Systematic review and meta-analysis

Background. We can see outbreaks of social violence (notably wars, riots, and revolutions), both historically and in the current social situation. Some authors point to the impact of hostility on human cognitive processes and on decision making, and through these factors – on aggressive behaviour. Moreover, some retrospective studies note the role of cognitive complexity in the peaceful resolution of conflicts (including international conflicts). These findings prompted us to ask whether the two phenomena are related. To answer this question a meta-analysis of correlation between hostility and cognitive complexity was conducted.

Objective. Our objective was to summarise research findings on the relationship between hostility and cognitive complexity.

Design. The total number of papers screened was 839 (in English and Russian). A total of 5 effect sizes from 4 selected papers were included in the meta-analysis derived from a pooled sample of 3114 participants. Three-level random-effects meta-analysis, p-curve, p-uniform and p-uniform* methods were used in the data analysis.

Results. The results of different effect size calculation methods (three-level random-effects model, two-level random-effects model, and p-uniform*) confirmed that there is a moderately weak negative correlation between hostility and cognitive complexity. The most accurate result is r_pooled = -0.22 [-.45;.003].

Conclusion. There is a negative correlational relationship between hostility and cognitive complexity. Apparently, hostility and cognitive complexity have some reciprocal influence on each other. The authors hypothesise that hostility is rather complementary to cognitive simplicity as the opposite pole of cognitive complexity - if the function of hostility in ensuring the protection of one’s sense of Self is taken into account. Both hostility and cognitive simplicity work to create a simple (in one case dangerous, in another case unambiguous) world in which it is easier to make decisions (including the decision to engage in aggressive behaviour).

Background. Studies of self-efficacy in sports have demonstrated its importance in performance. These have been of English-speaking and Latin American origin, mostly descriptive, qualitative, and relate it essentially to emotional variables; interventions reveal its sources and the way to improve it.

Objective. A meta-analysis and systematic review of self-efficacy studies in high- performance sports in 2015–2022.

Design. The PRISMA method and a flow diagram were used. The databases were SciELO, Dialnet, Redalyc, CORE, REBID, Science Research, Google Scholar, and PubMed. The dimensions of analysis were: descriptions of the articles; methodological approach, and characteristics of the self-efficacy measurements. The keywords “self-efficacy” and “sports,” along with their translations into Spanish, were connected using the OR Boolean operator. The inclusion of “high performance” or “elite” was carefully considered to avoid unintended exclusions.

Results. Thirty-four articles were selected, with soccer and basketball being the most studied sports. Descriptive and correlational designs predominated: increasing relationships between two or more variables with self-efficacy, the studies that discussed interventions were the only ones that addressed longitudinal studies. In the measurements, those of general self-efficacy predominate according to the tasks faced by the athletes; individual self-efficacy is more highly valued; strength and generality are considered in the microanalyses.

Conclusion. Progress has been shown in studies of self-efficacy in high-performance sports. There remain opportunities for longitudinal studies, instruments with sport-specific indicators, analysis of levels and collective self-efficacy that will allow researchers to further explain the phenomenon.