JOURNAL OF APPLIED SPORT PSYCHOLOGY, 20: 457–472, 2008

Copyright

C Association for Applied Sport Psychology
ISSN: 1041-3200 print / 1533-1571 online
DOI: 10.1080/10413200802351151

The Effect of Manipulated Self-Efficacy on Perceived and

Sustained Effort

JASMIN C. HUTCHINSON, TODD SHERMAN, AND NEVENA MARTINOVIC

Oxford College of Emory University

GERSHON TENENBAUM

Florida State University

Self-efficacy’s role in determining perceived and sustained effort during an isometric hand-
grip task was assessed using a repeated measures experimental design. Moderately active,
predominantly Caucasian, participants (male = 33, female = 39, M = 19.18 years, SD = .74)
were recruited from the southeastern United States. Participants were randomly assigned to
one of three groups: High-efficacy (HE), low-efficacy (LE), or control. Efficacy expectations
were manipulated via false performance feedback. During the task participants provided dif-
ferentiated ratings of perceived effort at 15-s intervals. Effort tolerance was determined by the
length of time the participant could maintain the task. Repeated measures (RM) multivariate
analysis of variance (MANOVA) indicated the HE group found the task less strenuous and
more enjoyable than the LE or control group. Furthermore, the HE group demonstrated greater
tolerance of the task than either the LE or control group. These findings imply that self-efficacy
has a major role in enhancing performance and physical effort tolerance.

Self-efficacy is the “belief in one’s capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action
required to produce given attainments” (Bandura, 1997, p. 3). Given sufficient motivation to
engage in a behavior, it is a person’s self-efficacy beliefs that determine whether that behavior
will be initiated, how much effort will be expended, and how long effort will be sustained in
the face of obstacles and aversive experiences (Bandura, 1997). From this perspective, coping
behaviors are conceptualized as being mediated by people’s efficacy beliefs that situational
demands do not exceed their coping resources. People with weak efficacy expectancies are
less likely to emit coping responses or persist in the presence of obstacles and aversive con-
sequences than those with positive efficacy expectations. Moreover, individuals who perceive
themselves as highly efficacious activate sufficient effort that, if well-executed, produces suc-
cessful outcomes, whereas those who perceive low self-efficacy are likely to cease their efforts
prematurely and fail on the task (Bandura, 1986, 1997). This assertion is tested in the current
study using “mastery experiences” as a tool to enhance self-efficacy for tolerating exertive
physical effort.

Received 10 June 2007; accepted 4 December 2007.

Address correspondence to Jasmin C. Hutchinson, Ph.D., Dept. of PE and Dance, Oxford College of
Emory University, 100 Hamill Street, Oxford, GA 30054. E-mail: jhutch3@emory.edu

457
458 J. C. HUTCHINSON ET AL.

Mastery experiences gained through performance accomplishments are hypothesized to

have the greatest impact on establishing and strengthening perceived self-efficacy. Thus,
“techniques that enhance mastery experiences (e.g., graded task accomplishments with both
physical and verbal feedback) should be powerful tools for bringing about behavior change”
(Turk, 2004, p. 4). The individual’s self-attribution of success should facilitate maintenance
of these improvements. Conversely, if individuals feel that there is little they can do to control
their success, they will expend minimal effort on the task and may become more emotionally
distressed, which may amplify symptom perception (Turk, 2004).
Social-cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986) postulates that self-efficacy affects performance
though motivational processes that regulate the direction, intensity, and persistence of task
effort. Consistent with theory, self-efficacy has been shown to have positive associations with
performance in a variety of domains (Heggestad & Kanfer, 2005). Stemming from the area
of pain research, there is considerable evidence to support the notion that efficacy cognitions
play an important role in influencing an individual’s ability to sustain and cope with symp-
toms of discomfort (Baker & Kirsch, 1991; Bandura, O’Leary, Taylor, Gauthier, & Gossard,
1987; Litt, 1988; Turk, Michenbaum, & Genest, 1983). It is reasonable to assume that such
cognitions might also play a role in the ability to cope with exertive discomforts associ-
ated with exercise (Tenenbaum & Hutchinson, 2007). Bandura (1997) described the role of
cognitive activities in displacing sensations from consciousness and altering their aversive-
ness: “If aversive sensations are supplanted in consciousness or are construed benignly . . .
they become less noticeable and less distressingly intrusive . . . The stronger the instated
perceived coping efficacy, the higher the pain tolerance and the less dysfunction pain pro-
duces” (pp. 393–394). In a study designed to test this hypothesis, Tenenbaum et al. (2001)
confirmed that perceived dispositional and task-specific self-efficacy can determine how long
one can tolerate effort and discomfort on both a running and a strength-endurance task.
Tenenbaum and his colleagues reported that self-efficacy accounted for 12% and 7% of the
variance in “time in exertion” during a sustained handgrip task and a treadmill running task
respectively. This finding was later supported by Hutchinson (2004), observing that task-
specific self-efficacy and task-specific perceived ability accounted for significant variance of
effort tolerance in a handgrip task, and that dispositional self-efficacy contributed signifi-
cantly to variance of effort tolerance in a cycle task. Further research examining this effect is
warranted.
Research pertaining to self-efficacy and perceived effort has been more forthcoming.
McAuley and Courneya (1992) examined 88 middle-aged sedentary participants and mea-
sured their perceptions of their ability to ride a cycle ergometer at 70% of age-predicted
maximum heart rate for gradually increasing periods of time. Results indicated that a strong
sense of self-efficacy resulted in participants perceiving themselves to have exerted less effort
than those with a lower sense of self-efficacy. After controlling for fitness, body fat, age,
gender, and affect, pre-exercise self-efficacy accounted for 3.1% of the variance in ratings
of perceived exertion (RPE) at the conclusion of the protocol. Rudolph and McAuley (1996)
reported similar findings in a sample of 50 young men who ran on a treadmill at 60% VO2 max
for 30 min. After controlling for VO2 max, pre-exercise self-efficacy accounted for 14% of
RPE variance in the final minute of the protocol. This finding was later replicated with teenage
girls by Pender, Bar-Or, Wilk, and Mitchell (2002), where pre-exercise self-efficacy accounted
for 13.5% of the variance in average RPE collected at 4-min intervals during a 20-min bout of
cycle ergometry at 60% VO2 peak.
Recent research by Hall, Ekkekakis, and Petruzzello (2005) indicated that the relationship
between perceived effort and self-efficacy might be intensity-dependent. Self-efficacy was
measured on a 100-point scale at regular intervals during three 15-min treadmill runs: one
 SELF-EFFICACY AND EFFORT 459

