Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorKingston, Kieran
dc.contributor.authorHardy, Lew
dc.date.accessioned2014-05-23T13:38:12Z
dc.date.available2014-05-23T13:38:12Z
dc.date.issued1997
dc.identifier.citationThe Sport Psychologist, 1997, 11, 277-293en_US
dc.identifier.issn0888-4781
dc.identifier.urihttp://journals.humankinetics.com/tsp-back-issues/TSPVolume11Issue3September/EffectsofDifferentTypesofGoalsonProcessesThatSupportPerformance
dc.description.abstractEmpirical studies attesting to the effectiveness of goal setting in sport have been plagued by equivocation. Inconsistencies may relate to task/goal complexity and the types of goals that participants are asked to use (Hardy, Jones, & Gould, 1996). This study addresses the second of these issues by examining the relative efficacy of two types of goal-setting training program that differ according to their primary focus. Thirty-seven club golfers completed the Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2 on three occasions at important competitions and the Sport Psychology Skills Questionnaire prior to, and following, the intervention. Two-factor (Group X Test) ANOVAs revealed a significant interaction @ < .05) for ability, indicating significant improvements from Test 1 to Test 2 for the process-oriented group, and between Test 1 and Test 3. The significant interactions @ < .05) for self-efficacy, cognitive anxiety control, and concentration provide further evidence for the positive impact of process goals in competitive situations.en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherHuman Kineticsen_US
dc.relation.ispartofseriesThe Sport Psychologist;
dc.titleEffects of Different Types of Goals on Processes That Support Performanceen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following collection(s)

Show simple item record