27.2: Relational Efficacy

When people are recognized for great achievements, they often mention the role that significant others had along the path to success. The person mentioned might be an important coach, teacher, trainer, or parent. People have hypothesized that having others believe in their capabilities might drive someone to work harder and persist longer in tasks. To understand the role that significant others have in the development of efficacy beliefs, Lent and Lopez (2002) introduced a relational efficacy framework (also known as the tripartite efficacy framework) to capture some of the key social influences that might shape our self-efficacy perceptions. This framework was outlined to further understand the role of social influence above and beyond the social components embedded in Bandura’s initial conception of the formation of self-efficacy beliefs. The original self-efficacy framework incorporates factors that are social, including social persuasion (Bandura, 1997). However, the relational efficacy model greatly expands on the social components included as antecedents to the development of self-efficacy (Lent & Lopez, 2002).

Working from the broader social cognitive theory of which self-efficacy is a component(Bandura, 1997), Lent and Lopez (2002) proposed that the social environment has a substantial influence on self-efficacy perceptions. Specifically, two new sources of efficacy information should be considered when examining efficacy perceptions in the social environment: other efficacy and relation inferred self-efficacy (RISE). Other efficacy is defined as a person's view of another person’s ability. An athlete, for instance, could have other efficacy beliefs about their coach. The athlete may judge how confident they are in their coach’s ability to effectively manage practices, games, strategy, etc. These other efficacy perceptions could be based on past performance, information the athlete has gathered about the coach from others, and observations of the coach. In team sports, athletes also hold other efficacy beliefs about their teammates which could shape in game behaviors, choice of joint activities, and the amount of effort put forth in tasks. For example, if Alyssa is highly confident in Serena’s ability to make a game winning shot, Alyssa is more likely to seek out passing to Serena in a critical moment of a game. RISE is an individual’s beliefs regarding how they are viewed by the other people around them. RISE is Alyssa’s beliefs about how Serena views Alyssa’s ability. An athlete’s RISE beliefs are modulated by the athlete’s appraisal of the feedback they receive from teammates and coaches, as well as their own self-efficacy beliefs. Both other efficacy and RISE impact many outcomes other than self-efficacy beliefs. The original conception of the model outlined that RISE and other efficacy influence self-fulfilling prophecies, coping efforts in difficult tasks, skill development, social support beliefs, relationship satisfaction, and relationship persistence (Lent & Lopez, 2002).

Generally speaking, the model suggests that those who have more positive RISE and other efficacy beliefs are likely to have higher self-efficacy beliefs, compared to those with lower RISE and other efficacy beliefs. This would suggest that athletes in more positive sport relationships (whether it be with a coach, peer, or parent) are likely to have higher self-efficacy beliefs. However, researchers are still uncertain about the pathway in which the relational efficacy beliefs might influence self-efficacy. The original conception of the relational efficacy model hypothesizes that self-efficacy influences RISE beliefs and that RISE beliefs reciprocally influence self-efficacy beliefs (Lent & Lopez, 2002). RISE and other efficacy also have a reciprocal relationship where RISE impacts other efficacy (through impression management, e.g., an athlete trying to show their best selves), and other efficacy impacts RISE beliefs (through social cues sent from the target individual). The original model proposes that RISE sits between other efficacy and self-efficacy and has reciprocal relationships with both other efficacy and self-efficacy. However, this model has rarely been tested in the same way that it was proposed. Often RISE and other efficacy are both used as sources of self-efficacy beliefs in a cross sectional manner. This shift in methods removes the reciprocal nature of the relational efficacy beliefs and uses them as unidirectional predictors. This change in modeling approach is likely employed for cleaner, more parsimonious models; however, future work should examine these pathways experimentally and with more sophisticated modeling approaches.

27.2.1. Sources of Relational Efficacy

27.2.1.1. Sources of RISE

There are many interpersonal interactions, exchanges, and experiences that can shape one’s RISE and other efficacy beliefs in a social context. Lent and Lopez (2002) hypothesized that RISE beliefs would largely be a function of an individual’s appraisal of their partners' feedback and the level of self-efficacy that one has in a particular task. Feedback from partners can be verbal or nonverbal. In the sports context, an athlete might perceive that a coach or teammate doesn’t give enough feedback, doesn’t provide direct feedback, or there is too much variability in the amount of support. All of these factors affect the development of RISE beliefs in an interpersonal context. Self-efficacy might influence RISE beliefs as a buffer against overly positive or negative partner or coach communication. If an athlete has high self-efficacy, but has very negative interactions with their teammate, the high self-efficacy might mitigate any negative effects from the low RISE beliefs.

Research in sport psychology has corroborated some of these sources and added additional information for researchers and practitioners. Jackson and colleagues (2008) interviewed international level athlete dyads to better understand the development of relational efficacy perceptions. The interviews uncovered three categories that represented sources of RISE, including perceptions regarding oneself, perceptions regarding the teammate, and perceptions regarding the dyad. To further elucidate the theme of perceptions regarding oneself, the authors noted that it included self-efficacy beliefs, past mastery experiences (a traditional self-efficacy source), motivation, and physiological factors. Verbal behavior, nonverbal behavior, and affective states when with the partner were three sources that reflect the perceptions regarding the teammate. Lastly, experience with the partner and the past mastery experiences with the teammate both were minor themes that represented perceptions regarding the dyad (Jackson et al., 2008).

27.2.1.2. Sources of Other Efficacy

In the original conception of the relational efficacy model, other efficacy was hypothesized to be a function of the perceptions of the other individual’s performance, beliefs about the other person’s efficacy, cultural stereotypes, social cues, and third party views of the other person’s ability to perform (Lent & Lopez, 2002). Other efficacy is developed based on the known performance level of the individual and relevant social cues that could be perceived with interpersonal interactions or in consultation with other individuals (e.g., a previous teammate, coach, or parent). Long lasting interpersonal relationships will likely have more stable sources of other efficacy because there are more past experiences from which the participants can draw information.