20% below; one at; and one 10% above the ventilatory threshold (VT). Results indicated
that self-efficacy produced consistently negative correlations with RPE below and at the VT,
but no significant correlations were observed at intensities above the VT. These findings are
consistent with the “duel-mode model” of exercise-induced affective responses (Ekkekakis,
2003). According to Ekkekakis’ model, affective responses to exercise are jointly influenced
by two interacting factors: interoceptive cues (e.g., respiratory or muscular) that can reach the
affective centers of the brain directly, via subcortical routes, and cognitive factors (including
self-efficacy) that are mediated by the frontal cortex. The balance between these two determi-
nants is hypothesized to shift as a function of exercise intensity, with cognitive factors being
dominant at low intensities and interoceptive cues gaining salience as intensity approaches
the individual’s functional limits, due to the over-riding influence of interoceptive factors
(Ekkekakis, 2003).
The research findings presented thus far suggest a positive relationship between self-
efficacy and effort tolerance, and a negative relationship between self-efficacy and perceived
effort, both of which are consistent with social cognitive theory. However, these studies are
correlational in nature. A better understanding of the efficacy-effort relationship can be gained
through experimental manipulation of self-efficacy. Weinberg and his associates (Weinberg,
Gould, & Jackson, 1979; Weinberg, Gould, Yukelson, & Jackson, 1981; Weinberg, Yukelson,
& Jackson, 1980) conducted a series of studies designed to test the predictions of self-
efficacy theory in a competitive, motor-performance situation. Self-efficacy was manipulated
by having participants compete against a confederate on a muscular leg-endurance task where
the confederate was said to be either a varsity track athlete who exhibited higher performance
on a related task (low self-efficacy) or an individual who had a knee injury and exhibited
poorer performance on a related task (high self-efficacy). To create aversive consequences,
the experiment was rigged so that participants lost in competition on the two muscular leg
endurance task trials they performed (Weinberg et al., 1981). The results of these studies
supported self-efficacy predictions with the high self-efficacy participants tolerating the task
significantly longer than low self-efficacy participants.
McAuley and colleagues (McAuley & Blissmer, 2000; McAuley, Talbot, & Martinez,
1999) successfully manipulated self-efficacy in an exercise context via false performance
feedback, and examined its effect on affective responses. Results indicated that high-efficacy
participants (those receiving positive feedback) reported significantly greater positive well-
being and less psychological distress and fatigue than low-efficacy participants exercising at the
same intensity. Marquez, Jerome, McAuley, Snook, and Canaklisova (2002) also successfully
manipulated self-efficacy in an exercise context using bogus feedback, and examined its effect
on state anxiety in low active women. Results revealed that participants in the high-efficacy
condition experienced significantly less anxiety than those in the low-efficacy condition during
a graded exercise test and a follow-up exercise session.
In the only located study to examine the effects of self-efficacy manipulation on perceived
effort, Motl, Konopack, Hu, and McAuley (2006) used bogus feedback to manipulate self-
efficacy following a maximal incremental exercise test. Perceptions of leg muscle pain and
RPE were later recorded during moderate-intensity (60% VO2 peak) cycling exercise among
women. Results indicated that although the provision of bogus feedback was effective for
manipulating self-efficacy, there was no differential effect on RPE or leg muscle pain intensity
ratings during the exercise bout.
The present study was designed to address the causal role of self-efficacy judgments in
determining perceived effort and sustained effort during a physical task by manipulating
self-efficacy as a function of a single exercise bout (via false performance feedback), and
examining the degree to which this manipulation influenced self-efficacy and perceived effort
460 J. C. HUTCHINSON ET AL.

responses during a subsequent exercise session. A multi-dimensional measure of perceived

effort was employed, comprising sensory-discriminative, motivational-affective, and cognitive-
evaluative dimensions (represented by sensations of muscle aches, determination and affect,
and exertion respectively). These three distinct dimensions of effort were drawn from the
gate control theory of pain (Melzack & Wall, 1965) and Tenenbaum et al.’s (1999) multi-
dimensional conception of discomfort in running (see also Hutchinson & Tenenbaum, 2006 for
details).
Given the predictions of social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986, 1997), we expected par-
ticipants who received positive performance feedback (high-efficacy group) to experience low
perceived effort and exertion, high task motivation, and positive affect when performing a
subsequent exercise bout. Conversely, those participants who received negative performance
feedback (low-efficacy group) were expected to demonstrate high perceived effort and exertion,
low task motivation, and negative affect following the manipulation. It was also anticipated
that participants in the high-efficacy group would tolerate the exertive task longer than their
low-efficacy counterparts.

METHOD
Participants
Seventy-two university students (33 males and 39 females; M age 19.18 years, SD = .74)
were recruited from undergraduate physical education classes at a southeastern university in
the United States. A breakdown of the participants by race revealed 54% Caucasian (n = 39),
27% Asian (n = 19), 11% African-American (n = 8), 4% Latino (n = 3), and 4% other or
mixed race (n = 3). Participants were moderately active and had no prior experience with a
handgrip task. For the purpose of this study “moderately active” was defined as an individual
engaging in aerobic exercise at least three times per week for 30 min. at moderate intensity
(60-75% VO2 max) for the past 6 months. All procedures were approved by Emory University’s
Institutional Review Board.

