Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=urqe20

Download by: [Wagner College] Date: 02 June 2017, At: 07:25

Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport

ISSN: 0270-1367 (Print) 2168-3824 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/urqe20

Reflected Appraisals and Perceived Importanceof Significant others' Appraisals as Predictors ofCollege Athletes' Self-Perceptions of Competence

Anthony J. Amorose

To cite this article: Anthony J. Amorose (2003) Reflected Appraisals and Perceived Importance ofSignificant others' Appraisals as Predictors of College Athletes' Self-Perceptions of Competence,Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 74:1, 60-70, DOI: 10.1080/02701367.2003.10609065

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2003.10609065

Published online: 26 Feb 2013.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 203

View related articles

Citing articles: 11 View citing articles

Psychology

Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport©2003 by the American Alliance for Health,Physical Education, Recreation and DanceVol. 74, No.1, pp.60-70

Reflected Appraisals and Perceived Importanceof Significant Others' Appraisals as Predictors ofCollege Athletes' Self-Perceptions of Competence

Anthony J. Amorose

This study examined thereflected appraisalprocess with college athletes (N = 325). Specifically, thestudy tested: (a) therelativeinfluenceof thereflected appraisals of mothers, fathers, coaches, and teammates (i.e., howathletes perceive these others viewtheirability) on athletes' self-perceptions of competence, and (b)whether theimportanceplacedon these significantothers assources ofcompetence informationmoderated therelationship. Basedon afactoranalysis, composite variables wereformedrepresenting thereflected appraisals oftheathletes'parents (i.e.,father, mother) and thereJlected appraisals ofsport-others (i.e., coach, team­mates). Regression analyses revealed that thereflected appraisals ofparents(f3 = .21) and sport-others (f3 = .55) predicted self­perceptions of competence (p < .05, R2 = .45). Follow-up analyses determined that thereflected appraisalofsport-others wasasignificantlystrongerpredictor. Hierarchical regression analyses revealed that the interaction ofreJlected appraisals and theimportance of significant others did not significantlyadd to theprediction of self-perceptions of competence (p > .05, L1 R2 = .01)beyond theindependenteffects of these constructs. Resultsarediscussed in terms of thereflected appraisalprocess and theinfluenceofsignificantothers on athletes' self-perceptions.

Keywords: self-evaluation, social influences

Numerous theoretical frameworks have identifiedself-perceptions ofcompetence as a key determinant

of various achievement-related outcomes (e.g., Deci &Ryan, 1985, Eccles, Wigfield, & Schiefele, 1998; Nicholls,1989). While the specifics of the theories vary, each pre­dicts that individuals with more positive perceptions ofcompetence will demonstrate greater motivation (e.g.,choice, effort, preference for challenge, intrinsic inter­est), higher levels ofenjoyment, and lower levels ofanxi­ety. Considerable support for these predictions has beengenerated in the sport and exercise psychology litera­ture (see Weiss & Ebbeck, 1996).

Submitted: July 17,2001Accepted: May 7,2002

Anthony J. Amorose is with the School of Kinesiology andRecreation at /JIinois State University.

60

Given the theoretical and empirical evidence high­lighting the importance of self-perceptions of compe­tence, it is imperative to understand how individualscome tojudge their competence. That is, how do individu­als decide whether they are competent or incompetent atan activity?While a variety ofsources are available to andare used by individuals to evaluate their ability in sport(see Hom & Amorose, 1998; Hom & Harris, 1996), vari­ous scholars and theoretical frameworks have high­lighted the role of significant others. For instance,symbolic interactionists such as Cooley (1902) and Mead(1934), and more recently scholars such as Harter(1996,1998) and Eccles (1993; Eccles et al., 1998), haveargued that our self-perceptions are heavily influencedby how we perceive others view or evaluate us. This pro­cess, whereby we come to see ourselves as we believeothers see us, has been referred to as the rejlected appraisalprocess (see Felson, 1993; Harter, 1998; Kinch, 1963).

Three basic elements that make up the reflectedappraisal process (Felson, 1993,Kinch, 1963) are: (a) one'sself-appraisals, (b) the actual appraisals ofothers, and (c)

ROES: MBfCh 2003

one's perception of the appraisals ofothers, referred toas reflected appraisals. The process begins with a signifi­cant other forming an evaluation of the target individual(i.e., the actual appraisal). The target individual thenbecomes aware of the significant other's appraisal ofhisor her ability or characteristics through various socialinteraction processes. The target individual, for ex­ample, may come to the conclusion that the significantother believes he or she has positive qualities based onexplicit causal attributions given for his or her perfor­mance, direct or indirect verbal feedback, and the non­verbal feedback (e.g., eye contact, body language)provided by the significant other. The target individual'sperception of the significant other's evaluation (i.e., thereflected appraisal) can also be the result ofopportuni­ties provided by the significant other (e.g., a parent sign­ing a child up for an athletic team) or how muchattention the significant other pays to the individual, toname but a few cues (see, for example, Eccles et al.,1998). Whether positive or negative, the reflected ap­praisal is then internalized by the target individual. Thatis, he or she incorporates the significant other's appraisalinto his or her own self-appraisal. If we believe othersviewour ability as high, we are likely to develop positiveself-perceptions of competence. If, on the other hand,we conclude that others do not think we are competentor capable, we are likely to develop self-perceptions ofincompetence. Thus, according to the symbolicinteractionist perspective and the reflective appraisalprocess, the internalization of reflected appraisals isbelieved to be a major determinant ofself-perceptionsofcompetence.

