Self-efficacy as a metaperception within coachCathlete and athleteCathlete relationships-共享资料网
Self-efficacy as a metaperception within coachCathlete and athleteCathlete relationships
Psychology of Sport and Exercise 11 (6Contents lists available at ScienceDirectPsychology of Sport and Exercisejournal homepage: /locate/psychsportSelf-efcacy as a metaperception within coacheathlete and athleteeathlete relationshipsBen Jackson a, *, Mark R. Beauchamp ba bSchool of Sport Science, Exercise and Health, University of Western Australia, M408, Crawley, WA 6009, Australia School of Human Kinetics, University of British Columbia, Room 156B, Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z2, Canadaa r t i c l e i n f oArticle history: Received 29 May 2009 Received in revised form 4 December 2009 Accepted 22 December 2009 Available online 4 January 2010 Keywords: Close relationships Sport Relational efcacya b s t r a c tBackground and Purpose: Metaperceptions constitute estimations that one person holds about another person's perceptions. This study draws from and extends Lent and Lopez's (2002) tripartite model of relational efcacy, to present conceptual and empirical evidence for the role of self-efcacy as a metaperception (Estimations of the Other person's Self-E EOSE) within coacheathlete and athleteeathlete contexts. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 24 members of international-level coacheathlete and athleteeathlete dyads. The data were subjected to content analysis. Results and Conclusions: Results revealed insight into the means through which dyad members form EOSE appraisals (i.e., antecedents), namely via perceptions regarding ‘the other’ (e.g., his/her verbal communication) and the dyad as a whole (i.e., mastery achievements as a dyad). EOSE was also reported to be aligned with important indices of individual and relationship functioning in the form of intrapersonal (e.g., personal motivation) and interpersonal (e.g., relationship persistence intentions) outcomes. Overall, ndings suggest that EOSE perceptions may represent an important relational efcacy construct within sporting contexts, and implications for theory advancement as well as applied considerations for supporting close relationships in athletic settings are discussed.
2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.Social Cognitive Theory (SCT; Bandura, 1986) emphasizes that human functioning is underpinned by the notion of triadic reciprocal determinism, whereby individuals both inuence and are inuenced by various personal, environmental, and behavioral factors. A fundamental personal component of SCT that has received substantial empirical attention is the concept of self-efcacy, which relates to an individual's beliefs in his or her “capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to produce given attainments” (Bandura, 1997, p.3). Consistent with the concept of reciprocal determinism, Bandura (1997) proposed that in individual performance settings self-efcacy is not only a key determinant of various behaviors (e.g., effort, performance, persistence), but also the activities (or environments) in which individuals choose to engage. As an extension of SCT and with respect to dyadic contexts, Lent and Lopez (2002) proposed that in close relationships individuals develop a ‘tripartite’ network of complementary efcacy beliefs that correspond to themselves and their partners, and that* Corresponding author. Tel.: 61 (0) 8 ; fax: 61 (0) 8 . E-mail addresses: bjackson@cyllene.uwa.edu.au (B. Jackson), mark.beauchamp@ ubc.ca (M.R. Beauchamp). /$ e see front matter
2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.these social cognitions may be central to engendering mutually benecial interactions. Specically, drawing from self-efcacy theory, Lent and Lopez theorized that when people form close relationships, they not only develop conceptions about their own personal capabilities (i.e., self-efcacy beliefs), but they also develop a set of other-efcacy beliefs that represent their condence in the capabilities of the other person in the relationship. Beyond selfefcacy and other-efcacy, Lent and Lopez also articulated the role of relation-inferred self-efcacy (RISE) as the nal component within their tripartite model. RISE is conceptualized as a person's beliefs about his or her partner's other-efcacy and was dened as “person B0 s appraisal of how his or her capabilities are viewed by person A” (Lent & Lopez, p.268). As well as dening these ‘relational efcacy’ beliefs, Lent and Lopez (2002) also outlined a comprehensive network of antecedents and consequences relating to each of these efcacy constructs. Importantly, in doing so, they theorized that self-efcacy, otherefcacy, and RISE are each independently associated with adaptive personal and dyad-related consequences for those within close relationships, in the form of key affective (e.g., relationship satisfaction), cognitive (e.g., choice of partner, relationship persistence intentions), and behavioral outcomes (e.g., performance, effort).B. Jackson, M.R. Beauchamp / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 11 (6189Recent research involving athletic dyads (e.g., coacheathlete, athleteeathlete) has provided preliminary evidence for the utility of these tripartite constructs in predicting a range of desirable relational outcomes. In particular, self-efcacy and other-efcacy have both been found to predict relationship commitment, as well as indices of enhanced performance and perceptions of effort expended (Beauchamp & Whinton, 2005; Jackson & Beauchamp, Jackson, Beauchamp, & Knapp, 2007). The ndings for RISE are somewhat limited. However, in one study Jackson and Beauchamp (in press) observed that coaches who believed that their athletes were highly condent in their (i.e., coaches') abilities reported more positive relationship commitment and satisfaction perceptions themselves. In sum, the tripartite model has provided some insight into the role of interpersonal efcacy beliefs in contributing to relationship functioning within sport settings. In spite of this evidence however, it is noteworthy that Lent and Lopez referred to their tripartite framework as a “preliminary model” (p. 257) that could potentially be extended and rened. In the social cognition literature, a number of prominent researchers have emphasized the need to differentiate between direct perceptions (also referred to as rst-order expectations) and metaperceptions (also referred to as second-order expectations) (Snyder & Stukas, 1999; Troyer & Younts, 1997; Webster & Whitmeyer, 1999). Direct perceptions (Kenny & Acitelli, 2001) relate to the ‘direct’ beliefs that individuals hold for themselves or others. With respect to Lent and Lopez's (2002) conceptual model, self-efcacy represents a direct perception, namely one's own condence in one's own ability. Similarly, other-efcacy is also however, the frame of reference in this case shifts from one's condence in one's own ability to one's condence in another person's ability. For example, an athlete's condence in his own ability would reect a self-efcacy belief, whereas the same athlete's condence in his coach's ability would represent his other-efcacy belief. Alongside direct perceptions, people are also theorized to develop metaperceptions (see Kenny & Acitelli, 2001 for an excellent discussion of this topic). Unlike direct perceptions, metaperceptions represent the estimations that people form regarding the thoughts of signicant others. Drawing from the work of Laing and his colleagues (Laing, Phillipson, & Lee, 1966), the role of metaperceptions has long been the subject of research within social psychology (see Kenny, 1994; Kenny & DePaulo, 1993). However, only recently has this type of cognition been examined by relationship researchers in sport. In particular, Jowett and colleagues (e.g., Jowett, 2009; Jowett & Clark-Carter, 2006) highlighted the importance of metaperceptions in shaping the quality of coacheathlete interactions in sport, noting for instance that in addition to developing