The Effects of Deception on Maximal Strength, Goals, and Physical Self-Efficacy

Timothy Piper, Steven J. Radlo, Kylie Gerhardt, Darice Brooks, Jessica A. Schnaiter
{"title":"The Effects of Deception on Maximal Strength, Goals, and Physical Self-Efficacy","authors":"Timothy Piper, Steven J. Radlo, Kylie Gerhardt, Darice Brooks, Jessica A. Schnaiter","doi":"10.47206/ijsc.v3i1.124","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Deceptive feedback involves offering altered performance results to athletes with the intention of eliciting greater physical output. The use of feedback and feedforward mechanisms used to predict a performance endpoint is referred to as teleoanticipation.   The interpretation of physciological and psychological effects of stimuli upon is the basis for current and future performances.  The purpose of the present study was to investigate the effects of false positive feedback, of varying percentages, on maximal strength, physical self-efficacy, and strength goals through the lens of teleoanticipation.  Recreational lifters (n=17) were tested for one repetition maximum (1RM) leg press scores, future goal weights (G), and physical self-efficacy (SE), over the course of two orientation sessions and five separate test sessions.  A baseline of 1RM strength was established during the first test control session (TC).  Deceptive feedback was given on the subsequent three sessions and consisted of loads that were 5% (T+5), 10% (T+10) or 15% (T+15) above the loads reported to participants during each session. The full extent of deception was revealed on the final session of testing (TF).  There were significant differences between the trials for 1RM measures; TC was significantly different from the T+5, T+10, and TF.  Results for G revealed significance for all trials compared to TC but no differences were found in self-esteem. This data suggests that deception may enhance 1 RM measures, negatively impact goal setting, but not affect physical self-efficacy.","PeriodicalId":170948,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Strength and Conditioning","volume":"11 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Strength and Conditioning","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.47206/ijsc.v3i1.124","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Deceptive feedback involves offering altered performance results to athletes with the intention of eliciting greater physical output. The use of feedback and feedforward mechanisms used to predict a performance endpoint is referred to as teleoanticipation.   The interpretation of physciological and psychological effects of stimuli upon is the basis for current and future performances.  The purpose of the present study was to investigate the effects of false positive feedback, of varying percentages, on maximal strength, physical self-efficacy, and strength goals through the lens of teleoanticipation.  Recreational lifters (n=17) were tested for one repetition maximum (1RM) leg press scores, future goal weights (G), and physical self-efficacy (SE), over the course of two orientation sessions and five separate test sessions.  A baseline of 1RM strength was established during the first test control session (TC).  Deceptive feedback was given on the subsequent three sessions and consisted of loads that were 5% (T+5), 10% (T+10) or 15% (T+15) above the loads reported to participants during each session. The full extent of deception was revealed on the final session of testing (TF).  There were significant differences between the trials for 1RM measures; TC was significantly different from the T+5, T+10, and TF.  Results for G revealed significance for all trials compared to TC but no differences were found in self-esteem. This data suggests that deception may enhance 1 RM measures, negatively impact goal setting, but not affect physical self-efficacy.
欺骗对最大力量、目标和身体自我效能的影响
欺骗性反馈包括向运动员提供改变后的表现结果,目的是激发更大的体力输出。使用反馈和前馈机制来预测性能端点被称为远程预测。对刺激的生理和心理影响的解释是当前和未来表现的基础。摘要本研究旨在探讨不同比例的假正反馈在远距期待视角下对最大力量、身体自我效能和力量目标的影响。在两次定向训练和五次单独测试中,对17名休闲举重运动员进行了一次最大重复(1RM)腿压得分、未来目标重量(G)和身体自我效能感(SE)的测试。在第一次测试控制会议(TC)中建立了1RM强度的基线。在随后的三个阶段给出欺骗性反馈,包括比每个阶段报告给参与者的负荷高出5% (T+5)、10% (T+10)或15% (T+15)的负荷。欺骗的全部程度在测试的最后阶段(TF)被揭示出来。1RM测量的试验之间存在显著差异;TC与T+5、T+10、TF有显著性差异。与TC相比,G的结果在所有试验中都显示出显著性,但在自尊方面没有发现差异。这些数据表明,欺骗可以增强1 RM测量,负向影响目标设定,但不影响身体自我效能感。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信