Research has generally found support for the rela­tionship between individuals' self-appraisals and thereflected appraisals of various significant others (seeHarter, 1998; Shrauger & Schoeneman, 1979). For ex­ample, the reflected appraisals ofpeers have been linkedto children's and adolescents' physical self-perceptions.Smith (1999), for instance, found adolescent boys' andgirls' perceptions of peer acceptance, which are essen­tially reflected appraisals ofpopularity and social accep­tance among peers, were positively related to theadolescents' perceptions ofphysical self-worth. Similarly,Felson (1985) found thatfourth-eighth-grade boys' andgirls' self-perceptions of physical attractiveness were sig­nificantly predicted by the reflected appraisals of theirpeers. That is, boys and girls who perceived their peersViewed them as attractive were more likely to perceivethemselves as attractive.

Research has also found support for the relation­ship between the reflected appraisals of parents andindividuals' physical self-perceptions. For example,Babkes and Weiss (1999) found that youth soccer play­ers' perceptions of their mothers' and fathers' beliefs,attitudes, and behaviors were significantly related to the

ROES: MBfCh 2003

Amorose

players' self-reported competence, enjoyment, andmotivation toward soccer. In a more specific test of thereflected appraisal process, Felson (1989) examinedhow the reflected appraisals ofmothers and fathers wererelated to fourth-seventh-grade children's self-percep­tions of academic competence, athletic competence,physical appearance, and popularity. Preliminary find­ings revealed that reflected appraisals of mothers andfathers were similar, and, thus, Felson combined the twosignificant others into a single variable representingreflected appraisals of parents. While slight gender dif­ferences emerged in the pattern of relationships, re­sults indicated that the reflected appraisals of parentswere significantly related to each ofthe four self-percep­tions after controlling for the specific self-perceptionsreported by the children 1 year earlier.

Finally, there is some support for the importance ofcoaches and teammates. Felson (1981) found signifi­cant and positive correlations among college footballplayers' self-perceptions ofseason performance and thereflected appraisal ofcoaches and teammates. Less sup­port, however, was found in this small sample ofathleteswhen using path analysis to examine a more complexmodel of the relationships among coaches' actual ap­praisals of the athletes' ability, the athletes' race, play­ing status, reflected appraisals of the coaches, and theathletes' self-perceptions of natural ability. A positiverelationship between reflected appraisals and self-ap­praisals ofability emerged in this analysis; however, thepath coefficient was nonsignificant.

In summary, studies have demonstrated that indi­viduals' physical self-perceptions are positively relatedto the reflected appraisals of peers and significantadults. When combined with the research outside thephysical domain (e.g., jussim, Soffin, Brown, Ley, &Kohlhepp, 1992; Phillips, 1987) there is fairly strongsupport for the reflected appraisal process, particularlywith children and adolescents.

Despite the empirical support, however, a numberofquestions still remain. One question involves the rela­tive influence ofvarious significant others. While a fewstudies have examined multiple significant others (e.g.,Babkes & Weiss,1999; Felson, 1981, 1989), none of thesestudies have specifically tested whether there are dif­ferences in the relative influence of these significant oth­ers on individuals' self-perceptions. Research has foundindividual differences in the importance placed on sig­nificant others asa source ofcompetence information (seeHom & Amorose, 1998; Hom & Harris, 1996). For in­stance, younger children tend to rely heavily on parentsasa source ofcompetence information, whereas peers tendto become more salient during adolescence (e.g., Hom,Glenn, & Wentzell, 1993; Hom & Weiss, 1991). Thus, atdifferent ages and or competitive levelswe might expectthat the reflected appraisals of certain individuals will

61

Amorose

be more strongly related to athletes' self-perceptions ofcompetence.

Another question that has yet to be tested iswhetherthe importance placed on various significant others as asource ofcompetence information by an individual ac­tually serves as a moderator of the relationship betweenreflected appraisals and self-perceptions ofcompetence.Ifan individual rates a particular significant other as animportant source ofcompetence information, it wouldbe reasonable to expect that the individual's percep­tions of how that significant other evaluates him or herwould have a greater influence on his or her self-per­ceptions relative to a significant other not considered asalient source ofability information.

The purpose of this study was to address these ques­tions. The first question involved the relative influenceof various significant others. Specifically, the study ex­amined whether the reflected appraisals of mothers,fathers, coaches, and teammates influence college ath­letes' self-perceptions of competence, and, if so,whether there were differences in the relative influenceof these significant others. It was expected that the re­flected appraisals ofeach of the significant others wouldbe related to athletes' self-perceptions of competence;however, no a priori hypothesis was made regardingwhich of the significant others would show the strongestor weakest relationship. The second' purpose was to in­vestigate whether the importance placed on various sig­nificant others as sources of competence informationinteracts with the reflected appraisal of those individu­als to predict athletes' self-perceptions ofcompetence.Itwas hypothesized that the importance ofthese signifi­cant others would moderate the relationship betweenthe reflected appraisals and the athletes' self-percep­tions ofcompetence.

Method

Participants

The participant sample (N= 325) was composed ofmale (n = 178) and female (n = i 48) Division I collegeathletes who ranged in age from 17 to 24 years (M= 19.68years, SD= i.20). The majority of the sample identifiedthemselves as Caucasian (82.4%), with the remainingathletes identifying themselves as African American(13.5%), Hispanic (1.9%), Asian (1.6%), and NativeAmerican (.06%). The athletes were recruited from avariety of team (i.e.,football, n= 87; baseball, n=31;vol­leyball, n= 23; softball, n= 21; basketball, n= 18; soccer,n = 10) and individual sports (i.e., track and field, n =

78; swimming, n= 23; gymnastics, n= 13; tennis, n= 11;golf, n = 10). All sports were represented by athletes from

62

at least two separate teams, with the exception ofsoccerand golf, where athletes from only one university teamparticipated.

