## 4 Discussion
In contrast, in the group given non-attributional negative feedback, who, despite having tried to improve during the various phases still did not show positive results from the feedback given to them, this might have generated feelings of incompetence in the skill. Furthermore, this explanation is also supported in a study that examined the effect of attributional feedback after perceived failure on behavioral expectancies and persistence, in terms of immediate, long-term (durability), and transient effects (generalization). Rascle et al. [30] observed that functional (controllable and unstable) attributional feedback led to more personally controllable attributions after failure in a golf task, along with an increase in success expectancies and persistence. In contrast, dysfunctional attributional feedback (uncontrollable and stable) led to more uncontrollable and stable attributions following failure, along with lower success expectancies and lower persistence. Regarding our second hypothesis, we expected to find that those who received attributional negative feedback, compared to those who received non-attributional negative feedback, would maintain higher scores on the retention and transfer tests 24 h after the practice phase. The results confirmed that those who received attributional negative feedback maintained higher scores on the retention and transfer tests 24 h after the practice phase than the non-attributional feedback group. These results also support those of the study by Rascle et al. [30] regarding the effect of attributional feedback after perceived failure on expectations and behavioral persistence, both concerning durability and generalizability, where it was observed that the effects extended beyond the intervention period, being present up to four weeks after the intervention and maintained even when participants perform a different task. It can thus be concluded that the effects of attributional feedback are durable over time and generalize across situations. In general, participants who adopt a functional attribution style tend to persist and increase their efforts when faced with errors during practice. In contrast, those with a dysfunctional attribution style in the same scenario do not persist and respond with helpless behavior [6]. In addition to the effects of the attributional nature of feedback on execution, performance, and its transfer to retention tests, the effect of the frequency with which knowledge of result feedback is given [9] and the generation of expectations of uncontrollability in situations of failure related to learned helplessness [49] must be considered. It should be noted that the measures taken to control for variables that might affect performance in the dart-throwing task were effective. The groups were found to be equivalent in self-efficacy, pre-throwing state anxiety, and perceived pressure after the dart throws. Furthermore, all participants were offered a choice of dart feather color and pattern to control for the possible influence of forced assignment and preference, both of which can affect the performance and outcomes of a motor task [40,41]. Similarly, it has been found that only 12% of the participants believed that the study aimed to analyze the influence of feedback on the execution of dart-throwing, which suggests that the impact of demand characteristics was likely to be minimal [44]. Similarly, the groups did not differ in terms of attentional focus, thus minimizing the influence of the interaction between attentional focus and feedback on task performance [24,24,42]. The practical implications of these findings are significant for sports psychology and coaching. Coaches and practitioners can apply techniques that focus on managingexpectations and enhancing self-efficacy to improve athlete performance, especially in precision tasks like dart-throwing. Incorporating attributional feedback could lead to better motivation and persistence in athletes, ultimately boosting their overall performance.