Kayode Damali^[1], Department of Interdisciplinary Studies, Manchester Metropolitan University

Abstract

Increasing an individual's self-efficacy can enhance muscular endurance performance. Pre-game speeches are one way of achieving this, but using them on a video prior to exercise has not been examined. A convenience sample of 45 male participants, with a mean age of 20.9 years (SD = 1.7), watched either a motivational or non-motivational video before completing a self-efficacy scale and doing the plank exercise. An independent t-test revealed that participants who watched the motivational video significantly improved their muscular endurance performance compared with participants who watched the non-motivational video (t = 1.771, df = 43, p = 0.042, one-tailed). However, the difference between the two conditions was not significant for the participants' level of self-efficacy (t = 0.399, df = 43, p = 0.346, one-tailed) nor strength of self-efficacy (t = 0.508, df = 43, p = 0.307, one-tailed). Watching motivational videos before exercise is an effective performance enhancement; however, more research is needed to further understand its impact on self-efficacy.

Keywords: Exercise, motivational video, muscular endurance performance, plank exercise, pre-game speech, self-efficacy.

Introduction

Self-efficacy, a term coined by Bandura (1977), is the most critical self-perception in sport and exercise psychology (Gill and Williams, 2008: 91). Bandura's work (1997: 3), a fundamental component within the framework of social cognitive theory, defined self-efficacy as 'beliefs in one's capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to produce given attainments.' It is a cognitive explanation for differences in the abilities of individuals and teams to overcome challenging tasks (Feltz et al., 2008: 4). Since its inception over 35 years ago, there have been more than 300 research articles published on self-efficacy in relation to sport and motor performance (Dithurbide and Feltz, 2012: 251). Self-efficacy has generated much interest within the sport psychology domain because it has been shown to be a strong predictor of performance (Bandura, 1977). This relationship is considered reciprocal or temporally recursive. 'High self-efficacy leads to enhanced performance, which then leads to high self-efficacy, and so on' (Feltz et al., 2008: 80). The meta-analysis by Moritz et al. (2000) reported a clear significant positive relationship between self-efficacy and performance found among numerous sport tasks. Improving performance is of 'utmost importance to athletes and coaches alike' (Feltz et al., 2008: 17) making self-efficacy crucial to sport and exercise.

Performance is the combined choice of task, strategy, effort and persistence (Feltz et al., 2008: 17). The association between persistence on muscular endurance tasks and self-efficacy is manifested in research; the stronger an individual's self-efficacy the more vigorous and persistent their efforts will be (Bandura, 1986). Weinberg and colleagues were the first to demonstrate this (Weinberg et al.,1979). Participants in the high-self-efficacy group had been made to believe that they would be competing against a person who had knee injuries and were worse on other strength-related tasks. On the other hand, participants in the low-self-efficacy group thought that they were up against a healthy person who was supposedly better on various strength-related asks. The results from this study showed that participants in the high-self-efficacy group were more efficacious and persisted longer in the task of keeping their leg extended than the participants in the low-self-efficacy group. This study showed that self-efficacy can be manipulated.

Weinberg et al. (1981) then conducted a follow-up study examining the effect of pre-existing self-efficacy on muscular endurance performance prior to the manipulation. Participants were selected for the study based on pre-existing levels of self-efficacy (high or low) and were then randomly assigned to a high- or low-self-efficacy condition prior to the muscular endurance task. The results showed that those in the high-self-efficacy group outperformed those in the low-self-efficacy group despite their pre-existing self-efficacy. Pre-existing self-efficacy only affected performance on the muscular endurance task prior to the manipulation. These results suggest that pre-existing self-efficacy is somewhat irrelevant as, following a manipulation, it is susceptible to modification, which can affect performance. This conclusion gave rise to subsequent research on interventions designed to alter self-efficacy beliefs as the dependent variable.

