Short Essay About Self-Confidence In Sports
Confidence is the single most important mental factor in sports. I define confidence as how strongly you believe in your ability to achieve your goals. Confidence is so important because you may have all of the ability in the world to perform well, but if you don't believe you have that ability, then you won't perform up to that ability. For example, a gymnast may be physically and technically capable of executing a back somersault with a full twist on the floor exercise, but he won't attempt the skill in a meet if doesn't have the confidence that he can successfully execute the skill.
Too often athletes are their own worst enemy rather than their best ally. When you compete, whose side are you on? Remember that opponents are against you and want to beat you badly. If you're also against you, you don't have a chance of performing your best and finding success.
Prime confidence is a deep, lasting, and resilient belief in one's ability. With prime confidence, you are able to stay confident even when you're not performing well. Prime confidence keeps you positive, motivated, intense, focused, and emotionally in control when you need to be. You aren't negative and uncertain in difficult competitions and you're not overconfident in easy competitions. Prime confidence also encourages you to seek out pressure situations and to view difficult conditions and tough opponents as challenges to pursue. Prime confidence enables you to perform at your highest level consistently.
Prime confidence is the belief that if you do the right things, you will be successful. Prime confidence demonstrates faith in your ability and your preparation. It should not, however, cause you to expect success; this belief can lead to arrogance and overconfidence. It can also cause you to become too focused on winning rather than on performing your best. This perception can lead to self-imposed pressure and a fear of failure.
Vicious Cycle or Upward Spiral
To illustrate another influence of confidence, think back to a time when you didn't have confidence in yourself. You probably got caught in a vicious cycle of low confidence and performance in which negative thinking led to poor performance, which led to more negative thinking and even poorer performance until your confidence was so low that you didn't even want to compete.
This vicious cycle usually starts with a period of poor performance. This poor performance leads to negative self-talk: "I'm terrible. I can't do this. I don't have a chance." You are becoming your own worst enemy.
You start to get nervous before a competition because you believe you will perform poorly. All of that anxiety hurts your confidence even more because you feel physically uncomfortable and there's no way you can perform well when you're so uptight. The negative self-talk and anxiety causes negative emotions. You feel depressed, frustrated, angry, and helpless, all of which hurt your confidence more and cause you to perform even worse.
The negative self-talk, anxiety, and emotions then hurt your focus. If you have low confidence, you can't help but focus on all of the negative things rather than on things that will enable you to perform your best. All of this accumulated negativity hurts your motivation. As bad as you feel, you just want to get out of there. If you're thinking negatively, caught in a vicious cycle, feeling nervous, depressed, and frustrated, and can't focus, you're not going to have much fun and you're not going to perform well.
Now recall when you have been really confident in your sport. Your self-talk is positive: "I'm a good athlete. I can perform well." You are your best ally.
With the positive self-talk, you begin an upward spiral of high confidence and performance in which positive thinking leads to better performance, which leads to more positive thinking and even better performance.
All of the positive talk gets you feeling relaxed and energized as you begin the competition. You have a lot of positive emotions such as inspiration and excitement. You focus on things you need to perform your best. Competing is actually an enjoyable experience for you.
All of the positive thoughts and feelings motivate you to perform. If you're thinking positively, riding an upward spiral, feeling relaxed and energized, experiencing positive emotions, and are focused on performing your best, you're going to have a lot of fun and you're likely going to perform well.
Why Athletes Lose Confidence
Anything that counters your belief in your ability to achieve your goals will hurt your confidence. The greatest disruption to confidence is failure. Failure can mean making mistakes in a competition, for example, missing an easy header in soccer or falling on a double axel in figure skating. Failure will cause you to lose faith in your ability and cause you to become tentative or cautious. Failure can also mean having poor results in recent competitions. There is nothing more harmful to confidence than failure because it provides evidence that any confidence you may have is unjustified.
Confidence is a Skill
A misconception that many athletes have is that confidence is something that is inborn or that if you don't have it at an early age, you will never have confidence. In reality, confidence is a skill, much like technical skills, that can be learned. Just like with any type of skill, confidence is developed through focus, effort, and repetition.
The problem is that you have the option to practice good or bad confidence skills. If you are very negative all of the time, you are practicing and ingraining those negative confidence skills, so when you compete, just like a bad technical habit, that negativity is what will come out and it will hurt your performance. In other words, you became highly skilled at something that actually hurts your sports performance.
