27.3: Collective Efficacy

In sport, successful performance is often judged by the performance of the team and not just an individual athlete. A team in the context of sport is defined as a group of two or more people, focused on the same goals and objectives, who are personally and instrumentally interdependent (Carron et al., 2005). Their interdependence includes the perceptions teammates have about their team, whether it is the social structure or contributions to overall performance. Self-efficacy refers to one’s individual beliefs about one’s ability to successfully perform a specific task. When athletes are part of a team, individuals will also have beliefs about their team’s ability, as a whole, to successfully complete the task at hand. Bandura first defined this concept as collective efficacy, “a group’s shared belief in their conjoint capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to produce given levels of attainments.” (Bandura, 1997, p. 476).

There is some debate about how collective efficacy is socially constructed, defined, and measured in the sport psychology literature (Maddux, 1999). One point of view stresses the importance of the group’s shared belief in their ability to allocate, coordinate, and integrate to successfully perform collective tasks (Zaccaro et al., 1995). These authors suggest that beliefs about the ability to allocate, coordinate and integrate should be directly measured. While those researchers who advocate for Bandura’s conceptualization of collective efficacy, believe that teams automatically consider the coordination and interaction when forming their beliefs about the team’s capabilities (Feltz et al., 2008). Short and colleagues have suggested that collective efficacy is a multidimensional construct consisting of five dimensions: ability, effort, persistence, preparation, and unity (Short & Short, 2004; Short et al., 2005).

Collective efficacy is not the summation of each individual athlete’s self-efficacy beliefs, but rather the athlete’s belief in the team’s ability. Self and collective efficacy beliefs can differ for athletes. For example, an athlete like Lebron James (NBA allstar) can have very high self-efficacy in basketball but play for a basketball team in which he has low collective efficacy (e.g., 2018 L.A. Lakers). Bandura (1997) recommends that athletes need high efficacy beliefs in their own ability as well as the team’s ability to perform at the highest level. Research has shown that the measurement of collective efficacy differs by definition and there are methodological issues with collective efficacy involving the unit of analysis. See Myers and Feltz (2007) for a thorough explanation of methodological issues with the study of collective efficacy in sport.

27.3.1. Sources of Collective Efficacy

Some sources of collective efficacy are thought to be similar to the sources of self-efficacy previously described (e.g., performance accomplishments, vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion), with some unique sources related to being part of a team. The process in which athletes combine and weigh various sources of information about the team’s ability may involve more complex socially and situationally mediated interactions than do sources of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997). The most common sources of collective efficacy are described below in categories of individual and team sources. Selection and emphasis of these individual and team sources may change over the course of a season, even if the level of collective efficacy remains relatively consistent (Chase et al., 2003; Magyar et al., 2004).

27.3.1.1. Individual Sources

Individual sources are variables that athletes perceive to be more self-determined than team determined. Perceived importance of the task, task difficulty, conception of ability, task efficacy, role efficacy, verbal persuasion (e.g., self-talk), and perceived control are examples of individual sources of collective efficacy noted in the literature (Feltz et al., 2008). Athletes will appraise sources in determining the team’s ability to successfully complete the task. For example, games that are not viewed as important in the preseason or nonconference schedule might not produce the same amount of incentive for athletes as games perceived as very important, such as the conference championship game. When athletes conceive of ability as a fixed entity, view the task as too difficult or out of their control, then they may have a weaker sense of collective efficacy. Verbal persuasion in the form of self-talk has the same tenets for collective efficacy beliefs as self-efficacy. Task efficacy and role efficacy have been suggested to be a predictor of collective efficacy, especially at the end of the competitive season when athletes have more experience with and knowledge about the team.