Procedures

Participants were recruited from various collegesand universities in the midwestern portion of theUnited States. Recruitment of the participants occurredat structured team study sessions during the athletes'competitive season. At these study sessions, the primaryinvestigator or a trained research assistant provided theathletes with a verbal and written explanation of theresearch being conducted. Because not all athletes oneach team were required to attend these study session,not all the athletes from these teams participated. Nev­ertheless, all athletes present at the study sessionsagreed to participate. After signing a consent form, theathletes were given a packet of paper-and-pencil ques­tionnaires. The athletes were assured that all their an­swers would remain confidential. Participants werepermitted as much time as they needed to complete thequestionnaires, which was typically about 15 min.

Measures

Self-Perceptions ofComPetcnce. The athletes' self-percep­tion of competence was assessed using the followingthree items developed for this study: (a) How good doyou think you are at your sport? (b) When it comes toyour sport, how much ability do you think you have? and(c) How skilled do you think you are at your sport? Di­rections asked the athletes to respond to the items by"circling the response that best reflects how you feelabout your ability in your current sport." Response op­tions for the three items ranged from "not good at all" to"very good," "not much ability at all" to "a whole lot ofability," and "not skilled at all" to "very skilled," respec­tively. Responses were scored on a 5-point scale, withhigher scores reflecting a higher self-perception com­petence. The responses from the three items were aver­aged, and the mean score was used as an indicator ofthe athletes' self-perception of competence. Whileother self-perception ofcompetence measures exist (seeFox, 1998), these items, which possess strong face valid­ity, were selected because they were easily modified tocreate the reflected appraisal measure.

Reflected Appraisals ofSignificantOthers. A total of 12items designed to tap athletes' perceptions of how oth­ers view their competence in sport were developed forthis study. This included three items for each of the foursignificant others investigated (i.e., mother, father,coach, teammates). The wording of the three items usedto assess each significant other's beliefs was identical,with the exception of the significant other being as-

ROES: March 2003

sessed. The three items included: (a) How good doesyour [mom] think you are at your sport? (b) When itcomes to your sport, how much ability does your [mom]think you have? and (c) How skilled does your [mom]think you are at your sport? The wording of the itemsparalleled those used to assess the athletes' self-percep­tions of competence and included the same responseoptions. Directions asked the athletes to "circle the re­sponse that best reflects how you feel other people viewyour ability in your sport." Directions also indicated thatthe respondents should leave blank any items that askabout people with whom they do not have any personalcontact.' Reponses were scored on a 5-point scale, withhigher scores reflecting more positive reflected apprais­als. The three items targeting each significant other wereaveraged, and the mean score was used as an indicator ofthe reflected appraisal of that specific significant other(e.g., reflected appraisal of mother).

Importance ofSignificant Others asSources of CompetenceInformation. Sixteen items were used to assess the impor­tance athletes placed on various significant others assources of competence information. Four items wereused to assess the importance the athlete placed on theirmothers, fathers, coaches, and teammates, respectively.Items were modeled after the Physical CompetenceInformation Scale, which is designed to assess the im­portance individuals place on a variety of intrapersonal,performance-related, and interpersonal sources ofcom­petence information (see Horn & Amorose, 1998).Respondents were asked, "How important are each ofthese people in helping you know how good you are atplaying your sport?" 2 The four items included: (a) whatmy [mom] saysabout the way I play, (b) whether or notmy [mom] thinks I am good, (c) the things my [mom]says about the way I play, and (d) how good my [mom]thinks I am. Again, the wording of the four items for eachsignificant other was identical, with the exception of thesignificant other in question. Responses were based ona 5-point scale, with options ranging from "not at allimportant" (1) to "very important" (5). An average scoreof the four items targeting each significant other was usedas an indicator of the importance placed on that signifi­cant other as a source ofcompetence information.

BackgroundInformation. Each participant was askedto complete a series of demographic questions that as­sessed the participant's age, gender, race, and currentsport. This information was included as a wayto describethe sample.

Data Analysis

Prior to testing the major research questions, vari­ous preliminary analyses were conducted. First, separateexploratory factor analyses were conducted on the re­flected appraisals measure and importance of signifi-

ROES: March 2003

Amorose

.cant others as sources ofcompetence information mea­sure to determine whether the athletes made distinc­tions between their mothers, fathers, coaches, andteammates on these constructs. Based on these results,composite variables were created and paired compari­sons were conducted to determine any differencesamong the reflected appraisals and the importanceplaced on the various significant others.

The main research questions were examined usinga variety of data analysis procedures. First, a multipleregression analysis was used to determine whether theset of reflected appraisals predicted the athletes' self­perceptions of competence. The unique contributionofeach reflected appraisal wasdetermined by the squaredsemipartial correlations. Procedures outlined by Cohenand Cohen (1983) were also used to test whether therewere significant differences in the relative influence ofthe reflected appraisals on the athletes' self-perceptionsofcompetence. Finally, a hierarchical regression analy­sis was used to examine whether the importance placedon the significant others as sources of competence in­formation moderated the relationship between the re­flected appraisals and the athletes' self-perceptions ofcompetence.

Results

FactorAnalyses

Reflected Appraisals.To determine whether the ath­letes had distinct perceptions regarding how their moth­ers, fathers, coaches, and teammates evaluated theirability in sport, a principal axis factor analysis with anoblique rotation was conducted on the reflected apprais­als measure. An oblique rotation was used, because itwas anticipated that the reflected appraisals would berelated. The pattern matrix is presented in Table 1.Loadings greater than .32 were considered to representa meaningful contribution to the factor (see Tabachnick& Fidell, 1996). Although it was expected that the ath­letes would differentiate between mothers, fathers,coaches, and teammates, only two distinct factors wereextracted using a minimum eigenvalue of 1.0. The totalamount of variance accounted for in the solution was69.78%. The first factor, "reflected appraisals ofparents,"represented a combination of the athletes' beliefs abouthow their mothers and fathers evaluated their ability insport. The second factor represented a combination ofathletes' beliefs about how their coaches and teammatesevaluated their ability. Given that these individuals in­cluded those with whom the athletes interacted specifi­cally in the sport context, this factor was labeled"reflected appraisals of sport-others." Results revealed

63

Amorose

that the two factors were moderately correlated (r= .52).While not as differentiated as expected, the results in­dicate that athletes have distinct perceptions of howothers view their ability in sport. The strong factor load­ings and the absence of items loading on multiple fac­tors provide initial support for the factorial validity ofmeasure.