feelings of closeness and commitment towards one another (termed ‘direct closeness’ and ‘direct commitment’), coaches and athletes also monitor and appraise the closeness or commitment perceptions held by each other (i.e., ‘meta-closeness’ and ‘meta-commitment’). Similarly, with respect to the tripartite model, RISE constitutes a metaperception regarding the expectations that a signicant other holds for oneself (i.e., ‘how condent do I think my partner is in my capabilities?’). Importantly, in their review of interpersonal perceptions, Troyer and Younts (1997) commented that a complete understanding of relational processes should account for “one's own expectations regarding self and other and one's beliefs about the expectations other holds for self and other” (p. 696). Direct efcacy perceptions regarding oneself (i.e., self-efcacy) and other (i.e., other-efcacy) within dyadic settings are clearly accounted for in Lent and Lopez's (2002) model, as are one's beliefs about the expectations that one's partner holds for oneself (i.e., RISE). However, what is evident from Troyer and Younts' writing is that the tripartite model does not presently incorporate a person'sbeliefs about the expectations that his or her partner hold that is, the degree to which a person believes that his or her partner is condent in the partner's own abilities. In essence, this construct simply reects self-efcacy as a metaperception within dyadic settings. In this paper we refer to these appraisals as Estimations of the Other person's Self-Efcacy (EOSE) beliefs, and by extending the tripartite model in this way, it is proposed that the network of efcacy beliefs that exist in close relationships comprises four constructs, namely self-efcacy (‘my condence in my ability’), other-efcacy (‘my condence in my partner's ability’), RISE (‘how condent I think my partner is in my ability’), and nally, EOSE (‘how condent I think my partner is in him/herself’). It is worth noting that in their review of the self-efcacy literature in sport, Feltz, Short, and Sullivan (2008) briey discuss the presence of this type of metaperception. In doing so they referred to this construct as ‘condence-focused other-efcacy’, however we believe that this term is potentially confusing, and does not sufciently distinguish this metaperception from the way in which other-efcacy has been conceptualized and operationalized in the social psychology (e.g., Lopez & Lent, 1991) and sport psychology (e.g., Jackson et al., 2007; Jackson & Beauchamp, in press) literature. In short we have proposed the use of the term, Estimations of the Other person's Self-Efcacy (EOSE), because we believe that it more closely represents the psychological concept of interest (cf. Maddux, 1999). In sport, a substantial body of literature has revealed a variety of factors that are either predictive of, or predicted by self-efcacy perceptions. For instance, research has shown that individuals' condence in their own ability stems from prior mastery achievements (Wise & Trunnell, 2001), pre-competition preparation (Hays, Maynard, Thomas, & Bawden, 2007), verbal persuasion (Chase, 1998), observational learning (Law & Hall, 2009), imagery/mental rehearsal (Ross-Stewart & Short, 2009), and physiological/ emotional factors (Chase, Feltz, & Lirgg, 2003). In addition, selfefcacy beliefs have been shown to be associated with a range of desirable consequences, including improved athletic performance (Moritz, Feltz, Fahrbach, & Mack, 2000), greater effort (Hutchinson, Sherman, Martinovic, & Tenenbaum, 2008), enhanced well-being (Rudolph & Butki, 1998), and positive affective responses (Martin, 2002). Nonetheless, whilst much is known about the origins and consequences of self-efcacy, little attention in either sport settings or beyond has been directed towards exploring and/or describing self-efcacy as a metaperception (i.e., EOSE). In one investigation, Short and Short (2004) collected data regarding collegiate football coaches' self-efcacy beliefs, alongside athletes' perceptions of their coaches' self-efcacy beliefs, in order to explore the congruence between coaches' actual scores and athletes' estimations. In this respect, Short and Short measured (what we would term) EOSE beliefs, that is, an individual's estimation of another person's selfefcacy. However, it is important to note that in this investigation, the authors referred to this construct as ‘other-efcacy’. Although subtly different, appraising another person's self-efcacy (i.e., a metaperception) is not the same thing as appraising another person's capabilities (i.e., a direct perception). Indeed, while Short and Short considered the former cognition to be other-efcacy, the latter denition of other-efcacy is adopted in most empirical reports published in this area (e.g., Beauchamp & Whinton, 2005; Jackson et al., 2007; Lopez & Lent, 1991). Nevertheless, Short and Short found that team members' estimations of their coaches' selfefcacy beliefs were largely similar to their coaches' actual perceptions. That said, given the exploratory nature of their study, it is important to note that Short and Short did not investigate either the sources or potential implications associated with these metaperceptual beliefs, and so the role of EOSE in sport is currently unclear.190B. Jackson, M.R. Beauchamp / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 11 (6Guided by Troyer and Younts (1997) theoretical claims, the overall purpose of this study was to examine the antecedents of EOSE beliefs, as well as the various outcomes associated with this metaperception within two of the primary dyadic settings that exist in sport, namely coacheathlete and athleteeathlete relationships. Conceptually, this study holds the potential to facilitate a greater understanding of the ways in which EOSE beliefs emerge in the rst instance and shape cognitive, behavioral, and affective responses within athletic partnerships. In this investigation, a social constructionist (Schwandt, 2000) approach was employed to explore the antecedents and consequences associated with EOSE beliefs. The social constructionist paradigm rests on the notion that individuals develop their own subjective meanings or experiences relating to the various contexts in which they exist, and acknowledges the important role of social interactions in the formation of these perceptions (Creswell, 2003). Thus, social constructionist research seeks to enable individuals to describe their own subjective experiences and interpretations of a given phenomenon. Consistent with this framework, a qualitative methodology involving semi-structured interviews and content analysis was deemed the most appropriate approach for examining the antecedents and consequences of athletes' and coaches' EOSE beliefs. Methods Participants Both members of six athleteeathlete (Mean age
9.5) and six coacheathlete dyads from individual sports (Mean coach age
6.49; Mean athlete age
3.62) participated in this study1. All of the athletes that took part in this study competed at the international level, including participation at World and Olympic games. Members of the athleteeathlete dyads reported 17.83 years (SD
9.17) years experience competing in their sport, had competed together for an average of 4 years (SD
2.63), and spent 14.17 h (SD
6.25) per week training together. Athlete partnerships were drawn from a variety of dyadic sports, namely synchronized swimming, synchronized diving, kayaking, gure skating, table tennis, and sailing. Coacheathlete dyads, on the other hand, had been working with each other for 3.45 years (SD
3.04) and spent 10.33 h (SD
4.96) together per week, on average. Coacheathlete dyads were drawn from triathlon, gure skating, tennis, bob skeleton, and track and eld. Coaches and athletes from these partnerships reported an average of 13.33 (SD
5.13) and 10.5 (SD