There are several sources of self-efficacy: performance accomplishments (mastery experiences), vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion, physiological states, emotional states and imaginal experiences (Bandura, 1977; Maddux, 1995). The manipulation of self-efficacy beliefs, such as in Weinberg et al. (1979) and Weinberg et al. (1981), are constructed by various interventions, based on one or more of the sources of efficacy information (Feltz et al., 2008). Preparation is vital for optimal performance (Vargas and Short, 2011: 28), hence one of the most important roles for a coach is to prepare their athletes (Short and Short, 2005: S29). Consequently, coaches usually address their players prior to the game (Breakey et al., 2009: 489). Studies of pre-game speeches are grounded in self-efficacy as the speeches are considered to be a form of verbal persuasion (Bandura, 1977; Feltz et al., 2008; Vargas and Short, 2011) used to 'boost' or 'pump up' athletes. Vargas-Tonsing has conveyed the most extensive research to date of the effectiveness of pre-game speeches, showing that they can increase an athlete's self-efficacy beliefs (Vargas-Tonsing and Bartholomew, 2006; Vargas-Tonsing and Guan, 2007; Vargas-Tonsing, 2009; Vargas and Short, 2011). Fifty per cent of participants in the Vargas and Short (2011) study believed that their coaches' pre-game speeches also had an impact on their performance.

The delivery and content of pre-game speeches, informational/instructional or emotional/inspirational, is understood to be a key factor in affecting an athlete's self-efficacy (Vargas-Tonsing and Guan, 2007). In addition, Vargas-Tonsing and Guan (2007: 177) showed that different settings require different pre-game speeches. For example, athletes preferred emotional speeches before a championship game, when competing against a higher-ranked opponent or when the athletes themselves were considered the underdogs.

With today's technology, these speeches can be made available on video and can act as an inspiration and motivation for athletes (Gonzalez et al., 2011: 448). Similar to pre-game speeches, these motivational videos can be shown before individuals or teams compete or play (O'Donoghue, 2006: 10). Gonzalez et al. (2011) conducted research on such videos to establish whether they are indeed emotional, inspirational or motivational. Participants were shown a clip from the movie Any Given Sunday (Stone, 1999) before completing the required questionnaires/scales. The results from this study indicated that such videos could be inspirational as well as facilitate an emotional response in the viewers.

However, the increase in inspiration does not equate with an increase in motivation. This is in conflict with Thrash and Elliot (2004: 957) who assumed that when athletes are 'inspired by' a pep talk, they are then 'inspired to' perform in that manner. Perhaps if Gonzalez et al. (2011) measured the participants' performance before and after viewing the inspirational clip, it might have demonstrated that the 'inspiration to' perform after the manipulation was 'inspired by' the movie clip. For example, Feltz and Riessinger (1990) measured the participants' performance as well as giving them the required questionnaires/scales to complete before and after manipulation of in vivo emotive imagery. Nonetheless, Gonzalez et al. (2011: 453) confirmed that these types of videos could facilitate an emotional response in the viewers. Although this study did not examine self-efficacy, it is an important finding as emotional states are a source of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977; Maddux, 1995). Gonzalez et al. (2011) simply used the audio and visual of the speech; however, to increase the potency of these videos, the addition of music is understood to have a profound effect.

Several studies have demonstrated the advantages of combining music with the audio and visual of such videos. Participants in the study by Jenkins et al. (2007: 72) recognised the effectiveness of music in the motivational videos. Areas of the brain are biologically stimulated with music and images that are thought to complete emotional processing (Baumgartner et al., 2006: 152); and the combination of music with the video can also stimulate positive images and help recreate feelings of confidence (Forzoni, 2006: 10). Barwood et al. (2009: 436) posited that this evidence appears to suggest that music and video combined has the potential to stimulate self-efficacy and emotional engagement. If the visuals and audio in motivational videos are to be accompanied by music to intensify its effects, they must be edited to do so. These edited videos have certain requirements, for example Jenkins et al. (2007: 65) recommended the desired length of these videos was between 2.5 and 5 minutes.

Non-elite athletes or individuals who engage in exercise recreationally may not have the facilities to develop or acquire such videos to watch before performing but fortunately, a simple search on the video sharing website YouTube can instantly provide access to thousands of motivational videos.