Importance ofSignificant Others asSources ofCompetenceInformation. A principal axisfactor analysiswith an obliquerotation wasalso conducted on the importance ofsignifi­cant others as sources of competence information. Anoblique rotation was used given the anticipated relation­ship among the various sources. The pattern matrix ispresented in Table 2. In this case, four distinct factorswere extracted using a minimum eigenvalue of 1.0, withthe solution accounting for 80.99% ofthe variance. Thefour factors corresponded with the four significant oth­ers included in the measure and, thus, were labeled"importance offathers," "importance ofcoaches," "im­portance of teammates," and "importance of mothers,"respectively. The four factors were moderately related,with the absolute values of the correlations ranging from.21 to .61. The strong factor loadings and the absence ofitems cross-loading support the factorial validity of thismeasure and suggest that the importance athletes placeon various significant others as cues of ability are rea­sonably distinct.

Paired Comparisons

Reflected Appraisals. A paired t test was conducted todetermine whether the athletes perceived differences

between the reflected appraisals of their parents andsport-others. As a way to facilitate interpretation, thisanalysiswas performed on raw score composite variablescreated using the mean of the subscales for mothers'and fathers' reflected appraisals, and the mean of thesubscales for coaches' and teammates' reflected ap­praisals. Results, which are presented in Table 3, indi­cate that the athletes perceived that their parents heldsignificantly (p< .05) more positive perceptions of theirability relative to sport-others. Using procedures out­lined by Thomas, Salazar, and Landers (1991), the cal­culated effect size (ES) of this difference was large (seeTable 3).

Importance ofSignificant Others asSources ofCompetenceInformation. Paired ttests were also used to compare theimportance the athletes placed on each significant otheras a source of competence information. Once again,subscale scores were used to ease interpretation. Basedon the large number ofcomparisons, a significance levelofp< .001 was adopted to control the Type I error rate.As seen in Table 3, all paired comparisons were signifi­cant. The athletes placed the greatest amount of impor­tance on the coach as a source of competenceinformation followed by teammates, fathers, and moth­ers, respectively. Further, with the exception of the com­parison between mothers and fathers, the effect sizes ofthese differences were moderate to large (see Table 3).

Table 2. Factor analysis results for the importance of significantothers assources of competence information measure

Item Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4Table 1.Factor analysis results for the reflected appraisalsmeasure Mother1 .00 .00 .03 -.83

Mother2 -.02 .02 .02 -.90Item Factor 1 Factor 2 Mother3 .06 -.05 -.02 -.84

Mother 4 -.02 .02 -.05 -.90Mother 1 .82 -.04 Father 1 .91 -.04 .00 .00Mother2 .68 .05 Father 2 .79 .04 -.09 -.06Mother3 .83 .00 Father 3 .96 -.02 .00 .03Father 1 .84 -.03 Father 4 .89 .04 .06 -.01Father 2 .75 .08 Coach 1 -.05 .85 -.02 .01Father 3 .87 -.03 Coach 2 .07 .75 .04 -.02Coach 1 -.02 .78 Coach 3 -.04 .82 .01 -.02Coach 2 .05 .74 Coach 4 .03 .87 -.06 .03Coach 3 -.03 .84 Teammate 1 .00 .03 -.88 .04Teammate 1 .00 .83 Teammate 2 .06 .00 -.82 .00Teammate 2 .05 .75 Teammate 3 -.03 -.04 -.86 -.03Teammate 3 -.04 .83 Teammate 4 -.02 .03 -.81 -.01Eigenvalue 6.21 2.16 Eigenvalue 6.58 3.31 1.69 1.38

Note. Pattern matrix is fromthe principal axis factor analysis Note. Pattern matrix is from the principal axis factor analysiswith a direct oblimin rotation; loadings in bold type identify with a direct oblimin rotation; loadings in bold type identifyitems that make a meaningful contribution to the factor. items that make a meaningful contribution to the factor.

64 ROES: March 2003

Main Analyses

Purpose 1: RelativeEffects ofReflected Appraisals. The firstpurpose of the study was to determine whether the re­flected appraisals of various significant others are pre­dictive ofathletes' self-perceptions ofcompetence, and,if so, what the differences are in the relative influenceof the significant others. A multiple regression analysiswas used to examine whether the reflected appraisalswere predictive ofself-perceptions ofcompetence. Thecriterion variable was the athletes' self-perceptions ofcompetence, and the predictor variables were the re­flected appraisals of parents and sport-others. Resultsrevealed that the reflected appraisals ofparents (~ = .21)and sport-others (~ = .55) significantly predicted theathletes' self-perceptions of competence, F(2, 316) =

130.00, p< .05, R2 = .45. Based on squared semipartialcorrelations, the amount of unique variance in the ath­letes' self-perceptions of competence explained by theparents' reflected appraisals was 3.50% (sr = .035),whereas the reflected appraisals of sport-others ex­plained 22.40% ofthe variance (sr = .224). Thus, 19.10%of the total variance explained was a result of the sharedcomponent of the reflected appraisals of parents andsport-others.

Procedures outlined by Cohen and Cohen (1983)were also used to examine the relative influence of thereflected appraisals on the athletes' self-perceptions ofcompetence. Specifically, a t test was conducted to de­termine whether the standardized regression coeffi­cients of the two predictor variables were significantlydifferent.3 Results of this test revealed that the influence

Amorose

of sport-others was significantly greater than the influ­ence of parents, t(316) = -6.85, p« .001.

