1. 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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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** -.02 -.31**.41**.04.09 Study 1

8. Discussion Importance of perceived competence as a determinant of physical activity Mothers’ expectancy effect and role modeling verified No influence of fathers Study 1

9. 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.

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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