Instrumentation and Task Manipulation

Manipulation check. Following completion of the sustained handgrip task participants were
asked two questions pertaining to their commitment to the task: (a) “How committed were
you to the task while performing?” and (b) “How much effort did you invest in the task?”
Participants rated each question on a scale ranging from 0 (none/not at all) to 5 (very much/very
well).

Effort dimensions. Three dimensions of effort (sensory-discriminative, motivational-affective,

and cognitive-evaluative) were measured simultaneously during the task. The sensory-
discriminative dimension was defined by muscle aches, the motivational-affective dimension
was defined by determination and affect, and the cognitive-evaluative dimension was defined
by exertion (refer to Hutchinson & Tenenbaum, 2006, for rationale). Perceived effort sen-
sations were measured by verbal report on a single item that ranged from 0-10. For muscle
aches, determination, and exertion verbal anchors were provided at 0 (nothing), 2 (weak), 5
(moderate), 8 (strong), and 10 (extremely strong). Affect was measured slightly differently,
with a rating of 5 representing neutral affect. Verbal anchors for affect were provided at 0 (very
bad), 2 (bad), 5 (neutral), 8 (good), and 10 (very good).
 SELF-EFFICACY AND EFFORT 461

Task-specific self-efficacy (TSSE). TSSE is an individual’s belief about his or her capability to
mobilize the resources requisite for successful task accomplishment (Bandura, 1977, 1986).
The TSSE scale assesses participants’ beliefs in their physical capabilities to tolerate the
physical exertion/discomfort associated with the handgrip task. The scale consists of five
items, with the first four items representing an increment of 30 seconds (s) in duration from
30 s to 2 min or more. For each of these items participants were asked to indicate the degree of
confidence they possessed on a 100-point percentage scale composed of 10-point increments
(100% = complete confidence, 0% = no confidence at all) in response to the question “How
confident are you that you will be able to tolerate the physical exertion/discomfort associated
with this task for X seconds?” The upper limit of 2 min or more was based upon previous
research (Hutchinson & Tenenbaum, 2006) in which participants were able to maintain a 25%
maximal voluntary contraction (MVC) handgrip task for an average of 2 min.
Given that social comparison operates as a primary factor in the self-appraisal of capabilities
(Festinger, 1954; Goethals & Darley, 1987; Suls & Miller, 1977), the fifth TSSE scale item
asked participants to rate, on the same 100-point percentage scale, how well they believed
they would be able to perform on the task relative to other participants in the study. While
self-efficacy is typically considered to be a self-referenced construct, Bandura (1993) stated
that “most activities do not provide objective, nonsocial standards for gauging level of ability.
People must, therefore, appraise their capabilities in relation to the performance attainments
of others” (p. 121). Bandura’s research confirmed that negative social comparison undermined
self-efficacy and impaired performance, while positive social comparison strengthened efficacy
and enhanced performance attainments (Bandura & Jourden, 1991).
Due to the uniqueness of the final item of the TSSE scale, two scores were calculated for
use in the analysis. TSSE-1 was calculated by summing the confidence ratings of the first four
items in the scale and dividing by four, resulting in a maximum possible efficacy score of 100.
TSSE-2 was simply the score on the 0-100 scale for the fifth item.

Handgrip dynamometer. Handgrip capacity in the dominant arm was measured using a cal-
ibrated Jamar
R
handgrip dynamometer Model 5030J1 (Sammons Preston Rolyan, Chicago,
IL). This apparatus consists of a sealed hydraulic system with a sensitive gauge calibrated
in pounds and kilograms. The testing range for this dynamometer is 0-90 kg. Participants’
maximum handgrip strength was established by considering the strongest contraction out of
three MVC attempts. The same procedure to obtain the MVC was used for every attempt. Par-
ticipants stood upright and held the handgrip dynamometer in their dominant hand. The upper
extremity position was shoulder adducted and neutrally rotated, elbow extended, and forearm
in a neutral position, parallel to the ground. The palm of the hand was held vertical and the
gauge on the dynamometer was turned away from the participants, so that no biofeedback was
given. Following the procedure established by Essendrop, Schibye, and Hansen (2001), each
participant was instructed to build up the isometric force over 5 s, thereafter keeping pressure
for about 2 s and then lowering the force to zero. The individual received verbal instructions
and feedback during each MVC. The three MVC attempts were performed consecutively, with
60 s of seated rest between each effort.

Procedure
Participants came to the testing laboratory on two occasions. During the first session
written informed consent and a detailed health history were obtained from each participant.
MVC testing was also completed at this time. Following this, participants were given an
identification number and randomly assigned to one of three groups: (a) high-efficacy (HE),
462 J. C. HUTCHINSON ET AL.