Purpose 2: ModeratingEffectof theImportance ofSignifi­cant Others. The second purpose of the study examinedwhether the importance placed on each significantother as a source ofcompetence information interactedwith the reflected appraisal of that significant other topredict athletes' self-perceptions of competence. Themoderating effect of the importance placed on the sig­nificant others was tested using a hierarchical regres­sion analysis. The reflected appraisals of parents andsport-others were entered on Step 1 of the hierarchicalregression. The importance placed on mothers, fathers,coaches, and teammates was added on Step 2. Finally,Step 3 added the four interaction terms. Specifically,cross-products of the reflected appraisals ofparents andthe importance ofmothers and fathers were computed,as were the cross-products of the reflected appraisals ofsport-others and the importance of coaches and team­mates. Determining whether the interaction terms en­tered on Step 3 significantly added to predicting theathletes' self-perceptions of competence above andbeyond the independent effects of the reflected apprais­als, and the importance placed on the significant oth­ers was the critical test of the moderating effect.

The correlations among all variables are presentedin Table 4. As seen in the lower diagonal, which presentsthe correlations among the variables in raw score form,strong relationships emerged among the interactionterms and the first order variables from which they werecreated. Thus, consistent with the recommendations of

Table 3. Summary of paired comparison results

Paired comparison M SO df p< ES

Reflected appraisals1. Parents 4.36 .50 16.82 318 .001 .95

Sport-others 3.89 .50Importance of significantothers1. Mothers 3.19 .96 -4.56 318 .001 -.23

Fathers 3.42 1.002. Mothers 3.19 .96 -20.27 318 .001 -1.40

Coaches 4.34 .643. Mothers 3.19 .96 -14.08 318 .001 -.95

Teammates 4.01 .764. Fathers 3.42 1.00 -15.27 318 .001 -1.09

Coaches 4.34 .645. Fathers 3.42 1.00 -9.61 318 .001 -.67

Teammates 4.01 .766. Coaches 4.34 .64 7.84 318 .001 .46

Teammates 4.01 .76

Note. M =mean; SO=standard deviation; ES=effect size.

ROES: March 2003 65

Amorose

Aiken and West (1991), the first order variables andinteraction term were standardized. The correlationsamong the standardized variables are presented in theupper diagonal ofTable 4. These standardized variableswere then used in the hierarchical regression analysis.

As seen in Table 5, the results of the hierarchicalregression analysis revealed that the importance of thevarious significant others did not moderate the relation­ship. Specifically, the interaction terms entered on Step3 did not significantly add to predicting the athletes'self-perceptions ofcompetence (P> .05, Ll J{l = .01). Theaddition of the importance ofmothers, fathers, coaches,and teammates on Step 2 of the regression approachedsignificance (P < .09), although the amount ofvariancepredicted above and beyond that accounted for by thereflected appraisals entered on Step 1 was minimal (LlJ{l = .01).4 Thus, results found that the importance ofsignificant others as sources ofcompetence information,either alone or in combination with the reflected ap­praisals, added little to predicting athletes' self-percep­tions ofcompetence beyond the reflected appraisals ofparents and sport-others.

Discussion

The goal of this study was to examine the reflectedappraisals process. The first purpose was to test the rela­tive influence of the reflected appraisals of mothers,fathers, coaches, and teammates on athletes' self-percep­tions ofcompetence. Results from a factor analysis, how-

ever, indicated that the athletes did not fully distinguishbetween the reflected appraisals of these four signifi­cant others. Rather, the athletes perceived a substantialoverlap between the reflected appraisals ofmothers andfathers, as well as a substantial overlap between the re­flected appraisals of their coaches and teammates. Whileit was expected that these beliefs would be differenti­ated, the strong relationship among the significant oth­ers in these two sets ofreflected appraisal are reasonableand not without some precedence. For instance, in oneof the few studies to examine multiple significant oth­ers, Felson (1989) found that the reflected appraisalsof mothers and fathers were similar in the minds offourth-eighth-grade children. Felson (1981) also un­covered significant positive correlations (1S > .50) be­tween the reflected appraisals of position coaches andteammates in a sample ofcollege football players. Theseresults suggest a considerable overlap in athletes' per­ceptions ofhow people who share similar roles (e.g., par­ents) or those they encounter in similar settings (e.g.,coaches and teammates in the sport setting) view theirability. The present study also found the reflected apprais­als of parents (i.e., the combination ofmothers and fa­thers) and sport-others (i.e., the combination ofcoachesand teammates) to be related positively.

Felson (1989, 1993) has discussed the positive re­lationship among the reflected appraisals ofvarious sig­nificant others as the normative effect. Consistent withthe ideas of Mead (1934), Felson suggested that indi­viduals are better able to generate an idea of how the"generalized other" evaluates himselfor herself in com­parison to how specific individuals evaluate themselves

Table4. Correlation matrix(N=319)

Variable 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

1. Self-perception of competence(SPC) 1.00 .45 .65 .20 .18 .13 .07 -.03 -.01 .03 .03

2. Reflected appraisals of parents(RAP) .48 1.00 .49 .23 .25 .22 .19 -.10 -.13 -.05 -.01

3. Reflected appraisals of sportothers (RAS) .65 .49 1.00 .22 .09 .18 .18 -.01 -.04 .00 .02

4. Importance of mothers (1M) .20 .23 .22 1.00 .59 .26 .28 .04 .04 .12 .085. Importance of fathers (IF) .18 .25 .09 .59 1.00 .21 .24 .04 -.04 .04 .016. Importance of coaches (lC) .13 .22 .18 .26 .21 1.00 .46 .04 -.02 -.06 .087. Importance of teammates (IT) .07 .19 .18 .28 .24 .46 1.00 .04 -.02 .08 .058. RAP x 1M .33 .52 .35 .95 .59 .30 .31 1.00 .60 .12 .149. RAP x IF .32 .54 .24 .59 .94 .26 .27 .69 1.00 .07 .1110. RAS x IC .48 .44 .73 .32 .21 .80 .43 .43 .32 1.00 .5311. RAS x IT .39 .39 .65 .34 .23 .45 .86 .42 .33 .72 1.00

Note. Correlations among variables in raw score form are presented in the lower diagonal. Correlations among the standardizedvariables are presented in the upperdiagonal. All correlations> 1.121 are significant at p < .05.

