Self-confidence is a common research topic, and most applied textbooks include interventions designed to enhance athlete confidence. Our purpose was to quantify the self-confidence and sport performance literature using meta-analytic techniques. We also examined potential risk of bias indicators, and the moderation effects of study quality, sport characteristics, timing of confidence measurement, and individual differences among participants. Following a review of two past meta-analyses, a systematic search of APA PsycArticles, ERIC, Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection, PsychINFO, and SPORTDiscus within the EBSCOhost platform, and some hand searching, 41 articles published between 1986 and 2020 met the inclusion criteria. Collectively, the included studies investigated 3711 athletes from 15 countries across 24 sports. The overall random effects estimate of the relationship (expressed as r) between self-confidence and performance was 0.25 (95% CI 0.19, 0.30), with little evidence of publication bias. The summed total risk of the individual study bias score did not moderate the confidence–performance relationship, whereas significant moderator effects emerged for individual sports (0.29) compared with team sports (0.14), objective (0.29) compared to subjective (0.14) performance measures, and 100% male (0.35) compared to 100% female (0.07) samples. In conclusion, the confidence–performance relationship is small in magnitude, nearly free of bias, and moderated by sport type, performance objectivity, and athlete sex.

The relationship between self-efficacy and performance exclusively within the sports environment is yet to be quantified. Hence, we meta-analysed this relationship by following the PRISMA guidelines. Two previous meta-analyses, five relevant databases, and Google Scholar were searched. Forty-four articles published between 1983 and 2021 met the inclusion criteria, with 55 independent samples. Comprehensive meta-analysis software version 4 was used for all meta-analytic calculations using a random-effects model to calculate the mean effect size, and a mixed-effects model was used for moderation analyses. The mean pre-event self-efficacy and performance effect size was r = 0.31 (95% CI 0.22, 0.40). For moderation analyses, notable mean differences (p values ≥ 0.08) resulted for concordance [concordant (r = 0.37), nonconcordant (r = 0.22)], sports skill [closed (r = 0.37), open (r = 0.23)], and athlete level [elite (r = 0.40), sub-elite (r = 0.28)]. The true effect prediction interval ranged from negative (i.e., self-efficacy impairing performance) to positive (self-efficacy improving performance) for all moderator variables except self-referenced vs. other-referenced performance. In conclusion, the relationship between pre-event self-efficacy and performance is positive and moderate in magnitude, although with prediction intervals ranging from debilitating to facilitating performance. Researchers and practitioners should note that high athlete-rated self-efficacy might not always improve impending competitive sports performance.

Sport psychology embraced the study of athletic identity in the 1990s. The Athletic Identity Measurement Scale (AIMS) is at the forefront of athletic identity measurement. This quantitative review examined two hypotheses: individual who are most engaged in sports identify most as athletes and thus score higher on the AIMS, and athletic identity relates to positive (e.g., intrinsic motivation) and negative (negative emotions) factors. In addition to our two hypotheses, we explored whether the AIMS subscales influenced our two hypotheses. After completing a systematic search of SPORTDiscus, APA PsycINFO, ERIC, and Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection APA within the EBSCOhost platform along with some hand searching, 101 articles published between 1993 and our end date of August 2021 met the inclusion criteria. The included studies investigated 20,498 athletes competing in a variety of sports from the following continents: Australia, Asia, Europe, and North America. We based all analyses on random- and mixed-effects statistics. Higher-achieving athletes, as expected, self-reported a higher degree of athletic identity. The differences between athlete groups were significant (p < 0.001) and meaningful (g values ranged from 1.55 to 1.93). The AIMS total score correlations with positive and negative factors (correlates) were small in magnitude (r = 0.22 and 0.17). However, the relationships differed across correlate subcategories (e.g., intrinsic motivation/commitment, r = 0.51, and body issues, r = 0.14). Minimal AIMS subscale reporting occurred across the 101 studies; thus, we could not assess their importance with certainty. In conclusion, a higher degree of athletic identity related to valued sport correlates such as intrinsic motivation/commitment and the mastery goal orientation. These correlations were small in relation to negative or less desirable factors in sport such as body disorder issues and negative emotions. We recommend future research of greater complexity and the reporting of athletes’ competitive backgrounds to understand athletic identity. In addition, researchers should report AIMS subscale data.

