The effect of an effort focus on self-efficacy and goal attainment

(1)

The effect of an effort focus on self-efficacy and goal attainment

Master Thesis

MSc in Business Administration - Marketing

Author: Fabian Steurrijs Student number: 11420855

Data of submission: June 22, final version

MSc. in Business Administration - Marketing Track, UvA Supervisor: Astrid Junghans

(2)

Statement of Originality

This document is written by Student Fabian Steurrijs 11420855

I declare that the text and the work presented in this document are original and that

no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in

creating it.

The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of

completion of the work, not for the contents.

(3)

Abstract

Even though the persistent pursuit of goal attainment leads to an increase of happiness, it

might also lead to errors and failures. Self-efficacy is listed as one of the main predictors of goal attainment and therefore more research is needed on how to increase self-efficacy and

consequently goal attainment. This study examines whether a focus on effort results in a

higher self-efficacy and goal attainment than a focus on the final outcome while participating

in physical activity. This is done by an experiment in which 41 badminton players were manipulated into either a focus on effort or a focus on the final outcome. The participants

were randomly assigned to one of these two groups and were monitored during three weeks of

badminton training. Self-efficacy, goal attainment and perceived control were measured via

three different surveys. A comparison between the effort and outcome group showed that the self-efficacy of the effort group was significantly higher than the self-efficacy of the outcome

group after the experiment and that the self-efficacy of the effort group increased significantly

during the timespan of three weeks of training. No difference was found between the two groups on goal attainment, even though this was expected based on previous research. A

correlation was found between perceived control and self-efficacy, which opens new doors for

future research. Overall, this study shows that when people focus on their effort, this results in

a significant higher self-efficacy but not in a significant higher goal attainment than when people focus on the final outcome.

Keywords: Self-efficacy, goal attainment, effort focus, outcome focus, perceived control,

(6)

Introduction

Receiving a high grade at school, losing 20 pounds by working-out, or getting hired for the

job you have always wanted are just a few examples of achieving goals which everyone has once experienced. Even though the persistent pursuit of goal attainment leads to an increase of

happiness (Sheldon et al., 2010), it might also lead to errors and failures (Latham & Locke,

2006). According to Stephen Shapiro from the University of Scranton, more than 91% of the

people who set a New Year’s goal in 2016 did not manage to achieve this goal (Statistic Brain Research Institute, 2016). According to Sallis and Hovell (1990), there are multiple reasons

why people are not able to achieve their goals. Various factors have a negative influence on

goal attainment, such as a lack of time, low encouragement, low motivation, low

self-efficacy, little energy, little skill and few resources (Sallis & Hovell, 1990; Sallis et al., 1992). Self-efficacy is listed as one of the main influences on goal attainment, and for this reason this

research will investigate whether self-efficacy and consequently goal attainment can improve

when people focus more on their effort, as opposed to focusing solely on the final outcome. Self-efficacy can be defined as the belief that someone has in his own ability to succeed in a

specific situation or accomplish a certain task (Bandura, 1977). Goal attainment is defined as

achieving the goal that has been set in advance.

According to Jain, Bruce, Stellern and Srivastava (2007) and Medway and Venino

(1982), students and children who focus mainly on their effort can improve their self-efficacy.

This focus on effort can be seen as process-orientation, e.g. focusing on how the goal can be

realized (Van Knippenberg, Martin & Tyler, 2006). On the other hand there is

outcome-orientation, e.g. focusing purely on the final outcome that is desired (Thompson, Hamilton & Petrova, 2008). According to Taylor et al. (1998), a focus on effort tends to be more effective

than a focus on the outcome in achieving goals. Pintrich and Schunk (2002) add to this

(7)

feel that they are being pushed towards their goal. New research on this topic is important,

because little empirical evidence is provided to back up the claim that a focus on effort is

more effective than a focus on the final outcome in achieving goals. In order to test this, an experiment will be conducted where the mindset of the participants will be manipulated

towards either a focus on effort or a focus on the final outcome.

Furthermore, when people experience setbacks while trying to achieve a physical goal,

the ‘what the hell’ effect can arise (Cochran & Tesser, 1996). This effect describes the cycle when you first indulge yourself, then regret what you’ve done and as a result go back and

indulge yourself some more because you feel like you have already failed and think “what the

hell” (Polivy & Herman, 1985). Whenever this happens, the person in question will throw

away all his good intentions because of one bad decision (Polivy & Herman, 1985). This effect is important to recognize for this research, because physical activity has been chosen as

an example to study self-efficacy and the ‘what the hell’ effect is most common in this area

(Cochran & Tesser, 1996).

The main reason to choose physical activity to study self-efficacy and goal attainment, is that many people do not achieve their physical activity goals. This statement is supported by

the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC, 2017). They state that almost two out

of three (60%) of American adults do not reach the recommended levels for physical activity

(CDC, 2017). According to the Dutch Ministry of Health, Wellbeing and Sports, more than 55% of Dutch adults did not meet the recommended levels for physical activity in 2016

(RIVM, 2017). It appears that even though it is extremely important to engage in physical

activity to stay healthy (Steinbeck, 2001; Galloway & Jokl, 2000), not even half of the American and Dutch population meet the recommended levels. A low level of self-efficacy is

listed as one of the ten most common reasons why people are not able to adopt a more

(8)

physical activity is a good field to do this research in. Therefore, an experiment will be

conducted in which the participants will participate in three weeks of physical training.

Furthermore, in the present literature about physical activity little research has been conducted about the effect of an effort focus as opposed to an outcome focus on self-efficacy

and goal attainment. Via this study, new insights will be generated on the relationship between

an effort focus as opposed to an outcome focus, self-efficacy and ultimately goal attainment.

Therefore, this gap in the literature is addressed in this research by answering the following research question: Will a focus on effort, as opposed to a focus solely on the outcome, result in

a higher self-efficacy and goal attainment when participating in physical activity?

This thesis will contribute to the theory in multiple ways. Although self-efficacy is an

important predictor of goal attainment, there is still much to discover about ways to increase the level of efficacy (Coffee, Rees & Haslam, 2009). This research builds upon the

self-efficacy literature and adds to the theory on process-orientation versus outcome-orientation

(Thompson, Hamilton & Petrova, 2008). Furthermore, this study provides new insights in the

effect of a process-orientation (effort focus), versus outcome-orientation (focus on the outcome), on self-efficacy and goal attainment and it gives directions for future research on

this topic.