In summary, self-efficacy is understood to be a potent predictor of performance (Moritz et al., 2000: 287). By manipulating self-efficacy, modifying one or more of its sources can in turn affect performance (Feltz et al., 2008). Coaches have used pre-game speeches to increase performance by 'boosting' or 'pumping up' their athletes (Vargas-Tonsing and Bartholomew, 2006; Vargas-Tonsing and Guan, 2007; Vargas and Short, 2011), and courtesy of technology, these videoed pre-game speeches are available on the Internet. Gonzalez et al. (2011) empirically researched the influence these videos have on inspiration, situational motivation and emotion. However, despite the impact pre-game speeches have on self-efficacy, no studies to date have assessed their effects for that purpose. In addition, although Barwood et al. (2009) investigated the effects of motivational videos during high-intensity exercise, which showed they can indeed lead to an increase in performance, the effect of watching these videos prior to exercise has not yet been examined.

The present study therefore aims to investigate the effectiveness of a motivational video on self-efficacy and muscular endurance performance, namely the plank exercise. The plank is an isometric core conditioning exercise where the body, straight and parallel to the floor, has its weight supported only by the forearms, elbows and toes. Divided into two conditions, motivational and non-motivational, it was predicted that those participants who viewed the motivational video were more likely to have greater self-efficacy beliefs and improve their muscular endurance performance than participants who viewed the non-motivational video.

Method

Design

The experimental design used one independent variable, which was the type of video the participants watched, being motivational or non-motivational. The experiment used a wholly between-groups design, with each participant assigned to only one of the video conditions. There were two dependent variables. Dependent variable one (DV1) was the participant's self-efficacy scores across two dimensions, level of self-efficacy (out of a maximum of 16) and strength of self-efficacy (out of a maximum of 100%). The second dependent variable (DV2) was the muscular endurance performance. This was defined as the time (in seconds) the participants held the plank, maintaining the correct form. A number of variables were controlled such as the lengths of the videos, standardised instructions for both groups and the use of a validated self-efficacy scale.

Pilot study

A pilot study was conducted to assess (1) which motivational video in a self-created shortlist was most effective in enhancing one's self-efficacy belief to hold the plank, and (2) which self-efficacy scale out of the two would be better to use in the main study.

Participants

There were 45 male participants in the main study: 22 in the motivational video condition and 23 in the non-motivational video condition. They ranged in age from 19 to 25, with a mean of 20.9 years (SD = 1.7). Participants were a convenience sample and they were matched into their conditions based on their day 1 self-efficacy scores and plank times. All participants were free from any physical injuries.

Apparatus and materials

Plank times were measured with a stopwatch and yoga mats were placed on the floor for comfort. With Dr Edward McAuley's permission, the present study's 'Self-efficacy for plank scale – duration' was modified from the 'Self-efficacy for walking scale – duration (SEW_Dur)', which had been used in the McAuley et al. (2000) study. A laptop and speakers were used for participants to watch and listen to the video of their condition, played in full screen on the video quality 720p HD.

The motivational video 'How Bad Do You Want It? (Success) HD' was downloaded from YouTube and was 5 minutes and 51 seconds in length. The non-motivational video, '10 Minutes of Your Life: Watching the Sacramento River from a Slow Moving Train', was also downloaded from YouTube. However, as the name suggests, it was 10 minutes long. The Gonzalez et al. (2011: 454) study found that two video clips of unequal length to be a limitation, therefore the video '10 Minutes ...' was trimmed.

The abridged second video was chosen as it was deemed not to be motivational, and unlikely to enhance the viewer's self-efficacy beliefs or muscular endurance performance. Furthermore this video provided the non-motivational participants with visual images and a voice-over, similar to that watched by participants in the (first) motivational video.

Following the data collection, IBM SPSS Statistics 19 was used for the statistical analysis.

Procedure

Participants came for the study on two different days, one week apart from each other (for this purpose called day 1 and day 2), which took place at the Manchester Metropolitan University Cheshire Sports Centre. The air conditioning in the room was set at 17°C for all participants, who came in for the testing individually, on both days. Participants were advised not to eat anything heavy 1 hour prior to attending the study test. There were no specific clothing requirements, participants were free to wear their normal exercise clothing.