66 ROES: March 2003

(also see Depaulo, Kenny, Hoover, Webb, & Oliver,1987). That is, individuals are better able to perceivethe attitudes ofa group ofindividuals versus the attitudeof each specific significant other.

While these normative effects appear to exist, theresults of this study suggest that there are meaningfuldifferences in the reflected appraisals of various signifi­cant others. For instance, the amount ofunique variancein the athletes' self-perceptions ofcompetence explainedby the reflected appraisals of sport-others was consider­ably greater than that accounted for by the reflected ap­praisals of parents (22.4% vs. 3.50%, respectively). Theregression coefficient for sport-others was also found tobe significantlylarger than that ofparents. Thus, althoughthere was overlap in the athletes' perceptions of theirparents and sport-others, the athletes meaningfully dif­ferentiated between these groups of individuals.

Given the lack of research testing multiple signifi­cant others, no a priori hypothesis regarding the rela­tive influence of the reflected appraisals of the varioussignificant others was forwarded. The larger influence

Table 5. Summary of results from the hierarchical regressionanalysis for the standardized variables predicting self-perceptions of competence (N=319)

Variable B SEB 13 p<

Step 1Reflected appraisalsof parents (RAP) .21 .05 .21 .01Reflected appraisalsof sportothers (RAS) .54 .05 .54 .01

Step 2RPA .20 .05 .20 .01RAS .56 .05 .56 .01Importance of mothers (1M) -.01 .05 -.01 .89Importance of fathers (IF) .11 .05 .11 .05Importance of coaches (lC) .01 .05 .01 .84Importance of teammates (IT) -.09 .05 -.09 .06

Step 3RPA .20 .05 .20 .01RAS .56 .05 .56 .011M -.02 .05 -.02 .67IF .12 .05 .12 .03IC .02 .05 .02 .70IT -.10 .05 -.10 .05RAP x 1M -.07 .05 -.07 .22RAP x IF .08 .05 .08 .12RAS x IC .05 .05 .05 .34RAS x IT .00 .05 .00 .99

Note. B=unstandardized regression coefficient; SE =standarderror; f{l =.45 for Step 1,p < .05; ~ f{l =.01 for Step 2, p » .05; ~f{l =.01 for Step 3,p » .05.

ROES: March 2003

Amorose

ofthe reflected appraisals ofsport-others on the athletes'self-perceptions of sport competence, nevertheless,seems reasonable given the age and the social-eontex­tual factors associated with the competitive level of theathletes in this sample. For instance, college athletesare likely to spend considerably more time interactingwith coaches and teammates in the sport setting rela­tive to their parents. Further, coaches and teammatesat the college level are probably more knowledgeableabout the sport and what characteristics make up a com­petent performer. Perhaps the degree of interpersonalinteraction and the level ofexpertise of the significantothers influences the probability that athletes will in­ternalize these reflected appraisals. It has been sug­gested, for instance, that highly credible evaluations aremore likely to be internalized (see Shrauger, 1975;Shrauger & Schoeneman, 1979). While these ideaswere not tested in this study, the fact that the athletesplaced more importance on coaches and teammates assources of competence information relative to theirmothers and fathers lends some, albeit indirect, sup­port to this idea.

Another possible explanation for the relativelystronger influence ofsport-others on athletes' self-per­ceptions of competence is that an athlete may believecertain significant others are more truthful or genuinewhen communicating their evaluations of the athlete.For instance, athletes may be less likely to believe theirparents when it comes to evaluating their ability in sport;concluding that their parents are "biased" and unlikelyto say or do things that would make the athlete feel bador feel incompetent. Goffman's (1959) description ofthe interaction ritual indicates that people are unlikelyto communicate information that may cause embarrass­ment or shame. While all individuals are believed toengage in this interaction ritual, Rose (1969) andFelson (1993) suggested that some individuals aremore likely than others to communicate their actualbeliefs. Specifically, individuals occupying certain roles,such as a coach, are more likely to communicate theirtrue feelings about the characteristics and qualities ofindividuals. For instance, a coach's job is to providefeedback and instruction to athletes, decide who isgoing to play, how much playing time each athlete re­ceives, and so on. Each of these decisions may providevaluable cues to the athlete about how competent thecoach feels he or she is. It is quite possible that coachesand teammates will offer genuine appraisals ofothers'ability, whether positive or negative. While athletes maynot want to hear negative things about themselves andtheir competence, perhaps they are more likely to in­ternalize the beliefs when they feel the appraisals aretruthful and unbiased.

Research specifically examining why certain indi­viduals may have a stronger influence on athletes' self-

67

Amorose

perceptions of competence should continue to gain amore complete understanding ofthe reflected appraisalprocess. This study, in fact, was partly designed with thisgoal in mind. It was hypothesized that the importanceplaced on various significant others as sources of com­petence information would moderate the relationshipbetween the reflected appraisals and the athletes' self­perceptions of competence. In other words, only thosesignificant others who were rated as important to the ath­letes for evaluating their ability in sport would influencetheir self-perceptions. Results, however, did not confirmthis prediction. Why this is the case remains unclear.