5.32) years experience in coaching and competing, respectively. In order to protect participant anonymity in the reporting of results, all identiable names and locations were removed, and all participants were allocated a code according to their dyad. Members of athleteeathlete dyads were referred to as ‘AA’ (e.g., AA1.1 and AA1.2 refer to the athletes 1 and 2 from dyad number 1), whilst participants from coacheathlete dyads were given the label ‘CA’. For example, ‘coach CA3’ refers to the coach from the coacheathlete dyad number 3, and ‘athlete CA5’ represents the athlete from coacheathlete dyad number 5.Procedure After receiving institutional ethical approval for the study, recruitment letters were posted to relevant national governing organizations (NGOs) from individual and dyadic sports in the United Kingdom. NGOs were subsequently invited to inform any international-level athletes or coaches about the nature of the study, and to provide the contact details of the lead investigator should those individuals wish to register their interest. Upon receiving expressions of interest, the lead investigator mailed potential participants an information letter detailing the purpose of the investigation, and outlining their rights as a participant (i.e., voluntary involvement, right to withdraw and/or refuse to answer any question, anonymity of all information). Finally, having conrmed the availability of both themselves and the other person in their relationship, interviews were subsequently arranged at a time and place of participants' choosing. Upon meeting each participant, and prior to obtaining their informed consent to take part in the study, all individuals were provided with a reminder of the purpose of the study, were asked for their permission to audio record the interview, and were assured that their anonymity would be protected at all times. Athletes and coaches were also invited to provide an appropriate electronic or postal contact address in order to facilitate the provision of interview transcripts and a summary of ndings at a later date. At the close of all interviews, participants were thanked for their time, and given the opportunity to ask any questions about the investigation and the interview process itself. Interview guide A semi-structured interview guide was used in this study to enable questions to be asked in a exible manner, and to facilitate the ow of the interviews. Participants were rst invited to provide background and demographic information, after which the main section of the interviews focused on the antecedents and consequences of dyad members' constructions of EOSE appraisals. In the main interview section, and to help facilitate discussion around the focal construct of interest (EOSE), a threestage strategy was employed. Specically, participants were rst informed that the interview would focus on one type of ‘condence’ that may be important in dyadic settings. They were then asked to describe and write out the main skills required of the other person in the dyad (for brevity, the other person in the dyad will hereafter be referred to as ‘the other’). Finally, the list of skills was subsequently used to help orient participants in the subsequent questions regarding the perceived capabilities of the other person. This was also done in order to ensure that participants' efcacy appraisals were task-specic (cf. Bandura, 1997). Specically, individuals were asked, “Could you describe how condent your [coach/athlete] is with respect to those skills?” In order to tap into the antecedents, or factors underpinning EOSE beliefs, individuals were then asked, “Could you explain what makes you think this?” Finally, to elicit information regarding any possible implications of EOSE beliefs, respondents were asked, “Could you explain how your [coach's/athlete's] condence in him/herself affects you and your relationship?” Throughout the interviews, clarication and elaboration probes (Patton, 2002) were employed by the interviewer in order to maximize understanding and obtain sufcient depth in participants' perceptions. During all interviews, participants were encouraged to focus on and frame their EOSE perceptions in relation to their current partnership. However, athletes and coaches were not prohibited from discussing relevant instances where EOSE had been important in previous interactions.1 Data presented in this study were collected as part of a broad program of research designed to examine relational efcacy beliefs in coacheathlete and athleteeathlete dyads. Two published studies presented data from the same participants that were involved in this study on the antecedents and consequences of the tripartite efcacy beliefs in athleteeathlete (Jackson et al., 2008) and coacheathlete (Jackson et al., 2009) dyads. The research questions addressed in the Jackson et al. () studies focused squarely on examining the tripartite constructs, whereas the research questions addressed in the interviews for this study revolved around the role of the EOSE construct, as a potential extension of Lent and Lopez's (2002) original model.B. Jackson, M.R. Beauchamp / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 11 (6191Data analysis Data were initially transcribed verbatim by the rst author. Subsequently, inductive content analytic procedures were employed in order to identify any sections of text (i.e., ‘meaning units’; Tesch, 1990) where athletes or coaches discussed EOSE, and/ or described these appraisals in relation to a specic antecedent or consequence. Subsequently, meaning units that were highly congruent were grouped together into lower-order themes, before conceptually similar themes were clustered according to higherorder categories. Assignment to higher-order categories was carried out in a deductive manner, using the emergent categories from previous tripartite efcacy research. Jackson and colleagues (Jackson, Knapp, & Beauchamp, 2008; Jackson, Knapp, & Beauchamp, 2009) observed that antecedent themes for relational efcacy beliefs could consistently be categorized into perceptions regarding ‘oneself’, ‘the other’, the ‘dyad as a whole’, or ‘external factors’, and as a result, these categories were adopted for use in the present study. In addition, the outcomes themes that emerged for efcacy beliefs in Jackson et al., () studies were classied under the higher-order categories of either ‘intra-personal’ or ‘interpersonal’ consequences. In particular, where a consequence referred solely to a personal outcome (e.g., one's own affective responses, effort, motivation), these themes were grouped as intra-personal outcomes, whereas themes that reected thoughts, feelings, and behaviors towards or about ‘the other’ or ‘the dyad’ (e.g., one's satisfaction with or intention to persist in the relationship) were assigned to the interpersonal higher-order category. The same approach was also utilized in this study. In order to maximize the trustworthiness of the analyses, and consistent with recommendations provided by Johnson (1997), transcripts and summary ndings were initially sent to participants, who were invited to provide feedback on the accuracy of their accounts and insert/remove any information they wished. In addition, the second author and an additional external reviewer were invited to independently assign all EOSE meaning units from a random sample of two coacheathlete and two athleteeathlete dyads to lower-order themes, in order to (a) examine the extent to which the three coders achieved consensus in their interpretations of the data, and (b) highlight any areas of disagreement for subsequent discussion. Initial reliability checks revealed an averageconsensus rate of 83% across the three coders, and following debate, consensus was achieved in relation to all remaining areas of disagreement (e.g., meaning unit assignment, inter-theme distinctiveness). Collectively, these procedures served to ensure that the coders' interpretations of the data not only matched one another, but also provided an authentic representation of athletes' and coaches' actual social constructions (Schwandt, 2000) of their EOSE perceptions. Results Across the 24 coach and athlete interviews, 16 themes emerged pertaining to EOSE (illustrated in Fig. 1), which broadly