If you have a bad technical habit, for example, a softball player opens her shoulders too early when swinging, she probably has swung the bat that way for a long time. She has become skilled at swinging the bat the wrong way. The same holds true for confidence. You can become skilled at being negative.
To change bad confidence skills, you must retrain the way you think. You have to practice good confidence skills regularly until the old negative habits have been broken and you have learned and ingrained the new positive skills of confidence.
It's easy to stay confident when you're performing well, when the conditions are ideal, and when you're competing against someone whom you're better than. The real test of confidence, however, is how you respond when things aren't going your way. I call this the Confidence Challenge. What separates the best from the rest is that the best athletes are able to maintain their confidence when they're not at the top of their games. By staying confident, they continue to work hard rather than give up because they know that, in time, their performance will come around.
Most athletes who perform poorly get caught in the vicious cycle of low confidence and performance. Once you slip into that downward spiral, you rarely can get out of it in the short term. In contrast, athletes with prime confidence maintain their confidence and seek out ways to return to their previous level. All athletes will go through periods where they don't perform well. The skill is not getting caught in the vicious cycle and being able to get out of the down periods quickly.
There are several keys to mastering the Confidence Challenge.
- Develop the attitude that demanding situations are challenges to be sought out.
- Believe that experiencing challenges is a necessary part of becoming the best athlete you can be.
- Be well-prepared to meet the challenges.
- Stay positive and motivated in the face of the difficulties.
- Focus on what you need to do to overcome the challenges.
- Accept that you may experience failure when faced with new challenges.
- Most importantly, never, ever give up!
Learn more about Prime Confidence.
Follow Dr. Jim Taylor on Twitter: www.twitter.com/DrJimTaylor
The concept of self-confidence is commonly used as self-assurance in one's personal judgment, ability, power, etc. One increases self-confidence from experiences of having mastered particular activities. It is a positive belief that in the future one can generally accomplish what one wishes to do. Self-confidence is not the same as self-esteem, which is an evaluation of one’s own worth, whereas self-confidence is more specifically trust in one’s ability to achieve some goal, which one meta-analysis suggested is similar to generalization of self-efficacy.Abraham Maslow and many others after him have emphasized the need to distinguish between self-confidence as a generalized personality characteristic, and self-confidence with respect to a specific task, ability or challenge (i.e. self-efficacy). Self-confidence typically refers to general self-confidence. This is different from self-efficacy, which psychologist Albert Bandura has defined as a “belief in one’s ability to succeed in specific situations or accomplish a task and therefore is the term that more accurately refers to specific self-confidence. Psychologists have long noted that a person can possess self-confidence that he or she can complete a specific task (self-efficacy) (e.g. cook a good meal or write a good novel) even though they may lack general self-confidence, or conversely be self-confident though they lack the self-efficacy to achieve a particular task (e.g. write a novel). These two types of self-confidence are, however, correlated with each other, and for this reason can be easily conflated.
Ideas about the causes and effects of self-confidence have appeared in English language publications describing characteristics of a sacrilegious attitude toward God, the character of the British empire, and the culture of colonial-era American society (where it seemed to connote arrogance and be a negative attribute.)
In 1890, the philosopher William James in his Principles of Psychology wrote, “Believe what is in the line of your needs, for only by such belief is the need fulled ... Have faith that you can successfully make it, and your feet are nerved to its accomplishment,” expressing how self-confidence could be a virtue. That same year, Dr. Frederick Needham in his presidential address to the opening of the British Medical Journal’s Section of Psychology praised a progressive new architecture of an asylum accommodation for insane patients as increasing their self-confidence by offering them greater “liberty of action, extended exercise, and occupation, thus generating self-confidence and becoming, not only excellent tests of the sanity of the patient, but operating powerfully in promoting recovery.” In doing so, he seemed to early on suggest that self-confidence may bear a scientific relation to mental health.
With the arrival of World War I, psychologists praised self-confidence as greatly decreasing nervous tension, allaying fear, and ridding the battlefield of terror; they argued that soldiers who cultivated a strong and healthy body would also acquire greater self-confidence while fighting. At the height of the Temperance social reform movement of the 1920s, psychologists associated self-confidence in men with remaining at home and taking care of the family when they were not working. During the Great Depression, Philip Eisenberg and Paul Lazerfeld noted how a sudden negative change in one’s circumstances, especially a loss of a job, could lead to decreased self-confidence, but more commonly if the jobless person believes the fault of his unemployment is his. They also noted how if individuals do not have a job long enough, they became apathetic and lost all self-confidence.