From the practical side, a better understanding and new insights of this effect can be of

great value not only for marketeers, but also for coaches, teachers and governments. If self-efficacy and goal attainment indeed increase when participants focus more on their effort than

on the final outcome, marketeers and teachers can implement this insight in their products,

services and training sessions. New guidelines can be written for the approach of physical activity and new tools can be developed. As mentioned before, there is little evidence that a

(9)

self-efficacy and goal attainment. Therefore this research provides additional empirical evidence

to back-up this claim.

This thesis consists of multiple chapters that build up to the final results and conclusions. Firstly, it provides a review of the relevant literature in order to create a better understanding

of the different views and concepts. Secondly, the research design and research methods will

be presented. Thirdly, the results of the experiment will be evaluated and explained. Finally, a

discussion of the results is provided, including conclusions, theoretical and practical implications, limitations and suggestions for future research.

(10)

Literature review

This chapter provides an extensive overview of the literature on self-efficacy, goal attainment

and perceived control, and how this relates to a focus on effort as opposed to a focus on the final outcome. Firstly, the concept of self-efficacy is defined and clarified. Secondly, previous

research on effort and goal attainment is evaluated and reviewed. Thirdly, the effect of

perceived control on self-efficacy is discussed and evaluated. Finally, a conceptualization of

the link between the two types of focus, self-efficacy, goal attainment and perceived control is presented.

Self-efficacy

During the late 70’s and the beginning of the 80’s, there has been an increasing interest in the concept of self-efficacy. Various scholars have used different definitions of self-efficacy, but

the key elements appear to be quite similar. In this study, a definition of self-efficacy based on

the definition given by Albert Bandura will be used (Bandura, 1977). Self-efficacy can be described as the belief that someone has in his own ability to succeed in a specific situation or

accomplish a certain task. After the initial research of Bandura, multiple empirical studies of

self-efficacy were conducted which yielded consistent findings. According to Gist (1989),

there is a correlation between self-efficacy and performance in such a way, that when the level of self-efficacy enhances, increases in performance are recognized. This entails that the level

of self-efficacy can be seen as a predictor of goal attainment (Gist, 1989).

Self-efficacy can be seen as a key cognitive variable influencing engagement and

motivation. This means that self-efficacy plays an important role in underachievement and dropout rates (Schunk & Mullen, 2012). One of the main take-away messages from the

research of Schunk and Mullen (2012), is that self-efficacy and motivation are not the same.

(11)

accomplish a task, while motivation is the reason for acting or behaving in a particular way

(Weiner & Kukla, 1970). Consequently, Schunk and Mullen (2012) state that a high

self-efficacy does not automatically translate into strong motivation and deep engagement. This means that it is possible to have a high self-efficacy and a low motivation at the same time to

perform a certain action. For this research, the focus will be solely on self-efficacy, and

motivation is not included as a variable in the research design to keep it clear and concise. In

the discussion section, there will be more elaboration on the difference between self-efficacy and motivation and the limitations this difference imposes on this research.

How to increase self-efficacy

According to Margolis and McCabe (2006) there are four factors that contribute to a persons self-efficacy. These factors are: 1) enactive mastery, e.g. task performance; 2) verbal

persuasion; 3) vicarious experiences and 4) people’s physiological reactions or states. Verbal

persuasion and vicarious experiences are the two factors which are most commonly used to

increase self-efficacy (Margolis & McCabe, 2006). Vicarious experiences are experiences in which participants observe someone else perform a certain task. This provides them with

direct guidance on how to do something and where to focus on (Margolis & McCabe, 2006).

Verbal persuasion provides participants with information on how to perform a certain task.

Participants evaluate and interpret this information, which results in an increase of self-efficacy (Luzzo & Taylor, 1993). During this research, the participants will not be

manipulated via one of these four factors in order to increase their self-efficacy. Rather, this

study will add to the literature on how to increase self-efficacy, by finding out whether a focus on effort, as compared to a focus on the final outcomes, works better to increase the level of

(12)

According to Pintrich and Schunk (2002), most people struggle to attain their goals

because they believe the amount of effort that is required is too high. Secondly, those

strugglers interpret this excessive effort as a sign of their low ability and personal inadequacy which results in a low self-efficacy. As a response, Marigolds and McCabe (2006) state that

setting goals that are too high and focusing too much on the end goals are the main reasons

for this low self-efficacy. When participants have the feeling they are being pushed towards

their end goal, they will feel that the amount of effort that is required is too high and that they do not have the ability to reach this goal (Marigolds & McCabe, 2006). In order to find

support for this statement, this study will investigate whether people who focus on their effort

will gain a higher level of self-efficacy than people who are being pushed and focus solely on

the end goal.

This focus on effort entails that the participants evaluate their performance on the basis of

their effort and that they do not have the feeling that they have failed if they did not reach

their goal. According to Krueger and Dickson (1994), human decision making is based on a

general bias that outcome expectations are not independent of outcome valuations. This means that when people experience a successful outcome, they are likely to believe in

successful outcomes in the future (Krueger & Dickson, 1994). This process of gaining

confidence in ones own ability over time is described by Dweck (2009) as developing a

growth mindset. People who have developed a growth mindset think of abilities and talents as things they can develop over time through effort and practice. Adding to this growth mindset,

it can be predicted that the self-efficacy of the participants who focus on their effort will grow

over time, even though they all will experience certain setbacks. In contrast, it can be

predicted that the self-efficacy of the participants who focus solely on the final outcome will

(13)

growth mindset and they will be led down by themselves after they experience failure at some

point.

Effort and outcome focus and their relation to self-efficacy and goal attainment

Taylor (1998) states that a focus on effort tends to work better to get participants in the

right mindset to keep believing in themselves to reach their goals as opposed to when they

would focus solely on the final outcome. This effort focus can be seen as a

process-orientation, e.g. focusing on how the goal can be realized (Van Knippenberg, Martin & Tyler,

2006). Thompson, Hamilton and Petrova (2008) state that an outcome focus can be seen as

outcome-orientation, e.g. focusing purely on the final outcome that is desired and only the end

result matters disregarded of what happens in the meantime.

Medway and Venino (1982) argue that children who were given effort feedback

completed more problems and worked longer on them than children who got no feedback.

The feedback was provided after the children finished a certain task. According to Weiner

(1972), focusing on effort can be described as consciously paying attention to the effort that you put into a certain task. An example of effort feedback is “Well done, you really tried hard

to finish this task”.