(b) low-efficacy (LE), or (c) control group. Participants were unaware of this grouping and
the purpose of the study; they were aware that not all information about the study was being
given to them at this time. Participants returned to the laboratory a second time 24-48 hr
later. Prior to data collection they were asked to read through written definitions of terms used
in the study and given the opportunity to clarify any definitions they were uncertain about
with the examiner. Participants were then verbally instructed as to the nature and use of the
scales administered during testing, given examples to assist them in anchoring the perceptual
range, and given the opportunity to ask questions. To ensure that participants were clear on the
definitions used in the study they were required to explain each definition (to the satisfaction
of the examiner) prior to testing. Also at this time participants were given the opportunity to
familiarize themselves with the task, and to experience the handgrip task at 25% of their MVC.
Immediately prior to commencing the task, participants completed the TSSE scale. All testing
was performed by the second author, and all verbal instructions were read from a prepared
script.
For the handgrip task participants stood directly facing the examiner in a private laboratory
without distractions. They were asked to maintain an isometric contraction by squeezing the
dynamometer’s handbar at 25% of their MVC for as long as they could sustain it. A testing
intensity of 25% MVC is regarded as low-intensity (Middlekauff et al., 2004); however muscle
fatigue and a reduction in local blood flow during the task results in the perception of localized
pain and exertion (McArdle, Katch, & Katch, 1996) causing a relatively rapid onset of fatigue.
Since the design of the dynamometer did not allow participants to see the gauge, the role
of the examiner was important in indicating the position to maintain throughout the test. The
examiner indicated a required increase or decrease in performance with a thumbs up or thumbs
down gesture, respectively. A thumb presented in a neutral (horizontal) position indicated the
participants were accurately maintaining the required grip force of 25% MVC. The test was
terminated when either the participant voluntarily ceased trying, or when the participant could
no longer hold the contraction (demonstrated by a decrease in performance = 10% of MVC
for longer than 2 s, as judged by the examiner). During the task participants were asked to
vocally express their current perception of each sensation on a 0-10 scale. Perceptions were
assessed at 15 s intervals, when prompted by the examiner, for the duration of the task and
were recorded by a research assistant. The total amount of time that participants were able
to sustain the handgrip task (i.e., “time on task”) was used as a measure of effort tolerance.
Immediately upon completion of the handgrip task, participants answered the manipulation
check questions. Subsequently, those participants in the experimental conditions were given
bogus feedback relative to their performance. Those in the HE group were congratulated and
informed that their performance placed them in the top 10th percentile for grip strength and
endurance, based on norms constructed for individuals of similar age and gender. Conversely,
those participants in the LE group were told that their performance was in the bottom 10th
percentile for similar age and gender. The control group was given no performance feedback.
To enhance the credibility of the bogus feedback, the examiner pretended to look up normative
data in a textbook.
Participants were next given a 15 min rest period, where they were seated alone in an
adjacent classroom and provided with drinking water. Upon returning to the laboratory to repeat
the handgrip task participants were greeted by the examiner, and those in the experimental
conditions were reminded of the outcome of the first trial. Specifically, the examiner re-
emphasized their performance compared with normative data. This acted as a booster session
to reinforce the efficacy manipulation from the previous session. Subsequent to this, they
completed the TSSE scale again and the handgrip task was repeated. Similar to the first trial,
participants were asked to hold an isometric contraction at 25% of their maximum capacity
 SELF-EFFICACY AND EFFORT 463

for as long as they could sustain it, while effort perceptions were assessed at 15 s intervals.
Time on task was used as a measure of effort tolerance. Immediately upon completion of the
handgrip task, participants again completed the manipulation check.
Upon completion of the second session participants were debriefed as to the nature of the
study and were provided with accurate performance feedback to indicate how they actually
performed on the task. They were then thanked for their time and efforts and informed that
they could contact the primary author if they were interested in learning the results of the
study.

Statistical Analysis
Data were analyzed using SPSS Statistical Software version 14.0 (SPSS Inc. Chicago,
IL). Means and standard deviations were used to describe the data. A 2 (Trial) × 10 (Time)
× 3 (Group) repeated measures (RM) multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was
employed to examine group mean differences in the perceived effort dimensions. A RM one-
way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to determine the differences between mean
exertion tolerance times for the three groups. A Scheffe post-hoc test followed significant
(p < .05) results to test pair-means differences. Effect sizes for F-statistics were expressed as
eta-squared (η2). Effect sizes for mean differences were expressed as Cohen’s d. Statistical
significance was set at p < .05.

RESULTS
Task Commitment and Effort
Participants displayed high ratings for the two manipulation-check questions, indicating
they were invested in and committed to the task. Means and SDs for task commitment and
effort investment in the first trial were 4.27 (.63) and 4.17 (.74), respectively, and 4.35 (.56)
and 4.35 (.59) for the second trial. The range of manipulation check scores was 2.0–5.0 for
both questions in the first trial and 3.0–5.0 in the second trial. Mean maximum grip strength
was 39.31kg (SD = 12.13); mean exertion tolerance time was 156 s for the first trial, and
146 s for the second trial.

Self-Efficacy Manipulation Check

To confirm the successful self-efficacy manipulation, two 3 (group) by 2 (trial) repeated
measures ANOVAs were performed, with TSSE-1 and TSSE-2 as the dependent variables,
respectively. Results revealed significant trial by group interaction effects for TSSE-1, F (2,
68) = 7.87, p = .00, η2 = .50, and TSSE-2, F (2, 68) = 52.53, p = .00, η2 = .50. Follow-up
analyses indicated that the three groups did not differ significantly prior to the manipulation
on TSSE-1 (HE M = 60.73, SD = 16.26; LE M = 63.35, SD = 17.69; Control M = 63.51,
SD = 19.96, η2 = .01, ns), but post-manipulation the HE group had significantly higher
TSSE-1 scores than the LE group (HE M = 78.65, SD = 14.08; LE M = 58.98, SD = 20.98,
effect size [ES] = 1.10, p = .00). Neither the HE group (p = .37) nor the LE group (p = .07)
differed significantly from the control group (Control M = 68.34, SD = 23.98). Likewise,
the three groups did not differ significantly prior to the manipulation on TSSE-2 (HE M =
61.75, SD = 20.29; LE M = 62.51, SD = 18.76; Control M = 65.15, SD = 21.06, η2 = .01,
ns), but post-manipulation the HE group had significantly higher TSSE-2 scores than either
the LE group (HE M = 81.36, SD = 11.89; LE M = 29.00, SD = 15.60, ES = 3.78, p =
.00) or the control group (M = 61.91, SD = 24.45, ES = 1.01, p = .01). The LE group also
464 J. C. HUTCHINSON ET AL.

100
90
TSSE-1 80
70 Trial 1
60 Trial 2
50
40
30
Control Low High
Group
(a)
100
90
80
70
TSSE-2

Trial 1
60
Trial 2
50
40
30
20
Control Low High
Group
(b)

Figure 1. Mean ratings for (a) TSSE-1 and (b) TSSE-2 ± SE before and after the efficacy manipula-
tion in the three groups.

had significantly lower TSSE-2 than the control group (ES = 1.60, p = .00). The successful
self-efficacy manipulation effects for TSSE-1 and TSSE-2 are illustrated in Figure1a and 1b,
respectively.