In 1943, Abraham Maslow in his paper “A Theory of Human Motivation” argued that an individual only was motivated to acquire self-confidence (one component of “esteem”) after he or she had achieved what they needed for physiological survival, safety, and love and belonging. He claimed that satisfaction of self-esteem led to feelings of self-confidence that, once attained, led to a desire for “self-actualization." As material standards of most people rapidly rose in developed countries after World War II and fulfilled their material needs, a plethora of widely cited academic research about-confidence and many related concepts like self-esteem and self-efficacy emerged.
Theories and correlations with other variables and factors
Self-confidence as an intra-psychological variable
Social psychologists have found self-confidence to be correlated with other psychological variables within individuals, including saving money, how individuals exercise influence over others, and being a responsible student. Marketing researchers have found that general self-confidence of a person is negatively correlated with their level of anxiety.
Some studies suggest various factors within and beyond an individual's control that affect their self-confidence. Hippies and Trivers propose that people will deceive themselves about their own positive qualities and negative qualities of others so that they can display greater self-confidence than they might otherwise feel, thereby enabling them to advance socially and materially. Others have found that new information about an individual’s performance interacts with an individual’s prior self-confidence about their ability to perform. If that particular information is negative feedback, this may interact with a negative affective state (low self-confidence) causing the individual to become demoralized, which in turn induces a self-defeating attitude that increases the likelihood of failure in the future more than if they did not lack self-confidence. On the other hand, some also find that self-confidence increases a person's general well-being and one's motivation and therefore often performance. It also increases one's ability to deal with stress and mental health.
A meta-analysis of 12 articles found that generally when individuals attribute their success to a stable cause (a matter under their control) they are less likely to be confident about being successful in the future. If an individual attributes their failure to an unstable cause (a factor beyond their control, like a sudden and unexpected storm) they are less likely to be confident about succeeding in the future. Therefore, if an individual believes he/she and/or others failed to achieve a goal (e.g. give up smoking) because of a factor that was beyond their control, he or she is more likely to be more self-confident that he or she can achieve the goal in the future. Whether a person in making a decision seeks out additional sources of information depends on their level of self-confidence specific to that area. As the complexity of a decision increases, a person is more likely to be influenced by another person and seek out additional information. However, people can also be relatively self-confident about what they believe if they consult sources of information that agree with their world views (e.g. New York Times for liberals, Fox News for conservatives), even if they do not know what will happen tomorrow. Several psychologists suggest that people who are self-confident are more willing to examine evidence that both supports and contradicts their attitudes. Meanwhile, people who are less self-confident about their perspective and are more defensive about them may prefer proattitudinal information over materials that challenge their perspectives. (see also Byrne, 1961; Olson & Zanna, 1982b; for related views in other domains, see Tesser, 2001).
Relationship to social influences
An individual’s self-confidence can vary in different environments, such as at home or in school, and with respect to different types of relationships and situations. In relation to general society, some have found that the more self-confident an individual is, the less likely they are to conform to the judgments of others.Leon Festinger found that self-confidence in an individual’s ability may only rise or fall where that individual is able to compare themselves to others who are roughly similar in a competitive environment. Furthermore, when individuals with low self-confidence receive feedback from others, they are averse to receiving information about their relative ability and negative informative feedback, and not averse to receiving positive feedback.
People with high self-confidence can easily impress others, as others perceive them as more knowledgeable and more likely to make correct judgments, despite the fact that often a negative correlation is sometimes found between the level of their self-confidence and accuracy of their claims. When people are uncertain and unknowledgeable about a topic, they are more likely to believe the testimony, and follow the advice of those that seem self-confident. However, expert psychological testimony on the factors that influence eyewitness memory appears to reduce juror reliance on self-confidence.
People are more likely to choose leaders with greater self-confidence than those with less self-confidence. Heterosexual men who exhibit greater self-confidence than other men are more likely to attract single and partnered women. Salespeople who are high in self-confidence are more likely to set higher goals for themselves and therefore more likely to stay employed. yield higher revenues and customer service satisfaction In relation to leadership, leaders with high self-confidence are more likely to influence others through persuasion rather than coercive means. Individuals low in power and thus in self-confidence are more likely to use coercive methods of influence and to become personally involved while those low in self-confidence are more likely to refer problem to someone else or resort to bureaucratic procedures to influence others (e.g. appeal to organizational policies or regulations). Others suggest that self-confidence does not affect style of leadership but is only correlated with years of supervisory experience and self-perceptions of power.
