Origins and consequences of tripartite efficacy beliefs within elite athlete dyads

Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology

Volumn 30, Issue 5, 2008, Pages 512-540

  Jackson, Ben ^a,c   Knapp, Peter ^a   Beauchamp, Mark R ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA   (Australia)

Author keywords

Content analysis; Relational efficacy; Tripartite model

Indexed keywords

EID: 53349097704     PISSN: 08952779     EISSN: 15432904     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1123/jsep.30.5.512     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. The American Psychologist, 37, 122-147.
2. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Engelwood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall
3. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman and Company.
4. Beauchamp, M.R., & Whinton, L. (2005). Self-efficacy and other efficacy in dyadic relationships: Riding as one in equestrian eventing. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 27(2), 245-252.
5. Berg, B.L. (2007). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
6. Biddle, S.J.H., Markland, D., Gilbourne, D., Chatzisarantis, N.L.D., & Sparkes, A.C. (2001). Research methods in sport and exercise psychology: Quantitative and qualitative issues. Journal of Sports Sciences, 19, 777-809.
7. Bogdan, R., & Taylor, S.J. (1984). Introduction to qualitative research methods. The search for meanings. Toronto: Wiley.
8. Bonito, J.A. (2002). The analysis of participation in small groups: Methodological and conceptual issues related to interdependence. Small Group Research, 33, 412-438.
9. Chaiken, S., Liberman, A., & Eagly, A.H. (1989). Heuristic and systematic processing within and beyond the persuasion context. In J.S. Uleman & J.A. Bargh (Eds.), Unintended thought (pp. 212-252). New York: Guilford.
10. Chase, M.A., Feltz, D.L., & Lirgg, C.D. (2003). Sources of collective and individual efficacy of collegiate athletes. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 1, 180-191.
11. Creswell, J. (2003). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
12. Gergen, M.M., & Gergen, K. (2003). Social construction: A reader. London: Sage.
13. Jackson, B., Beauchamp, M.R., & Knapp, P. (2007). Relational efficacy beliefs in athlete dyads: An investigation using actor-partner interdependence models. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 29, 170-189.
14. Kenny, D. A., & Acitelli, L.K. (2001). Accuracy and bias in perceptions of the partner in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 439-448.
15. Kenny, D.A., Kashy, D.A., & Cook, W.L. (2006). Dyadic data analysis. New York: Guilford.
16. Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
17. Lent, R.W., & Lopez, F.G. (2002). Cognitive ties that bind: A tripartite view of efficacy beliefs in growth-promoting relationships. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 21, 256-286.
18. Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverley Hills, CA: Sage.
19. Lubker, J.R., Watson, J.C., II, Visek, A.J., & Geer, J.R. (2005). Physical appearance and the perceived effectiveness of performance enhancement consultants. The Sport Psychologist, 19, 446-458.
20. Mays, N., & Pope, C. (1995). Qualitative research: Rigour and qualitative research. British Medical Journal, 311, 109-112.
21. Merrick, E. (1999). An exploration of quality in qualitative research: Are "reliability" and "validity" relevant? In M. Kopala & L. A. Suzuki (Eds.), Using qualitative methods in psychology (pp. 25-36). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
22. Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1990). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
23. Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded source-book (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
24. Moritz, S.E., Feltz, D.L., Fahrbach, K.R., & Mack, D.E. (2000). The relation of self-efficacy measures to sport performance: A meta-analytic review. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 71, 280-294.
25. Nordin, S.M., & Cumming, J. (2005). Professional dancers describe their imagery: Where, when, what, why, and how. The Sport Psychologist, 19, 395-416.
26. Ponterotto, J.G. (2005). Qualitative research in counseling psychology: A primer on research paradigms and philosophy of science. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 126-136.
27. Schwandt, T.A. (2000). Three epistemological stances for qualitative enquiry: Interpretivism, hermeneutics, and social constructionism. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (2000). Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 189-213). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
28. Smith, R.E., & Smoll, F.L. (2007). Social cognitive approach to coaching behaviors. In S. Jowett & D. Lavallee (Eds.), Social psychology in sport (pp. 75-90). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
29. Snyder, M., & Stukas, A.A. (1999). Interpersonal processes: The interplay of cognitive, motivational, and behavioral activities in social interaction. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 273-303.
30. Stiles, W.B. (1993). Quality control in qualitative research. Clinical Psychology Review, 13, 593-618.
31. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
32. Tesch, R. (1990). Qualitative research analysis types and software tools. New York: Falmer Press.
33. Wickwire, T.L., Bloom, G.A., & Loughead, T.M. (2004). The environment, structure, and interaction process of elite same-sex dyadic sport teams. The Sport Psychologist, 18, 381-396.