Interviewing elite athlete dyads, Jackson and colleagues (2008) found some similar sources of other efficacy and some unique sources as well. Two themes emerged that focused on perceptions regarding the partner and perceptions regarding the dyad. Sources of other efficacy that came from perceptions regarding the partner included past performances with the partner, third party comments, comparisons with past partners, comparisons with similar athletes, other athlete motivation, and physiological factors (Jackson et al., 2008). For perceptions regarding the dyad, both past experiences with the dyad and experience together were main sources in the development of other efficacy beliefs. When developing other efficacy beliefs in a sporting context, it appears that athletes rely heavily on comparing their partner with others in the sport or from their past experience in sport. Also, athletes appear to rely heavily on others (e.g., word of mouth, recommendations) when developing other efficacy perceptions.

27.2.2. Research on Relational Efficacy in Sport

27.2.2.1. Research on Relational Efficacy in Teammate Relationships

Athlete relationships are defined by a large number of factors. A doubles tennis pair is likely to behave differently and have different relationships than a team of 25 soccer players. However, there are likely some similarities that are worth considering when examining teams. In the studies presented for the rest of this chapter, please keep in mind the unique social context in which all of these teams exist. Dyad relationships are likely to be much closer and have stronger relational ties compared to larger teams.

The original research into relational efficacy beliefs in sport involved interviews of athlete dyads to understand the antecedents to self-efficacy, other efficacy, and RISE (Jackson et al., 2008). This seminal work helped the field better understand the antecedents and outcomes of the relational efficacy model. In the previous section, many of the antecedents were discussed. In addition to those findings, Jackson and colleagues (2008) noted that other efficacy beliefs can contribute to relationship persistence, relationship termination, relationship satisfaction, partner selection, as well as a host of other intrapersonal outcomes. In dyadic relationships, RISE contributed to the development of most of the same outcomes at the intra and interpersonal levels. Overall, positive RISE and other efficacy beliefs appear to have a positive impact on self-efficacy beliefs, as well as behavioral and affective outcomes that are known to impact participation in sports (Jackson et al., 2014).

27.2.2.2. Research on Relational Efficacy in Coach-Athlete Relationships

Relational efficacy has been a new addition to the already well studied coach and athlete relationship literature. However, through studying the dyadic relationship and the interdependence between coaches and athletes, researchers can better understand how the relationship functions for both parties involved. Jackson et al. (2010) examined intact coach and athlete dyads and found that RISE, other efficacy, and self-efficacy often played important roles in perceptions of closeness in the relationship, commitment to the relationship, and behavior that are complementarity during the relationship.

In a separate project, researchers investigated how self-efficacy, RISE, and other efficacy cluster for athletes when asked about their coach. Interestingly, researchers noted four unique cluster profiles: one had all high efficacy beliefs, one had all moderate efficacy, one had all low efficacy, and a small group was labeled as unsatisfied (Jackson et al., 2011). This result provides evidence (regardless of the causal pathway in which the beliefs occur) that when athletes have high relational efficacy beliefs, their self-efficacy beliefs are also likely to be high (and the same at the moderate and low levels of relational efficacy). In youth sport, RISE has been shown to mediate the relationship between coaching behavior and perceptions of self-efficacy. Specifically, coaching behaviors in youth sport informed the youth athletes’ RISE beliefs, which lead to changes in overall self-efficacy (Saville & Bray, 2016). Overall, the relational efficacy framework can provide some information about how the coaches and athletes develop a relationship and how the relationship endures over time.

Photo by cottonbro from Pexels

27.2.3. Enhancing Relational Efficacy in Sport

While relational efficacy is one of the newer areas covered in this chapter, there have been many advances in the understanding of relational efficacy beliefs in sport during the last decade. When thinking about how to enhance relational efficacy, it is worth going back to the research that covered the antecedents of both RISE and other efficacy. Lent and Lopez (2002) proposed that RISE developed through the processing of the verbal and nonverbal social cues that occur during an exchange. Saville and Bray (2016) asked youth hockey players to describe how the coach lets the athlete know they have confidence in them. Some of the responses included, “puts me in during important situations”, “tells me I can do it, even when I’m not so sure I can”, “gives me the ‘you can do it’ look”, and “takes the time to show me what I did wrong when I make a mistake.” (see Saville & Bray, 2016 for a full list). Many of the exchanges, both verbal and nonverbal, that coaches and athletes give to each other provide information for the formation of RISE beliefs. Being encouraging to athletes, while also holding them to a high standard of performance develops RISE beliefs.

Other efficacy is slightly trickier to develop because some of the sources are outside the immediate interpersonal relationship. Other efficacy can be enhanced through comparison mechanisms (either with other coaches or athletes), third party comments, past performance with the athlete, as well as motivation and physiological factors (Jackson et al., 2008). It is hard for an athlete (or a coach) to alter others’ perceptions of themselves. However, it is reasonable to focus on creating positive past performances and providing a space for athletes to succeed, while under challenging circumstances. It is important to create positive social and sport related experiences to enhance motivation and other psychological factors. Focusing on creating a caring environment that fosters improvement and skill development will enhance perceptions of other efficacy between coaches and athletes or athletes and their peers.

Learning Exercies

4. How does RISE differ from other efficacy?
5. What are the sources of RISE and other efficacy?
6. If Sally thinks Coach Tom has high confidence in her ability to make shots in clutch situations, what type of efficacy belief does this represent?