavior. Journal ofPersonality and Social psycho log^. 42, 761781.

Feltz, D. L., Landers. D. M.. & Racder, U. (1979). Enhancing self-efficacy in high-avoidance motor tasks: A comparison ofmodeling techniques. Journal ofSporr Psychology. I , 112-122.

Garland, H. (1985). A cognitive mediation theory of task goals and human performance. Morivarion and Emorion. 9, 345-367.

Jones. R. A . (1977). Selj-julJllinRprophecies. Hillsdale. N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc. Locke, E. A,. Frederick. E.. Lee. C.. & Bobko. P. (1984). Effect of self-efficacy. goals and task

Locke. E. A,. Shaw. K. 3.. Saari, L. M. & Latham. G . P. (1981). Goal setting and task

Mathews. D. K. ( 1978). Measuremenr in physical educarion. Philadelphia: Saunders. Pedhazur. E. J. (1982). Mulriple regression in behavioralresearch. New York: Holt. Rinehart and

Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgement under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases.

Weinberg. R . Bruya. L.. Garland, H.. & Jackson, A. (in press). Goal difficulty and endurance

Weinberg. R.. Gould, D.. & Jackson, A. (1979). Expectations and performance: An empirical

cal Review,. 84, I9 1-2 I 5.

strategies on task performana. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69 , 241-25 I .

performance: 1969-1980. Psychological Eullerin. 90. 12S152.

Winston.

Science. 185. I I 2 4 1 I3 I .

performance: A challenge to the goal attainability assumption. Journal of Sporf Behavior.

test of Bandura's self-efficacy theory. Journal of Sporf Psychology. 1. 32G331.

394 GARLAND E T A L

Weinberg, R.. Hughes, H . H . , Critclli, J . W.. England. R . , & Jackson, A. (1984). Effects of pretrjsting and manipulated self-efficacy on weight loss in a self-control program. Journal o j Research in Personalily. 18. 352-358.

REFERENCE N O T E

Weinberg, R.. Bruya, L.. & Jackson, A . (1985). The effecrs of goal proximirv and goal speclficarion on endurance performance. Unpublished manuscript, T e x x State University.