Jain, Bruce, Stellern and Srivastava (2007) took the research of Medway and Venino

(1982) a step further and researched whether a feedback focus on effort works better than a focus on ability. According to their results, a feedback focus on effort affected the

self-efficacy judgments most positively. Muenks and Miele (2016) agree with these conclusions

when it comes to an effort focus, but they also added that the ability to complete a certain task is mostly based on how much effort someone puts into the task. They state that on the one

hand there are some people for whom it is easy to complete a task, based on talent or raw

(14)

putting a lot of effort in. On the other hand, and this is the case for most people, a high

amount of effort leads to a greater ability. These findings are important for this study, because

some participants will not have to put in much effort to complete the assigned goal, while others will have to put in a lot of effort without being able to achieve the assigned goal.

In order to improve self-efficacy and ultimately goal attainment, it is important to know

what people think when they fail at reaching their goals. According to Brown and Rogers

(1991) people attribute success internally and failure externally. This phenomenon is described as the self-serving attributional bias (Brown & Rogers, 1991). Multiple

psychologists tried to find evidence to prove this self-serving attributional bias, but according

to Duval and Silvia (2002) these findings where inconsistent. For this reason, they conducted

multiple experiments in order to find out where this inconsistency came from. Duval and Silvia (2002) found that success and failure attributions are moderated by two variables; 1)

the ability of people to improve and 2) their self-awareness. More specifically, success is

attributed internally when self-awareness is high and failure is attributed externally when

people have the feeling they cannot improve. Believing that you can improve is an important factor of a high level of self-efficacy. Therefore, it can be predicted that people who attribute

their results to external factors will probably have a lower self-efficacy than people who

attribute their results to internal factors. During the experiment the level of perceived control

will be measured in order to find out whether people attribute their results to internal or external factors. The variable perceived control will be discussed in the next paragraph.

To get an overview of all the research that has been done about the self-serving

attributional bias, Mezulis, Abramson, Hyde and Hankin (2004) conducted a meta-analysis. They came to the conclusion that people who fail to reach their goals attribute this to factors

such as luck and low effort, but when they succeed they attribute this to their own ability and

(15)

reasons for their failure. It can therefore be predicted that when people would focus more on

their effort and keep this as high as possible, this failure would be converted into success.

What the results of all these papers have in common, is that they all show that a focus on effort is a very good starting point to increase self-efficacy.

The effect of perceived control

According to Zimmerman (2000), perceived control is one of the constructs closest associated with self-efficacy. It refers to people’s general expectation whether outcomes can be

controlled for by their own behavior, e.g. internal locus of control, or whether it is caused by

external factors (Zimmerman, 2000). According to Smith (1989), self-efficacy is not affected

by the degree of perceived control. This statement was first widely accepted but later questioned by Ajzen (2002), among others. He stated that this is an a priori assumption

because researchers still contradict each other with regard to the relationship between

perceived control and self-efficacy, and that this is still an empirical question that remains to

be answered. Therefore, perceived control is inserted as an independent variable in this research in order to find out whether it indeed influences the level of self-efficacy.

During more recent years, various scholars have tried to link self-efficacy and perceived

control to success rates when participating in a certain activity. For example, according to Le

Foll, Rascle and Higgins (2008), self-efficacy is enhanced when functional attributional feedback is provided after failure in a novel sport. During this functional attributional

feedback, participants were told that their performance relied mostly on internal, controllable

and unstable factors, e.g. you have control over the effort you contribute to the task and the results can be improved if you keep your focus (Le Foll, Rascle & Higgins, 2008). After this

feedback, the success expectations, persistence and hopefulness were reinforced. Coffee, Rees

(16)

physical activity, they benefit most from an approach which outlines that their failure is

controllable and changeable, e.g. participants have control over their own performance and

the results can change positively. These results implicate that a focus on effort alone is not enough to increase self-efficacy; participants must have the idea that they have control over

their effort and that the results can be improved.

The findings from research on perceived control are important to understand, since these

outcomes contradict each other. There is still no clear answer whether the level of self-efficacy is influenced by perceived control. Therefore, this study will investigate whether

perceived control and self-efficacy are correlated to each other. After each physical training,

the participants will be asked about their perceived control during the practice sessions. They

can indicate whether they believe internal factors were most important in order to reach their goal, or whether external factors were most important.

The field of physical activity

Self-efficacy predicts multiple outcomes such as academic skills, pain tolerance,

assertiveness, athletic performance and success in physical activity (Schunk, 1991; Bandura,

1986). Engaging in physical activity is extremely important to stay healthy and avoid Type-2

diabetes, certain cancers and cardiovascular diseases (Lim et al., 2012). Even though the

importance of physical engagement is well-known, it is very challenging for most people to make self-directed changes in physical activity and they find it particularly difficult to

maintain these changes (Warner et al., 2014). Therefore, it is important to find new ways to

increase self-efficacy before and during physical activity so people will be more likely to achieve their goal of increased physical activity.

Furthermore, while participating in physical activity, new goals can emerge (Wong,

(17)

he or she gets sick, a new goal will emerge: get better. This is also the case when someone

gets injured. The new goal will become: overcome the injury. According to these statements, a

focus solely on the final outcome will not result in positive results when people need to deal with setbacks. They will constantly have the idea that they are not achieving what they are

supposed to, and as a consequence the level of self-efficacy will decrease.

Furthermore, the effect of an effort focus on self-efficacy has often been researched via

effort feedback during or after the activity. Jain, Bruce, Stellern and Srivastava (2007) and Medway and Venino (1982) both state that an effort focus increases the self-efficacy of both

students and children. However, they do not compare the effect of an effort focus to an

outcome focus when it comes to improving self-efficacy. So far little empirical evidence has

been provided to address this specific topic. This research will contribute to the literature on how to increase self-efficacy.

Hypotheses and research question

On the basis of the literature review, the hypothesis has been formulated that in order to increase self-efficacy, people need to focus more on their effort than on the final outcome

while performing a certain task. Furthermore, in the field of physical activity no such research

has been done before. For these reasons, this research addresses this gap in the literature by

answering the following research question: Will a focus on effort, as opposed to a focus solely on the outcome, result in a higher self-efficacy and goal attainment when participating in physical activity? According to the present literature, it seems that a focus on effort, as opposed to a focus on the outcome, will increase self-efficacy and a focus on effort will lead to an increase of self-efficacy over time. Consequently, the following is hypothesized;  

(18)

H1a: The level of self-efficacy is higher after a focus on effort than after a focus on the final outcome.