reected either antecedents (seven themes, 110 meaning units) or consequences (nine themes, 153 meaning units). Antecedents of EOSE Athletes and coaches reported a number of antecedent themes that underpinned their EOSE appraisals, which were assigned to higher-order categories according to the focus of the lower-order themes. Six themes were categorized as ‘perceptions regarding the other’ member of the dyad, while one theme was categorized under the higher-order theme termed ‘perception regarding the dyad’ (see Table 1). Perceptions regarding the other In the rst theme, EOSE perceptions were reported to develop out of the other's verbal communication, and this theme was evident for athletes from both types of dyad as well as coaches. As indicated in Table 1, frequent feedback and positive comments from the other underpinned positive EOSE inferences. Athlete AA1.1 said in this respect, “I can tell when he's feeling condent because he's bubbly and everything he's telling me is positive, talking about feeling good, beating the opponent, playing well”. Negative verbal communication, on the other hand, was associated with the estimation that the other person was lacking condence in his/her own ability. For example, coach CA1 outlined, “the biggest giveaway as to [my athlete's] own condence though is that he will have a match which potentially he could win, and he willLower-order antecedent themesHigher-order antecedent categoriesFocal constructHigher-ord er outcome categoriesLower-order outcome themesVerbal communication (AA, A, C) Past performances (AA, A, C) Physiological state (AA, A, C) Non-verbal behavior (AA, A) Pre-competition preparation (AA, C) Affective state (AA, C) Perceptions regarding the otherIntra-personalAffective responses (AA, A, C) Self-efficacy (AA, A) Motivation (AA, A) Relationship termination (AA, A, C) Relationship satisfaction (AA, A, C)EOSEInterpersonal Mastery achievements as a dyad (AA, A, C) Perceptions regarding the dyadOther-efficacy (AA, A) Relationship persistence intentions (AA, A) Attention to coach feedback (A) Implementing efficacyenhancing techniques (AA, C)Note. AA = Theme emerged for athlete-athlete dyad members. A = Theme emerged for athletes within coach-athlete dyads. C = Theme emerged for coaches within coach-athlete dyads.Fig. 1. Antecedent and outcome categories and themes for EOSE.192 Table 1 Antecedent themes and categories for EOSE. Antecedents of EOSE Category Perceptions regarding the other ThemeB. Jackson, M.R. Beauchamp / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 11 (6Example “you pick up on them being a condent person, like I was saying before about their ability to coach, if they're giving a good amount of feedback, then I0 d say they're a condent coach” (athlete CA4) “[my athlete's] results weren't going well. over the last few years, and this has created a very insecure person, his condence is not great” (coach CA1) “I think [my athlete] now has constant self-doubts, because of her injury and her tness levels” (coach CA6) “if [my partner] has any doubts in himself at all I can tell, I can sense it, it's strange. I mean I look at him and I can tell in the way that he moves and he walks” (athlete AA5.1) “when it comes to really training for a competition and doing it running through from beginning to end, that's where he lets himself down, then [my athlete] seems to have a lack of condence when he has to perform” (coach CA4) “That is a sign when [my partner] isn't feeling self-condent, he tends to lose his temper” (athlete AA1.1) “I think that the success in the doubles has helped [my partner's] self-condence” (athlete AA2.1)Verbal communication (8, 6, 5) Past performances (5, 9, 7) Physiological state (5, 3, 5) Non-verbal behavior (12, 7, 0) Pre-competition preparation (6, 0, 5) Affective state (8, 0, 6)Perceptions regarding the dyadMastery achievements as a dyad (5, 5, 3)Note. Figures in parentheses in ‘Theme’ column refer to the frequency and source of meaning units, using the following format: cited by AA athletes, cited by CA athletes, cited by coaches. For example, members of AA pairs cited ‘verbal communication’ 8 times, athletes from CA dyads highlighted this theme 6 times, and coaches described this on 5 occasions.talk prior to the match about how ‘when he's lost that match he'll go and do
or y’”. In the second theme, all three participant groups described the other's past performances as a source of their EOSE appraisals. That is, individuals estimated that the other person in their dyad was highly self-efcacious when they had experienced recent mastery achievements. For example, AA6.1 noted that “I think she's condent in herself because of how well she's doing at the moment”. In a similar respect, when the other person in the dyad had experienced poor performances, individuals tended to infer negative EOSE beliefs. Coach C1 described this by saying, “I know how I want him to think. and feel about his game, but because of bad results, I think his self-condence is low”. The third theme in this category illustrated that EOSE beliefs for coaches and both groups of athletes stemmed from their perception of the other's physiological state. That is, when the other was deemed to be strong and physically t this was related to the estimation that s/he would be condent in his/her own ability. For instance, athlete AA6.2 noted, “she's in great shape. physically, she's looking strong and t, and I think that helps to give her that condence in what she does”. On the other hand, impaired physiological states such as fatigue, illness, or injury, were associated with unfavorable EOSE perceptions (see Table 1). In this category, it also emerged that AA and CA athletes (but not coaches) used the other person's non-verbal behavior when attempting to gauge that individual's self-efcacy beliefs. As athlete AA3.2 noted, assertive body language appeared to be associated with positive EOSE, “you can tell how he walks, with the chest out, he's just proud. and I think his condence comes through there, how he holds himself”. Athlete CA2 also described this notion in coacheathlete settings, commenting, “even when [my coach] is just. in the gym watching everyone, he just sits there upright, and his body language says, ‘I'm the boss here, I know what I can do’, and you can tell about his condence from that”. In contrast, athletes also described how apprehensive behavior may be related to negative EOSE beliefs (see Table 1). Two further themes were discussed by AA athletes and CA coaches, but not by athletes within coacheathlete partnerships. That is, these themes appeared central in the process of estimating athletes' self-efcacy (but not coaches') beliefs, within both athleteeathlete and coacheathlete dyads. The rst of these themes, termed pre-competition preparation, illustrated that athletes and coaches reported positive EOSE inferences when they felt that the other had devoted sufcient time and effort in practice sessions leading up to a competition. For example, athlete AA1.2 described,“he's prepared, he doesn't go out to compete unless he's thought about who he's playing, what their weaknesses are and that's where I believe that his self-condence comes from”. Coach CA4, on the other hand, discussed her athlete's lack of preparation, “[my athlete] has the ability to do the hard parts in competition, but I don't always know if he has the condence to do them. Now that condence would maybe come through training harder”. Athleteeathlete dyad members and coaches also reported that positive affective states (e.g., being ‘happy’, ‘relaxed’) on the part of the other person were associated with favorable EOSE perceptions. Negative affective states (e.g., looking ‘worried’, ‘nervous’), on the other hand, appeared to underpin negative EOSE appraisals (see Table 1). For instance, coach CA5 said, “well for a long time [my athlete] would get anxious and upset. and so I could see she wasn't condent”. Perceptions regarding the dyad For athletes from both types of dyad as well as coaches, estimations of the other's self-efcacy