You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
What drives an athlete to train in the rain, to push through the last repetition, to believe they can win when the score says otherwise? Motivation — the direction, intensity and persistence of effort — is the psychological fuel of sport, and it is closely bound up with confidence: an athlete's belief in their own capability. This topic, the first of the two cognitive topics in the OCR sport option, examines motivation through the linked constructs of self-efficacy, sports confidence, imagery and sport orientation. Its prescribed key research is Munroe-Chandler, Hall and Fishburne's (2008) study of imagery use and its relationship to self-confidence and self-efficacy in youth soccer players — a study that shows how what athletes rehearse in their minds shapes what they believe they can do. This lesson works through the Background (the cognitive machinery of motivation and confidence), the Key research (Munroe-Chandler et al. in full), and an Application (a strategy for motivating athletes).
Spelling note. The lead author's surname is Munroe-Chandler (Krista Munroe-Chandler). Some reference lists render it "Monroe-Chandler"; this course uses the correct spelling throughout.
| This lesson covers | OCR H567 Component 03, Section B (Sport & exercise) topic | AO focus |
|---|---|---|
| Self-efficacy and sports confidence | Motivation — Background (Cognitive) | AO1 knowledge; AO3 evaluation |
| Imagery and sport orientation | Motivation — Background (Cognitive) | AO1; AO2 applying to athletes |
| Munroe-Chandler et al. (2008): imagery, confidence and self-efficacy in youth soccer | Motivation — Key research | AO1 knowledge; AO3 evaluation |
| A strategy for motivating athletes | Motivation — Application | AO2 applying to a novel situation |
The specification is referenced descriptively; consult the official OCR H567 specification document for exact wording. This lesson develops AO1 (the constructs of motivation and confidence and the key research), AO2 (designing a motivational strategy) and AO3 (evaluating the constructs and the evidence, including the direction of causation between confidence and success).
Motivation in sport is inseparable from confidence, and the most influential account of sporting confidence begins with Albert Bandura's concept of self-efficacy.
Self-efficacy is a person's belief in their capability to succeed at a specific task in a specific situation. It is not global self-esteem or general confidence; it is task-specific ("I can sink this putt", "I can hold this pace"). Bandura's key claim is that self-efficacy strongly influences behaviour: people with high self-efficacy for a task set more challenging goals, invest more effort, persist longer in the face of setbacks, and experience less debilitating anxiety — all of which make success more likely. In sport, self-efficacy is one of the best psychological predictors of performance.
Bandura proposed four sources of self-efficacy, which are worth memorising because they are the levers an applied psychologist pulls to build confidence:
| Source | What it is | Sporting example |
|---|---|---|
| Mastery experiences (performance accomplishments) | Actually succeeding at the task — the most powerful source | Winning a race, executing a skill correctly in a match |
| Vicarious experiences (modelling) | Seeing similar others succeed | Watching a teammate of similar ability perform the skill well |
| Verbal (social) persuasion | Being credibly encouraged by others | A trusted coach telling the athlete they can do it |
| Physiological and emotional states | Interpreting one's own arousal and emotion | Reading a pounding heart as readiness, not fear |
The most powerful source is mastery experience — nothing builds the belief "I can" like actually having done it — which is why successful applications engineer achievable successes. The fourth source connects directly to the arousal-and-anxiety topic: how an athlete interprets their physiological state feeds their self-efficacy, and imagery (below) works partly through the second source, by letting an athlete vicariously and repeatedly "experience" success in the mind.