27.3.1.2. Team Sources

Team sources involve variables that have more to do with the team environment or team determined factors. Past performance of the team will be the best predictor of collective efficacy, with practice performance sometimes being more salient than game performance (Chase et al., 2003). This research also suggested that teams may form collective efficacy beliefs around the idea that the team will bounce back from a poor performance or the team is due to perform better after an unusually poor performance. Some teams may be more optimistic during the preseason and have a sense of high expectation based upon team potential and experience of the team last season (e.g., volleyball team has 5 of the 6 starters returning). Some interesting research by Fransen and colleagues (2014) suggests that in soccer and basketball, sources that are processed during the game are more predictive of collective efficacy than sources selected before the game. Teams will make social comparisons with other teams and adjust their collective efficacy accordingly. For example, if Team A views Team B as similar in ability and sees Team B as having a successful performance during league play, then Team A may have increased collective efficacy about their team when they begin league play. High efficacy leader behavior from team captains or other team leaders in the form of verbal persuasion or modeling can increase collective efficacy, whereas nonefficacious coaches can lower collective efficacy in their teams (Fransen et al., 2017). Teams that are more cohesive, especially in task cohesion, tend to have higher collective efficacy. Research has found that a motivational climate that has at least a moderate or higher mastery-oriented climate is often associated with higher collective efficacy. Overall, individual and team sources often work together to influence the formation of collective efficacy beliefs, which then influence performance, feelings and thought patterns.

27.3.2. Research on Collective Efficacy in Sport

27.3.2.1. Influence of Collective Efficacy on Performance

Teams with higher collective efficacy tend to perform better and accomplish their goals more so than if they have lower collective efficacy. In turn, performance accomplishments serve as a source of collective efficacy. The reciprocal nature of performance and efficacy beliefs positively or negatively influencing each other is often referred to as spirals (e.g., spiraling up or spiraling down; Fransen et al., 2017). Some of the first research to examine the relationship between collective efficacy and performance was conducted in laboratory settings, with teams artificially constructed in experiments. In general, these studies found that collective efficacy did predict performance; however, the studies were not viewed as realistic or easily applied to real sport teams. Several field studies of intact teams were conducted by Feltz and colleagues (Feltz & Lirgg, 1998; Myers, Feltz, & Short, 2004; Myers, Payment, & Feltz, 2004). Their studies with existing teams in real competitions repeatedly found that collective efficacy predicted performance, and in turn performance predicted collective efficacy for different men’s and women’s sports. In a comprehensive meta-analysis of 96 studies, Stajkovic et al. (2009) found that collective efficacy consistently predicted performance. One common finding amongst all the studies was the more interdependence of the team, the stronger collective efficacy beliefs predicted performance. Keep in mind that this relationship between collective efficacy and performance can spiral up in a positive direction or spiral down in a negative direction.

27.3.2.2. Influence of Collective Efficacy on Affect, Behavior, and Cognition

Collective efficacy also influences what athletes choose to do as a team, how much effort they put forth, the goals they set, and their persistence when efforts seem to fail (Bandura,1997). Teams can hold collective beliefs about their team’s ability to maintain composure when the game is on the line or to control their worry if they fall behind by a lot of points. Some other common variables influenced by collective efficacy are anxiety, satisfaction, team cohesion, teamwork, attributions, and motivation (Chow & Feltz, 2008; Heuzé et al., 2006). And, like positive and negative performance spirals, the same positive and negative spirals can happen with collective feelings, thoughts, and efficacy beliefs in teams.

27.3.3. Enhancing Collective Efficacy in Sport

Coaches and athletes are aware of the positive relationship between collective efficacy and performance, feelings, and thought patterns. Although some may think that collective efficacy would be enhanced by simply increasing self-efficacy, researchers know that strategies to enhance collective efficacy need to be more specific to the team, as a result of complex interactions between teammates and team play (Feltz et al., 2008). Therefore, we recommend understanding the context of the team, type of sport, amount of interdependence among teammates, and preferences of the team when targeting which sources of collective efficacy to enhance. For example, from the description of individual and team sources, collective efficacy can be enhanced using the following five strategies.

