THE INSTRUCTIONAL USE OF VIDEOTAPE: MAKING 'A GOOD THING' BETTER; THE EFFECTS OF SELF-MONITORING PROGRAMS AND VIDEOTAPE FEEDBACK ON PERFORMANCE, SUCCESS AND FAILURE ATTRIBUTIONS, AND MOTIVATION
Abstract (summary)
The effects of videotape were explored in context of the self-awareness model (Carver, 1979), modified to include the role of attributions. Some potentially negative effects of videotaping, and particularly of self-feedback, on success and failure attributions, attitudes and performance of the relatively inexperienced performer were discussed. Subsequently, the techniques of positive self-monitoring (Kanfer, 1975; and Kirschenbaum & Karoly, 1977) and positive self-statements (Meichenbaum, 1975, and Kirschenbaum & Bale, 1980) were examined as methods to circumvent problems associated with videotaping, while maintaining the valuable information that self-viewing affords.
An experiment was conducted with relatively inexperienced golfers (N = 109) over 3 sessions of 2 videotape exposures (subsessions) each. The critical between-subject design (excluding population) was 3 (positive self-monitoring with positive self-statements, neutral self-monitoring with no self-statements, no self-monitoring with no self-statements) x 2 (videotaping with or without self-feedback). Pre-post questionnaires were used to evaluate attitude and attribution changes. Videotaped performance for each subsession was rated and evaluated in a repeated measures analysis. Therefore, the end result was 3 x 2 (self-monitoring x feedback) between-subject and 3 x 2 (session x subsession) within-subject design.
The first hypothesis was that performance and attitudes toward golf at the end of the program would be better among the positive self-monitors with positive self-statements than for neutral or no self-monitors. This was supported for the positive versus no self-monitors both within (performance only) and across sessions (performance and attitudes). Although the performance of the neutral self-monitors tended to improve within sessions, there was no significant improvement of their performance across the three sessions. The change in neutrals' attitude results at the end of the program was inferior to that of the positive self-monitors.
In addition, the first hypothesis predicted that all groups would show a self-serving bias effect in their success/failure attributions, particularly among the positive self-monitors. As predicted, there was evidence for the self-serving bias for the population as a whole. However, this bias was no stronger among the positive self-monitors than it was among the other self-monitoring conditions. Interestingly, the assumed change toward greater internality of attributions among self-feedback subjects, based on a previous study (Storms, 1973), was reversed. Self-feedback subjects demonstrated stronger movement toward external attributions than no feedback subjects. Notably, the self-feedback subjects tended to make self-defensive external attributions for failure not observed among the no feedback subjects.
The second hypothesis predicted that the effects of hypothesis one between positive and no self-monitors would be heightened by self-feedback. The combined results of two performance measures (quality and consistency scores) supported this hypothesis. This interaction was not observed for attitudes however. As the predicted interaction effect of session x self-monitoring was not observed for attribution, the further interaction of session x self-monitoring x feedback was neither expected nor observed.
The implications of these results for the proposed model of self-awareness, the utility of self-monitoring and self-statements, and the instructional use of videotape in sports psychology and other contexts are discussed. Further, new directions for research in these areas are suggested.