stemmed from past mastery achievements as a dyad. Specically, prior successes during the time as a partnership, in addition to individual successes on the part of the other person (see ‘perceptions regarding the other’), were associated with positive EOSE inferences. As athlete CA4 simply stated, “I think when we do well together it's good for her condence as a coach”. Consequences of EOSE Analyses revealed a total of nine themes that corresponded to consequences of EOSE beliefs (see Table 2). Where themes aligned with personal consequences (e.g., one's own self-efcacy), they were grouped under the ‘intra-personal’ higher-order category, and in instances where thoughts, feelings, and behaviors about the partner or dyad were discussed (e.g., one's satisfaction with the relationship), these were grouped as ‘interpersonal’ consequences. In total, three intra-personal and six interpersonal outcome themes emerged. Intra-personal In the rst theme in this category, coaches and athletes from both types of dyad described the affective responses associated with their EOSE inferences. In particular, favorable EOSE perceptions were related to positive affective states, including feeling ‘relaxed’ and ‘at ease’, as well as being responsible for reductions in ‘nerves’ and ‘anxiety’. One such meaning unit was provided byB. Jackson, M.R. Beauchamp / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 11 (6 Table 2 Outcome themes and categories for EOSE. Consequences of EOSE Category Intra-personal Theme Affective responses (14, 5, 4) Self-efcacy (13, 7, 0) Motivation (9, 5, 0) Example193“You know that, if I think [my partner] is low on self-condence, then you start to worry about things, and all of a sudden you're anxious about what's going to happen” (athlete AA3.1) “I think it sort of rubs off, if you think your coach is self-condent then it makes you believe in. yourself” (athlete CA2) “if I think that [my partner's] losing condence in himself during a match, then I feel like I have to up my game and make sure I put more in” (negative relationship, athlete AA1.1) “If [my coach] comes in and he's not condent in what he's doing, then it demoralises me, day-to-day it de-motivates you” (positive relationship, athlete CA5) “when [my partner] lost her [self-]condence, that's when the partnership didn't work. I mean you can try to get them condent, but if that's a no-go, then the partnership will disintegrate, and it broke down” (athlete AA6.2) “it's enjoyable to come in and work with the athlete that is bubbly, and condent in what they have to do. The ones that are doubting themselves make it much harder for you as a coach, less enjoyable” (coach CA3) “if [your partner] constantly seems low on condence then. you start to doubt your condence in them” (athlete AA6.1) “if you keep picking up that [your partner's] not condent in themselves, it's hard, and you sometimes just want to move on and nd someone that's the opposite” (athlete AA2.2) “When I pick up that [my coach] is really condent in what he's talking about, and in himself, then I can sort of sense that, and it makes you sit up and listen, you listen and take it in” (athlete CA1) “when [my partner's] worrying and not condent, I try to just compliment her every chance I get, give her praise, tell her she's done this well, that well” (verbal persuasion, athlete AA6.1) “if I see [my athlete's] doubting herself, I remain calm and try to exude a kind of self-condence, then it's like the reverse, the athlete might pick up on you” (modeling self-efcacy, coach CA2) “if I think [my athlete's] not condent then I can change their goals, make them easier, and get her ticking them off” (goal setting, coach CA6) “when I see that her condence in what she's doing is lacking, I'll sit her down and have her watching videos of her competitions when she's really done well” (vicarious experiences, coach CA2) “having her use positive visualisation, re-enactment. that is something I build on when I think her condence is low” (imagery, coach CA5)Inter-personalRelationship termination (4, 6, 3) Relationship satisfaction (8, 6, 5) Other-efcacy (11, 6, 0) Relationship persistence intentions (8, 6, 0) Attention to coach feedback (0, 6, 0) Implementing efcacyenhancing techniques (9, 0, 18)Note. Figures in parentheses in ‘Theme’ column refer to the frequency and source of meaning units, using the following format: cited by AA athletes, cited by CA athletes, cited by coaches. For example, members of AA pairs cited ‘relationship satisfaction’ 8 times, athletes from CA dyads highlighted this theme 6 times, and coaches described this on 5 occasions.athlete AA4.1, who explained, “when I know [my partner's] feeling condent in what she's doing then it relaxes you, it takes the pressure off a little bit”. Coach CA2 alluded to the potential adverse effects associated with negative EOSE, saying “obviously though, if I see that they. aren't condent about this or that, then you have worries yourself about what's going to happen out there”. Second, athletes within both dyad settings (but not coaches) described that their EOSE beliefs were positively related to their own self-efcacy cognitions. That is, when individuals estimated that the other person was highly self-efcacious this was associated with enhanced condence in their own capabilities. For instance, athlete AA5.1 mentioned that “if you think that their condence in themselves. is there, then you can do the same, if they seem condent then your self-condence grows”. On the other hand, athlete CA2 said, “if they're not condent in themselves, and if I could sense it then I0 m going to lose my condence”. The nal intra-personal theme, termed motivation, was again highlighted by athletes from both contexts, though not by coaches. Interestingly, when members of athleteeathlete partnerships detected their partners had doubts in their abilities (i.e., low EOSE), two differing motivational responses emerged. First, a group of meaning units emerged (for three of the athletes) which described how low EOSE may actually spur the athlete on to exert greater effort, effectively in an attempt to compensate for the partner's perceived inefcacy (i.e., enhanced motivation). As athlete AA6.2 described, “if I sense that [my partner's] not totally condent in herself, then I'll actually pick my levels up, I'll try to do a bit more, to try to pull her condence back up”. For the remaining athletes (n
3), a second group of meaning units also emerged that highlighted how negative EOSE inferences were associated with diminished motivation on the part ofathleteeathlete participants. For example, athlete AA3.2 commented, “when I think, or when I can see that he's losing it. in terms of his own condence, then it knocks me, it's demoralizing for me, you're maybe not so up for it”. Athletes in coacheathlete settings also reported a positive relationship between EOSE beliefs and their motivation (see Table 2). That is, when athletes inferred that their coach was highly self-efcacious, this was associated with enhanced motivation, whilst low EOSE appraisals were linked to reduced motivation. Interpersonal In the rst theme within this category, all three groups of participants (coaches and both types of athletes) reported that negative EOSE perceptions were responsible for relationship termination, that is, the breakdown (or forecasted breakdown) of their relationship. Coach CA5 provided one example, “it's harder work if you have an athlete who you think isn't self-condent, and with [my former athlete] I think that was ultimately the reason we went our separate ways”. From an athlete's perspective, athlete CA3 said “[my former coach] gave the impression that she wasn't too condent, you need the top, top level, and it was like she knew she couldn't do that, that's when things stopped working well, and kind of fell apart”. In the second interpersonal theme, coaches as well as both groups of athletes reported enhanced relationship satisfaction when they felt the other person in the dyad was highly condent in their own ability. Athlete CA1 