Sport Psychology Studies

Sport Psychology Studies

The Effect of Enhanced Expectancy on Motor Learning, Intrinsic Motivation, and Self-Efficacy: A Comparison of Relatively Easy and Difficult Success Criteria

Document Type : Original research

Authors
Mahdieh Behbahanabadi 1
Esmaeel Saemi 2
Mohammadreza Doustan 1
Takehiro Iwatsuki 3
1 Department of Motor Behavior and Sport Psychology, Faculty of Sport Sciences, Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz, Ahvaz
2 Department of Motor Behavior and Sport Psychology, Faculty of Sport Sciences, Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz, Ahvaz, Iran.
3 Department of Kinesiology and Exercise Sciences, University of Hawai’i at Hilo, Hawai’i, USA.
10.22089/spsyj.2025.18464.2602
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to explore the effects of enhanced expectancy by manipulating success criteria (easy vs. difficult) in a soccer kicking task on motor learning, intrinsic motivation, and self-efficacy.

Method: Participants included 60 female novice adults (mean age = 21.22, SD = 1.54 years) who, after 12 pre-test trials, were assigned to one of three experimental groups: 1) Relatively easy criteria for success, 2) Relatively difficult criteria for success, and 3) Control. Each group practiced soccer kicking skills in five blocks of 12 trials on the first day. A retention test consisting of 12 trials was conducted on the second day. Additionally, all participants completed the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory as well as the Self-Efficacy Scale.

Results: Results indicated that during both practice and the retention test, training with relatively easy criteria for success led to improved motor learning and performance compared to training with relatively difficult criteria and the control conditions. However, no significant differences were observed in intrinsic motivation and self-efficacy across the groups.