On day 1, participants first read the participant information sheet and completed the consent form. Next, the plank exercise was demonstrated and participants then performed the exercise – which was timed (in seconds) – until failure. This was followed by participants completing the self-efficacy scale. Participants were instructed not to discuss the contents of the study or their plank times with anyone else. This was to eliminate the element of competition, because comparative (competitive) self-efficacy – the belief that one can compete successfully against an opponent (Feltz et al., 2008: 18) – was not the intention of the study. Moreover, participants were advised that they could continue their normal exercise regimes before day 2. However, they were told not to specifically train for the plank if it was not part of their usual routine.

After all the participants had completed day 1, the self-efficacy scales were analysed. Participants demonstrated their level of self-efficacy by circling a percentage on each of the 16 items that they felt equated to their performance. The items ranged from 15 seconds to 4 minutes, increasing by 15-second intervals. The highest item number with a percentage circled, other than 0%, represented the participant's level of self-efficacy, resulting in a maximum possible score of 16. In order to assess the strength of self-efficacy, participants rated their certainty of performance for each of the 16 time designations. This rating was on an 11-point scale ranging from 0% (Not at all confident) to 100% (Highly confident) as recommended by Dithurbide and Feltz (2012: 262) who explained that 'an 11-point scale should be used in order to capture any change'. Total strength for the measure of self-efficacy was then calculated by summing the confidence ratings and dividing this by 16 – i.e. the total number of items on the scale, as recommended by Bandura (1977) – resulting in a maximum possible score of 100%.

Based on the day 1 results, participants were allocated into one of the two conditions, ensuring that there were equal or closely identical mean scores in both conditions for self-efficacy (level and strength) and for plank times.

On day 2, participants allocated to the motivational video condition individually watched the motivational video, and the non-motivational study group watched the non-motivational video. Both groups watched their video on the laptop. Straight after the videos, participants completed the self-efficacy scale and then immediately did the plank exercise until failure (timed in seconds). The study was over when the participants stopped doing the plank; they were then individually debriefed. The score changes from day 1 and day 2 were calculated. This was done by subtracting the mean scores, from day 2 and day 1, for plank times, and self-efficacy measures (level and strength) for each participant in each condition.

Results

The results are reported in three sections.

1. The effect of the videos on endurance performance;
2. The effect of the videos on the level of self-efficacy;
3. The effect of the videos on the strength of self-efficacy.

Descriptive statistics for the dependent variables for day 1 and day 2 of the study in addition to the changes in these scores were computed (see Table 1). An independent t-test was conducted to examine the effect of the videos on the experimental and control conditions.

Video effects on muscular endurance performance

The plank time difference between day 1 and day 2 was greater by participants in the motivational video condition (mean = 29.6 seconds) than by participants in the non-motivational video condition (mean = 8.6 seconds). The independent t-test revealed that this difference between the two conditions was statistically significant (t = 1.771, df = 43, p = 0.042, one-tailed). The magnitude of the differences in the means (mean difference = 21.00, 95% CI: −2.91 to 44.93) was medium (d = 0.53).

Video effects on the level of self-efficacy

One level was given when the participant circled a percentage on each item of the scale other than 0%, up to a maximum of 16 levels. The level of self-efficacy difference between day 1 and day 2 was greater by participants in the motivational video condition (mean = 1.5) than by participants in the non-motivational video condition (mean = 1.3). However, the independent t-test revealed that this difference between the two conditions was not statistically significant (t= 0.399, df= 43, p= 0.346, one-tailed). The magnitude of the differences in the means (mean difference = 0.3, 95% CI: -1.15 to 1.72) was small (d = 0.08).

Video effects on the strength of self-efficacy

The mean percentage was given for each participant by summing the circled percentages on each item and dividing this amount by 16, leading up to a maximum of 100%. The strength of the self-efficacy difference between day 1 and day 2 was greater by participants in the motivational video condition (mean = 11.02) than by participants in the non-motivational video condition (mean = 9.35). However, the independent t-test revealed that this difference between the two conditions was not statistically significant (t = 0.508, df = 43, p = 0.307, one-tailed). The magnitude of the differences in the means (mean difference = 1.67, 95% CI: −4.97 to 8.31) was small (d = 0.15).