H1b: The self-efficacy level of the effort group measured before the experiment, will increase significantly after three weeks of training.

According to Muenks and Miele (2016), the ability to reach a certain goal is based on the

amount of effort someone puts into the task. Furthermore, Le Foll, Rascle and Higgins (2008) state that if you keep focusing on your effort, results can be improved. On the other hand,

Pintrich and Schunk (2002) state that people who focus too much on the final outcome will

have the feeling that they are being pushed towards the desired result, which will lead to an

increased chance of failure. Therefore, the following is hypothesized;

H2: The level of goal attainment is higher after a focus on effort than after a focus on the final outcome.

As discussed in both the introduction and multiple parts of the literature review, self-efficacy

is one of the main predictors of goal attainment (Sallis & Hovell, 1990; Sallis et al. 1992).

More specifically, previous research shows that an increase in self-efficacy will result in a

higher level of goal attainment. Following H1 and H2, it can be expected that the type of focus has an effect on self-efficacy, which then leads to a change in goal attainment. More

specifically, it can be predicted that participants in the effort group will have a higher level of

self-efficacy than the participants in the outcome group and consequently, the participants in the effort group will have a higher level of goal attainment than the participants in the

(19)

H3: Self-efficacy mediates the relationship between the type of focus (effort vs. outcome) and goal attainment.

In line with Coffee, Rees and Haslam's (2009) argument that perceived control plays an

important role when it comes to self-efficacy and goal attainment, this variable will also be

measured during the experiment. In addition, Le Foll, Rascle and Higgins (2008) stated that

the success expectations, persistence and hopefulness of participants were reinforced when they believed that they had control over their own actions. It can therefore be expected that

when the participants of the experiment feel they have a high internal locus of control over the

outcome of their activity, rather than having the feeling this outcome is caused by external

factors, the level of self-efficacy will increase. Because perceived control is not manipulated, which is a limitation of this study, no tests about the causal relationship between perceived

control and self-efficacy can be performed. Hence:

H4: There is a correlation between perceived control and self-efficacy.

An illustration of the hypothesized relationship between the two different types of focus,

self-efficacy, goal attainment and perceived control is shown in the conceptual model in figure 1

(20)

Figure 1 Conceptual model 

H1a: The level of self-efficacy is higher after a focus on effort than after a focus on the final outcome.

H1b: The self-efficacy level of the effort group measured before the experiment, will increase significantly after three weeks of training.

H2: The level of goal attainment is higher after a focus on effort than after a focus on the final outcome. H3: Self-efficacy mediates the relationship between the type of focus (effort vs. outcome) and goal attainment. H4: There is a correlation between perceived control and self-efficacy.

Effort focus vs

outcome focus H1a

H2 Perceived

control

Self-Efficacy _{Goal attainment} H3

H4

(21)

Methodology

Design

A one-way experiment with a between-subjects design is used to test the effect of the type of focus (effort vs. outcome) on self-efficacy and goal attainment. The variable perceived control

is measured during the experiment, but not manipulated. According to Lewis and Saunders

(2012), this experimental design can be used to examine causal relationships between

different variables, meaning that the hypotheses can be tested through this experimental design. This research is conducted according to the code of ethics of the University of

Amsterdam. Names or personal data from the participants are not collected or used in this

research.

The remainder of this chapter provides further insights into the methodology of this thesis. First, an overview of the sample is provided. Secondly, all the variables and measures

used for the examination of the hypothesized relationships are discussed. This discussion also

contains the operationalization of these variables. Finally, the manipulation and pretest for this study are discussed.

Sample

In order to create two groups of athletes to participate in this experiment, the researcher approached the board of his local badminton club (SB Helios, 2018) and convinced them to

let their athletes join the experiment. To attract enough participants, non-probability sampling

techniques including self-selection sampling, convenience sampling and snowball sampling

were used. A total of 62 athletes were approached to participate in the study and 47 athletes agreed to do so. The researcher made it clear that the athletes could only participate in the

study if they would fill out the first online survey. After acquiring the 47 participants, they

(22)

participants who initially agreed to participate in the study, 43 people filled out the first online

survey and they all signed the consent forms. The effort group consisted of 23 participants

with an average age of 23 (M = 23.3, SD = 2.96) and 48% male, 52% female. The outcome group consisted of 20 participants with an average age of 22 (M = 21.8, SD = 2.26) and 35%

male and 65% female. The data for this research was collected through one online survey and

three paper surveys.

Measures

During the experiment, six constructs have been measured. These constructs were (1)

badminton experience, (2) self-efficacy, (3) attitude towards effort and outcome, (4) perceived

control, (5) goal attainment and (6) control variables. Wherever possible, scales from previous studies were adapted to ensure construct validity.

Badminton experience. In order to find out how experienced the participants already were with regard to playing badminton, three items were used to measure this construct. The first

item measured how long the participants were already practicing badminton (1 = 1 year or less, 2 = 2 or 3 years, 3 = 4 or 5 years, 4 = 6 or 7 years and 5 = 8 years or longer). The second

item measured how many times per week the participants perform any kind of sports (1 = 1

time, 2 = 2 times, 3 = 3 times, 4 = 4 times and 5 = more than 4). The third item measured

whether the participants were engaging in any competition (1 = yes, 2 = no, 3 = substitute). Self-efficacy. To measure self-efficacy during this research, five standardized questions from the KU Research Collaboration were used (Gaumer Erickson, Soukop, Noonan &

MCGurn, 2016). The five validated items (α = .819) were measured on a Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree).

Attitude towards effort and outcome. To find out whether the manipulation actually worked on the participants, two control items were asked before and after the manipulation

(23)

took place. These two items were exactly the same as the ones that were used during the

pretest: “Indicate the extent to which you believe that reaching your goal is the only thing that

matters” (1 = not at all, 7 = very much) and “Indicate the extent to which you believe that effort is the most important factor to reach your final goal” (1 = not at all, 7 = very much).

During T1, which will be discussed in the next paragraph, the participants were asked again

about their attitude towards effort and the final outcome, in order to see whether their attitude

had changed after the manipulation.

Perceived control. In order to measure the level of perceived control, three items were used. These items were based on the internal and external locus of control items from Rotter

(1966). The three items were measured on a Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly

agree).