27.3.3.1. Provide Success Performance Experiences

Providing successful past performance should be the primary focus and there are several methods to do this. In practice, and especially during the early stages of forming the team, the coach or team leader should modify the difficulty of the task, drill, or competition. Early success with step by step progressions from simple to more difficult simulations of competitive situations will build collective efficacy. Prior to competitions, in practice or pregame warmup, coaches should include those drills that the team favors and is a strength. Lastly, performance success should not be defined by wins and losses. Team leaders can help redefine the meaning of success for the team by setting performance goals that are specific to a team’s growth and development. Achieving those goals can be beneficial to collective efficacy over the course of a season.

27.3.3.2. Encourage the Team

As stated earlier, coaches provide an important source of efficacy information for teams. There is a plethora of research about coaching effectiveness and the impact coaching feedback, reinforcement, and nonverbal behaviors have on teams. In general, the words and actions of the coach should be viewed as encouragement, have a positive tone, and include information about how to improve performance. Having a positive coach and athlete relationship can improve the team’s collective efficacy (Hampson & Jowett, 2014). Encouragement in the form of self-talk or team talk among teammates should also be positive. Depending on the age of the athletes, coaches should monitor overinvolvement of team parents. Youth sport teams can be negatively impacted and lose collective efficacy if parents become too negative or critical about the coach or teammates. One of the best types of encouragement is to reward effort. Effort is controllable, as opposed to a lot of uncontrollable variables that teams face, such as the ability of the opponent, the game officials, the weather, injuries, or illness.

27.3.3.3. Use Appropriate Comparisons with Other Team

So much of team sports involve one team being compared to another team. While this comparison is hard to escape, coaches should attempt to focus teams’ judgments on self-comparisons. For example, team leaders could clearly state strengths and weaknesses and a plan for how to improve the team. Practices and games could be video recorded throughout the season. Watching good performances and positive interactions among the team can build collective efficacy (Bruton et al., 2014). Another strategy could be to set mastery goals that specify targets for the team to accomplish. For example, basketball teams may target turnover/assist ratios, comparing their second 10 games tothe first 10 games of the season. Realistic role models who represent the goals that teams seek to achieve may be emphasized. Lastly, failures by the team should not be blamed on others, such as opponents or officials. Teams should own the failure, set new mastery goals, and direct effort to improve.

27.3.3.4. Build Team Cohesion

Team cohesion is typically improved by focusing on social cohesion and task cohesion in teams. Social cohesion will benefit from off the field activities where teammates get to know each other better. Team leaders may use team building activities to promote cohesion and identify team leaders. Social cohesion must stay positive and avoid a negative group think of questionable moral behavior or hazing that is sometimes falsely believed to improve team bonding. Task cohesion is best built by clearly identifying team goals and the role for each team member to contribute to the task. In turn, having high role efficacy can build collective efficacy and task cohesion.

27.3.3.5. Establish a Positive Productive Culture and Team Environment

A positive productive team culture will look different among teams in different sports but the strategies to build the culture are similar. Coaches should help athletes define, discuss, and hold teammates accountable to the culture deemed important. Understanding the importance of any team task is needed for proper incentive and sustained motivation. Coaches can work with athletes so they learn to make stable, controllable attributions about success and failure. The best motivational climate has both a mastery and performance orientation established in practice and reinforced in competitions, with an emphasis on a mastery climate. For example, a cross country coach who recognizes every runner on the team who improved their race time and contributed to the team effort, demonstrates to the team that improvement is important. Positive leader behaviors by the coach and team members will help set the culture of the team and provide a positive team environment.

Team leaders should incorporate all of these strategies into their interactions with the team. Coaches and team leaders would do well to remember that sources of collective efficacy are combined and weighed, selected or emphasized differently over the course of a season, during preseason, or in the offseason. By using these strategies and making them a part of the team culture, over time teams will compete with a higher level of persistence and effort. Team performances will be better, and as a consequence, everyone will notice more satisfaction and higher collective efficacy.

Learning Exercises

7. How does collective efficacy differ from the summation of each team member’s self-efficacy beliefs?
8. What are the sources of collective efficacy?
9. Describe the reciprocal relationship between collective efficacy and performance accomplishments and explain how this can produce a spiral?