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 activityChild’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

Sample 152 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 activity R² =.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 sex 1- boys 2- girls  ²(37, N=149) = 67.67, p=.002, GFI =.93, NNFI =.91, CFI =.95, SRMR =.06.48***.30**.10.37** -.25** **.41** 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***/ 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