Effects of Efficacy Manipulation on Perceived Effort Dimensions over Time

Comparison of baseline data. Preliminary analyses indicated that the three groups did not
differ significantly on any of the perceived effort variables prior to the manipulation.

Sensory-discriminative. The RM MANOVA examining the manipulation effect on muscle

ache revealed a significant main effect for time, F (9,14) = 25.75, p = .00, η2 = .94, and a
time by trial by group interaction effect, F (18,30) = 1.92, p = .02, η2 = .54. Predictably,
perceived muscle aches increased over time for all three groups. For the interaction effect,
participants in the LE group consistently rated their muscle aches higher than those in either
the HE (ES = 1.21) or the control group (ES = 1.49) for the duration of the task. However
these differences diminished during the last phase of the effort (see Figure 2a).
 SELF-EFFICACY AND EFFORT 465

8
6

Aches
4
2
Control Low-Efficacy High-Efficacy
0
15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150
Time (s)
(a)

8
6
Affect

4
2
Control Low-Efficacy High-Efficacy
0
15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150
Time (s)
(b)

8
6
Exertion

4
2
Control Low-Efficacy High-Efficacy
0
15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150
Time (s)
(c)

Figure 2. Mean ratings for (a) sensory-discriminative, (b) motivational-affective, and (c) cognitive-
evaluative dimensions across 10 time intervals by the three groups.

Motivational-affective. The RM MANOVA examining the manipulation effect on determina-

tion revealed no significant effects, although the time by group interaction effect approached
significance, F (18,30) = 1.87, p = .07, η2 = .55. Determination in the HE group increased
over time, while determination in the LE group decreased over time. Determination in the
control group remained unchanged, except for a slight increase towards the end of the task.
The RM MANOVA examining the manipulation effect on affect revealed a significant time
by trial by group interaction effect, F (18,30) = 2.33, p = .01, η2 = .58. Participants in the
HE group reported greater affect than participants in either the LE group (ES = 1.37) or the
control group (ES = 1.25) during the first 75 s, but ratings converged later when effort was
extreme (see Figure 2b).
466 J. C. HUTCHINSON ET AL.

200

180

160
Time (s)

140 Trial 1
120 Trial 2

100
80

60
Control Low High
Group

Figure 3. Means ± SE for exertion tolerance in the handgrip task by the three groups.

Cognitive-evaluative. The RM MANOVA examining the manipulation effect on exertion

revealed a significant main effect for time, F (9,14) = 15.42, p = .00, η2 = .91, and a
time by trial by group interaction effect, F (18,30) = 1.38, p = .03, η2 = .58. Participants
in the HE group reported lower perceived exertion than participants in either the LE group
(ES = −0.49) or the control group (ES = −0.17). Differences were pronounced mainly during
the first 60s, and diminished later on, particularly compared to the control group (see Figure
2c).

Exertion Tolerance (ET)

Comparison of baseline data. A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed no sig-
nificant difference in ET between the three groups on the first trial F (2, 68) = 0.39,
p = .68.

Results. A RM ANOVA revealed a significant trial by group interaction effect, F (2, 68) =
6.43, p < .01, η2 = .16. This was followed with a one-way ANOVA using the results from Trial
2, which was significant, F (2, 68) = 4.69, p = .01, η2 = .16. Scheffe post-hoc tests indicated
the HE group was significantly different from the LE group (p = .02) and the control group
(p = .02). The LE group was not statistically different from the control group. As predicted,
participants in the high efficacy group (M = 173.29 s, SD = 47.19) were able to tolerate the
task longer than participants in the low efficacy group (M = 133.75 s, SD = 48.87; ES = 0.83)
or the control group (M = 133.23 s, SD = 58.89; ES = 0.75) following the manipulation.
Figure 3 illustrates these results.

DISCUSSION
The present study was designed to assess the role of self-efficacy in determining perceived
and sustained effort during an isometric handgrip task. Using a repeated measures exper-
imental design, self-efficacy was manipulated as a function of a single exercise bout. The
degree to which this manipulation influenced perceived effort responses and effort tolerance
was examined during a subsequent exercise session. It was expected that participants receiv-
 SELF-EFFICACY AND EFFORT 467

ing positive performance feedback (HE group) would experience lower perceived aches and
exertion, greater task motivation, and more positive affect when performing a subsequent
exercise bout than those who received negative performance feedback (LE group). It was also
anticipated that participants in the HE group would tolerate the exertive task longer than their
LE counterparts.
Participants randomized to the HE, LE, and control groups evidenced similar levels of
self-efficacy prior to the manipulation; however, following the manipulation the HE group
demonstrated a significant increase in self-efficacy (TSSE-1, ES = 1.17; TSSE-2, ES = 1.18),
and the LE group demonstrated a significant decrease in self-efficacy (TSSE-1, ES = −0.23;
TSSE-2, ES = −1.94), while the control group remained largely unchanged (TSSE-1, ES =
0.22; TSSE-2, ES = 0.14). This finding is consistent with findings where self-efficacy has
been successfully manipulated via false feedback (Marquez et al., 2002; McAuley et al., 1999;
Motl et al., 2006). A much larger manipulation effect was observed for TSSE-2 compared
to TSSE-1. The TSSE-2 scale item asked participants to judge how well they believed they
would be able to perform on the task relative to other participants in the study. This effect was
not unexpected given the nature of the false performance feedback, which explicitly compared
participants’ performance on the task relative to others.