Goal attainment. To measure whether the participants had actually reached their goal, one simple item has been used. After each training the participants were asked how many out of

10 shuttlecocks they hit back correctly. This item was measured on a scale which ranged from

0 till 10, in order to see how many shuttlecocks per participant were hit back correctly. Control variables. The participants were asked about their age, gender (1 = male, 2 = female) and training group (1 = beginners, 2 = RAB Y, 3 = 4th class, 4 = 3rd class, 5 = 2nd

class and 6 = 1st class or higher). These control variables were selected, because previous

findings showed that age, gender and the achievement level can have an effect on self-efficacy. For instance, according to Margolis and McCabe (2006), most low-achievers

convince themselves that they lack the needed abilities to perform better. During the SPSS

testing the two groups will be compared on these variables to ensure that there are no significant differences between them that occurred due to chance.

(24)

Procedure

During the experiment there were four points in time where the participants were asked to fill

out a survey. T0 refers to the online survey before the manipulation, T1 refers to the survey after the first training, T2 refers to the survey after the second training and T3 refers to the

survey after the last training. Before the start of the experiment, the participants were asked to

fill in an online survey via qualtrics (T0). Before the participants could fill out the online

survey, they had to provide informed consent. Each participant had to answer 15 items in total. These items consisted of a set of demographic questions and more specific questions

about their badminton experience, self-efficacy and attitude towards the two different types of

focus. After these 15 items, the manipulation took place via two videos. More information

about this manipulation is provided in the next paragraph.

Before the first training started, all the participants were instructed to aim for a specific

goal. This goal had been tailored for each training group, because the level of the participants

ranged from beginner to fourth devision (appendix 1). This means that the higher groups had

to perform a more difficult exercise than the lower groups. Nevertheless, the end goal was the same for every group: hit as many out of the 10 shuttlecocks in the correct space.

In order to see whether the self-efficacy of the participants changed over time, the

participants of the experiment were asked to fill out a paper survey after each badminton

training for a time period of three weeks (T1, T2 and T3). These surveys contained items about the participants self-efficacy, enjoyment of working on the goal, perceived control and

goal attainment. To test the hypotheses, the results from the surveys after each week of

badminton practicewere compared to the results from the first online survey, before the manipulation had taken place. Multiple SPSS tests were used to test the various hypotheses

(25)

session of the experiment the participants and trainers were debriefed about the study and the

results.

Manipulation

Prior to the start of the experiment, the participants of the study were randomly divided into

two groups. The first group focused on their effort during the physical activity and the second

group focused on the final outcome. In order to get the participants in this right mindset, a manipulation has been used. This manipulation of the type of focus has been done via two

different videos which were shown to the participants before the first training. Both videos

were exactly the same with regard to music, length, font type, font style and visuals. The only

thing which differed across the videos were quotes with regard to either effort or the final outcome. The first video, which was used for the effort group, focused solely on effort as the

most important factor to reach the final goal. Quotes such as: “Success is the sum of all your

effort” and “The harder the battle, the bigger the victory” were used. The second video, which

was used for the outcome group, focused solely on the final goal disregarded of the effort. Examples of quotes are: “Reaching your goal is the only thing that matters” and “Winning is

not everything… it’s the only thing!”.

Pretest

Before these videos were used in the real experiment, a pretest was conducted with 20

participants to obtain initial validation for this manipulation. The participants in this pretest

were asked to answer the questions honestly and to pay close attention to the video.

Participants then saw either the effort focus video or the outcome focus video, and responded

to the following items: “Indicate the extent to which you believe that reaching your goal is the

(26)

believe that effort is the most important factor to reach your final goal” (1 = not at all, 7 =

very much). The first item measured the attitude of the participants towards focusing solely on

the final goal, while the second item measured the attitude towards effort as the most important factor to reach the final goal.

To test the manipulation, the researcher conducted a Oneway ANOVA with the two video

types (Effort vs. Outcome) as the independent variable (factor) and attitude (Effort vs.

Outcome) as the dependent variables. In support of the manipulation, the effort focus video resulted in a higher attitude towards effort as compared to the outcome focus video (Mean of

the effort focus video = 6.1, SD = 0.67 vs. Mean of the outcome focus video = 5.2, SD = 0.79)

F = 8,58, p < 0.05); in contrast, the outcome focus video resulted in a higher attitude towards outcome as compared to the effort focus video (Mean of the outcome focus video = 5.7, SD = 0.82 vs. Mean of the effort focus video = 4.8, SD = 0.79) F = 6.23, p < 0.05). These results

indicate that (1) people who saw the video that was focused on effort placed higher value on

effort than people who saw the video that was focused solely on the final outcome and (2)

people who saw the video that was focused solely on the final outcome placed higher value on the final outcome than people who saw the video that was focused on effort. These results

indicate that the videos are suitable to be used in the experiment to manipulate the participants

(27)

Results

In this chapter, the results of the data analysis are presented. First, an overview of the

participation during the study is provided. Second, the statistical procedure is described, including the data preparation. Third, a description of the manipulation check is given,

followed by the actual hypotheses testing.

Participation during the study

Out of the 43 people who completed the online survey, 29 were present during the first

training, 35 during the second training and 36 during the third training. Two persons were not

present during any of these three training sessions, so their initial data is not included in the

statistical tests. The exclusion of those two participants resulted in a total amount of 41

participants, with 23 participants in the effort group and 18 participants in the outcome group.

Statistical procedure

Data was collected online via qualtrics and offline via three paper surveys. For the statistical

analyses, the online data was directly copied into SPSS and the data from the three paper

surveys was copied into SPSS by hand. Multiple checks were performed to see if no mistakes

were made in this process. This entailed reviewing the input in SPSS twice after each set of data was copied into SPSS. Descriptive statistics, skewness, kurtosis and normality tests were

computed for all variables. The variable self-efficacy was not normally distributed. Negative

skewness was found for this variable (Lower CL = -1.572, Upper CL = -0.156), which was

due to the fact that there were few low scores for self-efficacy. More than half of the

participants had a higher self-efficacy score than the average item option (4 = neutral). This is

important to recognize for the analysis and conclusions, because this negative skewness may

(28)

discussion chapter. Furthermore, a randomization check was performed to see whether the

randomly assigned groups (effort and outcome) differed on important aspects before entering

the study. Items that were used in this randomization check were gender, age, training group, years of badminton experience, amount of sports per week and participating in competitive

competition yes or no. Descriptive statistics and One-Way ANOVA tests showed that the two

groups did not statistically differ on any of these aspects before entering the study. Gender

effort group (M = 1.52, SD = 0.511), gender outcome group (M = 1.67, SD = 0.48), p > 0.05. Age effort group (M = 23.30, SD = 2.96), age outcome group (M = 21.78, SD = 2.264), p >

0.05. Training group effort group (M = 3.30, SD = 1.72), training group outcome group (M =

3.39, SD = 1.65), p > 0.05. Years of badminton experience effort group (M = 3.17, SD = 1.78),

years of badminton experience outcome group (M = 3.78, SD = 1.59), p > 0.05. Times of sport per week effort group (M = 2.43, SD = 0.90), times of sport per week outcome group (M =

2.50, SD = 0.86), p > 0.05. Competitive badminton yes or no effort group (M = 1.09, SD =

0.29), competitive badminton yes or no outcome group (M = 1.28, SD = 0.46), p > 0.05.

