A young athlete approaches the barbell for a heavy squat. They’ve completed similar lifts in training, their technique is sound, and their coach expects a successful attempt. Still, the athlete hesitates. They begin questioning their preparation and anticipating everything that could go wrong.
Another athlete with comparable strength approaches the same weight with considerably less concern. There may be several explanations for this difference, but one worth examining is self-efficacy.
Psychologist Albert Bandura spent decades studying how individuals develop beliefs about their capabilities and how those beliefs influence behavior. His research offers an important distinction for coaches: possessing the ability to perform a task and believing you can successfully execute that task are separate considerations.
Understanding Self-Efficacy
Self-efficacy refers to an individual’s belief in their ability to organize and execute the actions necessary to achieve a particular outcome. These beliefs influence the challenges people pursue, the effort they invest, and their willingness to persist when difficulties arise.
Importantly, self-efficacy is task-specific. A basketball player may feel confident shooting free throws during practice but question that ability with the game on the line. Confidence in one situation does not automatically transfer to another.
Research supports the relationship between self-efficacy and athletic performance. In a meta-analysis of 45 studies, Moritz et al. (2000) found a moderate positive relationship between self-efficacy and sport performance (r = .38). The findings suggest that beliefs about capability are meaningful, although confidence alone cannot guarantee success.
Bandura (1997) identified four primary sources of self-efficacy: enactive mastery experiences, vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion, and physiological and affective states. Understanding these sources provides coaches with practical opportunities to support psychological development alongside physical preparation.
1. Mastery Experiences
The most influential source of self-efficacy is direct experience. Successfully accomplishing challenging tasks provides evidence of personal capability, particularly when individuals recognize the relationship between preparation and performance.
Consider a novice powerlifter working toward a 300-pound squat. Initially, that number seems unreasonable. Over several months, however, the athlete progresses from 225 to 245, then 265, and eventually 285 pounds. By the time they approach 300 pounds, their confidence is supported by a history of successful performance.
The interpretation of those accomplishments matters. An athlete who attributes success to luck may develop less self-efficacy than one who recognizes the role of preparation and improved skill. Overcoming meaningful challenges can also strengthen self-efficacy more than repeatedly completing tasks that require little effort.
Thoughtful training progressions therefore serve a psychological purpose. Coaches who provide appropriately challenging experiences and help athletes recognize their improvement are influencing how those athletes understand their capabilities. Failure also has a place in this process, particularly when athletes have opportunities to learn, adjust, and eventually succeed.
2. Vicarious Experiences
Athletes also develop beliefs about their capabilities by observing others. These experiences can be particularly influential when individuals perceive similarities between themselves and the person performing the task.
Imagine a freshman basketball player who has been hesitant to attack the basket. During practice, they watch a teammate of comparable size and ability successfully execute a move they have struggled to attempt. Seeing that teammate succeed may change their assessment of what they can accomplish.
Research provides support for this process. McAuley (1985) examined modeling and self-efficacy during gymnastics skill acquisition. Participants exposed to modeling reported greater self-efficacy and lower anxiety than those in the control condition, suggesting that observing and participating in modeled learning experiences can influence beliefs about capability.
For coaches, peer demonstrations offer opportunities to make skill development more accessible. Watching an elite professional perform an extraordinary movement may be impressive, but observing a similarly skilled teammate work through the learning process can provide more personally relevant information. The mistakes and adjustments along the way are often worth seeing.
3. Verbal Persuasion
Coaches influence how athletes understand their capabilities through everyday communication. Feedback, expectations, and expressions of confidence can contribute to self-efficacy, particularly when athletes are uncertain about their ability to succeed.
The credibility of that communication matters. Telling an athlete that they are capable of completing a difficult lift may provide encouragement, but the message becomes more meaningful when the coach can reference previous accomplishments, technical improvements, or demonstrated preparation. Who is giving this advice matters.
Verbal persuasion has limitations. Encouragement cannot indefinitely compensate for inadequate preparation, and unrealistic assurances may undermine a coach’s credibility. Athletes benefit from feedback that acknowledges their strengths while accurately identifying areas for improvement.
Related research on self-talk offers another useful consideration. Hatzigeorgiadis et al. (2011) conducted a meta-analysis of 32 studies and found that self-talk interventions had a positive effect on sport performance. Although self-talk is distinct from Bandura’s verbal persuasion, the findings reinforce the importance of intentional language in performance settings.
Coaches should pay attention to what they communicate and how athletes learn to communicate with themselves. Both can influence how an athlete approaches a challenging situation.
4. Physiological and Affective States
Athletes regularly experience physical and emotional responses that influence how they assess their readiness to perform. Elevated heart rate, muscular tension, fatigue, anxiety, and changes in mood can all contribute to judgments about personal capability.
Consider two athletes preparing for a championship competition. Both experience increased heart rate and heightened physiological activation. One interprets these sensations as evidence of inadequate preparation, while the other recognizes them as familiar responses to competition.
Their interpretations may influence how confidently they approach the task, even when their physical preparation is comparable.
Not every uncomfortable sensation should be reframed as beneficial. Fatigue, illness, and excessive stress can compromise performance, and athletes need to develop an accurate understanding of their internal states.
Coaches can support this process by helping athletes recognize physiological responses and practice strategies for managing activation. Breathing techniques, attentional control, and consistent pre-performance routines may help athletes become more familiar with these experiences. An athlete who learns to recognize anxiety without automatically interpreting it as incapacity may be better positioned to demonstrate their existing abilities.
Practical Coaching Application
Developing self-efficacy does not require a separate psychological training program. Much of the work can occur within existing practices, training sessions, and conversations.
Consider an athlete returning to competition after an extended absence. The coach recognizes that the athlete is physically prepared, but the athlete remains uncertain. Rather than relying exclusively on encouragement, the coach can create progressively challenging practice situations that provide evidence of readiness. Observing teammates perform similar tasks offers additional information, while specific feedback reinforces demonstrated progress. The athlete can also practice recognizing and regulating the physiological activation associated with competition.
These interventions address all four sources of self-efficacy through familiar coaching practices.
We spend considerable time measuring physical development through loads, repetitions, times, and performance outcomes. It is worth paying similar attention to what athletes are learning about themselves through those experiences. Two athletes may complete the same training program and demonstrate comparable physical improvements while developing very different beliefs about their abilities.
Those beliefs influence how they approach the next challenge, and the coaching environment plays a role in shaping them. One foot in front of the other. Keep going.
References
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman.
Hatzigeorgiadis, A., Zourbanos, N., Galanis, E., & Theodorakis, Y. (2011). Self-talk and sports performance: A meta-analysis. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(4), 348–356.
McAuley, E. (1985). Modeling and self-efficacy: A test of Bandura’s model. Journal of Sport Psychology, 7(3), 283–295.
Moritz, S. E., Feltz, D. L., Fahrbach, K. R., & Mack, D. E. (2000). The relation of self-efficacy measures to sport performance: A meta-analytic review. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 71(3), 280–294.