Variation between different categorical groups
Social scientists have found ways in which self-confidence seems to operate differently within various groups in society.
In children, self-confidence emerges differently than adults. For example, Fenton suggested that only children as a group are more self-confident than other children. Zimmerman claimed that if children are self-confident they can learn they are more likely to sacrifice immediate recreational time for possible rewards in the future. enhancing their self-regulative capability. By adolescence, youth that have little contact with friends tend to have low self-confidence. Successful performance of children in music also increases feelings of self-confidence, increasing motivation for study.
Many studies focus on students in school. In general, students who perform well have increased confidence which likely in turn encourages students to take greater responsibility to successfully complete tasks. Students who perform better receive more positive evaluations report and greater self-confidence. Low achieving students report less confidence and high performing students report higher self-confidence. Teachers can greatly affect the self-confidence of their students depending on how they treat them. In particular, Steele and Aronson established that black students perform more poorly on exams (relative to white students) if they must reveal their racial identities before the exam, a phenomenon known as “stereotype threat.” Keller and Dauenheimer find a similar phenomena in relation to female student’s performance (relative to male student's) on math tests  Sociologists of education Zhou and Lee have observed the reverse phenomena occurring amongst Asian-Americans, whose confidence becomes tied up in expectations that they will succeed by both parents and teachers and who claim others perceive them as excelling academically more than they in fact are.
In one study of UCLA students, males (compared to females) and adolescents with more siblings (compared to those with less) were more self-confident. Individuals who were self-confident specifically in the academic domain were more likely to be happy but higher general self-confidence was not correlated with happiness. With greater anxiety, shyness and depression, emotionally vulnerable students feel more lonely due to a lack of general self-confidence. Another study of first year college students found men to be much more self-confident than women in athletic and academic activities. In regards to inter-ethnic interaction and language learning, studies show that those who engage more with people of a different ethnicity and language become more self-confident in interacting with them.
Men versus women
In the aftermath of the first wave of feminism and women’s role in the labor force during the World War, Maslow argued that some women who possessed a more “dominant” personality were more self-confident and therefore would aspire to and achieve more intellectually than those that had a less “dominant” personality—even if they had the same level of intelligence as the “less dominant” women. However, Phillip Eisenberg later found the same dynamic among men.
Another common finding is that males who have low generalized self-confidence are more easily persuaded than males of high generalized self-confidence. Some have found that women who are either high or low in general self-confidence are more likely to be persuaded to change their opinion than women with medium self-confidence. However, when specific high confidence (self-efficacy) is high, generalized confidence plays less of a role in affecting their ability to carry out the task. Research finds that females report self-confidence levels in supervising subordinates proportionate to their experience level, while males report being able to supervise subordinates well regardless of experience. Women tend to respond less to negative feedback and be more averse to negative feedback than men. Barber and Odean find that male common stock investors trade 45% more than their female counterparts, which they attribute greater self-confidence (though also recklessness) of men, reducing men's net returns by 2.65 percentage points per year versus women's 1.72 percentage points. Niederle and Westerlund found that men are much more competitive and obtain higher compensation than women and that this difference is due to differences in self-confidence, while risk and feedback-aversion play a negligible role. Some scholars partly attribute the fact to women being less likely to persist in engineering college than men to women's diminished sense of self-confidence.
Evidence also has suggested that women who are more self-confident may received high performance evaluations but not be as well liked as men that engage in the same behavior. However confident women were considered a better job candidates than both men and women who behaved modestly This may be related to gender roles, as a study found that after women who viewed commercials with women in traditional gender roles, they appeared less self-confident in giving a speech than after viewing commercials with women taking on more masculine roles. Such self-confidence may also be related to body image, as one study found a sample of overweight people in Australia and the US are less self-confident about their body’s performance than people of average weight, and the difference is even greater for women than for men. Others have found that if a baby child is separated from their mother at birth the mother is less self-confident in their ability to raise that child than those mothers who are not separated from their children, even if the two mothers did not differ much in their care-taking skills. Furthermore, women who initially had low self-confidence are likely to experience a larger drop of self-confidence after separation from their children than women with relatively higher self-confidence.
