Parental socialization influences on children’s physical activity and perceived competence:

Two yearlong studies

Bois J.1, Sarrazin P.1, Brustad B.2 & Trouilloud D.1

1. University of Grenoble, France

2. University of Northern Colorado, USA

Introduction

•Physical activity as a way to enhance health, physical and psychological well-being

•Parents are always presented as critical source of social influence

•But only few studies have investigated empirically their influence

Study 1 : Purposes

•To compare existence and extent of fathers’ and mothers’ influences

•To test the occurrence of two processes of influence:– parents’ expectancy effects (Jussim, Eccles & Madon, 1996)

– parental role modeling (Bandura, 1986)

•To investigate the role of child’s perceived physical competence as a predictor of child’s physical activity

Study 1

Child’s physical activity

Child’s perceptions of physical competence

Mother’s perceptions of child’s ability

Father’s perceptions of child’s ability

Mother’s physical activity

Father’s physical activity

According to Eccles et al. (1983, 2000)Study 1

Sample152 children from 9 to 11 years (M= 9.5, SD= 0.8)

Measures

Child

•Perceived physical competence (Harter, 1985) : 4 items ( = 0.78)

•Physical activity : child’s report (interview) and parents’ report (questionnaire)

Parents

•Perceptions of their children’s physical ability (Jacobs & Eccles, 1992) : 4 items ( = 0.82)

•Parents’ physical activity (questionnaire)

Method Study 1

Wave 2 (June 2001)

Child’s physical activity

Child’s perceptions of physical competence

Child’s initial perceptions of physical

competence

Wave 1 (June 2000)

Mother’s perceptions of children ability

Father’s perceptions of children ability

Mother’s physical activity

Father’s physical activity

Child’s age

Child’s sex

Study 1

Wave 2 (June 2001)

Child’s physical activityR² = .45

Child’s perceptions of physical competence

R² = .34

Child’s initial perceptions of physical

competence

Wave 1 (June 2000)

Mother’s perceptions of children ability

Father’s perceptions of children ability

Mother’s physical activity

Father’s physical activity

Child’s age

Child’s sex1- boys 2- girls

²(37, N=149) = 67.67, p=.002, GFI = .93, NNFI = .91, CFI = .95, SRMR = .06

.48***

.30**

.10

.37**-.25**

-.02-.31**

.41**

.04

.09

Study 1

Discussion

•Importance of perceived competence as a determinant of physical activity

•Mothers’ expectancy effect and role modeling verified

•No influence of fathers

Study 1

Study 2

•To investigate more closely mothers’ expectancy effects

-Control variables

-Longitudinal design

•To test whether mothers’ influence vary as a function of child’s gender

Study 2Bois et al., 2002.

Child’s perceived competence

Mother’s perceptions of children ability

Child’s physical performance

Child’s initial perceived

competence

Mothers’ expectancy effects (Jussim, 1991)Study 2

Child’s perceived competence

R² = .33

Mother’s perceptions of child’s ability

R² = .35

Child’s physical performance

Child’s initial perceived competence

Results Study 2

Wave 1(Sept. 1999) Wave 2 (Sept. 2000)

.01

.42***

.47***

.29**

²(29, N=156) = 39.62, p=.09, GFI = .95, NNFI = .95, CFI = .97, SRMR = .05

.26*.65***/.05

156 children (M=10.4, SD= 0.9)Same measurement methods as study 1

Conclusion

• Mothers’ influence can take two forms :– Expectancy effect (only for girls)

– Role modeling

• Mothers’ influence on child’s perceived competence is stronger than is child’s own past performance