Variable	Motivational video condition (n = 22)						Non-motivational video condition (n = 23)
	Day 1		Day 2		Change		Day 1		Day 2		Change
	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD
Muscular endurance performance (seconds)	145.4	61.2	175.0	71.1	29.6	41.9	145.2	52.4	153.8	61.2	8.6	37.6
Level of self-efficacy	12.6	3.1	14.1	2.3	1.5	2.1	13.4	3.2	14.7	2.2	1.3	2.6
Strength of self-efficacy (%)	53.55	18.95	64.58	16.86	11.02	9.04	52.96	16.99	62.31	13.54	9.35	12.66

Table 1: Summary of descriptive statistics – means and standard deviations of the muscular endurance performance and self-efficacy measures
Note: M = mean, SD = standard deviation.

Discussion

This study has examined the effects of a motivational video on self-efficacy and performance on a muscular endurance task. It was hypothesised that participants who watched the motivational video would have greater self-efficacy beliefs and improved muscular endurance performances than participants who watched the non-motivational video. The results showed that participants in the experimental condition, who watched the motivational video, significantly improved their muscular endurance performance (p = 0.042) compared with participants in the control condition. Thus, as predicted in the experimental hypothesis, watching the motivational video can help to improve muscular endurance performance. However, although participants in the experimental condition also had a greater level and strength of self-efficacy than participants in the control condition, it was not significant (p = 0.346 and p = 0.307). This was inconsistent with the experimental hypothesis, which predicted that watching the motivational video would improve the participant's self-efficacy beliefs.

The findings for self-efficacy did not produce a significant difference. Research by Vargas-Tonsing displayed that pre-game speeches, grounded in self-efficacy considered a form of verbal persuasion, can increase an athlete's self-efficacy beliefs (Vargas-Tonsing and Bartholomew, 2006; Vargas-Tonsing and Guan, 2007; Vargas-Tonsing, 2009; Vargas and Short, 2011). More specifically, the delivery and content of pre-game speeches – informational/instructional or emotional/inspirational – has a crucial effect on an athlete's self-efficacy. The motivational video used in this study, chosen strictly because of the pilot study outcome, had a voice-over of the motivational speaker Eric Thomas, who is renowned for delivering his speeches with passion and emotion. However, research on the delivery of pre-game speeches demonstrates that athletes have preferences to the type of speech they listen to. Vargas-Tonsing and Guan (2007: 177) showed that athletes preferred emotional speeches before a championship game, when competing against a higher-ranked opponent or when the athletes themselves were considered the underdogs.

In the present study, participants were in none of these situations – in fact quite the opposite. Comparative self-efficacy was not the intention of the study; participants received strict instruction not to discuss the content of the study nor their plank times with other participants. This being the case, participants would not have felt they were in competition with the other participants to feel like an underdog.

With regard to the actual task, it was evident when conducting the study that a proportion of the participants were unaccustomed to the plank exercise. These participants often asked for a further demonstration, which was refused to avoid it becoming a confounding variable and to ensure participants in both conditions received equal demonstration time. The refusal may have had a negative impact by lowering their mood, possibly affecting their self-efficacy (Kavanagh and Bower, 1985: 522) in what they felt was the performing of an unfamiliar task (Kavanagh and Hausfeld, 1986; Moritz et al., 2000). Research has also shown that performance accomplishments, one of the sources of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977), provides the most dependable information and has the most powerful effect on self-efficacy (Gill and Williams, 2008: 92). Therefore, it cannot be ruled out that those participants who scored highly on the 'Self-efficacy for Plank Scale – Duration' may have been familiar with the plank exercise and based their beliefs on previous experiences, not on the video.

