Bois J. 1 , Sarrazin P. 1 , Brustad B. 2 & Trouilloud D. 1 University of Grenoble, France

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 • University of Grenoble, France • 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 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

4. According to Eccles et al. (1983, 2000) 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 Father’s physical activity Mother’s physical activity

5. Method 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)

6. Study 1 Wave 1 (June 2000) Wave 2 (June 2001) Child’s physical activity Child’s perceptions of physical competence Mother’s perceptions of children ability Father’s perceptions of children ability Child’s initial perceptions of physical competence Father’s physical activity Mother’s physical activity Child’s age Child’s sex

7. Study 1 Wave 1 (June 2000) Wave 2 (June 2001) .41** .48*** .04 .09 Child’s physical activity R² = .45 Mother’s perceptions of children ability Father’s perceptions of children ability Child’s perceptions of physical competence R² = .34 Child’s initial perceptions of physical competence -.25** .37** -.31** -.02 Father’s physical activity .10 .30** Mother’s physical activity ²(37, N=149) = 67.67, p=.002, GFI = .93, NNFI = .91, CFI = .95, SRMR = .06 Child’s age Child’s sex 1- boys 2- girls

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

9. Bois et al., 2002. Study 2 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

10. Study 2 Child’s physical performance Mother’s perceptions of children ability Child’s initial perceived competence Child’s perceived competence Mothers’ expectancy effects (Jussim, 1991)

11. Results Study 2 Child’s physical performance .65***/.05 .01 .47*** Mother’s perceptions of child’s ability R² = .35 .26* .29** .42*** Child’s initial perceived competence Child’s perceived competence R² = .33 Wave 1(Sept. 1999) Wave 2 (Sept. 2000) 156 children (M=10.4, SD= 0.9) Same measurement methods as study 1 ²(29, N=156) = 39.62, p=.09, GFI = .95, NNFI = .95, CFI = .97, SRMR = .05

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