Perceived Effort
The results of this study indicate that self-efficacy manipulation leads to differential per-
ceptions of aches, exertion, and affect during acute exercise bouts. Specifically, increased
self-efficacy leads to lower perceptions of aches and exertion, and an enhanced affective re-
sponse to exercise. This latter finding is consistent with McAuley et al.’s (1999) findings where
participants assigned to a high-efficacy manipulation condition reported more positive affect
and less negative affect than those assigned to a low-efficacy manipulation condition.
Interestingly, the group differences in the three dimensions of effort were more pronounced
at the beginning of the handgrip task (see Figure 2). As the task progressed the ratings of the
three groups became progressively more analogous. Thus, it may be that self-efficacy exerts a
greater effect prior to, and during, the initial stages of exertion. If feedback is not forthcoming
as the task progresses then the self-efficacy effects may begin to wane. This highlights the
potential importance of continued positive feedback during either aversive experiences or
taxing environmental demands. An alternative explanation is that the manipulation of efficacy
does not impact effort perceptions at higher exercise intensities. The handgrip task becomes
increasingly difficult over time due to contractile failure of the muscles involved. This assertion
is consistent with recent research that purports that psychological influences on physiological
cues are intensity dependant (Ekkekakis, 2003; Ekkekakis, Hall, & Petruzzello, 2005; Hall
et al., 2005; Hutchinson & Tenenbaum, 2007; Noble & Robertson, 1996, Tenenbaum &
Hutchinson, 2007). Future researchers might consider manipulating self-efficacy at varying
levels of exercise intensity to explicitly test this assumption.
Perceptions of pain and discomfort can act as barriers to exercise initiation and mainte-
nance. Having demonstrated that such perceptions can be manipulated through self-efficacy
interventions, this line of research has important ramifications for exercise adherence. In addi-
tion, positive affect plays an important role in the motivation for exercise (Scanlan & Simons,
1992). Thus, self-efficacy interventions that improve the affective experience of the exerciser
are likely to also have the potential to enhance exercise adherence.
Self-efficacy interventions are typically based on one or more sources of efficacy in-
formation within Bandura’s (1977) theory; performance accomplishments/mastery experi-
ences, vicarious experience, verbal persuasion, and physiological states. The most effective
468 J. C. HUTCHINSON ET AL.

way of creating a strong sense of efficacy is through mastery experiences (Bandura, 1998).
Monitoring of performance accomplishments through a written log or individualized goal-
setting program might reinforce such accomplishments. It is important to note that easy suc-
cesses do not typically enhance efficacy perceptions, thus, experience in overcoming obstacles
through perseverant effort should be emphasized.
The second way of creating and strengthening self-beliefs of efficacy is through the vi-
carious experiences provided by social models. Seeing people similar to oneself succeed by
sustained effort raises observers’ beliefs that they too possess the capabilities to master com-
parable activities to succeed (Bandura, 1998). In this instance, exercise with a partner, or in a
group setting where one could observe other successful exercisers might enhance an individ-
ual’s efficacy for exercise, provided the social models are individuals with whom the novice
exercisers can identify. A class offered specifically for beginners is more likely to reinforce
the efficacy of novice exercisers, say, than an advanced exercise class.
Social persuasion is a third way of strengthening people’s efficacy beliefs. Complements on
progress from family members and friends, for example, are likely to enhance exercisers’ self-
efficacy. Compared to other efficacy sources, the influence of social persuasion is generally
weak. However, Bandura (1997) observed that although “verbal persuasion alone may be
limited in its power to create enduring increases in self-efficacy. . . . it can bolster self-change
if the positive appraisal is within realistic bounds” (p. 101). Thus, verbal persuasion has
the greatest effect on those individuals who have some reason to believe that they could
be successful if they persist (Pitt, 2003). Coaches, exercise leaders, and personal trainers are
therefore advised to structure situations for people in ways that bring success and avoid placing
them in situations prematurely where they are likely to fail.
The final source of information for self-efficacy beliefs is the individual’s physiological
state. Bandura (1997) emphasized that it is one’s appraisal of somatic information, rather than
the physiological state itself, that is critical in determining efficacy beliefs. During physical
exertion, individuals may interpret aversive physiological arousal (e.g., racing heartbeat, aching
muscles) as signs of physical debility and perceived incompetence, leading to decreased self-
efficacy. Thus, the final way of modifying self-beliefs of efficacy is to alter people’s negative
emotional proclivities and correct misinterpretations of their physical states (Bandura, 1998).
This can be achieved through cognitive interventions such as reframing or self-talk.

Sustained Effort
The results of this study demonstrate that increased self-efficacy leads to improved tolerance
of an exertive task. Participants in the HE group were able to tolerate the handgrip task an
average of 40 s (23%) longer than participants in either the LE or control group following
the manipulation. This conclusion is consistent with the predictions of self-efficacy theory,
and lends support to the positive efficacy-effort tolerance relationship previously reported
by Weinberg et al. (1979; 1980; 1981), Tenenbaum et al. (2001), and Hutchinson (2004).
These findings substantiate the relevance for the applied practitioner who is interested in the
effect of self-efficacy on effort tolerance; not only as it pertains to enhancement of sport or
exercise performance, but also to related fields such as military, occupational, or rehabilitation
performance. Employing measures to enhance self-efficacy expectancies is anticipated to have
a positive impact upon performance in domains where the ability to sustain physical effort for
a prolonged period of time is important for success. One such intervention that has proved
successful has been the use of motivational general-mastery imagery. Feltz and Reissinger
(1990) found a positive relationship between mastery-oriented imagery (i.e., encouraging
images of competence and success) and self-efficacy in performing a muscular endurance
 SELF-EFFICACY AND EFFORT 469