Self-confidence in different cultures
Some have suggested that self-confidence is more adaptive in cultures where people are not very concerned about maintaining harmonious relationships. But in cultures that value positive feelings and self-confidence less, maintenance of smooth interpersonal relationships are more important, and therefore self-criticism and a concern to save face is more adaptive. For example, Suh et al. (1998) argue that East Asians are not as concerned as maintaining self-confidence as Americans and many even find Asians perform better when they lack confidence.
Many sports psychologists have noted the importance of self-confidence in winning athletic competitions. Amongst athletes, gymnasts who tend to talk to themselves in an instructional format tended to be more self-confident than gymnasts that did not. Researchers have found that self-confidence is also one of the most influential factors in how well an athlete performs in a competition. In particular, "robust self-confidence beliefs" are correlated with aspects of "mental toughness," or the ability to cope better than your opponents with many demands and remain determined, focused and in control under pressure. In particular, Bull et al. (2005) make the distinction between "robust confidence" which leads to tough thinking, and "resilient confidence" which involves over-coming self doubts and maintaining self-focus and generates "tough thinking." These traits enable athletes to "bounce back from adversity." When athletes confront stress while playing sports, their self-confidence decreases. However feedback from their team members in the form of emotional and informational support reduces the extent to which stresses in sports reduces their self-confidence. At high levels of support, performance related stress does not affect self-confidence.
One of the earliest measures of self-confidence used a 12-point scale centered on zero, ranging from a minimum score characterizing someone who is “timid and self-distrustful, Shy, never makes decisions, self effacing” to an upper extreme score representing someone who is “able to make decisions, absolutely confident and sure of his own decisions and opinions.”
Some have measured self-confidence as a simple construct divided into affective and cognitive components: anxiety as an affective aspect and self-evaluations of proficiency as a cognitive component.
The more context-based Personal Evaluation Inventory (PEI), developed by Shrauger (1995), measures specific self-esteem and self-confidence in different aspects (speaking in public spaces, academic performance, physical appearance, romantic relationships, social interactions, athletic ability, and general self-confidence score. Other surveys have also measured self-confidence in a similar way by evoking examples of more concrete activities (e.g. making new friends, keeping up with course demands, managing time wisely, etc.). The Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2 (CSAI-2) measures on a scale of 1 to 4 how confident athletes feel about winning an upcoming match. Likewise, the Trait Robustness of Sports-Confidence Inventory (TROSCI) requires respondents to provide numerical answers on a nine-point scale answering such questions about how much one's self-confidence goes up and down, and how sensitive one's self-confidence is to performance and negative feedback.
Others, skeptical about the reliability of such self-report indices, have measured self-confidence by having examiners assess non-verbal cues of subjects, measuring on a scale of 1 to 5 whether the individual
1) maintains frequent eye contact or almost completely avoids eye contact,
2) engages in little or no fidgeting, or, a lot of fidgeting,
3) seldom or frequently uses self-comforting gestures (e.g. stroking hair or chin, arms around self),
4) sits up straight facing the experimenter, or, sits hunched over or rigidly without facing the experimenter,
5) has a natural facial expression, or, grimaces,
6) does not twiddle hands, or, frequently twiddles something in their hand, or,
7) uses body and hand gestures to emphasize a point, or, never uses hand or body gestures to emphasize a point or makes inappropriate gestures.
Various systemic-level theories and concepts related to self-confidence
Various systemic theories exist that are related to self-confidence.
Wheel of Wellness
The Wheel of Wellness was the first theoretical model of Wellness based in counseling theory. It is a model based on Adler's individual psychology and cross-disciplinary research on characteristics of healthy people who live longer and with a higher quality of life. The Wheel of Wellness includes five life tasks that relate to each other: spirituality, self-direction, work and leisure, friendship, and love. There are 15 subtasks of self-direction areas: sense of worth, sense of control, realistic beliefs, emotional awareness and coping, problem solving and creativity, sense of humor, nutrition, exercise, self-care, stress management, gender identity, and cultural identity. There are also five second-order factors, the Creative Self, Coping Self, Social Self, Essential Self, and Physical Self, which allow exploration of the meaning of wellness within the total self. In order to achieve a high self-esteem, it is essential to focus on identifying strengths, positive assets, and resources related to each component of the Wellness model and using these strengths to cope with life challenges.