To make sure that the self-efficacy items were reliable, a reliability analysis was used (α = .720, SD = 3.410) which indicated that the internal consistency of the self-efficacy items

was acceptable (Cortina, 1993). After this reliability analysis, the five items were transformed

and computed into one total self-efficacy scale. The same method was applied to create one

perceived control scale. A reliability analysis was used (α = .790, SD = 5.511), which

indicated that the internal consistency of the perceived control items was acceptable (Cortina

1993). After this reliability analysis the three items were transformed and computed into one

total perceived control scale.

To test H1a a One-way ANOVA was used and this hypothesis was supported. To test H1b

a One-way ANOVA was used and this hypothesis was supported. To test H2 a One-way

(29)

were conducted to test H3. This hypothesis was rejected. To test H4 a Bivariate Pearson

Correlation was used and this hypothesis was supported.

Manipulation check

In order to find out whether the manipulation worked as expected, the two groups were

compared on their attitude towards effort and the final outcome. The means were measured

before and after the manipulation. First, a comparison has been made between the attitude towards effort for both the effort and outcome group. Two One-way ANOVA tests were used

to test (1) whether the attitude towards effort in the effort group had improved and (2) whether

the attitude towards effort in the outcome group had improved. For both the ANOVA tests,

Levene's statistics indicated that there was no homogeneity of variances (p > 0.05). The first ANOVA test showed a significant difference in attitude towards effort between the before (M

= 5.05, SD = 0.84) and after (M = 5.70, SD = 0.64) situation for the effort group (F = 6.617, p

< 0.05). The second ANOVA test showed no significant difference in attitude towards effort

between the before (M = 4.94, SD = 0.94) and after (M = 4.61, SD = 0.98) situation for the outcome group (F = 1.089, p > 0.05). This indicates that the effort group showed an increase

in importance of effort whereas the outcome group did not show an increase in importance of

effort.

Second, a comparison has been made between the attitude towards the final outcome for both the effort and outcome group. Two One-way ANOVA tests were used to test (1) whether

the attitude towards outcome in the effort group had improved and (2) whether the attitude

towards outcome in the outcome group had improved. For both the ANOVA tests, Levene's statistics indicated that there was no homogeneity of variances (p > 0.05). The first ANOVA

test showed no significant difference in attitude towards outcome between the before

(30)

0.418, p > 0.05). The second ANOVA test showed a significant difference in attitude towards

outcome between the before (M = 3.35, SD = 0.75) and after (M = 3.94, SD = 0.66) situation

for the outcome group (F = 6.426, p < 0.05). This indicates that the outcome group showed an increase in importance of outcome, whereas the effort group did not show an increase in

importance of outcome.

The two comparisons show that it can be expected that the manipulation worked as

expected. To provide evidence for this statement, another analysis has been conducted to test the differential development of the two groups in regard to their attitude towards effort and

the final outcome. A MANOVA test was performed to test the differential development of the

two groups in regard to their attitude towards effort and the final outcome. Firstly, the results

show that there was no significant difference between the before situation of both the groups with regard to attitude towards effort (F = 0.299, p > 0.05) and attitude towards the final

outcome (F = 0.131, p > 0.05). Secondly, the results show that there was a significant

difference between the after situation of both the groups with regard to attitude towards effort

(F = 18.420, p < 0.05) and attitude towards the final outcome (F = 4.772, p < 0.05). Figure 2 and 3 show the differences between the two groups.

This analysis provides significant evidence that the manipulation worked as expected and

that the participants in the effort group gained a more positive attitude towards effort while

the participants in the outcome group did not and the participants in the outcome group gained a more positive attitude towards the final outcome while the participants in the effort group

(31)

Figure 2

Attitude towards effort for the effort vs. outcome group

Figure 3

Attitude towards outcome for the effort vs. outcome group

4 4,2 4,4 4,6 4,8 5 5,2 5,4 5,6 5,8 Before After Effort group Outcome group A tti tu d e tow ar d s e ffor t 2,8 3 3,2 3,4 3,6 3,8 4 Before After Effort group Outcome group A tti tu d e tow ar d s th e fi n al ou tc ome

(32)

Hypotheses testing

H1a. In order to test whether the level of self-efficacy is higher after a focus on effort

than after a focus on the final outcome, a One-Way ANOVA was used. The type of focus was entered as the independent variable and self-efficacy as the dependent variable. The overview

of the descriptive statistics can be seen in table 1, with effort focus (M = 5.72, SD = 0.55) and

outcome focus (M = 5.24, SD = 0.69). Levene’s statistic indicates that there is no

homogeneity of variance (p > 0.05). The ANOVA test shows that there is a significant difference between the effort and the outcome group (F = 6.118, p < 0.05). The descriptive

statistics and the ANOVA test reveal that the effect corresponds with the hypothesized effect,

that the level self-efficacy will be higher after a focus on effort as compared to a focus on the

final outcome. Consequently, hypothesis 1a is supported.

H1b. A Way One-ANOVA test was used to test whether the self-efficacy level of the

effort group measured before the experiment increased significantly after three weeks of

training. The timespan was entered as the independent variable and was measured as a

dummy variable (0 = before the experiment, 1 = after the experiment). Self-efficacy was entered as the dependent variable. An overview of the descriptive statistics can be seen in

table 2, with before the experiment (M = 5.29, SD = 0.58) and after the experiment (M = 5.72,

SD = 0.55) . Levene’s statistic indicates that there is no homogeneity of variance (p > 0.05). The ANOVA test shows that there is a significant difference between the situation before the experiment and after the experiment (F = 6.810, p < 0.05). The descriptive statistics and the

ANOVA test reveal that the effect corresponds with the hypothesized effect, that a focus on

effort indeed leads to an increase of self-efficacy after three weeks of training. Hence, hypothesis 1b is supported.