It could be argued that the visual images of the motivational video provided another source of self-efficacy, vicarious experiences (Bandura, 1977), as participants in this condition observed an athlete before performing themselves. Giavanni Ruffin was the model in the video, training hard and exerting a lot of effort in the exercises. Surprisingly, this could have done more harm than good for the participants in this condition, who may have viewed him as a mastery model (i.e. an individual demonstrating exemplary or an effortless performance). This was reflected in the comments of some of the participants, saying, for example, 'that's impressive!' after Giavanni executed an exercise. Weiss et al. (1998: 391) suggested that such a model may not be the best to observe. Rather than observing coping models, it is thought that watching an individual who does not display exemplary behaviours might enforce a stronger effect on self-efficacy. Furthermore, if participants did view Giavanni as a mastery model, this could have the power of undermining their self-efficacy beliefs, particularly if they were uncertain (Bandura, 1997). Throughout the duration of the motivational video, Giavanni did not do the plank exercise as requested of participants in the present study. Therefore, participants received no instructional information to do the plank, other than the initial demonstration of the correct technique by the researcher who was neither a mastery nor a skilled model.

Surprisingly, when participants in the non-motivational video condition were debriefed after day 2, some mentioned that they actually found the non-motivational video motivating. A few elaborated on this, explaining how viewing the train travelling slowly alongside the Sacramento River relaxed them and they could imagine it when holding the plank position. If this were really the case (i.e. participants imagined the non-motivational video while holding the plank) this could be considered as a form of imagery, which has already been established to enhance an individual's self-efficacy beliefs (e.g. Feltz and Riessinger, 1990). It is therefore likely that the non-motivational video might have reduced these participants' arousal levels, simply because imagery has been shown to control arousal and reduce anxiety (Vadocz et al., 1997; Mellalieu et al., 2009). This would have allowed participants to perform closer to their optimum level of arousal (Yerkes and Dodson, 1908) more than if they were over-aroused. Although the use of a motivational video with an emotional content was previously discussed to possibly not be the best choice of content for this study's participants, it may still demonstrate advantages. Detrimental effects of anxiety on an individual's performance are commonly due more to worry than emotionality, and the emotional content of the motivational video might assist athletes in transforming worrisome thoughts into more facilitating emotions (Deffenbacher, 1980; Morris et al., 1981).

Although the motivational video had no significant effect on self-efficacy, participants in this condition still improved their muscular endurance performance times. This raises questions about much of the present literature on the self-efficacy performance relationship which argues that self-efficacy is a strong predictor of performance (Moritz et al., 2000). In the present study, this was not the case. One of many examples that can illustrate this is that pre-existing self-efficacy was shown to be somewhat irrelevant in the Weinberg et al. (1981) study because a psychological manipulation can modify these beliefs. In the present study, participants' day 1 results were carefully assessed before allocating them to a condition, ensuring that there were equal or almost identical mean scores in both conditions for their self-efficacy beliefs and muscular endurance performance times. The manipulation here of watching the motivational or non-motivational video had no significant effect on these beliefs. This is indeed consistent with the study by Weinberg et al. (1981), which reinforces the present study's conclusions, that pre-existing self-efficacy is somewhat irrelevant. However, there is a discrepancy because in this study there was no significant difference in the self-efficacy change scores between the motivational and non-motivational video condition, as was shown to be the case between the high-self-efficacy and low-self-efficacy conditions in Weinberg et al. (1981). Yet participants in both the present and Weinberg et al. (1981) study significantly improved their muscular endurance performance following the manipulation, reinforcing the suggestion that perhaps the relationship between self-efficacy and performance is non-existent, or at least not as strong as once predicted.

In light of the non-significance of the effects of the motivational video on participant's self-efficacy, a small consolation is that the strength of self-efficacy was slightly more significant than the level of self-efficacy. Feltz et al. (2008: 44) explained that the level of self-efficacy is not as sensitive to one's perceptions as strength of self-efficacy. They gave the example that two participants could have a level 3 on the self-efficacy scale but one was 100% confident while the other was only 30% confident. This explains why some researchers have relied solely on strength measures to assess self-efficacy whereas others, such as in this study, report both the level and strength of self-efficacy (Feltz and Lirgg, 2001).