Implicit vs. explicit
Implicit can be defined as something that is implied or understood though not directly expressed. Explicit is defined as something that is fully and clearly expressed; leaving nothing implied. Implicitly measured self-esteem has been found to be weakly correlated with explicitly measured self-esteem. This leads some critics to assume that explicit and implicit self-confidence are two completely different types of self-esteem. Therefore, this has drawn the conclusion that one will either have a distinct, unconscious self-esteem OR they will consciously misrepresent how they feel about themselves. Recent studies have shown that implicit self-esteem doesn't particularly tap into the unconscious, rather that people consciously overreport their levels of self-esteem. Another possibility is that implicit measurement may be assessing a different aspect of conscious self-esteem altogether. Inaccurate self-evaluation is commonly observed in healthy populations. In the extreme, large differences between oneʼs self-perception and oneʼs actual behavior is a hallmark of a number of disorders that have important implications for understanding treatment seeking and compliance.
- ^Snyder, C. R.; Lopez, Shane J. (2009-01-01). Oxford Handbook of Positive Psychology. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780195187243.
- ^ abZellner, M. (1970). "Journal of Personality and Social Psychology". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 15 (1): 87–93. doi:10.1037/h0029201.
- ^Judge, Timothy A.; Erez, Amir; Bono, Joyce E.; Thoresen, Carl J. (2002-09-01). "Are measures of self-esteem, neuroticism, locus of control, and generalized self-efficacy indicators of a common core construct?". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 83 (3): 693–710. doi:10.1037/0022-35220.127.116.113. ISSN 1939-1315.
- ^Luszczynska, A. and Schwarzer, R. (2005). Social cognitive theory. In M. Conner & P. Norman (Eds.), Predicting health behaviour (2nd ed. rev., pp. 127-169). Buckingham, England: Open University Press.
- ^Bauer, Raymond (1964-05-01). "The obstinate audience: The influence process from the point of view of social communication". American Psychologist. 19 (5): 319–328. doi:10.1037/h0042851. ISSN 1935-990X.
- ^Edwards, J., & Wesley, J. (1742). Some Thoughts Concerning the present Revival of Religion in New-England. S. Kneeland and T. Green.
- ^Freiburg, R (1742). This Vicissitude of Motion and Rest, Which We Call Life,. The Spectator.
- ^Tocqueville, Alexis de (1899-01-01). Democracy in America: Volume II. Washington Square Press.
- ^Needham, Frederick (1890-08-09). "An Address Delivered at the Opening of the Section of Psychology". British Medical Journal. 2 (1545): 325–330. doi:10.1136/bmj.2.1545.325. ISSN 0007-1447. PMC 2207994. PMID 20753102.
- ^Bird, Charles (1917-01-01). "From Home to the Charge: A Psychological Study of the Soldier". The American Journal of Psychology. 28 (3): 315–348. doi:10.2307/1413607. JSTOR 1413607.
- ^Wheeler, Mary P. (1918-01-01). "Alcohol and Social Case Work". The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 77: 154–159. doi:10.1177/000271621807700116. JSTOR 1014456.
- ^Eisenberg, P.; Lazarsfeld, P. F. (1938-06-01). "The psychological effects of unemployment". Psychological Bulletin. 35 (6): 358–390. doi:10.1037/h0063426. ISSN 1939-1455.
- ^Maslow, A. H. (1943-07-01). "A theory of human motivation". Psychological Review. 50 (4): 370–396. doi:10.1037/h0054346. ISSN 1939-1471.
- ^Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (1995-01-01). "Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes". Psychological Review. 102 (1): 4. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.102.1.4. ISSN 1939-1471.
- ^Bénabou, Roland; Tirole, Jean (2005-01-01). Agarwal, Bina; Vercelli, Alessandro, eds. Psychology, Rationality and Economic Behaviour. International Economic Association Series. Palgrave Macmillan UK. pp. 19–57. doi:10.1057/9780230522343_2. ISBN 9781349521449.
- ^Bandura, Albert (1997-02-15). Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. Macmillan. ISBN 9780716728504.