The consequences of self-efficacy are worth spelling out because they explain why it predicts performance so reliably. High self-efficacy influences the choices athletes make (they take on challenges rather than avoiding them), the effort they invest (they try harder), the persistence they show (they keep going after setbacks rather than quitting), their thought patterns (they picture success rather than dwelling on failure), and their emotional reactions (they experience challenge rather than threat). Low self-efficacy does the reverse: it breeds avoidance, half-hearted effort, early surrender and anxiety, which then produce the very failures the athlete feared — a self-fulfilling spiral. Understanding this makes clear that building self-efficacy is not a "nice to have"; it changes behaviour at every level from goal-setting to how a player responds to conceding a goal. It also clarifies the direction-of-causation debate that runs through the topic: because success raises efficacy and efficacy raises the chance of success, the two reinforce each other, which is exactly why a correlational study cannot cleanly separate cause from effect.
A further foundational distinction concerns where motivation comes from. Intrinsic motivation is doing an activity for its own sake — for the enjoyment, satisfaction and sense of competence it brings. Extrinsic motivation is doing it for an external reward or to avoid punishment — trophies, money, praise, selection, or fear of criticism. Self-determination theory (Deci and Ryan) proposes that intrinsic motivation is more durable and adaptive, and that it flourishes when three psychological needs are met: autonomy (a sense of choice and control), competence (feeling effective, which overlaps with self-efficacy) and relatedness (belonging and connection to others). A practically important — and slightly counter-intuitive — finding is that excessive or controlling extrinsic rewards can undermine intrinsic motivation: if a child who loves football is paid per goal, the play can start to feel like work, and enjoyment can fall. For coaches, the lesson is to protect intrinsic motivation (autonomy, mastery, belonging) and to use extrinsic rewards carefully, informationally (as feedback on competence) rather than controllingly. This distinction feeds directly into the application and connects to the task-versus-ego orientation discussed below.
How athletes explain their successes and failures also shapes future motivation, an idea captured by attribution theory (associated with Weiner). Attributions vary along dimensions of locus (internal to the athlete, such as ability or effort, versus external, such as luck or the opponent), stability (stable, like ability, versus unstable, like effort or luck) and controllability (within the athlete's control, like effort, versus outside it). The motivational danger is learned helplessness: an athlete who attributes failure to stable, internal, uncontrollable causes ("I lost because I'm just not good enough") concludes that trying is pointless and gives up. The adaptive pattern is to attribute failure to unstable, controllable causes ("I lost because I didn't prepare — I can fix that"), which preserves the belief that effort matters. Skilful coaches therefore engage in attributional retraining, steering players toward effort- and strategy-based explanations of setbacks. This is why, in the application, redefining a mistake as a controllable, fixable event rather than proof of fixed inadequacy is so important for a low-confidence young player.
Robin Vealey developed a sport-specific model of sport confidence, distinguishing trait sport confidence (an athlete's general, stable belief in their ability across sport) from state sport confidence (their confidence at a particular moment in a particular competition), with the athlete's competitive orientation (how they define success — winning versus performing well) shaping how confidence translates into behaviour and outcome. Later work broadened the sources of sport confidence to include achievement (mastery and demonstrating ability), self-regulation (preparation and mental skills) and a supportive climate (coaching, social support). The practical upshot mirrors self-efficacy theory: confidence is built from success, good preparation and a supportive environment — it is not simply a fixed trait an athlete either has or lacks.
Imagery (also called mental rehearsal or visualisation) is the deliberate creation or re-creation of experiences in the mind — "seeing" and "feeling" oneself perform. Good imagery is multisensory (visual, kinaesthetic, auditory) and can be performed from an internal perspective (through one's own eyes) or an external one (watching oneself as if on video). It is one of the most widely used and well-supported psychological skills in sport.