task. Other researchers (e.g., Beauchamp, Bray, & Albinson, 2002; Garza & Feltz, 1998) have
extended these findings to a sports setting, and reported that pre-competition mastery imagery
accounts for significant variance in both self-efficacy and performance. However, such studies
have not focused exclusively on endurance performance. Future investigations that examine
the effect of self-efficacy interventions on sustained effort will help to determine the utility of
extending self-efficacy theory to this new context.
The mechanism by which self-efficacy exerts its influence is still open for debate. Several
explanations have been put forward. Bandura et al. (1987) reported that an actual decrease in the
appraisal of aversive stimuli might be responsible for lower perceptions of effort and increased
effort tolerance. According to Bandura (1995), “Self-percepts foster actions that generate
information as well as serve as a filtering mechanism for self-referent information in the self-
maintaining process” (p. 359). The results of the present study, and previous studies reporting
a negative relationship between self-efficacy and RPE (Hall et al., 2005; Pender et al., 2002;
Rudolph & McAuley, 1996), support this contention. An alternative explanation offered by
Hardy and Rejeski (1989) is that efficacy cognitions determine affective reactions to tasks that
challenge personal skills or capabilities. For example, engaging in exercise produces demands
on the system that can result in considerable in-task affect which, if positive, might lead to
continued participation and, if negative, to ultimate disengagement from the activity. Again,
this hypothesis is consistent with the results of the present study and previous results (McAuley
& Blissmer, 2000; McAuley et al., 1999) where high efficacy participants reported greater
positive well-being and less psychological distress and fatigue than low-efficacy participants
exercising at the same intensity.
Harter (1990) suggested that self-efficacy plays an influential role in moderating effort
tolerance because it represents a critical aspect of self-worth. Therefore, self-judgments about
one’s competence on meaningful tasks moderate the motivational effects of aversive feedback
or physical exertion on persistence and performance. The results of the present study did
not confirm a self-efficacy effect for motivation, although there was a trend in that direction
(p = .07), which indicated that the HE group became increasingly determined as the task
progressed, while determination in the LE group decreased as the task progressed. Clearly, the
motivational effects of self-efficacy on persistence and performance warrant further investiga-
tion.
Finally, Cioffi (1991) suggested that at least four psychological mechanisms could account
for the association between self-efficacy and behavioral outcome. First, because perceived
self-efficacy decreases anxiety and its concomitant physiological arousal, the participant may
initially approach the task with less potentially distressing physical information. Our observa-
tion that efficacy effects on perceived effort were more pronounced at the beginning of the task
lends some support to this argument. Second, the efficacious person is able to willfully distract
attention from potentially threatening physiological sensations. Again, our observations are
somewhat consistent with this hypothesis, given that the effects of distraction (or dissociative
coping) are more salient at lower levels of physical effort (Hutchinson & Tenenbaum, 2007).
A more direct examination of this effect is warranted. Third, the efficacious person perceives
and is distressed by physical sensations but simply persists in the face of them (i.e., displays
stoicism). The results of this study do not support the contention that a highly efficacious
individual perceives physical sensations to the same extent as a less efficacious individual, al-
though the concept of self-efficacy and stoicism, or mental toughness, is an intriguing area that
awaits further research. Lastly, Cioffi suggested that perhaps physical sensations are neither
ignored nor necessarily distressing, but rather are relatively free to take on a broad distribution
of meanings (i.e., change interpretations). This assumption can be addressed by qualitative
research methods, in which participants’ thought processes are explicitly examined.
470 J. C. HUTCHINSON ET AL.

Before ending this discussion, we must recognize some limitations of the present study.
First, this experiment presented a novel task in which participants had no mastery experiences
on which to base their efficacy judgments. Although participants were given a chance to
experience 25% MVC prior to completing the TSSE scale, it would have been better to allow a
practice trial, where participants had the opportunity to perform the endurance task in full. It is
also possible that the novelty of the task accentuated the successful self-efficacy manipulation
effect. These marked intervention effects may not be observed for a task in which participants
have more experience and familiarity. Second, the study relied on the expertise of the examiner
to judge when participants could no longer sustain the required contraction intensity. While we
are confident in our results, we feel greater accuracy could have been achieved through the use
of an electronic hand dynamometer, connected to a computerized system. Future replications
and extensions of this study ought to address these considerations.
In conclusion, self-efficacy appears to play a particularly important role in the perception
and tolerance of physical effort. Further investigation of the relationship between self-efficacy
and perceived effort, and the impact of these perceptions on task persistence, is a fruitful
avenue for future research. Such investigations ought to attempt to clarify the underlying
mechanisms by which self-efficacy positively affects perceived and sustained effort. Studies
that go beyond the correlational nature of the efficacy-perceived effort relationship, and directly
manipulate self-efficacy are warranted. Such studies will advance our knowledge of how we
might structure interventions to maximize efficacy, and in turn influence both psychosocial
and behavioral outcomes associated with exercise (McAuley & Blissmer, 2000).

REFERENCES
Baker, S. L., & Kirsch, I. (1991). Cognitive mediators of pain perception and tolerance. Journal of
Personality & Social Psychology, 61, 504–510.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavior change. Psychological Review,
84, 191–215.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational
Psychologist, 28, 117–148.
Bandura, A. (1995). Self-efficacy in changing societies. New York: Cambridge Press.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Bandura, A. (1998). Health promotion from the perspective of social cognitive theory. Psychology &
Health, 13, 623–649.
Bandura, A., & Jourden, F. J. (1991). Self-regulatory mechanisms governing the impact of social com-
parison on complex decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 941–951.
Bandura, A., O’Leary, A., Taylor, C., Gauthier, J., & Gossard, D. (1987). Perceived self-efficacy and
pain control: Opioid and nonopioid mechanisms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53,
563–571.
Beauchamp, M. R., Bray, S. R., & Albinson, J. G. (2002). Pre-competition imagery, self-efficacy and
performance in collegiate golfers. Journal of Sports Sciences, 20, 697–699.
Cioffi, D. (1991). Beyond attentional strategies: a cognitive-perceptual model of somatic interpretation.
Psychological Bulletin, 109(1), 25–41.
Ekkekakis, P. (2003). Pleasure and displeasure from the body: Perspectives from exercise. Cognition and
Emotion, 17, 213–239.
Ekkekakis, P., Hall, E. E., & Petruzzello, S. J. (2005). Some like it vigorous: Measuring individual
differences in the preference for and tolerance of exercise intensity. Journal of Sport & Exercise
Psychology, 27, 350–374.
 SELF-EFFICACY AND EFFORT 471