said, “the times when I see he's feeling on top of things, and condent in his coaching, it makes you feel positive and happier about your working together”. In relation to low EOSE beliefs, athlete AA5.1 reported, “with [my partner], maybe in training or just chatting, when I can tell he's not so condent that's when it can get. frustrating being together, and it's just not as. enjoyable”.194B. Jackson, M.R. Beauchamp / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 11 (6In the third interpersonal theme, athletes from both contexts (but not coaches) reported that when they felt their partner/coach was highly self-efcacious, they were more condent in that person's ability (i.e., other-efcacy). Athlete AA5.1 described this theme by stating “if you've got somebody really condent there alongside you, you know they know what they're doing and you believe in them”. In relation to negative EOSE appraisals however, athlete CA3 stated, “how can I have condence in them though if I don't think they do themselves?” The fourth interpersonal theme was reported by AA and CA athletes, and demonstrated that EOSE perceptions were positively related to relationship persistence intentions. In contrast to relationship termination, whereby athletes and coaches discussed an actual or forecasted event associated with EOSE (i.e., the dissolution of their partnership), this theme reected a cognitive outcome, insofar as athletes who inferred that their partner/coach was highly efcacious reported a stronger intention or desire to persist in that relationship. Athlete AA6.1 described the effects of both favorable and unfavorable EOSE beliefs, “you don't want to be with someone who is constantly down and not condent in themselves. you need someone who believes in what they're doing, they're the ones you. want to stick with”. In the penultimate theme in this category, athletes from CA contexts described that they devoted greater attention to coach feedback when they felt their coach was highly self-efcacious (see Table 2). Moreover, athletes appeared to pay less attention to their coach's feedback in the face of negative EOSE perceptions, as athlete CA2 said, “I could tell when [my previous coach] was maybe doubting what he was doing, and if I could sense that then I was like, ‘well, why am I going to listen then if you're not sure’”, before adding, “or you might listen, but you'd just think ‘well, I'll do my own thing anyway’, you know”. Finally, participants described a number of instances where they had employed one of several efcacy-enhancing strategies specically as a result of their negative EOSE inferences, which were grouped under the outcome theme, implementing efcacy-enhancing techniques. A number of AA athletes, as well as coaches, intimated that they would provide positive verbal persuasion to their partner/athlete in such scenarios, including “just all the time telling her what she's doing well, reminding her of what she can do, and to. look at her strengths” (athlete AA2.2). The remaining four strategies within this theme, which are all illustrated in Table 2, were highlighted solely by coaches. Specically, coaches suggested that they would try to model, or exude, a high degree of condence in their own ability (i.e., the coach's self-efcacy), as well as setting more achievable goals for their athletes as a result of unfavorable EOSE perceptions. It also emerged that coaches responded to unfavorable EOSE beliefs by encouraging the increased use of imagery by their performers, as well as providing opportunities for vicarious experiences in the form of videos of athletes' successes in past competitions. Discussion The overall purpose of this study was to explore EOSE beliefs, and in doing so examine the antecedents and consequences associated with this metaperception. Extensive empirical attention has been directed towards understanding individuals' condence in their own ability (i.e., self-efcacy) across individuals, relationships, and group settings (Beauchamp, 2007; Feltz & Lirgg, 2001). However, in relational contexts EOSE beliefs (i.e., self-efcacy as a metaperception) have been largely overlooked. Collectively, the results of this study revealed inter-relationships between EOSE metaperceptions and direct efcacy beliefs (self-efcacy, otherefcacy), and also highlighted that this appraisal may play animportant role alongside the tripartite constructs in facilitating adaptive individual and relationship functioning. Indeed, the content analyses conducted in this investigation provided preliminary evidence that EOSE may be important in shaping a range of intra-personal as well as interpersonal outcomes, and also demonstrated a variety of factors that underpinned this appraisal within elite athleteeathlete and coacheathlete relationships, including perceptions regarding ‘the other’ and ‘the dyad’. In line with existing metaperception theory, results revealed that these EOSE appraisals derived in part from feedback received from the other, in the form of both verbal and non-verbal cues (e.g., Frey & Tropp, 2006; Kenny & DePaulo, 1993). However, several additional antecedent themes emerged, which provided further insight into factors that may shape individuals' EOSE inferences. It is particularly noteworthy that a number of the ‘perceptions regarding the other’ that were used to estimate the other's selfefcacy (e.g., the other's physiological state, affective state, and past performances) mirrored several of the factors that also play a role for individuals in shaping their condence in their own ability (e.g., their own physiological state, affective state, and past performances). To further contextualize this point, recent research in elite sport has revealed that athletes tend to be highly self-efcacious when they have prepared effectively for competition, experienced mastery achievements, and report optimal physiological and emotional states (e.g., Hays et al., 2007; Jackson et al., 2008). The results of this study revealed that when estimating another person's self-efcacy, individuals may still draw upon each of these factors, however they simply shift the referent of a given antecedent variable from the self (e.g., ‘I'm condent in my ability due to my physiological state’) to the other (‘I think he's condent in his ability because of his physiological state’). From an applied perspective, this suggests that it might be important for elite athletes and coaches to be cognizant that these efcacy-related ‘signals’ (e.g., their physiological and affective states) may be appraised by their relational partners in the process of forming EOSE perceptions. In light of the implications associated with EOSE (e.g., relationship persistence intentions, as well as relationship satisfaction and termination), dyad members should therefore be aware of the importance of displaying positive signals, such as remaining calm, exuding positive body language, and implementing assertive, optimistic verbal communication. In addition to highlighting potential antecedents associated with EOSE beliefs, the results of this study also revealed important insight into an array of outcomes associated with this construct, a number of which were common to athletes in both dyadic contexts and coaches. Of particular note, all three groups of participants (AA athletes, CA athletes, coaches) described the forecasted breakdown or termination of their relationship in the face of negative EOSE appraisals. In addition, when athletes and coaches estimated that the other person in the dyad was highly condent in his or her own abilities (i.e., positive EOSE perceptions), this was associated with greater relationship satisfaction and adaptive affective responses. These ndings provide some support for the emerging metaperception literature in sport, in which Jowett and colleagues have shown, for instance, that estimating another's thoughts in a favorable light may be associated with adaptive outcomes (e.g., enhanced satisfaction) for members of sporting dyads (e.g., Jowett, 2009; Lorimer & Jowett, 2009a). In spite of the