A key framework, associated with Martin, Moritz and Hall, distinguishes the functions imagery can serve — what athletes use it for — and this framework underpins Munroe-Chandler et al.'s study. Imagery is conventionally divided into cognitive and motivational types, each with a specific and a general form:
| Imagery type | Function | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive Specific (CS) | Rehearsing specific skills | Imagining executing a free kick |
| Cognitive General (CG) | Rehearsing strategies and game plans | Imagining a team's set-piece routine |
| Motivational Specific (MS) | Imagining specific goals and their achievement | Imagining winning a trophy, being congratulated |
| Motivational General–Mastery (MG-M) | Imagining being mentally tough, confident, in control | Imagining staying calm and focused under pressure |
| Motivational General–Arousal (MG-A) | Imagining and regulating arousal and emotion | Imagining feeling "pumped" or, conversely, calm |
This taxonomy matters because different functions serve different ends. Imagery works partly by strengthening the mental representation and neural pathways of a skill (a cognitive effect on performance), and partly by building confidence and self-efficacy — especially the motivational-general–mastery function, MG-M, which is imagery of being confident, composed and in control. Munroe-Chandler et al.'s central interest is precisely this second route: how imagery use relates to confidence in young players.
Sport orientation concerns an athlete's motivational goals and dispositions — what they are oriented toward. A widely used framework distinguishes task (mastery) orientation, in which success means improving, mastering skills and self-referenced progress, from ego (outcome) orientation, in which success means winning and outperforming others. Task orientation is generally associated with more adaptive motivation — greater persistence, enjoyment and resilience after failure — because progress is within the athlete's control, whereas a purely ego orientation ties self-worth to results that depend on opponents and can collapse after defeat. Relatedly, sport orientation is sometimes measured in terms of competitiveness, win orientation and goal orientation. The practical lesson for motivation is that how an athlete defines success shapes how robust their motivation is — a theme that returns in the application.
It is worth pausing on how these constructs are measured, because measurement is where much of the evaluation of this topic lives and because Munroe-Chandler et al.'s study stands or falls on it. Motivation, confidence, imagery use and orientation are all internal, subjective states, and they are assessed almost entirely through self-report questionnaires — validated instruments in which athletes rate statements about their imagery, their confidence, their competitiveness and their goals. This approach has real virtues: questionnaires are practical, standardised, quantifiable and allow large samples and statistical analysis, and well-validated instruments have known reliability. But it has equally real weaknesses that a strong candidate deploys. Self-report depends on honesty and insight: athletes may not accurately know how much imagery they use or how confident they truly feel, and they are vulnerable to social desirability (over-reporting confidence, under-reporting doubt). With children — the population in the key research — these problems intensify, because younger participants may struggle to introspect on abstract constructs like "imagery" or to use rating scales consistently, which is why child-adapted instruments are needed and why the reliability of children's self-reports is a legitimate limitation. Alternatives exist (behavioural indicators of persistence and effort; physiological correlates of arousal) but none captures the cognitive content — beliefs, images, goals — that defines this topic, so self-report remains dominant despite its flaws. Recognising that every finding here rests on self-report, and asking whether the instrument was valid and reliable for the age group, is a fast and reliable route to AO3 marks.
Krista Munroe-Chandler, Craig Hall and Graham Fishburne investigated the relationship between imagery use and confidence in young athletes. Prior work had established imagery's effects in adults but far less was known about children and youth, and about how the different functions of imagery relate to two related but distinct confidence constructs: self-confidence (a broader belief in oneself) and self-efficacy (task-specific belief). The aim was to examine the relationship between the types/functions of imagery that youth soccer players use and their self-confidence and self-efficacy, and to see whether imagery use predicted these confidence constructs — with a particular interest in the motivational-general–mastery (MG-M) function thought to build confidence.
The study used a correlational design based on self-report questionnaires — a crucial point for evaluation, because a correlational design cannot establish that imagery causes confidence. The sample comprised youth soccer (football) players, spanning a range of ages within youth categories (allowing comparison across younger and older children), of both sexes, recruited from soccer clubs.
The procedure had participants complete validated questionnaires measuring (a) their use of the different functions of imagery (via a sport imagery questionnaire adapted for children, capturing the cognitive and motivational functions described above) and (b) their self-confidence and self-efficacy in soccer. By correlating imagery-function scores with the confidence measures — and examining differences across age groups — the researchers could see which functions of imagery were most strongly associated with confidence, and whether these relationships differed with age.
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.