Presentation on theme: "Caring, Self-Regulatory Efficacy, Empathic Efficacy and Prosocial/Antisocial Behaviors in a Physical Activity Setting Introduction Sport and exercise psychology."— Presentation transcript:
Caring, Self-Regulatory Efficacy, Empathic Efficacy and Prosocial/Antisocial Behaviors in a Physical Activity Setting Introduction Sport and exercise psychology has a long-standing interest in examining the impact of physical activity involvement on positive psychosocial development of youth, e.g., prosocial behavior. Participation in sport and physical education has shown mixed results in regard to developing prosocial behavior (e.g., Kleiber & Roberts, 1981; Sherif et al., 1961) leading researchers to contend that it is the structure of these contexts rather than mere participation that will foster character development (Shields & Bredemeier, 1995). In line with this assertion, recent research has suggested that the creation of a caring context might positively influence youth in school (Battistich et al., 1999) and physical activity (Watson, Newton & Kim, 2003) settings. While literature has reported a connection between caring and positive interpersonal attitudes and behaviors less is known about the mechanisms underlying these associations. Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory (1999, 2001), which focuses on an agentic view of behavior, may provide such a mechanism. Bandura and colleagues (2003) contend that a people’s belief in their ability to regulate and control emotion (self-regulatory efficacy) influences interpersonal efficacy and in turn impacts psychosocial functioning. It is possible that a caring environment may influence these efficacy-related beliefs. Purpose The purpose of this study was to examine if perceptions of a caring context influenced prosocial and antisocial behavior indirectly through positive and negative self-regulatory efficacy as well as empathic self-efficacy. Method Participants 395 youth from two National Youth Sport Programs participated in this study. The participating campers included both girls (n = 198) and boys (n = 197) ranging in age from 9 to 16 years old (Mage = 11.80 ± 1.54). Procedures Participants completed multi-survey packet during the 5th and final week of camp. Instruments Contextual Caring Scale “The leaders are kind to kids.” (1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree) “Kids are treated with respect.” Empathic Self-efficacy Scale (Bandura et al., 2003) “I can recognize when a friend needs my help.” (1=not capable at all to 5=totally capable) Affective Self-regulatory Efficacy Scale (Bandura et al., 2003) Negative - “I can manage negative feelings when punished by my parents.” (1=not capable at all to 5=totally capable) Positive - “I can become enthusiastic when I listen to music that I like.” Child Social Behavior Questionnaire (Warden et al., 2003) Prosocial - “How often do you act nice to another camper who was sad or unhappy?” (1=almost never to 5=almost always) Anitsocial - “How often do you call another camper names or make fun of them because you wanted to upset them?” Conclusions Perceptions of a caring climate is related to social behaviors Positively associated with prosocial behaviors Negatively associated with antisocial behaviors The relationship between the caring climate and social behaviors is mediated by the children’s belief in their ability to regulate their affective responses and empathize with others. Implications Creating a climate that youth perceive as caring may be advantageous for helping kids develop prosocial behaviors by enhancing their ability to empathize and regulate their affective responses. References Bandura, A., Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Gerbino, M. & Pastorelli, C. (2003). Role of affective self-regulatory efficacy in diverse spheres of psychosocial functioning. Child Development, 74(3),769-782. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182. Battistich, V., Watson, M., Solomon, D., Lewis, C. & Schaps, E., (1999). Beyond the three R’s: A broader agenda for school reform. The Elementary School Journal 99(5),415-432. Caprara, G. V., & Steca, P. (2005). Self-efficacy beliefs asdeterminants of prosocial behavior conducive to life satisfaction acrossages. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 24, 191-217. Warden, D., Cheyne, B., Christie, D., Fitzpatrick, H., & Reid, K. (2003). Assessing children’s perceptions of prosocial and antisocial peer behavior. Educational Psychology, 23 (5), 547- 567. Watson, D.L., Newton, M., & Kim, M., (2003). Recognition of values-based constructs in a summer physical activity program. The Urban Review, 35(3), 217-232. Lori A. Gano-OverwayMaria NewtonT. Michelle MagyarMi-Sook KimMary FryMarta Guivernau Results Descriptive statistics, internal reliabilities, and simple correlations Unmediated Model of Relationships between Caring and Social Behaviors Partially Mediated Model (mediators included along with direct links to outcome variables) Final Mediated Model Note: All correlation coefficients were significant at p =.01; Cronbach alpha coefficients are on the diagonal. Path coefficients demonstrate a relationship between the caring climate and social behaviors, 2 (1) = 9.166, p =.002, GFI =.985, CFI =.877, TLI =.631, RMSEA =.144 (CI =.070-.235), SRMR =.057. Caring Climate Empathic Efficacy Prosocial Behaviors Antisocial Behaviors E =.55 E =.49 E =.30.48* Positive Affective Self-Regulatory Efficacy Negative Affective Self-Regulatory Efficacy E =.40 E =.41.37*.56*.53*.26*.14*.38* -.18* -.10.06 However, inclusion of self-regulatory affective efficacy and empathic efficacy demonstrate support for a mediating effect, 2 (5) = 32.478, p =.000, GFI =.972, CFI =.962, TLI =.887, RMSEA =.118 (CI =.081-.158), SRMR =.047. Caring Climate Empathic Efficacy Prosocial Behaviors Antisocial Behaviors E = 55 E =.47 E =.30.52* Positive Affective Self-Regulatory Efficacy Negative Affective Self-Regulatory Efficacy E =.40 E =.41.37*.56*.53*.27*.14*.37* -.27* -.08 This path analysis provided a good fit for the data, 2 (6) = 17.074, p =.009, GFI =.986, CFI =.985, TLI =.962, RMSEA =.068 (CI =.031-.108), SRMR =.038. The indirect effects for the caring climate to prosocial behavior (indirect effect =.280) and antisocial behavior (indirect effect = -.194) also acknowledge the mediating effect.