emergence of these outcomes, common across all three participant groups, in some instances the consequences of EOSE perceptions were dependent on the type of dyad under scrutiny as well as the role of the focal individual. For example, athletes (but not coaches) reported that when they held favorable EOSE appraisals (i.e., estimated that the other dyad member was highly condent in his or her own abilities), this was related toB. Jackson, M.R. Beauchamp / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 11 (6195enhanced relationship persistence intentions, as well as improved self- and other-efcacy beliefs. This nding is consistent with Moore's (1985) assertion that favorable metaperceptions (e.g., EOSE) should produce positive direct perceptions (i.e., self- and other-efcacy), and also substantiates recent research in sport which has documented positive relationships between metaperceptions (e.g., meta-closeness, meta-commitment) and direct perceptions (e.g., direct closeness, direct commitment) embedded within Jowett's coacheathlete relationship framework (e.g., Olympiou, Jowett, & Duda, 2008). In addition, these self- and otherefcacy outcome themes provide preliminary insight into how EOSE beliefs might align with the tripartite efcacy constructs embedded within Lent and Lopez's (2002) conceptual model. That is, whilst Lent and Lopez proposed that favorable RISE inferences are associated with enhanced direct efcacy perceptions (i.e., selfand other-efcacy), the data from the present study suggest that EOSE may act as an additional perceptual support mechanism underpinning athletes' self-efcacy and other-efcacy beliefs. Nonetheless, it is noteworthy that EOSE was not associated with self-efcacy, other-efcacy, or relationship persistence intentions for coaches. Interestingly, Lent and Lopez proposed that in dyadic pursuits the effects of metaperceptions may be less pronounced for individuals who occupy positions of higher-status (i.e., a coach or teacher) relative to the other member of the relationship. In sport, coaches' hold positions of higher-status due to their superordinate role within the dyad. Thus, coaches' perceptions about themselves (e.g., self-efcacy) and their relationship (e.g., persistence intentions) may be less dependent upon their estimations about the cognitive appraisals of the lower-status member (i.e., their athletes). As a result, it is possible that EOSE perceptions may not have been associated with the same outcomes for coaches as for athletes due to their higher-status positions. This is not to say that EOSE perceptions are not salient for coaches. Indeed, it is important for superordinates (e.g., coaches) to monitor subordinates' (e.g., athletes) self-perceptions (see Snodgrass, 1992), and with this in mind it is noteworthy that coaches in this study described several interventions (i.e., efcacy-enhancing techniques) in relation to low EOSE appraisals. However, despite these behavioral responses to boost their athlete's self-efcacy beliefs, coaches did not appear to suffer debilitating effects in terms of their perceptions about themselves (e.g., self-efcacy) or their relationship (e.g., persistence intentions) to the same extent as their athletes (i.e., subordinates) in the face of low EOSE beliefs. In line with the notion that metaperceptions may be less pertinent in terms of the personal and relationship outcomes for higherstatus dyad members, coaches did not report any motivational implications resulting from their EOSE appraisals. However, both groups of athletes interviewed in this study did report motivational consequences for EOSE, although the nature of the relationship between athletes' EOSE beliefs and their personal motivation differed according to the type of dyad under investigation. Specically, for athletes within coacheathlete dyads and a subsample of those within athleteeathlete dyads, unfavorable EOSE perceptions were related to diminished personal motivation. Conversely, another subsample of participants from the athleteeathlete dyads explained that their motivation actually increased in the face of low EOSE appraisals. It is worth noting in relation to these differences that a number of cognitive factors have been theorized to moderate the consequences of metaperceptions. For example, Lent and Lopez (2002) proposed that if an individual has doubts regarding his own capabilities (i.e., low self-efcacy: “I question my own capabilities”), then RISE beliefs (“.but I believe that my partner is condent in me”) may become particularly inuential in boosting his cognitive and emotional state in that context. Moreover, when one forms a metaperception in relation to another person who is perceived tobe highly knowledgeable, credible, and important, then these appraisals may take on greater personal signicance than in cases where the other is not appraised in such a favorable light (Lent & Lopez, 2002). With respect to the contrasting motivational ndings among athleteeathlete dyads, it is possible that those who hold their partner in high regard, but estimate that the partner lacks condence in their own ability (i.e., EOSE), may increase their motivation in an attempt to enhance that person's sense of self. In contrast, when an individual appraises his or her partner as less knowledgeable, credible, or important, whilst also holding low EOSE perceptions about the person (i.e., estimating that she views herself in a similarly unfavorable manner), then this may result in diminished motivation towards that partner. In the context of these potential discrepancies, researchers are encouraged to determine whether the effects of EOSE beliefs differ according to the various interpersonal beliefs that dyad members may hold about one another (vis à vis knowledge, credibility, importance). In sum, exploring those factors that might moderate the effects of EOSE beliefs in relation to motivational outcomes represents a fascinating direction for future research. By understanding the formation and consequences of EOSE, it is also possible to obtain further insight into ndings within previous self-efcacy investigations. For instance, in their study of junior tennis dyads, Jackson et al. (2007) found that players were more committed to their relationship when their partner was highly self-efcacious. Accordingly, the authors hypothesized that athletes may appraise their partner's level of self-efcacy, which, once internalized, may inuence their commitment to the relationship. The present study provides some support for this notion insofar as athletes reported that their EOSE beliefs were associated with enhanced relationship persistence intentions. It is plausible therefore that the effect of one's self-efcacy on the other's relationship commitment, reported by Jackson et al. may indeed ow through (i.e., be mediated by) the other's EOSE perception. Similarly, in their investigation into the sources of self-efcacy for athletes, Vargas-Tonsing and colleagues (Vargas-Tonsing, Myers, & Feltz, 2004) noted that the ‘coach acting condent’ was important in facilitating athletes' self-efcacy beliefs. The present study showed that such ‘non-verbal cues’ from one's coach may shape athletes' EOSE perceptions, and as a result it is possible that when a coach displays a high degree of self-efcacy (i.e., ‘acts condent’), this serves to boost athletes' condence in their own ability via an increase in their EOSE perception. In future, it would be particularly interesting to examine these mediational hypotheses, by exploring the role of EOSE using larger-scale nomothetic approaches to enquiry. Despite the empirical and applied contributions highlighted within this study, it is important to note that the nature of the design precludes any inferences regarding causality. That is, while a number of salient antecedents and consequences were identied by participants, it is not possible to conclude that (a) the antecedent variables identied in this study causally preceded EOSE beliefs, or (b) EOSE beliefs inuenced the aforementioned intrapersonal and interpersonal consequences. Future research would be worthwhile that not only experimentally examines what factors cause EOSE beliefs to develop and be revised, but also considers the unique predictive capacity of EOSE with respect to important relational outcomes (e.g., relationship satisfaction). In future, researchers are also encouraged to explore the accuracy with which individuals are able to appraise how self-efcacious those around them may be (i.e., whether one's EOSE appraisal actually reects the other's self-efcacy). This phenomenon, namely the capability of individuals to appraise the cognitions of others, is referred to as meta-accuracy (Kenny & Acitelli, 2001), and has recently begun to receive empirical attention in the coacheathlete196B. Jackson, M.R. Beauchamp / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 11 (6 Jackson, B., Knapp, P., & Beauchamp, M. R. (2008). Origins and consequences of tripartite efcacy beliefs within elite athlete dyads: a qualitative investigation. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 30, 512e540. Jackson, B., Knapp, P., & Beauchamp, M. R. (2009). The coacheathlete relationship: a tripartite efcacy perspective. The Sport Psychologist, 23, 203e232. Johnson, B. R. (1997). Examining the validity structure of qualitative research. Education, 118, 282e292. Jowett, S. (2009). Factor structure and criterion-related validity of the metaperspective version of the coacheathlete relationship questionnaire (CART-Q). Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 13, 163e177. Jowett, S., & Clark-Carter, D. (2006). Perceptions of empathic accuracy and assumed similarity in the coach-athlete relationship. British Journal of Social Psychology, 45, 617e637. Kenny, D. A. (1994). Interpersonal perception: A social relations analysis. New York: Guilford. Kenny, D. A., & Acitelli, L. K. (2001). Accuracy and bias in perceptions of the partner in close relationships. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 80, 439e448. Kenny, D. A., & DePaulo, B. M. (1993). Do people know how others view them? An empirical and theoretical account. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 145e161. Laing, R. D., Phillipson, H., & Lee, A. R. (1966). Interpersonal perception: A theory and a method of research. New York: Harper and Row. Law, B., & Hall, C. (2009). Observational learning use and self-efcacy beliefs in adult sport novices. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 10, 263e270. Lent, R. W., & Lopez, F. G. (2002). Cognitive ties that bind: a tripartite view of efcacy beliefs in growth-promoting relationships. Journal of Social & Clinical Psychology, 21, 256e286. Lopez, F. G., & Lent, R. W. (1991). Efcacy-based predictors of relationship adjustment and persistence among college students. Journal of College Student Development, 32, 223e229. Lorimer, R., & Jowett, S. (2009a). Empathic accuracy, meta-perspective, and satisfaction in the coacheathlete relationship. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 21, 201e212. Lorimer, R., & Jowett, S. (2009b). Empathic accuracy in coacheathlete dyads who participate in team and individual sports. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 10, 152e158. Maddux, J. E. (1999). The collective construction of collective efcacy: comment on Paskevich, Brawley, Dorsch, and Widmeyer (1999). Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 3, 223e226. Martin, J. J. (2002). Training and performance self-efcacy, affect, and performance wheelchair road racers. The Sport Psychologist, 16, 384e395. Moore, J. C. (1985). Role enactment and self-identity. In J. Berger, & M. Zelditch (Eds.), Status, rewards, and inuence (pp. 262e316). San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass. Moritz, S. E., Feltz, D. L., Fahrbach, K. R., & Mack, D. E. (2000). The relation of selfefcacy measures to sport performance: a meta-analytic review. Research Quarterly for Exercise & Sport, 71, 280e294. Olympiou, A., Jowett, S., & Duda, J. L. (2008). The psychological interface between the coach-created motivational climate and the coacheathlete relationship in team sports. The Sport Psychologist, 22, 423e438. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Ross-Stewart, L., & Short, S. E. (2009). The frequency and perceived effectiveness of images used to build, maintain, and regain condence. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 21, 34e47. Rudolph, D. L., & Butki, B. D. (1998). Self-efcacy and affective responses to short bouts of exercise. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 10, 268e280. Schwandt, T. A. (2000). Three epistemological stances for qualitative enquiry: interpretivism, hermeneutics, and social constructionism. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.). (pp. 189e213) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Short, S. E., & Short, M. W. (2004). Coaches’ assessment of their coaching efcacy compared to athletes’ perceptions. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 99, 729e736. Snodgrass, S. E. (1992). Further effects of role versus gender on interpersonal sensitivity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 154e158. Snyder, M., & Stukas, A. A. (1999). Interpersonal processes: the interplay of cognitive, motivational, and behavioral activities in social interaction. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 273e303. Tesch, R. (1990). Qualitative research analysis types and software tools. New York: Falmer Press. Troyer, L., & Younts, C. W. (1997). Whose expectations matter? The relative power of rst- and second-order expectations in determining social inuence. American Journal of Sociology, 103, 692e732. Vargas-Tonsing, T. M., Myers, N. D., & Feltz, D. L. (2004). Coaches’ and athletes’ perceptions of efcacy enhancing techniques. The Sport Psychologist, 18, 397e414. Webster, M., & Whitmeyer, J. M. (1999). A theory of second-order expectations and behavior. Social Psychology Quarterly, 62, 17e31. Wise, J. B., & Trunnell, E. P. (2001). The inuence of sources of self-efcacy upon efcacy strength. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 23, 268e280.relationship literature (e.g., Jowett & Clark-Carter, 2006; Lorimer & Jowett, 2009b). It would be interesting to investigate not only whether EOSE meta-accuracy differs across varying dyad types and for distinct athletic roles (e.g., coach or athlete), but also to examine the potential causal factors, as well as how the outcomes associated with EOSE appraisals in this study may be moderated according to the degree to which these beliefs are accurate (or not). Finally, in light of the fact that elite coaches and athletes were involved in this investigation, it is not clear to what extent these ndings may generalize to different types of dyads, whereby members may be less invested in their relationships than those international-level athletes and coaches involved in this study. In future, investigations would be encouraged that explore the development and potential implications of EOSE in such settings (e.g., high-school, university, recreational contexts). In summary, this study presents theoretical and empirical support for the role of self-efcacy as a metaperception (i.e., EOSE appraisals), to supplement the tripartite constructs embedded within Lent and Lopez's (2002) model of relational efcacy. In order to further understand the role of EOSE beliefs in shaping relationships it is necessary to develop appropriate methods for measuring this metaperception. To date, self-efcacy, otherefcacy, and RISE have each been shown to predict variance in important relational outcomes. However the role of this additional metaperception in conjunction with these constructs has yet to receive systematic empirical attention. Further investigation in this area has the potential to contribute to a fuller understanding of the nature of efcacy beliefs within dyadic contexts in sport. ReferencesBandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Engelwood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efcacy: The exer