(33)

Table 1

Self-Efficacy after the experiment for the effort and outcome group

Figure 4

Self-efficacy after the experiment for the effort vs. outcome group

Table 2

Self-Efficacy level of the effort group before and after the experiment

N Mean Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum

Before 23 5.29 0.58 4.00 6.20 After 18 5.72 0.55 4.80 6.60 Total 41 5.5 0.60 4.00 6.60 5 5,1 5,2 5,3 5,4 5,5 5,6 5,7 5,8

Effort group Outcome group

S el f-e ffi cac y

Effort group 23 5.72 0.55 4.80 6.60

Outcome group 18 5.24 0.69 3.60 6.20

(34)

Figure 5

Self-efficacy of the effort and outcome group before and after the experiment

S el f-e ffi cac y 5 5,1 5,2 5,3 5,4 5,5 5,6 5,7 5,8 Before After Effort group Outcome group

(35)

H2. The second hypothesis implies that the level of goal attainment is higher after a

focus on effort than after a focus on the final outcome. To test this relationship a One

Way-ANOVA was used. The type of focus was entered as the independent variable and goal attainment as the dependent variable. The overview of the descriptive statistics can be seen in

table 3, with goal attainment of the effort focus group (M = 6.01, SD = 1.89) and goal

attainment of the outcome focus group (M = 5.20, SD = 2.11). Levene’s statistic indicates that

there is no homogeneity of variance (p > 0.05). The ANOVA test shows that there is no significant difference between the effort group and the outcome group with regard to goal

attainment (F = 1.652, p > 0.05). The descriptive statistics reveal that the effort group hit on

average more than 0.8 shuttlecocks (out of 10) more correct than the outcome group, but

according to the ANOVA test this is not a significant difference. Hence, hypothesis 2 is not supported.

H3. The results of the hypothesis 2 test indicate that the level of goal attainment is not

significantly higher after a focus on effort than after a focus on the final outcome. Because the main effect of the type of focus on goal attainment is missing, the mediating effect will not be

tested. Hence, hypothesis 3 is rejected.

H4. A Bivariate Pearson Correlation has been used to find out whether there is a

relationship between perceived control and self-efficacy. The overview of the correlation can

be viewed in table 4, with self-efficacy (M = 5.51, SD = 0.65) and perceived control (M =

4.85, SD = 1.15). The Bivariate Pearson Correlation test shows that there is a positive significant correlation between self-efficacy and perceived control (r = 0.416, p < 0.05).

According to Cohen (1992), the linear relation between perceived control and self-efficacy is

(36)

moderately as well. These results indicate that there is indeed a correlation between perceived

control and self-efficacy. Hence, hypothesis 4 is supported.

Table 3

Goal attainment of the effort group and the outcome group

Table 4

Correlation of perceived control and self-efficacy

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Effort group 23 6.01 1.89 1.50 9.00

Outcome group 18 5.20 2.11 1.33 8.33

Total 41 5.66 2.01 1.33 9.00

Self-efficacy Perceived control Self-efficacy Pearson correlation

Sig. (2-tailed) N 1 41 0.416** 0.007 41 Perceived control Pearson correlation

Sig. (2-tailed) N 0.416** 0.007 41 1 41

(37)

Discussion

The final chapter of this thesis elaborates on the findings of this study. Firstly, a general

discussion on the results is provided. Secondly, the theoretical and practical implications of the findings are discussed and reviewed. Finally, limitations of the study are discussed and

suggestions for future research are presented.

Summary

The purpose of this research was to contribute to the self-efficacy and goal attainment

literature, by examining whether a focus on effort tends to work better than a focus solely on

the final outcome in increasing self-efficacy and goal attainment. There are three main

findings which contribute to this literature.

First, the results show that a focus on effort indeed works better in increasing the level of

self-efficacy than a focus solely on the final outcome. The self-efficacy level of the effort

group was significantly higher after the experiment than the self-efficacy level of the outcome group. This finding corresponds with Taylor’s (1998) prediction that a focus on effort tends to

work better to get participants in the right mindset to keep believing in themselves to reach

their goals, as opposed to when they would focus solely on the final outcome. Furthermore,

the self-efficacy level of the effort group before and after the experiment changed

significantly. More specifically, the participants of the effort group reported a higher

self-efficacy level after the experiment than before the experiment. This finding is in line with the

statement of Dweck (2009) that people who think of abilities and talents as things they can

develop over time through effort and practice will develop a growth mindset. The limitation section of this thesis will elaborate further on this growth mindset.

Second, no significant difference has been found between the two types of focus and their

(38)

correct than the outcome focus group, but this effect was not significant according to the

One-Way ANOVA test. Moreover, no significant difference was found between the goal attainment

of the effort group after the first training, the second training and the last training session. The level of goal attainment did increase from the first training to the last training, but this

increase was not significant. These findings are not consistent with previous research of Le

Foll, Rascle and Higgins (2008), who state that if you keep focusing on your effort, results

will improve. Furthermore, the absence of support for hypothesis 2 is not in line with the findings of Pintrich and Schunk (2002), who argue that people who focus solely on the final

outcome will have the feeling that they are being pushed towards the admired result, which

will lead to a higher chance of failure. A possible explanation for the contrary findings in this

study is the small sample size (N = 41), which will be discussed in the limitation section. Finally, the results of this study show that there is a correlation between perceived control

and self-efficacy. More specifically, participants who experienced a higher level of perceived

control had a higher level of self-efficacy, while participants who experienced a lower level of

perceived control had a lower level of self-efficacy. This finding is consistent with the statement of Coffee, Rees and Haslam (2009) that when participants engage in physical

activity and feel they are in control of their own action, e.g. internal locus of control, they will

believe in a positive result. On the other hand, the finding that there is a correlation between

perceived control and efficacy is not in line with the argument of Smith (1989) that self-efficacy is not affected by the degree of perceived control. More research is needed on this

topic, which will be discussed in the last paragraph of this research.