Conclusion: In conclusion, the observed improvement in motor learning, alongside the absence of enhancement in intrinsic motivation and self-efficacy, challenges the predictions made by the OPTIMAL theory and highlights the need for future studies with more rigorous methodologies and larger sample sizes across diverse populations.
Keywords
Enhanced expectancy
relatively easy criteria
relatively difficult criteria
motor learning
OPTIMAL theory
Subjects
1.       Bacelar, M. F., Parma, J. O., Murrah, W. M., & Miller, M. W. (2024). Meta-analyzing enhanced expectancies on motor learning: Positive effects but methodological concerns. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 17(1), 587-616. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750984X.2022.2042839
2.       Badami, R., VaezMousavi, M., Wulf, G., & Namazizadeh, M. (2011). Feedback after good versus poor trials affects intrinsic motivation. Research quarterly for exercise and sport, 82(2), 360-364. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2011.10599765
3.       Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents, 5(1), 307-337.
4.       Boroumandi, R., Aghdaei, M., Farsi, A., & Khalaji, M. (2025). The effect of different attentional strategies on physiological and cognitive responses in sprinting. Sport Psychology Studies, https://doi.org/ 10.22089/spsyj.2025.18094.2575[In Persian].
5.       Carter, M. J., Smith, V., & Ste-Marie, D. M. (2016). Judgments of learning are significantly higher following feedback on relatively good versus relatively poor trials despite no actual learning differences. Human movement science, 45, 63-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humov.2015.11.006
6.       Chiviacowsky, S., & Harter, N. M. (2015). Perceptions of competence and motor learning: performance criterion resulting in low success experience degrades learning. Brazilian Journal of Motor Behavior, 9(1), 30-40. https://doi.org/10.20338/bjmb.v9i1.82
7.       Fischman, M. G. (2015). On the continuing problem of inappropriate learning measures: Comment on Wulf et al.(2014) and Wulf et al.(2015). Human Movement Science, 42, 225-231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humov.2015.05.011
8.       Ghorbani, S., & Bund, A. (2020). Motivational effects of enhanced expectancies for motor learning in individuals with high and low self-efficacy. Perceptual and motor skills, 127(1), 263-274. https://doi.org/10.1177/0031512519892390
9.       Goudini, R., Saemi, E., Ashrafpoornavaee, S., & Abdoli, B. (2018). The effect of feedback after good and poor trials on the continuous motor tasks learning. Acta gymnica, 48(1), 3-8. https://doi.org/10.5507/ag.2018.001
10.   Guadagnoli, M. A., & Lee, T. D. (2004). Challenge point: a framework for conceptualizing the effects of various practice conditions in motor learning. Journal of motor behavior, 36(2), 212-224. https://doi.org/10.3200/JMBR.36.2.212-224
11.   Iwatsuki, T., & Regis, C. J. (2021). Relatively easy criteria for success enhances motor learning by altering perceived competence. Perceptual and motor skills, 128(2), 900-911. https://doi.org/10.1177/0031512520981237
12.   McAuley, E., Duncan, T., & Tammen, V. V. (1989). Psychometric properties of the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory in a competitive sport setting: A confirmatory factor analysis. Research quarterly for exercise and sport, 60(1), 48-58. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.1989.10607413
13.   McKay, B., Bacelar, M. F., Parma, J. O., Miller, M. W., & Carter, M. J. (2025). The combination of reporting bias and underpowered study designs has substantially exaggerated the motor learning benefits of self-controlled practice and enhanced expectancies: A meta-analysis. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 18(1), 242-262. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750984X.2023.2207255
14.   McKay, B., Corson, A. E., Seedu, J., De Faveri, C. S., Hasan, H., Arnold, K., ... & Carter, M. J. (2024). Reporting bias, not external focus: A robust Bayesian meta-analysis and systematic review of the external focus of attention literature. Psychological Bulletin, 150(11), 1347. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000451
15.   Moazam, S., Eskandarnejad, M., & Heilmann, F. (2025). The Role of Attention in Predicting the Functional Perception of Experienced Indoor Rock Climbers. Sport Psychology Studies. In Persian https://doi.org/10.22089/spsyj.2025.15232.2422
16.   Mousavi, S. M., & Iwatsuki, T. (2021). Easy task and choice: Motivational interventions facilitate motor skill learning in children. Journal of Motor Learning and Development, 10(1), 61-75. https://doi.org/10.1123/jmld.2021-0023
17.   Mousavi, S. M., Dehghanizade, J., & Iwatsuki, T. (2022). Neither too easy nor too difficult: Effects of different success criteria on motor skill acquisition in children. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 44(6), 420-426. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.2022-0082
18.   Ong, N. T., Lohse, K. R., & Hodges, N. J. (2015). Manipulating target size influences perceptions of success when learning a dart-throwing skill but does not impact retention. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1378. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01378
19.   Palmer, K., Chiviacowsky, S., & Wulf, G. (2016). Enhanced expectancies facilitate golf putting. Psychology of sport and exercise, 22, 229-232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2015.08.009
20.   Parma, J. O., Bacelar, M. F., Cabral, D. A., Lohse, K. R., Hodges, N. J., & Miller, M. W. (2023). That looks easy! Evidence against the benefits of an easier criterion of success for enhancing motor learning. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 66, 102394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2023.102394
21.   Parma, J. O., Miller, M. W., & Bacelar, M. F. (2024). OPTIMAL theory’s claims about motivation lack evidence in the motor learning literature. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 74, 102690. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2024.102690
22.   Patterson, J. T., & Azizieh, J. (2012). Knowing the good from the bad: Does being aware of KR content matter?. Human movement science, 31(6), 1449-1458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humov.2012.04.004
23.   Pithon, M. M. (2013). Importance of the control group in scientific research. Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics, 18, 13-14. https://doi.org/10.1590/S2176-94512013000600003
24.   Ramezanzade, H., Saemi, E., Broadbent, D. P., & Porter, J. M. (2022). An examination of the contextual interference effect and the errorless learning model during motor learning. Journal of Motor Behavior, 54(6), 719-735. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222895.2022.2072265
25.   Saemi, E., Gray, L., Jalilinasab, S., Moteshareie, E., & Deshayes, M. (2025). Cognitive dual-task does not annihilate the negative effects of gender stereotype threat on girls' motor learning. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 76, 102771. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2024.102771
26.   Shahbaz, R., Saemi, E., Doustan, M., Hogg, J. A., & Diekfuss, J. A. (2024). The effect of a visual illusion and self-controlled practice on motor learning in children at risk for developmental coordination disorder. Scientific Reports, 14(1), 12414. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-63387-z
27.   Simpson, T., Cronin, L., Ellison, P., Carnegie, E., & Marchant, D. (2020). A test of optimal theory on young adolescents' standing long jump performance and motivation. Human movement science, 72, 102651. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humov.2020.102651
28.   Trempe, M., Sabourin, M., & Proteau, L. (2012). Success modulates consolidation of a visuomotor adaptation task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38(1), 52. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/a0024883
29.   Wise, R. A. (2004). Dopamine, learning and motivation. Nature reviews neuroscience, 5(6), 483-494. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn1406
30.   Wulf, G. (2013). Attentional focus and motor learning: a review of 15 years. International Review of sport and Exercise psychology, 6(1), 77-104. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750984X.2012.723728
31.   Wulf, G., & Lewthwaite, R. (2016). Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning. Psychonomic bulletin & review, 23(5), 1382-1414. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-015-0999-9
32.   Wulf, G., Freitas, H. E., & Tandy, R. D. (2014). Choosing to exercise more: Small choices increase exercise engagement. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 15(3), 268-271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2014.01.007
33.   Wulf, G., Lewthwaite, R., Cardozo, P., & Chiviacowsky, S. (2018). Triple play: Additive contributions of enhanced expectancies, autonomy support, and external attentional focus to motor learning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71(4), 824-831. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2016.1276204
34.   Wulf, G., Shea, C., & Lewthwaite, R. (2010). Motor skill learning and performance: a review of influential factors. Medical education, 44(1), 75-84. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03421.x
35.   Ziv, G., & Lidor, R. (2021). Different task success criteria affect expectancies of success but do not improve golf putting performance. Psychology of sport and exercise, 54, 101887. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2021.101887
36.   Ziv, G., Lidor, R., & Lavie, M. (2021). Enhanced expectancies in golf putting–a replication study with increased ecological validity. International Journal of sport and exercise psychology, 19(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1080/1612197X.2019.1637362
37.   Ziv, G., Ochayon, M., & Lidor, R. (2019). Enhanced or diminished expectancies in golf putting–Which actually affects performance?. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 40, 82-86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2018.10.003
Sport Psychology Studies
Volume 14, Issue 53
Summer 2025
Pages 1-24

  • Receive Date 02 September 2025
  • Revise Date 18 September 2025
  • Accept Date 21 September 2025