Conceptually, it seems reasonable to expect that theimportance placed on various others should moderatethe relationship between the reflected appraisals andself-perceptions ofcompetence. One possible reasonfor the lack of support involves the causal direction ofthe relationships. The reflected appraisal process sug­gests that individuals determine what others think ofthem and internalize these appraisals. Felson and oth­ers (e.g., Felson, 1993;Jussim et aI., 1992), however, sug­gested that individuals may project their own self­perceptions onto others. That is, athletes who think theyare competent may infer that others also think they arecompetent. Thus, rather than internalizing the re­flected appraisals of others, individuals project theirown evaluations, thereby reserving the direction of theeffect. While Felson (1993) acknowledged the difficultyin adequately testing reciprocal effects, a few studieshave found that projection does occur, especially un­der certain circumstances, such as when feedback aboutone's ability is ambiguous (Felson, 1981, 1989;Jussim,Coleman, & Nassau, 1989;Jussim etaI., 1992). The keypoint here is that if athletes are projecting their self­perceptions of competence onto others, then the im­portance the athletes place on these others should notnecessarily moderate the relationship, unless we aremore likely to project our self-perceptions onto thosewhom we believe are more important to us.

The possibility of projection accounting for the re­lationship among the reflected appraisals and the ath­letes' self-perceptions of competence cannot be ruledout, given the correlational nature of the current study,and, thus, may explain the lack ofsupport for the mod­eration hypothesis. It will be important for future re­search to determine the extent projection plays in thereflected appraisal process and under what circum­stances projection is likely to occur (see Felson, 1993;Jussim et aI., 1992).

Overall, results supported the reflected appraisalprocess, although many questions remain. For instance,this study examined the link between reflected apprais­als and self-appraisal but ignored the actual appraisalsof the significant others. Others have examined the re­lationship between actual appraisals and self-apprais-

68

als (e.g., Dempsey, Kimiecik, & Horn, 1993; McCullagh,Matzkanin, Shaw, & Maldonado, 1993) yet did not con­sider the reflected appraisals. Our understanding willbe enhanced through testing the entire reflected ap­praisal process. Other suggested avenues of future re­search include, for example: (a) determining whetherthe relative influence of various significant otherschanges overtime, (b) examining whether there areadditional significant others (e.g., nonsport peers, ex­tended family) that influence athletes' self-perceptionsof competence, and (c) uncovering the specific infor­mation (e.g., direct or indirect feedback, amount ofat­tention, provision of opportunities) athletes use todetermine the reflected appraisals of various others.Continued research in this area should allow research­ers and practitioners to more fully understand the de­velopment ofathletes' self-perceptions ofcompetence,and ultimately lead to suggestions on how others, suchas teachers, coaches, parents, and teammates, can helpto facilitate more positive self-perceptions.

Despite the intuitive appeal, there is relatively littleresearch examining the influence ofsignificant otherson athletes' psychological responses and characteris­tics (Brustad, Babkes, &Smith, 2001; Horn, 1992). Thisstudy has added to the literature by testing how re­flected appraisals are related to college athletes' self­perceptions ofcompetence. Consistent with both theoryand research on the reflective appraisal process (seeHarter, 1998; Felson, 1993, Shrauger & Schoeneman,1979), results indicated that the reflected appraisals ofparents and sport-others were strongly related to ath­letes' self-perceptions of competence, with sport-oth­ers demonstrating a particularly strong relationship.Finally, the study found that the importance placed onthese significant others did not moderate the relation­ship between the reflected appraisals and self-percep­tions of competence.

References

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testingand interpretinginteractions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Babkes, M. L., & Weiss,M. R (1999). Parental influence on chil­dren's cognitive and affective responses to competitive soc­cer participation. Pediatric Exercise Science, 11,44-62.

Brustad, RJ., Babkes, M. L., & Smith, A. L. (2001). Youth insport: Psychological considerations. In R N. Singer, H.A. Hausenblas, & C. M.Janelle (Eds.), Handbook of sportpsychology (2nd ed., pp. 604-635). New York:John Wiley& Sons.

Cohen.]., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/corre­lation analysisfor thebehavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale,NJ: Lawrence ErIbaum.

Cooley, C. H., (1902). Human nature and the socialorder. NewYork: Scribner's.

ROES: March 2003

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self­determination in human behaoiot: New York: Plenum Press.

Dernpsey.]. M., Kimiecik,]. C., & Horn, T. S. (1993). Paren­tal influence on children's moderate to vigorous physi­cal activity participation: An expectancy-valueapproach. PediatricExercise Science, 5,151-167.

DePaulo, B. M., Kenny, D. A., Hoover, C. W., Webb, W., &Oliver, P.v., (1987). Accuracy of person perception: Dopeople know what kinds of impressions they convey?Jour­nal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 52, 303-315.

Eccles,]. S. (1993). School and family effects on the ontog­eny of children's interests, self-perceptions, and activ­itychoices. In R. Dienstbier &]. E.Jacobs (Eds.), Nebraskasymposium on motivation 1992: Developmentalperspectiveson motivation (pp. 143-208). Lincoln, NE: University ofNebraska Press.

Eccles.]. S., Wigfield, A., & Schiefele, U. (1998). Motivationto succeed. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), Handbook of childpsy­chology: Volume 3, Social, emotional, and personality develop­ment (pp. 1017-1096). New York:John Wiley & Sons.

Felson, R. B. (1981). Self and reflected appraisals among foot­ball players: A test of the Meadian hypothesis. SocialPsy­chology Quarterly, 44, 116-126.

Felson, R. B. (1985). Reflected appraisals and the develop­ment of the self. SocialPsychology Quarterly, 48, 71-78.

Felson, R B. (1989). Parents and the reflected appraisal pro­cess: A longitudinal analysis. Journal ofPersonality and So­cial Psychology, 56,965-971.

Felson, R. B. (1993). The (somewhat) social self: How othersaffect self-appraisals. In]. Suls (Ed.), Psychological perspec­tives on the self: Vol. 4. The self in socialperspective (pp. 1­26). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Fox, K. R (1998). Advances in the measurement of the physi­cal self. In]. L. Duda (Ed.), Advances in sportand exercisepsychology measurement (pp. 295-310). Morgantown, WV:Fitness Information Technology.