Theoretical implications

The findings of this study have a number of theoretical implications. This study is one of the

(39)

goal attainment. So far most research only focused on the effect of effort focus or effort

feedback on self-efficacy and goal attainment. However, the question that remained was,

‘what happens when you compare a focus on effort to a focus on the final outcome?’. To find an answer to this question, this research used an audiovisual manipulation to compare the

effort focus group to the outcome focus group. The main result, a significant increase in

self-efficacy for the effort group as compared to the outcome group, builds upon the statement of

Taylor’s (1998) that a focus on effort tends to work better for increasing self-efficacy than a focus solely on the final outcome.

Moreover, this study contradicts with the findings of Le Foll, Rascle and Higgins (2008)

on effort focus and its effect on goal attainment. Le Foll, Rascle and Higgins (2008) found

that when people keep focusing on their effort, results will improve. It was expected that this study would show a similar effect, but the goal attainment from the effort group during the

first week of training was not significantly higher than the goal attainment during the last

week of training. Furthermore, this study is also not in line with the findings of Pintrich and

Schunk (2002) on the effect of an outcome focus on goal attainment and failure. As a result of the findings of Pintrich and Schunk (2002), it was hypothesized that the participants in the

effort group would have a higher goal attainment than the participants in the outcome group,

but no such difference was found in this study. In addition, the results show that the level of

self-efficacy does not mediate the effect of the type of focus on goal attainment. Furthermore, there is also no direct effect of self-efficacy on goal attainment. These findings contradict the

previous findings of Sallis and Hovell (1990) and Sallis et al. (1992) who argue that

self-efficacy is one of the main predictors of goal attainment.

Finally, the results of this study add to the literature on the effect of perceived control on

self-efficacy. The debate between Coffee, Rees and Haslam (2009), who state that perceived

(40)

self-efficacy is not affected by the degree of perceived control, is decided in the favor of Coffee,

Rees and Haslam (2009). The results show that there was a positive significant correlation

between perceived control and self-efficacy.

Practical implications

The findings of this research have practical implications for marketeers, coaches, teachers and

governments. Up until this point, no research had been conducted where a focus on effort was directly compared to a focus on the final outcome and its effect on self-efficacy and goal

attainment. The results of this study show that both a focus on effort and the level of

perceived control are key when it comes to increasing self-efficacy. Marketeers can use these

insights when they are developing new products, services and concepts for sports businesses and sports events. Coaches, teachers and governments can use the insights of this study when

they are writing new guidelines for the approach of physical activity or when they are creating

new tools for physical activity training sessions.

Limitations and future research

During the process of this empirical study some limitations were found. Fortunately, these

limitations show new insights into how self-efficacy, goal attainment and perceived control

can best be researched. Furthermore, these limitations bring new opportunities for future research in the field of self-efficacy and goal attainment, which will be discussed during this

last paragraph.

Firstly, the sample size of this experiment (N = 41) was quite small. Even though the requirement of a total of 30 participants was met, it limits the statistical testing of the results.

The different tests were based on groups of approximately 20 participants, which is not

(41)

study with a bigger sample size in order see whether the results would still be the same as

they were in this study.

Secondly, in order to research goal attainment effectively, the skill level of the athletes and the final goal must be somewhat the same in order to find the most reliable results.

During this study, the participants were divided into six different training groups with very

different skill levels. Therefore, the physical assignment was adjusted for each training group

which had consequences for the reliability of the goal attainment test. Furthermore, for some training groups the final goal that had been set was too easy. During the first training they

were already able to hit more than 6 out of 10 shuttlecocks correct, while for other training

groups the average goal attainment was approximately 4 correct shuttlecocks out of 10. These

variances show that the goal attainment results were probably more based upon the

differences in skill level and goal setting than they were based upon the differences in

self-efficacy. This insight provides opportunities for future research, in which the participants

should have approximately the same skill level in order to provide them all with the same

physical assignment.

Thirdly, Schunk and Mullen (2012) state that a high self-efficacy does not automatically

translate into strong motivation and deep engagement. This means that it was possible for the

participants to have a high self-efficacy, but a low motivation and engagement. This statement

brings a limitation to this study, because motivation was beyond the scope of this study. The motivation level of the participants was not measured during this research, even though it

could affect the level of goal attainment. According to Schunk and Mullen (2012) it is

possible that although the participants might have a high self-efficacy, they were still achieving the final goal because their motivation and engagement was low and they did not

(42)

and focus on the interaction effect between self-efficacy and motivation while participants are

trying to achieve certain goals.

Fourthly, descriptive statistics, skewness, kurtosis and normality tests for all variables showed that the variable self-efficacy was not normally distributed. Negative skewness was

found for this variable (Lower CL = -1.572, Upper CL = -0.156), which was due to the fact

that there were few low scores for self-efficacy. More than half of the participants had a

higher self-efficacy score than the average item option (4 = neutral). This entails that the majority of the participants had a higher than ‘neutral’ self-efficacy before entering the study.

The results show that this had no effect on the hypotheses testing, because the hypotheses

were formulated in such a way that they were not affected by the starting or ending level of

self-efficacy. In order to generalize the findings of this study, future research could replicate this study with participants who have a more neutral self-efficacy than the sample which was

used during this study.

Fifthly, as mentioned in the general discussion, the results of this study show that the

variables perceived control and self-efficacy are correlated. This finding is in line with previous research, but is also contradicts previous research. In addition, because the variable

perceived control was not manipulated during this experiment, no conclusions can be drawn

about the causal relationship between perceived control and self-efficacy. Future research

could manipulate perceived control during an experiment in order to find out whether perceived control has a direct effect on self-efficacy, or whether self-efficacy has a direct

effect on perceived control.

Finally, the length of the experiment was too short to get the best results. The experiment lasted for three weeks, which is short for people to increase their self-efficacy and create a

growth mindset. It could be argued that although these three weeks were enough to increase

(43)

to experience different set-backs and feelings of failure or success. Future research could use

this study as a starting point, while adding more time to the experiment will result in a more

complete study of the effect of an effort focus, as compared to a focus on the final outcome, on self-efficacy and goal attainment.

The main finding of this study shows that a focus on effort results in a higher level of

self-efficacy than a focus on the final outcome. This finding implicates that people are better

served by an approach which focuses on the effort they put into achieving a certain goal than by an approach which pushes them towards this goal. Marketeers can use these findings when

they develop new products, services and concepts with regard to goal achievement. Coaches,

teachers and governments can use the insights of this study when they are writing new

guidelines for the approach of physical activity or when they are creating new tools for physical activity training sessions.

The effect of an effort focus on self-efficacy and goal attainment