Mood can be considered as a diffuse and global emotional state, with both valence and arousal characteristics, that is not directed towards a specific object. Investigation of moods in specific language and cultural contexts relies on the availability of appropriately validated measures. The current study involved the translation and validation of the Brunel Mood Scale (BRUMS) from English into Lithuanian. The 24-item, 6-factor scale, referred to as the BRUMS-LTU, was administered to 746 participants who were fluent in Lithuanian (n_men = 199 (26.7%), n_women = 547 (73.3%); age range = 17–78 years, M = 41.8 years, SD = 11.4 years). Confirmatory factor analysis showed an adequate fit of the hypothesized measurement model to the data (CFI = 0.954, TLI = 0 .944, RMSEA = 0 .060 [CI 0.056, 0.064], SRMR = 0.070) and multi-sample analysis supported configural, metric, scalar, and residual invariance across genders. Concurrent measures (i.e., Perceived Stress Scale, Big Five Personality Test) correlated with subscale scores in line with theoretical predictions, supporting both convergent and divergent validity. Internal consistency coefficients of the six subscales were satisfactory. Mood scores varied significantly by gender, with men generally reporting more positive moods than women. Findings support the adequacy of the psychometric properties of the BRUMS-LTU. Thus, the scale can be recommended for use in further psychological studies of mood in Lithuania and may also be useful for applied practitioners.

Moods have been investigated previously in a range of cultural contexts. In our study, we investigated if six mood profiles previously identified, termed the iceberg, inverse Everest, inverse iceberg, shark fin, submerged, and surface profiles, were also evident among a Lithuanian sample. A Lithuanian translation of the Brunel Mood Scale (BRUMS-LTU) was completed by a sample of 746 participants (male = 199, female = 547) aged from 17–78 years (M = 41.8 years, SD = 11.4 year). Seeded k-means cluster analysis clearly identified the six hypothesized mood profiles, the prevalence of which reflected previous findings. Cluster prevalence varied significantly by sex, age, exercise and smoking status, frequency of overeating, and self-rated health of participants. Male participants and older adults were under-represented for the inverse Everest profile and over-represented for the iceberg profile. Those who reported more healthy habits (i.e., exerciser, non-smoker, rarely overeat) and those reporting better self-rated health were over-represented for the iceberg profile and under-represented for negative mood profiles; namely, the inverse Everest, inverse iceberg, and shark fin profiles. Findings supported the cross-cultural invariance of the mood profile clusters and confirmed the link between unhealthy habits and negative mood profiles.

MMA is a global sport with a growing body of psychological literature. Our main objective was to replicate and extend a past review concerning the sport psychology literature with MMA participants. We conducted our electronic search in EBSCO with the following databases: SPORTDiscus, PsycINFO, ERIC, and Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection. Our eligibility criteria were research articles (a) found in academic journals, (b) with MMA participants, and (c) at least one topic found in sport psychology literature. After conducting a PRISMA-guided search, 16 studies met our inclusion criteria. The studies spanned from 2011 to 2021, with 795 MMA participants from the USA (n = 7), Brazil (n = 4), and one study each from Czechia, Poland, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. From studies reporting mean ages, MMA participants were in their mid-20s (M = 26.55 ± 2.38 years of age). The results section includes risk of bias ratings across five areas (i.e., subject selection, sample’s MMA background, participant anonymity, data collection procedures, and questionnaire or qualitative theme reporting). More risk of bias concerns resulted with the quantitative than qualitative articles. To best represent the studies, we presented separate results tables with many specifics for both the quantitative (i.e., topic, main analysis, time frame, summary of results, and meaningfulness) and qualitative studies (topic, main analysis, time frame, and main themes). The included studies covered a variety of historic and meta-analyzed topics such as confidence, mood, motivations, and social facilitation. Based on our review, we discussed the literature strengths and limitations, and suggested future research directions. Last, we provided practical points for both MMA participants and their trainers.