- ^Baumeister, Roy F.; Campbell, Jennifer D.; Krueger, Joachim I.; Vohs, Kathleen D. (2003-05-01). "Does High Self-Esteem Cause Better Performance, Interpersonal Success, Happiness, or Healthier Lifestyles?". Psychological Science in the Public Interest. 4 (1): 1–44. doi:10.1111/1529-1006.01431. ISSN 1529-1006. PMID 26151640.
- ^Thorndike, Edward L. (1920-01-01). "Psychological Notes on the Motives for Thrift". The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 87: 212–218. doi:10.1177/000271622008700133. JSTOR 1014401.
- ^ abMowday, Richard T. (1979-12-01). "Leader Characteristics, Self-Confidence, and Methods of Upward Influence in Organizational Decision Situations". Academy of Management Journal. 22 (4): 709–725. doi:10.2307/255810. ISSN 0001-4273.
- ^Gough, Harrison G.; McClosky, Herbert; Meehl, Paul E. (1952-01-01). "A personality scale for social responsibility". The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 47 (1): 73–80. doi:10.1037/h0062924. ISSN 0096-851X.
- ^Locander, William B.; Hermann, Peter W. (1979-01-01). "The Effect of Self-Confidence and Anxiety on Information Seeking in Consumer Risk Reduction". Journal of Marketing Research. 16 (2): 268–274. doi:10.2307/3150690. JSTOR 3150690.
- ^Hippel, William von; Trivers, Robert (2011-02-01). "The evolution and psychology of self-deception". Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 34 (1): 1–16. doi:10.1017/S0140525X10001354. ISSN 1469-1825.
- ^Cervone, Daniel; Kopp, Deborah A.; Schaumann, Linda; Scott, Walter D. (1994-09-01). "Mood, self-efficacy, and performance standards: Lower moods induce higher standards for performance". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 67 (3): 499–512. doi:10.1037/0022-3518.104.22.1689. ISSN 1939-1315.
- ^Wright, J. C, & Mischel, W. (1982). "The influence of affect on cognitive social learning person variables". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 43: 901–914. doi:10.1037/0022-3522.214.171.1241.
- ^Akerlof, G. A., & Dickens, W. T. (1972). "The Economic Consequences of Cognitive Dissonance". American Economic Review. 72 (3): 307–319.
- ^Caplin, A., & Leahy, J. (2001). "Psychological expected utility theory and anticipatory feelings". Quarterly Journal of Economics. 116: 55–79. doi:10.1162/003355301556347. JSTOR 2696443.
- ^Bénabou, R., & Tirole, J. (2005). "Self-confidence and personal motivation". Psychology, Rationality and Economic Behaviour: 19–57.
- ^Compte, O., & Postlewaite, A., Confidence-enhanced performance. (2004). "Confidence-enhanced performance". The American Economic Review. 94 (5): 1536–1557. doi:10.1257/0002828043052204.
- ^Hobfoll, Stevan E. (1988-01-01). The Ecology of Stress. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 9780891168454.
- ^Argyle, Michael (2013-04-15). The Social Psychology of Everyday Life. Routledge. ISBN 9781134961733.
- ^Weiner, Bernard (1985). "An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion". Psychological Review. 92 (4): 548–573. doi:10.1037/0033-295x.92.4.548.
- ^Eiser, J. Richard; Sutton, Stephen R. (1977-01-01). "Smoking as a subjectively rational choice". Addictive Behaviors. 2 (2-3): 129–134. doi:10.1016/0306-4603(77)90030-2.
- ^Frey, Dieter (1986-01-01). Berkowitz, Leonard, ed. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. 19. Academic Press. pp. 41–80. doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60212-9.
- ^Albarracín, D., & Mitchell, A. L. (2004). "The role of defensive confidence in preference for proattitudinal information: How believing that one is strong can sometimes be a defensive weakness". Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 30 (12): 1565–1584. doi:10.1177/0146167204271180. PMC 4803283. PMID 15536240.
- ^Byrne, Donn (1961-09-01). "The repression-sensitization scale: rationale, reliability, and validity1". Journal of Personality. 29 (3): 334–349. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1961.tb01666.x. ISSN 1467-6494.
- ^Albarracín, Dolores; Mitchell, Amy L. (2004-12-01). "The Role of Defensive Confidence in Preference for Proattitudinal Information: How Believing That One Is Strong Can Sometimes Be a Defensive Weakness". Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 30 (12): 1565–1584. doi:10.1177/0146167204271180. ISSN 0146-1672. PMC 4803283. PMID 15536240.