Nevertheless, self-efficacy is not the only influence on performance (Bandura, 1997). Schunk (1995) argued that skill is equally important because no amount of self-efficacy can produce a competent performance if the individuals lack the necessary skills. Therefore, although reported earlier in the discussion that the participants might have been unfamiliar with the plank exercise, based on Schunk (1995), there is perhaps the possibility that some possessed the skills required for the exercise. This suggestion is derived from participants in the motivational video condition still significantly improving their muscular endurance performance more than participants in the non-motivational video condition in spite of self-efficacy not being significant.

The fact that this finding occurred is intriguing. It showed that although the motivational video had no effect on the mind (demonstrated by the self-efficacy scores), it still affected the body (demonstrated by the muscular endurance performance times), as the body outperformed the mind's expectations. This reinforces René Descartes's concept of mind–body dualism. With the mind underestimating the potential of the body, does this have any implications for the way we perceive these statements? Does the body quit before the mind (mind over matter) or does the mind quit before the body (matter over mind)? Research in this area is scant, but further exploration could be worthwhile. Firmly establishing whether the mind or body 'quits' first during exercise could lead to the development of appropriate coping interventions to assist the athlete in continuing through adversity, for example enduring the plank exercise. Crum and Langer (2007) have already exhibited through the placebo effect that one's mind-set can affect their perception of the health benefits of exercise. For instance, if it is the mind that quits before the body has reached its exhaustion (matter over mind) during endurance exercises, is it possible to develop the mind-set through interventions to overcome this?

Thrash and Elliot (2004: 958) contended that an athlete can be 'inspired by' a pre-game speech and then be 'inspired to' act in that particular manner. The findings of Gonzalez et al. (2011) did not support this assumption, which showed that an increase in inspiration ('inspired by') did not lead to an increase in motivation ('inspired to'). In the present study, referring to the contention of Thrash and Elliot (2004), the participants were possibly 'inspired to' perform better – evidenced by the increase in muscular endurance performance – but because there was no significant increase in self-efficacy scores, they were somehow not 'inspired by' the motivational video. Other possible limitations are that it was left on trust that participants after day 1, would not discuss results; nor would they train for day 2. Either would have resulted in confounding variables.

Conclusion

In summary, the results of the present study open interesting avenues into researching motivational videos as a form of performance enhancement. However, it raises debates about the existing literature on self-efficacy and pre-game speeches and the self-efficacy performance relationship. To understand and resolve the divergence between findings of the present study and existing literature, future researchers should be more selective in the recruitment of participants. Taking into account the participants' experience and skill in performing the muscular endurance task should avoid the predicament of mood and mastery experiences becoming potential confounding variables, as all participants will have had experience in performing the exercise. Finally, in terms of the video, greater attention must be given to the choice of model used and the exercises they are executing as well as the speech content, to ensure that they are appropriate for the suggested needs of the participant. Nevertheless, while future research is needed to address the limitations and recommendations discussed, this study furthers our understanding of self-efficacy and provides an introduction towards further exploration of the effects that watching motivational videos prior to exercise has on performance.

---

Acknowledgments

I would like to extend my gratitude to the technicians at Manchester Metropolitan University Cheshire Sports Centre for allowing me to have the constant space to do my testing and to all my participants for their commitment to my study. Thanks also to my supervisor, Dr Nick Lund, and the Interdisciplinary Studies and Exercise and Sports Science staff who have taught me throughout my undergraduate degree. And finally I would like to thank my close friends and family for their unconditional love and support.

Notes

[1] Kayode Damali is a First Class Honours Psychology of Sport and Exercise graduate from Manchester Metropolitan University. Inspired by the motivational speaker Eric Thomas, Kayode decided to base his research on motivational videos. His passion for motivational speaking constantly grows and is an area he is continuing to flourish in himself.

References

To cite this paper please use the following details: Damali, K. (2014), 'Effects of a Motivational Video on Self-efficacy and Muscular Endurance', Reinvention: an International Journal of Undergraduate Research, BCUR 2014 Special Issue, http://www.warwick.ac.uk/reinventionjournal/archive/bcur2014specialissue/damali Date accessed [insert date]. If you cite this article or use it in any teaching or other related activities please let us know by e-mailing us at .