Goffman, E. (1959). Thepresentationof selfin everyday life. NewYork: Doubleday.

Harter, S. (1996). Historical roots of contemporary issuesinvolving self-concept. In B. A. Bracken (Ed.), Handbookof self-concept: Developmental, social, and clinical consider­ations (pp. 1-37). New York:John Wiley & Sons.

Harter, S. (1998). The development of self-representations.In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol­ume 3, Social, emotional, and personality development (pp.553-618). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Horn, T. S. (1992). Leadership effectiveness in the sport do­main. In T. S. Horn (Ed.), Advances in sport psychology(pp. 181-199). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Horn, T. S., & Amorose, A.J. (1998). Sources of competenceinformation. In]. Duda (Ed.), Advancements in sportandexercise psychology measurement (pp. 49-63). Morgantown,WV: Fitness Information Technology.

Horn, T. S., Glenn, S. D., & Wentzell, A. B. (1993). Sourcesof information underlying personal ability judgmentsin high school athletes. PediatricExercise Science, 5, 263­274.

Horn, T. S., & Harris, A. (1996). Perceived competence inyoung athletes: Research findings and recommendationsfor coaches and parents. In F. L. Smoll & R E. Smith

ROES: March 2003

Amorose

(Eds.) , Children and youth in sport(pp. 309-329). Chicago:Brown & Benchmark.

Horn, T. S., & Weiss, M. R (1991). A developmental analysisof children's self-abilityjudgments. PediatricExercise Sci­ence, 3, 312-328.

Jussim, L., Coleman, L., & Nassau, S. R (1989). Reactions tointerpersonal evaluative feedback. Journal of Applied So­cialPsychology, 19, 862-884.

Jussim, L. Soffin, S., Brown, R, Ley,]., & Kohlhepp, K. (1992).Understanding reactions to feedback by integratingideas from symbolic interactionism and cognitive evalu­ation theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,62, 402-421.

Kinch.]. W. (1963). A formalized theory of the self-concept.AmericanJournalofSociology, 68,481-486.

McCullagh, P., Matzkanin, K. T., Shaw, S. D., & Maldonado,M. (1993). Motivation for participating in physical ac­tivity: A comparison of parent-child perceived compe­tencies and participation motives. PediatricExercise Science, 5,224-233.

Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society. Chicago: Univer­sity of Chicago Press.

Nicholls,]. (1989). The competitiveethosand democratic educa­tion. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Phillips, D. A. (1987). Socialization of perceived academiccompetence among highly competent children. ChildDevelopment, 58, 1308-1320.

Rose,]. D. (1969). The role of the other in self-evaluation.Sociological Quarterly, 39, 470-479.

Shrauger.]. S. (1975). Responses to evaluation as a functionof initial self-perceptions. Psychological Bulletin, 82, 581­596.

Shrauger, J. S., & Schoeneman, T. J. (1979). Symbolicinteractionist view of self-concept: Through the look­ing glass darkly. Psychological Bulletin, 82, 784-795.

Smith, A. L. (1999). Perceptions of peer relationships andphysical activity participation in early adolescence.Jour­nal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 21, 329-350.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1996). Usingmultivari­ate statistics (3rd ed.). New York: Harper Collins.

Thomas.]. R, Salazar, w., & Landers, D. M. (1991). What ismissing in p less than .05? Effect size. Research Quarterlyfor Exercise and Sport, 62, 344-348.

Weiss, M. R., & Ebbeck, V. (1996). Self-esteem and percep­tions of competence in youth sport: Theory, research,and enhancement strategies. In O. Bar-Or (Ed.), Theencyclopedia of sports medicine, Vol. v.. The child and adoles­cent athlete (pp. 364-382). Oxford, United Kingdom:Blackwell Scientific Publications, Ltd.

Notes

1. Six participants (4 men and 2 women) left itemsblank on this measure. In each case the items left blankwere those asking about the athletes' father. For ease of

analysis, these athletes were dropped from the study,leaving the final sample of319 athletes.

69

Amorose

2. As with the reflected appraisal measure, respon­dents were told to leave blank any item that referenceda person with whom he or she did not have any contact.This occurred for only those 6 athletes who left blanktheir responses to the reflected appraisals of fathers.3. The equation for this test, which can be found inCohen and Cohen (1983, p. 479), is: t = b, - ~ / S~i - bj'

where S" . - b. is the standard error of the difference of b."""""1 .J I

andb.J.

4. The hierarchical regression analysis was also con-ducted using a combination ofthe importance ofmoth­ers and fathers and coaches and teammates. That is, tobe consistent with the reflected appraisals, compositevariables were created to reflect the importance of par­ents and the importance of sport-others. Results fromthe regression analysis with these variables and the as-

70

sociated interaction terms, however, also failed to sup­port the moderating effect of the importance ratings.

Author's Notes

I would like to thank the two anonymous reviewers andespecially the section editor for their insightful com­ments and suggestions regarding this manuscript.Please address all correspondence concerning this ar­ticle to AnthonyJ.Amorose, School ofKinesiology andRecreation, Illinois State University, 227L HortonFieldhouse, Normal, IL 61790-5120.

E-mail: ajamoro@ilstu.edu

ROES: March 2003

本文献由“学霸图书馆-文献云下载”收集自网络，仅供学习交流使用。

学霸图书馆（www.xuebalib.com）是一个“整合众多图书馆数据库资源，

提供一站式文献检索和下载服务”的24 小时在线不限IP

图书馆。

图书馆致力于便利、促进学习与科研，提供最强文献下载服务。

图书馆导航：

图书馆首页 文献云下载 图书馆入口 外文数据库大全 疑难文献辅助工具