Essendrop, M., Schibye, B., & Hansen, K. (2001). Reliability of isometric muscle strength tests
for the trunk, hands and shoulders. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 28, 379–
387.
Feltz, D. L., & Reissinger, C. A. (1990). Effects on in vivo emotive imagery and performance feedback
on self-efficacy and muscular endurance. Journal of Sport & Exercise, 12, 132–143.
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117–140.
Garza, D. L., & Feltz, D. L. (1998). Effects of selected mental practice on performance, self-efficacy, and
competition confidence of figure skaters. The Sport Psychologist, 12, 1–15.
Goethals, G. R., & Darley, J. M. (1987). Social comparison theory: Self-evaluation and group life. In B.
Mullen, & R. Goethals (Eds.), Theories of group behavior (pp. 21–47). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Hall, E. E., Ekkekakis, P., & Petruzzello, S. J. (2005). Is the relationship of RPE to psychological factors
intensity-dependent? Medicine & Science in Sport & Exercise, 37(8), 1365–1373.
Hardy, C. J., & Rejeski, W. J. (1989). Not what, but how one feels: The measurement of affect during
exercise. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 11, 304–317.
Harter, S. (1990). Causes, correlates, and the functional role of global self-worth: A life span perspective.
In J. Kolligan, & R. Sternberg (Eds.), Perceptions of competence and incompetence across the life-
span (pp. 67–97). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Heggestad, E. D., & Kanfer, R. (2005). The predictive validity of self-efficacy in training perfor-
mance: Little more than past performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 11,
84–97.
Hutchinson, J. C. (2004). Psychological factors in perceived and sustained effort. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL.
Hutchinson, J. C., & Tenenbaum, G. (2006). Perceived effort—can it be considered gestalt? Psychology
of Sport and Exercise, 7(5), 463–476.
Hutchinson, J. C., & Tenenbaum, G. (2007). Attention focus during physical effort: The mediating role
of task intensity. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 8(2), 233–245.
Litt, M. D. (1988). Self efficacy and perceived control: Cognitive mediators of pain tolerance. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 149–160.
Marquez, D. X., Jerome, G. J., McAuley, E., Snook, E., & Canaklisova, S. (2002). Self-efficacy manip-
ulation and state anxiety responses to exercise in low active women. Psychology & Health, 17(6),
783–791.
McArdle, W., Katch, F. I., & Katch, V. L. (1996). Exercise physiology: Energy, nutrition, and human
performance (4th ed.). Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger.
McAuley, E., & Blissmer, B. (2000). Self-efficacy determinants and consequences of physical activity.
Exercise and Sport Science Reviews, 28(2), 85–88.
McAuley, E., & Courneya, K. S. (1992). Self-efficacy relationships with affective and exertive responses
to exercise. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22, 312–326.
McAuley, E., Talbot, H. M., & Martinez, S. (1999). Manipulating self-efficacy in the exercise environment
in women: Influences on affective responses. Health Psychology, 18, 288–294.
Melzack, R., & Wall, P. D. (1965). Pain mechanisms: A new theory. Science, 150, 971–979.
Middlekauff, H. R., Chiu, J., Hamilton, M. A., Fonarow, G. C., MacLellan, W. R., Hage, A., Moriguchi,
J., & Patel, J. (2004). Muscle mechanoreceptor sensitivity in heart failure. American Journal of
Physiology—Heart and Circulatory Physiology, 287, H1937–H1943.
Motl, R. W., Konopack, J. F., Hu, L., & McAuley, E. (2006). Does self-efficacy influence leg muscle
pain during cycling exercise? The Journal of Pain, 7(5), 301–307.
Noble, B. J., & Robertson, R. J. (1996). Perceived exertion. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Pender, N. J., Bar-Or, O., Wilk, B., & Mitchell, S. (2002). Self-efficacy and perceived exertion of girls
during exercise. Nursing Research, 51, 86–91.
Pitt, W. (2003). Self-efficacy for physical activity. In A. Carron, H. Hausenblas, & P. Estabrooks (Eds.),
The psychology of physical activity (pp. 128–136). New York: McGraw Hill.
Rudolph, D. L., & McAuley, E. (1996). Self-efficacy and perceptions of effort: A reciprocal relationship.
Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 18, 216–223.
472 J. C. HUTCHINSON ET AL.

Scanlan, T. K., & Simons, J. P. (1992). The construct of sport enjoyment. In G. C. Roberts (Ed.),
Motivation in sport and exercise (pp. 199–215). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Suls, J. M., & Miller, R. L. (1977). Social comparison processes: Theoretical and empirical perspectives.
Washington, DC: Hemisphere.
Tenenbaum, G., Fogarty, G., Stewart, E., Calcagnini, N., Kirker, B., Thorn, G., & Christensen, S. (1999).
Perceived discomfort in running: Scale development and theoretical considerations. Journal of Sport
Sciences, 17, 183–196.
Tenenbaum, G., Hall, H. K., Calcagnini, V., Lange, R., Freeman, G., & Lloyd, M. (2001). Coping
with physical exertion and frustration experiences under competitive and self-standard conditions.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31(8), 1582–1626.
Tenenbaum, G., & Hutchinson, J. C. (2007). A social-cognitive perspective of perceived exertion. In G.
Tenenbaum, & R. Eklund. (Eds.), Handbook of sport psychology (3rd ed.; pp. 560–577). Hoboken,
NJ: Wiley.
Turk, D. C. (2004). Understanding pain sufferers: The role of cognitive processes. The Spine Journal, 4,
1–7.
Turk, D. C., Michenbaum, D., & Genest, M. (1983). Pain and behavioral medicine: A cognitive-behavioral
approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Weinberg, R. S., Gould, D., & Jackson, A. (1979). Expectations and performance: An empirical test of
Bandura’s self-efficacy theory. Journal of Sport Psychology, 1, 320–331.
Weinberg, R. S., Gould, D., Yukelson, S., & Jackson, A. (1981). The effect of pre-existing and manipulated
self-efficacy on a competitive muscular endurance task. Journal of Sport Psychology, 4, 345–354.
Weinberg, R. S., Yukelson, S., & Jackson, A. (1980). Effect of public and private expectations on
competitive performance. Journal of Sport Psychology, 2, 340–349.